|
Land Use & Planning
Governor Gregoire’s "Land Use Agenda" -
Third Drafts of Bills Now Under Development
The governor announced in June that she would propose a number of changes to the Growth Management Act (GMA) for consideration during the upcoming 2006 legislative session. In late September, her staff released the first drafts of her proposals. Following input from various interests, a second set of drafts was released for comment.
During this period, AWC sought input from cities and towns. In mid-November, AWC submitted written comments to the governor’s staff. We also consulted with the governor’s staff, key legislative interests and representatives from counties, the business, environmental and agriculture communities in an effort to share issues and common interests.
The governor’s staff is now working on a final set of modifications to the bills with the aim of finalizing them by late December. Following is an update summary of the issues and bills under development:
- GMA Review and Update Schedules
Intent: To provide more flexibility in GMA update deadlines and to provide some relief to the update requirement for smaller, slower growing cites, towns and counties. Status: The current version of the bill changes the frequency of mandatory reviews and updates from every seven to every ten years, including allowing jurisdictions to spread the updates over more than one year. It also provides cities or towns that have 5,000 or fewer people and low growth rates to delay, for up to three years, updates required in either 2005, 2006 or 2007. Cities, counties and most other interests support this bill. The environmental community does not support changing the update cycle to every ten years.
- Best Available Science
Intent: To assist local governments with using best available science (BAS) in the development of critical areas policies and development regulations. Status: AWC and others have supported efforts to clarify this overly complicated requirement of the GMA. We think it is important to recognize that finding the best science is one task and deciding how to apply it locally while meeting all the other requirements of GMA is another task – one where elected policy makers have to make choices. Some contend that the best science, once found, should be translated into regulations – regardless of whether or not it allows other GMA requirements (such as intensifying development inside urban growth areas) to be met. This is the most contentious bill in the package and if no consensus, or near consensus is reached by early in the session chances for passage are slim.
- Pre-existing Uses in Critical Areas
Intent: Clarify the status of preexisting land uses located within designated critical areas, to help resolve existing controversy and confusion on this issue. Status: The governor’s staff has "pulled" the bill for the upcoming session because most interests found objections to all or part of the bill.
- GMA Appeals/Reforming the Growth Management Hearings Boards
Intent: To improve the appeals process by reforming the Growth Management Hearings Boards. Status: Few interests found much to support in drafts prepared by the governor’s staff. As such, they have "pulled" this bill from consideration during the upcoming session and will continue working on it for introduction in 2007.
- Eminent Domain
Intent: To reaffirm the legal use of eminent domain by state and local governments in Washington State as defined by the state constitution, and state supreme court decisions. Status: Despite concerns raised by a number of interests that this bill does little other than restating current law, the governor’s staff continues to work on this bill. Its future is uncertain at this point.
- Accessory Uses on Agricultural Lands
Intent: Expand the types of activities that are allowed on agricultural lands, to provide supplemental income for farmers while maintaining the rural character of the landscape as defined by local government. Status: Environmental and rural interests appear at odds on what this bill should or should not allow. Generally speaking, this bill does not directly impact cities or towns.
AWC’s GMA website, www.awcnet.org/gmaupdates, provides bill summaries with a highlighted number of "Items for Cities to Consider" at the end of each summary (with the exception of bills addressing rural land uses). These will be updated when the third drafts are released in late December. It also contains a copy of AWC’s November 18, 2005 comment letter to the governor’s staff.
We welcome your input on any or all of these bill drafts via e-mail or phone. Please send e-mails to Dave Catterson at davec@awcnet.org or call Dave Williams or Dave Catterson at 1-800-562-8981.
Farm Bureau Plans Property Rights Initiative
AWC has been provided a copy of the Washington Farm Bureau’s recently announced property rights initiative and has received an invitation from them to provide our feedback as they consider changes to their draft. Farm Bureau staff told us that the initiative language will likely go through several redrafts before it is filed on January 9, 2006 – the first day of the 2006 session. They have until July to collect at least 225,000 valid signatures to put it on the ballot.
The first draft of the initiative includes the following:
- Prohibits cities, counties and the state from regulating certain types of land uses – primarily things like buffers for protection of environmental values.
- Allows us to regulate land and uses to protect the public health and welfare, but narrows the definition of what constitutes the public health and welfare.
- Broadens the definition of "damages" that may be cause for compensation and litigation under current statutes, but is not clear about whether compensation is required if certain types of regulations are imposed.
- Freezes zoning regulations in place as of January 1, 1996. Uses that were allowed in 1996 cannot be restricted. Apparently the 1996 date was chosen because that is when the Best Available Science requirement of the GMA was first being implemented by local governments.
- Prohibits government from regulating actions necessary to prevent/mitigate fire, flooding or other natural disasters that could damage private property.
- Stipulates that all property acquired through eminent domain must be for public use and then defines "public use" to exclude economic development.
We don’t yet know what this Initiative will contain when filed in January. Because it was drafted solely by the Farm Bureau, it currently is written with the protection of rural property rights in mind. Now that others, including the Building Industry Association of Washington (BIAW) have been invited to provide input, it may (or may not) become even more detrimental to land regulation within urban and suburban areas.
Minimum Urban Densities – Does GMA Require Them?
Last session, legislation was introduced that intended to clarify that cities and towns planning under the GMA were not required to zone all residential lands within for a minimum of four dwelling units per acre. Some thought such legislation was needed because the group Futurewise (formerly 1000 Friends of Washington) was challenging several cities for not meeting a Central Puget Sound Growth Board so-called "bright line" test on this issue. ESSB 5907 and HB 1967 did not pass and a number of cities in the Central Puget Sound area were gearing up to promote such bills again in 2006. Those efforts appear for now to have been shelved.
Over the summer, the Washington State Supreme Court issued rulings indicating that they do not view that any Growth Board has the authority to set policy by establishing such a "bright line." Concurrently, a number of the cities challenged by Futurewise had their plans upheld, while some did not. One case involving the city of Normandy Park is being appealed to King County Superior Court – the outcome of which may determine whether or not legislation on this issue is needed. Stay tuned.
[ previous article ]
[ return to top ]
[ next article ]
|
