December 2001

By James Lawlor

Colorado: Baby steps. On the fourth try, the legislature finally passed some planning-related laws, in a special session that adjourned Oct. 12. Legislators, Gov. Bill Owens, and newspaper editorialists pronounced themselves pleased. The Colorado chapter is less sanguine, legislative committee cochair Gordon Appell says.

After the 2000 and 2001 regular sessions and a special session last spring failed to produce growth management legislation, Gov. Owens called a special session September 20. This time, the governor and the legislative leadership agreed to concentrate their efforts on four fairly narrow bills they thought could pass, rather than the omnibus approach taken in past sessions.

One bill, H.B. 01S2-1001, allows landowners on either side of the narrow corridor portion of a flagpole annexation (the "pole") to petition for annexation at the same time. A second measure, H.B. 01S2-1006, requires cities and towns with more than 2,000 residents in 30 rapidly growing counties to adopt a plan.

An alternative dispute resolution bill, H.B. 01S2-1020, provides for mediation of disputes arising from the master planning process. Municipalities must notify all jurisdictions within three miles of their borders of the planning process and permit neighboring jurisdictions to submit testimony. If the neighboring jurisdiction requests mediation, the municipality drafting the master plan must participate.

S.B. 01S2-015 authorizes non-home rule governments to levy impact fees to offset the costs of new development. The bill also creates a new court procedure for people who believe an impact fee was improperly imposed to obtain relief.

In Appell's view, the measures passed by the special session are "baby steps" toward growth management. They do little, if anything, he says, to resolve the problems associated with poorly managed or uncontrolled growth and make it likely that the state will once again have to deal with some form of growth management ballot initiative.

According to the Colorado Municipal League, Appell notes, the mandatory master plan legislation covers municipalities that already have plans in place or in progress. The league also is distressed by some of the provisions tacked onto the impact fee bill, including limitations on the uses to which the fees can be put, the requirement that they be directly related to development impact, and a provision that attempts to apply the bill to home rule municipalities. The last provision could well generate litigation, Appell believes.

Looking to the future, Appell says the chapter will be working on draft legislation for the next regular session of the legislature that will address growth management in a comprehensive manner.

California: Planning bills signed. The chapter's legislative year ended on a high note, with Gov. Gray Davis signing all of the planning bills backed by the chapter.

The legislation includes S.B. 497, which limits the use of lot line adjustments and certificates of compliance to reconfigure ancient subdivisions. The measure was the legislature's response to the Hearst Corporation's use of an 1852 subdivision map to create 279 buildable parcels on the Hearst Ranch in San Luis Obispo County. The California Coastal Commission supported the bill, as did the APA chapter, which, as reported here last month, mounted a major push to counter the heavy lobbying by real estate interests seeking a gubernatorial veto of the bill.

The chapter cosponsored A.B. 1553, which requires the state office of planning and research to add environmental justice to its general plan guidelines. It also supported S.B. 221, which requires local governments to include proof of adequate water supply as a condition of tentative map approvals for 500 or more residential units, and S.B. 610, which expands on an existing requirement that public water systems prepare water supply assessments for large development projects. The governor used the signing of these bills as an opportunity to plug for more infrastructure projects throughout the state to increase water storage capacity.

The chapter also cosponsored A.B. 1367, which requires school districts and local governments to work together on long-range school siting plans. It also requires local government general plans to include sufficient locations to accommodate the expansion of existing schools and location of new schools.

Also supported by the chapter: A.B. 1602, which puts a proposal for a $2.6 billion parks and land preservation bond issue on next year's election ballot. In signing the bill, Davis noted that the slowing economy is already having the severe impact on state revenues. If the voters approve the bond issue, the governor said he would spend the money slowly so as to balance debt service costs against other high-priority funding needs.

The chapter did not take a position on another bill S.B. 211, which extends the life of local redevelopment agencies. It tightens the requirements for declaring a redevelopment area blighted and requires agencies to spend more money on low-income housing.

South Carolina: Takings worries. Chapter president-elect and legislative committee chair Sharon Richardson has issued a "takings alert" based on the high probability that the legislature will consider one or more property rights bills in the upcoming session. A major reason for worry, she notes, is that senate president pro tem Glenn McConnell, who chairs the senate Judiciary Committee, has introduced a bill, S. 528, and has convened a property rights task force to study the issue.

The task force was scheduled to hold a public hearing in late October at the state capitol, and Richardson and the Municipal Association of South Carolina were expecting to hear lots of tales of woe from frustrated landowners. They were urging planners and local officials to attend the hearing to provide a more balanced view.