SouthwesternPennsylvania

Citizens’ Vision for

Smart Growth:Strengthening Communities

and Regional Economy

Sustainable Pittsburgh

Version 1

About This Report

The Southwestern Pennsylvania Citizens’ Vision for Smart Growth

(Citizens’ Vision) reviews principles of Smart Growth for the region’s economic

prosperity. It explores the need to connect land use planning and investment in

infrastructure to focus development on priority growth areas, and it serves as a

guide for assessing the sustainability of community investments, economic

development proposals, and infrastructure projects.

Since beginning the visioning process approximately two years ago, Sustainable

Pittsburgh has, through regional forums, engaged hundreds of people and

many organizations in dialogue about mutual concerns regarding the future of

the metropolitan region and that of their own communities. Citizens’ Vision is

based on what people see as the region’s core assets – a diverse set of livable

communities and their environmental surroundings. It strives to optimize region-

wide efficiencies with the intent of attracting investments, particularly those associated

with the “new” economy, that might not otherwise be made here. Sustainable

Pittsburgh has created presentations about the region’s development history to

help facilitate these discussions. These land patterns are presented here to illustrate

the need for a regional land use plan.

The online pdf version of this document showsfull-color pages, including maps and graphics. Foroptimal legibility, color printing is recommended.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ABOUT THIS REPORT...................INSIDE COVER

INTRODUCTION ........................................2

TRACKING SPRAWL ....................................3

MUNICIPAL IMPACTS ..................................4

SOCIAL IMPACTS .......................................7

SEWER AND WATER SYSTEMS .......................9

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSETS ..........................11

TRANSPORTATION LINKAGES.......................13

CITIZENS’ VISION PROPOSED POLICIES..........14

CONCLUDING RECOMMENDATIONS..............17

COMMUNITY FORUM HOSTS......................19

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS..............................25

MAPS

RESIDENTIAL LAND CONSUMPTION ....................3

NET POPULATION CHANGE 1940 - 2000 .........5

HOUSEHOLD INCOME ....................................8

SEWER SERVICE ............................................9

WATERWAYS AND WETLANDS.........................11

PRIME AGRICULTURAL LAND AND ASAS ............11

ENVIRONMENTALLY SIGNIFICANT AREAS.............12

ENVIRONMENTAL COMPOSITE .........................12

FOCUSED GROWTH TRANSIT VISION ................13

LAND USE-TRANSPORTATION 1940/TODAY .......14

GROWTH AREAS .........................................16

APPENDIXES

APPENDIX 1: PRECEDENTS - REGIONAL LAND USE .........................................................................20APPENDIX 2: COMMONWEALTH MUNICIPAL PLANNING CODE DEFINITIONS ...........................................22APPENDIX 3: SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT CRITERIA.........................................................................23

made regionally. We are not doing this today. Theregion is sprawling. Inefficiencies created by sprawlwork to the detriment of taxpayers, major investors,“at risk” populations, and the environment. Inefficientland use is the consequence of the lack of a regionalland use plan to guide growth and infrastructureinvestments, outdated zoning and ordinances that limitdevelopers’ options, lack of consistent professionalplanning throughout the region’s fragmented governance,and policies that subsidize sprawl.

Regional Smart Growth can ensure that SouthwesternPennsylvania’s most prominent assets, its livablecommunities and environmental surroundings, will besustained. Certainly institutional and governmental reformsare needed. But a vision comes first. The Citizens’Visionadvocates regional land use planning and maps a SmartGrowth vision for multimunicipal and county collaboration.

INTRODUCTIONCitizens’ Vision is based on expressions of concernedcitizens and on past regional planning efforts. It providespolicy recommendations on challenges and opportunitiesfor our region to:

• Capitalize on the reality that economic competitive-ness for jobs, residents, and visitors is determinedat the regional level and above.

• Attract investment to the region and reduce financialcosts caused by sprawl and disinvestments in ourexisting communities.

• Strengthen communities by responding to growingmarket demand for traditional neighborhooddevelopment, urban living, mixed use and incomeenvironments, and conservation-minded development,while curbing sprawl.

• Preserve and promote existing villages, towns, andcities as significant places for living and commerce.

• Enhance the region’s air and water quality and preserveopen space for future generations.

• Reduce dependency on cars in favor of publictransportation.

• Close the social equity gap of growing socio-economic disparities and racial segregation.

• Take advantage of the new tools and incentivesprovided by the Commonwealth to manage growthby identifying “Growth Areas” and “RuralResource Areas” as priorities for public investment.

Sustainable Pittsburgh believes that if principles ofsustainable development are applied in SouthwesternPennsylvania using Smart Growth practices, the paceof sprawl will be slowed and eventually halted, resultingin greater social equity, environmental quality, andeconomic prosperity.

Our expectation in presenting the Citizens’ Vision tothe region is that people will agree that we can haveboth growth and sustainable development. The prem-ise is straightforward – conscious choices aboutwhere to steer growth and development should be

The Citizens’Vision is offered to spark public discussionand debate and serve as a guide to planning effortsand assessments of new development proposals at theregional, county, and municipal levels such as:

- economic development initiatives- transportation projects- regionally significant residential communities- extensions of sewer and water service areas- other environmental enhancements

It is anticipated that civic leaders, elected officials,and candidates for office will embrace the substanceof Citizens’ Vision and bring necessary changes toregional organizations, and county and municipalgovernmental units to redirect the region’s land use inline with the principles of Smart Growth.

2

TRACKING SPRAWL

Southwestern Pennsylvania has a population of about2.3 million people in nine counties and over 500municipalities. The region’s population peaked in1960; our population today is what it was in 1940. Inthe last census virtually every region in the nationgrew in population. Pittsburgh did not. Nor did theregion. Nevertheless, consumption of land – especiallysome valued environmental assets – has been extensive.

The map illustrates the location of homes throughoutthe region by 1950 (over one-third of the region’shomes were built by 1950) as well as the outwardexpanding housing built after 1950. Fifty years ago,households were concentrated along the river valleysand in the county seats that served as business centers.The outward migration evidenced is supported byU.S. Department of Agriculture data indicating thatbetween 1982 and 1997 nearly half (43 percent) asmuch land as had been previously developed wasbuilt on, paved, or otherwise developed despite aregional population decline of 8 percent (SustainablePittsburgh’s Southwestern Pennsylvania RegionalSustainability Indicators Report 2002). We have ashrinking population base and a shrinking resourcebase, yet we are expanding our expenditures in termsof infrastructure and land. The trend is not sustainable.

3

“If you regard sprawl not as congestionbut as [inefficient] use of land,Pittsburgh did not perform very well inthe 1990s. Pittsburgh, in fact, could beconsidered one of the worst sprawlingplaces in the country…If we were talk-ing about Austin [Texas], this would be different, but, this is a regionthat lost population. The region as a whole needs to step back and ask,‘Are these development patterns in the greater good?’ Or, ‘Does this justspread around the population more in a way that weakens the core?’“said Bruce Katz, a senior fellow at the Washington, D.C.-based(Brookings Institute) public policy think tank.

Scholar says area sprawl worse than L.A.’sJune 08, 2001, Pittsburgh-Post Gazette

RESIDENTIAL LAND CONSUMPTION

1 Dot = 75 Housing Units Built Before 1950

1 Dot = 75 Housing Units Built After 1950

Allegheny

Beaver

Butler

Fayette

Washington

Westmoreland

Pittsburgh MSA

Generally, our older communities have declined themost. They were developed under different modes oftransportation, typically pedestrian and streetcar, andwere each distinguished by their environmental settingsand economic reasons for being. Streets were laid outin a grid except along creek beds. Retail areas, schools,post offices and banks, and other public places werenearby. Public services, including police and fire stationsand central water and sewer, complemented these livablecommunities.

By comparison, today’s new communities have a dif-ferent scale and design. In most cases in our region, itis no longer legal to build the traditional mixed useneighborhoods that have long defined our populationcenters. Today’s zoning tends to be oriented to maxi-mizing revenue for municipal budgets rather thanbeing first oriented to building livable communities.Such “fiscal zoning,” for example, specifically limitsoptions in favor of low population density cul-de-sac

4

MUNICIPAL IMPACTS

Southwestern Pennsylvania has sprawled in all com-pass directions. Population declines since 1960 and aredistribution of residential and non-residential activitieshave led to the decline of older communities, contributedto social and economic disparities, infringed on formerlyproductive agricultural lands, and usurped otherenvironmental assets.

Growth and decline of the region’s communities isstartling. Seventy percent of municipalities havefewer residents today then they did 60 years ago –and this is nowhere more dramatic than in Pittsburgh. In the map on page 5, the red circles represent netmunicipal population losses. They are concentrated inPittsburgh, river valleys, municipalities, and in thecounty seats. The areas highlighted in green are thosethat grew in population.

“After decades of watching prime

farmland, open space, and rural

areas disappear, we now have

reached a crossroads in terms of

our land use policy decisions.

Because of inconsistent land use

decisions in the past, we can see

how the resources that are tied to

our economy and our very way

of life are threatened. How we

respond to this threat will determine

what the future holds for

Pennsylvania. Ultimately, as we

come to this crossroads, we are

faced with two choices: do nothing

to reverse the current rate of

land consumption or do something

to ensure that smart growth

occurs.“

2002 Annual Report on Land Use,PA Dept. of Community and

Economic Development

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800

Developed Land 1982 Developed Land 1997

LAND CONSUMPTION (SOUTHWESTERN PA)Acres of Developed Land 1982 vs 1997

x 1,000

residential developments segregated from retail andcommercial uses. Growth in the region is occurring atlower densities where shopping, jobs, and housing aretypically separated. Traffic congestion and servicedemands for water, sewer, police, and fire are on therise and so are public costs. At the same time there isa growing market for work/live opportunities in

5

NET POPULATION CHANGE 1940 - 2000BY MUNICIPALITY

25,000

12,500

2,500

-2,500

-12,500

-25,000

POPULATION CHANGE 1940 - 2000BY MUNICIPALITY

places that have inviting main streets and a sense ofcommunity typical of the region’s old neighborhoods.Simply put, outdated zoning is out of step withemerging market demand for communities notdependent on cars that feature neighborly interactionsand are set respectfully into their natural environments. 1940 2000

Name PG Pop Pop

Aliquippa 27,023 11,734

Butler city 24,477 15,121

Derry Twp. 14,175 14,726

Greensburg 16,743 15,889

Harrison 13,161 10,934

Hempfield 20,687 40,721

Indiana 10,050 14,895

Jeannette 16,220 10,654

McKeesport city 55,355 24,040

Mt. Lebanon 19,571 33,017

Mt. Pleasant Twp. 10,534 11,153

Munhall 13,900 12,264

New Kensington 24,055 14,701

North Union 14,700 14,140

Penn Hills 15,578 46,809

Pittsburgh city 671,659 334,563

Ross 10,827 32,551

Shaler 11,185 29,757

Uniontown 21,819 12,422

Unity 10,994 21,137

Washington 26,166 15,268

Wilkinsburg 29,853 19,196

The development strategy for smaller cities, particularlythe county seats, is continued renewal and re-densification– done collaboratively with their neighboring townships.Sustainable Pittsburgh believes all of these older centralplaces had locational advantages when they were the

most prominent commercial centers a coupleof generations ago. With good fortune andhard community- based work they can belivable communities poised to attractinvestment and grow.

Sprawl in many metro areas around thenation has been driven by region-wideeconomic and population growth. Sprawlin our region, however, has not been inresponse to increasing population. It hasresulted in the:• decline of many of the region’s older towns

• new “edge cities” that siphon investmentfrom older business districts

• expensive public services that have notbeen offset by real region-wide growth6

Sprawl often grows suburbs at the expense of olderdowntowns’ ability to survive. For example, Uniontown,like most other county seats, is working hard to redevelopits business district. All the while, new shoppingstrips, big box retailers like Wal-Mart, or malls on theoutskirts of town divert cus-tomers. Time and time againcommunities approve realestate developments on thepromise of economic benefitbased on relocating businessesor residents who bring theirtaxes with them from onemunicipality to another. In aregion with declining population,this tallies to no net gain ineconomic development –another unintended conse-quence of “fiscal zoning.”

With retailers and personalservice businesses simplyfollowing their markets andcompeting for customers, thepublic policy questionbecomes: To what degreeshould public funds foster thispredatory behavior amongretailers? If, for example, taxrevenues were shared betweencounty seats like Uniontownand their surrounding townships,there would at least be a sharingof revenues that would easethe decline felt by residents and businesses thatremain in the county seat.

While the older established cities (Pittsburgh,McKeesport, New Kensington, and all the countyseats) have smaller populations today than in 1940,they have livable neighborhoods that are safe, walkable,and friendly. In neighborhoods that are not as livable,community development actions can raise well-being,position them for economic renewal, and sustaincommunity social fabric.

“When you spend $100

at the chain Borders Books

& Music, your purchase

creates only $13 worth

of local economic activity.

That same $100 spent at

a locally owned book or

record store generates

$45, or more than three

times as much local

economic activity.”

Conclusion of a new study,Economic Impact Analysis:

A Case Study conducted by Civic Economics and

published by Livable City inAustin, Texas.

• distancing of jobs from workers

• gradually increasing traffic congestion

• consumption of valuable environmental assets andfarm land

• increased incidents of flooding and contaminatedstorm water runoff resulting from grading andpaving for real estate developments

• increased costs to taxpayers related to financingnew infrastructure, traffic congestion, energy use,air pollution, car dependency, and an increasingdisparities gap between races and haves and havenots

• growing spatial mismatch between those needingentry level jobs and the location of new jobs

Declining population coupled with increasing conversionof land from open space to development means we arenot being efficient with our resources which ultimatelymakes the region less attractive for investment.

Smart Growth Responses: To advance our region’s quality of life and competitiveness,Citizens’ Vision proposes to:

• Provide incentives for multimunicipal plans andrevenue sharing in support of Smart Growth.

• Strengthen community development corporations’capacity to market their neighborhoods, redevelopvacant properties, revitalize main streets, andengage in regional infrastructure planning andinvestment.

• Use public transportation to foster redevelopmentthrough Transit Oriented Development (TOD) andLocation Efficient Mortgages (LEM). (TOD usespublic infrastructure to foster adjacent dense devel-opment to put housing and jobs near transit. LEMprovides below market home financing for placeslocated close to public transportation access).

• Foster locally-owned businesses.

• Promote infill and brownfield and grayfield develop-ment in older communities and increase residentialand employment densities (align public transportationto these priorities).

• Support a mix of development (residential, commercial,office space, community schools, parks).

• Encourage preservation of historic and culturalresources.

• Develop housing that accommodates a range ofincomes, family sizes, and ages including low- andvery-low income residents.

• Develop bicycle and pedestrian-friendly neighborhoodsthat are connected to and integrated with shoppingareas and employment centers.

• Intensify public transportation services as a meansof offering people options to using cars.

• Save tax dollars by using and upgrading existinginfrastructure.

• Develop indicators of sustainability to gaugeprogress.

SOCIAL IMPACTS

A key finding of Sustainable Pittsburgh’s RegionalSustainability Indicators Report is that we often knowvery little in hard data terms about equity issues. Andwhere data exits, it reveals deep and disturbing disparitiesamong people in our region particularly with regard torace and economic status. john powell, Director of theInstitute on Race and Ethnicity at Ohio State University,who keynoted the region’s 3rd Annual Smart GrowthConference on May 31, 2003, shed light on howsprawling land use trends drive racial and economicpolarization. powell explained that 1940 was thepinnacle of population in many regions around thenation whereby 60 percent of Americans living inmetropolitan areas lived in 192 cities. As African-Americans and later Latinos and others started comingto the central cities, the federal government, firstthrough housing and then through an aggressive highwayprogram, started subsidizing white flight outside the

7

“What we need to do in this city and

in any region around the country is

build quality of place. That goes beyond

creating venture capital funds, that

goes beyond creating high-technology

incubators, that goes beyond increasing

the R&D assets. We have to make our

region places people want to live and

work.”

Richard Florida Champions of Sustainability

forum series March 15, 2000

city causing dramatic change in the landscape. Today60 percent of Americans living in a metro area do notlive in a central city. Instead, they are distributedacross 9,600 separate jurisdictions. The nation is muchmore fragmented today. powell asserts that the morefragmented a region, the more racially and economicallysegregated it becomes. His clincher, “Of course it maysurprise many that the most fragmented region in thecountry is Pittsburgh…and so we built this system thatis very racialized but now it can operate without evenmaking reference to race. We’ve structured disparitiesinto the environment and it has become rational to dothe irrational. It becomes rational for communities tonot cooperate, to compete for tax base, to plan withoutregard to spill over impacts on neighboring communities,and by engaging in exclusionary zoning to keep outpeople who live in the center city and older suburbswho are low and moderate income.”

“A new study by Good Jobs First finds that at least 66 U.S. jurisdictions now apply job quality

standards to recipients of economic development subsidies. The standards range in the

types of workforce development issues addressed, including health insurance requirements.

There is no indication that the standards have adversely affected the “business climate” of

their respective jurisdictions. In fact the standards mesh well with employers’ needs for

employee retention and skills enhancement.” Three Rivers Workforce Investment Board

The adjacent mapshows wealthy andpoor householdsare concentratedin different partsof the region.These patternshave becomemore pronouncedover the decadeswith location aracially encodeddeterminant ofproviding ordenyingopportunity.

According to TheBrookingsInstitution Centeron Urban andMetropolitanPolicy, approxi-mately 88 percentof the nation’speople living inpoverty reside in

or around urban centers. Sprawl hurts the poor, and itmakes older communities in our region less attractiveand livable. There is a self-fulfilling cycle of commu-nity decline at play. Businesses that serve residentsmust “follow” their customers and too often thismeans relocating to the suburbs. As the demand forreal estate diminishes in older centers, so does thebasis for taxation. It then follows that quality of pub-lic services deteriorates due to inadequate funding. Inresponse, tax rates are raised with the burden of com-munity decline shouldered by those with the least abil-ity to pay, the people left behind. This trend haswidened the growing disparities gap in our region.

8

“Low-skill employment

opportunities are growing

outside the core area of

the region, while low-cost

housing opportunities

remain concentrated in

the core area creating

both transportation and

equity issues.”

Regional PublicTransportation Plan

for SouthwesternPennsylvania:

Strategic Vision

(commissioned by SPCand the Port Authority

of Allegheny County)

HOUSEHOLD INCOME (1990 DOLLARS)

1 Dot = 15 Households with Incomes <$10,000

1 Dot = 15 Households with Incomes >$75,000

For the communities in our region where significantconcentration of poor households exist, the consequencesof sprawl include:• Deteriorating housing that is occupied by a dispro-

portionate number of low and moderate incomefamilies.

• Polarization and segregation economically andracially with concentration of poverty affectingsmall cities and urban centers the worst.

• Reduced property values and tax capacity to provideservices.

• Deteriorating schools and quality of education.

• Distancing of jobs from where people live andincrease of low-wage, no-benefits service jobs inthe suburbs.

Smart Growth Responses: New ways to govern the revitalization of the region’solder communities must be defined. Citizens’ Visionconnects priorities of regional equity and land usereform. Certainly, the long-term resolution of thisissue is halting sprawl and making the revitalizationof older communities easier. But in the meantime, itis prudent to consider these approaches to reducingthe inequitable burden on residents:• Reduce reliance on property tax or introduce tax

base sharing.

• Decrease disparity in funding between schooldistricts and increase state share funding forschools.

• Increase incentives for housing rehabilitation,affordable/workforce housing, community revitalization,infill development and redevelopment with emphasison providing economic opportunities for residents,i.e., jobs.

• Maintain and expand public transportation serviceto older communities.

• Incorporate principles of quality health care,transportation, housing, and childcare into land

development ordinances to promote economicdevelopment that benefits low-income persons.

• Advance community restoration as a strategy foreconomic stimulus.

• Provide incentives for companies to build incommunities with working class housing opportunities.

• Provide an increased level of mortgage assistanceand credit repair programs to aspiring homeowners.

• Develop more means to acquire vacant and abandonedproperties in low income areas.

9

SEWER AND WATER SYSTEMS MAY

FOSTER SPRAWL

There are more than 200 sewer service providers and300 water suppliers in the region, more than half ofwhich serve fewer than 1,500 customers. Since water andsewer infrastructure is necessary for new development,these providers have de facto authority to influencethe density and location of new developments in ourregion.

The complexityof this servicedelivery system isdocumented andanalyzed in therecently releasedreport, Investingin Clean Water.The report’sconclusion that aregional resolutionof this complexadministrativeissue wouldrequire cooperationamong public andprivate organiza-tions “on a scalenever before seenin this region,” issupported by thefinding that with-out regionalcooperation, thecost of makingthe necessaryrepairs andupgrades to waterand wastewatersystems isestimated at$10 billion ormore over the

Existing Sewer Service

SEWER SERVICE

next 10 years, more than twice the level of investmentmade in those systems over the past decade.According to the study, in Allegheny County alone,more than 16 billion gallons of mixed rainwater andraw sewage overflow into area waterways each yearbecause the current system cannot handle the volume.As a result, 500,000 residents are at risk from unreliableor polluted water supplies, inadequate wastewater systems,or both.

As a primary method of containing sprawl, Citizens’Vision advocates defining “Growth Areas” (as authorizedby the PA Municipalities Code) and containinggrowth within them. And, Citizens’ Vision advocatesa moratorium on direct and indirect public investmentsin sewer and water systems outside of areas that arecurrently served (unless there are compelling publichealth issues that can only be resolved by providingsuch systems without new service being added). Fiscalexpediency alone rationalizes steering developmentfirst to existing communities to simultaneously fix,upgrade, and use in-place surplus capacity as opposedto building new elsewhere. For many communitiesthe surplus capacity can be turned into economicadvantage for economic redevelopment.

This containment concept is more realistic than somemay believe as:

• Capital expenditures needed to upgrade and maintainsewer and water systems in the ground today areextraordinary and require a new level of coordination.

• Surplus capacities of existing systems hold promisefor redevelopment to meet future demand under a“Growth Areas” scenario.

• Suburban land use is already restricted by environ-mental regulations that protect the environment andensure adequate potable water and sanitary sewertreatment are available. These limitations coupledwith zoning can guide public investment in sewerand water service to determine where developmentwill occur.

10

“Southwestern Pennsylvania’s

waters are a priceless asset for

residents, recreation, industry,

and agriculture. To adequately

protect that resource, we must

make greater investments in

infrastructure, and spend that

money more wisely…Without

such an effort the region’s waters

will continue to suffer from a quiet crisis hidden from

public view – contamination from malfunctioning and

inadequate sewer and septic systems. Southwestern

Pennsylvania will risk a loss of momentum in economic

development efforts and a threat to its quality of life,

as well as the likelihood of more severe and expensive

enforcement actions from state and federal regulators.”

Statements by Dr. Jared Cohon,President of Carnegie Mellon University

and other community leaders. Investing in Clean Water website

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSETS

The region has rich natural assets. These preciousassets:• Contribute to quality of life, economic development,

increased property values, and places where peoplewant to live.

• Provide “natural services” such as drinking waterand agricultural production. Wetlands controlfloods; trees and vegetation filter pollutants, holdsoil, consume carbon dioxide, and produce oxygen.

• Provide outdoor recreation opportunities forhealthy lifestyles and spiritual enrichment.

• Support biodiversity – the basis for all life.

The adjacent map shows our rivers, tributaries, lakes,ponds, and wetlands separated by thousands of ridge-lines from which valley floors of all varieties arefound. Watersheds determined to be of “high quality”or “exceptional value” are highlighted. There is muchto protect and enhance through regional planning.

Most of the region’s oldest communities are locatedalong rivers because they once served as transportationcorridors. Maintaining water quality standards isdirectly influenced by land use and is fundamental tothe region’s well-being.

The lower map shows parts of the region that containland where soil is very suitable for agriculture. Thisland, particularly when not steeply sloped, is alsosuitable for real estate development. The challenge isto conserve agricultural lands as they add economicvalue either through agricultural production or as anintrinsic amenity.

11

WATERWAYS AND WETLANDS

Waterways & Ponds

Physiography

Steeply Sloped Areas(not Greene County)

Flood Prone Areas& Wetlands

Streams of ExceptionalValue

Stream Quality

High Quality Streams

PRIME AGRICULTURAL LAND AND ASAS

Waterways & Ponds

Physiography

Steeply Sloped Areas(not Greene County)

Flood Prone Areas& Wetlands

Agricultural SecurityAreas

Agricultural Activity

areas) are also found throughout our region. There arehardly any municipalities in which one or more of theseareas do not exist. In this sense, all municipal officialsmust be stewards of the environment – enablingactive or passive use or preservation of Bio-DiversityAreas (defined as “habitats for plants, animals, and naturalcommunities recognized as state or national speciesof special concern”).

Taken together, the environmental assets depicted onthe adjacent composite map are those that remainafter the last few decades of sprawl which has overrunmuch of the region’s open space not previously protectedby publicly accountable ownerships.

In SP’s regional forums, citizens repeatedly expressedconcern and wrestled with the same question:

How can new development be steered to theregion’s existing communities while preservingviable farmland, environmental assets, andother valued open space?

In calling for “Rural Resource Areas,” Citizens’Vision supports municipalities that designate“Agricultural Security Areas” (ASA) specific to areaswith capacity to produce agricultural products. Theaccompanying map identifies ASA. The CommonwealthASA designations prevent municipalities fromunreasonably restricting farm structures and practices.Designated properties are eligible for considerationunder the Commonwealth’s program to purchasedevelopment rights, a technique for preserving farmland.

The map demonstrates that Environmentally SignificantAreas (parks, gamelands, trails, and bio-diversity

ENVIRONMENTALLY SIGNIFICANT AREAS

Waterways & Ponds

Physiography

Steeply Sloped Areas(not Greene County)

Flood Prone Areas& Wetlands

Agricultural SecurityAreas

Environmental Assets

Bio-Diversity Areas

Significant OpenSpaces (nec)

Parks & Fairgrounds

Streams of ExceptionalValueHigh Quality Streams

Gamelands

12

ENVIRONMENTAL COMPOSITE

Parks & Fairgrounds

Bio-Diversity Areas

Environmental Assets

Gamelands

Significant OpenSpaces (nec)

Waterways & Ponds

Physiography

Steeply Sloped Areas(not Greene County)

Flood Prone Areas& Wetlands

Transportation Plan forSouthwestern Pennsylvania (seeAppendix 1). This report documentsthe extreme costs of trying to providepublic transportation under acontinued sprawl pattern it refersto as “Trend Scenario” vs. if“Focused Growth” is achieved.As documented, “FocusedGrowth” has big advantages andis endorsed by the report authorsled by DMJM Harris projectmanager, Alan Biehler (now PADOT Secretary). It asserts thatwithout focusing growth toachieve densities of populationcenters, public transportationcannot be cost effective.

The long-range public trans-portation improvements programrecommended in Regional PublicTransportation Plan forSouthwestern Pennsylvania connectsthe region’s population centers byexpanded fixed route bus servicethat would intersect with light rail and/or fixed routebusways. These linkages were identified based on citizens’desires gleaned from the regional forums held to gaininput for that report. Under the report’s “FocusedGrowth” land use scenario, the areas identified aspriorities to be linked by public transportation wouldalso become more intensively developed as theybecome accessible by more modes of transportation.In turn, they would sustain adequate residential andcommercial densities necessary to support publictransportation services.

Sustainable Pittsburgh agrees that land use andtransportation must be planned together at a regionallevel to achieve focused growth. Our engaging peopleand organizations independently of those convened bythe authors of Regional Public Transportation Plan forSouthwestern Pennsylvania has reinforced drafting ofthe Citizens’ Vision. The coincidence of independently

Smart Growth Responses: To protect environmental resources, open space,agriculture, and provide recreational opportunities,Citizens’ Plan proposes to:

• Assure that for every one acre of land developed,one acre is permanently protected from develop-ment.*

• Continue to develop a regional system of trails andgreenways (connected to communities and schoolsand work with linkages to public transportation).

• Conserve and protect natural resources and farmland.

• Assess and maintain water quality and aggressivelyclean water resources.

• Define and track measurable indicators of ecosystemand species health as a basis for their preservationand enhancement.

• Prohibit Tax Increment Financing in any rural set-ting; it was created for redevelopment of blightedurban areas, not greenfields.

• Incorporate outcomes of the Natural InfrastructureProject (Pennsylvania Environmental Council andSouthwestern PA Commission) into county andmunicipal comprehensive plans to underpin theirplanning of development and infrastructure.

* Policy statement endorsed by 25 organizations within“Protecting Special Places and Building HealthyCommunities: A Conservation Strategy forPennsylvania” May 28, 2003

TRANSPORTATION LINKAGES

Investments in transportation and other infrastructuredirectly influence development in the region’s urban,suburban, and rural communities. By conscientiouslydeciding how (with what incentives attached) andwhere to spend infrastructure dollars, we can rationallyand with a long-term view guide market demand,shape development patterns, and assist communitiesthat are competing for businesses, residents, and jobs.This is a key message of the Regional Public

determined visions – on need for “Growth Areas” andunprecedented cooperation – is a strong indicationthat regional Smart Growth practices are supported bykey regional leaders, knowledgeable professionals,and concerned citizens. Therefore, Citizens’ Visionendorses the overall managed growth premise of thereport. Maps above and following of transportationconnections and the transit program recommended inthe report warrant further prioritization as certainlypublic funds are becoming increasingly scarce. (Furtherprioritization will need to, for example, address thediffering intensity and type of development andredevelopment warranted within the numerous growthareas’ existing communities. Citizens’ Vision advocatesthat logical priority be focused on the region’straditional river valley communities plus the region’snew edge cities and old County seats, as well as theCity of Pittsburgh and Oakland.)

FOCUSED GROWTH TRANSIT VISION

proposed commuter rail

existing rapid transit

proposed rapid transit

proposed fixed route bus

proposed bus rapid transit

intermodal transit facility

circulator

commuter express

The region will becomeconnected via a high quality,well balanced, fiscallyresponsible transportationsystem.

13

CITIZENS’ VISION: PROPOSED POLICIES

FOR THE REGION’S SMART GROWTH

Citizens’ Vision calls for a regional developmentstrategy to restore our competitive economic advan-tage and foster investments that might not otherwisebe made here in the future. Quality begets quality andit follows that businesses and investors favor regionsthat implement planning to protect and enhanceinvestments. Quality of life is also key to attractingand retaining residents and businesses. Planning isnecessary to enhance our diverse communities andtheir surrounding environments. The developmentconcept builds on Southwestern Pennsylvania’s currentstate of development which, sprawl aside, offers arange of communities more diverse than at any pointin its history. The development strategy is to stabilizefuture population change in most municipalities andincrease population in a few places that have potentialto intensify and grow in cost-effective ways.

14

A well funded and expansive freeway system and a poorly-funded and contracted transitsystem has encouraged our region to consume land and resources without an increasingpopulation. The result is a poorly connected region with areas that are economicallydistressed and isolated.

“This is an ambitious and bold plan that requires new ways of thinking about public

transportation alternatives, land use, and the political and financial mechanisms

that have traditionally been in place in Southwestern Pennsylvania. The old ways

of making decisions regarding land use and transportation infrastructure must be

altered in the Region if it is to remain competitive in the world economy. We ask

citizens and community leaders of Southwestern Pennsylvania to each take up

the challenges presented in these pages.”

Regional Public Transportation Plan for Southwestern Pennsylvania: Strategic Vision

1940: The land use-transportationrelationship was healthy. Most peoplelived near their work. Transit played animportant role.

TODAY: The land use-transportationrelationship has become dysfunctional.More people travel longer distances onmore congested roads than ever before.

To gauge citizens’ responses to Smart Growth concepts,SP administered a survey about community designprinciples and development management alternativesat public forums held around the region to gain inputon Citizens’ Vision. Preferences were for SmartGrowth practices, intergovernmental coordination ofdevelopment and infrastructure investments, and a more“business-like” approach to governing communities –particularly comprehensive approaches that fostermultimunicipal and regional planning. Some of thekey Smart Growth principles derived from these surveysconstitute the Citizens’ Vision whose public policyrecommendations are to:

• Create regional, county, and multimunicipalcomprehensive land use plans (as outlined in thePennsylvania Municipalities Planning Code; seeAppendix 2) that are consistent with each other, usedto manage all land uses, integrated with infrastructureplans, tied to capital improvement programming,linked to school district and municipal authority plans,and premised on build-out projections of capacity inland, housing, roads, and other infrastructure.

• Provide incentives to increase the number ofCounty and multimunicipal comprehensive landuse plans that specifically identify “Growth Areas”as prerequisites for public investment for developmentin existing places. (“Future Growth Areas” are notadvocated as the region’s overall population is likelyto continue declining and the region’s in-place surplusinfrastructure seems adequate to meet the space neededto accommodate new economic and communitydevelopment.)

• Limit public investment for development andredevelopment to “Growth Areas” whose boundariesare defined by areas currently served by publicsewers and whose existing places are currently orwere previously developed (including abuttingbrownfield sites even if not sewered). Land outsidethe sewered “Growth Areas” would be designated as“Rural Resource Areas.” (The strategy of containinggrowth in the “Growth Areas” is a concession tothe reality of sprawl – stopping sprawl at the existingareas already provided by public sewers.)

• Allow public investments in sewer and water systemsonly in areas that are currently served except toaddress compelling health problems of existing placeswithout expanding capacities for new development.

• Discourage new development and its necessaryinfrastructure outside the “Growth Areas.”

• Provide incentives for development projects toinclude a mix of residential, commercial, and civicuses that promote the use of public transportation,bicycling, and walking as an alternative to the car.

• Use public transportation and other infrastructureinvestments to channel growth and promote intensifiedredevelopment and infill development to achievethe regional land use plan, not vice versa.

• Adopt “Place-Based” (community building) “Fix ItFirst” (priority for fixing existing infrastructure vs.new capacity) public investment policy and capitalbudgeting process.

• Increase public transportation investments (over newhighway capacity) to link the region’s population centers.

• Link “Growth Areas” through appropriate cost-effectiveand efficient modes of transportation (including bike/pedestrian linkages) with the highest priority given to“Transit Oriented Development” at multi-modal centers.

• Limit private investments, particularly those associatedwith “greenfield” developments, in “Rural ResourceAreas” via local zoning and high environmentalstandards enforced by Commonwealth and nationalgovernment environmental regulators. “Greenfield”development should be essentially self-contained, non-polluting and not subsidized directly orindirectly by public financing.

• Conserve environmental assets and,where possible, connect with greenwaysand trails. Use land-banking or incentive-based processes that protect prime landin designated “Rural Resource Areas”where agricultural and other compatibleuse of land is viable.

• Implement sustainable developmentpractices such as project-based

Performance Zoning, Inclusionary Zoning andAffordable Housing Incentives, TransferableDevelopment Rights, Impact Fees, and TaxIncrement Financing and link to municipal TaxBase Sharing in step with multimunicipal planningand management coordinated with counties.

• Ensure proposed developments and all publiccapital improvement projects are sustainable.Sustainability Assessments (conducted by sponsorsand independently by others) should address economic,community, fiscal, equity, environmental impacts.(see Appendix 3 Sustainability Assessment Criteria.)

• Reform the Southwestern Pennsylvania Commission(SPC). SPC should develop and advance a regionalcomprehensive land use plan to manage the fundamentallinkages among transportation, land use, developmentand redevelopment efforts, natural resources, workingclass housing, and infrastructure. (SPC should providecompelling incentives for regional consistency withthe plan among county, municipal, public authority,and school district planning and programming.)

Sustainable Pittsburgh, in conjunction with partners,anticipates monitoring progress toward these SmartGrowth principles/practices and will maintain aninformation system that measures progress on indicatorsof regional sustainable development. (www.sustainablepittsburgh.org “Regional Indicators”)Citizens’Vision advocates that public policy and subsidies,as well as public investments in public transportation,infill housing and other infrastructure, be focused onexisting developed places within the “Growth Areas.”

15

“About half of the 2,500 acres abandoned by big steel

have been redeveloped…that means the glass is still

half-empty…we could be working better to make sure

that new developments are integrated with the existing

communities and (complement) the existing businesses.”

Deb Lange, CMU Brownfields CenterPittsburgh Magazine, March 2003

Furthermore, the sustainable development of existingplaces within the “Growth Areas” is best achievedthrough multimunicipal arrangements with adjacentmunicipalities for purposes of comprehensive planningand, ultimately, revenue sharing and the consolidationof services that are provided cost-effectively throughsuch arrangements.

The accompanying map depicts the portion of ourregion presently served by public sewer as well asenvironmental assets. Citizens’Vision advocates seweredareas be the region’s “Growth Areas” as regionaldevelopment and redevelopment priorities. Land outsideis considered “Rural Resource Areas” for land conservationand agriculture.

Throughout the “Growth Areas” there are many existingolder towns that have surplus infrastructure capacitiesand public service capabilities due to their populationdecline. These traditional communities and a number ofexisting new ones can be ideal locations for pedestrianoriented, higher density employment, mixed-use,affordable/working class housing – places whose growthis referred to by the Commonwealth Municipal PlanningCode as Traditional Neighborhood Development (seeAppendix 2). They have the potential to support aninternal and external transportation system that providesfor more modes of travel. Such Smart Growth wouldalso reduce demand for travel outside the community,retain community dollars, and create conditions forqualified workers to connect with quality jobs.

GROWTH AREAS

16

Waterways & Ponds

Physiography

Steeply Sloped Areas(not Greene County)

Flood Prone Areas & Wetlands

Agricultural Security Areas

Environmental Assets

Bio-Diversity Areas

Significant Open Spaces (nec)

Parks & Fairgrounds

Streams of Exceptional ValueHigh Quality Streams

Gamelands

Existing Sewer Service

Growth Areas

CONCLUDING RECOMMENDATIONS: REFORMS FOR THE REGION’S SMART

GROWTH

To implement Citizens’Vision, a regional approach isnecessary to put all the infrastructure (public transportation,sewer, water, other utilities) and development investmentstogether into a genuinely comprehensive regional plan.It needs to be underpinned by a restructured decisionmaking process that links land use and transportationdecisions and encourages local government reformwhile enhancing the region’s diverse set of livablecommunities.

As Citizens’ Vision is discussed and its substancemodified, it will be impossible not to consider the difficultissue associated with institutional reform, particularlyin the governmental units that can make or break thegoal of a regional approach to Smart Growth. Optimism isfound, however, in recognizing the building momentumfor these kinds of reforms and a growing number of verypromising initiatives. For example, a growing list of localgovernments around the region are undertaking jointplanning efforts (listed at www.sustainablepittsburgh.org/inventory%20 joint%20municipal%20%207-01.htm).More specifically:• Plum Borough is crafting new ordinances that

would allow for traditional neighborhood development.

• The Municipality of Murrysville and the Boroughof Export are proposing a unified development codeand non-residential design guidelines.

• Cranberry is proposing new “performance zoning”allowing higher densities and assessing impact feeson new development.

• Allegheny, Armstrong,Westmoreland, and WashingtonCounties are developing compre-hensive plans.

• The Natural InfrastructureProject is presently facilitatingthe development of a detailedregional plan that will promoteways to develop recreationalopportunities, conserve importantnatural areas, and enhance theregion’s economic vitality bybetter using natural infrastructure.

• Allegheny County adopted theRegional Asset District tax for revenuesharing to fund public amenities.

• The Smart Growth Partnership ofWestmoreland County is makingimportant contributions and hassparked the start of a similarpartnership in Allegheny County.

• Moon Township’s andMurrysville’s comprehensiveplans balance traffic capacity, infrastructure capacity,fiscal responsibility and land use making hard decisionsfocused on a “build-out” approach to assess overallcapacity.

• Peters Township is implementing mixed use zonesto further broaden the diversity of residential tonon-residential development.

• North Strabane, following the Municipal PlanningCode, has instituted an urban service and ruralservice area (Growth Area and Rural Resource Area).

• Quaker Valley School District’s 11 communities arecollaborating to tackle regional issues related tosanitary sewer, storm sewer, water supply, andother public works issues such as road maintenanceand parks. The twist in their deliberations ispremised on build-out projections of capacity inland, housing, roads, and other infrastructure.

• The Three Rivers Wet WeatherDemonstration is addressing theissue of untreated sewageoverflowing by promoting cost-effective, long-term, sustainablesolutions. See www.3riverswetweather.org.

These examples are very importantbecause there are extraordinarypressures for county and municipalgovernments, particularly theirauthorities, to maintain the statusquo. Multimunicipal authorities,most of which charge user fees, aregoverned by public officials whoseprimary responsibilities are tomake their governmental unitssuccessful as public “businesses,”often by expanding service areasby procuring public financing forcapital improvements. It would bedifficult for any authority board tocondition its decision making onwider regional considerations. Thissame logic applies to municipal

officials whose primary responsibility is to serve theirmunicipality’s best interests.

In other words there are no villains; public officialsjust discharge their responsibilities as the existing

17

“Strong regional leadership is required. The goal should be the creation of ‘seamless

communities with invisible boundaries. Toward that end, the panel recommended a

number of strategies for creating a community vision that will assist in implementing a

policy of regionalism: establish a regional authority, identify a long-term vision for the

region, identify strong and visionary leadership, establish a regional image…”

Urban Land Institute Advisory Panel on Pittsburgh Regionalism, October 2002.

“Current mechanisms for

planning, funding, and

operating water and

wastewater infrastructure

in Southwestern

Pennsylvania do not go

far as they should to

require compliance with

comprehensive regional

infrastructure and growth

plans, and thus can

encourage sprawl.”

Report from the SWPA Water and Sewer

Infrastructure Project

system and laws permit. They are bounded by thesystem even if they disagree with it. So when theyjoin neighbors to plan or otherwise manage theircommunities it shows political courage that SPendorses and hopes will proliferate. Indeed, much ofthis strategy depends on multimunicipal comprehensivevisioning and land use planning.

At this time, the region lacks a system of regionalgovernance directly accountable to the citizenry. Noone is elected to serve the metropolitan region as awhole. No genuinely comprehensive regional planexists to manage the fundamental linkages betweentransportation, land use, development and redevelopmentefforts, natural resources, and infrastructure.

Prospects for a process to ensureconsistencies between regional,county, municipal, public authority,and school district planning andprogramming are limited by thepolitical reality of bargaining andnegotiating rather than SmartGrowth planning – and the toughdecisions that come with it.

The only regional agency thatcould make a claim to evolve intosuch an organization is theSouthwestern PennsylvaniaCommission (SPC) which servesas the federally designatedMetropolitan PlanningOrganization (MPO) andEconomic Development District.Its past regional planning effortsdemonstrate the intent to identify aregional land use plan (as reviewedin Appendix 1). Citizens’ Visionacknowledges this precedent of the legitimacy of SPCadvancing a regional plan. However, implementingtargeted growth areas has eluded SPC. This is likelyattributable to SPC’s governance structure. First, landuse authority is delegated to each individual munici-pality in the Commonwealth. Counties do not even

have land use jurisdiction (unless municipalitiesforego their own zoning). Thus SPC does not havedirect land use authority in the region other than whatmunicipalities and Counties might do voluntarily.However, SPC could tie strings to funding it administers.Incentives to adhere to a regional plan could includehigher priority capital improvements programs inreturn for smart growth practices, etc. Citizens’ Visionadvocates this approach giving the agency a large rolein steering the region’s smart growth through invest-ment in infrastructure that determines growth patterns.

Furthermore, advancing toward an SPC where plans,programs, and priorities address targeted fundingdistribution and resource allocation as prioritized

through designation of “GrowthAreas” in step with a regional landuse plan, calls for careful review ofthe make up of the SPC boarditself. Citizens’ Vision advocates forthe study and review of the evolvingrole of progressive MPOs aroundthe nation to address considerationssuch as:

–– Is SPC’s decision-makingstructure reflective of the dif-ferences in population andeconomic impact amongstthe member counties?

–– Are there alternatives to theregion’s CountyCommissioners determiningthe majority of SPC’s votingrepresentatives?

–– Does the SPC board includea sufficient number of repre-sentatives specificallycharged with serving theregion as a whole?

Investment in this vision will serve to stabilize anddensify significant exiting residential and commercialconcentrations and curb the pace of sprawl in ourregion. Citizens’ Plan will result in more choice for

18

livable communities in which to live, work, and playand increased investment by private and nonprofitdevelopers in new or rehabilitated housing, commercial,retail, and light industrial development at existingdevelopments within the “Growth Areas.” And Citizens’Plan’s policy recommendations will contribute toregional equity and narrowing the disparities gap.

Sustainable Pittsburgh will continue to foster grassrootsefforts that are capturing the attention of many farsightedofficials and leadership groups in the civic community.We expect to see more and more responsible agenciesand private interests conducting SustainabilityAssessments and we celebrate the fact that many arenow speaking in terms of the inextricable linkagebetween economic well-being, equity, Smart Growth,and livable communities. Citizens’ Vision is achievableand will move Southwestern Pennsylvania increasinglytoward a model for regional competitiveness and livablecommunities.

Sustainable Pittsburgh encourages

organizations, businesses, and

individuals to sign on as endorsing

partners to Citizens’ Vision to express

their support of Smart Growth for

strengthening communities and the

regional economy.

“Because municipalities

must rely on property taxes

to fund services, they often

compete with each other to

attract businesses that will

help their tax bases. As a

result of this competitive

atmosphere, local interests

are often valued over

regional concerns.”

2002 Annual Report on LandUse, PA Dept. of Communityand Economic Development.

19

SMART LAND USE AND TRANSPORTATION VISION COMMUNITY FORUMS

The following organizations and local governments hosted the Regional Land Use Trends and Regional Sustainability Indicators forums in cooperation with Sustainable Pittsburgh between February 2001 and February 2003.

Beaver County Chamber of Commerce

Beaver Initiative for Growth

Borough of Canonsburg

Butler County Planning Commission

Canonsburg Renaissance Group

Cranberry Township

Fayette Forward

Fayette Chamber of Commerce

Hill Consensus Group

Mon Valley Initiative

Mon Valley Providers Council

Monroeville Area Chamber of Commerce

Municipality of Monroeville

Regional Coalition of Community Builders

Smart Growth Partnership of Westmoreland County

APPENDIX 1

Precedents: Regional Land Use Planning

Precedents from our region of two types inform and rationalize creation of the Citizens’ Vision:

a) The region’s Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO), for more than 30 years, has issued planning documents that present the bases for a regional landuse plan. (MPO is a term for agencies recognized by the federal government to carry out federally funded transportation plans and programs through acoordinated, comprehensive, and continuing process). The region’s MPO, the Southwestern Pennsylvania Commission (SPC), formerly called itself theSouthwestern Pennsylvania Regional Planning Commission (SPRPC).

b) Recent studies referenced in the Citizens’ Vision on infrastructure that demonstrate support for Smart Growth principles.

A. Metropolitan Planning Organization past regional plans

Looking Toward the Year 2075 (SPRPC report of August 1973) suggested a focused growth regional development strategy based on essentially the same principlesof Smart Growth practices espoused by the Citizens’ Vision. SPRPC’s report set five priorities for managed growth targeted to existing communities:

1. Revitalize the central city,2. Create new town centers within the existing metropolitan area,3. Create new towns beyond the built-up area if warranted by population growth,4. Develop a balanced transportation system in coordination with land development programs, and5. Create better natural environments through reservations of recreational areas.

This land development philosophy presented in Looking Toward the Year 2075 underpinned SPRPC’s first policy area plan, Toward a Regional Plan, DevelopmentPolicies for the Next Thirty Years (SPRPC 1970).

20

The 1970 SPRPC plan framework was a set of policyareas, depicted on the adjacent map, to be used as ageneral guide to development until 2000. As such, theregion’s planning agency acknowledged the need for aregional approach to growth management and expressedits commitment to development concepts now knownas “Smart Growth” practices. SPRPC adopted this“land use element” as required for its transportationplan. At that time the regional agency had some influenceover development, particularly related to categoricalgrants for parks, sewer, and water facilities. Therewas, however, no direct authority for controllinggrowth other than persuading municipalities to usetheir land use ordinances in progressive ways.

THE URBAN CORE is that portion of the region in which the level ofactivity density is highest.

THE PITTSBURGH COMMUTER SHED is that portion within which atleast 50% of the resident employed persons have their workplace in theCity of Pittsburgh. (Notice that the Upper Mon Valley Communities are notincluded in this policy area because a majority of their resident employedpersons work outside of the City of Pittsburgh.)

THE OUTLYING CENTERS have been defined as those areas withinwhich activities are concentrated at a minimum density of 4 persons pergross acre.

THE GROWTH AREA has been defined using the forecasted residentialpopulation growth. While much of this land will remain undeveloped, asizeable proportion of it is likely to be developed into residential subdivi-sions by 2000 A.D.

THE CONSERVATION AREA has been defined as that area within theregion where substantial growth has not been forecasted and where mostof the land will remain in the same uses in 2000 A.D. as it is today.

SPRPC’S 1970 POLICY AREAS PLAN

21

choices. A system of eight distinct land use policy areas, shown on the adjoining map, was designed to linktransportation investment to development. The goal was to encourage patterns of development that satisfied criteriaincluding the efficient use of infrastructure by placing growth into areas where services such as water andsewer already existed.

B. Two current regional infrastructure studies – precedents for change today?

Investing in Clean Water: A Report from the Southwestern Pennsylvania Water and Sewer InfrastructureProject Steering Committee, 2002

The study concerns the complex system of providing water and sewer systems services and details the regionalsewer and water infrastructure crisis. The region has more sites that dump sewage-laced storm water into riversand streams during rainy weather than any other region in the country. In the study Smart Growth practicesunderpin recommendations that would foster development in “targeted growth areas” and prescribe analyzes ofcost-efficient infrastructure investments. In his asserting need for “cooperating on a scale never before seen inthis region,” Bill Strickland, (“Forum: Clean Water is Everyone’s Business,” Pittsburgh Post Gazette, May 26,

2002) a member of the Investing in Clean Water oversight committee rein-forces a key report finding: “...the provision of publicly funded water andsewer infrastructure can, if poorly planned, stimulate unplanned growth,known as sprawl. Consideration of mechanisms for limiting sprawl shouldbe incorporated into any effort to add substantial new water and sewer infra-structure.”

Regional Public Transportation Plan for Southwestern Pennsylvania:Strategic Vision (commissioned by SPC and the Port Authority of AlleghenyCounty)

The study calls for “Focused Growth” to surmount “fragmentation…andcontinuing focus on expansion of the regional highway and utility infrastruc-ture (that) have created (a) regional development pattern that has promotedsuburban development at the expense of older, depopulating communities,and at the expense of public transportation.” The report is profound in thatits findings substantiate the necessary link between land use and transporta-tion planning. It asserts that without focusing growth to achieve densities ofpopulation centers, public transportation cannot be cost effective. Therefore,land use and transportation must be planned together on a regional level toachieve focused growth.

Sustainable Pittsburgh found these two reports (Investing in Clean Water and Regional Public TransportationPlan for SWPA: Strategic Vision) and the earlier MPO policy area plans to be important guides and precedentsfor creating this Citizens’ Vision. More importantly, Sustainable Pittsburgh found that its engaging people andorganizations independently of those convened by the authors of these aforementioned reports has reinforceddrafting of Citizens’ Vision. The coincidence of independently determined visions – on Focused Growth andunprecedented cooperation – is a strong indication that regional Smart Growth practices are supported by keyregional leaders, knowledgeable professionals, and concerned citizens.

In 1991 SPRPC, like other MPOs, began operatingunder the federal Intermodal Surface TransportationEfficiency Act (ISTEA). “The ISTEA concept wassimple. Transportation spending should focus onmore than just roads. The country needed to invest ina more balanced, multi-modal approach to mobilityand accessibility.”* Accordingly, ISTEA stressesplanning and programming based on a broader set ofland use, development, and environmental considerationsand more regionally focused transportation improvementprogramming. In response, in 1994 SPRPC redefineda more detailed set of land use policy areas based onmuch more specific information about development,environmental assets, and infrastructure.

* A Guide to Transportation Enhancements: Enhancing Communities,National Transportation Enhancements Clearinghouse

These policy areas seemed to foster growth management,were adopted, and were included in SPC’s (formerlySPRPC) Economic Development and TransportationPlan (1994). It included a number of proposed goalsto guide transportation investment and development

SPRPC LAND USE POLICY AREAS

Regional Urban Core

Transit Priority Area

Sub - Regional Centers

Special Target Areas

Other Serviced Areas

Potential Serviced Areas

Rural Policy Areas

Major Open Space Areas

APPENDIX 2

Commonwealth Municipal Planning Code Definitions

Public Participation in County or Multimunicipal Comprehensive PlansThe planning process shall include a public participation process to assure that all governing bodies, municipal authorities, school districts and agencies, whether public or private,having jurisdiction or operating within the area of the plan and landowners and citizens affected by the plan have an opportunity to be heard prior to the public hearings requiredfor the adoption of the plan under section 302(a).

County Comprehensive PlanA land use and growth management plan prepared by the county planning commission and adopted by the county commissioners which establishes broad goals and criteria formunicipalities to use in preparation of their comprehensive plan and land use regulation.

Designated Growth AreaA region within a county or counties described in a municipal or multimunicipal plan that preferably includes and surrounds a city, borough or village, and within which residentialand mixed use development is permitted or planned for at densities of one unit to the acre or more, commercial, industrial and institutional uses are permitted or planned for andpublic infrastructure services are provided or planned…to accommodate the projected growth of the area within the next 20 years.

Future Growth AreaAn area of a municipal or multimunicipal plan outside of and adjacent to a designated growth area where residential, commercial industrial and institutional uses and developmentare permitted or planned at varying densities and public infrastructure services may or may not be provided, but future development at greater densities is planned to accompany theorderly extension an provision of public infrastructure services.

Multimunicipal PlanA plan developed and adopted by any number of contiguous municipalities, including a joint municipal plan as authorized by this act.

Multimunicipal Planning AgencyA planning agency comprised of representatives of more than one municipality and constituted as a joint municipal planning commission in accordance with Article XI, or otherwiseby resolution of the participating municipalities, to address, on behalf of the participating municipalities, multimunicipal issues, including, but not limited to, agricultural and openspace preservation, natural and historic resources, transportation, housing and economic development.

Rural Resource AreaAn area described in a municipal or multimunicipal plan within which rural resource uses including, but not limited to, agriculture, timbering, mining, quarrying and other extractiveindustries, forest and game lands and recreation and tourism are encouraged and enhanced, development that is compatible with or supportive of such uses in permitted, and publicinfrastructure services are not provided except in villages.

Traditional Neighborhood DevelopmentAn area of land developed for a compatible mixture of residential units for various income levels and nonresidential commercial and workplace uses, including some structures thatprovide for a mix of uses within the same building. Residences, shops, offices, workplaces, public buildings, and parks are interwoven within the neighborhood so that all are withinrelatively close proximity to each other. Traditional neighborhood development is relatively compact, limited in size and oriented toward pedestrian activity. It has an identifiablecenter and a discernible edge. The center of the neighborhood is in the form of a public park, commons, plaza, square or prominent intersection of two or more major streets.Generally, there is a hierarchy of streets laid out in a rectilinear or grid pattern of interconnecting streets and blocks that provides multiple routes from origins to destinations andare appropriately designed to serve the needs of pedestrians and vehicles equally.

Transferable Development RightsThe attaching of development rights to specified lands which are desired by a municipality to be kept undeveloped, but permitting those rights to be transferred from those lands sothat the development potential which they represent may occur on other lands where more intensive development is deemed to be appropriate.

22

23

APPENDIX 3

Sustainable Pittsburgh – Sustainability Assessment

Sustainability Assessments (SA) of public and private development projects and capital improvement programs are necessary to determine long-term

impacts and consistency with Smart Growth principles. SAs will help encourage and facilitate the location and expansion of economic/infrastructure

development projects which offer equitable job creation, high wages, strengthen and diversify the local and regional economy and existing communi-

ties, and protect the environment. SAs can guide development from small, neighborhood projects to major development and/or infrastructure projects

with regional significance and impact. The following SA criteria are flexible enough to allow for changes over time and decision makers can add or

subtract criterion as conditions and priorities change.

Scope

The Sustainability Assessment criteria should give an indication of whether a development’s or project’s impact will help a community move toward

sustainability and its’ livability goals: Equity – investing in economically/socially disadvantaged areas of the region; Environmental – minimizing

impacts on sensitive, open, agricultural areas; and, Economic – maintaining and optimizing existing infrastructure. When using the criteria and scoring

projects, it is important to provide a brief rationale and project description.

24

Smart Growth: Planning

Project is result of citizen participation andenhances the range of choices communities andresidents have in transportation, housing, jobs,education and other amenities that makecommunities desirable.

Project is coordinated with other local governmentsor other projects.

Project complies with an existing comprehensiveplan and/or a multimunicipal plan adopted bythe local government.

Project is in step with local land use regulationsadopted by the local government which include asubdivision ordinance for PRDs and a capitalimprovements plan that are consistent with thelocal government comprehensive plan.

Project meets development order conditions and fiscalmechanisms set by the local government and itsdevelopment review procedures.

Project will not significantly impact adjacentjurisdictions.

Project has involved the broad participation of localcitizens, business, environmental and other civicinterests.

Project is compatible with surrounding area(height, facade, landscaping, etc.)

Project reflects integration of public investments,such as transportation, housing, schools, utilities,information infrastructure and other public services.

Project leverages investment and resourcesfrom nonprofit, private and other public sources(local, regional, state, federal.)

SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT CRITERIANatural & Built Environment

Project maintains or enhances the integrity ofnatural systems and the resource base:

- wetlands, water bodies, biodiversity areas,agricultural land, forests and animal or plantspecies designated by the US Fish andWildlife Service

- outdoor recreation areas such as parks,wildlife areas or natural areas

- creates urban ecosystems- fosters eco-tourism

Project would produce or dispose of no substancesdesignated as hazardous or toxic by the US EPAor by the Department of EnvironmentalProtection.

Project reduces energy and water use throughefficiency measures.

Project reduces greenhouse gas emissions byuse of renewable energy.

Project plans for vehicle movement includesstrict guidelines for reduction of VOC’s.

Project uses natural water quality treatmentsystems.

Project is registered with or adhering to anenvironmental management system.

Project has policies to reduce air pollution.

Project has considered timing to minimize noise.

Project demonstrates best management practicesfor storm water management, pollution preventionand minimization of storm water runoff (incorporatesno dredge and fill activities).

Project has a plan to assure that for every oneacre of land developed, one acre is permanentlyprotected from development.

*LEED Certified (Certified, Silver, Bronze, Gold)

Project includes energy conservation and minimizesimpervious surfaces as appropriate for the locationand type of development.

Sustainable Economy & Business Opportunity

Project creates new economic development benefits(such as jobs, higher wages, new industries, etc.)within its immediate location and nearby communitiesvs. transferring these benefits from another locationwithin the region.

Project is integrated into the community’s existinginfrastructure and its current or potential economicniche.

Project enhances local amenities and aesthetics.

Project encourages preservation of historic and culturalresources (does not impact archaeological sites listedby the Pennsylvania Division of Historical Resources).

Project has demonstrated that the provision andsharing of infrastructure, facilities, or services is inthe public interest and not merely for the benefit ofthe development.

Project is participating in a downtown reuse orredevelopment program to improve and rehabilitatea declining downtown area.

Project includes open space, and recreation areas.

Project is in an existing developed area currentlyserved by public sewer. And the development providesfor the construction and maintenance of all on siteinfrastructures necessary and enters into a contractwith the local government to provide appropriatefair-share contribution toward the offsite impactswhich the development will impose on publiclyfunded facilities and services.

Project includes provisions for pubic transportationon site or contiguous sites and considers the amountof pedestrian or vehicular traffic likely to be generated.

Project fosters locally owned businesses.

Project only uses Tax Increment Financing if in ablighted urban area.

Project will favorably affect the ability of people tofind affordable housing in reasonable accessible toworkplace employment.

Project fosters investments in existing urban centersand/or abandoned industrial “brownfield or grayfieldsites” and/or vacant buildings vs. greenfield sites.

Project includes transit oriented design.

Project includes a mix of uses with one of the usesresidential.

Project improves conditions for pedestrians and cyclists.

Project does not contribute to sprawl.

Building SustainableCommunities: Social Equity

and Opportunity

Project provides for a number of jobs that will bemade available for persons served by welfaretransition programs.

Project provides for wage and skill levels relativeto those existing in the area.

Project addresses work-life management issues.

Project positively impacts public health andsafety of all socio-economic classes of residents.

Project improves community viability functionallyand socially.

Project has considered access to employmentfor the transit dependent.

Project provides for affordable housing.

Project improves the sense of community andpreserves local heritage.

Project does not create or support developmentpressures to convert farmland to urban purposes.

Project does not call for or precipitate newinvestments outside existing population or tradecenters.

Project relieves traffic congestion, improves thelevels of service, and creates other user benefitson the existing or proposed road system withinits immediate location, nearby communities, andthe region.

* Leadership in Energy and EnvironmentalDesigns – Green Building Rating System

Advisory Board

Joan Blaustein 3 Rivers Wet Weather, Inc.Jacquelyn Bonomo Western Pennsylvania ConservancyRobert Chambers Three Rivers Rowing AssociationMarshall Cohen Association & Issues Management, Inc.Sabina Deitrick University of PittsburghLee Hipps Urban League of PittsburghAyanna King Pittsburgh Transportation Equity ProjectPaul King Institute of Professional Environmental PracticeAnne-Marie Lubenau Community Design Center of PittsburghCathy McCollom Pittsburgh History and Landmarks FoundationEvans Moore Pittsburgh Interfaith Impact NetworkBeth O’Toole Pittsburgh VoyagerKevin Silson Oxford Development CompanyCameil Williams Allegheny County Department of Minority,

Women, and Disadvantage Enterprise

StaffKim Adams Communications ManagerJoan Barlow Associate DirectorDavid Ginns Transportation SpecialistCourt Gould Director Eileen Hotham Executive AssistantInterns and Consultants includingDeAngelis & Associates

SUSTAINABLE PITTSBURGH425 Sixth Avenue, Suite 1335

Pittsburgh, PA 15219(412) 258-6642

fax (412) 258-6645info@sustainablepittsburgh.orgwww.sustainablepittsburgh.org

Sustainable Pittsburgh is a public-policy advocacy group that links economic prosperity,

ecological health, and social equity.

Acknowledgements

The development of this report and the process on which it was based was supported by The RichardKing Mellon Foundation and The Heinz Endowments. We also thank the hundreds of people fromacross the region who attended forums to explore regional land use trends and offered commentsand ideas for what has become the Citizens’ Vision. Our colleagues at EcoCity Cleveland have ourthanks for the inspiration provided by their Citizens’ Bioregional Plan. Sustainable Pittsburgh’s growinglist of Affiliates and other partners provide a regular source of guidance and encouragement.

Sustainable Pittsburgh Mission

To affect decision-making in the Pittsburgh Region so that it integrates economic prosperity, socialequity, and environmental quality. We do so by building diverse coalitions, developing measurablenew indicators as a compass, and undertaking key initiatives. In all of our work we emphasize longterm and sustained quality of life for all citizens.

Commitment to Equity

Sustainable development integrates Economy, Environment, and Equity. Acknowledging the persistenceof institutional discrimination and resulting disparities gap in basic liberties within SouthwesternPennsylvania, Sustainable Pittsburgh recognizes Equity as an overarching imperative. Social equity foran increasingly diverse citizenry is central to our mission of broadening regional decision making forsustainable development.

SUSTAINABLE PITTSBURGH425 Sixth Avenue, Suite 1335

Pittsburgh, PA 15219(412) 258-6642

fax (412) 258-6645info@sustainablepittsburgh.orgwww.sustainablepittsburgh.org

Sustainable Pittsburgh is a public-policy advocacy group that links economic prosperity, ecological health, and social equity.