The literature suggests that plan quality should be distinguished as a type of plan evaluation not only for its focus on content but also for its communicative ends. This distinction is important for expanding the scope of plan quality evaluation, but it also highlights ambiguity about what we mean by "quality." As a way to address this ambiguity we propose three dimensions of plan quality: documentation (comprehensiveness), policy focus (strength), and discourse (persuasiveness). We also propose a set of four principles for evaluating the strength of policy focus: maximize stability, minimize uncertainty, integrate public priorities across jurisdictions, and accommodate flexibility.