HOUSE BILL REPORT
HB 1965
This analysis was prepared by non-partisan legislative staff for the use of legislative members in
their deliberations. This analysis is not a part of the legislation nor does it constitute a
statement of legislative intent.
As Reported by House Committee On:
Local Government
Title: An act relating to authorizing major industrial development within industrial land banks.
Brief Description: Authorizing major industrial development within industrial land banks.
Sponsors: Representatives Eddy and Curtis.
Brief History:
Local Government: 2/13/07, 2/26/07 [DPS].
Brief Summary of Substitute Bill |
|
|
HOUSE COMMITTEE ON LOCAL GOVERNMENT
Majority Report: The substitute bill be substituted therefor and the substitute bill do pass. Signed by 7 members: Representatives Simpson, Chair; Eddy, Vice Chair; Curtis, Ranking Minority Member; Schindler, Assistant Ranking Minority Member; Ross, B. Sullivan and Takko.
Staff: Ethan Moreno (786-7386).
Background:
Growth Management Act/Urban Growth Areas
The Growth Management Act (GMA) is the comprehensive land use planning framework for
county and city governments in Washington. Enacted in 1990 and 1991, the GMA
establishes numerous requirements for local governments obligated by mandate or choice to
fully plan under the GMA (planning jurisdictions) and a reduced number of directives for all
other counties and cities. Twenty-nine of Washington's 39 counties, and the cities within
those counties, are planning jurisdictions.
The GMA directs planning jurisdictions to adopt internally consistent comprehensive land
use plans, which are generalized, coordinated land use policy statements of the governing
body. Comprehensive plans must address specified planning elements, each of which is a
subset of a comprehensive plan. Planning jurisdictions must also adopt development
regulations that implement and conform with the comprehensive plan. Except in limited
circumstances, comprehensive plan amendments may be considered by the governing body of
the planning jurisdiction no more frequently than once per year. Except as otherwise
provided, all planning jurisdictions must review and, if needed, revise their comprehensive
plans and development regulations according to a recurring seven-year statutory schedule.
The GMA includes numerous requirements relating to the use or development of land in
urban and rural areas. Among other planning requirements, counties that fully plan under the
GMA (planning counties) must designate urban growth areas (UGAs) or areas within which
urban growth must be encouraged and outside of which growth can occur only if it is not
urban in nature.
Major Industrial Development/Industrial Land Banks
In 1996 the Legislature enacted a pilot project authorizing the establishment of major
industrial development locations outside of UGAs for the purpose of expeditiously siting
qualifying development. Among other provisions, the pilot project legislation included
criteria for siting these developments within designated banks of land; provided for amending
comprehensive plans to implement these provisions; and specified eligibility criteria and
termination dates for relevant county authority. The provisions of the original pilot project
have been amended several times to modify the applicable criteria and termination dates.
Under current law, planning counties meeting specific population, unemployment, and
geographic requirements may, in consultation with cities, establish a process for designating a
bank of one or two master planned locations for major industrial activity outside of UGAs. A
county that has established or proposes to establish an industrial land bank (land bank) must
review the need for a land bank within the county, including a review of the availability of
land for industrial and manufacturing uses within the UGA, during specific comprehensive
plan and development regulation reviews and evaluations mandated under the GMA.
Definitions and Limitations
"Major industrial development" means a master planned location suitable for manufacturing
or industrial businesses that:
The major industrial development may not be for the purpose of retail commercial
development or multitenant office parks.
"Industrial land bank" means up to two master planned locations, each consisting of a parcel
or parcels of contiguous land, sufficiently large so as not to be readily available within the
UGA of a city, or otherwise meeting certain criteria, suitable for manufacturing, industrial, or
commercial businesses and designated by the county through the comprehensive planning
process specifically for major industrial use.
Siting Requirements
A master planned location for major industrial developments outside of a UGA may be
included in the land bank for the county if certain criteria are met through the completion of a
comprehensive planning process ensuring, in part, that:
The process for reviewing and approving proposals to site specific major industrial developments within an approved land bank must ensure through adopted development regulations that specific provisions, including the following, are met:
In selecting master planned locations for inclusion in the land bank, priority must be given to
locations that are adjacent to, or in close proximity to, a UGA.
Final approval of inclusion of a master planned location in a land bank is an amendment to
the applicable comprehensive plan, but the inclusion or exclusion of master planned locations
may be considered at any time. After a master planned location has been included in a land
bank, manufacturing and industrial businesses that qualify as major industrial development
may be located there.
Nothing in the major industrial development/land bank provisions alters the requirements for
a county to comply with the State Environmental Policy Act.
Termination Dates and Eligibility Criteria
Two distinct termination dates and sets of eligibility criteria pertaining to population,
unemployment, and geographic requirements exist for counties choosing to engage in the
process of including or excluding master planned locations from a land bank. In the first set
of criteria, the authority of qualifying counties to engage in this siting or exclusion process
terminates on December 31, 2007. However, locations included in a land bank on or before
the 2007 deadline remain available for major industrial development if siting provisions are
met. The second set of eligibility criteria terminated on December 31, 2002. As with the
2007 termination provision, qualifying locations included in a land bank remain available for
major industrial development if siting provisions are met.
Summary of Substitute Bill:
The requirements for designating master planned locations for major industrial developments
outside of UGAs are revised. A master planned location for major industrial developments
may be approved through a two-step process: (1) designation of a land bank area in the
applicable comprehensive plan; and (2) subsequent approval of specific major industrial
developments through a local master plan process.
Comprehensive Plan Amendments
The applicable comprehensive plan must identify locations suited to major industrial
development because of proximity to transportation or resource assets. The comprehensive
plan must identify the maximum size of the land bank area and any limitations on major
industrial developments based on local factors, but the plan need not specify particular
parcels or identify any specific use or user.
In selecting locations for the land bank area, priority must be given to locations that are
adjacent to, or in close proximity to, a UGA.
The environmental review for amendment of the comprehensive plan must be at the
programmatic level and, in addition to a threshold determination, must include:
Final approval of a land bank area must be by amendment to the comprehensive plan, but the
amendment may be considered at any time. Approval of a specific major industrial
development within the land bank area requires no further amendment of the comprehensive
plan.
Development Regulations Amendments
In concert with the designation of a land bank area, a county must also adopt development
regulations for review and approval of specific major industrial developments through a
master plan process. The regulations governing the master plan process must ensure, at a
minimum, that specific criteria, including the following, are met:
Termination Provisions and Eligibility Criteria
Separate eligibility criteria pertaining to population, unemployment, and geographic
requirements for counties choosing to identify and approve locations for major industrial
development in land banks are specified. Termination provisions indicating dates certain are
deleted and replaced with requirements indicating, in part, that a county choosing to identify
and approve locations for land banks must take action to designate one or more of these
banks and adopt regulations meeting certain requirements on or before the last date to
complete the county's next periodic review under specific provisions of the GMA. The
authority of a county to designate a land bank area in its comprehensive plan expires if not
acted upon within these time frame requirements. Once a land bank area has been identified
in a county's comprehensive plan, the authority of the county to process a master plan or site
projects within an approved master plan does not expire.
Substitute Bill Compared to Original Bill:
Provisions pertaining to the master plan process for siting major industrial developments are
modified and regulations governing this process that must be met by counties are established.
Eligibility requirements for counties that may use the master plan process for siting major
industrial developments are modified. Eligibility termination dates are deleted. A provision
indicating that counties choosing to identify and approve locations for land banks must
designate one or more banks and adopt qualifying regulations by the last date to complete that
county's next periodic review under the GMA is added. An added provision specifies that the
authority to designate a land bank area in the comprehensive plan expires if not acted upon by
the county within this time frame. An added provision specifies that once a land bank area
has been identified in the county's comprehensive plan, the authority of the county to process
a master plan or site projects within an approved master plan does not expire. Some
references to "land bank" are changed to "land bank area." Technical changes are made.
Appropriation: None.
Fiscal Note: Available.
Effective Date of Substitute Bill: The bill takes effect 90 days after adjournment of session in which bill is passed.
Staff Summary of Public Testimony:
(In support) This bill will accomplish much of what is proposed in HB 1925, but it will also
simplify the siting process for land banks and major industrial developments. This bill
represents one of five GMA/Land Use priorities for the Association of Washington Business.
Lewis County efforts to site major industrial development have proved to be difficult. This
bill requires the commissioners of a qualifying county to identify a site location first.
Following that, a sponsor could then submit a master plan for the specific site. This bill will
make the siting process for master planned locations for major industrial development more
efficient and will eliminate the time frame requirements for these often lengthy processes.
Major industrial developments are needed for economic growth in economically distressed
counties. The statutory provisions for siting such developments are unclear and the costs can
be significant. This bill clarifies the shortcomings of current law and will help provide
economic opportunities in distressed counties.
(With concerns) Concerns exist about removing specific population criteria that must be met
by a county wishing to use the siting process in the bill: this provision should be amended.
Do land banks for industrial purposes outside of cities make cities nervous? Yes. Should
they be allowed? Yes. Cities are consulted in the siting process, but they cannot approve or
reject the proposal. Cities agree that certain facilities are most appropriate outside of urban
areas, but they are concerned about attempts to site office properties and other facilities on
less expensive land outside of city areas. Support exists for inventory provisions in the bill,
but concerns exist about the deletion of an interlocal agreement requirement.
(Opposed) None.
Persons Testifying: (In support) Robert A. Johnson, Lewis County; and Chris McCabe and
Sandy Mackie, Association of Washington Businesses.
(With concerns) Kaleen Cottingham, Futurewise; and Dave Williams, Association of
Washington Cities.