HomeMy WebLinkAboutOrdinance 99-158-CC BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
� GRANT COUNTY,WASHINGTON
ORDINANCE NO. 99-158-CC
An Ordinance Relating to Comprehensive Planning for Grant County in Accordance
with the Washington State Growth Mauagement Act(Chapter 36.70A RCW) and the
State Environmental Policy Act(SEPA, Chapter 43.21.0 RCV�; Adopting Urban
Growth Areas; Addressing Orders and Directives of the Eastern Washington Growth
Management Hearings Board; Adopting a Comprehensive Plan and Final
Environmental Impact Statement; and Rescinding Conflicting Ordinances,Resolutions,
Plans and Documents.
� WHEREAS,in 1990 the Washington State Legislature passed and the Governor signed into law the
Growth Management Act(GMA) as contained in SHB No. 2929 (Washington Laws, 1990 1St Ex. Sess.,
Ch.17),which was subsequently codified as, among other chapters, Chapter 36.70A RCW; and
WHEREAS, the legislature found that uncoordinated and unplanned growth,together with a lack of
common goals expressing the public's interest in the conservation and the wise use of our lands,pose a
threat to the environment, sustainable economic development, and the health, safety, and high quality of
life enjoyed by residents of the state; and
WHEREAS, the Washington State Growth Management Act requires all counties and cities in the state
to do some planning and the fastest growing counties, and the cities within them,to plan extensively in
keeping with state goals on: sprawl reduction,affordable housing, economic development, open space
and recreation, shoreline management, environmentally sensitive and natural resource areas,regional
, transportation, environmental protaction,property rights,natural resource industries,historic lands and
buildings,permit processing,public facilities and services, and early and continuous public participation;
and
WHEREAS,the Washington State Growth Management Act requires all counties and cities within the
state to classify, designate,and conserve natural resource lands (forest, agricultural, and mineral) and
protect critical areas (wetlands, geologically hazardous areas, �sh and wildlife habitat conservation areas,
aquifer recharge areas, and frequently flooded areas); and
WHEREAS,Chapter 36.70A RCW re'quires Grant County to adopt a Comprehensive Plan that meets
specified GMA goals and addresses the mandated GMA elements; and ,
WHEREAS, the Grant County�lanning Commission and the Grant County Department of Community
Development have produced a Comprehensive Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement that meets the
specified•GMA goals and addresses the mandated GMA elements; and
WIiEREAS, the Grant County Planning Commission completed an extensive public review process that
meets or exceeds the requirements of Grant County Resolution establishing Grant County Growth
Management Act(GMA)Public Participation Program pursuant to RCW 36.70A.020(11) and RCW
36.70A.140; and
WHER�AS, the Grant County Planning Commission compiled an extensive public record,including
studies, documents,and correspondence that was carefully considered during review of the
Comprehensive Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement; and
Grant County Board of Comrnissioners
Ordinance Na. 99-1 S$-CC
Page 2
WHER.EAS,the Grant County Planning Commission relied upon best available data and science in
specifying Comprehensive PlanlDraft Bnvironmental Impact Statement content, gaals,and policies; and �
WHEREAS,the Camprehensive Plan/Draft Enviranmental Impact Stateznent has been reviewed by
affected State, federal and local agencies and Tribas, and found, generally,to lie in campliance with the
requirements of the GMA; and
WAEREAS, the comments and correspondence pravided by affected State, federa2 and locai ageneies
and Tribes, has been considered during review af the Comprehenszve PIanlDraft Environmental Impaet
Statement and in the preparatian of aitached Additianal Findings af Fact; and
W�IEEREAS, the DEIS was an integrated GMA dacument as specified by the SEPA rules(WAC 197-11-
235);and
WHEREAS, Grant County, acting through its Responsible SEPA Official,conducted a thorough SEPA
' public review pracess,made a threshold determination, issued a Draft Environr�ental Impaat Sta�ement
(DEIS) on March 29, 1998, and prapared a Final Environrnental Impact Statement(FEIS), all of which
ware reviewed and considered by the Grant County Planning Comtnission; and
WHEREAS,upon public notice,the Board ofGrant County Commissioners canducted an open record
public hearing on 3uly 27,28 and 29, 1999, upon notioe,to consider the reco�nun8ndations and�ndings of
fact of the Grant County Planning Cammission along with other publzc camtnent pertainin�;to the
Comprehensive Plan; and
V4'HEREAS,upon public notice,the Board of Grant County Comrnissioners conduoted closed record
� public workshaps on August 9, 14, 16, 17, and 24,and Septernber 13, 15,and 24, 1999,upan notice,in
the Commissioners Public Hearings Room where they reviewed and considered both the Ju1y 8, 1999
final recommendations and the complete record provided by the Grant County Planning Commission as
well as the public testimony and written comrnent provided on the Carnprehensive Plan during their July
27, 28 and 29, 1999 open reeord hearings; and , � '
WHEREAS,the Board of Grant County Commissioners considered the entire hearing record including
the Planning Commission's recammendation, and written and oral testimony submitted during the
Connmissioner's hearings; and
� WHEREAS, a number of pre-existing land use palicies and plans that conflzct with the goals and polieies
in the GMA and the Comprehensive Plan shouid be rescinded ar modified to avoid conflict or confusion;
WHEREAS, the Comprehensive�'lan as adopted will provide policy direction to ongoing and future
planning efforts and future development regulations vvhich,when ad�pted,wi11 implement th�
Comprehensive Plan;now therefore, �
IT IS FIEREBY ORUAINED that the Board af Grant County Cornmissioz�ers adopts the
recom�nendations and findings of fact of the Grant County Planning Commission Recorded Motion dated
July 8, 1999, attached as Exhibit A, except as modified ar suppleznented in the anne�ed Additional
Findings of�"act; and
BE IT FURTHER ORDAINEI}that the Board of Grant County Commissioners adopts the Grant
County Camprehensive Plan(including all maps and technical appendices referenced and included
therein),dated September 1999,adopts Urban Grawth Areas for the cities and towns of Crrant County as
Grant County Board of Commissioners
Ordinance No. 99-158-CC
Page 3
designated on maps included in the Comprehensive Plan, adopts the Draft Environmental Impact
Statement,adopts the Final Environmental Impact Statement, adopts the attached Additional Findings of
Fact and Conclusions of Law, and accepts the attached record compilad by the Grant County Planning
Commission; .
BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED that the Board of Grant County Commissioners rescinds and repeals in
their entirety the following conflicting resolutions,plans and/or studies:
1. Grant County Planning Enabling Act(1977) Comprehensive Plan; Resolution No. 1977=100-CC
2. Coulee City Interim Urban Growth Area; Resolution and Ordinance No. 95-187-CC
3. Electric City Interim Urban Growth Area; Resolution and Ordinance No. 95-107-CC
4. Ephrata Interim Urban Growth Area; Resolution and Ordinance No. 95-134-CC and No. 99-4-CC
5. George Interim Urban Growth Area; Kesolution and Ordinance No. 95-188-CC
6. Grand Coulee Interim Urban Growth Area; Resolution and Ordinance No. 96-129-CC
7. Hartline Interim Urban Growth Area; Resolution and Ordinance No. 96-155-CC
8. Krupp Interim Urban Growth Area; Resolution and Ordinance No. 96-155-CC
9. Mattawa Interim Urban Growth Area; Resolution and Ordinance No. 96-131-CC
10. Moses Lake Interim Urban Growth Area; the January 20, 1998 Findings, Conclusions and Final
Decision of the Board of County Commissioners
11. Quincy Interim Urban Growth Area; Resolution and Ordinance No. 95-66-CC
12. Royal City Interim Urban Growth Area; Resolution and Ordinance No. 95-98-CC
13. Soap Lake Interim Urban Growth Area; Resolution and Ordinance No. 96-130-CC
14. Warden Interim Urban Growth Area; Resolution and Ordinance No. 95-108-CC;
15. Wilson Creek Interim Urban Growth Area; Resolution and Ordinance No. 96-155-CC;
BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED that if any provision or provisions of this ordinance or its application to
any person or circumstance is held to be invalid,the remainder of this ordinance or the application of the
provision to other persons or circumstances shall not be effected.
BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED, that all prior policies, ordinances,resolutions and/or regulations
rescinded and/or repealed by the adoption of this ordinance,including without limitation, Grant County's
Planning Enabling Act(1977)Comprehensive Plan and fifteen(15)Interim Urban Growth Areas set forth
herein, are hereby expressly revived in the event that Grant County's Growth Management Act
Comprehensive Plan is at any time hereafter declared in its entirety to be invalid or of no effect by a
reviewing body with jurisdiction,pursuant to RCW 36.70A.302(4).
BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED that the Board of Grant County Commissioners adopts all recitals
herein as findings of fact in support of this action.
BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED that t�e effective date of the Grant County Comprehensive Plan is
�October 1, 1999.
BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED that this Ordinance is applicable to development applications
determined by the County to be complete on or after the effective date of this Ordinance.
BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED that the Board of Grant County Comrnissioners directs: (1)the Director
of the Grant County Department of Community Development to incorporate into a Final Comprehensive
Plan the changes delineated in the annexed Additional findings of Fact and the�ndings of fact of the
Grant County Planning Commission Recorded Motion dated July 8, 1999, attached as Exhibit A, except
as modified or supplemented in the annexed Additional Findings of Fact; (2)and to provide copies to the
Grant County Board of Coznmissioners
Ordinance No. 99-1S8-CC
Page 4
Departm:ent of Comrnunity Development,Trade and Economic Developrnent(DCTED)and to other
agenaies as may be required by law no later than October 10, 1999; (3)publish a Notice of Action Taken
iiz newspapers of record and the SEPA Register; and(4)issue the Final Environmental Irnpact Statement
as required under SEPA.
BE IT FITIZTHER ORDAINED that the Baard of Grant County Commissioners directs the Director of
the Grant Coixnty Depatt�tmment of Community Davelopment to: (1)request in writing an extensian from
DCTED of 180 days for adoption of developmeant regulations implementing this Camprehensive Plan;
and(2}be�in preparation af said development regulatians and of�cial zoning map in arder conforming to
the 1999 Camprehensive Plan., �
BE IT FURTHER QRDA.INED that the Board af Grant County Cammzssioners adopts all recitals
herein as#"indings of fact in support o£this actioti.
PASSED by the Board of Grant County Commissioners in regular session at Ephrata,Washington,by the
following vote,then si�,med b its em�befr�hxp and attested by its Clerk in authorizatian af such passage
this��i��day o�_��:�=ti- .,�.�..-� � 1999.
_�,,�� YEA; NAY; ABSTAIN; and�,�� .ABSENT,
BOARD UF GRANT C()UNTY COMMISSIONEI2S
� GR�NT COUNT ,�VASHINGTON
�,N,..�
. •.�-..�.�.--,--�` �... ��t..��
� i
Tim Snead, ,hai�an��
,,, ���
Deborah�Vloore,Comrnissio�er ATTEST:
`�.,�✓ „
, LeRoy Allisan,Commissioner Peggy ' g �
Clerk of the Board
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 ac�opt a comprehensive plan and land use regulations pursuant to the Growth
Management Act.
1.2 Growth 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,
eommercial 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 likely 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 Crrowth Area
adopted by this Resolution and these findings of fact, Grant County has considered the 13 Crrowth
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 �nal Urban Growth Area adopted by this Resolution is consistent with the requirements of the
Washington State Growth 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 final Urban Growth Area will not unfairly burden the property rights of
landowners. Although the health, safety, and welfare of the public demand that reasonable
restrictions 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 froin Crrant
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 Interim 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.
Exhibit A—Findings of Fact Page 2
2.4 The Board of Grant County Commissioners held a public hearing on October 24, 1995, upon notice,
at which time the Board of County Commissioners heard coinments in regard to the proposed IUGA
and continued the public hearing until November 6, 1995. The Board of County Coinmissioners,
based on findings 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 inay 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 mechanisin to foster coordination between the County and the
incorporated cities within the County. The Grant County Planning Commission conducted numerous
study sessions to review background information, data,reports, citizen and staff recommendations,
and exhibits during the development and drafting of the Comprehensive Plan. 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 worlcshop the public was afforded an opportunity to testify or subinit
written correspondence regarding growth management.
2.6 Efforts were made to collect and disseminate information to the public explaining the Growth
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
ineans of newspaper display ads,news releases, letters,newsletters, and by notice to those requesting
information on comprehensive planning efforts. The Grant County Slzyli�ae, a periodic newsletter
presenting various growth managemant topics,was produced by the County and broadly distributed.
A total of six editions of the Grant County Skyline 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 speak
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 IUGA by the Washington State Department of
Community,Trade and Economic Development, and significant public comment regarding the
adopted Interim Urban Crrowth Area,the Board of County Commissioners requested an amendment
to the Ephrata IUGA in September, 1998.
2,9 Grant County retained the services of a professional consultant to prepare the Grant County
Comprehensive Plan and, among other things,review the Ephrata Urban Growth Area for
compliance with the GMA.The professional consultant prepared a land use analysis for the Ephrata
UGA,which is contained in the Grant 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
Exhibit A—Findings of Fact Page 3
potential additions to the IUGA for inclusion in the final Urban Crrowth Area, Three areas (Areas 2,
4, and 5)were identi�ed for possible inclusion in the UGA as shown on the map titled City of
Ephrata Proposed Urban Growth Area attached as Exhibit B and as described below.
Areas 4 and 5 -Urban Reserve
Land shown as#4 and#5 is designated as Urban Reserve as defined in the Grant County
Comprehensive Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement. The area identified as Area 4 is
approximately 277 acres. The area identified as Area 5 is comprised of 2 subareas; one is
approximately 210 acres and the other is 27 acres. Elreas 4 and 5 were proposed for inclusion in the
UGA to provide for reservation of land anticipated to be required for urban purposes during the
planning period but for which urban services are not yet available. Prior to the provision of public
services,the Urban Reserve designation is intended to maintain a low land use density to discourage
the establishment of interim uses and�land division patterns that may foreclose significant future
planning alternatives pertaining to urban densities and the efficient provision of services. Low land
use densities will be maintained at a maximum density of 1 dwelling per 5 acres. Development
regulations may include conditions,res�rictions, and/or performance standards on the land held in
, . Urban Reserve until such time as urban services are available and provided.Performance standards
may include,but are not limited to siting,location and design requirements intended to allow
realization of urban densities and planned economical provision of infrastructure for the site and
general area. When urban services become available, development will occur at appropriate densities
and uses, and with circulation networks that result in an orderly, economic transition from rural to
urban land use.
Area 2 - Commercial
The area identified as Area 2, containing 19.5 acres,houses an existing concrete plant adjacent to SR
282 south of the city limits.Water and sanitary sewer utilities are available nearby to serve the area.
Water is currently supplied to the concrete plant via City water system.Inclusion of Area 2 would
recognize the commercial operation of the concrete plant and its reliance on City water supply.
2.11 The Grant County Department of Community Development,Long Range Planning Division, as lead
agency,prepared a SEPA Checklist for the proposed action of approving an Urban Growth Area for
the City of Ephrata. The Crrant County SEPA Responsible Official reviewed the SEPA Checiclist and
issued a Declaration of Non-significance(DNS) on March 23, 1999.
2.12 The Grant County Planning Commission held a public hearing at their regular scheduled monthly
meeting on Apri17,1999. The public record compiled by the Planning Commission indicates that
many residents opposed inclusion of Area 2 within the Ephrata UGA. The Planning Coinmission
made the following findings and conclusions:
1. Areas 4 and 5 should not be included in the City of Ephrata Urban Growth Area and designated
as Urban Reserve as de�ned in the Grant County Comprehensive Plan/Draft�nvironmental
Impact Statement. In reaching this conclusion,the Grant County Planning Commission found
that inclusion of Areas 4 and 5 in the UGA provides for additional residential lands that are not
needed based on the land use capacity analysis.
2. Area 2 should not be included in the City of Ephrata Urban Crrowth Area and designated as
Commercial as defined in the Grant County Comprehensive Plan/Draft Environmental Impact
Statement.In reaching this conclusion,the Grant County Planning Commission found that
inclusion of Area 2 in the UGA provides for additional commercial lands that are not needed
based on the land use capacity analysis. Inclusion of Area 2 may also exacerbate: (1)irregular
boundaries of the UGA boundary of the City of Ephrata; and(2)the potential creation of an
Exhibit A—Findings of Fact Page 4
"island" in the UGA. While provision of urban services such as water or sewer to an area
should be considered,the Planning Commission found that it should not Ue an overriding factor
in designation of a UGA,
2.13 The Board of Grant County Commissioners held a public hearing on May 24, 1999,upon notice, in
the Board Room of the County Commissioners at the Grant County Courthouse,Ephrata,
Washington, at which time the Board of County Commissioners heard comments in regard to the
proposed action of adopting the Ephrata UGA and continued the public hearing until June l, 1999,
upon notice, in the Board Room of the County Commissioners at the Crrant County Courthouse,
Ephrata,Washington. After hearing public comment,the Board of Grant County Commissioners
made tihe following findings and conclusions;
1, In order to ensure that Areas 4 and 5 will eventually be served by urban-level public services and
facilities,these areas should be included in the City of Ephrata Urban Cnowth Area and
designated as Urban Reserve as de�ned in the Crrant County Comprehensive Plan/Draft
Environmental Impact Statement; and
2. Based on the�ndings of the Crrant County Planning Commission,Area 2 should not be included
in the City of Ephrata Urban Growth Area.
2.14 Interested persons were provided an ample opportunity to comment on the proposed Ephrata Urban
Growth Area during the public review process. The County has met, or exceeded, the requirements
for enhanced public participation as delineated in Grant County Growth Management Act(GMA)
Public Participation Program and WAC 365-195-600.
2.15 Environmental review has been conducted on the proposed Ephrata Urban Crrowth Area in
compliance with procedural and substantive requirements of Grant County SEPA Ordinance No. 95-
60-CC, RCW 43.21.C, and Chapter 197-11 WAC.
Section 3—Population Projection and Allocation
3.1 According to the Washington State Office of Financial Management, Grant County's 1990
population was 54,798.Between 1980-1990 the county population increased by about 13%. Since
1990, population has grown to 69,400, a growth of nearly 27%. This decade of population growth
placed Grant County among the fastest growing counties in the State of Washington.
3.2 The Office of Financial Management forecasted 20-year medium-series(most lilcely to occur) and
high-series population projections for Grant County are 91,624 and 104,391,respectively, Based on
the County's recent high growth rate,potential population undercount of migrant and seasonal
worlcers,recent settling of migrant farm worlcers,inerease in food processing activity, and increased
focus of economic development in rural areas,the high series better reflects anticipated population
growth.Use of the high-saries OFM projection would add nearly 35,000 persons to the county by the
year 2018, an increase of 50% over the 1998 population of 69,400. Grant County is projected to
grow at a 2.1 percent average annual rate over the twenty-year planning period. This rate reflects
best available science as docurnented by the Office of Financial Management(OFM) forecasting
division and reflects the high growth projection for Grant County,
3.3 County-wide projected population is allocated among jurisdictions based on historic growth patterns,
employment forecast, expectations regarding future growth, and GMA goals, as specified in"Grant
County Draft Comprehensive Plan,Part IV-Technieal Appendices, Grant County Urban Crrowth
Area Analysis: Population,Employment and UGA Land Allocations,"incorporated herein by
C+xhibit A—Findings of Fact Page 5
reference. Based on historical growth trends, an average annual rate of growth of 2% over the
planning period was selected for the City of Ephrata. This annual rate of growth results in a
population increase of 2,947 people and a total population of 9,012 people by 2018, as shown in
Exhibit C.
Section 4—Urban Growth Area
4.1 The Ephrata Urban Growth Area was established based on a joint planning process that included
consultation between representatives of the City of Ephrata and Grant County.
4.2 The Ephrata Urban Growth Area is contiguous to the city, and is sized appropriately to recognize the
City's population projections and planned infrastructure improvements. All land included within the
unincorporatied portion of a UGA is either characterized by urban growth or adjacent to lands
characterized by urban growth in compliance with RCW 36.70A.110. Together with other urban and
rural areas of Grant County,the Ephrata UGA is sufficient to permit the 20-year urban growth
projected by OFM pursuant to RCW 36.70A.110. Adequate public facilities and services either exist
in the unincorporated portion of the UGA or are planned to be provided as growth occurs.
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 res�ricting
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 indus�rial, 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—Transportation
5.1 The Quad County Regional Transportation Planning Organization(RTPO),which includes Crrant
County and the City of Ephrata as members,is a regional transportation planning organization
constituted under RCW 47.80. In June 1994,the Quad County RTPO adopted the QuadCo Regional
Transportation Plan. The�ransportation 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 Regiona�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 t1�at are planned to be implemented by the City of Ephrata,including any that may be
planried in the unincorporated portion of the UGA.
Exhibit A—Findings of Fact Page 6
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 Crrant 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 Grant County's expected
level of grovv�h while maintaining reasonable levels of service. The capital facilities element
complies wiCh 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 Ephra1:a capital facilities elements thus supplement each other in the
unincorporated UGA.
�,�,...�..+.�...rs
CITY ❑F EPHRATA ��
URAAN GR0I�JTH AREA
�
. �
' �
LA�D USE DESIGNATIQNS '�':"'":"� � ! y
::::�::;c:;�:y �
RESIBENTIF�L � .:.::::��:":� �J �
�w.:w..,t�, �s. n�rey uee� � o
� :::::::�:.:= E � r a �t �
---,w.�w..�t�t. � n.►,dt�r c� ::;:;::::��' �
.. :::::;...
-fi�sldontidl. H�h Ilmsity Qt4} •%:::i:L:"
::C::C::C
�Urbon Res�rw �
CAMNERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL �
-ca+�,..�i�a
�+'` �,
���
PUHLIC OPEN SPACE DESIGNATI�iS
G� � s}�nc:Rarcr.m�lan �'�►., `� -
� -
, � �t� .
�
��� tlr�ia�n Gr ow h��o�rtilnry �
Grnnt Co�rrty, LJA PCI �
crr..r ur
Datti 3JE3199 1�iCK.E
EXHIBIT C POPULATION PROJECTION AND DISTRIBUTION
Population Projection and Distribution
Projected Population
Iiacorporated Average Incorporrrte�l Unincorporrrterl Totrzl
City/Urban Annual UGAZ UGA3 UGA
Growth Area Growth Rate 1998 2018 1998 2018 1998 2018
Coulee City 1,0% 630 769 0 0 630 769
Coulee Dam 0.0% 3 3 0 0 3 3
Elec�ric City 1.0% 975 1,190 120 146 1,095 1,336
Ephrata 2.0% 6,065 9,012 0 0 6,065 9,012
George 2.0% 465 691 0 0 465 691
Grand Coulee 1.5% 1,215 1,636 202 272 1,417 1,908
Hartline 1.0% 185 226 0 0 185 226
Krupp 1.0% 51 62 0 0 51 62
Mattawa 5.0% 1,820 4,829 0 0 1,820 4,829
Moses Lake 3.Q% 13,710 24,762 8,387 15,148 22,097 39,910
Quincy 2.0% 4,090 6,078 0 0 4,090 6,078
Royal City 3.0% 1,580 2,854 0 0 1,580 2,854
Soap Lake 1.5% 1,370 2,036 979 1,455 2,349 3,491
Warden 2.5% 2,280 3,736 0 0 2,280 3,736
Wilson Creelc 1.0% 221 270 0 0 221 270
Total Urban Growth Areas 34,660 58,154 9,450 16,748 44,348 75,175
Unincot^porated Cou�aty 34,740 44,219 0 0 25,052 29,216
Total County 69,400 104,391 9,450 16,748 69,400 104,391
Official Growth Management Population Projections,High Series: 1990-2020,Washington State Office of Financial
Management
z Population within current limits of incorporated cities and towns.
' Population within boundary of UGA but outside of current limits of incorporated cities and towns.
GRANT COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
ADDITIONAL FINDINGS OF FACT
Section 1 —General Findings
l.l On June 10, 1996,the cities of Ephrata,Moses Lake,Royal City and Warden�led a Petition for
Review with the Eastern Washington Crrowth Management Hearings Board(EWGMHB)regarding a
number of legal issues regarding the County's compliance with the GMA. The EWGMHB entered an
Order on Petitioner's Dispositive Motion, GMHB Case No. 96-1-0008, dated August 15, 1996,
ordering Grant County to implement actions to implement GMA policies prohibiting urban sprawl
pending adoption of its comprehensive plan.
The following ordinances or resolutions were enacted to comply with the directives of the EWGMHB
in Case No. 96-1-0008 to prohibit urban sprawl:
1, Ordinance dated November 4, 1996 rescinding Exemption No.4 and portions of Exemption No. 7
under section 2 of the Grant County short plat ordinance(Farmsteads);
2. Ordinance dated November 5, 1996 adopting new section of Grant County short plat ordinance
(section 42);
3. Ordinance dated November 4, 1996 rescinding portions of Section V(B)(8) of the Grant County
Zoning Ordinance(segregations);
4. Ordinance No. 97-39-CC dated March 25, 1997 (interim residential zoning density regulations);
5. Ordinance No. 97-150-CC dated September 23, 1997 re-adopting interim residential zoning
density regulations;
6. Ordinance No. 98-29-CC dated•March 24, 1998 re-adopting interim residential zoning density
regulations;
7. Ordinance No. 98-144-CC dated September 25, 1998 re-adopting interim residential zoning
density regulations;
8. Ordinance No. 99-39-CC dated March 23, 1999 re-adopting interim residential zoning density
regulations;
9. Ordinance No. 97-190-CC dated November 24, 1997 amending short plat ordinance;
10. Ordinance No. 97-191-CC dated November 24, 1997 amending long plat ordinance;
11; Ordinance No. 97-192-CC dated November 24, 1997 adopting Local Project Review
requirements;
12. Ordinances adopting changes to the Zoning Code, SEPA ordinance, and Shoreline Master
Program to conform to changes to the several laws of the state;
13. Ordinance No. 98-18-CC dated February 10, 1998 (public interest determination);
Grant County Board of Commissio�ers
Findings of Fact
Page 2
14. Ordinance No. 98-3.6-CC dated Apri17, 1998 adopting legal non-conforming use ordinance;
15. Ordinance No. 98-32-CC dated March 24, 1998 prohibiting commercial, industrial and residential
zones within the Agricultural District;
16. Ordinance No. 98-37-CC dated Apri17, 1998 adopting Interim Official Controls in Agricultural
District protecting agricultural lands from urban development;
17: Ordinance No. 98-145-CC dated September 23, 1998 re-adopting Intenim Official Controls in
Agricultural Dis�rict protecting agricultural lands from urban development;
18. Ordinance No. 99-40-CC dated March 23, 1999 re-adopting Interim Official Controls in
Agricultural District protecting agricultural lands from urban development;
19. Ordinance No. 98-38-CC dated Apri17, 1998 adopting reasonable use exception requirements;
20. Ordinance No. 99-154-CC dated September 27, 1999 re,adopting interim residential zoning
density regulations; and
21. Ordinance No. 99-155-CC dated September 27, 1999 re-adopting prohibitions commercial,
industrial and residential'zones within the Agricultural District.
'The ordinances or resolutions listed above, as may be amended from time to time, shall remain in
effect until such time as development regulations implementing this Comprehensive Plan are adopted.
1.2 The GMA requires that the comprehensive plan of each county or city shall be coordinated with,and
consistent with, one another.To guide such consistency,the GMA requires that each county planning
under RCW 36.70A.040 adopt a county-wide planning policy in cooperation with cities. The Planned
Growth Committee,which included representatives of each city and the county,prepared county-
wide planning policies(CWPPs)in 1993,which were subsequently adopted by the Board of County
Commissioners.
RCW 36.70A.210 de�nes a`county-wide planning policy' as a"written�olicy statement or
statements used solely for establishing a county-wide framework from which county and city
comprehensive plans are developed and adopted pursuant to this chapter."Indeed,the CWPPs
themselves recognize that flexibility in applying the policies is essential.Policy 14 states that"these
policies are meant as general framework guidelines for the county and each municipality,however
flexibility must be maintained in order to adapt to different needs and conditions."
Since adoption of the CWPPs in 1993,the Washington State Legislature has revised the Growth
Management Act during every legislative session. Significant revisions to the GMA since the CWPPs
were developed include provisions for(1)limited areas of more intensive rural development(ESB
6094)and(2)two master planned locations for major industrial development outside of UGAs.These
and other legislative changes governing rural development were not anticipated during the
preparation of the CWPPs.Furthermore, CWPPs include a population forecast and distribution based
on 1992 data, which was updated for 1998 data for the C.omprehensive Plan.The population
allocation methodology included in the CWPPs was considered in the final allocation incorporated in
the Plan.
Grant County Board of Commissioners
Findings of Fact
Page 3
The CWPPs,taken together with the thirteen goals of the GMA,have been used to guide the
Comprehensive Plan. Where the CWPPs clearly conflict with the most current goals or requirements
of the GMA,the Comprehensive Plan follows the GMA. Exhibit B, a detailed analysis and
demons�ration of consistency between the Comprehensive Plan,the CWPPs and the GMA, is by
reference incorporated into and made part of these Additional Findings of Fact as if fu11y set out
herein.
During the preparation of the Comprehensive Plan, Grant County staff have coordinated with the
rnunicipalities such that each was informed and allowed opportunity to coxnment on inconsistencies
between the Plan and the CWPPs regarding population projections and allocation as well as more
intensive rural development. The Planned Growth Committee is currently proceeding with a process
of reviewing proposed amendments to the CWPPs to promote their consistency with current
provisions of the GMA. However, complation of this process and adoption of revised CWPPs will not
be completed prior to adoption of the Comprehensive Plan.
The Board of County Commissioners finds that the Comprehensive Plan is consistent with and has
been coordinated with the planning documents of regional planning bodies and local jurisdictions
within Grant County. The Comprehensive Plan: (1)conforms with the Quad County Regional
Transportation Plan, (2)is internally consistent and(3) is, to the greatest extent practicable without
compromising the requirements of the GMA, consistent with the county-wide planning policies
prepared by the Grant County Planned Growth Committee. The Plan meets the mandatory
requirements of the GMA and furthers all of the goals of the GMA. The County is currently
proceeding with a process for reconciliation of the CWPPs and the GMA.
1.3 The Grant County Board of Commissioners is committed to implementing the goals and policies of
the Plan as expeditiously as possible, subject to staff resources and funding availability. As required
by WAC 365-195�810, Grant County intends to request in writing an extension fxom DCTED ofup to
180 days for adoption of development regulations implementing the Comprehensive Plan.
The Grant County Board of Commissioners believes that additional information regarding plan
implementation is helpful, and directs that the text of E�ibit D-Plan Implementation be included in .
the Comprehensive Plan. Exhibit D is by reference incorporated into and made part of these
Additional Findings of Fact as if fully set out herein.
1,4 The GMA(Chapter 36.70A.480(1))reguires that the goals and policies of the County's Shoreline
Master Program be considered an element of the Comprehensive Plan, and that shoreline use
regulations included in the County's Shoreline Master Program be considered as part of the County's
development regulations. The Grant County Shoreline Master Program was adopted in 1975, and has
not been significantly altered since adoption. Grant County intends.to update its Shoreline Master
Program after this Plan is adopted.Therefore,rather than include the goals and policies of the 1975
Shoreline Master Program,the Comprehensive Plan includes a series of goals and policies relating to
shoreline management. These new policies will serve as the foundation for modifying the substantive
provisions of the Shoreline Master Program.
Section 2—Land Use
2.1 Boundaries and identification of land usa boundaries established under this Comprehensive Plan are
shown on the Future Land Use Map. Land use designations are generally shown using colored
shading superimposecl on lighter lines designating platted lot lines, streets, and other physically
identifiable ground features.In some cases, specific distances or other references to a boundary line
Grant County Board of Commissioners
Findings of Fact
Page 4
are specified. When the exact location of a land use designation boundary line is not clear,it shall be
determined by the Director of Community Development,with due consideratian given to the location
as indicated op the Future Land Use Map,Urban Growth Area(UGA)mapping,parcel mapping and
other data contained in the County's Geographic Information System(GIS)..
2.2 To the greatest extent possible,boundaries of land use designations were drawn so as not to bisect
parcels. Except for parcels divided by UGA or Resource Land designation boundaries,where a land
use designation boundary shown on the Future Land Use Map divides a,lot of record at the tirne of
" adoption of this Comprehensive Plan,the property owner shall have the option of choosing either of
the two designations to apply to the entire parcel area, or may subdivide the lot to retain both
designations as mapped,provided that all of the standards and requirements, including relevant
density and dimensional requirements, and performance standards can be met. .
Where.a UGA boundary divides a lot of record at the time of adoption of this Comprehensive Plan,
the entire parcel area shall be deetned to lie within the UGA boundary.During future annual updates
of the Comprehensive Plans of the County and the affected city or town,the property owner may
petition for removal of the entire parcel form the UGA in accordance with the plan amendment
process specified in Chapter 2 of the Comprehensive Plan.Alternately,the property owner may
subdivide the lot to retain both designations as mapped,provided that all of the standards and
requirements,including relevant density and dimensional requirements, and performance standards
can be met.
Where a Resource Land boundary divides a lot of record at the time of adoption of this
Comprehensive Plan,the entire parcel area shall be deemed to lie within the Resource Land
designation.During future annual updates of the County Comprehensive Plan, the Director of
Community Development shall review the parcel designation by applying the resource land
classification criteria contained in the Resource Lands Sub-element of the Comprehensive Plan.The
entire parcel shall be appropriately designated by the Director based on application of the
classification criteria.Alternately,the property owner may subdivide the lot to retain both
designations as mapped,provided that all of the standards and requirements, including relevant
density and dimensional requirements,•and performance standards car�be met.
2.3 'The findings of fact of the Grant County Planning Commission Recorded Motion dated July 8,.1999,
and the Comprehensive Plan recognize an Open Space land use designation intended to.identify and
protect unique and outstanding examples of publicly-owned areas pertaining to recreation, fish and
wildlife habitat conservation, or unique geologic features.This land use designation also
acknowledges the ongoing responsibility of the county, state and federal government to protect
critical areas and other valued resources on lands within this designatian. These lands are owned by a
federal, state or local governmental entity and are maintained as closely as possible to their natural
state.
Figure 5-5 FuLure Land Use Map and Map 3 included in Part V—Map Portfalio of this
Comprehensive Plan shows those areas designated in this Plan as Open Space.The Open Space
designation is an"overlay"designation that includes both publicly-owned and privately-owned lots of
record.The Comprehensive Plan does not specifically provide for residential development of
privately-owned parcels overlaid by the Open Space designation.The Grant County Board of
Comrrxissioners finds that reasonable,limited use of privately-owned parcels overlaid by the Open
Space designation should be allowed,provided that such development is reasonably compatible with
open space recreation and fish and wildlife habitat conservation.The Board finds that limited
Grant County Board of Commissioners
Findings of Fact
Page 5
residential development having a maximum density of one dwelling unit per forty(40) acres is
reasonable for privately-owned parcels overlaid by the Open Space designation.
2.4 Land use and other provisions of the Comprehensive Plan accommodate "resource based industries."
For the purpose of the Comprehensive Plan, a resource based industry shall be defined as "one that is
dependent on agriculture, forestry, fisheries or mining."
Section 3—Urban Growth Areas
3.1 The public record compiled by the Grant County Board of Commissioners includes a request from a
property owner(Hanson)to include parcels of commercially-zoned land within the Moses Lalce
UGA. The area is located south of I-90 and abuts the west boundary of the proposed UGA. The Grant
County Board of Commissioners�nds such inclusion to be appropriate due to: (1)the adjacency of
the parcels to the corporate limits of Moses Lake; (2)the existing commercial zoning of the parcels;
the availability of City water and sewer utilities; and the availability of frontage access road. The
Moses Lake UGA should be modified to include said parcels.
3.2 The public record compiled by the Granf County Board of Commissioners includes public testimony
requesting clarification regarding the process by which rural lands will be considered for inclusion in
urban growth areas in the future. In accordance wrth the requirements of the GMA, future urban
growth area expansions should be located�rst in areas already characterized by urban growth that
. have adequate existing public facility and service capacities to sezve such development. Second,in
areas already characterized by urban growth that will be ser'ved adequately by a combination of both
existing public facilities and services and any additional needed public facilities and services that are
provided by either public or private sources. Third, in the remaining portions of the urban growth
areas. When considering inclusion of rural areas within urban growth boundaries, attention should be
given to recognizing the high priority Grant County places on conserving and protecting both
agricultural lands of long term commercial significance and those lands characterized by rural
development. Both the GMA and the Draft Comprehensive Plan recognize preservation of rural
character as being desirable. Rural character and lifestyle is clearly desired by the residents of the
County to be maintained and even enhanced,while accommodating reasonable growth. Whenever
reasonably possible,those remaining portions developed agriculturally or rurally and having the
potential for inclusion within an UGA but not meeting criteria 1 or 2 above, should be considered as a
lower priority for re-designation and conversion to urban uses.In future updates of the
Cornprehensive Plan,the County will perform an analysis as defined in Chapter 2 of the Plan to
change Urban Growth Area boundaries.
3.3 The public record compiled by the Grant County Board of Commissioners includes public testimony
regarding the proposed process for amending UGA boundaries in compliance with the provisions of
RCW 36.70A.110.The Grant County Board of Commissioners directs the following revisions be
made to the Draft Comprehensive Plan:
Page 2-8,UGA Boundarv&Plan Map Amendments; delete subparagraph i. in its entirety and
replace with the fbllowing:
"i. Urban Growth Area boundary changes shall be supported by and dependent on criteria set forth in
the GMA such as population forecasts and allocated urban population distributions, existing
urban densities and infill opportunities, adequate public facility and service capacities to serve
such development in an econornical manner. The UGA boundaiy amendment shall demonstrate
that:
G`rrant County Board of Carnmissioners
Findings af Fact
Page 6
• the full range of urban public servicQs and facilities, including water, sewer, storm drainage,
transportation, fire pr�tection, and schools, can be adequately provided in an efficient, tirnely
and economically feasible manner.
• it is compatible with contiguous development within the UGA and adjacent rural and xesource
lands; and
• developrnent in the amended area will occur at urban densities."
Pa�e 4-8 and Pa eg SUR-1$, Palicy UR-2 2; add the following bulleted item:
• Provision af urban services must be econorziically feasible in a UGA.
Pa�e 4-9 and Page 5UR-18,Policy UR_3 3; delete the text of Policy iJR-3.3 in its entirety and
replace with the following:
"UR-3.3: In designating Urban Reserve areas, consideration should be �iven to the efficiency and
econotnic feasibilXty with which the Urban Reserve area can be provided with urban
services in the future, and the ef�ciency and economxc feasibility with which the area can
be urbanized."
P��e 4-9 and Page 5UR-19,Goa1 UR-3; add the following palicy:
"UR�3.4: Tn designating Urban Reserve areas, consideration shauld be given to the expressed
desires of property owners."
Pa�;e 4-10 and Page 5UR-20,Poli�UR-61;delete the text of Policy UR-6.1 in its entirety and
replace with the following:
"UR-6.1: Cities and the County shall support reasonable ,annexatians of areas within UGAs. A
proposal is aonsidered reasanable if, unless otherwise agreed to by the city and County,
it:
a. Inaludes all adjacent roadways;
b. Is contiguaus to the exis�ing city limits;
c. Pravides for ef�cient pravisian of emergency services without canflict between
providers;
de Conforms with current regulations; and
e. Does not deliberat�ly exclude less desirable properties."
Page 4-11 and Page 5UR-21.Policv UR-9.2;delete the text of Policy UR-9.2 in its entirety and
xeplace with th�following:
"UR-9.2: Prior to expansion of iJGAs cantaining an incorparated city, it should be documented by
the city that the expansion area can and will be served in an economically feasible
manner by rnunicipal sewer and water within a tirne lrame accepted by the County, and in
a manner that does not degrade surface ar ground waters."
i
Grant County Board of Commissioners
Findings of Fact
Page 7
Page 4-48 and Page 13-23,Water Resources; add the following goal:
Goal NS-7: Privately-held certificates of water right should be recog�zized as an
important �iatural r^esource and protected, to the extent practicable, tlzrough County
planning decisions whiclz encourage continued use for rural activities.
Subsequent goals and policies should be renumbered consecutively. ,
3.4 Due to an oversight,the Soap Lalce UGA map incorrectly indicated the division between the Soap
Lalce and Lakeview Park UGAs. Specifically,the map showed an area north of Road 20 NE
designated as Residential,High Density as being within the UGA boundary of Lakeview Park. This
area does not lie within the boundaries of the Lakeview Parlc water district service area. The City of
Soap Lake's wastewater treatment facilities are located within this area. The Grant County Board of
Commissioners directs that this area be removed from the Lakeview Park UGA and included in the
Soap Lake UGA. The northern boundary of Lakeview Park UGA should be Road 20 NE. UGA maps
. for both Soap Lake and Lakeview Park shall be revised to reflect the above.
3.5 In addition to the public review conducted as part of the Comprehensive Plan review,the Urban
Growth Area for the City of Ephrata has undergone public review during separate hearings conducted
by the Grant County Planning Commission and the Grant County Board of Commissioners. The
Ephrata Interim Urban Growth Area was initially adopted under Grant County Resolution and
Ordinance No. 95-134-CC. The IUGA was revised and adopted under Grant County Resolution and
Ordinance No. 99-4-CC. The final UGA will be adopted under separate ordinance concurrently with
this Ordinance.
Section 4—Rural Lands
4.1 'The lack of availability of water continues to be a significant factor in constraining growth in the
� rural, unincorporated areas of Grant County. This development limitation is intensified as a result of a
1998 decision by the Washington Supreme Court(Ecology v. Theodoratus)in which the court upheld
a lower court's determination that a certificate of water right could be quantified only on the basis of
the amount of water the developer actually puts to a beneficial use,not on the capacity of the
developer's water delivery system. In addition, on October 10, 1997,the Offica of Attorney General
issued Opinion No. S,interpreting certain exemptions to the State Water Code relating to "six pack"
wells. "Six pack"wells take their name fiom the statute(RCW 90.44.050)which allows a property
owner to withdraw up to 5,000 gallons per day(enough to serve roughly six homes),without
obtaining a water permit. In the past,particularly in Eastern Washington,builders have installed a
number of six pack wells to serve a developrnent using the exemption from the requirement to obtain
a water permit. For example,a 30-unit development might have been served by five separate "six
' pack"wells. In its advisory opinion to the Department of Ecology,the Office of Attorney General
interpreted relevant statute to mean that only a grand total of 5,000 gallons per day could be
' withdrawn without securing a water withdrawal permit,meaning that a maximum of one "six pack"
well could serve a development.
Since the issuance of the Attorney General Opinion,the Department of Ecology has been changing its
view of water rights allocation.The results of the 1998 Supreme Court decision and the 1997
Attorney General Opinion and its enforcement by the Department of Ecology has led to lirnitation of
speculative land development. As the Department of Ecology formulates their guidance and
regulatory efforts in the coming years regarding water withdrawals,it is anticipated that a signi�cant
Grant County Board of Commissioners
Findings of Fact
Page 8
arnount of land designated and otherwise available for development will not be developed due to lack
of available water or the right to withdraw it.
Furthermore, Grant County is participating in studies related to availability and management of its
ground water resources. Efforts include:
1. Water Resource Inventory Area(WRIA): an effort to form a tri-WRIA program working to
develop a strategy to identify and inventory ground and surface waters;
2. Ground Water Management Area(GWMA): a tri-county effort to assess ground water quality and
establish best management practices; .
3. Establishment of Water Conservancy Board(WCB): once created,the WCB will have authority
to manage water permit issues locally; and
4. Update of the 1982 Coordinated Water System Plan for the Quincy Groundwater Subarea,
anticipated to be adopted in 1999.
The requirements of the GMA and Chapter 19.27.097 RCW prohibit issuance of develop.ment
approval without demonstratian of water availability. As the regulatory environment regarding water
withdrawal solidifies and the above programs are further implemented, Grant County may amend its
Comprehensive Plan and development regulations to reflect current regulation,policy and
management practices.
4.2 Historic plats are those that were platted prior to enactment of a naw State platting code in 1969
(Laws of 1969,Ex. Sess., Chapter 271, Codified as Chapter 58,17 RCW). Historic plats are often
referred to as "paper plats," because many have never been developed. Many of these historic plats
are comprised of very small lots,often too small to construct a house to meet current land use laws,
such as zoning requirements, on-site septic, and other land development requirements. In Grant
County, there exist a nutnber of historical plats,many of which are undeveloped and others that are
partially developed.
Pursuant to the provisions of the Attorney General Opinion 1996 No. 5,the Grant County Board of
Commissioners.finds that developrnent of lots located within undevelo e�d historic plats where more
than five years has passed since approval, �ling and recording of the final plat map shall be subject to
development regulations,including zoning requirements and densities,lot size, access requirements,
, requirements regarding on-site septic system design and approval, and other design and performance
standards in effect at the time a building permit application is determined to be complete. To meet
current land use and public health requirements may require consolidation of two or more platted lots.
An historical lot and lot consolidation ordinance has been drafted. It is the intention of the Grant
County Board of Commissioners to adopt these ordinances as part of the process of establishing
development regulations to implement the Comprehensive Plan.
Development of lots located within undeveloped historic plats where less than five years has passed
since approval, filing and recording of the final plat map shall be subject to development regulations
in existence at the time of approval or recording of the final plat map,unless the Grant County Board
of Commissioners or other legislative body having jurisdiction finds that a change in conditions
creates a serious threat to public health or safety.
Grant County Board of Commissioners
Findings of Fact
Page 9
In order to appropriately reflect the GMA goal of protection of private property rights, the Grant
County Board of Commissioners finds that development of lots located within develoned historic
plats sha11 be subject to development regulations in existence at the time af approval or recording of
the�nal plat map, unless the Grant County Board of Commissioners or other legislative body having
jurisdiction finds that a change in conditions creates a serious threat to public health or safety. The
Grant County Board of Commissioners finds that an historic plat shall be considered as developed if
one-half or more of the platted lots contain an existing structure suitable for occupancy.
The Grant County Board of Cornmissioners finds thati such application of current development
regulations to undeveloped historic plats taken together with other limiting factors on development,
including limited water availability, suf�ciently limits the ultimate development of historic lots in the
interest of the GMA goal of reduaing urban sprawl.
4.3 Based on the lack of availability of irrigation water,relatively poor soil conditions,presence of
existing small parcels and residential development,the Grant County Planning Commission
recommended redesignation of approximately 13,430 acres of the south slope of Beezely Hills
designated as Dryland Agriculture in the Draft Comprehensive Plan to Rural Residential 2. The area
recommended by the Planning Commission has a residential development potential of approximately
1,927 housing units.
, The public record compiled by the Grant County Board of Commissioners includes testimony related
to the inappropriateness of such redesignation. Concerns include:
1. lack of availability of groundwater supply to serve residential development;
2. access limitations;
3. road maintenance and emergency access difficulties during winter weather conditions; and
4. presence of steep slopes.
Based on the entire public record, the Grant County Board of Commissioners finds that the area
recommended by the Planning Commission for designation as,Rural Residential2 be reduced to
include only that portion currently served by maintained access roads. The Grant County Board of
Commissioners finds that the portion of the following land that lies north of Trrigation Block 73 of the
Columbia Basin Project should be designated as"Rura1 Residential2" (see Exhibit C, Figures 1 and
2):
• Sections 35 and 36, Township 21 North,Range 23 East;
• Sections 31, 32, 33, 34, and 35,Township 21 North,Range 24 East; and
• The south half of Section 29 and the northwest quarter of Section 30, Township 21 North,Range 26
East.
The Grant County Board of Commissioners further finds that the portion of the following land that
lies north of Irrigation Block 73 of the Columbia Basin Project should be designated as"Rural
Residential 1"(see Exhibit C,Figure 1):
• Sections 25 and 26, Township 21 North,Range 23 East; and
• Sections 26, 27, 28, 29, and 30,Township 21 North,Range 24 East.
These areas of Rural Residential 1 and 2 are currently served by adequate inftastructure, including
roadways and public power. Adequate water for domestic use is anticipated to be available, and the
areas provide for scenic vistas desirable for residential development.
Grant County Board of Commissioners
Findings of Fact
Page 10
The Grant County Board of Commissioriers further finds that all other portions of the south slope of
Beezely Hills recommended by the Planning Commission far designation as Rural Residential2 be
designated as Irrigated Agriculture.
4.4 The Draft Comprehensive Plan projected a total of 371 new dwelling units will be required during the
20-year planning period to accommodate projected rural population growth, and designated land for
residential development with capacity to provide 16,127 dwelling units; land provided exceeded that
required by a t'actor of more than 40 times. Changes to the Draft Plan recommended by the Planning
Commission reduced to the amount of rural land designated for residential development by more than
half,yielding a capacity to provide 7,472 dwelling units.
It must be recognized that availability of potable water is anticipated to significantly diminish the
amount of designated residential land that can be developed. Tt is not possible to quantify t1�e effect of
water availability on rural residential development at this time. Once water availability is better
quantified and groundwater withdrawal regulations are clarifie.d, a better understanding of the impact
can be gained. '
The Court of Appeals, Div. 2,recently decided a case interpreting the provisions of the GMA related
to the use of population projections for sizing UGAs and rural residential designations.T'he Court
found that nothing in the GMA provides that a county must use population projections as a cap or
ceiling when planning for rural growth.
In Grant County's case,to balance projected growth with land designated for rural development, one
of two things must happen: (1)either rural residential densities would have to be drastically increased
(to approximately 1 dwelling unit per 850 acres), or(2)the amount of land designated for rural
residential development drastically decreased. Either approach would create serious hardship on the
private property rights of citizens. .
The public record compiled by the Grant County Board of Commissioners includes testimony that
additional areas throughout the County are,for a variety of reasons, suitable for rural residential
development. It is tha intention of the Grant County Board of Commissioners to promote a variety of
rural residential densities and broad choice of location for rural residential development,while
ansuring: (1)that our rural areas do not become further characterized by urban sprawl, (2)that natural
resource lands are preserved and pxotected,and(3)that development in rural areas is consistent with
rural character.
The protection of natural resource lar�ds of long-term commercial significance is a very higli priority
for Grant County. Limiting the supply of rural residential lots may increase the conversion of
resource lands to residential use.The Board of Commissioners finds that providing an excess of land
for rural residential development would help protect resource lands.
The Grant County Board of Commissioners�nds that the following areas should be designated as
Rural Residential 1 (1 dwelling unit per 5 acres):
1. Caliche Lake Area southwest of George along I-90 (see Exhibit C, Figure 3); '
2. Area east of Royal City(see Exhibit C,Figure 4); and
3. Area west of Mattawa(see Exhibit C,Figure S).
Grant County Board of Commissioners
Pindings of Fact
Page 11
The Grant County Board of Commissioners finds that the following areas should be designated as
Rural Residential2 (1 dwelling unit per 2.5 acres):
1. Fordair(see Exhibit C,Figure 6);
2. Area south of�lectric City(see Exhibit C, Figure 7): This area was designated as Rural
Residential 1 in the Draft Comprehensive Plan;
3. Area north of Moses Lake UGA along Stratford Road(see Exhibit C,I'igure 8); and
4. Warderi Lake Area west of SR 17 and Warden along O'Sullivan Road(see Exhibit C,Figure 9).
The lands designated as Rural Residential2 total 5,390 acres with a capacity for a potential of about
631 new dwelling units. The Grant County Board of Commissioners finds that provision of limited
amounts of rural land designated for residential development at a density of 1 dwelling unit per 2.5
acres reflects tha rural character found in Grant County at the locations designated. Such designation
provides for a variety of rural densities desired by County residents and required under the GMA.
Development in these areas is expected to occur at a slow,manageable rate based on: (1) limited
availability of potable water as cited above; and(2)past growth rates in these areas as documented by
the Grant County Current Planning Department(see declaration of Peter J. Coinenzo and Respondent
Grant County's Mernorandum of Authorities in Support of Validity of Interim Zoning Ordinance,
EWGMHB Case No. 98-1, dated August 25, 1998).
The Grant County Board of Commissioners directs the above revisions to the Future Land Use Map
and land use designations. The above �ndings (4.3 and 4.4)revise the 13,430 gross acres of Rural
Residential2 recornmended by the Planning Commission to 9,231 gross acres of Rural Residential 1
and 5,390 gross acres of Rural Residential2 with a combined residential development potential of
approximately 1,308 housing units,yielding.a reduction of 619 potential housing units from the
number recommended by the Planning Commission.
In making this finding, the Grant County Board of Commissioners has considered the availability of
water, adjacent land use, availability of public roads and power, and ability to fund public services to
these areas. The rural land use goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan will protect the existing
rural character of the land in Grant County. Urban sprawl will be minimi2ed.Retention of resource
lands and natural resource based economic activities will be encouraged. Outdoor recreation and
other activities requiring open space will be promoted. Fish and wildli£e and other sensitive habitats
will not be adversely impacted by the rural development contemplated by these designations.
Further,the Board of Commissioners �nds that designation of the above lands for rural residential `
development appropriately balances the goals of the GMA,including protection of private property
rights, availability of affordable housing,environmental protection, and prevention of urban sprawl,
4.5 The Draft Comprehensive Plan designated Rural Areas of More Intense Development(RAIDs),
including Rural Communities,Rural Village, Shoreline Development,Recreational Development, and
Agricultural Service Ce�ters to reflect and promote the variety of historical development patterns
found in the County.
The area known as McDonald Siding is designated as an Agricultural Service Center having a
boundazy as shown on th�Future Land Use Map and in Technical Appendix D.Based on the public
record regarding existing and anticipated development in the area,the Grant County Board of
Grant County Board of Commissioners '
Findings of Fact
Page 12
Commissioners finds that the southern boundary should be extended westward along County Road 2
to the east right-of-way of Road M SE.
The area known as"The Gorge" is designated as a Recreational Development having a boundary as
shown on the Future Land Use Map and in Technical Appendix D. The boundary inadvertently
excluded a portion of the existing campground area from the Recreational Development designation.
Based on the public record regarding existing and anticipated development in the area, the Grant
County Board of Commissioners finds that the boundary should be adjusted to include the entirety of
the campground area as shown in Exhibit E.
4.6 Based on the public record,the Grant County Board of Commissioners finds that an area east of the
Ephrata UGA is erroneously classified as Rangeland.This area consists of Sections 17, 19, 20 and 29
Township 21 North,Range 27 East.Upon review,the parcels were found to meet the classification
criteria for Rangeland;however extraordinary circumstances exist that limit the viability of the
parcels for rangeland use.The parcels combined provide only about 2,500 acres,which is insufficient
to economically graze cattle commercially. The parcels are isolated from additional rangeland by land
designated as Rural Remote and Rural Residential l. The Grant County Board of Commissioners
finds that the parcels should be redesignated as follows:
l. Rural Remote: Sections 19 and 20; and
2. Rural Residential 1: Sections 17 and 29.
4.7 The Grant County Planning Commission Recorded Motion included�ndings of fact regarding the
potential for clustering in both agricultural resource and rural lands,The Grant County Board of
commissioners finds that the record does not contain sufficient information to justify clustering or
other innovative techniques at this time.The County may wish to consider a such programs in the
future following appropriate study. The following paragraph should be added to Policy RU-2.4 and
Policy RE-5.2:
"In considering innovative techniques such as clustering,the County may:
• establish a Task Force to help develop a clustering program;
• develop techniques to monitor the impact ot'a clustering program(i.e.,record and track the
numbers and locations of clustered housing);
• limit areas where clustering would be allowed; and/or
• limit ox cap the total nurriber of clustered lots allowed."
Section 5—Resource Lands
5.1 The findings of fact of the Grant County Planning Commission Recorded Motion dated July 8, 1999,
attached as Exhibit A,recognize that it rriay be possible that an individual's property receives a
Comprehensive Pl�n land use designation based on a technical mapping error or by inadvertent
application of designation criteria to tha subject property. Further,the findings of fact provide for a
process for correcting such errors.
Subject to the findings of the Planning Commission,the Board of County Commissioners find that
parcels of land determined to be mapped in error as agricultural resource lands shall be redesignated
as the next least intensive land use designated for parcels contiguous to the subject parcel.
Grant County Board of Commissioners
� Findings of Fact
Page 13
5.2 The public record compiled by the Grant County Planning Commission included a request from Rick
Jenkin to reevaluate the proposed designation oF"Rangeland" for Parcel No. 17142000 that he owns.
Upon review by staff, it has been determined that the subject parcel does not meet the classification
criteria for rangeland included in Chapter 5 of the Comprehensive Plan. The parcel is not enrolled in
Agricultural Current Use tax classification,nor is it currently used for rangeland according to the
Grant County Assessor records. Water and sewer utilities owned and operated by the Town of Coulee
City abut the northern and western boundaries of the parcel. The Grant County Board of County
, Commissioners finds that the subject parcel should be designated as Rural Residential 1 based on the
availability of public infrastructure.
5.3 The public record compiled by the Grant County Planning Commission included requests from Joe
Maughn and Michael J. Alberg to consider designation of certain parcels in which they hold interest
as Mineral Lands of Long Term Commercial Significance. Ownership interest in the parcels vary;
they hold both property and mineral rights to some parcels, and only mineral rights to other parcels.
The Grant County Board of Commissioners directs that those parcels which meet criteria for
; designation as mineral lands of long term commercial significance and to which the parties hold both
� property and mineral rights shall be designated as mineral lands of long term commercial
' significance.
5.4 Add the following policy:
"RE-7.4: Designated Mineral Lands shall be protected and preserved as a nonrenewable resource
and conserved for mineral extraction and processing to bene�t present and future
generations."
Section 6—Economic Development
6.1 The Comprehensive Plan contains an economic development element that provides a collective vision
of the County's economic futttre.The goals,policies and actions in the economic development
element are consistent with and support the goals of the GMA arid the mission statement of the Grant
County Economic Development Council.
6.2 An economic assessment of the County's economic strengtihs,weaknesses, opportunities and threats
was conducted and included participation of a Citizens Advisory Group on Economic Development.
6.3 The economic development element strives to ensure an adequate supply of commercial and
industrial sites to provide opportunity for new and expanding businesses to locate or remain in Grant
County.
6.4 The implernentation of this Comprehensive Plan will foster economic development by:
• maintaining viable agricultural and other industries;
• attracting new employers;
, • cultivating home-grown businesses;
' • diversification of existing economic base; ,
• promoting tourism;
' • managing growth;
• providing predictability of land use and development requirements;
• fostering intergovernmental cooperation, including the orderly provision of public services; and
• striving to keep shopping dollars in the County.
Grant County Board of Commissioners
Findings of Fact.
Page 14
Section 7—Natural Setting
7.1 The public record compiled by the Grant County Board of Commissioners included testirnony from .
the Friends of Soap Lake regarding the need for recognition of the economic, cultural,recreational,
geologic,and environmental value of Soap Lake. Soap Lalce is recognized worldwide for its unique
mineral content and therapeutic value. Of concern to the Friends of Soap Lake xs potential dilution
and pollution of the waters of the lake as well as recreational use that rnay be incompatible with its
therapeutic use,The Grant County Board of Commissioners recognizes the unique functions and
values that Soap Lake provides, and intends for the goals and policies of the Natural Setting Element
of the Comprehensive Plan pertaining to water resources and shoreline management as adequate
protection of this important aquatic resource.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS _
AMENDMENTS TO PLAIVNING COMMISSION FINDINGS OF FACT
The Board of Grant County Commissioners accepts the recommendations and findings of fact of the
Grant County Planning Commission Recorded Motion dated July 8, 1999, attached as Exhibit A,with the
following amendments:
GCPC Findin�2.3: in the first sentence delete "a representative" and replace with"three representatives."
GCPC Findin�2.10: note that two editions of the Grant County Skyline were distributed to approximately
31,Q00 residents. �
GCPC Findin�3.1: in the fourth paragraph,delete "81" and replace with"83".
GCPC Findin�3.6: in the third sentence, delete"as not been" and replace with"has not been."
GCPC Findin�3.7: delete this finding in its entirety and replace with,the following:
"3.7 Grant County is in substantial compliance with the mandates of RCW 36. 70A.060 through the
ongoing implementation of Grant County Ordinance No. 93-49-CC,Resource Lands and Critical
Areas.However,Ordinance No. 93-49-CC may need to be revised to comply with the
Comprehensive Plan and changes in state law,including Chapter 286, Section 5,Washington Laws,
1998. Among other things,the new provisions mandate specific notification requirements when
development activity occurs within five hundred feat of resource lands(rather than three hundred
feet)."
GCPC Findin�6.9: in the third sentence, delete"Soap Lake/Unincorporated Lakeview Park" and replace
with"Soap Lake,Unincorporated Lakeview Park."
GCPC Findin�6,13: delete this finding in its entirety.The urban growth area analysis (included in Part •
IV-Technical Appendices of the Comprehensive Plan)conducted for the City of Moses Lake identified an
area along the Wheeler Corridor as a"provisional"area of the Moses Lake UGA in recognition of its
current rural,resource-based industrial use as well as its potential suitability for future inclusion in the
Moses Lake UGA. The analysis includes an assessment of industrial land needs in the vicinity of Moses
Lake, and found that: (1)the prospects for continued high rates of industrial growth along the Wheeler
Corridor are excellent; (2)that insufficient lands suitable for indus�rial development are available within
the Moses Lake UGA; (3)that city services are or will be made available in the area; and(4)that
��,
Grant County Board of Commissioners
Findings of Fact �
Page 15
inclusion of the Wheeler Corridor area within the UGA is�easonable and would provide economic benefit
to all residents of Grant County. However,the potential annexation of these lands into the City�of Moses
Lake and resulting loss of tax revenue poses a significant financial hardship to the County. In particular,
the County Road Fund is heavily reliant on tax revenues from this area. Loss of that revenue stream will
result in unmet needs for road improvements and/or deterioration of level of service throughout Grant
County. Consideration of the fiscal impacts of annexation of this area must include both the cost of
maintenance of County roads tributary to the area and heavily used by the natural resource-based
industries located there as well as the investment in infrastructure made by the City of Moses Lake to
provide water and sewer service to those industries.
The Grant County Planning Commission found that the "provisional" area of the Wheeler Corridor should
be reserved for industrial development and designated as an Indus�rial Reserve, outside of the UGA.
Subsequently,the Grant County Board of Comrnissioners and the City Council of Moses Lake have
completed a mediated,negotiated�rocess and have agreed to include the provisional area within the
Moses Lake UGA. The parties entered into an interlocal agreement to that effect on September 22, 1999.
The Grant County Board of Commissioners directs that the Moses Lalce UGA map and Future Land Use
Map be revised to reflect inclusion of said area in the Moses Lake UGA based on the justification cited iri
Part IV-Technical Appendices of the Comprehensive Plan and the terms of the negotiated agreement.
� ' .
GCPC Finding 6•17: The urban growth area analysis(included in Part IV-Technical Appendices of the
Comprehensive Plan) conducted for Royal City identified an area of industrial lands to the south and east
of the city as an Industrial Reserve,outside of the UGA. The analysis includes an assessment of industrial
land needs in the vicinity of Royal City,and found tihat: (1)the industrial development is anticipated to
continue to the south and east of the city; (2)that insufficient lands suitable for industrial development are
available within other portions of UGA; (3)that the city and Port of Royal Slope are planning for
improvements to their water supply and wastewater treatment capabilities; and(4)that inclusion of the
Industrial Reserve area within the UGA is reasonable and would provide economic benefit to all residents
of Grant County.
The Grant County Board of Commissioners and the City Council of Royal City have completed a
negotiated process and have agreed to include the industrial reserve area within the Royal City UGA. The
parties entered into an interlocal agreement to that effect on September 1.5, 1999.
The Grant County Board of Commissioners directs that the Royal City UGA map and Future Land Use
Map be revised to reflect inclusion of said area in the Royal City UGA based on the justification cited in
Part IV-Technical Appendices of the Comprehensive Plan and the terms of the negotiated agreement.
The City's proposed UGA Land Use Plan includes the industrial land to the south and east of the City in
the Royal City UGA. The inclusion of these industrial lands within the proposed UGA appears
reasonable. Inclusion of those lands within the Royal City UGA will bene�t all citizens of Grant County
through enhanced economic opportunity through industrial development.
GCPC Findin�7.2: in the third paragraph,third sentence,delete "nun-urban" and replace with"non-
urban." In the fifth sentence,delete "land." In numbered item 2, delete "Lake Moses" and replace with
"the shoreline of Moses Lake." In numbered item 7,delete "R-1,R-2, S-2 and S-2" and replace with"R-1,
R-2, S-1 and S-2."
GCPC Findin�7.5: in the third paragraph, delete"to de designated" and replace with"to be designated."
, In the last paragraph, delete "next Plan amendment" and replace with "future Plan amendments."
Grant County Board of Commissioners
Findings of Fact
Page 16
GCPC Findin�7.6: add the following: "On-farm businesses and agricultural home-based businesses allow
farmers to supplement the farm income, improve the efficiency of farming, and provide employment for
farm family members. Allowing such full-time, agricultural home-based businesses, via a conditional use
process, will not adversely impact the character of agricultural reso�rce lands or surrounding rural lands.
Agricultural-related,home-based businesses conducted seasonally or for short duration shall be allowed
in rural and resource lands of the County without a conditional use permit."
GCPC Findin�7.10: in the third paragraph, delete "two areas" and replace with"at least two areas."
GCPC Findin� 8.2: in the last sentence of the first paragraph, add"Moses Lake Irrigation District"
following "Black Sands Irrigation District."
GCPC Findin� 8.3: in the third paragraph of Policy RE-7.3, delete "de designated" and replace with"be
designated." In the second paragraph of Policy RE-7.3,
GCPC Findin� 8.7: delete this finding in its entirety.
GCPC Findin� 11.9: delete "including the value of' and replace with including,but not limited to, the
value of."
�
GCPC Finding 13•2: delete "deficiencies" and replace with"deficiencies within the 20-year planning
period."
GCPC Findin� �5.1: delete this finding in its entirety.The Grant County Board o�Commissioners finds
that the term"should" implies the intent of the County to take the actions included in the Natural Setting
Element of the Comprehensive Plan, subject to sufficiant resources, and that it is unnecessary to replace
"SIlOU1C�" with"shall" pT"Wlll."
GCPC Findin� 15.4: delete the second bullet of the second paragraph in its entirety and replace with the
following:
• Ongoing and existing farming and ranching activities such as,but not limited to: (1) grazing,
plowing, seeding, cultivating,harvesting for the production of food, (2) construction of facilities
in support of farming operations, and(3)upland soil and water conservation practices;
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. The Grant County Board of Commissioners has a legal obligation to enact a Comprehensive Plan that
meets the requirements of Chapter 36.70A RCW.
2. The Grant County Board of Commissioners has a legal obligation to satisfy the requirements of the
Eastern Washington Growth Management Hearing Board Order on Petitioner's Dispositive Motion,
GMHB Case No. 96-1.
3. The Grant County Board of Commissioners has met these obligations by enacting Ordinance No. 99-
158-CC.The 1999 Grant County Comprehensive Plan as amended and the associated envixonmental
review comply with the goals and requirements of Chapter 36.70A RCW, Chapter 365-195 WAC,
Chapter 43.21C RCW,Chapter 197-11 WAC. And Grant County Ordinance 95-60-CC (SEPA).
GRANT COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION ,
� GRANT COUNTY,WASHINGTON
A R�corded 1l�dotion R�lating to Comprehensive Planning for Grant County i�
Accordance with the Washington State Growth Management Act (RCW
36.70A); and Repealing the 1977 Comprehensive Pla Q
�
Q �
� -
WHEREAS, in 1990 the Washington State Legislature passed and the Governor signed into law
the Growth Management Act(GMA) as contained in SHB No. 2929 (Washington Laws, 1990 lst
Ex. Sess., Ch.17),which was subsequently codified as, among other chapters, Chapter 36.70A
RCW; and
WHEREAS, the legislature found that uncoordinated and unplanned growth, together with a
lack of common goals expressing the public's interest in the conseivation and the wise use of our
lands, pose a threat to the environment, sustainable economic development, and the health,
safety, and high quality of life enjoyed by residents of the state; and
WHEREAS,the Washington State Growth Management Act requires all counties and cities in
� the state to do some planning and the fastest growing counties, and the cities within them, to plan
� extensively in keeping with state goals on: sprawl reduction, affordable housing, economic
� development, open space and recreation, regional transportation, environmental protection,
property rights, natural resource industries,historic lands and buildings, permit processing,
public facilities and services, and early and continuous public participation; and
WHEREAS, the Washington State Growth Management Act requires all counties and cities
within the state to classify, designate, and conserve natural resource lands (forest, agricultural,
and mineral) and protect critical areas.(wetlands, geologically hazardous areas, fish and wildlife
habitat conservation areas, aquifer recharge areas, and frequently flooded areas); and
' WHEREAS, Chapter 36.70A RCW requires Grant County to adopt a Comprehensive Plan that
meets specified GMA goals and addresses the mandated GMA elements; and
WHEREAS, the Grant County Planning Comrnission and the Grant County Depariment of
Community Development have produced a Comprehensive Plan/Draft Environmental Impact
Statement that meets the specified GMA goals and addresses the mandated GMA elements; and
WHEREAS, the Grant County Planning Commission completed an extensive public review
process that meets or exceeds the requirements of Grant County Resolution establishing Grant
County Growth Management Act (GMA) Public Participation Program pursuant to RCW
36.70A.020(11) and RCW 36.70A.140; and
, ,
; Grant County Planning Commission
Motf on No.
� Page 2
WHEREA�, the Grant County Planning Canamission compiled an extensive public record,
� including studies, dacuments, and conrespondence tiiat was carefuliy considered during review of
� the Cornprehensive P1an/Draft Enviranmental Impac�Statement; and
�
� WHER�AS, the Grant County Planning Cnmz�ission relied upan best avaiiable data and science
. in specifying Gomprehensive Pian/Draft Envirc�nmental Impact Statement content, goals, and
�. � policies; and .
�h�+r+r,.ti,�...� .
� WHEREAS, the Campre g�n��,�e��T��r�,`��nvironmental Irnpact Statement has been reviewed
by affected State and loca�ageridia�:.�(i�ic��`a�n�,generally,to be zn com.pliance with the
�,,..,�
� '� �# requirements af the GMA.; and
.;�::.� VVHEREAS, the cornments and carrespondeza�ce provided by affected State and local agencies
:..:;�.� has been considered during review of the�o�aaprehensive Pla.n/L)raft Enviranmental Impact
Statement and in the preparation of attached�'indings of Fact; and
WHEREAS, the Grant County Planning Goa�missian completed a thorough SEPA public
,. review process, conducted a threshold deterr�.ination and scoping process, and issued a Draft
Environmental Impact Staternent (EIS) on March 29, 199$; and
. W�IER�+A�, the Grant County Pla��ning Commission issued a Final Environmental Impact
Statement(EI5) an July 2, 1999; and ,
� WHEREAS, the Board of Grant County Comrnissioners intends ta conduct an open recard
hearing to consider the recornmendations and findings of fact of the Grant County Planning
Commission along with other public comme�t pertaining to the Comprehensive Plan; now
� � therefore,
I'I' IS I�EI�BY RESOLVED that the Grar�t Caunty Planning Comrnission adopts the attached
; findings of fact and the attached record psrtaining ta the Comprehensive Plan/Draft
Environmental Impact Statament, and
� �: .,v,a�„_.
,
;,�:.:. � IT I5 FURT�IER RESOI..VED that the�rant County Planning Commission recommends that
:::.; # the Board of County Gomrnissioners adopt the Draft Grant County Conaprehensive Plan with
�' ; changes noted in the findings af fact.
IT I� FURTHER RESOI;VED that the Grant County Planning Commission recommends that
the Board of County Cornmissioners accept the Draft Enviranmental Impact Statement and adopt
Land Use Altemative Na. 1 (Proposed Plan)with changes noted in the findings of fact.
IT I� FURTHER RESOLVED that the Grant County Planning Commission recomrnends that
the�3oard of County Commissioners adopt t�e Final Environmental Impact Statement attached
hereto.
� ..
'1 1
Grant County Planning Commission
Motion No.
� Page 3
PASSED by the Grant County Planning Commission at Ephrata, Washington, by the following
vote, then signed by its membership this �day of ��,/',L , 1999.
' 8 YEA; -0' NAY; � ABSTAIN; and I ABSENT.
GRANT COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSIONERS
GRANT COUNT WASHINGTON
r
�--
Je ier, hairman
G ry ier y, Vice��i n � -
�
�1 B r, Commissioner
���
� j m emi , Commission
P�
Kirk Sager, Commissioner , --
�� �
Wayne Sa li, Commissioner
� �
Mart 11 lmer, Commissio r
�---
Dave Dinges, Commisstoner
Duane Ehr, Commissioner
�
4 �
� GIt�1`�T�OUNTY CtJMPREHENSIVE PLAN
FINDINGS t3F FACT
Section 1 —General Findings �
1,l Grant Caunty has experienced and witl cantinue to expez�ence populatian growth and accampanying
develapment,resulting in competing demands for publie facilities, services and land uses, and is
required t4 prepare and adopt a comprehensive plan and land use regulations pursuant to the Growth
Manageznent Act.
� 1.2 Growth management requires that land be managed properly and wisely. Otherwise,meeting the
demands of a rapidly grawing county papulation is likely to cause urban and suiaurban sprawl,
cornmercial strip development, development at inappropriate Iocations and densities, damage ta
environmentally sensitive areas, and the Ioss of natural resource lands,rural character, open space,
. and critical areas. Also,this pattern of development is likely to create demands for urban services
and utilities that are xnsufficient ta support their extension in a cost-effective manner.
3�.,.
1.3 The Grant County Draft Camprehensive Plan responds to the enviranmental.��:��icerns raised during
the Draft Comprehensive Plan and SEPA public hearing process,while protecting property owners
from unconstitutional takings and substantive due process violatians.
1.4 RCW 36.74A.Q20 sets forth a list of 13 goals "to guide the development and adaption of
comprehensive plans and development regulations."In formulating the Draft Comprahensive Flan
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.
� 1.5 The Draft Comprehensive Plan is consistent with the Washingtan Sfate Growth Management Act
. (RCW 36.70A} and the Procedural Criteria far Adapting Comprehensive Plans(WAC 365-195}.The
. Draft Comprehexisive Plan was developed in aceordance with the statutory goals pursuant ta RCW
, 36.70A.(J20.,includes the mandatory elements pursuant to F�.CW 6.7QA.070 and WAC 365-195-
� 300; autlines comprehensive plan provisians governing its amendments pursuant ta RCW
f 36.70A.130 and WAC 365-195-630,provided{s)for early and eontinuous publie participation in the
. � development and amendment af the cornprehensive plan pursuant to RCW 36..70A.140 and WAC
365-195-604; identifies land useful for public purpcases pursuant to RCW 36,:.7OA.150 and WAC
; 365-195-434; identifies open spaee corridors pursuant to RCW 36.70A.160 arid'�.WAC 365-195-420;
designates natural resource lands pursuant to RCW 36.70A.170(a-c)and WAC 365-195-400;
includes a process fnr siting of sssential public facilities pursuant to RCW 36.70A.200;provides for
the coordination and regulatian of public and private development; and bears a substantial
.. . relationship to, and is necessary for,the public health, safety,and�eneral welfare of Grant County
residents.
1.6 The I?raft Camprehensive Plan governs principally the unincorporated areas af Grant County and
replaces the existing 1970 camprehensive p1an,The Camprehensive Plan shail be the principal
planning document for the orderly physical develapment af the County,and shall be used to guide
provision of public facilities and services,review af prapased incorporati4ns and anriexatians,
irnplementing regulations and land development decisions.In arder to effectuate this Draft
Comprehensive Plan, a.ntxtrab�r of Grant County's land use regulations will have to be substantially
rewritten.The Plan irr�plementation strategy that is discussed in Chapter 2 of tk�e Draft
Coinprehensive Plan recognizes this need.However, additianal detail should be provided to meet the
9i r
Grant County Plannmg Commission
Findings of Fact
Page 2
' requirements delineated in WAC 365-195-805. �
1.7 Grant County has moved as expeditiously as possible to gather relevant scienti�c data to improve
the County's long-range planning process.The County has relied upon best available science in
developing this Draft Comprehensive Plan. In order to protect the general welfare of the County and
to avoid protracted litigation, the County needs to adopt and implement this Draft Comprehensive
Plan.
1.8 'I'�Ze implementation of this Draft Comprehensive Plan will not unfairly burden the property rights of
landowners. Although the health, safety, and welfare of the public demand that reasonable
restrictions must be placed on the use of property, individuals will retain a full range of
constitutional protections including due process rights.
1.9 The Comprehensive Plan carz-ies out in greater detail the intent of the CWPPs. The Draft
Comprehensive Plan is�ot in.every case con�istent with the County-wide Planning Policies adopted
by Grant County on May;6, 1993..Inconsistencies.include; among other things,population growth
projections and allocation. The County-wide Planning Policies are, in some cases,inconsistent with
the requirements of the GMA, including provision for rural areas of more intensive development in
areas of historic growth patterns as provided under ESB 6094. Chapter 1 of the Draft Comprehensive
Plan includes measures for interpreting conflicts arid discrepancies between the Plan and other plans,
including the County-wide Planning Policies. Specifically,the Draft Comprehensive Plan is
specified to prevail over the County-wide Planning Policies in the case of conflicts by virtue of the
greater detail of the Comprehensive Plan. Several members of the public commented that this
preference of Comprehensive Plan over the County-wide Planning Policies is not appropriate. To
avoid potential conflicts,the CWPPs should be revised to be consistent with the Comprehensive
Plan and RCW 36.70A.
The Planned Growth Committee is proceeding with a process of reviewing proposed amendments to
the CWPPs. However, completion of this process and adoption of revised CWPPs is not expected to
be completed prior to adoption of the Comprehensive Plan,Therefore,the Comprehensive Plan will
be amended to identify inconsistencies beiween the Plan and the CWPPs, and to encourage
amendment of the CWPPs.
The GCPC recommends that the text°o�-the Comprehensive Pl'an regarding conflicts with the CWPPs
be deleted, and that one or both documents be amended at the next possible time to resolve the
conflict.
1.10 The text on page 1-4 of the Comprehensive Plan regarding"Comprehensive Plans of Incorporated
Cities and Towns" is unclear and should be replaced with the following:
"This Comprehensive Plan serves as the plan for the unincorporated areas within the urban growth
boundaries of cities and towns. The individual city comprehensive plans serve as the plans for the
incorporated areas within the urban growth boundaries of incorporated cities. The city
comprehensive plans are integral parts of this Plan,although they appear in separate documents. The
cities and towns of Grant County with the cooperation of the County have developed comprehensive
plans. The goal of such cooperation is to achieve compatibility along jurisdictional boundaries and
also to give more stability to planning and zoning as County lands are annexed into the cities. During
preparation of Development Regulations to implement this Plan,the County should consult with the
cities and towns to consider incorporation of city land use policies and standards where appropriate."
, { �
Grant County Planning Commission
Finding;s of Fact
Page 3
1,11 The text on page 1-8 af the Camprehensive Plan"Interpreting Conflicts and Discrepancies Between
; Ptan Camponents and C7ther Plans"regarding conflicts between the Future Land Use Map and the
text of the Plan canflicts text in the Resource Land Sub-element regarding the relationship of the
classification criteria and the Future Land Use Map.T7�e text on page 1-8 should be revised to read:
"The Future Land Use Map, and future proposals to amend the Future Land Use Map, should reflect
and be based upan the goals, policies and Iand use designation assessment criteria included in the
Comprehensive Plan. When conflicts arise between the Future Land Use Map and the
Cornprehensive Plan text,the Comprehensive Plan text shall prevail." `
Section 2—Plan Develapment and Pubiic I'articipation
;,:..{ 2.1 Grant County's first comprehensive plan was adopted in Decetnber 19"7Q. Grant County's planning
process began in 1991 with a survey af Grant County residents,which provided an indication af
citizen apinians and preferences regarding growth management issues.That.vi�iQning process was ..
.-4ri�X." - -
revisited in 199$,when the County conducted two publia warkshops to infor�n°;the..citizens af the
, ' gr�wth management planning pracess,update them on progress to date,and validate or revise
previously develaped goals and values.
2.2 During the last several years, Grant County has held informal discussions with concerned citizens
throughout the County to solicit their input regaxding the Growth Management pracess. These
discussions have been in addition ta the formal hearing process that has been conduc�ed by the
�
Planning Commission.
� 2.3 In 1993,the Grant County Planned Grnwth Committee,which included a representative frorn Grant
:�:�
:. .,� County and each of its cities and tawns, devetoped County-wide planning polieies intending ta
, ineorparate the requirements of the GMA.These policies were adopted by the Grant County Baard
:.:.� of Commissioners on May 6, 1993.These palicies pravide general guidance for the general land use
� pattern o�future development in the County.
. ' 2.4 On May 25, 1993,the Gr�nt County Commissioners adopted Ordinance No. 93-49-CC,Resource
Lands and Crirical Areas meeting the requirernents of the GMA.
:.�,,.�,,:
. '� ' ,.i����:�
2.S The Baard of Grant County Cornmissioners conducted--public hearings on 0,�;�aber 24, 1995, and
� November 6, 1995 to consider�he designation and adn�tion of interinn urban growth areas pro�osed
by the cities and receive public comment,and subsequently adapted interim urban growth areas
:..:} (NGAs}for eaah city and town,
:..�
� 2.6 4n June 10, 1496,the cities af Ephrata,Moses Lake,Rayal City and Warden�led a Petition for
Review with the Eastern•Washington Growth Management Hearings Board{EWGMHB). On June
25, i 996,the EWGIt�1HB conducted a prehearing canference in the Ephrata City Council charnbers,
and identified a number of legal issues regarding cornpliance with the GMA.The EWGMHB
entered an order on April 10, 1998,ordering Grant County to proceed with the praposed timelines
� for cornpliance in preparation and adoption of tl�eir Camprehensive Plan. Among other things,the
arder established that this Camprehensive Plan be adapted no later than May 19, 1999.
2.7 The oxde�also required changes ta Gxant County's existing zoning code,long and short plat
ordinances, and other Iand use regutatory cantrots that cantribute ta urban sprawl in rural areas of
the Caunty.In eompliance, Grant County adopted Ordinance 96-I08-CC on August 6, 1996, which
� , „ ,
;
Grant County Planning Commission
Findings of Fact
Page 4
`�,
y
outlined a plan to prevent or restrict urban sprawl, including interim zoning having a minimum 2%z-
acre lot size for suburban,residential, and open space recreation zones,of the County. After
completing SEPA review of the proposed interim zoning plan, Grant County adopted Ordinance No.
97-39-CC on March 25, 1997 that established the interim zoning pending completion of the
County's Comprehensive Plan. On September 23, 1997, with Resolution 97-150-CC, and on March
23, 1998, with Resolution No. 98-29-CC, Grant County adopted successive six-month extensaons of
the interim zoning established by Ordinance No, 97-39-CC.
2.8 On May 6, 1998, the Cities of Moses Lake and Ephrata filed another petition for review with the
EWGMHB. The petition clairned that, among other things,the County failed to comply with the
GMA and SEPA in adopting the interirn zoning ordinance, and had no factual basis in establishing a
2'/z-acre density. On October 7, 1998, the EWGMHB issued a final order stating that Grant County
Ordinance No. 98-39-CC, the interim zoning ordinance, is in compliance with applicable statutes.
2.9 Beginning in July 1998, the County.began a process that encouraged the involvement'of citizens in
the planning process and provided a rnechanism to foster coordination between the County and the
incorporated cities within the County. The Grant County Planning Commission conducted numerous
study sessions to review background information, data,reports, citizen and staff recommendations,
and exhibits during the development and drafting of the Comprehensive Plan. 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. .
2.10 Efforts were made to collect and disseminate information to the public explaining the Growth
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
informafion on comprehensive planning efforts. The Grant Gounry Skyline, a periodic newsletter
presentin�various growth management topics,was produced by the County and broadly distributed.
A total of six editions of the Grant County Skyline were produced; two editions were directly
distributed to all residents and.post.o£fice.box holders of t1�e Co.unty. During this broad-scale public
information process, a li�st was cornpiled�of rnore�than°1,500 citizens interested in the planning
process. This"mailing"list was used to distribute subsequent information.
2.11 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 speak
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.
2,12 Grant County, with the assistance of its citizens,business and community representatives, special
interest organizations,the incorporated cities and towns,public agencies, and service providers,has
studied and considered draft comprehensive plan goals, objectives,policies,programs, strategies,
and land use alternatives for managing and serving growth across the county through 20.18.
{
� r
+ �
Grant Caunty Planning Commission
Findings af Fact
Page 5
2.13 Grant County produced a final draft Comprehensive Plan/Draft EIS for public review dated March
�..:�, 1999. On March 29,the Draft Cornprehensive Plan/Draft EIS was released for a thirty-day public
review with the written cnrnrnent period expiriilg on May 3, 1999. Grant County dis�ributed
approximately 300 Draft Comprehensive Plans/DEISs to the public during the review process.The
. Draft Cornprehensive P1ansIDEIS was placed on Grant County's Internet web site, and a copy was
pxovided to each city and town af Grant County.
2.14 Interested persons were provided an ample opportunity to comment on the proposed Draft
Comprehensive Plan and on the Draft and Final Environznental Impact Statement during the public
review pracess. The County has m:et, or exceeded,the requirements for enhanoed pubizc
participatian as delineated in Board of Caunty Commissioners Resolution Grant Caunty Growth
Managemeni Act(GMA)Public Participation Prograrn and WAC 365-195-604.
2.15 The existing enhanced public participation policies within Grant County vvill ensure that the public
will have an apportunity to provide meaningful comrnents an proposed develo.px�?.ent regulatians.
. 2.16 The appeal mechanisms contained within Grant County ordinances provide sufficient due process to
allow interested parties an opporiunity to respand at a meaningful time and in a tneaningful manner.
Secfion 3—GMA and SEPA Procedural CoinpliancelEnvironmental P�-otection
3.1 Enviranmental review has been canducted an the Grant County Draft Camprehensive Plan in
; compliance with procedural and substantive requirements of Grant Caunty SEPA Ordinance No. 9S-
60-CC, RCW 43.21.C, and Chapter 197-11 WAC.Notice of SEPA scoping,preliminary threshold
determination,public cot��ment periads,public informational meetings and public hearings,were
distributed,pasted,and published in accordance with the requiremei�ts af Grant County Ordinance
2tiTo. 95-6Q-CC,WAC 197-1 l,and the Grant County Grnwth Management Act(GMA) Public
Participatian Frogram.The Grant County Planning Commission GMA Comprehensive Plan and
� . SEPA record(attached)details public natification,actions.
Grant County issued a Determination of Significance and non-project environmental irnpact
statement(EIS)scoping notice on Septernber 17, 1998.The Grant County Flann,ing Commission
held a public scoping meeting on October 21, 1998, and issued a final Detern}:�n�ation af Significance
,
and final Iis�of issues to be addressed in the non-praject EIS on October 23, ,�'�9'.8..
., ;,.j A Draft non-project EIS(DEIS}analyzing impaats associated with the Preferred Alternative
(adoption of the Comprehensive Plan), a Low Rural Density Alternative, and a No Action
, Alternative,was developed by Proulx Cearns Engineering,Ina.in March, 1999. The I7EIS addresses
each of the issues identified during the expanded scoping process.The public,state and local
agencies,and interested parties were provided a 3Q-day public comment period on the DEIS.
The Planning Commission received 81 comrnent letters,and a great deal of oral testimony during the
Draft Camprehensive Plan and DEIS review process.The Planning Cammission and Grant County
staff carefully reviewed and cansidered aIl of the public testirnony presented be£ore preparing these
Findings o£Fact and Final EIS (F"EIS). The FEIS includes a summary of responses to the written and
oral testimony provided. ,
The DEIS and FEIS conclude that far all of the environmental issues identified during scaping, the
Preferred Alternative is of equal or greater benefit to the environment than hath the Low Rural
Grant County Planning Commission
Findings of Fact
Page 6
. .:-.�
. . .j
� Density Alternative and the No Action Alternative. Adoption of the Preferred Alternative will result
in few unavoidable adverse impacts. ,
3.2 Plarming Cornmission hearing and workshop notices ware mailed to a list of more than 200
individuals and agencies, faxed to area radio stations and newspapers,published in the Columbia
Basin Herald, Grant County rournal, Royal Review, Coulee City News-Standard, Grand Coulee
Star,Tri-City Herald, Quincy Post Register, and Wenatchee World newspapers, and were posted in
all public libraries and post offices in the County. The details of these public notice efforts are
included within the attached record.
3.3 Grant County issued a Notice of Legislative Action indicating its intent to adopt the Draft
Comprehensive Plan/DEIS,providing ample time for the public and state and local agencies to
comment on the draft Plan and SEPA documents.
3.4 The Planning Commissiom conducted the following meetings,hearings, and workshops during its
review of the Draft Comprehensive Plan/DEIS:
Date Meetzng Type Meeting Purpose
10/07/98 Regular Meeting Discussed schedule for SEPA and Comp
Plan review
10/21/98 SEPA Scoping Hearing/ Received public comment on scope of EIS
Public Workshop Discussed land use element and UGAs
10/28/98 Public Workshop Discussed land use element and rural lands
10/29/98 Public Workshop Discussed land use and resource lands
11/OS/98 Public Workshop Discussed land use element
11/30/98 Public Meeting Reviewed preliminary draft Comp Plan and
heard public comment
12/O1/98 Public Meeting Reviewed preliminary draft Comp Plan and
heard public comment
12/03/98 Public Meeting Reviewed preliminary draft Comp Plan and
heard public comment
12/09/98 Public Meeting Reviewed preliminary draft Comp Plan and
' heard'public comment
3/12/99 Warkshop Reviewed draft Comp Plan with staff
4/07/99 Regular Meeting/Public Hearing Received public testimony on Ephrata
UGA,deliberated on UGA, and passed
motion to adopt revised UGA
4/14/99 Public Hearing Received public testimony on Draft Comp
Plan/DEIS
4/21/99 Contrnued Public Hearing Received public testimony on Draft Comp
Plan/DEIS
4/28/99 Continued Public Hearing Received public testimony on Draft Comp
Plan/DEIS
5/12/99 Continued Public Hearing Deliberated on Draft Comp Plan/DEIS,
Reviewed public testimony
5/19/99 Continued Public Hearing Deliberated on Draft Comp Plan/DEIS,
Reviewed public testimony
5/26/99 Continued Public Hearing/ Reviewed water supply issues with state
� . Workshop with State Agencies agencies,Deliberated on Draft Comp
�
� Grant County Planning Cammissian
Findings of Fact
Page 7
Plari/DEIS,Reviewed public testimony
. 6/16l99 Continued Public II���i�ag Deliber�ted on Draft Comp Plai�/DEIS,
R�viewed public testimony and draft
rindings of Fact
6/23/99 Continued Public�����i� Deliberated on Draft Comp P1anIDEIS,
R.eviewed public testimony and draft
Findings nf Fact
' 7/07I99 Regular Meetin�/Ct�tiriued Deliberated on Draft Comp PlanlpEIS,
Public.Hearing Reviewed public testimony, �indings af
�act and FEIS. .
3.5 The Grant County Planning Camznissi�►��ompiled the follawing public recard during its review af
� the Draft Comprehensive PlantDEIS;
.. ,r
� � ' 1} I7raft Comprehensive Plan(Draft�n�r�nmental Impact Statement,March.L��9,.
_;�}.�:,
,:,;,=,; 2) Notice of Legislative Action and���c Hearing Notice for Planning Comrr�is;sion hearings
:�� ' scheduled for April 14, 21 and 28��''9��and May 12, 1999. ��
'�. :� 3) Affidavit of Posting Public Hearin��atice in Grant County libraries,Post Offices, and County
� offices.
; 4) Af�davit of znailing Notice af Le.�as���ve Action and Public Hearing Notice to agencies and
� interested parties.
; 5) Copy af faxing Public�Iearing No�ice to radio statians.
6) Affidavit of publicatian of the Pub�ic�[earing Notice in the Columbxa Basin Herald, Grant
County 3aurnal,Rayal Review,C�City News-Standard, Grand Coulee Star,Tri-City
, Herald,Quincy Post Register,ani����atchee Warld newspapers.
7) Af�davit af pub�icatian of the Co��:d Public Hearing Notice in the Calumbia Basin Herald,
. • ! Grant Caunty Journal,Royal Revi��r,�oulee Ci�ty Ne�vs-Standard,Grand Coulee Star,Tri-Gity
' j Herald,Quiney Post Register,and�a:�a.tchee World newspapers.
, 8) Sign in sheet,minutes and transcii��t��publio testimony of public hearing on April 14, 1999 to
' receive public tes.timony on the�'�omprehensive Plan/DEIS.
9) Maps 4 throuph 17 shawing Urban�rrowth Areas�far Coulee City, Electric City, Ephrata,
George,Grand Coulee,Hartline;�`�,Mattawa,Moses Lake,Quincy,Royal City, Soap
i Lake/Unincarporated Lakeview P�c,Warden,and Witson Creek,present�ci,,at.the public
� hearin�on April I4, 1999.
� 10)Revised Map 3,Future Land Use��p,presented at the public hearing on April 14, 1999.
:.`� 11) Sigr�in sheet,minutes and�ranscra��f public testimony af continued public hearing on April .
, 2I, 1999 to receive pubiie testim���an the Draft Camprehensive Plan/DEIS. ,
12} Sign in sheet,rninutes and transci�ata�f pubiic testimony af continued public hearing on April
� 28, 1999 to receive public testim�y:c�n the Draft Ct�mprehensive Plan/DEIS,
13} Sign in sheet and mi�utes af aonf��public hearing on May 12, 1999 to deliberate an the
I?raft Comprehensive Plan/DEI�.
14} Sign in sheet and minutes of conf�u�d public hearing on May 12, 1999 to deliberate on the
Draft Gornprehenszve Plan/UEIS.
15) Sign in sheet and minutes of cari`�n�aed public hearing on May 19, 1999 to deliberate an the
Draft Comprehenszve P1anlDEI�.
16) Sign in sheet and minutes of con��.d public hearing on May 26, 1999 to deliberate on the
Draft Cornprehensive PlanIDEI�.
17) Sign in sheet and minutes of can3ar��d public hearing on June 16, 1999 ta deliberate an tha
Draf�Comprehensive Plan/DEI�.
� i
Grant County Planning Commission
Findings of Fact
Page 8
� 18) Sign in sheet and minutes of continued public hearing on June 23, 1999 to deliberate on the
Draft Comprehensive Plan/DEIS. ,
19) The Planning Commission Draft Comprehensive Plan/DEIS record Items No. 1 through 81,
listed in Attachment A.
3.6 In 1995 the Washington State Legislature passed and the Gov�rnor signed into law an amendment to
the Growth Management Act(RCW 36.70A.480)requiring that Shoreline Master Program(SMP)
goals and policies be integrated into a local government's comprehensive plan. Under current law,
any changes to the county's SMP must comply with the procedures of RCW 90.58. Because Grant
County's current Shoreline Master Program as not been significantly altered since 1977, its goals,
policies and shoreline designations are not consistent with RCW 90.58 or this Comprehensive Plan.
Therefore, the Draft Comprehensive Plan contains a variety of new policies intended to be included
in the next update of the Grant County Shoreline Master Program. When the County begins the
process of rewriting the Shoreline Master Program,these new policies will serve as the foundation
for rnodifying the subst�ntive provisions of the Slioreline Master Program. Any inconsistencies
resulting frorn revising,�he SMP will be addressed in future ainendments to this Comprehensive Plan
pursuant to the requirements of RCW 36.70A.
3.7 Grant County is in substantial compliance with the mandates of RCW 36. 70A,060 through the
ongoing implementation of Grant County Ordinance No. 93-49-CC, Resource Lands and Critical
Areas.However,Ordinance No, 93-49-CC needs to be rewritten to comply with Chapter 286,
Section 5,Washington Laws, 1998.Among other things, the new provisions mandate specific
notification requirements when development activity occurs within five hundred feet of resource
� lands(rather than three hundred feet).
3.8 The environment protections that are referred to in this Draft Comprehensive Plan and the regulatory
framework that has been put in place by Grant County Ordinance No. 93-49-CC,Resource Lands
and Critical Areas,will produce ecological benefits.
3.9 Although this Draft Comprehensive Plan assumes that more development will occur in the future,
the rate of growth should not have a significant effect on groundwater quality or quantity, since the
vast majority of growth is in the UGAs and R.AIDs.
' 3.10 Grant County Ordinance No. 93-49-CC,Resource Lands and Critical Areas,provides a framework
for protecting wetlands which is based on recommendations from the Departrnent of Ecology.
3.11 Grant County does not have the financial resources to delineate all of its wetlands in the foreseeable
future.
3.12 The Grant County Ordinance No. 93-49-CC,Resource Lands and Critical Areas and existing
hydraulic project approval (HPA)requirements ensure sufficient protection of tfie fisheries riparian
habitat.
5ection 4—Population Projection and Allocation
4.1 According to the Washington State Office of Financial Management, Grant County's 1990
population was 54,798.Between 1980-1990 the county population increased by about 13%. Since
1990,population has grown to 69,400,a growth of nearly 27%. This decade of population growth
, placed Grant County among the fastest growing counties in the State of Washington.
Grant County Planning Comrnission
' Findings af Fact
.;
f' Page 9
I
�. � 4,2 The Office of Financial Management farecasted 20-year medium-series (most Iikely ta occur) and
:�.,. � high-series population projections for Grant County are 91,624 and 104,391,respectively. Based on
the County's recent high growth rate,patantial population undercount of migrant and seasonal
'���� �� workers,recent settling of rnigrant farm warkers, increase in foad proeessing activity, and increased
, focus of ecanarnic development zn rural areas,the high series befiter reflects anticipated population
growth.Use of the high-sexies OFM projectian would add nearly 35,004 persans ta the coanty by the
' year ZOI$, an increase of 54°l0 over the 1998 population of 69,404.Grant County is projected to
grow at a 2.1 percent average annual rate over the twenty-year planning period.This rate reflects
best available science as documented by the Office of Financial Management(OFM} forecasting
divisian and refleots the high growth projection for Grant Caunty.
Section 5—Land Use
, 5.1 The Draft Comprehensive Plan designates the majority of the land(approximately 67%)within
Grant County as resauree land. The urban areas of the County constitute about.2.5 percent of the
. i v�Fk:i � "
, land area of Grant County. The vast majority of the balance of land within Gt�'��it,County is classified
,j - .r."eY!.l�i9i... .
.. .:.-...d'..,.�
as rural.
5.2 'There-is sufficient develapable land within Grant County to accomznodate the growth that is
� expected within the tcventy-year planning period.
S.3 The impiementation ofthis Draft Comprehensive Plan will encourage develapment in urban areas by
lirniting small lat subdivisions in.rural areas.
5.4 By restrictzng the expansion of sewer and public water utilities to urban growth areas,unnecessary
spravvl will be reduced.
5.5 The implementation o£this Draft Comprehensive Plan will reduce the inappropriate conversian af
, undeveloped land into sprawling Iow-density developrnent by setting aside a large proportion of the
� �ounty for agricultural activities az�d by Iimiting snnall lot subd�.visions in rural areas.
. , 5.6 The�3raft Comprehensive Plan inadequately recagnizes the impartance af preserving historical and
cultural xesources in Grant Caunty. In fact,GMA Gaa1. 13 regarding historic.�reservation was
; inadvertently omitted fiom the Plan.A.sectian should be added to Chapter�;;.��eluding goals and _
policies,artiaulating the County's vision for haw culiural and historical resaiirces shauld be
� preserved,protected and enjoyed.
� 5.7 Land use regulations need to be implemented ta effectuate this Draft Comprehensive Plan. Such
regularions should ensure(1)that the land base for the long-term cultivation of natural resaurce
industries is not significantly degraded, and(2)that land use conflicts are minimized by balancing
environmental and develapmental priarities.
5.8 Given the di£ferences that exist among various comxnunities in Grant County,the developtnent
regulations that effectuate this Draft Comprehensive Flan need to be tailared ta the specific needs af
particular localifies.
5.9 Development regulations that pertain to rural lands that likely could cause signi�cant adverse effects
an the surrounding area shauld be reviewed thraugh a conditional use pracess and SEPA analysis.
, I i
Grant County Planning Commission
Findings of Fact
Page 10
5.10 As a general proposition,nonconforming uses that pose a threat to health, safety, and welfare should
be phased out or amartized over time. ,
5.11 It may be possible that an individual's property receives a Comprehensive Plan land use designation
, based on a technical mapping error or by inadvertent application of designation criteria to the subject
property. To address inadvertent mapping errors in the first year of connprehensive plan review, a
property owner may present the County with information indicating that its property did not meet the
land use designation criteria and was therefore designated in error.The County shall review this
information as part of its first annual review of the comprehensive plan. The property owner shall
not be required to pay fees otherwise required for a Comprehensive Plan amendment, if the sole
reason for the request is to correct an error in applying the designation criteria.This Comprehensive
Plan land use designation review process is not intended to change any of the land use designation
criteria adopted as part of the Comprehensive Plan,including,but not limited to those criteria that
allow inclusion of some parcels that may not individually meet a land use designation criteria if they
are contained within a larger area of.par.cels that da meet the designation criteria. The procedures
and timelines for processing the.amendments will follow those�as prescribed in the Comprehensive
Plan, except as stated above.
5.12 The public record compiled by the Planning Commission indicates that an "open space program"
designed to protect critical areas,wildlife corridors,resource lands, and recreational areas should be
incorporated into the Comprehensive Plan.The Planning Commission concurs, and recommends
adding the text of Attachment C to page 5-16 of the Comprehensive Plan.
� Section 6—Urban Growth Areas
6.1 The Urban Growth Areas (iJGAs)designated in the Draft Comprehensive Plan were established
based on a joint planning process that included consultation between representatives of each city and
town and Grant County. City/town UGA proposals were submitted to the County for review,
analysis, and public cornment. Revisions were made to the proposed UGA boundaries after further
consultation with the cities and towns. Some UGA boundaries were revised to remove designated
natural resource lands that were characterized as having long-term commercial significance for the
production of food or other agricultural products. Some UGA boundaries were revised to add or
subtract vacant residenti�ial_land:.so as to;provi�de adequate.amounts to accommodate the projected
population growth allocated to each city ox�town. Some UGA boundaries were revised to rernove
areas not characterized by urban growth and not needed to accommodate projected growth. Some
UGA boundaries were revised to include areas characterized by urban growth patterns.
6.2 In some cases,comprehensive plans governing both incorporated cities and the unincorporated urban
growth area around the city have been prepared,reviewed and adopted by the cities.'The joint
planning process reasonably conformed to the County-wide Planning Policies and the GMA.
6.3 The Urban Growth Areas designated in the Draft Comprehensive Plan that are in the unincorporated
portion of the County are contiguous to a city, and are sized appropriately to recognize the cities'
population projections and planned infrastructure itnprovements.All land included within the
unincorporated portion of a UGA is either characterized by urban growth or adjacent to lands
characterized by urban growth in compliance with RCW 36.70A.110. Together,the UGAs of Grant
County are suf�cient to permit the 20-year urban growth projected by OFM pursuant to RCW
36.70A.110. Adequate public facilities and services either exist in the unincorporated portion of the
UGA or are planned to be provided as growth occurs. '
� ,
Grant Caunty Planning Commission
, Findings of Fact
Page l l
6.4 'The UGAs were sized based on population allacation and a rnethodology that was provided in
�.,:� written form ta each af the cities for review and�ornment. A meetin�was held upon notification in
writing of each of the cities. Only representatives o'f Ivioses Lake and Ephrata attended.Written
;;.:f cornments were received only from the City of fiplYrata.The n�ethadalogy was applied consistently
i to each UGA,reflected historical and anticipated pa��lation growth, and used a eonventional Iand
; capacity analysis model to size UGAs. Gross vacant land use inventory data pravided by each city
� was used in the analysis. However,not a11 vacan�;bui��iable land planned far residential use in a
UGA witl be available for development during#he��}-year planning periad. Apprapriate factars
were included ta accaunt far reductian in gross arsa of land due to unsuitable land,raads and rights- �
. of-way,critical or physieally limited land, and`l�nd��etied for public facilities.A reasonable market
, safety factor of 2S°l�was used to ensure agains.t over�yrestricting land supply.
6.5 The UGAs: are reasonably consistent with the a7?�acation of growth projected;provide adequate �
lands for oornmercial and industrxal purposes;prnv�i�e adequate lands far open space and '
" recreational needs;recognize the need to ensure tha"t�n adequate mix of affordable housing remain
available; recognize exi5ting patterns of land uses a�d lot s.izes;_and recognize a��as that have
adequate existing public facilities and service capabilities to serve such develcipinent.
6.6 The UGAs promote infilling within corporate lixnits and the unincorporated portions. In doing so,
� UGAs promote appropriately higher densities ft�r#h�more ef�cient provision af urban-level services
and utilities.
�k 6.7 The UGAs strike a reasanable ba3ance between.
I .
; protecting the environment,
• preserving rural areas,
• acoommodating projeated growth,
• reco�;nizing existing patterns of development,
. ' • promoting efficient service areas for public ut�l��ies and services,
, • recognizing natural boundaries,
; • accornmodating the desires and policies of tT�e cities and tawns, and
• accotnmodating the desires of the residents of t�e affected areas.
� .,����;.
, 6.8 The urban residential Iand use designations.speca�ed.for the unincarporated a;���s af the Urban
. '+, Growth Areas resu�t in an average density of fot�r d�vetling uz�its per aare,in accardance with the
.; policies of the Draft Comprehensive Plan.
6.4 In some cases,the UGAs shown on the Future'L�nd Use Map included in the Draft Camprehensive
Plan were rnodi�ed to better reflect data provided by the cities fallawing issuance of the Draft Plan
. for publio review. To aid review of the UGAs,=iarg�r scale, full size maps of each UGA was
prepared reflecting desired modificatians and imdacaring land use designations within the UGA.
Maps 4 through 17 showing revised Urban Groukth,Areas fox Coulee City, Electric City, Ephrata,
George,Grand Coulee,Hartline,Krupp,Matta�uv��oses Lake,Quiney,Royal City, Soap
Lake/LTnincorporated Lakeview Park,Warden,�nd�ilson Creek,were presented at the publia
hearin�on April.l4, 1999. Map 3,Future Land U�lvlap,was also revxser3 to reflect the ehanged
, UGAs and presented at the public hearing on April�4, 1999.The revised UGA and Future Land Use
Maps(attached hereto as Attachment B}should be i€�corporated inta the Comprehensive Plan.
b.14 The public record compiled by the Planning Comn�ission indzcates that the vast majority af residents .
who live within the Lakeview Park area da nat�vartt Lakeview Park to be annexed by or included in
�
Grant County Planning Commission
Findings of Fact
Page 12
S
the UGA of the City of Soap Lake. The Lakeview Park area is an established,historic community
that has public facilities and services capable of serving new development, including public water
supply from the Lakeview Water Association and Fire District No. 7. Hence, it would be premature
to incorporate the urban portion of Lakeview Park as part of the Soap Lake UGA.
A UGA for the unincorporated area of Lakeview Park should be designated. The boundaries of the
unincorporated Urban Growth Area of Lakeview Park should recognize the existing pattern of
intense development in the Lakeview Park area and provide for future population growth. Attached
as Attachment D is a UGA analysis substantiating the Lakeview Park UGA and revising Soap Lake
UGA. Included in Attachment B is a UGA map indicating the boundary and land use designations
for the Lakeview Park UGA. The Draft Comprehensive Plan should include provisions for
preparation of a comprehensive plan for Lakeview Park as resources allow. The County's plan
'I amendment process should address the issue of whether Lakeview Park should maintain its separate
; status as an unincorporated UGA, or be incorporated into the Soap Lake UGA.
6.11 The public record comp''iled by the Planning Coinmission indicates that many residents who live
within the Cascade Valley area do not want to be annexed by or included in the UGA of the City of
Moses Lake. The Cascade Valley area is characterized by a mix of urban and rural land uses, and has
experienced significant land subdivision and residential development at urban and suburban
densities in recent years. Past development patterns have resulted in a significant number of urban-
level residential developments in the unincorporated area known as Cascade Valley. The urban land
use analysis prepared by the City of Moses Lake and confirmed by County staff(included in the
Technical Appendices of the Draft Comprehensive Plan) clearly indicate that the available land
within Cascade Valley for residential development is needed to accommodate population and
• employrnent growth projected for Moses Lake.Public water and sewer services are generally not
. available in the area, and future service will likely be provided by the City of Moses Lake. In order
to ensure that this area will eventually be served cost-effectively by urban-level public services and
facilities,the Cascade Valley should be included in the Moses Lake UGA.
6.12 The land use designations shown for the unincorporated portion-of the Moses Lake UGA are based
on review of existing zoning and actual land use, and represent best available data. The public record
compiled by the Planning Commission indicates that the City of Moses Lake does not support the
land use designations shown.The.City:subrnitted�.proposed re.wisions to the land use designations,to
which written responses have been inade-in'the FEIS: The land use designations shown on the
amended UGA map,included as Attachment B,reasonably reflect current zoning and existing land
use, and should be adopted. �
6.13 The most important functions of commercial and industrial lands in Grant County are to provide
local employment opportunities and to provide goods and services,especially those that are
agricultural resource-based,to Grant County and points beyond. Premature land parcelization, and
development of uses which are potentially incompatible with or preclude later industrial
development, are detrimental to long-term economic growth.Designation of Industrial Reserve areas
adjacent to designated Urban Growth Areas would beneficially limit incompatible land uses in order
to preserve opportunities for the future siting of larger industrial uses or concentration of uses.
In designating Industrial Reserves, consideration should be given to the following:
• The efficiency with which the proposed Industrial Reserve and be provided with urban services,
especially water and sewer service, in the future;
. � n
Grant County Planning Commission
Findings of Fact
� Page 13
• The impact on the regional transpartation system; �
� • Tlxe protection of designated agricultural resource lands; '
: • The poten�ial of the Iand to support higher wage employment opportunities in an
environmentaily sensitive rnanner;
The intended emphasis of the Industrial Reserve designation is for resaurce-based, light industrial
and related uses, although environmentally-sensitive heavy industrial uses znay be cansidered in �
� " select circumstances.All incompatible uses,especially rural residential, shauld be precluded.
Expansians of Urban Grawth Areas to include designated Industrial Reserves rnay be initiated by -
cities or Grant County. Grant County should review suah propasals for amendment of a UGA in °
accordance with the requirements of Chapter 2—Plan Development of the Cornprehensive PXan. �•
' Grant County should support expansions of UGAs designated to include Industrial Reserve lands if—
� the following circumstances exist to ensure that industrial development as intemc��d can occur: �
,„,,t. .
1. Infrastructure including,but nat lirnited to,roads,publio water, and public sewer are available to
� serve the Industrial Reserve prnposed for inclusion in the UGA, or will be made availa6le
concurrent to development of the area;
2. The Induslrial Reserve designation is replaced with a mare specific industrial land use
desigz�ation and zoning cantaining requirements and standards;
� 3. Interlooal agreement(s)are adapted by Grant County and affected jurisdiction(s)that,at a
minimurn provide guidance to;
a. administration of the industrial zoning applied ta the area praposed for inclusion in the UGA;
b. levels of service expected to be provided by each affected jurisdiction;
c. review of development proposals; _
� d. determznatioz�of water and sewer extensinn policies; and ,'"''��``���
. r.;v,,.
• e. equitable znitigatian af fiscal impacts resutting frotn the transition af land fram oounty to city
' jurisdiction. �
Grant County should cooperate with cities and the Grant County Economic Development Cauncil in
. marketing designated Industrial Reserve areas to praspective users.
All land division within an Industrial Reserve prior to inclusion in a UGA shall be subject to a land
� division review process adopted as unified developinent regulations impiemented following adoption
of the Comprehensive Plan.Land d'zvisions shall be subject to a minimum lat size of 40 acres.
The Draft Comprehensive Plan recognizes the industxial property east of Road M (east of the City of
Moses Lake}as a"Provisional UGA'°on the Mases Lake UGA map. As part af its camprehensive
planning e�farts, Grant Caunty prepared an inventory of industrial lands thraughaut the County,as
pravided in Part IV-Technical Appendices af the Draft Comprehensive Plan.The znventory shows
; .
� �
Grant County Plan�ing Commission
Findings of Fact
Page 14
. � that this area is zoned predominantly light and heavy industrial, and characterized by rural industrial
activities, which are predominantly agricultural resource-based. ,
This inventory was used to prepare the industrial lands analysis for the Moses Lake UGA. The
analysis concurred with results of the "Port of Moses Lake, Grant County IUGA Industrial Land
Analysis, October 1997,"which suggests that a substantial long-term deficit exists in available
indusfially-zoned land in the vicinity of Moses Lake.There are excellent prospects for continued
high rates of industrial growth in the area, especially for food processing and other resource-based
industry.
The City of Moses Lake currently provides water and sewer services for these industries. While
infrastructura deficiencies pose a potential threat to continued industrial development, the City of
Moses Lake is currently planning for improvements to their water supply and wastewater treatment
capabilities(Ref.Utility Systems Capacities, Capabilities,Provision of Service and Improvement
Financing, Addendum.,to Moses Lake Urbam.Gr.owth Area Proposal, City of Moses Lake,December
' 9, 1998). A proposed industrial wastewater tre�tment facility°at the Port of Moses Lake will also
positively impact treatment capacities and enhance industrial development opportunities.
The area was indicated as a"provisional"area of the Moses Lake UGA in recognition of its current
rural,resource-based industrial use as well as its potential suitability for future inclusion in the
Moses Lake UGA.However,the potential annexation of these lands into the City of Moses Lake and
resulting loss of tax revenue poses a significant financial hardship to the County. In particular, the
County Road Fund is heavily re,�iant on tax revenues from this area. Loss of that revenue stream will
� result in unmet needs for road improvements and/or deterioration of level of service throughout
Grant County. Consideration of the�scal impacts of annexation of this area must include both the
cost of maintenance of County roads tributary to the area and heavily used by the natural resource-
based industries located there as well as the investment in infrastructure made by the City of Moses
Lake to provide water and sewer service to those industries.
That portion of the Wheeler Corridor area indicated as a"Provisional UGA"on the Moses Lake
UGA Map should be reserved for resource-based industrial development. All incompatible uses,
especially rural residential, should be precluded. The Comprehensive Plan should be revised to
incorporate the provisi.ons abo�e.for desi.gnation.df an°Industrial Reserve. That portion of the
Wheeler Corridor area previously designated as a"Provisional UGA" should be instead designated
as an Industrial Reserve. Grant County should support expansion of the Moses Lake UGA to include
all or portions of the Industrial Reserve area,provided that the circumstances cited above occur.
6.14 Due to an oversight,the Krupp UGA incorrectly indicated the corporate limits.The Krupp UGA
map should be modified to correctly delineate corporate limits as shown in the map included in the
public record and as recorded by the Grant County Auditor.
6.15 The public record compiled by the Planning Commission includes the Grand Coulee UGA as
adopted by the City of Grand Coulee. The adopted UGA includes minor changes to the UGA
boundary and land use designations from that presented at the public hearing on April 14, 1999. The
changes indicated in the UGA adopted by the City are consistent with the land use analysis included
in the Draft Comprehensive Plan. 'The Grand Coulee UGA should be modified to incorporate the
boundary and land use designations adopted by the City.
i
I , �,
. Grant Caunty Plaz�ning Camrnission
Findings tsf Fact
Page 15
6.16 Due to an oversight,the Mattawa UGA incorrect��.��c���1'the carporate limits. The Mattawa UGA
map should be modi�ed to correctly delineate cor�t'te,��mit�a�,siaown in the map included in the
public record and as recorded by the Grant Count�.�,�ar.'T�ee`,��blic record compiled by the
Planning Commission indicates that the resident��'i`�.���r�d Boulder Lane oppase being
included in the Mattawa UfxA as shown on the.n���a;,gr�n�ai at t�e pubtic hearing on April I�,
I999. The Town af Mattawa requests that the onl�a�a��r�y��g west of Highway 243 and North of
, Raad 24 to be included in the UGA is that parc�l.�a�3�?�t���Port af Mattawa and the property
containing the municipal wastewater treat7ilent f; " :��u�ting reduction in residential land in
the UGA is reasanably consistent with the land u.���s�ci�uded in the Draft Comprehensive
Plan.
6.17 Because no land use inventory data was availabl;e����Ci#�,na UGA land use analysis was
included in the Draft Cornprehensive Plan.Follo: "'_ ����caf'the Draft Plan for public review,
additional meetings were conducted between r �a8�r��'�oyal City and the County, land use
�.':':.-� assumptions were agreed upon, and an analysis vw$s�r�.'i'he analysis is summarized as
follows: �
`�,��:.:�3 �°"':;.
� a. The amount af residentiai land included wit�aaz��e��,�1.st�ould be Iiznited to 200 gross acres.
� b. The average density of residential Iands sho����dv���ang�tnits per acre ar greater.
c. The proposed designation of "Agricultur�t F,���ti�" shauld be deleted. Such housing
opportunities are more apprapriateiy pravide��'�b��rural land use designatians contained in
the Camprehensive Plan.
� d. T`he amount of land praposed to be designate��s'��za��serve" should be earefully reviewed.
� : The amount proposed appears ta be excessiv��.�e�tir�ate the projactad growth of the City.
:�.�.� e. The lands to the east af the corporate lirnits ' �tu t�e Royal City Golf Course should be
�� ! . removed from the UGA.
i
: . .i £ The City may wish to designate additional���r,th vf�ighway 26 and south of exis�ing
corporate limits as "Comrnercial." ,�,_�,.
. b n.,.
� g. If the industria3 lands to the south and east of.#��►ar�ancluded withzn ttie�'CJGA,the City and
����.; . County should ,�aintly negotiate an interl�.�., e�t regarding annexatian of thase lands.
Among other things,the annexation agr�ern�.����d:����de provisions for sharing of revenues
generated from property taxes of resource-b �����es within the area.
. The publia record campiled by the Planniz�g ����� includes a revised UGA boundary _
proposed by the City. The proposed UGA b�� adequately reflects the UGA analysis ,
' sumrnarized above and attached hereto as Atta����x��pt for the industrial Iands to the south
and east ofthe Gity. Said industrial lands shauli��d��;,�aated as"Industrial Reserve,°' as flefined in
Paragraph 6.13, above, outside of the UGA, as �n�he�evised UGA Map. Attachment E and
the xevised UG.A map shauld ba incorporated in�ssa�tai�r�p�ehensive Plan.
. Section 7—��I.snds
7,1 It is the intent af the Planning Camznissian tc�ha��he���rea of the county reflect the existing
r �
Grant County Planning Commission
Findings of Fact
Page 16
� . historic character in the County,provide a variety of densities and locales, and enhance the rural
lifestyle in the County, Toward that end, the Draft Comprehensive Plan provided a variety of rural
land use designations having varying residential densities, including:
• Rural Residential with potential densities as high as 1 dwelling unit(DU)per 5 acres;
• Rural Remote with potential densities as high as 1 DU per 10 acres;
• Rural Transition with potential densities as high as 1 DU per 5 acres; and
• Agricultural Transition with potential densities as high as 1 DU per 20 acres.
Further toward that end, the Draft Comprehensive Plan designated Rural Areas of More Intense
Development(RAIDs), including Rural Communities,Rural Village, 5horeline Development,
Recreational Development,and Agricultural Service Centers to reflect and promote the variety of
historical development patterns found in the County.The residential densities specified in the
Comprehensive Plan adequately reflect historical development patterns. The RAIDs that are
identi�ed on the Draft C.omprehensi�e Plan Futur.e Land Use.Map are based on a logical outer
boundary analysis. The relevant boundaries on the Future Land Use Map were drawn to reflect the '
current extent and type of development within traditional community centers within unincorporated
Grant County. The RAIDs that are included within this Draft Comprehensive Plan are lirnited to the
existing unincorporated residential and commercial centers, and therefore should not adversely affect
the rural character of the land.
7.2 The public record compiled by the Planning Commission includes several comments regarding the
amount of land designated for residential development in rural areas in comparison to the projected
. population growth for rural lands. The Comprehensive Plan projects that a total of 371 new dwelling
� . units will be required during the 20-year planning period, and designates land for residential
development with capacity to provide 16,127 dwelling units. A total of 31.6,796 acres are designated
for rural residential development,which represents about 17%of the total area of the County.
� The land designated for rural residential development exceeds that projected to be required by a
factor of more than 40 times.However, it must be recognized.that availability of potable water is
anticipated to signi�cantly diminish the amount of designated residential land that can be devel�oped.
It is not possible to quantify the effect of water availability on rural residential developrrient at this
time.Once water availabi.lity is better.quanti�ed.and.groundwater withdrawal regulations are
clarified, a better understanding of the impact can be gained.
The Court of Appeals, Div. 2,recently decided a case interpreting the provisions of the GMA related
to the use of population projections for sizing UGAs and rural residential designations. In Clark
Countv Natural Resource Council v. Clark Countv Citizens United Inc.,No. 22164-1-II,overturned
a previous Growth Management Hearings Board(GMHB)decision. The GMI-IB had ruled that
population projections and allocations are not solely for use in urban areas, and that the population
projections for tuban areas plus the population projections for nun-urban(rural) areas must total the
population projection for the entire county.The Court of Appeals confirmed that the GMA requires
counties to use population projections when designating UGAs, citing RCW 36.70A.110. In regards
to land rural lands outside of UGAs,however,the Court found that nothing in the GMA provides
that a county must use population projections as a cap or ceiling when planning for rural growth.
This decision affirmed the Clark County Superior Court's decision that the GMHB does not have the
authority to order a county to use population projections as a"fixed cap" on non-urban growth or to
justify extremely large rural densities as a way of controlling rural growth.
� t
Grant Caunty Planning Cammission
Findings of�act
Page 17
To balance projected grnwth with land designated fnr rural developrnent, one of two things must
happen: (1) either rural residential densities would have to be drastically increas�d(to approximately
, 1 dwelling unit per 8S0 acres), or(2) the arnount af land designated for rural residential deve�oprnent
drastically decreased. Either approach would create serious hardship on the private properiy rights of
. � citizens.
. ' instead,it is ths intention of the Grant County Planning Ccrmmission ta promote a variety af rural
; residential densities and braad choice of location for rura�residential develapment, while ensuring;
:, � (1}that our rural areas do nat became further charaoterized by urbari growth,(2}that natural
. resource lands are preserved and protected, and{3) that development in rural areas is consistent with
rurai character.
�'�����i The protection of natural resource lands of long-term commercial significance is a very high priority
for Grant County. Limiting the supply of rural residential lots may increase the conversion of
resource lands to residential use. The Planning Camrnission finds that providing;,an excess of Iand
for rural residential development would help protect resource lands. '""�
„�,,.,_
Notwithstanding the above,the Planning Comrnission finds that the imbalance between rural
residential dwelling units needed during the plannin�period and those potentially provided by the
Iand use designations specified in the Draft Comprehensive Plan can be decreased thraugh
thoughtful revisions ta the�uture Lartd Use Map.The Planning C�rmmission reaammends the
follawing revisions ta the Future Land Use Map and land use designatians:
l. Along Columbia River—R.ural Residential to Rural Remote:
.::�.; The public record eompiled by the Planning Cornmission includes cornments questioning the
� �� appropriateness af the designatian af the area alang the Columbia River as"Rural Residential"
.,,�:� due to their remateness,lack of existing development,importance as a patential cultural
resource, and aesthetic value.'The Planning Coznmission concurs and recomrnends redesignation
of much of this area to"Rural Remote." � �
� 2. West of Moses Lake—Rural Remota to Rural Residential 1:
� - Based on the proximity to Lake Mases and potential for rural residential,d,�velapment,the
. �; following land shauld be z-edesignated from"Rural Remate"to"Rura.l Resiclential 1":
.��.�;�#
• Sectians 16,21,28, 33 anfl 34,Township 24 I�Tarth,Range 27 East;and
• Sections 3,4, 14 and the east one-half of Section 9,Township 19 North,Range 27 East.
� 3. 1°Jorth of Highway 17 between Ephrata and Moses Lake—Rural Residential to Rural Remote:
� $ased on lack of existing development and limited development potential,the following Iand
� should be redesignated from"Rural Residential"to"Rural Remote":
p Sectians 10,the sauth one-half of Section 3,the north one-k►a�f of Section 4, and the
southeast one-quarter of Sectian 4,Tawnship 20 North,Range 27 East; and
• Sections l5, 16,2I, 22,27, 28, 33, and 34,Tawnship 21 North,Range 27 East.
4. Sauth af Highway 17 between Ephrata and Mnses Lake—Rural Residential to Rural Remote:
Grant County Planning Commission
Findings of Fact
Page 18
' Based on lack of existing development and limited development potential, the following land
should be redesignated from"Rural Residential"to."Rural Remote,":
• ' Section 6, Township 20 North, Range 27 East; and
• Sections l, 2, and the north one-half of Section 11,Township 20 North,Range 26 East.
5. South of Ancient Lakes-Rural Residential to Rural Remote:
Based or�lack of existing development, limited development potential, and proximity to cultural
and historic area,the land immediately south of the Ancient Lakes Open Space area should be
redesignated from"Rural Residential"to "Rural Remote".
6. South Slope of Beezely Hills-Dryland Agriculture to Rural Residential2:
Based on the lack of availability of irrigation water,relatively poor soil conditions, presence of
existing small parcels and residential development,that portion of the following land that lies
north of Imgation Block 73 of the Columbia Basin Project should be redesignated from"Rural
Residential" to "Rural Residential2":
. • Sections 25, 26, 35 and 36,Township 21 North, Range 23 East;
• Sections 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 and 36,Township 21 North, Range 24
East; and
• Sections 25, 26,27, 28,29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 and 36, Township 21 North,Range 25
East.
7. Existing Vacant Parcels Zoned R-1,R-2, S-1 and S-2 and outside of boundaries of UGAs and
RAIDs-to Rural Residential2:
Based on the limited impacts to resource lands of long-term commercial significance and the
environment and based on the Planning Commission's desire to adequately consider the property
rights and investments of individuals in land currently zoned as R-1, R-2, S-2 and S-2, such
lands shall be designated as "Rural Residential2."
The revisions cited abdve are retlected�on the revised Future Land Use Map, included as Attachment
B.
The Planning Commission recommends that the land use designations in the Draft Plan be ravised as
follows:
1. "Rural Residential" shall be renamed to"Rural Residential 1";
2. Add a designation of"Rural Residential 2"with a similar definition as that of"Rural Residential
1,"but having potential densities as high as 1 dwelling unit(DU)per 2YZ acres;
3. Due to the high cost of providing County services to remote areas,revise the allowable,
maximum residential density in lands designated as "Rural Remote"to 1 dwelling unit per 20
' acres;
4. "Rural Transitional" shall be renamed"Urban Reserve";
5. Add a designation of"Indusfial Reserve"with no allowance for residential development.
i � �
� i Grant County Planning Commission
� Findings of Fact
Page 19
Based on those revisions described above, as indicated on the revised Future Land Use Map, a total
of 240,872 acres are designated for rural residential development, which represents about 13% of the
��.� ' total area of the County. The rural land designated for residential development provides capacity of
: � about 7,472 new dwelling units during the 20-year planning period.
i
� �. 1 The rural land use goals and policies will protect the existing rural character of the land in Grant
' County. Urban sprawl will be minimized. Retention of resource lands and natural resource based
economic activities will be encouraged. Outdoor recreation and other activities requiring open space
will be promoted. Fish and wildlife and other sensitive habitats will not be adversely impacted by the
� additional rural development that is contemplated by this Draft Comprehensive Plan..
7.3 Allowing newly-created lots to be "clustered" will provide needed flexibility in rural areas, and will
�� ' enhance housing affordability.Nevertheless,the average size of newly created lots in rural areas
'��� ' must meet the density limitations that have been set for the particular area in question. The record
does not contain sufficient information to justify density credits or bonuses at this time. The County ,
�.._�;M. ;
� may wish to consider a clustering program for residential development in Desi�iiated Agricultural
Lands.Policy RU-2.4 should be revised as follows:
�:.w,:;
�� � 1 "RU-2.4: The County may develop and consider a clustering program for residential development
�� in Rural Lands using density incentives, transfer of development rights, planned unit developments,
and long platting procedures.The County may include consideration of the following:
• Appropriate buffer widths from property boundaries, existing and potential resouxce uses, other
residential development,rights-of-way, and other factors;
�. ; • Design to preserve environmentally sensitive areas and to harmonize with topography and
, landscape features;
• Design to preserve in place and protect significant historic, archaeological and traditional cultural
. . . resources;
,.; • Design to maintain or enhance predominant rural character, scenic views, and open space
� corridors;
�
� • Need, feasibility and cost of public service delivery to the cluster development;
�.:.��.�
i • Maximum number of residential units to be accommodated in individual clusters; _ _„
�. �
�t
•' :. ,i
� : • Potential use of density bonuses as an incentive to encourage cluster development; and
� • Minimuzn site size."
7.4 The Draft Cornprehensive Plan recognizes the current commer�ial and industrial uses that exist in
rural areas of the County. These uses in general do not conflict with the rural character of the land,
and are limited in size and scope. In general, existing commercial and industrial zones outside UGAs
will retain commercial and industrial zoning under c�evelopment regulations implementing this Draft
Comprehensive Plan.
Grant County Planning Commission
Findings of Fact
Page 20
� . . 7.5 The Draft Comprehensive Plan does not adequately recognize the potential for economic
development associated with commercial uses associated with Interstate 90, The Planning
Commission supports the designation of areas outside of urban growth areas suitable for highway-
oriented commercial uses to serve the needs of the travelling public,require large acreage sites that
have a high degree of visibility frorn I-90, and that do not conflict with the rural character of the land
and are limited in size and scope so as not to significantly diminish commexcial agricultural
production.
Such"Freeway Commercial"areas should be limited to those I-90 interchanges outside of UGAs.
No specific sites have been designated in the Comprehensive Plan. The Planning Commission
recommends that approval criteria be developed by which potential sites could be evaluated during
future amendments of the Comprehensive Plan. Approval criteria should include,but should not be
limited to:
• The size and scale should be appropriate for the intended use and the surrounding area;
• The intended use shoiild not require the extension of urban•governmental services. If particular
urban services are necessary,conditions to ensure that urban growth will not occur in adjacent
lands.
• Off-site and on-sitE impacts to roads, other public facilities, and the natural environment shall be
mitigated at the time of development; and
• Sites shall be subject to design and development standards relating to landscaping,buffers,
setbacks, access and design review. Such standards may govern permitted uses regarding their
impacts on resource lands, drainage, critical areas,traffic generation, visual impact,noise and
� � other relevant criteria.
The County should establish a process whereby landowners may request parcels to de designated as
"Freeway Commercial."Landowner shall submit data to substantiate the designation of the proposed
site, including,but not limited to,the following:
• Traffic impact analysis and mitigation plan; . -.
• Site topographic map;
• Site access plan;
• Site drainage plan; and
• Parcel identification data.
Data submitted together with other data compiled by the County should be evaluated based on the
assessment criteria described above. Sites meeting the criteria should be considered for designation
as"Freeway Commercial"in the next Plan amendment."
7.6 Allowing home-based occupations in rural areas,via a conditional use process,that will produce
wholesale goods without a retail operation will not adversely impact the character of the rural areas.
7.7 The Draft Comprehensive Plan contains provisions for master planned resorts under RCW
36.70A.360, fully contained communities under RCW 36.70A.350, and major industrial
developments under RCW 36.70A,367. Inclusion of these GMA options recognizes that there may
be a potential for these types of development in Grant County.
7.8 No fully contained communities are designated in the Draft Comprehensive Plan.
� ,�
Grant County Planning Commission
Findings of Fact
Page 21
. 7.9 No znaster planned resorts are designated in the Draft Comprehensive P1an, However, consistent
with written comment received fram the Washington State Parks and Recreatzon Commission, Sun
Lakes State Park should be designated as a Master Planned Resort consistent with the Master Plan
' for that facility adopted by the Washington State Parks and Recreatian Commissian.
: �
� 7.10 Under RCW 3&.70A.367,Grant County is autharized ta designate twa major industrial
, develapments as master pianned locations far manufactui-ing ar industrial businesses that:
; • Requires a parcel of land so large that na suitable parcels are available within an urban growth
area; or
• Is a natural resource-based induslry requiring a location near agricultural land upon which it is
' dependent; or
! • Requires a locatian with characteristics such as proximity to transportatian facilities or related
��.,? industries such�hat there is na suitable locatian in an urban growth area: -°•��--
;���. .
,., Designation of major industrial developments will allow Grant County to enhance attraction af new
; industrial businesses by praviding a land base of suitable industrial sites in advance af specific
proposals to locate a business in Grant County.Approval criteria for major industrial develapments
; are inciuded in the L?raft Camprehensive Plan.
No major industrial developments have been designated in the Cornprehensive Plan. The Planning
Commissior�recornrnends that an advisary committee be forrned,to include representatives af the
Ports,interested cities, economic development agencies,the County,tl�e Planning Commission and
other interestad parties,to identify and evaluate potential locations and recommend two areas to be
designated. Selected major industrial developments can then be designated as a Plan amendment
prior to Deoember 31, 1999. ,
, Final approvat of inalusion of a master planned location for xna}or industrial development rs
' considered an adopted arnendment to the Comprehensive Plan. Inciusion ar exclusion af master
planned Iocations may be cansidered a�any tizne�prior to December 31, 1999, and is not subject ta
; the requirements af R�W 3b.70A.134(2}regarding annual amendments.
s ,.,,.a-s..;.
i7.11 The public recard compiled by the Planning Gommissian indicates that many residents who live
within the Greenfield Estates area outside of the Ephrata UGA oppose a land use designation of
;.�� "Rural Transition"and prefer a designation of"Rural Residen,tial."Both designatians carry the same
�. 1 residential develapment density of 1 dwelling unit per 5 acres.Whi1e the Planning Cornmission
believes that this area would benefit fram joint planning with the City of Ephrata, given its proximity
ta the UGA and the pres�nt availability of urban services such as sewer and water service, it finds
that the area is more typical of rural neighborhoods designated as Rural Residential,than areas
designated as Rural Transition.Designating the Greenfeld Estates area as Rural Residential
recognizes the current land use characteristios and rurai infrastructure of the area. 'I'�le
Comprehensive Plan land use designation for this area witl be changed ta Rural Residential.
'7.12 'The public record oornpiled by the Planning Commission indicates that the map of Sunland Estates
Shareline Develapment should be modified to include an additional area af existing development
which was considered in the land capacity analysis,but inadvertently omitted from tlae map. The
following area shauld be added:
Grant County Planning Commission
Findings of Fact
Page 22
� "That portion of the Northwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of Section 12, Township 18 North,
Range 22 East, W.M., Grant County, Washington." ,
7,13 The rural character of Grant County should be defined in accordance with the terms of the GMA.
The text of page SRU-3 regarding"Rural Character of Grant County" should be modified by
deleting the first sentence in its entirety and replacing with th�following:
"Rural character refers to the patterns of land use and development established by a county in the
rural element of its comprehensive plan:
(a) in which open space,the natural landscape, and vegetation predominate over the built
environment;
(b) that foster traditional rural lifestyles,rural-based economies, and opportunities to both live and
work in rural areas;
(c) that provide_visual landscapes:.that are traditionall.y,found in rural areas and communities;
(d) that are com,patible with the use of the land by wildlife and for fish and wildlife habitat;
(e) that reduce the inappropriate conversion of undeveloped land into sprawling,low-density
development;
(fl that generally do not require the extension of urban governmental services; and
(g) that are consistent with the protection of natural surface water flows and ground water and
surface water recharge and discharge areas.
7.14 The public record compiled by the Planning Commission indicates that the goals and policies of the
Rural Lands Sub-element may not provide adequate protection of water quality of water bodies
adjacent to areas designated as "Shoreline Development."The Planning Commission recommends
the following policy be added:
"RU-1.10: Residential development in axeas designated as Shoreline Development should be
conducted so as to protect water quality of adjacent water bodies. Development standards, including
performance requirements and mitigation measures, shauld be irnplemented to minimize impacts to
water quality from individual, on-site wastewater treatment and disposal."
' Section 8—Resource Lands
8.1 The economic health and stability of Grant County have long been dependent on the products of
agricultural resource areas. Protection of natural resource lands of long-term commercial
significance is a very high priority for Grant County.Designated resource lands (and in particular
Agricultural Land of Long-Term Commercial Significance)constitute an overwhelming percentage
(approximately 67%)of the land within Grant County.
8.2 The Comprehensive Plan includes criteria for classifying agricultural lands as dryland,rangeland or
irrigated agricultural land. Criteria are based on property use,proximity to intensive land use or
urban services, size of non-contiguous parcels, and whether it is irrigated or irrigable. Property use is
based on property tax classification under Chapter 84.34 RCW,actual land use, soil characteristics,
and adjacency to similarly classified land.Proximity to intensive land use or urban services is based
on distance from a UGA,Rural Village, or sanitary sewer line. Size is based on a minimum of 640
acres for parcels not contiguous to parcels meeting other criteria. Irrigated or irrigable land is based
on lands currently served or having the potential to be served by the Columbia Basin Project,Black
Sands Irrigation District, or currently served by private irrigation system or groundwater well.
i
I
A �
Grant County Planning Cornmission
Findings of Fact
Page 23
'The public record compiled by the Planning Commissim�a an�i�ates that some citizens believe that the
. classification c�iteria based on proxirnity to intensiv�1�d.t�se,ar urban services results, in some
cases, in on�.ission of prima agricultural land from desi�4�on�'s agricultural land af long-term
. commercial significance.The Planning Commission ca��urs a�d finds that said criteria should be
deleted.Lands lying within 1 mite of any UGA, Rur���a13�g�or a sanitary sewer line shall be
redesignated in accordance with the remaining agricul�l c3assi#"rcation criteria and ather criteria of
.i
the Draft Plan, as shawn on amended Map 3—Future L�nnd[1�e,included as Atkachment B.
The Planning Cammissian finds that the;
l. classification criteria included in the Cornprehensi�xe Pla�are based on the best,relevant
scientific data; and
2. Future Land Use Map represents application of#��se�ra#eria with reasanable accuxacy.
�:.•'� The Planning Commission recognizes that the Agricu��taual deszgnation shown�u�,the Draft
� '� Comprehensive Flan Future Land Use Map inciudes rna�e.�and than is currently being used far
•' ,i camnnercial agricuttural praductian. It is intended to pre�er��and protect those lands that may be
' used for agricultural purposes in the future shauld irri�crn�ter beeome available through greater
; allacatian or through enhancements in water-spreadu3�;�ec��alogy. The Planning Commissian
recagnizes that the patential of increased water allaca#�in t�day's environtnent is uncertain at
best.Yet,we are certain that the demand for agricultur�:pr�►ducts will continue ta increase,and the
� world will continue to value the production from Grarat:Cau�ty.Development pressure within and
. _. ; adjacent to these resource lands is not intense.The opp�a�ni�ies for rural residential developrnent
� provided under the Comprehensive Plan is more�Cha�•a�ea�u�'t�to accommodate projected growth
� during the 20-year planning period.
�
,
� T'herefore,the Planning Comrnissian recommends tl�at:�ar��s�neeting the classi�cation criteria as
represented on the Future Lar�d Use Map be designa��s agricultural resaurce lands af lang-term
commercial signzficance under RCVd 36.70A.0&0 and'��'�b.70A.170.
Notwithstanding the above, the publie reea�d .co�pa�e.ti `by the Pianning Com.mission includ�s
; several requests for revzew of specific praperiies�belie�d to be incorrectly designated as an
� Agricultural Land af Long-Term Commercial Sign��ce�the Comprehensive Plan. The Planning
Carnmission recomrnends that staff evaluate those�eqaae�prior to the public hearing conducted by
� � the Grant County Board of Commissioners regariiing�dopt�mn of the Comprehensive Plan and rnake
appropriate revisions to designations,if any. -
....�
8.3 Mineral Lands of Long-Term Con�tnercial Signif c�ce have been classified as those lands covered
� under a valid DNR surface mining perrnit, except t�r I�ca#�d within a UGA ox a RAID,These
, ' lands are not depicted on the Fufure Land Use Map at���ime.Ttie Planning Commissian�nds tbat
the designation is reasonable.However,there may�a�c�i��nal areas that have not yet been .
identi�ied or permitted by the DNR and which have n�tbe�designated as having Iong-term
commercial significance.The Planning Commissianzae�+�zn�ends that: (1}the Caunty develop a
Minerai Lands iVlap and Database to,identify any ai��'4ic�na�mineral resources of the County, (2) that
a Minerat Resource Task Farce be convened to ide���+�evaluate potential mineral sites, (3) t�iat
a pracess be develaped whereby landowners may nc�r�ai�ate and the Caunty evaluate parcels for
designation,and(4)that amendments be made to tl�e!�r�xr�.prehensive T'lan as apprapriate.
Grant County Planning Commission
Findings of Fact
Page 24
�`� '��
�
� Policies RE-7.2 and RE-7.3 should be modified to reflect the above findings, as follows;
"RE-7,2:This Plan initially recognizes those sites holding valid surface mining permits from the
Washington State Department of Natural Resources as Designated Mineral Lands. Additional sites
may be designated in future amendments to this Plan based on a county-wide inventory.
Action: The County should develop an "Mineral Lands Map and Database" to gather relevant
information on agricultural lands into one location and format. The map should show the locations of
all Designated Mineral Lands and relate to a database of DNR permits and the Grant County
Assessor database.
RE-7.3: Designate sufficient mineral lands to ensure a fifty year supply of aggregates, sands,
gravels and rock based on appropriate criteria,including:
• Quality of the resource;
• Volume of resource;�-
• Topographic characteristics of the site;
• Compatibility with land use patterns in the area; and
• Proximity to urban and rural development and markets
Action: The County should establish a Mineral Resource Task Force comprised of citizens, mining
industry representatives, Wanapum Band, state agency, Grant County PUD, city and County
representatives to develop inventories of commercially viable sites. Evaluate mineral resource
inventories to determine adequacy for short-and long-term needs.
Action: The County should establish a process wliereby landowners may request parcels to de
designated as Mineral Lands of Long-term Commercial Significance. Landowner shall submit data
to substantiate the commercial signi�cance of the proposed site, including,but not limited to, the
following:
• Geological report detailing quantity and quality of resource;
• Site topographic map;
• Parcel ideritification data.
Data submitted together with other data compiled by the County should.be evaluated based on the
assessment criteria contained in this Plan. Sites should be further evaluated for compliance with
Goal RE-10 of this Plan. Sites meeting the criteria should be considered for designation as Mineral
Lands of Long-term Commercial Significance in the next plan amendment."
The public record compiled by the Planning Commission includes several requests for consideration
of specific properties for designation as a Mineral Land of Long-Term Commercial Significance in
the initial adoption of the Comprehensive Plan. The Planning Commission recommends that staff
evaluate those requests prior to the public hearing conducted by the Grant County Board of
Commissioners regarding adoption of the Comprehensive Plan and make appropriate revisions to
designations, if any.
8.4 Grant County Ordinance No. 93-49-CC, Resource Lands and Critical Areas, and the corresponding
language in this Draft Comprehenszve Plan,will foster a regulatory structure that wi11 maintain and
enhance natural resource-based industries,including productive agricultural and mining indusiries.
�
1
, �
Grant County Planning Commission
i Findings of Fact
Page 25
. ��
: Continued implementation of Ordinance Na. 93-49-CC will encoura�;e the conservation of
productive resource lands and discourage incompatible uses. The assessment criteria included in the
' Cornprehensive Plan should be used to evaluate resource lands when required under Ordinanee Na.
�'�.' ' 93-49-CC.
8.5 The goals and palicies of the Resource Lands Element of the Camprehensive Plan pravide for
reasanable, limited use af agricultural and mineral resource lands for residential development that
� are compatible with the long-term production of agricultural and mineral products, The density
, restrictions and protective measures for Designated Agricultural and Mineral Lands of Long-Terrn
Commercial Signi�cance ensure that the integrity of resource lands will nat be campromised and
that natural resaurce based econornic activities will not be unreasonably burdened.
8,6 Allowing newly-created lots to be "clustered" in designated resource Iands may minimize the �
amount af productive agricultural land used for residential purposes.Nevertheless,the average size
of newly created lots in resource areas must meet the density Iiznitations that have been set far the
� particular area in question.The record does not contain sufficient informatian°ro':�justify density ,
credits or banuses at this time. The County may wish to�consider a clustering pi�t�'gram for residential
development in Designated Agricultural Lands. Poliey RE-5.2 should be revised as follows:
' "RE_S 2: The County may develop and consider a clustering prograrn for residential development
; in Designated Agricultural Lands. The County may include consideration of the following:
* Appropriate buffer widths frorn property boundaries, existing and potential resource uses, other
, residential develapment,rights-of-way,and other factors;
�
` . ; • Design to preserve enviranmentally sensitive areas and to harmonize with topagraphy and
' landscape t'�atures;
• Design to preserve in place and protect significant histaric, archaeological and traditianal cultural
� resources; � --
• • I7esign to maintain or enhance predaminant rciral character, scenic vi�ws, and apen space
� carridars; "
• Need,feasibility and cost of public servica delivery to the cluster developrri�rit;
i
. -, ,
• Maximum nuznber af residential units to be accamrnodated in individual clusters;
;::�
• Potential use of density banuses as an incentive to encourage cluster development; and
� • Minimum site size."
8.7 Based an the rural land use designation revision on the sauth slope af Beezely Hills as noted abave
in paragraph 7,2,revise the classification criteria far Ixrigated Agricultural Land as follows:
1. In Criteria 3. b), delete the referenee to Block 731. �
8.8 Ths public recard compiled by Che Planning Cornznission indicates that some citizens an.d state
agencies believe that the broad inclusion of mineral extraction in the land use designation definition
�
Grant County Planning Commission
Pindings of Fact
,..:.
Page 26
for"Rural Remote"requires further clarification and consideration of the potential impacts to the
environment. The Planning Commission recommends that mineral extr,action activities comply with
the requirements of the County's Resource Lands and Critical Areas Ordinance.
Section 9—Economic Development ,
9.1 The implementation of this Draft Comprehensive Plan will foster economic development by
maintaining viable agricultural and other industries.
Section 10—Housing
10.1 To comply with the GMA goal of encouraging the availability of affordable housing to all economic
segments, County staff conducted a detailed study of current and projected housing needs and
supply. The study included projections of housing needs for the UGAs as well as rural lands. Staff
considered detailed demographic.data,.including.p.op.ulation,b,y�age.and gender,household size,
special needs groups,income and employment levels, occupancy by owners and renters, existing and
projected housing types,vacancy rates,housing costs, amount of vacant land, and the relationship of
housing to other Plan elements in determining the existing and projected need for housing at all
economic levels. T'he housing analysis shows a projected need of 11,121 houses throughout the
County and land ar�ailable to accommodate more than 33,000 housing units. Land use designations
included in the Draft Comprehensive Plan provide adequate quantities of land to meet housing needs
beyond the 20-year planning period.
10.2 The study also evaluated the affordability of housing based on an affordability index. The index
. compares an area's znedian family income against the income needed to qualify for a mortgage on a
median priced existing home, after a 20 percent down payment. The analysis indicates that, with
some exceptions, Grant County housing is well within the affordability range for buyers.
10.3 Special housing needs, including elderly care facilities, low income housing, and farmworker
housing,were also evaluated. The lack of suitable,affordable housing for farmworkers was
identi�ed as a significant housing need. The Draft Comprehensive Plan includes goals and policies
intended to address this need over the 20-year planning period.
10.4 The Draft Comprehensive Plan recognizes the importance of maintaining affordable housing and
encourages a full range of housing options within the urban areas.
10.5 The public record compiled by the Planning Commission indicates that Policy H-3.1 may not
comply with the Fair Housing Act and the GMA,which requires that group care facilities housing
persons with disabilities be treated similarly to other residential family homes. The Planning
Commission recommends that Policy H-3.1 be revised as follows:
"Encourage residential care facilities and other group homes serving special needs populations."
Section 11 —Transportation
11.1 The Quad County Regional Transportation Planning Organization(RTPO),which includes Grant
County and several of the cities within Grant County as members, is a regional transportation
planning organization constituted under RCW 47.80. In June 1994, the Quad County RTPO adopted
� S
Grant County Planning Cammission
Findings of Fact
Page 27
� the QuadCo Regional Transpartation Plan.The transportation e�ement af the Draft Comprehensive
� Plan is cansistent with the QuadCo Regianal Transpartatian Plan.
{ ,
� 11.�The�raf�c forecasts contained in the transportation element ofthis L7raft Comprehensive Plan were
� developed by adapting the QuadCo traffic analysis zone model tts conditions speci�c ta Grant
� ; County. The madel was evaluated using land use,pc�pulation,and ernplayment data for Grant
� County based an prajections contained in the Draft Carnprehensive Plan.
11.3 The traffic rnodeling indicates that the levels.c�f service,traffic farecasts, land use assumptions, and
other data upon which the Draft Connprehensive Plan is based are reasonable and cansistent with the �
GMA.
�i
�;:..:�j 11.4 The state highway and County road system within Grant Counfiy will remain the primary means of
;.. � transportation due to the rural ch�racter of the County and the dispersed nature of the population.
` ; Even with the population growth anticipated witiun the next twenty years and reliance on single- �
::; occupancy vehicles,the highway system is capable af handling the projected`ine�ease in vehicular
:,.�� traffic. All segments af State Rautes and majar Caunty raads are projected tti"�a��'°l�into the Level of
�.�.. ,{ Service Category A,i.e.,primarily free-flt�wing lraf�c operations at average travel speeds.
�
11.5 The txansportation elernent expressly encourages transportatian rneans other than single-occupancy
vehicles, such as public transit,bicycles,aarpaols,vanpools,and walking.
11.6 Aviation is of great significance in Grant County.Many of the airports lie within an Uxban Growth
Area;many lie within corporate limits.Potential land use conflicts between residential development
and airport runway approach and departure protection zones should be minimized. The eities and
Grant Gounty should incozporate review and approval procedures, development standards, and
notification requiretnents for residential devalopment into their respective land development
' i ordinances.
_
�' 11.7 The transpartatian improvements included in the transpartation element of the Draft Carrtprehensive
Plan are realistic given probable saurces of fut�din�.The transportation element includes a finance
plan far�rapased improvements,and includes a pravision to maintain a"working reserv�" in th�
' Caunty Raad Fund for emergencies ar unanticipated safety upgrades.
,:-����.,
� 11.8 The transportation element also includes funding shortfall pravisions.If the County is faced with
�ransportation funding shorkfalls,any combinatian of the following strategies will be used to balance
� revenues and public facility needs:
� : • Increase revenues thraugh use of bonds, new or increased user fees or rates, new or increased
taxes,regional cost sharing, or voluntary developer�unds.
• Decrease level of service standards if cansistent with Growth Management Act Gaals.
• Repriaritize prc�jects to focus on thase related to cancurrency.
• Dearease the cost of the facility by changing praject scope,or finding]ess expansive alternatives.
� Decrease the dernand for the public service. This could involve instituting measures ta stow or
direct population growtlx or deveIopment, for example, developing only in areas served by
facilities with available capacity until funding is available for other areas, or by changing project
.�,
�
Grant County Planning Commission
Findings of Fact
Page 28
. � timing.and phasing. .
• Revise the comprehensive plan's land use and rural areas element to change types or intensities of
land use as needed to match the amount of transportarion facilities that can be provided.
11.9 Policy T-3.4 represents an inequitable sharing of the cost of service to an annexed area. Policy T-
3.4 should be modified to read as follows:
"Upon annexation of an unincorporated area within Urban Growth Area boundaries,the County
and City should consider the fiscal impacts of providing service, including the value of
investments in infrastructure made."
11.10 The fiscal impact of transportation maintenance services can be significant, especially in remote
rural areas. The GMA requires that the costs of transportation associated with new developments
be within the County's,;funding capacity. Residents.who choose to reside in remote areas of the
County should anticipate that available transportation funding may not allow full road
maintenance services at all times. The following policy should be added:
"Policy T-7.6: The County may wish to consider the fiscal impacts of road maintenance
services, especially snow removal and sanding,through the adoption of service routes prioritized
using land use density as a consideration."
Section 12—Capital Facilities
12.1 The Draft Comprehensive Plan will provide the necessary public facilities and services to support
Grant County's expected level of growth while maintaining reasonable levels of service.
12.2 The proposed improvements contained in the capital facilities plan included in the capital facilities
element of the Draft Comprehensive Plan are realistic given probable sources of funding.
12.3 The capital facilities element also includes funding shortfall provisions. To ensure that resources are
available to provide the needed facilities,the capital facilities plan will be reviewed on an annual
basis by the County. If the County is faced with.funding shortfalls various strategies to meet funding
needs may be used. These include,but are not limited to,prioritizing projects focusing on
concurrency, increasing revenues through use of bonds or user fees, decreasing facility costs by
changing the project scope,or revising the comprehensive plan's land use element or adopted levels
of service.
12.4 The year in which a project is carried out,or the exact amounts of expenditures by year for
individual capital facility.improvements may vary from that stated in the capital improvement plan
due to:
• unanticipated revenues or revenues that become available to the County with conditions about
when they may be used; or
' • new development that occurs in an earlier or later year than had been anticipated.
Specific debt financing proposals may vary from that shown in the comprehensive plan due to
changes in interest rates, other terms of financing, or other conditions which make the proposals in
the plan not advantageous financially. -
. � ,
Grant County Planning Cammissian
Findings of Fact
Page 29
12.5 The increased development activity in the incorporated cities and Rural Areas of More Intense :
Develaprnent(RAIDs) should improve respanse times for erner�ency respanders.
12.6 The level af projected develapment in the Caunty is not lar�e enough to justify the imposition of
: irnpact fees at fhis time.No public entities have indicated that they cannot adec�uately respand to the
anticipated growth.
� 12.7 To the extent permissible by law, specral purpose districts praviding public services ar facilities
should conduct at least a basic level af capital facilities planning consistent with the Draft
Camprehensive Plan.
Section 13—Utilities
13.1 With the exception of solid waste transfer and disposal,the County does not own or operate any
utilities.The Draft Comprehensive Plan will provide the necessary solid waste facilities and services
y.�;-
- to support Grant County's expected level of growtl�while maintaining reasonat�l��'nlevels of service.
,>�,,,._
:��.��� 13.2 Both municipal solid waste disposal facilities located in the County face future level of service
. . deficiencies unless the disposal facilzties are expanded ar alternate disposal management techniques
are developed.
13.3 If this Draft Cornprehensive Plan is implemented,more growth will be directed ta the incorporated
ci�es and Rural Areas af More Intense Develapment(ItAIDs); this concentration of development
will make the extension of community sewer and water systems thraughout the UGAs and RAIDs
more feasible economieally.
� Section 14—Essential Public Facilities
.�.�;
14.1 The public record cornpiled by the Planning Commission indicates that a juvenile facility Iocated in
� , Ephrata,Washing�on should be designated as an"essential publir� faci�ity."The Planning
� Commission recommends that the Sunrise Group Home be designated as a Type III Essential
. ' Facility.
� 14.2 On page 11-1,there is a misstaternent of the requirements af the GMA regardiiig essential public
facilities.The Plazining Cammission recammends that the last"bullet"be revised to read:
.. .;
• May not preclude siting essential public facilities in their jurisdiction.
�. Sectian 15—Natural Setting
� � 15.1 The public record compiled by the Planning Connmission indicates that same ci�izens and state
agencies believe that the policies included in the Natural Setting Element of the Comprehensive Plan
da not provide definitive direction ar certainty to landawn.ers, developers,and state agencies
involved in such issues,The public record indicates that statements using the term"should" should
be revised to use the term"shall"or"will'°.The Planrting Cammission cancurs and recammends that
the goals and policies of Chapter 13—Natural S�tting Element be amended to reflect such.
15.2 The GMA gaal of"historic preservation"was inadvertently amitted from the Draft Comprehensive
Plan.The I�lanning Cammission reoommends that this GMA goal be added at the appropriate
' Grant County Planning Commission
; Findings of Fact
' Page 30
� . � locations in Chapter 1—Introduction and Chapter 4—Policy Plan. To comply with this goal, the Plan
' should include additional text, goals and policies, as included in Attacklment F. In addition,revisions
should be made to goals and policies contained in the Plan to consider cultural, historical and
archaeological issues, as defined in the FEIS.
� 15.3 T'he public record compiled by the Planning Commission indicates that some citizens and state
agencies believe that the policies regarding wetlands included in the Natural Setting Element of the
I Comprehensive Plan are unclear. The Planning Commission recommends revisions to Goal NS-1
and its policies as presented in Attachment G.
15.4 The public record compiled by the Planning Commission indicates that some citizens and state
agencies believe that the text regarding wetlands included in the Natural Setting Element of the
Comprehensive Plan incorrectly identified as "exempt" from Grant County Resource Lands and
i Critical Areas Ordinance No. 93-49-CC those wetlands created after 1952 as a result of the
� Columbia Basin Project.Wetlands sh.ould.b.e defined.as stated in the GMA, and should exclude only
those arti�cial wetlands intentionally created from non-wetland.sites. The Planning Commission
recommends that the first full paragraph of page 13-12 of the Comprehensive Plan be revised to
, read:
"In Grant County, the term "wetlands" pertains to both naturally and artificially created wetlands
except those wetlands intentionally created from nonwetland sites, including, but not limited to,
irrigation and drainage ditches, grass-lined swales, canals, detention facilities, wastewater treatment
, facilities, farm ponds, and landscape amenrties, or those wetlands created after July l, 1990, that
were unintentionally created as a result of the construction of a road, street, or highway. In
accordance with the above and—the requirements of the Resource Lands and Critical Areas
Development Ordinance, the following activities are exempt:
• Operation,maintenance, and construction of Columbia Basin Project-related facilities by the U.S.
Bureau of Reclamation as they pertain to the unintentional creation of wetland sites,namely those
unintentional wetlands created after 1952 as a result of the Columbia Basin Irrigation Project;
• Ongoing and existing farming and ranching activities such as grazing, plowing, seeding,
cultivating, harvesti�g,for the production ot'food,or upland.soil and water conservation practices;
, • Maintenance of farm or stock ponds, irrigation ditches, draina e ditches and farm roads in
g �
accordance with best management practices to assure that wetlands and/or their buffers are not
adversely impacted;
• Maintenance, repair, operation or minor improvement of existing public streets, highways, or
roads within the righ�of-way; and
� • Maintenance,repair, or operation of existing public utilities and noxious weed control."
, The Planning Commission recommends that the second full paragraph of page 13-12 beginning
"Because the vast majority..."be deleted in its entirety.
15.5 The public record compiled by the Planning Commission indicates that some citizens and state
agencies believe that the goals and policies of the Natural Setting Element do not provide adequate
i �
, ,
� Grant Gounty Planning Commission
c
Findin�s of Fact
Page 31
protection of fish and wildlife habitat. The Planning Comrnission recommends that the policies of
Goa14 be revised as follows:
,
`����� "NS-4.3: One hundred year floodplains should be protected by lacating roads and structures abqve
� the one hundred year level. Where filling is allowed,development shall be required ta mitigate far
� existing flaod stora�;e capacity and�sh and wildlife habitat lost to filling.
i
NS-4.7: The County may cansider adaption of a drainage ardinance that directs land develapment
� . activities to make pravisians for cantrol of surface water discharge impacts to human health and
' safety and habitat.",
. - The Planning Commission also recammends that Goa15 be revised as fallows:
"Goal NS-6: Fish and wildlife habitat areas should be protected as an irnportant natural resource,
particularly in regard to theix functions and economic, aesthetic and quality of..life values."
� 15.6 The u i e . .
p bI c r cord compiled by the Planning Coznmisszon mdicates that som.e ci�izens and state
�,��. � agencies believe that the dangers of wildfire hazards should be addressed in the Camprehensive
� Plan.The Planning Cammission recommends that additional text, goals and policies be included in
Chapter i3 Natural Setting Element as stated in Attachment H.
�:�
:�
. �
}
�
!
,
f ,�s�.,i,.,,
? _,._k..,.,
i
'." {
': .�
�:•�
. >
Attachu�ent A
Grant County Draft Comprehensive Plan/Draft EIS
List of Public Record
No. Item Subject Date Submitted By Representing
1 Tesrimony and exhibits Moses Lake UGA 4l21/99 Joe Gavinski City of Moses Lake
2 Letter and e�ibits Property inclusion in Moses Lake UGA 4/OS/99 James Moilanen Zaser&Langston,Inc.
3 Letter Rural Transirion designation 4/20/99 Sandra Allen John and Sandra Allen
4 Letter Rural Transirion designation 4/21/99 Walter Hoch Walter Hoch,et al
5 Letter Rural Transition designation 4/21/99 June Strickler 3une Strickler,et al
6 Memo . Comprehensive Plan 4/21/99 � HaI Hart DCTED
7 Letter and e�ibits Moses Lake UGA 4/28/99 Joe Gavinski City of Moses La1ce
8 Letter and e�ibits Comprehensive Plan 4/28/99 Gilbert Alvarado City of Moses Lake
9 Letter and e�ibits Comprehensive Plan/Royal City UGA 4(28/99 Gilberk Alvarado City of Royal City
10 Letter and exhibits Comprehensive Plan/George UGA 4/28/99 Gilbert Alvarado City of Cgeorge
11 Letter and exhibits Ephrata UGA 4/26/99 Jim Cherf City of Ephrata
12 Letter and exhibits Properly designarion 4/28/99 W.J.Dobler Same
13 Letter Rural and Resource Lands 4/28/99 Joe Maughn Maughn Ranch
14 Letter and exhibits Ephrata UGA 4/28/99 Gayle Iiargmann Bert&Gayle Bargmami
15 Letter and eJchibits Lakeview Park/Soap Lake UGA 4/28/99 Harley Faber H_Faber/Gerald James
16 Memo and e�chibits Comprehensive Plan 4/28/99 Hal Hart DCTED
17 Letter and exhibits Inclusion in Sunland Estates RAID 4/08199 Eddie E.Smith Same
18 Letter Comprehensive Plan 4/14/99 Jim Weitzel Coldwell Banker
19 Letter Comprehensive Plan 4/15/99 Jim Weitzel Same
20 Letter and exhibit Minimum lot sizes - 4/21i99 Jian Weitzei Same
21 Letter Comprehensive Pian � 4/28/99 Jim Weitzel Coldwell Banker
22 Letter Comprehensive Plan 5/02/99 Jim Weitzel Coldwell Banker
23 Letter Property designation 5/O1/99 W.J.&Carol Dobler Same
24 Letter Cascade Va11eyJMoses Lake UGA 5/O1/99 W.J.&Carol Dobler Same
25 Lettea Lakeview Park/Soap Lake UGA 5101/99 W.J.&Carol Dobler Same
26 Letter and e�ibit Grand Coulee UGA 4/16/99 Chris Branch City of Grand Coulee
27 Letter Moses Lake NGA DNS 4/19/99 William D.Gray US Dept of the Interior
28 Letter Lakeview Park/Soap Lake UGA 4/19/99 Dolly Aslakson Sa�e
29 Letter Lakeview Park/Soap Lake UGA 4/21/99 Raymond E.Frost Same
30 Letter Lakeview�Park/Soap Lake UGA 4/30/99 James D.Ellis Same
31 Letter Lakeview Park/Soap Lake UGA 4/29/99 Lora Fronsman Same
32 Petition Lakeview Park/Soap Lake UGA 4/19/99 287 Petitioners Same
33 Letter and e�ibit Transportation Element 4/21/99 Fredrick M.Suter WSDOT
34 Letter Comprehensive Plan 5/12/99 Hal Hart DCTED
Attachment A
i,ist af Public Record
No. Item 3`ubj¢ct l'11ate Submitted By IZepresentrng
35 Letter Transportati�n Element 5/Q3/49 Gzlbert Alvarado City of Moses Lake
3b E-maid Comprehensive Plan 4/22l99 Phil Andezson Plaza Enterprises
37 E-mail Qd�.incy UGA 4/28/99 Phil.Anderson Plaza Enterprises
� 38 E-mail Quincy UGA 4/21/99 Phit Anderson Plaza En.terprises
39 Mema and e�ubit . Kxupp UGA 4/22/99 Jina Friend,Mayor Tawn of I�rupp
40 Let�er Cultural and historic preservation 4/23I99 Gregory Griffith DC1'ED,OAHt'
41 �,etter Property designatfon 4/27l99 Dale W.Reiger Same
42 Letter Comprel�ensive Plan SlQ3l99 Jim Cherf City of Ephrata
43 Letter Cascade VaileylMoses Lake UGA 4/30I99 Nick Naccarata Same
44 Letter � Cascade ValleylMases Lake UGA 5/03/99 Roberta D.Quitck Same
4S Letter Cascade Valley/Mases Lake UGA ' S/Ol/99 William Anderson Same
46 Letter Cascade Va11eyJMoses Lake UGA 5/01/99 I�aren Anderson Same
47 Letter Cascade Valle�/Nloses Lake UGA 4J30/99 �avid Hendricks Same
48 Letter Cascade ValleylMoses Lake UGA 4l30/99 Uonna&Dorma Hendricks Same
49 Letter Cascade ValleylMoses Lake UGA 4l30l99 Allie Hendracks Same
SQ Letter Cascade Valley/1Ylases Lake UGA 4/29/99 Wennis&Bernice Hanold Same
51 Let�er Cascade Valley/Moses Lake UGA 4/29/99 Robert&Sara Kittreil Same
52 L,etter Cascade Val�ey/Mases Lake UGA 4I29/99 3ahn&Sherla Bristol Same
53 Letter Cascade Valley/Moses Lake UGA 4/30J99 Gzegary&Marla Huff Same
S4 Letter Cascade Va11eyJIvioses Lake UGA 4129/99 E.H.Carraway Same
55 Letter Cascade ValleylMases Lake UGA 4/29/99 Dorathy Braunwart Same
�6 Letter Cascade ValleyfMoses I.aice UGA 5/03/99 Danielle B_Boss Same
57 Letter Cascade Valley/Moses Lake UGA 5/03/99 Sharon A.Biazer Same
58 I,etter Cascade Valley/Mases Lake UGA 5/03/99 Mark I.Biazer Same
59 Letter Transportation ElementfYar}lcs L(3S 5/03/99 Gilbert Aivarada City of George �
60 Letter and e�ibits Master Planned ResortlParks&t3gen Space 5l03/99 Mark C.Schu3z Srate Parks&Recreation
61 Letter Transpartation Elemen�iParks LOS 5l42/99 Gilbert Alvazado City of Royal City
b2 Zetter G�mprehensive Plan 5/03/99 Michael Stark,Ivlayor City of Royal City
63 Zetter and e�►ibits Property designatioa� S/03/99 Jae Maughan Maughan Ranch
64 Letter Housing/Essential Public Pacilities SI03I99 Etizabefh ZVIcNagny DSHS
65 Letter Shoreline Designafiora/Rural Density SI03199 Katherine If.enison K.Kenison,et al
66 Letter Comprehensive Plan 5J03/99 3ames WhitakerlK.Kenison Lemargie and Whitaker
67 Letter Comprehensive Plan 5{Q3f99 Heidi J.Renz Department of Ecology
68 Letter Rural density 5/03l99 Richard Hunt Same
69 Letter Iuclusion in Soap Lake UGA 5/03/99 W.C.&Gerry W.Ramrn 5ame
; 74 Letter and e�ibits Comprehensive Plan 5/03/99 Vicki Johnson Sa�aze
71 I,etter Rural Lands/Nat�al Setting 4/30/99 Katherine March Dept.of Fish&Wildlife
i -
Atta���rnent A ---��
List of Public Record .
No. Item Subject Date Submitted By Idepresent�acg
72 Letter and e�chibits Property designation 5/03/99 Rick Jenkin Same .
73 Letter Property designation 5/03/99 Sage&Wade Munro Same
74 Letter and exhibit Mattawa UGA 4/28/99 W.Edward Allan Town of Mattawa
75 Letter Cultural and historic areas 4/22199 R.Buck&R.Tomanawash Wanapubn Band of Indians
76 Letter and e�ibits Comprehensive Plan 4/29/99 Dick Wedin Dept.of Natural Resources
77 Letter and exhibits Groundwater management 4/28/99 Paul Stoker Columbia Basin GWMA
78 Letter and exhibit Inclusion in Ephrata UGA 4/30/99 John W_Baird Law Office of John W.Baird
79 Letter and e�ibit Property designation 4/27/99 R.F.Bean&L_E_Gosvener Same
80 Letter Inclusion in Moses Lake UGA 4/27/99 Madelyn V_Turner Estate of George C.Turner
81 Letter Comprehensive Plan 5/03/99 Douglas M�Ancona Grant County PUD#2
, 1
+
����� � Attachment B
�� fi Amended UGA and Future Land Use Maps
,
.��..� ,
,
,
�
i
`�:�
..:,
. ;
. ;
• ;
. �
,
� t�,,.
t
� .' . Attachment C
� Open Space and Recreation
OPEN SPACE AND RECREATION
I►ztroduction
Since Wor1d War II, Americans have become increasingly active and expectant of convenient, outdoor
recreational opportunities. This trend grew in the 1960's as the environmental movement signaled a shift
in our view of man's relationship to natural systems. And the health and fitness boom of the 1980's saw
more Americans than ever recognizing the personal benefits of physical exercise. Today, federal, state,
and regional parks, trails, and playgrounds help meet the demand to "get back to nature," stay physically
fit and find relief from urban surroundings. As Grant County's population grows, the need for rnore open
space and recreational opportunities will grow proportionately.
Although Grant County owns no parks,..the County is.blessed with vast areas of open space and an
abundance of natural outdoor recreation opportunities, There are numerous state parks in the County,
including Potholes State Park, Moses Lake State Park, Sun Lalces State Park, Summer Falls State Park,
and Steamboat Rock State Park. There are also a large number of privately-owned resorts and recreational
destinations associated with the water bodies and other outdoor opportunities of the County.
�.
'The Columbia River, Beezley Hills, Potholes Reservoir, Ancient Lakes area, Crab Creek drainage area,
Grand Coulee recreational area, Wahluke Slope, Saddle Mountains, Moses Lake, Priest Rapids and
Wanapum reservoirs, Lenore Lake, Banks Lake, Lake Roosevelt, Billy Clapp Lake, trails, farmlands,
. riparian corridors, lakes, and shorelines contain the natural beauty and character of Grant County's
landscape. This setting contributes greatly to the quality of life enjoyed by county residents who value its
elements of environmental quality, scenic beauty and recreational opportunities. Open spaces are essential
cornponents to the health and well being of individuals and communities.
With its unique range of outdoor recreational opportunities, Grant County has much tq offer outdoor
recreationists. Our climate, unique geological formations, and largc holdings of public �and have made
this area an increasingly popular place in which to recreate. Here, residents and visitors alike can enjoy
many outdoor activities. Fishing and hunting, boating,. camping, hiking, biking, and simply walking are
some of the more popular types of outings.
Purpose
This Open Space and Recreation section of the Land Use Element serves two related purposes: (1) to
identify the County's unique and important natural areas, open spaces and corridors, and scenic and
natural resource lands, and (2) to clarify the broader functions and benefits of the County's open spaces.
Open space, in this instance, includes resource lands, greenbelts, wetlands, geologically hazardous areas
and other areas covered under the Grant County Resource Lands and Critical Areas Ordinance. All these
areas contribute to the County's appearance but are not parks in the traditional sense.
This saction defines which open space lands should be designated and protected now, and how it should
be done. It also establishes a framework for considering other lands for future designation and protection.
(
47
t
� Attachment C
! Page 2
I
;,:� GMA Idequireme�zts
=� ! The Growth Manageznent Act(GMA}requiras Grant County to address the fallowing related goals{RCW
; 36.70A.020}: '
� Goai (1) Urban Grawth — Enoaurage develapznent in urban areas where adequate public facilities and
' services exist ar can be provided in an efficient manner. '
Goal (2) I2educe �prawl — Reduce the inappropriate conversion of undeveloped land into sprawling,
low-density developrnent.
� Gaal �8) Na�ural Resourc� Industries — Maintain and enhanca natural resource-based industries, �
including productive timber, agricultural, and fisheries industries. Enoourage the conservation of
productive forest lands and productive agricultural Iands, and discaurage incompatible uses.
Goal (9) C3pen Space and Recreatfon — Encourage the retentian of apen space and development of
� recreational opporiunities, conserve fish and wildlife habitat, increase access to �aiural resource lands,
and discourage incampatible uses.
: Gaal (14} Enviranment—Protect the environment and enhance the state's high quality of life, including
air an�water quality, and the availability of water.
(�aal {13) Historic Preservation—Identify and encourage the preservation of lands, sites, and structures
, .. that have historical or archaenlogical significance.
Beyond these planning goals, the Growth Management Act (GMA) also requires local jurisdictions to
; designate five types of enviranmentally sensi�ive or "cri�ical" areas and adopt development regulations to
; protect them (RCW 36.70A.170(1)(d}. The GMA also requires that before approving subdivisians or
�; short plats, wri�ten findings must be rnade which show that appxapriate provisions are made for a wide
'. j range of public facilities including open spaces, parks and recreation, and playgrounds {RCW 58.17.06Q
i &58.17.110). , ..
Commt�nities planning under the GMA must alsa designate greenbelt �nd op�ra space areas within and
between each urban growth area, and identify land useful for recreatian, wildlife habitat, trails, and
cannectians of critical areas (RCW 36.74A.114(2} and RCW 36.70A.160). Comp��hensive plans are ta
� cansider the use of innovative land use managernent techniques that help retain`open space, such as
, � clustering development and the transferring of develapment rights (RCW 36.70A.090).
;�.:,} To plan for recreation and open space we rnust examine the potential for open space carridors that follow
� rivers,trails,ridge tops,unused rights-of-way such as abandoned railbeds,and other linear features. These
; places provide a visual and znental break fram the asphalt and buildings of our urban landscape. They link
� cornmunities in ways that don't require caxs and hi�;hways. t�pen space araund urban areas also brings
order by creating a distinct beginning and end ta cities. As a result, apen space indirectly limits urban
sprawl and creates a"sense of place." 4pen space policies also allow us to pratect undeveloped lands of
exceptional value and pratect wildlife and their habitat. Open space, through the Resource Lands and
Critical A.reas Chdi�ance,protects aur wetlands, sharelines, steep slapes and ather geologically hazardous
areas.
.}
..�
Attachment C
Page 3
• , Relation vf Open Space to Resource Lands and Critical Areas
The Growth Management Act requires the designation and protection of environmentally
sensitive lands (critical areas) and commercially significant resource lands (forest, agricultural
and mineral lands). Besides meeting other GMA planning goals, the protection and retention of these
lands help fulfill our open space requirements. Enforcement of the County's Resource Lands and Critical
Areas Ordinance produces open spaces through the establishment of vegetative buffers along our streams
and wetlands. Vegetative buffers support the functional properties of these natural features including
flood water storage, streambank and shoreline stabilization, erosion control and wildlife habitat.
If we are unable to sustain resource lands and critical areas, we lose their open space values as well.
Critical areas, such as flood plains and steep slopes, need to be regulated to protect public health and
safety. Inappropriate use can destroy wildlife habitat, threaten the quality of surface or ground water,
increase flood damage, or destabilize steep slopes, leading to property damage. It also removes their
chance to provide high-quality recreational opportunities that link people within and between
communities.
Resource lands also contribute to our sense of open space. Agricultural lands still make up the
predominate share of the County's open space. To help maintain their economic importance, the goals and
policies of the Resource Lands Sub-element of this Comprehensive Plan provide for designation and
protection of resource lands, while allowing for limited, reasonable residential development. By
preserving resource lands for their commercial significance, their open space functions and values are
preserved and enhanced as well.
The Cost of Open Space
Open space is not free. Except for resource lands and critical areas, open space cannot be simply
regulated into existence. Tax incentives, such as Grant County's Open Space Tax Program, encourage
landowners to keep their land in open space through tax reductions based on the current use of the land,
rather than its potential value. Other tools, such as the purchase of development rights, require a
substantial commitment of public funds. Even when open space is donated to the County, it has a public
cost. Removing the property from the tax rolls means the County loses that tax revenue source while
gaining the responsibility of supervising and maintaining the land.
Under the provisions of �he Open Space Taxation Act (RCW 84.34), Grant County will
designate as "Open Space" farms, forests, and beneficial open lands upon request by individual land
owners when such lands meet adopted criteria and policies. Properties which qualify under the county's
Open Space program are granted partial relief from properiy taxes in exchange for maintaining their land
in open space use as defined by state law and county policies. Some open space categories require that a
landowner provide public access provisions to the property while other categories do not have this
requirement. In Grant County. , the predorninate use of this tax relief inechanism is for Open Space
(Current Use)Agriculture.
Needs a�ad Opportunities
This section describes the types of recreation and open space that Grant County could participate in and
the development criteria that should be considered in the development process. In addition to the open
space functions and values created through the Resource Lands and Critical Areas Ordinance, Grant
County should consider participation in development of recreational open space and recreational trails.
Participation can take on a wide array of possibilities, ranging from providing a statement of support of
�
;
i " ,
; Attachment C
j Page�#
,.`j other agencies to County acquisition and rnanagexnent. Eac3�a�port�nity far participation in development
of recreational apen space shauld be reviewed on a case-b�c�se basis to find out if it should be part of
, the Caunty's overall system.
Recreatianal CJ►„pen Space
� Recreatianal Open 5pace means undeveloped land primar�ly �eft in its natural conditian and used for
passive recreational purposes, to create separate and seclud�ri ar�as, or as buffers between urban uses.It is
usually owned or managed by a governmental agency an��ay have limited public access. This type of
land is different from other open space categories whose pri�aa�y objective is to preserve wildlife habitat
or agricultural farmland, Typical recreation open space incl��es wetlands, steep hillsides, river corridors,
view points or linear areas primarily designed to accommor����rail systems.
Development in opan space areas is typically limited ta ace�s�points and trails. These access points may
� have parking, restrooms, picr�ic units, and siznilar facilitie�.,�pending upan management objectives for
' this type of area,public access may be lzmited ta certain-sec�ons ar paints of the site.
i
; Development Criteria: Public access and use shoulcl be �ac��raged in these area�s;: but the level will
;.S depend upon the resource values and ability to withstand���b1�c use. Tmpravementis:��hould be kept to a
' minimum with emphasis placed an the natural environmen�.:�aese areas should be desigmed and managed
�. �! ta maintain a sense of solitude and separation from nearby��munities. Before acquiring an apen space
� site,a thorpugh site analysis should be prepared to decide wl��er the County is the appropriate manager.
�
Considerations should include:
• Topographic and/or ecological diversity;
• Ability to connect to other protected areas;
• Potential for solitude and scenic views;
• Large enaugh to provide reareationai and conservation va�ue;
• Cansist of relatively natuxal condition;
; • Unique natural features;
j • Reasonably accessible;
� • Currently ar potentially threatened by development;and
� � Wildlife corridors.
� Ernphasis on acquisitian should lie on those areas xneeting�e above criteria: Lov;+'�r priority should be
; given to sites that,because of development restrictions,such�s presence of critical areas, are not likely to
� be developed anyway. Those sites that cannot hanclle a ne�sonable arnount of public use should be
� considered for land trust ar foundation protectian, or prote��ar by another agency.
.�:�
`� ; Recreational Trail Svstam
, Recreation trails and pathways are designed to provide ��'f-street routes for �valking, bicycte riding,
horseback riding and o#her non-motorized recreatian activi��s. While these trails are designed primarily
to serve recreational purposes, they znay also serve valu��t��nan-motorized lranspartatian purpases as
well. While the primary emphasis is to separate these .��es of trails and pathways frorn automobile
traf�c, occasionally they may need to be developed wit�a� street rights-of-way in order to complete a
section or route.
Development Criteria: The primary pwrpose of xecreatian trails is to provide a recreation experience.
Transportation to anather community ar other parts of the County should be a secondary objective.
Whenever possible,recreation pathways and trails should be��pt separate from streets and hi�hways.
Attachment C
' Page 5
� .�``:� Considerations should include:
, • Trails should be interesting and attractive to the user.Trails that follow natural water courses, traverse
interesting scenery or cross areas of outstanding beauty provide interesting and enjoyable experiences
for the trail user.
• Trail alignments should take into account soil conditions, steep slopes, surface drainage, and other
physicallimitations that could increase construction and/or maintenance costs.
• Trails should be planned, sized, and designed for multiple uses except for dedicated nature trails.
• • Trail design standards should be coordinated with all public agencies in the County so that trails have
common widths, signage is similar, and surfacing materials are compatible.
• Centxalized and effective staging areas should be provided for trail access. They should include
parking, trail orientation. and information, .and. provide necessary unloading features.. Primary
trailheads should have restrooms and trash receptacles. Secondary trailheads may need only a small
unpaved parking area and signage.
• Trails should be looped and interconnected to provide a variety of txail lengths and destinations. They
should link various parts of the County, schools,parks, and other destination points.
Open Space Designation
� The purpose of the Open Space land use designation is to identify and protect unique and outstanding
. , examples of publicly-owned areas pertaining to recreation, fish and wildlife habitat conservation, or
unique geologic features. This land use designation also acknowledges the ongoing responsibility of the
county, state and federal government to protect critical areas arid other valued resources on lands within
this designation. These lands are owned by a federal, state or 1oca1 governmental entity and are
maintained as closely as possible to their natural state.
Figure 5-5 Future Land Use Map and Map 3 included in Part V—Map Portfolio of this Comprehensive
Plan shows those areas designated in this Plan as Open Space. Areas designated as Open Space include
those areas designated as"Co�sexvancy Environment".in Grant County's Shoreline Master Program. Also
designated as Open Space�are those lands,owned and/or rnanaged by the Washington State Parks and
Recreation Commission.
� 1
Lalceview Park UGA Analysis
� Summary of Existing Land Use ,
:.:,�1 Although the Snap Lake UGA as proposed by the City included the Lakeview Park area, significa�t
� public opposition to its inclusion in the UGA was voiced during the public hearings conducted for the
: { County Comprehensive PIan. Based on public comment, the Grant County Flanning Commission
recommended removal of the Lalceview Park area from the UGA and designation of the area as an
- ; "Unincorparated UGA.,,
I2.esidentiai La�nd Capacity Analysis
Populatian Pro�ectian
The 1990 U.S. Census was used ta obtain populatian data for the Lakeview Park UGA. Because portians
af the area were constructed after 1990,buiiding start information and �eld inventories were also used to
supplement the Census data. Population data far both the corporate lirnits and the proposed UGA are
presented in the fallowing table. � �_,,_�,��
� UGA Average Population
,
Annual Incorporated City Limits Unincorporated UGA
; Growth � Actual Projectied Actual Projected
;
Rate 1998 201� 1998' 201�
Lakeview Park 2.0% 0 0 979 1,455
. :; From Mr.Gerald G. James,Manager,Lakeview Park Water Association,based on 334 residential water sarvice connections
� as of 3J31/98 muttiplied by 2.93 persons per hausehold,the average for unincarparated Crrant County.
a ,
;,.:; Land Use .
' ., The propased UGA is shoum in the attached map,and includes the lands shown in the following table.
�. � Unincorporated UGA
1 Land Use Category Tatal Gross Vacant Land
. � Area'(Acres). (.Acres)
: . } Residential:
, Residential Density(4hh/ac) 327 327
; Suburban Density(lhh/2 ac)2 112 56
Subtotal Residential 439 3$3
' Cammercial 86.4 23.2
Industrial 0 0
Public/Open Space 2Q7 0
'TOTA.L 732.4 409.8
5aurce:Calculated from C'rty of Lakeview Park Propased Urban Growth Soundary map,
Z Assumes SO°lo vaoant.
. ' Assurrses goif eourse open spaees oocupy appmximately 65°!0(247 acres)of the 319-acre Suburban
designation.
• Land Demand
La�:d demand is tabulated in the follawing table in accordance with the following formula.
Land Demanrl=Projected Population Growth =(Number of Persons per HousehoCd x Hausing Density)
Grant County Comprehensive Plan ,4ugust 1999
�akeview Park-1
Lakeview Park UGA Analysis...
�����:• Land Demand Factors:
�. . Number of Persons per Household= 1.95 personslhh
Average Housing Density= 3.5 hh/ac (weighted average of vacant residential and suburban land)
�
Population Growth Within Unincorporated UGA:
2018 Population Allocation = 1,455
' 1998 Actual Population = 979
Projected Population GPowth = 476
Population Deficit from Incorporated City Limits = 307
Total Population Growth to be Accommodated = 783 paople
T'herefore, Land Demand=783 people= (1.95 persons/hh x 3.5 hh/ac) = 114.7 acres
Land Supply
Land supply is summarized in the following table: .
Reduction Land Area
Factor(%) (Acres)
Total Gross Vacant Residential Land Area 383
Undevelopable Land:
Unavailable Land 15 57.5
Unsuitable Land 5 19.2
Roads/ROW 18 68.9
. . Critical Areas 10 38.3
Public Facilities 12 46.0
Total Undevelopable Land 60 229.9
Land Available For Development 153.1
Supply/Demand Analvsis-Unincomorated UGA
Land Supply should be equal to Land Demand multiplied by a Market Safety Factor of 25%. Therefore:
Land Demand in UGA = 114.7 acres x 1.25
, = 143.4 acres
Land Supply within UGA = 153.1 acres
Land supply exceeds total demand, therefore adequate area of residential land is provided in the
unincorporated portion of the UGA to accommodate the projected population growth. Land supply,
however, does not significantly exceed supply, so there is no reason to reduce the available land proposed
for inclusion in the UGA.
Commercial Land Needs
There are 86.4 acres of Commercial land within the existing corporate limits, of which approximately
23.2 acres are vacant. Based on the �gures of 63.2 acres of operating commercial land and a current
population of 979 people, a ratio of 64.6 acres per 1,000 of population is obtained. This ratio
significantly exceeds the guideline ratio of 12.4 acres of comrnercially developed land per 1,000
population (David van Horn, Urban Land, February 1989. The majority of the commerciallands serve the
needs of the travelling public along the highway. The proposed UGA includes 23.2 acres of commercial
Grant County Comprehensive Plan August 1999
Lakeview Park-2
i '
' i
Ilakeview P'ark UGA Analysis...
land,which provides additianal area for expansian. No additional cammercial lands appear to be required
within the UGA at this time.
Industrial Land Needs '
' There are no industrial Iands within the praposed UGA of Lakeview Park. No industrial lands are
praposed to be designated within the UGA.
Public Lands
No public land use is provided within the UGA,and none are proposed. ,
�ummary
The UGA boundary for Lakeview Park g�nerally appears reasonable. The land use designations shown on
the Lakeview Park UGA Map appear reasonable. For those areas designated °`Residential", an average
density af 4 households per acre may be appropz-iate. For those areas desig-�ated "Suburban", an average
density of 1 household per 2 acres may be apprapriate. "
, UGA Map
The Lakeview Park UGA Map is attached.
� � a
;
� . �„�;r' .. .
:.:,
Grant Counry Gomprehensive Plan .�ugust 1999
Lttkeview Park-3
Soap Lake UGA Analysis
Summary of Existing Land Use �
The Soap Lake Comprehensive Plan dated November 1995 (Planning Period 1996-2016) provides a land
use inventory. Land areas were taken from the Comprehensive Plan as well as calculated from the City of
Soap Lake Proposed Urban Growth Boundary Map, Alternative 7, dated January 13, 1994.
The Comprehensive Plan shows that Soap Lake has 568 acres of residentially designated land, of which
192 acres are vacant. A recent annexation, known as the Jansen Annexation, added another 32 acres of
residential land, all of which is assumed to be vacant. The Plan identified 53 acres of commercially
designated land. Another 8 acres was added through the Jansen Annexation. This is categorized by First
Commercial District (downtown core) and Second Commercial District (adds service stations/garages as
permitted uses). Vacant land within the Commercial land designations totals 13.4 acres. In addition, the
Plan shows 6 acres of industrial land of which 3.6 acres are vacant.
The land areas and vacant areas used in this analysis are tabulated as follows:
Incorporated City Limits
Land Use Category Total Gross Vacant Land
Area'(Acres) (Acres)
Residential:
Residential 1 (3.23DU/Ac) 217 107
Residential 2 (5.56 DU/Ac) 137 37
Residential 3 (4.03 DU/Ac) 182 61
Residential 4(9 DU/Ac) 64 19
Subtotal Residential 600 224
Commercial 1 30 6
Cornmercial2 31 7.4
Subtotal Commercial 61 13.4
Industrial 6 3.6
Public/Open Space 82.8 p
TOTAL 749,8 241
Source:City of Soap L,ake Comprehensive Plan,except for total and public/open space areas,
plus additional land area due to Jansen Annex(40 acres).All residential portions of Jansen
Annex assumed vacant,
Z Assumes all puUlic/open space is in use with no vacant available]and(data not provided in
Plan).
3 Land use data for residential,commereial,and industrial lands only as presented in the Soap
L,ake Comprehensive Plan totals 627 acres. Based on corporate limits as recorded by the Grant
County Assessor,total area is 709.8 acres. Recent Jansen Annexation of 40 acres brings total
to 749.8 acres:To reeoncile the two data sources,a total of 82.8 acres were assumed as
public/open space area.
According to the Comprehensive Plan, 90 acres of the vacant R1 land, located in the northwest corner of
the City, is not highly developable. It has been platted for many years, but has not developed for two
major reasons: first, the lots are undersized and in many different ownerships; second, much of the land
area is exposed bedrock, making development very expensive. To reflect this condition, the reduction
factor used in our analysis for unsuitable land in the existing corporate limits has been increased from the
typical 5% to 15% for that 90 acres.
Grant County Comprehensive Plan August 1999 �
Soap Lake-1
Soap Lal�e UGA Analysiso..
Residential Land Capaeity Analysis
Pot�ulation Pro'e�ction
. The 199$population in Saap Lake, as reported by the Washington St�te Of�ce of Financial Management,
is I,370. We project an average annual grawth rate for Soap Lake af 2.4 percent,which yields a projected
papulation af 2,036 in 2418.
Although the Saap Lake UGA as propased by the City included the Lakeview Fark area, significant
public opposition to its inclusian in the UGA was voiced during the public hearings conducted for the
Caunty Comprehensive Plan. Based on public cornment, the Grant County Planning Connmissiona�
� recommended removal of the Lakeview Park area from the UGA. Population dat� for the proposed UGA �
� � are presented in the following table,
City Average PapuIation
Aanuai Incorparated City Limits Unincorparated UGA
� � Growth Actual Projected Actual. Prajected
Rate 1998 201$ i998"""', 2p18 '
Soap Lalce 2.0°l0 1,370 2,036 0 � 0
Land Demand—Incorporated Citv Liznits
Land demand is tabulated in the follawing table in acoardance with the fallowing formula:
Land Demand=Projected Population Gr•owth :�(Number af Persons per�Iousehold x Hausing Density)
Land Demand Factors:
Number of Persons per Hausehold= 1.95 persons/hh
, Average Housing Density=4 hhlaa(weighted average of vacant residential land)
� Population Growth Within Corporate Limits:
2018 Population Allocation =2,036
1998 Actual Population = 1.370 ' � ,,.
Projected Population Growth =666 people
Therefore,Land Demand=Gbd people:-(1.95 persons/hh x 4 hh/ac)= 85,4 acres
Land Su�ply-Incoz-t�orated Citv Limits
� Land supply is summarized in the follawing table:
;�, � Reductiox� ]Gand Area
�� Factor(°!o} {Acres)
� Totai Gross Vacant Land Area 142
Undevelopable Land:
Unavailable Land 15 28.8
Unsuitable Land
90 acre area 15 13.5
102 acre balance 5 5,1
Raads/ROW 18 34.6
' Critical Areas 10 19.2 ,
Public Facilities 12 23.0
Total Undevelopable Land 124.2
Land Available Far Development • b7.$
Grant County Com�rehensive Plan tlugust 1999
Soap Lake-2
,, ,
Soap Lake UGA Analysis... �
- Supplv/Demand Analvsis- Incorporated City Limits
Land Supply should be equal to Land Demand multiplied by a Market Safety Factor of 25%. Therefore:
Land Demand = 85.4 acres x 1.25 = 106,8 acres �
Land Supply within Incoiporated Limits = 67.8 acres
Deficit = 39.0 acres
Land demand exceeds supply by 39 acres; therefore, there is insufficient available land within the
incorporated City limits to accommodate the projected population growth. Additional residential lands
should be provided within the unincorporated portion of the UGA to accommodate the projected
population growth. This conclusion is consistent with the findings of the Soap Lake Comprehensive Plan
in which it was stated that additional residentially zoned land is needed to serve the anticipated population
, growth.
Prouosed UGA
'The proposed UGA is shown,in the.attached map, and includes 30.3 gross acres of residential land. Using
a reduction factor of 60% to.account for undevelopable land, yields a net area of 12.1 acres. Therefore,
the land supply deficit is reduced by 12.1 acres to equal 26.9 acres.
Although insufficient land for residential development is provided, the Soap Lake UGA will initially be
designated by the County as shown in the attached map. The City should identify additional suitable
residential lands outside of the corporate limits to include in the UGA. Review of the City's proposed ,
UGA will be considered by the County during the next Plan amendment process.
Commercial Land Needs
The Soap Lake Comprehensive Plan shows that there are 53 acres of Commercial land within the existing
corporate limits, of which approximately 13.4 acres are vacant.With the Jansen Annexation, an additional
8 acres of non-vacant commercial land was added, for a total area of 61 acres of commercial land. Based
on the figures of 47.6 acres of operating commercial land and a current population of 1,370 people, a ratio
of 34.7 acres per 1,000 of population is obtained. This ratio significantly exceads the guideline ratio of
12.4 acres of commercially developed land per 1,000 population(David van Horn, Urban Land, February
1989. The higher value of 34.7 acres per 1,000 of population will be used for this analysis.
Extrapolating the existing aperating comm'ercial land acreage of 47.6 acres by the ratio of projected
population to current population (2,036/1,370) yields a total of 70.7 acres of commercial land required to
meet the needs far commercial land over the 20-year planning period. 'Therefore, an additional area of 9.7
acres (70.7 acres less existing 61 acres) of commercial land could be considered required over the 20-year
planning period. �
Total 2018 Cornmercial Land Needs = (47.6 acres) x (2,036 people/1,370 people) = 70.7 acres
Additional Commercial Land Needed = Total 2018 Commercial Land - 1998 Commercial Land
= 70.7 acres - 61 acres
= 9.7 acres
This analysis show an additional land area of approximately 9.7 acres are needed to meet the commercial
, land needs in the year 2018. Using the same 60% reduction factor for commercial lands as used for
residential land, a gross area of 24.3 acres would be required. Although insufficient commercial land is
provided, the Soap Lake UGA will initially be designated by tihe County to match existing corporate
limits. The City should identify additional suitable commercial lands outside of the corporate limits to
Grant County Comprehensive Plan August 1999
Soap Lake-3
� Y
Svap Lak� UGA Analysis...
� include in the UGA. Review of the City's proposed UGA will be considered by the Caunty during the
�. �
next Plan amendment process.
Industrial Land Needs i
• ' There are 6 acres af industrial land within the existing corporate limits af Soap Lake. About 3.6 acres or
60°l0 of the tatal industrial lands are vacant.Na additional industrial lands are propased within the UGA.
Public Lands
Public land use within the incorporated city lirnits is nat clear as no information is provided an public
facilities in the Comprehensive Plan. No additianal public lands are proposed within the UGA.
,
- .� Summary
�
,
::;: ;� Although insufficient residential and commercial Iands are provided, the Soap Lake UGA will initially be
designated by the County to match existing corporate Iimits. The City should identzfy additianal suitable
, residential and comrnercial lands outside of the corporate limits to include in the UGA. Review of the
City's proposed UGA will be cansidered by the Caunty during the next Plan amendment pracess.
UGA Map
The Soap Lake UGA Map is attached.
;
,
Grant Coun�y Comprehensive Plan Azigtrst 1999
Soap.�ake-4
. � ,
� � 1
1
" � ROyal City I7C�.A AllalySiS
�
: �;
. :�
Sammar� of Existing Land Use ,
The Royal City Cornprehensive Plan (Plaivaing �eriod 1996-2016) provides no land use inventory. The
Comprehensive Flan shows that Royal City has some vacant,residentially designated tand, nearly aIl of it
is owned by a smail number of residents. Apparently, these awners have c�early expressed their intent�on
of not developing'their property as residential. Therefore, our anaiysis assumes that there is no vacant, '
; developable residential Iand within the corporate limits, and that all Iand required to accammodate
projected growth within the planning periad will need to 6e provided within the unincorporated UGA.
�� 1Zesidet�tial Land Capacity Analysis
.. ;
..�� Papulatian Proiection
The 1998 population in Royal City,as reparted by the Washington State Office of Finanaial Management,
'.� is 1,5$4,We praject an average annual growth rate for Royal City of 3A percent, which yields a projected
' population of 2,854 in 2018.
,�
� The pxopased UGA for Royal City includes predominantly Iands with existing use of agriculti.ue,
' industrial, and public use with little, if any, residential population. 'I`herefore, this analysis assumed no
` existing population residing in the unincorporated portion of the UGA. Population data for both the
" ` corporate timits and the proposed UGA are presented in the following tabTe.
City Average Population
� Annual Incarporatec�City Limits Unincorporated UGA
, Growth Actual Prajected Actuai Projected
. Rate 1998 2018 1998 2018
� Royal City 3.0°l0 1,580 2,854 4 4
�
Land Demand , _
• Land demand is tabulated in accordance with the follnwing farmula:
� Land Demand=Profected Populatian Growth =(Nurnber of Fersons per Househol�i..x Housing Density)
Land Demand Factors:
� Number of Persons per Household=3,50 personslhh
Average Housing Density=4 hh/ac
. .,i
Population Growth Within Corporata Limits:
; 2018 Population Allocation =2,854
� 1998 Actual l?opulation = 1.580
, Projected Population Growth = 1,274 people
' Therefore, Land Demand= I,274 peopie=(3.54 persanslhh x 4 hhlacre}=91.0 acres
Land Su�ly Required
Land supply required to accommodate the projected growth is summarized in the following table:
Grant County
Comprehensive Plan Roytil City-1 JuTy 1999
' , 1
� Royal City UGA Analysis...
� '�' Reduction Land Area
Factor (%) (Acres)
Total Net Vacant Land Area Required , 91.0
Undevelopable Land:
Unavailable Land 15 13.7
Unsuitable Land 5 4.6
Roads/ROW 18 16.4
, Critical Areas 10 9.2
Public Facilities 12 10.9
Total Undevelopable Land 60 54.8
Land Available For Development 145.8
Supplv/Demand Analvsis—Incornorated Citv Limits
Land Supply should be equal to Land Demand multiplied by a Market Safety Factor of 25%. Therefore:
Land Demand = 145.8 acres x 1.25
= 182.3 acres
Therefore, a total of 182.3 acres should be provided outside of the corporate limits and within the UGA to
accommodate projected residential growth.
Commercial Land Needs
. The Royal City Comprehensive Plan does not quantify the number of acres of land zoned as Commercial
within the existing corporate limits. The Plan states that, as acreage of high-value agricultural crops
increase in the vicinity, new storage and processing facilities will also be needed. These businesses will
require large sites with good transportation access and other public services. The Plan anticipates that the
City and the Port of Royal Slope will share in the responsibility to develop infrastructure required to serve
this commercial and industrial development.
The proposed UGA Land Use Map included in the Plan designates very little commercial land outside the
UGA.There is a considerable amount of vacant commercial land within the corporate limits. The City
may wish to designate additional lands north of Highway 26 and south of existing corporate limits as
commercial.
Industrial Land Needs
The population of Royal City grew about 43 percent through 1998 to 1,580 persons from a base of 1,104
persons in 1990. Peak water use in the city of about 800,000 gpd is about 70 percent of capacity, or 1.4
million gpd. The sewage treatment system was upgraded in 1998 and now has capacity about triple
current peak demand, about 500,000 gpd. Grant County PUD provides electric power; there is no natural
gas service. Royal Slope Railway, a 26-mile short line, operated by Yalcima Valley Railroad, is located
between Royal City and Othello. At Othello it interconnects with Columbia Basin Railroad, with
connections to the Burlington Northern main line at Connell,Washington.
Royal City has 13 parcels zoned industrial within the city limits with 12 acres improved and 15 acres
unimproved. (Refer to Chart No. 6 and 6a in Technical Appendix A of the Draft Grant County
Cornprehensive Plan.) There has been virtually no new indush-ial development inside the city in recent
years.
Grant County
Comprehensive Plan Royal City-2 July 1999
. ,
,
� ,
: ; Royal City UGA Analysis...
; Most recent new industrial develapment has occurred to the south and east of Ro.yal City, outside the city
{ boundaries. 'The Port of Rayal Slope owns vacant land in this area, which is being prepared for industrial
� development. Brown Bay 4nions, a pracessar, opened a plant in this area in 1996, the only new plant in
the vicinity.of Royal City in the past 5 years. `The area's Iargest manufacturing employer is Sunfresh(faod
�'. � processing}, follawed by Catlahan Manufacturing (agricultural equipment), Wa#kill Fertilizer, and
..,. i Northwest Stone and Brick. . The area east of Royal City has only on-site water and sewer services. Foad
� processors generally have issues with wastewater dispasal. The difficulty of obtaining water and sewage
services is an abviaus constraint ta industrial grawth. But with recen#upgrades to the City's wastewater
treatment capacity, these constraints may be eased.
There are faur adjacent properties zaned industrial located on the south side of SR-26 east of Royal City.
The parcels are lacated in Township 16 Range 26 Sections 7 and 8. The area to the west and nearest the
city is zoned I-L. It consists nf 6 parcels with a zoned area of 169 acres, of which 1&0 acres are
unimpraved. (Refer to Chart Nos. 7 and 7a in Technical Appendix A of the Draft Grant Cauniy
' Camprehensive Plan.) As noted above, the Port of Rayal Slope is developing an adjacent area consisting
- of approxixnately 2S5 acres for a total owned by the port district of at that lacation amounting to 328
�' ` acres. There is also an area immediately sauth zaned I-H consisting af S parcels ancl.'156 acres, again, a11
unimpraved. (See Chart No. 7b in Technical Appendix A of the L?raft Grant County Comprehensive
P1an.} Moving to the east, there is a relatively large area alang SR-26 zaned I-H consisting af 19 parcels
and a total af 113 acres af which 62 acres are improved and 51 acres are unimpraved. (See also Chart
� ItTos: 7c and 7d in Technical Appendix A of the Draft Grant County Comprehensive Plan.) Finally, at the
• eastern end of the industrial area there are 2 paraels zoned I-L with a total of 35 acres, al1 irnproved. (See
also Chart No. 7e in Technical Appendix A of the L?raft Grant County Camprehensive P1an.)
Following reaent patterns, it is anticipated that industrial development will continue in h,a�liazard stages,
but with an nverall slow rate in the Royal City area. Adequate land appears to be available to the south
and east.While infrastructure deficiencies pase a potential threat to continued industrial development, the
City and Port are comrnitted to planning for improvements to their water supply and wastewater treatmerit
. capabilities.
' The Growth 1Vlanagement Act allows for ir�clusian of industrial lands within a UGA, or for including
them in the rural land base of the County. The GMA and the goals and policies af the Grant County Draft
Comprehensive Ptan particularly provide far inclusian af resource-bas�� industry within the rural lands of
the Caunty.
The Crty's praposed UGA Land Use Plan includes the industrial land to the soutfi and east of the City in
Che Royal City UGA. The inclusion of these industrial lands within the proposed UGA appears
reasonable. Inclusian of those lands vvithin the Rayal City UGA will benefit all citizens of Grant County
thraugh enhanced economic opporturiity through industrial development.
However, the potential annexation of those Iands into the City and resulting loss of tax revenue ta Grant
County poses a significant financial hardship ta the County. In particular, the County Road Fund is
heavily reliant on tax revenues frozn such high-value industriai lands. In particular, resaurce-based
, industries often take a heavy tall on the farm-ta-pracessing roads of the County. Lass of Road Fund
revenue will result in unmet needs far road impravements throug�out Grant County. The resultant
• inability to maintain these farm-ta-market raads will signzficantly hamper the agzicultural ecanamy.
Therefore, it is in the best interests of both the City and the Caunty to equitably share the tax revenues
frorn such resource-based indus#ries should suoh lands be annexed.
Grant County and Royal City should consider development of an interlocal a�reement regarding
annexation. Among ather things, such an agreement should include arrangements for sharing of revenues
Grant Caunty
Camprehensive Plan Royal City-3 .Iuty 1999
A, '
Royal City UGA Analysis...
generated frorn property taxes received from resource-based industries propased to be included in the
�.�� ' Royal City UGA to ease the financial burdens of both parties while recognizing the casts of infrastructure
development for the area. Similar phased revenue shar7ng appraaches have been successfully utilized by
�
other juxisdictions. .
Summary
The UGA as proposed by Raya1 City appears to be excessively large. VJe affer the following comments
for your consideration:
1, The amaunt of residential land 'zncluded within the IJGA shauld be limited to 200 gross acres ar less.
2. The average density of residential lands should be 4 dwelling units per acre or greater.
3. The proposed designation of"Agricultural Residential" should be deleted. Such housing opportunities
' are mare appropriately provided for by the rural land use designatians contained in the
' Comprehensive Plan.
4. The amount of land proposed ta be designated as "Urban Reserve" should be carefully reviewed. The
amount proposed appears to be excessive to accommodate the projected growth_of the City.
S. The iands ta the east of the corparate limits extending to the Roya1 Czty Golf Course shauld be
removed fram the UGA.
6, The City may wish to designate additional lands narth of Highway 26 and south of existing corporate
limits as"Commercial.,,
7. If the industrial lands to the sauth and east of the City are included within the UGA, the CiLy and
County should jointly negotiate an interlocal agreement regarding annexation of those lands. Among
ather things, the annexation agreernent should include pravisions for sharing of revenues generated
from property taxes of resource-based industries within the area.
UGA Map
The Royal City UGA Map is attached,
Grant County
C;'amprehensive Plan �oyal City-4 July 1999
� 3
Attachmer�t F
Cultural Resaarces
Add the fallawing ta page 13-11: �
CULTURAL �ESC�LTRCES
Cultural resources are those items, both tangible and intangible, that provide us with ties to tl7e past, a
better understanding of the present, and aur hope for what the future might hold. Native Americans, lik�
the Columbia, Colville and Wanapum people, have traveled over the landscape that is now Grant County
harvesting the roots and plants for food and rnediaine,taking shelter where the land suited thern. Ensuring
that a record of their presence is preserved is of concern not only to Native Americans, but to all
residents. Preservation of our cultural resources, including archaeological sites and objects, traditional
cultural lands, foad �athering areas,. and burial graunds, is important ta Grant County's health and
prosperity. The goals and policies af this Element serve ta preserve and protect szgnificant cultural
resaurces of the County."
�.��:; C}n page 13-21, add the following.
I i
�.�� � Goa1 NS-1: Identify, preserve a�d pratect hYstoric, cultural and archaealagica� resources
� found to be signifcan#b�recagztized Iocai, state or federal processes.
I� Policies
NS-I.1:Identify known,recorded archaeolagical, cultural and historic resaurces.
,:� a Action: Obtain a listing of sites in Grant County from Phe Washington State Office of Arelaaeology and
�,�; � Historie Preservation,DCTED.
; Action: 7�e County should develap an "Cultural Resaurce Lands,M,�p and Database"to gather relevant
; information on cultural, historic and archaeolagical resource lands into one locatian and for�mat. The
rnap should show the locatrons of all Cultural Resource Lands and relate ta the Grant Counry Assessor
database.
Action: The Coutzty should establish a �ultural Resource Task Force camprised of citzzens, Wanapum
Band, OAHP, DNR, other state agency, Grant Counry PUD, city and County representatives to develap
inventories of significant and potentially significant sites.
NS-1.2:Develop a lacal process for evaluating the signi�cance af hzstoria,cultural, and archaeolag-ical
� resources. ,
NS-1.3.Preserve areas that contain valuable historical or archaeological sites of Pederal, State, tribal, or .
lflcal signi�•aance. Maintain and enforce provisions to the Resource Lands and Critical Areas Ordinance
' requiring conditioning of project approval on �ndings rnade by a professional archaeologist for
development activities an sites of knoum cultural,historical pr archaeological significance.
NS-1.4:Prior to demolition,moving,or alteration to any designated historic, cultural, and archaeologioal
Iandmark, ensure that due consideration is given to its preservation or, at a minimum, documentatian af
its historic, cultural or archaealogical value.
,., �
- . Attachment G
� Wetland Goals and Policies
Goal NS-2: T�'etlands should be protected because they provide important functions that add
to tr:e quadity of life.
Policies
NS-2.1: Wetland areas should be identified by the development applicant and reviewed by the County
prior to development. If a wetland is determined to exist on a parcel subject to a non-exempt development
activity, a written delineation should be required of the applicant,
NS-2.2:The County should consider accepting written determinations, delineations and mitigation plans
only from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the Department of Ecology,the Natural Resources
Conservation Service, or a qualified critical areas professional. The County should consider requiring that
mitigation plans for unavoidable wetland impacts to be based on a wetland functional assessment.
NS-2.3: Based on their qua�ity demonstrated by the classification systern defined in the Resource Lands
and Critical Areas Ordinance, wetlands should be protected from alterations due to land use changes that
may create adverse impacts to the wetland.
NS-2.4:The County should consider incorporation of the Washington State Wetlands Rating system for
Eastern Washington(Ecology Publication#91-58) into the classifications system adopted in the Resource
Lands and Critical Areas Ordinance.
NS-2.5: The County should consider incoiporation of the Washington State Department of Ecology
Manual titled "Washington State Wetlands Identification and Delineation Manual, March 1997" into the
classifications system adopted in the Resource Lands and Critical Areas Ordiriance.
NS-2.6: Whenever feasible, innovative techniques that enhance a wetland and promote it as a useful,
functioning part of the development will be encouraged.
NS-2.7: Wetland preservation strategies and efforts, including wetland banking, should be coordinated
with appropriate local, state and federal agencies and private conservation organizations to take advantage
of both technical and financial assistance and to avoid duplication of efforts.
� Attachment H
' Fire Hazards
� Add the following text to page 13-18 of the Natural Setting Element:'
: FIRE HAZARDS
Whether wildfire occurs in urban areas, shrub steppe, wheatfields or grasslands, the potential loss to Iife
; and property is a concern to both those whn fight the fires and whose property tnay be in hartn's way.
Much of Grant County receives little natural precipitation and is highly susceptible to fire hazard �uring
much of the year. Meanwhile, more people ars moving ta previously uninhabited rural areas. As this
nurnber increases, the need to provide adequate and efficient fire services ta these areas atso increases.
, The goals and policies of this Element address this need by establishing standards that will ensure better
� fire protection in rural and�esource lands of the County.
Add the foilowing goals and policies at page�i 3-33:
�aal NS-9: Protect life and prvperty in rural and resource aretts rt,f tfie County from fire hazards.
� Policies
NS-9.1: The County should prepare an zmplernentation plan for fire safety and prevention for rurai and
�resaurce lands and presenting development standards. ,
� �Iction: Tlte County should establish tt Fire Hazards Task Force eomprised o.f'citizens,fire district, city
and county building of�`r'cials, COYjIOYtItZ012S� agricultural, DNR, other state agency, city and
;., � , Couttty representatives to develop a�re safety and prevention plan similar to that for Kittitas
County. ,
� . #
t
Exhibit B
Consistency and Coordination Analysis
The Comprehensive Plan is,to the greatest extent practicable without comprornising the requiremants of
the GMA,consistent with the county-wide planning policies prepared by the Grant County Planned
Growth Committee. The Plan meets the mandatory requirements of the GMA and furthers all of the goals
of the GMA. Following is an analysis of consistency between the Comprehensive Plan and the CWPPs.
POLICY 1—POLICY REGARDING URBAN GROWTH AREAS AND THE DESIGNATION OF
URBAN GROWTH BOUNDARIES
Policy 1 states that"growth can occur outside a UGA only if it is not urban in nature."This statement
conflicts with RCW 36.70A.070(5)(d),which provides for limited areas of more intensive rural
developrnent outside of UGAs.RCW 36.70A.030(17) states that a pattern of more intensive rural
developmen�, as provided in RCW 36.70A.070(5)(d), is not urban growth.By providing for rural areas of
more intensive development,the Comprehensive Plan is not consistent with the CWPPs. However, it is
consistent with development patterns authorized under the GMA.
Policy 1 further states that"commercial and indus�rial development must be con�ned within a UGA if urban
governmental services are required or cannot be supplied by said development."However,RCW
36.70A.070(5)(d)does allow for limited commercial and industrial development as infill,development,or
� redevelopment in areas exhibiting a pattern of more intensive rural development.Further,RCW 36.70A.367
authorizes Grant County to establish two master planned locations for major industrial development
outside of a UGA.The Comprehensive Plan provides for both rural areas of more intensive development
and major industrial development.In doing so,the Plan is not consistent with the CWPPs. However, it is
consistent with development patterns authorized under the GMA.
POLICY lA—PROCEDURE FOR SETTLING URBAN GROWTH BOUNDARY DISPUTES
Tha Comprehensive Plan is consistent with the provisions of�his policy.
POLICY 1B—PROCEDU1tES FOR AMENDING URBAN GROWTH AREASBOUNDARIES
The Comprehensive Plan provides for a process of amending all elemants of the Plan,including UGA
boundaries. Tha Plan amendment process is consistent with the requirements of the GMA and carries out
the provisions of this policy in greater detail.
POLICY 2 &2A—POLICIES TO PROMOTE CONTIGUOUS ORDERLY DEVELOPMENT AND
THE PROVISION OF URBAN GOVERNMENTAL SERVICES TO SUCH DEVELOPMENT
Policy 2A stipulates that,in designating UGAs,the cities and county shall use both a shoxt tertn and long
term boundary. The short term urban growth boundary shall be established within the UGA within which
urban growth will occur over the next ten years.The long term urban growth boundary shall be established
within the UGA within which urban growth will occur over the next eleven(11)to twenty(20)years as
urban growth expands beyond the short term urban growth boundary.
None of the UGAs proposed by the cities and adopted by the County include both short and long term
boundaries.Nothing in the GMA requires that UGAs be designated in a phased approach.The
designation of UGAs in the Comprehensive Plan complies with the requirements of RCW 36.70A.110.
Policy 2A states that"a rural area shall exist outside of the UGA within which very low intensive land
uses will prevail over the next twenty(20)years. County policies and actions will emphasize rural.
residential densities and the protection of agricultural lands and natural resources. Urban growth will be
prohibited."
The Comprehensive Plan designates resource lands in accordance with the requirements of the GMA and
establishes policies for their preservation and protection. The Plan further designates rural lands and
provides for a variety of rural densities as required by the GMA and establishes policies that protect and
preserve the rural character of Grant County. The Plan does provide for a pattern of more intensive rural
development, as authorized in RCW 36.70A.070(5)(d). Such developmer�t is not urban growth as defined
in RCW 36.70A.030(17).
POLICY 2B—URBAN DENSITIES-DEFINITIO�V OF LOT SIZES �
Policy 2B states that"urban densities are prohibited outside of established urban growth areas except for the
establishment of master planned resorts(RCW 36.70A.350)and new fully contained communities
consistent with the requirements for reservirig a portion of the twe�nty(20)year county population projection
(RCW 36.70A.360)."The Comprehensive Plan also provides for urban densities in areas of more intensive �
rural development, as provided in RCW 36.70A.070(5).(d).
POLICY 3—POLICIES FOR SITING PUBLIC FACILITIES OF A COUNTY-WIDE OR STATE�
WIDE NATURE
The Comprehensive Plan provides for a process for siting essential public facilities. The Plan process is.
' consistent with the requirements of the GMA and carries out the provisions of this policy in greater detail.
POLICY 4--POLICTES FOR COUNTY-WIDE TRANSPORTATION FACILITIES AND
STRATEGIES
The Cornprehensive Plan includes a transportation element that meets the requirements of the GMA and
is eo�sistent with the Quad County Regional Transportation Plan. The transportation element is con�istent
with the land use eletnent. It includes a finance plan designed to maintain levels of service that meet or
exceed adopted standards. The element includes policies that require that improvements be within the
County's funding capacity, and be equitably distributed between users and the County in general. The
element also includes a s�rategy for dealing with funding shortfalls. The elernent also includes a
requirement for concurrency of t�ansportation improvement with development.
To the greatest extent pz'acticable,the trarisportation element is consistent with the provisions of this
policy. The transportation element,however, does not address certain items of this policy.For example,
no analysis of energy-efficiency in transportation systems is included in the transportation element, as
specified in the policy.Neither is a control strategy adopted to minimize noise impacts from
transportation systems and faeilities as specified. Such omissions are not substantive and are not
requirements of the GMA. '
POLYCY 5—POLICIES THAT CONSIDER THE NEED FOR AFFORDABLE AOUSING,SUCIi
AS HOUSING FOR ALL ECONOMIC SEGMENTS OF THE POPULATION
The Comprehensive Plan includes a housing element as required by the GMA. The housing element
provides a range of housing alternatives which takes into account price,tenure type,and density which meet
the County's liousing needs.'The housing element is consistant with the requirements of the GMA and
carries out the provisions of this policy.
POLICY 6—POLICIES FOR JOINT COUNTY AND CITY PLANNING WITHIN IIRBAN -
GROWTH AREAS
The Comprehensive Plan provides t'or a process for joint planning between the County and cities.The
Plan process is consistent with the requirements of the GMA and carries out the provisions of this policy.
POLICY 7—POLICY FOR COUNTY-WIDE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AND
EMPLOYMENT
The Comprehensive Plan includes an economic development element, which is optional under the GMA.
This element provides a series of strategies and policies to encourage, strengthen, sustain,and diversify the
County's economic base. The economic policies enhance the agricultural economy of Grant County and
promote industrial,tourism and other businesses. The economic development strategies were developed
based on participation of an advisory committee and have been reviewed and approved by the Crrant
County Economic Development Council. The economic development element is consistent with the
requirements of the GMA and carries out the provisions of this policy.
; POLICY 8—AN ANALYSIS OF THE FISCAL IMPACT
The Comprehensive Plan includes a capital facilities element as required by the GMA. `The capital
facilities element includes provisions for focused public investment in facilities and infrastructure. The
element contains a capital improvement plan,including measures for funding such improvements,
designed to maintain levels of service that meet or exceed adopted standards.The element includes
policies that require that improvements be within the County's funding capacity, and be equitably
� distributed between users and the County in general.The element also includes a strategy for dealing with
capital facility funding shortfalls. The capital facility element is consistent with the requirements of the
GMA and carries out the provisions of this policy.
Portions of the capital facilities supporting rural development outside of UGAs is provided by special
set°vice districts. The County expects and anticipates that future special district activities will be consistent
with and enhance implementation of the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan.
POLICY 9—PROVISIONS FOR THE REVTEW OF NEW FULLY CONTAINED
COMMUNITIES,MASTER PLANNED RESORTS AND RECREATIONAL TYPE
DEVELOPMENTIMPACTS
The land use element of the Comprehensive Plan includes provisions for the designation of fully
contained communities,master planned resorts, and small-scale recreational developments. The
provisions of the land use element are consistent with the requirements of the GMA and carry out the
provisions of this policy.
POLICY 10—ANNEXATION PLANS,INCORPORATION PLANS,AND THE ROLE OF THE
BOUNDARY REVIEW BOARD
The Plan is consistent with state statute regarding annexation and incorporation and carries out the
provisions of this policy.
POLICY 11—MOIVITORING,REVIEW AND AMENDMENT OF COUNTY-WIDE PLAI�INING
POLICIES
The Plan is consistent with and carries out the provisions of this policy.
POLICY 12—POLICTES REGARDING DIVISION,ALLOCATION AND DISTRIBUTIOl'�OF
GROWTH MANAGEMENT FUNDS/COUNTY - CITIES MEMORANDUM OF A;GREEMENT
ADOPTII�IG METHOD FOR DISTRIBUTION OF STATE GROWTH MANAGEMENT FUNDS
ALLOCAT�D TO GRANT COUNTY BY THE WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF
COM1VIt1NITY DEVELOPMENT
The Plan is cansistent with the provisions of this palicy.
PQLICY L4-P4L�CIES Tt3 PERMIT FLEXIBILIT'Y WITI3IN LOCAL POLICY PROCEI}URE
The Camprehensive Plan is,ta the greatest extent practicable without comprotnising the requirements of
the GMA,eonsistent with the county-wide planning policies prepared by the Grant County Pla�ned
Growth Cornrnittee.RCW 36.70A.210 defines a `c�unty-wide planning policy' as a"written policy
statement or,stat�ments used solely for establisl�ing a county-wide framework frotn which county and city
compreheilsive pXans are developed and adopted p��rsuant to this chapter,"This policy states that"these
policies are meant as general framework guidelines for the county and each municipality,hawever
flexibility must be maintained in order to adapt to different needs and conditions."
During preparation af the Comprehensive Plan,the CWPPs have been interpreted as general,non-
mandatary standards. The CWPPs,taken together with the thirteen goals of the GMA,hava been used ta
guide the Cornprehensive Plan. Where the CWPPs clearly conflict with the mast eurrent goals or
requirements of the GMA, the Comprehensive Plan favors the GMA. Included herein as Attachment A is
a detailed analysis and demanstration of consistency between the Comprehensive Plan, the CWPPs and
the GMA.
POLICY 15-�POPULATION FORECAST DISTRI�UTION
This policy includes a population forecast based on 1992 data and a growth and distribution model that
assumed that the cities and the unincorporated areas of the county would continue to grow at the same
rates. This growth rnodel does not adequately project an increase in growth in urban areas and a decrease
in rural areas, as intended by the GMA.T1�e Comp�ehensive Plan uses more recent(1998}population data
and grawth projections published by the Washingtan State 4ffice of Financial Managernent.The
papulatian allocatian methadalogy ir�cluded in the Comprehensive Plan is based an histaric growth
patterns, employment forecast,expectatians regarding future grawth, and GMA goals, as specified in
°`Grant Caunty Draft�omprehensi�e�'lan,Part IVATechnical Appendices, Grant County Urban Grawth
Area Analysis:Papulatian,Employment and LTGA Land Allacations."The popu�atian distribution
resulting�rom this rnethodology results in signx�cantly more population allacated to urban growth areas
than the distribution included in the CWPPs. �
Therefare, although inconsistent with the CWPPs,the population allocation included in the
Comprehensive Plan is equitable,based on historic future growth patterns and employment forecasts, and
consistent with rnethodologies usad in other jurisdictians. �
�
�
` � � �
� �„�,� �M�' .
� �
� � ` c ,
!
, � � �
�Z �
� �, �� �
� ' ��
� � �' �.�
i. ,,,�
ti �� �
� � �` �
` 1
� '� ,�.
� j � �'��.. ,�+�, �
.
� � +� `� r
� �
� t � �, .
� �,�
i � ` � .
t � ��
� �
i '1�
� ��
. � � r �
� � ��
� � � ,
� �
� � r
� � �
� � � ,�
t •
� � �
� t �
x �
t �
� ,, � �
� ,�.
�.,�, .
� � � i 1 . , �,,,....-.- �'
� e .
�
t � . .
� �
t
� �
t .
,
0
� ,
, . _
� - .
„ � .
,
, , ,
�'" _ � ,
� . �- � �
i ,,,. . . `�
� ��� � �
, �
� a
� ' � �
�
j Y �
� a , }
� t
� � �
i i � �
� p i � �
�
�
� � � , � ,
� .
i � �
: �
.
i �
..��.......�. ..,,�.
ti t . "��'�'�
; � ' � '�t"r.
� } '`, � �
t ' `
, � .
� � ! �
� �
t
� � .
�
�� � ����
�.,;�...,,�„ �, ,� ,,,�,��y
��
�A
�������
�
P �
�
� � «a .�. �
�
r' �
w+M 'M
r�
�
w�
�"'�„ � My
�
�
N „'r' � p�s ✓ r � �
�
M
� �
f �1 �'r'
` � �
` r�
� Y �.+ �.y
r+� �
A
M
. .A
r+ e
M �A
'� M.
r�'► .A
� v+�
r
� M � � .
. . ,
..
�� � e
j a '"'
�•3t
we
l
� � ` �
� �
� `��
f �
•
•
�
»
M
♦
�'�t��1► R,� '�
�
«•
.� -
M
M
A
. � � �
e�
�
M
N
w+
'
�
� t '"'.�
� � ,
1 ' ,�...�.�.-�,'
�
,
, . .
,
. � � �
� , ,� �,��
` �,,,� � , �,��t�
� � ' �
1 ' �
, . . � ,
: �
. ,
t � �
,
� ��'` � 1 t �
1 ''� � �
� . .
, �
� ,
� ,
�
� 4 �
. . o , ,
�
4
t �
'"f'
. � , � � � ,��
� ��
� t � ��w" � ��
1 � t �
�1, ' � �.
, , , .
� 4
1 1
/ ►
. t � 1
t
�
t � � �� 1
1 •
{ � 1
t {
� 4 �
X 1 1 � t
� 1 �
� � t; � t 1
� i
1 1
ti �
4 � .
�
t
r
� � .
.
�
� s �
;
s
� . * sl � s
� � • • ' � is
. � a
�
i ' s s t '
t
s
� *
♦ s •
. ! � .
a � •
t
, ,� , ii► � ,
£i� ~ •
� t� � � s
� ` s
� ti� �£, .
'� ' � `
�► � +� � -
� `
�
��� .
��� y
S 3
e
{
� * � � ; ^+..�.,,, «
..i'� � �„� �
.
e � .
3
� � ���
i
�-- ���,P
� �.�,d, _
��
. �,a -
.
.
�
'� `�'` - �, , .
• ,J�'
, ,4t,'�
����
a �;
�
. i
• �
� �
•
'
,.—�+,---�-..���
��--�
�:�'
���� �
�
�
� �
� � �
�
�
...�•
.'�'�
P�`
��
��
�
/
'�" O �,,,,,''.` .
� �
_---"'"
-_____,.--'-� �
,---"��' �" �
.,-
� �
.,----''"
;� .
a • � o
� ` ..
•
� w e
s �
• ♦ �
� ' i
� .
� • �„ , .
� ,,� � � +
`�`' �--��..-
,
� �
--�._,�..-
_----
_ �
:
�� , �
�+� � �
, _ w�
1►� �
��� - . . - _ ' ' . r ..+'��' _ '
�. .- .
! Cj� ` �
. � . .
+ i�
'I���lii,����.. _�i '��
����"`� ��_ l
� ��� � ��
�.� ��� E:
��������` ��
�����������; ;c
�,-a���;�.�►�`�' „�'� � ��
'���d ��.'"`'.�.'`.�1�►,1��� �
r� '.� ,
� � .___. � --�- ,�
�. ,,
i � , r
��
�1�
� � I �
4
i t
�
.
r� I�. . . �� �,
i IMIIM� ,
M�r
*p �� i
,��
�t ���
....� �
� � ��� r11�
�.�e�eaeeee�e�,a r,�. .�►, �. ��
� � �ia�it�ztg������Qt�_ _ � '''�t����iM���,
� �; ��,,���� !:'� ,s�' �r�'"'��l,,r.r..
,� ;�''�,,1� ���f;sir�i► ',�
�� ��� y. � ,�,�w�.
t��� ��� ������t���� `N����4� ,
�',� 1� �► __ .�M +���i!Mia i�
� �
���1 ����wl��"` /�,f�,+.�e ► ,�,r�f�r���
r..��.rr
�;��.�-�}��,�' ::`,=l�1�1i�1�.:
� ��. � �
� I�t�,� '��''� .-:;�
�
_ ��� �
�'�������"�� � �,��1'�.'�,�1 �
�.;� ♦r�i�: ■rr:� .�.. -- �������
�. ■.�.u�. --°-�
,;, �� �tt#1t ����o��ir�Q�4 +�"�""`�1.�.`'# �
��'" �!� :►� ■�►:���3�, � �ra�..�r��».:`��
.�.�.�r _ �1� �, c� .,,..., . �r+�r....—�.,� i
..�-■' �� 11�'�`�' r ��=•�:`�r`
cr ,,,..,..: ..�I�
�r' �� ��� �r., s��rti a�y ��--'--`��'s
■■�..� � IM�N{
, �,��,a'� .�',��1.���r.i
■�������.1,� .����0��", �������"
��'�� r�'�zz�i..t �.... .-...._ �_,
�_.— -_---._._ ,�....____ . • _ __.-,. ra� i
:,;=�!� �-���� �' ����I�p:� !�
��: � �
- ...... �
� . �•� `�' `:,w�►. �' ,�,,,��A►��
�'�,��. "1�y�1 'r""r ``f",��I
�wNM�' ' �"'�, �"".�,.w,�r �� �+~^,-.... �� '
� ""„ ��'«:'!;��� �..W ��s�t'�,.__����
� � .r��.�„�,r
�.. ..T_�, . j
`• ��l �''� � w"'� � .� -'�'ti'/''��' ���
.�! ��... ww � �-+.
4� j ♦�s#.,�,,,I��� �#■ � .— ;�+-•'_". r.���
� +``R` � l rr�r„��� �" ��" JM !�/'� �� "' qlir ,1�.�
, �,.�s� �' «.. ;►s �
ti �.�.. �♦ ..�. � ___��. ��
��'�;� ��I t � �,
��
' �jy/j ���' .. � . t
` � t - �
, 7,., "�wi , '
� �i
��� .' ' I ~ .
��� � / �
. ✓ r
� I , , • .' ' � �
f �� � � . - , --
� " � i w
� � � � �
l�J , . (((��yyy��j��. � � '` '
6 �
A
• � A
.r� r
�
� � a
,i ,�.. w �`�^+,✓
� A ✓
� � � �
�
` �
• A
t � w ,.r „n
, � �. .w
�
� y i, .�
i
w
� � A
`
�
r
� �
` � "I +nn �
r
. ' � �
� �
. � � .w�
? � . /� ,. "'r
' . �}� j �
�f`� . . 1�
� " ' t � s
a •° A�
` � /��
A
�
�
I
i �
♦
�
A /�
A
!�� w
� �°�
���
�� � { ����
�� � �
�
� � �
�
Exhibit D
Page 2
'The Grant County and the Grant County Health Dis�rict also have enacted ordinances listed in Table 2-2
relating to land development, including water supply and on-site sewage disposal requirements,
Table 2-2
Publ'ic Health Ordinances
County
Ordinance Regulated Activity
No.
96-2 On-Site Sewage Disposal
#604495 Solid Waste/Litter
96-105-CC Adequate Water Supply
Funding Issues
The regular County budgetary processes will be used to appropriate funds to carry out the goals and
policies of this Plan and to monitor the effectiveness of the County's actions.The County will actively
solicit grant funding from DCTED and other sources to augrnent County funds. The pace and schedule of
implementation will,by necessity, depend entirely on the adequacy of budgetary appropriations,
including any grant or nonrecurring funds that may be secured.
Proposed Modifications
To a greater or lesser extent, each of the regulations listed above in Tables 2-1 and 2-2 will need
modification. Tt is not anticipated that the Public Health Ordinances will require extensive revisions. Of
most immediate concern is to adopt an amendment to the Interim Zoning Ordinance and a new land
division ordinance that codifies regulations pertaining to both short and long subdivision platting and
boundary line adjustments,Failure to adopt new interim zoning and land division rules quickly may
create a"window of opportunity"for land developers to circumvent th�explicit policy language in this
Plan pertaining to maximum residential density, since any project that"vests"prior to new interim zoning
and land division ordinances must be processed undar the County's current rules. In short, any delay in
adopting these new ordinances will provide land developers an expanded opportunity to vest projects that
are inconsistent with this Plan.
After new interim zoning and land division ordinances are adopted,the County will focus on completion
and adoption of a new land use ordinance to replace the zoning and interim zoning ordinances. Significant
work has already been completed on preparation of a draft land use ordinance; a preliminary draft was
recently prepared for internal County staff review. It is expected that a number of issues will need to be
addressed during the public review and hearing process for adoption of a land use ordinance; an extended
period of time is expected to achieva adoption.
During the review of the new land use(zoning)ordinance,the County will prepare revisions to other,less
critical ordinances listed above. Of most importance will be revisions to the Resource Lands and Critical
Areas Ordinance and the SEPA Ordinance.The SEPA Ordinance will be made fully consistent with
Chapter 36.70B RCW and Chapter 197-11 WAC.
Once a new land use ordinance is adopted,the County will then revise the Shoreline Master Program.
Again, significant work has already been completed on preparation of a draft land use ordinance. As
revisions to the Shoreline Master Program are being prepared, the "lesser" ordinances will be processed
and undergo public review leading to adoption.
Exhibit D
Plan Implementation
General
Each county or city planning under the GMA should develop a detailed strategy for implementing its
Comprehensive Plan, as stated in WAC 365-195-805. Through the preparation of this Plan, several
policies were developed and additional planning needs were identified where further action is warranted.
These include,but are not limited to, such action items as preparation and adoption of new development
ordinances,review and revision of current zoning requirements,joint planning with the Ci1,y of Moses
Lake for the Urban Reserve area adjacent to the Moses Lake UGA, and t'urther evaluation of the
unincorporated Lakeview Park urban growth.area.In compliance with the requirements of WAC 365-
195-805, Grant County will use the following strategy to implement the Comprehensive Plan.
Ordznance Inventoay
County ordinances regulating land deve�opment activities are listed in Table 2-1. In addition,the County
administers the Grant County Shoreline Master Program,which is part of the Washington Adminis�rative
Code, and road and public right-of-way issuas through the Grant County Road Standards.
Both Grant County and the Grant County Health District also have separate civil infraction ordinances
that impose enforcement processes and actions against violations of most of the land development and
health regulations.
Table 2-1
Land Development Ordinances
County
Ordinance Regulated Activity
; No.
97-192-CC Local Project Parmit Review
- Zoning
, 964159�CC Building �
97-39-CC Interim Zoning
93-49-CC Resource Lands&Critical Areas
97-191-CC �'latting and Subdivision
97-190-CC Short Plats and Subdivisions
95�60-CC SE�'A
92-110-CC Residential RV Parks
92-98-CC Extended Use RV Parks
91-127-CC Short Term RV Paxks
88-2-CC Binding Site Plans
8$-106-CC Flood Damage Prevention
90-92-CC Right To Farm
98-174-CC Communicatxon Tower Siting
Exhibit D
Page 3
Grant County's Local Project Permit Review and Resource Lands and Critical Areas Ordinances will also
require minor revisions. Full implementation of the Resource Lands and Critical Areas Ordinance is
expected to be a significant endeavor. Currently, critical areas and resource lands are identified and field
delineated on a case-by-case basis as land development applications are submitted.While the County
desires to create Geographical Information System(GIS)mapping and relational database that identifies
all parcels that contain critical areas and/or resource lands,this taslc is currently beyond the County's
foreseeable ability to fund. Resource lands of long-term commercial significance, as designated in this
Plan, have been mapped as part of this Plan development.
Anyone who seeks to engage in land development activities, or is otherwise subject to the development
regulations contemplated under this Plan,will be required to obtain necessary local permits,licenses,
and/or franchises. In general, applications for land development activities will be processed according to
the requirements of Grant County's Local Project Permit Review ordinance, including any amendments
thereto. The County may consider a number of remedies for violation of development regulations,
including,but not limited to,bond forfeiture, abatement, injunctive relief,permiYllicense/franchise
revocation, civil penalties, and criminal sanctions.
Once Development Regulations are adopted,the County will proceed with preparation of sub area plans
for the Lalceview UGA and the Urban Reserve area adjacent to the Moses Lake UGA. An Open Space
program may also be evaluated.
Adoption Schedule
All revisions will be processed as expeditiously as possible, subject to staff resources and funding
availability. As required by WAC 365-195-810, Grant County intands to request in writing an extension
from DCTED of up to 180 days for adoption of developrnent regulations implementing this
Comprehensive Plan. Thereafter, any arnendments to this Comprehensive Plan and consistent
implementing regulations will be enacted and put into effect concurrently.
�,{��'} '��" a,r1����.P., w�,��'Y��4v���{�-i��'-�'r`.�t�����C�;; `'4�'x� �yj��% �� _ - 1� 6��y�'r"t'S' �;'�,�. "�
��1�'_( T J� �N "'� ;s�'1 d k�;e�, � ��-1,t. � i d. F' > HS�TW'�M�t 6 k .lP . '�G -i��'`"y L"t �
2�Ji ��� 'T'P�i. T..��y �'.^4�' ,�k ? '�\lF 1� 3� '�' ��. "k.
�i����'"� T . .t- �,�st �.,d7�����h��� 3:-���tr t��{4��� �" �� a� r. ���� a
'� : �u` i y-r.,4w1�;Y f. .'�sa ��. ��' l�S � It tpe� Yt �� 4 ' `r:f. G k Y.�� w�� ti '`�ix�y�s�F
�'��'„i:.�e-r s Y fS�r1�pSi,° 4 t.. k Y �� f »+i i_ �V_i� u ( . �i K t x Y�T p ,�i� yy�{Y'''`ikr � ���..�:t �"rK r�s�.` !�}'i
�*.� � /.�; v.�'y"4 �'�rtl.; K '�s,R.�$1�Y�.�J.� 7 t'� "' e.. C:-�5�i "'SF'�.. � � •i� �� n$!� 1F t ��At 5,�+� ','��.
� '�e �<4 Y, r i c + �� 3 '�ii `�^' tic r` a"�,.�cE� �,�qv b1 '' a�t� �: � ,,,, iS r
��.1 D" ,n y .t t: f. `4 irFr r � � G'+ Y. � wsia � ".;7;;� r ! u �(' 9 '���Vir„
y .,. 4 ..) . 1 � ti �f l. L 9 . Y ��„'... ��a .r`t u�Al�r..�'/ L.. Z-��',t'�.
�t.2��,�i t a.i'c;'�"+ F.�{�. 4 �w��-J, . �t,��y�` Y$ � u a
E��,. ���'�S^�7r'�!'�i��y\"f''�S�x+�}'s�t`.f` F,��'t5'^�`ui� �.Ykf�ti� ,,.sY.'r �� .'e.,. - ,!£'t x3G'ti� '��.�� __
S'i � ,r..�„.�. xc �.*, s�Y'.�..�.v�s � . • _ —
�I�3;... �£ � m,r+'K^-.-•o.�-r� �.'ry'�"'�,, �t Ti'J'"� Z ., t�t-'°�r� �l` �7 nf �r � n��... '� �^u, Y
�'Y .'�4^''��� a..�.� !� y - � A Y�,� 1 4; �'`'3� � i -�:++'Y �'` ��?�R�, ,.3�';y o}� y.LS r�!. �i p7i r jys:
b1�7�� L ic h n �� i � �Y tk,�`�11r��c x 1 � ��^a aa �y,5, o MiY�q�h3h �+ �rt,,a^rr. T�.,+ nt.��
�#.�+�v�-.i..� �:I'�T�e, .�ky . tt e,�.�!v�'x �r' ��s! .� I��i�, <Y „ 7b�`'y,,,'�i� Ar��rlS¢ .£.^,�T.,;�� N,<�w
f a k gc,�.t ��£ 1'.# . . �� � � �'a ��� r 4 I L, j``V�'.-"y},a�y 1 r,�� i+�:¢v'
� y� ^ r h } t 7 x s '�s rr d i � �,r�'� �- ^'^rt�3 {� a i� A+ $`'t� b t'7 S�"�?�
t F:•{T�{,�.�, 1�}e-t+t �{�,+r� � ��'� d�i4� -•s�..� wv���� � �lr� �t i}s r�` xr '� x''�� '��'
�s n 2it".�'�h'�e a.a��{��•,,�i a.a '`' i�...,."�o�.fr4,da � � iLa/ �` . l Z J�E'�Ht�a �r� �� S i,�u�
t .���! i . � ♦ a' �-�•. �,��n� � "� `''�'� i� �S rr � +,fi g�5 c r r--x a i St.,�p t ^��.
y}�, � 1'7� '��A �ry. '� 1 M �, �� .� 6} . ^ �1 it�'} �� � Y �y� t .
t,-$x::t'�ap�g,�}�y.� �� a 4 .`si� y �rr� �",�--+L. _�x°y�(, .+� i�d tT rN�v�;� � �L'�r,,x`y" .��b� w�&t n
a�t '+� * �r 3 �i � i r. ra�
��y. y 'x �:'r, 'x l�Y�'a - > +� I ,� � '�'v� ���r�, �'s � .a 1 K x h �.��,'
V"�et'� �� �z ��f� ��� `�-1a`� r 7 `^�}_E ! FS.^���M1 �bwss t . J��ti m'4.�M.T y M1,,�,+� s �z!{ 4
� M.a q, + �yl �q i^` t� ��-�'r'�` t� `k ,.?yt r1 a t�' � � lv s ti �� s �i•`
�59q;�1'�y,s .�... �SS�; �v s �� t� �. r �+ �E v � w �u �, �. �c 'r� t 1
f � f �'Y R . I V, y h�i �i � 'l A �.
a s�t 7 k��~�,��°� �j���{�Y d r ��fk v���' T7'at��'ap„y^� I �i � `��+�t��i'��-���e..'�� a
" N.�,.x z '`,,cy { `�y t n,.�u+k�'a�N�r.Y�f3,r �';`��iS'�'�,.-t w � � r t t ,is,�ti -t�
�`' t t "� - .�� � '� H s 5 � ,t$ F ir I ��}_��` i � t.�t� �1�i�
x v+.� r � T�����/��� ¢-r�+' ` ...��.r� s�,��,�{U}�s���y .��� �.
��� +sr'n^'o� � . y,�'.M�R,�`�,r�6 r'{rr 3 f�� 2 a i� � J` ����....�� y�'� �+v r
kn a#. .5�"�� .'. yF q )lF�a�`dty. A �i�..'�F 11 J{ � �H�r 4.4Tc � �'F7.�.� k�
•z, .. +�F,a 5' � F}., '� yt,y�y* f�ut��� �3`' 1> � r4�k�'�c �`tfa v`�t �tFy�w(�/+Wt�" �}�i^� w"r.
`�i �a 'u� �- �'�� ��� '� � i �. a �'.� �� ���'raY� au.� �f� .���r�., rrx Y;x,. Z ���ifi'7"`t�.r ty �t 3 '.. r�
��.xi.. -�'�+J' . 9rd,r �+- z . . r� ,�ai'�n�'v�?h,�-.��5 9�b `�d�1 -k t k '� �i F.y..�; { va.r ����
+�;�}s � �t�'. ,. .L.�� '��;µ.�'"�.t d,,• r � {1{��fi�{�T e� {�.f �,_ _ �}�u���y���,.�. e� � ,���,y-,� '�'
� � �rv�� � r �R� j.r yij ..���1 '4' � t t �'?�t .Fs�'Yts t.'��-�+' z`�f
t:':it �+.�'`� a s f�'{ ru �. � f � 1�, U n i.l't .�nytl r ��7`M
'�? '� ti x y�'�'�'{� u J'�i t �i�•�{� �i y�C,�
�.t�.f�.�"r� '� } �'*-�:^S �G �+ �..u�.m�vk� t � i t..�.`."'�y'�ktfY`'�.k.17 � F.J����r �!��.�b F _.
��-�,� ��,� w..fi i��['�1; la r e:.. f ^f Z-� .. a ..�m.f �..s 1 � a �, .
'�4�i£�F-S �3 '�,��,"���7?.�h-�c .� y�.�n,�, �5'�m F�,.."�i+�at ' "'�[.�°+ :.� '..� ' I�„��"'1 Y A+�'c� �c§,x� '!`�'` � A
�' Y�' t 3 ��:,, ,, r a + 4.'.� , ti � r .�� �� � *� , �-.� �� `�c�, ,r,•,
+xt � t. y 'X� r4k� t,f G r� �,i�S < ,�? � ^. ,�x.(.� �r'/si' n � k � T Ii�`
'M.�tr'��".'' ���A'7��' �. �§ < ta..;i. �j'r ry-'a +, S✓+� _ ��r �� �r y,t��r � ���,'?,,..,��?�`p t.,M1 ?h.t K .
�r �4 � � h �i_ '� � tC� . � t i �,�..
4 f=x�"g� 'ir;�j-' `� c�.vr 1 `��� t° :n k -,nfi� z : � �`-� A;`7�t ,.��.�'3� �' tt't�? �i."1, x .- � �4'`�
��,� . :-a. � � �r .tc K t- - � `r S�y'�����r��N �7��`,d"y.+ �'cs1���4
f � (^M k 7�kk�f',.`+ .s Z'N , 4 t r Y �+�t„i' r 5 w�.``�kr'��� %i.��'(�'��' �� �f`�!'��,�$�"�i+� � .
��r�a t
+ �tT`. 1 �'N ���"�� S �� � ._� F�ti �Xr,�y t f i � +� �i'��X{}`YFrl� i����,�,�,�
�-.,�y ,� �M'�'�i i r��'�•��.zy`'` i L`w�'�s�ytf&rt°F�JC ��r� �` c� �,�.'r
t .�Si � t- '� `� .� �,�
- s.{ �� .' Mr�� .. �i.y"'�t�"� �.�- �+�„ T a''�'��h`�-����'�zyr�'-�y'"��y.r"�,�``,*wi r� d
��
�y.. ... t•r�t c3"'+'.,� � "�i��'vt'�y cc�:{-�y�l',�'�;�i,� S��t i�v,5$�tr�i s 4 tS��F"+IE'�.� ; . .
�a,� . .; M`- �' a 1'� ,�z�. .L .'N�iu�,3�, i r ti �St1�t.� ti�k4. � i a �
� �. � �y,�s,, a��� K �"�f L s�,���7� w�� y��* �� fd��F a.�. ��� ��,f�;
�, � �yaa,..� a. � '�''�-a,�1�f�tx��a� t ��t M1t r. � �'�,�, ��� '.
t w xx�y�t'L
� "�-5,,.�+�`.i� �tt;M-+Mad.��E j F.,,�, � "~�'`.��,�.� E�+ ,'� ���' <?�'�i��rg`eli) �:
k,. .�'�,yQ1 ?�'1.'" y �.�4�.. ���1�'�r��: t� �K+�... �{��r���S� �k��
,+ `�, `` �.�,sy, 1'.
.Y S'K. � � ��'�'��f�w�7 ��" ��£'�t _
.r �,'S�t.. t' f �i�t:.S`�l'�e�•�� �. _,;�,�
I` �
I ' 1�
i i. ,.R
� 1 t� -- - -
. .
_ _ :.
- _..�,
_ ,
. ,w. � i. ' . ..... .... .._.....— .�. � ��.—.
.. ... .. . .. ... ..- :: __.: . ��� .._.. . .
li
11 / 11
�
11 , � ' •,
„n!y. �� ' ' '
::�:�y. .' '. ��'� ,
I� ,�x•�i
�;�l�at � � �
r � 1 ' 1 a �' a