The state Court of Appeals gave anti-sprawl advocates a win this week by saying that once a county opens land up for development, a city can’t quickly annex the land to avoid getting tangled up in an administrative review process.
The three-judge panel singled out the cities of Ridgefield and Camas for annexing hundreds of acres of agricultural land, including the Kennedy dairy south of Ridgefield and the Johnson dairy north of Lacamas Lake and Green Mountain Golf Course, after Clark County commissioners brought the land into the urban growth area in 2007.
Robert Beattey, the former legal director of Futurewise who stayed on the case after leaving the Seattle-based anti-sprawl group that appealed the county’s ambitious expansion, called the decision “well-reasoned and thoughtful.”
The county’s controversial decision to open up so much agricultural land to development was first reviewed by the time the Western Washington Growth Management Hearings Board.
By the time the board issued an opinion in 2008, Ridgefield and Camas had already annexed the property.
The Growth Management Hearings Board doesn’t have jurisdiction over land inside of city limits, so while the board found that the county broke state rules by bringing the land into the urban growth boundary, by then it was moot.
Wednesday’s ruling by the Court of Appeals makes it clear that cities need to wait until the Growth Management Hearings Board reviews a county’s decision.
“It was a good decision for the Growth Management Act,” Beattey said. “To be fair, what the city did was very clever. And what the Court of Appeals said was, ‘It was clever, we get that, but (annexation) is not a means to escape review.’ ”
Both James Howsley and Randy Printz, attorneys for the respondents, which include the county, the city of La Center, GM Camas LLC, MacDonald Living Trust and Renaissance Homes, said they will likely ask the Washington Supreme Court to hear the case.
Clark County Deputy Prosecutor Chris Cook said she hasn’t discussed the ruling with commissioners.
La Center’s attorney, Dan Kearns, could not be reached.
Other appellants included the Growth Management Hearings Board, Clark County Natural Resources Council and Vancouver attorney John Karpinski.
The 39-page decision left even seasoned land-use attorneys scratching their heads.
“I have been doing this for 25 years, and I don’t think there’s anyone who can give you a clear or accurate interpretation on the affect of this decision,” said Printz. “I think it’s clear the Court of Appeals did not like the annexations by Ridgefield and Camas,” he said, but it’s not clear whether the appellate court means “don’t do that again” or whether the annexations need to be voided.
“The city of Camas can’t be left guessing about whether 1,000 acres is inside city limits or not,” Printz said. “It’s a fairly strongly worded opinion, but I want them to clarify what the affect of the decision is.”
Other issues
If the cities of Ridgefield and Camas can be considered clever for quickly annexing land once the county made it available, the city of La Center, well, not so much.
Among the land the county opened up for development in 2008 were parcels along the Interstate 5 interchange.
The Growth Management Hearings Board reversed the county, ruling in 2008 that the land could not be developed.
When the case was appealed to Clark County Superior Court, however, a judge ruled in La Center’s favor.
The Court of Appeals, however, reversed the Superior Court judge.
In January, the La Center City Council annexed 365 acres to reach the freeway, but did not include the land, which sits west of the freeway and adjacent to the proposed Cowlitz Indian Tribe trust land, that was the subject of the appeal.
(Wednesday’s ruling does not thwart the tribe’s plans to take land into trust; that’s the subject of a federal lawsuit.)
But by denying the city’s ability to extend out to the proposed trust land, the ruling raises questions about how the city will be able to extend sewer service to the trust land, said Howsley.
While Howsley did not represent the owners of the La Center property, he works for Miller Nash, a firm that does work for the tribe.
Under the state Growth Management Act, urban services are not to be extended beyond the urban growth area. There may be exceptions if approval of the federal trust application survives the legal challenge, however.
The Court of Appeals did not completely shut out the county.
It ordered the Growth Management Hearings Board to reconsider its rulings on three parcels — one parcel on the northeast tip of Washougal and two parcels north of 179th Street west of 50th Avenue — and strongly suggested to the board that the parcels should be included in the urban growth area.
The Washougal parcel, Printz said, is 116 acres zoned industrial, so that could open up valuable jobs-producing land.
The appellate ruling was written by Judge Christine Quinn-Brintnall. Judges J. Robin Hunt and David Armstrong concurred.
Stephanie Rice: 360-735-4508 or stephanie.rice@columbian.com.
