3354, as reported out of committee, were cities with populations in excess of two hundred and fifty thousand, or those with populations in excess of 20 per cent of the total population of the state.54 An additional provision was added specifically noting that "nothing in this Act shall be deemed to preclude the delegation by the state agency to local governmental entities of authority to plan for land use and enforce land use restrictions adopted pursuant to the statewide land use plan."55 Despite this clause, however, the state agency was ultimately responsible for submitting a single, statewide plan to the Council and for determining that all local plans created with federal funds were consistent with the statewide plan.56
Also added was a provision that, upon completion, a state would submit its land use plan to the Council and any federal agencies that the Council required. If the plan conformed to the federal guidelines, was compatible with plans of other states in the region and did not conflict with other federal programs it was approved.57 If a state's plan was denied, the state was entitled to appeal the Council's decision to an ad hoc hearing board for a determination as to whether the disapproval was reasonable. If found to be unreasonable, approval of the plan was mandated.58
Funding was increased to 90% for the first five years and reduced to two-thirds thereafter.59
(Id. at 10, § 305(b)(1)(B).
(Id. at 12, § 305(e).
(Id. at 12, §§ 305(e)(1) through (3).
(Id. at 12, § 306(a)(3).
(Id. at 13, § 306(c).
(Id. at 14, § 310(a).