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