The Pierce County Boundary Review Board March 8 unanimously denied Bonney Lake’s application to annex the the area south of its city limits, citing a lack of planning on the part of the city.

“The planning here is abysmal,” said Boundary Review Board Chairman Carl Vest at the end of a five-hour hearing at the Pierce County Annex in Tacoma. “It is premature because you haven’t thought it through yet in my opinion.”

The issue of the annexation came before the Boundary Review Board because the county invoked jurisdiction over the city’s attempt to annex the area, which compromises approximately 1,860 acres and about 7,000 residents.

In a brief, attorneys for the county argued that Bonney Lake failed to follow proper procedure by attempting to annex a Comprehensive Urban Growth Area (CUGA) before attempting to add the area to the city’s Urban Growth Area (UGA) and before doing the planning necessary to bring the area into the city.

The city argued that it could better provide services to the residents of the area, which is designated urban, than the county. The city also argued that the area shares commonalities with Bonney Lake, such as schools, fires, libraries and other issues like traffic and shopping.

“The annexation is of an area that is urban in character,” Community Development Director John Vodopich told the board. “It’s clear the county intends the area to be developed in an urban nature.”

Lawyers for the county said the city was unprepared to handle the area and should have followed proper procedure, including working with the county to designate the area as part of the city’s urban growth area and embarking on joint planning procedures.

“I didn’t hear a thing about why they didn’t try to proceed with the comprehensive planning process,” said Jill Guernsey, attorney for the county.

“I thought the appropriate step was that they amend elements of their local comprehensive plan to include tis area,” said Dan Cardwell, senior planner for Pierce County and a witness for the county.

Much of the discussion focused on PLateau 465, the master planned community located in annexation sub-area 3, at the far south end of the annexation area. Attorneys from Plateau 465 were on hand to oppose annexation on grounds the city would not be required to honor the conditions for approval of the community.

The city stipulated in a letter to the county Jan. 5 it would abide by the conditions, though lawyers for Plateau 465 said they were not convinced.

Before the decision, the Commissioners reviewed the case, applying a series of nine objectives of the board in such decisions. The board concluded that three of the conditions were met, two were not and three did not apply. Another condition split between two commissioners who thought it was not applicable and two who felt the objective was met.

However, all four commissioners (one member was absent due to illness) ruled the area was not urban in character because Plateau 465 is yet undeveloped.

Commissioner Bill Giddings said that even though “most of the area is urban” and the area was designated urban growth area, the “future intent” on an additional 3,000 planned homes in Plateau 465 was not yet urban and therefore denied the objective.

“The area is partially urbanized, but a bunch of trees on the bottom end of it does not make it urbanized,” agreed Vest.

City Administrator Don Morrison said he thought it was “fairly obvious from the outset” that board opposed the annexation.

“We were disappointed, but not surprised,” he said.

Morrison said the decision was not denied based on fact, but was “arbitrary and capricious.”

Morrison said the city would most likely appeal the decision to the state court of appeals.

For more on this story see next week’s edition of the Bonney Lake & Sumner Courier-Herald.