Stopping Florida Sprawl – It's Not Just Small Area Plans

Under Florida’s new Growth Management Act, fixing sprawl is one thing, stopping is something altogether different.

This article appeared in the January 25, 2012 edition of the  Orlando Sentinel under the headline “Ruling: Giant Farmton development not 'sprawl' under new law” (hat tip – Greater, Greater Washington):

“Farmton, a city of 23,000 homes proposed for a remote tree farm in Volusia and Brevard counties, isn't urban sprawl, according to an administrative law judge's ruling in the first case to test Florida's watered-down growth management law….

Among the key rulings, Maloney decided that Farmton doesn't meet the new definition of sprawl because the law allows such growth if the plans also show ways that the impact is being limited. The new law lists eight factors that limit urban sprawl. If the plan includes at least four of the factors, then the proposed development isn't urban sprawl.  Maloney ruled that Farmton met seven of the eight anti-sprawl factors.”

Farmton Tree Farm is located on the map below under pin "A."

What?  The changes to the Growth Management Act basically modified the definition of sprawl, and added a bizarre new checklist of how development (any development) could qualify as “not sprawl.”  The law can be found here, beginning, Line 1447.

The definition of sprawl reads:

(I) Promotes, allows, or designates for development substantial areas of the jurisdiction to develop as low-intensity, low-density, or single-use development or uses.

(II) Promotes, allows, or designates significant amounts of urban development to occur in rural areas at substantial distances from existing urban areas while not using undeveloped lands that are available and suitable for development.

(III) Promotes, allows, or designates urban development in radial, strip, isolated, or ribbon patterns generally emanating from existing urban developments.

(IV) Fails to adequately protect and conserve natural resources, such as wetlands, floodplains, native vegetation, environmentally sensitive areas, natural groundwater aquifer recharge areas, lakes, rivers, shorelines, beaches, bays, estuarine systems, and other significant natural systems.

(V) Fails to adequately protect adjacent agricultural areas and activities, including silviculture, active agricultural and silvicultural activities, passive agricultural activities, and dormant, unique, and prime farmlands and soils.

(VI) Fails to maximize use of existing public facilities and services.

(VII) Fails to maximize use of future public facilities and services.

(VIII) Allows for land use patterns or timing which disproportionately increase the cost in time, money, and energy  of providing and maintaining facilities and services, including  roads, potable water, sanitary sewer, stormwater management, law enforcement, education, health care, fire and emergency  response, and general government.

(IX) Fails to provide a clear separation between rural and urban uses.

(X) Discourages or inhibits infill development or the redevelopment of existing neighborhoods and communities.

(XI) Fails to encourage a functional mix of uses.

(XII) Results in poor accessibility among linked or related land uses.

(XIII) Results in the loss of significant amounts of functional open space.

The list of “not sprawl,” defined as meeting at least four of the following eight, is:

(I) Directs or locates economic growth and associated land development to geographic areas of the community in a manner that does not have an adverse impact on and protects natural resources and ecosystems.

(II) Promotes the efficient and cost-effective provision or extension of public infrastructure and services.

(III) Promotes walkable and connected communities and provides for compact development and a mix of uses at densities and intensities that will support a range of housing choices and a multimodal transportation system, including pedestrian, bicycle, and transit, if available.

(IV) Promotes conservation of water and energy.

(V) Preserves agricultural areas and activities, including silviculture, and dormant, unique, and prime farmlands and soils.

(VI) Preserves open space and natural lands and provides for public open space and recreation needs.

(VII) Creates a balance of land uses based upon demands of residential population for the nonresidential needs of an area.

(VIII) Provides uses, densities, and intensities of use and urban form that would remediate an existing or planned development pattern in the vicinity that constitutes sprawl or  if it provides for an innovative development pattern such as transit-oriented developments or new towns as defined in s. 163.3164.

The Farmton ruling gives us the first real life case of how the new law works with the toggled sprawl/not sprawl definitions. Other aspects of the rewrite seem to have crept into the ruling as well, for example, the new "fairly debatable" standard.  Word on the street is that this legislative session will see attempts to further weaken the Growth Management Act.   Is Farmton the wave of the future, or smart locking in of entitlements before the backlash kicks in? 

Fixing Florida Sprawl - It's not just Transportation Concurrency

Last year, there was much lament over the gutting of Florida’s Growth Management Act, the 1985 law consistently hailed as a model for state smart growth planning.   But if it was so great, how come there is even more lament over Florida’s sprawl?

Others better versed in Florida planning have written on this topic.  Most critiques single out one policy at a time, namely transportation concurrency, or present lists of suspected policies and processes.  These are, of course, necessary discussion frames; for the most readable introduction to the topic, see the April 2008 edition of Research in Review (Florida State University) article “Pain in Paradise: Florida’s Failed Fix-All.”  The article contains links to the best in the business and I recommend studying up.   For a great synopsis of transportation concurrency, see “Rethinking the Florida Transportation Concurrency Mandate,” by Tim Chapin et al, from Florida State Univeristy.

However, if we are to correct course to develop and redevelop better communities, then we a fresh look not only at individual policies, but also at the various planning scales.  Growth management in Florida basically focuses on two scales: the (1) comprehensive plan for cities/counties, and (2) individual projects.  Regional planning is not as strong as the Act’s language might suggest.  “Developments of Regional Impacts” or DRIs are overwhelmingly single owner, large projects, not regional planning.   

Now let’s look at these planning scales another way.  Florida planning has traditionally focused on two scales that are set by boundaries: jurisdictional and project level.  These are two necessary scales, but used alone, produce a landscape built on “pods.”  It is hard to get a grip on how various cities and projects connect together when the mind jumps quickly to managing within borders.   Suburban discontent, alas, tends to emanate from dysfunctional flows: traffic, water, money. 

 

This is why planning built on flows is so important.   It seems like smart growth leaders have picked up on the importance of flows and regional planning, so let’s turn to what I think is the most important – yet least appreciated - planning tool: small area planning.

Planners in urban areas use this scale every single day, but it’s a given to the point of being unacknowledged.   Great transit oriented development is based on how pedestrians flow around mass transit station areas.  Sub-watershed plans are essential in matching management practice to local water flows.  Because efficient land use relies on sharing amenities like parking, streetscape, parks and the like, small area plans facilitate getting more out of smaller, yet linked, parcels.  Small area plans that link the built and natural landscapes tend to be adopted over time as communities mature, which may explain why they are more common in urban communities.

Many suburbs are at key maturation points, though may resist the introduction of new planning layers.  Neighborhoods naturally react when they see a plan that includes their subdivision with commercial development.  Even if no land use changes come into play for residential areas, the border of the subdivision is understood to be the small area plan.   

Developers have been programmed to be enemies of each other, not collaborators, often using the very smart growth tools we invented to get better results against one another.  In Florida, transportation concurrency forces a death match over road capacity.  The best description I have ever heard is that in suburbs, concurrency is like an all-you-can-eat buffet, where the first guy in line’s best strategy is to take all the chicken wings and leave the scraps – and the bill – to everyone else.  In California, developers are using the state’s Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) in an effort to stall the competition.  Smarter growth and great redevelopment rely on cooperation among landowners, a topic that needs more examination.

Most importantly, paying for this level of planning will be difficult.  Traditionally, local governments have paid for comprehensive planning within jurisdictions and developers pay for project planning when they are ready to move dirt.  So who pays for the new, inclusive and predictive in-between planning layer?

This post is the first of many that will examine the importance of small area plans, their power, and the suburbs.   It is the most powerful sprawl retrofitting, traffic subtracting, energy saving, water efficient, quality of life enhancing tool out there.  Fixing sprawl in Florida will rely on sub-Comprehensive Plan level planning, and last year's rewrite includes a new sector planning tool.  It's a start.

Trolling Twitter - Transportation Research Board Greatest Bits

Fellow transportation nerds.  Another massive Transportation research Board (TRB) has come and gone.  For those of us who were not among the 11,000 attendees, Twitter allows a small backstage pass.  Here are some tidbits, though presentations and reports sure to follow. 

General Statistics:

Study: One hour spent driving results in a 20-minute loss in your life expectancy http://ow.ly/1EFKQx

@AurashKhawarzad On 350 calories, a bicyclist can go 10 miles, a pedestrian 3.5 miles, and a car 100 feet.

@Lloydbrown: Smartphones are democratizing the Internet. @aashtospeaks 

@RayLaHood... He told TRB crowd he does not expect new transpo bill to move fwd this year

Bike

Rep. Blumenauer (OR) says: Nationally bike & ped accounts for roughly 13% of mode share, 16% of injuries, and only 2% of investment

MT @PhxDowntowner: 39 cities in China have started public bike sharing programs in just the past two years.

Parking

San Francisco won an award for parking - http://thecityfix.com/blog/san-francisco-and-medellin-win-2012-sustainable-transport-award/

A stat worth repeating: up to 30% of San Fran traffic at any one time are drivers looking for parking.

State of ITS: Guess what. Smart Parking is the fastest growing segment in the transportation industry CC:@laurenwang

Are we building parking or just not putting it in the right places? Come to the Getting the Supply Right session.

4 on-street parking spaces cost each suburban homebuyer an invisible $15,000 in construction and maintenance.

Bus Rapid Transit

Wow! 12+ million #BRT passengers per day worldwide  

Articles

Transportation Research Board Annual Meeting: Intersection of Health and Transportation

Reports

CNU Sustainable Streets

http://www.cnu.org/cnu-news/2012/01/cnus-sustainable-street-networks-principles

Alliance for Biking & Walking = Bicycling and Walking in the United States: 2012 Benchmarking Report – Highlights from the report include:

• In 2009, 40% of trips in the United States were shorter than 2 miles, yet 87% of these trips are by car. Twenty-seven percent of trips were shorter than 1 mile. Still, Americans use their cars for 62% of these trips.

• While bicycling and walking fell 66% between 1960 and 2009, obesity levels increased 156%.

• Seniors are the most vulnerable bicyclists and pedestrians. Adults over 65 make up 10% of walking trips, yet comprise 19% of pedestrian fatalities. This age group accounts for 6% of bicycling trips, yet 10% of bicyclist fatalities.

• Bicycling and walking projects create 11-14 jobs per $1 million spent, compared to just 7 jobs created per $1 million spent on highway projects. Cost benefit analysis show that up to $11.80 in benefits can be gained for every $1 invested in bicycling and walking.

• On average, the largest 51 U.S. cities show a 29% increase in bicycle facilities since the 2010 report. Cities report that 20,908 miles of bicycle facilities and 7,079 miles of pedestrian facilities are planned for the coming years (much of this contingent upon funding).

Pre-Paid Phone Plans and the Quiet Equity Revolution

Last year the Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council applied for a HUD Regional Sustainable Communities Grant. While the Region was not awarded a grant, one outcome of the process was a better examination of equity and how people consume civic information.

The grant application process coincided with the release of several fascinating studies from the Pew Internet & American Life Project.   This series of studies is creating a portrait of the growing use of cell phones, smart phones and social networking sites, summarized below.  These have huge implications for those of us who work with the community, and pay close attention to make sure everyone (especially kids, the elderly, low income residents/workers) has the same access to important community feeds and feedback loops. 

This information also coincided with my own family’s experience with wireless.  My Verizon plan will soon be up for renewal.  As I groused about the price, my teenager quipped, “Why don’t you use this?” as he waved his Virgin Mobile smartphone.   So I looked into it and come March, I too will part of the prepaid cell plan revolution, paying $35 rather than $110 a month for text, talk and data that comes closer to matching how I actually use my smart phone.  The Pew studies took on a new meaning, as did my own outdated views on the digital divide.

Getting back to the Pew studies, here are links to the various studies and key tidbits from each:

Teens, Cell Phones and Texting

• Cell phone texting has become the preferred channel of basic communication between teens and their friends, with cell calls coming in a close second.
• Teens from low-income households are much more likely than other teens to go online using a cell phone. 44% of black teens and 35% of Hispaic teens use their cell phones to go online, compared with 21% of white teens.
• Low income teens are much less likely to be on family plans. Among teens living in households with incomes below $30,000, only 31% are on a family plan that someone else pays for. In this group, 15% have prepaid plans that someone else pays for, and 12% have prepaid plans that they pay for entirely themselves.

Smartphone Adoption and Usage

• 83% of US adults have a cell phone of some kind, and that 42% of them own a smartphone. That translates into 35% of all adults.
• 25% of smartphone owners say that they mostly go online using their phone. While many of these individuals have other sources of online access at home, roughly one third of these “cell mostly” internet users lack a high-speed home broadband connection.
• Android is the most common smartphone platform, followed by iPhone and Blackberry devices
• Demographically, Android phones are especially common among young adults and African-Americans, while iPhones and Blackberry devices are most prevalent among college graduates and the financially well-off.
• Americans with a household income of less than $30,000 per year primarily own more basic mobile phones (roughly half have basic cell and a quarter own smart phones).   However, age and ethnicity are huge factors: among 18-29 year olds earning less than $30,000 per year, 39% own a smartphone.   44% of both Hispanic and African Americans own Smartphones.

Others are writing about the growing use of smartphones, in particular among lower income groups as well. Last August, Lucy Hood wrote in the Wall Street Journal on how minorities are accessing the Internet through cheap, prepaid wireless data plans (here, subscription required).   

If indeed, we are looking at pre-paid plans and mobile technology, what would that mean for packaging civic information?  A couple of thoughts:

• Optimize for Mobile – My son’s homework is posted by his six teachers who use six different clunky platforms which are not optimized for mobile, and barely optimized for desktop.  School Board - let’s talk about posting assignments for mobile phones.
• Android Civic Apps –Android devices dominate the prepaid phone market, so any civic hackathon better be on Android (in addition to iOS – Apple’s operating system).
• Creating Content – Access is great but like public outreach – is passive.  Participation via smartphones would yield a lot of meaningful data since way too much public policy is created via reaction to a small number of squeaky wheels.   How can we harness smartphones to get a true picture of what is happening in every neighborhood?  What are the barriers to reporting and microblogging from people in high crime neighborhoods?  Among the elderly?  
• Prepaid and Computers – As long as we are talking pre-paid and equity, it is worth noting that prepaid vendors are also offering broadband – check out the Virgin Mobile plan for $20 a month.  The crashing prices for laptops and netbooks may close further the digital divide.
• Tablets and eReaders - Overall, the number of Americans owning at least one e-reader (Kindle, Nook) or tablet (iPad) jumped from 18% in December to 29% in January.   In another study, Pew also found that between November 2010 and May 2011, one of the highest adoption rates for e-readers was among Hispanic adults (at 15% total last year).  Certainly this has implications for mobile information as more devices come with 3G/4G built in and bring a more computer like experience for roughly $20 a month. It also means there will be hunger for content - so packaging content in book-like form for e-readers will be fertile territory (not to mention the growing number of e-publishing formats).

At this point it is important to highlight work underway by the Federal Communications Commission which sponsors Lifeline and “Connect to Complete” programs to offer phone service, cell phones and high speed broadband to low income and/or unserved communities (e.g., where broadband service is incomplete).  While this helps close one aspect of the digital divide, it may be exposing another: those who have mobile web and those who do not.  Because the move to mobile web is occurring quickly, this is where the prepaid plans are patching the divide by offering low cost smart phone plans and broadband. 

Cocktail Napkin Talk - Looking at Recovery

Welcome to Cocktail Napkin Talk!  This feature is intended to be a playful look at serious topics. Several of my most successful projects got their start on the back of a napkin, so it is one of my favorite mediums.

The topic today is real estate recovery. There are many blogs devoted to this topic, and all seem to be tea leafy - what are the signs that real estatate is coming back?  While a valid question, I think it's also useful to look at the stages of "comeback."  It's especially useful for local governments to know the stages, because there is room for both opportunity and mischief.

I have noticed that the past couple of years have been the "entitlement jockeying stage." Landowners and developers are coming in to get zoning and agreements locked in, so when demand and credit markets perk up, the projects are ready to go. This is opportunity. But there is also mischief, where developers are coming in to renegotiate smart growth provisions or get entitlements they would never get under normal circumstances. The main argument tends to run along the lines of "Times have changed!"  In some cases this may be true, but in others, times will return to exactly WHERE THEY WERE when the provisions on parking, affordable housing, use mix or whatever were put in place. Local officials need to carefully evaluate each one, and look at requests with the long view lens.

The next stage is where cautious or smart capital starts to creep back in. I think this is where we are now, at least in SW Florida. Risk still hangs heavy; as such, these projects tend to compensate in other ways. Lower risk projects include things like building remodels, or status quo type proposals that need as little time possible at the permit desks. For smart growthers like me, this can be a frustrating time, where risk averse money goes to building suburbs instead of key redevelopment projects.

The most exciting is the first, big, great project in. This is the smartest, biggest money going, seeking to take advantage of low rates or piles of cash, pent up demand, and (wishful thinking alert) the realities of disruptive gas prices. These developers will seek out local governments' desperation as well as market potential in the site selection and incentive-maximization process. Not that this is horrible (I'd do the same thing), but get ready for developers threatening to walk from the get-go because they can go to "City B" that is offering a better deal.  For smart growth-y people like me, it's worth seeking ways to help position cautious capital into "great project" territory.

Once the marquis project comes in, the signals start. The response to signals is not likely to be the same as during the boom, but land use plans better be in place. Localities need to articulate priorities now for infrastructure and development/redevelopment.