|
Land Use & Housing
Session Overview
On the heels of last fall’s voter rejection of the so-called "Property Fairness Initiative" (I-933), it was not clear at the beginning of the 2007 session what (if any) significant changes to the state’s land use system would be considered. Similarly, with housing prices continuing to rise in most parts of the state, there was not consensus on what the Legislature might be able to do, if anything, to slow down or impact these price increases.
Legislators came to Olympia in January amidst a blizzard of Realtor-sponsored TV, radio and print media pieces urging action to address housing and land use issues. Agricultural and Farm Bureau interests who had supported I-933 turned to the Gregoire Administration and Democratic leadership in the Legislature and asked them to deliver on what they perceived as a promise to address their concerns over how environmental protections adopted on farmlands by counties. Many in the environmental community felt the failure of I-933 at the polls was a message that the system was not all that “broken” and that any fixes should be ”surgical.” Such fixes included how to tighten up rules on where development can occur in rural areas and when applications “vest” (i.e., have legal standing to proceed).
During the 2007 session, AWC’s land use and housing agenda focused on the following:
- Finding workable “fixes” to frustrations that brought forth I-933, including: how to improve the process of land acquisition if eminent domain authorities are used; how to best apply environmental protections in a manner that allows continued farming in and near cities, and how to address the continued intensification of development.
- Advocating for changes to annexation statutes to better facilitate annexations and exploring legislative ideas to encourage cities and counties to better coordinate boundary and governance transition issues.
- Passing legislation addressing housing affordability through infrastructure funding and new fiscal incentives and opposing new mandates or pre-emptive zoning legislation.
The I-933 “fix” discussions led to passage of two bills: one to enhance public notice procedures when public or private entities use eminent domain condemnation authorities (HB 1458) and another establishing a 2-year “time out” on requiring counties to update local critical areas regulations while stakeholders and professional facilitators hash out better procedures (SB 5248). Bills related to I-933 “fixes” that failed included other eminent domain process changes (HB 2016) and AWC sponsored bills that would have helped smaller cities and towns find and use “best available science” when adopting or amending local critical areas ordinances (HB 1781 & HB 2046).
Several bills were introduced concerning annexation reform and how to improve land use planning and governance transition in unincorporated areas next to cities and towns. Ultimately, ESSB 5836 was the only bill passed and signed in to law. This bill expedites the redirection of library and/or fire district property tax revenues when an area served by them is annexed to a city or town. A number of AWC bills in this area failed to pass, including the following:
- Measures to make the property owner petition-method of annexation the same between code and non-code cities (HB 2005/SB 5594),
- A measure to create a new form of interlocal agreement method of annexation (HB 2006) whereby a county and city could decide what area to annex and when; and
- HB 2045, which would have directed certain counties to cooperate with their cities in adopting consistent development standards in unincorporated urban growth areas. The contents of HB 2045 remained up for consideration until the final days of the session – either as an amendment to affordable housing bills HB 1359 or ESHB 1727.
On the housing availability front, AWC spent a considerable amount of time working with representatives of the Realtors, Futurewise (formerly 1000 Friends of Washington) and others to identify and promote legislative ideas that would add value to local efforts to increase housing supply and affordability. Ultimately, we were able to agree on some steps to take without mandating solutions or adding unfunded mandates. However, the bill (ESHB 1727) got caught up in an unrelated dispute between House and Senate leadership. After passing the House, the bill did not come up for a vote in the Senate.
Housing assistance for low income, homeless, and released offenders received a great deal of attention this session, though the Legislature seemed satisfied in the end to increase the revenue available for these services and little else. Bills were considered that would have limited cities’ authority to regulate homeless encampments after several cities in King County have been in the news over their struggles to reach agreement with homeless advocates on restrictions for tent cities.
After the Department of Corrections ended its program to pay for transitional housing for released offenders, housing advocates sought bill language that would have directed the Department of Community, Trade and Economic Development and the Department of Corrections to grant housing vouchers for housing. Additionally, housing advocates worked to increase the amount of funding in the Housing Trust Fund that can be used to build housing for low income, farm worker, disabled, and other needy populations.
When the dust settled, additional money had been secured for each of these special programs, but no new policy had been created for meeting the housing needs of vulnerable or lower income populations.
Looking Ahead to Next Session
For the time being, AWC does not anticipate any land use wars erupting in Olympia. Most of the required GMA updates are complete or near completion. Rural county critical area updates not yet complete are delayed while interests sort out the issues. Cities within the six GMA Buildable Lands Counties (King, Snohomish, Pierce, Kitsap, Thurston and Clark) are involved in helping prepare “snapshot” reports on how land is being consumed and at what level of development intensity. Reports will be forthcoming to the Legislature by the year’s end, aided in part by renewed funding to support this data collection and analysis effort.
AWC will be working over the interim with Realtors, Futurewise and others to identify ways to help preserve and expand the supply of affordable housing in cities and towns. We will also ramp up our discussions with counties and groups such as the firefighters in an effort to find agreements on how to facilitate annexations in urbanizing areas. We will also try to identify and support local efforts to enable counties to feel more comfortable adopting consistent development regulations in unincorporated areas inside or adjacent to cities. This issue got a considerable amount of attention this past session and a number of key legislators are likely to revisit it and will want to know of progress being made to foster consistency.
The Attorney General’s office is likely to form a working group or task force to identify additional eminent domain process reforms and AWC will participate if invited to do so.
Finally, as cities on or near the Puget Sound begin the process of updating local Shorelines Master Programs or consider ways to take actions intended to improve the health of the Sound, we will try to stay on top of those experiences which are sure to come back to Olympia for discussion and debate.
For questions or more information, please contact AWC’s Dave Williams at davew@awcnet.org.
Major Bills
AWC Priority – Annexation/Governance Transition Reform:
Timing of Accrual of Property Tax Revenues (ESSB 5836)
This bill expedites the transfer of library and fire district property taxes in areas containing these services when annexed to a city. The bill is the only annexation-related bill promoted by AWC that passed this session–both because it is sound policy and was worked out in advance with county and special district interests. Over the interim, we will accept the offer of assistance from the fire districts to explore ways to remove their concerns with facilitating annexations in hopes of coming back next session to pass some or all of our legislation.
[C 285 L 07; Effective Date: July 22, 2007]
AWC Priority – Responses to the Failure of I-933:
Eminent Domain (SHB 1458)
SHB 1458 requires new notice requirements to property owners before condemnation decisions/actions may occur. Anyone initiating such an action after the effective date must use these enhanced provisions.
[C 68 L 07; Effective Date: July 22, 2007]
Preserving the Viability of Agricultural Land (SSB 5248)
The bill deals with the application of the growth management act to certain agricultural activities occurring on agricultural lands and will create a two year time out for the development and adoption of new Critical Area Ordinances while the Ruckelshaus Center in Seattle works with stakeholders on potential new programs, rules and proposed legislation. While AWC members did not directly benefit from this legislation, it offers a path to resolve longstanding frustrations (albeit only in rural areas for now) concerning how to apply critical areas regulations on environmentally sensitive lands. Stay tuned!
[C 353 L 07; Effective Date: May 8, 2007]
Minor Bills
Planning Tools – Extending Timelines to Update Shoreline Master Programs (HB 1412)
Over 200 cities and towns are required to maintain and soon update a Shoreline Master Program (SMP). The rules guiding these updates were the subject of considerable controversy several years ago. The Legislature established an updated schedule and gave cities, towns and counties two years to complete their updates. As the SMPs progress, many communities are realizing the need for additional time to fully complete their program. This AWC supported bill provides cities with the option of taking an additional year to complete their SMPs.
[C 170 L 07; Effective Date: July 22, 2007]
Clarifying the Definition of a Floodway (EHB 1413)
When cities and towns plan and zone to protect frequently flooded areas, they have typically relied upon maps provided by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). Such maps show the location of flood prone areas and identify those that may flood during a 100-year timeframe. Use of these maps has been challenged by some interests, leading to uncertainty about whether each city or town is responsible for creating its own map. This bill reaffirms that cities may use FEMA maps to plan and zone to protect frequently flooded areas.
[C 328 L 07; Effective Date: July 22, 2007]
Creating a Regional Transfer of Development Rights Program (2SHB 1636)
2SHB 1636 seeks to encourage more counties and cities to use a process of transferring development rights from rural to urban areas as a way to protect rural character and provide value to rural landowners. This bill offers opportunities to evaluate this process for widespread use, including an evaluation of how to create and sustain a market in cities to accept these development rights.
[C 482 L 07; Effective Date: July 22, 2007]
Siting Industrial Development Outside GMA Cities and Urban Growth Areas (HB 1965)
The bill reauthorizes the ability of certain GMA-planning counties to allow major industrial development within industrial land banks – such lands being outside urban growth areas. There are a number of conditions that must be met to site them, including consultations and agreements with cities.
[C 433 L 07; Effective Date: July 22, 2007]
Affordable Housing For All Program (E2SHB 1359)
This bill will allow the county auditor to charge an additional $8 surcharge to each document recorded. Ninety percent of the surcharge will be used by the county for homeless housing plans and goals. If a city chooses to operate it owns homeless housing program, the city will receive a percentage of the county’s collected surcharges. The portion shall be equal to the percentage of the city’s local real estate excise tax in proportion to the county’s total real estate excise tax.
[C 427 L 07; Effective Date: July 22, 2007]
Creating an Independent Youth Housing Program (2SHB 1922)
2SHB 1922 establishes a housing program for youth that have been dependents of the state. The program will be designed and operated by CTED and is intended to provide housing stipends to youth for independent housing along with case management and support services programs.
[C 316 L 07; Effective Date: July 22, 2007]
Miscellaneous
Relating to Sewer and Water Districts (SSB 5231)
SB 5231 is an omnibus technical bill dealing with the activities of water-sewer districts. Cities served by them may be impacted, but not in any detrimental way.
[C 31 L 07; Effective Date: July 22, 2007]
Licensing of Massage Practitioners (HB 1341)
This bill limits the regulation of massage by licensed massage practitioners by cities and counties. AWC did not oppose the bill.
[C 165 L 07; Effective Date: July 22, 2007]
Bills that Failed
In large part because of opposition by representatives of some of the firefighters, most of AWC’s annexation reform legislation has been sidelined until next session.
SB 5594/HB 2005 would have authorized non-code cities to use the same 60% assessed value-based property-owner petition method as code cities use. Current law for some reason requires non-code cities to meet a 75% assessed value threshold.
HB 2006 would have established a new method of annexation based upon a voluntary interlocal agreement outlining governance transition issues between a city and its county.
While we are disappointed that these important bills did not move forward, AWC will accept the offer made by representatives of firefighters to work on these bills over the interim. We will also confer with county and other special district representatives interested in working on this legislation.
In response to a recent 5-4 state Supreme Court decision ruled that Boundary Review Boards (BRB’s) may not enlarge a proposed city annexation area. SHB 1622 would have clarified that they may. Again, cities have expressed both support and opposition to the idea that BRB’s may enlarge annexations, sometimes to the detriment of the annexation because the annexation includes areas which, although being logical for annexation, are in opposition to being annexed.
AWC Priority - Urban Growth Area Issues (HB 2045)
HB 2045 was introduced as an expression of concern and frustration among many cities who want more involvement with their county on how and where lands develop adjacent to city boundaries. This bill would have required that a GMA-planning county, by a date certain, establish consistent development standards with a city in urbanizing unincorporated areas next to the city. It would have also required that these same counties share decision-making authority with their cities when changing existing urban growth area boundaries.
The bill was opposed by counties and was amended to ESHB 1727 on the floor of the House. It was heard and modified in the Senate Government Operations Committee, after which AWC negotiated a compromise with the County Association that would have authorized cities in King, Pierce, Snohomish, Kitsap, Thurston, Clark and Spokane counties to consult on these issues and report progress back to the 2008 Legislature.
Ultimately, ESHB 1727 didn’t pass, but AWC encourages cities in these counties who are interested in these issues to “consult” with your county anyway and be prepared to report back to AWC and the 2008 Legislature on progress made/or not, in addressing these matters. For suggestions of more information, please contact AWC’s Dave Williams at davew@awcnet.org.
AWC Priority – Responding to the Failure of I-933:
Clarifying Use of “Best Available Science” (HB 1781, HB 2046)
HB 1781 and HB 2046 were introduced to clarify the requirement to include “best available science” when identifying and protecting critical areas. Neither bill gained broad-based support and neither passed. AWC will keep trying to find ways to insure that smaller cities and towns, in particular, can get assurances that if they use science and regulations found in other communities that contain similar critical areas, they can replicate those same protections and not face the costs of creating them from scratch.
ESHB 2016 would have clarified the use of eminent domain for economic development purposes and provided for a “first right of refusal” to owners of property acquired through eminent domain but not utilized. The bill failed to come to the Senate floor for a vote due both to time and policy concerns and was not passed by the Legislature.
We expect the Attorney General will convene a task force over the interim to look at a number or potential issues surrounding this topic. AWC will want to participate and will update members when more is known.
AWC Priority - Regulating House-Banked Social Card Games (ESSB 5558)
ESSB 5558 failed to pass out of the House and died. The Speaker was concerned about unintended consequences associated with the cap on the number of gambling licenses. In addition to a state-wide cap on licenses, the bill would have allowed cities to retain their grandfather clauses or partial bans limiting the number of casinos in the city. The courts have been very consistent over the last few years, cities may ban or allow but nothing in between. Seventeen cities limit the number of casinos located within their boundaries. The bill would have also provided cities limited zoning authority.
Other Bills of Interest
Refinements to the Land Use and Housing Elements of GMA Plans (ESHB 1727)
After months of discussions among interests representing cities, counties, realtors and environmental groups, there was agreement on language that would have “fine tuned” some GMA-planning requirements and promoted consultations among cities and counties about how to better coordinate development in unincorporated urban growth areas. Such an agreement was not enough to convince the Senate that such incremental changes should be passed.
Passage of ESHB 1727 got caught up in disputes between the House and Senate; not necessarily over the content of the bill, but over the failure of unrelated measures to move forward in one or the other chamber. Once that roadblock became evident, interests worked to amend the agreed upon language (noted above) on to E2SHB 1359, a bill dealing with affordable housing issues. Again, as can be the case towards the end of a legislative session, attempts to amend this agreement on to the bill were thwarted by other disagreements. In the end, none of the GMA or city/county consultation language was enacted.
AWC is disappointed that language was not adopted that recognizes the need to promote better cooperation between cities and counties in some areas to facilitate enactment of consistent development regulations in the incorporated and unincorporated parts of GMA urban growth areas. We will continue to work this issue over the interim and expect it will be back before the legislature next session.
Additionally, AWC will continue to work with interests that crafted ideas to promote opportunities for affordable housing. We will team up with groups such as the Realtors to figure out ways under current law to promote more housing choices in cities.
Planning for a Supply of Housing that Accommodates Growth (SHB 1726)
SHB 1726 would have directed the state Office of Financial Management to more finely craft their population projections used by GMA-planning cities and counties to establish comprehensive plans and development regulations to accommodate 20 years of projected growth.
Community Justice Facilities (E2SHB 1733)
This bill to address siting of criminal justice and work release facilities by the Department of Corrections and the Department of Social and Health Services did not pass out of the Senate Government Operations & Elections Committee prior to the legislative cut-off.
Siting Affordable Housing Communities Outside Urban Growth Area Boundaries (HB 1640)
This bill would have allowed the siting of new mobile home parks and manufactured housing communities outside of urban growth areas.
Lands Suitable for Development in Cities/Urban Areas (HB 1918)
This bill would have provided that, after January 1, 2006, if a fully-planning GMA county or city amends its comprehensive plan or development regulations in such a way as to preclude development on any piece of land, that county or city must determine how much land can not be built upon and replace that amount with land suitable for development somewhere else.
New Performance Measurement and Reporting Requirements in GMA Cities and Counties (HB 2091)
This bill would have required countywide planning policies to be amended to establish performance measures that regularly review progress towards accommodating the twenty-year population and employment growth projections.
Changing Washington’s Vesting Laws (SB 5507/HB 1463)
Washington is one of only a few states whose laws “vest” (establish the rules and regulations applicable) land use applications at the time of application. Most other states vest them at the time a permit is issued. These bills would have essentially aligned our laws with the majority of other states. Cities who reviewed these bills shared a variety of perspectives with AWC; some liked the proposals and others did not. The business community was fully aligned in opposition and the environmental community was in support. AWC did not take a position due to the range of opinion among cities.
CTED Feedback to the Legislature on GMA Performance (SHB 2092)
SHB 2092 would have required the Department of Community, Trade and Economic Development (CTED), on or before each December 31, to prepare a list of methods used by counties and cities to comply with the requirements of the Growth Management Act. This bill also would have required CTED, on or before each March 1, to provide this information and appropriate technical assistance to counties and cities required to or choosing to comply with the provisions of the act.
Accommodating Projected Urban Growth in Large Counties By Wage Decile (HB 2093)
This bill would have required that urban growth accommodations in King County must include zoning regulations that conform to the estimated wages of the residents expected to comprise the growth.
Prohibiting Discrimination Against Affordable Housing Developments (SHB 2279)
This bill would have required that a city, county or other local government not adopt, impose or enforce requirements on an affordable housing development that are different than the requirements imposed on housing developments generally. The bill did not prohibit a jurisdiction from giving preferential treatment to affordable housing developments intended for the homeless, farm workers, or low-income households.
Elimination of School Impact Fees (HB 2169)
This bill would have eliminated the authority of GMA-planning cities and counties to impose and collect impact fees for school facilities. AWC could have supported this if funds equal to or greater than those currently collected were provided.
Adding a New GMA Planning Requirement to Address Energy (SB 5871)
This bill would have required all GMA-planning cities and counties to include an energy element in local comprehensive plans. While this may be a good idea and is likely something several cities do without a mandate, AWC opposed any new requirements be imposed at this time.
Study on Residential Fire Sprinklers (ESHB 2292)
This bill, supported by AWC, would have directed the state building code council to form a technical advisory group to research and review policies and procedures for residential fire sprinklers. The goal was to develop a model building code policy for residential fire sprinkler installation and services. ESHB 2292 would have required the state building code council to report the findings of the technical advisory group to the appropriate committees of the Legislature by January 15, 2008.
Assumption of Water-Sewer Districts (HB 1864)
This bill would have eliminated the authority of cities to assume all or part of a water-sewer district if more than 60% of the district is within city limits. AWC opposed this bill.
Relating to Sewer and Water Districts (HB 1239)
HB 1239 would have impacted how cities and counties review and approve water-sewer district comprehensive plans.
All of these bills, sponsored by park owners, would have affected uses inside mobile home parks (those communities typically populated by older and smaller mobile homes) and were opposed by AWC. SHB 1148 and HB 1150 would have preempted cities from regulating the size and age of homes moving into parks. AWC testified in opposition and suggested cities should be able to ensure that older homes moving into parks meet updated health and safety standards. HB 1228 would have pre-empted cities from charging units for stormwater or sewer charges except when charged in the same manner as multi-family units.
[ previous article ] [ return to top ] [ next article ]
|
