Land Use & Housing

Overview

Land use and housing topics were again front and center before the Legislature this session – much more so in the House where the Local Government and Housing Committees were combined and dealt only with these topics. In the Senate, land use bills were heard and considered in the Government Operations and Elections Committee and housing ones in the Financial Institutions, Housing and Insurance Committee.

Land Use
AWC worked in a coalition of Firefighter and Fire District interests to advance and pass ESSB 5808 that facilitates annexations. This important bill includes provisions allowing a city, county and fire district to enter into an interlocal agreement that allows annexation of small or large areas. This new method is in addition to the existing petition-method and election methods. It also includes a provision making all petition-method annexations subject to the approval of owners of at least 60% of the assessed valuation of an area. Non-code cities had been required to have owners of at least 75% approve the annexation under this method. Finally, it includes provisions addressing firefighter employee transfer issues when all annexations occur.

We also introduced two bills that offered suggestions on how mandated city review and update schedules under the Growth Management Act (GMA) might be modified to align better with growth pressures (or lack thereof) and fiscal/staffing capacity. While neither passed, both bills are still “alive” for consideration next session. HB 2005 would have allowed cities with fewer than 12,500 people to “skip” a legislatively mandated review and update requirement if their population hadn’t increased more than 17% since the last required review and update. Such cities could update if they want – they just wouldn’t be forced to. HB 2006 allows cities in Clallam, Clark, Jefferson, King, Kitsap, Pierce, Snohomish, Thurston and Whatcom counties to defer their required 2011 GMA review and update for up to 2 additional years. This bill was folded in to SHB 1490, but because it didn’t pass – neither did this provision.

SHB 1490 was one of the Environmental Community’s four priority bills for 2009. As introduced, it included a number of provisions attempting to address climate change challenges by requiring they be evaluated in local land use plans and regulations. These provisions had been discussed and “vetted” during the 2008 interim and AWC was generally supportive. It also included a major section – not vetted during interim discussions that would have required some 20 cities in the Central Puget Sound to zone land within 1 mile of dozens of high-capacity transit stations at densities of at least 50 units/acre. AWC and all but a few of these cities strongly objected to this pre-emptive zoning. Instead, we urged proponents to work with us to develop tools (mostly fiscal) that would help these cities achieve higher densities near these stations. Following weeks of discussions and debate, the bill’s sponsor Rep. Sharon Nelson (D-Vashon Island/West Seattle), agreed that mandatory zoning without fiscal tools wasn’t going to work. She eliminated this provision and because of opposition to other provisions of the bill from the business community, proponents decided that a “slimmed down” bill was worse than no bill, so efforts to pass it were abandoned – at least for the 2009 session.

Also a bill of interest to the many GMA-planning cities in Western Washington is EHB 1967 that places limitations on the expansion of urban growth area (UGA) boundaries within 100-year floodplains along rivers with a minimum flow of 1,000 cubic feet/second. Freshman legislator Rep. Scott White (D-Seattle) was asked to introduce the bill by the land use advocacy group Futurwise. Prior to “dropping a bill”, he consulted with AWC and we worked with him and Futurewise to identify impacted cities. As approved, the bill includes a number of provisions allowing UGA expansion under certain circumstances. Most cities supported the bill on final passage, but a few could not take advantage of the exceptions and remained opposed. AWC is working with these few cities and Rep. White over the interim to find solutions to their unique circumstances.

Housing
A bill promoted by Seattle and supported by AWC was passed that expands an existing affordable housing incentive program authorized in 2006 legislation. EHB 1464 builds upon this statute that allows cities to create options through development regulations, such as density bonuses within the UGA and height and bulk bonuses, for projects with affordable housing components. This year’s amendment clarifies that these incentive programs can be used with non-residential developments as well and that any new affordable housing can be built not just on a development site, but near it as well.

The large state budget deficit threatened support for low-income housing programs. Housing advocates urged continued support for the construction, rehabilitation, and maintenance of low-income housing. They were successful in increasing the recording fees collected by counties to backfill reductions in the Housing Trust Fund. HB 2331 will add an estimated $50 million per biennium for these purposes, though the Housing Trust Fund was reduced by $100 million.

A somewhat unique approach to providing opportunities for affordable housing is contained in EHB 1227, a bill that prohibits cities from precluding the placement of RV’s as permanent residences on pads or lots within mobile home parks or manufactured housing communities. Advocates stated that as older single-wide mobile homes are removed from these communities, there’s nothing to replace them and pads sit vacant. RV’s can fit on them and provide a viable alternative for housing. AWC worked with proponents and amended the bill to include a provision that RV’s can be sited if they have their own internal plumbing for bathrooms and showers and meet applicable utility hook-up standards. If the RV has no internal plumbing, the mobile home park must provide bath and shower facilities or it can’t be sited.

On the Homelessness front, HB 1956 was introduced and it would have placed significant restriction on the types of conditions cities may impose on faith communities wishing to house tent cities. The AWC position was to protect local authority, while recognizing cities do not currently have the authority to prohibit tent cities within their borders.

Looking to Next Session
Many of the state’s largest and most populated counties and cities will be in the midst of conducting both their review and update of local GMA plans and regulations, plus extensive review and updates to local Shorelines Master Programs. Such reviews and updates are costly and can be controversial and it’s likely the legislature will hear reports on these efforts – both positive and negative. Add to that the expected push by some in the Environmental Community to require consideration of Climate Change issues in these updates, along with a possible re-try at requiring certain cities to increase zoning densities near mass-transit stations, and it could be an active land use session.

In some ways, housing issues have gotten less attention in Olympia as prices fall. Issues surrounding the availability and price of lower-income housing are likely to continue to be discussed as the economy has made it impossible for some to remain in or afford homes.

Major Bills

Annexation Reform (ESSB 5808) – AWC Priority

This carefully crafted legislation is the result of years of work in cooperation with representatives of fire districts, fire chiefs and fire fighters. The bill adds a new optional interlocal method of annexation and establishes for every city and town using the property-owner petition method the need to secure agreement from owners of at least 60% of the assessed valuation, reduced from the previous 75% for non-code cities.

This law requires notification by both the fire district and the annexing city to existing fire district employees of the proposed annexation and any impacts on employment. If needed to retain current service levels in the newly annexed area, unless an agreement for different terms of transfer is reached between the collective bargaining representatives of the transferring employees and the fire protection jurisdictions (both city and district), eligible fire district employees would be transferred to the annexing city retaining certain employee rights and benefits equal to those of the fire protection district. These rights and benefits are subject to collective bargaining at the end of the current bargaining period for the jurisdiction to which the employee has transferred.

The bill is a compromised agreement between cities, fire fighters, fire chiefs and the fire districts. As with most compromises no single party is completely satisfied. AWC is pleased with the new methods of annexation in these bills and the flexibility it provides to cities.

[C 60 L 09; Effective Date: July 26, 2009]

Minor Bills

Implementing a transfer of development rights program (2SHB 1172)

Over the summer and fall of 2008, there was a Task Force studying how best to facilitate the transfer of development rights (TDRs) from rural resource and agricultural lands to "add density" to lands in cities in the central Puget Sound region. This bill advances recommendations from this group (which included city representatives) and establishes ground rules for establishing a regional TDR Program that is voluntary, incentive based and not something mandated for cities.

[C 474 L 09; Effective Date: July 26, 2009]

Residential vehicles as primary residences (EHB 1227)

This bill stems from an issue in Pasco, but impacts cities across the state. With limited exceptions, cities, towns, counties, and code cities are prohibited from adopting ordinances that restrict the entry or require the removal of recreational vehicles used as primary residences in manufactured/mobile home communities. Exceptions to this prohibition are allowed if the recreational vehicle fails to comply with fire, safety, or other local ordinances or state laws related to recreational vehicles. Additionally, local governments enacting an ordinance that does either of the following are exempted from the prohibition:

• Requires utility hookups in manufactured/mobile home communities meet applicable state and federal building code standards; or
  
• Requires a recreational vehicle to contain both an internal toilet and an internal shower. If this requirement is not met, the manufactured/mobile home community hosting the recreational vehicle must provide toilets and showers.

[C 79 L 09; Effective Date: July 26, 2009]

Annexing areas used for agricultural fairs (HB 1295)

Stemming from a dispute between Moses Lake and Grant County, this bill establishes procedures for the annexation of county-owned fairgrounds by code cities, non-code cities, and towns. To initiate the annexation process, the legislative body of the city or town proposing to annex territory owned by a county that is used for an agricultural fair must submit a request for annexation and a legal description of the subject territory to the legislative authority of the county within which the territory is located.

Upon receipt of the request and description, the county legislative authority has 30 days to review the proposal and determine if the annexation proceedings will continue. The legislative authority may modify the proposal, but it may not add territory that was not included in the request and description. Approval of the county legislative authority is a condition precedent to further proceedings upon the request and there is no appeal of the decision of the legislative authority.

If the county legislative authority determines that the proceedings may continue, it must satisfy public notice and hearing requirements. If, following the conclusion of the hearing, a majority of the county legislative authority deems the annexation proposal to be in the best interest of the county, it may adopt a resolution approving of the annexation.

Should the legislative body of the city or town proposing annexation determine to effect the annexation, it must do so by ordinance. The ordinance may not include additional territory that was not in the county resolution, nor may it exclude territory that was in the resolution. Territory annexed through an ordinance in accordance with specified requirements is annexed and becomes a part of the city or town upon the date fixed in the ordinance.

[C 402 L 09; Effective Date: July 26, 2009]

Affordable housing incentive (EHB 1464)

This beneficial bill, promoted by Seattle and strongly supported by AWC, expands the existing affordable housing incentive programs allowed in 2006 legislation to create options through development regulations, such as density bonuses within the urban growth areas and height and bulk bonuses, for projects with affordable housing components.

This bill clarifies that incentive programs can be used for commercial and residential development. It also provides more flexibility for the placement of new affordable housing units. Finally, it modifies provisions to allow more flexibility in program requirements.

[C 80 L 09; Effective Date: July 26, 2009]

Identifying specific facilities planning requirements under the growth management act (SHB 1825)

SHB 1825 was in response to a situation in East King County where a hospital could not locate just outside an urban area. The bill requires:

• Cities and counties to plan for the inclusion of areas sufficient to accommodate specific types of urban growth, including, but not limited to, medical, governmental, institutional, commercial, service, retail, and other nonresidential land uses as part of the Growth Management Act (GMA) planning process.
  
• Counties to consider the future development of commercial and industrial facilities when planning for county-wide economic development and employment under the GMA.

[C 121 L 09; Effective Date: July 26, 2009]

Prohibiting expansions of urban growth areas into one hundred year floodplains (EHB 1967)

The bill prohibits expanding urban growth area boundaries within 100-year flood plains along Western Washington rivers whose flows surpass 1,000 cubic feet per second. AWC appreciates the efforts of Rep. Scott White (D-Seattle) to craft exceptions that work for most of the 30 or so cities impacted by this bill.

[C 342 L 09; Effective Date: July 26, 2009]

School impact fees (SB 5580)

This bill requires that school impact fees must be expended or encumbered within ten years of receipt, rather than six years, unless there exists an extraordinary or compelling reason for fees to be held longer than ten years. Extraordinary or compelling reasons must be identified in written findings by the governing body of the county, city, or town.

[C 263 L 09; Effective Date: July 26, 2009]

Bills that Failed

Allowing Cities served by Fire Districts to Charge GMA Impact Fees for Fire Protection Facilities (HB 1080)

GMA-planning cities with their own fire departments may charge impact fees on new development to support expanded fire protection services. The same is not true if the city is served by a fire district. This AWC-supported bill would have simply authorized these cities to consider charging what other cities can now charge.

Requiring Consideration of Impacts on Certain Plant Species when Issuing Permits (HB 1136)

This bill would add a new review process to all city permitting of development projects and would require onsite evaluations of whether or not certain plants are present and prior to issuing a permit, a mitigation process to safeguard the plant.

Exempting State and Local Taxes on Affordable Housing Projects Receiving Public funding (HB 1141)

In an effort to reduce costs for new or rehabilitated affordable housing projects, this bill would have provided an exemption in the form of a refund for state sales and use taxes paid by qualifying entities related to the construction of "eligible affordable housing developments.”

An Act Relating To Special Districts (HB 1153)

This bill would have modified flood control district provisions and addressed matters relating to annexation of diking and drainage facilities to contiguous areas.

Creating Programs to Increase Affordable Housing and End Homelessness (HB 1173)

This bill was similar to ones introduced in previous sessions by bill sponsor, Rep. Mark Miloscia (D-Federal Way). If passed, the bill would have:

• Created the Affordable Housing for All program with the goal of providing decent, affordable housing for all economic segments by the year 2020.
  
• Required the Department of Community, Trade and Economic Development (Department) to implement and administer the Affordable Housing for All program.
  
• Added performance measure, quality management, and reporting requirements to the responsibilities of the Department, as well as local governments, with respect to the Affordable Housing for All Act and the Homeless Housing and Assistance Act.

Requires Installation of Solar Hot Water Heater Systems on New Single-Family Dwellings (HB 1187)

This bill would have directed the state building code to be modified to require such installations.

An act relating to assessed valuation requirements for the direct petition method of annexation (1207/5084) – AWC Priority

This bill would have changed the property ownership signature requirement for annexation petitions under the direct petition method of annexation for classified cities. It would have been reduced from 75 percent to 60 percent.

Eminent Domain – Right of Repurchase (HB 1392)

Similar to HB 2016 from last session, this bill would have provided a repurchase option for property owners whose land was taken under eminent domain or purchased under threat of eminent domain, if the government did not use the land within seven years. It would have also increased the amount available for reimbursement to property owners to review the offer from the current limit of $750 to $5000.

Unlike last year’s proposal, it did not include provisions further expanding the constitutional restrictions against the use of eminent domain for economic development purposes.

Land use & climate change (SHB 1490/SSB 5687)

Both versions of the bill failed to make it past cutoff although the House version of this bill went through many changes in an attempt to quell stakeholder’s concerns. The prime sponsor of SHB 1490 (Rep. Sharon Nelson, D-Vashon Island) came to a realization that the central part of this bill directing some 17 cities how to plan and zone areas around high-capacity transit stations, wasn’t going to work. For weeks, AWC and representatives from most of these cities had encouraged her and bill proponents to lessen the mandates on how and what to plan for and instead, outline the goal of density and mixed uses around these stations and provide a series of incentives to help cities meet the goals.

Limiting the Authority of Boundary Review Boards (HB 1457)

This bill would have limited the authority of boundary review boards to expand an annexation to twice the area of the proposed annexation. It stemmed from a court case that limited the discretion of Boards to expand potential annexation areas at all.

Requiring cooperation when planning to accommodate projected population growth and the resulting development needs under the GMA (HB 1605)

This was a Realtor priority bill (a slimmed down version from prior years) that would have impacted GMA-planning cities in 2 ways. First, it would have allowed two or more cities to sort of “swap” population allocations to plan housing and jobs being closer together. Second, it would have added new words to what cities have to do the next time they review and update the Housing element of their comprehensive plans.

Clarifying Integration of Shorelines and Growth Management Act Planning (HB 1653/SB 5726)

Following a recent Supreme Court ruling in a case involving the city of Anacortes, this bill attempted to clarify which planning statute applies in shorelines areas when both GMA critical area and Shorelines Management Act protections are involved.

Tax relief to promote employer-assisted housing (HB 1696/SB 5585)

This bill attempted to provide a fund (which would have expired 7/1/17) to allow businesses to provide employees with housing related financial assistance to help them live in homes near their work.

Addressing reporting requirements in the growth management act (HB 1715)

This bill would have required the state to conduct evaluations of how cities and counties are doing in meeting their GMA planning obligations.

Pet annexation (SHB 1831)

This bill would have applied to future annexations in all but King, Pierce, Snohomish, Kitsap, Thurston, Clark and Spokane Counties. Residents of rural parts of those other counties, subject to annexation by a city, would have been entitled to retain possession of pets and livestock lawfully owned at the time of the annexation even if the annexing city has ordinances prohibiting the possession of such animals.

Eliminating City Authority to Assume a Water-Sewer District (HB 1897)

This bill would have removed longstanding city authority to assume part or all of a district as the city grows in to areas.

Siting pre-emption of sexually violent predator housing by DSHS (HB 1912/SB 5611)

The purpose of these bills was to extend an existing siting pre-emption that was enacted in 2001, but expires in June 2009. HB 1912/SB 5611 would have extended this pre-emption until June 30, 2017.

New Document Recording Fees to fund Affordable Housing (HB 1934 and HB 2166)

HB 1934 would have imposed a new $20 fee on each document recorded within a county. Funds would have gone to the county’s housing authority. HB 2166 would have imposed a $12 fee with funds going to a statewide fund to support housing and homeless programs.

Authorizing the housing of homeless persons on property owned or controlled by a church (HB 1956) – AWC Priority

HB 1956 was brought in response to a recent court challenge to Lacey’s tent city ordinance that requires churches to provide indoor space for homeless housing. The bill would have preempted a city or county from enacting ordinances or regulations that unreasonably interfere with the decisions or actions of a church regarding the location of housing or shelter for homeless persons on property the church owns or controls or which requires additional insurance or indemnity requirements related to housing the homeless on church property.

Allowing qualifying counties and cities to “skip” the next round of GMA updates (HB 2005) – AWC Priority

If you are a city under 12,500 in population and your population hasn’t grown by more than 17% in the 7 years since your last GMA or critical area update, this bill would have allowed your community to “skip” the next update – thus not having to conduct such an update for yet another 7 years.

Granting counties and cities two additional years to comply with review and revision requirements of the Growth Management Act (HB 2006) – AWC Priority

Clallam, Clark, Jefferson, King, Kitsap, Pierce, Snohomish, Thurston and Whatcom Counties and the cities within are currently required to complete their next GMA reviews and updates by December 2011. This bill would have allowed them to defer for up to an additional two years. Completing them sooner would have been a local option.

Regulating house-banked social card games (SHB 2162) -AWC Priority

This bill would have allowed cities to limit the number of house-banked social card games to those licensed locations as of the effective date of this legislation. Currently, cities and towns can allow or completely ban house-banked social card games. A number of cities have ordinances limiting the number of mini-casinos. The courts have ruled cities do not have this authority.

Annexation in counties with more than 1.5 million residents (HB 2173)

The bill sought to facilitate annexations in King County by modifying annexation methods when at least fifty-one percent of the boundaries of the area to be annexed are contiguous to the city the city is included under GMA. The bill would have modified the direct petition method of annexation to allow a fifty percent signature threshold, subject to referendum for 45 days after passage with two-thirds majority vote. The bill would have also authorized city assumptions of water and sewer districts when fifty-one percent of the area assessed valuation falls within a city.

Use of surplus public property for the development of affordable housing (HB 2138)

Cities and other public entities are now required to keep a list of surplus property. This bill would have required that any such properties for sale that are suitable for affordable housing, be made available for at least 180 days, exclusively to eligible organizations, for the purpose of developing affordable housing. A governmental entity that sells real property to an eligible entity under this section could have done so at a price that is less than fair market value, provided that the affordable housing developed on the property is occupied solely by individuals or families who are very low or low income.

Focus group on housing needs for certain populations at risk of being homeless (SSB 5219)

SSB 5219 would have established a focus group to address housing for individuals at high risk of being homeless. The focus group would have included legislative members as well as representatives from the Department of Corrections, the Department of Community, Trade, and Economic Development, the Department of Social and Health Services, the Department of Veterans Affairs; and the Interagency Council on Homelessness.

• The focus group would have been required to report by November 2009 on recommendations such as:
  
• identification and removal of barriers for individuals at risk of being homeless;
  
• inventory and review of existing programs that serve these populations
  
• advisable methods of providing housing assistance in the future; and
  
• methods to encourage private landlords to provide housing to at-risk populations.

Crime-free rental housing (ESSB 5742)

The bill would have placed new limits on local crime-free rental housing programs, including prohibiting mandatory participation or charging separate fees on a landlord. AWC has agreed to convene a group to include interested cities, landlords, and tenant advocates to try to work out the issues related to ESSB 5742 over the interim.

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