>EPA
           United States
           Environmental Protection
           Agency
            Office Of
            The Administrator
            (A-101F6)
NNEMS 89-2101
PB90-228248AS
Protecting The Coasital
Zone Through Growth
Management
                    -1;
The Experience Of Five
Coastal States

-------

-------
PROTECTING THE COASTAL ZONE THROUGH GROWTH MANAGEMENT!

        THE EXPERIENCE OF FIVE COASTAL STATES
                      Karl  DoIan
                        and
                Heidi Ely Hendrickson
                     sponsored by

National Network for Environmental Management Studies
    United States Environmental Protection Agency

                     August 1989

-------

-------
                           DISCLAIMER                    .—
                  '
This report  was furnished to the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency by  the  graduate  student identified on the cover  page,  under
a National  Network  for  Environmental Management!  Studies
fellowship.

The contents are  essentially as received from the author.   The
opinions,  findings, and conclusions expressed are thjose  of the  author
and not necessarily those of the U.S. Environmental  Protection
Agency.   Mention, if any, of company, process,  or product names is
not to be considered as  an  endorsement  by  the U.S;. Environmental
Protection Agency.                               j

-------

-------
                         ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
      This report was sponsored by a United States  Environmental
 Protection Agency grant,  through the National  Network  for
 Environmental  Management  Studies Fellowship Program.*   Portions
 of this report will  be included in the  Environmental Protection
 Agency Estuarv Program Primer and the forthcoming  Protecting
 Wetlands and Coastal Waters;   A Land-Use  Guide If or Growing
 Communities. a joint publication of the Officesi of Policy,
 Planning,  and  Evaluation;  Marine and Estuarine Protection;  and
 Wetlands Protection.

      The authors would like to thank our  host  office,  the Office
 of Marine and  Estuarine Protection,  for their  tremendous support
 We would also  like to thank the Office  of Policy,  Planning, and
 Evaluation;  the Office of  Wetland Protection;  and  Industrial
 Economics for  their  assistance on the project.  Finally, many
 thanks go to those people  from California,  Florida, New Jersey,
 Oregon,  and Wisconsin who  generously offered their information
 and time.                                      . '
*    We would like to note that the contents of this document do
not necessarily reflect the official position of the United
States Environmental Protection Agency.

-------

-------
                         TABLE OF CONTENTS

                                               i
                                               I
 Executive Summary.	. . . .	5

 Introduction	.6

 California
           Issues.
                                                                 9
           Implementing Agencies  and Their Statutory Backing	.10
                California Coastal  Act	10
                California Coastal  Commission.	n
                San Francisco Bay Conservation  and
                     Development  Commission. . ..'	. ...12
                State Coastal Conservancy......'	 13
           Political Environment.	!	14
                Politics and  Personalities:   Thb  California
                     Coastal  Commission.
                                                                14
                Bay  Conservation  and  Development  Commission:
                     A  Regional Cooperative  Effort	 15
           Summary and  Recommendations	>	 16
           Conclusion.	'.....'.'	,l>	 18
          California  Case  Studies.
                                                               ,20
Florida
          Issues	  .... 27
          Implementing Agencies  and  Their  Statutory  Backing.... 28
               Growth Management Act and the
                    Department of  Community Af'fairs	28
               Local Government  Comprehensive Planning  Act	29
               Department of Environmental Regulation,
                    Office of Coastal Zone Management	31
               Department of Natural Resources's
                    Acquisition  Programs	>	31
               Coastal Zone Protection Act. .. . j.	31
          Political Environment	 L	....!!!!32
               State Leadership	|.	'.'. .'.32
               Regional Leadership	|. . „	32
               Public and Private  Interest Group  Support	33
          Funding	!. . „	3 4
          Summary and Recommendations	'. . „	34
          Conclusion	i. . .,	] 3 6
          Florida Case Studies...	j. . ..	'.'.'. 37

New Jersey                                    i
          Issues	45
          Implementing Agencies  and  Their  Statutory  Backing.... 45
               Department of Environmental Protection.....	46
               Hackensack Meadowlands Development Commission
                    and the Pinelands Commission,	47
               Municipalities and  Local Governments	47
               Coastal Commission	L	48

-------
           Political Environment ........... „ .............. ...... 49
                State Leadership ..... ....... ...... !!!!!!!!!!!!!! 49
                Local Participation ........ . ..... '...........,... 49
           Summary and Recommendations ..... ..........I!!!!!! 1    50
           Conclusion. . . ........ ... ..... .... ...... " " * ......... " " 50
           New Jersey Case Studies .....!!!! ! ! ! ! '. ] ] ] !!!!!!! !!!!!! 52



 Oregon
           Issues ..... ..... ........... ...... . ........ ...... .      55
           Implementing Agencies and Their statutory Backing! !.'! 56
                Senate Bill 100 Becomes Oregon, s  Land-Use Act. .. 56
                Land Conservation and Development Commission. ... 57
                Community Involvement and Public  Awareness ...... 60
           Political Environment ..... -. . ......................    60
           Summary and Recommendations ...... ......... ........... 61
           Conclus ion ........... ... .......... „ ......... !!!**"*"" 6 2
           Oregon Case Studies ........... .......! [ ! !!!!!!!•!!!!!! 64


 Wisconsin
           Issues ... ...... . ...... . ....... . . . . ....... .. ..... ...    72
           Implementing Agencies and  Their Statutory "Backing .... 73
                Water Resources Act of  1965 .................... .73
                Department  of Natural Resources. . ...... '.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.73
                Department  of Administration ............. ....... 74
                Regional  Planning  Commissions ...... ........... ! [75
           Political  Environment ........... . . .......... '.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.75
                State and Local Relationships ...... '.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.76
                International Leadership ... ..............  ...... 77
           Summary  and Recommendations ..... . .......... .......  '  77
           Conclusion. ... ............................... '.'.'.'.'' ° ' 73
           Wisconsin  Case Studies ....... ........ !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 79

Conclusion .....................                                 0_
                                .................... ............yj

Appendices .............. .....                                   0-7
                                • •••••«•••••••»••
Notes
                                                                _ ..
                                                                y o

-------
 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
      Coastal and growth management programs of five states —
 California, Florida, New Jersey, Oregon, and Wisconsin - were
 analyzed to determine effective ways of mitigating environmental
 consequences.   Growth related problems include sewer and highway
 capacity problems,  water quality degradation,  reduction of
 physical and visual access,  and loss of habitat.!
      Successful programs commonly share the following
 characteristics:,                               i
 1) Strong political leadership,                 '
                                                !
 2) Public support and participation,
 3) coordination between  local,  state  and federal governmental
 entities, and
 4) Policies or  legislation to assure  consistent^enforcement,
 5) Attention to  housing needs, and
4) Financial support.

-------
                                                              -  6
 INTRODUCTION
      In  recent years, growth has become a major policy issue
 throughout the nation, particularly in coastal states.  It is
 estimated that before the year 2000, 75% of the nation's
 population will  live within 50 miles of.the coastJ  Florida and
 California already have reached this percentage.  In fact,
 Florida's population is increasing by about 80,000 every three
 months!2
      Noticeable  consequences of growth include sewer capacity
 problems, traffic congestion, longer commute times and higher
 noise levels.  Public services, like water, sewer, police, fire
 and highway facilities, must be expanded to meet increasing
 demands.  This expansion can be costly and inefficient,
 especially if infrastructure is extended to urban sprawl areas
 beyond city limits.
      As  development-along the coast proliferates, greater demands
 are placed on the natural resources.  Some of the environmental
 impacts  include  water quality degradation; loss of open space,
 natural  habitats, and wetlands; and decrease of physical and
visual access to the coast.
      Point-source and non-point source discharge can affect the
natural  aquatic  and marine habitats.  Run-off with high
concentrations of phosphate and nitrate compounds act as
 fertilizers and  cause algal blooms, altering the ecosystems'
community structure.  Discharge can also release toxic and
pathogenic contaminants, leading to habitat degradation and loss.

-------
                                               1   ,              7

     Typically, a single catastrophic event causes public

response and results in a strategy to address the problem.  What

triggers communities and states to take action?  Is it possible
                                               i
to plan ahead to avoid environmental degradation?  What are some

successful strategies for redirecting development away from near-
                                               .
coastal waters?  The purpose of this study is to answer these

questions by analyzing selected coastal states'! growth management

programs.
                                               !
                                               I
     Five states have been chosen for this analysis: California,

Florida, Oregon, New Jersey, and Wisconsin.  They were chosen on

the basis of the following criteria:           ;
                                               i
1) Degree of growth pressures.  These states have experienced a
number of growth-related problems like loss of beach access and
uncontrolled urban sprawl;                     !

2) Having in place growth and coastal zone management programs.
The chosen states have implemented programs to deal with growth
problems; and
                                               i
3) Geographical representation.  States were selected from the
eastern, western, Gulf," and Great Lakes coastal regions.

     The criteria for assessing states' programs are threefold:
              1
                                               i
1)statutory justification, 2) political environment and 3)

availability of funding.  Statutory justification provides the

legal muscle for the endorsement of a growth management policy.

The political arena consists of the combined efforts of elected

officials,  public and private interest groups and -citizens.

Finally, the availability of funding is often a deciding  factor

in ensuring the success of a coastal land-use policy.

-------
     Using a case study approach, the analysis illustrates
successful ways of minimizing the environmental impact of growth
and redirecting development away from open spaces, towards areas
with existing infrastructure.  Such techniques are important in
protecting water quality of the near coastal waters.,

-------
                              CALIFORNIA
   ISSUES

I       California has experienced tremendous growth along the

   coast.  Presently, it is estimated that 75% of the State's 28

!   million people are located along the coastal zone..  With the
                    •
   population expected to grow to 32 million by 19^5, greater

   pressure to develop the coast is anticipated.3  |
                                                 i
       Prior to 1972, the high demand for coastal resources
                                                 i
   resulted in the loss of open space and agricultural lands,

|   filling of wetlands,  blocking of visual jand physical access, and

  degradation in quality of the near coastal waters,,  For example,

:  the coast once provided 300,000 acres of wetlands,,  Presently,

  there are only 79,000 acres left.4   In fact,  903;  of  southern  '

,  California's wetlands alone had been filled by 1972, and many of

:  the remaining areas are significantly degraded.

       The construction of the 10-mile long Sea Ranch residential

,  colony in Sonoma County,  which obstructed the physical and visual

i  access  of the coast,  finally triggered public action.   A public

i  initiative was passed which led to  the California Coastal Act of

'.  1976-                                           !
                                                 i
i       This  section  introduces the California Coastal  Plan,  the

,  tool  for managing  its  1,100 mile shoreline.   It discusses some of

  the difficulties with  which administrations are faced  with,  and

;  provides  case  studies  that  demonstrate the benefits  of having a

  coastal management plan  in  place.               !

-------
                              •                                  10
 IMPLEMENTING AGENCIES AND THEIR STATUTORY BACKING
      California's federally approved Coastal Plan is based on a
 "superagency" approach.   Authority to plan and regulate  '.
 development in 67 coastal city and county governments is. mandated
 primarily to a single state agency — the California Coastal
 Commission (the Commission).   Two other, organizations,  the Bay
 Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC)  and the State
 Coastal Conservancy (the Conservancy),  also participate to a
 limited extent in regulating development,  thus,  creating a
 cooperative approach to  coastal ,land-use planning.

 California Coastal Act of 1976
      In 1972,  amidst public  outcry to preserve the coast,
 Proposition 20,  the California  Coastal  Zone Conservation Act,
 passed.5  This "Save the Coast" Initiative  led to the passage of
 the California Coastal Act four years later.
      The  Coastal Act of  1976  requires that every city and county
 within  the  State prepare a Local  Coastal.Plan (LCP)  for the
 portion of  its jurisdiction that  is located within the coastal
 zone.   The  LCP describes the  County's specific policies for
 protecting  coastal  resources  and  managing  future development.
      The  LCP is  the link between  the local and state governments.
 Once  the  LCP has  been  approved  by the Commission,  permit
 authority is restored  to local  jurisdiction.6  The Coastal
 Commission's role then becomes  advisory  and acts as  an appeals
board for local decisions.

-------
                                                               11


     Each local government can divide its land within the coastal


zone into separate .geographical segments and priepare a LCP for


each segment.  Segmentation helps to quicken the LCP's approval


time and focus resources in areas that are having difficulty in


preparing their plans.                         ;



                                               i.

California Coastal Commission                  i


     The Coastal Act established the Coastal Commission as the


regulatory agency to protect the State's coastline.7


     The Commission consists of 15 part-time members, four

                                               i
appointed by the Governor and eight by the Legislature and three


from other state agencies (ex-officio representatives who cannot

      A
vote) .   In addition,  there  are six regional of if ices with a total


of 110 full-time staff members.  The Coastal Commission's
                                               I


responsibilities are quite extensive, addressing nearly every


land-use issue of the State.  Specific responsibilities include:


ensuring that new development along the coast s.dheres to zone


regulations, protecting marine and land resources and scenic
                                               I

views along the coastal zone, ensuring maximum public access to
                                               i
                                               [

the coast, maintaining productive coastal agricultural lands, and

                                               i

locating any industrial facilities that would have  a minimum


environmental impact on the coast.





Funding             ,
                                               i


     California's Coastal Plan is federally approved, qualifying


the State for federal funds.  Between 1977 and 1988, California

-------
                                                                12
 received approximately $24 million for its federal coastal
 programs, of which about 10 percent went to the Bay Conservation
 and Development Commission.9
      It is the policy of Governor Deukmejian«s administration
 that local governments should be the primary managers of the
 coast.  Thus, upon the assumption that the cities and counties
 would have completed their LCP's by early 1980's which would
 transfer permitting responsibility to the local governments, the
 Commission's budget has continually been reduced.  In 1985,  the
 Governor cut the Commission's budget by 20%,  forcing the
 reduction in the number of staff from 210 to 110, the closing of
 a  regional  office,  the elimination of a public awareness program,
 and the reduction of Commission meetings from  twenty-four to
 twelve per  year.10
      Final  LCP approval,  however,  has not kept pace with the
 budget reductions.   These reductions have significantly affected
the  Commission's  efforts  in monitoring and enforcement.
11
San Francisco Bay  Conservation  and  Development  Commission
     The San Francisco  Bay  Conservation  and  Development
Commission  (BCDC)  can be considered the  nation's  first coastal
management agency.  The 1965 McAteer-Petris  Act (MPA) established
an interim organization to  prepare  a land-use plan  for the  nine
counties that border the Bay/Delta  region.   The San Francisco Bay
Plan passed four years  later, empowering BCDC as  the agency to
regulate and control development.

-------
                                               i                13
                                               I
     BCDC consists of 27 members, Five are appointed by the

Governor (including the chair and vice-chair),  jbwo by the

Legislature, two from federal agencies, five frpm other state

agencies and 13 from local governments.  Each commissioner may

appoint an alternate.                          j

     BCDC issues permits for development 100 feet inland from San

Francisco Bay and the adjoining San Pablo and Suisun Bays.  It
                                                    '
primarily focuses on providing for public coastal access and
                                               i
control the use of fills along the Bay's shoreline  and within its

wetlands and saltponds.                        I



State Coastal Conservancy

     The State Coastal Conservancy, a  five-member board, was
                                               I
established with the Coastal Commission. Its responsibilities

include acquisition, acceptance  of public accesss and open  space

easements, wetland and urban waterfront restoration, agricultural

land preservation, management of transfer of development right

programs (TDRs) and consolidation of  subdivisions  in

environmentally sensitive areas.12  These  functions were not

incorporated within the Commission's  jurisdiction.   Combining the
                                               i
mechanism to finance growth management projects  that  involves

redevelopment with the regulatory function  coul|.d create a

conflict of interest.

-------
                                                                 14
  POLITICAL
  Politics and Personalities - The Coastal Conmission
       Strong and diverse political pressures, are to be expected
  when trying to manage such an extensive coastline consisting of a
  number of cultural,  political and geographic regions.
       The Coastal Commission is quite vulnerable to political
  pressures.   Its a relatively small commission and a broad
 .legislative foundation makes it a target for lobbyists. Moreover,
  the  different  land-use issues  between the northern and southern
  regions  foster a political  environment  that  influences
  Commissioners  to act as advocates  for their  local  constituents.
      Tension began to  build between the  state and  local
 governments over  issues of coastal development at the very outset
 of implementing the Coastal Act.  Local planners and elected
 officials were outraged when they discovered that the Commission
 required detailed plans and zoning ordinances in the LCPs,
 including specifications on the location of view corridors,
 building height, the  number of hotel units and their relative
 rates,  and bluff setbacks.14
      The  Commission's  stringent policies are  justified because it
 lacks recertification  authority during their  five-year LCP
 evaluations.  The Commission cannot require alterations once  the
 LCP has been approved regardless  of how  ineffective the LCP is in
managing growth.

-------
                                                               15
     Requesting detailed plans has delayed the approval of the
                                                I
local coastal program segments.  Even though the time in

completing the LCP is up to the local governments,  some say that
                                                i

the delay is the Commission's way of postponing jthe shift of the
                                                i
permitting authority to the local level.15  Presently, 71 out of

126 LCPs (in the 15 coastal counties) have been japproved.16

     Although the Coastal Commission has survived several

legislative attempts to weaken its regulatory powers, the 1981

Legislature was successful in enacting some changes.17  'The most

significant change was the removal of the affordable housing

policy.  The Commission required a minimum of low and moderate

income housing as a permit condition for development in  the

coastal zone.  This removal was initiated by strong lobbying

efforts of the California State Board of Realtors, the League.of

California Cities and factions of the State Homebuilders
                                                i
Association.18

     Subsequently, informal coalitions are  forming between

housing consortiums and developers or home  builder associations.
                                                i
Foregoing coastal protection  in order to  secure affordable

                                             19
housing is becoming an acceptable trade-off.
BCDC — A Regional Cooperative Effort           j


     Nearly half of  BCDC's members  are  local  government officials


which practically assures a  regional rather than local


perspective.20  In  addition,  BCDC is larger thanj the Coastal
                                                i
Commission.   Its size  makes  it difficult for  special interest

-------
                                                                 16
  groups to  lobby or develop coalitions to oppose it.
       BCDC's representation, coupled with legislation that
  explicitly identifies goals of the organization, has allowed for
  cooperation between groups of opposing interests.   To find
  solutions of polarizing-issues, emphasis is placed on
  flexibility,  negotiation and innovation,  rather than
  regulation.21

  SUMMARY/RECOMMTCMDATIONS
       There  are four characteristics  that  have been vital  to
  California's coastal program's  success..22   First/ citizen  support
  for a coastal  management program was the  key  factor in the
  evolution of a state coastal plan.  In fact,  the creation of the
  California Coastal Act emerged  from a public  initiative.  Second,
 the coastal Act clearly' spells out the goals  and structure of the
 implementing administrative agencies.  Third, the Local Coastal
 Plans encourage the formulation of new relationships between
 state and  local governments.   Finally,  the establishment of an
 independent  coastal conservancy avoids  a potential  conflict of
 interest.
      BCDC has been  very successful.   Prior to the establishment
 of BCDC, only four  miles of the  San Francisco Bay shoreline were
 open to the public.  There  are over 100 miles  today.23  BCDC's
decision-making approach has been based on rigidly  defined
guidelines of the McAteer-Petris Act and the San  Francisco Bay
Plan,   with its  limited agenda,  it has been able to  focus  its

-------

                                                !                17


 resources to yield effective and consistent results.   Moreover,



 it is involved in the controversial issue of coastal  growth



 management,  only as it relates to its functions of regulating



 fill or granting coastal access.



      A number of problems,  however,  have emerged under the



 State's coastal plan.    Proposition 20,  like other initiatives,



 did not undergo a kind of legislative "evolution",  surviving



 stages of negotiation and compromise.   It emerged as  a reaction
                                                i


 to.the high  growth rate along the coast.   As a  result,  the



 Commission's mandate is vast,  covering numerousjproblems  within a



 huge territory.   It is understandable that most of the   •



 Commission's decisions are  controversial.   If the legislature had



 been willing to embrace a statewide coastal zone management  plan,



 a  state organization similar to  BCDC might have jemerged,  with a



 well-defined mandate and a  supportive statewide .constituency.



      Problems arise when transferring responsibility  of



 implementing the  LCP's to the  local  governments.24  Local

                                                I

 officials, sensitive to the needs of their constituents,  might



 not  consistently  support the Commission's  coastal  policies.



 Moreover, transferring responsibility  to the local  governments



 without empowering  the Commission with reauthoriization



 responsibility  forces  the Commission to be  quite  uncompromising



 in their review of  proposed  LCPs.
     The Coastal Commission has been accused of
being
inconsistent in its permitting procedures.25   Its; performance  is



influenced by a number of factors: budget cutbacks and resulting

-------
                                                                18
 reduction of personnel,  increased volume of building permit
 applications, and responsibility for a wide range of issues  under
 flexible legislation.   However,  the primary basis for this
 accusation is the Commission's decision-making policy.   Decisions
 are based solely on facts of each case without establishing  legal
 precedents.   The concern is how to insure against subjectivity  as
 each case is reviewed.   Incorporating growth control evaluation
 criteria in  decision-making could help to minimize this
 subjectivity while allowing for flexibility.

 CONCLUSION     •                                      .
      Local governments generally are ineffective  in managing
 growth because the resources necessary to resolve growth problems
 typically exceed local governments'  financial capabilities.   In
 addition,  growth problems often  transcend political boundaries.
 Development  tends to occur beyond existing infrastructure, which
 can  cause traffic congestion and sewer capacity problems in
 suburban  and rural areas.
      Local officials cannot remove themselves from addressing the
 needs of  their constituents.   Considering that approximately 80%
 of campaign  contributions in Los Angeles  County's local  elections
 come  from  sources  involved in real estate,  it is  surprising  that
 there is  emphasis  at all  on protecting coastal resources".26
     The  objectives of the California  Coastal Act focus  on long-
range preservation of coastal land.  However,  the regulatory
decision-making approach  in implementing  the  Act,  based  on a

-------
                                                               19
case-by-case permitting process, is often affected by changes in

political leadership and financial resources.  JEn fact, the

present Governor's lack of support for the Coastal Commission has

resulted in extensive budget cuts and political appointments of

developers and campaign contributors to the Commission.   State
                                               i
funding for coastal zone programs could also be the necessary

incentive to help local governments produce more regional
plans.
      28

-------
                                                                  20
  arcata,  California (Humbolt county, - weMands Restoration
        in  1976, the  U.S. EPA directed the city of Arcata to
  terminate its practice of discharging effluent into Humbolt Bay
  and to participate in a regional sewage treatment program,  since
  urging with such a system would induce growth and. cause an
  "unacceptable environmental impact",  Arcata implemented a second
  alternative.29       .
       The city converted nearly 200 acres of bay-front,  degraded
  wetlands,  once used as a  dump  for logging wastes,  into  a
  freshwater and brackish marsh  and'pond  system.    '
      The  project  secured  funding from two  primary  sources:  the
  State  Coastal  Conservancy and  EPA.  Between 1978 and 1979,  the
  State  Coastal Conservancy provided  $858,000  for the preparation
  of the .plan,  land acquisition  and construction of the site.  EPA
 provided funds and used the project as a pilot marsh wastewater
 treatment facility.   ln 1982,  the state conservancy authorized a
 third grant of $44,000 to increase tidal flushing of a nearby
 degraded saltmarsh.
      The restored  wetlands now  serves  as a tertiary sewage
 treatment  facility (in operation since  1985,, .salmon hatchery,
 and bird sanctuary and offers recreational  benefits like fishing,
 hiking  and model boating.30
     Local university  students  conducted over 50 analyses  and
discovered a diverse healthy habitat of waterfowl,  shoreline

-------
                                       •        !     ••  •        21
                                               I

birds, fish and invertebrates.31  The 1982 projept to increase



the tidal flushing of a nearby wetland resulted;in an increase in



wading birds and the reappearance of oyster beds.



     In addition to providing a living resource! habitat, the



treatment facility currently demonstrates a 100% compliance to

                                               i
state and federal water quality standards .  Table 1 illustrates



improved water quality in Humbolt Bay due to the installation of
a tertiary treatment facility
                              32
                            TABLE 1
            IMPROVEMENT OF HUMBOLT BAY'S WATER QUALITY

              DUE TO THE TERTIARY TREATMENT FACILITY
Parameter


BOD  (biological oxygen demand)


Fecal and total coliform


Nonfilterable residues


Ammonia
Results — Eieduction by;



     40-50%



     80-90%
            i


     80-90% !



     10-20%

-------
                                                                 22
  Los Angeles, California ~ Habitat Management at Ballona wetlands
       Restoring Ballona Wetlands is the price that a local real
  estate firm must pay in order to develop "Playa Vista",  a 957
  acre lot planned for commercial, retail, residential,  and hotel
  use.
      33
       545 acres on the western half of the property lies within
  the coastal zone and therefore,  falling under the  jurisdiction of
  the California Coastal Commission.   The requirements  for wetland
  protection  and restoration,  addressed in Section 404  of the  Clean
  Water Act and  in the Statewide Interpretive Guidelines  of the  '
  1976 California  Coastal Act,  resulted in an agreement between  the
  National Audubon Society and  the original  developer,  Howard
  Hughes Properties  (HHP) in March, 1985.34
      The agreement,  referred  to as the  Ballona Wetland Habitat
 Management Plan, calls for the establishment of a 216 acre
 Audubon wildlife sanctuary located within the city limits of Los
 Angeles and estimated to have a value of $1 million per acre.35
 The National Audubon Society is preparing the Plan which will be
 incorporated into Los Angeles«s Local Coastal Plan.
      The  Ballona Wetland Habitat  Management Plan embodies two
 components:  the wetland restoration and an interpretive center.
 The  former calls  for the restoration of 150 and 25.4 acres  of
 saline and freshwater wetlands, respectively.   it will include
 6.2 acres of dune (a remnant  of a once extensive coastal dune
system), 2.4 acres  of coastal  strand,  18.5  acres of the  rare
coastal sage scrub  and 2.5 acres of grassland  savannah.36

-------
                      ~    ,.      .              !               23

     The interpretive center will offer a unique environmental

educational program for the 10 million Los Angeles residents.   It

will consist of an "Audubon Living Museum" with exhibits and
                                                I
                                                j
nature trails.                                  ;
                                                I
     McGuire Thomas, who recently acquired 60% of the general

partnership, retains primary ownership of the Wetlands and has

pledged up to $10 million for its restoration arid management.
                                                             t
Nearly all of the endowment will be used to finance this project.

Other sources are needed to cover construction costs of the

Living Museum which requires an additional $6 to $10 million.

     This is an opportunity to preserve coastal open space  in the
                                                j
highly developed southern California.  Moreover> the project

offers better protection for two endangered bird species: the

Belding's savannah  sparrow and the California least tern, and  a

                                          38     !
natural resource for migratory waterbirds.    It is also an
                                                            '
example of how a non-profit organization  like the  National

Audubon Society can work with private enterprisp  for the
                 •
                                                i
preservation  of a natural  resource.             |    " .

     The primary concern is that some of  Ballon^  Wetland's

acreage will  not be preserved.   Thus,  this project cannot be

endorsed by the National No Net  Loss Wetlands Policy  Forum.  With

90%  of the  state's  coastal wetlands  filled,  it is unfortunate

that the city of Los  Angeles  cannot  compromise jits drive for
 economic growth with a need to preserve one of

 California's few remaining wetland habitats.
southern

-------
                                                                 24
  Laguna Higual, California  (orange county, - coastal Access
       Although 58% of the California coastline is closed to the
  public, access to the ocean is guaranteed by the California
  constitution."  The public has the right to use the beach up to
  the mean high tide line.  However,  this right does not Mean
  anything unless access to the coast is provided.   Therefore,  all
  three of the state agencies - the  Coastal Commission,  BCDC and
  State Conservancy -  place priority on providing  for maximum
  public  access.
       in  1973, Avco  community  Developers planned to  construct  over
  8,000 residential units  on .approximately  582 acres  of coastal
 hillsides in Laguna Niguel.  The Coastal  Commission halted  the
 construction on the basis that the development would obstruct
 visual and physical access to the shoreline.  After three years
 of futile litigation that was taken all the way to the Supreme
 Court, Avco lost the battle and relented to the  Commission's
 requirements.
      Plans were  changed to allow for physical and visual access.
 Two  public parks were  developed:  a  7.5-acre coastal park (valued
 at about  $16 million)  and a 25.6-acre inland park.   The  number of
 residential units was  reduced,  3000  to  be  sold  at  the market rate
 and an additional 900  set aside as low  and moderate  housing.   NO
high rises were built  in  order to preserve the view  of the
coast.40

-------
                                                               25
Los Angeles, California — Sewer Moratorium    |

     Growth in Los Angeles has brought its current sewer
                                               i
treatment facility near capacity.  The facility!services 8  cities

and 29 independent districts.  Each year since 1983,  the load on

the system has increased by about 10 million gallons per day.  If

the trend was allowed to continue, capacity would have been

reached by 1992.41                              |
                                               i
     In May of 1988, the City Council passed an: emergency sewer

moratorium.  It was originally designed as a nine-month ordinance

that could be renewed up to an additional six months.  The

seriousness of the problem, however, has caused its life to be

extended indefinitely.                         !

     The Council's decision was  triggered by a major sewage  spill

in 1987.  Heavy rains caused the city's sewage [treatment facility
                                               i.
to spill 38 million gallons of untreated sewage; into Santa Monica

Bay.  In addition, EPA  fined the city  $625,000 for delaying  the

construction of a new treatment  facility.      \

     Although the moratorium was aimed at  decreasing the number
                                               I
of new building permits by about 35%,  it has  not  significantly

slowed growth or even redirected it to areas  beyond the service

district.   Fear of  losing building opportunities  actually
                                               i
increased  the number of building permit applications.
                                               I
     Building applications are  being filed early  in each month.
 In  this way,  builders have a greater chance of

 before the city's monthly quota is met.   There
 four to  six-month delay in processing the permits which has since
gsi in ing approval

weis an initial

-------
                                                                26
 settled to . two-month delay.  However, this cost apparently has
 not been significant enough to dissuade development within the
 city boundaries.
      Thus, the sewer moratorium has not dramatically changed the
 pace of development in Los Angeles.  The actual number of
 building requests has not diminished.   Ideally, a plan to deter
 the number of permit requests is needed.
     A sewer  moratorium,  like other moratoriums,  is  usually a
 "band-aid"  solution for a serious problem.   This  tool  is
 appropriate and  can be successful if:  i)  it  is  implemented for  a
 limited amount of  time, 2)  it  is  necessary for  reasons  of public
 health, 3) the current system  has proven to  be  technically
 limited, 4) a more  long-term solution  is being  planned  and 5) the
moratorium's administrative and transaction  costs are significant
enough to reduce the demand that  is causing  the problem.

-------
                                                               27
                             FLORIDA           !

ISSUES                                         |

     Florida's environmental and growth concernss focus on issues

of decreased public access to beaches, loss of wildlife habitat,

and contamination of coastal and fresh water.  Tourism and

recreation, central to Florida's economy, give this state

incentive to maintain public access to the beach, cind keep its

image attractive. Encroachment of development threatens the

habitat of several native and endangered species, namely the
                                               !

manatee, bald eagle, and Key deer.  Coastal and! fresh water

supplies are subjected to varying levels of pollution, resulting

in the degradation of aquifer recharge and near coastal water
                                               I
areas.                                         j

     Environmental stress-is a direct result of a rapidly

increasing population from  seasonal tourists, new residents, and
                                               I
immigrants.  Tourists arrive at the rate of  40 imillion per year.

New residents continue to flock to the coastal jareas.  In fact,

80% of Florida's population lives within 50  milles of  the coast.42

In addition, Florida attracts an  increasing  number  of retired

persons and  immigrants,  a trend that  is  expected to continue in

future years.  This section introduces the Grovrth Management Act

of 1985, discusses Florida's experience  in adopting growth

management legislation,  and offers  case  studies, as  examples  of

its response to  growth.

-------
                                                                 28
   CMPLEMENTTNtt ArreNCIES ANn TOP TO
       Florida manages growth in coastal areas primarily through
  land-use legislation.  Such legislation provides for state,
  regional, and local comprehensive planning - a three-tiered
  Planning framework.  Regional and Local Government Comprehensive
  Plans must contain a coastal element that is consistent with the
  State Goals as  addressed in the Growth Management Act of 1985.
  These Goals focus on priority state issues such as coastal
  protection,  fair housing,  energy,  and transportation needs.
       Florida's  Coastal Management  Plan,  as mandated under the
  Coastal  Zone Management Act  of  1972  and  federally approved in
  1981, designates  the  entire  state  as  a coastal  zone.   It  sets
 policy goals and  outlines existing legislation  aimed  at coastal
 protection.  Unlike California, the Plan does not  serve a
 regulatory function.  Rather, it acts primarily as a guide to
 coastal protection.

 Growth Management Act of 1985 and the Department of Community
 Affairs
      The  Growth  Management Act (GMA)  requires that local and
 regional  plans be consistent with each other and with State
 Goals.  it also  requires  that service infrastructure like
 transportation,  water, and  sewer, be  in place while development
 is occurring, not  afterwards.  This "pay  as we go" policy is  an
option for financing public facilities which typically require
large initial capital outlays.43

-------
                           DISCLAIMER
This report  was furnished to the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency by  the  graduate  student identified on the cover  page, under
a National  Network  for  Environmental Management 'Studies
fellowship.                                         !

The contents are essentially as received from the author.  The
opinions,  findings,  and conclusions expressed are those  of the author
and not necessarily those of the U.S.  Environmental  Protection
Agency.   Mention,  if any, of company, process,  or prbduct names is
not to be considered as  an  endorsement  by  the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency.

-------
                                                                 29
       Department of Community Affairs (DCA),  the state  land
  planning agency, is empowered with overseeing the  state's growth
  management policies as outlined in GMA.   After DCA reviews  and
  approves initial local and regional plans,  it delegates planning "
  to local and regional  governments.   It subsequently becomes the
  land-use appeals board.

  Local Government Comprehensive  Planning Act  of 1975
      Local  Government  Comprehensive  Planning Act of 1975 (LGCPA)
  requires that all of Florida's  461  local governments submit
  comprehensive plans for state review by the  end of 1991.
      Currently,  only 2 out of 67 counties and  25 out of 391
 cities are  fully approved.  Local governments are slow in getting
 plans completed because the LGCPA provided no incentives to
 complete plans nor penalties for noncompliance.  The 1985 GMA,
 however,  amended this Act and did provide incentives and
 penalties.44
      Local plans vary greatly in quality  because of different
 levels of resources  and commitment.   Many of the smaller local
 governments  do not have the staffing or financial resources  to
 complete  plans.   The wealthier and  larger counties  have more
 resources and are committed to developing thorough  land-use
 plans.  The  different abilities  and  interests of local
 governments  can be a major  obstacle  to an  integrated, statewide
growth management system.
Environmental Land and Water Management Act of 1972

-------
                                               i                30
                                               1

     Two provisions of the Environmental Land and Water
 •
Management Act (1972) control development in environmentally
                                               i
sensitive areas:   the Developments of Regional Impact (DRIs) and

Areas of Critical State Concern (ACSC).         i

     The DRI provision requires that large scale developments go

through a review process involving DCA and regional planning

agencies.  A DRI review is required for large development

projects that are presumed to cause regional impacts, like

shopping centers, airports, and hospitals. •Developments of this

size tend to be the major contributors to point and non-point


source pollution.     .                         j

     Under the ACSC provision, areas which have; environmental,

natural, historical, or archaeological significance may be

considered for special designation.  Any person,  agency, or
                                               i

organization can nominate an area  for designation, but the

nomination must be approved by the Governor.  Once designated,

stringent land-use regulations act as an effective tool  for

protecting near coastal water quality.

     Currently, there are  four designated Areas,  of Critical State

Concern:  Big Cypress, Green Swamp,  the Keys, a;nd Appalachicola

Bay.  The ACSC legislation has made  some  substantial differences
 in minimizing  and redirecting growth,  especiall

 are  concerned.
y where the Keys

-------
                                                                 31
  Department of Environmental Regulation, Office of Coastal
  Zone Management (OCZM) and its Coastal Management Program
       Florida's Coastal Management Program,  under the  Department
  of Environmental Regulation,  was created in response  to monetary
  incentives of the federal Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972,
  but has remained limited in scope and power.   It does not
  participate in the state's land-use  planning efforts.  However,
  attempts are being made  through  the  Legislature  to link the
  Program to  state planning.  This will  concentrate resources and
  land-use^planning  efforts  toward coastal protection.

 Department of Natural Resources«s Acquisition Programs: The
 Conservation and Recreational Lands and Save Our Coast Programs
      One of Florida's most effective tools for managing coastal
 growth and protecting critical near coastal areas in Florida is
 land acquisition.  DNR acquires, land for buffers between
 development and near coastal waters.   These buffers are natural
 vegetative areas like wetlands and grasses.   They filter
 pollutants and run-off before  they reach the water.  The CARL  and
 SOC  programs are both state acquisition programs.

 Coastal  zone  Protection Act of 1985
     The  Act  established  a  coastal construction control  line 50
 feet above the shoreline  and a  stringent  coastal  building zone.45
The Act's intent  is to prevent  erosion, but  limiting construction
in the coastal zone also  acts to  indirectly protect near coastal

-------
                                                                32
 water quality.
 POLITICAL ENVIRONMENT                          i
                                                I-
 State Leadership -
                                                I
      Senator Bob Graham has been an avid supporter of growth

 management legislation.  During his eight-year term of office as

 Governor (1978-1986),  he succeeded in passing ttie Growth
                                                i
 Management Act of 1985.                        '

      The continuity of support was interrupted b|y the change of

 administration in 1986.  The present governor, Bob Martinez, has

 not shown the same dedication to environmental and growth

 management issues.   The change in administration  left some
                                                i
 policies pending strong enforcement.   The State jDepartment of

 Community Affairs'  enforcement of growth management policy has

 become  less stringent.46  In addition, changes in  governor-

 appointed officials at all  levels of government resulted in some

 resistance  to implementing  GMA.
     The DCA, under the  leadership  of  Tom  Pelham
proven to be tough  in reviewing  local plans.47  The Agency

recognizes that, without  financial backing,  local  governments  are

not able to implement growth management policies.
Regional Leadership

     Florida's eleven Regional Planning Councils

primarily responsible for review and approval of

developments that will have impacts outside of
 , to date, has
  (RPCs) are

  proposed

county boundaries,

-------
                                                               33
 RPCs also give technical guidance to local  jurisdictions and act
 as mediators between counties.   The Growth  Management Act of 1985
 requires .that if local governments do not come  up with  a local
 plan,  as required in the LGCPA,  RPCs must do  so.
      Until 1980,  RPCs consisted  entirely of city and county
 elected officials.   The 1980  Florida Regional Planning  Council
 Act,  however,  required that all  RPCs be  reorganized to  include
 more state and regional representation.  This  law was an important
 step in strengthening the role of regional  planning councils.48
      Florida also has special districts  with  regional powers and
 taxing authority.   The most powerful of  these in the area of
 growth management are the Water  Management  Districts;  (WMDs).
 Five WMDs were established in 1972,  and  each  are governed by a
 nine member board.   Political influence, coupled with the control
 of  all water in the state,  have  made these  districts very
 powerful  entities.   They receive federal, state, and local
 funding,  and have the authority  to levy  taxes on property in
 their  districts.

 Public and Private  Interest Group Support
     1000  Friends of Florida  monitors ongoing local, regional and
 state  growth management activities.   It  is  Florida's foremost
growth management interest  group and acts to  educate the public
on current  growth management  issues.   This "group also encourages
citizens to  get involved in public reviews  of local plans.

-------
                                                !                34

 FUNDING                                        ;        '



      Funding for growth management programs was \ fairly adequate



 under the Graham administration.   Resources,, however,  have been



 somewhat limited since the passage of the Environmental Land and



 Water Management Act of 1972.   In the early stages of   ACSC



 designation (1973),  there was  very limited staffing for the state



 land planning agency,  the DCA.  This made it unrealistic for the



 Agency to assume all of the complex tasks required for a



 designation;49



      Growth management received a setback,  however,  in 1987 when



 Governor Martinez repealed the new state tax on services.50  The



 tax  was supposed to  raise $1.5 billion a year tci  implement the



 Growth Management Act.                        ,



      Acquisition programs have been well funded,  but have rapidly

                                                i

 been depleted.   The  SOC program was authorized  in 1981 and funded



 with $275  million in bonds.  The  SOC program has  purchased over



 73,000  acres  of  coastal land,  but there is  currently only $8



 million left  for the program.                   i
SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS



     Florida has achieved national recognition  for  its  successful



attempts to manage growth.  Its experience, however, has  not been



without "lessons learned."
                                                i


     The Growth Management Act of 1985, the primary piece of



legislation integrating state, regional, and local  land-use



planning,  has successfully required that local  governments

-------
                                                               35
 address  State  Goals.   Consistency between levels of government,
 however,  is  a  major challenge.  The hierarchy operates from the
 top down,  and  the  state  is often out of touch with the real
 problems  local governments face in implementing state policies.
     The  omnibus legislation could:not have come about without
 Florida's political and  interest group support.  Governor Graham
 introduced the legislation and strongly supported the ACSC and
 land acquisition programs.  Subsequent monitoring by the interest
 group, 1000  Friends of Florida, has ensured integrity of
 implementation of  the  Growth Management Act.
     Florida's buffer, special area designation, and acquisition
 programs  have  also proven effective in redirecting development to
 urban areas.   The  ACSC,  CCCL setback regulation, and the CARL and
 SOC acquisition programs allow the State more control over where
 development  occurs and better protection of environmentally
 sensitive areas.
     The  "pay  as we go"  policy, to pay for infrastructure as
 development  occurs, has  been one of the State's best controls on
 urban sprawl.  The DRI review requirement has force'd local
 governments .to assess ..regional impacts of large-scale local
 developments.
     The  state has learned, however, that a lack of financial
 resources  at any level of government can hinder efforts to
 enforce policy.  The absence of monetary incentives for local
governments to complete  comprehensive plans caused a long delay
 in completion  of plans.  Limited financial and staffing resources

-------
                                                 I

 at the State level has also resulted in less effective policy


 enforcement.



      Florida could greatly benefit by linking itls federally


 funded Coastal Management Program to its land-use planning.


 There is tremendous potential for its CZM program to take on a
                                                 i

 greater role in environmental protection by addressing growth


 issues.
 CONCLUSION                                      |
                                                 i

      Florida's experience in managing growth has; shown that


 several factors are important to successful growth management.


 Legislation that directly addresses the problem iand establishes


 clear policies and goals is critical.
                                                 i

      Florida has been successful in delegating, responsibility to


 local and regional governments,  simultaneously providing them


.with technical and financial support.  Regional Planning Councils
                                                 I

 play an important role as liaisons between local and state


 governments.   Such integrated programs streamline resources to


 help to achieve growth management goals.

-------
                                                                37
                        FLORIDA CASE STUDIES
 Hollywood, Florida — Transfer of Development Rights and Zoning



      A Transfer of Development Rights,  or "TDR",  is a method  of



 allowing or mandating a developer.; to transfer development rights



 from an environmentally sensitive areas,  designated as "sending



 zones" to "safer" areas,  designated as  "receiving zones."  TDR



 programs can be either voluntary or involuntary.   Under a



 voluntary program,  a landowner has the  option of  either



 developing at full  density as permitted under the local zoning



 ordinance,  or developing at a lower density (or not at all) and



 transferring unused density to other community sites.   Mandatory



 TDR programs,  in contrast,  are those which restrict the level of



 or  prohibit development on a sending zone parcel  and essentially



 allow the transfer  as the only alternative.



      An  advantage of a TDR is that it can provide developers  and



 landowners  a great  deal of flexibility.   A major  disadvantage,



 however,  is that it often requires a very strong  development



 market,  typically near an expanding metropolitan  area,  to ensure



 a good market  for the transferred development rights.51



      In  1982,  the City of Hollywood (Broward  County)  issued a



 mandatory TDR  at North Beach Park,  a 1400  acre area originally



 owned by the development  company  Hollywood, Inc.   Hollywood,  Inc.



 owned coastal  land  that the  city  wanted to preserve.   The land



was considered valuable to the  city because it was the last



substantial  strip of  undisturbed  dune-shoreline left in the

-------
                                                j                38

 entire county.   Consequently, the city refused development in
                                                I
 the area.                                 .     |   .
                                                j

      The developer took the city to court and tlie case went to

 the State Superior Court.  The lower courts had:ruled that there

 was a "taking" by the city..  The Superior Courtj  however,  ruled

 in favor of the city, upholding the TDR as constitutional.  The
                                                I

 Superior Court stated that, under police power, the  city can have

 certain natural resource preserve areas.  In addition,  the case

 was not a "taking" because no development had tciken  place..

 Moreover, the city gained additional leverage because the

 property was a priority on the Save Our Coasts list,  a State

 Department of Natural Resources acquisition program.

      A TDR was subsequently negotiated for the property.   It
                                  .
 allowed extra density development on the landward side of highway

 A1A in order to prevent development on the coastial side.   The

 developer was allowed a permit for one structure,  and  settled with

 a  substantial monetary compensation.


      The  city-owned  coastal area is now used as open  and

 recreational  space.   Severa-1 dune walkovers were  constructed to

 preserve  the  dunes and a parking lot was created  in an  area where

 the dunes  had already been  disturbed.           i


     Several  years later, the City of Hollywood decided to

 negotiate  another TDR with  its zoning ordinance,  again  involving

 the developer Hollywood,  Inc.   The property under negotiation,

moreover, was  adjacent  to the North Beach  property in the  above

case.

-------
                                                               39
     The property comprised about 1400 acres, 1200 of which were
mangroves and wetlands that the County eventually acquired.
Approximately llOO acres have been set aside as a preserve, with
the 100 currently being used for recreation and parking.  The
developer was allowed to build 1400 units on the, remaining 100
acres of upland property, a development currently called
Westlake.

-------
                                               !                40


State of Florida —Special Area Designation


     The Areas of Critical State Concern (ACSC) provision of the


Environmental Land and Water Management Act of 1972 protects


large, often regional, areas by requiring very stringent


development restrictions.  Once an area is designated as an ACSC


by the Governor and is approved by the Legislatxire, planning in
                                               |    .

the area must comply with special land-use and development


regulations.  Designation as an ACSC acts as a effective tool in


protecting near coastal waters.                i


     Areas which have environmental, natural, historical, or


archaeological significance may be considered for ACSC

                                               i
designation.  Currently, there are four designated Areas of


Critical State Concern:  Big Cypress, Green Swamp, the Keys, and


Appalachicola.


     Big Cypress ACSC, the first to be designated  in 1973,


includes an area of over 800,000 acres.  It comprises estuaries


of South Florida, a freshwater aquifer, and is geologically


linked to Everglades National Park.52   Development restrictions
                                                         •

have even been placed on the urbanizing areas.


     Although the Green Swamp ACSC was designated in 1974,  it


took the State's intervention to develop required regulations.


The area comprises about 323,000 acres, including important
wetlands, and  is a critical water  recharge  area
vital to the
Floridian Aquifer.   It  is  located  north  and west of  Orlando and,


before designation,  was threatened by  encroaching development


from Disney World  located  just  south of  the Green Swamp boundary.

-------
       The Keys make up a chain of 97 islands that trail off of the
  lower tip of Florida.  The fragile coastal environment of the
  Keys was the main issue behind its designation in 1974.  The Keys
  were different from the other designations,however,  in that they
  were already highly developed.
       Development and population growth has certainly taken its
  toll on the Keys,  and especially Key West.   Over 50% of the Keys'
  population  lives on Key  West.53  The islands have had a history
  of  extensive illegal  dredge  and fill operations  that has
  destroyed thousands  of acres  of mangroves  and  other  wetlands.54
  inadequate  sewer and  water facilities  have  also  been very  visible
  growth problems.
      The Keys designation as  an ACSC was in the  face of  strong
 opposition at the local level.  The citizens in  the,  lower  Keys
 were generally opposed to designation  (as they had more vested
 interest in development)  but the middle and upper Keys strongly
 supported designation.  in fact, development pressures have been
 so strong in Key West that it was actually taken off of the ACSC
 list from 1981 to 1984!
      Appalachicola  Bay area,  designated as  an ACSC in 1985, has
 adopted  controls  on development  along the  Franklin County
 Shoreline.   Protection of Appalachicola•s near-coastal waters
 resides mainly in septic system  mandates.   in Franklin County,
neither septic tanks nor alternative wastewater treatment systems
are allowed within 75  feet of  wetlands.55
     This area was specifically designated to prevent degradation

-------
                                                               42
of the Bay, its watershed, and economic resources.,   The Bay


supports between four and six million pounds of oyster meat
                                               i
annually.  This .is 90% of Florida's total annual harvest and 10%


of the nation's annual harvest.56  The Bay also carries other
                                               i

special state and national designation titles, including a


listing as a federal National Estuarine Research Reserve.

-------
                                                                 43
  Boca Raton, Florida — Growth Cap
       in the early 1970s, the coastal city of Boca Raton attempted
  to establish a growth cap,  limiting development to a maximum of
  40,000 new dwelling units.
       This amendment was citizen-initiated for several reasons.
  Boca Raton's residents are-of upper median age and income  and,
  thus,  had economic and personal  interest  in preserving the
  exclusive community image.   Citizen concern brought about  the
  formation of the  Citizens for Reasonable  Growth (CRG)  and  the
  Royal  Palm Audubon Society,  which was concerned for protecting
  the  environment.57
      The  cap  stimulated a legal battle, during  which  down-zoning
  occurred  at rate of 50%, and a temporary moratorium was put on
 development.58 The final court decision ruled  against the  growth
 cap,  pronouncing it unconstitutional.                    '
      Prior to the actual cap, the mere threat of such restrictive
 zoning prompted a flood of development permit applications and
 resulted in development occurring at a very accelerated rate.
 Boca  Raton has continued to  experience tremendous growth.   The
 population has increased from a few thousand permanent residents
 in  the  early  1970s to nearly 70,000  today.
      The benefits  of the temporary growth  cap did not necessarily
 outweigir the  costs.   The cap did  buy some  time for the city while
 it drew  up a  city plan  and put planning tools into place.
However, it caused  the  land  values to rise  sharply,  resulting in
problems of exclusionary zoning,  in addition,  growth

-------
                                                               44
restrictions meant that tax increases for current homeowners were
the most likely solution to pay for new services.
                                                 59

-------
                                                                 45
                             NEW JERSEY
  ISSUES
       New Jersey, a commuter state for nearby metropolitan areas,
  is the nation's most densely populated and fastest growing
  industrial state.6°  Problems are inherent with such a growth
  rate.   The state is experiencing  an explosion of  office
  construction and urban sprawl.  Suburbs  are booming:,  open space
  is  disappearing,  and traffic  congestion  is getting worse.
  Wetlands  are disappearing as  coastal high-rise structures are
  proliferating.  All  of  these  factors have  contributed
  significantly to the degradation of near-coastal waters.
      This section assesses New Jersey's means of managing coastal
 growth and discusses its most recent attempt at regulating land-
 use.
    CEMENTING BODIES AND THEIR STATUTO
      in response to growth problems,  the state is in the process
 of  implementing new coastal land-use  legislation.  In the past,
 New Jersey has  relied on three state  agencies to protect the
 coast:  the Department of Environmental  Protection,  Hackensack
 Meadowlands Development  Commission  and  the  Pinelands Commission.
 Their enforcement of  permitting and zoning  regulations,  however,
have not provided sufficient protection, and  the  creation  of a
coastal commission has been proposed.

-------
                                                               46
Department of Environmental Protection



     Since 1979, the Department of Environmental Protection's



Division of Coastal Resources has administered New Jersey's most
                                               }
                                               i

comprehensive coastal management laws: the Wetlands Act of 1970



and the 1973 Coastal Area Facility Review Act (^AFRA).
                                              1 j


     As mandated by the Wetlands Act of 1970, permits are



required from DEP to drain, dredge, dump, and erect structures in
                                               i '


wetland areas.  Before passage of the Act, tidal wetlands were



disappearing at an alarming rate of 1,500 acres per year.  Since

                                               i

its implementation, an average of only 55 acres! are lost each
                                               i


'year  (and only for water-dependent uses) .61   Although this  is a



significant improvement, a net loss of valuable! wetland habitat



still persists.                                i



     Under CAFRA, DEP is responsible  for  issuing permits for



regulating the design, location and construction of major



facilities along the coast.   Permits  are.required  for most



industrial development and housing developments; of 25 units  or



more.
Funding



      Lack of  state financial  support for coastal protection



reflects the  limited state commitment.   The DE]?'s 1990 budget was



cut by $2.6 million at a time when the  Department's



responsibilities were expanding.62  In addition, the State



recently was  unable to match  a $14.5 million federal grant for



the acquisition of 34,000 acres in the  Pine Barrens.63  Although

-------
  the state's  fiscal condition must be considered as the
  justification for forgoing the purchase, it does reflect I the
  limited degree of importance placed upon preservation.

  Hackensac* Meadowlands Development Commission and the,Pinelands
  Commission
       The Hackensack Meadowlands Development Commission (HMDC)  and
  the Pinelands Commission (Pinelands)  are special regional  land-
  use planning  bodies  created  by  the state.64  The Pinelands
  Commission oversees  a much larger area  than the HMDC,  as it is
  charged with  protecting one million-acres  in the Pine  Barrens
  region.
      The State Planning Act of  1986, aimed  at controlling urban
  sprawl by  stabilizing  suburban growth and redeveloping older
  cities, has exempted the Pinelands, Hackensack Meadowlands, and
 the coastal zone from  its legislation.65  These  areas were
 excluded because the State considered the existing planning
 mechanisms sufficient.  However, due to development induced by
 local economic interests, more stringent, comprehensive  '.
 regulations are needed to preserve the areas' environmentally
 sensitive  lands.

Municipalities and Local Governments
     Local,  governments  continue  to have  the  greatest power  in
making land-use decisions.  New Jersey has had a 300-year
tradition of "home rule"-a concept whereby  municipalities plan

-------
                                                               48
independently of neighboring towns.   In fact,  the Municipal  Law
of,1975 gives cities the power to regulate land-use without
legally requiring the decisions to be consistent with State  or
regional coastal policies.
     The policy of "cross-acceptance" requires that locally-
initiated development proposals receive approval from the State
             • ,           '                      'i1
and likewise, State proposals be endorsed by the particular local
government.  Although this policy ensures cooperation between the
municipality and state,.it does not encourage regional
planning.
         66
Coastal Commission
     Since 1987, Governor Kean has supported ajbill that- would
create the New Jersey Coastal Commission.  It would offer a
regional approach to land-use planning.  The Commission would be
responsible  for designing a coastal development master plan  for
the area regulated under CAFRA.
     Reaction to the bill has been mixed.  As  expected, the
effort has been opposed by the New Jersey  Builders Association.
Environmental groups, such as the Sierra Club,j American Littoral
Society and  the Audubon Society,  believe that  pie only chance  for
the bill's passage  is during Governor Kean's term in  office.
There  is a concern  that political support  for  the Coastal
Commission bill will  fade when he leaves office  in January 1990.

-------
  POLITICAL
                                                                 49
  state Leadership
       Governor Kean has been instrumental in the development  and
  implementation of the State's coastal  land-use legislation.  Many
  are uncertain that support will  continue when  the  next   i
  administration takes  office in January,  1990.
       Legislation for  additional  protection  of  coastal resources
  is  controversial.   Although some State Legislators are supportive
  of  coastal protection  and  land-use legislation  (namely, Senators
  Bennett, A'amico,  and  Gornley) ,  the Legislature, in general, has
  been sympathetic to the demands  of the builder/developer
  associations.
 Local Participation
                                                          i
      Some local officials have criticized the shift of land-use
 regulation to the State agencies (DEP,  Pinelands Commission,  and
 Hackensack Commission).   Historically,  all land-use decisions
 resided with the municipalities.   The State,  however,  is
 concerned that local  governments  tend to encourage development,
 as they look to increase their property tax revenue base.   Thus,
 sole responsibility of land-use decisions at  the local  level
poses a  threat to the environmentally sensitive  areas.
     Local- governments are also facing  financial.hardships.
Revenues  from  property taxes act  as an  incentive for the kind of
sprawl the State would like to  limit.

-------
                                                               50
SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS

     Probably the most important factor contributing to the

success of New Jersey's growth management plan is the

gubernatorial leadership.  Prompted by the 198S occurrences of

medical waste along the shore, which closed beaches and
                                               I
devastated the local coastal economy, Governor 'Kean has
                 .-                              i
                   = ,"'"'       "          i
demonstrated dedication and support for increased coastal

protection and land-use regulation.
                                               I
     Slow progress towards a comprehensive coastal land-use
                                               t
management policy is due to a number of factors.  Enactment of a

Coastal Commission has been held up by strong opposition from

developers.  In addition, State financial resources are limited.
                                               i
     New Jersey's tradition of "home rule" has\impeded
                                               i
cooperative planning efforts between state, regional and local

governments.  The local governments are resistant to State
                                               i
authority through the DEP and regional planning agencies, thus

the State has not been able to effectively implement its
                                               I
policies.  A local-role in regional and state planning  and

implementation could dissipate local resistance to the  change in

authority.
CONCLUSION                                     |

     Implementing land-use policy to preserve  coastal  resources

often requires a regional rather than  local platform.   Local

governments' land-use decisions are influenced by  revenue-

generating policies, typically encouraging development and

-------

-------
                                               I   •             51
                                               i
threatening environmentally sensitive coastal areas.  Therefore,

involvement of state and regional government in local land-use

decisions is a key to greater environmental protection.

Gubernatorial support is important in the initiation and support

of legislation that requires a regional perspective for coastal

protection and land-use management.            !

-------
                                                                52
                       NEW JEPSEY  CASK STUDTTCS

 Haokeaaaok Meadowlands,  New Jersey ~ Wetlands Restoration at
 Eastern Brackish Marsh
      In February, 1988,  the Hackensack Meadowlands Development
 Commission (HMDC) required Hartz Mountain Industries, a local
 development company, to restore approximately 63 acres of
 brackish wetlands.  .HMDC acted to mitigate development at Mill
 Creek,  south of Eastern Brackish Marsh,  and wetland fill .
 activities across the Eastern Spur of the New Jersey Turnpike.
      The project involved the creation of 45 acres of Spartina
 marsh and preservation of 10  acres of open water and 5 acres  of
 upland  reserves.   Spartina altPrnifTor.  offers a habitat that can
 sustain a  greater  abundance and diversity of wildlife.
      This  example  illustrates  the effectiveness  of the "No Net
 Loss" Policy, promoted by the  National Wetlands  Policy Forum.
The Forum, first convening in  the summer  of  1987,  focuses on
developing a national policy for  increasing  the acreage  and
condition of the remaining wetlands base.67

-------
                                                               53
Thompson Beach, Maurice River Township (Cumberland County),  New

Jersey — Exercising Permitting Authority      j

     Maurice River Township was denied a shoreline protection and
                                               i
enhancement permit.  The Township's intent was to deposit

concrete rubble at Thompson Beach to protect against erosion and

to expand the road that accesses a residential development.   The
                                               '                68
road's expansion would have required filling adjacent wetlands.

     The permit was denied based on the following conclusions:
                                               i
1)   Thompson Beach is an environmentally sensitive area,
subject to serious shoreline erosion due to wave action of the
Delaware, Bay.
                                               i
2)   Bay Avenue, the road under surveyance, is suspected to be on
private land without the owner's consent.  Expansion of the road
constitutes a "taking" of private property and ttuis, compensation
is required.
3)   Encroaching on the wetland requires mitigation
wetlands restoration project was suggested.
69
           No
4)   A beach wall will actually cause greater erosion on the
beach due to wave action reflecting off the wall.    Beaches are
vital to New Jersey's tourist economy as well as an  important
natural habitat.

5)   The environmental value of wetlands includes  dissipating
wave energy, store  flood waters, allowing the settling  of
pollutants and providing a habitat for diverse  and abundant
marine and avian wildlife.

6)   The proposed road only provides benefits to a few  private
residents.  Alternatives do exist, like transportation  on  foot or
boat.
     The environmental  consequences  of granting! this permit

outweigh the public  benefit.   The ecological  integrity of the

wetlands and shoreline  was  not sacrificed for t:he benefit of a

few.

-------
                                   :  '                     ,       54
  Madison,  New Jersey — Fund-Raising by the New Jersey  Shore
  Foundation
       The  washing ashore of medical  waste,  which  closed beaches
  and tainted the public image  of  the New Jersey shore,  resulted  in
  two years of coastal  economic decline.  In 1988, merchants and
  tourism officials  reported a  shortfall.of  1.9  million  visitors,
  which translated into  20%  to  60% decrease  in business  returns,  or
  an  estimated loss  of  $745  million when  compared to the previous
  year.71  The State's Fisheries Development  Council indicated a
  decrease  of  approximately  40% in fish sales because of public
  concerns  of  contamination.72
      The New Jersey Shore Foundation, established in 1988 by
 Schering-Plough  (makers of Cbppertone sun care products),: is the
 first organization of its kind to address pollution problems in
 beach resort areas.  it was formed as. a partnership between
 businesses, foundations, governmental agencies and interested
 citizens.   Its goals include raising funds to assist efforts to
 clean up and preserve  shore communities' beaches,  and restore New
 Jersey's image as an attractive place to visit.  To  date,  the
 Foundation has received over $700,000 in financial support from
 over 50 corporations.
      The New Jersey Shore Foundation is  an  example of an
 innovative way to involve the  business  community  in mitigating
 local pollution problems, like ocean dumping.   Table 2  summarizes
some of projects  the Foundation has  supported.

-------
                                                               55
                             TABLE 2           !

            NEW JERSEY SHORE FOUNDATION'S ACTIVITIES
                                73
SOME SOURCES OF FUNDING
Caesars Atlantic City
Midatlantic National Bank
Wesray Capital Corporation
Brielle Pontiac
AT&T
Atlantic Electric
Merrill Lynch Foundation
                                   AMOUNT
                                    250,000
                                     25,000
                                    100,000
                                      3,000*
                                     10,000
                                     25,000
                                     25,000
Total  (as of Sept., 1988)
                                    710,000
RECIPIENTS

Borough of Belmar

Town of Sea Girt




Shore Communities
Ocean County Boy
Scouts
Stone Harbor
PROJECT                    !
                           I
Beach Clean-Up and awareness program 15,000

Create a beach trust composed of      5,000
 contributions from private
 businesses. Funds will be Ifor beach
 Protection projects
Public Awareness Seminars for
 instructing beach employees on
 public concerns

Support efforts to plant dune grass   5,000
 on Long Beach Island and Seaside
 Beach                     I
To create a "wetlands institute",    25,000
 a hands-on facility to educate the
 public about the local wetlands
*Brielle Pontiac donated a percentage of its proceedings from a
week-end sale.                                 !

-------
                                                                56
                               OREGON
 ISSUES
      Oregon is noted for its beautiful and rugged coast.   It
 offers 400 miles of shoreline, all open to the public.   Unlike
 most states which provide beach access to the mean high tide
 line, Oregon's Beach Bill assures access beyond the high tide
 mark to the line of vegetation.74
      Although each of Oregon's 241 cities has defined a zoning
 ordinance designed to limit development to urban areas, growth is
 encroaching in the rural and environmentally sensitive areas.
 43% of the tidal marshes in the lower Columbia River and'over 1/3
 of Coos Bay's marshes have been filled or drained.75
      The State Legislature,  non-profit organizations and the
 general public have taken responsibility in addressing the
 problems that accompany extensive development.   This section
 discusses the roles of these participants and the resulting
 successful statewide growth management program.


 IMPLEMENTING  AGENCIES  AND THEIR STATUTORY BACKING
 Senate  Bill 100  Becomes  Oregon's Land-Use Act
      Senate Bill  100,  passed by the Oregon Legislature  in  1973
 defined the State's  land-use management policy.   Although  the
bill was  initiated  in  the Senate,  it was actually created  by an
ad hoc committee with  the help  of  representatives from  city  and
county levels, businesses, and  environmentally concerned
citizens. This strategy proved  to  be very  successful.   It  brought

-------
                                                I                 57

  together potentially opposing forces to address|  a highly


  political and controversial issue.   This coordination helped  to

  ensure its legitimacy and,  subsequently,  its  effectiveness.




  Land  Conservation and Development Commission  (ilcDC)
                                                j       ""    "     „

       Senate  Bill  100  mandated,statewide land-use  planning and

  authorized the establishment  of the  Land  Conservation  and

  Development  Commission  (LCDC)  and its staff,the Department of
               -
  Land  Conservation  and Development (DLCD).  LCDC became the


  regulatory agency  for developing and implementing statewide land-

 use policies,  such policies have been  formulated into 19


 statewide goals with accompanying permitting and administrative

 procedures. Refer to Appendix E2 for a list of these planning

 goals  and associated requirements.76            \


     Oregon's federally approved Coastal Management Program is

 based  on implementing the last four  Statewide Goals.  Such goals

 pertain to the protection and development of the  coastal and

 ocean  resources  including beaches, dunes,  estuaries and

 wetlands.
77
Organizational Structure


     The LCDC is made up of seven, non-paid memfcers.   They are

appointed by the Governor for a four year term Jnd  confirmed  by

the senate.  There is at least one representative from each of

the five congressional districts.


     DLCD,  the agency that administers the planning program,  is

-------
                                                               58

staffed by 40 professionals.  Five field offices coordinate the

state programs with the local plans and provide technical

assistance to local governments.                         '

     LCDC's responsibilities include:

1) Developing and assuring local governments' compliance to the
Statewide Goals and planning guidelines for land-use, planning and
resource management.  This includesDLCD's periodic reviews of
the city and county comprehensive plans;

2) Providing technical assistance and grants to local governments
for the preparation of their comprehensive plans;

3) Recommending areas of critical state concern; and

4) Coordinating federal, state and local planning programs so as
to insure consistency between the comprehensive plans.


     LCDC relinquishes regulatory power to local, governments as

soon as it approves the local government's comprehensive plan.

However, it retains authority over statewide activities like the

siting of public services like transportation, sewage treatment

and water supply facilities, and public schools.

     As mandated by Senate Bill 100, every local government has a

state-approved comprehensive land-use plan in place.  This plan

describes the long-range policies of how the city or county's

future development should occur.78  LCDC holds periodic  reviews

every four to seven years in order to ensure that the plans are

held in compliance with the 19 Statewide Goals.  Moreover;, these

reviews are a means of transmitting changes  in state policies to

the local level.

     LCDC also conducts plan amendment reviews for  any

modifications to a comprehensive plan.  If a city or county

-------
                                               I .     .           59

 amends its comprehensive plan against the agency's

 recommendation, however, the case can be appealed to the Land-Use

 Board of Appeals (LUBA).

      A bipartisan Joint Legislative Committee on  Land-Use was

 created in order to monitor activities between local and the

 state governments and facilitate communication between the State

 Economic Development Department and the Legislature.
 Funding

      Oregon's  statewide planning program offers financial

 incentives  in  support of the local  governments  as they strive to

 adhere  to LCDC's  goals and  guidelines.   Between 1983  and 1985,  a

 total of $2.4  million had been  expended.      Thlree types of

 incentive grants  are  offered:

 1) Plan maintenance grants  — these offer funds to maintain the
 approved plans.   The  amount awarded is based  on city  or countv's
 population  size;                                I             .    .
                                                j
                                                I
 2) Post-acknowledgement  grants  — such grants assist  local
 governments as they revise  their plans to meet  istate  goals  and
 requirements;                                   I.  .     -
                                                i
 3) Implementation grants  — these are offered specifically   to
 coastal jurisdictions  in  order  to help them adhere to LCDC's
 coastal management program.

                                                i

     NCAA's approval of Oregon's coastal  management program in

 1977 qualified Oregon  for federal funds.79 Between 1977 and

1985, Oregon received more than  $11 million in  grants  primarily

for aid to local governments.80

-------
                                                         ;      60

Community Involvement/Public Awareness

     Citizen involvement in the early stages of the statewide

planning process is one of the primary reasons that Oregon's

land-use policy has survived.  Each city and county has a citizen

involvement program to encourage citizen participation in the

land-use planning process.                               ,

     Although services like public information offices are

necessary to sustain citizen involvement, they are often the

first to be eliminated in tough fiscal times.  DLCD has managed

to maintain one full-time public affairs staff member.  In

addition, citizens are kept informed by a quarterly newsletter,

the "Oregon Planning News," press releases, brochures and flyers.

     The public affairs personnel also appoints the eight members

of the Citizen Involvement Advisory Committee  (CIAC), a standing

committee called for in the Land-Use Act of 1973  (and identified
                                                         i
in the list of statewide planning goals).  CIAC advises LCDC on

issues regarding the status of citizen awareness  and

participation.                          .  .




POLITICAL ENVIRONMENT

     The comprehensive plans call for zoning in all lands,

including the rural areas.  These have generated  much

controversy.  Local government officials are concerned that this

policy is particularly detrimental in the rural areas, claiming

that it inhibits economic growth.

     LCDC continues to emphasize its position that economic

-------
                                                                61

 development and conservation can be complementary  strategies.   It

 is  within Oregon's interest to preserve  the  rural  lands  for  its

 three  primary industries — forestry,  farming  and  tourism.   As

 stated in a biennial  report to the  State Legislature,

     Developing houses  on farm or forest land  far  from the public
 services  frequently is  not a boon to the economy of  the  community
 or  the State.   Therefore,  losing or no controls! of rural land
 would  not enhance  the State's economic development.81
                                               I

 SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS
                                               i
     The  success of Oregon's land-use  policies Scan be contributed
                                               • i
 to  six factors.  First,  gubernatorial support has proved

 important.   Former Governor McCall  supported Sesnate  Bill 100 in

 1973 and  was instrumental  in its passage.

     Second,  the State  has defined  19  planning goals and

 guidelines  which set  the standards  for land-uses decisions.   Such
                                               j        '
 standards,  coupled with the third factor, citizen  involvement,

 has yielded economically sound development practices.

     Fourth, having each local government creatle a comprehensive
                                               i
 land-use plan has  been  successful in bringing  together different

 governmental agencies and  interest  groups.   Comprehensive
                                     5
planning allows  the State  to play a greater  role in  determining

 the appropriate  use of  Oregon's  1.7  million  acres  of coastal land

 (1/3 of which lies  within  the coastal  zone).82
                    •
     Fifth,  land-use decisions can  be  appealed to  the Land-use

Board of Appeals.   Haying  a  organization that  listens only to

such cases assures  faster  conflict  resolution.
                                               I
     Finally, participation  of 1000  Friends  of Oregon must be

-------
                                                                62
 recognized as one of the most important successful factors.   This
 watchdog organization has supplemented DLCD's limited staff by
 overseeing implementation of Statewide Goals.
      DLCD's small staff is a problem, however.  DLCD is given a
 45-day turn-around time to review comprehensive plan amendment
 requests.  Due to the small number of staff reviewing the
 requests and an unexpectedly large number of requests,  DLCD is
 forced to make decisions without adequate time to consider other
 options.  It is difficult to keep the plans consistent with state
 goals or current with new or revised state policies.  LCDC has
 indicated that the solution to this problem is not to enlarge the
 review time but to have adequate staffing.83

 CONCLUSION
      Oregon has a successful coastal management program.
 Although each  local  government has a comprehensive land-use  plan,
 the  solution to good land-use planning is not solely dependent
 upon the creation of local  plans or even  a single State plan.
 Good land-use  planning  results from strong governmental
 leadership,  a  partnership between governmental entities (on  a
 federal,  state and local level)  and support from concerned
 citizens  and interest groups.  A successful program requires
 recognition of and commitment by these participating groups  to
the  objectives, of effective  resource conservation and sound
economic practices.  With this commitment  from all interested
parties, Oregon has been able to resolve  local land-use issues

-------
                                                               63
early in the planning process.

-------
                                                                64
                        OREGON CASE STUDIES
 curry county, Oregon — Quasi-urban Development Near Urban Growth
 Boundaries
      Each of Oregon's 241 cities has defined an Urban Growth
 Boundary (UGB), a zoning ordinance that separates urban from
 rural lands.  Limiting development to an UGB is meant to urban
 sprawl prevent.  UGBs also minimize the public and private costs
 of providing services like sewer, water, roads, fire and police
 protection,  and school systems.
      Presently the largest remaining land-use issue in Oregon
 concerns the development of rural "exception areas."  Statewide
 Planning Goals 3 and 4 are designed to protect the rural
 agricultural and forest land respectively.   However, there are
 three ways to qualify for an "exception":

 1)  If the land already has residential development;
 ?)4.I£l,the.land is  comn>itted to non-resource use.  One example is a
 lot that is  surrounded  by subdivisions,  thus,  making it
 impractical  to farm;  or
 3)  If there  is a critical  need for  commercial  or  residential
 land.   (This exception  rarely occurs.)

      In  August of  1986, the  Oregon  Supreme  Court  ruled  that
taking exception to Goals  3  and 4 and  providing for  urban  levels
of development demands adherence to Goal 14, which requires the
establishment of urban growth boundaries.84   The Court
recommended three alternatives:

-------
                                                               65
1)  Define the kind of development allowed in rural' and urban

areas;          -            •         •          i
                       .


2)  Urban growth boundaries should be created or the present ones

expanded to include these exception areas;



3)  Authorize a Goal 14 exception.





     15,800 acres in Curry County (most of which are within the



coastal zone) are exception areas and zoned for rural/residential



use at one-acre lots.85  The problem is that there are not

     .

sufficient services to support dense development.  In fact, cases
                                               i               .


of environmental impact have been documented.86  For example, the



city of Brookings has experienced sewage and feical coliform



bacteria contamination of the surface water and overloading of



its sewage treatment facility.87



     LCDC needs to determine if development should be allowed in



these areas.- If development is permitted, the trend towards



residential sprawl in these rural areas makes it probable that



the area will reach a critical density level arid cause problems

                                               i

like water quality degradation and traffic congestion.  Health



hazards from poor water quality and political pressure may  force



a costly and inefficient extension of the urban services to these
                                               i

      88
areas.   With approximately 750.000 acres of exception  areas  in



Oregon, taxpayers should be quite concerned.89  They will be

                                               t

covering the cost of the inefficiency.

-------
                                                                 66
  Oregon (and California)  - Addressing Affordable  Housing Needs
       Oregon is experiencing significant  demand  for  low-cost
  housing which can be attributed  to  the increasing cost of housing
  and  changes in the states'  demography.   Efforts have been made  to
  meet this demand.   Statewide Goal 10,  adopted in  1974, requires
  that each local government  prepares:   1) a "buildable lands
  inventory,"  and 2)  include  within its  Comprehensive Plan ia
  residential  zoning ordinances for persons of all  incomes.
 Applications  for development are reviewed on the  basis of a fair
 allocation of needed housing. (See Appendix E2 for list of
 Statewide Goals.)90
      If a development has included certain provisions like energy
 conservation or low cost housing, density bonuses are awarded.
 These bonuses can be applied for additional housing units.
      Following the implementation of Statewide Goal 10,  the
 amount of  land available for multi-family housing in the Portland
 metropolitan area  improved from 7.6% (2,219 acres) of
 residentially zoned land to 27.3% (8,795  acres).   Zoning for
 single-family housing dropped from 92% (26,946  acres)  to  72.7%
 (23,412  acres).91  (Refer to Table 3  which summarizes these
 changes.)
      Affordable housing does not  necessarily mean  higher density
housing,  smaller lot size  is another  way of providing affordable
single-family housing.  Therefore, a housing policy  can offer  the
consumer greater flexibility.
     Oregon's success in implementing  a statewide  housing policy

-------
                                                :               67



 is largely due to the efforts of 1000  Friends  ot  Oregon, a non-



 profit public service organization that  focuses!on  land-use



 issues.   Public interest group participation is probably the most



 important factor in maintaining the effectiveness of  the State's
                                                i


 planning program.92  From the policy's outset,  IJOOO  Friends was


                           •

 instrumental in preventing local governments from establishing
 discretionary housing standards that discourage



 housing.
affordable
 In Comparison with California



      California did have an affordable housing policy included
                                                j


 within its Coastal Act.   However,  it was repealed in 1981.   The



'California Coastal Commission originally had rejquired a minimum



 of low and moderate income housing as a permit condition for



 development in the coastal zone.   Organizations like the



 California State Board of Realtors, the League of California
                                                i


 Cities and factions of the State Homebuilders Association were



 effective in lobbying the legislature for the change.  Moreover,



 an organization similar to 1000 Friends of Oregon did not exist



 to counterbalance opposition.

                                                i

      Subsequently, informal coalitions are forming between



 housing consortiums and developers/home builder associations.


                                                i
 The need for low income housing is great, yet developers are



 claiming that the restriction on growth within the coastal zone

                                                i

 is the primary cause for the reduced availability in affordable
 housing.
         93

-------
                                                                 68

      in conclusion, controlling development  in  any  area  is  likely

 to cause a rise in property values,  squeezing out lower  income

 residents.  Thus, it is critical that growth policies  contain

 provisions for affordable housing.
                               Table; 3

        POTENTIAL  RESIDENTIAL UNITS PER NET BUILDABLE ACRE
                               1978
                                                     1982
                            NET;
ACRES  FOR SINGLE FAMILY
UNITS   "
 26,946
 90,651
        PERCENT
 92.4
 70.1
                                                  NET
 23,412
123,145
                               PERCENT
 72.7
 40.8
ACRES FOR MULTI  FAMILY
UNITS   "
  2,219
 38,670
  7.6
 29.9
  8,795
178,337
 27.3
 59.2
ACRES TOTAL
UNITS  "
100.0
 29,165
129,321
100.0
100.0
 32,207
301,482
100.0

-------
                                                              , 69
                                                -
Oregon — Education and Public Awareness Programs

     The following examples reflect Oregon's strong commitment to

citizen involvement in coastal zone management.'  Public awareness
                                               I
                                               i
is a key factor of a successful land-use planning program.
An Educational and Research Center at South Slough National
                                               i
Estuarine Reserve                              i

     In 1974, South Slough was recognized as the first of 18
                                               i
national estuarine reserves.  The purpose of such a designation

was to preserve the unique natural resources and enhance the

public understanding of the estuarine environment.  The reserve

includes 3,800 acres of upland forest and 600 acres of tidal

land.

     South Slough has been set. aside for research, educational

and low-intensity recreational use.  Federal funding has been
                                               i
apportioned in order to stimulate research in nationally

designated reserves.94  Scientists and college  students  from the
                                               i   ' •
University of Oregon Marine Science Center andt Southwestern

Oregon Community College conduct field studies at the site.

     A series of classes, guided nature walks, workshops and

interpretive facilities are offered to visitors  including

students from kindergarten through college.  There are

recreational opportunities that are designed with an educational

purpose, like hiking, canoeing and fishing.

-------
                                                                 70
                                    Trails BnH roasta1
       Trails End,  a coastal resort,  created 15  acres  of  freshwater


  wetlands as a mitigation for filling a natural site.  Citizen


  volunteers are working with scientists from EPA's Wetlands
                                                          t

  Research Program  in Corvallis to monitor the newly created


  wetlands.   The volunteers  are assessing the water level, i water-


  quality,  aquatic  wildlife  and vegetation,  hydrology  and soil ..


       The  benefits of utilizing citizens are twofold.  First,


  using volunteers  instead of  inhouse  staff  drastically reduces the


  cost  of gathering the  information.   Second,  this is  a good


  opportunity to  transfer skills to professionals that are removed


  from  educational  resources.
 A Student-Run Public Awareness Program at Cannon Be  h


      Haystack Rock Public Awareness Program is an example of a


 community taking a responsible role in educating the public on


 coastal resources.  30 to 40 volunteers,  mostly students/discuss


 the natural habitat of the intertidal zone with visitors of


 Haystack Rock.   The on-site program is not advertised.   Rather
                                                          i     '

 it  is  "treasure  of knowledge" only to be  stumbled upon wh4n


 walking along the  beach.                                  '





 An  Innovative Educational  Program  Sponsor^ by  the  NW Association


 of Marine Educators



     "Integrated education"  is an  innovative way  of articulating


to high school and junior high students the social,  political,

-------
                                                               71


economic and scientific values of a natural resource.   A theme is


chosen, like land-use planning and coastal management.  Oregon's


19 Statewide Land-Use Goals are then incorporated into the


curriculum.  Each subject area examines the topic: the social


science class looks at the permitting process, [the English class


conducts investigative reporting, while the science class


explores the natural habitat.  Students learn the importance of


science in making a policy decision.
Oregon State University's Program in Marine Resource Management


     Oregon State University offers a graduate idegree in marine


resource management to train students for careers in sound


development and management of marine and coastail resources.  The


program offers opportunities for field experience that benefits


the State as well as the students.  Examples of projects include


organizing a conference on coastal water quality issues and


developing a waterfront revitalization plan.  It is a model
                                               r

program that integrates practical experience with educational


objectives.

-------
                                                                72
                             WISCONSIN
 ISSUES
                                                          r
      Wisconsin's coastal economy historically has centered around
 shipping, fishing, agriculture, and industrial activities.   The
 decline of the industrial economy has left ports and waterfronts
 in need of redevelopment and has elevated public concerns for the
 coastal image and water quality.
      Recently, however, the State has undergone a transformation
 along its Great Lakes waterfronts,.   Tourism and recreation  have
 subsequently become major contributors to Wisconsin's coastal
 economy.   Land-use decisions have become important due to
 increasing development pressures.   Septic systems are being
 rapidly replaced by new wastewater treatment plants,  allowing for
 sprawling development.
      Wisconsin's coastal management focuses on projects related
                                                          i
 to  shoreline  erosion,  non-point source pollution,  fisheries,
 urban waterfront revitalization,  and wetland protection.
 Shoreline  erosion problems  resulted from a rising lake level  in
                                                          i
 1986, emphasizing the  importance  of intelligent near-coastal
                                                          i
 development.   Non-point source  pollution caused by poorly [planned
 development and  agricultural .runoff has  severely degraded Great
 Lakes' water quality and threatened the  fishing industry. •
     This section discusses Wisconsin's  approach in addressing
the above problems by managing  growth along its Great  Lakes
shores.

-------
                             •-      •                           73
                                               I
                "~                              I
IMPLEMENTING AGENCIES AND THEIR STATUTORY BACKING

     Wisconsin integrates growth management with environmental

protection through implementation of thirty-three statutes!
                                                              .
These laws address a wide range of environmental issues.

Wisconsin's statutes have been characterized as voluminous,

somewhat scattered, ambiguous and partially out-dated.95

     Because Wisconsin's land-use legislation is piecemeal,

responsibilities for regulating land-use are fragmented within

State agencies.  The Department of Natural Resources is the

primary implementing agency of coastal/land-use: legislation.  The

Wisconsin Coastal Management Program, however, !is under the

jurisdiction of the Department of Administration and was

federally approved in 1978.                    [
                                               i
                                               r
                                               i
Water Resources Act of 1965

     The Water Resources Act of 1965 requires communities  to

adopt shoreland and floodplain zoning.  Development is  regulated

by setbacks of 1000 feet from all lakes  (including Lakes Michigan

and Superior) and 300 feet from any stream.  The ordinance

includes all wetlands in the local jurisdiction which are  at

least five acres in size.   Minimum lot sizes cind waste disposal

standards are also required.



Department of Natural Resources

     The DNR carries most regulatory responsibilities for  the

shoreland-floodplain zoning mandates of the Water Resources Act

-------
                       •                                        74
  of 1965.   DNR oversees  zoning  ordinance adoption by local;
  governments  and provides mapping and technical training. I if a
  local  government fails  to  adopt shoreland and floodplain
  ordinances,  DNR must create them.

  Non-Point  Source Water  Pollution Abatement Program
      Work  has been underway since 1979 to reduce the Great Lakes'
 pollution  threat through the Wisconsin Nonpoint Source Water
 Pollution Abatement Program.  Administered by DNR's Bureau of
 Water Resources Management, the program selects critical drainage
 areas,  called priority watersheds,  for intensive evaluation.
      Non-point source pollution impacts are most visible in Lake
 Michigan,  where as in Lake Superior the impacts are minimal.
 Toxic source material,  sedimentation and manure runoff are the
 main non-point threats.   The primary victims of the pollutants
 tend to be the fishery  economy  and  human health hazards have
 resulted from contaminated  fish.
Department  of  Administration
     Wisconsin's  Coastal Management  Program (WCMP),  the federally
approved coastal  management  agency,  is  under the  Department  of
Administration (DOA).  WCMP  is primarily  involved in supporting
port revitalization  and waterfront redevelopment  projects.
      The WCMP has a 14 member Coastal  Management Council that is
appointed by the  Governor.   It is comprised  of leadership from
state agencies, local governments, tribal governments,  and the

-------
                                                               75


University of Wisconsin.  The WCMP's responsibilities include


assisting local and regional governments in valuable mapping,


transferring technical knowledge, and providing! funding for


economic development projects.




Regional Planning Commissions


Organizational Structure


     The State's nine Regional Planning Commissions  (RFC)


function as advisors to local governments.  They assist
                                               i
                                               i
municipalities and counties in the  development and preparation


of ordinances and land-use plans.              '


     RPCs have been instrumental in initiating |and implementing


the Environmental Corridor system.  Environmental Corridors  are


areas designated as environmentally sensitive alreas.  Development


is therefore restricted in these areas.  Corridors typically

                                               i
border streams and lakes.  In some cases, where encroaching


development is not a major threat, the Corridor system acts  more


as a preventative means of protecting near-coastal water quality.
Funding


     RPCs receive their funding from counties within the regions.


The RPCs can levy taxes that are collected by the counties and


fund the RPCs.  RPCs are also funded by state a!nd federal grants.

                                               i
     Federal grants to RPCs are received from the Wisconsin


Coastal Management Program and are a valuable resource.  WCMP
                                               i
grants have provided funding for coastline mapping, the

-------
  development of comprehensive shoreline/ floodplain management
  plans,  and other technical  assistance.                   '
  POLITICAL
                                                                76
                                             • •=•      ~       —
      Wisconsin's citizens seem to have a common pride in the
 state's natural resources and a strong desire to preserve | them.
 This state-wide concern appears to permeate all levels of
 government .
 State and Local Relations
      Wisconsin does not have a key actor advocating growth
 management at the state level, as do Florida and New Jersey.
 Although Governor Thompson has been described as "pro-
 development, » he is recognized as one who "understands that the
 appearance of the coast is directly related to the economic
 development of the state," referring to tourism.96
      Lack of  gubernatorial support in Wisconsin is not an
 influencing factor in  state success at managing growth,  hoWever,
 because  land-use  policies  are  locally administered.   Wisconsin
 provides  state  oversight for zoning and setback regulations,
 allowing  local  governments  to  administer and  enforced those
 regulations.  The  State intervenes  only if  the  local  government
does not  zone or enforce to  state standards.

-------
                                                               77
 International  Leadership
      Wisconsin also  participates  in  land-use management at the
 international  level.   The  International Joint Commission  (IJC)
                                               I
 combines  the efforts of the Great Lakes' states: and Canada in
 dealing with complex and politically sensitive Environmental
 problems.  The IJC,  formed by  a treaty between the US and Canada,
 has provided the  framework for Remedial Action [Plans  (RAPs).
 RAPs  are  intended to focus on  the heavily polluted areas along
 the Great Lakes shoreline.
SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS
     Wisconsin  is known as a progressive state
in addressing
growth management and  land-use  issues  for several reasons.   It
establishes stringent  zoning and setback requirements  for all
coastal and inland waters.  These regulations are locally
implemented with strong citizen support and action taken to
protect natural resources.  Wisconsin's regional governments play
an integral role in assisting local governments in mapping and
technical work.  This  assistance is supplemented by  federal  funds
from the Wisconsin Coastal Management  Program.
     Wisconsin's piecemeal legislation could be a focus for  more
comprehensive land-use legislation.  Integration of  the
voluminous legislation might result in more effective  regulation
of state-wide development.                     i

-------
                                                               78
CONCLUSION
     Stringent zoning directly affects where development occurs.
Local action, combined with effective state agency regulation,
ensures that natural resource areas are protected by zoning and
setback regulations.  Strong gubernatorial support, however, is
not necessarily a key to success if all land-use decisions occur
at the local level and citizens are supportive of natural
resource protection.,                                     i

-------
                      WISCONSIN CASE STUDIES


Door County, Wisconsin — Locally Initiated Zoning
     Door County is the pristine peninsula that
                                                               79
separates Green
Bay from Lake Michigan.  This county, often referred to as


"Chicago's playground," is under much development pressure from
                                               • i
                                               i

tourism.  The county population of 26,000 nearly doubles to about


41,000 in the peak tourist months of July and August.97      The


growth problem became apparent with summer traffic jams and over-


burdened septic systems.  In response to growth pressures, the


County is in the process of revising its County Plan to include a
                                               1

locally initiated zoning ordinance.


     There appears to be a general consensus fojr the need to


update the 20-year old plan.  Environmentalists are concerned


that the old plan does not give enough protection and that


allowed zoning densities are too high.  Property owners are


concerned that the existing quality of life is threatened by


growth.  The developer/builder community is even supportive of


more stringent standards, arguing that with clearer guidelines


they can more readily predict county approval of development
                                               |

projects.


     The Door County Ordinance was initiated in; 1985, has taken


several years to carefully develop, and is scheduled to be


presented before the County Board of Commissioners for approval

             98                                 '
in May, 1990.   The anticipated ordinance outlines two methods
                                               I

of protecting near-coastal waters: 1)  allowing no or little


development on environmentally sensitive lands and 2)  preserving

-------
                                                                80

 open landscapes with rigid landscaping and buffering     i


 requirements."


      The County planning staff put the initiative into action by


 beginning aperies of public perception workshops.  The workshops


 were conducted to learn what issues were foremost on citizens'


 minds.   The planning department realized that focusing on the


 most pertinent issues would make the Ordinance more effective.


 The workshops were conducted in five different regions of the


 county  on five separate occasions.  The main issues that arose


 from the workshops were about land-use and land management


 issues;                                                   :


      Funding has certainly been a factor in the success of this


 locally-initiated ordinance.   A total of $180,000 has been


 appropriated.  Of this  total,  donations of $30,000 from a private


 source helped  convince  the Board to support the ordinance.   DNR


 also  contributed $39,000.100  The  remainder  of  the money came  from


 local tax appropriations.


     Success of  the locally-initiated zoning ordinance can be


 attributed to  several factors.   The Director of County Planning


 has been a key figure in bringing about a high level  of public


 involvement.   His professional  and personal  commitment,  combined
                                                          I '

with citizen support, financial backing, and the unanimous


support from various interest groups  has brought about a viable


solution to a  local growth problem.

-------
                                                    901'
             PUB sjoq.Baa6jajaa .anoA aoatfq. 03.  eoBfd B aafeuoi ou
PUB  'saoanosaa aoop ^uoag:  s, UTSUOOSTM fiufuiooisq MOU ajB saaAta
                                               i               *
                  UOTSSTUIUIOD fiuTUUBjd T^^OT^3H  S'^fBi-Asg auq. 30
                                                       '"
                    IB^SBOO-JIBSU aAjasajd oq.  paeu  aqq, jo aas^e
                                               I
        PUB  s^uapTsa^c UTSUOOSTM epem Annjss^oons sBq ^daouoo
                                               I .
               jnq.Bu 6uTq.oa^.oad  jo sueaui B SB q.daouoo
               axjq. bujsn ST UTSUOOSTM jo

-------
        •q.aoddns PUB  q.saaaq.UT Aq.Tunuiuioo 6uoaq.s paonpoad seq sdnoaB
q.sa.iaq.UT  oxiqnd pue  SIBTOTJJO Aijo  jo q.aed aqq. uo  aousaaAasaad  (g

                                                              ;    PUB
  ^.'spunj T.1200T aqq. q.uauiaT.ddns padiaxi spunj aq.Bq.s pus leaspaj  (f

 £(U.'q.uawdoT.aAap JSAO ioaq.uoo aoj SMOTTB BUTUOZ pue uoT^Tsinbov  (e

                                             jo
                        eiqefiTABU 50
       BUTUOZ ssq.BpUBUi 9961 jo
                                                      OOOI PUB
                                                     ooe
                                                       S.UTSUOOSTM  (Z
  jo sq.uapTsaa
jo q.uaumoaTAua
                                                           oq.
                                                               aq,
  anp ST
            ST Eaae aaATH uoaBjd

                                                  :sjoq.oeg:

                uoaBia  "Vs q.daouoo JtopfaaoD aqq. 30 ssaoons am,

                                ,,-itJ:Bd  iBq.uauiuoaTAua,,  UB auiooaq

 Aiq.uanbasqns PUB A^.TO atiq. oq. paiTT^  s^^ saaoe  gei
                                                        cU L
PUB s-xaurto PUBI aq.BATo:d uioaj PUBJ paq.BOTpap seATaoea J.Q

        Aq.TO aq,i,  'sAs/i jo jaquinu B UT  paairnboB uaeq  ssq

                                 •saaoB  paapunq iB^aAas jo

         aaAT-t pauwo AiojTqnd B bu-piquiassB 'jaATH uoabTd

           pajcxnboB SBII Aq.To aq^ 'sasaA 92 ^sBd aqq. aaAO

    •UBjd asn-puEi Jcxaqq. oq.uT aopjaaoo TBq.uauiuojcTAua

     5uTq.Ba6aq.UT Aq.papuodsaa Aq.To am  -UBbAoqaqs jo Aq.TD aqq UT

 uoTq.oB paaaBB-raq. suaaouoo Aq.TiBnb aaqsw PUB 'BuTpoou  ' sapjinosaa

IBuoTq-Baaoaa PUB saoBds uado jo ssoi aqq jo suaaouoo  BuTwoas

                                                  lol'SBaaB aATq.Tsuas

    AnBq.uamuoaTAua q.oaq.oad oq. looq. uoTq.TSTnboB UB SB SQ96I

axiq. UT  q.noqB auiBo saop-paaoo iBq.uautuoaTAua jo q.daouoo  am

TBq.SBOo-aBau pus q.uauidoiaAap uaawq,aq aajjnq B sapTAoad

 paq.Bin6aa-Aq.TO B ST aopTaaoo iBq.uauiuoaTAug aaATH uoaBTd am

      aopxaaoo T^usnraojTAua ISATH uoafi-pd — UTSUOOSTM

T8                                       '

-------
                                                i               83


 CONCLUSION



      Unplanned  growth  along  the coastal United  Steites has caused



 severe  consequences.   The  five states within this analysis —



 California,  Florida^ New Jersey, Oregon and Wisconsin  — have



 experienced  repercussions  like sewer and highway capacity



 problems,  water quality degradation, decrease of physical and



 visual  coastal  access, and loss of wetlands and neitural habitats.



      It usually takes  a major environmental incident to trigger



 public  criticism and subsequent political action.  In California,



 the loss of  coastal access from the construction of a ten-mile

                                                i

 exclusive  residential  community resulted in the creation of the

                                                i

 Coastal Act  and Commission.  Florida's population increase due to



 tourism, new residents and immigrants, causing  Urban sprawl.



 This  sprawl  led to the passage of the Growth Management Act and

                                                i

 the development of acquisition programs in order to protect some



 of the  remaining coastal open spaces.  The economic decline of



 the New Jersey  shore communities because of thejoccurrences of

                                                I

medical waste roused legislative action.  Oregon's statewide



land-use planning program  was a response to the need to maintain



the State's  three primary  industries — forestry, agriculture and
                                                "l
                                                I

tourism.  Finally, in Wisconsin, the economic benefits, accrued



from the tourist industry, encouraged growth management policies



like locally-initiated zoning ordinances.



     Each of these five states approached coastal growth and
land-use management with different strategies.
Appendix A
summarizes each state approach.  Regardless of the method,

-------
                                                               84

 however,  the solution to good  land-use planning results from:

 1)  having strong political  leadership, 2) citizen and interest
                                                         I
 group  support and participation,  3)  coordination between jlocal,

 state  and federal governmental entities, 4) policies or

 legislation  to assure consistent  enforcement, 5) attention to  -

 housing needs,  and 6)  appropriation  of adequate funding.




 POLITICAL LEADERSHIP

     The  gubernatorial leadership, particularly from the states

 of  Oregon, Florida and New  Jersey, have been  instrumental in

 influencing  growth management  policies.  Oregon's former Governor

 McCall helped to insure the passage  of the Senate Bill 100  (the

 Land Use  Act of 1973).   Florida's former Governor Graham and New

 Jersey's  Governor Kean have successfully promoted land-use

 policies,  as well.                                       :




 CITIZEN AND  INTEREST  GROUP  SUPPORT AND PARTICIPATION

     Growth  is  a local  issue,  affecting the character of a

 particular community.   Therefore, citizens should be involved  in

 land-use management decisions.  Oregon's Department of Land

 Conservation and Development maintains a full-time public affairs

personnel in order to  keep  the public informed and involved.

 1000 Friends  of  Florida and Oregon monitor ongoing local and

state growth management activities and educate the public on

current growth management issues.  The New Jersey Shore

Foundation has  successfully involved the business community in

-------
                                                                85
 participating  in environmental restoration and preservation
 projects.           "
 COORDINATION BETWEEN GOVERNMENTAL ENTITIES     i
      Resources and technological information neied to be exchanged
 between all levels of government.  In this way,i consistency and
 efficiency in implementing policy is established.  Florida has
 land-use legislation in place which provides for state, regional
 and local comprehensive planning ~ a three-tiered management
 framework.
 POLICIES AND LEGISLATION                       |
      Typically,  growth control measures only work in a strong
 economy.   When local governments are confronted with fiscal
 constraints,  revenue from property taxes acts ail an incentive for
 increased development.   Legislation can help to manage growth so
 as to  avoid  unnecessary urban  sprawl.
     Wisconsin's dependency  on tourism  has  encouraged legislation
 requiring rural zoning  and setbacks in  order to protect the
 natural resources and aesthetic features of the environment.
 California's  legislation  is  very specific,  granting authority to
manage most of the coastal zone to  a single agency.   Oregon
amended existing land-use policies  to include  coastal  management
considerations.

-------
                                                               86

                                                        i

ADDRESSING HOUSING NEEDS                         "       ;



     Development cannot be controlled without addressing!the need



for affordable housing.  Otherwise, property values become



elevated, squeezing out lower income citizens.  Some criticize



growth control policies by claiming that such policies:are a



white, middle-class movement, responding to increased traffic,



noise, air pollution, and an influx of minority groups.107



     Oregon's success in implementing a statewide housing policy



can be partly attributed to 1000 Friends of Oregon.  This public



interest organization was able to prevent the establishment of



discretionary housing standards.







FINANCIAL SUPPORT



     Enforcement policies are costly in time, staffing and



dollars.  Therefore, the availability of funding often determines



a coastal land-use policy's effectiveness.  Funding was primary a
                                                        I
                                                        i

factor in the success of Wisconsin's locally-initiated  [



requirement for rural zoning ordinances.







     Sound regional land-use planning requires a commitment by



all participants — governmental agencies, private and public



sector organizations and citizens — to the objectives of



effective land-use management and resource conservation.  This



coordinated effort will help to mitigate the environmental



consequences of uncontrolled development along the coastal



States.

-------
                                                               87
                           APPENDIX Al

        SUMMARY OP COASTAL LAND-USE MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES
STATE

California
Florida
New Jersey
Oregon
Wisconsin
APPROACH
                                j •
"Super Agency"; A single agency in charge of
managing growth along most of the coastal zone.
Addresses nearly every land use issue-of the
State.

Used general land-use legislation. Coastal
management plan as mandated under the Coastal Zone
Management Act of 1972 acts as a; guide for coastal
protection.
                                i.
Exists some state coastal management laws, yet
most land-use decisions are handled on the local
level.

General land-use agency that implements four
Statewide Land-use Goals that are specific to
coastal and ocean resource management.

33 state laws dealing with growth management and
land-use policies.

-------
                                                                88
                            APPENDIX A2

           SUMMARY OP IMPLEMENTING AGENCIES .AND THEIR STATUTES
 STATE
                AGENCY
                                           PERTINENT
 California  Coastal Commission
             BCDC
             State Coastal Conservancy
 Florida
New Jersey
Oregon
Wisconsin
 Dept.  of Community Affairs
 Dept.  of Env.Regulation
 Dept.  of Natural Resources
 Dept.  of  Env.  Protection
 Hackensack Meadowlands
 Development Commission
 Pinelands Commission

 Land Conservation and
 Development Commission
 Dept.  of  Land  Conservation
 - and Development

 Dept.  of  Natural Resources
 Dept.  of  Administration
Regional  Planning Councils
                             Cal.  Coastal Act
                             McAteer-Petris Act
Growth Management Act
Environmental Land and
 Water Act
Coastal Zone Protection
 Act
Local Government '
 Comprehensive Act

Wetlands Act
Coastal Area Facility
 Review Act
State Planning Act

Land Use Act (SB100)
                                        Water Resources Act

-------
                                                                89

                     APPENDIX Bl — CALIFORNIA

                        STATUTORY TIMELINE
                                                !

 1965           Passage of the McAteer-Petris  Act,  establishing
                an Interim Bay Conservation Development
                Commission.   It's mission  was  to prepare a
                Bay-use plan for San Francisco Bay.

 1969           The San Francisco Bay plan passes the  State
                Legislature.   BCDC becomes the agency  to regulate
                development in the Bay Area.
 1972            Federal .Coastal  Zone  Management  Act  passes.
                                                i .
 1972        ,    Passage of  Proposition  20,  the California  Coastal •
                Zone  Conservation Act or  the  "Save the  Coast"
                Initiative.   The interim  California  Coastal  Zone
                Conservation  Commission was formed.
                                                i
 1976            Passage of  the California Coastal Act,  which
                established the  California  Coastal Commission  and
                the State Coastal Conservancy   i

 1979            Commission  adopted Statewide  Interpretive
                Guidelines, which contain a section  on  the
                standards for providing coastal  access.
                                                i
 1979            Passage of  Assembly Bill  989.  The State
                Legislature established a statewide  coastal
                access program which  transferred responsibility
                for a comprehensive access  program from the
                Department  of Parks and Recreation to the  Coastal
                Commission  and Conservancy.   These agencies
                coordinate  all local, state and  federal efforts to
                purchase, develop and maintain accessways.

J1984            Passage of  the California Park and Recreational
                Facilities  Act (Proposition 18),; which  provided
                funds ($370 million)  for  development and
                restoration of the State  park system's  coastal
                resources.  Passage of  the  Fish  and  Wildlife
                Habitat Preservation  Act  (Proposition 19),
                providing $40 million for coastal fish  and -
                wildlife habitat acquisition  and; enhancement.

-------
                                                                90

                   APPENDIX B2  —  CALIFORNIA

    RESULTS OP  CALIFORNIA'S EFFORTS  IN  COASTAL MANAGEMENT


COASTAL COMMISSION            BY  1982        SINCE  1973  (TO  1987^


Acquisition:                   477

Wetlands Protection
      (381,000 acres
     before 1900):             120,000 sq miles

New Power Plants on shore:     None built                 ;

Agricultural land                                        .
     classification:                         1/3 Of Coastal  Zone

Scenic Views:                                End of High!Rises

Approval of local  LCP's:                     1,09/124

Requirement of coastal access:               in >2000 permits

Number of Permits:                           50,000      •'

-------
                              RESULTS (Continued)
                                                                      91
       COASTAL CONSERVANCY

       Completed projects:.

       Provided protection for
            Wetlands  (acres):
            Agricultural Lands:
            Lands under negotiation:

       Retired inappropriately
            planned subdivisions:

       Construction of accessways:

       Involved in urban waterfront
       restoration Projects:
       STATE PARKS AND RECREATION

       Under the  Bond Acts:
            of  coastal zone:
            of  ocean frontage:

       Under Federal funds
            Since 1982:
BY 1982

    243
    7,615
    1,810
    14,000
    639

    156


    71
    28,500 acres
    29 miles
    Redwood National Park
    King Range National
      Conservation Area
    Point Reyes National Seashore
    Golden Gate National
      Recreational Center
    Channel Islands National
      Monument ',
    Santa Monica Mountain  National
      Recreation
        LOCAL OR REGIONAL GOVERNMENTS OR NON-PROFIT AGENCIES
*
                                                      i
        Funded by the Coastal Conservancy:  Arcata Marsh; 150 acres

        Funded by the Nature Conservancy:  Santa Cruz island

-------
                                                              92
 1970:
 1972:


 1975:




 1978:
1980:

1984:

1985:


1985:
              APPENDIX C — FLORIDA

               STATUTORY TIMELINE

 Beach and Shore Preservation Act

 S^ciS^S^^ ^KS^KLL^r1'*-
 «•"""•""»"-* and restoration programs; Part II
 Environmental  Land and Water Management Act
 This Act contains the DRI and ACSC provisions.
      .=1              Plai">ing Act  (amended in
      as the  Local Government Comprehensive Planning and
 Land Development Regulation Act)              «ming. ana

 Florida Coastal Management Act
 This Act enabled the Department of Environmental
 Regulation to create a Coastal Management Program in
 order to receive administrative funds  under the federal
 Coastal  Zone Management Act of 1972
 The  Florida Coastal Management Program provides a
 framework and funding source for  managing coastal
                                               -asta!
Florida Regional Planning Council Act

State and Regional Planning Act

Coastal Zone Protection Act
This Act regulates coastal construction .

Growth Management Act (State Comprehensive Plan)
This Act integrates state,  regional, and local planning
by requiring consistency at all three levels

-------
                                                               93
1914
1970
1973
1987
           APPENDIX D — NEW JERSEY

              STATUTORY TIMELINE

Passage of the Waterfront Development Act
This Act, as enforced by the Department of
Environmental Protection, regulates construction
or alteration of docks, wharves, piers, bulkheads,
bridges, pipelines, cables, and other waterfront uses
adjacent to navigable water.

Passage of the Wetlands Act
This Act regulates the use of coastal !wetlands.
Permits are required from the Department of
Environmental Protection for draining, dredging,
dumping, and erection of any structured.

The Coastal Area Facility Review Act
This Act regulates the design, location, and
construction of major facilities, including most
marine and public investment activity ias well as
well as housing developments of 25 or Imore units,

Freshwater Protection Act
This Act protects non-tidal wetlands fcy establishing
setback requirements.

-------
                                                               94

                       APPENDIX El  —  OREGON              i

                        STATUTORY TIMELINE

 1967       Passage of the  Oregon Beach Bill which  reaffirmed that
           the public has  the right to access beaches not just to
           the high water  line,  but to the line.of vegetation.
           Or.  Rev.  Stat.  390.605,  et  seq.  (1967)

 1969       Passage of ORS  215 (Senate  Bill 10).  Every county and
           city of the State  must produce comprehensive  land-use
           plans and zoning ordinances.  10 Statewide Goals were
           incorporated into  state  land-use policy.

 1969       Failure to pass an estuarine protection bill  in
           Legislature.

 1970       A  construction  moratorium was established, protecting
           the estuaries from filling.

 1971       Creation  or the Oregon Coastal Conservation and
           Development Commission (OCC&DC) by the  Legislature.
           This provided a link to  the coastal protection elements
           that developed  under the senate bill 100.

 1971       Passage of a scenic waterways bill via  the citizen
           initiative process.   This was the indication  to
           politicians that unless  attention was to be paid to
           environmental and  land-use  planning, the people! would
           use  the initiative process.  (Or. Rev. Stat. 390.. 605, et
           seq.,  1971) .  •                                 ; •

 1973       Senate  Bill 100 became law  (the Land-Use Act) as
           Oregon's  land-use  initiative.  It established the Land
           conservation  and Development Commission, the   '.
           implementing  body  for Bill  100.

 1974       Designation of  Coos  Bay's South Slough, the nation's
           first Estuarine Sanctuary.

 1975       LCDC adopts the first 14  statewide planning goals.

 1976       LCDC adopted  four  new coastal goals and guidelines that
          pertain to  coastal management.

 1979      The Legislature creates  of  the Land-Use Board of
          Appeals (LUBA).

1986      LCDC approved the  last of the 241 and 36 comprehensive
          city and county plans  respectively, for a total1 of 277
          local plans.  This makes  every acre in  Oregon subject
          to planning and zoning.

-------

                      APPENDIX E2 — OREGON

                     STATEWIDE PLANNING GOALS
                                                               95
GOAL
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, Historic 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
Willamette River Greenway
Estuarine Resources
Coastal Shorelines
Beaches and Dunes
Ocean Resources

-------
                                                               96

                      APPENDIX F — WISCONSIN

                        STATUTORY TIMELINE               '..

 1978      Wisconsin's Coastal Management  Program federally
          approved

 1979      Wisconsin's Non-Point Source Water Pollution Abatement
          Program began.   It is administered by the Department
          of Natural  Resources, Bureau of Water Resources
          Management.

 1965      Water Resources  Act                            j
          This Act  authorizes shoreland and floodplain zpning
          requirements and is administered by the Department
          of Natural  Resources.
                              NOTES

1. President's Council on Environmental Quality.  15th Annual
Report of the Council on Environmental Quality, Washington, D.C.
Exec. Office of the President,  1984.

2. Murley, James.  Executive Director of 1000 Friends of;Florida.
Per speech at the Chesapeake Bay Growth Management Conference,
Baltimore, Maryland, June 5, 1989.

3. "California's Coastal Commission: 10 Years of  Triumphs," in
Planning, Journal of the American Planning Association,  January
1982, p. 25.

4. O'Reilly, Richard.  "State,  Developers Battle  Over Wetlands
Definition," Los Angeles Times. May 15, 1981.

5. California's constitution allows voters to place petition-
based initiatives on the statewide ballot.

6. California Coastal Act of 1976, Section 30519.

7. The State's coastal plan was the result of over 100 public
hearings and efforts of 84 part-time commissioners and interest
groups.  Scott, Stanley, ed., /'Coastal Conservation: Essays on
Experiments in Governance," Institute of Governmental Studies,
University of California, Berkeley, 1981.

8. In particular, the Speaker of the Legislature  and the: Senate
Rules Committee select the commissioners.

-------
                                                                97
 9. DeGrove, John M. Land, Growth and Politics. Washington, DC:
 Planners Press, American Planning Association, 1984, p. 231.;
 Interview. Jody Loeffler, Coastal Commission Planner, July 28,
 1989.

 10. San Francisco Examiner. July 21, 1985, B-l.
                                                I      ;
 11. DeGrove, John M.  Land. Growth and Politics. Washington,  DC:
 Planners Press, American Planning Association, 1984, p. 231.

 12. Fischer, Michael L. "California's Coastal  Pla.n;:  Larger-than-
 Local Interests. Built into Local Plans," in Journal of the
 American Planning Association. Summer 1985, Vol. 51, No.  3,
 p.312.                                         i

 13. Scott, Stanley, ed. "Coastal Conservation: ;Essays  on        ,
 Experiments in Governance," Institute of Governmental  Studies,
 University of California, Berkeley, 1981.
                                        •-  . -'    \  '  ' -  '".--'.."'"'.-'.•   ",'•-'
 14. Fischer, Michael L. "California's Coastal  Plan:  Larger-than-
 Local Interests. Built into Local Plans," in Journal of the
 American Planning Association. Summer 1985, Vol. 51, No.  3,
 p. 316.         '     •    .   --•...-.'"- -::!   '   ,' •'    .'-"••.''

 15. Ibid.. p.317.

 16. Interview. Liz  Fuchs, July 24,  1989.

 17. Fischer, Michael L. "California's Coastal  Plan:  Larger-than-
 Local Interests. Built into Local Plans," Journal  of the  American
•' Planning Association Summer 1985, Vol.  51,  No. J3,  p.312.

 18. neGrover John M. Land. Growth,  and  Politics;. Washington. DC:
 Planners Press, American Planning Association,[1984, p.230.
 19. Staff on the  California  Coastal Commission,:
 interview on May  5,  1989.
Per telephone
 20. McAteer-Petris  Act,  Section 66620;  Ditton,:Robert B.,  et al.
 "Design of a Good Agency,"  Coastal Resources Management. DC
 Health and Co.,  Lexington,  MA.  1977,  p.147.

 21. Ibid., p.147.

 22. Ibid.. -p.147; Fischer,  Michael L.,  "California's Coastal
 Plan: Larger-than-Local  Interests. Built into Local Plans,"
 Journal of the American  Planning Association Summer 1985,  Vol.
 51, No. 3, p.312.

 23. Travis, William.  "A  Comparison of California(is Coastal
 Programs," Coastal  Zone  '87.  p.2913.

-------
  24.  Ibid.,  p. 2916.
                       E>  "Chan9es in development  design  along
  1973-1M7  «  r     I*! a  rSSUlt °f Calif°mia's Coastal  Program,
  1973-1987,"  Coastal  Zone t87r  Vol.  4,  p. 3953.
  «a         Sam Hal1'  "Pr°-Democracy Move  in. L.A.  Planning,"  Los
 Angeles  Times,  July 9,  1989  (Real Estate Section) .

 ro^ £a?e?'  Phyllis'  et  al- "California's Fourteen  Years of
 (-oastal  Zone Management," Coastal Zone  '87. : p. -20*1 .

 28. Scott,  Stanley,  Ed.  "Coastal Conservation: Essays on
 experiments in  Governance," Institute of Governmental Studies,
 University  of California, Berkeley 1981; Gote, Lenard, "Coastal
 Conservation and Development: Balancing Local and  Statewide
 •*••!* «SiGStS j   lp • 2 0 •
 29.Petrillo, Joseph. "The Conservancy Concept," Coastal
 Management, Vol. 16, No. 1, 1988, p. 4.         -
             treat^nt allows for the settling of suspended solids
        the wastewater.  Secondary treatment involves aeration to
 encourage aerobic bacteria which is helpful in breaking down the
 organic, effluent.  Tertiary treatment offers a more aS?anceS
 the ISal step?33'  A11 three tvPes of tre^ment chlorinate in


 31.  Zentner,  John. "Wetland Projects of the California State
                         ASSeSSment'" Coastal Man.^^i-  vol.  16,
 32.  Ibid. ,  p.  48.

 33.  The  acreage will be converted into 4.9 million square feet of

 ^°^fCialiSpa^'  68°'°00 Square feet of retail spaced  1?, loo
 S 900 SiJi U?^tS'  V?° h0t^ r°°ms and a 40-acr£ marina with up
 A^  ?    Sa   S11PS>    Playa Vista Plan Calls for a Mix," Los
 Angeles  Times r  June 25,  1989.                            ~ —

 34.  Statewide  Interpretive Guidelines,  1981,  p.  28-88.
wi      Efic-  "Guidelines  for planning and designing a major
wetland restoration project:  Ballona Wetland case  study,"
National Audubon Society, p.  7.;  McGuire Thomas,  the  present
^fvi^i^6? ad^onai acreage to the project  as /means  of
"«Si  5?2  2e-lelal 2lsPute with the non-profit  environmental
group, the Friends of Ballona Wetlands.   This organization
^hl" Sh thaJK the^e are about 350 acres  of wetland on  the site,
rather than the initial estimation of 175.

-------
                                                               99
36. Metz, Eric D. "Habitat Management Plan for the Ballona
Wetland, Los Angeles, California," in Mitigation of Impacts and
Losses National Wetland Symposium Proceedings. October 8, 1986,
No. 3, p. 374.

37. Interview. Eric Metz, National Audubon Society, July 6, 1989.
                                                                 .
38. Metz, Eric D. "Habitat Management Plan for the Ballona
Wetland, Los Angeles, California," in Mitigation~of Impacts and
Losses National- Wetland Symposium Proceedings. .October 8, 1986,
p. 374.

39. "California's Coastal Commission: 10 Years[of Triumphs," in
Planning. Journal of the American Planning Association, January
1982, p. 14.

40. O'Reilly, Richard. "Coast Panel's OK a Matter of Public,
Private Benefit," Los Angeles Times, May 11,  1981, p. 9-10.

41. Salvesen, David, et al. "Los Angeles' sewer moratorium curbs
.growth," in Urban Land, August 1988, Vol. 47, No. 8.          ...  '
                                             •  L '
42. Florida and the Other 49 States;  Florida's Business and
Demographic Climate. National and State Comparisons.  Compiled by
the Bureau of Economic Analysis, Division of  Economic
Development.  Tallahassee, Florida:  Florida  Department  of
Commerce, 1988.

43. DeGrove, John M.  "Florida's Growth Management System:  A
Blueprint for the Future."  Florida  Environmental and Urban
Issues, v.14  (October 1986): p.3.

44. State funding was offered as an  incentive.  Withholding of
general revenue sharing and retracting commercial  zoning
allowances acted as penalties for local governments  that did not
create plans.  Carroll, Jane.  "Florida Reins in Runaway Growth."
State Legislatures, v.ll  (November/December 1985), p.22.

45. The 50 feet designation is for all construction  and  is
greater for sensitive areas like mangroves  and dunes.
                                               I
46. Czech, Eleanor, Regional planner with the West Florida
Regional Planning Council, Pensacola, Florida.   Per  interview  on
September 23, 1988.

47. Westi Jo  DeHaven-Smith, Research Coordinator,  College  of
Engineering,  Florida Atlantic University, Boca Raton,  Florida.
Per telephone interview on June 30,  1989.
48. DeGrove, John M.   Land.  Growth,  and Politics.
D.C.:  Planners  Press,  1984,  p.129.
Washington,

-------
                                                          100
 ?ilai'f!}?reline.Man?9eI?ent options for Virginia Coastal

 hS ?ii reSl -V i" Ylrqlnla Council on t^e Environiii.nl- .


 or                •           1 "**»"«»•
 52. DeGrove, John M.  Land.  Growth, and

 D.C.:  Planners Press, 1984,  p.129.
Washington,
                 '  Bi°lo^ist and Habitat Reviewer with Monroe

                           Key Largo'  Florida-   per
                                               Washington,




 ?7f*  '.'sl?oreline Management Options for Virginia Localities;"  in-
 Virginia Council  on the Environment.  Published by the
                  W. ,  Manager of Appalachicola National '<
 i-oi^v, „  • -----7- Reserve, Appalachicola, Florida.  Per
 telephone interview on July 12, 1989.
                                                     I

 57. Picerno,  James.  "Controlling Growth:  The Debate Racres » in
 Business Facilities, (February 1989): p.26.   ueoaT:e «agesf  in


 T5T8* Growth Management;	Keeping on Tarr^i- by Douglas Porter
 Urban Land Institute Library,  Washington, DC.        *orter,


 59. Picerno,  James.  "Controlling Growth:  The Debate Rages » in
 Business Facilities. (February 1989): p.25.   ueoate *a9es,  in



 ^in^r^ ????!; c^sss^i&r^.The Debate Rages-"in



imiS^ru!«r5c^^r»3;rsT7r.Finai ™™™*" ^^


62. "Insufficient  Funds:  New  Jersey Failing to Safeguard
Resources," in the Asbury Park Press, April 9, 1989

63. Ibid.


64. The Hackensack Commission  was created in 1969  and the
Pinelands Commission  in 1979.

-------
65. Guskind, Robert.  "New Jersey Says,
vol. 54, (June 1988): p.29.
66. "Shaping Our Future," A Report on the New J
Management Conference.  Woodrow Wilson School,
Jersey, February 28, 1986:  p.4.
                                                              101
Enough1," in Planning.
      ersey Growth
      Princeton,  New
67. The Conservation Foundation, "Protecting America's Wetlands:
An Action Agenda," 67.22 The Final Report of the National
Wetlands Policy Forum, p.3.                    ! '

68. Maurice River Township actually had created a violation by
placing the rubble at the Beach without a permit.  Memorandum
from Department of Environmental Protection to Ezra Cox,
Committeeman of Maurice River Township Re: Waterfront Development
Permit Application #88-0236-1, November 30, 1988.

69. Ibid., p.2.

70.  Ibid..  p.4.

71. Reilly,  Matthew. "Shore Tourism Report," Star—Ledger,
November 5,  1988;  Carney, Leo H., "Raising dollars on clean-up
of shore," New York Times. September 1988, 25,jXII, 4:  5.

72. Ibid.. 25, XII, 4:  5.

73. Ibid.. 25, XII, 4:  5.

74. 1967 Oregon Beach Bill.

75. McLennan, Janet. "A Decade of Growth," in  I Landmark. A
Quarterly Journal of 1000 Friends of Oregon, 1985.
                                                          '
76. The Oregon Coastal Conservation and Development Commission
(OCC&DC) was created by the State Legislature  in 1971 and
empowered to create a management plan for the  coast.  It was not
given implementation authority, however.  LCDC> created two years
later, took OCC&DC's plan and converted it into the final four
Statewide Planning Goals which involve the coast.

77. "Federally approved" refers to NOAA's Office of Coastal
Resource Management's acknowledgement that the Program  is in
compliance with the federal Coastal Zone Management Act of 1976.
DLCD administers the Program;  DeGrove, John M. Land. Growth. and
Politics, Washington, D.C.:  Planners Press, American Planning
Association, 1984, p.280.

78. "Oregon's Coastal Management Program; a Citizen's Guide,"
Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development, Salem,
Oregon, p.5.

-------
                                                               102
                    i985'198! .Biennial Reports to the Oregon State
             ,  Land Conservation and Development Commission, 1985.
 81. Ibid.
 82. "Oregon's Coastal Management Program, A Citizen's Guide »
 Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development, Salem,
 uregon , p. 28.

 83. "Oregon Land Conservation and Development Commission 1985-
 1987 Biennial Report to the Legislative Assembly of the State of
 Oregon," Salem, Oregon, January, 1987.                   ! .

 84. The Curry County Decision; Ross, James, Director of DLCD.
 "Report of the Urban/Rural Committee to Oregon Land Conservation
 and Development Commission," September 12, 1988. ; lOOOFriends of
 Oregon v.  LCDC (Lane County, March 1988).         -        or
"
          Fetchman' 100° Friends of Oregon, per interview on June
 86.  Ibid.

 87.  Liberty,  Robert of 1000 Friends of Oregon.  "Observations and
 recommendations concerning the development of policy limiting
 additional residential,  commercial and industrial development in
 built and _ committed exceptions and nonresource areas," Testimony
 to the Joint  Interim Committee on Land-Use,  September 8,  1988.

 88.  "1983-85  Biennial Report to the Legislative Assembly  of the

 Januar  I9859°n/"  ^^ Conservation and Development Commission,

 89.  Ibid. f  January 1985.

 90.  Greenfield,  Mark,  et.  al.  of 1000  Friends of Oregon
 "Responding to  the Marketplace," 1982,  p. 11.

 91.  "Responding to the Marketplace:  How Oregon's Land-Use'
 Planning Program Has  Benefitted Housing Consumers in the  Portland
Metropolitan Region,"  1000  Friends  of  Oregon, October 25  ' 1982
p. 4 ,   6-7 .                                                      '

92. Landmark, A  Quarterly Journal of 1000  Friends of Oregon,
JL y o o  •
93. Staff of the California Coastal Commission.  Per telephone
interview on May 5, 1989.                                p

-------
                                                I               103

 94. Funds are provided for research/reserves as stated under
 Section 315 of the Federal Coastal Zone Management Act.  The
 funds are managed under Marine and Estuary Maneigement Division of
 National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's Office of
 Coastal Resource Management.
                                                I      • •
 95. "Wisconsin State Land-Use Policies and Programs," Office of
 State Planning and Energy, Department of Administration:  State
 of Wisconsin, April 1978, p.26.
 .•••-•            /          •         '''  •    •'''•  :[- .'••:•   .'•  •'  •'•'"
 96. Brah, William, Executive Director of the Center ; for the Great
 Lakes, Chicago, Illinois.  Per telephone interview on August 1,
;. 1989'.' :.   -.   •''•.""'...'     ' '  • '; '"   " .'  "i;"  :	'    " '"' :'.' " '  '

 97.  Florence, Robert, Director of Planning, Door County,
 Wisconsin.  Per telephone interview on July 13,| 1.989.  ;

 98. Door County's first comprehensive plan was|created  in  1964
 and was enacted as the county's first zoning ordinance  in  1968.
 Since 1968, however, only 8 of the 14 towns are mandated under
 the ordinance.  All towns are not included because Wisconsin  law
 does not require that individual towns be subject to county
 zoning ordinances unless the town Board officials accept the
 ordinance.                      .-"-•..;     . , .  .   ^    ;           /

 99. Florence, Robert.  Director of Planning, Door County,
 Wisconsin.  Per telephone interview, July 13,  1989.

 100. DNR was interested because, through growth management and
 planning, DNR is better able to predict what its future
 expenditures on wastewater treatment plants will be.

 101. The concept originated in the early  1960s: and was  later
 recommended to the Southeast Wisconsin Regiona.1 Planning
 Commission to be included in their land-use planning.   Pigeon
 River Environmental Corridor was later identified by the  city of
 Sheboygan and the Bay Lakes Regional  Planning  Commission  as a key
 resource to be preserved.  In 1965, the two city planners
 recommended that certain  environmental corridors be  included in
 the city's plan and be adopted by the planning: commission.

 102. Grotbeck, Arnold, Executive Director  of Planning,  Sheboygan,
 Wisconsin.  Per telephone interview on July 14, 1989.

 103. Local zoning prohibits sewer  systems  from being extended
 into the environmentally  sensitive corridors,  tlms providing
 another limitation to growth.

 104. Federal funds from the Land and  Water Conservation Funds and
 the Outdoor Recreation Action Program acquisition  funds
 contributed to this effort.

-------
                                                               10 4~
                         T?* SFtem in so^heast Wisconsin,
           idea was first developed and anplied  cur-r^n-t-i J

            "% °* ^ rei°n'S
106. Fisher,  Robert,  Executive Director of the Bay-Lake Recrional
Planning Commission.   Per telephone interview on July It,  ?989?
Februarye"l989
                                 Backyard'" Business
108. Pelham, Thomas G. , William L.  Hyde,  and Robert P.  Banks
 Managing Florida's Growth:  Toward  an Integrated State,  Regional
and Local Comprehensive Planning Process."   Florida State
University Law Review r v.13  (1985):  p. 582.               ~

-------

-------
••••ft

-------