In the last few decades, several U.S. communities adopted urban containment policies to curb urban sprawl and preserve land within the urban fringe. Urban containment policies are known by many names, (urban growth boundaries, urban limit lines, urban service areas) but all are designed to limit urban infrastructure or urban development to areas within a well-defined boundary. Designers of urban containment programs cite social goals such as taxpayer protection, the preservation of public goods, minimization of negative land use interactions, equitable distribution of urban resources, and maintenance of a high quality of life. Emerging empirical evidence suggests that when effectively designed, such policies can accomplish these goals in addition to spurring economic development, preserving agriculture, reducing racial segregation, increasing access to low and moderate income housing, lowering the cost of public facility provision, and eliminating urban blight.

Although American urban containment programs have been around for over 40 years, nationwide interest among planning professionals was not stirred until the success of Oregon’s well-publicized 1973 Land Conservation and Development Act, which included a mandate to establish “urban growth boundaries” (UGBs) around all major urban areas. Since the 1970s, a large number of communities around the country have adopted various forms of urban containment. Our research finds that communities in approximately _ of all major U.S. metropolitan areas now have some form of urban containment program in place.

So what is a “good” urban containment program? Although no consensus exists, planning professionals and academics are beginning to acknowledge that some mix of the following ingredients is essential:

• Urban containment boundary
• Resource land preservation
• Infill, redevelopment, aka “refill”
• Inclusionary housing
• Regional asset sharing
• Multi-modal accessibility
• Responsiveness to change

UGBs have also been criticized at times for threatening existing neighborhoods, raising housing prices by making area more attractive & economically efficient, decreasing homeownership opportunities, increasing infrastructure costs in near-term, excluding economic activities, and reducing opportunities to live on large lots.

In response to these criticisms, advocates of urban containment have retooled policies to accomplish multiple social objectives and adopted more politically palatable terminology for their policy initiatives, often eschewing altogether the term “urban growth boundary.”

Today, I’ll discuss some preliminary results from a nationwide survey of urban containment programs. We’ll examine a few of the “aliases” by which the UGB is often known and ask the question, “is a UGB by any other name still a UGB?”

UGBs, AKA:

Urban Services and Facilities:

Urban Service Area

• Limits geographic extent of service.
• Rural areas denied urban services.
• Typical of water and wastewater.

Infrastructure Phasing

• Plans for location and timing of future urban service extensions.
• Plan is basis for capital improvement investments.
• Example: Sioux Falls, SD, 2015 Growth Management Plan.

Municipal Boundary

• Key facilities and services provided only by municipality.
• Access to key facilities and services attained only through annexation.
• Example: Lincoln, Nebraska.

Level of Service Standards

• Performance standards for urban services vary spatially between “urban” and “rural” land uses.
• Example: Palm Beach County, Florida, where rural areas are not allowed to have public/community water and sewer.

Spatial Capital Investment

• Focuses new infrastructure investments in existing or planned urban areas.
• Example: Maryland’s “priority” investment areas.
• Example: Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission.

Special Service Districts

• Sole provider of key public facilities and services.
• Adopts policy of limiting infrastructure extensions to areas targeted for urban development.
• De-facto urban service limits.
• Example: Baltimore County, Maryland.

Urban Growth Phasing

Tiered Growth Strategy

• “Rings” of development intensity and infrastructure provision.
• Pricing strategies often used.
• Example: Tucson’s “central core”, “mid-city”, “evolving city” and “future city” tiers each with different planning and design standards.

Urban Reserve District

• Special areas reserved for future urban-scale development at the urban fringe.
• Usually reserved through large lot zoning, non-urban infrastructure, and “shadow” platting.
• At appropriate time, urban infrastructure installed and urban scale development allowed.
• Example: San Luis Obispo, CA.

Public Land Management

• Preserve publicly-owned land from development.
• Potentially “trading” some publicly-owned land where development should occur with owners of rural land where development should not.
• Example: Pima County, Arizona.

Rural Growth Management

Agriculture/Open Space District

• Exclusive farm, forest, and other open space uses allowed.
• Very large minimum lot sizes.
• No or few “urban” residences allowed.
• Example: Wicomico County, Maryland.

Urban Fringe Resource Management

• Overlay district in rural areas where new development reviewed under stringent standards to protect habitat, sensitive landscapes, etc.
• Resource management plans required.
• Example: Chico, California.

Rural Growth Monitoring

• Projected demand for legitimate development of rural lands undertaken.
• Selected rural lands allocated for low-density urban development not using key urban facilities and services.
• Example: King County, Washington.

Rural/Open Space Preservation

Transfer of Development Rights

• Development rights are assigned to rural “sending” areas but cannot be exercised unless purchased by developer and transferred to urban “receiving” areas.
• Example: Pinelands, New Jersey.

Purchase of Development Right

• Development rights assigned through a planning process based on reasonable factors are purchased by local government through a voluntary purchase program.
• Can also include privately donated conservation easements.
• Example: King County, Washington.

Urban Fringe Land Acquisition

• Urban fringe land identified and targeted for acquisition in conscientious effort to contain urban development.
• Special state and regional funds typically used, but sometimes done by local government.
• Examples: Boulder, Colorado; Maryland.

Urban/Rural Buffer

• Small scale greenbelt edge around city.
• Land acquired through combination of acquisition and donation with conservation easement.
• Privately owned land not provided with key urban services and limited to open space uses.
• Example: Davis, California

Community Separator

• Narrow band of open space separating one community from another.
• Land uses restricted to nonurban activities; no urban services allowed. Essentially large lot residential zoning but with some land acquisition.
• Example: Sonoma County, California.

Intergovernmental Agreements

Joint Planning Areas

• Municipalities agree on land use development affecting unincorporated areas.
• Agreements implemented through inter-local agreement enforceable by any party.

Spheres of Influence

• State designates future annexation areas of municipalities and creates independent board to assure that development in affected unincorporated areas is consistent with overall development plans of the relevant municipalities.
• Example: California, Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCo).

Extraterritorial Jurisdiction

• Legislature authorizes municipalities to review and approve subdivisions, rezoning requests, and other land use actions in unincorporated areas within 1-5 miles typically.
• Example: Eau Claire, Wisconsin.
  

---

Author and Copyright Information

Copyright 2002 by author

Casey J. Dawkins is a PhD student and part-time instructor of city and regional
planning at the Georgia Institute of Technology. His research interests
include land use planning, residential segregation, and housing econometrics.He can be reached by email: gt0118b@mail.gatech.edu or phone: 404-261-3429

Dr. Arthur C. Nelson, FAICP, is professor of city and regional planning,
and public policy, at the Georgia Institute of Technology. He is also
adjunct professor of law at Georgia State University. Dr. Nelson has
practiced and studied urban containment for 30 years.