Planning director warns council GMA criteria and past appeals constrain urban growth boundary expansions

Oliver Ojiako, Clark Countys community planning director, told the council at a March 25 work session that staff were presenting information for council deliberation and not asking for a decision. "You are not going to be making a decision today," he said, emphasizing the meeting was informational.

Ojiako reviewed the legal framework under the Growth Management Act and Washington Administrative Code, telling councilors that before expanding any urban growth area the county must demonstrate need and pursue reasonable measures to increase capacity. He described the WACthree-part test for designating agricultural resource land: (a) the land must not already be characterized by urban growth, (b) it must be used or capable of being used for agricultural production, and (c) it must have long-term commercial significance. "Urban reserve is not urban," Ojiako said while distinguishing reserve overlays from urban growth boundary status.

Staff summarized the countywide agricultural (ARC) study and said it addresses the WAC criteria, pointing to specific pages that analyze soils, public facilities, tax status, water rights and food security. "If you review the study, you will find that starting from page 32 through 62, they did what was asked of them," Ojiako said. He added staff would provide a written report citing the relevant RCW and WAC sections the council will need to consider.

Legal counsel and staff answered repeated council questions about whether the characterization of a parcel depends on surrounding development. In response to a council question about whether a single acre surrounded by urban development would be considered urban, counsel said the answer "depends," explaining courts and the growth board examine the parcel itself and legal precedent is fact-specific.

Councilors pressed on how the ag study balances parcel-level conditions with countywide analysis. Staff said consultants used countywide datasets overlaid on parcel maps (including USDA/NRCS soil maps) rather than only parcel-by-parcel field visits, and emphasized that designation decisions must consider impacts on the agricultural industry countywide rather than isolated parcel studies.

Why it matters: Ojiako and staff repeatedly warned that prior attempts to add agricultural land to UGAs triggered appeals and litigation. Past updates produced contested outcomes and, in some cases, the county and cities lost at the growth board or in court. The staff presentation underscored that meeting all parts of the WAC test is commonly required to sustain a designation and that the history of appeals informs the countys approach.

The county will provide the council a staff report citing specific RCW/WAC authorities and the ag study appendices so councilors can evaluate site-specific UGA requests and decide what preferred alternative to send for final EIS analysis.