PRELIMINARY DRAFT Confidential for Deliberation Only Not Distribution

PRELIMINARY DRAFT Confidential for Deliberation Only, Not Distribution. SUSTAINABLE GROWTH AND CONSERVATION INDICATORS STATUS CHECK & MEASURING PROGRESS

Planning. Maryland. gov AGENDA • Background, Purpose • Screening criteria • Some important issues • Objectives & Indicators § Composite indicators § Individual indicators & measures of progress • Commission discussion, input • Subsequent plans DRAFT

Planning. Maryland. gov BACKGROUND • Commission’s Indicators Work Group • MDP’s indicators work for Plan. Maryland Planning Area review process • National Center for Smart Growth’s Opportunity Mapping effort DRAFT

Planning. Maryland. gov PURPOSE • Assess smart growth status & progress: achieve objectives • ID shortcomings, needs, success in programs • Apply Statewide, where possible for regions, individual jurisdictions • Support use by the public, local gov’t, Commission, MDP, & the National Center DRAFT

Planning. Maryland. gov SCREENING CRITERIA • Only germane objectives • Indicators legitimately measure progress • Likely continued data availability • Within reasonable purview/ responsibilities of Plan. MD, Commission, MDP DRAFT

Planning. Maryland. gov IMPORTANT ISSUES • Adequacy of current suite of objectives & indicators – Work in progress • How will Commission use them? • Measures/ benchmarks appropriate for different regions, jurisdictions, scales • Incomplete, out-of-date or inadequate data • Overly generous or miserly indicators • Mistakes DRAFT

Planning. Maryland. gov SUSTAINABLE GROWTH &CONSERVATION INDICATORS Draft suite 16 objectives in five categories • Development (3 objectives) • Agricultural and Environmental Resources (3 objectives) • Socio-Economic Equity (2 objectives) • Transportation – Land Use (1 objective) • Economic Development (7 objectives) DRAFT

Planning. Maryland. gov APPROACH FOR TODAY ØFor first Development objective only § One composite indicator, implications § All component indicators & measures of progress ØAll other objectives § Composite/1 or 2 indicators only § Component indicators & measures of progress in “Appendix” ØSolicit input on objectives, indicators, benchmarks, DRAFT

Planning. Maryland. gov DEVELOPMENT OBJECTIVES: • Accommodate the vast majority of development in Priority Funding Areas (PFAs), and minimize development pressure on resource and environmentally sensitive lands • Accommodate mixed uses in a walkable environment within PFAs • PFAs provide a range of housing types, densities, sizes and values and accommodate socio-economically diverse population DRAFT

Planning. Maryland. gov COMPOSITE: ACCOMMODATE DEVELOPMENT IN PFAS MINIMIZE IMPACTS TO RESOURCES &LANDS 100 Composite of 4 equally weighted indicators: % residential parcels, % residential acres, % commercial parcels, and % commercial acres built in PFAs, 1999 -2012. 0 = least supportive, 100 = most supportive of Sustainable Growth Objective(s). 90 80 80 75 70 72 66 60 61 50 49 40 46 30 20 10 0 Capital Region Baltimore Region DRAFT Upper Eastern Shore Region Lower Eastern Shore Southern Western Maryland Region Statewide Sources: Md. Property View & U. S. Census Bureau

Planning. Maryland. gov COMPOSITE: ACCOMMODATE DEVELOPMENT IN PFAS MINIMIZE IMPACTS TO RESOURCES &LANDS 100 90 Implications for Sustainable Growth Objectives: Statewide, and in every region, growth is being accommodated in PFAs, but not 80 80 enough to take the 75 pressure off resources and resource lands, contradicting 72 70 many sustainability objectives. Details vary by region & county. 66 60 Statewide, 71% of residential parcels are 61 being developed in PFAs, but 77% of residential acres are being developed outside the PFA, converting 132, 675 acres 50 49 46 of resource land to development. 40 Both residential and commercial/ institutional development are factors, but the 30 former’s effect is much greater. Recent multifamily construction may be 20 contributing to improvements in these measures. 10 Considerably more of future growth must occur in PFAs to support sustainable growth and conservation objectives. 0 Capital Region Baltimore Region DRAFT Upper Eastern Shore Region Lower Eastern Shore Southern Maryland Western Maryland Region Statewide Sources: Md. Property View & U. S. Census Bureau

RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT, 1999 -2012 PARCELS AND ACRES IN AND OUTSIDE PFAS* Planning. Maryland. gov MARYLAND BY REGION 100% 19% 63% 23% 74% 43% 83% 43% 78% 50% 88% 53% 86% 29% 77% 90% 81% 77% 70% 71% 60% 57% 50% 47% 40% 37% 30% 26% 20% 17% 10% 0% apital Region C 72, 202 Parcels* 33, 820 Acres Baltimore Region 85, 421 Parcels* 53, 997 Acres Upper Eastern Shore 17, 874 Parcels* 19, 755 Acres Parcels In PFA 23% 22% 14% Lowe r Eastern Shore 15, 601 Parcels* 14, 007 Acres Parcel Out PFA So uthern Maryland Acres in PFA 27, 880 Parcels* 33, 325 estern Maryland Acres W 12, 234 Parcels* 16, 946 Acres tatewid e 231, 212 Parcels* 171, 850 Acres Outside PFA *Includes single family (detached, duplexes, townhouses, and condos) but not apartments/multifamily units. Source: Md. Property View DRAFT S

RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT, 1999 -2012 PARCELS AND ACRES IN AND OUTSIDE PFAS* Planning. Maryland. gov MARYLAND BY REGION 100% 19% 63% 23% 74% 43% 83% 43% 78% 50% 88% 53% 86% 29% 77% 90% 81% 77% 70% 71% 60% 57% 50% Implications for Sustainable Growth Objectives: 47% 40% Statewide, 71% of residential parcels are being developed in PFAs, but 77% of 37% 30% residential acres are being developed outside the PFA, converting 132, 675 26% acres of resource land to development. Even 20% 23% 22% when 80% (Capital Region) or more 17% of growth is concentrated in PFAs, market pressure continues to 14% compromise 14% 10% substantial resource & environmentally sensitive lands. 0% apital Region C 72, 202 Parcels* 33, 820 Acres Baltimore Region 85, 421 Parcels* 53, 997 Acres Upper Eastern Shore 17, 874 Parcels* 19, 755 Acres Parcels In PFA Lowe r Eastern Shore 15, 601 Parcels* 14, 007 Acres Parcel Out PFA So uthern Maryland Acres in PFA 27, 880 Parcels* 33, 325 estern Maryland Acres W 12, 234 Parcels* 16, 946 Acres tatewid e 231, 212 Parcels* 171, 850 Acres Outside PFA *Includes single family (detached, duplexes, townhouses, and condos) but not apartments/multifamily units. Source: Md. Property View DRAFT S

Planning. Maryland. gov RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT, 1999 -2012 PARCELS IN &ACRES OUTSIDE PFAS* 100% BALTIMORE &CAPITAL REGIONS 25% 71% 100% 0% 20% 72% 37% 81% 21% 79% 21% 70% 16% 73% 17% 68% 84% 83% 22% 51% 90% 80% 79% 78% 70% 63% 60% 50% 49% 40% 30% 28% 20% 19% 32% 27% 21% 10% 0% Anne Baltimore Carroll Harford Howard Frederick Montgomery Prince Arundel City George's Percent Parcels Inside PFAs Percent Parcels Outside PFAs Percent Acres Inside PFAs Percent Acres Outside PFA 23, 001 Parcels 3, 459 Parcels 19, 229 Parcels 8, 947 Parcels 15, 017 Parcels 15, 768 Parcels 16, 368 Parcels 25, 131 Parcels 30, 703 Parcels 11, 060 Acres 212 Acres 12, 288 Acres 10, 259 Acres 11, 600 Acres 8, 578 Acres 10, 393 Acres 10, 899 Acres 12, 529 Acres *Includes single family (detached, duplexes, townhouses, and condos) but not apartments/multifamily units. DRAFT Source: Md. Property View

Planning. Maryland. gov RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT, 1999 -2012 PARCELS IN &ACRES OUTSIDE PFAS* 100% BALTIMORE &CAPITAL REGIONS 25% 71% 100% 0% 20% 72% 37% 81% 21% 79% 21% 70% 79% 16% 73% 17% 68% 84% 83% 22% 51% 90% 80% 78% 63% 60% 50% 49% Implications for Sustainable Growth Objectives 40% Counties in these two most populated regions in the state had the lowest 30% 32% 30% 28% outside of PFAs. But the acres of 27% resource land lost percents of land developed 20% 21% 19% are, nonetheless, the greatest. Individual county percents range from a low of 10% 51% in Prince George’s County to 81% in Carroll County. 0% Anne Baltimore Carroll Harford Howard Frederick Montgomery Prince Arundel City George's Percent Parcels Inside PFAs Percent Parcels Outside PFAs Percent Acres Inside PFAs Percent Acres Outside PFA 23, 001 Parcels 3, 459 Parcels 19, 229 Parcels 8, 947 Parcels 15, 017 Parcels 15, 768 Parcels 16, 368 Parcels 25, 131 Parcels 30, 703 Parcels 11, 060 Acres 212 Acres 12, 288 Acres 10, 259 Acres 11, 600 Acres 8, 578 Acres 10, 393 Acres 10, 899 Acres 12, 529 Acres *Includes single family (detached, duplexes, townhouses, and condos) but not apartments/multifamily units. DRAFT Source: Md. Property View

Planning. Maryland. gov RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT, 1999 -2012 PARCELS IN &ACRES OUTSIDE PFAS* WESTERN &SOUTHERN MARYLAND REGIONS 100% 37% 76% 84% 96% 44% 81% 57% 86% 45% 88% 51% 90% 80% 70% 63% 56% 50% 55% 49% 43% 40% 30% 24% 20% 10% 0% 19% 16% 14% 12% 10% 4% Allegany Garrett Percent Parcels Inside PFAs 1, 264 Parcels 2, 680 Acres Washington Percent Parcels Outside PFAs 2, 942 Parcels 6, 295 Acres 8, 028 Parcels 7, 971 Acres Calvert Charles Percent Acres Inside PFAs 7, 000 Parcels 7, 778 Acres St. Mary's Percent Acres Outside PFA 11, 931 Parcels 8, 949 Parcels 12, 590 Acres 12, 957 Acres *Includes single family (detached, duplexes, townhouses, and condos) but not apartments/multifamily units. DRAFT Source: Md. Property View

Planning. Maryland. gov RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT, 1999 -2012 PARCELS IN &ACRES OUTSIDE PFAS* WESTERN &SOUTHERN REGIONS 100% 37% 76% 84% 96% 44% 81% 57% 86% 45% 88% 51% 90% 80% 70% 63% 56% 50% 55% 49% Implications for Sustainable Growth Objectives 43% 40% Counties in the Western and Southern Regions have notably lower percents of 30% parcels built in PFAs and correspondingly higher percents residential acres 24% 20% developed outside of PFA than counties in the Metro regions. However, 19% 16% 14% 10% populations are smaller & so too are absolute acreage losses. 12% 10% 0% 4% Allegany Garrett Percent Parcels Inside PFAs 1, 264 Parcels 2, 680 Acres Washington Percent Parcels Outside PFAs 2, 942 Parcels 6, 295 Acres 8, 028 Parcels 7, 971 Acres Calvert Charles Percent Acres Inside PFAs 7, 000 Parcels 7, 778 Acres St. Mary's Percent Acres Outside PFA 11, 931 Parcels 8, 949 Parcels 12, 590 Acres 12, 957 Acres *Includes single family (detached, duplexes, townhouses, and condos) but not apartments/multifamily units. DRAFT Source: Md. Property View

Planning. Maryland. gov RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT, 1999 -2012 PARCELS IN &ACRES OUTSIDE PFAS* EASTERN SHORE REGIONS 100% 53% 92% 49% 86% 41% 73% 40% 81% 29% 77% 57% 85% 44% 69% 56% 83% 28% 73% 29% 77% 72% 71% 90% 80% 71% 60% 50% 40% 60% 59% 56% 51% 47% 44% 43% 30% 20% 10% 0% 31% 27% 19% 14% 27% 23% 17% 15% 8% Caroline Cecil Kent Percent Parcels Inside PFAs 2, 011 Parcels 6, 925 Parcels 3, 381 Acres 7, 088 Acres Queen Anne's Talbot Dorchester Percent Parcels Outside PFAs 1, 476 Parcels 1, 691 Acres 3, 993 Parcels 3, 540 Acres 3, 469 Parcels 4, 054 Acres Somerset Wicomico Percent Acres Inside PFAs Worcester Statewide Percent Acres Outside PFA 2, 208 Parcels 3, 381 Acres 1, 255 Parcels 6, 540 Parcels 231, 212 Parcels 2, 970 Acres 2, 260 Acres 4, 744 Acres 4, 034 Acres 171, 850 Acres *Includes single family (detached, duplexes, townhouses, and condos) but not apartments/multifamily units. DRAFT Source: Md. Property View

Planning. Maryland. gov RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT, 1999 -2012 PARCELS IN &ACRES OUTSIDE PFAS* EASTERN SHORE REGIONS 100% 53% 92% 49% 86% 41% 73% 40% 81% 29% 77% 57% 85% 44% 69% 56% 83% 28% 73% 29% 77% 72% 71% 90% 80% 71% 60% 59% 50% 56% 51% 47% 44% Implications for Sustainable Growth Objectives 43% Like the Western and Southern Regions, the Eastern 31% Shore Regions have 30% 27% of parcels developed in the PFAs and higher generally lower percents 20% 23% 19% 17% populations are of acres developed outside the PFAs. Also as 15% in those Regions, 14% 10% smaller 8%& so too are the absolute acreage losses. 40% 0% Caroline Cecil Kent Percent Parcels Inside PFAs 2, 011 Parcels 6, 925 Parcels 3, 381 Acres 7, 088 Acres Queen Anne's Talbot Dorchester Percent Parcels Outside PFAs 1, 476 Parcels 1, 691 Acres 3, 993 Parcels 3, 540 Acres 3, 469 Parcels 4, 054 Acres Somerset Wicomico Percent Acres Inside PFAs Worcester Statewide Percent Acres Outside PFA 2, 208 Parcels 3, 381 Acres 1, 255 Parcels 6, 540 Parcels 231, 212 Parcels 2, 970 Acres 2, 260 Acres 4, 744 Acres 4, 034 Acres 171, 850 Acres *Includes single family (detached, duplexes, townhouses, and condos) but not apartments/multifamily units. DRAFT Source: Md. Property View

Planning. Maryland. gov COMPARISON: PERCENT OF RESIDENTIAL PARCELS VERSUS TOTAL UNITS* BUILT INSIDE PFAS, 2007 -2012 100% 90% 88% 80% 70% 83% 80% 76% 60% 68% 67% 72% 63% 61% 58% 53% 50% 46% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Baltimore Region Capital Region Southern Maryland Western Maryland Region Pct SF Units Built Inside PFAs Upper Eastern Shore Region Lower Eastern Shore Region Maryland Pct SF and MF Units Built Inside PFA *Includes both single family (detached, duplexes, townhomes and condos) and apartments/multifamily units. DRAFT Source: Md Property. View and U. S. Census Bureau

Planning. Maryland. gov COMPARISON OF PERCENT OF RESIDENTIAL PARCELS VERSUS TOTAL UNITS* BUILT INSIDE PFAS, 2007 -2012 100% 90% 88% 80% 70% 83% 80% 76% 68% 67% 72% 60% Implications for Sustainable 61%Growth Objectives: 63% 58% Generally, the percent of all units developed in PFAs exceeds the percent of 53% 50% single family units by about 5 to 10 percent per region. Most 46% 40% apartment/multifamily units are built inside PFAs. Their effect on percentages of acres developed in versus outside PFAs, if it could be calculated, is probably 30% very small, on the order of a few percentage points. It does not substantially 20% affect the implications of development in and outside PFAs, but probably does reflect higher proportion of multifamily units developed recently in some areas. 10% 0% Baltimore Region Capital Region Southern Maryland Western Maryland Region Pct SF Units Built Inside PFAs Upper Eastern Shore Region Lower Eastern Shore Region Maryland Pct SF and MF Units Built Inside PFA *Includes both single family (detached, duplexes, townhomes and condos) and apartments/multifamily units. DRAFT Source: Md Property. View and U. S. Census Bureau

Planning. Maryland. gov MEASURING PROGRESS, 1999 -2012 PERCENT TOTAL RESIDENTIAL UNITS BUILT IN PFAS* 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 1999 2000 2001 Baltimore Region 2002 Western Maryland Region 2003 2004 2005 Capital Region 2006 Upper Eastern Shore Region 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Southern Maryland Region Lower Eastern Shore Region Maryland *Includes both single family (detached, duplexes, townhomes and condos) and apartments/multifamily units. Source: Md. Property View & U. S. Census Bureau DRAFT

Planning. Maryland. gov MEASURING PROGRESS, 1999 -2012 PERCENT RESIDENTIAL UNITS BUILT IN PFAS* 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% Implications for Sustainable Growth Objectives: Percent of total new units in (versus out of) PFAs statewide has fluctuated 50% around 80% since 1999. The last 8 years, largely coincident with the economic downturn, suggests possible improvements, particularly in the metro regions, 40% where multifamily construction has increased as a percent of total units. 30% 20% 1999 2000 2001 Baltimore Region 2002 Western Maryland Region 2003 2004 2005 Capital Region 2006 Upper Eastern Shore Region 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Southern Maryland Region Lower Eastern Shore Region Maryland *Includes both single family (detached, duplexes, townhomes and condos) and apartments/multifamily units. Source: Md. Property View & U. S. Census Bureau DRAFT

Planning. Maryland. gov COMMERCIAL/INSTITUTIONAL DEVELOPMENT, 2001 -2012 PARCELS &ACRES DEVELOPED INSIDE/OUTSIDE PFAS 100% 17% 67% 17% 57% 90% 8% 1% 99% 15% 34% 15% 92% 85% 83% 2% 98% 7% 100% 93% 85% 11% 1% 99% 89% 70% 66% 60% 50% 43% 40% 33% 30% 20% 10% 0% Wes tern Maryland 446 Parcels 5, 389 Acres South Ba Lo ern ltimor wer Upper Capita Maryland e Eastern l Parcels Inside PFA Parcels Outside PFA Acres Inside PFA Acres Outside PFA Region Shore Region 685 Parcels 2, 244 Parcels 3, 226 Acres 228, 066 Acres 735 Parcels 2, 670 Acres S 571 Parcels 1, 558 Parcels 6, 239 Parcels 83, 992 Acres 1, 836, 573 Acres 2, 159, 917 Acres Source: Md. Property View DRAFT tatewi de

Planning. Maryland. gov COMMERCIAL/INSTITUTIONAL DEVELOPMENT, 2001 -2012 PARCELS &ACRES DEVELOPED INSIDE/OUTSIDE PFAS 100% 17% 67% 17% 57% 90% 8% 1% 99% 15% 34% 15% 92% 83% 80% 85% 83% 2% 98% 7% 100% 93% 85% 11% 1% 99% 89% 70% 66% Implications for Sustainable Growth Objectives Generally, the inverse relation between % developed parcels in and % 50% developed acres outside PFAs is similar to but much less pronounced than for 43% 40% residential development. It is completely absent in Baltimore, Upper Eastern 30% Shore, and 33% Capital Regions. More commercial and institutional establishments away 20% from communities in PFAs means more land consumed and natural resources impacted; more infrastructure costs; and more driving and GHG 10% (greenhouse gas) emissions to move between home, jobs, and other regular 0% destinations. 60% Wes tern Maryland 446 Parcels 5, 389 Acres South Ba Lo ern ltimor wer Upper Capita Maryland e Eastern Parcels Inside PFA Parcels Outside PFA Acres Inside PFA Acres Outsidel PFA Region Shore Region 685 Parcels 2, 244 Parcels 3, 226 Acres 228, 066 Acres 735 Parcels 2, 670 Acres S 571 Parcels 1, 558 Parcels 6, 239 Parcels 83, 992 Acres 1, 836, 573 Acres 2, 159, 917 Acres Source: Md. Property View DRAFT tatewi de

Planning. Maryland. gov DEVELOPMENT OBJECTIVES: • Accommodate the vast majority of development in Priority Funding Areas (PFAs), and minimize development pressure on resource and environmentally sensitive lands • Accommodate mixed uses in a walkable environment within PFAs • PFAs provide a range of housing types, densities, sizes and values and accommodate socio-economically diverse population DRAFT

Planning. Maryland. gov COMPOSITE: MIXED USE - WALKABLE ENVIRONMENT IN PFAS 100 Composite of 4 equally weighted indicators: proximity of residential parcels to transit, recreation, and commercial establishments, & access to jobs by walk/transit. 0 = least supportive, 100 = most supportive of Sustainable Growth Objective(s). 90 80 70 60 66 60 59 50 48 40 39 39 38 Western Maryland Region Upper Eastern Shore Region Southern Maryland Region 30 20 10 0 Capital Region Baltimore Region Lower Eastern Shore Region Statewide Maximum Total Score=40 *Note: data on local transit services is being updated, ETA 12/14. Updates will likely improve proximity of residences to transit measures & decrease the job access metric in some areas. DRAFT Source: Md. Property View , Maryland Department of Planning

Planning. Maryland. gov COMPOSITE: MIXED USE - WALKABLE ENVIRONMENT IN PFAS 100 Implications for Sustainable Growth Objectives: 90 Walkable 87 environments provide walk access to most daily destinations along local 80 roads, trails, or via 78 transit. Important destinations include commercial and 78 retail establishments, recreation facilities, jobs, and many others. 70 63 60 Overall, each of the regions has one or more shortcomings as measured in mixed use - walkability. Related land use and travel patterns underlie the need to leave 50 51 51 50 one’s community generally by car to reach many or most regular destinations. 40 Measures of recent progress do not indicate any widespread improvement, 30 which may be occurring in discrete locations. 20 Note: proximity to commercial for this metric is too “generous” and does not 10 adequately measure progress toward the objective. We are exploring ways to 0 improve it. Capital Region Baltimore Region Maximum Total Score=40 DRAFT Lower Eastern Shore Region Western Maryland Region Upper Eastern Shore Region Southern Maryland Region Source: Md. Property View, Maryland Department of Planning Statewide

Planning. Maryland. gov DEVELOPMENT OBJECTIVES: • Accommodate the vast majority of development in Priority Funding Areas (PFAs), and minimize development pressure on resource and environmentally sensitive lands • Accommodate mixed uses in a walkable environment within PFAs • Accommodate socio-economically diverse population: PFAs provide a mix of housing types and affordable costs of living DRAFT

Planning. Maryland. gov COMPOSITE: ACCOMMODATE SOCIOECONOMICALLY DIVERSE POPULATION 100 Composite of 6 equally weighted indicators: housing diversity, housing affordability & affordability of combined housing/transportation costs (both for single & 2 income HH’s), rent affordability. 0 = least supportive, 100 = most supportive of Sustainable Growth Objective(s). 90 80 70 60 62 60 50 52 55 48 40 43 40 30 20 10 0 Western Maryland Baltimore Region Maximum Total Score=40 Region DRAFT Capital Region Lower Eastern Shore Region Southern Maryland Region Upper Eastern Shore Region Statewide Sources: Center for Neighborhood Technology, HUD AMI (2007 -2011). 2008 – 2012 American Community Survey. Md. Property View housing sales data, Maryland Department of Education

Planning. Maryland. gov ACCOMMODATE SOCIO-ECONOMICALLY DIVERSE POPULATION 100 90 Implications for Sustainable Growth Objectives: 80 Combining metrics for housing, costs, & ability to accommodate diverse population suggests that many elements of this indicator must be addressed 70 throughout the State. 60 62 60 Shortcomings vary among regions and income groups. Needs vary from 55 more 50 alternatives to single-family 52 detached housing, and better balance between 48 costs of housing, rental and transportation costs and the incomes of single 43 40 40 professionals and two income households. 30 Recent measures of progress not yet available, to be determined. 20 10 Shortcomings and solutions must be examined & sought by region and jurisdiction. 0 Western Maryland Baltimore Region Maximum Total Score=40 Region DRAFT Capital Region Lower Eastern Shore Region Southern Maryland Region Upper Eastern Shore Region Statewide Sources: Center for Neighborhood Technology, HUD AMI (2007 -2011). 2008 – 2012 American Community Survey. Md. Property View housing sales data, Maryland Department of Education

Planning. Maryland. gov AGRICULTURAL & ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCE OBJECTIVES DRAFT

Planning. Maryland. gov AGRICULTURAL & ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCE OBJECTIVES § Outside PFAs/ inside target conservation areas, residential fragmentation of resource lands & vulnerability to and threat from additional subdivision and development are minimized by local land use plans, zoning and other tools. § Land use stability is maximized in these areas, providing time to achieve conservation goals before resources are excessively compromised by development § The preceding objectives are maximized in Priority Preservation Areas, Rural Legacy Areas, and other Plan. Maryland Natural and Water Resource areas DRAFT

Planning. Maryland. gov OVERALL STABILITY* OF RESOURCE LANDS, 2012 *Fragmentation, Vulnerability and Threat are considered together to estimate land use stability through zoning, preservation and land use tools, in light of development threat and conservation goals. Implementation of Septic Growth Tier IV areas in Garrett, Somerset, Harford, and possibly Prince George’s counties may significantly reduce vulnerability and increase stability of rural lands from what is shown Source: Md. Property View, Maryland Department of Planning DRAFT

Planning. Maryland. gov OVERALL STABILITY OF RESOURCE LANDS, 2012 Lower Eastern Shore Region 49% Upper Eastern Shore Region 34% 45% Capital Region 36% 41% Statewide 10% 24% 27% 19% 0% 29% 44% 28% Southern Maryland Region 33% 34% 32% Baltimore Region (excluding Baltimore City) 19% 25% 37% Western Maryland Region 17% 46% 38% 20% Highly Stable 30% 40% 50% Moderately Stable 43% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Unstable *Fragmentation, Vulnerability and Threat are considered together to estimate land use stability through zoning, preservation and land use tools, in light of development threat and conservation goals. Implementation of Septic Growth Tier IV areas in Garrett, Somerset, Harford, and possibly Prince George’s counties may significantly reduce vulnerability and increase stability of rural lands from what is shown Source: Md. Property View, Maryland Department of Planning DRAFT

Planning. Maryland. gov 30% 35% 33% 51% 14% 16% 16% 36% 28% 34% 44% 26% 18% 10% 19% 20% 25% 26% 27% 29% 32% 38% 61% 50% 23% 56% 38% 54% 51% 36% 42% 44% 47% 28% 20% 28% 31% 30% 34% 38% 41% 40% 33% 51% 25% 27% 54% 53% 18% 16% 40% 13% 53% 39% 24% 20% 27% 26% 57% 50% 39% 22% 18% 28% 9% 20% 63% 11% 67% 70% 74% 80% 17% 90% 72% 100% 17% 9% OVERALL STABILITY OF RESOURCE LANDS*, 2012 Moderate & Special ic o at ew id e om y' s St W ic ar et t St . M rr 's Ga ge s le or nc e Ge ar d Ch ar rd ow H fo ar to n H W as hi ng rt lv e ll el ro Ca A e Pr i A nn So Ca r er ru nd se t t Highly Stable m lb o il Ta Ce c e' s e nn ue e n A or y im Q Ba lt er k M on tg om ic e er Fr ed ol in r Ca r es te or A ch ga ny r st e ce lle D W or Ke nt 0% Unstable *Fragmentation, Vulnerability and Threat are considered together to estimate land use stability through zoning, preservation and land use tools, in light of development threat and conservation goals. Implementation of Septic Growth Tier IV areas in Garrett, Somerset, Harford, and possibly Prince George’s counties may significantly reduce vulnerability and increase stability of rural lands from what is shown Source: Md. Property View, Maryland Department of Planning DRAFT

Planning. Maryland. gov OVERALL STABILITY OF RESOURCE LANDS, 2012 Lower Eastern Shore Region 49% 34% 17% Implications for Sustainable Growth Objectives: Upper Eastern Shore 45% 19% by Statewide, public return on conservation investment is not 36% well supported Region land use tools on between 30 and 60% of the land outside PFAs. Capital Region 41% 25% 33% By region, as little as 19% and as much as 50% is highly stable assuming Statewide 34% 29% market pressures don’t change, 37% providing time for easement & land acquisition to achieve state & local goals before the land resource is Western Maryland 32% 44% 24% excessively compromised. Region Baltimore Region (excluding Baltimore City) 27% 14 to 74%. By county, % highly stable 28%land ranges from 46% Southern Maryland 19% 38% 43% Past. Region development, vulnerability and recent market threat all contribute to this measure. 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Highly Stable Moderately Unstable Septic Growth Tier implementation may. Stable improve these measures in some *Fragmentation, Vulnerability and Threat are considered together to estimate land use stability through zoning, counties. preservation and land use tools, in light of development threat and conservation goals. Implementation of Septic Growth Tier IV areas in Garrett, Somerset, Harford, and possibly Prince George’s counties may significantly reduce vulnerability and increase stability of rural lands from what is shown Source: Md. Property View, Maryland Department of Planning DRAFT

Planning. Maryland. gov SOCIO-ECONOMIC EQUITY OBJECTIVES DRAFT

Planning. Maryland. gov SOCIO-ECONOMIC EQUITY OBJECTIVES • Lower income households have access to § Affordable housing § Affordable combined housing and transportation costs § Jobs commensurate with education & training • Populations of poverty and high risk are not geographically concentrated and isolated DRAFT

Planning. Maryland. gov COMPOSITE: LOWER INCOME HOUSEHOLDS HAVE ACCESS TO AFFORDABLE HOUSING, HOUSING + TRANSPORTATION, &RENT* 100 Composite of 3 indicators, each weighted equally: affordable housing, affordable combined housing + transportation costs, & affordable rent. 0 = least supportive, 100 = most supportive of Sustainable Growth Objective(s). 90 80 70 60 64 62 59 57 50 51 49 45 40 30 20 10 0 Western Maryland Baltimore Region Capital Region Lower Eastern Shore Region Southern Maryland Region Upper Eastern Shore Region Statewide Maximumincome Total Score=40 *Household = 50% of HUD’s Area Median Income (AMI), 2007 -2011. Standard for affordable H+T Cost is 45% of income. Estimated H+T Cost from Center for Neighborhood Technology. Rent rates from ACS 2008 -2012. Home sales from MPV 2007 -2012. DRAFT Data source: American Community Survey 2008 -2012 and 2011 LEHD

Planning. Maryland. gov COMPOSITE: LOWER INCOME HOUSEHOLDS HAVE ACCESS TO AFFORDABLE HOUSING, HOUSING + TRANSPORTATION, &RENT* 100 90 80 70 60 64 62 59 Implications for Sustainable 57 Growth Objectives: 50 Access to affordable housing, transportation and rent is fundamental to 51 49 quality of life for low income population. All are in short supply 45 statewide and 40 in every region. 30 20 10 0 Maximum Total Score=40 Western Maryland Baltimore Region DRAFT Capital Region Lower Eastern Shore Region Southern Maryland Region Upper Eastern Shore Region Statewide Data source: American Community Survey 2008 -2012 and 2011 LEHD

Planning. Maryland. gov SOCIO-ECONOMIC EQUITY OBJECTIVES • Lower income households have access to § Affordable housing § Affordable combined housing and transportation costs § Jobs commensurate with education & training • Populations of poverty and high risk are not geographically concentrated and isolated DRAFT

Planning. Maryland. gov CONCENTRATIONS OF VULNERABLE POPULATION, 2012 DRAFT Source: 2007 – 2012 American Community Survey

Planning. Maryland. gov CONCENTRATIONS OF VULNERABLE POPULATION, 2012 Implications for Sustainable Growth Objectives: There are clear concentrations of vulnerable, relatively isolated populations in the metro regions and in parts of Southern Maryland, Western Maryland the Eastern Shore. DRAFT Source: 2007 – 2012 American Community Survey

Planning. Maryland. gov SUSTAINABLE TRANSPORTATION LAND USE OBJECTIVES DRAFT

Planning. Maryland. gov TRANSPORTATION – LAND USE OBJECTIVES • Transportation, growth and redevelopment are planned and implemented in concert to § Enhance connectivity within and between PFAs § Increase multimodal travel § Reduce travel times, vehicle miles traveled, and greenhouse gas emissions from mobile sources DRAFT

Planning. Maryland. gov ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT OBJECTIVES DRAFT

Planning. Maryland. gov ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT OBJECTIVES • The value of residential, commercial, and industrial real estate in PFAs is stable or increasing • The number of jobs in PFAs is stable or increasing • Household income is commensurate with costs of living • A diverse, educated, skilled workforce is available for current and potential employers • Physical assets (infrastructure) in PFAs have potential to support new business and employers • The business environment for agricultural, forestry and other resource based industries is stable or improving • Land use outside PFAs and within designated resource conservation areas is stable and supports resource based and compatible. DRAFT

Planning. Maryland. gov AVERAGE ASSESSED VALUE OF REAL ESTATE PROPERTIES, 2001 - 2011* $12 000 $450 000 $400 000 $10 000 $8 000 $300 000 $250 000 $6 000 $200 000 $4 000 $150 000 $100 000 $2 000 $50 000 $0 2001 2002 2003 2004 Industrial 2005 2006 2007 Commercial/Institutional 2008 2009 2010 Residential * Residential average data axis is on the right, commercial and industrial axis is on the left. All comparative data to planning areas is inside PFAs unless otherwise noted. DRAFT Source: Md. Property. View 2011 $0 Residential Value Commercial & Industrial Value $350 000

Aggregate Improvement to Land Value Ratios by Region 2012 Values of Improved Commercial Parcels During 3 Periods of Time* 7, 00 6, 27 6, 00 5, 62 5, 00 5, 11 4, 81 4, 00 4, 02 3, 69 3, 31 3, 00 2, 47 2, 00 3, 05 3, 00 2, 10 2, 22 2, 62 2, 39 2, 28 1, 97 1, 93 1, 00 0, 00 Baltimore Capital Lower Eastern Shore 1985 -1997 Southern Maryland 1998 -2005 Upper Eastern Shore Western Maryland 2006 -2012 *Ratio is the sum of assessed 2012 improvement values divided by the sum of land values for all assessed commercial and institutional parcels. Source: Md. Property View

Median Improvement to Land Value Ratios by Region 2012 Values of Commercial Parcels Improved During 3 Periods of Time * 4, 50 4, 05 3, 50 3, 00 2, 52 2, 79 2, 67 2, 31 2, 00 1, 84 1, 50 1, 00 2, 26 2, 09 1, 51 1, 77 1, 49 1, 68 2, 00 1, 87 1, 73 1, 45 1, 34 1, 22 1, 33 1, 09 0, 50 0, 00 Baltimore Region Capital Region Lower Eastern Shore 1985 -1997 Southern Maryland 1998 -2005 Upper Eastern Shore Western Maryland Statewide 2006 -2012 *Ratio is the median of all parcels’ individual ratios of 2012 assessed improvement value divided by land value. Source: Md. Property View

The value of residential, commercial, and industrial real estate in PFAs is stable or increasing Implications for Sustainable Growth Objectives: Average values of residential properties have slowly risen slowly over time, while those of commercial and industrial property values have been more erratic, some of which may be due to three year assessment cycles. Improvement to land value ratios for commercial properties in all regions are increasingly higher for more recently improved properties, both in aggregate and as measured by median ratios of individual properties. Together, the data suggest that the value of developed properties in PFAs is generally stable or increasing, and that development remains somewhat attractive to markets. We are currently calculating improvement/ land value ratios over time based on year-specific assessed values, adjusted for inflation. This may indicate if developed properties are being increasingly used for their economic development potential over time.

Planning. Maryland. gov ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT OBJECTIVES • The value of residential, commercial, and industrial real estate in PFAs is stable or increasing • The number of jobs in PFAs is stable or increasing • Household income is commensurate with costs of living • A diverse, educated, skilled workforce is available for current and potential employers • Physical assets (infrastructure) in PFAs have potential to support new business and employers • The business environment for agricultural, forestry and other resource based industries is stable or improving • Land use outside PFAs and within designated resource conservation areas is stable and supports resource based and compatible. DRAFT

Planning. Maryland. gov PERCENT CHANGE IN NUMBER OF JOBS IN PFAS 2010 -2011 7% Southern Maryland Upper Eastern Shore Region 4% Lower Eastern Shore Region 3% Baltimore Region 2% Capital Region 1% Western Maryland Region 0, 5% Statewide 2% 0% 1% DRAFT 2% 3% 4% 5% 6% 7% Source: LEHD Origin-Destination Employment Statistics 2011.

Planning. Maryland. gov PERCENT CHANGE IN NUMBER OF JOBS IN PFAS 2010 -2011 7% Southern Maryland Upper Eastern Shore Region 4% Lower Eastern Shore Region 3% Implications for Sustainable Growth Objectives: The number of jobs in PFAs increased slightly (Western MD) to modestly Baltimore Region 2% (Southern MD) from 2010 to 2011. Capital Region 1% Comparable data is not available before 2010. 2012 data will be available shortly. Western Maryland Region 0, 5% Statewide 2% 0% 1% DRAFT 2% 3% 4% 5% 6% 7% Source: LEHD Origin-Destination Employment Statistics 2011.

Planning. Maryland. gov ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT OBJECTIVES • The value of residential, commercial, and industrial real estate in PFAs is stable or increasing • The number of jobs in PFAs is stable or increasing • Household income is commensurate with costs of living • A diverse, educated, skilled workforce is available for current and potential employers • Physical assets (infrastructure) in PFAs have potential to support new business and employers • The business environment for agricultural, forestry and other resource based industries is stable or improving • Land use outside PFAs and within designated resource conservation areas is stable and supports resource based and DRAFT compatible.

Planning. Maryland. gov HOUSING + TRANSPORTATION COSTS IN PFAS, COST ABOVE AFFORDABILITY STANDARD FOR SINGLE PROFESSIONALS* Western Maryland Region 13% Baltimore Region 27% 33% Lower Eastern Shore Region Capital Region 40% Upper Eastern Shore Region 52% Southern Maryland Region 57% Statewide 35% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% *Household income = Median Teacher’s Salary (2011) for each region. Standard for affordability H+T Cost is 45% of income. Estimated H+T Cost from Center for Neighborhood Technology. Percent shows by how much estimated costs exceeds the standard for affordability. DRAFT Source: Maryland Department of Education, Maryland Department of Planning

Planning. Maryland. gov HOUSING + TRANSPORTATION COSTS IN PFAS, COST ABOVE AFFORDABILITY STANDARD FOR TWO INCOME HOUSEHOLDS* 16% Capital Region Baltimore Region 17% Southern Maryland Region 26% Western Maryland Region 36% Upper Eastern Shore Region 42% Lower Eastern Shore Region 48% Statewide 18% 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 50% 55% *Household income = 80% of HUD’s Area Median Income (AMI), 2007 -2011. Standard for affordable H+T Cost is 45% of income. Estimated H+T Cost from Center for Neighborhood Technology. Percent show by how much estimated costs exceeds the standard for affordability. DRAFT

Planning. Maryland. gov Household income is commensurate with costs of living – Affordability of Housing & Transportation Cost Implications for Sustainable Growth Objectives: For both single professionals and two-income households, combined costs exceed affordability in all regions, quite substantially in some.

Planning. Maryland. gov ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT OBJECTIVES • The value of residential, commercial, and industrial real estate in PFAs is stable or increasing • The number of jobs in PFAs is stable or increasing • Household income is commensurate with costs of living • A diverse, educated, skilled workforce is available for current and potential employers • Physical assets (infrastructure) in PFAs have potential to support new business and employers • The business environment for agricultural, forestry and other resource based industries is stable or improving • Land use outside PFAs and within designated resource conservation areas is stable and supports resource based and compatible. DRAFT

Planning. Maryland. gov JOB/ WORKFORCE BALANCE FOR PFA RESIDENTS, BY REGION* 3, 0 2, 7 2, 5 2, 4 2, 3 2, 0 1, 9 1, 5 1, 7 1, 8 1, 6 1, 7 Baltimore Region Capital Region Lower Eastern Shore Region Southern Maryland Region Auto Upper Eastern Shore Region Incomplete Data 0, 0 Incomplete Data 0, 5 Incomplete Data 1, 0 Western Maryland Region Statewide Transit *Average ratios of % low, medium, and high skill workers resident in PFAs to % of skill-appropriate jobs accessible via 30 minute auto & 45 minute transit commutes. Value of 1. 0 is balance between populations and jobs, higher means imbalance. DRAFT Source: 2008 – 2012 American Community Survey, LEHD Origin-Destination Employment Statistics 2010.

Planning. Maryland. gov JOB/ WORKFORCE BALANCE FOR PFA RESIDENTS, BY REGION* 3, 0 2, 7 2, 5 2, 4 2, 3 2, 0 1, 9 1, 7 1, 8 1, 7 1, 6 Implications for Sustainable Growth Objectives: 1, 5 There is considerable imbalance between workforce populations and transportation-accessible, skill-appropriate jobs statewide and in all regions. 1, 0 The greatest imbalance is outside the metro areas, but it is considerable within those areas also. Baltimore Region Capital Region Lower Eastern Shore Region Southern Maryland Region Auto Upper Eastern Shore Region Incomplete Data 0, 0 Incomplete Data 0, 5 Incomplete Data 1, 7 Western Maryland Region Statewide Transit *Average ratios of % low, medium, and high skill workers resident in PFAs to % of skill-appropriate jobs accessible via 30 minute auto & 45 minute transit commutes. Value of 1. 0 is balance between populations and jobs, higher means imbalance. DRAFT Source: 2008 – 2012 American Community Survey, LEHD Origin-Destination Employment Statistics 2010.

Planning. Maryland. gov ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT OBJECTIVES • The value of residential, commercial, and industrial real estate in PFAs is stable or increasing • The number of jobs in PFAs is stable or increasing • Household income is commensurate with costs of living • A diverse, educated, skilled workforce is available for current and potential employers • Physical assets (infrastructure) in PFAs have potential to support new business and employers • The business environment for agricultural, forestry and other resource based industries is stable or improving • Land use outside PFAs and within designated resource conservation areas is stable and supports resource based and compatible. DRAFT

Planning. Maryland. gov WASTE WATER TREATMENT PLANT CAPACITY DRAFT

Planning. Maryland. gov TRANSIT-BASED JOB ACCESSIBILITY FROM PFAS IN 45 MINUTES (AS % OF JOBS ACCESSIBLE BY AUTO ALONE)* 12% Capital Region 3% 16% Baltimore Region 5% 0% 2% 4% 6% Drive & Transit 8% 10% 12% 14% 16% 18% Walk & Transit *Source: Analysis by SMZ (state modeling zone) aggregated by PFA, county, & region. Data not yet available outside metro regions. DRAFT Source: Maryland State Transportation Model

Planning. Maryland. gov CONSOLIDATED TRANSPORTATION PLAN FUNDING* 45% Baltimore Region Capital Region 11% Lower Eastern Shore 46% 3% 34% 6% 35% Southern Maryland 7% 55% 9% 50% 14% 86% 10% Upper Eastern Shore 79% 2% 59% Western Maryland Multi 28% Statewide 29% 0% 10% 20% 41% 31% 6% 34% 14% 30% 40% 36% 50% 9% 60% 70% 80% 20% 90% 1% 100% Safety & Maintenance In PFAs Safety & Maintenance Outside PFAs Safety & Maintenance Not Specified Capacity In PFAs Capacity Outside PFAs Capacity not Specified *SHA, MTA, MAA, MPA, MVA, and MDTA’s major projects are classified per the CTP’s statewide project-funding summary. Multijurisdictional projects are SHA and MDTA projects that cross multiple jurisdictions. They are shown separately, but are also reflected in regional figures based on the proportion of the project in the region. DRAFT Source: Maryland FY 2013 -2018 Consolidated Transportation Program (CTP)

Planning. Maryland. gov Economic Development – Physical assets (infrastructure) in PFAs have potential to support new business and employers Implications for Sustainable Growth Objectives: Most WWTPs have adequate capacity for expected growth. Possible shortfalls exist in several regions and counties. A deficiency seems likely during the next 20 years in Saint Mary’s County. Transit infrastructure, which plays a key role supporting many economic development & other sustainability objectives, is severely lacking in the metropolitan region where it has the most potential benefit. This cannot be corrected through transportation projects, without adapting the land use pattern. Considerable CTP spending for capacity improvements occurs outside PFAs in several regions & statewide. But some of these projects undoubtedly connect PFAs. Overall, infrastructure is supporting smart growth up to a point, but far more is needed if smart and sustainable growth and conservation are to be achieved.

Planning. Maryland. gov ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT OBJECTIVES • The value of residential, commercial, and industrial real estate in PFAs is stable or increasing • The number of jobs in PFAs is stable or increasing • Household income is commensurate with costs of living • A diverse, educated, skilled workforce is available for current and potential employers • Physical assets (infrastructure) in PFAs have potential to support new business and employers • The business environment for agricultural, forestry and other resource based industries is stable or improving • Land use outside PFAs and within designated resource conservation areas is stable and supports resource based and compatible. DRAFT

Planning. Maryland. gov AVERAGE FARM REAL ESTATE VALUE AND SIZE $1 600 200 180 $1 400 160 $1 200 Value in Thousands $1 000 120 $800 100 80 $600 Size in Acres 140 60 $400 40 $200 $0 20 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 Average Real Estate Value per Operating Unit DRAFT 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 0 Average Farm Size Source: United States Department of Agriculture, National Agriculture Statistics Service

Planning. Maryland. gov CASH RENTS PAID FOR CROP AND PASTURE LAND $140 $120 Dollars per Acre $100 $80 $60 $40 $20 $0 2008 2009 2010 Irrigated DRAFT Non-Irrigated Source: United States Department of Agriculture, National Agriculture Statistics Service 2011 Pasture 2012 2013

Planning. Maryland. gov CASH RECEIPTS BY COMMODITY GROUP 1 400 000 1 200 000 Dollars In Thousands 1 000 800 000 600 000 400 000 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 All Broiler, Dairy, Other Livestock Grain, Feed, Oil Crops All Veg, Fruit, Nuts All Greenhouse and Floriculture DRAFT 2011 2012 Source: United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service

Planning. Maryland. gov PERSONAL INCOME BY RESOURCE SECTOR $600 000 $500 000 $400 000 $300 000 $200 000 $100 000 $0 2001 2002 2003 Farming DRAFT 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 Forestry, fishing, and related activities 2009 2010 2011 2012 Mining Source: United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service

Planning. Maryland. gov Economic Development – Physical assets (infrastructure) in PFAs have potential to support new business and employers Implications for Sustainable Growth Objectives: Most WWTPs have adequate capacity for expected growth. Possible shortfalls exist in several regions and counties. A deficiency seems likely during the next 20 years in Saint Mary’s County. Transit infrastructure, which plays a key role supporting many economic development & other sustainability objectives, is severely lacking in the metropolitan region where it has the most potential benefit. This cannot be corrected through transportation projects, without adapting the land use pattern. Considerable CTP spending for capacity improvements occurs outside PFAs in several regions & statewide. But some of these projects undoubtedly connect PFAs. Overall, infrastructure is supporting smart growth up to a point, but far more is needed if smart and sustainable growth and conservation are to be achieved.