1 / 26

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

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 Low Impact Development Challenges. Growth Management Act. Adopted in ’90 & ’91 29 = all; 10 = part 18 required

zinnia
Télécharger la présentation

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

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  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

  24. 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.

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

More Related