GMA and Disputes (11/22/00)

1. When there is disagreement between the individuals and/or agencies, what are the initial efforts to resolve the conflict prior to the GM Hearings Board, and who takes the lead: planners or the city/county attorneys?
[ response ]

2. Has your agency experienced any GMA-related appeals from individuals? If so, please inform us about the nature of the appeals? Were the appeals related to their personal property rights or to community interests?
[ response ]

3. GMA is already 10 years old. Has the number of GMA-related disputes increased or decreased in your jurisdiction over the past ten years?
[ response ]

4. In your agency's experience, have the cities and counties come closer together or grown farther apart on issues relating to the implementation of the GMA?
[ response ]

5. If you know, do the three hearing boards differ in how they handle disputes, especially regarding outcomes?
[ response ]

R. Fox
City of Tukwila
The City of Tukwila City Council will hold a public hearing on proposed amendments to the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Code on Monday, November 20, 2000 at 7 p.m. in the City Council Chambers at Tukwila City Hall, 6200 Southcenter Boulevard, Tukwila, WA 98188.
A copy of the full public notice can be seen clicking upon the following link.

S. Croft
Spokane County
In Spokane County, some disagreements can be resolved at the staff level, but mostly it seems the result is stalemates, where things like Interlocal Agreements never get signed. There appears to be a lot of reliance on a vigilant public who will appeal is there is insufficient consistency between jurisdictions/agencies.

B. Collins
City of Port Angeles
There is considerable discussion mostly at the policy level between planners and elected officials initially to determine if there is a political resolution of issues. Once an issue becomes defined as a conflict usually the city/county attorneys take the lead to determine if there is a legal resolution of issues before it gets to the GMHB.

H. West
City of Buckley
Background: our city adopted a GMA-based Comprehensive Plan in 1995. Subsequently, the Plan was appealed to the Central Puget Sound GHB. The specific issue on appeal was the proposed urban growth area, which extended into lands considered by the appelants to be unsuited for urban growth.

Upon receipt of the appeal, the GHB scheduled a session to explore the issues and determine whether there was room for negotiation. This is typical in appeals of this nature, as the hearing boards prefer to facilitate resolution through negotiation or mediation as an alternative to the formal appeal process.

The greatest burden on our agency was the production of a "record". This involves assembling all the relevant reports, meeting minutes, lists of attendees,public notices, etc Copies of the record were made available to the hearing board and the appelants.

Following two preliminary sessions, the hearing board indicated that it had not found any errors in procedure during our adoption process. Its remarks were not encouraging to the appelants, who chose not to pursue an appeal. Instead, they petitioned the Pierce County Council to deny our request for approval of the urban growth boundary (all urban growth boundaries must be adopted by the County Council in the county where they are located - in counties planning under GMA). The County Council agreed with the appelants and denied the proposed UGA.

K. Kuhn
Pend Oreille County
I can only speculate: Probably would be the planners for two main reasons--we're more acquainted with the substance and the process of the plan, and the county attorneys are already overworked.

S. Croft
Spokane County
A couple years ago, the County, and by extension, the City of Spokane was appealed on our IUGA. Basically, the challengers were private property owners whose land was outside the UGA but they wanted it inside the UGA so their appeal claimed that we hadn't done our population allocation & land quantity analysis correctly. The EWGMHB eventually decided that we had adequately shown our work, and that it did, in fact, justify the IUGA as drawn.

B. Collins
City of Port Angeles
No

K. Kuhn
Pend Oreille County
No appeals, though one local resident said he would support a fund to help challenge the plan in its entirety. The basis of such a challenge would be overwhelmingly based on private property rights. The community interest group seems to be quite individual in nature and not nearly as vociferous as the private property rights folks.

S. Croft
Spokane County
Hard to say. The City of Spokane is just now on the verge of adopting our comp plan under GMA.

B. Collins
City of Port Angeles
Decreased

H. West
City of Buckley
Generally speaking, I would say that the number of GMA-related disputes has decreased overall over time as the record of decision-making by the hearing boards becomes clearer. Nevertheless, they continue to occur. Recently, the city of Tacoma prevailed over Pierce County in an appeal to the Central Puget Sound GHB over public services provided in rural areas.

K. Kuhn
Pend Oreille County
N/A

S. Croft
Spokane County
Yes, of course, they differ. You'll have to review the various findings to determine the nature for yourself.

B. Collins
City of Port Angeles
Closer together

K. Kuhn
Pend Oreille County
Pend Oreille County Planning has provided the staff for the initial adoption of each town's comp plan. There seems to be little awareness, especially at the town level, that there needs to be coordination and communication between the towns and the county on planning matters. Look up the population of each town in this county--small, with part-time officials who are coping with pressing needs on very small budgets in the midst of an extraction-based economy in transition. There is definitely the need for more regular communication and coordination among the jurisdiction in the county.

S. Croft
Spokane County
Yes, of course, they differ. You'll have to review the various findings to determine the nature for yourself.

B. Collins
City of Port Angeles
In discussions with GMHB members I believe they have come to appreciate the differences between boards where one size does not fit all parts of the state.

H. West
City of Buckley
The three hearing boards do differ in their approach and decision-making. A good source for perspective on this issue is Joe Tovar, who is with the central board and frequently provides updates on the hearing boards at seminars and conferences. He can be reached at joet@gmaboards.wa.gov.

K. Kuhn
Pend Oreille County
From my information, the Eastern Board is more proactive in dispute resolution by using mediation prior to more formal procedures in front of the Board.