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.)

The Regional Context

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 arranging the 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.

San Francisco Bay

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

San Francisco Bay Conservation & Development Commission (BCDC) 1998 Plan: Ecological and Scenic Resources

Portion of SF BCDC 2008 Plan

Twin Cities, Minnesota: Minneapolis, St. Paul

The Twin Cities Metropolitan Council

1960s: some problems too big for single localities: failing septic 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

1969 Aquifer Recharge Zones McHarg Ecological Study

the first comprehensive regional assessment of its kind.
(McHarg, 1996. A Quest for Life: An Autobiography.)

Use of Ecological Study to Guide Development

Areas of Indicator overlap: outside of wetlands and floodplains existing and proposed sewers located within 1.5 miles of both existing development and major highways

Source: TC Metropolitan Council, 1974

Smart Growth Twin Cities, 2002

Calthorpe Associates, lead consultant for future land use and transportation planning to preserve and enhance regions quality of life Incorporated community input and existing local comprehensive plans and regional policies Three alternative development scenarios with different impacts on housing diversity, transportation choice, infrastructure cost, air quality, preservation of farmland and environment The SGTC process included six local opportunity sites to test the concepts and educate the community about assets and options. Alternative 3 smart growth scenario led to Blueprint 2030 Plan

Scenarios:

Option 1 Outward Sprawl Option 3 Smart Growth

Twin Cities Metro Urban Service Areas (MUSA)

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 reduces competition for growth and increases cooperation

Twin Cities (MN) Metro Council Ecological Resources

World-class Regional Park System

Conservation Corridors
Mitigating Urban Ecosystem Fragmentation by Conserving Corridors to Connect Habitats

New Jersey Pinelands

New Jersey Pinelands

Lake Tahoe, California, Nevada

Lake Tahoe Regional Plan Development Areas

Inset: Land Capability

Lake Tahoe Environmental Threshold Categories

Lake Tahoe Environmental Threshold Examples

Implementation Programs for TRPA Regional Plan

Implementation Programs for TRPA Regional Plan

Portland, Oregon

Portland Metro Urban Growth Boundary

Envision Utah Calthorpe Associates

Envision Utah Preferred Alternative

State Growth Management

Lincoln Land Institute evaluation of four smart growth states and four others on five criteria and 10 point scale

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 programs Initiated by Oregon in 1973, this approach has become the model for state growth management. 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 growth boundaries and for resource conservation outside of such boundaries. Marylands Smart Growth program includes Priority Funding Areas and Rural Legacy program (1996-97) and GreenPrint Program (2000). Tennessee adopted a similar program in 1999. C. Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) for new development. Washington (since 1971) requires an EIA for discretionary approval of private projects. 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 in 1973, and Rhode Island in 1978, this approach has essentially been abandoned by all except Hawaii.

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

Oregons Land Conservation & Development Act 19 Statewide Planning Goals

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. Citizen Involvement Land Use Planning Agricultural Lands. Forest Lands Open Spaces, Scenic and Historic Areas, and Natural Resources. Air, Water and Land Resources Quality. Areas Subject to Natural Disasters and Hazards. Recreational Needs. Economic Development. Housing. Public Facilities and Services. Transportation. Energy Conservation. Urbanization. To provide for an orderly and efficient transition from rural to urban land use. Willamette River Greenway. Estuarine Resources. Coastal Shorelands. Beaches and Dunes. Ocean Resources.

The Regional Context and Urban Growth Boundaries

Very few new residents were added to the Oregon counties rural land. In contrast, Clark County, Washington, experienced considerable growth in rural areas and sprawling suburbs.

Relative density in Portland, Oregon And neighboring Vancouver, Washington

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)

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 the claim, 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

 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 in residential 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.

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.

Marylands Smart Growth Program

Marylands Smart Growth Program

Smart Growth Areas or Priority Funding Areas (PFA) Rural Legacy Areas (RLA) Brownfields Cleanup and Redevelopment Program GreenPrint Program

Priority Funding Areas (blue) and Rural Legacy Areas (green)

Virginia Urban Development Area (UDA)

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
4 SF, 6 TH, or 12 MFDU per acre

>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 affordable housing to meet the projected family income distributions of future residential growth Compliance by July 1, 2012 or January 2013 reported to CLG

State Critical Area Programs:

o Wetlands o Farmland o Coastal Zone

Designation Criteria for Virginias Chesapeake Bay Preservation Areas

CBPA Resource Protection Areas (RPA) in Holmes/Cameron Run Watershed, Alexandria, Fairfax Co., Falls Church

Powhatan Creek Watershed

Watershed Management For Powhatan Creek

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) e.g., Natural Resources Conservation Service programs Coastal Zone Management Program, Clean Water Act grants

2.
3.

Technical assistance to private landowners.

Funding for state or local environmental planning.

4.

Withdrawal of federal funds from development or use in certain areas.

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

5. 6.

Threatened withdrawal of federal funding.

E.g., National Flood Insurance Program

Wetlands permitting (CWA), Habitat Conservation Planning (ESA), Surface mine reclamation (SMCPA)

Direct regulation.