1. S H A R O N W A S O N , A I C P
T O W N P L A N N E R , F O X B O R O U G H , M A
APA Sustaining
Places Initiative
2. APA is considering a program to designate
comprehensive plans as meeting certain sustainability
goals and objectives.
APAās Sustaining Places Task Force was charged with
exploring the role of the comprehensive plan as the
leading policy document and tool to help communities
achieve sustainable outcomes.
3. Background: APA Sustaining Places Initiative
ā¢ Sustaining Places Task Force (2010-12)
ā¢ Sustaining Places: The Role of the Comprehensive Plan (PAS
567) (2012)
ā¢ Sustaining Places Working Group (2012-13)
ā¢ Comprehensive Plan Sustainability Standards
ā¢ Comprehensive Plan Designation: Issues and Benefits
ā¢ Plan Standards Workshop 1: Chicago (2013)
ā¢ Pilot Communities (2013/14)
ā¢ Test Communities (2014)
ā¢ Plan Standards Workshop 2: Atlanta (2014)
ā¢ Forthcoming PAS Report: Sustaining Places Comprehensive
Plans: A How-to Guide (2014)
4. Ten communities participated across the country; two
additional cities were āscoredā
Foxborough was selected as New England pilot
community
5.
6. 2010 Population
āļāÆ Auburn, Washington 71,517
āļāÆ Foxborough, Massachusetts 16,865
āļāÆ Goshen, Indiana 31,934
āļāÆ Memphis/Shelby County, TN 927,644
āļāÆ New Hanover County, NC 206,189
āļāÆ Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 551,967
āļāÆ Rock Island, Illinois 39,018
āļāÆ Seattle, Washington 608,660
āļāÆ Savona, New York 822
āļāÆ Wheeling, West Virginia 28,486
7. 2014 Pilot Communities
āļāÆ Diverse! range in size from 800 residents to nearly 1
million people
āļāÆ Geographic differences span the country from east to
west
āļāÆ Plans range in scale from town/city/county/regional
āļāÆ Differing state laws and plan requirements
āļāÆ Most communities chosen are at the beginning stages of
the plan
āļāÆ āOne community hopes to build on another planning
process under way to advocate for the benefits of
updating a comprehensive plan that has not been
updated for more than 30 years.ā
8. Existing Certification or Designation Programs
āļāÆ State-level programs:
Ā§ļ§āÆ Sustainable Jersey
Ā§ļ§āÆ Minnesota GreenStep Cities
Ā§ļ§āÆ Sustainable Maryland Certified
āļāÆ STAR communities ā Sustainability Tools for
Assessing and Rating communities
11. How Can the Programs Work Together?
ā¢ APA program sets framework for successful
implementation, other certification programs help
achieve that vision
ā¢ Developing and implementing the strategies set forth
in the comp plan positions the community for
certification at the community level
12. Similarities to Other
Certification Programs
ā¢ Focus on sustainability ā take steps to sustain quality
of life over the long term
ā¢ Voluntary programs that recognize leaders in the field
ā¢ Principles and standards align
ā¢ Make guidance and resources available to anyone interested
ā¢ Encourage innovation
ā¢ Rigorous procedures ā meaningful designation
ā¢ Similar processes: apply, demonstrate how you meet a certain
level of standards, have application reviewed, reviewers
determine whether to designate/certify and at what level
13. How Does the APA Program Differ?
ā¢ Designates comprehensive plan (not community as a whole)
ā¢ Not everything relevant to a state certification program
belongs in a comp plan
ā¢ Not intended for traditional comp plans, but comp plans aimed
at sustaining places
ā¢ Purpose is to serve as the concise, go-to resource for desired
content for comprehensive plans for sustaining places
ā¢ Describes desired content but provides flexibility to design a
plan that best meets the needs of each individual community
14. Why Designate Comp Plans?
ā¢ Assert planning profession leadership in sustaining
places
ā¢ Broaden plan-making practice to include
sustainability goals
ā¢ Improve plan quality through comparison with best
practice standards
ā¢ Encourage local governments to vie for designation
15. Standards Framework
Principles:
ā¢āÆ Built environment
ā¢āÆ Nature
ā¢āÆ Economy
Processes:
ā¢āÆ Participation
Attributes:
ā¢āÆ Content
ā¢āÆ Equity
ā¢āÆ Health
ā¢āÆ Region
ā¢āÆ Implementation
āļāÆ Characteristics
19. How Would Designation Work?
Community: Employs standards in plan making
Self-scores plan
Applies for designation
Plan Review: Trained 2-person teams reviews plans
Determine plan score
Write review narrative
APA: Train reviewers
Assign plans to be reviewed
Report final plan review and score to applicant
Maintain database of designated plans
20. Scoring
ā¢ NA = Not Applicable (not counted against total)
ā¢ 0 = Applicable but absent
ā¢ 1 = Low
ā¢ 2 = Medium
ā¢ 3 = High
Bonus Points ā reviewers may assign up to 15 bonus points
for outstanding innovation
21. Possible Designation Levels
Plan score as % of total applicable practices, processes, &
attributes, plus any bonus points:
Designated (Basic) = 70%
Silver (Medium) = 80%
Gold (High) = 90%
22. Changes Made to Program
ā¢ Added content to application to supplement scoring matrix (added a
qualitative component to the process)
ā¢ Developed a Plan Designation Procedure that provides details on scoring
(when to assign a ā2ā vs. a ā1ā)
ā¢ Require community to undertake a self assessment as a part of the
application
ā¢ Development of a āHow-to-Guideā PAS Report to help communities
through designation process (forthcoming)
ā¢ Added bonus points for innovation
ā¢ Added a N/A Category (prevents community from being penalized for
practices that do not apply)
ā¢ Concluded designation needed to be determined by an impartial review
team
23. Outstanding Items
ā¢ Securing reviewers
ā¢ The specifics of the reviewer training (content, process,
timeframe)
ā¢ Funding to support program
ā¢ Costs to apply for designation
ā¢ Organization of plan database and plan resources
ā¢ Finalize standards and designation program and launch
program
ā¢ What to do if reviewers cannot agree on plan score
ā¢ How to keep standards relevant over time
ā¢ Designation Maintenance
25. Thoughts
āļāÆ Can āone size really fit all?ā Urban/rural, very large/
very small
āļāÆ Are criteria universally applicable?
āļāÆ Most communities will incorporate sustainability
into a āmaster plan,ā not do a stand-alone
sustainable community plan. Are APA criteria
flexible and malleable enough to fit fifty different
state requirements for a master plan?
26. (cont.)
āļāÆ Process ends with report and score. Should there be the
ability to discuss findings or explain conclusions?
āļāÆ What is the advantage of being designated (other than
where it might replace state reviews?)
āļāÆ To what extent can the principles, processes, and
attributes be used without going through designation
process?
āļāÆ Why?