Clark County commissioners agreed this week to petition the Washington Supreme Court to review a Court of Appeals decision that gave anti-sprawl advocates a win.
Earlier this month, the Court of Appeals ruled 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.
Other aspects of the ruling dealt with land the county designated for urban uses in 2007 when the county was updating its growth management plan.
Clark County Deputy Prosecutor Chris Cook spoke with commissioners on Wednesday.
Commissioners Marc Boldt, Tom Mielke and Steve Stuart agreed the county should ask the state’s highest court to weigh in.
The city of La Center will join the county in petitioning for review, as part of the case involves land the city wants to annex along Interstate 5, enabling the city to extend sewer service to the proposed Cowlitz Indian Tribe trust land.
’07 case still unresolved
Clark County’s urban boundary adjustments in 2007 were challenged by environmental groups, including Seattle-based Futurewise.
The 2007 decisions have been contested before the Western Washington Growth Management Hearings Board, Clark County Superior Court and the Court of Appeals.
Initially, 19 parcels of land were at issue, Cook said. Ten have been resolved, including eight that remain in urban designations and two that were restored to agricultural designations, she said.
The Growth Management Hearings Board found that the county broke state rules by bringing so much land into the urban growth boundary, but said that since Ridgefield and Camas had already annexed the land, and the board doesn’t have jurisdiction over cities, it was moot.
The Court of Appeals made it clear that cities need to wait until appeals are resolved.
“That has some problems with it,” Cook said. “This is 2011. There’s still an appeal of our 2007 (comprehensive) plan update. Doesn’t it seem like it should be final by now?” she said. “People need to be able to get finality on growth management planning decisions. That’s a pretty fundamental principle that the county believes is violated by the decision.”
The county will be asking the Supreme Court, which does not accept every petition, to reverse the Growth Management Hearings Board on six of the remaining nine issues.
The other three issues have been sent back to the Growth Management Hearings Board with a strong suggestion from the Court of Appeals that the county was correct to take the three parcels into the urban growth area.
The land annexed by Ridgefield and Camas included hundreds of acres of agricultural land, included the Kennedy dairy south of Ridgefield and the Johnson dairy north of Lacamas Lake and Green Mountain Golf Course.
Stephanie Rice: 360-735-4508 or stephanie.rice@columbian.com.
