Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2006 08 02 Hand out Regular Item 301 PLANNING & ZONING BOARD MEETING - AUGUST 2, 2006 REGULAR AGENDA ITEM 301 THE ATTACHED DOCUMENT WAS GIVEN TO THE BOARD MEMBERS BY MS. LINDA TILLIS, VICE CHAIRPERSON. Data Summary - Population Growth Total Population bv Citv Place 1990 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 Winter Springs 22,151 31 ,666 33,676 36,698 39,670 42,677 45,506 Oviedo 11,114 26,316 31 ,433 37,806 44,302 50,999 57,608 LonQwood 13,316 13,745 13,736 13,740 13,732 13,724 13,681 Lake Mary 5,929 11,458 14,314 17,207 20,132 23,119 26,052 Casselberry 18,911 22,624 25,223 27,353 29,495 31 ,695 33,825 Seminole County 287,362 364,991 407,758 446,870 486,159 526,461 565,460 Source: Shimberg Center for Affordable Housing Website, July 2006 Population by City 70,000 60,000 50,000 III 6 40,000 f Gl 30,000 Q. 20,000 10,000 o 1990 2015 2020 2005 2010 2000 Year . Oviedo, Lake Mary projected to grow faster than Winter Springs . Winter Springs projected to grow at slower rate than 1990-2000 . Oviedo population projected to surpass Winter Springs in 2010 Census Estimates Diff from Shim Place 2000 2005 2000 2005 Winter S rin s 31,666 32,583 0.0% -3.4% Oviedo 26,316 29,848 0.0% -5.3% Longwood 13,745 13,580 0.0% -1.1% Lake Ma 11 ,458 14,638 0.0% 2.2% Casselber 22,629 24,298 0.0% -3.8% Seminole Count 365,196 401,619 0.1% -1.5% Source: Census Bureau website, July 2006 -+- Winter Springs ~ CMedo Longwood ---*- Lake Mary _____ Casselberry 2025 . Shimberg estimates are slightly higher than those of Census Bureau Population Growth by Age Group Winter Springs Percent of Adult Population Place I Age 2000 20051 2010 2015 I 2020 2025 Winter Springs 15-24 15.87 16.39 16.01 14.90 13.57 13.24 25-34 14.74 13.69 13.73 13.97 13.79 12.92 35-44 22.94 20.10 16.88 15.77 15.99 16.26 45-54 20.99 20.77 19.91 17.85 15.39 14.58 55-64 11.57 14.76 17.46 18.05 17.71 16.11 65-74 8.11 8.09 9.50 12.43 15.21 16.14 75+ 5.78 6.21 6.51 7.03 8.35 10.76 Source: Shimberg Center for Affordable Housing website, July 2006 Winter Springs Percent Population by Age by Year S 25.00 i :; 20.00 Co ~ 15.00 i1; : 10.00 o ~ 5.00 a- u Q. 1112000 . 2005 02010 02015 . 2020 . 2025 0.00 15-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 Age Group 55-64 65-74 75+ . Population make-up changing . More older people, fewer young people (as percentage of population) Oviedo Place I Age I 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 Oviedo 15-24 16.01 17.77 19.38 19.02 17.78 16.09 25-34 30.16 22.98 18.44 19.86 21.38 21.00 35-44 25.70 25.90 23.22 17.83 14.50 15.93 45-54 13.00 16.88 20.27 20.69 18.97 14.99 55-64 6.54 7.53 9.52 12.59 15.54 16.26 65-74 5.39 5.46 5.54 6.26 7.63 10.11 75+ 3.20 3.49 3.63 3.74 4.20 5.61 Oviedo Percent Population by Age by Year a 35.00 i 30.00 a 25.00 o 11. 20.00 It) '+ 15.00 '0 10.00 i 5.00 ~ 11. 0.00 III 2000 . 2005 02010 02015 . 2020 . 2025 15-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 Age Group 55-64 65-74 75+ Seminole Coun Place 2010 2015 2020 2025 Seminole County 15-24 16.07 16.75 16.56 15.73 14.63 14.18 25-34 17.99 16.67 16.61 16.94 16.87 16.14 35-44 22.52 20.27 17.55 16.24 16.30 16.73 45-54 18.96 19.73 20.02 18.39 16.29 15.29 55-64 10.97 13.44 15.37 16.69 17.34 16.21 65-74 7.42 7.06 7.92 9.92 11.71 13.05 75+ 6.06 6.08 5.98 6.09 6.85 8.41 Seminole County Population by Age by Year 5 25.00 i :; 20.00 Q, ~ 15.00 + It) .... 10.00 '0 .. 3 5.00 l& a. 0.00 lID 2000 . 2005 02010 02015 . 2020 . 2025 15-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 Age Group 55-64 65-74 75+ Approximation of Median Age of Population Over Time 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 Approx Median Seminole Age County 36.0 36.9 37.9 38.8 39.6 40.4 Winter Springs 36.3 37.5 38.9 40.2 41.3 42.2 Oviedo 28.9 30.3 31.9 33.0 34.3 35.7 Lake Mary 35.5 36.3 37.1 38.2 39.4 40.9 Approximate Median Age 45.0 ~w -- 40.0 ~ e -+- Seminole County I - -- > 35.0 ____ Winter Springs c 0-.1000 CD l 30.0 - -*- Lake Mary 25.0 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 Year . Calculated by Linda Tillis . Only approximation, no access to all data . Winter Springs older than County as whole, getting older faster . Significantly older population than Oviedo t 2000 04-21-31-300-002B-0000 2000-33 ANNEX 11/13/2000 se corner of greeneway and SR 434 3.50 03-21-31-300-0090-0000 2000-40 ANNEX 11/27/2000 Weaver 600' north of SR 434 & Deleon St 30.00 03-21-31-300-0040-0000 2000-40 ANNEX 11/27/2000 Weaver 600' north of SR 434 & Deleon St 03-21-31-300-004B-0000 2000-40 ANNEX 11/27/2000 Weaver 600' north of SR 434 & Deleon St 03-21-31-300-004C-0000 2000-40 ANNEX 11/27/2000 Weaver 600' north of SR 434 & Deleon St 03-21-31-300-0080-0000 2000-41 ANNEX 11/27/2000 Minter 1800' north of SR 434 & Deleon St 34.70 03-21-31-300-008E-0000 2000-41 ANNEX 11/27/2000 Minter 1800' north of SR 434 & Deleon St 2000-08 ANNEX 4/10/2000 Plante west side of Tuskawilla south of Milky 29.00 2000-22 ANNEX 8/14/2000 (Plante) scri\ west side of Tuskawilla south of Milky 5.644 2000-24 ANNEX 8/14/2000 Seminole Pines Assoc. Ltd 0.836 103.68 2001 2001-01 ANNEX E 1/22/2001 Smith SR 417 & SR 434 0.72 33-20-30-503-0000-0190 2001-03 ANNEX 1/22/2001 Reece 495 US 17-92 North 7.561 33-20-30-503-0000-019E 2001-03 ANNEX 1/22/2001 Reece 401 US 17-92 North 33-20-30-503-0000-019C 2001-03 ANNEX 1/22/2001 Reece 1055 Nursery Rd. 33-20-30-503-0000-019A 2001-03 ANNEX E 1/22/2001 Reece Nursery Rd. 33-20-30-513-0DOO-0010 2001-03 ANNEX 1/22/2001 Reece Nursery Rd. 33-20-30-513-0DOO-0120 2001-03 ANNEX 1/22/2001 Reece Nursery Rd. 20-30-36-502-0000-0010 2001-34 ANNEX E 6/11/2001 Miranda 1135 SR 434- Miranda Auto Ctr. 1.36 9.64 2002 26-20-30-5AR-OBOO-0060 2002-03 ANNEX 5/13/2002 Roberts lot 6 Mitchell Survey- Orange Ave. 4.88 26-20-30-5AR-OBOO-015A 2002-26 ANNEX 11/25/2002 Nauven e half lot 15 Mitchell Survev- Orance 4.55 9.43 2003 31-20-31-502-0000-0030 2003-18 ANNEX E 6/23/2003 Pullen 1208 Orange Ave. 0.843 31-20-31-502-0000-0020 2003-18 ANNEX 6/23/2003 Heitlage 1204 Orange Ave. 1.237 31-20-31-502-0000-0040 2003-18 ANNEX 6/23/2003 Duffy 1210 Orange Ave. 0.503 31-20-31-502-0000-003A 2003-18 ANNEX 6/23/2003 Conti 1206 Orange Ave. 0.546 25-20-31-5BA-0000-0190 2OOQ..36 ANNEX 11/27/2000 Carroll 600' w of SR 434 & Deleon St (See 2 8.96 25-20-31-5BA-0000-0190 2003-27 ANNEX 7/28/2003 Carroll 600' w of SR 434 & Deleon St (See 2 12.09 2004 26-20-30-5AR-OCOO-0030 2003-42 ANNEX 1/12/2004 City Wincey property- adj to Central Winds 8.33 26-20-30-5AR-ODOO-0030 2003-42 ANNEX 1/12/2004 City Wincey property- adj to Central Winds 26-20-30-5AR-OBOO-007 A 2004-09 ANNEX 2/9/2004 Esteves 1112 Orange Avenue 3.30 26-20-30-5AR-OBOO-0160 2004-15 ANNEX 5/24/2004 Ferlita/Corke 1181 Orange Avenue 8.56 26-20-30-5AR-OBOO-004B 2004-18 ANNEX 5/24/2004 Meier 1184 Orange Avenue, Annex Agrmt- ~ 1.69 31-20-31-503-0000-0050 2004-21 ANNEX 5/24/2004 Kazma 1268 Orange Avenue 4.80 31-20-31-503-0000-0070 2004-21 ANNEX E 5/24/2004 Kazma 1268 Orange Avenue 26-20-30-5AR-OBOO-006A 2004-46 ANNEX 12/13/2004 Chari/Kilamt 1136 Orange Avenue, Annex Agrmt- : 1.95 36-20-30-502-0000-0020 2004-39 ANNEX E 10/25/2004 City SR 434 & Tuskawilla (Annex Study Ar 21.679 36-20-30-502-0000-004A 2004-39 ANNEX 10/25/2004 City SR 434 & Tuskawilla (Annex Study Ar 36-20-30-502-0000-004B 2004-39 ANNEX 10/25/2004 City SR 434 & Tuskawilla (Annex Study Ar 36-20-30-502-0000-004C 2004-39 ANNEX 10/25/2004 City SR 434 & Tuskawilla (Annex Study Ar 36-20-30-502-0000-0040 2004-39 ANNEX 10/25/2004 City SR 434 & Tuskawilla (Annex Study Ar 36-20-30-502-0000-0050 2004-39 ANNEX E 10/25/2004 City SR 434 & Tuskawilla (Annex Study Ar 36-20-30-502-0000-006A 2004-39 ANNEX 10/25/2004 City SR 434 & Tuskawilla (Annex Study Ar 36-20-30-502-0000-0060 2004-39 ANNEX 10/25/2004 City SR 434 & Tuskawilla (Annex Study Ar 36-20-30-502-0000-0070 2004-39 ANNEX 10/25/2004 City SR 434 & Tuskawilla (Annex Study Ar 36-20-30-502-0000-0080 2004-39 ANNEX 10/25/2004 City SR 434 & Tuskawilla (Annex Study Ar 36-20-30-502-0000-0090 2004-39 ANNEX 10/25/2004 City SR 434 & Tuskawilla (Annex Study Ar 36-20-30-502-0000-009A 2004-39 ANNEX 10/25/2004 City SR 434 & Tuskawilla (Annex Study Ar 26-20-30-5AR-OAOO-008F 2004-39 ANNEX 10/25/2004 City SR 434 & Tuskawilla (Annex Study Ar 03-21-31-300-0070-0000 2004-48 ANNEX 10/25/2004 Rook 1740 Deleon (adj to Weaver property) 4.32 03-21-31-300-0050-0000 2004-48 ANNEX 10/25/2004 Rook 1740 Deleon (adj to Weaver property) 03-21-31-300-007 A-OOOO 2004-48 ANNEX E 10/25/2004 Rook 1740 Deleon (adj to Weaver orooertv) 54.63 2005 04-21-31-300-0120-0000 2005-19 ANNEX 6/27/2005 Jerman-Shul 820 E SR 434 5.13 5.13 2006 NAME OF DEVELOPMENT TOTAL UNITS ACREAGE DENSITY LOCATION Future ICI Condominiums 480 or less 40.00 12.00 max E Winter Park (Dittmer) 334 or less 47.30 7.40 NW KAI Reserve 15 or less 1.70 8.82 W Oviedo Marketplace 100 11.33 8.83 SE In Review- Not Yet Recorded Saratoga Condominiums 84 9.10 9.23 W Lake Jesups Shores 80 8.70 9.20 Central Sonesta Pointe 408 40.00 10.20 Town Center Artesian Park 103 8.00 12.88 Town Center Ville Grande 152 4.75 32.00 Town Center James Doran Ph 1 41 1.57 26.11 Town Center James Doran Ph 2 700 46.55 15.04 Town Center Talis Crossing 4 9.07 0.44 SW 2006 Harbor Winds 62 15.00 4.13 W 2005 Jesups Landing 185 17.20 10.76 Town Center Jesups Reserve 161 11.00 14.64 Town Center Atchers Place 2 4.28 0.47 SW Landings at Parkstone 104 12.00 8.67 W Backus Lot Split 2 3.60 0.55 SW Dunlevy Lot Split 2 3.21 0.62 SW Moseley Lot Split 2 28.54 0.07 S Barclay Reserve 88 7.40 11.89 E 2004 Golf Pointe Apartments 42 2.07 20.29 NE 2003 Heritage Park 158 14.50 10.90 Central Barrington Estates 110 44.00 2.50 E 2002 Avery Park 100 39.41 2.54 Town Center 2001 Parkstone Unit 4 96 W Parkstone Unit 3 87 W Moss Place 20 2000 Golfside Villas 20 W Parkstone Unit 2 71 W Parkstone Unit 1 Replat W Moss Cove Conversion to Condos 32 W -' . ... Environment and Development Myth and Fact mrn Urban Land Institute About ULI-the Urban Land Institute ULI-the Urban Land Institute is a nonprofit education and research institute that is sup- ported by its members. Its mission is to provide responsible leadership in the use of land in order to enhance the total environment. ULI sponsors educational programs and forums to encourage an open exchange of ideas and sharing of experiences; initiates research that anticipates emerging land use trends and issues and p~opo~es creative solu- tions based on that research; provides advisory services; and publishes a wide variety of materi- als to disseminate information on land use and development. Established in 1936, the Institute today has more than 17,000 members and asso- ciates from more than 60 countries represent- ing the entire spectrum of the land use and development disciplines Richard M. Rosan President Printed in the United States of America. All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced in any form or by any means, elec- tronic or mechanical, including photocopying and recording, or by any information storage and retrieval system without written permission of the publisher. Recommended bibliographic listing: O'Neill, David j., Environment and Development: Myth and Fact. Washington, D.C.: ULI-the Urban Land Institute, 2002. ULI Catalog Number: EI4 International Standard Book Number: 0-87420-880-7 @2002 by ULI-the Urban Land Institute 1025 ThomasJefferson Street, N.W. Suite 500 West Washington, D.C. 20007-5201 2 A cross the nation, communities are seeking ways in which to grow and pros- per and ways in which to protect and enhance local and regional environ- mental resources. As the U.S. population increases by more than 60 mil- lion over the next 25 years, the pressure for development to accommodate growth will intensny, as will demand for development to do its part to protect the environment and conserve energy. UU is a leader in addressing environment and development issues through timely research and publications; interactive workshops, forums, and symposiums; and community outreach initiatives. In partnership with the Conservation Fund, UU sponsors two educational work- shops a year on the practice of environmentally sensitive development. Recently, UU published The Practice of Sustainable Development, a book that explores land use and development techniques that achieve environmental objectives. Periodic symposiums and forums keep UU members and other attendees abreast of the latest policies and trends in the area of environmentally sensitive development. Through its community outreach efforts, ULI works closely with its district councils and leading national, state, and local environmental organizations to remove the barriers to and enhance the markets for environmentally sensitive development. Environment and Development: Myth and Fact continues ULI's tradition of conduct- ing high-quality research and producing publications on environmental topics. This is the fourth in a series of publications designed to address myths and offer good examples on issues related to growth and land development. It tackles some of the more challenging and complicated aspects of balancing develop- ment with environmental protection. Through publications like this, UU continues to provide forums in which all stakeholders can explore and debate enVironmental and development issues. Through research and documentation of best practices, UU and its partners will strive to find solutions that accommodate growth and also meet important environmental objectives. Richard M. Rosan President Environment and Development: Myth and Fact It is clear that pressure will intensify for development to both accommodate growth and do its part to protect the environment. Consider the following trends. The U.S. population is expected to grow by more than 60 million by the year 2025. This tre- mendous amount of growth will not be equally distributed across the nation. In fact, the majority of new growth will occur in coastal metropolitan areas where environmental resources tend to be most fragile. For instance, Orange County, California, is expected to grow by 25,000 people per year for the next 20 years and to add 300,000 jobs by 2010. Curtis Johnson and Neal Peirce of the Citistates Group, a network of journalists and advisers involved in metropolitan issues, have calculated that 37 square miles of new parking spaces and 1,300 additional lane-miles of interstate highway will be needed to accommodate the 1.8 million additional South Floridians expected by 2020. This will be roughly equivalent to completely paving a half-mile strip along the Atlantic coast from Miami Beach to Boca Raton. The rate at which land is being urbanized to accommodate growth is a point of some contention. According to the National Resources Inventory (NRI), a U.S. Department of Agriculture database, more than 25 million acres of land were developed between 1982 and 1997. Some land planners suggest that only about I million acres are devel- oped per year. While consensus may be lacking, a growing body of evidence suggests that the public is concerned about the loss of open space. Nearly two-thirds of the respondents in the National Association of Realtors' summer 2001 survey of homebuyers believe that it is very important to preserve land used for agriculture, forests, wetlands, and stream cor- ridors. Recent ballot initiatives validate the results of this survey. More than 78 percent of the November 2000 ballot measures designed to preserve open space or build and main- tain parks and recreation facilities passed. Initiatives on parks and open space did well in 1998 and 1999 elections also. Open-space protection efforts are valuable, but they are not sufficient to address the nation's long-term environmental and economic objectives. These objectives need a broader range of options. One important tool in the effort to make growth more envi- ronmentally sensitive will be the development of more projects that meet environmen- tal objectives. Environmentally sensitive development will become an increasingly important part of the solution to the challenges of population and job growth and environmental quali- ty. Development projects that use innovative techniques to protect the environment are the exception today, not the norm. Many barriers-related to regulatory issues, financing problems, market issues, and neighborhood opposition-stand in the way of developers who want to build projects that promote environmental quality. Fortunately, awareness of how these regulatory and other factors impede smart devel- opment is growing and a broad range of entities-including developer associations, state and local governments, planning groups, and environmental organizations-are working to change them. These efforts are crucial, because accommodating future 4 growth without a serious loss of environmental quality requires viewing environmental- ly sensitive projects as a solution, not as an exception. By debunking some of the prevailing myths about the environment and development, this booklet aims to make public and private sector decision makers more aware of the barriers to and opportunities for environmentally sensitive development-and perhaps to inspire them to undertake and support sensitive projects. t:nvirvnment and Deuelopment: Myth and Fact is the fourth in the Urban Land Institute's Myth and Fact Series. The first addressed transportation and growth, the second smart growth, and the third urban infill housing. This latest publication in the series offers facts to counter eight of the most prevalent myths concerning the relationship between the environment and land development. And in support of those facts it offers examples-best practices case studies that high- light the lessons learned from innovative programs and development projects. Environment and Deuelopment: Myth and Fact examines the impact of certain land use policies and practices on environmental resources. It explores the growing market for environmentally sensitive development, which is development that incorporates siting, land use, and design features that protect the environment or are sensitive to environ- mental concerns including energy and other resource use. It compares compact devel- opment with dispersed development in terms of the traffic they generate. And it high- lights the positive role that development and developers are playing in environmental protection. 5 Myth #1 Environmental protection and land development objectives are incom- patible. Fact #1 The careful development of land can enhance environmental re- sources and reduce development pressure on more sensitive resources elsewhere. Environmental protection and land development are not nec- essarily incompatible objectives. Indeed, by developing the land with care, natural resources can be enhanced and devel- opment pressure on more sensitive resources can be reduced. The development or redevelopment of abandoned or vacant contaminated sites as vibrant urban places-an activity generally known as brownfield development-is one example of develop- ment that can enhance the environment. The Can Company redevelopment project in Baltimore, Washington's Landing in Pittsburgh, and the Chiron Life Sciences Center in Emeryville, California, are cases in point. Another kind of development that protects and enhances the environment is called sustainable development. This involves a combination of progressive land use practices-including inno- vative stormwater management techniques, open-space protec- tion, and forest and other habitat restoration-undertaken to improve a development site's natural systems, protect water quality, and enhance wildlife habitat. Examples of sustainable development projects include Hidden Springs in Ada County just outside of Boise, Idaho; Dewees Island in Charleston, South Carolina; Bonita Bay in Bonita, Florida; and Prairie Crossing in Grayslake, Illinois. Green building-the use of ecologically sensitive materials and design techniques for buildings to limit their impact on the environment-has grown into a serious industry. The Chesapeake Bay Foundation (CBF) , a large regional environ- mental advocacy organization, built its new headquarters green to reflect CBF's core environmental values. The construction materials used reduce the consumption of scarce natural resources. Rainwater supplies the tap water and composting toi- lets keep the building off the sewage treatment grid. A ground- source heat pump and a solar hot-water heater significantly reduce the building's energy consumption.'t Green buildings are catching on across the nation. With the assistance of initiatives such as Rebuild America (a program of the U.S. Department of Energy), the LEEDTM Green Building Rating System (offered by the U.S. Green Building Council, a nonprofit coalition of building industry leaders), and supportive government policies in a growing number of cities and states, the green building movement has converted many developers, government officials, and environmentalists to a new way of thinking. Brownfield development, sustainable development, and green building projects come immediately to mind as examples of environmentally sensitive development. Less obvious at first are the environmental benefits of many well<onceived or well-locat- ed master-planned communities, infill development projects, and mixed-use projects. The design of many master-planned communities, for example, establishes a green infrastructure-the preserved important natural features of the site-as an organizing framework for the overall development. Infill projects in urban areas make altogether different contributions to environmental quality. For -one thing, they provide an alternative to development on the urban fringe and to the extent that they deflect develop- ment from undeveloped areas they help protect open space. For another thing, in fill projects are closer to other locations to which people might want to travel and they usually offer more transportation choices. Therefore they generate fewer vehicle-miles traveled (and less air pollution) than do isolated developments. Proposed projects that are innovative in their approach fre- quently encounter significant barriers. In fact, many develop- ers find that environmentally sensitive projects are the most challenging kind of project to develop. Zoning and other devel- opment regulations and policies make them difficult, if not impossible. Financial institutions are often reluctant to fund innovations for which they can come up with few com parables. Neighbors are often difficult to persuade. Finding one's way around these too numerous barriers is too time-consuming and too costly. Unless the barriers to environ- mentally sensitive development are lowered, the prospects for wholesale changes in the form and type of development are slim-despite the apparently strengthening market appeal of green development projects. en Springs is a 1,844-acre new town ned as a traditional small town. It nestles In the Dry Creek Valley, which Is part of the Boise Front Foothills, just 20 minutes northwest of downtown Boise, Idaho. The town, with about 900 housing units planned, includes a variety of neighborhoods ranging from a tightly knit village to an area of custom homes on large lots. A fabric of civic spaces, wea Myth #2 Development that protects and enhancestheenvrronnnentadds little market value. Fact #2 Projects that incorporate green fea- tures often achieve premium prices and faster absorption rates than conventional developments. The value that consumers, developers, and lending institu- tions place on environmentally sensitive development has risen in recent years, resulting in a growing market for this type of product The drivers of this market are changing demo- graphies, increased environmental awareness, and the market success of projects that incorporate environmental features. People are willing to pay a premium for environmental features and amenities. A majority of housing consumers surveyed in 1998 by American UVES, Inc., valued open space, gardens, and walk- ing and biking paths, and would be willing to pay a premium for such amenities.. Similar surveys have found that smart-growth fea- tures, including protected open space, a mix of land uses, and a pedestrian-orientation, are valued community features. In fact, the demand for environmentally sensitive projects is strong enough to have outrun supply, it seems. Nearly 70 per- cent of developers from around the country who were surveyed recently say that the supply of alternative developmen ts-for example, conservation communities, higher-density develop- ments, mixed-use developments, and pedestrian- and transit- oriented developments-is inadequate. These developers think that between 10 and 25 percent of households in their own mar- ket areas would be interested in alternative development forms. Developers think that the market for alternative development exceeds 50 percent in some regions of the country.'; For market reasons, a number of developers are building proj- ects that accommodate growth while also protecting environ- mental resources. The developer of Dewees Island, for instance, an island near Charleston, South Carolina, has put in place a variety of innova- tive water conservation measures, developed the land in a way that protects hundreds of acres of island habitat, and used green building materials to save energy and protect scarce natural resources. Sales have surpassed expectations and property values far exceed those in the rest of the South Carolina sea islands market, in part because of the project's environmental features. Prairie Crossing is another project that is experiencing price pre- miums for environmental features. Located north of Chicago in Grayslake, Illinois, this development, which is planned to protect the site's environmental resources and rural character, is still under construction. Its 362 housing units will occupy only a small portion of the site's 677 acres, leaving most of the land as open space. According to a 1999 market analysis by Robert Charles Lesser and Company, houses were selling for $139 per square foot, which was 33 percent higher than comparable hous- es in the competitive market area. Prairie Crossing's high level of amenities and open space is responsible in part for this premi- um, according to the market analysis: Numerous studies have shown that developments that protect environmentalJeatures can achieve premiums down the road. Properties in the vicinity of open space, for example, show high- er values according to some studies. Houses near open space, trails, and greenways sell more quickly than do similar proper- ties elsewhere, according to anecdotal evidence.' The market for in fill and transit-oriented development (TOD) is also growing. Infill and TOD are environmentally sensitive forms of development, although typically they may not be recog- nized as such. How such development protects environmental quality has been shown in some recent studies. One simulation of the same amount of development on infill sites and on green- field sites, for example, concluded that the infill development would use less open space and produce less air pollution (including carbon monoxide and nitrous oxide emissions)." Recent housing construction activity in cities confirms the infill development trend: in 1999, housing permit activity in major U.S. cities exceeded by 35 percent the average annual per- mit activity experienced in these cities in the previous nine years" The urban in fill and TOD development markets are benefiting from this growth in demand. Appreciable value is added to commercial properties located near transit, according to a recent study by Robert Cervero and Michael Duncan of the University of California at Berkeley. The study found that com- mercial properties in Santa Clara County, California, yield a 23 percent premium in the value of the land when located within a quarter mile of a light-rail station, and a 120 percent premium when located within a business district and within a quarter mile of a commuter-rail station.to American LIVES characterizes some 50 million Americans-or nearly 22 percent of adults-as "cultural creatives." These are people who tend to purchase products that reflect environmen- tal, spiritual, and social-consciousness values.11 The emergence of this demographic category is important for the growing mar- ket for environmental products. As more successful models are built and as developers, financial institutions, and public officials gain confidence, the market for environmentally sensitive development will continue to grow. Myth #3 Zoning and other land use regula- tions protect the environment. Fact #3 Land use regulations often discour- age or disallow development prac- tices that protect the environment. Many urban planners and developers believe that submit- ting environmentally sensitive development proposals that conflict with conventional suburban style zoning codes, first adopted decades ago, is an exercise in futility. In many cases, these suburban codes tend to be the antithesis of good environmental stewardship, in that they require wide streets, large lots, and deep setbacks; require outdated stormwater man- agement techniques; and prohibit a mix of land uses. Project-5pecific problems also may be encountered by a proposed innovative green development project. Neighbors might not like the idea of clustering housing at a relatively high density on one portion of the site to preserve open space on the remainder of the site. The fire department may not agree to reduced road widths (which decrease stormwater runoff) because of concerns that narrower roads will not accommodate large fire trucks in an emergency. The health department may be skeptical of the ability of innovative wastewater treatment systems (like compost- ing toilets that <::onvert waste into fertilizer) to protect human health and water quality. Efforts to address growth and development issues can lead com- munities to amend their land use regulations and adopt policies to permit more design flexibility, facilitate the protection of natu- ral resources, and allow developers to respond effectively to mar- ket demand for environmentally sensitive projects. Some communities, for example, have adopted town center policies that encourage a mix of land uses, a pedestrian-orienta- tion, relatively narrow streets, and relatively high densities. Other communities permit conservation-design developments, which are projects that cluster homes on one portion of the site and leave the remaining land in permanent open space. Still other communities focus on incentives that encourage multiuse projects, infill projects, and transit-oriented develop- ment. Such incentives might include density bonuses, permit fee waivers, green tapping (streamlining the permit review process), abatement of local property taxes, and the provision of infrastructure improvements, such as parks, roads, and pedestrian linkages. The Atlanta Regional Commission (ARC) runs an incentive- based program called the Livable Centers Initiative to encour- age local governments in the metropolitan region to support transit-oriented, mixed-use projects that will help ameliorate the region's jobs/housing imbalance. The program funds local planning and capital improvements to achieve its smart-growth objectives, I< In New Jersey, a new code regulating rehabilitation projects has lowered the financial and administrative barriers to redevelop- ing buildings in urban areas. Since the rehabilitation code was put into effect in 1998, New Jersey's five largest cities have increased their rehabilitation work by 60 percent Some initial research indicates that the cost of rehabilitating older buildings is now 10 to 30 percent lower than under the old code." The achievement of long-term environmental objectives and economic goals will require revision of antiquated regulations and provision of incentives to stimulate development that is consistent with smart-growth principles. According to Emerging Trends in Real Estate 2002, communities with sensible land use policies-that is, communities that permit a mix of land uses, provide for a meaningful amount of open space, and encour- age pedestrian-oriented design-hold value better in eco- nomic downturns and appreciate more in upturns.16 Many communities, however, have revised their land use poli- cies only in response to mounting opposition to development, failing thereby to take into account future growth. Developers, according to a recent survey, find land use regulations to be the greatest obstacle to alternative forms of development.l? Local policies that drastically limit new growth are at the regu- latory extreme. These fail to acknowledge the inevitability (and the benefits) of growth. Simply put, development is needed to support a growing population. Growth prevented from occur- ring in one location will inevitably go somewhere else, often far from existing infrastructure and job centers. If the two broad objectives that are the subject of this publica- tion-the protection of the environment and the accommo- dation of future growth-are to be achieved, government poli- cies regulating land use development need to be reformed in many localities. But challenging obsolete requirements subjects developers to time-<.:onsuming and costly legal battles in which they are reluctant to engage. Regulatory reforms are indeed occurring in many places as local and state governments reconsider regulations that have fostered scattered and disconnected land development and as they adopt policies that favor more transportation and housing choices, the provision of open space, and the protection of natural resources. Profile uilt Green lorado Profile n Utah's Growth Strategy Myth #4 Compact development causes more harm to the environment than does low-density development. Fact #4 Compact development can mini- mize impervious surfaces and direct growth away from environ- mentally sensitive areas-and thus protect the environment. Compact development-either infill or greenfield-usually harms the environment less than does a comparable amount of scattered, lower-density development. By using less land, by concentrating development in less sensitive areas, and by minimizing impervious surfaces, compact development com- pared with low-density development infringes less on wetlands and forests; prevents the fragmentation of wildlife habitat; reduces stormwater runoff; and saves pristine open space. The amount of roads and parking necessary to support compact development is less than that required to support low-density development, which means that less impervious cover is needed. Less impervious cover means less urban runoff, which is urban- ization's leading pollutant. Compact development can achieve a 30 percent reduction in runoff compared with conventional suburban development, according to a study completed for the state of New Jersey.22 A m.yor environmental benefit of compact development is that it consumes less land than does conventional suburban develop- ment-as much as half as much to accommodate the same amount of growth. Even on a single site, if the planned housing units are clustered on a portion of the developable land, significant open space can be left intact. The smaller land requirement provides opportunities to pre- serve contiguous open-5pace areas that can be used for recre- ation, serve as habitat for wildlife, naturally absorb waterborne pollution before it enters waterways, and shield neighbors from noise. Compact development can be planned to minimize habi- tat fragmentation, especially if steps are taken to connect intact open spaces to other natural areas in the region. Conventional suburban development, on the other hand, provides few oppor- tunities to conserve contiguous parcels of land or workable habitat for wildlife. Water quality is better protected by development that impacts as little land as possible. Replacing natural drainage systems with constructed stormwater systems can affect an entire watershed's hydrology, including groundwater recharge, stream flow, stream sedimentation, and water quality. Furthermore, development on smaller lots generally means less landscaping and therefore smaller applications of pesticides and fertilizers and lower emis- sions from power lawn equipment!' Stormwater pollution produced in low-density areas can be dou- ble that produced in medium-density areas!' Linking destina- tions requires roads, and since the distances between destina- tions in low-density development are long, low-density develop- ment generally requires more roadbuilding. Per unit of develop- ment, low-density development also requires wider streets and more driveway surfaces, more rooftop area and rain gutters, and more dead~nd turnaround streets-all impervious surfaces- than does compact development. Concentrated development makes feasible various transporta- tion alternatives to the car, including walking, biking, and mass transit. As a result, people living in compact communities tend to rely less on the automobile. In fact, doubling the residen- tial density ofland can result in a 10 to 15 percent decrease in per capita driving miles.~' Even when people living in compact communities choose to drive, their total trip distance is often shorter. "Envision Utah's Quality Growth Strategy" (see profile at left) modeled various growth scenarios in northern Utah and determined that even a slight increase in density can result in major reductions in vehicle-miles traveled and vehicle emissions.26 This model pre- dicts that increasing density through policies favoring infill development and more connected growth at the urban fringe can reduce the total vehicle-miles traveled, increase the num- ber of transit trips, reduce commute times, and increase travel speed enough to achieve a 7 percent reduction in air pollut- ing mobile emissions. The myth that compact development is more harmful to the environment than low-density development fails to acknowledge the reality that compact development consumes less land, re- quires less impervious cover, and accommodates growth more efficiently so that valued areas, such as open space and habitat, can be left undeveloped. Profile Myth #5 Concentrated development means people driving more, which causes traffic congestion. Atlantic Sta Fact #5 In areas of concentrated develop- ment, people drive less, walk more, and use mass transit more. People who live in dense urban communities drive consid- erably less and use other transportation options more than people who live in dispersed, low-density areas. The for- mer may drive an average of 2.3 miles a day and the latter as many as 21 miles per day, according to a ULl study." The num- ber of daily trips per person is the same in both environments, according to this study, but urban residents use a variety of trans- portation options-car, transit (bus and rail), walking, biking, and taxi-to meet their daily travel needs, while the residents of low-density areas make nearly all their trips by car. A 1994 study that examined residential patterns and transit use in California found a direct correlation between residential den- sity and the number of vehicle-miles traveled (VMT) and between density and transit use. '2 Persons living where development is more concentrated tend to take fewer and shorter vehicle trips. In areas as densely populated as neighborhoods in the city of San Francisco compared with typical suburban neighborhoods that are half as dense, per capita VMT is reduced by 25 to 30 percent. The density of business districts is similarly related to the frequency of car trips, as demonstrated in a 1997 study that analyzed midday trips by employees at four business districts in metropolitan Washington, D.C." Employees in downtown Washington made 80 percent of their midday trips by walking. Employees in Bethesda, Maryland-a com- pact inner-ring suburban community accessi- ble to rail transit-made more than 67 per- cent of their midday trips by walking. At the Gaithersburg Office Park-a far-out subur- ban business district served by county bus transit with rail transit one to three miles away-walking accounted for only 8.5 per- cent of all midday trips, while driving evening patronage of the resta ts and 40 percent of the patronage of the cIne- ma. according to this study."t accounted for 84 percent. In Bethesda, driving accounted for 23 percent of midday trips and in downtown Washington it accounted for less than 6 percent. (Rock Spring Park, Maryland, a fragmented suburban business district served by bus transit with rail transit two miles away, is the fourth area included in this study.) Spread-out development promotes driving and makes trans- portation alternatives either unappealing or economically unfeasible. In most major metropolitan regions, outward expan- sion continues to lengthen the distances between housing and other destinations-jobs, recreation, and shopping. This frag- mented pattern of growth provides few economic opportunities for transit operations. In spread-out suburbs, it is generally more convenient to drive. As a result, increases in VMT and traffic congestion are occurring throughout the United States. According to the Texas Transportation Institute, which monitors congestion trends, congestion is becoming more severe in all U.S. metropolitan regions. It lasts longer and affects more of the transportation system than ever before." The leading contributor to increased VMT is the overall increase in trip length.~' Between 1990 and 1995, the average distance for general car trips increased from 8.98 miles to 9.06 miles and the daily average time spent driving increased from 49.35 minutes to 56.20 minutes.il6 Between 1990 and 1999, aver- age driving distances increased 24 percent. Between 25 and 50 percent of the growth in VMT may be ascribed to low-density, dispersed development patterns, according to information pro- duced for the National Transit Institute (NTI)." In most metro- politan regions, a failure to coordinate land use and transporta- tion planning and the lack of viable transportation alternatives exacerbate traffic problems. Reducing daily VMT is an important air quality measure. A 1999 Georgia Tech study of the metropolitan Atlanta region found that households in conventional cul-de-sac communities gener- ate up to three times as much nitrogen oxide (NOx)-a key ele- ment of ozone pollution-than do households in pedestrian-ori- ented, mixed-used neighborhoods.'" The study concludes that changing land use patterns to make communities more walka- ble and less car dependent can help metropolitan Atlanta achieve its ozone reduction goals. Concentrated growth that features a complementary mix of uses, supports pedestrian activities through its mix and design, and provides transportation choices can reduce VMT and asso- ciated pollution. This is true for suburban areas as well as in the urban core. Profile ad open spaoe. A native vegetation p~ and other wildlife. Sales experience at this project proves the exis- tence of a market for environmentally sensitive development. Close to 80 percent of the homes sold within six months of their offer! In two ses, with lots ranging in price fro and houses ranging from $300, '51 Myth #6 Large-lot residential development preserves open space, reduces infrastructure costs, and protects the environment. Fact #6 Suburban large-lot residential development often is both ecolog- ically and rmancially inefficient. Many people think that, compared with compact develop- ment, development on large lots means less overall demand on community setvices and infrastructure and less environmental impact In many cases, the opposite is true. Ranchette subdivisions developed at densities of one housing unit per two, five, or ten acres convert forests, wetlands, range- land, and other natural areas into rooftops, driveways, and roads. They create patterns of development that are both eco- logically fragmented and financially inefficient. Large-lot lot zoning has become increasingly popular in commu- nities across the country as a means to preserve agricultural land and open space. Requiring really large lots of say 25 or 50 acres can maintain open space and protect environmental resources. But requiring smaller large lots of two to ten acres encourages development that actually exacerbates the problems associated with rapid growth, including traffic congestion, high infrastruc- ture costs, and loss of open space. Development at such densities does little to maintain the ecological value of natural areas and can carve up the countryside rather than protect it. The financial inefficiencies of large-lot suburban development patterns are well documented. Roads, water supply, and sewer setvices become more costly when extended over great dis- tances.'" In some areas of the country, it can cost a municipality $10,000 more to provide setvices to a residence on the urban fringe than to one in the urban core." Prince William County, Virginia, found that providing munici- pal setvices to a house on a large lot far from existing infrastruc- ture costs the county $1,600 more than is returned in taxes and other revenues.'" The state of Rhode Island could save $142 mil- lion in sewer infrastructure costs if development were more dense and contiguous to existing development.'" Suburban large-lot development can cause habitat fragmenta- tion. Habitat fragmentation occurs when contiguous natural space such as a forest, a wetlands area, rangeland, or a wildlife corridor is divided by development. Development within such areas causes the loss of native vegetation and it breaks up natu- ral migrating corridors. Such habitat fragmentation can reduce the size and the diversity of certain wildlife populations!' Suburban large-lot development can have a negative effect on water quality as well. Houses in large-lot subdivisions tend to be heavy users of fertilizers and pesticides for their landscaped lawns. Rain washes these chemicals off the land and carries them into local waters. Also, the bigger the lot, the greater the amount of water that is used for landscape irrigation. A study in New Jersey found that six times more water is used in single- family detached housing than in single-family attached and multifamily housing.'" Rather than adopt large-lot zoning to preserve a fragmented system of open space, communities should undertake to plan more comprehensively for growth and conservation on the urban fringe. Planning for growth and conservation (and adopt- ing regulations that support the planning) will help achieve a mix of land uses and densities that can have many advantages over unplanned growth and a uniformly low-<lensity develop- ment pattern, including the more efficient provision of infra- structure, the more effective protection of natural resources and natural systems, the preservation of important open space, the establishment of a sense of community, and the creation of sus- tainable communities that increase in value over time. Some master-planned large communities prove the environmental and economic development benefits of planning for growth-Otay Ranch, for example, a 5,300-acre planned community in San Diego. Otay Ranch provides much-need- ed housing and other services in a region that is expected to grow by more than I million people in the next 20 years and that has a projected ten-year job growth rate of 31 percent-making it one of the fastest-growing regional economies in the nation"9 Profile Playa VISta, a west Los Angeles su A range of housing serving households includes 340 acres of preserved and with a range of incomes and lifestyles is available at Otay Ranch. So are transportation choices and a variety of community services. Furthermore, the developers of Otay Ranch have committed to preserve half of the communi- ty's land in its natural state in perpetuity. All in all, zoning that requires a minimum lot size of two acres or more contributes to a dispersed and inefficient pattern of growth in metropolitan regions and thus, far from protecting the environment, adds to its degradation. As a reaction to growth pressures, large-lot zoning often takes the place of plan- ning. However, in poorly planned areas the cost of providing infrastructure can be high. Furthermore, a feeling of isolation often characterizes large-lot developments. Establishing a sense of community usually needs a more creative land plan. Myth #7 Green building practices are too costly and too complicated to become mainstream. Fact #7 The economic competitiveness of green features is on a steep upward curve-with both market share and demand on the rise. yo conserve natural resources, green buildings use recycled and engineered materials, incorporate designs and tech- nologies for reducing water and energy use, and incorpo- rate efficient (and less polluting) mechanical systems. They use any number of techniques and technologies-passive solar heat- ing, structural insulated panels, efficient windows, and reliance on daylighting-to reduce energy consumption and increase usage of renewable sources of energy. By relying more on natural air and light (and less on mechani- cal processes) and by avoiding building materials and products that emit pollutants, green buildings can create better working and living environments. Better working environments, studies show, improve workers' health, morale, and productivity and thus improve bottom lines. Developers who use green building techniques report that there can be clear economic benefits in terms of improved project marketability, higher rents, and premium prices. Green building is generally more expensive than conventional construction. Practitioners estimate that using green materials tends to cost between 3 and 4 percent more than using conventional con- struction materials. As the market share for green products and materials grows, their cost should decrease. Kristin Shewfelt, director of environmental programs for McStain Enterprises, a medium-size homebuilder in Colorado that has embraced green building techniques, has seen this happening over the last couple of years. Five years ago, building green cost McStain 5 to 10 percent more than building conventionally would have cost, but today a green house costs McStain less than 4 percent more than a conventional house.54 As conventional energy becomes more expensive and as demand for green features in housing and commercial build- ings increases, the cost differential between green and conven- tional development may become negligible. In fact, some peo- ple argue that the added cost of building green is already insignificant. By reducing heating and cooling loads, green buildings can be made comfortable with dramatically smaller heating and air- conditioning plants and ductwork-and smaller systems cost less. Reducing waste (through the use of recycled building materials and through various construction management tech- niques) is a principle of green building, and by following this principle builders can cut construction costs." For office development, the higher initial costs of green construc- tion may be compensated by operating cost savings (especially energy cost savings), the tenant retention potential of healthy buildings, and the greater durability of green construction. Chris Kurz, president of Linden Associates, an office developer in the Baltimore metropolitan region, sees green building as a tool for tenant retention: "If tenants see productivity increasing due to a healthy environment, they are likely to want to stay in that building. There are a number of short- and long-term eco- nomic benefits to green building, but tenant retention is a vari- able that many of us do not consider.56 Not oblivious to the long-term operating benefits of green buildings, many homebuyers and office tenants are willing to pay a premium for green features that improve operating per- formance.'7 Among such features are natural ventilation and daylighting (the more effective use of natural light) , building orientation to reduce heating or cooling loads, and construc- tion materials that absorb or radiate heat (such as light-colored roofs, certain glazes, stone, tiles, and brick). Buyers and tenants may pay more for better insulation and better weatherproofing. Shared walls (that is, shared insulation) in attached structures can reduce energy use by 50 percent. Green development favors the use of natural systems-vegetated swales, rain gardens, wetlands, wet ponds, and dry ponds-to retain and filter runoff. Systems that trap and divert runoff- allowing it to infiltrate the ground slowly-are generally more cost-effective than conventional systems that transport runoff to storm sewers.56 Such systems also benefit homeowners by provid- ing water for irrigation and removing standing water from around houses. orm Thompson eadquarters Parking areas also can be designed to be green. Green parking collects runoff, filters it, and allows it to percolate into the ground slowly. It generally uses porous pavement Porous pavements are about 10 percent more expensive than conventional types of pavement, but using them in stormwater management systems can reduce the total cost of these systems by 12 to 38 percent.'" In Prince George's County, Maryland, a five-acre parking lot was retrofitted with a landscaped bioretention area to drain and treat water from one-half acre of the lot. The retrofit cost $4,500 to construct. However, a conventional device designed to treat the same area and volume of runoff would have cost $15,000 to $20,000 and would have been more expensive to maintain.'" ining. Recycled materials were used where was chosen as the framing material to the use of wood. Pa therestrooms of 90 Myth #8 When it comes to development, developers and environmentalists are always in conffict. Fact #8 The growth-versus-environment debate is not an either-or proposi- tion. Developers and environmen- talists can and do work together to accommodate both. While differences of opinion still exist between developers and environmentalists, across the country they find themselves collaborating on projects and programs. Many new collaborative initiatives indicate a willingness on the part of both parties to seek ways to accommodate growth and protect important environmental features. Collaboration is cre- ating some win-win situations. Developers have discovered that environmentally sensitive prac- tices and features can enhance the value of projects, sometimes reduce construction costs, reduce operating costs, and improve project marketability. And environmentalists have discovered that working with developers can help them protect natural resources. A number of environmental organizations work directly with developers in project development, to help them identify and protect important environmental features, incorporate innova- tive techniques for managing water resources and habitat, and achieve broad conservation objectives. Instances of environmental organizations, public agencies, civic groups, and developers working together to achieve economic and environmental objectives simultaneously are becoming com- mon. The redevelopment of Stapleton Airport in Denver offers a fine example of such multiparty, multipurpose collaboration. Forest City Development and the city of Denver are partners in this massive 4,700-acre urban infill development. The redevel- oped Stapleton will house 30,000 residents and provide jobs for 35,000 workers. A process involving hundreds of community meetings resulted in a sustainable development plan that calls for a community that balances residential, office, and retail development with a network of parks, trails, and open spaces that not only protect but also restore the site's significant natu- ral resources. The plan will be implemented through partner- ships that involve the public sector, developers, environmental- ists, and civic organizations. J Important developer/ environmentalist collaborative efforts are focusing on expanding the types and improving the form of new growth. Some very promising programs in this respect are underway. In the state of Washington, for instance, the 1000 Friends of Washington, a collaborative partnership of environmentalists and civic organizations, estab- lished the Livable Future Endorsement Program to help secure the approval of proposals for well- designed, compact development within the region's urban growth area. If a proposed project meets five basic criteria, the 1000 Friends will prepare a letter of endorsement and testifY on behalf of the project at local hearings. The endorsement program is designed to show local government officials why it is important to say "yes" to exemplary development.'" National organizations representing the building and develop- men t industry are working closely with environmental agencies and organizations to remove the barriers to development prac- tices that protect the environment. The National Association of Home Builders, for example, is working with the National Arbor Day Foundation to educate builders, citizens, and public officials on tree protection in the development process. The Urban Land Institute works on a regular basis with environmental groups, such as the Trust for Public Land and the Conservation Fund, to identify and showcase examples of smart growth and sustain- able development Trends in population growth and household formation indicate that growth pressures can only increase over the next decade. This means that collaboration between developers and environ- mentalists will grow in importance as growing regions-and the nation as a whole-seek ways to accommodate growth while pre- serving open space and natural resources. In the decade from 1990 to 2000, the U.S. population increased 13.2 percent, from nearly 249 million to more than 281 million. The Census Bureau projects an increase of 20 million by 2010 and more than 40 mil- lion by 2020.'" Population growth means demand for new housing. According to the National Association of Home Builders, more than 18 million new houses will be built between 2001 and 2010.64 While the median square footage of new housing is expected to continue to increase, the demand for higher-density housing products, including single-family houses on smaller lots, town- houses, and condominiums, will also grow. Changing national demographics are helping to drive the demand for more urban forms of development. Over the next decade, couples without children will be the fastest-growing homeowner market and sin- gle-person households will nearly equal the number of married- with-children households. Environment and Development: Myth and Fact Source Guide 2002 Organization/Agency/Community World Wide Web Address Built Green Colorado www.builtgreen.org Center of Excellence for Sustainable Development www.sustainable.doe.gov Chicago's Urban Heat Island Initiative www.ci.chi.il.us/Environment/AirToxPollution UrbanHeatIsland City of San Jose, California Green Building Program www.ci.san:iose.ca.us/esd/gb-home.htm Greeninfrastructure.net www.greeninfrastructure.net Low Impact Development Center www.lowimpactdevelopment.org National Association of Home Builders Green Building Program www.nahbrc.org Northeast-Midwest Institute www.nemw.org The South Carolina Coastal Conservation League www.scccl.org Trust for Public Land www.tpl.org U.S. Department of Energy Rebuild America Program www.eren.doe.gov/buildings/rebuild U.S. Green Building Council www.usgbc.org 22 Notes "Philip Merrill Environmental Center," UU Development Case Study, v. 30, no. 1 (Washington, D.C.: ULI-the Urban Land Institute, 2002). 2 David J. O'Neill, The Smart Growth Tool Kit (Washington, D.C.: ULI-the Urban Land Institute, 2000). 3 Kristin Shewfelt (director of environmental programs, McStain Enterprises), interview by author, February 2002. See also McStain Enterprises homepage at www.mcstain.com. 4 American LIVES, with InterCommunications, Community Prrfermces: What the Buyer &ally Wants in Design, Features, and Amenities (Oakland, California: American LIVES, February 1999). 5 Jonathan Levine and Aseem Inam, Developer-Planner Interoction in Accessible Land Use Development (Ann Arbor, Michigan: Alfred Taubman College of Architecture and Urban Planning, University of Michigan, November 2001). 6 David J. O'Neill, The Smart Growth Tool KiL 7 PFK Consulting, Analysis 0/ &onomic Impocts 0/ the Northern Central Rail Ttail (Annapolis, Maryland: report prepared for Maryland Greenways Commission, Maryland Department of Natural Resources, 1994). 8 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, The Impocts 0/ InjiU vs. GreenfiekJ. Development: A Comparative Case Study Analysis (Washington, D.C.: Author, 1999). 9 Douglas R. Porter, Buikling Homes in America: A Progress Report (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Conference of Mayors, September 2000). 10 Robert Cervero and Michael Duncan, Rail Transits Value-Added: E//<<ts 0/ Proximity to Light- and Commuter-Rail Transit on Commercial Land Values in Santa Clara County, California (Washington, D.C.: ULI-the Urban Land Institute and the National Association of Realtors, June 2001). 11 See "Cultural Creatives" at www.culturalcreatives.org. 12 Franklin A. Martin (president, Hidden Springs Community), interview by author, December 2ool. 13 "Currituck Club," Development Case Study, v. 30, no. 17 (Washington, D.C.: ULI-the Urban Land Institute, 2000). 14 See "Livable Centers Initiative" at: www.atlantaregiona!.com/qualitygrowth/ Iei.hlm!. 15 See "New Jersey's Rehabilitation Subcode" at: www.state.nj.us/dca/codes/ rehab/rehab.hlm. 16 Emerging Tmuts in &al Estate 2002 (New York: PricewaterhouseCoopers and Lend Lease Real Estate Investments, 2002). 17 Levine and Inam, Developer-Planner Interoction. 18 Low Impact Development Center, Low Impact Development: A Literature Synthesis. (Washington, D.C.: report prepared for Office of Water, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA841-B-O~5, October 2000). 19 See "The Low Impact Development Center" at: www.lowimpactdevelop- mentorg. 20 Center for Watershed Protection, Better Site Design: A Handbook fur Changing Development Rules in Your Community (Ellicott City, Maryland: August 1998). 21 See Built Green Colorado homepage at www.builtgreen.org. 22 The Costs and Benefits 0/ Alternative Growth Patterns: The Impoct Assessment of the New Jersey State Plan (New Brunswick, New Jersey: Center for Urban Policy Research, Rutgers University, September 2000). 23 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Development, Community, and Environment Division, Our Built and Natural Environment (Washington, D.C.: EPA231-R~I'()()2, 2001). 24 Mark Roseland, TlJWard Sustainable Communities (Stony Creek, Connecticut: New Society Publishers, 1998). 25 Robert T. Dunphy and Kimberly Fisher, "Transportation, Congestion, and Density: New Insights," Transportation &search &cord, 1996. 26 Envision Utah, Quality Growth Strategy and Tuhnical Review (Salt Lake City, Utah: 2000). 27 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Business and Community Innovation, Developing/ur the Future: Hometaum USA (Washington, D.C.: EPA240-R~2, 2000). 28 Envision Utah, Quality Growth Strategy and Technical Review (Salt Lake City, Utah: 2000). 29 "Dream Come True," SCCCL Newsletter (South Carolina Coastal Conser- vation League), winter 2001 (previously available at www.scccl.org/ nletter /2oo1winter/ion). 30 "I'On Village, South Carolina," Terrain: A Journal 0/ the Built & Natural Environments, issue 6, 2000 (available at: www.terrain.org/Archives/Issue_6/lon/ion.html). 31 Dunphy and Fisher, "Transportation, Congestion, and Density." 32 John Holtzclaw, Using Residential Patterns and Transit to Decrease Automobile Dependency and Cost (San Francisco: Natural Resources Defense Council, report prepared for California Home Energy Ration System, 1994). 33 G. Bruce Douglas III et aI., "Urban Design, Urban Form, and Employee Travel Behavior," TRB Transpurtation Planning Applications Con/erence Papers, 1997. 34 Texas Transportation Institute, 200I UrlJan Mobility Repurt (College Station: Texas A&M University System, 2001). 35 U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Nationwide Personal Transpurtation Survey 0/1995 (Washington, D.C.: 1999). 36 Surface Transportation Policy Project, Easing the Burden (Washington, D.C.: 2001) (available at: www.transactorg/Reports/tti2oo1/reportpdf). 37 Robert Cervero and Reid Ewing, Coordinating 7ransportation and Land Use Course Manual (New Brunswick, New Jersey: National Transit Institute, 2000). 38 Larry Frank, William Bachman, and Brian Stone, Land Use Impocts on HousehokJ. Travel Choice and Vehicle Emissions in the Atlanta &gion (Atlanta: a report by Georgia Tech to the Turner Foundation, 1999). 39 "Retail 'Dream Team' on Board at Atlantic Station," press release dated 23 March 2001 (available at: www.atlanticstation.com/article_03_23.html). 40 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Transpurtation and Environmental Analysis 0/ the Atlantic Steel Development Projed (Washington, D.C.: 1999). 41 Wells & Associates, LLC, Reston Town Center Internal TraffIC Study (Reston, Virginia: report prepared for Terrabrook, November 1999). 42 Metropolitan Transportation Commission (San Francisco Bay Area), "Regional Profiles in Smart Growth" (available at www.mtc.ca.gov/projects/ Iivable_communities/sg..profiles.htm) . 43 Robert W. Burchell, William Dolphin, and Harvey S. Moskowitz, Impoct Assessment 0/ DELEP CCMP versus Status Quo on Twelve Municipalities in the DELFP Region (Philadelphia: Delaware Estuary Program, August 1995). 44 International City/County Management Association, Why Smart Gruwth: A Primer. (Washington, D.C.: Author, 1998). 45 Chesapeake Bay Foundation, Debunking Sprawl Myths: What We Really Want in Our Communities (Annapolis, Maryland: Author, 2001). 46 H.C. Planning Consultants and Panimetrics, The Costs 0/ Suburban Sprawl and Urban Decay in Rhode Island (Providence, Rhode Island: report prepared for Grow Smart Rhode Island, 1999, executive summary available at www.grows- martri.com). 47 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Our Built and Natura/Environment. 48 Robert W. Burchell et a!., Impoct Assessment 0/ the New Jersey Interim State Development and &development Plan, Report II: Research Findings (New Brunswick, New Jersey: Center for Urban Policy Research, Rutgers University, 1992). 23 Notes (continued) 49 Stephen Levy, ULI RegUmal Growth Trends Report: Ecorwmic and DemograPhi€ Trends in Calij(fl7lia (Washington, D.C.: ULI-the Urban Land Institute, 2001). 50 Jack Skelley, "New Suburban ism in the Twin Cities," Urban LAnd, April 2001. . 51 National Association of Home Builders, "The Fields of St. Croix," at: www.nahb.com/smartexamples/fields.htm. 52 David W. Myers, "Playa Vista Announces Huge Land Sales," GlobeStcom, June 2001. 53 ULI-Los Angeles Smart Growth Cast Study Series: Playa Vista, "Transcript of Event" Playa Vista, California,June 2001. 54 Kristin Shewfelt (director of environmental programs, McStain Enterprises), interview by author, February 2002. 55 Jason F. McLennan and Ron Perkins, "Green Leases and the Speculative Office Market," Environmental Design + Construction, May/June 2001. 56 Chris Kurz (president, Linden Associates), interview by author, February 2002. 57 Dianna Lopez Barnett and Willliam D. Browning, A Primer on Sustainable Building (Snowmass, Colorado: Rocky Mountain Institute Green Development Services, 1995). 58 Ibid. 59 Kim Sorvig, "Porous Paving," LAndscape Architecture, February 1993. 60 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, Biorftention Applications (Washington, D.C.: EPA841-B-OO-OO5A, October 2000). 61 "City Hall Rooftop Garden," at: www.ci.chi.il.us/EnvironmentJhtml/ RooftopGarden.html. "Chicago City Hall" at: www.roofmeadow.com/ projectl.html. "Chicago Beats the Heat with Green Techniques," Nonpoint Source News-Notes (U.s. Environmental Protection Agency), no. 60, 2000. 62 "Norm Thompson Headquarters," Development Case Study, v. 27, no. 13 (Washington, D.C.: ULI-the Urban Land Institute, 1997). 63 U.S. Bureau of the Census, Population Division, Population Projections (Washington, D.C.: Author, September 2000). 64 National Association of Home Builders, The Next Decade for Housing (Washington, D.C.: Author, 2000). 65 1000 Friends of Washington at www.looOfriends.org. 66 Edward McMahon (vice president, director, American Greenways Program), interview by author, January 2002. 24