>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 Appalachicolas 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," StarLedger,
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
------- |