Land Use & Housing

For information on any of the following items, please contact either Dave Williams, davew@awcnet.org, or Tim Gugerty, timg@awcnet.org.

Local Solutions to Climate Change/GMA (ESSB 6580)

Having used many of its "nine lives," ESSB 6580 was amended by and passed the House after being resurrected during a special meeting late last week in the House Local Government Committee. As it passed the full House with a few technical amendments, the bill contains:

• No new mandates;
• A stakeholder process to evaluate what changes, if any, are appropriate to help cities and counties address climate change;
• A directive to CTED to develop models and tools for interested cities, and;
• A pilot program to fund cities or counties wishing to address this issue.

The Senate needs to concur with the House amendment prior to passage. It is not clear what funding will be available to support the pilot programs. Absent funding, that section is null and void.

As has been reported in this Legislative Bulletin for the past several months, the scope of this bill has been narrowed throughout the legislative process. It originally contained mandates to include very specific items in local GMA plans and regulations when they are updated; it also contained a new GMA goal. These and other pieces were methodically scaled back in response to concerns from AWC and others.

We appreciate the hard work of all involved parties during the evolution of this legislation. As it now stands, AWC fully supports this bill. We expect the Senate will concur and the Governor will sign it. Soon thereafter, the hard work will begin when the stakeholder group is formed to start sorting through what, if any, follow-up legislation should be considered for the 2009 session.

Evergreen Cities/Urban Forestry (E2SHB 2844)

This bill was amended by and passed from the Senate on March 6. The House needs to concur with the amendment prior to passage. Similar to the local solutions to climate change bill described above, this bill has been heavily modified throughout the process. Gone are the mandates for cities to adopt local tree planting and preservation ordinances based upon a state agency adopted set of standards. Instead, proponents worked with AWC to craft a bill that outlines a process by which stakeholders and agencies work together to develop a series of model approaches to protect and care for trees, while the Department of Natural Resources embarks upon a statewide inventory and assessment of trees in cities. Once model approaches are available, those cities choosing to implement them would receive "preference" when applying for various state grants and loans. Details on this process have yet to be worked out.

AWC again appreciates the hard work of those involved in the evolution of this bill and looks forward to it being funded and signed in to law after it goes back to the House for concurrence.

GMA/Housing/Consistent Development Regulations Between Cities and Urbanizing Parts of Counties (ESHB 1727)

Sec. 4 of the bill, which AWC supports, has generated controversy. It is on the calendar for Senate consideration on March 7.

As it left the Senate Ways and Means Committee, this bill would require interested cities and their county (applicable to King, Pierce, Snohomish, Kitsap, Thurston, Clark and Spokane only) to consult and cooperate on changes to urban growth area (UGA) boundaries and ways to adopt consistent development regulations in unincorporated UGAs. The bill also requires a report back to the Legislature with results. In its current form, the bill would also require use of city development standards on a narrow set of unincorporated lands – those being totally surrounded by a single city; or, if surrounded by more than one city, the standards from the city through which sole vehicular access is provided.

Several amendments may be considered when and if this bill gets to the floor. One amendment supported by AWC would direct impacted cities and their county to adopt joint development regulations for uninhabited "islands" that meet a specific set of criteria. This amendment is aimed mainly at land surrounded by the city of Maple Valley and another piece of land surrounded by both the city of Shoreline and Town of Woodway. Another amendment supported by King County would treat each of these pieces of land differently.

AWC supports passage of the underlying bill which contains many beneficial pieces. We hope disputes over Sec. 4 can be resolved in a timely manner.

Eminent Domain Repurchase Option (2ESHB 2016)

2ESHB 2016 was heard, amended and passed from the Senate Judiciary Committee on February 26. It was then referred to the Senate Transportation Committee which conducted a hearing on March 3. The bill failed to pass from the Committee.

This bill would have placed new requirements on state and local governments to provide written explanations of the consideration of alternatives to proposed projects prior to final action on decisions to condemn property and to provide a repurchase option to former owners if the property is not used.

AWC has been supportive of the repurchase option and consideration of alternatives. Along with the Washington State Association of Counties, we were concerned that the bill as it left the House contained the consideration of alternatives that may have jeopardized the long-standing judicial deference given to local legislative authorities and would have resulted in the court substituting its judgment on the design of projects and deference on what constitutes a necessary and public use when making decisions about condemnation.

[ previous article ] [ return to top ] [ next article ]