SEPA and the Promise of GMA

Washington State Department of Community Trade and Economic Development

January 25, 2006

The Promise of GMA

Quality of life

Citizen participation

Cumulative impacts

Certainty for

communities and

developers

Timely permit

processing

Fulfilling the Promise Addresses cumulative

impacts

Provides certainty

Assures environmental protection

Ensures better quality plans

Minimizes later project review

Regulatory Reform ESHB 1724 (1995)

Principles:

Recognize that GMA is the building block for

regulatory reform

Use SEPA only to address impacts not already

addressed by existing requirements

Avoid duplication of requirements, processes

and documents (analysis, studies, or

mitigation)

Regulatory ReformESHB 1724 (1995)

Principles (continued) Do not revisit or revise comprehensive

land use decisions at the project level Apply analysis consistently and

concurrently– Consistency with Comp Plan and Development Regulations, and/or– Analysis of environmental impacts

Project ConsistencyRCW 36.70B.030 and 040

Type of land use Level of development Infrastructure Characteristics of

development

No appeal of land use, residential densities in UGAs, or infrastructure, if consistent

Project Environmental Review RCW 43.21C.240

Identify specific probable adverse

environmental impacts

Apply adopted standards in applicable

development regulations or comp plan

Use SEPA substantive authority only for

impacts not adequately addressed in

the comprehensive plan, development

regulations, or other laws

“Adequately addressed”per WAC 197-11-158 means that…

IMPACTS are identified and avoided or otherwise mitigated; or the legislative body has designated as acceptable the impacts associated with certain levels of service, land use designations, development standards, or other land use planning required or allowed under the GMA.

Comprehensive

Plan

Level of service

standards

for water, sewer,

transportation

RCW 43.21C.240--2003 revision

Mandates that local governments avoid duplicative review when the local comprehensive plan, development regulations, or other local, state and federal laws have adequately addressed the impacts of a project.

Must issue a DNS or MDNS if all adverse environmental impacts will be mitigated below the level of significance.

Planned Actions RCW 43.21C.031(2)

One or more types of project action that: Are consistent with a GMA comprehensive plan Are designated by an ordinance Address significant impacts in plan EIS

(comprehensive or subarea plan, fully contained community, master planned resort/development, phased project)

Are not essential public facilities Are limited to certain types of development

or geographic area less than jurisdictional boundaries– May be located within an urban growth area

Planned ActionsWAC 197-11-164, 168, 172

Four step process: Establish authorizing

environment, incl. public participation

Prepare plan EIS Adopt an ordinance or resolution

designating the types of projects Review the project application -

if qualifies as planned action, no TD or EIS will be required

Environmental Review and Subarea Plans

Subarea plans are more conducive to detailed environmental review

Easier to involve the public, property owners, and potential developers

Subarea planning can focus on specific community goals

Categorical exemption for infill development (2003)

New residential or mixed use development proposed to fill in a designated UGA where current density and intensity of use in the area is lower than called for in the plan goals and policies.

RCW 43.21C.229

Suggested process for adoption of infill

categorical exemptions Early and on-going public

participation Identify goals Gap analysis How to fill the gap Evaluate plan EIS vs. goals Draft proposed exemption Environmental review Amend SEPA Ordinance

SEPA/GMA Integration Study

Evaluate the benefits v. costs of integration

Catalog “best practices” in use by different jurisdictions

Study Objectives

www.cted.wa.gov/growth

Cost Data Collected

3 types of data– Agency project costs– Investment value of

projects– Avoided SEPA costs

for Planned Actions Not all jurisdictions had

cost data

Avoided Costs and Net Benefits

Jurisdiction(number ofapproved plannedactions or projects)

ProjectCosts

Avoided Costs(equalBenefits)

Net Benefits or NetCosts (to date)

Comments

Redmond (6) $660,000 $498,000 ($162,000) More planned actions likely, net cost willchange to net benefit

Mill Creek (6) $170,000 $496,000 $326,000 More planned actions will increase netbenefits

Tacoma (8) - theseare projects notplanned actions

$255,000 $144,800 ($110,200) More projects likely, net cost will change tonet benefit

Tukwila (32) $200,000 $866,000 $666,000 More planned actions will increase netbenefits

Vancouver (4) $515,000 $414,000 ($100,000) More planned actions likely, net cost willchange to net benefit

Everett (27) $530,000 $1,236,000 $706,000 More planned actions will increase netbenefits

Totals $2,330,000 $3,654,800 $1,324,800

Avoided Cost Conclusions All case studies

eventually achieve net savings in direct costs

Public bears up-front costs; public and private split avoided costs

Avoided SEPA costs significant, but not deal breakers

Increased predictability reduces risk; increases return on investment

Jurisdiction and CaseStudy

Investment Value(estimated)

DirectlyRelated toSEPA/GMAIntegration

Comments

Tacoma - Thea FossRedevelopment

$278,000,000 Yes None of the projects likely would havegone forward without the City'sinvestment.

Vancouver - EstherShort Redevelopment

$150,000,000 Yes Most if not all the projects are directlyrelated to the City's investments andplanned action.

Renton - SouthportRedevelopment

$100,000,000 Yes The single developer on this site wouldnot have proceeded without the City'splanned action ordinance andinvestments.

Mill Creek - SR 527Corridor

$200,000,000 Some Some of the projects likely would haveproceeded without the planned action.

Everett - SouthwestEverett/Paine Field

$200,000,000 Some Some of the projects likely would haveproceeded without the planned action.

Redmond - OverlakeNeighborhood Plan

$1,200,000,000 Some Some of the projects likely would haveproceeded without the planned action.

Tukwila - MICSubarea Plan

$156,000,000 Some Some of the projects likely would haveproceeded even without the plannedaction ordinance.

Kittitas County -Mountain Star MasterPlanned Resort

$150,000,000 No In all likelihood, the single developerwould have done the project without theplanned action ordinance.

Anacortes - FidalgoBay Subarea Plan

$20,000,000 Yes The one project approved is directlyrelated to the adoption of the integratedsubarea plan and EIS.

Investment Values

Investment Values Conclusions

With 1 exception, integrated SEPA GMA procedures influenced decisions on developing or not

In 3 cases, planned action critical to developer moving forward due to increased certainty

Over $500 million in investment directly tied to integrated procedures

Another $1.75 billion in investment influenced by integrated procedures

TacomaThea Foss Redevelopment

Redevelopment of Superfund site with goal of economic development

Substantial state and federal funding

Successful in attracting private investment

Risk to private sector reduced

City generated public support for taking the additional risks

Market timing was right

THEN:

Unsafe, unused

NOW

VancouverEsther Short Redevelopment

VancouverEsther Short Redevelopment

Inner city park and surrounding area

Strong political support Significant public to

private investment - 1:7 ratio - over $150 million in residential, retail, commercial, parking

Predictability and expedited review key to private investment

Market timing

EverettSouthwest Everett/Paine Field

Largely undeveloped Industrial area

Steep slopes, streams, wetlands

Extensive public process for planned action

27 projects approved to date worth over $200 million

No appeals

Kittitas CountySuncadia Master Planned Resort

Project funded primarily by developer

Developer opted for planned action

EIS cost over $5 million

Only planned action appeal - settlement

Lessons Learned Enabling framework critical to success

– Planning policies and regulations– Leadership– Community involvement and support– Developer involvement and support

Jurisdiction size may be a factor– Up-front costs

Project type matters Number of players makes a difference

– Single jurisdiction control Timing is everything

Planned Action – City of Kent(another good example)

•Opportunity-driven

• Proactive

• Get to “action” fasterCommuter Rail Station

Ordinance or resolution

Public participation

PDEIS

Planning, analysis, scoping

Ch

eckl

ist

Project reviewDEIS

FE

IS

Com Plan, dev

reg amendments

Implementation

Zoning and regulatory recommendations

Nonproject Review Form Pilot Projects

Adams County - Comprehensive plan update and rezone map

Lynnwood - 5 year review and update of comprehensive plan

Sultan - Industrial park master plan City of Chelan - Transportation plan

update Ecology Flood Plan Management Rules

www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/sea/sepa/revision.htm

The Balancing Act

Sufficient in detail but not

too restrictive

Protective of the environment but flexible in design

“Predictable flexibility”

Certainty v. Flexibility

Department of Community, Trade and Economic Development

Growth Management Program(360) 725-3000

http://www.cted.wa.gov

Leonard Bauer, AICPManaging Director

Photographs and Tables Courtesy of:

Department of Community, Trade and Economic Development

David Evans and Associates City of Mill Creek City of Redmond City of Everett City of Issaquah Suncadia

City of Vancouver City of Tacoma Washington Department of Fish

and Wildlife Thurston Regional Planning

Council Friends of Clark County Chihuly Bridge of Glass