Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Gma Plan Deadlines topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Panel considers six‑month extension for some GMA comprehensive‑plan deadlines
Summary
A bill to move certain Growth Management Act comprehensive‑plan deadlines from June 30 to Dec. 31, 2026, drew support from local planners who said extra time is needed for community engagement, coordination and to reduce legal risk from rushed updates.
The Local Government Committee on March 19 heard substitute Senate Bill 5,558, a proposal to change timing requirements under the Growth Management Act for the third group of counties and their cities. The bill would move the comprehensive plan deadline for that group from June 30, 2026, to Dec. 31, 2026, and would make some related deadlines (for design review, accessory dwelling units and, in some cases, minimum required densities) due at the time of a jurisdiction’s next comprehensive plan update rather than six months after it.
Kellen Wright, staff to the committee, explained that GMA review deadlines are staggered and that the bill would align timing so that several required updates occur simultaneously for the counties listed (including Benton, Chelan, Cowlitz, Douglas, Franklin, Kittitas, Skamania, Spokane, Walla Walla and Yakima and cities within those counties). Senator Keith Gainer, sponsor of the bill, said the 6‑month extension was intended to avoid creating multiple, out‑of‑sync deadlines and to ensure jurisdictions complete planning and implementing regulations together.
Local officials testified in support. Scott Chesney, Spokane County planning director, said Spokane’s comprehensive plan had been substantially out of date and that the county recently came back into compliance with the GMA; he said the extra six months ‘‘gives us an extended time to fine tune and quality check those regs, and test them both with the public and with our various constituents.’’ Rija Siedel, deputy city manager for Pasco, said the extension would allow more thorough community engagement, better synchronization of transportation, housing and utilities planning, reduced legal risk and access to consultants that are in high demand.
Representative questions focused on whether the change would in practice postpone related requirements (design review and ADU rules) until a city’s next plan update or would require incorporation sooner. Committee staff and witnesses clarified that the bill would make some deadlines due at the time of the next comprehensive plan update rather than six months after it, and sponsors said the change aligns deadlines so work is completed concurrently rather than staggered and rushed.
No formal action or vote was taken during the hearing. Supporters said the extension would help smaller staffs manage complex updates and reduce the legal and technical risks of hurried rulemaking.
