|
The policy objectives at the top of the
<br />chart can be used to structure the visioning
<br />phase of any land -use planning process. Many
<br />of the references in the table are provided by
<br />third -party websites that are currently used
<br />to market real estate but, paradoxically, are
<br />not conventionally used to plan land use and
<br />development. While some communities may
<br />have the capacity to develop their own trans-
<br />parent measurement systems and reference
<br />targets, many others will not. While these
<br />third -party metrics may not be perfect, the fact
<br />that they are already in widespread use and
<br />freely available to anyone with Internet access
<br />makes their performance targets attractive op-
<br />tions for policy objectives. However, because
<br />these scoring systems have proprietary meth-
<br />odologies that may change without warning,
<br />their scores are not suitable to serve as code
<br />references.
<br />The policy objectives have a one -to -many
<br />relationship with the code -ready references
<br />below. For instance, increasing waikability
<br />must be approached comprehensively through
<br />path and street design, urban design, and the
<br />location and clustering of destinations.
<br />Focus on the Strength of Plan
<br />Recommendation Language
<br />When it comes to writing recommendations or
<br />action items, planners often try to capture one
<br />of two sentiments: the consensus of all the
<br />parties to the planning process or the lowest
<br />level of unanimous agreement of the govern-
<br />ing body. This tricky balancing act produces
<br />recommendations ranging from those that say
<br />and do a lot to those that say and do little or
<br />nothing. A plan's action items create the most
<br />value when they spur tangible action. The fol-
<br />lowing list of plan recommendation approach-
<br />es is ordered from weakest to strongest:
<br />1. Mentioning a topic or action (i.e., "a shout -
<br />out")
<br />2. Using soft verbs such as promote (i.e., non-
<br />specific support for action)
<br />3. To allow an action (i.e., permission to take a
<br />specific action)
<br />4. To offer incentives for an action (i.e., re-
<br />warding a specific action)
<br />5. A firm requirement or mandate (i.e., requir-
<br />ing a specific action)
<br />A Litmus Test for Code -Ready Sustainable
<br />Planning
<br />Leading planners may already prepare
<br />plans following an approach similar to that
<br />described herein. How does the high-perfor-
<br />mance planning proposed herein differ from
<br />good planning? In order to make a market for
<br />this high -value approach to planning it needs
<br />to draw attention to points of distinction. To
<br />facilitate demand, the following checklist can
<br />serve as a litmus test for high-performance
<br />planning. (Note that this list can be used to
<br />help write RFQs and RFPs in exchange for
<br />describing the project using the term Code -
<br />Ready Sustainable Planning.)
<br />1. During the data collection phase, audit lo-
<br />cal policy, codes, and public works practices
<br />against the policy objectives and code -specific
<br />performance tarkets above (and additional
<br />issues of local concern) to identify barriers to
<br />adopting these approaches.
<br />2. Throughout the planning process convene all
<br />of the parties who will be involved in approving or
<br />implementing the recommendations ofthe plan.
<br />3. At the beginning of the planning process,
<br />convene a long -format meeting to
<br />• introduce high-performance planning and il-
<br />lustrate the idea that a given topic can be effec-
<br />tively addressed with different levels of rigor;
<br />® introduce code -specific language and
<br />present each of the code -specific perfor-
<br />mance targets along with a best understand-
<br />ing of the order -of -magnitude costs and
<br />benefits of each target; and
<br />• poll the community and stakeholders on
<br />each topic to identify information gaps, new
<br />topics of local concern, and issues for which
<br />there is consensus.
<br />4. Repeat item three above until each topic
<br />has arrived at consensus. This may take
<br />place later in the same meeting or in a future
<br />meeting. (The consensus on a given topic
<br />may be that there is no support for a high-
<br />performance outcome, in which case the plan
<br />should document this outcome.)
<br />5. Prepare studies to test and demonstrate
<br />what results these policies achieve on the
<br />ground and what level of sustainable perfor-
<br />mance targets they can achieve.
<br />6. Convene a long -format meeting to
<br />review these design and performance alter-
<br />natives and to arrive at consensus on the level
<br />of regulatory performance to be recommended.
<br />7. Draft recommendations that link to specific
<br />policy or regulatory actions, organized accord-
<br />ing to the authority charged with implement-
<br />ing them. Avoid informational recommenda-
<br />tions and those using soft verbs.
<br />8. Conduct a broad plan -adoption process so
<br />that each authority asked to take action on
<br />the plan votes separately to implement their
<br />designated responsibilities.
<br />Cover image © IStockphoto cam
<br />/Oliver LeJVloal; cover design by Lisa Barton
<br />VOL. 3o, NO. 8
<br />Zoning Practice is a monthly publication of the
<br />American Planning Association. Subscriptions are
<br />available for $95 (U.S.) and $izo (foreign).
<br />W. Paul Farmer, FAICP, Chief Executive Officer;
<br />David Rouse, AICP, Managing Director of Research
<br />and Advisory Services.
<br />Zoning Practice (ISSN 1548-0135) is produced
<br />at APA. Jim Schwab, AICP, and David Morley, AICP,
<br />Editors; Julie Von Bergen, Assistant Editor; Lisa
<br />Barton, Design and Production.
<br />Missing and damaged print issues: Contact
<br />Customer Service, American Planning
<br />Association, zo5 N. Michigan Ave., Suite
<br />1200, Chicago, IL 606o1(312-431-9100 or
<br />customerservice@planning.org) within 90 days
<br />of the publication date. Include the name of the
<br />publication, year, volume and issue number or
<br />month, and your name, mailing address, and
<br />membership number if applicable.
<br />Copyright ©zo13 by the American Planning
<br />Association, zo5 N. Michigan Ave., Suite 1200,
<br />Chicago, IL 606o1-5927. The American Planning
<br />Association also has offices at 103015th St., NW,
<br />Suite 75o West, Washington, DC z0005-1503;
<br />www.planning.org.
<br />Att rights reserved. No part of this publication
<br />may be reproduced or utilized in any form
<br />or by any means, electronic or mechanical,
<br />including photocopying, recording, or by any
<br />information storage and retrieval system, without
<br />permission in writing from the American Planning
<br />Association.
<br />Printed on recycled paper, including 50-7o%
<br />recycled fiber and io% postconsumer waste.
<br />ZONINGPRACTICE 8.13
<br />AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOCIATION [page 7
<br />
|