Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem VIII-B-5CITY OF :~ WASHINGTON AGENDA BILL APPROVAL FORM A.qenda Subiect: Amendments to Pierce County Countywide Planning Date: Policies November 10, 2003 Department: Planning Attachments: Resolution 3655 (which Budget Impact: includes Interlocal agreement with proposed amendments) Administrative Recommendation: City Council adopt Resolution 3655. When Pierce County and Pierce County cities and towns developed and adopted GMA comprehensive plans in the 1990's, they were under the understanding that the designation of an urban center or a manufacturing/industrial center in individual local plans was sufficient to have the urban center and/or manufacturing/industrial center recognized and designated as such by the Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC). During the course of the past year, the PSRC informed Pierce County and its cities and towns that it (PSRC) recognizes urban centers or industrial/manufacturing centers only if they are actually designated within a county's applicable countywide planning policies While Pierce County's Countywide Planning Policies lists examples of urban centers and industrial/manufacturing centers, it does not itemize all that have been adopted in local plans. The proposed amendments to the Pierce County Countywide Planning Policies achieve the PSRC requirement of designating urban centers and manufacturing/industrial centers within the Countywide Planning Policies. These amendments were recommended by the Pierce County Regional Council (PCRC) on August 21,2003. Councilmember Cerino serves as the City of Auburn's PCRC representative. Ll117-4 A1.17 Reviewed by Council & Committees: Reviewed by Departments & Divisions: [] Arts Col~ission COUNCIL COMMITTEES: [] Building [] M&O [] Airport [] Finance [] Cemetery [] Mayor [] Hearing Examiner [] Municipal Serv. [] Finance [] Parks [] Human Services [] Planning & CD [] Fire [] Planning [] Park Board []Public Works [] Legal [] Police [] Planning Col~. [] Other [] Public Works [] Human Resources Action: Committee Approval: DYes DNo Council Approval: DYes DNo Call for Public Hearing / / Referred to Until / / Tabled Until / / Councilmember: Borden Staff: Krauss Meeting Date: November 17, 2003 Item Number: VlII.B.5 AUBURN * THAN YOU IMAGINED Agenda Subiect Amendments to Pierce County Countywide Planning Policies Date: November 10, 2003 Given that the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21) Transportation Improvement Program now targets Federal transportation funds to regional growth and manufacturing/industrial centers and the corridors that connect them, there is greater importance to a centers designation. The amendment to the Countywide Planning Policies requires that the Inter-local Agreement be ratified by 60 percent of the jurisdictions in Pierce County representing 75 percent of the total population. At their meeting on November 10, 2003, the Planning and Community Development Committee recommended approval. PCDC\PIERCE CO CPP Ll117-4 Page 2 of 2 RESOLUTION NO. 3658 ^ RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF AUBURN, WASHINGTON, AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR CITY CLERK TO ENTER INTO AN INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT WITH PIERCE COUNTY AND THE CITIES AND TOWNS OF PIERCE COUNTY, AMENDING THE PIERCE COUNTY COUNTYVVIDE PLANNING POLICIES TO UPDATE THE CENTERS DESIGNATIONS OF THE URBAN GROVVTH AREA SECTION AS RECOMMENDED BY THE PIERCE COUNTY REGIONAL COUNCIL. WHEREAS, RCW 39.34 establishes the authority for cities and counties to enter into interlocal agreements as necessary to work together when an issue requires a joint action of all parties concerned; and, WHEREAS, the cities and towns of Pierce County and Pierce County adopted an interlocal agreement creating the Pierce County Regional Council (PCRC) in 1992, and charged the PCRC with responsibilities including: serving as a local link to the Puget Sound Regional Council, promoting intergovernmental cooperation, facilitating compliance with the coordination and consistency requirements of the Growth Management Act (Chapter 36.70A RCVV) and the Regional Transportation Planning Organization (Chapter 47.80 RCVV), and developing a consensus among jurisdictions regarding the development and modification of the Countywide Planning Policies; and, WHEREAS, the City of Auburn is a member of the Pierce County Regional Council; and, Resolution No. 3658 November 10, 2003 Page l of 3 WHEREAS, the Pierce County Regional Council recommended adoption of proposed amendments to the Pierce County Countywide Planning Policies on August 21, 2003, which addresses the Centers designations; and WHEREAS, amendments to the Pierce County Countywide Planning Policies must be adopted through amendment of the original Interlocal Agreement or by a new Interlocal Agreement ratified by sixty percent of the jurisdictions in Pierce County representing seventy-five percent of the total population; and, WHEREAS, an Interlocal Agreement entitled "Amendments to the Pierce County Countywide Planning Policies" was developed for this purpose, and includes recommended amendments to the Pierce County Countywide Planning Policies; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF AUBURN, WASHINGTON, IN A REGULAR MEETING DULY ASSEMBLED, HEREWITH RESOLVES THAT: Section 1. The Mayor and the City Clerk of the City of Auburn are hereby authorized to execute an Interlocal Agreement. A copy of said Agreement is attached hereto, designated as Exhibit "A" and incorporated by reference in this Resolution. Section 2. The Mayor is hereby authorized to implement such administrative proCedures as may be necessary to carry out the directives of this legislation. Resolution No. 3658 November I0, 2003 Page 2 of 3 Section 3. That this resolution shall take effect and be in full force upon passage and signatures hereon. DATED and SIGNED this day of November 2003. CITY OF AUBURN ATTEST: Peter B. Lewis, Mayor Danielle E. Daskam, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: I~ni~l B Heid,""--~ ' City Attorney Resolution No. 3658 November 10, 2003 Page 3 of 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8' 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 19 2O 21 22 23 24 2'5 26 27 EXHIBIT "A" TO RESOLUTION' NO.2003- INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT AMENDMENTS. TO THE'PIERCE COUNTY COUNTYWIDE PLANNING .POLICIES This agreement is.entered into by and among the cities and towns of Pierce County and Pierce County. This agi:eement'is made pursuant to the provisions of the Interlocal Cooperation Act o'f 1967, Chapter 39.34'RCW. This agreement has been authorized by the legislatiVe bOdy of each jurisdiction pursuant to formal action and evidenced by execution of the signature page of this. agreement, ' BACKGROIYND: A. The Pierce County.Regional 'CoUncil (PCRC) was created in 1992 by interloCal .agreement among the cities and towns of Pierce County and Pierce County. The organization is charged with responsibilities, including:, serving, as a local link to the . Puget Sound Regional Council, promoting intergovernmental coOperation, facilitating compliance with the coordination and consistency requirements of the Growth Management Act (Chapter 36.70A RCW) and the Regional Transportation Planning Organization (Chapter47.80 RCW), and developing a cOnsensus among jurisdictions. regarding'the development and modification of the Countywide Planning Policies. The PierCe 'County Countywide Planning Policies provide for amendments to .be adopted through amendment of the original interlocal agreement or by a new interlocal agreement. The Pierce County Countywide'Planning Policies may be amended upon the adoption of amendments by the Pierce County Council and ratification by 60 percent of the jurisclictions in Pierce County (13 of 20) representing 75 percent of the total population on June 28,-1991; Co Technical amendments are neCessary to-keep the document current. Substantive policy changes arc not being recommended in this area.. The Pierce County Regional Council conducted dis6ussions in open public raeetings in july and August of 2003 to address the amendments. The Pierce County Regional Council SUbsequently recommended adoption of thc propoSed amendments related to Centers DesignatiOn update of the Countywide Planning Policies on August 21, 2003. PURPOSE: This.agreement is entered'into by the cities and towns of Pierce County and Pierce County for the purpo'se of ratifying and'approving the attached amendments t° the Pierce Coulll~ Countywide Planning Policies (Attachment). Exhibit "A" Page 1 of 3, Resolution No. 2003- 1 3 '4 -5 6 ? 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19- 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 DURATION: This agreement shall become effective upon execution by 60 percent of the jurisdictions in Pierce County, representing 75 percent of the total population on June 28, 1991. This agreement will remain in effect until subsequently mended or repealed as provided by the Pierce County Countywide Planning Policies. SEVERABILITY: If any of thc provisions of this agreement are held' illegal, invalid or unenforceable, the "remaining provisions shall remain infull force and effect. FILING: A copy of this agreement shall be filed with the Secretary of State, Washington Department of Community, Trade and Economic Development, the Pierce County Auditor and each City and tom'clerk. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this agreement has.been executed by each member jurisdiction as evidenced by the signature page affixed to this agreement. Exhibit "A" Page 2 of 3, Resolution No. 2003- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7' 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT AMENDMENTS TO THE PIERCE COUNTY COUNTYWIDE PLANNING POLICIES Signature. Page Thc legislative bOdy of the undersigned jurisdiction has authOrized execution of the Interlocal Agreement, Amendments to the Pierce County Countywide Planning, Policies. IN WITNESS WHEREOF This agreement has been executed BY: Approved: By: (Pierce County Executive) (Name of City/Town/C, ounty DATE: (Mayor/Executive) Approved: BY: (Director/Manager/Chair of thc Council) Appr°v~;°~x~ ~ ~ (City~~'~utor) ~... Exhibit "A" Page 3 of 3, Resolution No. 2003- · Proposed Amendments to the Countyw:id.e 'Plan.ning Po.licies for Pierce County, Washington · 'County Planning and Land Services Urban Growth Area Centers Designations COUNTY. WIDE PLANNING POLICIES FOR PIERCE coUNTY, WASHINGTON PIERCE COUNTY'REGIONAL COUNCIL Councilmember Linda Bird, President, City of University Place CoUncilmember Mike Connor, Vice President, City of Sumner Councilmember Gene Cerino, City of AUburn Mayor Bob Young, City of Bonney Lake Councilmember I~im Walthers, City of Bucldey Mayor Richie Morgan, Town of Carb0nado - Mayor Penny Drost, City of Dupont Mayor Chelan ~m'rett, Town of Eatonville Mayor ~ohn Powers, City of Edgewood Councilmember Barry Johnson, City of Fife Councilmember Kathy McVay,~City of Fircrest Mayor Gretchen Wilbert,.City of Gig Harbor Mayor William Hareison, City of Lakewood Mayor Katrina Asay, City'ofMilton Mayor Dale T. Sones, City of Orting Councilmember Richalxi Hildreth, City of Pacific $ohu Ladenburg, Pierce County Executi~fe Councilmembe~ Teny Lee, pierce County Council Couneilmember Kevin Wimgett, Pierce County Council COuneilmember Harold Moss, Pierce County CounCil Couneilmember Rosemary Eckerson, City ofPuya!lup Couneilmember Roy Hammonds, .City of Roy Councilmember Del Brewer, Town of Ruston Mayor H. Layne Ross, Town of South Prairie Mayor Ron LUeas; Town of Steilacoom Mayor Bill Baarsma, City of Tacoma Couneilmember Connie Ladenburg, City of Tacoma Couneilmember Mike Lonergan,. City of Tacoma Mayor Doug A. Paulson, Town of Wilkeson Ex officio Members: Chris Picard, Office of Urbau Mobility Neel Parikh~ Pierce County Library District Kevin Desmond,-Pierce Transit J. Michael Zachary, Port ofTacoma Norman Abbott, Puget Sound Regional Council Recommended by the Pierce County Regional Council August 21, 2003 COUNTY-WIDE PLANNING POLICY ON URBAN GROWTH AREAS, PROMOTION OF CONTIGUOUS AND ORDERLY DEVELOPM]ENT AND PROVISION OF URBAN SERVICES TO SUCH DEVELOPMENT Baelcground- Requirements of Growth MnnagementAet The Washington Growth Management Act identifies the encouragement of development in urban.areas where adequate public facilit/es' and services exist or .can be iprovided in an efficient manner [RCW 36.70A.020(1)],the reduction of sprawl (i.e., the flmppropriate 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 guide the development and adoption of comprehensive plans and development regulations. The Growth Management Act further requires (1) that the County desigxtate an "urban growth, area" or areas with~ which urban growth shall be encouraged and outside of which growth Shall occur only if it is .not "urban" in charact~, (2) that each-municipality in the County be included wi.thin.an urban growth area; (3)'that an urban growth area 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. 1 ~~(~);. for definition of"urban growth" see RCW 36.70A.030(14).] The designated county and municipal urban growth areas 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 urban growth area shall permit urban densities, 'they 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 .nhal! occur first in areas already charact~[zed-.by urban growth that have eadstingpublic facility and s0rvice capacities to service.such, development, second in areas, alrensdy charactexiZ~ by urban growth that will be'served bya 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 should not be provided in The Growth. Management Act Amendments expressly require that county-wide planning .policies address .the implementation of urban grOwth area desigoafions [RCW 36:70A.210(3)(a)], the promotion ofcontiguons and orderly, development, the provision of urban services to such.development' [RCW 36.70A.210(3)(b)], and the coontkaation.ofjoint cOunty and municipal planning within urban growth areas [RCW 36.70A.210(3)(f)], 47 Principles of Understanding Between Pierce CoUnty and the'Municipnlities in Pierce Coral ,fy 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 pl~mning 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 ~dopted 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 treatmem services. The County and municipalitieS reco~ize that it is appropriate for the County and municipalities to continue to provide sewer transmission and treatment services. The County recognizes that urban growth areas 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 County-Wide 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 ~mmunieation and feedback among the juri~liefiOns. The County and'the drieS and towns will adhere to the processes and mechanisms provided in the policieS. Centers Centers are intended to be areas of concentrated employment and/or housing within urban growth areas .which serve as the hubs of transit, and transportation systems. They are 48 integral .to creating compact urban deVelopment that conserves resources and creates' ad~tional transportation, housing, and shopping choices. Centers are an important paxt of the .regional strategY (VISION 2020) for urban growth and are required to 'be addressed in the County-Wide Planning Policies. Centers will become focal points for growth within the county and will be areas where public investment is directed. centers are intended to: be priority locations for accommodating growth;' strengthen existing development patterns; promote housing opportunities close to employment; support development of an extensive transportation system which reduces dependency on automobiles; and maximize the benefit of public investment in infrastructure and services. 'Vizi:.-: ~ 2020, the adopted regional .growth strategy, identifies numerous different types of Centers as an integral feature, including U~an Centers m':~ Tc;~. C=t~-~, which feature a mix of land uses, and Manufacturin~ Centers, which comist primarily of manufacturing and industrial uses. Pierce County ha~ identified fl,,u~pe~f ~ Urban Centers and one 1 Manufacturing/Industrial that are applicable and Comistent with the adopted regional vision. ~ centers, Urban Centers ManufacttMng/Industrial Centers Manufacturing Centers are areas where employe~ or land-intensive uses will be located. These centers differ from Urban Centers in that they consist of an extensive land base and the exclusion of non-manufacturing uses are essential features of their character. These areas are' characterized by a significant mount 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 Centers. However, these centers should be linked to high density housing areas by an efficient transportation system. Within Pierce County, a limited, number of centers,-both urban and manufacturing, will be 49