Presentation Abstract
Land use planning in Washington state empowers local governments to comprehensively plan for their future. In the first two decades since the GMA was passed, all Puget Sound area counties and their cities have created new plans, adopted new development controls including zoning and local land use regulations, and collectively absorbed more than 1.2 million new people. This is equal to a 37% growth from 1990, and current projections are for continued rapid population growth. Land use plans must figure out the “where will people live and work” and the “how will we pay for this” answers to new population growth, including figuring out transportation from homes to work to school and to other activities. It is clear our remaining undeveloped land available for new development is limited, and that we will not accommodate many new people on rural acreage. Cities are where most new residents will need to live. To accomplish this, cities must become denser and better served by transit alternatives to the single occupancy vehicle, and they must be welcoming and attractive and affordable to live in. The costs for land and urban services will result in the need for taller buildings, not just larger urban growth areas. Decision support tools enable landscape-scale analysis of relative ecosystem attributes and degradation, provide essential information for long-term sustainability planning, and assist with setting local and regional priorities for protection and restoration investments; potentially reducing public risks of floods, fires, droughts and other geological hazards; improving local understanding of the broader ecosystem context of localities; and enabling smarter discussions among neighboring jurisdictions for long-term land use planning. Awareness of this information can reveal inconsistencies between plans for development and protecting ecosystem processes, posing potential challenges to adopted plans and political risks to elected officials. This can bring with it fears of change, lost investments, unknown costs of mitigation actions, and the challenges of explaining scientific models to the public. It also can raise the need for and costs associated with increased inter-jurisdictional coordination and planning on a regional scale, to ensure shared risks are addressed with shared costs.
Session Title
Session S-06G: Integrating Landscape Scale Assessments Into Local Planning I
Conference Track
Planning Assessment & Communication
Conference Name
Salish Sea Ecosystem Conference (2014 : Seattle, Wash.)
Document Type
Event
Start Date
1-5-2014 1:30 PM
End Date
1-5-2014 3:00 PM
Location
Room 6E
Genre/Form
conference proceedings; presentations (communicative events)
Contributing Repository
Digital content made available by University Archives, Heritage Resources, Western Libraries, Western Washington University.
Subjects – Topical (LCSH)
Land use--Washington (State)--Puget Sound Watershed--Planning; Regional planning--Washington (State)--Puget Sound Watershed; Cities and towns--Washington (State)--Puget Sound Watershed--Growth
Geographic Coverage
Salish Sea (B.C. and Wash.); Puget Sound Watershed (Wash.)
Rights
This resource is displayed for educational purposes only and may be subject to U.S. and international copyright laws. For more information about rights or obtaining copies of this resource, please contact University Archives, Heritage Resources, Western Libraries, Western Washington University, Bellingham, WA 98225-9103, USA (360-650-7534; heritage.resources@wwu.edu) and refer to the collection name and identifier. Any materials cited must be attributed to the Salish Sea Ecosystem Conference Records, University Archives, Heritage Resources, Western Libraries, Western Washington University.
Type
Text
Language
English
Format
application/pdf
Included in
Watershed-based planning in the Salish Sea – advantages and disadvantages of using emerging decision support tools in local planning
Room 6E
Land use planning in Washington state empowers local governments to comprehensively plan for their future. In the first two decades since the GMA was passed, all Puget Sound area counties and their cities have created new plans, adopted new development controls including zoning and local land use regulations, and collectively absorbed more than 1.2 million new people. This is equal to a 37% growth from 1990, and current projections are for continued rapid population growth. Land use plans must figure out the “where will people live and work” and the “how will we pay for this” answers to new population growth, including figuring out transportation from homes to work to school and to other activities. It is clear our remaining undeveloped land available for new development is limited, and that we will not accommodate many new people on rural acreage. Cities are where most new residents will need to live. To accomplish this, cities must become denser and better served by transit alternatives to the single occupancy vehicle, and they must be welcoming and attractive and affordable to live in. The costs for land and urban services will result in the need for taller buildings, not just larger urban growth areas. Decision support tools enable landscape-scale analysis of relative ecosystem attributes and degradation, provide essential information for long-term sustainability planning, and assist with setting local and regional priorities for protection and restoration investments; potentially reducing public risks of floods, fires, droughts and other geological hazards; improving local understanding of the broader ecosystem context of localities; and enabling smarter discussions among neighboring jurisdictions for long-term land use planning. Awareness of this information can reveal inconsistencies between plans for development and protecting ecosystem processes, posing potential challenges to adopted plans and political risks to elected officials. This can bring with it fears of change, lost investments, unknown costs of mitigation actions, and the challenges of explaining scientific models to the public. It also can raise the need for and costs associated with increased inter-jurisdictional coordination and planning on a regional scale, to ensure shared risks are addressed with shared costs.
