State Growth Management Programs March 23 and 30 CP 6016/LAW

Overview Major State Program Components Historical Classification Program Characteristics – State by State 2

Major State Program Components State planning (Florida, New Jersey) Regional planning (Georgia, Vermont) Areas of Critical State Concern (Florida; Oregon?) Developments of Regional Impact (DRI) Local planning mandates (multiple states) UGBs (Oregon, Washington) Concurrency (Florida, Washington) Functional Planning State Agency Coordination 3

Historical Classification Quiet Revolution (1961- early 1970s) “Second Wave” ( ) “Third Wave” ( ) Fourth Wave (Smart Growth) (1998-) QUIET REVOLUTION CHARACTERISTICS or early 1970s Mostly single-purpose environmental mandates (e.g., shorelines) Environmental considerations dominated Coercive models dominant Model Land Development Code most influential (ACSC and DRI) QUIET REVOLUTION PROGRAMS Hawaii (1961). Land Use Law (Act 187). Land classification (inspiration and prototype of quiet revolution) Oregon (1969). Senate Bill 10 (replaced by SB 100 in 1973) Tahoe Bi-State Planning Compact (1969) (California and Nevada) Vermont (1970). Act 250; regional environmental commissions New York (1971). Adirondack Park Agency Act Florida (1972). Environmental Land and Water Management Act 4

Historical Classification Quiet Revolution (1961- early 1970s) “Second Wave” ( ) “Third Wave” ( ) Fourth Wave (Smart Growth) (1998-) SECOND WAVE CHARACTERISTICS Florida was the leader during this era. Emphasis on public facilities planning; growing concerns with sprawl Advent of administrative rules Introduction of collaboration models, but experience with enforcement of coercive mandates Increased use of study commissions Permit streamlining in Oregon SECOND WAVE PROGRAMS Florida (1985). Growth management act. Concurrency; consistency; compact growth. Rule 9-J5 (1986) New Jersey (1985). State Planning Commission and State Plan; affordable housing forced by Court system Columbia River Gorge Commission (1986). Oregon and Washington Maine and Rhode Island (1988). Vermont (1988). Growth Management Act -Act 200 (Regional Planning) 5

Historical Classification Quiet Revolution (1961- early 1970s) “Second Wave” ( ) “Third Wave” ( ) Fourth Wave (Smart Growth) (1998-) THIRD WAVE CHARACTERISTICS Emphasis on monitoring and evaluation; technical assistance Emphasis on urban sprawl and livable communities APA’s “Growing Smart” project began to influence state efforts Model code provisions still persist Emphasis: intergovernmental coordination THIRD WAVE PROGRAMS Georgia. Growth Strategies Commission, Georgia Planning Act of Service Delivery Strategies Act (1997) Washington. Growth Strategies Commission and Growth Management Acts of 1990 and Land Use Study Commission (1995) Florida. Governor’s Task Force on Urban Growth Patterns (1989); 1993 law changes Oregon. Urban Growth Management Study (1991) Maryland (1992). Planning Act; Smart Growth (1997) 6

Historical Classification Quiet Revolution (1961- early 1970s) “Second Wave” ( ) “Third Wave” ( ) Fourth Wave (Smart Growth) (1998-) FOURTH WAVE CHARACTERISTICS Continuation of concern for curbing sprawl and promoting livable communities A loud rather than quiet revolution Exponential increase of state interest in growth management FOURTH WAVE PROGRAMS Tennessee (1998). Senate Bill Annexation law; Mandates urban growth boundaries but no state oversight Georgia (1999). Georgia Regional Transportation Authority Act. Greenspace Program (2000). GRTA DRI Rules (2002) APA’s Legislative Guidebook adopted; many programs spawned by increased Focus given by Growing Smart project 7

Hawaii The Aloha State “inspiration and prototype of quiet revolution” Catalyst(s): Preservation of agriculture First state plan was in 1957 (six islands, four counties) Act 187 established an independent Land Use Commission with authority to divide all land into three land use classes: urban, conservation and agriculture The power to zone shall be exercised by the state...” Rural district added in 1963; permanent districts established 1964 State plan in 1975 (adopted 1978 legislatively as Act 100) 8

Vermont The Green Mountain State Catalysts: ski industry and 2 nd home development, unattractive development scarring mountainsides Regional planning commissions since the mid-1960s Land Use and Development Bill (Act 250) in 1970; Permit process Eight district commissions and a state environmental board Vermont’s General Assembly approved Land Capability and Development Plan (Act #85) (1973) Vermont’s Growth Management Act (1988): 32 goals in the legislation, including those from Act 250 (later reduced back to 12 goals – mandatory local planning dropped from legislation but mandatory regional planning 9

Florida (Quiet Revolution) The Sunshine State Catalysts: Problems of polluted water and loss of beach access, sense of crisis with severe drought, Environmental Land and Water Management Act of 1972 (Chapter 380, Florida Laws) which established two programs recommended by the Model Land Development Code: areas of critical state concern and developments of regional impact Local comprehensive planning act (1975). Did not live up to its hopes and aspirations. Preparation and submittal of a state plan in “Filed on the proverbial shelf” 10

Florida (Second Wave and Beyond) State and Regional Planning Act of 1984 Growth Management Act of 1985 Rule 9J-5 (including anti-sprawl rule) Mid-1990s the state adopted and strengthened its antisprawl rule. Under state rule 9J-5, the Florida Department of Community Affairs can reject a local plan or plan amendment on the grounds that it fails to discourage sprawl Three “Cs”: consistency, concurrency, and compactness Sustainable communities demonstration program 11

Oregon The Beaver State Catalysts: Gov. Tom McCall: “sagebrush subdivisions” and “coastal condomania” SB 10 (1969) SB 100 (1973): Land Conservation and Development Commission, statewide planning goals; mandatory urban growth boundaries Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA) – land use court 1000 Friends (advocacy) Revisiting tool initially enabled: areas of critical state concern 12

New Jersey The Garden State Catalysts: crowded roads, dirty air, inadequate water, sewer and solid waste systems, loss of open space and wetlands Hackensack Meadowlands District and Development Commission (1968) Mt. Laurel decisions on affordable housing (1975; 1983) Pinelands Regional Commission (1979) State Planning Act (1986) and state plan (1988) (and fiscal analysis thereof) “Cross-acceptance” instead of local plan mandate and consistency req. – a process of comparing planning policies among governmental levels with the purpose of attaining compatibility between local, county and state plans 13

New Jersey Policy Map 14

Maine The Pine Tree State Unorganized territories Site Location of Development Act (1969) like Vermont’s Act 250 Land Use Regulation Commission (1971) Mandatory Shoreland Zoning Act (1971) Growth Management Act of 1988 – statewide planning goals and mandate for local comprehensive planning State planning office abolished in 1991, partially restored 1992 Comprehensive planning is now voluntary rather than mandatory 15

Georgia The Peach State Catalyst (water supply among others) Growth Strategies Commission Georgia Planning Act of 1989 Mandatory regional planning; disincentives for lack of local planning DRI; regionally-important resources “Florida light” 16

Washington The Evergreen State Shorelines and SEPA (1971) Growth Management Act (1990 and 1991) Critical areas and designation of resource lands (all local govts.) Not all cities and counties required to plan Growth Management Hearings Boards Regulatory Reform Act (1995) 17

Maryland The Old Line State Interstate agreement to protect Chesapeake Bay (1987) Economic Growth, Resource Protection, and Planning Act of 1992 created new goals to guide the state’s future; required that all local plans be consistent with state visions 1997 – Gov. Glendening and Smart Growth Acts, including priority funding areas 18

Tennessee The Volunteer State First mandatory urban growth areas in the south Growth management provisions are part of the state’s annexation laws Counties must have established planned growth areas and prepare a growth plan by July 1, 2001 Evaluation: generally not good at all 19