Under RCW 36.70A.3201, local governments have discretion to find ways to comply with the GMA and may use local conditions as a cornerstone of such compliance. The more difficult question involves a review of the record to determine whether the County encouraged urban growth in UGAs, restricted sprawl, and prohibited urban growth in the rural areas. It inventoried all existing lots of record and vested parcels, subjected each parcel to critical area overlay maps, and recognized that many of the small lots in existence were platted during an economic boom of a century ago. It applied appropriate analysis to the impact of septic systems and water supply regulations on the various legal or vested lots. The calculations found in table 3-2 and the analysis from that data indicated a surplus of existing lots for the population projection of between 2,000 and 3,300.
Urban growth represents more than just residential densities.
Commercial and industrial growth is a component that must be addressed. We will discuss those sections more specifically below with regard to the issues raised by petitioner. We specifically incorporate the reasoning of that case into this one as to that issue. We find that under the record in this case Jefferson County has encouraged urban growth in its UGA, has taken steps to restrict sprawl, and has prohibited urban growth outside of UGAs. Petitioner has failed to sustain its burden of proving a failure to comply.