SENATE BILL REPORT

SB 6060

As Reported By Senate Committee On:

Land Use & Planning, April 3, 2003

Title: An act relating to requiring local governments to develop or amend a master program for regulation of uses of shorelines within sixty months of adoption of guidelines under RCW 90.58.060.

Brief Description: Increasing the time period local governments have to develop or amend a shoreline master program.

Sponsors: Senator Mulliken.

Brief History:

Committee Activity: Land Use & Planning: 4/3/03 [DP].

SENATE COMMITTEE ON LAND USE & PLANNING

Majority Report: Do pass.

      Signed by Senators Mulliken, Chair; Kline, McCaslin, Morton and T. Sheldon.

Staff: Jennifer Arnold (786-7471)

Background: In December 2002, the Department of Ecology (DOE) proposed the adoption of new shoreline guidelines. The rulemaking process for the final adoption of the guidelines, which includes opportunity for public hearing and comment, is anticipated by DOE to be completed in November 2003. Under current law, the Shoreline Management Act (SMA) requires that local governments update their shoreline master programs within two years from the date DOE adopts new guidelines in order for the local master programs to be consistent with the newly adopted guidelines.

There are concerns that the requirement for all local governments to update their shoreline master programs within two years would be an unreasonable burden, and therefore, it is necessary to extend the time allowed to complete updates under the SMA.

Summary of Bill: The time line in which local governments must update their shoreline master programs under the SMA is extended from two years to five years after the adoption of shoreline guidelines by DOE.

Appropriation: None.

Fiscal Note: Not requested.

Effective Date: Ninety days after adjournment of session in which bill is passed.

Testimony For: The two-year time line under current law is unreasonable and insufficient. The funding necessary to implement the existing timeline is not necessarily available. There is not a need for everyone to update at the same time and further, the bill does not prohibit local governments from updating earlier than five years. This bill goes in the right direction, but it does not address all the issues and the need for a schedule. Efforts to resolve this issue are appreciated, as the bill provides more time to develop time frames, a schedule, funding and procedures that allow all to participate in the development of a process for SMA updates.

Testimony Against: None.

Testified: PRO: Doug Levy, Cities of Everett, Kent, Federal Way; Dave Williams, AWC; Scott Merriman, WSAC; NOT SPECIFIED: Kristen Sawin, AWB; Larry Stout, Realtors; Gordon White, Department of Ecology; G. C. Adkins, 1000 Friends of WA; Clifford Traisman, WA Environmental Council, WA Conservation Voters; Nina Carter, Audubon WA.