HB 2427 adds climate change to the planning goals that guide the development and adoption of city and county comprehensive plans and development regulations under the Growth Management Act (GMA). It requires the consideration of the climate change planning goal by regional transportation planning organizations and in countywide planning policies under the GMA. The bill is dead for this session but may be reintroduced in a future session.
Kirkland City Council supports 2427, Kirkland actively considers climate and plans for change. 2427 supports K4C (King County Cities Climate Collaboration) work already done in Kirkland. Featurewise supports 2427, especially comprehensive planning to address climate change, “insure climate resiliency” language is important for bill. Washington Association of County Commissioners is concerned but supportive of climate goals. He noted that the state is unwilling to fund mandates for local governments, so planning costs are problematic. Mason County acknowledged need for climate planning, but is concerned with stakeholder involvement in changes. Jefferson County supports addressing climate change in GMA but is concerned about “insure climate resiliency” and “mitigate climate change.” He suggested “enhance adaptation and mitigation.” In the Senate Hearing, The Nature Conservancy supports planning for climate change and resiliency, particularly floodplain management and storm water impacts. TNC supports resources for local government.
Neutral or Opposed:
Association of Washington Cities is neutral, noting that there are cities already using climate criteria in plans, concerned about how to measure “insure climate resiliency” in bill language. Washington State Association of Counties was not consulted during drafting of bill and would like more stakeholder participation. Pierce County Council acknowledges the importance of climate change but noted that Pierce County has already done a lot of work on climate; smaller counties are at a disadvantage in working on GMA. Kitsap County Council asked for partnership with state on meeting climate goals, particularly on measuring vehicle miles traveled, which is a problem in rural counties. Small counties need to address transportation differences and note the disadvantages with large counties. Association of Washington Business opposes 2427 because of increased costs and burdens for local jurisdictions, asserting targets are unrealistic, particularly regarding vehicle miles traveled. Pacific County supports transportation emissions reductions but elevating climate change into a goal makes the county vulnerable to lawsuits and litigation.