March 14th Hot List - State Senate

SENATE COMMITTEE ACTION

ESHB 1071: Creating a complete streets grant program.

Transportation: Possible Executive Session
POSITION: SUPPORT

• This legislation would position Washington strongly to compete for future federal funds designated for Complete Streets. More than 100 agencies nationwide have implemented Complete Streets policies, including 16 states and six municipalities in Washington.
• Rather than applying a cookie cutter design to every corridor, planners work with communities to develop project that are appropriate for various functions of the roadway. The result is a streetscape that is safer and more accessible for all users that promotes livable communities.

ESHB 1094: Providing a process for county legislative authorities to withdraw from voluntary planning under the growth management act.

Government Operations and Tribal Relations & Elections: Public Hearing & Possible Executive Session

POSITION: OPPOSE

• There have been two statewide initiatives to effectively repeal the Growth Management Act, both failed with nearly 60% of Washingtonians rejecting the idea. Washingtonians want to protect their quality of the life and know that the GMA does just that.
• GMA is one of the most effective & comprehensive environmental laws our state has ever passed. Allowing counties to opt-out as the direct outcome of their willful noncompliance is a bad precedent, but even more importantly, would enable some very negative on-the-ground consequences in those four counties.

SHB 1186: Concerning requirements under the state's oil spill program.

Natural Resources & Marine Affairs: Public Hearing

POSITION: SUPPORT

• This bill is designed to ensure that the state is well prepared for a major oil spill. Requires oil companies to invest in state-of-art spill response equipment.
• Provides training and equipment for commercial fishermen so that they can help respond in the event of a spill.

ESHB 1478: Delaying or modifying certain regulatory and statutory requirements affecting cities and counties.

Government Operations and Tribal Relations & Elections: Public Hearing & Possible Executive Session
POSITION: OPPOSE

• This bill makes permanent weakening changes to the SMA and GMA, sections 2 and 11 should be amended to 8 year update cycles, not 10.
• The environmental community understands and appreciates the position our local governments are in. The bill has addressed our concerns related to stormwater permitting, but we still oppose the sections related to the Growth Management Act and Shoreline Management Act.

EHB 1702: Establishing a process for the payment of impact fees through provisions stipulated in recorded covenants.

Financial Institutions and Housing & Insurance: Public Hearing & Possible Executive Session
POSITION: OPPOSE

• Impact fees were created to ensure that in many ways, new growth helps pay its way. HB 1702 makes the impact fee process more expensive and less certain. It requires that developers be allowed to shift paying impact fees from when developers obtain their building permits to when the home buyers buy the home.
• This shift in payment gives counties and cities less time to use that impact fee to make the necessary improvements and means that the public facilities needed to reduce the environmental impacts of growth will be delayed until well after the impacts of development occur.

HB 1783: Amending the consideration of houseboats and houseboat moorages for the purposes of aquatic lands and shoreline management.

Natural Resources & Marine Affairs: Public Hearing
POSITION: OPPOSE

• Houseboats, along with other overwater structures, shade critical nearshore habitat placing threatened salmon species at risk.
• This bill creates "favored status" statewide for these structures under the state Shoreline Management Act, placing marine ecosystems and shellfish beds at risk across the state.

SB 5862: Regarding the administration of natural resources programs.

Natural Resources & Marine Waters: Possible Executive Session

POSITION: OPPOSE

• This bill reduces environmental protection while combining two types of forestry-related permits and raising fees.
• We are concerned that the agency with the expertise to determine what’s needed to protect fish loses its authority; four-year logging permits weaken the foundation of the state’s Forests and Fish Habitat Conservation Plan; and permit fee increases are too small to provide sufficient funding for needed state oversight of logging.