Laserfiche WebLink
1 Issue 2. Petitioners allege that the action of the County in passage of Ordinance No. <br /> 2 468 being out-of-cycle, fails to adequately analyze impacts as part of a <br /> comprehensive review of the UGA.36 <br /> 3 <br /> 4 Petitioners allege that "since this application is not to correct a UGA mapping error, it <br /> 5 cannot be upheld since this type of application to amend the UGA cannot be entertained <br /> 6 through the annual review process. Under WWCC 14.10.015(E), the UGA may only be <br /> 7 amended once every five years, or once every ten years under WWCC 14.10.015 (G). This <br /> 8 <br /> 9 application to amend the UGA cannot be considered until one of those five or ten year <br /> 10 reviews."37 <br /> 11 The County argues Petitioners have incorrectly interpreted County Code, stating; <br /> 12 "Every year, the Board may limit its review to consideration of only the following proposed <br /> 13 Comprehensive Plan amendments. . ." The Code uses the word "may", not "shall", and the <br /> 14 Board has discretion in setting applications the Board will review. Furthermore, WWCC <br /> 15 14.10.015(C)(7) states that "other amendments placed on the final docket by the board of <br /> 16 <br /> 17 county commissioners" may be reviewed. The Board of County Commissioners placed the <br /> 18 Simplot Application on the Final Docket in July, after a public hearing38 and, under WWCC <br /> 19 14.10.060 (E) could add amendments even after the docket is set.39 The Board agrees with <br /> 20 the County. <br /> 21 The County points out that the County Code and Comprehensive Plan have some <br /> 22 flexibility for the County Commissioners in the annual amendment process. <br /> 23 <br /> 24 WWCC 14.10.015(C)(2)(5) and (7) state: <br /> 25 <br /> 26 Technical amendments to correct mapping errors that do not require <br /> 27 <br /> interpretation of the criteria for the various land use designations; (5) Site- <br /> 28 36 Issue 2: Is Ordinance No. 468 an unlawful, out-of-cycle site specific proposal to expand the Attalia UGA that <br /> 29 should have been deferred until the next comprehensive review of the urban growth area under WWCC <br /> 14.10.015(C)(5) and WAC 365-196-310 (E)(i) that fails to adequately analyze how the UGA amendment would <br /> 30 affect transportation, capital facilities, utilities, etc. in the broader context of a comprehensive review of the <br /> 31 urban growth area, as required by those provisions and RCW 36.70A.050, RCW 36.70A.110, RCW <br /> 36.70A.130 and RCW 36.70A.190? <br /> 32 37 Petitioners Prehearing Brief at 10. <br /> 38 IR 24. <br /> 39 County's Brief at 12. <br /> FINAL DECISION AND ORDER Growth Management Hearings Board <br /> Case No. 18-1-0001 1111 Israel Road SW,Suite 301 <br /> July 2,2018 P.O. Box 40953 <br /> Page 12 of 17 Olympia,WA 98504-0953 <br /> Phone:360-664-9170 <br /> Fax: 360-586-2253 <br />