Body
Project update
On March 26, 2020, the Growth Management Hearings Board on an Order of Remand from the Washington State Court of Appeals, found Clark County in compliance with RCW 36.70A.060 and WAC 365-190-050 and rescinded invalidity regarding 602 acres of agricultural lands that have been removed from Rural Industrial Land Bank designations. The Board also rescinded invalidity regarding the Urban Growth Areas (UGA) for the Cities of Ridgefield and La Center because the Court of Appeals ruled that annexations by La Center and Ridgefield rendered the UGA expansion issues moot.
On Nov. 12, 2019, the Clark County Council approved Ordinance 2019-11-16 adopting amendments to the Clark County 20-year Comprehensive Growth Management Plan 2015-2035 map, zoning map, comprehensive plan text, arterial atlas map, and Clark County Code Title 40 to remove authorization for and all references to the Rural Industrial Land Bank.
During the 2016 Plan update, the county designated approximately 600 acres of what was agricultural land to be Employment Center with a light industrial zoning and Rural Industrial Land Bank overlay. The action was found non-compliant by the Growth Management Hearings Board and that decision was affirmed by the Washington Court of Appeals. The county decided not to appeal that decision and the property has now been reverted back to an agricultural designation with 20-acre minimum lot size.
For more information about the legal process of this and other comprehensive plan appeal actions, please use the links below.
Shortcut to info on the Comprehensive Plan appeal
Growth Management Hearings Board Decision
Comprehensive Plan Appeal
The 20-year Comprehensive Growth Management Plan 2015-2035 (2016 Plan) periodic update was approved by Clark County Council on June 21, 2016. The adopting Ordinance No. 2016-06-12 was approved on June 28, 2016. On July 22 and August 26, 2016, petitions were filed with the Growth Management Hearings Board (GMHB) for review of the comprehensive plan and development regulations update.
The Growth Management Hearings Board combined the two 2016 Plan appeals and included a separate appeal of the Rural Industrial Land Bank sites that the county designated on April 26 and May 10, 2016. The GMHB consolidated and grouped the issues by topic as listed below. [GMHB 16-2-0005c]. The first oral arguments before the GMHB were held on February 8, 2017.
Legal Issues
|
Public Participation/Public Involvement Issue 1: Public Participation Plan not timely adopted; and county failed to provide access to the plan update process. Issue 2: Plan update process routinely and systematically excluded rural and resource landowners. Private Property Rights Issue 3: County failed to adequately consider property rights impacts of Plan Update on rural and resource land owners; and, arbitrarily and discriminatorily failed to adopt smaller parcel sizes. Comprehensive Plan Adoption Issue 4: County adopted Plan Update on June 21, 2016 which was fewer than 60 days after forwarding notice to the Department of Commerce in violation of WAC 365-196-630 and RCW 36.70A.106. Urban Growth Issue 5: UGA Expansion by the cities of Battle Ground, La Center and Ridgefield were not needed to accommodate planned growth, and Buildable Lands Report (BLR) reasonable measures were not adopted, and created internal Comp Plan inconsistencies. Issue 6: Urban Reserve Overlay Issue 7: Annexation of expanded UGB territories by Ridgefield and La Center violated GMA. Issue 8: County violated RCW 36.70A110(2) by using the medium OFM Population Projections and Buildable Lands Report which did not take into account the population influences of the Portland metro area. Issue 9: Inclusion of remainder parcels in UGA allows them to develop. Environmental Issues Issue 23: The Plan Update failed to review shoreline and critical areas ordinances as required by RCW 36.70A.130. Issue 24: Plan Update violated RCW 43.21C.031 by failing to conduct SEPA review of the Growing Healthier Report, Aging Readiness Plan, Agriculture Preservation Strategy Report, and Clark County Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan. Issue 25: Plan Update violated RCW 43.21C.031 by failing to conduct SEPA review on 3,500 acres of rural lands which had been remnants of the county’s 1994 agriculture/forest zone. |
|
Rural and Resource Lands Issue 10: De-designation of agricultural lands for the cities of La Center and Ridgefield violated GMA. Issue 11: The AG-20 to AG-10 and FR-40 to FR-20 changes failed to conserve farm and forestland, protect the quantity and quality of ground water and were inconsistent with the comp plan. Issue 12: The agricultural and forest lands designations in the Plan Update were unlawful, and improperly relied on Issue Paper 9. Issue 13: Plan Update violated GMA when it failed to provide a variety of rural densities in the comp. plan. Issue 14: Plan Update violates GMA and case law by using a rural vacant buildable lands model to cap rural growth. Issue 15: Plan Update violated GMA, when it failed to create R-1 and R-2.5 zoning districts because it disregarded and misapplied predominant parcel size, density, and rural character. Issue 16: Plan Update violated GMA, when it relied on projection that split the future 20-year population growth at 90% urban and 10% rural. The county should have used the historical population split of 85% urban and 15% rural. Rural Industrial Land Bank Issue 17: County missed the deadline for establishing a rural industrial land bank. Issue 18: The county made procedural and substantive errors in rural industrial land bank designation. Issue 19: De-designating agricultural land for the rural industrial land bank violated GMA by failing to meet RCW 36.70A.060 and WAC 365-190-050. The RILB lands continue to be agricultural lands of long-term commercial significance. Challenges to Specific Elements of the 2016 Plan Update Issue 20: The county violated RCW 36.70A.070 when it adopted a 20-year transportation facility plan with a deficit of $158 million. Issue 21: The Plan Update violated RCW 36.70A.070 because its capital facilities plan did not include all GMA requirements. Issue 22: The Plan Update violated GMA by amending countywide planning policies (CPP) and the community framework plan (CFP), without adopting a process to amend or update the CPPs or CFP, or holding a public hearing. |
Growth Management Hearings Board (GMHB) Decision and County Actions
On March 23, 2017, the GMHB issued their Final Decision and Order. The GMHB ruled that certain portions of the 2016 Plan update did not comply with certain requirements of GMA. Those issues in which the county wasn’t compliant were remanded back to the county to be addressed. The county appealed the decisions on the expansion of the Ridgefield and La Center urban growth areas (Issue 5) and the re-designation of Rural Industrial Land Bank lands from agriculture to light industrial (Issue 19). The county did not appeal Issues 6, 11, 13, and 18. The GMHB issued a Second Order Finding Continuing Noncompliance on October 17, 2018 and an Order Granting Stay for Issues on July 9, 2019.
On March 26, 2020, the Growth Management Hearings Board on an Order of Remand from the Washington State Court of Appeals, found Clark County in compliance with RCW 36.70A.060 and WAC 365-190-050 and rescinded invalidity regarding 602 acres of agricultural lands that have been removed from Rural Industrial Land Bank designations. The Board also rescinded invalidity regarding the Urban Growth Areas (UGA) for the Cities of Ridgefield and La Center because the Court of Appeals ruled that annexations by La Center and Ridgefield rendered the UGA expansion issues moot.
County Council Actions
- Mar. 29, 2017 - County Council Work Session - Presentation
- Jun. 7, 2017 - County Council Work Session - Presentation
- Jun. 20, 2017 - County Council Hearing on Issues 6, 11, 13, and 18 - Presentation - Ordinance
- Jul. 11, 2017 – County Council Separate Business - Ordinance 2017-07-04 related to Issues 6, 11, 13, and 18
- Dec. 18, 2018 - County Council Hearing - Interim Emergency Ordinance 2018-12-64 (Issue 19)
- Feb. 12, 2019 – County Council Hearing - Extend Interim Ordinance 2018-12-64 to Aug.12, 2019
- Apr. 16, 2019 – County Council Hearing - Interim Ordinance 2019-04-02 (Issue 5)
- Jun. 4, 2019 – County Council Hearing - Extend Interim Ordinance 2019-04-02 (Issue 5) for six months
- Aug. 6, 2019 – County Council Hearing - Extend Interim Ordinance 2018-12-64 (Issue 19) for six months
- Nov. 12, 2019 – County Council Hearing - Ordinance 2019-11-16 relating to Issue 19
Court of Appeals and County Actions
On August 20, 2019, the Washington State Court of Appeals filed their decision which reviewed the expansion of the urban growth boundaries surrounding the cities of La Center and Ridgefield (Issue 5) and the Rural Industrial Land Bank (Issue 19). The court upheld the county’s position that land annexed into the cities of Ridgefield and La Center could not be challenged under the GMA. The court decision also upheld the Washington Growth Management Hearings Board ruling that a portion of the 2016 Plan, related to the Rural Industrial Land Bank was out of compliance with the state’s Growth Management Act.
- Washington State Court of Appeals Decision [50847-8-11]
County Council Actions
The Clark County Council decided to not file an appeal of the Court of Appeals decision. The county returned the Rural Industrial Land Bank back to an agricultural designation with 20-acre minimum lot size on November 12, 2019. Please visit the Rural Industrial Land Bank webpage for more information about that process.
Compliance record
Related Links