A city (or county) is not an accident but the result of coherent visions and aims

C H A P T E R   4 :   R E Q U I R E D   E L E M E N T S
   |   47
4
Camp v. Mendocino County Board of Supervisors
 (1981) 123 Cal.App.3d 334
 also held that, in addition to assigning different 
uses to different areas, an adequate general plan must also contain standards for building intensity. 
Considerations for defining building intensity can include, but are not limited to:
• Intensity should be defined for each of the various land use categories in the plan.
• General use captions such as “neighborhood commercial” and “service industrial” may be insufficient measures of intensity 
by themselves. 
• Building intensity is not synonymous with population density. 
Intensity will be dependent upon the local plan’s context and may be based upon a combination of quantifiable variables: 
• Many jurisdictions prescribe minimum and maximum 
numbers of dwelling units per acre as a useful residential 
standard. 
• Floor Area Ratio (FAR), which represents the ratio of the 
area of a building’s floor to that of its total site, is a common 
measure of commercial and industrial intensity.
• A dual standard of maximum lot coverage and maximum 
building height may be suitable for agricultural and open-
space areas, as well as recreational areas with development 
limits.
• Lot size has been widely used for agricultural and open-
space designations, but it may be an inadequate standard for 
building intensity. 
Intensity standards can also include provisions for flexibility, 
such as density bonuses, cluster zoning, and planned unit 
developments. Standards for permitted uses and building types 
qualitatively determine the uses that will be allowable in each 
land use designation. 
Many communities have chosen to incorporate 
form-based 
codes
 into their plans, regulating building and infrastructure 
forms in addition to—or in place of—uses. Form-based 
codes focus on the community’s vision for the physical 
characteristics of a community, in addition to the statutory 
requirements presented in law. 
Government Code section 65302.4 
permits form-based codes in general plans, stating that “[t]
he text and diagrams in the land use element that address the location and extent of land uses, and the zoning ordinances 
Coordinating land use and transportation can revitalize underused spaces
Image by Urban Advantage, Community Design + Architecture

---

C H A P T E R   4 :   R E Q U I R E D   E L E M E N T S
   |   48
4
that implement these provisions, may also express community intentions regarding urban form and design. These expressions 
may differentiate neighborhoods, districts, and corridors, provide for a mixture of land uses and housing types within each, 
and provide specific measures for regulating relationships between buildings, and between buildings and outdoor public 
areas, including streets.” This tool achieves certainty over the physical outcome of land use and development decisions while 
enhancing flexibility to create more infill or infrastructure as needed. Cities in California that have used form-based codes, such 
as 
Ventura
, 
Benicia
, and 
Petaluma
, provide examples of this practice. 
As defined by the National Center, development capacity analysis, sometimes called ‘build-out analysis’ represents “an estimate 
of the total amount of development that may be built in an area under a certain set of assumptions, including applicable land 
use laws and policies (e.g., zoning), environmental constraints, etc.”
 
Calculating the acreage within each land use category 
and multiplying that number by the applicable density and intensity factor estimate theoretical development capacity. Realistic 
development capacity involves analysis of growth forecasts and other factors, including inhibitions to development. The 
referenced report by the 
National Center for Smart Growth Research and Education, Maryland Department of Planning
, and 
Lincoln Institute of Land Policy
 recommends a five-step process for capacity analysis based on best practices from Oregon, 
Maryland, and Washington:
i.   “Identify vacant land and those lands that cannot be developed due to environmental constraints. 
ii.   Subtract land needed for urban public services.
iii. Add land that can be redeveloped or developed at greater intensity through infill.
iv.  Identify land with public services.
v.   Estimate development capacity.”
An analysis should include a discussion of the realistic capacity of lands by zoning district, as related to housing and other 
development. Specifically, the element should demonstrate the ability to achieve the densities assumed in the land inventory 
either through a discussion of past development trends by zoning district or through city regulations, policies or programs 
requiring the assumed densities. Assumed densities should not include density bonuses. In communities with limited vacant 
land, the land inventory should identify and analyze sites with redevelopment potential for new and more intensive residential 
development. In such cases, the land inventory should describe the acreage, zoning and development standards, existing 
uses and ripeness for redevelopment, realistic development capacity, the general character and size of sites judged suitable 
for residential development, market trends, and any policies or incentives to facilitate their development. The inventory 
should estimate the realistic development capacity based on an analysis of these factors. Such sites may be made available by 
implementing programs applicable to redevelopment, including recycling, infill, re-designation, and rezoning of nonresidential 
sites for appropriate residential use.

---