190 likes | 272 Views
An Intro to the GMA When Planning, Protection & People Collide. Jodi Slavik Building Industry Association of Washington Olympia, WA. Let’s Talk About…. GMA Reg Reform Climate Change Challenges. Growth Management Act. Adopted in ’90 & ‘91 (after rapid growth of ’80s)
E N D
An Intro to the GMAWhen Planning, Protection & People Collide Jodi Slavik Building Industry Association of Washington Olympia, WA
Let’s Talk About… • GMA • Reg Reform • Climate Change • Challenges
Growth Management Act • Adopted in ’90 & ‘91 (after rapid growth of ’80s) • All GMA for 29 counties; part GMA for 10 • All have CAOs • 18 required • 11 opted in • Lots of strife, lots of amendments, lots of appeals…
GMA: The Gist • Concentrate growth in urban areas; preserve rural and ag lands • Predict & plan for growth (have facilities ready) • Coordinated planning between counties and cities
14 Equal Planning Goals • Concentrate urban growth, reduce sprawl, transportation, housing, economic development, property rights, permits, natural resource industries, open space & rec, environmental protection, citizen participation, public facilities & services, historic preservation, shoreline management • Board can invalidate w/o balance
GMA Framework • ID & protect ag lands, forest lands, mineral resource areas, and critical areas (CAOs) • County-wide planning policies/UGAs • Comprehensive plan • Land use • Housing • Capital facilities (water, sewer, parks, fire) • Utilities (gas, electricity, cable) • Transportation • Rural (for counties) • SMP policies • Development regulations (zoning, subdivision, design review concurrency, critical areas, impact fees, SMP) • Project review
Development Regs • Critical Area Ordinances • Primary regulations to protect wetlands, fish & wildlife habitat, aquifer recharge areas, frequently flooded areas & geologically hazardous areas. • Based on “best available science”. • Concurrency • Measures whether public facilities are adequate to support new development. • Required for transportation; can do sewer, water, utilities, parks, fire & police. • Impact Fees • One-time charge to help cover the cost of roads, parks, schools, and fire protection facilities needed to serve the development. • Can only collect GMA or SEPA fees.
Public Input & Appeals • Heavy public participation • Notice • Public meetings • Workshops • Citizen advisory committees • Public hearings • Written comment • Can appeal comp plan and/or dev regs to Growth Boards; appeal permit decisions to hearing examiner and courts (LUPA).
GMHBs: The Enforcers • Three regional Growth Management Hearings Boards • 3 members appointed by Governor; no more than two from same party; at least 1 attorney • Review plans and regs (presumed valid) • Can deem them non-compliant or invalid
Ongoing Process • Comp plan updates 2004 – 07 (depending on jurisdiction) & every 7 years after. • Comp plans amendments no more than once a year • Dev regs as often as necessary to comply with comp plans • Jurisdictions currently working on SMP and CAO updates.
1995 Reg Reform • ESHB 1724 • GMA/SEPA/SMA • Goal: establish GMA as foundation • Coordinated & streamlined project review • 120 timeline • SEPA review merged • One open-record hrg; one closed record appeal • Don’t revisit decisions made at plan/regs • LUSC – integrate land use & environmental laws
Climate Change • GMA: Global warming mitigation and adaptation program. • CTED • Expires 2011 • Response methodologies, computer modeling, and estimates of GHG emission reductions from certain actions • Incentives to inventory and mitigate global warming • SEPA: King County first in nation to include accounting of GHG emissions in SEPA documents; DOE likely to follow. • Ron Sims EO 10/07 • Use worksheet to calculate GHG; if significant impact, must mitigate to 15% drop unless not economically feasible (draft).
What’s the Legislature Doing? • HB 1490 & SB 5687 • Adds climate change to environmental goal. • Adds climate change to housing & transportation elements. • Mandates multi-modal LOS in concurrency regulations. • Wants local planning in line with state goal of 30% emission reductions by 2020.
Challenges or…We thought this would work better than it did • Impact fees • Concurrency • Ag lands & soccer fields • NIMBYs…moratoriums • Dense development vs. prized wetlands • Market desires • Bottoms up? • Affordable housing
UW Study • Between 1989 – 2006, Seattle median priced home rose from $221,000 to $447,800. • $200,000 of that was from land use regulations. • First-time homebuyers earning median income ($75K) only had 37% ability to by median priced home ($447K); five years earlier they had 72% income needed.
Three simple truths: All policy decisions have costs. All closets must be cleaned. All people are born alike—except Republicans and Democrats . Groucho Marx