Smart Growth Audits

Jerry Weitz, AICP, received his doctorate in urban studies from Portland State University and a master’s degree in city planning from the Georgia Institute of Technology. Weitz is author of Sprawl Busting: State Programs to Guide Growth (Chicago: Planners Press, 1999) and the User Manual for the Growing Smart Legislative Guidebook (Chicago: American Planning Association, 2002). He is president-elect of the Georgia Chapter of APA and heads his own planning and development consulting firm, Jerry Weitz & Associates, Inc., in Alpharetta, Georgia. He was employed formerly by Oregon’s Transportation and Growth Management Program

Leora Susan Waldner is a doctoral candidate in the Department of City and Regional Planning at the University of California, Berkeley, and a planner with Jerry Weitz & Associates, Inc. Her work has included research on suburban revitalization strategies, drafting local land-use ordinances, and preparing smart growth tool descriptions. She holds masters degrees in city and regional planning and landscape architecture from the University of California at Berkeley and received her B.A. in urban studies from the University of California at San Diego.

There are three entities acknowledged here for their funding support for work leading to this PAS Report: the Atlanta Regional Commission (ARC), the Georgia Department of Community Affairs (DCA), and the Regional Business Coalition of Metropolitan Atlanta, Inc.(RBC).

As a part of its Community Choices program and in connection with its leadership role in the Georgia Quality Growth Partnership, the ARC in 2001 hired Jordan, Jones & Goulding (JJG) to prepare tool descriptions for its Quality Growth Toolkit. One of these work products, prepared by Jerry Weitz & As- sociates, Inc., under subcontract with JJG, focused on a smart growth audit. Jerry Weitz, AICP, was the principal author of the ARC-sponsored work, and Leora Waldner conducted interviews, wrote portions of the report, and conducted Internet research. Gary Cornell, AICP, Manager of Comprehensive Planning at JJG, was the project manager for the consulting team. Several members of ARC’s staff reviewed and commented on the smart growth audit tool description, including Dan Reuter, AICP, Robert LeBeau, AICP, Jennifer Fine, AICP, and Kellie McDonough. APA and the authors acknowledge ARC’s financial sponsorship of the smart growth audit toolkit description, which is published here in an enhanced and expanded version.

Cover design by Lisa Barton; this report is printed on recyclable paper.

The Planning Advisory Service is a subscription service offered by the Research Department of the American Planning Association. Eight reports are produced each year. Subscribers also receive the PAS Memo each month and have use of the Inquiry Answering Service. W. Paul Farmer, Executive Director; Sylvia Lewis, Publications Director; William Klein, Director of Research. Planning Advisory Service Reports are produced in the Research Department of APA. James Hecimovich, Editor; Megan Lewis, Assistant Editor; Lisa Barton, Design Associate; J.E. Lu- ebering, Editorial Assistant. © November 2002 by the American Planning Association. APA’s publications office is at 122 S. Michigan Ave., Suite 1600, Chicago, IL 60603. E-mail: [email protected] APA headquarters office is at 1776 Massachusetts Ave., N.W., Washington, DC 20036. Smart Growth Audits

Jerry Weitz and Leora Susan Waldner

TABLE OF CONTENTS

What Is Smart Growth?...... 2

What Is a Smart Growth Audit?...... 2

Things to Consider Before Conducting an Audit...... 5

Lessons Learned From Existing Audits...... 9

What Are the Alternatives for Conducting an Audit?...... 15

Implementation Guidelines/Steps...... 19

Issues of Effectiveness and a List of Do’s and Dont’s...... 23

Appendices...... 27

Appendix A. A Recommended Comprehensive Smart Growth Audit Checklist with Commentary...... 27 Appendix B. List of References and Additional Resources...... 37 Appendix C. APA Policy Statement on Smart Growth...... 39 Appendix D. Growth Quality Programs in Georgia...... 55

Smart Growth Audits

ane Q. Developer dreams of creating a highly livable “smart growth” development, a mixed-use community that is walkable, close to transit, with plenty of open Jspace and urban amenities. Sounds pleasant? Indeed it does. However, the comprehensive plans and land-use regulations adopted in most communities do not allow this kind of development. A community’s comprehensive plan, policies, zoning ordinance, and other implementation devices serve, in Randall Arendt’s terms, as the “ DNA” that programs a city or county for a certain type of growth in the future. Many local jurisdictions are surprised to discover that their DNA code, their growth policies and regulations, contain the genetic building blocks for sprawl rather than smart growth. What is your city or county’s DNA made up of—“smart” or “sprawl”? A smart growth audit can help local governments answer this question by reviewing their growth policies and implementation measures in a systematic manner. This report describes the concept of a smart growth audit and provides considerations and methods on how to implement one in your community. Although references are made to state-level and regional applications of smart growth audits, this report focuses on how to conduct these audits for local governments. WHAT IS SMART GROWTH? The toolkit offered by the Georgia Quality Growth Partnership (2002) describes “smart growth” as building “neighborhoods and communities that widen opportunities for pleasant, hospitable, and economically beneficial conditions for living, working, and recreating.” The Urban Land Institute also provides a simple definition of smart growth: “an evolving approach to development, the goal of which is to balance economic progress with environmental protection and quality of life.” The American Planning As- sociation’s 2002 policy guide on smart growth (the entire text is in Appendix C of this report and on line for free download at www.planning.org) defines it as follows:

Smart Growth means using comprehensive planning to guide, design, develop, revitalize, and build communities for all that:

• have a unique sense of community and place;

• preserve and enhance valuable natural and cultural resources;

• equitably distribute the costs and benefits of development;

• expand the range of transportation, employment, and housing choices in a fiscally responsible manner; A smart growth audit is similar • value long-range, regional considerations of sustainability over short-term, to a financial audit, except that incremental, geographically isolated actions; and • promote public health and healthy communities. the subject matter investigated Compact, transit accessible, pedestrian-oriented, mixed-use development and the principles applied are patterns and land reuse epitomize the application of the principles of Smart Growth. different. In contrast to prevalent development practices, Smart Growth refocuses a larger share of regional growth within central cities, urbanized areas, inner suburbs, and areas that are already served by infrastructure. Smart Growth reduces the share of growth that occurs on newly urbanizing land, existing farmlands, and in environmentally sensitive areas. In areas with intense growth pressure, development in newly urbanizing areas should be planned and developed according to Smart Growth principles. There is some consensus on the breadth and scope of smart growth, but there is less agreement on the basic principles of smart growth. Table 1 provides a comparison of smart growth and sprawl that further illuminates the principles of smart growth.

WHAT IS A SMART GROWTH AUDIT? An audit, as typically used in a financial setting, is a formal examination of an organization’s accounts or financial situation. A smart growth audit is similar to a financial audit, except that the subject matter investigated and the principles applied are different. The term “smart growth audit” appears to have been first coined by LDR International and Freilich, Leitner & Carlisle (1999) in their work for Charlotte-Mecklenberg County, North Carolina (for a summary, see Avin and Holden 2000). Principles of smart development were espoused as early as 1998 (Oregon Transportation and Growth Management Program 1998). Where the financial auditor focuses on accounts and finances, the smart growth auditor focuses first on plans and policies, and second on the programs, regulations, and budgets that relate to development and community building (see Figure 1). Where the financial auditor uses generally accepted accounting principles as benchmarks for evaluation, the smart growth auditor uses generally (or locally) accepted principles of smart growth (see generally Table 1). Both types of auditors produce a final report with findings and

2 TABLE 1. SMART GROWTH VS. CONVENTIONAL DEVELOPMENT: COMPARISON OF OUTCOMES Comparison Smart Growth Specific Topic Consideration Smart Growth Convention (“Sprawl”)

Land consumption Efficient use of land as a Inefficient and excessive limited resource land consumption

In: Infill and redevelopment Out: “Greenfield” Directional focus of Land supply, land (maximum use of existing development (expansion into growth use, and urban developed areas) new/undeveloped areas) form Density/intensity Higher Lower

Scattered, dispersed, and Urban form Compact and contiguous leapfrogged

Single-function and Land use Mixed; jobs-housing balance separated

Land as a resource; Land as a commodity; Values/ethics sustainability satisfy market preferences

Open space Maintain, enhance, and Provide when supported by Natural resources provision expand market forces and the environment Inaccessible; unconnected; Open space Proximate to all users; includes “remnant” parcels locations connected or left-over pieces from plats

“Brownfields” Clean up and reuse Abandon Energy Conservation Consumption Choice; diversity, Provide what the market Values/ethics affordability will bear Disperse in all locations, Predominantly in Location especially in city/activity exclusive residential areas centers (subdivisions)

Housing Predominantly detached, Type of unit; mixes Wider variety; mixtures of single-family; rigid types separation of types and price

Sufficient for all incomes Market fails to provide Cost (i.e., “mixed income” affordable units for all housing) incomes Modes Multiple modes Automobile-dominant Road system and Hierarchy of arterials, Grid or network of streets network pattern collectors, and local streets Interconnectivity Accessibility Separation encouraged encouraged Predominant Through streets with alleys Cul-de-sacs and collectors Transportation streets encouraged Street pavement Skinny; concept of street Wide/excessive widths “diets”

Pedestrian facilities Routinely provided; Generally not provided; walkability encouraged walking not encouraged Densities are too low and Provide choices for use of Transit patterns too spread out to transit provide transit (continued)

3 TABLE 1. SMART GROWTH VS. CONVENTIONAL DEVELOPMENT: COMPARISON OF OUTCOMES (continued) Comparison Smart Growth Specific Topic Consideration Smart Growth Convention (“Sprawl”)

Timely and concurrent Use lowest cost means Water and sewer provision of systems (e.g., wells and septic tanks where permitted) Other Public subsidies; extension of Infrastructure Concern with unfair Funding facilities without efficiency development costs; considerations and equity maximize existing considerations investments Focus on reforming Multiple, uncoordinated Modes procedures for greater Permitting timeliness, efficiency, and processes; time consuming Processes fairness

To frustrate unwanted Goals To facilitate new objectives uses Not-In-My-Backyard Other Concern for social equity (NIMBY); Citizens Against Values/ethics and environmental justice Virtually Everything (CAVE)

Regionalism Parochialism

Source: Jerry Weitz & Associates, Inc. 2001.

recommendations on how existing practices equate with, or depart from, the accepted principles. A smart growth audit can be defined in its most basic form as any systematic inquiry that seeks to evaluate existing plans, policies, and practices against accepted principles of smart growth. The ultimate goal of the smart

FIGURE 1 RELATIONSHIPS OF PLANS, POLICIES, PROGRAMS, AND REGLATIONS

4 growth audit is to change these existing plans, policies, and practices so that they promote accepted principles of smart growth. Even though the smart growth audit is defined in part as a final report or product, the smart growth audit must be viewed as a means to an end rather than an end itself; that is, producing a report is not the final desired outcome. What a government does with the findings of a smart growth audit is much more important than producing the audit report itself. Moving beyond this basic definition, an auditor also seeks to identify consistencies between stated intentions, accepted principles, and actual practices. The financial auditor examines whether budgeted revenues and expenditures match actual revenues and expenditures and whether such revenues and expenditures are reflected correctly in their appropriate accounts. In contrast, the smart growth auditor examines whether smart growth, as defined by the community, is: 1. encouraged and facilitated by the community’s plans and policies; 2. reinforced by internal consistency between plans and policies; 3. implemented effectively by employing regulations, programs, and bud- A smart growth audit typically gets consistent with plans and policies; and 4. reinforced in all aspects of implementation by consistency between focuses much attention on the development regulations, programs, and budgets. local comprehensive plan. A smart growth audit differs from a financial audit in another important respect. Whereas the financial auditor can safely assume that governments are required to follow generally accepted accounting principles, the smart growth auditor cannot assume that governments have embraced generally accepted (or locally adopted) principles of smart growth. Therefore, the smart growth auditor must apply a sequential process and investigate the extent to which local plans and policies embrace accepted smart growth principles in the first place, and then evaluate implementation measures. For a flow chart of the smart growth audit process, see Figure 2.

THINGS TO CONSIDER BEFORE CONDUCTING AN AUDIT Before conducting a smart growth audit, a local jurisdiction should consider the potential legal and political fallout from the audit, policy issues, administrative issues, and, of course, costs.

What You Need First Before undertaking a smart growth audit, a community must decide if it wishes to pursue smart growth. Some communities are content to pursue conventional suburban development, despite the environmental and social costs of these development patterns. The community also needs to decide which principles of smart growth it can embrace locally, and how it wishes to define smart growth to meet its own needs and objectives. There is more discussion of this below in the section on implementation. Developing a consensus may be difficult and time consuming, but it is critical in order to ensure that the smart growth audit is a shared evaluation of local growth policies rather than a tool of a particular interest group.

Relationship to the Comprehensive Plan A smart growth audit typically focuses much attention on the local comprehensive plan. Evaluating the comprehensive plan is especially important because it is the primary document that describes the overall long-range vision and goals for the community’s future growth patterns. Ideally, a

5 FIGURE 2 SMART GROWTH AUDIT PROCESS: ACTIVITIES AND OUTCOME

comprehensive plan clearly articulates a locally accepted definition of smart growth and the principles of smart growth that are embraced by the community. Establishing smart growth as a principle in the comprehensive plan also provides a legal basis for the policies and regulations that will be used to implement smart growth. A smart growth audit can be integrated easily into the comprehensive planning process. There are likely to be some economies of scale in conducting this audit at the same time a local government undertakes a major update of its comprehensive plan. But the potential benefits of conducting a smart growth audit may be too great to wait for a major update of a comprehensive plan. Local governments should consider including a smart growth auditing task in their plan implementation programs.

6 Administration and Enforcement Issues Legal framework. A smart growth audit, on its own, should not raise any legal problems or issues since it does not bind the local governing body in any way. Because a comprehensive audit will investigate “consistency” issues, however, negative findings could weaken the legal rationale of existing regulations. For example, if a smart growth audit finds that a city’s plan encourages affordable housing but the city’s land-use regulations contradict that plan goal, a property owner challenging a land-use decision by the city might use the results of the audit report as evidence that there is a weak relationship between that decision and the policies contained in its plan. Legal issues will arise primarily after the smart growth audit is completed, when the local government decides how to use the results of the audit. The audit may present a host of suggestions to reform regulations. For example, smart growth audits typically suggest streamlining the permit process. Legal issues, therefore, arise mostly during the implementation phase rather than during the course of conducting the audit itself. A local government that changes its comprehensive plan or land development regulations must do so in public processes that meet minimum procedural requirements of state law, state administrative rules, and/or judicial Various stakeholders will decisions. Any new policies or regulations must therefore be considered and debate and propose varying, adopted only after adequate public participation and debate. Protection of private property rights and avoiding takings is always a legal concern with often conflicting definitions any public land-use policy or regulation. New regulations or modifications of existing regulations should be accompanied by clearly written rationales and principles of smart that describe the public purposes of the change (i.e., how the change promotes the health, safety, and general welfare of the community). growth, which the local The local jurisdiction’s legal staff should help ensure that any modifications or new policies are not preempted by state and federal laws. All regulatory governing body will then need activities should be conducted under the guidance of the city or county at- torney, as applicable. to reconcile in determining Policy concerns and public acceptability. Defining smart growth in the growth policy. context of your community, and coming to terms on which principles of smart growth will be accepted, are political processes. Various stakeholders will debate and propose varying, often conflicting definitions and principles of smart growth, which the local governing body will then need to reconcile in determining growth policy. Once presented, the recommendations of any smart growth audit will surely be debated. As noted in the introduction, there is broad consensus on the need for smart growth rather than sprawl, but there is less agreement on the specific principles of smart growth. Most, perhaps all, groups with a stake in the future of the community will agree on broad principles such as using land more efficiently and offering choice and variety in housing. However, different interest groups will have different values, objectives, and priorities. Planners might emphasize the need for more compact urban patterns, revitalization, infill, and less dependence on the automobile. Homebuilders may be more concerned about policies that might create a shortage of developable land, increased development costs, and lengthy permitting processes. By skillfully blending divergent perspectives, local government can define smart growth and foster agreement on its principles, which can then be used as the basis for conducting a smart growth audit. Pursuing smart growth strategies and policies can (and probably will) be controversial politically in most communities. Some groups argue that sprawl

7 does not always result in the social and environmental costs that its detractors suggest (see, e.g., Lemmon 2001, Steiner 1994, and Staley 1999), and proponents of the status quo are almost always a vocal group in debates over smart growth principles. Other groups are fundamentally opposed to any additional growth, while there are still others opposed to any form of land-use planning or concerned that “smart growth” always means higher density, mass transit, and other practices that would change the “feel” of their community. Avin and Holden (2000) stress that a smart growth audit should help to develop a consensus about the type of smart growth that fits a community’s specific needs and goals; its purpose is not to demean those who, for whatever reasons, are opposed to the idea of the particular growth scenario. It is critical that the smart growth audit go beyond the immediate interests of any particular group or individual. A broad spectrum of individuals and interests should be involved from the start, including the development community (also see discussion below on reviewing the results of the audit). Developers and homebuilders can help to identify existing barriers to smart growth, and they can also provide opinions on the feasibility of implementing smart growth principles. Administrative complexity. Administrative complexity can be viewed in terms of (1) conducting the audit, (2) interpreting the audit, and (3) implementing the audit. Conducting a comprehensive smart growth audit Administrative complexity is labor-intensive but not necessarily complex administratively. The local government needs a method and procedure for selecting which plans and can be viewed in terms of (1) regulations to audit. Such a procedure may involve public input or may be a staff decision. A systematic procedure for analyzing the content of plans, conducting the audit, policies, and regulations is needed to conduct a smart growth audit. Administrative requirements for interpreting the audit are considered (2) interpreting the audit, and minor if only the staff reviews the work of the auditors. When public audi- (3) implementing the audit. ences or oversight committees are involved in the audit, however, the review process will require more time to explain and interpret. Finally, implementing the recommendations of an audit report may pose several administrative challenges. Administrative requirements for implementing smart growth principles will vary, depending on the content of the recommendations themselves. For instance, smart growth auditors in Charlotte–Mecklenburg, North Carolina (see “Local Application: The Charlotte–Mecklenburg Smart Growth Audit” below), recommended that a more thorough planning database (in essence, a geographic information system or GIS) be established. In any community, a task like this is likely to involve significant administrative challenges. New staff or consultants might be needed to design the GIS system. Data-entry procedures for certain departments might need to be changed. Someone would be needed to oversee and maintain the system. Budgets would need to change to provide funds for purchasing the new system and hiring additional personnel. Implementing other recommendations, such as developing a unified open space, environmental, and parks strategy, would pose different administrative challenges. Developing such a strategy would require coordination among several departments. Verifying that a government acts in accordance with the audit’s recommendations poses yet another administrative challenge. Who will monitor the effort? Will a review team oversee implementation of the audit? Will different departments or personnel be in charge of the changes? Will quarterly progress reports be generated? It is important to establish implementation and monitoring duties while the audit is taking place (i.e., as the specific recommendations are falling into place) rather than after it is completed, when assigning responsibilities and devoting resources will be more difficult.

8 In conclusion, recommendations made by smart growth auditors can easily go beyond the immediate scope and administrative resources of planning and development departments. However, many (if not most) of SIERRA CLUB’S CRITERIA the recommendations of a smart growth audit will not pose overwhelming FOR RATING STATES administrative burdens or hurdles to implement. Cost of implementation. A smart growth audit involves two types of Land Use Planning costs: the costs of the audit itself, and the costs involved in adopting and • Growth management laws implementing the audit’s recommendations. • State involvement in local land- The costs of the audit itself will depend on many variables, including use planning the depth and scope of the audit, the number of documents reviewed, and • Encouragement or requirement of whether a consultant is used. Previous audits in North Carolina have cost implementation techniques (e.g., in the range of $30,000 to $50,000, and they have taken approximately six urban growth boundaries) months to complete (Walsh interview; Luck interview). These cost estimates Transportation include only the cost of the auditor. They do not consider staff costs or the • State spending per person in value of time put in by the review team. Smart growth audits are likely to urban areas on transportation be less costly if they are completed in conjunction with a comprehensive choices (e.g., commuter trains, bus plan update since other data will be gathered and policies will be reviewed service, light rail, and walking and during that process. bike paths). Other costs will be incurred after the auditors present their recommenda- • Funding to maintain existing road tions. At this point, the community will choose which recommendations it systems (using 1998 data from wishes to implement. As mentioned above, this process will generate debate the Surface Transportation Policy (Avin and Holden 2000), resulting in time and costs needed to discuss, de- Project) bate, and decide on policy changes. Staff time will be needed to prepare the • Changes in vehicle miles traveled, changes, facilitate the necessary public reviews, and implement the changes. 1992-1997 (using data from the It is difficult to predict these costs since they depend on the nature, scope, Federal Highway Administration) and content of particular policies adopted or modifications proposed. Open Space Protection While a smart growth audit will surely involve some costs, it is important • Land trust initiatives and outright to emphasize that an audit can help to save significant costs in the long run. purchases of land for parks and For example, where audits result in a streamlined development process, such open space changes may reduce costs for project applicants and are also likely to result • Agricultural preservation through in more efficient use of administrative resources. In addition, according to agricultural districts, agricultural the Sierra Club (2000), a smart growth audit, if implemented, can reduce protection zoning, purchasing the substantial social and environmental costs associated with sprawl that conservation easements or de- result from inefficient use of infrastructure, excessive traffic, and destruction velopment rights, and transfer of of natural resources. development rights • Preventing floodplain sprawl LESSONS LEARNED FROM EXISTING AUDITS (measured by the percentage of The concept of auditing plans and regulations to see if they encourage and wetlands destruction permits facilitate smart growth is so new that relatively few example applications granted in presidentially declared exist. This section summarizes smart growth audits (and related efforts) that flood disaster areas) have been completed at the national, state, and regional levels in addition Community Revitalization to those completed by local jurisdictions. Clearly, the scale is different for a state or regional smart growth audit since such an audit must review many • Community Development Block jurisdictions. In contrast, smart growth audits implemented by individual Grant (CDBG) funding local governments can be much more comprehensive because they focus • Support for affordable housing intensively on a single jurisdiction. (e.g., housing trust funds) • Historic preservation (e.g., pro- National Application: Sierra Club Rates the 50 States grams with dedicated funding for The Sierra Club in 1999 rated each of the 50 states by measuring progress preservation programs) in four categories: land use planning, transportation planning, open space • Brownfields initiatives (formal or protection, and community revitalization (Sierra Club 1999a; see sidebar). informal) The study compares the states with each other, not against an absolute. There Source: Sierra Club (1999a) are at least three yardsticks per category that measure how well such state smart growth initiatives have been implemented.

9 State Application: Illinois Audit of Local Codes A smart growth audit of Illinois municipalities, funded by a $15,000 grant from the Illinois Department of Natural Resources, demonstrates that local codes have presented obstacles to smart growth (Knaap et al. n.d.). The audit divided local land use policies into four types: regional/spatial, transportation-oriented, process-oriented, and site-oriented. Specific items investigated in the audit are shown in the sidebar.

SPECIFIC POLICIES INVESTIGATED IN ILLINOIS’ AUDIT OF LOCAL CODES

Regional/Spatial Policies Process-Oriented Policies • Cluster zoning • Design review • Open space zoning • Incentive zoning • Urban growth boundary • Impact fees • Environmental overlay • Performance standards • Scenic protection • Planned unit development • Agricultural protection • Special use permit • Infill development Site-Oriented Regulations • Traditional neighborhood • Minimum street pavement ordinance width • Mixed use zone • Minimum street right-of-way • Accessory housing units width (granny flats) • Minimum lot size, R-1 zone • Minimum setback, R-1 zone Transportation-Oriented Policies • Minimum setback, commercial • Bike lanes • Parking requirements for retail • Pedestrian access stores • Reductions for shared parking • Maximum block length, • Public transit subdivisions

Sources: Knaap, Talen, Olshansky, and Forrest. (n.d.); Talen and Knaap (n.d.)

Few if any towns in Illinois have regulations allowing compact, mixed-use developments. The Illinois smart growth audit examined the zoning laws of local jurisdictions and found they promoted much more land consumption than recommended by generally accepted smart growth principles. The study also found that pavement widths for local residential streets are nearly double the smart growth standards and that minimum lot-size requirements are three to four times greater than those standards. The Illinois smart growth audit of local codes concluded, “Even if a developer was interested in building a pedestrian-oriented, compact development, local regulations would be so costly to overcome (by requiring the granting of variances), that the regulatory framework prohibits smart growth practices” (New Urban News 2001). The Illinois study was set up as a model “smart growth regulatory audit” that can be copied by other states at minimal cost (Knaap et al. n.d.).

Regional Application: Planning Practices in Central Indiana The Center for Urban Policy and the Environment conducted a survey of planning practices in 44 central Indiana counties. As in the Illinois study, the research revealed few smart growth practices in the central Indiana region (Indiana Office of the Commissioner of Agriculture). For example, of the 44

10 counties surveyed, only one had incentives for mixed-income housing and only three used density bonuses as incentives for desirable development. Less than one-quarter of the counties were found to have capital improvement programs or transportation improvement plans. Less than one-half of the counties had functioning advisory planning commissions with jurisdiction over unincorporated areas. The survey concluded that there is little inno- vation in county land-use practices in central Indiana, with the exception that most counties have some environmental regulations and most counties provide for planned unit development zones.

Regional Application: 1000 Friends of Washington’s Sprawl Report Card for Cities in Central Puget Sound In December 1999, 1000 Friends of Washington issued a report that rated 33 cities in Central Puget Sound (King, Pierce, Snohomish and Kitsap Coun- ties) on how they are curtailing sprawl and promoting livable communities. The report card consists of measurements in four categories: density, jobs and housing, transportation, and the environment (see sidebar). In making the determinations, 1000 Friends looked at each city’s zoning and land-use policies, analyzed transportation policies and services, calculated jobs-to- population ratios, and evaluated existing parks and regulations to see if environmental amenities were being protected. A city could earn at least 25 points for each of the four categories, for an overall possible score of 100 points. Some cities scored more than 25 points in the density category because this factor was weighted as more critical to stopping sprawl than the others. Cities that performed well in 1000 Friends of Washington’s rankings were found to be doing the most to stop sprawl, while those that did not perform well were found to have policies that are actually encouraging sprawl development.

MEASURES USED IN 1000 FRIENDS OF WASHINGTON’S SPRAWL REPORT CARD Density • Population per acre of residentially zoned land • Minimum lot size (smallest new lot that could be created in a single-family zone) • Residential zoning designations (land zoned for high- and low-density residential uses) Jobs and Housing • Median housing price • Accessory dwelling units (whether or not they are allowed) • Jobs-housing balance (measured in a ratio of jobs to residents) Transportation • Transit wait times • Parking requirements (ratios and maximum requirements) • Pedestrian friendliness of downtown Environment • Parks and open space (acres per person) • Wetland and stream buffer widths (compared to state model code recommendations)

Source: 1000 Friends of Washington (1999)

11 Regional Application: Regional Business Coalition of Metropolitan Atlanta’s Quality Growth Audit The Atlanta region has been dubbed the poster child of sprawl, with its traffic gridlock, polluted streams, frequent ozone nonattainment days, and rampant land consumption. Dissatisfied with the pace of efforts to enable and encourage smart growth, which in Atlanta’s case is referred to as “quality” growth, the Regional Business Coalition (RBC) initiated a growth audit to establish quality growth benchmarks for 25 local governments within the 13-county ozone nonattainment area (RBC 2002). RBC made a conscious decision to focus on land-use ordinances and development regulations (e.g., transit-oriented development, conservation subdivisions, etc.). The audit, which was ongoing at the time of this report’s publication, will be used by RBC to encourage local governments to further enable quality growth and to track their performance. In addition to content analysis of local regulations, RBC consultants will conduct interviews to provide additional depth to and clarification of the audit’s findings.

Local Application: The Charlotte-Mecklenburg Smart Growth Audit The Charlotte-Mecklenburg County, North Carolina, smart growth audit is one of the first such efforts in the United States (LDR International and Freilich, Leitner & Carlisle 1999; also see Avin and Holden 2000). It is also the most notable to date because of its complexity and comprehensiveness. The audit template consisted of 14 characteristics or indicators of smart growth (see sidebar), each with its own more detailed set of indicators or benchmarks (not shown in sidebar).

SMART GROWTH CRITERIA USED IN THE SMART GROWTH AUDIT FOR CHARLOTTE-MECKLENBURG COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA

A. Planning Capacity and Quality 1. Anticipating and providing for development and growth 2. Long-term comprehensive plan with adequate land supply B. Urban Form 3. Compact development 4. Protection of natural resources 5. Substantial public open space 6. Infill development 7. Variety of housing 8. Mixed-use, walkable neighborhoods C. Infrastructure 9. Balanced multi-modal transportation 10. Maximizing existing infrastructure 11. Timely provision and fair funding of new infrastructure D. Supportive Development Decision-Making Process 12. Reasonable, predictable, and efficient plan review process 13. Supporting fiscal policies 14. Ability to integrate land-use, transportation, and infrastructure decisions

Source: LDR International and Freilich, Leitner & Carlisle (1999)

12 The Charlotte-Mecklenburg audit was the first stage of a sustained smart growth effort. The chair of the Charlotte-Mecklenburg County Commis- sion, Park Helms, initiated the audit in the hope that it would lead to a policy umbrella for the county’s development-related programs and policies. The Mayor of Charlotte, Pat McCrory, also signed on, and both the The Charlotte-Mecklenburg city and county provided the funding for the work of a 32-member task force appointed by both governments. The task force reviewed 29 policy audit was the first stage of a documents and measured them against a checklist of 14 smart growth sustained smart growth effort concepts in an effort to determine how well the city and county policies were embodying principles of smart growth. The task force also reviewed . . . and both the city and county the recommendations of the audit and suggested their own modifications to the county’s key documents, including the 2015 comprehensive plan provided the funding for the and zoning codes for the county, city, and six towns. The task force review of the audit took approximately one year. Simultaneously, the Charlotte work of a 32-member task force City Council made smart growth its top priority for the year and adopted several smart growth principles. The city council also worked the audit’s appointed by both governments. recommendations into its strategic plan, resulting in 18 initiatives given to individual departments. The Charlotte-Mecklenburg smart growth audit considered multiple aspects of smart growth, such as (among numerous other factors) providing variety and choice in housing, promoting efficient land use, protecting natural resources, securing substantial public open space, providing balanced multimodal transportation systems, and ensuring maximum use of existing infrastructure. The audit paid particular attention to generating an adequate long-term supply of urban land through compact, higher density infill development. Auditors looked at the nature, location, compactness, and accessibility of development, and they assessed the holding capacity of the zoned, vacant land in the county and cities (Avin and Holden 2000).

Local Application: Durham, North Carolina, Smart Growth Audit Durham, North Carolina, also undertook a smart growth audit (performed by Duncan Associates). The Durham smart growth audit team employed the same definition of smart growth and set of 14 smart growth indicators used in Charlotte-Mecklenburg. The audit measured how well local plans, policies, and regulations met smart growth objectives. The team audited comprehensive plans, capital improvement programs, operating/maintenance expenses, zoning and subdivision regulations, annexation plans and policies, water/sewer service areas and availability, and current growth trends and patterns. The results of these investigations were compared to the smart growth criteria, reviewed for consistency, and measured against national best practices for smart growth. Deliverables for the audit included the smart growth audit report, preliminary policy recommendations, final recommendations, and an implementation checklist (Duncan Associates 2000). Selected recommendations from the audit are being implemented, including an update to the comprehensive plan and the creation of a unified development ordinance. No individual or department is charged with umbrella oversight of the implementation efforts. Rather, selected recommendations are implemented by individual departments.

Local Application: Oregon Transportation and Growth Management Program’s Code Audit Worksheets and Brookings Audit The Oregon Transportation and Growth Management Program, as an appendix to a guidebook on how to promote infill and redevelopment, has published audit worksheets which cover four types of codes: zoning, land divisions, public improvements and public facilities, and development

13 EXCERPTS FROM THE OREGON TRANSPORTATION AND GROWTH MANAGEMENT PROGRAM’S AUDIT WORKSHEETS ON BARRIERS TO INFILL AND REDEVELOPMENT Zoning • Do codes explicitly address physical site constraints such as odd-shaped lots, topography, drainage issues, and natural resource areas, and are standards more flexible to permit their development at the designated densities? • Do city/county codes have discretionary provisions that directly or indirectly result in housing being built at densities below the levels required in the comprehensive plan? • Do the city/county’s access and circulation standards help or hinder infill and redevelopment? How? • Has the city/county created any zone districts specifically to accommodate infill and redevelopment? • Has the city/county undertaken specific area plans with neighborhoods to address design and development issues of infill projects? Land Divisions • Does the city/county have land division procedures and standards for mid- block developments and flag lots? These are properties that are too small or narrow to develop new streets or connect existing streets, but may be served by public or private lanes. • Is every new lot required to have minimum frontage on a public street? Are private streets acceptable? Does the city/county have standards for private streets? Public Improvements and Public Facilities • Does the capital improvement program target specific infill areas? • Does the city/county offer educedr costs (permit fees or system development charges) for small projects to encourage infill? Development Review Procedures • Does the development review and approval process provide relief for smaller or less complex projects? For example, does the code require a discretionary review process with notice and public hearing for “all” apartments and town- homes, regardless of project size or location? • Do infill and edevelopmentr projects tend to require more variances than open land projects? Does the city/county provide a simpler and faster alternative for minor exceptions and adjustments to code criteria and standards? • Is there an expedited review of infill and redevelopment projects (e.g., completeness checks; staff reviews; scheduling of notices, decisions and hearings, as applicable)?

Source: OTAK (1999)

review procedures. The sidebar above provides selected questions that are excerpted from the audit worksheets. As a part of this project, OTAK (the consultant) reviewed the City of Brookings, Oregon’s, land development code and other downtown planning documents, then prepared a comprehensive code audit. The purpose of the audit was to eliminate roadblocks and disincentives for redevelopment in the downtown. For illustrative excerpts, see the sidebar on page 15.

14 EXCERPTS FROM A LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE AUDIT, CITY OF BROOKINGS, OREGON, DOWNTOWN CODE PROJECT

Consistency Code Section with Objectives Code Amendment Concepts

To encourage mixed-use, consider permitting small- scale lodging uses (e.g., bed May be in conflict with General Commercial and breakfast inns), and mixed-use, pedestrian (C-3 District), single-family uses in con- orientation, and parking Permitted Uses junction with a commercial objectives use on the same lot (e.g., living space above artist studio, retail, or office).

Consider expanding the area of downtown not May be in conflict with subject to off-street parking Off-street parking overall redevelopment requirements and study objectives an option for in-lieu fees used to defray some or all the cost of public parking improvements.

Consider allowing “off- premises” parking through Location of parking May be in conflict with centralized parking lots as facilities mixed-use objective an alternative to off-street parking for individual uses.

If single family dwellings are allowed with a commercial use in the downtown, Home occupations Potential conflict the home occupation standards should not apply. The existing standards are not appropriate for downtown mixed-use Source: OTAK (1999) development.

WHAT ARE THE ALTERNATIVES FOR CONDUCTING AN AUDIT? The first choice a local government must make is whether to conduct a smart growth audit (see also the section below on implementing a smart growth audit). Since a smart growth audit holds no legal significance, it does not tie the hands of the local governing, body and thus there is little legal risk in choosing to conduct a smart growth audit. Smart growth audits can differ in their comprehensiveness, and so another set of decisions surround the issues of what should be audited (e.g., all plans, some policies, or all plans and policies) and to what extent (i.e., level of detail) growth policies and regulations will be evaluated by a smart growth auditor. In addition, smart growth audits can be for a single local government only, or they can involve several local governments from a regional perspective. Three alternatives are discussed here: (1) doing nothing, (2) conducting a basic-level audit, and (3) conducting a comprehensive smart growth audit.

15 Alternative 1. Status Quo: Elect Not to Conduct an Audit It is up to the local government and its citizens to decide the type of growth they want in their community. Some communities may choose not to conduct an audit because they do not wish to embrace the concepts of smart growth. Indeed, suburban communities may prefer lower density, scattered development with few urban amenities over the higher density, mixed-use development that is promoted by smart growth principles. Although sprawl is often considered a pejorative term, some view sprawl as the embodiment of the American Dream, providing opportunities for homeowners who wish to have single family homes on larger lots separated from work and shopping opportunities. Others object in principle to any sort of land-use planning effort. According to the Sierra Club (2000), the costs of sprawl can include increased traffic, air and water pollution, and taxes, in addition to crowded schools and the destruction of natural resources and farmland. It is the prerogative of a local government to decide whether to use its growth policies to promote smart growth. The costs of sprawl, however, affect us The basic-level smart growth individually, regionally, and as a society, which is why efforts such as the Atlanta Regional Commission’s Regional Development Plan (RDP) are audit template is intended to encouraging quality growth. be suitable for virtually any Alternative 2. Conduct a Basic-level Audit of Selected Plans, Policies, Programs, or Regulations of a Single Local Government local government, regardless Local government planners may want to conduct a basic audit of major planning and regulatory documents as a prelude to amendment processes. of size or characteristics Other local government planners may be constrained by time and resources (exurban, rural, suburban, or and need a short-cut but reasonable approach. The sidebar on the following page provides a template for conducting basic-level smart growth audits. urban). It is organized by type of document audited (comprehensive plan, zoning ordinance, subdivision and land development regulations, and capital improvement program) and by five major categories of smart growth (land use, housing, transportation, environment, and infrastructure), where applicable to the type of document. The questions are derived from the comprehensive smart growth audit checklist (see Appendix A). The basic-level smart growth audit template is intended to be suitable for virtually any local government, regardless of size or characteristics (exurban, rural, suburban, or urban). Auditors who use the basic template should remain open, while the audit is conducted, to including other questions related to smart growth; that is, the brevity of the template should not preclude auditors from adding inquiries that fit in the local context.

Alternative 3. Conduct a Comprehensive Smart Growth Audit of Plans, Policies, Programs, and Regulations For auditors who want to delve into more particulars, this report provides a much more detailed template for conducting a comprehensive smart growth audit (see Appendix A: “A Recommended Comprehensive Smart Growth Audit Checklist with Commentary”). The template, which was developed for the Atlanta Regional Commission in 2001, has not been applied yet in practice. It asks questions that necessitate a thorough analysis of a local government’s comprehensive plan, functional plans, capital improvement programs, zoning ordinance, and regulations governingland development, subdivisions, and the environment. An important feature of the template is the “commentary section.” Audi- tors should not expect to finish their report without having to explain to stakeholders why a given criterion satisfies the designation of smart growth. The comprehensive smart growth audit checklist suggests rationales for the evaluation criteria.

16 A TEMPLATE FOR CONDUCTING BASIC-LEVEL SMART GROWTH AUDITS COMPREHENSIVE PLAN Land Use • Is the land-use plan efficient in terms of the amount of undeveloped land devoted to residential uses when compared with the projections of residential land needed? • Does the land-use analysis identify in quantitative terms (i.e., number of acres and preferably buildout potential in numbers of units) what the potential is for residential infill development and commercial redevelopment? • Does the land use element contain an analysis of developed residential densities and how they relate to planned densities and densities permitted by zoning districts? • Does the land-use plan designate areas, where appropriate, for mixed-use development? Housing • Does the housing element of the comprehensive plan contain a housing needs assessment? • Does the comprehensive plan establish a policy of providing for a wide range of housing types (detached single-family, duplex, manufactured home, apartment, etc.)? Transportation • Do transportation policies and the future transportation system provide for local street networks (as opposed to the conventional hierarchical system of arterials, collectors, and local streets)? Environment • Does the plan establish a goal, policies, and implementation measures to set aside a certain percentage of total land area in the community as open space or green space? Infrastructure • Does the comprehensive plan provide clear discussions of how water and sewer infrastructure policies are tied to the goals and objectives of the land-use plan? Transportation plan? • Do water and sewer facility master plans provide for the phasing of future trunk water and sewer extensions into areas designated for development in the short-term, versus allowing such lines to be extended without restraint anywhere in the community? ZONING ORDINANCE Land Use • Do minimum lot sizes allow for urban-size lots? • Is at least some of the residential land in the community planned and zoned for densities between eight and 15 dwelling units per acre, with even higher densities provided for in urban centers? • Is fringe land zoned as exclusively agricultural (i.e., a holding category), or does the zoning ordinance include a substantial minimum lot size that discourages single- family tract housing and preserves large sites for viable farm use? • Does the local zoning ordinance provide at least one or more zoning districts that allow mixes of residential and commercial uses? Housing • Do planned unit development (PUD) regulations provide for an appropriate mixture of housing and jobs, or do the PUD regulations result in predominantly single-family residential developments with no jobs nearby? • Does the zoning ordinance allow for accessory apartments within single-family residential zoning districts? • Are minimum lot sizes set low enough in at least one residential zoning district to provide for homeownership for all income levels? (continued)

17 A TEMPLATE FOR CONDUCTING BASIC-LEVEL SMART GROWTH AUDITS (continued) Transportation • Are land-use regulations transit friendly or transit supportive? • Do land-use regulations include maximum parking ratios (i.e., a cap on the number of parking spaces that can be built in a particular development) in addition to minimum parking requirements? Environment • Do all (or most) zoning districts require a minimum open space ratio (i.e., percentage of land area for each development that must be open space)? • Do local land-use regulations prohibit development within, and the filling of, floodways and floodplains? • Do engineering construction specifications for parking lots allow for porous pavements where appropriate? SUBDIVISION AND LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS Transportation • Are sidewalks required within new residential subdivisions? • Do development regulations require the installation of a sidewalk along existing public streets abutting the development where such sidewalk does not already exist? • Do land-use regulations encourage, if not mandate, the provision of interparcel connections between individual developments, where compatible? Environment • Do local land-use regulations provide for conservation subdivisions or cluster subdivisions as a matter of right? Infrastructure • Are the street standards for minimum right-of-way and pavement widths reasonable? CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM Environment • Has the community considered a special funding measure such as a special local option sales tax or general obligation bond referendum for acquisition of greenspaces? Infrastructure • Does the capital improvement program provide for the maintenance of current roads and existing transportation systems before spending money on new ones?

The comprehensive checklist provides 78 questions in 16 categories, as summarized in the sidebar on page 19 (see Appendix A for the entire checklist). The comprehensive smart growth audit checklist has categories pertaining to physical development (land consumption, direction of growth, urban form, others), the environment, and physical infrastructure (including housing). Like most audit templates, the checklist contains questions about the permitting process. The checklist is unique, however, in its inclusion of regionalism and intergovernmental relations as a category of inquiry. Local governments may decide to undertake a more limited approach and focus on one topic (e.g., urban growth patterns) due to constraints on time, budget, or level of interest. One local government might decide that reforming its development review processes should receive emphasis, for instance, and conduct a study of the procedural aspects of its land-use regulations. Another local government may study how zoning, land development, and subdivision regulations provide obstacles to affordable housing. Yet

18 COMPREHENSIVE SMART GROWTH AUDIT CHECKLIST CATEGORIES, ATLANTA REGIONAL COMMISSION

Efficient land consumption (4) Water quality (4)

Direction of growth Air quality (2) (inward, not outward) (5) Housing (11) Density (5) Transportation (12)

Urban form (2) Parking (5)

Land use (7) Water, sewer, and other infrastructure (3) Jobs-housing balance (3) Permitting processes (2) Open space/green space (6) Regionalism/intergovernmental rela- Energy conservation (4) tions (3)

Note: Number of questions shown in parentheses. Source: Jerry Weitz & Associates, Inc. (2001)

another local government concerned about traffic congestion could analyze the relationship of its comprehensive and transportation plans and land-use regulations to smart transportation principles (e.g., multiple modes of travel). Hence, the comprehensive checklist can be applied to investigations of only one substantive area of planning. After the smart growth audit identifies problems and prospects relative to smart growth, the local government should implement some or all of the audit’s recommendations. Implementation of a smart growth audit might include modifications to the comprehensive plan, zoning ordinance, design requirements, specific plans, capital improvement programs, or development review processes.

IMPLEMENTATION GUIDELINES/STEPS This section provides a sequential, step-by-step method for conducting a smart growth audit. A recommended procedure and scope of a comprehensive smart growth audit is shown in Figure 2 on page 6.

Step 1. Define Smart Growth in the Context of Your Own Community What principles of smart growth are appropriate and acceptable in your community? (See Table 1 on page 3.) This step involves defining smart growth, selecting from a list of smart growth principles, and achieving local consensus on these definitions and principles. Both the Charlotte-Mecklenburg and Durham, North Carolina, smart growth audits (see the section above on applications) started with definitions of smart growth and listings of smart growth topics and principles. This step thus involves political processes: the various stakeholders debate and propose definitions and principles, and the local governing body reconciles conflicting views so as to establish a working concept of smart growth. The Charlotte-Mecklenburg auditors, for example, chose to blend the smart growth principles from the American Planning Association (APA) (APA 1999, 13-2, 13-3) and the National Association of Home Builders (NAHB) (NAHB 1999, 1-2, 7-8). Local smart growth auditors should refer to the smart growth topics in Table 1 and can consider the appropriateness of specific smart growth principles provided in Appendix A.

19 Step 2. Decide Whether to Conduct an Audit Making a decision on whether to conduct a smart growth audit is addressed in detail in the section above on alternatives. The auditor should consult with the local planning commission and any other development-related advisory boards and commissions with a stake in long-range planning, development processing, and community building about whether to conduct an audit. The local governing body will then need to make a formal decision whether to conduct the audit. Approval by the local governing body is necessary, of course, if the audit requires additional spending or if it is to be adopted as part of a plan, program, or budget. A local government that determines in advance it wants to do a smart growth audit should include the task in its short-term work program (i.e., the implementation component of the local comprehensive plan). As noted previously, a plan or work program update are good opportunities to include a smart growth auditing task. Certain administrators with appropriate staff, budget, and authority, however, may choose to proceed without governing body approval and to complete various smart growth auditing tasks so as Using a systematic procedure to use the results to inform the planning and implementation processes. such as the checklist in Step 3. Determine the Scope and Content of the Audit As stated above, the scope and content of a smart growth audit might differ Appendix A, most planners considerably from community to community. A comprehensive approach, such as the one shown in Figure 2 on page 6, is recommended. and perhaps some stakeholder The scope of the smart growth audit will depend on each jurisdiction’s specific needs and desires. Local governments should develop a list of all groups are quite capable of the plans, policies, programs, and regulations that will be included (see reviewing the content of plans Figure 1 on page 4 for a general framework). If a comprehensive audit cannot be undertaken, the auditor should pay special attention to those policies and regulations and judging and regulations that have the strongest influence on shaping growth in the community. their consistency with smart Step 4. Select an Auditor and Decide Who Will Review the Audit growth principles. Certain larger planning staffs in metropolitan areas may have the resources and expertise to conduct a smart growth audit. Using a systematic procedure such as the checklist in Appendix A, most planners and perhaps some stakeholder groups are quite capable of reviewing the content of plans and regulations and judging their consistency with smart growth principles. However, since there are complex interdependencies among various plans and regulations, careful attention and systematic evaluation is needed. There is also some “science” to the analysis of content (i.e., techniques of content analysis) with which local staff members may not have experience. Even if the local staff or one or more community organizations are capable of conducting an audit, there are advantages to using a consultant. An outside expert is more likely to see the limitations of policies local staff work with every day. An outside consultant can also bring smart growth expertise not available on staff and can quickly organize the audit and see it to successful completion without interruptions. Outside expertise from consultants sometimes lends an extra measure of credibility to the evaluation process as well. The consultant should have the proper qualifications, the ability and experience to conduct a neutral, objective evaluation, and some familiarity with the needs of the city, county, or region being audited. The local government also needs to decide who will review and comment on the audit. The local planning agency should assign a project manager, whether or not a consultant is used. Regardless of who prepares the audit,

20 it is useful to establish an independent review team or panel. Alternatively, the planning commission might be assigned review responsibilities in smaller local jurisdictions. If a review team is assembled, it should include planners, academics with skills in program evaluation, and representatives of the design, land development, and building construction professions who have appropriate backgrounds and interests in smart growth. Environmental health and civil engineering professionals should also be considered. The review team may be used simply to review and comment on the final product. However, such a panel might be called upon to assist in reviewing plans and regulations—a labor-intensive task—and to help the consultant explain to a broader public how policies and regulations encourage or discourage smart growth (Avin and Holden 2000).

Step 5. Choose Criteria or Develop a Checklist for Evaluation A review team should include This step involves developing a set of criteria or a checklist against which existing growth policies can be compared. These criteria should relate di- planners, academics with skills rectly to the smart growth definitions and principles agreed upon in advance by the community. Appendix A contains smart growth criteria in the form in program evaluation, and of a checklist. That checklist also provides some commentary (primarily rationales) for selected evaluation criteria, which can be used to educate representatives of the design, stakeholders and elected officials on the merits of smart growth. For those local governments that find the comprehensive checklist too imposing, the land development, and building basic-level audit template described above might be more appropriate. Au- ditors can also vary the templates provided in this report or develop their construction professions. own to match their local context. Environmental health and civil Step 6. Compare the Contents of All or Selected Documents engineering professionals with the Evaluation Criteria This step involves assessing (and analyzing the content of) all the plans, poli- should also be considered. cies, and implementation measures related to development and determining the extent to which they encourage and facilitate smart growth principles. As mentioned previously, this assessment should also consider how the policies work together as a system and note any inconsistencies or gaps. According to Avin and Holden (2000), this step’s assessment and content analysis make it the most time-consuming part of the auditing process. To facilitate this step, the Charlotte-Mecklenburg auditors divided the inquiry into four categories: 1. Conceptual completeness (e.g., are the ideas well-defined, sufficiently detailed, and cross-referenced?) 2. Analytical adequacy (e.g., is there sufficient up-to-date data to define the extent of the problem?) 3. Level of implementation (e.g., is the element clearly embodied and implemented in codes or other tools?) 4. Institutional readiness (e.g., is an agency identified for implementation?) (LDR International et al. 1999)

Although that evaluation framework is not critical, it reflects the need to introduce some rigor to the evaluation. It may prove useful in some jurisdictions. Avin and Holden (2000) suggest that during this step, the auditors should produce a synopsis of the findings for each document so that others can quickly grasp their significance for smart growth. The synopses in

21 Charlotte-Mecklenburg included the title, date, and author; a summary of the document’s main points; the document’s relationship to smart growth; and the ideas or responses generated. Reviews were typically summarized in two or three pages. An “ideas and questions” section always appeared on a separate page and was used as an in-house tool for clarification and frank comments only (Avin and Holden 2000).

Step 7. Implement the Recommendations of the Smart Growth Audit and Monitor Progress Implementation is the most important step in the smart growth auditing process. Local governments will first need to determine which recommendations to implement. Officials might consider the following questions when making these decisions (based on Mazmanian and Sabatier 1989): • Do the audit’s recommendations provide clear and consistent (measur- able) objectives? • Is the extent of change modest and reasonable to accomplish? Smart growth proponents • Are adequate resources allocated to implementation? should be realistic in • Is a single agency responsible for overall implementation? Does it have establishing expectations the skill and commitment to implement the recommendations of the audit? for success. It is essential • In cases where more than one agency is responsible for implementation, are the appropriate mechanisms in place to coordinate their actions? that an inventory of baseline • How might socioeconomic conditions and future technologies affect conditions be compiled so implementation? that changes from the existing The recommendations of the smart growth audit should then be accepted formally by local elected officials and integrated systematically into the local conditions can be measured government’s short-term work program of the comprehensive plan. This over time. task may be as simple as describing what regulations to adopt or amend and determining when to adopt them, who is responsible, and what their esti- mated cost will be. On the other hand, a comprehensive smart growth audit may suggest numerous tasks that require more than just the planning staff to implement. For instance, before changing its permitting processes, a local government might consult with a development review committee comprised of developers, builders, and members of several city or county departments. In such a case, implementation of that task alone might require more than a year to complete. Local planning departments that prepare annual updates of work programs should also insert detailed provisions for implementing the selected recommendations of the smart growth audit. Depending on local circumstances, carrying out the audit’s recommendations should involve a dynamic, iterative process of implementation and then reformulation, then back to implementation again. This is why implementation and monitoring should be understood as one unified step in the process rather than as distinct tasks. For instance, a city might find that its incentives for infill development are not working. It will then review its earlier policies and substitute new, more effective actions. Implementation must be well underway before progress can be monitored. Smart growth proponents should be realistic in establishing expectations for success. It is essential that an inventory of baseline conditions be compiled so that changes from the existing conditions (i.e., progress toward smart growth principles) can be measured over time.

22 During the last decade, policy implementation specialists have developed a technique known as benchmarking, which can be used to measure progress. To date, most of the benchmarks have been developed to measure the quality and adequacy of municipal facilities and services (Ammons 2001, Oregon Progress Board 1994, Hatry et al. 1992). These sources might be consulted for ideas, and perhaps they can be adapted for use in smart growth monitoring programs. Measuring progress may be as simple as “checking off” whether certain regulations have been adopted. When regulations themselves are the desired outcome, they will probably need to be revisited soon after adoption and implementation to see if they are achieving their purposes and intentions. On the other hand, measuring smart growth principles such as compact growth can be challenging. There is much less literature on measuring the effectiveness of growth management programs. Moreover, literature on monitoring the implementation of smart growth principles is virtually nonexistent. Some research has Monitoring certain smart been completed in the area of growth management performance standards (Porter 1996), operational measures of contiguous development patterns growth principles like compact (Weitz 2000, Weitz and Moore 1998), and “measures of excessive urbanizable land conversion” (Weitz 1999, 301–302). To use measures of concentrated growth is a new frontier and contiguous spatial development patterns, local governments probably where researchers have not need a geographic information system that keeps track of the geographic array of new building permits issued over time. gone before. More operational Monitoring certain smart growth principles like compact growth is a new frontier where researchers have not gone before. More operational principles principles of smart growth of smart growth need to be developed before we can fully monitor progress. need to be developed before ISSUES OF EFFECTIVENESS AND A LIST OF DO’S AND DON’TS Smart growth audits are a relatively new tool. The pioneering audits con- we can fully monitor progress. ducted in Charlotte-Mecklenburg and Durham, North Carolina, suggest that smart growth audits have great potential for helping communities improve their growth policies. It will take several years, however, to properly assess how these audits ultimately affected local codes and growth practices. As studies in Indiana and Illinois suggest, audits tell only part of the story—implementation is the more important consideration. An Illinois study, described in greater detail above, suggests that zoning codes are not a primary determinant of future development. In fact, standards for most new developments in Illinois were negotiated on a case-by-case basis during the annexation process. Furthermore, zoning may not represent a significant constraint for developers, who often build below the maximum densities allowed in local zoning codes (American Planning Association 2001b). Similarly, a study in Indiana reveals that county land-use codes have had less effect on developments than expected. The Indiana study cites numerous examples where developments have been exempted from local subdivision regulations. Moreover, it finds that other local development codes in Indiana have been watered down or significantly altered by the practice of granting variances. Other research reveals that smart growth goals are occasionally contradicted by infrastructure practices (funding patterns for sewers, water, etc.) (American Planning Association 2001b). This latter point underscores the importance of reviewing implementation measures for internal consistency. From the example applications presented above, a number of practical considerations are summarized here: • Local government planners need to decide whether they should initiate a smart growth audit. If they don’t, others might. The examples in this

23 report show that many different entities may sponsor smart growth audits: private business organizations (e.g., the Regional Business Coalition of Metropolitan Atlanta), nonprofit organizations (e.g., 1000 Friends of Washington, Sierra Club), or state agencies (e.g., Indiana Land Resources Council, Illinois Department of Natural Resources). • Make sure the auditor spends enough time with the local planning staff so that the auditor understands the local planning environment. • If a steering committee or task force directs the smart growth audit, make sure the group represents many interests, including both supporters and opponents of smart growth. • Establish the mission and ground rules for the task force in advance. Specify their degree of authority (e.g., will they be a simple forum for community input, or will they manage the process and adopt recommendations?). • Highlight and build upon existing smart growth policies. Be sure to give credit to policies and practices that already embrace smart growth principles. Be diplomatic when pointing out policies or areas that could use improvement. A positive tone helps facilitate the review. • The auditor should educate the task force about practical smart growth techniques used in other jurisdictions. • Make sure that some of the recommendations of the audit have wide appeal and are easily achievable. This will help get the implementation process off to a good start. • Keep interested parties informed, including staff in affected agencies, elected officials, and civic leaders. Use brochures, newsletters, and web sites to disseminate information about the smart growth auditing effort. • Have a core team (e.g., agency heads, city or county managers, and planning staff) review a working draft of the audit before its release. Their corrections will be invaluable. • Unless the local jurisdiction already has a clear vision, consider conducting a visioning exercise at the outset of the smart growth audit process. Visioning exercises are useful in describing how the community will ap- pear in 20 to 40 years if smart growth principles are, or are not, adopted. • Realize that the audit is a means to an end and not an end in itself. Implementation of a smart growth audit’s recommendations is the more important task. • Be comprehensive and systematic if possible. For a recommended process, see Figure 2 on page 6. Look at all of the pieces of the regulatory puzzle. For example, auditors in Durham, North Carolina, went beyond traditional documents (e.g., comprehensive plans and zoning ordinances) to include health department codes (e.g., septic tank regulations), which can significantly shape development patterns (Luck interview). • If for whatever reason a comprehensive smart growth audit cannot be conducted, consider alternatives such as an intensive evaluation of a single program or only a few programs. Or consider a “subject area” approach, such as a focus on transportation aspects of smart growth, until more time and resources are available to conduct a more comprehensive audit.

24 • Try to involve all relevant jurisdictions in the auditing process, including special districts.

Finally, consider using the many smart growth tools that are described in the Georgia Quality Growth Toolkit and elsewhere. Other tool descriptions can be used to educate citizens, stakeholders, and elected officials on the merits of implementing specific smart growth principles. Also use the web resources in the reference section of this tool description for more information.

APPENDIX A: A Recommended Comprehensive Smart Growth Audit Checklist with Commentary

TOPIC DOCUMENT YES NO REVIEWER COMMENTS

Efficient Land Consumption: Population and Employment Projections: Comprehensive ❐ ❐ Are they realistic in terms of regional and Plan state projections? Commentary: Population projections provide the basis for all other planning efforts, including projections of households, numbers of housing units, acreage needed for residential land use, job base, and community facilities and services. Population projections should not exceed any population projections for the jurisdiction published by a regional or state agency.

Are housing unit projections based on a Comprehensive ❐ ❐ housing needs assessment? Plan

Is the amount of future residential land use shown on the land-use plan based on calculations of the number of acres needed for each type of residential land-use category and prevailing or planned densities (e.g., 200 acres Comprehensive ❐ ❐ of R-1 vacant land at 3 units per acre = 600 Plan units; 75 acres of MR vacant land at 8 units per acre = 600 units, etc.), based on reasonable projections of housing units by type?

Is the land-use plan efficient in terms of the amount of undeveloped land devoted to Comprehensive ❐ ❐ residential uses when compared with the Plan projections of residential land needed? Commentary: “Efficient” is defined here to mean that the amount of vacant acreage devoted to residential uses in the future land-use plan should be approximately equal to the projections of land needed for residential use based on the housing needs assessment. A smart growth land-use plan does not designate excessive amounts of future residential land use when they are not needed. Exceeding the projected residential acreage needs by more than 15 percent in the land-use plan (which can be shown by calculating the difference between existing residential land-use acreage and future residential land-use acreage shown on the plan) would probably be grounds for a finding that the plan is not achieving smart growth. Excessive residential acreage in a plan will encourage consumption of more land than is needed for residential uses and encourage residential development to spread out at lower densities than those suggested in the land-use plan.

Direction of Growth (Inward, Not Outward) Do land-use policies favor an inward “direction of growth” toward existing developed areas (where such areas exist), Comprehensive ❐ ❐ instead of promoting or favoring new Plan development on the fringe of developed areas (i.e., “greenfield”)? Does the land-use analysis identify in quantitative terms (i.e., number of acres and Comprehensive ❐ ❐ preferably buildout potential in numbers of Plan units) what the potential is for residential infill development? Are there specific policies that promote and Comprehensive ❐ ❐ encourage infill development (where such Plan areas exist)? Commentary: Efficient land use, or smart growth, means that undeveloped land within built-up areas should be used rather than left vacant because infill development saves on the consumption of land at the urban fringe and often can make use of existing infrastructure (e.g., roads, water and sewer line capacity, etc.). Local governments cannot be smart about infill development unless they have made an inventory of vacant lands that can serve as infill development sites. A land-use plan is smart when it studies the capacity of residential infill land (currently vacant or underused), determines the capacity of that land for new residential units, and poses policies, strategies, and regulations supportive of development on infill sites. 27

TOPIC DOCUMENT YES NO REVIEWER COMMENTS

Direction of Growth (Inward, Not Outward) continued Does the land-use plan contain an analysis of redevelopment potential? If it finds there is redevelopment potential, does the land-use Comprehensive ❐ ❐ analysis identify what the redevelopment Plan potential means in terms of new housing units and square footage of nonresidential development?

Does the plan recognize the need to reclaim and reuse any temporarily obsolete or Comprehensive ❐ ❐ abandoned sites (TOADs) and to clean up and Plan reclaim for future use any “brownfields”?

Density Does the land-use element contain an analysis of developed residential densities and how Comprehensive ❐ ❐ they relate to planned densities and densities Plan permitted by zoning districts? Commentary: Cities and counties should calculate the built residential densities (i.e., number of units per acre) of recent developments to determine the average or prevailing densities being constructed. These figures on existing densities should be compared to the land-use plan for differences or inconsistencies. They should also be compared to allowable densities according to the various zoning districts in which the recent development is located. If actual (built) densities are much less than planned densities, or if actual densities are much lower than the maximum densities permitted by zoning district, residential development is not occurring efficiently with regard to land consumption and use of planned infrastructure. Smart plans bring actual (developed) densities in line with densities recommended in plans and allowed by zoning ordinances. In other words, if the number of residential acres consumed vastly exceeds the number of acres projected to be used during a given time period, residential growth has occurred inefficiently, counter to accepted principles of smart growth.

Do land-use policies encourage the establishment of minimum (not just maximum) densities to promote the efficient use of lands designated for higher densities? Alternatively, Comprehensive ❐ ❐ does the plan address any findings that density Plan allowances in the land-use plan and zoning district have been underutilized?

Do land-use regulations establish minimum Zoning ❐ ❐ densities to promote efficient use of lands Ordinance designated for higher densities?

Commentary: Underuse of residential lands, due to building at lower densities than planned and zoned, results in the land consumption for residential use that is faster than planned. Therefore more land is needed for residential uses, which probably means that land needs will be satisfied by removing more land from productive agricultural use at the urban fringe. One way to achieve more efficient land use for residential development is to establish minimum densities in areas where it is very important that planned densities be achieved (e.g., around transit stations or in areas master planned for sewer service).

Do minimum lot sizes allow for Zoning ❐ ❐ urban-sized lots? Ordinance Commentary: City zoning ordinances should provide a significant portion of single-family zoning devoted to single-family development on lots of 5,000-6,000 square feet. Cities that provide zoning for urban lots should receive higher scores in a smart growth audit. (Also see discussion under “housing.”)

Is at least some of the residential land in the community planned and zoned for densities Comprehensive ❐ ❐ between eight and 15 dwelling units per acre, Plan and Zoning with even higher densities provided Ordinance for in urban centers?

28 TOPIC DOCUMENT YES NO REVIEWER COMMENTS

Urban Form: Does the land-use plan propose a sequential, phased pattern of future development in areas Comprehensive ❐ ❐ contiguous to developed areas so that a Plan compact urban (or suburban) form can be obtained? Commentary: Smart growth means that urban areas are expanded efficiently (only as much land is used as is needed) and in a pattern where new growth is contiguous to existing developed areas. To develop in a contiguous and compact form means that scattered development and sprawl can be avoided. Sequential development also provides for a better return on the public investment in public facilities, and it reduces the linear footage that facilities must be extended.

Does the zoning ordinance zone much of the fringe land as exclusively agricultural (i.e., a holding category) or with a substantial Zoning ❐ ❐ minimum lot size that discourages single- Ordinance family tract housing and preserves large sites for viable farm use? Commentary: Smart growth means that land-use controls inhibit the scattering of low-density residential uses at the urban fringe—a condition that constitutes the epitome of sprawl. Many local governments in the metropolitan Atlanta region have “agricultural” districts, but they allow a minimum lot size of one acre. Minimum lot sizes need to be much higher (i.e., 10 acres is probably the smallest land area that can function effectively as a farm; preferably 25–40 acres) to discourage “exurban” development, “hobby” farms that are really residential tracts,“ranchettes,” and other forms of low-density suburban sprawl. In cases where large agricultural minimum lot sizes are not feasible, the smart growth auditor should look for other ways that the comprehensive plan and regulations discourage the consumption of agricultural lands on the urban fringe, such as a greenbelt or taxation policies.

Land Use Does the land-use plan designate areas, where Comprehensive ❐ ❐ appropriate, for mixed-use development? Plan

Do plan policies discuss opportunities, and encourage the mixing of land uses at the Comprehensive ❐ ❐ building, site, and neighborhood levels? Plan

Does the local zoning ordinance provide at least one or more zoning districts that allow Zoning ❐ ❐ mixes of residential and commercial uses? Ordinance

If the community has a downtown, are residential uses allowed in the central business Zoning ❐ ❐ zoning district? Ordinance

Do the future land-use plan and zoning ordinance allow for compatible, small-scale Comprehensive ❐ ❐ neighborhood commercial uses (e.g., corner Plan and Zoning stores) adjacent to or within residential Ordinance neighborhoods?

Does the local zoning ordinance provide for Zoning ❐ ❐ traditional neighborhood development (TND)? Ordinance

Are home occupation regulations flexible enough to allow a wide variety of telework Zoning ❐ ❐ activities while maintaining the peace and Ordinance quiet of the neighborhoods in which they are located? Commentary: Mixing of land uses is a major tenet of smart growth. Plan policies and land-use regulations should provide for— and even encourage—mixed land uses, especially residential and commercial. Such mixtures allow people to work and reside in the same area, sometimes even in the same building. It is generally accepted that mixing land uses allows for walking more and reduces vehicle miles traveled, which can help to improve air quality and relieve traffic congestion.

TOPIC DOCUMENT YES NO REVIEWER COMMENTS

Jobs-Housing Balance Does the comprehensive plan consider the Comprehensive ❐ ❐ appropriateness of balancing jobs and housing, Plan both qualitatively and quantitatively?

Do any small area plans or corridor plans for the community consider and integrate the Subarea Plans ❐ ❐ notion of jobs-housing balance?

Do planned unit development (PUD) regulations provide for an appropriate mixture of housing Zoning ❐ ❐ and jobs, or do they result in predominantly Ordinance single-family residential developments with no jobs nearby? Commentary: The concept of jobs-housing balance (see separate tool description in the Georgia Quality Growth Toolkit) holds that communities should plan for a rough match between the number of jobs and the number of housing units. A desirable range is approximately 1.5 housing units for every job in the community. Plans should also investigate whether the characteristics of housing in the community match the needs of workers residing in the community and whether the types of jobs in the community match the skills of the resident work force (i.e., consider the “qualitative” aspects of balance). A quantitative balance of jobs and housing does not necessarily signal smart growth, especially if there are qualitative mismatches between jobs and housing.

Open Space/Green Space Does the plan establish a goal, policies, and implementation measures to set aside a certain Comprehensive ❐ ❐ percentage of total land area in the community Plan as open space or green space?

Do all (or most) zoning districts require a minimum open-space ratio (i.e., percentage of Zoning ❐ ❐ land area for each development that must be Ordinance open space)?

Do land-use regulations require developers to consider connecting open spaces and Zoning ❐ ❐ greenways to existing destinations and open Ordinance space reservations? Are open spaces and green spaces accessible Parks and Recreation to all or most of the residents of the or Green Space ❐ ❐ community? Master Plan Commentary: Many cities and counties in Georgia have developed green space plans, which establish the goal of maintaining a minimum of 20 percent of the jurisdiction’s land area as green space. Smart growth plans establish a goal for green space acquisition and permanent protection, provide an inventory of obstacles to attaining the goal, and establish specific programs of implementation to meet the goal. Counties and cities that are not eligible to participate in a state’s green space program should nonetheless have goals, policies, and programs in place to acquire and preserve green space.

Has the community considered funding Comprehensive measures, such as a special local option Plan; funding ❐ ❐ sales tax or a general obligation bond components referendum for acquisition of green space?

Do local land-use regulations provide for Zoning Ordinance “conservation subdivisions” or “cluster and Subdivision ❐ ❐ subdivisions” as a matter of right (versus Regulations requiring a conditional use permit)? Commentary: Open space, conservation, and cluster subdivision practices are effective ways of setting aside green space and open space. Local regulations are not smart unless they provide for—and even encourage—these types of subdivisions. When clustering or conservation design are not allowed, developers subdivide land into individual lots that rarely preserve natural features and open space.

30 TOPIC DOCUMENT YES NO REVIEWER COMMENTS

Energy Conservation

Does the comprehensive plan identify energy Comprehensive ❐ ❐ conservation as a goal, and do policies exist to Plan promote energy conservation?

Do land-use regulations require the planting of Zoning Ordinance shade trees along new subdivision roads and and Subdivision ❐ ❐ within parking lots? Regulations

Does the community have guidelines for Design ❐ ❐ designing development sites and buildings Guidelines for energy efficiency?

Does the local zoning code provide an option Zoning ❐ ❐ for encouraging subdivisions to use solar Ordinance power? Commentary: There are multiple ways a local plan can promote energy conservation. For instance, tree protection ordinances help retain and enhance shade, which reduces cooling costs. Shade tree requirements along streets and parking lots provide aesthetic benefits in addition to helping to attain energy conservation objectives. Local governments can adopt design guidelines for energy efficient buildings and site designs. Though more popular in the 1970s than today, changing local codes to facilitate efficient energy use can promote the design of subdivisions with solar access, which then facilitates solar panels and cells for domestic energy use.

Water Quality Do local land-use regulations prohibit Zoning Ordinance; ❐ ❐ development within, and the filling of, Other Regulations floodways and floodplains?

Have the community’s development regulations been revamped recently to Various land-use ❐ ❐ encourage or require best management regulations practices for water quality?

Does the local jurisdiction have the water- Various land-use ❐ ❐ quality ordinances in place? regulations

Has the community instituted programs of water-quality monitoring and other related Various land-use ❐ ❐ programs to ensure total maximum daily loads regulations (TMDLs) are not exceeded?

Air Quality Does the comprehensive plan discuss air Comprehensive ❐ ❐ quality and identify policies and Plan implementation measures to protect it?

If the community is in a “nonattainment” area, is the local plan consistent with, and does it Comprehensive ❐ ❐ reference, regional, and state goals for air- Plan quality management ?

Housing Does the housing element of the Comprehensive ❐ ❐ comprehensive plan contain a housing Plan needs assessment? Commentary: Georgia’s planning rules require a housing element and an assessment of future housing needs. However, most local governments have not completed rigorous, detailed assessments of housing needs by type of unit and income. A local plan cannot be smart unless it has forecasted the future housing needs of the community and ensured that land-use regulations provide for development practices to meet those forecasts.

31 TOPIC DOCUMENT YES NO REVIEWER COMMENTS

Housing (continued) Does the comprehensive plan provide for a wide range of housing types (detached Comprehensive ❐ ❐ single-family, duplex, manufactured home, Plan apartment, etc.)?

Do the use provisions within at least some of the residential zoning districts allow for a Zoning ❐ ❐ wide range of housing types by right (versus Ordinance requiring a conditional use permit)?

Does the comprehensive plan meet the Comprehensive ❐ ❐ housing needs of all income levels, as Plan determined by a housing needs assessment?

If the regional planning agency has established a fair-share allocation for the city or county that mandates a specific number of affordable Comprehensive ❐ ❐ housing units, does the comprehensive plan Plan reflect that goal and provide for its implementation?

Do local regulations allow for mixed-income Zoning ❐ ❐ housing developments? Ordinance

If the housing needs assessment identifies a need for multiple-family residences, does the Zoning ❐ ❐ zoning ordinance provide sufficient vacant Ordinance land to meet future needs?

Does the zoning ordinance allow for Zoning ❐ ❐ “accessory apartments” within single-family Ordinance residential zoning districts?

Are manufactured homes a use permitted Zoning ❐ ❐ outright in at least one residential zoning Ordinance district?

Are minimum lot sizes set low enough in at Zoning ❐ ❐ least one residential zoning district to provide Ordinance for homeownership for all income classes?

Does the local zoning ordinance provide flexibility for house sizes (e.g., does it allow Zoning ❐ ❐ small units versus establishing large Ordinance minimum floor areas for all dwelling units)? Commentary: Exclusionary zoning is the opposite of smart growth. A community’s zoning regulations are smart only if they provide reasonable and fair opportunities for diverse housing types and price ranges. Local governments can accomplish smart growth by reducing minimum lot sizes, eliminating or lowering minimum house sizes, providing for manufactured homes in one or more residential zoning districts, allowing accessory apartments, and encouraging apartment development where needed.

Transportation Does the comprehensive plan include a transportation element that addresses long- range needs for roads, sidewalks, bicycle Comprehensive ❐ ❐ paths, transit, freight movement, and water Plan and air travel (where appropriate)? Commentary: “Smart” comprehensive plans provide detailed assessments of travel needs via multiple modes.

32 TOPIC DOCUMENT YES NO REVIEWER COMMENTS

Transportation (continued) Do local transportation policies provide for the maintenance of current roads and existing Comprehensive ❐ ❐ transportation systems before spending money Plan on new ones?

Do transportation policies and the future transportation system provide for local street Comprehensive ❐ ❐ networks (as opposed to the conventional Plan hierarchical system of arterials, collectors, and local streets)?

Do development regulations have some requirement to consider and if appropriate Various land-use ❐ ❐ provide for new local streets at designated regulations intervals (e.g., every 1,500 feet)? Commentary: Over time, planners have learned that in addition to overreliance on automobile travel, a major cause of traffic congestion is the design of road systems. Conventional thinking, which is not considered smart growth, calls for local roads to empty onto collector roads that often empty onto a single (or a few) arterials. Because so few major routes of travel are available, traffic is concentrated on these few roads, resulting in congestion. Smart growth demands a road network with more than one means of through travel in any given area.

Does the comprehensive plan provide for an analysis of local street standards and Comprehensive ❐ ❐ recommendations for reducing excessive Plan right-of-way and pavement widths?

Have street standards been revised to lower Various land-use ❐ ❐ any excessive requirements for local regulations subdivision streets? Commentary: Many suburban street standards require excessive pavement widths for streets (e.g., from 29 to 36 feet). Smart growth means local streets are placed on a “diet” so that “skinny” streets result. Narrowing required pavement width (e.g., to 24 feet) reduces development costs and impervious surfaces, and may increase safety by lowering vehicle speeds.

Are sidewalks required within new residential Subdivision ❐ ❐ subdivisions? Regulations

Do land-use regulations encourage or require Various land-use ❐ ❐ the provision of bike paths in accordance with regulations a bikeway master plan?

Do development regulations require the installation of a sidewalk along existing public Various land-use ❐ ❐ streets abutting the development, where such regulations sidewalk does not already exist?

Do subdivision regulations allow the planning commission or local governing body to require the connection of subdivision streets to existing Subdivision ❐ ❐ streets and the stubbing of streets to allow Regulations connections to future subdivision developments?

Do land-use regulations encourage, if not mandate, the provision of interparcel Various land-use ❐ ❐ connections between individual developments, regulations where compatible? Commentary: Smart growth includes the objective of reducing reliance on major thoroughfares. Requiring driveways to connect with adjacent store parking lots, for example, is one way to reduce traffic on nearby thoroughfares.

33 TOPIC DOCUMENT YES NO REVIEWER COMMENTS

Transportation (continued) Are land-use regulations “transit-friendly” or Various land-use ❐ ❐ “transit supportive?” regulations

Commentary: Developments near rail stations and along bus routes need to be planned for the transit user. Smart growth here means requirements that pedestrian facilities connect from the transit corridor or rail station to nearby developments. It also means that businesses should be oriented to the transit user rather than the automobile. Various design changes are needed to make developments friendly to the transit user who will always approach a bus stop or train station on foot. For instance, large building setbacks from the major thoroughfare with parking lots in front and no designated pathways on-site make for a “pedestrian hostile” environment which is counter to the principles of smart growth. Land-use plans and regulations also need to ensure a certain density threshold in the area of rail stations and bus routes to ensure they have minimum ridership levels.

Parking Do parking regulations require excessive on- Zoning ❐ ❐ site parking requirements? Ordinance

Do land-use regulations include maximum parking ratios (i.e., a cap on the number of Zoning ❐ ❐ parking spaces that can be built in a particular Ordinance development) in addition to minimum parking requirements?

Do parking regulations provide for reductions Zoning ❐ ❐ of on-site spaces in places where transit is Ordinance available?

Is on-street parking allowed in places where it Zoning ❐ ❐ can be safely provided, such as in downtown Ordinance areas and pedestrian-retail districts? Commentary: Planners and policy makers now realize that minimum parking requirements in land-use codes have been excessive, as evidenced by the vast numbers of unused parking spaces in many parking lots. Smart growth means the reduction of excessive parking requirements and the creation of maximum parking thresholds for commercial, residential, and other developments.

Do engineering construction specifications for Construction ❐ ❐ parking lots allow for porous pavements where Specifications appropriate? Commentary: Porous pavements are environmentally smart because they allow the flow of stormwater into the ground, rather than as polluted runoff into streams and/or detention structures. There has been little research, however, to show that these pavements are viable alternatives to impervious surfaces. Generally, porous pavements are not designed to handle heavy loads such as garbage trucks. Practices today generally limit porous paving materials to overflow parking and areas that are not heavily used. Porous pavements also require provisions for cleaning or vacuuming the “pores”; without regular maintenance, they will become clogged and will no longer function as designed. Pavement engineers should be consulted when considering regulations allowing porous pavements.

Water, Sewer, and Other Infrastructure Does the comprehensive plan provide clear discussions of how water and sewer Comprehensive ❐ ❐ infrastructure policies are tied to the goals and Plan objectives of the land-use plan? Transportation plan?

Do water and sewer facility master plans provide for the systematic extension of future trunk water and sewer extensions into areas Comprehensive ❐ ❐ designated for development in the short-term, Plan versus allowing such lines to be extended without restraint anywhere in the community? Commentary: Some communities designate “urban service boundaries” beyond which the local government will not extend public water and sewer lines. Smart growth means tying facility planning and land use together. Controlling infrastructure is one of the most powerful means of guiding the urban form of a community (see related commentary on“urban form” above).

34 TOPIC DOCUMENT YES NO REVIEWER COMMENTS

Water, Sewer, and Other Infrastructure (continued) Are comprehensive plan plan policies Comprehensive ❐ ❐ consistent with the local school system’s Plan school-siting policies?

Permitting Processes Have land development permitting processes been comprehensively reviewed to identify opportunities for eliminating duplication, Special study; unfairness, excessive and unnecessary various land-use ❐ ❐ requirements, etc.? If so, have inefficient regulations processes been reformed?

Does the community’s building code provide flexibility in restoring historic structures, as Building ❐ ❐ opposed to rigid requirements that Code discourage such restoration?

Regionalism and Intergovernmental Relations Does the comprehensive plan place the Comprehensive ❐ ❐ community within the context of the region in Plan which it is located?

Does the comprehensive plan recommend intergovernmental agreements where needed Comprehensive ❐ ❐ to foster cooperation aimed at attaining mutual Plan goals of community building?

Do comprehensive plan policies reflect notions Comprehensive ❐ ❐ of social equity and environmental justice? Plan

Source: Jerry Weitz & Associates, Inc. 2001.

APPENDIX B

List of References and Additional Resources

American Planning Association. 2001a. American Planning Association Policy Guide on Smart Growth (December 9, 2001 draft). _____. 2001b. “Smart Growth Audits.” APA 2001 National Planning Conference, March 10–14. APA-168. Audio Tape. _____. n.d. Growing Smart Project. (www.planning.org/plnginfo/GROWSMAR/gsindex. html) Ammons, David N. 2001. Municipal Benchmarks: Assessing Local Performance and Establishing Community Standards. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage. Avin, Uri P., and Holden, David R. 2000. “Does Your Growth Smart.” Planning, January. Duncan Associates. 2000. “Durham, North Carolina, Smart Growth Audit.” (www.duncanplan. com/projects/durham - growth.htm) Georgia Quality Growth Partnership 2002. “Quality Growth Toolkit.” (www.dca.state. ga.vs/toolkit/index_text.asp) Hatry, Harry P., et al. 1992. How Effective Are Your Community Services? Procedures for Mea- suring Their Quality. Washington, D.C.: Urban Institute and International City/County Management Association. Indiana Office of the Commissioner of Agriculture. Indiana Land Resources Council. 2001. Description of Central Indiana planning study. (www.ai.org/oca/ilrc/reports/ ILRC_report.pdf) Jerry Weitz and Associates, Inc. 2001. Smart Growth Audit. Atlanta: Atlanta Regional Com- mission. Knaap, Gerrit, Emily Talen, Robert Olshansky, and Clyde Forrest. n.d. “Zoning, Subdivision Regulations, and Urban Development in Illinois.” Prepared for the Illinois Department of Natural Resources. (www.dnr.state.il.us/orep/nrrc/balancedgrowth/reports.htm) LDR International, and Freilich, Leitner & Carlisle. 1999. A Smart Growth Audit for Charlotte- Mecklenburg County. Charlotte: Charlotte-Mecklenburg Planning Commission. (www. charmeck.nc.us/ciplanning/complan/smartgrowth/SmartGrowthAudit.pdf) Lemmon, Wayne A. 2001. “Can Sprawl Be Good?” (www.plannersweb.com/sprawl/lemm. html) Luck, Keith. 2001. Conversation with author, November 15. Mazmanian, Daniel A., and Paul A. Sabatier. 1989. Implementation and Public Policy. Lanham, Md.: University Press of America, Inc. National Association of Home Builders. 1999. Smart Growth: Building Better Places to Live, Work and Play. Washington, D.C.: National Association of Home Builders. National Association of Realtors. 2000. Smart Growth: A Resource for Realtors, The Issues, the Economics, and the Debate. Chicago: National Association of Realtors. New Urban News. 2001. “Local Codes Prohibit New Urbanism,” January/February. North Carolina Commission on Smart Growth, Growth Management, and Development. 2001. Commission on Smart Growth, Growth Management, and Development: Findings and Recommendations. (www.ncleg.net/SmartGrowthReport.pdf) 1000 Friends of Washington. 1999. Sprawl Report Card. (www.1000friends.org/current_work/ publications/sprawl_report_card.htm) Oregon Progress Board. 1994. Oregon Benchmarks: Standards for Measuring Statewide Progress and Institutional Performance: Report to the 1995 Legislature. Salem, Ore.: Oregon Progress Board.

37 Oregon Transportation and Growth Management Program. 1998. The Principles of Smart Development. Planning Advisory Service Report No. 479. Chicago: American Planning Association. OTAK, Inc. 1999. The Infill and Redevelopment Code Handbook. Salem, Ore.: The Oregon Transportation and Growth Management Program. (http://www.lcd.state.or.us/tgm/ codeassistance.htm) Porter, Douglas. R., ed. 1996. Performance Standards for Growth Management. Planning Advi- sory Service Report No. 461. Chicago: American Planning Association. Regional Business Coalition of Metropolitan Atlanta, Inc. 2002. Smart Growth Audit and Development Opportunities for Smart Growth. Atlanta: Regional Business Coalition. Sierra Club. 1999a. Solving Sprawl: The Sierra Club Rates the States. (www.sierraclub.org/ sprawl/report99/) _____. 1999b. 1999 Report on Sprawl. (www.sierraclub.org/sprawl/report99/intro.asp.) _____. 2002. Report on the Costs of Sprawl to Taxpayers. (www.sierraclub.org/sprawl/re- port00/sprawl.pdf _____. 2002. Sprawl Fact Sheet.(www.sierraclub.org/sprawl/factsheet.asp) Smart Growth America. (www.smartgrowthamerica.com/) Smart Growth Online (Smart Growth Network). (www.smartgrowth.org/) Sprawl Watch Clearinghouse. (www.sprawlwatch.org) Staley, Samuel R. 1999. The Sprawling of America: In Defense of the Dynamic City. Los Angeles: Reason Foundation. Steiner, Frederick. 1994. “Sprawl Can Be Good.” Planning, July. Talen, Emily, and Gerrit Knaap. n.d. The Implementation of Smart Growth Principles: An Em- pirical Study of Land Use Regulation in Illinois. Unpublished manuscript. Urban Land Institute. 1999. Smart Growth: Myth and Fact. Washington, DC: Urban Land Institute. Urban Land Institute. Smart Growth Case Studies. (www.research.uli.org/DK/CaStd/ re_CaStd_SmrtGrthCsStd_fst.html) Walsh, Garet. 2001. Conversation with author, November 15. Washington Research Council. Newsletter on Economic Development and Growth Practices. (www.researchcouncil.org/Briefs/2001/ePB01-5/Growth4.htm#3) Weitz, Jerry. 2002. “Conducting a Smart Growth Audit.” PAS Memo, April.. _____. 2000. Programs That Bust Sprawl and Measures That Can Be Used in Diagnosing Sprawl. Proceedings of the 2000 APA National Planning Conference. (www.asu.edu/caed/ proceedings00/WEITZ/weitz.htm) _____. 1999. Sprawl Busting: State Programs to Guide Growth. Chicago: Planners Press. Weitz, Jerry, and Terry Moore. 1998. “Development Inside Urban Growth Boundaries: Or- egon’s Empirical Evidence of Contiguous Urban Form.” Journal of the American Planning Association 64, no. 4: 424-40.

38 APPENDIX C

APA Policy Statement on Smart Growth

I. MOTION TO ADOPT A DEFINITION OF SMART GROWTH Smart Growth means using comprehensive planning to guide, design, develop, revitalize, and build communities for all that: • have a unique sense of community and place; • preserve and enhance valuable natural and cultural resources; • equitably distribute the costs and benefits of development; • expand the range of transportation, employment, and housing choices in a fiscally responsible manner; • value long-range, regional considerations of sustainability over short-term, incremental, geographically isolated actions; and • promote public health and healthy communities. Compact, transit-accessible, pedestrian-oriented, mixed-use development patterns, and land reuse epitomize the application of the principles of Smart Growth. In contrast to prevalent development practices, Smart Growth refocuses a larger share of regional growth within central cities, urbanized areas, inner suburbs, and areas that are already served by infrastructure. Smart Growth reduces the share of growth that occurs on newly urbanizing land, existing farmlands, and in environmentally sensitive areas. In areas with intense growth pressure, development in newly urbanizing areas should be planned and developed according to Smart Growth principles.

Core principles of Smart Growth include:

A. RECOGNITION THAT ALL LEVELS OF GOVERNMENT, AND THE NONPROFIT AND PRIVATE SECTORS, PLAY AN IMPORTANT ROLE IN CREATING AND IMPLE- MENTING POLICIES THAT SUPPORT SMART GROWTH. Every level of government—federal, state, regional, county, and local—should identify policies and practices that are inconsistent with Smart Growth and develop new policies and practices that support Smart Growth. Local governments have long been the principal stewards of land and infrastructure resources through implementation of land-use policies. Smart Growth respects that tradition, yet recognizes the important roles that federal and state governments play as leaders and partners in advancing Smart Growth principles at the local level.

B. STATE AND FEDERAL POLICIES AND PROGRAMS THAT SUPPORT URBAN INVESTMENT, COMPACT DEVELOPMENT, AND LAND CONSERVATION. State and federal policies and programs have contributed to urban sprawl and need to be re-examined and replaced with policies and programs that support Smart Growth, including cost effective, incentive-based investment programs that target growth-related expenditures to locally designated areas.

C. PLANNING PROCESSES AND REGULATIONS AT MULTIPLE LEVELS THAT PRO- MOTE DIVERSITY, EQUITY, AND SMART GROWTH PRINCIPLES. All planning processes, as well as the distribution of resources, must be equitable. A diversity of voices must be included in community planning and implementation.

D. INCREASED CITIZEN PARTICIPATION IN ALL ASPECTS OF THE PLANNING PRO- CESS AND AT EVERY LEVEL OF GOVERNMENT. Appropriate citizen participation ensures that planning outcomes are equitable and based on collective decision-making. Planning processes must involve comprehensive strategies that engage meaningful citizen participation and find common ground for decision making.

39 E. A BALANCED, MULTIMODAL TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM THAT PLANS FOR IN- CREASED TRANSPORTATION CHOICE. Land-use and transportation planning must be integrated to accommodate the automobile and to provide increased transportation choices, such as mass transit, bicycles, and walking. Development must be pedestrian friendly. All forms of transportation must be reliable, efficient, and user-friendly, allowing full access by all segments of the population to housing, employment, education, and human and community services.

F. A REGIONAL VIEW OF COMMUNITY. Smart Growth recognizes the interdependence of neighborhoods and municipalities in a metropolitan region and promotes balanced, integrated regional development achieved through regional planning processes.

G. ONE SIZE DOESN’T FIT ALL—A WIDE VARIETY OF APPROACHES TO ACCOM- PLISH SMART GROWTH. Customs, politics, laws, natural conditions, and other factors vary from state to state and from region to region. Each region must develop its own approach to problem solving and planning while involving the public, private, and nonprofit sectors. In some areas, this may require a significant change in perspective and culture, but such changes are necessary and beneficial in obtaining the results that Smart Growth aims to achieve.

H. EFFICIENT USE OF LAND AND INFRASTRUCTURE. High-density development, infill development, redevelopment, and the adaptive re-use of existing buildings result in efficient utilization of land resources and more compact urban areas. Efficient use of public and private infrastructure starts with creating neighborhoods that maximize the use of existing infrastructure. In areas of new growth, roads, sewers, water lines, schools, and other infrastructure should be planned as part of comprehensive growth and investment strategies. Regional cooperation is required for large infrastructure investments to avoid inefficiency and redundancy.

I. CENTRAL CITY VITALITY. Every level of government should identify ways to reinvest in existing urban centers, to reuse former industrial sites, to adapt older buildings for new development, and to bring new development to older, low-income, and disadvantaged neighborhoods.

J. VITAL SMALL TOWNS AND RURAL AREAS. APA recognizes that inefficient land use and low-density development is not confined to urban and suburban areas, but also occurs around villages and small towns. Many once thriving main streets are checkered with abandoned storefronts while a strip of new commercial activity springs up on the edge of town together with housing and public facilities. Programs and policies need to support investment to improve the economic health of small town downtowns and rural community centers. The high cost of providing basic infrastructure and services in rural communities demands compact development and efficient use of existing facilities. Housing choices in rural areas need to take into account changing needs resulting from shifting demographics, the cost of providing services and infrastructure, the cost of services and infrastructure capacity, and must address upgrading of existing housing as an alternative or complement to new development. Smart Growth is critically important in rural and small town economic development initiatives because the limited availability of public funding means each dollar must accomplish more.

K. A GREATER MIX OF USES AND HOUSING CHOICES IN NEIGHBORHOODS AND COMMUNITIES FOCUSED AROUND HUMAN-SCALE, MIXED-USE CENTERS ACCESSIBLE BY MULTIPLE TRANSPORTATION MODES. Mixed-use developments include quality housing, varied by type and price, integrated with shopping, schools, community facilities, and jobs. Human-scale design, compatible with the existing urban context, and quality construction contribute to successful compact, mixed-use development and also promote privacy, safety, visual coherency, and compatibility among uses and users.

40 L. CONSERVATION AND ENHANCEMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL AND CULTURAL RESOURCES. Biodiversity, green infrastructure, and green architecture are integral to Smart Growth. Smart Growth protects the natural processes that sustain life; preserves agricultural land, wildlife habitat, natural landmarks, and cultural resources; integrates biodiversity, ecological systems, and natural open space (green infrastructure) into the fabric of development; encourages innovative storm water management; is less consumptive and more protective of natural resources; maintains or improves air quality, and enhances water quality and quantity for future generations. Energy conservation is a major benefit and result of Smart Growth, helping to create more sustainable development and allow people to meet current needs without compromising the needs of future generations. Green architecture incorporates environmental protection and reduced natural resource consumption into the design and construction of buildings, also enhancing the comfort and health of the occupants.

M. CREATION OR PRESERVATION OF A “SENSE OF PLACE.” A “sense of place” results when design and development protect and incorporate the distinctive character of a community and the particular place in which it is located. Geography, natural features, climate, culture, historical resources, and ecology each contribute to the distinctive character of a region.

II. THE SMART GROWTH ISSUE Throughout the history of planning in the United States, there have been national move- ments that influenced the direction of the planning profession. They include the city beauti- ful era; the advent of Euclidean zoning; master planning for the automobile-dominated, post-WWII community; the 701 comprehensive plan; advocacy planning in the 1970s; and environmental protection described by the acronyms of NEPA, CEQA, and others. Since the early twentieth century, policy makers have offered legislative solutions to communities to manage changes resulting from population growth. In the 1920s, Secretary of Commerce, and later President, Herbert Hoover appointed an advisory committee that drafted the Standard City Planning and Zoning Enabling Acts. Many states subsequently adopted enabling laws based on theses Acts. While many Americans may have benefited from the effects of rapid suburbaniza- tion—large yards, proximity to open space, new schools, increased mobility, and the financial appreciation of home values—these benefits have not been universally shared. Professional planners acknowledge that the social, economic, and environmental costs of urban dispersion can be more effectively managed, if not avoided entirely. The nation is now experiencing heightened concern over the social, environmental, and fiscal quality of our communities arising from development practices that aggravate the decline of many urban communities and older suburbs, congest streets and highways, accelerate the loss of natural resources and the deterioration of the natural environment, and limit opportunities for the retention and creation of affordable housing. Often these problems are simply and collectively labeled “sprawl.” In response, the Smart Growth movement emerged. Many organizations and individuals are now promoting Smart Growth. More than 60 public interest groups across the U.S. have joined together to form Smart Growth America, a coalition advocating better growth policies and practices. Groups ranging from the Ur- ban Land Institute to the Sierra Club to the National Association of Home Builders have released reports and sponsored forums on the topic. Many communities embrace specific aspects of Smart Growth, such as urban service boundaries, pedestrian- and transit-oriented development, controls on sprawl, compact mixed uses, and the protection of agricultural and environmental resources. Concurrently, implementation in a piecemeal fashion has sometimes resulted in unintended consequences that actually aggravate other adverse aspects of rapid urbanization or dispersion. APA recognizes that it is necessary to balance the interests of diverse public, private, and political groups and to serve the collective public interest. Contained within Smart Growth are many interrelated, and potentially

41 conflicting, elements that need to be organized and prioritized, often on a regional basis. Additionally, many of the single-interest Smart Growth proposals omit areas of concern to APA, especially social equity and disinvestments in inner-city and first-ring suburb infrastructure, community facilities, and services. This situation is a major impetus for creating this policy guide. APA’s 2000 Policy Guide on Planning for Sustainability notes that “Sustainability is the capability to equitably meet the vital human needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs by preserving and protecting the area’s ecosystems and natural resources. The concept of sustainability describes a condition in which human use of natural resources, required for the continuation of life, is in balance with Nature’s ability to replenish them.” The important work done in creating the Policy Guide on Planning for Sustainability provides an opportunity to extend those policies to the arena of Smart Growth. In response to this opportunity, APA embarked upon a yearlong process to craft this policy guide. The effort formally started at the 2001 Delegate Assembly in New Orleans where a survey, Framing the Issue, was distributed to the participants and was later supplemented by input from APA chapters. The survey and a literature review showed that the concepts of sprawl and sustainability are intertwined throughout the Smart Growth dialogue. Sprawl, in all of its characterizations, is the antithesis of Smart Growth. Today, we must promote fairness in rebuilding inner-city and inner-suburban areas, in the development of suburban communities, and in the conservation and revitalization of small towns and rural areas. Smart Growth should not be limited to combating the symptoms of sprawl. The protection of unique and prime agricultural land to avoid premature conversion to urban and suburban uses, as well as ecological and societal considerations, should be addressed. Plan- ners have the tools at hand to create better communities. It is our professional and ethical responsibility to use these tools to produce results that are fair to all community members in the present and in the future. Fairness requires that we reduce inequalities and that we narrow the gap of disparities in the distribution of resources. We recognize that planning decisions influence the social and economic well being of communities. Today, we must promote fairness in rebuilding inner-city and inner-suburban areas, in the development of suburban communities, and in the growth of small towns and rural areas. The Smart Growth Policy Guide helps direct APA efforts to influence public policy to meet those concerns raised by the Smart Growth movement, along with the challenges of sustainability and equity. This guidance can influence federal and state legislation that may provide financial assistance and incentives for states to reassess their planning statutes, update them, and to embark on meaningful implementation of community plans. Additionally, APA challenges the private sector, especially the real estate and lending communities, to join us in working to reverse the negative effects of the current predominant pattern of regional growth and to help us advocate for new policies that will lead to well-designed regional communities of lasting value. APA asks them to join with us in the important educational and informational efforts that will be necessary to build support for Smart Growth with elected officials and policy makers, with their constituents, and with the public-at-large. Finally, planners, legislators, and others should consult this policy guide when reviewing the GROWING SMART Legislative Guidebook, a compendium of statutes for planning and the management of change, as they create proposals for regulatory reform pertaining to planning and development.

III. SPECIFIC POLICY POSITIONS This section includes policies organized in five categories: A. Planning Structure, Process, and Regulation B. Transportation and Land Use C. Regional Management and Fiscal Efficiency D. Social Equity and Community Building E. Environmental Protection and Land Conservation

42 Other adopted policy statements that bear on this topic are Planning for Sustainability (adopted in 2000), Agricultural Land Preservation (adopted on April 25, 1999), Endangered Species and Habitat Protection (adopted on April 25, 1999), the Housing Policy Guide (adopted on April 25, 1999), the Policy Guide on Historic and Cultural Resources (adopted April 10, 1997), and policy statements currently under development or revision, including those for Water Resource Management, Wetlands, and Waste Management. [Editor’s note: Please check APA’s web site for updates on these policy statements, www.planning.org]

A. PLANNING STRUCTURE, PROCESS, AND REGULATION 1. The American Planning Association and its Chapters affirm that reforming state legislation is necessary to implement Smart Growth. Reason to Support the Specific Policy: States have a leadership role in fostering long-term, Smart Growth decisions. While land-use regulatory decisions are traditionally a responsibility of local government, a state’s programs, policies, and enabling legislation have a profound affect on local planning and decision making. States should enable local governments to foster more sensible, planned growth through the revision of planning and police power enabling legislation and by facilitating increased communication between state departments and local governments and among local governments within a region.

2. The American Planning Association and its Chapters affirm that effective comprehensive planning, based on Smart Growth principles, is the primary means of implementing Smart Growth.

Reason to Support the Specific Policy: Planning, especially comprehensive planning, is central to the implementation of Smart Growth. Absent the collective decision-making processes inherent in comprehensive planning, those who would implement Smart Growth measures are limited to a series of short-term, geographically isolated, and disconnected decisions. The comprehensive planning process promotes collective decision making about the intensity, the density, and the character of development and the level of public services to be provided.

3. The American Planning Association and its Chapters support regulations that support land reuse and require new urban growth to be coordinated with the provision of urban infrastructure capacity.

Reason to Support the Specific Policy: The benefits of locating new urban growth in existing urban and urban-adjacent areas include preserving farmland, increasing urban densities, utilizing existing infrastructure capacity, and reducing public infrastructure costs. Tools, such as PDRs and TDRs and land banking, are available to mitigate the effects on land- owners outside of existing urban and urban-adjacent areas who seek to convert properties to urban uses.

4. The American Planning Association and its Chapters support the coordination, modernization, restructuring, and consolidation (where necessary) of local governmental units and/or services.

Reason to Support the Specific Policy: Modernization and restructuring should be pursued where governmental fragmentation impedes Smart Growth decisions. Smart Growth requires a higher degree of coordination, especially in the areas of spending, eminent domain, taxation, and regulation, than is possible under the fragmented patterns of local government prevalent in many states. At minimum, local decisions on the creation of new governmental units, urban growth, capital infrastructure, services, and maintenance should be subordinated to an intergovernmental planning process in order to minimize competition for tax base and to reward local governments by distributing returns from mutually beneficial decisions. Natural boundaries, such as watersheds and valleys, should be respected in designing these comprehensive areas.

43 5. The American Planning Association and its Chapters support statewide comprehensive planning.

Reason to Support the Specific Policy: Statewide planning is needed to coordinate and integrate actions in such vital areas as transportation, infrastructure, and environmental policy. The most effective planning will integrate these areas with housing, economic development, and other areas. Statewide planning should also engage regional planning efforts to create a mutually supported plan at multiple levels so all levels of government are working in concert to achieve Smart Growth goals.

6. The American Planning Association and its Chapters support federal and state incentives and guidance to local governments on the elements to be addressed in comprehensive plans, based on Smart Growth principles. The elements should include land use, transportation, infrastructure, housing, economic development, natural resources, ecological systems, public educational facilities, other community facilities, and cultural preservation. Reason to Support the Specific Policy: Local governments should be required to make land- use decisions within a statewide procedural and policy framework, consistent with a long-term vision and early, ongoing public involvement. State governments must help local governments by establishing reasonable ground rules for planning requirements, assisting and funding local governments and rural areas, and providing leadership on interjurisdictional issues.

7. The American Planning Association and its Chapters support legislation that provides incentives for adoption of a clearly defined comprehensive plan and capital improvements plan prior to the imposition of land-use regulations and controls at the local level. Reason to Support the Specific Policy: Land-use decisions made without reference to a well- articulated comprehensive plan have contributed to excessive regulation, requests for special treatment, and public disdain for the process. Land-use regulation should enhance the predictability for residents, investors, and builders. Ad hoc decisions by communities, made outside of effective comprehensive planning processes, undermine that predictability.

8. The American Planning Association and its Chapters support legislation that requires all actions of local government be consistent with the community’s comprehensive plan including, but not limited to, zoning and other land-use regulations, as well as the provision of infrastructure. Reason to Support the Specific Policy: Consistency among comprehensive plans, land-use regulations, capital improvements plans, and implementation are at the heart of Smart Growth. Inconsistencies in these areas undermine public confidence in planning and in planners.

9. The American Planning Association and its Chapters support requiring federal agencies to include the effect of federal actions on urban growth and sprawl in their analyses of environmental impacts and to actively support state and local plans for growth management. Reason to Support the Specific Policy: Federal policies and programs have a profound effect on local development patterns, yet local communities have little power in identifying, reviewing, or addressing federal actions and projects that may affect their growth. Changing the National Environmental Policy Act to require federal and state agencies to analyze the effects of proposed projects on growth and directing the Council on Environmental Quality to evaluate these reviews will enhance a local community’s ability to respond to federal actions.

10. The American Planning Association and its Chapters support regulatory processes that facilitate, encourage, and support Smart Growth while eliminating regulatory barriers that increase the cost of Smart Growth. Reason to Support the Specific Policy: It must become easier to develop and redevelop communities based on Smart Growth principles, and harder to develop in the manner that has led to the problems now evident throughout the country. Barriers to Smart Growth must be

44 eliminated at the federal, state, and local levels. Processes, laws, and regulatory procedures should not be another layer of review on top of other laws and regulations. A variety of federal agencies, state governments, regional agencies, and local governments are preparing programs, ordinances, policies, procedures, and laws to promote Smart Growth. As experience grows, successes should be celebrated, publicized, and presented as models for others.

11. The American Planning Association and its Chapters support increased citizen participation in all levels of planning as a means to accommodate diversity while promoting equity and community. Reason to Support the Specific Policy: In an increasingly diverse society, citizen participation is an important means of developing plans that reflect the needs and aspirations of citizens. Planners have an ethical responsibility to involve citizens in planning, especially those affected by the plans. Participation can help to develop social capital, promote a sense of common goals, and develop citizen involvement in implementation. Better plans are a result.

12. The American Planning Association and its Chapters support the provision of a clearinghouse of advanced planning and geographic information for decision makers and for the public by coordinated regional, state, and federal Internet systems. Reason to Support the Specific Policy: The lack of availability and the fragmentation of basic data—including GIS maps, technical studies, water resource information, permitting activity, demographic data, and other information—requires repetitive studies and increases the time required for decision-making. In addition, the information should be made available to the public through a well-maintained web data system.

B. TRANSPORTATION AND LAND USE 1. The American Planning Association and its Chapters support planning and funding policies that link land-use and transportation choices at the local and regional levels. The basis for transportation funding should reflect the true costs and relative efficiencies of various transportation modes with respect to a variety of users. The costs of federal subsidies for transportation should be reflected in evaluations of transportation investment alternatives. Reason to Support the Specific Policy: A multimodal transportation system is needed to address transportation problems in the United States. From a funding perspective, potential investments should be judged on criteria that are unbiased and reflect the true costs of alternatives.

2. The American Planning Association and its Chapters support planning and funding policies that acknowledge the continued importance of automotive transportation and support the automobile within a policy context that provides for mitigating its environmental and resource impacts while increasing nonautomotive transportation choices, carpooling, van pooling, and flexible work hours. Reason to Support the Specific Policy: Automobiles are likely to remain an important form of transportation for many people, but the negative impacts of automobile transportation can be effectively managed. APA supports federal policies that will make automobiles more efficient, less polluting, and less consumptive of fossil fuels. Automobile transportation also provides intermodal opportunities. APA supports federal and state efforts that combine automobile transportation with other transportation choices (park-and-rides, kiss-and-rides, adequate parking provision at transit stops) and encourage the pooling of automotive resources.

3. The American Planning Association and its Chapters support planning policies, legislation, and practices that target transportation investments to correct system deficiencies identified through regular performance monitoring of all transportation modes within the system. Reason to Support the Specific Policy: Efficient use of transportation funds requires using them to maximize the operational efficiency of the transportation system. Transportation investments made without regard to existing system deficiencies:

45 • result in sprawling, unplanned development, and allow existing transportation systems to deteriorate; • waste money by allowing funds to be expended for facilities that do not address problems; and • lead to redundancies and inefficiencies because construction does not address real needs. A key component of Smart Growth involves the regular performance monitoring of all modes of transportation. Such monitoring identifies system deficiencies and their causes so that transportation investments may be targeted to appropriate infrastructure improvements.

4. The American Planning Association and its Chapters support the development and maintenance of regional and statewide multimodal transportation plans. Reason to Support the Specific Policy: Regional and statewide transportation plans are needed to guide the improvement and expansion of the transportation system in a consistent, logi- cal, and economically and functionally efficient manner. These plans should be multimodal, covering all significant modes of both people and goods movement and recognizing both public and private sector needs. Transportation planning efforts should also be mutually supportive at all levels to ensure the efficiency and continuity of the system. These plans should form the basis for transportation investment decisions at the regional and state level.

5. The American Planning Association and its Chapters support federal and state incentives and local initiatives that encourage locating new development, especially the development of public facilities, in areas that are supported by a balanced transportation network that provides a variety of transportation choices and supports more active, healthy lifestyles. Reason to Support the Specific Policy: Public facilities should be located so they are accessible by multiple modes, including transit, bicycles, and walking. Such facilities will be more widely used than if accessible only by automobile, and employers will have more access to people who depend on transit, walking, and bicycling.

6. The American Planning Association and its Chapters support changes to roadway design standards that promote and support the use of transit and nonmotorized transportation modes, including walking and bicycling. Reason to Support the Specific Policy: Smart Growth recognizes the importance of the automobile to transportation but seeks to support automotive transportation in the context of greater transportation choice, including the choice to walk or bicycle. The design of roadways and intersections can either enhance or discourage transit and nonautomotive transportation choices. Roadway design should consider connectivity, accessibility, function, and speed as they affect the safety and security of people who choose not to drive. For instance, roadways designed solely from the point-of-view of enhancing automobile transportation sometimes poorly accommodate pedestrians and bicyclists who share roads with cars. The current functional classifications for roadways should be restructured to account for the constraints and opportunities these public facilities pose for the full range of transportation choices.

7. The American Planning Association and its Chapters support policies and plans that place street connection as a high priority in the development of transportation systems. Reason to Support the Specific Policy: The efficiency of a community’s transportation system is an objective of Smart Growth policy. Efficiency is enhanced when there are consistent and adequate street connections that allow people and goods to move with as few impediments as possible. Gated communities, private road systems, and the introduction of disconnected cul-de-sac systems promote disconnections. Proper street connectivity, on the other hand, reduces miles traveled, increases non-motorized trips, and supports transit use.

8. The American Planning Association and its Chapters support increased transportation choice and mobility to and from work, home, and school, especially for the less advantaged.

46 Reason to Support the Specific Policy: Advocating for equity requires public investment in infrastructure that reduces the need for long commutes and enhances transportation choices for disadvantaged and disabled persons. By locating facilities near transit stops or in mixed-use centers, trips might be consolidated. Planners should promote land-use patterns that reduce the need for motorized transportation, increase transportation options, and ensure that infrastructure for non-automotive transportation modes is treated equitably in the planning process.

C. REGIONAL MANAGEMENT AND FISCAL EFFICIENCY 1. The American Planning Association and its Chapters support strengthening and modernizing state, metropolitan, and other regional institutions to facilitate multi- jurisdictional decision making and problem solving. Reason to Support the Specific Policy: Most major growth-related problems are regional, not local, in nature. Given the fragmented nature of local governance, individual community success in implementing Smart Growth is likely to shift development to other parts of the region. States have the opportunity to pass modern enabling legislation that promotes Smart Growth planning and development at the regional level. Regional plans are needed to coordinate local land-use decisions and to integrate local decision making with planning that necessarily crosses municipal boundaries. Transportation corridors, watersheds, air sheds, economic regions, and neighborhoods are more appropriate and desirable geographies for planning than the boundaries of political jurisdictions. Given prevalent patterns of development, where jobs are often far from home, affordable housing and public transportation can be addressed effectively only at the regional level. These efforts can simultaneously promote equity by making affordable housing available throughout the metropolitan area and, by supporting economic development, make a labor force available throughout the region.

2. The American Planning Association and its Chapters support federal and state incentives for cooperative planning among local governments to address regional impacts and to pursue desired land-use patterns through an integrated system of regional plan making, implementation, and monitoring. Reason to Support the Specific Policy: Many states have laws that prohibit or inhibit joint planning and/or decision making by local governments and other entities that make planning and development decisions. Similarly, many local governments have laws, policies, or customs that inhibit cooperation across municipal boundaries. In order to facilitate collaboration among local entities when regional cooperation is needed, these barriers must be removed. Federal and state authorities must encourage cooperation and collaboration by local entities. State and federal grants should encourage cooperative planning and policy making.

3. The American Planning Association and its Chapters support a wide variety of approaches to accomplish Smart Growth because its principles can be applied to communities of all sizes and locations. Reason to Support the Specific Policy: Customs, politics, laws, natural conditions, and other factors vary from state to state and region to region. In addition, problems to be addressed vary from region to region. Each region must develop its own approach to problem solving and planning while involving the public, private, and nonprofit sectors. In some areas, this approach may require a significant change in perspective and culture, but such changes are necessary and beneficial to obtain the results that Smart Growth aims to achieve.

4. The American Planning Association and its Chapters support increasing the role of regional planning organization in planning for land conservation, cultural preservation, fiscal efficiency, and ecological health. Reason to Support the Specific Policy: Efficient use of land resources is a hallmark of Smart Growth. Compact building forms and infill development help support more cost-effective public and private infrastructure than low-density development at the fringe of urban areas. Smart Growth means creating neighborhoods where more people use existing services,

47 such as water lines, sewers, roads, emergency services, and schools. Inefficient land use places a financial strain on communities providing for the construction and maintenance of infrastructure. Regional cooperation promotes efficient use of infrastructure and helps avoid duplication of these very expensive investments. At the same time, regional approaches maintain a healthy environment and preserve valuable natural, as well as cultural, resources. Smart Growth is growth that protects identity of places.

5. The American Planning Association and its Chapters support policies that favor the use of existing infrastructure capacity over public construction of new infrastructure, including the requirement that new development either pay for the services it requires or be consciously subsidized. Reason to Support the Specific Policy: Policies that increase the number of residents in the urban core or that establish minimum densities for new urban development help ensure that existing infrastructure is fully used and that the public is not burdened with the cost of paying for inefficiency. Responsible stewardship over public funds requires that public subsidies be a matter of policy adopted after public debate of the issue. After debate, local governments may decide to subsidize certain kinds of development and redevelopment in order to advance adopted policies, including the revitalization of central cities.

D. SOCIAL EQUITY AND COMMUNITY BUILDING 1. The American Planning Association and its Chapters support a sustained and focused initiative in federal, state, and local public policy to reverse the general decline of urban neighborhoods and the trend toward isolated, concentrated poverty through strategies that promote reinvestment within urban communities. Reason to Support the Specific Policy: Central city vitality remains at the core of Smart Growth outcomes. Central cities are in a trajectory of long-term decline as a result of the migration of labor and capital. According to the Fannie Mae’s report The Housing Policy Debate (1997), most central cities and downtowns are becoming increasingly irrelevant to the future of metropolitan economies, despite signs that population losses have slowed and individual neighborhoods and cities are recovering. Revisions to the federal tax code, renewed federal housing initiatives, local “fair-share housing” polices, regional tax base sharing, and the reduction of regulatory barriers that unduly increase the cost of housing are issues that need to be addressed.

2. The American Planning Association and its Chapters support increased social, economic, and racial equity in our communities and call on the federal government to increase community development funds to remedy these inequities, to include input from all segments of our population in the planning process, and to ensure that planning and development decisions do not unfairly burden economically disadvantaged groups. Reason to Support the Specific Policy: Sprawl has aggravated the racial and economic segregation of America’s communities by limiting housing choices, transportation choices, educational opportunities, and job access. The spatial distribution of jobs in a region— along with adequate transportation options between work and home, and sufficient housing choice for workers at all levels of compensation—is key to attaining the goals of social, economic, and racial equity. Federal and state government policies should ensure that communities within a region have equitable access to open, natural areas and to community facilities providing recreational opportunities and a range of social services; they should also ensure that no single community is burdened with hosting undesirable but necessary community uses.

3. The American Planning Association and its Chapters support federal and state policies and programs that encourage mixed-income neighborhoods as the foundation for healthy regions, including requirements for the provision of affordable housing in all new-growth areas or through the reinvestment in core communities. Reason to Support the Specific Policy: Affordable housing should be coordinated regionally to limit concentrations of poverty. Growth strategies must specify provisions for production

48 and maintenance of affordable housing through affirmative measures such as inclusionary zoning practices (zoning that includes a variety of housing types for a variety of income levels) that are applied equally and regionally. Advancement of equity means developing a varied housing stock and planning for stable, mixed-income neighborhoods.

4. The American Planning Association and its Chapters support the enhancement of public education systems, which are an essential component of community building in urban, suburban, and rural areas, and which ensure that children have an opportunity for an excellent education in existing communities. In furtherance of creating such opportunities, APA advocates for strategies that increase neighborhoods that are economically and socially diverse. Reason to Support the Specific Policy: If Smart Growth is to work, there must be a sustained effort to improve urban public schools. Otherwise, families will continue to leave cities as soon as they have children. Planners must identify public schools in their community that are at-risk and work with administrators, parents, and neighborhood groups to improve those schools. Planners must advocate neighborhood diversity, mixed-income housing, and educational excellence as the hallmarks of healthy central cities. In the APA/AICP Millen- nium Survey (December 2000), the highest concern of voters (76%) was having adequate schools and educational facilities. Moreover, when voters in suburbs and small-to-medium cities were asked what might lead them to live in an urban setting, better schools ranked first.

5. The American Planning Association and its Chapters support planning that identifies the transportation, housing, employment, education, and other needs of population change, both with respect to the total number of people expected to reside and also with respect to population groups with special needs such as the elderly, school children, or people of diverse cultures.

E. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AND LAND CONSERVATION Other policies listed in this Policy Guide will help to achieve environmental protection and land conservation. For example, transportation and regional planning policies consistent with Smart Growth principles also achieve these ends. See also the related APA policy guides on Wetlands, Water Resources Management, Waste Management, Planning for Sustain- ability, Endangered Species and Habitat Protection, and Agricultural Land Preservation.

1. The American Planning Association and its Chapters encourage public, private, and nonprofit cooperation to achieve a new level of partnership to preserve and enhance ecological integrity over the short and long term. Reason to Support the Specific Policy: Environmental protection and land conservation have often been seen as the responsibility of the public sector. However, nonprofit organizations and private property owners also have a role and responsibility in good stewardship of the environment. Cooperation and collaboration among all interested parties are needed to improve and enhance ecological integrity. The basis for all planning must be a sense of stewardship or “caring for the earth,” along with an expanded understanding of the long- term implications of daily decisions and the benefits of conservation.

2. The American Planning Association and its Chapters support land and water conservation, including farmland preservation, soil and wetlands conservation, and brownfield remediation and redevelopment. An important tool is full funding of the federal Land and Water Conservation Fund. Reason to Support the Specific Policy: Conservation of land and water resources is important to maintain and enhance healthy ecosystems, and is also an ethical imperative to protect these resources for future generations. Soil conservation is an important concern, and farmland preservation (e.g., with compact development) can be an important result of Smart Growth. The Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF), which was established by Congress in 1964, is an invaluable tool with which to create and enhance parks and open spaces, protect wilderness and wetlands, preserve wildlife habitat, and enhance recreational opportunities. The LWCF provides funding to all levels of government as well as to the nonprofit sector.

49 See also the policy below regarding water, and APA’s other policy guides mentioned above.

3. The American Planning Association and its Chapters support protection and enhancement of biodiversity through the planning process. Planning for biodiversity should use the best available science to assess natural resources and determine areas of environmental vitality as the first step in incorporating “green infrastructure” into human settlements. Reason to Support the Specific Policy: Natural systems and biodiversity are critical to the support of human populations. Biodiversity planning should be included in the early stages of land-use planning. Planning should include an inventory of natural processes and ecosystems. To the extent such information is available, plans should include identification of natural vegetation, wetlands, arid lands, endangered and threatened plant and animal species, umbrella and indicator species, species that are commercially important in the state, and species habitat (including food sources, denning and nursery areas, and migratory routes). Based on this inventory, all land-use and development plans should incorporate “green infrastructure” based on good science and best available management practices to limit deleterious impacts on fragile ecosystems. Green infrastructure is an interconnected network of greenways and natural lands that includes wildlife habitat, waterways, native species, and preservation or protection of ecological processes. All development—including redevelopment, infill development, and new construction in urbanizing areas—should plan for biodiversity and incorporate green infrastructure. Green infrastructure helps to maintain natural ecosystems, including clean air and water; it also reduces wildlife habitat fragmentation, pollution, and other threats to biodiversity. In addition, it improves the quality of life for people. Tools for preservation of natural open spaces include acquisition of conservation easements by governments or nonprofits, transfer of development rights, conservation design, and land acquisition by public agencies.

4. The American Planning Association and its Chapters support federal and state agencies providing assistance to county and local governments to collect and analyze information on natural communities and processes. County and local governments should supplement this information with local knowledge. Using the combined information, all levels of government should work with nonprofit organizations, businesses, and citizens to designate green infrastructure policies and carry them out. Reason to Support the Specific Policy: Many local governments, where land-use planning takes place, do not have the staff or technological resources to inventory and map biodiversity resources for their communities. Federal and state agencies that have the resources and scientific/technical knowledge needed on topics such as ecology and biodiversity should provide financial and technical assistance to county and local agencies, which can then augment the information with local knowledge. A county or local government benefits by obtaining technical information necessary to write a strong plan while the state and federal governments benefit by enhancing the protection of natural resources through partnerships with local governments and nonprofits.

5. The American Planning Association and its Chapters support a balanced energy policy including conservation and development of renewable energy resources. Reason to Support the Specific Policy: A comprehensive energy policy should include reduction of energy consumption, development of new supplies, and use of existing natural resources, such as coal, gas and oil, while protecting sensitive ecosystems. Energy conservation would include transportation policy, development patterns that minimize vehicular miles traveled, and “green architecture.” Development of new energy supplies should include renewable energy. Use of renewable energy sources will contribute to reduced dependence on fossil fuels, which will help to reduce concentrations of carbon dioxide and other gases in the atmosphere. Increased use of alternative energy sources will also contribute to healthier, more stable local economies through reduced dependence on one or two energy sources that have an uncertain future. Solar power is likely to become more important in future years, and development patterns should balance the needs for solar access and dense ur-

50 ban development. Development may be able to take advantage of industrial cogeneration possibilities, using waste heat from industry to heat surrounding buildings. APA’s policy guide on Planning for Sustainability provides additional information on developing a balanced energy policy.

6. The American Planning Association and its Chapters support environmentally conscious design and construction, including green architecture practices, adoption of the Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) Green Building Rating System, the adaptive reuse of buildings, and land recycling. Reasons to Support the Specific Policy: The U.S. Green Building Council (USGBC), a national nonprofit organization representing all parts of the building industry, has documented the environmental impact of buildings. The impacts made by commercial and residential construction, as of January 2002, include: • 65% of total U.S. electricity consumption; • 36% of total U.S. energy use; • 30% of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions; • 136 million tons of construction and demolition waste in the U.S. (almost 3 pounds per person per day); and • 40% of raw material use globally.

The USGBC has developed and administers the LEED green building rating system to promote “green design” (see www.usgbc.org for details). LEED shows great promise to provide benefits, such as reducing the impacts of natural resource consumption, enhancing comfort and health, and minimizing strain on local infrastructure, while producing financial benefits for building owners and developers. LEED standards cover site design, conservation of materials and resources including water and energy, and indoor environmental quality. Green design practices include building reuse and preservation, which preserve a unique sense of place in our communities, save building resources, and keep demolition refuse out of land fills. Historic preservation also often saves energy and other natural resources. Green architecture is a growing practice that should be recognized and adopted by all who construct buildings.

7. The American Planning Association and its Chapters support comprehensive water supply, distribution, treatment, and storm water planning to protect water supplies, preserve water quality, and prevent flooding. Reason to Support the Specific Policy: Clean and adequate water supplies are indispensable for life. Comprehensive programs are needed to protect both water quality and quantity. Development practices, including design and construction, must protect water resources. A variety of planning strategies, design and development standards, and management practices are needed: • Xeriscaping and natural, local landscaping that minimizes water usage; • minimizing paving and impervious surfaces that inhibit natural water drainage and ground water recharge; • innovative legislation and regulations, which may include conservation and engineering performance standards, buffers, maximum water run-off, and agriculture zoning; and • minimizing fertilizer and other chemical usage that produces polluted run-off and affects water quality off site.

IV. POLICY OUTCOMES This section, not usually included in APA policy guides, is provided here to summarize APA’s desired results from the implementation of these policies. A. In the area of planning process and regulation: 1. Reform of state planning enabling acts to promote proactive planning that encourages regional cooperation, collaborative citizen participation in public life, diverse neighborhoods, the equitable distribution of resources, and fiscal responsibility.

51 2. Well-designed, enduring communities that are sustainable in the near and the long term. 3. Improved communication and collaboration by the various levels of governments, citizens, developers, and other interested parties to improve efficiency and build better communities. 4. Slowing of low-density sprawl and a reversal in the dispersion of housing and jobs into single-use, land-consumptive development patterns in favor of densification and centralization. 5. Growth in areas that can support growth, encouraged by intelligent land-use planning. The creation of new urban settlements within planned urban-growth areas, or in planned new urban areas, containing nodes of high-density development that include higher-density housing, the majority of community facilities and jobs, and connected by transit. 6. Federal and State support, in terms of policy and incentives, for local decision- making processes, including comprehensive planning. 7. Development decisions that are predictable, fair, and fiscally responsible.

B. In the area of transportation and land use: 1. A major shift from single-occupancy automotive transit to travel by bus, fixed-rail systems, ferries, walking, and bicycling in existing settlements and new urban- growth areas. 2. Automobile support that appropriately accommodates other modes of transportation, especially nonmotorized modes, including provision for appropriate vehicle storage that does not result in further decentralization and dispersion.

C. In the area of regional management and fiscal efficiency: 1. Improved long-term viability of regions and their constituent local governments. 2. Reordering of regional infrastructure planning and development from fragmented and uncoordinated local governments to regional bodies strengthened by states. 3. Local governments whose taxpayers are not burdened with the costs for financing ever-increasing infrastructure backlogs.

D. In the areas of social equity and community building: 1. Vibrant central cities that have experienced a cycle of renewal and rebirth, whose neighborhoods accommodate a diversity of people with a range of backgrounds, economic capacity, and family structures. 2. Reversal in the centralization of poverty in urban cores and first-ring suburbs. 3. Elimination of regulatory barriers that impede construction of affordable housing. 4. Decreased racial and economic segregation through regulations requiring affordable housing in all new-growth areas.

E. In the areas of environmental protection and land conservation: 1. Improvements in air and water quality and in the preservation of natural areas and wildlife habitat. 2. Provision of green infrastructure in existing settlements and new urban-growth areas. 3. Slowing in the conversion rate of agricultural and nonurbanized land to urban- type land uses. 4. Protection and enhancement of ecosystems, incorporating biodiversity and green infrastructure into developed areas.

52 APPENDIX D

Growth Quality Programs in Georgia

The Atlanta Regional Commission’s Community Choices Program The Atlanta Regional Commission’s (ARC) Community Choices Program provides the region’s communities with new tools and resources to meet development challenges. Realizing that one size does not fit all, Community Choices offers unique and customized approaches for communities grappling with growth challenges. Community Choices offers several resources to help local governments and citizens envision, plan, and develop communities on a more human scale. They include the: • Quality Growth Toolkit designed to offer customized solutions for a variety of growth challenges, from promoting transit-oriented development to developing conservation districts; • Visualization CD that provides new ways to help citizens and planners visualize community design possibilities, from architectural renderings to 3D GIS technology; • ARC Resource Teams that will make site consultation visits to local governments throughout the region upon request to help with special projects and challenges; • Community Planning Academy, which offers planning officials and citizens the latest in community planning concepts and solutions; and • ARC’s Livable Centers Initiative, which provides grants to local governments and nonprofits to help seed good community development ideas and make them a reality.

GEORGIA QUALITY GROWTH PARTNERSHIP PARTICIPATING ORGANIZATIONS AND ASSOCIATIONS

Association of County Commissioners Georgia Regional Transportation of Georgia (ACCG) Authority (GRTA) Atlanta Neighborhood Development Georgia Trust for Historic Partnership (ANDP) Preservation Atlanta Regional Consortium for Georgia State University (GSU) Higher Education (ARCHE) Andrew Young School of Policy Atlanta Regional Commission (ARC) Studies Georgia Department of Natural Greater Atlanta Homebuilder’s Resources (DNR) Association (GAHB) Georgia DNR Historic Preservation Home Builders Association of Division Georgia (HBAG) Georgia Chamber of Commerce Metropolitan Atlanta Chamber of The Georgia Conservancy Commerce Georgia Department of Community Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Affairs (DCA) Authority (MARTA) Georgia Department of Industry, The Nature Conservancy Trade, and Tourism Northwest Georgia Growth Georgia Economic Developers Management Initiative Association (GEDA) Georgia Forestry Commission Regional Business Coalition of Metropolitan Atlanta (RBC) Georgia Institute of Technology Georgia Municipal Association Research Atlanta (GMA) Sierra Club Georgia Planning Association (GPA) Southface Institute Georgia Power Company Trees Atlanta Georgia Public Broadcasting (GPB) Trust for Public Land (TPL) Georgia Rural Development Council UGA Alliance for Quality Growth (GRDC) Urban Land Institute (ULI)

53 Georgia Department of Community Affairs The Georgia Department of Community Affairs (DCA), the major partner to ARC in launch- ing the Georgia Quality Growth Partnership (GQGP) (for other members, see the sidebar on the previous page), has also sponsored a web-based quality growth toolkit. DCA became interested in ARC’s smart growth audit tool description, but it found that the comprehensive smart growth checklist would probably be too imposing for rural local governments and perhaps others outside the Atlanta region. DCA provided limited funding to Jerry Weitz & Associates to provide a more general smart growth auditing tool for use by local governments with less sophistication than those in metropolitan Atlanta. In addition to providing a web-based toolkit for quality growth, DCA initiated a program of resource teams comprised of volunteer members of the Georgia Quality Growth Partnership. Members of the partnership, such as the Georgia Planning Association, have participated in the program by providing professional assistance to local governments during intensive, week-long team visits. DCA has emphasized quality growth principles in its final reports to the local governments that host resource team visits.

Georgia Quality Growth Partnership Resource Teams Quality Growth Resource Teams are local technical assistance visits sponsored by (GQGP) and staffed by volunteers from the partnership, the state university system, and public or private sector organizations in the design and development fields. Team visits are intended to spread innovative planning practices and smart growth concepts throughout the state. To be selected for a resource team visit, a community must demonstrate strong leadership, commitment, and resources to implement smart growth solutions. So far, the visits are producing real-world successes as communities follow through on ideas generated by the team. DCA coordinates the team visits for GQGP by handling visit logistics and preparing the final report. DCA staff meet with local officials about two months prior to each visit to learn what expertise is needed. Team members are then selected in order to achieve an ideal mix of skills for addressing local issues. But work with a community does not end with the resource team visit. DCA and GQGP stay in touch with the communities, offering follow-up assistance and encouragement.