HomeMy WebLinkAboutOrdinance 00-132-CC B�ARD �JF CtJUNTY CC}MMISSItJNERS
, GRANT COUNTY,WASHINGTON
ORDINANCE NO. 2000- 132 -CC
IN THE MATTER OF ADOPTING AN AMENDED URBAN GROWTH A,REA FClR
THE CITY OF EPHRATA, GRANT COUNTY,WASHINGTt3N and
AMENDMENT C?F THE CC)UNTY'S FUTURE LAND USE MAP
; WHEREAS,in 1994 the Washingtan State Legislature passed and the Governor szgned into Iaw the
Growth Management�1et(GM�)as cantained in SHB No. 2929(Washington Laws, 1990 lst Ex. Sess.,
Ch.17),which was subsequerztly codified as,among other chapters,Chapter 3b.70A I2CW; and
' WHEREAS,the legislature faund that uncoordinated and unplanned growth,together with a lack af
comrnon goals expressing the public's interest in the conservation and the wise use of our lands,pose a
threat to the environment, sustainable econornic development,and the health, safety,and high quality of
life enjoyed by residents of the state; and
WHEREAS,the Washin�ton State GMA requires all counties and cities in the state to do some planning
ax�d the fastest growing caunties, and the cities witllin thexn,to plan extensively in keeping with state
goals on: sprawl reduction, affordable ho�Ysing, economic developrnent, open space and recreation,
regional transportation, environmental protection,property rights,natural resource industrics,Ilis�oric
lands arid buildings,permit processing,pubtic facilities and services, and early and continuous public
participation; and
WHEREAS,the GMA requires caunties to adapt caunty-wide planning policies ta guide the adoption of
comprehensive plans and ta ensure that the comprehensive ptans of counties and the cities witlain them
are caordinated and consistent with each other; and
WHEREAS,the Board of Grant County Commissioners adopted the Final�ldopted Polieies a,f the Gr�ant
County Planned Grr�wth Comrnittee on May 6, 1993 subsequent to a coaperative effort involving all 1oca1
jurisdictions i��Grant County; and
WHEREAS,the GMA and the Final�dopted Polzcies of'the Grant Coun.ty Planned Growth Committee
provide direction regarding designation of Urba�i Growth Areas(UGAs); and
(
WAEREAS, the Ephrata UGA was established based on a jaint planning process,including consultal:ion i
between representatives of the City of Ephrata and Grant Caunty, as required by the GMA and the Final !
Adoptecl Policies of the GNant Caunty Ptarzned GNawth CnmYnittee; and ;
� WHEREAS,the Grant County Departznent af Caznmunity Development has produced a Comprehensive '
P'IanlDraft Envfronmental Impact Staternent that ineludes an Urban Lands Sub-element addressing the ;
Ephrata UGA; and
�V�IEId_EAS,the Eastern Washingtan Growth Managament Hearil�gs Board in their Final Decision and �
Order in Case Na 99-1-0013,found Grant County out of compliance with the Washington State Growth
Management Act with regard to�he designation of the City af Ephrata Urban Crrowth Area; and
;
IOrdinance Na. 2000- 132-CC
, Page 2
1 WHEREAS, the Eastern Washington Growth Management EIearings Board in their Final Decision and
Order in Case No. 99-1-0013,rernanded the City of'Ephrata UGA with direction ta the Gounty to bring it
, into compliance; and
� WHEREAS, it is the intant af the Crrant County Board of County Con�missioners to fully comply with
the Final Decision and Order of the Eastern Washingtan Growtl�Managemerlt Hearings]3oard in Case
' No. 99-1-Q013; and
WHEREAS, a public review process was conducted by the Bo�rd of County Commissioners for the
, amendment of the Eph��ata UGA pursuant ta RCW 36.70A.020(11}; and
WI�EREAS,the Urban Lands Sub-element addressing the Ephrata UGA]ias been previously reviewed
by affected State and local agencies and found, generally,to be in complxance with the requirements of
the GMA; and
WHEREAS,the cornments and correspondence provided by affected State and local agencies has been
considered during review of the Ephrata LTGA arnendment and in the preparation af attached Exhibit A---
Findings af Fact; and
WHEREAS, the Grant County SEI'A Responsible Official reviewed the SEPA the existing
e�avironmental dacuments on�Ie and issued a Declaration of Significance (DS) on Oetober 19,2000; and
WHEREAS,the C`rrant Caunty Planning Commission held a public hearing at their regular scheduled
manthly�neeting on Apri17,1999,received oral and w�-itten testimony,and n�ade findings and
conc�usians as specified in the Exhibit A—Findings of Fact; and
WHEREAS,the Planning Commissian's Apri17, 1999 recommendation is consistent with the amended
Ephrata UGA as proposed with this ordinance; and
WHEREAS,the Board of Gt•ant County Commissioners held a public hearing on October 23,2000,upon
notice,in the Board Room of the Caunty Comm.issioners at the Grant County Courthouse,Ephrata,
Washington, at which time tlae Board af County Commissioners heard comments in r�gard to the
proposcd action of amending the Ephr�ta UGA and continued the public hearing until October 30,2000,
upon notice, in the Board Room of the County Cornmissionexs at the Crrant County Courthouse,Ephrata,
Washington; and
WHEREAS,the Board of Crrant County Commissianers makes the fallowing�ndings and canclusians:
1. The amended UGA adapted by this resolution:
• Is reasonably consistent with the allocation of grow�h projected;
• Includes both incorpoxated and unincorporated land;
• Provides adequate lands for comrnercial a11d industrial purpases;
• Provides adequate lands for o�en space and recreational needs; !
• Recagnizes the need to ensurc that an adequate n�ix of affordable housing remain available; �
• Recognizes existing patterns of Iand uses and lot sizes; ancl �
• Recagnizes areas that have adequate existing public facilities and service capabilities to serve ;
such development. i
2. The area within the amended[JGA boundazy adopted by this resolution is: ��
�
,
(
�
Ordinance No. 2000- 132-CC
� Page 3
i
• characterized by urban growth or adjacent to such areas in compliance with RCW 36.7QA.110;
� • tagether with other urban areas which will be part oi'the County's Comprehensive Plan, sufficient
to permit the ZO-year urban growth projected by OFM pursuant ta RCW 3G.70A.110;
; 3. Adequate public facilities and services aithsr exist in the unincorporated partions of the UGA or are
. planned to be provided as growth accurs.
� 4. The amended UGA ado ted b this resolution will romote infilling within the City of�phrata and
P Y P
; appropriately hagher densities far the more efficiarit pravision af urban-1eve1 services and utilities.
5. The amended UGA adopted by this resa]utian strikes a reasanable balance between:
• protecting the envirotunent,
• preserving rural areas,
( « accornmodating projected growth,
' » recognizing existing patterns of developrnent,
• promoting efficient service areas for public utilities and services,
« recognizing natural boundaries,
« accoxnmadating the desires and policies of the City of Ephrata, and
• accoinmodating the desires of the residents of the affected areas.
6. The amended�.TGA satisfies the Final Decision and 4rder af the Tastern Washington Growth
Management Hearings Baard May 19, 1999 Final Decisian and�rder in Case No. 99-1�0013.
7. The areas excluded fram the City of Ephxata Urban Growt�Area shauld be re-designated cansistent
with the application af the policies and direetives adapted in the County Comprehensive Plan.
NOW,THEREFC?RE,BE IT RESOLVED,that the amended Urba�i Gra�vth Area far the City of
Ephrata,inaluding the UGA boundary and land use designations outside of corporate limits, shall be
designated in cornpliance with RCW 36.70A and WAC 365-195,as shown on the map entitled"Cnant
County Cornprehensiv�P1an Ephrata Urban Growth t�rea,Amended October 2000 (EWGMHB 99-1-
0013)", attached hereto as Exhibit D.
I3E IT FURTHER RESQLVED,that the amended Urban Growth Area for the City of Tphrata has
resulted in the addition of rural and agricultural lands on the County's Future Land Use Ma�a,Figure 5-5.
As such,the areas removad from the City of Ephrata Urban Grawth Area, shall be designated in
complianee with the Grant County Comprehensive Plan,RCVt�3b.70A and WAC 365-195, as shown on
the xnap ezatitled"Grant Caunty Comprehensive Plan�igure 5-S Future Land ITse Map Amendment
(LWGMHB 99-1-0013),Amended October 2�00",attached hereto as Exhibit E.
I3E IT FURTHER RESOLVEI�,that the Board of County Cammissioners rescind and repeal in its
entirety Grant County(Jrdinanae No. 99-162-CC.
�iE�T I+'i1IaTHER ItFSOLVED,that the Board of Crrant County Cornmissioners adopts all recitals
herexn as findxngs of fact in e�ipport o�`this action.
i
�
i
i
,
;
�
, Qrdinance No. 2Q00- ].32-CC
Page 4
APPROVED BY THE BOARD this 30th day of Uctober, 2000.
� BOARll OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
GRANT COUNTY,WASHINGTON ATTEST:
"l,t,
� `
Deborah Kay Maore, a�person Peggy G i �
�J Clerlc of the Board
�
9
LeRoy C. ison, Commissioner
APPROVED AS T(J►F4RM 13Y:
Tim Snead,Commissianer Steven Hallstrain
Deputy Prosecuting Attorney
�
�
�
�
I
�
�
�
EXHIBIT A FINDINGS OF FACT
; Section 1 —General Findings
1.1 Grant County has experienced and will continue to experience population growth and accompanying
development,resulting in competing demands for public facilities, services and land uses, and is
� required to prepare and adopt a comprehensive plan and land use regulations pursuant to the Crrowth
� Management Act.
1.2 Crrowth management requires that land be managed properly and wisely. Otherwise,meeting the
, demands of a rapidly growing county population is lilcely to cause urban and suburban sprawl,
commercial s�rip development, development at inappropriate locations and densities, damage to
environmentally sensitive areas, and the loss of natural resource lands,rural character, open space,
and critical areas. Also,this pattern of development is lilcely to create demands for urban services
and utilities that are insufficient to support their extension in a cost-effective manner.
1.3 RCW 36.70A.020 sets forth a list of 13 goals "to guide the development and adoption of
comprehensive plans and development regulations."In formulating the final Urban Growth Area
adopted by this Resolution and these findings of fact, Grant County has considered the 13 Growth
Management Goals,weighed them as they apply to the subject matter of these findings, and has
attempted to achieve a reasoned balance among them.
1.4 The amended Urban Growth Area adopted by this Resolution is consistent with the requirements of
the Washington State Crrowth Management Act(RCW 36.70A) and bears a substantial relationship
to, and is necessary for,the public health, safety, and general welfare of Grant County residents.
1.5 Grant County has moved as expeditiously as possible to gather relevant scientific data to improve
the County's long-range planning process. The County has relied upon best available science in
developing this final Urban Growth Area.
1.6 The adoption of this amended Urban Growth Area will not unfairly burden the property rights of
landowners. Although the health, safety, and welfare of the public demand that reasonable
res�rictions must be placed on the use of property, individuals will retain a full range of
constitutional protections including due process rights.
Section 2—GMA and SEPA Procedural Compliance/Public Participation
2.1 In 1993, the Grant County Planned Growth Committee, which included representatives from Grant
County and each of its cities and towns, developed County-wide planning policies intending to
incorporate the requirements of the GMA. These policies were adopted by the Grant County Board
of Commissioners on May 6, 1993. These policies provide general guidance for the general land use
pattern of future development in the County, including the designation of urban growth areas.
2.2 The City of Ephrata conducted public hearings and adopted a proposed Intarim Urban Growth Area
(IUGA) for the City of Ephrata in 1995.
2.3 The Grant County SEPA Responsible Official reviewed the IUGA proposal and associated SEPA
documentation and issued a Mitigated Declaration of Non-significance (MDNS) on May 16, 1995
for the designation of the proposed IUGA.
i
2.4 The Board of Grant County Commissioners held a public hearing on October 24, 1995,upon notice, i
�
i
�
Exhibit A—Findings of Fact Page 2
�
at which time the Board of County Commissioners heard comments in regard to the proposed IUGA
and continued the public hearing until November 6, 1995. The Board of County Commissioners,
based on�ndings and conclusions made following the public hearing, adopted by Resolution and
Ordinance No. 95-134-CC an Interim Urban Growth Area for the City of Ephrata,with several
stipulations, including that modification of the interim Urban Growth Area may be made by the
County based on revised data or changed circumstances.
2.5 Beginning in July 1998,the County began a process that encouraged the involvement of citizens in
the planning process and provided a mechanism to foster coordination between the County and the
incorporated cities within the County. The Grant County Planning Commission conducted numerous
study sessions to review bacicground information, data,reports, citizen and staff recommendations,
and exhibits during the development and drafting of the Comprehensive P1an. A series of 11 public
meetings and workshops were held over a six month period providing the public extensive citizen
participation opportunities in their attempts to define and develop a community vision and plan for
growth.At each meeting and workshop the public was afforded an opportunity to testify or submit
written correspondence regarding growth management.
2.6 Efforts were made to collect and disseminate information to the public explaining the Crrowth
Management Act(GMA)and Grant County's comprehensive planning program. Community"town
meetings"and appearances before community organizations were held to explain the GMA and the
plan development process. The public was notified of ineetings,hearings, and study sessions by
means of newspaper display ads,news releases, letters,newsletters, and by notice to those requesting
information on comprehensive planning efforts. The Grant County Skyline, a periodic newsletter
presenting various growth management topics,was produced by the County and broadly dist�ibuted.
A total of six editions of the Grant County Sliyline were produced; two editions were directly
distributed to all residents and post office box holders of the County. During this broad-scale public
information process, a list was compiled of more than 1,500 citizens interested in the planning
process. This "mailing"list was used to distribute subsequent information.
2.7 Board of County Commissioners and Planning Commission meetings,hearings, and study sessions
requiring"legal notice" were advertised in the local paper of record pursuant to the requirements of
RCW 36.70 and the Grant County Code. Copies of the Draft Comprehensive Plan/DEIS were
broadly disseminated for public and agency review at no charge. All meetings and hearings to which
the public was invited were conducted in an open forum. At hearings all persons desiring to spealc
were given an opportunity to do so.Public testimony and written correspondence was given full
consideration as part of the development of the Comprehensive Plan, including designation of urban
growth areas.
2.8 Based on revised population data,review of the IiJGA by the Washington State Department of
Community,Trade and Economic Development, and significant public comment regarding the
adopted Interim Urban Growth Area,the Board of County Comrnissioners requested an amendment
to the Ephrata IUGA in September, 1998.
2.9 Grant County retained the services of a professional consultant to prepare the Crrant County
Comprehensive Plan and, among other things,review the Ephrata Urban Growth Area for
compliance with the GMA.The professional consultant prepared a land usa analysis for the Ephrata
UGA,which is contained in the Crrant County Comprehensive Plan,Part IV—Technical
Appendices, and incorporated herein by reference.
2.10 Grant County Long Range Planning staff then consulted further with City of Ephrata staff regarding
potential additions to the TUGA for inclusion in the final Urban Growth Area. Three areas(Areas 2,
4, and 5) were identified for possible inclusion in the UGA as shown on the map titled City of
Exhibit A—Findings of Fact Page 3
; Ephrata Proposed Ur^ban Growth Ar^ea attached as Exhibit B and as describec�below.
� Areas 4 and 5 -Urban Reserve
Land shawn as#4 and#5 is designated as Urban Reserve as de�ned in the Grant County
, Compxehensive Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement.The area identi�ed as Area 4 is
` approximately 277 acres.The area identi�ed as Area 5 is comprised of 2 subareas; ane is
appraximately 210 acres and the other is 2'7 acres. Areas 4 and 5 ware proposed for inclusion in the
UGA to provide for reservation of land anticipated to be required far urban purposes durii�g the
planning period but far whicl�urban serviees are not yet available.Prior to the provisiozz of�ublic
services,the Urban Reserve designation is intended ta maintain a low land use density to discour'age
the establishment of interim uses and land division patterns that may fareclase significant future
planning alternatives pertaining to urban densitias and the efficient pravision of services.Low land
use densities will be maintained at a maximum density of 1 dwelling per S acres.Development
regulations may include conditions,restrictions,and/or performance standards on the land held in
Urban Reserve until such time as urban services are available and provided. Perforrnance standards
may ii7clude,but are not limited to siting,lacation and design requirements intended to allow
realization of urban densities and planned ecoilomical provision of infras�ructure for the site and
general area.When urban services becolne available, developmexit will occur at appropriate densities
and uses, and with circulation networks that result in an orderly, econoxnic transitioli from rural to
urban land use.
Area 2 - Commereial
The area identified as Area 2, containing 19.5 acres,houses an existing concrete plant adjacent to SR
282 sauth of the city limits.Water and sanitary sewer utilities are available nearby to serve the area.
Water is aurrently supplied ta the canerete plant via City water systern.Inclusion of Area 2 would
recognize the commercial operation of the concrete plant and its reliance on City water su�aply.
2.11 The Grant County Department of Community Developnlent,Long Range Plannitzg Division,as lead
agency,prepared a SLPA Checklist for the proposed action of approving an Urban Growtll Area for
the City af Ephrata. The Grant County SEPA Responsible Official revi�wed the SEl'A Checklist and
issued a Declaration of Non-signi�'icance(DNS)on March 23, 1999.
2.12 The Grant County Planning Cammission held a public hearing at their regular scheduled nionthly
meeting on Apxil 7,1999. The public record compiled by the Planning Commission indicates that
many residents opposed inclusian of Area 2 within the Lphrata UGt�. The Planning Comrnission
inade the following findings and conclusions:
1. Areas 4 and 5 shauld not be included in the City of Ephrata Urbaz�Growth Area and designated I
as Urban Reserve as defined in the Grant County Comprehensive P1an/Draft Environmental
Trnpact Staternent,In reaching this conclusian,the Grant Cnunty Planning Commission found �
that inclusion of Areas 4 and 5 in tl7e UGA provides for additional residential lands that are not �
needed based on the land use capacity analysis. j
2. Area 2 should not be included in the City of Ephrata Urban Crrowth�1rea ai�d designated as �
Commercial as defined in the Cxrant County Camprehensive PIan/Draft L`nvironmental Impact �
Statement.In reachin�this conclusion,tlae Cxrant County Planning Commission faund that �
inclusran of Area 2 in the UGA provides for additianal commercial lands that are not needed ;
i�ased an the Iand use ca�acity analysis.Inclusion af Area 2 may alsa exacerbai:e: (1}irregulaz �
�oundaries af the�.TGA boundazy af the City of Ephrata; and(2}the potential creation of an ,
"island" in the L7GA.While provision of urban serviees such as water or sewer to an area ;
should be considered,the Planning Commission found that it should nat be an overric3ing factor i
in designation of a UGA. �
I
Exhib�t A—Findings of Fact Pa���
2.13 The Board of Grant County Commissioners held a public hearing on May 24, 1999,upon notice, in
the Board Room af the County Commissioners at thc Grant County Courthouse,Ephrata,
Washington, at which time tha Baard of Caunty Commissioners heard comments in regard to the
' proposed action of adopting the Ephrata UGA and cantinued the public hearing until June 1, 1999,
upon notice,in the Board Room af the County Comznissioi7ers at the Grant Caunty Courthouse,
Eplirata,Washington, After hearing public comment,the Board of Cxrazlt Gaunty Cammissioners
made the fallowing findings and conclusions:
]. In order to ensure that Areas 4 and S will eventually be served by urban-level public servzces and
faci3ities,these areas shauld be included in the City of Ephrata Urban Crrowth Area and
designated as Urban Reserve as de�ned in the Grrant County Comprehensive Plan/Draft
Environmental Impact Statement; and
2. Based on the�ndings af the Grant County Planning Commission,Area 2 should not be included
in the City of�phrata Urban Growth Area.
2.14 Interested persons were provided an ample opportunity to comment on the proposed Ephrata Urban
firowth Area during the public review process.The County has inet, or exceede�,the xeqitireinents
for enhanced public participation as delineated in Grant County Grawth Managc�rrcent Act(GM�1}
Public Participation Pragrarrx and�VAC 365-195-b00.
2.15 Environmental review laas been conducted on the proposed Ephrata Urban GrouTth Area in
compliance with prooedural and substantive requirements of Grant County S�PA 4rdinance No. 95-
60-CC,RCW 43.21.C, and Chapter 191-11 WAC.
2.16 The Eastern Washington Growth Managernent Hearings Board issued their Fina1 Decision and Order
in Case No. 99-1-0013 an May 19,2000. The Hearings Board found Grant County out of
coxnpliance with the Washington State Growth Management Act and remanded the City of E�hrata
UGA, as adopted in Ordinance 99-162-CC and incorporated ii1 the Conaprehezisive Plan, with
direction to the County to bring it into compli�nce.
2.17 The Boaxd af Grant County Commissioners held a public hearing on October 23, 2000,upon notice,
in the Board Raom of the County Commissioners at the Grant County Courthouse, Ephrata,
Washington,at which time the Board of County Cammissioners heard comments in regard to the
proposed action of amending the Ephrata UGA and continued the public hearing until October 30,
2Q04,upon notice,in the Baard Roam of the County Cpmmissioners at the Crrant County
Courthouse,Ephrata,Washington.After hearing public comment,the Board of Cnant County
Commissianers made the fallawing findings and conclusions:
L In order ta cornply with the Washingtan State Crrowth Mana�ement Act and thc Final Decision
and Order of the Eastern Washingtan Growth Managernent Hearings Board in Case No. 99-1-
0013, Areas 4 and S (�S 14 acres) should not be included in the City of Ephrata Urban Gr•owth
Area; (see Exhibit B)
2. �ased on the findings of tl�e Crrant County Planning Comrnission, flreas 4 and 5 (�514 acres}
should no�be included in tl�e City of Ephrata Urban Cxrowth Area. (see Exhibit B}
3. The areas excluded from the City af Ephrata Urban Growth Area(Areas 4 and 5 as identi�ied
above) should be included and designated on an amended Future Land Use Map,Figure 5-S,
consistent with the application af the policies azld directives adopted in the County
Comprehensive Plan. E1rea 4,which is�277 acres, should be designated"Rura1 Residential2".
�
I
Exhibit A—Findings of Fact Pa���
�
The�210 acre portion of Area 5 should be designated"Rangeland". The�27 acre portion oi'
Area 5 should be designated"Rural Residential2". (see Exhibit B)
� 2.18 Interested persons were provided op�ortunity to comment on the proposed Ephrata Urban Growth
; Area amendment during the public review process.The County has rnet, or exceeded,tlie
� requirements for WAC 365-195-6d0.
` 2.19 Environmental review has been eonducted on the prppased Ephrata Urban Cnowth 1�rea amendment
, in compliance with proeedural and substantive requirements of Crrant Cauxlty Unified Development
' Cade,RCW 43.21.C, and Chapter 1�7-11 WAC.
Section 3—Population Prajectian and Allacation
' 3.1 Acoarding to the Washingtan State Office af rinancial Management,Grant County's 1990
, populatian was 54,798.Between 1980-1990 the county population increased by abaut 13%. Since
1990,papulatian has grawn to 69,400,a growth of nearly 27%. This decacle of population growth
placed Grant County among the fastest growing counties in the State of Washington.
3.2 The tJffzce of Financial Management forecasted 20-year medium-series (most likely to occur) and
high-series population projectians for Grant County are 91,624 and 104,391,xespeetively.Based on
the County's recent high growth rate,potential papulatian undercount of migrant at�d seasanal
warkers,recent settlzng of znigrant farm workers,inorease in food pracessing activity, and increased
focus af ecanatnic development in rural areas,the high series better reflects anticipated population
growth.Use of the high-series OI'M projection would add nearly 35,QOQ persons to the county by the
year 2Q18,an increase af SQ°lo over the 1�98 population of 69,400. Grant County is projected to
grow at a 2.1 percent average annual rate aver th�twenty-year planning period,This rate reflects
best available science as dacurnented by the Offioe of Financial Management(OFM) farecasting
division and reflects the high�;rowth projectian for Crrant County�
3.3 Caunty-wide projected population is allocated among jurisdictions based on historic growth patterns,
e�ploymen�forecast, expectations regarding future growth, and GMA goals, as specified in"G�•ant
Caunty Draft Comprehensi�e Plan,Part IV-Technical Appendices, Grant County Urban Gmowth
Area Analysis: Papulation, Emplayta�ent and U�A Land Allocations,"incorporated herein by
reference. Based an historical growth t�ends, an average annual rate of grawth af 2%aver the
planning period was se�ected for the City of Ephrata, This annual rate of�,nowth res�zlts in a
populatial�i�lcrease of 2,947 people and a total population of 9,012 people by 20]8, as shown iz�
Exhibit C.
Section 4—Urban Growth Area
4.1 The Ephrata Urban Growth Area was establislled based on a joint plannin�proccss that included
cansultation between re�resentatives of the City of�phrata and Grant County.
4.2 The Ephrata Urban Growth Area is contiguous to the city, and is sized appropriately ta recognize the
City's population projections and planned infras�ructure improvements.All la�ld included within the
uninca�orated portion of a UGA is either characterized by urban grawth or adjacent to lands ,
characterized by urban growth in compliance witll RCW 36.70A.114.Together with other urban and �
rural areas of Grant County,the Epl�rata UGA is sufficient to permit the 20-year urban growth �
projeoted by OFM pursuant ta RCW 36.74A.110.Adequate public facilities and services either exist �
in the unincorporated portion of the UGA or are planned to be provided as growth occurs. �
Exhibit A—Findings of Fact Page 6
4,3 The Ephrata Urban Growth Area was sized based on population allocation and a methodology that
was provided in written form to each of the cities for review and comment. The methodology was
applied consistently to each UGA,reflected historical and anticipated population growth, and used a
conventional land capacity analysis model to size UGAs. Gross vacant land use inventory data
provided by each city was used in the analysis. However,not all vacant,buildable land planned for
residential use in a UGA will be available for development during the 20-year planning period.
Appropriate factors were included to account for reduction in gross area of land due to unsuitable
land,roads and rights-of-way, critical or physically limited land, and land needed for public
facilities. A reasonable marlcet safety factor of 25%was used to ensure against overly restricting
land supply.
4.4 The UGA includes a total of 7,060 acres, including both incorporated and unincorporated land. The
UGA includes sufficient lands for commercial and industrial, open space, and recreational needs.
4.5 The urban residential land use designations specified for the unincorporated areas of the Ephrata
Urban Growth Area results in an average density of four dwelling units per acre,in accordance with
the policies of the Grant County Comprehensive Plan.
Section 5—T�ransportation
5.1 The Quad County Regional Transportation Planning Organization(RTPO), which includes Grant
County and the City of Ephrata as members, is a regional t�ansportation planning organization
constituted under RCW 47.80. In June 1994,the Quad County RTPO adopted the QuadCo Regional
Transportation Plan.The transportation element of the Draft Comprehensive Plan includes
transportation improvements that are planned for the unincorporated Grant County,including urban
growth areas. The transportation element is consistent with the QuadCo Regional Transportation
Plan. The transportation element complies with the requirements of the GMA and has reasonably
balanced all GMA goals.
5.2 The�ransportation element of the City of Ephrata Comprehensive Plan includes transportation
improvements that are planned to be implemented by the City of Ephrata,including any that may be
planned in the unincorporated portion of the UGA.
5.3 The Grant County and Ephrata transportation elements thus supplement each other in the
unincorporated UGA.
Section 6—Capital Facilities
6,1 The capital facilities element of the Grant County Comprehensive Plan includes improvements that
are planned for the unincorporated Grant County, including urban growth areas. The capital facilities
element will provide the necessary public facilities and services to support Crrant County's expected
level of growth while maintaining reasonable levels of service. The capital facilities element
complies with the requirements of the GMA and has reasonably balanced all GMA goals.
6.2 The capital facilities element of the City of Ephrata Comprehensive Plan includes public facilities
and services necessary to support the level of growth expected for the City of Ephrata, including any
that in the unincorporated portion of the UGA.
6.3 The Grant County and Ephrata capital facilities elements thus supplement each other in the
unincorporated UGA.
�
���
� �
r..��..i.a...rs
c�TY o� IEPHRATA °�"`�`
URBAN GRq1�J TH AREA
- - �
�
� , �
.......,_. � � �
_.�.._.:::�: y
LAND USE DCSIGNATIONS =�''�_�'`•='�"'"'
M�i:N::r:::::N:.:..
:iii=iiwiiiiio�
�i�iiiiioupi
���N��M1���/0
/��/N��a���M�v
��������M�N��• O
•��1��N�NI�e
RESIllEN�tAL .••.••••."_::° �
..........
�::e:::e:s•::-:•
p��y � ?ss:��ssttis:st.
..'RMMI\ab� LM �IL� �1 ���iNiiM���i��
e •NS��r�Ny��rrN���� � � • � � �
.��p�y�y�� /��� ■ iM.�«��N�p �
_sts���i�iw/ ��� Y�iI s iM��M1�
�����
��'
�fiesMw+t�. F�ph �Irrdtp OM)
llr�or► �'w �
� �
CtIMMERCIALlINDUSTRIAL
�o�oi.+v-r�l
�/if�►� '
. �1s'-
PUB�.IC OPEN SPACE DESIGNATIQaS
� � ��m� �� �
�
� ��
�' �`�,�.,�„ �`
�
Gr-ant Co�rrty, VA PCl �
rs..+.4� -,
Date� 3/�3/'9! IO�G111.i-
r
I EXHIBIT C POPULATION PROJECTION AND DISTRIBUTION
Population Projectivn anr�Distributiatz
pr�ojected Po,�rulntion
Itxcorporc�te�' Average Iyaeor^porated UrTiracorporatetl 2"otal
CitylUrGttn Annacal tTGA2 IIGA3 UGA
Growth Area Growth Rc�te 1998 2Q1& 1998 201& 1998 24X&
Coulee City l.Q°lo 630 769 Q 4 63Q 769
� Coulee Dam 0.0% 3 3 0 0 3 3
�lec�rzc City 1.0% 975 1,190 120 146 1,095 1,336
Ephrata 2.Q% 6,065 9,012 0 0 G,065 9,012
George 2.0% 465 691 0 0 4G5 691
Grand Coulee 1.5% 1,215 1,636 202 272 1,417 1,90$
1�artline 1.0% 185 226 0 0 185 226
I�rL�pp 1.0% 51 62 0 0 51 62
Mattawa 5.0% 1,820 4,829 0 0 1,820 4,829
Moses Lalce 3.0°l0 13,710 24,'7b2 8,387 15,148 22,097 39,910
Quincy 2.4°l0 4,090 &,07$ 0 0 4,090 b,078
Royal City 3.0°l0 1,584 2,854 Q 0 1,580 2,854
Saap Lake 1.5°l0 1,370 2,436 979 1,455 2,349 3,491
Warden 2.5°l0 2,280 3,736 0 0 2,28Q 3,736
Wilson Cree�C l.Q°lo 221 270 Q 0 221 270
Totul Urban Growth Areas 34,660 58,154 9,45Q 16,748 44,348 75,175
�£Inzncorporate�l County 34,740 44,219 t1 0 25,052 29,216
Total County 69,400 104,391 9,4SQ XG,748 69,4QQ 1Q4,391
Official Grawth Management Population Projections,High Series: 1990-2U20,Washington State Office of Financial
Managemont
2 Populafion within current limits of incorporated cities and towns.
3 Poputation��vithin boundary af UGA but outside of current limits of incorporated cities and towns.
f
i
�
I
�
M,
i!
i
j� - - - - y!.
--.<.. /!;.
/���— , - � _- �--
�' � ��� —
;i —
�� -.
--- �'
— ` / ---- \~�t;'
-- -_ %h
i — � -- _
� � - — -- � ��",;.
— — ^� �� /
_�
, -- -�� i —
, L"��'_ � -
�
� _`��� _� ��^— -- L —
�_�`��� - - � �u��i�. � ---_� . ``'---�----�
�_-� -�. ;'=____"?�, �
i�-----_. � �� =-i�r�m �- --
—� f'���'��,��v� mf������ �i " � �
f����°��.����1f0��1�[��l] �
�o������..���������� �� � ,� „
.� .:.���� �� - -- � �.
� � �� , �
,---.�`� ��� �r`� �-�Iill���� �
� � ��` o � �� ���
�" �� �- . � - - , . , -
"_...___.��'' ',rf��� � ►��°°"�� � � . � ,�.
� f����\ ,`�I f"( - \ .� �r�
� [ � �.
<
� _=_ - �� , ,
� � �-r_ -' (� `" `� \ ,
1
,. ,;. ���
� \�~�
— ,.�
,
�'\��� ,\�.-_ �� _ —
}""� ��� ��,R� �\
� .'�5� � �Itiinr��" � �-`-- �� - —
-- ... / �� �mmiinu� __ — --
uun' �-�\
� �/ �� `�� _"��
_ ��,.� ` —— , ,, �
_ _ — ,. ��
�.��
— a,.��---- _ _ � �� � _ �
� _f---= =-^=��L�_T___ —�-- . ����
_ ; � _ ,,
�:, �-- r-- �
�1.,� �� .
�� — ��_� _ _ ___
- :,�, _ —
, � ,� o _ZJ _ _
— �.�^ _ — — — �
� - - -
__..__ --
^^ LEOEND H Grant County - - '
LannUvo�oei9n.�lion� d ���,"n�r�^� �� UG h41o•, �I
� o.,,,;,,,.,.,�,;, `� °�',�;;::,��.,, W�� Comprehensive Plan �;��,�,,,���,���a,�,����,,w�e, �
� w„�,,;n':;,:'o:.°,.;,�„ �f, ;;;;,,";:;"' � Ephrata ,o,p ,�ry�m. ,ry,;�„n�
� ��•"���u� uii iw i io�i� S e6�LPe�rrui�bFln5�.r1.J1Jwlrn m 6.
i:, rip.n��rpur�ua
u� ,.�,� `� .,,..V,. , � Urban Growth Areas �b,�����a.,,�°�o,,,�,�R,��,�w. I��
� ��,��,.��� � Amended October 2000 (EWGMHB 99-1-0013) �»�����,����� ;I
- �r.-ia.tlw.% vF2rTi�G..`-i�6u�N.at, �oiroawo
I�
i
i�
I
�
EXHIBTT E AMENDED COUNTY FUTURE LAND USE MAP
�
i
�i
1
- �.
Ii1 ��� ;w:�..,�`;r
�� w ��'
`� `'
" �-�_ , - . _ . - �;s'r
. .� � , ytij�y I
i i
�' W J
— _ _ - ��'µ,,�'""' , ;�YV� 4 Yr �'�
. y,q��� , ' 'n` �'�",
. � "kt� ��'��", �7 � r A !!�
., ,/'�M +.wa' W+,' �.�+�,
!
�
S i
�
i �.
1 - � - I �� .I'�I I.
�I . , . . - ) , I t,.. � I I 'II'�
'i' - —�.� .�. � , N n I
,> >
, '' 4' �' �
�
r.,:
- ,t:: i •l�ss.;F
,.`s`;;._;'�:,;�;;F:k;,�r" %� �
� . � 11 ''�'d'4_`+11
, . � . ' - �'- -ti.
*,..„,�� - ;.�; _y �""�."" v;
_ . F: ,',,
' .,.�.,
�
� �__ _ � � �y �Ni
\\ . _ >u..�w__ +� _
_ ,,L.:�„IIl��� �� G�LL ___C— ,�„,t' <
� � � _'__ _ l �'NNiN�.
. �(q . _ 1 - v '
; }
` g�� �v� � t �`� � � . 'S.:
W� t -
. -.a ,� �IO-V'�� y
, � ''1�1 __ '�� � � �
r`
, !♦ , � , '. ° t' ''
_ � —_ ��,T �
�
� _ ���� ,
- �_ _ .� ��:
� �3 �� ,
, � - _ - �{� ��� , :�.. � �,�,�
� ` -= c � �t �
�- �' ��r;:.,,,.�.. -w wy.�.+. , -�,,,,.a
�
� �� �P^ �I�\\ -�..�.!
' � �,' 1, 1��, \�\
� 1 „
ty 1 +YJ,A f'Yw
\\`
\�� (, - -� �-k
' -.1 �' � :_ � _ _ \'F"''t
. � t
- _ ��1 '.J '_ {
v�-� >
(% r lfYlj`�
�,. ,� �
��.� + F a. ,»,�µ.»�,.
i �
�1�,
� '�� i_
- _ = 5}I''.'"�A�'i�t1.''�:.sjx;;'
H � /�';
�,''�`
� h"�"y'3'a,@»^„•'r'^":'�.w««�1...w.�r,yd^ P ' r 'r -. t
>�$ � � � t !*�+-a.�.;M �,'
, c ,�.,:�, t �u�.,�; � � +r
r T �y , •3
�-\ v Y, v ' 7,- -t� s� -'. ���ti—
1 1 ' )� � Y ��,� "S`^'i �4 t"N
)1'. � �TT ' _ _P '-
"v r �rv�H±.t.' ' a��^�' � - i, �( �_
! :y,,,_ r�`�
':L'l,e t..,'i:." v �..� t_ -�'' !' ; :nt -
,5"•' -1-, __- _
i�.'hs4� ��..� f�'�)1 hM+i uk.i+wW�w� (- }l.r
��;,':i�t _��1�i�a t�'�i�'v' _ _ _ _i�:�!;-',�4�r�'''�) -_
_" ::4'i;- _ - _ ,�'ti' -_
�.;;� +,;
1 ^, q ( _
,� ; I�_„(; ,.�1L t�- '),_ 1 _
N�'`�j
��:iJ:v _ - � _ `�;�l��: _
_ _ •`!''. - ' _ - _
I �'�•, �-. 5 - �, � .
e
.4+^}"�A«�f{ �.�= '�lr4�r
, Pui��r�L�nJU�iUeiigninon� �µy� t��o�. , p� N li4uN�J�ln� in�Jnl4MQru�i(L�u�iYuvlail»
��'°��� I .�i1Q'g�\/ pp mJ4Jom�� i Mnu
;� �.., , , �.� m�wn��b�v�..�. ,�1 U� \./ Wo� 9 ioF�dile�i4�bb.ISul��idiJn�y1mrom<Le
� c� � �,� �;w,,.� t ��mpre�ensive Plan w�r �.n,,o�;�;�;,,�°��,�I;�.ry, 'iw�;�w
I � � �i���,. Cqj'ILDp �rlu� i. i4�Ci �<ei�
' � 'LLW��o,,, � ,W,�. � i14�°,.;�, �� �ugure 5-5 �aature Land Use � � �5�
��. �����,°; �� � � �1ap �r�endmer�� (�V�/G�iiHB 99-1-OQ13)
�,_��u,q�!�;�r.�_��;�tc;�'�,.,::;�
�I�b�inUor 13P3
�A¢�end�� �ct�ber 2000 �"""""'