PCRC MEMORANDUM May 15, SUBJECT: Countywide Planning Policies (CPPs) for Urban Growth Area (UGA) Expansions - Options

Fife City Hall www.cityoffife.org 5411 23 rd Street East, Fife, WA 98424 Tel (253) 922-2489 Fax (253) 922-5355 PCRC MEMORANDUM May 15, 2014 TO: FROM: Pierce County Regional Council Chris Pasinetti, GMCC Chair Ryan Windish, City of Sumner SUBJECT: Countywide Planning Policies (CPPs) for Urban Growth Area (UGA) Expansions - Options EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The Pierce County Regional Council (PCRC) considered the T-1 2013 Pierce County Comprehensive Plan Amendment that would have amended the policies and required a county-wide need for growth capacity prior to allowing an Urban Growth Area expansion, rather than allowing for an individual jurisdiction to expand based on individual capacity needs. The T-1 Amendment would have made the Comprehensive Plan consistent with already adopted Countywide Planning Policies (CPPs) that require both a demonstrated need for the individual jurisdiction and county-wide prior to expansion. Some members of the PCRC were concerned with the fairness and appropriateness of limiting individual jurisdictions ability to expand to meet a local need if there is capacity elsewhere in the County. The PCRC did not take action on the T-1 Amendment and instead referred the issue to the GMCC for consideration of amendments to the CPPs. In this memo, the GMCC presents three options for consideration by the PCRC; each option has its own legal risks and varying degrees of flexibility. Option 1 retains the requirement for both an individual and county-wide showing of a need or capacity prior to an expansion; however, it also allows for amendments that create no net gain in capacity and land area. This allows for modifications to the UGA that may benefit an individual jurisdiction, but doesn t allow for expansion of an oversized countywide UGA, unless a companion amendment is being proposed to ensure no net gain in land area or capacity (capacity and land neutral amendment). Option 1 also provides clarifying language to what is meant by demonstrated need and no net gain ; in terms that to one degree or another have been debated at the Growth Management Hearings Board (GMHB). Option 2 provides the most flexibility for individual jurisdictions but also contains the most legal risk. This option allows for expansion of the UGA if individual or countywide capacity is needed, and allows for an amendment to the UGA if there is no net gain in capacity or no net gain in land area. Finally, Option 2 also allows, regardless of capacity, for expansion of the UGA if 4 acres of open space is preserved for every 1 acre of expansion. Several GMHB cases

are cited throughout this document that indicates the GMHB consistently denies UGA expansions when there is excess countywide capacity. Option 3 is the status quo and recommends no changes to the current policy. In this case, both an individual and a countywide need for expansion must be shown and the terms demonstrated need and no net gain would remain vague. This option likely poses the least amount of immediate legal risk for an appeal as it is adopted language and appeal deadlines have passed. A number of pertinent GMHB cases and excerpts are referenced throughout the document in an attempt to demonstrate to the PCRC the various levels of risks and the rationale and decisions of the GMHB on various cases around the state related to expansion of UGAs and growth capacity. BACKGROUND: The existing Pierce County Countywide Planning Policies (CPPs) allow for the expansion of the urban growth area if there is a demonstrated need for additional residential or employment capacity within the urban growth area affiliated with an individual jurisdiction and a demonstrated need county-wide. The existing policy was established through the Vision 2040 Consistency amendment package, which was approved by the Pierce County Regional Council (PCRC) at its April 21, 2011 meeting. This amendment package was ratified by 60 percent of Pierce County jurisdictions representing 75 percent of the County s population on June 26, 2012. The Vision 2040 consistency amendment package was certified by the Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC) on September 27, 2012. This action taken by the PSRC Executive Board certified the adopted Pierce County CPPs. In October 2013, the PCRC directed the GMCC to analyze options for language in the CPPs regarding the expansion of UGAs for individual cities and towns. This directive stemmed from the PCRC discussion of the T-1 Text Amendment being considered for the Pierce County Comprehensive Plan during the 2013 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Cycle for Pierce County. On April 3, 2014, the GMCC voted to move forward three options for consideration by the PCRC, including two options that would amend the CPP criteria for UGA expansions and a third option to leave the CPPs unchanged. The Options are presented in summary below and analyzed in detail in this memo. SUMMARY: The Growth Management Act (GMA, RCW 36.7oA) contains laws governing the sizing and location of an UGA. This law has been further clarified through GMHB decisions and court decisions over the years. Page 2 of 10

The following is a summary of pertinent points in state law regarding sizing of UGAs: Washington State law states, (RCW36.70A.115) Comprehensive Plans and development regulations must provide sufficient land capacity for development. Counties and cities that are required or choose to plan under RCW 36.70A.040 shall ensure that, taken collectively, adoption of and amendments to their comprehensive plans and/or development regulations provide sufficient capacity of land suitable for development within their jurisdictions to accommodate their allocated housing and employment growth, including the accommodation of, as appropriate, the medical, governmental, educational, institutional, commercial, and industrial facilities related to such growth, as adopted in the applicable countywide planning policies and consistent with the twenty-year population forecast from the office of financial management. Washington State law states, (RCW36.70A.110(2) RCW 36.70A.110(2) Based on the growth management population projection made for the county by the office of financial management, the county and each city within the county shall include areas and densities sufficient to permit the urban growth that is projected to occur in the county or city for the succeeding twenty year period, except for those urban growth areas contained exclusively within a national historical reserve. As part of this planning process, each city within the county must include areas sufficient to accommodate the broad range of needs and uses that will accompany the projected urban growth including, as appropriate, medical, governmental, institutional, commercial, service, retail and other nonresidential uses. Vision 2040, the multi-county planning policies, address urban growth areas and states, Counties must work with their cities to designate an urban growth area as the primary location for growth and future development. All four counties in the region designated such an urban growth area in the mid-1990s. Subsequently, only relatively minor adjustments to the urban growth area have been made. The Regional Growth Strategy was developed with the assumption that, with good planning and efficient land use, existing urban growth area designations can accommodate the population and employment growth expected by 2040. Any adjustments to the urban growth area in the coming decades should continue to be minor. Vision 2040 further provides policies related to adjustment and amendments to the UGA and state, MPP-DP-1: Provide a regional framework for the designation and adjustment of the urban growth area to ensure long-term stability and sustainability of the urban growth area consistent with the regional vision. (page 47, Vision 2040) Page 3 of 10

MPP-DP-31: Support the sustainability of designated resource lands. Do not convert these lands to other uses. (page 56, Vision 2040) In the Central Puget Sound GMHB case City of Snoqualmie v. King County, the board discussed the meaning of whether GMA allows for an UGA expansion based on the need of each city or the need countywide. The GMHB concluded: RCW 36.70A.115 provides that cities and counties must ensure that taken collectively their comprehensive plans, development regulations, and amendments provide sufficient capacity of developable lands within their jurisdictions to accommodate projected growth. In a parallel [SHB] 1825 amendment, the provision now specifies: including, as appropriate, the medical, governmental, educational, institutional, commercial, and industrial facilities related to such growth. RCW 36.70A.215, the buildable lands section, requires King County and its cities to monitor development patterns and take reasonable measures to ensure that urban growth occurs in existing urban areas and avoid expansion of UGAs. The buildable lands provisions already mandate consideration of sufficiency of commercial lands by cities and counties and were not amended by SHB 1825. RCW 36.70A.130(3) requires each county to periodically review its UGA designations and permitted urban densities. Each city is required to review, not the size of its UGA, but the densities permitted within its boundaries. If more capacity is needed to accommodate projected growth, both UGA and density revisions must be considered. The UGA update provisions were not amended by SHB 1825. Taken together, the GMA s UGA provisions require each city to project its land capacity for population and employment growth taking into consideration the need for commercial, institutional and other facilities. The County and cities must attempt to accommodate the projected growth, including non-residential uses, in the existing urban area through density revisions or other reasonable measures. The County then adopts a UGA which may not be over-sized as a whole. 1 1 CPSGMHB City of Snoqualmie v. King County, Case No. 13-3-0002, FDO at 39-40 Page 4 of 10

OPTION 1 See Exhibit 1 Option 1 proposes amendments to the CPPs that would: Require the adoption of the T-1 Text Amendment in order for the Pierce County Comprehensive Plan to be consistent with the CPPs. Require the showing of a demonstrated need of insufficient capacity in the Buildable Lands Report (BLR) or an updated evaluation using the same methodology as the BLR; Retain the requirement that capacity be shown to be insufficient in both the individual jurisdiction and county-wide UGAs before expansion. Clarify that no net gain means no net gain in development capacity and no net gain in land area within the UGA when expanded. Combines subpolicies 2.3.2 and 2.3.1 to more clearly connect the Buildable Lands Report and consistency evaluation instead of maintaining them as separate policies. The intent of Option 1 is to clarify certain policies in the CPPs that have the potential for misinterpretation. This option would require the adoption of the T-1 Text Amendment in order for the Pierce County Comprehensive Plan to be consistent with the CPPs. The proposed language accomplishes this clarification through the least amount of change from existing policy language and is considered to be the most legally defensible in light of GMHB decisions. The GMHB has consistently found UGA amendments that allow for an increase in UGA capacity beyond that which is needed for the next 20 years of growth to not be compliant with the GMA. Exhibit 7 includes a summary list of hearings board cases from across the state. Each number references a case that supports the proposed policy actions throughout this document. The existing CPP s regarding UGA expansion state, 2.3.2 there is a demonstrated need for additional residential or employment capacity within the urban growth area affiliated with an individual jurisdiction and a demonstrated need county-wide; or the expansion result in no net gain to the countywide UGA. (See Exhibit 3, the existing Countywide Planning Policies) The current policies do not define what no net gain to the countywide UGA means. The policy as written could mean no net gain in land area, or capacity, or both. The draft policy states in part, 2.3.3 no net gain in residential or employment capacity to the county-wide UGA and no net gain in land area (See Exhibit 1, the proposed amendments to the CPP s [Option 1]) This policy is supported by a number of hearings board cases. (Exhibit 7). Page 5 of 10

The proposed policies indicate that a jurisdiction who proposes expansion of its UGA would first need to adopt reasonable measures and monitor those measures before proposing an expansion of the UGA. This language currently exists within the CPPs, but the GMCC felt that combining the language under section 2.3.1 would add clarity to the provision. The existing Countywide Planning Policy states, 2.3.3 the consistency evaluation, as required through the Countywide Planning Policies on Buildable Lands, policies BL-3. and BL-4., identifies an inconsistency between the observed and planned densities, the jurisdiction shall either: 1) demonstrate reasonable measures were adopted to rectify the inconsistencies. Documentation shall also be submitted that summarizes the monitoring results of the effectiveness of the measures in rectifying density inconsistencies, or 2) document updated development data that indicates consistency. (See Exhibit 3, Existing CPPs) The proposed policies state, 2.3.1 the jurisdiction s observed development densities are consistent with the planned density assumptions as documented in the most recently published Buildable Lands Report as required by RCW 36.70A.215. If the consistency evaluation, as required through the Countywide Planning Policies on Buildable Lands, policies BL-3. and BL-4., identifies an inconsistency between the observed and planned densities, the jurisdiction shall either: 1) demonstrate reasonable measures were adopted to rectify the inconsistencies. Documentation shall also be submitted that summarizes the monitoring results of the effectiveness of the measures in rectifying density inconsistencies, or 2) document updated development data that indicates consistency; (See Exhibit 1, the proposed amendments to the CPP s [Option 1]) This policy is supported by a number of hearings board cases. (Exhibit 7, see case #5, #8, and #9) The proposed policies within Option 1 would still maintain the Regional Growth Strategy as intended (see MPP-DP 1 & MPP-DP-31- Vision 2040) because any adjustments would still be minor due to the current over-sized UGA. Page 6 of 10

The existing policy states, 2.3.2 there is a demonstrated need for additional residential or employment capacity within the urban growth area affiliated with an individual jurisdiction and a demonstrated need county-wide; or the expansion results in a no net gain to the countywide UGA. (See Exhibit 3, the existing Countywide Planning Policies) The proposed policy states, 2.3.2 the most recently published Buildable Lands Report, or an updated buildable lands evaluation using the same methodology, demonstrates a need for additional residential or employment capacity within the urban growth area affiliated with an individual jurisdiction and the countywide UGA; or 2.3.3 no net gain in residential or employment capacity to the county-wide UGA and no net gain in land area. (see Exhibit 1, Option 1) This policy amendment retains the need to clarify that a demonstrated need for additional employment capacity within an urban growth area affiliated with an individual jurisdiction and a need countywide would be necessary for an urban growth area expansion. The proposed policy amendment would also require that there is no net gain in land area. There have been other instances where the validity of individual capacity analysis has been questioned. On September 16, 2010, the Washington State Department of Commerce sent a letter to the Chair of the PCRC regarding the proposed amendments to the CPPs. In general, the letter had concerns that the amendment would allow an individual jurisdiction to expand an UGA based on a local need for residential or employment capacity. The letter referenced the 2008 State Supreme Court, in Thurston County v. W. Wash. Growth Mgmt. Hearings Bd. No. 80115-1, held that changes to the size of individual growth areas associated with single cities constitute a change to the size of the overall county urban growth area. In the August 2, 2010 Growth Management Hearings Board decision regarding 2009 Pierce County Comprehensive Plan amendments (Case # 10-3-0003, North Clover Creek), the board was clear that UGA sizing for residential, employment and other purposes was to be based on OFM projections and not to be based on individually demonstrated need unless considered within the context of countywide need for UGA expansion. (See Exhibit 4, letter dated September 16, 2010 from the Department of Commerce) The above referenced case also supports the policy changes provided in Option 1 to this memorandum. Page 7 of 10

Both King and Snohomish Counties have similar language regarding expansion where a countywide need is necessary for expansion. Exhibit 5 is the existing King County Countywide Planning Policies includes language regarding the expansion of the UGA. DP 16 Allow expansion of the Urban Growth Area only if at least one of the following criteria is met: a) A countywide analysis determines that the current Urban Growth Area is insufficient in size and additional land is needed to accommodate the housing and employment growth targets, including institutional and other non residential uses, and there are no other reasonable measures, such as increasing density or rezoning existing urban land, that would avoid the need to expand the Urban Growth Area; [etc] (emphasis added) Exhibit 6 is the existing Countywide Planning Policies for Snohomish County include language regarding the expansion of the UGA. DP-2 outlines when UGA expansions are only allowed under certain circumstances. In conclusion, the proposed policy amendments in Option 1 are consistent with the existing CPPs. Option 1 adds clarity to the existing CPPs and is consistent with recent GHMB cases. This option would not allow an individual city to receive an UGA expansion based on a local need or desire without a Buildable Land Report documenting a need for additional housing or employment capacity county-wide. This option would allow an UGA amendment or adjustment if there is no increase in capacity or in land area. Option 1 (the proposed updated policies in Exhibit 1) & Option 3 (existing policy in the CPPs in Exhibit 3), in staff s opinion, present the least amount of legal risk for an appeal to the GMHB, presuming that the County s Comprehensive Plan is consistent with the CPPs. OPTION 2- See Exhibit 2 Option 2 proposes amendments to the CPPs that would: Not require the adoption of the T-1 Text Amendment in order for the Pierce County Comprehensive Plan to be consistent with the CPPs. Clarify meaning of demonstrated need same as Option 1. Allows for an individual jurisdiction to expand their affiliated UGA regardless of an oversized county-wide UGA. Clarify that no net gain means no net gain in development capacity or no net gain in land area within the UGA. Create the option for setting aside open space at a ratio of 4 acres to every 1 acre of allowed expansion regardless of oversized capacity. Combines subpolicies 2.3.2 and 2.3.1 the same as Option 1. Page 8 of 10

Option 2 (as does Option 1)includes proposed policies indicating that a jurisdiction who proposes expansion of its UGA would first need to adopt reasonable measures and monitor those measures before proposing an expansion of the UGA. This language currently exists within the CPPs, but the GMCC felt that combining the language under section 2.3.1 would add clarity to the provision. Option 2, while providing the most flexibility for individual jurisdictions, this option also creates the greatest legal risk under GMA. As mentioned in Option 1, the GMHB has consistently denied UGA amendments when there is an expansion that results in a net gain in capacity when the county-wide UGA is already oversized. Excerpts from several cases before the GMHB regarding UGA expansions, several regarding Pierce County specifically, concluded that: 1) the County UGA is oversized based on the Buildable Lands Report (BLR) and; 2) any amendment to the UGA must be size and capacity neutral, essentially a no net gain because the UGA is oversized. If the UGA is oversized or there is capacity elsewhere in the UGA, the GMHB has consistently denied the expansion of UGAs based on economic needs such as expansions to accommodate freeway interchange areas. The GMHB looks to whether there is capacity within the jurisdiction or the UGA to accommodate this growth. The GMHB does not consider location of this land in comparison to more marketable options proposed. It is simply a matter of capacity. The GMHB reviews the capacity for such commercial or industrial growth within the jurisdiction, and if it is concluded there is ample capacity the UGA amendment is denied. The GMHB also looks into the current land use and zoning, as they did with Eatonville (see Exhibit 7), and points out that instead of expanding the UGA the town should rezone overcapacity residential areas for commercial or industrial uses, or implement some type of reasonable measure like rezoning. Furthermore, the GMHB consistently points to the BLR as the means for determining the capacity of the UGA county-wide, and the analysis to be used for the periodic 10-year update to the County s Comprehensive Plan. There is allowance for updated land-capacity analysis to be completed for individual UGA expansions, to show that the city requesting the UGA does not have sufficient capacity. However, regardless of an individual need, the GMHB considers whether there is a need county-wide for such growth. Option 2 also proposes allowing an UGA expansion when permanent open space is preserved at a ratio of 4 acres for every 1 acre of UGA expansion. This is essentially the same policy as adopted in the King County CPPs. An earlier version of this policy was challenged in 1995 and upheld by the GMHB as compliant with GMA because it was innovative and accomplished other goals of GMA, such as the creation of open space corridors between rural and urban lands (RCW 36.70A.160). The GMHB upheld challenges to the 4 to 1 policy because it was restrictive enough to prevent abuse and promoted goals of GMA. However, the proposed policy Page 9 of 10

in Option 2 is different than the 1995 case upheld by the Board in two ways: 1) it does not have a maximum size limit and 2) it is not limited to residential expansion. While this option allows the most flexibility, without these added restrictions this policy may not comply with GMA. There are several excerpts from GMHB decisions regarding UGA expansions and use of the BLR. (See Exhibit 7: #1, #2, #6, #7, #8 and #9). OPTION 3- See Exhibit 3 Option 3 proposes no changes to the current CPPs and: Requires the adoption of the T-1 Text Amendment in order for the Pierce County Comprehensive Plan to be consistent with the CPPs. Would not clarify the relationship between the Buildable Lands Report and the consistency evaluation. Would not clarify the meaning of demonstrated need thereby retaining options for how a jurisdiction may attempt to demonstrate need for expansion without regard to capacity. Would not clarify the meaning of no net gain and thereby leave open for interpretation by the GMHB or court whether it means capacity or land area or both. Option 3 would retain current language requiring both the individual UGA and the countywide UGA to show a need for capacity prior to expansion. This option also creates the least legal risk under GMA. Option 3 would not contain certain clarifications regarding the definition of demonstrated need and no net gain thereby leaving these terms up for interpretation at the time of application and potential legal challenge. For instance, demonstrated need could be interpreted to mean a market demand basically arguing that the UGA needs to be expanded to meet the need of certain commercial real estate markets. Also, no net gain in the countywide UGA could be interpreted to mean no net gain in capacity or no net gain in land area or both. Based on previous discussion regarding Options 1 and Options 2, and the excerpts from the various GMHB cases provided in Exhibit 7, it is apparent that these terms have been left up to interpretation by jurisdictions and further clarified through the GMHB decisions. For instance, reference #5 and #6 both provide a GMHB discussion of how a market study does not justify a UGA expansion when there is ample land within a jurisdiction s UGA for commercial uses. With the information provided within this memo, the GMCC has provided the PCRC options for amendments the Countywide Planning Policies (CPPs). EXHIBITS: Exhibit 1 Option 1 Proposed Amendments to the CPPs Page 10 of 10

Exhibit 2 Option 2 Proposed Amendments to the CPPs Exhibit 3 Existing CPPs- Amendments and Transition Exhibit 4 Letter from the Department of Commerce dated September 16, 2010 Exhibit 5 Existing King County CPPs Exhibit 6 Existing Snohomish County CPPs Exhibit 7 List of summary GMHB Cases GMCC RECOMMENDATION: On March 13, 2014 the GMCC made their recommendation to the PCRC. The recommendation was to provide Options to the PCRC for CPP amendments with an analysis of effects of potential amendments and in light of various GMHB cases. RECOMMENDATION: The PCRC move to: A. Approve Option 1 as shown in Exhibit 1; OR B. Approve Option 2 as shown in Exhibit 3; OR C. Do not approve any amendments to the Countywide Planning Policies. Page 11 of 10

Underlined is new proposed language Strikethrough is removed language OPTION 1 EXHIBIT 1 DRAFT--CPPs CPPs--Amendments and Transition AT-2. Urban Growth Area boundaries designated by the County pursuant to the Growth Management Act may be amended by Pierce County and accepted by the municipalities in the County pursuant to the same process by which the Urban Growth Areas were originally adopted and pursuant to subpolicies UGA-1 and UGA-2 of the Countywide Planning Policy on Urban Growth Areas, Promotion of Contiguous and Orderly Development and Provision of Urban Services to Such Development. 2.1 An amendment to Urban Growth Area boundaries may be initiated by the County or any municipality in the County. 2.2 A proposed amendment to Urban Growth Area boundaries shall include: 2.2.1 a map indicating the existing urban growth area boundary and the proposed boundary modification; 2.2.2 a statement indicating how, and the extent to which, the proposed boundary modification complies with each of the factors listed in subpolicies 2.2, 2.3, 2.4 and 2.5 and 2.6 of the Countywide Planning Policy on Urban Growth Areas, Promotion of Contiguous and Orderly Development and Provision of Urban Services to Such Development. 2.2.3 a statement indicating the factors, data or analyses that have changed since the designation of the initial Urban Growth Area boundaries and/or the experience with the existing Urban Growth Area boundaries that have prompted the proposed amendment. 2.3 The urban growth area of a jurisdiction may be can only be expanded only if: 2.3.1 the jurisdiction s observed development densities are consistent with the planned density assumptions as documented in the most recently published Buildable Lands Report as required by RCW 36.70A.215. If the consistency evaluation, as required through the Countywide Planning Policies on Buildable Lands, policies BL-3. and BL-4., identifies an

inconsistency between the observed and planned densities, the jurisdiction shall either: 1) demonstrate reasonable measures were adopted to rectify the inconsistencies. Documentation shall also be submitted that summarizes the monitoring results of the effectiveness of the measures in rectifying density inconsistencies, or 2) document updated development data that indicates consistency; and 2.3.2 the most recently published Buildable Lands Report, or an updated buildable lands evaluation using the same methodology, demonstrates a need for additional residential or employment capacity within the urban growth area affiliated with an individual jurisdiction and the countywide UGA; or 2.3.3 no net gain in residential or employment capacity to the county-wide UGA and no net gain in land area. 2.3.5 the consistency evaluation, as required through the Countywide Planning Policies on Buildable Lands, policies BL-3. and BL-4., identifies an inconsistency between the observed and planned densities, the jurisdiction shall either: 1) demonstrate reasonable measures were adopted to rectify the inconsistencies. Documentation shall also be submitted that summarizes the monitoring results of the effectiveness of the measures in rectifying density inconsistencies, or 2) document updated development data that indicates consistency. 2.4 to ensure the orderly development of urban lands, predictability in the provision of urban services, and the eventual annexation of urban growth areas, Pierce County may incorporate criteria into its comprehensive plan policies for evaluating amendments proposing to remove properties from the urban growth area. The criteria should, at a minimum, include the existing development pattern and density, vested development applications, and infrastructure and service needs to accommodate the existing and future residents. In general, any lands proposed to be removed from the urban growth area shall be rural in character and not require any urban level infrastructure or service needs. 2.5 a proposed amendment to the Urban Growth Area boundaries shall be referred to the PCRC for its review and recommendation.

Underlined is new proposed language Strikethrough is removed language EXHIBIT 2 OPTION 2 DRAFT--CPPs CPPs--Amendments and Transition AT-2. Urban Growth Area boundaries designated by the County pursuant to the Growth Management Act may be amended by Pierce County and accepted by the municipalities in the County pursuant to the same process by which the Urban Growth Areas were originally adopted and pursuant to subpolicies UGA-1 and UGA-2 of the Countywide Planning Policy on Urban Growth Areas, Promotion of Contiguous and Orderly Development and Provision of Urban Services to Such Development. 2.1 An amendment to Urban Growth Area boundaries may be initiated by the County or any municipality in the County. 2.2 A proposed amendment to Urban Growth Area boundaries shall include: 2.2.1 a map indicating the existing urban growth area boundary and the proposed boundary modification; 2.2.2 a statement indicating how, and the extent to which, the proposed boundary modification complies with each of the factors listed in subpolicies 2.2, 2.3, 2.4 and 2.5 and 2.6 of the Countywide Planning Policy on Urban Growth Areas, Promotion of Contiguous and Orderly Development and Provision of Urban Services to Such Development. 2.2.3 a statement indicating the factors, data or analyses that have changed since the designation of the initial Urban Growth Area boundaries and/or the experience with the existing Urban Growth Area boundaries that have prompted the proposed amendment. 2.3 The urban growth area of a jurisdiction may be can only be expanded only if: 2.3.1 the jurisdiction s observed development densities are consistent with the planned density assumptions as documented in the most recently published Buildable Lands Report as required by RCW 36.70A.215. If the consistency evaluation, as required through the Countywide Planning Policies on Buildable Lands, policies BL-3. and BL-4., identifies an inconsistency between the observed and planned densities, the jurisdiction shall either:

1) demonstrate reasonable measures were adopted to rectify the inconsistencies. Documentation shall also be submitted that summarizes the monitoring results of the effectiveness of the measures in rectifying density inconsistencies, or 2) document updated development data that indicates consistency; and 2.3.2 the most recently published Buildable Lands Report, or an updated buildable lands evaluation using the same methodology, demonstrates a need for additional residential or employment capacity within the urban growth area affiliated with an individual jurisdiction and or the countywide UGA; or 2.3.3 no net gain in residential or employment capacity to the county-wide UGA or no net gain in land area; or 2.3.4 an urban growth area expansion by any city or town is accompanied by dedication of permanent open space to Pierce County, where the acreage of the proposed open space: 1) is at least four times the acreage of the land added to the UGA; 2) is contiguous with the UGA with at least a portion of the dedicated open space surrounding the proposed UGA expansion. 3) Preserves high quality habitat, critical areas, or unique features that contribute to the band of permanent open space alone the edge of the UGA. 2.3.5 the consistency evaluation, as required through the Countywide Planning Policies on Buildable Lands, policies BL-3. and BL-4., identifies an inconsistency between the observed and planned densities, the jurisdiction shall either: 1) demonstrate reasonable measures were adopted to rectify the inconsistencies. Documentation shall also be submitted that summarizes the monitoring results of the effectiveness of the measures in rectifying density inconsistencies, or 2) document updated development data that indicates consistency. 2.4 to ensure the orderly development of urban lands, predictability in the provision of urban services, and the eventual annexation of urban growth areas, Pierce County may incorporate criteria into its comprehensive plan policies for evaluating amendments proposing to remove properties from the urban growth area. The criteria should, at a minimum, include the existing development pattern and density, vested development applications, and infrastructure and service needs to accommodate the existing and future residents. In general, any lands proposed to be removed from the urban growth area shall be rural in character and not require any urban level infrastructure or service needs.

2.5 a proposed amendment to the Urban Growth Area boundaries shall be referred to the PCRC for its review and recommendation.

CPPs--Amendments and Transition (Current) EXHIBIT 3 AT-2. Urban Growth Area boundaries designated by the County pursuant to the Growth Management Act may be amended by Pierce County and accepted by the municipalities in the County pursuant to the same process by which the Urban Growth Areas were originally adopted and pursuant to subpolicies UGA-1. and UGA-2. of the Countywide Planning Policy on Urban Growth Areas, Promotion of Contiguous and Orderly Development and Provision of Urban Services to Such Development. 2.1 An amendment to Urban Growth Area boundaries may be initiated by the County or any municipality in the County. 2.2 A proposed amendment to Urban Growth Area boundaries shall include: 2.2.1 a map indicating the existing urban growth area boundary and the proposed boundary modification; 2.2.2 a statement indicating how, and the extent to which, the proposed boundary modification complies with each of the factors listed in subpolicies 2.2, 2.4, 2.5 and 2.6 of the Countywide Planning Policy on Urban Growth Areas, Promotion of Contiguous and Orderly Development and Provision of Urban Services to Such Development. 2.2.3 a statement indicating the factors, data or analyses that have changed since the designation of the initial Urban Growth Area boundaries and/or the experience with the existing Urban Growth Area boundaries that have prompted the proposed amendment. 2.3 The urban growth area of a jurisdiction may be expanded only if: 2.3.1 the jurisdiction s observed development densities are consistent with the planned density assumptions as documented in the most recently published Buildable Lands Report as required by RCW 36.70A.215, and 2.3.2 there is a demonstrated need for additional residential or employment capacity within the urban growth area affiliated with an individual jurisdiction and a demonstrated need county-wide; or the expansion results in a no net gain to the countywide UGA. 2.3.3 the consistency evaluation, as required through the Countywide Planning Policies on Buildable Lands, policies BL-3. and BL-4., identifies an inconsistency between the observed and planned densities, the jurisdiction shall either: 1) demonstrate reasonable measures were adopted to rectify the inconsistencies. Documentation shall also be submitted that summarizes the monitoring results of the effectiveness of the measures in rectifying density inconsistencies, or 2) document updated development data that indicates consistency.

2.4 To ensure the orderly development of urban lands, predictability in the provision of urban services, and the eventual annexation of urban growth areas, Pierce County may incorporate criteria into its comprehensive plan policies for evaluating amendments proposing to remove properties from the urban growth area. The criteria should, at a minimum, include the existing development pattern and density, vested development applications, and infrastructure and service needs to accommodate the existing and future residents. In general, any lands proposed to be removed from the urban growth area shall be rural in character and not require any urban level infrastructure or service needs. 2.5 A proposed amendment to the Urban Growth Area boundaries shall be referred to the PCRC for its review and recommendation.

STATE OF WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 128 10 th Avenue SW PO Box 42525 Olympia, Washington 98504-2525 (360) 725-4000 www.commerce.wa.gov September 16, 2010 Bobbi Allison Chair, Pierce County Regional Council 2401 South 35th St. Rm. 228 Tacoma, WA 98409 Dear Ms. Allison: Thank you for sending the Washington State Department of Commerce the proposed amendments to the Pierce County Countywide Planning Policies. We received the final transmittal from the Piece County Regional Council (PCRC) on September 9, 2010. We recognize the substantial investment of time, energy, and resources of all the local governments represented by the PCRC, and we appreciate the opportunity to comment. We especially like that the PCRC has worked to update the countywide planning policies, and is incorporating language from Vision 2040 and addressing emerging issues such as community design, health, and climate change. The proposed policies also support a center-based approach to prioritizing urban growth and infrastructure which should provide opportunities for multimodal transportation, a range of housing types and efficient use of infrastructure investments. We are concerned about proposed Policy 2.3.2 in the Amendments and Transitions section of the Pierce County Countywide Planning Policies which allows for the expansion of the urban growth areas affiliated with an individual jurisdiction if there is a demonstrated local need for additional residential or employment capacity. We are concerned that this is inconsistent with the requirements of the Growth Management Act and with recent court and growth management hearings board cases. RCW 36.70A.110 is clear that the county is to designate an urban growth area or areas (UGA) for the entire county, sized to accommodate the countywide population projection from the Washington State Office of Financial Management (OFM) for the succeeding twenty-year period. This statute requires that the countywide urban growth areas are sized to accommodate

the residential, employment, and other needs associated with the countywide population projection. The requirement for countywide sizing of urban growth areas was a topic in two recent legal cases. The 2008 State Supreme Court, in Thurston County v. W. Wash. Growth Mgmt. Hearings Bd. No. 80115-1, held that changes to the size of individual growth areas associated with single cities constitute a change to the size of the overall county urban growth area. In the August 2, 2010 Growth Management Hearings Board decision regarding 2009 Pierce County Comprehensive Plan amendments (Case # 10-3-0003, North Clover Creek), the board was clear that UGA sizing for residential, employment and other purposes was to be based on OFM projections and not to be based on individually demonstrated need unless considered within the context of countywide need for UGA expansion. Commerce s WAC 365-196-310(3)(e) also recommends that piecemeal changes to an individual UGA have county-wide implications, and should not be made unless part of a comprehensive review of the countywide UGA. The statute, the WAC, and these court and hearing board cases provide clear direction to the PCRC regarding the appropriateness of this policy language. We recommend that this policy be revised before adoption to state that the urban growth area of a jurisdiction may be expanded only if there is both a locally demonstrated need for additional residential or employment capacity and a demonstrated need county-wide. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on these proposed amendments. If you have any questions or concerns about these comments, please contact me at (360) 725-3064 or Anne.Fritzel@commerce.wa.gov. We extend our continued support to Pierce County and all of her cities and towns in achieving the goals of growth management. Sincerely, Anne Aurelia Fritzel Growth Management Planner Growth Management Services cc: Dan Cardwell, Pierce County Planning and Land Services Leonard Bauer, Managing Director, Growth Management Services, Commerce Ike Nwankwo, Financial & Technical Assistance Manager, Growth Management Services Norm Abbot, Director of Growth Management Planning, Puget Sound Regional Council Jeff Storrar, Growth Management Planner, Puget Sound Regional Council

EXHIBIT 5 King County- Countywide Planning Policies Goal Statement: The Urban Growth Area accommodates growth consistent with the Regional Growth Strategy and growth targets through land use patterns and practices that create vibrant, healthy, and sustainable communities. The following policies guide the decision making process by both the GMPC and King County regarding proposals to expand the Urban Growth Area. DP 14 Review the Urban Growth Area at least every ten years. In this review consider monitoring reports and other available data. As a result of this review, and based on the criteria established in policies DP 15 and DP 16, King County may propose and then the Growth Management Planning Council may recommend amendments to the Countywide Planning Policies and King County Comprehensive Plan that make changes to the Urban Growth Area boundary. DP 15 Allow amendment of the Urban Growth Area only when the following steps have been satisfied: a) The proposed expansion is under review by the County as part of an amendment process of the King County Comprehensive Plan; b) King County submits the proposal to the Growth Management Planning Council for the purposes of review and recommendation to the King County Council on the proposed amendment to the Urban Growth Area; c) The King County Council approves or denies the proposed amendment; and d) If approved by the King County Council, the proposed amendment is ratified by the cities following the procedures set forth in policy G 1. DP 16 Allow expansion of the Urban Growth Area only if at least one of the following criteria is met: a) A countywide analysis determines that the current Urban Growth Area is insufficient in size and additional land is needed to accommodate the housing and employment growth targets, including institutional and other non residential uses, and there are no other reasonable measures, such as increasing density or rezoning existing urban land, that would avoid the need to expand the Urban Growth Area; or b) A proposed expansion of the Urban Growth Area is accompanied by dedication of permanent open space to the King County Open Space System, where the acreage of the proposed open space 1) is at least four times the acreage of the land added to the Urban Growth Area; 2) is contiguous with the Urban Growth Area with at least a portion of the dedicated open space surrounding the proposed Urban Growth Area expansion; and 3) Preserves high quality habitat, critical areas, or unique features that contribute to the band of permanent open space along the edge of the Urban Growth Area; or c) The area is currently a King County park being transferred to a city to be maintained as a park in perpetuity or is park land that has been owned by a city since 1994 and is less than thirty acres in size. DP 17 If expansion of the Urban Growth Area is warranted based on the criteria in DP 16(a) or DP 16(b), add land to the Urban Growth Area only if it meets all of the following criteria: a) Is adjacent to the existing Urban Growth Area and is no larger than necessary to promote compact development that accommodates anticipated growth needs;

b) Can be efficiently provided with urban services and does not require supportive facilities located in the Rural Area; c) Follows topographical features that form natural boundaries, such as rivers and ridge lines and does not extend beyond natural boundaries, such as watersheds, that impede the provision of urban services; d) Is not currently designated as Resource Land; e) Is sufficiently free of environmental constraints to be able to support urban development without significant adverse environmental impacts, unless the area is designated as an Urban Separator by interlocal agreement between King County and the annexing city; and f) Is subject to an agreement between King County and the city or town adjacent to the area that the area will be added to the city s Potential Annexation Area. Upon ratification of the amendment, the Countywide Planning Policies will reflect both the Urban Growth Area change and Potential Annexation Area change. DP 18 Allow redesignation of Urban land currently within the Urban Growth Area to Rural land outside of the Urban Growth Area if the land is not needed to accommodate projected urban growth, is not served by public sewers, is contiguous with the Rural Area, and: a) Is not characterized by urban development; b) Is currently developed with a low density lot pattern that cannot be realistically redeveloped at an urban density; or c) Is characterized by environmentally sensitive areas making it inappropriate for higher density development. The following policies guide the decision buildable lands program conducted by the GMPC and King County. DP 19 Conduct a buildable lands program that meets or exceeds the review and evaluation requirements of the Growth Management Act. The purposes of the buildable lands program are: To collect and analyze data on development activity, land supply, and capacity for residential, commercial, and industrial land uses; To evaluate the consistency of actual development densities with current comprehensive plans; and To evaluate the sufficiency of land capacity to accommodate growth for the remainder of the planning period. DP 20 If necessary based on the findings of a periodic buildable lands evaluation report, adopt reasonable measures, other than expansion of the Urban Growth Area, to increase land capacity for housing and employment growth within the Urban Growth Area by making more efficient use of urban land consistent with current plans and targets.

EXHIBIT 6 Snohomish County- Countywide Planning Policies The County designates UGAs per RCW 36.70A.110. The designation of UGAs must be coordinated between the county and cities per RCW 36.70A.100. This document provides the process and criteria for considering expansion of UGAs to accommodate the projected growth. While a change to an established UGA is most often expected to result in an expansion, in some instances a change to a UGA may instead be an adjustment, correction, or even a constriction. DP 1 The County shall maintain Urban Growth Areas (UGAs), as shown on the map in Appendix A, that: a. When aggregated at the time of 10 year updates, shall include additional capacity to accommodate at least 100%, but no more than 115%, of the County's adopted 20 year urban allocated population growth projection; b. Include all cities in Snohomish County; c. Can be supported by an urban level of service consistent with capital facilities plans for public facilities and utilities; d. Are based on the best available data and plans regarding future urban growth including new development, redevelopment, and infill; e. Have identifiable physical boundaries such as natural features, roads, or special purpose district boundaries when feasible; f. Do not include designated agricultural or forest land unless the city or County has enacted a program authorizing transfer or purchase of development rights; g. Have been evaluated for the presence of critical areas; h. Where possible, include designated greenbelts or open space within their boundaries and on the periphery of the UGA to provide separation from adjacent urban areas, rural areas, and resource lands; i. Should consider the vision of each jurisdiction regarding the future of their community during the next 20 years; j. Are large enough to ensure an adequate supply of land for an appropriate range of urban land uses to accommodate the planned growth; and k. Support pedestrian, bicycle and transit compatible design. DP 2 An expansion of the boundary of an individual Urban Growth Area (UGA) that results in a net increase of residential, commercial or industrial land capacity shall not be permitted unless: a. The expansion is supported by a land capacity analysis adopted by the County Council pursuant to RCW 36.70A.110; b. The expansion otherwise complies with the Growth Management Act; c. Any UGA expansion should have the support of affected cities. Prior to issuing a decision on a UGA boundary change, the County shall consult with affected cities and give substantial weight to a city s position on the matter. If the County Council approves an expansion or contraction of a UGA boundary that is not supported by an affected city, it shall include in its findings how the public interest is served by the UGA expansion or contraction despite the objection of an affected city; and d. One of the following conditions is met: