AWC Legislative Bulletin - Volume 31, No. 10
March 17, 2008  (Plain Text Version)

Return to Graphical Version | Search back issues

In this issue:
What You Need to Know Now
From the Director
Energy & Telecommunications
General Local Government
Infrastructure, Transportation, & Economic Development
Land Use & Housing
Law & Justice
Municipal Finance
Personnel & Labor Relations
Online Legislative Advocacy Tools
AWC Legislative Contacts & Officers

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)

The Senate concurred in House-passed amendments to this AWC-supported bill. The scope of this bill was narrowed during the legislative process. The bill originally contained mandates for cities to include very specific items in local GMA plans and regulations when they are updated and also contained a new GMA goal. These and other pieces were methodically scaled back during the process in response to concerns from AWC and others.

As it passed the Legislature, 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.

While there was a null and void clause for each of the three sections noted above, funding for these sections was provided for in the supplemental budget passed by the Legislature. The pilot programs, however, received limited funding and will likely be "teed up" this year to be implemented in 2009.

AWC will soon scope out and share with cities, the various ways in which climate change legislation impacts cities. We will also continue to partner with MRSC, the Washington State Association of Counties and others in our efforts to help you understand and take advantage of opportunities to address climate change in your communities. As part of these efforts, AWC is hosting a climate change workshop in Tacoma on April 16 – for more information and to register visit www.awcnet.org/climatechangeworkshop.

Evergreen Cities/Urban Forestry (E2SHB 2844)

The House concurred in Senate amendments and this bill was passed. 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.

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

The Legislature failed to pass ESHB 1727. Section 4 of the bill, which AWC supported, required GMA-planning counties to work more cooperatively with cities when modifying urban growth area boundaries. Section 4 also required them to work towards adoption of development regulations in the unincorporated parts of urban growth areas that were consistent with those of the adjacent city or town. Finally, it required consistent development standards in those few unincorporated areas that are completely surrounded by a city or cities.

County interests, particularly King County, opposed being told to adopt consistent development standards in unincorporated areas totally surrounded by a city or cities. AWC worked with bill proponents to craft a compromise that would have required both the county and surrounding city or cities to "work it out" so that neither the county nor the city standards would automatically apply to new development so that such an approach would only apply on uninhabited lands (i.e., those not yet developed). This "compromise" was ready for Senate action.

The bickering over this Section resulted in the Senate refusing to bring the bill up for a vote in the final days before cut-off. As a result, the whole bill died, including provisions in other sections that a broad array of interests had agreed upon.

The issues concerning development standards in the unincorporated parts of urban growth areas will not go away. We hope that AWC and the Washington State Association of Counties can work constructively on these issues over the interim and come back with agreed upon ways that the Legislature can help us address a variety of development and governance transition issues in these unincorporated urban growth areas.

Eminent Domain Repurchase Option Fails (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 and was never "revived" before the end of the Legislative Session.

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 will likely work with the Association of Counties and others over the interim to craft a bill on this topic that we can support and advocate for during the 2009 session.