Urban Growth Areas (10/20/00)

1. How are the Urban Area boundaries determined? Were the residents and property owners involved, or did the city and county determine them arbitrarily?
[ response ]

2. Is the UA boundary extensive enough to contain your area's future growth over the next 10 years?
[ response ]

3. In general, American homeowners prefer to live in low density areas. Do the residents in your area approve, or disapprove, of attempts at densification?
[ response ]

4. In your opinion, are the UA boundaries effective in preventing urban sprawl?
[ response ]

R. Kline
Jefferson County
For the most part UGA boundaries in Washington State follow city boundaries for incorporated areas - UGA boundaries for unincorporated areas are established through a public process - although the extent and effectiveness of this process varies from county to county. Regarding the second part of the question, Washington is the citizen participation capital of the planet. It is against the law to arbitrarily establish UGA boundaries not to mention just plain bad planning practice. Early and continuous public involvement is the mantra.

D. Crow
Cowlitz County
Regarding your questions on growth management, Cowlitz County is unique in that we are the only county along the I-5 corridor that is not under the Growth Management Act. Our population increase has never quite triggered the law, and there has never been any "political will" to volunteer. However, through a bit of a geographical fluke, a small portion of the City of Woodland along the south border of Cowlitz County is actually in Clark County. Since Clark County is under GMA, it has been interpreted that the entire City of Woodland is subject to the GMA. You might want to contact Steve Langdon at the Cowlitz-Wahkiakum Council of Governments here in Kelso at (360) 577-3041 to get his take on your questions as they relate to Woodland. By contract, he has been the City Planner for the City of Woodland for the last 10 years.

The County is working with Steve and Woodland on updating their Growth Management Plan. We are also working with the City of Kalama to develop an unofficial "Urban Services Boundary" as much in compliance with GMA as we can make it, even though Kalama is not subject to the Act. Based on my experience gained through those two projects, I'll try to give you my "slant" to your questions.

I'm not totally familiar with how Woodland's boundary was determined. It was done long before I began working in Cowlitz County. (Again, Steve should be able to help you.) The County is pushing Woodland to involve the residents and the property owners as much as possible in the update. This is in addition to the a steering committee that includes citizens as part of the membership. We will be doing the same in Kalama. There, an "urban services boundary" will be determined for the first time ever. We are using a combination of projected growth for the community for the next 20 years, existing land use, projections for land use needs (primarily residential, commercial and industrial) for the next 20 years, and trying to come up with the service area boundary. It's difficult, not only because it's never been done before, but because the City has an "out of control" water system that is being spread willy-nilly to anybody who wants water and is willing to pay for it. Fortunately, the sewer service area is much more compact. I'll FAX you a list of what the County expects to get out of this joint effort with Kalama.

J. Hayes
Thurston County
In Thurston County, Urban Growth Areas were drawn out of a lengthy public process. Existing development, logical boundaries, infrastructure capacity, and of course, population forecasts were just some of the factors. The areas are designed to serve population forecasts of 20 years. Thurston County and its cities must comply with an extensive list of criteria for any change to an existing urban growth area. Expansion is a "last resort," with other methods (increasing densities within the UGA, for example) preferred under the Growth Management Act. Any proposed change goes through significant (and lengthy) public and agency review. Some of the criteria for changing an urban growth area include ensuring protection of natural resources and critical areas, consideration of citizen preferences, concurrency with municipal sewer, water, and transportation infrastructure, and ensuring that sufficient land remains available for growth forecast for the succeeding 20 years.

R. Kline
Jefferson County
By law it is required to be.

D. Crow
Cowlitz County
In both cases, we are trying to make the UA extensive enough for 20 years, in compliance with GMA. However, the steering committees tend to be overly optimistic about the growth rate for each community for the next 20 years, and the UA recommended by the committees will probably be larger than it really needs to be. The County will have to take a serious look at the boundaries before giving its stamp of approval.

J. Hayes
Thurston County
These are 20-year boundaries.

R. Kline
Jefferson County
Washingtonians hate two things; sprawl and increased densities - this makes for an interesting but complicated and difficult mix.

D. Crow
Cowlitz County
Good question. What "urban density" really means has been discussed extensively, especially by the Kalama committee. Members think that the County's definition of "urban" (6 dwelling units per acre) is too dense, and they want to use 4. I don't believe the County is going to accept that. A major difficulty in drawing that Urban Services Boundary will be the extensive low density sprawl that has already developed around Kalama (due in part to the water system). People DO like to live in low density areas, so we have to "sell" the community on the economic advantages and convenience of more compact development. In a community like Kalama, it's not easy!

J. Hayes
Thurston County
I would like to see the data supporting the low density preference. I don't really buy it. I think that there is a lack of housing choice in the current market. When new choices are presented, people seem to jump on them. Recent successes of high density townhome and infill development in Denver and Sacramento are cases in point. Higher density, zero lot line subdivisions in Olympia have been successful, too. There are lots of these cases. Well-designed, well-built higher density projects in areas where people want to live and work are successful. The trick is having educated lenders and creative and builders in your community. It isn't about high density vs. low density, it is about serving a highly diversified market of people with a diverse array of housing choices.

Although builders in our county seem to focus most on single-family home development, our vacancy rate in apartments is below average, making me think there is a market for denser development. Hard to know without a scientific study. Some recent large multi-family projects have also been submitted, so we'll see how the trend continues...

R. Kline
Jeferson County
Absolutely - take a look at Portland, OR.

D. Crow
Cowlitz County
I think it has helped in Woodland. However, the major cause of urban sprawl in Cowlitz County is Cowlitz County. We have no county-wide zoning, our Comprehensive Plan is now 24 years old, and our land use designations ENCOURAGE sprawl. I think if the County were under GMA, in partnership with all 5 cities we could do a lot to at least reduce it. However, it is too much engrained in the County to ever eliminate it. We hope to establish better land use controls outside the UA's in Woodland and Kalama to help contain it in at least those areas.

J. Hayes
Thurston County
Yes. This system isn't perfect-- Thurston County has 1/5 zoning outside the urban growth areas, which is not exactly super low-density. However, one definitely feels, sees, and smells the difference when you leave the city and enter the country. The difference will become even more apparent as the UGAs build out and if we can stick to our guns on regulations keeping development down in the rural area. Although the UGA system deserves and benefits from continued critique, the alternative is downright scary.

I just returned from Denver, CO. All planning students need to go there. The Front Range sprawl phenomenon is well documented, but nothing compares to seeing it first hand. Truly the sprawl frontier. Boulder stands out almost comically with a dramatic band of agricultural and park land ringing the dense little city. The rest of the metro area is widely spread-apart tech parks, regional malls of incredible size, congested highways being widened, and ridge-top development of McMansions on every horizon. A statewide growth management initiative is on the ballot-- we'll see how it does. I personally think it is the only way to go, despite its imperfections.