The shadow of Ruckelshaus study on land use policy continues

As has been the case for the last couple of years, the shadow of the Ruckelshaus Center’s review of the Growth Management Act (GMA) continued to loom large over the non-housing land use arena. For the last two years most of the substantive land use policies have been delayed as the state waited for the Ruckelshaus Center’s report, A Road Map to Washington’s Future. After the Road Map was released this year without clear recommendations, the substantive issues were largely held as the state pursued a new round of task forces to develop more specific and implementable recommendations.

That situation was a major component of the reason that the proposal to incorporate a climate resiliency goal (HB 2427) into the Growth Management Act did not move forward. Sen. Dean Takko (D–Longview), chair of the Senate Local Government Committee, was clear that he wanted to wait on major policies until the next round of review. AWC worked closely with Futurewise and the Washington State Association of Counties to see if agreement could be found to include a meaningful but implementable climate goal—including addressing the workload, cost, and legal liability issues that many local governments were concerned about. We came close by attempting to address many of those concerns through providing more time and flexibility with the comprehensive planning deadlines (HB 2342) and language tweaks to the goal bill.

Ultimately, because the Senate Chair was not supportive of moving forward, the efforts to negotiate went fallow. A narrower version of the comprehensive plan deadline bill did pass the Legislature, giving one additional year before the next planned update, and bringing Kitsap County and its cities into the same group as the rest of the Puget Sound Regional Council. This provides an opportunity to benefit from better population numbers for planning purposes, and leaves the door open to future conversations on the appropriate planning cycle length.

Not all GMA issues were completely stymied, however; SB 6574 passed to reduce the size of the Growth Management Hearings Board from seven members to five to better match workload. The original version envisioned more sweeping changes to the structure of the board but did not garner much support.

Finally, to end on a high note, SB 5522 passed and allows a code city to annex unincorporated land via an interlocal agreement with the county and any associated fire or sewer districts. This new optional tool does not allow for a public referendum on the annexation, so may provide a more clear and attainable process if agreement with partner governments can be reached.