HOUSE BILL REPORT
HB 2734
BYRepresentatives Haugen, Ferguson, Nutley, Brough, Phillips, Wood, Spanel, Horn, Scott, Cole, Sprenkle, Dellwo, Bennett, G. Fisher, Fraser, Ebersole, Todd, Leonard, Jacobsen, Hine, Holland, Forner, Pruitt, Wang and Nelson
Requiring additional land use planning by local governments.
House Committe on Local Government
Majority Report: The substitute bill be substituted therefor and the substitute bill do pass. (12)
Signed by Representatives Haugen, Chair; Cooper, Vice Chair; Ferguson, Ranking Republican Member; Horn, Nealey, Nelson, Nutley, Phillips, Raiter, Rayburn, Wood and Zellinsky.
Minority Report: Do not pass. (2)
Signed by Representatives Kirby and Wolfe.
House Staff:Steve Lundin (786-7127)
AS REPORTED BY COMMITTEE ON LOCAL GOVERNMENT
FEBRUARY 6, 1990
BACKGROUND:
In 1971 voters of the state approved an initiative requiring all counties and cities to plan and zone in shoreline areas under the guidance of regulations adopted by the Department of Ecology.
Since 1937 state law has required counties and cities to review proposed divisions of land, inquire into the public use and interest in such proposed divisions, and approve or reject the proposed divisions.
Since 1971 the state and local governments have been required to inquire into the possible impacts of their proposed actions, including the issuance of permits, under the state environmental policy act (SEPA).
The state building code was enacted in 1974 requiring counties and cities to enforce various uniform building codes.
Legislation has existed since 1935 permitting counties and cities to plan and zone at their option. At present, the authority for general planning and zoning is contained in three separate chapters of law, the details of which vary widely from almost none to quite specific. The state supreme court has held that a zoning ordinance controls a conflicting comprehensive plan.
The state supreme court has adopted a doctrine that a right vests upon the filing of a less than complete application for a permit, and that the government cannot alter standards relating to that permit after such a less than complete application has been submitted. This is a minority rule. Approximately 46 other states have a differing vesting rule, providing that a right vests when a permit has been obtained, and the permit holder both changes his or her position and substantially relies on this permit.
In 1982 legislation was enacted that, with certain exceptions, prohibited counties and cities from imposing impact fees or taxes either directly or indirectly on development.
SUMMARY:
SUBSTITUTE BILL: 1. Policy goals are established to guide state and local government actions, including goals to contain urban sprawl, protect sensitive areas, and encourage economic development in areas with low economic development.
2. Large counties (over 100,000 population) and fast growing counties (over 10 percent population growth in last 10 years), and the cities within such counties, are required to adopt interim designations by July 1, 1991, as well as comprehensive plans by July 1, 1993, designating and protecting agricultural lands, forest lands, mineral resource lands, and sensitive areas, from incompatible land uses. Such counties must designate urban growth areas in their comprehensive land use plans by July 1, 1993, to accommodate 20 year projected growth. Each city must be included in an urban growth area. The designation of urban growth areas involves negotiation between the county and each city within an urban growth area. If agreement cannot be reached, the county makes such designations and must justify the urban growth area in writing. An aggrieved city may object to the Department of Community Development which may mediate the dispute. Requirements are made that comprehensive plans of adjoining jurisdictions must be coordinated and for public input in developing the comprehensive plans. Every 10 years thereafter, the urban growth areas must be reviewed and altered to accommodate the projected 20 year growth.
Within one year of adopting such a comprehensive plan, each of these counties and cities must adopt development regulations implementing its comprehensive plan.
3. The Growth Strategies Commission is directed to make recommendations on a variety of matters, including on how the mandated comprehensive land use plans are to be certified by the state.
4. The Platting and Subdivision Act is altered. The minimum lot size of smallest lot resulting from a division of land, that necessitates review and approval, is increased from less than 5 acres to less than 20 acres. Review standards are strengthened. Binding site plan exceptions are expanded, including a requirement for public hearings and review of whether the proposal makes adequate provision for the same factors as is required for a normal subdivision. Short subdivisions are eliminated, but counties and cities are permitted to adopt local ordinances allowing the administrative approval of certain subdivisions of land as follows: (a) 2 lot subdivisions; (b) cities may allow up to 9 lot subdivisions; (c) counties may allow up to 9 lot subdivisions in urban growth areas; and (d) counties may allow up to 4 lots under this special process if under current zoning each of the resulting lots is small enough so that it could not be further subdivided.
5. The vesting of rights doctrine, where a development right is obtained upon the filing of a less than complete application, is altered to the majority rule in other states where a development right is obtained when a permit is issued, and a change in position and substantial reliance has been made on the permit.
6. Any comprehensive plan adopted by a county or city must include a land use element, with housing, public facilities, and public utility sub-elements, and a transportation element. Zoning must implement comprehensive plans.
7. Counties and cities are permitted to impose impact fees or excise taxes on development activities that are reasonably related to impacts from the development on public facilities and for housing relocation costs. Low income or moderate income housing may be exempted from such impact fees or excise taxes. Credit must be made for the value of off-site improvements and off-site dedications that are required. Money from such impact fees or excise taxes must be spent for the specified purpose within six years of collection, or it is returned to the party who made such payments.
8. Eleven million dollars is appropriated to implement this act, including grants and technical assistance to counties and cities.
SUBSTITUTE BILL COMPARED TO ORIGINAL: (1) Provisions related to SEPA are deleted. (2) Counties designate urban growth areas, and aggrieved cities may object to the Department of Community Development, which may mediate the dispute. (3) More subdivisions may be approved under the special process for administrative approvals of subdivisions. (4) The impact fees and excise taxes are restricted somewhat. (5) Recognition is made of the character of existing residential neighborhoods. (6) A goal is added encouraging the preservation of historical sites. (7) The federal clean water act definition of wetlands is used. (8) Under sensitive areas, the types of aquifer recharge areas that must be designated and protected are such areas with critical recharging effect on aquifers used for potable water. (9) Seattle Metro no longer must approve portions of the King County comprehensive plan.
Appropriation: $11 million is appropriated from the general fund to the Department of Community Development.
Fiscal Note: Requested February 6, 1990.
Effective Date:The bill contains an emergency clause and takes effect immediately.
House Committee ‑ Testified For: Joe Tovar, Washington City Planning Directors Association; Jim Street, Seattle City Councilman; Mike Ryherd, Low Income Housing Congress; Larry Sundquist, Collin Quin, and Fred Burnstead, Building Industry of Washington (with some concerns with original bill); Dwayne Slate, School Directors; David Bricklin, Citizens for Balanced Growth; Michael Gilbert, Heart of America Northwest; Bruce Wishart, Sierra Club; and Jeff Parsons, National Audubon Society.
House Committee - Testified Against: Hamlet Hilpert, Washington State Georgist Association; and Richard Shepard, and Dan Blachly, Libertarian Party.
House Committee - Testimony For: These are common sense steps. Many changes are supported by both developers and environmentalists. These changes are the minimum that should be done. Many areas have been torn apart by rapid unregulated development, this bill requires planning and zoning to address such issues. This bill gives local governments tools to address growth. The vesting changes are vital. Short subdivisions are terrible and should be eliminated. Force cities and counties to talk with each other and address these issues.
House Committee - Testimony Against: Wait until next year. The vesting changes are too strong. More short subdivisions should be allowed. This will drive up the cost of housing. We should have no government interference, but let property owners settle problems by agreeing to covenants. We should have a Henry George system of taxing land but not improvements to land.