ch 18 regional-state-federal env land use programs
TRANSCRIPT
-
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.)
-
8/3/2019 Ch 18 Regional-State-Federal Env Land Use Programs
2/65
The Regional Context
-
8/3/2019 Ch 18 Regional-State-Federal Env Land Use Programs
3/65
-
8/3/2019 Ch 18 Regional-State-Federal Env Land Use Programs
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.
-
8/3/2019 Ch 18 Regional-State-Federal Env Land Use Programs
5/65
-
8/3/2019 Ch 18 Regional-State-Federal Env Land Use Programs
6/65
San Francisco Bay
-
8/3/2019 Ch 18 Regional-State-Federal Env Land Use Programs
7/65San Francisco Bay (early 1960s) and extrapolation of filling trend
-
8/3/2019 Ch 18 Regional-State-Federal Env Land Use Programs
8/65
San Francisco Bay
Conservation &
Development
Commission (BCDC)
1998 Plan:
Ecological and
Scenic Resources
-
8/3/2019 Ch 18 Regional-State-Federal Env Land Use Programs
9/65
Portion of
SF BCDC
2008 Plan
-
8/3/2019 Ch 18 Regional-State-Federal Env Land Use Programs
10/65
Twin Cities, Minnesota: Minneapolis, St. Paul
-
8/3/2019 Ch 18 Regional-State-Federal Env Land Use Programs
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
-
8/3/2019 Ch 18 Regional-State-Federal Env Land Use Programs
12/65
Aquifer Recharge Zones1969
McHargEcologicalStudy
the first
comprehensiveregionalassessment ofits kind.
(McHarg, 1996.A Quest for Life: AnAutobiography.)
-
8/3/2019 Ch 18 Regional-State-Federal Env Land Use Programs
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
-
8/3/2019 Ch 18 Regional-State-Federal Env Land Use Programs
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
-
8/3/2019 Ch 18 Regional-State-Federal Env Land Use Programs
15/65
-
8/3/2019 Ch 18 Regional-State-Federal Env Land Use Programs
16/65
Scenarios: Option 1 Outward Sprawl
Option 3 Smart Growth
-
8/3/2019 Ch 18 Regional-State-Federal Env Land Use Programs
17/65
Twin Cities MetroUrban Service
Areas (MUSA)
-
8/3/2019 Ch 18 Regional-State-Federal Env Land Use Programs
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
-
8/3/2019 Ch 18 Regional-State-Federal Env Land Use Programs
19/65
Twin Cities (MN)
Metro Council
Ecological
Resources
-
8/3/2019 Ch 18 Regional-State-Federal Env Land Use Programs
20/65
World-class
Regional ParkSystem
-
8/3/2019 Ch 18 Regional-State-Federal Env Land Use Programs
21/65
ConservationCorridors
Mitigating UrbanEcosystem
Fragmentation byConservingCorridors toConnect Habitats
-
8/3/2019 Ch 18 Regional-State-Federal Env Land Use Programs
22/65
New Jersey Pinelands
-
8/3/2019 Ch 18 Regional-State-Federal Env Land Use Programs
23/65
New Jersey
Pinelands
-
8/3/2019 Ch 18 Regional-State-Federal Env Land Use Programs
24/65
-
8/3/2019 Ch 18 Regional-State-Federal Env Land Use Programs
25/65
Lake Tahoe, California, Nevada
-
8/3/2019 Ch 18 Regional-State-Federal Env Land Use Programs
26/65
Lake Tahoe
Regional Plan
DevelopmentAreas
Inset: Land
Capability
-
8/3/2019 Ch 18 Regional-State-Federal Env Land Use Programs
27/65
-
8/3/2019 Ch 18 Regional-State-Federal Env Land Use Programs
28/65
Lake Tahoe
Environmental
ThresholdCategories
L k T h E i l Th h ld E l
-
8/3/2019 Ch 18 Regional-State-Federal Env Land Use Programs
29/65
Lake Tahoe Environmental Threshold Examples
-
8/3/2019 Ch 18 Regional-State-Federal Env Land Use Programs
30/65
Implementation Programs for TRPA Regional Plan
-
8/3/2019 Ch 18 Regional-State-Federal Env Land Use Programs
31/65
Implementation Programs for TRPA Regional Plan
-
8/3/2019 Ch 18 Regional-State-Federal Env Land Use Programs
32/65
-
8/3/2019 Ch 18 Regional-State-Federal Env Land Use Programs
33/65
Portland, Oregon
-
8/3/2019 Ch 18 Regional-State-Federal Env Land Use Programs
34/65
Portland Metro Urban Growth Boundary
-
8/3/2019 Ch 18 Regional-State-Federal Env Land Use Programs
35/65
-
8/3/2019 Ch 18 Regional-State-Federal Env Land Use Programs
36/65
Envision UtahCalthorpe Associates
-
8/3/2019 Ch 18 Regional-State-Federal Env Land Use Programs
37/65
-
8/3/2019 Ch 18 Regional-State-Federal Env Land Use Programs
38/65
Envision UtahPreferred Alternative
-
8/3/2019 Ch 18 Regional-State-Federal Env Land Use Programs
39/65
State Growth
Management
-
8/3/2019 Ch 18 Regional-State-Federal Env Land Use Programs
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
-
8/3/2019 Ch 18 Regional-State-Federal Env Land Use Programs
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
-
8/3/2019 Ch 18 Regional-State-Federal Env Land Use Programs
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.
-
8/3/2019 Ch 18 Regional-State-Federal Env Land Use Programs
43/65
The Regional Context
and Urban Growth
Boundaries
-
8/3/2019 Ch 18 Regional-State-Federal Env Land Use Programs
44/65
-
8/3/2019 Ch 18 Regional-State-Federal Env Land Use Programs
45/65
-
8/3/2019 Ch 18 Regional-State-Federal Env Land Use Programs
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.
-
8/3/2019 Ch 18 Regional-State-Federal Env Land Use Programs
47/65
Relative density in
Portland, OregonAnd neighboring
Vancouver, Washington
-
8/3/2019 Ch 18 Regional-State-Federal Env Land Use Programs
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)
-
8/3/2019 Ch 18 Regional-State-Federal Env Land Use Programs
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
-
8/3/2019 Ch 18 Regional-State-Federal Env Land Use Programs
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 -
8/3/2019 Ch 18 Regional-State-Federal Env Land Use Programs
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.
-
8/3/2019 Ch 18 Regional-State-Federal Env Land Use Programs
52/65
Marylands Smart Growth Program
-
8/3/2019 Ch 18 Regional-State-Federal Env Land Use Programs
53/65
-
8/3/2019 Ch 18 Regional-State-Federal Env Land Use Programs
54/65
-
8/3/2019 Ch 18 Regional-State-Federal Env Land Use Programs
55/65
Marylands Smart Growth Program
Smart Growth Areas or Priority FundingAreas (PFA)
Rural Legacy Areas (RLA)
Brownfields Cleanup andRedevelopment Program
GreenPrint Program
-
8/3/2019 Ch 18 Regional-State-Federal Env Land Use Programs
56/65
Priority Funding Areas (blue) andRural Legacy Areas (green)
-
8/3/2019 Ch 18 Regional-State-Federal Env Land Use Programs
57/65
Virginia Urban Development Area (UDA)
-
8/3/2019 Ch 18 Regional-State-Federal Env Land Use Programs
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
-
8/3/2019 Ch 18 Regional-State-Federal Env Land Use Programs
59/65
-
8/3/2019 Ch 18 Regional-State-Federal Env Land Use Programs
60/65
State Critical Area
Programs:
o Wetlands
o Farmland
o Coastal Zone
-
8/3/2019 Ch 18 Regional-State-Federal Env Land Use Programs
61/65
Designation Criteria for Virginias
Chesapeake Bay Preservation Areas
CBPA Resource Protection Areas (RPA)
in Holmes/Cameron Run Watershed Alexandria Fairfax
-
8/3/2019 Ch 18 Regional-State-Federal Env Land Use Programs
62/65
in Holmes/Cameron Run Watershed, Alexandria, Fairfax
Co., Falls Church
-
8/3/2019 Ch 18 Regional-State-Federal Env Land Use Programs
63/65
Powhatan Creek Watershed
-
8/3/2019 Ch 18 Regional-State-Federal Env Land Use Programs
64/65
Watershed
Management
For Powhatan
Creek
Federal Programs Affecting Private Land Use
-
8/3/2019 Ch 18 Regional-State-Federal Env Land Use Programs
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)