Fifth Edition

Urban Land
Use Planning
- ·--v -
"r.t+ii.

Philip R. Berke, David R. Godschalk, and Edward J. Kaiser

with Daniel A. Rodriguez

University of Illinois Press

Urbana and Chicago
Gra ph ic images used on the cover and part and chapter opener pages are reprinted with permission from
:\lichael Morrissey and the New Haven plan: Duany Plater-Zyberk and Company.

Gra phic images for figures 4-5, 4-6 , 4-7, and 4-9 reprinted with permission from Planning Support Systems,
Ric hard K. Brail and Richard E. Klosterman, Editors. Copyright 2001 ESRI. All rights reserved.

Figure 6-9 is reprinted with permission from th e Jou rnal of the American Planning Association. Copyright
:\u tum n 2003 by the Am erican Planning Association, Suite 1500, 122 South Michigan Ave., Chicago, IL 60683 -
6 107.

Figure 13 -5 is reprinted with permission from the Journal of American Institute of Planners. Copyright Nov.
1967 by the American Planning Association, Suite 1500, 122 South Michigan Ave., Ch icago, IL 60683 -6107.

~ 2006 by the Board of Trustees

of the University of Illinois
:\ll rights reserved.

:\ lanufac tured in China

c 6 5 4 3 2
Th is bo ok is printed on acid -free paper.

Li bra ry of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Crban la nd use planning I Philip R. Berke .. . [et al.].-5 1h ed.

p. cm .
Re,·. ed . of: Urban land use planning I Edward J. Kaiser, David R. Godschalk, and
F. Stuar t Chapin, Jr. 41h ed . cl995.
In cludes bibliographical references and index.
ISB :'\ - 13: 978-0 -252-03079 -6 (ISBN 13 - cloth : alk. paper)
!SB:'\ - I 0: 0-252 -03079-6 (ISBN 10 - cloth: alk. paper)
1. City plann ing- United States. 2. Regional planning - Un ited States. 3. Land use, Urban -
Cni ted States. I. Berke, Philip, 1951 - II. Kaiser, Edward John. Urban land use planning.
HT167 .U 726 2006
333 . 77'0973- dc22 2005012429
 v
n
Contents 0
::0
ro
;:;.
"'

Preface viii

Part I: Conceptual Framework for Land Use Planning 1

1. Framing the Land Use Planning Process 3
The Land Use Planning Arena 4
Values, Planning, and Sustainable Communities 5
Land Use Values 18
The Land Use Planning Program 23
Co re Planning Capabilities 29
Summary 30
Notes 30
References 31

2. Shaping Plans through the Sustainability Prism Model 35

Managing Land Use Change 36
Planning and the Tensions of Sustainable Development 37
Sustain able Development and Livable Commu nities 38
A Prism Model of Sustainability 39
Reaching the Heart of the Sustainability Prism 45
Summary 54
Notes 55
References 56

3. What Makes a Good Plan? 59

Core Purposes of a Plan 60
Types of Plans as Products of a Multistage Process 60
Criteri a for Evaluating Plan Quality 69
Potential Limitations 75
Summary 77
Appendix 78
Notes 82
References 82

Part II: Overview of Building Planning Support Systems 85

4. Planning Support Systems 89
Planning Support System Technologies 90
Planning Support System Functions 102
Intelligence in the Plan-making Process llO
Summa ry 112
Notes 11 2
References 11 4
 5 . Population and Economy 117
How Population and Economic Analyses Are Used 11 8
Sources of Population and Economic Data 125
Methods for Analyzing Population and Employmen t 126
The Critical Role of Assumptions 142
Desirable Ch aracteristics of a Forecast 143
Summ ary 145
Notes 146
References 146

6. Environmental Systems 149

Environmental Inventory and Classification 150
Analyzing Environmental Information 177
Summ ary 191
Notes 192
References 193

7. Land Use Systems 197

Forces of Land Use Change 198
Land Supply Inventory and Classificati on 203
Future Land Use Analysis 212
Land Use Intelligence 217
Summary 221
Notes 222
References 222

8. Transportation and Infrastructure Systems 225

Roles of Community Facilities 226
Transportatio n Fac ilities 228
Water, Sewerage, and School Infrastructure 249
Summary 258
Notes 260
References 260

9. State of Community Report 265

Preparing the State of Community Report 266
Aggregating Key Findings 267
Building Comm unity Consensus 27 1
Ongoing Involvement 281
Summary 283
Notes 284
Referen ces 284

Part Ill: Overview of Making Land Use Plans 287

10. The Plan-making Process 291
Preparation for Plan Making 292
Components Produced by Stage in th e Plan- ma king Process 294
Designing th e Spat ial Arrangements of Land Uses 300
Progression of Attention am o ng Land Uses in the Design Process 310
 vii
n
Summary 311 0
~
Notes 313 CD

References 313 ~

11. The Areawide Land Policy Plan 315

The Co ncept and Purpose of an Areawide Land Policy Plan 316
The Overall Process for Areawide Land Policy Planning 318
Delineating Open -space Conservation Districts for th e Land Policy Map 324
Delineating Policy Districts for Urban Growth and Redevelopment 333
Formulating Implem entation Policies for Each Policy District 343
Bringing It Together into a Comprehensive Areawide Land Policy Plan 343
Summary 345
References 346

12. Communitywide Land Use Design: Employment and Commercial Centers 347
Types of Land Uses and Activity Centers 348
Matching Land Uses and Activity Center Forms 357
Planning the Communitywide Spatial Structure of
Employment and Commercial Activity Centers 358
Summary 377
References 380

13 . Communitywide Land Use Design: Residential Community Habitats 383

Formulating a Residential Community Vision 384
The Residential Habitat Plannin g Process 400
Summary 418
References 419

14. Small-area Plans 421

The Nature an d Purpose of Sm all- area Plans 422
Types of Small-area Plans 424
What a Small-area Plan Looks Like 42 8
The Process of Making Small-area Plans 432
Summary 445
References 446

15. Development Management 449

Development-management Concepts 450
Development-management Plan and Program Design 450
Participatory Processes 455
Technical Analysis 457
Tool Selecti on 460
Impl ementation 465
Summary 472
Notes 472
References 473

Index 477
VIII
w
u
-"'w Preface
0:

he need for planners to help communities shape a vision of the future and
plan to achieve the vision has never been greater. Communities are con-
fronting complex and multifaceted issues, many of which appear in the
form of a double- edged sword. Globalization and new communication technologies
mean that new wealth, jobs, and opportunities for revitalization can rapidly flow
into communities, but flow out just as quickly. Population shifts not only stimulate
diversity and prospects for positive change, but also create pressures on the environ-
ment, transportation and infrastructure systems, and housing supply, and can con-
tribute to widening gaps between rich and poor and cities and suburbs.
To planners, these issues pose great challenges. Planners work to help commu -
nities discern emerging trends and issues, fashion visions of the future, and create
plans to achieve their visions. Planners must bring creativity, expertise, and deter-
mination to the effort. They require skills to generate accurate information, create
thoughtful solutions, and build consensus among interests with a stake in land
use outcomes. They must continually apply new ideas, techniques, and practical
solutions to everyday planning and development problems.
The perennial question in planning is: How can we create future places that are
sustainable and livable? This leads to further questions: How do land use plans affect
the urban development process within human settlements? What methods and tech-
niques are available to planners to create and implement high-quality plans that
effectively guide land use change toward more sustainable outcomes? These qu es-
tions frame the approach of this fifth edition of Urban Land Use Planning. Our pri-
mary objective is to present methods and techniques for land use plan making and
to explain how plans can help to create human settlement patterns that promote
sustainable outcomes in metropolitan regions, cities, towns, and villages.
This fifth edition is part of the continued evolution of land use planning methods
since 1957, when F. Stuart Chapin, Jr., wrote the first edition. The five editions repre-
sent a major part of the history of land use planning methodology in the United
States. The first edition organized and synthesized the techniques of planning prac-
tice during the 1950s, and explored emerging theories of the young and growing
profession. The second edition in 1965, also by Chapin, shifted away from the prac-
tice of applying planning methods to a more scientific approach founded on auto-
mated data processing and mathematical modeling. More attention was given to
planning theory and urban theory, especially theoretical explanations of human ac-
tivity patterns as the underlying basis for land use planning. The third edition in
1979, by Chapin and Kaiser, emphasized the increased influence of federal and state
planning on local planning, integrated information systems, and development guid-
ance systems to direct planning. The fourth edition in 1995, by Kaiser, Godschalk,
and Chapin, centered on the emergence of microcomputer technology, the rise of
participation and negotiation, th e increased attention to developm ent managem ent,
and the evolving state planning influ ences on local planning.
 IX
u
§,
Several themes run through this fifth edition. The overarching theme is the Q)
n
m
role of land use planning in achieving sustainable development. Related major
themes include development of analytical planning support systems, application
of consensus building, and integration of design and urban form goals into plan-
making processes.
Planning support systems track current conditions and trends within a plan-
ning area, provide information to build local knowledge about growth and devel-
opment issues and trends, and facilitate collective decision making based on knowl -
edge of a planning area's population, economy, environment, land use, and infra-
structure. Consensus building brings together major stakeholders to address con -
troversial issues and build agreement on planning visions and goals, while shar-
ing information to generate new ideas that lead to creative solutions. Design deals
with the configuration and m ix of land uses, the integration of transportation
and infrastructure systems within th e envisioned land use pattern, and the mass -
ing and organization of buildings and spaces between them. The aim is the gen-
eration of a positive image of the future community- an inspirational planning
vision that is solidly grounded and widely supported .
Throughout this book we draw on the strengths of the rational, consensus build-
ing, and visionary urb an design models of planning. We explore techniques to
build community capacity to prepare, implement, and adopt plans that progres-
sively guide change in ways that balance the multiple goals that make up sustain -
able settlement patterns. We emphasi ze a contemporary model of planning that
incorporates rational analysis, consensus building, and participatory design. In
this model, the planner is a facilitator who helps the community discover its vi-
sion and explores ways to achieve it, a technical analyst who provides objective
in formation, an innovator who offers creative alternatives and clar ifies opportu-
niti es for change, and a consensus builder who ensures th at the process of plan-
ning is open and inclusive.
We attempt to span a broad spectrum of theories and techniques for creating
and implementing good plans. However, no book could hope to do justice to all
theories and techniques applicable to contemporary planning practice. Our pur-
pose is not to create a grand overarching theory, but to identify key ideas, con -
cepts, and techniques for improving the performance of planners and planning.
This fifth edition consists of three parts. Part 1 reviews the societal context of
local land use planning, and lays out a conceptual planning framework that is
used for organizing the for mat an d content of the book. It presents a sustainability
prism model for understanding and reconciling the diverging priorities of stake-
holders in the land use arena, and reviews criteria for creating high-quality plans.
Part 2 covers the key data input and analysis techniques for the demographic and
economic, environmental, land use, transportation, and infrastructure compo-
nents of a planning support system. Part 3 provides a detailed explanation of the
concepts and sequence of tasks associated with preparing and implementing plans.
We gratefully acknowl edge the contribution of the people who helped us com-
plete this new edition. Our colleague, F. Stuart Chapin, Jr., has been our continu-
ing inspiration in constructing a systematic land use plann ing methodology
 x
(l.)
u
-.""
(l.) grounded in both theory and practice. Our graduate students at the Department
0::
of City and Regional Planning, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, pro-
vided critiques, new ideas, and assistance to improve the quality of the manu-
script in countless ways; Aurelie Brunie, Joel Mann, Bhavna Mistry, Helen O'Shea,
and Julie Stein were especially helpful. We are obliged to several colleagues who
were kind enough to read and suggest improvements to the manuscript, includ-
ing Ann-Margaret Esnard, Florida Atlantic University; Steve French, Georgia Tech
University; Lew Hopkins, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign; Dowell
Meyers, University of Southern California; and Chris Webster, University of Cardiff.
We appreciate the diligent administrative and technical assista nce in image pro -
cessing during various stages of the manuscript provided by Udo Reisinger. The
Faculty Partners Program of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill gave
financial support that was critical for producing the manuscript. Numerous prac-
titioners provided examples of plans, graphics, and studies that helped us illus-
trate how our explanations translate to practice and gave credibility to our work.
Finally, we are deeply grateful to the support and intellectual companionship of
Jan e, Lallie, Pat, and Pia throughout this effort, and for the patience and support
of all our families.
 PARTI

Conceptual Framework
for Land Use Planning

O
ur primary interest in this book is to explain how land use planning can
be applied to create human settlement patterns that promote sustain-
able outcomes in metropolitan regions, cities, towns, and villages. We
start by exploring the societal context ofland use planning, and present a concep-
tual framework of local land use planning that will be used for organizing the
format and content of this book. We then propose a model for understanding and
reconciling the divergent priorities among competing stakeholders in the land
use planning arena, and review plan-quality criteria for creating plans that are
influential in guiding future land use change.
In chapter 1, "Framing the Land Use Planning Process," we describe the dynamic
societal context of land use planning. We conceive land use planning as operating in
a high-stakes, multiparty, competitive game that is tempered by the need for coop-
eration. We discuss the roles planners must play as stewards of the public interest.
Planners must mediate conflicts, build coalitions, and advocate the interests of
underrepresented groups. They must be visionary by looking beyond immediate
concerns to the needs of future generations, and must communicate these visions to
inspire confidence in the reality of sustainable land use patterns.

1
2
-""
0 Chapter 1 also sets forth a conceptual framework depicting the local land use
s
Q)
E
planning game that is used to organize the concepts, methods, and techniques of
2:'
u... land use planning throughout the book. The framework consists of three concep-
"'CL
.3 tual dimensions: stakeholder groups (or players) who seek to influence local land
Q)
u use planning in ways that support their individual interests; local land use plan-
c
ners (or game managers ) and their planning programs that act to help communi-

-
D
u
ties fashion consensus-based visions of the future and plans to achieve those vi-
f-
sions; and the sustainability of resulting land use patterns (or game outcomes).
a:
<(
CL
In chapter 2, "Shaping Plans through the Sustainability Prism Model," we in-
troduce a sustainability prism model. To account for the full range of complexity
and turbulence of the public domain, planners can apply the model to under-
stand diverging priorities and reconcile conflicts among players in the land use
game. The prism model is useful because it emphasizes the point that if planners
narrowly pay attention to a single conflict, they will miss a range of other conflicts
that may prevent development of plans that are comprehensive, account for inter-
dependency among negotiated policy solutions, and are supportive of the public
interest.
Chapter 2 also discusses how planners must develop a working synthesis of
skills to effectively use the prism model in the land planning arena. Selected pro-
cedural and urban-form theories of planning are reviewed to point out some use-
ful ideas for reconciling conflicts and promoting a substantive vision of
sustainability. These theories cover: 1) rational planning; 2) consensus building;
and 3) urban design. Our purpose is not to create a grand overarching theory, but
simply to point out some useful ideas for improving the performance of planners
and planning.
In chapter 3, "What Makes a Good Plan?," we focus on the central topic of this
book-the plan. Although the prism model of sustainable development presented
in chapter 2 serves as a guide for crafting the direction-setting vision of a plan in
the land use planning game, the plan must be high quality to be influential and
foster effective implementation of the vision and other direction-setting features
(goals and policies) . This chapter reviews the sequence of several types of plans
that can be used individually or in combination to address land use and develop -
ment issues. It then illustrates key criteria to guide the creation (and evaluation)
of high-quality plans. Two conceptual dimensions of plan-quality criteria are dis-
cussed: internal plan quality, which deals with the content and format of key com-
ponents of the plan, and external plan quality, which deals with the relevance of
the scope and coverage of the plan in fitting the local situation.
 Chapter 1

Framing the Land Use

Planning Process ·

You are asked to help your community to prepare a new land use plan. Your
first task is to create a conceptual framework that will guide you and your
community in preparing and implementing the plan. The framework should
be designed based on the assumption that planning operates in a complex
and turbulent decision-making arena that reflects a high-stakes game in
which the players attempt to gain land use decisions that most benefit
their own interests. The framework should guide your community in carry-
ing out several tasks: 1) identify and account for the goals and values of
interest groups with a stake in the land development process; 2) establish
a land use planning program that integrates community-based information
with a collaborative planning process to create consensus-based plans for
a sustainable future; and 3) monitor and evaluate how well land develop-
ment outcomes make progress toward sustainability. What are the key
dimensions of this conceptual framework? What are iheprimarv functions
of a local planning program within the framework? What special capabili-
ties will you need to perform these functions?

ocal land use planning can be seen as a high-stakes game of competition

over a community's or region's future land use pattern. To win the game
from a narrow, interest-group perspective is to gain adoption of land use
plans, development regulations, and development decisions that most benefit a
particular group. Land use planners are central players and game managers in
their role as stewards of the public interest. Effective planners act as mediators to
resolve conflicts, coalition builders to achieve multigroup benefits, and advocates
to advance the interests of underrepresented groups. They must be visionary think-
ers who look beyond immediate concerns to the needs of future generations, and
effective communicators of these visions of the future who inspire confidence in

3
4
-"'
e; the reality of sustainable land use patterns. Planners must carefully watch and
5:
Q)
E respond to the interests, actions, and alliances of other players. By not under-
~
LL.. standing every stage of the game, planners risk losing their credibility and author-
cc
:;;;)
a_
ity as well as the broader public's stake in the community's future.
u
Q)

c
The purpose of this chapter is to illustrate the dynamic context of local land

- use planning, the functions of a planning program, and alternative visions that
0
u
guide planning toward more sustainable and livable places. We first discuss the
basic premises of the land use planning arena. We then present a conceptual frame-
work of the elements of local land use planning. The framework consists of three
conceptual dimensions: 1) land use values of stakeholders; 2) local land use plan-
ning programs that help communities fashion consensus-based visions and plans
to achieve those visions; and 3) sustainable land use patterns. Finally, the chapter
summarizes the core capabilities that planners need to effectively advance out-
comes that balance the values of multiple stakeholder groups.

The Land Use Planning Arena

The land us: pla~ning arena can be confusing and frustrating even to the experi-
enced planner. Rather than an orderly and rational procedure of adopting land
use plans derived from systematic studies aimed at the overall public interest, plan-
ning can appear to be an ad hoc process based on misleading perceptions about
rt;ality and narrow interest-group politics. Theories of ideal urban form, policy-
intervention strategies, and statistical modeling techniques taught in planning
school often carry less weight with elected officials than the self-serving demands
of a crowd of angry speakers at a public hearing. Long-range projections may fail
as guides to decision making in complex and constantly changing decision-mak-
ing arenas. Planning interventions can reverberate through the system in ways
that can only be partially traced, and interventions may not account for unantici-
pated changes in social, economic, and environmental conditions.
The complexity and turbulence of the land planning arena pose a challenging
decision-making environment, but also offer the opporttmity to build innovative
and adaptive land planning programs. Rather than experiencing continuity and
stability, the land planning arena is almost always in a state of change (Innes and
Booher 1999). Static systems have little capacity to respond and change to adapt
to new conditions. Dynamic organizations, on the other hand, are in a position to
adapt. During times of change, planning programs can play a key role in coordi-
nating complex interest-group activities and to pursue new visions.
The land use planning and decision-making arena can be conceived as a high-
stakes competition over an area's future land use pattern. However, the process is
tempered by the need for cooperation. Players are locked in a framework of inter-
dependence in which they must gain agreement to achieve their goals. This re-
quires that players participate in a multiparty consensus-building process, learn-
ing from feedback about prior successes and failures, and experimenting with
new planning solutions and actions. Characterizing planning as a serious game of
competition and cooperation helps to understand the dynamics of the process
and to visualize opportunities for improving game outcomes.
 5
('"")
Thus, the land use plan is a key tool to coordinate community land use and :I:
)>
-0
development activities. Planning is not simply a process, but is a process guided -i
m
::rJ
by a plan. The plan fulfills many needs. It serves the traditional functions of guid-
ing urban infrastructure and setting parameters for zoning and other land use
regulations on private and public property. It also serves newer purposes. The
-
,.,
al
3
plan helps turn competitors into collaborators through involvement in its prepa- ::;·
co
ration. It records a series of agreements among the players about ways to deal with ....:;,-
CD
their different goals, serving as a community consensus-building tool. Around a r-

well-written plan, diverse interests can negotiate and agree on policy. The plan "'
:::J
Cl.
c:
also sets forth factually grounded graphic images of the future that can rally and r/l
CD
-0
unite stakeholders to act. Citizens and interest groups like to back a plan that lets
them "see" solutions to problems (Neuman 1998).
°'::;·
:::J
:::J

co
In the land use game, planners are not only players, they are also game managers, -0
an
providing information to ensure informed decision making, advocating coopera- CD
r/l
r/l
tion among the players, transforming words and facts to a collective vision, and draft-
ing plans and rules to guide the game to achieve the vision. Because of these respon-
sibilities, planners have a unique position at the center of the land use game. They
have inside information and privileged access to other players. Land use planners
are expected to keep careful track of all stakeholders' interests, actions, and alliances.
They also must continuously aggregate, analyze, and monitor intelligence from the
population/economy, land use, environment, and transportation/infrastructure in-
formation systems and make it useful for plan making through a community in-
volvement and review process. To lose track of the game status is to risk losing plan-
ners' credibility as experts, their role as visionary thinkers, their authority as land
use change managers, and their opportunities to facilitate cooperation among com-
peting interests in building a better, more sustainable community.
In practice, the inherent conflicts and tensions"iff-the land planning arena are
moderated by the legal and governance systems - "the rules of the game." The rules
turn conflict into regulated competition and collaboration. Constitutional provi-
sions, laws, regulations, and planning powers protect overall public interests from
the extremes of unregulated maximization of market values and overregulated maxi-
mization of social and environmental values. The planner must rely on legal and
governance systems to balance conflicts among values, to help make difficult choices
about community priorities, and to ensure fairness in land use decisions. The plan-
ner is both the drafter and enforcer of the game rules (in the form of plan goals and
policies and development regulations) but is not the final arbitrator. That role is
reserved for the elected officials of the community or the courts if the elected offi-
cials' decision is challenged. But the planner must understand the influences oflegal
and constitutional checks and balances on the powers of land use plans to achieve
community goals.

Values, Planning, and Sustainable Communities

Relationships between land use values of stakeholders, their planning programs,
and outcomes constitute the land use planning game. Figure 1-1 illustrates the
conceptual framework of the land use planning game. This framework guides the
6
~
0
s
Q)
Land Use Planning
E ----1
~
i- - }:-- i
:-1
LL

ro
:::J
o_ Values - 1-+' Planning Support
System s Issues
Network of Plans
Goal Form
Sustainab
Q)
•Environment ·Areawide Policy Comm unity II
·Population/Economy Visions
I
'-' 1 Regulations
c
·Equity • Communitywide •Environm ent
0
• Enviro nment j Design I

-
u Scenarios Expenditures ·Equ ity ·I
·Economy •Land Use I
•Livability I · Small Area •Economy
·Transportation/
- I-+ Infrastructure
• Development - •Livability
1
f-
a:
<(
CL
-
·Community Report
Management
!
!
l
...___ _J

Monito ring , Evaluation . & Updating

Fig. 1-1 Conceptual framework of land use planning.

organizatiun arid ·presentation of the content and format of the chapters in this
book. The framework consists of three conceptual dimensions and the relationships
among them.
Starting with outcomes, the goal is to seek sustainable community land use pat-
terns that strike an appropriate balance among environmental, economic, social,
and livability values. As will be discussed, there are alternative trends and visions
that are advocated as the most preferable outcomes (i .e., conventional low-den-
sity development, Smart Growth and New Urbanism). The inputs to planning
consist of interactions with stakeholder groups who view development through
the lens of their land use values and seek to influence local planning decisions
about future urban form and change to support their interests. The central di-
mension is the land use planning program, which serves to help communities iden-
tify existing and emerging issues; fashion visions, goals, and scenarios; create plans;
adopt development management plans, regulations, and infrastructure expendi-
ture programs; and monitor how well outcomes achieve plan goals.
In the remainder of this chapter we elaborate on a more complete definition of
each dimension in the arena of land use planning. Under each dimension, we
explore various prescriptions from theory and practice about how planning should
be done and what planners sho uld do. We conclude with a review of the pressures
on planners and special capabilities that planners must develop to operate effec-
tively within the land use game.

Sustainable Communities: Alternative Trends and Visions

The local land use game is subject to continuous change in response to trends in
land use, advances in technology that help planners to visualize current realities and
invent possibilities, and the appearance of new and imaginative ideas about urban
design. Trends affecting the play of the game at the beginning of the twenty-first
century continue and extend those of the recent past. Conventional low-density
 7
(")
development patterns (or sprawl) have dominated the landscape while concepts of ::r:
)>
sustainable development, Smart Growth, and New Urbanism have emerged to counter ~
m
the impacts of sprawl. :::n

Conventional Low-Density Development -

America's communities and metropolitan regions face multiple challenges, most of
which are associated with sprawling, low-density development patterns caused by
the outward expansion of suburban development on the urban fringe, and com-
-: ::r
CD
r-
w
::J
mercial strip development along highways leading into and out of cities and sub- Cl.
cC/)
urbs. The societal costs and benefits of conventional low-density development are CD
:::>=!
subject to intense debate. Supporters maintain that this dominant pattern is shaped w
::J
::J
by deeply embedded cultural values that are reflected in strong desires for: 1) de- ::J
tD
'"1J
tached single-family homeownership; 2) spacious individual lots with a rural, bu- a
(")

colic appeal; 3) private automobile ownership, which provides personal freedom CD

C/)
C/)

and mobility; and 4) communities free of poverty (Gordon and Richardson 1997).
The positive effects of these features tend to accrue to the individual or household.
Critics point to the downside of conventional low-density development. In a com-
prehensive review of over 500 studies on the impacts of this land use pattern, Burchell
et al. ( 1998) concluded that the negative effects of conventional development exceed
the benefits, and that these effects tend to be distributed throughout an entire area.
Negative effects of sprawl are most clearly evidenced by increased demand for land
to accommodate each new increment of population growth. Figure 1-2 indicates
that between 1982 and 1997 the percentage of increase in urban land dramatically
outpaced the increase in population growth in all four regions of the country. These
land consumption rates place intense pressure on environmentally sensitive lands
and increase the costs of public infrastructure because lower densities require more
linear feet of roads and sewer and water lines to sernce~ch lot (Burchell et al. 1998;
Speir and Stephenson 2002) . The increased spread between land uses also creates

West

South
············-48.9% 59.6%
•••.•••••••••••• 32.2%

22.2%

Northeast
·6.9%
- - - - - - 39.1%

0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0% 70.0%

Change in Population •Change in Urbanized Land

Fig. 1-2 Between 1982 and 1997, the percentage of increase in urban land dra-
matically outpaced the increase in population growth in all four regions of the
country. Source: Fulton et al. 2001. Reproduced by permission from the Brookings
Institution.
 8
-'"'
0 greater auto dependence. Between 1982 and 2000, auto passenger miles of travel
5
(lJ

E
increased 85 percent in metropolitan areas (Texas Transportation Institute 2002)
and the average annual peak delay per road traveler grew from sixteen to sixty-two
"'
L..l..

ro hours. Conventional low-density development has also been linked to the exacerba-
.2
o._
(lJ
u
tion of social inequities because some analysts believe that it drains fiscal and hu-
c
man resources from older core areas to the expanding suburban fringe (Downs 1994,

-
0
u
1999; Lucy and Phillips 2000).
f-
Sprawl also has been linked to health concerns, as public health professionals
a:
<!'.
[l_
have rediscovered the impacts of the built environment on physical activity. Physical
inactivity has been shown to contribute to chronic disease, osteoporosis, poor
mental health, and obesity (Frank, Engelke, and Schmid 2003, 1). Traditional low-
density development patterns, with separated residential and commercial land
uses, increased reliance on automobile travel, and a lack of adequate infrastruc-
ture for bicycling and walking, act as barriers or inhibitors to physical activity.
Accumulating evidence suggests that transportation, land use, and urban design are
related to people's decisions to be physically active.' Thus, transportation, land use,
and urban design plans all can affect neighborhood factors that encourage physical
activity. For example, researchers found significantly lower obesity rates for resi-
dents Of tnore compact, denser, pedestrian-friendly, and transit-supportive areas of
the Atlanta region (Frank, Engelke, and Schmid 2003, 185). In a nationwide study of
the health effects of sprawl covering the 448 counties where 75 percent of Americans
live, researchers found that people living in counties marked by sprawling develop-
ment are likely to walk less, weigh more, and suffer from hypertension (high blood
pressure) (McCann and Ewing 2003). The study's county sprawl index included six
variables reflecting residential density and the connectivity of the street network. 2
Another nationwide study found that changes in the amount of land developed,
holding population constant, were related to larger increases in obesity (Vandegrift
and Yoked, 2004) .
Land use planning in America has traditionally meant planning that supports
this conventional low-density development process. The extended ribbons of com-
mercial development along highways all follow standard zoning, as do big tracts of
suburban housing each the same size on the same lots. The large-scale conversion of
open landscapes to suburban developments often results from requirements of stan-
dard subdivision ordinances. The Chicago region's outward-spreading urban form
reflects this pattern of change (see Sidebar 1-1 and Figures 1-3 and 1-4). As the two
Landsat images in Figure 1-3 show, urban land has spread outward from the historic
center over the twenty-five years between 1972 and 1997, replacing agricultural land.
The plan notes that this territorial growth rate is far in excess of the rate of popula-
tion growth, resulting in low-density sprawl and social segregation.
In an attempt to counter the outcomes of this development process, the Chicago
Metropolis 2020 plan offers a range of sustainability recommendations that depart
from conventional land use planning practice. The overarching goal of this plan is
not to simply accommodate the market demand that caters to the individual devel-
oper and homeowner, but to guide individual market decisions toward producing
a more sustainable urban form. The intent is to ensure that public-interest goals
are met while also realizing narrower aims. These recommendations span from
 9
("")
improving education, workforce development, governance, and the inequitable liv- I
)>
ing conditions associated with race and poverty to redeveloping and infilling within _,
"'
m
::D
the city and older suburbs, maintaining quality built environments, and preserving
valuable natural areas and working landscapes. In this case, zoning is viewed only as
a mechanism, and, as the stakeholders in Chicago's metropolis have learned, it can
be used to safeguard the environment, encourage neighborhoods with mixes of build-
-
ing types and housing affordable to a range of incomes, and require inner cities and
older suburbs that are compact and walkable.

"'
::::J
::::J
::::J
<Cl

"'
on
Rapid Expansion of Urban Form CD

"'"'
The Chicago Metropolis 2020 plan (Johnson 2001) for the Chicago metropolitan region
analyzes social , economic, environmental, and livability aspects of regional development.
The Chicago region's urban form is reflected in its land use pattern. Figure 1-3 shows that
u rban land has spread outward into the countryside from the historic center between 1972
and 1997. This spatial rate of expansion far exceeds the rate of population growth, resulting
in low-d ensity sprawl and social segregation. Although this spatial transformation has of-
fered a number of benefits to households and businesses, it has also exacted serious costs.
These costs include reduced viability of public transportation, reduced air quality, inc.reased
infrastructure costs, lessened sense of community, and loss of agricultural lands and envi-
ron mentally important open space. Worst of all, the spatial transformation has resulted in
poverty concentration and social segregation on a scale and to a degree unprecedented in
history (Johnson 2001, 48).

1909 Burnham Plan and 2020 Regional Development Strategy

It is interesting to compare the Metropolis 2020 plan ~ith th7 tamous 1909 Burnham
Plan of Chicago. Both plans are sponsored by the Commercial Club of Chicago. Both seek
to harne ss "two seemingly warring impulses: privatism and public control" (Miller 2001,
ix). Both take a regional view of land use and transportation. The Burnham plan is best
known for its twenty-mile-long lakefront park system and its radial and concentric boule-
vards, which are present-day landmarks. The Burnham plan, a businessman's vision of
urban reform , turned out to be primarily about urban beautification, rather than housing
and human services .
As Donald Miller (2001) points out in his preface, a strength of the Metropolis 2020 plan is
its attempt to connect job tra ining, transportation, and housing policy. The Metropolis 2020
plan " sees the entire Chicago region as an interconnected ecosystem and presages a return
to the symbiotic relationship between city and suburb that existed in the age of the electric
streetcar" (emphasis suppl ied). It "promises to narrow econom ic inequities and right the
social balance in Chicago while keeping it a capitalist powerhouse" (Miller 2001, xvi). The
2020 plan proposes a metropolitan regional development strategy based on networked
intermodal villages centered on transportation hubs and connected by continuous public
greenways, as shown in Figure 1-4. In keeping with the Chicago ethic, the plan states that this
strategy need not be imposed; but should develop naturally as opportunities are recognized
and organized by local authorities, with facilitation and incentives provided by a regional
coo rdinating council. Thus, the Metropolis 2020 plan offers a regional vision, whose imple-
me ntation depends on the extent to which the future network of local plans acknowledges,
and seeks to implement, its goals.
10

B Urban Land
Agriculture
""
~
CL
• Vegetation
"'uc • open Water
0

-
u

Land cover 1972 Land cover 1997

Fig. 1-3 Urban land in Chicago has spread outward over the twenty-five years between 1972 and
1997, replacing agricultural land.

Sustainable Development
The term "sustainable development" has generated popular appeal because it im-
plies that the production and consumption of goods and services and the devel-
opment of the built environment can be accomplished without degrading the
natural environment. The 1987 report Our Common Future from the United Na-
tions World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED) set forth
the most widely used definition of the concept: "Sustainable development is de-
velopment that meets the needs of the present generation without compromising
the ability of future generations to meet their own needs" (43). The vision of
sustainability has influenced the formulation of a generation of international,
national, state, regional, and local plans and programs over the decade that fol-
lowed the WCED report (Krizek and Power 1996; Lindsey 2003; Porter 2002).
Table 1-1 illustrates a range of definitions of sustainability from U.S. planning
and policy practice. Through diverse approaches to achieve sustainability, these
definitions attempt to weave together various combinations of societal values re-
ferred to as the three Es (environment, economy, and equity) originally set forth
by the WCED (Berke 2002). A fourth value, livability, has become prominent in
planning practice involving the human interaction with the physical environment
with a focus on making places that fit the needs and aspirations of residents. The
 11
n
:::r::
)>
-0
--j
m
:::0

-
~
::::r
,.
CD

DJ
:::J
Q_

Ii
(/)
lntermodal villages CD
:::"<
developed around DJ
:::J
· transportation hubs :::J
:::J
<Cl
-0

~ Open space; 0
(")
CD

l limited development
en
en

j Existing suburbia

City of Chicago

f"ll Continuous public

L ] greenway

Fig. 1-4 The strategy of networked intermoda l villages need not be-Tmposed but should develop
naturally as opportunities are recognized and organized by local authorities. The Regional Coordi-
nating Council facilitates and provides incentives.

definitions reflect work by planners and policy makers at the national, state, re-
gional, and local levels in seeking to guide human settlement patterns in ways that
balance the core values, and in the process exposing and tackling the inherent
tensions among the values.
The central goal of sustainable development is intergenerational equity, which
implies fairness to current and coming generations. That is, current and future
generations must strive to achieve a decent standard of living for all people and
live within the limits of natural systems. The concept of sustainable development
is stimulating a rethinking of many facets of how we live, not the least of which is
the conventional low-density suburban development pattern that has dominated
growth in metropolitan and rural fringe areas since World War IL Defining the
key elements of sustainable land use patterns for communities and regions de-
pends on many actors, each with a definition of what is important. 3 For example,
Berke and Manta-Conroy (2000) argue that land use plans should be developed
based on six long-range sustainable development principles:
12

Table 1-1
Examples of Sustainable Development Definitions from Practice

National Porcv

-
f-
a:
"Our vision is of a life-sustaining Earth. We are committed to the achievement of a dignified,
peaceful, and equitable existence. A sustainable United States will have a growing economy
that provides equitable opportunities for satisfying livelihoods and a safe, healthy, high
quality of life for current and future generations. Our nation will protect its environment, its
~ natural resource base, and the functions and viability of natural systems on which all life
depends" (President's Council on Sustainable Development 1996, i).

State Planning Policies

"Sustainable development links the environment, economy and social equity into practices
that benefit present and future generations" (North Carolina Environmental Resource Pro-
gram 1997, 1) .
"Susta inable development is development that maintains or enhances economic and com-
munity well-being while protecting and restoring the natural environment upon which people
and economies depend" (Minnesota Planning and Environmental Quality Board 1998).
~.

Regi,onal Plan
Sustainable development involves " ... achieving positive change that enhances the ecologi-
cal, economic, and social systems upon which South Florida and its communities depend.
Once implemented these strategies will bolster the regional economy, promote quality
communities, secure healthy South Florida ecosystems, and assure todays' progress is not
achieved at tomorrow's expense" (Governor's Commission for a Sustainable South Florida,
1996, 2).

LocalPlansand Programs
"Sustai nability inc ludes: ecological integrity to satisfy basic human needs; economic security
including local reinvestment, employment opportunities, local business ownership; empow-
erment and responsibility includ ing respect and tolerance of diverse values and equal
opportunity to participate; and social well-being, including a reliable food supply, housing
and education, creative expression through the arts, and sense of place" (City of Burlington
[Vermont] 1996, 2-3).
Sustainability is the "long-term cultural, economic, and environmental health and vitality"
(City of Seattle [Washington ] 1994, 4).
Sustainable development is" ... the ability of [the] community to utilize its natural, human and
technological resources to ensure that all members of present and future generations can
attain high degrees of health and well-being, economic security, and a say in shaping their
future while maintaining the integrity of the ecological systems on which all life and produc-
tion depends" (City of Cambridge [Massachusetts] 1993, 30).
"Susta inability means using, developing, and protecting resources at a rate that enables
people to meet their current needs while providing for the needs of future generations"
(Multinomah County [Oregon] 2003, 1).
"As a community, we need to create the basis for a more sustainable way of life both locally
and globally through the safeguarding and enhancing of our resources and by preventing
harm to the natural environment and human health" (City of Santa Monica [California] 1995,
1).
 13
("")
• Harmony with nature: land use and development support ecosystem pro- :::r::
l>
cesses. "rn
-I
:n
• Livable built environment: development enhances fit between people and
urban form.
• Place-based economy: local economic activity operates within natural sys-
-
""TI
Ql
3
tem limits and meets local needs.
• Equity: land use patterns provide equitable access to social and economic -
~
CD
,-
resources. "'
:::J
Q_

c:
• Polluters pay: those who cause pollution bear its costs. (/)
CD

• Responsible regionalism: communities minimize harm to other jurisdic- "Qi"

:::J
::::J
tions in pursuit of local goals. :::J
cc
In an analysis of thirty high-quality local plans adopted between 1985 and 1995, "n0
CD
Berke and Manta-Conroy (2000) discovered that plans do not take a balanced, (/)
(/)

holistic approach to guiding development and moving toward sustainability. In-

stead, they focus on creating more livable built environments, but have not
branched out into nontraditional subject matter in the planning field involving a
host of other sustainability goals (i.e., harmony with nature, place-based economy,
equity, polluters pay, and responsible regionalism). These findings demonstrate
the utility of the sustainability concept by revealing that new, expansive direc-
tions must be taken to fundamentally reform how planning practice approaches
plan making.
Our primary interest in this book is to explain how land use planning can be
applied to create human settlement patterns that promote sustainable outcomes
in metropolitan regions, cities, towns, and villages. Two concepts prevalent in
contemporary planning-Smart Growth and New U.rJ2anism-are related to sus-
tainable development and promote various aspects of sustainability, although they
are not the same and do not substitute for sustainability. 4

Smart Growth
Since the early 1990s, the concept of Smart Growth has been proposed as an alter-
native to conventional development (Porter 2002). Smart Growth programs seek
to identify a common ground where communities explore ways to accommodate
growth based on consensus on development decisions through inclusive and par-
ticipatory processes. Smart Growth promotes compact, mixed-use development
that encourages choice of travel mode (walking, cycling, transit, and autos) by
coordinating transportation and land use, requires less open space, and gives pri-
ority to maintaining and revitalizing existing neighborhoods and business cen-
ters. State and local Smart Growth initiatives include incentives and requirements
to direct public and private investment away from the creation of new infrastruc-
ture and development that spreads out from existing areas (Porter 1998).
The Smart Growth movement evolved from statewide growth management
initiatives and drew its name from legislation and programs developed by the
State of Maryland (see sidebar 1-2 and Figure 1-5). This program concentrates
development through the designation of county-certified existing or planned
14
development areas, and targets valued open spaces (e.g., prime agriculture lands,
natural areas like fores ts, and aquifer recharge zones) for acquisition with state funds.
Several other states have become active in mandating or encouraging communities
m
~
to adopt Smart Growth as new programs have been developed in Delaware, Mary-
o._
Q)
'-' land, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, and Washington (Godschalk 2000) .
c
0
Although Smart Growth's central concern has been to reform state growth

-
u
m anagement legislation (Meck 2002), its concepts have also influenced local plans
l-
and been endorsed in the policy statements of professional- and business-interest
a:
<(
o._ groups, such as the American Planning Association, the International City County

- --

Sidebar 1-2
MARYLAND'S SMART GROWTH PROGRAM

Vision
Mary land's 1997 Smart Growth Areas A~ was adopted t o co unter subu rban sprawl. The
core elements of the vision are: concer'ltrate dEM3 1opmerit in suitable ar as; prutect sensij-
tive .a reas.; a nd direct rw~I gr.owth to ex isti ng villagasto create or maintain compacc urban
forms. ' -

Priority Fund"ng Ar~as

Tho state prov ide·s funding for 'nfrastructure to support g rowth only in state· and co unty-
designated priority fundi nQ areas (PFAs). The county-certified PFAs are delineated on the
basls that areas are sui able for planned growth, infrnstructu re is provided, and suitable
areas are of adequate size to meet th~ demands of fut ure development.
Counties must prepa re plans that des ignate PFAs. Types of areas elig ible for i;Jesi!.Jna-
t ion i tlc lude: existing comm unities served by sewer and wate r; ar as zoned for ind ustry
and employment; rural villages desi,g nate·d in local comp rehensi ve plans; and areas that
reflec:t a co unty's long -term policy for promoting or derly developmem and are planned to
be served by se~ver and water. To qua ,ify for stare funding, count ies rnusta lso adopt a mix
of incentives and re-g ulations to promote development w ithin t he PFAs. Figure 1-5 fll us-
trates the PFAs of Montgomery Cou nty, Maryland. Ttia main core of PFAs represe nt the
county's existing and p lanned growth corridor, and t he smaller PFAs disconnected from
the core are prima ri ly rura l villages.

Rural Legacy Program

The Rural Legacy Program provides funding and focus to identify and protect t he most
valuable farm land and natural resourc.e s 01.1tside the PFAs thro ugh the purchase of eas -
rnents and development rights of l andowners. T 1e goal is to p reserve 200,000 acres by
2001. In Mo ntgomery County, t hese areas are located in t ile wedges of open space adja,-
cent to the growth co rridor of designated PFAs (see fig ore 1-51.

Related Programs
The Live ear Work Pm{lram offers employees a one-time payment toward the purchase
of a house cfose to their places of work; the Job Creation Tax Cred it Program offars re·
ducecl taxes to bus inesses that locate in PFAs; and the Volunta ry Cleanup and Brown fields
Program is des igned to red'9'v·elop ab;:iridoned or u derutiliz,ed sites.
 15
n
Priority Funding Areas I
)>
Montgomery County, Maryland -0
~
m
::0

-
" Tl
Cl
3

....
:;:,-
CD
..-
"'::>
Cl.
c
"'
CD
-0
a;-
=>
::>
::;·
cc
-0
a
(")
CD
"'
"'

Location of PFAs

Fig. 1-5 Priority funding areas in Montgomery County, Maryland.

Source: Maryland Department of Housing and Urban Development 2003.

Management Association, the National Association of Homebuilders, and the

Urban Land Institute. Its tenets are promoted by the Smart Growth Network
(www.smartgrowth.org) and the Sustainable Communities Network
(www.sustainable.org). ,. ~ ·~

New Urbanis~

Compared to Smart Growth, New Urbanism is more architecturally prescriptive

and detailed in specifying the physical layout of a community in which design,
scale, land use mix, and street-network elements dominate (Calthorpe 1993;
Calthorpe and Fulton 2001; Duany and Plater-Zyberk 1991; Duany, Plater-Zyberk,
and Speck 2000). Its nonprofit organization-the Congress for the New Urban-
ism (CNU)-addresses the social cohesion and sense of place implications of ur-
ban design decisions. Members adopted a charter in 1996 (Leccese and McCormick
2000), which states:

We stand for the restoration of existing urban centers and towns within
coherent metropolitan regions, the reconfiguration of sprawling sub-
urbs into communities of real neighborhoods and diverse districts, the
conservation of natural environments, and the preservation of our built
legacy. We recognize that physical solutions by themselves will not solve
social and economic problems, but neither can economic vitality, com-
munity stability, and environmental health be sustained without a co-
herent and supportive physical framework. (v)
16
-=5
0 The charter of the New Urbanism is basically a design manifesto that lays out
CD
E
twenty-seven principles for three scales of development (Calthorpe and Fulton
~ 2001 , 279-285): 1) region, metropolis, city, and town; 2) neighborhood, district,
u...

"'Cl.
.i3 and corridor; and 3) block, street, and building. For example, the charter states
CD
u that communities should be designed to create compact, mixed-use urban forms
c
designed to foster close-knit social communities by enhancing civic interaction

-
0
u
between public and private spaces, as well as to increase community legibility and
f-
sense of place (see Figure 1-6). Streets should be pedestrian (not auto) friendly
a:
<(
(L
and use a grid layout to shorten trip lengths, in contrast to the looped cul-de-sac
pattern of conventional suburban developments (see Figure 1-7). Linkages are
created among commercial, office, residential, and transit facilities; common com-
munity areas serve as spatial focal points; and each community is designed at the
half-mile-wide "village scale." These features are strongly reminiscent of the "neigh-
borhood unit" approach to planning first popularized in the 1920s by the Re-
gio-nal Planning Association of America (Perry 1939).

Fig. 1-6 Streetscapes of the new urban deve lopment in Southern Village (left) and conventional
development in Parkside (right) in Chapel Hi ll, North Carolina. New urban development shows
narrower streets (twenty-six feet compared to thirty-two feet) and other features that lead to
reduced imperviousness-smaller lots, shallower setbacks, and porches rather than driveways and
garages. However, sidewalks are on both sides of the street for new urban development. Photos by
Philip R. Berke 2002.

Fig. 1-7 The preferred diagram shows a pedestrian-friendly layout that uses a grid layout to
shorten trip lengths, in contrast to the looped cul-de-sac pattern of conventional suburban develop-
ments. Source: Sacramento County Planning and Community Development Department 1990.
 17
Individual New Urban developmen ts are conceived as fundamental building blocks 0
::r::
)>
of New Urbanism at the regional scale (Calthorpe and Fulton 2001 ; D uany and Talen u
___,
rn
2002) . They fo rm an interconnected network of mixed-use, high-density nodes of ::n

development linked by transit corridors (see Figure 1-8). Within this network, re-
gional open spaces create a landscape-scale commons and ecological identity that
serve as parks, act as barriers to lim it outwa rd expansion of urban development, and
-
protect farmlands and environmentally sensitive areas. This New Urban version of
regionalism builds on a long tradition of planning m ost ostensibly promulgated by
British planners Patrick Geddes and Ebenezer Howard in the late nineteenth cen-
tury and the Regional Planning Association of America in the 1920s (Wheeler 2002).

Fig. 1-8 The Transportation-Oriented Development Con cept. Each transit-

oriented development (TOD) of 50-100 acres is a cluster of housing, retail space,
offi ces, and civic uses centered on a transit station. TODs would be strung li ke
beads along transit lines. Source: Sacramento County Planning and Community
Development Department 1990.
18
Relationships of Smart Growth and New Urbanism to Sustainable
Development
rn
Although Smart Growth and New Urbanism offer visionary alternatives of de-
::::i
a_
w
sired outcomes compared to the dominant pattern of conventional low-density
u
c development, there are questions about whether they fall short of the broader

-
0
u
goals of sustainable development. Smart Growth specifies a macroscale commu-
nity land use and infrastructure policy framework that is rooted more broadly in
r- urban planning and public policy principles compared to New Urbanism, though
cr:
<(
0...
it also includes urban design principles. However, Smart Growth does not offer a
physical design image and layout of community form that is essential for guiding
decisions about land use and urban development. The more detailed and site-
specific design principles of New Urbanism take on many of the substantive poli-
cies of Smart Growth, 5 but only offer limited guidance and subsequent influence
on the protection of environmentally sensitive areas, revitalization of inner cities
and urbanized areas, and provision of affordable housing.
Given these limitations, a more holistic and integrated vision of community
building is needed. The vision of sustainable development would extend Smart
GrowtrrandNew Urban concepts to embrace natural systems, place-based econo-
mies, and social equity, as well as broader regional (and global) concerns. Under
the sustainability vision, Smart Growth and New Urbanism would play an essen-
tial role as mid-range visions designed to guide communities toward long-range
sustainable outcomes. Moreover, the vision of sustainability needs to be flexible
and adaptable to meet the needs of diverse interest groups, fit in different con-
texts, and serve as a guide to consensus-based discourse and open communica-
tion in the planning process. (In chapter 2, we offer a more in-depth discussion of
the management of land use change and provide a prism model of sustainability
for guiding the plan-making process.) Tying such a vision into the land use plan-
ning arena demands several collaborative skills.

Land Use Values

To be an effective player and manager in the land use game, the planner must
understand the goals and values of other major players with a stake in game out-
comes. The inputs to planning come from stakeholders who view development
through the lens of their land use values (see Figure 1-1 ). Planners must seek
opportunities to forge consensus among competing stakeholder groups to ad-
vance common interests and public purposes that are essential for building more
sustainable communities. They must be able to track, identify, and clarify the di-
verging and complementary values among these groups. The composition of the
groups and alliances among them can shift over time as consensus about how to
resolve land use issues is achieved and new issues are raised (Jenkins-Smith and
Sabatier 1994). As noted, there are several dominant stakeholder groups attempt-
ing to influence the direction of future urban growth and change, with each group
giving the most weight to one of four sets of land use values: economic develop-
ment, environmental protection, social equity, and livability. These values can be
separate and competing or intermingled and supporting.
 19
Economic Development Values
Economic development values depict land as a commodity for the production,
consumption, and distribution of products and services for profit. These values
· represent the engines of community building, adding value to the land through
investment in industry, commercial structures, and residential buildings. From
-
the perspective of these values, the most obvious measure of winnings in the land
use game is the profit from the sale of land and buildings. rl-
::::r
CD
,-
Logan and Motoloch ( 1987) explain how land development markets work by Ql
::::J
CL
identifying three types of entrepreneurs who seek profit: serendipitous entrepre- cen
neurs who inadvertently gain wealth from land (inheritance); active entrepreneurs CD
3!
who depend on good forecasting skill and wise investments; and structural specu- Ql
::::J
::::>.
lators who seek to structure markets by influencing political decision making about =
::::J

land use and infrastructure investment. The structural speculators tend to work "'
a
0

in organized coalitions or "growth machines;' and are the most important entre- CD
en
en

preneur. Growth machines include bankers, lawyers, real estate agents, develop-
ers, and elected officials who work in concert to promote their development agenda.
They scrutinize land policies, regulations, and plans for their impacts on the mon-
etary values of the land. This group is sometimes joined by those who simply
advocate the lessening of government intervention into the market as an ideo-
logical position.
These economic development investment interests are constrained by land plan-
ning and market demand. To succeed, their projects must pass both a government
test and a market test. They must satisfy the intent of governmental plans and
regulations adopted by the local elected representatives to obtain a development
permit. They must satisfy the consumer's taste to sell and make a profit. They
operate in a market of buyers and sellers that i~in.tlu.enced by public plans and
service programs but are not driven by them. For this interest group, the driving
forces are the growth of the population, the economy, and interest rates, which
affect demand and capital availability. _
Land use planning affects the development market by identifying land that is
available or planned for development; by limiting the type, location, timing, and
density of development that can take place; by programming the infrastructure to
support development and allocating its costs between the public and private sec-
tors; and by specifying the standards under which development proposals will be
reviewed. These actions define the supply of suitable land for development. They
have been described as "managing the market." Although that description is too
extreme for most cases, it is clear that the active land planner is attempting to
guide the process of land use change in accordance with community goals. In that
sense, the land planner can be seen as both a "development manager" and a "man-
ager of change."

Environmental Protection Values

Environmental protection values view the city as a consumer of resources and
land and a producer of wastes. Environmental groups that take on these values
range from those who seek to protect the environment for utilitarian purposes to
20
-=s
0 those with a deep intrinsic value fo r nature. Often these groups are local chapters
Q)

E
of such nation al advocacy groups as the Sierra Club, Ducks Unlimited, and the
~ Isaac Walton League. They view land policies and plans through an ecological
LL

ro
;=: lens, seeking the protection of exis ting natural environmental features such as
o_
Q)
u wetlands, streams, and fore sts. Sometimes they may fo rm coalitions with neigh-
c
borhood groups opposed to growth.

-
0
LJ

In practice, environm ental values are often presented to the planner in the form
of three perspectives: direct utility values, indirect utility values, and in trinsic val-
ues. Direct utility va lues ask th e question "What good is it?" Many people value
only the direct utility of nature for themselves. They use the powerful "product" -
oriented argum ent for nature (e.g., board feet from forests, fish as a source of
food ). Under some circumstances, groups that take on these values might hel p
raise public suppo rt for protecting certain parts of ecosystems, but they canno t be
used to justify seemingly economically worthless life fo rms.
In direct utility values focus on ecosystem services offered to human communi-
ties. They recognize the value of interdependent relationships within an ecosys-
tem that are not taken into account by the direct utility values. Examples include
soil generation an d decompositi on functions for fo od growth, and wetlands and
beaver da¥1s th ~t offer flood mitiga tion and water pollutant filtering services. The
indirect utility perspective helps justify the enactment of development controls
like stream buffers to protect water quality and tree preservation to support wild-
life and aesthetic beauty.
Intrinsic values counter the shortcomings of direct and indirect utilitarian ar-
guments by emphasizing the deep, intrinsic appreciation for all life for ms. In his
1948 classic book, A Sand County Almanac, Aldo Leopold maintains that human
beings are part oflarger communities or ecosystems, and th at "conservation based
solely on economic self-interest is hopelessly lopsided. It tends to ignore and thus
eventually eliminate, many elements of th e land community that lack commercial
value, but that are essential to its healthy functioning. It assumes falsely that the
economic parts of the biotic clock will function without the uneconomic parts"
(Leopold 1948, 25 1). The Leopold perspective on land stewardship helped justify
the passage of the federal Endangered Species Act in 1973 and international trea-
ties to save whales and ban trade in ivory.
The connections between community land use and environmental quality will
intensify as more scientific knowledge of environmental systems is accumulated
and is translated into findings rel evant for land use planning. As a result, environ-
mental groups will be able to deman d more sophisti cated environmental quality
monitoring, the setting of more precise performance standards, and the applica-
tion of new land suitability and environmental impacts methods in the local land
use plan ning process.

Equity Values
Social equity values depict the community as a location of conflict about the distri -
bution of resources, services, and oppo rtuniti es. Advocates of these values contend
that land use patterns should recognize and improve the conditions oflow-income
and minority populations and not deprive them of basic levels of envi ronmental
 21
n
health and human dignity. Equitable access to social and economic resources is es- :::r::
l>
sential for eradicating poverty and in accounting for the needs of the least advantaged. :::i
m
Advocates of environmental justice oppose the unfair siting of hazardous waste fa- :::rJ

cilities, highway construction projects that cut through inner-city neighborhoods

to link downtowns to wealthy suburbs, garbage dumps in minority communities,
and discrimination in urban housing markets. They believe that the benefits and the
-
..,.,
ill
3
burdens of a consuming society are not shared equitably. Too often the ability of the
wealthy to prosper depends upon the restriction of other people's rights to commu-
nities that are clean, safe, and economically viable.
Feminist urban scholars (Spain 1992, 2001) assert a different set of social eq-
uity values in which gender is an organizing force equal to class and race. Gender
does not lead to spatial segregation but to different urban forms within defined
areas of class and ethnicity. In this view, conventional development patterns, ori-
ented to male activity patterns, do not meet the needs for women's daily activities
that involve waged, domestic labor, and child care. Separation of work places and
residential areas under conventional development isolates women's space and
lengthens travel times for work and household activities.
Scholars of nonconformist groups, including gay men, lesbians, and others,
assert another perspective of social equity values in which sexuality can be a fac-
tor that explains community formation and land use change. Research has high-
lighted cultural and social reasons for nonconformist groups moving into and
gentrifying urban neighborhoods that are equivalent to or more powerful than
economic reasons. Castells (1997), Forsyth (2001), and Lauria and Knopp ( 1985),
among others, maintain that forces driving gay and lesbian community forma-
tion are linked to group support, safety, and identify formation. Not all members
of nonconformist groups, or even a majority, were determined to be high-income,
middle-class professionals. Many people were only able-to live in their neighbor-
hoods because they were willing to make significant economic sacrifices.
Planners can gain important lessons about how the values of the increasingly
influential nonconforming but traditionally marginalized groups affect land use
change. Planners typically react to needs of conformist groups (e.g., providing
housing for heterosexual families or dual heads of households), but have less ex-
perience with nonconformist ones. In light of an increasingly diverse population,
the challenge for planners is to reconsider core values about family, culture, and
community and to anticipate how urban forms should be adapted to meet emerg-
ing needs.

Livability Values
Livability values are expressed by those who react to land use change based on
their social and community interests. Advocates of these values typically call for
the preservation and enhancement of the social and physical amenities of com-
munities that support desired activity patterns, safety, lifestyles, and aesthetic val-
ues. They scrutinize land policies and plans for the impacts on their quality oflife
while also keeping an eye on the impacts on the market value of their property. In
the absence of an informed community consensus about future growth, those
who give weight to these values may mobilize to block or modify development.
22
-""'
0 Neighborhood groups sometimes include those who seek to prevent any new
5
w
E
development, or at least prevent adjacent development at densities higher than
~ theirs. The stopping power of these groups often creates local gridlocks. Terms
u...
ro such as "not in my backyard" (NIMBY), "local unwanted land uses" (LULU), "build
::>
0.
w
'-'
absolutely nothing anywhere near anyone" (BANANA) , among others, have be-
c
0
come symbolic of neighborhood livability values. Citizen-participation planner
-
u

l-
a:
Randy Hester sums up the state of affairs in the neighborhood-preservation move-
ment since the 1980s by arguing that contemporary public participation can be
~ characterized as self-interested, short-sighted, segregated along class and racial
lines, legally sophisticated, and fearful (1999, 19).
Although Hester's depiction is too extreme for most communities, local plan-
ning programs are well situated to break the barriers that create self-serving be-
havior. Planners can apply participatory urban design techniques to educate resi-
dents about urban forms that reflect the larger public interest necessary to help
change the narrowly defined view of livability to a broader, more inclusive view.
-Planners can also work to develop communication and consensus-building strat-
egies across neighborhood groups and create cooperation and bring about plans
that promote mutual benefit.

Coalitions of Land Use Values

In the land use planning arena, distinct alliances (or coalitions) of groups may
form when their values overlap. These coalitions are often in conflict. Two tradi-
tional adversaries are the "anti-growth" versus "pro-growth" coalitions. The "anti-
growth" coalition consists of neighborhood associations dominated by
homeowners who share an interest in the preservation of the rural character of
urbanizing areas and in limiting development to achieve those ends. Their inter-
est in limiting development is shared by environmental groups who seek protec-
tion of the ecological integrity of the landscape. The "pro-growth" coalition in-
cludes developers, land owners, and the building industry who share an interest
in profits from the development of land. Their interest in promoting develop-
ment is shared by downtown businesses, suburban businesses, and the chamber
of commerce, who believe that development will bring new people who, in turn,
will become their customers, promote their economic prosperity, and, indirectly,
promote the prosperity of the community.
A third alliance, the "social advocacy" coalition, is often an adversary to both
the "anti-growth" and "pro-growth" coalitions. It consists of low-income groups
and minority populations that share an interest in making the distribution of the
benefits of a healthy living environment and economic development more equi-
table. Difficult issues must be tackled if conflicts associated with this coalition are
to be resolved. A core issue for this coalition is how those at the bottom of society
can find greater economic opportunity if environmen tal protection mandates di-
minish economic growth. Poor communities, for example, must frequently con-
front a no-win choice between economic survival and environmental quality when
the only economic opportunities are landfills, waste incinerators, and polluting
industrial plants that more affluent communities often oppose (Bryant 1995). In
many cases, the poor communities consist mostly of minority populations, thus
 23
(""")
raising the specter that environmental racism is an integral feature of conflicts :c
)>
associated with the "social advocacy" coalition. ::=i
rn
Planners must understand that the adversarial behavior assumption does not ::0

always hold. The relationships among diverse interest groups are often interde-
pendent. For example, inner-city residents share an interest with suburban em-
ployers oflow-wage workers in having frequent transit service and close location
-
..,..,
ii3
3
::;·
of transit stops. Their interest in promoting mass transit is shared by environ-
mental advocacy groups who want transit to reduce dependency on automobiles
-
<O

=
co
r-
Ol
that generate considerable air pollution. The competitive orientation within the ::i
0.
c:
land planning arena is thus tempered with the need for cooperation. en
co
The task for planners in the land use game is to help communities build rela- -0
Ci)
::i
tionships by developing mutual trust and cooperation needed to improve overall ::i
::;·
<O
game outcomes. To be acceptable and effective, land use plans must recognize and -0

reconcile the pluralistic interests of other various stakeholder groups with those
a
'co
""'
en
en
of markets. They must work to inspire and motivate groups to understand inter-
dependencies and gain confidence in the reality of a common good or civic pur-
pose. In The Spirit of Community, Amitai Etzioni speaks of building "social webs
that bind individuals, who would otherwise be on their own, into groups of people
who care for one another and who help maintain a civic, social, and moral order"
(Etzioni 1993, 248). The "connectedness" within a place is the glue that binds
social and natural communities. Planners should offer guidance to communities
seeking to create and restore those elements of place that foster the social fabric of
communities, including, for example: identifying buildings and natural landmarks
of cultural importance to evoke a connection to the community's history; creat-
ing built environments that encourage spontaneous face-to-face interaction (e.g.,
pocket parks, pedestrian-oriented streets); encouraging public life in private places
by encouraging spaces created by small businesses (-e.g~,Sidewalk cafes, taverns,
and bookstores), not just corporate theme spaces like shopping malls and
Disneyland; and improving opportunities for community participation among
all groups in planning for a sustainable future.

The Land Use Planning Program

This section focuses on the land use planning program, which is the central di-
mension in the land use game (see Figure 1-1).
A local planning program serves three key functions: 1) planning support sys-
tems; 2) a network of plans; and 3) monitoring and evaluation. Because the focus of
this book is on plan making and plans, the concepts and procedures for creating
planning support systems and plans are emphasized. Part 2 (chapters 4 through 9)
covers the key data input and analysis techniques for the demographic, economic,
environmental, land use, transportation, and infrastructure components of a plan-
ning support system. Chapter 3 provides an overview of the network of plans and
evaluation criteria to guide the creation of high-quality plans, and Part 3 (chapters
10 through 14) provides a detailed explanation of the concepts and sequence
of tasks associated with preparing plans. Chapter 15 in Part 3 offers a general over-
view of the remaining two functions that address the daily work of planners in plan
24
implementation. This includes preparing new and amending existing ordinances,
budgeting capital improvement projects, reviewing site plans of development projects,
and establishing the main components for monitoring, evaluating, and updating plans.
ro
::J
Ci_
"'uc Planning Support Systems
0

-
u
The first function is to establish a planning support system to collect, collate, and
analyze spatially referenced data. The system tracks current conditions and trends
about a planning area, as well as determines compliance with federal and state
policy to avoid penalties and gauge local eligibility for grants. It also provides
information to build local knowledge about issues and trends and to facilitate
discourse and decisions about a planning area's population, economy, environ-
ment, land use, and infrastructure. This means making information available upon
request to players in the land use game when they need it, during advance plan-
ning, problem solving, and permitting procedures. A product of the planning sup-
port system is a State of Community Report which provides a summary of issues,
scenarios, and visions to be used in the plan-making process.
A planning support system aids in improving knowledge and consensus build-
ing by modeling the impacts of alternative scenarios of land use patterns, which
allows for assessment of the compatibility of alternatives with interest group val-
ues and agreed upon visions of the community (Klosterman 2000, Wachs 2001).
The crafting of scenarios that accomplish different combinations of values is ex-
emplified in the creation of the 1996 San Jose General Plan. This plan considered
a series of alternative land use scenarios ranging from a continuation of past de-
velopment practices-which was determined to be unacceptable from environ-
mental and urban infrastructure perspectives-to the prohibition of development
outside the urbanized area- which was found to be unacceptable politically and
economically. The compromise solution permitted the expansion of the urban
area, but only in limited areas adjacent to existing urban development where ur-
ban services could be provided at a minimum cost and environmental impacts
could be adequately mitigated (City of San Jose 1994).

A Network of Plans: Areawide Land Policy, Communitywide Land Use

Design, Small Area, and Development Management
The second function of a local land use planning program is preparing and adopt-
ing a long-range plan. Sometimes called a master, general, or comprehensive plan, a
plan is a long-range policy document that guides the location, design, density, rate,
and type of development within a community over a twenty- to thirty-year time
frame. The core purposes of a plan are to offer a consensus-based community vi-
sion for future development; provide facts, goals, and policies for translating this
vision into a land use pattern; inject long-range considerations into short-range
actions that promote a future land use pattern that is socially just, economically
viable, and environmentally compatible; and represent a "big picture" of the com-
munity that is related to broader regional (and potentially global) trends. To stay
relevant, the plan is updated from time to time as local development trends, natural
system conditions, and policy goals change.
 25
n
Planners and their communities can select among three spatial scales of plans :::r::
)>
as well as use combinations of these plans to formulate an integrated network of 2'l
m
plans for guiding development. An areawide land policy plan specifies a general :n

spatial pattern that delineates areas where transition from rural to urban develop-
ment will occur to accommodate future growth and where redevelopment or sig-
nificant infill will occur. It also indicates where development should not occur in
-
..,..,
al
3
environmentally sensitive areas. A communitywide land use design plan includes
more specific arrangement of land use patterns that primarily focus on human
use vaiues (e.g., commercial and employment areas, mixed-use areas, major ac-
tivity centers, urban open-space systems) in urban districts outlined in the areawide
land policy plan. Proposed areas of agriculture, forestry, and environmental uses
can also be delineated. Densities are often indicated as well. A small (or specific) ::::>
ca
area plan provides the most detail in specifying urban land uses and natural sys-
tem protection within the framework of areawide land policy and communitywide "i3
("")
CD
(/)

land use design plans. These plans are focused on central business districts, neigh- (/)

borhoods, transportation corridors, and open-space networks for environmental

protection and recreation.
A development-management plan is a fourth type of plan that can be formu-
lated at various geographic scales and is often folded into the other plans rather
than provided as a stand-alone plan. It consists of a combination of various tools
for guiding land use change (e.g., development regulations, capital improvements,
and incentives). It may also give close attention to the timing of urbanization and
ensuring that expansion of public infrastructure is concurrent with the pace of
private development.
A related development-management function is establishment of a development-
management program. A development-management program translates the devel-
opment-management plan into implementation ~ctfons. Although the plan is a docu-
ment that sets forth the community's desired future land use pattern, it typically
does not actually manage land use and development. A development-management
program, however, is conceived as a set of implementation actions to achieve form-
based goals (i.e., goal forms), shown as the output from the network of plans leading
toward the sustainable community (see Figure 1-1). A local development-manage-
ment program relies on a variety of traditional and innovative tools, including po-
lice power regulations, public expenditures for infrastructure, taxation, and land
acquisition techniques. These tools impose or encourage adherence to land use and
development standards by the public and private sector.
In many instances, lay citizens, elected officials, and even some planners look at
drafting and adoption of a land use (or comprehensive) plan as the solution to man-
aging land use change. They do not understand that ordinances, infrastructure im-
provements, and other governmental actions must be enacted before a community
has an effective planning program. Moreover, beyond the adoption of ordinances, a
development-management program includes the ongoing process of reviewing and
approving the location, type, size, density, timing, mix, and site design of pro-
posed developments. It also includes enforcing the ordinances and otherwise play-
ing an active role in the land use game. In addition, it includes making decisions
about water and sewer extensions, transportation corridors and facilities, parks
26
~
0 and recreation, and other public facilities. Finally, development management in-
$:
ru
E
volves feedback to planning support systems, plans, and problem-solving functions,
~
u... as well as adjustment of land use controls in response to experience in striving for
ro
3Cl.. sustainability. In short, we see direct involvement in development management as
ru
u an extension of planning. Planning becomes action, and action is the final step in
c:
the design of policy.
-
0
(_)

This concept of a network of plans is based on the actual diversity of U.S. plan-
f-
ning institutions. It does not assume either a hierarchical authority structure or a
er:
<(
CL
single combination of plans specified by the network of plans that is appropriate
for every community. We do not argue for a "one-size-fits-all" approach. Commu-
nities may select various types of plans. Others may combine elements of different
types of plans within the network into a single hybrid plan. In each instance, the
community's network of plans should be tailored to fit particular issues and offer
balanced solutions that account for multiple values. As in the Denver case discussed
in c:;hapter 2, often different agencies will prepare different functional or area-based
plans. However, these plans will be more effectively implemented if the area's plan-
ners and decision makers recognize the opportunities for consistent networking.
As will b~dis5ussed in chapter 3 and chapters 10-15, there are multiple types of
plans that fiave l:ieen used successfully. They range from the general to the specific,
from regional to neighborhood scales, and from visionary designs to practical
day-to-day development management. These choices comprise a rich and varied
array of alternatives from which planners and their communities can assemble a
combination that best fits their needs and capabilities. 6
The physical land use plans discussed in this book are sometimes criticized on
the grounds that they place too much emphasis on the physical characteristics of
a community and give insufficient attention to either the process of planning or
to the free market. According to this view, physical planning imposes too much
order and infringes on personal freedom, does not do enough to foster open par-
ticipation, and frustrates consumer choice. Elaborate critiques of physical plan-
ning have been spun by postmodernists (Harvey 1990) and the libertarian right,
which views the expansion of the planning function as perilous to society (Gor-
don and Richardson 1997).
As discussed, we argue that the procedural perspective has merit, but there also is
merit in the physical plan. We do not propose that planners be given powers to man-
date top-down, unitary conceptions of land use and urban forms. This approach to
planning was the downfall of modernism, and planners have been keenly aware that
plans should be produced from an open and participatory process. But plans should
also represent a consensus-based vision of urban forms that support the common
good. Studies have shown that high-quality plans with clear goals and policies and a
strong fact base have exerted considerable influence on land use patterns that achieve
a variety of public goals, including natural hazard mitigation, economic develop-
ment, and environmental protection.7 Moreover, numerous examples in planning
practice show that visionary, physical plans and their graphic images of the future
make a difference in land use outcomes. The "wedges and corridors" vision of the
Washington, D.C., metropolitan area (i.e., wedges of open space and corridors of
development) was embodied in the 1969 Montgomery County Plan, Maryland, and
 27
(""")
successfully implemented (see Figures 1-9, 1-10, 1- 11). The principles and a dia- :r:
)>
gram of this vision included in the plan helped to establish a countywide ethos that ::::::
rn
places civic responsibility over individual interests.8 The plan gave cities, suburbs, ::0

and rural towns a medium to communicate through and a means to achieve consen-
sus in defining shared interests and common goals. An updated version of this vi-
sion serves as th e central organizing framework in the 1993 plan for the county.
-

-0
00
ro
"'"'

Fig. 1-9 "Wedges and corridors" vision

for Washington Metro.

Fig. 1-10 Land areas map for Maryland counties

in Washington Metro.

Urba n Ring Fig. 1-11 General plan for Montgomery County,

1-270 Co rridor ARll tJGTON
COUNTY Maryland, 1993.
Suburban Com munities
Residential Wed ge
Source for Figures 1-9, 1- 10, 1-11 is Maryland-
Agricu ltu ral Wedge
National Capital Park and Planning Commission
P1 aee ne rn .;,s are 1dert1fi ed for g&0g r ap~ I Cfl."le rencOJ oo ly 1993.
28
-2: New modes of planning and participatory democracy also led to design-based
D
s
Q)
plans in Europe that mattered. Grassroots planning initiatives produced vision-
E
ro
U::: ary physical plans that guided the restoration of historic centers of Barcelona and
ro Madrid (Spain), the renovation of Bologna, Italy, and the Thames River Gateway
3o_
Q)
(_)
Strategy in Britain. Indeed, during the 1970s through the 1990s, all of Western
c:
Europe experienced a resurgence of long-range visioning and physical plans

-
D
LJ

(Neuman 1996, 1998).

f-
a:
<t
o_ Monitoring and Evaluation
The third function is to monitor environmental, economic, and social outcomes
caused by changes in land use, as illustrated in Figure 1-1. The monitoring data
feeds into the planning support system that continuously tracks progress of plan
implementation and evaluates success based on the extent to which outcomes
achieve plan goals. Monitoring provides a planning support system with a factual
basis for making plan revisions. It also serves to inform citizens and interest groups
and to help them participate in evaluation procedures for revising plans at regular
five- and ten-year intervals.
A growing number of communities have been developing urban sustainability
indicators for monitoring progress toward achievement of plan goals that repre-
sent the long-term economic, social, or environmental health of a community
over generations. There are three ways in which urban sustainability indicators
can be distinguished from typical objectives in plans that are designed to measure
progress (Maclaren 1996). First, sustainability indicators integrate the linkages
among social, environmental, and economic dimensions of a community (e.g.,
land use change influences travel distances, contributing to air-quality decline,
especially in inner-city low-income areas). Second, sustainability indicators are
forward-looking in terms of linkage to reference points (or benchmarks) that de-
fine intermediate steps in moving toward goals. Third, they are distributional in
that indicators not only take into account intergenerational equity but also the
distribution of conditions within a population based on age, gender, ethnicity,
income, and location.
In sum, the planning support system, the network of plans, and monitoring
represent the core components of a local government strategy for managing the
complex and turbulent land planning arena, and for seeking sustainable develop-
ment outcomes that balance social, environmental, economic, and livability val-
ues within communities. Achieving sustainability requires strong commitment
by local elected officials and citizens to implement the strategy. Planners must be
prepared to continually adjust over time to reflect the lessons learned from imple-
mentation and changes in the land planning arena (Hopkins 2001). Local land
use planning programs must be designed to be flexible and adaptable to respond
to continuous change in system conditions. Planners also must be aware that the
rigor and depth of the methods employed in creating a planning support system,
the detail in which plans address land use arrangements, and the mix of develop-
ment-management tools adopted to implement the plan vary in accordance to
the particular circumstances of a local government charged with creating the plan.
 29
Core Planning Capabilities
In the face of pressures to alter land plans to suit a changing panoply of public and
private interests and trends, local planners need a strong sense of their own role
values to maintain the integrity of the planning process. While the other players
unabashedly advocate their own interests and often feel free to use any available
-
,,
o;
3
means to achieve their ends, planners are expected to advocate overall public in- ~
:::r
terest and to be constrained by professional methods, ethics, and tenets to facili- CD
.-
tate achievement of the ends of other players. Although planners can make sub- "'::::>a.
stantive recommendations, these will be subject to intense scrutiny and attack by c

other players. And because planners write and enforce the rules of the game, they
"'
CD

"::::>Ci)
will be subject to constant pressure to favor one side or the other or to make ::::>
::::>
exceptions for them. <D

To counter these pressures, planners should have several special capabilities to "an
CD

be effectively engaged in the land planning arena. Sidebar 1-3 illustrates planners' "'
"'
capabilities, which suggests that planners should be visionary, comprehensive, tech-
nically competent, fair, consensus seeking, and innovative. Together, these capabili-
ties constitute the professional expertise that the public and the planning profes-
sion expect of planners. Subsequent chapters demonstrate how these capabilities
play a role in shaping plans that advance more sustainable communities.

- --~ ~ ~ -~~-~~ ------._--, .. ~-::::::--_,_~•r• -- .-_

-
_: ·...:...--- _
-
_..: ,~ -
Sidebar
. ..1-3- _
. __ .}cofle~,_cAeAe1uti1Es
!'" • • ... _
· oF
_:_-=..-:!,:''f ..- •'"''"''.-""'1.-or-~,
PLAN NeRs 1

Planners should be:

• Visionary. T hey must look beyond immediate concerns ~he needs of future gen-
erations. Planners must be able to foresee and shape the scope and cha racter of
future development, identify existing and emerging needs, and fashion plans to en-
sure that those needs will be met. Visionary thinking also requires skills to create
powerful images for advancing visions of future urban form.
• Comprehensive. Planners should see links among local groups with similar goals
that sometimes work on parallel tracks without collaborating . Comprehensive think-
ing can help break barriers of parochial th inking conditioned by locality, class, ideol-
ogy, and culture to form broad-based coalitions that emphasize the larger public
vision. Substantively, planners must see links among urban systems as interdepen-
dent parts of a whole, and not succumb to pressure to focus o nly on one-d imen-
sional plans that affect a particular system in isolation from others.
• Technically competent. W ith a strong emphasis on political effectiveness, planners
sometimes do not give technical analysis sufficient consideration. Planners should
expect particular interest groups to advocate a pla n change on the basis of partisan
analysis. However, the planners should be able to carry out technical tasks with rigor,
obj ect ivity, and sensitivity to assumptions. Technical compet ence i ncludes appl ica-
tion of forecasting meth ods to project future needs and impacts, detection of trends,
and derivat ion of rese arch -based policy recomm endations.
• Fair. In a fair process of planning, all interest groups affected by the plan must have an
opportunity to influence plan content. Fairness involves analy zi ng plan alternatives
Continued
30
-"'
0
:;: concerning the im pacts on different g roups and seeking to fairly d istribute t he costs
())
E and benefits. The courts may overturn plans that ignore the principle of eq uity, but
~
LL.. many subtle ways to plan unfairly may escape legal scrut iny. Equity of p rocess and
ro
.2 content is a critical characteristic of socially responsibl e land use plann ing .
CL
())
u • Consensus seeking. Planners should ensure that the plan-making process is based
c
on consensus building that is open, inclusive, and accounts for and ba lances the

-
0
(_)

needs of all stakeholders. The process should go beyond mere participation and strive
for a constructive, consensus-seeking approach to resolving disputes and creating
l-
a: joint gains. It shou ld be o pen to information contributed by citizens and t o technical
<(
0... information developed by profess ional analysts.
• Innovative. The public and local government officials look to their planners for new
approaches to problems associated with human settlements. Although there is pres-
sure to repeat tried-and-true solutions, new pol icy innovations should also be con-
sidered. Innovative thinking will challenge planne rs to consider actions previously
left unconsidered, broaden thei r pe rspect ives, reexamine communit ies' values, make
future generatio ns part of the col lect ive hope, and act on the future generation 's
behalf. lnnqvative ideas almost always requ ire more effort t o launch and involve more
risk than prior ways of doing things. T he creation of more sustainab le places entails
continual change that demands new, creative solut ions. Planners should not be tim id
about advocat ing change in the plan-making process and plans.

Summary
We observed that contemporary land use planning operates in a complex and
turbulent decision-making arena that reflects a high-stakes game. Game players
attempt to gain land use decisions that most benefit their own interests. Planners
play a central role as mediators, coalition builders, communicators, and visionar-
ies to be effective managers and stewards of the public interest.
The conceptual framework of land use planning presented in this chapter will
help planners guide their communities to more sustainable land use patterns. The
framework sets forth three primary tasks: 1) to identify and account for land use
values of groups with a stake in the urban development process; 2) to establish a
land use planning program designed to formulate consensus-based visions of the
future and plans to achieve those visions; and 3) to monitor how well land devel-
opment outcomes make progress toward plan goals. Finally, the chapter summa-
rizes the core capabilities that planners need to support the public interest while
at the same time accounting for the values of multiple stakeholder groups.
The next chapter introduces a sustainability prism model that planners can
apply to understand and reconcile the diverging priorities and conflicts among
stakeholders. To effectively apply the model, a working synthesis of analytical,
consensus, and design practices is presented.

Notes
1. For reviews of the existing evidence, see Ewin g and Cervera, 200 l; Frank and Engelke,
2001; Humpel et al., 2002; Saelens et al., 2003; and Trost et al., 2002.
 31
2. The county sprawl index variables were gross population density, percentage of popu-
lation living at less than 1,500 persons per square mile (low suburban density), percentage
living at greater than 12,500 persons per square mile (transit supportive), net population
density of urban lands, average block size, and percentage of small blocks (less than .01
square mile).
3. For a range of definitions of sustainable development see, for example, Beatley and
-
Manning 1998, Berke and Manta-Conroy 2000, Laurence 2000, Wheeler 2002.
4. In many respects, the agenda for sustainable development is the next natural progres-
sion in the evolution of planning history. Since the 1970s, the planning field has experi-
enced a gradual expansion of the notion of planning, from narrow considerations of zon-
ing and subdivisions to broader public-interest goals focused on growth management.
5. Several documents indicate the detailed and specific guidelines and standards for
New Urban development projects (Calthorpe 1993, Duany and Plater-Zyberk 1991, Duany,
Plater-Zyberk, and Speck 2000).
6. Donaghy and Hopkins (2004) criticize the concept of a network of plans, asserting
that it assumes a command-and-control structure of planning and decision making that
ignores markets and diverse planning efforts. They view the network framework as rigid
and unresponsive to the contingent needs for different types of plans. They argue that the
network concept falsely assumes the existence of a hierarchy of authorities that work in
harmony to create a seamless and internally consistent network of plans across spatial
scales. On the contrary, we believe that network theory nicely represents the often messy,
overlapping, and loosely coordinated planning institutions, initiatives, and processes that
make up the context ofland use planning in a democratic society.
7. Studies indicate that plans have a positive influence on land use patterns that support
natural hazard mitigation (Nelson and French 2002), economic development (Knapp, Deng,
and Hopkins 2001), and watershed protection (Berke et al. 2003).
8. This observation was based on interviews with planning staff of Montgomery County,
Maryland, on October 6, 2000.

References
Beatley, Timothy, and Kristy Manning. 1998. The ecology of place.' Planning for environ-
ment, economy, and community. Washington, D.C.: Island Press.
Berke, Philip, and Maria Manta-Conroy. 2000. Are we planning for sustainable develop-
ment? An evaluation of 30 comprehensive plans. Journal of the American Planning
Association 66 (1): 21-33.
Berke, Philip. 2002. Does sustainable development offer a new direction for planning?
Challenges for the twenty-first century. Journal of Planning Literature 17 (1): 22-36.
Berke, Philip, Joseph McDonald, Nancy White, Michael Holmes, Kat Oury, and Rhonda
Ryznar. 2003. Greening development for watershed protection: Does new urbanism
make a difference? Journal of the American Planning Association 69 (4): 397-413.
Bryant, Bunyan, ed. 1995. Environmental justice: Issues, policies and solutions. Washington,
D.C.: Island Press.
Burchell, Robert, George Lowenstein, William Dolphin, Catherine Galley, Anthony Downs,
Samuel Seskin, Katherine Gray Still, and Terry Moore. 1998. Costs of sprawl-2000.
Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.
Calthorpe, Peter. 1993. The next American metropolis: Ecology, community, and the Ameri-
can dream. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton Architectural Press.
Calthorpe, Peter, and William Fulton. 2001. The regional city. Washington, D.C.: Island
Press.
32
~ Castells, Manuel. 1997. The power of identity. Malden, Mass.: Blackwell.
0
5
Q) City of Burlington. 1996. Burlington municipal development plan. Burlington, Vt.: Plan-
E
~
u...
ning and Zoning.
co City of Cambridge. 1993. Toward a sustainable future: Cambridge growth policy document.
aCl. Cambridge, Mass.: Planning Board.
Q)
u
c:: City of San Jose. 1994. Focus on the future: San Jose 2020 General Plan. San Jose, Calif.:

-
0
u
Department of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement.
City of Santa Monica. 1995. Santa Monica sustainable indicators program. Santa Monica,
I-
CC
Calif.: Planning Department.
<(
0.... City of Seattle. 1994. The City of Seattle comprehensive plan: Toward a sustainable Seattle: A
plan for managing growth 1994-2014. Seattle, Wash.: Planning Department.
Donaghy, Kieran, and Lewis Hopkins. 2004. Particularist, non-positivist, and coherent theo-
ries of planning are possible ... and even desirable. Paper presented at the Association
of Collegiate Schools of Planning conference, Portland, Oreg., October 22, 2004.
Downs, Anthony. 1994. New visions of metropolitan America. Washington, D.C.: Brookings
Institution and Lincoln Institute of Land Policy.
Downs, Anthony. 1999. Some realities about sprawl and urban decline. Housing Policy De-
bate 14 (4): 955-74.
Duany, Andres, and Elizabeth Plater-Zyberk. 1991. Towns and townmaking principles. New
Yoxk:,RizzQli Press.
Duany, Andres, Elizabeth Plater-Zyberk, and J. Speck. 2000. Suburban nation: The rise of
sprawl and the decline of the American dream. New York: North Point Press.
Duany, Andres, and Emily Talen. 2002. Transect planning. Journal of the American Plan-
ning Association 68 (3): 245-66.
Etzioni, Amitai. 1993. The spirit of community: Reinvention ofAmerican society. New York:
Touchstone.
Ewing, Reid, and Robert Cervera. 2001. Travel and the built environment. Transportation
and Research Record 1780: 87-114.
Frank, Lawrence D., and Peter 0. Engelke. 2001. The built environment and human activ-
ity patterns: Exploring the impacts of urban form on public health. Journal of Plan-
ning Literature 16 (2): 202-18.
Frank, Lawrence D., Peter 0. Engelke, and Thomas L. Schmid. 2003. Health and commu-
nity design: The impact of the built environment on physical activity. Washington, D.C.:
Island Press.
Forsyth, Ann. 2001. Sexuality and space: Nonconformist populations and planning prac-
tice. Journal of Planning Literature 15 (3): 339-58.
Fulton, William, Rolf Pendall, Mai Nguyen, and Alice Harrison. 2001. Who sprawls most?
How growth patterns differ across the U.S. Washington, D.C.: Survey Series, Brookings
Institution.
Godschalk, David. 2000. Smart Growth around the nation. Popular Government 66 ( 1): 12-
20.
Gordon, Peter, and Harry Richardson. 1997. Are compact cities a desirable planning goal?
Journal of the American Planning Association 63 ( 1): 95-106.
Governor's Commission for a Sustainable South Florida. 1996. Eastward ho! Revitalizing
southeast Florida's urban core. Hollywood, Fla.: Author.
Harvey, David. 1990. "Postmoderism in the city: Architecture and urban design. In The
condition ofpostmodernity, 66-80. Oxford, England: Blackwell.
Hester, Randolph T. 1999. A refrain with a view. Places: A Forum of Environmental Design
12 (2): 12-25.
 33
Hopkins, Lewis. 2001. Urban developm ent: The logic of making plans. Washington, D.C.:
Island Press.
Humpel, Nancy, Neville Owen, and Eva Leslie. 2002. Environmental factors associated with
adults' participation in physical activity. American Journal of Preventive Medicine 22
(3): 188-99.
Innes, Judith, and David Booher. 1999. Consensus building and complex adaptive systems:
-
A framework of revaluating collaborative planning. Journal of the American Planning
Association 65 (4): 460-72. -::::r-
CD
Jenkins-Smith, Hank, and Paul Sabatier. 1994. Evaluating the advocacy coalition frame- r-
Ql
::::J
work. Journal of Public Policy 14 (2): 175-203. o._
c
Johnson, Elmer W. 2001. Chicago Metropolis 2020: The Chicago plan for the twenty-first (;)
CD

century. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Ql

::::J
Klosterman, Richard. 2000. The what if planning support systems. In Planning support ::::J

systems: Integrating geographic information systems, models, and visualization tools, Ri- u
0
chard Brail and Richard Klosterman, eds. Redlands, Calif.: ESRI Press. n
CD
(;)
Knapp, Gerrit, Chengri Deng, and Lewis Hopkins. 2001. Do plans matter? The effects of (;)

light rail plans on land values in station areas. Journal of Planning Education and Re-
search 21 (1): 32-39.
Krizek, Kevin, and Joe Power. 1996. A planners' guide to sustainable development. Planning
Advisory Service 467. Chicago: American Planning Association.
Laurence, Roderick, ed. 2000. Sustaining human settlement: A challenge for the new millen-
ni wn. North Shields, UK: Urban International Press.
Lauria, Mickey, and Lawrence Knopp. 1985. Toward an analysis of the role of gay commu-
nities in the urban renaissance. Urban Geography 6: 152-69.
Lindsey, Greg. 2003. Sustainability and urban greenways: Indicators in Indianapolis. Jour-
nal of the American Planning Association 69 (2): 165-80.
Leopold, Aldo. 1948. A Sand County almanac. New York: Oxford University Press.
Logan, John, and Harvey Motoloch. 1987. Urban fortunes: The political economy of place.
Berkeley: University of California Press. "
Leccese, M., and K. McCormick. 2000. Charter of the new urbanism. New York: McGraw-
Hill.
Lucy, William, and David Phillips. 2000. Confronting suburban decline: Strategies and plan-
ning for metropolitan renewal. Washington, D.C.: Island Press.
Maclaren, Virginia. 1996. Urban sustainability reporting. Journal of the American Planning
Association 62 (2): 184-202.
Maryland Department of Housing and Urban Development. 2003. Smart Growth Pro-
gram. Retrieved from www.dhcd.state.md.us/images, accessed June 21, 2004.
Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission. 1993. General plan refine-
ment of the goals and objectives for Montgomery County. Silver Springs, Md.: Au-
thor.
McCann, Barbara A., and Reid Ewing. 2003. Measuring the health effects of sprawl: A na-
tional analysis ofphysical activity, obesity and chronic disease. Washington, D.C.: Smart
Growth America.
Meck, S. 2002. Growing Smart legislative guidebook: Model statutes for planning and the
management of change. Chicago: American Planning Association.
Miller, Donald L. 2001. "Foreword." In Chicago metropolis 2020: The Chicago plan for the
twenty-first century, Elmer W. Johnson. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Minnesota Planning and Environmental Quality Board. 1998. Mission statement. Retrieved
from www.eqb.state.mn.us/SDI/index.html, accessed October 15, 2004.
34
-"'
0 Multinomah County. 2003. Sustainable community development program . Retrieved from
s:
Q)
www.co.multinomah.or.us, accessed October 15, 2004.
E
~
u...
Nelson, Arthur, and Steven French. 2002. Plan quality and mitigating damage from natural
disasters: A case stud y of the Northridge earthquake with planning policy consider-
3"'
Cl..
Q) ations. Journal of the American Planning Association 68 (2): 194-207.
u
c North Carolina Environmental Resource Program. 1997. Guidelines for state level sustainable
0

-
u
development. Chapel Hill: Center for Policy Alternati ves, University of North Carolina.
Neuman, Mi chael. 1996. Images as institu tion builders: Metropoli ta n planning in Madrid .
f-
a: European Planning Studies 4 (3): 293-310.
<(
CL Ne uman, Michael. 1998. Does planning need the plan? Journal of th e American Planning
Association 64 (2) : 208 -20.
Perry, Clarence. 1939. Housing for the machine age. New Yo rk: Ru ssell Sage Foundation.
Porter, Douglas. 1998. ULI on the future- Smart Growth : Econo my, com munity, and envi-
ronment. Wash ington, D.C.: Urban Land Institute.
Porter, Douglas. 2002. The practice of sustainable de velopment. Washington, D. C.: Urban
Land Institute.
President's Council on Sustainable Development. 1996. Sustainable America: A new con -
sensus fo r prosperity, opportu nity, and a healthy environment fo r the fii ture. Washing-
ton, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing O ffice.
Sacramento C~u.mty-Planning and Community Development Department. 1990. Transit
oriented dev~lop m~nt design guidelines. Sacramento: Author (prepared by Calthorpe
and Associates).
Saelens, Brian E., Jim F. Sallis, and Lawrence D. Fra nk. 2003. Environm ental correlates of
walking and cycling: Fi ndings from the tra nsportation, urban design, and planning
literatures. Annals of Behavioral Medicin e 25 (2) : 80-91.
Smart Growth Co mmunities Network. 2004. Sm art Gro wth on lin e. Retrieved from
www.smartgrowth .org, accessed December 14, 2004.
Sustainable Co m muni t ies Network. 2004. Smart Growth . Retr ie ved from
www.sustainable.org, accessed December 14, 2004.
Spain, Daphne . 1992 . Gendered spaces. Chapel Hill: Universi ty of North Carolina Press.
Spain, Daphne. 2001. How women saved the city. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota
Press.
Speir, Cameron, and Kur t Stephenson. 2002. Does sprawl cost us all? Isolating the effect of
housin g patterns on public water and sewer costs. Journal of the American Plan ning
Association 68 (1) : 56-70.
Texas Transportation Institute. 2002. 2002 urban mo bility study. College Station, Tx.: Au-
thor.
Tros t, Steward G., Neville Owen , Adrian E. Bauman, Jim F. Sallis, and W. Brown. 2002.
Correlates of ad ults' participation in physical activity: Review and update. Medicine
Science and Sports Exercise 34 ( 12): 1996-2001 .
Vandegrift, Donald , and Tommer Yoked. 2004. Obesity rates, income, and suburban sp rawl :
An analysis of U.S. states. Health and Place J 0 (3 ), 221-29.
Wachs, Martin. 2001. Forecasting versus envisioning: A new window on the future. Journal
of th e American Planning Association 67 (1 ): 367-72.
Wheeler, Stephen. 2002. The new regionalism: Characteristics of an em erging movement.
Journal of the American Planning Association 68 (3 ): 267-78.
World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED). 1987. Our common fu-
ture. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
 Chapter 2

Shaping Plans through the

Sustainability Prism Model

To prepare plans that strive to achieve sustainable land use patterns, you
must first understand the deeply held values that frame how interest
groups believe that alternative visions of urban development will affect
them and their community. We propose using a conceptual sustainability
prism model to understand the diverging priorities and points of recon-
ciliation among players in the land use game. You must also build a set of
practices based on rational planning, consensus building, and commu-
nity design in order to effectively craft negotiated land use planning so-
lutions to achieve sustainable outcomes. What are the key dimensions
of this conceptual model and how do they illustrate tensions among
interest group values? How can you reconcile the diverging demands of
rationality, participation, and design?

went -first-century land use planning faces major challenges to achieve

its core mission of producing, administering, and implementing plans for
future settlement patterns. Planners must cope with the demands of in-
creasingly diverse interest groups who are seeking to influence local land use deci-
sions to support their values. They face tough decisions about where their com -
munities stand on protecting the environment, advocating equity, promoting liv-
able cities, and supporting economic development. The tensions among these
values are at the forefront of contemporary battles over land and its use.
In this chapter, we first discuss the challenges to managing land use change. We
then introduce a sustainability prism model that planners can apply to under-
stand the diverging priorities and conflicts among players in the land planning
game. Next, we illustrate the prism's usefulness in reconciling conflicts and guid -
ing land use change through an app lication to the network of plans in the Denver

35
36
-g metropolitan region. We then draw on the major conceptual traditions in land
5
~ use planning-rationality, participation, and design-to illustrate the core prac-
~ tices necessary to work effectively in the land planning arena. These practices en-
~ compass technical skills to anticipate and accommodate change, urban design
CL
l'5 approaches to guide the substance of plans, and consensus-building skills to re-
c
8 solve conflicts and build coalitions. Finally, we illustrate how these practices are
• successfully used in Seattle's long-range planning program.
I-
CC

~ Managing Land Use Change

Managing land use change is not simply preparing and adopting an "end state" mas-
ter plan and expecting it to be built out at the end of a twenty-year period. Although
change management requires an advanced land use plan, it also requi res actions to
enlist public regulatory and spending powers in plan implementation, monitor the
effects of plans, and establish continuous dialogue with citizens and interest groups.
Complexity and turbulence complicate change management. The history of U.S.
planning exhibits a continuous functioning in a state of turbulence, as practitioners
work within a complex, dynamic decision-making environment to solve develop-
ment and landllse problems. This environment involves not only an increasing rate
of social and technological change but also a decreasing ability to predict change
(Wachs 2001). Planners continually face pressures to respond to the event of the
moment. Characteristics of complexity and turbulence in the land planning arena
include, for example: increasing fragmentation among a growing myriad of special-
purpose governing units with land use control authority; an increasingly diverse
population that creates an expanding range of competing pressures from organized
interests; and a growing inability to forecast the future despite use of increasingly
elaborate databases, mathematical models, and algorithms (Meyers 2001). Innes and
Booher characterize the turbulence by stating that "Policies fail to turn out as those
crafting them desire-not only because of emergent technologies, unanticipated
major events, or changes in the structure of the economy that are beyond their abil-
ity to predict or control, but also because there are so many players" (1999a, 150).
Cyclical processes related to community growth and decline further compli-
cate change management. Planners must regularly monitor and interpret these
processes to understand the stocks and flows of urbanization and to estimate the
impacts of public intervention policies. They must engage in dialogue with other
players in the land use game, adjusting rules and strategies in response to their
changing demands and needs.
The land use plans created by plan ners and their communities rarely deal with
the creation of totally new communities. Occasionally, planners must deal with ma-
jor changes in land development programs in response to state or federal policies,
new interpretations of local conditions, or new political issues. Typically, they deal
with incremental additions of new urban land and infrastructure at the fringe and
redevelopment of older neighborhoods and public facilities at the core. Ensuring
that the cumulative impact of these incremental changes does not disturb commu-
nity continuity but fosters progressive change is the land use game challenge.
 37
n
To account for the full range of complexity and turbulence of the public do- :::r::
)>
main, planners can apply the concept of sustainable development to help under- """()
--l
rn
:::0
stand the diverging priorities and conflicts among players in the land planning
-
N

game. Sustainability represents a big idea in contemporary planning and has po-
tential to serve as a central organizing principle for planners in their efforts to ( /)
=
Q)
reconcile conflicts and guide change in ways that create settlement patterns that ~.
:::J

are livable and sustainable. =

"""()
ii)

-=
:::J
(/)

Planning and the Tensions of Sustainable Development 0

c
=
As noted in chapter l , in 1987 the World Commission on Environment and De-
velopment set forth a definition of the sustainability concept and brought it to
-
=
=
CD
(/)
c
(/)

Q)
worldwide attention (WCED 1987). On the surface, the WCED's definition is quite s
Q)
simple with an emphasis on the goal of intergenerational equity-current and ST.
;::;:
future generations must strive to achieve a decent standard of living for all people -<
~
and live within the limits of natural systems. WCED's vision has influenced the (/)

3
formulation of a generation of plans and programs seeking to guide human settle- ~
ao_
ment patterns in ways that balance the core values of players in the land use game CD

(Krizek and Power 1996; Lindsey 2003; Porter 2000).

Although the sustainability concept has considerable promise and local plan-
ning programs have forged ahead in experimenting and applying their own vari-
ants, management of conflicts arising from the separate thrusts of environment,
economy, and equity has often been less than tractable. Experience has shown
that conflicts among these goals are not superficial ones arising from abstract
notions about utopian societies that are socially just, ecologically harmonious,
and economically viable. Rather, they are groun~ed in differences in deeply held
values that frame how people believe that alternative visions of development and
land use change will affect them and their community.
To help understand the tensions among the diverging priorities that planners
deal with, various conceptualizations of planning for sustainable development
have been developed. 1 In a critique of planning for sustainability, Campbell ( 1996)
illustrates the three primary contradictions among the goals of sustainable devel-
opment as a triangle with a goal at each point, and conflicts occurring along the
axes as a result of contradictions in the opposing goals (see Figure 2-1) :2
• The "property conflict" between economic growth and equitable sharing of
opportunities arises from competing claims on uses of property: as a private
commodity (e.g., land) to be used for profit and, at the same time, subject to
government intervention to ensure that social benefits are provided the same
property (e.g., require affordable housing for the poor).
• The "resource conflict" between economic development and ecological
sustainability arises from competing claims on the consumption of natural
resources and the preservation of their ability to reproduce. The issue is to
determine how much of the exploited resource should be consumed to en-
sure a sustainable yield.
38
-"'
0 Ecology
;;;:
"'E
~
u..
Development conflict Resource conflict
ro
3o._
"'c
u

-
0
(_)

Equity Economy

Property conflict

Fig. 2-1 The three primary contradictions among goals of sustainable development.
Source: Godschalk 2004. Reproduced by permission from Journal of the Ameri-
can Planning Association.

• The "development conflict" between social equity and environmental pres-

ervation arises from competing needs to improve living conditions of the
poor through economic growth while protecting the environment. Environ-
mental injlJ_stice is at the core of the conflict as poor minority communities
are often faced with the choice between economic survival and environmen-
tal quality (see Bullard, Johnson, and Torres 2000).
The triangular model illustrates that if planners narrowly pay attention to a
single conflict, they will miss a range of other conflicts that may prevent develop-
ment of plans that are comprehensive, account for interdependency among nego-
tiated policy solutions, and are supportive of the public interest. However, the
model falls short in embracing conflicts associated with the livable community
goal that is linked to the increasingly influential Smart Growth and New Urban
movements in contemporary planning practice.

Sustainable Development and Livable Communities

The vision of livable communities constitutes an important arena of planning for
sustainable development. Livability focuses on everyday place making, which in-
volves the design of public spaces (streets, sidewalks, parks) to encourage civic
engagement; a mix of building types to enhance accessibility and accommodate a
diversity of activities; and the preservation of historic structures to promote sense
of place (Barnett 2003; Bohl 2002). Livability encompasses two-dimensional fea-
tures of the built environment emphasized by the three Es (economy, ecology,
equity) of sustainable development, and the three-dimensional aspects of public
space, movement systems, and building design. Livability thus expands the land
use orientation of the triangular model of sustainability to include urban design,
ranging from the microscale of the block, street, and building to the macroscale
of the city, metropolis, and region.
As discussed in chapter 1, two main approaches fall under the livability concept-
New Urbanism and Smart Growth. New Urbanism is an urban design movement
focused on built environments designed to counter the effects oflow-density sprawl.
 39
n
Urban centers and residential neighborhoods mix land uses rather than segregate ::c
)>
them, produce pedestrian-oriented streets instead of wide boulevards designed to -u
-l
m
accommodate automobiles, and restore a sense of human scale as opposed to ::rJ

modernist structures like shopping malls and high-rise residential towers. New
Urbanists contend that "the issue is not density, but design, the quality of place, its
scale, mix, and connections" (Calthorpe and Fulton 2001, 274).
-
N

Critics charge that New Urbanism conceals important value conflicts. Pollard
(2001) observes that New Urbanism in green fields is little more than "New
Suburbanism" since most of the developments are located in greenfields. Accord-
ing to this view, such New Urban developments are nearly identical to conven-
it.
tional suburban sprawl because both development patterns contribute to the loss
of green spaces and degrade the landscape. Beatley and Manning (1998) further
contend that New Urbanism is not environmentally oriented because most projects
do not integrate practices that reduce the ecological footprint and environmental
impacts, and do not consider spatial conservation concepts developed in the field
s- oflandscape ecology (chapter 6 reviews these concepts).
1e
Smart Growth, an aligned movement, is more closely associated with planning
1-
and development management, but also deals with urban design principles. Smart
es Growth's value conflicts arise from the way that it is defined (Avin and Holden
1-
2000). Definitions of development-oriented interest groups emphasize develop-
ment facilitating procedures and incentives, such as expedited project reviews,
a flexible design standards, and density bonuses, for their market-oriented constitu-
)- ents. Social equity groups define Smart Growth as expanding opportunities to
)- improve housing choice, mobility, and public health through less polluted living
ie environments for minority racial and ethnic groups. Environmental groups de-
ty fine Smart Growth primarily in terms of environmental preservation and open
!Il space protection. Planners and public offieials define Smart Growth in terms of
its cost savings in providing infrastructure to compact cities and its opportunities
for revitalizing older urban areas. Because Smart Growth is an umbrella term, its
meaning is viewed through the lens of the stakeholder. Thus, there may be as
many internal conflicts as there are stakeholders, unless the groups have agreed
)r on a Smart Growth definition, priorities, and an implementation strategy.
1- Although there are internal conflicts within the visions of New Urbanism and
lC Smart Growth under livability, they tend to be less divisive than across the three
a Es of the triangular model of planning for sustainability. Both approaches con-
;e tain unitary characteristics focused on countering the effects of sprawl rather than
l- the integration of opposing values. By assessing the values of livability, New Ur-
y, banism and Smart Growth encounter serious conflicts with the three E values. To
IC understand these tensions, we offer a conceptual model that enables us to identify
d and assess the interactions of sustainability and livability values.
1,
le A Prism Model of Sustainability
The sustainability prism makes explicit the interactions among the core values
lt (see Figure 2-2). The points of the prism illustrate the primary values of equity,
l economy, ecology, and livability. The connecting axes represent the interaction
40
~

5 Livability
$:
Q)
E Gentrification
~
u... conflict Green cities
"'
::::i
conflict
a_
Q)
u
c:

-
0
Ll Ecology

l-
Growth management
a: conflict
~
Economy

Fig. 2-2 The sustainability prism illustrates the primary values of equity, economy,
ecology, and livability. Source: Godschalk 2004. Reproduced by permission from
Journal of the American Planning Association.

among the values. At the prism's heart lies the elusive, perhaps utopian, ideally sus-
tainable (and livable) urban area. Not only does the prism remind us that land use
planning must deaLwith a three-dimensional spatial world, it also offers a structure
for identifying and dealing with value conflicts inherent in the different visions.
Value conflicts between livability and the economy, environment, and equity
values arise on each axis of the prism:
• Tensions between livabili ty and economic growth result in the "growth
management conflict," which arises from competing beliefs in the extent to
which unmanaged develop ment, beholden only to market principles, can
provide high-quality living environments. This debate focuses on alterna-
tive avenues toward the American Dream (see Ewing 1997 for the argu-
ment that supports grow th management to achieve livability versus Gor-
don and Richardson 1997 for the argument that favors reli ance on the free
market to achieve livability).
• Tensions between livability and ecology result in the "green cities conflict,"
which arises from competing beliefs in the primacy of the natural versus
the built environment. This debate is over the extent to which ecological
systems should determine urban form (see Duany, Plater-Zyberk, and Speck
2000 for the argument in favor of the primacy of the built environment
versus Beatley 2000 and Beatley and Manning 1998 for the argument in
favor of the natural environment).
• Tensions between livability and equity result in the "gentrification con-
flict," which arises from competing beliefs in the preservation of poorer
urban neighborhoods for the benefit of their present populations versus
their redevelopment and upgrading to attract middle- and upper-class
populations back to the central city (see Smith 1996 for the argument in
favor of preserving poorer neighborhoods versus Bragado, Corbett, and
Sprowls 2001 for the argument in favor of infill and redevelopment for
economic benefits).
 41
n
Looking through the prism at the three-E conception of planning for sustainability, :c
)>
New Urbanism, and Smart Growth (the livability approach) reveals that none of -0
-I
m
:n
them respond to all four of the goals or resolve all six of the value conflicts to the

-
N

same degree. Although there is considerable variety in the plans produced under
each of the three approaches, we can infer some central tendencies from the pub-
lished descriptions and critiques (Camp bell 1996; Duany and Talen 2002; Owens
and Cowell 2002).
The triangular model's approach to sustainable development tends to be most
focused on ecology and on resolving the resource conflict between economy and
ecology. Although the definition of sustainable development refers to
intergenerational equity, this equity is achieved through maintaining environmen-
tal resources and economic livelihoods for future generations. New Urbanism's
highest value appears to be livability, with a focus on resolving the growth man-
agement conflict and integrating livability and economic values through urban
design. Smart Growth's highest value also is livability, though it focuses on resolv-
ing both the growth management and the green cities conflicts through land use
planning and design.
Value conflicts influence planning, design proposals, and the ensuing politics. For
example, all of the approaches oppose sprawl, the common enemy, but they call for
different planning responses to it. Thus, the triangle model's conception of sustain-
able development tends to see the environment as most threatened by sprawl result-
ing from economic growth and thus most in need of governmental interventions to
protect ecological systems. New Urbanism argues that attractive spaces for everyday
life are the best defense against sprawl, and that the remaining values will fall in line
once a compact urban form and attractive public spaces are created through urban
design. 3 Finally, Smart Growth advocates c_ombqting sprawl through a restructuring
of growth-management legislation to reforn1the -decision-making processes of state
and local governments to guide choices on plan m aking, public facilities, and infra-
structure, and to ease inflexible land use regulatory controls that constrain market
innovations to produce diverse, compact, and pedestrian-oriented urban forms.
The prism model also allows planners to identify limitations in how well the vi-
sions account for the interests of different stakeholders. In the case of social equity,
these approaches to land use and urban form do not emphasize this goal and the
resolution of conflicts linked to it. The model illustrates that to advance sustainability,
planners must expand contemporary approaches to confront the inequities of sprawl
and proactively respond to the needs of marginalized groups. They should advocate
choices for public transit investments that make suburban jobs more accessible to
inner-city residents, fair-share affordable housing opportunities throughout metro-
politan areas, and improvement in environmental health in the inner city.
Scale is a critical factor in assessing value conflicts. The World Commission on
Environment and Development's approach to sustainability emphasizes the linkage
between global and local concerns, as indicated by the widely publicized phrase,
"think globally, act locally." 4 However, the issues driving land use planning practice
in the United States are primarily at the regional and local scales. Seen through the
prism, regional scale issues are quite different than similar issues at the neighbor-
hood scale. For example, the gentrification conflict at the region al scale is a matter
42
-""
0 of wealthy suburbs excluding versus admitting poorer households, whereas at the
5w
E
neighborhood scale, the gentrification issue is a matter of maintaining small areas
~ of lower-income households within the city versus redeveloping and upscaling
LI...

ro
.3 them for higher-income households.
O-
w
u As the scale changes, the planning tools change. For example, public participa-
c:
a tion processes at the regional scale are more diffuse than those at the city and
u

-
l-
a:
neighborhood scales. And regional land use, environmental, and infrastructure
planning must turn to negotiation to contend with multijurisdictional decision
<(
D.-
making. An effective way to manage the scale aspects of value conflict issues is to
prepare plans at each relevant scale, coordinating them with each other but de-
signing them to stand alone as well.
An increasing number of communities are integrating the ideas of New Ur-
banism and Smart Growth with the sustainable development concept in their plans.
These plans serve diverse constituencies and fit different built and natural envi-
ronmental contexts. An innovative example that can be viewed through the
sustainability prism is the Denver regional planning initiative between 1995 and
2002. The overarching aim is to counter the ills of rapid growth and sprawl in the
Denver area, where 900,000 new people are expected to settle between 2000 and
2020. Tl1e-challenge of growth has generated a series of visionary and integrated
plans that are linked across geographic scales as discussed in Sidebar 2- 1 on the
Denver region's network of plans and illustrated in Figure 2-3. The intent of these
parallel planning initiatives is to create an integrated whole that fo rms complete
cities, neighborhoods, and a region rather than the formless, separated, and scat-
tered land use patterns that dominate the Denver area. Sidebar 2-2 reveals the
applicability of the sustainability prism model in assessing how well the Denver
region's plans address the three conflicts associated with livability.

Integrated Vision for the Region, Cities, and Small Areas

Denver's regionwide planning initiative creat ed an integrated network of previously sepa-
rate regional, city, and small area plans for land use, eco nomic development, housing,
transportation, and environment (see Figure 2-3). The Metro Vision 2020 plan (adopted in
1995) for the region includes several elements that comprise a vision for sustainability that
include: "a balanced transportation network connects mixed use urban centers; urban com -
munities are defined by significant open space; and cultural diversity and respect for the
natural environment are celebrated" (Denver Regional Council of Governments 2000a, 1).

Regional Planning
Two initiatives comprise planning atthe regional level. Metro Vision 2020is the long- range
regional strategy for guiding growth that offers a regional context for gu iding local growth
decisions. It includes six integrated elements:
Continued
 43
n
::r:
)>

Urban growth boundary (UGB): includes 747 squa re mil es covering six counties and "'
-j
m
::JJ

-
fo rty-three cities to contain sprawl ; N

• Urban centers : identifies mi x ed-use, high -density centers within UGB that support
t ransit, housing, and jobs;
i • Free-standing communities : identifies existing communities that should remain sepa-
rate from the urban area , and strives to i mprove internal transportation systems, the
j obs/housing balance, and commun ity faci lities;
1
)
• Balanced, multimodal transportation: provides mobility and accessibility;
• Open space: identifies lands outside the UGB to serve as community separators,
views, parks, and habitats;
• Environmental qua lity: promotes water quality/floodplain conservation with in the
UGB; creates open-space networks.
i.
The Mile High Compact (Denver Regional Council of Governments 2000b) was established
in 2000 as a voluntary regional growth control agreement in which participating local gov-
e
ern ments must create comprehensive plans that align with the core elements of Metro
d Vision 2020. Local governments that sign the agreement and do not abide by the core
e e lements can be sued by neighboring jurisdictions. Participating counties and cities com-
d prise 80 percent of the region's population. However, three of the fastest-growing counties
d declined to sign because of fears about loss of private-property rights.
.e
;e City Plans
:e Two documents provide the core of Denver's planning . The Denver Comprehensive Plan
(adopted in 2000) recognized the need to "manage growth and change through effective
lan d use policies to sustain Denver's high quality of life " (City and County of Denver 2000,
1). The plan includes four core sustainability goals: economic opportunity; environmental
~r
stewardship of valued natural resources ; equity in opportunity for high quality of life; and
e ngagement to build collaborative partnerships. It inqicate? that traffic congestion and air
po ll ution due to unbridled sprawl were the main threaHito Denver's high quality of life. It
recommended development of an integrated land use and transportation plan , and revi-
sio n of the city's fifty-year-old conventional-zoning ordinance .
The result was Blueprint Denver: Land Use and Transportation Plan (adopted in 2002),
w hich specifies a process for revising and streamlining out-of-date zoning regulations (City
and County of Denver 2002). The plan divides the city into "areas of stability" (established
residential neighborhoods) and "areas of change" (vacant and deteriorated infill sites). The
intent is to protect the former while directing the growth of a projected 132,000 residents
by 2025 to the later. The plan also recommends that future development be linked to Denver's
growing light rail transit system thro ugh the creation of New Urban developments.

Small-Area Plans
Three types of small-area plans were created to implement regional and city plans: dis-
t rict, corridor, and neighborhood . For example , Stapleton Development Plan (adopted in
1995) for the abandoned Stapleton International Ai rport site in Denver is a district plan to
support 30,000 jobs and 25,000 residents over a thirty-year period (City and County of
Denver 2000). The plan conforms closely to New Urban design principles with the goal of
" integrating jobs, environment, and community" (1). The Stapleton Design Book 2000 re-
q uires builders to work in a variety of historic styles based on detailed standards for New
Urban developm ents (Stapleton Development Corporation 2000) .
44
-1'.'
D Areawide Plans City Plans Small-Area Plans
s
QJ
E
m
U:: Metro Vision 2020 Denver
m
Stapleton
3o_ Plan Comprehensive Development Plan
QJ
'-'
c:
Plan

-
D
(_)

Mile High Compact Blueprint Denver Stapleton Design

Book

Fig. 2-3 The Denver region 's network of plans. Source: Godschalk 2004.
Reproduced by permission from Journal of the American Plann ing Association.

Growth-Management Conflict
Denver is better at resolving the growth-management conflict at the city and small-area
scales than at the regional scale. By designating citywide areas of stability and areas of
change, Blueprint Denver has p rovided the development market with information about
where growth will be welcomed and where it will be restrained . By entering into a public-
private partnership for the Stapleton Project, Denver's new-town-in-town strategy is aimed
at intercity modernization and revitalization. But at the regional level, growth manage-
ment is limited by the reluctance of three local governments to surrender some of their
land use authority to the Mile High Compact. Efforts to provide compact regional growth
are also thwarted by a new circumferential highway (C-470 and its extension) that opens
large areas of outlying land to development.

Green-Cities Conflict
In terms of the green-cities conflict, Denver is also most effective in protecting its natural
systems at the city and small-area scales. At the city scale, Denver maintains a large park
system and has converted the Rocky Mountains Arsenal to a National Wi ldlife Area and is
seeking to create a wildlife refuge at the Rocky Flats plutonium plant. At Stapleton, a third
of the site will be managed for open space and native high plains landscapes will be rein-
troduced. As a regional emp loyment center, Stapleton will encourage "green" businesses
seeking to reduce consumption of natural resources. But sprawl remains a regional prob-
lem, where only 6 percent of the region's 5,076 square miles is in locally protected open
space (alt hough an additiona l 20 percent of the area is in state and federal lands), and
three large central counties have not signed onto the Mile High Compact.

Continued
 45

Gentrification Conflict
Denve r city and smal l-area plans employ sev eral strateg ies to deal w ith the gentrification
conflict as it seeks to accommodate 132,000 residents through infill development by 2025.
Many large downtown infill project s are previously nonresidentia l lands, within designated
areas of ch ange that do not appear to displace large numbers of poor residents. Stapleton-
-
at 4,700 acres , one of the largest infill projects in the nation-is on a fo rmer airport site. To
meet the affordable-hous ing need, Stapleton will provide 20 pe rcent of its 4,000 rental
apa rtments t o res idents earning 60 percent or below of the area 's med ian income and 10
percent of its sa le units t o resident s ea rn ing 80 percent or be low of t he area's median
income.

Remaining Challenges
Denver has not yet solved the regional coo rdination problem. The state of Colorado has
not provided supporting growth-management legislation . Soc ial -equ ity applications are
la rgely limited to provisions for citizen parti cipation and affordable housing . Water supply ;::;:
-<
rema ins a majo r sustainab ility issue. But there is heartening progress on many important ~
en
fronts, and the growth-management, green-cities, and gentrifi catio n conflicts are recog- 3
nized in the region's network of plan s. :;;::
0
Cl..
~

Reaching the Heart of the Sustainability Prism

If the four corners of the prism represent key goals in planning and the four axes
represent the resulting conflicts, then we define the heart of the prism as repre-
senting sustainable development: the balapce of the four goals. Reaching the heart,
however, is not easy. It is one matter to locate sustainability in the abstract, but
another to change interest-group politics, plans, rules, conventional development
decision-making practices, and ultimately land use patterns to get there. Ensuring
that the cumulative impact of changes does not disturb community continuity
but does foster progressive change is the land use game challenge.
In efforts to achieve progressive change, there is no single practice drawn from
conceptual traditions in land use planning that planners can use in pursuing pro-
gressive change in the turbulent land planning arena. Neither procedural con-
cepts that emphasize inclusion, the use of logic and the best available evidence to
inform decision making, nor substantive theories of urban form encompass the
full dimensions of reality. Most planners fashion their own practice guidelines,
drawing on a variety of conceptual traditions. Such synthesis must rely on prac-
tices based on rational planning, consensus building, and community design to
effectively craft negotiated planning solutions. We do not need to create a grand
overarching strategy, but simply point out some useful ideas for improving the
performance of planning practice in reconciling conflicts and promoting a sub-
stantive vision that balances the four goals of the sustainability prism.
We draw on the major conceptual traditions in planning- rational planning,
consensus building, and urban design- to illustrate the core practices necessary
to work effectively in the land use planning arena. We review the strengths an d
46
limitations of each tradition, and then discuss how the best features of each can
be used to take a collective, grassroots, participatory approach to guiding land use
change. We then illustrate how the practices are applied in Seattle's citywide and
co
3o._ neighborhood planning program.
Q.)
u
c
0
Rational Planning
-
u

The rational planning concept is premised on analytical thinking by applied so-

cial scientists and engineers. Practices under rationality include data analysis,
modeling, forecasting, and monitoring, which are discussed in planning support
systems in part 2 (chapters 4-9) , and are revealed under our conceptualization of
plan making discussed in chapter 3 and the network of plans in part 3 (chapters
10-15).
Rational planning offers a systematic forward progression from goal setting, to
forecasting impacts of alternatives and then selecting alternatives that best achieve
public goals, to implementation and back again through a feedback loop. The
concept puts forward a formal course of action to achieve goals based on a de-
scription of the steps that most planning processes attempt to follow. 5 If partici-
pan ts involved in plan making followed the orderly progression of rational plan-
ning, they woura: -
1. identify issues, opportunities, and assumptions;
2. formulate goals in which community leaders and citizens help formulate a
v1s10n;
3. collect and analyze data on all possible alternatives;
4. revise goals and determine objectives;
5. develop and evaluate the consequences of alternative plans to achieve the
vision that is prepared by planners and advisory groups;
6. select and adopt the preferred alternative, in which community participants
and planners settle on a consensus plan;
7. implement the plan, in which the land use plan is adopted and carried out,
typically as part of a comprehensive plan;
8. monitor and provide feedback of outcomes, in which the progress and de-
velopment is compared with the objectives of the plan, and amen d the plan.
Many planners believe that improving the rationality of decision making is
one of their major contributions. The rational planning model provides an inter-
nally consistent connection among goals and polices, a staged progression from
goal setting to implementation, and the use of logic and the best available evi-
dence to analyze relevant issues and policy proposals. It also is attractive because
choosing the means to achieve defined ends offers clarity an d coherence in devis-
ing actions and appeals to publics as a commonsense way to anticipate the future.
The emergence of support for the rational planning model led to widespread
applications from the 1950s onward. As illustrated in Figure 2-4, the model Cali-
fornia General Plan process of the 1950s exemplifies the steps that communities
take in plan making and implementation when following the model. In this mode
 47
("')
of planning, plans are usually responses to forecasts of potential problems-for ex- :r:
)>
ample, unless some action is taken, there will be a shortage of affordable housing; -cl
--l
rn
:JJ
unless an intervention is planned to address stormwater runoff, there will be high

-
N

levels of water pollution; if no transportation plans are made, there will be excessive
traffic congestion. Most plans today emphasize rationalism because they primarily
contain descriptions of courses of actions and enumerations of facilities and land
requirements that are needed to accommodate forecas ts of changes in population,
economy, travel patterns, housing needs, and natural resource conditions.
Critics of rational planning assert that this model does not consider the neces-
sary adaptations that land use plans must go through to gain community accep-
tance. They contend assumptions are critical to the modeling of forecasts and the

- -

s1~p2

Formulate goals

c
.Q
Step 3
~
& ...__.. Collect and analyze data

]i

~ t/)

_____
(/)

~~ ..., ~
e
a..
"Cl
i::
(1l
c
J
~Ql
~
.Q-
u E
c::
'€
lll
a. Step6
e
·~
c UJ
~ ~ Select and adopt the
y preferred plan

- - -

Step 7

--+-- Implement the general plan

'--

Slep8

_ , . Monitor and amend the plan

Fig. 2-4 Loca l general planning process in California . Source: Governor's Office
of Planning and Research, Sacramento, California.
48
~
0 selection of policy proposals regardless of the level of technical sophistication.
s
Q)

E
Wachs asserts that while equations, computers, and data bases give planners an
ro
LI:: aura of credibility, "the core assumptions underlying a forecast almost always play
ro
2a. a larger role in determining the outcome of the forecast than does the complexity
Q)
u or sophistication of the model that is employed" (2001, 369). Consequently, when
c:
assumptions are not made public and clearly explained, implementation of the

-
0
u
expert-driven plans often faces opposition because plan policies are not compat-
f-
ible with public values and concerns.
0::
<[
o__
Another critique of rational planning is that visionary thinking about future ur-
ban forms is not sufficiently emphasized. Forecasts are numerical accounts of the
consequences of trends and emerging conditions, but not a vision that offers a men-
tal picture of an inspirational view of the future. To the extent that plans offer ana-
lytically based explanations of future conditions and factually grounded courses of
actions, they provide dry, technocratic images that do not connect people to place.
Furthermore, such plans have limited power for people to see the future and to
motivate responses. They do not portray graphic images of urban forms that can
enhance the understanding of physical outcomes of alternatives and help shape a
balanced common outlook. Thus, in light of this criticism, visionary plans try to
guide ehange to shape the future, but technical plans simply accommodate change.
These criticisms could not be justified if the rational planning model were to
incorporate various aspects of consensus building and the participatory design
models of planning. In practice, many planners and their communities are at the
forefront in forging together integrated models of planning that draw on the
strengths of the rational, consensus, and design models of planning. The Seattle
case study discussed later in this chapter is a successful example of adapting the
rational model to account for these modes of planning.

Consensus Building
Consensus building has become the reigning paradigm in planning theory since
the 1990s. Practices under consensus building include public participation, infor-
mation sharing, discourse, and negotiation. These topics are addressed in this
chapter, as well as chapters 2, 3, 4, and 9.
Consensus building aims to bring together major stakeholders to address con-
troversial issues and build agreement rather than use majority rule. Consensus-
based approaches require participation by a wide range of interests since many of
these issues are divisive, complex, and interrelated. Participants strive to achieve
desired outcomes by identifying mutually acceptable goals. The process of shar-
ing information and interacting among stakeholders is intended to foster innova-
tion and generate new ideas that lead to creative solutions.
This model of planning does not place priority on the top-down normative
reasoning of the early physical planners or on performing a series of calculations
about the best alternative as a means to desired goals as prescribed by the rational
planning model. Rather, consensus building emphasizes the legitimacy of experi-
ential, subjective, and collectively shared knowledge about many issues involving
the public interest. According to Innes ( 1996), under consensus building, discourse
is the "calculation" method.
 49
n
1. Planners have a central role in consensus building, acting as communicators, ::r:
)>
n mediators, and intermediaries among stakeholders (Godschalk et al. 1994; Healy ~
rn
y 1997; Innes and Booher l 999b). Planners must learn about peoples' views and :0

y
.1
e
assist in forging consensus. Rather than providing technical leadership, the plan-
ner is an experiential learner-through listening to subjective statements, provid-
ing information to participants to ensure informed deliberation, and fostering
-
N

convergence while ensuring no interest dominates (Healy 1997).

Criteria derived from the literature can be used by planners to guide and judge
the quality of a consensus-building process in the following ways:
e • includes representatives of all relevant interests;
• establishes a common problem definition or shared task that is real and prac-
,f tical;
is self-organizing, allowing participants to decide on ground rules, agendas,
) objectives, tasks, and working groups;
] • fosters creative thinking through in-depth discussion that explores issues and
a interests;
)
• incorporates high-quality information of many types and ensures agreement
on its meaning; and
)
• reaches agreement through consensus (Innes and Booher 1999b; Margerum
1
2002).
e
.
" Although consensus building should not be faulted for openness and dive rsity,
it has been subject to criticism that it lacks focus on end states. The emphasis on
process over place has led to the detachment from a focus on creating and imple-
-" menting plans for improving urban forms. Thus, actions are not focused on the
substantive problems of urban places, but -on 'other actors and agencies. Further-
more, the emphasis on process, inclusion, and compromise seems counter to vi-
sionary thinking around which diverse interests can be inspired to rally, negotiate,
and agree on policy (Mcclendon 2003). Even though consensus building is a type
of vision, its open, participatory, and often contentious processes lack the motiva-
tional power inherent in plans that offer visionary designs of what the future city
should look like.

Urban Design
f
Urban design is concerned with the livability of the built environment, and the
protection of working landscapes and natural resources. Practices under design
include the preparation of th e community land use design plan and small-area
plan. These topics are addressed in chapters 12, 13, and 14.
The urban design tradition of planning combines land use planning with the
fields of architecture and landscape architecture. It deals with the configuration of
land uses, the integration of transportation systems within the envisioned pattern of
land use, and the massing and organization of buildings and spaces between them,
but not with the architectural design of individual buildings. The major aim is the
creation of a positive image of what the future of a community might look like. The
emphasis on an end-state orientation draws attention to an inspirational vision
50
.;,£

0 intended to motivate public support for positive land use change and to inspire
3:
w
E
the everyday work of the planner toward a long-range vision of the future.
m
LI:: In the early days of modern planning, the design of the city and region was
ro
-2 considered the central task of the planning profession. In the mid-nineteenth cen-
o_
w
u tury, Frederick Law Olmstead developed plans as diverse as New York's Central
c:
Park, the self-contained Riverside Community near Chicago, and Boston's "Em-

-
0
(_)

erald Necklace," a series of parks and greenways that is based on natural drainage
l-
systems. Ebenezer Howard's Garden Cities of To-morrow (1902) was one of the
a:
<t
CL
original bold outlines for a better urban form in response to the dismal condi-
tions of the nineteenth-century British industrial city. Howard's vision offered an
influential two-dimensional land use design of self-sufficient compact communi-
ties and surrounding greenbelts. Daniel Burnham and Edward Bennet's 1909 Plan
for Chicago initiated the city beautiful movement and was the first prominent U.S.
city plan to deal with concerns that claim contemporary planners' attention-
land use, housing, environment, transportation, and health and safety conditions.
These pioneers that practiced the design model of planning adopted a stance close! y
represented by Daniel Burnham's bold statement in 1907: "Make no little plans.
They have no magic to stir men's blood .... Make big plans; aim high in hope and
work,.remembering that a noble, logical diagram once recorded will never die .... "
(from Hall 1988, 174). The design model of planning has influenced entire gen-
erations. Contemporary work in New Urbanism, for example, stakes out a syn-
thesis of the best principles of garden city and city beautiful movements, with city
centers that have monumental civic structures and public parks that are surrounded
by smaller compact towns, villages, and green spaces.
The visionary conception of utopian planning of the past can be criticized as
being part truth and in large part myth. History reveals that cities and regions
cannot be reshaped by a single designer or even a single design philosophy. As
with contemporary planners, early planners had to be responsive to the politics of
interest-group demands and the uncertainties of the complexities and turbulence
of the land planning arena. Although the visionaries tried to be effective at creat-
ing plans that mattered, their plans were hardly ever fully realized, even though
their plans were motivational and inspirational.
Today, the design model of planning emphasizes making sense together and
embracing a collective process. A broader view of design and physical planning is
provided by Kevin Lynch's (1981) theory of good urban form. Lynch offers sev-
eral dimensions of good urban form that can be expressed in varying degrees,
including: vitality, sense of place, fit, accessibility, control, efficiency, and justice.
His view of a good city form is one that encourages change in the form of con-
tinuous development that is defined and guided based on the needs and goals of
individuals or small groups and their culture:
... a good settlement is an open one: accessible, decentralized, diverse,
adaptable, and tolerant of experiment. This emphasis on dynamic open-
ness is distinct from the insistence of... most utopians [early grand vi-
sionaries like Howard and Burnham] on recurrence and stability. The
blue ribbon goes to development, as long as it keeps within constraints
 51
e n
of continuity in time and space. Since an unstable urban ecology risks :::r::
)>
disaster as well as enrichment, flexibility is important, and also the ability "--l
m
.S to learn and adapt rapidly. (Lynch 1981, 116-1 7) ::r:J

Ll More recently, Barnett (2003) proposed a participatory theory of urban design

motivated by citizen response to the ills brought on by sprawl-development pat-
-
N

e terns. His theory links change in the physical environment to multiple citizen
e views and growing political constituencies for city and regional design. He offers
five basic design principles that do not embrace any single design theory, but are
1 intended to guide planners and their communities in shaping more sustainable
and livable places (adapted from Barnett 2003):
"l 1. Community is the creation of public spaces that foster personal interac-
'· tions and a sense of community.
2. Livability is the preservation and restoration of the natural and built en-
vironments, the restoration of existing neighborhoods, the design of com-
pact commercial districts that are connected with residential areas, and
the layout of streets as the center of the public environment.
i
3. Mobility is the creation of urban forms that can be served by transit, and
designed so that people can walk from one place to another.
4. Equity is the deconcentration of poverty, the provision of affordable hous-
{ ing, and the fostering ofland use patterns that recognize and improve the
conditions of underrepresented populations and do not deprive them of
basic levels of environmental health and human dignity.
5. Sustainability is the discouragement of conversion of rural land at the
edges of metropolitan areas, the encour,agement of infill development and
restoration of older areas, and the.integration of metropolitan regions with
f transportation systems to reduce auto dependency.
Barnett considers the design of the sustainable and livable city as one that is
not dominated by the physical determinism of a particular visionary planner.
Rather, "designing places is more like a collage, inventing a few things, but mostly
arranging and reordering elements already at hand" (2003, 45). Accordingly, the
contemporary design model of planning requires that planners play multiple roles
that incorporate rational and consensus-building activities. A facilitator helps the
community discover its vision and explores ways to achieve it, a technical analyst
provides good information, an innovator offers creative alternatives and clarifies
opportunities for change, and a consensus builder ensures that the process of de-
sign is open and inclusive.

Integrating Rationality, Consensus Building, and Visionary Design

By drawing on the strengths of the rational, consensus-building, and visionary-
design models of planning, planners and their communities can take a collabora-
tive planning process to guide urban change. The aim is to build a community's
ability to create, implement, and adapt plans that progressively guide change in
ways that balance the multiple goals of the sustainability prism model. Moreover,
52
this approach should be responsive to the unique local circumstances derived from
community history, economy, culture, and landscape features.
Consider the Seattle case as an illustration of how planners fashioned a strategy
co
.;:: for planning that effectively reconciles conflicts and promotes a substantive vision
Cl._
Q.)
u
c
that strives to balance the four goals of the sustainability prism (see Sidebar 2-3 on

-
0
(_) city and neighborhood planning in Seattle and Figure 2-5). The Seattle case describes
the neighborhood planning process during 1994 to 1999. The process systematically
included interchange among citizen groups, technical analysis results, and urban
design proposals. Citi zens actively commented on initial background reports and
also shaped scenarios and design proposals for meeting planning goals. As a result,
the process successfully incorporated m ultiple values and translated them into ur-
ban forms to meet goals and aspirations defined by neighborhoods wh ile at the same
time staying consistent with the citywide plan. AJthough the process was carefully
crafted at its inception, it was not linear and orderly. There were innovations and
struggles from all groups invo lved. The process reflected adaptive adj ustment and
mutual learning as the city and neighborhoods identified and overcame obstacles
during the course of neighborhood planning.

Sidebar 2-3
SEATTLE'S CITY AND NEIGHBORHOOD PLANNING PROGRAMS

City Planning: Sustainability and the Urban Village Strategy

In 1994, Seattle adopted Toward a Sustainable Seattle, a twenty-year comprehensive plan
(City of Seattle 1994). Th e overarching vision of the plan explicitly considers sustainable
development by setting forth core values reflected by the sustainability prism (Figure 2-2 ).
The plan is premised on the " urban village strategy" to accommodate future growth. It
identifies thirty-seven neighborhood areas for urban v illages in the city, which are targeted
for infrastructure investment, mass trans it, increased development densities, and mixed
uses. The " urban-village strategy" responds to the conflicts (see the prism mode l) inherent
in the growth and change process in the city through multiple policy directives.
• Growth management conflict: The plan designates stable neighborhoods that are
primary single-family homes and urban-village neighborhoods. The goals are to pro-
vide development markets with opportunities to expand, maintain established neigh -
borhoods, and revitalize neighborhoods targeted for change.
• Green cities conflict: Urban villages will generate less auto dependency; more rel i-
ance on mass transit, wh ich will improve air quality du e to less pollutant emission
from autos; and reduce water-quality impacts due to the reduction in paved surfaces
for autos.
• Gentrification conflict: Investment in urban villages will revitalize decl ining neigh-
borhoods, but w ill include diversity of housing types, including choices that are af-
fordable to low-income households.

Continued
 53

Neighborhood Planning Program

Many commun ity members voiced concern and opposition to the urban-village strategy,
believing that it would lead to unfettered growth and the erosion of the existing neighbor-
hood character. City planning staff immed iately responded to these concerns by working
with members of the community to translate the city plan 's urban-village strategy into a
-
neighborhood planning program. In autumn of 1994, the city established the Neighbor-
hood Plann ing Program (NPP) with "the underlying ph ilosophy that ne ighborhoods, when
g iv en support and resources by the city, are best able to identify and address their own
needs within the framework of the citywide pl an's visio n, goals, and policies " (City of Se-
attl e 2001 , 10). In 1995, the city allocated $4.75 million to i mplement the NPP.
Figure 2.5 il lustrates the four primary phases of Seattle's neighborhood planning pro-
cess that we re carried out between 1995 and 1999, and the major techn iques used in each
phase that draw on the rational, consensus, and urban-design models of planning. Major
features of the NPP that cut across all phases of the process include:
Neighborhood organizing committee. Establish an organizing committee by plan -
ning area to manage and oversee the process. Each committee had to demonstrate
that the membership was representative of the diversity and unique character of
each area.
• Outreach plan. Each NPP created and executed an "outreach plan " to mobi lize the
nei ghborhood . Neighborhood organ izing comm ittees used demographic informa-
tion supplied by city staff to identify key groups and their locations in the neighbor-
hood . Many neighborhood events were held as celebrations to draw int erest and
attendance. Attendees were encouraged to raise concerns, debate issues, and vote
on draft vision statements and policy alternatives. Those who did not attend were
sent copies and asked to vote. City staff continuously monitored neighborhood plan-
ning outreach efforts by requiring reports that documented the outreach methods
used and performance measures of the level of participation.
• Council steward. The city council assigned each qf its eJected members to serve as a
"council steward" to follow specific neighborhooas th-rough the planning process
and se rve as a liaison to the entire council.
• Neighborhood support program . City planning staff members created a support pro-
gram. Key activities included, for example, the analysis of neighborhood conditions
and future needs, the train ing of local people involved in neighborhood planning ,
the development of an "Outreach Tool Set" that presented methods for communica-
tion with d iverse constituencies, and " how-to" guides on land use, zoning, housing,
and urban design. City staff also reviewed draft plans to ensure consistency with the
citywide plan.
• Validation program. Each neighborhood had to establish a process to validate neigh-
borhood support for the plan by gathering feedback from the community before fi -
na lizing the plan . The validation process was designed to prevent a small group from
dominating any plan and ensure that a broad spectrum of voices was reflected in the
plan . Methods for validation included ma ilers, validation events, and revision of draft
plans.
• Design review boards. Seven permanent volunteer design-review boards and one
at-large board were established throughout the city in 1994 (City of Seattle 2002).
Each board reviews residential and commercial projects for consistency with the
guidelines of neighborhood plans and citywide designs. Design -review boards in-
volve the pub lic and build public education and outreach. City planning staff also
provide advice, technical assistan ce, and training of volunteer board members.
54
-""
a Phase of Rational Techniques Consensus Building & Urban Design
sm
E
Neighborhood Participation Techniques
"'
LI:: Planning Techniques

3"' 1. Identify issues and • use demographic • establish organizing • translate vision into
Cl.
m opportunities, and information to committee hand-sketched
'-'
c
0 create a vision identify population • create and execute images of place

-
u
statement groups "outreach" plan • use photographs to
• measure level of • assign a council visualize current
citizen participation member as a conditions of place
• assess existing neighborhood • run neighborhood
conditions and steward to act as a charrettes
trends liaison between • conduct visual
council and preference surveys
neighborhood
throughout process
2. Prepare plan • analyze and • gather feedback • prepare annotated
prioritize problems from the community maps of future land
• generate and test to "validate" plan use in group
alternative policy • coordinate with city brainstorming
solutions departments • use three-
• measure level of • use conflict dimensional
citizen ·participation resolution illustrations of
techniques verbal design
policies in plan
3. Implement plan • create action matrix • use action matrix as • establish design
to prioritize, set a negotiating tool review board
timeline, funding , with city to amend
and assign org. city plan, revise
responsibility to zoning , and request
implement by capital improvement
activity funds
4. Monitoring and • create indicators • dissemination of • graphic display of
feedback • track changes in reports indicator trends
outcomes and
compare with
objectives of plan

Fig. 2-5 Seattle 's nei ghborhood -integrated planning process .

Summary
Contem porary planning practice has been energized by the challenges posed by
sustainable development. The concept is evolving and extending to embrace new
visions of community livability touted by the Smart Growth and New Urbanism
movem ents. As our prism mod el of sustainability illustrates, these visions have
emerged as the dominan t discourse in contemporary planning practice.
To respond to the challenge of sustainable development, planners should be at
the fo refro nt in defining, integrating, experimenting, and testing variants of these
visions. However, reaching the elusive heart of the prism is not a simple task. We
 55
n
observed that the urban ]and use planning arena is fra ught with the potential for ::r:
l>
controversy, uncertainty, and complexity in searching for feasible strategies to trans- ~
rn
:n
late the sustainability concept to practice.
-
N

Planners can use the sustainability prism model to expose and reconcile the
inherent tensions of planning for sustainability. However, the heart of the prism
cannot be reached directly but only indirectly and approximately, through a sus-
tained period of confronting and resolving the prism conflicts. We offer a proce-
dural planning framewo rk to help planners combine their substantive skills in
technical analysis and urban design with skills in consensus building to confront
and reconcile the major conflicts in land use planning. Major attributes of this
approach are aggregation and analysis of information to foreca st change in urban
systems, community involvement that fosters mutual ]earning and agreement, and
experimentation with urban design to help stakeholders orient and ground them-
selves so they can assess how well plans meet their expectations and hopes. The
goal is to create a collaborative planning process that combines technical plan- ~·

ning information, values, and place making. The future is not a single grand vi- ~
en
3
sion or a predictable set of trends, but rather something that can be envisioned, s
0
discussed, deliberated, and perhaps agreed on. a.
m

Notes
1. Owens and Cowell (2002) offer a thorough review of the range of conceptual frame-
works for understanding the goals and contradictions inherent in planning for sustainable
development. These conceptualizations are premised on theories of environmental capi-
tal, ethical perspectives of sustainability, political dimensions of sustainability, and com -
municative action.
2. A similar triangle appears in Cradle to ·Cmdle-(McDonough and Braungart 2002,
150). Here it is offered as a visualization tool for analyzing a proposed project design,
ranging from products and buildings to towns and cities. During the planning phase, the
tool helps to pose questions about whether the design meets both the pure criteria of
economy, ecology, and equity, as well as the mixed criteria of economy/ecology, economy/
equity, etc. McDonough and Braungart (2002, 157-65 ) claim that using these criteria al-
lows the designer to crea te value in all three sectors, as illustrated in their makeover of the
Ford Motor Company's massive River Rouge facto ry in Dearborn, Michigan.
3. Alexander Garvin (2002, 24) notes some of the failin gs of Kentlands, one of the ma-
jor New Urban projects, which has failed to reduce dependency on the automobile or to
achieve mixed use, and whose developer's bank foreclosed when he was unable to recoup
his $70 million initial investment from lot sales quickly enough to pay his debt service.
)y 4. Local plans in several countries like New Zealand and the Netherlands are required to
make the link between loca l and global issues involving the effects oflocal land use changes
w
on ozone-layer depletion, global warming, and pollution across international boundaries
n
(Beatley 2000; Ericksen et al. 2003).
re
5. Edward Banfield ( 1955) was perhaps the first to define a model of rational planning.

it
;e
Te
56
-""
0
'w
.'::
References
E
~
u...
Avin, Uri, and David Holden. 2000. Does your growth smart? Planning 66 (1 ): 26-28.
Banfield, Edward. 1955. Note on conceptual scheme. In Politics, planning and the public
"'
:::J
i5_ interest, Martin Meyersen and Edward Banfield, eds., 303-36. Glencoe, Ill.: Free Press.
w
u
c Barnett, Jonathon. 2003. Redesigning cities: Principles, practice and implementation. Chi-

-
0
u
cago: American Planning Association.
Beatley, Timothy, and Kristi Manning.1998. The ecology ofplace: Planning/or environment,
l-
a::
economy and community. Washington, D.C.: Island Press.
<l:
a... Beatley, Timothy. 2000. Green urbanism: Learning from European cities. Washington, D.C.:
Island Press.
Bohl, Charles. 2002. Place making: Developing town centers, main streets, and urban vil-
lages. Washington, D.C.: Urban land Institute.
Bragado, N., J. Corbett, and S. Sprowls. 2001. Building livable communities: A policymaker's
guide to infill development. Sacramento, Calif.: Center for livable Communities, local
Government Commission.
Bullard, Robert, Glenn S. Johnson, and Angel 0. Torres. 2000. Sprawl city: Race, politics,
and planning in A tlanta. Washington, D.C.: Island Press.
Burnham, Daniel, and Edward Bennet. 1909. Plan of Chicago, Charles Moore, ed. New
York: Princeton Architectural Press.
Calthorpe~Peter, ai1d William Fulton. 2001. The regional city. Washington, D.C.: Island
Press.
Campbell, Scott. 1996. Green cities, growing cities, just cities? Urban planning contradic-
tions of sustainable development. Journal of the American Planning Association 62:
296-312.
City of Seattle. 1994. Toward a sustainable Seattle: The City of Seattle comprehensive plan.
Retrieved from http://www.cityofseattl e. net/ dcl u/plannin g/ comprehensive/
homecp.htm, accessed May 2, 2004.
City of Seattle. 2001 . Seattle's neighborhood planning program, 1995-1999: Dowmenting the
process. Retrieved from http://www.cityofseattl e.net/planningcommission/docs/
finalreport.pdf, accessed April 29, 2004.
City of Seattle. 2002. Design review program evaluation. Retrieved from http ://
www.cityofseattle.net/dclu/CityDesign/ProjectReview/DRP/pdf, accessed April 29,
2004.
City and County of Denver. 2000. Denver comprehensive plan. Retrieved from http://
admin.denvergov.org/CompPlan2000/start.pdf, accessed June 9, 2004.
C ity and Co unty of Denver. 2002 . Blu epri nt Denver. Re trieved from http ://
www . den vergov. o rg/land _ Use_ and _ Tra n sp ora tion_Pla n /B l u eprin t /
Blueprint%20denver/start_TOC.pdf, accessed Jun 9, 2004.
Denver Regional Council of Governments. 2000a. Metro Vision 2020 Plan. Retrieved from
http://www.drcog./downloads/2020_Metro_ Vision_Plan- 1.pdf, accessed June 9, 2004.
Denver Regional Council of Governments. 2000b. Mile high compact. Retrieved from
http:www.drcog.org/pub_news/releases/MH C%20signature%20page%208 l l pdf, ac-
cessed June 8, 2004.
Duany, Andres, E. Plater-Zyberk, and J. Speck. 2000. Suburban nation: The rise of sprawl
and the decline of the American dream. New York: North Point Press.
Duany, Andres, and Emily Talen. 2002. Transect planning. Journal of the A merican Plan-
ning Association 68 (3): 245-66.
 57
n
Ericksen, Neil, Philip Berke, Jan Crawford, and Jenny Dixon. 2003. Plnnningfor sustainnbility: ::r:
)>
The New Zenlnnd experience. London: Ashgate Publishers. 2:1
rn
Ewing, Reid. 1997. Is Los Angeles- style sprawl desirable? Journnl of the Americnn Planning :D

'C

i.
Association 63: 107-26.
Garvin, A. 2002. The art of creating communities. In Great planned communities, J. A. Guase,
ed., 14-29. Washington, D.C.: Urban Land Institute.
-
N

Godschalk, David, David Parham, Douglas Porter, William Potapchuk, and Steven Schukraft.
t, 1994. Pulling together: A planning and development consensus-building mnnual. Wash -
ington, D.C.: Urban Land Institute.
Godschalk, David. 2004. Land use planning challenges: Coping with conflicts in sustain-
able development and livability community visions. Journal of the American Planning
Associntion 70 (1 ): 5-1 3.
Gordon, Peter, and Harry Richardson. 1997. Are compact cities a desirable planning goal?
's Journal of the American Plnnning Association 63: 95- 106.
ti Hall, Peter. 1988. Cities of tomorrow. Oxford, England: Blackwell.
Healy, Patsy. 1997. Collaborative plnnning. Hampshire, UK: Macmillan. ;::;:
-<
;, Hoch , Charles. 2000. Making plans. In The practice of lornl government planning, 3'd ed ., ~
en
Charles Hoch, Linda Dalton, and Frank So, eds., 19-40. Washington, D.C.: Interna- 3
~
tional City/County Managers Association. 0
0..
CD
Howard, Ebenezer. 1902. Garden cities ofto-morrow. London: Schwan Sonnenschein. Origi-
d nally published as ToMo rrow: A peacejiil path to real reform ( 1898).
Innes, Judith. 1996. Planning though consensus building: A new view of the comprehen-
sive planning model. Journal of the American Plnnning Association 62 (4 ): 460-72.
'· Innes, Judith, and David Booher. 1999a. Metropolitan development as a complex system:
A new approach to sustainability. Economic Development Quarterly 13 (2): 141-56.
Innes, Judith, and David Booher. 1999b. Consensus building and complex adaptive sys-
tems: A framework of revaluating collaborative pla11ning.Jo1mzal of the Amerirnn Plnn-
ning Association 65 ( 4): 460-72.
e Krizek, Kevin, and Joe Power. 1996. A planners' guide to sustainnble development. Planning
J Advisory Service 467. Chicago: American Planning Association.
Lindsey, Greg. 2003. Sustainability and urban greenways: Indicators in Indianapolis. Jour-
nnl of the American Planning Association 69 (2) : 165-80. ·
1,
Lynch, Kevin. 1981. A theory ofgood city form. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Margerum, Richard. 2002. Evaluating collaborative planning: Implications from an em-
pirical analysis of growth management. Journal of the American Planning Association
68 (2): 179-93.
McClendon, Bruce. 2003. A bold vision and bran d identity for the planning profession.
Journal of the Amerirnn Planning Association 69 (3 ): 221-32.
McDonough, M., and M. Braungart. 2002. Cradle to cradle: Remaking the way we make
rJ.
things. New York: North Point Press.
I. Meyers, Dowell. 2001. Demographic futures as a guide to planning: California's Latinos
rJ. an d the compact city. Journal of the American Planning Associntion 67 (4): 383-97.
Owens, Susan, an d Richard Cowell. 2002. Land and limits: Interpreting sustainability in
the planning process. London: Routledge.
1/ Pollard, Trip. 200 1. Greening the Am erican dream: If sprawl is the problem, is n ew urban -
ism the answer? Planning 67 (9): 10-15.
Porter, Douglas, ed. 2000. Th e practice of sustainable development. Washington , D.C.: Ur-
ban Land Institute.
58
.:.:
e; Smith, N. 1996. The new urban frontier: Gentrification and the revisionist city. New York:
~
Q) Routledge.
E
~ Stapleton Development Corporation. 2000. Stapleton design book. Denver: Author.
u...
ro Wachs, Martin. 2001. Forecasting versus envisioning: A new window on the future. Journal
.3
CL of the American Planning Association 67 (4): 367-72.
Q)
u
c World Commission on Environment and Development. 1987. Our common future. Ox-
Cl

-
(_)
ford, England: Oxford University Press.

f-
a:
<(
0....
 .....

Chapter 3

What Makes a Good Plan?

To be influential, a good plan must fit the particular needs and concerns
of a local community and be of high quality in content and format. You
are asked to give guidance on the development of a good plan. This
requires two corresponding, interrelated tasks: 1) to select an appropri-
ate type of plan (or combination of types) that best addresses local land
use and development issues; and 2) to define and apply a set of plan-
quality principles for guiding the preparation of the plan. The product of
your work should be a type of plan that most effectively addresses local
issues and needs, and adheres to the criteria of plan quality. What are
the major types of plans that you should consider for your community?
What advice should you offer in identifying and applying the core prin-
ciples of plan quality?

he plan and th e plan -making methods are the central fo cus of this book.
The plan provides the most basic function of the three dimensions of the
land use planning program outlined in chapter 1: planning information
syst~, plans, and monitoring and evaluation. The prism model of sustainable
development presented in chapter 2 serves as a guide for crafting the direction-
setting vision of a plan in the complex and turbulent land use planning arena. To
be influential in guiding future land use change, plans must be of high quality to
fo ster effective implementation of the vision and other direction-setting features
(goals and policies). In this chapter, we review several types of plans that can be
used individually or in combination to address land use and development issues,
and the key criteria that serve as a guide to creating high-quality plans.
This chapter first reviews the core purposes of a plan. We then distinguish among
four types of plans as products of a multistage decision process, with each stage
associated with a particular type of plan. A case study of The City of Davis General

59
60
.0£
0 Plan 2001 demonstrates a hybrid plan that incorporates several types of plans in a
5
"'
E staged sequence. Next, we review two conceptual dimensions of plan quality cri-
~
LL. teria for evaluating plans, including: internal plan quality of the content and for-
co
2o._ mat of key components of the plan and external plan quality of the scope and
"'c
Ll coverage of the plan in fitting the local situation. A case study evaluation of the
D
2002 Blueprint Denver Plan demonstrates application of the criteria. Finally, we
-
(_)

review potential obstacles to creating high-quality plans.

f-
a:
<(
o_
Core Purposes of a Plan
Sometimes called a master, general, or comprehensive plan, the plan is a long-
range policy document that provides the legal, political, and logical rationale be-
hind a community's development-management program and ultimately settle-
ment patterns within a local jurisdiction over a twenty- to thirty-year time frame.
As discussed in chapter 1, the core purposes of a local plan are to:
• offer a consensus-based community vision for future development that in-
spires action;
• provide the facts, goals, and policies for translating the vision into a physical
development pattern;
• inject long-range considerations into short-range actions that promote a fu-
ture development pattern that is livable, socially just, economically viable,
and environmentally compatible; and
• represent a "big picture" of the community that is related to the trends and
regional (and potentially global) interests in which the local government is
located.
The plan is a key tool of planners as land use game managers and coordinators of
the community-development process. A high-quality plan helps inform debate
and collaboration among competing interests through stakeholder participation
in its preparation. It documents agreements among game players on ways that
resolve value conflicts while seeking to strive toward sustainable settlement pat-
terns. A plan can also be used as a general reference for public officials to ensure
that public-interest goals are not overlooked in the rush to realize narrow aims,
preventing the "tragedy of the commons" in which valued community resources
are destroyed by unbridled self-interest.

Types of Plans as Products of a Multistage Process

The plan-making process involves the selection of the appropriate type of plan
(Kaiser, Godschalk, and Chapin 1995). Distinctions among the types of plans can
be understood by conceiving of plans as products of a m ultistage process, with
each stage associated with a particular type of plan. The stages can be seen as
moving from the general level (areawide land policy) to the mid -level
(communi tywide land use design) to the specific level (small-area and develop-
ment-management plans ). The process starts with areawide land policy and
 61
a communitywide land use design plans and moves to small area and development-
I- management plans (see Table 3- 1). This sequence of pl ans should not be viewed
as rigid and inflexible with each stage (and associated tasks) considered as sepa-
d
e
·e
rate and discrete. Rather, the stages are interdependent with considerable feed-
back occurring across the sequence.
-
Table 3-1
Types of Land Use Plans

1. Areawide Land Policy Plan

• Mapped general policy districts
- conservation, rural, urban
2. Communitywide Land Use Design Plan
• Specific spatial organization of land uses
- location, type, mix, and density
3. Small-Area Plan
• Urban areas within a community
- transportation corridors, CBDs, neighborhoods
tl
• Open space areas within community
- watersheds, habitats, farmlands, flood zones
4. Development-management Plan
_,
• Program of action for plan implementation
Source : Kaiser and Davies 1999.
d
s

Areawide Land Policy Plan

e
The areawide land policy plan offers general guidance to future land use and de-
1
velopment decisions. The plan is based on an analysis of land suitability and an
t
analysis of demand for land for urbanization and open spaces. A key element of
this plan is a map of three general land policy districts: conservation, rural, and
urban.
"s Conservation districts are environmentally sensitive lands that consist of criti-
cal areas that are highly valued but sensitive to land use changes and land that
should no t be developed (e.g., wetlands, coastal shorelines, endangered- species
habitats ). Rural districts are comprised of areas suitable for a limi ted level oflow-
density development, including resource production lands (e.g., agriculture and
forests), small community centers, and moderately environmentally sensitive ar-
eas (e.g., steep slopes, scen ic areas, and water-supply watersheds that can tolerate
low-density development ). Urban districts are areas where most urban growth is
directed. They consist of rural-to-urban transition areas where development is
encouraged, neighborhoods that a community wants to remain stable, vacant lands
suitable for infill, and underutilized areas designated for redevelopment.
The areawide land policy plan also includes implementation policies for each
policy district. Figure 3-1 illustrates a map of policy districts of an areawide land
62

1'9\1n«lpial Se!Vltes Areo

~...!<
m
-3
o_
- City/Towo Centers · '
(]J
U,ban Neighborhoods - ·
1
'-'
c: Suburban il""l b.d .. dt ~
0
u

-
f-
a:
0
Metro AdJvity Cen1en
Tran~ltSt a tion.s

Future Growth: Areo

<t
o_
Rural Area
- Urban Boulevard1
JI=--
lb-
Rail Trouif Une
Northam Behwoy

- L I;. - _ .... .. ~

Fig. 3-1 Map of areawide land policy plan for Winston-Salem and Forsyth County, North Carolina.
Source: Forsyth County 2000.

policy plan for the City of Winston -Salem and Forsyth County, North Carolina.
Collectively, policies for each district are designed to achieve the plan's vision of
the future, which supports the core principles of sustainable development. The
plan indicates that these principles stipulate a downtown full of vitality, vibrant
neighborhoods with a diversity of housing choices, compact urban forms, retained
farmland and open space, and pedestrian- and transit-oriented transportation.
The map indicates three types of "urban developed" districts for redevelop-
ment and/or infill (city/town centers, urban neighborhoods, suburban neighbor-
hoods), one "developing" district designated for rural-to-urban transition (future
growth area ), and one "rural area" designated for agricultural preservation. The
"rural area" district also includes conservation-area designations that are not shown
on the map for water-supply watersheds and natural heritage sites that contain
rare plants and animals.

Communitywide Land Use Design Plan

The communitywide land use design plan builds on the areawide land policy plan.
Although the areawide plan differentiates areas where urban development should
occur from areas that should be devoted to conservation or agricultural uses, the
land use design is more specific about the type, mix, and density of uses. The land
 63
n
use design gives more attention to the spatial organization of housing, stores, of- :::r::
J>
fices , industries, open space, schools, parks, and transportation at the community -c
--j
m
:n
scale, which can embrace entire towns, cities, and counties. A key element of this w
plan is a map of specific spatial arrangements of urban uses within the broad
districts of an areawide land policy plan that are designated for urbanization. The -
map may also display transportation and infrastructure policy that is linked to
land uses and urban centers. The focus of a land use design plan is on spatial
arrangements that foster daily functions of a city involving the efficiency of land
use, livability, environmental quality, economic de velopment, and equitable dis-
tribution of land uses and facilities .
Another distinction is that land use design is an end-state-desired spatial out-
come of land uses, but the areawide land policy plan emphasizes managing urban
change and the protection of environmental resources. Areawide plans specify
lands that should urbanize over the next five, ten, or twenty years; rural and con -
servation lands that should not change; urban lands that should be redevelop ed;
and perhaps urban lands that should revert to rural or conservation lands.
Figure 3-2 illustrates a land use design map included in the 1990 Howard County,
Maryland, General Plan, Land Use 2010- an APA award-winning plan. The map
illustrates six overarching themes that the plan is designed to achieve: responsible
regionalism, preservation of rural areas, balanced growth, working with nature,

@ Residential [ ] ] Rural re<;ident ial

~ Commercial ~ Rural conserva tion

!IillillJ Office ~ Envi ronmenla! protection
~ Industrial
~ Mixed use - Freeway
.~ lnslilulional - Arterial

0 4
~~~~~~~~~~

miles

Fig. 3-2 Howard County, Maryland, Land Use Policy Map 2000/2010 summarizes detailed strategy
m aps from the plan. Source: Howard County Maryland 1990.
64
-""
0
;;::
"'
E
[':'
u_

m
3o_
CD
u
c:

-
0
(_)

f-
0::
<t
CL

~~~!f'!f4 Residen!ial arPa Rurc.I residential nrea

Ll\.~gJ New town t=::;\{) Ruri'\J conservation "1rea

* Exisling co 111merr::ifl ll
community cenlPIS
~ Mid -county greenbel!

~ Region al open space

Qi New mixed w::e
Q Oownfr)wn Colurnbia

IJffi] Employmenl Area - Freeway

~ Environmenlr1lly sensitive - - Arteria!

development

miles

Fig. 3-3 Howard County, Maryland, Land Use 2010 map illustrates the land use design format.
Source: Howard County Maryland 7990.

community enhancement, and phased growth. Figure 3-3 shows an accompany-

ing policy map that displays linkages between existing and proposed New Urban
centers with infrastructure and open-space protection.
The areawide and communitywide plans are linked based on a two-step pro-
cess. An areawide land policy plan is initially undertaken. Next, a communitywide
land use design plan proposes specific arrangement of land uses, transportation
systems, and community infrastructure that focuses on the districts delineated in
the areawide plan. The process may result in two plans or, as is the case in many
communities, result in a single hybrid plan incorporating land policy districts
and land use design components.
Regional and county governments often use an areawide land policy plan and
implementation policies. Municipalities in a region or county may follow up with
communitywide land use design plans. Alternatively, an urban community may
prepare a land use design plan without a preceding areawide land policy plan.

Small- (or Specific-) Area Plan

The small- (or specific-) area plan focuses on areas within the community. Urban
areas covered in this type of plan include, for example, transportation corridors,
central business districts, and neighborhoods. Open space areas to be protected
 65
n
might include specific watersheds used for drinking-water supply, wildlife habi- :::r::
)>
tats, farmlands, and wetlands. Small-area plans supplement areawide land policy "
-l
rn
plans and communitywide land use design plans by giving specific attention to ::0

-
w
strategically important locations within the jurisdiction of the latter plans. They
are more explicit and specific about spatial arrangements of land uses, design of
built environments, natural resource protection policies and standards, and imple-
mentation policies and actions.
Figure 3-4 illustrates a map of the detailed urban design features of a specific
plan for the Goose Hollow Station community in the City of Portland, Oregon.
The planning area consists of five city blocks that are within a 1,300-foot radius of
a transit-oriented development site. A land use map (not illustrated here) shows
detailed proposed spatial arrangements of uses that integrate housing, employ-
ment, retail, and services into the existing pattern of land uses. The major goal of
the plan for Goose Hollow is to provide an effective and attractive transit-ori-
ented development that will encourage maximum light rail ridership with easy
access by all transportation modes.

Development-Management Plan
The development-management plan emphasizes implementation based on a spe-
cific course of action to guide development. Emphasis is placed on a short-term
action agenda (e.g., five or ten years) . It guides the location, type, rate, and quality
of the design of development with a variety of tools including, for example, a
development code of coordinated regulations and a public investment program
to purchase land and extend infrastructure and services. It can be adopted as an
ordinance with legal authority. This type of plan supplements areawide land policy
plans, communitywide land use design plans,"and small-area plans, and some-
times is incorporated into these plans as a separate element.
The 2001 Davidson Planning Ordinance exemplifies a stand-alone develop-
ment-management plan (Town of Davidson 2001). Similar to a growing wave of
communities across the United States, the Davidson plan was created to promote
New Urbanism from a development-management perspective. As indicated by
the title, this plan was adopted as an ordinance with the regulatory powers of a
development code. It includes a vision statement that mirrors New Urbanist prin-
ciples (e.g., walkable, mixed-use communities; sense of community through de-
sign; and interconnected neighborhoods via streets and greenways) and a com-
prehensive set of regulatory standards and procedures (see Table 3-2) . The plan
does not include a map of general boundaries of a land use design but contains a
map of planning areas. These areas are not defined by land uses to be implemented
by a conventional zoning ordinance. Instead, they are delineated based on histori-
cal patterns of growth in the community and are similar to the organizational
system of the "New Urban Transect;' a continuum of human habitation from ur-
ban core to rural (Duany and Talen 2002). The planning areas have the same regu-
latory authority as zoning districts and include a list of permitted uses and de-
tailed development standards tailored to the historical urban design and land-
scape features of each area.
66
-""'
e;
5
Q)

E
~
U-

m
.3
0..
Q)
'-'
c:
a

-
(_)

f-
a:
<(
o_

GOOSE HOLLOW STATION COMMUNITY URBAN DESIGN

Legend
Central City Plan District • Public Plazas

---- Goose Hollow Station Community Plan

Boundry
Goose Hollow Station Neighborhood
~
O
Neighborhood Focal Points

Light Rail Transit Stations (Future ®J

0
Boundry

Major District
Gateways
0 Minor District
Gateways
1 11 11 1

e
1 Light Rail Transit Corridor

Pocket Parks

00 Parkways!Boulevards - Open Spaces

~ Existing Historic Kings Hill District Deck Over Freeway

0 Major
Attractions 0 l'linor
Attractions
Number Reference to Aciton Chart

• o • o • Pedestrianway and Bikeway

* ~
,.,- ...._ Historic Course of Tanner Creek

Tanner Creek Daylighting Water Feature S<o";' V1owpo;"'

Fi g. 3 -4 Spec ific plan for Goose Ho llow Station com m unity, Po rtl and, Oregon. Source: City of
Portland 1996.
 67
("")
:i:::
)>
Table 3-2 ~
rn
Example of a Development-Management Plan: Contents of ::0

-
w
the Town of Davidson Planning Ordinance, North Carolina

1. Introdu ctio n
Gen eral Prin ciples fo r Plan ning $'.
Purpose and A pplicability Q)

"'
CD
U>
2. Plannin g Areas Q)

G'l
Vil lage Infill 0
0
Vil lag e Cent er Q_

v
Lake Shore Q)
._,
::::l
Coll eg e Ca m pus
Rura l
Special Use
3. Design Regulations
Workplace
Storefront
Apartm ent
Det ac hed Hou se
Civic Stru cture
Streets and Greenways
4. Procedures for Development Revi ew
Develo pme nt Review Process
Development Propos al Submittal Requirement s
5. Public Fa cil ities
Ad equate Publi c Fa cilities Ordinance
6. Adm inistrat ion
......_ So urce: Ad apted from th e Town of David son-2 00"1.=

Although a specific and detailed program of action in development guidance is

embedded in a deve lopment-managem ent p lan, the areawide land policy,
communitywide land use design, and sm all-area plans also deal with develop-
ment managem ent. In practice, th e three later types of plans are conceived and
adopted with a clear sense of how they will be implemented, since implementa-
tion tools should be consistent with plan approaches and concepts.

Case Study of a Hybrid Plan: City of Davis General Plan 2001

In planning practice, planners and their communities may select one or a combina-
tion of types of plans. The City of Davis General Plan 2001 incorporates the areawide
land policy, communitywide land use design, and small-area types of plans in a staged
sequence (see Figures 3-5, 3-6, and 3-7). At the comprehensive stage, both areawide
land policy and communitywide land use design plans are incl uded. Three types of
"general planning areas" are delineated within the city's planning area (existing de-
velopment, planned development, sphere of influence). More detailed land use po-
lices within each of these pla nning areas are then specified.
68
-""
0
5
Q)
Surrounding
E
~
Planning Areas and
u... Spheres of Influence
ro
~
a..
~
Q)
u Davis Plannlng Area
c

-
0
u ~ Other Planning Area

- Existing Development

[fil·~-7@1 Planned Development

[::;:::::::::;:::;:;:;::::) Sphere of lnnuence

E3 County Boundary

Fig. 3-5 Example of areawide land policy plan for Davis, California.
Source: City of Davis 2001.

The Davis General Plan then includes a map that specifies "specific-plan areas."
The "Core Area Specific Plan," for example, identifies detailed land use arrangements
for each block in the downtown area. Although the Davis General Plan does not
include a stan_d -alone development-management plan element, it offers a clear policy
framework that gives clear guidance on the appropriate package of development-
m anagement tools that should be adopted for plan implementation. These tools are

Land Use -
City Area Enlargement
-
..,..,,, ...- ,
tM.!'~-~~rt.<1•1.11..1tl<i<'ll,.......,•.,m

Re&iaentral·u:iw Densi'lv
JOG-~99 '.•""1..~11.,,c;.,o..."o•W'lt!Jfitl.~ 19~•"""'-M<~

Resid~ntial· Medium Density

6~\lll9~~G<r.>a>"-!:it 1n<1. 7~1,~9.JrinP,,. t...i 1'of>

Resioenrial-i-iigh Density
•4C0.2!>00l.n1>F'eo:'.".l<>S11'o11 nn<116D.>-YlWl..uP.,.Nf!t MJ ..

Neighborhood Rew.ii

Communify Retail
{~-""'IO 0..1'1' lhtl "Co!mvl,..,. [.op.am'°"• .u.r.--.. J

General Commercial

~ Offico

lil!lll Business Park

EEEHl Universi1y Flolated Res.earcti Park

~ lndU5trilll

QIIJ University 01 California, Davis

Public/Semi·Publlc
s-Sel'IOOl. l"IM~

~ ........
Par~/fleCfeat!on

NeighbOrt'lood Greenoelt

gl!" Urban Agriculture Transnion Arna

r==i Agriculture

E2ZZJ t~atural Habitat Area

~ Urban A~ervo

E.3 ClryLimit

E3 Voto/Solano County Borcler

f=::=i Creaks, SIOughs, Chanoels

~~KMvi.-

Fig. 3-6 Example of communitywide land use design plan for

Davis, California. Source: City of Davis 2001. """"
1 s-ep.,Sp...,.~1<><-~.ond"Opet>Spt<:•kwPt.-s..M!V"
M .... - ............ d,,.,.1"'><9t. ll"G~_,,_I""""'"".
 69
Core Area Specific Plan
Land Use

j:}:-.:_:·.::·:-::\{j Low Density Resioontial

~:i ~ed1um Den!i.ity ResiderrrJ.aJ
~~
-
~ Retail Stares (Downtown Core)

ID Retail With Offices

~ SeMce Commercial

illIIOJ Public and Semi-Pubiic

~ Public. O:iented University Faci:ities

~ Parks anc: Plazas

~ University Avenue Transitional District

~ Umver.sity A't's nue Aesident!a! CNertay District

E3 Transrtional Boundary

Fig. 3-7 Example of small-area plan for

Davis, .Califqrnia. Source: City of Davis 2007.

used to achieve the citywide vision that calls for compact urban forms, protection
of farmlands and the greenbelt, support of urban design compatible with the city's
small-town character, revitalization of the downtown, and enhancement of pub-
lic transit and pedestrian modes of travel.

Criteria for Evaluating Plan Quality

According to Bruce McClendon, "One of the major benefits of a good compre-
hensive plan is that it communicates a vis ion of the future in a way that unites and
inspires the community to implement it. What keeps a plan from being some-
thing that sits on a shelf and gathers dust is that it provides people with a clear
picture" (McClendon 2003, 228).A critical issue in creating plans that matter is to
inform our understanding of plan quality. A high-quality plan provides a clear
and convincing picture of the future, which strengthens the plan's influence in the
land planning arena.
How can planners distinguish a good plan from bad one? The planning profes-
sion has generally avoided this normative question. Although planners can distin-
guish high-quality plans from low-quality ones, they run into difficulty explicitly
70
-""
e; defining the key principles of plan quality. Instead, the profession has tended to
5Q)
E focus on the methods and processes of plan making.
~
u_ Despite intellectual neglect, the plan remains a primary tool to influence fu-
"'o._
.i3 ture development and change. The profession must justify plans by better evalu-
Q)
'-'
c:
ating plans to carry the weight of public responsibility given to them. Although
0
every plan brings together a series of choices designed to fit the unique needs of a
-
u
particular community, there are accepted principles that can serve as criteria for
f- determining what makes a good plan. It is possible to evaluate plans of whatever
a:
<(
CL type according to established planning practice.
This section of the chapter discusses normative criteria to be considered in pro-
ducing and evaluating comprehensive plans. Various authors have achieved some
consensus about the appropriate criteria for determining plan quality. Kaiser,
Godschalk, and Chapin (1995) and Kaiser and Davies (1999) identify various con-
ceptual dimensions that define the quality of different components of a plan, in-
cluding the quality of goals, policies, and the fact base. Baer (1997) offered a more
elaborate definition of plan quality by including several additional conceptual di-
mensions, including, for example, quality of communication, guidance for imple-
mentation, and procedural validity. Hopkins ( 2001) further extended the
conceptualization: of plan quality by suggesting that the external validity of the plan
must be part of a conceptualization of plan quality. External validity addresses the
relevance of the scope and coverage of a plan in fitting the local situation. 1
Taken together, prior work on plan quality and evaluation suggests that two
key conceptual dimensions of plan quality should be included in any evaluation
of plans: 1) internal plan quality involves the content and format of key compo-
nents of the plan; and 2) external plan quality deals with the relevance of the
scope and coverage of the plan in fitting the local situation. Following are brief
definitions of the key characteristics of each dimension, which can serve as crite-
ria for plan-quality evaluation.

Internal Plan Quality

Criteria associated with internal quality apply to each of four basic components
of a plan: issues and vision statement; fact base; goal and policy framework; and
plan proposals, including spatial designs, implementation, and performance moni-
toring.

Issues and Vision Statement This component identifies the broadly held pub-
lic values of citizens, matters of concern that are widely agreed upon, major assets
of the community, and trends that can potentially impact the future of the com-
munity. It includes a vision of what the community wants to become, including a
vision of the future physical appearance and form of the community. Key items to
be included in a vision component of the plan, as recommended by American
Planning Association's Growing Smart Legislative Guidebook: Model Statutes for
Planning and the Management of Change (2002), include:
1. A preliminary assessment of major trends and impacts of forecasted change
during the forthcoming planning period. The assessment should include:
 71
n
• present and projected population and economy; I
)>

• current and projected needs for various types of land uses and public in- ::=i
m
:D
frastructure;
-
w

current and projected impacts on the natural environment;

1
2. A description of the community's major opportunities for and threats to
l
desirable development;
r
r 3. A review of important problems and issues currently or potentially facing
local government; and
4. A vision statement that identifies in words an overall image of what the com-
e munity wants to be and look like.

Fact Base The fact base of a plan reexamines and expands the fact base devel-
oped in component one. In this process, issues and problems may be de-mythed
and others validated. The fact base should consist of two key attributes. First, it
e
should generally describe and analyze the following features of planning jurisdic-
tions:
e 1. Present and future population and economy;
n 2. Existing land use, future land use needs, and current land supply for the fu-
e ture;
3. Existing (and future needs for) community facilities and infrastructure that
0
serve the community's population and economy, and serve to influence de-
n velopment dec isions in the real estate market;
I•
4. State of natural environment, which represen ts valuable and vulnerable re-
e
sources, and physical constraints to land use and development.
~f
Second, the fact base should clearly identify, explain, and support reasoning for
issues and policies raised in the plan through:
1. Maps that visually portray findings;
2. Tables that aggregate data; and
ts 3. Use of references for data, methods and models.
d
[-
Goal and Policy Framework This component of a plan identifies an d elaborates
on goals premised on community values, problems, and aspirations, as well as offers
policies that guide actions to achieve goals. Goals are broad expressions of the de-
)- sired future conditions of a community. They can initially be derived in the vision
ts statement, but can be followed up by more in-depth analysis of needs and aspira-
l- tions. Policies are established principles to be followed in guiding public and private
a decisions to achieve a desired future land use and development pattern. For example,
:o policies address the type, location, timing, density, mix, and other characteristics of
.n future development (and redevelopment) to be promoted to achieve goals .
Jr
Plan Proposals The plan proposal component presents and explains a sustain-
able future form for the region, community, or specific area within a community;
outlines a program of development-management devices and actions to bring
about such a form; and describes a program for monitoring and evaluating
72
-""
e; implementation efforts and ambient community conditions in order to update
~
(lJ

E
and adjust plans and implementation. That is, plan proposals consist of spatial
~ designs, development-management programs, and monitoring programs.
u...
ro
~
o._ • Spatial Designs These specify the two- and three-dimensional aspects of
(lJ
'-'
c
0
the future community's land use, infrastructure, transportation, and open-
u

-
f-
a:
space networks. Key elements of a spatial design in a plan include, for ex-
ample: a future land use map; land use proposals tied to transportation,
water and sewer improvements; land use areas sized to accommodate ex-
<[
CL pected future growth; and locations ofland uses tied to suitability ofland-
scape features.
• Development-management Programs These programs specify what the
community should do to implement the plan and achieve its goals. Actions
should be prioritized to address needs for new ordinances, modification of
existing ordinances, capital facilities investments, and preparation of fol-
low-up specific-area plans. Actions should also specify a time schedule for
action and an assignment of organization responsibility (public and pri-
vate) for each action.
• Monitoring and Evaluation This tracks plan implementation and plan
performance in meeting needs, mitigating problems, and achieving goals.
That is, it assesses how well the community is implementing plan policies;
the degree to which development and land use change is consistent with
the plan; and the degree to which objectives (numerical indicators of goals)
are being achieved. Based on the results of monitoring, the effectiveness of
the plan can be continually assessed and updated periodically.
In sum, the components represent necessary parts in a comprehensive local
plan for guiding land use and development in the future. There is substantial flex-
ibility in how the four components of the plan are designed to meet the internal
plan-quality criteria. The rigor and depth of methodology used in creating the
plan, and the detail in which the plan is presented, can vary according to the par-
ticular local situation.

External Plan Quality

Criteria associated with how well the plan fits the local situation are derived from
the key characteristics of plans that must be present to maximize use and influ-
ence of plans (Hopkins 2001). These criteria include: encourage opportunities to
use plans; create clear views and understandings of plans; account for interdepen-
dent actions in plan scope; and reveal the participation of actors .
•
Recognize and Encourage Opportunities to Use Plans Plans should be de-
signed to encourage their recognition as important development guidance docu-
ments when opportunities arise to use them. The information in and the underly-
ing logic of plans should be made relevant to a situation when making decisions,
shaping issues, or reacting to proposals that emerge in the course of daily activi-
ties. Key overarching aspects of plans that enhance the chances that they will be
used and influential include, for example, being:
 73
· Inspirational. Plans will be used more widely if they are inspirational. If n
e :r:
)>
Ll plans are imaginative and offer compelling courses of action that inspire __,
"O
rn
people to act for the common good, then they have greater potential to ::D

change attitudes and beliefs, and encourage harder work and stronger com-
mitment to mobilize resources;
· Action-oriented. Plans that portray a clearly articulated action-oriented
-
w

t,
agenda (i.e., clearly defined issues and overarching solutions) help remind
people what to do and that there is a shared public commitment to take
these actions;
• Flexible. Plans that provide clear explanations of policies that allow for
e alternative courses of action to achieve goals are more likely to enhance the
LS
flexibility of communities to be adaptive in dealing with complex situa-
>f tions; and
I- · Legally defensible. Plans that include an explanation of the legislative and
administrative authority that require plans be used as guides for develop-
L- ment and land use decisions.

n Create Clear Views and Understanding of Plans The plan should be crafted
s. in a way that it is relevant and understandable from the perspective of other gov-
s; ernmental units (e.g., counties and special districts) that serve the jurisdiction
h that adopted the plan and adjacent communities. Plans should clearly explain
;) how they offer useful information and sound logic that yields insights and under-
)f standing about the issues and potential solutions that fit and make sense in a local
situation. The explanation should be cast to fit the scope, coverage, and authority
of multiple governmental units. A plan clearly understood by elected officials and
citizens is essential in promoting awareness and support of the public interest of
the community at large. This also enhances prospects for democratic determina-
tion and implementation of community land use and development policies.
1e
r- Account for Interdependent Actions in Plan Scope Successful implementa-
tion and ultimate influence of plans requires that plans em brace a sufficient scope
of interdependent actions taken by various organizations. For example, a decision
by a local sewer service authority to extend a sewer line to accommodate future
development must also be coordinated with zoning decisions by a local govern-
n
1-
ment. Drainage basins with proposed sewer lines should be zoned high-density
residential while unserviced basins should be assigned low-density residential.
:o
1-
Other organizations that deal with transportation roadway investments and park
acquisition also may be responsible for actions that are interdependent with sewer
line extension. For example, large open spaces for parks should not be purchased
in areas to be serviced by sewers. Thus, prospects for successful implementation
1- of plan policies and goal achievement improve if plans are of sufficient scope in
y- recognizing the possible range of interdependent actions associated with policy
s, arenas involving development and land use change.

Reveal Participation of Formal and Informal Actors (or Institutions) Plans

should reveal key characteristics of the participatory process that were used in
74
-""
0 preparing the plan. They should explain who was involved, how they participated
S:
Cl.l
E
in plan making, what effects they had in the evolution of the plan, and how their
cu
Li:: input affects the plan. Plans that are effective in explaining how they account for
cu
::::l the interests of multiple stakeholders in defining issues and posing policy solu-
a_
Cl.l
u
tions are likely to be frequently used and influential.
c:
D
Participation should account for actors that have a stake in the outcomes of a

-
u
plan. Actors are threefold. They include key government agencies that have the
l-
responsibility and authority to make decisions about issues included in the plan.
a:
<(
o_
They also include private-sector institutions (developers, builders, banks) that
are powerful, well-organized, and well-resourced. The latter actors often exert dis-
proportionate influence on public land use and development policy decisions
(Rudel 1989). Plans that do account for the preferences of government agencies
and private-sector actors are thus likely to be influential. The third group of ac-
tors deal with individual citizens who are usually not well organized and not able
to marshal significant resources for advancing their interests. The disadvantaged
members of a community (low-income, minorities) typically have the least power
to influence policy decisions about land use and development. Prior research on
the quality of thirty local comprehensive plans revealed that most plans are weak
in accounting for the interests of these actors (Berke and Manta-Conroy 2000).
Without inducing the participation of citizens, and especially the disadvantaged
ones, their knowledge of their own needs, conditions, and policy solutions that
work best for them will not be accounted for in the plan.
The above eight plan-quality criteria and corollary detailed items to be consid-
ered for each criterion are included in the Plan-Quality Evaluation Protocol (see
the appendix at the end of the chapter). These criteria are not conclusive, how-
ever. They should not be viewed as requirements of state (o r federal) planning
mandates. Rather, they should provide guidance, with user discretion required as
to their application in particular local circumstances. They reflect basic planning
concepts and are intended as a starting point, to help planners think systemati-
cally about what should be included in a good plan. Given variation in local pur-
poses and circumstances, there may be differences in the applicability of different
criteria. Local planners and their communities should modify the criteria to fit
their own needs.

Case Study Application of Plan-Quality Criteria: City of Denver Plans

To demonstrate how the criteria are useful in determining the quality of a plan,
we evaluate the two planning documents that constitute the core of planning in
the city of Denver: Denver Comprehe nsive Plan (City and County of Denver 2000)
and Blueprint Denver: Land Use and Transportation Plan (City and County of
Denver 2002). These plan documents include features from three types of plans-
areawide, land use design, and development management. The Denver Compre-
hensive Plan was adopted in 2000 and offers a policy framework that recommends
the development of a land use and transportation plan and revision of the city's
outdated zoning ordinance. The Blueprint Denver: Land Use and Transportation
Plan was adopted in 2002. It sets forth an areawide land policy that includes maps
of areas of stability and areas of change where future growth is to occur (see
 75
n
d Figure 15-5, page 464). A future land use plan illustrates a land use design that :::r::
)>
r -u
specifies future spatial arrangements of nineteen land use classes that are consis- -j
rn
1r tent with the areawide land policy. The plan also contains a procedure for revising ::J:J

-
w
zoning and urban design standards. As noted in chapter 2, the Denver plans set
forth innovative and imaginative solutions that address the multiple conflicts in-
a herent in the land use planning arena, and strive toward more sustainable land
e use and development outcomes (see Figure 2-3 and the Sidebars 2-1 and 2-2 on
1. the Denver region's network of plans and sustainability solutions to conflicts).
lt The plan-quality coding protocol (see the appendix at the end of this chapter)
;- was used to guide the evaluation, which includes sixty items (or questions) for the
LS eight categories of plan-quality evaluation criteria. The evaluation reveals the
~s strengths and weaknesses of the internal and external plan quality criteria for the
core planning documents of Denver-Denver Comprehensive Plan and Blueprint
le Denver: Land Use and Transportation Plan. Table 3-3 summarizes the results of the
d evaluation for each of the categories of internal and external plan-quality criteria.
~r Overall, Denver's core planning documents represent the state of the art in
n planning practice because they offer "best practices" for most of the internal and
k external plan-quality criteria. Based on the internal criteria, the plans offer a clear
). vision of the desired future land use and development pattern; a strong fact base
d of current and future conditions; a clear, comprehensive, and internally consis-
1t tent goal and policy framework; and a strong land use design that is closely coor-
dinated with future transportation plans. The major limiting internal criterion is
1- the absence of a monitoring program built into the plans. The Denver plans also
~e
do well in meeting the external criteria. They encourage use by others by portray-
,_ ing a compelling course of action, are easy to understand, account for interdepen-
tg dent actions by other organizations, and reyeal h_ow they were developed based
1S on a strong citizen-participation program . The weakest features under external
tg criteria are that the plans do not explain the legal context that supports planning
I-
and the administrative authority of the plans.
r-
1t
'it Potential Limitations
Creating a high-quality plan is not simple or easy. Common limitations to creating
high-quality plans include having a weak fact base, providing inadequate provisions
for monitoring and implementation, and being difficult to read and comprehend.
n, A weak fact base is often a major obstacle to formulating high-quality plans.
Ill Without a strong fact base, plans cannot include a strong rationale for identifying
:l) and prioritizing issues and for selecting policies to guide a particular course of
of action or a land use pattern. For example, land suitability analyses often merely
identify the location of floodplains or a significant natural area, but give limited
e- information about the location of land most suitable for different types of land
ds uses, or significant natural areas that offer a particularly important ecological ser-
'
rs vice (aquifer recharge zone, stream buffers for filtering pollutants), amenity (view-
m sheds ), or natural resource (food, lumber).
ps Plans often do not include provisions for monitoring the degree to which goals
ee are achieved. A common shortcoming is the absence of m easurable objectives
76
~
0
s
Q)

E Table 3-3
ro
LI:: Case Study Application of Internal Criteria: City of Denver Plans
ro
3o_
Q)
Internal Plan-Quality Criteria Comments
'-'
c:
0 1) Issues and Vision Statement Detailed identification of problems; clear

-
(_)

vision statement; clear review of trends,

opportunities, and threats
f-
a: 2) Fact Base
<(
o_ A. Description and Analysis of Facts Clear and relevant analysis of population/
economy and future land use needs; vague in
assessment of community facility needs and
state of natural environment
8. Presentation of Facts Clear presentation of facts in mapped format,
but data not aggregated in tabular format; clear
references and explanation of analysis meth-
ods; lacks scrutiny of projections that were
used, but projections are clearly tied to policies
3 Goal and Policy Framework Goals and policies are clear, internally
consistent, action -oriented, and mandatory
4) Plan Proposals
A. Land Use Design Clear future land use map related to transpor-
tation needs but not water and sewer needs;
land uses are appropriately sized for future
growth; vague tie of land use needs to land
suitability
8. Implementation Actions are identified, but not prioritized;
specifies timeline; assigns organization
responsibilities; identifies timetable for
updating plan
C. Monitoring None

External Plan-Quality Criteria Comments

5) Encourage Use Plan Imaginative and inspirational ; action-agenda ;
clearly specifies alternative courses of action;
no identification of legal context of planning
and administrative authority
6) Clarity in Understanding Plan Well-written and organized; clear maps and
illustrations; clear executive summary; no
cross-referencing; includes glossary; support-
ing documents (Web site, CD, videos)
7) Account for Interdependency of Actions Clearly identifies interdependent actions of
other horizontally and vertically linked
organizations; clearly identifies process of
intergovernment coordination among region,
county, city, and neighborhoods
8) Participation Clear explanation of a strong citizen participa-
tion program; clear identification of tech-
niques used and broad-spectrum stakehold-
ers and public agencies that participated

Source: Adapted from t he City and County of Denver 2000, 2002.

 77
that reflect desired goals included in plans. Also, plans frequently do not include n
:r:
}>
indicators for tracking progress in goal achievement and for gauging how well poli- __,
<:J
rn
cies are working that are designed to achieve goals. Even if objectives and indicators ::0
w
are integrated into plans, timelines indicating benchmark indicators and organiza-
tional responsibility for tracking each set of indicators are often not specified. -=
:2'.
Plans are often not readable, comprehensible and easy to use by laypeople and Q)

professionals. Plans are sometimes poorly written and organized-they include $'.
Q)

long lists of goals, objectives, and policies that are difficult to comprehend; they '"'
ro
en
Q)

use overly technical, verbose, and jargon-filled language; and they lack a detailed G)
0
table of contents instead of just a list of chapters. They also lack clear illustrations 0
a_
<:J
(e.g., diagrams, pictures) that spatially display the intent of policies. If clear visual QJ

.....,
:::J

images of vision statements and polices are not included in plans, then plans have
less influence in inspiring the understanding and commitment toward plans that
support the public interest.

Summary
This chapter focuses on the plan as a product, not the plan as an incidental result
of the planning process. We focus attention on the types of plans and the quality
of the content of plans, not on the policy direction of a plan. As discussed in
chapter 2 and made evident by the Denver metropolitan region case study, policy
direction deals with consensus-based solutions to the value conflicts of the
sustainability prism model that are inherent in the land use planning arena.
The plan-making process involves the selection of the appropriate type of plan.
The four-stage progression of plans discussed here should not be viewed as a rigid
sequence that communities must follow and that is necessary in every case. The
communitywide land use design plan is often integrated with the areawide land policy
plan. In other cases, a county planner may proceed directly from areawide to a de-
velopment-management plan, skipping the land use design. A city planner may skip
both the areawide and land use design stages, although we do not recommend this
approach given the lack of attention to the broader spatial context of the city.
Furthermore, by separating the plan-making process into stages, it may appear
that the stages and various tasks are separate and discrete. This is not the case. The
stages are interdependent, and the process employs considerable feedback. For
example, the land use design plan might be modified and refined to reflect in-
sights from the small-area or development-management stages, and to be more
consistent across stages.
Plan-quality evaluation criteria are also important for guiding decisions about
the quality of the content and format of a plan. We give special consideration to
plan-quality evaluation and the criteria to be used in making and evaluating the
plan. The criteria are explicit, easy to use, and understandable to elected officials
and stakeholders who participate in the land use arena. Necessary corrections in
the course of preparing or revising a plan should be relatively straightforward.
However, we recommend that the criteria should not be viewed as a checklist or as
an inflexible set of guidelines. The criteria should be useful to planners if they do
not become captivated with the methods and expertise that they imply. Planners
78
~
0 should use these criteria as a starting point, but in the process of plan m aking they
~
Q)

E
should adapt them and craft their own criteria to fit their circumstances.
~ Finally, in this chapter we describe a plan-m aking process that combines analy-
u...
ro
2Cl.
sis with design. Although analysis is important to the process and actually absorbs
Q)
u
the bulk of explanation in the following chapters, planners cannot analyze their
c
way to a solution. This requires participatory design: the leap from analysis into

-
0
(_)

the realm of invention and synthesis to produce consensus-based solutions that

strike an appropriate balance among the environmental, economic, social equity,
and livability values of a community.

Appendix
Plan-Quality Evaluation Protocol
INTERNAL PLAN-QUALITY CRITERIA (1-4)
1. ISSUES AND VISION STATEMENT Coding Categories:
2 = Identified, detailed
I = Identified, vague
0 = Not identified
I . I Is there a preliminary assessment of major trends and impacts
of forecasted change during future planning period?
1.2 Is there a description of the community's major opportunities
and threats for desirable development?
1.3 Is there a review of the problems and issues currently or
potentially facing local government?
1.4 Is there a vision statement that identifies in words an over-all
image of what the community wants to be and look like?
MAXIMUM SCORE: 8
SUBTOTAL

2. FACT BASE Coding Categories:

2 = Identified, clear, relevant
I = Identified, vague
0 = Not identified
A. Description and Analysis of Key Features of Local Planning Jurisdiction
2A. I Present and future population and economy
2A.2 Existing land use, future land use needs, and current land
supply for the future
2A.3 Existing (and future needs for) community facilities
and infrastructure that serve community's population
and economy
2A.4 State of natural environment, which represents valuable and
vulnerable resources and physical constraints to land use
MAXIMUM SCORE: 8
SUBTOTAL
 79
n
B. Techniques Used to Clearly Identify and Explain Facts :r::
)>

2B.l Are maps included that display information that is clear, ::i
m
:0
relevant, and comprehensible?
2B.2 Are tabl es that aggregate data relevant and mean ingful to
the planning area under study?
-
w

2B.3 Are facts used to support reasoning of explanation for

issues?
2B.4 Are facts used to suppo rt reasoning of explanation for
policy direction s?
2B.5 Are methods used for deriving facts cited?
2B.6 Are data sources cited?
2B.7 Are baseline spatial data and inventories adequate?
2B.8 Are official projections critically scrutinized and validated?
2B.9 Are projections clearly tied to plan's policies?
MAXIMUM SCORE: 18
SUBTOTAL

3. GOAL AND POLICY FRAMEWORK Coding Categories:

2 =Most
1 = Some
0 =None
3. 1 Are goals clearly stated?
3.2 Are policies internally consistent with goals wherein
each policy is clearly tied to a specific goal (or goals)?
3.3 Are policies tied to a specific action and/or development-
management tools (e.g., vague policy-reduce flood risk vs.
detailed policy- reduce development densities in floodplain)?
3.4 Are policies mandatory (with words like shall, will, require,
must) as opposed to suggestive (with words like consider,
should, may) ?
MAXIMUM SCORE: 8
SUBTOTAL

4. PLAN PROPOSALS Coding Categories:

2 = Identified, clear
1 = Identified, vague
0 = Not identified
A: Spatial Design
4A.l Does plan have a future land use map?
4A.2 Are land use areas related to transportation proposals?
4A.3 Are land use areas related to water and sewer proposals?
4A.4 Are land use areas sized to accommodate future growth ?
80
4A.5 Are proposed locations of land uses tied to suitability
oflandscape features?
MAXIMUM SCORE: 10
SUBTOTAL:

-
I-
CC
Coding Categories:
2 =Most
1 =Some
<(
a.. 0 =None
B. Implementation:
48.1 Are actions for implementing plans clearly identified?
4B.2 Are the actions for implementing plans prioritized?
4B.3 Are timelines for implementation identified?
4B.4 Are organizations with responsibility to implement
policies identified?
4B.5 Are sources of funding to implement the plan identified?
4B.6 Is ther~ a timetable for updating the plan?
MAxIMUM SCORE: 12
SUBTOTAL
C. Monitoring:
4C. l Are goals quantified based on measurable objectives (e.g. ,
60 percent of all residents within 1/4 mile of transit service)?
4C.2 Are indicators of each objective included (e.g., annual
percentage of residents within 1/4 mile of transit service)?
4C.3 Are organizations identified that are responsible for
monitoring and/or providing data for indicators?
4C.4 Is there a timetable for updating the plan based , in part,
on results of monitoring changing conditions?
MAXIMUM SCORE: 8
SUBTOTAL

EXTERNAL PLAN QUALITY CRITERIA (5-8)

5. ENCOURAGE OPPORTUNITIES TO USE PLAN Coding Categories:
2 = Identified, clear
1 =Identified, vague
0 = Not identified
5.1 Is the plan imaginative, offering compelling courses of action
that inspire people to act?
5.2 Does the plan portray a clearly articulated, action-oriented
agenda (i.e., prioritized and flexible alternative courses of action
that clearly identify overarching solutions)?
 81
n
5.3 Does the plan provide clear explanations of alternative :::c
)>
courses of action that enhance community flexibility and __,
u
m
adaptation in dealing with complex situations? :::n

5.4 Is the legal context that requires planning explained (e.g.,

meet federal/state mandates, identify top priority issues
that need to be addressed to ensure legal defensibility)?
-
w

5.5 Is the administrative authority for planning indicated

(council or planning commission resolution, state law,
federal requirements)?
MAXIMUM SCORE: 10
SUBTOTAL

6. CREATE CLEAR VIEWS AND Coding Categories:

UNDERSTANDING OF PLANS 2 == Identified, clear, relevant
I == Identified, vague
0 == Not identified
6.1 Is a detailed table of contents included (not just list of chapters)?
6.2 Is a glossary of terms and definitions included?
6.3 Is there an executive summary?
6.4 Is there cross-referencing of issues, goals, objectives, and policies?
6.5 Is plain English used (avoiding poor, ungrammatical, verbose,
jargon-filled, unclear language)?
6.6 Are clear illustrations used (e.g., diagrams, pictures)?
6.7 Is spatial information clearly illustr~ted on maps?
6.8 Are supporting documents included with the plan (videos,
CD, GIS, Web site)?
MAXIMUM SCORE: 16
SUBTOTAL

7.ACCOUNTFORINTERDEPENDENT Coding Categories:

ACTIONS IN PLAN SCOPE 2 == Identified, clear
I == Identified, vague
0 == Not identified
7.1 Are horizontal connections with other local plans and
programs explained?
7.2 Are vertical connections with regional or state policies
and programs explained?
7.3 ls a process for intergovernmental coordination explained
for providing infrastructure and services, protecting natural
systems, and mitigating natural hazards (flooding)?
MAXIMUM SCORE: 6
SUBTOTAL
82
-'"'
0 8. PARTICIPATION OF ACTORS Coding Categories:
:s:
Q)

E 2 = Identified, clear, relevant

[':
u_ 1 = Identified, vague
co
3o_ 0 = Not identified
Q)
u
c:::: 8.1 Are organizations and individuals that were involved in

-
0
u
plan preparation identified?
8.2 Is there an explanation of why the organizations and
l-
a: individuals identified in the plan were involved?
<i:
o_
8.3 Are the stakeholders who were involved representative of
all groups that are affected by the policies and implementation
actions proposed?
8.4 Is there an explanation of participation techniques
that were used?
8.5 Is there a clear explanation of how stakeholder involvement
in plan is related to prior planning activities?
8.6 Is the plan's evolution described, including effects on citizens
and private stakeholder groups?
8.7 Does the plan explain the support and involvement of key
public agencies (public works, economic development, parks)?
8.8 Does the plan incorporate input from a broad spectrum
of stakeholders?
MAXIMUM SCORE: 16
SUBTOTAL

OVERALL MAXIMUM SCORE: 120

OVERALL TOTAL (Sum subtotals from 1-8)

Notes
1. A limited number of studies applied various aspects of these conceptual dimensions
of plan quality in testing the quality oflocal plans and the casual factors that explain varia-
tion in quality, including, for example, presence and design of state and federal plan man-
dates, local socioeconomic conditions, and local commitment and capacity to plan. In the
United States, see, for example, Berke and French 1994; Godschalk et al. 1999, ch. 9; and
Nelson and French 2002; in New Zealand, see Berke, Ericksen, and Dixon 1997.

References
American Planning Association (APA). 2002. Growing smart legislative guidebook: Model
statutes for planning and the management of change. Chicago: APA Planner's Press.
Baer, William. 1997. General plan evaluation criteria: An approach to making better plans.
Journal of the American Planning Association 63 (3): 329-44.
Berke, Philip, and Steven French. 1994. The influence of state planning mandates on local
plan quality. Journal of Planning Education and Research 13 (4): 237-50.
 -
83
n
Berke, Philip, Neil Ericksen, and Jennifer Dixon. 1997. Coercive and cooperative intergov- ::r:
)>
ernmental mandates: Examining Florida and New Zealand environmental plans. En- CJ
-I
rn
vironment and Planning B 24 (3 ): 45 1-68. :0

Berke, Philip, and Maria Manta-Conroy. 2000. Are we planning for sustainable develop-
ment? An evaluation of 30 comprehensive plans. journal of the American Planning
Association 66 (1 ): 21-33.
-
w

City of Davis. 2001. City of Davis general plan. Davis, Calif.: Planning and Development
Department.
City and County of Denver. 2000. Denver comprehensive plan. Retrieved from, http://
admin .denvergov.org/CompPlan2000/start.pdf accessed June 9, 2004.
City and County of Denver. 2002. Blueprint Denver: Land Use and Transportation Plan.
Retrieved from http://www.denvergov.org/Land_Use_and_Transportation_Plan/Blue-
print/Blueprint%20denver/start_ TOC.pdf, accessed June 11 , 2004.
City of Portland. 1996. Goose Hollow Station community plan. Portland, Oreg.: Portland
Bureau of Planning.
Duany, Andres, and Emily Talen. 2002. Transect planning. Journal of the American Plan-
ning Association 68 (3 ): 245 -66.
Forsyth County. 2000. The legacy comprehensive plan: A guide for shaping the future of
Winston-Salem and Forsyth County. Winston Salem, N.C.: City-County Planning
Board.
Godschalk, David, Timothy Beatley, Philip Berke, David J. Brower, and Edward S. Kaiser.
1999. Natural hazard mitigation: Recasting disaster policy and planning. Washington,
D.C.: Island Press.
Hopkins, Lewis, D. 2001. Urban development: The logic of making plans. Washington, D.C.:
Island Press.
Howard County. 1990. Howard County, Maryland, General Plan, Land Use 2010. Ellicot
City, MD: Department of Planning and Zoning.
1
Kaiser, Edward, David Godschalk, and Stuart Chapin. 1995. Urban land use planning, 4 h
ed. Champaign: University of Illinois Press. .
Kaiser, Edward, and John Davies. 1999. What a good plan should contain: A proposed
model. Carolina Planning 24 (2): 29 -41.
McClendon, Bruce. 2003. A bold vision and brand identity for the planning profession.
journal of the American Planning Association 69 (3 ): 221-32.
Nelson, Arthur, and Steven French . 2002. Plan quality and mi tigating damage from natural
disasters: A case study of the Northridge earthquake with planning policy consider-
ations. journal of tlze American Planning Association 68 (2): 194-207.
Rudel, Thomas. 1989. Situations and strategies in American land use planning. New York:
Cambridge University Press.
Town of Davidson. 2001. The Town of Davidson planning ordinance. Davidson, .C.: Au-
thor.
 PART

Overview of Building
Planning Support Systems

B
efore land use planners can effectively manage urban change to seek more
sustainable land use patterns, they must understand the physical, social,
and economic systems generating that change and their impacts upon
each other. Gaining such understanding is no simple task given the complexity of,
and interrelationships among, an urban area's demographics, economy, environ-
ment, land use, transportation, and infrastructure.
In order to facilitate understanding of urban systems and their interactions,
planners build planning support systems to store, analyze, and view data that can
be used to assess policy choices and future conditions, and to identify issues, cre-
ate visions, formulate goals, and compare scenarios. As indicated in Figure II-1,
the planning support system provides critical inputs to the land use plan-making
process on data and issues of population and economy, environment, land use,
tran~,~~tion, and infrastructure, packaged in a community report.
The primary function of a planning support system is to provide planning in-
telligence-strategic decision-support information that enables communities to
identify, understand, and deal with development changes and policy alternatives

85
86

Land Use Planning

Suppo~
·- ! - ---
- ... l
D
Cl.
Cl.
:::i
Planning Network of Plans Sustainable
(/) es
Systems Issues •Areawide Policy Goal Form Community
Ol ironment ·Population/Economy
c
ity
nomy
•Environment
Visions
Scenarios
·Comm unitywide
Design
Regulations
Expenditures
·Environment
•Equity I
•Land Use
I
-
bility •Small Area ·Economy
·Transportation/
.... Infrastructure
·Development •Livability
_J
Management
•Community Report

-
f-
a:
l l
<{ Monitoring, Evaluation, & Updating
0...

Fig. 11- 1 T he role and location of planning support systems in land use p lanning.

(Klosterman 2001; Malczewski 2004). A good planning support system should be

able to answer, in an accurate and timely fashion, critical questions about the
location, nature, rate, and amount ofland use change taking place in the commu-
nity. It should provide knowledge about the population and economy, especially
the likely changes to their composition and size, and their implications for land
use. It should explain the workings of environmental systems and project the im-
pacts of land use alternatives on the environment and vice versa. It should iden-
tify current and projected capacities and locations of transportation and infra-
structure systems and their effects on future land use.
A good planning support system also should enable the planner to advise the
public and decision makers about likely future development trends and the im-
plications of intervention through plans, policies, and growth-management tools.
It should help them to understand who wins and who loses from various develop-
ment alternatives, and to devise equitable mitigation measures to balance the gains
and losses more evenly. It should support and inform community discourse over
land use change and assist in resolving planning disputes by visually and analyti-
cally comparing different development proposals.
Finally, a good planning support system should be able to compare the state of
the community over time with long-range sustainability goals and to indicate the
impacts of applying Smart Growth principles to the development process. It should
contain operational sustainability indicators and procedures for assessing the posi-
tive and negative impacts of growth policies and plans.

Preview of Part II
This part of the book focuses on the types of planning intelligence necessary to
understand urban areas well enough to make intelligent and credible land use
planning proposals. It describes the overall nature of planning support systems
 87
and discusses in detail the aspects of individual support system components that
are essential to the preparation of land use plans. Because of the complexity of
urban and environmental systems, a separate chapter is devoted to each major
support system component (Figure II- 2).
Chapter 4, Planning Support Systems, describes the technologies used in a plan -
-
C il
c:
n:
:::J
CD
ning support system, including geographic information systems, analytic models, :::1"
OJ
the Internet, and visualization and communication programs. It lays out the basic :::J
:::J

functions of a comprehensive planning support system and illustrates its contri- :::J
CD
(/)
butions to the provision of intelligence in the plan-making process. c:
-0
-0
Chapter 5, Population and Economy, reviews the methods and techniques used 0
;::i.

for collecting and analyzing population and economic data. It shows how this
information is translated into the types of planning intelligence necessary to pre-
pare a future land use plan.
Chapter 6, Environmental Systems, discusses ways to inventory and classify
elements of natural environmental systems, including topography, soils, wetlands,
landscapes, habitats, watersheds, and hazard areas. It describes methods- land
suitability analysis, environmental impact assessment, and carrying capacity analy-
sis-to analyze environmental information and ways to integrate analytical re-
sults.
Chapter 7, Land Use Systems, provides methods for inventorying, classifying,
and monitoring land supply and demand and urban activity systems. It suggests
techniques for analyzing land use information, including d evelopability,
imageability, and compatibility, and it describes ways for visualizing and commu-
nicating land use information.
Chapter 8, Transportation and Infrastructure Systems, explains techniques for
integrating important information about transportation and other public infra-
structure into the planning support system for land us-e planning. First, it dis-
cusses indicators for transportation level of service, mobility, and accessibility,
along with what land use planners need to know about transportation planning
methods and guidelines for including transportation elem ents in the plan's infor-
mation base. Then it discusses derivation of demand for, and indicators of, water,
sewerage, and school infrastructure, along with basic planning methods for these
systems.

Comprehensive
Planning Support
System

I I I I
Population & Environmental Land Use Transportation & State of
Economic Systems Systems Infrastructure Community
Systems Systems Report

Fig. 11-2 Elem ents of a comprehensive planning support system.

88
Chapter 9, State of Community Report, lays out two parallel, interconnected
tracks. One track aggregates and analyzes the strategic intelligence from the popu-
lation and economic, environmental, land use, and transportation and economic
systems. The other track integrates this intelligence with community-based infor-
OJ
c:
mation and involvement to build consensus for a community report on visions
c:
c: for plan making. The chapter then provides a summary of issues, scenarios, and
~"'
OJ
visions to be used in the plan-making process outlined in Part III.
c:
:§
=>

-
m

l-
a:
<!
References
Klosterman, Richard. 2001. Planning support systems: A new perspective on computer-
aided planning. In Planning Support Systems: Integrating Geographic Information Sys-
a...
tems, Models, and Visualization Tools, Richard Brail and Richard Klosterman, eds., 1-
23. Redlands, Calif.: ESRI Press.
Malczewski, Jacek. 2004. GIS-based land suitability analysis: A critical overview. Progress in
Planning 62 (1) : 3-65.
 Chapter 4

Planning Support Systems

Your planning assignm ent is to design a planning support system to sup-

ply information to the land use planning process in your j urisdiction. You
need to figure out how to integrate the data in your planning files, the
planning computer hardware and software, and the planning staff m em-
bers. To do this effectively, you should consider the ways that planning
information will be used in the planning process, the techniques for ac-
quiring and analyzing such information, and how the information w ill be
communicated to those who need it. A ke y part of your role as th e land
use gam e m anager is to manage the crea tion of community intelligence
for plan making. Whe re will you start and how will you proceed?

Janning support systems consist of computer hardware and software, in-

formation databases, and skilled staff members working to facilitate col-
lective community planning and design. 1 (See Figure 4-1 ). They create
planning intelligence for public discourse and change management from orga-
nized collections of spatially referenced data, studies, analyses, models, and visu-
alizations. The purposes of planning support systems are to generate knowledge
and support discourse and decisions about the public-interest issues springing
from linkages among the area's population, economy, environment, land use, trans-
portation, and infrastructure. Planning support systems furnish the community
with strategic decision-support intelligence. As Klosterman (200la, 14) stated,
planning support systems "should be designed to facilitate collective design, social
interaction, interpersonal communication, and community debate, which attempt
to achieve collective goals and deal with common concerns" (emphasis in origi-
nal). Support of these activities is essential for achieving consensus-based plans
that reconcile land use conflicts and guide change in urban development toward
sustainable outcomes.

89
90
(/)

E Computer Hardware
~ & Software -
(/)
>-
(/'.) Technologies
'§
=
=
::J
(I'.)

=
c Information Planning Public Collective
c Databases Intelligence - Discourse - Design
~
a:
=
c
:§
m
::J Skilled Planning
-
-
l-
a:
Staff

<(
CL
Fig. 4 - 1 Plann ing su pport syste m input s an d o utputs.

Planning support systems are designed to provide interactive, integrative, and

participatory procedures for dealing with nonroutine, poorly structured decisions,
with particular attention to long-range problems and strategic issues (Klosterman
200la;, Malczewski 2004). 2 They contain structured information about urban sys-
tems, along with tools for analysis, forecasting, and decision making. They support
the continuing processes of design and evaluation that integrate new information
into the planning intelligence base of the community. They help the community to
understand the impacts of decisions on, and to m easure progress toward, long-range
sustainability. Good land use planning depends upon well-maintained planning sup-
port systems.
As shown previously in Figure 11- 1, intelligence from population and economy,
environment, land use, and transportation and infrastructure systems is coordinated
with inputs from public involvem ent to prepare the State of Community Report.
The State of Community Report transmits findings on planning issues, visions, and
scenarios to those involved in making land use plans. Sometimes called an "issues
and opportunities element" (Meck 2002, 7-73 to 7-77), the State of Community
Report identifies the major trends and problems facing the community, outlines
one or more values-based visions for what the community wants to becom e, and
summarizes the implication of potential development scenarios.

Planning Support System Technologies

Land use planning has benefited greatly fro m advances in computer technology.
Today's planner has access to a wealth of data and information about conditions
and trends at every scale from the block to the region-what has been called a
rapidly ch an ging and highly uneven "landscape of information" (Harris and Batty
2001, 30). And today's planner can creatively analyze and sh are insights from that
information landscape with the community more rapidly and effectively than ever
before. Information technology has increased the power of planning m any times,
ch anging its nature fro m a closed, expert-oriented process to an open, commu-
nity-oriented process (M alczewski 2004) .
 91
At the same time, technology has put pressure on planners to learn new skills
in order to take advantage of these new possibilities. Without a planning staff
skilled in computer applications, the new technology is of little use. Human re-
sources are a prerequisite to the effective utilization of planning support system
technologies. The most important constraints to computer-aided planning are
-
not hard technology, but the "soft" staff capacities: technique, organization, and
knowledge (Klosterman 200la, 4). Although our focus in this book is on building
and using planning support systems, we recognize the critical importance of a
parallel effort in building and maintaining trained planning staffs to create and
operate the support systems.
The basic types of planning support system technologies are geographic infor-
mation systems (GIS), analytic models, the Internet, and visualization and com-
munication programs (Batty et al. 2001; Cohen 2000; Klosterman 2000). Over-
views of each type of technology are provided here, and more function-specific
descriptions are provided in the following chapters on systems of population and
economy, environment, land use, transportation, and infrastructure.

Geographic Information Systems

The central element of a planning support system is the computerized geographic
information system (GIS) (O'Looney 2000). A GIS is an organized collection of
computer hardware, software, geographic data, and personnel designed to effi-
ciently capture, store, update, manipulate, analyze, and display geographically ref-
erenced information (Chou 1997, 2). The GIS maintains records of community
change; analyzes spatial relationships; produces maps; and facilitates modeling,
visualization, and communication (see Figure 4-2).
Computer hardware for GIS consists of core and peripheral equipment used to
store, process, and display geographic information. Most contemporary GIS op-
erate in a client/server network. Intensive processing is done on workstation serv-
ers, with personal computer client machines providing the graphical interface to
the system. Computers with Internet connections can be used as client machines
to access any server on the Internet.
Computer software handles the processing of the geographic data. Contempo-
rary software packages are object-oriented, allowing both graphical and descrip-
tive data to be stored in a single database. According to Lo and Yeung (2002, 11),

Computer Computer
Hardware Software
Monitoring
Recording
Measuring Planning
Analyzing Intelligence
Mapping
Modeling
Geographic Technical Communicating
Data Staff

Fig. 4-2 GIS elements and functions.

92
U)

E the use of object-oriented technologies has transformed GIS from automated fil-
~
U)
>- ing cabinets into smart machines for geographic knowledge. The current trend in
(/)

GIS software development is away from proprietary (commercial) software to open

industry standards that allow the building of application software modules that
=
c:
can be integrated with commercial software packages.
c:
c: Geographic data record the locations and characteristics of natural features,
ro
0::: human activities, and structures on the earth's surface (Lo and Yeung 2002). Geo-
en
c:
::!:'
graphic data are referenced to the geodetic control network for purposes of cross-
::::l
co referencing. Data are represented by three basic forms: vectors depict points, lines,
-
l-
and polygons; rasters depict grids of cells with attribute values; and surfaces de-
pict points or lines of equal values. Typically, geographic data are organized as
o::
<(
o__
separate layers, which can be combined through overlaying.
The land use planner acquires data from a variety of sources, both public and
private. Large amounts of useful data can be downloaded from the Internet at
sites maintained by governmental agencies and private organizations (Tables 4-1,
4-2, and 4-3). Decker (2001) provides a comprehensive listing of GIS data sources,
along with a set of rules and guidelines for acquiring and using GIS data. Decker
has created and maintains an online GIS data sources Web site with links to GIS
data sources,( www.gisdatasources.com). The challenge for the planner is to select
the most appropriate data for his or her jurisdiction from the vast array of data-
bases available.
In addition to the large array of GIS data sources listed in Tables 4- 1, 4-2, and
4-3, most U.S. city and county government agencies have developed their own
GIS databases, as have a number of private organizations. Planners can tap into
both public and private databases to obtain local data not otherwise available
from federal and state sources. In addition to those data, such as land use and
development-project status maintained by the planning agency, other useful local
data types and sources include:
• Land parcel valuations, use, and buildings (tax assessor)
• Structure conditions (building inspection)
• Infrastructure condition and capacity (engineering)
• Housing conditions (community development)
• Transportation systems (transportation)
• Hazard locations (emergency management)
• Accidents and crime (public safety)
• Energy use and capability (utility company)
• Business indicators (Chamber of Commerce)
• Land conservation (land trust) .
Finally, planning agencies and governments may collect, or contract fo r the
collection of, various types of data. Field surveys can use global positioning sys-
tem (GPS) receivers for precise positioning of data collected in the field. GPS is a
worldwide, space-based radio -navigation system formed from a constellation of
satellites and ground stations operated by the U.S. Department of Defense (Pal-
 93

Table 4-1
Federal Government GIS Data Sources

Bureau of Transportation Statistics (BTSJ: www.bts.gov. BTS collects, analyzes, and distributes
information for the U.S. Department of Transportation, including the National Transportation
Atlas Data (NTADJ. It has links to state GIS data-distribution sites and to some real-time traffic
-
maps.
EROS Data Center (USGS-EDCJ: www.edc.usgs.gov. EROS is the hub for remote sensing data
maintained by the USGS and other federal agencies, includ ing satell ite data and photographs.
EROS provides digital data (DOOs, DEMs, DLGsJ and can locate U.S. aerial photography and
worldwide satellite data. It supports the Global Land Information System (GLISJ and the EROS
EOS Data Gateway.
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMAJ : www.fema.gov. FEMA maintains geo-
graphic information related to disaster response and mitigation. Its Flood Insura nce Rate Maps
(FIRMs) show areas of potential flooding by plotting the locations of 100-year and 500-year
floodplains.
National Aeronautical and Space Administration (NASA): www.nasa.gov. NASA m anages
civilia n space exploration, space-related research, and earth-observation data gathering. To
search NASA data, see their Earth Science Enterprise (ESE) Gateway to Applications site,
which provides links to their distributed and regional centers.
National Geodetic Survey (NGSJ: www.ngs.noaa.gov. NGS provides information on geodetic
surveying , coordinate systems, global positioning systems (GPS), and aerial photography.
National Park Service (NPS): www.nps.gov. NPS provides mapping services for national
parklands.
U.S. Bureau of the Census: www.census.gov. The Census Bureau provides a storehouse of
socioeconomic data, much of which is tied to geography. Its Topologically Integrated Geo-
graphic Encoding and Referencing system (TIGER) links population and social data to U.S.
roads and address rang es. Its Census Gateway offers co nnections to many GIS resources.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service: www.fws.gov. The Fish an d Wildlife Service is home of the
National Wetl ands Inventory (NWI) maps. It m aintai ns a GIS and Spatia l Data site with infor-
mation of other geographic data.
U.S. Forest Service (USFSJ: www.fs.fed .us. The Forest Service provides maps of national
forests and other U.S. Department of Agriculture properties.
U.S. Geological Survey (USGSJ: www.usgs.gov. The primary civilian mapping agency for the
United States, the USGS distributes digital ortho photography (DOOs), digital elevation
models (DEMs) , digital line graphs (DLGs), digital raster graphics (DRGs), land cover data, and
satellite data (AHVRR, Landsat).
Reproduced by perm ission from Decker 2001. Th is materi al is used by p erm ission of John Wil ey & Sons,
Inc.

coner and Foresm an 2002). It provides users with accurate information about
their position anywhere in the world by measuring the time it takes for a radio
m essage to travel from each satellite to the position on earth. It then converts time
to distance and calculates position by using triangulation. The individual GPS
receiver decodes the timing signals from the available satellites and calculates its
own latitude, longitude, elevation, and time. These data are displayed and stored
by the receiver's logging unit or are linked to a laptop computer. GPS can help in
constructing accurate and timely GIS databases.
94
"'
E
2
"'
>- Table 4-2
VJ
~

D
State and Local GIS Data Sources
0..
0..
::J
VJ
CJ)
Federal Geographic Data Committee (FGDC): www.fgdc.gov. This federal interagency com-
.~ mittee maintains the National Spatial Data Infrastructure (NSDI) clearinghouse site, which
c::
c::
has connections to all state data repositories. Its role is to support public- and private-sector
"'
a::
CJ) applications of geospatial data in transportation, community development, agriculture,
c::
~
emergency response, environmental management, and information technology.

-
::J
m GeoCommunity: search.geocomm .com. This is a geospecific search engine that specializes in
retrieving hard-to-find GIS sites, including local and regional data sources.
National Association of Counties {NACO): www.naco.org. NACO represents county govern-
l-
a: ments and can help with finding and requesting county GIS data.
<(
Q_

National Association of Regional Councils {NARC): www.narc.org. NARC serves regional

governmental groups and is an excellent source of GIS information. For transportation
information, see also the related site for the Association of Met ropolitan Plann ing Organiza-
tions (AMPO): www.narc.org/am po/index.html.
National League of Cities {NLC) : www.nlc.org. NLC has links to related local, regional , and
technological groups.
National States Geographic Information Council {NSGIC): www.nsgic.org. NSGIC serves as a
support group and information resource for state GIS. Its Web site lists state contacts.
Reproduced by permission from Decker 2001 . This m aterial is used by permission of John Wiley & Sons,
Inc.

Planning data may also be collected by remote sensing satellites equipped with
sensors that look down at the earth. Remote sensing allows planners to study,
map, and monitor the earth's surface at local, regional, and global scales (Falconer
and Foresman 2002). Remote sensing works by detecting electromagnetic radia-
tion reflected or emitted from an object, which has its own signature or unique
characteristic. Remote sensing data can be integrated with other GIS data for ana-
lytical purposes.

Table 4-3
Selected Private GIS Data Sources

Environmental Systems Research Institute (ESRI): www.esri.com. The ESRI site contains
examples of GIS applications in state and local government. Its Data Hound service catalogs
and sea rch es Web sites offering free, downloadable data.
GIS Data Depot: www.gisdatadepot.com. The Data Depot contains digital USGS products
from around the country. Downloaded data are free.
TopoZone: www.topozone.co m. TopoZone specializes in scanned USGS quadrangle maps
(DRGs). Their database of every standard quad map is accessible to the public at no cha rge.
Reproduced by permissio n from Decke r 2001 . This material is used by perm ission of John Wil ey & Sons,
Inc.
 95
Technical staff members operate and maintain GIS. They include GIS manag-
ers, database administrators, application specialists, systems analysts, and pro-
grammers. They provide technical support to general GIS users, including plan-
ners, and they produce information products for use by GIS viewers, including
the public at large. Technical staff build applications for advanced spatial analysis
and modeling (Lo and Yeung 2002).
-
Q)
:::J
:::J

To carry out the basic planning support system tasks, every planning organiza- :::J
co
[/)

tion needs to maintain up-to-date GIS data files and planning maps. These should <::
-a
-a
be supplemented with aerial photographs and models, to the extent possible. Plan- 0
;:::i.
[/)
ning agencies with more resources or in larger jurisdictions will acquire full-fledged
~
support systems with integrated GIS, land use and transportation models, and CD
3
visualization capabilities. "'
GIS data files contain two basic types of data: geographic position data (where
is it?) and attribute or property data (what is it?), which are linked by geographic
identifiers (ID names or numbers). Geographic data, used for spatial location,
include points, lines, areas, and blocks. Attribute data include characteristics, such
as density, land use type, or address, which are stored as alphanumeric characters,
usually in tabular form. Geographic identifiers register graphic and attribute data
to locations on the earth's surface using a standard reference scheme, such as the
state plane-coordinate system, latitude and longitude, or the Universal Transverse
Mercator system, to accurately place the attributes on planning maps.
Planning maps are designed for various purposes. Thematic maps based on
stable designated areas like census tracts or planning districts are useful for basic
comparison and display of information. Computer-assisted design (CAD) maps
are useful for precise architectural or engineering design and display. Raster GIS
maps, based on uniform grids, are useful for collection, display, and modeling of
remotely sensed data. Vector GIS maps, based on polygons that replicate the ac-
tual shapes of parcels or natural features, are useful for urban land use planning
where property boundaries are important.
The benefit of relating spatial data and map areas to a registration system is
that layers of information can be accurately overlaid in order to analyze the rela-
tionships among the layers. For example, a land use analysis might overlay zon-
ing, utilities, topography, land parcels, and a base map on the state plane reference
grid and geodetic survey control points. From this set of overlays, the analyst could
compile a list of all parcels of a particular size and zoning type with road and
utility access, for example (Figure 4-3).
Controlled aerial photographs are taken to record the base conditions of the
planning area. Base maps produced from aerial photographs are either line-drawn
cartographic maps or photographic-image orthophoto maps. Cartographic maps
show planimetric features such as the names and boundaries of cities, towns, and
counties. They locate rivers, streams, railroads, and highways, as well as land use
features, hydrographic features, and structures. They have the advantage of pro-
viding a clear and simple format, in which items of interest show up clearly.
Orthophoto maps are prepared from rectified aerial photographs in which only
the center portion is used in order to eliminate image distortion. Distances on
orthophoto maps may by scaled, just as with cartographic maps, and they have
- -

96
Map Layers Associated Data

Zoning Layer 42 -·-·-t t? No. ~ E ~ !f~ ~ ~

Utilities Layer 4~ ~ s /z=:;>- i
1

'----t•• '
' I

-
f-
a:
I I

<!
(]__
Planimetric (or base)
Layer
State Plane ,, &jmf~
Reference Grid
Geodetic Survey
Control Layer
a:r~ . .;:?
Fig. 4-3 Layered land informat ion system. Source: O'Looney 2000. Reproduced by permission of
Carl Vinson Institute of Government, University of Georgia.

the advantage of showing actual ground features, such as vegetation, roads, and
structures.
Topographic maps are either orthophoto or cartographic maps containing con-
tour lines and spot elevations to show changes in the vertical elevation of the
ground surface. Topo maps may be obtained from the U.S. Geologic Survey, pre-
pared from aerial photography, or generated by LIDAR (Light Detection and Rang-
ing). LIDAR is a new development in surveying technology (Lo and Yeung 2002).
Carried on board an aircraft, it uses a laser to determine terrain height. It com-
bines height data with location data from a global positioning system (GPS) and
inertial navigation to generate a digital three-dimensional representation of the
land surface (DEM).
Cadastral maps depict the boundaries of land ownership parcels, each desig-
nated with a parcel identification number (PIN) . Cadastral maps, maintained by
property assessors' offices, include names, boundaries, and identification of sub-
divisions and plats; names and boundaries of governmental units; streets, rail-
roads, rivers, lakes, canals, seaports, and airports; and horizontal control monu-
ments. They are linked to property data files that list parcels, owners, acreages,
land uses, and assessed valuations.
Soil maps depict the detailed soil types from county soil surveys. The maps are
published by the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Natural Resources Conserva-
tion Service, the successor to the Soil Conservation Service. Soil types are impor-
tant for identifying prime agricultural or forestry lands, determining whether on-
site waste disposal systems can be used, identifying wetlands and floodplains, and
assessing the potential for urban uses (Marsh 1998).
 97
n
Analytic Models :::r::
)>
u
___,
The fundamental role of a planning model is to depict the operation of an urban m
::n
or environmental system in a way that allows the effects of planned change to be
evaluated. Th us, a land use/transportation model might illustrate the impacts on
a future land use pattern of adding new transportation facilities, or it might illus-
-
.!:>

trate the impact of changes in land use on flows in a transportation network. An

environmental model might assess the impacts on the quantity and quality of
stream flows of converting land within the drainage basin from rural to urban.
Analytic models often are paired with and draw upon GIS databases, but they
typically incorporate much deeper and more specialized analysis than is available
in GIS software packages.
Analytic models used in planning support systems can take a variety of forms,
which are sometimes confusing in their claims and scope. They range from simple
electronic spreadsheets to more complex metropolitan growth-simulation mod-
3
els. Increasingly, planning support system models incorporate other technolo-
gies, including GIS, visualization, and communication programs. Brail and
Klosterman (2001) discuss two broad types of systems-those focusing on simu-
lation and scenario construction, and those focusing on computer-aided visual-
ization. While there obvio usly is some overlap between these types, the categories
reflect the main emphases of the systems. Simulation and scenario-construction
applications tend to be more developed and include both commercial and public
domain systems (see Sidebar 4-1 ).

METROPILUS: a loosely coupled set of urban land use models, EM PAL and DRAM, and an
ArcView GIS package running on a desktop computer (Putnam and Chan 2001 ). In use in
six major metropolitan areas in the United States, METROPILUS produces forecasts of
employment and household locations and land use categories for future time periods. It
analyzes the impacts of proposed pol ic ies, such as the comparison of household distribu-
tion between that of a baseline forecast and that resulting from a proposed highway beltline.
TRANUS: an integrated land use and transportation model consisting of three modules-
land use, transport, and evaluation (De la Barra 2001). TRANUS can be applied at urban,
regional, and national scales to simulate the effects of land use and transport policies and
projects, and to evaluate their social, economic, financial, and environmental effects. For
example, an application in Swindon, England, analyzed the impacts of four scenarios: con-
centrated containment, high-density dispersal in satellite towns, limited peripheral expan-
sion , and trend development. Likewise, a more recent application of TRAN US focuses on
examining the relationship between the characteristics of urban development and air quality
in the Charlotte, North Carolin a, metropolitan area.
California Urban Futures models: a family of urban-simulation models, including Califor-
nia Urban Futures (CUF), California Urban Futures II (CUF II), and Cal ifornia Urban and

Continued
98

Biodiversity Analysis (CURBA) (Landis 2001 ). Rather than designing a desired future land
use pattern and working backward to prepare implementation policies, the California Urban
Futures models postulate alternative development policies and trace their effects forward
into the future through the simulation of likely outcomes. Among their innovations are the
incorporation of land developers as central actors; competitive site bidding between land
uses, including redevelopment; and impacts on consumption and quality of natural habitat.
UrbanSim: a behavioral, public domain land use model designed to assist metropolitan
planning agencies in making consistent transportation, land use, and air-quality plans to
meet the standards required under the Clean Air Act (Waddell 2001 ). UrbanSim models the

-
=
actions taken by households, businesses, developers, and governments and simulates the
land development process atthe land parcel level. (See Figure 4-6, page 107, adapted from
Waddell 2001, 206.) It has been used in the EnvisionUtah community visioning process to
test packages of policy instruments in terms of their ability to achieve a desired future
vision .
INDEX: a GIS-based planning support system that uses indicators to measure the attributes
and performance of community plans and urban designs (Allen 2001 ). Rather than an inte-
grated urban model to predict development patterns, INDEX is intended for static time-
scale applications of built environment measures from the regional to the neighborhood
scale. It was conceived as a productivity tool to automate planning calculations of long-
range alternative~ _ or current development proposals. In use by over seventy local govern-
ments and organizations." INDEX facilitates stakeholder participation in goal setting and
alternatives analysis, and measures cumulative progress toward goals. An example appli-
cation is the use of INDEX for development-impact analysis in Dane County, Wisconsin .
What If: a scenario-based, policy-oriented planning support system that uses GIS data to
support community-based collaborative planning and collective decision making.
(Klosterman 2001b). Unlike the simulation models, What If allows users to create alterna -
tive development scenarios and estimate their likely impacts on land use, population, and
economic outcomes. Its three modules are Suitability (of land supply), Growth (of land
demand), and Allocation (to create land use patterns that balance supply and demand).
CommunityViz: a GIS-based decision-support system that includes three-dimensional vi-
su alization and simulation modeling for use in collaborative planning by citi ze ns and pro-
fessionals (Kwartler and Bernard 2001 ). Running on ArcView GIS and ArcView Spatial Ana-
lyst, CommunityViz includes three modules: Scenario Constructor, Townbuilder 3D, and
Policy Simulator. It can represent real places as photo-realistic models. A unique feature is
the use of stochastic agent-based modeling, in which decisions are determined through a
random number generator and may vary from one model run to the next.

Source: Adapted from Brai/ and Klosterman 2001.

Electronic spreadsheets provide a logical structure for analyzing quantitative prob-

lems that can be presented in two-dimensional tables. They are ideal for examining
the "what if" questions essential to planning analyses. For example, in land use plan-
ning, spreadsheets can be used to display the number of acres in various types of
existing land uses within a series of planning districts. They can then test plan alter-
natives by asking what if certain future changes were made to a particular land use
or district? What effects would these changes have on the community land supply as
a whole? How would the travel and services demands from these future land use
changes equate with transportation or infrastructure capacity?
 99
Simulation models relate the multidimensional aspects of urban or environ-
mental subsystems to each other and to planned change. Harris and Batty (2001,
40-45) describe location models based on macro- or microeconomic theory, in
which cities are market systems, land is the commodity, and rent is the price mecha-
nism. Thus, the demand for land and housing by consumers and producers and -
:::El
Q)

its supply by developers is resolved through the price mechanism in which in- :::J
:::J
:::J
comes and transportation costs are related to utilities and profits. Transportation (Q
(/)
c
models also rely on the notion of consumer utility maximization. Most simula- "O
"O
tion models are dynamic, seeking to establish demand/supply equilibrium within 0
;::i.
(/)
their subsystems through iterative runs. -<
::::'.
CD
3
Internet "'

The Internet provides information and communications services for planners and
community stakeholders (Cohen 2000) . Through e-mail, Usenet news groups,
Listservs, and chat rooms, public information can be rapidly transmitted and widely
accessed from anywhere at any time. The World Wide Web allows complete plans
and project proposals to be displayed and downloaded by users. Web documents
can contain animated graphics and audio and video clips as well as text-an enor-
mous advantage for displaying the color maps and three-dimensional images criti-
cal to land use planning. Web documents can also contain hyperlinks to other
Web documents or Web sites. No longer is public access to planning proposals
limited to those few citizens able to obtain a copy of a printed report or to attend
a public workshop.
For example, Wake County, North Carolina, maintains detailed information
about comprehensive planning as a subset of the information on its governmen-
tal Web site (http://www.co.wake.nc.us). The Wake County Planning Department
is charged with providing public planning services to areas outside the municipal
planning jurisdictions. The viewer can search its Web site for information on prop-
erty, permits, planning, environmental services, and community issues, such as
growth, open-space, and watershed management. The county's land use plan's
text, maps, and proposed amendments are available. Its land classification map
depicts municipalities, their extraterritorial jurisdictions, their short- and long-
range urban-services areas, and the water-supply watersheds. To search for infor-
mation related to growth management, the Web site offers links to land use, zon-
ing, the unified development ordinance, subdivisions, historic preservation, trans-
portation, and the like (Figure 4-4) .
Using the Web for planning communication has some shortcomings. Some
citizens will not have ready access to computers, resulting in what has been termed
the "digital divide" between those with access and those without access. This di-
vide often falls between upper- and lower-income groups. Relying on digital com-
munications also decreases face-to-face interaction between planners and the com-
munity. This can make the planning process more remote and impersonal and
decrease the accountability of planners to the public. Thus Web-based communi-
cation should be supplemented with opportunities for more direct public inter-
action.
100
"'
E Unified
.;i:;
Development
"'
>-
(/)
Ordinance

Zoning Subdivisions

Historic
Land Use
Preservation

-
Growth
Management

Demographic
Data & Special Transportation
Projects

Planning Staff,
GIS Maps Boards,
Minutes

Fig. 4-4 Wake County, North Carolina, Inte rnet planning mate ri als.

Visualization and Communication Programs

Visualization systems have evolved in parallel with th e World Wide Web.
Langendorf (2001 , 319) explores the possibilities for computer-aided visualiza-
tion in planning. He states four premises:
1. In our complex world, it is necessary to consider nearly any important sub-
ject from multiple viewpoints, using a variety of information.
2. We are rapidly moving from an information-poor to an information-rich
society.
3. The understanding of complex information may be greatly extended if visu-
alized.
4. Problem solving and commitment to action in a complex world require com -
munication and collaboration among many participants, and visualization
aids this interaction.
Langendorf notes that visualization is concerned with foraging for data, trans-
forming data, re-creating a sense of history and place, supporting collaboration,
and creating experiences that alter people's view of the world and move them to
change that world. Thus, visual thinking becomes a very important mode of
thought.
As the potential of visualization increases, the role of planners may shift to-
ward their becoming creators of information environments that empower them-
selves and other participants: "This may mean greater time and effort will be
 101
n
devoted to the structuring of information architecture and interaction design, :r:
)>
so that all participants are supported in their explorations, knowledge building, "'C
-l
rn
decisions, and actions" (Langendorf 2001, 347). In these new information envi- ::D

ronments, traditional consumers of plans become coproducers, as community

participants collaborate with planners. Visualization software links the planning- -
"""'

information workspace and the broader information landscape of digital librar-

ies and cyberspace to comm unity-planning data, information, knowledge, and
action (see Sidebar 4-2).
Batty et al. (2001) review applications of visualization worldwide, finding them
used not only for urban planning and architecture, but also for emergency ser-
vices, telecommunications tower siting, facilities and utilities management, envi-
ronmental planning, and other activities. Accurate city models are being produced
in 3D by combining airborne LIDAR with a global positioning system (GPS) to
deliver high-resolution digital elevation models (DEMs). Three-dimensional build-
ing-massing models can be produced with extensions of GIS such as ArcView 3D
Analyst. Spatial database technologies and remotely sensed geometric data are
speeding up the development of 3D city modeling. (See Figure 4-5: LIDAR-Based
Berlin.)

Contemporary software tools allow planning departments to create photographic simula-

tions of development alternatives that provide citizens with understandable images of
development alternatives under consideration. Photographic sim ulati'on is the practice of
taking a photograph of an existing scene and then digitally altering it to create a photo-
rea listic image depicting a proposed change. For exa mple, the Pl anning Departm ent in
Cary, North Carolina, has used photographic simulation to: 1) increase public underst and-
ing of a proposed plan or ordinance; 2) engage the public and get constructive feedback on
draft plan concepts or recommendations; 3) achieve community consensus on the desired
future; 4) demonstrate or evaluate the feasibility of proposed plan recommendations; or 5)
evaluate co mpeting alternatives (Ramage and Holmes 2004, 30).
During the planning process for the Cary Open Space and Historic Resource Plan, the
planners realized that cluster subdivision design would be a usefu l tool for open space
preservation. In order to help rural landown ers and oth ers understand this tool, they se-
lected well -known locations for perspective aerial photo simulations of conventional ver-
sus cluster subdivision development. One of these locations was the Carpenter historic
district in Cary's extraterritorial jurisdiction. Part A of the figure below shows the existing
condition s in the area , with the central Carpenter Crossroads and surrounding farms and
forest land. Part B shows a portion of a sketch site plan for a single-family conve ntional
subdivision with 12,000- square-foot lots overlaid on the photo. Part C shows how that
area would look with single-fam ily homes on the lots. Part D shows the same area with a
portion of a cluster subdivisio n desig n with both sma ller-lot, single-famil y detached hom es
on 8,000-square-foot lots and some multifamily units (townhomes, duplexes, and triplexes)
that attains the same number of dwelling units while preserving 40 percent of the site in
open space.
Continued
102
U)

E
El
U)
>-
(/)

-
f-
a:
<t
CL a. Aerial photograph of Carpenter Cross- b. Conventional subdivi sion sketch plan .
roads: Existing cond itions, 2002.

c. Convention al subdivision photo simula- d. Conservat ion subdivision photo simula-

tion . tion.

SB Fig. 4-2 Cary, North Carolina, v is ualization example. Source: Ram age and Ho lm es
2004, Town of Cary Planning Dep artment and North Ca rolina State University College o f
Design.

When shown at community meetings, the simulations inc reased public understanding
of the deg ree to which convention al d ev elopment could threaten the hi storic rural context
of th e district. Howev er, although most citi zens supported the preserv ed open space, th ey
st ill pref erred th e larger-lot housing of the conventional subdivision design . Thus, there
w as mixed buy-in for th e use of cluste r subdivisio ns as a tool to preserve o pen space . (It is
possible that public response to the cluster concept might have been more favorable if a
th ird example had been developed that settled for less preserved open space by relying
solely on single-family detached homes on smaller lots rath er than mix ing in multifamily
units as w ell.)

Planning Support System Functions

For each type of urban system- population, economy, environment, land use, trans-
portation, and infrastructure-the planning support system should be able to:
 103
n
:::r::
)>
-u
-I
rn
::0
_,,.

Fig. 4-5 LIDAR-based Berlin. Source: Batty et al.

2007. Reprinted by permission from ESRI.

• describe its history, current state, policies, and decision rules;

• monitor, record, and interpret its changes;
• forecast its future status;
• diagnose its planning and development problems;
• assess its supply and demand balance;
• model its changes, relationships, impacts, and contingencies; and
• communicate clear and credible information to decision makers and stake-
holders.

Describe History, Current State, Policies, and Decision Rules

Knowing the history of the elements of an urban system provides clues about its
present problems and future opportunities. Past trends often determine future
projections, and past events may limit future opportunities. For example, a va-
cant industrial building may at one time have been a chemical processing plant,
and its site may harbor significant hazardous wastes requiring remediation before
the industrial area can be redeveloped.
The current state of the system elements is important to understanding the
need for planning intervention and to setting benchmarks for measuring plan-
implementation progress. For example, a polluted stream may be evidence of the
need for more effective sedimentation and erosion controls, or violations of air-
quality standards may be evidence of the need for the development of alternative
transportation strategies. By documenting the present stream condition, it is pos-
sible to gauge the effectiveness of adopted controls and strategies.
Analyzing current planning policies and development decision rules helps in
understanding why an area has developed in the way that it has. For example, an
area of unrelated commercial, industrial, and residential structures may be the
result of obsolete cumulative zoning, in which any "higher" use could be built by
right in an industrial zoning district. Or policies for rural-area zoning that allowed
residential development on one-acre lots with septic tanks may explain why sprawl-
ing or leapfrog patterns of land development have occurred in locations where
104
"'Q)
E permeable soils that support septic tank utilization are located. One way to under-
t)
>- stand the composite effect of current planning policies and rules is to conduct a
(/)

t:'.
0
Smart Growth audit, such as the one done for the Charlotte Mecklenburg plan-
Q_
Q_
::::i
ning area (Avin and Holden 2000).
(/)

D'l
.<:
c
c Monitor, Record, and Interpret Changes
(1J
0::
D'l
c
Moudon and Hubner (2000) state that land supply and capacity monitoring "fo-
'.:§ cuses on the supply of buildable land and on the capacity of that land to accom-

-
::::i
m modate future development .... It also serves to assess future potential uses ofland,
especially in relation to how zoning and other regulations support or constrain
f- urban expansion and concentration" ( 17). Land planners enjoy unique access to
a:
<(
Cl.. comprehensive information about community growth and change. They are in a
position to monitor the effects of large numbers of continuous private land use
and decentralized development actions on the community as a whole. This unique
perspective provides critical intelligence for planning and growth management.
Capturing, recording, and interpreting change data is a challenging task, how-
ever. Despite the metaphor of the city as a "growth machine," the growth process
is more organic than machinelike. Growth is the sum of multitudes of individual,
government, and business decisions, which are only loosely coordinated and rarely
systematically recorded. The actual percentage of the land supply available for
development at any time is constrained by regulatory limits, infrastructure avail-
ability, the willingness of owners to sell, environmental and physical limitations,
and lack of market demand.
Change is not limited to the private land development market. Important
changes occur in social and environmental systems, sometimes as a result of mar-
ket actions and sometimes ind ependently. Community change is dynamic and
multidimensional, and the monitoring system must account for all of its impor-
tant dimensions. These dimensions are discussed in detail in the following chap-
ters on population and the economic, environmental, land and land use, trans-
portation, and infrastructure components of a comprehensive planning support
system.

Forecast Future Status

Growth and change in the components of urban systems provide the impetus for
planning. In theory, if all urban settlements were in a steady state, only managers
would be needed to operate them. However, because populations and economies
grow, change, and, at times, contract, the urban areas and facilities that house and
service them also must plan to adapt in order to keep pace.
The single most important type of intelligence for land use planners is the pro-
jected growth or change of the planning area. For example, because population
growth generates demand for land use change, the planning support system should
be able to answer questions such as:
• What is the anticipated rate of growth and amount of population change
over the next twenty yea rs?
 105
• What is the projected change in type and amount of employment over the n
:r:
)>
next twenty years? ::::i
m
:::0
• Which age groups are growing fastest and what are the implications for hous-
ing, schools, services, and employment?
• What changes are anticipated in demographic characteristics, such as racial
--!'>

and ethnic groups, income distribution, and education level?

• What impacts will future population and economic growth or contraction
have on the demand for land and public facilities, such as schools and parks?
Balancing future needs against present demands is a critical issue for land use
planners. The balance among market, social, and environmental values is always
subject to disruption, especially in rapidly changing urban areas. Intelligence about
future projections is vital for maintaining balance. In areas of rapid growth, a
major planning task is ensuring that new infrastructure comes online concur-
rently with new residential and commercial development. Other important tasks
include ensuring that environmental systems are conserved, regional coordina-
tion is maintained, affordable housing is provided, and hazardous areas are avoided.

Diagnose Planning and Development Problems

Most planning and development problems result from slowly accreting changes,
such as the gradual decline of a downtown or a neighborhood, or the slow spread
of large lot subdivisions into farming or natural resource areas. These tend to be
invisible to most observers because they appear to be continuations of normal
processes. Occasionally, an obvious crisis, such as the closing of a large plant or
military base, will mobilize the community to deal with change as a planning
problem. It is more difficult to diagnose and to convince decision makers of the
need to act on the less obvious, creeping problems.
Planning and development problems can take many forms: conflicts among
land uses such as farming and residential subdivisions, environmental pollution
and habitat loss, the declining quality of the built environment, lagging economic
development, and disparities in social equity. Land is not simply a commodity to
be traded on the market. It is also the locus of important natural environmental
systems, social neighborhoods, and economically sustainable communities.
Sustainability indicators can serve as early warning signs for planning and de-
velopment pro bl ems, as report cards on the effectiveness of public policies, and as
measures of progress toward community visions and goals. Maclaren (1996) states
that sustainability indicators should be:
• Integrating, so as to portray linkages among social, economic, and envi-
ronmental dimensions of sustainability; for example, one of Sustainable
Seattle's indicators was the number of salmon returning to spawn, an indi-
cator of both water quality and industrial survival.
• Forward-looking, so as to be able to measure progress toward planning goals
and intergenerational equity; for example, the Oregon Progress Board iden-
tified 272 indicators of environmental, social, and economic well-being, and
106
specified a series of targets or benchmarks for each indicator, to be met at
regular intervals until 2010.
• Distributional, so as to measure both intergenerational and intragenerational
equity.
=c: • Based on multistakeholder input, so as to include the values and contexts
of a diverse group of participants.
Sustainability indicators also can take a contingent form, which should be use-
ful for land use planners. For example, the British Columbia State of Sustainability

-
r
a:
<(
Report employs an "if-then" format, in which the "if" indicator is future residen-
tial density and the "then" indicator is the total amount ofland needed to accom-
modate the expected urban population at each density level (Maclaren 1996).
o._

Assess Supply and Demand Balance

The core task for a planning support system is to enable the community to assess
the present and future balance between the supply and demand ofland for devel-
opment and conservation needs. While simple to state, this is a complex and dif-
ficult task. It involves not only matters of factual data collection and analysis, but
also matters of subjective value interpretation and negotiation. Although the chap-
ters that follow speak to the specifics of balance in each planning support system
component, questions such as these illustrate the types of issues that may arise.
What is the true future demand for land? Is it simply a function of developing
a measure of average acres per household? Or does its calculation require a more
detailed projection of the likely future distribution of household types, ranging
from the traditional single-family household to the single-parent household, the
unrelated-individuals household, the empty-nesters household, and so on? Does
this in turn require an analysis of the projected changes in population pyramids
at future planning periods? Analyses of the 2000 Census show that the growth of
medium-sized cities depended largely on an influx of new Asian and Hispanic
residents while losing white non-Hispanic residents (Vey and Forman 2002); what
can we say about relationships between demand for land and the racial and ethnic
composition of populations? Can demand be shaped by public policies about
housing types, development-permit allocations, and other growth-management
actions?
What is the true future supply of land? Is it simply a fun c,tion of land that is
vacant and zoned to allow development? Or must it be calculated to include po-
tential annexation areas beyond the urban fringe, as well as potential redevelop -
ment areas inside the existing city limits? Is it based on a simple classification of
land suitable for development or must it also consider community values for con-
serving prime farmland and sensitive natural resource areas? How can it include
market factors, such as individual decisions on willingness to sell property or the
impacts of availability and the cost of development capital on decisions to buy
property? Can supply be shaped by public policies about the enactment of regula-
tions or the granting of incentives that influence development versus conserva-
tion?
 107
Model Changes, Relationships, Impacts, and Contingencies
Development of computer technology has increasingly enabled planners to model
land use changes and calculate their impacts on the community. For example,
UrbanSim, one of the leading new land use models, is designed to assist metro-
politan planning agencies in making consistent transportation, land use, and air-
-
-0
03'"
:::J
:::J
quality plans (Waddell 2001). This public domain model focuses on the key ac- :::J

tions taken by households, businesses, developers, and governments and simulates =c

(/)

TI
development at the land parcel level. It is interfaced with a transportation model TI
0
;::+
to deal with the interactions ofland use and transportation. The UrbanSim object (/)
-<
structure is shown in Figure 4-6. Developers build buildings, which are occupied "'co
3
by households and businesses, and occupy land. Governments set policies that "'
regulate land and build infrastructure to service land.
Even smaller communities can make use of relatively affordable and practical
urban growth and land policy simulation software to develop simple in-house
models. Typically called land suitability models, these models can be used to ana-
lyze a variety ofland use alternatives, ranging from identification of areas suitable
for different types of land use to locating sites suitable for development projects.
Chapter 6 describes the construction of suitability models for environmental sys-
tem analysis. For example, the University of Wisconsin-Madison has defined

- ·-------i
Developers •

Households Buildings
Income Occupy Type Occupy
Size Size
Age of Head Units
Children i Value
t - - -···· - ~-~·-·J Age
1-
0 ccuoy

, ,__ s_e_rv_ic_e_s __ .------

i Infrastructure :-
L-a·n-·d- - j Regulate
1
r-.. ---F;o-~c-i~~-=-1
I Transportation · Location : ! Land-use Plans
L--- - - -- ···· _J Land Use ! i Zoning
Value I Impact Fees .,J
Fl~~~~ain I ! Re~~.~~ce R~~-'.~~~~~
_____ ._ _ ___J

Build ·--· ···-----·· - 1 Set

'----------~· Governments '' - - - - - - - - - '
'
Fig. 4-6 UrbanSim model object structure. So urce: Wadde/12001. Reprinted by
permission from ESRJ.
108
U)

E environmental corridors in a study area in Dane County, Wisconsin, using ESRI

;!!
U)
ModelBuilder, which operates in conjunction with ArcView Spatial Analyst soft-
-
>-
(/)

00.. ware (ESRI Map Book 2002). As shown in Figure 4-7, five environmental features
0..
::::l
are mapped: steep slopes, wetlands, river and hydro buffer, floodplain, and rights-
(/)
DJ
c
of-way. These are converted to grids and overlaid. The model creates and maps
two types of environmental corridors. One is the simple arithmetic corridor that
contains any occurrence of the features; this result simply indicates the locations
of the features and adds them together. The other is the weighted corridor that
applies weights to the features so that priorities can be assigned to the higher-

-
f-
a::
<t:
ranked corridors. The power of the model comes from its ability to produce over-
lay maps of relevant features, either with or without assigned weights, so as to
provide images for corridor planning.
o.._

Communicate to Decision Makers and Stakeholders

Because planning is a collaborative art, communication is a core requirement of
planning support systems. Planners integrate intelligence from a wide variety of
sources in order to help citizens, businesspeople, and elected officials understand
the threats and opportunities lying ahead of them. A plan can only be successfully
implemented if there is broad understanding of its basic facts and values, and
broadly shared consensus on its proposed goals and actions.
Continuing advances in computer technology and multimedia communica-
tion have brought about a revolution in the ways that planners interact with their
communities (Cohen 2000). Internet services such as e-mail and the World Wide
Web allow rapid, accessible, and inexpensive connections among planning offices
and their multiple community clients. Computer-based planning tools, such as
geographic information systems (GIS) and visualization and simulation tech-
niques, in concert with the Internet, become powerful agents for analysis, aware-
ness, and communication.
Planning with the public is a combination of education, joint learning, and
inspiration. Planning departments use their informational Web sites as public
outreach tools to distribute (Cohen 2000, 207-10):
• Public hearing notices and agendas
• Status of planning applications
• Frequently asked questions (FAQs) about procedures and processes
• Zoning and subdivision regulations, with illustrative graphics and hyperlinks
• Land use, zoning, and special district maps
• Downloadable planning publications, such as comprehensive plans, devel-
opment reviews, and environmental impact statements
• GIS maps of streets, neighborhoods, hazard zones, district boundaries, and
census information
• Hyperlinks to e-mail addresses of planning staff and public officials
• Forums or discussion chat rooms for citizen comments about plans, devel-
opment proposals, and planning issues.
 River &
Right-of-way Wetlands Steep Slopes Floodplain Hydrobuffer
.__. ·~;~-
~: ...
-·

.• --.!· .

ModelBuilder Model

Arithmetic
Environmental
Corridors
& Arithmetic
Environmental
CDITidofs Final

Steep Slopes
Row ~ -~S-1-••_p_S_lop-e~
CT_ Final Row

Flood Plain

&
Grid
W~ighled Weighted
Environmental Environmental
Corridors Corridors Final

River and River~Hydro

Hydro Buffer Buffer

Fig. 4-7 Dane County, Wiscon sin, environmental corridors model.Source: ESRJ Map Book 2002. Reprinted by permission from ESRI.

-.
sw aisAs iJoddns Bu1uue1d I v tJ31d'i7'H:J 0
CD
110
UJ
E In North Carolina, Wake County's planning staff reports that people use the county
-2!
UJ Web site to become informed about, and involved in, local government policy
>-
(/)

t decisions. They want immediate access to information and prefer to look for it
0
o._
o._ themselves. Using its Web site, the planning department can improve its ability to
:::J
(/)
provide timely, accurate, and robust information; get public input; and increase
=
c
public satisfaction with planning while using staff more efficiently (Cohen 2000,
c
c
(1J

0::: 210-12).
=
c
"'
Intelligence in the Plan-making Process
-
cii

f-
a:
<(
Planning support systems are major sources of planning intelligence. They collect
data, structure data into information, and derive intelligence from scanning and
0...
analyzing multiple sources of information. They help the players in the land use
game learn and understand the effects of urban change, generate consensus about
desirable actions, and make constructive decisions. The larger goal is to provide
intelligence so as to manage community change in a way that maintains a sustain-
able balance among environmental, social, and market values. Strategic planning
intelligence is a necessity for sustainable development.
Intelligence plays a role at each stage of the planning process, from the initial
identification of issues in the State of Community Report to the ongoing monitor-
ing of progress toward the long-range sustainable community vision. During the
preparation and discussion of the State of Community Report, planning intelligence
surfaces threats and opportunities affecting the community's future. Its primary
focus is on the impact of the projected population and employment change on
land supply and community facilities. However, it also must consider impacts on
environmental resources and social equity. At this early stage of plan making, in-
telligence helps to set the agenda for community awareness and discourse by iden-
tifying the key issues of concern.
During visioning and scenario building, planning intelligence helps to shape
potential futures and to establish parameters for assessing long-range strategies.
Land capability intelligence about the potential for development and provision of
infrastructure can suggest desirable directions for future growth. Planning intelli-
gence can pose strategic questions to ensure that visions and scenarios are factu-
ally grounded, as well as being attractive from a value standpoint.
As part of its Choices for the Future, Baltimore Metro convened a series of
public meetings. Four scenarios were outlined: current trends and plans, empha-
sis on road capacity, emphasis on mass transit, and emphasis on redevelopment.
Participants were asked to choose their preferred scenario for each of a series of
quality of life and transportation indicators, and then to rank each scenario on a
four-point scale from most preferable to least preferable. The ranking sheets are
shown in Figure 4-8.
In another example, a policy simulation model was used to test the effects of
three growth-policy scenarios on projected urban development patterns and habi-
tat fragmentation in Santa Cruz County for 2010 (Landis 2001 ). The population
was projected to increase by 50,000 between 1995 and 2010. At the current aver-
age density of twenty persons per hectare, an additional 2,500 hectares (about
 111
CJ
Section 1: Quality of Life Indicators :r:
···r·······-·- ··············-···· )>
u
Scenarios -I
Rank Indicators m
::D

-
F.mpli.alis un

•
Rt".dt•velt'lpme nl. ~

•
jl ! Arres or new l::1nd
I j ! consumed by development
!............ j frmn the year 2000 to the
! year 2030
Id"·'7'"'"'
;
j d38,3 16Ant>s j o'i8,506Anes

[ :--1! Percentage of new

:f J 1 neighborhomis that
'- - ! prnvklc chi:iit.e of
1

I 1 hou!->lng types and

a range of prices j0 JU'~

c.-.J ! /\Ir pnllutton from ;ehid'°'

I r 1; 1mpactnrexisting
l..,... ····j !! and redevclopmen1 rm
rm cl future rtevclopmem

i existing w arnr q1.n1llty

[ in the C h~sapeakr: Day
l...

Section 2: Transportation Indicators

lndicator!i

~' ' /lt.~ .~. (/'°f'.,\

l_Ji
/\ddiliunol limc spenl
in autos pr.r person
pee year by the
('
,
UI I
'"
;
f
\
1__1
s.• )
~ L.')
2.• ,
I1
, '\. o.e ·,
W
y1~ar 2030 f '- llp1,1rV • \..!tours./ llnuV ! Houo/
~--~~~-~~
; i0 '-'··
......---~........~~~~~~.-~~~-r.-~~~-<
I0 -~ !, ( ) - I0 ~-
; i
[·····~·-· ! 1
;_·,
J\nnu01I consumption
of ga~oline
and cos1
, -,.1.·r-.·_··j'l -s1..i:.:1ll
~.
I, )1'
"::.·: :.:l.~1, s1.1>n._!,
-.)
I
_rF,__j
,,.
,1)1 s.511 i
~
.trl.,.-::::)l s4u1 ['
"'1>. _ :.
_,. bv each new hou:o;r-hold
! b}· 1hc year 2 oao
:
I
r;
~A1.:~.~;1j
i
j
'1 I
1
() ...;~~.~.;
1
j ~J... 1~J
'
I
, \ ···---!O G;ill1""'--~k.>1l!o w1
!0 Clllkms : Q GalloM

: c·······=l' j P~rcc111age of r>CVJ l i ; ! !

~(t~ Q11 ~ ,'·' ~'
~.. ~ . ~:
·_·, )

!
1; hous<'holdsthatrnn
w1:1lk tn a ruil nr tius stop
:,,i

!O
l..h:!.f
JO.s"'
I

() o1.1.1-..
~ft~
!O 1s 1:1'
1
; O nu~
I

[]! P cm~ntage of nr:w jobs

<'Cccssible by transit

i
...l

Section 3: Ranking Scenarios

··· ·Rc~;i·~~~ . th·~-~-~~w~·y·~~-g~~~·i·o-·the-·Q"u~·iit);·;riiF~ ~;1d··1;~·~~p-~;t~tion·i·~·di~·ta·n-.. R~~-k·c·~~h·~~·~;-~·M·~·-~-~~ord·ing·
or
to It~ levf'J pttfcrcnct' to you. Write the COrTl's pondlng rank in the tx.ix lo the left of each scenario
(4.,..Most Pn·fcrable. l= l,('."l:>t Prcfcrabk) . No two sccnarim .~ho uld ha ve the sarw: rank.

Fig. 4-8 Choices for the Future (Baltimore Metro) regi o nal public meeting scenari o rank ing
sheets. Reproduced by permission from ACP-Vision & Planning, Ltd.
112
"'
E 6,250 acres) will be required to accommodate this population growth. Under the
El
"'>-
(/)
no constraints scenario, urban development could occur anywhere except on wet-
t:::
0
lands. Under the farmland preservation scenario, important farmlands would also
a.
a.
::>
be protected. Under the environmental protection scenario, development would
(/)
also be prohibited within flood zones, on slopes with greater than a 10 percent
grade, and within 100 meters of a river or stream, and would be limited to sites
within 500 meters of existing city sphere-of-influence boundaries. This scenario
drastically limited developable areas. Figure 4-9 shows the resulting locations of
permissible (in yellow) and prohibited (in red) development sites, as well as al-

-
f-
a:
ready developed areas (in black).
During the formulation and assessment of plan alternatives, planning intelligence
assists in understanding the likely impacts of each alternative, as well as its feasibility
;'i:
for implementation. Intelligence can highlight the fiscal and environmental effects
of alternative choices of growth location and timing policies under consideration
for areawide land policy plans. Intelligence can identify the costs and benefits and
reveal the economic and social strengths and weaknesses of alternative community
land use plans. Intelligence can highlight the strengths and weaknesses of alternative
strategies for adopting small-area plans, as viewed by various groups of community
stakeholders. Finally, intelligence can assess the legal and political feasibility of alter-
native development-management plans and policies.
During the post-plan processes of monitoring, evaluating, and updating plans,
planning intelligence can help to compare actual events with forecast and planned
events. It can demonstrate which planning proposals have succeeded and which have
failed, as a basis for plan updating and revision. By informing decision makers about
the real effectiveness of adopted plans, intelligence can build continued support for
the planning process and can lead the way toward sustainable communities.

Summary
This chapter reviewed the characteristics and uses of planning support systems. It
discussed ways in which combinations of computers, databases, and analytical
and visualization software can generate intelligence for use in understanding cru-
cial planning issues, exploring potential future growth scenarios, and building
community consensus on future visions.
The chapters in the remainder of this part go into detail about the functional
elements of planning support systems. The next chapter covers two important ele-
ments-the population and the economy. Strategic intelligence about changes in an
area's population and economy are major driving forces in land use plan making.

Notes
1. This discussion of planning support systems assumes that computers will be avail-
able to the planning program. Most of the analyses described are only possible with com-
puter software and capabilities. Planners without access to computers should refer to the
fourth edition of Urban Land Use Planning (Kaiser, Godschalk, and Chapin 1995), which
::
discusses information collection and analysis techniques that do not rely on computers.
 113
.
,.
City Limits
/V' Major Highways
n
::r:
)>

lo, '"\ Developable Sites "-rnl

"'~ -,_ ../ Not Developable :J:J

' '\ Developable

-
~

1/
. Developed
-'* :Je
QJ

- ? -·
-,;~ •c :::J

='
:::J

N
"'" . :=I =
(/)
c:
u

t\
u
0
;::;_
,
(/)
-<
~
m
3
Ctty ol Santa Cruz City of Watsonville
"'

Cily Limits
N Major Highways
Developable Siles
- Not Develapable
Oevelopable
- Developed

-.

City limits
/V Major Highways
Developable Sites
Not Deve lopable
Developable
- Developed
...

City ti Santa C'.tl.lt

Fig. 4-9 Santa Cruz no constrain ts, farmland preservation, and environmental protect ion scenarios.
Source: Landis 2001. Reprinted by permission from ESRI.
114
U'.>
E Public participants on the other side of the "digital divide" (without access to personal
El
U'.>
>- computers at home or work) should increasingly be able to gain computer access in public
(/)

t libraries and community-technology centers (Servan 2002). Meanwhile, advances in uni-

0
D..
D.. versal access coupled with training and relevant content, along with increases in software
:::i
(/)
CJ)
user-friendliness and visualization capabilities, will help to bridge the divide.
c
c 2. This view of planning support systems is broader than that of either planning infor-
c
(1J

0:::
mation systems or land supply monitoring systems. Planning information systems focus
CJ)
c on supporting day-to-day operations, such as development permit tracking and database
"' management, including updating building permit files. Land supply monitoring systems

-
:::i
m focus on maintaining an adequate, but not overabundant, supply of developable land to
meet the demands of the land development market (Moudon and Hubner 2000). In our
~
view, planning support systems include the functions of both planning information sys-
a:
<(
0....
tems and land supply monitoring systems, but broaden the focus to include community
participation in setting environmental, economic, and equity goals for sustainability.
3. For descriptions of the many types of analytic models, see Brail and Klosterman (2001).

References
Allen, Eliot. 2001. INDEX: Software for community indicators. In Planning support sys-
tems: Integrating geographic information systems, models, and visualization tools, Rich-
ard Brail and Richard Klosterman, eds., 229-61. Redlands, Calif.: ESRI Press.
Avin, Uri, and David Holden. 2000. Does your growth smart? Planning 66 (1): 26-29.
Batty, Michael, et al. 2001. Visualizing the city: Communicating urban design to planners
and decision makers. In Planning support systems: Integrating geographic information
systems, models, and visualization tools, Richard Brail and Richard Klosterman, eds.,
405-43. Redlands, Calif.: ESRI Press.
Brail, Richard, and Richard Klosterman, eds. 2001. Planning support systems: Integrating geo-
graphic information systems, models, and visualization tools. Redlands, Calif.: ESRI Press.
Cho u, Yue-Hong. 1997. Exploring spatial analysis in geographic information systems. Al-
bany, N.Y.: On Word Press.
Cohen, Jonathan. 2000. Communication and design with th e Internet: A guide for architects,
planners, and building professionals, chapters 9 and 10. New York: W.W. Norton.
Decker, Drew. 2001. GIS data sources. New York: John Wiley and Sons.
De la Barra, Tomas. 2001. Integrated land use and transport modeling: The Tran us experi-
ence. In Planning support systems: Integrating geographic information systems, models,
and visualization tools, Richard Brail and Richard Klosterman, eds., 129-56. Redlands,
Calif.: ESRI Press.
ESRI Map Book. 2002. Vol. 17. Redlands, Calif.: ESRI Press.
Falconer, Allan, and Joyce Foresman, eds. 2002. A system for survival: GIS and sustainable
development. Redlands, Calif.: ESRI Press.
Harris, Britton, and Michael Batty. 2001. Locational models, geographic information, and
planning support systems. In Planning support systems: Integrating geographic infor-
mation systems, models, and visualization tools, Richard Brail and Richard Klosterman,
eds., 25-57. Redlands, Calif.: ESRI Press.
Kaiser, Edward, David Godschalk, and F. Stuart Chapin, Jr. 1995. Urban land use planning,
4th ed. Champaign: University of Illinois Press.
Klosterman, Richard. 2000. Planning in the information age. In The practice of local gov-
ernment planning, 3rd ed., Charles Hoch, Linda Dalton, and Frank So, eds., 41-57.
Washington , D.C: International City/County Planning Association.
 1 15
n
Klosterman, Richard. 200 la. Planning support systems: A new perspective. In Planning ::r::
)>
support systems: integrating geographic information systems, models, and visualization __,
""""(]

rn
tools, Richard Brail and Richard Klosterman, eds., 1-23. Redlands, Calif.: ESRI Press. :n
Klosterman, Richard. 200lb. The what if planning support system. In Planning support
systems: Integrating geographic information systems, models, and visualization tools, Ri-
chard Brail and Richard Klosterman, eds., 263-84. Redlands, Calif.: ESRI Press.
-
""'

Kwartler, Michael, and Robert Bernard. 2001. CommunityViz: An integrated planning sup-
port system. In Planning support systems: Integrating geographic information systems,
models, and visualization tools, Richard Brail and Richard Klosterman, eds., 285-308.
Redlands, Calif.: ESRI Press.
Landis, John. 2001. CUF, CUF II, and CURBA: A family of spatially explicit urban growth
and land-use policy simulation models. In Planning support systems: Integrating geo-
graphic information systems, models, and visualization tools, Richard Brail and Richard
Klosterman, eds., 157-200. Redlands, Calif.: ESRI Press.
Langendorf, Richard. 2001. Computer-aided visualization: Possibilities for urban design,
planning, and management. In Planning support systems: Integrating geographic infor-
mation systems, models, and visualization tools, Richard Brail and Richard Klosterman,
eds., 309-59. Redlands, Calif.: ESRI Press.
Lo, C. 0., and Albert Yeung. 2002. Concepts and techniques of geographic information sys-
tems. Upper Saddle River, N,J.: Prentice Hall.
Maclaren, Virginia. 1996. Urban sustainability reporting. Journal of the American Planning
Association 62 (2): 184-202.
Malczewski, Jacek. 2004. GIS-based land suitability analysis: A critical overview. Progress in
Planning 62 (1): 3-65.
Marsh, William. 1998. Landscape planning: Environmental applications. New York: John
Wiley and Sons.
Meck, Stuart, ed. 2002. Growing Smart legislative guidebook: Model statutes for planning
and the management of change. Chicago, Ill.: American Planning Association.
Moudon, Anne Vernez, and Michael Hubner, eds. 2000. Monitoring land supply with geo-
graphic information systems: Theory, practice, and parcel-based approaches. New York:
John Wiley and Sons.
O'Looney, John. 2000. Beyond maps: GIS and decision makingin local government. Redlands,
Calif.: ESRI Press.
Putnam, Stephen, and Shi-Liang Chan. 2001. The METROPILUS planning and support
system: Urban models and GIS. In Planning support systems: Integrating geographic
information systems, models, and visualization tools, Richard Brail and Richard
Klosterman, eds., 99-128. Redlands, Calif.: ESRI Press.
Ramage, Scott F., and Michael V. Holmes. 2004. A case study in the use of photo simulation
in local planning. Carolina Planning 29 (2): 30-47.
Servon, Lisa J. 2002. Bridging the digital divide: Technology, community and public policy.
Malden, Mass.: Blackwell Publishing.
Vey, Jennifer, and Benjamin Forman. 2002. Demographic change in medium-sized cities:
Evidence from the 2000 Census. Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution Center on
Urban and Metropolitan Policy.
Waddell, Paul. 2001. Between politics and planning: UrbanSim as a decision-support sys-
tem for metropolitan planning. In Planning support systems: Integrating geographic
information systems, models, and visualization tools, Richard Brail and Richard
Klosterman, eds., 201-28. Redlands, Calif.: ESRI Press.
 , Chapter 5

Population and Economy

Your planning assignment is to design the portion of the planning sup-

port system that will supply population and economic information for
the planning process in your jurisdiction . It should provide measures of
the size and composition of the population and economy in forms that
represent "needs" for suitable land, infrastructure, community facilities,
and natural resources. It should utilize available data sources and soft-
ware, and the methods should be suited to your planning j urisdiction. It
should be capable of estimating past and present conditions as well as
forecasting future indicators. It should provide the capability to compile
and present information that is interesting, comprehensible, compel-
ling, and adaptable to the needs of users in the planning process, and
that constitutes a high-quality "fact basis" for the land use plan.

uilding the planning support system begins with modeling the underly-
ing demographic and economic dynamics of a community and their im-
plications for future urban development. Population and economic in-
dicators are fundamental to the demand side input to land use planning. Population
forecasts are used to estimate the demand for residential land, public and insti tu-
tional land uses, and sometimes for retail land. Employment forecasts are used to
estimate the demand for land for the various economic sectors, including commer-
cial. Land for transportation and other infrastructure is based on the land needed
for residential, commercial, institutional, and industrial uses. Thus, together, popu-
lation and the economy largely determine the need for land, infrastructure, com-
munity facilities, and urban services. They also underlie the demand for natural
resources and are a root source of environmental stress. In addition, as Dowell
Myers argues, demographic and economic forecasting amounts to "a construc-
tion of the ch anging identity of planners' clientele and an assessment of the

117
118
"'
E urgent priorities for policy attention." They direct our attention to future stake-
El
"'
>-
(/}
holders "as the object of planning [and] provide as central a context for planning
t
o
as the land use map." (Myers 2001, 383-84)
Cl
Cl
:::i
We combine our discussions of economic and population studies in this chap-
(I}
OJ
c:::
ter because they are related conceptually and methodologically. Conceptually, eco-
c:::
c::: nomic opportunity, or lack of it, is a basic determinant of population growth,
ro
0:::
OJ
stagnation, or decline for a metropolitan area or other commuting shed. In the
c:::
:§ opposite direction of causation, population largely determines the size and type

-
:::i
CD of labor market as well as consumer purchasing power. Methodologically, popu-
lation projections and economic projections utilize similar techniques and should
be consistent with each other as compatible indicators of urbanization dynamics.
f-
a:: Population and economic analysis should utilize planners' rapidly increasing
<(
0....
access to user-friendly computer software to run population and economic mod-
els, and to the data that allow them to do the sorts of population and economic
analysis suitable for land use planning. Until the mid-1980s, a full-fledged analy-
sis of an area's economy and/or demography required the skills and judgment of
economists and demographers. That is still wise, where possible. These experts
understand economic and demographic dynamics best; are aware of regional,
national, and global contexts; have a solid command of theory, methods, and data
sources; and, most importantly, have interpretive skills. For land use planning
purposes, however, planners no longer need to know how to construct and pro-
gram the models or gather and prepare arcane data inputs. However, they do need
to understand the basis for, and implications of, the assumptions and theory em-
bedded in various analytic models already included in available software. They
should also know the strengths and weaknesses of different methodologies in or-
der to interpret their output. In other words, population and economic analysis at
the modest depth necessary for land use planning is within the capacity of many
local planning agencies, if planners are sufficiently knowledgeable about the meth-
ods and assumptions involved.
This chapter begins by explaining how population and economic information
is used in land use planning and outlining appropriate methods for creating that
information. In the second section, we suggest the general sources of demographic
and economic data and the software models to process such data. The third sec-
tion reviews the families of methods for estimating past and present conditions
and projecting future population and economic indicators. The fourth section
emphasizes the critical role of assumptions, explicit and implicit, embedded in
data inputs and the structure of the analytic models employed. The fifth section
suggests desirable features of a good population and economic projection report
for land use planning.

How Population and Economic Analyses Are Used

Population and economic indicators provide a measure of the size, composition,
and relative condition of the community. Many private- and public-sector players
in the land use game refer to population and economic indicators in making deci-
sions. Economic developers, commercial and residential real estate developers,
 119
n
and community officials involved in public investments in community facilities I
)>
and public infrastructure from water and sewer plants to schools to highways and __,
""1J
rn
public transportation systems, all use population and economic information. Thus,

-
:::rJ
Ul

information and intelligence on the population and economy are planning sup-
port system products in their own right, directly useful to many stakeholders in u
0

the community. =c
Secondly, for land use planners, the future population and the economy repre- ~.
0
::::;

sent the community that must be accommodated in the land use plan. Analyses of QJ
::::;
o_
existing and emerging conditions in the community provide the basis for exam- rn
n
0
ining trends and are incorporated into the State of Community Report as a start- ::::;
0
3
ing point for preparing the land use plan. Implications of projected population -<

and economic change are incorporated in the issues, visions, scenarios, and op-
portunities explored in that State of Community Report (See chapter 9 and Meck
2002, 7-84 to 7-85). Finally, the forecast of population and employment is a basis
for calculating future land requirements.
The remainder of this section discusses the characteristics of population and
economy that are most important for purposes of land use planning and the four
types of studies that are used-estimation, projection, impact assessment, and
normative determination. Finally, we discuss the particular difficulties of fore-
casting for local-level, long-range land use planning.

Important Characteristics of Population and Economy

Three dimensions of population and economy are especially relevant for land use
planning: size, composition, and spatial distribution.
• The size of the population and economy is the most basic yardstick for
determining the future dimensions of urbanization. Size is the basis for
estimating space needs for future housing, retail and office space, manu-
facturing space, and space for community facilities, and even some aspects
of open space (parkland, for example).
• The composition of the population and economy is also highly relevant.
By composition, we mean the sizes of specific groups within the overall
size. Employment might be divided by sectors of the economy (e.g., ex-
porting sector versus population-serving sector) and whether employment
is office, plant, warehouse, retail, or not really in a single place at all (e.g.,
agricultural employment). The population might be divided by age, gen-
der, household type (e.g., singles, families with children), ethnic/cultural
groups, socioeconomic levels, and groups with disability or health prob-
lems. Age may be the most important dimension for planners because of
the implications for service needs: the needs of children for schools and
the elderly for health services and particular housing options, for example.
As more communities become multiethnic, planners require an understand-
ing of changes in racial and ethnic composition and their interaction with
age, gender, education, and housing needs and preferences.
Forecasting and assessing the composition of population and economy re-
quire more detailed analysis than has been common for land use planning.
120
Cl)

E Change in composition results from aging of the population as well as dif-

2l
Cl)
>-
(/)
ferential migration, survival, and birth rates among subpopulations. Meth-
t'.
0
ods need to simulate those components of change so that a land use plan
a.
a.
:::J
can reflect the needs of the many diverse groups that make up the
(/)

O>
c
community's population.
c
c
ro • The spatial distribution of population or employment is a third important
0:::
O>
c
dimension. Population distribution is necessary to assess the distribution of
u community facilities; access to jobs, shopping, and other opportunities; ex-

-
:::J
CD posure to current problems (e.g., flooding); and for differentiating impacts
among segments of the population. Spatial analyses may require land use
modeling to distribute the employment and population growth forecast by
demographic and economic models. In making a future land use plan, how-
ever, we need the future level and composition of the population and economy
as input, and the distribution is then by land use design, not projection.
Demographic and economic analysis occurs on several levels, depending on
the extent to which it addresses the three characteristics of the population and
economy listed above. The most limited approach focuses on population and
employment totals; that is, size, providing only sparse descriptions of population
composition, perhaps limited to age distribution. This approach is adequate for
areawide land policy plans and for first-level communitywide land use design.
With additional effort, the planner can create more informative population analyses
of the present population, including estimates of households by type, labor force,
ethnic subgroups, and age cohorts to help local government understand the people
and economy they presently serve. A third level adds attention to land use impli-
cations of various components of change: migration and household size or the
per capita demand-side multipliers for housing and other land uses and facilities,
for example. The fourth and highest level of analysis is participatory, involving
citizens in the growth analysis and linking it to visioning and scenario building
(Myers and Menifee 2000, 84-85).
Consistent with the functions of a planning support system outlined in chap-
ter 4, the population and economy component, often in conjunction with the
other components, should be able to:
• Describe the economic and population history of the community or region;
• Monitor, record, and interpret ongoing changes in size, composition, and
location;
• Forecast future status;
• Diagnose emerging planning and development problems associated with
population and economic changes;
• Assess the implied demand of population and economy size, composition,
and location dimensions on the demand and supply balance for land, facili-
ties, and resources;
• Model population and economy changes, impacts, and contingencies; and
• Communicate clear and credible information to decision makers and stake-
holders.
 121
n
Types of Studies Involved in Planning Support System Functions :r:
)>

Although we are most interested in future population and employment, the fu- "rn
--i
:D

ture is not a disconnected point in time. Instead, the future unfolds along a con-
-
Ul

tinuum that is rooted in the past and present. Data on the past is necessary to
understand where the community has been and how it became what it is today; D
"
0
c
current data is necessary to estimate the present and where the community seems ~.
0
to be headed, and what population and economic targets are reasonable. Data on ::::;
Q)
::::;
both the past and present are necessary to determine trends and model the ongo- o._
rn
n
ing dynamics of change. Analysis of the past and present establishes not only the 0
::::;
0
present size and composition of the population and economy, but also reveals 3
-<
embedded forces of change, such as migration and fertility rates and the age and
ethnic composition of the population. Finally, based in part on analysis of the
past and present, projection and analysis of the future is necessary to determine
future needs. Thus, the planning support system should represent the past, present,
and future population and economy.
The planner utilizes four different types of studies in analyzing and represent-
ing past, present, and future conditions:
• estimates of past and present population and economic conditions;
• forecasts of future population and employment;
• assessments of socioeconomic impacts of changes in population and em-
ployment; and
• determinations of optimal population and economic levels, composition, and
rates of change.

Estimating Current Population and Economy Communities need estimates

of current population and employment levels and composition for several rea-
sons. First, such information, particularly when compared to the past and to rel-
evant comparative jurisdictions, is basic to understanding community change and
trends. It is also an important input for making forecasts and impact assessments.
Secondly, it is basic to assessing per-capita conditions with respect to community
services. This information can be compared to service standards (e.g., recreation
standards about facilities per thousand residents). Third, state and federal rev-
enue-sharing programs are often based on a community's population or employ-
ment conditions.
Since censuses are taken only every ten years in the United States, it becomes
necessary to estimate the population of cities, counties, sub-state regions, and
even states and the nation in the years after the most recent census. Up-to-date
population and economic estimates are so useful to a broad range of stakeholders
and local government functions that many local, regional, and state planning agen-
cies make annual estimates as a service to both the private and public sectors.
Planners therefore need to know about methods for making population and em-
ployment estimates.

Forecasting Future Population and Economy Projections of how much the

study area will grow, decline, or change in its composition of industries and people
122
en
E are fundamental to estimating future demand for land uses, infrastructure, and
.g:
en
>- community facilities. First, such projections are the basis for estimating the amount
(/)

t
0
ofland necessary to accommodate future change and development. Space require-
a.
a.
:::i
ments for housing are estimated by converting population forecasts into numbers
(/)
en and types of households; estimating the housing types that are preferred, afford-
c
§ able, and suitable for different household types; converting those housing types
ro
a:: into residential densities; and then multiplying population/housing need fore-
en
c casts by those density standards to obtain land requirements. Similarly, space re-
quirements for various economic sectors, including retail and office space, are

-
l-
a:
based on employment projections, together with population (consumer) needs.
A second application of population and employment projections is in calculat-
ing future needs for transportation, water and sewer facilities, schools, parks, and
~
a range of other infrastructure and community facilities and services. Of course,
the location of such facilities also depends on the projected or designed spatial
distribution of the population and employment. However, the quantity, size, and
types of facilities depend first of all on the size and composition of the population
and economy.

Socioeconomic Impact Assessment In a third type of study, planners trace the

spin-off implications of such economic events as the closing or opening of an
office park or the arrival or departure of a major employer, or the implications of
changes in ethnicity or age distribution of the population. Those events have im-
plications for employment, population, and future land use requirements. Popu-
lation and economic models provide a partial basis for estimating those conse-
quences. The precipitating event could be actual or proposed, or, in the case of
scenario construction, hypothetical.

Normative Determination of the Future Population and Economy A fourth

type of study is used to make a normative determination of what population or
economic activity level should occur in the future, or what population composi-
tion or economic structure or rate of growth is best for the community's future. In
other words, this type of study determines population and economy level and
composition as public policy rather than projections that depend on outside events,
demographic dynamics, and market processes. Such normative studies analyze
the implications ofland, environment, and infrastructure carrying capacities; ex-
amine alternative ways to expand and finance infrastructure or mitigate environ-
mental impacts; and explore alternative land use design possibilities in order to
derive acceptable or desirable future levels of population and economic activity
and rates of growth.
Distinctions between Estimates, Projections, Forecasts, Impact Assessments,
Scenarios, and Designs There are subtle but important distinctions between
the various types of studies made by planners. Estimates refer to calculations of
past or present population or economic levels, composition, or conditions. Even
though the calculation may actually involve a projection technique, it is still an
"estimate" of the present or past condition. For example, we might estimate the
present population by projecting the change since the last census in 2000.
 123
In referring to future population and employment levels, the terms forecast and n
:r:
9
projection are often used interchangeably, but incorrectly. There is an important dis- ___,
-0
m
tinction. A projection is the exact measurement of a future condition that will occur :::n

-
Ul
if the assumptions embodied in the projection approach prove true. Those assump-
tions may posit a continuation of current trends, for example, or pose departures -0
0
-0
from those trends. Whatever the assumptions, the projection is always correct if the c

projection technique is logically appropriate and carried out without arithmetic er- ~.
0
:::J

ror. Most economists and demographers make projections; hence, technically they Q)
:::J
o._
cannot be declared wrong if the projections do not materialize. They can simply m
n
D
claim that the assumptions were incorrect. A forecast, on the other hand, includes :::J
D
3
judgments about the likelihood of the assumptions behind the projection. The most -<

unequivocal forecasts are called predictions. Sometimes a forecast is a range rather

than a point estimate, but the assumptions associated with the projections carry a
judgment about their likelihood. Thus, all forecasts are projections, but not all pro-
jections are forecasts; it depends on whether the analyst includes judgments about
the likelihood of the projections becoming true.
Isserman (1984, 2000), Klosterman (2002), Meck (2000, 2002), Myers and
Kitsuse (2000), and Wachs (2001) provide insights on the uses of population and
economic forecasting in planning; the distinctions between projecting, forecast-
ing, visioning, and planning the future; and the need to emphasize forecasting
and planning rather than projection. Planners should not be using projections as
though they are forecasts, or making plans simply to accommodate mechanical
projections and forecasts; they need to involve the community in selecting the all
important "ifs" of forecasting in a creative study of possible and desirable futures.
Impact assessments are projections or forecasts of the consequences of particu-
lar events. They may use economic and demographic projection methods, how-
ever, and apply to real, proposed, or hypothetically possible or probable events,
such as scenarios.
Normative determination or design of future population or economic activity
levels is based on environmental, fiscal, infrastructure engineering, quality oflife,
and other implications of population and economic activity, and on normative
judgments about what makes a desirable future. It takes the position that plan-
ners have an active role in not only forecasting but also envisioning and shaping
the future. Thus, the future economy and population, rather than just being an
input to planning, also can be an outcome of planning. Plans may choose not just
to accommodate an economic or population projection, but also to affect it.
The distinctions between projections, forecasts, and normative determination
as ways to explore future population and employment levels and composition are
correlated somewhat with different perspectives about the future. At least four
"camps" can be identified, although the lines between them become blurred in
practice:
1. The first camp takes the perspective that growth is determined by forces
outside the realm of land use planning. Thus the land use plan should
forecast the future population and economy and then accommodate them
in the land use plan. This is the traditional approach ofland use planners,
124
at least until the 1970s and 1980s. This perspective ignores the notion that
land use planning can or should affect the population and employment
levels and composition through growth-management regulations, infra-
structure investments, and other means.
en
c 2. A second camp takes the perspective that growth is good. Growth repre-
sents opportunity, increased revenu es, and community well-being and
should be encouraged in the land use plan. A variation on this perspective
singles out some components of growth as good-for example, commer-

-
I-
rr.
cial, office, and clean industry-while considering other components (e.g.,
heavy industry) bad or predetermined.
3. A third camp takes the perspective that growth is bad. Growth brings prob-
<(
0... lems, threatens community well-being, and should be discouraged in the
land use plan. A variation on this perspective singles out some compo-
nents of growth as bad; for example, low-end residential development.
4. A fourth camp takes the perspective that it all depends. The future popula-
tion and economic size and structure should depend on a community's land
and infrastructure supply, its fiscal capacity to expand services, its vision
statement, and the vulnerability of its natural environment. This approach
is consistent with the principles of sustainable development, provided that
a community's ecological footprint is considered, and provided that diver-
sion of growth does not violate responsible regionalism. A variation on this
perspective considers some growth good and other growth bad, within the
constraints of environment, land supply, and infrastructure.
A population and economic study or projection should be clear about its per-
spective on growth and change.

Difficulties of Forecasting for Land Use Planning

Forecasting for land use planning is more difficult than forecasting for many other
public policy purposes for two reasons. First, land use planning requires long-
range forecasts. Whereas much federal, state, and private-sector economic fore-
casting extends to one or two quarters, or perhaps up to two years, by contrast, the
land use planner must look ahead ten or twenty years at a minimum. Much popu-
lation forecasting, other than for land use planning, is often longer range, but
even there, the attention often is on shorter-range implications for marketing,
revenue planning, and urban services assessments.
Second, compounding the requirement for long-range forecasts, local land use
planning requires "small-area" analysis and projection. Economists and demogra-
phers tend to study the economies and demographics of nations and large regions.
They regard a county, metropolitan area, or even a state as a "small area," to say
nothing of cities, towns, and neighborhoods. Land use planners, however, focus on
those so-called small areas. Not only are data more difficult to obtain for small areas,
but the economic and demographic dynamics are much more volatile and unpre-
dictable. Movement of households and firms into and out of a small area is greater
as a percentage of its population or employment than for large areas. Also, the dos-
 125
n
ing or opening of a single large firm or commercial development could change em- I
)>
ployment significantly, also with implications for population change. Because fore- -0
--1
m
casts of future population and employment for local land use planning are for both ::JJ

the long range and for a small area, they are much more subject to error than shorter-
range forecasts for larger areas. Fortunately, there is latitude for inaccuracy for most
-Ul

-0
0
-0
long-range land use planning applications. Planners use safety factors, called land c

reserves, for example, in estimating future space implications of future population ~

0
:::>
and employment levels. Further, the population and employment levels attributable Q)
=>
Q_

to a particular future year could occur five years sooner or five years later without m
n
0
nullifying the integrity of the plan. Also, the long-range twenty-year plan should be 0
=>
3
revisited within ten years or so and adjusted at that time. See Murdock et al. (1991) -<

for ways to compare and evaluate small-area projections.

Sources of Population and Economic Data

To conduct population and economic analyses, planners require a range of data.
Some of it is direct information on the level, composition, and spatial distribu-
tion of population and economic activity-past, present, and projected. In addi-
tion, planners need information about input variables such as births, deaths, mi-
gration, and economic multipliers, to name a few, that affect demographic and
economic change. The data should cover not only the planning jurisdiction or
study area, but also its region, state, and the nation, which are the context for local
demographic and economic change, and in some cases are direct inputs to ana-
lytic models of local change.
Many demographic and economic data are obtained from outside the plan-
ning agency. Sources include federal agencies, such as the Bureau of the Census
and the Department of Labor. In addition to federal agencies, virtually all states
have one or more centers for the storage and dissemination of census data and for
rendering technical assistance to local governments regarding their use in local
analyses. Virtually every state also has an office of demographic and economic
studies that provides data and performs analyses for the state legislative and ex-
ecutive branches, as well as local governments. They do extensive analyses, make
estimations, and provide projections for the state and often for metropolitan and
other economic regions of the state, as well as for counties and perhaps munici-
palities. Regional planning agencies, business research units of universities, pro-
prietary sources (e.g., F. W. Dodge, Woods and Poole), and local economic devel-
opment agencies as well as other departments oflocal governments are also sources
of economic and demographic information. In addition, a planning agency may
collect or otherwise generate its own demographic and economic related data,
such as housing starts and development permits.
These sources provide data from censuses and sample surveys, as well as from
estimates of current conditions and projections of populations and economies on
a regular basis. The data represent both large and small geographic areas, from the
nation down to metropolitan regions, counties, and towns, and even census tracts
and other neighborhood-sized geographic units. They include not only informa-
tion on levels and composition of the population or economy, but also birth, death,
126
"'
E and migration rates, and other data needed for making local area analyses and
El
"'>- projections. These agencies usually present not just a single projection, but a se-
(/)

t
0
ries of projections based on differing assumptions about fertility, mortality, and
Cl
Cl
:0
migration rates, and different economic scenarios. Local planners can pick the
(/)
0) most plausible assumptions for their areas of jurisdiction.
c
c
c Data for the economic and population components of the planning support sys-
<O
tem are available in many forms-hard copy reports, disks, or over the Internet.
0)
c
-0
Availability in electronic form provides the possibility of obtaining detailed tabula-
tions not included in published sources, and the possibility of using software to re-

-
:0
ro
combine and further analyze the data. The available software often contains built-in
functions that speed up the design of demographic and economic models and the
l-
a:
<(
calculations of alternative projections based on changing input assumptions. Graphics
(L

permit visual inspection of past trends, the effects of changing input assumptions
on projections, and age and other composition dimensions of results. Electronic
data sources and software change and improve so rapidly that the reader is advised
to seek up-to-date assessments from the American Planning Association, demogra-
phers and economists in state agencies, and other technical sources and experts.

Methods for Analyzing Population and Employment

Most of the remainder of this chapter is a description of approaches to estimating
and projecting population and employment, together with their basic assump-
tions, strengths, and weaknesses. Our purpose is to give land use planners an ap-
preciation of the range of methods and a sense of how they compare so that they
can choose the most appropriate ones. Their actual application requires a much
deeper technical understanding of specific techniques. It behooves the planner to
develop that deeper technical knowledge. 1
There are five general approaches to developing information about the popu-
lation and economy of a planning jurisdiction:
1. Enumeration (i.e., census taking) of past and present conditions by local,
state, regional, and federal agencies, among others.
2. Sample survey methods are sources of data on the past or present (e.g., the
2000 Census provides information on that year and used both enumera-
tion and sample survey methods ).
3. Estimation methods are based on indirect indicators (e.g., estimating popu-
lation by reference to housing starts or school enrollment) and can be
applied to both the past and the present.
4. Projection methods model demographic and economic dynamics to cre-
ate scenarios about population and the local economy. This approach is
most often associated with looking to the future, but also is applied to
estimating the present (e.g., a planner might project the present from the
basis of a past census, using vital rates data).
5. Determining the future by design; i.e., planning the future population and
economy rather than projecting it as something determined by forces out-
side of local policy.
 127
In the estimation, projection, and design approaches (i.e., not enumeration or n
:::c
;po
sample survey), the planner uses techniques that can be organized into six groups u
--i
rn
or families. These families are: ::0

-
U1

1. Judgmental techniques
u
0
2. Trend extrapolation -0
c
3. Ratio-share ~
0
::J

4. Symptomatic/statistical association Q.)

g_
rn
5. Simulation of demographic or economic components of change ("")
0
::J
0
6. "Supply side methods," including holding-capacity approaches, land use 3
-<
modeling, and normative determination (by design) of future population
and economy.
This array of approaches is diagrammed in Figure 5-1 below. The diagram sum-
marizes the fact that the planning support system requires methodology addressed
to the past, present, and future population and economy. It also shows the five
general approaches to information about the population and economy-enumera-
tion, sample surveying, estimation, projection, and design. Some of these are rel-
evant to the past and present, others to the future, and some to both present and
future. Finally, the diagram lists the six families of demographic and economic
analysis techniques that apply to estimation, projection, and design. The popula-
tion and economy component of the planning support system utilizes this entire
array of methods.
The remainder of this section discusses each of the six families of analytic tech-
niques-judgmental, trend extrapolation, ratio-share, symptomatic/statistical

Time Period General Families of Techniques

Analyzed Approaches for Estimation , Projection
& Design

Enumeration
&
Sample survey
Past
& Present Judgmental
Trend extrapolation/Interpolation
Estimatiorw~~~~~atio-Share
ymptomatic/Statistical Association
ComponenUSimulation
Projection_....,.::::::::::::=:::::::::::S:-u:::p..:p..;ly,,.-side Forecasting
Holding capacity
Future Land use modeling (spatial)
{ Land supply projection by design
Design/Policy

Fig. 5-1 Approaches to analyzing the population and economy.

128
C/J
E association, component simulation, and determination by supply-side analysis,
El
C/J
>- projection, and design.
(/)

Judgmental Approach
This approach produces forecasts by polling a panel of experts to reach a consen-
sus judgment about the future. The techniques vary from single-round surveys to
multiple-round Delphi surveys with feedback to participants between rounds to
group discussion techniques. Experts typically include academics, analysts from

-
)-
a:
local and state government, analysts from private-sector organizations such as
banks or chambers of commerce and trade associations, private consultants, and
local business leaders. They are chosen for their expert knowledge about demog-
<(
CL raphy or the economy, for their insights into particular demographic or economic
dynamics (e.g., particular industries), and the population and economy of the
particular study area. The judgmental approach is usually used in conjunction
with one of the technical approaches discussed below, focusing judgment on critical
assumptions and inputs to the models used in those technical approaches. Thus,
judgment might be used to provide the best estimates about changing technology,
industry expansion, cultural shifts in birth rates, and the like, which are then used
as input assumptions in modeling and scenario building. Judgment is also used in
reviewing and adjusting the results of application of technical techniques.

Trend Extrapolation
This approach establishes trends and extends them into the future. It may be ap-
plied directly to total population or employment level; to components of that
total (e.g., the elderly population or basic employment), which are then totaled;
to determining inputs to more sophisticated modeling (e.g., extrapolation of fer-
tility rate and migration rate as inputs to cohort survival methods; or to extrapo-
lating an industry-specific employment multiplier for an input-output model).
The implicit assumption in extrapolation is that time is a valid proxy for the cu-
mulative effects of underlying causal factors, such as births, deaths, business starts,
structural shifts in the economy, and so on.
The extrapolation is usually done by mathematical formulas that describe the
shape of the growth or decline curves, equivalent to fitting curves on graph paper.
In fact, it is a good idea to plot historical data on graph paper to "see" the shape of
the curve and the relative consistency of change over time. One of four math-
ematical forms is generally used to describe historical population or economic
growth and extrapolate the trend into the future:
1. the linear model,
2. the geometric model, sometimes called the exponential model,
3. the modified exponential model, or
4. the polynomial model.
Figure 5-2 shows the shapes of the future growth curves associated with these
mathematical forms. Sidebar 5-1 discusses the formulas associated with them.
 129
n
Trend extrapolation constitutes a simple way to project population and em- :r:
)>
u
ployment as well as other demographic and economic characteristics into the fu- --j
rn
ture relying on data about the past. The passing of time serves as the proxy for the
-
:IJ
Ul

many demographic or economic factors that actually influence change. Trend

models are simply fitted to the historical association between time and the demo- u
0
-0
graphic or economic indicator being projected. The analyst assumes that ( 1) the c:
~-
better the fit of the curve to historical data, the better the model has captured the 0
:::J

effects of the underlying forces, and (2) that the same forces will hold sway in the [l)
:::J
o._

same way into the future. Of course, the trend model may be modified slightly by rn
n
0
:::J
0
3
-<

Population or Population or
Economy Level Economy Level

/
or Indicator or Indicator

Time Time

Linear Growth Model Geometric Growth Model

(Increments of growth remain (Increments of growth increase over
constant over time) time, at a constant rate of increase)

Population or Population or
Economy Level Economy Level
or Indicator or Indicator

Time Time

Modified Exponential Growth Model Polynomial Model of Population

(Increments of growth decrease over time) or Economic Change
(One or more bends in the curve over time)

Fig. 5-2 Shapes and assumptions implicit in commonly used trend-extrapolation models.
130
U)

E judgment, thereby allowing some departure from the past pattern of association
.El
U)
>-
(/)
between time and population or employment.
~

0
The basic problem with trend-extrapolation models is that they do not identify
Cl.
Cl.
:::J
or measure underlying causal factors. The model merely summarizes the net ef-
(/)
en
c
fect of many factors acting on population or the economy in the past, and as-
c
c sumes the continuation of that net effect into the future. Unfortunately, it loses
(1)

0::: reliability for longer-range projections-beyond ten years or so.

en
c
TI
Trend projection is useful and justified when there is a lack of data and time to
formulate more robust population and economic projection models and the plan-

-
:::J
m
ner is interested primarily in the bottom-line results without necessarily under-
standing the underlying dynamics of change. It is best applied to study areas that
f-
=
<(
o._
show steady, slow-to-moderate change, and where only totals, not their composi-
tion, are needed. Another valid use of extrapolation, as mentioned earlier, is to
provide a baseline projection for comparison with results of more sop histicated
methods. Areas for which the only reliable data are from historic census counts
may be limited to the trend-extrapolation technique.

In the linear model , pop ul at ion, employm ent, birth rate, or ot her d epend ent variable is
assumed to change a constant amount per unit of time change (e.g ., 3,000 people per
year) . Mathematical ly, the linear model of change uses the familiar g eneral form:

Y = a + bx
The dependent variable, y, represents population level, birth rate, rat io share of the re-
gional eco nomy, or other demographic or economic indicator the analyst has found to
have a linear re lationsh ip w ith time. The constant, a, represe nts the value of that variable
at the base year for the projecti on . The constant, b, represents the amount and direction of
the c hange in the population or econom ic chara cteristic per unit of time (usually one year,
five y ears, or a decad e). Finally, xis the number of those units of time (e .g., years or de-
cades) beyond the base year for which one desires the project ion. When using a linear
model to project popul ation si ze, for example, the form might be:

Where P1 =population in base year t;

P,.n =proj ect ed population size at a future year, n units of time beyond base year t;
b = increment of change in population size per unit of t ime; and
n = the number of time pe riods beyond base year t.
Simple li near regression may be used to ca librate the model.
The geo metri c or expon ential change model assumes that it is the rate of growth, not
the numbers of peo p le or empl oy m ent added , that is constant over time. A constant rate of
growth results in ever-increasing amounts of peo pl e or employ ment add ed in future time
pe riods as the population or employment base, to which the rate is applied, increases over
time. On a graph, the population or employment level is an upward-sweeping curve rather

Continued
 131
0
I
l>
than a straight line (see Figure 5-2). It works like compound interest, which generates in- ~
m

-
creased returns over the years in a savings account. The form of the geometric model is: :0
(.J1

P,+n = P,( 1+ r(
-0
D
Where P,+n' P,, and n are as in the linear model, and r is the rate of growth per unit of 'O
<=
time. §"
c; ·
The modified ex ponential model assumes smaller, not bigger, inc rements of absolute :::>
Q.)
growth with time, implying that there is a ceiling that represents an upper limit. Growth :::>
CL
becomes slowe r and slower as a locality approaches that limit. A graph would show a m
(")
D
curve that is increasing a little less for each succeeding time period , becom ing less steep :::>
D
over time (see Figure 5-2). The form of this model is: 3
-<

pt+n = K - [(K - P,)bn)

Where P,+n• P,, and n are as before; K is the upper limit of population size for the study
area, which the population approaches but never attains; b equals the constant ratio (less
than one) of change by which (K - P,) is reduced each successive time unit from its value in
the immediately preceding time unit. Thus, P,. n approaches K as n increases. Thus, the
equation projects future population in terms of a constantly decreasing gap between the
projected population and the population ceiling , K.
The polynomial model of change permits the modeling of a growth pattern that has
bends in it while the previous models do not (see Figure 5-2). The form for this model is:
i 3 p
Pt+n = P,+ b ,n + b 2 n + b3 n + . . . + bPn
The highest exponent indicates the degree of the polynomial. The linear model is a first-
degree polynomial. A second-degree polynomial describes a curve with one bend, either
convex (if bi is negative) or concave (if bi is positive) . A second-degree polynomial could
approximate the exponential or geometric curve, for example. A third-degree polynomial
describes a curve that has two bends.
The polynomial curve is less rigid in its form than any of the previously described mod-
els and can better describe less regular growth patterns and patterns that include both
decline and growth, for example. On the oth er hand, the model often produces unreason-
able numbers when projecting beyond a very short time frame.

Ratio/Share
Ratio/share techniques establish a ratio of a study area characteristic, such as fer-
tility rate, to that of its larger so-called parent region, or they establish the study
area's share of the parent area population or employment. The forecast for the
study area is calculated by multiplying the parent area forecast by that ratio or
share. For example, if the present population of the study area is 10 percent of the
parent region's population, this technique projects the future study area popula-
tion as 10 percent of whatever future population level is projected for the parent
region.
Ratio/share techniques are not limited to projecting total population or employ-
ment or amount of change. They can be applied to population groups. For example,
if parent area projections are available by age, sex, and/or ethnicity cohorts, the ra-
tio/share technique can be applied to those particular cohorts to obtain a similar
composition breakdown for the study area. In addition, ratios can be applied to
132
(/)

E other attributes of the population or economy, such as auto ownership or average

.eo
"'
>- size of households. Also, they can be applied to components of change, such as
-
(/)

0
Cl.
Cl.
birth rates or economic multipliers, which are then used as inputs for more so-
phisticated models. The planner is not limited to using current ratios if they are
::J
(/)
0) changing systematically over time; they can be plotted over past time periods and
c
c
c then extrapolated into the future using one of the trend-extrapolation models
ro
0:::
0)
described above.
c The ratio/share approach requires three things to produce valid results:

- • a reliable parent area projection or estimate,

• stability in the historical ratio or in its trend, and
• confidence that the study area is and will continue to be an integral part of
the parent area.
The ratio/share method is therefore inappropriate for a study area that differs
economically or demographically from its parent area. In that case, the study area
change is because of factors different from those determining the population and
economy of the parent area. For example, ratio/share would be inappropriate for
a rural area of an urban state or region, for an urban area of a rural state or region,
or for a university town in a manufacturing region.
Where the three requirements are met, the ratio/share approach has the advan-
tage of simplicity and undemanding data requirements. Further, forecasts and
estimates for parent areas, such as states and regions, are generally regarded as
more reliable than those for smaller study areas because regional and state ana-
lysts have greater expertise, have access to better technology and better data, and
are dealing with larger and therefore more easily projected populations and econo-
mies. The application of ratio/share to projecting employment is increasingly ap-
propriate as the dependence of local economies upon their regional and national
economy increases. This approach also benefits from the increasing availability of
economic and population projections for the nation, the states, and larger regions
that can serve as parent areas.
For economic analysis, location quotients (LQs) constitute a ratio/share approach
that assesses the local economic structure by comparing a particular industry's
share of the local economy with that same industry's share of the national economy
or regional economy. They thereby identify industries that are concentrated in
the local economy or, conversely, those that are underrepresented.
In a related approach even more suited to understanding change in the local
economy, shift-share analysis divides the total change in employment in a particu-
lar industry for the study area into three components:
• The national growth component; that is, the growth in that industry that
is attributable to overall change in national employment.
• The national industry shift, or industry mix component, which adjusts
the expected growth in the industry to reflect the nation's shift in indus-
trial mix toward a larger share or smaller share of the total economy for the
particular industry relative to other industries. If the study region tends to
concentrate its employment in industries that are growing faster than the
 133
()
national all-industry rate, it will grow faster than the national all-industry ::r:
J>
growth rate; and vice versa. ~
m
::n
• The competitive shift component, or location advantage. The study area
will have a competitive advantage in a particular industry if its employ-
ment in that industry is growing faster than that industry's employment
-Ul

-0
0
-0
c
nationally. Thus, shift-share analysis reveals which sectors of the local
0
~
economy have competitive strengths within their own sector. ::0
Cl)
::0
a.
For m aking projections, the national growth component and the national indus- m
("")

tl'y mix component are derived from national projections. Sidebar 5-2 explains 0
::0
0
the formulas used in shift-share analysis for the interested reader. 3
-<
Land use planners have tended to use the constant-share economic model (LQ)

Shift-share projection begins with the statement that future employment equals present
employment plus growth in employment, i.e.:
E;,r,1+1= E;,,,, + DeltaE;,r,t-1+1
Where E;,,,, is the employment level in industry i in study region rfor time t; similarly,
E;,r,t+ l' except that the time is t+ 1. DeltaE;,r,t-t+l is the change in employment in industry i in
region rfrom time tto time t+ 1 (say from 2010-2020) .
Shift-share analysis divides DeltaE;,r,t-t+ l' the change in employment in industry i for
study region r, into three components. The first component is the national growth compo-
nent: the growth in industry i in region r attributable to overall change in national employ-
ment. This component of growth is the change industry i would experience if it equaled
the rate of growth in total employment for the nation .
The second component is called the national industry shift component, or industry mix
component. It adjusts the expected growth in industry i in the study region to reflect the
shift in industrial mix for the nation toward a larger share or smaller share of industry i
relative to other industries. If industry iis growing faster than the economy as a whole, this
factor is positive; if it is growing slower than the economy as a whole, the factor is nega-
tive.
The third component, the competitive shift component, represents the region 's com-
petitive advantage in industry i. It is attributable to the region's competitive position in that
particular industry compared to other regions.
The three components are expressed in the following form:
DeltaE;,,,,_,. 1= E;,)En,1+1I En) - 1) (national growth component)

+ E;,,)(E;,n,t+l I E;,n) - (En.t+l I En) l (industry mix component)

+ aE;,,)(E;,r,,I E;,,, 1. 1) - (E;,n,, 1 E;,n,,_1)] (competitive shift component)

The subscripts are as before, except that the subscript n is added to indicate that the
employment figure is for the nation. The coefficient a in the third component is a correc-
tion factor to adjust t for any differences in the length of the projection period, t to t+ 1,
compared to the length of the past period, t- (t-1 ), on which the competitive advantage is
calculated. If the two periods are the same length, a= 1.
134
VJ
E rather than the shift-share model because it is simpler in concept and has less
$
VJ
>
(/)
demanding data requirements, yet it yields favorable results in comparisons with
shift-share. For scenario building and impact assessment, however, shift-share has
advantages. It helps the community ascertain what part of its economic change
results from the overall national economy, what part results from its industrial
composition, and what part results from the community's competitiveness rela -
tive to other places. Its use requires backup investigations of the study area's
economy, however-beyond mere examination of historical employment data in

-
order to adjust future expectations about industry mix advantage or disadvantage
and the area's competitive advantage in key sectors. Figure 5-3 shows the results
of a shift analysis of employment for San Jose, California.

SO.O'l&

41.7

40.0'l&

31.7

30.K
27.1
26.4

20.0'l&
g and Wholesal Trade)

IS
14

10.0'l&

0.09&

1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010

Past Future
Fig. 5-3 Projected shifts in shares in employment by industry, San Jose, California . Adapted from
the City of San Jose, 1994.
 135
n
Another variation of the ratio/share approach for employment forecasts be- :c
)>
gins with a forecast of the regional economy. Industry-specific employment fore- ::::::
rn
casts for export-base sectors can be used to estimate floor space and land require- :::IJ

ments for the entire commuter shed. The base industrial and office space demand,
rather than employment per se, is then stepped down to the local study area using
-
Ul

u
D
=c
the ratio/share approach. The planner may adjust the results by factoring in the
carrying capacity of the locality and relative attractiveness of its existing and D
::0

planned employment centers to those in the remainder of the parent region. (See QJ
:::i
o._

the supply-side approaches described below.) Nonbasic (i.e., population-serving) rn

("")
D
commercial and public employment is often forecast in proportion (ratio) to the :::i
D
3
local population growth. -<

Symptomatic Association
This method is the most common approach that local planning agencies use
for estimating current population, although it is less useful for projection. It uses
data that bear a close relationship to (i.e., are symptomatic of) population change,
but which are more easily available locally. Commonly used symptomatic data
include recorded births and deaths, school enrollment, electric meter readings,
water meter readings, telephone installations, dwelling counts and housing starts,
and voter registration, among others. The estimate may be based on the average
of results drawn from several indicators or on a multiple regression of past popu-
lation or employment on several indicators. The suitability of indicator data is
judged in terms of availability, reliability, currency, and the strength of its rela-
tionship to population or employment. The symptomatic data must be available
for at least the most recent census year as well so that their relationship to popu-
lation can be calibrated from past data, and of course they must be available for
the past or present time for which the population is being estimated.
There are several variations of this approach, including the vital statistics rate
technique, the composite methods technique, the ratio-correlation technique, and
the dwelling unit technique. The vital statistics rate technique uses the relation-
ship between an area's population size and the number of births and deaths oc-
curring in the population. More recorded births and deaths imply a larger popu-
lation. The composite method uses different symptomatic indicators for different
age groups in the population. For example, death statistics might be used to esti-
mate the 45-and-over age cohort, birth statistics for the 18-44 and 0-5 age groups,
and school enrollment for the 5-17 age group. The ratio-correlation method em-
ploys the ratio principle in a multiple-regression equation in which the study area's
share of the parent area population is based on the study area's share of symptom-
atic data such as school enrollment and housing starts. The dwelling unit tech-
nique bases population estimates on building permits for new and converted
dwellings, perhaps adjusted for changes in household size. This method is popu-
lar in planning agencies that maintain housing and development statistics in their
planning support system as a matter of course.
A regression analysis variation on the symptomatic approach has been devel-
oped for projecting employment. In this approach, a separate single-equation re-
gression model is calibrated for each industry in the study area. The dependent
13 6
"'E variable is the level of employment in the industry, and the predictor variables are
~
"'>- selected to be relevant for the particular industry. For export industries, for ex-
UJ
t
0
ample, predictor variables include projected national or regional demand for the
D-
D-
::i
industry's product, regional share of overall national economic growth, and rela-
UJ
OJ
c::
tive competitive advantage of the study area for the particular industry, among
c::
c:: other indicators. For local-serving industries, the predictor variables might in-
co
0:::: clude projections of population, national employment per capita, and export in-
DJ
c::
dustry employment (Goldstein and Bergman 1983).

-
=
Techniques that Disaggregate and Simulate Components
of Population or Economy
This approach disaggregates population or economic change into its component
parts. For population, the components of change are births, deaths, and migra-
tion (sometimes out-migration and in-migration are entered as separate compo-
nents). For employment, analysts might separate the export sector from the popu-
lation-serving sector, or divide the economy into a longer list of sectors predomi-
nant in the local economy. They then isolate causal factors and trends for the
separate components.
The most commonly used component simulation approach for population
projection is the cohort-component method. The population is divided into five-
year or ten-year age cohorts and each age cohort is divided into a male and a
female component. Sometimes, the population is further divided into race or eth-
nic cohorts. The method then traces each cohort through its life stages, applying
fertility, mortality, and migration rates appropriate to each age, gender, and possi-
bly ethnic cohort at its particular life-cycle stage. Thus, the cohort-component
method allows the application of age-, gender-, and ethnic-specific fertility, mor-
tality, and migration rates, while also tracing the aging of the population. See
Irwin 1977, Isserman 1993, Klosterman 1990, Pittenger 1976, and Shyrock et al.
197 6 for discussions of cohort-component analysis and projection and the as-
sumptions imbedded therein.
Subtle but significant interactions between aging and age-specific birth, survival,
and migration rates are captured, along with any shifting in the ethnic structure of a
population. Also, projection results are expressed for each cohort-age, gender, eth-
nic group-not just total population. That is, the projection includes the composi-
tion of the projected population as well as total population level. Figure 5-4 provides
an example of the usual format for the results of a cohort-survival projection. The
pyramid shows the projected bulge in the baby boom cohort, born after World War
II, who will be in the 40-64 age group in 2010, the year of this projection. That
composition information can be used in conjunction with age-specific participa-
tion rates to generate more sensitive projections of labor force or school-age popu-
lation, for example. It also allows exploration of the effects of different assumptions
about birth, survival, and migration rates, and more open examination, debate, and
sensitivity testing in exploring future population scenarios. It becomes less feasible,
however, as the study area becomes smaller because of decreased availability of vital
statistics and migration data and the fact that migration then includes relatively short-
distance moves and becomes difficult to forecast.
 137
n
Population by Age and Sex, Gaston Co., 1970 Population by Age and Sex, Gaston Co., 1980 :::r:
)>
CJ
-j
80-84 = rn

70-74

60-64
:::::i
60-64
-
::rJ
Ul

CJ
50·54 -I 50-54 0
"O
Q) 40-44 Q) 40-44 c:
~ ~ ~.
30-34 30-34 0
::l

::~~ I
20-24 Q)

10-14 ~
rn
{")
0-4 _ I 0
I ::l
(8.000) (6,000) (4,000) (2,000) 0 (2,000) (4,000) (6.000) (8,000) (8.000) (6,000) (4,000) (2 ,000) 0 (2.000) (4.000) (6,000) (8,000) 0
:3
• Male • Female Number of People • Male • Female Number of People
-<

80-84

70-74

60-64

50-54

40-44

<"
Cl
30-34

20-24

10-14

under 5 ,~

(8,000) (6,000) (4,000) (2,000) 0 (2,000) (4,000) (6,000) (8,000)

• Male • Female Number of People

Population by Age and Sex, Gaston Co., Population by Age and Sex, Gaston Co.,
2000 (Projected) . 2010 (Projected)

80-84 80-84

70-74 70-74
60-64 60-64
50-54 50-54
40-44
<"
Cl 40-44
1l,
30-34 <
30-34
20-24
20 -24
10-14
10-14
0-4
I 0-4
(8,000) (6,000) (4,000) (2, 000) 0 (2.000) (4,000) (6,000) (8,000)
(8,000) (6,000) (4,000) (2,000) (2,000) (4,000) (6,000) (8,000)
• Male • Female Number of People
• Male • Female Number of People

Fig. 5-4 The population pyramid format. Adapted from the City of Gastonia, 1995.

Cohort-component projection, while conceptually compelling, is the most com-

plicated approach to projecting population because of the subtleties and com-
plexities in estimating future fertility and migration in particular and because of
the extensive computations involved in running the model. Neverth eless, the in-
creasing availability of data and software is making its application ever more fea-
sible for metropolitan regions and even smaller study areas. It should be pointed
138
(/)

E out, however, that the method depends on projections of future birth, death, and
El
(/)
>- migration rates that come from outside the model, usually by combinations of
-
(/)

0
a.
a.
extrapolation, ratio, and judgmental projection techniques. Hence the cohort-
component projection results are only as valid as the inputs provided by simpler
::>
(/)
en extrapolation and ratio techniques. Often the fertility and mortality parameters
sc
c for a study area are estimated as a ratio to those projected for the parent region or
ro
0:
en
state. Migration, on the other hand, poses greater difficulties; the smaller the study
c
~
area, the greater the problem. Nationally, more than 15 percent of the population
::>
will change their county of residence in a five-year period, the time period on

-
co

l-
a:
which most cohort-component methods are based. In rapidly growing areas, mi-
gration rates are even higher. Not only is migration likely to involve a substantial
proportion of the population, but it also fluctuates more widely over time than
<l'.
0...
the other two components of mortality and fertility, and direct measures are un-
available (see Isserman 1993 and Pittenger 1976).
For economic analysis, the shift-share approach, discussed above, might also be
considered a component approach. Economic-base analysis is another component
approach, based on the theory that the urban economy is made up of two compo-
nents: base economic activities, which produce and distribute goods and services for
export outside the study area or for visitors, tourists, or students; and nonbasic (or
population-serving) activities, which produce goods and services for local consump-
tion. This theory holds that the basic sector is the key to an area's economic strength
and its future because exports bring money into the economy and create jobs. Ex-
pansion in basic activity creates expansion in the nonbasic sector, especially in retail
trade, construction, and services. Decline in the basic sector has an opposite, domino-
like effect, leading to decline in the local economy.
Economic-base theory uses a multiplier implicit in the basic-nonbasic rela-
tionship within the economy. The ratio of basic employment to nonbasic em-
ployment is called the economic-base ratio. If, for example, for every one basic
sector worker there are two nonbasic workers in the local economy, the base ratio
is 1:2. For every new job in the basic sector, two additional jobs are created in the
nonbasic sector. The total economic-base multiplier, however, is three. That is,
when basic sector employment increases (or decreases) by one, a total of three
new jobs would be created (or lost)-the basic job and the two nonbasic jobs.
Economic-base multipliers for urban regions typically range from two to nine.
Multipliers tend to be bigger for larger regions and more diversified economies
and smaller for analyses based on more detailed breakdowns of industries. An
assessment of the total employment impact from a change in basic-sector em-
ployment is produced by applying the base multiplier to the change in the basic
sector. The model assumes that the study area constitutes the total area from which
employees commute to jobs-that is, a labor-market area; it is generally not ap-
propriate for a single county, town, or city within a metropolitan region.
Input-output is another component-based approach for economic analysis, used
more often for economic impact assessment rather than projection. This approach
represents the study area economy as an interdependent network of different eco-
nomic sectors that purchase and sell goods and services among themselves as well
as the outside world. The number of economic sectors represented can vary from
 139
n
ten to 500 or more. The definitions of sectors and level of disaggregation (i.e., num- :r:
)>
ber of sectors) are matters of judgment, reflecting characteristics of the local economy, -cJ
-l
rn
the purpose of the economic study, data availability, time, and computing capability.

-
:D
Ul

The primary advantage of input-output over the economic-base multiplier

approach is that economic base calculates only one multiplier, whereas input-
output calculates a multiplier for estimating the impact of each economic sector
upon each of the other sectors. It is able to trace how growth or decline in one 0
::;
sector differentially influences several other sectors. If the planner is considering QJ

5._
the impacts of a proposed expansion of a particular economic sector, for example, rn
("")
0
input-output indicates which other sectors must expand, and by how much, to ::>
0
3
meet the needs of the proposed initial expansion of the particular sector. Input- -<
output is also valuable for its descriptive capabilities. It pres en ts information about
the interindustry linkages in the study area's economy in a concise fashion and
reveals the relative importance of particular sectors of the local economy.
Although input-output is more complex than shift-share and economic-base ap-
proaches, it is increasingly feasible for local agencies to use because of improved
availability of data and computer software. Local study area input-output tables are
available at reasonable cost, estimated from national input-output tables that are
updated every five years or so, and analyses can be run on a personal computer.
The disadvantage of input-output analysis is that it represents the economy in
the form of money flow, whereas the land use planner is usually interested in em-
ployment because it is more directly related to land use needs. Thus, it is necessary
to convert the results of input-output analysis into employment implications by
applying a ratio of employees to dollar values of output. Employment can usually be
summarized by just a few sectors or differentiated by location requirements, the
types of employment centers they prefer, and their average employment density.
When using the methods of economic-base, shift-share, and input-output analy-
sis, planners need to apply a pragmatic blend of ratios and judgment to the un-
derlying economic theory. These methods all rely on the care and judgment of the
planner in the selection and measurement of input data and in the extrapolation
of the ratios that determine forecasts (Isserman 2000).

Supply-side Forecasting Approaches

The approaches described above focus on the demand side of the land development
game. There are other approaches that base the projection of future population and
employment levels on estimates of what can be, or what should be, accommodated
by the future supply of developable land. There are three such approaches:
holding capacity approach,
• land use/housing modeling approach, and
• land supply design approach.
All three rely on first determining a future land supply and a future development
density by which that land supply is converted to its equivalent future population
and employment. Density considerations used in converting land supply to popula-
tion, households, and employment levels are covered in more detail in chapters
10 through 14.
140
"'E Holding Capacity Approach This approach goes by several names: land use
El
"'>- capacity, build-out capacity, carrying capacity, and holding capacity. The holding
(/)

t:: capacity of a study area will depend on the amount ofland available for develop-
0
0.
0.
;:,
ment, environmental constraints, density requirements in land use regulations,
U)
01 and infrastructure capacity, as well as assumptions about such things as house-
c
·c: hold size and employment densities. The future population wo uld be some pro -
c
"'
0:::: portion of that holding capacity, but would never exceed it. (For more complete
01
c discussions of the holding capacity approach, see Irwin 1977 and Pittenger 1976.)
This approach is applicable fo r small-area planning (e.g., neighborhoods), cen-

- tral city redevelopment planning, barrier island planning, communities hemmed

in by other jurisdictions and/or physical barriers, and for other situations where
definite boundaries can be drawn aro und the study area . See Table 5- 1 for an
example of a projection of land demand and population at build-out for six sub-
areas within the Cary, North Carolina, planning jurisdiction, based on the h old-
ing capacity approach.
For normative projections, the future population is a policy choice, not a projec-
tion, and is based on the quality of life and sustainability implications of population

Table 5-1
Future Land Demand in Serviceable Areas
Compact Development Scenario (by land use category, in acres)

Town PPAwest PPA Middle Chatham Total

Limits of Davis south Creek, Co.,
and ETJ Drive of US 1 served served

Developable land 16,891 2,342 1,039 2,841 5,369 28,482

supp ly (acres )
Supportab le pop. 82,373 11,422 5,068 13,856 26,181 138,900
increase
Future Land Demand
Commercial 690 96 42 116 219 1, 163
Industrial 725 100 45 122 230 1,222
Institutional 946 131 58 159 301 1,596
Lakes, water bodies 663 92 41 111 211 1, 118
Office 936 130 58 157 297 1,578
Parks, open space , golf 2,599 360 160 437 826 4,382
Residential, high density 827 115 51 139 263 1,394
Residential , medium 2,205 306 136 371 701 3,718
density
Resident ial, low density 5,471 759 337 920 1,739 9,226
Residential, very low 136 19 8 23 43 230
density
Public rights of way 1,689 234 104 284 537 2,848
Remain ing land, unused 4 0 7
Source: Town of Cary 1996, 40, table 48.
 141
n
size and density in relation to environmental carrying capacity, infrastructure carry- :r:
)>
ing capacity, governmental financial capacity, and the community's authentic char- u
___,
rn
acter, as well as land supply. :::rJ

-
(J1

Land Use/Housing Modeling Land use or housing modeling approaches allo- u

0
cate a parent area's population projection, or its equivalent in housing units, to geo- -0
c
graphic subareas, such as counties and municipalities; to even smaller areas such as ~-
0
census tracts, planning districts, and traffic-analysis zones; or to other geographic :::J
QJ
:::J
subdivisions of counties and towns. The approach can also be understood as a step- o_
rn
n
down approach in which a metropolitan area or labor-market area population is 0
:::J
0
forecasted first and then distributed to the local jurisdictions within the region with 3
-<
the aid of a land use or housing allocation model. A parallel logic can be used to
estimate local industrial and office space demand from regional employment pro-
jections and their distribution among localities of the region. The allocation to the
study areas is based on the relative attractiveness of that subarea in the housing mar-
ket, office real estate market, or industrial-development market. Relative attractive-
ness is based on such factors as accessibility to jobs, accessibility of shopping, quality
of schools, availability of public water and sewer, general transportation system ac-
cessibility, socioeconomic class, the holding capacity of the subarea, and other fac-
tors that attract or deter development. The approach assumes that a population pro-
jection or employment projection for the parent region has already been made, and
the task is essentially one of simulating the future land development market. Thus,
in this approach, the future population of the study area, or parts thereof, is as-
sumed to be dependent on the housing market or commercial real estate market
rather than demographic or economic processes. It is appropriate for a planning
jurisdiction, such as a bedroom suburb, that is a part of a larger labor-market area
and also has its own employment base.

Forecasting by Design In another approach related to the holding capacity and

land use modeling approaches, a planner might devise a land supply design sce-
nario. In this approach, the planner focuses not on population and economic fore-
casts to estimate the demand for land or even on land use market modeling, but
on policy decisions about the desired rate and location of development from the
public-interest perspective. The future land supply, which constitutes the carry-
ing capacity for future population and employment, is determined by the local
community's financial and institutional capacity to provide infrastructure, trans-
portation, and schools, and its capacity to administer development regulations, as
well as by environmental considerations. The scenario approach used in the Blue-
print Denver Plan described in chapter 9 is an example of this approach. The land
supply scenario is actually a planned land supply stream, controlled by develop-
ment regulations (concurrency regulations, adequate facility regulations, impact
fees, zoning, and the like) and investments in infrastructure such as water and
sewer and transportation. Smaller jurisdictions in strong market situations are
more able to use this approach than are larger jurisdictions and those suffering
from a weak economy and land market.
The ethical challenge for planners using this approach is to be true to the
sustainability principle of responsible regionalism while controlling the rate and
142
Cl)

E amount of growth locally. The temptation is to indulge in exclusionary planning

2l
Cl)
>- by inviting fiscally beneficial and socially elite development, such as middle- and
(/)

t
0
upper-end single-family housing, commercial development, and economic de-
D.
D..
:::J
velopment, while turning away multifamily and lower-end housing development.
(/)
CTl
c
c
c Hybrid Approach
m
0::
CTl
c
Most projections in practice actually depend on a combination of several of the
methods above all woven into a story exploring the future growth and change of

-
f-
a:
the community. For example, a cohort-component method may be used to simu-
late demographic dynamics of births, deaths, and migration. The fertility rates,
survival rates, and migration rates used in the simulation, however, may be pro-
<(
Q_ jected by extrapolation of past rates or extrapolation of ratio-share estimates based
on projections of the parent region's rates. Furthermore, the planner may also use
several projection methods to obtain independent projections, and then calculate
a forecast "range" or some sort of average. For example, a planner might use a
study-area extrapolation or ratio-share extrapolation as a baseline projection, but
also do input-output or cohort-survival projections, perhaps using several differ-
ent scenarios about future birth, death, and migration rates. The forecast might
be tested and adjusted through application of a design approach that calculates a
desirable rate and geographic pattern of future growth based on community vi-
sions and policy choices. By using several methods, and by utilizing different as-
sumptions within a particular method, planners can construct a likely range of
projections for planning purposes or even a desired scenario.

The Critical Role of Assumptions

Assumptions, explicit and implicit, incorporated into the models and input data are
dominant in determining forecast outcomes. One type of assumption is particularly
significant: whether assuming past growth patterns, the patterns of relationships
between study area and region, fertility/mortality/migration rates, or the relation-
ships between industries will either continue the present trends, increase in degree,
decrease in degree, or otherwise change in the future. This fundamental choice plays
a more telling role in determining forecast outcomes than the sophistication of the
techniques, data, and software used to prepare the forecast. A second basic assump-
tion reflects the degree to which future policy is presumed to change and how public
policy might affect other assumptions and outcomes. In other words, is the projec-
tion to be determined by factors outside the local policy realm or is it partially within
the local policy realm? A third type of assumption concerns the choice of historical
and projected data on which the inputs are based. This choice includes, for example,
the choice of the historical period on which to calibrate the inputs and the model's
structural relationships. Is it a long period, or is it a more recent short period, that is
most valid as precursor of the future; is it a recent period or a prior, "more typical"
period? A fourth type of assumption is built into the theory and operational struc-
ture of the model chosen to process the implications of the data and the underlying
growth assumptions. For example, in economic-base analysis, do the underlying te-
nets of economic-base theory apply validly to the particular study area? Will the
 143
n
relationships among industries in the input-output table reflect the economy of the :::r::
:t>
future? Planners are advised to carefully consider the whole range of assumptions u
___,
rn
underlying the projections and to identify them in exploring, assessing, and explain-

-
::D
Ul

ing results.
To properly explore assumptions and their role in forecasting and exploring u
D

the future population and economy of an area, Isserman (2000) advises planners =c:
~.
to undertake three steps that combine analysis with synthesis. The first step is to D
::J

gain an understanding of what population groups and industries constitute the QJ

::J
o._
local and immediate regional population and economy, how they differ from other rn
n
D
places, and how the population and economy are changing. Many communities ::J
D
3
have misinformed views of themselves, and planners need to present not just num- -<

bers but also reliable portraits of the present and past to inform and engage the
public in understanding the community and exploring its future. The second step
is to go beyond presenting projections or even forecasts, and even beyond the idea
of high, middle, and low forecasts. It involves divulging and explaining a whole
range of credible assumptions and their associated projections in ways that en-
gage policy makers, stakeholders, and the public generally in assessing the uncer-
tainty and the options about the future; that is, the various possible future "story
lines." The third step is to work with policy makers and others to facilitate the
development of a consensus about a demographic and economic story line on
which to base land use planning.

Desirable Characteristics of a Forecast

Population and economic forecasts should have certain characteristics in order to
contribute fruitfully to the State of Community Report and a community's explo-
ration of its future. First, reports from planners should fully explain the bases for
projections-the data on which inputs and model parameters are based, the as-
sumptions imbedded in the structure of the model itself and in inputs and inter-
pretations, and the combination of projection methods used. The discussion of
options in determining factors underlying future change should be reasonably
comprehensive. Sources of assumptions and data should be identified. Objective
inputs and assumptions should be distinguished from more subjective assump-
tions. Lastly, reports to policy makers and the public should explain the degree to
which the results are projection, forecast, or design, and suggest their implica-
tions for land use and infrastructure planning (Sidebar 5-3).
The methodology used in forecasts should be explained on two levels. The first
level, the scenario level, discusses whether rates are assumed to increase, decrease,
or stay the same as the current rates or those in the recent past, for example, and
perhaps compare them to assumptions in Census Bureau projections and to simi-
lar communities. At the second and more technical level, data are displayed and
explained in an appendix or separate report, in sufficient detail for another ana-
lyst to replicate the analysis.
Instead of a single projection, a population or economic forecast usually should
include several projections in order to create an interval or bracketed forecast of
future population or employment and to engage policy makers and the public in
144
U")

E
El
U") Sidebar 5-3
>
C/J
t
0
ILLUSTRATIVE TABLE OF CONTENTS FOR A POPULATION AND
o_
o_
:::i
ECONOMIC COMPONENT OF A STATE OF COMMUNITY REPORT
C/J
DJ
c (BASED ON EXCERPTS FROM PLANS)
c
c
m
0::::
DJ I. The existing state of the community
c
A. Population: Who we are

-
f-
i. Population characteristics-level; age, gender, and ethnic distribution; distribu-
tion by household type; income distribution; spatial distribution by townships and
municipalities; maps of densities, fertility and mortality rates, and migration rates
er::
<(
[l_
(lots of graphs and maps)
ii. Emerging factors-our aging population; changing household structure; the pace
of growth; household preferences about density, housing, and community prefer-
ences
iii. Implications for the future
B. Economy: How we create wealth and jobs
i. Employment- county labor force, distribution by age and occupation, unemploy-
ment, trends
ii. Economic-base and input-output analysis of economic structure, economic-base
sectors, population-serving sectors, regional influences
iii. Emerging factors-sharing prosperity, shifting economic structure
iv. Implications for the future

II. Alternative population and economic futures

i. Assumptions about dynamics of change- fertility, mortality, migration, household
structure, economic structural shifts, occupation shifts
ii. Trend scenario
iii. High-growth scenario
iv. Low-growth scenario
v. Most likely growth-dynamics scenario, absent policy intervention
vi. "Desirable/plausible" growth and distribution scenarios

Ill. Implications for the land use plan

i. Implied demand for development types- housing, neighborhoods, activity cen-
ters, employment centers
ii. Implied demand for new urban land
iii. Implied demand for redevelopment
iv. Implied demand for facilities, infrastructure, and services

discussion of both the underlying assumptions and future impacts. One of those
projections might be a baseline projection that extrapolates current trends. There
might also be a "high-plausible" projection and a "low-plausible" projection, based
on combinations of assumptions yielding a projection higher than trend extrapola-
tion or lower than trend extrapolation, respectively. For example, a high projection
 145
0
might assume lower death rates, higher birth rates, and higher net migration than :r:
)>
existing trends. The fourth projection could reflect a "most likely" combination of ~
m

-
::rJ
input assumptions. Additional projections could explore more unique but plau- LJ1

sible scenarios affecting the future composition of the population and economy
and the associated impacts on a community's well-being. Such a range of projec- Cl
0
"O
tion assumptions and outcomes would provide the basis for community dialogue c::
~
that explores possible futures and moves toward a consensus choice of a basis for c; ·
::J

land use planning. Cl>

::J
Cl..

A forecast also is more useful, depending on the degree to which the results fit m
(")
0
the needs of the user. Thus, it is more useful if made for the precise geographic ::J
0
3
area of concern, and not for a larger area or approximate area more convenient to -<

the analyst. It is also more useful if population or employment composition is

shown, for example, by household types, ethnicity or other cultural groupings,
and age, or even geographic distribution. Also, a forecast is made more useful for
land use planning if it interprets the forecast in terms of number of households
and dwellings, needed acres of land, demand for infrastructure capacity and ser-
vice levels, impacts on the environment, and so on that are implied in the forecast.
Finally, forecasts should be comprehensible-understandable, transparent,
simple, and interesting, and, above all, tell compelling stories. Planners need to
combine quantitative analytic skills and storytelling skills-not only drawing on
the methods of demographers and economists but also extending them with the
skills of a historian, trial lawyer, and storyteller. The test of whether a forecast is
useful and effective is determined in large part by whether its "story" is interest-
ing, meaningful, convincing, and useable by policy makers, stakeholders, and the
general public. A good forecast report is interesting, clear, and persuasive as well
as technically sound (Isserman 1993, 62; also Isserman 2000, 2002).

Summary
In this chapter we explained how economic and population estimates and projec-
tions are fundamental to planners' understanding of the present and future com-
munity for which they are planning. Population and economy dynamics underlie
the land use, environmental, and infrastructure dimensions of community change.
We explained the appropriate functions of demographic and economic information
in land use planning and reviewed the range of approaches for estimating and pro-
jecting employment and population. We discussed the assumptions inherent in each
approach, their strengths and weaknesses, and the rationales for choosing an ap-
proach suited to the planner's particular urban situation. The appropriate choice of
a method or combination of methods depends on the capability of the planning
staff, the time available for analysis, and the data and software available, as well as on
the basic demographic and economic dynamics affecting the planning jurisdiction.
Of the projection methods, extrapolation and ratio/share are the simplest. Both
are useful for projecting future levels of population and employment, as well as
for projecting inputs for other more sophisticated projection methods. Cohort-
component and input-output models allow the creation of projections that are
more transparent about assumptions and they produce better information on the
146
"'
E composition of the projected population or the structure of the economy. The
2
"'>- holding capacity approach may be appropriate where the planning area is clearly
(/)

t
0
constrained by environmental conditions or physical boundaries. Land use mod-
Q_
Q_
:::>
eling may be more appropriate where the housing market, rather than demo-
(/)
CJ) graphics or economics, is the basic determinant of the amount and location of
c
c
c change. In other cases, a supply-side-oriented land use design is appropriate, bas-
ro
a:: ing the pace of development and size of the community on its financial capability,
OJ
c
L:l
its environmental or economic constraints, and its vision for the future. Once an
approach is chosen, planners should turn to explanations of methodology that

-
:::>
m
are more thorough than what we have provided here, using the references cited in
the text and listed at the end of the chapter.
In presenting analyses and forecasts to policy makers and stakeholders in the
land use game, the planner should state assumptions in the form of scenarios that
are based on different trends for specific parameters that determine projections
and their impacts. At one level, these scenarios should be easily understood by
nonspecialists; for example, stating that the scenario assumes the future fertility
rates projected by the state office of demographic and economic analysis. At a
more technical level, the assumptions should be stated in sufficient detail to en-
able another analyst to replicate the study. The planner might also develop a "plau-
sible high" and a "plausible low" projection to bracket the "most likely" and/or
"preferred" scenario (s).
Because population dynamics and the economy are what drive urban growth and
change, they are fundamental components of a planning information system and a
good place to begin an analysis of the past, present, and likely future of a commu-
nity. To create a complete information foundation for land use planning, however,
data and the analytic capability to analyze the natural environment, infrastructure,
transportation, and land use policies are also important. These components of the
planning information system are covered in the next three chapters. It is also impor-
tant to coordinate the data representation and analyses of all these aspects of the
urban place in order to ferret out the issues implied by the existing and emerging
state of the community, to explore scenarios for the future, and to develop a consen-
sus about a vision for the future. Those tasks are addressed in chapter 9.

Notes
l. For variations on the typology of approaches discussed here, see Bendavid-Val (1991),
Goldstein and Bergman ( 1983 ), Hamberg, Lathrop, and Kaiser (1983 ), and Pittenger ( 1976).
Also, the previous two editions of this text provide fuller and more technical descriptions
of these models.

References
Bendavid-Val, Avrom. 1991. Regional and local economic analysis for practitioners, 4th ed.
New York: Praeger.
City of Gastonia. 1995. City vision 2010: Gastonia's comprehensive plan. Gastonia, N.C.:
Department of Planning.
 147
n
City of San Jose. 1994. Porns on the future: San Jose 2020 general plan. San Jose, Calif.: :r:
)>
Department of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement. ~
rn
Goldstein, Harvey, and Edward M. Bergman. 1983. Methods and models forpro}ecting state

-
:D
U1
and area industry employment. Chapel Hill, N.C.: National Occupational Information
Coordinating Committee, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. u
0
Hamberg, John R., George T. Lathrop, and Edward J. Kaiser. 1983. Forecasting inputs to "O
c:
transportation planning. National Cooperative Highway Research Program Report 266. ~
0
Washington, D.C.: Transportatio n Research Board, National Research Council. ::l
QJ

Irwin, Richard. 1977. Guide for local area population projections: Technical paper 3. Wash- ::l
Cl.
rn
ington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, and U.S. Govern- 0
n
::l
ment Printing Office. 0
3
Isserman, Andrew M. 1984. Projection, forecast, and plan: On the future of population -<
forecasting. Journal of tlze American Planning Association 50 (2): 208-21.
Isserman,Andrew M. 1993. The right people, the right rates: Making population estimates
and forecasts with an interregional cohort-component model. Journal of the American
Planning Association 59 (1): 45-64.
Isserman, Andrew M. 2000. Economic base studies for urban and regional planning. In
Tlze profession ofcity planning: Changes, images and challenges: 1950-2000, Lloyd Rodwin
and Bishwapriya Sanyal, eds., 174-93. New Brunswick, N.J.: Center for Urban Policy
Research, Rutgers University.
Isserman, Andrew M. 2002. Methods of regional analysis, 191 3-201 3: Mindsets, possibili-
ties, and challenges. Paper delivered at the annual conference of the Association of
Collegiate Schools of Planning, Baltimore, Md., November.
Klosterman, Richard E. 1990. Com munity analysis and planning. Savage, Md.: Rowman &
Littlefield.
Klosterman, Richard E. 2002. The evolution of planning methods: Design, applied science,
and reasoning together. Paper delivered at the annual conference of the Association of
Collegiate Schools of Planning, Baltimore, Md., November.
Meck, Stuart, with Joseph Bornstein and Jerome Cleland. 2000. A primer on population
projections, PAS Memo, February. Chicago, Ill.: American Planning Association.
Meck, Stuart. 2002. Growing Smart legislative guidebook: Model statutes for planning and
the management of change. Chicago, Ill.: American Planning Association.
Murdock, Steve H., Rita R. Hamm, Paul R. Voss, Darrell Fannin, and Beverly Pecotte. 1991.
Evaluating small-area population projections. Journal of the American Planning Asso-
ciation 57 (4): 432-43.
Myers, Dowell. 200 1. Demographic futures as a guide to planning. Journal of the American
Planning Association 67 (4): 383-97.
Myers, Dowell, and Alicia Kitsuse. 2000. Constructing the future in planning: A survey of
theories and tools. Journal of Planning Education and Research 19 (5) : 221-32.
Myers, Dowell, and Lee Menifee. 2000. Population analysis. In The practice of local govern-
ment planning, 3rd ed., Charles Hoch, Linda Dalton, and Frank S. So, eds., 61-86.
Washington, D.C.: International City/County Management Association.
Pittenger, Donald B. 1976. Proiecting state and local populations. Cambridge, Mass.: Ballinger.
Shyrock, Henry S., Jacob S. Siegel, et al. 1976. The methods and materials of demography,
cond. ed., Edward G. Stockwell, ed. New York: Academic Press.
Town of Cary. 1996. Town of Cary growth management plan. Cary, N.C.: Planning and
Zoning Division.
Wachs, Martin. 2001. Forecasting versus envisioning. Journal of the American Planning As-
sociation 67 (4): 367-72.
 Chapter 6

Environmental Systems

In preparation for the development of a new community plan, you are

asked to pull together and analyze environmental information and rec-
ommend environmental protection guidelines for the land use plan. As
part of the planning process, you must inventory and classify the eco-
logical features in the community based on the level of conservation
value, ecological services, and threat from a hazard. You will also need to
assess projected change in environmental quality resulting from alterna-
tive plans for future land use . The products of your work should identify
the different types of land uses most suitable for different areas in the
community, offer information on the environmental impacts of alterna-
tive land use patterns, and make recommendations on how best to miti-
gate environmental impacts resulting from future land use change . What
should you do to carry out this assignment?

ood, effective planning requires taking stock of the local environment.

As Daniels and Daniels (2003) state, an understanding of the environ-
ment helps the planner to inform local decisions about "shaping a com-
munity by protecting and improving air and water quality; conserving farming,
forestry, and wildlife resources; reducing exposure to natural hazards; and main-
taining the natural features and built environment that make a place livable and
desirable" (xix).
This chapter lays out key features of an inventory of environmental informa-
tion bases and analytical procedures used to develop land use plans. The first part
of the chapter focuses on an environmental invento ry within a planning area. An
inventory consists of an integrated set of info rmation bases that describe the main
topographic, geologic, hydrologic, and vegetative features of the landscape. Each
feature may include certain environmental qualities, including valuable resources,
important ecological functions, and hazardous conditions to human settlements.

149
150
U)

E These qualities can be classified based on the level of co nservation value of a re-
2U)
>
(/)
source; significance of ecological functions of a land unit; degree of public health
t
0
threat from natural and technological hazards; and extent of ethical and spiritual
o._
o._
::J
appreciation of the land. A key attribute of an environmental inventory for land
(/)
CJ)
c
use planning is the mapped display of the spatial distribution of the landscape
c
c: features and associated classifications. Once these features are spatially identified
m
0:::
CJ)
and classified, planners can begin to formulate land use alternatives to guide plan -
c:
-0
ning toward more sustainable place making.
::J
The second part of the chapter focuses on various techniques used to analyze

-
CD

data collected for the environmental inventory. Three analysis techn iques are dis-
cussed: composite land su itabili ty analysis collectively analyzes multiple landscape
l-
a: features to identify locations that are most su itable for different types of land
<(
CL
uses; environmental impact analysis estimates the environmental effects of alter-
native development scenari os; and carrying capacity analysis determines the lim-
its of how much growth can be accommodated without falling short of environ-
mental quality goals. We then present a case study of an innovative application of
land suitability analysis in conjunction with environmental impact and carrying
capacity analyses in the Deep River watershed of North Carolina to demonstrate
the combined use of the techniques.

Environmental Inventory and Classification

As noted, an environmental inventory involves assembling a range of information
bases about the ecological features of the landscape. Each feature may include
certain environmental qualities that can be classified in several ways, including:
• the level of conservation value of a resource (e.g., productivity of soil for
farming and forestry; health of water-supply watersheds);
• the significance of ecological functions of a land unit that offer environmen-
tal services to communities (e.g., woodlands that buffer human population
from wildlife carrying diseases, suitability of a soil type to filter pollutants,
flood control capability of a wetland);
• the degree of public health threat from a hazard (e.g., proximity to an earth-
quake fault line, concentration of pollutants that can be inhaled or ingested
by the human population, and instability of slopes); and
• the level of ethical and spiritual appreciation of the land (aesthetic quality of
scenic views, protection of th reatened species and biodiversity).
The intent is to provide planners and their commun ities with knowledge about re-
sources, ecological functions, public health threats, and aesthetic values of the land.
In discussing these features, we emphasize the watershed or ecosystem as the ap-
propriate units for an environmental inventory rather than individual development
sites. Stormwater runoff is effectively managed on a watershed basis to coordinate
the timing of stormwater releases for flood control, ensure minimum low flows for
maintenance of aquatic habitat, and protect stream banks from erosion. Wildlife
must be managed as a community of interrelated species because land use activities
that affect one species also affect others. Wetlan ds, streams, an d other connected
 151
n
water bodies must be managed jointly to best meet needs for flood control, recre- :r:
)>
ation, and the maintenance of the life cycles of aquatic species. Ecosystems also offer -0
---1
m
::D
a broad perspective for mediating the sources of human health risk through mainte-
-
m
nance of ecological functions (Aron and Patz 2001) (e.g., trees reduce the produc-
tion of ozone by reducing air temperature through evapotranspiration and shad- m
::::J
:S.
ing). The type of features and how they might be classified covered in this section 0
::::J
include topography and slopes, soils, wetlands, wildlife habitats, watershed health, 3
CD
;::'.
and natural hazards. Q)

Topography and Slopes

Topographic features of the land represent the shape and elevation of the land
surface above sea level. Topographic maps render the three-dimensional ups and
downs of the terrain on a two-dimensional surface. Topographic maps that cover
the entire area of the forty-eight contiguous states and Hawaii are produced by
the U.S. Geological Survey.
Topographic maps usually portray both natural and human settlement fea-
tures. They show and name natural features including mountains, valleys, plains,
lakes, rivers, and vegetation. They also identify the principal features of human
settlements, such as roads, boundaries, transmission lines, and building footprints.
Contour lines are drawn on these maps that connect points of equal elevation.
Each line represents a specific elevation. The difference in elevation between adja-
cent contours is the vertical "contour interval " (see Figure 6-1 ).

~ . 1.
. 't . " ·
/!>;.~ -~- ·- ·~ ~
11

j ; :...,...- ~· • Ii! fl 1.
~ r. . .:, , ; : - , ..... <"'"
~.."\ ! .... / :".
~ I . .'.:: '
I ·..•.. .
i" ,.'.: ~ .
. . ",; :j
l
Fig. 6-1 Example of a USGS topographic map. Source: U.S. Geological Society
2003b.
152
"'E Produced at a scale of 1:24,000, these maps are known as 7.5 minute quad-
El
"'>-
(/)
rangle maps because each map covers a four-sided area of 7.5 minutes of latitude
g and 7.5 minutes of longitude. The United States has been systematically divided
0..
0..
::::J
into precisely measured quadrangles, and adjacent maps can be integrated to form
(/)
a single large map. The 7.5 minute quadrangle map series is popular as a base for
°'
c
c
c maps of many different types and scales. In addition to the 1:24,000-scale maps,
co
a: complete topographic coverage of the United States is available at scales of
°'
c 1:100,000 and 1:250,000. Maps are also available at other scales. The detail illus-
trated on a map is proportionate to the scale of the map-the larger the scale, the

-
l-
more detail shown. Since one inch on the map represents 2,000 feet on land,
1:24,000-scale maps are relatively detailed. These maps depict schools, churches,
a: cemeteries, ski lifts, and even fence lines. Many of these features are generalized or
~ omitted in smaller-scale topographic maps.
Topography is an important consideration in land use planning because of the
hazards posed by slopes. Landslides resulting from unstable slopes cause about $2
billion annually in damage in the United States and claim about fifty lives (APA
2002). Planners must recognize that land uses have slope limitations and that in-
appropriate use of slopes can increase the hazards posed by slopes. Inappropriate
land use occurs because of two types of development practices: 1) the siting of
structures on slopes that are unstable or potentially unstable; and 2) the distur-
bance of stable slopes resulting in failure , accelerated erosion, and deterioration
of vegetation in the slope environment.
The first type can result from inadequate identification and mapping of slopes
on landscapes that are unstable, or from inadequate land use controls on develop-
ment that do not limit or prevent development on steep slopes (see Figure 6-2).
The second type occurs as slopes become more unstable for development due to
inappropriate development practices. Marsh ( 1998) identifies three types of com-
mon disturbances:
· Cut and fill to accommodate highways and residential development. This
practice weakens slopes by creating unstable vertical inclinations and less

Fig . 6-2 Slid ing of unsta bl e soi l undermines a terrace in Pacific Palisades,
California . Source: Hays 1991.
 153
n
confining pressure on the lower slope area, thereby increasing the potential :r
)>
for failure; -u
--l
m
:IJ
· Deforestation for urbanization, forestry, or agriculture. This practice re-
-
m

duces the stabilizing effect of vegetation and increases storm water runoff
m
as infiltration rates are reduced; and :::J
:S .
· Alteration of natural drainage due to inappropriate siting of development a
:::J
3
leading to increased slope instability, and accelerated erosion from increased "'~
QJ
stormwater runoff. (/)
-<
~
Slopes can be delineated and classified from topographic maps. Classification of "'3
slopes involves the determination of change in the "rise" in height over the "run" in "'
distance. Contour maps are used to classify slopes (e.g., less than 5 percent, 5- 10
percent, 10- 20 percent, greater than 20 percent) and to map each classification.
To avoid or m inimize community vulne rability, planners must make an
appropriate match between land uses and slopes. In most cases, this involves the
assignment of land uses that: 1) do not require modification of slopes to achieve
satisfactory performance; and 2) would not be vulnerable by the slope and underly-
ing soil conditions. Slope classes must be tailored to groups of lands uses. Table 6-1
illustrates the range of possible and optimum slopes for different types ofland uses.

Table 6-1
Slope Requirements by Land Use

Land Use Maximum Minimum Optimum

House sites 20-25% 0% 2%
Playgrounds 2-3% 0.05% 1%
Public stair 50% 25%
Lawns (mowed) 25% 2-3%
Septic drainfields 15% * 0% 0.05%
Paved surfaces
Parking lots 3% 0.05% 1%
Sidewalks 10% 0% 1%
Streets and roads 15-17% 1%
20 mph 12%
30 mph 10%
40 mph 8%
50 mph 7%
60 mph 5%
70 mph 4%
Industrial sites
Factory sites 3-4% 0% 2%
Lay-down storage 3% 0.05% 1%
Parking 3% 0.05% 1%

*Special drainfi el d designs are required at sl opes above 10 to 12 percent.

Source: Landscape Planning: En vironmental Applications, 2n d edition, W il liam Marsh. Copyright©
1998 John Wiley & Son s, Inc . Th is materi al is used by permission of John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
154
U)

E A digital elevation model (DEM) can aid planners by replacing time-consum-

-2!
U) ing and labor-intensive manual slope mapping with automated slope delineation.
>-
(/)

t A DEM is a digital file of terrain elevations for ground positions at regularly spaced
0
o_
o_ horizontal intervals. DEMs are often constructed from data collected for creating
:::J
(/)
topographic maps, as well as other sources. DEM maps are a standard product of
=
c:
the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), and are widely available. GIS software can be
c:
c:
ro
0:: used to classify slopes based on slope-classification criteria. Figure 6-3 shows slopes
=
c: within a watershed based on a DEM.
Slopes should not be the only factor in determining ground stability. Figure 6-

-
:::J
m
4 illustrates the La Conchita landslide near Santa Barbara, California, in March
199 5, which reveals that steep slopes (over 60 percent) and other factors contrib-
f-
a: ute to hazardous conditions, including: minimal vegetation that lacks dense root
<!'.
CL
networks, which detracts from stability; cut and fill for the road in the middle of
the slope area and for residential development at the base of the slope area; and
soils and bedrock prone to instability under heavy rainfall.
However, whereas land use mapping of other natural hazards, such as earth-
quakes or flooding, has received considerable attention by federal, state, and local
governments, slope stability has not been a priority. Part of the problem may be
because of the nature of the hazard. Unlike flood hazard zones and some earth-
quake-prone areas, unstable slopes cannot be readily identified because a wider
array of factors must be considered, including, for example, steepness, drainage
capability, earthquake potential, vegetative cover, and land disturbances.

Percent
[~~ 0-4.999
c--J 5- 9.999
)
- 10- 14.999
- 15 - 19.999
- 20- 37.361

o.!"'
5 """"'liiiiiiii,.,.....!"""'!"""'o
.._.siliiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii1 Miles

Fig. 6-3 Excerpt of slopes computed from a standard DEM, Booker Creek
Watershed, Chapel Hill, North Carolina.
 155

-
m
::::>
:S .
a::::>
3
co
:::0
o:i

Fig. 6-4 La Conchita landslide due to an unstable slope. Source: U.S. Geologi-
cal Survey 2003a.

Evaluations of slope stability for land use planning purposes are often based on
these factors, which can then be used for mapping, depending on the availability
and reliability of data. Figure 6-5 illustrates an interpretive map of movement
potential of undisturbed ground for the town of Portola Valley, California. The
map is quite detailed, showing individual parcels at a scale of one inch to 500 feet,
and was derived from aerial photos and detailed ground reconnaissance of geo-
logic conditions immediately below the surface and bedrock. Figure 6-6 shows
the legend of the map of movement potential of undisturbed ground that speci-
fies four basic classifications of land stability from most to least stable, and the
permissible uses by stability class:
1. Relatively stable ground (symbols Sbr, Sun, Sex);
2. Areas with significant potential for downslope movement of ground (sym-
bols Sis, Ps);
3. Areas with potential surface rupturing and related ground displacements as-
sociated with active faulting (symbols Pmw, Ms, Pd, Psc, Md); and
4. Unstable ground characterized by seasonally active downslope movement
(symbol Pf).
The town used the interpretive map to develop one of the first slope-density
regulations in the United States. The town's plan established four categories of
156
residential land use in which gross acres per housing unit varied according to
slope:
t::'.
D
1. One house per acre on 1-15 percent slope;
Cl._
Cl._
::i
(/)
2. One house per two acres on 15-30 percent slope;
Ol
c 3. One house per four acres on 30-50 percent slope; and
4. One house per nine acres on 50 percent or more slope.
The plan also recommended clustering houses on easily developed lands and
leaving the more difficult lands as open space to be held in common by the own-

- ers of the lots in a development.

Compared to Portola Valley, other communities have taken a technically less com-
plex and less resource-intensive approach to the identification and classification of

MOVEMENT POTENTIAL OF UNDISTURBED GROUND

Town of Portola Valley (Northwest Portion) o.,i...-==-=5•!,i.,.o t e et 6

Fig. 6-5 Movement potential of undisturbed ground, town of Portola Valley, California.
 157
n
unstable slopes. As planners in Seattle have demonstrated, simply mapping the slope I
}>
areas that have a history of instability provides valuable information for land use -0
-i
m
::0

-
planning purposes. Under a landslide hazard mitigation program started by the city m
after th e massive 1997 landslides along the Puget Sound, city planners and
geotechnical staff have initiated a major inventory project to locate landslide events m
:;,
S.
and potential slide areas. Figure 6-7 illustrates the first generation of these maps a
:;,
created by the city's GIS mapping sys tem. This map was used to develop unstable 3
CD
:;,
slop e ordinances that rely on several different approaches involving density limits @"

based on slope inclination, soil instability, and the condition of forested cover, as
well as administrative review in special study-zone designations of unstable slope
areas. More technically precise maps based on detailed ground reconnaissance are
being prepared to supplement the historical landslide maps. 1

FIG. 6-5 LEGEND

Relatively Stable Ground
ISbr I Level ground to moderately steep slopes underlain by bedrock within approximately
three feet of ground surface or less; relatively thin soil mantle may be subject to
shallow landsliding, settlement, and soil creep.
!Sun I Unconsolidated granular material (alluvium, slope wash, and thick soil) on level
ground and gentle slopes; subject to settlement and soil creep; liquefaction possible at
valley floor sites during strong earthquakes.
~ Naturally stabilized ancient landslide debris on gentle to moderate slopes; subject to
settlement and soil creep.
!Sex! Generally highly expansive, clay-rich soils and bedrock. Subject to seasonal shrink-
swell, rapid soil creep, and settlement. May include areas on non-expansive material.
Expansive soils may also occur within other map units.

Areas with Significant Potential for Downslope Movement of Ground

~ Steep to very steep slopes generally underlain by weathered and fractured bedrock;
subject to mass-wasting by rockfall, slumping, and raveling.
[fil Unstable, unconsolidated material, commonly less than 10 feet in thickness, on gentle
to moderately steep slopes subject to shallow landsliding, slumping, settlement, and
soil creep.
ill] Unstable, unconsolidated material, commonly more than 10 feet in thickness, on
moderate to steep slopes; subject to deep landsliding.

Areas with Potential for Surface Rupturing and Related Ground Displacements Associated
with Active Faulting
IBJ Zone of potential permanent ground displacement within 100 feet of active fault trace .
Unstable Ground Characterized by Seasonally Active Downslope Movement
I Ms I Moving shallow landslides, commonly less than 10 feet in thickness.
I Md I Moving deep landslides, commonly more than 10 feet in thickness.
Contacts between map units: solid where known, long dashes where approximate, short
dashes where inferred, queried where probable.

Source: Spangle Associates 1988. Reproduced by permission from Spangle Associates, Inc., Urban
Planning and Research .
158
"'
E
E:?
"'>-
(/) CRITERIA FOR PERMISSIBLE LAND USE IN PORTOLA VALLEY
t
0
o_
o_ LAND HOUSES
::i
(/) STABILITY ROADS (parcel acreage)
SYMBOL Public Private Y.-Ac I-Ac 3-Ac UTILITIES WATER TANKS
c::
c::
ca
0:::: MOST Sbr y y y y y y y
OJ
c::
STABLE Sun y y y y y y y
<::J

Sex [YJ y (YJ y y y [YJ

-
::i
co

Sis [YJ (YJ [NJ (YJ [YJ [YJ (NJ

= Ps [YJ [YJ [NJ [YJ [YJ [YJ [NJ
Pmw [NJ (NJ [NJ · (NJ [NJ [NJ [NJ
Ms [NJ [NJ N N N N N
Pd N [NJ N N N N N
Psc N N N N N N N
Md N N N N N N N
LEAST
STABLE Pf [YJ [YJ (Covered by zoning [NJ [NJ
ordinance)

LEGEND: y Yes (construction permitted)

[YJ Normally permitted, given favorable geologic data and/or
engineering solutions
N No (construction not permitted)
[NJ Normally not permitted, unless geologic data and/or engineering
solutions favorable

S
Stable
P
Potential movement
M
Moving
LAND br
bedrock within three feet of surface
STABILITY d deep landsliding
SYMBO£S: ex expansive shale interbedded with sandstone
(as used on f permanent ground displacement within 100 feet of active fault zone
geologic Is ancient landslide debris
hazards map) mw mass wasting on steep slopes, rockfalls and slumping
s shallow landsliding or slumping
sc movement along scarps of bedrock landslides
un unconsolidated material on gentle slope

Fig. 6-6 Permissib le land uses by slope stabil ity, town of Portola Valley, California . Reproduced b y
permission from Spangle Associates, In c., Urban Planning and Research.
 159

Legend
Potential Slicle Areas

•
?
Lanclslicle in 19915
Lanclslicle in 1997

• Lanclsl icle in 1998

A \'
·!
Scale in Mil es

0 2
•!• 1900 , THE CITY OF SE.'l.TTLE, 1111 righta reserved
No w11rr!lntilM'i of l'!ll"IY so;!, induaW1g ac;cur•cy .
filne,i;i;: or m e rchantability, accompany lhiti:irociJcL

Fig. 6-7 Major landslide locations in 1996, 1997 , and 1998, Seattle. Source: Seattle Public Utilities
Geographic Systems Group 2004.
160
"'
E Soils
~
"'>-
(/) Soils are a critical feature for guiding decisions about the location and site de-
t'.
0
Q_
Q_
sign of different land uses like residential, industrial, and landfills. Soil surveys
:::i
(/) were originally undertaken to serve agriculture, but since 1960 they have been
= expanded to serve urban land use and environmental values of the landscape. The
'=
c
c
cu National Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) of the U.S. Department of Ag-
0::::
c= riculture is responsible for soil survey reports, which are published by county
Ll
throughout the United States. The area covered by a survey is determin ed by many

-
:::J
co
factors, including the complexity of soils, topography, and the needs of users. Soil
survey maps included in the reports are typically useful at the communitywide
f-
cc
and regional scales, but map scale and accuracy are marginal at the site scale,
<(
CL which is typically less than 100 acres. Accordin gly, site planning for individual
development projects may require more specific analysis that entails detailed field
mapping followed by tests to determine whether soils may pose problems associ-
ated with, for example, weight-bearing capacity, drainage, instability, and erosion.
Classification of soils is essential for producing soil survey maps. The NRCS
soil classification system uses various features (or properties ) to classify and de -
scribe the suitability of soils for different types of land uses, including, for ex-
ample, septic tank systems, sanitary landfills, roads, dwellings (with and without
basements), recreation, and farmland productivity. The following features are most
applicable for making inferences about soil suitability.
· Weight-bearing capacity is the resistance of a soil to compression fro m
the weight of the overlying landscape. Coarse particles like sand and gravel
have the greatest stability and generally provide a high weight-bearing ca-
pacity for development. Fine-grain clayey soils are generally less resistant
to comp ression and more prone to lateral slippage when wet.
· Shrink swell is the degree to which soil contracts and expands when sub-
ject to variations in m oisture. Clay soils are pron e to significant changes in
shrinkage and swelling with changes in soil moisture. Soils with high levels
of shrink and swell tend to generate high levels of stress on foundations
and utility lines.
· Infiltration capacity is the rate that water penetrates the soil surface as
measured in inches per hour. Poorly drained soils, especially clay soils with
small spaces between particles that prevent drainage, have low infiltration
rates and are more likely to experience frequent or permanent saturation
and standing surface water. Well-drained soils, like sand and gravel with
large spaces between particles that allow rapid drainage, are not subject to
prolonged periods of saturation and the accumulation of surface water.
· Erodibility is the susceptibility of soil loss to runoff. An erodibility factor
(called the K-factor by the NRCS) is a value that represents the relative
erodibility of soil types. Four conditions determine K-factor values:
1. Vegetation. The greater the vegetative cover, the more dense the roo t
network that binds soil particles together and makes them resistant to
the force of run off, and the greater the reduction in the erosive force
 161
of raindrops when they strike the soil surface because of interception
by leaves and ground foliage;
2. Soil type. Moderate-size particles (sands) tend to be the most prone to
erosion; small particles (clays) are not erosive due to the tight bond
among the particles, which exhibits a strong cohesive fo rce that resists
erosion; and large particles (pebbles, gravel) are resistant given their
-
m
::::i
:S.
0
::::i

greater masses as compared to sand particles; 3

CD
::::i

3. Slopes. Steep and long slopes are the most erosive because they create 5l'
Cl?
-<
runoff that is high in ve locity and mass; and "'<D
3
4. Rainfall. The more frequent, intense (thunderstorms versus gentle "'
rain), and higher the total amount of rainfall, th e more likely it is that
rainfall will promote soil erosion.
• Slope is the inclination of the landscape (see previous discussion). Soil
type and topographic gradients on individual landforms are related. Some
soil types typically occur in steep slope areas and are prone to instability,
while others occur in gently rolling terrain less pone to instability. In the
case of vegetated hillsides, for example, soil particles tend to be coarse along
the midslope where runoff is highest, and increasingly fine at the toe of the
slope where runoff slows down and small particles are deposited.
· Depth to seasonal high water table is the distance between the soil surface
and the upper level of the water table. Soils located in areas where the up-
per part of water tables are close to the surface are less likely to effectively
drain even if the soil has a high infiltration capacity. Soils in locations with
high water tables are prone to standing nuisance water (e.g., a problem for
residential basements) and are limited in drainage capability.
• Fertility involves soils with high proportions of organic matter that are
nutrient rich and yield high levels of agricultural productivity. The organic
matter in fertile soils also tend to take up significant amo unts of precipita-
tion, which reduces runoff rates and serves as moisture reservoirs for wet-
land vegetation. Fertile soils are also prone to compression under the weight
of heavy farm equipment and building structures, and tend to decompose
when drained. Decompression and decomposition are common in fertile
areas where soils have been drained, farmed, and eventually built over.
The NRCS has classified over 14,000 types of soils (or soil series) based on
these and other features (Muckel 2004). Planners must be aware of the consider-
able variation of soil features across different landscapes. In uniform terrains like
the Great Plains, there is little variability in soils because a similar soil composi-
tion covers all surfaces except stream valleys. In diverse terrain with mountains
and valleys, differences in soil series vary in areas as small as ten acres.
An example of siting a specific land use activity in the Booker Creek watershed
of Chapel Hill, North Carolina, demonstrates how a soil survey can be used in a
soil suitability analysis. Figure 6-8 shows a digital map available from the NRCS's
soil survey database that displays the distribution of soil ser ies in th e Booker Creek
watershed. The map provides a database for locating an innovative and effective
162
"'E stormwater runoff-mitigation technique known as bioretention. Bioretention is a
El
"'>-
(/)
depression or bowl ranging from 50 to 200 square feet in surface area that tempo-
t
0
rarily holds and filters stormwater runoff from impervious surfaces like parking lots,
o._
o._
:::0
streets, and rooftops (see Figure 6-9). Trees and shrubs are planted in bioretention
(/)
Cl
c
sites. Pollutants are removed through various physical and biological processes, in-
c
c cluding absorption, microbial action, sedimentation, plant uptake, and filtration. In
"'
0:: addition, bioretention allows infiltration, thus replenishing groundwater.
Cl
.~
"O
A procedure for producing a soil suitability map for bioretention involves as-
:::0
co signing a rating to all relevant soil types. This procedure consists of five steps:

-
l-
l. Identify soil criteria (or features ) for assessing suitability. Hunt and
White (2002) identify three criteria that are most crucial to the suitability
a:
<(
D.... of bioretention: soil infiltration rate, slope, and depth of the seasonal high-
water table.
2. Assign numerical values that are suitable by soil criteria. Indicate a range
of numerical values for each criterion that are suitable for a bioretention
facility (see Table 6-2) .
3. Determine the actual value for each criterion. Values for each criterion
were assign ed by soil type according to the soil survey report. In the
bioretention exa mple, Table 6-3 shows the actual values for each of the
three criteria for three types of soils.

Soil Symbol
ApB
ApC
Aue
CfB
etc
Ch
Cp
- CrB
EnB
EnC
GeB
Gee
GID
GIF
HeB
HrB
HrC
HwB
HwC
lrB
luB
Lg
Tao
TaE 0.5 o 0.5 1 Miles
WmD ..
__."_"""'."Jiiiiiiiiii..........""iiiliiiiiiliiiiii
WmE
WsB
WtC2
N
WwC
] WxF
Water Body
,...-----., Urban Land'
w~

Fig. 6-8 Excerpt of Booker Creek watershed, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, from a
standard digital map from the U.S. Natural Resources Conservation Service 2003.
 163
n
:::r:
)>
Table 6-2 _,
CJ
rn
Criteria and Suitability Values for :0

Bioretention

Soil Criteria Numerical Values

-m

rn
:::i
::::.
0
:::i
Infiltration rate greater than on e inch 3
ct>
per hour ~
Q)

Water table seasonal high-water (/)

-<
table should not come "'ro
w ithin two feet of the 3
surface "'
Slope slope should not
exceed 6 percent
So urce: Adapted from Hunt and White 2002.

Fig. 6-9 Bioretention area after installation in

Carpenter Village, North Carolina . Source: Berke
et al. 2003. Reprinted with permission b y the
Journal o f the American Plan ning Association.

Table 6-3
Examples of Suitability Values for Bioretention by Selected Soil Types in
the Booker Creek Watershed
Infiltration rate Water table Slope Overall suitability
ApB 2 t o 6 inches/hr > 6 feet 2 to .6% suitable
Appling
EnB less than 1 inch/ hr < 2 feet 2 to 6% not suitable
Enon
WmE 2 to 6 inches/ hr > 6 feet 15 to 25% not suitable
Wedowee

4. Determine the overall suitability rating by soil type. In this case, Table 6-
3 shows that if all criteria are suitable, then the overall rating is suita bl~.
Alternatively, if one or more criteri a are not suitable, then the overall rat-
ing is not suitable.
5. Assign a shade (or color) to the soil survey map. Figure 6-1 0 indicates a
shade (or color) that corresponds to the overall suitability rating of
bioretention for each soil type.

Wetlands
Wetlan ds have a long history of being regarded as oflimited valu e and have been
destroyed for agriculture and urban development. In the 1600s, there were over
164
U")

E
.El
U")
>-
[/)

t::'.
a
a.
a.
::J
[/)
O">
c:
c:
c:
co
a:
O">
c:

-
f-
a:
<l'.
CL

- l\bt Suitable
CJ Suitable
- Wc:rter Body Fig. 6-10 Soil suitability for a
CJ Urban Land* bioretention facility.

220 million acres of wetlands in the lower forty-eight states, compared to only
105 million acres of wetlands in 1997. 2 Since the passage of the 1972 Clean Water
Act, wetlands have been considered a valuable community resource. The U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers are responsible for wetland interpretation and the review of
projects in wetland areas.
Wetland functions offer the following values to human communities, including:
• wildlife habitat and biodiversity;
• contiguity with other open spaces and water bodies;
• flo od storage;
• sediment trapping;
• nutrient trapping;
• aesthetics and scenic beauty;
• shoreline erosion control; and
• groundwater protection.
Identification of wetlands involves a broad array of physical and ecological
features of the landscape. Variation in the prevalence of these features leads to
difficulty in deriving a concise definition of a wetland. However, there is general
agreement among ecologists that a wetland must include three key features: 1) the
presence of surface water fo r a continuous period during the year; 2) the presence
of saturated soils that are formed under conditions of saturation; and 3) the pres-
ence of vegetation that is adapted to survive in areas that are frequently inundated
and contain wet soils (Tiner 1999). Section 404 of the Clean Water Act includes a
 165
n
definition of wetlands based on these features: "Wetlands are areas that are inun- I
)>
dated or saturated by surface or ground water at a frequency and duration suffi- _,
--0
m

-
::rJ
cient to support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence m
of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions."
To facilitate wetlands management, regulatory agencies have adopted a com- m
~.
prehensive wetlands classification system as part of the U.S. National Wetlands 0
::0
Survey, which maps wetlands on standard U.S. Geological Survey topographic 3
CD
;:;.
maps (Cowardin et al. 1979). The classification scheme identifies five broad classes Q.l

(/)
of wetlands systems: marine (deep water), estuarine (shallow saltwater zones like -<

coastal embayments and marshes ), riverine (freshwater stream channels), lacus- "'ro
3
trine (standing water bodies like lakes and ponds), and palustrine (inland marshes, "'
swamps, and bogs). Figure 6-11 illustrates the locations of wetlands by class in
Brazoria County, Texas. The National Wetlands Inventory also provides more de-
tailed classifications of these broad classes based on more specification of wet-
lands water levels, types of soils, and types of vegetation and dominant species.
Caution should be used in applying these wetlands maps at smaller site-level
scales. The digital data for the maps are prepared from high-altitude aerial photo-
graphs that reflect conditions during the specific year and season when they were
taken. In addition, there is a margin of error inherent in the use of ae rial photo-
graphs. Thus, detailed on-site analysis may result in a revision of the wetland
boundaries established through photographic interpretation. Also, small wetlands
and those obstructed by dense forest cover may not be included in the inventory.
There is considerable variation in the degree to which wetlands support bio-
logical, physical, and social functions of value to human communities. Many tech-
niques have been developed for assessing how well wetlands support these func-
tions. 3 The best known are the Environmental Protection Agency's Environmen-
tal Monitoring Assessment Program-Wetlands (EMAP-Wetlands), the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service's Habitat Evaluation Procedure (HEP), and the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers' Wetland Evaluation Technique (WET).4 WET is applicable to
all wetlands types in the contiguous United States. Various biological, water re-
source, and social functions and values are addressed, including, for example:
groundwater recharge capability; sedimentation stabilization; nutrient removal;
wildlife diversity/abundance; aquatic diversity/abundance; recreation; and unique-
ness and heritage. Wetland evaluators assemble available information (e.g., soil
survey, topographic maps, aerial photos) and delineate the assessment areas. Evalu-
ators review the available data and conduct site visits to provide yes-or-no an-
swers to questions contain ed in WET. The responses to these questions are linked
to a series of interpretation keys to determine how well each function is supported
by selected wetlands.
Many states and local governments have developed wetland evaluation meth-
ods on their own. The Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources wetland evalu-
ation protocol assigns ratings for nine wetland functions including, for example,
wildlife habitat, flood control, recreation, and corridor/contiguity with other open
space. On the basis of a wetland's rating, more or less protection is afforded
by state and local governments. Figure 6-12 shows mapped results of ratings for
two functions (flood control and corridor/open-space contiguity) of eighty-one
166
"'
E Wetlands in Portion of Brazoria County, Texas
.El
"'
>-
(/)

t::
0
a.
a.
::J
(/)
I
Cl
c
c
c
co
0::::
Cl
c
~

-
::J
co

Wetland Polygons
f- Estuarine and
a: Marine Deepwater
<(
D...
Estuarine and
Marine Wetland
f>EM1Khs
Freshwater Emergent
Wetland

Freshwate r Pond

Lake

Other

Riverine

•·
'

<

Fig. 6-11 Excerpt from Brazoria County, Texas, of the National Wetlands Survey. Source:
National Wetland Inventory 2004.

wetlands in the Yahara-Monona watershed of Dane County, Wisconsin. One of the

key findings of this system was that wetland evaluators were able to demonstrate
stronger positive correlations between corridors of wetlands and both wildlife habi-
tat and recreation value than with only preservation of isolated wetlands alone. This
 167
n
type of evaluation system provides the basis for comparing wetlands to determine :::r::
l>
regional land use and wetland management polices that maximize wetland values __,
-u
m
and assist in identifying long-term trends in the condition of wetland resources. ::rJ

-
m

Landscape Fragmentation and Wildlife Habitat m

:::J
:S .
C3
Biodiversity includes the complexity and variability of plant and animal species,
3CD
and the ecosystems in which the species exist (Gustafson 1998). The concept in - ;::;.
cludes three components: 1) composition: the identity and abundance of species "'
(/)
-<
in a natural community, and the types of habitats and communities distributed ;::;.
CD

across the landscape; 2) structure: the horizontal patchiness of vegetation at many 3

"'
spatial scales, and the dispersion and vertical layering of plants; and 3) function:
the climatic, geological, and hydrological processes that generate and maintain
biodiversity in ever-changing patterns over time (Hobbs 1997).
Why should we be concerned about biodiversity? Because species extinctions
are irreversible, preserving biodiversity keeps open future options that support
three types of values that humans ascribe to nature. First, direct utilitarian values
include medicinal value (prescription drugs and antibiotics) of certain plants and
invertebrates, food sources like fisheries , and economic production value like for-
estry. Second, indirect utilitarian values include soil generation for crop produc-
tion, assimilation of wastes and filtration of pollutants, pollination of crops by
pollinator species, and controlling of floods by wetlands. Third, aesthetic values
include human appreciation of nature's beauty and a spiritual or ethical apprecia-
tion of biodiversity for its own sake.

Corri dor Co nlign ily E'.J!.!!.tlional Cla..:>.i Flood Storage Fu nctio nal Class
- EXCELLENT . . EX CEbLENT
m HIG H H HIGH
Y!DI UM MEDIUM
LOJ RJ LOW

...
~:

Fig. 6-1 2 Ratings for corridor and flood-storage va lues of wetlands in the Yahara-Monona watershed.
Source: Water Resource Management Program 1992.
168
"'E Landscape fragmentation is a major threat to biodiversity. Fragmentation de-
~
"'>-
(/)
creases the amount of natural habitat in a landscape, and apportions the remain-
t'.
0
ing habitat into smaller, more isolated pieces. An inevitable consequence of hu-
Q_
Q_
::J
man settlement and resource extraction in a landscape is a patchwork of small,
(/)

=
c:
isolated natural areas in a landscape of altered land. The island remnants of habi-
c:
c: tat are less capable of performing biologically compared to the former undisturbed
co
0:: integrated habitat. In addition, as more forest patches (or islands) of habitat are
=
c:
-0
destroyed, the remaining patches are left farther apart. This process of landscape
::J
fragmentation reduces mixing among isolated members of island populations.
-
[!]

In the case of Orange County, North Carolina, forested areas have experienced
considerable fragmentation due to low-density residential and commercial devel -
f-
a::
<l'.
o__
opments. Figure 6-13 shows the remaining forest patches that were rated as high -
quality wildlife habitats based on three criteria. First, some patche~ are both at
least 90 percent hardwood and ten acres in size. Forest patches with higher per-
centages of hardwoods support maximal diversity of wildlife. Second, other patches
are between 50 and 90 percent hardwood and at least forty acres in size. Mixed
forests with pines and hardwoods are also valuable because they can develop into
hardwood forests. Moreover, the larger the patch, the more sensitive interior spe-
cies it harbors. Third, intact patches are slightly disturbed or not disturbed at all
(less than two houses or two small clearings in a patch). Only patches with no or
slight disturbance can support forest interior species.
Guidelines for setback distances that buffer critical habitat areas from human
and other disturbances have been suggested by wildlife ecologists. An appropriate
distance depends on which spaces are likely to be found in an area or which spe-
cies are the targets for conservation efforts. Table 6-4 indicates rough guidelines
for several species that provide "flushing" distances (i.e., the distance from a dis -
turbance at which an animal flees to a new location), as well as distances to pre-
vent predation and disease. Buffer distance is variable and depends on several
factors, including, for example, the type of disturbance, the individual species, the
extent that a gro up of animals has been habituated to the disturbance, habitat
type, and season. A distance of about 600 feet is recommended for mule deer to
avoid most flight; suggested distances for elk range from about 30 to over 1,300
feet, depending on the type of flushing disturbance and prior habituation; and
52,000 feet is suggested to prevent bighorn sheep from being infected by lethal
diseases carried by grazing domestic sheep.
Under the 1973 Endangered Species Act, federa l agencies are required to pro-
tect all species of plants and animals facing possible extinction. The U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service is charged with preparing a species-recovery plan for endangered
species that are in imminent danger of extinction and threatened species that have
rapidly declining populations and are likely to become endangered. In 2002, there
were 1,260 plant and animal species listed under the Endangered Species Act
as endangered or threatened in the lower forty-eight states. 5 The act makes it a
crime to violate the endangered species regulations and supports the protection
of critical habitats. The Fish and Wildlife Service analyzes the locations and habi-
tats of listed species. The intent is to design landscapes that support more diverse
and productive mixes of plant and animal species. The fundamental aim is to
 169
n
:r:
l>
_,
-0
rn
:0

-m

rn
::::l
::::.
3
3
CD
::::l
or

Legend
N City Li mits

,,,
I I
Jursclictionai
Boundaries
,\:
:\; Natural Area.'
lnvenfory Sit fi>S

!'rime Fore!>!
Hl~rdwooif ltfld Mixeif\

Hnildin,c,p.i:·rmil
h>111t'fl on th i~ JUU"('rl

O nto-l!t' ( ·1nuuy
J'lann1ne & ln..:pection.'< Dep1.
lnf1rrnmliflll S<'nke<i Divi"i"''
ttelhMcl'arl111ld

Fig. 6-13 Forest that is experien ci ng fragmentation, Orange County, North

Carolina. Source: Ludington, Hall, and Wiley 1997.

red uce fragmentation and con nect fractured landscapes back together into m ore
functional patterns with greater ecological resilience and sustainability.
Essential characteristics for classifying the value of areas within a region al land-
scape include size, shape, connectivity via the presence of corridors, and distance
between habitat patches. These lan dscape characteristics support the migration,
breeding, nesting, and foraging ne eds of wildlife, which, in turn, support
biodiversity. Figure 6-14 illustrates the landscape characteristics as habitat-plan-
ning guidelines. 6 The characte risti cs state that:
1. large patches are better than small ones;
2. a single patch is better than a gro up of small ones of equivalent area;
170
if>
E
.2l
£- Table 6-4
~
o_
Estimates of Buffer Distances for Different Types of Disturbances by Species
o_
:::J
(/) Species Disturbance Buffer Source
c= Factor Distance (ft)
c
c
C1J Flushing Disturbance
=
c
-0
Great blue heron people walking 105 Rogers and Smith (1995)
Black-crowned night heron people walking 98 Rogers and Smith (1995)

-
:::J
m
American kestrel people walking 144 Holmes et al. (1993)
Prairie falcon people walking 300 Holmes et al. (1993)
f-
ee Rough-legged hawk
<I: people walking 580 Holmes et al. (1993)
(L

Bald eagle person wa lking 1562 Fraser et al. (1985)

during breeding
Bald eagle land activity near 820 Stalmaster and Newman (1978)
roost
Mule dear person walking 656 Freddy et al. (1986)
in winter 282 Ward et al. (1980)
Elk person walking 656 Schultz and Bailey (1978)
in winter
Elk cross-country 1312 Cassirer et al. (1992)
skiers' low-use zone
Elk cross-country 29 Cassirer et al. (1992)
skiers' high -use area
Other Disturbances
Hooded warbler predation from 600 Wilcox et al. (1986)
cowbirds
Bighorn sheep domestic sheep 52,000 Noos and Cooperrider (1994)
with diseases

Source: Adapted from Duerksen et al. 1997.

3. patches close together are better than patches far apart;

4. round patches are better than long, thin ones;
5. patches clustered compactly are better than patches in a line; and
6. patches connected by corridors are better than unconnected patches (Noos
and Cooperrider 1994).
The mapped wildlife patches and corridors of the San Diego Habitat Conser-
vation Plan reveal an effective application of these guidelines (see Figure 6- 15).
The plan identifies gaps in the protection of key patches and corridors. Instead of
focusing on a single species, this plan replaces the fragmented, project-by-project
habitat mitigation areas with a program that protects significant patches and cor-
ridors. The key goals of the plan are to maximize biodiversity, enhance the quality
of life of San Diego's residents, and enhance the attractiveness of the region for
 171
(")
Better Worse ::r:
)>
\
\ . u

0
---!

0 \
rn

-
:::0
- m
!"-
-@; rn
00 ~-
0 00 0:::>
3
CD
;:::.
0 0
00 "'
(/)
00 -<
0 0
"'
'°
3
"'
0
0 0 0 0 0 ~-

·-
000 0 0 0

- Bfologica.I Core :..

Areas

~
MSCP Boundary

Fig. 6-14 Wildlife habitat-
planning guide lines.
----
Numbers lndlcirecor., ..,..,"'
l~worl in<llau. ton>train"d linlwg•• Freewil}'S
Stt T>b1t 2·2.
N0<e: Mopuoedlor ot..!yticolpurpo1u MaiorStreams
0 "
lal<eJUQOOll
Fig. 6-15 Core biological resource areas and linkages, San
Diego Multi -species Conservation Plan. Soure: California
Department of Fish and Game 1996.

business location. Moreover, the plan gives developers more certainty regarding
where development can occur. A clear legal and procedural framework provides
developers with guidance that habitat protection must be addressed first, instead
of last, in planning their real estate investments. The habitat plan is implemented
through the inco rporation of protection policies as local plan amendments;
throu gh the development of permitting that streamlines the environmental re-
view process; through land acquisition from federal, state, and local financing;
and from developer land dedication to a habitat mitigation land bank.

Watersheds
Communities across the nation are finding that their water resources are degrad-
ing in response to growth and land use change. Often, watershed inventories are
conducted at too great a scale-too many subwatersheds are considered, and im-
pact sources are frequently impossible to identify. As a result, the spatial informa-
tion collected is too general and cannot be tied to fine-grained land use decision s
that are influenced by local zoning and subdivision codes.
172
UJ
E There is considerable practical experience that demonstrates that local water
-2'
"'
>-
(/)
resources can be protected by thinking at the subwatershed level. A watershed can
~

0
be defined as the land area that contributes runoff to a particular point along a
o._
o._
:::J
creek, stream, lake, or river. A typical watershed can cover tens to hundreds of
(/)

=
c:
square miles and several local and state jurisdictions. Subwatersheds typica I ly have
c:
c: a drainage area of two to fifteen square miles.
ro
CL Comprehensive plans and ordinances that involve day-to-day land use deci-
=
c
sions more directly affect water resources at the subwatershed scale. The influence
:::J
of impervious cover on hydrology, water quality, and biodiversity is most evident
-
CD

at the subwatershed scale where the influence of individual development projects

is easily recognizable. Subwatersheds are small enough to allow for cross-jurisdic-
f-
a:
<( tion coordination in inventorying, monitoring, and accounting for future water-
CL
shed health in land use plans. It is easier to establish clear regulatory authority
and achieve cooperation.
A key source of information to inventory is impervious cover. Recent research
has shown that the amount of impervious cover in a subwatershed can be used to
project current and future quality of streams (Arnold and Gibbons 1996). Urban
development generates significant amounts of paved surfaces (streets, sidewalks,

40% EVAPO-TRANSPIRATION

38% EVAPO- TRANSPIR.o.TION

25% SHALLOW
21% 5HAlLC:W\I
0
INF-ILTRATlON
INFILTRATiON
,..(} 0
'-:.::; lJ !) \:Jt'

1.? l? OtJ t)~c::-,

'I ".:)'--,, ,')

/fio t' '

NATURAL GROUND COVER 10-20% IMPERVIOUS SURFACE

35% E\IAPI> TRANSPIRATION

20% SHAUOW /J 7 0
lf'llFILTAAT JON 0 -' l) t CJ 15% 0€EP 5•,4 DEE P
0O'.'Ja '?-.u ;
!NFll. TRATlON
lNFIL'!RATJON
t7 o'J "(.Y. .o~?
. c c
01,,, u ()o

35-50% IMPERVIOUS SURFACE 75-100% IMPERVIOUS SURFACE

Fig. 6-16 Runoff changes caused by urbanization. Source: Environmental Protection Agency 7993.
 173
n
parking lots, roofs) that prevent infiltration of water into the soil. Figure 6-16 de- :::r::
)>
picts the relationship between urban development and the percentage of infiltra- -u
-l
rn
tion. Impervious cover induces serious consequences, including increased flooding, :rJ

-
m
loss of aquatic habitats, and increased levels of pollutants that degrade the water
quality of lakes and streams. Reduced infiltration can also affect groundwater re- rn
:::J
:::: .
charge rates and result in a lowering of water tables. a
:::J
Considerable care must be used in the measuring and estimating of impervi- 3
(])

ous cover. Four techniques are available to measure impervious cover (Center for ~
Q)

Watershed Protection 1998): (/)

-<
~
(])

1. Direct measurement. Measures impervious cover "on the ground," includ- 3

"'
ing rooftops, roads, and other paved surfaces. The source of data is usually
aerial photography or satellite imagery (often as digital orthophotographs).
This is the most accurate but most expensive technique.
2. Land use classification. Estimates impervious cover based on land use clas-
sification (e.g., singly-family residential, commercial). To determine imper-
vious cover in a subwatershed, a planner would measure the area of each
land use and multiply this area by an associated percentage of impervious
cover. Table 6-5 indicates impervious areas linked to land use using stan-
dardized values. Significant variability may occur among the different land
uses, but this technique is generally considered to be a moderately expensive
and reasonably accurate approach to estimating impervious cover.
3. Road density. Estimates impervious cover from road density (length of
road per unit area). This method is easy to apply and only requires a street
map, but is somewhat inaccurate given the limited research that relates
road density to imperviousness. The best use for this technique is an in-
terim calculation, before a more thorough assessment based on direct mea-
surement or land use can be undertaken.
4. Population. Estimates impervious cover from population data. Although
this technique is useful for estimating impervious cover, it is most appli-
cable to projecting future impervious cover from current conditions. In
general, this technique is best used in combination with direct measure
and land use methods. In urban areas, population density is associated
with impervious cover, but prior studies suggest considerable variation
across regions (Center for Watershed Protection 1998). This technique is
generally considered to be a quick, low-cost approach to estimating in-
creases in impervious cover.
Figure 6-17 illustrates a useful way to classify the health of streams in water-
sheds based on the percent of impervious cover in a watershed. The figure indi-
cates threshold values of impervious cover and the expected stream health once
each threshold is reached. These values are suggestive and often vary among juris-
dictions. For example, in North Carolina, once impervious coverage in drinking-
supply watersheds reaches or exceeds 24 percent, the state requires developers to
include various practices (e.g., detention ponds and swales along roadways) to miti-
gate impacts from stormwater runoff in development projects. Other jurisdictions
have different threshold values.
 _,.
PART II I Building Planning Support Systems -..J
.i;::.

Table 6-5
Percent Impervious Cover by Land Use

Source

Land Use Density Northern Olympia Puget Sound NRCS (USDA Rouge River
(dwelling Virginia (COPWD (Aqua Terra 1986) (Klutinberg
units/acre) (NVPDC 1995) 1994) 1994)
1980)

Forest 2
Ag ricu ltu re 2
Urban open land 11
Water/wetlands 100
Low-density residential <0.5 6 10 19
0.5 10 12
12 10 20
Medium-density residential 2 18 25
3 20 40 40 30
4 25 40 40 38
High-density residential 5-7 35 40 40 38
Multifamily Townhouse 35-50 48 60 65
(>7)
Townhouse 60-75 48 60 51
(>20)
Industrial 60-80 86 90 72 76
Commercial 90-95 86 90 85 56

Source : Rapid Watershed Planning Handbook, Tabl e 6.2, Center for Wat ershed Protection , Octobe r 1998. Reprinted by permission from the Center
for Watersh ed Protection .
 175
n
:::r::
50% )>
CJ
---l
rn

-
:J:J
m
40%
Cl)
Cl
[!!
Cl)
>
0 30%
.,
(.)

:::J
0
·~
Cl) 20%
Cl.
.5
"Cl
Cl)
..c
I!! 10%
.Sl ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
OS
~

Protected Impacted Degraded

Stream Health

Fig. 6-17 Stream classification based on impervious cover. Adapted from

Schueler 7992.

The classification of stream health can be used as a proactive means of crafting

watershed protection plans. Figure 6-18 illustrates current and projected
impervious cover and associated stream classifications for sixteen subwatersheds in
Chapel Hill, North Carolina. The current impervious cover was derived from use of
the direct measurement technique based on aerial photography. The land use classi-
fication technique was then used at build-out conditions under current zoning. The
direct measurement and land use classification approaches revealed that stream health
in several subwatersheds will decline. This suggests a need for modification of cur-
rent zoning and/or more stringent application of watershed best-management prac-
tices (e.g., detention ponds, bioretention facilities, grassy swales instead of concrete
culverts for drainage) to meet local watershed protection goals.

Hazards
Property damage from natural hazards (e.g., floods, earthquakes, hurricanes, and
landslides) has increased dramatically over the past century. Reversing this trend,
and ensuring that natural hazards do not become natural disasters, requires plan-
ners and their communities to improve their understanding of natural hazards.
Several features of hazards must be considered in any environmental inventory-
ing effort, including the location of the hazardous areas, the spatial identification
of the magnitude of the hazard, and the probability of occurrence of an event for
a given magnitude.
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) publishes flood insur-
ance rate maps under the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) that identify
the boundaries and probability of flood events. The NFIP provides a nationwide
system of flood insurance for structures and properties located in designated flood
176
"'
E
tl>- Current (1999) Impervious Surface
(/)

'§5 Based on Aerial Photos

Cl.
Cl.
::::i
(/)

=
c
c
i6
CL

=
c

-
f-
a:
<(
CL

Estimation of Impervious Surface

at Build-out Using Current Measures
Applied to All Buildable Parcels

/ \ / Surface Water
Protected (0 - 10% Impervious)
Impacted (11 - 24% Impervious)
Degraded (over 24% Impervious)

Fig. 6-18 Current and future estimated stream classifications, Chapel Hill, North
Carolina. Source: Ryznar and Berke 2001.

hazard zones. Under NFIP, flood-prone lands are identified as those containing a
100-year floodplain with a floodin g probability of at least 1 percent a year.
The magnitude (or degree of severity) of different zones within the 100-year
floodplain are delineated on the flood hazard maps. These zones include the chan-
nel, floodway, and floodway fringe (see Figure 6-19). NFIP applies land use and
building code regulations associated with each zone. To be eligible for participa-
tion, communities must adopt regulations that are applicable to these zones. These
regulations require: 1) that new buildings be constructed to resist flood damages;
2) the guiding of future development away from flood hazard areas; and 3) trans-
ferring the cost of flood losses from taxpayers to floodplain property owners
through flood insurance premiums. Property owners in participating communi-
ties may purchase flood insurance through NFIP. As of 2000, abou t 19,000 com-
munities were participating in NFIP. Digital access to floodplain maps for local
areas can be obtained from FEMA's Web site (see http://store.msc.fema.gov).
The U.S. Geological Survey has also undertaken a substantial program for map-
ping seismic hazards in earthquake-prone regions. These maps identify the
location and magnitude of different types of hazards (e.g., faults and soils prone
to liquefaction during ground shaking) associated with earthquakes, but do not
 177
(")
::r:
)>
...,
CJ
rn
::rJ

-
m

rn
::i
'.'.O.
o
::i
3
ro

""
Q)

(/)
-<
~
ro
3
"'

PLAf.J
VIEW

*
CROSS
jj FLOOD .j . j FLOOD j
SEc.TION
· FRINGE 1 I I I FRINGE !
k \FLOODWAY >k ~

Fig. 6-19 Zones in the 100-year floodplain. Source: Federal Emergen cy

Management Agency 2003.

specify the probability of occurrence because earthquakes are rare and more dif-
ficult to predict than floods. Figure 6-20 illustrates a map that locates faults and
liquefaction-prone areas in Salt Lake City and classifies the degree of severity of
the liqu efaction hazard (i.e., high, moderate, or low). Buildings in high-hazard
liquefaction areas are likely to collapse because the soil liquefies during an earth-
quake and becomes less stable. The fault areas and liquefaction-zone classifica-
tion are then used as a basis for making permit decisions for different types of
land uses, with land uses located in areas that are classified a high risk subject to
more stringent seismic-safety building codes and site-design standards.

Analyzing Environmental Information

The effectiveness of ]and use planning depends heavily on environmental analysis
techniques that make systematic use of information characterizing environmen-
tal quality. As noted, three broad types of analyses include essential techniques
used to formulate land use plans: composite land suitability analysis, environ-
mental impact analysis, and carrying capacity analysis.
 PART II I Building Planning Su pport Systems -
...,J
co

1.1

---
.. ..
....:.:~ !~r·.:-
~

FAUL TS: Solid li ne were loca tion is known; dashC'd where

approximate; dotted wh ere concealed. Bar and ball s ymbol
indicates do wn-t hrown side.
SURFACE FAULT RUPTURE SPECIAL STUDY AREA
111r.H >50% LIQUEFACTION POTENTIAL: Appro> imatc pcm:nlagc chance
MDOFJtATE 50-10% that liquef3ction \Nill ocrur every 100 years.
LOW 10-5%
VUR'r' LOW <5%

Fig. 6-20 Earthquake hazards map, Salt Lake City. Source: Salt Lake County 1989.
 179
Composite Land Suitability Analysis
The composite land suitability analysis technique uses multiple sources of infor-
mation that collectively account for the hydrologic, geologic, and biologic fea-
tures of a site, and map the variation in suitability of land uses in a planning area
(Anderson 1987). Other features that are not connected to ecological conditions,
-
m
::::i
:::.
0
such as accessibility to infrastructure (e.g., roads, sewer lines) and urban land uses ::::i
3
ro
(e.g., retail in proximity to residential land uses), can also be included in this analy- ;:;.
OJ
sis. The analysis is conducted separately by type of land use. Overlay maps of (/'.)
-<
various landscape features calculate suitability. The resulting suitability is a single "'
scale that can be simply high, medium, and low, or a more refined scale, such as '"'°
3

one to ten. For example, residential suitability might be based on slope, flood-
plain, soil permeability, price of the land, and distance to a road. Portions of a
planning area that have moderate slope, have permeable soils, are in close prox-
imity to a road, are least costly to purchase, and are outside of the floodplain
would be rated as most suitable for development.
The original procedure for land suitability analysis relied on overlaying manu-
ally generated transparent maps on which the intensity or importance of a par-
ticular feature was illustrated in shades of gray, with the darkest gray representing
the most intense or important degree of the feature (McHarg 1969). When the
maps were overlaid, the darkest areas illustrated the most suitable sites. Critics of
this technique questioned the validity of adding quantities measured in different
units, such as slopes and soil permeability, and indicated the difficulty of distin-
guishing among the various shades of gray because such a high number of maps
were overlaid (Ortolano 1984) .
Contemporary land suitability analyses use computer-based mapping on GIS
software to compute the overlay and numerical calculation procedure. Recent ad-
vances in GIS also have graphical display capabilities that create diagrams or flow-
charts, and that show the geographic data, the spatial functions that operate on the
data, and the sequence of execution of those functions (Ormsby and Alvi 1999 ).
There are numerous techniques for calculating land suitability. Four of the most
common include:
1. Pass/fail screening identifies a minimum acceptable rating that serves as
cutoff points. All parts of a planning area that fall below the minimum are
considered not suitable for a particular land use and are screened out of
consideration, while the remaining area is considered suitable. Examples
are land areas less than 30 percent slope or within a specified buffer set-
back distance (e.g., fifty feet) from a stream. This technique is easy to un-
derstand, can be completed quickly, and is useful for screening out land
areas that should not be given further consideration. Weaknesses include
no distinction in the degree of suitability oflands that received a pass, and
that all features are considered equal in importance (e.g., slope and buffer
requirements are equal in weight). Further, unique combinations ofland-
scape features cannot be directly assigned (e.g. steep sloped land is suit-
able if it is in close proximity to existing streets, or moderately sloped land
is not suitable if it is a great distance from streets).
180
"'
E 2. Equivalent rating assigns a suitability value for each type of landscape fea-
.2:l
"'>-
(/)
ture for a particular land use. A common graduated scale is used with equiva-
t:
0
lent minimum and maximum values applied to all landscape features by
Q_
Q_
;:J
land use (e.g., five for 0-5 percent slopes; three for 5-15 percent slopes; one
(/)
DJ
c:
for 15-30 percent slopes; and zero for over 30 percent slopes). Scaling one
c:
c: feature, for example, one to five, and a second feature, for example, one to
m
0::: ten, is not advised because the weight of the second feature is two times
DJ
c:
-0
more when combined in the suitability analysis, which makes interpretation
of the results quite difficult. The total score assigned to each land unit within

-
;:J
co
a study area is equal to the sum of ratings assigned to each feature, or:
f-
a:
TOTAL SCORE= Ra+ Rb+ Re ... Rn
<(
o_
where;
R =rating;
a, b, e.. . n =landscape features under consideration
The technique is easy to understand and gives a more refined rating than a
simple pass/fail. Weaknesses are that all landscape features are considered
equal in weight and unique combinations cannot be identified.
3. Weighted rating assigns a weight to each landscape feature under consid-
eration. Some features may be considered more important in determining
suitability for a particular land use. A rating is assigned to each feature for
a given land use. The rating is then multiplied by the weight assigned to
that factor. A score for each land unit is calculated by adding together the
rating times the weight of all factors. The areas that receive the highest
scores are considered the most suitable; those with the lowest scores are
considered the least suitable. The total score is calculated as follows:
TOTAL SCORE== (Wax Ra)+ (Wb x Rb)+ (We x Re) .. . (Wn x Rn)
where;
W == weight;
R =rating;
a, b, e... n = landscape features under consideration
A major strength of this technique involves the assignment of weights that
reflect the relative importance of landscape features. It is also easy to un-
derstand, which allows for clear identification of where and how judg-
ments are made in deriving weights. However, this technique does not
account for unique combinations of landscape features.
4. Direct assignment rating assigns a suitability rating of a land area based
on the combined examination of data from all landscape features under
consideration. Unique combinations of features are considered separately
and assigned a rating. For example, areas with slopes less than 5 percent
and in close proximity (less than 300 feet) to a road are considered of high
suitability; areas with slopes of 5 percent to 15 percent and in close prox-
imity to a road (less than 300 feet) are considered of moderate suitability;
and areas with slopes over 15 percent are considered not suitable, but are
 181
n
considered to be of moderate suitability if in very close proximity to a :r:
)>
road (less than 100 feet). ....,
u
rn
A major strength of this technique is the consideration of interrelation-

-
:D
m
ships among the features under consideration, and that graduated scales
and weights can also be used in deriving different combinations of rat- rn
::J
'.S.
ings. A major weakness is the potential complexity of this technique given C3
::J
the many combinations that must be considered even when using only a 3
CD
;=:_
few features. The technique also requires considerable expertise concern- [l)

ing the interrelationships of all features being considered. <

(/)

~
CD
Table 6-6 summarizes the strengths and weaknesses of the four techniques based 3
"'
on four criteria: ease in understanding, degree of suitability, relative importance
(or weight), and assignment of unique combinations of features. Pass/fail screen-
ing, equivalent rating, and weighted rating techniques are easy to understand be-
cause public officials and citizens are more likely to understand where and how
the judgments are made. If planners are simply interested in eliminating lands
that should not be given further consideration for development, then use of the
pass/fail screening technique is most appropriate. However, if the planner wants to
assess the comparative importance of different land areas, then the weighted rat-
ing technique offers a more sophisticated approach to gauging suitability than the
equivalent rating technique. In some instances, direct assignment of ratings for
unique combinations oflandscape features is desirable. For example, if accessibil-
ity to existing roads, slope, and price of the land are considered to be important
factors for selecting a site for a public recreational park, planners often might
consider the interrelationships among these features. If location and slope incli-
nation are acceptable, a local government will go up in the price that it will pay. If
roads are too distant or the slope is too steep, the price will go down. As noted,
this later technique can be considerably more complex and difficult to under-
stand.
A planning exercise for a 160-acre tract of land by students of the University of
North Carolina illustrates each of the steps in the composite land suitability analysis
and the application of the pass/fail screening and weighted rating techniques. The
tract is being considered for a residential development. Four characteristics of the
landscape are considered in making decisions about the suitability of the site, in-
cluding soil permeability, slope, stream buffers, and floodplains. The composite land

Table 6-6
Assessment of Land Suitability Techniques
Technique Ease in Degree of Weight of Unique
understanding suitability suitability combinations
Pass/fail screening yes no no no
Equivalent rating yes yes no no
Weighted rating yes yes yes no
Direct assignment rating no yes yes yes
182
"'E suitability technique was used to identify the environmentally sensitive portions of
El
"'>-
(/)
the site that were considered less suitable fo r develo pmen t, as well as portions of
125
the site considered more suitable for development. Model Builder software of
o_
o_ Arc View GIS, a commonly used GIS software package, was used for the suitability
"'
(/)
analysis (Ormsby an d Alvi 1999). Table 6- 7 shows a few of the many commands
OJ
c
c
c that are part of the Arc View system. Commands like these make it possible to
ro
0:::: co nvert data, identify buffers, and overlay suitability ratings of individual land-
OJ
c
-cl
scape features. Figure 6-21 shows the data, spatial functions, and order of those
"' functions fo r conducting a composite land suitability analysis for residential suit-

-
co
ability of this site. Table 6-8 illustrates the features, classifications, and numerical
results of the techniques used fo r determinin g land suitability.

Table 6-7
Examples of Commands for ArcView Modelbuilder
Command Function
Vector conversion Converts vector (polygons, lines, points) to raster (grid cells) that are
easier to use for suitability modeling because of the uniform shape of cells

Slope Converts grid files of elevation contours to slope suitability values

Reclassify Assigns suitability value based on the condition of landscape features

Buffer Delineates the zones within a given distance of a specific landscape feature

Arithmetic overlay Sums numerica l ratings of multiple landscape features for each grid cell

Soils
conversion
to grid

&
Intermittent Intermittent
Intermittent Stream Stream
Stream conversion
Buffer ...__
co_n_ve_rs-io_n _,
to grid to grid

Arithmetic
Bolin Creek Overlay Map
floodplain -
below 450 footl--- -- - - - - - ----
elevation

Elevation grid

&
Derivation and
classification 1 - - - -- - - - - ----"
of slope
categories

Fig. 6-21 Flowchart of data, spatial functions that operate data, and order of functions for deter-
m ining suitability of residential development.
 183
n
:::r:
)>
Table 6-8 __,
<J
m
Landscape Features and Numerical Values of Suitability :D

Feature Suitability Value Weights

-
m

m
:::J
:5.
Intermittent stream buffer 1 (pass) NA a
:::J
3
0 (fail, prohibited) CD
~
Q)
Floodplain 1 (pass, above 450 feet) NA (/)
0 (fail , prohibited) -<
"'
ro
Soil Permeability 3
CfB, Geb 5 (permeable)
"'
HeB, Wm 3 (moderately permeable)
GiF, EnB 0 (not permeable)
Slope
0-7% 5 (flat to moderate)
7- 14% 3 (moderate) 2
>14% 1 (steep)

Composite Land Suitability Model

Screen out buffer and floodplain areas from consideration since they are classified as
prohibited. Next, combine suitability values of each weighted feature to identify degrees of
suitability for locations of residential development.
Degree of suitability = (soil permeability x 1) +(slope x 2)
Reclassification of Suitability Model Computation
Assign ranges of values to degrees of suitability based on the outcomes of running the
model for the site.

Composite Suitability Classification Area (Acres) Percent of

Suitability Value Area
<3 Low suitability 13.3 20.8
3-6 Moderate suitability 1.2 1.9
>6 High suitability 49.4 77.3
Total 63.9 100.0

The procedure consists of five phases:

Phase I: Landscape Features. Identify the landscape features that deter-
mine suitability for that particul ar use. For residential development, the
features include, for example, floodplain, stream buffer, slope, and soil per-
meability;
• Phase II: Data Conversion. Apply GIS spatial data functions to prepare
data files of each landscape feature for composite suitability analysis. For
the case of residential land use, this phase involves applying spatial func-
tions to four features:
1. Slope: apply slope function to convert digital elevation model (DEM )
grid files from contours to different suitability values for slope grids.
184
U)

E Each suitability value is represented by a classification of the slope

2U)
>-
(/)
regarding the value for development (e.g., slopes of 0 to 7 percent are
~

0
given a higher rank of five than steeper slopes of more than 14 per-
0.
0.
::J
cent, which are ranked lower, with a one). Note that this procedure
(/)

=
c
involves aggregating the degrees of slope into classes. Selecting the
c
c number of classes and their ranges is based on professional judgment,
m
but keeping the rankings simple is preferable for clarity and computa-
c=
-0
tional efficiency;

-
::J
m 2. Soils: apply vector conversion function to change soil polygons (vector)
to grid cells (raster), and then reclassify function to assign a suitability
f-
value that is represented by a classification of soil types regarding the
a:
<I:
0...
value for development (e.g., highly permeable soils are given a high
rank of five while less permeable soils, are given a lower rank of one).
Similar to slope classification, professional judgment must be used in
determining the number of slope classes;
3. Stream buffer: apply vector conversion function to change vector stream
line file to raster grid, and then buffer function to reclassify all grid cells
within a fifty-foot distance of the stream into a buffer zone;
4. Floodplain: apply reclassify function to classify DEM grids that are
below 450 feet in elevation, which is considered to be prone to flood-
ing on this site.
· Phase III: Define Suitability Analysis Rules. Define the rules for the model
to determine the suitability oflandscape features under consideration. These
rules guide selection and application of the suitability analysis techniques.
In the case of residential development, the pass/fail screening technique was
applied to eliminate stream buffer and flood-prone areas from consider-
ation. Because slope is considered twice as important as soil permeability,
the weighted rating technique was used where a weight of two is assigned to
slope and a weight of one to permeability. Each feature rating was then
multiplied by the associated weight (e.g., the three classes of slope, one,
three, and five, are multiplied by the weight of the slope feature of two);
• Phase IV: Composite Suitability Score. In our case of residential develop-
ment, the weighted features were added based on the arithmetic overlay func-
tion to generate a single composite score for each land unit. Use the reclassify
function to classify the range of numerical scores computed in phase IV into
a simplified composite suitability score (e.g. less than three is low suitability,
three to six is moderate suitability, and more than six is high suitability). In
reclassifying, the planner should examine the combinations of feature values
that are represented by each composite suitability class. Classes should not
represent just a range of values on an abstract numerical scale, and thresh-
olds between classes should not be arbitrary. The classes should represent
selected combinations of conditions among features, which are related to the
suitability for the use under consideration. Thus, prior scaling and weighting
rules and reclassification of composite scores are best kept simple to enable
the planner to interpret the model's numerical results.
 185
n
· Phase V: Products. Transform the outcome into a suitability map by se- :::r::
l>
lecting a set of patterns to represent the different degree of suitability (e.g., u
--{
rn
the lightes t pattern for the most suitable site, transitioning to darker shades ::IJ

-
m
for less suitable sites) . See Figure 6-22 for the spatial depiction of the re-
sults on a suitability map. This phase also involves generation of a statisti-
cal report containing the identification, number of acres, and other rel-
evant data by suitability class.
Most jurisdictions will use land suitability analyses for preparing future land
use plans and advising on development project site selection and locations for
impact studies. Computer land suitability analysis models are useful aids to facili-
tate public discourse and negotiate settlements to land use conflicts, allowing the
planner to test different land use alternatives (Klosterman et al. 2002; Malczewski
2004). With a digitized parcel database and a GIS, the procedure is relatively
straightforward. Even then, however, the planner will need to exercise judgment
in devising analysis rules for dealing with parcels with wide ranges of features.
Before a final model is selected, there will likely be several runs with different
combinations of landscape features, ranks, and weights to test the sensitivity and
to evaluate the reasonableness of outcomes.

Environmental Impact Assessment

Environmental impact assessment (EIA) methods are intended to determine the
projected change in the value of environmental quality resulting from a proposed
land use plan or development. EIA methods predict the change in environmental
quality for a range of measures involving, for example, water quality (e.g. change
in coliform concentration), exposure to natural hazards (e.g., change in number
of dwelling units exposed to flooding), and biodiversity (e.g., change in species
diversity) . They estimate the degree of achievement of goals and objectives and
the distribution of costs and benefits.

Legend
=== Site boundaries
D Site hydro features
- - Approximated 100-year
floodpl.gin boundaries

Development
Suitability
CJ High suitability
LJ fVloderate Sui tability
Lo w Suitability

- Prohibited

- - 2-foot contours

--=::::i•--===:::iFeet
0 150 300 600 900

Fig. 6-22 Composite land suitability map for residential development.

186
"'
E Two types of EIA methods are discussed in this section. The first involves meth-
~
"'
>-
Uj
ods for aiding in the identification of impacts caused by a particular land use plan
t
D
or development activity. They are designed to specify potential impacts that re-
Q_
Q_
:::l
quire further study and impacts that should not be given serious consideration.
Uj
01
c
Three common techniques used for identifying impacts include the following:
c:::
c • Checklists were developed to help public agency staff review environmen-
ro
0:::
01
c
tal impacts and assess change in environmental quality from a proposed
land use. This entailed the development of checklists of impacts associated

- with different types of projects like highways, flood control, airports, resi-
dential development projects, range management, and forestry. Examples
of various categories of impacts included in the checklist are decline in
water quantity and water quality, and increased flooding, traffic conges-
tion, and solid waste.
• Impact matrices provide another technique for identifying impacts. The
matrix contains a list of characteristics of a proposed development (e.g.,
impervious surface, daily number of vehicle trips, and annual volume of
solid waste) and a list of characteristics of the proposed site and surround-
ings (e.g., infiltration capability of soil, capacity of roads, and capacity of
landfill to receive additional solid waste) . The matrix is then used to iden-
tify interactions between characteristics of the development and the site
and its surroundings. Answers to a checklist can be a first step in complet-
ing a matrix.
• Flowcharts are also used to identify direct and indirect impacts of a pro-
posed land use activity that are directly associated with the ultimate im-
pact. For example, a new development that is spatially separated on the
suburban fringe causes increased driving, which then causes increased lev-
els of air pollutants.
The checklist, matrix, and flowch art techniques provide a simple way to iden-
tify impacts associated with a given plan. Ortolano (1997, chapter 16) offers a
detailed discussion of techniques for impact identification. Information of this
sort suggests topics for further investigation through various types of forecasting.
The second type of EIA method involves estimating how proposed plans and
development projects affect the environment. Since the 1970s, environmental
analysts have attempted to synthesize and categorize forecasting methods from
different fields like sociology, biology, geology, and civil engineering for purposes
ofland use planning. Even for a single project or land use plan proposal, multiple
forecasting methods are often used. This reflects the diversity of topics treated in
conducting EIAs and the wide range of methods available for conducting an as-
sessment related to any one topic.
Planners seek to learn what differences plans make, although the methods used
vary from simple visual comparisons to elaborate modeling analyses. In selecting
an effective evaluation method, planners must consider several criteria: 1) appro-
priateness for a different planning purposes; 2) credibility of outcomes regarding
consistent and accurate results; 3) feasibility of application in terms of the re-
quired level of skill and resources; and 4) ease to comprehend how well the method
 187
n
is understandable to decision makers and the public. Table 6-9 shows the applica- :r::
)>
tion of these criteria to four broad categories of methods for estimating impacts: _,
-i:J
m
:0
· Visual assessment entails judging the visual impacts of alternative plans.
This category of methods is appropriate in the concept design stage ofland
use planning. If alternative plan schemes are prepared at the same scale,
-m

m
::::l
S.
then visual comparisons should be effective in conveying the major differ- a
::::l
3
ences that result from applying a particular design principle, such as visual CD
~
Q.)
impacts of a pedestrian- versus auto-oriented design of a development, or (/)
-<
alternative policies that require clustered development versus conventional "'
ro
development. Visual images of plans and development proposals range from 3
"'
simple perspective sketches to digital image processing that entails modifi-
cation of attributes of images that are altered based on alternative design
policies (tree-planting schemes; road location and design; and building
height, setback, and massing requirements). Even more advanced interac-
tive land use schemes that entail walk- or drive-throughs and simulate
movement through three-dimensional environments are available.
• Numerical indicators present tabulations of outcomes that are used to gauge
the extent to which goals are achieved. They can be used to compare out-
comes of alternative plans and development proposals. Indicators extend from
checklists to include measures of the impacts included in the checklist.
· Single-function models display the interactions among factors related to
a particular activity or function. They are based on scientific laws and em-
pirical studies to predict environmental impacts. Fate and transport mod-
els, for example, predict the transformation and distribution of contami-
nants introduced into air- and watersheds. These models also estimate the
impacts of concentrations of contaminants on plants and animals, as well
as consider the nature of exposure to pollutants, the dose of pollutants
ingested, and the resulting impacts on human health. Hydrologic simula-
tion models are used to analyze how proposed changes in land use influ-
ence flood flows. A typical analysis determines how particular rainfall events
are converted to surface runoff under different land use development sce-
narios within the watershed. Noise-impact assessment is based on acousti-
cal laws that guide the development of mathematical models that assess
potential future decibel levels. Forecasts of noise are frequently undertaken
to assess the level of noise generated by construction activities, highways,
and airports.
· Linked models integrate multiple single-function models into a coordi-
nated system, where the outputs of one model may become the inputs of
another. This type of model extends from the flowchart technique for identi-
fying direct and indirect impacts by including empirical measures of impacts.
For example, a linked model might include transportation, land use, and air
quality. Outputs of the transportation and land use models would become
inputs to the air quality model, which could then feed back into the land
use model. Linked models are effective for comprehensive evaluations of
land use plans and development proposals if the factors and relationships
188

Table 6-9
~
Criteria for Selecting Impact Estimation Methods
0
o_
o_
::::J
(/)
Method Appropriateness Credibility Technical Ease to
= for Planning in Accuracy Feasibility Comprehend
c
c
c
(1J
Visual concept design alternative designs basic design images are
comparison stage are considered skills comparable
=
c
-0 Numerical goal and objective measures general numbers are

-
::J
m indicators sett ing available planning skills comparable
Single- single media model well basic modeling output
function model specified skills applicable
f-
a:
<t
D...
Linked comprehensive linkages known advanced depends on
models modeling skills confidence in
links

are correctly specified- a more difficult task for linked models compared to
single models.7

Carrying Capacity Analysis

Carrying capacity analysis differs from land suitability and environmental impact
analyses as an approach to integrating environmental factors in land use plan-
ning. Each type of analysis responds to different land use concerns. Suitability
analysis identifies uses that are intrinsically suited to different landscape condi-
tions. Environmental impact analysis determines the measurable positive and
negative changes in environmental quality that are generated by a land use deci-
sion. The issue of whether land use change causes environmental quality to de-
cline below acceptable levels is not addressed by either type of analysis.
Carrying capacity accounts for the limits of the amount of growth that can be
supported by natural environmental systems of a particular area. This approach
determines the maximum level of development that can be accommodated while
still meeting community-based goals for environmental quality. It determines the
maximum level of growth consistent with maintaining socially acceptable levels
of environmental quality.
Two facto rs are useful in conducting carrying capacity analysis. A change factor
represents a measure of proposed land use change or development. A limiting factor
includes natural resources or infrastructure facilities that are limited in supply. Three
types of limiting factors are commonly used in carrying capacity analysis:
• environmental (water quality, stability of habitats to support endangered
species, and soil erosion),
• physical infrastructure (water supply, roads, wastewater treatment facilities );
and
• psychological (how people perceive environmental quality and adequate level
of service from infrastructure).
 189
(""")
Carrying capacity analysis requires that a maximum or minimum value be de- ::c
)>
termined for a limiting factor (e.g., water-quality standard, dependable yield of _,
-0
m
water supply, and professional or citizen judgment that defines an acceptable stan-

-
:IJ
m
dard or an acceptable daily yield). The measurable link between the effects of
change and the extent to which a maximum or minimum value is reached is a m

major step in conducting a carrying capacity analysis. "'

:S .
0
The upper (and lower) bounds of environmental limiting factors are often de- "'3
CD

veloped by either public decision-making processes or expert judgments. Public or"'

health experts, for example, are typically used to specify acceptable limits for air- Cl?
-<
and water-quality standards. The upper bounds for physical infrastructure limit- "'<D
3
ing factors are often based on the capacities of current and planned infrastructure "'
facilities. For example, citizens in some hurricane-prone communities in Florida
(e.g., Sanibel Island and Amelia Island) have decided to set a limiting factor for
growth based on the capacity of local roadways to provide safe evacuation. Psy-
clwlogical limiting factors are derived based on professional judgment or by sur-
veys of people in a particular study area. For example, a study of neighborhood
residents in subwatersheds of Powhatan Creek watershed in Virginia demonstrated
combined application of citizen and professional judgments for identifying the
limiting factors of streams (Center for Watershed Protection 2001 ). Residents were
surveyed to identify desired uses to be achieved on given reaches of local creeks.
Knowing the uses to be accommodated, it was then possible for professionals to
set ambient water-quality standards that dictated the intensity of land use change
that could be allowed within the subwatersheds.

Deep River Watershed Assessment and Stormwater Plan: Integrating

Carrying Capacity, Impact, and Land Suitability Analyses
Innovative applications of environmental analysis for land use planning involve
land suitability analysis, environmental impact assessment, and carrying capacity
analysis (see chapter 18 in Randolph 2004 for a complete review of how these
techniques can be integrated). A case study of the proposed Randleman Lake in
the Deep River watershed demonstrates the integrated use of these analytical pro-
cedures. The Piedmont Triad Regional Water Authority intends to build Randleman
Lake to serve projected water demands for North Carolina's Piedmont Triad re-
gion. Because of the proposed lake's location downstream of the region's most
rapidly urbanizing area, existing and future sources of pollution within the 174-
square mile watershed could threaten the water quality of the lake.
In 1999, the water authority, in cooperation with the city of High Point, Guilford
County, and the North Carolina Division of Water Quality, undertook a water-
shed-assessment study. Part of this study included a land suitability study of the
region's natural and built environment areas. The study inventoried several envi-
ronmental and land use factors, including lake and stream buffers, slope, soil drain-
age, and current land use in urban and rural areas. The objective of the inventory
was to determine all areas within the study area that were developable, which
included areas that did not contain steep slopes and stream buffer setbacks and
contained parcels that were suitable in size and shape to meet local land use regu-
lations. Another objective was to classify subwatersheds based on their sensitivity
190
"'
E to development. In general, subwatersheds that were closest to the proposed lake
$
"'
>- were deemed within the lake's critical area.
C/J
t
0
After considering these factors, the land in the region was classified into four
a.
a.
:::l
broad categories: developable and developed land outside the critical area boundary
C/J
and developable and developed land inside the critical area boundary. The suit-
""
c
c
c ability analysis results provided the basis for determining the maximum allow-
ro
a: able percentage of impervious surfaces within the study area. Figure 6-23 indi-
""
c
-0
cates that under state rules, the maximum allowable impervious surface in the
critical area is 30 percent, and 50 percent in areas outside the critical area. 8 Thus,

-
:::l
co
developable lands would be allowed to be developed as long as these impervious
surfaces were not exceeded.
l-
o:: A second phase of this study involved carrying capacity and environmental
<(
CL
impact studies. The water authority and local jurisdiction staff and citizen advi-
sory committee wanted to supplement the land suitability study. The rationale
was that the impervious surface limits were based largely on the physical capabil-
ity of lands within the subwatersheds to accommodate future development. These
development limits did not consider water-quality goals. The second phase was
undertaken to integrate water-quality goals and the limits imposed by physical
conditions of the subwatersheds into planning and decision making.

KEY ASSUMPTIONS
- Buildout according to Land Use Plan for High N Study Area
Point Planning Area, 1998 - Future Land Use : '. : State Crrt1cal Area
- Critical Area: high density option; 30% impervious ·a Randleman La ke
maximum; stormwater ponds onsite ; 100-foot and Developable Land
50-foot stream buffers
- Balance of Watershed : high density option ; 50%
impervious maximum; stormwater ponds onsite ; N
100-foot and 50-foot stream buffers

Fig. 6-23 Land suitability of Randleman Lake watershed . Source: North Carolin a
Division of Water Quality 1999.
 191
n
A water-quality impact assessment study was conducted to identify whether :r
l>
buildout of the watersheds up to the impervious surface limits was within the u
___,
m
carrying capacity of the proposed lake. It was determined that the lake could re- :::rJ

ceive a maximum limit of 4,313 pounds of phosphorous per year and still meet
the state water-quality goals. The impact assessment found that the lake could not
-
m

m
:::J
::: .
accommodate expected development of the developable parcels because the limit C3
:::J
would be exceeded by 440 pounds of phosphorous annually. 3
m
~
This finding required adjustments oflocal land use and development regulations OJ

to lower phosphorous production. In making these adjustments, the local governing (/)
-<
;::;.
bodies wanted to craft a balanced plan that protected water quality while providing m
3
U>
the flexibility needed to accommodate growth. The adopted plan meets this goal by
adopting a watershed protection plan centered on phosphorous banking-a tech-
nique that provides water-quality protection within the carrying capacity threshold
while also providing needed flexibility for planned development.
The plan consists of four components:
1. Reduce phosphorous yields within the critical area to reduce/offset phos-
phorous loading by 800 pounds per year below the maximum of 4,313
pounds of phosphorous per year by requiring a maximum of 2.5 to 4 per-
cent impervious cover in the critical area, except in "urban focal areas";
2. Use 440 pounds per year, or 55 percent of the phosphorous offset, to allow
increased imperviousness for planned nonresidential development in the
downtown area of the city of Highpoint and other targeted "urban focal
areas" within the lake watershed;
3. Set aside the remaining offset (360 pounds per year) in a phosphorous
reduction bank, from which planned nonresidential developments can
draw by building up to 40 percent on development sites in "urban focal
areas" inside the critical area, and up to 70 percent on development sites
inside the areas outside the critical area. Phosphorous will be allocated
from the bank on a first-come, first-served basis; and
4. Revise ordinances and engineering specifications to encourage low-im-
pact design and innovative alternatives to traditional nutrient-reduction
practices, notably stormwater detention ponds, to further reduce nutrient
input into the proposed lake. 9
In sum, the analysis of ecological features through the integrated use ofland suit-
ability, environmental impact, and carrying capacity analysis techniques helped de -
cision makers to understand the emerging environmental conditions and problems
and their causes. This fact base provides a clear, relevant basis for guiding future
decision making and supporting land use and environmental policy selection.

Summary
Environmental inventories and analysis help the planner understand how the natu-
ral environment can be used not only as the source of land for future urbaniza-
tion but also as a set of resources to be conserved, natural system functions to be
192
"'Q)E maintained, and hazards to be avoided. This chap ter identified the types of data
t? the planner should consider in inventorying ecological features of the landscape
>-
(/)

t
0
within a community. Procedures for classifying the environmen tal qualities of
0..
0.. these features based on the conservation value, significance of ecological func-
"'
(/)
tions, and degree of threat from hazards were discussed. A key attribute of the
°'
c
c
c inventory an d classification procedures is the mapped display of the ecological
"'
0::: features and associated classifications. The maps help planners begin to devise
°'
c
CJ
land use plans for the community.
m"' The success ofland use planning depends a great deal on environmental analy-
- sis techniques that make systematic use of inventoried and classified environmental
information. Three techniques were discussed, including composite land suitability
analysis, environmental impact assessment, and carrying capacity analysis. The
purposes for using each technique and the procedures that explain how to use
them were reviewed. The choice of technique or combination of techniques de-
pends on a variety of factors, such as capability and resources of the planning
staff, availability of data, and the issues to be addressed. This chapter included a
case study of the advanced planning in the Deep River watershed that demon-
strated how all three techniques can be combined in the formulation of a land use
and development plan to accommodate future development and protect an envi-
ronmentally sensitive drinking-water-supply watershed.

Notes
1. The American Planning Association (2002) and Olshansky (1996) offer reviews of
various types of unstable slope ordinances for local jurisdictions throughout the country
based on slope ordinance applications in twenty-eight comprehensive plans. These re-
views found that unstable slope regulations could be classified as follows: development
density requirements based on slope inclination, soil instability, and the condition and
stability of fores ted cover-the more unstable the slope, the less allowed density through
establishment of 1) minimum lot sizes for steeper slopes, 2) percentage of unstable area to
be retained in a natural state, and 3) reduced number of allowable dwelling units on steep
slopes; buffer protection areas surrounding all sides of unstable slope areas; permitted-use
designations of unstable slope areas that focus on outdoor recreational uses; land dedica-
tion to city or private land trust to preserve and maintain unstable slope areas; and admin-
istrative review procedures that require special slope instability studies and evaluate devel-
opment proposals and site plans.
2. The acreage estimates of wetlands were retrieved from the Environmental Pro tection
Agency Web site (www.epa.gov/OWOW/wetlands/vital/status.html), accessed October 22,
2002.
3. For a review of wetlands evaluation techniques, see Adam us et al. 1991 and Novitzki,
Smith, and Fretwell 1996.
4. See Adamus et al. 1987.
5. The number of endangered and threatened species listed under the Endangered Spe-
cies Act as of October 2002 was retrieved from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Web site
(http://ecos.fws.gov/tess/html/boxscore.html), accessed October 10, 2002.
6. The guidelines depicted in Figure 6-14 have been suggested by Diamond 1975, Noos
and Copperrider 1994, and the World Conservation Strategy (IUCN 1980).
 193
n
7. A detailed review of environmental impact assessment techniques for a variety of :r:
)>
topics, including air quality, water quality, noise, visual quality, and biodiversity, is offered ~
m
by Ortolano (1997) . ::n

-
m
8. The impervious surface limits were adopted by local governments in accordance with
state regulations in North Carolina. m
:::J
9. Planners originally considered the use of site-specific, low-impact design practices. :S.
0
The logic was that where low-impact design achieves greater phosphorous removal than :::J
3
that required under the plan's stormwater management requirements, the design could be Cl)

;:::!.
used to allow a nutrient offset or impervious area credits. Credits were to be applied on- Q.)

(/)

site or transferred to another parcel off-site as long as the overall phosphorous loading -<
~
Cl)
allowed by low-impact design techniques was not exceeded. However, since the city of 3
High Point was able to meet the offset requirements by adopting a phosphorous bank to "'
trade phosphorous allowances, the low-impact design was not used for nutrient offset.
The sole purpose of using a low-impact design was to improve site design and flexibility.

References
Adamus, P.R., E. J. Clairain, R. D. Smith, and R. E. Young. 1987. Wetland evaluation tech-
nique (WET): Volume IT-Methodology. Vicksburg, Miss.: U.S. Department of the Army,
Waterways Experiment Station. No. ADA 189968.
Adamus, P. R., L. T. Stockwell, E. J. Clairain, M. E. Morrow, L. D. Rozas, and R. D. Smith.
1991. Wetland evaluation technique ( WET): Volume I-Literature review and evalua-
tion rationale. Technical Report WRP-DE-2. Vicksburg, Miss.: U.S. Department of the
Army, Waterways Experiment Station.
American Planning Association. 2002. Landslides. Retrieved from www.planning.org/land-
slides/, accessed October 15, 2002.
Anderson, Larz. 1987. Seven methods for calculating land capability/suitability. Chicago:
American Planning Association.
Aqua Terra. 1994. Chambers watershed HSPF calibration. Everett, Wash.: Thurston County
Storm and Surface Water Program.
Arnold, Chester, and C. James Gibbons. 1996. Impervious surface coverage: The emer-
gence of a key indicator. Journal of the American Planning Association 62 (2) : 243 -58.
Aron, J. and J. Patz, eds. 2001. Ecosystem change and public health. Baltimore, Md.: The
Johns Hopkins University Press.
Berke, Philip, Joe MacDonald, Nancy White, Michael Holmes, Dan Line, Kat Oury, and Rhonda
Ryznar. 2003. Greening development to protect watersheds: Does new urbanism make a
difference? Journal of the American Planning Association 69 (4): 397-413.
California Department of Fish and Game. 1996. Multi-species conservation plan, vol. 1.
Sacramento, Ca lif.: Multi-species Conservation Program.
Cassirer, E. F., D. J. Freddy, and E. D. Ables. 1992. Elk responses to disturbance by cross-
country skiers in Yellowstone National Park. Wildlife Society Bulletin 20 (4): 375-81.
Center for Watershed Protection. 1998. Rapid watershed planning handbook: A comprehen-
sive guide to managing urbanizing watersheds. Ellicott City, Md.: Author.
Center for Watershed Protection. 2001. Powhatan Creek watershed management plan. Ellicott
City, Md.: Author.
City of Olympia Public Works Department (COPWD) . 1995. Impervious surface reduction
study. Olympia, Wash.: Author.
Cowardin, L. M., V. Carter, F. Go let, and E. La Roe. 1979. Classification of wetlands and deepwater
habitats of the United States. Washington, D. C.: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
194
U)

E Daniels, Tom, and Katherine Daniels. 2003. The enviromnental planning handbook for sus-
2'
U)
>
tainable communities and regions. Washington, D.C.: Island Press.
C/J
t Diamond, J.M. 1975. The island dilemma: Lessons of modern biogeographic studies for
D
o._
o._ the design of natural processes. Biological Conservation 7: 129-46.
=>
C/J Duerksen, Christopher J., Donald L. Elliott, N. Thompson Hobbs, Erin Johnson, and James
CT>
c R. Miller. 1997. Habitat protection planning: Where the wild things are, report no. 470/
c
c
ro 471. Chicago: American Planning Association.
0::::
CT>
c
Environmental Protection Agency. 1993. Guidance specifying management measures fo r
-0
sources of nonpoint source pollution in coastal waters. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environ-
=>

-
co

f-
a:
<(
mental Protection Agency, #EPA-840-B-92-002.
Environmental Protection Agency. 2002. Retrieved from www.epa.gov/OWOW/wetlands/
vital/status.html, accessed October 22, 2002.
Federal Emergency Management Agency. 2003. National flood insurance manual. Wash-
o__
ington, D.C.: National Flood Insurance Program.
Fraser, J. D., L. D. Frenzel, and J.E. Mathison. 1985. The impact of human activities on
breeding bald eagles in Northcentral Minnesota. Journal of Wildlife Management 49
(2): 585-92.
Freddy, D. J., W. M. Bronaugh, and M. C. Fowler. 1986. Responses of mule deer to distur-
bance by persons afoot or snowmobiles.Journal of Wildlife Management 14 (1): 63-68.
Gustafson, Eric, J. 1998. Quantifying landscape spatial pattern: What is the state of the art?
Ecosystems 1: 143-56.
Hays, Walter, ed. 1991. Facing geologic and hydrologic hazards: Earth science considerations.
Washington, D.C.: Geological Survey Professional Paper 1240-B, U.S. Government
Printing Office.
Hobbs, Richard. 1997. Future landscapes and the future of landscape ecology. Landscape
and Urban Planning 37: 1-9.
Holmes, T. L., R. L. Knight, L. Stegall, and G. R. Craig. 1993. Responses of wintering grass-
land raptors to human disturbance. Wildlife Society Bulletin 21 (2): 461-68.
Hunt, William, and Nancy White. 2002. Urban waterways: Designing rain gardens (bio -
retention areas). Paper No. AG-588-3. Raleigh: North Carolina State University Coop-
erative Extension Service.
International Union for the Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources (IUCN). 1980.
World conservation strategy. Gland, Switzerland: Author.
Klosterman, Richard, Loren Siebert, Mohammed Ahmadul Hoque, Jung-Wook Kim, and
Aziza Parveen. 2002. Using operational planning support systems to evaluate farmlan d
preservation policies. Akron, Ohio: Department of Geography and Planning, Univer-
sity of Akron. Retrieved from www3.uakron.edu/geography/resources/OhioView/pdfs/
operationalpss.pdf, accessed July 9, 2003.
Klutinberg, E. 1994. Determination of impervious area and directly connected impervious
area. Memo for the Wayne County Rouge Program Office. Detroit, Mich.: Wayne
County Rouge Program Office.
Ludington, Livy, Steve Hall, and Haven Wiley. 1997. A landscape with wildlife for Orange
County. Research Triangle Park, N.C.: Triangle Land Conservancy.
Malczewski, Jacek. 2004. GIS-based land suitability analysis: A critical overview. Progress in
Planning62 (1): 3-63.
Marsh, William. 1998. Landscape planning: Environmental applications, 3rd ed. New York:
John Wiley and Sons.
McHarg, Ian. 1969. Design with nature. New York: Natural History Press.
 -
195
n
Muckel, Gary, ed. 2004. Understanding soil risks and hazards: Using soil surveys to identify :::c
)>
areas with risks and hazards to human life and property. Lin coln, Neb.: National Soil :::::
m
Survey Center.

-
:D
m
National Wetland Inventory. Retrieved from http://wetlands.fws.er.usgs.gov/wtlnd s/
viwer.htm, accessed June 10, 2004. m
:::J
Noos, Reed, and Allen Cooperrider. 1994. Saving nature's legacy: Protecting and restoring :S .
3:::J
biodiversity. Washington, D. C.: Island Press.
3
North Carolina Division of Water Quality. 1999. Randleman Lake watershed management en
:::J
@"
study. Raleigh, N.C.: Author. (/)

Northern Virgi nia Planning District Commission (:NVPD C) . 1980. Guidebook for screen- -<
"'Cii
i11g urban nonpoint pollution management strategies. Falls Church, Va.: Metropolitan 3
Washington Co uncil of Governments. "'
Novitzki, Richard, R. Daniel Smith, and Judy D. Fretwell, 1996. Restora tion, creation, and
recovery of wetlands: Wetland functions, values and assessment. Washington, D.C.: U.S.
Geological Survey Water Supply Paper 2425, 15.
Noos, Reed, and Allen Cooperrider. 1994. Saving nature's legacy: Protecting and restoring
biodiversity. Washington, D.C.: Island Press.
I
Olshansky, Robert. 1996. Planning for hillside development. PAS Report 466. Chicago: APA
Planners Press.
Ormsby, Tim, and Jonell Alvi. 1999. How Model Builder works. In Extending ArcView GIS,
235-60. Redlands, Calif.: ESRI Press.
Ortolano, Leonard. 1984. Environmental planning and decision making. New York: John
Wiley and Sons.
I
Ortolano, Leonard. 1997. Environmental regulation and impact assessment. New York: John
Wiley and Sons.
Randolph, John . 2004. Environmental land use planning and management. Washington,
D.C.: Island Press.
Rogers, J. A., and H. T. Smith. 1995. Set-back distances to protect nesting bird colonies
from human disturbance. Conservation Biology 9 (1): 89-99. I
I
Ryznar, Rhonda, and Philip R. Berke. 2001. Testing the applicability of impervious surface
estimates based on zoning categories in watersheds. Chapel Hill: University of North
Carolina, Department of City and Regional Planning.
Salt Lake County. 1989. Natural hazards ordinance. Salt Lake City: County Planning Division.
Schueler, Thomas. 1992. Mitigating the adverse impacts of urbanization on streams: A
comprehensive strategy for local government. In Watershed restoration sourcebook, P.
Kumble and Thomas Schueler, eds., 12-22. Washington, D.C.: Metropolitan Washing-
ton Council of Governments, p ublication no. 92701.
Schultz, T. D., and J. A. Bailey. 1978. Responses of national park elk to human activity. I
Journal of Wildlife Management 42 (3): 91-100.
Seattle Public Utilities Geographic Systems Group. 2004. La nd slid es. Retrieved from
http://www.cityofseattle.net/ emergency_mgt/pdf/Ch08-Landslides.pdf, accessed Janu-
ary 15, 2004.
Stalmaster, M. V., and J. R. Newman. 1978. Behavioral responses of wintering bald eagles to
human activity. Journal of Wildlife Management 42 ( 4): 506-13.
I
Tiner, Ralph. 1999. Wetland indicators: A guide to wetland identification, delineation, classi-
fication, and mapping. New York: Lewis.
U.S. Department of Agricul ture (USDA). 1986. Urban hydrology.for small watersheds. Tech-
nical Release 55. Washington, D.C. : Natura l Resources Conservation Service.
196
"'
E U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2002. Retrieved from http://ecos.fws.gov/tess/html/
.el
"'> boxscore.html, accessed October 22, 2002.
C/)
t'. U.S. Geological Survey. 2003a. USGS landslide. Retrieved from http://landslides.usgs.gov/
0
0..
0..
html_files/landslides/slides/slide21.htm, accessed December 10, 2003.
:::l
C/) U.S. Geological Survey. 2003b. USGS topomaps. Retrieved from http://mcmcweb.er.
°'
c usgs.gov/topomaps/, accessed November 9, 2003.
c
c
"' U.S. Natural Resources Conservation Service. 2003. Standard Digital Map. Retrieved from
0::::
Ol
c
http://www.flw.nrcs. usda.gov/ssurgo_ftp3.html, accessed August 10, 2003.
Ward, A. L., N. E. Fornwalt, S. E. Henry, and R. A. Hondroff. 1980. Effects of highway opera-

- tion practices and facilities on elk, mule deer, and pronghorn antelope. U.S. Federal High-
way Office Research and Development report. Washington, D.C.: FHWA-RD- 79-143.
Wa ter Resources Management Program. 1992. Urban wetlands in the Yahara-Mona water-
shed: Functional classification and management alternatives. Madison, Wis.: Univer-
sity of Wisconsin-Madison.
Wilcox, D.S., C.H. McLellan, and A. P. Dobson. 1986. Habitat fragmentation in the tem-
perate zone. In Conservation biology: The science and scarcity of diversity, M. Soule, ed.
Sunderland, Mass.: Sunaur.
William Spangle and Associates, Inc. 1988. Geology and planning: The Portola Valley expe-
rience. Portola Valley, Calif.: Author.
 •

Chapter 7

Land Use Systems

In preparation for the development of a new community plan, you are

asked to gather and analyze information on existing and future land use.
This should include estimates of the location, amount, and availability of
land needed to accommodate the community's projected twenty-year
population growth. You need to understand the forces that are causing
land use change, update the existing land use inventory and maps, up-
date the inventory of the supply of developable land, and analyze the
balance between the supply of developable land and the projected de-
velopment demand. To assist the community in developing future land
use scenarios and visions, it would be helpful to summarize your find-
ings in terms of indicators that describe current and projected land use
patterns, needs, issues, and planning problems. What should you do to
carry out this assignment?

he difficulty of getting a handle on existing and future land use varies with
the dynamics of community growth and development. In a small town
with a relatively stable land use pattern and slow projected population
growth, the task is less difficult since the existing land use system is expected to
change only incrementally-absent some major new urban form determinant,
such as a freeway extension or creation of a natural park. However, in a metro-
politan area with high projected population growth and uncertain development
dynamics, the task is more challenging since the drivers of land use change are
more complex, interrelated, and unpredictable.
Thanks to major advances in development of geographic information sys-
tems (GIS) and planning support systems (PSS) , the contemporary planner has
unparalleled access to land use information and analytical tools. 1 The deluge of
new databases and software packages can be confusing, however, and there is a

197
198
U)

E wide discrepancy in the capacities of local governments to create and manage

tl>- information systems. Each jurisdiction must decide on the basic components of a
(/J

t'.
0
land use support system that are necessary to the preparation of its land use plans
o_
o_
::0 and land development management programs.
(/J

=
c
Land use is a rich concept. Land use systems go far beyond the basic land use
c
c
ro
classifications to include many other associated characteristics and components.
0::: These attributes and some of their common indicators include: 1) land as fun c-
=
c
LO tional space devoted to various uses (e.g., urban, rural, residential, commercial,
::0
co industrial, public); 2) land as a setting for activities (e.g., working, studying, rec-
-
f-
reating, commuting); 3) land as part of an environmental system (e.g., floodplain ,
wetland, forest, wildlife habitat); 4) land as a real estate exchange commodity to
ee
<( be bought, developed, and sold (e.g., ownership, assessed value, price, develop -
0...
ment feasibility); 5) land as publicly planned, serviced, and regulated space (e.g.,
future land use, density, zoning, infrastructure); and 6) land as a visual feature fo r
orientation and social symbolism (e.g., corridor, node, neighborhood).
This chapter lays out a basic program for inventorying and analyzing informa-
tion about community land and land use systems. It briefly reviews theories of
land use change, describes methods of inventorying, recording, and classifyin g
existing land use, proposes techniques for analyzing future land use, and recom -
mends ways to derive land use intelligence for use by community stakeholders
and decision makers. It stresses the point that the collection and analysis of land
use information is not simply a technical process, but must also respond to, an d
reflect, community values.

Forces of Land Use Change

Land use systems are dynamic. Uses expand and contract, persist and change, in
response to population and economic growth, public and private decisions, an d
market and government actions. In order to plan for land use change so as to
achieve community goals, it is first necessary to understand the forces at work in
land use change decisions. As discussed in chapter 1, this system can be thought of
as a serious game in which different community interests compete for the lan d
use changes, plans, policies, and outcomes that best suit their objectives-pro -
posing and opposing, advocating and contending, negotiating and trading amon g
themselves. These forces and their relationships and interactions are similar to an
ecology- a system of reciprocal relationships among people and organization s
interacting with the land.

Land Use Influences

From the planner's perspective, the three major interests influencing land us e
change are: 1) developer responses to real estate market demand; 2) governmen t
plans, policies, decisions, capital expenditures, and regulations aimed at manag-
ing community development; and 3) community values and interests directed
toward maintaining and improving quality of life. Logan and Molotch (1987)
characterize cities as "growth machines," whose primary actors are entrepreneurs
 •

199
n
who strive for financial return; local officials who have authority and responsibil- :r:
l>
ity for land use, revenues, and urban services; and residents who rely on commu- u__,
rn
::D
nity places to satisfy essential needs of life and fulfill their social and emotional
-
'--!

desires. This is not to say that there are not other influences. Climatic and weather
,-
changes, such as droughts and floods, can trigger dramatic land use changes. Geo- ru
:::J
o_
logic changes, such as earthquakes or land subsidence, can disrupt land use pat- c
terns. Economic booms and busts can pump up or deflate community growth "'
m
VJ
-<
rates. State or federal policies and programs can offer incentives for, or impose ~
m
regulations on, local land use change. But the major day-to-day influences result 3
"'
from the activities of real estate developers, public officials, and interest groups as
they struggle to maintain, convert, develop, and redevelop land in order to estab-
lish a future land use inventory and pattern that meet the community's needs.
Each of the major actors influences the outcomes of the ongoing land use game
(Figure 7-1). Developers are in the business of changing land use. Local govern-
ments are responsible for managing land use. And community interest groups
seek to stabilize existing land use patterns.
Real estate developers propose projects that respond to market demand cre-
ated by population and economic growth and change. Developers typically are
individual entrepreneurs, but they can also be financial institutions, corporations,
universities, nonprofit organizations, cities, and others. Along with their financial
backers, developers are the engines driving urban development. They search the
real estate market for vacant or underutilized land parcels that offer potential for
development projects. According to Miles, Berens, and Weiss (2000), "Real estate
development is the continual reconfiguration of the built environment to meet
society's needs. Roads, sewer systems, houses, office buildings, and urban enter-
tainment centers do not just happen . Someone must motivate and manage the
creation, maintenance, and eventual re-creation of the spaces in which we live,
work, and play" (3) .
Projects are the products of real estate development. For each proposed project,
the developer proposes and refines a project idea, tests its feasibility, negotiates
contracts, makes a formal commitment, constructs the project, completes and
opens it, and then sells or manages it. At each turn, the developer has an exit

Real estate
1-- Change
developers
Land
maintenance,
Future land
Local conversion,
use inventory
governments Manage development,
& pattern
&
redevelopment
Community
interest groups >--- Stabilize

Fig. 7-1 Land use influences.

-~
200
U")

E strategy if the project does not appear to be working out. Planners see the details
t; of proposed real estate projects during the development-review process, when the
>-
(/)

t
0
developer requests a zoning change or a special-use permit for the project. Dur-
o_
o_
:::J
ing land use plan making, planners are more concerned with aggregated develop -
(/)

=
c
ment trends, with the capacity of the land development organizations and their
c
c knowledge of community plans, and with the possibilities for public-private co-
OJ
0:::: operation. Planners can provide developers with valuable information about com -
=
c
munity growth trends to help them make better decisions on the need for, and
timing of, their projects, by helping the marketplace "avoid the problems ofboom-

-
f-
ee
<(
and-bust that are due, at least in part, to a lack of information concerning market
capacity to absorb new space" (McClure 2001, 285).
Local government plans, policies, decisions, and regulations make up a major
o_
set of influences on land use. Although there are no direct federal land use laws,
there are a number of federal programs that influence land use change, particu-
larly programs of the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, the
U.S. Department of Transportation, and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
Some states have laws and programs aimed directly at land use, including com-
prehensive planning and Smart Growth laws and programs. However, local gov-
ernments have the final say in the planning and regulation of land use in the
United States, influencing land use in a variety of ways. Adopted land use plans
and policies signal the location and type of desired future land use patterns. Pub-
lic investments in infrastructure and capital facilities support future development
projects. And development regulations and exactions, such as zoning and subdi-
vision ordinances and impact fees, provide specific land use standards and devel-
opment cost fo rmulas. Taken together, these plans, policies, and practices deter-
mine how the community manages growth and development, as we will discuss
in more detail in chapter 15.
The underlying political stance of the local government-pro-growth, man-
aged growth, or no-growth- is the subtext for land use decision making. As Lo -
gan and Molotch (1987, 27) point out, government activity is a key determinant
of future property prices: "Public decisions crucially influence which parcels will
have the highest rents as well as the aggregate rent levels for the whole region or
society .... Similarly, building and maintaining urban infrastructures must involve
government, and such involvement determines market outcomes" (emphasis in
original). The most extreme pro-growth localities compete like business enter-
prises to attract businesses and grow their tax bases. The most extreme no-growth
localities deploy their regulations and incentives to discourage new development,
especially large-scale projects and housing for disadvantaged residents. Most lo-
calities fall between these extremes. The government's political stance reflects the
values expressed by its citizens and businesses through their organized interest
groups.
Community-interest groups are the third major influence on land use change
decisions. Neighborhood associations, environmental organizations, community-
development groups, and other types of interest-based groups actively lobby for
land use goals and policies that serve their primary objectives. Typically, such groups
fight passionately against the proposals of the growth machine, on the grounds of
 -
201
n
protecting their quality of life, environmental quality, or some other qualitative :r:
)>
goal. According to Logan and Molotch (1987, 20), these are psychological battles _,
u
rn
to preserve a deep -seated feeling of community in the face of urban change. Thus, :::J:J

planners advocating land use change often find themselves facing community
groups supporting the status quo.
Such neighborhood sentiment gives rise to fierce displays of opposition at public
-
__,

r-
Q.)
:::J
o_
cC/>
hearings on development proposals and plan amendments. The cry of"Not in My CD
(/)

Backyard" (NIMBY) springs from a perception that residents' investments, finan- -<
C/>
ro
cial and psychic, in their neighborhood are threatened by adjacent development, 3
C/>

particularly if it is of a different type or density. Thus, single-family home owners

oppose higher-density subdivisions and apartments, as well as commercial projects,
on the grounds that property values will be decreased or traffic will be increased.
Community interest groups are especially vocal in opposition to infill develop-
ment proposals. As Landis (2001) notes: "Infill developers commonly try to make
their projects pencil out by proposing either higher densities or reduced parking
requirements. Both proposals tend to be unacceptable to neighbors, usually for
reasons of traffic congestion or the perception that the proposed project will be
out of scale with the rest of the neighborhood. While these problems are not un-
known to developers of raw land, it is often a matter of numbers: given the oppor-
tunity, more neighbors typically materialize to oppose infill projects than compa-
rable greenfield projects. And, given the higher costs of developing infill, the eco-
nomic cushion a developer has in order to attempt to mitigate neighborhood con-
cerns is usually thinner" (25).

Land Use Maintenance, Conversion, Development, and Redevelopment

Land use patterns evolve through several processes. Some built-up community
areas remain stable over many decades, while others wither and depopulate. New
growth often takes place on so -called greenfields at the urban edge, through the
conversion of rural, or "raw," land in agricultural or natural uses to urbanized
uses. Major areas of new housing and commercial and industrial uses are added
through development on large tracts of vacant or underutilized land. Meanwhile,
some older built-up areas are redeveloped with newer structures and infill devel-
opment is located on small tracts in the midst of existing neighborhoods. Infill
development does not just take place on passed-over, vacant land parcels; much
of it occurs as "refill"-reuse or redevelopment of previously developed land or
buildings (Landis 2001, 24).
Land use planners often find themselves in the midst of community conflicts
over development proposals. One set of stakeholders will argue for maintenance
of the status quo through preservation of existing neighborhoods or natural sys-
tems, while another is arguing for change through conversion of rural land, devel-
opment of vacant or underutilized land, or redevelopment and infill of existing
parcels. All of these processes contribute to, and are sources of conflict over, urban
development. But where they take place-in rural or urban areas, developed or
undeveloped areas-makes a lot of difference in how they are perceived and dealt
with.
202
UJ
E Maintaining existing land use patterns is a popular goal of urban residents,
~
UJ
>-
(/)
environmental advocates, historic preservation groups, and no-growth organiza-
tions. Local governments may formalize their support of this goal through enact-
ing historic preservation district ordinances, designating areas of stability in fu -
=
c
ture land use plans, adopting neighborhood preservation zoning overlays, up -
c
c grading neighborhood infrastructure and public facilities, constraining develop -
co
ment near sensitive environmental areas, instituting permit limits, urban growth
u
=
c
boundaries, growth caps, or other techniques.
Conversion of rural land to developed uses does not usually encounter the same

-
f-
er:
fierce opposition as development proposals in built-up urban areas, unless the
rural area has already had suburban development. Interactions between the type
of area and its development rules influence conversion conflicts. Rudel (1989)
<I:
o_
posits three types of land use change areas: (1) slow-growing rural areas with
relatively stable residents and low rates of land use conversion, where informal
tit-for-tat land use agreements among neighbors predominate; (2) rapidly grow-
ing rural -urban places, where growth raises mobility and destroys recurrent rela-
tionships necessary for tit-for-tat agreements, encouraging the adoption of legal
rules such as zoning to control land use conversion; and (3) slow-growing urban
places, where stable neighbors contest each development proposal and the in-
crease in disputes leads to more court cases and negotiated settlements, encour-
aging a more formal tit-for-tat behavior. In the first type, land owners deal di-
rectlywith each other. In the second type, local elected officials decide on land use
changes. In the third type, a third party, such as a judge or mediator, is involved in
the decision. Rudel (1989) sees community growth leading to a rural-to -urban
development sequence with a layering on of new types of regulatory procedures
along with retention of older procedures so that informal agreements, zoning,
and mediated settlements may coexist in the developed city.
Development of vacant land contributes the most to new urban growth. Un-
less constrained by areawide growth-management policies, most new develop -
ment projects are located on the urban fringe where land is less expensive and
development controls are less rigorous. This is the root cause of urban sprawl,
which reflects the "footprint" of an urban area. As defined by Wackernagel and
Rees (1996, 158), an ecological footprint is the land (and water) area required to
support a defined human population and material standard ofliving indefinitely.
It measures the load imposed by a given population on nature in terms of the land
area necessary to sustain resource consumption and waste-discharge levels by that
population. Applications of the ecological footprint have focused on global or
national assessments, such as in Holland and New Zealand. In the United States, it
is more realistic to think of the footprint on a regional scale. A simple footprint
indicator is the per capita amount of urbanized land consumed by a given region,
as discussed at the end of this chapter.
Redevelopment and infill are increasingly advocated an antidotes to sprawl.
The logic is that increasing the intensity of development in the already built-up
urban area saves public funds by utilizing existing infrastructure, reduces the im-
pact on outlying agricultural lands and sensitive environments, supports public
transit, and brings middle- and upper-income households back into the central
 -ri

203
n
city. Critics attack redevelopment and infill as gentrification that imposes nega- :r:
)>
tive social and financial costs on the poorer residents displaced by the new projects. ....,
~

m
::JJ
And middle- and upper-income residents living adjacent to new redevelopment ___,
and infill projects complain that their quality of life has been lowered by the in-
creased traffic and density. Planners attempt to introduce objectivity into these
-
.-
Q.)
:::i
disputes through providing information about the conditions and dynamics of D..
c
the community's land use system. "'ro
(/)
-<
~
ro
3
Land Supply Inventory and Classification "'
To be useful for land use planning, a land information system must contain an
inventory of existing land use as well as an inventory of land available for future
development or redevelopment, a system for monitoring changes in these inven-
tories, and an analysis of land supply relative to anticipated demand for devel-
oped land during the planning period. According to Meck (2002, 7-84 to 7-90),
supporting studies for the local land use plan should include:
• an inventory in narrative and tabular form of the amount, type, intensity,
and/or net density of existing land uses;
• an identification in map form ofland areas served by public water and sewer
lines;
• an analysis of existing land use patterns and supply-and -demand trends and
events, such as infrastructure construction, annexations, large-scale private
developments, and land purchases for open space and recreation;
• an analysis of the ability of infrastructure capacity to accommodate projected
twenty-year development, including criteria or level of service standards used
to determine facility capacity;
• evaluation of the need for redevelopment, including blighted-area renewal;
and
• projections of future land uses-residential, commercial, industrial, and other,
such as parks and recreation uses-over the twenty-year planning period, in
five-year increments.
The land use plan studies listed above are designed to support a "traditional"
local land use plan, based on a twenty-year time-planning horizon (e.g., Ander-
son 1995, 2000). However, some analysts argue for planning and development
management based on a more dynamic land supply or inventory approach. Knaap
and Severe (2001) advocate continuous land monitoring to manage growth so as
to balance the costs of holding too much residential land inventory, which exacer-
bates urban sprawl, against the cost of holding too little inventory, which causes
land and price inflation. McClure (2001) recommends a "queuing" approach for
new industrial and commercial projects, in which the timing of construction per-
mits for approved projects is based on reading signals that indicate the market's
capacity to absorb new space so as to avoid overbuilding. The Montgomery County,
Maryland, growth-management system, which combines a long-range land use plan
with annual determinations of development capacity based on transportation and
204
"'E infrastructure capacity, is a hybrid of traditional and inventory approaches
~
"'>- (Godschalk 2000; Levinson 2001 ).
(/)

t
0
D..
D..
::J
Inventories and Monitoring
(/)
en
c A land supply inventory, sometimes called a land records system, is a comprehensive
c
c database that relates the existing and projected supply of developable and
co
0::::
en
c
redevelopable land to infrastructure availability, environmental quality and con-
""C)
straints, and market trends. It should document the nature and condition of the

-
::J
co present built environment, including the current stock of land uses and structures.
It should consider the changes taking place in land use and built environment as
f- new uses and activities supercede older ones. It should identify land available for
a:
<l'.
"-- development for each land use type: residential, commercial, industrial, recreational,
and public facilities, as well as agricultural or natural resource types, where appli-
cable. The inventory should be organized by the relevant planning scales (e.g., re-
gion, county, city, neighborhood) and planning units (e.g., districts, watersheds, cen-
sus tracts, traffic-analysis zones, blocks, ownership parcels). It should be mapped as
part of the geographic information system, for ready access by users.
Land information should be public information. A good land inventory will be
accessible to the public through the Internet. For example, Clark County, Washing-
ton, maintains an Internet mapping system called Maps Online (Pool 2003, 16).
This site contains forty-one different maps, organized into the following groups:
•Land-Parcels
• Boundaries
• Survey-Plats
• Environmental
• ESA (Endangered Species Act) Listings
• Transportation
The user enters a site address in a group, such as Land- Parcels, and can find
mapped information about parcels, zoning, comprehensive plan designation, aerial
photos, site-plan review, building permits, and property sales. The online map
also displays municipal boundaries, urban-growth boundaries, parcel boundaries,
park lands, and school property. If the user is concerned about limits to develop -
ment or development suitability of a particular site or within a particular part of
the county, an environmental constraints inventory map is avai lable, with loca-
tions of mapped wetlands, slopes greater than 25 percent, potentially unstable
slopes, historic or active landslides, 100-year floodplains, severe erosion hazard
areas, hydric (depositional) soils, and historic sites. The computer screen image
for the Clark County Land- Parcels group is shown in Figure 7-2.

Land Use and Land Supply The land information system should contain a
description and analysis of the existing pattern of land uses and improvements,
including infrastructure. In the majority of communities, this pattern of existing
land use, roads, sewers, water mains, and so on will be a major determinant of
future development. The land supply inventory also must account for change over
 205
Map click will: E) Zoom + ._: Zoom 2 Pan : La be! ::::. Report n
::r::
Map Groups
Land - P:.ircc!s !' ;
Maps@nline )>
_,
-0
rn
::J:J
Maps

-
---.)
Property Search
Parcels
Ouick Hetp
Zoning
Com Plan ,-
CWP2004 QJ
::J
Aerial P!10tos Site Address: o_
Siteplan Review c
Building Perm its en
Serial Number: m
Property Sales (/)
-<
!'------ en
- Refresh 1 ro-
~ 3

[J
en

[::J Municipal Boundary

[::J Urban Growth Boundary

C=1 Parcel Boundary

Battie Ground· Camas· La Center · Ridgefield Vancouver · Washougal · Yacolt
Full County - Section - Alias Page - Park Lands

County Homepage I GIS Homepage - School Property

~l<i_im:_r~~-~~!!~L~~) New Property Information Center

Fig. 7-2 Clark County, Washington, Maps Online, Land- Parcels . Source:
Clark County 2005.

time. Land supply monitoring seeks to account for the dynamic aspects of urban
growth (Moudon and Hubner 2000, 45). The initial inventory portrays baseline
conditions, and regular updates indicate observed changes. The minimum require-
ment is to maintain an accurate land supply database, which means that land use
maps, attribute tables, and tabular reports must be systematically updated. Up -
dating can be done institutionally, through entering new building permits, cer-
tificates of occupancy, site plans, and subdivision approvals. It can also be done
physically, through field surveys, aerial photography, and remote sensing images.
Among the data that should be monitored are (Moudon and Hubner 2000,
46):
• Census and other demographic data
• Existing and planned land uses
• Zoning, subdivision regulations, and other regulatory overlays
• Remote sensing images and data
• Land ownership, improvements, and assessed-valuation information
• Existing and planned infrastructure, service levels, and capacities
• Development in the pipeline (subdivisions, permits)
• Market data, including multiple listing service (MLS ), sales transactions, and
availability indicators

Land Policy and Regulations Land policy is a major influence on buildable

land supply and development capacity. A land policy inventory is a compilation
of existing regulations, procedures, programs, plans, and policies that affect land
206
use in the local jurisdiction. Pulling together this compilation will assist public and
private decision makers in understanding and following the local planning and de-
D
velopment-management goals. The land policy inventory also serves as a compre-
D..
D..
::0
hensive sourcebook of de jure (formally adopted) and de facto (used in practice)
C/)
land use policy. Preparing it entails obtaining information from a variety of govern-
c
c mental agencies, including utility and service providers, regulatory agencies, and
ro
0... policy and planning bodies. Some information will be available in published reports
=
c
and plans; some will be found in less formal memos and policy statements.
The land policy inventory can be based on normative principles, such as Smart

-
f-
a:
<(
Growth or livability criteria (Avin and Holden 2000) . Thus, it can serve as both an
inventory and an assessment of land policies. It can also be used as the basis for
recommendations to improve existing policies and practices.
0...

Activity Systems The third aspect ofland use is the activities of the people who
use the land. Activities, such as farming or shopping, may be specified at the indi-
vidual parcel level along with other parcel-based information . Activity systems,
on the other hand, encompass larger geographic areas, such as the region or th e
community. An activity-system inventory is a database of urban land-using activ-
ity patterns, reflecting aggregate interactions between people and places over time.
Activity-system information, such as records of journey-to-work commuting,
describes the daily dynamic aspect ofland use. Planners use activity-system infor-
mation to understand the implications of location decisions by households and
firms and to solve problems of inefficient land use arrangements.
Planners also use activity system information to analyze and study the health
implications of people's behavior. As concerns have arisen about obesity and other
health problems, researchers have begun to document the link between sprawl,
physical activity, and morbidity, as a means to focus on planning for healthy com-
munities (Ewing et al. 2003; Frumkin, Frank, and Jackson 2004).
Transportation studies provide the most common source of activity-system
inventories. They portray the location, magnitude, and timing of regular com-
muting and trip making, as well as pedestrian movements and recreational activi-
ties. They are valuable inputs to models that analyze the reciprocal impacts of
land use and transportation, as discussed in chapters 4 and 8. Thus, although
activity-system inventories are important indicators ofland use, they are typically
maintained in transportation and infrastructure information systems and are cross-
referenced with land use systems.

Classification
Land classification is the procedure of assigning land use categories to each loca-
tion in the jurisdiction. Land classification categories should: 1) describe the na-
ture of existing land uses accurately and in adequate detail; 2) fit consistently with
the logic and classes of future land use plans; and 3) be compatible with the typol -
ogy of uses in the development-management regulations, whether these are based
on zoning or a form-based code (as discussed in chapter 15) .
Land use categories may include information on land use type, location, amount,
services, condition, design, timing, constraints, and cost or value.
 207
n
• Type specifies the nature of the land-using activity (e.g., housing, retail trade, :c
)>
manufacturing, fanning, or government, expressed as residential, commer- _,
<J
rn
cial, industrial, agricultural, or public land uses), or of the mix of land-using Xl

activities (e.g., housing and retail trade, expressed as residential-commercial).

• Location specifies the geographic location of the ownership parcel or project
-
--J

r-
Q)
::J
a.
(e.g., street address, tax-map number, subdivision lot number, parcel identifi- c
cation number (PIN), township/section/range number, cens us block or tract). "'CD
Cl)
-<
• Amount refers to the intensity or density of use per unit of land (e.g., build- "'
iD
3
ing height, lot coverage, or number of housing units per acre ofland). "'
• Services information describes the availability of infrastructure or public
facilities to the land parcel or area (e.g., water and sewer availability).
• Condition refers to the structural state or repair of buildings on the site
(e.g., whether they are in compliance with building code, housing code,
design standards, and the like).
• Design includes site planning and architectura l aspects of the land use (e.g.,
setbacks, parking, building massing, roof shape, and architectural details).
• Timing applies to the future use or development of the site (e.g., whether it is
programmed for future development or future infrastructure improvements).
• Constraints identify the presence of natural or constructed features that
limit land use (e.g., steep slopes; unstable soils; proximity to natural haz-
ards, such as the 100-year floodplain or an earthquake-hazard area; endan-
gered species; or historic locations).
• Cost or value of the land and improvements (e.g., typically assessed value
for tax purposes, selling price if such information is available).
Classification systems group similar categories of land use (activities, functions,
and amounts) and land cover (vegetation and surface character) for purposes of
planning, analysis, record keeping, and development management. The extent of
the information included depends upon the use to which the information is to be
put and the capacity of the government to acquire and maintain it. Because land
use is a multifaceted concept, classification systems can range from simple to com-
plex, depending on the purpose of the inventory. A simple system of land use
types by property-ownership parcels may suffice for a small rural jurisdiction. A
more complex system would be needed for a major city or urbanized area.
Land use classification systems are organized hierarchically. At the first, most-
general level, land may be classified simply as urban or rural. The second level
breaks land use into more detailed types of uses, so that the urban land use cat-
egory could include residential, commercial, office, industrial, public, recreational,
mixed residential-commercial, and other urban land uses. The third and fourth
levels allow for more specific subdivisions of the main categories, such as single-
family residential or single-family residential detached.
Land use includes the quantity of the land itself, measured in acres, square feet,
square miles, hectares, and so on; the improvements on the land, such as buildings
and structures, measured in numbers, floors, square feet, percentage oflot coverage,
setbacks, and the like; and the activities on the land, measured in population,
208
residents, employees, households, jobs, and the like. Land use often is specified in
terms of combinations of aspects of the land, the improvements, and the activi-
~

0
ties. Thus, planners specify the density of land use as a measure of the amount of
o._
o._
::::l
building or activity per unit ofland, such as five dwelling units or households per
(/)

=
c
acre. Intensity of use can also be specified in terms of the ratio of floor space in
c
c the building to the area of the lot or parcel, called the floor area ratio (FAR).
m
0::: An early land use classification system was presented in the Standard Land Use
=
c
Coding Manual developed in 1965. However, this manual was derived from the stan-
dard industrial classification code, which overemphasizes industrial uses and is not
-
f--
well-suited to contemporary information systems that include environmental data
and remotely sensed data. It was followed by the Anderson et al. (1976) system for
0::
<(
o__
classifying land use and land cover, which was designed for use with remotely sensed
data. This resource-oriented system overemphasizes environmental uses and does
not include details of industrial, commercial, and residential uses.
Two newer types of contemporary land use classification systems are described
below: land-based classification standards (LBCS), and the urban transect. The
LBCS extends traditional parcel-based land classification approaches into a more
elaborate system in a digital format. the urban transect classifies land based on a
series of planning districts that are distinguished by their location on an urban-
to-rural continuum. Because of their newness, neither system has been thoroughly
tested, although each has some obvious advantages and limitations.
In practice, most local governments use land classification systems that respond
to their particular needs, usually combining categories from their zoning ordi-
nances and their tax assessors' inventories. But jurisdictionally unique classifica-
tion systems make it difficult to assemble regional land use databases with consis-
tent categories. For effective regional or statewide land use planning and develop -
ment management, a coordinated classification system should be developed and
applied across all jurisdictions.

Land-Based Classification Standards The most recent land use classification

system is the land-based classification standards (LBCS) system. Developed by the
American Planning Association, LBCS provides a consistent model for classifying
land uses. Its architecture is based on the following three components (Jeer 2001):
• Dimensions: activity, function, structure type, site-development charac-
ter, and ownership.
• Levels: Range from one to four, and add increasing detail about the use,
going from residential building to single-family building to detached units,
for example.
• Keywords: Describe the nature of the use, such as residential, shopping,
industrial, and so on.
LBCS classification tables (including codes, descriptions, definitions, color codes,
business types and land-use pictures) are not published in book form but can be
viewed online in tree, table, and list formats (www.planning.org/LBCS). To use
the system, you must specify the dimension of interest, select the level you want,
and specify a keyword (see Sidebar 7-1 and its figure).
 209
n
::r:
)>
CJ
-j
rn

-
:J:J
__,

Assume that you wanted to look up the possible classifications (activity, structure, func- r-
QJ
tion, site, ownership) for a single-family residential dwelling. You would find the following :::J
o_

possible categories in LBCS: c

(/>
ro
Activity 1000 Residential activities (/)
-<
Activity 1100 Household activities ~
ro
Activity 1200 Transient living 3
(/>

Activity 1300 Institutional living

Structure 1000 Residential buildings
Structure 1100 Single-family buildings
Structure 1110 Detached units
Structure 1120 Attached units
Structure 1121 Duplex structures
Zero lot line, row houses, etc.
Structure 1130 Accessory units
Structure 1140 Townhouses
Structure 1150 Manufactured housing
Function 1000 Residence or accommodation functions
Function 1100 Private household
Site 6000 Developed site-with buildings
Ownership 1000 No constraints-private ownership
Ownership 1100 Private-fee simple
So if your use was a privately owned, single-family, detached unit on a developed site
with observable household living activities, the applicable codes would be:
Activity 1100 Household activities
Structure 1110 Detached units
Function 1100 Private household
Site 6000 Developed site-with buildings
Ownership 1100 Private-fee simple.
And if you downloaded an image of an illustrative residential subdivision, you could
find this example.

SB fig. 7-1 Example of

classifying suburban subdi-
vision in LBCS. Source: Jeer
2001. Reproduced by
permission from American
Planning Association.
210
U)

E LBCS dimensions are defined as follows:

-2'
U)
>-
(/) • Activity refers to the actual use of land based on its observable characteris-
t::'.
0
o_ tics, such as farming, shopping, manufacturing, vehicle movement, etc.
o_
::0
(/) • Function refers to the economic function or type of establishment using the
=
c:
land in terms of the type of establishment that it serves, such as agricultural,
c:
c:
CIJ
CL
commercial, industrial, etc.
=
c: Structure refers to the type of structure or building on the land, such as single-
"' family house, office building, warehouse, hospital building, highway, etc.

-
::0
QJ

• Site development character refers to the overall physical development char-

acter of the land, including the state of its development, such as natural state,
f-
0:::
<( developing, developed with buildings, etc.
CL

• Ownership refers to the relationship between the site and its land rights, such
as public, private, subject to easements, etc.
The LBCS numbering system includes nine basic types of dimensions, speci-
fied as keywords, with associated color codes:
1000 Residential Yellow
2000 Shopping, business, or trade Red
3000 Industrial, manufacturing, and waste-related Purple
4000 Social, institutional, or infrastructure-related Blue
5000 Travel or movement Gray
6000 Mass assembly of people Black
7000 Leisure Light green
8000 Natural resource Dark green
9000 None or unclassifiable v\Thite
For the land use planner, the LBCS has some gaps. The major gap is that it does
not deal with the density or intensity of land use. It also appears to be more useful
at classifying larger land areas rather than land ownership parcels. However, it
does provide a logical system with a number of advantages, including its defini-
tions of use types, its multiple dimensions and levels, and its ability to deal with
mixed uses on a site and in a building. It also provides graphic illustrations of
land use types, expanding on the limits of verbal descriptions found in traditional
zoning ordinances.

Urban Transect A land use information system of a different type could be based
on the urban transect concept. The transect is a regulatory code that promotes an
urban pattern that is sustainable, coherent in design, and composed of an array of
livable, humane environments satisfying a range of human needs (Duany and Talen
2002, 245 -46). A transect is a geographical cross-section of a region including a se-
quence of environments, ranging from rural to urban. These environments are the
basis for organizing the components of the built world: building, lot, land use, street,
and so on. We believe that the urban transect has utility both for providing catego -
ries for collecting land use information and for providing a spatial policy-design
concept for preparing areawide land policy plans (chapter 13).
 211
n
The rural-to -urban continuum ca n be segmented into discrete categories, ar- I
)>
ranged to fit into development regulation categories. As shown in Figure 7-3, the ~
m
::J:J
transect continuum is divided into six different zones (Duany and Talen 2002,
248 -55):
• Rural preserve: open space legally protected from development in perpe-
-
___,

r-
QJ
::::>
o_

tuity, such as surface-water bodies, wetlands, protected habitats, public open c

"'
ro
space, or conservation easements. (/)
-<
Rural reserve: open space not yet protected from development but which "'c;;
3
should be, such as areas identified for public acquisition and transfer of "'
development rights (TDR) sending areas, floodplains, steep slopes, and
aquifer-recharge areas.
• Suburban: most naturalistic, least dense, most residential community habi-
tat, where buildings consist of single-fam ily, detached houses; office and
retail buildings are restricted; and open space is rural in character.
• General urban: generalized, but primarily residential, community habitat,
where buildings consist of single-family, detached houses and row houses
on small- and medium-sized lots; limited office, lodging, and retail is per-
mitted; and open space consists of greens and squares.
• Urban center: the denser, fully m ixed-use community habitat, where build-
ings consist of row houses, apartments, and offices above shops; office, re-
tail, and lodging are permitted; and open space consists of squares and
plazas.
• Urban core: the densest residential, business, cul tural, and entertainment
concentration of a region, where buildings consist of row houses, apart-
ments, offices, and department stores, and open space consists of squares
and plazas.

RU R ALi I I I II I I l l I I I TRANSECTl l l l I I I II II I IU RBAN

IRUR AL ZONES I URBAN zoNEs .-10-1s'""r=R..,.
1c'""r_s_ _

•
!_Q _Q:J

•_t;J:t:; 1

SU B -
T UR BA N

Fig. 7-3 Urban transect. Source: Duany and Ta/en 2002. Reproduced by permission from Duany
Plater-Zyberk and Company, Florida.
212
According to Duany and Talen (2002, 252-53), the urban transect is both an ur-
ban planning approach based on ecological principles and an analytical tool: "Transect
0Cl.. methodology involves taking a linear cut across a landscape ... along which a diver-
Cl..
::>
sity of systems and habitats is sampled, measured, and analyzed. Data is collected at
(I)
OJ
c
points along one or more transects in a region (the equivalent of core samples in
c geology) to better understand populations as well as communal associations occur-
c
m
0::::
OJ
ring within selected habitats. Scientists use these samples to track changes over time,
c
::2
looking for ways in which the entire ecosystem is affected."
Duany and Talen (2002) also see the urban transect as the basis for a new type

-
::>
co
of development regulation, called the SmartCode (discussed further in chapter
15). They argue that this new code should replace zoning ordinances, adding ur-
f-
a:
<(
o_
ban design standards to ensure the proper assembly of urban elements (architec-
ture, setback, and thoroughfare) in appropriate settings. For example, building
types, ranging from houses and cottages to row houses and apartments, are speci-
fied by transect location.
Although the urban transect approach opens interesting new possibilities of
linking analysis, planning, design, and development regulation, it also has some
gaps in terms of its usefulness as the basis for a land information system . The
primary gap stems from the way that the urban transect is conceptualized as a
sample cross-section through an urban area, rather than a comprehensive data -
base for the entire area, whose characteristics may or may not follow the transect
logic. Another gap stems from its district, rather than parcel, orientation. A land
supply information system must include objective data about all parcels within a
jurisdiction, and thus every parcel must have a file of attributes affiliated with it
and a unique geographic locator. And the requirement that the classifier assign
the boundaries of the urban transect districts or "ecozones," such as urban or
suburban, to an existing land use pattern that was not developed according to th e
transect logic introduces a subjective aspect to the classification process.
Nevertheless, classifying land according to urban transect districts adds useful
information concerning urban form, building type, and open space. One of its
advantages is to connect land use planning, urban design, and architecture by
reporting on not only density and intensity of use, but also the nature of open
spaces, building types, and development regulations. Another advantage is its con-
nection of transect districts to thoroughfare standards and streetscape design . The
urban transect adds a normative dimension to land use classification through its
assumption of an ideal continuum of urban form.

Future Land Use Analysis

Land use planners need accurate information about the supply of buildable or
developable land within their jurisdictions to prepare land use plans and policies
that effectively match land supply with future demand for developed urban space.
Without this information, they may overconstrict land supply, inflating land and
housing prices and forcing desired development into other, less restrictive market
areas. Or, at the other extreme, they may not constrain land supplies sufficiently
to avoid sprawl and guide growth into desirable patterns. The effective future land
 213
use plan should specify both land available and land not available for urban de- n
:::r::
)>
velopment and redevelopment during the planning period. "rn
-i

-
:::0
-..J
Land Supply and Capacity Analysis
,-
The land supply analysis process breaks down the total land supply into three com- Ill
:::J
D..
ponents: ( 1) full y developed parcels, ( 2) committed lands in the development "pipe- c
line," and (3) three types of buildable land (vacant, infill , and redevelopment), as "'
(])
(/)
-<
shown in Figure 7.4 (Moudon and Hubner 2000, 57). The analyst converts buildable "'
ro
3
lands to development-capacity amounts, which are aggregated to total net capacity. "'
Meanwhi le, constraints are deducted from supply and capacity. Parcels with pro-
hibitive constra ints, such as environmental or physical factors where regul ations do
not allow development, are deducted from the buildable land supply. Parcels with
mitigating constraints, such as site-level conditions in addition to zoning or other
regulatory constraints that do not prohibit but nevertheless restrict economic feasi-
bility of development, are deducted from development capacity. Finally, a market
facto r (applied as a percentage deduction ) that represents land kept off the market
due to speculation, future expansion, estate settlement delays, or personal reasons is
subtracted from total net development capacity.

Fully Development
developed pipeline

i / R.,;1dobk l'"d «mply D"dopmoot "P";ty

I I ____..
I v"'"' I- Y""" <o•d
capac ity I --+
To tal net
Total land ____.. I
Part ially
---. ~fill __.. deve lopment
supp ly utili zed acity capac ity

____.. I Un de r- ---. ~lopment ---.

ut ili zed a pac1ty
- - -

Constraints on
development:
Regu latory
1 l l
Infrastructure Capacity
Supp ly
Ownership deductions Market factor
deductions
Enviro nme ntal / physical due to deductions
due to
Market-related prohi bit ive mitigating
constraint s
constraints

Fig. 7-4 Land supply and capacity analysis process. Source: Moudon and Hubner 2000. This
material is used by permission of John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
214
Mou don and Hubner (2000, 43-45) define key terms and their relationships, as
illustrated in Figure 7-4:
~

D
o_
Land supply is the entire land base within a jurisdiction, including both va-
o_
:::J
(/)
cant and developed lands (because developed lands may be redeveloped) .
Ol
c: • Buildable land supply is that amount of land on which additional or new
c:
c:
CTj development can occur within regulatory, physical, and market-imposed lim-
Ol
c:
its.
~
• Development capacity is the amount of additional and new development

-
:::J
co
that can occur on buildable land, expressed as a quantity of built space (e.g.,
dwelling units, square feet) or numbers of users (e.g., households, employ-
f-
a: ees).
<l:
o_
• Maximum or gross supply and capacity or" buildout" are equal to the great-
est amount ofland that can be developed and the greatest amount of devel-
opment that can occur within the limits of development regulations, infra-
structure requirements, and environmental regulations.
• Adjusted or available, or net supply and capacity, are equal to the amounts
remaining after applying factors that reduce the possibility of full buildout,
including land market conditions, owners' decisions to hold property, con-
sumer choices, timing of infrastructure or service extensions, and the like.
• Potential projected supply or capacity involves testing future growth and de -
velopment policy alternatives, economic and population changes, regulatory
revisions, and other strategic considerations.
• Development pipeline equals the projects approved for development but
unbuilt, and those being reviewed for public action under zoning, subdivi-
sion, and other development regulations, as well as those under construction
but not yet occupied.
• Market factor is a percentage deducted from the total net development ca -
pacity to account for land kept off the market; for example, King County in
Washington reported using market factors of 5 to 15 percent for vacant lands
and 10 to 15 percent for redevelopable lands; agencies in Oregon that previ-
ously used 25 percent reported that state courts ruled them invalid in favor
of empirically based land market assumptions (Moudon and Hubner 2000,
249-50).
Maximum supply and capacity, or buildout, indicate what can be done under
current regulations. They can be estimated as technical tasks by simply applying
permitted zoning intensities to the land supply. Adjusted supply and capacity is
more complex and entails professional judgment about which lands are likely to
be developed, how they will be developed, and whether they will be underbuilt, as
well as the effects of political issues about density, timing, and citizen opposition
on future development decisions. In practice, land supply monitoring and capac-
ity analysis techniques vary with the scale of the jurisdiction and the nature of its
development-management policies and plans (see Sidebar 7-2).
Land suitability analysis is a technique that moves beyond issues of overall land
supply and capacity to identify locations within the planning area that are best
 215
("')
:r:
Sidebar 7-2 )>
~
m
EXAMPLES OF LAND SUPPLY AND CAPACITY MODELING ::JJ

Portland Metro is a three-county regional planning organization that has managed its growth
2
through an urban-growth boundary, although future use of this tool is in doubt. Oregon
-
-...J

,.
Cll
:::J
Cl_

c
law required Portland to estimate the capacity of land within the urban-growth boundary (/>
ro
every five years to ensure that it could accommodate the next twenty years of anticipated (/)
-<
~
growth. Portland has been criticized for the accuracy of its earlier estimates, fueled by a ro
3
concern that it is unduly constraining the market for land and leading to housing price (/>

inflation. Its regional land information system contains over 100 data layers, including
land parcels, zoning , comprehensive plan areas, parks and open space, soils, wetlands,
topography, land cover, and floodplains. Portland has not used a market factor but made
adjustments for infill housing and employment absorption and underbuild (estimated at
21 percent for residential areas), and embedded market considerations in its demand fore -
casts.

Montgomery County, Maryland, is a "collar " county in the Washington , D.C., metropolitan
area that actively uses its land information system to implement the "wedges and corri-
dors" strategy of its general plan and to manage growth under its adequate public facili-
ties ordinance (Godschalk 2000, 97-117). It sets annual development ceilings for its desig -
nated growth policy areas based on transportation, schools, and infrastructure. It also uses
its parcel-based GIS to support its transfer of development rights program and its designa-
tion of priority funding areas under Maryland 's Smart Growth program. It has conducted a
detailed analysis of industrial, office, and commercial land use capacity to identify vacant
and redevelopable parcels, in response to concerns about the impact of its growth-man-
agement program on economic development.

Seattle, Washington, uses land supply monitoring to assess its land capacity under the
Wash ington Growth Management Act, which requires the city's plan to accommodate future
population and employment growth within its urban growth boundary . In its 1997 citywide
capacity analysis, Seattle classified all parcels as either vacant, available for redevelopment
or infill (based on zoning), unavailable (public lands and land precluded from additional
development), or within historic districts or institutional planning areas (hospitals, campuses,
etc.). Capacity was determined by regulatory status (zoning density) and land use (primarily
vacant or underutilized). A 15 percent market factor reduction was applied for single-family
and low-rise multifamily residential uses. For other uses, the market factor was based on a
valuation ratio . Capacity was estimated for the city as a whole and for subareas .

Anchorage, Alaska, uses land supply and capacity analysis as part of its comprehensive
planning process, focusing on the Anchorage Bowl, the 100-square mile area constituting
the heart of the municipality. It developed a four-digit coding system . Assessor's records
provided data on land ownership and the assessed value of land and improvements. GIS
layers used in the analysis included: land use, zoning, environmental features (wetlands,
avalanche hazard areas, slopes , floodplains, seismic-hazard areas, and alpine areas), wa-
ter and sewer lines, streets, and planning subareas. Suitability criteria for development of
vacant lands we re: generally suitable, marginally suitable (moderate avalanche-hazard
areas, slopes of 16 to 35 percent, class Band C wetlands, 100-year floodplains, and zone 4
seismic-hazard areas), and generally unsuitable (high avalanche-hazard areas, slopes over
35 percent, floodways, class A wetlands, zone 5 seismic-hazard areas, or alpine areas above
the tree line).
Source: Adapted from Moudon and Hubner 2000.
216
UJ
E suited to particular types of land use. Chapter 6 discussed suitability modeling in
20
UJ terms of environmental systems; the technique can also be used to classify sites
>-
(/)
~ within the planning area according to their suitability for a particular activity.
0
o_
o_ GIS-based land suitability analysis can be used both for planning staff efforts to
::J
(/)
locate potential sites for future land uses, such as activity centers, and for partici-
=
c
patory planning efforts to test proposals put forth by publics, such as neighbor-
c
c
m
0::: hoods to be stabilized. This process makes use of both objective or hard informa-
=
c tion (facts, data, survey results) from remote sensing, the census, and so on; and
L)

m
::J subjective or soft information (preferences, priorities, judgments) gathered in both

-
f-
face-to-face settings and via World Wide Web access tools (Craig, Harris, and
Weiner 2002; Malczewski 2004). Every planning process is a mix of hard and soft
a:
<I:
information; with GIS and the Internet, planners have the capability of combin-
CL
ing the two to generate future land use scenarios based on credible information
and accountable to community-interest groups.

Land Use Scenarios

By systematically varying key assumptions about future development, planners
can create and assess alternative land use scenarios. Landis (2001, 48) notes that
the principal purpose of thinking systematically about the future is to change it:
"Planning approaches that do not invite clients and constituents to think differ-
ently and in spatial terms are merely extensions of the status quo." For example, in
his study of the development of raw land and infill potential in California coun-
ties, Landis (2001) used GIS and digital map layers to analyze several alternative
scenarios. To identify the amount of developable raw land, he assessed the effects
of sequentially excluding wetlands, prime and unique farmlands, flood zones, spe-
cial natural areas, and endangered species. He also assessed the effects of further
prohibiting housing development beyond one mile of existing urban areas, to
simulate the more drastic impacts of one-mile urban-growth boundaries. Then
he looked at the impacts of replacing average densities with marginal densities
(the densities of new development) . Needless to say, the outcomes varied by county,
but they vividly illustrated the ways that incorporating these factors in growth-
management plans would limit future developable land.
In order to assess the potential of reducing sprawl and encouraging Smart
Growth through infill development, Landis (2001) also explored infill-capacity
scenarios in the nine-county San Francisco Bay area. Because much infill occurs
not only on vacant parcels but as "refill" or redevelopment of previously devel-
oped land, his analysis considered both vacant and underutilized parcels, elimi-
nating those with environmental or pollution problems. Then it screened those
parcels for multifamily and single family potential, based on financial feasibility. 3
Finally, six alternative density scenarios were explored, based on variations in his-
torical and recent levels, finding that between 70 and 125 percent of the region's
twenty-year housing need could be accommodated via infill within the existing
urban footprint, without further greenfield development. 4
Scenarios also can be used in models that analyze future urban land needs during
the planning process. Frenkel (2004) reports on the use of the land consumption
model to analyze Israel's land needs for future development as a tool in preparing
 217
n
the Israel 2020 master plan. This model included inputs from external variables :::r::
p
such as anticipated population growth, preferences for locations and housing types, u
___,
rn
standard of living, and household size, as well as policy variables such as growth :::rJ
__,
management, housing, and revitalization of urban areas. Two scenarios are used
to assess land consumption needs. The "business as usual" scenario assumed that
future spatial development intensities will be similar to existing ones; market forces
-
r-
"'
:::J
o_
c
and preferences will continue to drive spatial development, and urban sprawl will en
CD
(/)
continue. The "concentrated dispersal" scenario assumed that spatial dispersal of -<
~
CD
the population will be regulated in accordance with the policies recommended in 3
en
national plans. Tests of these two scenarios using the land consumption model
identified the substantial savings in open space achieved under the concentrated
dispersal scenario.
Finally, land use scenarios have been used in public involvement workshops as
a means of tapping the knowledge and preferences of various stakeholders in the
development of future land use plans (www.fhwa.dot.gov/planning/landuse/tools/
cfm) . Scenarios are developed using "chips" representing units of development
allocated to different areas on the community base map, which may be a paper
map or a GIS map. For example, in the Envision Utah project, workshop partici-
pants placed the 2020 population increase within their communities using chips
that represented a constant acreage with a population that varied by development
type, ranging from rural to conservation subdivision to main street.

Land Use Intelligence

Moving from data crunching to decision making is the final step in the land use
information system process. This is known as creating "intelligence" from data
and information because this refined and aggregated information plays a part in
strategic planning and policy formation . Different communities will need differ-
ent types of intelligence, matched to their strengths and weaknesses, threats and
opportunities. Intelligence reports use indicators to reflect performance measures
or benchmarks that highlight certain key factors or combinations of factors.

Indicators
Land use indicators are measures of critical aspects of the land use system, main -
tained and published by the government to inform decision makers and stake-
holders about system performance. Where possible, it is useful to disaggregate
measures to indicate small-area conditions, socioeconomic status, and ethnicity-
all aspects of the equity dimension of sustainability. It is also useful to create indi-
cators that reflect performance in terms of the economic and environmental di-
mensions of sustainable development. In a rapidly growing area, the indicators
might focus on the degree to which land supply is adequate to meet demand. For
example, the Cape Coral, Florida, interactive growth model demonstrated that
the city has a shortage of some 2.2 million square feet of gross leasable retail area
(Van Buskirk, Ryffel, and Clare 2003). In a declining area, the indicators might
focus on the degree to which the land supply meets economic development needs
for additions to the employment base.
218
"'E Indicators should communicate clearly with the public. Often the most telling
2
"'
>- indicators compare two related measures. An example of an easily measured and
UJ
t:'.
0
understood indicator is the simple version of the urban footprint, which com-
Cl.
Cl.
:::i
pares growth in population with growth in urbanized land over time. The degree
UJ
en to which urbanized land increases faster than population growth highlights the
c
c
c sprawl problem. The chart of urban footprints in Figure 7-5 illustrates how land
ro
0:::: consumption has outpaced population growth in the metropolitan areas of North
en
c
"O
Carolina between 1950 and 2000, at ratios ranging from 2.6: 1 in the Charlotte
region, 3.3:1 in the Triad region, 3.4: 1 in the Triangle region, to 3.7: 1 in the Asheville

-
:::i
co
region (Triangle J Council of Governments 2004).
Another useful indicator of the impacts of sprawl compares the increase in
f-
a:
<(
vehicle miles traveled (VMT) to the population increase over time. As the popula-
o._
tion spreads out across the landscape, people are forced to travel more to reach
their destinations. As shown in Figure 7-6, VMT growth outstripped population
growth in North Carolina by more than two to one over the 1989 to 1998 period
(Triangle J Council of Governments 2004).
These indicators highlight past performance of the land use system. Indicators
of desired future performance are needed for developing future land use plans
and for monitoring their outcomes. Sustainability indicators can be incorporated
into growth management and monitoring programs, as discussed in chapter 15.
Indicators of projected changes in an area's ecological footprint under alternate
future land use scenarios are powerful tools to communicate information about
the interactions between urban development and natural processes (Haberl,
Wackernagel, and Wrbka 2004).
An operational community indicators software program called INDEX is a GIS-
based planning support system that uses indicators to measure the attributes and
performance of community plans and projects. Developed in response to calls for
collaborative decision making by citizens and public officials, the New Urbanism

50%
1658

30% - + - - - - - - - - --

20% + - -- -- - -____,
15

10%

0%
Asheville Charlotte Triad Triangle Population Vehicle Miles Traveled

J Population • Urba nized Land

Fig. 7-5 Change in urban footprints of North
Carolina metropolitan areas: 1950-2000. Source:
Triangle J Council of Governments 2004.
Fig. 7-6 Comparison of change in
population growth and vehicle miles
traveled in North Carolina, 1989-1998.
Source: Triangle J Council of Govern-
ments 2004.
 219
n
movement, and sustainable-development initiatives, it uses indicators to bench- :::r::
)>
u
mark existing conditions, evaluate alternative courses of action, and mo nitor -j
rn

-
::J:J
change over time (Allen 2001). It includes thirty policy-relevant measures of ur- ---J

ban fo rm that are scored in tabular fo rm and mapped with GIS, both for parcels
,-
and fo r areas. To facilitate public participation, it allows stakeholders to weight <l)
:::J
o._
th e relative importance of indicators and to assign acceptability ratin gs to ranges c
of indicator scores. Using a scenario-builder tool, users may create and score al- "'
(1)
(/)
-<
tern ative scenarios, including the base case and various alternative cases. IN DEX "'
Ci)
has been used for comp rehensive land use planning, neighbo rhood planning, and 3
"'
community impact analysis by a number of local gove rnments (Sidebar 7-3 ).

"'·""d-· ••. , .. -., ---""·--·-"<·-•<<'"··--

Sidebar 7-3
INDEX COMMUNITY INDICATORS

INDEX supports the key questions asked in the planning process at each stage from creat-
ing the planning support systems information base, through the ana lysis of existing con-
ditions and alternative scenarios to selection of the preferred plan , and on to assessment
of incremental changes and monitoring of cumulative progress toward goals and objec-
tives, as depicted in the community-planning process diagram below (Allen 2001, 230).

INDEX
Support
I I I I I I
Integra ted Indicators Benchmark Alternative Goals Development Updating
database incorporated scores plans incorporated proposals benchmarks
created into model established compared into model evaluated vs. goals

SB fig. 7-3 INDEX in the community-planning process . Source: Allen 2001.

Reproduced by permission from ESRI.

To illustrate the scope of indicators available at the area and parcel level, a representative
list is shown below. This indicator list is taken from Dane County, Wisconsin, where the
county planning department uses INDEX for development impact analysis (Allen 2001,
231 -32) .

Selected Dane County Indicators

Demographics
population (total number of residents)
employment (total number of employees)
Continued
220

Land Use and Community Form

D
block size (average size in acres)
D..
D..
::0 use mix (proportion or dissimilar land uses per grid cell)
(/)

OJ
c use balance (proportional balance by land area, on scale of zero to one)
c
c • developed acres per capita (developed acres divided by number of residents)
m

Housing
population density (residents per acre)

-
f-
a:
•
residential acres per capita (total residential acres divided by total residents)
single-family dwelling density (units per net acre of land designated for single-family
use)
<t
CL
multifamily dwelling density (units per net acre of land designated for multifamily use)
• single-family/multifamily mix (percent of single- and multifamily dwelling units)
• amenities proximity (average trave l distance from all dwellings to closest designated
amenity-school, park, shopping, etc.)
• transit proximity (average walk distance from all dwellings to closest transit stop in
feet)
• water consumption (total residential water use in gallons per capita per day)
Employment
• jobs/housing balance (total number of jobs divided by number of dwelling units)
• employment density (number of employees per acre of land designated for employ-
ment uses)
• transit proximity (average walk distance from businesses to closest transit stop)
Recreation
park space supply (acres of park and school yards per 1,000 residents)
park proximity (average walk distance from dwellings to closest park or school yard
in feet)
Environment:
nitrogen (NOx) emissions (NOx emitted from light vehicles in pounds/capita/year}
• carbon monoxide (CO) emissions (CO emitted from light vehicles in pounds/capita/year)
• greenhouse gas (C0 2 ) emissions (C0 2 emitted from light vehicles in pounds/capita/year)
• open space (percent of land area dedicated to open space)
imperviousness (amount of impervious surface in acres per capita)
Travel
• street connectivity (ratio of street intersections versus intersections and cul-de-sacs
on a scale of zero to one)
• street network density (density of streets in centerline miles per square mile)
• street miles per capita (total centerline street distance divided by total residents)
• transit-oriented residential density (average number of dwelling units per net resi-
dentia l acre within one-quarter mile walk of transit stops}
• transit-oriented employment density (average number of employees per net non-
residential acre within one-quarter mile walk of transit stops}
Continued
 221
n
:c
)>
• transit service density (miles of transit routes multiplied by number of transit ve- ~
m
hicles traversing those routes each day, divided by total acres) :IJ
.._,
•

•
sidewalk network coverage (percent of total street frontage with improved sidewalks
on both sides)
pedestrian route directness (ratio of shortest walkable route distance from outlying
-
.OJ-
::::J
o._

origin points to central node destination versus straight line distance between same c
(/)
CD
points) (/)
-<
~
• bicycle network coverage (percent of total street centerline distance with designated CD
3
bike route) (/)

Planning Implications
As the community gears up to prepare or update its comprehensive plan, plan-
ners, citizens, and decision makers need to understand the nature and scope of
land use needs and problems. Intelligence can be used to inform citizen commit-
tees, public officials, and private business leaders. They can then ask informed
questions and make relevant recommendations for future plans. Among the land
use related questions that the planner might expect to be asked are:
• Is the community developing in a sustainable fashion?
• Does the community face Smart Growth issues?
• Is sprawl a curren t or future problem?
• How much land is available for future growth?
• Is the community overzoned or underzoned for residential or commercial
uses?
• Are the amount and type of land adequate for our projected needs?
• What land use problems are we likely to face in the future?
• Are there major environmental or land use limits on our ability to grow?
• Are there serious compatibility conflicts among land use areas, such as neigh-
borhoods and commercial sites, or locally unwanted land uses and minority
areas?
• What land use changes are occurring and what issues do they raise?

Summary
The road to planning intelligence starts with a land records system an d a land use
information system that describe the community's existing and emerging land use,
as well as its land supply and infrastructure, and its ability to accommodate change.
It proceeds through an analysis that sorts out and quantifies the amo unt of build-
able land, and then estimates the development capacity available for future growth.
This estimate is matched with the projected needs of the community during the
plan-making process, as a foundation for analyzing alternative development sce-
narios in collaboration with community stakeholders. If the land use information
222
V)

E system is weak or out of date, then the resulting community visions and plans will
tl>- be flawed. If the land use information system is solid and current, then the result-
(/)
~

0
ing plans will rest on a strong foundation.
o_
o_
::i
The next chapter takes up the transportation and infrastructure systems. Knowl -
(/)

=
c
edge about the capacity and location of these systems is crucial to land use planning.
c
c
ro
o_
Notes
::i
co 1. The Bureau of Land Management, the U.S. Forest Service, and a consortium of pub -

-
f-
lic and private organizations are creating the National Integrated Land System (NILS).
Designed to provide a comprehensive approach to land records management, the NILS
a: goal is to supply a common data model and software for collecting, managing, and sharing
<(
o_
survey and cadastral data and parcel information using a GIS framework. A number of
states have developed statewide, parcel-level GIS information systems. For example, Mary-
land has created MdPropertyView to assist its local governments in implementing Smart
Growth plans (Godschalk 2000) . The state of Washington has enacted a buildable lands
program requiring that most populated counties and their cities must monitor land sup-
plies and urban densities (Moudon and Hubner 2000, 261-70).
2. In November 2004, Oregon voters passed Measure 37, wh ich provides that owners of
private real estate are entitled to receive just compensation when a land use regulation en -
acted after the owner acquired the property restricts the use of the property and reduces its
fair market value. In effect, this strikes down implementation of the Portland urban -growth
boundary on private lands outside the boundary that were acquired prior to its passage.
3. Landis (2001, 27-33) used two simple financial feasibility models to analyze where de-
velopers could make a reasonable profit. For single-family housing construction to be fea -
sible, sales prices had to be sufficient to cover land costs, subdivision improvement costs, fees,
and construction costs. For apartment construction to be feasible, collectible rents had to
cover operating expenses and debt service, as well as generate minimum return on equity.
4. The Bay Area analysis results are based on the assumption that every available infill
site would be developed in residential use at the allotted densities and that economic feasi -
bility is based on current market conditions. Landis (200 l, 40) adds the caveat that neither
assumption is likely to be fully met.

References
All en, Eliot. 2001. INDEX: Software for community indicators. In Planning support sys-
tems: Integrating geographic information systems, models, and visualization tools, Rich-
ard Brail and Richard Klosterman, eds., 229 -61. Redlands, CA: ESRI Press.
Anderson, James R., et al. 1976. A land use and land cover classification system for use with
remote sensor data. Washington, D.C.: Geological Survey Professional Paper 964, U.S.
Government Printing Office.
Anderson, Larz J. 1995. Guidelines for preparing urban plans. Chicago, Ill.: APA Planners
Press.
Anderson, Larz J. 2000. Planning the built environment. Chicago, Ill.: APA Planners Press.
Avin, Uri P., and David R. Holden. 2000. Does your growth smart? Planning 66 (January):
26-29.
Clark County, Washington . Maps Online: Land- Parcels. Retrieved from http://
gis.clark.wa.gov/ccgis/mol/property.htm, accessed May 2, 2005.
 223
Craig, W. J., T. M. Harris, and D. Weiner. 2002. Community participation and geographic n
:r:
J>
information systems. London: Taylor and Francis. :::::
rn
Duany, Andres, and Emily Talen. 2002. Transect planning. Journal of the American Plan- ::D

ning Association 68 (3): 245-66.

Ewing, Reid, T. Schmid, R. Killingsworth, A. Zlot, and S. Raudenhush . 2003. Relationship
between urban sprawl and physical activity, obesity, and morbidity. American Journal
-
-.J

r-
ru
::>
0..
of Health Promotion 18:1, 47-57. c
"'CD
Frenkel, Am non. 2004. A land-consumption model : Its application to Israel's future spatial (/)
-<
development. Journal of the American Planning Association 70 (4): 453-70. "'ro
Frumkin , Howard, Lawrence Frank, and Richard Jackson. 2004. Urban sprawl and public health: 3
"'
Designing, planning, and building for healthy communities. Washington, D.C.: Island Press.
Godschalk, David R. 2000. Montgomery Co unty, Maryland-A pioneer in land supply
monitoring. In Monitoring land supply and capacity with parcel-based GIS, Anne
Moudon and Michael Hubner, eds., 97 -117. New York: Wiley.
Haberl, Helmut, Mathis Wackernagel, and Thomas Wrbka. 2004. Land use and sustainability
indicators: An introduction. Land Use Policy 21 (3 ): 193-98.
jeer, San jay. 200 I. Land-based classification standards. Retrieved from http://www.planning.org/
LBCS, accessed May 2, 2005. Chicago, Ill.: American Planning Association.
Knaap, Gerrit J., and Traci Severe. 200 I. Toward a residential land market monitoring sys-
tem. In Land market monitoring for smart urban growth, Gerrit J. Knaap, ed., 241 -64.
Cambridge, Mass .: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy.
Landis, John D. 2001. Characterizing urban land capacity: Alternative approaches and
methodologies. In Land market monitoring for smart urban growth, Gerrit J. Knaap,
ed., 3-52. Cambridge, Mass.: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy.
Levinson, David. 2001. Monitoring infrastructure capacity. In Land market monitoring for
smart urban growth, Gerrit J. Knaap, ed., 165 -81. Cambridge, Mass.: Lincoln Institute
of Land Policy.
Logan, John R., and Harvey L. Molotch. J 987. Urban fortunes: The political economy of
place. Berkeley: University of Ca li fornia Press.
Malczewski, Jacek. 2004. GIS -based land suitability analysis: A critical overview. Progress in
Planning 62 (1): 3-65 .
McClure, Kirk. 2001. Monitoring industri al and commercial land market ac tivity. In Land
market monitoring for smart urban growth, Gerrit J. Knaap, ed., 265-86. Cambridge,
Mass.: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy.
Meck, Stuart, ed. 2002. Growing Smart legislative guidebook: Model statutes for planning
and the management of change. Ch icago, Ill.: American Planning Association.
Miles, Mike E., Gayle Berens, and Marc A. Weiss. 2000. Real estate development: Principles
and process. Washington, D.C.: Urban Land Institute.
Moudon, Ann e Vernez, and Michael Hubner, eds. 2000. Monitoring land supply with geo-
graphic information systems: Theory, practice, and parcel-based approaches. New York:
John Wiley and Sons.
Pool, Bob. 2003. Clark County's one stop Internet mapping. Planning 69 (7): 16.
Rudel, Thomas K. 1989. Situations and strategies in American land-use planning. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Triangle j Co uncil of Governments. 2004. Growth management presentation. Research Tri-
angle Park, N.C.: Ben Hitchings, Principal Planner.
Van Buskirk, Paul, Carleton Ryffel, and Darryl Clare. 2003. Smart tool. Planning 69 (7): 32-36.
Wackernagel, Mathis, and William Rees. 1996. Our ecological footprint: Reducing human
impact on the earth. Philadelphia: New Society.
 Chapter 8

Transportation and
Infrastructure Systems

While w orking to update a comprehensive plan, you notice that the com-
munity has grown very fast in certain areas and slower in others. The
centers of activity are not where they used to be. Your community now
offers transit service, and congestion along certain corridors is a recur-
rent concern. You wonder how added growth will affect the demand for
schools and water and sewer services. To update the plan, you want to
understand which infrastructure improvements will contribute to land
use change in your community. You also want to update the plan's cur-
rent information base regarding infrastructure and include information
from the transportation plan . What indicators of the service provided by
community facilities would you use for describing changes over time for
different areas of your community? Which elements of the infrastruc-
ture system would you report in the plan's fact base and which ones
would be useful in describing future scenarios? What additional trans-
portation information from the transportation plan would you want to
have?

his chapter summarizes approaches to inventorying and analyzing infra-

structure info rmati on in the community, emph asizing the use of such in-
form ation in coordinatin g future in fras tructure investments with the land
use plan. Although the chapter also covers wa ter, sewerage, and schools, it empha-
sizes transp ortation infrastructure, partly beca use during the 1990s transportation
has reemerged strongly in the land use planning agenda ( Gakenheimer 2000 ). Trans-
po rtation now plays critical roles in th e network of plans initially described in chap -
ter 1 and covered in detail in chapters 11-1 5: from articulating pedestrian mobility
in physical designs of small- area plans to supporting regional growth-managem ent

225
226
U)

E efforts in areawide land policy plans. Accordingly, the first part of the chapter
El
U)
>-
(/)
focuses on transportation infrastructure. It reexamines the role of transportation
0
planning in the context of land use, identifies key information from transporta-
a..
a..
::> tion plans that land use planners should have, and suggests ways of incorporating
(/)
transportation elements into land use plans.
c
c The second part of the chapter covers water, sewer, and school systems. To-
ro
0::: gether with transportation, these infrastructure systems account for the vast ma-
=
c
jority of direct infrastructure expenditures by municipal government (U.S. Cen-
sus Bureau 2003). Although much of the information about the infrastructure

- system is technical in nature, the chapter emphasizes the use of communicable

and interpretable measures. The measures help planners connect infrastructure
with land development, resulting in a better reflection of community priorities.
The underlying view in the chapter is that accurate and timely information on
transportation and infrastructure systems, used concurrently with the task ofland
use planning, is essential to developing a sustainable community.

Roles of Community Facilities

Urban land must have access to a network of infrastructure facilities and services
in order to support a sustainable community. Although planners usually do not
design these facilities, they must maintain up-to -date information on the demand,
remaining capacity, and service that each provides. Accurate information about
current and planned infrastructure services allows the land use planner to fine-
tune the rules of the land planning game. With this information, the planner can
identify locations where the plan will allow or encourage land development and
other locations where development is to be avoided. Furthermore, planners should
consider future infrastructure investments as elements that can be harmoniously
developed and coordinated jointly with the land use plan. Coupled with popula-
tion and economic forecasts, environmental priorities, and land use constraints
and opportunities, information on the infrastructure system helps planners to
understand the dynamics of current and future growth and to communicate ex-
isting and emerging needs to the community.
Urban areas can have many public or quasi -public facilities that provide vari-
ous services to the community: transportation, water, sewer, recreation, educa-
tion, and health and safety. For transportation, a community may have sidewalks,
bicycle and pedestrian paths, parking lots, transit stops, local streets, collectors,
arterials, thoroughfares, highways, garages, vehicles, and airports. For water and
sewerage, a community can have collection and holding facilities, treatment plants,
and distribution facilities. For recreation and education, facilities can include parks,
schools, open spaces, sports arenas, community and convention centers, and li-
braries. For safety and health, communities can have fire and police stations, com-
munity clinics, hospitals, and shelters.
These facilities play several roles in land use planning. First, they respond to
existing demand by providing a needed service. Current and future land uses de-
termine the demand for infrastructure services because such infrastructure is there
to serve individuals, firms, other organizations, and their communities. The focus
 227
n
on demand analysis is the traditional approach to infrastructure planning. A :r:
)>
-u
related challenge of increasing concern is that often community facilities also cre- -l
rn
::rJ
ate impacts on neighbors. A landfill, for example, may respond to the need to
dispose of solid waste. However, its location in space may impact negatively the
residents that live close to the landfill site. Thus, the benefits that the landfill pro -
vides to the community should be weighed against the cost it imposes on the
-
o:J

::;1
"'
::::i

"'
TI
0
neighbors. Who reaps the benefits and who pays the cost of community facilities ~

~.
and services is also relevant for land planners. 0
::::i

A second role of community facilities in land use planning is that certain facili- "'
::::i
Q_

ties can attract or stimulate additional land development. An investment like a :::::.,
Q3
park or school may stimulate land development because of individuals' desire to ~
c::
locate near them. Thus, through the land market, decisions about the location ~
c::
and type of community facilities will also influence land development. Likewise, ro
(/)

the provision of water, sewer, and physical access via transportation improvements -<
"'
fD
enhances the value of land, making it developable. This turns the traditional de- 3
"'
mand analysis of infrastructure planning on its head: supply of infrastructure
results in demand for it.
A third role that facilities play in community planning is that they often be-
come catalysts for better coordination between the facilities and the land plan
because infrastructure investments and capacity improvements are "lumpy." Con-
trary to land planning, where policy can be made on a parcel-by-parcel basis if
needed, infrastructure projects require one-time, large investments, and often a
network, to be functional. Infrastructure capacity increases in the same discon-
tinuous fashion. An entire water treatment plant is needed to treat water; one-
half of a plant is oflittle use. Thus, management of a facility's capacity has signifi -
cant financial consequences for the community. These discontinuous increases in
infrastructure capacity often prompt coordination between facility planning and
land planning so that spare capacity can be used more efficiently. For example,
the location and densities of residential and mixed-use centers can be designated
to facilitate efficient use of current spare infrastructure capacity. 1 This makes com-
munity facility planning a very important chip in the land planning game.
There is a final reason why coordinating the land use plan with the infrastruc-
ture plan makes sense: some community facilities have specific physical, land use-
associated requirements in order to function adequately. Transit's cost-effective-
ness increases with higher densities at origins and destinations. It is no surprise
that public subsidies for transit have increased at the same time that metropolitan
areas have continued to decentralize and suburbanize. In such an environment,
transit is not as competitive as the private automobile. Likewise, sewer service
relies mostly on gravity flows, except for pump stations and force mains, whereas
water service is dependent on elevation pressures. The coordination and spatial
congruence between water and sewer districts is not a straightforward engineer-
ing task. Both slope and elevation pressure conditions have to be aligned for con-
current water and sewer service, and both should be coordinated with the land
use plan. These two examples underscore the need for land planning and infra-
structure coordination in order to most efficiently utilize resources devoted to
community facilities and services.
228
U)

E In sum, community facilities play important roles in providing high quality of

2U)
>-
(/)
life and livability of an area. Although in many cases the services they provide are
t
0
necessary to support land development, community facilities are expensive to build
CL
CL and operate, and often have undesirable impacts on subgroups of the population.
"'
C/)
By coordinating the planning for these facilities with land development, planners
=
c
c
c can minimize the negative impacts of community facilities while enabling effi-
(1)

0::: ciencies that would not be realized otherwise.

=
c
""CJ

cii Transportation Facilities

-
f--
Nowhere is the connection between urban infrastructure and development more
0::
<l'.
0...
obvious than in transportation infrastructure. On the one hand, large transporta-
tion projects such as highways and rail transit projects are expected to influence
the quantity, type, and amount of future development. The extent of this influ-
ence will depend on specific characteristics of the transportation improvement
and how they compare to other travel options available (Ryan 1999). When such
investments make desirable destinations accessible from otherwise inaccessible
areas, new development is likely to occur. In other words, by increasing accessibil-
ity, transportation investments support increases in the supply of land for urban
development. With the increase in development come higher demands for related
urban services, such as water, sewer, and police coverage. On the other hand, where
development occurs also dictates the type of transportation improvements that
support the accessibility and mobility demands of the population.
Although some may argue about the strength of the connection between trans -
portation and land use (Cervera and Landis 1995; Giuliano 1995), planners must
realize that both growth -management tools and transportation investments chan-
nel growth. A new rail system implemented in an area laden with density caps and
minimum parking requirements, for example, will have less influence on land
development than such a system implemented in areas where the communitywide
land use design, small-area plans, and development-management plan include
actions intended to support or leverage the opportunities provided by the invest-
ment. Alternatively, by having land use and transportation plans that are unre-
lated to each other, planners may be ignoring or even weakening the connection
between transportation and land use. In the end, what to do with the ties between
land use and transportation is dictated by knowledge, data availability, common
sense, and the scenarios and visions used to address existing development, mobil-
ity, and accessibility concerns.
In practice, however, land use and transportation planning have tended to be
separate tasks. Transportation planning has tended to assume future land pat-
terns as given, usually based on market projections, rather than on the land use plan.
At best, several projections are provided, and experts and professionals use their
judgment in indicating likely future outcomes. In this way, transportation plans ei-
ther reinforce past development trends or stimulate development in locations and
ways not contemplated in the land use plan. Land use planning, for its part, often
ignores the effects that large transportation investments can have on land develop-
ment. In other cases, the land plans accept much of the transportation plans as
 ==----cw=c
229
n
outside inputs, rather than as a plan element to be developed and coordinated :r:
>
u
jointly with land use. Wachs (2000) suggests that it is this inability to coordinate ___,
rn
land use and transportation that feeds the perception that more highways beget
-
:IJ
CTJ

only more traffic congestion.

The difficulty in coordinating transportation and land use is intensified by the :::;1
QJ
:::J
different authority levels and jurisdictions governing transportation and land use "'
TI
0
planning. Transportation plans are regularly drawn at the regional level, often ~

~
with input from state departments of transportation. Metropolitan planning or- 0
:::J

ganizations (MPOs) are regional entities in larger urban areas designated by the QJ
:::J
o_

federal government to conduct transportation infrastructure planning, program- =;_

Ql
ming, and coordination. Land use plans, by contrast, are drawn at the municipal "'
~

2
or county level. As a result, regional transportation concerns often conflict with ~
c:
local land use policies. These separate geographies create additional obvious con- m
(/)

flicts, further undermining the coordination between transportation and land use. -<
~
m
In addition to the benefits of coordinating transportation and land use plan- 3
ning tasks, benefits such as using plans for air quality and National Environmen- "'
tal Policy Act (NEPA) analyses have emerged over the past decade. Analysts con-
ducting environmental and community impact assessments pursuant to NEPA
and related legislative requirements need to characterize and evaluate the poten-
tial for secondary and cumulative impacts of infrastructure projects (Council on
Environmental Quality 1997) . This is especially true for transportation projects,
given their potential to induce development. Such assessments of secondary and
cumulative impacts from a proposed transportation project within a given com-
munity could build substantially on the community's land use plan, to the extent
that a well-executed planning effort will have identified reasonably foreseeable
alternative transportation policies and improvements and evaluated those alter-
natives in terms of their potential benefits and impacts. In other words, local land
use plans could be the building blocks upon which potential secondary and cu-
mulative impacts for proposed transportation-related projects are assessed.

Transportation Planning for What?

Most planners would agree that travel is derived from people's need to get to places.
In other words, what normally motivates people to travel is the desire to reach a
destination, not the trip itself. This is part of an axiom for most transportation
planners: that travel is mostly derived from the need to access destinations. Ac-
cording to a growing group of practitioners and academics (Handy and Niemeier
1997; Levine and Garb 2002; Miller 1999), the derived-demand axiom suggests
that easing the ability to reach destinations should be an objective of transporta-
tion planning. This view runs counter to the popular view that transportation
planning should focus on relieving traffic congestion .
The difference between relieving traffic congestion and improving the ease of
reaching destinations is often portrayed by the terms mobility and accessibility.
Whereas the term mobility connotes movement, fluidity, and one's ability to
move through space, accessibility has been defined as the ease of getting to desti-
nations (Altshuler and Rosenbloom 1977). Although many other definitions for
230
U)

E accessibility have been proposed, 2 they all highlight the importance of conceptu-
El
U)
>- alizing accessibility as a function of the immediate land use system. This is the
VJ

a
most important distinction between accessibility and mobility: Accessibility links
0..
0..
::0
the transportation system with where travelers want to go, whereas destinations
VJ
CTl
c
are absent when mobility is discussed.
c
c Land use planners often face the paradox that a community may want to have
co
a pedestrian-friendly, higher-than-average-density downtown area with narrow
CTl
c
-0
streets. Conventionally, transportation planners would frown at such circum-
stances, because narrow roads, high-density development, and pedestrian move -

-
::0
m
ments translate into a decrease in the level of service for the road. This reaction is
based on an automobile-mobility perspective. In contrast, even though auto mo -
f-
a:
<( bility will be low, destinations will be highly accessible to those in a high-density
o_
area with mixed uses and traffic calming, partly because the number of destina-
tions is higher than average and because nonautomobile modes are being sup-
ported by the land use pattern. Th us, according to an accessibility view of trans-
portation planning, areas that are more accessible will encourage more livable,
sustainable activity patterns than less accessible areas.
Several factors play into an individual's or an area's accessibility, such as how
easy it is to reach destinations, the number of destinations available, and the n um-
ber and types of transportation modes available. By linking the physical transpor-
tation infrastructure with the land use system, the focus on accessibility brings
together the land use system with multiple transportation modes. A good example
of how the elements of traditional transportation infrastructure can be connected
to the land uses surrounding them is Denver's plan (Sidebar 8-1). The plan high-
lights how existing transportation infrastructure can be redefined in terms of the
functions it serves, thereby connecting transportation and land use and bringing
accessibility to the forefront of the plan.

In Denver's Blueprint Plan (City and County of Denver 2000), streets are redefined based
on the land use type they serve in addition to their traditional functional classification of
local, collector, or arterial. Denver's plan also coupled the new street classifications with
design elements aimed at balancing the need for mobility with accessib ility functions and
the land use pattern around them:
• Residential Streets Residential streets serve two major purposes in Denver's neigh-
borhoods. Residential arterial streets balance transportat io n choices with land ac-
cess w ithout sacrificing auto mobility. Residenti al collector and local streets are de-
signed to emphasize walking , bicycling , and land access over mobi lity. In both cases ,
residential st re ets tend to be more pedestrian -oriented than commercial streets, giv-
ing a higher p rio rity to landscaped medians, tre e lawns, sidewalks , on -street park-
ing, and bi cycle lanes .
• Main Streets Main streets serve the highest-intensity retail and mi xed land uses in
areas such as downtown and in regional and neighborhood ce nters. Main streets are
Continued
 231
(")
:r:
)>
designed to promote walking, bicycl ing, and transit within an attract ive , landscaped _,
CJ

corridor. m
::J:J

• Mixed-Use Streets Mixed-use streets emphasize a variety of travel choices such as

pedestrian , bicycle, and transit use. Mi x ed-use st reets are located in high-intensity,
m ixed -use commercial , reta il, and residential areas with substantial pedestrian ac-
tivity.
-
CXJ

~
OJ
::i

"'
-0
Q
• Commercial Streets The most widespread commercial street type is the strip com-
mercial arterial. These arterials typically serve commercial areas that contain many
~-
0
::i

small retail strip centers with build ings set back behind front parking lots. Histori- OJ
::i
0..
cally, this type of street often is highly auto-oriented and tends to discourage walking
::;.,
and bicycling. Ql
~
• Industrial Streets Industrial streets serve industrial areas . These streets are designed 2
;::;.
to accommodate a high volume of large vehicles such as trucks, trai lers, and other c
delivery vehicles . Bicyc les and pedestrians are infrequent but still need to be accom-
ro
(/)
-<
modated . "'c;;
Source: City and County of Denver 2000. 3
"'

The distinction between accessibility and mobility has practical imp licati ons
for land use planners. First, because destinations are pivotal to defini ng an area's
accessibi lity, improvements in accessibility should not be achieved exclusively via
transportation investments. To increase an area's accessib ility, land planners can
consider applying land use solutions. By bringing origins and destinations closer
together, for exam ple, land planners can increase the accessibility of a location.
An accessibility view of transportation plan ning expands the set of possible solu -
tions to transportation problems to include land development measures. Second,
insofar as they allow easier access to destinations, tra nsportation investments such
as better sidewalks, roads, transit, and bicycle improvements also increase accessi-
bility. Thus, accessibility also encourages the consideration of multiple transpor-
tation modes, underscoring their relevance for achi eving sustainable development.
Third, road and mobility improvements do not always lead to accessibility im-
provements over time. If transportation investments induce the develop ment of
land further away from destinations, for example, then accessibility will decrease
over time, only to increase again when destinations move closer to individuals in
the future. The initial loss of accessibility due to road improvements is what oc-
curred in Atlanta between 1980 and 1990 (Sidebar 8-2 ).
The final and four th implication is that improvements in accessibility can be
tied directly to imp rovements in community health. The emergence of theoretical
models aimed at understanding the role of neighborhood contextual factors as
barriers or supporters of healthy lifestyles has shown promise in explaining indi -
vidual behavior (Northridge, Sclar, and Biswas 2003; Stokols 1992). Among the
contextual factors of interest is the environment shaped by land use and transpor-
tation planners, generically referred to as the built environment. It is the low ac-
cessibility inherent in the separation of residential and commercial land uses,
coupled with a lack of adequate infrastructure to support bicycling and walking,
which may act as barriers or inhibitors to physical activity (Sall is et al. 1997).
232
"'E Indeed, accumulating evidence suggests that people's decisions to walk or cycle
El
"'
>- are related to certain characteristics of the built environment. Cross-sectional stud-
UJ
t:'.
0
ies have found positive associations between physical activity for travel and the pres-
0.
0.
::::l
ence of mixed land uses (Cervero 1996; Cervero and Kockelman 1997; Moudon et
UJ
en
c
al. 1997; Saelens, Sallis, and Frank 2003). Other studies comparing physical activity
c
c between a high accessibility neighborhood and a low accessibility neighborhood have
co
0::: shown differences in moderate physical activity between neighborhoods, and that
en
c
CJ
such differences stem from variations in the ability to get to destinations (Saelens et
al. 2003; Rodriguez et al. 2006 ). Futhermore, related research has shown that the

-
::::l
en
increases in walking and cycling in the highly accessible neighborhood were related
to decreases in automobile travel (Khattak and Rodriguez 2005).
f--
0:
<t: Taken together, an accessibility emphasis of transportation planning implies
Q_

land use and transportation actions that encourage multimodal access to destina-
tions. These actions can translate into measurable transportation outcomes such
as changes in automobile use and increases in walking and bicycling activity that
further impact the environmental sustainability of the land development pattern.
Behavioral changes caused by accessibility improvements contribute to achieving
sustainable activity patterns by, for instance, improving air quality and encourag-
ing individual physical activity from walking and bicycling.
If an area's accessibility decreases and then increases again, why worry? Some
argue that decreases in accessibility are counteracted by increases later in time.
This is reflected in claims that a balance between jobs and houses can be achieved
automatically over time without explicit intervention from planners to achieve
them (Giuliano 1991; Giuliano and Small 1993). However, waiting to achieve au-
tomatic balances of jobs and houses may be costly. Such delay implies a decrease
in accessibility before it increases again. Decreases in access can be extremely costly
and perhaps devastating to an area's economic vitality and the quality of its natu-
ral and built environments. Low accessibility affects people's ability to get to mar-
kets and jobs. It limits the benefits of industry clustering and agglomeration. Com-
mercial areas suffer and areas that before enjoyed an access premium now have to
overcome the challenges oflow access. In short, it decreases the quality oflife and
livability of an area.

Transportation Infrastructure Indicators

Despite the emerging relevance of viewing accessibility as the metric by which
transportation planning should be gauged, its importance has not permeated tra-
ditional planning practice. Traditional transportation indicators or performance
measures commonly utilized in a plan's fact base or in measuring progress toward
the achievement of land use or transportation goals tend to be mobility-oriented
(Miller 1999). For example, congestion reduction is often presented as the aim of
transportation plans. Similarly, planners often measure how well the transporta-
tion system is working by using the "level of service" concept. The level of service
describes the quality of the service being provided by the infrastructure. In trans-
portation, it is common to use grades ranging from A (best service) to F (worst
service). Although several levels of service measures have been proposed for the
different transportation modes, Table 8-1 summarizes common measures used.
 233
n
I
)>
-0
-i
m

-
::IJ
OJ

Helling (1998, 90) examined changes in automobile job accessibility in the Atlanta metro- ::;"
politan area from 1980 to 1990, as illustrated below. She paints a picture in which road (l)
::>
improvements in the 1980s increased accessibility due to the added road capacity result- "'D
"Cl

;:+
ing from the Atlanta's "Free the Freeways" program. However, this extra highway capacity
~-
coupled with poor planning and population and job growth contributed to the increased 0
::>
(l)
dispersal of development, resulting in criss-cross commuting patterns and dramatically ::>
D..
increasing vehicle miles traveled and travel times . The net effect was that by 1990, accessi- :::;._
bility to jobs fell well below job accessibility in 1980. a;
~
c
~
c
/
SB fig. 8-2a Job accessibility by Ci3
(/)
automobile in the Atlanta metro- -<
politan area, 1980. Source: Helling "'
1998. Reproduced by permission '"'°
3

"· from Elsevier.

..

-. OTO 499
[;] 500 TO 999
D 1000 TO 1499
-=
0 5 10 1500 TO 1999
• 2000 AND OVER

SB fig. 8-2b Job accessibility by

automobile in the Atlanta metro-
politan area , 1990. Source: Helling
1998. Reproduced by permission
from Elsevier.

' . OTO 499

[[] 500 TO 99 9
D 1000 TO 1499
1500 TO 1999
• 2000 AND OVER

Most of the area within 1-285 (the perimeter highway) became less accessible to em-
ployment by automobile, with corridors along freeways , including the heart of downtown,
suffering the greatest decline. Areas outside the perimeter experienced a less pronounced
decline in accessibility, and areas that increased their accessibility over the period were
those that added major new employment at and near new shopping malls or corridors and
adjacent to the Atlanta airport.
234
"'E
"""'
>-
(/) Table 8-1
0
Cl._ Selected Mu ltimodal Level of Service M easures
Cl._
::i
(/)
OJ
c: Road level of Transit level of Pedestrian Bicycle level of
c: service;;
c: service; level of service
ro
0::: service;;;
OJ
c:
:!2 Service Passenger cars Score Discomfort Discomfort

-
::i
o::i Level per km per lane score score
Better A 0-7 > 39 .6% 1.5 1.5
f- B 7-11 25.3% - 39.6% 1.5 - 2.5 1.5-2.5
a:
<(
Q_
c 11-16 14.6% - 25 .3% 2.5 - 3.5 2.5 - 3.5
D 16-22 8.4 - 14.6% 3.5 - 4.5 3.5 - 4.5
E 22-28 1.4% - 8.4% 4.5 - 5.5 4.5 - 5.5
Worse F > 28 < 1.4% > 5.5 > 5.5

i For roads, level of service is determined by vehicular free -flow speed, ve hicular flow rate , and actual
speeds . Combining these three meas ures y ield ve hicu lar density per un it of distance per lane. Figures
shown in Tab le 8-1 app ly to a basic freeway segment. Additiona l detai ls for t he ca lcu lation of vehicu lar
density and level of serv ice for motorized veh icu lar traffic can be found in th e Highway Capacity Manual
(Transportation Research Board 2000).
ii The transit level of service is calcu lated based on the frequency of service and span of service for
part icu lar locations in space . The frequency of service determines an init ial level, whic h is then ad j usted
downward based on the span of serv ice. Additiona l information suc h as access ibility to transit stops and
the ava ilab ility of amenities at eac h stop can also be incorporated in th e transit level of serv ice. Add itiona l
deta il s are avai lab le in the Transit Capacit y and Quality of Service Man ual (Transportation Resea rch Board
2003) .
iii T he bicycle and pedestrian level -of-service measures are calculated based on a discomfort score . The
presumpt ion is that the higher the score, the hig her the d iscomfort experienced by a user of t hat mode.
The bicyc le discomfort score is calcu lated using an equation that takes into account the vo lume of traffic
during the peak on each direction, t he latera l separation between bicyc li sts and adjacent mot or veh icle
traffic (measured by the width of t he right-most lane), traffic speeds, ty pes of traffic, number of lanes,
presence of on -street park ing , and pavement condition . Simi lar ly, t he pedest ri an level of service d iscom-
fort score takes into account the presence of a sidewa lk, sidewa lk w idt h, separation from adjacent vehic le
traffic, t he presence of a buffer with the st reet, volume and speed of traffic, number of lanes, and the
presence of pa rking . Both measures apply on ly to roadway segments; t hey do not account for user
comfort at roadway intersections nor do they reflect the safety of the user in terms of crash risk . These
bicyc le and pedestrian discomfo rt score eq uati ons are often calibrated to fi t loca l conditions. A dd it iona l
deta ils on the equat ions are prov ided in Florida Depart m ent of Transpo rtatio n's Qua lity/ Level of Service
Handbook (Florida Departm ent of Transpo rtat ion 2002) .

Indicators such as vehicular congestion, road level of service, and delay hours
suggest the degree of mobility that a community resident can have via different trans-
portation m odes. By contrast, and bein g consistent with transportation planning's
purpose of getting people to destinations, planners should consider also using ac-
cessibility indicators. According to Ge urs and van Wee (2004), desirable accessibility
indicato rs should have the foll owing characteristics: First, they should be sensitive
to changes in the transportation system. Second, they should be se nsitive to changes
in the land use system, which could reflect the amount, quality, and spatial distribu-
ti on of opportunities. In this way, investments in transportation infrastructure, or
 235
n
changes in the distribution of activities, will be reflected in accessibility measures. :::r::
)>
An exampl e of indicators used in Atlanta's 2025 Regional Transportation Plan u
--i
rn
and their hypothetical accessibility counterparts is provided in the Table 8-2. Third,

-
::JJ
CXJ

accessibility measures should be readily interpretable and communicable. Because

accessibility indicators incorporate tran sportation and land use, th ey can be used :::;'
O.l
:::>
to m easure the effectiveness of transportation and land use policies. "'
TI

The accessibility measures in Table 8-2 are straightforward. Perhaps the only §.
~.
one deserving additional explanation is the use of isochronal curves. Such curves 0
:::>
are contours depicting either the opportuniti es that can be foun d within a given O.l
:::>
o_

travel time or distance, or the time needed to access a given number of opportuni- ~

-
Ql
ties. Figure 8-1 below depicts three isochronal curves to study pedestrian and bi- "'
2
cycle access to a shopping area in Chapel Hill, North Carolina. One curve shows a ~
c
1/3-mile distance from th e shopping area without regard for the transportation ro
(/)
network (dotted area) . When the transportation network is included in deter- -<
~
ro
mining areas accessible from the shopping center, the feasible area decreases to 3
the area shown in light gray shading. An even smaller area results when the isoch- "'
ronal curve is 1/4-mile and the road network is accounted for (dark gray shad-
ing). Unfortunately, isochrones do not differentiate between opportunities adj a-
cent to the area of interest and those in the border of the contour, nor do they take
into account individual perceptions: they assume that every point within the iso-
chronal curve is equally desirable.
Other useful accessib ility measures are well-established amon g researchers,
though traditionally less commonly used among practicing planners. Two of them,
gravity m easures and the denominator of the travel mode choice model equation
in transportation plans, have become increasingly popular because they are readily
available from the m odels used by t ransportation planners. Land use planners
should be aware that these measures exist and can be incorporated into land use
plans with relatively little additional effort. We return to these two measures in
the n ext section.
An emerging use of accessibility indicators is to apply them to subgroups such as
households without autos, low-inco me households, or racial and ethn ic min orities,

Table 8-2
Selected Mobility and Accessibility Indicators for Atlanta 2025

Mobility-based indicators Alternative accessibility-based indicators

Percentage of home-based work trips made
by a given mode
Vehicle hours traveled per capita
or delay hours
Vehicle miles traveled per capita
Percentage of travel in level of service E or F
Percentage of all or new population/j obs/
retail having transit within 1/4 mi le
Percentage of all population with jobs/retail
with a ten-minute walk/bike/drive
Isochronal curves
Jobs/population ratios at various scales
236
on
E
-2'
U)
>-

..
(/)

D
Cl
Cl
::0 "
(/)
OJ
c
c
c
ro
o_
• J ...
OJ
c .. .,.
-0
... f

-
::0
OJ

f-
a:
<(
o_

1/4 Mile with road

113 Mile with road networ-k

I ". : .l 113 M ile aenal, distance (

Fig. 8-1 Isochronal contours for pedestrian access in Chapel Hill, North Carolina.

or even to specific individuals, in order to assess the distributive impacts of cur-

rent and future policies. For example, accessibility measures can help identify the
degree to which accessibility has changed or will change for such subgroups (in-
dividuals), given forecasts or scenarios of future transportation and land use
changes (see chapter 9). Leading researchers and planners have recognized that
equity concerns will continue to gain prominence in transportation planning,
mostly because the distribution of accessibility among subgroups is heavily skewed
in favor of the middle and high income. As chairperson of the Transportation
Research Board, Martin Wachs predicted equity will be one of five themes that
will dominate transportation concerns during the first decade of the twenty-first
century. Because planners continue to be better equipped to measure changes in
economic efficiency and operating effectiveness than to measure the equity im-
plications of policies, Wachs (200 l, 39) prescribes that planners need to "sharpen
 237
n
our tools of analysis and create data support systems for more penetrating analy- :::r:
)>
ses of transportation policymaking." Accessibility indicators are one of those tools. u
-I
m
For Miller (1999, 131 ), "the spatial distribution of accessibility, particularly of

-
:JJ
ex:>
changes in accessibility, can tell the planner who wins and who loses." Therefore, a
fuller and more accurate depiction of equity in a community should include the ::;1
Q)

application of accessibility measures to the planning process. ::J

u"'
In summary, we argue that accessibility indicators should be used to gauge the §.
~
contribution of transportation to sustainable land patterns and vice versa. By fo- c; ·
::J

cusing on how individuals can access destinations by multiple transportation Q)

::J
D..
modes, accessibility indicators tie transportation and land use to other commu- ~
Ql
nity outcomes such as improving air quality and physical activity. Furthermore,
~
c
accessibility indicators also allow for examining the differential impacts of trans- ~
c
portation and land use policies on subgroups or even individuals. In this way, ro
UJ
accessibility indicators also contribute to understanding and communicating the -<
"'ro
equity dimension of transportation and land use planning, thus furthering a 3
region's sustainability. In addition to accessibility indicators, a plan should con - "'
tain some mobility indicators. High access time by car, even if access is excellent
by pedestrian and bicycle modes, should be measured and reported. Baltimore's
transportation indicators presented in chapter 4 are an example of a balance be-
tween accessibility and mobility indicators.

Transportation Planning Methods: What Should Land Use Planners

Know?
The methods used in transportation planning embody the rational planning model
discussed in chapter 2. Heavily influenced by positive science, highway planners
of the mid 1950s sought ways to sift through project alternatives in order to select
the most desirable one. The analytic methods of goal setting, forecasting, and
impact evaluation process have been etched in the minds of transportation plan -
ners since then. Although the analytical tools have changed little in the last two
decades, increased transparency is required more than ever from transportation
planning tools. Drawing on the distinction between projections and forecasts dis -
cussed in chapter 5, transportation forecasts often appear as mere projections
(Isserman 1984). Seldom are sensitivity analyses to key assumptions provided.
In the next subsections we cover the inputs and outputs of transportation plan-
ning models and their relevance to land use planning. Because we assume that
land use planners will be consumers of the information resulting from transpor-
tation planning models, the emphasis is on understanding the inputs and outputs
while underscoring challenges for practitioners. We also emphasize the role that
implicit and explicit assumptions play in influencing the outputs of the models.

Integrated Land Use-Transportation Planning Figure 8-2 provides a concep-

tual representation of an integrated, mutually reinforcing approach to transpor-
tation and land use planning. The approach has three components: the land use
plan, the transportation plan, and the testing of impacts resulting from the adop-
tion of both. The land use plan is connected to the transportation plan because
the type and location of development that is prescribed in the land use plan will
238
Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 3
Current Trends Compact Development Multiple Centers

0
Cl
Cl
::J
(/)
OJ
c
c
c
ro
OJ
c
-0
1 /
-
::J
co

f-
ee
<(
o_

Fig. 8-2 Connection between transportation and land use plans.

have impacts on future demand for transportation services. The characteristics of

the development, and how the development fits with the region, may determine
which transportation modes can best support it. This link suggests that revisions
to the transportation plan are necessary when land use plans are modified.
The feedback loop from transportation to land use embodies the effects of fu -
ture transportation infrastructure on development, be it through the land market
or through land use policies that complement and build on the transportation
investment. This can occur by attracting growth along corridors that will benefit
from a planned transportation improvement or by influencing the characteristics
of the development. For example, a new highway may make otherwise inacces-
sible land available for development and therefore the land use plan should be
revised to prescribe land uses and densities compatible with the transportation
investments. Likewise, a high-capacity transit line may stimulate denser develop -
ment along the corridor in order to maximize the access benefits that the new line
provides and, accordingly, the land use plan may require further revision to stipu-
late this type of development. The feedback loop from transportation to land use
suggests that a revision of land use plans to support new transportation plans is
often necessary. Unfortunately, this link is notoriously absent in current practice.
Despite the well -documented effect of induced development, prevailing planning
practice does not account for the feedback from the transportation alternatives to
the land use alternatives. Induced development refers to the impact that transpor-
tation capacity expansions have on land development. Most research studies sug-
gest that transportation capacity expansion does not influence the rate of growth
in a metropolitan area, but it may influence where growth occurs and at what
intensities. As such, transportation capacity expansions may act as magnets for
development at the expense of development elsewhere and therefore should be
accounted for in the future spatial structure of the community.
The final component involves the testing of impacts of the transportation and
land use plans together. The indicators discussed in the previous section are one
 239
way of measuring the acceptability of various impacts. When the impacts are not n
:r:
J>
acceptable, either or both of the plans need to be modified. _,
"'
m
Figure 8-3 transfers the conceptual integration of transportation and land use to ::D

an analytical approach. The analytical approach contained in the integrated land

use- transportation planning program can be used to examine the impacts of vari-
ous land use and transportation plans. It is composed of three components: 1) the
-
00

::::;"
Q)
::J
(/>
u
specification of the urban spatial structure, including current and future land de- §,
~
velopment and transportation investments; 2) forecasting travel demand; and 3) Ci'
::J
testing the alternatives under consideration. We review the first component below, Q)
::J
Cl..
whereas the second component is covered in the following section. :::;.,
The top component of Figure 8-3 contains current and projected land uses and a:;
~
planned transportation investments. It specifies the current and projected urban 2
~
c
spatial structure under consideration. It is necessary to know where people will ro
C/)
Jive, work, shop, and go to school, in addition to potential transportation invest- -<
(/>
c;;
ments, in order to forecast future travel behavior and needs. The determination 3(/>
of the urban spatial structure integrates several orientations to the future. One
orientation is to project future distribution of population, employment, and eco-
nomic and social activity centers, assuming certain transportation investments.
For example, future land use can continue current trends, reduce low-density sub-
urban development, or concentrate development along corridors or in satellite
communities.
The second orientation to determine the urban spatial structure is to specify
future land uses that reflect a conscious policy choice about a desirable future
urban form, instead of extrapolating current market and land planning condi -
tions. In this approach, the distribution ofland uses reflects different land use and
transportation priorities, with transportation serving land use goals. Various al-
locations of land use can constitute different future scenarios (see chapter 9).
The third orientation, which is recommended here, balances the previous two
approaches. It incorporates future transportation investments into the design of
the future urban form. In this approach, land use design can be used to solve
transportation problems and transportation solutions can be used to support spe-
cific land development types. For example, the attractiveness of nonmotorized
transportation modes hinges partly on trip distance. By mixing land uses, dis-
tances drop dramatically and the viability of selecting nonmotorized modes for
travel increases, particularly for shopping and recreational trips (Khattak and
Rodriguez 2005; Handy and Clifton 2001). The Davis, California, plan described
in chapter 3 is an example of this orientation. The plan calls for the development
of a spatial structure that is compatible with enhanced transit service and pedes-
trian travel. In this case, the design of the land pattern supports preferred trans-
portation modes.
Likewise, transportation solutions can be used to support future land uses. For
example, a community can use its transit investments to support certain pedes-
trian-friendly, transit-oriented land design. An example of this approach at a re-
gional scale is contained in the Envision Utah plan, where a desired strategy to
achieve desirable growth patterns is to enhance transportation choices for resi-
dents. To do this, the plan calls for goals such as promoting a regionwide transit
240

Urban spatial structure baseline and scenarios

r--------------------------- -------------------- --- ----
D
Land market trend
CL
CL projections Employment and
::J
(/) population forecasts
Ol
c Land use design
c
c prescriptions Current & future zones an
ro Current & future land
o_
Ol
use pattern transportation networks
c
-0 Development
management policy

-
l-
a:
<(
prescriptions
I
I
Urban spatial structure
~ - - ---------------- --- -------- - ------- -- ------------- - --

o_ Travel forecasting

Computer database

Trip generation

Trip distribution

Modal split

Trips assignment

Testing impacts and acceptability of alternative

Calculate standards
& indicators
Yes

'-----+--------------'-N~o Are the impacts

acceptable?

Yes

No Is the distribution of
~---.....-------------~
impacts acceptable?

Fig. 8-3 Detailed integrated land use and transportation planning program.

system around which transit-oriented land development can occur. Chapter 14

details examples of plans that follow a similar orientation but in small areas.
Thus far, we have discussed the allocation of future land to different activities and
intensities in the abstract. This activity is regularly done by expert panels, computer
models, or a combination of both. Models that allocate land systematically by using
past trends, information on available land, local plans, zoning ordinances, and th e
current distribution of economic activity (e.g., DRAM/EMPAL) are popular among
practicing planners. More recently, models have added information on the real
 241
n
estate market and information on demand and supply of tran sportation capacity :::r::
l>
(such as TRANUS, CATLAS, UrbanSim, and the California Urban Futures Model). u
-i
rn
Feedback loops between th e assumed future land use pattern and the transporta-

-
:::JJ
OJ

tion network do not n ecessarily require the development of a sophisticated model.

In situations where budgets are limited, an expert panel that fo recasts the effects :::;-'
QJ

of tran sportation on land use can incorporate this fee dback effect. In other situa- i;';
TI

tions, the future scenarios under considerati on can be radically different from 3
~.
current development patterns and profession al expertise may be more useful than a
::::l

relying on a computerized model. QJ

:::J
o._

~
Four-step Travel Forecasting Process Years of practice and empirical analysis Ql
~
have resulted in the classic travel forecasting process. This process is used to esti- 2
~
c
mate the numb er of trips (trip generation), to allocate these trips to particular ro
destinations (trip distribution), to determine what transportation mode will be (/)
-<
"'
used in each of these trips (mode split or mode ch oice), and to estimate the route
that will be taken on the street network for each mode considered (assignment). It '°
3
"'
is clear that travelers do not reall y behave in this sequen tial, simplified fashion.
Also, because models do not take into account all the factors that influence travel
behavior, they cannot perfectly predict travel patterns. Assumptions are key to
what the models can an d cannot do. Nonetheless, these fo ur steps have been use-
ful in attempting to predict behavior. Other common application s of the four-
step travel fo recasting process include:
• Air-quality planning
• Medium-range, subarea, or corridor plann in g
• D isaster/h azard mitigation planning
• Project impact assessment
• Travel dem and management-effectiveness assessment
• Real-time traveler information provision

Representation of Current and Future Spatial Patterns Travel forecasts re-

quire that behavior be represented as a series of decisions in space. In the past, this
decision was left to transportation planners and was part of the technical judg-
ment calls made by m odel ers. Increasingly, however, there is awareness that the
decision of how to represent urban space can have a direct impact on the quality
of the forecasts. Best practice fo recasts do this at th e individual or household level,
where these decisions actually take place. However, typical models in use at m et-
ropolitan planning organizations work at an aggregate level using geographic ar-
eas called traffic-analysis zon es (TAZs ), which can be characteri zed by their popu-
lation , employment, and other factors, and are where trips begin and end. These
zones represent the cu rrent an d fut ure urban spatial structure of the area (Figure
8-4a and 8-4b ). T hey vary in size, from a single block to several square miles.
Although many models in the four-step process perform their forecasts at the
individual or household levels, these are regularly aggregated to the zonal level for
practical reasons. Th is simpl ification of reality has drawbacks such as neglecting
trips within each zon e, which also tend to be walking and bicycling trips.
242

t:'.
0
0..
0..
::J
(/J
Dl
c:: ,•

- - - Main roads

_, Analysis zones A
N

1 Dot= 200 lndN!duals

0 2.5 5
0 25 5 1f!v,iles

Fig. 8-4a and b Zonal representatio n of urban spatial structure in Montgomery County,
Maryland .

Importantly, a number of external nodes are commonly identified. These nodes

have several functions. First, conceptually they capture all trips originating out-
side but that are headed into the area of study. Second, they are used to ensure
that the numbers add up correctly. Since the four-step process deals with hun-
dreds, if not thousands, of predictions, these often don't add up exactly to what is
expected. Thus, the nodes are used to ensure that the numbers do add up. How-
ever, placing the nodes too close to the metropolitan area may also alter the re-
sults.
Finally, it is important to ensure that enough information about each zone is
included in current and future development scenarios represented in the trans-
portation analysis. In many cases, broad information on the demographic and
physical attributes of each zone will suffice: number of residents, age distribu-
tions, approximate income, density, and land use mix. Increasingly, however, more
detailed information from each zone is becoming critical to determine the viabil-
ity of a given scenario. For example, is developed land in the zones available for
redevelopment? If not, zones in the periphery of the area will have more activity
than in reality, and the transportation needs in these areas will be overestimated.
Likewise, zone attributes important for travel behavior should be included. Ape-
destrian-friendly environment will impact travel differently from an automobile-
friendly environment. For example, topography, street connectivity, mixed uses,
and sidewalk availability are some characteristics that improve the quality of the
pedestrian environment (Montgomery County, Maryland, and Portland, Oregon,
have developed useful summary measures of what constitutes a pedestrian-friendly
environment). 3 Similar omissions prevail for land uses that are transit oriented.
In summary, the future urban spatial structure representation should contain
enough information to support the planning and policy questions under consid-
eration. Sidebar 8-3 provides a checklist to ensure that land use inputs are ad-
equate for the problem at hand.
..
--------------------------~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~ ~

243
n
:::r::
Sidebar 8-3 )>
u
~
rn
CHECKLIST FOR USING FOUR-STEP TRANSPORTATION PLANNING ::JJ

-
m
DATA IN LAND USE PLANS
:::;'
Ol
:::J
• Do the land use inputs correspond to the scale at which the analysis is required (zone "'
"O
D
or subarea , corridor, locality, city, region)? Verify that the number and size of analysis ;:::i.

zones is consistent with questions asked. ~.

D
:::J
• Are there feedback loops between land use inputs and transportation outcomes? Ol
:::J
0..
• Do the number and location of external nodes make sense? ~
Q;
• Is the road network, including existing and planned roads, properly represented? ~
2
• Is the location of TAZ boundaries appropriate? ~
c:
• Are non motorized modes accounted for in the trip generation, trip distribution, and ro
(/)

mode choice model routines? ~

CD
• Are there adequate feedback loops within the four-step planning process? If they 3
don't exist, are the implications of their absence discussed? "'

Step 1: Generation of trips. This task involves estimating the total number of trips
that will result from a given set of land uses. The number of trips is estimated by
trip purpose (categories usually employed are trips that begin at home and go to
work, school, shopping, and others, and trips that begin elsewhere). These esti-
mates are generally done at the zone level, each of whi ch is viewed as "producing"
and "attracting" trips. Estimates of both are needed for each zone.
Best practices in trip generation call for usin g statistical tools, such as linear
regression and count regression models, to relate the number of trips by purpose
to characteristics of the household (for trip productions) or to characteristics of
destinations (for trip attractions). Household characteristics include income level,
car ownership, family composition, location, family si ze, residential density, value
of land, and measures of regional accessibility. An additional step aggregating the
estimates at the zonal level is required. Destination attributes include roofed space
available (possibly by industrial, commercial, and other services), zonal employ-
ment levels (possibly by type of employment), and some measurement of accessi-
bility to the work force. These estimates are regularly performed by the metro-
politan planning organizations or the entity managing the four-step travel model.
The Institute for Transportation Engineer's (ITE ) trip-generation rates are ap-
plied mostly for project impact analyses (Institute of Transportation Engineers
2001 ). At the site level, these rates are expressed as the daily trip rate per dwelling
unit or per unit of area (gross floor area or acre). These rates are often adjusted to
reflect time-of-day effects, number of dwellers/workers, and local transit use pat-
terns. They should be adjusted further due to parking characteristics and the pres-
ence of travel demand management programs, although this seldom occurs in
practice.
In practice, the trip generation routine suffers from several shortcomings. First,
walking and bicycling trips are commonly ignored. This is the result of several
244
UJ
E modeling decisions. For one, the prevalent emphasis of traditional transportation
2'
UJ
>-
planners is on motorized vehicle trips, ignoring nonmotorized modes. The use of
UJ
t traffic zones further limits the inclusion of walking and bicycling trips. This also
0
o_
o_
::::i
overlooks the fact that the impacts of certain land use characteristics, such as mixed-
UJ
use developments, tend to be highest on walking and bicycling trips.
=
c
c
c
Second, combinations of trips, also called tours or trip chains, are overlooked.
m
0::: Combining trips is a behavior increasingly documented by planners and researchers
=
c (Krizek 2003) . Rather than taking a direct trip from work to home, people may
-0

::;
co
stop at a day care, grocery store, and pharmacy, among many others. This is par-

- ticularly true for residents of automobile-oriented neighborhoods. Although it is

difficult to address this limitation within the four-step travel forecasting process,
planners should be aware of it.
Third, the factors that influence trip generation are very limited. Trip genera-
tion is related to the number of jobs, households, and vehicles available, but other
factors are also important. These include: land use factors such as density and
mixed uses, building-utilization factors, labor-participation rates, automobile
ownership and availability, accessibility, pedestrian convenience, parking avail-
ability and cost, and so on. Furthermore, these factors should be adjusted to re-
flect changes in urban spatial structure and demographics. Because the composi-
tion of our cities will change over time, it is unreasonable to assume that spatial
patterns (for population and economic activity) will remain constant.

Step 2: Distribution of trips among zones. The trip-generation step determines

the number of trips that begin and end at a given zone. The trip-distribution
process connects trip productions of each zone with trip attractions elsewhere.
The result is a table of trips for each pair of zones (Table 8-3 ).
Statistical approaches such as the implementation of a destination choice model
are the current best practices. Destinations are modeled as a function of the type
and qualities of land uses and the built environment such as density, building-
utilization factors, labor-participation rates, automobile ownership and availabil-
ity, accessibility, pedestrian convenience, parking availability and cost, and the

Table 8-3
Origin-destination Pairs in Trip-distribution Phase
Zone to

Zone from 1 2 3 4 Total row (from)

1 5 50 100 200 355
2 50 5 100 300 455
3 50 100 5 100 255
4 100 200 250 20 570
Total column (to) 205 355 455 620 1635
Source: Modelling Transport, 3rd ed., Juan de Dios Ortuzar S. and Luis G. W illumsen. © 2001 John
Wi ley & Sons, Inc . This materia l is used by permission of John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
 -
245
n
like. However, current practice for distributing trips relies on the application of a :::r::
)>
gravity model. The gravity model is used to assign the number of trips produced _,
u
m
at each zone to other zones, based on the estimated number of trips attracted to :TI

-
OJ

other zones and a measure of accessibility between each pair of origin and desti -
nation zones. A zone with a large number of trip attractions will be assigned a :::;"
ru
:::J
greater share of trips than a zone with a small number of trip attractions. Simi- (/)
LJ
D
larly, zones that are more accessible from a given zone are more likely to have trips ::i-
~-
assigned than zones that are less accessible. D
:::J
ru
One challenge is that accessibility between zones is commonly measured as :::J
D-

automobile travel time. Out-of-pocket costs of driving and accessibility by tran - :::;_
sit, pedestrian, or bicycle modes are rarely included in the calculation of inter- ru
~
2
zonal accessibility. In areas where land uses are supportive of nonautomobile ~
c:
modes, current practice underestimates the accessibility to these locations. The CD
(/)

result is an overestimate of the average trip length, with too many trips distrib - -<
(/)

ffi
uted to outlying areas. Best practice suggests the use of a combination of travel 3
(/)

time and cost for multiple modes.

Another challenge is that accessibility between two zones (distance, time, or a
composite measure) is commonly assumed to be independent of the number of
trips assigned between those two zones. This ignores the fact that few trips (little
congestion) may induce further travel. Too many trips and the resulting conges-
tion may have a dampening effect on trips and trip lengths.

Step 3: Mode split. The aim of this step is to predict the percentage of trips be-
tween each pair of zones (where a trip originates and where it is going) that will
use available travel modes (e.g., walk, bicycle, drive, carpool, bus).
Best practices call for estimating the relative attractiveness of each mode avail-
able to each individual based on factors such as travel time to the destination,
waiting time (if applicable), dollar cost, frequency of service (if applicable), and
reliability, among others, by using a travel mode choice model. The output of this
model is a set of coefficients relating the factors to the probability of selecting
each mode (for details, see Ben-Akiva and Lennan 1985).
An important output of the model that is commonly overlooked by planners
but that is extremely important is the value of the denominator of the mode choice
function (known as the "log sum"). The value of the denominator is a measure of
the accessibility benefits provided by all the transportation modes. An improve-
ment in one mode increases accessibility in the short term and, as such, the value
of the denominator of the mode choice function will increase. Although the units
of this measure of accessibility are arbitrary, it is helpful to make relative com-
parisons of accessibility under different scenarios. Sidebar 8-4 shows the predicted
accessibility impacts of the urban rail system in San Juan, Puerto Rico, using the
denominator of a mode choice model.
The usefulness of choice modeling goes beyond the four-step travel forecasting
process. Estimates of a mode choice model can be used for policy-evaluation pur-
poses. For example, the transit ridership impacts of travel demand management
programs along a corridor can be predicted with a mode choice model. Similarly,
changes in walking trips can be predicted given a change in density. Due to their
 N
PART II I Bui lding Planni ng Support Systems ~
en

A best practice example shown next is taken from a study of the accessibility impacts of a train system being built in San Juan,
Puerto Rico (Zhang, Shen, and Sussman 1998). The figure below shows several different levels of job accessibility for the entire
metropolitan area. (Unfortunately, the units in which accessibility is measured in this graph have no intuitive meaning.) With this
information, transportation planners can coordinate with land use and housing planners in order to maintain accessibility levels
in certain areas or improve them in others.

LEGEND:
N SJMR Region
0 Munic ipality Boundary
Access ibility Score

+
D Low (0 - 480)
[=:J Med . Low (480 - 1032)
~ Medium (1032 - 1724)
1imj Med. High ( 1724 - 2784)
- High (2784 - 4883)
0 2 4 6 M iles

SB fig 8-4 Reproduced by permission from Zhang, Shen, and Sussman 1998.
 -
247
n
behavioral foundations, results can be transferable across study areas. Recent re- :r::
:i>
search has also suggested the possibility of postprocessing the output of mode """(]
--i
m
choice models by inflating or deflating estimates depending on local conditions ::n

(Cervero 2002).
As with trip generation, pedestrian and bicycle modes are neglected in most
mode choice model applications. Even if such modes were included, typical mod-
-
OJ

::;"
QJ
::::i

"'
-a
els include only a very limited set of variables. Variables measuring the built envi- g
~
ronment-useful surrogates for other unobserved factors that influence travel c;·
::::i

decisions-are routinely excluded from the analyses (Rodriguez and Joo 2004). QJ
::::i
D._

This renders the model insensitive to many policies that support transportation ~
alternatives to the automobile, such as land use interventions. 03
~
c:
~
Step 4: Assignment of trips to the network. Once trips are split into each travel c:
m
mode, they are assigned to a path on the street network or to a route on the transit (/)
-<
network. This is the most computationally consuming and data-intensive step in "'co
3
the travel forecasting process. "'
Most current procedures used for traffic assignment recognize that travel times
depend on the number of trips on the network. Current best practice indicates
the use of probabilistic user equilibrium methods. These methods assume that, at
equilibrium, no traveler can decrease his or her travel time by using a different
route. Thus, all paths between an origin-destination pair are equally attractive for
each individual.
For planning purposes, the outputs of this step are also relevant. These include
volume of traffic by each mode on the street/transit network, travel times and
speeds, and the level of service of each facility. By comparing volumes to existing
or projected capacities, for example, one gets a sense of necessary investments in
order to accommodate such demand, if accommodation is a desired goal. Simi-
larly, these outputs, in turn, become inputs to air-quality models.
There are many technical challenges to the way the assignment routine is con-
ducted, and most importantly, how it interacts with other steps of the forecasting
process. Likewise, the process rests on behavioral assumptions that are unrealistic
but that simplify the technical calculations. In practice, assignments for modes
other than automobiles are rarely done. For transit, this is because route align-
ments are determined by outside factors, such as transit planners aided by transit-
planning software. In dense areas with high pedestrian and bicycle traffic, such
assignments routines are seldom included . Finally, the level of detail of the zones
and the road network should be improved in order to allow for enough variation
at the microlevel.

Use of Transportation Information in land Use Plans

Information about current and forecasted transportation conditions is useful in
identifying areas of need, opportunities, and strengths. Inclusion of transporta-
tion elements in a land use plan will depend on factors such as the presence of
transportation investments in the area, the degree to which the community pri-
oritizes coordination between transportation and land use, and the willingness to
support transportation outcomes with land use policies. Although chapters 11
248
"'E through 14 highlight opportunities where transportation can play pivotal roles in
El
"'>- land use planning, Sidebar 8-5 focuses on identifying criteria for how land use
(./)

'§ plans can account for the reciprocal influence between land use and transporta-
CL
CL
:::l
tion. Such information sh ould be included in the plan's information base.
(./)
CT> Building from the collective work in the area of plan quality referenced in chapter
c
c
c 3, Sidebar 8-5 presents guidelines on how transportation elements can be effec-
ro
0::: tively included in the information base of land use plans. The focus is on the
CT>
c conceptu al dimensions of internal quality related to a plan's fact base and content
(Baer 1997; Kaiser, Godschalk, and Chapin 1995; Kaiser and Moreau 1999; Talen

-
f-
a:
1996). Not every compreh ensive plan will follow all of these gu idelines, but the
highest-quality plans with respect to transportation will exhibit many of them.
<!'.
CL

Sidebar 8-5
GUIDELINES FOR INCLUDING TRANSPORTATION ELEMENTS
IN THE PLAN'S INFORMATION BASE

Fact Base
• Plans should contain clear and readable transportation/ land use maps, conveying
usable information without the need to read accompanying text, including key desti -
nations and relevant transportation alternatives (roads, transit routes, major bike/
greenways).
• Plans with more than a ten-year time horizon should account for the development
impacts of transportation projects.
• Differences in the quality and availability of transportation serv ices, transportation
infrastructure, and land uses should be clearly related to geographica lly identified
areas . Policies and goals should relate to specific geographic areas.
• Travel demand and the supply of transportation infrastructure should be discussed
in the plan . A snapshot of current cond itions is useful for identifying areas of need
and areas where there is a surp lus of capacity.
• Plans should exam ine the existing and proposed local, state, and federal transporta-
tion infrastructure investments. The plans shou ld map and inventory the conditions
and capacities of existing facilities and proposed changes in those systems . For fu-
ture roads, a strategy to guide future development along the road should be included.

Goal and Policy Framework

• Plans should include assessments of transportation policies, such as minimum park-
ing requirements, parking supp ly, and parking cost . These policies lie at the intersec-
tion between land use and transportation planning, and as such are rarely included
explicitly in either type of plan . An open discussion about parking demand (including
cost) and the regulations governing parking will help in guiding decision makers .

Continued
 249
n
:r:
)>
• The presentation of future land uses in a community should be accompanied by their u
-I
descriptions of their differential impacts on travel demand and transportation infra- m
:JJ
structure . Although the detail of these transportation impacts will be captured in the
community 's transportation plan, a need to communicate broad transportation im-
pacts remains. To better understand and communicate these impa cts, the use of indi -
cators (see next bullet) is encouraged . References to existing multimodal transporta-
-
00

:::;"
Q.J
=>
"'
-a
tion plan should be provided. ~
§t
• Plans should use mobility and accessibility indicators. Indi cators such as level of c; ·
=>
service , volume to capacity ratios, delay, commuting time, and daily t raffic are ex- Q.J
=>
pected . However, broader indicato rs of accessibility such as the percentage of popu- 0..

lation/jobs/ retai l within 1/4 mile of transit, percentage of population/jobs/retail within ~

Ql
a twenty-minute wa lk/bike/d rive, isochronal curves, or jobs/population ratios at vari - ~
c:
ous scales are recommended because they link land use and transportation. ~
c:
• Plans should consider the cost and feasibility of the extension of transportation ser- ro
(/)
vices (bus) and infrastructure (sidewalks and roads) . When appropriate, such costs -<
"'
ro
should be provided as pa rt of the plan , or refe rences to capital improvement pro- 3
grams or transportation plans should be provided. "'
• A common, consistent, and persuasive set of assumptions should be used in inte-
grating future land uses with transportation plans. Most importantly, estimates of
the demand for land should be based on the same population an d econom ic fore-
casts as the est imates used in the transportation plans . In that way, both land use
and transportation planners will share similar assumptions about the size and shape
of the future community.

Water, Sewerage, and School Infrastructure

Water and sewer are public facilities that, along with transportation, tend to fa -
cilitate urban development. Both from development and planning perspectives,
water and sewer service are necessary in order to increase an area's suitability for
development. Other facilities such as schools, parks, and recreation facilities are
less critical in determining the viability of an area for development. Nonetheless,
they are important for providing services that the community values, and there -
fore they also can increase the attractiveness of an area for development or rede-
velopment. In particular, schools, water, and sewer along with transportation have
increasingly played a role in both driving development and in altering the urban
landscape. For this reason, in this section we emphasize school facilities along
with water and sewerage. Stormwater management, reviewed in chapter 6, is also
important in maintaining a community's environmental quality and safety. It dif-
fers from water and sewerage in that it tends to be provided within the planning
area but not necessarily at each individual site.
Consistent with the format used for the transportation infrastructure sections,
the focus of the fo llowing sections is on the use and display of information to
understand current water, sewerage, and school services, incl uding supply, de-
mand, and management strategies. After that, the focus of the chapter turns to
planning for each type of infrastructure and to coordination of infrastructure
plans with land use plans.
250
"'E Water Service Infrastructure
El
"'>-
(lj
A water-supply system provides water for urban, agricultural, and industrial uses.
t::'.
0
a. This includes both potable water suitable for drinking and nonpotable water suit-
a.
:::J
(lj able for agricultural irrigation, industrial processes, golf course irrigation, and
°'
c
c
residential lawn watering, among others. The majority of urban water systems
c
"' provide only potable water, but dual systems are being developed in many water-
0::
°'
c short areas. These dual systems have two pipes, one for potable water and one for
"gray" water that is not intended for drinking.

-
:::J
co
A potable water supply system consists of a water-supply source, a treatment
plant, and a storage and distribution system. The supply source may be either
f-
a:
surface water, such as a lake or river, or groundwater from an underground aqui-
<[
Q.. fer. The treatment plant removes impurities from the raw water and improves its
quality. Users receive treated water through a network of storage facilities, pipes,
and booster pumps. Larger distribution mains carry water to demand areas and
connect with smaller lines arranged in loops that allow circulation to areas that
have the highest demand.
Water within the distribution system is under pressure to ensure adequate flow.
Pressure is provided by storage tanks, located at elevations higher than the users,
into which water is pumped. Demand varies during the day, with peaks in the
morning and evening or when the system is used for firefighting and for lawn
irrigation.

Water Infrastructure and Water Service Indicators An inventory of water in-

frastructure in a community must account for supply and demand. An inventory
of water-supply sources should record the storage volume of the supply reservoir
and its safe yield (in millions of gallons per day), as well as the capacity of the
storage facilities. Data should be collected on the location of water mains, and the
system and its service area should be mapped. Where water is withdrawn through
wells, the cones of influence of the wells should be mapped as an indicator of
areas to be protected from harmful uses. Treated water billed to customers is be-
tween 15 and 20 percent lower than the total amount of raw water used to pro-
duce it, so calculations of how much water supply is available, particularly in
drought-prone areas, should account for this difference. Standards for water sup-
ply service levels are based on historical average day demands, expressed in gal-
lons per capita per day (GPCD), such as 135 GPCD. Usually this average figure
includes both residential and nonresidential consumption.
The quality of the water supplied should also be reported. Federal and state
governments often regulate water quality including the presence of microbial sub-
stances, radiological substances, inorganic substances, disinfection by-products,
and precursors of disinfection by-products. Water-supply systems that exceed es-
tablished standards are likely to need remedial investments in order to meet the
requirements. When available, reports of substances detected in the water-supply
system, highest levels detected, range, and the highest level allowed should be in-
cluded in th e inventory.
Current demand for treated water should also be included as part of the inven-
tory. Water consumption for various seasons and current rates for the major
 251
n
categories of consumers should be reported when possible. Conservation is an im- :::r::
p
portant strategy to manage potable water demand. This may be carried out through __,
u
rn
demand limitations such as restricted water-use hours; through behavior changes,

-
:::J:J
CD

such as limiting water for bathing; and through system improvements, such as re -
pairs to prevent leakage. A second major management strategy focuses on water- :::;1
0)
::J
quality improvements. This includes preventing pollution from stormwater runoff, en
TI
D
sanitary landfills, petroleum storage tanks, saltwater intrusion, and other sources. ~

~
Often these inventory elements are summarized in a water service plan, which if D
::J

available should be included or referenced in the land use plan. 0)

::J
o_

~
Q]
Sewerage Service Infrastructure en
~

2
~
The purpose of urban sewerage facilities is to collect wastewater from residential, c:
m
commercial, and industrial establishments and to transport it to a treatment plant, (/)
-<
where the harmful constituents are removed before the effluent is discharged into ~
CD
3
a water course. Unlike the lattice pattern of a water-distribution system, sewer en

lines follow a hierarchical, or treelike, pattern. The wastewater, or sewage, is car-

ried through a branching network of sewer pipes that range in size from small
house connections to large trunk and interceptor pipes. Sewer pipe systems are
laid out to take advantage of gravity flow as much as possible. Where sewage must
be moved against gravity, pumps are used to pressurize the collection systems.
The treatment plant removes solid and organic materials from the wastewater
stream. Three levels of treatment can be employed: primary and secondary treat-
ments remove solid and organic materials, and tertiary treatments remove addi-
tional pollutants such as compounds of phosphorus and nitrogen. Industries tend
to emit stronger and more voluminous wastewater than residential or commer-
cial areas. In some cases, industry waste can include substances that are toxic and
not suitable for treatment in regular municipal systems such as heavy metals and
phenolic compounds. Requirements for pretreatment facilities at source points
help reduce the presence of undesirable substances in wastewater.
The treatment process generates two waste products. Effluent is the treated
wastewater that flows out of the treatment plant. It may be discharged to a water
body, injected into deep aquifers, or reused for irrigation or other nondrinking
purposes. Sludge is the solid residue of the treatment process. It may be buried in
solid-waste landfills or applied to the land as a soil conditioner for agricultural
purposes.
Alternatives to central sewage treatment plants are small package treatment
plants and individual septic systems. Often used to serve isolated or individual
private developments, package plants operate similarly to central treatment plants
but have lower wastewater treatment capacity and commonly provide secondary
treatment. Septic systems use a different type of treatment in which the wastewa-
ter is received in a septic tank, where the solids settle out and are decomposed by
bacteria. The remaining liquids are discharged through underground drainage
pipes, where they percolate into the soil and are purified further. Septic tanks typi-
cally serve single houses, although group systems are possible. They require clean-
ing every three to five years to remove accumulated solids. To operate effectively,
septic systems must be placed in well-drained soils that support percolation. Both
252
package plants and septic systems pose potential operations and maintenance
problems and are not ideal long-range approaches where urban development is
t:'.
a
anticipated.
a.
a.
::::l
For planners, the tradeoff between municipal sewer service, small package treat-
(/)
CT>
c:
ment plants, and septic systems goes well beyond the community's financial ex-
c:
c: pense of extending collection and interceptor pipes. Because individual septic sys-
ro
0::: tems can only be used in suitable soils and at low densities, they typically serve
CT>
c:
-0
scattered rural or low-density suburban areas. Thus, package systems and septic
tanks make managing contiguous growth very difficult and unpredictable. By con-

-
::::l
co
trast, central sewerage facilities allow higher-density development, regardless of
soil limitations. Furthermore, septic tank failures and leakage often result in so-
f-
a:
<I: cial costs that are higher than the cost of public sewer systems. The environmental
CL
impacts of septic tank seepage are an increasingly important concern for develop-
ment in environmentally sensitive areas. This is why many state and local health
departments have begun to set standards for septic systems. It is safe to predict
that concerns about the environment will result in increasing limitations to waste-
water and sewer point discharges and seepage in the near future.
In addition to managing extensions, other sewer issues include whether hook-
up to sewer lines is mandatory, how costs will be allocated between the public and
developers or individuals, whether sludge disposal (land applications, landfills,
or ocean disposal) is allowed, and policies regarding annexations. This last is a
concern that planners face frequently. For example, a community in an unincor-
porated area wants to receive municipal water and sewer service. Infrastructure
service extensions should be viewed as an opportunity to achieve development
consistency with existing plans. Thus, provision of sewerage can be a positive tool
for guiding growth.

Sewerage Infrastructure and Service Indicators Information about current

sewerage facilities of an area should include the location and capacity of central
(sometimes called regional) wastewater treatment plants and the components of
their collection systems in addition to private, on-site systems and small commu-
nity package plant systems. Components for the collection of sewerage include
pump stations and pressurized force mains, which move sewage against the force
of gravity across ridgelines and over minimal slopes. Because an urban area might
contain several sewerage service areas, depending upon the layout of the system,
an inventory of the sewerage system should include maps of these service areas.
Maps should also be prepared showing the service areas of package treatment
plants and areas served by septic tanks. This may require surveys of various sew-
erage service providers, governmental and nongovernmental, as well as local sani-
tarian and septic tank pumping firms.
The sewerage inventory should also record the current demand on the treat-
ment plant as a percentage of plant capacity remaining. Sewer systems tend to
have less pronounced seasonal peaking characteristic for residential waste than
potable water systems because much of the increased summer demand is for grass
irrigation. Additional indicators of flow (daily average, maximum, and minimum ),
biochemical oxygen demand, and other operational factors should be available
 253
n
from treatment plant facility operators. Finally, information from receiving wa- :r:
)>
ters and lands for wastewater effluent discharges and solid waste disposal, includ- ~
rn
ing waste-loading conditions, resulting water-quality conditions, and implied as- ::J:J

similation capacities of existing and potential receiving waters, should be pro-

vided. Taken together, this information provides an assessment of the operation,
excess capacity, and condition of present facilities and environmental conditions
-
00

:::;"
QJ
::J
u"'0
and establishes one baseline for planning. ;::;
~.
As with potable water, levels of service standards for sewerage systems are usu- 0
::J

ally expressed as the average sewage generation per person or esta blishment per QJ
::J
D..

day in gallons. They are derived from existing rates. For example, the sewerage ~
a;
level of service might be 115 GPCD. When available, sewer plans should be in- ~
cluded as an appendix or at the very least referenced in the land use plan. c
~
c
ro
(/)
School Infrastructure -<
"'co
3
Although local school systems tend to be governed by a separate elected board "'
and several school systems may exist within the planning jurisdiction, the loca-
tion of schools and the quality of their programs are major influences on devel-
opment patterns, and accessibility to schools, adequacy of sites, and joint use as
recreation sites or community meeting places are important considerations in
land use planning. Schools are perceived as focal points for their neighborhoods
and often serve dual functions as neighborhood playgrounds and meeting areas.
Primary and secondary schools supply public education services to the com-
munity. School sites are classified as elementary school, middle (or junior high)
school, or high school. Community colleges are a possible fourth category. Al -
though their construction is the responsibility of the local school system, proper
coordination between the distribution of education services and the land use plan
is recommended.
Information about schools is often included in a schools plan, which should be
appended to the land use plan or referenced when appropriate. Key information
about schools includes a map indicating the location, type, and name of current
school sites. The map should be cross-referenced with a table listing the sites and
indicating for each site, its size, capacity, and a tabulation of enrollment for each
school, for each neighborhood or other residential community unit, and for each
administrative jurisdiction (public, private, and parochial). Information about
schools may also include the age and condition of the school facilities and the size
and characteristics of their sites, availability of facilities to community members
outside of school hours, and their current accessibility to the school by pedestrian
and bicycle transportation modes. When appropriate, the presence of transit routes
serving schools should also be noted.

Water, Sewerage, and School Planning Methods

Water supply and wastewater treatment are both linked strongly to land use plan-
ning. The capacities and spatial configurations of water and sewer systems are
based on the amount, type, and location of urban development to be served; at
the same time, the amount and location of urban development depends on the
254
availability of water and sewer. Furthermore, water and sewer districts need to be
coordinated because both gravity conditions (for sewerage service) and elevation-
pressure conditions (for water service) have to be aligned for concurrent service.
Decisions regarding the opening up of sewersheds need to be consonant with the
availability of elevation pressures, and vice versa. Thus, there can be no significant
°'
c
c
c development at urban densities without both water and sewer services. Likewise,
ro
0::: any prescribed land use patterns in the land use plan should reflect the technical and
°'
c financial feasibility of providing water and sewer service to particular locations.
The link between schools and land use planning also has strengthened over the

-
l-
a:
<(
last decade. Contemporary school designs consume vast amounts of land, limi t-
ing their location to areas where land is inexpensive. By implication, these areas
tend to have limited accessibili ty by multiple transportation modes, as compared
o_
to more central areas in a community.
There are three generic methods for estimating future demand for public ser-
vices. The most common approach, which we cover in additional detail below, is
the use of per capita multipliers. This approach assumes that future demand is
directly related to the number of individuals and the economic activity in the
area. The second approach is to incorporate the experience of peer or comparable
communities as a complement to per capita multipliers. The experience of other
jurisdictions (gaining or losing population) is incorporated into the analysis in
one or more ways. For one, the multiplier itself can be adjusted. Similarly, results
can be adjusted up or down as determined by the experience of similar communi-
ties. The experience of comparable communities offers important insight into
future fiscal changes and the impact of growth. The third approach is to use re-
gression analyses to relate the demand for public services to the population and
the characteristics of the area such as weather, personal income, and regular rain-
fall. Past data such as local consumption are used to fit the equation. The param-
eters estimated using past data are used to forecast changes in future demand
under alternative development scenarios being considered.
The use of per capita multipliers for estimating future demand for water, sew-
erage, and schools can be summarized in several stages. First, changes in popula-
tion and economic activity are applied to a land area and location consistent with
future development scenarios. This results in spatially specific changes in the de-
mand for services. In this way, not only the characteristics of the population but
also the pattern of development (compact versus sprawling, high density versus
low density, distant or close to existing facilities) will determine the impact on
community facilities.
The next step is to examine deficient and surplus capacity conditions in exist-
ing facilities, which often tend to be spatially imbalanced. This means that some

Estimate changes in
population and ~
Allocate changes to
land areas in _. Identify excess
capacity and _..., Estimate additional capacity
requirements, location of
economic activity scenarios and plans capacity shortages facilities and costs

Fig. 8-5 Forecasting and planning for future demands for community faci lit ies .
 255
n
areas of the community may have excess capacity in their infrastructure, whereas :r:
:I>
others may have a shortage. In areas with severe excess capacity, additional growth __,
'"1J
m
::J:J

-
will have a lower fiscal impact than growth in areas where there is little surplus 00

capacity in the infrastructure. Additional growth in areas with constrained infra-

structure will require large investments in new facilities because they can rarely be :::;"
QJ
:::J
expanded in small, inexpensive increments. 4 Together with the forecasts of addi- u"'
0
tional demand, the capacity analysis provides a sense of additional infrastructure ;:::+
~.
requirements for the area. 0
:::J
QJ
:::J
Cl.
Water Supply Planning Planning for water supply begins with the intermedi-
:::;,
ate- and long-range (up to fifty years) projection of future demand based on pro- Ql
jected population and employment, and in some cases, specific industrial uses. ~
c
~
Studies have shown population to be a reliable overall water-use indicator (see c
ro
Dzurik 2003 for details). Thus, the most commonly used technique is to multiply (/)
-<
projected population by a per capita water-use coefficient that incorporates water "'ro
3
use by nonresidential uses. Sometimes this method is refined by using separate "'
per capita coefficients for residential population, commercial, industrial, and public
employment and adding in specific uses such as thermal power stations or heavy
water-using industries, such as textiles or food processing.
Typical water demand in the United States is 150 GPCD: fifty-five in domestic
(residential) use, twenty in commercial uses, fifty in industrial uses, and twenty-
five in public and unaccounted uses. Total use varies from place to place, however,
from 50 to 250 GPCD depending on factors such as climate, income, and the
types of industry. If a community has little or no industrial uses, for example, the
total water demand might be considerably less than 150 GPCD. Therefore, an
analysis of local usage and the projected industrial employment mix is useful
(Goodman and Major 1984, 88-90).
A public water system is normally economical at densities greater than 1,000
persons per square mile; that is, average lot size of 1.5 acres or smaller or mini-
mum gross densities of 0.6 dwellings per acre. At densities of less than 500 per-
sons per square mile, public water supply is rarely justified.
Water-supply planning involves the assessment of existing and potential future
groundwater and/or surface water supplies and the design of means to capture,
treat, and distribute the water to users. Considerations in using groundwater sup-
ply sources include drawing down the water table through withdrawals that ex-
ceed the capacity of the groundwater recharge. Lowered water tables can damage
adjacent wetlands and cause land subsidence. In some situations, reservoirs are
needed to regulate and store surface water flows. Reservoir capacity usually pro-
vides not only for active water storage, but also for sediment collection and possi-
bly for hydropower production, recreation, and flood control (see Dzurik 2003
for techniques for calculating storage requirements). In other situations, water-
shed protection per se can become the goal of the areawide land policy plan.

Sewerage Planning As in water systems, the design horizon is long range, com-
monly fifty years for major sewer lines and twenty years for treatment facilities,
with allowance for treatment plant expansion being factored into the calculation
of plant size. Forecasting future needs for wastewater collection and treatment
256
U)

E involves projecting population and employment in general, as well as employment

~
U)
>-
(/)
in industries with heavy wastewater-treatment requirements. The geographic distri-
t::'.
0
bution of that demand, as represented by the alternative development scenarios and
D..
D..
::J
the plans discussed in chapters 11-15, are an important aspect for sewerage plan-
(/)

=
c
ning. Population, employment, and land use are then converted to wastewater loads.
c
c The simplest approach, suitable for general land use planning, is to base wastewa-
ro
0::: ter generation on water use. Generally, planners multiply water demand by a coeffi-
=
c
cient of .60 to .80 to obtain wastewater demand, based preferably on a study of local
data (Tabors, Shapiro, and Rogers 1976, 28). If water demand is broken down by
-
f-
land uses, then the ratio can vary across those uses. Houston, for example, multi-
plied residential water demand by .80 to obtain wastewater collection and treatment
a:
<(
o._
needs, office demand by 1.0, and retail demand by .5 (City of Houston 1987).
Location of wastewater treatment facilities is critical to both wastewater planning
and land use plannin g. Desired gravity flow of sewerage systems restricts the num-
ber of appropriate wastewater treatment plant locations. Because of odors and a
generally negative image, sewage treatment plants are ill-suited near existing or
planned residential and commercial areas. Thus, coordinating land use and waste-
water facility planning is vital. In fact, preliminary wastewater planning should pre-
cede the land use planning for residential, office, commercial, and industrial sectors
to the extent that geographic areas most easily sewered by gravi ty flow from existing
and potential new treatment plant sites are delineated in suitability maps.
Minimum densities to make public sewerage feasible are normally higher than
what is needed to justify a public water system. Densities of 2,500 to 5,000 persons
per square mile are normally required; that is, average lot size of no more than
one-half acre, and gross densities of at least two dwellings per acre. At densities of
fewer than 1,000 persons per square mile, public sewerage is rarely justified (Carver
and Fitzgerald 1986). However, public sewerage may be justified at lower densities
to prevent a health hazard and to facilitate growth management.
A question frequently faced by planners is whether the savings realized from
oversizing water/sewer treatment plants cover the costs of longer feeder lines con -
necting to these (more distant) regional service centers. Evidence suggests that
there are economies of scale in the treatment of water and wastewater. The higher
the volume of water/wastewater treated, the lower the costs per unit both in the
short run and in the long run. However, there are diseconomies of scale in trans-
mission because booster pumps and other equipment are needed to transmit and
distribute water to far-away locations. Thus, the mix between spatial and service
characteristics will determine the returns to scale within a given water or sewer
system. Because population densities and the area served influence the length of
pipes and energy costs, distribution costs tend to exhibit decreasing returns to
scale as the area serviced increases and as density declines. For each jurisdiction,
the net effect will depend on its particular conditions.
Finally, variations in sewerage and water costs, when provided centrally, suggest a
link between development patterns and their fiscal impact on communities. Evi-
dence suggests that capital costs are higher for dispersed growth patterns than for
compact growth patterns mostly because dispersed patterns require longer water
and sewer mains (Burchell et al. 1998; Frank 1989; Speir and Stephenson 2002).
 257
n
School Planning Many changes in school design have occurred over the past :::r::
)>
fifty years, replacing the traditional idea of a neighborhood school with schools u
___,
m
whose service areas or districts are more likely to be communitywide in scope. :TI

-
DO

The reasons for this change include attempts at achieving racial integration, the
decentrali zation of residences, a decrease in average household size leading to lower :::;1
QJ
:::>
densities and larger school catchment areas, and expected savings from larger U>
-0
0
schools, among others. As a result, since the 1930s, t he number of schools in the ;:::.
~-
United States has dropped precipitously by more than 65 percent, even though 0
:::>

the elementary and secondary student population almost doubled during the same QJ
:::>
Cl

period (Salvesen and Hervey 2004). :::>

ill
To facilitate the planning of schools given these changing conditions, many states ~
2
and localities have adopted school-construction guidelines. These guidelines, often sc
based on data from the Co uncil of Educational Facilities Planners International a:
(/)
(CEFPI), provide a general indication of the land consumption and faci lities needed -<
~
CD
for different types of schools by grade. However, in many cases, the guid elines rein- 3
U>

force expectations of suburban, remote schools accessible only by private automo-

bile, so they should be applied judiciously. For example, the prototype guidelines by
the state of North Carolina (North Carolina Board of Education 2003), based on
CEFPI, assume a rural or suburban area with a one-story building and room for
outdoor play areas and all parking, with queuing and buses located on-site. The
guidelines suggest that K-6 schools can use ten acres and high schools can use thirty
acres of developable land, plus one acre for every additional 100 individuals using
the facility on a daily basis. These space requirements severely limit the availability
of tracts for schools in already developed areas. As a result, schools are increasingly
located in peripheral areas with limited walking, bicycle, and public-transit accessi-
bility. Strategies to decrease these land requirements include entering into joint-use
agreements with other agencies to share the land (and cost) of certain facilities such
as playfields and auditoriums, and improving scheduling to more effectively utilize
existing facilities (Salvesen and Hervey 2004).
Following the generic approach summarized at the beginning of this section,
the analysis procedure for school planning involves fo recasting enrollments, com -
paring the forecasts to the existing school plant, developing location and space-
requirement standards, and designing a spatial pattern of school sites. We review
these steps next.
The first step in th e planning for schools is to forecast future enrollments ac-
cording to the anticipated future grade-level organization (e. g., 6-3-3 ), or by neigh-
borhood, planning di strict, or other suitable geographical unit. This is done by
calculating pupil-generation rates by housing-unit type and multiplying them by
the population forecast for each area. Pupil-generation rates relate the number of
students generated for a given area with area characteristics such as the dwelling-
unit typ e. Rates are higher for predominantly single-family detached housing an d
lower for predominantly multifamily housing. Rates are broken down by elemen-
tary, junior high or middle school, and senior high school levels, and by public
and private systems (ass uming both systems are substa ntial ). They may have to be
adjusted to reflect the proportion of children expected to attend private and paro-
chial schools at each level if those enrollments are significant.
258
UJ
E Total enrollment, by school levels, is then distributed to geographic areas, based
~
UJ
>- on the population distribution implied in the land use design for residential ar-
C/J
eas. This approach is satisfactory for designing the pattern of school sites in the
general land use plan but should be adjusted later in more detailed studies for
=
c
more detailed school planning and capital improvement programming. The re-
c
c sult of this step is a spatial distribution of demand for school space by grade level.
cu
In the next step, the inventory of existing school locations is examined with
=
c
respect to their capacity, condition, and accessibility for the distribution of pro-
jected future school enrollment. The planner must assess the potential for expand-

-
f-
a:
~
ing and otherwise adapting existing school buildings and sites and also assess the
availability and suitability of vacant or renewable land for new sites. Location and
space requirements are applied, including acceptable walking and bussing radi-
[l_

uses, minimum site-size standards or guidelines, and number of sites required. On

the basis of those considerations and basic goals, the planner designs a pattern of
school sites, including specification of existing sites to be retained, enlarged, or
otherwise modified or abandoned, as well as new sites. School sites to be aban-
doned become potential sites for other uses.

Summary
This chapter presented key information that planners should have regarding com-
munity facilities. This information is summarized below:
• Location and capacity of existing infrastructure
• Demand for current infrastructure
• Areas with excess infrastructure capacity
• Areas with existing and emerging deficient infrastructure
• Areas with rapid growth and high demand for infrastructure capacity
• Current pricing for infrastructure services
• Timing and magnitude of planned infrastructure improvements
• Potential of planned infrastructure improvements/expansions to attract ad-
ditional land development or to meet implicit demands in land use plans
• Strategies to address excess capacity and to manage capacity shortages
• Population subgroups with poor or substandard access to community facili-
ties or services
• Population subgroups bearing negative impacts of current infrastructure or
its use
• Areas where current and planned infrastructure or its use has or will result in
impacts to the physical environment (for example to air or water quality).
Although planners usually do not build or directly control community facilities,
planners' actions influence the timing and location of demand for these faci lities. As
such, planners should maintain up-to -date information on the demand, remaining
capacity, and service that each facility provides. Because community facilities not
 259
n
only satisfy existing demand for public services but also enhance the attractive- :::r::
)>
ness of areas for development and require large one-time investments, they tend ""TI
~
rn
to be major forces in the land planning game. We argued that connecting the ::IJ

planning for community facilities with land planning was a rational use of com -
munity resources and helped in managing a community's development. Nowhere
-
<Xl

:::;-'
QJ
=>
is the need for coordination between land use planning and community facilities "'
CJ
0
more evident than with transportation facilities . ;::+
~-
Consistent with the view that people travel to get to destinations, we suggested 0
=>
QJ
that planners use accessibility indicators to complement prevailing mobility in- =>
o_

dicators to inventory current transportation conditions in a community. Access i- ~

Ql
bility indicators connect transportation infrastructure with the land use system. "'
2
Furthermore, such indicators are useful for examining who wins and who loses ~
c:
under alternative development and policy scenarios. Information for accessibility ro
(/)
-<
indicators come from standard geographic information systems, as well as from ~
ro
the intermediate steps of the four-step travel forecasting method. For travel fore - 3
"'
casting, we summarized trip generation, trip distribution, mode choice, and as-
signment steps. We emphasized current challenges and assumptions that plan-
ners should consider to be an informed consumer of transportation planning
results. Finally, consistent with the literature on good plans, we suggested guide-
lines for including transportation infrastructure information in a land use plan's
fact and information base.
For water, sewerage, and school infrastructure, we suggested the use of indica-
tors of the quality of service and information conveying how supply and demand
for these services vary in space. The plan should include a summary of facility-
growth plans, extension policies, and financing programs. Such information is
commonly available as part of a capital improvement program, but the purpose is
to bring it together in a coordinated fashion in the plan. Compiling this informa-
tion requires gathering data from the units responsible for the facilities, which
include authorities, service districts, and nongovernmental organizations such as
private and nonprofit entities.
In planning for future demand based on forecasted growth and particular devel-
opment scenarios, we suggested the use of per capita multipliers to complement the
information contained in the future land design. Furthermore, we highlighted im-
portant tradeoffs that planners face frequently: centralized sewerage service versus
septic tanks or community package plants; a centralized water-treatment plant ver-
sus multip le plants; and large schools versus neighborhood schools. These tradeoffs
influence and are influenced by the pattern of land development, and thus are im-
portant players in the plan-making process.
The infrastructure information suggested in this chapter enables the identifi-
cation of locations where the plan will allow or encourage land development and
other locations where development is to be avoided. Coupled with population
and economic forecasts, environmental priorities, and land use constraints and
opportunities, information on the infrastructure system helps planners to under-
stand the dynamics of current and future growth and to communicate existing
needs to the community.
260
Notes
U)

E
tl>-
(/)
~ 1. Attempts to coordinate the timing of availability and adequacy of infrastructure ser-
0
=
=
:::J
vice provision with development can also be formalized through concurrency require-
(/) ments; via the government's capital improvements program; or by the private sector, through
=
c development permit negotiation or exaction. The objective of concurrency and adequate
c
c
ro facilities requirements is to ensure that localities do not incur large infrastructure debits as
=
c
they grow. Adequacy is defined in terms of certain service levels adopted for each facility.
~ For additional details on concurrency, see chapter 15.

-
:::J
co 2. Other definitions include the benefits provided by the transportation and land use
system (Ben-Akiva and Lerman 1985), the interaction cost per available destination (Levine
and Garb 2002), and the intensity of possibility of interaction (Hansen 1959).
f-
ee
<( 3. Planners in Montgomery County, Maryland, developed an index of pedestrian friend-
Cl...
liness based on building setbacks and the availability of sidewalks, paths, and bus shelters
in traffic zones in the region. In the early 1990s, planners in Portland, Oregon, developed
scores of the pedestrian environment based on sidewalk continuity, ease of street cross-
ings, street characteristics, and topography. More recently, Portland planners updated their
index to include measures of local street intersection density, household density, and retail
business density.
4. The focus on capital costs should not obscure the fact that operating costs are the
major component of municipal government's expenditures. Water and sewer service costs
include delivery infrastructure costs (pipes and pump stations), operating costs (mainte-
nance and energy costs), water storage, and water and wastewater treatment. Information
from the U.S. Census Bureau suggests that operating costs represent 64 percent of sewer,
71 percent of potable water, and 90 percent of education expenses.

References
Altshuler, Alan, and Sandra Rosenbloom. 1977. Equity issues in urban transportation. Policy
Studies Journal 6 ( 1): 29-40.
Baer, William C. 1997. General plan evaluation criteria: An approach to making better
plans. Journal of the American Planning Association 63 (3 ): 329-44.
Ben-Akiva, Moshe, and Steve Lerman. 1985. Discrete choice analysis. Cambridge, Mass.:
MIT Press.
Burchell, Robert W., Naveed A. Shad, David Listokin, Hilary Phillips, Anthony Downs,
Samuel Seskin, Judy S. Davis, Terry Moore, David Helton, and Michelle Gall. 1998.
TCRP Report 39: The costs of sprawl-revisited. Washington, D. C.: Transportation Re-
search Board.
Carver, Paul T., and Ruth A. Fitzgerald. 1986. Planning for wastewater collection and treat-
ment. In Urban planning guide: ASCE manuals and reports on engineering practice, no.
49, rev. ed., xiv, 577. New York: American Society of Civi l Engineers, Urban Planning
and Development Division, Land Use Co mmittee.
Cervera, Robert. 2002. Built environments and mode choice: Towards a normative frame-
work. Transportation Research Part D (7): 265-84.
Cervera, Robert and Kara Kockelman. 1997. Travel dema nd and the 3Ds: Density, diversity
and design. Transportation Research D, 2(3): 199 -219.
Cervera, Robert. 1996. Mixed land-uses and commuting: evidence from the American
Housing Survey. Transportation Research A, 30 (5): 361-3 77.
 261
Cervero, Robert, and John R. La ndis. 1995. The transportation-land use connection still n
I
l>
matters. Access (7): 2-10. u
~
m
City and County of Denver. 2000. Blueprint Denver. Denver: Author.

-
::J:J
co
City of Houston. 1987. Plan ning policy manual. Houston: Depa rtment of Planning and
Development.
:::;"
Co uncil on Environmental Quality. 1997. Considering cumulative effects under the national Q)
:::>

Environmental Policy Act. Washington, D.C.: Executive Office of the President. "'
-0
0
;:::i
Dzurik, Andrew Albert. 2003. Water resources planning, 3rd ed. Lanham, Md.: Rowman & ~
6
Littlefield. :::>
Q)
Florida Department of Transportation. 2002. 2002 Quality/level of service handbook. Talla- :::>
Cl.

hassee: State of Florida Department of Transportation. ~

a:;
Frank, James E. 1989. The costs of alternative develop ment patterns: A review of the litera- ~
ture. Washington, D.C. : Urban Land Institute. 2
~
c
Gakenheimer, Ralph. 2000. Urban transportation planning. In The profession of city plan - ro
ning, Lloyd Rodwin and Bishwapriya Sanyal, eds. , 140-43. New Brunswick, N.J.: Cen - (/)
-<
~
ter for Urban Policy Research . CD
3
Geurs, Karst T., and Bert van Wee. 2004. Accessibility evaluation of land-use and transpor- "'
tation strategies: Review and research directions. Journal of Transport Geography ( 12 ):
127-40.
Gi uliano, Genevieve. 1991. Is jobs-housing balance a transportation issue? Tran sportation
Research Record (1305): 305-1 2.
Giuliano, Genevieve. 1995. The weakening transportation -land use connection. Access (6):
3-11.
Gi uliano, Genevieve, and Kenneth A. Small. 1993. Is the journ ey to work explained by
urban structure? Urban Studies 30 (9) : 1485-1500.
Goodman , Alvin S., and David C. Major. 1984. Principles of water resources planning.
Englewood Cliffs, N. J.: Prentice Hall.
Handy, Susan, and Kelly Clifton . 2001. Local shopping as a strategy for reducing automo-
bile travel. Transportation 28 (4): 317-46.
Handy, Susan, and Debbie Niemeier. 1997. Measuring accessibility: An exploration of is-
sues and alternatives. Environment and Planning A (29 ): 1175-94.
Hansen, Walter. G. 1959. How accessibility shapes land use. Journal of the American Insti-
tute of Planners (25): 73-76.
He lling, Amy. 1998. Changing intra -metropolitan accessibility in the U.S.: Evidence from
Atlanta. Progress in Planning 49 (2): 55-107.
lnstitute of Transportation Engineers. 2001 . Trip generation handbook: An ITE recommended
practice. Washington, D.C.: Institute of Transportation Engineers.
Isserm an, Andrew M. 1984. Projection, forecast, and plan: On the future of population
fo recasting. Journal of the American Planning Association 50 (2 ): 208-2 1.
Kaiser, Edward J., David R. Godschalk, and Stuart F. Chapin, Jr. 1995. Urban land use plan-
ning, 4th ed. Champaign: Univers ity of Illinois Press.
Kaiser, Edward J., and David Moreau. 1999. Land development guidelines for No rth Caro-
lina local governments. Chapel H ill: Center for Urban Regional Studies, University of
North Carolina.
Khattak, Asad J., and Daniel A. Rodriguez. 2005. Travel behavior in neo-traditional neigh-
borhood developments: A case study in USA. Transportation Research Part A 39 (6):
481-500.
Krizek, Kevin J. 2003. Neighborhood services, trip purpose, and tour-based travel. Trans-
portation 30 (4 ): 387-4 10.
262
"'
E Levine, Jonathan C., and Jakov Garb. 2002. Congestion pricing's conditional promise: Pro -
E m otion of accessibility o r mobility? Transport Policy 9 (3 ): 179-81.
"'>-
(/)

'§ Miller, Harvey. 1999. Measuring space-time accessibility benefits within transportation
a_
a_ networks: Basic theory and computational procedures. Geographical Analysis (3 1): 187-
::i
C/) 212.
CJ")
c Moudon, Anne V., Paul M. Hess, Mary C. Snyder, and Kiri! Stanilov. 1997. Effects of site
c
c
design and pedestri an travel in mixed-use, medium -density environments. Transpor-
"'
0::::
CJ")
c
tation Research Record 1578: 48 -55.
:'2 North Carolina Board of Education. 2003. Facilities guidelines. Raleigh, North Carolina:

-
::i
O'.l Department of Public Instruction .
Northridge, Mary E., Elliot Sclar, and Padmini Biswas. 2003. Sorting out the connections
f-
between the built environment and health: a conceptual framework for navigating
a: pathways and planning healthy cities. Journal of Urban Health 80: 556-90.
<(
0...
Ortuzar, Juan de Dios, and Luis G. Willumsen. 2001. Modelling transport, 3rd ed. New
York: John Wiley and Sons.
Rodriguez, Daniel A., Asad J. Khattak, and Kelly R. Evenson. 2006. Can new urbanism
encourage physical activity? Comparing a New Urbanist Neighborhood with Con-
ventional Suburbs. Journal of the American Planning Association 72 ( 1), in press.
Rodriguez, Daniel A., and Joonwon Joo. 2004. The relationship between non-motorized
travel behavior and the local physical environment. Transportation Research Part D 9
(2): 151 -73.
Ryan, Sherry. 1999. Property values and transportation facilities: Finding the transporta-
tion -land use connection. Jo urnal of Planning Literature 13 ( 4): 412 -27.
Saelens, Brian E., James F. Sallis, Jennifer B. Black, and Diana Chen. 2003. Neighborhood-
based differences in physical activity: an environment scale evaluation. American Journal
of Public Health 93(9): 1552-58.
Saelens, Brian E., James F. Sallis, and Lawrence D. Frank. 2003. Environmental correlates of
walking and cycling: fi nding fro m the transportation, urban design, and planning lit-
eratures. Annals of Behavioral Medicine, 25 (2): 80-91.
Sallis, James, James F. Johnson, Marilyn F. Calfas, Karen S. Caparosa, and Susan J. Nichols.
1997. Assessing perceived physical environmental variables that may in flu ence physi-
cal activity. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport. 68: 345-51.
Salvesen, David A., and Philip Hervey. 2004. Good schools-good neighborhoods (CURS
Report 2003-03). Chapel Hill: Center for Urban and Region al Studies, University of
North Carolina.
Speir, Cameron, and Kurt Stephenson. 2002. Does sp rawl cost us all? Journal of the Ameri-
can Planning Association 68 (1): 56-70.
Stokols, Daniel. 1992. Establishing and maintaining healthy environments: Toward a social
ecology of health promotion. American Psychologist 47: 6-22.
Stover, Vergil G., and Frank J. Koepke. 1988. Transporta tion and land development. Wash-
ington, D.C.: Institute of Transportation Engineers.
Tabors, Rich ard D., Michael H. Shapiro, and Peter P. Rogers. 1976. Land use and the pipe:
Planning for sewerage. Lexington, Mass.: Lexington Books.
Talen, Emily. 1996. Do plans get implemented? A review of evaluation in planning. Journ al
of Planning Literature 10 (3): 248 -59.
Transportation Research Board. 2000. Highway capacity manual. Washington, D.C. : Na-
tional Academy Press.
Transportation Research Board. 2003. Transit capacity and quality ofservice manual. Wash-
ington, D.C.: Nationa l Academy Press.
 263
n
U.S. Census Bureau. 2003. Finances of municipal and township governments: 1997 census of :r:
)>
governments, vol. 4. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Census Burea u, Government Division. _,
u
rn
Wachs, Martin. 2000. Education for transportation in a new century. In The profession of :rJ

city planning, Lloyd Rodwin and Bishwapriya Sanyal, eds., 128-39. New Brunswick,
N,J.: Center for Urban Policy Research .
Wachs, Martin. 200 1. New expectations fo r transportation data. In Personal travel: The
-
OJ

:::;"
Q)
:::i

long and the short of it. Transportation Research Circular E-C026 (March): 3 7-43. "'0
'O

;::+
Zhang, Ming, Qing Shen, and Joseph Sussman . 1998. Job accessibility in the San Juan met- ~.
0
ropolitan region: Implications for rail tra nsit benefit analysis. Transportation Research :::i
Q)
:::i
Record (16 18): 22-31. D._

:::;,
CJ
8:
c::
;::l.
c::

'°
(/)
-<
"'ro
3
"'
 Chapter 9

State of Community Report

In preparation for the development of a new community plan, you are asked
to report on key findings from the population and economy, environment,
land use, and transportation and infrastructure systems, and to initiate a
collaborative community involvement process to discuss and refine the
findings into inputs to the plan-making process. This involves two parallel,
interconnected tasks: (1) to aggregate and analyze the strategic intelligence
from the planning support systems, and (2) to integrate this intelligence
with community-based information and involvement to build consensus
for plan making. The results of your work should be a State of Community
Report summarizing key findings, along with an operating citizen participa-
tion program. The State of Community Report should discuss planning
issues, future development scenarios, and sustainable development vi-
sions. What should you do to carry out this assignment?

his chapter lays out a program for bringing together, in a State of Com-
munity Report, key findings from the population and economy systems
(chapter 5), environment systems (chapter 6), land use systems (chapter
7) , and transportation and infrastructure systems (chapter 8). The purpose is to
assemble, coordinate, and analyze intelligence from these individual systems, as a
basis for public participation, as an input to the plan-making process and as an
indicator of progress toward a future sustainable community.
The chapter also discusses the design and implementation of a community in-
volvement process to review, add to, and refine the intelligence. It discusses tech-
niques for gathering community-based information and building consensus on plan-
ning issues, scenarios, and visions. It assumes that planning intelligence generation
involves both rational, technical analyses, and more subjective, process-oriented

265
266
"'E citizen participation. The goal is a collaborative planning process that aims at envi-
."'
"'>-
(/)
sioning and developing a sustainable community.
0
The product of the analytic and participatory processes is a State of Community
o_
o_
=>
Report that summarizes the community's planning issues, including the adequacy
(/)
en
c
of its policies and regulations, its values-based visions, and its analytic development
c
c scenarios. Similar to the "issues and opportunities element" of the local comprehen-
ro
0:::: sive plan discussed by Meck (2002, 7-73 to 7-77), the purpose of the State of Com-
en
c
-0
munity Report is to serve as a source of direction for plan preparation.
=>

-
co

Preparing the State of Community Report

Preparation of the State of Community Report accomplishes two important plan-
ning tasks: (1) aggregate and analyze strategic intelligence findings from the indi-
vidual planning support systems and, (2) integrate these findings with commu-
nity-based information and involvement to build consensus for plan making. These
tasks follow parallel and interconnected tracks, one more analytical or "left brain"
and one more process-oriented or "right brain" (Figure 9-1 ). To be effective, the
tracks must be designed to be interactive, with each providing invaluable inputs
to the other.
The information analysis track aggregates the key findings from the planning
support systems and identifies their meanings and implications for community
development and planning. Although each individual planning support system
necessarily has a functional focus, the aggregated analysis links the individual find-
ings into a more holistic and comprehensive framework. It identifies
communitywide issues and concerns, and begins to build alternative scenarios for
future community development.

lnfonnation Analysis Track Consensus Building Track

Population/Economy Design Participation Program

Environment Set Up Involvement Organization
Land Use Open Communication Channels
Transportation/Infrastructure Build Consensus

Identify Build Create

Issues Scenarios Scenarios Vision

State of Community Report

Fig. 9-1 State of Community Report preparation process.

 267
n
The consensus-building track designs and implements a program of activities, :::r::
p
events, and institutional arrangements for involving and informing community __,
u
rn
:::0
stakeholders, decision makers, and the general public. As part of its mission, it co
provides information, issues, and scenarios from the information analysis track
to participants for their review, critique, and refinement. It assists participants in
-
S';.'
~
testing future community development scenarios and creating sustainable devel- CD
S,
opment visions. It builds a reservoir of community-participation social capital n
0
for use in later stages of the planning process. 3
3
The State of Community Report summarizes key findings from planning sup- c
:::J

port system analyses and community-participation activities. The report com- -<
:::0
CD
bines facts and values. It is prepared in a format that is accessible to citizens and -0
0

decision makers. It is designed to provide guidance to the plan-making process, in ~

the form of issues, scenarios, and visions that have been reviewed and tested by
stakeholders and publics. As new information or understandings arise during the
course of the plan-making process, the report is revised to reflect the latest state of
community knowledge.
Although it may be easier to think of participation and information as two
separate elements of plan making, in practice they are closely related. Not only do
citizen participants bring in common knowledge and historical insights, but also
the information-capturing agenda is shaped in part by participants' concerns. The
traditional separation of public participation from staff analysis and data crunch-
ing is bridged in collaborative planning. Hanna (2000) captures the subtle inter-
action between information and participation:
The relationship between participation and information centers on the
nature of participation. The crucial questions are: Who is participating
in the process and how? Participation helps shape information devel -
opment. Its influence is synergistic. Participation not only facilitates
the additions to the planning process of new information and new in-
terpretations of existing data; it also diffuses knowledge to those who
may be peripheral players in the process (agency or non-agency ac-
tors). Hence it is difficult to measure the success of participation. Pre-
paring and analyzing data, interacting with non -agency players, and
presenting information to the public can be transformative actions-
even though their impact may not be explicit. Information is a key com-
ponent of consensus building ... .The process of developing and agree-
ing on information is a critical part of embedding the influence of in-
formation on individual and institutional understanding . ... (401)

Aggregating Key Findings

Every community has a unique set of conditions, problems, and prospects de -
rived from its history, geography, and politics. Thus, the process of aggregating
the key findings from the individual information systems needs to be responsive
to the unique aspects of the particular community. However, planners can use
generic techniques of issue identification and scenario construction to outline
and tell the planning stories of their localities.
268
"'
E Issue Identification
-2'
"'>-
[/) Identifying issues is done by scanning planning intelligence to locate matters in
t::'.
0
Q_ dispute, unresolved problems, or points of debate or controversies. If judged to be
Q_
~
[/) sufficiently important, these issues are placed on the community-needs agenda to
CT>
c be dealt with during plan making. For example, in the Denver Comprehensive
c
c
ro Plan 2000, the following land use issues were identified (City and County of Den-
0::
CT>
c
ver 2000, 2002):
A disconnect between land use and transportation, with growing traffic con-

- gestion and travel miles, adjacent commercial and residential developments

that do not fit together, and unpleasant and unsafe walking areas along streets
that discourage access to transit stops.
• A zoning code, adopted in 1956, that is outdated, overly complex and diffi-
cult to administer, with a number of outdated restrictions on land use, con-
flicting development standards, and a lack of basic design standards.
In preparing the follow-up plan, Blueprint Denver, the planners and citizens of
Denver focused on resolving these issues. The Blueprint Denver plan's subtitle is
Land Use and Transportation Plan, and it lays the foundations for a major revision
and updating of the zoning ordinance. Under the new strategy, future growth is
directed to designated areas of change and away from designated areas of stability.
Another example of issue identification is found in the debate about the mean-
ings of California's demographic future (Myers 2001). State projections forecast
an increase of 15.5 million Californians between 1990 and 2020- a 50 percent
increase in population. Latinos are expected to comprise 65.7 percent of this
growth. Does this mean that compact cities will be more popular, since Latino
lifestyles are compatible with compact cities? Myers (2001) describes four alter-
native versions of the impact of California's demographic future on urban devel-
opment patterns, depending on whether Latino economic polarization or assimi-
lation and upward mobility are assumed. He suggests that planners do not need
to choose the one right story, but must be aware of the different stories about
population change and the planning issues involved in them.

Scenario Construction
A scenario is a set of reasonably plausible but structurally different futures (Avin
and Dembner 2001). Asking what might happen requires the community to un-
cover and cope with forces driving change. Scenarios should contain an integrated,
consistent storyline, telling how change can occur under feasible circumstances.
They should distinguish between predetermined givens and potentially changing
uncertainties. They are created based on driving forces: society, technology, envi-
ronment, politics, and economics. Scenarios are most applicable in situations where
significant change is likely, outcomes are not obvious, and the time frame is me-
dium to long term (ten to twenty-plus years).
In the contemporary planning process, forecasting the future is not simply an
analytic process. The idea that there is a single unitary future has been superceded
by the notion that a community can act to modify its future. As Wachs (2001)
asserts:
 269
n
Rather than thinking of a forecast as a defin ed and invariant input upon :r:
)>
which to base a plan, it is far more realistic to see it as an enumeration ~
m
of the consequences of a particular set of assumptions that can be var- ::rJ

ied to reflect the competin g interests of contending parties. The future

is not a single grand vision or an inevitable consequence of trends, but
rather an object of manipulation, di scussion, debate, and eventually,
-
c.o

;:::>
QJ

CTi
s_
perhaps, even co nsensus (3 71-72 ). n
0
3
Scenarios ca n be used in the planning process to compare possible futures 3
c
~

("What might happen?") and desired futures ("What do yo u want to happen? ") ~·
::rJ
Two parallel processes are involved (Avin and Dembner 2001 ). One is obj ective CD
TI

and analytical, setting limits on the range of possible futures. The other is subjec- g
tive and participatory, reflectin g the desires of various interest groups. Goals are
not identified up front to drive the process. Instead, issue identificati on is do ne
early to help establish evaluation criteria fo r the scenarios. Ideally, evaluation should
include fiscal testing. The process assum es that stakehold ers may modify their
beliefs and demands when they are shown an an alysis of the outcomes of their
fa vorite futures. Even if they do not reach consensus, the process clarifies choices.
In Queen Anne's Co unty, Maryland, planners compared future scenario-based
infrastructure investm ents with historical investments to highlight the differen-
tial costs of m odest and enhanced investments under a trend growth rate of 400
dwelling units per year and an accelerated growth rate of 600 dwellin g units per
year. This allowed the co unty commission to assess the impacts of aggressively
implementing the co unty's Smart Growth policy, in terms of the necessary tax
increases (Figure 9-2 ).

Historical Investment vs. Plan Options in $millions

$250

$200 D water
(f)
D Wastewater
~
~ $ 1 50~ D Transportation
c D schools
25._ $100
Uj
$50

$0
1 2 3 4 5
Historical Modest Modest Enhanced Enhanced
Investment Investment Investment Investment Investment
Trend Accelerated Trend Accelerated

Plan Option by Growth Factor

Fig. 9-2 Queen Anne's County, Maryland , infrastructure investment scenarios .

Source: Avin and Dembner 2001 . Reproduced by permission from HNTB Consulting.
270
"'
E A scenario-building process that recognizes the important linkages between
2'
"'> analys is and citizen participation is illustrated in Figure 9-3. Analysis proceeds
(/)

0
along th e top hori zontal axis, in orde r to identify possible futures. Participation pro-
o_
o_
:::J
ceeds in parallel along th e bottom horizontal axis, in order to assist participants in
(/)

cn producing their desired futures . Possible and des ired futures are then compared and
c:
c:
c: evaluated and tradeoffs are made, on the way to developing the preferred plan and
"'
0:: policies. Scenarios can be built step-by-step from the data, an overall framework can
en
c:
CJ
be created and used to sort the evidence, or the planner can start from the official
future and explore variations. It is important to quantify the outcomes, when pos-

-
:::J
co
sible, in order to test them and to explain their fiscal impacts.
Another use of scenarios is illustrated in Blueprint Denver (City and County of
I-
CC
<I: Denver 2002, 27), which compared the distributi on of household and employment
CL
growth under the present zoning versus the distribution under the Blueprint Den-
ver plan. Here, quantifi ed outcomes are used to compare the plan alternative with
the current official future as specified by the existing zoning ord inance (Table 9-1 ).
Under the Blueprint Denver strategy, a substantial amount of new housing and em-
ploym ent growth is funneled away from stable neighborhoods (areas of stability) to
downtown and to areas where development or redevelopment can best be accom-
modated because of transportation choices and opportunities for mixed-use devel-
opment (areas of change). Note that the overall totals remain the same; only the
distribution is changed. In this case, the alternative scenario is used to illustrate the
land use logic of the Blueprint Denver strategy.

,--------------r-------- - ---,---------- - -----------

1 I I
I I I
I I I

• • •
1 I I

Ide ntify trends, Identify driving Possible Futures

constraints and forces shaping
issues tre nds and
iss ues; rank by :
importance and
unce rtainty
Scope project
2A 3A 5A

Set up process

Review data and Establish Test and

resources Evaluation
Evaluate
Criteria Sce narios
Understand political
environment

Id entify Analyze goals Desired futures

stakeholders <t nd objectives
and their goal s overlaps and
co nflicts ;
prioritiLe
28 38 58

I ... ...
I I I

'----------------~-------- - ---~------------- - ---- - -----~

Fig. 9-3 Scenario-building process . Source: Avin and Dembner 2001 . Reproduced by permission
from HNTB Consulting .
 271
n
:r:
l>
Table 9-1 _,
u
m
::D
Distribution of Growth in Households and Employment: Blueprint Denver
Scenario versus Zoning Scenario
Blueprint Denver Scenario Existing Zoning Capacity
-
(D

( /)
or
ro
Households Employment Households Employment s.
n
0
3
Downtown 21 ,200 47,000 21,200 26,200 3
c
:::>
;:::;:
Lowry, Stapleton, Gateway 16,400 17,500 14,600 16,400 -<
::D
Remaining areas of change 15,200 29,500 6,700 26,200 "'
CJ
0
;::::.
Areas of stability 7,900 15,200 18,200 40,400
Total growth by 2020 60,700 109,200 60,700 109,200

Source: City and County of Denver 2002 .

Building Community Consensus

Opening the planning process to the public can challenge planners in several ways.
One challenge is to design a participation process that is fair, yet efficient. A sec-
ond challenge is to share control of the planning agenda and direction with the
stakeholders. A third challenge is to play competing roles as process managers and
public-interest advocates. Fortunately, there are some tested techniques to assist
planners in meeting these challenges. We focus here on two techniques-scenario
testing and visioning-but there are others as well. In the realm of citizen partici-
pation, there is no single sure path to a successful process (Connor 1986; Creighton
1992; Forester 1999). Planners should be sensitive to the unique contexts of their
communities, and be creative in devising participation programs that work with
their stakeholders.
In designing participation programs, planners make six critical choices (Brody,
Godschalk, and Burby 2003, 246):
1. Administration- whether to prepare a participation plan and how to staff
citizen involvement efforts.
2. Objectives- whether to share power by educating citizens, seeking their pref-
erences, or granting them intluence. 1
3. Stage-when to start encouraging citizen involvement in the planning pro-
cess.
4. Targeting-what types of stakeholder groups to include in participation ef-
forts.
5. Techniques-what types of participation approaches to employ.
6. Information-what types of information and dissemination processes to in-
corporate in participation activities.
272
"'
E We recommend that a participation plan be prepared. We believe that the ob-
-2'
"'>- jectives of participatory planning should include all three aims: citizen education,
C/J
t:'.
0
preferences, and influence, with different blends in different plan stages and scales.
o._
o._
:::J
We urge that citizen involvement begin early in the planning process and con-
C/J
OJ
c:
tinue through into implementation, with an emphasis on citizen education and
c:
c: preference seeking early on and more opportunities for influence in later stages.
cu
0:::: We think that targeting stakeholder groups, including a range of demographic,
OJ
c:
L:l
ethnic, and issue-oriented groups, will serve to ensure that the full diversity of
community interests is captured. In terms of techniques, we favor the more hands-

-
:::J
QJ

on participation approaches when these are feasible, given staff and budget limi-
tations (Moore 1995). Finally, we suggest that strategic intelligence concerning
f-
a: the community's economy and population, environment, land use, transporta-
<(
<L
tion, and infrastructure systems be widely disseminated through a variety of chan-
nels, ranging from face-to -face workshops to Web sites and reports.

Collaborative Planning
Before initiating specific participation techniques, planners should design an overall
collaborative planning program (Oregon Department of Land Conservation and
Development 1996). As noted in chapter 2, collaborative planning is basically a
community consensus-building process (Innes 1996; Innes 1998; Innes and Booher
1999; Susskind, McKearnan, and Thomas-Lamer 1999). Consensus building has
a number of distinguishing characteristics (Godschalk et al. 1994, 20):
• Inclusive participation,
• Common purpose and problem definition,
• Participant self-education,
• Multiple option testing,
• Consensus (versus voting) decisions,
• Shared implementation, and
• Informed public.
While land use planning for sustainable communities does not necessarily in-
volve conflicts, it can founder if all affected parties are not involved and if disputes
arise that throw the process off track. Thus, the collaborative planning process
typically follows three stages (Figure 9-4). Note that it is important to involve
stakeholders well in advance of preparing actual plan alternatives. Hence the pre-
planning stage is a crucial one.
In the preplan-making stage, the participation program is designed. Stakeholders
(including representatives of community groups and interests, as well as decision
makers) are identified and communication channels are opened. With stakeholder
input, a participatory organization framework is established or an existing frame-
work is expanded. Intelligence, issues, and scenarios from analysis of planning in-
formation systems outputs are discussed and critiqued. Alternative development
scenarios are tested against participant knowledge and aspirations. Planning goals
are agreed upon and visions for the future community are generated.
 273
Pre-Plan Making Stage n
:::r::
)>
• Identify stakeholders u
--j
• Open communication channels m
:JJ
• Establish organizational framework
• Discuss intelligence and issues
• Test scenarios
-
c.o

;2
Cll
• Generate visions rn
S,
n

D
0
3
3
c::
:::J
~·
Plan Making Stage :JJ
CD
• Meet with participants "O
0
;:+
• Communicate with broader public
• Agree on planning goals
• Jointly analyze alternative land use schemes
• Address plan details
• Select preferred plan
• Review draft plan elements
Drrte and present final plan

Plan Implementation Stage

• Monitor outcomes with sustainable development criteria
• Maintain public awareness and information flow
• Testify at hearings on development proposals
• Conduct supplemental studies of planning issues
• Propose plan revisions responsive to new information
or changing conditions

Fig. 9-4 Collaborative planning process. Source: Adapted from

Creighton 1992.

In the plan-making stage, participants take part in proposing and responding to

proposals for plans. Planners meet regularly with participant gro ups, using a variety
of input, output, and interchange techniques to explore planning possibilities. Par-
ticipation techniques are expan ded to reach the broader public, using Web sites,
repo rts, workshops, and other chann els (Laurini 2001 ). Alternative land use schemes
are analyzed and discussed in light of approved goals and sustainable development
criter ia . Working groups address plan details, looking at impacts of alternative
schemes. The preferred plan is selected, based on participant and staff consensus.
Draft plan elements are reviewed by participants, who provide fee dback to planners.
The final plan is written and presented to the public and elected officials.
In the plan implementation stage, p articipants take responsibility for seeing
that the plan is carried out and maintained. Participants on watchdog teams assist
in monitoring planning outcomes in accordance with sustainable development
criteria. Planners maintain public awareness through regular planning informa-
tion reports, news releases, Web site updates, and other m edia. As new develop-
m ent proposals are m ade, planners and stakeholders testify at hearings on how
274
U)

E these will impact the plan. Supplem ental stu dies of planning issues are conducted
20
U)
>- to test plan ass umptions and flesh out information bases. Plan revisions are pro-
(/)
~

0Q_
posed as necessary, in light of new information or changing conditions.
Q_
::J
In designing a collaborative plann ing process, a model of the design thought
(/)

= process can illustrate the relationships of the elements. Figure 9-5 structures the
c
c
c process in terms of basic questi ons about how the decisions will be made, what
m
0::: public participation is expected to accomplish, what the public needs to know,
=
c what plann ers need to learn fro m the public, who are the stakeholders, how the
LJ

participation process should be organized, what special circumstances affect the

-
::J
co
choice of participatio n techn iques, and, fin ally, what techniques will be selected.
The degree of complexity in terms of the approval of the plan will affect the
f-
a:
<(
participation strategy, along with the model of power sharing with participant
o._

How will planning

decisions be made?

l
What do you want to
accomplish with the public?

,. ..
What does the public What do you need
need to know to to learn from
participate effectively? the public?

,., ,.
Who are stakeholders
for community planning?

J
How should the participation
process be organized?

1
What special circumstances
could affect selection of
participation techniques?

i
Which participation
techniques are
appropriate?

Fig. 9-5 Public participation prog ram design .

Source: Adapted from Creighto n 1992.
 275
n
groups. It is important to answer the following questi ons. How will planning de- :r
)>
cisions be made? Does decision making involve several un its of government, such _,
-u
rn
as the local government, the state, and a federal agency? What role will citizen :::rJ

-
(D

groups h ave in decision making: advisory, shared power, or other?

There are many possible goals for participatio n and collaboration. A second set ~
of questions deals with the role that the p ublic will play and what is expected to be ~
co
accomplished by public participation (Godschalk, Brody, and Burby 2003). Is the <:;,
n
a
primary purpose of participation to gain agreement on a proposed course of ac- 3
3
tion, such as design of an urban growth boundary? Or is it to assess a range of c
::J
;::;:
alternative strategies and gain consensus on the preferred approach? Or is it to -<
:::rJ
co
educate a representative group of stakeholders about the opportunities and threats ""Cl
a
;:+
faced by the community in order to generate interest in developing future plans?
The planning process offers a strategic opportunity for joint learning and knowl-
edge generation. On one hand, this means asking what the public needs to know to
participate effectively. On the other hand, this means asking what planners need to
learn from the public. It involves thinking about effective means for communicating
the res ults of planning informatio n analyses, as well as effective means for listening
to the public. Finally, it involves creating opportun ities for two -way interchange of
information and knowledge (Lowry, Adler, and Milner 1997; Smith and Hester 1982).
Successful participation programs base their activities on a careful assessment
of who will affect the plan and who will be affected by the plan. This means figur-
ing out who the community-planning stakeholders are. It means asking what
groups, organizations, or individuals are likely to be affected by planning propos-
als and how interested are they in the plan-making process. Relevant stakeholder
information might include what their interests, power, and influence are relative
to the plan-making issues. It is useful to conduct a stakeholder analysis to ens ure
that all interests are represented and that their concerns are understood (see Sidebar
9-1 Stakeholder Analysis).

A crucial step in collaborative planning is to identify and analyze community stakeholder

groups (Bryson and Crosby 1992; Godschalk et al. 1994) . These are the residents, neighbor-
hoods, interest groups, power holders, decision makers, public officials, committees,
businesspeople, nongovernmental organizations, educational institutions, professionals,
and constituencies affected by and able to affect community policies and plans. The size
and compos ition of stakeholder groups will vary with the issues under consideration and
their interest in participation will change over time, with different groups involved at differ-
ent stages of the decision -making process . In general, the structure of participation is simi-
lar to that of an onion. At the core are the most involved decision makers and primary
stakeholders. The next layer includes the secondary stakeholders-active leaders of com-
munity organizations. The outermost layer includes the general public.
Stakeholder analysis is the process of scoping out the relevant stakeholders. A stake-
holder analysis asks who the stakeholders are, what their interests in the plan might be,

Continued
276

what their goals might be, what community resources and power they hold, and who they
influence and interact with. It is useful to summarize the outcome of a stakeholder analysis
in a matri x or tab le, so that the key elements are vis ible and comparable for each category,
as shown in the table below.
=
c
c
c
a:"' Illustrative Stakeholder Analysis
=
c
Stakeholders Interests Goals and Resources Influence and

-
f-
a:
<l'.
Sierra Club Environmental
preservation
objectives
Wetlands
restoration
and power
Large
membership
interaction
Ties to town
council
0.... Homebu ilders Development Predictable Lobbying Ties to
associations profit development budget Chamber of
rules Commerce
Neighborhoods Maintain Property- Attention Advocacy by
stabi lity value from media NG Os
protect ion
Rural property Freedom to Minimize Threat of Represented
owners sel l land zoning taking lawsuits by Farmers
restrictions Grange

The way that participation is orga n ized can affect its likeli hood of success. This
mean s asking how stakeholders and activities will b e stru ctured d uring the plan -
m aking and implementation pro cesses. It can be useful to visualize this as a
timeline, as shown in Sidebar 9-2. All partici pants in the planning process will
app reciate having access to a clear and well organized time line, so that they un-
derstan d not only when key information will be available and imp ortant deci-
sions m ade, but also how their participation opportunities are scheduled.
Every comm unity h as certain un ique circu mstances that affect the likelih ood
of success of participati on programs. Dealin g with this involves asking what special
circum stances affect the selection of participation techniques in the commu nity.
Potential circum stances could be lim its on staff or budget to conduct participa tion
program s, as well as significant local economic, social, or political circumstan ces,
such as large ethnic groups or recent empl oym ent red uctions. There co uld be state
government requirements mandated fo r publi c parti cipation in plan making, as in
Washington State (Brody, Godschalk, and Burby 2003; Burby 2003 ).
Planners can d raw upon a large tool kit of parti cipation techniques, ranging
fro m charrettes (intensive participatory design sessions) and workshops to sur-
veys and fo cus groups (Cogan 1992; Creighton 1992; Godschalk et al. 1994; Sanoff
2000) . Asking which participation techniques are approp riate will help to select
the mi x of tools best suited to community cond itions and needs. Tool choice will
depend upon the availability of staff and bud get resources fo r participation and
the dem ographics of the stakeholders. For exam ple, a sm all com muni ty m ight be
able to rely on a sim ple mix of workshops and a plannin g committee, while a
 277
n
:r:
J>
::::
rn
:::rJ

A participation program timeline should inc lude dates, t asks, activities , and products . It
should be prep ared in consu lta t ion with t he community participants, taking care to explain
-
(D

( /)

or
co
the program rationa le and its re lationship t o the larger planning process . Once t he pro- s.
gram timeli ne structu re has bee n agreed on , it becomes the g ui de for a number of interlinked n
0
3
process act ivities and sets commun ity expectations about t he t iming and nat ure of t he 3
c
antic ipated participation products. It also alerts and informs other g roups , decision mak- ::J
~·
ers, and media representatives, who may desire t o follow t he process. Some flexibi lity in :::rJ
Cl)
timing may be necessary to account for dealing w ith unex pected iss ues, but once agreed 'O

on, the overall program should be followed as close ly as possib le. A sample time line de- 3
veloped by a planning consulti ng firm, HNTB, for structuring the work of a Pri nce W illiam
County Deve lopment Quality Task Fo rce is show n in the figure be low.

WORK PROGRAM • Development Quality Task Force

February March April May June July Augusl September October

Eslablish
Gtound Baseline
ules Edu~ation
and
Focus
Groups

Task Foil:e Meetings

• • le e l
• I
• • le e 1e e 1e
Producl Organizational
Framework &
F~cu.s Group
M1ss1on
IllSlalemenls
Issue/Problem Ill Interim
Reporl
Alternative
Options
Ground Rules Slalemenls

.---
Define
Developmenl
Oualily

SB fig. 9-2 Illustrat ive participat ion program timeline . Source: Prince William County
Board of Supervisors 7994. Reproduced by permission from HNTB Consu lting.

larger community might need to carry out a more elabo rate program of neighbor-
hood co nsultations, community surveys, a multigroup task force, and a charrette
(Godschalk et al. 1994 ). In cases where plannin g is bogged down in co nflict, it may
be necessary to reframe the issues (Ka ufman and Smith 1999 ) or to appo int negoti-
ating committees ( Godschalk 1992). The planner's task is to ensure that appropriate
participatory techniques are in corporated into the planning process. Popul ar par-
ticipatory techniques are matched with planning tasks in Sidebar 9-3.
278

D
Cl
Cl
::0
U)
Task: Generate input for issue identification and plan preferences from small groups of
=
c
c selected participants in face-to-face settings .
c
ro
• Charrettes (Segedy and Johnson 2004): Charrettes are design workshops that bring
=
c
together citizens and design professionals to solve problems and generate alterna-
='::0='
tive solutions. The charrette process is an intensive effort over a limited time of one

-
co

f-
ee
to five days, typically. It is based on the ideas that the presence of a deadline stimu -
lates creativity, and that interaction between professionals and nonprofessionals
enables groups to translate abstract ideas into drawings while testing the feasibility
<(
o_ of different alternatives.
• Nominal Group technique (Cogan 1992; Delbecq, Van de Ven, and Gustafson 1975) :
Nominal Group technique is effect ive for involving small groups of up to fifteen par-
ticipants in identifying problems, needs, and recommendations. Group members are
first asked to reflect silently and write down their ideas; then they take turns reveal-
ing ideas (one idea per person per turn) until everybody's have been listed. Next
they discuss the ideas as a group to share judgments, improve understanding, make
modifications, and conso lidate the list. Finally, they identify the higher-priority ideas
through voting. The intent of the Nominal Group technique is to avoid domination by
more assertive people and to overcome barriers to candor and creativity by less
assertive members.
• Brainstorming (Cogan 1992; Sanoff 2000): Brainstorming seeks to generate creative
ideas with small groups. It encourages participants to think imaginatively before any
ideas are analyzed or critiqued. In one variation, sheets of paper with nom inations
for problems, needs, and recommendations are placed in a central location in a room.
A participant takes a sheet, adds his or her ideas, returns the sheet then takes an-
other sheet returned by another member, and so on. Participants can add more ideas
on fresh sheets, continuing until their ideas and comments are exhausted. In another
variation, a group facilitator may manage the process, calling for rapid-fire genera-
tion of ideas, which are listed by a recorder on a group memory sheet.
• Focus groups (Krueger 1988) : Focus groups are planned discussions designed to
obtain responses to issues of concern within a permissive, nonthreatening environ-
ment. The groups are composed of seven to ten participants selected to represent a
cross-section of the population or particular sectors of the population. Ideas are pre-
sented by the group facilitator to provoke discussion of values and choices and to
assess the degree of support for various positions, visions, or goals. The group dis-
cussion is held several t imes with similar types of participants to identify perception
trends and opinion patterns. Focus groups are not aimed at achieving consensus or
making decisions, but at determining how participants think about planning needs
and wants.
• Snow cards (Bryson and Crosby 1992): The snow cards technique is usefu l in identi-
fying and ranking ideas that come out of the search process in relatively unorganized
form . Participants prepare index cards with one idea to a card . They attach the cards
to a wall, group sim ilar ideas, label the groups, and then vote on their highest prefer-
ences by attaching sticky dots to selected cards . Anyone can change any label or
exchange cards among categories, merge categories, or create new groups and la-
bels without discussion . Stable patterns often emerge that capture a synthesis . Votes
can be summed to indicate priority preferences
Continued
 279
(""")
I
)>
Task: Collect opinions or responses to planning issues from larger numbers of partici-
"m
-i
pants in remote settings. :::rJ

• Surveys (Cohen 2000; Dillman 1999) : Surveys enable the planner to gather responses
by Internet, telephone, mail, or with reference groups without group interaction.
Surveys can be used alone to provide a barometer of opinion or as a reference point
-
"'
~
"'c;;
for an interactive group. Their advantage is that responses can be obtained from ~
(""")
large numbers of respondents in a relatively efficient and cost-effective manner. Re- 0
3
sponses can also be analyzed quantitatively. With Internet and mail surveys, partici- 3
c:::
pants can respond at the time of their choice. ::l
;::;:
-<
• Delphi (Delbecq, Van de Ven, and Gustafson 1975): The planner asks a series of ques- :::rJ
CD
"O
tions with a selected group of respondents . The first questionnaire solicits ideas and 0
;::<.
asks reasons behind them . Subsequent questionnaires collate the ideas and associ-
ated rationales, perhaps adding new information, and then feed them back to the
group, without identifying authors of ideas and arguments, to set the stage for re-
considered responses. Each panel member reviews the logic behind the arguments,
opinions, and priorities in responding anew to the questionnaire . The process goes
through several rounds until sufficient consensus is reached . Voting assigns priori-
ties in the end .

Scenario Testing
Construction and testing of scenarios can link the analytic process and the par-
ticipatory process. Avin and Dembner (200 1) see the participatory process as the
route to creating desired futures. However, they note that desired participant vi-
sions that are not grounded in carefully analyzed, plausible alternative futures can
raise false expectations and result in a lowest common denominator recitation of
goals and objectives that may hide conflicting issues.
To guard against a lowest common denominator outcome, scenarios sho uld be
subjected to rigorous testing, both analytically and in the public arena. For ex -
ample, in developing scenarios for a sector plan in Palm Beach County, Florida,
focus groups were used to set up a range of goals and objectives that resulted in
five scenarios (Avin and Dembner 2001). A peer review group recommended an
additional scenario and consolidation of two others. The final scenarios were tested
with travel demand modeling and fiscal assessment. As Wachs (2001) notes, "Col-
laborative planning would benefit greatly from the capacity to test alternative as-
sumptions and different model parameters in accordance with different prefer-
ences and understandings of the participants. Such a process could use insights
from the application of complex databases and analytical models as long as those
techniques are seen as tools for the elaboration of competing assumptions" (371).

Visioning
The practice of creating visions of desired future community developmen t, com-
monly called visioning, is closely related to goal setting (Ames 1998; Meck 2002,
7- 73 to 7- 77). The visioning process involves stakeholders in attempts to translate
general goals and values into more specific outcomes and physical plans. 2 Com-
280
VJ
E munity visions also are related to scenarios, which tend to be more precise and
tl>- analytical than visions. As with many participatory techniques, in practice, hybrid
(/)

0
visioning processes may encompass one or more other types of public involve-
Cl
Cl
::J
ment. Visioning has been used extensively with citizen participants to identify
(/)

OJ
c
preferred types of development and patterns of growth.
c
c The Envision Utah planning effort provides a good example of a citizen-based
"' planning process that uses a number of participatory techniques (Calthorpe and
OJ
c
Fulton 2001, 126-38). Envision Utah started with a survey of the values frame -
work of the people of the region. The survey identified four central sets of values:

-
f-
a:
<(
a safe and secure environment, personal and community enrichment, personal
time and opportunity, and financial security. Then, a series of hands-on public
workshops was organized:
o_

• Where Shall We Grow? In the first workshop, participants were provided

with maps of the region showing existing development and environmental
assets. They also received a stack of chips scaled to the maps representing
the land area required to add another million people to the region at the
current average density. Their task was to place the chips in the locations
they preferred for future growth. This allowed participants to understand
the need for increasing densities through infill and redevelopment.
• How Shall We Grow? In the second workshop, participants worked with
the same maps but now they placed chips that showed various types of
development, ranging from standard types to new mixed-use, higher-den-
sity types. They also colored the maps with markers to indicate open space
and agricultural areas to be preserved.
• Community Design Options. The final workshops surveyed participants
regarding the desirability of various types of built environments. Partici-
pants rated a series of photographs and filled out a written survey. Results
confirmed the direction set in the map-based workshops.
Using the input from the workshops and surveys, planners created four devel-
opment scenarios for the region, two based on standard suburban development
patterns and two based on more compact, walkable patterns. The difference in
impacts of these scenarios was striking. To accommodate the million-person popu-
lation increase, the lowest-density scenario consumed 409 square miles and cost
$37.6 billion for infrastructure while the highest-density scenario only consumed
85 additional square miles and cost $23 billion for infrastructure.
Finally, descriptions, impacts, and visualizations of each scenario were pub-
lished in the local newspapers with a mail-back survey. Some 18,000 responses
were received, with the majority in favor of the two higher-density scenarios.
On the basis of the information received from the public participation responses,
planners created a fifth scenario-the quality growth scenario. It was mapped
and analyzed for impacts and costs. This scenario was presented as a series of
maps showing different regional design layers-(1) open space, (2) centers, dis-
tricts, and corridors, and (3) infill, redevelopment, and new growth areas, each
accompanied with implementation strategies and policies. The composite layer
shows a decentralized and linear metropolitan form stretching almost one
 281
(")
hundred miles along a relatively narrow bench between mountains and lakes, with :r:
l>
an opportunity for a regional rail transit system (Figure 9-6). The layers do not ~
rn
prescribe growth patterns, leaving discretion to the local governments, but they ::D

-
tD

are guides for political advocacy.

Following the regional scenario development process, participants were invited ( /)
n;-
to prepare plans for six small-area study sites representing the situations typical ro
S,
of the region- village, town, and city. They were grouped into teams of eight to (")
0
ten and given a site map and a selection of chips representing various types of 3
3
development. The resulting plans focused on mixed-use, walkable neighborhoods c
::J
;:::;:
adapted to each study area. -<
::D
ro
'O

3
Ongoing Involvement
Citizen participation does not end with plan preparation and adoption. Plans
that have real traction, in terms of actually guiding and shaping future develop-
ment, are powered by ongoing public attention to outcomes and continuing pub-
lic involvement in implementation. The organizations and activities initiated dur-
ing the plan-making process form the basis for long-term consensus maintenance.
Postplan participation centers on monitoring of development outcomes and imple-
mentation efforts and involvement in periodic plan revisions and updates.

Plan Monitoring and Implementation

Plan monitoring, implementation, and revision are necessary to ensure that plans
remain current and that plan policies are working out as envisioned. The work
necessary to carry out these activities is addressed in detail in the growth-man-
agement plan chapter of this book. However, here we briefly discuss the ongoing
role of public participation, carrying through from plan making to monitoring,
implementation, and plan revision.
The Seattle neighborhood planning program offers a good example of the in-
tegration of planning information and citizen participation (Seattle Planning
Commission 2001 ). In 1994, Seattle developed a twenty-year comprehensive plan,
Towards a Sustainable Seattle, based on the goal of preserving the best quality of
its neighborhoods while responding positively and creatively to the pressures of
growth and change. The plan's growth-management policy was organized around
an urban-village strategy, with residential and employment growth targeted to
village areas with the zoning and infrastructure capacity to accommodate growth.
Many Seattle community members opposed the urban-village strategy, believ-
ing it would lead to erosion of the city's single-family character. In response, the
city council made a commitment that the urban-village neighborhoods would de-
fine, through neighborhood plans, how the growth-management goals and targets
would be met in their areas. The council passed a resolution that formalized the
neighborhood planning program. The philosophy was that neighborhoods, when
given support and resources by the city, are best able to identify and address their
needs within the comprehensive plan's framework of citywide vision, goals, and
policies. The city provided GIS databases and maps, planning funds, and technical
282
"'
E
$
"'>-
(/)

'§
Cl..
Cl..
::l
.,,
(/)

=
c
c
c
ro
0:::
=
c
:02

-
::l
o::J

I-
0::
<(
0...

Fig. 9-6 Salt Lake area composite . Source: Calthorpe and Fulton 2001.
Reproduced by permission from Island Press.
 283
n
support. Final neighborhood plans had to be consistent with the comprehensive :::r::
)>
plan, inclusive, legal, and created collaboratively with the city. The city created the u
-1
rn
Neighborhood Planning Office to guide the neighborhoods and serve as the fa- :::JJ

cilitator and mediator.

In reviewing the lessons learned from the neighborhood planning process, the
Seattle Department of Design, Construction, and Land Use stated (City of Seattle
-
CD

s:i
~
ro

2003): S,
n
0
3
The number of people engaged in neighborhood planning and plan 3
c::
:::J
stewardship has created a remarkable legacy of citizen participation. ~
-<
:::JJ
People in every urban village we studied said (usually before asked) ro
-0
0
that involvement and activism are still high today because of the neigh-
borhood planning process that ended three years ago. They believe that
their communities are better places because of that activism (5).

Plan-revision Participation
Good practice requires that plans be updated regularly to respond to changing
conditions and to maintain a forward-looking stance. Some states, such as Florida,
require that all comprehensive plans be analyzed and updated every five years
(Brody, Godschalk, and Burby 2003 ). If the community has maintained an active
participation organization and program, then this plan-revision process can pro-
ceed with an informed corps of citizen participants. Otherwise, the participation
program must be reinvented at the time of each major plan revision.
Participation in plan revision may be the responsibility of the planning board
or it may be assigned to a task force or working group created for the purpose of
assessing and revising the plan. Their deliberations may be supplemented with
public workshops or hearings. To aid them, it is useful to prepare a technical analysis
and report on the plan's successes and failures, along with a description of the
extent to which the plan's projections and assumptions have been borne out dur-
ing the period since its initial adoption. The plan-revision process offers an excel-
lent opportunity to inform and update the public and decision makers on the
effectiveness of planning policies and proposals.

Summary
As this chapter has shown, the processes of information analysis and public involve-
ment are related at a number of points in the planning process. They should be seen
as closely linked and interdependent processes rather than as separate and indepen-
dent tasks. Planners responsible for their design and operation must visualize them
holistically. If the processes are transparent and their purposes are clear to the com-
munity, then participation and community learning will be enhanced. The more
that planning intelligence is disseminated and debated at this stage, the more that
the plan-making process will be effective and widely supported.
The next section of this book deals with plan making. Inputs to plan making
from the State of Community Report include statements of critical issues
facing the community, scenarios of feasible future community development
284
"'
E alternatives, and visions of desirable future community forms. These inputs form
El
"'>- the starting point for the discussion of co mmunity goals, objectives, and policies,
(/)

t::'.
0
and for the preparation of the network of plans to guide future growth and devel-
o._
o._
::J
opment along a sustainable course.
(/)

=
c

~ Notes
=
c
1. Connor (1986) relates participation objecti ves to the targeted gro ups. Education,
information fee dback, and consultation involve the general public. Joint planning, m edia-

-
::J
m
tion, and litigation involve the leaders. Conflict resolution and prevention involve both the
public and leaders.
f-
a: 2. The Florida planning statutes encourage each local government to articulate a visio n
<l:
"-- of th e future physical appearance of its community as a component of the local compre-
hensive plan (Meck 2002, 7-73 to 7-77). The vision is to be developed th ro ugh a collabora -
tive planning process with meaningful public participation an d adopted by the governing
body of the jurisdiction. When a vision has been created, the local governm ent reviews its
compreh ensive plan, land development regulations, and capital improvement program to
ensure th at they will help move the community toward the vision.

References
Ames, Steven C., ed. 1998. A guide to community visioning. Chicago, Ill. : APA Planners
Press.
Avin, Uri, and Jane Dem bner. 2001 . Gettin g scenario-building right. Planning 67 ( 11 ), 22 -
27.
Brody, Sa muel D. , David R. Godschalk, and Raymond J. Burby. 2003. Mandating citizen
participation in plan making: Six strategic choices. Journal of the American Planning
Association 69 (3): 245-64.
Bryson , John M., and Ba rbara C. Crosby. 1992. Leadership for the common good: Tackling
public problems in a shared-power world. San Francisco: Jossey Bass.
Burby, Raymond J. 2003. Making plans that matter: Citizen involvem ent and governm ent
action. Journal of the American Planning Association 69 ( 1): 33-49.
Calthorpe, Peter, and William Fulton. 2001. The regional city: Planning for the end of sprawl.
Washin gton, D.C.: Island Press.
City and County of Denver. 2000. Denver compreh ensive plan. Retrieved from http ://
www.denvergo v.o rg/CompPlan2000/start.pdf, accessed May 2, 2005.
Cit y a nd Co unt y of Denver. 200 2. Blueprint D enver. Retri eved from http ://
www.denvergov.org/blueprint_denver/, accessed May 2, 2005.
City of Seattle. 2003. Monitoring our progress: Seattle's comprehensive plan. Sea ttle, Wash.:
Department of Design, Construction, and Land Use.
Cogan, Elaine. 1992. Successful public meetings: A practical guide for managers in govern-
ment. Sa n Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Cohen, Jo nathan. 2000. Communication and design with the Internet: A guide for architects,
planners, and building professionals. New York: Norton.
Connor, D. M. 1986. A new ladder of citizen participation. Constructive Citizen Participa -
tion 14 (2): 3-5.
Creighto n, J. L. 1992. Involving citizens in community decision making: A guidebook. Wash -
ington , D.C.: Program fo r Community Problem Solvin g.
 285
Delbecq, A., A. H. Van de Ven, and D. H. Gustafson. 1975. Group techniques for program n
:::r:
)>
planning: A guide to nominal group and de/phi processes. Glen View, Ill.: Scott Foresman. _,
u
rn
Dillman, Don. 1999. Mail and Intern et surveys: The tailored design method, 2nd ed. New ::D

-
CD
York: John Wiley.
Forester, John. 1999. The deliberative practitioner: Encouraging participatory practices. Cam-
( /)
bridge, Mass.: MIT Press. Qj

Godschalk, David R., David W. Parham, Douglas R. Porter, William R. Potapchuck, and
ro
8,
Steven W. Schukraft. 1994. Pulling together: A planning and development consensus- n
0
3
building manual. Washington, D.C.: Urban Land Institute. 3
c
Godschalk, David R. 1992. Negotiating intergovernmental development policy conflicts: ::::l
;:=.·
-<
Practice-based guidelines. Journal of the American Planning Association 58 (3), 368- ::D
CD
78. D
0

Godschalk, David R., Samuel D. Brody, and Raymond J. Burby. 2003. Public participation
~

in natural hazard policy formation: Challenges for comprehensive planning. Environ-

mental Planning and Management 46 (5), 733-54.
Hanna , K.S. 2000. The paradox of participation and the hidden role of information. Jour-
nal of the American Planning Association 66 (4): 398-410.
Innes, Judith E. 1996. Planning through consensus building: A new view of the compre-
hensive planning ideal. Journal of the American Planning Association 62 (4) : 460 -72.
Innes, Judith E. 1998. Information in communicative planning. Journal of the American
Planning Association 64 ( 1): 52-63.
Innes, Judith E., and David Booher. 1999. Consensus building and complex adaptive sys -
tems. Journal of the American Planning Association 65 (4): 412 -23.
Kaufman, Sanda, and Janet Smith. 1999. Fra ming and reframing in land use conflicts. Jour-
nal of Architectural and Planning Research 16 (2): 164-80.
Krueger, Richard A. 1988. Focus groups: A practical guide for applied research. Newbury
Park, Ca lif.: Sage.
Laurini, Robert. 2001. Information systems for urban planning: A hypermedia cooperative
approach. London: Taylor and Francis.
Lowry, Kim, Peter Adler, and N. Milner. 1997. Participating the public: Group processes,
publics, and planning. Journal of Planning Education and Research 16 (3): 177-87.
Meck, Stuart, ed. 2002. Growing Smart legislative guidebook: Model statutes for planning
and the management of change. Chi cago, Ill.: American Planning Association.
Moore, C.N. 1995. Participation tools for better land-use planning: Techniqu es and case stud-
ies. Sacramento, Calif.: Local Government Commission.
Myers, Dowell. 2001. Demographic futures as a guide to planning. Journal of the American
Planning Association 67 (4): 383-97.
Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development. 1996. Collaborative ap-
proaches to decision making and conflict resolution for natural resource and land use
issues. Salem, Oreg.: Author.
Prince William County Board of Supervisors. 1994. Recommendations of the Prince Will-
iam County citizens development task force. Prince William County, Virginia: Author.
Sanoff, Henry. 2000. Commun ity participation methods in design and planning. New York:
John Wiley and Sons.
Seattle Department of Design, Construction, and Land Use. 2003 . Urban village case stud-
ies. Seattle, Wash.: Author
Seattle Planning Commission. 2001. Seattle's neighborhood planning program, 1995-1999:
Documenting the process. Seattle, Wash.: Author. Retrie ved from http://
www.cityofseattle.net/planningcommission/docs/finalreport.pdf, accessed May 2, 2005.
286
U)

E Segedy, James A., and Bradley E. Johnson. 2004. The neighborhood charrette handbook. Lou-
El
U)
>-
isville, Ky.: University of Louisville. Retrieved from www.louisville.edu/org/sun/plan-
(/'.)

t: ning/char.html, accessed May 2, 2005.

0
Cl.
Cl.
Smith, Frank J., and Randolph T. Hester, Jr. 1982. Community goa l setting. Stroudsburg,
::l
(/'.) Pa.: Hutchinson Ross.
°'
c:
c:
Susskind, Lawrence, Sarah McKearnan, and Jennifer Thomas-Larmer, eds. 1999. The con-
c:
co sensus building handbook. Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage.
0:::
Wachs, Martin. 2001. Forecasting versus envisioning. Journal of the American Planning As-
°'
c:
:2 sociation 67 (4) : 367-72.

-
::l
a:J

f-
a:
<(
CL
 PART Ill

Overview of
Making Land Use Plans

I
n Part I of the book, we described a conceptual framework for land use plan-
ning-emphasizing the concepts of the land use game as the context for plan-
ning, the sustainability prism representing community and stakeholder val-
ues, and the "good" planning program and "good" plan. The planning program, as
we described in chapter 1, serves four functions for a community: it establishes an
interactive planning support system to provide intelligence; it creates a network of
plans to represent community consensus about a desirable future and how to get
there; it establishes a development management program of regulations and capital
expenditures to implement plans; and it monitors implementation efforts and com-
munity conditions for purposes of updating the information system and adjusting
the network of plans and development-management programs.
In Part II, we showed how a planner can create and operate planning support
systems to gain an understanding of the physical, social, and economic systems
generating urban change. We concluded with an approach to create strategic in-
telligence about emerging issues and possible future scenarios and to build a

287
288
"'
c:
ro consensus community vision. The result is the State of Community Report, which
o_
CD incorporates issues, scenarios, and visions.
"'
:::J
The planner and community should now be ready to create the plans that in-
-0
c:
ro
_J corporate and refine the issues, scenarios, and visions set forth in the State of
OJ
c: Community Report and organize them into a network of physical designs and
implementation programs to guide the future development and redevelopment
-s
D of the community. What are the formats for such plans? How do they relate to
CD
each other and combine to create an effective network of plans? What are the
c
CD
> processes and techniques for making such plans? Those are the topics addressed

-
0
in the chapters of this part of the book. Figure III -1 indicates where land use plans
fit into the community's land use planning program .
f-
a: Good plans represent the results of community discourse about its future in
<l'.
o_
the form of spatially explicit and action-specific statements of intent. That is, the
plan-making fun ction within the land use planning program creates a network of
spatially explicit designs for a sustainable future urban form, reinforced with a
program of specific development-management actions for achieving it over time.
The plans will guide decisions about development management, public invest-
ments in capital improvements, and community renewal. A good network of plans
and implementation programs provides the planner, elected and appointed offi-
cials, the development industry, vario us community stakeholders in the land use
game, and citizens at large with a reference against which to evaluate public and
private development proposals for consistency with community goa ls and policy.
There is no single combination of plans that is appropriate for every commu-
nity; it is not a "one size fits all" approach. Some communities may use only one
or two of the types of plans discussed in the following chapters. Other communi-
ties will combine components from several different types of plans into a single

Land Use Planning

Values - ~ Planning Support

Systems
Network of Plans Sustainable
Issues •Areawide Policy Goal Form Community
·Environment •Population/Economy Visions • Communitywide Regulations ·Environment
·Equity ·Environment Scenarios Design Expenditures ·Equity
•Economy ·Land Use
·Livability •Small Area ·Economy
·Transportation/
- I-+ Infrastructure ·Development
Management
•Livability
·Community Report

Monitoring, Evaluation, & Updating

Fig. 111-1 Land use planning network of plans.

 289
u
multidimensional hybrid plan. In each case, the community's network of plans 9
:::D
___,
should be compiled to fit its unique land use game, its balance of sustainability
values, and its particular issues and future scenarios. The network of plans for
Denver (described in chapters 2 and 3 ), for example, is different from the combi -
nation of plans for Seattle (described in chapters 2, 13, and 15) or the combina-
-
0
<
CD
;:;.
tion for Davis, California, (described in chapters 3 and 14). Yet, the following CD
:;;:
chapters will suggest several proven types of plans that span the continuum from S,
s:
general and comprehensive to specific, from regional scale to neighborhood scale, QJ
~
:::J
from visionary design to pragmatic course of action. They constitute a rich array =,-
of plan options from which planners can assemble a combination suitable for QJ
:::J
o._

their community's situation. c

"'CD
u
QJ
::J

Preview of Section "'

The six chapters that follow explain plan-making principles, processes, and tech-
niques and apply them to making four different types of plans: an areawide land
policy plan, a communitywide land use design plan, a small-area plan, and a de-
velopment-management plan. The reader is advised to review the discussion of
these plan types in chapter 3 before beginning the chapters that follow.
Chapter 10, The Plan-making Process, provides an overview of the plan-mak-
ing process underlying the variations in methodology specific to each type of plan.
It includes setting up a proper foundation for the plan-making process, under-
standing a combination of five tasks that are at the heart of making spatially ex-
plicit plans, and deciding on an appropriate progression of attention among the
various types of plans and the various land uses being planned, including trans-
portation.
Chapter 11, The Areawide Land Policy Plan, outlines the process of mapping
policy districts within the proposed planning jurisdiction where transition from
rural to urban development will be encouraged to accommodate urban growth,
areas where redevelopment or significant infill will be encouraged, and natural
conservation areas where development should not occur and where it will be dis -
couraged. It may also specify locations of major activity centers and major water,
sewer, and transportation facilities. The areawide land policy plan not only maps
policy districts, but also describes bundles of implementation policies that will be
applied to each policy district. This type of plan serves well as the starting plan for
a region, a county, a metropolitan area, and perhaps even for a town or city.
Chapters 12 and 13 cover the making of a communitywide land use design
plan . This community-level plan can be based in part on the policies and maps of
a predecessor areawide land policy plan, but is more explicit about land uses and
urban form and more complex in format and methodology. Chapter 12,
Communitywide Land Use Design: Employment and Commercial Centers, de-
scribes the various types of employment, commercial, and civic activity centers
and the process of designing the sizes, the mixes of uses, and the locations of such
centers and their relation to each other and to the transportation system. It in -
cludes the task of allocating employment, retail space, and cultural and civic fa -
cilities among the centers.
290
Chapter 13, Communitywide Land Use Design: Residential Community Habi-
tats, discusses visions of what constitutes sustainable, smart, livable human habi-
tats that include not only residences but all the uses and activities that support the
day-to-day life of households as well-local shopping and services; local employ-
ment; schools and day care; community centers; open space and recreation; the
circulation network for autos, bicycles, walking, and public transportation; and
access to the regional network of commercial, employment, and cultural activi-
5Q)
ties. It outlines a process for designing the constellation of"living areas" and inte-
2:
Q)
> grating them into the communitywide design of activity centers and open space.

-
Cl

f-
a:
Although we divide our discussion of the communitywide land use design plan
into two chapters for the purposes of explaining the methodology involved, it is
important to realize that it is really a single unified land use design task for the
<(
o_ planner and community.
Chapter 14, Small-area Plans, steps down from the more general and larger
scale areawide and communitywide plans to focus on specific strategically impor-
tant geographic areas within the planning jurisdiction. Examples include neigh-
borhood plans, commercial district plans, transportation corridor plans, and re-
development area plans, among others. The chapter describes the nature of small-
area plans and their contribution to the community's network of plans and then
explains a participatory planning process suitable for such plans. These plans in-
volve more active joint public-private participation and generally are more de-
tailed about both physical designs and implementation than communitywide or
areawide plans.
Chapter 15, Development Management, discusses best practices in develop-
ment management, including not only selecting implementation tools, but also
monitoring outcomes and comparing them with plan recommendations. It re-
views the tasks and tools needed for effective development-management plans
and programs at the local level and outlines a process for synthesizing participa-
tory activities and technical analysis in the design and implementation of a devel-
opment-management program.
Together, the following chapters describe a range of appropriate types of plans
adaptable to different planning situations and explain processes and techniques
that planners can use to create them.
 Chapter 10

The Plan-making Process

Before developing a specific methodology for making a land use plan,

you must outline a framework for coordinating the many tasks involved
in plan making. The framework should guide your community to : 1) set
up the foundation for preparing a plan (establish an organization struc-
ture, delineate a planning area, and coordinate with other plans and gov-
ernment agencies); 2) outline the plan components to be produced; 3)
specify the sequence of tasks for allocating land uses and designing
spatial arrangements among land uses; and 4) specify the progression
of attention by type of land use in designing the spatial arrangements.
What should you do to produce this framework?

dvance plan m aking serves multiple purposes. One is to provide a pro-

cess of plan making to allow stakeholder gro ups, individual citizens, and
elected and appointed officials to take part in the gen eration and deb ate
of ideas about the long-ran ge future of a community. With resp ect to the prism
model of sustainability di scussed in chapter 2, the p rocess is intended to create a
plan that balances multiple goals in striving to reach the heart of the prism. A
second purpose is to educate, inspire, and convince stakeholders about a shared
vision of the kind of community th ey want to create. A third purpose is to trans-
late both technical and ordinary community-based knowledge into a program of
action to achieve the vision.
This chapter provides an overview of fo ur aspects of plan making necessary to
understand before initiating the discussion of more specific methodology. First, we
discuss the need to set a proper foundation for the plan-m aking process. Second, we
describe the types of plans that are useful in a community's planning program and
from which the community should choose. This discussion includes how the differ-
ent types of plans can be considered as different stages of plan making; how the
fo cus shifts as the planner progresses through the stages; and how the planner might

291
292
"'c choose among the types and combine them into a hybrid plan . Third, we describe
"'
Q_
Q) a nonrigid sequence of five tasks that are at the heart of the process of designing a
"'
::::i
spatially explicit land use plan. The tasks apply to each type of plan, though the
-0
c
"'
_J specific techniques used to carry out each task will vary by type of plan and even
~
=
c by type of land use. Fourth, we suggest an appropriate progression of attention
ro
2'. among the various land uses in designing a plan. It is difficult to address all land-
using activities simultaneously, and breaking down the task into several broad
5
Q)

>
categories to be dealt with one at a time helps to make the process more m anage-
Qj
> able and efficient.

-
0

f-
ee
Preparation for Plan Making
<{
Q_
A strong foundation for plan making includes establishing an organizational struc-
ture, delineation of a planning area, connecting to other local plans and programs,
and initiating intergovernmental coordination (Anderson 1995; APA 2002, ch. 7;
Hopkins 2001; and Kelly and Becker 2000) .

Setting Up an Organization and Procedures for Participation in Plan

Making
Before initiating the preparation of a plan, a local legislative body and planner
should set up an organization and procedures for participation in plan making.
The institutional arrangement used for preparation of the State of Community
Report (see chapter 9) can be carried forward into plan making. Many communi-
ties have already established a planning board as a permanent lay body to advise
on planning issues, champion plans, mediate development issues, and serve as
liaison with the public. That body, along with the planner, has the primary re-
sponsibility for shepherding the plan-making process. In addition, many com -
munities appoint a plan-making task force with representatives of stakeholder
groups to supplement the planning board during the plan preparation process.
That task force broadens representation of interests, obtains expertise, and takes
over much of the responsibility for incorporating community participation and
the details of plan preparation. A local government also needs qualified profes-
sional staff to undertake the more technical aspects of making a plan that are
discussed in this book. A community may enlist the technical assistance of a state
or regional agency and/or consultants to assist in these technical functions.
Specification of an organizational structure for planning should include the
participatory procedures to engage a cadre of citizens and stakeholder representa-
tives during the plan-making process. Communities increasingly are turning to
broadly participatory, consensus-building, planning, and implementation processes
involving elected officials, community stakeholder groups, appointed officials, and
interested citizens. By including a broad spectrum of the community in the plan-
ning process, the process ensures a broader support of the plan and greater commit-
ment to its implementation. Early on, a participatory process involves input into
identification of issues, visions, goals, and policies, as discussed in chapter 9. Later it
 293
n
involves public review and comment on drafts of plans. Participation usually in- :r
p
volves a combination of approaches-surveys, workshops, broad dissemination CJ
___,
rn
of proposals and alternatives, public hearings, written comments, and the use of :::J:J

an advisory task force.

Delineation of the Planning Area

-
CJ

___,
=
CD
CJ
QJ

An early task in writing a land use plan is to determin e the geographic area to be :::J

3
OJ
addressed, called the planning area. The planning area for counties should gener- ~
:::J

ally include the entire county, though it might focus on development corridors or =CJ
sectors of the county where land development issues are pressing. For growing 0
n
CD
en
municipalities, the planning area should extend significantly beyond the present en

municipal boundaries and area of extraterritorial jurisdiction. If at all feasible, it

should include all areas likely to und ergo development pressure over the next
twenty to thirty years as a consequence of the plan and market forces. These are
the areas likely to require urban services or be considered for ann exation or ex-
pansion of extraterritorial jurisdiction. Based on population and economic and
environmental informati on, the planning area should be determined early in th e
planning process and coordinated with neighboring governments. It should err
on the side of being too large, so that the participatory processes and the informa -
tion base will incorporate, at minimum, the land area that will likely comprise the
future urban -growth areas. The information base for the plan will need to extend
beyond the planning area to include analyses of the larger regional economic,
environmental, and development market systems within which the local jurisdic-
tion must coexist.

Connection to Other Local Plans and Programs

The land use plan should represent a comprehensive perspective and take into
consideration the issues addressed in other community plans and programs, such
as water an d sewer plan s, transportation plans, and ca pital-improvement pro-
grams. There may also be economic development, open space, housing, and haz-
ard-mitigation plans that are relevant. These plans should be taken into consider-
ation in making the land use plan, and vice versa. Coordination runs both ways,
but ultimately it is important to ensure consistency between other plans and the
more comprehensive thinking in th e land use plan .
Consistency and coordination is accomplished in several ways. The informa-
tion base and assumptions used in the land use plan should be consistent with
those used in the water, sewer, and transportation plans. The same economic and
population forecasts and the same assumptions about service-area boundaries
and service standards should be used in both types of plans where feasible. Analy-
sis of transportation needs in the transp ortation plans and water and sewer facili -
ties locations in the water and sewer plan should be based on the future develop -
ment patterns proposed in the land use plan. At the sa me time, water and sewer
utility considerations and transportation planning considerations, such as hous-
ing and employment density, should be factored into the land use plan.
294
"'
c
ro
Intergovernmental Coordination
Q_
Q)

"'
::::>
In most cases where the planning area covers the entire area likely to be under
LJ
c development pressure over the next twenty years, the plan should account for
ro
_J
intergovernmental coordination to achieve consistency. For example, intergov-
=
c
ernmental coordination can achieve economies of scale in infrastructure and ur-
ban services and help to shape regional employment patterns and open-space
s networks. Several jurisdictions may share natural resources (e.g., a water-supply
(])

C'.
(])
watershed) or affect the same vulnerable environmental system (e.g., an estuary).
>

-
0 They can coordinate their policies with respect to those shared assets. A munici-
pality and county may need to coordinate land use regulations in areas outside
the municipality's extraterritorial jurisdiction. Two or more municipalities may
f---
0::
<(
coordinate their plans along joint boundaries. Intergovernmental coordination
Q_
should extend to state and federal land policies, including designated sensitive
areas, federal defense installations, national parks, and the like. Thus, the infor-
mation base for the land use plan should include assessment of what is occurring
in the surrounding region, what is projected for the future, and what is planned in
state and regional plans. Coordination might well suggest inclusion of represen-
tatives from agencies and other governments in the participatory planning proce-
dures incorporated into the plan-making process.

Components Produced by Stage in the Plan-making Process

Plan making involves a determination of the basic components of the plan. This
process is organized into four stages, as illustrated in Table 10-1: 1) preparation of
a State of Community Report and vision statement; 2) direction-setting frame-
work consisting of goals, objectives, and policies; 3) selection of one or a combi-
nation of different types of plans; and 4) production of a monitoring and evalua-
tion component of a plan. The sequence of stages and products at each stage in-
cludes a progression from more general visioning to more specific design and
implementation measures, and from larger or regional scale to smaller or neigh-
borhood scale. The sequence is not rigid; sometimes stages are undertaken con-
currently, and there is feedback between them.

Stage 1: State of Community Report

Stage 1 provides preliminary information for formulating components of a land
use plan in the subsequent stages of plan making. Major products of this stage are
a State of Community Report and a vision statement that are sometimes com-
piled and called an issues and vision statement (APA 2002) . These products are
largely aspatial and general, and may be appended to the final version of the plan.
Chapter 9 lays out a program for aggregating and analyzing information and pro -
ducing a consensus-based State of Community Report.
The State of Community Report should be based on a description and analysis
of the community's present and projected or planned population and economy,
land use, transportation and infrastructure, and natural environment. The report
typically includes several key elements:
 295
("")
:r:
)>
Table 10-1 _,
CJ
m
:::rJ
Components Produced by Stage of the
Plan-making Process
Stage 1: State of Community Report
-
Cl

_,
:;:,-
CD
CJ
Current Conditions and Emerging Trends OJ
::0
Local Ordinance Review 3
ru
Threats, Opportunities, and Issues ~
::0

Scenarios and Vision Statement '°

CJ
c;
n
CD
Stage 2: Direction-setting Framework
"'
"'
Goals and Objectives
Policies

Stage 3: The Plan or Plans

Areawide Land Policy Plan
Communitywide Land Use Design Plan
Small-area (or Specific) Plan
Development-management Plan

Stage 4: Monitoring and Evaluation Program

1. A description of issues, current conditions, and emerging trends likely to

impact the forthcoming planning period;
2. A review of the adequacy of current local development-management ordi-
nances;
3. Alternative scenarios for future development; and
4. Visions for the desired future based on expressed community values and im-
ages of the evolving community.
Because advance planning is future-oriented, projected or possible future sce-
narios can be used to compare possible futures about what might happen, and
desired futures about what the community wants to happen. Vision statements
can be based on the fact base derived from desirable and plausible scenarios. Thus,
planners may also choose to include in the State of Community Report an assess-
ment and description of alternative scenarios of plausible future outcomes, and a
vision statement that identifies the values and overall image of what the commu-
nity wants to be.
The State of Community Report should combine technical with participatory
approaches (see chapter 9). The technical forecasting approach requires the plan -
ner to explore and interpret conditions and relationships revealed in the planning
support system (see chapters 4-8 ). The planner acts as an independent analyst
who identifies, clarifies, and quantifies existing and emerging conditions. The plan-
ner in this role is the scientific prophet who calls attention to the facts about cur-
rent conditions, trends, and likely future conditions. These facts serve as inputs to
296
issue identification, scenario building, visioning, and more specific direction set-
ting (see stage 2 below) by apprising participants of present and emerging condi-
tions and their potential implications.
In the participatory approach, the planner uses participatory issue identifica-
tion, scenario building, visioning, and direction setting to focus the technical analy-
sis. The planning information system is used to clarify and quantify conditions
related to issues and aspirations identified by participants. Thus, the relationship
between technical information and participation is reversed: participants define
the scope and focus of technical analyses. The two approaches are not mutually

-
f--
exclusive and can be used in a complementary fashion.
In sum, the State of Community Report contributes to planning in several ways.
First, a clear picture of the current situation and desired outcomes helps deter-
0::
<(
o_ mine goals and priorities among them. Second, a sound analysis of conditions,
trends, and their causes contributes to finding effective policy solutions. Third, a
sound analytical basis focused on locally defined issues and solutions helps a plan
stand up to legal and political challenges to implementation.

Stage 2: Direction-setting Framework

The purpose of direction setting is to provide a clear, relevant basis for plan mak-
ing (stage 3), and plan monitoring and evaluation (stage 4). The community is
enabled to exert control over its planning agenda and ensure that long-range public
interests supersede short-range interests and private concerns. Officials, planners,
and citizens are enabled to break out of their normal routine and away from in-
cremental decision making.
More specifically, we see direction setting as helping planners, elected officials,
appointed officials, and the community to determine goals to be pursued, estab-
lish objectives to measure achievement in reaching the goals, and formulate poli-
cies to guide further planning and day-to-day development-management deci-
sions. The planner should anticipate incorporating these three elements into the
areawide land use design, small-area plans, and development-management plans.
They should be adopted to have legal and political standing as guides to develop-
ment-permit decisions, capital investments, zoning changes, further plan mak-
ing, and other local government decisions. Finally, the planner often carries out
tasks in stages 1 and 2 in parallel. The investigation of current and emerging con-
ditions feeds information to direction setting, but at the same time the determi -
nation of community concerns, values, and priorities helps determine which is-
sues and information are relevant.

Goals and Objectives The results of the State of Community Report can serve
as a starting point for the identification of goals. A goal is an ideal future condi-
tion to which the community aspires. A goal is valued for itself, not as an instru-
ment to achieve something else. Goals are usually expressed in adjectives and nouns
and not quantified. Goal setting guides the process of plan making. Examples of
goals include an aesthetically pleasing downtown, a high level of environmental
quality, and an adequate supply of affordable housing.
 297
n
Community agreement on planning goals is important to evaluating and build - :r:
)>
ing consensus on preferred plan alternatives. However, it is also important to en- __,
u
rn
:::rJ
sure that the goal-setting process is based on timely, accurate, and well-under-
stood planning information. By involving participants in issue identification and
scenario testing prior to goal setting, the state of community understanding and
knowledge is raised to a good working level. Goal setting is a participatory process
-
0

__,
=
co
~
Q)
aimed at representing community val ues and interests in plan making (Smith and =>

Hester 1982). Goals define characteristics of a desired future state of community 3

Q)
~
=>
development. Goal setting is not a single component of the planning process, but <Cl
u
an ongoing part of social learning. Since goals are necessary for guiding planning, 0n
co
goal-setting processes have been developed over a long tim e. Recent vers ions may "'"'
be called benchmarking or sometimes visioning. However, benchmarks tend to
be more like objectives (specific and measurable) than goals (long-term direc-
tions). And visioning, though related, is typically a separate process that seeks to
establish an overall image of a desired future.
An objective is a tangible, measurable outcome leading to the achievement of a
goal. Objectives can be set as intermediate steps toward attaining a goal based on
benchmarks that are time specific. Objectives may also be one aspect of a larger
goal. For example, water quality that meets EPA standards by 2020 might be an
objective under the goal of environmental quality. Meeting these standards might
be one of several steps toward a goal, as would adopting a critical environmental
overlay district in the development ordinance by 2010 and purchasing develop-
ment rights along two miles of a sensitive river corridor by 2015.
Planners deal with several types of goals, which are classified by their so urces:
1. Legacy goals or "existing goals" come from previously adopted and currently
followed policy of the local government; they are a good starting point for
the goal setting process.
2. Mandated goals or "musts goals" come from state and federal policy and from
the judicial system's interpretation of statutory authority and constitutional rights.
3. Generic goa ls or "oughts goals" come from the planning literature on good
urban form, good land use management, and good government process.
4. Needs goals or "accommodation goals" are derived from forecasts of future
population and economic change that must be accommodated.
5. Aspirations goals or "commun ity wants" are derived from the values expressed
in the participatory goal-setting process.
Goals can be framed in three ways. First, a goal can be seen as alleviation of a
local problem, such as poor water quality, deteriorated neighborhoods, and ex-
cess traffic congestion. Second, a goal can be defined as an aspiration for future
conditions by answering the question, what do we want to become? Third, goals
can be defined by referring to existing policies, mandated requirements, generic
standards, and projected needs.
The primary inputs to goal setting are the collective knowledge, skills, abilities,
and experiences of participants in the process. Although most processes are
298
"'
c
m iterative, there are three stages of development integral to goal setting. Goal search,
Q_
Q.J the first stage, focuses on generating ideas. Goal synthesis focuses on finding pat-
"'
=i
terns and themes and on improving understanding. Goal selection is a process of
-0
c
m
_J setting priorities among goals.
en
c
-""
m Policies The second component of the directing-setting framework consists of
2
planning polices. A policy is a statement of actions or requirements judged to be
s
Q.J
necessary to achieve planning goals and objectives. Policies are derived from goals
·~
Q.J and objectives but aimed more directly at what government can do to attain goals.
>

-
CJ

f--
0::
Policies are expressed in verbs. They use mandatory words like shall, require, and
must, or they use suggestive words like might, consider, and may. An example, re-
lated to the goal of an aesthetically pleasing central business district, might be a
<t:
Q_
policy to require new development on Main Street to provide pedestrian ameni-
ties and plant shade trees along the right-of-way. A policy does not normally specify
the details of the action to be taken. For example, it would not specify exactly how
shade trees along Main Street would be required. A policy does not specify ordi-
nance language or what particular parcels are affected. For example, a policy might
be to extend water and sewer lines only to areas where revenues from user fees and
taxes will exceed the costs of servicing the development. Policies can also be ex-
pressed as specific standards. For example, a policy standard may specify pin oak
trees on Main Street to be consistent with existing trees on the street.
As in goal setting, the planner needs to guide a community policy-making ef-
fort. Participants should be assisted in reviewing existing and proposed policies,
adding new policies, and synthesizing the results into a coordinated policy state-
ment that is consistent with goals and objectives. The policy statement should
make clear the linkage between policies and the objectives and goals they are de -
signed to facilitate. To make this linkage, policies should either be stated under
each major goal, follow the same organizational scheme used for goals (e.g., physi-
cal, economic, and environmental), or in some other way clearly indicate which
policies promote which goals. In that way, the decision makers and policy users
later can see the relevance of the policy. Sidebar 10-1 describes a direction-setting
framework that illustrates the linkage among goals, objectives, and policies.
Participation is especially relevant to the direction-setting stage in planning.
The validity, usefulness, and effectiveness of the results depend on the process
being open to all individuals and groups affected by the local planning program
and the future land use pattern. Thus, although the planner acts as a coordinator,
the process involves elected and appointed officials of government, as well as in-
dividual citizens and groups representing environmental, economic development,
equity, and livability interests. Those who have a stake in land use and develop-
ment decisions must be able to participate with a full awareness of their interests
and have sufficient power to ensure balanced outcomes.

Stage 3: The Plan

Stage 3 of the plan-making process involves making a more specific plan, based
on the State of Community Report and vision, and the goals, objectives, and gen-
eral policies of the direction-setting framework. It involves the selection of the
 299
n
:::r::
p
_,
u
rn
::J:J

Goal 1: A compact and contiguous urba n landscape that enhances the city's livability.
-
Cl

_,
=
CD
u
Objective 7. 1: By 2030, achieve an average density of ten dwelling units per acre. Q.)
::J

Policy 1. 1. 1: Amend the development ord inance to establish minimum density :3

Q.)

requirements for all new large-scale subd ivis ion proposa ls. ~
::J

Objective 7.2: By 2030, achieve a design mix of linked hous ing and work areas in 50 =u
ci
percent of new development proposals. n
ro
~
Policy 1.2. 1: Amend the development ordinance to create m ixed-use districts with
incentives for including both residential and employment uses within all new large-
scale development project proposals.
Objective 1.3: By 2030, increase pedestrian and cycl ing travel from the current 5
percent of journey to work trips to 10 percent.
Policy 1.3. 1: Des ignate and construct a safe and continuous bicycle and pedes-
trian network that connects all residential and employment areas .
Policy 1.3.2: Estab lish a transportation management program to provide employee
incentives for walking and cycling to work.

Goal 2: Public facilities and services that efficiently serve new development.
Objective 2.1: By 2030, bring average public costs of services per new household to
regiona l averages.
Policy 2.1 . 1: Coord inate public and private development by establishing an "ad-
equate facilities" requirement in development regulations and in the capital im -
provements plan.
Policy 2. 1.2: Enhance efficiency of service provision by promoting the use of clus-
ter development through incentives in the development ordinance.
Policy 2. 1.3: Establish a sliding-scale development-impact fee system that reflects
the true costs and variability in costs of providing serv ices.

Source: Adapted from Kaiser et al. 1998.

appropriate type of plan, ranging from general spatial plans (areawide land policy
and/o r communitywide land use design), to small-area plans, and finally to de-
velopment- management plans that focus on implementation (see Table 10-1).
The areawide land policy plan, typically tackled first, lays out broad areas for
urban development, urban conservation, and rural open space. This is followed
by a communitywide land use design plan that proposes specific arrangement of
land uses, community facilities, and infrastructure, within the urban districts out-
lined in the areawide plan. The process may either result in two plans or in a single
hybrid plan incorporating both land policy district and land use design compo-
nents.
A community may choose to emphasize one or both of these spatial plans. A
regional agency or a county might develop an areawide land policy plan without
300
U)
c
ro
following up with a land use design . Areas designated for urban uses in the areawide
0:::
Q.l plan may then be subject to land use design by municipalities within th e region or
U)
:::::i
-0
county. Alternately, an urban community may choose to proceed directly to urban
c
ro
----'
land use design without a preceding areawide land policy plan, or relying on the
Ol
c regional or county areawide plan for the broader geographic scale. Other communi-
-""'
ro ties could create a hybrid of components from both typ es of spatial policy plans.
:2'.
Small-area plans focus on special areas within the community. These plans supple-
s
QJ m ent areawide and communitywide plans by focusing on strategic areas, such as
'2:
QJ
> central business districts, neighborhoods, open-space networks, and transportation
0

-
f-
corridors. Small-area plans are more explicit about spatial arrangements, physical
design, and implementation meas ures.
Development-man agem ent plans shift emphasis to implementation. They supple-
a:
<(
o_ m en t and are often folded into areawide land policy, land use design, and small- area
plans. The development-management plan fo cuses on a shorter- range action agenda,
perhaps five years, featuring a program of development regulations, capital improve-
men ts, and other m eans for local government to influence land use change in accor-
dance with the plan. The development-managem ent plan m ay devote closer atten-
tion to th e actu al timing of urbanization and to balancing the public development
of infrastructure with private developm ent. It may include attention to design qual-
ity, development costs and their distribution , and to procedural fai rness issues of
government intervention in the urbani zation process.

Stage 4: Monitoring and Evaluation Program

The monitoring and evaluation program specifies what the community should
do to track plan perfor mance in meeting needs, mitigating problems, and achiev-
ing goals. It covers three activities: how well the community is implem enting plan
policies and th e developm ent-management program; the degree to which devel -
opment and land use change are consistent with the plan; and the degree to which
obj ectives (numerical indicators of goals) are being achieved. Based on the results
of monitoring changing co nditions, the effectiveness of the plan can be continu-
ally assessed and the plan can b e updated periodically.
Reporting of results occurs at two levels. Th e first level might be annual or
biannual assessments of progress, perhap s calling for adjustments to the policy
and action program. The second level would consist of more thorough revisions,
or replanning, at lon ger time intervals, typically five to seven years.

Designing the Spatial Arrangements of Land Uses

The process of designing either the areawide land policy plan, communitywide
land use design plan, or a small area plan can be pictured as a combination of five
tasks in sequence. The tasks apply to each land policy district, as well as specific
land use categories within a land use design plan or small area plan. Thus, the
planner goes through th e sequence several times, once fo r each land use category
included in a plan. For example, the tasks apply to urb an development and envi-
ronmental protection districts in the areawide land policy plan, to employment
districts, residential neighborhoods, and open -space uses in a land use design plan,
 301
n
le and on a fine-grained scale to building design, activity centers, and streetscapes in :r:
:i>
>r a small-area plan. 1 u
___,
m
n ::J:J

e
I-
Task I. Derive Location Principles, Preferences, Specifications, and Require-
ments for a Land Policy District, Land Use Design Component, Specific Land
Use Activity, or Community Facility Develop principles and standards (a) for
-
0

___,
::::i-
<D

locating a development district, land use or mix of uses, and transportation and ::2
OJ
:::>

s other community facilities; and (b) for the spatial relationship among these uses 3
OJ

1
and facilities. These principles and standards are based on th e vision, goals, objec- ~
:::>
tives, and policies specified in the direction-setting framework; on locational pref- '°u
0
erences of environmental processes, households, firms, and other land users; and n
CD

on locational needs or preferences of particular community facilities and activity "'

"'
centers.

Task 2. Map the Variation in Suitability of Lands for a Particular Land Policy
District, Design Component, Specific Land Use Activity, or Community
Facility Using the design principles and standards developed in task l, make
maps showing the variation in suitability for locating the particular land policy
district, land use design component, or community facility. The particular spatial
pattern of variability of suitability will depend on the spatial pattern of environ-
mental factors in the locality (e.g. , slope, soil qualities, and drainage characteris-
tics), the pattern of existing and projected land uses affecting ease of getting to
destinations, and transportation and other infrastructure systems specified in the
principles and standards determined in task 1.

Task 3. Estimate the Space Required for a Land Policy District, Design Com-
ponent, Specific Land Use Activity, or Community Facility Estimate th e
amount of land needed to accommodate the future level of activity expected for
the particular land policy district (such as "transition" district ) or design compo-
nent (such as the central business district, office park, or mixed-use neighbor-
hood). The estimate is based on population and economic projections and as-
sumptions or policy about future development densities.

Task 4. Analyze Holding Capacity of the Suitable Land Supply at Locations

Tentatively Identified in the Preliminary Areawide Land Policy Map or Land
Use Design Map Determine the capacity of the areas designated for accommo-
dating the land policy districts or land use design components. Holding capaci-
ties may be expressed in such terms as numbers of dwellings, households, or em-
ployees, or simply as the number of acres in different suitable areas. Holding ca -
pacities for land policy districts and land use design components must also be
coordinated with holding capacities for transportation and other community fa-
cilities to ensure public investments support desired outcomes.

Task 5. Devise Design Alternatives for Spatial Arrangements and Sizes of

Areawide Land Policy Districts or Land Use Design Components Develop
alternative spatial arrangements and sizes for future development and redevelop-
ment areas, activity centers, specific sectors of land use, transportation and other
community facilities, and open space. This is the synthesis step, the most creative
302
of the five tasks. Figure 10-1 diagrams the relationships among the five tasks. The
diagram also highlights three important overall balances that the planner seeks in
land use planning. One such balance is between demand and supply. Dividing the
diagram into a top half and a bottom half, the two tasks in the top half emphasize
analysis of demand for adequate space at appropriate locations that are accom-
modated by the land policy districts or land use design components. The tasks in
the bottom half of the diagram analyze the supply of land and infrastructure ca-
5QJ
.2: pacity to accommodate current and future demands. In the middle of the dia-
QJ
> gram is the design or synthesis task in which demand and supply considerations

-
0

t-
o::
are brought into balance.
A second balance needs to be struck between finding appropriate locations and
finding adequate space to accommodate future land use. Tasks on the left side of
~ the diagram constitute locational analysis (both demand and supply). Tasks on
the right side analyze space quantity (likewise, both demand and supply). Again
in the middle is the important task of synthesizing, or balancing, location consid-
erations with space quantity considerations in design alternatives.

Location-Oriented Tasks Space Quantity-

(What locations are best?) Oriented Tasks
(How much space?)

Derive location Derive space

Tasks Analyzing requirements requirements
Demand for
Location and (Task 1) (Task 3)
Space

Design alternative spatial

arrangements for land
policy districts or land uses

(Task 5)

Tasks Analyzing
Supply of Map locational
Location and suitability
Space
(Task 2) (Task 4)

Fig. 10-1 Five tasks for land classification and urban land use design. Source:
Kaiser et al. 1998. Reproduced by permission from the University of Illinois Press.
 303
n
The third type of balancing, already implied by the first two, is between the :r:
)>
analytic tasks at the four corners of the diagram and the synthesis task in the u
___,
rn
middle. Practical design is based on good analysis. Analysis, however, can only go ::J:J

-
C)
so far and must be followed by creative design.
Generally, we recommend proceeding through the tasks by beginning in the ___,
upper left and moving both from top to bottom and from left to right, all the =
co
:::i:::>
while interjecting design alternatives (task 5) to be analyzed. That is, we recom- Q)
::::J

mend doing analysis of demand prior to supply (top to bottom in the diagram), :3
Q)

and location considerations prior to space quantity considerations (left to right), "'
:::>
=
always working from analysis to synthesis and back to analysis of tentative syn- ::?
0
n
co
thesis alternatives. <n
<n

The discussion below explains these five tasks in more detail.

Task 1: Deriving Location Principles

Location requirements or guidelines are principles for placing land uses on land
with the proper physical characteristics and in proper relationship to infrastructure
and to other land uses to promote sustainable development. Location principles are
derived from several sources. First there are the visions, issues, goals, objectives, and
policies proposed in earlier stages of the planning process. Then there are the mar-
ket-oriented and social use-oriented preferences of different land uses. These loca-
tion preferences are derived from the need for people, firms, and institutions to in-
teract and therefore to have accessibility to particular activities, services and facili-
ties; as well as, the relative compatibility of uses in close proximity. Finally there are
considerations of risks posed by natural hazards, such as floods, and of economic
feasibility of building on steep slopes or inappropriate soils.
Location principles are often similar from place to place within the United States
because of a common culture, technology, interpretations of the public interest,
and even specific goals and objectives in community plans. For that reason, we
can discuss location principles in the following chapters and expect them to be
adaptable to a broad range of planning situations in the United States. Applica-
tions to other cultures, technologies, and governmental structures, however, will
require much greater adjustments.
At the same time, sufficient variation exists in community visions, fiscal capa-
bility, and cultural diversity among communities in the United States to require
each community to derive its own principles. For example, one community may
feel that residents should be within a ten-minute commute to retail activity cen -
ters, whereas another accepts a twenty-minute average trip. The greater the com-
munity participation in formulating the goals and policies, the more community-
specific the goals and general policies will be, and the more unique the location
principles will be. The planner should therefore not be too quick to impose the
commonly held standards reviewed in this text without consideration of their
implied costs and their general relevance to the particular community.
The idea of general location principles applies to the areawide land policy
plan, the communitywide land use design plan, small -area plans, and even the
development-management plan. For the areawide land policy plan, for example,
304
the planner may derive location principles for locating and delineating the bound-
aries of the urban transition area (where growth will be encouraged), the envi-
ronmental conservation areas, and prime agricultural production areas. For the
community land use design plan, the planner may identify more specific location
principles for employment areas, commercial/entertainment/cultural centers, resi-
dential communities, agricultural and forestry activity, and environmental conser-
vation areas, and even for more particular land uses, such as multifamily housing
s
Q)
·~
and office parks, and specific facilities such as transportation and wastewater collec-
Q)
> tion and treatment facilities that support desired future land use patterns. Finally,

-
Cl

f-
a:
for development-management programs, the planner might identify principles to
guide delineation of areas where specific land use controls will be applied; for ex-
ample, receiving areas for transfer of development rights, water-supply protection
<(
o__
regulations, or areas suitable for floating zones for planned unit developments.

Illustrative Location Principles for Areawide Land Policy Plans The general
principles for areawide land policy plans should outline clear and defensible guide-
lines for delineating areas for growth, preservation, redevelopment, and stability.
• Natural conservation areas should be located where natural, recreational,
productive, or scenic resources exist; where natural processes are vulnerable
to urbanization and to certain agricultural and forestry activities; and where
hazards pose danger to urban development. Such areas may include, for ex-
amp le, water-supply reservoirs and buffers adjacent to such water bodies and
the streams that feed them, or even substantial portions of their watersheds.
• Built-up areas may be designated for stabilization or perhaps redevelopment.
Such areas may be pierced by conservation areas such as stream corridors,
which the community intends to "undevelop" or "redevelop" as open space;
for example, a waterfront or floodway.
• The urban transition areas that are intended to change from rural fringe to
urban uses should be located where urban services such as water and sewer
can be extended most easily and economically, where there are good existing
or easily extended roads and other transportation, and where topography is
not extreme. They should be located away from natural hazards, prime agri-
cultural lands, highly vulnerable natural systems, and lands needed as catch-
ment areas for present or planned water-supply reservoirs.
• Rural/agricultural/forestry areas should be located on lands with high produc-
tive potential for agriculture, timber production, or mining. Rural nonagricu l-
tural areas might be lands where urban services would not be easily extended in
the immediate future but which are not vital for agricultural production and
do not contain environmental hazards or environmental features and processes
vulnerable to urbanization. They constitute a possible longer-range urban land
supply.
• Delineation of land policy districts should be consistent with planned water
and sewer service districts, transportation system improvements, and other
plans for major capital improvements such as flood-control projects, water-
supply expansions, airports, regional parks, and so on.
 305
n
Illustrative Location Principles for Community Land Use Design Plans Wher- I
:i>
ever the geographical boundaries of urban expansion, stability, and open space pro- _,
"U
rn
:J:J
tection are placed, it is equally important to pay close attention to coordinating the
functional components of an urban complex within those boundaries. The general
principles for a land use design plan should address a variety of such components
such as employment areas, living areas, shopping areas, transportation and com-
-
co

_,
=
m
:::i;:i
Ill
munity facility systems, and natural systems. :::J

:3
Ill
• Employment areas are those places devoted primarily to manufacturing, "'
:::J

wholesale, trade, office, and service industries. They should be located where =~
0
transit and thoroughfares can ensure easy access. They should be convenient n
m
U>
to other employment areas as well as regional highway and public transpor- U>

tation systems. They should be located away from vulnerable environmental

systems and distributed to minimize concentrations of air pollution. They
need sites adequate in size, economical to develop for both the public an d
private sector, and, except for heavy industry, attractively situated.
• Living areas include residential neighborhoods and mixed-use neighborhoods
with substantial housing. They need to be convenient to employment, shop-
ping areas, leisure-activity sites, public transportation and thoroughfares, open
space, and community facilities. They should be buffered from incompatible
uses such as heavy industry and heavily traveled thoroughfares. They should
contain small- to moderate-scale recreation, shopping, office, educational,
and other community-service facilities. There should be a wide range of den-
sities, housing types, and locations to offer consumer choice. They should be
in locations that are economical to develop and serve.
• Areas for shopping, entertainment, and cultural activities include major shop-
ping and entertainment districts and such major educational, cultural, and
recreational facilities as colleges, museums, concert halls, libraries, coliseums,
and larger active recreation parks. These should be centrally located and con-
venient to living areas and served by public transit and regional thorough -
fare system. They should be of sufficient size to accommodate activities, be
in locations that are accessible to a wide range of goods and services, and
they should serve a variety of trade areas.
• Transportation should be conceived as an areawide multimodal system of
street and rail facilities that are closely integrated with the proposed land use
and activity centers of the land use design . They should address needs for
pedestrian movement within residential areas and activity centers, access
between residential and employment areas, and access to and within shop-
ping, entertainment, and cultural centers. Streets should be designed in
accordance to the needs of different land uses or mix of uses that represent,
for example, residential areas, downtowns, commercial centers, and indus-
trial zones, and represent pedestrian and bicycle circulation as well as autos
and transit. Sites and corridors for future transportation facilities should be
delineated and protected as part of the land use plan.
• Community facilities (e.g., medical-care facilities, police and fire stations, air-
ports, and train stations) should be supported by proposed land use patterns.
306
They should be located in places that are accessible to specific user groups and
on sites that are economic for construction and of sufficient size to accommo-
date future expansion. Proposed locations should be delineated and protected.
• Infrastructure plans should be coordinated with proposed land uses and ac-
tivity centers. Timing of public investments should be synchronized with
proposed development in the land use design. Sources of future water supply
s as well as sites for future solid waste management facilities should be delin-
Q)

> eated and protected.

Ci:i

-
>
0 • Major parks and large open spaces should be reserved in locations that take
advantage of and protect valuable and vulnerable natural processes, envi-
ronments, and unusual natural features, and to provide for a variety of rec-
l-
a: reation opportunities. Wooded areas and other open space should also be
;:;i:
located to provide definition to neighborhoods and districts as well as to
moderate climate, noise, light, and air pollution; they should also provide
access to open space.
• Most development should be kept away from environmentally hazardous
areas such as floodplains, fault lines, steep slopes susceptible to slides, and
unstable soils. Lower-density development using on -site sewage treatment
should be prohibited from areas of unsuitable soils and areas best suited for
more urban development.
Location Standards versus Principles "Standards" add specificity and mean-
ing to principles such as those discussed above (Porter 1996). For example, the
principle of "avoiding environmental hazards" might be stated more specifically
as a standard- not developing in the fifty-year floodplain as delineated on a spe-
cific map. "Accessibility" might be converted to a specific distance measured in
feet, miles, or travel time; for example, a half-mile service area for a neighborhood
park. "Mobility" might be indicated by vehicle hours traveled or delay hours per
capita, and vehicle miles traveled per capita. The principle of"adequate size" might
be converted to a specific minimum number of acres; for example, a minimum
size standard of fifteen acres for a community park or school, or a standard of 1.5
acres of park space per 1,000 in population. "Economic to public sewerage" might
be stated as within the ridgelines defining a sewershed as drawn on a specific map.
The advantage of standards is that they can be mapped more precisely and there-
fore provide a clearer basis for the suitability analysis and design tasks to follow.
Some standards become established by law. They typically take the form of
minimum or maximum standards determined to be necessary to protect the pub-
lic health, safety, and general welfare and become part of regulations and their
enforcement. For plan making, however, we use what might be called "desirabil-
ity" standards, not minimum standards. A desirability standard establishes a quality
somewhat above the minimum-something practicable to achieve but still ap-
proaching the vision expressed in goals and objectives.

Task 2: Map Location Suitability

In this task, we map the implications of the location principles and standards devel-
oped in task 1, based on the spatial pattern of the factors cited in the principles and
 307
n
standards as desirable or undesirable. That is, based on soils, slope, floodplains, :r::
)>
accessibility to current or proposed employment, shopping, and leisure opportu- -0
-i
m
nities, accessibility to water and sewer lines, roads, and transit, and other data, we ::JJ

-
0
determine and map the relative suitability of locations for specific land use cat-
egories. The resulting maps show relative suitability of locations in the planning -i
~
jurisdiction for each type of land use, policy district, or transportation and com- ro
-0
a;-
munity facility being specified in the land use plan. The methods for generating =>
land use suitability maps are reviewed in chapter 6. :3
Q)
~
A suitability map is not yet a land use design. It is only a mapped analysis of :::>
(.Cl

-0
what the community's location principles imply for land use design possibilities. 0
n
It reflects the mapping of the whole array of principles that can be mapped (i.e., ro

those that apply to existing conditions and assumptions and proposals about the "'"'
future that can be mapped). A suitability map cannot reflect relationships among
future land uses or between land use and transportation and community facilities
still to be proposed in the land use design. Also, it might be that the planner may
need only a small number of sites from a larger number of suitable ones indicated
on a suitability map. However, there may be some sites that are suitable for several
uses and the planner will need to determine which of several suitable uses for a
given location will be proposed there to the exclusion of other suitable uses.

Task 3: Estimate Space Requirements

Having focused on location considerations in tasks 1 and 2, we now shift to esti-
mating how much land will be required in the future to accommodate the antici-
pated future population, economy, and environmental processes incorporated in
the land use design. The bases for space requirements are projections of popula-
tion and employment, studies of the densities of present and future development,
and policies and expectations about the future character of development (e.g., the
mix of housing types and densities).
Space requirements are usually developed in several stages. For the land policy
planning stage and the early stages of land use design , we aim only for general ap-
proximations of the number of acres required for very general land use categories
(e.g., the urban transition area, or for residential development in general). Later, in
estimating space requirements for a specific land use sector in the land use design,
those initial estimates are reexamined and refined to reflect the specific character of
desired development, consumer preferences, and the suitability oflocations for vari-
ous densities or mixes of uses. For example, housing or industry located near the
central business district might be at higher densities than the same activity on the
urban fringe.
In the land use design stage, techniques for estimating space requirements share
a common four-step procedure that more carefully reflects assumptions and policy:
1. Review of existing density characteristics for each particular land use and
the variation in that density by age of development, development type,
and central versus peripheral locations.
2. Decide upon the future level of population and employment to be accom-
modated in the residential and employment areas of the land use design.
308
VJ
c: Correspondingly, for the regional commercial activity centers, projected
-'1e
o._
Q)
trade area population, projected retail sales, and employment in particu-
VJ
:::J
co
lar sectors of the economy are the usual basis for space requirements. Those
c:
co
_J
indicators are also used for community facilities (e.g., population is the
=
c: basis of demand for future recreational facilities).
-""-
co
3. Derive future space standards. Consider existing densities and relative sat-
-
2
0
5
isfaction with them, trends in preferences and development practices, goals
Q)

·2 and policies, and goal-form principles being promoted in the land use
Q)
> design. Space standards might be expressed in such terms as acres of in -

-
0

f-
a:
dustrial land per employee, acres of recreation or school site land per 1,000
in population, square feet of retail space per consumer in the trade area,
and so on. Also, specify minimum site-size standards for such facilities as
<t
o._
schools, shopping centers, industrial parks, office parks, and so on.
The degree to which transit and other public transportation is built into
the land use/transportation design will affect future space standards in sev-
eral ways. It reduces the need for parking lots in major activity centers,
allowing more a compact and pedestrian-oriented development pattern. It
also allows nodes of more intense mixes of local commercial and residen -
tial development around transit stations.
4. Multiply space standards from step 3 by the future population and em-
ployment to obtain estimates of needed space. For example, if the space
standard for an industrial sector is twenty-five employees per acre and the
projected employment is 10,000 employees in that sector, then the im -
plied space need is 400 acres. If the desired housing density planned for
transit station-oriented neighborhoods is twenty-five dwellings per acre
and the plan proposes to locate 1,000 families there, the plan should pro-
vide forty acres or so of land for residential use.

Task 4: Analyze Holding Capacity

The available land supply includes land in non urban uses (e.g., agricultural uses),
vacant land, and developed land slated for redevelopment or substantial rehabili-
tation. The planning jurisdiction is divided into areas based on the suitability
analyses or preliminary land use design proposals. The number of acres available
is then summarized for each area for each of several levels of suitability. Levels of
suitability pertain to a particular land-using activity that can be appropriately
located in that area. If a GIS is used in the suitability analysis, holding capacity
should be calculated for the suitability polygons determined by the suitability
analysis. Based on the standards for space consumption developed in task 3, the
"suitable" acres might be converted to an equivalent number of dwellings, popu-
lation, or number of employees. For example, if the space standard for an indus-
trial sector is twenty-five employees per acre and there are 100 suitable acres in a
location, the holding capacity would be 2,500 employees. Alternatively, such a
conversion may wait until task 5, when holding capacity is balanced against de-
mand for space. The outputs of task 4 are maps and tables indicating the holding
capacities of each planning area (e.g., suitability polygon or preliminary design
 309
n
component of the land use design) for the different uses potentially located there. :::r::
)>
The information may be summarized for the planning area as a whole or for sev- _,
u
rn
eral subdivisions of that total area (e.g., east, west, north, and south sectors). ::J:J

Task 5: Design the Future Urban Form -

C)

_,
=
(])

The previous four tasks are analytic. The fifth task requires inventing alternative :o:i
Q)
:::;
desirable land use, transportation, and community-facility patterns to accommo- 3
Q)
date the desired future population and employment while satisfying location prin - "'
:::;
co
ciples, implications of suitability maps, space requirements, and holding capacities. u
0
Typically the planner explores numerous design schemes and analysis scenarios. ("")
CD

Quantitative and qualitative factors are balanced. Land use, transportation, water, "'
"'
and sewer plans are coordinated in pursuit of the livability, efficiency, environmen-
tal, and equity values derived from the sustainability prism.
Design ideas are tested by comparing the acres required for a use in suitable
locations in a scenario or alternative land use/transportation design scheme against
the holding capacity ofland in those locations. As land is tentatively allocated to a
use, it must be deducted from the holding capacity available for other uses in that
area, since the same location cannot be used by two different land uses unless one
accounts for mixed uses. A sort of spatial accounting system is maintained on
working maps and tables. These are discussed in detail in the following chapters.
If deficiencies in land supply are encountered, some of the land allocated to other
uses earlier in the process, but suitable for a use being allocated later, might be
reallocated to the new use and alternate locations found for the earlier allocated
use. Shortages of suitable land might cause the planner to relax the standards of
suitability, raise future densities, expand the planning area, or reduce the future
level of population and employment that can be accommodated. Generally, how-
ever, the limits of the planning study area are drawn sufficiently large initially so
that the balancing operation shows a surplus rather than a shortage of suitable
land. Such a surplus is expected and is not a cause for reducing the planning area
unless it taxes the data-management capacities of the planning agency or exceeds
the political reach of the local government for whom the planning is being done.
We again note that the land use design incorporates the design of a correspond-
ing transportation system as part of what becomes an urban spatial structure de-
sign. Thus, the design is actually a land use/transportation design that incorpo-
rates transportation into the design of a future urban form. Land use design is
used to solve transportation requirements and transportation solutions support
specific urban land use design proposals. A more systematic analysis of trip gen-
eration, trip distribution, mode split, and assignment of trips along the multimodal
transportation network that is involved in transportation planning and engineering
would follow later, after the community achieves commitment to this joint land use
and transportation design for the urban form. In fact, those four steps are similar to
the combination of tasks 3, 4, and 5 above, estimating demand implied by the future
population and schematic design and allocating it to the schematic design within
the constraints of the estimated holding capacities. The reader is referred to the dis -
cussion of integrated land use and transportation planning in chapter 8.
310
Progression of Attention among Land Uses in the
Design Process
To avoid the complexity of dealing with all land classes or land uses at the same
time, we suggest that the planner separate land uses into several broad categories.
The initial two-category distinction is made in an areawide design that distin-
guishes open space uses such as conservation, agriculture, forestry, and regional
s
Cl.)
·~
recreation from the broad category of general urban uses. Then within the "urban
Cl.)
> use category," th e communitywide land use design addresses the distinction be-

-
0
tween the regional activity centers (for employment, retail activity, and large-scale
community facilities) and residential areas, including housing and local-scale com-
munity faci lities. The focus on distinguishing open space from urban uses be-
cause basic land policy in the areawide plan is followed up by the more explicit
attention to the pattern of activity centers and residential habitats in the
communitywide land use design. The planner must pay attention to the over-
all design during this process. As the plans are refined, the planner will further
disaggregate the broad categories. For example, there might be several types of
employment centers and retail centers with different location and space require-
ments.
The location of future open space, or "non urban" space, is recommended as
the first step in the land use design process. This broad category should include
lands that contain environmental processes (e.g., wetlands that foster nutrient
filtering and flood mitigation), hazardous areas (e.g., floodplains, earthquake fault
lines), resource production (e.g., prime agricultural land or gravel deposits), cul-
tural resources (e.g., historic sites), regional outdoor recreation sites, and areas
that serve aesthetic purposes (e.g., defining the edges of neighborhoods or pro-
viding foregrou nd for a skyline view).
There are several reasons for beginning land use plan making with an initial
design for open space. First, many open space requirements can be expressed in
terms of physical characteristics that already exist and are mapped in the plan-
ning information system. By contrast, location requirements for human activities
are highly interdependent and partially determined by where future employment,
commercial, and residential areas will be located during the plan-making process.
Second, location requirements for natural processes are less flexible than many of
the requirements for urban uses; natural processes must occur where conditions
permit and they are not viable in other locations. Third, technical, after-the-fact
solutions to environmental and natural-hazard problems are becoming increas-
ingly costly and inefficient. It is wiser to anticipate and avoid such problems through
land use design. Finally, the market-oriented urban-development process does
not provide sufficient open space in the right locations for environmental and
recreational purposes. Thus open space, particularly open space for natural pro-
cesses, is vulnerable in the market-oriented urban-development process and in a
human values-oriented and economy-oriented planning process.
After formulating a tentative design for the pattern of open space uses, the
planner normally moves to the task of delineating those areas where new urban
development should be encouraged. For the areawide land policy plan, these are
 311
n
the "urban" areas, including "developed urban" as well as "urban transition" (to be :r:
)>
developed in the future) areas, and perhaps satellite rural community areas. "rn
-j

The next level of consideration for land use categories is then addressed in the :::JJ

-
C)

format of a communitywide land use design. The planner shifts focus first to for-
mulating a regional or communitywide spatial structure of urban activity centers -j
::::r
and facilities such as centers for industrial and office employment; regional com- co
:::o:i
mercial activity centers comprised primarily of retail and population-serving of- Q)

'?
fice uses; and regional facilities such as airport, waste-treatment storage and treat- 3
Q)

ment, colleges, medical centers, and the like. "'

::i
=
After devising alternative scenarios for regional and communitywide activity ~
0
n
co
centers and facilities, we recommend the planner designate locations for residen- en
en
tial communities, including mixed-use communities. This step includes space for
local shopping and recreational facilities, elementary schools and other local resi-
dent-serving facilities, circulation, smaller-scale open-space uses, and possibly
smaller-scale office and other employment sites in addition to the main land-
using category of housing. Of course, some residential uses could be located in
the commercial activity centers.
The land use plan -making process is not a simple linear process, and consider-
able backtracking and adjustments need to be made both within and between
these major categories of land using activities. It is an iterative process. All land
use design allocations are initially tentative, subject to adjustments as adverse
implications or further opportunities emerge in the design process. Table 10-2
summarizes the usual order of consideration for the major categories of land use
in plan making.

Summary
Both areawide land policy plans and communitywide land use design plans require
a similar sequence of stages. They include setting a proper foundation for making a
plan and specifying its purpose and scope; specifying the plan format; executing a
balanced sequence of land and land use analysis and design tasks; and finally creat-
ing a design that balances the many needs and desires of the community.
Setting the foundation involves working with the community to clarify the
purposes of the plan, to establish a plan-making organization and process, and to
create a commitment to adopting, implementing, monitoring, and updating the
plan. It also involves specifying the plans' scope and focus in content, and the
geographic planning area to accommodate the long-range time horizon.
Specifying the plan format or formats involves choosing and mixing among
plan types. It also includes specifying the components of the plan and their orga-
nization into a comprehensible, persuasive, and useful guide to the community's
future development.
The actual plan-making process involves a somewhat complex methodology in-
volving both analysis and design tasks-deriving location principles, creating land
use suitability maps, analyzing future space requirements, analyzing holding capac-
ity of suitable lands and possible design alternatives, and designing spatial arrange-
ments that balance those considerations. The analytic tasks include formulating
312

Table 10-2
Recommended Order of Consideration for Categories of Land Uses in
Plan Making

I. Open Space Uses

a Emphasis is on protecting critical environmental processes and also avoiding
:s:
w natural hazards, protecting economic natural resources such as agricultural and
2':
w forestry land, providing regional outdoor recreation, and aesthetic purposes .
>

-
0

I--
a:
II. Land for General Urban Uses
Emphasis is on delineating the area where policy should encourage new develop-
ment, redevelopment, and major infrastructure investment over the next ten to
twenty years.
<(
D...

Ill. Regional Activity Centers and Facilities (within the "urban" use area)
A. Employment centers and districts
1. Manufacturing and related activities
2 Wholesaling and related uses
3. Office employment centers
4. Others particular to the area (e.g., research park or resort development)
B. Regional commercial centers (mainly retail and services)
1. Central business district(s)
2. Satellite centers-older business centers, newer regional shopping centers,
and multifunctional centers
3. Highway-oriented centers
4. Others, particular to the area (e .g ., urban-oriented tourism)
C. Regional recreational, educational , and cultural facilities
D. Regional transportation (transit, highways, airport, trains, intermodal
connections)
IV. Residential Communities (within the "urban" use area)
A. Housing
B. Local , population-serving activities and facilities
1. Schools
2. Local shopping
3. Parks and neighborhood open space
C. Circulation (transit stations, parking, roads, bicycle lanes and paths, pedestrian
ways, intermodal connections)
V. Specific Area, District, and Small-area Planning applying to all of the above.

location requirements, mapping them in a suitability analysis, estimating future space

requirements, and calculating holding capacity of suitable lands and tentative land
use designs. The design task requires the planner to synthesize the results of the
analytic tasks and invent spatial arrangement soluti ons. This synthesis task is the
kernel ofland use design; the preceding analyses provide information to assist in the
invention and decision tasks of design.
To facilitate the process, land uses are divided into several categories: open space,
gen eral urban uses, regional activity centers, and residential communities. The
 313
n
design process proceeds in that order-open space first, then general urban use :::r::
)>
areas, then activity centers and areawide transportation, and finally residential u
--j
rn
communities and small-area plans (including circulation components) within the ::JJ

urban use areas. Of course, there must be considerable backtracking and adjust-
ments as the process proceeds; it is not linear, but dividing land uses into catego-
ries that are tackled one at a time before synthesizing an overall spatial solution
-
CJ

- -j
=
CD
u
makes plan making more manageable. QJ
::J

The following chapters discuss the application of this analysis and synthesis 3
QJ
~
methodology to the three types of land use plans: areawide land policy (chapter ::J
=u
11), communitywide land use design (chapters 12 and 13), and small-area plans i3
("")

(chapter 14). CD
~

Notes
1. Anderson (2000) offers an insightful explanation of principles, standards, and meth-
ods for estimating the space needs and supply of various types of land uses and commu-
nity facilities .

References
Anderson, Larz. 1995. Guidelines for preparing urban plans. Chicago: APA Planners Press.
Anderson, Larz. 2000. Planning for the built environment. Chicago: APA Planners Press.
American Planning Association. 2002. Growing Smart legislative guidelines. Chicago: Plan-
ners Press.
Hopkins, Lewis. 2001. Urban development: The logic of making plans. Washington, D. C.:
Island Press.
Kaiser, Edward J., David R. Godschalk, Richard E. Klosterm an, and Ann-Margaret Esnard.
1998. Hypothetical city workbook: Exercises, spreadsheets, and GIS data. Champaign:
University of Illinois Press.
Kelly, Eric Damian, and Barbara Becker. 2000. Com munity planning: An introduction to the
comprehensive plan. Washington, D. C.: Island Press.
Porter, Douglas, ed. 1996. Pe1formance standards for growth management. Planning Advi-
sory Service Report No. 461. Chicago: American Planning Association.
Smith, Frank J., and Randolph T. Hester, Jr. 1982. Community goal setting. Stroudsburg,
Pa.: Hutchinson Ross.
 Chapter 11

The Areawide Land Policy Plan

Building on the foundation of issues, scenarios, and visions from your

community report and the goals and policies from your direction-setting
framework, you are now asked to formulate an areawide land policy plan
for your regional planning agency. The plan should be spatially explicit;
that is, it should include a map of land policy districts that specify areas
where urban development and redevelopment will be encouraged, as
well as other areas where development will be discouraged in order to
protect environmental resources and productive agricultural lands.
The plan should specify the district-specific public policies that will
be applied to those districts. It should incorporate water and sewer ser-
vice planning considerations, regional transportation planning consider-
ations, and land market dynamics. The plan should provide sufficient
space in suitable locations to accommodate the population and economic
and environmental parameters that are determined in the community
report.

et us assume that the planning agency and community have completed a

State of Community Report and vision statement as stage 1 and a direc-
tion-setting framework of goals and general policies as stage 2 of the plan-
making process described in chapter 10. The task in stage 3 is to formulate a net-
work of plans that add specificity to the issues, vision, goals, policy guidelines,
and preferred scenarios emerging from stages 1 and 2. The plans must also be
cognizant of the land market and broader land use game and its many stakehold-
ers, and continue the collaborative planning process outlined in chapter 9, follow-
ing through on preferred scenarios developed in the State of Community Report.
This chapter discusses the areawide land policy plan, the first of the several types
of plans in that network. Chapters 12 and 13 discuss the communitywide land use

315
316
design plan, a second type of comprehensive land use plan. In practice, planning
programs sometimes use both approaches, as when a county or regional plan uses
the areawide land policy format while municipalities within the county make
communitywide land use design plans for the urban areas delineated in the areawide
plan. Other communities combine the two types of plans in a hybrid format . Fol-
lowing the comprehensive policy plan or plans, communities often add small-area
plans (chapter 14) to the network to address special issues in specific areas of the
s
Q)

2:
planning jurisdiction, sometimes actually incorporating them into the comprehen-
Q)
> sive plan. Finally, there should be a development-management plan (chapter 15) to

-
0

f-
ee
specify the course of action to achieve the future envisioned in the areawide land
policy plan, communitywide land use design, and the small-area plans. Develop-
ment-management programs are often incorporated into land use design plans and
<(
o_
small-area plans.
The chapter first describes the nature of an areawide land policy plan and how
it contributes to a vision of a sustainable future. In the second section, it describes
the process for designing such a plan, generally applying the five-task approach
described in chapter 10. The next two sections suggest specific techniques in fol-
lowing the five-task approach to the open-space category and urban/urban -tran-
sition categories of policy districts. These techniques can be adapted to narrower
land policy classifications as well as the initial steps in a communitywide urban
land use design plan discussed in following chapters. The fifth section explains
the formulation of a package of implementation policies to be applied in each
policy district. The sixth section describes how to bring it all together into a com-
prehensive, areawide, land policy plan. The final section summarizes the chapter
and looks ahead to the following chapters. Community plan making involves many
actors in a participatory process. In this chapter, we emphasize the technical tasks
of planning professionals within the broader collaborative planning process.
Though they are just one part of the process, planners need to be competent in
completing those tasks as well as adapting them to the process of achieving valid
community plans.

The Concept and Purpose of an Areawide Land Policy Plan

An areawide land policy plan is a spatially explicit statement of a community's land
development and environmental protection policies. It maps those areas of the re -
gion, county, or city-and-vicinity where transition from rural to urban develop-
ment should occur to best accommodate growth and where redevelopment or sig-
nificant infill should occur to accommodate change. It also indicates where develop-
ment should not occur. These areas include, for example, special wildlife habitats,
watersheds where water quality is a critical concern, and areas where natural hazards
such as flooding, storm surge, or expected erosion pose a threat to development.
Locations of major activity centers are sometimes indicated . It might also include
locations of major water, sewer, and transportation facilities, although in practice
the land policy plan format often omits those elements. Essentially, this type of plan
delineates well-defined areas in which future development and redevelopment should
occur and other areas where development should not occur.
 317
n
Like zoning, the areawide land policy plan divides a planning jurisdiction into :r
)>
-u
districts. However, its classifications are not nearly as specific as zoning catego- ___,
rn
:::IJ
ries. The districts will be bigger and their boundaries will be more generalized,
following natural features and infrastructure service-area limits rather than lot
lines as they tend to do in zoning. Further, the plan states general implementation
policies or strategy for each policy district, whereas zoning would state specific
-
___,
:::J
CD
)>

standards and regulatory procedures. Thus, the areawide land policy plan remains ro
Q)

a statement of policy intent, not an ordinance. '.". .

o_
CD
The areawide land policy plan enables a community or region to efficiently ,-
Q)
:::J
concentrate transportation and utilities, including water and sewer, to prespecified o_
-u
D
areas where growth will be encouraged. Those areas are appropriately sized to n
-<
accommodate expected growth and are expanded as necessary over time to re - :::!::!
Q)

spond to changes in growth rate. The plan also relieves development pressure on :::J

areas of environmental significance and areas particularly valuable for agricul -

ture and forestry by designating such areas as conservation and agricultural pro-
duction districts, accompanied by implementation policies to withhold facilities
and services and otherwise discourage development there.
The concept of land policy district classification is not new. One influential early
example, though not commonly recognized as areawide land policy planning, is il-
lustrated by Ian McHarg's approach to land planning (McHarg 1969). He suggested
dividing the planning region into three categories- natural use, production, and
urban. Natural use areas would have the highest priority and exclude even agricul-
ture. Production areas were next in the hierarchy, and include agricultural, forestry,
and fishing uses. That is, "production" is used in the sense of producing food, fiber,
and wood from the land resource; it excludes industrial production. Urban areas,
including industrial production uses, are allocated to lands left over after allocating
land to the two higher priority uses. Urban areas are thus allocated to lands ill-suited
for either natural processes or producing food and fiber. In practice, this approach
would trade off some lands among the three categories to create a more efficient
urban pattern than would result from limiting urban uses strictly to lands having
the poorest suitability for natural processes or producing food and fiber.
Also in the 1960s, Hawaii incorporated mapped land policy districts into its
state land use management program (Bosselman and Callies 1972; DeGrove 1989).
Hawaii divided its land into four categories- conservation, agriculture, rural, and
urban. In this case, policies for each class of land are backed up with state regula -
tions prohibiting certain uses and prescribing development practices. Thus, land
policy districts in Hawaii go beyond the status of a policy plan and become the
explicit basis for land regulation.
A third early example of an areawide land policy plan format is the "develop-
ment framework" of the Twin Cities Metropolitan Council in Minnesota (Reichert
1976). Developed in the 1970s, the development framework divided a seven-county
region into a metropolitan urban service area, freestanding growth centers, and a
rural service area. The metropolitan urban service area is further subdivided into
the "fully developed area" (Minneapolis, St. Paul, and the inner ring of twenty
suburbs) and an area of "planned urbanization" (other suburbs and land in the
path of urban growth).
318
U)
c:
ctl Figure 3-1 in chapter 3 illustrates the use of a land policy districting map as a
key element to the city-county development guide for Winston Salem and Forsyth
County, North Carolina. Figures 3-2 and 3-3 in chapter 3 also contain elements of
a land policy district approach in a hybrid plan that also includes land use design
components for Howard County, Maryland.
The land policy plan is particularly suited to addressing the environmental and
-s
0
economic efficiency dimensions of the suitability prism. It protects environmen-
Q)

·2 tal processes and resources in areas critical to the environmental and agricultural
Q)
> sustainability of the region. It also promotes a regional economy by preserving

-
0

~
0::
sufficient and appropriately located space for economic activity while conserving
local resources. And it promotes economic efficiency in providing water and sewer
and other utilities by coordinating urban transition with the most efficient public
<(
o_
infrastructure investment configuration. Less directly, the land policy plan also pro-
motes the equity and livability dimensions of the sustainability prism. It controls
sprawl, contributing to more equitable land use patterns. Density issues, particu-
larly in developed and developing areas, and redevelopment issues in particular,
imply livability issues. Also the vision of a livable region suggests the desirability of
designing a regional pattern of open-space elements, urban districts and centers,
and even connecting infrastructure, transportation, and greenway corridors. Thus
the entire range of sustainability values is addressed and the entire range of stake-
holders needs to be involved in the plan-making process.

The Overall Process for Areawide Land Policy Planning

The suggested areawide land policy planning process consists of five steps:
1. Direction setting, including not only goals and general policies, but also the
issues, scenarios, and visions of the community report, if not already accom-
plished in stages 1 and 2 of the plan-making process (see chapters 9 and 10);
2. Formulating a system of land policy classifications to be used in the plan;
3. Mapping those classifications as policy districts;
4. Specifying implementation policies for each land classification district; and
finally,
5. Adopting and implementing the plan.

Direction Setting
If direction setting has been completed, the starting points for areawide land policy
planning are the analyses of existing and emerging conditions and issues, likely
and desirable scenarios, vision statements, goals and objectives, and general poli-
cies that are described in chapters 9 and 10, and in this chapter. If there has been
no prior direction setting, the areawide land policy planning should begin with
those tasks, undertaken within an inclusionary collabo rative planning process as
described in chapter 9.
 319
n
Formulating a System of Land Policy Classifications :::r::
)>
u
___,
Next, the system of land policy classifications to be employed as districts in the m
::JJ

plan should be decided. The categories may be modified later to reflect improved
understanding of problems and issues.
The policy districts in most plans today can be divided into three basic types.
-
___,
::J
CD

Areas specified for urban growth are called by various names in areawide land )>
m
policy plans: settlement areas, urban areas, urban-transition areas, development Q)

~
o._
areas, or planned development areas, to name a few. Areas where development CD
r-
should be restricted for environmental reasons are called conservation areas, open- Q)
::::J
o._

space, or areas of critical environmental concern, among other names. Still other u
a
areas, which are less environmentally critical but not designated for development ("")
-<
:::i::i
for the life of the plan, are often called rural areas. These areas are intended for Q)
::::J

agricultural or forestry activities. Some parts of the rural district may be intended
as "hands off" for urban development, more or less permanently. Other parts may
be intended as off-limits for urban development only for a time, until more land
for urbanization is required in a new plan.
Figure 11-1 diagrams a general hierarchy of land policy classification possibili-
ties for consideration, based on the authors' review of many plans. Terminology
varies and many additional possibilities may be relevant, depending on the par-
ticular situation.
Conservation districts are lands where development would jeopardize signifi-
cant, scarce, or irreplaceable natural, recreational, scenic, and historic resources;
prime agricultural and forest lands; and where long-term protection of the re-
source is deemed necessary or lands where natural hazards would jeopardize life
and property if developed. This is land, wetlands, or shoreline where develop-
ment should be prohibited or undertaken only with caution and under strict con-
trols. Conservation areas are sometimes divided into three types (see left side of
Figure 11-1). One type is "area of critical environmental concern," such as flood-
plains, wetlands, stream networks, shorelines, valuable wildlife habitat, or a more-
or-less pristine water-supply watershed, where public interests are obvious and
where more rigorous regulation of both urban and intense rural activities can be
more easily justified. A second type is prime resource land, such as highly produc-
tive land for agriculture or forestry. The third type consists of less vulnerable and
less environmentally vulnerable areas, where a limited amount of compatible de-
velopment could occur under standards that protect natural processes; for ex-
ample, water-supply watersheds.
The urban-settlement districts (see the right side of Figure 11-1) are where the
plan directs most of the urban growth. They are often divided into already-devel-
oped areas and areas for transition from rural to urban uses. The developed areas
comprise existing stable neighborhoods that the community wishes to protect,
vacant lands suited for infill development, and neighborhoods and commercial
areas where the community will encourage redevelopment to a different mix of
uses and densities. These might be subclassifications of the "developed area" cat-
egory; each requiring a different policy mix. Urban-transition districts should be
 '

PART Ill I
w
Overview of Ma king La nd Use Plans N
0

Planning Area
(e.g., a region, county, or municipality and surrounding area to be included in the plan)

. l
Conservation Rural Use Urban/Settlement/Development
(natural resources protected, (agricultural & forestry production) (urban development and redevelopment)
development constrained)

r- -,
(possibly)
f · ··--··· I
l
Areas of critical Other Agricultural reserve, Rural Community Developing/Growth districts* Developed
environmental forestry, other holding district centers (for rural-urban transition) districts .
concern production, oriented (poss. development (low density)
resource districts in long range)
I I I ,-
I
·1 r---- l
Particular types of districts
(e.g. , wetlands, water,
Particular types of districts
(e.g., vineyards, truck farms,
Satellite
growth
Urban-transition Redevelopment
districts
I Stable
districts
dis[°t(s)
hurricane hazard, orchards) centers
beach erosion area, (e.g., new towns) Infill Historical
unique envir./scenic resource) areas preservation
I I I I areas
0-5 5-10 10-20 long range
years years years future
development

*These areas in particular should be coordinated with infrastructure planning, especially sewerage planning.

Fig. 11 - 1 A hierarchy of land policy classification categories.

 321
n
relatively free of environmental limitations and either already have urban services :::r::
)>
or be situated so that sewer, water, transportation, and other urban services can u
---l
rn
be extended efficiently. Urban-transition districts are sometimes divided into near- :::J:J

term development areas where utilities and services are available or will be pro-
vided shortly, and longer-term areas where utilities and services will be provided
later. For example, the transition area might be divided into five-year, five- to ten-
-=
---l
<D
)>
year, and ten- to twenty-year service areas. Some plans provide for a third type of roOJ
:;;;:
urban area, satellite growth centers, in specific locations within the rural area. A CL
<D
satellite growth center might represent a new town or other large planned com- ,-
Q)
::J
munity of mixed land uses where urban level services are intended. CL
u
a
The rural district classification (center part of Figure 11-1) comprises areas where n
-<
development pressure is generally less intense; where urban services are not required u
OJ
nor easily extended, which may be in productive but not critical agricultural, for- ::J

estry, and mineral extraction uses; and that are suitable for a modest amount of low
density employment and housing. Natural resources in these areas should not be so
vulnerable as to be threatened by rural and low-density urban activities, or else they
would be better defined as conservation. Rural areas may include agricultural or
forest areas that have been divided into small tracts that are no longer suited to
commercial-scale agricultural or forestry management. They may also include rural
"holding zones," some of which eventually could be reclassified for urbanization.
For the time being, however, urban services will not be provided and urban density
growth with urban services will be discouraged. Within the rural district, plans some-
times designate rural residential community nodes, or rural commercial or indus-
trial nodes, where low-density residential, commercial, and industrial uses can be
clustered without public urban infrastructure and services.
Whatever the particular land policy classification system selected, it might be
described in the plan in a table similar to Table 11-1. Such a table summarizes the
types of land policy classes in the plan, the purposes of each class, its character
regarding the types of land, infrastructure, and land use densities in that district,
and the public policy applicable to the district. The table supplements and helps
explain the land policy classification map, which is discussed next.

Mapping Land Policy Districts

Once the land policy classification system is decided, the planning team draws
them onto a map. That is, the planner must delineate the districts on a map, coin-
ciding with the various policy districts of the classification system. This is essen-
tially a design process, following the five -task sequence outlined in chapter 10 and
summarized in Figure 10-1. The process involves formulating location principles
for each land policy classification category, mapping the variation in suitability
for each category, projecting its demand for space, assessing the holding capacity
of suitable lands and tentatively mapped land policy districts, and finally drawing
the map of land policy districts. The challenge is to provide sufficient land for
development in efficiently served locations that respect the land development
market while protecting natural and agricultural resources vulnerable to devel-
opment. That process is illustrated in detail later in the chapter as applied to the
mapping of conservation districts and urban-growth districts.

Table 11-1
Illustrative Summary Description of a Land Policy Classification System
Land Classes Purposes Characteristics
Developed- To provide for infill and Stable; appropriately
conservation protection of stabilized developed, with full
and infill neighborhoods. infrastructure, community
facilities, and services.
Developed- To provide for redevelopment Land currently developed
redevelopment of existing less appropriately inefficiently for urban
developed commercial and purposes, with urban services
residential areas . available.
Transition- To provide for future Lands being developed for urban
general intensive urban purposes but that do not yet
development on lands have usual urban services, lands
that are most suitable necessary to accommodate
and that can to be population growth for the next
scheduled for provision ten-year period, lands that can
of necessary public be readily serviced with usual
utilities and services . urban services, lands generally
free from severe physical
limitations for development.
Transition- Lands designated for near-
immediate term development, generally
development contiguous to "developed"
areas, having some or most
infrastructure required for
development already in
place; not in hazardous or
environmentally sensitive areas.
Transition- Lands designated for medium -
medium -term term development with
development developer participation in
infrastructure; generally
contiguous to "developed"
or "immediate development"
districts lacking some
infrastructure; not in
hazardous or environmentally
sensitive areas .
PART Ill I
Overview of Making Land Use Pl ans N
Residential
Population Density
Existing moderate to
high density.
Existing moderate to
high density.
Moderate to high density.
Moderate to high
density.
Moderate to high density.
w
N
General Policy
Protective
regulations,
maintenance of
public spaces .
Upgrade infrastructure
and regulations, joint
public/private
development.
Provide urban infra-
structure and services,
supportive development
regulations.
Provide infrastructure ,
community facilities ,
and services; supportive
regulations; annexation ;
coord ination with
community improve-
ment program.
Allow development
concurrent with public-
private collaboration on
small-area plans and
provision of urban
infrastructure.
Table 11-1 (continued)
Illustrative Summary Description of a Land Policy Classification System
Land Classes Purposes
Rural To provide for agriculture,
forest management, mineral
extraction , and various other
low-intensity uses on large
sites, including residences
where urban services are
not required and natural
resources will not be
unduly impaired ; to
encourage preservation of
scenic resources and guard
against the premature or
unreasonable alteration of
irreplaceable, limited, or
significant natural , scenic,
historic, or other resources
not otherwise classified.
Conservation To provide for effective long-
term management of lands
with limited or irreplaceable
natural, recreational, or
scenic resources essentially
undisturbed by human
occupancy.
Characteristics Residential
Population Density General Policy
Land identified as appropriate Low-density single-family Regulations covering
locations for natural residence and low-density septic tanks and rural
resources management and commercial and industrial clustering with rural
allied uses; lands with high development on sites to level services (e .g.,
potential for commercial be determined by local rescue squad, volunteer
agriculture, forestry, or min - conditions and planning fire department) .
eral extraction; lands with one standards.
or more limitations that would
make development costly and
hazardous; and lands containing
irreplaceable, limited, or
significant natural, recreational,
or scenic resources not
classified as conservation;
development is on private
septic tanks and wells .
Lands that contain major wetlands; Essentially very restricted Very strict develop-
undeveloped shorelands that are or no development. ment controls; with-
necessary wildlife habitats; hold infrastructure;
publicly owned water- acquisition of land
supply watersheds and aquifers; and development
large undeveloped tracts of forests rights .
with limited access; and lands
that contain significant natural
scenic or recreational resources .
No services and limited access.
w
ue1d AJ iiOd pue1 ap1Mea1v a41 I l l tl31d\IH::J N
w
324
Formulating Implementation Policies for Each Land Policy District
In conjunction with designing and mapping a land policy classification system,
planners formu late implementation policies to promote the desired land uses in
the districts designated on the land policy map. Those policies include commit-
ments to public investments in roads, transit, sewers, water supply, schools, and
other governmental facilities and services where urban development is desired,
s
Q.l
and withholding them or increasing their price substantially and adding develop-
·~
Q.l
ment restrictions in districts where development is not desired. The policies will

-
>
0 also suggest the tenor of regulations and standards that prohibit development,
reduce its density, or require site planning measures in conservation districts and
other areas where development is not desired or where side effects must be care-
f-
0::
<( fully controlled. Finally, policies might suggest incentives for development or non-
CL.
development through preferential taxation, tax abatement, grants, preferential-
service provisions, and other measures. Each policy classification district will have
its own package of implementation policies, ultimately to be expressed in capital
improvements, regulations, and incentives.

Combining the Results into a Plan for Publication, Adoption, and

Implementation
The results of the steps above should be pulled together and presented in a man-
ner that facilitates public debate, evaluation, and choice of spatially explicit devel-
opment policy. After adoption, the areawide land policy plan should be published
in a format that makes it clear and usable to elected and appointed officials, citi-
zens, developers, and others in the land development industry.
Let's say the planner and community have completed direction-setting tasks
and have decided to use the areawide land policy plan format as the next step in
comprehensive spatial policy planning. In the remainder of the chapter, we focus
on the issues and processes involved in designating two types of policy classifica-
tion districts-open-space/conservation districts and urban districts. We will ad-
dress open-space as a rather inclusive term, relevant to both the areawide land
policy plan and the land use design plan discussed in the next chapter.

Delineating Open-space Conservation Districts for the

Land Policy Map
The purposes of designating an area as a critical environmental area or conservation
area in the areawide land policy plan, or a land use design for that matter, are several:
• Give notice to landowners, developers, elected officials, and others about
specific lands where natural processes and features are sensitive to certain
human activities and therefore subject to development controls or acquisi-
tion, or specific sites intended for future public recreational, cultural, or
scemc uses;
• Provide the legal and political basis for an open -space protection pro-
gram of regulations, acquisitions, and other public actions, such as with-
holding sewerage and other urban services;
 325
n
• Establish priorities among lands suitable for open-space purposes and fo- :r:
)>
cus attention and resources on those locations where existing or potential _,
"'
rn
::J:J
problems, or opportunities, are most significant;
• Deny public subsidies and other encouragement to development in such
areas (e.g., eliminating loans or grants for capital improvements on unde-
-
_,
::::;
CD
veloped barrier islands); )>
ro
Q)

The five-task land use design procedure outlined in Figure 10-1 in the preceding :;!
(1
chapter is modified slightly in the case of open -space allocation. First, prior to the CD
,--
Q)

first step in the five-step process, the planner must determine the purposes to be "'
Cl..

served by each of several open-space classifications; they are not necessarily as "'
0
n
obvious as for other land uses. Second, space requirements and holding capacity -<

analyses (tasks 3 and 4) do not apply to the same degree for open-space as for "'
QJ

"'
urban uses. As a result, the sequence of tasks in delineating the conservation clas-
sifications in the areawide land policy plan, or the open -space uses in th e
communitywide urban land use design, is as follows:
• Predesign Task: Determine the purposes to be served and the human uses
that are compatible with those purposes by each conservation (open-space)
classification to be utilized in the plan.
• Task 1: For each open-space purpose, formulate location principles and
standards, including specification of human uses consistent with the open-
space purpose.
• Task 2: Map areas suitable for each open-space purpose by analyzing the
land supply with respect to characteristics relevant to the principles and
standards developed in task l.
• Task 3: Where a minimum-size parcel is required for a particular open-
space category, formulate minimum size standards (estimating a required
total amount of space, however, does not apply for most open-space pur-
poses).
• Task 4: Analyze the holding capacity of suitable lands and trial open-space
designations, based on the size, shape, and other characteristics necessary
to achieve the open-space purpose.
• Task 5: Make trial allocations of land to open space; i.e., design an open-
space system.
These steps are accomplished for each open-space category, one at a time, but are
conscious of land that can serve multiple open-space conservation purposes. The
results should be regarded as "trial" allocations because the planner may reallo-
cate some of the space to urban uses later in the plan-making process.

Predesign Task: Determining the Purposes of the Open-space

Conservation Classifications
Open space is not a single land use but rather a broad sector of land uses. As an
initial step in plan making, it is useful to classify open-space categories on the
basis of the major purposes being served at particular locations. For example, the
326
"'
c
ro major purpose of one conservation district might be to protect people and prop-
0:::
(!) erty from flooding while in another district it is to protect the water quality in a
~"' water-supply watershed. Different purposes tend to call for different physical and
""Cl
c
ro
_J
location requirements and different implementation policies. Thus, a first step in
01
~
c open-space classification planning is to decide the major categories of open space
ro
2 in the plan, based on the open-space purposes to be served.
The following open-space purposes are generalized from a review of open-
space reports and plans. These categories are suggestive, not exhaustive, and may
be modified for any particular community. Furthermore, some classifications for

-
f-
a::
<(
the plan might be intended to meet several purposes; a floodplain might also serve
as a recreation site or a wildlife habitat, for example.
• Protection of property and people from natural environmental hazards.
Q_
These areas present danger from flooding, landslides, avalanches, quakes,
tidal waves, hurricane winds, shifting shorelines, volcanic eruptions, and
other natural hazards. Development in such areas would be prohibited or
substantially regulated to avoid loss of life, property damage, disruption to
the economy and social structure of the community, and the costs of pro-
tecting development from the hazards.
• Protection of natural resources and environmental processes. These are
areas where significant natural processes are vulnerable to construction
practices; urban land use activities; or agricultural, forestry, and mining
activities. Such natural processes perform useful functions for both nature
and people, such as water storage and purification, dispersal of atmospheric
pollution, flood control, erosion control, topsoil accumulation, .wildlife
breeding and spawning, and wildlife and plant habitat. More specific pur-
poses might include preservation of estuaries, freshwater wetlands, unique
forests, shorelines, special watersheds, and groundwater-recharge areas. This
purpose is the opposite of the first category above; in this case, the purpose
is protecting the natural environment from people rather than protecting
people from environmental hazards.
• Protection and management of natural resources for economic produc-
tion. These areas include prime agricultural lands, prime timber lands,
mineral deposits (including sand and gravel deposits near urban areas for
the construction industry), fish and shellfish breeding grounds for com-
mercial and sportfishing, and water-supply watersheds and groundwater-
recharge areas of aquifers used for public water supply. This category is
distinguished from the second category by its concern for protection of
economic rather than environmental values. Although agricu ltural and
forestry are accommodated in the rural classification in most plans, criti-
cal agricultural land or forests might be a special category of conservation.
• Protection and enhancement of natural and cultural amenities. These
areas contain unique landscape features such as cliffs, bluffs, and other geo-
logic formations; clear streams, rapids, and waterfalls; and important shore-
lines. Even pleasant scenes such as bridges, cemeteries, churches, pastoral or
sylvan landscapes, and lands that serve as foreground to enable observation
 327
n
of such scenes could be included, although these purposes are often em- :::r::
)>
phasized more in the land use design plan (see following chapters). Open u
-I
m
space for protection and enhancement of natural and cultural amenities, ::D

unlike the first three categories above, may require public access and infra-
structure improvements to derive the full benefit of the open space.
· Protection or provision of outdoor recreation, education, or cultural fa-
-
-I
=
CD
)>

cilities. These are places suitable for active outdoor recreation, trails, camp- co
Q)

~.
sites, fairgrounds, zoos, golf courses, outdoor concert areas, and so on. Thus, 0..
CD
r-
open space contributes to social-use values as well as environmental values. Q)
::i
0..

· Shaping urban form. These areas might be greenbelts, open-space wedges u

Q_
r; ·
and corridors, buffer areas, plazas and commons, construction setback lines, <
3'
and other open space to give imageability to a town or city. Together with Q)
::i

the provision of natural amenities, this purpose is often associated with

urban design. This purpose applies at many urban scales, from metropoli-
tan form, to small-area plans, to planned unit developments.
The first three purposes are most often associated with areawide land policy
planning; the fourth, fifth, and sixth are more often introduced in follow-up land
use design and small-area plans. The most critical conservation areas-produc -
tive wetlands, endangered species habitats, or beach erosion zones- are some-
times designated "environmentally critical areas" or "areas of environmental con-
cern," and receive specific direct attention in follow-up development-management
programs. Some agricultural and urban uses might be prohibited from some con-
servation areas either to protect natural processes from harmful effects of urban-
ization or to protect people and property from natural hazards. In other situa-
tions, however, development need not be totally prohibited if site-development
standards or best agricultural or forestry management practices protect the envi-
ronmental values at stake.
Thus, there might be several types of open-space conservation policy districts in
a plan. For example, a plan might contain a water-supply watershed, floodplains
and wetland areas, critical agricultural lands or forests, and a beach conservation
area. Each of these policy districts would have a different package of implementa-
tion policies, and some of them might be serving several open-space purposes (e.g.,
a beach conservation area might serve recreation as well as storm protection pur-
poses).

Task 1. Formulating Location Principles

Every community must decide its own design principles, based on its vision and
goals and the particular open-space purposes being emphasized. Nevertheless,
the discussion of general types of location principles for areawide policy plans in
chapter 10 and the more specific principles for particular land policy districts that
follow illustrate the concept of design principles and suggest some starting points
for planners. Most are intended to guide land policy classification as well as urban
land use design, but some, particularly those at the end, apply to development-
management system design as well.
 328
"'c
ro Illustrative Open-space Design Principles (regardless of open-space purpose)
o_
Q)
Conservation lands should include (possibly select from the following checklist):
"'
::::J major wetlands; undeveloped shorelands that are unique, fragile, or hazardous for
-0
c
ro
_J
development; critical wildlife habitats (i.e., habitats that are critical to the survival of
OJ
'= unique or endangered species or that contain an unusual diversity of native wildlife
-""
ro
species); publicly owned water-supply reservoirs and their watersheds; state, federal,
-s
2
D other government-controlled parks and fo rests; "areas of critical environmental con-
Q) cern" as defined by state or regional agencies; floodplains; steep hillsides and mudslide
2:
Q)
> areas; and other lands containing significant natural, scenic, or recreational resources.

-
0

f-
0::
· Compatibility principle: The proposed uses of an open -space area must
be (a) suited to the physical characteristics of the area; and (b) compatible
among themselves so that one particular use does not destroy the value of
<(
o_
the site for other intended purposes.
/ · Linkage or continuity principle: The value of an open-space area is in-
creased if it contributes to the continuity of a multipurpose open-space
system or network.
• Accessibility principle: Depending on the proposed function of an open-
space area, public access or the prevention of access can be quite impor-
tant. For example, access is necessary for recreational sites whereas denial
of access may be necessary to preserve an endangered species habitat.
· Urban pressure principle: Priority is increased if urban development on a
critical site is imminent.

Illustrative Principles for Open-space Areas Intended to Protect People and

Private Property from Natural Hazards
• In the plan, do not allocate urban development to floodways or floodway
fringes, and prohibit encroachment in water courses and floodways through
regulations. The 100-year flood is most often used as a standard due to fed -
eral floodplain management guidelines, but some communities specify the
fifty-year floodplain .
• Allowable uses might include those that do not reduce flood -storage capacity
and do not involve materials that are buoyant, flammable, explosive, or toxic.
• The lowest floor of any structure should be at least one foot above the level of
the 100-year (or possibly the fifty-year) flood.

Illustrative Principles for Open-space Areas Intended to Protect and Manage

Valuable Natural Resources and Environmental Processes
Identify ecosystem units that can serve as basic planning units. One approach
is to base the ecosystem unit on the watershed concept. A watershed represents
geographic boundaries of natural processes such as stormwater runoff or a
water-supply source. It also is relatively easily identified; it is related to the bound-
aries of animal and plant communities and other natural resources and pro-
cesses, and it represents a basic physical system that must be considered in
providing sewerage and water service to urban development. Alternatively, the
geographic units may be based on other environmental characteristics (e.g.,
 329
n
soils and geology or wildlife habitats). See chapter 6 for a discussion of ecosys- :::r::
)>
tem units and wildlife habitats and the principles associated with them. _,
u
m
::JJ
• Preserve and manage vegetative cover, especially on steep slopes and along
streams, to maintain natural infiltration and runoff processes; prevent un-
due erosion, sedimentation, and organic pollution of water courses; stabilize
stream banks; provide wildlife habitat; and control water temperature for
-
_,
:::;;
CD
)>

fish. Standards for steep slopes vary from 10 to 25 percent grades. Sometimes ro
Q)
:;;:
plans link the percentage of open space required to the degree of slope; that C1
CD
r-
is, the steeper the slope, the greater the amount of open space required and Q)
::J
CL
the lower the overall density of development allocated in the plan and al- u
a
lowed by regulations. Standards for buffer widths along streams vary from
fifty to three hundred feet . "'
-<
u
Ci)
::J

• Allocate wetlands and immediately adjacent areas to open -space conserva-

tion in the plan. In the development-management program, apply special
controls to those areas.
• Preserve a few large areas rather than numerous small ones. Areas should be
large enough to support wildlife and natural processes of interest with a good
probability of success.
• Areas intended to preserve wildlife habitat should be of appropriate size and
shape, and be clustered and connected by corridors (see Dramstad, Olson,
and Forman 1996; Noos and Cooperrider 1994; and chapter 6).

Illustrative Principles for Using Open Space to Protect and Manage Natural
Resources for Economic Production (e.g., Water-supply Watersheds)
• Allocate only appropriate uses and lower-density development in water-supply
watersheds and in major groundwater-recharge areas; limit uses, density, and
impervious surface through regulations in such areas. For example, high-
risk land uses include commercial and industrial uses such as auto shops and
gas stations, chemical processing or storage, dry cleaners, and research labs,
to list a few. Low-risk land uses might include office buildings, low-density
housing, and rangeland.
• Future water-supply watersheds should be designated and protected through
development-management measures to ensure that allowable uses do not
contribute significant levels of pollutants. For example, extra restrictions
should be established on septic tank systems and landfills.

Illustrative Principles for Using Open Space to Protect, Provide, and Enhance
Natural Amenities
• Give highest priority to those areas having the rarest amenities. Among such
physical amenities might be forest cover (percentage of area), slopes (per-
centage of area with over 20 percent slope), type of habitats, wetlands, and
streams (e.g., water quality; stream order and gradients; average floodplain
width; average valley height and width; stream width, depth, and velocity;
and streambed material).
• Provide ample physical and visual access to the amenity.
 330
U)
c
ro
Illustrative Principles for Using Open Space to Provide and Enhance Sites for
0::::
Q) Outdoor Recreational, Educational, and Cultural Opportunities (much of the
U)
:::J
"O
following applies especially to land use design rather than areawide land policy
c
ro
_J
plans)
en
c
~ • Distinguish user-oriented from resource-based urban recreation areas.
ro
2= User-oriented areas for such activities as tennis, golf, swimming, picnicking,
0 and outdoor games should be close to users; they are used weekdays as well
:s:
Q)
·:; as weekends. Sizes of such sites range from one acre to one hundred acres.
Q;
> Although resource-based recreation areas should not be too far from the us-

-
0

f-
cc
ers, the higher priority is on locating them where the best land and water
resources exist. Activities include picnicking, hiking, swimming, hunting, fish -
ing, camping, and canoeing. Such areas are generally used on weekends or
<l'.
CL
daylong outings. The size of such an area ranges from one hundred to several
/
thousand acres; for example, county and state parks and forest preserves.
(Note: Resource-based recreation, educational, and cultural areas should be
allocated early in the plan -making process because of their dependence on
the physical characteristics of the location of such resources. Tentative loca-
tions for the regional-scale, user-oriented recreation areas might be selected
during the areawide land policy plan stage, and then firmed up as the future
population distribution is made clearer during the land use design stage. Al-
location of space for community-scale and neighborhood-scale recreation
areas can wait until later in the land use design stage and is addressed as part
of residential areas in chapter 13; they are usually not part of the areawide
land policy plan.)

Illustrative Principles for Using Open Space to Shape Urban Form (more rel-
evant for land use design stage than for areawide land policy plan stage)
• Use open space established for other purposes listed above whenever pos-
sible.
• Open-space can establish clear edges to delineate communities, neighbor-
hoods, districts, and other elements of urban form.
• Utilize vantage points of high elevations, promontories, points, and other
prominent locations to provide views.

Task 2. Mapping the Suitability of Lands for Each Open-space Purpose

In this task, the planner uses th e geographic information system to map the varia-
tion in suitability for open-space uses according to the location principles deter-
min ed in task 1. A separate suitability map is developed for each open-space classi-
fication to be used in the plan. The mapping process involves weighing multiple
variables pertaining to the location principles as they affect the suitability of a piece
of land to the particular open-space purpose. It combines the results into one map
of the variation in suitability across the planning area for that particular open-space
purpose. For example, a suitability map to help designate open space for the pur-
pose of avoiding natural hazards might show the degree of risk of property damage
 331
n
based on a composite of floodways, floodway fringe areas, hurricane flood areas, :r:
}>
u
earthquake subsidence and liquefaction zones, and other hazards. There might also --j
rn
be composite maps that show lands that meet several open-space purposes simulta- :J:J

neously, making those areas even more important to designate for conservation. See
chapter 6 for a detailed description of methods for analyzing, determining, and
mapping composite land suitability.
-
- -j
=
m
}>
Suitability analyses of lands for open-space purposes often consider factors in m
Q)

addition to environmental suitability. For example, open space might be classified ~

Cl_
m
accord ing to whether it is (1) already protected; (2) important but not yet pro - r-
Q)
::J
tected and at the same time is under urban -development pressure; or (3) unpro- Cl_

u
0
tected but not under urbanization pressure (such land will continue to serve open- n
-<
space purposes without the need for governmental intervention in the sho rt term ). ~
Q)

The Portland metropolitan regional government (1992) incorpora ted three ::J

different types of criteria in estimating the suitability of natural land s fo r pur-

chase or other protective action-biological criteria, human criteria to inco rpo -
rate user perspectives, and land protection criteria, such as whether th e lan d is
protected by a land trust. The specific criteria in these categories were:

Biological Criteria
• Rarity of the ecosystem
• Connection to other habitats
• Biological diversity
• Parcel size
• Wetlands and waterways
Biological restoration possibility

Human Criteria
• Public access
• Views and vistas
• Local public support
• Historic or cultural significance
• Connection to other protected or proposed sites
• Location/distribution

Land Protection Criteria

• Inside or outside the urban-growth boundary
• Development constraints
• Zoning
• Existing protection by other means (e.g., land trust)
Some of this spatial database came from a jurisdictionwide general planning sup-
port system. Other more detailed data were gathered by on-site field surveys of
157 candidate sites, added to the spatial database, and then analyzed by experts.
332
U")
c
m
The data were used for identifying sites for greenways, pedestrian and bike trails,
Q) and parks, as well as wildlife habitats and general conservation.
U")
::::J
-0
Again, methods for suitability analyses are described in chapter 6.
c
m
_J

Task 3. Estimating Space-quantity Requirements

Space-quantity standards are generally not relevant for open space intended to
-s
0

Q)
protect natural processes, avoid exposing development to natural hazards, or shape
c urban form. The amount of open space required for those conservation purposes
Q)
> is determined primarily by the pattern of physical determinants (e.g., how much

-
0

f-
0::
land happens to occur in floodplains) coupled with the particular standards to be
applied (e.g., more land would be in a 100-year floodplain than in a fifty-year
floodplain).
<l:
o_
For recreational uses, however, three types of space requirements are appli-
cable:
• number of recreation sites of a particular type per 1,000 in population,
• minimum site size for that type of recreation site, and
• aggregate recreation acreage per 1,000 in population.
These standards should be adapted to each community's leisure activity culture and
its financial capability. Furthermore, factors such as the site's physical suitability for
recreational uses would be important in determining the amount of land needed;
more acreage is usually needed if the site is on hilly land, for example.
Ecological principles may also suggest minimum acreage for maintaining a vi-
able wildlife or plant community. Minimum sizes may vary from ten to fifteen
acres for some wetland habitats. See chapter 6 on landscape and wildlife habitat,
including Figure 6-14. See also Dramstad, Olson, and Forman (1996).

Task 4: Analyzing Holding Capacity

Like space requirements, this task is seldom relevant to open-space allocation,
except for recreation lands and certain wildlife habitats. For recreation, the plan-
ner would compare the sizes of suitable areas with minimum site-size standards.
For other open-space purposes, the suitability maps, in a sense, define both the
demand and the supply side.

Task 5: Making Trial Allocations of land to Open-space Conservation

Policy Districts
Based on the foregoing analyses, the planner now allocates land to open-space
purposes and districts. Ideally, the planner explores several alternative designs for
discussion among the planning team, policy makers, and stakeholders. For each
alternative, the planner draws the boundaries of the open spaces, calculates the
land therein, and summarizes it in a table. Table 11-2 indicates one way to sum-
marize open-space allocations. Such a table should be accompanied by a map
showing the locations and boundaries of open-space classifications, perhaps with
annotations about specific purposes served and relative priority of the open space
 333
n
:r:
p
Table 11-2 u
-j
rn
::D
Illustrative Table of a Trial Open-space Allocation

Open-space Classification/
Design Component'
Open-space Priority Categories
High Medium Low Total
-=
-j

CD
p
Natural resource conservation xx 2 xx xx xxxx a;
Q)

~
Prim e agricultural conservation xx xx xx xx xx o_

Water-supply w at ershed xx xx xx xx xx ,.
CD

Q)
:::J
Regional parklands xx xx xx xx xx o._
u
0

1. The ca tego ri es are illustrative and vary from plan to plan . n

-<
2. The xx's in dicate t hat f igures on numbers of acres wou ld be inserted in an actual case . ::c::!
Q)
:::J

in the overall design. The xx's used in Table 11-2 and in some other tables in the
following chapters merely indicate that figures on numbers of acres would be
inserted in an actual case. The figures will vary from case to case; hence, the use of
xx's in the tables in this text.
Until other land use categories are incorporated into the plan, the allocation to
open space remains a trial design. Some of the land that might seem best allocated to
open space at this point may be found later in the design process to be even more
appropriate for urban use. In other words, the benefit achieved by the open-space
use must eventually be balanced against the needs of other land uses. The open -
space designations must also be tested for political acceptance, in the context of th e
local government's regulatory authority and fiscal considerations and the imple-
mentation strategies to be incorporated in the development-management program.
How far is the governmental jurisdiction prepared to go in regulating land areas for
conservation purposes and in acquisition of property rights? If conservation areas-
are to be established through regulatory measures, will landowners have an eco-
nomic use of their lands under the regulation? Or is a "taking" likely to be found in
a court challenge? Is local government prepared to purchase conservation easements
or fee simple title to lands where regulations are not appropriate? Are there non-
profit conservancies or land trusts that could preserve such lands? Answers to these
kinds of questions will assist the planner in determining which land and how much
land is feasible to designate for open -space conservation.

Delineating Policy Districts for Urban Growth and

Redevelopment
The next stage in areawide land policy planning, after open-space allocation, is
the designation of areas for urban development and redevelopment; for example,
the urban, urban -transition, and rural community districts, or some variation on
those classes. This stage involves determining the amount of urban growth to be
accommodated, as well as its distribution among the several policy districts.
334
c"' The process of delineating land policy districts for purposes of accommodat-
ro
o_
Q)
</)
ing urban growth and redevelopment involves the same five basic tasks of land
::::J
-0
use design outlined in chapter 10:
c
ro
_J
· Task 1. Formulate location principles for each policy district expected to
~
=
c
accommodate significant urban growth, especially the "developed" district,
ro

-s
:2
0

Q)
the urban "transition" (or rural-urban-transition), and "rural community"
district or their equivalent policy districts and subdistricts. For example,
2:
Q)
the "developed" district or its equivalent might be divided into "redevelop-
>
ment" and "stable, with some infill" subdistricts.
-
0

f-
a:
· Task 2. Develop a suitability map for each such policy district.
Task 3. Determine the amount of urban growth (in terms of population
<(
o_ and employment) to be accommodated in the plan, distribute it among
the types of districts, and translate that growth into space requirements for
each type of district. If there are several subdistricts within a class, such as
several satellite growth centers or several sectors or time periods of urban
transition, determine the distribution of growth and the implied space re-
quirements for each such district, sector, or time period. Sensitivity to mar-
ket forces concerning location, density preferences, and land supply is con -
sidered in this process.
· Task 4. Analyze the holding capacity of the suitable land supply on the
suitability map for each type of district and subdistrict.
· Task 5. Design the boundaries and sizes of districts to receive urban growth
based on the demand for space, the pattern of suitable lands, and their capac-
ity to absorb growth (i.e., balance demand for space with land supply).

Task 1: Formulating Location Principles

Location principles should be formulated for each type of policy district that will
be allocated substantial new growth or redevelopment. The reader is referred to
the discussion oflocation principles for an areawide land policy plan discussed in
chapter 10 as a starting point. Further location principles for three policy district
classifications-urban-developed, urban-transition, and rural community areas-
are listed below. These are illustrative; they are neither comprehensive nor neces-
sarily appropriate for every plan. A community must derive its own location prin-
ciples from its vision, goals, general policies, unique land characteristics, and the
particular land policy classification system being employed in the plan.

Illustrative Location Principles and Standards for Developed Areas The "ur-
ban-developed" area will be expected to accommodate both redevelopment and
infill development. It should also reflect areas of neighborhood conservation and
stabilization; that is, areas that will be protected from the pressures of undesirable
infill and redevelopment. The plan might designate subdistricts corresponding to
those different intentions, with each subdistrict delineated separately within the
"developed" district, each based on its own suitability map, each allocated a pro-
portion of growth and development, and each supported by its own package of
 335
n
implementation policies. General principles for "developed" districts that might ::r:
J>
take infill may include: _,
u
m
::JJ
• Areas where infrastructure is in good condition, with sufficient capacity to
absorb additional urban development;
• Areas containing a supply of vacant buildable land;
-
_,
::T
CD
J>
• Areas with sufficient other community services to support additional devel- a;
Q.)

opment; and ::::

C'L
• Areas that are not in hazardous areas. ,.
CD

Q.)
:::0
Cl..
For "developed" districts where redevelopment is planned, the principles might u
0

include: n
-<
u
ill
• Areas that are declining and have unsuitable mixes of existing uses; :::0

• Areas with location advantages for desirable types of future growth;

• Areas with appropriate infrastructure available or feasibly redeveloped;
• Areas that are not in hazardous areas.

Illustrative Location Principles and Standards for Urban-transition

Areas The purpose of the urban-transition classification is to provide sufficient
land for rural-to -urban transition beyond the already built-up ("developed") dis-
tricts.
• Lands should not be subject to substantial natural hazards; thus flood-haz-
ard areas, for example, are to be avoided.
• Lands should avoid vulnerable environmental areas (wildlife habitats and
wetlands, for example).
• Lands should have public water and sewer systems and transportation already
available or be situated so that extension of infrastructure is economical.
• Lands with better access to employment and shopping are more suitable.
• Lands with planned transportation investments may be more suitable for
growth.
• Locations should not be in strong contradiction to land market trends.
• Lands especially well-suited to commercial agriculture or forestry should be
avoided.

Illustrative Location Principles and Standards for Rural Community

Areas The purpose of the rural community class is to provide for clustering of
lower-density land uses to help meet housing, shopping, employment, and public
service needs within rural areas. They are not large enough or dense enough to
justify public water and sewer service.
• Locations on or near the regional highway network are more suitable than
locations away from the network.
• Areas within prime agricultural or forest lands especially viable for commer-
cial-scale management should be avoided.
- -- - - -- - - - --- ~-- -- ---

336
• Areas with soils suitable for septic tank systems are more suitable.
• Enhancement and expansion of existing rural community centers in an area
should have priority over establishing a new center.

Task 2: Mapping the Suitability of Lands for "Developed," "Urban-

transition," and "Rural Community" Districts
5Q) Using location principles such as those illustrated above and the spatial distribu -
·~
Q)
>
tion of variables that measure such factors, the planner creates suitability maps

-
Cl
for each major district to which urban growth will be allocated; for example, de-
veloped, redeveloping, urban-transition, and rural community. For example, a
f- first-cut suitability map for the urban-transition area might identify lands within
ee
<(
0...
the gravity-fed sewershed of the existing wastewater treatment plant, including
areas that can be reasonably served by pump stations, but are not in the fifty-year
flood plain or on highly productive agricultural lands or other lands previously
identified as critical environmental conservation districts.

Task 3: Estimating Space-quantity Requirements for Each Type of

Urbanization District
This task involves several subtasks:
a. determining the future population level and the associated number of dwell -
ings to be accommodated;
b. distributing that growth to the several types of urbanization districts;
c. estimating the number of acres necessary in each type of district to accom-
modate the allocated dwellings and the commercial, industrial, and commu-
nity facilities associated with the expected urban population; and
d. adding a safety margin ofland to reflect uncertainty and to avoid forcing up
land prices by creating a shortage of developable land.
Space requirements will depend not only on the projected population levels, but
also on the gross densities assumed for future development in each policy district.
The density of growth assigned to rural community, for example, will be much
lower than the density of growth assigned to developed or transition districts.

Subtask 3a: Determining the Number of Dwellings Necessary to Accommodate

the Future Population The population forecast developed as part of the demo -
graphic and economic analysis and scenarios in the community report is the basis
for this determination. The population forecast is generally translated into an equiva-
lent number of households by dividing the population level by the forecasted aver-
age household size. The resulting number of households represents the demand for
dwellings. That demand is adjusted slightly upward to account for the fact that a
proportion of the housing stock will be vacant at any one time. To account for a 5
percent vacancy, for example, planners would divide the number of future house-
holds by 0.95 to obtain an estimate of the required housing stock (occupied plus
vacant dwellings ) to accommodate the future population of households.
 337
n
Subtask 3b: Allocating the Future Dwellings to Different Policy Districts Plan- :r:
l>
ners allocate the required number of dwellings to the several land policy districts _,
-0
m
::J:J
that will accommodate growth, principally to the "developed" and "urban-transi-
tion" districts, but some to rural community districts and to the general rural dis-
trict. Most conservation districts may be assumed to accommodate no growth at
all. For example, the distribution might be 30 percent to the developed-urban
-
_,
:::J'
co
l>
districts, 60 percent to the urban -transition districts, 10 percent to rural commu- ro
Q)

~
nity centers and the rural area, and none at all to conservation areas. See Figure n
co
r-
11 -2 for a diagram of such a distribution scenario. Then, for example, the 60 per- Q)
:::i
D..
cent allocated to the urban-transition districts might allocate 500 dwellings to a -0
0
northern sector, 500 dwellings to a western sector, and 800 dwellings to a south- n
-<
eastern sector. These allocations to districts and sectors/subdistricts are based on -0
ill
:::i
examination of suitability maps for the types of districts, land use policy about
future urban form, and expected developm ent market trends. The allocations will
probably have to be adjusted later in the process in response to the res ults of the
conversion of this allocation to space requirements (task 3c) and the holding ca-
pacity analysis (task 4).

Subtask 3c: Estimating the Space Required for Future Urban Development To
this point, the planner has allocated quantities of dwellings. Now those dwellings
must be converted to their implicit demand for acres of land, including land for
commercial and industrial uses, community facilities, transportation, and urban
open -space uses that accompany population and housing. To do this, the planner
must first determine the average city-scale gross density of development. That
city-scale gross density allows not only for dwellings, but also for all those sup-
porting uses. Densities vary among communities and among policy district cat-
egories within a community. Normally, the planner calculates the existing density
for the urbanized area and perhaps for various portions of the urban area to esti-
mate the degree of variation, and presumes that similar densities will prevail in
the future. To calculate such densities, the planner can simply divide the number
of existing dwellings by the total amount of developed land in all uses (including
transportation, industry, commercial, governmental, and even urban open space
and perhaps waste area). In estimating gross densities for rural areas, the planner
would include streets and perhaps some neighborhood facilities in the calcula-
tion but not other urban uses. The estimated future densities are based on exist-
ing densities in the vicinity, trends and projections, and desired increases or de-
creases in densities implied by goals and policies.
To estimate the amount of land required for each classification and possibly
subclassification, the planner divides the number of dwellings allocated to the
area by the assumed gross densities to achieve an estimate of the number of acres
that will be required in the particular classification. For example, if 500 dwellings
are allocated to sector A in the transition area (as in the example in Figure 11-2),
and one assumes an average gross density of 2.0 dwellings per acre, the plan should
designate at least 250 acres in sector A, plus the add-on factor for contingency and
market supply reasons, to be discussed next.
 PART Ill I
. . w
Overview of Making Land Use Plans W
co

TASK3a: ____.
Estimate Dwellings
TASK3b: .....
Allocate Growth to Classifications
TASK3c:-.
Convert to
TASK3d:•
Add Safety
Space
Required for Add Existing Total Land
Space Margin New Dwellings Development Required
Requirements* {in acres)
{in acres)

Population Developed Classification

Forecast 900 DUs"'l Sector A 600 DUs + 2.0 = 300a.** x 1.2 = 360a. 600a . 960a .

•
Convert to
Sector B 300 DUs + 3.0 = 100a. x 1.2 = 120a .
480a.
600a.
1200a.
720a .
-1700a.

Households

•
Add Vacancies
30%
Transition Classification
Sector A 500 DUs
1800 DUs ~•Sector B 500 DUs
+ 2.0 = 250a.
+ 2.0 = 250a.
x 2.0
x 2.0
= 500a .
= 500a.
60a.
50a.
560a.
550a .

• 60%
Sector C 800 DUs + 1.5 = 550a . x 2.0 = 1100a.
2100a .
105a .
215a .
1205a.
-2300a.
Dwellings
Required
{Say Additional
.....
10% Rural Classification
3000 Dwellings)
300 DUs --+ 300 DUs + 1.0 = 300 x 1.0 = 300a. n.a. n.a.

* Density assumption in this column is dwellings per acre, city scale gross density. Existing city scale gross density, for example, is estimated by
dividing the number of dwellings by the total developed acreage in the urban area . This will adjust space requirements to include land for all non-
residential urban users, including transportation {roads) .

•• (a= acres)

Fig. 11-2 Diagram of ta sks in estimating space requirem ents for future growth .
 339
n
Subtask 3d: Adjusting the Estimate to Provide a Safety Margin and Avoid Forc- :r:
)>
ing Land Prices Upward The three subtasks above produce an estimate of mini- __,
u
rn
mum space requirements. However, those estimates should be adjusted upward ::JJ

for two reasons- to provide for adequate choices among locations and housing
types for consumers, and to avoid creating pressure on land and housing prices by
limiting too severely the supply of developable land. The allowance is generally
-
__,
::;
CD
)>
made in one of two ways. One way is to add a percentage over th e estimated space ro
Q)

requirements calculated in step 3c; that is, the space requirem ents are increased ~
D..
CD
by anywhere from 20 percent to 100 percent, based on the planner's judgment .-
Q)
:::J
about how much allowance is needed. The second approach uses the growth lev- D..
u
0
els expected five or ten years beyond the twenty-year horizon for the plan in tasks r;·
-<
3a, 3b, and 3c to estimate the required land supply. Such an allowance or oversup- ~
Q)

ply of land should be made in each of the policy districts, except the rural area, :::J

and generally in each subdistrict. In the example shown in Figure 11 -2, the esti -
mate of 250 acres needed for sector A in the transition classification would be
expanded by anywhere from 50 to 250 acres (20 percent to 100 percent) for a
result of 300 to 500 acres.

Variations in Approaches to Task 3: Estimating Space-quantity Requirements

There is more than one way, of course, to approach the task of estimating space
requirements. For example, instead of incorporating nonresidential land use needs
into the calculation of city-scale gross-dwelling density, planners could estimate
nonresidential acres in other ways. One way to do that would be to calculate a
ratio of nonresidential acres of current development per 1,000 current popula-
tion, or to calculate nonresidential acres as a ratio of acres in residential land use.
These ratios could then be used together with the estimate of land required for
residential development acres (based on the population forecast) to calculate the
acres required for nonresidential uses.
A more sophisticated approach would estimate separately the calculations of
housing and employment space requirements. Each would be based on the sepa-
rate projections for population and employment, respectively, and the associated
gross densities for each (accounting for transportation and directly associated in-
frastructure). This approach allows the planner to use different allocation policies
for employment centers and for residential areas. This approach might be prefer-
able where the areawide land policy plan includes employment centers as separate
policy districts, for example.
Another very simple, though cruder, approach to estimating space requirements
would increase the current total acres in urban land uses by a multiplier repre-
senting employment growth (for manufacturing, wholesale, and commercial land
uses) and population growth (for all other land uses, including transportation).
For example, if a 50 percent population growth is expected, the area constituting
the combined "developed" and "transition" policy districts would be 50 percent
greater than the present developed area, plus the 20 to 100 percent upward adjust-
ment to reflect uncertainty in growth rate, choice in locations, and a desire to
avoid forcing up land prices. Although this approach does not allow the planner
340
U)
c
ro
to take changes in density and household size into consideration, it often yields
Q_
Q)
results that are similar to those calculated by using more complicated procedures,
U)
:::J
~
particularly if the planner does not expect much change from past and present
c
ro
_J
trends in development.
=
c
-""
ro
~
Task 4: Analyzing Holding Capacity
s In this task, the planner estimates the amount of land with the combination of
Q)

·2 characteristics making it attractive and suitable for development in the urban dis-
Q)
> tricts. The estimate is based on an analysis of the suitability maps for each type of

-
0

l-
a:
district. The estimate should be by relatively small areas; for example, planning
districts or polygons formed by GIS overlays. These estimates are summarized by
notations directly on the suitability maps or by using tables, or both. This land
<l'.
Q_
supply analysis will help properly size the land policy districts and guard against
assigning more growth to a district than can be accommodated by the land supply
there.

Task 5: Designing the Map of Urban Policy Districts

In this synthesis task, the planning team takes the results of the four preparatory
tasks and designs several alternative policy district maps, specifying those areas
best suited for accommodating urban growth in developed, redeveloping, transi-
tion, and rural community districts. Each alternative design that comes out of
such a process should balance the demand for space against the supply of suitable
land; the need for good locations against the need for sufficient space; and the
need for urban development against the need for resource conservation.
Normally, one of the alternative designs should represent a "more-or-less trend
scenario" of urban development. That trend, or no-policy-change, alternative pro-
vides a baseline future against which to contrast other policy-oriented alternatives.

Incorporating Sewerage Planning Considerations

The process of mapping the urban-transition district or districts includes explicit
analysis of water and sewerage considerations. Sewerage planning considerations
in particular are reflected in location principles, mapping suitability, analyzin g
space needs, and analyzing holding capacity of potential urban-growth districts.
There are also some cases where the lack of water supply might place fundamen -
tal restrictions on holding capacity, if not the location of growth. Land use plan -
ning should reflect the water and sewerage planning considerations discussed in
chapter 8. In return, the planning of water and wastewater treatment plants, col-
lection systems, and service areas should reflect the broader goals of areawide
land policy planning, including environmental protection, hazard mitigation, ag-
ricultural productivity, and efficiency of urban form. Coordination of water-sup-
ply planning, especially with resp ect to protection of water-supply source areas
(reservoir watershed or water-supply aquifer recharge area, for example), is also
important. For example, water-supply protection areas may be one type of con -
servation district in the land policy plan.
 341
n
For purposes of areawide land policy planning, the planner needs to examine I
l>
both the location implications and the space quantity implications of sewerage -0
----i
rn
and water. From a location perspective, the delineation of the urban-transition :::r:J

area needs to be coordinated with sewer service area expansion, which in turn
depends on the location and capacity of existing wastewater treatment plants and
an assessment of expansion potential of existing plants and the location of planned
-
----i
=
CD
l>
or possible future plant sites. The rationale is utility-based; that is, the location of m
ru
plants and th e location and boundaries of the service areas should reflect sound S:.
o_
CD
engineering practices affecting the feasibility, cost, and efficiency of providing ,-
QJ
::::J
public sewer services. These will need to be balanced against other Smart Growth o_
-0
0
considerations such as environmental protection, natural hazard mitigation, con- n
-<
figuration of transportation networks, and the best locations for commercial and 31
QJ
industrial centers in particular. ::::J

From a space-quantity perspective, the analyses should cover two assessments:

1. On the demand side, an assessment of build-out population and employment
capacity of alternative urban-transition districts and alternative water/sewer
service areas, and the translation of build-out capacity into its implied spatial
pattern of eventual demand for wastewater collection and treatment and for
potable water, and the utility's capacity to serve those build-out levels; and
2. On the supply side, an assessment of the existing and planned capacities for
wastewater collection and treatment and water supply and distribution, by
specific plant locations and their associated service areas (compared to the
spatial pattern of demand implied in land policy district scenarios above) .
In the first assessment- assessing the spatial pattern of potential demand for
sewerage and water services-planners need to do several assessments. First, they
need to assess the amount of land that is actually buildable by policy district,
subdistrict, and service area. This involves subtracting areas that are underwater,
in wetlands or floodplains, on steep slopes, on government-own ed lands such as
national forests or large parks, or otherwise not appropriate for development.
What remains constitutes an estimate of appropriately developable land.
Second, the planner establishes assumptions about th e average gross city-scale
density of future development in the various potential service areas within the
"urban-transition" and "developed" districts. The city-scale gross density accounts
for commercial, industrial, and mixed-use development as well as urban open-
space and community facilities th at will be associated with urban development,
in addition to actual dwellings (see discussion earlier in this chapter).
Third, gross density is multiplied by the amount of developable land in each
potential urban policy district and sewer service area to generate an expected num-
ber of dwellings for that district at a reasonable build-out level.
Fourth, the planner then converts that number of dwelling units into demand
for wastewater collection and treatment capacities, and for water treatment and
distribution capacities. The number of dwellings at build-out for an area is multi-
plied by a fraction to account for the fact the housing market will always have a
proportion of the supply vacant at any particular point in time. For example, if a
 342
"'cco 5 percent vacancy rate is assumed, then the build-out number of dwellings is
0:::
QJ multiplied by .95 to estimate the number of households that will be served. The
"'
=:i
number of households is multiplied by an expected average household size to
-0
c
co
_J generate an estimate of build-out population in each service area. The population
D")

~
c estimate is in turn multiplied by the per capita number of gallons of water re-
co
:::2: quired and gallons of wastewater that a person and associated commercial, indus-
0 trial, and governmental activities will be expected to generate per day. Thus, if
$
QJ
·~
there are 10,000 people expected to reside in a service area, then they, together
QJ
with associated industry, commercial, and community-service activities, might

-
>
0
be expected to generate between 125 gallons of wastewater per day per person,
depending on the amount and type of industrial activities. That wo uld imply an
f-
a: estimated wastewater treatment demand of 1.25 million gallons per day for that
<(
o._ service area at potential build-out levels of urbanization.
The second assessment involves assessing the capacity of the existing and
/
planned wastewater treatment facilities and water supply faci lities, along with the
timeline when they are expected to be available. That capacity should be com -
pared to the timeline of estimated demand calculated above. If the supply and
demand estimates are unbalanced, then the planners need to adjust either or both
the areawide land policy plan and/or the intermediate- to long-range sewerage
planning to bring them into balance for each urban-transition district, subdis-
trict, and service area, and for each five- or ten-year time period.
A simplified example for sewerage might clarify what is invo lved in these assess-
ments. Assume a small town in which an existing wastewater treatment plant has a
capacity of 1 million gallons per day (mgd) and serves a population of 3,800 in its
current service area of 600 acres. The potential sewershed (and suitable urban-de-
veloped and -transition district) upstream of the treatment plant, potentially ser-
viceable by a gravity-fed collection system fo r that treatment plant, is 1,600 acres in
size. Approximately 300 acres are in lakes, floodplain s, steep slopes, a government-
owned environ mental sanctuary, and other nondevelopable lands, leaving 1,300 suit-
able acres for development in the potential sewershed and urban-policy district. If
we assume that the future will roughly match existing city-scale gross density of 2.8
dwellings per acre, we estimate that the sewershed (and potential corresponding
combined "developed" and "urban-transition" district) would contain 3,640 dwell-
ings at build-out, including land occupied by commerce, industry, and community
facilities and open space associated with the population in those dwellings. If we
allow a vacancy rate of 5 percent, the number of households in that housing supply
will be 3,460. Assuming the national average of 2.6 persons per household, that im-
plies a population of approximately 9,000 people at reasonable build-out level. The
implied demand for wastewater collection and treatment, at 125 gallons per person
per day (gpd), is 1.125 million gallons per day (mgd). The present capacity of the
treatment plant is only 1 mgd, however. Thus, the plan will need to consider recom-
mending future expansion of the treatment plant by 10 percent, if feasible at that
site; if not, the plan will need to outline a reduced urban -transition/service area to
fit the treatment plant's capacity. Alternatively, if the present p~ant is relatively out-
 343
n
dated, a new and larger plant might be proposed slightly farther downstream to :r:
)>
serve a different and larger service area. ~
m
:JJ

Formulating Implementation Policies for Each

Policy District
-
~
::::r
CD
)>

The map of land policy districts that emerges out of the process above must be ro
Q.)

~
supported by packages of implementation policies. Generally, there is a different Q_
CD
,-
policy package for each typ e of district. That is, each type of district is supported Q.)
0
Q_
by its own set of implementation policies. The following policy examples, applied Cl
0
to the urban -transition district, illustrate the idea: o:; ·
-<
3'
The community shall prohibit the use of septic tanks by new development in Q.)
0

the urban-transition district (in order to discourage lower-density develop-

ment usurping locations where urban densities are planned and to prevent
having to replace on-site wastewater treatment with public sewerage later).
• The community shall develop a capital improvements program for extend-
ing public infrastructure and community facilities in the urban-transition
area in a timely manner.
• Land use controls shall req uire that adequate public facilities be available at
the time of occupancy of new development, possibly through an adequate
facilities ordinance or other form of"concurrency requirement." See also simi-
lar policies incorporated in the "priority funding areas" policies from
Maryland's Smart Growth program discussed in chapter 1.
• Zoning shall permit, encourage, or perhaps even require development at mini-
mum urban densities.
Implementation policies for other districts are also illustrated in the right-most
column of Table 11 - 1.

Bringing It Together into a Comprehensive Areawide

Land Policy Plan
The process and methods explained in this chapter comprise planners' more tech-
nical roles within the community collaborative planning process. When properly
carried out within a participatory approach, where th e values of many partici-
pants are incorporated, planners can help achieve a technically valid plan as well
as one that reflects the values of the community.
The resulting areawide land policy plan should consist of several parts:
1. A summary of the key features of the plan
2. A description of issues, current conditions, and emerging trends
3. A review of the adequacy of current development-management ordinances
and practices
344
U)
c:::
ro 4. Alternative scenarios for future development, and a preferred scenario
a::
Q)
U)
5. A vision statement, supplemented by goals and objectives, and general devel-
::J
CJ
c:::
opment and environmental policy strategy
ro
__J

en
c:::
Those elements are common to virtually every type of plan in the network of
~
ro plans. In addition, the areawide land policy plan would specifically contain:
2
Ci 6. A map of the land policy districts
s:
Q)

> 7. Implementation policies for each type ofland policy district on the map
Q;
>

-
0

f---
0::
The plan for Lexington-Fayette County, Kentucky, provides an example of an
areawide land policy planning approach. The planning jurisdiction, which covers
all of Lexington City and Fayette County, is divided into two main districts: the
<I'. urban service area (USA) and the rural service area (RSA). Plans for the urban
0...
service area are spelled out in the Comprehensive Plan (Lexington-Fayette Urban
County Government 1996) and those for the rural service area are spelled out in
a later Rural Service Area Land Management Plan (Lexington-Fayette Urban
County Government 1999). The urban service area defines the geographic area
where government is committed to providing sewer, water, police, fire, school,
street lighting, garbage collection, libraries, and transit. This urban service area
district contains a number of policy subdistricts for special consideration: down-
town core, employment centers, urban-activity centers, commercial corridors,
existing development (neighborhoods), and urban-growth (urban-transition)
areas. The rural service area also contains several subclassifications, the largest of
which (nearly 90 percent of the land) is the core agricultural and rural lands dis-
trict that contains the horse farms and other prime agricultural lands that are the
foundation of the local agricultural economy. Another vital subdistrict is the natural
areas (environmental protection) district, which covers 7 percent of the area. Ad-
ditional policy districts include the rural-activity centers, existing rural residen-
tial settlements, and buffer areas (mainly between rural and urban policy dis-
tricts). Development and environmental protection policies are developed for each
policy district. For example, recommended policy for the core agricultural and ru-
ral lands district includes: minimum new parcel size of 40 acres; incentives for con-
solidation of undeveloped smaller tracts; designation as a priority area for a pur-
chase-of-development-rights program; designation of the area as a sending area for
a development-rights-transfer program, and integration of policies for greenways,
historic sites, and scenic ways with agricultural uses. The plans also contain special
plan elements, such as transportation and rural roadways, historic areas, and sewer
expansion, and an implementation or action component. Figure 11-3 shows a sim-
plified version of the Lexington-Fayette Urban County land policy map.
The urban service area also has a land use design plan that specifies the pattern
of urban uses, and the next two chapters in this text discusses a methodology for
that type of plan. The land use design can then be followed up with a develop-
ment-management plan, outlining specific zoning or other development controls,
as discussed in chapter 15. A communitywide land use design plan might also
specify timing and geographic sequence for development within the urban-tran-
sition district, implemented through a capital improvement program, timed de-
velopment regulations, and refined service area policies.
 345
n
:c
l>
-0

LEGEND -l
m
:D

-
~

•
Urban Service Area (USA)

Central Business District

-l
:;;;,-
Employment/Commercial CD
l>
Centers & Corridors ro
QJ

~-
Cl.
Rural Service Area CD
r-
QJ
Core Agricultural & Rural Land (CARL) ::i

m
Cl.
Rural Activity Centers -0
Q_
Natural Area Protection (';"
~ <
-0
Q)
::i

Fig. 11-3 Simplified diagram of the city-county plan for

Lexington -Fayette Urban County, Kentucky. Source:
Adapted from Lexington-Fayette Urban County Government
1996 and 1999.

Summary
The areawide land policy plan is often the first stage of a spatially explicit network
of plans for a growing region, metropolitan area, or county. It balances the values
of natural systems, hum an activity systems, and market systems stakehold ers. It
seeks to balance the several facets of the sustainability prism-environment and
economy in particular, as well as equity and livability. It seeks to preserve ecologi-
/
cally valuable or productive natural resources by prohibiting or carefully control-
ling urban and agricultural uses in those areas. It discourages development in
hazardous areas while promoting development on more suitable lands. It pro-
vides an opportunity for involving public-interest groups and decision makers in
spatially explicit land use policy about the utilization of land resources, in prepa-
ration for more detailed choices abo ut the mixes of land uses, transportation, and
urban design in the land use design and small-area planning stages of the land
planning process.
The land policy plan provides the rationale for development regulations and
for community facilities and infrastructure decisions. The land use design plan,
discussed in the following two chapters, builds on the areawide land policy plan,
emphasizing human systems and social values within the urban policy districts in
particular. The planner might think of the areawide land policy plan as a simple
loose-fitting garment, while the urban land use design is like a tailored suit, with
more attention also paid to accessories. Even more explicit attention to those ac-
cessories is represented by the small-area plans.
346
"'c References
"'
0:::
Q.)

"'
::J Bosselman, Fred, and David Callies. 1972. The quiet revolution in land use control. Wash-
CJ
c ington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office.
"'en
_J
DeGrove, John M. 1989. Growth management and governance. In Understanding growth
c
-""' management: Critical issues and a research agenda, David J. Brower, David R. Godschalk,
2"' and Douglas R. Porter, eds., 22-42. Washington, D. C.: Urban Land Institute.
:;;: Dramstad, Wenche E., James D. Olson, and Richard T. T. Forman. 1996. Landscape ecology
Q.)

'2: principles in landscape architecture and land-use planning. Washington, D.C.: Island
Q.)
> Press.

-
0
Lexington-Fayette Urban County Government. 1996. 1996 comprehensive plan: Growth
planning system. Lexington, Ky.: Author.
Lexington-Fayette Urban Co unty Gove rnment. 1999. Rural service area land management
plan. Lexington, Ky.: Author.
McHarg, Ian. 1969. Design with nature. Garden City, N.Y.: Natural History Press.
Noos, Reed, and Allen Cooperrider. 1994. Saving nature's legacy: Protecting and restoring
biodiversity. Washington , D.C.: Island Press.
Portland Metropolitan Region al Government. 1992. Metropolitan greenspaces master plan:
A cooperative regional system of natural areas, open -space, trails and greenways for wild-
life and people. Portland, Oreg.: Author.
Reichert, Peggy A.1976. Growth management in the twin cities metropolitan area: The de-
velopment framework planning process. St. Paul, Minn.: Metropolitan Council of the
Twin Cities Area.
 Chapter 12

Communitywide Land Use Design:

Employment and Commercial Centers

To add more specific form-based goals and policies to the network of

plans, your agency wants you to lead a community effort to create a land
use design. The director is particularly interested in formulating a plan
for the spatial configuration of employment centers and people-serving
commercial activity centers in coordination with a parallel transportation
planning process. How would you propose that the agency go about
developing design principles and location principles for these major ac-
tivity centers in the regional scheme of things? Mapping suitability for
expansion or redevelopment of existing centers and locating new ones?
Deriving estimates of the space that will be required in various potential
locations and centers? Calculating the space supply (or holding capac-
ity) in proposed centers? And finally, creating alternative schematic de-
signs in which the designed supply is in balance with projected demand
for space?

ities and towns, the urbanized portions of regions and counties, will usu-
ally need to become more explicit in their spatial policy than the land
policy plan format described in the previous chapter. In particular, these
communities will want to elaborate on the spatial policy for the urban districts,
building on the general outline of open space and urban form in the areawide
land policy plan. The land use design format enables communities to achieve the
next level of specificity in their comprehensive plan.
The land use design format enables the community to develop the sustainability
prism dimensions oflivability, economic efficiency, and equity in particular. En-
vironmental quality and overall efficiency of a growth pattern that coordinates
development with capital improvements in water and sewer are the strengths of
the areawide land policy plan. The land use design enables the community to

347
 348
U)
c
m focus further on human use values, in balance with environmental and economic
0:::
(J)
U)
values. It can focus on spatial arrangements of activity centers, residential areas,
::::i
LJ
community facilities, transportation, and open space to create a livable, equitable,
c
m
_J and efficient physical environment within the simple outline of urban form pro-
OJ
c vided by the areawide land policy plan . That being said, the land use design is still
-""
m
a communitywide comprehensive policy plan with the design of specific areas
-s
:?'.
D being elaborated by small-area plans that emphasize livability.
(J)
Communitywide land use design is a process of formulating a seamless
c
(J)
> communitywide spatial structure of major and minor activity centers, residential

-
0
neighborhoods, circulation systems, community facilities, and infrastructure. For
teaching purposes and in the interests of simplifying the task of explaining a com-
f-
a: plex process, we have divided the process into three parts-open space (addressed
<I:
o_ in chapter 11); employment, commercial, and civic activity centers (addressed in
/
this chapter), and residential communities (addressed in chapter 13). In practice,
however, the linear progression of procedures and techniques in these three chap -
ters occur in altered sequences, sometimes almost simultaneously, sometimes in
fits and starts, and with much feedback and adjustment between tasks.
The chapter has two major sections. The first describes the types of activity
centers in urban places, the range of land uses that inhabit them, and the nature
of the design task. The second section then explains the plan -making process. It
includes conducting preparatory studies, establishing location principles, map -
ping suitable locations for different types of land uses and activity centers, deriv-
ing space requirements for the centers, and establishing the holding capacity of
suitable locations. Based on those analyses, the process moves to creating a sche-
matic design of employment and commercial activity centers and then fleshing
out the design scheme by allocating space requirements to specific centers at spe-
cific locations. The chapter concludes with a summary of major points and a lead
into the remaining challenge of incorporating residential areas into the land use
design.

Types of Land Uses and Activity Centers

Planning the constellation of urban activity centers in the land use design re-
quires an understanding of the types ofland using activities to be accommodated
and the types of centers in which these land uses best combine. It also requires
understanding the regional transportation system and how it interacts with ac -
tivities within the centers and connects them regionally.

Land Uses Predominant in Activity Centers

Five types of land use occupy most of the land in a community's major activity
centers: (1) economic-base activities and related services, (2) retail and consumer
services, (3) people-oriented community facilities, and (4) office space, along with
(5) transportation, including parking. Other land uses in commercial centers, such
as housing and open space, are important too, but secondary to the five land use
sectors above in the long-range, city-scale, land use design process; and they also
 349
n
are addressed in other chapters (e.g., residential areas in chapter 13, and small :::r::
)>
u
areas in chapter 14). ___,
rn
:J:J

Economic base activities and related services include:

-
N

Manufacturing- the refining, fabrication, assembly, and storage of materi-

rn
als used in manufacture or produced on-site; 3
-0
0
• Wholesaling and distribution-merchant wholesaling, manufacturer's sales -<
3
ro
branches, wholesale agents, brokers, commission merchants, and wholesale ~
0)
assemblers; most wholesaling involves warehousing and storage, some in- :::J
o_
n
volve trucking terminals, and some involve only office and display space; 0
3
• Headquarters, developmental research, and back-office activities-for 3
ro
;:;
manufacturing, wholesale, finance and insurance, information and technol - 0)

n
ogy, government, and other economic base industries; and CD
~
CD
• Higher education- serving a market beyond the local community; e.g., a
"'
college or university.
• Other- for example, a national-hub airport complex or a major tourist at-
traction .
See chapter 5 for discussion of economic-base activity and its projection into the
future.
These economic-base activities have relatively rigorous requirements for ac-
cess to utilities and regional transportation and for favorable physical features of
the land, such as large parcels on level topography, and sometimes visibility for
marketing purposes. On the other hand, they are less reliant than retail stores and
consumer services on convenient access to local consumers.
Population-serving commercial activities include:
• Retail activities, shops and department stores, discount stores, and the like;
• Personal services, such as medical-services providers and personal attor-
neys (some service activities require office space; others, such as restau-
rants and beauty salons, may mix in with retail development); and
• Entertainment, such as theaters and bars.
These local consumer-oriented activities value access to local markets above all
other location factors, in contrast to the more footloose economic-base activities
above. Some commercial services, such as automobile sales and repair establish-
ments, building-supply outlets, and other heavier commercial activity that can be
semi -industrial in character, often cluster in separate highway-oriented centers or
corridors, but still require access to local consumers.
Civic uses, public and semipublic, or community facilities are a category closely
associated with retail and consumer services ~ It includes facilities and activities that
directly serve local and nonlocal populations and therefore are often located in con-
sumer-oriented activity centers along with retail and service activities. Examples in-
clude convention centers, museums, arenas, community centers, and facilities such
as courthouses and city halls that provide one-on-one governmental services. Out-
door public gathering spaces are also important elements of activity centers.
 350
UJ
c
m Office space is an increasing proportion of both basic and nonbasic employ-
0:::
Q) ment space due to an increase in the proportion of employment in office occupa-
UJ
:::J
LO
tions and a slight increase in the average square feet per office worker. Office build-
c
ro
_J
ings are usually located in the central business district, in office and business parks,
Ol

~
c in major suburban office nodes, and in other clusters and corridors following
ro
transportation lines. About half of the office space in metropolitan areas is in the
-s
2
D central business districts or in Class A buildings (the highest-quality buildings)
Q)
elsewhere (Gause 1998, 3-15; 332 -33).
c
Q)
> Transportation facilities and activities include expressways and streets, pub-
0

-
f-
lic transportation lines and stations, parking facilities, bicycle paths and lanes,
and pedestrian paths and sidewalks. The location and design of transportation
services and facilities within the centers and the transportation connections be-
a:
<l:
o_ tween centers are important to the overall integrity of land use and transporta-
tion design at both the regional scale and within the activity centers. In addition,
/
transportation rights-of-way, stations, and particularly parking require substan-
tial space within and around activity centers; typically between 25 and 50 percent
of the ground area. The demand for parking space and its supply have a substan-
tial influence on the form and density of activity centers, particularly in cities that
do not have well-patronized public transportation systems. Much depends on the
mix between public transportation and a road-highway-freeway system, the pro-
portion of parking spaces that are in parking structures compared to surface lots,
and the cost of parking. Those choices should be part of a community's coordi-
nated land use -transportation design concept.
In addition to those five categories of activities, housing and open space need
to be accommodated as appropriate to each activity centers. There might be pub-
lic plazas and parks, or waterfront open space, for example, and housing inte-
grated within or on the edges of activity centers, particularly above ground level.

Forms of Activity Centers

Activity centers are relatively large concentrations of development in a broad range
of forms, featuring varying mixes of land use activities, typically at high densities.
The central business district usually contains the broadest mix of land uses, has
the largest service area, and serves as the traditional heart of business, retail, fi -
nancial, governmental, and civic activity. In metropolitan areas, suburban com-
mercial activity centers have those same multiple land uses as well. An institu-
tional complex, such as a college campus and adjacent commercial area, or a medi-
cal center, will incorporate a narrower range of activities. Urban entertainment
centers that offer dining, entertainment, and retail within a pedestrian environ-
ment are another and more recent activity-center type.
Most activity centers can be divided loosely, however, into those that are pri-
marily employment areas and those that are primarily centers for commercial and
civic activity. Economic-base activities tend to locate in employment areas, al-
though finance and some wholesaling activities may locate in what are primarily
commercial centers, including the central business district. Consumer-serving
 351
n
activities tend even more so to locate in commercial areas, although some con- :::r::
)>
sumer and business services may locate in mixed-use employment centers. __,
u
rn
::0

Centers That Are Primarily Employment Areas Land use areas devoted pri-
marily to accommodating employment include industrial districts, industrial parks,
office parks, business parks, office corridors and office clusters around interchanges,
-
N

rn
3
-0
planned employment centers, and a miscellaneous "other" category (Beyard 1988; D
-<
3
Lochmoeller et al. 1975; O'Mara 1982; Urban Land Institute 2001). The form and CD
;::::_
function of employment areas have evolved through the twentieth century and QJ
:::J
o._
into the twenty-first century with the shift of the economy from one driven by n
D

basic manufacturing to one driven by service, information, finance, and technol- 3

3
ogy, but all of the above forms exist in most metropolitan areas. Many employ- ~
n
QJ
ment areas update themselves periodically both physically and functionally to stay n
CD
competitive. Others have deteriorated into industrial slums that will require rede- ;::::_
CD
c;;
velopment as part of the land use design strategy.
Industrial districts or corridors-sometimes called manufacturing districts-
typically consist of properties that share an industrial-zoning classification. Older
industrial areas are usually located adjacent to ports and rail lines, with high site
coverage and multilevel buildings. They often exhibit structural obsolescence and
incompatible mixtures of land uses (e.g., housing may be mixed in) and may re -
quire redevelopment as part of the land use design strategy. Newer industrial dis-
tricts typically consist of a mix of manufacturing plants, research and develop-
ment laboratories, wholesaling office-warehouses, and some office buildings.
Business parks may also be called industrial parks, business centers, business
campuses, or, if they are oriented toward research laboratories and similar tech-
nological activities, may be called research parks, R&D parks, or technology parks.
More recent business parks have de-emphasized the industrial character of the
land use activity and include a broader variety of lighter manufacturing, ware-
house/ distribution, showrooms and incubator spaces, and related business activi-
ties along with offices, perhaps in multipurpose buildings.
What distinguishes an industrial park or business park from an industrial dis -
trict is that a park is planned and developed as a unified environment for indus-
trial activities or offices and related service activities. Parks also usually meet de-
sign standards for streets, utility systems, setbacks, building coverage, building
materials, off-street parking, landscaping, signs, and general appearance. An in-
dustrial park or business center is also usually under single management, requires
design review, enforces restrictions on activities, and applies environmental stan-
dards (Lochmoeller et al. 1975; Urban Land Institute 2001)
Industrial parks can be divided into three categories, grouped by the standards
they require of establishments (Conway et al. 1979, 37-39). The least-restrictive
category is an industrial district for heavier industry, which features large-scale
development with access to rail, regional highway, and possibly a port. The sec-
ond type of industrial park is likely to be a distribution center or combined office-
industrial or office-distribution center. It has more restrictive standards for noise,
smoke, and other emissions; setbacks and buffer landscaping; off-street parking
352
and truck loading; and controls over outdoor storage. The third type of park has
the highest site-planning standards and features offices, research and develop -
ment laboratories, and/or light industry. It places more emphasis on the aesthet -
ics of landscaping, architecture, utilities, and loading and storage areas, constitut-
ing a more campuslike setting.
Office parks consist of a number of separate office buildings, supporting uses,
open space, and parking that are planned and managed on an integrated basis.
5
"'
·~ They are modeled on the industrial or business park, except that they are limited
"'> exclusively to offices as opposed to including industrial buildings. The offices can

-
0

f-
a::
be either single-tenant structures or speculative multi-tenant structures. Tenants
range from headquarters of corporations to back-office service centers to profes-
sional offices for doctors. Building forms range from high-rise structures to low-
<(
0...
rise garden -office and townhouse-office schemes. The key features are a controlled
environment that provides users with essential facilities and a highly visible and
prestigious location along an arterial street or freeway. Floor-area ratios (FAR)
typically range from .25 to .4, but may exceed l FAR in urban mixed -use centers
(see below) and in central business districts. Also, there is a trend for suburban
office developments to take on more urbanlike characteristics, sometimes by com -
bining offices with mixed-use developments. Typica ll y, office parks will have four
parking spaces per 1,000 square feet of leasable office space, lower where conve-
nient public transportation is available and higher where there will be offices with
high visitor turnover, such as medical offices (Gause 1998).
Planned business centers, or planned employment centers, are planned, mul -
tiuse developments. They accommodate a mix of activities and building types:
warehouse/distribution; manufacturing and assembly; flex/high-tech businesses;
offices; showrooms; incubator space; service businesses, such as telecommunica-
tions, hotels, and conference centers; and convenience retai l activities and ameni -
ties for employees. All of this is in a relatively controlled but flexible setting so that
the park can adapt in form and function to meet changes in the market (Urban
Land Institute 2001, 3-6). Planned business parks are relatively self-sufficient, fa -
cilitating interaction among activities within the center, including the sharing of
parking and other facilit ies and materials handling. Frequently, they are larger
than industrial or office parks. They are often located close to markets and trans -
portation, are designed to minimize the need for autos within the center, and
sometimes involve joint public-private investment. Planned business centers are
also more likely than other types of centers to include business services, consumer
services for employees, and even walk-to-work residences. They may include com-
plexes of interrelated industrial activities, such as research and technology parks,
air-cargo industrial complexes, and petrochemical complexes. The latter include
chemical processing plants that swap products by pipelines. This category also
includes ecological development complexes, which combine industrial activity
with waste processing, resource recovery, and energy utilization.
The need for flexible work spaces that can house office and industrial activities
under one roof has resulted in "flex space" buildings in new industrial, office, and
 353
n
business parks (Urban Institute 2001, 3). Such employment centers offer firms the ::r:
)>
option to grow and expand at the same location. With multiple buildings of differ- __,
u
rn
ent types, sizes, and prices to choose from, all in one business park, startup compa- ::JJ

nies, for example, can begin operations in small-scale incubator space and eventu-
ally move to more prestigious headquarters without ever changing their address.
Industrial districts, industrial/business parks, and planned employment cen-
-
N

rn
3
'2..
0
ters should accommodate the entire range of manufacturing, warehousing, office, -<
3
and distribution activities. More recently, offices are increasingly present in em- "'~
Q)

ployment centers of all types, not just in office parks but in office-manufacturing, ::>
Cl..
n
office-distribution, office-showroom, and "flex-tech" combinations. Also, services 0
3
for employees and visitors, including hotels and motels, restaurants, hair salons, 3

drug stores, health centers, and recreation, are also emerging as important ele-
"'c=;
Qi
ments of employment centers. n

The average-size industrial park is between 300 and 350 acres (Lochmoeller et
"'ro
::>

<;;
al. 1975, 29 -31). However, the range in size is great- with about one third being
less than 100 acres, and parks in excess of 500 acres relatively common. Business
parks seem to be larger; the median size of a series of business park case studies by
the Urban Land Institute was well over 800 acres (calculated from the case studies
in Urban Land Institute 2001, 175-288). Large parks, however, are warranted only
at unique locations, such as in major metropolitan areas, near major transporta-
tion facilities such as large airports, and on large, level parcels in otherwise rugged
landscapes. Usually, the public interest is better served by a land use design that
features a wider distribution of sizes, locations, and types of employment areas in
order to provide choices, reduce journeys to work, and to avoid large concentra-
tions of industrial and commuter traffic. The mix of centers might well include
redevelopment projects on brownfields and other urban redevelopment sites. The
size at any particular location should be based on market demand for the particu-
lar type of park, allowance for expansion, and availability of land. Table 12-1 pro-
vides some statistical information about sizes, densities, and parking requirements
for industrial and office parks.
Employment centers have location and space requirements that should be re-
flected in the land use design. Th ey include:
• access to a nearby expressway system, perhaps to a nearby airport, and for
some industries a railroad or harbor. Office parks can use accessibility to
educational and technical training facilities, recreational amenities, and re-
tail services. High visibility from freeways, arterials, or mass transit is an as-
set.
• appropriate physical characteristics. Sites should have a minimum of ledge
rock, peat, and wetlands and an absence of toxic waste contamination. In-
dustry generally needs flatter land, but office developments prefer interest-
ing terrain and vegetation, and an on-site water feature can be a plus.
• adequate utilities, including water, sewer, gas, electricity, and communica-
tion systems (Beyard 1988, 82-100).
354

Table 12-1
Typical Characteristics of Industrial and Office Parks
Characteristics Industrial Parks Office Parks
Average Size 300 acres 40 acres
Minimum recommended size 35 acres none recommended
~
Q)
Typical floor-area ratios 0.1-0.5 avg . 5.7 for CBD; 0.25-0.4 otherwise
"2:
Q)
Typical employee densities 10-30/acre none found

-
>
0
Typical parking spaces per employee 0.8-1.0 avg. 1.6 for CBD; 4.1 otherwise

Source : For industrial parks, adapted from Lynch and Hack 1984; for office parks, calculated from twelve
tc case studies in O' Mara 1982 and from Dewberry and Matusik 1996.
<I:
CL

Primarily People-Serving and Commercial Activity Centers These activity

centers are people oriented, as well as centers for employment. They are focal
points for retail trade, consumer services, and financial and governmental activ-
ity, as well as cultural, entertainment, and civic activities. They should also con-
tain a variety of public circulation and gathering places. These centers exhibit the
highest concentrations of buildings and people, the highest land values, and the
highest degree of interrelationship among land uses. Such centers need easy ac-
cess by consumers from neighborhoods in the center's trade area, access to other
centers, and access to the local and regional transportatio n system. The appropri-
ate number and types of commercial activity centers for a planning jurisdiction
depends on the size of the population in the service area and the land use design
concepts incorporated in th e plan. For metropolitan areas, regions, and larger
cities, the mix of people-serving commercial centers often include all of the fol -
lowing forms:
A. Central business district or districts, which mix consumer-oriented uses
(e.g., department stores and attorneys' offices) with business offices and
with civic activities;
B. Satellite business centers:
1. Older business districts in the central city and older suburbs, sometimes
in the form of strip co mmercial developments or business corridors;
2. Shopping centers, sometimes under single ownership, with parking on-
site in definite relationship to the types of establishments and size of
cen ter, divided into types by virtue of their size and the size of their
trade areas:
a. neighborhood shopping areas and centers, including convenience cen-
ters
b. community scale and discount shopping centers
c. regional shopping centers
 355
n
d. superregional, multifunctional shopping centers, power centers :r:
)>

e. mixed-use development (MXD), often located within the CBD, in- :::::
rn
:::r:J
corporating office services, other employment, entertainment, lodg-
ing, and even residential and public/civic uses with shopping;
C. Highway-oriented areas, generally at the edges of cities, including:
-
N

rn
3
""<:::)_
1. Highway service areas (serving travelers), and 0
-<
3
co
2. Highway-oriented special purpose areas (e.g., clusters of auto sales or ;:;_
QJ
furniture establishments, off-price/outlet centers); :::J
a..
n
D. Other: convenience stores, strip commercial areas, fashion centers, indus- 0
3
3
trial shopping centers (with a mix of retail, wholesale, and commercial ser- co
;:;
vices activities, perhaps dealing in lighting and plumbing supplies, build- Qi
n
ing materials, millwork, catalog warehouse services, or auto specialty ser- co
;:;_
vices), and isolated consumer goods and service businesses. co

Relative to the other types of centers, the central business district serves the
"'
largest trade area, usually exceeding the planning jurisdiction. In most cases, it
already exists and the plan must deal with its future development and redevelop -
ment. The intent usually is to keep it compact, integrating offices, parking, and
public transportation with small blocks of continuous retail frontage.
Satellite centers accommodate businesses with smaller trade areas, except for
regional and superregional shopping centers, which might actually exceed the trade
area of smaller central business districts and host a range of activities beyond
shopping-entertainment, cultural facilities, social and governmental services,
office employment, and even civic events. The growth of new shopping centers is
reported to have slowed in the 1990s, with primary growth in shopping center
renovation and expansion (Beyard and O'Mara 1999, 33, 354). Shopping centers
are also increasingly incorporating entertainment and restaurant activities (Beyard
and O'Mara 1999, 343-47), and some are adopting a "main street and town cen-
ter" format (Bohl 2002, 17). Satellite centers also serve establishments seeking
lower-priced sites, escape from downtown congestion, and locations that are more
convenient to suburban retail markets.
Neighborhood centers include not only convenience shopping but also essen-
tial services such as dry cleaners, barbershops, groceries, and delicatessens and
other dining establishments. They should have vehicular-, pedestrian -, and bi-
cycle-friendly access from the surrounding neighborhood; contain a vertical and
horizontal mixture of retail, office, and even residential uses; align buildings with
the street; provide parking in the rear; provide pedestrian access to transit and
bus transport; and possibly incorporate community amenities such as a park and
places of worship.
Mixed-use developments are generally located in or near the central business
district and developed more intensely (floor-area ratio averaging 5.0) within taller
structures and with more vertical mixing, and more attention to pedestrian con-
nections. Table 12-2 shows characteristics of the principal types of shopping cen-
ters, including the typical range of gross leasable area, the size of the site area,
population served, the radius of market area, and the leading tenant.
 PART Ill I
. . w
Overview of Making La nd Use Plans CJ1
m

Table 12-2
Shopping Center Types and Characteristics
Gross Leasable Gen . Min. Population Radius of Market Area Leading Tenant No. of Typical
Floor Area (sq. ft.) Site Area served Minutes of Distance Stores Parking Spaces
Type of Center Range Typical (Acres) Driving Time in Miles (per 1,000 sq . ft.
GLA)

Convenience <30,000 Minimart,

Personal se rvi ce
Neighborhood 30,000 - 50,000 3-10 3, 000 -40,000; 5-10 1.5 supermarket 5-20 4-5
100,000 10,000 avg. or drugstore

Co mmun ity 100,000- 150,000 10-30 30,000- 10-20 3-5 Junior 15-40 4
450,000 100,000 ; departm ent
50,000 avg . st o re or large
variety st ore
Regional 300,000- 450,000 10-60 150,000+ 20-30 8+ On e or more 40-80 4.0-4.5
900 ,000 usual ly 50 + full -line dept.
store(s)
Su pe rregional 500 ,000 - 800 ,000 15-100+ 300,000+ 30+ 12+ Three or more 100+ 5.0-5.5
2 milli o n full -lin e dept.
stores
Mi xe d-use 500,000- 1 mil lio n, 7-50, - m ostly Offices; on e or - 1.0-2.5 in CBD
ce nter (M XD) 2 mil lio n 100,000- 15 avg. proj ect more fu ll-lin e location s;
200,000 ba sed and departm ent 3.0-5.0 oth erwi se
of w hich nearby; so me store(s), hotel
is ret ail touri st and
region al

Note : Pa rking spac es sho uld be increased for sm all e r ce nte rs co ntaining a cinem a or fo o d se rvi ces and decrease d for do wntown s.
So urce : Adapted from Bey a rd and O'M a ra 1999; Dewb e rry and M atu sik 1996; Edward s 1999; Go ldsteen, et al. 1984; Li v in gsto n 1979; Lynch and Hack
1984; Schwanke 1987; and With e rspoon et al. 1976.
 357
n
Highway-oriented business areas are less "planned" and less concentrated than :r:
)>
satellite centers. One type provides goods and services to travelers and others in _,
u
rn
autos. These land uses include fast food and other restaurants, service stations, :xJ

-
N
and motels. Another type of highway-oriented business area consists of a cluster
of retailers who require large display areas but cater to customers doing compari- rn
3
son shopping, e.g., auto sales and service areas, furniture and appliance stores, "O
0
building supply centers, and big box retailers. Because of th eir need for large sales -<
3
CD
areas, they cannot afford the rents per square foot in central business districts, ;:::.
QJ
shopping centers, and other satellite centers that can be paid by stores that use less :::J
o_
n
space (e.g., clothing stores). Big box retailers such as discount stores and drive-in 0
3
businesses, including banks, restaurants, and pharmacies also are found in these 3
~
n
highway-oriented business areas. QJ

n
CD
;:::.
Matching Land Uses and Activity Center Forms CD

"'
The land use design should facilitate the development of a network of activity
centers of various sizes and types, with appropriate mixes of activities and facili -
ties, and forming a citywide, metropolitan, or county spatial structure of employ-
ment, retail activities, offices, civic uses, transportation facilities, and possibly
mixing in some residential uses. This mixing and matching between types of land
uses and types of activity centers has implications for travel requ irements and
transportation systems as well as for the sustainability of the land use/transp orta-
tion design. This concept of matching land use mixes and activity center forms
can be illustrated by the case of office space. Unlike manufacturing and wholesale
activities, which locate almost entirely in employment centers, and retail uses,
which locate almost entirely in commercial centers, office space is spread across
both types of development centers.
Office space falls into five broad categories of users (O'Mara 1982, 39 and 214):
• Professionals and major institutions, which seek office space in centrally
located prime sites, often in the CED, for visibility, prestige, and conve-
I
nience. This category includes many banking and other financial institu-
tions, public relations and advertising firms, legal and accoun ting firms,
and headquarters offices of national and global firms.
• General purpose commercial office space, for which prime location is less
important, but which still seeks good accessibility to transportation and
markets. Suburban office parks and other sites near expressways are often
suitable, and adequate parking space is often critical.
• Medical office space (i ncludin g dental), which usually seeks locations near
hospitals, either in medical office parks or on individual parcels; adequate
parking is critical.
• Quasi-industrial office space, which often locates in industrial parks or
planned employment centers, where performance standards exclude in -
compatible heavy industry. Such office space may be used by industrial
neighbors, which migh t include a mix of warehouses, distribution facili -
ties, and light manufacturing concerns. Again, adequa te parking is critical.
358
• Pure industrial office space, which is built by large industrial corporations,
often on their industrial property in industrial districts or in industrial
parks.
These categories describe two types of office orientations. One type, back-of-
fice space for corporations, for example, requires little contact with the general
public and is thus often better off in employment centers rather than people-
0
s:
Q)
serving commercial centers. The other type of office space is devoted to local con-
2'.
Q)
sumers and businesses (many law and accounting firms are in this category) and
>

-
0

f-
a:
would more likely locate in commercial centers in order to be accessible to their
consumer market. The land use plan should provide a range of activity-center
types and locations that meet the needs of all types of office uses, as well as retail
<( uses, industrial and wholesale employment, and community facilities.
CL

Planning the Communitywide Spatial Structure of

Employment and Commercial Activity Centers
Planning for commercial and employment centers is a three-way challenge to de-
sign a fit between (1) types and quantities of land use activities forecast for the
future, (2) types of activity centers to harbor those uses in appropriate mixes, and
(3) locations of activity centers and their relationship to transportation systems.
Thus, planners must first estimate the location and space needs of future employ-
ment and commercial land use activities (e.g., various types of manufacturing,
wholesale, office, or retail activities forecast for the future economy) as well as
other activiti es (e.g., civic activities, entertainment) to be accommodated some-
where in the constellation of activity centers. Second, planners must allocate those
land uses and their space needs among appropriate activity-center types (central
business district, office parks, industrial parks, shopping centers, neighborhood
centers in accordance with the location preferences of those land uses). Third,
planners must locate those land uses/activity-center combinations on suitable lands
and in proper relationship to each other and to the regional transportation sys-
tem, labor markets, and consumer markets. The triangle in Figure 12-1 suggests
the simultaneous three-way fit that is the essential objective of the long-range
land use plan for major activity centers. The task is one of designing a suitable
spatial structure or web of types of urban -center places in suitable locations all
tied together by a multi modal transportation system. It is not just a task of allo-
cating sufficient space for various industrial, commercial, and related land uses
somewhere in the urban area. The design of this spatial structure reflects both
private-market preferences and dynamics and public interests, such as coordina-
tion of transportation investments with the development of commercial and em-
ployment centers. It provides a structure of development possibilities for the real
estate development industry to flesh out with development decisions.
To create such a balanced system of activity centers requires the active participa-
tion of stakeholders in the economy of the community, including basic-sector rep -
resentatives, nonbasic (primarily retail) businesspeople, commercial-development
representatives, business organizations such as the chamber of commerce, public
 359
n
I
Commercial, Employment, ~
__.,
CJ
Civic, and Transportation rn
:::rJ
Uses I Activities

-
N

rn
3
-0

Activify/ \
D
-<
3
Fig. 12-1 Three-part challenge CD
~
in designing the fit among uses, Q)
:::J
Centers '4 "" Locations activity centers, and locations. o._
n
0
3
3
CD
c=;
Q)

and private economic-development players, and advocates of labor and neighbor- n

CD
hoods adjacent to existing activity centers. It requires coordination with economic- ~
CD
c;;
development planning and transportation planning, as well as other community
facilities and infrastructure plannin g.
The spatial structure of activity centers is conceived on communitywide and
regional scales. Although neighborhood retail and smaller private and public fa-
cilities are part of the land use design too, we postpone most of our attention of
those more local-scale facilities until the next chapter on residential communities
and the following chapter on small-area plans. Also, what we do here is suggest a
generic approach. Planners will need to adapt the methodology to their particular
urban area, its relative size, its own legacy of major centers, and the local
government's economic development strategy for the future .
The process for designing the spatial pattern of employment and commercial
centers is adapted from the generic approach explained in chapter 10. The main
tasks are preparatory analyses, formulating principles for employment and com-
mercial center locations, mapping variation in suitability of the relevant land supply
fo r such centers, designing a schematic spatial structure of employment and com-
mercial centers, deriving space requirements for the land uses to inhabit the cen-
ters based on economic projections and economic development plans, assessing
the holding capacity of proposed locations for centers, and fin ally balancing the
allocation of space requirements with holding capacities for the schematic design .
The result is a design that m eets the space needs of the future economy in a suit-
able array of types of employment and commercial centers, located appropriately
an d connected by transportation systems to each other and to labo r and con-
sumer markets.

Conducting Preparatory Studies

Planners and the community's planning team normally begin by reviewing the studies
of the urban economy, land use, and transpo rtation discussed in chapters 5, 7, and 8,
the issues and scenarios discussed in chapter 9, the vision, goals, and general policy
discussed in chapters 9 and 10, along with the areawide land policy plan, if one has
been completed. They would also review economic development and capital im-
provement plans of the community and any small-area plans for business districts.
Projections of basic employment and changes in economic structure, proj ections of
360
population and their implications for retail and consumer services, economic de-
velopment strategi es, and analyses of transportation and utilities issues and plans
are particularly critical.
On the demand side, planners often add more focused land use and economic
studies of existing and emerging industrial, retail, and office land uses in existing
and emerging employment and commercial centers. For the basic employment sec-
tor, such studies would analyze shifts in economic structure, production processes,
5
Q)

"2: and business organization, among other factors, that will influence location and
Q)
> space requirements for the future economy. Emerging industries, economic-

-
C)

development strategies, and changing production and distribution technology and

organization may suggest a different array of location and space requirements
f-
a: than those of the existing industries. For example, the 1993 Montgomery County,
<(
[L
Maryland, plan is based on the types of businesses the county encourages- cor-
porate headquarters, knowledge-based industry, biotechnology research, public/
private institutions, federal research and regulatory agencies, and small businesses
and incubator businesses-rather than an extrapolation of past trends (Mary-
land-National Capital Park and Planning Commission 1993, 55 ).
On the land supply side, planners would analyze the physical and economic
characteristics and trends of existing employment and commercial centers and
how they might fit into future needs of the economy and the lifestyles of the com-
munity. For employment areas, such studies involve delineating boundaries and
potential adjacent areas for expansion; analyzing existing space use, vacancies,
and trends in occupants of centers; assessing the adequacy of space and infra -
structure; estimating the linkages within and among employment areas; and as -
sessing their access to existing and proposed transportation, other utilities, and
labor force. From these studies, planners construct a picture of the current and
emerging complex of employment and commercial centers along with their prob-
lems and opportunities.
Parallel studies are appropriate for commercial (people-serving) activities and
centers. Planners study present and projected retail uses and consumer services,
as well as conditions, trends, and potentials in the hierarchy of existing commer-
cial-activity centers. Even greater attention is devoted to transportation (includ-
ing traffic flow, parking, transit connections, and pedestrian flows) and to con -
nections to consumer market (trade) areas than is the case for employment areas .
Finally, there should be a coordinated summary analysis of the combined struc-
ture of employment-oriented and commerce-oriented centers, forecast and de -
sired scenarios of demand and supply for the future, and a refined understandin g
of the issues to be addressed.
Figure 12-2 shows a simple map of commercial centers from a Montgomery
County, Maryland, planning analysis. Such a map, when expanded to include
employment centers and coupled with text and tables that assess the existing con -
ditions and potential for further change and development among the centers, would
constitute a summary analysis of the spatial and functional structure of employ-
ment and commercial activity centers. It could be extended to create scenarios of
future additions and changes to the spatial structure as well.
 361
n
COMMERCIAL CENTERS :::r::
)>
__,
-0
rn
::J:J

...
-
N

rn
3
TI
0
-<
3
CD
;::;.
Ql
:::J
D..
n
0
... 3
...
v 3
CD
ri
[l)

• • n
m
• •
:::J
ill
• u;

• • . . .•
•

•
LEGEND

CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT

REGIONAL MALL
----
• •
• • • • REGIONAL STRIP COMMERCIAL

.A.
COMMUNITY RETAIL

RURAL CENTER
•
Fig. 12-2 Il lustrative map show ing the spatia l structure of commercial centers.
Source: Montgomery County Plann ing Board 1993.

Task 1: Formulating Location Principles

In conjunction with the preparatory studies, the planning team should formu late
location principles and standards for placement of employment and commercial
centers in the land use design. Location principles reflect th e community's goals
and general policies as well as findin gs from the preparatory studies abo ut busi-
ness preferences and trends. Location principles reflect the particular commu-
nity, but also reflect considerations common to mo st U.S. communities. Thus, th e
location principles for comrnunitywide land use design that are described in chap-
ter 10 and more explicit versions of the principles illustrated below are likely to be
appropriate in many communities. While these examples are for employment areas
and commercial centers in general, it is appropriate to tailor location principles and
standard s to specific types of centers and to the specific community. For example,
Montgomery County used a location principle/policy of concentrating the high -
est-density employment in the urban ring (adjacent to the District of Columbia )
and the I-270 corridor, especially near particular transit stations (Maryland-
National Capital Park and Planning Commission 1993, 59). Planners may even
specify an approximate mix of types of employment areas and commercial cen-
ters to be provided in the land use design and the number of sites for each type,
pending the results of suitability and holding capacity studies later in the process
that define the potential supply of app ropriate locations.
362
Illustrative Location Principles for Employment Areas The following loca -
tion principles illustrate the kinds of considerations planners should address. Plan-
ners will generally adjust them to the community's goals and concerns, the spe-
cific nature of the economy, and the physical geography.
• Finding appropriate terrain. Reasonably level and well-drained land out-
side the floodplain. It should have not more than 5 percent slope. Occa-
0
$ sionally, sites with steeper grades can be economically developed if the site
Q.l

2::
Q.l
is otherwise well located. For example, partly level and partly rolling ter-
>

-
0

~
a:
rain with trees, streams, and attractive landscape features would be appro -
priate for office parks or low-density research development parks.
Accommodating a range of locations and types of centers. A larger num-
<(
CL
ber of modest-sized employment sites, distributed widely in space, offer
more choices for employers and developers and better accessibility to em-
ployees than the alternative of a few very large sites.
• Matching different types of sites to types of employment centers. Each of
the various types of employment centers will have its particular location
requirements. Thus, there should be sites to accommodate "nuisance" in-
dustries, such as junkyards, construction equipment and materials busi-
nesses, fuel-storage areas, and power plants as well as sites for industrial
parks, office parks, and planned mixed-use business centers that have higher
design standards.
• Locating sufficiently large land areas. Employment centers must be large
enough to accommodate expansive one-story buildings and accessory stor-
age, loading, and parking areas. Employment areas should range in size
from 50 acres to 500 acres or more. Some of these may be formed through
additions to existing employment districts.
• Providing access to transportation network. The desired transportation
mode and the precise definition of access-distance to transit station, ex-
pressway interchange, railroad, port, or airport-may be different for each
type of employment center and employment-oriented land use. For ex-
ample, direct access to trucking routes for incoming and outgoing goods
and rail access is important for sites intended for warehousing and distri-
bution. Highway sites should provide parcels ranging in depth from 800
feet up to 2,000 feet (or more) from the road or railroad. Safe pedestrian
and bicycle access, when deemed necessary, should be made available.
Planned transportation improvements should be reflected.
• Providing access to labor force. Planners may specify the characteristics of
residential populations to which accessibility is desired. Some sectors of
the economy require access to a blue-collar labor force, while others re-
quire access to clerical or professional labor forces. Equity concerns call for
access to low-income and minority labor in particular. Planned transpor-
tation systems are important in determining locations with future accessi-
bility potential.
 363
n
• Providing sites with visibility to the public. Some uses and some types of :r:
l>
employment centers- bu siness and headqu arters office parks, for ex- ~
m
:D
ample- desire promin ent sites along freeways for public relations purposes.
• Assuring availability of ut ilities . In addition to wate r, sewer, electricity, and
gas, planners might specify special utility needs for particular industries or
types of industrial areas. Some establishments drill th eir own wells for water
-
N

m
3
"12.
0
-<
supply and construct their own water and sewage treatment facilities and 3
CD
~
may not require public sewerage o r water. Some are such large consumers
"'
:::>
of power that utilities can be extended to remote sites. Cl..
n
0
• Assuring compatibility with surrounding uses. This criterion is especially 3
3
CD
applicable for potential sites to accommodate industrial processes with off- c=;
Qi.
site noise, glare, odor, smoke, traffic, dangerous emissio ns, or processes re- n
CD
quiring waste-storage areas. Compatibility is less critical for light industry, :::>
CTi
warehousing and distribution, office uses, or high-performance industrial c;:;

parks. Truck and auto traffic generated by the employment center should
not travel through residential areas.
• Encouraging compatibility with the natural environment. Industries should
avoid environmentally sensitive areas and areas subj ect to natural hazards
such as flooding.

Illustrative Location Principles for Commercial Centers Although particular

standards are mentioned in the following list, planners should derive standards con-
sistent with the specific circumstances of the community based on its vision and
goals and the scale of the retail and services centers envisioned in the plan.
• Obtaining accessibility to the market area and direct access to traffic: Ac-
cessibility is absolutely the top priority for commercial centers, although
requirements vary from one type of center to another. For example:
- Central business districts (CBDs) require proximity to peak flows of auto,
transit, and pedestrian traffic, where retail, professional, financial, and
related services can be conveniently accommodated, an d where public
transportation, parking, and regional highways are immediately acces-
sible. Since the CBD already exists in most cases, these criteria generally
apply to areas for its expansion.
- Satellite business centers require proximity to public transportation and
major arterials and expressways serving the trade area population asso-
ciated with the level of the center (from 40,000 to 300,000 people) .
- Highway-oriented business centers are located in outlying areas, adja-
cent to a major highway, with adequate access to it and the regional high-
way network.
- Accessibility to low-income and minority populations should be a par-
ticular concern.
• Suitable terrain: Sites should be reasonably level, well-drained, and outside
floodplains . (The CBD and other existing centers m ay not meet this
 364
U)

~
c criterion, but directions of expansion should consider terrain as well as
o_
Q)
U)
access to amenities such as visual and pedestrian access to water and other
::::>
-0
urban design features.)
c
C\J
_J

Ol
• Finding sites of adequate size: Sites should be large enough to accommo-
c
-""' date the necessary quantity of retail, office, and other commercial space to
C\J
2' make the center work, but also the auxiliary uses such as parking, transit
0
;;:: stations, and other access to transportation network. This usually requires
Q)

c anywhere from ten acres for a community-type shopping area, to fifty acres
Q)
> for a regional shopping center, to 100-plus acres for a superregional center

-
0

f-
0::
(see Table 12-2).
Availability of utilities: Water and sewer are especially important. This cri-
<(
o_
terion applies particularly to new sites in outlying areas not yet served by
water an d sewer.
v
Task 2: Mapping Location Suitability
This step is an analysis of the land supply with respect to the previously deter-
mined location and site-size principles such as those illustrated above under task
1 and discussed in the first section of the chapter. Each type of center would have
its own suitability map based on the combination of criteria specified in its loca -
tion principles. Suitability maps might show, for example, those sites meeting the
combined principles of relative proximity to expressways, interchanges, and rail -
roads; availability of existing or easily provided sewer and water services; suitable
terrain; and adequate traffic flow (in the case of a commercial-activity centers).
Suitability maps might also include the influence of alternative design choices for
transportation, water and sewer expansion, and population distribution to cap -
ture the implications of future design options; refer to chapter 6 for methods of
drawing suitability maps. In this case, however, the methodology employs the broad
range of criteria specified above rather than focusing on environmental feature s.

Initial Visit to Task 5: Formulating a Schematic Land Use Design

At this point, after having studied location principles and suitability maps, but
before deriving space requirements for employment and commercial centers, plan-
ners might create several schematic designs for the functional and spatial struc-
ture of the constellation of such centers. A schematic design focuses on findin g
suitable locations for each potential center, and at the same time locating them in
proper relationship to each other, to future labor and consumer markets, and to
existing and planned transportation systems. The schematic design must there-
fore eventually incorporate the potential residential areas, transportation systems,
and community facilities discussed in following chapters.
The outcome of this schematic design task is a map showing a pattern of cen -
ters as abstract symbols. It indicates locations (but not actual sizes and shapes ) as
well as types (e.g., employment versus retail, office parks versus industrial, an d
regional versus community scale retail centers) . That map will serve as the fram e-
work for calculating space requirements and holding capacities of the proposed
 365
n
sites, and for designs for residential areas, transportation, and community facili- :r:
l>
"""(]
ties. Those designs can be addressed more effectively if the planner has a sense of -i
m
:::J:J
the number, location, types, and general sizes of centers in a proposed design.

-
N

Following an iterative process, however, the employment and commercial spatial

structure design will have to be readdressed, modified, and refined once planners m
3
have a better idea about plans for residential change and future transportation '"Cl
0
-<
and community facilities. 3
CD

Figure 12-3 illustrates a schematic design of the spatial structure of activity ~

Q)
::::i
centers and transportation systems in the form of a transit/land use diagram for CL
n
Charlotte, NC. 0
3
3
~
n
Task 3: Deriving Space Requirements a:; ·
n
CD
Future space requirements are estimated somewhat differently for emplo yment ~
CD

areas than for commercial centers. c;;

Employment areas Estimating the amount of land needed for employment ar-
eas in the land use design is generally based on numbers of expected employees to
be accommodated and is approached through the following subtasks:
• Subtask 3.1: determine the number of employees to be accommodated in
proposed types of centers and locations.
• Subtask 3.2: develop future employment density standards for proposed cen-
ters; that is, employees per gross acre of employment center.
• Subtask 3.3: divide the future number of employees by density standards to
estimate the number of acres that will be required for that type of center at a
particular location.
• Subtask 3.4: add a safety margin to accommodate the possibilities that eco-
nomic growth will be faster than expected and densities will be lower than
anticipated, and to ensure that land would be available to accommodate ad-
ditional employment at specific critical sites beyond the target year of the
plan.
These subtasks to the overall task 3 of determining space requirements are ex-
plained below.

Subtask 3.1: Determine the Future Number of Employees to Be Accommo-

dated in the Land Use Plan Determining the future number of employees to
be accommodated in the land use plan is based on a combination of employment
projections and economic development policy. Traditionally, land use planners
have relied almost entirely on economic projections for estimating the employ-
ment-based dem and for land. Over the past two decades, however, many planners
have taken a less-deterministic approach in which future employment is deter-
mined by a combination of conscious policy choice as well as trend-based projec-
tions. Thus, future employment levels, their distribution among economic sec-
tors, their location requirements, and their requirements for space may all reflect
economic development policy for the community as well as economic trends. This
 366
"'
c
"'
0::
Q) 2025 TRANSIT/LAND USE PLAN

-- •
~"'
-0
c RAIL
"'
_J

01
BUS RAPID TRANSIT (BRT)
c NEW AND EX PANDED BUS ROUTES
-"' STATIONS
~"' 1111111111 FEEDER ROUTES
0 TRANSIT HUBS
5
Q)

a;> •• FUTURE EMPLOY MENT DEVELOPMENT

RESIDENTIAL DEVELOP MENT

••
>

-
0

f-
a:
FUTURE MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT

PENDING EMPLOYMENT /
MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT

EXISTING EMPLOY MENT

CENTERS
<!'.
a... REDEVELOPMENT AREAS

•• ~ MUNICIPALITIES

••
Fig. 12-3 Illustrative schemat ic desig n of emp loyment and commerc ial centers and transportation
systems , Charlotte , North Caro lina. Source: City of Charlotte 1998.
 367
n
approach argues for inclusion of economic development planners as well as busi- :r:
)>
u
___,
ness leaders on the land use planning team. For example, the economic policy in m
::D
Chicago's Chicago Metropolis 2020 plan (Johnson 2001), a public-private enter-
prise, proposes to move the region toward more high -tech employment, combin-
ing private enterprise and public control, addressing social inequities, and attracting
more environmentally sustainable economic development (see chapter 1 fo r more =
-
N

m
3
0
-<
discussion of that plan). In Montgomery County, Maryland, the plan purposely 3
CD

guides the county away from the intense industrial types of uses that characterize ;::::_
Q)

its past economic structure and toward a goal of becoming a world -class center of ::0
o._
n
business and technology (Maryland- National Capital Park and Planning Com- 0
3
mission 1993, 55). 3
ro
ri
Employment projections should be made for key sectors of the economy as Q)

n
well as for the economy as a whole. The most fundamental division is between CD
;::::_
basic and nonbasic employment. Beyond that, the breakdown of employment c:i;
might separate out the largest sectors in the local economy and sectors targeted by "'
economic development policy (see chapter 5). Finally, if the planning jurisdiction
is large, such as a metropolitan region, future employment may allocated, by pro-
jection and by design, among geographic areas of the region. For example, em -
ployment may be allocated to radial sectors (e.g., north, east, south, west), con-
centric rings (e.g. central city, suburban, and rural-urban fringe), or policy areas
defined in a regional land policy plan or an economic development plan. Table
12-3 illustrates a work table format for an allocation of future employment among
employment-center types and general locations proposed in the schematic design
for a hypothetical city. Note that the focus in this table is on economic-base em -
ployment, not employment serving the planning jurisdiction's residents directly
(such as retail employment and office employment oriented to serving the popu-
lation), which will be discussed below under commercial centers.

Table 12-3
Allocation of Future Economic Base Employment by Proposed Employment
Centers and Type of Employment
Proposed Basic Sector Employment Centers in the Land Use Design

Type of Industrial Industrial Office Mixed-Use

Employment CBD Districts Parks Parks Centers Other Total
A B ... A B... A .. . A ... A B...
Manufacturing 0 700 300 500 300 0 100 0 100 2,000
Wholesale 100 100 300 200 0 100 200 100 0 1, 100
Office (hqs./BO) 500 0 100 200 0 300 200 100 0 1,400
Other (e.g . 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 100 0 200
government)
Total 600 800 700 900 300 400 600 300 100 4,700
Figures in the tab le represent numbers of employees and are illustra t ive only.
 368
"'
c
ro Subtask 3.2: Develop Density Standards for Future Employment Planners'
CL
Q) estimates of future employment densities are based on existing densities in the
"'
:::)
study area, regional and national trends fo r various industries and for various
u
c
ro
_J types of employment centers, and the community's economic development and
=
c land use policies.
-""'
ro
For advance planning purposes, employment density is usually defined as gross
-s
2'
0
density rather than net density. Gross density includes the entire acreage in an
Q)

2:
employment center in the denominator of the ratio. Net density includes only the
Q)
> building site plus outdoor storage, parking, and loading areas, but not undeveloped

-
0

f-
a:
portions of the site, streets interior to the area or bounding streets, railroad spurs,
or small unusable parcels, which are included in gross acreage. Net density also
includes very little space for expansion on site.
<(
o_
To determine existing gross densities, a survey is desirable although shortcut
methods are commonly used. In more abbreviated approaches, planners use ex-
I
isting land use data (acreage or floor area in various economic sectors) and data
on the existing employment, and divide the number of employees by the number
of acres in that use. That information should be supplemented, where possible,
with data on shortages and excesses in current space, by industry and location;
information on the adequacy of present physical facilities for expected future eco-
nomic activities (processing, assembly, storage, etc.); possible information on the
likelihood of firms moving, expanding, or contracting; and information on the
adequacy of parking, transportation, and other public and private services. The
need to understand the area's current industrial densities, their adequacy, and
trends in the region and nationally is another reason fo r including economic-
development planners and business leaders on the land use planning team.
Densities are calculated, if possible, for each important sector of the economy-
averaging the remainder for a residual "other" sector. Within these sectors, densi -
ties might also be categorized by type of employment center (e.g., industrial dis -
trict, industrial park, multipurpose employment center), and/or by general loca-
tion in the urban region (e.g., inner-city, suburban, and fringe locations) . Thus,
planners can estimate overall average density, densities of different types of em-
ployment centers, and density variation by location with respect to the city center,
and perhaps separate industries into either a low-density or high-density class.
Having examined the density characteristics of existing employment, planners
next develop density standards for the future. For existing industries, this gener-
ally consists of adjusting current densities based on trends and recent develop-
ment examples. For example, a trend toward automated warehousing in the whole-
sale sector would increase the amount of land required per employee (decreasing
employee density) for the future, while trends toward "just in time" delivery of
inputs may reduce the need for inventory storage. For new industries, density
estimates are based on studies of cities where such activities already exist and on
trends in that industry.
The choice of number and types of density classes depends on the makeup of
the economy (e.g., whether there is a large office sector or large manufacturing
sector) and the variety of types of employment centers and locations being pro -
posed in the schematic land use design. In areas under 100,000 population, a
 369
n
detailed breakdown by sector, type of employment center, and location is usually :r:
)>
impractical and densities may be estimated specifically for the small number of _,
u
rn
:JJ
employment centers to be accommodated in the land use design. For larger places,
plann ers can begin with two to five density classes. If two classes are used, they
may simply be designated as either intensive (high-density) areas and extensive
(low-density) areas or employment, for example. Or the distinction may be made
-
N

rn
3
""D
0
by type of employment center. -<
3
CD
Density standards projected by the Urban Land Institute, based on trends in ~
Q.)

the 1970s, ranged from eight employees per acre for extensive industries (e.g., ::::>
Q_

n
wholesale trade), to ten for intermediate-intensity industries (e.g., lumber and 0
3
wood products or chemicals), to twenty-four employees per acre for intensive 3
9:;
industries (e.g., electrical equipment, instruments) (Lochmoeller 1975, 166-68). :J.
Q.)

See also Table 12-1. n

CD
::::>
Again, it should be emphasized that densities will vary from place to place. ~
Therefore, standards should be estimated locally and fitted to the breakdown of "'
industries, centers, and general locations used in th e community's version of Table
12-3 above. It may not be that every cell in the table has a different density; for
example, the same density might be appropriate for several employment-center
types and locations. Table 12-4 illustrates hypothetical density standards accord -
ing to categories consistent with the hypothetical employment distribution among
employment-center types illustrated in Table 12-3 above for th e same hypotheti-
cal city.

Subtask 3.3: Estimate Space Needs The next subtask is to divide the future
employment by the density standard for each density class in each of the employ-
ment centers proposed in the schematic design and indicated in tables like Table
12-3 and 12-4. The result is an estimate of gross acreage needed to accommodate
economic base-oriented employment in the land use design. The simplest ap-
proach is to do that for total future employment, including both jobs that survive

Table 12-4
Illustrative Density Standards by Proposed Employment Center and Type of
Employment
Proposed Basic Sector Employment Centers in the Land Use Design

Type of Industrial Industrial Office Mixed-Use

Employment CBD Districts Parks Parks Centers Other
A B... A B ... A ... A ... A B...
Manufacturing NA 20 15 12 10 NA 15 10 10
Wholesale 10 10 10 8 8 15 15 10 10
Office (hqs./80) 50 25 25 25 20 40 40 20 20
Other (e.g., government) 30 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10
Figures indicate gross densit ies in employees per acre and are illustrative only.
 370
"'
c
m from the present economy and new growth expected for the target year in each
o_
Q) classification. Planners may then estimate the additional (or decreased) acreage
"'
:::)
needed in existing centers to accommodate future employment by subtracting
u
c
m
_J the present acreage in employment centers from the estimated space requirements
=
'= for total future employment in those centers. Since not all existing plants and
-""
m
other facilities can be expected to rebuild to the future (usually lower) density
-s
2
0 standards during the planning period, that approach in effect introduces a built-
Q)

·2 in safety factor to allow for growth greater than forecasted. Another approach is
Q)
> to assume existing employment will continue to occupy existing facilities at exist~

-
0

r-
a:
ing densities and to apply the future standards only to growth in employment. A
third, more-sophisticated approach is to replace existing densities with two new
ones: one to reflect the expansion, moving, and turnover that occurs within exist-
<(
o_ ing structures or expanded facilities on existing sites, and a second standard for
employment in new structures. Table 12-5 illustrates the space requirements based
I
on the hypothetical employment allocation in Table 12-3 and the density stan-
dards in Table 12-4.

Subtask 3.4: Add a Safety Factor Adding a safety factor accommodates the
possibility that employment growth is greater than expected, or at a lower density,
and creates an industrial reserve. A safety factor is especially important in smaller
urban areas where one or two large new employers could invalidate economic
forecasts. Additionally, it may be wise to protect prime industrial sites in anticipa-
tion of needs beyond the twenty- to thirty-year horizon of the land use design,

Table 12-5
Illustrative Estimation of Space Requirements (in Acres) for Proposed Em-
ployment Centers in the Land Use Design
Proposed Basic Sector Employment Centers in the Land Use Design

Type of Industrial Industrial Office Mixed-Use

Employment CBD Districts Parks Parks Centers Other Total

A B.. . A B ... A ... A. .. A B.. .

Manufacturing 0 35 20 42 30 0 7 0 10 144a.
Whol esal e 10 10 30 25 0 7 14 10 0 106a.
Office (hqs./BO) 10 0 4 8 0 8 5 5 0 40a.
Other (e.g.,
government) Q _Q _Q _Q _Q _Q 10 1Q _Q 20a.
Estimated total 20 45 54 75 30 15 36 25 10 310a.
Add, contingency
fa ctor _4 _J! 1Q 1Q _Q _Q z .5- ~ 64a.
Plan ned tota l 24 54 64 90 36 20 43 30 13 374a.
Fi gu res ind ica te ac res of land needed to accommodat e t he n umbers of emp loyees allocat ed in Table 12-3,
g ive n t he densit ies in Tab le 12-4.
 371
n
especially in localities where suitable land for industry is scarce. In mountainous I
l>
areas, for example, suitable level land in large tracts for economic development is -0
-I
rn
likely to be scarce and its protection could be a matter of considerable importance :IJ

in the long run. Otherwise, the danger is that scarce land for economic develop -
ment will be usurped by other uses in the short run, destroying the potentially
better long-run use of the land for economic development. The amount of land
-
N

rn
3
-0
0
required for the contingency of faulty forecasts and industrial reserve is a matter -<
3
CD
of local judgment; there is no standard practice. ~
OJ
A general safety factor for space requirements may be added in one of several :::J
o._
n
ways. It might be added to particular categories of employment centers, say in a 0
3
new row at the bottom of the equivalent of Table 12-5 above, or to specific centers 3
~
and locations after the schematic design is fleshed out and holding capacity has C")
o:; ·
been calculated for those locations. In the latter case, the safety-factor acres are n
CD
:::J

added to the map first and then transferred to a summary table (discussed be- ~
low), and perhaps as a new row to the bottom of a revised version of Table 12-5 "'
above.
It is important to note th at the sample tables above are only suggestive; they
have more columns and rows than is necessary for many planning jurisdictions,
particularly for smaller places. Fewer rows and columns and different combina-
tions of locations and types of centers may suffice.

Space Requirements for Commercial Centers For purposes of the land use de-
sign, a broad-brush approach is generally sufficient to estimate commercial space
requirements. More detailed studies are useful in refinements to the land use design
plan and in small- area plans for commercial districts. On the demand side, esti-
mates of space requirements involve studies of retail, service, office, wholesaling,
and other commercial functions, including market and purchasing power studies.
On the supply side, they involve floor-area analyses, by ground level and above-
ground floor levels, and fo r individual centers as well as the study area as a whole,
sometimes supplemented by studies of structures, parking, transportation, and ur-
ban design in particular commercial centers. For the long-range land use design,
however, planners might distinguish four broad categories of commercial center
space-retail, office, selected basic employment (e.g., finance or state government),
and public facilities (civic center or arena, open space, educational and cultural fa-
cilities, transportation terminals, etc.).
The derivation of future space needs for retail and office uses in commercial
centers is different than the approach used for employment centers. Rather than
basing estimates on employment projections, they are based on population fore -
casts for the trade areas of the centers and economic forecasts in the office sectors
of the economy. The logic is that retail and office space (except headquarters and
back-office employment in basic sectors of the local economy already estimated
above) is largely population-serving. The increase in floor space needed for these
uses in commercial centers is presumed to be proportional to population growth
in relevant trade areas. Thus, in the simplest approach, if population growth of 35
percent is anticipated in the overall trade area by the horizon year, for example,
the square feet of retail and office space is expected to increase by 35 percent as
 372
"'c well. If employment forecasts for medical professions, law, finance, insurance, real
~
o_
Q) estate, and similar office-related categories of employment are available and de-
"'
:::)
pendable, however, they are preferable to population as the basis for office space
-0
c
CTJ
_J needs. It is also preferable to base some of the highway-serving space require-
OJ
c
-""
ments on estimates of transient population, especially in communities where tour-
CTJ
:2' ism is an important sector of the economy. Other multipliers to consider are pur-
~
0 chasing power (a combination of population, household income, and expendi-
s
Q)

·2 ture patterns), projected growth in the number of business establishments, and

Q)
> daytime population projections for the CBD and major centers.

-
0

f-
0::
Table 12-6 shows the steps in a procedure to calculate total future retail floor-
area requirements and allocate them to the various commercial and employment
centers envisioned in the schematic land use design. Step 1 estimates total retail
<(
o_
and office floor-area requirements for the entire study area, using population
growth as a multiplier. Step 2 then allocates that total to the centers proposed in
I
the schematic l'1;nd use design . The distribution of space among proposed centers
is based on a number of factors, including the present proportional distribution
of space among centers (see proportions calculated in part 1 of step 2), the sche-
matic land use design, the community's goals and general policies, economic de-
velopment plans, judgments about local, regional and national trends in shop-
ping behavior and merchandising practices, the transportation plan, and stan -
<lards about convenience in shopping and services for neighborhoods and com-
munities. The figures in Table 12-6, like earlier tables in this chapter, are purely
illustrative figures for a hypothetical place. The approach for office space alloca-
tion is similar (see Table 12-7) .
The allocation of future retail and office floor-area requirements to the various
commercial centers in the proposed schematic land use design implies a need for
additional related space for parking, loading space, and landscaping. Also, some
of the projected floor area can be in stories above ground level, which would not
take up ground space in the land use design. Table 12-8 suggests a procedure to
convert future retail and office floor area (calculated in Tables 12-6 and 12-7) into
ground area requirements that account for related space needs and the fact that
some of the floor space is above ground level. At the end, ground floor space needs
(in square feet) are converted to acres ofland. Table 12-8 illustrates the approach
as applied to a CBD, but similar tables would be calculated for each center in the
land use design. In steps 1 (retail) and 2 (office), total floor area is converted to
required ground-floor area-the land needed for the building footprints. Steps 3
through 5 estimate additional ground area needed for parking, loading, and land-
scape areas as well as a contingency factor. In step 3, the necessary ground area for
parking to support retail and office floor area is based on a desired or assumed
ratio of floor space to parking space (adjusting for the fact that parking below
ground and above ground does not require ground area). In step 4, ground area
for loading and service areas, for landscaping, and for outdoor public space is
added as a percentage of retail and office floor area. Step 5 adds a contingency
factor, also on a percentage basis, to account for possible underprojections of
retail and office use and possible erroneous assumptions about parking, loading,
and landscaping. Finally, in step 6, the results of the preceding steps are summed
 373
n
I
)>
Table 12-6 Cl
--;
rn
:JJ
Illustrative Allocation of Retail Floor Area Requirements among Commercial
and Employment Centers
Step 1: Estimating aggregate space needs for the horizon year
1. Total retail floor area in planning jurisd iction in base yea r .............. ...... .... ....... 910,000 sq. ft .
-
N

rn
3
:2.
0
-<
2. Growt h multiplier (1 plus population growth, or other bas is) ............ .. ...... .. ... say ___Ll! 3
CD
3. Total retail floor are a required in horizon year, XXXX .. .......... .... .. .... ...... .. .... 1,730,000 sq . ft. :::l.
"'::J
Q_

Step 2: Allocating total retail floor area among proposed centers in schematic land use design n
0
Present breakdown among ex isting centers (start with square f eet, then convert to propo r- 3
3
tions, which can be used as the initial basis for allocation of future retail activity among CD
c=;
proposed centers)
"'n
CD
Proportion Square Feet ::J

fil
CBD 0.67 610,000 "'
Satellite center A 0.22 200,000
Highway clusters (as a class) 0.06 50 ,000
Neighborhood shopping (as a class) 0.04 40,000
Other 0.01 10.000
Total 1.00 910,000

Allocation of horizon year retail square footage among proposed centers

(allocated first by proport ions and then converted to im p lied square footage)

Proportion Square Feet

CBD 0.55 951,000
Satellite center A 0.12 208 ,000
Satellite center B 0.10 173,000
Mixed -use center A 0.15 260 ,000
Office park A 0.0 0
Highway clusters (as a class) 0.02 34,000
Neighborhood shopping (as a class ) 0.05 87,000
Other 0.01 17,000
Total 1.00 1,730,000
Fig u res are est im at es in sq ua re feet .

and converted to the number of acres of ground required to accom modate retail
and office needs, including parking, in the target year. Additional area for streets,
in new centers particularly, is added. The current number of acres in retail, offi ce,
and related parking in the CED and other existing centers is subtracted fro m that
estimated tota l future space requirement for those centers to estimate the required
net increase in acres necessary to accom modate growth according to the sche-
matic design. Agai n, th e figures in Table 12-8 are illustrative only.
Ground -space requirements for other commercial centers envisioned in the fu -
ture plan are estimated in similar fash ion, but assumptions about total floor-space
percentages, parking ratios, and perhaps loading, landscaping, and contingency
 374
"'c
a:"'
Q) Table 12-7
"'
::i
Illustrative Allocation of Population-Serving Office Floor-area Requirements
"O
c
"'
_J among Commercial and Employment Centers
~
°'
c
Step 1: Estimating aggregate space needs for the horizon year
2"' 1. Total office floor area in planning jurisdiction in base year ....... ....................... 300 ,000 sq . ft.
0 2. Growth multiplier (1 plus populat ion growth, o r other basis) ...... .. ........... ...... say --1J!.
s
.'!! 3. Total office floor area required in horizon year, XXXX ...... ......................... .. ... 57 0,000 sq. ft .
2:
Q)
>

-
0 Step 2: Allocating total office floor area among proposed centers in schematic land use design
Present breakdown among existing centers (start with square feet, then convert ed to propor-
tions, which can be used as in it ial basis for allocation of future retail activity among proposed
f- centers)
0:
<(
o_

Proportion Square Feet

I
CBD 0.8 240,000
Satell ite Center A 0.2 60,000
Highway clusters (as a class) 0.0 0
Neighborhood shoppi ng (as a class) 0.0 0
Other _Q_,_Q 0
Total 1.00 300,0 00

Allocat ion of horizon year population-serving office square footage among proposed centers
(allocated first by proportions and t hen converted to implied square footage)

Proportion Square Feet

CB D 0.6 342,000
Sate llite center A 0.1 1 63,000
Satell ite center B 0.09 51,000
M ixed-use center A 0.09 51,000
Office park A 0.05 28,500
Highway clusters (as a class) 0
Neighborhood shopping (as a class) 0.05 28,500
Other 0.01 6.000
Total 1.00 570,000
Figures are est imates in squ are feet .

space vary fro m center to center and community to community. Regional shop-
ping centers, fo r exampl e, usually have a parking ratio of at least 1:1 and often
close to 2:1, compared to a lower ratio generally provided in the CBD, especially if
there is sub stantial public transportation. Space for highway-oriented centers is
more dependent on studies of inter- an d intraregional traffic, as well as popula-
tion in trade areas, perhaps sign ificantly beyond the boundaries of the jurisdic-
tion for which the plan is being made. Since highway uses tend to require greater
space per customer, they may be forecasted separately.
 375
n
:r::
l>
__,
CJ
Table 12-8 m
::JJ

Calculating Ground Area Requirements in Acres for CBD and Other Com-
mercial Centers Proposed in the Land Use Design
Step 1: Retail Ground Floor-area Requirements
-
N

m
3
:2.
Retail floor area estimated requirement (from equival ent of Tabl e 12-6) 951 ,000 sq. ft. 0
-<
Divide by assumed future averag e number of floors in retail us e (say 1.1) _Ll_ 3
ro
Resulting ground floor-area requirement for retai l use (i.e ., " fo otprint " ) 865 ,000 sq . ft. ;:;.
Q)
::i
0..
Step 2: Office Ground Floor-area Requirements n
0
Office floor area estimated requ irement (from equivalent of Table 12-7) 342,000 sq. ft . 3
Multiply by assumed percent in office buil d ings (as opposed to being 3
~
n
above retail establishments accounted fo r above) 0.4 Q)

Result ing offi ce space assumed to be in office buildings 137,000 sq. ft. n
ro
Divide by assumed future ave rage number of floors in office buildings ~ ::i

Resulting ground floor area requirement for office buildings (i .e., "footprint") 49,000 sq. ft. ff
"'
Step 3: Parking Ground Area for Retail and Office Uses
Desired retail uses parking ratio (to be multiplied by total reta il floor area) 0.75
Parking area required for reta il uses 713,000 sq. ft.
Desired office uses parking ratio (to be multi p li ed by total offi ce floor area) 0.70
Parking area require d for offi ce uses 239,000 sq . ft .
Total parking square footage for retail and office (sum) 952,000 sq . ft.
Subtract underground and above -ground area 200,000 sq . ft.
Resulting ground area footprint for parking 752,000 sq. ft.
Step 4: Additional Space for Loading Areas, Landscaping, Outdoor Public Space Directly
Associated with Retail and Office Uses
Assume a certain pe rcent of retail and office ground floor space (perhaps a
mod ification of current spaces taken by these assoc iated uses, e.g ., 25 percent) 0.25
Resu lting additional space requirement 229,000 sq . ft .
Step 5: Additional Contingency Factor for "Waste/Vacant" Space and Erroneous Projections
and Assumptions
Assume certain pe rcent of total of steps 1-4 (e.g., 20 percent) 0.20
Resulting additional space requirement for contingency factor 379,000 sq . ft .
Step 6: Summarizing Total Ground Area Requirements Implied by Proposed Allocation of
Retail and Office Uses
Retail use ground area (from step 1) 865,000 sq . ft.
Office use ground area (from step 2) 49,000 sq . ft.
Parking ground area (from step 3) 752,000 sq . ft .
Additional space for loading area, landscaping, etc . (from step 4) 229,000 sq . ft.
Additional space to account for contingency factor (from step 5) 379.000 sq . ft.
Total squa re feet requirements associated with retail and office 2,274,000 sq . ft.
Equivalent area in acres (divide by 43,560 sq. ft. per acre ) 52 acres
Additional spa ce required for stre ets, transi t, etc. (say 25 percent) 13 acres
Total acres impli ed by retail and office use for this center 65 acres
1.These ca lcul ati o ns do not acco unt for spac e requ ired for new o pen spa ce, civi c an d community
fac ilities, resi de nces, ba sic empl oym ent, and other uses t o be accommod ated in th e center.
2. A t abl e like this w ould be con stru ct ed for eac h pro pos ed cent er in the land use design .
3. Fig ure s in th e t able are illustrati ve only and rounde d off for simplicity. Th ey will v ary from co mmun ity
t o co mmun ity and from ce nter t o ce nter w ithin a co mmunity. Th ey should be bas ed on careful analysis
of th e parti cul ar center and co mmunity.
376
U?
c
ro
The CBD and some of the other commercial centers contain activities and fa -
0::::
w cilities in addition to retail and office uses. Space for civic structures, arenas, resi-
U?
:::J
""Cl
dences, wholesale and industry, transportation, and open space will also have to
c
ro
_J
be estimated and added to the overall space requirements. Also, some retail uses
en
c and population-serving offices may be accommodated in predominantly employ-
~
ro
2= ment centers, such as mixed-use industrial parks, and space for such retail and
......
0 office activities must be added to the space requirements for those employment
~
w
>
areas. Techniques for estimating space requirements for other uses, such as hous-
© ing in commercial centers, are addressed in other chapters, and Table 12-8 can be
>

-
0

f-
a:
modified to add those space requirements. The sums of all these needs, for each
center, constitute the space requirement estimates for commercial centers and
employment centers.
<t
CL

Task 4: Holding Capacity Analysis

Shifting back to the supply side analysis, planners measure the number of acres of
suitable land (from task 2) available at each of the locations proposed for an em-
ployment or commercial center in the schematic design (as devised in the initial
visit to task 5). For existing centers, this analysis utilizes the preparatory studies
discussed above. It focuses on vacant and underutilized space within the centers,
adjacent areas for possible transition to commercial or employment uses, and
special cases of ownership or moving intentions that signal a potential future supply
of space (e.g., underutilized warehouse space possibly suitable for office, retail, or
residential space). Mitigation of crowded conditions may require additional space,
which will shrink the potential space available for new growth. When expansion
of a commercial center involves planned encroachment into surrounding areas,
losses in housing stock, other land uses, and vacant land in these areas need to be
reflected when space requirements for housing and other uses are estimated later.
The final analysis of existing commercial centers is a summary of space deficits,
surpluses, and opportunities for each existing center, constituting an assessment
of capacity for holding additional office, retail, and other appropriate uses.
For proposed new centers, the number of suitable acres is measured for each
location proposed in the schematic land use design. Sites can be shown on maps
and annotated with notes about special conditions, such as the availability of utili-
ties and transportation. The amount of suitable land available at each location,
with the characteristics that make it suitable for a commercial or employment
center, would be shown in a table.

Return to Task 5: Making the Trial Distribution of Space Requirements

to the Schematic Land Use Design
In this near-final task, the planner matches up the supply of suitable land in the
proposed array of employment and commercial areas in the schematic design with
the amount of space needed for basic employmen t, retail, office, community facili-
ties, transportation facilities, open space, and other land uses proposed to be located
in those areas. In other words, space needs are balanced against the holding capacity
for each area proposed in the schematic design. The task is a combination of fitting
 377
n
in desired uses where suitable space is available (as indicated under the proposed :::r::
p
schematic design and holding capacity analysis ); shifting some uses to centers u
--1
rn
with excess capacity (where it makes sense within the design concept); adjusting :J:J

-
N
holding capacity and suitability by changing proposed boundaries or increasing
density assumptions; increasing transportation and utilities services; and adjust- rn
3
ing the design concept to add- or subtract- centers. -0
0
Where expansion of existing co mmercial and employment centers is proposed, -<
3
CD
care must be taken to assess impacts on adjacent neighb orhoods. Expansion of the ;:::;.
QJ

CBD and other centers in already built-up areas may confl ict with neighborhood ::J
o_
n
conservation objectives, and the land use design must resolve the issue. Possibly, the 0
3
commercial or employment center can be developed more intensively to prevent it 3
o:r;
n
from spreading outward into residential areas; or commercial uses, employment, QJ

and community facilities may be integrated with the neighborhood design . n

CD
;:::;.
The resulting trial distribution of space requirements can be summ arized in a CD
u::
table similar to Table 12-9. In addition to basic employm ent, retail, and offi ce
space, the table reflects the possible allocation of community faciliti es, civic uses,
open space, and residential uses to the extent envisioned in the schematic des ign.
Often in outer areas, general locations rather than specific sites might be desig-
nated for centers. A proposed center is indicated on the map merely as a symbol,
such as a circle of appropriate size. Space requirements for such centers are de-
ducted from the planning districts where the centers are located. Specific siting,
however, is left to future planning at a more detailed level or is decided during the
urban development process as part of the review of specific development propos-
als by developers.

Summary
The design of employment, commercial, and other multipurpose activity centers
at the level of the communitywide land use design involves coordinating several
types of future employment, commercial, civic land-using activities, and other
community facilities and activities in a spatial system of activity centers.
To undertake that design task, planners must first understand the existing,
emerging, and preferred economic structure scenarios and associated land uses,
as well as the existing, emerging, and envisioned spatial structure of employment
and comme rcial activity centers. Planners must also understand the hierarchy of
types of activity centers and the types of land-using activities and facilities that
tend to be associated with each type of center. Based on that understanding and
those analyses, the task of the planning team is to design an appropriate three-
way fit between (a) types and quantities of land using activities and facilities, (b)
types of activity centers, and (c) their locations in space. All the land-using activi-
ties and facilities must find a home in an appropriate activity center; each center
must contain an appropriate mix and quantity of those land uses and facilities;
and each center must be located in proper juxtaposition to other centers, to the
transportation system, and to the residential communities of the area.
The land use design team should include representatives from the base economy
and from the nonbase economy; economic development policy makers; and
378
"'cco
0:::
Q)
Table 12-9
"'
::J Work Table Format for Summarizing Space Allocation to Employment and
CJ
c Commercial Centers
co
_J
Allocation
OJ
c
:.;;;;:
co
Floor Area:
Employment Retail & Office
-s
:::2:
0

Q)
Type of Center and Use
Employment Centers
Acres

> Industrial district A

w
>
Industrial uses xx xxx
-
0

f-
a:
Other
Total
Industrial park B
Manufacturing
xx
xx
xx
xxx
xxx
xxx
<{
0....
Wholesal ing xx xxx
Total xx xxx
Industrial park C
Manufacturing xx xxx
Wholesaling xx xxx
Office xx xxx
Total xx xxx
Planned employment center
Manufacturing xx xxx
Wholesaling xx xxx
Office xx xxx xxx
Retail xx xxx xxx
Total xx xxx
Commercial Centers
CBD
Retail xx xxx xxx
Office xx xxx xxx
Wholesale xx xxx
Civic xx xxx
Transportation xx
Open spa ce xx
Other xx xxx
Total xx xxx
Satellite center A
Retail xx xxx xxx
Office xx xxx xxx
Other xx xxx
Total xx xxx
Satellite center B
Retail , etc. xx xxx xxx
Highway-oriented cluster A
Retail, etc. xx xxx xxx
Other (scattered , shown on an
accompanying map)
Manufacturing xx xxx
Wholesale xx xxx
Office xx xxx xxx
Retail xx xxx xxx
Civic xx xxx
Transportation terminals xx xxx
Acreage figures are gross acres; they include land for streets and other rights-of-way, parking, loading ,
landscaping , and waste assoc iated with th ese uses. Tota l acreages inc lude contingency space to account for
errors in as sumption s and in estimating demand for future retai l, industrial , w holesale, and office space.
 379
n
advocates for business, labor, and activity centers as well as land use plann ers. The :::r::
)>
LJ
design process suggested in this chapter helps the planning team progress system- --l
rn
:D
atically through the complex task of balancing th e many considerations involved,
including the tasks of accounting systematica lly for the balance between the de -
mand for space and its supply in appropriate locations. The sequence of tasks and
the illustrative tables should be adapted to fit a particular community's needs;
-
N

rn
3
-0
0
-<
they are meant to illust rate a way to keep track of design assumptions as planners 3
CD
move through the planning process. The tables are also well suited to computer- ;::;_
Q)

ized spreadsheets, which can quickly trace the impacts that changes in assump- :::J
o._
n
tions abo ut density or spatial distribution hypotheses will have on space require- 0
3
m en ts and the spatial pattern of holding capacities. Similarly, the suitability analyses 3
CD
;:;
involved in the land use design process and the calculation of the holdin g capaci ty OJ

n
of suitable locations are compatible with computerized GIS. GIS overlay tech- CD
:::J

niques can map the areas of suitable lands and then automatically calculate the ro
u;
number of acres in those areas (i.e., their holding capacities). GIS also facilitates
testing different weighting schemes for suitability factors to determine their im -
plications for the spatial pattern and amounts of suitable lands.
The resulting communitywide land use design provides opportunities for
growth and development for both basic and nonbasic sectors of the economy by
providing appropriate quantities of land in appropriate types of centers of appro-
priate size in appropriate locations, and that are properly served by transporta-
tion and other infrastructure. The private sector will actually make m any of the
decisions and investments to flesh out and adjust the design over time, supported
by public investments. The land use design provides a range of opportunities for
that to happen and helps prevent scarce land resources from being usurped by
less-suitable development.
Following th e design of the spatial structure of employment, commercial, and
multipurpose centers within the land use design, as discussed in this cha pter, the
remaining supply of vacant and renewal land need s to be assessed for its availability
and suitability for resid ential and community faciliti es, a task addressed in the next
chapter. That land supply can be annotated on maps and in tables. Additi onally, th e
number of existing dwellings lost in conversion to employment and commercial
space, the amount of land lost, and its spati al pattern should also be summarized.
Those losses must be accounted for and replaced in planning for residential areas.
The spatial structure of activity centers discussed in thi s chapter is not final, of course.
It will likely need to be modified in response to the design of residential communi-
ties to be discussed in the next chapter. Small-area plans may call for additional
adjustment to specific activity centers.
There is one more observation to be m ade about the progression of land use
sectors before moving on to the next chapter on residential communities. The de-
sign progression described above implies that planners complete the full progres-
sion through all five tasks for designing the spatial structure of activity centers
before proceeding to consideration of the residential habitat component. That is,
the discussions above imply that planners should complete the analysis of space
requirements and holding capacity (tasks 4 and 5) and then apply those analyses
in fleshing out the schematic spatial structure design before moving on to the
 380
"'
c
ro residential land use sector. There is another appro ach that is equally valid, how-
Q_
Q) ever. Planners might complete just the first three tasks for designing the spatial
"'
::::J
structure of activity centers; that is, formulating design principles, mapping suit-
-0
c
ro
_J
ability, and formulating a schematic design (without careful analysis and balanc-
= ing of space requirements against holding capacity) . Planners might then proceed
"'ro
-""
to the residential habitat component of the land use design before doing analyses
-s
:2
0 of space requirements and holding capacity. In that approach, planners focuses
Q)
on the "location" dimension of the design for both the activity centers, residential
2:
Q)
> habitats, and open space, and then return to the tasks of more carefully calculat-

-
0

f-
er:
ing space requirements and holding capacity in order to flesh out the total land
use design. That is, the balancing oflocation considerations against space consid-
erations, and demand against supply considerations, would come after a tentative
<(
Q_ location-oriented schematic has been virtually completed for all land use sectors.
Lastly, this chapter discussed the communitywide scale of land use design. It
I
addressed the design of the whole constellation of employment, commercial, and
civic-activity centers. The important task of place making within the centers must
be addressed in small-area plans and by projects proposed by public and private
developers. That is where the structures, streets and pathways, parking and trans-
portation systems, public gathering places, and their connections are designed.

References
Beyard, Michael D. 1988. Business and industrial park development handbook. Washington,
D.C.: Urban Land Institute.
Beyard, Michael D., and W. Paul O'Mara, eds. 1999. Shopping center development hand-
book, 3rd ed. Washington, D.C.: The Urban Land Institute.
Bohl, Charles C. 2002. Place making: Developing town centers, main streets, and urban vil-
lages. Washington, D.C.: Urban Land Institute.
City of Charlotte, 1998. 2025 integrated transit/land-use plan for Charlotte-Mecklenburg
County. Charlotte, N.C.: Department of Transportation.
Conway, H. M., L. L. Liston and R. J. Saul. 1979. Industrial park growth: An environmental
success story. Atlanta, Ga.: Conway Publications.
Dewberry, Sidney 0., and John S. Matusik, eds. 1996. Land development handbook: Plan-
ning, engineering, and surveying. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Edwards, John D., Jr., ed. 1999. Transportation planning handbook, 2nd ed . Washington,
D.C.: Institute of Transportation Engineers.
Gause, Jo Allen. 1998. Office developmen t handbook, 2nd ed. ULI Development Handbook
Series. Washington, D.C.: Urban Land Institute.
Goldsteen, Joel, et al. 1984. Development standards for retail and mixed use centers. Arling-
ton, Tx.: Institute for Urban Studies, University of Texas at Arlington .
Johnson, Elmer W. 2001. Chicago metropolis 2020: The Chicago plan for the twenty-first
century. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Livingston, Lawrence, Jr. 1979. Business and industrial development. In The practice of
local government planning, Frank So, Israel Stollman, Frank Beal, and David Arnold,
eds., 246 -72. Washington, D.C.: International City Management Association.
 381
n
Lochmoe ll er, Donald C., Dorothy A. Muncy, Oakleigh J. Thorne, and Mark A. Viets, with :r:
:I>
the Industrial Council of the Urban Land Institute. 1975. Jndustrial development hand- _,
"'O
m
book, Community Builders Handbook Series. Washington, D.C. : Urban Land Insti- :D

tute.
-
N

Lynch, Kevin, and Gary Hack. 1984. Site plnnning, 2n d ed. Ca mbridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
m
Maryland- National Capital Park and Plannin g Co mmi ss ion . 1993. General plan refine- 3
"O
ment of the goals and objectives for Montgomery County, 135 . Author. 0
-<
Montgomery County Planning Board. 1993. Gen ernl plnn refinement: Goals and objectives, 3
ro
~
then and now, supplemental fact sheets. Mo ntgomery County, Md. : Montgomery County Q.l
:::>
Planning Department. Cl..
n
O'Mara, W. Paul. 1982. Office development handbook. Washington, D.C.: Ur ban Land Insti- 0
3
tute. 3
~
("")
Schwanke, Dean, for the Urban Development/Mixed-Use Co uncil of the Urban Land In - o; ·
stitute. 1987. Mixed-use development handbook, Community Build ers Handbook Se- n
ro
ries. Washington, D. C.: Urban Land Institute. ~
ro
v;
Urban Land Institute. 2001. Business park and industrial developm ent handbook, 2nd ed.
UL! Development Handbook Series. Washington, D.C.: Urban Land Insti tute.
Witherspoon, Robert E., Jon P. Abbett, and Robert M. Gladstone. 1976. Mixed-use develop-
ments: New ways of land use. Washington, D.C.: Urban Land Institute.
 Chapter 13

Communitywide Land Use Design:

Residential Community Habitats

You have completed at least a schematic (location -orie nted) design for
the open-space and activity-center components of the commun itywide
land use design. How will you proceed to add the res idential compo-
nent? What are the functions to be served by residential communities ?
What are the components that comprise a community? Wha t are som e
possible design concept models and design principles on w hich to base
the land use design? What procedures are appropriate for mapping suit-
ability of potential neighborhood locations and expansions, es timating
the number of dwellings required by the future population, a/locating
housing stock among neighborhood habitats, and adding local support
facilities to create community?

he previous two chapters discussed two vital elements in the com munitywide
land use design- the regional open-space system and th e network of em -
ployment/commercial/civic activity centers. This chapter is about designing
residential neighborhood units and the constellation of those neighborhood units,
and integrating them into the communitywide land use design . It is in those resi-
dential communities that most actual living goes on. For many people, the ci ty is
comprised of neighborhoods and residents identify with their neighborhood as
much as the city itself (San Francisco Planning and Research Associatio n 2002,
12 ). For m any urban residents today, the center of a m odern city see ms to be not
some downtown business district, but their own residential neighb orhood. It is
fro m that central starting point that individual members of a household, youn g
and old, create their own city from the multitude of destinations that are within
walking, biking, or driving distance or within a bus or transit ride.

383
384
The design of good residential habitats must work at several different scales. It
begins here at the communitywide scale, which specifies a template of general
characteristics for residential neighborhood units and their relationships to each
other and to employment/commercial/open-space elements of the larger com-
munity. Beyond that, however, important specifics need to be addressed through
small-area plans because human perception of space and scale determines much
of the livability dimension of the sustainability prism. Thus, the communitywide
land use design that we discuss in this chapter should create the higher-level tem-
plate while small-area plans (discussed in the next chapter) create the next-level

-
f-
a:
template. Architects and landscape architects, developers, builders, and public
works officials, along with residents, local firms, and institutions, create the actual
physical and social community through site planning and architecture, guided by
<l'.
0.... those templates. Important aspects of a successful residential community will rely,
in the end, on the urban design dimension in good small-area planning, good site
planning, and good buildings. Thus, the communitywide land use design dis-
cussed in this chapter, while important to creating the overall community, is only
one part of that "network of plans" envisioned in chapters 1, 2, 3, and 10.
This chapter has two main parts. The first part discusses visions of what consti-
tutes sustainable, smart, livable human habitats. The visions consist of statements
of functions and purposes that communities should serve, specification of the
land uses and other components that comprise the residential community, and
finally design principles and physical models of how those components might be
arranged to form highly livable, equitable, environmentally sensitive, and eco-
nomically efficient communities. Formulating a compelling vision or visions is
the starting point of the land use design process.
The second part of the chapter describes a community collaborative planning
process, based on the stated vision. The process begins with formulating a schematic
design consisting of several types or models of residential community and how they
would be arranged spatially in relation to each other and other communitywide
design elements- commercial centers, employment areas, open space, and trans-
portation systems. That phase is followed by a process for fleshing out the schematic
design by working through the five generic land use design tasks described in chap-
ter 10. Those tasks are: formulating principles, drawing suitability maps, adjusting
the residential comm unity models to the geographic circumstances of the planning
jurisdiction, deriving space requirements, calculating holding capacities, and allo-
cating the needed future dwellings among the neighborhoods proposed in the sche-
matic design. The result should be a design that balances all those considerations
and integrates residential communities into the design of commercial and employ-
ment centers, open space, transportation, and community facilities.

Formulating a Residential Community Vision

Formulating a vision involves exploring and deciding three aspects of residential
community design:
1. The functions to be served by a residential community habitat;
 385
n
2. Appropriate components of such a habitat; and :::r::
)>

3. Delineation of a physical model or models to be followed, along with their _,

u
rn
:::rJ
associated design principles.
-
w

In other words, the planning team, and the community, seek answers to three
:::rJ
questions. What should a residential community achieve? What are the commu- CD

"'
0..
nity components necessary to achieve those purposes? And what are some actual CD

~.
physical concept models of residential community and what design principles are Q)

n
associated with those models? 0
3
3
c:
::::J
Functions of Residential Communities ~
-<
:::r::
Q)

The residential area should support the livability needs of residents and at the same 0-

§
time promote other communitywide goals incorporated in the sustainability prism, "'
such as environmental protection, economic efficiency, and equity. The planning
team might begin developing the community's vision by exploring the function s
that are served by residential communities. The functions of residential habitats
emphasize livability, but include each of the other dimensions of the suitability prism
as well. Functions to consider (Brower 1996; Grant, Manuel, and Joudrey 1996;
Marans 1975; Nelessen 1994; and Richman 1979, 450-52) are the following:
• Shelter- providing sound and affordable housing that is compatible with
lifestyles and budgets of residents, and including such basic services as water,
sewer, and utilities such as gas, electricity, and cable.
• Security- providing a safe environment free of danger from traffic, vio-
lence, criminal actions, and other hazards.
• Health- providing environments that promote individual and collective
health and well-being.
• Social interaction/integration- providing opportunity for human asso -
ciation through neighboring, social networks, organizations, education sys-
tem, and physical facilities.
I
• Accommodation of out-of-home activities- providing places within the
neighborhood, and multimodal transportation connections to places out-
side the neighborhood, to facilitate relaxation and recreation, socializing,
employment, shopping, and services for the full range oflifestyles and life-
cycle stages.
• Identity-providing a sense of place, belonging, pride, and satisfaction to
residents.
• Other possible functions-privacy, opportunity to experience nature, ref-
uge from the stresses of the urban environment, and socialization.
In addition to those livability-oriented purposes, residential communities can
serve economic efficiency dimensions of the sustainability prism:
• Financial investment stability- protecting the financial stake that house -
holds have in their residence.
• Efficiency in public services and infrastructure- minimizing public costs
 386
"'
c of constructing and maintaining water and sewer systems, garbage and trash
"'
0::::
Q) collection, fire and police services, and education, recreation, and trans-
"'
:::::> portation systems.
-0
c
"'
_J

Ol
In addition, residential communities can serve environmental protection pur-
c
c;;:o poses:

-s"'
~
0

Q)
• Maintenance of ecological processes and functions by minimizing im-
pacts on them.
c
Q) • Conservation of natural resources and highly productive agricultural
>

-
0

,___
a:
lands.
And residential communities can also promote equity:
• Accommodation of diversity-of inhabitants, lifestyles, cultures, and in-
<!
[l_
comes.
/
Residential Communities: Different Scales and Different Components
There is a hierarchical order to the scales of the residential communities. At the
smallest scale, there are the dwellings themselves and clusters of dwellings, such as
apartment projects. At the next scale, there are walkable communities, often called
neighborhoods, which consist of dwellings together with othe r components to be
discussed below. Constellations of neighborhood components form the third scale
of community; an example might be the grouping of neighborhoods into urban
villages or even towns. The next higher level is the regional network of towns and
cities. The residential habitat needs to work well at all these scales, and the land
use design needs to deal with the full range of scales but particularly with the
neighborhood, village, town, and city scales.
The most basic scale is the individual dwelling and small clusters of dwellings.
This is the domain of architecture and site design and it is the scale that is most
fundamental to households. They seek, above all, a dwelling that meets their shel-
ter and space needs at a cost they can afford, and that relates well to the public
domain of the street and neighborhood. The communitywide land use design
rarely speaks directly to this scale. The small-area plan (chapter 14) comes closer
to stating design guidelines for this scale of residential habitat. The development-
management program (chapter 15) should also promote good design and con-
struction of dwellings and projects.
The next scale of residential habitat is the walkable environment beyond the dwell-
ing. It contains a mix of three components in addition to clusters of dwellings:
1. Local supportin g uses and facilities, such as stores, restaurants, banking
and legal services, community buildings such as schools or a community
center, day care facilities, and so on.
2. A circulation system; a multimodal network consisting of sidewalks, bike
paths, streets, and transit stations/bus stops.
3. Open space in the form of parks, greens, commons, piazzas, greenways,
trails, streetscapes, cemeteries, water bodies, and so on.
In other words, this scale of residential habitat is a "community for living" and
consists of much more than a collection of dwellings. Its components are shops
 387
n
and offices, day care centers, parks and other open space, churches and clubs, :r:
)>
streets and streetscapes, and other elements that support day-to-day life of resi- ~
m
dents. At this scale, the residential community is a sort of extended housing unit, ::D

consisting of the dwelling and the home-related facilities outside the dwelling
that serve the residential needs of the household (Brower 1996, 2lff).
Dwellings and clusters of dwellings are still fundamental components of this
-
w

: :D
CD
U)

C1
CD
"neighborhood" scale and there should be a range of types, sizes, and costs within ;:;.
Qi
and among neighborhoods, but the other three components are also vital (Nelessen n
0
1994). Neighborhood design also considers other concepts about components. 3
3
For example, it deals with a public-space component and its relationship to the c
::>
;:::;:
private-space component. It also deals with the character and condition of the -<
:r:
Q)
physical environment component, such as structures and streets, as well as with 0-
;:;:
the land use activity component. ~
U)

At the third scale of communitywide land use design, the neighborhoods them -
selves become the components and are organized in relationship to each other, to
activity centers, to open -space systems, and to a regional transportation system.
For example, clusters of neighborhoods might be organized into "villages;' which
are then organi zed into towns or cities, which are then organized on the regional
scale into a metropolitan community. On the other hand, design schemes may
not utilize such intermediate scales at all, and just organize the walkable-scale
neighborhoods into a town or city.
The clusters of dwellings, the neighborhoods, and villages, like natural ecology
habitats, need not be all the same. There should be a variety of dwelling types,
dwelling-cluster (site-design) types, neighborhood scales and types, and even vil-
lage types. Residential habitat design is not a "one size fits all" approach. Human
community habitats should vary in form, just as natural ecosystems vary in the
plants, terrain, and types of dens/nests/lairs. What the community and region
should have is a proper mix of residential "habitat patches" that vary in size, shape,
location, components, and connections, as well as in mixes of inhabitants.
At the neighborhood scale and above, a "community for living" must contain a
multimodal transportation network spanning pedestrian and biking circulation
within the neighborhood or village, as well as auto and public transportation con-
nections to the larger community and region, nation, and world. Thus, living en-
vironments are self-contained only to a limited degree, and they are not self-suf-
ficient. They must be spatially related to each other, to employment and commer-
cial centers, to the regional open-space system, and to a multimodal transporta-
tion system in order to form a city-scale community for living.

Design Concepts for Residential Neighborhood Habitats

A number of physical design concepts have been proposed to promote the func-
tions and organize the components of residential habitats. Such concepts are useful
as models for land use design and for analyzing demand for community facilities.
Some of these concepts have been influential for almost a century, while others are
more recent. They include:
• suburban master-planned community model,
388
• neighborhood unit model,
• New Urbanism models-including the neotraditional neighborhood con-
cept and transit-oriented developments, and
• other models, such as sociological models or Seattle's typology of "villages."

The Suburban Master-planned Community Model This model is perhaps the

0 earliest U.S. example of a planned residential habitat (Garvin 2002). The prin-
:s:
Q)
·~
ciples initiated in 1868 by Olmsted and Vaux's design for Riverside, Illinois, be-
Q)
> came the guidelines for hundreds of developments for the next 100 years and the

-
0

f-
a:
model remains valid. The street pattern was curvilinear with intersections be-
coming triangular landscaped open space; the street network and adjacent front
lawns serving also as an open-space network. Residents, whether on foot, on horse-
<l'.
CL back, or in a carriage, made their way along tree-lined streets that offered the
promise of something new around the continuing bend in the tree-lined road,
while visually borrowing a sense of open space from private but mandatory deep
and fenceless front lawns. The banks of the Des Plaines River were transformed
into a park. The Olmsted firm, professionals who passed through it, and the stu-
dents of Frederick Law Olmsted, Jr., spread the legacy, making an art form of its
formula of curvilinear, tree-lined roadways with deep front lawns augmented by
local landscape features. Some of these communities also had a small retail core
with shopping and a commuter train station; some featured landscaped boule-
vards, sometimes with a trolley in the median (Garvin 2002).
Post-World War II suburban development is partially descendent from the
Olmsted model and continues to attract consumers. That variation consists of
low-density, homogeneous neighborhoods of mostly single-family detached dwell-
ings, lawns, curving streets and cul-de-sacs. Schools, office parks, shopping cen-
ters, and recreation are located within a convenient drive by automobile, and the
commute to work is by auto as well. Thus, this model promotes mobility and
accessibility through the convenient use of automobiles and incorporates off-street
parking in driveways and garages and generously sized parking lots at shopping
centers, employment centers, schools, and other destinations. This model more
or less assumes a middle-class family with children and several cars. It is criticized
for creating auto dependency and for isolating children, the elderly, and others
who don't drive or cannot afford a car.
The Neighborhood Unit Model This model was first conceived by Clarence
Perry ( 1929) and has been influential for over seventy years in U.S. land use plan -
ning. The neighborhood unit has clear boundaries, contains a pedestrian-circula-
tion network that connects residences to an elementary school, recreation facili -
ties, and limited local retail opportunities, and incorporates an open-space net-
work, all within a walkable circumference. It would be home to a population of
1,000-5,000 people. Figure 13-1 diagrams the Perry and Stein versions of the neigh-
borhood unit concept.
The design for Radburn, New Jersey, is an applied variation on the neighbor-
hood unit concept by Clarence Stein and Henry Wright. Radburn opens the front
doors of dwellings to an open-space/pedestrian path network and the back doors
to parking and the street. Thus, there is a separated, dual system of circulation;
 389
n
::r:
)>
Al!t.A IN OPLN DfVUOPMt:NT u
PttrU.A&I.Y lloO ACW • • ---j
rn
!ft ANY ~t IT SHOULD MIGHT &l 5UBSTtTUTt0 Q ::n
ro~ CHUR.Cl1 SIT( ~-

-
HOUSt tNOUGtt DtoPLt TO
w
Rt.Qt.lie!. ONttlt11£.NTAlY ~

/ C~N,.~/\~v'!'-\~~
,p~a; . D,
XHOOl • [.lAtT SHAPt
NOT O~NTIAL 8UT 8tST -I
WHEN AU SIDtS ARf.fAll!LY _: y.-tll>- - ::n
ro
en
E®IOISTANT FllO!t o_
ro
:c ;:;.
SHOP'Pl"'°DISTllJC~TIN
~1> . ., ~ ~ Cl
Qi
Pf.ll!Pt1t£Y AT TRArflC ,,,...... / 7 :_ n

~
.
a
JUNCTIONS ANO ONLY NEIGH&ORHOOO \ 3

•':.JiJcJ~
Pll.Ef"ll?A&LY 8UNCHtP . INSTITUTIONS!:]
··· ·. 3

. 0.M1.ITY((QJ
c

D
::J
2·

:;~.:I~'i, ,~~m .
::r:
~~r--i ~~
Q)
0-

-r..v.." ~ L__J ~ ~
;::::.·
9'.
en

1 '~/.1Nrt~o~c.T~
?)N~R!.~P:~~~G~ ~
. 5v
.. . i.ioT wioc11.
,v, ~~N 2(QVlll!O ro2 SP£C1nc
s 5[ AND GIVING tA!>Y
(- ACCESS TO SHOPS / ~
5

LJ
~ AND COlolMUNITY
C(NTEl1..~ o

~"'"• ~,.\CL ~P~ i..

A.P E:) I-

Q -
s nrn ,~~;~:~

RA01(J
.
.__ ·~·-...~o
h- -,,- Q\.~
.

Fig. 13-1 Two versions of the neighborhood unit concept. Reproduced by permission from Arthur
B. Gallion and Simon Eisner, The urban pattern : City planning and d esign. 5•h ed . (New York: Van
N ostrand Reinhold Company). © 1986 by the Van Nostrand Reinhold Company.
.......

390
U)
c
ro sidewalks are eliminated from both the bounding streets and parking courts,
Q)
U)
pedestrian underpasses allow residents to walk to stores, school, and playing fields
=i
~
without risking a pedestrian/auto accident, and cul-de-sacs or service drives can
c
ro
_J also serve as play areas. Stein and Wright intended Radburn to become an ag-
O"l
c glomeration of superblocks, each with a landscaped open-space/pedestrian cir-
culation spine, thereby eliminating through traffic and pedestrian-auto conflicts.
-s
0
Main streets skirt the neighborhood rather than pass through it. Residents would
Q)

2:
drive to a cul-de-sac or garage court, park their car, and enter their house. When
Q)
> they walked out the other side, it was into a common "garden court" /"village green"

-
0

f-
ee
living environment, which also provided access to elementary schools, recreation
facilities, and even local stores. Whereas the earlier Olmsted model conceived of
tree -lined streets as part of the public open-space/circulation system and the lo-
<(
o_
cus of community interaction, Stein envisioned an internal open-space system to
provide a place for activities and interaction and for walkways to provide access.
The streets are organized in a hierarchical system of service courts or cul-de-sacs,
collectors, thoroughfares, and highways designed primarily to move vehicles and
connect to shopping and employment. Figure 13-2 shows the Radburn plan.

Fig. 13-2 The plan for Radburn, New Jersey. Reprinted from the Regional Survey Vol. VII, 1929,
with permission by the Regional Plan Association.
 391
n
Certain aspects of the neighborhood unit concept have been criticized for sti- :::r::
)>
fling the kind of interactive social life available in traditional city neighborhoods "m_,
::JJ
where pedestrian activity creates a street life and fo r implying that a desirable
neighborhood is a rather homogeneous population of fa milies oriented around
the children's school. Also, at the lower densities of m ost new development today,
other than central-city infill and renewal, the neighborhood has insufficient num-
-
w

::JJ
CD

"'a:
CD
bers of children to support an elementary school of th e size favored by educators. ;=;.
Qj'
Increasing the housing density, building smaller schools, and/or locatin g the school n
0
so it could serve several neighborhoods would increase the feas ibility of a walkable 3
3
c
school-centered design. :::J
.;z
:::r::
The New Urbanism Models The new urbanism movemen t provides seve ral m od- QJ
cr
;::;.·
els, including the neotraditional neighborhood and the transit-oriented deve lop- ~
ment model. "'
The neotraditional neighborhood model, like Perry's and Stein's neighborhood
unit concepts, proposes a human-scale, pedestrian -friendly, phys ical environmen t
with public spaces and institutions to encourage social interaction an d a sense of
community. However, the neotraditional concept harkens back to the layout of
the traditional small towns, cities, and suburbs of the nineteenth cent ury. The
design features a relatively self-sufficient walking environm ent with houses d is-
posed around a core of community facilities and stores. It has a gr idlike street
pattern to provide a maximum choice of pedestrian and vehicular rou tes; its streets
are narrow and designed for pedestrian and bike movement, and play, as well as
autos. Housing setbacks from the street right-of-way are shallow to enclose the
street as a public space, and front porches are in near proximity to the p ublic
sidewalks on both sides of the street. Garages are in the back of lots and accessed
from alleyways, which greatly reduces the number of driveway curb cuts along the
street. The neotraditional neighborhood also features a core of stores, civic build-
ings, office uses, and maybe a green or plaza at its center rather th an a schoo l.
There is a mix of housing types and relatively high residential density. Final!;·, the
concept extends to design style and the relationship of structures to eac h othe r
and to the street by incorporating a development code with highly specific, nea rly
architectural standards, requiring minimum densities and mixes of uses, as well
as minimum amounts of land in commercial, civic, and perhap s emplo;·me nt
activities. Figure 13-3 shows how the neighborhood unit is recast by An dres Du any
and Elizabeth Plater-Zyberk, incorporating neotraditional principles .
The evidence suggests that neotraditional neighborhoods encourage pedestrian
travel. The street layout, sidewalks, and proximity to nonresid ential land uses en-
courage walking to destinations unrelated to work, such as grocery stores . Recent
studies suggest that residents of neotraditional neighborhoods m ake tw ice as ma ny
walking and bicycling trips as residents of a conventional suburb an co mmunity
(Rodriguez et al. 2006 ). Some of these trips replace trips that form erly would have
been by private automobile. Similarly, up to 20 percent of all trips occur withi n a
neotraditional neighborhood as compared to 5 percent in th e suburba n co mmu -
nity (Rodriguez et al. 2006).
 392
"'c School to be shared by
adjacent neighborhood
"'
0::
Q.1
Short face of
"'
::::i residential blocks
-i:::i
c
"'
_J

Dl
Club
c
:.;;;:
Playground in each quadrant
"'
:'2:
0 Roads connect across
$ edges wherever possible
'!'
2':
Q.1
> Neighborhood shops &

- institutions at center
0

Bus stops at center

f-
a:
<(
CL
Mixed use streets anchored
by retail at 100% caners

I
Regional institutions
at the edge

Parking lot designed as plaza

Workshops and offices

along edges

Fig. 13-3 The neighborhood unit as rethought by Andres Duany and Elizabeth Plater-Zyberk.
Reproduced by permission from Barnett 2003.

The Walt Disney Company's Celebration Village near Orlando, Florida, is built
on the neotraditional model. It features a curving grid of narrow streets punctu-
ated by parks to serve as visual and social focal points, alleys for access to garages,
and several wide landscaped boulevards con necting neighborhoods to each other,
the town center, and the regional highway system. Neighborhoods are grouped
into several villages and practically all the dwellings in one of the villages are within
a ten -minute walk along the street network or greenway trail systems to the town
center. The town center is a compact, pedestrian-oriented environment with a
multilevel mix of civic, retail, and consumer services, with some apartments lo-
cated above and parking located behind the buildings. There is a wide range of
housing types, including apartments, condominiums, and single-family detached
housing. Its "community patterns and landscape book" provides guidelines for
how houses and other buildings relate to the street, the neighborhood, and each
other. Its "architectural pattern book" illustrates massing options, door and win-
dow proportions and profiles, and porch and fai;:ade treatments for six different
architectural styles. (Gause 2002, 50-59).
Transit-oriented development (TO D) is another New Urbanism concept
(Kelbaugh 1989; Calthorpe and Associates 1990; Calthorpe and Fulton 2001).
Sometimes called a "pedestrian pocket," a TOD contains a mix of housing, retail
and office space, and open space within a quarter-mile of a transit station. A typi-
cal TOD ranges from 50 to 100 acres in size and might contain 1,000- 2,000 dwell-
ings of various sorts, but mostly apartments and townhouses; an employment
center of perhaps 750,000 square feet of office space; perhaps 60,000 square feet
 393
n
of neighborhood shopping; one or two day care centers, community facilities such :::r::
:t>
as town hall-type meeting space, police station, post office, or library and churches; u
---j
rn
a few acres of parks and recreation fa cilities; and a transit station at the core. The ::IJ

-
w
emphasis is on weaving togeth er the currently isolated land use components of a
suburban environment into a walkable-scale develop ment with pedestrian access : :IJ
CD
to transit. It is meant to be home to a mix of in co me gro up s and types of house- "'o_
CD
holds-young singles, marri ed couples, fa milies with children, empty nesters, and ::l-
OJ
the elderly. Figure 1-7 in chapter 1 illustrates the TOD concept, and chapter 14 n
0
also discusses this m odel. 3
3
In some European cities such as Stockholm and Copenh agen, TOD is at the c:
:::J
~

heart of a successful regional development strategy that stresses co mpact growth, -<
:::r::
OJ
open space, and sustainability (Cervera 1998). Based on high -quality rail transit CT

§
service as a catalyst for TOD, these cities' strategies are consistent with Ebenezer "'
Howard's vision of development nodes linked by a string of transit service. In the
United States, TODs have been built predominantly around light rail and bus-
based transit service.
The Village Model is described by Randall Arendt in his Crossroads, Hamlet,
Village, Town (2004), where he details design principles for a small-scale neigh-
borhood form in which the number of households is too small to support many
nonresidential uses envisioned for a neotraditional neighborhood or TOD. Al-
though New Urbanists emphasize tighter development patterns and an urban
streetscape, Arendt places greater weight on landscape features as guides to shap-
ing the urban form, protection of those environmental features, careful place-
ment of relatively small-scale green open spaces, and the creation of a pedestrian
environment.

Other Models Other concepts for the neighborhood are also relevant to the
land use planner. Brower, for example, provides several models based on socio-
logical studies of residential environments. He argues that the neighborhood unit
and neotraditional neighborhood models presume that all people want to live as
part of a small community but that there is no one best solution (1996, xii) . He I
concludes that different models fit different lifestyles and stages of the life cycle. A
good plan and a good city, therefore, would provide a range of residential neigh-
borhood types. Three qualities are fundamentally important, however, to all neigh-
borhoods: ambience, engagement, and choicefulness. Ambience pertains to an
appropriate m ix of land uses, the grain of the mix, and the spatial arrangement of
the physical environment, which give a place its look and feel. Engagement refers
to the way the physical and social features of the neighborhood facilitate interac-
tion, including shopping. Choicefulness is the extent to which residents are able to
choose where, how, and with whom they will live and the range of different types
of residential habitats from which they may choose.
Brower ( 1996, 121-30) identifies four distinctively different types of neighbor-
hoods. Type 1 neighborhoods are lively, with lots to see and do, a mix of many
different people, a variety of places to shop, and entertainment and cultural ven-
ues that attract visitors from other parts of the city and beyond. Such places should
have an excellent choice of restaurants, stores, culture, and entertainment, going
 394
"'
c
ro far beyond basic needs. They should also have highly connective circulation sys-
0::
Q) tems. Streets are busy and lit at night. There are plazas and parks for gathering.
"'
:::J Residents can have an active social life close to home and meet new people. Brower
"O
c
ro
_J
(1996) calls these center neighborhoods. They are likely to attract young singles,
01
c couples, and other households without school-age children. Type 2 neighborhoods
~
ro
~
have the feeling of a small town, a place where people know one another and that
a have a definite central core area of local institutions, meeting places, and shop-
;;;:
Q)
ping. The neotraditional neighborhood would be such a place. Families with chil-
2:
Q)
> dren and older couples looking for a more-or-less permanent neighborhood and

-
0

f-
a:
a sense of belonging and involvement are attracted to these neighborhoods. Type
3 neighborhoods are quieter and fully residential, where residents value the dwelling
and a surrounding environment that is good for raising children. They are less
<(
CL connected with the rest of the city; residents drive to other parts of the city for
most shopping, entertainment, and work, although there may be private recre-
v
ational amenities within the neighborhood. They attract households looking for
a homogeneous neighborhood. Brower calls these residential partnerships, and a
good suburban neighborhood or large condominium project could be based on
such a model. Type 4 neighborhoods are virtual residential retreats, where one
feels protected and where one can relax in pleasant surroundings, removed from
other people and their activities. Privacy is important; people are independent
and go their separate ways. A country club community, an exurban low-density
development, and a rural cluster development might fit this model.
Brower ( 1996) also defines a compound neighborhood, formed, for example, by
several center neighborhoods, each with its own identity but sharing facilities dis-
tributed through both settings. Or a small-town neighborhood might locate near
a downtown-center neighborhood, requiring fewer facilities within the small-town
main street core and more reliance on the downtown. Relatively closed residential
enclaves, such as a condominium neighborhood or apartment neighborhood,
might be combined with a center neighborhood so that residents have their own
recreational club but depend on the downtown neighborhood for other facilities.
Several residential neighborhoods might each have their own smaller-scale lei-
sure facilities, but combine to share other larger community facilities, such as a
country club or small retail center.
In a more central, city-oriented approach, Seattle's comprehensive plan (l 994,
amended through 2002) proposes "urban villages." Urban -village neighborhoods
accommodate growth and change by building on successful aspects of the city's ex-
isting urban character, continuing th e development of concentrated, pedestrian -
friendly, mixed-use neighborhoods of varied intensities. The plan proposes several
categories of urban villages, from more dense and more mi xed uses, including retail
and employment, to less dense places with fewer nonresidential land uses:
• urban-center villages (higher density, greater mix of uses),
• hub -urban villages,
• residential-urban villages, and
• neighborhood -anchor villages (less dense, almost totally residential).
An urban-center village is a concentration of employment and housing in a
 395
n
location that supports and has direct access to the regional high-capacity tran si t I
)>
system. It constitutes an area not exceeding one and a half square miles, with defi- _,
-0
m
nite boundaries, zoning that permits a minimum of 15,000 jobs, an employment ::JJ

density of at least fifty jobs per acre, and an overall net resid ential density of fif-
teen or more households per acre. There are approximately twelve such urban -
center villages proposed in the Seattle plan.
-
w

::JJ
CD
~.
Cl.
CD
A hub -urban village is a smaller and slightly less dense concentration of hous- 2.
Q)
ing and employment at strategic locations along the tran sportati on network, with n
0
a core of commercial services, employment, and housing at densities that support 3
3
p edestrian and transit use. It also serves as a transit hub for surrounding neigh- c:
:::;
;::;:
borhoods. There is substantial vacant or underutili zed land that provides oppor- -<
I
tunity for redevelopment, and a minimum of one-thi rd of th e land area is avail- Q)
CJ"
~·
able to accommodate employment and mixed-use activities. It has d irect access to (/)

public open space in the immediate vicinity. Net density would be fifteen to twenty
dwellin gs per acre and from twenty-five to fifty jobs per acre in the co re areas,
with housing density of eight to twelve units per acre outside the core.
A residential-urban village functions primarily as a compact residential neigh-
bo rhood with a wide range of housin g at an overall net density of eight to fi ft een
dwellings per gross acre-still sufficiently dense to support transit use. It has bike
and pedestrian access to public open space, to one or more mixed- use cores de-
signed to support the residenti al population, and to adjacent neighborhoods, an d
it has good access to an urban -center village or hub-urban village. Employm ent
activity is allowed to the extent that it does not conflict with the overall residential
function and character of the village. It is also on the city's arterial network.
A neighborhood-anchor village includes several linear blocks of commercial ac -
tivity providing services to surrounding areas and/or nodes of mixed res iden ti al
and commercial activity, surrounded by a larger, lower-density residential area. It
has public transportation service to the nearest hub or center village and is also
connected to adjacent neighborhoods by bicycle and/or pedestrian network. Fig-
ure 13-4 illustrates two of these types of neighborhoods: the residential-urb an
village and the neighborhood village.

Residential
Mixed Use • 6-8 Unns/Ac .
Core Neighborhood Anchor
Residential Area
Existmg !M1xedUse)
1/4M1. R
• 8~ 1 0Units/Ac

. ..?
. · ~
..· ..
~/ ..:::···-~x<" . : -.
•Park .
PA
.
~ ~ e r A c l
.. . .

«>t~ .·: ~< 0 ~ . .::::,..._ ,

• One-Ac. Min.

Fig. 13-4 Seattle's village concepts: Examples of residential-urban village and neighb orhood v illage.
Source: City of Seattle 1994, amended through 2002.
396
U)
c
co Differences and Similarities between the Residential Community Design
Concepts All of the models feature attention to the public-space realm as the
framework around which a successful community can develop. For Olmsted, the
public-space skeleton consists of curving tree-lined streets bounded by deep front
yards and a park system and possibly a train station and small retail center. For
Stein, the public-realm framework is the open-space/pedestrian path network used
in common by the residents that surround it and a separate hierarchical street
system. For the neotraditional neighborhood, the public realm is the grid of streets
with sidewalks that provide walkable access to a commercial mixed-use core and

-
l-
a:
perhaps a commons green or plaza, as well as vehicular circulation. In all cases,
the private-space realms-residences, shops, and so on-should have a construc-
tive relationship to the public realm, with parts of private space, such as lawns,
<I:
o_ porches, or display windows, forming a supplementary part of the public realm.
All the models feature densities higher than conventional suburban develop-
ments, and a greater mix of housing types and land uses. Radburn, New Jersey, for
example, has a gross residential density of 4.5 dwellings per acre and a net density
of 7.9 dwellings per acre. Kentlands, a New Urbanism development north of Wash-
ington, D.C., has a similar residential density: 4.5 dwellings per acre gross density
and 7.7 dwellings per acre net density. Radburn has a larger proportion of single-
family detached houses on smaller lots. Kentlands residents have slightly shorter
walks to school and slightly longer walks to local shopping. Kentlands has more
connectivity in its circulation network, but also more potential pedestrian-auto
conflict (comparisons based on Lee and Ahn 2003 ).
Table J3-J shows some characteristics of several neighborhood habitat models
for comparison purposes.

The Communitywide Residential Habitat:

Organizing the Constellation of Walkable Neighborhoods
Residential functions extend beyond the immediate, walkable habitat into other
neighborhoods and activity centers. The communitywide land use design should

Table 13-1
Characteristics of Some Model Neighborhood Habitats
Illustrative Approx. Approx. Approx. Gross
Residential Size Number Total Neighborhood
Habitat Type (acres) Dwellings Pop. Density
Neighborhood unit concept <500 1,000-5,000 4.5
Rad burn 139 674 2,900 4.5
Kentlands 356 1,600 5,000 4.5
Pedestrian pocket 50-100 1,000-2,000 3,000-5,000 20
Source: Adapted from Lee and A hn 2003; Ne lessen 1994; and Vander Ryn and Ca lthorpe 1991.
 397
n
diagram this larger spatial framework of locations, general boundaries, and con- :r:
)>
nections between the variety of modular neighborhood-sized components. That __,
-0
rn
:JJ
larger framework includes not onl y the mix of neighborhood types but also a

-
w
multimodal transportation system, a multipurpose open-space system, and a con-
stellation of commercial/ ci vic/em ploym ent centers-virtually the entire urban : JJ
CD
community. ~
o_
CD
The hierarchical model of the new town of Columbia, Ma ryland, is an example ~.
Q)
of a communitywide concept ual fra mewo rk fo r weav in g neighborhood-sized com- n
0
ponents into th e communi tyw id e res identi al habi tat (see Figure 13-5 ). The small- 3
3
est components in this schem e are the clusters of dwellin gs, usually organized c
::l
~·
around a cul-de-sac or loop road (see Figure 13-S a). In th e next step up the scale :r:
Q)
of residential habitat, a mix of dwelling-type clusters is com bin ed with an open - rr
~

space/recreation element (e.g., playfield and swimming poo l), a civic fa cilit y such ~
"'
as a school or community center, and a connection to th e co mmunitywide tran s-
portation system (e.g., collector road or thoroughfare and a bus line) to fo rm a
"neighborhood." The "neighborhood" might be from one-h alf to one mile in d i-
ameter (see Figures 13-Sb and 13-Se). Neighborhoods are organi zed into "vil-
lages" that have a commercial center with a drugstore, grocery store, and other
shops; more civic/institutional facilities (e.g., middle school or high school, church
or synagogue); an open space (e.g., larger playfields, village green, lake); and higher-
density housing as part of the village center or directly adjacent to it. A pedes-
trian/bike-circulation system connects the neighborhoods to each other, to open
space, and to the village center. The village center is a node on the street and pub-
lic transportation systems (see Figures 13-Sc, 13-Sd, and 13 -Sf). Clusters of vil -
lages form a town, which contains the villages and a town center of higher-level
retail uses, offices, and civic/institutional uses. Pedestrian-, bicycle-, auto-, and
bus-circulation networks, as well as a greenway and open-space network, link the
parts of the town (see Figure 13-Sd) (Hoppenfield 1967).
Transit-oriented developments (TODs) can also be conceived as building blocks
of New Urbanism at a regional scale (Calthorpe and Associates 1990; Calthorpe
and Fulton 2001) . Figure 1-8 in chapter 1 demonstrates this concept by illustrat-
ing how TODs can be strung along a metropolitan regional transportation system
like beads on a necklace.
In another approach, Seattle organizes its typology of urban villages around its
transportation system to form the citywide residential habitat that is related also
to the city's employment and commercial areas (see Figure 13-6).
Yet another model for organizing a range of neighborhood habitat types into a
communitywide structure is the "transect approach" (see Duany and Talen 2002;
also chapter 7). A policy transect for an urban area suggests a hierarchy of policy
zones for human habitats, from the urban core outward to the urban-rural fringe.
The land use design challenge is to design habitats appropriate for the different
policy zones. For example, a higher-density, mixed-use, center-neighborhood type
(Brower 1996) would be suited to the "urban -center zone" along the transect (see
Figure 7.3 in chapter 7), while a lower-density, cluster-design, residential village
suggested by Randall Arendt (2004) would be better suited to a "suburban" or
"rural zone." A neotraditional neighborhood design for a "town neighborhood"
398

~",~· .. ·

$
Q)

>
a;

-
> LOOP
0

a. Housing cluster b. Neighborhood c. Village

d. Town

e. Neighborhood center f. Village center

Fig. 13-5 Columbia , Maryland's, hierarchical nested pattern of residential community habitats.
Source: Hoppenfield 7967. Reprinted by permission of the American Planning Association .
 399
-··· .. , ....... --~ n
:::r::
)>
_,
-0
rn
:xi

-
w

: xi
CD

"'o._
CD

6.
[l)

n
D
3
3
c
::J

-:!
:::r::
[l)

=
~

\§

- ·- Urban Center
1@!4""1Hub Urban Village
D Residential Urban Village
D Manufactu ring/Industrial Center

Gi Neighborhood Anchors
1. 15th Ave NE@ NE 145th St
2. 15th Ave NE@ NE 125th St
3. Holman Rd NW@ NW 100th St
4 . 35th Ave NE @ NE 85th St
5. 24th Ave NW @ NW 77th St
6 . 6th Ave NW @ NW 65th St
7. 40th Ave NE @ NE 551h St
8. Fremont Ave N @ N 43rd St
9. 16th Ave W@W Dravus St
10. 10th Ave E@ E Miller St
11. 33rd Ave W @ W McGraw St
12. 42nd Ave E@ E Madison St
13. ML King Jr Way E@ E Madison SI
14. 61st Ave SW @Atkl Ave SW
15. Oelridge Way SW @SW Andover St
16. Beacon Ave S @S Columbian Way
17. Delridge Way SW @SW Brandon St '1
18. 51st Ave S @S Dawson St
19. Georgetown
20. 35th Ave SW @ SW Morgan St
21 . DelridgeWaySW@SW Sylvan Way

~:=:n
22. 35th Ave NE @ NE 75th St I
23. Ravenna Ave NE @ NE 65th St
24. Rainier Ave $ @ S Graham St ~
25. 34th Ave E @ E Unloo St

?1

v
•N
2 Miles
< ~,, ><\"": ~

2000 Clty of Seattle

No w;irr 1ntles of any sort, including accuracy,
fi tness or merchanQb ility, icconvanr this
prodo<t.

d~\a~_Jlfc;ects\ocln'Wan\200CP.o&nvil\ctywitle~YTNcandv_north_apr&ucvmlcanchr_soolh.flP"

Fig. 13-6 Seattle's constellation of "villages." Source: City of Seattle 1994, amended through
2002.
400
"'
c
ro (in Brower's typology) might work best in a "general urban zone" of the transect.
o_
QJ Thus, the transect concept essentially suggests that there are appropriate zones to fit
"'
::::i
a wide range of neighborhood types, that each habitat should be suited to its zone,
L)
c
ro
_J
and that habitats and their locations are compatible with a communitywide spatial
~
=
c structure design. The principles of walkable scale, pedestrian -oriented ambience, a
ro
2 diverse mix of dwellings and residential serving uses, and an inviting and functional
public realm, however, would apply to every neighborhood habitat type.
s
QJ Duany and Talen suggest that the transect-inspired design guidelines for resi-
2'.
QJ
> dential habitats can be likened to natural ecology principles (Van der Ryn and
0

-
f---
Cowan 1996). First, there is the idea that different local ecosystems develop in
particularly suitable places in the overall ecological landscape. Second, each habi -
tat has an appropriate mix of physical elements that supports the living organ-
0::
<(
o_ isms that dwell there. Third, each habitat requires a certain degree of internal
diversity or complexity to enable adjustment to changes in conditions. Fourth,
human ecology principles apply to both the internal neighborhood scale and to
the communitywide or regional scale. For example, both the neighborhood and
the larger urban place should incorporate a core or cores (activity nodes), a
multimodal circulation system, a multipurpose open-space system, and a civic
realm as well as a private realm. That is, the residential community design must
work both at the neighborhood scale, in a variety of types of neighborhoods, and
at the larger community and regional scales.

The Residential Habitat Planning Process

The five-task land use design process explained in chapter 10 (see Figure 10- l) is
modified somewhat in designing the residential habitat component of the
communitywide land use plan, just as it was for designing the areawide open -
space sector and the activity-center sector. The result is a process with three major
phases that incorporates the five tasks but revises their order.
The first phase is to create a nonscaled schematic design that diagrams the
residential habitat envisioned for the future of the community. This design might
be based on som e of the concepts discussed above and the location and design
principles form ulated by the planning team (task 1 in the generic design process).
It should include both a comm unitywide schematic and schematic designs for the
internal layouts of the several neighborhood types contained in the
communitywide scheme. This initial phase can be considered the first of three
visits to task 5 (designing the urban form) in the generic design process outlined
in chapter 10, and also incorporates the formu lation of design and location prin -
ciples (task 1 in the generic process; see Figure 10-1).
In the second phase, planners adjust this diagrammatic version to the specifics
of the planning jurisdiction. This is a two-task sequence. First, planners map the
suitability of available lands (task 2 in the generic process) for the various types of
neighborhood types envisioned in the first-phase schematic design, applying the
design and location principles developed in phase 1. That task is followed by a
second cut at designing the urban form (task 5 in the generic design process). In
this way, planners adapt the schematic design to the specific geographic features
 401
n
of the planning jurisdiction, the tentative proposed future transportation system, I
l>
water and sewer expansion schemes, proposed constellation of activity centers, -0
___,
rn
and growth boundaries indicated in the land policy plan. The resulting design :D

-
w
now includes the general locations of neighborhoods, th eir tentative boundaries,
and their connections to the communitywide multim odal tra nsportation system :D
CD
and the communitywide open-space system. The proposed design is still not yet "'o_
CD
scaled to balance the future population's space demands with hold ing capacities ~
Q)

implied in the design. n

0
The third phase is to assess quantitative space need s fo r future ho using and 3
3
associated residential facilities (task 3 in the generic design process ), assess th e c
:::J

holding capacities of the various component neighborhoods of th e step 2 sche- -<

I
Q)
matic design (task 4), and allocate the space needs to the variou s pro posed neigh - rr
Qi
borhood habitats of the applied schematic design (another return to task 5 ). This o;;-
phase adjusts and validates the applied communitywide schematic des ign, ensur-
ing that sufficient and appropriate space is available to accommod ate th e pro -
posed population, economic activity, community facilities, and infrast ru cture.
The resulting land use design provides a guide to public-private development
of residential communities for the future. Two points should be m ade abo ut th e
plan . First, it should be the result of the efforts of a communitywide plannin g
team. The plann er is only one player on that team, which should al so in cl ude
representatives from the development industry and neighborhood advocates,
among others. Secondly, th e design does not presume to dictate th e design of
specific neighborhoods, but does suggest a framework of the general types of neigh -
borhoods and their locations in a communitywide residence/facilities/transpor-
tation network. This serves as a guide to the public-sector investments in co mm u -
nity facilities and infrastructure, small-area plans, the development-management
program, and, most importantly, to the private sector, which adapts th e guide-
lines to the preferences of the marketplace.

Phase 1: Creating the Schematic Model of the Residential

Habitat Vision
The first phase is to create a nonscaled diagram of th e residential habitat envi-
sioned for the future of the community. The design can be based on th e plannin g
team's community-participative exploration of the functions, community co m -
ponents, and models above, together with the formulation of design principles
(discussed below). The design should be made at two scales: a communitywide
schematic design and schematic designs of the internal layout of the several neigh-
borhood types represented in the communitywide scheme. These neighb orhood
designs are a sort of first step in what would be carried further in the small-area
planning process.

Devising Design and Principles for the Communitywide Residential

Habitat Neighborhoods need to be arranged into a pattern or constellatio n that
makes up a communitywide design to accommodate the residential fun ctions that
extend beyond the immediate neighborhood. The residential concepts in the first
section of the chapter can provide initial ideas for the planning team, which might
402
also explore the related literature for ideas. In addition, the very general principles
described in chapter 10 and the more specific principles described below suggest
the type of guidelines that apply particularly to the communitywide design. In
the end, the participants in the planning process in individual communities need
to develop their own design principles. They might consider the following ideas
as a starting point:
0
5 • The community should contain a diversity of neighborhood types to accom-
Q)
·~ modate the residential needs and preferences of the entire spectrum of house-
(lJ
> hold types, and to give households a choice in living areas.
0

- • The community-scale design should be a framework that delineates the loca-

tions, general boundaries, and connections for its neighborhood-scale habitat
components.
• The design should provide for adaptation of the existing built environment
through infill, conservation of viable existing neighborhoods, revitalization
of poorly functioning neighborhoods, and conversion of nonresidential space,
as well as for adding new modular components.
• Changes to existing neighborhoods should reflect communitywide needs con-
cerning housing types, commercial services, and public facilities, yet be sen-
sitive to neighborhood residents' values, lifestyles, and activity patterns and
to the symbolic values of existing physical features and locations.
• The system of neighborhood habitats should be integrated with the
multimodal transportation system, and convenience and accessibility should
be measured not just with respect to the auto, but also with respect to resi-
dents' options to walk, bike, or take public transportation, and the conve-
nience of those options.
• Community facilities should be located to create reasonable service areas-
some metropolitan in size, some community-scale, and some neighborhood-
serving-and provide reasonable accessibility for existing neighborhoods as
well as new neighborhoods.
• Residences and residential habitats should be located in areas with excess
capacity in community facilities and infrastructure, and in areas that can be
served most efficiently by extending or enlarging existing facilities or by effi-
cient locations for new facilities.
• Community facilities should be available throughout the future community,
providing equity in access to amenities, services, shopping, and employment
by all neighborhoods, and at service levels and accessibilities established by
community goals.
• The system of neighborhood-scale habitats should be integrated with the
open-space network to provide edges to the neighborhoods, vistas and pan-
oramas, and access to passive and active recreation sites, while avoiding haz-
ardous locations and fragile ecosystems.
• Neighborhoods should be arranged in a hierarchical or latticework spatial sys-
tem. For example, neighborhoods may be grouped and linked into "villages,"
and villages may be linked to form a "town" or "city." There could be a ladder or
 403
n
transect of neighborhood types, each having an appropriate location with re- :r:
)>
spect to the city center and other activity centers. u
--l
rn
:IJ
• The neighborhoods should be sited on and shaped to physically suitable lands,
protect open space, mitigate n egative environmental impacts, and conserve
natural resources.
The design should consider th e possibility of shared fa cilities that could be
-
w

: IJ
Cl)

"'CL
Cl)

distributed among th e neighborh oods or be located in separate locations 2.

OJ

accessible to a number of neighborhoods. Fo r example, several center neigh - n

0
3
borhoods could be clustered around a comm ercial core or several town neigh- 3
c
=o
borhoods clustered around a village center. ;::;·
-<
:r:
• People should have ready access to th e natural environment as well as to OJ
cr
parks and open space. §l
"'
Devising Design Principles for the Internal Neighborhood Habitat The prin-
ciples to guide internal neighborhood design will become particularly important
at the small-area plan scale and in the development-management program. Nev-
ertheless, they also have a role to play at the communitywide-scale land use de -
sign. The principles may suggest neighborhood size, land uses and facilities to be
incorporated, physical character, and relationship to green space and transporta-
tion. The following listing of principles, together with the general design prin-
ciples described in chapter 10, is suggestive. It is based on neighborhood design
literature and the models discussed above, although the participants in specific
planning efforts should formulate their own. A neighborhood unit should:
• Be designed as a combination of dwellings, residential life- supporting land
uses (stores, restaurants, bank, day care, and so on), local community facili-
ties (school, playfields, and the like), multimodal circulation facilities, and
local open space (parks, community green, and the like) so that the neigh-
borhood unit supports the full range of residential activities such as relax-
ation and recreation, socializing, shopping and consumer services, educa-
tion, and even employment.
• Contain a range of housing types, sizes, and tenures suitable for many stages
of the household life cycle and for a range of incomes.
• Be designed for the human scale. This implies being walkable-in scale and
in provision of an appropriate physical circulation system. That is, the walk-
ways should be a continuous, well-connected network, directly linking hous-
ing, schools, retail facil ities, community buildings, jobs, recreation, open space,
and bus stops, and provide pleasant pedestrian ambience. Bicycle paths should
complement the pedestrian network. Being of human scale also implies that
the public-space network should be designed with attention to human pro-
portions, safety, a feeling of security, pedestrian amenities, and opportunity
for human contact. To be human in scale suggests the incorporation of pe-
destrian precincts at several levels, each defined by walking distances that
are feasible to the average inhabitant. For the small-scale neighborhood, the
precinct is determined by a five- to ten-minute walk to a core area or com-
muter pick-up point. A five-minute walk covers about 1,500 feet from core
404
to periphery of the precinct; an area of about 160 acres. A slightly larger-scale
precinct would add a 1,000 foot walking distance across the core or down the
length of a core area, based on the assumption that a person will walk an-
other 1,000 feet in a secure and pleasant pedestrian environment to take in a
=
c commercial core. Together, these two precincts would approximate an area
of about 230 acres. A larger pedestrian precinct would be defined by the dis-
tance that children could walk to a neighborhood school, approximately a
half-mile or a ten-minute walk in a safe pedestrian realm. That would consti-
tute an area of about 500 acres. The following walking distances are sug-

-
f-
a:
gested as standards (Nelessen 1994, 156):
Community core
Between core and neighborhood edge
1,000 ft. from end to end
1,500 ft.
g:_
Between home and transit 1,300-1 ,500 ft.
Between home and community facility,
school, or recreation 1,500-2,000 ft.
These distances can be extended under some circumstances. For example,
the distance from the core to the edge of the neighborhood could be ex-
tended from 400 to 5,000 feet with dependence on bike and auto circulation.
However, 80 to 90 percent of the dwellings should be within the 1,500-foot
walking distance of the core (Nelessen 1994, 157). The provision of transit
opportunities expands the pedestrian range as we ll.
• Have excellent connection to the communitywide transportation system, but
be protected from intrusion of traffic that is not originating or ending in the
neighborhood.
• Be comprehensively designed to incorporate a public-space system consisting
of streets and other path systems and plazas, greens, and the like; public-
private space relationships (size/scale, placement with respect to street and
other public space); visual/image creating elements such as landmarks, desti-
nations, paths, vistas, edges, grain; and the linkages among components.
• Easy access to an open-space system consisting of private open space (yards,
gardens); public-specialized open spaces internal to the neighborhood, such as
recreation parks, community greens and commons, urban plazas, greenways/
parkways, and street rights of way; and peripheral open space to serve as eco-
systems, community edges, buffers, and visual assets.
• Streets are the center of the public environment and are multipurpose public
spaces for both cars and people; thus, they include lanes, parkin g spaces, side-
walks, and bike lanes and provide the setting for buildings and activities such
as socializing and play. Therefore, the streets can be considered part of th e
public open-space system. The streets, sidewalks, and bikeways should form
a dense network with much connectivity.
• Principles and standards should be tailored to the type of nei ghborhood and
its inhabitants. Thus, the ideal sizes might vary and the combinations of de-
sired uses and facilities wi ll be different. For example, central neighborhoods
need not necessarily have good access to schools, and low-density residenti al
 405
n
neighborhoods on the periphery of the region might forego walking dis- :r:
l>
tance to public transportation. ~
rn
:rJ
• Ability to adapt over time to changing conditions and inhabitants.

-
w
• Have a strong sense of place. Thi s implies, among other things, that a neigh-
borhood has a core or other community focus. The core should be located : rJ
co
~.
centrally with good access to all parts of the neighborhood. It should contain a.
co
a balance of commercial, civic, social, and residential uses; open space in the 2.
Q)

form of a green or pla za; and possibly a transit station. n

0
3
3
Anderson (2000); De Chiara and Koppelman (1982 ); and De Chiara , Panero, and c
:::J
;:::.·
Zelnik ( 1995 ) provide standards for the design of neighborhoods, including den- -<
:r:
sities, accessibility, and circulation. Q)
rr
;:::.·
~
"'
Phase 2: Adjusting the Schematic Diagram to the Specifics of the
Planning Jurisdiction
This is a two-task sequence, incorporating suitability mapping (task 2 of the ge-
neric design process), followed by creating what we call an "applied schematic
design" (a first cut at task 5). That is, planners apply the design scheme for the
residential habitat vision from phase 1 above to the specific geographic features of
the planning jurisdiction, the tentative proposed future transportation system,
water and sewer expansion schemes, proposed constellation of activity centers,
and growth boundaries indicated in an areawide land policy plan, if one exists. It
may be possible, in fact, to merge phases 1 and 2 by working out the design scheme
directly from the suitability analyses and design principles rather than by formu-
lating the more abstract diagram of the vision in phase 1 before proceeding to
phase 2. In any case, the result of phase 2 should be a communitywide layout of
neighborhoods including their type, their general locations, their tentative bound-
aries, and their connections to the communitywide multimodal transportation
system and open-space system. Although the proposed design is fitted to the par-
ticular planning area, it is still schematic in the sense that it is not yet scaled to
balance space demands with holding capacities at this point.

Plotting Suitability for Residential Areas In a manner similar to what was

done for commercial and employment centers, planners map the relative suitabil-
ity of vacant and renewal lands in built-up areas, developing areas, and new areas
proposed for future development. Suitability patterns are based on the geographic
pattern of the factors cited in design principles determined in the previous phase.
Depending on the design principles, suitability factors might include accessibility,
absence of hazards, proximity to services and community facilities, cost of service
extension, excess infrastructure capacity, availability of space, and so on. The suit-
ability analyses would assess the planning landscape to plot degrees of suitability
for various types and sizes of neighborhoods. These should include modifica-
tions of existing neighborhoods, completing partially developed neighborhoods,
and creating new neighborhoods on the urban edge or within existing nonresi -
dential areas. The suitability analyses would consider the proposed locations of
activity centers, community facilities, transportation systems, and open-space
406
networks in the plan, as well as efficient expansion of infrastructure and environ-
mental protection.

Designing an Applied Schematic Land Use Design Having the design principles,
an inventory of model neighborhood types to be accommodated, and suitability
maps for each neighborhood type, planners fit the general schematic to the charac-
o teristics of the planning area and proposed designs for the network of activity cen-
s
.~
ters, transportation and community facilities, and open space. Several alternatives
2'.
Q.)
might be explored, each showing the spatial constellation of neighborhood types,
>

-
0

f-
a:
with annotations about intended range of household types accommodated, assets
and weaknesses of conditions and supporting facilities in place in the case of built-
up and partially built-up neighborhoods, relationships to transportation systems,
<l'.
CL
commercial and employment activity centers, open space, and the like. The design
should provide for a range of housing types, locations, and neighborhood types,
and generally provide sufficient land to accommodate the future expected popula-
tion (although the latter condition will be tested in phase 3 below).

Phase 3: Adjusting and Validating the Schematic Design

The third phase is to assess quantitative space needs for future housing and asso-
ciated residential facilities, assess the holding capacities of the various component
neighborhoods of the above schematic design, and allocate the space needs to the
various proposed neighborhood habitats of the applied schematic design (tasks 3,
4, and 5 in the generic land use design process). This step ensures that sufficient
and appropriate space is available to accommodate the future expected popula-
tion, economic activity, and infrastructure.

Estimating the Number of Dwellings Required by the Future Population The

space requirements analysis (task 3) derives the number and mix of dwellings that
will be needed to accommodate the future population envisioned for the land use
design, together with supporting facilities such as shopping, schools, parks, and
other neighborhood facilities. These space requirements provide the basis for al-
locating space needs among the neighborhoods in the proposed schematic design
and for balancing tentative allocations against the supply of space indicated in
each neighborhood in the proposed schematic land use design. Anderson (2000 )
also suggests standards and methods for estimating space needs for various land
uses and facilities.
The first step in estimating the future housing needs is to estimate the future
population of households-the basis for housing demand. A household is simply
a group of people who occupy a housing unit. It is often a family (two or more
persons residing together related by blood, marriage or partnership, or adoption ).
A household may also be a single person, a group of unrelated persons sharing a
dwelling, or a family plus unrelated persons (e.g., lodgers, employees, foster chil-
dren). Normally, the estimate of future households is based on converting the
population forecast. The key factor in making that conversion is estimating the
future average household size, which is based on local as well as regional and
 407
n
national trends, and implicitly reflects assumptions about future lifestyles (e.g., :r:
)>
marrying behavior, group living) as well as family size. Dividing the population -0
--;
rn
forecast by an average household size yields a forecast of future households need- :IJ

ing housing. That number constitutes an "unadjusted" housing need for the tar-
get year (see Table 13-2, lines 1-3).
Planners next adjust that projection upward to reflect the need to add vacant
-
w

: IJ
(])

"'
D..
(])
housing stock necessary for a housing market to accommodate residential mobil- ~-
ity. The vacancy adjustment is made by dividing the number of households by a "'
n
0
factor obtained by subtracting an assumed future vacancy rate from 1.0. For ex- 3
3
ample, if the vacancy rate is assumed to be 4 percent, the factor would be 1.0 c:
::3
~

minus 0.04, or 0.96. If the projected number of households is, for example, 7,407 -<
:r:
QJ
(as in line 3 of Table 13-2), then the adjusted estimate of housing need is 7,407 CT"
;::;:
divided by 0.96, or 7,716 dwellings required for the target population of 7,407 8
households (see Table 13-2, lines 4 and 5).
Next, planners estimate the number of dwellings that will be retained from th e
present housing stock. The present stock will be decreased over the planning hori-
zon due to fire or other catastrophes, abandonment, neighborhood renewal or pub-
lic-improvement programs, conversion to nonresidential uses such as offices, or be-
ing combined into larger units , for example. Planners estimate the expected losses to
the existing stock, using trends, the proposals for commercial and employment-cen-
ter expansions in the land use design, other redevelopment plans, and judgment.
The total of these losses is subtracted from the existing stock to estimate the "exist-
ing housing stock retained." If the present stock is 3,700 dwellings, and if the planner
estimates a loss of 350 of those dwellings, the result would be 3,350 dwellings re-
tained from the existing stock (see lines 6-8 of Table 13-2). Subtracting 3,350 from
the projected total of 7,716 dwellings results in an estimate of 4,366, rounded to
4,350 new dwellings being required by the planning horizon year. The total number
of dwellings to be accommodated in the land use design for the horizon year could
be rounded to 7,700 for the example in Table 13-2, line 10.
If sufficient information is available in the planning information system about
the future population, planners might divide the future housing stock into con-
sumer categories. For example, they might estimate the proportions of the popu -
lation expected to be in various household types and sizes. If that is the case, then
the total number of dwellings could be divided into either the household types
that will inhabit the dwellings, into dwelling types (e.g., single-family detached,
townhouses, apartments), into density categories, or into neighborhood types most
suitable for the household type.

Analyses of Holding Capacities of the Neighborhood Components Planners

calculate the supply of useable land in each of the neighborhood units proposed
in the design (task 4 in the generic design process). These estimates constitute the
land area available for accommodating the future population. When later com-
bined with assumed future densities, the available land determines a
neighborhood 's holding capacity-the upper limit of dwellings and population
that can be accommodated there.
408
"'cco
0::
Q) Table 13-2
"'
::i
Derivation of Total New Dwelling Units Required, Year 20XX
""Cl
c
co
_J

OJ
Sequence of Steps Illustrative Figures
c
~
co 1. Population forecast for year 20XX 20,000 people
:2:
0 2. Divide by future average household size 2.7 people/ household
5
.<:!! 3. Result: estimate of households in population
2'.
Q) by end of planning period 7,407 households
>

-
0
4. Divide by vacancy rate adjustment
(1-vacancy rate; e.g ., 1-0.04 = .96) 0.96 is vacancy rate adjustment
f- 5. Result: an adjusted estimate of housing
a:
<( stock required by end of planning period 7,716 dwellings, total, by 20XX
CL
6. Estimate of existing housing stock at
beginning of the planning period 3,700 existing dwellings
7. Minus housing losses during planning period 350 dwellings lost
Fire , etc. 100
Neighborhood renewal , etc. 50
Conversion to nonresidential use 125
Abandoned 50
Other 25
8. Result: Existing housing stock retained by 20XX 3,350 ex isting d.u.'s retained
9. Result : Adjusted estimate of required additions to
housing stock by year 20XX 4,366 new dwellings to be added
(Total required minus retained existing) by year 20XX; say 4,350
10. Result: Total future housing stock required to be
accommodated in land use design 7,716, say 7,700 dwellings

Allocating the Future Required Housing Stock among the Residential Habi-
tats Proposed in the Schematic Land Use Design In this task, planners allo-
cate the needed future dwellings to the neighborhoods in the proposed land use
design schematic, not to exceed the holding capacity estimated to be available in
those neighborhoods. As part of this task, planners need to estimate how m uch
land will be required not only for the dwellings being allocated, but also fo r sup-
portin g land uses and facilities. The allocation should refl ect infill and conver-
sions fro m oth er uses in neighborhoods already largely developed, the filling out
of neighb orhoods already under active development, and the establishment of
entirely new neighb orhoods in currently nonurban land in the transition area,
while also accounting for the existing housing to be reta ined.
Planners might use a spreadsheet table similar to Ta ble 13-3 to help structu re
this task. The table is designed to help accomplish both allocating the required
future dwelling stock to residential neighborhood habitats, and ensuring that there
is an adequate supply of land in each habitat to accommodate the dwellings pro -
posed to be allocated there. Column 1 lists the residential habitats or neighbor-
hood components that are proposed in the applied schemati c land use design .
 409
n
The habitats could be divided into several categories. The table illustrates two: ( 1) :::r::
)>
proposed neighborhoods that are based on already substantially developed resi- u
___,
rn
dential areas, including those proposed for substan tial redevelopment, where the :J:J

design will be retaining most of the housing but adding new housing and possibly
some neighborhood-support facilities; and (2) new neighborhoods. The labels
identifying the habitats listed in this co lum n should be keye d to labels used in the
-
w

:J:J
CD
(/)

o._
CD
schematic land use design map so that th e planner ca n easily relate rows of the ;::;_
Qi
table to proposed neighborhood s in the land use design . n
D
In column 2, planners would enter the distribution of existing housing that 3
3
will be retained in the proposed land use design. Virtually all suc h housing will be c
::J

in category 1 neighborhoods, and should reflect the geographic distribution of -:2"

:::r::
Q)
dwelling "losses" that were estimated in Tabl e 13 -2. There would be few or no u
;::+
entries in this column for proposed new habitats. In column 3, planners would ~
enter the distribution of new dwellings among the existing and new habitats pro -
posed in the schematic design. Column 4 records the total number of dwellings
proposed for each habitat in the land use design, being the sum of new and re-
tained dwellings. Note that the sums of allocated housing retained, new housing,
and total housing is recorded at the bottom of column 2, 3, and 4. Those sums
should equal the control totals immediately below those totals, which come from
the previous table, Table 13-2.
The next two sections of columns (columns 5-13 in the illustrative table) help
planners do two things. The first section shows the breakdown of the housing
allocation among different types of housing and the second section records the
acres of land required to accommodate those dwellings. In the case of new resi -
dential habitats, those acres include land required to accommodate supporting
facilities and transportation . For each type of dwelling, there would be an associ-
ated average density that converts the allocated numbers of units into their im-
plied space requirements. The number of columns in each of these two sections
reflects the detail to which planners divide the proposed housing stock into dwell-
ing types.
The distribution of dwellings in the first of the two sections is converted to I

their implied required acres by applying density assumptions that vary from dwell-
ing type to dwelling type and possibly also from neighborhood to neighborhood
in the land use design. That is, the same housing type (e.g., single-family housing)
might assume different densities depending on the type and location of neigh-
borhood in which they are located. In some cells in the table, planners might use
net density and in other cells, gross density. That is, for already substantially de -
veloped areas (the upper category in the table), net density is probably the most
appropriate because streets and most supporting facilities already exist. Net resi -
dential density refers to the number of dwellings per acre of actual residential use,
and need not include land for streets and neighborhood facilities. Gross residen -
tial density is more appropriate for habitats less fully developed at the present
time. Gross density includes the land area in net residential use, plus associated
streets, alleys, and other rights of way, as well as residual undevelopable land par-
cels. For entirely new habitats proposed in the plan (the lower category in the
table), it is more appropriate to use gross neighborhood density, which includes
 . . .i::i.
PART Ill I Ove rview of Ma king Land Use Pla ns ..i.
0

Table 13-3
Allocation of Future New Dwellings and Acres to Proposed Residential Habitats, Year 20XX

Number of
Dwellings New Dwellings Requirement Acres for New
in 20XX by Type Residential Land

Available
Acres in Total acres from
Single Single retained required land use
Residential Habitat Retained New Total Apts. Townhouses family Conversions Apts. Townhouse family housing acres design
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13) (14)

Neighborhoods in developed
or deve loping areas

Central neighborhood 200 100 300 60 10 0 3 2 2 0 20 21· 25

East neighborhood 1000 200 1200 100 60 20 5 15 9 5 145 179 200
Southwest neighborhood 700 500 1200 100 50 350 10 10 100 140 260 280
Northwest neighborhood 500 200 700 40 60 100 5 10 30 160 205 220
North neighborhood 900 100 1000 25 25 50 5 5 20 220 250 260
Subtotal 3300 1100 4400 325 205 520 8 37 36 155 685 921 985

New Residential Hab itats

A. Pedestrian 40 600 640 70 70
(transit oriented, mixed use)
B. Neotraditional
Neighborhood 10 1400 1410 320 350
C. Suburban neighborhood 0 650 650 150 175
D. Suburban neighborhood 0 600 600 200 220
Subtotal 50 3250 3300 740 815
Total 3350 4350 7700 1661a 1800a
Control total 3350 4350 7700

a. 100 dwellings on floors above commercial and office space .

 411
n
n ot only the streets and other land included in calculating gross residential density, I
)>
but also space for local shopp ing, sch oo ls, neighb orh oo d pa rks, streets and pedes- _,
u
m
:JJ
tria n ways, parking, and more-or-less permanent open space. For n ew residential
habitats, th e planner might use a single average "habitat type" neighborhood density
fo r each propo sed habita t and apply it to the total allocation of dwellings fo r th at
habitat (fo r exam ple, see Tabl e 13- 1 above). In other wo rds, planners use the density
-
w

: JJ
co
U)

a:
co
concept most appro priate for th e particular residential habitat com ponent. ~-
Q.)

Using different density co ncepts has considerable implica tions. Net density may n
0
be 20 percent higher th an residen tial gross density, whi ch mi ght be 20 percent higher 3
3
c
th an gross neighborhood density. For townhouses, fo r exa m ple, net density might ::>

be twenty dwe llings per acre, gross density might be sixteen to seventeen units per ~
I
Q.)
acre, and gross neighb orh oo d dens ity might be thirteen dwellings per acre. Note 0-
;:;;
that gross neighborhood density does not include em p loy ment and nonl oca l com- ~
U)

mercial centers, regional fac ili ties, open space, and regional transportation that we re
used in calculatin g "city density" fo r areawide planning p u rposes. Table 13 -4 shows
som e typ ical densities fo r urban areas, but planners need to decide appropriate pro -
posed densities for their particular situation. Densities would usually be lower than
those in the table in sm aller citi es and towns and in fringe areas of metropolitan
areas, for example. Planners should investigate trends in density and housing types
locally, regionally, and nationally. Column 13 in Table 13-3 would record the total
required acres implied by the allocations made in previous columns.

Table 13-4
Typical Residential Densities
Dwelling Type or Different Density Concepts (in dwellings per acre}
Neighborhood Type Net Gross Neighborhood
Density Density Density
I.
Single-family up to 8 up to 6 up to 5
Zero lot line, detached single-family 8-10 6-8 6
Two-family, deta ched 10-12 8-10 7
Row houses 15-24 12-20 12
Townhouses 25-40 20-30 18
Walkup apartments 40-45 30-40 20
6-story apartments 65-75 50-60 30
High -rise apartments (13-story) 85-95 70-80 40
Mixed -use neighborhoods (e .g.,
Kentlands, Radburn) 4.5
Higher-density transit-oriented neigh' d. (TOD) 20.0
Source: Adapt ed from Calthorpe and A ssoc iat es 1990; Lee and Ahn 2003; Lyn c h and Hac k 1984; and
estimates fro m va riou s mi xed -use neigh bo rh ood pl ans.
412
Planners compare the total required acres implied by the proposed allocation
of dwellings to the available acres of land in the habitat as proposed in the sche-
matic land use design. Those acres of available land as proposed in the land use
design schematic are indicated in column 14 at the right edge of Table 13-3. The
available acres are measured from the schematic land use design. They should not
include land that has already been reserved tentatively for open space, basic em-
-s
0 ployment, commercial centers, and community facilities, and therefore is not avail-
Q)
able for dwellings and neighborhood-supporting uses. The required acres (col-
2:
Q)
> umn 13) should be approximate to, and preferably less than, the available acres

-
Cl

f---
0::
(column 14) . If the required acres are far less than the available acres, or are sig-
nificantly greater than the available acres, planners will need to change the alloca-
tions among habitats, change the mixes of housing types, change proposed densi-
<(
o_ ties, increase or decrease the numbers and sizes of the proposed habitats, or make
some combination of such adjustments to the design and allocation of dwellings.

Adding Local Support Facilities to Create Residential Communities As sug-

gested above, the land use design needs to provide locations and space in residential
habitats for local shopping and banking; personal care; entertainment; community
facilities such as schools, playgrounds, community centers, and police and fire sta-
tions; insti tutions such as churches, synagogues, mosques, and clubs; and open space
for recreation and environmental protection. For proposed new neighborhoods, the
use of neighborhood densities allows sufficient space for such facilities. However,
where planners have used residential net and gross density for filling out existing
neighborhoods and partially developed areas of the community, space for such land
uses needs to be added . They should also be suggested in schematics of neighbor-
hood types as well as in small-area plans for specific neighborhoods. Planners need
to explicitly examine the need for such facilities for each neighborhood or area of
the city and allocate both sufficient space and su itable locations for them.

Local Business Uses Space requirements for local business areas should be as -
sessed in the light of the existing pattern of neighborhood and community-scale
centers, residents' satisfaction with shopping opportunities, and the preliminary
design for the commercial spatial structure made earlier. Table 13-5 provides some
standards for space requirements. For each residential habitat module (neighbor-
hood, village, or other residential design unit), the planner should estimate the space
requirements and designate locations for local business. To calculate space require-
ments, the planner can multiply dwelling-unit allocations by average household size
to estimate resident populations. Local shopping areas can be designated as a circle
or other symbol in the land use design, indicating the general but not specific loca-
tions. For entirely new residential habitats, the specific locations of local shopping
areas may be deferred to small-area plans or development proposals.

Schools Although schools are not necessarily central to all types of residential
habitat concepts, they are still important considerations, especially for areas in-
tended primarily for households with children. The types and locations of schools
are determined by a mix of education policy and land use principles, with educa-
tion policy being the dominant factor. For example, educational policy determines
 413
n
:::r::
)>
Table 13-5 u
~
m
Local Retail Space Requirements :TI

Selected Neighborhood Population

Sizes in Residential Communities
Acres of Combined Community-
Neighborhood Shopping Area
per 1,000 Population for Given
-
w

: TI
CD
en
o_
Parking Ratios· CD

~-
Q)

1:1 2:1 3:1 n

0
3
5,000 0.5 0.7 0.9 3
c
::::>
2,500 0.6 0.8 1.0 -:<
:::r::
1,000 0.9 1.1 1.5 Q)
0-
;::+
*Parking ratio is here defined as the square feet of parking space for every sq uare ;i:;_
cn
foot of floor space . Adapted from DeChiara, et al. 1995.

the span of grades served by school sites (e.g., kindergarten through sixth grade,
seventh through eighth, and ninth through twelfth grades), as well as optimum
enrollments and facilities for each type of school. Education and general public
policy would determine, for example, the types of activities to be accommodated
on school sites, including whether the sites are available for nonschool recreation,
community meetings, and adult education. The amount of land required by each
school site is determined by the size of enrollment, facilities desired, and school
system standards, which can be obtained from the school board. The catchment
area for each school is determined at least partly by land use, however, including
density of the school- age populations, housing densities, and traditional accessi-
bility standards ofland use education planning. Busing practices and other crite-
ria used by school boards have to be factored in as well, which might free up
location options. Thus, the school facility planning process involves a study of the
existing schools, a projection of enrollments, the development of location and
space-requirement standards, and consultation with school boards. In balancing
all these considerations, land use planners should probably emphasize accessible
location, potential for a walk/bike zone, and potential for multiple use as outdoor
play space and community meetings as compared with minimum -size sites.
The local planning team, guided by the school board and sometimes statewide
guidelines, will need to establish land use guidelines for enrollment sizes, site sizes,
service radii, and the number of sites needed, depending on local housing densi-
ties and average numbers of school-age children per household anticipated to be
in different types of neighborhoods. There are general standards, such as those in
Table 13-6, that serve as starting points for local standard setting. Planners might
also consider school site criteria suggested by Engelhardt (1970, illustration 13-
1); Council of Educational Facility Planners, International (1991); and their own
state departments of education. See chapter 8 for further discussion of the pro-
cess of forecasting school enrollments and their implications for school facility
planning.
 . . ~
PART Ill I Overvi ew of Making Land Use Pl ans ....&
~

Table 13-6
Suggested Standards for Siting Schools
Nursery School Elementary School Junior High School High School
Assumed 60 children of nursery 175 children of elementary 75 children of junior high 75 children of high
Population school age per 1,000 school age per 1,000 school age per 1,000 school age per 1,000
Characteristics persons or 275-300 persons or 275-300 persons or 275-300 persons or 275-300
families families families families
Size of School
Minimum 4 classes (60 children) 250 pupils 800 pupils 1,000 pupils
Ave rage 6 classes (90 children) 800 pupils 1,200 pupils 1,800 pupils
Maximum 8 classes (120 children) 1,200 pupils 1,600 pupils 2,600 pupils
Population Served
Minimum 4 classes; 1,000 persons 1,500 persons 10,000 persons 14,000 persons
(275-300 families) (2,750-3,000 families) (3,800 -4,000 families)
Average 6 classes; 1,500 persons 5,000 persons 16,000 persons 24,000 persons
(425-450 families) (4,500-5,000 families) (6,800-7,000 families)
Maximum 8 classes; 2,000 persons 7,000 persons 20,000 persons 34,000 persons
(550-600 families) (5,800-6,000 families) (9,800-10,000 families)
Area Required
Minimum 4 classes; 4,000 ft .2 7-8 acres 18-20 acres 32-34 acres
Av erage 6 classes; 6,000 ft. 2 12-14 ac res 24-26 ac res 40-42 acres
Maximum 8 classes; 8,000 ft. 2 16-18 acres 30-32 acres 48-50 ac res
Radius of Area Served
Desirable 1-2 blocks 1/4 mile 1/ 2 mile 3/4 mile
Maximum 1/3 mile 1/2 mile 3/4 mile 1 mile
General Location Near an elementary Near center of residential Ne ar concentration of Centra lly located for
sc hool or community area; near or adjacent to dwelling units or near easy access;
center other co mmunity facilities center of residential a rea ; proximity to other
away from major arterial community facilities
streets advantageous;
ad jacent to park a rea
Note: Such standards are good starting points for loca l standard sett ing but should be adjusted to reflect local education policy, proposed residential
densities in the land use plan, and the average number of school-age children per household loca lly.
Ad apt ed from DeChiara and Koppelman 1982, 374-75, and DeChi ara, Panero , and Zelnik 1995, 208-14.
 415
n
Recreation and Open Space Recreation land use encompasses a wide range of :::r::
)>
facilities, each having its own location and space requirements. Particularly im- <J
-i
rn
:xi
portant for residential habitat planning are recreation facilities with small service
areas, such as tot lots, playing fields, local parks, and recreation centers. However,
recreational facilities that serve the larger communit y and region are also impor-
tant to consider in the overall land use design, to supplement localized recreation.
-
w

: xi
CD

"'Cl..
CD
There are, for example, spectator facilities such as ballparks, stadiums, arenas, and ~-
Q.)

auditoriums for sports and cultural events and exhibition s, m ost of which require n
D
locations directly accessible to transit and major highways. There are other re- 3
3
c:
gional recreation facilities that require particularly suitable ph ysical environments :::J

as well as good access, including golf courses, fairgrounds, botanical ga rd ens , zoos, -:<
:::r::
forest preserves, and country parks. These may require large sites and substantia l "';:;:
0-

capital improvements for picnicking, hiking, nature walks, boating, inform al gam es, ~
"'
and other forms of outdoo r active and passive leisure activities for individuals,
families, and larger groups.
The standards most widely accepted by local governments are from th e Na-
tional Recreation and Park Association (NRPA) (Lancaster 1983; Mertes 1995 ).
The NRPA suggests guidelines for a hierarchical system of recreation faciliti es:
minipark, neighborhood park, community park, regional park, and so on, along
with some types of open space that may be local or regional, such as linear parks,
conservancies, and special-use parks (e.g., golf course, marina, or historical site).
For each component in the hierarchical system, they suggest maximum desirable
service area, minimum desirable site size, minimum desirable nu mber of acres
per 1,000 population, and desirable site characteristics. More than one compo-
nent of the system could occur within the same site in the system.
As a general minimum, the NRPA recommends 6.25 to 10.5 acres of developed
open space per 1,000 population for a community, plus fifteen to twenty acres of
regional recreation and open space per 1,000 population for the larger region. An
outline of the NRPA guidelines is shown in Table 13-7.
The NRPA stresses that although their recommendations are called standards,
they should be viewed as "guidelines" for a community-planning team to use in
developing its own standards. They also do not address demand for unstructured
park space. Local standards should reflect the needs and va lues of the people in
the specific communities and be realistically attainable as well as acceptable to
elected officials, appointed officials, and the public. The NRPA suggests proce-
dures for assessing resident demand for recreation and opportunities and empha -
sizes the importance of integrating such assessments into a planning process
(Lancaster 1983; Mertes 1995). Kelsey and Gray (1986) provide a guide to assess -
ing specific recreation concepts and projects. Richman (1979) proposes a social-
performance standard approach.
The land use design might also include a map of existing and proposed recre-
ation sites and open space, following locally adopted standards for the number and
types of sites, minimum sizes, and location requirements of each type of facility.
Attention in the suitability analysis should be given to surplus public lands, aban -
doned school sites, and tax-title lands as potential sites. Requirements for open space
and recreation sites should also be integrated into development controls. Locations
 . . .i::.
PART Ill I Overview of Making Land Use Plans ..a
0)

Table 13-7
Recreation and Open Space Standards Suggested for National Recreation by the National Recreation and Park Association

Component Use Service Area Desirable Acres per Desirable Site Characteristics
Size 1,000
Population

Local or close to home

Mini Park Special ized facilities that serve Less than 1/4 mile 1 acre or less 0.25 to 0.5 Within neighborhoods
a concentrated or limited radius and close to
population or spec ific group apartment comp lexes,
townhouse development,
or housing for the elderly
Neighborhood Area for intense recreational 1/4 to 1/2 mi le 15+ acres 1.0 to 2.0 Suited for intense develop-
park/ playground activities such as field games, radius to serve ment; easily accessible to
court games, crafts, skating, and a popu lation up neighborhood popul ation;
picnicking; also for wading poo l to 5,000 (a geographica lly centered
and playground apparatus areas neighborhood) with safe walking and
bike access; may be
deve loped as a
school-park facility
Community park Area of diverse environmental Several 25+ acres 5.0 to 8.0 May include
qua lity; may inc lude areas suited neighborhoods, natural features, such as
for intense recreational facilit ies, 1- to 2-mile radiu s water bodies, and areas
such as athletic complexes or large suited for intense
swimming pools; may be an area of deve lopment; eas ily
natura l quality for outdoor access ible to
recreation, such as wa lking, viewing , neighborhood served
sitting, picnick ing ; may be any
combinat ion of the above, depending
upon site suitab ility and commun ity
need
Total close-to-home spaces= 6.25 to 10.5 acres per 1,000 population

Regional Space
Regional/ Area of natural or ornamenta l Several 200+ acres 5.0 to 10.0 Contiguous to or
metropolitan quality for outdoor recreation, communities, 1 encompassing natural
park such as picnicking, boating , hour driving time resources
fishing , swimming, camping,
and trail uses; may include play
area s.
Table 13-7 (continued)
Recreation and Open Space Standards Suggested for National Recreation by the National Recreation and Park Association

Component Use Service Area Desirable Acres per Desirable Site Characteristics
Size 1,000
Population

Region al park Areas of nature quality for nature-oriented Several 1,000+ acres, Variable Diverse or unique natural
reserv e outdoor recreation such as viewing and communities, 1 sufficient area resources, such as lakes,
studying nature, wildlife habitats, hour driving to enco mpass stream, marshes,
conservation, swimming, picnicking, tim e the resource to flora, fauna, and
hiking, fishing, boating, cam ping , and be preserved topography
trail uses; may include active play areas; and managed
generally 80 percent of the land is re se rved
for co nse rvation and natural resourc e
management, with less than 20 percent
used for recreation
Total regional space = 15 acres per 1,000 population
Space that may be local or regional and is unique to each community
Linear park Are a developed for one or more No applicable Sufficient to Variable Built on natural co rridors,
varying modes of recreational standards protect the such as utility rights-of-way,
travel, such as hiking, biking resources and fluff lines , vegetat ion patterns,
snowmobiling, horseback riding, provide and roads , that li nk ot her
cross-country skiing, canoeing, and, maximum use components of th e rec reation
pleasure driving; may include active system of co mmunity
play areas. (Note: Any activities fac iliti es, such as sc hools,
included may occur in the linear park.) li braries, co mm ercial areas,
and other park areas
Special use Areas for specialized or single -purpose No applicable Variable Variable Within communities
recre ational activities,such as golf courses, standards depending on
nature centers, marinas, zoos, conservatories, desired size
arboreta, display gardens, arenas, outdoor
theaters, gun rang es, or downhill ski areas,
or buildings, sites, and objects of archaeological
significance; also plazas or squares in or near
commercial centers, boulevards, and parkways
Conservancy Protecti o n and management of the No appl icable Suffic ient to Var iab le Variab le, depending on
natural or cultural environment with standards protect the the resources being
recreational use as a secondary objective resource protected

Note: Although called "standards," the NRPA stresses that they should be viewed as "guides" for a community to use in developing its own standards.
Source: NRPA-s uggested classification system (Lancaster 1983, 56-57).

~
s1e11qeH fq 1un wwo:i 1e11uap 1sa tJ I £ L tl31d\IH:J ...,
~

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ -
418
"'
c::
m of recreation facilities, especially those in entirely new areas to be developed in the
0:::
Q) future, may be designated by a symbol indicating the type of facility and general
"'
::::> location.
"D
c::
m
_J

01
c::
Other Local-serving Facilities Facilities such as libraries and community cen-
~
m ters, public safety facilities like police and fire stations, and private institutions
~
such as churches and clubs are also important in making residential areas more
s
Q)
livable. Space in appropriate locations for such facilities should be built into the
c:
Q)
overall residential habitat design, and requirements and incentives for such resi-
>

-
0 dential support facilities should be built into the development -management pro-
gram.

Beyond the Preliminary Communitywide Land Use Design

The levels of analysis and design described above are suitable for general purpose
lan d use plan making. For more advanced studies and for small-area planning,
more precise estimating techniques are used. They generally require the skills of
people trained and experi enced in housing analysis and community facility plan-
ning. For example, follow-u p planning migh t include a more thorough housing
market analysis, the condition of the housing stock might be assessed, and defi-
ciencies identified in neighborhood facilities, especially in older neighborhoods.
Studies might identify and delineate m ore specifically the areas for rehabilitation
and redevelopm ent. A study of recreati onal needs might incorporate user surveys
and a participatory approach. For schools, the planner might employ more de-
ta il ed forecasts of school-age population and analyze the existing school plant
more carefully. For local shopping, a detailed survey of existing floor space used
by local businesses and a study of future purchasing power could be made.

Summary
By this point in the communitywide land use design process, trial residential habitat
designs have been added to the earlier designs for the open-space system and the
spatial structure of commercial and employment activity centers. Alternative resi-
dential designs ad dress both the internal organization of neighborhoods as well
as the spatial relationships of those neighborhoods to each other, to the transpor-
tation networks, to open-space networks, and to the commercial and employ-
ment centers of the la rger community. Within neighborhoods, th e design covers
both the allocation of dwellings and their local suppo rting uses-the public and
private infrastructure of facilities and services such as local shopping, n-•c reation
and leisure, transportation, schools, and employment. The entire design is aimed
at supporting private and public interests in a sustainable built environment, bal-
ancing th e valu es of a highly livable communi ty with those of equity, environ-
ment, and a healthy local economy.
It may seem that the land use design is quite specific in its delineation . How-
ever, the resulting design should not be taken too literally because it is not imple-
mented directly by the local government that adopts the plan. Small-area plans
 419
(")
may modify and add further design specificity to m any of the activity centers and :r:
)>
residential neighborh oods proposed in the plan. Regulations, incentives, capital _,
u
m
improvements, and government programs may diverge somewhat from the plan :D

in their implementation . Even m ore significantly, the urban -development indus-

try will interpret the plan and respond to market forces over time to decide what
gets built where as part of the land market game. Thus, the communitywide land
-
w

:D
ro
(/)
(1
ro
use design and development-management plan essenti ally creates a framework, ~
Q)'
whi ch should not be overly specific, to guide political policy making, public capi- (")
0
tal improvements, and market processes and to guide ongoing civic and public- 3
3
private stakeholder involve ment in those processes. c::
:::J

We have now exp lain ed two types of comprehensive land use policy plans that .;z
:r:
Q)
might well be part of a commun ity's network of plans- the areawide land policy 0-
;::; :
plan and the communitywid e land use design. The next two chapters describ e ~
(/)

two additional types of pl ans- small -a rea plans and development-management

plans.

References
Anderson , La rz. 2000. Pl111111i11g the built e11l'iro11111e11t. Chicago, Ill.: Planners Press.
Arendt, Randall. 2004. Crossronds, h11111let, vi/Inge, to1v11 : Design chnracteristics of traditional
neighborhoods old anrl 11 e\\I, rev. ed . PAS Repo rt Number 523 /524. Chicago, Ill.: Ameri-
can Planning Association.
Barnett, Jonathan . 1982. An introdu ction to 1irb1111 design . New Yo rk: Harper and Rowe.
Barn ett, Jonathan. 2003. Redesigning cities: Prin ciples, practice, implementatio n. Chicago,
Ill.: Plann ers Press, Amer ican Planning Association.
Brower, Sid ney N. 1996. Good neighborhoods: A study of i11 -to 1vn nnrl s11b11rb1111 residential
environments. \i\Testport, Conn. : Praeger.
Calthorpe, Peter, and Associates. 1990. Transit-oriented design guidelines. Final public re-
view draft, September 1990. Sac ramento, Calif. : Sacramento County Planning and
Community Development Department.
Calthorpe, Peter, and William Fu lton. 2001. The regional city. Washington, D.C. : Island
Press.
I.
City of Seattle. 1994, am ended through December 2002. Seattle's comprehensive plan: To-
ward a sustainable Seattle: A plan for managing growth 1994-20 13. Seattle, Wash .: De-
partment of Design, Co nstruction and Land Use.
Cervera, Robert B. 1998. The transit metropolis: A global inquiry. Washington D.C.: Island
Press.
Cou ncil of Education Facility Plann ers, International. 199 1. Guide for planning educational
facilities. Columbus, O hio: Auth or.
DeChiara, Joseph, and Lee Koppelman . 1982. Urban planning and design criteria, 3rd ed.
New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.
DeChiara, Joseph, Julius Panero, and Martin Zelnik. 1995. Time saver standards for housing
and residential developm ent, 2n d ed . New York: McGraw-Hill.
Duany, Andres, and Emily Ta len . 2002. Transect planning. journal of the American Plan -
ning Association 68 ( 3) : 245 -66.
Eisner, Simon, Arthur Gallion, and Stanley Eisner. 1993. Th e urban pattern: City planning
and design, 6th ed . New Yo rk: Va n Nostrand Reinhold.
420
Engelhardt, Nickolaus L. 1970. Complete guide for planning new schools. West Nyack, NY:
Parker.
Garvin, Alexander. 2002. The art of creating communities. In Great planned communities,
Jo Allen Gause, ed., 14-29. Washington, D.C. : Urban Land Institute.
Gause, Jo Allen, ed. 2002 . Great planned communities. Washington, D.C. : Urban Land In-
stitute.
Grant, Jill, Patricia Manuel, and Darrell Joudrey. 1996. A framework for planning sustain-
able residential landscapes. Journal of the American Planning Association 62 (3) : 331-
44.
Hoppenfeld, Morton. 1967. A sketch of the planning-building process for Columbia, Mary-

-
f-
0:::
land. Journal of the American Institute of Planners 33 (6): 398-409.
Kelbaugh , Doug, ed. 1989. The pedestrian pocket book: A new suburban design strategy.
Princeton, N.J.: Princeton Architectural Press.
<I:
a... Kelsey, Craig, and Howard Gray. 1986. The feasibility study process for parks and recrea tion.
Reston, Va.: American Alliance for Health, Physical Education, Recreation and Dance.
Lancaster, Roger A., ed. 1983. Recreation, park and open space standards and guidelines.
Alexandria, Va.: National Recreation and Park Association .
Lee, Chang-Moo, and Kun- Hyuck Ahn. 2003. Is Ken tlands better than Radburn? The Ameri-
can garden city and new urbanist paradigms. Journal of the American Planning Asso -
ciation 69 (1 ): 50-71.
Lynch, Kevin, and Gary Hack. 1984. Site planning, 2nd ed. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
Marans, Rober W. 1975. Basic human needs and the housing environment. Ann Arbor: Insti-
tute of Social Research, University of Michigan.
Mertes, James D., and James R. Hall. 1995. Park, recreation, open space, and greenway guide-
lines. Arlington, Va.: National Recreation and Park Association.
Nelessen, Anton Clarence. 1994. Visions for a new American dream. Chicago: Planners Press.
Perry, Clarence. 1929. Neig,'zborhood and community planning: Th e neighborhood unit. New
York: Regional Plan of New York and Its Environs.
Richman, Alan. 1979. Planning residential environments: The social performance stan-
dard. Journal of the American Planning Association 45 (4): 448 -57.
Rodriguez, D., A. Khattak, and K. Evenson. 2006. Can n eighborhood design encourage
physical activity? Physical activity in a new urbanist and a conventional suburban
community. Journal of the American Planning Association 72 ( 1) .
San Francisco Planning and Research Association. 2002. Vision cf a place: A guide to the San
Francisco general plan. San Francisco, Calif.: Author.
Van der Ryn, Sim, and Peter Calthorpe. 1991. Sustainable communities: A new design syn-
thesis for cities, suburbs, and towns. San Francisco: Sierra Club Books.
Van der Ryn, Sim, and Stuart Cowan. 1996. Ecological design . Washington, D.C.: Island
Press.
 Chapter 14

Small-area Plans

The planning director wants you to propose a small-area plan ning pro-
gram to address issues and opportunities in strategically important geo-
graphic areas beyond what is covered in the more comprehensive but
general communitywide plans. The program should indicate the purposes
of small-area plans, the types of small areas or special areas to be in-
cluded, what the plans should look like and their essential components,
and their relationships to other plans within the community 's "network
of plans. " It should outline a planning process that engages citizens and
other stakeholders in the affected area while at the same time incorpo-
rating rigorous analysis and attention to planning principles.

mall-area planning is stepping down from the more general and larger-
scale communitywide plans to focus on specific strategically important
geographic areas within the planning jurisdiction. In a community's "net-
work of plans," small-area plans are both a way to implement co mmunitywide
plans by translating their policies into specific physical designs and action, and at
the same time a way to address issues, perhaps wider in scope, especially critical,
or unique to the small area and its local stakeholders.
Small-area plans are known by other terms as well: specific plans (Barnett and
Hack 2000; California Government Code, section 65450-65457), subplans (Meck
2002, 7-175), district plans (Sedway 1988), and geographic area plans (Kelly and
Becker 2000), for example. They also are known by more specific labels that de-
scribe their particular focus , such as neighborhood plans, corridor plans, transit
station area plans, and natural resource area plans, to name a few. These more
specific types of small-area plans are described later in the chapter.
The purpose of this chapter is to discuss the nature of small-area plans and
their contribution to a community's network of plans and to explain the process

421
4 22
ro of making small-area plans. The first section of the chapter defines small-area
CL
Q)
UJ
plans, their purposes, and how they fit into the overall network of plans. The next
:::J
-0
section then describes the variety of types of small-area plans, from neighbor-
c
ro
_J hood plans to natural resource area plans, and from larger-scale district plans to
=
c smaller-scale neighborhood design plans. The third section describes the content
-""
m
of a good small-area plan, using the neighborhood plan and transit station area
-
:2
0 plan as examples. The last section explains the small-area plan-making process,
including setting the proper plan-making foundation, describing the "state of the
small area," refining the direction-setting framework, and formulating the physi-

-
f---
0::
cal design and implementation program for the small area.

The Nature and Purpose of Small-area Plans

<t
o_

Small-area plans share much of the nature of communitywide plans, but also can
be different in important ways to best contribute to the network of plans.

Creating a Small-area Niche within the Network of Plans

Ideally, small-area plans are undertaken within the framework of a network of
plans. Ideally, a community will adopt a comprehensive communitywide plan or
plans first and incorporate the review and approval of the small-area plans by the
planning commission and local legislative body, followed by adoption of the small-
area plan as an amendment to the comprehensive plan. The Growing Smart Legis-
lative Guidelines (Meck 2002), for example, recommends that subplans, as Meck
call them, should be based on an adopted local comprehensive plan and treated as
amendments to the local comprehensive plan. Small-area plans should also relate
to other relevant plans within the network, such as economic development plans,
capital improvement and community facility plans, and transportation plans, for
example.
In the other direction, communitywide plans can anticipate small-area plans
in several ways. For example, the communitywide plan may include "prototype"
small-area plans in schematic formats or it may identify the strategic areas in need
of more focused and in -depth planning assistance that could be provided by a
small-area plan. Some communities create a special citywide neighborhood plan,
beyond the communitywide comprehensive plan, to provide a framework for in-
dividual neighborhood plans. Such a plan recognizes the individuality of each
small area and its value as part of the overall urban mosaic, and describes how the
small areas relate to each other and to areawide activity centers, the transporta-
tion network, and open-space system. The citywide plan may also suggest a small-
area planning process and plan content. In addition, such an umbrella plan eases
the task of doing neighborhood plans by providing some of the analysis about
issues and needs, before planning for a specific neighborhood is undertaken. Con-
versely, as a neighborhood plan is completed, it then refines the citywide neigh-
borhood plan. Nashville, Tennessee; Portland, Oregon; and Davis, California, for
example, take such an approach.
 423
n
Jones (1990, 4-5) suggests the content of such a citywide neighborhood plan: :::r::
)>
__,
u
• Definitions of each neighborhood and its boundaries; rn
::D
..,.
Classification of each neighborhood based on the type of conservation work
it requires (e.g., redevelopment, rehabilitation, conservation);
• Identification of what should be preserved, added, removed, kept out, for
-
( /)
3
QJ

each neighborhood area; Q,

• Identification of a joint city-neighborhood planning organization for mak- '°

QJ

u
QJ
ing and implementing the plan. ::J
en

Some cities provide a specific niche for small-area planning within an explicit
hierarchical network of plans. For example, Nashville, Tennessee, in addition to an
areawide (regional) and citywide plan, has 14 subarea plans that cover the metro-
politan planning jurisdiction, and more numerous smaller area corridor plans, neigh-
borhood design plans, and commercial area plans within the subarea plans. The citywide
plan and subarea plans often identify the smaller areas (e.g., neighborhoods) that
should have planning assistance to boost an effort for improvement already under-
way (Nashville 2004). Davis, California, has a hierarchical trilogy of plans-areawide
land policy plan, citywide land use design plan, and a specific plan for the central
core area (City of Davis 2001), (see chapter 3, Figures 3-5, 3-6, and 3-7). The Port-
land, Oregon, metropolitan area is another example. Its hierarchical network of plans,
in addition to the metro regional plan and City of Portland comprehensive plan,
includes area plans for ten districts, communities and corridors within the city, and
within each such area, neighborhood plans are prepared by neighborhood associa-
tions (Kaiser and Godschalk 2000, 163-167).
It is not necessary that ever y part of th e geographic area covered in the
communitpvide design plan or areawide policy plan be covered by a small-area plan.
Nor need they be prepared all at once; a community may undertake such plans over
a period of years, depending on issues and opportunities that arise, as well as priori-
ties suggested in the communitywide or areawide plan. Finally, although small-area
planning is best undertaken within the framework of a comprehensive plan, small-
area plans may also be appropriate responses to immediate needs or opportunities,
and might be undertaken in tandem with other components of the plan network
rather than following the more comprehensive citywide plans.

Purposes Served by Small-area Planning

Small-area plans may serve several purposes within a metropolitan, county, or
city planning program.
• Small-area plans provide a veh icle for interpreting and applying the
communitywide plan to designated areas within the planning jurisdiction,
while at the same time revealing and exploring unique small-area issues, op-
portunities, and priorities not evident in the communitywide plan.
• Small-area plans introduce the potential to widen the range of concerns to
be addressed beyond those traditionally addressed in a comprehensive plan.
 424
"'
c
_O'.!
Citizen participants select the issues for the small-area and there is less up-
CL
(1) front definition of the specific issues to be included, or excluded. Thus, for
"'
=:J
example, community development or economic development or social is-
-0
c
cu
__J sues may be included, or the precise location of and access to a community
DJ
'= facility can be addressed.
-""
cu
::2'. • Small-area plans provide opportunity to enhance the "place making" aspect
c;
5
of the livability dimension of the sustainability prism, particularly in small-
(1)

2: area plans for commercial areas, historic districts, neighborhoods, and tran-
(1)
> sit station areas.

-
0

f-
a:
• Small-area plans, particularly neighborhood plans, provide a means to en-
gage citizens in local planning and implementation that affect their immedi-
ate neighborhood. The smaller geographic size means people address an area
<(
CL
that affects their daily life and about which they are knowledgeable.
/
• Small-area plans provide a more solid basis of fact and citizen support for
the commitment oflocal government resources to implement proposals, par-
ticularly capital improvements or development regulations.
• Small-area plans can be more specific about their recommendations than
citywide comprehensive plans. Proposed physical improvements, for example,
can be more specific. This evolves naturally from the focus on localized is-
sues and problems. Small-area plans can also be more specific about their
implementation programs because implementation is more direct, easier, and
quicker.

Types of Small-area Plans

Small-area plans apply to a range of situations and therefore come in a variety of
forms. Some focus on redevelopment within built-up parts of the planning juris-
diction. Others apply to new urban and suburban development on the urban fringe.
Still others address not development, but the protection of natural resources from
development. Some are part of a whole constellation of similar small -area plans,
more or less covering the planning jurisdiction in a systematic manner, following
unified guidelines on content and process. Others are single shot attempts to ad-
dress issues in special areas in a more or less opportunistic manner. The more
common types of plans include the following:
· District or sector plan. This type of specific area plan is intermediate in
scale between the communitywide plan and the neighborhood-scale plan;
in fact, smaller-scale neighborhood plans are sometimes nested within a
district-scale plan;
· Transportation corridor plan. This type of plan may be at the scale of a
district or sector plan or at the smaller scale of a commercial activity cen-
ter;
· Neighborhood plan. Perhaps the most common type of small-area plan, it
is generally for a residential area, but sometimes is for a locally oriented
commercial center;
 425
n
· Business center revitalization plan. This type of plan is for a downtown, :::r::
1>
u
satellite commercial area, shopping center, or other mixed-use business areas ___,
rn
or even a main street revitalization. See Bohl (2002 ) for concepts about ::D

-
+>
town centers, main streets, and urban villages;
• Redevelopment area plan. This type of plan applies to business di stri cts ( /)
3
suffering losses of retail, office, and related residential activity and invest- OJ

Q,
ment; residential neighborhoods experiencing a marked state of deteri ora - Ci3
OJ
tion; or industrial areas where facilities are abandoned, idle, or severely u
OJ
::::;
underused and/or sites that are environmentally contaminated; that is, "'
brownfields. See Sidebar 14-1 on two sample redevelopment plans fo r the
redevelopment of the former Stapleton Airport in Denver, Colorado;
• Transit station area plan. This type of plan is focused on the immediate
vicinity around an existing or planned transit station, usually up to a ra-
dius of a little more than a quarter mile;
· Historic or appearance district plan. This plan is focused on a neighb or-
hood or commercial district of historic or architectural value;
Facilities complex plan. This type of plan might cover an airport and its
vicinity, for exampl e, or a government center;
· Natural resource area plan. This type of plan might cover a drinking wa-
ter supply watershed, wildlife habitat, or other area of critical environmen -
tal concern , for example, or an area of highly productive farmland to be
protected; such areas often are not that small, but nevertheless constitute a
"specific" area within an areawide plan;
· Specific development plan. This type of plan is designed to have the status
of development regulation for the district defined in the plan. It is adopted
as an ordinance rather than as a statement of policy and design intent. It
incorporates a program of implementation measures, including public

The figures illustrate a nested pair of redevelopment area plans for the former Stapleton
Airport site in Denver, Colorado . One is a district-scale plan for the entire Stapleton area,
and the other is a neighborhood design plan for one part of the district. The district-scale
plan shown in the first figure covers 4,700 acres and integrates housing, employment, and
recreation in a land use design shaped by an open-space system that connects walkable
neighborhoods, mixed -use town centers, regional retail uses, and employment centers. It
is designed to accommodate 12,000 dwellings and 10 million square feet of commercial
development. Within this larger-scale plan, there are several smaller-scale plans, one of
which is illustrated in the second figure. This particular plan actually covers three neighbor-
hoods (see City and County of Denver 2000 for more information).
Continued
426

I fCU•IJ

Op~n <., p.1n·

-
( l\ IC
e;
$:
w I o wn ( l'llll'I I \,1n£"d-L .,(_.
2:
w
>

-
0

f-
a:
- Otlin· i J( & !)

<(
a...

.\

,_ ______ ;,.,I

,------c_---------
1
I
SB Fig. 14-1a District-scale plan for
the former Stapleton Airport. Source:
Forest City Development 2000.
Continued
 - -,
I
I
The School 29th Avenue
Neighborhood Neighborhood I
I
I
I
I
SB Fig. 14-1b Neighborhood-scale
.;"
plan for the former Stapleton Airport. /
/
Source: Forest City Development 2000. /

~
sue1d eaJe-1 1ews 1 17 l l:l3lditH::J N
~
428
works projects and financial measures in addition to regulations. In that
sense, it is essentially a small -area development-management plan and
ordinance combined. The advantage for developers in states with environ-
mental impact analysis requirements (e.g., California) is that the environ-
mental impact assessment is done for the plan and individual developers
who conform to the regulations in the specific development plan district
have no need to prepare their own environmental reviews (Barnett 2003;
s
Q)
California Government Code, section 65450-457 on "Specific Plans"). See
2:
Q)
> Figure 3-8 in chapter 3 for an example of a specific development plan for

-
0

f---
0::
downtown Davis, California.

What a Small-area Plan Looks Like

<t
CL

Small-area plans contain the components of any good land use plan: a direction-
setting component that identifies issues and states a vision along with goals and
objectives; a solid fact base; a physical design for the area; and an implementation
program that includes monitoring of both implementation and outcomes (see
discussion of plan quality criteria in chapter 3 ). It utilizes both text and diagrams
to delineate spatial and physical dimensions of the situation and solution . It cov-
ers land use, including open space; circulation/transportation; community facili -
ties and infrastructure; standards and criteria to guide development and conserve
natural resources; and a program of regulations, capital investments, policies, in-
centives and disincentives, and other actions to implement the plan.
Although focused on a specific area, a small-area plan should explain its relation -
ship to the communitywide plans and any relevant functional plans; for example, a
capital improvements plan or economic development plan, relevant to the small-
area, as well as any smaller area plans within the area. As exemplified in the Seattle
neighborhood planning program (see chapter 2), small-area plans generally include
more attention than communitywide plans to participatory measures for planning
and implementation, and more extensively involve nonprofit organizations and other
localized groups, often as lead agencies in plan making. In addition, they are more
explicit about spatial design and implementation than are communitywide plans.
Sidebar 14-2 illustrates the content of a generic hypothetical small-area plan. It
is based on examination of a number of different types of small-area plans cre-
ated over the past decade or so.
Specific types of small-area plans require variation in scope and emphasis, and
even types of components to the plan. For example, the American Planning
Association's Growing Smart Legislative Guidebook (Meck 2002) separately pre-
scribes the content of a neighborhood plan, a transit -oriented development area
plan, and a redevelopment plan. We will describe suggested content for two types
of small-area plans for illustration purposes- the neighborhood plan and the tran -
sit station area plan.

Neighborhood Plan
Neighborhood plans generally focus on a specifically delineated area, usually already
substantially developed, and usually predominantly residential (as opposed to a plan
 429
(")
:::r::
)>
_,
<J
rn
:::0

1. Executive Summary
-
_,,.

( /)
3Q)
Q,
a. Purpose, context, and vision ro
Q)
b. Plan highlights ::i:::>
Q)
c. Implementation-management structure ::::i
en
d. Early action program

2. Introduction
a. Purpose and scope of the plan
b. Planning process-partnerships, consulting team, citizens-advisory board
c. History of the community
d . Wider community context-location, surrounding areas, market area, transportat io n
e. How the plan is used
f. Relat ionship to the comprehensive plan and other plans

3. Issues and vision

a. Maj o r questions and issues
b. Vis io n: images of the future-key features (mobility, linkages, service levels, etc .)
c. Goals and objectives
d. Guiding prin ciples-social equity, environmental responsibility, economic opportunity,
livability, physi cal design, implementation

4. Exist ing and emergi ng conditions , threats and opportunities, strengths and weaknesses
a. The environment
b. Demography and social cond itions
c. Local economic base
d. Land use and structures
e. Property ownership
f. Circulation
g. Infrastructure
h. Community fac ilities and serv ices
i. Urban design features and resources
j. Analysis of situation and identification of issues I

5. Development plan
a. Physi cal structuring elements-land use, urban design and streetscape, open space and
parks, transportation and circulation; community facilities and services
b. Social and economic initiatives- jobs and employment, safety
c. Development management-regulatory and market mechanisms, redevelopment
management structure, phasing strategy, early act ion items; responsibilities, timelines ,
provisions for monitoring, evaluating, updating

for a commercial area or downtown). They usually employ a neighborhoo d par tici-
patory planning process that is separate fro m the process used in crea ting the
communitywide, comprehensive, policy-oriented plan . Because of the nature of
the process, the relatively small size of the area, and the fact that it is already sub -
stantially developed, neighborhood plans often focuses on high- visibility prob-
lems and specific physical design proposals. They also emphasize a shorter-range
 430
action program, something in the order of two years, and include actions to be
taken by nongovernmental organizations as well as governmental agencies. In fact,
this type of plan is sometimes called a neighborhood empowerment plan.
More explicitly, a neighborhood plan might typically include:
• Explanation of the planning process and a validation of the plan's legiti-
macy including mission statement, needs assessment, citizen participation
sCl.J procedures, neighborhood organizational structure for implementation,
'2: delineation of boundaries, and statement of adoption by the local legisla-
Cl.J
0
> tive body;

-
f-
• Supporting studies of population, employment, land use, housing condi-
tions and their distribution, condition of nonresidential structures and
a: public infrastructure, retail and consumer service market conditions, prop-
<l'.
0...
erty values, architectural and historically significant structures, environ-
mental issues, assessment of neighborhood services and facilities, trans-
portation services, circulation (auto, pedestrian, bicycle) , parking, quality
of life issues, and natural hazard conditions;
• Goals, objectives, policies, and action guidelines concerning land use, cir-
culation and transportation, housing, public infrastructure, community
facilities, and possibly neighborhood-oriented economic development,
safety and crime prevention, human services and education;
• A physical design showing neighborhood boundaries, proposed future land
use, existing and proposed community facilities, existing and proposed trans-
portation facilities and circulation schemes; and other matters of neighbor-
hood significance (e.g., greenways) that can be graphically represented on a
map; there are often renderings and sketches of design features;
• An implementation program that focuses on nearer term actions and likely
to include actions of neighborhood-based organizations and other non-
governmental organizations and neighborhood/city collaborative actions.
The implementation program may cover capital improvements, neighbor-
hood services, development ordinance changes, and other actions.
See also Gregory (1998 ) for a description of common elements and basic features
of neighborhood plans.

Transit-oriented Development Plan (TOD)

TOD plans focus on an area around an existing or proposed transit station or
along a transit corridor to create a development pattern that both supports, and is
supported by, mass transit service. TOD principles include compact development,
pedestrian comfort and safety, improved circulation and connection to transit,
mixed land uses and a variety of housing types. Such plans are appropriate for
new development sites on the urban fringe for which transit service is planned, as
well as for retrofitting development patterns at existing transit nodes. They apply
to both suburban towns and central cities.
Supporting studies in preparation of TOD plans ideally include studies of
existing land uses, structures, community facilities and public infrastructure

L
 431
n
(including streets and parking facilities), and proposals for future land uses, com - :r
l>
munity facilities, and infrastructure in the communitywide plan; evaluation of __,
CJ
fTI
::IJ
development regulations with respect to their suitability for supporting transit .,.
service; opinion and origin/destination surveys of transit users and residents,
employees, and business owners in the area; market analysis for various types of
development; analysis of existing and needed auto, parking, pedestrian and bi-
-
( /)
3
QJ

Q,
cycle circulation and linkages to the transit service; and an analysis of property ro
QJ
ownership and opportunities for land assembly and redevelopment (in the case CJ
OJ
of already developed areas ). :::>
(/>

A TOD plan format might feature (see Meck 2002, 7-183 to 7-188):
• A statement of goals, policies, and action guidelines in map, graphic and
text form addressing such topics as land use intensities and mixes of uses
compatible with transit and pedestrian activity; physical and aesthetic qual -
ity of the environment; pedestrian circulation; ability to transfer between
modes of circul ation, and the like;
• A plan map that shows the boundaries of the area; site plans for transit
stations and related transportation, parking facilities, and pedestrian ac-
cess; future land use types and intensities; and community facilities ( espe-
cially those intended to benefit transit users );
• An implementati on program, including such components as development
regulation s that promote tran sit-friendly development patterns, capital im-
provements (especially those that facilitate circulation and connection to tran-
sit); assignment of responsibility for implementation among public or non-
profit organizations; a financing program including possible use of tax- in-
crement financing, special assessments, and development-impact fees (and
their possible reduction for some types of development); land acquisition;
amendments to thoroughfare and other transportation plans; and a descrip-
tion of the transit service proposed (including proposed schedules and routes ).
California has devoted a specific section of its government code to such "tran-
sit village development plans" (California Government Code, section 65460, "Tran-
sit Village Development Act of 1994") . The plan designates a transit village devel-
opment district around a transit station, extending not more than a quarter mile
from the land parcel on which the station is located. The design concept empha-
sizes convenience for travel by transit; a mix of housing types, retail and civic uses
(e.g., day care, library) oriented to the station; pedestrian and bicycle access to the
station; transit design and operation that promotes intermodal service; and at-
tention to additional public benefits such as relief of traffic congestion; increase
in transit revenue, affordable housing, and living-travel options for transit-needy
groups; redevelopment and infill; a safe, attractive, pedestrian-friendly environ-
ment; and reduction in need for additional travel by providing goods and services
at or near transit stations.
Barnett and Hack (2000, 328) write that "each transit station area needs its own
urban design plan that identifies sites for higher-density development, locations
of station entrances and exits, and locations for transfer between transit and buses.
432
Such a plan should also include the design of park-and-ride facilities." The Goose
Hollow Station Community Plan in Portland, Oregon, provides an urban design
oriented example of a tran sit station area plan. See a brief description of that plan
in chapter 3 above and the accompanying physical design in Figure 3-5.
Ol
c: The Fruitvale Village Transit Station Area plan (Oakland, CA) provides an -
other example. Planners for the project brought together unlikely allies from a
-D
5OJ
wide range of constituencies at the local, state, and federal levels. The resulting
plan is noteworthy for integrating both equity values and environmen tal values
2:
OJ
> of the sustainability prism into a scheme for redeveloping an area around an in -
0

- ner-city transit station. It seeks to provide air quality benefits by decreasing auto
pollutant emissions (from increased ridership on light rail transi t), and to pro-
vide a mixed-use transit village consisting of land uses that support social ser-
vices, affordable housing as well as commercial and retail activities to stimulate
community investment and job creation. See Sidebar] 4-3 .
In general, transit station development area plans propose densities far higher
than the community's average residential density. They range from nin e dwellings
per acre (for transit-oriented development served by light rail systems like those
in San Diego and San Jose ) up to 30 dwellings per net acre (for heavy rail or rapid
rai l systems like those in Washington D.C., Miami, Atlanta, and San Francisco ).
Densities are highest for sites immediately adjacent to transit stations. Along th e
Metro system in Washington, D.C. , typical densities are around 40 dwellings per
net acre near older stations; one location has 162 dwellings per acre. Along th e
BART system in the San Francisco region, typical densities are around 30 dwell-
ings per net acre close to the station (Knack 1995).
The challenge in transit station area plan s is to integrate neighborhood-scale
retail uses with office and commercial uses that are regional in scope, while main -
taining access and parking standards that accommodate the commuter. Arling-
ton, Virginia, adopted a CO district (Commercial Office Building, Hotel, and
Multiple Family Dwellin g District) for transit-oriented development. Portland,
Oregon, adopted an overlay district with standards for developmen t. Fairfax
County, Virginia, addresses parking standards, design guidelines, and other stan -
dards in the review process for specific developments (Knack 1995).

The Process of Making Small-area Plans

The process suggested here applies to small-area planning in general. However, to
make it less abstract, it will be explained as applied to a neighborhood plan and
illustrations are drawn from neighborhood plans.
The small-area planning is best conducted within the context of communitywid e
plannin g, but it is not simply the communitywide process at a smaller scale. That
is, a small-area plan should relate to its larger setting in terms of circulation, open
space, land use activity centers, natural environment, and community facilities, as
proposed in the community-wide plan. And it is best to incorporate review, ap-
proval, and ultimate adoption of the small- area plan by the planning commission
and local legislative body, as an amendment to the comprehensive land use plan.
 433
n
I
Sidebar 14-3 l>
__,
CJ
rn
FRUITVALE TRANSIT VILLAGE, OAKLAND, CALIFORNIA :TI

.,,.
The Vision: Guiding Principles
-
( /)
3
Q)

The vision is to use public transit to stimulate community deve lo pment and achieve envi-
ronmental improvements in a low-in come , minority community. Guiding principles of the
planning and design process of the master plan for the site includ e:
"'a:
Q)

CJ
Q)
::J
U>
1. Effective partnerships. Project planners brought together unlikely allies including
an inner-city Latino neighborhood group {The Unity Council} , the regional mass
transit and air pollution control authorities, the city chamber of commerce , the
local affordable housing authority, and city and federal agencies charged with
administration of empowerment zones in the depressed inner city.
2. Bottom-up neighborhood control. Community-based organizations served as the
lead organization and developer of the project to ensure community's own vision
for the project, rather than the typical top-down city agency and private developer
control.
3. Neighborhood assets are a community-building tool. Mass transit investment was
used to stimulate local economic development, enhance community social ser-
vices, and promote air quality improvement.

Integrating New Urban Design and Environmental Justice

Concepts
The Fruitvale community in Oakland has a population of 53,000 people that is predomi-
nantly minority and low income. Project construct ion was initiated in 1999 in response to a
multistory parking lot proposa l at the site by the regional transit agency.
The master plan of this project includes key features that blend new urbanism with
environmental justice principles. The project is designed to attract economic investments,
offer housing to local residents, and reduce traffic and pollution in the community because
residents will have access to a range of goods and services within easy walking distances
of the transit station.
A transit village design maximizes pedestrian comfort, safety, and access to local busi -
ness. A centerpiece feature is a tree-lined pedestrian plaza connecting the transit station
with the 12th Street business district one block away. The plaza is lined with restaurants
and shops and serves as a venue for neighborhood festivals and concerts . The surround-
ing area includes a mi xture of new uses including retail development, 228 new affordable
housing units, and social services facilities-health care clinic, child care facility, neighbor-
hood library, and senior center.

Rezoning and Altering Conventional Streets

To maintain a pedestrian -oriented character, the city of Oakland amended its zoning ordi-
nance to ban construction of any new parking spaces within the area of the site . In addi-
tion, the city agreed to narrow the streets and abandon street rights-of-way near the project.

Source: Unity Council 1999.

434
At the same time, small-area planning also imposes its own requirements. For
example, it should relate even more closely to the residents and other stakeholders
in a specific part of the community. Thus, the general land use planning process
should be tailored to the small-area situation.
The small-area planning process can be conceived in 5 steps:
1. Setting a proper foundation for plan-making
2. Describing the state of the small-area
3. Refining the direction-setting framework

-
f--
4. Formulating the plan
5. Adopting and implementing the plan
0::
<l'.
CL
These steps are explained below and summarized in Sidebar 14.4, "Steps in the
Small-area Planning Process." See also Figure 2-5 in chapter 2, which shows how
rational planning techniques, consensus-building techniques, and urban design
techniques are employed in Seattle's 4-phase neighborhood planning process.

Step 1: Setting a Proper Foundation for Small-area Plan Making

Creating a proper foundation for a small-area plan-making process involves a
number of tasks and issues.
· Establishing an appropriate organization for plan making. This task in-
volves designating or building a plan-making organization of residents,
community-based organizations, public officials representing agencies re-
sponsible for infrastructure (e.g., transit), city and federal agencies who
will be investing in the area (e.g., housing authority), developers, and pos-
sibly schools, business groups, and social agencies (Jones 1990, 5- 12 ). A
community-based organization is often the lead organization both for plan-
ning and for follow-up in the form of deciding public-private investments
and participating in development management (Jones 1990).
Some communities provide an institutional support system for small-
area planning. For example, Nashville, TN, has a "Neighbors Planning
Neighborhoods" group to provide training and support services to neigh-
borhood organizations that create and implement self-directed plans and
implementation programs. They do it through a partnership with a Neigh -
borhoods Resource Center, the Mayor's Office of Neighborhoods, and the
Metropolitan Development and Housing Agency (Nashville 2004).
• Establishing an appropriate participatory process. Small-area planning
involves people with a more direct stake in the area being planned than
planning at the communitywide scale. Therefore it should be even more
participatory. It is important to design a process that involves the commu-
nity, even beyond the people on the planning team described above, and a
time-table for the development of the plan. For an example of a participa-
tory small-area planning process, see the description of Seattle's approach
in the sidebar toward the end of chapter 2. See also Figure 2-5, Seattle's
Neighborhood Planning Process: Integrated Model, in that chapter, which
 435
n
:r:
)>
_,
u
rn
::n
,,.
1. Setting a proper foundation for small-area plan making
• Establishing an appropriate plan -making organi zation
-
( /)
3
Q.)

Establishing an appropriate participatory process di

ro
Q.)
• Establishing an understanding about the purposes of the plan
3'
Q.)
• Establishing the scope and content focus of the plan :::>
"'
• Delineating an appropriate planning area
• Defining connections to other plans and programs
• Making a planning process flowchart or work program
• Identifying an initial working version of issues and vision statement
2. Describing the State of the Small Area
• Small-area history
• Population
• Economy
• Natural environmental features
• Land use
• Community facilities and infrastructure
• Transportation/circulation/pedestrian access
• Urban design features, resources, problems
• Assessment of existing plans, policies, ordinances
3. Refining the Direction-setting Framework
4. Formulating the plan
• Creating a concept plan
• Creating a concept structure plan
- Land use elements-activity centers, residential areas, special districts,
open space
- Transportation elements
- Greenways and open-space network
- Urban design elements
• Creating an implementation plan
5. Adopting and consistently implementing the plan

shows how Seattle integrates participation techniques for co nse nsus build-
ing and urban design into its appro ach. See also chapter 9 on "the commu-
nity report" above, particularly the sections on the consensus b uilding track
for analyzing data fro m the plann ing information system, b uilding co m-
munity consensus, planning collaboratively, analyzing stakeholder pattern s
and interests, testing scenari os, setting goals, visioning, and revising plans.
See also Jones ( 1990, chapter 2 on "Democratic Neighborhood Plannin g") .
 436
"'
c
_.<:"'
· Establishing an understanding of the purposes of the plan. Elected and
CL
Cl.> appointed officials together with the participants on the small-area plan-
"'
:::::> ning organization and the planning staff need to determine the purposes
CJ
c
ro
_J of the small-area plan. This should be done before beginning preparation
~
=
c of the plan. For example, to what degree is the purpose to determine public
ro
~
policy for the small-area? To what degree is it a m eans for engaging stake-
0 holders in planning and implementation for their neighborhood? To what
5
Cl.> degree is it to establish a logical, political, and legal rationale for policy and
2:
Cl.>
> for the commitment oflocal government resources to implement the plan's

-
0

f--
a:
proposals, particularly capital improvements? To what degree is the plan to
be a reference resource for public officials to use in making deci sions about
infrastructure and development permits in the future? To what degree is it
<(
CL a way to communicate community policy and its rationale to decision
makers and the public? Is the small-area plan primarily a vehicle for inter-
!
preting and applying the communitywide land use plan by providing a
more detailed physical design and implementation program for a particu -
lar designated area within the planning jurisdiction? Or is it more for ex-
ploring unique small-area issues, problems, opportunities and priorities
not evident in the communitywide plan?
· Establishing scope and focus of content of the plan. The substantive scope
and focus depend to some extent on the type of small-area (e.g., commer-
cial district versus a residential neighborhood) and the particular issues
there, but in general the planning process should be set up to cover land
use, community facilities, transportation, and urban design. As to compo-
nents of the plan, they should include the generic components discussed
throughout this book: an explanation of the planning process and its mis-
sion; a vision and issues statement; a statement of goals, objectives, poli-
cies, and action guidelines; supporting studies of conditions and trends; a
plan map showing the physical proposals; and an implementation program.
· Delineating an appropriate planning area. If the small-area boundaries
have not been determined in a citywide conservation plan or in district-
scale plan, the neighborhood planning organization needs to establish those
boundaries, subject to later adjustment. Often this is neither complicated
nor controversial; many neighborhoods are bound by major barriers, such
as railroad tracks, highways, rivers, or large parks. Sometimes, however,
there is a lack of consensus about whether some area is a part of the small-
area or not, or otherwise exactly how to delineate the area's boundaries.
The planning organization may have to collect data about activity patterns
in the area, how residents use the area, where they walk or do not walk,
where they shop, what community facilities they use, and how residents
themselves delineate their neighborhood.
· Defining connections with other plans and programs. Like the boundaries
of the small-area, connections to relevant plans and programs may be spelled
out in a citywide comprehensive plan, district-scale plan, or a citywide neigh-
borhood conservation plan. If not, the neighborhood planning organization

!
L
 437
n
needs to define those connections early in the planning process and include :r:
)>
"1J
an assessment of the implications for the small-area plan in the series of sup- -i
rn
:IJ
porting studies. Relevant plans may include transportation plans, open -space
and greenway plans, affordable housing programs, community facility plans
and community improvement programs to name a few.
• Establishing a planning process flow chart or work program (Jones 1990,
-
.j:>

C l)
3
QJ

Q.,
13 ). This is a diagram of the planning process, with supporting text, telling
who does what and when , and how each party's contribution and each step
'°
QJ
"1J
OJ
::::0
is related to the overall process . Such a diagram may have a time line across "'
the top and tasks down the side, with checks in the boxes to indicate when
the tasks will be undertaken, or it may have a series of boxes representing
tasks, connected by arrows to illustrate connections and sequence, all re-
lated to a time line acro ss the top. The diagram is supplemented by a list of
the tasks, with respon sible parties, beginning dates, due dates, and descrip-
tions of what need s to be done , including descriptions of the outputs of
the tasks. See also th e di ag ram in Sidebar 9-2, p. 277.
• Identifying an initial version of issues and creating a working vision. Very
early in the process and in conjunction with setting the purposes of the
plan, it is useful for th e planning team to formulate an initial understand-
ing of the more important issues facing the small-area and the planning
team. Similarly, it is helpful to formulate an initial working vision state-
ment for the planning team and for the small-area itself. The team under-
stands that these statem ents are preliminary and subject to substantial re-
vision during th e forthcoming participatory planning process. The pur-
pose here is to provide a starting point for both the team and staff to guide
the analyses of existing and emerging conditions and for the community
participants to begin a full exploration of issues and values.

Step 2: Describing the State of the Small-area

This is a data collection and analysis step, relying heavily on planning staff, but ;:
involving broad participation of members of the small-area planning organiza-
tion in interpreting information. It emphasizes the documentation and interpre-
tation of conditions within the small-area in text, tables, drawings, and maps.
Neighborhood planners sometimes use a SWOT approach (strengths, weaknesses,
opportunities, and threats) to describe the relevant conditions both inside and
outside the small-area. Th e conditions usually requiring description and assess-
ment are similar to those in the communitywide planning process, though here
applied specifically to the small-area. They might include:
• Small-area history. Neighborhood and other subarea plans often include
a description of the history of the area to help establish its identity and
establish the sense of community for residents as well as policy makers.
• Population. This includes distribution by age, ethnicity, special popula-
tions, household size, occupation, income; and a social analysis to describe
the kind of place it is in which to live; it might also include a quality of life
438
U)
c
m assessment-satisfactions and dissatisfactions, amenities available, sense
0:::
Q)
U)
of community, etc.
::::i
-0
c
· Economy. Especially important for a commercial small-area, this includes
m
_J

OJ
a study of business conditions, trends, and potential; an analysis of pedes-
c
trian and auto traffic flows in front of businesses; and an analysis of trade

-D
area population and shopping patterns.
· Natural environmental features. Even at the small-area scale, environmen-
tal features and conditions can be important in determining the
neighborhood's character (a strength on which to capitalize, or a problem/
-
f-
weakness to be overcome). They include land form (hills, streams, topog-
raphy), hazards (flood plains, air quality, hazardous materials, and other
a: pollution), landscape (trees, parks), and possibly wildlife.
<I:
o__

• Land use. This includes mapping and assessing existing uses of land and
structures and their conditions, including especially housing counts by
types, densities, and conditions, projections of needs and development
opportunities, analysis of land potential for development, redevelopment,
or conservation, and cultural and historic resources.
· Community facilities and infrastructure. This includes mapping specific
locations and networks, capacities, conditions, and plans for physical struc-
tures and services important to a neighborhood's amenity level. Included
are schools, libraries, community centers, social service facilities, health
service facilities, parks and recreation centers, police and fire stations, post
offices, churches, social clubs and associated service programs. In addition,
infrastructure such as storm and sanitary sewers, water and gas lines, power
and telephone and cable lines should be mapped and assessed.
· Transportation/ circulation/pedestrian access. This study looks specifi-
cally at facilities for and patterns of circulation around, into, out of, and
through the area. The study covers all the modes of transportation, includ-
ing pedestrian, bicycle, auto, and public transportation. It should cover the
pattern, capacity and condition of facilities (streets, paths, parking, rail) as
well as the patterns of movement and circulation problems.
· Urban design features, resources, problems. This study inventories and
assesses neighborhood features that determine the character of the area
and give it an identity. The study identifies landmarks, paths and circula-
tion networks, activity nodes, edges, districts within the small-area, gate-
ways, scales of spaces and structures, colors and textures, features having
meaning to residents by virtue of history or current activities that take place
there, and other aspects of the physical environment that make it imageable,
attractive, and functional (see, for example, Hall and Porterfield 2001, 11-
21; 72-76; Lynch 1960; and Naser 1990) . This study should incorporate a
survey of residents to determine features that the planner might not realize
are important to residents. The purpose is to uncover resources and op-
portunities (conditions that attract), as well as problems (conditions that
repulse) to be solved.
 439
n
• Assessment of existing plans, policies, and ordinances. In addition to what :c
)>
exists on the ground and in th e people's perceptions, the information base ~
m
::D
should include a survey and assessment of relevant ordinances, govern-
mental policies, and specific plans that shape the forces of change in the
area. These include zoning and subdivision regulations, housing code, and
so on; capital improvement programs for community facilities; mainte-
-
""'
( /)
3
QJ

nance and service policies; and various plans that apply to community fa- d;"
ro
QJ
cilities, transportation network, infrastructure, and appearance of th e area. ::2
QJ
These should be assessed for both beneficial and detrimental effects; they :::>
"'
are often part of the proble m as well as potential parts of solutions.
In addition to collectin g and interpreting information about the small-area
and displaying it clearly, th e "small-area report" should identify the cross-cutting
issues that are implied by stakeholders from the information and its interpreta-
tion. The remainder of the plan is fo cused on addressing those issues.

Step 3: Refining a Direction-setting Framework

This section of the plan consists of a refinement of the issues, vision statement,
goals, objectives, and general strategies that come out of the foundation -setting
tasks and the small-area repo rt. The direction -setting framework might be orga-
nized along the issues outlined in the small-area report, or they might take a cross-
cutting approach. For example, Jon es (1990, 81) suggests the PARK approach:
• Preserve (what is positive and should be kept and reinforced)
• Add (what do we not have, but need or desire)
• Remove (what existing negatives should be eliminated)
• Keep Out (what threat do we want to avoid).

Step 4: Formulating Proposals and Coordinating them into a Plan

Like a communitywide plan , a small-area plan should include both physical de-
sign and courses of action . The process involves developing alternatives, includ-
ing both alternative designs and alternative actions, assessing and refining them
in combination, and finally presenting a compelling combination of physical de-
sign and implementation program that has the support of the community and
policy makers.
The physical design portion of the plan often begins with a design charrette.
The primary products of th e small-area charrette are concept plans which are
then refined into concept structure plans. The concept structure plan for an ur-
ban small-area often consists of diagramming and mapping (a) land use elements,
including residential areas, activity centers, special districts, and open space; (b)
urban design elements such as nodes, paths, edges, districts, landmarks, open spaces,
and structure characteristics; (c) transportation elements, including pedestrian,
bike, auto, and public transportation paths and facilities; and (d) open-space/
greenway elements, including places, spaces, and networks. Each of these four ele-
ments is mapped as a policy classification district, similar to the policy districts
 440
U)
c
m
idea in the areawide land policy plan. Each policy classification district in this case
n:: has its own set of policy recommendations and possibly development-manage-
Q)
U)
::i
"O
ment program recommendations. The concept structure approach can be applied
c
m
_J
to any scale of small-area urban planning-the larger, district-scale as well as the
01
c
_:;::
smaller, neighborhood or commercial-area scale. Figure 14-1 shows a concept
m
::2: structure plan for the Buena Vista area, consisting of several small neighborhoods
e; and a village center in Nashville, TN. Note how it includes land use, urban design,
$:
transportation, and open-space/greenway elements.
·""'2:
Q)
>

-
0

f-
cc
<(
0...

o ~ j~

.. ft><ilo.l
o ~~fter;t:,lL.
°"" !"JI"
""4~oc...~~

•""""-
· ~~ ~
\ r"'6Llc.I~~
~ I ~~2~
5\i=z:eN_b"iJ~ LI I<-~
To W->f'I=. ~~
/
/

Fig. 14-1 Concept structure plan for the Buena Vista small area in Nashville, Tennessee . Source:
Nashville, Tennessee 2004.
 441
n
For district-scale planning, the concept structure plan might be followed by a :r
)>
u
more detailed community structure plan. It contains the same components as the ___,
rn
concept plan-a map of land use policy zones, urban design elemen ts, transpor- ::JJ

tation plan, and greenway plan . The land use policy districts, however, are more
specific types of policy areas within these elements of the concept plan. For ex-
ample, the open -space element may be divided into natural conservation areas,
-
_.,.

VJ
3
"'
other open space (potentially conservation land ), rural lands, and potential parks. "'iD
The residential areas m ay be divided into low-de nsity and high -density residen - "'u
tial neighborhood policy areas, along with mixed-use corridors along major streets. "'en::>
Centers may be divided into co mmercial mixed-use centers and neighborhood
centers. Special di stricts m ay be separated into offi ce areas, retail areas, and indus-
trial areas. The structure plan may also designate special urba n des ign areas (neigh -
borhoods and commercial areas within the community).
The transportation element shows collectors and local streets as well as m ajor
streets and realignments, and public transportation lines (rail or bus, for example).
Greenways and trails are also shown. The legend for the Bordeaux-Whites Creek
Community Structure Plan, Nashville, TN, is shown in the sidebar below to illus-
trate the content of a community structure plan. Note that it includes transporta-
tion system and greenway features, as well as land use policy areas.

Land Use Policy Area Categories

NCO Natural conservation
OS Open space
RLM Residential low-medium density
RM Residential medium density
RH Residential high density
NG Neighborhood general
Ml Major institutional
NC Neighborhood center
cc Community center
RAC Regional activity center
CMC Commercial mixed concentration
RCC Retail concentration community
IN Industrial
pp Potential park
PS Potential school
Special district-mass transit density Continued
 442
U)
c
ro
0:::
Q.J
U)
Transportation Plan
:::::>
"O
c Major Streets-existing, proposed, and proposed optional
ro
_J

C1l Collector Streets-existing and proposed

c
-"'
ro Pedestrian Ways-sidewalks, multiuse path
2
0 Bike lanes and ways
5:
Q.J Other transportation
'2:
Q.J
>

-
0

~
cc
Potential neighborhoods (circular areas of approximately
1/4-mile radius)
Greenway features
<t:
o_
Greenway
/ Greenway trail-existing and proposed
Planned rail with trail
Greenway corridors
Source: Nashville, Tennessee 2004.

Figure 14-2 is an example of a land use element in the structure plan for the
Buena Vista area, based on the concept plan illustrated in Figure 14-1. Note that it
shows not only future land uses but development policy zones, such as "corridor
center" (here applied to the village center from the concept plan) which stipulates
appropriate land uses and design principles covering such issues as building types
and setbacks, pedestrian access, and treatment of paved surfaces for such a center.
There would also be a transportation element and perhaps a greenway and pedes-
trian way element structure plan to supplement the land use element.
At the neighborhood scale, physical design plans consist of elements fo llowing
the lead of the district-scale structure plan. They also emphasize internal circula-
tion and pedestrian access in the transportation element. Neighborhood design
plans also generally add a stronger urban design element to the land use, trans-
portation, and greenways elements. Figure 14-3 illustrates the more three dimen -
sional aspects of neighborhood design, and graphic communication to stakeholders
and policy makers. The plan in the figure is for a redevelopment area aro und a
planned train station in Provo, Utah. It shows a range of higher density housing,
public pedestrian plazas, and commercial buildings immediately around the sta-
tion. The stable single-family housing outside that immediate area to the north
remain, however, striking a balance between redevelopment with its higher densi -
ties to achieve land use-transportation compatibility, and the desires of an exist-
ing neighborhood to maintain its stability.
The neighborhood design plan is created by a resident participatory process
that begins with alternatives being introduced, discussed, and evaluated before
selecting an option that is then refined by staff. An implementation program is
formulated in the same participatory manner, with alternatives being discussed
 BUENA VISTA DETAILED NEIGHBORHOOD DESIGN PLAN
_,. ? " mr:
' ,. •>& V ..- ,,, _ ,.,. __ ~· v _ ~- , , ,

FIGURE E-1.E
LAND USE PLAN ELEMENT
Adopted January 24 , 2002

Residential - 2 or 3 Unit
- R esidential - 4 Unit+
~ Res idential - Nonhouschold
- llidustrial Utility

"Structure Plan Area" Boundary

...-
"Structure Plan Area" Symbols & Names
------ OTllEH 1\i AP fl:ATIJiiRS
@.SJ Coffidor Center
Civic & Public Benefit Bui ldings
[I Impact Area
0 Concept Greenway
0
IEJ Industrial Di strict i
I Neighborhood Boundary
~ Major Instituti onal Historic District Boundary

~
Neighborhood Center 181 Historically Signifi can1 Feature
ING Neighborhood General ~- ·. Railroad
\
~ Neighborhood Urban -==-=- Open Space/Civic
Place Connector
_@fil Open Space
I Prominent S ite !Or C ivic
~ Potential Open Space

~ Water
i
* and Public Rcncfit Bu ildings

,;;; '- !Pot&11~iilflllure,';;" spae;.1~~

+
N
500 0 500 lOUO 1500 Feet
f Thealtemate lenduseta\egof)' a:>ohc:abl!i to tlis "Pai'Xs. ReseM?$
~ &O!herOpeii5pace"arN •s"Sing'e Fam1y ~ ....ncti
1 sha!W/ lothil entreµari;el i! Wiepaik ateedevelcpsresilenhali7
.,.
'Q\.....i<::>
9/

Fig. 14-2 Land use design e lement in the st ru cture plan for th e Bu e n a Vi sta sm ;:i ll ;11 n;1 i11 N ;1:. l1 v ill 11. 111 1111 """ '" ' ::11111111
Nashville, Tenn essee 2004 .

ill'ld 1" 111 1 ll''llJ 111 111.I Vll 'I e

 444

,,i••i
-s
0

Q)
• •
·-----
I I

> ii
Q:; 11 II
>
____ _.: :._____ :::::;:::::
-
0

f-
a:
·-··..••
:;
..
II
II

I
I
.

<l'.
--•'•',_ __ _ •
......! ---?•
CL
·-11
II
.. ,
I
r·-
II
II
II
I
t
I
'
I
I
I
H ... J 1. •• .

D OPEN SPACE D CIVIC SPACE D EMPLOYMENT SINGLE · FAMILY D MU LTl · fAMILY COMMERCIAL D = 200 FEET

Fig. 14-3 Train station area plan showing three-dimensional aspects in Provo, Utah. Adapted
from The Regional City by Peter Calthorpe and William Fulton. Copyright © 2001 by the authors.
Reproduced with permission of Island Press, Washington, D.C.

and evaluated by the neighborhood planning organization, followed by refine-

ments by staff. A monitoring, evaluation, and updating program should be part
of that implementation program.
The process for making the concept structure plans, and the land use element
in particular, still follows the 5 task process outlined in chapter 10 above (see
Figure 10-1), modified by the greater attention to the list of issues and problems,

L
 445
n
strengths and weaknesses, and opportunities and threats th at were develop ed dur- :r::
l>
u
ing the direction-setting and state of the small -area studi es in steps 2 and 3 above. -i
rn
::lJ
The process would include the following tasks: ..,,.
• Development of design principles to be followed (task 1 in the generic la nd
use planning process outlined in chapter 10 );
-
( /)
3Q)
Suitability/issues/problems/strengths/opportunity mapp in g - i.e., mapp ing a,
the application of those principles in the form of a suitability map (task 2); ro
Q.)

u
OJ
• Formulating and later refining the concept structure map as a schematic de- ::::J

sign (initial visit to task 5); "'

• Analyzing the demand for different types of space implied by the goals, op-
portunities, scenarios, and concept design (task 3);
Analyzing the holding capacity of the small-area, particularly as conceive d in
the concept structure plan (task 4);
• Refining the structure design map (return to task 5).
As in the communitywide plans, the physical design should be accompanied by
a development/redevelopment/conservation-management program. Guidelines
for formulating a development-management plan are discussed in chapter 15.
Small-area planning continues beyond the completion of the plan. In some places
where there is a comprehensive program involving a nesting of small-area plans,
within district plans, and within communitywide plans, there is an annual progress
report to the planning commission or city council as part of a monitoring and evalu-
ation process. Staff members who worked on the plan continue to be available to
assist communities in implementing the development-management program of the
plan. Small-area plans may also serve as guides to the planning commission and
legislative body when they make decisions concerning land use approvals, code revi-
sions, and capital improvement expenditures. Small-area plans are reviewed when
communitywide plans and district plans are revised. Thus, the small-area plans are
starting points for small-area development and redevelopment. To be effective, they
must be used by neighborhoods, business communities, developers, and local gov- I
ernment agencies persistently and consistently over time.

Summary
By following the guidelines outlined in this chapter, the planner should be able to
design not just a small-area plan, but a small-area planning program that fits within
the network of communitywide plans and development-management programs.
Such plans will effectively address issues specific to important geographic areas,
while furthering communitywide land use and development policy. The small -
area niche within the network of plans will often consist of a number of different
types of plans-for example, both district-scale and neighborhood-scale plan s,
and both urban development areas and environmental resource area plans. The
urban plans should contain land use, transportation, and greenway elemen ts; both
functional design and urban design elements; and both physical design and de-
velopment-management components.
446
"'c:ro Up to and including this chapter, we have emphasized the physical design as-
CL
Q.l pects of urban land use plans and how they can contribute to a sustainable future
"'
::::J
that is equitable, environmentally viable, economically sound, and highly livable.
-0
c:
ro
_J These plans focus on delineating a vision of the future community in physical
en
c: form. To be effective, however, as well as visionary, a plan requires a strong imple-
-""
ro
mentation element-that is, a development-management program. That is the
-
2
0 subject of the next chapter.

References
-
f-
Barnett, Jonathan. 2003. Redesigning cities: Principles, practice, implementation. Chicago,
Ill.: Planners Press, American Planning Association.
a:
<I:
CL Barnett, Jonathan, and Gary Hack. 2000. Urban design. In The practice of local government
planning, 3rd ed. Charles Hoch, Linda Dalton, and Frank So, eds., 307-40. Washing-
ton, D.C.: International City/County Management Association.
Bohl, Charles C. 2002. Place making: Developing town centers, main streets, and urban vil-
lages. Washington, D.C.: Urban Land Institute.
California Government Code, section 65450-65457. n.d. Specific plans. Retrieved from
http://www.legin fo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/, accessed March 2004.
California Government Code, section 65460-65460.10. 1994. Transit village development
planning act of 1994. Retrieved from http:// www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/, accessed
March, 2004.
Calthorpe, Peter, and William Fulton. 2001. The regional city. Washington, D.C.: Island
Press.
City of Davis, California. 2001. City of Davis general plan. Davis, Calif.: Author.
City and County of Denver. 2000. Stapleton design book. Denver, Colo.: Author.
Federal Highway Administration. The Fruitvale BART transit village, Oakland, California .
Retrieved from fhwa.dot.gov/environment/ejustice/case/case6.htm, accessed July 2004.
Forest City Development. 2000. Stapleton Design Book. Denver, Colo.: Forest City Stapleton,
Inc.
Gregory, Michelle. 1998. Anatomy of a neighborhood plan: An analysis of current practice.
In The Growing Smart working papers, vol. 2. PAS Report 480/481 . Chicago, Ill.: Ameri-
can Planning Association.
Hall, Kenneth B., and Gerald A. Porterfield. 2001 . Community by design: New Urbanism for
suburbs and small communities. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Jones, Bernie. 1990. Neighborhood planning: A guide for citizens and planners. Chicago, Ill.:
Planners Press, American Planning Association.
Kaiser, Edward, and David Godschalk. 2000. Development plann ing. In The practice of
local government planning, 3rd ed. Charles Hoch, Linda Dalton, and Frank So, eds.,
141-69. Washington, D.C.: International City/County Management Association.
Kelly, Eric D., and Barbara Becker. 2000. Planning for particular geographic areas. In Com-
munity planning: An introduction to the comprehensive plan, 323-38. Washington, D.C.:
Island Press.
Knack, Ruth E. 1995. BART's village vision. Planning Magazine 61 (1):18-21.
Lynch, Kevin. 1960. The image of the city. Cambridge, Mass.: M.l.T. Press.
Meck, Stuart. 2002. Growing Smart legislative guidebook: model statutes for planning and the
management of change. Chicago, Ill.: American Planning Association . (See Subplans,
7- 176-7-195; and A note on neighborhood plans, pp. 7-267 -7-279).
 447
n
Naser, Jack L. 1990. T he evaluative im age of the city. Jo urnal of the American Planning :r:
)>
Association 56 (1): 41 -53 . u
-j
rn
Nashvill e, Tennessee. 2004. Retrieved fro m http ://www.nashville.gov/ mpc/design_ plans. ::D

-
~
htm, accessed Jul y 2004.
Sedway, Paul H. 1988. Distr ict planning. In The practice of local government planning, 2nd
( /)
ed., Frank So and Judith Getzels, eds., 95 -11 6. Washington, D.C.: International City 3
Q)

Management Associati on. Q,

Unity Co un cil. 1999. The Fruitvale BART transit village community development initia- m
Q)

u
tive. The Un ity Co uncil Website. Retrieved from http://www.unitycouncil.org/htrnl/ Q)
=>
ftv.html, accessed July 2004. (/)
 Chapter 15

r Development Management

To devise a strategy for implementation of the network of local commu-

nity plans, you are asked to direct the preparation of a development-
management plan and program. This includes development-management
sections in the plans, a program of regulations and incentives to facili-
tate plan implementation, and an ongoing process for monitoring plan
outcomes, evaluating plan content, and updating plan sections. You real-
ize that effective plan implementation will require actions and decisions
by many groups and individuals over a number of years. Thus, you will
need to involve the community in preparing the development-manage-
ment strategy and selecting the tools to be used for managing develop-
ment. What participatory and technical activities will you propose?

ommunities engage in development management to ensure that their

plans are actually carried out instead of gathering dust on a shelf. Thus,
development management is a both a technical and a political process.
Technically, it involves identifying future development trends; defining desirable
forms of development; and selecting policies, programs, incentives, and regula-
tions aimed at achieving the desired future community goal form. Politically, it
"seeks to adopt a strategy and policy framework to guide the many political deci-
sions that otherwise would be made incrementally, without coordination" (Porter
1996, 6) .
Development management is dynamic and proactive, mediating among and bal-
ancing the competing local and regional interests in the land use game as it guides
the community toward sustainability. As illustrated previously in Figure III-1, two
of the outputs linking the network of plans with the future sustainable community
are development regulations and public expenditures. In practice, these are accom -
panied by a panoply of development-management policies, incentives, and programs.

449
450
U)
c
OJ This chapter discusses best practices in development management. It reviews
0:::
Q)
U)
the tasks and tools needed for preparing and implementing effective develop-
::::J
LO
ment-management plans and programs at the local level.
c
OJ
_J

en
c
Development-management Concepts
-s
D
Development management, sometimes called growth management, is a planned
Q)

2:
government program designed to influence the amount, type, location, design,
Q)
> rate, and/or cost of private and public development in order to achieve public

-
0

f-
a:
interest goals (Godschalk 2000a). 1 The purpose of development management is
to actively guide growth in accordance with the community vision and planning
goals. For example, the town of Cary (2000) Growth Management Plan identifies
<l'.
o_
guiding principles for the rate and timing of growth, the location of growth, the
amount and density of growth, the cost of growth, and the quality of growth. It
then sets out implementation strategies to achieve the principles and tasks to ex-
ecute the strategies.
The growth guidance strategy may be packaged in the form of a development-
management plan or a component within the land use plans (areawide land policy
plan and land use design plan), as well as a separate development-management
program that is focused on a shorter time horizon than that of the plan. For opti-
mal coordination, the development-management plan should be prepared simul-
taneously with, and made an integral part of, the land use plan. For example, the
City of Davis (2001) General Plan contains a chapter on land use and growth
management tying together the vision of a sustainable community with specific
growth -management goals and policies (see Davis Plan excerpts in Sidebar 15-1 ).
However, a community might prepare a stand alone development-management
plan as a document separate from the land use plan in order to extend or amend
the plan strategies, to respond to new economic or growth issues, or to adopt a
new management tool. In either case, the regulations, expenditures, and other
tools specified in a development-management plan need to be coordinated under
an administrative program that is updated on an annual basis.
Best development-management practices seek to guide the future development
of the jurisdiction toward long-term sustainability through the application of Smart
Growth principles and livability criteria. Conceptually this relationship could be seen
as a hierarchy, with long-range sustainability as the foundation of the development-
management planning goals, which are framed in necessarily general terms. These
sustainability goals are pursued through more specific, mid-range objectives based
on Smart Growth principles and livability criteria, which can be stated in action -
oriented, measurable terms and built into local ordinances (Tracy 2003). These ob -
jectives, in turn, serve as the targets for current management policies and an action
program to guide development on a day-to -day basis (Figure 15-1) .

Development-management Plan and Program Design

The content of a development-management plan should include maps, tables,
and text that address several important dimensions of growth strategy and tools:
 451
0
:r:
l>
u
___,
m
:J:J

-
Ul

CJ
ro
General Plan Vision: Foster a safe, sustainable, healthy, diverse, and stimulating env iron- <
ment for all in the community (City of Davis 2001, 41 ).
"'-
0
"C)

:3
ro
::;,
Growth Management Goal LU 1: Maintain Davis as a small, university-oriented city sur-
~
rounded by and containing farmland , greenbelt, and natural habitats and reserv es (Cit y of QJ
::;,
Davis 2001, 87). QJ
(.0
ro
:3
Policy LU 1.4: Establish a distinct permanent urban edge that is defined by an open ro
;=:_
space, hedgerows, tree rows, similar landscape features, passive recreation spa ces ,
buffer containing transitional agricultural uses, or similar elements (City of Davis
2001, 91).
Action: Require that projects adjacent to rural parcels be designed to minimize im-
pacts on adjacent lands to prevent conversion to other land uses (City of Davis 2001 ,
91 ).

Growth Management Goal LU 2: Define the types, locations, pace, and intensity of infill
development consistent with neighborhood, agricultural, and open-space preservation
policies (City of Davis 2001, 93).
Policy LU 2.1: Develop and implement guidelines for infill development and compre-
hensive car-management strategies immediately following the adoption of the Gen-
eral Plan so that guidelines and strategies will be in place prior to the approval of
significant new infill development (City of Davis 2001, 93) .
Action: Initiate a zoning -ordinance amendment that would encourage density
bonuses for residential projects in proximity to public facilities and services such as
bus stops (City of Davis 2001, 94) .

Note that the Davis General Plan (City of Davis 2001, 41 and 7) defines visions as broad
philosophical statements describing desired end states; goals as desired end states for
particular issues; policies as statements of values or directions that provide the basis for
consistent decision making and resources allocation ; and actions as specific tasks to ac-
complish the policies. In the typical planning lexicon of goals, objectives, and policies, a
Davis vision and goal would be similar to a typical goal; a Davis policy wou ld be similar to
a typical objective; and a Davis action would be similar to a typical policy.

Long Range Mid-Range Current

Sustainability Smart Growth Management
Goals
... & Livability
~
p
Action
Objectives Policies

Fig. 15-1 Development-management goals, objectives , and policies .

452
<fO
c
OJ • Types, mixes, and densities of land use affected by the plan (e.g., infill resi-
o_
Q)
<fO
dential townhouses at ten to twenty dwelling units per acre; or mid-rise, ver-
:::J
CJ
tically mixed, retail-office buildings at a floor area ratio (FAR) of 4 to 6, etc.)
c
ro
_J
• Spatial locations of affected uses (e.g., boundaries of districts, locations of
~
=
c
public investments, etc.)
ro
2 • Timing of development (e.g., concurrency of development and supporting
s
Q)
public facilities, rate of growth ordinance, etc.)
2'.
Q)
>
• Cost and financing sources for public facilities (e.g., roads, schools, parks,

-
0

f-
a:
utilities, etc.)
• Design standards and review processes (e.g., integration ofland use and trans-
portation, design review committee, etc.)
<(
o_
• Management tools and regulations (e.g., zoning, subdivision ordinance, capi-
tal improvement program (CIP), concurrency ordinance, transportation-
improvement program (TIP), etc.)
• Implementation responsibility (e.g., agency designated to take various ac-
tions recommended by the plan, time frame for completing action, etc.) .
Thus, a development-management plan is not just a discussion of general policy,
but instead is explicit about the application of its tools. It is a true plan.
The products of development-management plan and program design are a plan,
a plan implementation strategy and an allied package of management tools sup-
ported by, and fitted to, the community. A good development-management plan
and program should clearly demonstrate how its proposed strategy and tools carry
out sustainable development goals and Smart Growth and livability objectives. Thus,
a plan might seek to ensure harmony with nature and protect the natural environ-
ment by designating future land use areas where growth will be supported and en-
couraged through provision of infrastructure and regulatory standards, and other
areas where natural systems protection will take precedence, public open space will
be acquired, and transfer of development rights will be permitted. For example, as
discussed in chapter 1, Montgomery County, Maryland, designates Priority Fund-
ing Areas where public expenditures supporting development will be focused and
rural areas where natural systems are maintained (Godschalk 2000b).
The main features of development-management strategies typically are de-
scribed in community plans, but the content and details of their implementing
tools are also found in regulations, policy statements, capital improvement pro-
grams, and other locations (Kelly and Becker 2000). For example, Montgomery
County's development-management tools include: a master plan, zoning ordi-
nance, adequate public facilities ordinance, annual growth policy, and a transfer
of development rights program. Its land supply monitoring tools include: com-
puter files on projects in the pipeline, approved subdivisions, building permits,
parcels, and transfers of development rights (TDRs) (Godschalk 2000b).
To be effective, a development-management plan must influence both the be-
haviors of actors in the development arena and their proposed development
projects. In terms of behavior, this means encouraging private developers to ac-
quire land and propose development in locations and of a nature consistent with
 453
n
the land use plan. It also means encouraging public sector actors to follow the I
l>
plan's policies during their decision making on infrastructure and other public _,
"'
rn
:::0
investments. In terms of development projects, the plan seeks to manage both the

-
U1
macrolevel characteristics of development (amount, type, location, rate/timing)
and the microlevel characteristics of development (urban design, public space, CJ
CD
access, centers, streets and paths) through the use of management tools (plans, <
CD
0
regulations, incentives, and public expenditures). In popular parlance, these man- TI
3
agement tools rely on both "carrots" to encourage voluntary compliance and CD
;:::.
"sticks" to require mandatory compliance (Godschalk 2000a). ;;;::
[l)
:::J
To regulate development, communities can choose between use-based zoning =
[l)

CD
codes and form-based design codes, or some hybrid of the two types of codes. 3
CD

Historically, the standard choice has been to adopt a traditional Euclidean zoning ;:::.

ordinance 2 and subdivision regulations, sometimes combined in a unified devel-

opment ordinance. Another, more recent choice is to adopt a form-based code,
sometimes called a smart code, a design code, or a traditional neighborhood de-
velopment (TND) code (Congress for the New Urbanism 2004; Rouse, Zobl, and
Cavicchia 2001 ). A third choice is to adopt a hybrid ordinance that combines fea-
tures of zoning and form-based codes, sometimes called a parallel code or a mod-
ern unified development code.
These are very different approaches to regulating development (Figure 15-2).
The primary differences are that zoning codes regulate land uses and are "pro-
scriptive," that is they prohibit development not consistent with the zoning regu-
lations, saying what uses are not allowed (though they are flexible as to design )
(Meck 2002, chapter 8). Form-based codes, on the other hand, regulate building
types, design, and the spatial aspects of the public realm, and are "prescriptive,"
that is they require development to be laid out according to their design stan-
dards, saying how design must be done (though th ey are flexible as to uses )
(Sitkowski, 2004). Parallel codes add special design-based districts, either in per-
missive floating zones or in mapped, mandatory districts, to operate in parallel
with use-based zoning regulations.
Traditional use-based zoning ordinances, along with subdivision regulations,
seek to manage the basic macrocharacteristics of development: amount, type, and
location. To manage the rate and timing of development, zoning and subdivision
regulations can be supplemented with urban growth boundaries, adequate public
facilities ordinances, development permit limits, and concurrency requirements.
However, as Portland and other communities have discovered, a macrolevel growth
boundary alone is not sufficient to achieve livable community design at the
microscale (Song and Knaap 2004, 211) . It is also necessary to influence the
microdesign elements of the built environment.
Form-based codes incorporate microlevel design and development requirements
and standards. Under the banner of "New Urbanism," 3 "neotraditional" develop-
ment, or Traditional Neighborhood Development, form-based design codes have
been adopted by a number of privately-owned new communities, including the
prototype, Seaside, Florida. They are also being adopted by existing cities, includ-
ing Austin, Texas; Columbus, Ohio; and Huntersville, North Carolina (Sitkowski
2004), and ongoing adoptions are tracked on the CNU Web site (www.cnu.org).
454
U)
c
ro
0::::
Traditional Zoning Form-Based Codes Parallel Codes
QJ
U) Codes
=:J
-0
c
Regulate uses Regulate design of Regulate both uses and
ro
_J
buildings and public realm design
=
c
Proscriptive (prevent Prescriptive (specify form; Both proscriptive and
-""
ro
~ harm; uncertain mandate outcomes) prescriptive
outcomes)
Legalistic text format Design-oriented graphic Text and graphics
format

-
f---
0::
Inflexible on prohibited
uses; flexible on desiqn
Not always linked to land
Inflexible on design
standards
Linked to Regulating Plan
Depends on applicable
code
Linked to land use plan
<t
o_ use plan and Requlatinq Plan
Based on use zone Based on Urban Transect Based on both use zones
districts zones and Transect zones
Zoning change and Approval decisions made Depends on applicable
project approval by town architect code
decisions made by (administratively)
elected bodies (public
hearing)
Changes occur Once enacted, changes Combinations of change
incrementally not anticipated processes

Fig. 15-2 Comparison of zoning, form-based, and para llel codes.

Form-based codes can include various plans or elements (Duany and Plater-
Zyberk 1991; Lennertz 1991, 95 - 103) . For example, the regulating plan identifies
street types, public tracts, private lots, and building types. Urban regulations con-
trol those aspects of private building which pertain to the formation of public
spaces. Architectural regulations control the materials, configurations, and con-
struction techniques of the buildings. Street types depict the character of public
spaces for pedestrians and cars. Landscape regulations specify plantings for streets,
squares, and parks.
Form-based codes attempt to manage development through a single ordinance.
For example, the SmartCode promises to enable Smart Growth community pat-
terns including hamlets, villages, and towns (clustering, traditional neighborhood
development, and transit-oriented development), while integrating the scale of
planning concerns from the sector and community to the individual building. 4 Its
executive summary states that it integrates environmental protection, transfer of
development rights, and architectural and landscape standards. It encourages ad-
ministrative approvals rather than decision by public hearing, and encourages
desired outcomes through incentives rather than prohibitions. The SmartCode is
considered a planning document that presents an alternative regulatory frame -
work (Sitkowski 2004) .
 455
n
Form-based codes present challenges for development management, especially :::r::
p
u
in already developed communities that have grown in accordance with use-based ___,
rn
:::D
zoning ordinance districts and regulations. Many regulatory elements, particu-

-
Ul
larly those defining permitted land uses, are difficult to specify in graphic form.
Design codes are rigid and prescriptive in terms of building forms and architec- CJ
(!)

tural elements, but more open in terms of land uses. Anoth er issue is that form - <
(!)

0
based codes prescribe a normative view of a desirable environment in terms of D
3
the time when they were adopted (claiming to be "timeless" ), and they may not be (!)
;::;_
able to adapt to future changes in values and architectural ta ste. A fin al issue has 'S::
ru
::J
to do with ceding control of future development approval to the to wn architect, Ql
co
(!)

one of the incentives provided in many form-based codes in an effort to create 3

(!)
;::;_
administrative procedures that are more efficient and less controversial than pub -
lic hearings, and to gain support from developers who follow the codes. Whil e
many developers will welcome the certainty of approval for projects that conform
to the codes' design standards and some communities may like the certainty of
the appearance of future development under the codes' prescriptions, other com-
munities may be unwilling to give up the opportunity for public participation in
ongoing project review via public hearings and elected officials' decision making.
Best practices in development management span a wide range of methods and
techniques, whose appropriateness depends upon situational factors. In this chapter
we focus upon the major classes of methods (participation, analysis, strategy/tool
design, and implementation), and discuss selected best practices within each class.
We cover them sequentially, but they necessarily take place throughout the plan-
ning process. Similar to the preparation of a comprehensive plan, the preparation
of a development-management plan should involve the following activities (Fig-
ure 15-3):
• a participatory process that makes use of workshops and other techniques
for involving the community and stakeholders in plan preparation,
• technical analyses for evaluating the community's development-management
needs and feasible techniques, including a Smart Growth audit of present
policies and a "backward mapping" analysis of the actions necessary to mo-
tivate development actors to follow the plan,
• design, discussion, and evaluation of alternative strategies and tools, leading
to selection of a desired alternative strategy and package of tools, and
• a program of implementation and monitoring to ensure that the develop-
ment-management plan will be carried out over time.
Each of these activities involves a number of steps.

Participatory Processes
Effective development management depends upon gaining community under-
standing, support, and buy in through a planned participatory process with ex-
tensive two-way communication between the planners and the stakeholders. The
primary tasks-conducting discourse about key growth issues (task forces,
456
U)
c
m
Participatory Process
Q)
U) Workshops, Scenarios,
:::J
~
Visioning, Charrettes
c
m
_J

Dl
c

-s
D

Q) Technical Analyses Strategy/Tool Selection Implementation

2:
Q)
Smart Growth Audit, Goals!Tools Assessment, Responsibility Matrix,
> Backward Mapping Tool Packages, Feasibility Benchmarks, Monitoring

-
CJ

f-
a:
Analysis

<(
o_
Fig. 15-3 Development-management planning tasks.

facilitated workshops, Web tools, surveys) and imagining alternative outcomes

(scenarios, charrettes, visioning, electronic voting)-are often linked. For example,
in the Collier County, Florida, (2001) Community Character Plan, a
multistakeholder Select Committee worked with the staff and consultant. A de-
sign charrette was used to elicit public input, and a Community Image Survey
involved over 300 people in a slide survey and facilitated discussion process to
identify desired design details.
The purpose of discourse is to communicate and discuss the current state of
the community's development-management approach. The objectives are to
present issues and intelligence derived from technical analysis and to get commu-
nity feedback and response. The standard technique is to conduct facilitated com-
munity workshops, in which key findings are explained and participants discuss
and respond to them. For example, population and economic analyses may have
identified higher rates of growth and change for the future than the community
has been accustomed to. Existing development-management procedures, such as
traditional zoning ordinances, may not be able to cope adequately with the fore-
cast rates of change. It is important for stakeholders to understand and discuss
the implications of such findings, in order to build support for new management
strategies. Web tools, such as on-line surveys, may be used to supplement and
enhance discourse that takes place during face-to-face workshops.
In addition to discourse over the current approach, it is also necessary to en-
gage the community in thinking about alternative development-management
approaches that may be better equipped to deal with future needs. This is when
scenarios can be used to describe alternative futures. For example, the 1996 Cary
North Carolina Land Use Plan calculates future land demand and population at
buildout for a "Business as Usual Scenario," a "Compact Development Scenario,"
and a "Modified Compact Development Scenario" (Town of Cary 1996, 36-43).
Another example is provided by Freilich ( 1999), illustrating how Southern Washoe
County considered four alternative concepts: current trends, critical areas, capital
driven, and quality of life. They combined features of these into a preferred alter-
native: tiered growth.
 457
n
In visioning workshops, participants are provided with images of development :::r::
)>
outcomes attributable to current and potential methods of managing develop - u
-i
rn
ment (typically, a "business as usual" method, such as zoning, versus a potential :rJ

-
c.n
design-oriented or Smart Growth- oriented method), and asked to indicate their
preferences. These preferences are compiled and fed back to participants, and then CJ
CD
refined and ranked through further discussion and voting (Nelessen 1994). Vot- <
CD

ing may take place electronically during the workshops or through on-line feed- 0
"O
3
back devices. A third technique involves participants in a charrette, in which they CD
;::;_
work with professional planners to sketch out their ideas about desirable futures ;;;::
OJ
::::>
for the community. The charrette is a favorite tool of New Urbanism planners OJ
co
CD
(Lennertz 1991). 3
CD

In many cases, growth-management planning will rely upon standard partici- ;::;_

pation techniques, such as town council retreats to inform decision makers of

conditions and needs and build consensus on goals, along with a citizen advisory
committee to work with the planners on drafting the plan. No matter which form
of participation is used, its success will depend upon provision of solid technical
information and analyses by the planning staff or consultant.

Technical Analysis
Preparation of an effective development-management plan or program depends
upon solid technical analysis. The main tasks are: to assess the existing or de facto
system for making development-management decisions, to scope out ways to in-
fluence the desired future behaviors by key actors in the development process, to
prepare feasible development-management strategy tool kits, and to test the alter-
native strategies in terms of their potential impacts.

De Facto System Assessment

Every community has policies, plans, program s, regulation s, and procedures that
affect growth and development. It may be overstating the case to call these various
elements a system, since most often th ey are simply th e result of independent ac-
tions taken incrementally over time and not systematically formulated into a coor-
dinated package. However, taken together they do determine the course of growth.
A best practice method for assessing the cumulative impacts and identifying
the problematic areas of the de facto development-management system is to con-
duct a Smart Growth audit, in order to discern if the "genetic codes" of a
government's planning facilitate sprawl or Smart Growth (Weitz and Waldner
2003) . Such an audit is carried out by compiling and analyzing current growth
policies, plans, programs, regulations, and procedures, and interviewing key ac-
tors in the growth-management decision arena. Findings are fed back and tested
with planning staff and others to ensure accuracy. For example, in Charlotte
Mecklenburg, North Carolina, the auditors first set evaluation standards, which
were based on Smart Growth criteria. Then the auditors interviewed key stake-
holders and collected and analyzed existing growth-management policies, plans,
and practices in light of four criteria or "filters" (Avin and Holden 2000, 29):
458
"'
c:
ro Conceptual completeness: ideas well defined and detailed; ideas cross ref-
0::
ill erenced and fleshed out in several plans and documents; goals and objec-
"'
=> tives, preferably measurable, identified for the idea.
"O
c:
ro
_J • Analytical adequacy: sufficient data developed to define extent of issue or
OJ
c:
problem; data up to date; analysis set in context and interrelated with other
issues.
0
5 • Level of implementation: element clearly embodied and implemented in
ill
2:
ill
codes, regulations, and other tools; evidence of achievement of objectives or
>

-
0

f-
a:
strategies; on-going monitoring, feedback and adj ustments systems in place.
• Institutional readiness: agencies identified to implement and monitor objec-
tives (accountability and responsibility clear); interagency coordination in
<[
Q_
place, if required; evidence of political suppo rt and will to move forward.
The Charlotte Mecklenburg auditors found both strengths and weaknesses.
Among the weaknesses were: little regional planning and coordination, lack of
plan database and tracking system (no small-area projections), too much low-
density residential zoning, no land conversion or resource-loss tracking, insuffi-
cient open-space provision and funding, too few infill incentives, too few me-
dium- and high-density or mixed-use residential zones, a stress on transportation
mobility versus accessibility, reactive versus planned infrastructure service provi-
sion (undifferentiated rates and extension policies), inadequate coordination of
infrastructure timing with land use changes, non user-friendly codes (need to
consolidate city-county zoning and planning), and zoning that does not require
or encourage transit friendly development. Such weaknesses are not atypical of
contemporary metropolitan development-management programs.
To improve the Charlotte Mecklenburg Smart Growth operations, the au ditors
recommended (LDR International et al. 1999, 2):
l. Streamline and improve development codes and review.
2. Establish proactive powers (regulatory-minimum densities, and financial)
to implement plan vision.
3. Plan for buildout.
4. Establish a GIS database and development tracking system (linked to small-
area demographic and economic projections).
5. Conduct fiscal analysis of outcomes of current plans and policies.
6. Develop unified parks, open space, and environmental strategy and funding.

Key Actor Behavior Mapping

To ensure that development-management plans are carried out in practice, plan-
ners should consider the decision -making processes of key actors who decide how
development takes place. The types of key actors and their development activities
typically include:
• Owners of undeveloped or underdeveloped land, who make decisions about
whether to continue their current land use, such as farming, or to sell their
property to developers.
 459
• Private developers, who acquire land, seek rezoning, and propose develop- n
:::r::
l>
ment projects. __,
u
rn
::J:l
• Elected officials, who adopt plans and policies, and approve or disapprove ,_,-,
regulation changes and development projects.
• Public works officials, who design and locate new infrastructure, and apply
-
CJ
(1)
<
design guidelines during review of development proposals. (1)

• Transportation planners, who design future road networks, transit systems,

=3
CD
::::;

parking provision, and bicycle/pedestrian facilities . ;:;:

Q.)
::::;
School Board officials, who estimate demand for, and decide on, the loca- Q.)

tion, type, and size of future educational facilities .

=CD
3
CD
;::::_
• Environmental agency planners, who prepare and enforce environmental
quality standards and regulations.
• Planning and design professionals, who prepare plans and project proposals
for submission to local governments.
• Neighborhood groups, who decide to support or oppose growth and devel-
opment proposal s.
One technique for identifying these key actors and figuring out ways to influence
their desired future behavior is backward mapping. Under backward mapping, plan -
ners posit th e desired goal , such as urban residential infill, and then work back from
that goal to the behaviors necessary to achieve it. They then consider how to create
developm ent regulations or incentives to encourage the desired behaviors. Essen -
tially, backward mapping involves asking how each type of key actor makes deci -
sions and then thinking of incentives and disincentives to get them to behave in
accordance with the development-management plan. For example, to get develop -
ers to propose infill projects, they need to be assured that the drawbacks of tighter
profits of such projects and the increased hassles of getting them approved can be
overcome. Thus, they may be offered density bonuses and expedited project reviews
if they propose urban residential infill projects in accordance with the comprehen-
sive plan . Or, to achieve farmland preservation, farm owners may be offered the
opportunity to sell their development rights through a transfer of development rights
program in order to encourage them to maintain their farming operations. Rather
than simply asking how to implement the plan through governmental actions alone,
backward mapping also asks what information or provisions in the plan are relevant
to private developers, land owners, and other strategic actors, so that they make
decisions that support the plan's overall strategy.
The Lexington, Kentucky, 1973 Sewerage Strategy illustrates how backward map -
ping can be used to frame a development-management policy (Hopkins 2001) . Lex-
ington desired compact development as its future urban form. To achieve the de -
sired form required influencing the facility extension decisions of utility officials
and the location decisions of private developers. So the Lexington planners devel-
oped a sewerage urban service strategy to guide the facility expansion decisions of
the wastewater utility officials over time. Their strategy also rewarded private devel-
opers who located their projects within the urban service area with sewer service,
influencing their location decisions. The strategy was to build gravity collection
460
U)
c
ro
networks and efficiently sized treatment plants, and sequence development to take
advantage of available capacity. Inside the service area, sewer connections were
required; outside the service area septic tanks were allowed only on large lots of
ten acres or more. The initial 1958 service area included a 6.6- square-mile served
Dl
c area and the sewer plant, surrounded by the upper parts of watersheds draining
away from the city (Figure 15-4a). In the 1973 situation, new force mains and
interceptors had been extended into the surrounding watersheds during the in-
s
(])
tervening fifteen years. While some design changes had been made, the internal
2:
(])
> logic of the plan as a compact development strategy held, development was guided

-
0

f-
ee
into the urban service area, and the plan was effectively used as a basis for making
rezoning decisions (Figure 15-4b).

<I:
o_
Tool Selection
Designing development-management strategies and selecting the tools to imple-
ment these strategies requires both knowledge of the community's needs and capa-
bilities, and knowledge of the effectiveness of individual tools and programmatic
growth-management packages. 5 In this section we discuss and illustrate the appli-
cations of selected tools in both small and large communities. First, however, we
review findings from the literature on the effects of development management on
mitigating the negative impacts of sprawl.

Fig. 15-4a 1958 Lexington service strategy.
Adapted from Urban Development by Lewis D.
Hopkins. Copyright© 2001 by the author.
Reproduced with permission of Island Press,
Washington, D.C.
Fig. 15-4b 1973 Lexington system as built.
Adapted from Urban Development by Lewis
D. Hopkins. Copyright© 2001 by the author.
Reproduced with permission of Island Press,
Washington, D.C.
 461
Sprawl Reduction (")
:::r::
l>
u
---1
Reducing the negative impacts of sprawl is an often -stated goal of development- m
:D
management plans (e.g. , Calthorp e and Fulton 2001 ). As noted in chapter 1, low-
density, sprawling development pa tte rn s have bee n linked with a number of nega -
tive effects, ranging from excessive cons umption of agricult ural land and increased
-
Ul

0
CD
<
automobile traffic to hi gher publ ic service expenditures and even to increasing CD
0
-0
public health problem s, such as obes ity. 3
CD
:::>
Sprawl , however, is a co ntrove rsial topic, with its defende rs and its oppo nents.
~
Defenders view sprawl as simply a low-density land use pattern th at res ults from Cll
:::>
Cll
the operation of the free m arket. They regard sprawl as a positive outcome of =ro
3
market dynamics that provides larger lots, lower housing prices, and greater con- CD
;:;.
sumer choice, allied with less governmental intervention (Gordon and Richardson
1997). Opponents view sprawl as a negative outcome of the unregulated develop -
ment market. They argue that sprawl results in higher infrastructure costs, greater
land consumption, and higher vehicle miles traveled (Ewing 1997), as well as con -
tributing to unhealthy communities (Frumkin, Frank, and Jackson 2004) .
Burchell et al. (1998, 113-32 ) review the literature and conclude that, while
there are many positive impacts of sprawl, the public can no longer afford to pay
for the infrastructure necessary to support sprawl. Thus a jurisdiction concerned
about infrastructure costs might adopt a strategy to reduce future sprawl and might
select development-management tools to carry out this strategy. Taking an ana-
lytical approach that unpacks the attributes of sprawl, Burchell et al. (1998, 124)
assert that sprawl is a form of urban development that contains most of the fol-
lowing elements, which have characterized existing land use and development
patterns throughout the U.S.:
• Low residential density.
• Unlimited outward expansion of new development.
• Spatial segregation of different types of land uses through zoning regula-
tions.
• Leapfrog development.
• No centralized ownership of land or planning of development.
• Transportation dominated by privately owned motor vehicles.
• Governance authority over land uses fragmented among many local gov-
ernments.
• Variance in fiscal capacity of local governments because their revenue rais-
ing capabilities are tied to property values and economic activities occurring
within their own boundaries.
• Widespread commercial strip development along major roadways.
• Reliance upon filtering or "trickle-down" process to provide housing for low-
income households.
Sprawl indicators at the metropolitan level were studied by Ewing, Pendall, and
Chen (2002), who analyzed sprawl in eighty-three metropolitan areas. They com-
bined twenty-two variables into a sprawl index based on four factors: residential
462
en
c
C1J
density; neighborhood mix of homes, jobs, and services; strength of activity cen-
Q_
Q) ters and downtowns; and accessibility of the street network. They found that people
en
::::J
-0
living in more sprawling regions tend to drive greater distances, own more cars,
c
C1J
_J
breathe more polluted air, face a greater risk of traffic fatalities, and walk and use
=
c
CL
transit less.
C1J
2' At the small -area level, Song and Knaap (2004) examined how neighborhoods
have changed over time in Washington County in the Portland metropolitan area.
s
Q)
They found that the newer neighborhoods have better internal street connectiv-
2:
Q)
> ity; better pedestrian access to parks, commercial areas, and bus stops; and higher

-
0

f-
ee
density; but lower external connectivity. They speculate that the decrease in exter-
nal connectivity may be due to limitations on local street connections to the arte-
rial network.
<(
Q_ Most community plans will not require a rigorous research design to ascertain
whether areas of sprawl exist or are anticipated to exist and whether they present
problems for the community. However, it is useful to understand the state of the
research on sprawl when analyzing existing and future land use patterns and dis -
cussing development-management strategies and tools.

Strategy and Tool Assessment

Once the strengths and weaknesses of the existing development-management sys-
tem have been identified and the desired future behaviors of key actors mapped,
then tools can be selected and packaged in development -management tool kits.
Every tool kit should include some mix of the major types of tools, including:
• Regulations (e.g., zoning, subdivision regulations, form -based codes, adequate
public facilities ordinances, rate-of-growth ordinances, growth boundaries, etc.)
• Incentives (e.g., density bonuses, expedited project review, transfer of devel-
opment rights, cluster development, etc.)
• Small-area plans (e.g., historic districts, neighborhoods, downtowns, busi-
ness parks, waterfronts, transit corridors, etc.)
• Facility financing (e.g., dedications, impact fees, exactions, tax increment fi -
nancing, taxes, etc.)
• Administrative procedures (e.g., ordinance changes, project approvals, de-
sign reviews , consultations with neighbors, dispute resolution, etc.).
Tool selection can be based on linking tools to major planning purposes. For
example, a number of conservation design tools have proven effective for shaping
growth around special natural and cultural features (Arendt 1999 ). Nelson and
Duncan et al. (1995, 149-50) prepared a matrix linking development-management
techniques to resource land preservation, urban containment, public utility efficiency,
and market-demand satisfaction. Kelly (1993, 220-23) prepared an evaluative checklist
linking tools to public services, urban form, community character, environment,
and housing. Both the Kelly checklist and the Nelson and Duncan matrix are useful
as general descriptions and starting points, but neither of them provides the level of
detail or the assessment of combinations of tools necessary to prepare a growth-
management plan.
 463
n
Tool selection also can be based on linking management tools and develop- :::r::
)>
ment scale. At the macroscale, tools to m anage the amount, type, and location of __,
u
rn
:::0
new development include zoning and subdivision regulations or form -based codes,
urban growth boundaries, and transfer of developm ent rights (TDR), while de-
velopment rate and timing management tool s include adequate public facilities
ordinances, development permit limits, and concurrency requirements linking
-
Ul

CJ
m
<
m
0
the presence of infrastructure and roads to the timing of development. Microscale -cJ
3
m
development characteristics such as urban and architectural design, site details, :=;_
and appearance of structures are managed through such tools as sm all -area plans, ~
QJ
:::i
design codes, and design guidelines. QJ
CD
m
Tool selection also can be based on whether the jurisdictio n is expanding 3
m
:=;_
through the suburban development of outlying green fields or wheth er its growth
is occurring largely through infill and redevelopment of a major cit y. Denver ex-
emplifies a largely developed city whose growth issues revolve around managing
change. The focus is on infill development and redevelopment, and the critical
nature of transportation corridors and regional linkages. Under the developmen t-
management strategy laid out in Blueprint Denver, the city is divided into Areas
of Stability, where maintaining the existing character is most important, and Ar-
eas of Change, where investment in new buildings and alternative transportation
can be integrated (Figure 15-5). Growth is redistributed to reduce development in
areas of stability and to increase it along major corridors, in close-in neighbor-
hoods, and around light rail stations within areas of change. The plan recommends
mixed -use development, multimodal streets in which traditional street classifica -
tions are paired with land use categories from adjacent areas, and new design
standards. Among its priority actions are reorganization of the zoning code and
coordination of investments in public infrastructure with land use, economic de-
velopment, and small-area planning.
The literature offers differing views about the effectiveness of development-
management tools (Landis, Deng, and Reilly, 2002). Political scientists see the adop-
tion of development-management measures as a response to high growth rates.
Economists see them as an attempt to maximize housing and property values.
Some argue that development management increases housing prices, while oth-
ers argue that some of the housing price increase is due to willingness to pay for
living in an attractive, well-managed community. Some assert that all develop -
ment management causes displacement of development from more controlled to
less controlled communities. Others assert that some types of development man-
agement, such as adequate public facilities ordinances and development fees, do
not displace growth and may even encourage compact development. In fact the
issues are complex, and empirical tests are hampered by problems of determining
causality.
Are development-management tools exclusionary? ln a study of localities in
the 25 largest U.S. metropolitan areas, Pendall (2000 ) found that low-density zon-
ing (below eight dwellings per acre) reduced rental housing, which limited black
and Hispanic residents. Building permit caps also lowered Hispanic residents.
However, urban growth boundaries, adequate public facility ordinances, and
moratoria had limited effects on either housing types or racial distribution.
464

s
Q)
>
Q:;
>

-
CJ 'h!S7COOU.!
VrB TlAA-..S"I"
orc:t-mo
~i..CPJ.l.E\'T

f-
0:
<l'. A.LAV. fl).~_
c::L fO'NN(.£~1'!!1

Map Legend
c:J City/County Boundary
!.O,rH f lOI Jt.>J
!IOIJ'._[\"&Jl;C - Areas of Change
Areas of Stability
Arterials

TPJ..'. ) f"
Oltl E\'ll:O
()l:Vi101W ...'T

ORIENiTO
Ofvt l OPl.rfNT'>

Fig. 15-5 Areas of change and stability in Denver. Source: City and County of Denver 2002.

Landis, Deng, and Reilly (2002) analyzed strategies and tools in terms of their
effectiveness in influencing the amount, pace, or location of growth, their impacts
on housing prices, their ability to deliver on their promised benefits, and their
spillover effects on neighboring communities. Thus, they are concerned with the
macrolevel characteristics of growth, rather than the microlevel design character-
istics. While their research focused on California, the state where growth is the
most tightly managed at the local level, they also reviewed research on develop-
ment management in other states. They found that in California:
• Annual housing caps, the most stringent form of growth control, tend to
limit population growth below the level of the unconstrained market.
• Residential adequate public facility ordinances did not limit the amount of
growth, but tended to make cities "safe" for additional development.
• Urban growth boundaries are successful in redirecting growth from the ur-
ban fringe into interior areas.
• Annexation limits reduce the rates of population and housing growth.
• Voter-enacted supermajority approval requirements slow th e rate of growth
and development.
 465
n
Feasibility Analysis I
)>
_,
u
Unlike comprehensive plans, which are relatively general and advisory in nature, rn
::J:J
development-management strategies are designed as specific guides to develop-
-
c.n
m ent and are backed with regulations and public expenditures. Thus it is impor-
tant to ensure that the proposed tools are feasibl e, both fro m a legal and a man- CJ
(")
<
agement standpoint. For example, if state law does not permit TOR, then it is not (")

a legally feasible technique to recommend. Or if th e community does not have -g

~
sufficient staff resources to implement a TOR program, then it would not be fe a-
~
sible from a man agement standpoint. "'
Q.)

A method for reviewing the feasibility of proposed sets of growth management <.D
0
3
tools is to conduct legal and management feasibility analyses. These analyses can CD
::;;

range from fairly simple in small jurisdictions with standard tools to more com -
plex in larger places attempting to adopt more innovative tools. Purposes are to
review their legality and estimate their likely physical, economic, environmental ,
and fiscal impacts. For exa mple, urban growth boundaries are a widely discussed
growth management regulatory tool. However, in some states they may not be
legal and in some contexts they may not be practical because of institutional con-
straints. Different tools should be considered for central cities, suburbs, and
multi jurisdictional regions, as well as for growing ve rsus declining areas.
Once the alternative strategies have been determined to be feasible, then their
potential impacts need to be analyzed. The community will want to know how
adoption of a particular strategy will affect future development. Again, depend-
ing on the degree of complexity and innovation of the strategy, there will be a
range of social, environmental, economic, and fiscal impacts to consider. Most of
these impacts can be estimated informally. However, a more formal fiscal impact
analysis (Burchell et al. 1994) can be useful both for documenting the likely fiscal
impacts so any necessary adjustments can be made and for informing the com-
munity as to the likely impacts in order to assist them in comparing alternative
strategies. For example, if school-impact fees are proposed, then the fiscal impact
on school construction budgets can be tied to a proposed growth management
strategy alternative. Or the community could use an impact analysis program,
such as the INDEX software described in chapter 7, to evaluate the impacts of
alternative development-management strategies and tools.

Implementation
The purpose of develop ment management is to ensure that the plan is imple-
mented, that is translated into a series of actions to be accomplished during the
planning period. Recommended implementation actio ns are included in the de-
velopment-management plan and carried forwa rd thro ugh an ongoing adminis-
trative program. Meck (2002, 7-151 to 7- 153 ) recommends that the program of
implementation should incl ude:
• A time frame for identified actions.
• An allocation of responsibilities for actions among governmental agencies
an d other organizations.
466
A schedule of proposed capital improvements.
• Benchmarks, such as the rate of conversion of vacant, buildable land to im-
proved land, the percentage of new development that is on reused land (as
opposed to greenfield sites), the ratio of achieved to allowed density in new
residential projects, the increase in the acres of environmentally sensitive land
that is protected, etc.
0
s
Q)
• A description of land development regulations or incentives to be adopted.
·2 • A description of other procedures that may be used to monitor and evaluate
Q)
>

- the implemen tation of the plan, such as monitoring the supply, price, and
0

demand for buildable land.

f-
ee Plan implementati on takes place over time as public and private development
<(
0... decisions are made, infrastructure is constructed, and projects are reviewed and
approved. The implementation program ensures that responsibilities for imple-
mentation actions are allocated, that implementation benchmarks are identified,
and that development outcomes are monitored.

Responsibility Assignment
Land use plans are implemented by a variety of governmental and nongovern-
mental agencies. Primary responsibilities for preparation of new regulations and
ordinances typically are shared by the planning agency and the city or county
attorney. If a form -based code is implemented, then a city architect may adminis-
ter the code. Planning and construction of new infrastructure is usually led by the
engineering department. Carrying out the capital improvements program is usu-
ally spearheaded by the finance and budget department or by the city or county
manager. Acquisition of open space and natural area preservation may be the re-
sponsibility of a governmental unit or a nongovernmental organization, such as a
conservation foundation.
Implementing the growth-management plan involves breaking it into a pro-
gram of specific tasks and needs linked to assigned responsibilities and time sched-
ules. The Implementation chapter of the Collier County (2001) Community Char-
acter Plan notes that collaboration among developers, environmentalists, citizen
activists, and political leaders is essential, but the county government is the "en-
abler, catalyst, and keeper of the visions." The chapter directs the county manager
to report to the county commission as to which departments will be responsible
for implementing specific tasks. It recommends that the life of the advisory com-
mittee responsible for the plan be extended for two years to assist in implementa-
tion. And it recommends that additional funds be allocated to carry out ti::: changes
in the growth-management plan and land development code. To facilitate organi-
zation of the implementation process, the chapter compiles all the recommenda-
tions from the plan, organizes them by type of action, and references the page
where they were originally discussed.
The summary matrix in the Cary, North Carolina, Growth Management Plan
relates the tasks to the implementation principles and strategies, and programs
them to take place during specific time periods with identified start and comple-
tion dates for each task. With such an agreed-upon schedule, the development-
 467
management plan administrator can fo llow im plementation progress and take
~
the necessary action s to keep the program on track (Sidebar 15-2).

Benchmarks
A common failing of the development-managem en t elem ents in com prehensive
-
=-
:s
plans is the lack of a m eans to foll ow th ro ugh to ensure that the plan recom m en -
dations are actua lly adopted and imp lemented. "If u ndertaken properly, m on itor-
ing and evaluation sho uld help plan ners answer t hose awkward questions abo ut ;;".
the relevance and effects of plan n ing practice: How did our plans or p rojects per- "'
form? What happened and why? How can we improve our policies and programs?" """'
("J

::::J
("J
(Seasons 2003, 437). This requires setting benchmarks or ind icato rs of progress. ::::;

Indicators can be derived from th e objectives set in the land use design plan or in
the growth-management plan . In som e cases, an objective might be the sam e as
an indicator, if the objective is strai ghtforward , quantifiable, and relatively short
term. In the case of a longer-term, more co mplex objective, m ultiple indicators
may be required to capture the in tent of the objective.
Indicators provide the basis for assessment of progress toward achievem ent of
goals and objectives. Software programs, such as the Sustainable Community Indi-
cators Program developed by Environment Canada (www.ec.gc.ca), offer a starting
point for devising local indicators (Phill ips 2003, 39). They provide qu antitative and
qualitative meas ures, including those for comm uni ty sustainability. Maclaren ( 1996,

Sidebar 15-2
CARY, NORTH CAROLINA, GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN

The town of Cary Growth Management Plan, adopted in January 2000, is a volume of the
town's Comprehensive Plan . It identifies guiding principles, as articulated by the town coun-
cil , based on five attributes of growth: rat e and t iming, location , amount and density, cost,
and quality. The plan was created through a collaborative effort involving the town council,
residents, staff, and a consulting team . It sets out implementation strategies to achieve the
principles and tasks to execute the strategies.
For example, the guiding principle under rate and timing of growth is to ensure that
adequate infrastructure and services are available concurrently with new development.
The first implementation strategy is to place temporary limits on growth to ensure that
new development does not deplete town water supplies. The executing task is to continue
the temporary water allocation permit-rationing system. The second implementation strat-
egy is to adopt permanent policies and regulations to ensure that future development
does not outpace the ability of the town to provide services and extend infrastructure . Th e
executing tasks are to adopt a roads-adequate public facilities ordinance, to work with the
county school system to ensure adequate school facilities, and to identify a sustain ab le,
long-term rate of growth and develop implementation mechan isms so that deve lop me n
will not unduly burden the town's infrastructure and services .
A summary matrix of plan tasks and priorities assigns responsibilities for im ple menr°"'g
the growth-management plan. The five attributes of growth make up the m ajor pa rt s c= :-:-

c2 zr..::::=-·-
468
<fl
c
ro
matrix, each including the related guiding principles, implementation strategies, and ac-
tion tasks. For each task, the matrix indicates the current status of the project, the priority
year for start of implementation, the responsible department, and the estimated comple-
tion date. The section of the matrix dealing with amount and density of growth is shown in
the figure below.

-s
D

OJ
TaskL2.2E Develop a system of transferable Proposed in this plan. 2001 Development Depends upon
2: authorization
OJ density credits that will allow owners Services
> by enabling
CJ of sensitive lands to transfer the

-
legislation.
development potential of their
property to their, preferred locations.

f-
a:
<( GUIDING INCREASE PERMITTED DENSITIES IN PREFERRED GROWTH AREAS TO ENCOURAGE DESIRED FORMS OF DEVELOPMENT.
o_
PRINCIPLE Al

Implementation Review and revise Town policies and regulations to emure that higher densities are permitt.ed in preferred growth areas.
Strategy Al.I
Development
Task LI.I.A Amend Unified Development Underway; scheduled 1999 2001
Services
Ordinance (UDO) to establish higher for adoption in early (PZ)
minimum densities in preferred 2001.
!st
growth areas Q

GUIDING
ENSURE THAT THE OVERALL AMOUNT OF DEVELOPMENT 1N CARY IS CONSISTENT WITH THE TOWN'S GROWTH .
PRINCIPLE A2
Implementation Develop and monitoring: systems to define appropriated amounts of development, based on development type.
Stra A2.1
Monitor Cary's ultimate buildout Original figures 2000 Development Ongoing.
population as new plans, policies, and developed for 1996 Services
TaskA2.IA regulations are adopted, to ensure that Land Use Plan; (PZ)
the Town's ultimate size conforms updates proposed in
with its growth management goals . this plan.

TaskA2.l.B Adopt system to monitor a desired Proposed in this plan. 2000 Annual
balance of residential and Budget
nonresidential development for tax
base purposes.

SB Fig. 15-2 Cary, North Carolina, growth-management matrix excerpt. Source: Town of
1996.

186) suggests that urban sustainability indicators are distinguished by the fact
that they are integrating (portray linkages among environmental, social, and eco-
nomic dimensions), forward looking (trends, targets), distributional (within a
population or across regions), and participatory (developed with input from
multiple community stakeholders) .
A good plan should recommend a set of development-management bench-
marks or indicators that can be monitored in order to prepare regular implemen-
tation reports. By publishing status reports geared to benchmarks, the effective-
ness of the plan can be continuously monitored and necessary revisions can be
made in a timely fashion. Santa Monica, California, has monitored sustainability
indicators and gauged progress toward targets since 1994. The city has been suc-
cessful in meeting its goals on several fronts, including increasing the use of re-
duced emissions fuel in city vehicles by 75 percent. The Santa Monica Sustainable
City Plan contains a goal/indicator matrix linking the plan's eight goal areas with
a comprehensive set of indicators (Phillips 2003, 28-31 ).
 469
(""")
Monitoring :::r::
)>
_,
-0

Monitoring within already developed cities may take a diffe rent fo rm than monitor- rn
::lJ

ing of growth in outlying greenfields. Sustainable Seattle has been monitoring progress
towa rd its sustain ability indicators since 1990, with active participati on by existing
residents (Phillips 2003, 8-9). T he Seattle plan m onitor in g program tracks trends
-
U1

0
CD
<
CD
related to the achi evement of core communi ty values to analyze wheth er the city is 0
-0
accommodating growth in the ways proposed by the com p rehensive pla n (Sidebar 3
CD
~
15-3 ). H ere an essential element is the existing resid ents' an d neighborhoods' re- $'.
sp on se to the plan's proposals, and the action s that th ey take to fo ll ow the plan . Q)
::i
Q)

Localities with urban growth b oundaries need to monitor the supply of buildable '°3
CD

land in order to ensure that the areas within their bound aries contain suffic ient land CD
~
for the projected planning period.As pointed out in Meck (2002, 7-91to 7-99 ), land
supply and dem and infor mation often is th e missing link in local plannin g and de-
velopment decision s. In order to balance land market supply and dem and , govern -
m ents monitor land markets to b e able to accurately fo recast urb an space an d

Sidebar 15-3
SEATTLE, WASHINGTON. PLAN MONITORING
In preparation for updating its Comprehensive Plan, as required by the Washington Growth
Management Act, Seattle conducted two studies . Monitoring Our Progress: Seattle's Com-
prehensive Plan (Seattle 2003a) uses indicators of community, economic opportunity and
secur ity, social equity, and environmental stewardship to track changes since adoption of
the 1994 plan. Urban Village Case Studies (Seattle 2003b) analyzes the effects of grow th
and change in five of the city's thirty-eight urban villages where the planning strategy
directs growth and capital-facility investments.
Using surveys, census data, and government records , the monitoring report loo ks at
whether the city is accommodating growth in the way that the plan anticipated. As might
be expected for such a wide-ranging set of planning goals, some of the results o n ach iev-
ing core values are mixed, as shown in the summary table below. For exam ple, t rans it
ridership is up, but has not reached the plan 's goals. Crime is down and re sidents are
feeling safer, but fewer households own their own home . Energy use has dropped , but so
has the rate of recycling . The urban-village strategy was successful in d ire ctin g population
and employment growth to the urban center and vi llages. The city met about half of its
twenty-year employment growth target in the six years between 1995 and 2001, despite
job loss between 2000 and 2001.
The urban-village case stud ies asked if the urban-village growth-d ire ct ing strategy is
work ing and if goals have been achieved or progress made thus far. Fi v e villages were
chosen for study because they represent a variety of locations, si zes and types, land use,
and extent of growth. The results show that the villages are fulfill ing the ir role defined in
the plan as the primary locations for growth in Seattle. Between1990 and 2000, the total
(thirty-eight) urban-village population grew by 19 percent, as compared w ith a 5 percent
growth rate outside the villages, while the growth rates of the five case study villages
ranged from 14 percent to 106 percent. Growth within urban villages is strengthening their
communities and business districts and focusing residential growth in areas where ser-
vices and transit are readily available. Although the active neighborhood planning process
ended in 1999, citizen involvement and activism remain high .
Continued
470
VO
c
(1J

CL
Q)
VO
Results of the indicator monitoring are pub lished in a clear and readable table, with
=> trends since 1994 shown by arrows ind icating a positive or negative trend, or little or no
-0
c
(1J
_J
change.
01
c
~
(1J

::2'

s
Q)
Indicator Trend s ince 1994
2:
Q)
> Community Indicators

-
0

f-
Volunteering

Open space
+
+
a:
<(
CL
Feeling safo in the neighborhoods
Cnme "
'1'
Home -ownership rate ~
Number of households with children ~
Economic Opportunizv and Securizv Indicators
Household income
Education level of the population "
High school dropout rate
Teen births
+"
Low-income housing unit~ "
Cost of housing
Social Equity Indicators "SI
Income distribution +
Population distribution by race
Persons below poverty level ""'
Persons covered by health insurance +
Environmental Stewardship Indicators
Water quality +
Air quality +
Tree coverage
Eneri,'Y consLm1ption "
+
Water use +
Recycling ~

"
Commuting to work

"
Transit ridership
Alternative transportation facilities

"
"' = Positive trend + = Little or no change~ = Negative trend

SB Fig_ 15-3 Seattle ind icator t rends. Source: City of Seattle, 2003a.
 471
n
facility needs. For example, Oregon requires local governments to inventory the :::r::
)>
supply of buildable lands with urban growth areas in order to determine if there are u
___,
rn
sufficient residential lands to meet long-term housing needs. Washington requires ::IJ

county review every five years to determine whether a county and its cities are achiev-
ing urban densities within urban growth areas by comparing plan targets and objec-
tives with actual development. (See the Web site of the Metropolitan Research and
-
(.J"l

0
CD
<
CD
0
Services Center of Washington's Growth Management Monitoring Programs: LJ
3
www.mrsc.org/Subjects/Plannning/gma/GMmonitoring.aspx.). CD
;::;.
s:
Q)

Potential Obstacles :::J

Q)

=CD
3
Preparing and implementing effective development-management plans and poli- CD
;::;.
cies is neither simple nor easy. A number of obstacles stand in the way (Seasons
2003). Without attempting to cover all of the potential obstacles, it is useful to high -
light a few of the common ones; lack of resources, absence of legislative authority,
lack of political will, inability to coordinate regionally, and fear of law suits.
Lack of resources is a common problem, since planning budgets typically do not
provide funds for the necessary technical analyses and consensus-building activi -
ties required to prepare and secure adoption and implementation of an effective
development-management plan. Unless there are local champions, there may be
weak support for implementing a new development-management approach. In
addition, Jack of community staff resources may hamper the use of innovative tools,
since the more sophisticated tools require considerable staff expertise.
In most states, comprehensive plan implementation suffers from lack of legis-
lative authority. Unlike Florida, where state law requires every jurisdiction to pre-
pare, adopt, and implement a comprehensive plan, most states simply allow their
cities and counties to plan and to regulate development, without requiring them
to actually implement their plans. Florida cities and counties must include capital
improvement programs (CIPs) in their adopted plans, and these CIPs must show
the capital expenditures and funding mechanisms necessary to carry out the plans.
However, in much of the rest of the country, comprehensive plans and legislative
actions to manage growth are related neither legally nor by customary practice.
Lack of political will is one of the most often cited obstacles to effective devel-
opment management. In fact, many elected officials resist putting teeth into plan
implementation, preferring to maintain flexibility for their future decisions. And
many public officials resist taking on the burdens of implementing a new ap -
proach, so that, lacking an implementation mandate, administrative inertia op-
poses innovative development-management proposals.
Inability to coordinate and plan at a regional scale is a serious obstacle to devel-
opment management. Even in metropolitan areas with active and well -funded
planning and growth management efforts, such as Denver, it is difficult to bring
all the local governments into consensus. While cities and counties containing 80
percent of the Denver region's population signed onto the Mile High Compact
establishing an urban growth boundary for the metro region, three of the fastest
growing counties declined to sign because of fears about effects on private prop-
erty rights (Hill 2003). Meanwhile, the Colorado legislature refused to provide
the Denver region with authority for regional development management.
472
The fear oflaw suits by developers or property owners often stifles development-
management initiative. Many localities are afraid to intervene actively in the devel-
opment process for fear of being sued for infringement of constitutional rights. Thus,
they tend to rely on the less controversial, traditional advisory plans and reactive
CJ)
c development regulations, such as traditional zoning and subdivision regulations.
Often this timid stance is abetted by city and county attorneys, who may not be
familiar with development-management law and thus adopt a conservative posture.
s
Q)

2'.
Q)
>
Summary
-
0

f-
0:
To exemplify best practices, development-management plans should incorporate
the goals of sustainable development and the principles of Smart Growth. They
<l'.
o.._
should select development-management tools to deal with both macro- and
microlevel development characteristics. Their strategies should focus on influ-
encing decisions of actors that shape future growth, including strong public in-
volvement and solid technical analysis during plan formulation.
To be effective, development-management plans must both be holistic and de-
tailed, visionary and feasible. The key to success is how a suite of tools is packaged
into a comprehensive and coordinated set that can be implemented by the juris-
diction (Porter 1997, 13 ). In that sense, the job of the planner is to help the juris-
diction determine its own development-management strategy and to devise a plan
that fits its needs and desires for future development.
Returning to the sustainability prism discussed in chapter 1, development-
management plans link community values and plans to sustainable development
patterns. As the final planning stage, development management brings together
the strategies, decisions, and actions necessary to achieve a working balance be-
tween equity, economy, ecology, and livability. To the extent that the develop-
ment-management plan is successful in resolving the tensions between these val-
ues, then the community can look forward to a sustainable future.
Those assessing development-management plans need to ask: Is this the right
plan for this place? Does it rest on strong public support and understanding? Is it
a plan that can be implemented successfully? Does it contain indicators of goal
achievement? Will it likely guide development into sustainable future patterns?
Does it make use of best practices? Can it be monitored and updated to meet new
conditions? Positive answers to these questions indicate an effective development-
management approach.

Notes
1. We prefer the term development management to growth management because the land
use planner's tools are aimed at affecting land development, rather than the broader as-
pects of overall urban growth. However, in practice, the terms are used interchangeably.
2. Euclidean zoning gets its name from the famous 1926 Supreme Court case of Village of
Euclid v. Ambler Realty Co., which legitimized zoning based on separation of uses to pro-
tect the public health, safety, and welfare.
 473
3. The Charter of the New Urbanism (Congress for th e New Urbanism 2000) advocates the n
:::r::
p
restructuring of public policy and developm ent practices to support neighborhoods di- __,
u
rn
verse in use and population, communities des igned for pedestrians and transit as well as :::D

cars, cities and towns shaped by physically defined and universally accessible public spaces
and community institutions, urban places framed by architecture and landscape design
that celebrate local history, climate, ecology, and building practice.
-
Ul

CJ
CD
<
4. Use of the SmartCode by a city or count y requi res paym ent of $10,000 for a license from CD
0

the Municipal Code Corporation. =3

CD
5. For model growth management ordinan ces prepared by the Minnesota Planning agency, ;::'.
;::;:
including urban growth boundaries, agricultural and forest protection districts, conserva- QJ
:::J
tion subdivisions, purchase and transfer of developm ent rights, orderly annexation agree - =
QJ

CD
ments, and general subdivision standards, see "From Policy to Reality: Model Ordinances 3
CD

for Sustainable Development," at www.mnpla n.state.mn. us. ;::'.

References
Arendt, Randall. 1999. Growing greener: Putting conservatio n into local plans and ordinances.
Washington, D.C.: Island Press.
Avin, Uri, and David Holden. 2000. Does your growth sma rt? Plnnning 66 (1): 26 -29.
Burchell, Robert, et al. 1998. Costs of sprawl- Revisited. 'v\lashington, D.C. : National Acad-
emy Press.
Burchell, Robert, et al. 1994. Development impact assessm ent handbook. Washington, D.C.:
Urban Land Institute.
Calthorpe, Peter, and William Fulton . 2001. The regional city: Plnn11i11g for the end of sprawl.
Washington, DC: Island Press.
City and County of Denver. 2002. Blueprint Denver: An in tegrated land use and transporta -
tion plan. Retrieved from www.Denvergov.org.
City of Davis. 2001 . General plan. Davis, Calif.: Planning and Building Departmen t.
Collier County. 2001. Toward better places: The comm unity character pla 11 for Collier County,
Florida . Naples, Fla.: Dover Kohl.
Congress for the New Urbanism. 2000. What's New About the Ne"· Urbanism? In The
charter of the New Urbanism, 5- 10, New York: McGraw Hill.
Congress for the New Urbanism. 2004. Codifying new urbanism : How to reform m unicipal
land development regulations. PAS Report 526. Chi cago : American Pl anning Associa-
tion.
Duany, Andres, and Elizabeth Plater-Zyberk. 1991. Towns and town making principles. New
York: Rizzoli.
Ewing, Reid. 1997. Is Los Angeles -style sprawl desirable? journal of the American Planning
Association 63 (1): 107-26.
Ewing, Reid, Rolf Pendall, and Don Chen. 2002. Mea suring sprawl and its impact. Washing-
ton, D.C.: Smart Growth America .
Freilich, Robert H . 1999. From sprawl to Smart Growth : Successful legal, planning and envi-
ronmental systems. Chicago: American Bar Association .
Frumkin, Howard, Lawrence Frank, and Richard Jackson . 2004. Urban sprawl and public
health: Designing, planning, and building for healthy communities. Washington, D.C.:
Island Press.
Godschalk, David. 2000a. State smart growth efforts around the nation. Popular Govern -
ment 66 (1): 12 -20.
474
Godschalk, David. 2000b. Montgomery Co unty, Maryland: A pioneer in land supply moni-
toring. In Monitoring land supply with geographic information systems, Anne Vern ez
Moudon and Michael Hubner, eds., 97-121. New York: Wiley.
Gordon, Peter, and Harry Richardson. 1997. Are compact cities a desirable planning goal?
Journal of th e American Planning Association 63 ( 1): 95-106.
Hill, David. 2003. Denver: High and mighty. Planning 69 ( 1): 4-9.
Hopkins, Lewis D. 2001. Urban development: The logic of making plans. Wash ington, D.C. :
Ci
$ Island Press.
w
> Kell y, Eric D. 1993. Managing community growth: Policies, techniques, and impacts. Westport,
m
> CT: Praeger.

-
0
Kelly, Eric D., and Barbara Becker. 2000. Community planning: An introduction to the com -
prehensive plan. Washington, D.C.: Island Press.
Landis, John, Lan Deng, and Michael Reilly. 2002. Growth management revisited: A reas-
sessment of its efficacy, price effects and impacts on metropolitan growth patterns.
Working Pap er 2002-02, 5-20. University of California, Institute of Urban and Re-
gional Development.
LDR International, and Freilich, Leitner and Carlisle. 1999. A smart growth audit for Char-
lotte-Mecklenburg County. Charlotte, N.C.: Charlotte-Meckl enburg Planning Com-
m1ss1on.
Lennertz, William. 1991. Town-making fundamentals. In Towns and town making prin -
ciples, Andres Duany and Elizabeth Plater-Zyberk, eds., 21 -24. New York: Rizzoli.
Maclaren, Virginia W. 1996. Urban sustainability reporting. Journ al of the American Plan-
ning Association 62 (2): 184-202.
Meck, Stuart., ed. 2002. Growing Smart legislative guidebook: Model statutes for planning
and the management of change. Chicago, IL: American Planning Association.
Nelessen, Anton C. 1994. Visions for a new American dream: Process, principles, and an
ordinance to plan and design small communities, 2nd ed. Chicago: APA Planners Press.
Nelson, Arthur C., and James B. Duncan et al. 1995. Growth management principles and
practices. Chicago: Planners Press.
Pendall, Rolf. 2000. Local land use regulation and the chain of exclusion. Journal of the
American Planning Association 66 (2) : 125-42.
Phillips, Rhonda . 2003. Community indicators. PAS Report 517. Chicago, Ill.: American
Planning Association.
Porter, Douglas R. 1996. Profiles in growth management: An assessment of current programs
and guidelin es for effective management. Washington, D.C.: Urban Land Institute.
Porter, Douglas R. 1997. Managing growth in America's communities. Washington, D. C.:
Island Press.
Rouse, David C., Nancy L. Zobl, and Graciela P. Cavicchia. 2001. Beyond Euclid: Integrat-
ing zoning and physical design. Zoning News (October): 1-4.
Seasons, Mark. 2003 . Monitoring and evaluation in municipal planning practice. Journal
of the American Planning Association 69 (4) : 430 -40.
Seattle, City of. 2003a. Monitoring our progress: Seattle's comprehensive plan. Seattle, Wash.:
Department of Design, Construction, and Land Use.
Seattle, City of. 2003b. Urban village case stud ies. Seattle, Wash.: Department of Design,
Construction, and Land Use.
Song, Yang, and Gerrit-Jan Knaap. 2004. Measuring urban form: Is Portland winning the
war on sprawl? Journal of the American Planning Association 70 (2): 210-25.
Sitkowski, Robert J. 2004. New Urbanism: Legal considerations. Paper delivered at Ameri-
can Planning Association Annual Co nference, Washington, D.C., April 25.
 475
n
Town of Cary. 1996. Town of Cary land use plan. Cary, N.C.: Departm ent of Developm ent :r:
J>
Services. __,
-0
rn
Town of Cary. 2000. Growth management plan, vol. 4 of the Town of Cary comprehensive :D

plan. Cary, N.C.: Department of Development Services.

Tracy, Steve. 2003. Smart Growth zoning codes: A resource guide. Sacramento, Calif.: Local
Government Commission.
-
Ul

0
CD
<
Weitz, Jerry, and Leora Waldner. 2003. Smart Growth audits. Planning Advisory Service 0
CD

TI
512. Chicago: American Planning Association. 3
CD
::::;

s:
OJ
::::;
OJ
=CD
3
CD
::::;
Index
The following abbreviations are used as reference locators:
n (note), f (fig ure), m (map), t (table)
accessibility, 229-32, 233, 234-37, 246t
activity centers: community facilities in, 348, 349-
50; economic-based services and, 348 -49;
forms of, 350, 351-54; holding capacity
analysis for, 3 76; office space in, 348, 350;
retail and consumer services in, 348 -50; space
requirement allocation for, 372-74, 373t, 374t,
375t, 378t; space requirement derivation for,
371-77; transportation and parking in, 348,
350
aerial photographs, 95 -96
Aeronautical and Space Administration, National
(NASA), 93
agriculture, 14. See also rural districts; rural
reserve
alternative design creation. See design alternative
creation
ambiance, 393
American Planning Association, 14
AMPO (Association of Metropolitan Planning
Organizations), 94
analytic models (for planning support systems),
97-99
Anchorage, Alaska plan, 215
"anti-growth" coalition, 22
ArcView Modelbuilder, 182t
areawide land policy plan: concept and purpose
of, 316-18; consolidation of elements into,
324, 343-44, 345m; definition of, 25; direction
setting in, 318; district mapping in, 321;
implementation policy formulation in, 324,
343; land policy classification in, 319-21, 320t,
322-23t; land policy process in, 318-24;
open-space district delineation in, 324-33;
overview of, 289, 315 -16; summary of, 345;
urban growth and redevelopment districts in,
333-41
Arlington, Virginia transit-oriented development,
432
Army Corps of Engineers, 164, 165
assessments, 121, 122, 123
Association of Metropolitan Planning Organiza -
tions (AMPO), 94
Atlanta, Georgia 2025 Regional Transportation
Plan, 235f
Atlanta, Georgia Free the Freeways program,
233m
Baltimore, Maryland Metro Choices for the
Future, 110, lllf
benchmarks, 467 -68
Bennet, Edward, 50
biodiversity, 167-71. See also environmental
impact assessment (EIA); environmental
protection
bioretention, 162 -64, 163m, 164m
ELM (Bureau of Land Management), 222n
Blueprint Denver, Colorado. See Denver, Colorado
plans
Booker Creek, North Carolina watershed study,
161 -63, 162111, 163t
Bordeaux-Whites, Nashville, TN, plan, 441-42f
brainstorming, 278
Brazoria County, Texas wetlands survey, 165,
166111
BTS (Bureau of Transportation Statistics), 93
Buena Vista, Nashville, TN, small area plan, 440f,
443m, 443t
buffer distances, 168, 170t
buildable land supply, 214
buildout, 214
Bureau of Land Management (ELM), 222n
Bureau of the Census, 93
Bureau of Transportation Statistics (BTS ), 93
Burlington, Vermont plan, 12
Burnham, Daniel, 50
Burnham Plan of Chicago, 9
business center revitalization plan, 42 5
business parks, 351 -53 . See also activity cen ters
business uses (in residential communiti es ), 412, 4 l 3t
478
x
Q)
-0
cadastral maps, 96
c
CAD (computer-assisted des ign) maps, 95
California local general planning process, 47f
Califo rnia transit village developm ent plans, 431
Ca li fo rnia Urban and Biodiversity Analysis
(CURBA), 96 -97
Califo rnia Urban Futures (CUF) simulation
m odels, 97-98, 24 1
Cambridge, Massachusetts plan, 12
carrying capacity analysis, 188-89. See also holdin g
capacity analysis
Cary, North Carolina Growth Management Plan ,
450, 468 , 468t
Cary, North Carolina land use plan , 456
Ca ry, North Carolina plan, 10 1-2, 140t
ca tego ries . See land use classifi cation
CEFPI (Council of Educational Facilities Planners
International), 257
Celebration Village (Walt Disn ey Company), 392
Cens us, Bureau of, 93
census taking, 126
Cen ter fo r Watershed Protection, 173, 174
change manage ment, 36-37
Chapel Hill, North Carolina pedestrian access, 236m
Ch apel Hill, No rth Carolina plan, 16
Chapel Hill, Nor th Carolina subwatershed study,
175, 176f
Charlotte Mecklenburg, North Carolina plan
assessment, 457- 58
char rettes, 276, 277, 456t, 45 7
Chicago Metropo lis 2020 plan, 8-9, lOf, 367
choice modeling (in travel plannin g), 245-47, 246m
Cities, National League of (NLC), 94
citi zens: collabora ti ve planning prog ram and , 272 -
75; o ngoing involvem ent of, 281, 283; plan
re vision and, 283. See also community
consensus; stakeholders
cl arity (of plan ), 73
class ification . See land use class ifi cation
Clean Water Act, 164 -65
co des, 454. See also zoning
coho rt-component method, 136-38 . See also
population and economi c in fo rmation
co ll aborative planning: characteristics of, 272;
des ign of pl an fo r, 274f; stakeholder analysis
in conjunction with, 275- 76, 276t; steps in ,
272- 75 , 273f; techniques for, 276-79; tim eline
fo r, 277f. See also community consensus;
participation
Co lum bia, Maryland residential co mmunities,
397,398f
comm ercial centers. See activity centers
communication programs, 100-102. See also
community con sensus
community consensus: building of, 48 -49;
coll aborative pl anning and, 272 -79, 273t;
evaluation of, 49; overview of, 27 1-81;
participation program choices in, 27 1-72,
455 -57; participation techniques and tasks in,
278 -79; scenari o development fo r, 280-81;
stakeholder analysis involved in, 270- 76;
tirn elin e for, 277t
community faciliti es: accessibility co nsiderations
fo r, 230-32, 233m , 235 t; mobility consider-
ations for, 229- 30, 235t; roles of, 226- 28;
schools and, 253, 255 , 257-58; sewerage
se rvice and, 25 1-53, 255 -57; spatial pattern
representation in , 24 1-47, 242m , 243t, 244t,
246m ; transportation informati on use in
pl anning, 247-49; transportatio n infra struc-
ture indicators for, 232-3 7m , 234t; transpor-
tation planning and, 228-32; water service
and, 250-51
community health , 231, 232
community involvem ent, 281-83. See also collabo-
rative planning; community con sensus
Co mmunityViz (planning support system s), 98
cornmunitywide land use design: land use and
activity center fo rms, 357-58; land using
activities for urban centers, 348 -57; overview
and compariso n to areawide plan , 347-48;
spa ti al structure planning in, 358-77; sum-
m ary, 377-80
communitywide spatial structure planning: land
use design formulatio n, 364-65, 366t, 376-77;
location principles used in, 361 -64; overview
of, 358-59; prepara to ry studies for, 359-61
commuting. See transit-oriented develo pments
(TODs); tran sportatio n system s
composite land suitability analysis: carrying
capacity analys is fo r, 188-89; direct assign-
ment rating in , 180, 181t; environmental
impact assess ment fo r, 185-88; equivalent
ra tin g in , 180, 18lt; pass-fail screening in,
179-8 0, 18 lt; procedural phases for, 182-85,
182t, 183t; techniques for, 179-8 1; weighted
ra ting and, 180, 18 lt. See also land suitability
analysis

composite land suitability map, 185
comprehensive plan. See land use planning
program
conflicts: alliances reflecting, 22-23 ; community-
interest groups and, 200-201; land use values
and, 18-22; nature of, 37-38, 38t, 40-42, 44-
45f; resolution and prevention participants,
284n. See also community consensus; goals;
stakeholders
Congress for the New Urbanism (CSN), 15-16
connectedness, 23
consensus. See community consensus
conservation. See conservation districts; environ-
mental protection; sustainable development
conservation districts: areawide consolidation of,
343-45; definition of, 61; delineation of, 324-
25; description of, 319; h olding capacity
analysis for, 332; land allocatio ns for, 332-33 ,
333t; land suitability and, 330-32; location
principl es for, 327-30; space-quantity analysis
for, 332
continuous public greenway, 11 t
Council of Educational Facilities Planners
International (CEPPI), 257
Counties, Na tional Association of, 94
CUF (California Urban Futures) simulation
models, 97-98, 241
CURBA (California Urban and Biodiversity
Analysis), 96-97
cut and fill, 152
Dane County, Wisconsin plans and studies, 109f,
165-67, 167m, 219
data. See information sources and systems
databases. See inform ation sources and systems
Davidson, North Carolina development manage-
ment plan, 65, 66, 67t
Davidson, North Carolina Planning Ordinance,
65, 67t
Davis, California General Plan, 59-60, 67 -69, 68f,
69f, 450, 452t
Deep River, North Carolina watershed analysis,
189-91, 190m
de fac to system assessment, 457-58
deforestation , 153
Delphi (participation technique), 279
DEM (digital elevatio n model ), 154
demographic analysis: appro aches to, 126-27;
assumptions in, 142-43; cohort compo nent
479
method for, 136-38; economic base th eory in, ::J
o._
CD
138; functions of, 120; hybrid approach to, x
142; input-output approach in, 138-39;
judgmental approach in, 128; normative
determinatio n in, 122; perspective on future
in, 123-24; popu lation pyramid format for,
137t; ratio/share techniques in, 131 -35, 133f,
134t; supply side approaches to, 139-42, 140t;
symptomatic association in, 135-36; trend
extrapolation approa ch to, 128-31 , l 29f
demographics. See forecasts; population and
economic information
density, 7-9, 155-59, 155f, 156m, 157t, 158t, 396;
net vs. gross vs. neighborhood density, 409-1 1
Denver, Colorado plans: Blueprint, 268, 270, 271 t,
464m; Blueprint (2 000 ), 230 -31; Blueprint
(2002), 60, 74-7 5, 76t; Comprehensive Plan,
74-75 , 76t, 77; regional planning initiative,
42-45, 44f; Stapleton Airport plan, 425 , 426m,
427m
Department of Housing and Urban Development
(H UD ), 200
Department of Transportation (DOT ), 200
design: approa ches to, 126 -27; definition of, 12 3;
perspecti ves on the future in, 123-24; projec-
tion v., 127; sustainability principles in , 51.
See also land use design
design alternative creation: classifi cations for,
302t; future urban form design and, 309-10;
holding capacity analys is in, 308 -9; land use
focus order in design process of, 31 0-11 , 312f;
location principle der ivation in, 303-7; space
requirement estimation and, 307-8; tasks in
process of, 302t
design approach (for population and economi c
information), 139, 141-42
developed area location principles, 334-35
developers. See real estate projects; stakeholders
development capacity, 214
development conflict, 38, 38f
development management: approaches to, 452-55;
concepts of, 450; conflicts in, 40, 44, 52;
content of, 45 1, 452; features of, 452; imple-
mentation of, 465-72; overview of, 449-50;
participatory processes in , 455-57; plan and
program design for, 25-26, 65, 67, 450-55;
products of, 452; programs in, 72; summary
of, 472; tasks in, 456t; technical analysis of,
457-60; tool selection in, 460-6 5
480
development pipeline, 214
digital elevation model (DEM) , 154
direct assignment rating, 180-81, 18lt
direction-setting framework, 296-98
direct utility values, 20
Disney Company Celebration Village, 392
distribution of trips among zones, 244-45, 244t
district plan , 525
districts: in areawide policy, 61 -62, 68m; in
communitywide plans, 62-64, 68m; mapping
of, 321; in small area plans, 64 -65, 69111;
sustainable development, 319, 320t, 321, 322t,
323t; types of, 61 -62
DOT (U.S. Department of Transportation ), 200
drainage alteration, 153
Duany, Andres, 15, 212, 392f, 397
Ducks Unlimited, 20
dwelling number estimation, for future, 406-7,
408t
dwellings. See resident ial communities
earthquakes, 176 -77, l 78m
ecological features. See environmental informa -
tion; environmental inventory and classifica-
tion
ecological footprint, 202
ecology. See environmental protection
economic analysis: approaches to, 126-27;
assumptions in, 142-43; economic base
theo ry in, 138; functions of, 120; hybrid
approach to, 142; input-output approach in,
138-3 9; judgmental approach in, 128;
normative determination in, 122; perspective
on future in, 123-24; ratio/share techniques
in, 131-35, 133f, 134t; socioeconomic impact
and, 122; symptomatic association in, 135-3 6;
trend extrapolation approach to, 128-3 1, 129f.
See also population and economic infonna-
tion
economic-base analysis, 138
ecozones, 211 -1 2
educational facilities , 412-13, 4 l 2t
EIA. See environmental impact assessment (EIA)
EMAP-Wetlands (Environmental Monitoring
Assessment Program -Wetlands), 165
employment centers: characteristics of, 351 -54;
density standard development for, 368-69,
369t; employee number determination and ,
365-67, 367t; flexibility and, 352 -5 3; holding
capacity ana lysis for, 376; lan d use design
requirements for, 353; space need estimation
for, 369 -70, 370t, 378t; space requirement
derivation for, 365-71; types of, 351 -52
Endangered Species Act, 20, 168-69
engagement (in resid ential communities), 393
entrepreneurs, 19. See also stakeholders
enumeration, 126
Environmental Systems Research Institute (ESRI),
94
environmental impact assessment (EIA ): criteria
for selecting methodology for, 187-88 , l 88t;
m ethodologies for, 185-86; models for, 187-
88; numerical indicators for, 187; visual, 187
environmental information analysis: composite
land suitability study in, 179-85, 182f, 183t,
185m; multiple techniqu e integration in, 189-
91; overview of, 177; summary of, 191-92
environmenta l inventory and classification:
hazards, 175-77, 178m; landscape fragmenta-
tion and wildlife habitat, 167-71; overview of,
149-5 1; soils, 160-63; topography and slopes,
151-59; watersheds, 171-75 , 189-91; wetlands,
163-67
Environmental Monitoring Assessment Program-
Wetlands (EMAP-Wetlands ), 165
Environmental Poli cy Act, Nationa l (NEPA), 229
environmental protection, 19-20, 149-50; decision
makin g and, 149-50; definition of, 19-20;
groups advocating, 20; value perspecti ves of,
20. See also environm ental impact assessment
(EIA); environmental inventory and classifi-
cation
Envision Utah plan, 217, 280, 282111
EPA (U.S . Environmental Protection Agency), 164,
165,200
equity: indicators, 235-37; values, 20 -21
equivalent rating, 180, 18 lt
erodability, 160
EROS Data Center (USGS-EDC) , 93
Es. See three Es
ESRI (Environmental Systems Research Institute),
94
estimation, in population and economic analysis:
approaches to, 126-27; assumptions in , 142-
43; bases for, 126; cohort component method
for, 136-38; current, 121; definition of, 122;
economic base theory in, 138; hybrid ap -
proach to, 142; input-output approach in,

138-39; judgmental approach in, 128;
perspective on future in, 123-24; ratio /share
techniques in, 131-35, I 33f, l 34t; supply side
approaches to, 139-42, 140t; symptomat ic
association in , 135-36; trend extrapolation
approach to, 128-31, 129f
Etzioni, Amitai, 23
European land use planning program s, 28
evaluation. See plan evaluation
exponential model (fo r popul ation and economic
information ), 128, 129f
fact base (of plan ), 71, 75
Fairfax County, Virginia, transit-oriented develop-
ment, 432
feasibility analysis, 465
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA),
93, 175 -76
Federal Geographic Data Comm ittee (FGDC), 94
federal government: actions of, 25; as in forma tion
source, 125-26; intergovernmental coordina-
ti on with , 294; relationship to land use
planning of, 198, l 99f, 200, 222n; sustained
development policies of, 12. See also specific
government agencies by name.
federa l government GIS data so urces, 93
FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency),
93, 175-76
FGDC (Federal Geographic Data Committee), 94
Fish and Wildlife Service, 93, 164, 165, 168
flex space bu ildings, 352-53
Flood In surance Program, National, 175-76
floodplain zones, l 77t
floo ds, 175-77
focus groups, 276, 278
footprint, 202, 218
forecasts: ass umptions in, 142-43; cohort compo-
nent method for, 136-138; definition of, 123;
desirable characteristics of, 143-44, 144-45t;
difficulties of, 124-25; econom ic base theory
in, 138; future, 121-22; hybrid approach to,
142; input-output approach in, 138-3 9;
judgmental approach in, 128; land supply and
demand and, 106; perspective on future in,
12 3-24; population pyramid format for, 137t;
purposes of, 104-5; ratio/s hare techniques in ,
131-35, 133f, 134t; supply side approaches to,
139-42, 140t; symptomatic association in,
135-36; trend extrapolation approach to, 128-
481
3 1, 129f. See also population and econom ic :::l
Cl
C1l
informati on x
Forest Serv ice, 93
form -based zon ing, 45 3-55
four-step travel forecasting process, 24 1
fragmen tation of landscape and wildlife habitat ,
167-71. See also environmental impa ct
assessment (EIA); environm ental protecti o n
future generations . See sustainabl e developm ent
future urban form design (in plan -making
process), 309-10
Garden Cities of Tomorrow (Howard), 50
Gastonia, North Carolina plan, 137f
Geddes, Patrick, 17
general plan. See land use planning program
general urban (land use zone), 211
generation of trips, 243-44
gentrification confli ct, 40, 45, 52
GeoCommunity, 94
Geodetic Survey, National (NGS), 93
geograph ic information system (GIS), 91-96, 9lf,
93t, 94t, 96f
Geological Survey (USGS), 93, 151, 176-77
geometric model, 128, 129f. See also population
and economic in formation
GIS. See geographic in formation system (GIS)
GIS Data Depot, 94
GLIS (Global Land In forma tion System), 93
Global Land Information System (G US), 93
goal and policy fram ework, 71, 296 -99
goals: balancing of, 45; identification of, 296-97;
policies and, 298, 299t; p ubli c interest, 8-9;
state of the com munity report and, 296;
sustainable development considerations and,
11, 13; types of, 297-98. See also co mmuni ty
consensus; v1s10ning
government. See federal government; local
government; regional government; state
government
Governo r's Co rn mission for a sustainable South
Florida, 12
greeenway, l lt
green cities conflict, 40, 44, 52
gross supply and capacity, 214
growth curves, 128, 129f
growth machin es, 19
growth management. See develo prnem :::.!;-;.,:-::c-
rnent
482
Habitat Evaluation Procedure (HEP), 165
habitat-planning guidelin es, 169 -70, 169t
habitats. See residential communities; wildlife
habitats
Hawaii land policy plan, 317
hazards, 175-77, 192n
HEP (Habitat Evaluation Procedure), 165
historic district plan, 425
holding capacity analysis: employment and
activity centers and, 376; open space alloca-
tion and, 332; plan -making process in, 301,
308-9; urban district planning and, 340
holding capacity approach, 139, 140-41, 140t. See
also population and economic information
Homebuilders, National Association of, 15
households. See residential communities
housing. See residential communities; urban
growth and redevelopment districts
Housing and Urban Development (HUD), 200
housing stock allocat ion, 408-9, 410t, 411-12 , 411 t
Howard, Ebenezer, 17, 50
Howard County, Maryland General Plan, 63m, 64m
hub-urban village, Seattle, WA, 394-95
HUD (U.S. Department of Housing and Urba n
Developm ent), 200
hybrid plan case study, 67-69
impact assessment, 123
impervious cover, 172-74, 172f, 174t
implementation. See plan implementation
INDEX community indicators system, 98 , 218-2 1,
219t
indirect utility values, 20
induced development. See induced growth
induced growth, 228, 229, 238
industrial districts. See employment centers;
industrial parks
industrial parks, 351 -52, 353. See also employment
centers
infiltration capacity, 160
information sources and systems: computer
hardware/software for, 91; Geographic
Information System (GIS), 91-95; government
and, 125-26; methodology overview for, 126-
28. See also maps; models; names of specific
programs
infrastructure systems: land use planning and,
226 -28, 253 -58; overview of, 225-26; roles of,
226-28; school systems, 253, 254-55, 257 -58;
services provided by, 226 -27; sewerage service,
251-55, 255-58; summary of, 258-59; types of,
226; water service, 249 -51
input-output analysis, 138-39. See also population
and economic information
interdependent action accountability, 73
intergenerational equ ity. See susta in able develop-
m ent
intermodal villages, 11 t
International City County Management Associa-
tion, 14-15
Intern et (as planning support system ), 99
intrinsic values, 20
Isaac Walton League, 20
Israel 2020 master plan, 216-1 7
issues and visio n statement, 70-7 1, 294-96
Job Creation Tax Programs, 14
judgmental approach, to projections, 127, 128
Kentlands, Maryland plan, 396
key actor behavior mapping, 458-60
K-facto r, 160
land-based classification standa rds (LCBS), 208-
10, 209f
Landis, John D., 20 1
land policy classification, 319-21, 320f, 322-23t
land policy district mapping, 321
land policy implementation, 324
landscape fragmentation and wildlife habitat, 167-
71, 169m
landslides, 152-53, 152f, 155f, 156-59
land stewardship. See environm ental protection;
intrinsic values; sustainable development
land suitability analysis, 214-15, 301, 307
land suitability map, 185, 30 1, 307
land sup ply and capacity analysis, 213-16, 213t
land supply and capacity modeling, 215
land supply design approach, 139, 141-42. See also
population and economic information
land supply inventory: activity systems related to,
206; classification systems in, 206-8; compo -
nents of, 203, 205; land policy and regulations
impacting, 205-6; maps used in, 204; moni-
toring of, 204, 205-6
land use analysis: land supply and capacity
modeling in, 213-1 6, 213f; need for, 212-13;
process of, 213t; scenarios for, 216- 17; terms
used in, 214
land use change management, 36-37

land use classification: implementation policy
relationship, 324; order of consid eratio n in
plan-m aking, 312t, 320t; o rganization of, 207;
quantity and, 207-8; systems for, 208 - 12, 209t,
2llt, 319-21, 322t, 323t; types of, 207
land use design: consensus building in, 48-49;
integration m ethodologies of, 51 -52; urban
design in, 49-51. See also New Urbanism ;
Smart Growth; sustainability prism
land use design plan, 25, 62- 65, 63m, 64m, 300,
347-48, 383-84
land use focus order, 310- 11 , 3 12f. See also plan-
making process
land use/ho using modeling, 139, 141. See also
population and eco nomic informati o n
land use indicators, 218
land use intelligence, 217-2 1. See also information
sources and systems
land use planning: arena of, 4-5; chara cteristics of,
4, 5-6; compet iti on in , 3, 4; cooperat ion in, 4;
fram ework for, 6t; as gam e, 3, 5; guiding
elem ents of, 5; network concept of, 26, 3 ln ,
288-89, 288t; process overview for, 30;
programs of, 6; susta in ability in, 6-7; trends
in , 6; val ues and, 6, 6t, 18-23. See also land use
systems; land use values; specific land use
types by nam e
land use planning program: European examp les
of, 28; evaluation of, 28; monitoring of, 28; as
network of plans, 24-28; planning support
systems, 24; spatial scales of, 24; types of, 25
land use systems: challenges of, 198; changes
impacting, 198-203; citizens and, 200;
community interest groups and, 200-201;
developers and, 198-99; example of, 21 lf;
future analysis of, 212-1 7; government and,
200; influences on, 198-201 , 199f; intelligence
creati on in, 217 -21; land supply inventory
and, 203-6; overview of, 197-98; political
stances underlying, 200; stakeholders in, 198-
99; summary of, 22 1-22
land use transportation connection. See transpor-
tation land use connection
land use values: coalitions involving, 22; economic
development and, 19; environmental protec-
tion and, 19-20; equity and, 20 -21; planning
and, 6t, 18-23; stakeholders in, 18;
sustainability prism model for, 40-41, 40f. See
also community consensus; populatio n and
economic inform ation
483
layered land in for mation system, 96f :::>
o_
m
x
LBCS (land -based classification standards), 208-
l 0, 209f
legacy goals, 297
Leopo ld , Aldo, 20
level of ser vice co ncept, 232 -35, 233 m, 234t. See
also transpo rtation systems
lin ear model , 128, l 29f, 130-31. See also popula-
tion and economic in fo rm atio n
liqu efac tion ha zards, 177 , l 78m
livabi lity valu es, 21-22 , 38
Li ve Near Work Program , 14
local and state GIS data so urces , 98t
lo ca l government: action s of, 25; influ ence of on
land use change, 200; as information so urce,
125 -26; intergovernmental coordinat ion with,
294; rela tionship of to land use planning, 198,
199f, 200, 200n; sustained development
policies of, 12t; visio ning and, 284n. See also
specific governm ent age ncies by name
locat ion principles: areawide planning and , 304-5;
community plannin g and, 305-6; derivation
of, 303 -7; developed area principles, 334-35;
form ulation of, 361-64; location stand ards v.,
306-7; rural community areas and, 335-336;
urban -transition areas and, 335. See also
activity center; em ployment center; open
space conservation districts; plan -making
process; res idential com muniti es; urban
growth and redevelopment
location quotien ts (LQs), 132
location suitability m ap pin g, 307, 364
Logan, John R., 200
long-range plan. See land use planning program
low-density development, 7-8
LQs (location quotients), 132
Lynch, Kevin, 50-5 1
m anu fact urin g districts. See employment centers;
ind ustrial parks
maps: accessibility, 233m, 246m; aerial, 95; area
composite, 282m; bio resource, l 7lm;
cadastral, 96; CAD (comp uter-assisted
design), 95; ca rtographic, 95 -96; commercial
center spatial structure, 36 lm ; composite
land suitability, 185m, 190m ; computer-
assisted design (CAD), 95; forest fragmen ta -
tion, 169m; ground movement history and
potential, 155-57, 156m; open space suitabil -
ity, 330-32; orthoph oto, 95-96; parcels, 205m ;
484
pedestrian access, 236m; planning, 95;
property search, 205m; seismic hazard, 176-
77, 178m; slope classification, 153-55, 154111;
soil, 97; soil suitability, 161-62, l 62m; stream
classification, 176111; topographic, 151 -53,
15lm; transit/land use plan, 366m; urban
spatial structure, 242m; wetlands survey,
164m, 166m, 167m
marginalized groups. See equity values
market fac tor, 214
Maryland's Smart Growth Program, 14, 15m
mass transit. See Transit-oriented developments
(TODs); Transportation systems
master plan . See land use planning program
METROPILUS, 97
metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs ), 229
M etro Vision 2020, 42 -45
Mill er, Dona ld L., 9
Minnesota Planning and Environmental Qu ality
Board, 12
mixed-use development. See activity center
mobility (transportation), 229-32
modelbuilding, 109f
models: analytic, 97-99; ArcView land suitability
example, 181-84, 18lt, 182-83t; communica -
tion, 100- 102, 102f, 108-10, 109f; constant-
share economic information, 133, 133t;
electronic spreadsheets, 98 -99; internet, 99,
lOOf; land suitability, 107-8, 108f, 179-81;
land supply and capacity, 215; land use
housing, 141 ; neighborhood types classifica-
tion, 393-94; neighborhood unit, 388, 389;
New Urbanism, 192f, 391 -93; Olmsted, 387,
388; population pyramid, 137t; scenarios and,
216; shift-share analysis, 132-33; simulation,
99, I 02f; sociological study based, 393;
suburban master planned community, 388;
trend extrapolation , 128-31, 129f; villages,
393-94, 395f, 399m; visualization system, 100-
102, 103f. See also forecasts
modernism, 26
mode choice. See mode split
mode split, 245-47
modified exponential model, 128, 129f. See also
population and economic information
Molotch , Harvey L., 200
monitoring. See plan monitoring
Montgomery County, Maryland plan , 26-27, 27m,
203-4,215,452
MPOs (metropolitan planning organizat ions), 229
Multipliers, 254-58. See also esti mates
Multnomah Co un ty, Oregon plan, 12
NACO (National Association of Co unties), 94
NARC (National Association of Regional Coun-
cil s), 94
NASA (National Aeronautical and Space Adminis-
tration) , 93
Nashville, Tennessee small area plans, 440f, 44 l -
42f, 443m, 443t
National Aeronautical and Space Administration
(NASA), 93
National Association of Counties (NACO), 94
National Association of Homebuilders, 15
Nation al Association of Regional Councils
(NARC), 94
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA ), 229
National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP), 175-
76
National Geodetic Survey (NGS), 93
Nationa l Integrated Land System (N ILS), 222n
National League of Cities (NLC), 94
National Park Service (N PS ), 93
National Spatial Data Infrastructure (NSD), 94
National States Geographic Information Council
(NSGIC), 94
National Wetlands Inventory, 165
National Wetlands Survey, 165
natural resources area plan, 425
Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS),
160, 161
needs goals, 297
neighborhood-anchor village, 395f
neighborhood centers, 352
neighborhood holding capacity analyses, 407, 408
neighborhood plan, 424, 428 -30
Neighborhood Planning Program (NPP), 53, 54t
neighborhoods. See residential communities;
small area plans
neighborhood unit community, 238-39, 390f
neotraditional development code, 453-55, 454t
neotraditional neighborhood model, 391-92, 392f
net sup ply and capacity, 214
New Urbanism: architectural nature of, 15;
characteristics of, 15; charter of, 15; commu-
niti es exemplifying, 391 -93; conflicts with, 39;
Congress for (CSN ) l5-l6, 473n; criticisms of,
39; definition of, 38-39; examples of, 16f, 16i;
iimitations of, 18; models for neighborhood
planning, 391 -93, 392t; overview of, 13;

sustainability prism model v., 41; Transporta-
tion -Oriented Development concept and, 17
New Urban Transect, 65, 67t
NF IP (Na tional Flood Insurance Program), 175-76
NGS (National Geodetic Survey), 93
NILS (National Integrated Land System ), 222n
NIMBY (Not in My Backyard), 201
NLC (Natio nal League of Cities ), 94
Nominal Group technique, 278
normative determination (of future po pulation
and economy), 122, 123, 123-24
North Ca rolina Environmental Resource Pro gram,
12
North Ca rolina metropolitan plan, 2 l 8t
Not in My Backyard (N IMBY ), 201
NPS (National Park Service ), 93
NRCS (Natural Resources Conse rvation Service),
160, 161
NSD (National Spati al Data In fras tructure ), 94
NSGIC (National States Geographic In for mation
Council), 94
Oakland , California Fruitvale Village Transit
Station area plan, 432, 43 3
objectives, 296-98 . See also plan-making process
office park, 352, 354. See also employment center
office space, 357-58. See also employment cente r
Olmsted, Frederick Law, 50, 388
Olmsted model. See suburban master planned
communities
ongoing community involvement, 281 -83
open space conservation districts: delineation tasks
and, 325-33; estimation of space quantity
requirements for, 332; holding capacity
analysis for, 332; location principle formula -
tion for, 327-30; purposes of, 324-25; suitabil-
ity mapping of, 330-32; task summ aries for,
325; trial allocation s of land to, 33 2-33, 333t
Orange County, North Carolina forest fragmenta-
tion study, 169m
orthophoto maps, 95 -96
Our Common Future (U nited Nations World
Commission on Env ironment and Develop -
m ent [WCED ]), 9
parallel zoning codes, 45 3-54t
PARK approach, 439
parks. See open space co nservation districts;
recreation areas
Park Service, National (NPS ), 93
485
participant id entifica tion, 73-74, 275 -76. See also ::J
0..
CD
co llabo rative planning; community consensus x
participation, 455 -57. See also collaborative
planning; commun ity consensus
pass/ fa il screening, 179-80, 18lt
pedest rian pocket. See transit-oriented develop -
m ents (TO Ds)
people-serving centers. See activity centers
Perry, Claren ce, 388
PFAs (priority funding areas ), 14, 15, 15m
plan evaluation: case study for, 74-77; external
criteria for, 72-74; internal assessment, 70-72;
protocol for, 78-82. See also plan monitoring
Plan for Chicago (Burnham and Bennet ), 50
plan implementation: benchmarks of, 467-68,
468t; land classification system and, 324;
monitoring in, 469 -7 1, 470t; obstacles to, 471-
72; public participation elem ent in, 281 -83,
284n; responsibility for, 466-67; urban district
policy formulation for, 343
plan implementation involvement, 281-83
plan -making process: overview of, 289, 291-92;
preparation for, 292-94; progress of attention
in land use design steps, 310-11 , 312f; spatial
arrangement des ign process in , 300-310;
stages of, 294-300; summary of, 310-1 3. See
also collaborative planning
plan-making stages: direction-settin g fram ework
(stage 2), 296 -3 00, 299f; monitoring and
evaluation program (stage 4 ), 300; plan
constru ction (stage 3 ), 198-99; state of the
commun ity report (stage 1), 295 -96
plan monitoring: community change records and,
104; development management and, 469-71,
470t; diagnostic functions of, 105-6; exa mples
of, 281, 283; im portance of procedures fo r,
75 -77; internal plan quality and, 72; land
policies and regulation in , 205 -6; land use and
supply in , 204-5; participation in , 281, 282;
purposes of, 28. See also plan evaluation
plann ers: con sensus building and, 49; core
capabilities of, 29-30; expectations about, 29;
pressures on, 29; responsibilities of, 5, 29;
roles of, 3-4, 5, 19, 29-30
planning board, 292
planning information sources and systems. See
information sources and system s; popul ation
and economic information; specifi c go\·ern -
ment and research organizati on s by name
planning maps. See maps
486
x
Q)
-0
planning support systems (PSS): assessment
c:
functions of, 106-7; communication func-
tions of, 108- 10, 109f; descriptive functions
of, 103; diagnostic functions of, 105-6;
forecasting functions of, 104-5; intelligence in
processes of, 110- 12; modeling functions of,
107-8; monitoring functions of, 104; overview
of, 85-88, 86f, 87f, l l 4n; simulation and
scenario construction models in, 97 -98;
summary of information regarding, 112;
technologies for, 90-1 02, 90f
planning team, 292-93
p lan proposals, 71-72
Plan-Quality Evaluation Protocol, 74, 78-82
plan revision participation, 283
plans: components of, 70-72; core purposes of, 60;
critical qualities for evaluation of, 72 -74;
district implementation policies for, 61-62;
evaluation criteria for qua lity of, 69-77;
hybrid case study, 67 -69; limitation potential
in, 75, 77; maximization of use and influence
of, 72-73; as multi-stage process result, 60-61;
network viewpoint regarding, 26, 31 n; policy
and goal framework of, 71; polynomial model
for, 128, 129f; recognition and use encourage-
ment in, 72 -73; summary information about,
77 -78; types of based on process sequence,
60 -69, 6lt. See also specific plan types
population analysis: approaches to, 126-27;
assumptions in, 142-43; cohort component
method for, 136-38; economic base theory in,
138; functions of, 120; hybrid approach to,
142; input-output approach in, 138-39;
judgmental approach in, 128; normative
determination in, 122; perspective on future
in, 123-24; ratio/share techniques in, 131-35,
133f, 134t; supply side approaches to, 139-42,
140t; symptomatic association in, 135-36;
trend extrapolation approach to, 128-31, 129f.
See also population and economic informa-
tion
population and economic information: analytic
methodology for application of, 126-44;
approaches to, 126-27, 127f; assumptions in
analysis of, 142-43; capabilities of, 120;
characteristics of, 119-20; current, 121;
disaggregation techniques and, 127, 136-39;
distinctions between study types in, 122-23;
elements for consideration in, 119-20; event
impact assessment, 122; forecasts, 121-22,
143-45, 144-45t; frames of reference for, 123 -
24; future, 121 -22; holding capacity approach
to, 139, 140-41, 140t; hybrid approach to, 142;
judgmental approach to, 127, 128; levels of,
120; methods for analysis of, 126-44; norma-
tive determination using, 122; overview of,
117-18; perspectives on, 123-24; projections
in, 121-22; ratio-share approach to, 127, 131-
35; relationship between, 118; simulation and,
127, 136-39; sources of, 125-26; summary of,
145-46; supply side methods and, 127, 139-
42; symptomatic association approach to,
127, 135-36; time element in, 121; trend
extrapolation approach to, 127, 128-31;
trends, 7t; types of studies critical to, 121-24;
uses of, 118-21; values in, 123 -24. See also
economic analysis; population analysis
population pyramid format, 137f
Portland, Orego n Goose Hollow Station commu-
nity plan, 65, 66m, 432
Portland, Oregon Metro plan, 215
Portland, Oregon open space protective action
criteria, 331
Portland, Oregon tran sit-oriented development,
432
Portola Valley, California slope-density study, 155-
56, 156m, 157t, 158t
post-World War II suburban development, 388
potential projected capacity, 214
prediction, 123
preparation (for plan-making process): area
delineation in, 293; connections to other land
plans and programs in, 293; intergovernmen-
tal coordination in, 193; organization for,
292 -93; procedures for participation in, 292-
93; setting a proper foundation for small area
planning, 434-37
President's Council on Sustainable Development,
12
priority funding areas (PFAs), 14-15, l 5m
private GIS data sources, 94t
pro-growth coalition, 22
projections: assumptions in, 142 -43; bases for,
126; cohort component method for, 136-38;
definition of, 123; economic base theory in,
138; input-output approach in, 138-39;
judgmental approach in, 128; perspective on
future in, 123-24; ratio/share techniques in,
131-35, 133f, 134t; supply side approaches to,
139-42, 140t; symptomatic association in,

135-36; trend extrapolation approach to, 128-
31, 129f
projects (real estate), 199-200
property conflict, 37, 38f
proposals (of plan), 71-72
Provo, Utah transit station plan , 442, 443f
PSS. See planning support systems (PSS )
public health . See community health
quality of life. See land use values; li vability values
Queen Anne County, Maryland plan, 269
Radburn, New Jersey neighbo rhood plan , 38 8,
390-91, 390t, 396
Randleman Lake, North Carolina wate rshed
analysis, 189-91 , 190m
raster GIS maps , 95
rational planning, 46 -48
ratio/share techniques: elements of, 132-33;
location quoti ents (LQs) in , 132; require-
ments for, 132; shift -share analysis in, 132-35,
134f
real estate projects, 199-2 00
recreation areas , 41 5, 416- l 7t, 418. See also open
space
redevelopment area plan, 425
regional government: actions of, 25; as informa-
tion source, 125-26; intergovernmental
coordination with, 29; relationship of to land
use planning, 198, 199f, 200, 200n; sustained
development policies of, 12t. See also specific
government agencies by name
Regional Planning Association of America, 16
remote sensing data, 93
residential applied schematic land use design , 406
residential communities: functions of, 385-86;
design principles for neighborhood constella-
tion organization in, 396-400, 398f, 399m;
neighborhood design concepts for, 38 7-93,
396, 396t; neighborhood types in, 393 -96,
396t; overview of, 383-84; planning process
for, 400-418; scales and components of, 386-
87; service/support facilities for, 412, 413t;
summary of, 418 -19; vision formulation for,
384-85
residential community design concepts: compari-
sons of, 396, 396t; neighborhood unit model,
388-89; New Urbanism models, 391-93;
sociological models, 393-95; suburban master
planned community model, 387, 388; transit-
487
oriented development (TOD ) model, 392-93 ; ::J
D..
CD
urban villages model, 394-95 x
residential community planning process: density
calculation and, 409-12; model adjustment
and validation in, 415 -18; model creation in,
401 -5; overview of, 400 -401; recreational and
open space planning for, 415, 416- l 7t;
suitability plotting for, 405-6
residential-urban village, 394-95f
resource conflict, 37, 38f
Regional Councils, National Association of, 94
runoff, 172-75
rural community area location principles, 335-36
rural districts, 61, 319, 348-55
Rural Legacy Program, 14
rural preserve (land use zone) , 211
rural reserve (land use zone), 211
rural-to-urban continuum zones, 21 lf
Sacramento County, California plan , l 7f
sample surveys, 126
A Sand County Almanac (Leopold), 20
San Diego, California, habitat conservation plan,
170-71, 17lm, 17lt
San Jose, California shift-share analysis of
employment, 134f
San Juan, Puerto Rico accessibility indicator, 246m
Santa Cruz County, California plan, 110, 112,
l 13m
Santa Monica, California plan, 12
satellite centers, 355
scenarios: building of, 268-71, 270f; construction
of, 268-70, 269t, 270f, 27lt; definition of, 268;
infrastructure investment comparison, 269t;
land use and transportation relationship in,
238t; participatory process and, 455-56, 456t;
state of the community report and, 266t;
testing of, 279; visioning and, 179-281 ; zoning
comparison, 270, 27lt. See also forecasts;
models
schematic land use design formulation, 364-65,
376-77
schools (in residential communities), 412 -13, 414t
school systems, 253, 254-55, 257-58
Seattle, Washington plans: comprehensive plan,
394-95, 395f, 469, 470t; constellation of
villages, 394-95, 399m; neighborhood
planning process, 434-35; slope study and
land use plan, 157, 159m; sustainability plan,
12,52-53,54t,215,281,283
488
x
Q)
""Cl secto r plan, 424
c
seismic hazards , l 76-77
setbacks, 168
sewerage, 251-55, 255 -58, 340-43
sewerage system s, 251 -55 , 255 -58, 340-43
shift -share analysis, 132-35, 134f
shopping centers, 355, 356t
shrink swell, 160
Sierra Club, 20
sm all area plan s: contents of, 41 9; description of
area condition in, 437-39; direction setting
fram ewo rk refin ement for, 439; found ation
for, 434-37; nature of, 422 -23, 428, 429;
overview of, 421-22, 433-34; process for
making, 43 2-45; proposal formulation and
coordination for, 439-45; purposes of, 423 -24;
specific area plan, 25; steps in, 434, 435f;
summary of, 445 -46; types of, 424-25, 42 8-32
Sm art Code, 454, 457
Sm art Growt h: central concern of, 14-1 5; charac-
teristics of, 13; conflicts within, 39; de fac to
system assessment and, 457-58; definitio n of,
39; evolution of, 13- 14; form-based codes
and , 454-55; impact on land u se of, 200;
limitations of, 18; organi zation s supportin g,
14-15 ; overview of, 13; scenarios for, 216;
sustainability prism model v., 41
Smart G rowth Network, 15
snow cards, 278
so cial advocacy coaliti o n , 22-23
socioeconomic impa ct assessment, 122
sociological models, 393 -9 5
soils, 96, 160-63, 192n
Sou th Florida plan, 12
space demand analysis, 135
space- quantity estima tion : d welling allocation to
districts, 337; estimate adjustm ents and
va riation s, 339-40; future space req uirement
estimation, 337, 338 t; number of dwellings,
336. See also urban growth and redevelop -
ment di stricts
space requirem ent derivatio n: for activity centers,
37 1-77; den sity standard development for,
368-69, 369t; for empl oym ent centers, 365-71;
population number determination, 365, 367;
safety factor for, 370-7 1; space need estima-
tion, 369-70, 370t; task list for, 365. See also
activity centers; employm ent centers
space requirement estimation, 307- 8
spati al arrangement design tasks: analysis of
holdin g cap acity of, 30 1; derivation of
principles and standards for, 30 1; design
alternative developm ent, 302-10; land
mapping for variation in, 30 1; overview of,
300- 301
Spatial Data Infrastructure, National (NSD), 94
spatial design s, 72
spatial structure planning. See areawide land
policy plan; communitywide spati al structure
planning
specific area plans, 25. See also sm all area plans
specific development plans, 425 -28
The Sp irit of Community (Etzioni), 23
sprawl. See low-density development
sprawl reduction, 461-62
stages of plan-making. See plan-making stages
stakeholders. See co llaborative planning; commu-
nity consensus
stakeholders: anal ysis of, 275 -76t; goal settin g and,
279-8 1; participation programs and, 284n;
visioning and, 2 79-8 1
state governm ent: actions of, 25; as information
source, 125 -26; intergovernm ental coord ina-
tion w ith, 294; rela tionship of to land use
planning, 198 , l 99f, 200 , 200n; sustained
development policies of, 12t. See also specific
gove rnm ent agencies by name
state of the community report: consensus building
connected with, 27 1-81; data agg regation in ,
267-7 1; goal identification a nd, 296-98;
information aggregati on fo r, 267 -71; issue
identification and , 268; objectives and, 296-
98; ongoing co mmunity involve m ent in, 281-
83; overview of, 265 -66; p op ulation and
eco no mic inform ation in, 119; preparation of,
166-67, 266-67 , 267t; scen ario construction
in, 268 -71; summary of, 283 -84. See also plan-
making stages
States Geographic Infor m a tion Co uncil, Natio n al
(NSGIC), 94
Stein , Clarence, 388
storrnwate r runoff. See soils; topog raphy and
slopes
strategy assessm ent, 462 -64
stream classification, 175, l 75t, l 76m
strip de velopment, 7
suburban (land use zone), 2 11
suburban master p lanned communities, 387, 388
suitability analysis, 107-8, 189-91. See also m aps
supply-side forecas ting approaches: design

forecasting techniq ues in, 141 -42; h oldin g
capacity approach, 139, 140-41, 140t; land
use/ housin g mod eling in, 141
support system s. See planning support system s
(PSS )
sur veys, 276, 279
susta inability. See sustainable development
susta inability prism model: consensus building
and, 48 -49; exa mple of, 52 -54; explanation of,
39-41, 40f, 45; goals of, 52; integration of
planning models in , 51-52; New Urbanism v.,
41; overvi ew of, 35-36; rational planning and,
46 -49; Seattle city plan and, 52-54; Smart
Growth v., 4 1; summ ary of, 54-55
sustainable development: conflicts about, 37-38;
definitio ns of, 10-11 , 12 -13t; indicato rs for,
28; livable comm unities and , 38-39; New
Urbanism relationship with, 18; principles of,
11 , 13; Smart Growth relatio nship with, 18;
ten sio ns of, 3 7-38
symptom atic association method, 135-36
technical analysis, 457-60
technical parks, 351. See also activity center
thematic maps, 95
three Es, 10, 38, 38t, 39
TND codes. See traditi o nal neighborh ood
developm ent (TN D) codes
TODs. See transit-or iented developments (TODs )
tool assess ment, 462 -64
top-down programs, 26
topographic maps, 96, 151-52
topography and slopes: haza rd potenti al in, 152 -
53; land stabilit y classifications, 155; land use
implications of, 152, 153-59; map examp les,
!Sim, 154m , 156m, 159m; slope disturbance
practice types, 152-53, 192n; tables illu strat-
ing, 153t, 157t, 158t; topographic map
elements, 151-52
TopoZone, 94
traditional neighborhood de velopment (TND )
codes, 453 -54, 454t, 455
traffic, 241 -4 7. See also transit-oriented develop-
ments (TODs); transportation system s
transit-oriented deve lopments (TODs ), 17, l 7f,
239,392 -93,430-32
transit station area plan, 425, 432
Transportation , Department of (DOT ), 200
transportati o n co rrido r plan, 424
transportation land use connection, 228
489
transportation systems: accessibility v. mobility in , ::l
Cl..
CD
229 -32; conflicts inh erent in planning with, ><
229; indicato rs of, 232 -37, 246t; land use
planning and, 226-29, 237 -41, 243f, 24 7- 49 ;
level of ser vice co ncept fo r evalu ati on of, 232 -
35, 233 rn , 234t; overview of, 225 -26; planning
for, 237-49, 243f; roles of, 226 -28; se rvices
provided by, 226-27; spatial pattern s in , 241-
47, 24 lt, 242t; summ ary of, 258-5 9; types of,
226
travel forecasts , 240t, 24 1-4 7
trend extrapolation approach, 127, 128- 31, 129f
trip assignm ent, 247
trip chains, 244
trip distribution among zones, 244 t, 245-4 7
trip generation, 243-44
Twin Cities, Minn esota urban land poli cy plan ,
3 17
understandabilit y, 73 , 77
United Nation s Wo rld Commission on E m~ iron-
ment and Deve lopment (\\'C ED ), 10, 37, -11
urba n center (la nd use zone ), 211
urban-center village, 394-95
ur ba n co re (land use zone ), 211
urban design , 50-51
urban districts: areawide consolidation of, 343-45;
desc ription of, 61, 319; hold ing capac ity
analysis for, 340; land suitability mapping
and, 336; loca ti o n prin cipl es for, 334-36;
mapping o f, 340 ; po li cy implementation for,
343; sewerage plan nin g and, 340-43 ; space-
quantity analys is req uirem ents for, 336-40,
338t
urban footprint, 218
urban growth and red evelopment: estimation of
space quantity requi rements for, 336-40 ;
holding capacity analysis for, 340; mapping
suitability of lands for, 336; m apping urban
policy districts for, 340; sewerage planning
considerations and, 340-43; task summaries
for, 333 -34
urban growth and redevelop ment districts:
dwelling allocation to districts, 337; dwelling
number estimation for, 336; future space
requirement estimatio n for, 337, 338t;
necessity for, 121 ; space quantity adjustment
and variation estimation for, 339-40; space-
quantity requirem ents, 336-40. See also
population and economic infor mation
490
x
Q.)
-0
Urban Land Institute, 15
c
urban policy district mapping, 340
urban renewal. See urban growth and redevelop -
ment
UrbanSim, 98, 107f
urban sprawl. See low-density development
urban transect concept, 210 -12, 2 llf, 397-400
urban -transition area location principles, 335
urban villages, 394-95
urban village strategy, 52
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 164, 165
U.S. Bureau of the Cen sus, 93
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Develop-
ment (HUD), 200
U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT), 200
use-based zoning, 453
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 164,
200
U.S. Fish and Wi ldlife Service, 93, 164, 165, 168
U.S. Forest Service (USFS), 93
USFS (U.S. Forest Service), 93
U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), 93, 151, 176-77
USGS (U. S. Geological Survey), 93, 151, 176 -77
U.S. National Wetlands Survey, 165
Utah plan, 280, 282m
values . See land use va lues
vector GIS maps, 95
vehicle miles traveled (VMT ), 218
villages, 394-96
vision and issues statement, 70- 71
visioning, 279 -81, 456t, 457
vision statement, 70-71
visualization programs, 100- 102
VMT (vehicle miles traveled), 218
Voluntary Cleanup Program, 14
Wake County, North Carolina internet planning
information, 99, lOOf
Washington, D.C. Metro plan, 26-27, 27m
water resources . See watershed s; wetlands
water service, 249 -51, 253 -55
watersheds, 171, 172
wedges and corridors, 27
weight-bearing capacity, 160
weighted rating (for composite land suitability
analysis), 180, 18lt
Wetland Evaluation Technique (WET ), 165
wetlands: agencies responsibl e for project review
involving, 164; assessment techniques for,
165; functions of, 164; identification of, 164-
65; representations of, 166m, 167m
Wetlands Survey, 165
WET (Wetland Evaluation Technique), 165
wildlife habitats: biodive rsity and, 167 -68; buffer
di stances and, 168; planning guidelines for,
170-71, 17lm; setbacks and, 168
Winston-Salem and Forsyth County, North
Carolina Management Plan , 62m
work areas. See employment centers
workshops, 456-57, 456t
Wright, Henry, 388
Ya hara- Monona (Wisconsin) watershed study,
165 -67, 167m
zoning: code types, 453 -55, 454t; comparison
scenarios, 270, 27 lt; as mechanism for
redevelopment and social change, 9; ordi-
nance types, 453 -55, 454t
PHILIP R. BERKE is a Professor in the Department of City and Regional Plan-
ning at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, and Chair of Environ-
mental Studies of the Carolina Environmental Program. His teaching and research
explore the causes of land use decisions, how these decisions impact the environ -
ment, and the consequences of these impacts on human settlements. His ultimate
goal is to seek solutions to complex urban development problems that help com-
munities live sustainably. Berke is a Collaborative Research Scholar of th e Inter-
national Global Change Institute in New Zealand. He is currently appointed to a
standing committee on disasters and environmental risk of The National Research
Council, and has served as a faculty fellow for the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy.
In 1993 he was a Senior Fulbright Scholar at the University of Waikato, New
Zealand. He has authored or co-authored fifty journal articles and se ve n boo ks
on land use and environmental planning. He received his Ph .D. in planning in
1981 from Texas A&M University, a master's degree in natural resources plan ning
from the University of Vermont in 1977, and a bachelor's degree in economi cs
and environmental science from Empire State University in 1974.

DAVID R. GODSCHALK, FAICP, is Stephen Baxter Professor Emeritus in the

Department of City and Regional Planning and Adjunct Professor in the Kenan-
Flagler Business School at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. He has
served as chair of the department, editor of the Journal of the American Institute of
Planners, member of the Chapel Hill Town Council, planning director o f
Gainesville, Florida, and vice president of a Tampa planning consulting firm . His
research and publications span three planning fields: 1) growth managemen t and
land use planning, 2) natural hazard mitigation and coastal mana gem ent, and 3)
dispute resolution and public participation. He co-authored th e fourth edition of
this text, as well as Natural Hazard Mitigation : Recasting Disaster Policy and Plan -
ning (Island Press, 1999) and Pulling Together: A Planning and De velopment Con -
sensus-Building Manual (Urban Land Institute, 1994) . The Association of Coll e-
giate Schools of Planning awarded him its Distinguished Educator Award in 2002,
and he holds the Service Medal of the American Institute of Planners, and the
Elected Official Award and Distinguished Professional Achievemen t Award from
the North Carolina Chapter of APA. He has been a memb er of the governing
boards of the American Planning Association, the Association of Colleg iate Schools
of Planning, and the American Society of Planning Officials. A registered archi -
tect (inactive) in the state of Florida, he received a bachelor's degree from
Dartmouth College, a bachelor of architecture from the University of Florida,
and a master's and a Ph.D. in Planning from the University of North Carolina.

EDWARD J. KAISER, FAICP, is professor emeritus in the Department of City and

Regional Planning at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, where he
taught land use planning and quantitative methods for more than three decades.
He has served as chair of the department, co-editor of the Journal of the American
Institute of Planners, vice-president of the Association of Collegiate Schools of
Planning, and held various offices in the NC chapter of the American Planning
Association. Author or co-author of almost one hundred articles and books on
land use and environmental planning and hazard mitigation, he has co-authored
the third and fourth editions of this text, and the first, second and third editions
of Hypothetical City Workbook of exercises to accompany the text. Dr. Kaiser re-
ceived a bachelor of architecture degree from the Illinois Institute of Technology
and a Ph.D. in Planning from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

DANIELA. RODRIGUEZ, Ph.D., is Assistant Professor in the Department of City

and Regional Planning at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. He
teaches graduate courses in urban spatial structure, transportation policy, and
transit planning. His research and publications focus on the connection between
transportation and land use planning. He has examined the relationship between
the accessibility to destinations and transportation behavior, mass transit invest-
ments and land development, and land use plans and travel outcomes. A recipient
of the Transportation Research Board's Fred Burggraff Award (2000) and the Eno
Foundation Fellowship (1998), he is currently appointed to three standing com -
mittees of the National Academies' Tra nsportation Research Board.
 Fifth Edition

Urban Land
Use Planning
Philip R Berke, David R Godschalk, and Edward J. Kaiser, with Daniel A Rodriguez

Di vided into three sections, this fifth edition of Urban Land Use Planning deftly balances an authoritative,
up-to-date discussion of current practices with a vision of what land use planning should become. It ex-
plores the societal context of land use planning and proposes a model for understanding and reconciling
the divergent priorities among competing stakeholders; explains how to build planning support systems
to assess future conditions, evaluate policy choices, create visions, and compare scenarios; and sets forth
a methodology for creating plans that will influence future land use change.

Discussions new to the fifth edition include how to incorporate the three Es of sustainable development
(economy, environment, and equity) into sustainable communities, methods for including livability objec-
t ives and techniques, the integration of transportation and land use, the use of digital media in planning
support systems, and collective urban design based on analysis and public participation.

Philip R. Berke is a professor of city and regional planning at the University of North Carolina . David R.
Godschalk is a professor emeritus of city and regional planning at the University of North Carolina. Edward
J. Kaiser is a professor emeritus of city and regional planning at the University of North Carolina . Daniel A.
Rodriguez is an assistant professor of city and regional planning at the University of North Carolina.

Affa· s e ·onal Plannin

"'Incomparable' is the only way to describe the Fifth Edition of this classic text. My Fourth Edition is worn
from a decade of constant use, and I thought there was no way to make Urban Land Use Planning any
better, but the Fifth Edition proves me wrong . It is not merely the best book on the subject; it is, as far as
I am concerned, the only book."-Dwight H. Merriam, FAICP, CRE, and past president of the American
Institute of Certified Planners

"This has always been the one definitive text and reference book for students and practitioners of local
land use planning and the Fifth Edition continues that trad tfion ."-John Landis, chair of the city and
regional planning department, University of California, Berkeley

"This most stalwart textbook on land use planning has successfully evolved to reflect the increasingl y
complex landscape of urban planning in the twenty-first century."-Stephen French, professor of city
and regional planning, Georgia Institute of Technology

ISBN 978-0-252 -030 79-6

University of Illinois Press

Urbana and Chicago
www.press.uillinois .edu
J~ ~~ ~~ ~1 1~1J~lj ijl~l 1 11 ~ 111 !1 1 1