Recommendations Emerging from Legislative/Interest Group Task Force on Land Use & Climate Change

The legislatively-created Land Use & Climate Change Advisory Committee met September 12 and discussed preliminary recommendations and took a series of preliminary votes. Their next and last scheduled meeting to vote on recommendations to forward to the 2009 Legislature is scheduled for Oct. 17 at SeaTac Red Lion Inn Hotel.

The committee was formed last session as a result of the lack of consensus on how, if at all, climate change issues should be included in local comprehensive plans and regulations. The committee was formed and charged with identifying ideas and recommendations for the 2009 Legislature and includes numerous interest groups, as well as five city elected officials, three county elected officials, a tribal representative and four legislators (one from each caucus).

From a lengthy "laundry list of ideas," they have narrowed down their list of possible recommendations to the following six topics. At the end of each brief topic description below, there’s a notation of the preliminary voting of the five city and other elected or appointed official members. By statute, they are the only ones who can vote – a majority of them are needed to advance a recommendation. Please note, the vote was indeed preliminary and at least one legislator voted "no" on all recommendations – apparently because of concerns that information needed to assess the impacts on housing and the local economies was not yet available.

GMA Goal – Add a new GMA goal on Climate Change. This proposal didn’t pass. All five city votes were "no," as were one of the three county votes and two Republican legislator votes. The alternative idea in this category - modify one or more of the existing GMA goals to include reference to climate change – passed. All five city votes were "yes," as were two of three county votes, two Democratic legislators and the tribal representative.
GMA Countywide Planning Policies – Amend to require that GMA-planning cities and their county address strategies to reduce vehicle trips and reflect such agreements in local GMA plans/regulations. This proposal was withdrawn after cities and others expressed concerns that it didn't pinpoint the proponents’ objective to ensure that transportation plans/land use plans across jurisdictional lines somehow address strategies to reduce vehicle miles traveled (VMTs). Instead, language was proposed which asks Regional Transportation Planning Organizations (RTPO’s) to promote "strategies" among jurisdictions. All five city votes and most others were a "yes," except the two Republican legislators.
SEPA (State Environmental Planning Act) – Promote/support using better upfront planning/environmental assessment to channel growth where we want it and facilitate permitting/mitigation of impacts. Also consider changes to allowable exemptions from SEPA review in urban areas. This proposal passed. All city votes and all other votes were "yes" except one Republican legislator. All members agreed "more discussion" is needed on what this means, along with funding to do up front environmental assessments.
Developer Incentives – A laundry list of things cities/counties could do to promote the right kinds of development in the right places, but nothing mandated or required. This proposal was vague, and it passed. All five city votes were "yes," along with requests for more information. There was less enthusiasm on this proposal from the two democratic legislators.
Transportation Concurrency – Authorize local governments to evaluate road capacity (i.e., concurrency) using, where appropriate, a "multi-modal analysis" vs. "intersection capacity analysis" for cars. Committee members pointed out that cities can do this now and that some do. The recommendation seems to be to recognize this in statute. This proposal passed. All city votes were "yes."
Infrastructure Funding – Asks for support of yet-to-be-defined new money for urban centers and maybe some reprioritization of existing money to support infrastructure investments in cities/urban growth areas. This is a topic of substantial interest to AWC and cities and will be subject to more discussion. This proposal passed, and all five city votes were "yes."

Transfer of Development Rights (from rural lands to cities) – This proposal was "endorsed" in concept and "punted" to a Department of Community, Trade & Economic Development (CTED) group, who are separately studying the issue and are responsible for forwarding recommendations. Issues included with this proposal include how to make proposals attractive to cities and not mandate anything.

AWC would like to thank the city representatives who have spent numerous hours over the summer working on this important series of topics and issues. They are:

AWC President and Port Angeles Councilwoman, Karen Rogers
AWC Immediate Past President and Spokane Valley Mayor, Rich Munson
Tacoma Councilmember, Jake Fey
AWC Board Member and Vancouver Councilwoman, Jeanne Harris
Everett Councilmember, Paul Roberts

For those interested in more information, please contact AWC’s Dave Williams at davew@awcnet.org or access the following link to information on the committee’s work and recommendations www.ecy.wa.gov/climatechange/growthmgt.htm.

Annexation/Governance Transition

There are issues that arise across the state between cities, counties and/or special districts when growth occurs or is planned adjacent to existing city boundaries. Sometimes a proposed annexation triggers a dispute over urban services provision or competition for tax base. Other times, an issue may arise regarding the type, scale and design of unincorporated development adjacent to one or more cities.

These disputes aren’t new and oftentimes, the jurisdictions involved find ways to work out their differences. Since the state’s adoption of the Growth Management Act (GMA) in 1990, there is a growing recognition that GMA-planning cities plan for growth and services not only within their existing city boundaries, but to some extent, also within their urban growth area. As a result, there are changing roles and responsibilities for cities, counties and several special purpose districts – in particular fire and water/sewer districts.

There is not consensus in many local areas and at the state level as to how these roles and responsibilities should change. AWC will again approach the 2009 Legislative Session with ideas on how to:

Provide more annexation tools to facilitate annexation within designated urban growth areas;
Create incentives to facilitate agreement among a city and county to jointly plan for and have consistent development regulations in unincorporated urban areas; and
Provide incentives and opportunities to foster better working relationships with special purpose districts serving urban areas.

AWC staff has been meeting with fire district and firefighter representatives over the summer to explore possible solutions to disputes – both during individual city annexations and in Olympia during a legislative session. Similar discussions are slated to begin with water/sewer districts.

If your city has ideas or experiences that you are willing to share relating to resolving disputes with special districts during the annexation process, please contact Dave Williams at AWC at davew@awcnet.org or 1-800-562-8981.

[ previous article ] [ return to top ] [ next article ]