Oregon adopts HB 3325, an Improved Authorization of Releases of Liability for Potential Brownfield Purchasers

Authored by: Larry Burke

House Bill 3325 provides a mechanism for potential purchasers to obtain a higher level of certainty regarding potential environmental liability. A “brownfield” is a vacant or underused property where actual or perceived environmental contamination complicates expansion or redevelopment. Prospective purchasers of brownfields may decline to buy or develop the land out of fear of the potentially high costs of investigating and cleaning up the property. This legislation clarifies DEQ’s authority to provide a prospective property owner with release from liability for existing spills or releases of oil and other hazardous substances and for prior entry of such substances into waters of the state. The DEQ release from liability may be accomplished by either an administrative order on consent or a judicial consent judgment. Of course, owners will remain liable for any spill or release of oil or hazardous substance, or release of oil into state waters, which occurs after they have become an owner or if they exacerbate or contribute to the release or are otherwise negligent or violate the law. The legislation also confirms that a purchaser of land or a facility already subject to administrative agreement may be released by DEQ if the purchaser adopts and agrees to be bound by agreement. 

Seattle Landlords' Energy Efficiency Reports Due Oct. 3, 2011 or April 1, 2012

Authored by:  Clayton Graham and Jim Greenfield

Many Seattle landlords and other building owners will soon need to begin reporting on the energy efficiency of their buildings. As reported in DWT’s Northwest Real Estate Blog last year, a Seattle ordinance passed in connection with the state’s Efficiency First! Act requires many Seattle building owners to provide “energy benchmarking reports” to the Director of the Department of Planning & Development using the federal Environmental Protection Agency’s Energy Star Portfolio Manager or a similar system. 

Continue Reading...

WaterSense: Another Green Certification Program?

Authored by: Monique Hawthorne

It is quite possible that everyone has heard about WaterSense already, and I am simply late to the party. But, on the off chance that you haven’t heard, let me be the one to tell you about the Water House, which is the very first WaterSense certified home in Oregon. WaterSense is a new EPA certification program for new homes to increase water efficiency. Yes, it is true that the ubiquitous LEED certification includes water efficiency as a goal as well, but WaterSense dives deeper (sorry, I couldn’t help myself). The Water House is going to serve as a laboratory so that others can learn about different sustainable building practices, materials and systems. The Water House has been included on the Portland “Build it Green” tour, and its development was made possible through public and private partnerships with local green-building leaders donating over $150,000.00 of labor and materials.

Continue Reading...

Washington Supreme Court: Statute Limiting Developer Charges Does Not Apply to Local Shoreline Master Programs

Authored by:  Clayton Graham

The Washington Supreme Court recently removed one vehicle for developers to challenge requirements imposed under local governments’ shoreline regulations. In Citizens for Rational Shoreline Planning (CRSP) v. Whatcom County, the Court considered whether regulations in the County’s Shoreline Master Program (“SMP”) could be challenged under a provision of RCW 82.02.020 which generally prohibits any local government from “impos[ing] any tax, fee, or charge, either direct or indirect, on . . . the development, subdivision, classification, or reclassification of land,” subject to certain exceptions. Since its enactment, the meaning of this provision has been litigated many times and has been found to limit local governments’ land use regulations. For example, the Division I Court of Appeals relied on this statute in striking down portions of a King County ordinance that limited the amount of clearing an owner could do on a rural lot, finding that these restrictions were “an in kind indirect ‘tax, fee, or charge’ on development.” See Citizens Alliance for Property Rights (CAPR) v. King County.

Continue Reading...

Legal Implications of Vapor Intrusion for Owners, Developers

Authored by: Peter Sergienko

As published in the Daily Journal of Commerce

Vapor intrusion is defined in Oregon Department of Environmental Quality guidance as the migration of volatile organic compounds from the subsurface into buildings. Common examples of VOCs are gasoline, diesel and solvents used to clean metals, thin paint, and dry-clean clothing. VOCs are sources of carcinogens such as benzene and trichloroethylene. Semi-VOCs and other hazardous substances also can be sources of toxic chemicals that can migrate into buildings and compromise indoor air quality.

In recent years, the mechanisms for vapor intrusion and the potential chronic health risks from long-term exposure to carcinogens in indoor air have become identified. In response, the private sector and state and federal regulatory agencies tasked with environmental protection and worker health and safety have all taken steps to better understand and manage these risks.

Continue Reading...

Consider Water Needs Early to Avoid Development Pitfalls

Authored by:  Rick Glick

As published in the Daily Journal of Commerce

How does water law figure into development planning? In my 34 years as a water and environmental lawyer involved in developments large and small, in urban and rural settings, water supply concerns are often afterthoughts. However, the time to consider water supply issues is during the early planning stage, because lead times to work through potential water problems can be significant. If water rights are part of the deal and important to the development, they can be verified as valid and intact through a water rights audit.

For example, I have been involved in high-tech fabrication plant projects where unaddressed water questions derailed the project or caused a lot of last-minute and expensive scurrying. Golf course and resort developments obviously require water, but I have seen assumptions about potential sources proved false. No developer or lender likes surprises that slow the process or add cost, and such hurdles can be avoided with attention at the front end.

Continue Reading...

Potential Legal Effects of LEED Lawsuit

Authored by:  Monique Hawthorne

As published in the Daily Journal of Commerce

Last month, Henry Gifford, a “building design and construction professional” and frequent critic of LEED certified buildings, filed a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against the U.S. Green Building Council, claiming $100 million in damages. The USGBC is a nonprofit organization that developed the Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design certification system for rating “green buildings.”

Gifford’s suit makes several allegations, but perhaps the most shocking is his claim that the council committed fraud by intentionally omitting information about the energy efficiency of LEED certified buildings. Gifford also alleges that the LEED rating system actually harms the environment, because it leads consumers away from proven methods of saving energy.

The USGBC and its LEED rating system have always had their critics. Fraud, however, is a serious allegation. But fraud also is a tough legal standard to meet.

Continue Reading...

LEED vs. Passive House: What's the difference?

Authored by:  Monique Hawthorne

As published in the Daily Journal of Commerce

As a Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design Accredited Professional, I readily defend LEED’s standard and certification to critics who question its alleged greenness and whether it lives up to its hype.

"You get points for including bike parking spaces?" they protest. "C’mon!"

Nonetheless, I stand by the usefulness of LEED certification and believe it serves a useful purpose even if it only increases dialogue and awareness about sustainable building.

With that said, recent conversations have led me to explore other types of sustainable building standards and methods. I have been very impressed with Passive House (aka Passivhaus), a building standard from Germany that is an exciting option for builders, homeowners and developers.

Continue Reading...

Department of Ecology Releases Guidance on Climate Change and SEPA

Authored by:  Craig Gannett, Lauren Giles, and Clayton P. Graham

On May 27, the Washington Department of Ecology (“Ecology”) released draft Guidance regarding the analysis of climate change impacts under Washington’s State Environmental Policy Act ("SEPA"). The Guidance, which will be open for comment until June 25, proposes extensive analysis of both direct and indirect greenhouse gas ("GHG") emissions potentially resulting from government actions covered under SEPA. Among the government actions that are subject to SEPA’s requirements are local governments’ issuance of land use and construction permits for many types of projects, especially commercial, industrial, or larger residential developments. The Guidance also describes potential mitigation measures that project proponents may be required to undertake. Given the broad scope of the Guidance, it is essential that owners and developers of real estate, as well as any business or institution with expansion plans, become familiar with these proposed requirements.

Continue reading here...

Local Development Standards to Be Modified to Comply with Endangered Species Act

Authored by Clayton P. Graham and James A. Greenfield

In a development of great interest to owners of property in or near floodplains, many local jurisdictions in Washington state will soon begin updating their floodplain development regulations to comply with new federal requirements. As discussed in a post on Davis Wright Tremaine’s Real Estate Blog, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) began developing its model ordinance after the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) found that FEMA’s administration of the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) threatened the habitat of a number of species protected under the Endangered Species Act.

Continue Reading...

FEMA's Revised Flood Maps to Affect Development, Availability of Flood Insurance in Western Washington

Authored by:  Craig Gannett and Clayton P. Graham

Landowners and developers across Western Washington will be affected by floodplain map revisions that the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) plans to carry out in the coming months. These map updates are part of FEMA’s administration of the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP), and changes in map designations can have far-reaching effects, including increases in flood insurance premiums and new floodplain development regulations under local codes. For these reasons, many landowners and local governments across Western Washington are expected to appeal these map revisions.

Continue Reading...

EPA to Regulate Greenhouse Gas Emissions

Authored by:  Lauren Giles, Kerry Shea, and Clayton Graham

Findings recently issued by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) could be the first step in national regulation of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions under the Clean Air Act. Although the findings apply only to new motor vehicles and engines for the time being, they lay the groundwork for regulating GHGs emitted by power plants and manufacturing facilities.

Continue Reading...

Development Buffers under the Endangered Species Act?

A consultation under the federal Endangered Species Act (ESA) could potentially impact development on property near shorelines in Washington State. In response to a consultation by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) issued a biological opinion concluding that FEMA's administration of the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) in the Puget Sound area violates the ESA because it jeopardizes a number of protected aquatic species. Specifically, NMFS concluded that FEMA’s decision to insure certain floodplain developments under the NFIP threatens the habitat of certain protected salmon, steelhead, and whales.

FEMA should now take steps to mitigate the effects of the NFIP on protected species. In administering the NFIP, FEMA already promulgates minimum land use controls, and municipalities must implement land use controls that are at least as restrictive in order to qualify for flood insurance. In its biological opinion, NMFS suggested FEMA promulgate a specific set of development standards in floodplain areas—including, notably, a 150-foot development buffer from certain shorelines. FEMA has not yet acted on the suggestions set forth in the biological opinion, but it may choose to require municipalities to impose these, or other, stricter development standards in floodplain areas.

The biological opinion (238 pages total), is available on NOAA’s webpage

 

Development Buffers under the Endangered Species Act?