Planning Process and Skills Paper

Elements of a Plan
URP
6101
Planning
Process
and
Skills
Dr.
Jaap
Vos
John-‐Mark
Palacios

Palacios
2
of
22
Table of Contents
Introduction..............................................................................................................................................................3
Vision
and
Design...................................................................................................................................................3
Early
Development...........................................................................................................................................4
Directing
the
Design.........................................................................................................................................5
Implementation.......................................................................................................................................................8
Public
Involvement.................................................................................................................................................9
Legislation
and
Power........................................................................................................................................11
The
Wellington
Comprehensive
Plan...........................................................................................................14
Vision...................................................................................................................................................................14
Implementation...............................................................................................................................................16
Public
Involvement........................................................................................................................................18
Legislation.........................................................................................................................................................19
Bibliography...........................................................................................................................................................20

Palacios
3
of
22
Introduction
The
art
of
planning
has
evolved
over
the
past
century.
In
the
United
States,
planning
has

gone
from
an
occasional
occurrence
to
a
part
of
the
normal
development
process.
Through

trial
and
error
as
well
as
research,
planners
have
worked
out
the
details
that
should
be

included
in
a
plan.
No
plan
is
useful
without
vision,
which
could
be
in
the
form
of
a
broad

vision
or
a
detailed
design.
Actions
and
strategies
must
be
provided
in
order
to
implement

that
vision.
The
plan
should
incorporate
broad
public
participation,
and
it
needs
legislative

support
in
order
to
give
it
the
power
to
make
a
difference.
Vision and Design
At
the
beginning
of
the
20th

century,
concepts
such
as
the
Garden
City,
put
forth
by
Ebenezer
Howard
in
England,
and
the
City
Beautiful
movement
in
North
America
(exempliZied
in
the

Chicago
Plan),
enlarged
the
focus
on
urban
planning.1

These
planning
efforts
are
known

primarily
for
their
vision
for
the
city
and
the
form
of
the
urban
design.
Hopkins
states
that

the
goal
of
a
vision
is
to
visualize
the
city
after
the
plan
has
been
implemented.
A
design,

while
still
focusing
on
the
outcome,
narrows
down
the
vision
to
Zlesh
out
the
speciZic

details.2

Without
vision
or
design,
the
plan
has
no
real
goal.
1 Daniels,
“A
Trail
Across
Time,”
181.
2 Hopkins,
Urban
Development,
39-‐40.

Palacios
4
of
22
Early Development
Ebenezer
Howard's
Garden
Cities
proposed
a
design
for
one
aspect
of
the
city.
While
his

intent
was
good
and
his
ideas
were
good,
the
Garden
City
movement
seems
to
have

contributed
more
to
suburbs
than
to
actually
improving
the
city
as
a
whole.
The
concept
of

the
Garden
City
was
originally
put
forward
by
Howard
as
a
solution
to
the
problem
of

urbanization.
While
today
we
accept
urbanization
as
a
fact
and
something
to
deal
with
by

improving
conditions
in
the
city,
many
in
Howard's
day
wanted
to
Zind
a
way
to
keep
people
in
the
country.
He
cites
a
newspaper
that
calls
the
increasing
urbanization,
people
moving

from
the
countryside
to
the
city,
“one
of
the
main
problems
of
the
day.”3

Many
others

describe
the
evil
of
overcrowding
in
the
city
caused
by
the
inZlux
of
people
from
the

country.4

In
this
context,
then,
Howard
presents
his
idea
for
the
Garden
City.
Instead
of

trying
to
encourage
people
to
stay
in
the
country
or
discourage
them
from
moving
to
the

city,
he
took
a
view
more
similar
to
current
attitudes
and
proposed
an
improvement
to
the

city.

In
1910,
C.H.
Reilly
suggests
England
was
focused
only
on
these
garden
city
style
suburbs

instead
of
having
a
vision
for
the
whole
city.
He
states
that
American
cities
such
as
Chicago

dreamt
of
being
like
Paris,
with
its
wide
boulevards,
open
spaces,
monuments,
and

expansive
vistas.5

Hopkins
calls
the
Chicago
Plan
of
1909
that
proposed
these
European

3 Howard,
Garden
cities
of
tomorrow,
12.
4 Ibid.,
11-‐13.
5 Reilly
and
Abercrombie,
“Town
Planning
Schemes
in
America,”
54-‐55.

Palacios
5
of
22
visions
a
good
example
of
a
visionary
plan.
Abercrombie
lauds
the
plans'
attractive
color

illustrations
showing
the
proposed
features;6

and
Hopkins
points
out
that
these
graphics,
as
well
as
verbal
descriptions,
do
an
excellent
job
of
communicating
the
vision.7
Directing the Design
Abercrombie
summarizes
the
1909
Chicago
plan
and
offers
several
speciZic
critiques.
He

seemed
to
appreciate
the
plan
to
improve
the
waterfront
with
public
parks,8

but
he

criticizes
the
plan
to
maintain
the
grid
street
network
and
add
diagonal
streets
later
where

needed.
He
suggests
instead
a
radial
layout
from
the
start,
with
diagonal
streets
like
spokes

on
a
wheel
providing
access
to
the
city
center.9
More
than
30
years
after
Howard's
Garden
Cities,
Raymond
Unwin
touted
some
of
the

concepts
of
the
garden
city.
He
used
Letchworth,
one
of
the
few
cities
described
as
a
proper

garden
city,
as
an
example.
While
the
paper
seems
to
be
advocating
for
the
same
garden
city
concept
that
Howard
developed,
Unwin
focuses
primarily
on
the
aspects
of
density
and

planning.
He
argues
that
a
“town
planned
to
reach
a
certain
maximum
size”
is
the
only
way

to
achieve
a
good
balance
between
the
need
for
open
space
in
the
country
and
the
need
for

urban
amenities.10

But
within
that
scope
he
shows
how
doubling
the
residential
density

6 Ibid.,
56.
7 Hopkins,
Urban
Development,
39.
8 Reilly
and
Abercrombie,
“Town
Planning
Schemes
in
America,”
57,
59-‐60.
9 Ibid.,
58.
10 Unwin,
“Urban
Development
the
Pattern
and
the
Background,”
52.

Palacios
6
of
22
does
not
halve
the
city's
area,
arguing
that
lower
density
is
preferable
to
avoid

overcrowding
since
it
has
a
minimal
impact
to
area.11

While
the
lower
density
might
have

few
negative
impacts
in
a
perfectly
planned
garden
city,
planners
in
the
post-‐World
War
II

era
seemed
to
embrace
the
low
density
forms
without
the
other
aspects
of
a
proper
garden

city.
These
critiques
beg
the
question
of
what
a
design
should
include.
In
1984,
Kevin
Lynch

proposed
some
criteria
for
planning
that
focused
on
the
urban
form,
which
he
referred
to
as
“dimensions
of
performance.”12

He
calls
out
vitality,
sense,
Zit,
access,
and
control
as
the
Zive

basic
dimensions,
then
adds
efZiciency
and
justice
as
“meta-‐criteria.”13

While
at
Zirst
glance

some
of
these
dimensions
seem
abstract,
Lynch
suggests
that
we
use
them
in
order
to

determine
the
quality
of
a
city
or
a
project.
Criteria
such
as
these
are
well
worth
evaluating

when
determining
the
direction
of
a
plan.
Planners
are
now
beginning
to
incorporate
more

of
these
dimensions,
with
criteria
such
as
“livability”
being
added
to
federal
grant
programs
under
the
direction
of
Secretary
of
Transportation
Ray
LaHood.14
In
1949,
Benjamin
Higgins
pointed
out
that
planning,
while
incorporating
various
sciences,

was
itself
more
of
an
art
than
a
science.
He
wanted
to
see
planning
become
a
scientiZic

discipline,
so
he
proposed
various
objectives
that
could
be
incorporated
into
planning
and

11 Ibid.,
50.
12 Lynch,
“Dimensions
of
Performance.”
13 Ibid.,
122-‐123.
14 Raphael,
“Livability
to
Become
Requirement
in
Federal
Transportation
Policy.”

Palacios
7
of
22
analyzed
scientiZically.
These
objectives
provide
a
quantitative
method
for
solving
design

issues.
Many
of
these
objectives
are
in
use
today,
especially
in
the
more
scientiZic
areas
such
as
transportation
planning.
Minimizing
travel
time15

is
used
heavily
in
transportation

planning
and
engineering.
Maximizing
social
product16

is
a
concept
that
was
used
in

planning,
especially
with
utilitarianism,
trying
to
produce
“the
greatest
good
for
the

greatest
number”
of
people.17

The
general
concept
of
social
product
is
still
used,
although

we
focus
on
who
gets
the
social
product
more
than
just
a
total
increase.18

Another
objective

that
Higgins
proposed,
“optimum
density,”19

is
always
a
hot
topic
in
planning
and

development.
It
seems,
however,
that
it
is
used
primarily
by
private
enterprise
to
optimize

the
density
for
the
developer's
proZit.
Planners
tend
to
set
maximums
or
minimums
in
land

use
planning,
but
leave
it
to
developers
to
decide
the
proper
density.
Outside
of
areas
where
the
local
government
planners
meddle
with
the
free
market
by
imposing
regulations
such

as
minimum
parking
requirements20
,
private
enterprise
planners
optimize
density
based
on
the
optimal
return-‐on-‐investment.21

This
has
seemed
to
work,
at
least
where
the
planners

are
accurately
accounting
for
all
the
factors
and
not
just
chasing
potentially
overinZlated

markets.
15 Higgins,
“Towards
a
Science
of
Community
Planning,”
9.
16 Ibid.,
11-‐12.
17 Brooks,
Planning
Theory
for
Practitioners,
64.
18 Ibid.,
65.
19 Higgins,
“Towards
a
Science
of
Community
Planning,”
10-‐11.
20 Shoup,
“The
High
Cost
of
Free
Parking.”
21 Vos,
“History
and
Planning
Theory.”

Palacios
8
of
22
Implementation
A
plan
may
have
grandiose
visions
and
detailed
designs,
but
without
a
method
of
getting
to

those
goals
it
is
rather
useless.
Hopkins
proposes
three
methods
that
plans
can
include
for

implementation:
agendas,
policies,
and
strategies.22
Agendas
are
little
more
than
a
to-‐do
list
that
must
be
acted
on
in
order
to
implement
the

plan.
Hopkins
gives
a
Capital
Improvement
Plan
as
an
example
of
an
agenda,
though
he

points
out
that
the
1909
Chicago
Plan
also
used
this
method.23

Hopkins
calls
policies
“if-‐
then”
rules.24

In
other
words,
do
something
only
when
something
else
happens.

Transportation
concurrency
would
be
one
example,
where
development
is
only
permitted
if
a
road
is
improved.
Agendas
and
policies
are
both
oriented
towards
more
speciZic
actions

that
can
be
accomplished
in
the
short
term
to
achieve
the
overall
goal.
Strategies
look
at
the
bigger
picture
of
actions
and
their
interrelations
and
provide
the

sequence
of
decisions
to
follow.
Hopkins
points
out
that
a
strategy
might
come
up
with
a

policy
in
order
to
achieve
a
goal,
but
it
would
do
so
while
coordinating
how
other
potential

policies
or
actions
would
work
toward
its
goal.
A
strategy
might
also
create
or
link
policies

for
different
areas
in
order
to
implement
a
regional
goal.25

Unlike
agendas
or
policies,

22 Hopkins,
Urban
Development,
34-‐42.
23 Ibid.,
34-‐37.
24 Ibid.,
35.
25 Ibid.,
41-‐42.

Palacios
9
of
22
strategies
can
include
the
bigger
picture
and
might
be
able
to
include
more
long
term

decisions
needed
to
achieve
the
desired
goal.
Public Involvement
In
the
middle
of
the
20th

Century,
Jane
Jacobs
began
writing
on
the
subject
of
planning
and

urban
form
from
the
perspective
of
a
normal
citizen.
In
1958
she
published
“Downtown
is

for
People”
in
The
Exploding
Metropolis,
an
article
that
would
form
the
basis
for
her
book

Death
and
Life
of
Great
American
Cities.
Jacobs
spent
time
observing
streets
that
worked,

and
commented
on
those
aspects
she
felt
planners
needed
to
include
in
order
to
create

vibrant
cities.
For
instance,
she
talks
about
a
“two-‐shift
city”
that
has
ofZice
space
to
keep
it

functioning
through
the
day,
plus
residences
and
hotels
and
entertainment
to
keep
going

through
the
night.
She
says
that
this
makes
the
space
inviting
to
restaurants
for
both
the

lunch
and
dinner
crowds,
plus
opens
up
opportunities
for
basically
any
other
kinds
of

shops
or
venues.26

Jacobs
criticizes
the
dull,
boring,
and
sterile
government
projects
that

were
popular
with
planners
in
the
50s
and
60s.
She
advocates
that
the
city
have
a
variety
of

entertainment
venues
and
amenities,
plus
a
mix
of
uses,
and
sums
up
the
qualities
we

should
look
for
by
suggesting
that
we
(citizens,
not
just
planners)
ask
“will
the
city
be
any

fun?”27
26 Jacobs,
“Downtown
is
for
People,”
129-‐130.
27 Ibid.,
131.

Palacios
10
of
22
Authors
such
as
James
Howard
Kunstler28
,
as
well
as
a
myriad
of
bloggers
on
sites
such
as

Streetsblog.org29
,
The
City
Fix30

and
TransitMiami.com31

and
others
have
taken
up
Jacobs'

mantle
of
citizens
criticizing
planning
issues.
These
vocal
citizens
highlight
the
demand
and
need
for
public
input
into
the
planning
process.
The
Context
Sensitive
Solutions
(CSS)

movement
within
transportation
planning
and
engineering
is
an
example
of
one
response

from
professionals
to
try
to
accommodate
citizen's
wishes32
,
but
the
process
is
relatively

new
and
not
yet
fully
integrated
into
government
agencies'
culture
and
processes.
An

example
of
the
issues
can
be
seen
at
the
Florida
Department
of
Transportation,
which
has

an
ofZicial
CSS
policy
at
the
statewide
level33
,
but
has
received
criticism
lately
at
the
local

level
for
not
including
the
desires
of
local
citizens
in
its
normal
project
development

processes.34

Conroy
and
Berke
concur
that
a
good
public
participation
effort
is
important
to
making
a

plan
sustainable.
They
scored
sustainable
development
plans
and
found
that
a
broader

28 Kunstler,
The
Geography
of
Nowhere.
29 “Streetsblog
New
York
City.”
30 “TheCityFix.com
|
Sustainable
Urban
Mobility.”
31 “Transit
Miami.”
32 “What
Is
CSS?.”
33 Kopelousus,
“Context
Sensitive
Solutions.”
34 Azenha,
“FDOT
is
Broken.
How
Do
We
Fix
It?.”

Palacios
11
of
22
public
participation
effort
led
to
a
more
sustainable
plan.35

No
plan
should
be
completed

without
a
thorough
public
input
process.
Legislation and Power
Bogotá
is
lifted
up
as
an
example
for
the
world
to
follow,
with
their
Ciclovía,
Bus
Rapid

Transit,
and
overall
transformation
of
their
public
spaces.
In
2010
Rachel
Berney
wrote

how
this
transformation
came
about
over
the
past
two
decades
through
the
efforts
of
some

good
mayors
and
their
planning
staff.
From
1995-‐2003,
two
different
mayors,
Antonus

Mockus
and
Enrique
Peñalosa,
made
some
major
changes
in
the
capital
of
Colombia.
In
the

years
leading
up
to
their
terms,
national
legislation
had
strengthened
the
government's

ability
to
use
public
space.36

Although
these
mayors
were
elected,
the
techniques
they
used

focused
more
on
experts
deciding
the
best
direction
to
take
the
city
than
on
public

participation
and
involvement.37

They
even
used
their
projects
in
what
Berney
calls

“pedagogical
urbanism,”
teaching
the
citizens
how
to
behave
as
part
of
the
urban

redevelopment
process.38

Despite
lack
of
involvement
in
the
planning,
these
techniques

were
accepted
by
the
city,
and
they
began
to
see
the
public
spaces
as
their
own.39

It
stands

35 Conroy
and
Berke,
“What
makes
a
good
sustainable
development
plan?,”
1392.
36 Berney,
“Learning
from
Bogotá,”
539.
37 Ibid.,
544-‐545.
38 Ibid.,
550-‐551.
39 Ibid.,
551-‐554.

Palacios
12
of
22
quite
in
contrast
to
the
models
used
in
the
Unites
States,
but
demonstrates
what
can
be

accomplished
with
more
power
to
a
visionary
government.
The
government's
power
to
implement
planning
has
been
developed
through
the
20th

century.
In
1910,
the
United
States
was
interested
in
urban
planning
but
suffered
from
a

lack
of
legislation
to
back
it.40

California
became
the
Zirst
state
to
adopt
a
local
planning

mandate
in
1937,
but
this
was
not
very
strong.
Other
states
passed
legislation
requiring

local
plans
in
the
1970s,
with
further
strengthening
in
the
1980s.
Different
studies

evaluating
plan
quality
have
shown
that
these
state
mandates
are
somewhat
effective
in

making
quality
plans.41
As
World
War
II
was
winding
down,
Schaffer
discusses
a
solution
proposed
in
Britain's

parliament
to
the
issue
of
sustainability.
While
it
was
not
referred
to
as
“sustainability”
in

that
day,
the
problem
being
addressed
was
that
a
town
suffered
when
one
industry
on

which
it
relied
heavily
declined.
The
proposal
under
discussion
at
the
time
was
to
grant

some
planning
authority
at
the
national
level,
to
let
the
Board
of
Trade
have
input
on

whether
a
large
factory
could
go
into
a
particular
city.42

Since
that
day,
several
state
and

national
level
agencies
have
been
created
to
provide
input
into
local
plans.
The
US
federal

government
required
locals
to
prepare
a
general
plan
in
order
to
be
eligible
for
many

40 Reilly
and
Abercrombie,
“Town
Planning
Schemes
in
America,”
54.
41 Berke
and
French,
“The
InZluence
of
State
Planning
Mandates
on
Local
Plan
Quality,”
246-‐247;
Conroy
and

Berke,
“What
makes
a
good
sustainable
development
plan?,”
1394.
42 Schaffer,
“Britain's
Plan
to
End
the
“One
Industry”
Town,”
28.

Palacios
13
of
22
federal
grants.43

Florida's
Department
of
Community
Affairs
is
tasked
with
enforcing
the

state
mandate
for
local
plans
by
reviewing
the
plans
to
ensure
that
the
legally
required
plan
elements
are
present.
Charles
Haar
wrote
about
the
legal
aspects
of
a
master
plan
in
1955.
He
compared
it
to
a

constitution,
because
it
can
become
law
through
adoption
by
the
local
legislature.
If
it

becomes
law,
it
controls
other
laws
in
much
the
same
way
a
constitution
does.
The
chief

difference
between
it
and
a
constitution
is
in
how
it
can
be
amended.
A
constitution
must

be
amended
by
signiZicant
majorities,
such
as
a
61%
or
75%
vote;
however,
the
master
plan
can
change
with
a
simple
majority,
as
easily
as
any
other
law.
Haar
suggests
that
planners

yearn
"for
an
absolute
principle,
and
a
master
plan
that
truly
answers
all
questions,"44

with

the
implication
that
a
master
plan
that
requires
a
more
signiZicant
vote
to
change
it
would

be
more
absolute.
With
the
legislative
situation
in
Florida
becoming
quite
controversial,

perhaps
a
less
Zlexible
master
plan
would
help
appease
the
citizens
fed
up
with

commissions
who
tweak
the
plans
too
often.
This
might
require
the
overall
vision
of
the

plan
to
remain
constant
for
a
longer
period
of
time,
while
speciZic
strategies
or
policies

could
be
reviewed
on
a
regular
basis.
43 Kaiser
and
Godschalk,
“Twentieth
Century
Land
Use
Planning,”
368.
44 Haar,
“The
Master
Plan,
an
Impermanent
Constitution,”
147.

Palacios
14
of
22
The Wellington Comprehensive Plan
The
Village
of
Wellington,
Florida,
developed
a
comprehensive
plan
in
accordance
with

Florida
Statute.45

It
consists
of
an
introduction
and
eleven
different
elements,
including
land
use,
transportation,
housing,
infrastructure,
conservation,
recreation
and
open
space,

intergovernmental
coordination,
capital
improvement,
education,
public
school
facilities,

and
equestrian
preservation.
Most
of
these
elements
are
present
to
fulZill
a
state
required

mandate.
Each
element
has
one
goal
(with
the
exception
of
the
public
school
element,
with

two),
followed
by
a
series
of
more
speciZic
objectives
with
policies
to
implement
them.
The

overall
gist
of
the
comprehensive
plan
is
that
Wellington
wants
to
be
a
low
density

residential
city
with
a
good
number
of
parks
and
open
spaces
as
well
as
equestrian

facilities.
It's
not
particularly
widespread
and
probably
not
much
different
than
the
city

already
looks,
but
it
is
still
a
vision
in
the
strictest
sense.
Vision
The
goals
are
essentially
the
overall
vision
for
the
element.
For
example,
the
goal
for
the

Land
Use
element
is:

Ensure
that
the
future
land-‐use
pattern
“preserves
and
protects
the
distinctive

characteristics
of
the
individual
communities”
which
makes
up
Wellington
and
maintains
a
low-‐density
residential
character,
enhances
community
economic
opportunities,

45 “Wellington
|
Planning
&
Zoning
|
Comprehensive
Plan.”

Palacios
15
of
22
discourages
urban
sprawl,
promotes
energy
efZicient
land
use
patterns,
maintains
an

aesthetically
appealing
and
safely
built
environment,
respects
environmental

constraints,
and
provides
services
for
all
citizens
at
the
levels
established
herein.
Wellington’s
Land
Development
Regulations
at
all
times
shall
remain
consistent
with

Wellington’s
Comprehensive
Plan.
The
Zirst
part
is
more
or
less
a
vision
for
what
the
land
use
should
look
like.
It
is
a
bit

contrary.
For
instance,
how
do
you
discourage
urban
sprawl
while
maintaining
a
low

density
residential
character
for
the
whole
area?
The
last
part
of
this
goal
is
more
of
a

policy
than
a
vision.
The
plan
reads
more
like
something
designed
to
fulZill
a
requirement
than
a
vision
for
the

city.
For
instance,
Objective
1.11
under
the
Transportation
element
states
that
Wellington

will
meet
the
requirements
of
Florida
Statue
163.3177
to
reduce
greenhouse
gas
emissions,
then
states
that
the
strategies
are
contained
within
the
other
objectives
and
policies.

Presumably
the
statutory
requirements
were
met
without
having
this
objective,
but
it
was

probably
put
in
to
keep
the
city
from
being
sued
or
to
make
sure
reviewers
could
check
off

a
box
that
the
requirement
was
met.
Even
the
introduction
supports
this
goal,
with
the
Zirst

four
pages
discussing
state
requirements,
then
the
remainder
discussing
the
Village's

existing
population
and
land
use
as
well
as
the
services
provided
by
the
city.

Palacios
16
of
22
The
plan
does
include
some
maps,
such
as
the
future
land
use
maps
and
the
equestrian
trail
master
plan,
that
show
the
vision
for
the
city.
While
the
plan
contains
a
number
of
other

maps,
they
all
show
existing
features
such
as
parks
or
water
conservation
areas.
What
is

lacking
are
any
renderings
or
drawings
to
show
what
the
proposed
land
use
densities
might
look
like
or
what
the
equestrian
trails
might
look
like.
Unlike
the
Chicago
Plan
with
its
color
pictures
and
maps,
the
Wellington
Comprehensive
Plan
presents
the
majority
of
its
vision
in
words.
It
seems
to
Zit
well
into
what
Kaiser
and
Godschalk
called
the
“verbal
policy
plan.”46
Some
of
the
goals
read
more
like
strategies
than
visions.
While
the
Education
element
has
a

nice
sounding
goal
talking
about
education
improving
the
quality
of
life
for
the
citizens,
the

Public
School
element
has
one
of
its
goals
to
meet
a
level
of
service
standard,
and
another

to
coordinate
school
siting.
Those
may
be
effective
strategies
to
improve
the
education
and

quality
of
life
for
the
citizens,
but
they
are
no
vision.
The
organization
would
have
made

more
sense
with
the
Public
School
Facilities
element
combined
under
the
Education

element.
Implementation
The
plan
makes
good
use
of
strategies
in
what
it
terms
“objectives.”
The
objectives
have

multiple
policies
underneath
them
that
are
more
speciZic,
and
in
general
the
objectives

provide
a
strategy
for
reaching
the
goal
or
vision.

46 Kaiser
and
Godschalk,
“Twentieth
Century
Land
Use
Planning,”
372.

Palacios
17
of
22
The
strategies
can
be
a
little
redundant
at
times
due
to
the
way
the
plan
is
set
up
with

separate
elements
splitting
up
the
overall
vision.
A
strategy
that
might
be
able
to

encompass
multiple
policies
to
achieve
the
overall
vision
gets
repeated
under
the
individual
element
goals.
For
instance,
school
siting
is
discussed
as
Goal
2.0
of
the
Public
School

Facilities
element
and
Objective
1.4
of
the
Education
element
and
Objective
1.9
of
the
Land

Use
Element.
It
would
be
much
easier
to
follow
the
entire
school
siting
strategy
if
it
were
in

one
location
instead
of
three,
but
it
seems
the
intent
of
the
placement
is
to
show
the
land

use
portion
of
the
school
siting
under
its
element,
the
city's
funding
interests
under
the

Education
element,
and
the
tasks
required
to
work
with
the
county
school
district
under

the
Public
School
Facilities
element.
A
less
confusing
way
that
would
still
have
the
required

elements
would
be
to
place
all
the
school
siting
strategies
in
one
place
under
one
element,

and
then
utilize
modern
document
capabilities
to
place
a
hyperlink
under
the
remaining

element
sections
linking
to
the
related
objectives
or
policies.
The
policies
in
the
comprehensive
plan
are
not
all
policies
in
the
sense
of
the
“if-‐then”

rule47
,
as
some
are
simply
action
items.
For
instance,
policy
1.1.4
in
the
Capital

Improvements
element
states,
“Wellington
shall
regularly
schedule
inspections
of
all
capital
facilities
to
monitor
and
record
conditions.”
There
is
no
real
condition
to
that
policy,
it

merely
requires
that
an
action
be
done
on
a
regular
basis.
Other
policies
do
fall
under
the

“if-‐then”
rule,
such
as
policy
1.1.14
in
the
Transportation
element,
which
states:
“Wellington
shall
install
bicycle
lanes
if
feasible
when
collector
roadways
are
expanded.”
Simply

47 Hopkins,
Urban
Development,
35.

Palacios
18
of
22
understood,
if
a
collector
roadway
is
expanded,
then
bicycle
lanes
should
be
installed.
(It
is

perhaps
not
as
strong
as
it
could
be,
leaving
an
easy
out
with
the
phrase
“if
feasible.”

Anyone
who
does
not
want
to
include
bicycle
lanes
on
their
project
will
not
Zind
it
feasible.)

Clearly
the
plan
uses
a
mixture
of
agendas
and
policies
in
order
to
achieve
the
desired

results.
Some
of
these
items
could
be
made
more
speciZic
or
stronger
to
achieve
the
goals

more
readily;
but,
given
that
the
overall
vision
is
not
that
different
from
the
existing

condition,
perhaps
that
would
be
pointless.
Public Involvement
Wellington's
Comprehensive
Plan
does
not
discuss
the
public
involvement
process
used
in

its
development.
The
introduction
mentions
a
public
participation
effort
connected
to
the

Evaluation
and
Appraisal
Report
(EAR),
but
that
document
is
nowhere
to
be
found
on

Wellington's
multiple
websites
or
in
the
comprehensive
plan.
One
can
only
assume,
then—
especially
since
everything
else
in
the
plan
is
so
quick
to
point
out
how
it
meets
state

requirements—that
the
public
involvement
was
limited
to
the
statutory
requirements.
This

seems
to
consist
primarily
of
public
hearings
at
certain
points
in
the
process
where

members
of
the
public
can
speak
out
or
submit
written
comments.
Given
the
growing

dissatisfaction
with
the
process
as
discussed
above,
as
well
as
public
support
for

amendments
such
as
Hometown
Democracy
requiring
a
vote
on
any
comprehensive
plan

changes
in
Florida,
it
would
seem
that
public
participation
that
merely
meets
the
statutory

requirement
is
not
sufZicient.

Palacios
19
of
22
Legislation
The
Comprehensive
Plan
appears
to
meet
all
the
state
mandates,
and
it
gets
adopted
by
the

city
commission,
so
it
would
seem
to
be
in
good
shape
from
a
legislation
viewpoint.
The

version
reviewed
in
this
document
does
not
have
an
adoption
date
listed,
however.
It
needs

to
be
made
clear
somewhere
in
the
plan
that
it
has
legislative
support.
Throughout
the
plan

are
references
to
Florida
Statute
and
administrative
code,
so
it
seems
to
have
support
there

for
individual
strategies
or
policies.
Statements
in
the
introduction
about
Senate
Bill
360

indicate
that
even
this
is
in
a
somewhat
unknown
state.
The
plan
indicates
that
changes
to

the
plan
may
be
required
due
to
the
passage
of
Senate
Bill
360.
Looking
at
this
from
Haar's
wish
to
see
the
master
plan
as
a
constitution,
this

comprehensive
plan
falls
short.
As
mentioned
in
the
plan's
introduction,
state
requirements
require
an
evaluation
at
least
every
seven
years.
While
a
constitution
could
be
updated
at

any
time,
it
does
not
have
a
forced
update
period.
Knowing
that
the
comprehensive
plan

will
likely
be
changed
so
often
makes
it
easier
for
planners
to
get
too
speciZic
and
less

visionary.
If
at
least
the
goals
of
the
plan
had
to
remain
constant
for
a
longer
period
of
time,

perhaps
the
city
would
put
forth
the
effort
to
produce
a
visionary
plan
that
they,
their

children,
and
future
residents
would
appreciate.

Palacios
20
of
22
Bibliography
Azenha,
Felipe.
“FDOT
is
Broken.
How
Do
We
Fix
It?.”
Transit
Miami,
November
23,
2010.

http://www.transitmiami.com/2010/11/23/fdot-‐is-‐broken-‐how-‐do-‐we-‐Zix-‐it/.
Berke,
Philip
R.,
and
Steven
P.
French.
“The
InZluence
of
State
Planning
Mandates
on
Local

Plan
Quality.”
Journal
of
Planning
Education
and
Research
13,
no.
4
(July
1,
1994):

237
-‐250.
Berney,
Rachel.
“Learning
from
Bogotá:
How
Municipal
Experts
Transformed
Public
Space.”

Journal
of
Urban
Design
15,
no.
4
(2010):
539-‐558.
Brooks,
Michael.
Planning
Theory
for
Practitioners.
Chicago:
Planner's
Press,
2002.
Conroy,
Maria
Manta,
and
Philip
R
Berke.
“What
makes
a
good
sustainable
development

plan?
An
analysis
of
factors
that
inZluence
principles
of
sustainable
development.”

Environment
and
Planning
A
36,
no.
8
(2004):
1381
–
1396.
Daniels,
Thomas
L.
“A
Trail
Across
Time:
American
Environmental
Planning
From
City

Beautiful
to
Sustainability.”
Journal
of
the
American
Planning
Association
75,
no.
2

(2009):
178.
Haar,
Charles
M.
“The
Master
Plan,
an
Impermanent
Constitution.”
Law
and
Contemporary

Problems,
1955,
In
The
Urban
and
Regional
Planning
Reader,
edited
by
Eugénie
Birch,
140-‐147.
New
York:
Routledge,
2009.
Higgins,
Benjamin.
“Towards
a
Science
of
Community
Planning.”
Journal
of
the
American

Institute
of
Planners
15,
no.
3
(1949):
3-‐13.

Palacios
21
of
22
Hopkins,
Lewis
D.
Urban
Development:
The
Logic
Of
Making
Plans.
1st
ed.
Washington:

Island
Press,
2001.
Howard,
Sir
Ebenezer.
Garden
cities
of
tomorrow.
London:
Swan
Sonnenschein
&
Co.,
Ltd.,

1902.
Jacobs,
Jane.
“Downtown
is
for
People.”
The
Exploding
Metropolis,
1958,
In
The
Urban
and

Regional
Planning
Reader,
edited
by
Eugénie
Birch,
124-‐131.
Routledge,
2009.
Kaiser,
Edward
J.,
and
David
R.
Godschalk.
“Twentieth
Century
Land
Use
Planning:
A

Stalwart
Family
Tree.”
Journal
of
the
American
Planning
Association
61,
no.
3
(1995):

365.
Kopelousus,
Stephanie.
“Context
Sensitive
Solutions.”
Florida
Department
of

Transportation,
November
20,
2008.

http://www2.dot.state.Zl.us/proceduraldocuments/procedures/bin/000650002.pdf
.
Kunstler,
James
Howard.
The
Geography
of
Nowhere:

The
Rise
and
Decline
of
America's
Man-‐
Made
Landscape.
New
York:
Free
Press,
1993.
Lynch,
Kevin.
“Dimensions
of
Performance.”
A
Theory
of
Good
City
Form,
1984,
In
The
Urban
and
Regional
Planning
Reader,
edited
by
Eugénie
Birch,
118-‐123.
New
York:

Routledge,
2009.
Raphael,
Craig.
“Livability
to
Become
Requirement
in
Federal
Transportation
Policy.”
Project
for
Public
Spaces
-‐
Placemaking
for
Communities,
January
29,
2010.

http://www.pps.org/livability-‐to-‐become-‐requirement-‐in-‐federal-‐transportation-‐

Palacios
22
of
22
policy/.
Reilly,
C.
H.,
and
P.
Abercrombie.
“Town
Planning
Schemes
in
America.”
The
Town
Planning

Review
1,
no.
1
(April
1910):
54-‐65.
Schaffer,
Gordon.
“Britain's
Plan
to
End
the
“One
Industry”
Town.”
Journal
of
the
American

Institute
of
Planners
11,
no.
1
(1945):
28.
Shoup,
Donald
C.
“The
High
Cost
of
Free
Parking.”
Journal
of
Planning
Education
and

Research
17,
no.
1
(Fall
1997):
3
-‐20.
“Streetsblog
New
York
City,”
November
24,
2010.
http://www.streetsblog.org/.
“TheCityFix.com
|
Sustainable
Urban
Mobility.”
The
City
Fix,
n.d.
http://thecityZix.com/.
“Transit
Miami.”
TransitMiami.com,
November
27,
2010.
http://www.transitmiami.com/.
Unwin,
Raymond.
“Urban
Development
the
Pattern
and
the
Background.”
Planners'
Journal

1,
no.
3
(1935):
45-‐54.
Vos,
Jaap.
“History
and
Planning
Theory”
presented
at
the
Planning
Process
and
Skills,
Fort

Lauderdale,
FL,
August
30,
2010.
“Wellington
|
Planning
&
Zoning
|
Comprehensive
Plan.”
Wellington,
n.d.

http://www.wellingtonZl.gov/html/Departments/PlanningZoning/comprehensive_
plan.php.
“What
Is
CSS?.”
Context
Sensitive
Solutions.org
-‐
A
CSS
support
center
for
the
transportation

community.,
n.d.
http://contextsensitivesolutions.org/content/topics/what_is_css/.

Planning Process and Skills Paper

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to Planning Process and Skills Paper

Similar to Planning Process and Skills Paper (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Planning Process and Skills Paper