ch 18 regional-state-federal env land use programs

8/3/2019 Ch 18 Regional-State-Federal Env Land Use Programs

1/65

Regional and State Growth Management

Regional Models of Growth Management

Early innovators San Francisco BCDC

Twin Cities Metro Council (MN)

Adirondack Park Agency (NY)

Pinelands Commission (NJ) Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (CA, NV)

Recent innovators Envision Utah, Envision Central Texas

State Growth Management State-wide approaches

Oregon LCDC

Maryland Smart Growth

Critical Area approaches (wetlands, coastal areas, etc.)


2/65

The Regional Context


3/65


4/65

Transect Planning(Duany and Talen, JAPA, Summer 2002)

A transect is a geographical cross-section of a region

used to reveal a sequence of environments.

It seeks to create an experience of immersion in any

one type of environment by specifying and arrangingthe elements that comprise that environment in a

way that is true to locational character, i.e., in a way

that is expected given the nature of the place.


5/65


6/65

San Francisco Bay


7/65San Francisco Bay (early 1960s) and extrapolation of filling trend


8/65

San Francisco Bay

Conservation &

Development

Commission (BCDC)

1998 Plan:

Ecological and

Scenic Resources


9/65

Portion of

SF BCDC

2008 Plan


10/65

Twin Cities, Minnesota: Minneapolis, St. Paul


11/65

The Twin Cities Metropolitan Council

1960s: some problems too big for single localities: failingseptic systems, sprawling development, fiscal disparities

1967: Metropolitan Council is formed

1969: McHarg Ecological study

1969: birth of regional sewer system 1970: birth of Metro transit

1971: tax-based sharing system

1974: birth of regional park and trail system

1976: local comprehensive planning with regional review 1995: Livable Communities Act

2002: Smart Growth Twin Cities study

2003: Blueprint 2030 Plan, MUSA growth boundaries


12/65

Aquifer Recharge Zones1969

McHargEcologicalStudy

the first

comprehensiveregionalassessment ofits kind.

(McHarg, 1996.A Quest for Life: AnAutobiography.)


13/65

Use of EcologicalStudy to GuideDevelopment

Areas of Indicator

overlap: outside of wetlands

and floodplains existing and

proposed sewers located within 1.5

miles of bothexistingdevelopment andmajor highways

Source: TC Metropolitan Council, 1974


14/65

Smart Growth Twin Cities, 2002

Calthorpe Associates, lead consultant for future land use andtransportation planning to preserve and enhance regionsquality of life

Incorporated community input and existing localcomprehensive plans and regional policies

Three alternative development scenarios with differentimpacts on housing diversity, transportation choice,infrastructure cost, air quality, preservation of farmland andenvironment

The SGTC process included six local opportunity sites to test

the concepts and educate the community about assets andoptions.

Alternative 3 smart growth scenario led to Blueprint 2030 Plan


15/65


16/65

Scenarios: Option 1 Outward Sprawl

Option 3 Smart Growth


17/65

Twin Cities MetroUrban Service

Areas (MUSA)


18/65

Smart Growth in the Twin Cities:

New Housing Units 2000-2030

Key to successful regional planning in Twin Cities:Property tax-base revenue sharing among localities reducescompetition for growth and increases cooperation


19/65

Twin Cities (MN)

Metro Council

Ecological

Resources


20/65

World-class

Regional ParkSystem


21/65

ConservationCorridors

Mitigating UrbanEcosystem

Fragmentation byConservingCorridors toConnect Habitats


22/65

New Jersey Pinelands


23/65

New Jersey

Pinelands


24/65


25/65

Lake Tahoe, California, Nevada


26/65

Lake Tahoe

Regional Plan

DevelopmentAreas

Inset: Land

Capability


27/65


28/65

Lake Tahoe

Environmental

ThresholdCategories

L k T h E i l Th h ld E l


29/65

Lake Tahoe Environmental Threshold Examples


30/65

Implementation Programs for TRPA Regional Plan


31/65

Implementation Programs for TRPA Regional Plan


32/65


33/65

Portland, Oregon


34/65

Portland Metro Urban Growth Boundary


35/65


36/65

Envision UtahCalthorpe Associates


37/65


38/65

Envision UtahPreferred Alternative


39/65

State Growth

Management


40/65

Lincoln Land Institute evaluation of four smart growth

states and four others on five criteria and 10 point scale

St t A h t G th M t


41/65

State Approaches to Growth Management

I. Statewide Approaches

A. State-wide planning, state criteria and guidelines with local plans and

implementation; state approval of local plans and implementing programsInitiated by Oregon in 1973, this approach has become the model for state growthmanagement. Florida adopted it in 1985; New Jersey in 1987; Vermont, Maine,and Rhode Island in 1988; Georgia in 1989; Washington in 1991; Virginia in 2010

B. Economic incentives for development within designated urban growthboundaries and for resource conservation outside of such boundaries.

Marylands Smart Growth program includes Priority Funding Areas and RuralLegacy program (1996-97) and GreenPrint Program (2000). Tennessee adopteda similar program in 1999.

C. Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) for new development.

Washington (since 1971) requires an EIA for discretionary approval of privateprojects. A few other states (e.g., New York, California) require EIA for local

government plans and decisions.D. State-wide plan and state permitting for selected types of development.

Initiated by Hawaii in 1960 and adopted by Vermont and Maine in 1970, Colorado in1973, and Rhode Island in 1978, this approach has essentially been abandonedby all except Hawaii.

II. Critical Area Approach: wetlands, coastal zone, agricultural lands

Oregons Land Conservation & Development Act


42/65

Oregon s Land Conservation & Development Act

19 Statewide Planning Goals

1. Citizen Involvement2. Land Use Planning

3. Agricultural Lands.4. Forest Lands5. Open Spaces, Scenic and Historic Areas, and Natural Resources.6. Air, Water and Land Resources Quality.7. Areas Subject to Natural Disasters and Hazards.8. Recreational Needs.9. Economic Development.10. Housing.11. Public Facilities and Services.12. Transportation.13. Energy Conservation.14. Urbanization. To provide for an orderly and efficient transition from rural to

urban land use.15. Willamette River Greenway.16. Estuarine Resources.17. Coastal Shorelands.18. Beaches and Dunes.19. Ocean Resources.


43/65

The Regional Context

and Urban Growth

Boundaries


44/65


45/65


46/65

Very few new residents were added to the Oregon counties rural land. In

contrast, Clark County, Washington, experienced considerable growth in ruralareas and sprawling suburbs.


47/65

Relative density in

Portland, OregonAnd neighboring

Vancouver, Washington


48/65

Opposition to Oregon UGB program

Many lawsuits and referenda

Measure 65 (1998), Measure 2 (2000) aimed

to restrict legislative control of land use

both failed

Measure 7 (2000) required compensation to

landowners,

It passed, but was later struck down by the

Oregon Supreme Court

Measure 37 (2004)


49/65

And then came Measure 37, 2004

On Nov. 2, 2004, Oregon voters passed Ballot Measure 37 by 1,054,589(61%) to 685,079 (39%).

The law enacted by Measure 37 allows property owners whose

property value is reduced by environmental or other land use

regulations to claim compensation from state or local government. If

the government fails to compensate a claimant within two years of theclaim, the law allows the claimant to use the property under only the

regulations in place at the time he/she purchased the property.Certain

types of regulations, however, are exempt from this.

On October 25, 2005, a state circuit court declared the measure

unconstitutional and directing the department (and all other

defendants) to stop accepting claims and issuing reports and orders on

claims.

The trial court decision was reversed by the Oregon Supreme Court

on February 21, 2006 and the measure was reinstated


50/65

By March 12, 2007, 7,562 Measure 37 claims for compliance

payments or land use waivers had been filed spanning 750,898

acres statewide in Oregon.

The claims filed include mobile home parks in sacred native burial

grounds, shopping malls in farmland, and gravel pit mines inresidential neighborhoods. There are no provisions in the law that

public notice must be provided to neighboring property owners

when a claim is filed. Because municipalities can not afford the

billions in compensation, the laws have been waived in every case.

Claims filed in Portland, Oregon, by December 4, 2006, totaled over$250 million. Many of these claims were filed by major area land

developers.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portland,_Oregonhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/December_4http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/December_4http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portland,_Oregon


51/65

And then Measure 49, 2007

In 2007, the Oregon legislature placed Measure 49 on the November

special election ballot. It passed with 62% in favor.

The measure overturned and modified many Measure 37 provisions.

The Legislature stated that it would restrict the damaging effects of

Measure 37 by limiting some of the development that measure

permitted. The measure protects farmlands, forestlands and lands with

groundwater shortages in two ways.

First, subdivisions are not allowed on high-value farmlands,

forestlands and groundwater- restricted lands. Claimants may not

build more than three homes on such lands.

Second, claimants may not use this measure to override current

zoning laws that prohibit commercial and industrial developments,

such as strip malls and mines, on land reserved for homes, farms,

forests and other uses.


52/65

Marylands Smart Growth Program


53/65


54/65


55/65

Marylands Smart Growth Program

Smart Growth Areas or Priority FundingAreas (PFA)

Rural Legacy Areas (RLA)

Brownfields Cleanup andRedevelopment Program

GreenPrint Program


56/65

Priority Funding Areas (blue) andRural Legacy Areas (green)


57/65

Virginia Urban Development Area (UDA)


58/65

g p ( )passed General Assembly 2010: code 15.2-2223.1

Requires UDAs in every locality with zoning if population growth during

decade

>= 15% or >= 5% and population >= 20,000

Minimum UDA density requirements for developable acreage

Land not used for parks, public ROW, other public land and facilities

130,000 population

8 SF, 12 TH, or 24 MFDU per acre

Sufficient to meet projected growth over 10-20 years based on VEC projections

TND requirements may include mixed housing types, with affordablehousing to meet the projected family income distributions of future

residential growth

Compliance by July 1, 2012 or January 2013 reported to CLG


59/65


60/65

State Critical Area

Programs:

o Wetlands

o Farmland

o Coastal Zone


61/65

Designation Criteria for Virginias

Chesapeake Bay Preservation Areas

CBPA Resource Protection Areas (RPA)

in Holmes/Cameron Run Watershed Alexandria Fairfax


62/65

in Holmes/Cameron Run Watershed, Alexandria, Fairfax

Co., Falls Church


63/65

Powhatan Creek Watershed


64/65

Watershed

Management

For Powhatan

Creek

Federal Programs Affecting Private Land Use


65/65

Federal Programs Affecting Private Land Use

1. Financial assistance for land acquisition, land conservation.

e.g., Land & Water Conservation Fund, farm subsidies & stewardship

(CRP, WRP)

2. Technical assistance to private landowners.

e.g., Natural Resources Conservation Service programs

3. Funding for state or local environmental planning.

Coastal Zone Management Program, Clean Water Act grants

4. Withdrawal of federal funds from development or use incertain areas.

e.g., Coastal Barriers Resources protection, Sodbuster, Swampbuster

5. Threatened withdrawal of federal funding. E.g., National Flood Insurance Program

6. Direct regulation.

Wetlands permitting (CWA), Habitat Conservation Planning (ESA),

Surface mine reclamation (SMCPA)

ch 18 regional-state-federal env land use programs

Documents