Issue Paper # 10 2nd Draft
Urban Lands
1. IDENTIFICATION OF THE ISSUE
Over the last nine months, public officials, industry representatives, other interest groups, and citizens have expressed concern and confusion over a variety of issues related to the regulation of "urban lands" under the Growth Management Act. In large part, their concerns have centered on three recurrent themes that can be summarized by the following questions:
| Is the GMA unfairly limiting local land use options by too narrowly defining the uses and densities that are appropriate within designated urban growth areas? |
| Does the GMA assure that urban levels of service and densities will actually be achieved within urban growth areas? |
| Is the GMA unnecessarily limiting land supply and the capacity of urban growth areas to support affordable housing, a variety of other housing types, as well as needed commercial and industrial development? |
This issue paper outlines the regulatory background to these issues, discusses how some local governments have actually planned for urban lands, and then identifies some of the options the Land Use Study Commission may want to consider when reporting back to the Legislature.
2. BACKGROUND
A. Statutes and Regulations related to urban land uses, capacities, and densities
What is Urban?
The GMA defines the terms "urban growth", "characterized by urban growth", "urban growth areas", and "urban governmental services" Footnote1. Taken together, the terms describe those areas where the built environment makes such an intensive use of the land that it typically requires governmental services (such as water, sewers, storm drains, police, fire, and transit) and precludes primary use of the land for agriculture, mineral, or forest production.
The GMA defines a process for establishing urban growth areas (UGAs), "within which urban growth shall be encouraged and outside of which growth can only occur if it is not urban in nature." Footnote2 However, while the GMA notes that "urban growth" makes intensive use of the land, it does not define those uses that are specifically "urban in nature".
What are Urban Land Uses?
Each city planning under the GMA must be included within a UGA. Footnote3 The comprehensive plan for such cities must include land use elements designating "the uses of land, where appropriate, for ...housing, commerce, industry, recreation, open space, public utilities, public facilities, and other land uses." Footnote4 The plans must also include a housing element that identifies projected housing needs and provides for sufficient land for a variety of housing types for all economic segments of the community. Footnote5
While the GMA is prescriptive in requiring cities and counties to designate a variety of land uses, the Act allows local governments to determine when these designations are appropriate. For example, local governments may designate typically rural land uses, such as agricultural and forest lands of long term significance, within urban growth areas. However, local governments must recognize these designations limit the required urban development densities. They must therefor create a process for transferring this density to other urban parcels by adopting a program to purchase or transfer development rights. Footnote6
How are Urban Capacities and Urban Densities Determined?
The GMA requires that UGAs include "sufficient" land areas and a range of densities and uses to accommodate the urban growth that is projected to occur over the succeeding 20-year period. In calculating the size of their UGAs, jurisdictions may add a "reasonable" surplus to account for "market supply factors." Footnote7 In the technical assistance workbooks that were provided to jurisdictions, Footnote8 the Department of Community Development suggested that a "market factor" of 25% was reasonable. Footnote9 The GMA adds some flexibility to the process by recognizing that "cities and counties have discretion in their comprehensive plans to make many choices about accommodating growth." Footnote10
The Department identified a range of threshold densities that were needed to fund various urban services. Footnote11 The suggestions were based on the economic lessons learned by local governments in providing public facilities and services. The efficient provision of public facilities and services is a goal of the GMA, Footnote12 as is the encouragement of affordable housing Footnote13. To achieve these and other goals, experience shows that at least 4 units per acre are required for the efficient and equitable provision of sewer service, 7 or more units per acre are required if transit service is to be economically viable, and, depending on median income, affordable housing will often require from 4 to 16 units per acre. However, the workbook also recognizes that densities down to 1 unit per acre or even 1 unit per 5 acres may be warranted on environmentally constrained land in some urban areas. Footnote14
The regulations related to the GMA Footnote15 repeat or paraphrase language found in the GMA (RCW 36.70A). The regulations do not provide additional clarification regarding appropriate urban land uses, capacities, or densities.
Amending Comprehensive Plans and Urban Growth Area Capacity
The GMA requires that counties establish their UGAs based on the State's Office of Financial Management (OFM) 20-year GMA population projections. Footnote16 OFM is required to revise its 20-year GMA population projections at least once every 10 years. Footnote17 Counties may therefore revise their UGAs at least once every 10 years. Footnote18 This means that when a plan is adopted a jurisdiction has a 20 year land supply surplus. If growth occurs at the rate assumed in the forecast, the jurisdiction will have a 19 year land supply surplus at the beginning of year two. By year 10 it will still have a 10 year surplus. Then, with OFM's revised projections, the county can review and may amend its UGAs to establish a new 20 year land supply for its cities. In effect, then, between the required plan revisions, counties and their cities will generally have a 10 to 20 year land supply based on OFM population projections.
Engrossed Senate Bill 5875 required OFM to revise its forecasts by December 1995. With continued rapid growth and an expanding economy, OFM may be asked to revise its forecasts more often than once every 10 years. Therefore, future population projection revisions will continue to offer counties and cities regular and timely opportunities to revise the size and capacity of their UGAs. It is possible, therefore, for Counties to revise the capacity of the UGAs as often as OFM revises its forecasts. However, because of the expense and time involved in making changes to UGAs, these changes are likely to be undertaken less often than they are allowed.
B. Growth Hearings Board decisions related to urban land uses, capacities, and densities
The cases and conclusions cited below illustrate some specific hearings board decisions related to urban land uses, capacities, and densities. The list highlights only a few key points from the more than 300 cases that have been filed with the Boards (GMHB).
Urban Land Uses
In a recent case, the Central Board found that the City of Redmond was not in compliance when it designated agriculture land within a UGA, and it ruled that the city would have to revise its designation to a use not implying the property was of long-term commercial significance as agricultural land, unless the city adopted a program for purchasing and transferring development rights. Footnote19
UGA Capacity
The Central Board has held that in calculating the size of the UGAs for itself and its cities, a county may adopt a "market factor" above the "bright line" standard of 25% Footnote20 if it can provide "adequate justification." Footnote21 However, in order to demonstrate that it has provided "sufficient" buildable acres within its UGAs to accommodate 20-year growth, a county must "show its work." Footnote22 However, given these qualifications, counties in consultation with their cities Footnote23, may "exercise ... discretion" in creating UGAs that "include unincorporated lands and even non-urbanized lands". Footnote24
In its Tacoma v. Pierce County decision the Central Board extended the range of discretion it will consider by allowing the county to include subjective considerations, including a "market factor" in the sizing and configuration of its UGA, provided that it explicitly shows its work in describing both the objective and subjective factors that were used Footnote25.
Urban Densities
In the Kitsap case, the Central Board found that as a general rule 4 net dwelling units per acre was a "bright line" for a minimum density in an urban area, while also recognizing that the use of 1 or even 2.5 acre lots on or near environmentally sensitive areas might be appropriate as long as it was infrequent and did not constitute a pattern over a large area. Footnote26
In the Federal Way case, the Central Board found that the plan provided adequate justification for designating some urban land adjacent to a designated wetland at less than 4 units per acre. Footnote27
Likewise, in its Bothell case, the Central Board ruled that, while required to provide a range of urban densities and uses in accommodating new growth, the city could exercise "broad local discretion" in designating specific locations, densities, intensities, and development standards. Footnote28 However, while cities have broad discretion in determining how they will accommodate growth, the Central Board made clear in its Lynnwood ruling that cities must accommodate their fair share of the regional growth that is projected to occur. Footnote29
3. ISSUE DISCUSSION
To date only about 60% of the comprehensive plans required under the GMA have been adopted. The plans are now only one to two years old. In most locations the real impact of the GMA is not yet being seen on the ground. The development pipeline is often very long and many of the projects that are being built today were vested under pre-GMA regulations. Likewise, there are projects, vested pre-GMA, that may not be constructed for many years. The full impact of GMA will only be seen when a majority of those projects have been completed. Therefore, it is still too early to analyze or report on the actual impact and effectiveness of the GMA.
Actual Urban Growth Area Capacities created in Comprehensive Plans adopted under the GMA Footnote30
Several counties and cities have developed geographic information systems (GIS) that facilitate the compilation, analysis, and display of land use information. The information list below comes from some of their reports and studies.
The King County Land Capacity Task Force reported in November 1995 that there were over 300,000 vacant and redevelopable residential parcels within the cities and unincorporated portion of the county. The County's adopted comprehensive plan established a 20-year target range of 171,815 to 222,556 new households. While there are "market", "environmental", and "other factors" that will keep some of the 300,000 parcels from being developed, these data imply that the land supply in King County still provides a safety cushion at this point. More land can also be added to that safety cushion whenever OFM revises its 20-year population projections. So, it is difficult to imagine a growth scenario that would let King County exhaust its 20-year land supply before OFM ever had a chance to revise its population projections. However, King County has not experienced the recent rapid growth that has occurred in Kitsap, Clark, Pierce, and Snohomish Counties. This lack of growth pressure may make King County not an ideal example.
Snohomish County planners analyzed the safety cushion that the GMA builds into the UGA land supply calculation process and recommended a 15% safety factor rather than the 25% "market factor" allowed by the ACT Footnote31. In their analysis the planners demonstrated that the combined effect of having a 20 year land supply and a 25% "market factor" actually produced a 150% safety cushion in the land supply at year 10.
The Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC) is a regional transportation authority with responsibility for certifying transportation element of comprehensive plans within its region (RCW 47.80.030). The PSRC is currently evaluating comprehensive plans in the four central Puget Sound counties for consistency with the regional Vision 2020 plan. In reviewing and monitoring plan implementation, the PSRC is gathering information related to land use, population, employment and housing. While their work is not yet complete, a current on-going study of industrial areas in the region is expected to be completed by the summer of 1997. Unfortunately, this effort will not assist other counties in identifying and tracking industrial land availability.
In addition to the county information, cities plans show a range of responses to establishing their UGAs and land use plans. Some such as Mercer Island, Beaux Arts, Medina, and Hunts Point are near or at full buildout. For planning purposes their UGA is their city limits. Others have expansive visions for their cities. In Clark County the town of Battle Ground had 1,723 acres within its city limits and was planning for a UGA of 4,431 acres. In Yakima County the town of Mabton has 270 acres within its city limits and is proposing a UGA with 2,585 acres. In Grant County the town of Mattawa has 207 acres within its city limits and a population of 1,700; it is proposing an interim UGA with over a thousand acres. In Benton County, the town of West Richland currently has 12,502 acres within its city limits for its 6,700 residents. With a current density of about 2 acres per person, the city is proposing a UGA that is only about 200 acres larger than its current city limits. Footnote32
Some other Examples of Recent Urban Developments under GMA
Even though it is too soon to assess the full impact that GMA is having in urban areas, there are recent examples of high density and mixed used developments that can be seen in many cities. In fact, the PSRC is currently working with public officials, the private sector and citizen groups in implementing the high density mixed use centers that form the foundation of its Vision 2020 plan. Its "Urban Center Incremental Development Study" is tracking new development within the designated centers. In some of those centers changes can already be seen. Seattle, Tacoma, Bellevue, Redmond, Issaquah, and Kent among others are all taking steps, such as allowing for greater densities, to promote more compact and efficient centers that will support transit and other transportation goals. Recently, the Seattle Times Footnote33, ran a feature article on the construction and rapid sale of row house developments in Seattle, Bellevue, Redmond, Issaquah, and the town of Dupont in Pierce County. Olympia established minimum densities standards as a means to assure more compact and efficient development patterns. Many other cities, large and small, have also adopted ordinances to allow accessory dwelling units as a low-impact method for increasing densities in many areas. Other cities are also now allowing manufactured homes on any lot in single family neighborhoods as a way of providing more affordable housing options.
In a related story that also reflects the growing market acceptance for compact urban development, The Oregonian Footnote34, recently reported on the very active real estate market and the record prices that are being paid for high density multifamily land along the light rail transit line that is being built out to the west side of the Portland metropolitan area.
4. OPTIONS
Option 1: No Action.
Pro:
This is the least-cost option. Since it is still too early to observe the impact of the GMA on the ground, it is also too early to determine whether the GMA is having a beneficial or negative effect on urban land supply.
Con:
Oregon, which has had a number of years of experience with growth management legislation, recently adopted a bill to survey urban officials about diminished land available for growth. This is a recognition that systems to measure whether planned for densities are being achieved are an important element in growth management planning.
Option 2: Fund a number of studies to collect data related to available land supply. These would include:
| Growth management land use data, |
| Periodic special land use studies such as the study of industrial land supply, affordable housing, sites available for public schools in the urban growth areas, and the tracking of actual built out densities. |
| Water availability in relation to population projections. |
| Actual density of recent development. |
Pro:
This option will provide the data needed to answer the questions regarding the land supply, the actual urban densities that are being achieved, the remaining unused land and infrastructure capacity, and other related issues within UGAs.
Con:
This option will require staff and resources not provided in the current budget. It will take time to gather and analyze the data. It may be necessary to monitor patterns over a period of years to allow for the effects of pre-GMA vesting and the impact of OFM revisions. To provide useful time series data it may be necessary to amend and expand the authority provided under this section of the GMA. Special studies will do nothing about long-term needs for continual analysis of the availability of land for residential, industrial, and commercial purposes.
Option 3: Establish a clearer process for calculating urban land supply and tracking of densities, including methodologies for assessing financial capacity within UGAs and reassessing the land use element if funding falls short. In addition, require OFM to revise its 20-year forecasts at least every 5 years.
Pro:
This option will automatically trigger review and the possible revision of UGAs at the county level. Under the existing methodology for calculating land supply it assures that jurisdictions will have an even larger UGA land supply safety cushion to work with in the 5 years between population forecasts. It will also formalize OFM's current 5-year review policy.
Con:
This option will require amendment of OFM's current authority related to GMA population projections. It may also require additional OFM staff and resources. It places more responsibility on the counties for reviewing and revising their UGAs every 5-years, rather than at 10-year intervals. This could be seen as an unfunded mandate that should be funded by the state.
Option 4: Redefine "urban" land uses to include their relation to specific urban levels of service.
Pro:
This option would help to clarify several GMA requirements.
Con:
This option opens the GMA to other revisions, including major changes that might alter its original purpose. This option might be seen as a threat by the cities and counties that have spent millions of dollars planning under the original requirements of the GMA. Identifying standards that will be useful and applicable to all jurisdictions may be difficult.
Option 5: Amend the statute defining the role and authority of Boundary Review Boards in order to use their technical expertise to evaluate land use, the phasing of development, infrastructure financial capacity, and other issues related to annexation and the provision of urban facilities and levels of service within urban growth areas.
Pro:
This option will provide locally-based Boundary Review Boards with the technical criteria necessary to more clearly evaluate annexation proposals and disputes under the GMA.
Con:
This option would require amendment of current authority and the provision of specific professional staffing and expertise within Boundary Review Boards. There are no current minimum technical qualifications required for appointment to a Boundary Review Board.
Option 6: Provide incentives for permitting and financing industrial lands. This would include increased funding for CERB, PERF, and inventorying and prioritizing lands needed for industrial/commercial uses. Specifically, give the Community Economic Revitalization Board (CERB) the authority to better fund industrial infrastructure development and the pre-planning necessary to facilitate permitting by: 1) increasing repayment to the revolving fund from 75% to 100%; 2) directing 10% of sewerage collection business fees to the revolving fund; and 3) directing 10% of water distribution business fees to the revolving fund.
Pro:
This option will help to identify and qualify industrial lands within UGAs and facilitate their development as recommended by cities and counties.
Con:
This option would require amendment of current authority and the redirection of general fund revenues.
Option 7: Require local governments to either expand urban growth areas to accommodate population projections at the recent development densities or provide incentives to increase construction of high density housing.
Pro:
This option allows for expansion of UGAs based on the density preferences shown by consumers, lenders, and builders. If higher densities are to be achieved without expanding the UGAs, jurisdictions would have to provide incentives for developers to build at higher densities. Urban land supply would be based on market forces, not on planning. Urban land supply would expand at regular intervals to support the current density trends found in the residential market place.
Con:
GMA planning attempts to balance many goals, not just the short term preferences of the residential real estate market. The GMA already allows for a 20-year land supply based on population projections and a range of land uses and densities in which established levels of service are financially feasible and sustainable. By expanding UGAs at regular intervals before build out densities can be achieved, this option would help to perpetuate lower densities, less efficient patterns of urban facilities and services, and higher per household infrastructure costs. This option would work against the GMA goals of reducing sprawl and promoting compact efficient patterns of development. The cost of providing the unspecified incentives that might be demanded to build at higher densities would create an open-ended public obligation. This option would substitutes trend lines for rational planning, and may create outcomes that are contrary to the original intent of the GMA.
Option 8: Allow counties to "bank" sites for future industrial/commercial development.
Pro:
This option would help to reserve suitable lands in appropriate sites for potential industrial/commercial development. It would help to assure that land would be available for future economic development, similar to what is now being done in Clark where "Industrial Reserve" land, zoned at 20 acre minimums, has been designated along the outside boundary of UGAs in some parts of the county.
Con:
The GMA currently limits industrial development outside of UGAs to resource related activities or industrial sites that meet a specific review process and set of criteria outlined in the Act. The GMA also limits the extension of urban levels of infrastructure and services outside of UGAs except under specified conditions.
RCW 36.70A.030
RCW 36.70A.110(1)
RCW 36.70A.110(1)
RCW 36.70A.070(1)
RCW 36.70A.070(2)
RCW 36.70A.060(4)
RCW 36.70A.110(2)
RCW 36.70A.190(4)
The Art and Science of Designating Urban Growth Areas, Part I, Providing Adequate Urban Area Land Supply, Department of Community Development, March 1992, p. 17
RCW 36.70A.110(2)
The Art and Science of Designating Urban Growth Areas, Part II, Some Suggestions for Criteria and Densities, (March 1992, pp. 15-19
RCW 36.70A.020(1)
RCW 36.70A.020(4)
Art and Science, Part II at p. 19
Procedural Criteria for Adopting Comprehensive Plans and Development Regulations (Chapter 365-195 WAC)
RCW 36.70A.110(2)
RCW 43.62.035(1)
RCW 36.70A.130(3) "Each county that designates urban growth areas under RCW 36.70A.110 shall review, at least every ten years, its designated urban growth area or areas, and the densities permitted within both the incorporated and unincorporated portion of each urban growth area. In conjunction with this review by each county, each city located within an urban growth area shall review the densities permitted within its boundaries, and the extent to which the urban growth occurring within the county has located within each city and the unincorporated portions of the urban growth areas. The county comprehensive plan designating urban growth areas, and the densities permitted in the urban growth areas by the county and each city located within the urban growth areas, shall be revised to accommodate the urban growth projected to occur in the county for the succeeding twenty-year period."
CPSGMHB 95-3-0072, p. 38
CPSGMHB 95-3-0039, p. 42
CPSGMHB 95-3-0039, pp. 64-65
CPSGMHB 93-3-0010, p.35
RCW 36.70A.110(2)
CPSGMHB 94-3-0009, p. 15
CPSGMHB 94-3-0001, pp. 10-13
CPSGMHB 95-3-0039, p. 50
CPSGMHB 96-3-0005, p.12
CPSGMHB 94-3-0011, p. 9
CPSGMHB 93-3-0005
At present, detailed land use data related to urban densities and capacities is not being collected by the state. While land use inventorying and data collection was authorized in the GMA (RCW 43.63A.550), the study recommending funding for the process was not acted upon by the Legislature in 1991. Furthermore, since jurisdictions are not now required by statute to submit detailed land use statistics to the state, the current data on hand is limited.
Urban Growth Area: Growth Management Forecast and Land Capacity, position paper dated January 10, 1995.
Data for Clark, Thurston, and Pierce Counties is available but could not be compiled in time for this draft.
"Return of the Row House", Mark Hensaw, The Seattle Times, July 28, 1996, pages G1 and G7.
"The Westside Land Rush", Steve Mays, The Oregonian, August 21, 1996, pages D1 and D3.