American Planning Association AICP Book

Pierre L’Enfant’s 1791 plan for Washington, D.C., was assisted by Benjamin Banneker, a free African-American surveyor, mathematician, and astronomer who helped survey the city’s boundaries. The APA’sAICP Certification Exam Content Outline(2022), under “Fundamental Planning Knowledge,” notes, “Benjamin Banneker assisted L’Enfant by surveying the land for Washington, D.C.’s layout.” Frederick Douglass (B), Robert Robinson Taylor (C), and Booker T. Washington (D) were notable figures but lived later and were not involved in the plan—Douglass (1818–1895) was an abolitionist, Taylor (1868–1942) an architect, and Washington (1856–1915) an educator. TheCPC Study Manual(2024) confirms, “Banneker’s surveying worksupported L’Enfant’s plan for Washington, D.C.,” supporting option A.

TheAICP Code of Ethics(2022), Section E, Procedure 3, states, “The Ethics Officer may provide informal advice to members on ethical questions.” Option B (provide informal advice) is correct. Option A (written advice) is not specified—formal written advice is typically an advisory opinion, which only the Ethics Committee can issue (Option D). Option C (make revisions) is not within the Ethics Officer’s authority; revisions require broader AICP governance. Option D (formal advisory opinions) is incorrect, as Section E, Procedure 4, reserves this for the Ethics Committee. TheCPC Study Manual(2024) confirms, “The AICP Ethics Officer is authorized to provide informal advice to members, but formal opinions are issued by the Ethics Committee,” supporting option B.

InDolan v. City of Tigard(1994), the Supreme Court ruled that exactions (e.g., requiring land dedication for a bike path as a condition of development approval) must have a “rough proportionality” between the government’s demand and the development’s impact, building on the “nexus” test fromNollan v. California Coastal Commission(1987). Option A (rough proportionality) is correct. The APA’sAICP Certification Exam Content Outline(2022), under“Fundamental Planning Knowledge,” states, “Dolan v. City of Tigardestablished the ‘rough proportionality’ test for exactions, ensuring they are proportional to the development’s impact.” Option B (cannot use public domain) is incorrect, as the case focused on exactions, not public domain. Option C (state-approved comprehensive plan) is unrelated. Option D (allowable use cannot be denied) misrepresents the ruling, which dealt with conditions, not outright denial. TheCPC Study Manual(2024) confirms, “Dolanintroduced the rough proportionality requirement for exactions,” supporting option A.

The quotation reflects a case where a community’s desire to control growth was upheld as a legitimate exercise of police power for public welfare. This matchesConstruction Industry Association of Sonoma County v. City of Petaluma(1975), where the Supreme Court upheld Petaluma’s growth management plan limiting housing permits to preserve small-town character and open spaces. The APA’sAICP Certification Exam Content Outline(2022), under “Fundamental Planning Knowledge,” citesPetalumaas a landmark case, noting the court’s ruling: “The concept of public welfare is sufficiently broad to uphold Petaluma’s desire to preserve its small-town character, open spaces, and low density.” Option A (Livermore, 1976) dealt with a building moratorium but not this specific rationale. Option B (Mount Laurel, 1975) addressed exclusionary zoning, not growth control. Option C (Euclid, 1926) established zoning’s constitutionality but didn’t focus on growth management. TheCPC Study Manual(2024) confirms the quote fromPetaluma, supporting option D.