Frequently Asked Questions - Comprehensive Planning/Growth Management

Urban Growth Area
1. What are urban growth areas (UGAs)?
2. How are urban growth areas established?
3. Must counties meet with cities before establishing urban growth areas?
4. Should communities provide additional land supply beyond that needed to exactly accommodate the 20-year growth projection?
5. Does the drawing of urban growth boundaries increase property costs?
6. What are communities doing to phase growth within urban growth areas?
7. Can cities gain authority to administer their regulations within the urban growth area?
8. May a city require development in urban growth areas to conform to city standards in exchange for provision of utility services?

   Critical Areas

9. What are critical areas?
10. What are notice and hearing requirements for adoption of critical areas ordinance for Growth Management Act?
11. May a city adopt performance standards to comply with growth management requirements for critical areas designation?
12. What is the legality of downzoning for critical areas protection?

    Capital Facilities

13. What are capital facilities?
14. What must be included in a capital facilities plan element?
15. Should the capital facilities plan be prepared for the city or for the entire urban growth area?
16. Should the inventory of public facilities be limited to just city-owned facilities?
17. Is a capital facility plan required before expending Growth Management Act real estate excise tax (REET) funds?
18. Must an interim capital improvements plan be fully funded?
19. How can a city establish level-of-service standards for roads that would ensure adequate circulation without closing down development in urban growth areas?

1. What are urban growth areas (UGAs)?

   Urban growth areas are those areas, designated by counties pursuant to RCW 36. 70A.110, "within which urban growth shall be encouraged and outside of which growth can occur only if it is not urban in nature." Within these UGAs, growth will be encouraged and supported with adequate facilities. Areas outside of the UGAs will be reserved for primarily rural and resource uses.

2. How are urban growth areas established?

   RCW 36.70A.110, enacted as part of the GMA, indicates that urban growth areas are to be "[b]ased upon the population forecast made for the county by the Office of Financial Management." OFM is to prepare a reasonable range for its population projections for counties, with the middle range representing the most likely population projection for the county. The county is the body that designates UGAs, and the statute mandates that the county must consult with cities in an attempt to reach agreement on the location of these urban growth areas.

3. Must counties meet with cities before establishing urban growth areas?

   Yes. RCW 36.70A.110 mandates that the county attempt to reach agreement with each city on the location of urban growth areas. Cities are to propose urban growth areas and can object formally to the Department of Community, Trade and Economic Development (DCTED) if they disagree with the county designation. The county must also meet with cities to establish a collaborative process for adoption of county-wide planning policies including UGA policies. This process is to develop a framework for counties and cities to adopt all procedures and provisions including desired polices, deadlines, and notification of final agreement.

   RCW 36.70A.110(5) requires that counties designate IUGA prior to adopting their final comprehensive plans, which are to include adoption of final UGAs. Presumably, this is intended to help cities and counties work out their differences before final plan adoption.

4. Should communities provide additional land supply beyond that needed to exactly accommodate the 20-year growth projection?

   The GMA requires that cities reevaluate their UGAs at least every 10 years to assure a continued 20-year land supply. In theory, if undevelopable lands have been excluded from the UGA, there should always be 10 to 20 times the supply needed to accommodate growth in any given year. This should be enough to provide market choice and to avoid pushing up land and housing costs.

   Recognizing that growth pressures and market conditions can change over the course of 20 years, it will be important to monitor and reevaluate land supply more often than the 10 years required by the GMA. Land supply should probably be reviewed every three years, if not annually, to avoid surprises. King, Pierce, Snohomish, Kitsap, Clark and Thurston Counties, and the cities within these counties, must provide for annual collection of data on growth, development densities, and related information and evaluate such data at least every five years to assure that there is an adequate supply of buildable land to accomodate projected growth and meet county-wide planning policy objectives. Some communities may not be able to monitor land supply regularly, or will not be confident about growth projections or land use information. RCW 36.70A.110(2) does allow counties to include "a reasonable land market supply factor" in sizing the UGA. The Central Puget Sound Growth Management Hearings Board has stated that if the market factor exceeds the land supply needed to accommodate OFM's 20-year growth projection by more than 25%, the board will increase its scrutiny of the UGA designation. There appears to be no single right answer since growth pressures and the quality of land use data will vary from place to place. The answer may be to set a boundary that can be expanded and to monitor supply closely.

5. Does the drawing of urban growth boundaries increase property costs?

   If drawn too tightly, urban growth boundaries could contribute to an increase in property costs. A major reason for providing adequate land supply and monitoring that supply is to avoid a substantial increase in property costs or an imbalance between land supply and demand.

6. What are communities doing to phase growth within urban growth areas?

   Pierce County and Port Townsend/Jefferson County, WA are exploring the use of growth phases or tiers within its UGAs. Communities in other states offer some tested examples of growth phasing techniques. The Twin Cities, Minnesota Metro Area and Summit County, Utah (Park City-Snyderville Basin vicinity) have implemented a similar system. The Summit County system limits development in its second and third tiers to 25 to 50 percent of the units allowed once the area becomes first tier. To develop at 50 percent, the developer must provide all major facilities needed to serve the development. The Twin Cities Metro Area uses tiers as a basis for tailoring different growth management strategies to different geographical policy areas. For instance, in the city centers (tier I), the emphasis is on redevelopment, in other fully developed areas (tier II) the emphasis is on infill, and in developing areas the emphasis is on rounding out available facilities. Special strategies can be applied to freestanding centers (tier IV), which have their own infrastructure systems and which serve rural areas. Use of tiered urban growth areas or other phasing strategies also can help assure that concurrency requirements don't tend to push development outward into areas where roads and other infrastructure have greater capacity.

   Clark County, WA and some cities within the county have established urban holding zones within UGAs, applying 10 or 20 acre minimum lot sizes until concurrency requirements are met. The Western Washington Growth Management Hearings Board found the county's use of holding zones to be acceptable.

   The Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development has developed interesting recommendations for growth phasing within the UGA. With this approach, local government would provide off-site urban service facilities within the UGAs with the goal of adding fully-served land to the urban land supply. All such public investment would be primarily in focused "public investment areas (PIAs)" within the UGAs. To develop outside the PIAs, even though still within the UGAs, a developer would need to provide all facilities at his or her own expense. This approach has successfully worked to focus development in Salem.

7. Can cities gain authority to administer their regulations within the urban growth area?

   Counties still have the official land use authority within the unincorporated urban growth area. County-wide planning policies allow cities to influence policy direction for UGAs. Cities in this and in other states have extended their influence within the UGA through agreement within the counties. Agreements can cover matters such as joint planning within the UGA, agreement on annexation policies, adoption of city standards within the UGA, restrictions on development until urban services are in place, and city review and comment on major development within UGAs.

8. May a city require development in urban growth areas to conform to city standards in exchange for provision of utility services?

   MRSC is of the opinion that, absent some existing contract to extend utility service to areas within the urban growth area, the city may, as a condition of providing utility service outside its limits, require that development within the area served conform to city land use standards. (Please note that if city standards are less restrictive than county standards, county agreement would be necessary).

   In short, the provision of utility services to property outside the city's limits would be contractual, the terms of the contract being the agreement between the city and the developer. Outside of such a contract, there is little the city may do regarding compliance with city standards or the provision of impact fees, absent cooperation and agreement with the county. A city may also enter into an interlocal agreement with a county to apply city zoning and standards outside of the city and within the UGA. Thurston County has such an agreement with several of its cities.

9. What are critical areas?

   The GMA contains a provision requiring cities and counties to designate and take measures to protect natural areas of critical ecological value. These critical areas include: wetlands; areas with a critical recharging effect on aquifers used for potable water; fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas; frequently flooded areas; and geologically hazardous areas.

10. What are notice and hearing requirements for adoption of critical areas ordinance for Growth Management Act?

    The GMA does not add any specific notice and hearing requirements to the existing requirements with respect to adoption of development regulations such as a critical areas ordinance.

    However, RCW 36.70A.140 requires that cities planning under the act "establish procedures providing for early and continuous public participation in the development and amendment of comprehensive land use plans and development regulations implementing such plans." If the city has a public participation plan in place, it should be followed. Otherwise, the city should follow the procedures established for adoption of development/zoning regulations. (See RCW 35.63.100, RCW 35.63.120, RCW 35A.63.100, RCW 36.70.580 and RCW 36.70.590 for other notice and hearing requirements preceding GMA.)

11. May a city adopt performance standards to comply with growth management requirements for critical areas designation?

    The Central Puget Sound Growth Management Hearings Board concluded in Gutschmidt v. Mercer Island that a city can adopt performance standards, rather than detailed prescriptive standards and mapping, to comply with GMA requirements for critical areas designation. For example, a city may require individual property owners to submit reports and surveys that enable the city staff to determine whether critical areas exist on the property. Instead of utilizing detailed mapping, a city may establish definitions and narratives that characterize what lands constitute critical areas.

12. What is the legality of downzoning for critical areas protection?

    Downzoning is the practice of rezoning an area from a more intensive use to a less intensive use. It is not inherently unlawful to downzone. The fact that the property may not have as great a value after the rezone does not invalidate the rezone action or necessitate the payment of damages by the city.

    While property owners must be allowed some reasonable use of their property, a city does have a right to change zoning in order to prevent a harm or protect critical areas, even if in so doing the property value is diminished.

    Nevertheless, a city must carefully evaluate whether a proposed downzone might constitute an unconstitutional taking of private property. If application of critical area guidelines or regulations to a particular piece of property would prevent development on the property to such extent that the property owner is denied "all economically viable use of any parcel of regulated property," the city may be liable for damages for a taking of the property, whether the taking is temporary or permanent. Any environmental regulation should be based on a sound comprehensive planning process and supporting background studies.

13. What are capital facilities?

    A capital facility is a structure, street or utility system improvement, or other long-lasting major asset, including land. Capital facilities are provided for public purposes. Including, but not limited to, the following: streets, roads, highways, sidewalks, street and road lighting systems, traffic signals, domestic water systems, storm and sanitary sewer systems, parks and recreation facilities, schools, and police and fire protection facilities. These capital facilities include necessary ancillary and support facilities.

14. What must be included in a capital facilities plan element?

    Each comprehensive plan prepared under the GMA must include a capital facilities plan element.

    Section 7(3) of the GMA states the following:

    A capital facilities plan element must consist of:

    (a) An inventory of existing capital facilities owned by public entities, showing the locations and capacities of the capital facilities;

    (b) A forecast of the future needs of such capital facilities;

    (c) The proposed locations and capacities of expanded or new capital facilities;

    (d) At least a six-year plan that will finance such capital facilities within projected funding capacities and will clearly identify sources of public money for such purposes; and

    (e) A requirement to reassess the land use element if probable funding falls short of meeting existing needs and to ensure that the land use element, capital facilities plan element, and financing plan within the capital facilities plan element are coordinated and consistent.

15. Should the capital facilities plan be prepared for the city or for the entire urban growth area?

    MRSC recommends that the capital facilities element plan be prepared for the entire urban growth area. This would seem to be in keeping with the intent of the Growth Management Act to help cities prepare for growth in their urban growth areas.

16. Should the inventory of public facilities be limited to just city-owned facilities?

    No. The inventory of public facilities should include all public facilities, and should not be limited to city-owned facilities. This would include school and park district property, state property, and other publicly-owned facilities.

17. Is a capital facility plan required before expending Growth Management Act real estate excise tax (REET) funds?

    For the first quarter percent REET money, the initial language in the 1990 GMA was that these funds could be used primarily for capital projects in a capital facilities plan element. The 1992 revisions changed that language to solely for capital projects in a capital facilities plan element. More detailed information on the real estate excise tax is available on a separate Web page.

18. Must an interim capital improvements plan be fully funded?

    RCW 82.02.050(4) states that impact fees "may be collected and spent only for public facilities defined in RCW 82.02.090 which are addressed by a capital facilities plan element of a comprehensive land use plan adopted pursuant to provisions of RCW Chapters 36.70A.070, 36.70, 35.63, or 35A.63." Although the capital facilities plan element adopted under the provisions of the GMA must clearly demonstrate probable funding sources for proposed capital improvements, there is no mention of such a requirement for a capital facilities plan element adopted pursuant to either of the earlier statutes. It appears from our review that impact fees could be expended based on an interim capital facilities plan adopted pursuant to Chapters 35.63 or 35A.63 RCW without being fully funded.

19. How can a city establish level-of-service standards for roads that would ensure adequate circulation without closing down development in urban growth areas?

    Some communities are using standards to measure overall mobility rather than simply road capacity. Although roads may be more congested in high density urban areas, overall mobility may still be adequate where transit and pedestrian facilities meet some of the circulation needs. Thus, a lower level-of-service could be justified for roads in target urban growth areas than in other areas with fewer transportation options.