Land use policy is a powerful tool to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and address climate change. So why isn’t it a bigger part of today’s climate policy debates? Over the next few weeks, I’ll be writing a series of articles here at The Urbanist to make the case for why land use policy should be a bigger priority for climate advocates, funders, and decision makers. With the recent passage of new state climate planning requirements (HB 1181), with local governments across the state making major updates to their comprehensive plans, and with an initiative on the state ballot that would repeal the Climate Commitment Act, this is a pivotal year for the climate in Washington State. We need to get it right.

Up first, today, is a post introducing land use policy, how it connects with climate change, and why it needs to be part of the solution. (I should note I am executive director of Futurewise, a nonprofit based in Washington State that works to create more livable communities, largely through land use planning and policy work.)

Second, I’ll be writing about why over the last decade many climate leaders have chosen to prioritize other strategies and why our current moment is ripe for making land use a higher priority in what comes next. Third, I will be writing about how land use policy changes can be deployed to have a large-scale impact on a short timeline, dispelling some of the myths that have discouraged climate leaders from focusing on this space. Last, but not least, I will write about why Washington State has the potential to be a national leader and show the way for other states and regions. I hope you enjoy the series and look forward to your comments and feedback.

What is land use?

As many readers of The Urbanist will already know, land use is simply how we use and steward the limited land we have for the things we need as a society. Land use policies include zoning, permitting, and all the related policies (building codes, fire codes, street design standards, historic building protections, tree protections, stormwater permits, environmental review, design review, etc) determine what can be built where and how. Washington State is one of just a few states in the country with a state Growth Management Act (GMA) that sets standards for how local governments set these policies in their comprehensive plans. 

Last year, after a hard-fought campaign, the state legislature added climate change to the GMA (HB 1181). Now, local governments will be required to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and increase climate resilience through their land use policies and plans. So what does that actually mean in practice?

Compact development patterns result in lower emissions, but why?

We know that per capita greenhouse gas emissions vary by place. When we map those emissions in the US, a clear pattern emerges. Central cities and rural areas have low per capita emissions. The suburbs in between have high emissions. What is causing this difference?

The biggest cause is driving. People in central cities drive a lot less than their suburban counterparts. You can see this pattern holds across US cities that we think of as having very different travel patterns, like Chicago and LA.

The key difference is in how many people in a given region live at which densities. In cities where more people cluster at the higher densities, the amount we drive, or vehicle miles traveled (VMT) is low. In cities where more people are spread out in the suburbs, VMT is high. In the US, most people live in much lower density neighborhoods, and you can see that makes us extreme outliers globally, in the amount we drive.

Density is not the only thing that affects how much we drive. The quality of transit service and walking, biking and rolling infrastructure are important as are the proximity of shops, major job centers, and other destinations. Incomes and the cost of driving and car ownership also play important roles. Ultimately these strategies work well together and land use is a fundamental driver that makes the other strategies more effective. 

You do not have to become Hong Kong to see a reduction in driving. As you can see from the chart below, going from the density of Phoenix to the density of Paris is where the big reductions are.

The variations we see in driving and therefore transportation emissions, make up a big part of the overall land use-climate story. Transportation is the biggest source of emissions in the US and makes up an even bigger share in Washington State, as you can see in the graph below. But transportation is not the whole story. RCI in the graph above stands for Residential, Commercial and Industrial: that’s emissions from energy use in buildings, mainly heating and cooling.

It turns out that energy use varies a lot by building type. In a single family home, every edge of the home is exposed to the outdoors. With an apartment building or even townhomes, part of each home is touching another home rather than exposed to the outside, so there is less exposed surface that needs to be insulated. This fundamental geometric difference means that multi-family structures will always be more energy efficient than single family homes built to similar standards. (Tall, skinny high-rise buildings are also very inefficient, though not singled out in this data.) 

You can see from the US Energy Information Administration survey data below, even as building codes improved over the decades, the difference in energy consumption between single family and multi-family buildings is much bigger than any benefits from improved building code standards for either building type.

We also need to pay attention to the embodied carbon in buildings and in the roads and other infrastructure that serve those buildings. Single family homes need a lot of asphalt and concrete roads per home. High-rise towers are made of concrete and steel. Low-rise and mid-rise buildings that efficiently use infrastructure and are mostly made of wood generally have much lower embodied carbon.

Natural carbon sequestration

There is one more important aspect of how land use policy impacts emissions and that is the power of natural carbon sequestration. When properly protected and managed our forests, wetlands, grasslands, and farms pull carbon out of the atmosphere. This benefit is not captured in the CoolClimate carbon footprint maps at the top of the post. If it were, the rural areas would be an even more consistent green. When we cut down trees and fill in shorelines and wetlands we interrupt this process, send carbon back into the air, and reduce future sequestration. Tropical forests get a lot of the public credit for sequestering carbon, but temperate forests and tidal wetlands like those in Washington State also play an important role.

Conclusion

To recap, land use policy can have a big impact on greenhouse gas emissions. More compact cities have a lot less driving than suburbs. Apartment buildings use a lot less energy than single family homes. Keeping development in cities protects rural areas and keeps them sequestering carbon.

If these policies are so great for addressing climate change, why do they not feature more prominently in the climate movement and recent climate victories? Are these strategies good politics? How do they interact with other climate strategies? We have had great recent success promoting renewable energy and electric vehicles. If we electrify our cars and homes, does it matter how much energy they use?

These questions will be the focus of the second post in the series.

The post Why Climate Advocates Should Be Urbanists, Part 1 first appeared on The Urbanist.

Transportation is the largest single sector contributing to carbon emissions that warm our planet. Washington state has taken large strides toward vehicle electrification; yet full conversion of our vehicle fleet to EVs will take decades. In the meantime, Washington has also passed historic investments in transportation alternatives, from expanding access to light rail and bus rapid transit, to investing in walking and biking infrastructure.

At the same time that our state is facing the climate crisis and investing in transportation alternatives, we are also facing a housing crisis that puts families at risk of losing their homes. Our state needs to build one million more homes in the next 20 years to meet the needs of our current and future neighbors.

We have a tremendous opportunity in the coming years to ensure that families at all income levels have the opportunity to live in connected, transit-oriented communities by passing state legislation that promotes transit-oriented development (TOD). In order to meet our climate and housing affordability goals, such legislation needs to prioritize equity and affordability, while preserving flexibility for local communities to self-determine how TOD can best serve their needs.

From a climate perspective, time is of the essence. We must prioritize building as much housing as possible as quickly as possible in areas where people don’t need a private vehicle to get around. That means requiring upzones near transit like light rail, commuter rail, and bus rapid transit, and removing barriers to construction like parking minimums or onerous design standards. State legislation should prioritize rapid implementation of TOD while providing limited options to exclude critical areas, areas at risk of adverse climate impacts, and areas at risk of displacement from upzones.

From a housing perspective, new upzones must come with standards for housing affordability that ensure that people at all income levels benefit from access to transit. The state should set minimum standards for housing affordability and offer local jurisdictions flexibility in how to meet those standards. How cities meet their affordability standards will look different across the state: What works for Seattle or Bellevue may not make sense in Yakima or Spokane. What’s most important is that we have a state framework to ensure that no matter where you live, you’ll see more affordable housing options near transit in your community.

Finally, from an equity perspective, state law should provide a framework and funding for community-led equitable development. Housing affordability is just one piece of the equity puzzle for TOD: Affordable commercial space or childcare facilities are just two examples of other elements of equitable, community-led transit-oriented development. The state has an important role to play in funding processes to determine how TOD can best benefit local neighborhoods, especially communities of color and low-income communities that are most at risk of displacement and gentrification.

Passing such legislation will require a broad coalition of individuals and organizations across Washington state. Futurewise has launched the Connecting Communities campaign to lead this effort and we need you to join us! Together with supporters like you and coalition partners from across the state, we’re advocating for a TOD agenda that puts equity and affordability first. You can volunteer with our campaign by signing up here. And if you are part of an organization that would like to join our coalition, add your name to our sign on letter here.

The post Op-Ed: State Must Pass Transit-Oriented Housing Rules Prioritizing Equity, Affordability first appeared on The Urbanist.

Although we still have work to do to ensure that vital climate planning requirements are incorporated into the comprehensive plans of the counties and cities with 2024 updates around the corner, there is so much worth celebrating as we reflect back on this session. So, let’s take a moment to review what went down.

Here’s our 2022 WA Can’t Wait Legislative Wrap-Up:

14 years later, the GMA’s ‘Sprawl Loophole’ is finally closed!

First introduced in 2008, SB 5042 is finally on its way to the Governor’s desk. Words can hardly express how excited we are to see this bill pass.

SB 5042 closes a loophole in the Growth Management Act that previously allowed for growth in rural landscapes that does not comply with the GMA. SB 5042 ensures that new development will stay concentrated in designated urban growth areas, places where homes are easily connected with transit, jobs, and public services.

Curtailing the veto power of community municipal corporations.

We’ve taken an important step to protect our work to advance housing affordability, which started last year with HB 1220, by passing HB 1769. This bill ends the veto power of municipal corporations over local housing policy. Once signed into law by the Governor, HB 1769 will remove a barrier to the full implementation of critical actions to address income and race-based housing discrimination, ensuring that we’re able to adopt a range of housing options affordable to people at every income level in all Washington communities.

A landmark year for good land-use legislation.

In a typical legislative session, our Futurewise staff spends most of their energy trying to kill bad land-use bills. This year, the scales shifted. In addition to SB5042 and HB1769, our staff helped to pass 4 other land use bills that are on their way to the Governor’s desk. Here’s a quick roundup:

• SB 5818 promotes new housing development by exempting certain actions that aim to create greater housing capacity, affordability, and mitigate displacement from being appealed under the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) unless those actions pose a significant threat to fish habitats.
  
• SHB 1717 addresses tribal participation in planning under the Growth Management Act. The bill includes several requirements that will improve tribal participation and consultation in comprehensive planning processes, and requires greater communication between local governments, the Department of Commerce, and tribal governments over updated comprehensive plans and development regulations that may impact tribal land and cultural resources.
  
• ESSB 5593 requires jurisdictions to review their Urban Growth Areas (UGA), development patterns, and densities during their comprehensive plan update cycle and enables jurisdictions to revise their UGA to better accommodate development patterns and density pressures as they consider their 20-year growth projections. The catch here is that these changes in the UGA cannot increase the total surface area of the UGA, and areas added cannot be designated as long-term commercial significance or contain more than 15% critical areas, must be suitable for urban growth, and be contiguous with the existing UGA boundary.
  
• HB 1241 changes the update cycle for city and county comprehensive plans from 8 to 10 years and requires certain cities and counties to submit a 5-year progress report. If any action needed to implement changes in the most recent comprehensive plan update has not occurred at the time of the report, the jurisdiction must create a work plan to take any needed actions within two years. Our hope is that this change will bring greater accountability for counties and cities to meet the goals in their comprehensive plans. This bill also extends the deadline for the next comprehensive plan update for King, Kitsap, Pierce, and Snohomish counties, and for the cities within those counties, from June 30, 2024, to December 31, 2024. This delay will give these jurisdictions more time to implement new planning requirements passed through the legislature over the last 2 years, like the housing equity requirements in HB 1220, which we passed last year.

Historic investments in local planning

We would be remiss if we didn’t also mention the operating budget. This year, the WA State Legislature has appropriated $10 million in general funding to help local jurisdictions in their planning efforts, including for implementation of HB 1220. Funding local governments to do this critical planning work will result in better outcomes and this sets the stage for important next steps in the planning process.

HB1099 slips through our fingers, once again

What would have been one of the biggest and most important updates to the GMA in 30 years once again slipped through our fingers in the last hours of the 2022 legislative session.

As a reminder, HB 1099 is our bill with Rep. Duerr that would have added a new climate change element to the GMA and required:

• All GMA planning counties and cities to plan for the impacts of climate change. In this planning, jurisdictions would plan to protect people, especially our most vulnerable, and ecological systems from climate hazards, like sea-level rise, wildfires, and extreme heat;
• Our largest and fastest-growing counties and cities to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions and vehicle miles traveled by choosing from a list of actions developed by the Department of Commerce;
• Planning to be guided by environmental justice principles by prioritizing emission reductions and resiliency actions in overburdened communities that disproportionately suffer from compounding environmental and climate impacts.

Despite having the support of 36 local elected officials, 2 tribal governments, several cities, 7 labor unions, over 70 climate and housing justice organizations, and thousands of individual constituents, the WA House of Representatives failed to take the final step to vote YES on HB1099 on the final day of the legislative session.

The bill arrived back in the House chamber after what can only be described as a tumultuous path through the legislative process. HB 1099 was one of the first bills passed out of the House of Representatives at the beginning of the legislative session. As it moved through the Senate Housing and Local Government Committee, it picked up significant environmental justice provisions. Then, an amendment introduced in the Senate Ways and Means Committee gutted the bill of nearly all mention of climate change and the requirement that our fastest-growing jurisdictions reduce their vehicle miles traveled and greenhouse gas emissions. This watered-down version of the bill passed the WA Senate, at which point it was referred to a Conference Committee. This committee was comprised of select members of the House and Senate who were tasked with reconciling the two different versions of the bill that passed out of each chamber.

Thanks to Rep. Duerr, Rep. Fitzgibbon, Sen. Lovelett, and an outpouring of support from stakeholders across the state, the version of HB 1099 that passed out of the Conference Committee re-incorporated the critical climate mitigation elements that had been scrubbed out, and also included housing provisions from Rep. Batemans’ middle housing bill (HB 1782) that would have allowed jurisdictions to meet their first round of reduction requirements by building denser housing near transit corridors.

Once the conference committee passed this updated version of HB1099, the House and Senate needed to vote YES on last time to pass HB 1099 law. Around 6:30pm on March 10^th, the last day of the session, the Senate passed this updated version, leaving the House with several hours to pass a bill that they already voted on and passed earlier in the session. Yet, they let the clock run out.

And just like that, a bill that should have been a slam-dunk for the legislature — policy that addressed the housing, climate, and environmental justice crises plaguing our state — did not make it over the finish line.

We are still trying to tease out exactly how HB 1099 met its ultimate demise, but one thing we know for certain is that along this entire journey, the Washington Realtors and the BIAW (Building Industry Association of WA) fought tooth and nail to bring down this bill with disingenuous arguments that we cannot tackle to climate crisis before we address the housing crisis. We, of course, know that these crises are deeply interconnected and we must address them in tandem. We’re fighting for a climate-resilient future where we connect new housing development with transit and jobs, instead of clinging to past development patterns of sprawling, single-family homes.

Rest assured that Futurewise, along with our coalition of partners and advocates, is not giving up on this legislation. We are currently exploring every option to ensure that these climate provisions are still incorporated in the 2024 comprehensive plan updates for King, Pierce, Kitsap, and Snohomish Counties. We will need your continued support to make this happen, so stay tuned for our next steps.

Our success is your success

Although we are still gutted by the loss of HB 1099, words cannot describe our gratitude for the incredible coalition of organizations, individuals, and champions in the legislature that rallied to get this incredible bill so far and helped us to pass so many other important land-use bills in 2022.

The feelings of community, conviction, determination and hope that we get from our WA Can’t Wait family will continue to drive us forward in our fight for a more livable, resilient, equitable, and affordable Washington for all. We cannot wait to continue working alongside you in the months and years to come.

Onward, in hope,

Jamie Ptacek
Lead Organizer

The post Washington Can’t Wait 2022 Legislative Session Wrap-Up first appeared on The Urbanist.

This is the second installment of a three-part series that is breaking down what the Growth Management Act Illegal Growth Loophole is, what it looks like in practice, and how Futurewise is working to fix the loophole in 2022 to protect our rural lands and communities. The first installment was Goodbye Farmland, Hello Mega-Mansions.

In our first article of this series, we discussed what the Vesting Rights Doctrine is and how it undermines the intent of the Growth Management Act (GMA) to manage urban growth and reduce sprawl. For a brief recap, this is how it works:

With a bit better grasp of what we mean when we say ‘vesting loophole,’ (ie. illegal growth loophole) let’s dive into the damaging impacts that it has had in communities across the state. 

Spokane County

Spokane County expanded its urban growth areas (UGAs) in July 2013. The expansions had many problems including no funding for the new schools that the UGA expansions would require, even though existing schools in areas outside of the expansions had available capacity. One of the expansions also threatened the viability of Fairchild Air Force Base, the county’s largest employer. 

It took just over four months for the Growth Management Hearings Board (GMHB) to decide the expansions violated state law and to issue an order of invalidity which prevented new subdivisions from vesting. However, during this short time prior to the board issuing its order, subdivisions that will create 640 new lots vested to the illegal UGA expansions. That is an average of five lots a day. Because the permits had been vested prior to the GMHB decision, the development proceeded despite the ruling. 

This is not the first time that Spokane County has adopted new but illegal land use laws and allowed development to vest to them. In the Palisades Neighborhood in Spokane County, a UGA expansion was approved that would allow significantly more development close to Spokane International Airport. These changes were widely opposed by Spokane International Airport, the Chamber of Commerce, two neighborhood groups, and many individual citizens. After the approval of the project, two neighborhood groups and an individual citizen filed an appeal with the Eastern Washington GMHB and the board found the expansion non-compliant with the GMA. Despite the order finding the county in violation of the GMA, the board’s ruling could stop the project, because the permits for building have vested rights despite concerns that the development would adversely affect airport operations.

In the Five Mile Prairie Neighborhood in Spokane County, the county approved another expansion of its UGA. Citizens groups appealed to the GMHB because the neighborhood contains extensive critical areas, including landslide-prone areas and aquatic sensitive areas. They also argued that there were inadequate police, roads, and schools to serve an urban expansion. Despite the appeal, development permits were filed and vested. The board later found the expansion noncompliant with the law and issued an order of invalidity, meaning that from the date of the order most types of developments could no longer occur. However, the permits applied for prior to the invalidity order will be built, even if they are in dangerous areas and underserved by police, schools, and adequate road access.

Clark County

In 2016, Clark County expanded the La Center UGA by 56 acres and the Ridgefield UGA by 111 acres. Both expansions were onto agricultural lands of long-term commercial significance in violation of the GMA. The land still qualified as agricultural land and Futurewise appealed the expansions. While the GMHB was considering the appeal, two cities annexed the land into their city limits mooting the appeal because it was no longer in county jurisdiction. In both cases, the farmers who leased and rented the land were no longer be able to do so. The Ridgefield UGA expansion is particularly problematic because it makes the farmland to the west and north harder to farm, a result of the residential subdivision currently under development. In addition, hundreds of lots were also vested to illegal rural densities.

This is the second time that Clark County illegally expanded its UGAs onto agricultural lands and had cities annex those lands. In the county’s 2007 comprehensive plan update, it was Camas and Ridgefield UGAs that were expanded. In this same year, nearly 1,000 homes were given the green light in a part of the county where ten would have been allowed otherwise, and 514 lakeside acres previously set aside for farming were designated instead as industrial and office park land.

Clark County alone lost over 500 acres of farmland to illegal UGA expansions in the last 15 years.

Snohomish County

Point Wells — a 61-acre waterfront site in unincorporated Snohomish County — was used for industrial purposes for 100 years. BSRE Point Wells asked for a comprehensive plan amendment to put in more than 3,000 housing units and 100,000 square feet of commercial and retail space. Woodway and Richmond Beach concerned neighbors objected, due to the cost of expanding their utilities and roads to serve the area. 

Before the GMHB issued its decision, BSRE filed two building permits. The next month, the board ruled the comprehensive plan amendment was illegal. The courts upheld this decision. However, because the project had vested, it still got to move forward.

The illegal growth loophole in the GMA may be policy-wonky and hard to explain, but it has very real and profound impacts on communities, farmland, forests, and other critical habitats when it is exploited to allow for non-compliant development. For too long, the interests of developers have taken precedent over those of communities, farmers, and civilians.

That is why Futurewise has been working for 12 years to close the illegal growth loophole by passing a bill in the state legislature to amend the GMA. For a deeper dive into our legislative journey to address this issue, and what it will take to find success in 2022, stay tuned for our third and final installment of this series.

The post How the GMA’s Illegal Growth Loophole Works in Practice first appeared on The Urbanist.

Note: This article was revised on 10/29/21 to reflect Futurewise’s decision to rename the “vesting loophole” as the “illegal growth loophole” to more clearly convey to the public its negative consequences.

This is the first installment of a three-part series that will explain what the Growth Management Act Illegal Growth Loophole is, what it looks like in practice, and how Futurewise is working to fix the loophole in 2022 to protect our rural lands and communities. 

Our Starting Point: A brief history of the Growth Management Act

Before we can get into the loopholes, let’s remind ourselves where we started thirty years ago. 

The Growth Management Act (GMA) was written in 1990 when Washington was experiencing unprecedented growth. Lacking the tools to deal with such rapid growth, sprawling, low density developments were gobbling up forests and farmland. This unchecked growth was also driving up costs for taxpayers and rate payers as public facilities and services became more difficult to accommodate. 

A group of grassroots activists led the charge to pass the GMA, a first-of-its-kind body of policy to set a statewide framework offering guidance and resources for cities and counties to effectively manage growth and plan for vibrant communities. The GMA sets a vision for Washington with compact, well designed, and well-furnished cities and towns that are encompassed by working farms, forests, mineral resources and rural landscapes. To accomplish this vision, the cities and counties that plan under the GMA are required to write comprehensive plans, updated on eight-year cycles, to in which they articulate plans to accommodate their projected population growth. There are 14 goals that form the basis of city and county comprehensive plans.

What happens when things go sideways: The GMA Appeals Process

The ideals laid out in the GMA are great on paper, but what happens in practice? Well, surprise surprise, not every city or county is super keen on limiting suburban sprawl. That’s where the Growth Management Hearings Board (GMHB) comes in.

The (GMHB) is the body that hears and helps resolve disputes regarding the decisions of a city, county, or agency as it pertains to their comprehensive land use plans, development regulations, or shoreline master programs adopted under the GMA. If a city or county is thought to be acting out of compliance with the GMA, a group like Futurewise may bring an appeal to the GMHB, who will then make a ruling on whether or not the proposed action is legal. Thus, the GMHB is the body through which citizens, organizations, and governments can hold cities and counties accountable for adhering to the GMA. 

Ok, that all sounds good to me — what’s the problem? Enter: the Vesting Rights Doctrine Loophole

At its inception, the foundational objective behind the GMA was to create a tool that would protect forests, farmlands, and critical habitats by limiting urban sprawl through the concentration of growth in urban areas.

Unfortunately, there’s a huge loophole in the GMA that undermines these goals. Here’s how: When drafting comprehensive plans, counties identify where the majority of their projected population growth will be concentrated, what’s called urban growth areas (UGAs). While there are certain rules that limit a county’s ability to extend utilities and other services outside of their UGA, counties can vote to expand or reduce the growth area boundary if they think it is necessary to accommodate their projected growth.

It’s these UGA expansions that are at the heart of this loophole. See, Washington has a policy called the Vested Rights Doctrine. This is a weird and wonky policy, but it is important, so let’s break it down.

When a developer wants to build, they are required to have proper permits. In Washington, The Vested Rights Doctrine says that a property owner or developer’s rights to build are “vested” as soon as that permit application is complete. This essentially freezes a developer’s rights and responsibilities in time, no matter how long they wait to complete the project or what subsequent changes might be made to regulations that would have otherwise impacted their development.

Over the years, vested rights have successfully undermined the original intent of the GMA to manage growth, prevent sprawl and protect rural habitats because of its impact on the expansion of UGAs. Here’s how: Say that a county wants to expand its UGA into prime agricultural land to build a nice, sprawling neighborhood of mega-mansions. However, a group like Futurewise thinks the expansion is unnecessary to accommodate projected growth, so appeals the expansion to the GMHB. While the appeals process is taking place, the county proceeds to issue building permits, subdivision permits, or development agreements to developers to build on the land that would be within the newly expanded UGA. Under the current framework, if the GMHB later rules that the expansion is illegal, any permits issued for new construction in the expanded UGA are still valid and development can proceed. Goodbye farmland, hello mega-mansions.

These illegal UGA expansions gobble up local farmland, forests, and critical habitats for suburban sprawl and put a strain on providing adequate facilities and services. They can also cause local governments to lose the opportunity to apply for certain state grants if they are found to be out of compliance with the GMA. 

With the 2020 census revealing that Washington’s population has grown 14.6% since 2010, the question of how to plan our cities in a way that accommodates growth while addressing some of the biggest social and environmental crises facing our state remains as pertinent as ever. Growth will need to occur, and so long as this loophole exists, there will be people who exploit it for irresponsible development on lands that we desperately need to protect. 

To learn more about what the illegal growth loophole looks like in practice and the impacts that it has had on our state, stay tuned for the second installment of this three-part series. 

For a more in-depth look on the illegal growth loophole and its impact on the GMA, check out the Washington League of Women Voters 2017 report.

The post Goodbye Farmland, Hello Mega-Mansions first appeared on The Urbanist.

At Futurewise, we believe that everyone deserves to live in dignified, safe, and affordable housing, that we must do everything we can to protect our communities and environment from the worst impacts of climate change, and that in doing all of this work we must center the voices and experiences of frontline communities. These crises are interconnected and are having real and profound impacts on Washingtonians right now; so, this legislative session we sought to pass bold and comprehensive policy that would get at their roots. That’s why we launched our Washington Can’t Wait Campaign this past September to pass updates to our state’s Growth Management Act that would address some of the biggest crises facing our state. Here’s the rundown on how things went and where we stand now. 

The Saga of HB 1099 

In 2020, the Washington Legislature failed to pass HB 2427, a crucial update to the Growth Management Act (GMA) that would have added a climate change goal and element to the GMA. We knew that we needed to be planning for the impacts of climate change, and with the next round of comprehensive plan updates due in 2024, we picked up in the 2021 legislative session where HB2427 left off. 

HB 1099 Sails through the House 

Working closely once again with climate champions Representative Davina Duerr and Representative Joe Fitzgibbon, HB 1099 was born. This bill would ensure cities and counties take bold action to mitigate against the climate hazards while working to reduce our contributions to the problem. 

To get a bit into the weeds for all our fellow policy wonks, HB 1099 would require Washington’s largest and fastest growing counties, and the cities within them, to reduce greenhouse gas emission and vehicle miles traveled to help meet state goals for reduction. It would also require all counties and cities planning fully under the GMA to plan for climate change mitigation and resiliency in order to address the adverse impacts of climate change on people, property, and ecological systems. Working closely with Front and Centered, the bill also included a definition of environmental justice and a requirement that city and county comprehensive plans should give special consideration to achieving environmental justice in its goals and policies and should avoid creating or worsening environmental health disparities.  

In short, HB 1099 would shift the paradigm for how our counties and cities are planning for climate change.  

Despite opposition from the Building Industry Association of Washington (BIAW) and Washington Realtors, HB1099 sailed through both of its House committees and, after a lengthy and at times cringe-worthy debate on the House floor, was voted out of the House with a party-lines vote of 56 to 41.  

Trouble in the Senate 

Having reached agreement with all major stakeholders on this legislation, including the Association of Washington Cities and Washington State Association of Counties, we were feeling optimistic going into the Senate, although we knew that the path forward was not as clear as it had been in the House. To our delight, we saw HB 1099 move through the Senate Housing and Local Government Committee and the Senate Ways and Means Committee.  

This, however, is where things got interesting. Due to a one time cost of $500K on the transportation budget, HB1099 was referred to the Transportation Committee. It was there that, despite having broad support from constituents, stakeholders, and we believe the votes needed for the bill to pass out of committee, the bill was never brought up for a committee vote and died.  

A Budget Proviso Provides a Path Forward 

After a failed attempt to incorporate the policy from HB 1099 into an amendment on HB 1241, another GMA related bill which did not make it off the Senate Floor, our last path forward to implement the policy within HB 1099 prior to the 2024 comprehensive plan update deadline was through a budget proviso. Working in collaboration with the sponsors Rep. Duerr and Rep. Fitzgibbon, a proviso was approved in the Final Operating Budget that will fund the Department of Commerce to start the work on setting up the programs needed to implement the GMA climate change element that HB 1099 creates. 

And so we forge on, committed to doing the work in the interim that is necessary so that when we pass HB 1099 first thing in the 2022 legislative session, the rules and framework will already be in process to allow King, Snohomish, Pierce, and Kitsap counties and associated cities to implement the bill in their 2024 comprehensive plan updates.   

HB 1220 Poised to Change WA’s Housing Landscape 

And now, we turn to housing. The housing element of the GMA is perhaps its weakest link, with vague language and few requirements, and it is part of the reason that we find ourselves in a crisis where 30% of people in the state are burdened by housing costs. Furthermore, Washington ranks 5^th in the US for our rate of homelessness — a crisis has only been worsened by the ongoing pandemic. Working in coalition with housing advocacy organizations and our legislative champions, we sought out to write legislation that would address the deficiencies in the GMA’s housing element.  

Peterson and Macri Push HB 1220 through the House 

The product of this collaborative effort was HB 1220, a bold bill to address a mounting crisis that was sponsored by Rep. Peterson and Rep. Macri. HB 1220 strengthens the GMA’s housing element by including specific requirements that cities and counties need to be planning for a diversity of housing types available at all income levels. It also requires jurisdictions to expand the zones in which they allow permanent supportive housing and emergency shelters to be built, which has long been a barrier to providing our houseless neighbors with dignified shelter. The bill also tackles the long history of racial discriminatory housing policies, such as red lining, minimum lots sizes and stringent zoning requirements among others, by requiring jurisdictions to assess and redress the impacts of racially disparate and exclusionary housing policies. Additionally, cities have to identify communities at high risk of displacement and implement anti-displacement policies, programs and regulations to prevent people from being priced out of the neighborhoods that they call home.

In essence, HB 1220 is a bill that would take strides to end income and race-based discrimination in Washington’s housing policy. So when HB1220 passed both the House Local Government and the House Appropriations Committees to arrive on the House Floor, we were ecstatic. With a party line vote of 57-39 on the floor, HB1220 was on its way to the Senate.  

A Senate Landscape Wrought with Uncertainty 

Much like with HB 1099, the path through the Senate for HB 1220 was not so certain.  

There was strong opposition from some specific cities on sections 3 and 4, which dealt with the zoning of permanent supportive housing and emergency shelters. This incited concern that if HB 1220 got through the Senate, it would be weakened and unable to truly meet the scale of the housing crises. However, it passed its Senate committees with these sections still intact thanks to the hard work of Senator Kuderer, who made sure the bill remained strong. 

As we drew closer to the deadline to get a Senate floor vote on the bill, it was increasingly unclear whether we had the votes for HB1220 to pass. So, we took a gamble and HB 1220 was brought up for a vote late at night before the floor cut-off. There was confusion on amendments and without clarity on a final vote, in the end, it just barely squeaked by with a final vote count of 25-24.  

We are still celebrating this huge win for housing justice as we anxiously await Governor Inslee’s signature on this landmark bill, which should come any day.   

The Vesting Loophole Remains Open…For Now 

For the last 12 years, Futurewise has worked to close a crucial loophole in the GMA known as the ‘vesting loophole’. You read that right – this bill was first introduced in 2008. 

What exactly is the vesting loophole, you ask? Under the GMA, counties can vote to expand their urban growth areas into farmland and natural habitat. Sometimes though, these UGA expansions are unnecessary and just contribute to excessive sprawl. In those cases, Futurewise appeals the UGA expansion to the Growth Management Hearings Board (GMHB) and win a judgment that the UGA expansion was illegal under the GMA. However, under the current framework, any permits issued for new construction in the expanded UGA are still valid even if the UGA expansion is later ruled illegal. That is why we have been working since 2008 to close this harmful loophole and ensure that we’re not losing any more farmland or critical habitats to sprawling sub-developments. 

This legislative session, we were back at it with SB 5042, a bill that would have closed the loophole by changing the date for specific actions, such as UGA expansion or de-designating farmland, until after the appeal period has expired or a judgement by the GMHB has been passed. Thanks to the support of so many incredible advocates across the state, SB 5042 made it further than ever before. However, it did not have the votes it needed to make it off of the Senate Floor. But, don’t despair! We will be at it again next year and are already working to build the support we need to make sure that 2022 is the year that the vesting loophole closes, once and for all.  

A Team Effort 

With constraints of a virtual session, budget pressures, the ever-present Covid crisis, and many more things that made this legislative session truly unprecedented, we are so incredibly proud of how far the Washington Can’t Wait Campaign came. To have one major GMA bill pass and another make it so far is an incredible accomplishment in any year, let alone this year, and it would not have been possible without the tireless advocacy of our supporters, partners, and champions in the legislature. As we look forward at the months to come and make plans to ensure that HB 1099 is implemented next year, we are filled with gratitude for everyone who contributed to this campaign, and look forward to continuing to work with you to make Washington a more just, resilient and equitable place to call home.  

The post Wonkabout: Washington Still Can’t Wait first appeared on The Urbanist.

Washington Can’t Wait: Well on Our Way to Victory!

In November 2020, Futurewise launched the Washington Can’t Wait campaign to pass major updates to the Growth Management Act that would incorporate better planning for climate change, environmental justice and housing affordability. This year, the Central Puget Sound counties–King, Pierce, Snohomish, and Kitsap–kick off their next comprehensive planning updates, which lock in plans for the next eight years. That’s why it’s critical to pass House Bill 1099 and House Bill 1220 during the 2021 legislative session.

HB 1099, sponsored by Representatives Davina Duerr and Joe Fitzgibbon, adds a climate change element to the Growth Management Act (GMA). Washington’s 10 biggest counties would be required to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from vehicles miles traveled (VMT). These counties can select from a menu of policy options to achieve these reductions, with a focus on the transportation/land use nexus. All cities and counties will be required to plan for hazards from climate change. And critically, the bill adds an environmental justice definition to the GMA, ensuring that planners are using an equity lens in planning.

HB 1220, sponsored by Representatives Strom Peterson and Nicole Macri, makes critical housing justice updates to the housing element of the GMA. Cities would be require to plan for housing affordable at every income level and to redress historical racial inequities in new housing plans. Critically, the bill would require cities to allow homeless shelters and housing for the homeless in zoning for comparable uses (for example, zoning that permits hotels would have to permit a congregate shelter; zoning that permits single family homes would have to permit small domestic violence shelters).

Both HB 1099 and HB 1220 sailed out of the House of Representatives ahead of the March 9th cutoff deadline and now head to the Senate for hearings. We’re halfway there but there’s still a long road ahead to the finish line. Futurewise is organizing a Week of Action, from March 15th to March 19th, to mobilize supporters across the state on these bills. RSVP to join us here.

Closing the Vesting Loophole: Close but Not Quite

For the last 12 years, Futurewise has worked to close a crucial loophole in the GMA known as the vesting loophole. What exactly is the vesting loophole? Under the GMA, counties can vote to expand their urban growth areas (UGAs) into farmland and natural habitat. Sometimes though, these UGA expansions are unnecessary and just contribute to excessive sprawl. In those cases, Futurewise might appeal the UGA expansion to the Growth Management Hearings Board and win a judgment that the UGA expansion was illegal under the GMA. However, under the current framework, any permits issued for new construction in the expanded UGA are still valid even if the UGA expansion is later ruled illegal.

These illegal UGA expansions gobble up local farmland for suburban sprawl and present a fiscal liability for local governments if they are found to be out of compliance with the GMA. Clark County alone lost over 500 acres of farmland to illegal UGA expansions in the last 15 years.

In 2021, our bill to close the vesting loophole, Senate Bill 5042, came closer than it ever has to passage. But unfortunately, overwhelming opposition from the Building Industries Association of Washington, the Washington Realtors and the Association of Washington Business tanked the bill. Vesting is a critical, but niche, land use issue, which presents challenges in building a broad coalition that can stand up to business interests. Futurewise will be strategizing about how to get vesting over the finish line in 2022.

The Best (and Worst) of the Rest

House Bill 1117, sponsored by Representatives Debra Lekanoff and Joe Fitzgibbon, amends the GMA and Shoreline Management Act to more clearly define the requirements for mitigation for fish and wildlife habitats such as salmon habitat and to require planning for net ecological gain.

Net ecological gain would be a stronger standard for ecological health and endangered specifies recovery, including salmon recovery, than is currently used in most relevant state laws and rules. The assessment would be required to address the shoreline management act (SMA), growth management act (GMA), and state agency approvals for construction projects in state waters. The assessment would include development of a definition, goals, objectives, and measurable performance metrics for the standard of net ecological gain as well as recommendations on funding, incentives, technical assistance, legal issues, monitoring, and the use of scientific data.

House Bill 1117 passed out of the House and now heads to the Senate.

House Bill 1298 and Senate Bill 5221, sponsored by Representatives Brandon Vick and Senator Marko Liias, would have allowed additional development capacity on all rural lots by defining a second single-family home as an accessory dwelling unit within the rural area. The additional development capacity has the potential to double rural water consumption, reducing instream flows and salmon production. The impacts of this bill would not only threaten our rural environments, but it would also allow for intensified development to occur in areas that are ill-equipped to handle increased development capacity, putting a strain on our rural school systems, fire departments, and infrastructure.

Fortunately, land use advocates made their voices heard and HB 1298 is dead.

Diving into LAMIRDs

The rural element of the Growth Management Act allows for “Limited Areas of More Intense Rural Development” (LAMIRD), which basically allows for counties to plan for isolated pockets of greater development in rural areas. Unsurprisingly, Futurewise is never thrilled about expansions of LAMIRDs, as our goal is always to focus development within UGAs for the purposes of connecting housing with transit, using our water resources strategically and protecting people and property from natural hazards like wildfires or landslides.

Two major bills have been under consideration that would impact LAMIRDs, all three of which have been opposed by Futurewise. The first bill, House Bill 1233, sponsored by Representatives Strom Peterson and Tarra Simmons, would have allowed for development and redevelopment of LAMIRDs as defined by a county and would have allowed for expansion of the outer boundaries. Unfortunately, this bill means that a LAMIRD wouldn’t necessarily need to meet any definition of rural character as the county can define what is allowed. This bill would have been detrimental to our rural ecosystems and would result in sprawl. Lucky for us, HB 1233 is dead!

That leaves one other LAMIRD-related bill to contend with. Senate Bill 5275, sponsored by Senators Shelly Short and Liz Lovelett seeks to respond to the housing affordability pressures in rural communities, by permitting (re)development within limited areas of more intense rural development subject to available public facilities and public services and be consistent with local character. We continue to oppose new development in rural areas that expands sprawl into farmlands, forests and critical areas.

Gearing Up for the Final Stretch

It’s pretty incredible to see so many good GMA-related bills still alive this session. But we can expect the second half of the session to be an uphill climb, as business interests and suburban developers kick into high gear to oppose progressive land use legislation. It will be all hands on deck to ensure that we can steward HB 1099, HB 1220, and HB 1117 all the way to the finish line! Once again, we invite to join the Week of Action, March 15th through March 19th, to learn about how to get involved.

The post Wonkabout Washington: 2021 Mid-Legislative Session Update first appeared on The Urbanist.

This strange context is why Futurewise’s Washington Can’t Wait campaign is off to an early start. We know we have to pass updates to the Growth Management Act (GMA) in 2021 if we want to have an impact on the Central Puget Sound counties comprehensive planning process. Specifically, we’re looking to add a climate element to the GMA, update the housing element and incorporate environmental justice principles throughout the Act. But given the constraints on legislators listed above, we also know that we’re going to organize extra hard to keep their attention.

November 16th – 20th marked a Week of Action hosted by Futurewise to inspire people across the state to engage their legislators on these critical GMA updates. More than 400 land use activists from Benton to Whatcom counties sent emails, made calls and mailed postcards to their legislators asking them to take action next year to update the GMA to respond to the crises of climate change, housing affordability and environmental injustice. Some superstar volunteers hosted their own organizing parties from a poetry reading to a Zoom blast with local electeds. Others submitted letters to the editor and op-eds in local papers outlining the urgency of the campaign.

Here’s what people are saying:

“The next set of Comprehensive Plans are in 2023 for the City of Seattle, and 2024 for King County. 2023 and 2024 may sound like a long time from now, but the planning and community engagement will start soon so it’s critical the GMA updates are in place before they do. These plans will determine the next 10+ years of growth in our community, impacting the air that we breathe, the homes where we live, and the sidewalks where we walk.” – Serene Chen in the International Examiner

“The pandemic laid bare the risks of housing insecurity and demonstrated the increased risks of mortality from Covid-19 in areas subject to higher rates of pollution. July saw a peak in infection rates and then, in late August and early September, out-of-control wildfires across the state resulted in weeks of lethally unhealthy air and hundreds of thousands of acres of burned land. As the summer made clear, Washington cannot wait to mitigate climate change and increase community resilience. Nor can it wait to address decades of state policies negatively affecting communities of color, or resolve the growing crisis of housing insecurity.” – Jennifer Calkins in The Urbanist

“If there is anything that the wildfires this summer have taught us, it is that climate change has arrived at our doorstep in Washington and we are running out of time to take substantive action on an issue that is having disproportionate impacts on our communities. No matter your race, class, creed, or political party, we all have a stake in ensuring that Washington is a healthy, sustainable, and equitable place to live for this and all future generations.” – Warren Neth in The Columbian

What’s Up Next

In the next few weeks, we can expect to get bill numbers and final outlines for each of our priority bills. The legislature will decide on a new committee structure and we’ll get guidance on which committees will be hearing our bills. The first day of the legislative session will be January 13^th; from then, our next big deadline will be February 7^th, which is the deadline to pass bills out of committee. 

Our campaign team is taking a few days to prepare for this next phase of the campaign. If you’re not already signed up for updates, be sure to get on the list to stay in the loop about next steps. And save the date for Friday, December 11^th, 1pm to 2pm for our next organizing meeting. We’ll give you all an update on the campaign and marching orders for what’s next. 

Many thanks to the hundreds of people across the state, including many Urbanist readers, for getting this campaign off to a strong start. We can’t wait to keep up the organizing with you.

The featured photo is by Markus Spiske via Unsplash.

The post Wonkabout Washington: We’ve Got Their Attention first appeared on The Urbanist.

Meanwhile, our houseless neighbors are faced with an impossible choice between overcrowded indoor shelters or hazardous air quality outside. The smoke is a visceral representation of policy failures to meaningfully tackle climate change, environmental justice, and affordable housing.

The Climate Change/Land Use Nexus

The science is clear that we need to decarbonize our communities rapidly if we’re serious about a livable future. Yet, Washington continues to lag in reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. In 2008, the legislature set targets to match 1990 GHG emissions in 2020, then reduce to 25% below 1990 levels in 2035 and by 50% in 2050. Even these targets are not aggressive enough to prevent the worst impacts of climate change on shorelines, forests and water supplies. In 1990, Washington state sent 90 million metric tons of GHGs into the atmosphere; in 2017, that number was 97.5 million. So, so far, not looking great at meeting our first target.

Vehicle emissions are the biggest contributor to Washington’s GHG emissions, accounting for 44.6% of the state’s emissions. While many proposals have been introduced over the years (including a carbon tax or low-carbon fuel standard), readers of The Urbanist know that one of our best solutions doesn’t involve decarbonizing cars: it’s investing in communities where people don’t need a car at all to get around.

Dense, affordable, walkable, and transit-oriented communities are one of our best tools in the fight against climate change. In a recent interview, former California governor Jerry Brown noted that “ingrained policies in states like California, with its sprawl, devotion to single-family houses and reliance on automobiles, had also contributed to the [wildfire] crisis.” In contrast, the 2019 C-40 cities report noted 30 major cities across the world have already reduced their GHG emissions by at least 10% since 2015, with London, Berlin, and Madrid averaging a 30% reduction and Copenhagen reaching a whopping 61% emissions reduction.

Here in Washington, we’re over 50 years into the suburban experiment that moved (mostly White) people out of cities and into car-dependent suburbs and exurbs. The impact of encroaching development on Washington’s natural areas led to a movement that helped pass the Growth Management Act (GMA) in 1990, making Washington one of the few states in the nation with a statewide framework for planning for growth.

However, 30 years later, we’re seeing the limitations of the GMA as written. While Washington’s cities and counties are required to update their comprehensive plans every eight years, these plans don’t adequately address our affordable housing needs to make it possible for people at every income level to live in cities. Worse, they aren’t required to plan for climate change or environmental justice at all.

If we want to make serious progress on reducing our GHG emissions, we need a more robust planning framework that requires our communities to plan for climate change mitigation and adaptation, and to build enough housing at every income level to make it possible for Washingtonians to live car-free lifestyles.

Washington Can’t Wait for action on climate change

In the next few years, our biggest cities and counties will be updating their comprehensive plans, establishing a road map for growth for the next decade. We can’t wait another decade to take action on today’s biggest challenges.

That’s why next week, on Thursday, September 24th, Futurewise will officially launch our Washington Can’t Wait campaign to fight for a GMA that meets today’s challenges. The GMA currently has 14 elements that comprehensive plans must account for, like housing, transportation, and utilities. We’re fighting to add a climate element, strengthen the housing element, and incorporate environmental justice throughout the Act.

RSVP now to meet with State Representatives Joe Fitzgibbon (D-Burien) and Davina Duerr (D-Bothell) and learn how to get engaged on this campaign. Together, we can secure a more equitable, affordable, and sustainable future for everyone in Washington.

The post Wonkabout Washington: The Climate Change/Land Use Nexus and Washington Can’t Wait first appeared on The Urbanist.

Before we dig into our conversation with Candib, let’s start with an honest understanding of the history of farming in America.

Stolen Labor, Stolen Land 

In the American South, enslaved Africans and their descendants toiled under brutal conditions to enrich White enslavers. Formerly enslaved people were promised “40 acres and mule” by General William Sherman, only to see President Andrew Johnson renege in 1865. By 1870, only around 30,000 African Americans in the South owned land, compared with four million who did not.

Today, Black farmers account for just 1.4% of producers across the United States. Across the West, the mythology of Manifest Destiny and the Homestead Act of 1862 promised households 160 acres of land in exchange for working the land for at least five years, land that was forcibly taken by the United States government from indigenous nations. During World War II, Japanese American farmers were forced to sell their farms far below market rates before being forced into internment camps. Today, despite the fact that 83% of all farmworkers are Hispanic, producers who identified as Hispanic, Latino or Spanish origin account for just 3.3% of US producers.

These are just a few examples of vast racial disparities in who has access to farm ownership and production and it’s critical we understand this history when we talk about how to protect Washington farmland and invest in the next generation of farmers. 

Protecting Our Most Valuable Farmland

The Farms Under Threat: State of the States report from the American Farmland Trust (AFT) provides an interactive map, along with policy analysis, about the declining state of farmland in the United States. Across the United States, between 2001 and 2016, 11 million acres of farmland and ranchland were converted to urban and highly developed land use (4.1 million acres) or low-density residential land use (nearly 7 million acres). That’s equal to 2,000 acres a day paved over, built up, and converted to uses that threaten the future of agriculture.

Fortunately, Washington ranks in the top twelve in policy response to changes in agricultural lands and ranks second only to Oregon when it comes to land use planning, thanks to the Growth Management Act. Washington has lost 98,000 acres of agricultural land between 2001 and 2016, compared to over 500,000 of acreage lost in states like North Carolina, Georgia and Tennessee.

A quick note about how to prioritize farmland for protection: all farmland is important to state and local economies and to the food system. That said, resources for protecting farmland are limited. The American Farmland Trust advocates that states prioritize protecting “Nationally Significant” land, or land which is most critical for long-term food security and environmental quality. The conversion of “nationally significant” land puts the pressure on more marginal lands to produce food, which can in turn mean higher inputs and lower production, as well as increased soil erosion and water quality degradation.

There is a real economic and environmental cost to converting our most productive, versatile, and resilient (PVR) land. But it’s also important to recognize that there are other reasons that farmland might be protected other than its ability to grow food. A community might prioritize protecting a parcel of more “marginal” farmland because it has important wildlife or cultural benefits. 

Investing in the Next Generation of Washington Farmers

The Farms Under Threat report dives into many different pressures facing farmers but in this column we’re going to focus specifically on the question of transferring land to new farmers. In Washington, farmers over the age of 65 outnumber farmers under 35 by a factor of 5:1. Fortunately, the American Farmland Trust and Futurewise have a few policy ideas to work from.

Farm linking or land linking programs connect land seekers to available land. “Land linking is time-intensive and staff intensive,” Candib said. “You have to meet land seekers where they’re at and meet landowners where they’re at.” In Washington, some local community groups have stepped up. In Thurston County, the South Sound FarmLink initiative connects “farmers and landowners to local resources, technical and financial assistance, and most importantly each other.” PCC Farmland Trust’s Farm to Farmer program does the same in Pierce, King and Skagit counties. Unfortunately though, Washington lacks a statewide land linking program.

Another popular tool is the use of conservation easements, in which a nonprofit or public agency purchase the development rights for a farm and add a permanent restriction on development and subdivision of the property. Landowners are paid a portion of the property value and retain other property rights. Easements have an advantage in that older farmers who are relying the sale of farmland for their retirement can make the needed profit on their land without selling to a property developer. On the downside, easements work only at the scale of individual properties and in very high land value regions, putting an easement on the property will still not reduce the price to be affordable to new farmers. 

A Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) program takes individual conservation easements to the next level, by linking conservation with urban development. A TDR program basically creates a marketplace for development rights that transfers development capacity from rural areas to urban neighborhoods. Rural landowners sell the right to develop their land, in exchange for compensation and a conservation easement. Then urban developers can purchase those rights to increase the number of units or square footage on urban projects. While TDR programs are harder to implement at the outset, as they require buy-in from a broader range of stakeholders, there’s an advantage in taking a regional approach to growth.

As Alex Brennan, Futurewise Executive Director put it: “It’s easy to identify where we don’t want to see growth happen. It’s harder to identify where do we want to see growth.” TDR programs are an opportunity to build coalition across geographies. By growing and investing in our cities, we can protect our farmland, forest land and natural habitat.

Protecting Washington farmland for the long haul will likely require a whole suite of policy response, from continuing to flex our GMA authority to protect farmland in comprehensive plan updates, scaling up conservation easements and community land trusts and expanding TDR programs to more counties across Washington. To dig in more with Candib about development, agriculture, and the next generation of farmers, check out the full conversation.

King County Wineries, Breweries and Distilleries Ordinance Appeal Victory

Speaking of farmland protection, Futurewise recently secured a victory with the Growth Management Hearings Board regarding the King County wineries, breweries and distilleries ordinance (covered in our May 2019 Wonkabout column). 

When the ordinance was first being considered, Futurewise raised concerns about the impact of expanded tasting rooms on farms in the Sammammish Valley, including “potential negative direct and indirect impacts on working farms including increased purchases of land by speculators at prices farmers cannot afford, the conversion of agricultural land to non-agricultural uses and stormwater runoff impacts on fields and farms.”

On March 26, 2020, the Growth Management Hearings Board (Board) granted Futurewise’s and the Friends of the Sammamish Valley’s dispositive motion, agreeing that the King County Wineries, Breweries, and Distilleries Ordinance violated the Washington State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA). 

The board granted the motion because King County did not review the environmental impacts of the ordinance early enough in the process. This is important because local governments and state agencies benefit from considering the potential adverse impacts of their decisions early to tailor their decisions to lessen adverse environmental impacts such as water pollution. The board also concluded that the environmental document the County prepared, called a SEPA Checklist, did not disclose the potential adverse impacts of the ordinance including adverse impacts on ground water quality, working farms, and increased demand for water in near streams that already have flows too low to sustain the salmon runs on which fishers and the Southern Resident Orcas depend. The board directed the County to take another look at the impacts of the ordinance by November 6, 2020.   

The board also concluded that the potential adverse impacts of the Wineries, Breweries, and Distilleries Ordinance, such as its potential impacts on rural character, water quality, working farms, and water availability substantially interfered with the goals of the Growth Management Act. Therefore, the Board concluded that new permit applications cannot be approved using the ordinance. This will prevent adverse impacts on rural areas and agricultural lands while the County conducts a new review of the environmental impacts.

Correction: An earlier version incorrectly identified President Andrew Johnson as Andrew Jackson. Wrong Andrew.

The post Wonkabout Washington: Farms Under Threat first appeared on The Urbanist.