An Intro to the GMA When Planning, Protection & People Collide

1. An Intro to the GMAWhen Planning, Protection & People Collide Jodi Slavik Building Industry Association of Washington Olympia, WA

2. Let’s Talk About… • GMA • Reg Reform • Low Impact Development • Challenges

3. Growth Management Act • Adopted in ’90 & ’91 • 29 = all; 10 = part • 18 required • 11 opted in • All have CAOs • Lots of strife, amendments, appeals…

4. Who’s shouldering the burden?

5. GMA: The Gist • Concentrate growth in urban areas; preserve rural and ag lands • Predict & plan for growth • Coordinated planning between counties and cities

6. 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

7. GMA Framework ID & protect ag lands, forest lands, mineral resource areas, and critical areas.  County-wide planning policies/UGAs  Comprehensive plan: 6 elements  Development regulations (zoning, subdivision, design review, concurrency, critical areas, impact fees, SMP)  Project review

8. 2009 Urban Growth Areas

9. 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.

10. 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).

11. GMHBs: The Enforcers • Three regional Growth Management Hearings Boards…now one. • 3 members appointed by Governor; no more than two from same party; at least 1 attorney…now seven. • Review plans and regs (presumed valid) • Can deem them non-compliant or invalid.

12. 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.

13. 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

14. Is GMA Sustainable?

15. What is Low Impact Development? • Conserving vegetation & soils • Keeping natural flow paths • Increasing time on site LID mimics a site’s natural hydrology by: • Which means… • Less impervious surfaces • Disconnecting roofs, downspouts & parking areas • Disbursing small-scale controls vs. large detention pond Source: AHBL Engineering

16. Hydrology 101 Native forest and soils intercept, store, and slowly convey precipitation. • 50% intercepted by leaves & evaporates • 30% stored by 2 – 4ft of organic & biologically active soil • Of interflow, 10 – 40% goes to groundwater (that acts as natural water storage and maintains instream flows) • Overland flow < 1% Source: LID Technical Guidance Manual, Fig 1.1

17. Urbanization Changes Forest Function Traditional residential development removes almost all vegetation and topsoil. evapo-transpiration soil storage in groundwater rapid surface runoff pollutants to water channel instability Source: LID Technical Manual, Figure 1.3

18. And We’re Growing! The Puget Sound is expected to have 1.4 million more residents by 2025. (Source: OFM) Between 1991 – 2001, impervious surface increased by 10.4% Source: Sightline Institute

19. Traditional Stormwater Management Collecting & conveying to centralized ponds is reliable, predictable & simple to maintain BUT • 90% storage loss v. 25% storage gain • Heavy rains = excess to receiving waters • Flow/duration standards in 2005 Manual require larger ponds = costs and buildable land

20. So…instead of focusing on structure, LID focuses on landscape. Disburse & infiltrate rather than capture and store.

21. So if LID is so great, why aren’t we seeing it everywhere? • Still being tested • LID practices + native vegetation/open space + additional storage = $$$ • Expensive products and applications • Difficult to find the right soil • Few incentives & difficult to get flow credits • Local governments slow to allow • Conflict within government offices (planning v. public works v. fire department, etc.)

22. GMA + LID = ?

23. GMA Challenges or…We thought this would work better than it did • Bottoms up? • Impact fees • Concurrency • Affordable housing • Ag lands & soccer fields • NIMBYs…moratoriums • Dense development vs. prized wetlands • Market desires

25. 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.

26. Three simple truths: All policy decisions have costs. All closets must be cleaned. All people are born alike—except Republicans and Democrats . Groucho Marx