August 1998

By James Lawlor

California: What's Hot. Legislative representative Sande George says a school funding reform bill (AB 252) is a high priority for the chapter in the current legislative session. The chapter hopes to see a school bond issue on the November ballot, but it won't happen unless the state assembly and senate reach a compromise on several issues, including a cap on developers' fees and a limit on local governments' authority to deny projects that put a strain on school facilities.

According to George, the latest versions of AB 252 include a higher cap for school impact fees—up from the current $1.83 per square foot of new residential construction to $1.93. Also included is a provision for legislative repeal of court decisions that allow local governments to take school capacity into account in approving or denying a development proposal. The chapter is strongly opposed to this provision, George reports.

The chapter is also opposed to AB 2065, which would bar local governments from imposing license requirements or fees on individuals working out of their homes. This bill was precipitated by a decision by the city of Los Angeles to levy an occupational tax on home-based businesses, including freelance screenwriters and artists. It has passed the assembly and is now under consideration in a senate committee.

Although the measure states that it is not intended to affect a local government's zoning authority, the chapter is concerned that it may allow localities to discriminate between similar businesses. For example, a city could impose a licensing fee on an individual who rents commercial space but could not impose a fee on an individual operating the same type of business at home.

Ohio: Study time. Legislative committee chair Vince Papsidero, aicp, reports that the chapter has formed a study committee to analyze HB 645, a controversial measure aimed at encouraging countywide comprehensive land-use plans. As drafted, the bill includes provisions to tighten subdivision controls and regulate sewage disposal. It would also allow the creation of agricultural conservation easements and require the state Department of Transportation to adopt policies to encourage farmland preservation.

Papsidero says the chapter will seek to expand the bill's explanation of the comprehensive planning process and to clarify the section outlining the state's policy on farmland preservation. Although the measure is unlikely to be taken up before next January, he says the chapter intends to be ready with constructive comments when the new legislative session opens. Stuart Meck, AICP, of APA's Growing Smart project, is advising the committee.

Washington: Minimal damage. Gov. Gary Locke's veto pen undid the damage done by three bills passed in the short legislative session. Chapter legislative cochair Paul Stewart, aicp, says the measures, which were opposed by the chapter, would have undermined the state's Growth Management Act.

One bill, HB 2542, would have allowed 12 rural counties to opt out of growth management requirements. ESSB 6497 would have required all government agencies in the state to prepare a takings analysis whenever they considered an action that might affect property rights. ESB 5185 would have taken away the power of the growth management hearings boards to determine the validity of comprehensive plans or development regulations. The boards' decisions would have become advisory rather than binding.

The legislature deferred to the next session bills that would make annexation easier, integrate growth management and shoreline protection laws, and revise school impact fees.

Virginia: Pros and cons. How to deal with the fallout of SB 570 was a hot topic of the state's planning directors at a meeting in June, reports legislative chair Debrarae Karnes. The law, which was enacted in the last legislative session, makes it easier for development plans to gain vested status.

Reaction was mixed, Karnes says, with rapidly urbanizing counties generally opposed, while rural or nongrowing counties are neutral. Writing in the July/August issue of the chapter newsletter, Prince William County attorney Sharon Pandak takes the position that, while the new law may pose some difficulties, it is still possible to do good planning within its parameters.

On another front, the chapter hopes to forge closer relations with other organizations interested in planning issues—with the aim of becoming a more potent force in the legislature. A meeting is planned for the fall to pursue mutual interests, Karnes says.