Agenda - Planning Commission - 09/05/2013

Home

ENGTH sx Combined Housing & 3nsportation Expenses are % or less of Income mewhat Walkable: 50-69 ore <eable: 50-69 Score ?ets 3 Criteria >al: Reduce pedestrian & :ycle crash injuries by 50% >od Transit: 50-69 Score ilding energy use reduced by o� IT reduced by 10% >oints: Permit per ighborhood OMMENDA.TI CY OBJECTIVE? Max Combined Housing & Transportation Expenses are 50% or less of Income Highly Walkable: 70-89 Score Highly Bikeable: 70-89 Score Meets 4 Criteria Goal: Reduce pedestrian & bicycle crash injuries by 75% Excellent Transit: 70-89 Score Building energy use reduced by 80% VMT reduced by 20% Max Combined Housing & Transportation Expenses are 45% or less of Income Walker's Paradise: 90-100 Score Biker's Paradise: 90-100 Score Meet all 5 Criteria Goal: Zero pedestrian & bicycle deaths Rider's Paradise: 90-100 Score Building energy use reduced by 100% VMT reduced by 35% DE -SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE TARGET 1 point: Require per 2 points: Require per block neighborhood rmit by Special Permit Permit by Zone : Permit densities citywide : Permit street network inectivity level citywide ,mit citywide ,oints: Permit diverse housing les per neighborhood -mit minimum 7 "diverse )s" per neighborhood opt current IECC EE Code Ruire 1 point citywide Ruire 1 point citywide oints: Eliminate parking >imums oints: Require rainfall antion on site Permit in transit corridors •mit 1,000 dwelling units hin 5 minute walk mit citywide ;ic: 30-49 points p2: Require densities in some zones p3: Require street network connectivity level in some zones I c6: Achieve 1 point Require in certain zones 1 point: Require diverse housing types per neighborhood Permit minimum 11 "diverse uses" per neighborhood Require buildings be Net -Zero Ready (Austin, TX) Require 1 point in certain zones Require 1 point in certain zones 5 points: Permit car -free housing 3 points: Require rainfall retention on site p2: Require in transit corridors Require 500 dwelling units within 5 minute walk IRequire in certain zones Moderate: 50-69 points The Plan -Code Gap Devalues Planning Over the long term, the plan -code gap erodes confidence in the effectiveness of planning. Municipalities prepare plans to address spe- cific opportunities or concerns and to move Permit Citywide p2: Require densities citywide p3: Require street network connectivity level citywide c6: Achieve 2 points Require citywide 2 points: Require diverse housing types per block Require minimum 4 "diverse uses" per neighborhood Require Living Building Challenge. Net -Zero certification Require 1 point citywide Require 1 point citywide 7 points: Require car -free housing 4 points: Require rainfall retention on site p2: Require citywide Require 1,000 dwelling units within 5 minute walk Require in certain zones Very High: 70 - 100 points Policy Policy Policy Policy, Map, & Codes Policy & Subdivision Policy & Map Policy Policy Zoning Zoning Zoning Subdivision Subdivision Subdivision & Zoning Zoning Zoning Code & Map Building Code Policy, Map, & Codes Policy, Map, & Codes Policy, Map, & Codes Codes & Public Works Policy, Map, & Codes Zoning Code & Map Policy & Map Policy & Map Douglas Farr their communities forward. The failure to execute on high priority goals and objectives may well result in reduced economic productivity and community well-being. In addition, community members who participate in a master -planning process have a rea- sonable expectation that the plan will be implemented as written. A delayed or poor implementation devalues their investment of time and energy. Such an outcome further undermines the perceived effectiveness of planning, making planning harder to "sell" and appears to work against many of the aspirational principles of the American Institute of Certified Planners Code of Ethics. Taken together, the plan -code gap should be of great concern to the planning profession and the goal of reducing the gap and increasing plan effectiveness should be the focus of leading practitioners. Illustrating Plan -Code Gap Types The graphic on page 3 illustrates a typology of plan -code gaps using three prototypes: the rhetorical, the permis- sive, and the aligned. While a munici- pality can have elements of all three types across its regulatory portfolio, this article proposes that the aligned type should be the ideal. The rhetorical type occurs when a plan uses aspirational language that is not translated into developmental regulations. A symptom of this type is the use of buzz words such as green, sustainable, or walkable that are not translated into performance criteria and only weakly linked to implementa- tion. To non -planners this approach appears to overpromise benefits and under -deliver on results, reinforcing the idea that planning is "pie -in -the -sky" and ultimately ineffective. The permissive type refers to a laissez-faire-based local planning system where plans are nonexistent or obsolete. The threat posed by this typology is its permissiveness in permitting long-lived and irreversible development practices that are decid- edly not in the public's interest, such as a strict separation of land uses and automobile -oriented street and lot designs. This approach can resonate with constituencies who may see all government strictures or interventions as bad. The aligned type seeks to match plan recommendations with specific development regulations. Using this ZONINGPRACTICE 8.13 AMERICAN PLANNING. ASSOCIATION I pages