HomeMy WebLinkAboutITEM V-EWASHINGTON
Memorandum
Planning and Development Dept.
To: Councilmember Lynn Norman, Chair, Planning and Community Development
Committee
Councilmember Nancy Backus, Vice- Chair, Planning and Community Development
Committee
Councilmember John Partridge, Member, Planning and Community Development
Committee
From: Elizabeth Chamberlain, AICP, Planning Manager
CC: Kevin Snyder, AICP, Director of Planning and Development
Date: May 2, 2011
Re: Amendments to Pierce County's Countywide Planning Policies - Current Status
Background
When Vision 2040 was adopted by the Puget Sound Regional Council General Assembly in May
2008, there were provisions for the four counties to update their Countywide Planning Policies
(CPP) to be consistent with the Multi-County Planning Policies identified in Vision 2040. Pierce
County began that work, through the Growth Management Coordinating Committee (GMCC),
towards the end of 2009 and has continued that work through March 2011. The GMCC is a staff
level committee representing each jurisdiction in Pierce County that makes recommendations,
related to growth management, to the Pierce County Regional Council (PCRC).
The GMCC has been working on proposed changes to the CPPs to be consistent with Vision
2040 has made their recommendation to the PCRC. The PCRC has been reviewing the CPP
amendments and has made their recommendation to the Pierce County Council for ratification.
Staff presented the proposed amendments to the Committee back at their April 12, 2010 meeting
and received feedback from the Committee. Enclosed for reference is the memo staff presented
at that April 2010 meeting (Exhibit B).
Status of Proposed Countywide Planning Policies Amendments
Attached to this memo for the Committee's reference is the final draft that the PCRC forwarded to
the Pierce County Council for approval and ratification (Exhibit A). Since it has been about a year
since staff presented the amendments to the Committee and there have been modifications to
the proposed amendments, staff wanted to bring back the proposed amendments for review prior
to the Committee seeing the amendment package for ratification in July/August 2011.
Page 1 of 4
AUBURN * MORE THAN YOU IMAGINED
Staff has outlined all of the proposed amendments and shown in color are the modifications from
when these amendments were originally presented to the Committee about a year ago.
Addition of three new chapters
• Community and Urban Design
• Health and Wellbeing
• Rural Areas
2. Introduction
• Proposed changes to address changes made to state law regarding the Growth
Management Act
• Identify that plans be consistent with the Multi-County Planning Policies
• Addition of language to include transportation strategies to address concurrency
such as public transportation
• Addition of section stating purpose of Countywide Planning Policies and deletion
of how CPPs first established
• Addition of section identifying Vision 2040 and the Multi-County Planning Policies
3. Affordable Housing
• Addition of Vision 2040 MPP statement (page 14)
• Policy that jurisdictions with designated regional growth center should consider
affordable housing allocations as part of population allocations for those centers
(Page 15)
Comment: Auburn's regional growth center is within King County so this does not
apply.
Policy that jurisdictions should review and streamline development standards
(Page 17)
4. Agricultural Lands
Addition of Vision 2040 MPP statement (Page 19)
Addition of criteria for determining long-term significance for agriculture (Pages
20-21)
5. Economic Development and Employment
• Addition of Vision 2040 MPP statement (Page 25)
• Amendments to support job creation and businesses
• Amendments to include jobs/housing balance
• New policies added that are from Vision 2040 (Pages 26-29)
6. Education
• Addition of Vision 2040 MPP statement (Page 30)
• New policy added that is from Vision 2040 (Page 30-31)
Fiscal Impact
• Minor non-substantive changes (Page 33)
8. Historic, Archaeological, and Cultural Preservation
• Addition of Vision 2040 MPP statement (Page 34)
Page 2 of 4
AUBURN * MORE THAN YOU IMAGINED
• New policy added that is from Vision 2040 (Page 36)
9. Natural Resources, Open Space, Protection of Environmentally Sensitive Lands, and
the Environment
• Addition of Vision 2040 MPP statement (Page 37-38)
• New policies added that are from Vision 2040 (Pages 39-42 and 44-48)
• Addition of language supporting transfer/purchase of development rights and
cluster design
• Addition of policies related to climate change (Pages 48-50)
10. Siting of Essential Public Capital Facilities of a Countywide or Statewide Significance
• Title proposed to read "Siting of Essential Public Capital Facilities of a
Countywide or Statewide Significance"
• Addition of specific facility requirements from the MPPs (Page 52)
• New policies added that are from Vision 2040 (Pages 52-54)
11. Transportation Facilities and Strategies
• Addition of Commute Trip Reduction statement (Page 55)
• Addition of Vision 2040 MPP statement (Page 55-56)
• New policies to promote sustainable transportation system and improve safety
(Page 56)
• Addition of non-motorized facilities as a transportation service that is Countywide
(Page 56)
• Expand what considered multi-modal (Page 56)
• Addition of a transit level of service policy (Page 57)
• New policies added that are from Vision 2040 (Page 58-62)
12. Urban Growth Areas, Promotion of Contiguous and Orderly Development, and
Provision of Urban Services to Such Development
• Adding of language that it is not appropriate that urban services be extended or
expanded in rural areas (Page 63)
• Addition of Vision 2040 MPP statement (Page 64-65)
• Addition on Growth Targets discussing that allocation of growth based on policy
direction set by the Regional Growth Strategy in Vision 2040 (Page 66)
• Amending language on centers to be consistent with Vision 2040 terminology
(Pages 67-68 and 84-94)
• Addition of two designated Manufacturing/Industrial Centers (Page 68)
• Deletion of criteria when the County first designated UGAs as process not
applicable any longer (Pages 70-71)
• New policies added that are from Vision 2040 (Page 72-74)
13. Buildable Lands
Addition of new policy to provide clarification on who responsible for Buildable
Lands, identify the first report, what is the Buildable Lands Program, and
jurisdiction responsibility (Pages 95-97)
New policy stating that an ad-hoc be convened every five years to review the
capacity analysis for residential and employment (Page 98)
Page 3 of 4
AUBURN * MORE THAN YOU IMAGINED
14. Amendments and Transitions
New policy establishing a timeframe for ratifying amendments to the Countywide
Planning Policies (Page 99)
New policy regarding Urban Growth Area expansions (Page 100)
New policy regarding the adoption of housing and employment targets (Page 102)
There will be further work by the Growth Management Coordinating Committee
(staff level committee) related to Urban Growth Area expansions. The GMCC
requested that this item be added to the work plan for 2011.
15. Community and Urban Design (new chapter)
• New chapter to the CPPs (Pages 103-104)
• Policies primarily from Vision 2040
16. Health and Wellbeing (new chapter)
• New chapter to the CPPs (Pages 105-107)
• Policies primarily from Vision 2040
17. Rural Areas (new chapter)
• New chapter to the CPPs (Pages 108-110)
• Policies primarily from Vision 2040 with some modification by the GMCC
Next Steps
At the May 9, 2011 Planning and Community Development Committee meeting, staff will review
the proposed amendments to the Pierce County Countywide Planning Policies with the
Committee. The Pierce County Regional Council (Councilmember Wagner represents Auburn)
moved forward to the Pierce County Council for approval and ratification the proposed
amendments. Once the Pierce County Council takes action then the amendments are sent to
each jurisdiction for ratification. In order for the amendments to pass, 60% of the affected
governments representing 75% of the total Pierce County population must ratify the
amendments.
Exhibits:
Exhibit A - Amendments to the Pierce County Countywide Planning Policies
Exhibit B - Memo to Planning and Community Development Committee April 12, 2010 meeting
Page 4 of 4
AUBURN * MORE THAN YOU IMAGINED
Exhibit A
114 Pages
Countywide
Planning Policies
for Pierce County, Washington
Amended Document
Incorporating PCRC's
Motioned Edits
Changes are in strikeout/highlight format
Effective
PAGE TO BE UPDATED AT ADOPTION BY PCRC
COUNTYWIDE PLANNING POLICIES
FOR
PIERCE COUNTY, WASHINGTON
PIERCE COUNTY REGIONAL COUNCIL
CouncilmemberMike T aaeFg r Bobbi Allison, Chair, C4y Town of Taeafna Eatonville
Gatinei'member- Ma-t4 hew Rieh^r'~^r Vice Chair, City of Sumner
Gati ^;'member- Gone re^r^ City of Auburn
Councilmember James Rackley, City of Bonney Lake
Mayor Pat Johnson, City of Buckley
Mayor Richie Morgan, Town of Carbonado
Councilmember Larry Wilcox, City of DuPont
Councilmember Scott Malkuch, City of Edgewood
Councilmember Butch Brooks, City of Fife
Councilmember Kathy McVay, City of Fircrest
Councilmember Derek Young, City of Gig Harbor
Councilmember Helen McGovern, City of Lakewood
Councilmember Pad Finnigan, City of Lakewood
City of Milton
City of Orting
Councilmember Leanne Guier, City of Pacific
Pat McCarthy, Pierce County Executive
Councilmember Joyce McDonald, Pierce County Council
Councilmember Roger Bush, Pierce County Council
Councilmember Timothy M. Farrell, Pierce County Council
Commissioner Clare Petrich, Port of Tacoma
Councilmember John Knutsen, City of Puyallup
Councilmember Rick Hansen, City of Puyallup
Councilmember Ray Bourne, City of Roy
Mayor Bruce Hopkins, Town of Ruston
Mayor Peggy Levesque, Town of South Prairie
Mayor Ron Lucas, Town of Steilacoom
Mayor- Bill B^^ -sf City of Tacoma
Councilmember Marilyn Strickland, City of Tacoma
Gatinei'member jean Br^^' City of University Place
Getineilmem er- Linda City of University Place
Mayor Tanet Kepka Town of Wilkeson
Ex officio Members:
Chris Picard, Office of Urban Mobility
Neel Parikh, Pierce County Library District
Kelly Hayden, Pierce Transit
Norm Abbott, Puget Sound Regional Council
Recommended by the Pierce County Regional Council
-,oil
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. INTRODUCTION
I
IL RULES OF INTERPRETATION
....911
III. COUNTYWIDE PLANNING POLICIES
..4.9 12
Preamble to Countywide Planning Policies
..40 12
Affordable Housing
..4413
Agricultural Lands
..4-4 19
Economic Development and Employment
..49 25
Education
2-2-30
Fiscal Impact
24 33
Historic, Archaeological and Cultural Preservation
..2-534
Natural Resources, Open Space, a*d Protection of Environmentally-Sensitive Lands;
and the Em ironment
..2 37
Siting of Essential Public Capital Facilities of a Countywide or Statewide Nfttidr-e
Si`,;nilicarnce
..-3-9 1
Transportation Facilities and Strategies
..4-2 55
Urban Growth Areas
..4-963
Buildable Lands
79 95
Amendments and Transition
99
Community and Urban Design
103
Health and Well-being
105
Rural Areas
.....108
This document was originally adopted on June 30, 1992 and amended on April 9, 1996, December
17, 1996, and November 18, 2004, November 17, 2008. TO BE UPDATED
Introduction
1. INTRODUCTION
A. Background and Statutory Framework
In response to legislative findings that uncoordinated and unplanned growth together with a lack of
common goals toward land conservation pose a threat to the environment, to the public health,
safety and welfare, and to sustainable economic development, the State legislature enacted the
Growth Management Act.' The Act identifies 4-3. 14 planning goals which are intended to be used
& for the purpose of 11uidin- the development and adoption of comprehensive
plans and development regulations of municipalities and counties required to plan.2 The categories
in which goals have been propounded are: urban growth, sprawl reduction, transportation, housing,
economic development, property rights, permits, natural resource industries, open space and
recreation, shoreline, environment, citizen participation and coordination, public facilities and
services, and historic preservation. The r pa fee-as of the Gfewt Management net ; an th
eempr-ehensi~,,e plan, whiek the Gettff~y and eaek mttnieipalit~~ mttst adept by J'd!Y 1, i993. band
development eg ulations must be adapted T ~i one (1) year- thee-eaf*°r. The Act specifies
mandatory3 and optional4 plan elements as follows:
Mandatory Elements
land use
housing
capital facilities
utilities
rural (County only)
transportation
Optional Elements
conservation
solar energy
recreation
economic development
historic preservation
any other relating to the physical
development of the jurisdiction
In addition, subarea plans are permitted.'
1 RCW Chapter 36.70A (1990).
2 RCW 36.70A.020(1) - (44 14).
3 RCW 36.70A.070.
4 RCW 36.70A.080(1).
s RCW 36.70A.080(2).
RCW 36.70.070(9): these optional elements become marndatoix if state ftuldin- is prov-ided.
PCRC REVIEW - APRIL 21, 2011
Introduction
One of the most important planning tenets expressed in the Growth Management Act is the
consistency requirement, which takes many forms as follows:
• consistency of municipal/County plans with the planning goals identified in RCW
36.70A.020
• internal consistency between plan elements
• consistency of all other plan elements with the future land use map
• consistency of any subarea plans with the comprehensive plan
• consistency of the transportation element with the land use element
• consistency of the transportation element with the six-year plans required by RCW
35.77.010 for cities, RCW 36.81.121 for counties, and RCW 35.58.2795 for public
transportation systems
• consistency between the County Comprehensive Plan and the comprehensive plans of
all municipalities within the County
• consistency of comprehensive plans of each municipality and county with
comprehensive plans of neighboring municipalities and counties with common borders
or faced with related regional issues
• consistency of development regulations with the comprehensive plan
• consistency of capital budget decisions with the comprehensive plan
• consistency with the Pu(let Sound Regional Council's (PSR(') Multicounty Planning
Policies (MPPs) as required by RCW 36.70A.210(7)
• consistency of state agency actions in relation to the location, financing and expansion
of transportation systems and other public facilities with county and municipal
comprehensive planning
Despite the fact that the word "consistency" is used repeatedly in the Growth Management Act, it is
not defined. The Standard Planning Enabling Act promulgated in 1928 by the United States
Department of Commerce established the concept that zoning regulations should be "in accordance
with a comprehensive plan." In the 64 years since the model act was developed this concept has
evolved from being merely advisory or guiding to one that mandates that the goals, objectives,
policies, and strategies of each document must be in agreement with and harmonious with the
provisions of all other required documents. The consistency doctrine has been continually
strengthened by both state statutes and by court decisions in both `consistency statute states' and
those states adopting the concept by increasingly vigorous interpretation of the "in accordance with"
statutory language.
PCRC REVIEW - APRIL 21, 2011
Introduction
A second planning tenet which the Growth Management Act promotes is concurrency i.e., that
concept that public facilities and services necessary to serve new development at adopted level of
service standards are actually available at the time of development. The concurrency requirement is
stated generally in the planning goals6 as follows:
Ensure that those public facilities and services necessary to support development
shall be adequate to serve the development at the time the development is
available for occupancy and use without decreasing current service levels below
locally established minimum standards.
In the transportation element, which is a required plan element for all municipal and County
comprehensive plans, the concurrency requirement is restated in more forceful terms as follows:
local jurisdictions must adopt and enforce ordinances which prohibit
development approval if the development causes the level of service on a
transportation facility to decline below the standards adopted in the
transportation element of the comprehensive plan, unless transportation
improvements or strategies to accommodate the impacts of development are
made concurrent with the development.
These strategies may include increased public transportation sern-ice, ride sharing programs, demand
management, and other transportation systems management strategies; the importance of
considering multimodal transportation improv-ements is set forth in RCW 36.70A.108. Concurrent
with the development means that for non-transportation facilities, improvements or strategies are in
place at the time of development and in the case of transportation facilities, that a financial
commitment is in place to complete the improvements or strategies within six (6) years.
Portions of the mandatory planning, consistency, and concurrency requirements combine to suggest
a strong relationship between the accommodation of growth and the provision and financing of
public facilities and services to meet facility and service demands generated by that growth. This
relationship is then strengthened by the Urban Growth Area boundary designation and public
facility requirements.8
In order to accomplish these new planning and plan implementation requirements, the legislature
has expressly authorized the use of innovative techniques,9 including impact fees. ro
6 RCW 36.70A.020(12).
RCW 36.70A.070(6)(b).
s RCW 36.70A.110.
9 RCW 36.70A.090.
ro RCW 82.02.050 -.090.
PCRC REVIEW - APRIL 21, 2011
Introduction
In 1991, the State legislature amended the Growth Management Act, inter alia, to require that the
legislative body of the County adopt countywide planning policies, in cooperation with the
municipalities in the County. Countywide planning policies are written policy statements
establishing a countywide framework from which county and municipal comprehensive plans are
developed and adopted. The framework is intended to ensure that municipal and County
comprehensive plans are consistent."
The development of the countywide planning policies was is intended to be a collaborative process
between the County and the municipalities. The legislation required the County legislative body to
convene a meeting with representatives of each municipality. The County and the municipalities
then determine the process in by which they will agree to all provisions and procedures of the
countywide planning policies including; but not limited to, desired planning policies, deadlines, and
ratification. No lat°r than idly ' ' °°~The legislative authority of the County is required to adopt
countywide planning policies in accordance with the agreed-upon process after holding the requisite
public hearing or hearings. 12
The Countywide Planning Policies are not substitutes for comprehensive plans but, rather goals,
objectives, policies, and strategies to guide the production of the County and municipal
comprehensive plans.
The Countywide Planning Policies shall, at a minimum, address the following:"
(a) Policies to implement RCW 36.70A.110;
(b) Policies for promotion of contiguous and orderly development and
provision of urban services to such development;
(c) Policies for siting public capital facilities of a countywide or statewide
nature;
(d) Policies for countywide transportation facilities and strategies;
(e) Policies that consider the need for affordable housing, such as housing for
all economic segments of the population and parameters for its distribution;
(f) Policies for joint County and city planning within urban growth areas;
(g) Policies for countywide economic development and employment; and
11 RCW 36.70A.210(l).
12 RCW 36.70A.210(2).
13 RCW 36.70A.210(3)(a) - (h).
PCRC REVIEW - APRIL 21, 2011
Introduction
(h) An analysis of the fiscal impact.
B. Framework Agreement for the Adoption of the Countywide Planning Policies
Pursuant to the Growth Management Act, Pierce County and the municipalities have entered into an
Interlocal Agreement for the development, a*d adoption, and amendment of the Countywide
Planning Policies Pps).14 The Agreement provides for the establishment of a Steering Committee
consisting of one elected official from Pierce County and one elected official from every
municipality in the County. The principal responsibility of drafting the Countvwide Planning
Policies was given to the Steering Committee. 15 The Steering Committee is now the Pierce County
Re,,ional Council (PCR(') and receivesd technical/staff support from the Growth Mana-ement
Coordinating Committee (GMCC) and the Transportation Coordinating Committee JCC). -The
Strategi$s.4-7
Ratification of and amendments to the Countywide Planning Policies requires the affirmative vote
of 60% of the affected governments in Pierce County representing a minimum of 75% of the total
Pierce County population as designated by the State Office of Financial Management at the time of
the proposed ratification.
C. Me~hadalmagy for- the Countywide Planning Policies
Countywide planning policies are policy documents that hay- e both a procedural and a substantive
effect o11 the comprehe11siv7e plans of cities and the county. The immediate purpose of the CPPs is
to achieve consistency between and amono the plans of cities and the county on regional matters. A
1011<1-term purpose of the CPPs is to facilitate the transformation of local governance in urban
growth areas so that cities become the priniary providers of urban goy-ernmental ser\ ices arid
counties become the providers of regional and rural sen ices and the makers of regional policies.
[PoitAho, 92-3-0009c, FDO, at 23.1 [Also, Snogitulnfic, 92-3-0004c, FDO, at 9] Another purpose
is to facilitate urban growth at urban densities.
The Countywide Planning Policies are intended to provide the guiding goals, objectives, policies
and strategies for the subsequent adoption of comprehensive plans, but are not to be a substitute for
such plans. The level of detail in the Countywide Planning Policies must be sufficient to provide
specific guidance, yet not so detailed as to constrain appropriate local choice in future
14 Interlocal Agreement: Framework Agreement for the Adoption of the Countywide
Planning Policy (Pierce County Council Resolution No. R91-172, September 24, 1991)(See
Attachment "B").
15 Interlocal Agreement, 2.
16 Interlocal Agreement, 4.
4-Inter aeal "tgreeinex~s-
PCRC REVIEW - APRIL 21, 2011
Introduction
comprehensive planning by the County and municipalities. This is particularly true because the
Countywide Planning Policies apply to the County and all municipalities, both large and small, both
adjacent to other urban areas and remote from other urban areas, each with somewhat different
characteristics.
Given
The Consultants developed a fnatf:i* for- eaeh paliey area whieh emphasized the individtial
eampenents (elements) of the issues and the altemative eatir-ses of aetion/deeisiefis that eatild
Th
l
m
nt
r
t
t
d in th
int
ali
n
ll
f
r-fn
f
ti
n
t
t
im
l
t
di
i
n b
th
e e
e
e
s we
e
y s
a
e
e
e
o
a
a
o
que
s
o
s
o s
u
a
e
setiss
o
y
e
filiti
)
nd th
St
rin
G
fnfnit4
nd
i
fnil
r4
th
a
n
ll
hr
d
th
t
ti
e
es
a
e
ee
g
a
ee; a
, s
"
" "
"
i
l
a
y,
e.,
i-e
o
a
y p
ase
so
a
a
yes
fie
s
mp
e
er- b
it br
d
d th
i
int
f th
St
n
rin
C
mm
itt
fn
mb
r-
thr-
h
f
id
eeause
oa
e
e v
ewpo
s o
e
e
f
lt
fi~
,
f
l
ti
d
+ t4
ee
g
o
ti
ee
e
ll
d th
e
s
oug
use o
aw
e
t
thi
k i
t
f th
r-ange e
a
effia
,
e
efmtt
a
ens an
a
e s
ame
me eem
pe
e
e
m
e
n
n
erms e
f+
m St
1
r
~
,
f-
n
r-
in
E
k
li
-
f
h
,
r-
611 b
in
~
,i
d
e
ep
we
e
,
e
f e
eeti
ag
g.
ae
rdepe deady
pe
e
y a
ea
was,
ew
e
, s
e
g
,
ewe
St
2
n
d
d t
b
ild
n th
A
in
St
1 in
rd
r- t
d
lo
-
- h
a
i
n
ep
was
ee
e
o
u
a
e wa
E
ep
o
e
o
eve
p
p
e
s
ve a
PCRC REVIEW - APRIL 21, 2011
Introduction
eafifar-ff4y of the altema4ive with the State Planning Goals and the ifidiVidtial GOtifftyWi
developmeat seenar-ios. These maps were fiet iffteaded to suggest a4ual E)r- pr-eeise batifidar-i
deaer-difiated se+ of p liey d -eetives
that needed to be addressed in the Ur
,;d
li
D'.,nfli
P
i
G
nt
Th
ban Gfamh Area paliey, whieh is the e0fflefstOfie Of th
i
ia
l
d
d
e
g
a
ati
yv
e
es.
ese
ssues
e
ti
e
~
0 delineation of Urban Gfewth Areas;
aetefi4liiiccfi6irinia-a nea-fieirv~crer-s-=itzAzH Ur-ban Gfew~h Areas;
. ubli . f ,.il4y and se e adeq . ey;
sef-,~ree;
Countywide Planning Policies are written policy statements used sek4' for establishing a
countywide framework from which county and municipal comprehensive plans are developed and
adopted. The framework is intended to ensure that municipal and County comprehensive plans are
consistent. 18 While the Growth Management Act does not specify the legal effect of adoption of the
Countywide Planning Policies, it clearly acknowledges their importance by providing that failure to
adopt Countywide Planning Policies meeting the requirements may result in the imposition of
sanctions19 including, but not limited to the withholding of state revenues and rescinding the County
18 RCW 36.70A.210(1).
19 RCW 36.70A.210(5).
PCRC REVIEW - APRIL 21, 2011
Introduction
or municipality's authority to collect the real estate excise tax.20 Cities and the Governor may
appeal adopted Countywide Planning Policies to the appropriate Growth Planning Hearings Board
within sixty (60) days of the adoption of the policy.21 After the 60-day period, Countywide
Planning Policies cannot be directly challenged.
~Tlie effectiveness of the Countywide Planning Policies is not based merely on the fact
that they are adopted, but rather on the fact that they must be adhered to and implemented in the
County and municipality comprehensive plans and development regulations. The legislation
provides a process to challenge the failure of a County or municipality to comply with the
Countywide Planning Policies through petition to the Growth Planain Management Hearings
Board.22 The Growth Planaing Management Hearings Board shall hear and determine only those
petitions alleging either: (a) that the State, county or municipality is not in compliance with the
Growth Management Act; or (b) that the 20-year growth management planning population
projections adopted by the State Office of Financial Management should be adjusted.23 Petitions
must be filed within sixty (60) days after publication of the ordinance adopting the comprehensive
plan or development regulations.24 Comprehensive plans and development regulations and
amendments thereto are presumed valid upon adoption.25
The Pierce County Countywide Planning Policies (CPPs) must be consistent with the Puget Sound
Regional Council's (PSRC) Multicounty Planning Policies (MPPs). The most recent set of these is
set forth in PSRC-s VISION 2040, which specifically requires that the Pierce County Countywide
Planning Policies be updated, wbere rnecessaix, by December) I, 2010, to address the MPPs in
VISION 2040. The Countywide Plannin<- Policies should also be updated to address charges in the
Growth Management Act language and interpretation that have taken place since the original
adoption of the Countywide Planning Policies in 1995. The 2009 update to those provisions of the
Washington Administrative Code that provide guidance for implementation of the Growth
Management Act should be of assistance in idertifi,irng Growth Management Act changes and
requirements. It should also be noted that Federal agencies and hldian tribes may participate in and
cooperate with the countywide planning policy adoption process and that adopted countywide
planning policies must be adhered to by state agencies. RCN' 36.70A.210(4)
20 RCW 36.70A.340(2) and (3).
21 RCW 36.70A.210(6).
22 RCW 36.70A.250.
23 RCW 36.70A.280(1).
24 RCW 36.70A.290(2).
25 RCW 36.70A.320.
PCRC REVIEW - APRIL 21, 2011
Introduction
VISION 2040
VISION 2040 is the long-ranee -romh mana(,ement, environmental, economic, and transportation
strategy for the central Puget Sound region adopted in April 2008 by the PSRC General Assembly.
VISION 2040 promotes an ernv- ironmentally friendly growth pattern that will contain the expansion
of urban (,rowth areas, coil sen-e farm and forest lands, support compact communities where people
may both live and work, and envisions that a si<nnificant share of new employment and housing will
occur in vibrant urban centers. VISION 2040 promotes the theme of "people, prosperity, plarnet" as
a sustainability framework.
The Regional Growth Strategv set forth in VISION 2040 provides specific guidance for the
distribution of future population and employment (,rowth throu(111 the year 2040 into types of places
defined as "regional geographies." The Regional Growth Strategy reflects a substantial shift in
future growth patterns for many jurisdictions and implementation will be challenaing. Jurisdictions
in some regional geographies will likely be planning for targets that are above or below the
policy direction set by the Regional Growth Strategy because they are on a front- or back-loaded
growth trajectoix toward 2040. In other regional geographies, recent growth has been at such
significant odds with the policy direction set by the Regional Growth Strategy (such as recent
growth in unincorporated urban Pierce County from 2000 to 2007 has already accounted for
more than half of the 40-near growth allocation), that the 2040 goal will likely not be met. In
such cases, jurisdictions are asked to set growth targets as close to VISION 2040 as reasonably
possible in an effort to "bend the trend" of future growth to more closely conform to the
Regional Growth Strategv.
1\ ulticouuty Planniu" Policies (MPPs)
VISION 2040 includes a set of multicounty planning policies that provide an integrated framework
for addressing land use, economic development, transportation, public facilities, and env- ironmental
issues. Multicounty planning policies are adopted by two or more counties and establish a common
regionwide framework that ensures consistency among county and city comprehensive plans
adopted pursuant to RCN' 36.70A.070, and countywide planning policies adopted pursuant to ROW
36.70A210.
Multicounty planning policies provide a framework for regional plans developed within a
multicounty region, including regional transportation plans established under RCW 47.80.023, as
well as plans of cities, counties, and others that have common borders or related regional issues as
required under RCN' 36.70A.100. The regional transportation planning organization, pursuant to
RCN' 47.80.020, should be the a(,erncv to develop, adopt, and administer multicounty planning
policies.
Multicounty planning policies address, at a minimur~~, the same topics identified for countywide
planning as identified in RCN' 36.70A210(3), except for those responsibilities assigned eXclusively
to counties.
PCRC REVIEW - APRIL 21, 2011
9
Introduction
In order to prov- ide an on-going region-wide framework, a schedule for reviewing and revising the
multicounty planning policies may be established. This schedule should relate to the review and
revision deadlines for county and city comprehensive plans pursuant to 36.70A.1 30.
PCRC REVIEW - APRIL 21, 2011
10
Introduction
IL RULES OF INTERPRETATION
Words and terms used in the Countywide Planning Policies shall be defined as set forth in
the Policies and in the Growth Management Act to the extent defined therein. To the
extent not defined therein, words and terms shall be given their plain and ordinary
meanings, e~ieep+ as p-4ded .
2. The term "shall" is intended to be mandatory, the terms "may" and should are dir-ee4efy
adv-i sore only. While the terms "shall and will" is are mandatory, it shatil shall be
understood and implied that the policy statement in which 4-is they are used is applicable to
a municipality and/or the County only when, through objective determination, the
circumstances on which the Policy is premised are relevant.
PCRC REVIEW - APRIL 21, 2011
11
Introduction
III. COUNTYWIDE PLANNING POLICIES (CPPs)
PREAMBLE TO COUNTYWIDE PLANNING POLICIES
Countywide Planning Policies are written policy statements which are to be used sek4' for
establishing a Countywide framework from which the County and municipal comprehensive plans
are developed and adopted. The framework is intended to ensure that the County and municipal
comprehensive plans are consistent, as required by the Washington statutes.
RCW 43.17.250 Countywide Planning Policy e°: requires State agencies that provide
funding to review local proposals for consistency with any adopted countywide planning
policies. State agencies will review local proposals to determine if they are addressed by a
Countywide Planning Policy and accord additional preference to the County, city, or town if
such Countywide Planning Policy exists. The County, and many of the municipalities within the
County, typically address specific proposals within their local comprehensive plans and capital
facilities plans. These locally adopted plans serve to supplement and refine the more generalized
policies contained within the Countywide Planning Policies. Therefore, this document, as well
as any locally adopted comprehensive plan and/or capital facilities plan, shall be considered by
State agencies in making determinations under RCW 43.17.250.
PCRC REVIEW - APRIL 21, 2011
12
Affordable Housing
Proposed amendvrents are based on the i,ersion of this chapter currentll, out for ratification.
COUNTYWIDE PLANNING POLICY ON THE "NEED
FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING FOR ALL ECONOMIC SEGMENTS
OF THE POPULATION AND PARAMETERS FOR ITS DISTRIBUTION"
Background - Requirement of Growth Management Act
The Washington State Growth Management Act mandates identifies as ^ planning gaa to guide t
that counties and
cities encourage the availability of affordable housing to all economic segments of the population,
promote a variety of residential densities and housing types, and encourage preservation of the
existing housing stock. [RCW 36.70A.020(4)] The term "affordable housing" is not defined, but
the context in which it appears suggests that its meaning was intended to be broadly construed to
refer to housing of varying costs, since the reference is to all economic segments of the community.
The Washington State Growth Management Act requires the adoption of countywide planning
policies for affordable housing in order to establish a consistent county-wide framework from which
county and city comprehensive plans are developed and adopted. These policies are required to, at
a minimum, "consider the need for affordable housing, such as housing for all economic segments
of the population and parameters for its distribution" [RCW 36.70A.210(3)(e)].
The Washington State Growth Management Act also identifies mandatory and optional plan
elements. [RCW 36.70A.070 and.080]. A Housing Element is a mandatory plan element that
must, at a minimum, include the following [RCW 36.70A.070(2)]:
(a) an inventory and analysis of existing and projected housing needs that identifies the number
of housing units necessary to manage projected growth;
(b) a statement of goals, policies and objectives, and mandatory provisions for the preservation,
improvement and development of housing, including single-family residences;
(c) identification of sufficient land for housing, including, but not limited to, government-
assisted housing, housing for low income families, manufactured housing, multi-family
housing, group homes, and foster care facilities;
(d) adequate provisions for existing and projected housing needs of all economic segments of
the community.
Since the Comprehensive Plan of every city and county must be an internally consistent document
[RCW 36.70A.070] and all plan elements must be consistent with the future land use map prepared
as part of the required land use element [RCW 36.70A.070], these other plan elements will, to a
great extent, dictate what will be in the housing element.
PCRC REVIEW - APRIL 21, 2011
13
Affordable Housing
Thus, the land use element, relying upon estimates of future population, growth, average numbers of
persons per household, and land use densities, will indicate how much (and where) land needs to be
made available to accommodate the identified housing needs. The capital facilities, transportation
and utilities elements will then indicate when and how public facilities will be provided to
accommodate the projected housing, by type, density and location.
VISION 2040 Multicounty Planning Policies (MPPs)
VISION 2040 recognizes that to meet the demands of a growing and changing population in the
central Pu.7et Sound, the region needs to develop v-ibrant commLu1ities that offer adig-erse and
well-distributed miy of homes affordable to both owners and renters in every demographic and
income group. VISION 2040 encourages housing production that will meet our needs and places
a major emphasis providing residences that are safe and bealtby, attractive, and close to jobs,
sboppirng, and other amenities. The Multicounty Planning-, Policies address I ) housing div-ersity
and affordability, 2) jobs-housing balance, and 3) best practices for home construction. These
Multicounty Planning Policies place an emphasis on preserving and eyparndirng housing
affordability, incorporating quality and ens-°ironr~~entally responsible design in bomebuilding, and
offering(, bealtby and safe home choices for all the re~(lion 's residents.
Countywide Planning Policy
AH-1. The County, and each municipality in the County, shall determine the extent of the
need for housing for all economic segments of the population, both existing and
projected for its jurisdiction over the planning period.
AH-2. The County, and each municipality in the County, should explore and identify
opportunities to reutilize and redevelop existing parcels where rehabilitation of the
buildings is not cost-effective, provided the same is consistent with the countywide
policy on historic, archaeological, and cultural preservation.
AH-3. The County, and each municipality in the County, shall encourage the availability of
housing affordable to all economic segments of the population for each jurisdiction.
3.1 For the purpose of the Pierce County Countywide Planning Policies the
following definitions shall apply:
3.1.1 "Affordable housing" shall mean the housing affordable to households
earning up to 80 percent of the countywide median income.
3.1.2 "Low income households" shall mean households earning 80 percent or
less of the countywide median income.
3.1.3 "Moderate income households" shall mean households earning 80 to
120 percent of the countywide median income.
3.1.4 "Special Needs Housing" shall mean supportive housing opportunities
for populations with specialized requirements, such as the physically
and mentally disabled, the elderly, people with medical conditions, the
PCRC REVIEW - APRIL 21, 2011
14
Affordable Housing
homeless, victims of domestic violence, foster youth, refugees, and
others.
3.2 Affordable housing needs not typically met by the private housing market should
be addressed through a more coordinated countywide approach/strategy.
3.2.1 Each jurisdiction may adopt plans and policies for meeting its
affordable and moderate income housing needs in a manner that reflects
its unique demographic characteristics, comprehensive plan vision and
policies, development and infrastructure capacity, location and
proximity to job centers, local workforce, and access to transportation.
3.3 It shall be the goal of each jurisdiction in Pierce County that a minimum of 25%
of the growth population allocation is satisfied through affordable housing.
3.3.1 Jurisdictions with designated regional centers should consider
incorporating affordable housing allocations as part of their adopted
allocations for these centers.
3.4 Each jurisdiction should provide a sufficient supply of special needs housing
opportunities that is equitably and rationally distributed till-OLI(Y11OUt tile
COMM'.
nAH-4. The County and each municipality in the County should establish a countywide
program by an organization capable of long-term consistent coordination of regional
housing planning, design, development, funding, and housing management. All
jurisdictions should be represented in directing the work program and priorities of the
organization.
AH-5. Jurisdictions should plan to meet their affordable and moderate-income housing
needs goal by utilizing a range of strategies that will result in the preservation of
existing, and production of new, affordable and moderate-income housing that is
safe and healthy.
5.1 Techniques to preserve existing affordable and moderate-income housing
stock may include repair, maintenance, and/or rehabilitation and
redevelopment in order to extend the useful life of existing affordable housing
units.
5.1.1 Jurisdictions should seek and secure state funds such as the Housing
Trust Fund, and federal subsidy funds such as Community
Development Block Grant, HOME Investment Partnership, and other
sources to implement housing preservation programs.
5.2 Jurisdictions should promote the use of reasonable measures and innovative
techniques (e.g., clustering, accessory dwelling units, cottage housing, small
PCRC REVIEW - APRIL 21, 2011
15
Affordable Housing
lots, planned urban developments, and mixed use) to stimulate new higher-
density affordable and moderate-income housing stock on residentially-zoned
vacant and underutilized parcels.
5.3 To promote affordable housing and ensure access to services and jobs,
jurisdictions should consider the availability and proximity of public
transportation, governmental and commercial services necessary to support
residents' needs.
5.4 Jurisdictions should consider providing incentives to developers and builders of
affordable housing for moderate- and low-income households, such as but not
limited to:
5.4.1 A menu of alternative development regulations (e.g. higher density,
reduced lot width/area and reduced parking stalls) in exchange for
housing that is ensured to be affordable.
5.4.2 A toolkit of financial incentives (e.g., permit and fee waivers or multi-
family tax exemptions) and grant writing assistance, through the
regional housing organization, that may be dependent on the amount of
affordable housing proposed.
5.4.3 A toolkit of technical assistance (e.g., mapping, expedited processing
and permit approval) to affordable housing developers that may be
dependent on the amount of affordable housing proposed.
5.5 Jurisdictions should consider inclusionary zoning measures as a condition of
major rezones and development.
5.5.1 New fully contained communities in unincorporated Pierce County
shall contain a mix of dwelling units to provide for the affordable and
moderate-income housing needs that will be created as a result of the
development, as well as helpinu to accommodate a share of the
county's overall affordable housin~~ need as expressed in policy 3.3.
AH-6. The County, and each municipality in the County, should cooperatively maximize
available local, state, and federal funding opportunities and private resources in the
development of affordable housing for households.
6.1 All jurisdictions should jointly explore opportunities to develop a countywide
funding mechanism and the potential for both voter approved measures (bond
or levy), and nonvoter approved sources of revenue to support the
development of affordable housing.
6.2 All jurisdictions should pursue state legislative changes to give local
jurisdictions the authority to provide tax relief to developers of affordable
housing.
PCRC REVIEW - APRIL 21, 2011
16
Affordable Housing
6.3 All jurisdictions should explore opportunities to dedicate revenues from sales
of publicly owned properties, including tax title sales, to affordable housing
proj ects.
6.4 All jurisdictions should explore the feasibility of additional resources to
facilitate the development of affordable housing such as a new countywide
organization (based on inter-local agreements), expansion of existing non-
profit partnerships, increased coordination with local public housing
authorities, a county-wide land trust, as well as future involvement of larger
County employers, in the provision of housing assistance for their workers.
AH-7. The County, and each municipality in the County, should explore and identify
opportunities to reduce land costs for non-profit and for-profit developers to build
affordable housing.
7.1 Jurisdictions should explore options to dedicate or make available below market-
rate surplus land for affordable housing projects.
7.2 All jurisdictions should explore and identify opportunities to assemble,
reutilize, and redevelop existing parcels.
7.3 All jurisdictions should review and streamline development standards and
re(yulatiorns to advance their public. benefit, prov- ide flexibility, and minimize
costs to housing.
AH-8. The County, and each municipality in the County, shall periodically monitor and assess
their success in meeting the housing needs to accommodate their 20-year population
allocation.
8.1 Jurisdictions should utilize the available data and analyses provided by
federal, state, and local sources to monitor their progress in meeting housing
demand as part of the required Growth Management Act comprehensive plan
update process.
8.2 Countywide housing allocations shall be periodically monitored and evaluated
to determine if countywide needs are being adequately met; the evaluation
should identify all regulatory, programmatic, and financial measures taken to
address the allocation need.
8.3 Each jurisdiction should provide, if available, the quantity of affordable
housing units created, preserved, or rehabilitated since the previous required
update.
8.4 Jurisdictions should consider using a consistent reporting template for their
evaluations to facilitate the countywide monitoring and assessment.
PCRC REVIEW - APRIL 21, 2011
17
Affordable Housing
8.5 In conjunction with the Growth Management Act Update schedule, a report
should be forwarded from GMCC to the Pierce County Regional Council
(PC R(') addressing the progress in developing new affordable housing.
PCRC REVIEW - APRIL 21, 2011
18
Agricultural Lands
COUNTYWIDE PLANNING POLICY ON
AGRICULTURAL LANDS
Background - Requirements of Growth Management Act
The Washington State Growth Management Act identifies the maintenance and enhancement of
natural resource-based industries, including productive agricultural industries, and the conservation
of productive agricultural lands as planning goals to guide the development and adoption of
comprehensive plans and development regulations. [RCW 36.70A.020(8)]. While the expression of
planning goals in the Growth Management Act is linked to "natural resource industries," including
productive timber and fisheries, a separate policy for Agricultural Lands has been pr-epesed
developed because of their unique importance in Pierce County and their relationship to urban
growth area boundaries and policies. Although the Growth Management Act does not expressly
require a countywide planning policy on agricultural lands, the requirement was added by the
Interlocal Agreement: Framework Agreement for the Adoption of the Countywide Planning Policy
(Pierce County Council Resolution No. R91-172, September 24, 1991).
VISION 2040 Nitilticounty Planning Policies (NIPPs)
VISION 2040 recognizes that the a-ricultural land in the central Puget Sound region is among
the most productive in Washington State. It also recognized that the loss of these lands, alone
with their productivity, bas impacts on the environment, including air and water quality and
quantity our economy, and ultimately the health of the re(,,,ion's people.
VISION 2040 also identities threats to the region's agricultural lands, including urban
deN-elopmernt, incompatible adjacent land uses, and the loss of supporting services. VISION
2040 seeks to permanently protect these key agricultural resource lands. The 1Vlulticounty
Planning Policies calls for conserving the region's natural resource lands, establishing best
management practices that protect the long-term integrity and productivity of these lands,
limiting the conversion of these lands, and ensuring that development does not adversely impact
these lands.
Countywide Planning Policy
Ag-1. The County, and each municipality choosing to designate agricultural lands of long
term commercial sigiiificance in ~he shall do so using the methodology and
criteria stated in WAC 365-190-050. Cities are encouraged to coordinate their
agricultural resource lands designations with the County and adjacent jurisdictions and
a r al laiids
are encouraged to adopt the same criteria. aefin~gri~tt~r- V „ „ , th
: Designation shall be based
on the following factors:
1.1 The land is not already characterized by urban -owth. the definition i RGA7
xarcrccrr-m~=vzicrccrr-m,rvrrvcrr , daif:y, apiaf:y, vegetable, or- aaiffia4
PCRC REVIEW - APRIL 21, 2011
19
Agricultural Lands
the d
txr~P,`s~
by RG
AI 94 .33.04
r
r i th-
-crrro
Qnr.33
cr te
.inn, EW liv
es a
1r6C k,
n
1.2 The land is used or capable of being used for a,,icultural production.
idef4iffea+ien based tipen e-tiffent land tise, pla-aned land tise er- seilm type (i.e.,
1.2.1 Lands that are currently used for agricultural production and that are
capable of being used must be evaluated for designation, including lands
receiving "LlSe value assessments".
I . 2 . 2 The U.S. Department of Agriculture Natural Resource Corlsen ation
Service land use capability soils classification system based on the
(rowing capacity, pi ductivity, and composition shall be assessed.
1.3 The long-term commercial significance for agriculture shall be determined by
considering:
1.3.1 The classification of prime and unique farmland soils;
1.3.2 The types of agriculture that exist in the area and their interactivity and
contribution to the regional economti
1.33 The av-Mailability of water for agriculture;
1.3.4 The availability of public facilities, including roads used for transporting
agricultural products;
1.3.5 Tax status, including current use taxation, optional benefit rating system,
and the transfer or purchase of dev- elopment rights;
1.3.6 The availability of public services,*
1.3.7 The relationship and proximity to urban growth areas, markets and
suppliers;
1.3.8 Predominant parcel sizes;
1.3.9 Land use settlement patterns and their compatibility with agrricultural
practices,
1.3.10 Intensity of nearby land Uses,-
1.3.11 History of land development permits issued nearby, and the extent that
permits issued within fiv- e hundred feet of designated resource lands hay- e
included a notice of potential incompatibility of residential development
with activ- hies associated with resource land uses per RCW 36.70A.060
(1)(b); and
1.3. 12 Land values under alternative uses.
1.4 When designating agricultural resource lands, the County and cities should
consider food security issues, including providing food supplies for food banks
PCRC REVIEW - APRIL 21, 2011
20
Agricultural Lands
schools and institutions, v-vocational trairiin(7
opportunities and preserviMY
heritage or artisanal foods.
1.5 Designation of at least a minimum amount of agricultural land county-wide
rnecessary to maintain economic. v- iability for the agricultural industry, and retain
businesses supporting agriculture such as processors, suppliers, and equipment
dealers should be considered.
1.6 Agricultural lands of local significance should be designated through
consultation with the public and stakeholders such as, local conservation
districts, and organizations promoting farming and local agricultural producers.
These lands may include desi-iiated critical areas such as bogs used to (yrow
cranberries or farmed wetlands.
Ag-2. The purposes of agricultural preservation are:
2.1 ensuring that agricultural lands are treated sensitively to their location and the
presence of urban growth pressures;
2.2 preventing urban sprawl;
2.3 maintaining open space and/or providing a visual green belt;
2.4 retaining natural systems and natural processes;
2.5 preserving the local economic base;
2.6 preserving a lifestyle character;
2.7 maintaining specialty crops;
2.8 maintaining regional, state and national agricultural reserves
2.9 enhancing the local food system throu(Ih the production of fresh and minimally
processed foods.
Ag-3. The County, and each municipality in the County, shall achieve agricultural
preservation through:
3.1 rmp ementrng a(rrcu turn area zoning t gat marntarns +a;fl;"g large
minimum lot sizes in agricultural areas, prohibition of coiiversion to non-farm
uses and urban scale development, and flexible approaches such as clustei-111W
3.2 buffering agricultural areas from urban development;
PCRC REVIEW - APRIL 21, 2011
21
Agricultural Lands
3.3 „'t,rIa' ' E';sti4et av-oiding location of major new roads or
capacity expansiorns in a-ricultural areas unless mana-ement is controlled to
inhibit intrusion of non-farming uses;
3.4 purchase of development rights;
3.5 transfer of development rights within the jurisdiction, including the designation
of receiving zones for agricultural development rights and between jurisdictions,
including the designation of receiving zones by local agreement;
3.6 lease of development rights for a term of years;
3.7 "anti-nuisance" laws to protect agricultural activities from being defined as a
public nuisance;
3.8 preferential tax treatment ("use value assessment");
3.9 other innovative techniques including, but not limited to, purchase-leaseback
through issuance of bonds, university purchase for research, and prevention of
the formation of improvement districts or the creation of benefit assessments
within designated agricultural preservation areas-,-
,.10 reduced fee structure for agricultural related permitting.
Ag-4. The County, and each municipality in the County that chooses to designate agricultural
lands, shall address the effect of practices on non-point source pollution and
groundwater impacts including the use of "best management practices" to reduce
pesticides and fertilizers, and minimize risk to human health and the environment ;
Ag-5. The County, and each municipality in the County that chooses to designate a~~ricultural
lands shall work to:
5.1 protect a~uricultural areas from encroachment by incompatible uses;
5.? encoura,e related development such as farmers markets and roadside stands;
5.3 protect smaller-sized agricultural parcels which are not indiv- ideally viable for
agricultural production but which are within a large area of more v7iable parcels
should be considered for designation; and
5.4 to prov- ide agricultural surface water drainage and av7oid draining of water from
high density residential areas to agricultural lands.
PCRC REVIEW - APRIL 21, 2011
22
Agricultural Lands
6. The .o.ooune:.s:~ o vaDiv;;::e:ci-pr-esi_.a.omareas in -v.vcr- v
6.3 prQtea sued -areas fFE)fnrener-auc entby ineempa4ible uses; an
6
5
r-
t
a
m
ll
r-
i
d
r-i
lt
r-
4
r-
l
-hi
h
r
fi
t indi
id
ll
i
bl
f
.
p
a
e
s
a
e
s
ze
a
g
eu
u
a
pa
ee
s w
e
a
e
e
v
ua
y v
a
e
e
opar-eels i the area,
•
1-.1 fli fee nee for- tilt,, -a r ,,,a,,eti,,
-7Ag-6. The County, and each municipality in the County, shall address the conversion of
agricultural land from agricultural to non-agri cultural use by:
-76.1 establishing criteria for zoning changes and comprehensive plan amendments;
-76.2 establishing le~~a] and financial mechanisms so that property owners realize
economic value that would have accrued from conversion, but land remains in
agricultural use if within Urban Growth Areas.
pur-poses) b-
9.1 identifying agr4eukar-al lands whieh are fnest sensitive to tir-ban growth pr-esstir-es
ll•
Gaffi ffmf4yTrade, and EwiivnTicvevelop"'c+c [ROAL 2ti050(1Tr
cr"I'rrr Zrc~r~-~° • t
the eammer-eial pr-aEltietion of food or- other- ao
4-9Ag-7. The County, and each municipality in the County choosim, to designate agricultural
lands, shall ensure that prime agricultural lands presently in the unincorporated County
or within a municipality are preserved and protected by the enactment of appropriate
land use controls; or by including the land in the urban growth area boundary of a
municipality only if the municipality has delineated standards and criteria relating to
preserving the agricultural lands, and transfer and purchase of dev7elopnient mflit
uro(-Yram s.
PCRC REVIEW - APRIL 21, 2011
23
Agricultural Lands
44Ag-8. The County, and each municipality in the County choosing to designate agricultUral
lands, shall coordinate agricultural land preservation policies with other Countywide
Planning Policies through:
48.1 correlating agricultural land preservation policies with urban growth area
policies and with public facility and service provision policies to avoid the
extension of urban services to areas intended for continued agricultural use;
4-38.2 ensuring that public facility and service extension, even if not directly serving
the agricultural lands, do not stimulate the conversion of agricultural land or
make its preservation and protection more difficult.- and
448.3 joint jurisdictional planning of agricultural land.
Ag-9. EncoUrage the siting and support the continued operation of commLulity gardens.
PCRC REVIEW - APRIL 21, 2011
24
Economic Development and Employment
COUNTYWIDE PLANNING POLICY ON ECONOMIC
DEVELOPMENT AND EMPLOYMENT
Background - Requirements of Growth Management Act
The Washington State Growth Management Act mandates
that counties and
cities encourage economic development throughout the state that is consistent with adopted
comprehensive plans, promote economic opportunity for all citizens of the state, especially for
unemployed and disadvantaged persons, promote the retention and expansion of existing businesses
and recruitment of new businesses, recognize regional differences impactin~~ economic dev-°elopmernt
opportunities, and encourage growth in areas experiencing insufficient economic growth, all within
the capacities of the state's natural resources, public services, and public facilities [RCW
36.70A.020(5)]. Additionally, the Growth Management Act expressly requires that the County
adopt a planning policy on countywide economic development and employment [RCW
36.70A.210(3)(g)].
VISION 2040 Nitilticounty Planning Policies (NIPPs)
VISION 2040 recognizes that a robust economy is integral to our env-ironmerntal, social, and
financial well-being. It ac.l:nowledges that a healtlhv and diverse economv is Nita] for paying for
public serv-ices, supportin<, arts and cultural institutions, and building our communities. The
Multicounty Planning Policies for economic development in VISION 2040 are organized around
the topics of business, pcol)lc, c~nd~~/crcca. An emphasis is placed on enriching the regions
businesses and employment market through job retention, growth, and diversification. Importance
is also placed on small and locally owned businesses, because they create jobs, can offer family-
wage jobs, and nuke v-ital contributions to the sustainability of the region's economy and
prosperity. VISION 2040 recognizes the region's economic well-being is also dependent upon the
safe and reliable movement of people, goods and services, and infor7»atiorn and includes prop--isions
for prioritizing economic development and transportation fundin~o to centers.
Countywide Planning Policy
Ec-1. The County, and each municipality in the County, will work to achieve a prospering
and sustainable regional economy by supporting business and job creation, investing in
all people, sustaining ernv- ironmental quality, and creating great central places, diverse
communities, and high quality of life. This will invol\-e assurin(y nee consistency
between economic development policies and adopted comprehensive plans by:
1.1 considering the future dev7elopnient of con-imercial and industrial facilities
[RCW 36.70A210(3)((,)] and creating in the land use element of each
comprehensive plan a designation of areas for "commerce" and "industry"
[RCW 36.70A.070(1)];
PCRC REVIEW - APRIL 21, 2011
25
Economic Development and Employment
1.2 providing within the areas designated for urban development, sufficient land to
accommodate projected development wit-kin a mar-ke* based sy4em;
1.3 designating and zoning large tracts of dev- elopabl e land equitably
distributed throughout the various jurisdictions based on the related population,
employment base and land areas of the jurisdiction for planned commercial and
industrial centers, and local housing and employment targets;
1.3.1. "Equitably," means with consideration for the population and its
characteristics, including the skills of the current population; the current
employment base and its characteristics (i.e., type of businesses and
industries, permanency of the existing employment base, past trends and
current projections); the amount of land in the jurisdiction; the amount of
vacant land in the jurisdiction appropriately zoned for economic
development; the current unemployment rate; current commuting
patterns; and others, factors as appropriate.
1.4 providing adequate public facilities and services to areas designate f r
;e'eve'~~eti+, employment centers and an adequate supply of housing
with rood access to employment centers.
1.5 separating, buffering, or leaving natural buffers between residential development
and areas of economic development where 44s necessary due to the type,
characteristics and impacts of the economic development activity;
1.6 developing and adopting standards at the municipal level to guide commercial
and industrial development in paAE like a settings, that is appropriately
landscaped;
1.7 evaluating federal, state, and local regulatory, taxing, facility financing and
expenditure practices and then making chan-es to assure that these
practices favor economic development at appropriate locations.
1.8 lev-eragirn<- the repon's and county's position as an intei7iational gateway by
supportirn- businesses, ports, and agencies involved in trade-related activities.
1.9 encouraging the pi-iv-ate, public, and nonprofit sectors to incorporate
environmental and social responsibility into their- practices.
1.10 maXimizing the use of e.\isting designated manufacturing and industrial centers
by focusing appropriate types and amounts of employment growth in these areas
and by protecting them from incompatible adjacent uses.
Ec-2. The County, and each municipality in the County, shall promote diverse economic
opportunities for all citizens of the County, especially the unemployed, disadvantaged
PCRC REVIEW - APRIL 21, 2011
26
Economic Development and Employment
persons, minorities and small businesses. The following measures may be used in
accomplishing this policy, where appropriate:
2.1 determining a reasonable "jobs/housing" balance and then coordinating land use
and development policies to help achieve the designated balance of adequate
affordable housing nea accessible to employment centers;
2.2 identifying urban land suitable for the accommodation of a wide range of non-
residential development activities;
2.3 utilizing state and/or federal programs and financial assistance to the maximum
extent possib!e appropriate;
2.4 encouraging redevelopment of de6liflifig urndeniti11zed commercial areas;
2.5 encouraging flexibility in local zoning and land use controls in order to permit a
variety of economic uses, but dorm so without sacrificing neeessafy sound
design and development standards;
2.6 encouraging programs, in conjunction with other public, quasi-public and private
entities, in order to attract appropriate businesses and industries,
particularly those that diversify the economic base and/or provide family-wage
jobs,
2.7 , encouraging the location of economic development
activities in areas served by public transit and adequate transportation facilities;
2.8 maintaining and enhancing natural resource-based industries, including
productive timber, agriculture, fishing and mining;
2.9 targeting the appropriate creation and retention of specific firms and
industries i' ding sm-All husi es en*°pris°s wrt un esta i s ie an emergm~~
industry clusters that export goods and serv-ices, import capital, and hav7e (,rowth
potential,
2.10 promoting educational, job training, and cultural opportunities, particularly for
those facing unique obstacles and/or those with special needs,
2.11 providing opportunities and locations for incubator industries-,
112 fostering a supportive environment for business startups, small businesses, and
locally owned businesses to help them continue to prosper.
Ec-3. The County, and each municipality in the County, shall encourage economic
development in areas in which there a i°°•ba4ai ee be wee w4lable are insufficient
employment opportunities a*d for the local population base by:
PCRC REVIEW - APRIL 21, 2011
27
Economic Development and Employment
3.1 considering development incentives for- eeaaaf ie development;
3.2 marketing development opportunities it slaw gr-awt areas.
Ec-4. The County, and each municipality in the County, shall take the following steps to
ensure that economic growth remains within the capacities of the state's natural
resources, public services and public facilities:
4.1 identifying existing and future demand for services;
4.2 encouraging the location of economic development ^e~ within Urban
Growth Areas;
4.3 limiting incompatible economic development activities in or adjacent to
designated natural resource lands and critical areas and/or by requiring adequate
buffers between economic development a proiects and designated
natural resource lands and critical areas, and by ensuring that economic
development activities occur in areas with adequate public facilities.
Ec-5. The County, and each municipality in the County, shall plan for sufficient economic
growth and development to ensure an appropriate balance of land uses which will
produce -a sound financial pestidr-e position given the fiscal/economic costs and benefits
derived from different land uses by:
5.1 censuring that the land use element of each Comprehensive Plan allows for an
appropriate mix and balance of uses;
5.2 reducing inefficient, sprawl irr~~ development patterns;
5.3 reducing transportation demand;
5.4 coordinating the provision of public facilities and services and/or insuring that
new development supports the cost of public facility and service expansions
made necessary by such development;
5.5 promoting development in areas with existing available public facility capacity;
5.6 encouraging joint public/private development.- as appropriate;
5.7 concentrating a significant amount of economic ~11rowlh in designated centers;
5.8 ensuring the efficient flow of people, goods, services, and information in and
through the region with infrastructure 11westmernts, particularly in and
connecting desi(Fnated centers [See the Centers policies in the Urban Growth
Area sections].
PCRC REVIEW - APRIL 21, 2011
28
Economic Development and Employment
Ec-6. The County, and each municipality in the County, shall worl: to strengthen existing
businesses and industries and to add to the diversity of economic opportunity and
employment by:
6.1 promoting infill development to assist in maintaining a viable market for existing
businesses;
6.2 utilizing redevelopment or other teeliniques, public finarncin- mechanisms,
where appropriate, to maintain existing businesses;
6.3 making available information, technical assistance and loans for business
expansion and job creation;
6.4 protecting existing viable businesses from
incompatible neighbors;
6.5 streamlining permit processing;
6.6 striving to maintain adequate public facilities and service levels;
6.7 evaluating regulatory and other constraints to ^a d business operations and
devising an appropriate plan to minimize the effect of such constraints-;
6.8 supporting the contributions of the region's and county's culturally and
ethnically diverse communities in lhelping the region and the county continue to
e.\parnd its international economy;
6.9 in rural areas promoting compatible occupations (such as, but not limited to,
tourism, cottage and home-based businesses, and local services) that do not
conflict with rural character and resource-based land uses, but provides needed
employment in cities in the rural areas; and
6.10 in rural and natural resource areas supporting economic activity at a size and
scale that is compatible with the long-ten» inteu rity and productivity of these
lands.
Ec-7. The County, and each municipality in the County, shall provide both the private sector
and the public sector with information necessary to support and promote economic
development by:
7.1 coordinating the collection and dissemination of information with various local
governments;
7.2 cooperating with private and quasi-private entities and sharing information to
attract new industries.
PCRC REVIEW - APRIL 21, 2011
29
Education
COUNTYWIDE PLANNING POLICY ON EDUCATION
Background - Requirements of Growth Management Act
The Washington State Growth Management Act does not identify education as a planning goal to
guide the development and adoption of comprehensive plans and development regulations. Neither
is education listed as a planning policy requirement in the Growth Management Act. However, the
list of topics identified in the Growth Management Act is intended to delineate only the minimum
policy requirements. Education was identified as an additional policy area in the Interlocal
Agreement: "Framework Agreement for the Adoption of the Countywide Planning Policy (Pierce
County Council Resolution No. R91-172, September 24, 1991)'x.
VISION 2040 Nlulticounty Planning Policies (N IPPs)
VISION 2040 contains policies related to education obtainment, sen-ices, and the siting of
education facilities. It calls for ensuring accessible and bigb quality education arid skills-ti-aiiiiii(Y
programs to all of the region's residents and integrates the provision of education facilities and
services with care for the environment. VISION addresses the prov ision of educational facilities
and services that are provided to both urban and rural populations by calling for the siting of
schools, institutions and otber community facilities that primarily serv- e urban populations within
the urban growth area in locations wbere tbev will promote the local desired growtb plans. It also
calls for locating schools institutions, and other comnuuIity facilities seLA in<y rural residents in
neigbborirng cities and towns and desi~~n tbese facilities in 1:eepingl with the size and scale of the
local community.
Countywide Planning Policy
Ed-1. "Educational Facilities," des means all public and private educational facilities,
including, but not limited to, kindergartens, elementary schools, middle schools, junior
high schools, high schools, junior colleges, colleges, academies, and similar
institutions.
Ed-2. The County, and each municipality in the County, shall strive to achieve excellence in
education and to offer diverse educational opportunities to be made available to all
residents of the County, cities, and towns by:
2.1 developing a broad tax base;
2.2 encouraging citizen participation;
2.3 encouraging coordination between educational and employment requirements.
2.4 working to ensure that the region and the county has high quality and accessible
training programs that ugh e people opportunities to learn, maintain and upgrade
PCRC REVIEW - APRIL 21, 2011
30
Education
shills necessaiti to meet the current and forecast needs of the regional and global
economy.
Ed-3. The County, and each municipality the County, shall coordinate with other institutions
or governmental entities responsible for providing educational services, in order to
ensure the provision of educational facilities aloe,, with other necessary public facilities
and services and alone with established and planned growth patterns through:
3.1 the capital facilities plan element;
3.2 the land use element;
3.3 school site location decisions;
3.4 coordination and, if necessary, formal interlocal agreements between school
districts and other governmental entities exercising land use planning, regulation,
and capital improvement planning functions;
3.5 the possible use of impact fees, voluntary advancements, and etkef regulatory
requirements for a portion of school facility financing;
3.6 encouraginget of joint (municipal/school district) use of playgrounds, parks,
open-spaces and recreational facilities;
3.7 supporting for sufficient funding of educational facilities and services;
3.8 support] n~a for the provision of educational facilities and services to meet
specialized needs.
Ed-4. The County, and each municipality in the County, shall address the issue of t4
coordinate with school districts by:
4.1 incorporating school facility location criteria, developed in conjunction with the
local school district, in the local comprehensive plan;
4.2 including school districts in the comprehensive planning process;
4.3 developing a common base of data and sharing the data with school districts
concerning population, household, and school-age population projections, non-
educational capital facility needs, and land uses;
4.4 initiating dialogues with school districts about school district boundaries and
service areas in relation to municipal boundaries, designated urban growth areas,
annexation plans, and service extension plans and policies.
PCRC REVIEW - APRIL 21, 2011
31
Education
Ed-5. The County, and each municipality in the County, shall determine specific siting
requirements for all public and private educational facilities and shall meet specific
educational facility needs by:
5.1 locating schools in a manner that 1 s consistentl~e with the local comprehensive
plan, including the capital facilities element;
5.2 deciding all facility locations, types and sizes with consideration for the
provision of other necessary public facilities and services and the compatibility
and effect of the provision of such facilities on land use and development
patterns-; and
PCRC REVIEW - APRIL 21, 2011
32
Fiscal Impact
COUNTYWIDE PLANNING POLICY ON
FISCAL IMPACT
Background - Requirements of Growth Management Act
The Washington State Growth Management Act requires that the Countywide Planning Policies
address t4e "an analysis of fiscal impact'' [RCW 36.70A.210(3)(h)]. However, the legislature did
not define the scope of the required fiscal impact analysis
Planning Palie es During the legislative proceedings a number of alternatives were discussed,
ranging from fiscal analysis of the policies themselves, fiscal analysis of the comprehensive plans
and implementing regulations, fiscal analysis of governmental decisions affecting jurisdictional
responsibilities and/or boundaries and fiscal analysis of significant public and private development
projects. From these alternatives, the County, and each municipality, has determined that at the
Countywide Planning,, Policy level fiscal impact analysis will be required only for governmental
decisions affecting jurisdictional responsibilities and/or boundaries and significant public and
private development projects.
Countywide Planning Policy
Fl- 1. The purposes of fiscal impact analysis are to assess the relative costs of providing
public facilities and services, with the public revenues that will be derived from: (a)
decisions affecting jurisdictional responsibilities and/or boundaries and (b) significant
public and private development projects.
FI-2. The County, and each municipality in the County, shall use the results of t4e any
required fiscal impact analysis as one of the factors in determining acceptance,
modification, or rejection of the proposal /proj ect.
PCRC REVIEW - APRIL 21, 2011
33
Historic, Archaeological and Cultural Preservation
COUNTYWIDE PLANNING POLICY ON HISTORIC,
ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND CULTURAL PRESERVATION
Background - Requirements of Growth Management Act
The Washington State Growth Management Act mandates
developmeat and adeption of eampr-ehefisive plans and development that counties and
cities identify and encourage the preservation of lands, sites and structures, that have historical or
archaeological significance. [RCW 36.70A.020(13)]. The term "significance" is not defined. ;
alt-hatig Howeer, it is well-recognized that the federal and state governments have programs that
have been in operation for some time by which land, sites, structures and districts of national
significance af:efe~ may be placed on the National Register of Historic Places and land, sites and
structures of state significance ar-e/a may be placed on the State Register of Historic Places.
Certain cities, including Tacoma, have adopted local programs to designate land, sites and structures
of local significance. Although the Growth Management Act .'Rea meat does not require a
countywide planning policy on historic, archaeological and cultural preservation, that requirement
was added by the Interlocal Agreement: "Framework Agreement for the Adoption of the
Countywide Planning Policy (Pierce County Council Resolution No. R91-172, September 24,
1991)".
VISION 2040 Nlulticounty Planning Policies (NIPPs)
VISION 2040 promotes the preservation of significant visual and cultural resources, including
public v ]ews, landmarks and cultural landscapes, and areas of special interest, in addition to historic.
and archeological resources. VISION 2040 also contains policies that promote urban design
techniques to preserv e these assets in reco~(ynition of the economic value of sense of place.
Countywide Planning Policy
HAC-1. The County, and each municipality in the County, utilizing applicable federal, state,
and local designations, if relevant, (and where appropriate in cooperation with the
Indian tribes) shall identify the presence of federal, state; and local historic,
archaeological and cultural lands, sites, and structures, of significance within their
boundaries.
HAC-2. The County, and each municipality in the County may, utilizing County standards or
locally-developed standards, identify and designate local historic, archaeological and
cultural lands, sites, and structures of significance within their boundaries.
2.1 Recommendations for local designations may be made by any person or entity or
by any municipality or governmental body.
2.2 The municipality may designate an individual, commission or committee to be
responsible for review of recommendations and to forward such
recommendations on to the legislative body.
PCRC REVIEW - APRIL 21, 2011
34
Historic, Archaeological and Cultural Preservation
2.3 Designations shall only be made by the local legislative body if the land, site, or
structure has only local significance.
2.4 All such designations shall be reflected in the land use element of the
comprehensive plan.
2.5 Any municipality may request that the County's Landmarks Commission and/or
staff provide assistance in designating land, sites, or structures; if sought, such
assistance may be provided pursuant to an interlocal agreement.
2.6 Preservation of significant lands, sites, and structures shall be encouraged or
accomplished by the County, and each municipality in the County, through any
one or a combination of the following techniques, as determined to be
appropriate by the local legislative body:
2.6.1
Designation;
2.6.2
Incentives for preservation;
2.6.3
Loans and grants;
2.6.4
Public purchase;
2.6.5
`Non-development' easement;
2.6.6
Development rights transfer;
2.6.7
Restrictive covenants;
2.6.8 Regulations for protection, maintenance, and approval of appropriate
development;
2.6.9 Plans/policies/standards for preservation asset by the {U.S. Department
of the Interior},
'.0. 10 Ceirtilied Local Goy-ermnent designation.
2.7 The County, and each municipality in the County, may utilize one or more of the
following criteria or others as may be determined to be appropriate, to make
designation decisions for recommended lands, sites or structures:
2.7.1 Archaeological, historic, or cultural "significance;"
2.7.2 Condition;
2.7.3 Uniqueness;
2.7.4 Accessibility;
2.7.5 Cost/benefit;
2.7.6 Extent to which land, site, or structure is undisturbed;
2.7.7 Presence of incompatible land uses or activities;
2.7.8 Presence of environmental, health, or safety hazards;
2.7.9 Tourism potential;
2.7. 10 Educational value;
2.7.11 Consent of owner.
PCRC REVIEW - APRIL 21, 2011
35
Historic, Archaeological and Cultural Preservation
2.8 The legislative body of the County, and each municipality in the County, may
utilize one or more of the following criteria or others as may be determined to be
appropriate, to make a de-designation decision:
2.8.1 Error in historical/archaeological/cultural research for the original
designation;
2.8.2 Economic hardship for the owner leaving no reasonable use of the land,
site, or structure;
2.8.3 Deterioration of lands, site, or structure;
2.8.4 Discovery of other (better) examples of lands, sites, or structures;
2.8.5 Presence of land, site, or structure on state or federal registers.
HAC-3. The County, and each municipality in the County, shall encourage public education
programs regarding historic, archaeological, and cultural lands, sites; and structures as a
means of raising public awareness of the value of maintaining those resources.
HAC-4. Utilize urban design strategies and approaches to ensure that changes to the built
environment preserve and enhance the reporn's and the county's unique attributes and
each community's distinctive identity in recognition of the economic value of sense of
place.
PCRC REVIEW - APRIL 21, 2011
36
Natural Resources, Open Space, Protection of Environmentally Sensitive Lands & Environment
COUNTYWIDE PLANNING POLICY ON
NATURAL RESOURCES, OPEN SPACE, AND PROTECTION
OF ENVIRONMENTALLY-SENSITIVE LANDS, A N D T H E E N N1 RO N N I E N T
Background - Requirements of Growth Management Act
The Washington State Growth Management Act identifies the following as planning goals: (4)
maintain and enhance natural resource-based industries, including productive timber, agricultural
and fisheries industries [RCW 36.70A.020(8)], (2) encourage the conservation of productive forest
lands and productive agricultural lands, and discourage incompatible uses [RCW 36.70A.020(8)];
(3) encourage the retention of open space and development of recreational opportunities, conserve
fish and wildlife habitat, increase access to natural resource lands and water, and develop parks
[RCW 36.70A.020(9)]; and, (4) protect the environment and enhance the state's high quality of life,
including air and water quality, and the availability of water [RCW 36.70A.020(10)1. A Metfk
these goals are 4ate,a :,,,a:..:,a,,ally, +The degree of interconnectedness between them these goals
leads to the development of a single, comprehensive planning policy. Although the Growth
Management Act does not expressly require a countywide planning policy on natural resources,
open space; and protection of environmentally sensitive lands, the addition of such a policy was
specifically identified in the Pierce County Interlocal Agreement: "Framework Agreement for the
Adoption of the Countywide Planning Policy (Pierce County Council Resolution No. R-91-172,
September 24, 1991)".
VISION 2040 Nitilticounty Planning Policies (NIPPs)
VISION 2040 acknowledges that certain dev-elopmert patterns and practices have damaged and
threaten to further disrupt the region's ecosystems. It recognizes that while some impacts are
irreversible, the region can curb pollution, change land use and transportation patterns, and better
manage waste to protect l:ey ecological functions and help restore the environment.
VISION 2040 stresses the ecological, economic and health benefits of preserving and restoring
our natural environment. The Multicounty Planning Policies in VISION 2040 have been
deN-eloped around the theme of em- irormertal stewardship and sustairability. This is further
expressed in \~'ISION 2040's theme of1)co/)Ic j)ro.V)cri>>' m0l)ltuict. This theme recognizes the
important relationship between our communities, our economy, and our ens- ironment.
VISION 2040 ac.l:nowledges that atmospheric. pollution threatens to alter the way the natural
environment functions and to affect human health and well-being. It recognizes that the average
annual temperatures are already rising in the Pacific Northwest and that reduced siio\kl)ack arid
earlier spring runoffs could result in increasing water shortages and drought conditions. A~'ISION
2040's commitment to sustainable growth, clean transportation, and environmentally friendly
dev- elopment practices will help reduce greenhouse gas emissions and create healthier communities.
VISION 2040 also provides guidance for reducing greenhouse gas emissions and planning for
various impacts caused by climate change. Included is an overarching goal that calls for reducing
pollutants which contribute to climate char<ge. Multicounty planning policies commit the re-1011 to
comply with recent state directives regarding the reduction of ~(Yreerhouse eases and call on
PCRC REVIEW - APRIL 21, 2011
37
Natural Resources, Open Space, Protection of Environmentally Sensitive Lands & Environment
jurisdictions and a-encies to include an analysis of climate change impacts when performing
emironmental review under the State Environmental Policy Act. Additional prov- isions call for
reducing the rate of energy use per capita and dev- eloping- new energy management technology as
part of meeting the region's energy needs.
Countywide Planning Policy
Env-1. The following governmental entities shall act in a coordinatediOn manner to identify,
designate, and conserve resources, and to protect open space and environmentally
sensitive lands:
1.1 The State [RCW 36.70A.050(1)];
1.2 The County;
1.3 Municipalities;
1.4 Special Purpose Districts and entities;
1.5 The Puget Sound Regional Council and Regional Authorities (Puget Sound
Clean Air Pellt ie GeAgency, Regional Transportation Planning
Organization et a~;
1.6 The Federal government;
1.7 Tribal governments;
1.8 Public utilities.
2. "Natural r-esatir-ees" shall be defified, for- the pur-pose of these palmieies, to ifielmtide~
minefal r-esettr-ees and miner-a4 lands, pr-edtte4i~,,e fimber- lands, a-ad fisheries .
-3Em- 2. Countywide natural resources identified and designated pursuant to this Policy shall be
maintained and enhanced through one or more of the following means:
X2.1 conservation;
X2.2 conservation combined with planned use;
X2.3 planned use;
X2.4 enhancement;
X2.5 education;
-32.6 preservation;
PCRC REVIEW - APRIL 21, 2011
38
Natural Resources, Open Space, Protection of Environmentally Sensitive Lands & Environment
X2.7 purchase/acquisition;
X2.8 regulatory approaches; and
X2.9 compensable approaches.
4Env3. The governmental entities specified in subpolicy 1 shall work cooperatively and
consistently with each other to achieve this Policy through:
43.1 identifying, designating, maintaining, conserving, enhancing, and/or protecting,
as appropriate, natural resources through the adoption of specific elements in the
county and municipal comprehensive plans;
43.2 developing appropriate implementation strategies and regulations;
43.3 adopting local capital improvement programs designed to achieve the objectives
of this Policy;
43.4 coordinating standards and criteria between the programs of the governmental
entities specified in subpolicy 1, including where necessary the use of inter-
governmental agreements, so as to be consistent with the objectives of this
Policy
3.5 using integrated and interdisciplinary approaches for emiromnental planning
and assessment and
3.6 using the best information av-ailable at all levels of plamiing, especially scientific
information when establishing and implementing ernv-irom»ental standards
established by the local, state, or federal government.
~Env4. The County, and each municipality in the County, shall consider the following
regarding natural resources:
-54.1 placing a primary emphasis on maintaining, enhancing, conserving, and/or
protecting, as appropriate, designated and identified natural resources including
lands of local, county, and statewide significance;
X4.2 developing and applying criteria for limit] nged development, if allowed, so as to
maintain, enhance, and conserve identified and designated important, productive
or economically viable natural resources or natural resource based industries;
-54.3 ensuring the provision of buffers to protect environmentally sensitive lands
where economic use of natural resource lands will cause adverse impacts;
-54.4 adopting a "no net loss" approach where applicable;
PCRC REVIEW - APRIL 21, 2011
39
Natural Resources, Open Space, Protection of Environmentally Sensitive Lands & Environment
-54.5 utilizing positive incentives to ensure conservation over time;
-54.6 utilizing transfer of development rights; purchase of dev- elopment ri -hts;
conservation easements or other fl&di le, eltt4ei-ed ei- compernsable
approaches (see CPPs for Auricultural Lands and Open Space)-
-54.7 educating of all segments of the community concerning the importance of these
Policy objectives;
54.8 emphasizing the prevention of air and water quality degradation-,-
4.9 establish best management practices that protect the long-term integrity of the
natural em-ironment, adjacent land uses, and the long-term productivity of
resource lands;
4.10 support the sustainability of designated resource lands. Comersiorn of lands to
other uses is strongly discoUuraged; and
Z, -1
4.11 ensure that resource lands and their related economic actin- hies are not adv- ersely
impacted by dev- elopment on adjacent non-resource lands.
6Ernv5. Environmentally sensitive lands, for the purpose of the Policy, shall include all
designated critical areas pursuant to RCW 36.70A.030(5) including, but not limited to,
wetlands, aquifer recharge areas, fish and wildlife habitat, geologically hazardous lands
and shall include water supply areas, shorelines, creeks, streams, lakes, rivers, deltas,
frequently flooded areas, estuaries, and unique geologic features such as canyons. The
County, and each municipality in the County, shall maintain the following relationship
between environmentally sensitive lands and development:
65.1 give priority to protection of environmentally sensitive lands;
65.2 develop standards and criteria for limit] n~ged development, if wed allowed,
in the County or in municipal comprehensive plans;
65.3 where development is wed allowed, provide protection for
environmentally-sensitive lands through the provision of appropriate buffers;
65.4 adopt a "no net loss" approach;
65.5 utilize e€ positive incentives for conservation;
65.6 utilize e€ transfer of development rights, purchase of development rights, or
other flexible, clustered or compensatory regulatory approaches;
PCRC REVIEW - APRIL 21, 2011
40
Natural Resources, Open Space, Protection of Environmentally Sensitive Lands & Environment
65.7 designate environmentally sensitive lands of local, county and statewide
significance;
65.8 educate all segments of the community concerning the importance of these
Policy objectives.
7Env6. The County, and each municipality in the County, shall determine the amount of
development permitted on environmentally sensitive lands by according- to the nature of
the area sought to be protected, and to do so on a case-by-case basis; in conjunction
with SEPA regulations. Enhancements of to environmentally sensitive lands, such as
parks and observation towers, may be allowed.
&Env7. The County, and each municipality in the County, as well as the other governmental
entities specified in subpolicy 1 shall be in compliance with and seek to exceed federal
and state environmental quality standards where required to achieve the objectives of
this Policy;
3Ernv8. The County, and each municipality in the County, as well as the other governmental
entities specified in subpolicy 1 shall consider policies on environmentally sensitive
lands in conjunction with other Countywide Planning Policies, including, but not
limited to, policies which address:
98.1 urban growth areas;
38.2 contiguous orderly development and the provision of urban services to such
development;
38.3 capital facility siting;
-98.4 transportation efficiency;
8.5 sitin~(y of transportation facilities;
8.6 operations and maintenance of transportation facilities;
38.7 infill development;
38.8 affordable housing;
38.9 state and local Shoreline Master Programs;
348.10 goals and mandates of federal and state land jurisdiction agencies including the
Washington State Department of Natural Resources, the U. S. Forest Service, the
National Park Service and Tribal governments;
3 98. I I watershed management.
PCRC REVIEW - APRIL 21, 2011
41
Natural Resources, Open Space, Protection of Environmentally Sensitive Lands & Environment
4GEiw'). Open space, for the purpose of this Policy shall include parks, recreation areas,
greenbelts/natural buffers, scenic and natural amenities or unique geological features or
unique resources.
4-Ernv 10. The County, and each municipality in the County, shall develop a plan for the provision
and des]-nation of open space considering the following:
X10.1 environmentally sensitive lands may also include open space and/or greenbelt
areas;
X10.2 open space areas are located e4y within urban growth areas;
X10.3 open space is defined in conjunction with recreation and facilities-;
10.4 open space and environmentally sensitive lands that create Ifflkages across
jurisdictional boundarles and coordination with these entities;
10.5 encourage open space cluster design; and
10.6 encourage natural buffering as part of dev- elopment design.
spaeei
12.1 f6110 ismeat of Weal needs and based upen speeifie ef4eRifl
12. 1. 1 to ° ° spaee Ouster- design;
design;
h
f-
r- r- r-
1 2
3
1
if
r
e
a
ge
.
.
aqtt
e
a
eas;
1 7 2 2 1 "".1"1.,; f
n °"'.1
n
12
3
4 r
r
-°.1
-nifn l) h
1.,pW
(
bit
t
a
ge
.
.
a
e
a
s s
p
a
a
.
Env 1-3 1. The County, and each municipality in the County, may make the following uses of
open space:
1-3 1.1 recreational areas, including parks (golf courses, picnic areas, bicycle, equestrian
and walking trails) and general recreation;
11.2 uses as considered on a case-by-case basis;
PCRC REVIEW - APRIL 21, 2011
42
Natural Resources, Open Space, Protection of Environmentally Sensitive Lands & Environment
1-31.3 uses derived from community definition (i.e., greenbelts)
Em 142. The County, and each municipality in the Countv, shall encourage new housing to
locate in a compatible fashion (i.e., clustered design) with open space designations or
outside of designated open spaces.
Env 1-53. The Countv, and each municipality in the County, shall regulate open space through
tools such as:
13.1 zoning and subdivision ordinances, including but not limited to cluster and
minimum lot size zoning, overlay zones and adequate off-site public facility
regulations;
13.2 development impact fees for park and open space acquisition;
13.3 dedication of land or money in-lieu of land;
13.4 designation of open space corridors;
13.5 soil conservation measures;
13.6 wetlands, shorelines, floodplain or other environmentally sensitive lands
ordinances; and
13.7 development agreements.
Env 164. The County, and each municipality in the County, shall cooperat] vely inventory
existing and potential open space by creating=
164.1-local and re-ional planning inventories.
Env 1-75. The County, and each municipality in the Countv, shall authorize the following
methods of retention of open space land or wildlife corridors:
15.1 public acquisition of property in fee simple or through development easement
acquisition;
1-75.2 private acquisition with covenants, conditions and/or restrictions limiting the use
of the property to open space;
1-75.3 alternatives to public purchase, including, but not limited to:
PCRC REVIEW - APRIL 21, 2011
43
Natural Resources, Open Space, Protection of Environmentally Sensitive Lands & Environment
175.3.1 flexible zoning, subdivision and regulatory approaches designed for
protection or preservation;
175.3.2 land trust;
175.3.3 conservation easement;
175.3.4 transfer of development rights, purchase of dev-elopment ri-bts, and
other compensable regulatory approaches;
175.3.5 rails-to-trails;
175.3.6 donations;
175.3.7 preferential assessments;
175.3.8 planned developments;
175.3.9 dedications;
175.3.10 impact fees;
1753.11 view easements;
1753.12 use value assessments.;
175.4 retention of existing open space through:
175.4.1 oor-d fia4io the designation of natural resource lands of
statewide significance;
175.4.2 required open space preservation within and without Urban Growth
Boundaries established by PSReE Pierce Countti
175.43 coordination with agricultural land owners and right to farm policies.
1544 preserv-in<g, and enhancing significant regional open space networks
and linka~~es across jurisdictional boundaries.
General
Em 1-96. The County, and each municipality in the County, should protect and enhance the
natural ecosystemms through comprehensive plan policies and development
regulations that reflect natural constraints and protect sensitive features.
16.1 Preserve and enhance habitat to prevent species from inclusion on the
endangered species list and to accelerate their removal from the list.
162 Identify and protect wildlife corridors both inside and outside the urban
growth area.
16. Preser\e and restore native-vegetation to protect habitat, especially where it
contributes to the overall ecological function and where invasive species are a
significant threat to native ecosystems.
16.4 Maintain natural bydrological functions, ecosystems and watersheds and,
where feasible, restore to a more natural state.
16.5 Restore, where appropriate and possible, freshwater and marine sborelines,
watersheds, and estuaries to a natural condition for ecological function and
value.
PCRC REVIEW - APRIL 21, 2011
44
Natural Resources, Open Space, Protection of Environmentally Sensitive Lands & Environment
16.6 Reduce the use of pesticides and chemical fertilizers to the extent feasible and
identify alternatives that minimize risks to human health and the environment.
16.7 Identify and address the impacts of climate change on hydrological systems.
Env 197. The County, and each municipality in the County, should preserve, protect, and
where practicable, restore natural habitat critical for the conservation of salmonid
species listed under the federal Endangered Species Act, through the adoption of
comprehensive plan policies that seek to protect, maintain, or restore aquatic
ecosystems.
1.97.1 Jurisdictions should consider creation of a Public Benefit Rating System under
the Current Use Assessment Program (RCW 84.34) or other Tax Incentive
Programs that includes a higher priority for fish and wildlife habitat
conservation areas.
1-97.2 Consider fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas when designating land
use designations and companion zoning regulations.
1.97.3 Amend existing critical area regulations, as necessary, to protect fish and
wildlife habitat conservation areas from development impacts.
Coordination of Watershed Planning and Land Use Planning
"Watershed" means a geographic area that drains toward or contributes flow to a stream or river
and the geographic limits of a watershed are defined by the points at which the ground slope
changes to drain surface water into the tributaries that feed the stream or river system.
Em-29 18. The County, and each municipality in the County, should protect the natural
habitat critical for the conservation of salmonid species listed under the federal
Endangered Species Act, whenever practicable, through the use of planning
activities or study techniques that are capable of determining changes in stream
hydrology and water quality.
2918.1 The County, and each municipality in the County, should coordinate
watershed planning and land use planning activities and implementation
activities within a watershed boundary including:
29 18.1.1 recognize that watershed planning may be useful in analyzing
changes in stream hydrology, flooding, water quality and capital
facilities under different land use scenarios;
2818.1.2 evaluate the use of vegetation retention, tree conservation, and
maximum impervious surface standards;
2418.1.3 whenever possible, utilize watershed boundaries instead of
jurisdictional boundaries for plans and studies;
PCRC REVIEW - APRIL 21, 2011
45
Natural Resources, Open Space, Protection of Environmentally Sensitive Lands & Environment
2-418.1.4 consider the implications of planning and implementation activities
on natural environmental and built systems that are located outside
jurisdictional boundaries but within the shared watershed;
2-918.1.5 when updating land use plans and regulations, consider
information that is contained within watershed plans.
Inter jurisdictional Cooperation
24Em 19. The County, and each municipality in the County, shall work together to identify
and protect natural habitat corridors that cross jurisdictional boundaries.
2419.1 Establish informational sharing workshops or present information at
established coordinating committees.
2419.2Whenever possible, utilize watershed boundaries instead of jurisdictional
boundaries for plans and studies.
19.3 Establish a common method for assessing the habitat needs for sensitive
species.
2-Ernv20. The County, and each municipality in the County, should coordinate
watershed/aquatic restoration planning and implementation activities within a
watershed.
2-20.1 Consider the implications of planning and implementation activities not only
within jurisdictional boundaries, but also the implications of decisions and
activities on habitat for critical fish species that is located outside
jurisdictional boundaries but within the shared watershed.
20.2 Enncourage involvement with local drainage districts in planning process.
Env-2~ 1. The County, and each municipality in the County, shall cooperatively work
together to create and adopt modifications to their Critical Areas Regulations that
include the best available science for the protection of existing habitat, wetlands,
estuaries, and riparian areas by avoiding negative impacts.
2-31.1 Encourage the removal of invasive species and the replanting of natural
vegetation.
2-3-1.2 Encourage local community groups in critical habitat restoration and
enhancement efforts.
2-3-1.3 Utilize incentives to encourage landowners to retain, enhance, or restore
critical habitat.
PCRC REVIEW - APRIL 21, 2011
46
Natural Resources, Open Space, Protection of Environmentally Sensitive Lands & Environment
2-3-1.4 Develop complementary, coordinated, integrated, and flexible approaches for
the collection, analysis, and sharing of monitoring information (e.g., GIS data,
hydrologic and hydraulic analysis.
Development Standards
Env-242. Upon adoption of a state classification system, the County and each municipality in
the County, should work together to establish a single system for stream typing.
Env-2-S3. The County, and each municipality in the County, should maintain or enhance
water quality through control of runoff and best management practices to maintain
natural aquatic communities and beneficial uses.
Monitoring, Best Available Science and Adaptive Management
Env-264. The County, and each municipality in the County, should work cooperatively
toward creating and implementing methodologies designed to determine the
effectiveness of enhancement and recovery strategies for listed species. (The term
recovery is applied to species and not to habitat.)
264.1 Monitoring and evaluation strategies should be designed to develop data and
information that can be used to evaluate future policy choices and
management actions.
264.2 Whenever practicable, adoption of local plans, which include Cconservation
gptans or watershed basin plans, should include monitoring and evaluation
criteria.
24.3 Use the best information av- ailable at all levels of plannin-, especially
scientific. information.
Env-2-75. The County, and each municipality in the County, recognizes that the best available
science to address listed species recovery issues is evolving. Each jurisdiction
should apply an adaptive management strategy to determine how well the objectives
of listed species recovery and critical habitat preservation/restoration are being
achieved.
275.1 Consider the results of pilot developments in land use planning.
Env-26. Ensure that all residents, regardless of social or economic. status live in a healthy
enViromnent with minimal eXposure to pollution.
Env-27. Locate deN elopmernt in a manner that minimizes impacts to natural features and
promote the use of imiovativ- e env- ironmentally sensitiv- e dev- elopmernt practices,
including design, materials, construction and on-(,oing maintenance,
PCRC REVIEW - APRIL 21, 2011
47
Natural Resources, Open Space, Protection of Environmentally Sensitive Lands & Environment
Env-28. Mitigate noise caused by traffic, industries, and other sources or adjust land uses as
appropriate to secure the same result.
Air Quality
Env-29. Reach and maintain air- pollution attainment level/standards for carbon monoxide,
ozone, and particulates as determined by the Environmental Protection Agency or
the Puget Sound Clean Air Agency.
Env-30. The County and each municipality in the County shall strive, as appropriate, to
improve the countywide overall air quality for particulates, ozone, and toxics
through measures such as:
30.1 Providing education to the community about the sources and implications of
particulate matter, ozone (smog) and air toxics,
30.2 Coordinating and partnering across jurisdictional boundaries on a air quality
issues, strategies, and education efforts;
30.3 Employing methods to reduce particulates by improving indoor and outdoor
wood burning activ- hies and wood as a source of heat;
30.4 Strengthening efforts to reduce pollutants from construction activities (i.e.,
fu(,itiv- e dust)
30.5 Strengthenin~(y efforts to reduce pollutants from transportation activities by:
30.5. including pollution reduction methods through techrnologies such as the
use of cleaner fuels and v- ehicle programs, for example, electric
charging stations, bike and pedestrian infrastructure, and partnering to
construct intra jurisdictional trails and nonmotorized facilities, linear
trails, and low speed v- ehicles,
30.5.2 reducing vehicle miles traveled and auto dependency,
30.5.3 designing and prioritizing compact communities and neighborhood
accessibility for daily goods and services.
30.6 Reducing air toxics emissions through freight infrastructure investment, diesel
retrofits, woodstov- e chan-e-out programs, and various community-scale
projects.
Climate Ch~
Env -31. The County, and each municipality in the County shall strive to meet State mandates
on climate change and the reduction of greenhouse eases.
PCRC REVIEW - APRIL 21, 2011
48
Natural Resources, Open Space, Protection of Environmentally Sensitive Lands & Environment
1.1 Jurisdictions should wort: to address climate change and greenhouse uses by
undertaking such actions as:
3 1.1.1 conducting a baseline assessment and ins- entory of carbon/energy
footprint of its community and municipal operations;
3 1.12 creatim, and adopting a climate action plan-
3 1. 1.3 prov-iding outreach to developers and residents to educate about the
sources of (reenhouse eases and the effects of climate chan,e;
3 1. 1.4 assessing the impact of the dev- elopment of capital facilities may hay- e
on climate chan,e; and
31.2 JUr-lsdictions should address adaptation and mitigation strategies from the
effects of climate change in lone ranee plans such as shoreline master
programs and comprehensive plans.
31.3 JUrIsdictlons should encourage the dev-elopment community to reduce impacts
of proposed projects on climate change.
3 1.3.1 Work to promote green development standards (e.g., LEED and
equivalent, and low impact development) in both public and pri\ cite
development and operations.
31.4 Include an analysis (i.e., supplemental greenhouse gas/climate chan(le impact
worksheet) of climate change impacts and potential mitigation when
conducting an environmental review process under the State Environmental
Policy Act.
3 1.5 Jurisdictions should consider the carbon sequestration potential of natural
resources and open space.
31.5. I Direct development into urban areas and compact centers to preN ent
and reduce the urbanization of ecologically sensitiv-e areas and natural
resources; and
3 1.5.2 Encoura(ye countywide carbon sequestration throu~"h:
31.52. I Increasing the amount of vegetation and canopy coy-er in
urban areas by coordinating the preservation and growth of
open space;
3 1.522 Developing a comprehensive strategy to maintain and restore
vegetation and increase canopy cover in rural areas.
PCRC REVIEW - APRIL 21, 2011
49
Natural Resources, Open Space, Protection of Environmentally Sensitive Lands & Environment
1.6 Jurisdictions should support energy management technologies and alternative
energy sources.
1.6.1 Cooperate with regional initiatives and efforts toward the dev- elopment
and use of energy management technologies;
1.6.2 Reduce greenhouse eases by expanding the use of biofuels, energy
efficiency/conservation and alternativ- e energy sources within municipal
and private dev- elopment and operations;
3 1.6.3 Ins- esti(,ate and pru-sue opportunities for district heating (thermal energy
on a neighborhood scale),
3 1.6.4 Investi(,ate and pLn-sue opportunities for landfill methane sequestration;
and
1.6.5 Adjust development standards to allow, encourage, and preserve
opportunities for alternative energy infrastructure, such as solar panels.
1.7 Jurisdictions should include climate change mitigation strateuies in local
transportation planning.
3 1.7.1 Cooperate with regional and countywide transportation initiatives to
develop strong regional public transportation options;
1.7.2 Increase alternatives to driving alone; and
3 1.7.3 Encourage private and public dev- elopment of transit oriented
development throughout the COMM,' nto reduce the need for personal
vehicle use.
PCRC REVIEW - APRIL 21, 2011
50
Siting of Essential Public Capital Facilities
COUNTYWIDE PLANNING POLICY ON
SITING OF ESSENTIAL PUBLIC CAPITAL FACILITIES
OF A COUNTYWIDE OR STATEWIDE NATURE SIGNIFICANCE
Background - Requirements of Growth Management Act
The Washington State Growth Management Act requires that the comprehensive plan of the County
and of each municipality in the County include a process for identifying and siting essential public
facilities [RCW 36.70A.200(l)]. "Essential" public facilities include, but are not limited to, those
facilities that are typically difficult to site, such as airports, state education facilities, state or regional
transportation facilities, state and local correctional facilities, solid waste handling facilities, and in-
patient facilities, including substance abuse facilities, mental health facilities and group homes
[RCW 36.70A.200(l)]. The State Office of Financial Management is required to maintain a list of
essential state public facilities that are required or likely to be built within the next six (6) years.
Facilities may be added to the list at any time. The Growth Management Act further mandates that
no local comprehensive plan or development regulation may preclude the siting of essential public
facilities [RCW 36.70A.200(2)].
Countywide Planning Policy
EPF-l. The County, and each municipality in the County, shall adopt a policy aR'' ireapar
same in its comprehensive plan, on the siting of essential public capital facilities of a
Countywide or statewide nature.
1.1 in addition t °Essential public facilities, ather- e pita f edit es i elude' must
must have a useful life of 10 years or more and be either:
1.1.1 a Countywide facility which has the potential for serving the entire
County or more than one jurisdiction in the County; or
1. 1.2 a statewide facility which serves or has the potential for serving the entire
state, or which serves less than the entire state, but more than one county.
EPF-2. The County, and each municipality in the County, shall identify lands useful for public
purposes and incorporate such designations in their respective comprehensive plans.
EPF-3. The County, and each municipality in the County, shall incorporate a policy and
process in their respective comprehensive plans to identify and site essential public
facilities . The
process and policy shall include the following components:
3.1 a requirement that the state provide a justifiable need for the public facility and
for its location in Pierce County based upon forecasted needs and a logical
service area, and the distribution of facilities in the region and state;
PCRC REVIEW - APRIL 21, 2011
51
Siting of Essential Public Capital Facilities
3.2 a requirement that the state establish a public process by which the residents of
the County and of affected and "host" municipalities have a reasonable
opportunity to participate in the site selection process.
EPF-4. The County and municipal policies shall be based upon the following criteria:
4.1 Specific facility requirements:
4.1.1 minimum acreage;
4.1.2 accessibility;
4.1.3 transportation needs and services;
4.1.4 supporting public facility and public service needs and the availability
thereof,
4.1.5 health and safety;
4.1.6 site design;
4.1.7 zoning of site;
4.1.8 availability of alternative sites;
4.1.9 community-wide distribution of facilities-,-
4. 1.10 natural boundaries that determine routes and connections.
4.2 Impacts of the facility:
4.2.1 land use compatibility;
4.2.2 existing land use and development in adjacent and surrounding areas;
4.2.3 existing zoning of surrounding areas;
4.2.4 existing Comprehensive Plan designation for surrounding areas;
4.2.5 present and proposed population density of surrounding area;
4.2.6 environmental impacts and opportunities to mitigate environmental
impacts;
4.2.7 effect on agricultural, forest or mineral lands, critical areas and historic,
archaeological and cultural sites;
4.2.8 effect on areas outside of Pierce County;
4.2.9 effect on designated open space corridors;
4.2. 10 "spin-off' (secondary and tertiary) impacts;
4.2.11 effect on the likelihood of associated development being induced by the
siting of the facility.
4.3 Impacts of the facility siting on urban growth area designations and policies:
4.3.1 urban nature of facility;
4.3.2 existing urban growth near facility site;
4.3.3 compatibility of urban growth with the facility;
4.3.4 compatibility of facility siting with respect to urban growth area
boundaries.
4.3.5 timing and location of facilities that wide ~~ro\\ th and dev-elopm em.
PCRC REVIEW - APRIL 21, 2011
52
Siting of Essential Public Capital Facilities
EPF-5. The County and municipal policies shall ensure that the facility siting is consistent with
the adopted County and municipal comprehensive plans, including;
5.1 the future land use map and other required and optional plan elements not
otherwise listed below;
5.2 the identification of lands for public purposes in the land use element;
5.3 the capital facilities plan element and budget;
5.4 the utilities element;
5.5 the rural element;
5.6 the transportation element;
5.7 the housing element;
5.8 the comprehensive plans of adjacent jurisdictions that may be affected by the
facility siting;
5.9 regional general welfare considerations.
EPF-6. The County and municipal policies may include standards and criteria related to:
6.1 the time required for construction;
6.2 property acquisition;
6.3 control of on- and off-site impacts during construction;
6.4 expediting and streamlining necessary government approvals and permits if all
other elements of the County or municipal policies have been met;
6.5 the quasi-public or public nature of the facility, balancing the need for the
facility against the external impacts generated by its siting and the availability of
alternative sites with lesser impacts-;
6.6 zornirn(y of area around site to protect against encroachment.
EPF-7. The County and municipal policies may include standards and criteria related to:
7.1 facility operations;
7.2 health and safety;
PCRC REVIEW - APRIL 21, 2011
53
Siting of Essential Public Capital Facilities
7.3 nuisance effects;
7.4 maintenance of standards congruent with applicable governmental regulations,
particularly as they may change and become more stringent over time-, sustainable development practices.
EPF-8. The County and municipal policies on facility siting shall be coordinated with and
advance other planning goals including, but not necessarily limited to, the following:
8.1 reduction of sprawl development;
8.2 promotion of economic development and employment opportunities;
8.3 protection of the environment;
8.4 positive fiscal impact and on-going benefit to the host jurisdiction;
8.5 serving population groups needing affordable housing;
8.6 receipt of financial or other incentives from the state and/or the County or other
municipalities;
8.7 fair distribution of such public facilities throughout the County and state;
8.8 requiring state and federal projects to be consistent with this policy.
PCRC REVIEW - APRIL 21, 2011
54
Transportation Facilities and Strategies
COUNTYWIDE PLANNING POLICY ON
TRANSPORTATION FACILITIES AND STRATEGIES
Background - Requirements of Growth Management Act
The Washington State Growth Management Act identifies transportation facilities planning and,
specifically, encouraging efficient multi-modal transportation systems based on regional priorities
and coordinated with local comprehensive plans, as a planning goal to guide the development and
adoption of comprehensive plans and development regulations [RCW 36.70A.020(3)]. In addition,
it identifies a transportation element as a mandatory element of a county or city comprehensive plan
[RCW 36.70A.070(6)]. The transportation element must include: (a) land use assumptions used in
estimating travel; (b) facilities and services needs; (c) finance; (d) intergovernmental coordination
efforts, including an assessment of the impacts of the transportation plan and land use assumptions
on the transportation systems of adjacent jurisdictions; and (e) demand management strategies
[RCW 36.70A.070(6)(a)- (c)]. The Growth Management Act expressly requires a Countywide
Planning Policy on transportation facilities and strategies [RCW 36.70A.210(3)(d)].
The Commute Reduction Effic]ency Act of 2006 (RCW 70.94.521-5 3 1) goal is to reduce
congestion on the roadvv av network and help address the air pollution issues within the urban areas.
This act requires local governments to work with their larger employers to dev- elop and implement
strategies for reducing their single occupant auto trips. Jurisdictions affected by the commute trip
reduction (('TR) law are required to develop local CTR plans that include the doculllerlt]n<y of local
transportation setting of the affected work sites and the strategies by which the rate of sin,,le
occupant vehicle use may be reduced.
VISION 2040 Nitilticounty Planning Policies (NIPPs)
VISION 2040 offers an integrated approach to addressing land use and transportation, along with
the environment and economic development. It calls for a clean, sustainable transportation fixture
that supports the regional growth strategy. Sustainable transportation involves the efficient and
ernv]ronmentally sensitive movement of people, information goods and serv-ices with attention to
safety and health. Sustainable transportation mirnini]zes the impacts of trannsportation activities on
our air, water, and climate. It includes the des] <m of walkable cities and bikable neighborhoods, as
well as using alternatIN es to dr]ving alone. It rel]es on cleaner, renewable resources for ener('y.
The transportation-related mult]county plann]ng policies ]n VISION 2040 are presented in three
groups. The first group of policies calls for maintaining, preserving, and operating the existing
transportation system in a safer and more efficient way. They advance transportation that is less
pollut]rng. The second group of policies call for develop]ng the system to support tile re(11*011al
growth center, particularly tray- el w]tb]rn and between centers. Inv- estments are to be prioritized to
serve centers and to support pedestrian-oriented, mixed use development The policies address
complete streets to serve all users, green streets that are better for the em-ironment, and context-
serns]tive des]gn, that guides the development of transportation facilities to better fit within the
context of the commun]ties ]n wb]cb they are located. There are policies addressing rnonmotorized
transportation as well as fre]ght. The final (Yroup of policies address greater transportation options,
PCRC REVIEW - APRIL 21, 2011
55
Transportation Facilities and Strategies
including alternat]ves to driving alone, mobility choices for people with special needs, and a\, old] II
new roads or capacity expansion in rural areas.
Countywide Planning Policy
Tr-1. Promote a sustainable transportation system that assures the ability of future
generations to provide transportation infrastructure and services in aii effect'
efficient, clean, and cost effective manner.
TImprove safetv in the transportation system by working toward the state's "zero
death and disabling injury" target.
4-Tr- 3. For the purpose of this Policy, the following transportation services shall be deemed
Countywide in nature:
23.1 state and federal highways;
23.2 major arterials;
43.3 pub4ie transit facilities and services;
-53.4 waterborne transportation (ferries, shipping);
63.5 airports (passenger or freight);
-7.6 rail facilities (passenger or freight)7
3.7 nonmotorized facilities.
2Tr-4. The following facilities and system components shall be included in the multi-modal
network:
24.1 roads, including major highways, arterials and collectors;
24.2 public transit, including bus, rail, vanpool, paratransit, and park & and ride lots
and other emerging concepts;
24.3 nonmotorized facilities;
24.4 ferries;
24.5 airports;
24.6 parking facilities;
24.7 facilities related to transportation demand management.
PCRC REVIEW - APRIL 21, 2011
56
Transportation Facilities and Strategies
-31`r-5. The County, and each municipality in the County, shall consider the impacts of their
respective planning activ-ities on rnei__hboring jurisdictional (inclusi\-e of WSDOT)
roadway facilities when developing(, and administering their level of serv-ice standards
-35.1 designating or adopting r-oadway, r*°rseetion and 4afis * multimodal Llevels of
$service (LOS) per RCW 36.70A.108 such as:"
5.1.1 for roadways and intersection; and
1.2 transit levels of service hours of serv-ice, headways, pedestrian
environment, accessibility, safety, rider comfort, reliability, transfer
necessity, cost, and travel time).
X5.2 entering into interlocal agreements, where necessary, to establish uniform,
coordinated service levels between jurisdictions for countywide facilities.
4Tr-6. In the County, and in each municipality in the County, the adopted LOS may be:
46.1 set below existing levels (thereby allowing reserve capacity for growth and
minimizing the need for new capital investment
bove what is tolerable to the publie);
46.2 set above existing levels (thereby increasing comfort and convenience of travel,
enhancing economic development and minimizing some environmental impacts,
but> per aps> r-equir-ifig additional publie o 0fidit , and/or- ,pro
46.3 set at existing levels (thereby allowing new development to mitigate full
marginal impacts, bt4 istif . level ma-y at m „hat ; epta,le to the
ptiblie);
46.4 set at different levels of service in different zones;
46.5 set at different levels of service based on facility classifications;
46.6 set for multi-modal facilities;;
46.7 taken directly from standards developed by the Washington State Department of
Transportation for Highways of Statewide Significance and directly from
PCRC REVIEW - APRIL 21, 2011
57
Transportation Facilities and Strategies
standards developed by the Puget Sound Regional Council for regionally
significant state highways.
~Tr-7. The County, and each municipality in the County, shall determine the adequacy of
transportation facilities, including transit infrastructure, taking into account existing
development, approved but unbuilt dev- elopment, cur7-ent and future roadway
conditions, and multiple modes of transportation through
utilization of
-57.1 capacity-to-demand levels of serv-ice (LOS);
-57.2 availability of capacity based on current and future demand including phased
capacity;
-57.3 appropriate standards of design across jurisdictional lines.
6Tr-8. The County, and each municipality in the County, shall address substandard LOS for
existing facilities ^r "eEist ng defie eneies" by:
68.1 designating funding mechanisms T-~ia eae ur-is ietio ;
68.2 prioritizing f efliti°r nee facilin, needs in capital improvement and
transportation improvement programs to correct existing deficiencies in eapital
0 0 impr-evements s;
68.3 using transportation demand management (i.e., demand side -egulatiens) to
68.4 using transportation systems management
to promote cost effective methods of moving people and goods;-
8.5 promoting nornmotorized trav7el.
7.1 the County, in ti i 1 1 areas;
&Tr-9. The County, and each municipality in the County, in cooperation with the transit and
transportation agencies, shall
PCRC REVIEW - APRIL 21, 2011
58
Transportation Facilities and Strategies
8,9.1 establish policies and/or regulations for park/ and ride facilities;
89.2 parking requirements for public facilities so as to encourage public transit use.
}Tr-10. The County, and each municipality in the County, shall address concurrency through
the following methods:
910.1 providing transportation facilities needed to accommodate new development
within six years of development approval;
910.2 limiting new development to a level that can be accommodated by existing
facilities and facilities planned for completion over the next six years;
910.3 encouraging new and existing development to implement measures to decrease
congestion and enhance mobility through transportation demand and congestion
management.
4-9Tr-1 1. The County, and each municipality in the County, shall address compatibility between
land use and transportation facilities by:
4-911.1 Requiring new transportation facilities and services in areas in which new
growth is appropriate or desirable to be phased within a twenty-year time frame
consistent with six year capital improvement programs;
4-911.2 r-e4i4efing Discoura-ing the extension of new transportation facilities into areas
not planned for growth (e.g., outside urban growth areas) and avoiding plarnnirn(I
of major roads and capacity exparnsion in rural and resource areas-
4-911.3 Using development regulations to ensure that development does not create
demands exceeding the capacity of the transportation system, including transit
alternatives.
areas;
10.3.1 density limits in areas et4side ef tifba-a gr-ewth 10.3.2 o 0 0
4-911.4 Using land use regulations to increase the modal split between automobiles and
other forms of travel:
4-011.4.1 Designating high densities in transit and transportation corridors and
designated Transit Oriented Development (TOD) sites;
4-011.4.2 Dedications and impact fees to provide public transit facilities;
4-911.4.3 r-equir-e Requiring pedestrian-oriented design;
4-911.4.4 Encouraginge or requiring-e mixed use development and TOD,
4-011.4.5 Facilitatinge ease of access for physically challenged individuals
PCRC REVIEW - APRIL 21, 2011
59
Transportation Facilities and Strategies
11.5 Developing plans or planning prov-°is*ons, where appropriate, to protect tlie
continued operation of general aviation airports by using adopted land
compatibility standards such as those published by the Federal A\--iation
Administration (FAA) and the Washington State Department of Transportation
(WSDOT) to discouraue incompatible land uses and development on adjacent
land.
Tr-14-2. The County and each municipality shall plan and implement programs, as appropriate,
for designing, constructing and operating transportation facilities for all users, includina
motorists, pedestrians, bicyclists, and transit users.
Tr-14-The County, and each municipality in the County, shall address environmental impacts
of the transportation policies through:
14-3.1 programming capital improvements and transportation facilities designed to
alleviate and mitigate impacts on land use, air quality and energy consumption
such as high-occupancy vehicle lanes, public transit infrastructure, or
bicycle/pedestrian facilities designed for home-to-work travel;
14-3.2 locating and constructing transportation improvements so as to discourage
adverse impacts on water quality and other environmental fees resources.
in e ate b-
4&yel;
4aff r e trza el .
Tr-14. The County and each municipality should use low-impact development practices or
environmentally appropriate approaches for the design, construction and operation of
transportation facilities to reduce and mitigate environmental impacts, including, but
not limited to, storm water runoff fi-0111 streets and roadways.
Tr-1-35. The County, and each municipality in the County, and in cooperation with transit
agencies, shall pr-e,,ide promote the €ellewing facilities and sere -ices to encourage
PCRC REVIEW - APRIL 21, 2011
60
Transportation Facilities and Strategies
alternatives to automobile travel and/or to reduce the number of vehicle miles traveled
(modal split, trip generation and trip length) including:
1-35.1 structural alternatives (public transit [such as €x-ed grade separated guideways
for bus and rail applications];
construction of new high-occupant vehicle lanes; limitations on
highway/roadway construction; carpool/vanpool facilities; non-recreational
bicycle/pedestrian facilities);
1-35.2 non-structural/regulatory alternatives (growth management [concurrency; urban
growth areas]; road/congestion pricing; auto-restricted zones, parking
management, site design; ridesharing incentives, and transportation systems and
demand management).
Af *h 1.
V=T
systemi
;
;
Tr-16. The County and its cities shall worl~ with transit agencies to identify and preserv-e
ekiAi(, ri~,,hts-of-way in order to preserve options for futtn~e transit alignments.
Tr-17. The County and cities will wort: in cooperation with WSDOT and Port authorities to
plan and implement projects and programs to meet freight mobility and access needs,
including the establishment of programs desipned to maintain, preserve and expand
fi-eight rail capacity including planning for needed capital improvements.
Tr-The County, and each municipality in the County, shall consider a number of financing
measures, including but not limited to:
18.1 general revenues;
18.2 fuel taxes;
1 8.3 toll roads and other user fees;
1~8.4 bonding;
PCRC REVIEW - APRIL 21, 2011
61
Transportation Facilities and Strategies
18.5 congestion pricing;
18.6 public/private partnerships, and public/public partnerships;
18.7 assessment and improvement districts, facility benefit assessments, impact fees,
dedication of right-of-way and voluntary funding agreements;
14.8 grants;
14.89 others, as may be appropriate.
-r.c~eacmmni.r"sumT".,ss i26ai84ioira miov•girn •••aivrc"I ~b*eemeat by the affeae°
Tr-19. Protect the transportation investments and preservation of assets throu(1h the proper
operations and maintenance.
Tr-20. Protect the transportation system against disaster, dev-°elop prevention and recovery
strategies, and plan for coordinated responses by using transportation-related
preparedness prevention mitigation, response, and recovery strategies and procedures
adopted in the emergency management plans and hazard mitigation plans of the County
and cities, as well as the Washington State Comprelhensiv°e Emergency Management
Plan.
PCRC REVIEW - APRIL 21, 2011
62
Urban Growth Areas
COUNTYWIDE PLANNING POLICY ON URBAN GROWTH AREAS,
PROMOTION OF CONTIGUOUS AND ORDERLY DEVELOPMENT
AND PROVISION OF URBAN SERVICES TO SUCH DEVELOPMENT
Background - Requirements of Growth Management Act
The Washington State Growth Management Act bas as plarnrnirn- goals ide es the encouragement
of development in urban areas where adequate public facilities and services exist or can be provided
in an efficient manner [RCW 36.70A.020(1)],the reduction of sprawl (i.e., the inappropriate or
premature conversion of undeveloped land into low-density development) [RCW 36.70A.020(2)],
and the provision of adequate public facilities and services necessary to support urban development
at the time the development is available for occupancy and use (without decreasing current service
levels below locally established minimum standards) [RCW 36.70A.020(12)] as planning goals, to
The Growth Management Act further requires (1) that the County designate an "urban growth area"
(UGA) or areas within which urban growth shall be encouraged and outside of which growth shall
occur only if it is not "urban" in character; (2) that each municipality in the County be included
within an UGA; (3) that an UGA include territory outside of existing municipal boundaries only if
such territory is characterized by urban growth or is adjacent to territory that is already characterized
by urban growth. [RCW 36.70A.110(1); for definition of "urban growth" see RCW
36.70A.030(17).]
The designated UGAs shall be of adequate size and appropriate permissible densities so as to
accommodate the urban growth that is projected by the State Office of Financial Management to
occur in the County for the succeeding 20-year period. While each UGA shall permit urban
densities, it shall also include greenbelt and open space areas [RCW 36.70A.110(2)].
As to the timing and sequencing of urban growth and development over the 20-year planning
period, urban growth shall occur first in areas already characterized by urban growth that have
existing public facility and service capacities to service such development, second in areas already
characterized by urban growth that will be served by a combination of both existing public facilities
and services and any additional needed public facilities and services that are provided by either
public or private sources [RCW 36.70A.110(3)]. Urban government services shall be provided
primarily by cities, and shat l not be pr-ev de i Pdr-a areas- it is not appropriate that urban
governmental serv-ices be extended to or expanded in rural areas except in those limited
circumstances shown to be necessary to protect basic. public bealtb and safety and em-ironment and
when such services are financially supportable at rural densities and do not periii1t urban
development [RCW 36.70A.1 10(4)].
The Growth Management Act Amendments expressly require that countywide planning policies
address the implementation of UGA designations [RCW 36.70A.210(3)(a)], the promotion of
contiguous and orderly development, the provision of urban services to such development [RCW
36.70A.210(3)(b)], and the coordination of joint county and municipal planning within UGAs
[RCW 36.70A.210(3)(f)].
PCRC REVIEW - APRIL 21, 2011
63
Urban Growth Areas
VISION 20=40 Multicounty Planning, Policies (NIPPs)
VISION 2040 calls for a more efficient, sustainable, and strategic. use of the region's land. It
identifies urban lands as a critical component to accommodate population and employment growth
in a sustainable wav. VISION 2040 calls for directing, development to the re(1i011's eXistin(urban
lands, especially in centers and compact communities, and limiting growth on rural lands. The
Regional Growth Stratew found ]n VISION 2040 allocates 93) percent of the region's future
population growth and 97 percent of its employment growth into the ex]st]ng urban growth area.
Cities are divided into four distinct groups: Metropolitan Cities, Core Cities, Large Cities, and
Small Cities. An additional geography is Unincorporated Urban Growth Areas. VISION 2040
reco(nizes that unincorporated Urban lands are often similar in character to cities they are adjacent
to, calling for them to be affiliated with adjacent cities for joint planning purposes and future
annexation.
VISION 2040 recognizes that compact development creates vibrant, livable, and healthy urban
communities that offer economic opportunities for all, prov-°ide housinng and transportation choices,
and use our resources wisely. The Mult]county Planning Policies support the effect]v-e use of urban
land and include provisions that address brownfield and contaminated site clean-up, the
development of compact communities and centers with pedestrian-friendly, transit-oriented
locations and a mix of residences, jobs, retail, and other amenities, and the siting of facilities and
major public amenities in compact urban communities and centers.
VISION 2040 recognizes that centers provide easy access to jobs, sen-ices, shopping, and
entertainment. With their mix of uses and pedestrian-friendly design, they can rely less on forms
of transportation that contribute to air- pollution and greenhouse gas emissions. VISION 2040
identifies 27 regional -rowtlh centers. These places play an important role as locations of the
region's most significant business, governmental, and cultural facilities. The 18 cities that lhav- e
one or more regional growth centers are expected to accommodate a significant portion of the
region's residential growth (5 percent) and employment orowth (71 percent).
VISION 2040 calls for local jurisdictions with regional growth centers to adopt housing and
employment targets for each center. Eight regional manufacturing/industrial centers have also
been des](mated. These are locations for more intensive commercial and industrial activity.
Both regional <Yrowth centers and re<a]onal manufacturing/]industrial centers are focal points for
economic development and transportation infrastructure inv-estnlents. Subregional centers,
including downtowns ]n suburban cities and other neighborhood centers, also play an important
role in VISION 2040's Re iomil growth .S'truic -v. These, too, are strategic locations foi-
l', concentrating jobs, housing, shopping, and recreational opportunities. VISION 2040 calls for
each of the region's cities to develop one or more central places as compact mixed-use hubs for
concentrating residences, jobs, shops, and community fac]1]t]eS.
Urban services addressed in VISION 2040 include wastewater and stormwater systems, solid
waste, energy, telecommunications, emergency services, and water supply. An overarching goal of
VISION 2040 is to provide sufficient and efficient public services and facilities in a manner that is
healthv, safe, and economically viable. Conservation is a major theme throuI'll out VISION 2040.
PCRC REVIEW - APRIL 21, 2011
64
Urban Growth Areas
The Multicounty Planning Policies address increasing recycling and reducing waste and
encoura-in- more efficient use of water, low-impact development techniques, and renewable and
Z, Z7
alterrnativ-°e energy. The Multicournty Planning(, Policies also address siting of public facilities and the
appropriateness and scale of particular public serv'ices.
VISION 2040 calls for jurisdictions to MN est in facilities and amenities that serve centers and
restrict urban facilities in rural and resource areas. The Multicounty Planning Policies also
discourage schools and other institutions sel-Ving urban residents from locating outside the urban
(Y-owth area.
Principles of Understanding Between Pierce County and the Municipalities in Pierce County
While following the goals and regulations of the Growth Management Act, Pierce County and the
municipalities in Pierce County will strive to protect the individual identities and spirit of each of
our cities and of the rural areas and unincorporated communities.
Further agreements will be necessary to carry out the framework of joint planning adopted herein.
These agreements will be between the County and each city and between the various cities.
The services provided within our communities by special purpose districts are of vital importance to
our citizens. Consistent with the adopted regional strategy, these districts will be part of future
individual and group negotiations under the framework adopted by the County and municipal
governments.
While the Growth Management Act defines sewer service as an urban service, Pierce County
currently is a major provider of both sewer transmission and treatment services. The County and
municipalities recognize that it is appropriate for the County and municipalities to continue to
provide sewer transmission and treatment services.
The County recognizes that unincorporated lands within UGAs are often potential annexation areas
for cities. These are also areas where incorporation of new cities can occur. The County will work
with existing municipalities and emerging communities to make such transitions efficiently.
At the same time, annexations and incorporations have direct and significant impacts on the revenue
of county government, and therefore, may affect the ability of the County to fulfill its role as a
provider of certain regional services. The municipalities will work closely with the County to
develop appropriate revenue sharing and contractual services arrangements that facilitate the goals
of GMA.
The Countywide Planning Policies are intended to be the consistent "theme" of growth management
planning among the County and municipalities. The policies also spell out processes and
mechanisms designed to foster open communication and feedback among the jurisdictions. The
County and the cities and towns will adhere to the processes and mechanisms provided in the
policies.
PCRC REVIEW - APRIL 21, 2011
65
Urban Growth Areas
Growth Targets
The Regional Growth Strategy set forth in VISION 2040 prov-ides guidance for the distribution of
future population and employment growth through the year 2040 within the Central Puget Sound
Region. This strategy in combination with the Office of Financial Management's population
forecasts provide a framework for establishing growth targets consistent with the requirements of
the Growth Management Act. Consistent with VISION 2040, these growth targets are the miriirnurn
number of residents, housing units, or jobs a given jurisdiction is planning to accommodate within
the appropriate planning horizon and are informational tools integrated into local land use plans to
assist in formulating future residential and employment land needs. These targets are to be
dev-eloped through a collaborative countywide process that ensures all jurisdictions are
accommodating a fair share of growth.
Achievement of the future envisioned by VISION 2040 will be challenging. Jurisdictions in some
regional geographies will likely be planning for growth targets that are above or below the policy
direction set by the Regional Growth Strategy because they are on a front- or back-loaded
growth trajectory toward 2040. In other regional geographies, recent growth has been at such
significant odds with the policy direction set by the Regional Growth Strategy (such as recent
growth in unincorporated urban Pierce Countv from 2000 to 2007 has already accounted for
more than half of the 401ear growth allocationy that the 2040 goal will likely be exceeded. In
such cases, jurisdictions are asked to set growth targets as close to VISION 2040 as reasonably
possible in an effort to "bend the trend" of future growth to more closely conform to the
Regional Growth Strategy. If a jurisdiction's adopted target is lower or higher than expected
from a straight-line application of the Regional Growth Strategy, certification by the Puget
Sound Regional Council (PSRQ "Al be based on the actions and measures taken or proposed to
be put in place to bend the trend, not just on an assessment of the adopted targets.
It is recognized that some of the urban growth areas in existence prior to the adoption of VISION
2040 may contain more potential housing and employment capacity based upon zoning, allowed
density, land dig-ision patterns, and other factors than is needed to accommodate the growth
target of the associated geography. In manv cases, these urban growth areas have been in
existence for a decade or more, contain existing development patterns which are urban in
character, and are served by sanitary sewer and other urban infrastructure. These areas are
largely expected to remain within the urban growth area consistent with their urban character.
Expansion of these urban growth area boundaries that do not comply, with provisions in the
Amendments and Transition section of these policies is acknowledged to be inconsistent with
CPPs and is strongly discouraged.
Centers
Centers are to be areas of concentrated employment and/or housing within UGAs which serve as the
hubs of transit and transportation systems. Centers and connecting corridors are integral to creating
compact urban development that conserves resources and creates additional transportation, housing,
and shopping choices. Centers are an important part of the regional strategy (VISION 2040) for
urban growth and are required to be addressed in the Countywide Planning Policies. Centers will
become focal points for growth within the county's UGA and will be areas where public investment
is directed.
PCRC REVIEW - APRIL 21, 2011
66
Urban Growth Areas
Centers are to:
• be priority locations for accommodating growth;
• strengthen existing development patterns;
• promote housing opportunities close to employment;
• support development of an extensive multimodal transportation system which reduces
dependency on automobiles;
• reduce congestion and improve air quality; and
• maximize the benefit of public investment in infrastructure and services.
VISION 2040, the adopted regional growth strategy, identifies several fler-ei4 t-ype~ e€ centers as
an integral feature for accommodating residential and employment growth. , inel ding three types
of b4ban Geater-s~ (1) Regional Center-, (2) Me~r-apalitaa Center-, (3) Urban Center-, w4ieh fea-Pdr-
fni~E of !and uses, as well as a eategaf:y for- Town Center-. (Nate~ in 2003, PSRG r-eplaeed the tefffl
PSRG's Designation &4e-ii ` The strategy describes Re<,ional Growth Centers, and otber centers
that may be designated tbrough countywide processes or locally. Regional Growth Centers once
regionally designated are located either in Metropolitan Cities, or in Core Cities. A~'ISION 2040 also
identifies Manufacturing/Industrial Centers, which consist primarily of manufacturing and industrial
uses. (See 1995 VISION 2040 Update, pages 95 and 96.). Pier-ee Gatmt-y has five Urban Centers
Pierce
County hasfive Regional Growth Centers and two 1Vlanufacturing/Industrial Centers that have been
adopted into the regional growth strategy. Pierce County Regional Growth Centers are e
as eider located in Tacoma, which is a Metropolitan City, and in Lakewood and Puyallup, which
are Core Cities. s follows:
Re<(,iornal Growth Centers in the Metropolitan City Genter-s
Tacoma Central Business District
Tacoma Mall
Regional Growth Centers in Core Cities
Taeafn NU
Lakewood
Puyallup Downtown
Puyallup South Hill
Currently there are no designated Countywide Centers.
Manufacturing/Industrial Centers are areas where employee- or land-intensive uses will be located.
These centers differ from Regional Growth Centers in that they consist of an extensive land base
and the exclusion of non-manufacturing or manufacturing-supportive uses is an essential feature of
their character. These areas are characterized by a significant amount of manufacturing, industrial,
and advanced technology employment uses. Large retail and non-related office uses are
discouraged. Other than caretakers' residences, housing is prohibited within
Manufacturing/Industrial Centers. However, these centers should be linked to high density housing
PCRC REVIEW - APRIL 21, 2011
67
Urban Growth Areas
areas by an efficient multimodal transportation system. The efficiency of rail and overland freight
to markets is the critical element for manufacturers and industries located in these centers.
The designated Manufacturing/Industrial Centers, within Pierce County are as follows:
Manufacturirng/lrndustrial Centers
Frederickson
Port of Tacoma
Within Pierce County, a limited number of additional centers may be designated through
amendment of the Countywide Planning Policies consistent with the process below.
Designated centers may vary substantially in the number of households and jobs they contain today.
The intent of the Countywide Planning Policies is that Regional Growth Centers become attractive
places to live and work, while supporting efficient public services such as transit and being
responsive to the local market for jobs and housing.
The Countywide Planning Policies establish target levels for housing and employment needed to
achieve the benefit of a center. Some centers will reach these levels over the next twenty years,
while for others the criteria set a path for growth over a longer term, providing capacity to
accommodate growth beyond the twenty year horizon.
County-Level Centers Designation Process
The County and any municipality in the County that is planning to include a Metropolitan City
Center, Regional Growth Center, Countywide Center or Manufacturing / Industrial Center within its
boundaries shall specifically define the area of such center within its comprehensive plan. The
comprehensive plan shall include policies aimed at focusing growth within the center and along
corridors consistent with the applicable criteria contained within the Countywide Planning Policies.
The County or municipality shall adopt regulations that reinforce the center's designation.
No more often than once every two years, the Pierce County Regional Council (PCRC) shall invite
jurisdictions with centers already adopted in their comprehensive plan that seek to be designated as
centers in the Countywide Planning Policies to submit a request for such designation. Said request
shall be processed in accordance with established procedures for amending the Countywide
Planning Policies.
Each jurisdiction seeking to have a center designated in the Countywide Planning Policies shall
provide the PCRC with a report demonstrating that the proposed center meets the minimum criteria
for designation together with a statement and map describing the center, its consistency with the
applicable Countywide Planning Policies, and how adopted regulations will serve the center.
Transit services shall be defined in the broadest sense and shall include local and regional bus
service, rail where appropriate, vanpool, carpool, and other transportation demand measures
designed to reduce vehicle trips.
The minimum designation criteria to establish a candidate center by type are as follows:
PCRC REVIEW - APRIL 21, 2011
68
Urban Growth Areas
Metropolitan City Center
Area: up to 1-1/2 square miles in size;
Capital Facilities: served by sanitary sewers;
Employment: a minimum of 25 employees per gross acre of non-residential lands with a
minimum of 15,000 employees;
Population: a minimum of ten households per gross acre; and
Transit: serve as a focal point for regional and local transit services.
Regional Growth Center
Area: up to 1-1/2 square miles in size;
Capital Facilities: served by sanitary sewers;
Employment: a minimum of 2,000 employees;
Population: a minimum of seven households per gross acre; and
Transit: serve as a focal point for regional and local transit services.
Countywide Center
Area: up to one square mile in size;
Capital Facilities: served by sanitary sewers;
Employment: a minimum of 1,000 employees;
Population: a minimum of 6 households per gross acre; and
Transit: serve as a focal point for local transit services.
Manufacturing / Industrial Center
Capital Facilities: served by sanitary sewers;
Employment: a minimum of 7,500 jobs and/or 2,000 truck trips per day; and
Transportation: within one mile of a state or federal highway or national rail line.
The minimum criteria report and statement shall be reviewed by the Growth Management
Coordinating Committee (GMCC) for consistency with Countywide Planning Policies, the
Transportation Coordination Committee for consistency with transportation improvements plans of
WSDOT, and with Pierce Transit's comprehensive plan. The coordinating committees shall
provide joint recommendation to the PCRC.
Once included in the Countywide Planning Policies, the jurisdiction where a center is located may
go on to seek regional designation of the center from the Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC) in
accordance with its established criteria and process.
In order to be designated a Regional Growth Center the center should meet the regional criteria and
requirements including those in VISION 2040, the regional growth, economic and transportation
strategy as may be amended and designated by the Puget Sound Regional Council.
After county-level designation occurs within the Countywide Planning Policies and until regional-
level designation by the PSRC occurs the center shall be considered a "candidate" Regional Growth
Center.
PCRC REVIEW - APRIL 21, 2011
69
Urban Growth Areas
Each jurisdiction which designates a Regional Growth Center shall establish 20-year household and
employment growth targets for that Center. The expected range of targets will reflect the diversity
of the various centers and allow communities to effectively plan for needed services. The target
ranges not only set a policy for the level of growth envisioned for each center, but also for the
timing and funding of infrastructure improvements. Reaching the target ranges will require careful
planning of public investment and providing incentives for private investments.
Urban Growth Outside of Centers
A variety of urban land uses and areas of growth will occur outside of designated centers but within
the UGA. Local land use plans will guide the location, scale, timing and design of development
within UGAs. The UGA will be where the majority of future growth and development will be
targeted. Development should be encouraged which complements the desired focus of growth into
centers and supports a multimodal transportation system. For example, policies which encourage
infill and revitalization of communities would help to achieve the regional and statewide objectives
of a compact and concentrated development pattern within urban areas. The Countywide Planning
Policies provide guidance for development and the provision of urban services to support
development within the UGA.
Satellite Cities and Towns
The cities and towns in the rural areas are a significant part of Pierce County's diversity and
heritage. They have an important role as local trade and community centers. These cities and towns
are the appropriate providers of local rural services for the community. They also contribute to the
variety of development patterns and housing choices within the county. As municipalities, these
cities and towns provide urban services and are located within the County's designated UGA. The
urban services, residential densities and mix of land uses may differ from those of the large,
contiguous portion of the UGA in Pierce County.
Countywide Planning Policy
UGA-1. The County shall designate a countywide urban growth area, and identify where
appropriate municipal urban growth areas within the countywide urban growth area,
based on consultations between the County and each municipality, and pur-s iant to the
fellevv4ng sessi
PCRC REVIEW - APRIL 21, 2011
70
Urban Growth Areas
t
+a
>
>
hEfflSifig;
;
1.21 County referral of proposed urban growth area designations to the Pierce County
Regional Council (PCRC).
111. The (PC RC) may refer the proposed
designations to the Growth Management Coordinating Committee
(GMCC), or its successor entity for technical advice and for a report.
1.-21.2 The (PCRC) may conduct public
meetings to review the proposed designation and, at such meetings, may
accept oral or written comments and communications from the public.
111.3 At the conclusion of its review and analysis, the Pier-e° Gets ly R ena
Gatineil (PC RC) shall make a recommendation to the County and to the
municipalities in the County.
1
3
1 if H
tifi
4i
a b
G
t-
in
446a
f
r-
d
i
n
t
d
E) ~s
.
.
ea
a
y
atm
y
w
g
o
es
g
a
e
ti
Management Hearing
s Beaf .
1.3.3 r-esalt&)a of eaaflie
tvia fnedia4i
on by State DepaFtme
at of Gam
Trade, and Eeenem
ie
;
1.4 Fell- -I- eeffi
i
i3
ti
i
i
d
'
v i
r-b
ent be~ween the Getffft-y and ffiti
~h
n
r
r
nieipfflit-Y en the
f ll
f
im
4fi
g
a
r
e
s
6
~
e ti
rg
ra
e ease o
a
ea, v
av
a
passe,
g
Tr
d
nd E
fi
ffii
n 1 d -
b
aiy
th
~ C'.,,,
pAr- l P
G
n
a
e, a
ea
a
e
y
e
e
tige
e
e
1.1&2 Once adopted by the County, the urban growth area designations shall not be
changed except in accordance with the Countywide Policy on "Amendments and
Transition."
PCRC REVIEW - APRIL 21, 2011
71
Urban Growth Areas
1.2.1 A jurisdiction shall not be required to modify existing urban growth area
boundaries in order to reduce the residential or employment capacity to
conform to adopted growth targets reflecting VISION 2040's Re<,iornal
G-owtb Strategy. Jurisdictions shall, however, consider the adopted
growth tarp(yets when updating their local comprebensive plans.
1.22 Growth targets are the minimum number of residents, housing units, or
jobs a gig-en jurisdiction is planning to accommodate within the
appropriate plamIing horizon and are to be dev-eloped through a
collaborativ°e countywide process tbat ensures all jurisdictions are
accommodating a fair share of growth. These targets are informational
tools inte-rated into local land use plans to assist in forl11ulating future
residential and employment land needs.
UGA-2. The following specific factors and criteria shall dictate the size and boundaries of urban
growth areas:
2.1 Size
2.1.1 Urban growth areas must be of sufficient size to accommodate 014Y the
urban growth projected to occur over the succeeding 20-year planning
period taking into account the following:
a. land with natural constraints, such as critical areas (environmentally-
sensitive land);
b. agricultural land to be preserved;
c. greenbelts and open space;
d. New Fully Contained Communities pursuant to RCW § 36.70A.350
eansistent with the elass fieatio ofee ~o ;moo a in the
IASION 2020 Plan. (New f6lly eent-Ai4fie d- e A iEfflifies af-e
eh-ar-aeterizedby fni~Eed uses, i.e., residential of va i I .
eeat°rs affordable hatisi}g and traasp~~t e dalities.
e. maintaining a supply of developable land sufficient to allow market
forces to operate and precluding the possibility of a land monopoly
but no more than is absolutely essential to achieve the above
purpose;
f. existing projects with development potential at various stages of the
approval or permitting process (i.e., the "pipeline");
g. land use patterns created by subdivisions, short plats or large lot
divisions;
h. build-out of existing development and areas which are currently only
partially built out;
i. follow existing parcel boundary lines (if a parcel is split and more
than 50% is within the urban growth boundary, the entire parcel shall
PCRC REVIEW - APRIL 21, 2011
72
Urban Growth Areas
be considered part of the urban growth area as long as the increase
does not exceed 2% of the municipality's total urban growth area).
2.1.2. The County, and each municipality in the County, shall cooperativ7ely
develop and propose objective standards and criteria to disaggregate the
State Office of Financial Management's Countywide growth forecasts and
VISION 2040 Re(,ional GrovNth Strate-y forecasts for the allocation of
projected population to the County and municipalities, tal:ffl- into account
the availability and concurrency of public
facilities and services with the impact of development, as well as the
VISION 2040 Regional Growth Strategy.
2.1.3 The County shall use a consistent countywide targeting process for
allocating population and employment growth consistent with the
regional- ision, including establishing:
a. local employment targets,
b. local ]lousing targets based on population projections and
c. local housing and employment targets for each desi(nated regional
growth center.
2.2 Boundaries
2.2.1 Any of the following shall be considered in determining the location of
urban growth area boundaries:
a. geographic, topographic, and manmade features;
b. public facility and service availability, limits and extensions;
c. jurisdictional boundaries including special improvement districts;
d. location of designated natural resource lands and critical areas;
e. avoidance of unserviceable islands of County land surrounded by
other juri sdictional entities;
f Destination 2030 urban/rural line and PSCAA burn ban line.
Phasing of Development within the Urban Growth Area
2.3 The County and each municipality in the County shall seek to direct growth as
follows:
a. first to cities and towns, centers and urbanized areas with existing
infrastructure capacity;
b. second to areas that are already urbanized such that infrastructure
improvements can be easily extended; and
c. last to areas requiring major infrastructure improvements.
2.3.1 Capital facilities plans shall identify existing, planned, and future
infrastructure needs within Urban Growth Areas.
PCRC REVIEW - APRIL 21, 2011
73
Urban Growth Areas
2.3.2 The County and each municipality in the County should identify
appropriate levels of service and concurrency standards that address
schools, sewer, water, and parks.
2.3.3 The County and each municipality in the County shall identify
appropriate levels of service and multimodal concurrency standards that
address roads.
2.4 Municipal urban growth area boundaries shall be determined as set forth above
and with consideration for the following additional factors:
2.4.1 the VISION 242-0 2040 document, including Multicounty Planning
Policies;
2.4.2 the carrying capacity of the land considering natural resources,
agricultural land and environmentally-sensitive lands;
2.4.3 population, housing- and employment projections;
2.4.4 financial capabilities and urban services capacities;
2.4.5 consistency and compatibility with neighborhood, local and regional
plans;
2.4.6 the existing land use and subdivision pattern.
2.5 The urban growth area in unincorporated portions of the County shall be limited
to the following:
2.5.1 build-out of existing partially developed areas with urban services;
2.5.2 new fully contained communities;
2.5.3 redevelopment corridors.
2.6 The County's urban growth area may be extended to allow for build-out of
newly developed areas only if development capacity within municipal urban
growth boundaries and growth in the areas identified in Policy 2.5 is determined
to be inadequate to meet total population and employment projections consistent
with the other policies set forth herein.
2.7 Encourage efficient use of urban land by maximizing the development potential
of existing urban lands, such as advancing dev-°elopmernt that achieves zoned
density..8 The municipal urban <~rowtb areas as well as unincorporated urban growth areas
not affiliated with a city or town, in existence prior to the adoption of VISION
2040 may contain capacity beyond that needed to accommodate the ,rowtb
target per regional geography for the succeeding- 20-year planning period based
upon existing zoning designations, allowed density, existin<~ land division
patterns, and similar factors. It is permissible for such areas to continue to be
designated as urban growth areas. Expansion of these urban growth area
boundaries is acknowledged to be inconsistent with the CPPs arid sti-oil(T]\,
PCRC REVIEW - APRIL 21, 2011
74
Urban Growth Areas
discouraged if the urban growth area expansion is not in accordance with policy
AT-2.3.
I rhull 1'11hlic Serl'ices
UGA-3. Within the delineated urban growth areas, the County, and each municipality in the
County, shall adopt measures to ensure that growth and development are timed and
phased consistent with the provision of adequate public facilities and services.
3.1 "Adequacy" shall be defined by locally established service level standards for
local facilities and services both on the site and off-site. For facilities and
services provided by other agencies, adequacy shall be defined by level of
service standards mutually agreed upon by the service provider and the
jurisdiction served. The definition of levels of service standards may allow for
the phasing-in of such standards as may be provided in the capital facilities
element of County or municipal comprehensive plans.
3.2 "Public facilities" include:
3.2.1 Streets, roads, highways, sidewalks, street and road lighting systems, and
traffic signals
3.2.2 Domestic water systems
3.2.3 Sanitary sewer systems
3.2.4 Storm sewer systems
3.2.5 Park and recreational facilities
3.2.6 Schools
3.3 "Public services" include:
3.3.1 Fire protection and suppression
3.3.2 Law enforcement
3.3.3 Public health
3.3.4 Education
3.3.5 Recreation
3.3.6 Environmental protection
3.3.7 Other governmental services, including power, transit and libraries
3.4 Public Sanitary Sewer Service. The following policies shall be applicable to the
provision of public sanitary sewer service in the County and its municipalities:
3.4.1 Relationship of Sewer Interceptors to Comprehensive Plans. The timing,
phasing and location of sewer interceptor expansions shall be included in
the capital facilities element of the applicable municipal or County
comprehensive plans and shall be consistent with Countywide Planning
Policies, the Urban Growth Area boundaries and the local comprehensive
land use plan. The phased expansions shall be coordinated among the
PCRC REVIEW - APRIL 21, 2011
75
Urban Growth Areas
County and the municipalities therein and shall give priority to existing
unserved urbanized areas within the Urban Growth Area except as
provided in 3.4.2 a. and b. below.
3.4.2 Public Sewer Interceptor and Service Extensions/Expansions:
a. Public sewer interceptors shall only extend or expand outside of
Urban Growth Areas where:
(i) sewer service will remedy ground water contamination and
other health problems by replacing septic systems, or
(ii) a formal binding agreement to service an approved planned
development was made prior to the establishment of the Urban
Growth Area, or
(iii) an interceptor will convey wastewater originating within a
designated Urban Growth Area to sewerage facilities in
another designated Urban Growth Area, or
b. New sanitary sewer service inside Urban Growth Areas must follow
phasing of capital facilities as provided in the municipality's adopted
comprehensive plan or any adopted Sewer Master Plan unless:
(i) sewer service will remedy ground water contamination and
other health problems by replacing septic systems and
community on-site sewage systems, or
(ii) a new municipality incorporates, or
(iii) a formal binding agreement to service an approved planned
development was made prior to the establishment of the Urban
Growth Area;
(iv) an interceptor will convey wastewater originating within a
designated Urban Growth Area to sewerage facilities in
another designated Urban Growth Area.
c. New sanitary sewer service connections from interceptors shall not
be made available to properties outside the Urban Growth Area
except as provided in (a) above.
d. Sanitary Sewer service shall not be provided in areas designated
"rural," except as provided in 3.4.2(a)(i)(ii)
e. A sewer interceptor or trunk line constructed or planned for
construction through a rural area to convey wastewater from a
designated Urban Growth Area to sewerage facilities in a designated
Urban Growth Area shall not constitute a change of conditions that
can be used as the basis for a change in land use designation or
urban/rural designation, either for adjacent or nearby properties.
3.4.3 On-Site and Community Sewage Systems
a. In order to protect the public health and safety of the citizens of
Pierce County and of the municipalities in the County, to preserve
and protect environmental quality including, but not limited to, water
quality and to protect aquifer recharge areas, to work toward the goal
of eliminating the development of new residential and commercial
PCRC REVIEW - APRIL 21, 2011
76
Urban Growth Areas
uses on on-site and community sewage systems within the urban
areas in the unincorporated County or within municipal boundaries
consistent with the Countywide Planning Policies, the County and
each municipality shall adopt policies on the use of on-site and
community sewage including:
(i) the most current Tacoma-Pierce County Board of Health Land
Use Regulations for On-Site and Community Sewerage
Systems
(ii) policies which require connection to sanitary sewers when they
are available in the following circumstances:
(a) if a septic system fails,
(b) for all new development except existing single-family
lots,
(c) for development with dry sewer systems.
(iii) if sewer service is not available, dry sewer facilities shall be
required.
b. New industrial development on community or on-site sewage
systems shall not be allowed in urban areas in the unincorporated
County or within municipal boundaries. Sanitary facilities necessary
for recreation sites may be exempt from this policy.
c. It is not the intent of these policies to require any individual property
owner on an existing, properly permitted and functioning septic
system to connect to a public sewer unless:
(i) the septic system fails;
(ii) or the system is not in compliance with the most current
version of the Tacoma-Pierce County Board of Health Land
Use Regulations or the current use of the property changes;
(iii) or the density of development on the property increases;
(iv) or the existing septic system was originally permitted as an
interim system to be abandoned when sewers became
available;
(v) or a municipality had a mandatory policy.
3.4.4 Achieving an adopted Level of Sewer Service
a. The County, each municipality, and sewer providers shall work
together to achieve adopted levels of service for sewers. All sewer
service providers shall work with municipalities to process sewer
permits in a manner that allows municipalities to comply with
timelines imposed under RCW 36.70B.080(l).
b. The County, each municipality, and their sewer providers shall
work to secure funding sources to achieve the adopted levels of
sewer service such as:
(i) Grants
(ii) Public Works Trust Fund
(iii) State Revolving Fund
(iv) Centennial Clean Water Fund
PCRC REVIEW - APRIL 21, 2011
Urban Growth Areas
(v) Municipally imposed surcharges to fund sewer
improvements in the jurisdictions where the surcharges are
collected.
3.4.5 The availability or potential for availability of sewer treatment plant
capacity shall not be used to justify expansion of the sewer system or
development in a manner inconsistent with the Countywide Planning
Policy, Urban Growth Area boundaries and the applicable municipal or
County comprehensive land use plans.
3.5 Non-Municipal Service-Provision Entities
3.5.1 Special purpose districts shall conform their capital facility and service
plans so as to be consistent with the capital facility element of the County
or municipal comprehensive plans.
3.5.2 Where facilities and services will be provided by special purpose,
improvement or facility service provision entities, such entities shall
coordinate the provision of facilities and services with the County, and
each affected municipality in the County, so that new growth and
development is, in fact, served by adequate public facilities and services
at the time of development.
3.6 The County, and each municipality in the County, shall adopt plans and
implementation measures to ensure that sprawl and leapfrog development are
discouraged in accordance with the following:
3.6.1 urban growth within UGA boundaries is located first in areas already
characterized by urban growth that have existing public facility and
service capacities to serve such development;
3.6.2 urban growth is located next in areas already characterized by urban
growth that will be served by a combination of both existing public
facilities and services and any additional needed public facilities and
services that are provided by either public or private sources;
3.6.3 "urban growth" refers to a predominance of areas or uses within the
Urban Growth Area which exhibit one or a combination of the following:
a. intensive use of land for buildings and structures;
b. high percentage of impermeable surfaces;
c. incompatibility with the primary use of land for the production of
food, other agricultural products or fiber, or the extraction of mineral
resources;
d. need for urban governmental services.
3.6.4 "Characterized by urban growth" refers to:
a. land having urban growth on it;
b. land located in relationship to an area with urban growth on it as to
be appropriate for urban growth.
3.6.5 Urban government services shall be provided primarily by cities and
urban government services shall not be provided in rural areas.
PCRC REVIEW - APRIL 21, 2011
78
Urban Growth Areas
3.7 Public facilities and services will be considered available "at the time of
development" as follows:
3.7.1 as to all public facilities and services other than transportation, if the
facility or service is in place at the time demand is created, or if the
County or municipality has made appropriate provision to meet the
demand for the public facility or service through one or more of the
following techniques:
a. inclusion of the public facility or service in the applicable County or
municipal capital facilities plan element and specification of the full
source of the funding for such project;
b. impact fees;
c. required land dedication;
d. assessment districts;
e. users fees and charges;
f. utility fees;
g. other.
3.7.2 as to transportation facilities, if needed transportation improvements are
within the then existing 6-year capital facilities plan element and program,
but only if a specific financial commitment to the transportation
improvement project has been made.
3.7.3 public facilities and services will not be considered available at the time
of development unless they are provided consistently with the applicable
level of service standards adopted in the capital facilities element of the
Comprehensive Plan.
3.8 Public facility and service adequacy shall be determined by the County, and
each municipality in the County, based upon:
3.8.1 the specific public facility or service;
3.8.2 the adopted or established level of service standard
a. established by each municipality for local facilities and services;
b. by mutual agreement between provider and municipality served for
other facilities and services;
c. established through interlocal agreements for cross jurisdictional
facilities and services.
3.8.3 the current usage of the existing public facilities and services, existing
development commitments and obligations, the vested or non-vested
status of pipeline approvals or existing lots of record, and new
development applications.
3.8.4 where development projects partially meet adequacy of public facilities
and services standards, development approval may be authorized for that
portion of the project that meets the adequacy standards or the project
may be phased to coincide with the phasing of future availability of
adequate public facilities and services.
PCRC REVIEW - APRIL 21, 2011
79
Urban Growth Areas
3.9 Facility and service provision/extension to new development areas shall be
subject to the following:
3.9.1 imposition of requirement for payment of the full, but fair, share of costs
of needed facilities and services on the new development through:
a. impact fees;
b. assessment districts;
c. user fees and charges;
d. surcharges;
e. dedication;
f. utility fees;
g. other, as appropriate.
3.9.2 consideration of the total impact of the facility or service extension on the
achievement of other policies, goals and objectives, in addition to the
impact on the area being served.
3.9.3 if necessary to minimize off-site impacts, specify that such service
extensions (e.g., sewer, water) are not subject to connection by
intervening landowners.
IoirN l'lunnin~"
UGA-4. Joint planning. Joint planning between local governments can provide numerous
possible benefits, including but not limited to:
• More efficient delivery of services
• Shared use of public facilities
• Coordinated permitting processes
• Cost-sharing for planning and construction of public facilities (e.g., water, sewer
infrastructure, parks, etc.)
• Consistent development standards
• Shared regional data, including GIS data
• Proactive identification of potential issues
4.1 Joint planning may be municipal-municipal as well as municipal-County. The
County and each municipality shall jointly plan for the designated urban growth
area of that municipality (outside of municipal corporate limits) and may include
municipal utility service areas. Joint municipal-municipal planning may occur
in those other areas where the respective jurisdictions agree such planning would
be beneficial.
4.2 Any jurisdiction initiating joint planning with one or more other juri sdictions
shall do so by submitting a written proposal from its legislative authority to the
legislative authority of the other jurisdiction(s). In forming its proposal, the
initiating jurisdiction should consider the Joint Planning Framework
recommended by the Pierce County Regional Council, April 15, 1993, and
PCRC REVIEW - APRIL 21, 2011
80
Urban Growth Areas
adopted by Resolution No. R93-127 of the Pierce County Council, July 13,
1993. The proposal shall include, but not be limited to, the following:
4.2.1 size of the proposed j oint planning study area;
4.2.2 location of the proposed study area in relation to urban growth
boundaries;
4.2.3 description of the issues proposed to be addressed in the joint planning
process;
4.2.4 proposed end-product of the joint planning process (e.g., amendments to
comprehensive plans or implementing ordinances of each jurisdiction,
interlocal agreement, etc.);
4.2.5 proposed resources (e.g., staff, funding, technology, etc.) to be provided
by the initiating jurisdiction toward completing the joint planning process;
4.2.6 evidence that notification of the joint planning process will be provided to
residents, property owners, businesses, service providers, special districts,
or other parties affected by the proposed joint planning process.
4.3 A jurisdiction receiving a proposal tinder- peliey 4.2 (ab&',e) for joint
municipal-County planning requir-edby these ponees-(sue ^ shall
respond by either:
4.3.1 issuing a resolution of its legislative authority indicating an intent to
enter into a joint planning process as proposed; or
4.3.2 entering into discussions with the proposing jurisdiction regarding
alternatives to joint planning proposal; or
4.3.3 proposing to Pierce County that the proposal be included as part of an
appropriate community planning process, if mutually agreeable to all
jurisdictions involved.
If at any time Pierce County receives more proposals for participation
in joint planning than its resources will provide, the County shall
forward the proposals to the Pierce County Regional Council (PCR(')
for consideration and a recommendation on prioritization based on
planning needs. The (P('RC), shall
consider proposals for j oint planning that have been forwarded to them,
and prioritize the proposals according to the probable benefit to the
County as a whole. Prioritization shall be based on the information
included in the proposal, plus other criteria agreed upon by the Pier-ee
Gatiaty Regional Gati (PCR('). These criteria could include, but are
not limited to:
4.3.4 rate of growth in the proposed study area;
4.3.5 scope of existing municipal utility provision in the proposed study area;
4.3.6 existence of special districts serving both the proposed study area and
the municipality;
4.3.7 degree to which development standards or comprehensive plan policies
may differ between jurisdictions within the proposed study area;
PCRC REVIEW - APRIL 21, 2011
81
Urban Growth Areas
4.3.8 criteria 4.5.1 through 4.5.3 below.
4.4 When j oint planning is required, the j oint planning effort shall determine and
resolve issues including, but not limited to, the following:
4.4.1 how zoning, subdivision and other land use approvals in designated urban
growth areas of municipalities will be coordinated;
4.4.2 how appropriate service level standards for determining adequacy and
availability of public facilities and services will be coordinated;
4.4.3 how the rate, timing, and sequencing of boundary changes will be
coordinated;
4.4.4 how the provision of capital improvements to an area will be coordinated;
4.4.5 to what extent a jurisdiction(s) may exercise extra jurisdictional
responsibility.
4.5 Joint planning may be based upon factors including, but not limited to, the
following:
4.5.1 contemplated changes in municipal and special purpose district
boundaries;
4.5.2 the likelihood that development, capital improvements, or regulations will
have significant impacts across a jurisdictional boundary;
4.5.3 the consideration of how public facilities and services are and should be
provided and by which jurisdiction(s).
UGA-5. Urban Development Standards.
5.1 The provisions of this section shall apply to all municipalities and urban growth
areas located in the County.
5.2 The following development standards shall be the minimum required for urban
developments and shall apply to all new development in urban growth areas,
except as provided in Section 5.6 below.
5.2.1 Streets, Roads and Arterials. All public streets, roads, and arterials shall
be constructed to the minimum requirements outlined in the City and
County Design Standards adopted pursuant to RCW 35.78.030 and RCW
43.32.020. Curbs, gutters, and sidewalks will be required on both sides.
Private streets and roads may be approved, but shall be required to meet
these requirements.
5.2.2 Street Lighting. Street lighting shall be required at signalized
intersections. Street lighting in new subdivisions shall be provided at all
intersections controlled by a traffic signal or sign, and at certain road
corners, elbows, and cul-de-sacs. Installation and maintenance of street
lighting in subdivisions shall be the responsibility of the developer or
homeowner's association unless the local jurisdiction assumes
PCRC REVIEW - APRIL 21, 2011
82
Urban Growth Areas
5.3
5.4
5.5
responsibility. When ownership of the street lighting has not been
assumed by the local jurisdiction, the light standards shall be located on
private property
5.2.3
5.2.4
5.2.5
5.2.6
Domestic Water. A domestic water system must meet requirements
under RCW 70.119 and WAC 246-290 for group "A" systems, or the
functional equivalent.
Storm Water Facilities. A storm water drainage system shall be designed
and constructed in accordance with the Department of Ecology Storm
Drainage Technical Manual or a locally adopted storm water manual
approved by DOE.
Sanitary Sewer. (Refer to policy 3.4)
The County and each municipality shall develop policies that require
developers to extend sewers to their developments to design the facilities
to allow further extension to adjacent unsewered areas.
5.2.7 Fire Protection. Fire protection and flow requirements shall be in
accordance with Pierce County Code Chapter 15.12.
5.2.8 Solid Waste and Recycling. Garbage pick-up shall be provided weekly,
and recycling and yard waste pick-up biweekly, consistent with federal
and state laws and regulations.
It is desired by the signatories to these policies that the following Urban
Development Standards be the minimum goals for urban developments in Urban
Growth Areas.
5.3.1 Street Cleaning. Standards for street cleaning shall be discussed and
should be developed, consistent with requirements of federal and state
water quality standards.
5.3.2 Transit. Urban transit service plans adopted by the Pierce County Public
Transit Benefit Authority.
5.3.3 Library. Appropriate jurisdictions should provide 450 square feet of
library space per 1,000 persons.
5.3.4 Parks and Recreation. Provisions for parks at a level of 3.0 acres of
neighborhood/community parks per 1,000 population should be made for
all plats and short plats as required by RCW 58.17. Such provision can be
made either through dedication to the public of land, or through provision
of funds, as mitigation, for park land purposes.
All development within an urban growth area shall be provided services
pursuant to the provision of this agreement and the j oint planning agreements
adopted pursuant to it. It is recognized that the County may provide certain
urban services within an Urban Growth Area, and that cities may provide certain
urban services within the same area, but outside their current municipal
boundaries.
The County and each municipality shall enter into an interlocal cooperation
agreement providing for the approval and delivery of public facilities and
PCRC REVIEW - APRIL 21, 2011
83
Urban Growth Areas
services in the Urban Growth Area. Such further agreements shall include,
where appropriate, provisions relating to services such as law enforcement and
schools and the services of special purpose districts and other service providers.
5.6 Ordinances allowing low impact development standards and create
environmentally-sensitive development shall be allowed as alternative
development standards. Any other ordinances allowing variances and deviations
to the urban development standards may be adopted by each responsible
jurisdiction for those limited circumstances necessary to allow for recognition of
community plans and goals, recognized historic character, or special physical or
engineering circumstances, as long as such variances and deviations are
otherwise consistent with these policies. A legislative authority adopting a
variance or deviation to the minimum urban development standards under this
section must inform the Pierce County Regional Council (PCRC) of such
adoption.
UGA-6. The County and each municipality shall adopt within their respective comprehensive
plans, policies to ensure that development within the urban growth area uses land
efficiently, provides for a wide variety of uses, conserves natural resources, and allows
for the connection of communities to an efficient, transit-oriented, multimodal
transportation system. Policies shall:
6.1 provide for more choices in housing types and moderate increases in density to
achieve at least an average net density of four units per acre;
6.2 support infill and compact development; and
6.3 provide for land uses that encourage travel by foot, bike and transit.
UGA-7. The County and each municipality shall provide for conveniently located, appropriately
scaled commercial development to serve the immediate local needs of the surrounding
community by encouraging revitalization of underused commercial areas before
establishing new areas.
UGA-8. The County and each municipality shall adopt plans to encourage concentrated
development within the urban growth area which will accommodate the twenty year
projected population and employment growth.
UGA-9. The County and each municipality neighboring Joint Base Lew1S-M&Ilord should
develop planning prov- isions, including development regulations that encourage
adjacent land uses that are compatible with military uses.
UGA-9 10. Satellite Cities and Towns are local focal points where people come together for a
variety of activities, including business, shopping, living and recreation. These cities
and towns may include the core of small to medium sized cities and towns and may
also be located in unincorporated areas. Often Satellite Cities and Towns include a
PCRC REVIEW - APRIL 21, 2011
84
Urban Growth Areas
strong public presence because they are the location of city hall, main street and other
public spaces.
UGA-101. Satellite Cities and Towns will be characterized by a compact urban form that
includes a moderately dense mix of locally-oriented retail, jobs and housing that
promotes walking, transit usage and community activity.
101.1 Satellite Cities and Towns will be developed at a higher density than
surrounding urban and rural areas;
101.2 small scale forms of intensification such as accessory housing units and
development of vacant lots and parking lots help achieve the qualities of centers
while preserving the neighborhood character.
UGA-14-2. At a minimum, Satellite Cities and Towns will be served by State Routes which
connect them to other centers and to the regional high capacity transit system. In some
instances, Satellite Cities and Towns may have direct connections to the local public
transportation system.
OVERALL POLICIES FOR NON-INDUSTRIAL CENTERS
;440 t ( ollccl)ts crn(/ Princil)lca
UGA-12 3. Centers shall be designated based upon the following:
1-23.1 consistency with specific criteria for centers adopted in the Countywide Planning
Policies;
1-23.2 the center's location in the County and its potential for fostering a logical and
desirable countywide transportation system and distribution of centers;
1-23.3 the total number of centers in the County that can be reasonably developed based
on projected growth over the next twenty years;
1-23.4 environmental analysis which shall include demonstration that urban services
including an adequate supply of drinking water are available to serve projected
growth within the center and that the jurisdiction is capable of ensuring
concurrent urban services to new development;
1-23.5 if a jurisdiction designates a center, it must also adopt the center's designation
and provisions in its comprehensive plans and development regulations to ensure
that growth targeted to centers is achieved and urban services will be provided;
13.6 Centers shall be characterized by all of the following:
13.6.1 clearly defined geographic boundaries;
PCRC REVIEW - APRIL 21, 2011
85
Urban Growth Areas
1=23). 6.2 intensity/density of land uses sufficient to support high-capacity
transit;
1=23.6.3 pedestrian-oriented land uses and amenities;
123). 6.4 pedestrian connections shall be provided throughout;
1=23.6.5 urban design standards which reflect the local community;
I=23. 6. 6 provisions to reduce single-occupancy vehicle use especially during
peak hours and commute times;
12 3.6.7 provisions for bicycle use;
1=23). 6.8 sufficient public open spaces and recreational opportunities;
123.6.9 uses which provide both daytime and nighttime activities; and
123.6.10 centers shall be located in urban growth areas.
UGA-124. Each jurisdiction which designates a center within its comprehensive plan shall
define the type of center and specify the exact geographic boundaries of the center.
Centers shall not exceed one and one-half square miles of land and Countywide
centers shall not exceed one square mile of land. Infrastructure and services shall be
either present and available or planned and financed consistent with the expected
rate of growth.
14.1 lnfrastructure and serv-ices shall be either present and available or planned and
financed consistent with the expected rate of growth.
14.2 Priority for transportation and infrastructure funds shall be given to des],, ii ated
centers.
Design Features of Centers
UGA-145. The County and each jurisdiction that designates a center within its comprehensive
plan shall encourage density and development to achieve targeted growth.
145.1 Any of the following approaches could be used to implement center
development:
145. encouraging higher residential densities within centers;
145. 1.2 avoiding creation of large blocks of single-use zones;
145.1.3 allowing for greater intensity of use within centers;
145. 1.4 increasing building heights, greater floor/area ratios within centers;
145.1.5 minimizing setbacks within centers;
145.1.6 allowing buildings to locate close to street to enhance pedestrian
accessibility; and
145.1.7 encouraging placement of parking to rear of structures.
145.2 Designated centers are expected to receive a higher- pr-epe si~,,nificant share
of projected growth in conjunction with periodic disaggregation of countywide
population allocations.
PCRC REVIEW - APRIL 21, 2011
86
Urban Growth Areas
UGA-1-5~6. Centers shall provide necessary capital facilities needed to accommodate the
projected growth in population and employment. Facilities include, but are not
limited to, roads, sewers and other utilities, schools, parks, and open space. In order
to provide balance between higher intensity of use within centers, public and/or
private open space shall be provided.
UGA-167. Streetscape amenities (landscaping, furniture, etc.) shall be provided within centers
to create a pedestrian friendly environment.
UGA-1-78. The following regulatory mechanisms shall be used within centers.
1-78.1 Adopt development standards that encourage pedestrian-scaled development
such as those that address:
1-78.1.1 interconnections between buildings and sidewalks;
1-78.1.2 pedestrian links between residential and non-residential areas;
1-78.1.3 street trees/furniture; and
1-78.1.4 minimizing separations between uses.
Transportation, Parking and Circulation
UGA-1-99. To encourage transit use within centers, jurisdictions shall establish mechanisms to
limit the use of single occupancy vehicles. Such mechanisms should include:
199.1 charges for parking;
199.2 limiting the number of off-street parking spaces;
199.3 establishing minimum and maximum parking requirements;
199.4 commute trip reduction (CTR) measures and other transportation demand
management measures; a*d
199.5 development of commuter programs for multiple employers not otherwise
affected by the CTR law-; and
19.6 prov-idiiig nonmotonzed transportation facilities.
UGA-4-920. Centers should receive a high priority for the location of high-capacity transit
stations and/or transit centers.
UGA-261. Locate higher densities/intensities of use close to transit stops within centers and
seek opportunities to:
281.1 create a core area to support transit and high occupancy vehicle use;
PCRC REVIEW - APRIL 21, 2011
87
Urban Growth Areas
281.2 allow/encourage all types of transit facilities (transit centers, bus pullouts, etc.)
within centers; and
281.3 establish incentives for developers to provide transit and transportation demand
management supportive amenities.
UGA-2-~2. Allow on-street parking within centers in order to narrow the streetscape, provide a
buffer between moving traffic and pedestrians, and provide common parking areas.
UGA-223. Provisions for non-motorized transportation shall be provided, including but not
limited to:
223.1 bicycle-friendly roadway design;
223.2 wider outside lane or shared parking/bike lanes;
223.3 bike-activated signals;
223.4 covered, secure bicycle parking at all places of employment;
223.5 bicycle racks; and
223.6 pedestrian pathways.
Implementation Strategies
UGA-234. Jurisdictions should consider incentives for development within centers such as:
224.1 streamlined permitting;
224.2 financial incentives;
224.3 density bonuses or transfer of development rights;
224.4 using SEPA Planned Action provisions to streamline environmental review by
conducting environmental analysis during planning and providing permit
applicants and public with more certainty of how impacts will be addressed; and
224.5 shared mitigation such as stormwater detention and joint parking.
UGA-25. Improv7e transit sel-Vice efficiency through the development of transportation
infrastructure within and between countywide and re-ional centers.
UGA-26. Design roadway and rnonmotorized networl~s to promote more and better Utilize
transit serv-ices.
PCRC REVIEW - APRIL 21, 2011
88
Urban Growth Areas
METROPOLITAN CITY CENTER
-r~sie~ Cortcc~~ts cut~I l'rn~cri~lcs
UGA-2-5~7. Metropolitan City Centers function as anchors within the region for a high density
mix of business, residential, public, cultural and recreational uses, and day and night
activity. They are characterized by their historic role as the central business districts
and regional centers of commerce. Metropolitan City Centers may also serve
national or international roles.
Design
UGA-268. Metropolitan City Centers shall plan for a development pattern that will provide a
successful mix of uses and densities that will efficiently support high capacity transit
and shall plan to meet the following criteria:
268.1 a minimum of 50 employees per gross acre of non-residential lands;
268.2 a minimum of 15 households per gross acre;
268.3 a minimum of 30,000 employees; and
268.4 not exceed a maximum of 1-1/2 square miles in size.
Transportation, Parking and Circulation
UGA-2-79. Metropolitan City Centers shall be planned to have fast and frequent high capacity
transit and other forms of transit.
UGA- 30. A Metropolitan City Center shall meet at minimum the following criteria for
consideration as a candidate for countywide center:
30.1 Area: up to 1-1/2 square miles in size;
302 Capital Facilities: serv-ed by sanitai- sewers;
30.3 Employment a minimum of 25 employees per ross acre of non-residential
lands with a minimum of 15,000 employees;
30.4 Population: a minimum of ten households per gross acre; and
30.5 Transit serve as a focal point for regional and local transit serv-ices.
PCRC REVIEW - APRIL 21, 2011
89
Urban Growth Areas
REGIONAL GROWTH CENTER
Q Concepts cn01 rincihlcs
UGA-2431. Regional Growth Centers are locations that include a dense mix of business,
commercial, residential and cultural activity within a compact area. Regional
Growth Centers are targeted for employment and residential growth, and provide
excellent transportation service, including fast, convenient high capacity transit
service, as well as investment in major public amenities.
Design Fcalurc.s of'Ccntci
UGA-2-932. Regional Growth Centers shall plan to meet the following criteria:
2-932.1 a minimum of 25 employees per gross acre of non-residential lands; and
2}32.2 a minimum of 10 households per gross acre; and/or
2}32.3 a minimum of 15,000 employees; and
2-932.4 not to exceed a maximum of 1-1/2 square miles in size-; and
32.5 planning policies recognizing the need to receis-e a si~~niticant share of the
re~~ional growth.
Transportation, Parking and Circulation
UGA-303. Regional Growth Centers shall plan to have fast and frequent high capacity transit,
as well as other forms of transit.
UGA-34. A Re-]ornal Growth Center shall meet at a minimum the following criteria for
consideration as a candidate for countywide center:
34.1 Area: up to 1-1/2 square miles in size;
34.2 Capital Facilities: secs ed by sanitaix sewers,*
34.3 Employment a minimum of 2,000 employees;
34.4 Population: a minimum of seven households per gross acre; and
34.5 Transit serve as a focal point for regional and local transit services.
PCRC REVIEW - APRIL 21, 2011
90
Urban Growth Areas
COUNTYWIDE CENTER
Q Coo cchts and 1 rincihlcs
UGA-34-5. Countywide Centers are local focal points where people come together for a variety
of activities, including business, shopping, living and recreation. These centers may
include the core of small to medium-sized cities and may also be located in
unincorporated areas. Often Countywide Centers include a strong public presence
because they are the location of city hall, main street, and other public spaces.
Countywide Centers are also potentially candidates for designation as regional
centers.
Design l,'aiures of 'cwcrs
UGA-326. Countywide Centers shall be characterized by a compact urban form that includes a
moderately dense mix of locally-oriented retail, jobs and housing that promotes
walking, transit usage and community activity.
326.1 Countywide Centers shall be developed at a higher density than surrounding
urban areas to take advantage of connecting centers.
326.2 Small-scale forms of intensification such as accessory housing units and
development of vacant lots and parking lots help achieve the qualities of centers
while preserving neighborhood character.
UGA-327. Countywide Centers shall plan for a development pattern that will provide a
successful mix of uses and densities that will efficiently support transit. Each
Countywide Center shall plan to meet the following criteria:
3-37.1 a minimum of 15 employees per gross acre of non-residential lands;
3-37.2 a minimum of 7 households per gross acre;
3-37.3 a minimum of 2,000 employees; and
3-37.4 not to exceed a maximum of 1 square mile in size.
Transportation, Parking and Circulation
UGA-348. At a minimum, Countywide Centers shall plan to be served by public transit and/or
ferries which connect them to other centers, to surrounding residential communities,
and to the regional high capacity transit system. Countywide Centers should have
direct connections to high capacity local and regional transit hubs.
UGA-39. Minimum criteria for designation as Countywide Center:
PCRC REVIEW - APRIL 21, 2011
91
Urban Growth Areas
39.1 Area: up to one square mile in size;
39.2 Capital Facilities: served by sanitary sewers;
39.3 Employment a miniImnn of 1,000 employees;
394 Population: a minimum of SIX households Per gross acre; and
39.5 Transit sers7e as a focal point for local transit sers-ices.
MANUFACTURINGANDUSTRIAL CENTER
('uncci~ls unca' l'ri~~cii~lcs
UGA-340. Manufacturing/Industrial Centers shall be locally determined and designated based
on the following steps:
340.1 consistency with specific criteria for Manufacturing/Industrial Centers adopted
within the Countywide Planning Policies;
340.2 consideration of the Center's location in the County and region, especially
relative to existing and proposed transportation facilities;
340.3 consideration of the total number of Manufacturing/Industrial Centers in the
County that are needed over the next twenty years based on projected need for
manufacturing/industrial land to satisfy regional projections of demand for
manufacturing/industrial land uses;
340.4 environmental analysis which shall include demonstration that the jurisdiction
is capable of concurrent service to new development; and
340.5 adoption within the jurisdiction's comprehensive plan of the center's
designation and provisions to ensure that job growth targeted to the
Manufacturing/Industrial Center is achieved.
Design 1,'Minrc.s cif('clitcr-s
UGA-4641. Manufacturing/Industrial Centers shall be characterized by the following:
4641.1 clearly defined geographic boundaries;
4641.2 intensity of land uses sufficient to support alternatives to single-occupant
vehicle use;
4641.3 direct access to regional highway, rail, air and/or waterway systems for the
movement of goods;
PCRC REVIEW - APRIL 21, 2011
92
Urban Growth Areas
X41.4 provisions to prohibit housing; and
X41.5 identified transportation linkages to high-density housing areas.
UGA-9J42. Provisions to achieve targeted employment growth should include:
X42.1 preservation and encouragement of the aggregation of vacant land parcels
sized for manufacturing/industrial uses;
X42.2 prohibition of land uses which are not compatible with
manufacturing/industrial, manufacturing/industrial supportive, and advanced
technology uses;
X42,3 limiting the size and number of offices and retail uses and allowing only as
an accessory use to serve the needs of employees within centers; and
X42.4 reuse and intensification of the land.
Transportation, Parking and Circulation
UGA-3-943. Transportation network within Manufacturing/Industrial Centers should provide
for the needs of freight movement and employees by ensuring a variety of
transportation modes such as transit, rail, and trucking facilities.
UGA-JP44. The transportation system within Manufacturing/Industrial Centers shall be built
to accommodate truck traffic and acceleration. Review of projects should
consider infrastructure enhancements such as:
X44.1 turn lanes and turn pockets to allow turning vehicles to move out of through
traffic lanes;
-3-944.2 designing turn lanes with a width to allow freight vehicles to turn without
interrupting the flow of traffic in other lanes;
X44.3 designing the far side of intersections with acceleration lanes for trucking
vehicles and heavy loads to facilitate traffic flow;
-3-944.4 constructing climbing lanes where necessary to allow for slow moving
vehicles;
X44.5 providing off-street truck loading facilities to separate goods loading and
unloading; and
-3-944.6 arterial grade separations with rail freight and designation of Heavy Haul
corridors or truck only lanes.
PCRC REVIEW - APRIL 21, 2011
93
Urban Growth Areas
Implementation Strategies
UGA-405. All jurisdictions will support transportation capital improvement projects which
support access and movement of goods to Manufacturing/Industrial Centers.
UGA-4-W Jurisdictions having a designated Manufacturing/Industrial Center shall:
44-6.1 plan for and fund capital facility improvement projects which support the
movement of goods;
44-6.2 coordinate with utility providers to ensure that utility facilities are available to
serve such centers;
44-6.3 provide buffers around the center to reduce conflicts with adjacent land uses;
44-6.4 facilitate land assembly;
44-6.5 assist in recruiting appropriate businesses; and
44-6.6 encourage employers to participate in commute trip reduction program.
UGA-47. A Mallufactul-ing/Industrial Center shall meet at a minimum the following criteria
for consideration as a candidate for Countywide Center:
47.1 Capital Facilities: ser\ ed by sanitary severs;
472 Employment: a n1inimum of 7,500 jobs and/or 2,000 trucl: trips per dad ; and
47.3 Transportation: within one mile of a state or federal hi-hway or national rail
line.
Prioritization of Funding for Centers
UGA-48. Regional and countywide transportation and economic development funds should be
prioritized for centers and transportation and infrastrLICtUre sery icin-( centers in
Pierce County that hay- e been designated regionally, it is also appropriate for
countywide and local funding to be directed to centers and transportation and
infrastructure sei-\,icing centers designated etclusively at the countywide level or
identified locally by a jurisdiction.
PCRC REVIEW - APRIL 21, 2011
94
Buildable Lands
COUNTYWIDE PLANNING POLICY ON
BUILDABLE LANDS
Background Requirements of RCW 36.70A.215
RCW 36.70A.215 requires six counties, including Pierce County, to evaluate whether a county
and its municipalities are achieving urban densities within urban growth areas. To do this, the
counties and municipalities are to compare growth and development assumptions, targets, and
objectives contained in the Countywide Planning Policies and the County and city and town
comprehensive plans with actual growth and development that has occurred. At a minimum, the
evaluation is to determine if there is sufficient suitable land to accommodate the countywide
population projection and determine the density of housing that has been constructed and amount
of land developed for commercial and industrial uses within the urban growth area. Detailed
procedures, standards, and definitions for implementing this policy and complying with RCW
36.70A.215 are found in the current report titled Pierce County Buildable Lands, Procedures for
Collecting and Monitoring Data, hereinafter referred to as the Procedures Report.
Countywide Planning Policy
BL-1. Pierce COMM` nin cooperation with Pierce County cities and towns shall establish a
Pierce County Buildable Lands Program to prov- ide a Countywide monitoring and
analysis mechanism to meet the requirements of 36.70.A215 Buildable Lands.
1.1 The Program shall be coordinated throu1111 Pierce County Planning and Land
Services.
12 The focus of the Buildable Lands Program shall be an analysis of annual
dev7elopment data as related to locally adopted comprehensive plan goals and
policies, the calculation of residential and employment land capacity as
compared to the 20-year need, and identification of actions to rectify
inconsistencies.
1.3 The primary product of the Buildable Lands Program shall be the publication
of a Buildable Lands Report every five years, the first being by September I,
2002.
BL42. Each municipality within Pierce County shall provide information on land
development activities to the County and assist in an inventory of buildable lands.
The County and municipalities shall follow the guidelines specified in the
Procedures Report for the collection, monitoring, and analysis of development
activity and potential residential/employment capacity.
PCRC REVIEW - APRIL 21, 2011
95
Buildable Lands
2. I Municipalities are encouraged to submit the annual dev-°elopmernt data by June
I of each year.
2.2 Pierce County shall summarize the submitted annual development data by
zoning classification for each jurisdiction.
2. Prior to the publication of submitted annual development data, representatives
from each municipality shall have an opportunity to rev°iew and sug(Iest
modifications to summarized dev7elopment data.
BL- Each municipality within Pierce County shall assist the County in conducting an
inv7entory of buildable lands. The County and nunicipalities shall follow the
guidelines specified in the Proccdnrc.s 1Zcl)ori for the collection, monitoring, and
annalvsis of development activity and potential residential/employment capacity.
1 Pierce County shall confer with each municipality to identify the appropriate
criteria for each of its zoning classifications to identify buildable lands: vacant
- subdividable, vacant - not subdiv- idable, underdeveloped residential and
redevelopable lands.
3.2 Pierce County shall forward the preliiiiinary results of the buildable lands
inventory to representatives of each municipality for local rev°iew and
modification.
BL-4. Pierce County, in consultation with its municipalities, shall conduct an analysis of
inv- erntoried buildable lands to ev- aluate the County's ability to accommodate its 20-
year population and employment land needs.
BL-25. Pierce County, in cooperation with the municipalities, shall prepare a Buildable
Lands Capacity Report every five years, with the first report completed by
September 2002. The report will detail growth, development, and the ability to
accommodate future population and employment land needs.
5. I The Buildable Lands Report shall include a summary of development activity
by zoning classification and detail assumptions incorporated in the residential
and employment capacity analysis for each jurisdiction.
52 Prior to the publication of a draft report, representatives from each
municipality shall have an opportunity to review and suggest modifications to
information associated with their jurisdiction.
BL40. Pierce County, in cooperation with the municipalities, shall conduct a consistency
evaluation between the Pierce County Countywide Planning Policies, comprehensive
plan goals and actual densities of built-out projects within the fiv'e-year observ- ation
period for Pierce County and the municipalities within it.
ien may be e.A1'_A1HH -A6
!d into the Buildable Lands Repai4 E)r- +iata a separate r-epE)4.
PCRC REVIEW - APRIL 21, 2011
96
Buildable Lands
0. 1 The results of the consistency evaluation shall be reported in a separate report.
6.2 The consistency ev- aluation should be completed within one year of the
publication of the latest Buildable Lands Report.
6.3 Pierce County shall be the responsible agency for conducting the evaluation.
6.4 The consistency ev-aluation shall address if the obseixed density resulted in a
jurisdiction achieving at least the average net density of 4 dwelling unit per
acre as stipulated in Urban Growth Areas, Promotion of Contiguous and
Orderly Dev- elopment and Provision Of Urban Services to Such Dev-°elopment
policy 6. 1 of these Countywide Plannin(, Policies.
6S The consistency evaluation shall address if the observ°ed density within a
jurisdiction was consistent with the density assumption incorporated within
the residential capacity analysis.
6.6 The consistency evaluation shall compare the housing needs associated with
the allocated population with the housing unit capacity calculated throu(Ih the
residential capacity analysis.
6.7 The consistency evaluation shall compare the land needs associated with the
employment targets with the employment capacity calculated tl11-OL1(1l1 tile
employment capacity analysis.
6.8 The consistency evaluation report shall be forwarded to the respective
jurisdictions for review and comment.
BL-47. The County and municipalities shall use the results of the consistency evaluation to
determine inconsistencies between
observed and planned densities and ensure suitable land to accommodate future
population and employment needs. In addressing the inconsistencies, the County
and municipalities shall identify reasonable measures, other than adjusting urban
growth areas, that may be taken to comply with the requirements of RCW
36.70A.215. Each respectiv-e jurisdiction shall be responsible for tAing action as
necessary to rectify the inconsistency as determined by that jurisdiction.
13L--5~8. The County and each municipality shall resolve disputes between and among
jurisdictions regarding inconsistencies in the collection and analysis of land
development activities and residential and employment capacity analysis findings by
first attempting to reach an agreement through negotiation or through a designated
mediation process agreeable to all parties. In case of an impasse, the matter shall be
referred to the Pierce County Regional Council for review and resolution.
PCRC REVIEW - APRIL 21, 2011
97
Buildable Lands
BL-9. The COMM' nshould establish an opportunity for stakeholders to be informed and
propide feedback on the various aspects of the Buildable Lands Program.
9. I An ad hoc committee should be re-established every five years to review
appropriate dev- elopment information, assumptions, and methodology
applied to calculate the residential and employment capacity analysis.
BL-10. Pierce County and its cities and towns are not obligated to fulfill the countywide
planning policies for the Buildable Lands program if GMA is amended with
prov-isions suspending the requirements of ROW 36.70A2I
PCRC REVIEW - APRIL 21, 2011
98
Amendments and Transition
COUNTYWIDE PLANNING POLICY ON AMENDMENTS
AND TRANSITION
Background - Requirements of Growth Management Act
The Washington State Growth Management Act contemplates that the Countywide Planning
Policies will remain effective throughout the comprehensive plan preparation, adoption and
implementation processes to ensure that municipal and county comprehensive plans are consistent,
as required by the Act [RCW 36.70A.210(1)]. Because the factors, data and analysis upon which
the Countywide Planning Policies have been formulated are subject to change, it is important that a
process be established to effectuate such changes, when appropriate and needed.
The Washington State Growth Management Act requires that each County which adopts a
comprehensive plan designate an urban growth area or areas within which urban growth shall be
encouraged and outside of which growth can occur only if it is not urban in nature [RCW
36.70A.110(1)]. As discussed above, the factors, data and analysis upon which the UGA
designations are initially made are similarly subject to change.
Countywide Planning Policy
AT-1. Countywide Planning Policies adopted pursuant to the Growth Management Act may
be amended by Pierce County and ratified by the municipalities in the County tising t4e
September- 24, 199 1).
1.1 Ratification of amendments to the Countywide Planning Policies requires the
affirmative vote of 60% of the affected governments in the County representing
a minimum of 75% of the total Pierce County population as designated by the
State Office of Financial Management at the time of the proposed ratification.
1.2 Demonstration of ratification shall be by execution of an interlocal agreement or
the absence of a
legislative action to disappro\-°e a proposed amendment.
1.2.1 A jurisdiction shall be deemed as casting an affirmative v-°ote if it bas not
taken legislative action to disapprove a proposed amendment within 180
days from the date the Pierce County Council formally authorizes the
Pierce County Executive to enter into an interlocal agreement.
1.3 An amendment to the Countywide Planning Policies or to any individual policy
(all hereinafter referred to as proposed amendments) may be initiated by the
County or any municipality in the County or by the Pierce County Regional
Council. The proposed amendment shall include the following:
PCRC REVIEW - APRIL 21, 2011
99
Amendments and Transition
1.2.1 the exact language of the proposed amendment (shown in "strike out" for
deletions and "ttnder4inea-& ir -li ]-lit" or additions);
1.2.2 a brief explanation of the need for the proposed amendment, including the
factors, data or analyses that have changed since the original adoption of
the Countywide Planning Policies and/or the experiences with the existing
Countywide Planning Policies that have prompted the proposed
amendment.
1.3 A proposed amendment to the Countywide Planning Policies shall be initially
referred to the Pierce County Regional Council (PC RC) for analysis and
recommendation.
AT-2. Urban Growth Area boundaries designated by the County pursuant to the Growth
Management Act may be amended by Pierce County and accepted by the
municipalities in the County pursuant to the same process by which the Urban Growth
Areas were originally adopted and pursuant to subpolicies UGA-1. and UGA-2. of the
"Countywide Planning Policy on Urban Growth Areas, Promotion of Contiguous and
Orderly Development and Provision of Urban Services to Such Development."
2.1 An amendment to Urban Growth Area boundaries may be initiated by the
County or any municipality in the County.
2.2 A proposed amendment to Urban Growth Area boundaries shall include:
2.2.1 a map indicating the existing urban growth area boundary and the
proposed boundary modification;
2.2.2 a statement indicating how, and the extent to which, the proposed
boundary modification complies with each of the factors listed in
subpolicies 2.2, 2.4, 2.5 and 2.6 of the Countywide Planning Policy on
Urban Growth Areas, Promotion of Contiguous and Orderly
Development and Provision of Urban Services to Such Development.
2.2.3 a statement indicating the factors, data or analyses that have changed
since the designation of the initial Urban Growth Area boundaries and/or
the experience with the existing Urban Growth Area boundaries that have
prompted the proposed amendment.
2.3 The urban growth area of a jurisdiction may be expanded only if:
2.3.1 the jurisdiction's observed development densities are consistent with the
planned density assumptions as documented in the most recently
published Buildable Lands Report as required by RCW 36.70A.2157, and
2.3.2 there is a demonstrated need for additional residential or employment
capacity within the urban growth affiliated with an indiv- ideal jurisdiction
and a demonstrated need county-wide, or the expansion results in a no net
gain to the countyN~ide UGA.
PCRC REVIEW - APRIL 21, 2011
100
Amendments and Transition
2.3.473 If the consistency evaluation, as required through the Countywide
Planning Policies on Buildable Lands, policies B L-3. and B L-4.
identifies an inconsistency between the observed and planned densities,
the jurisdiction shall either:
1) demonstrate reasonable measures were adopted to rectify the
inconsistencies. Documentation shall also be submitted that
summarizes the monitoring results of the effectiveness of the
measures in rectifying density inconsistencies, or
2) document updated development data that indicates
consistency.
2.4 To ensure the orderly development of urban lands predictability in the prop- is*
1011
Of urban services, and the eventual arnrnexatiorn of urban growth areas, Pierce
County may incorporate criteria into its comprehensive plan policies for
evaluating amendments proposing to remov- e properties from the urban growth
area. The criteria should, at a minimum, include the existing development
patteni and density, vested development applications, and infrastructure and
serv-ice needs to acconmiodate the existirng and fixture residents. In general, any
lands proposed to be removed from the urban growtb area shall be rural in
character and not require any urban level infrastructure or service needs.
2.45 A proposed amendment to the Urban Growth Area boundaries shall be referred
to the Pier-e° ratet-y Regia ar Gatineir (P('RC) for its review and
recommendation.
AT-3. The (PCR(') shall have the following responsibilities
in addition to those already specified in the Interlocal Agreement: Framework
Agreement for the Adoption of the Countywide Planning Policy (Pierce County
Council Resolution No. R91-172, dated September 24, 1991):
3. 1 development of model, uniform implementation methodologies for the County,
and all cities in the County, to be used at their discretion;
3.42 assistance in resolution of interjurisdictional disputes;
1.56 input to j oint planning issues in Urban Growth Areas;
3.64 input with respect to Countywide facilities;
3.75 advice and consultation on phased development, short plats, vested rights and
related issues;
3.96 coordination of these responsibilities with the Puget Sound Regional Council;
PCRC REVIEW - APRIL 21, 2011
101
Amendments and Transition
3.97 making a recommendation on the respective location of municipal and the
County Urban Growth Area boundaries consistent with these policies;
3.4-08 making a recommendation with regard to dissolution of the Boundary Review
Board;
3.449 monitoring development in the County, including population and employment
growth and its effect on the development capacity within urban growth areas;
3.4-2`10 advice and consultation on population disaggregation.
3.1 1 The Pierce County council shall be the responsible body for adopting ]lousing
and employment targets for Pierce County jurisdictions, subject to appeal to the
GroNob Management Hearings Board. The adopted targets shall be attacbed to
the CPP publications as Appendix A for ease of reference. Appendix A shall be
updated to reflect future County Council action. Appendix A shall not be
considered a component of the CPPs and, accordingly, an update to Appendix A
shall not constitute an amendment to the CPPs requiring ratification by Pierce
County jurisdictions.
PCRC REVIEW - APRIL 21, 2011
102
Community and Urban Design
NEW CHAPTER
COUNTYWIDE PLANNING POLICY
ON COMMUNITY AND URBAN DESIGN
Background - Growth Management Act
The Washington State Growth Management Act identifies as a planning goal to encourage
development in urban areas and to reduce the inappropriate conversion of undeveloped land into
sprawling, low-density development. To encourage this type of urban development that has
increased density, and is compact and serviced by multiple transportation alternatives, it requires
close attention to the urban design, community context and character, in order to function
effectively and consistent with the vision of an individual community. The Growth Management
Act does not expressly require that the County adopt a planning policy on urban design; however,
VISION 2040 and the Multicounty Planning Policies provide goals and policies related to regional
design and urban design.
VISION 2040 Multicounty Planning Policies (MPPs)
VISION 2040 called for identifying and protecting significant visual and cultural resources that
preserve community character. It calls for designing facilities throughout the region that advance
community development, and for creating parks and civic spaces. VISION 2040 also advances
redevelopment and infill as opportunities for revitalizing communities, including along linear
corridors (such as low-scale retail strips along the thoroughfares). Open space and parks at a variety
of scales create public amenities, contribute to the character of communities, and provide
opportunities for recreation and physical activity.
Countywide Planning Policy
CU-1. The County, and each municipality in the County, will develop high quality, compact
communities that:
1.1 impart a sense of place;
1.2 preserve local character;
1.3 provide for mixed uses and choices in housing types; and
1.4 encourage walking, bicycling, and transit use.
CU-2. The County, and each municipality in the County, shall design public buildings and
public spaces that contribute to the unique sense of community and a sense of place.
CU-3. The County, and each municipality in the County, shall design transportation projects
and other infrastructure to achieve community development objectives and improve the
community.
PCRC REVIEW - APRIL 21, 2011
103
Community and Urban Design
CU-4. Promote context-sensitive design of transportation facilities, both for facilities to fit
in the context of the communities in which they are located, as well as applying
urban design principles for projects in centers and transit station areas.
PCRC REVIEW - APRIL 21, 2011
104
Health and Well-Being
NEW CHAPTER
COUNTYWIDE PLANNING POLICY
ON HEALTH AND WELL-BEING
Background - Growth Management Act
The Washington State Growth Management Act identifies as a planning goal to encourage
development in urban areas and to reduce the inappropriate conversion of undeveloped land into
sprawling, low-density development. The GMA also encourages multimodal transportation systems
to encourage walking and other alternatives to the automobile. These transportation options provide
for greater opportunity for walking and exercise that further promotes health and well-being.
Compact communities can also encourage more efficient use of resources, reduced air pollution,
and thereby reduce impacts on climate change. The GMA also sets forth a goal to protect the
environment and enhance the state's high quality of life, including air and water quality. These are
also related to healthy living as well as climate change. VISION 2040 contains specific goals and
policies addressing health and well-being, climate, change and air and water quality.
In 2005, the legislature amended the GMA to require communities to adopt and implement plans
and strategies to promote an increase in physical activity among Washington State citizens. In
response to this requirement, jurisdictions updated transportation elements to include a pedestrian
and bicycle component, as well as identified planned improvements for those facilities and
corridors. Other strategies for achieving improved public health include the adoption of "Complete
Streets" policies, policies addressing the development and improvement of infrastructure supportive
of community walkability, and improvements addressing the safety of bicyclists and pedestrians.
Jurisdictions continue to adopt these mechanisms to enhance public health, consistent with the 2005
amendments to the GMA.
VISION 2040 Multicounty Planning Policies (MPPs)
VISION 2040 acknowledges that the health and well-being of the region's people is fundamental to
maintaining and improving the region's sustainability and quality of life. It recognizes that human
health is affected by the health of the natural environment, the strength of our region's communities
and social networks, the way we build our cities and transportation systems, and the aesthetics and
functionality of those systems. VISION 2040 addresses numerous ways that human health can be
impacted in the central Puget Sound region, such as exposure to air and water pollution, automobile-
related injuries and deaths, chronic diseases related to physical inactivity, and lack of fresh and
healthy foods. It further recognizes that attention to health as a consequence of planning and
infrastructure decisions can improve quality of life, reduce health care costs, and lessen impacts
from lost productivity.
VISION 2040 addresses many of the region's health concerns by providing strategies that will
significantly reduce air and water pollution from transportation activities and other sources. A core
concept of VISION 2040 is improving the safety of the transportation system for drivers,
passengers, pedestrians, bicyclists, and others. Multicounty planning policies call for designing
PCRC REVIEW - APRIL 21, 2011
105
Health and Well-Being
transportation facilities to serve all users safely and efficiently. This includes building and
improving sidewalks, bike lanes, trails and paths and adopting land use strategies to bring homes
closer to jobs, shopping, services, and recreation activities. VISION 2040 also states that health
considerations should be addressed in regional and local planning and decision-making processes.
It encourages design guidelines in the construction of buildings and facilities and regional farming
and food production.
Countywide Planning Policy
HW-1. The County, and each municipality in the County, will be designed to promote
physical, social, and mental well-being so that all people can live healthier and more
active lives by:
1.1 designing communities to provide an improved environment for walking and
bicycling; and
1.2 developing and implementing design guidelines to encourage construction of
healthy buildings and facilities to promote healthy people; and
1.3 developing and implementing community plans and programs, such as
community gardens and farmer's markets, that provide support for agricultural,
farmland, and aquatic uses that facilitate the production of fresh and minimally
processed healthy foods, and encourage community access to those resources.
HW-2. The County, and each municipality in the County, shall incorporate provisions
addressing health and well-being into appropriate regional, countywide, and local
planning and decision-making processes.
HW-3. The County, and each municipality in the County, shall promote cooperation and
coordination among transportation providers, local government, and developers to
ensure that joint- and mixed-use developments are designed to promote and improve
physical, mental, and social health and reduce the impacts of climate change on the
natural and built environments.
HW-4. The County, and each municipality in the County, shall promote and develop
transportation systems and options that minimize negative impacts to human health by:
4.1 improving the safety of the transportation system and, in the long term, achieve
the state's goal of zero deaths and disabling injuries; and
4.2 improve local street patterns-including their design and how they are used, for
walking, bicycling, and transit use to enhance communities, connectivity, and
physical activity, such as through the adoption of "Complete Streets" policies.
PCRC REVIEW - APRIL 21, 2011
106
Health and Well-Being
HW-5. The County, and each municipality in the County, shall protect and enhance the
environment and public health and safety when providing public services and facilities
by:
5.1 coordinating, designing, and planning for public safety services and programs;
5.2 consider use of health impact assessment tools when developing and evaluating
planning projects to identify possible impacts of projects on community health;
and
5.3 encouraging health and human service facilities to locate near centers and transit
for efficient accessibility to service delivery.
PCRC REVIEW - APRIL 21, 2011
107
Rural Areas
NEW CHAPTER
COUNTYWIDE PLANNING POLICY
ON RURAL AREAS
Background - Growth Management Act
The Washington State Growth Management Act requires that county comprehensive plans
include a rural element that includes lands that are not designated for urban growth, agriculture,
forest, or mineral resources. This element is guided by multiple sections in the GMA related to
rural areas, including RCW 36.70A.030 (Definitions), RCW 36.70A.011 (Findings - Rural
lands), RCW 36.70A.070 (5) (Comprehensive plans - Mandatory elements - Rural Element); and
others.
Rural elements are intended to recognize the importance of rural lands and rural character to
Washington's economy, its people, and its environment, while respecting regional differences. In
the rural element, counties are to foster land use patterns and develop a local vision of rural
character that will: help preserve rural-based economies and traditional rural lifestyles;
encourage the economic prosperity of rural residents; foster opportunities for small-scale, rural-
based employment and self-employment; permit the operation of rural-based agricultural,
commercial, recreational, and tourist businesses that are consistent with existing and planned
land use patterns; be compatible with the use of the land by wildlife and for fish and wildlife
habitat; foster the private stewardship of the land and preservation of open space; and enhance
the rural sense of community and quality of life.
While the GMA assigns responsibility for adopting a rural element to counties, all jurisdictions
in a county, particularly those surrounded by or adjacent to rural lands, have an interest in what
occurs on rural lands. Hence, rural lands are included in the Countywide Planning Policies in
order to achieve consistency between and among the plans of cities and the county.
VISION 2040 Multicounty Planning Policies (MPPs)
VISION 2040 identifies rural lands as permanent and vital parts of the region. It recognizes that
rural lands accommodate many activities associated with natural resources, as well as small-scale
farming and cottage industries. VISION 2040 emphasizes the preservation of these lands and
acknowledges that managing rural growth by directing urban-type development into designated
urban lands helps to preserve vital ecosystems and economically productive lands.
VISION 2040 also acknowledges recent successes in directing growth away from rural lands.
However, it acknowledges that conversion pressures from urban development continue today,
particularly through vesting, and calls for continued use of rural lands for farming, forestry,
recreation, and low-density development supported by rural services. The Multicounty Planning
Policies reinforce this and call for minimizing environmental impacts to rural lands, while
providing long-term solutions for the environmental and economic sustainability of rural-based
industries.
PCRC REVIEW - APRIL 21, 2011
108
Rural Areas
Countywide Planning Policies
Rur-l. Overarching Goal: The County will sustain the ecological functions, resource value,
lifestyle, and character of rural lands for future generations by limiting the types and
intensities of development in rural areas.
Development Patterns
Rur-2. Ensure that development in rural areas is consistent with the countywide and
regional vision.
Rur-3. Prohibit urban net densities in rural areas.
Rur-4. Review and revise criteria and regulations to avoid new fully contained communities
outside of the designated urban growth area because of their potential to create
sprawl and undermine local, countywide, state, and regional growth management
goals.
Rur-5. In the event that a proposal is made for creating a new fully contained community,
the county shall make the proposal available to the Growth Management
Coordinating Committee, Pierce County Regional Council, other counties, and to the
Regional Council for advance review and comment on countywide and regional
impacts.
Rur-6. Use existing and new tools and strategies to address vested development to ensure
that future growth meets existing permitting and development standards and
encourage consolidation where appropriate .
Rur-7. Ensure that development occurring in rural areas is rural in character and is focused
into communities and activity areas.
Rur-8. Accommodate the county's growth first and foremost in the urban area. Ensure that
development in rural areas is consistent with the rural vision.
Rur-9. Direct commercial, retail, and community services that serve rural residents into
neighboring cities and existing activity areas to prevent the conversion of rural land into
commercial uses.
Economic Development
Rur-10. Support economic activity in rural and natural resource areas at a size and scale that
is compatible with the long-term integrity and productivity of these lands.
Rur-11. Direct commercial, retail, and community services that serve rural residents into
neighboring cities and existing activity areas to prevent the conversion of rural land
into commercial uses.
PCRC REVIEW - APRIL 21, 2011
109
Rural Areas
Environment
Rur-13. Contribute to improved ecological functions and more appropriate use of rural lands
by minimizing impacts through innovative and environmentally sensitive land use
management and development practices.
Rur-14. Support long-term solutions for the environmental and economic sustainability of
agriculture and forestry within rural areas.
Transportation
Rur-15. Avoid construction of major roads and capacity expansion on existing roads in rural
and resource areas. Where increased roadway capacity is warranted to support safe
and efficient travel through rural areas, appropriate rural development regulations
and strong commitments to access management should be in place prior to
authorizing such capacity expansion in order to prevent unplanned growth in rural
areas.
Rur-16. Maintain the long-term viability of permanent rural land by avoiding the
construction of new highways and major roads in rural areas.
Rur-17. Promote transit service to and from existing cities in rural areas.
Public Services
Rur-18. Do not provide urban services in rural areas. Design services for limited access when
they are needed to solve isolated health and sanitation problems, so as not to increase
the development potential of the surrounding rural area.
Rur-19. Encourage the design of public facilities and utilities in rural areas to be at a size and
scale appropriate to rural locations, so as not to increase development pressure.
Rur-20. Work with schools, institutions, and other community facilities serving rural
residents in neighboring cities and towns and design these facilities in keeping with
the size and scale of the local community.
Rur-21. Apply development regulations in rural areas that would mitigate the impact of
roadway projects that may lead to unplanned growth in the rural area.
PCRC REVIEW - APRIL 21, 2011
110
Exhibit B
Page 1 of 3
QTY ~
Memorandum
ASHII.II Planning and Development Dept.
To: Planning and Community Development Committee
From: Elizabeth Chamberlain, Principal Planner
CC: Kevin Snyder, Interim Director
Date: April 6, 2010
Re: Amendments to Pierce County's Countywide Planning Policies
Background
When Vision 2040 was adopted by the Puget Sound Regional Council General Assembly in May
2008, there were provisions for the four counties to update their Countywide Planning Policies
(CPP) to be consistent with the Multi-County Planning Policies identified in Vision 2040. Pierce
County began that work, through the Growth Management Coordinating Committee (GMCC),
towards the end of 2009. The GMCC is a staff level committee representing each jurisdiction in
Pierce County that makes recommendations, related to growth management, to the Pierce
County Regional Council (PCRC).
The GMCC has been working on proposed changes to the CPPs to be consistent with Vision
2040 and will be making a recommendation to the PCRC in the near future. Once the GMCC
forwards their recommendation, then the PCRC will begin working through the proposed
amendments and eventually make a recommendation to the Pierce County Council.
Summary of Proposed Amendments
Attached to this memo for the Committee's reference is the current proposed changes to the
CPPs. The GMCC is working on a fifth draft that will be available April xx, 2010. At the April 12,
2010 meeting staff will review a summary of the proposed amendments outlined below:
1. Addition of three new chapters
• Community and Urban Design
• Health and Wellbeing
• Rural Areas
2. Introduction
Page 1 of 3
Exhibit B
Page 2 of 3
• Proposed changes to address changes made to state law regarding the Growth
Management Act
• Identify that plans be consistent with the Multi-County Planning Policies
• Addition of language to include transportation strategies to address concurrency
such as public transportation
• Addition of section stating purpose of Countywide Planning Policies and deletion
of how CPPs first established
• Addition of section identifying Vision 2040 and the Multi-County Planning Policies
3. Affordable Housing
• Addition of Vision 2040 MPP statement (page 14)
• Policy that jurisdictions with designated regional growth center should consider
affordable housing allocations as part of population allocations for those centers.
Comment: Auburn's regional growth center is within King County so this does not
apply.
• Policy that jurisdictions should review and streamline development standards
(page 17).
4. Agricultural Lands
• Addition of Vision 2040 MPP statement (Page 19)
• Addition of criteria for determining long-term significance for agriculture (Pages
20-21)
5. Economic Development and Employment
• Addition of Vision 2040 MPP statement (Page 25)
• Amendments to support job creation and businesses
• Amendments to include jobs/housing balance
• New policies added that are from Vision 2040 (Pages 26-30)
6. Education
• Addition of Vision 2040 MPP statement (Page 31)
• New policy added that is from Vision 2040 (Page 32)
Fiscal Impact
• Minor non-substantive changes (Page 35)
8. Historic, Archaeological, and Cultural Preservation
• Addition of Vision 2040 MPP statement (Page 37)
• New policy added that is from Vision 2040 (Page 39)
9. Natural Resources, Open Space, Protection of Environmentally Sensitive Lands, and
the Environment
• Addition of Vision 2040 MPP statement (Page 41)
• New policies added that are from Vision 2040 (Pages 42-44, 46, 48-49, 52)
• Addition of language supporting transfer/purchase of development rights and
cluster design
• Addition of policies related to climate change (Pages 52-53)
Page 2 of 3
Exhibit B
Page 3 of 3
10. Siting of Public Capital Facilities of a Countywide or Statewide Significance
• Title proposed to read "Siting of Essential Public Capital Facilities of a
Countywide or Statewide Significance"
Addition of specific facility requirements from the MPPs (Page 56); 4.1.10 is
proposed to be moved to Section 6 and the add language "to the site and/or
incompatible uses"
New policies added that are from Vision 2040 (Pages 57-58)
11. Transportation Facilities and Strategies
• Addition of Commute Trip Reduction statement (Page 59)
• Addition of Vision 2040 MPP statement (Page 59)
• New policies to promote sustainable transportation system and improve safety
• Addition of non-motorized facilities as a transportation service that is Countywide
Expand what considered multi-modal
Addition of a transit level of service policy (Page 61)
New policies added that are from Vision 2040 (Page 66)
12. UGAs
• Adding of language that it is not appropriate that urban services be extended or
expanded in rural areas (Page 67)
• Addition of Vision 2040 MPP statement (Page 68-67)
• Amending language on centers to be consistent with Vision 2040 terminology
• Addition of two designated Manufacturing/Industrial Centers (Page 71)
• Deletion of criteria when the County first designated UGAs as process not
applicable any longer (Pages 74-75)
• New policies added that are from Vision 2040 (Page 76-78)
13. Buildable Lands
Addition of new policy to provide clarification on who responsible for Buildable
Lands, identify the first report, what is the Buildable Lands Program, and
jurisdiction responsibility (Pages 99-100)
New policy stating that an ad-hoc be convened every five years to review the
capacity analysis for residential and employment (Page 102)
14. Amendments and Transitions
• Policy 2.3 is being re-worked by the GMCC (Page 104)
15. Community and Urban Design
• New chapter to the CPPs.
Policies primarily from Vision 2040
16. Health and Wellbeing (new chapter)
• New chapter to the CPPs.
• Policies primarily from Vision 2040
17. Rural Areas (new chapter)
• New chapter to the CPPs.
• Policies primarily from Vision 2040 with some modification by the GMCC
Page 3 of 3