Growth Management Act

Transcription

1 Growth Management Act After 20 years, is it time to review? Brief History of the Growth Management Act: Adopted in 1990 with 13 Goals; 1. Encourage Urban Development 8. Protect Natural Resources 2. Reduce Sprawl 9. Retain Open Space 3. Efficient Multimodal Transportation 10. Protect the Environment 4. Availability of Affordable Housing 11. Encourage Citizen Participation 5. Encourage Economic Development 12. Provide Public Facilities and Service 6. Protect Private Property 13. Preserve Historic Sites 7. Timely Permitting A 14 th goal was added years later; to Protect Shorelines of the State 1

2 History of GMA Continued: Since 1990: Over 100 amendments Including the creation of Growth Hearings Boards More than 1,000 challenges before Growth Hearing Boards Central Board (King, Pierce, Snohomish and Kitsap) 348 Eastern Board (All Counties East of the Cascade Crest) 221 Western Board (All Counties West of Cascades minus 552 Central Board area) History of GMA Continued: Washington State Department of Commerce (formerly known as CTED) is parent agency of GMA. compiled list of more than 100 GMA studies & reviews, but none provide a complete review and analysis of all 14 Policy Goals 2

3 Growth Management Act So what is the purpose of the Growth Management Act (GMA)? Regulations to control growth? Set of rules and laws defining wetland and stream protections? RCW 36.70A.010 The legislature finds that uncoordinated and unplanned growth, together with a lack of common goals expressing the public's interest in the conservation and the wise use of our lands, pose a threat to the environment, sustainable economic development, and the health, safety, and high quality of life enjoyed by residents of this state. It is in the public interest that citizens, communities, local governments, and the private sector cooperate and coordinate with one another in comprehensive land use planning. Further, the legislature finds that it is in the public interest that economic development programs be shared with communities experiencing insufficient economic growth. GMA does not only say to stop growth and protect environment, nor does it only address affordable housing. 3

4 Is the GMA Working? Trick question, we don t know the answer, how can we know if it is working when there are no comprehensive reviews? It is time for an audit: it is time for an independent reviewer, such as the Washington State Auditor s office, to complete a comprehensive audit of the GMA. How should we Audit GMA? 2005 Indicators Report Dept. of Commerce/Northwest Center For Livable Communities, UW (UW Indicators Study) Towards A GMA Benchmarking System In Washington: Report on the Outcomes of a Western Washington Indicator Workshop Providing potential indicators for outcome oriented monitoring. 4

5 How to set Benchmarks/Indicators Indicators Report focus on, determining the appropriate measurement tool that best gauges or indicates the level of progress towards legislative goals. Accomplished by asking two questions: 1. Are indicators appropriate and applicable to the designated goal. 2. What are the potential uses and outcomes of the benchmarking program. This would be an iterative process. How to set Benchmarks/Indicators Indicators process established by combining overlapping goals Group 1: Group 2: Group 3: Group 4: Group 5: Reduce Sprawl, Urban Growth Open Space, Environment, Shorelines Transportation, Housing, Economic Development Natural Resource Industries, Public Facilities and Services Property Rights, Permits, Historic Preservation, Citizen Participation 5

6 Reduce Sprawl, Urban Growth Stakeholders identify important Indicators: Population, count & change (including inside/outside UGA) Why does populations matter? Reduce Sprawl, Urban Growth (Population) Measuring population movements: Long term county migration patterns indicate that in migration is becoming less concentrated in Washington s largest metropolitan counties (e.g., Pierce, King). Some of the migration they would have otherwise received is moving toward neighboring counties with lower population densities, such as Thurston, Mason and Kitsap Counties. While some part of this is due to relatively stable economy enjoyed in Thurston County, it is likely that the increasing cost of living experienced in the Seattle metropolitan area played a role as well, as residents of the metropolitan area looked for a way to reduce their own escalating costs of living, particularly in housing. ( The Profile, by Thurston Regional Planning Council, November of 2009.) 6

7 Reduce Sprawl, Urban Growth (Population) Given the relative proximity and enduring low transportation costs, some people may be making the choice to live in the relatively less expensive communities in Thurston and other counties, and commute into job centers like Tacoma and south King County. I think the Profile is correct in suggesting this might be a reason for Thurston County s increase in migration share, which relatively, is still pretty small.(emphasis added) (Response to TRPC migration/population report Puget Sound Regional Council Reduce Sprawl, Urban Growth (Population) *Puget Sound Regional Council 77% of Thurston County population increase between 1990 and 2000 from in migration 7

8 Reduce Sprawl, Urban Growth (Where?) Stakeholders identify important Indicators: Population, count & change (including inside/outside UGA) Permit Activity Where are we allowing Growth to take place? Reduce Sprawl, Urban Growth (Where?) Rural vs. Urban Growth in King County: 100.0% 90.0% 80.0% 70.0% 60.0% 50.0% 40.0% 30.0% King Urban King Rural 20.0% 10.0% 0.0%

9 Reduce Sprawl, Urban Growth (Where?) Rural vs. Urban Growth in Thurston County: 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% Thurston Urban Thurston Rural 20% 10% 0% Reduce Sprawl, Urban Growth (Land Use) Stakeholders identify important Indicators: Population, count & change (including inside/outside UGA) Permit Activity Land Cover Changes Are we developing too much? 9

10 Reduce Sprawl, Urban Growth (Land Use) Change in Urban (Built) Land Cover in Thurston County, Urban Cover 2000 Urban Cover Total Increase in Urban Cover Watershed Total acres acres % acres % acres % % of 1985 Black River 78,971 1,795 2% 2,507 3% 712 1% 40% Budd/Deschu tes 104,019 7,154 7% 8,864 9% 1,710 2% 24% Chehalis River 47,034 1,517 3% 2,040 4% 524 1% 35% Eld Inlet 23, % 932 4% 166 1% 22% Henderson Inlet 27,170 3,623 13% 4,757 18% 1,135 4% 31% Nisqually River 93,302 2,998 3% 4,196 4% 1,198 1% 40% Skookumchu ck River 55, % 693 1% 52 0% 8% Totten Inlet 21, % 400 2% 45 0% 13% West Capitol Forest 19, % 131 1% 0 0% 0% Total 469,867 18,979 4% 24,520 5% 5,541 1% 29% Conclusion Time for Audit: An independent party, such as the State Auditor, should facilitate the review Stakeholders: Help to develop key indicators, but iterative process Must include cost impact analsyis The legislative intention of maintaining the state s high quality of life through growth management may go unfulfilled unless some sort of objective, outcome oriented monitoring system is put in place to assess progress towards meeting the fourteen GMA goals. Northwest Center For Livable Communities, University of Washington 10