HomeMy WebLinkAbout09-08-2014 PLANNING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE AGENDA PACKETcrrr or -�
AU.BURN
WASH € NGTON
Planning and Community
Development
September 8, 2014 - 5:00 PM
Annex Conference Room 2
AGENDA
CALL TO ORDER
A. Roll Call
B. Announcements
1. Presentation - Parks & Recreation Board (Faber)
Parks, Arts, and Recreation Director Daryl Faber will provide a presentation
on the 2014 plans and activities of the Parks and Recreation Board.
C. Agenda Modifications
CONSENT AGENDA
A. Minutes - August 25, 2014* (Tate)
DISCUSSION ITEMS
A. Pierce County Countywide Planning Policies* (Chamberlain)
Review the revised Countywide Planning Policies related to annexations and
UGA expansions.
B. "Investing in Place" Discussion (Tate /Snyder)
Discussion of "Investing in Place" focusing on old and new amenities,
beautification, and design to support short -term and long -term economic
development efforts.
C.
Director's Report (Tate)
D. PCDC Status Matrix* (Tate)
IV. ADJOURNMENT
Agendas and minutes are available to the public at the City Clerk's Office, on the City
website (http: / /www.auburnwa.gov), and via e -mail. Complete agenda packets are
available for review at the City Clerk's Office.
*Denotes attachments included in the agenda packet.
Page 1 of 65
AuBuRN ITY CAF �
\VASH E NGTo
AGENDA BILL APPROVAL FORM
Agenda Subject:
Minutes - August 25, 2014
Department:
Community Development
& Public Works
Attachments:
August 25, 2014 Draft M inutes
Administrative Recommendation:
Background Summary:
Reviewed by Council Committees:
Councilmember: Holman
Meeting Date: September 8, 2014
Date:
September 4, 2014
Budget Impact:
$0
Staff: Tate
Item Number: CA.A
CA.A AUBURN * MORE THAN YOU IMAGINED Page 2 of 65
WASH 1 NGTONi
Planning and Community
Development
August 25, 2014 - 5:00 PM
Annex Conference Room 2
MINUTES
I. CALL TO ORDER
CA.A
Chair Holman called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m. in Annex
Conference Room 2 located on the 2nd floor of One Main Professional
Plaza, One East Main Street, Auburn, Washington.
A. Roll Call
Chair John Holman, Vice -Chair Largo Wales, and Member Yolanda
Trout were present. Also present were Mayor Nancy Backus,
Director of Community Development and Public Works Kevin
Snyder, City Attorney Dan Heid, Assistant Police Chief William
Pierson, Assistant Community Development Services Director Jeff
Tate, Planning and Design Services Manager Elizabeth
Chamberlain, and Community Development Secretary Tina Kriss.
Members of the Audience present: Robert Whale of the Auburn
Reporter; Chad Lorentz, AIA of Urbal Architecture, PLLC; John
Walker of Teutsch Partners LLC; and Evan Lawler of Pillar
Properties for Merrill Gardens.
B. Announcements
1. Presentation - Police Patrol) Efforts Update (Pierson)
Assistant Police Chief William Pierson reported on the City's
enhanced police patrol efforts in the Auburn Les Gove Park
and downtown areas. On around June 1, 2014 bicycle patrol
efforts emphasizing on changing the behavior of certain
individuals and changing the perception of safety began. During
the period from June 1 through the end of July 2014 the Auburn
Police experienced an increase in incidents due to the
enhanced police presence. With arrests, the issuance of
citations, traffic stops, and other incidents the department
believes the perception of safety will continue to improve.
The Committee and staff discussed any additional efforts on the
part of Council that could assist the police with their efforts.
Assistant Chief Pierson stated that he would look
into other tools that may be helpful to the department but
Page 1 of 4
Page 3 of 65
that "boots on the ground" are a component that will increase
the perception of safety in these areas.
C. Agenda Modifications
II. CONSENT AGENDA
A. Minutes - July 28, 2014 (Tate)
Member Trout moved and Vice -Chair Wales seconded to
recommend Planning and Community Development Committee
approve the July 28, 2014 minutes as written.
Motion unanimously approved. 3 -0
III. ACTION
A. Ordinance No. 6525 (Chamberlain /Heid)
Planning and Design Services Manager Elizabeth Chamberlain
provided the staff report on Ordinance No. 6525. On August 6, 2014
staff brought forward Ordinance No. 6525 (Option 1 and Option 2)
before the Planning Commission for Public Hearing. After hearing
public testimony from the public, the Planning Commission
recommended moving forward Ordinance No. 6525, Option 2 to full
Council for approval. Option 2 is for the City of Auburn to enforce
the State marijuana regulations only.
At the August 25, 2014 Municipal Services Committee meeting, the
Committee requested that the Council extend the moratorium
currently in place for an additional six months while the Council
continues to explore and discuss 1 -502 options.
Staff reviewed the map showing the potential state licensed
locations for cannabis uses. The Committee and staff discussed
various active court cases and options for extending the
moratorium. After discussion, the Commission expressed support of
Ordinance No. 6525, Option 2. This would include the termination of
the moratorium, implemented pursuant to Resolution No. 4992,
upon the date this Ordinance becomes effective.
Vice -Chair Wales moved and Member Trout seconded to
recommend moving Ordinance No. 6525 to full Council for approval,
with termination of moratorium upon the date Ordinance No. 6525
becomes effective.
Motion unanimously carried. 3 -0
IV. DISCUSSION ITEMS
Page 2 of 4
CA.A Page 4 of 65
A. Amendment to the Downtown Urban Center Design Standards and
Auburn Junction Design Guidelines (Chamberlain)
Planning and Design Services Manager Elizabeth Chamberlain
presented the staff report and reviewed the proposed amendments
to the Downtown Urban Center (DUC) Design Standards and the
Auburn Junction Design Guidelines. After review of the proposed
amendments, the Committee determined that they were supportive
of the proposed amendments.
Vice -Chair Wales moved and Member Trout seconded to
recommend staff amend the DUC Design Standards to change
Division Street from a Pedestrian I Street to a Pedestrian II Street
and amend the Auburn Junction Design Guidelines to change the
core downtown streets to be in line with the Downtown Urban Center
(DUC) Design Standards so that both documents are consistent.
Motion unanimously approved. 3 -0
Chair Backus invited representatives from Teutsch Partners, LLC. to
come forward for comment:
John Walker, Teutsch Partners, LLC., 2001 Western Ave., Suite
330, Seattle
Mr. Walker thanked City staff for their collaboration in bringing
forward the project, Merrill Gardens. This is a "U- shaped building"
with a central courtyard, the courtyard will provide public and private
use. Mr. Walker introduced Architect Chad Lorentz to the
Committee.
Chad Lorentz, AIA, 1938 Fairview Ave E., #100, Seattle
Mr. Lorentz stated that Merrill Gardens is a very community based
and family run organization; there is a lot of active space designed
into the project to embrace the community. Active space will be
located at the street front and the corners of Division Street,
to create a store front look the space was designed with to draw
people outside, benefiting the residents and the City.
Evan Lawler, of Pillar Properties, 1938 Fairview Avenue East, Suite
300, Seattle was also present.
B. "Investing in Place" Discussion (Tate /Snyder)
Assistant Director Tate provided background information on
"Investing in Place ", focusing on old and new amenities,
beautification, and design to support short -term and long -term
economic development efforts. Staff provided a PowerPoint
presentation. "Investing in Place" can be achieved through small or
large investments. As the downtown buildings become activated
Page 3 of 4
CA.A Page 5 of 65
and occupied, it would be beneficial to update other areas of the
City. Awning improvements, new paint, updated door fronts, and
other improvements would aesthetically improve the City at a small
cost.
These low cost improvements in the area of A Street off Main and
Auburn Way may provide attributes to Auburn that would encourage
visitors to return.
The Committee took a break at 6:23 p.m. Chair Holman did not
resume the meeting due to an emergency.
C. Director's Report (Tate)
This item did not go forward, staff will provide an update at the next
Planning and Community Development Committee meeting.
D. PCDC Status Matrix (Tate)
This item did not go forward, staff will provide an update at the next
Planning and Community Development Committee meeting.
V. ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business to come before the Planning and
Community Development Committee, the meeting was adjourned at 6:43
p.m.
Approved this day of , 2014.
John Holman - Chair
Tina Kriss - Community Development Secretary
CA.A
Page 4 of 4
Page 6 of 65
AuBuRN I YOF �
\VASH E NGTo
Agenda Subject:
Pierce County Countywide Planning Policies
Department:
Community Development
& Public Works
AGENDA BILL APPROVAL FORM
Attachments:
Pierce County CPP
Administrative Recommendation:
For discussion only
Background Summary:
Please see the attached memorandum.
Reviewed by Council Committees:
Councilmember: Holman
Meeting Date: September 8, 2014
Date:
September 4, 2014
Budget Impact:
$0
Staff: Chamberlain
Item Number: DI.A
DI.A AUBURN * MORE THAN YOU IMAGINED
Page 7 of 65
CITY OF
WASHINGTON
MEMORANDUM
TO: Councilmember John Holman, Chair, Planning and Community Development
Committee
Councilmember Largo Wales, Vice Chair, Planning and Community Development
Committee
Councilmember Yolanda Trout, Planning and Community Development Committee
CC: Jeff Tate, Assistant Director, Community Development Services
FROM: Elizabeth Chamberlain, AICP, Planning and Design Services Manager
DATE: September 5, 2014
RE: Pierce County Countywide Planning Policies — Amendment related to Annexations
and Urban Growth Area Expansions
Background
In 2012, the Pierce County Countywide Planning Policies (CPPs) amendments consistent with
Puget Sound Regional Council's Vision 2040 became effective. Auburn ratified the
amendments November 2011. When those amendments were sent to Washington State
Department of Commerce for review by Pierce County (as required by RCW), Commerce
commented on the UGA and Annexation policies recommending that Pierce County relook at
those to be consistent with state law. There have also been Growth Management Hearings
Board decisions as well as a Superior Court decision involving the City of Bonney Lake that
clearly determine how urban growth areas are to be expanded consistent with the Growth
Management Act.
In 2013 when Pierce County was amending its Comprehensive Plan to be consistent with the
CPPs, the Pierce County Regional Council (PCRC) considered an amendment that would have
amended Pierce County's comprehensive plan policies and required a county -wide need for
growth capacity prior to allowing an Urban Growth Area expansion, rather than allowing for an
individual jurisdiction to expand based on individual capacity need. This amendment would
have made Pierce County's comprehensive plan consistent with the already adopted CPPs (the
2012 effective version). At that time, some PCRC members were concerned with this limitation
for individual jurisdictions and did not take action on Pierce County's comprehensive plan
amendment and remanded the issued back to Growth Management Coordination Committee
(GMCC) for consideration.
Discussion
After several months of discussion, the GMCC recommended 3 options to the PCRC (see
Attachment C). Part of the GMCC recommendation also included the following:
DI.A
Page 11
Page 8 of 65
• A terminology change from "urban service area" to "Potential Annexation Area ", similar
to how King County designates areas to be annexed to cities
• An encouragement of joint planning agreements for existing areas affiliated with cities
and towns
• Exploring and establishing financial incentives for annexation
• Limiting cities and tows to annex territory within their adopted PAA
• Joint grant funding opportunities
• Unincorporated islands as top priority for annexation
This was presented to the PCRC at their May 15, 2014 meeting. At the conclusion of the
discussion, PCRC recommended approval of Option 3 which did not change the CPPs related
to amendments and transitions but did amend the CPPs as noted above.
Amendments to the CPPs must be ratified by 60 percent of the jurisdictions in Pierce County
representing 75 percent of the total population. Cities and towns have the option of passing an
ordinance /resolution or if not in favor of the proposal passing a resolution in opposition. If no
action is taken by a jurisdiction within 180 days or by December 21, 2014 that is seen as
approval.
Recommendation
Staff recommends that the Planning and Community Development Committee discuss the
amendments to the CPPs. If there is concurrence amongst the Committee to move forward,
staff will bring back a resolution for ratification.
Attachments
Attachment A: Cover Memo Pierce County Regional Council
Attachment B: Pierce County Ordinance No. 2014 -17s
Attachment C: Memo from Growth Management Coordinating Committee outlining staff's
recommendation to Pierce County Regional Council
Attachment D: RCW and Court Case Summary
DI.A Page 9 of 65
Page 1 2
DATE: August 5, 2014
Pierce County
Regional Council
2401 South 35th Street, Room 175
Tacoma, Washington 98409 -7460
TO: Pierce County City and Town Mayors and Council Members
Pierce County Regional Council Members (PCRC)
Pierce County City and Town Clerks
Attachment A
RE: Interlocal Agreement - Amendments to the Pierce County Countywide Planning Policies,
Potential Annexation Areas (PAAs)
The Pierce County Regional Council (PCRC) recommended the enclosed amendment to the Pierce County
Countywide Planning Policies (CPPs). As the first step in the ratification process, the Pierce County
Council adopted Ordinance No. 2014 -17s on June 24, 2014. This action signifies Pierce County's approval
of the proposed amendment to set guidelines in the establishment of Proposed Annexation Areas (PAAs),
and authorizes the Pierce County Executive to execute interlocal agreements with the Cities and Towns of
Pierce County to ratify the proposal. This correspondence is the official transmittal of the PCRC's
recommendation to amend the CPPs, and request for ratification of the proposal.
The proposal refines and adds various policies addressing the annexation of unincorporated urban areas by
adjacent cities and towns:
1) Establishing "Potential Annexation Areas" (PAAs). A Potential Annexation Area refers to an
unincorporated area within the designated urban growth area which a city or town has identified as
being appropriate for annexation at some point in the future; and
2) Relabeling "urban service areas" designated within the Pierce County Comprehensive Plan at the
conclusion of its 2013 amendment cycle as a PAA for the appropriate jurisdiction. As related to the
PAAs:
• Require jurisdictions to identify PAAs within their respective comprehensive plan;
• Require joint planning agreements prior to expanding or adding to the existing PAAs;
• Encourage the resolution of existing overlaps;
• Discourage the creation of unaffiliated "islands" between cities and towns; and,
• Encourage the resolution of split parcels prior to the initial designation of PAAs.
3) Pursuing a more coordinated strategy to encourage annexation of areas within designated Urban
Growth Areas (UGA). This strategy encompasses:
• Encouraging joint planning agreements and annexation plans for existing areas affiliated with
cities and towns;
• Limiting cities and towns to the annexation of territory only within their adopted PAA;
• Exploring and establishing financial incentives to encourage annexation of unincorporated
urban areas;
• Exploring potential partnerships between the County and cities /towns in grant funding
opportunities to overcome annexation obstacles;
• Encouraging cities and towns to include a mix of existing commercial, residential, and vacant
areas, if appropriate, in future annexation proposals;
DI .A Page 10 of 65
Pierce County Mayors, Council Members, PCRC Members, Clerks
August 6, 2014
Page 2
• Identifying unincorporated "islands" between cities and towns as the County's highest priority
for annexation; and,
• The County supporting annexation of an area if a joint planning agreement has been signed with
the respective city or town.
For this proposal to be amended into the CPPs, it must be ratified by Pierce County jurisdictions.
Ratification is achieved once 60 percent of the jurisdictions in Pierce County representing 75 percent of the
total population approve the proposal. Demonstration of approval may be executed through an interlocal
agreement, or the absence of a legislative action to disapprove the proposed amendment by December 21,
2014. Note: This is the 180 -day approval process established through amendments to the CPPs.
If your jurisdiction is in favor of this proposal, it may either:
• Pass an ordinance /resolution within the interlocal agreement and PAA amendment language; or
• Take no action addressing the proposed amendment.
If your jurisdiction is not in favor of the proposal, it should pass a resolution stating its opposition. Please
send a signed copy of the resolution to Cindy Anderson, Pierce County Planning and Land Services,
2401 South 35th Street, Room 175, Tacoma, WA 98409. The resolution must be received no later than
December 21, 2014.
The Pierce County Ordinance, which includes the interlocal agreement and amendments to the Countywide
Planning Policies, and an explanatory sheet are included for your convenience. Note that jurisdictions do
not have the ability to make line item modifications.
If your jurisdiction takes action to ratify the proposal, send two original signed copies of the interlocal
agreement and a copy of your resolution, ordinance, or meeting minutes authorizing approval to:
Pierce County Planning and Land Services
Attn: Cindy Anderson
2401 South 35th Street, Room 175
Tacoma, WA 98409
All information must be received in our office no later than December 21, 2014. One copy will be returned
to your jurisdiction after it has been signed by the Pierce County Executive.
Thank you for your assistance. If you have any questions, please contact Dan Cardwell at
dcardwe@co.pierce.wa.us, (253) 798 -7039, or Cindy Anderson at cander5@co.pierce.wa.us,
(253) 798 -2630.
Sincerely,
Cindy Anderson
Clerk, Pierce County Regional Council
Enclosures
c: Growth Management Coordinating Committee
jliAn \perc \countywide planning policies \annexation\PAA Interlocal Agreement Ltr 8 05 14.docx
Page 11 of 65
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
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
Attachment B
Sponsored by: Councilmembers Rick Talbert, Stan Flemming, Connie Ladenburg, and Dan Roach
Requested by: Executive /Planning and Land Services
ORDINANCE NO. 2014 -17s
An Ordinance of the Pierce County Council Acknowledging its Approval of
a Proposed Amendment to Incorporate Annexation Policies
in the Pierce County Countywide Planning Policies as
Recommended by the Pierce County Regional Council;
Authorizing the Pierce County Executive to Execute Interlocal
Agreements with the Cities and Towns of Pierce County to
Ratify the Proposed Amendments; Amending Chapter
19D.240 of the Pierce County Code, "Pierce County
Countywide Planning Policies," Upon Ratification; and
Adopting Findings of Fact.
Whereas, the Pierce County Regional Council (PCRC) was created in 1992 by
interlocal agreement among the cities and towns of Pierce County and Pierce County
Government (the County), and 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. Revised Code of Washington [RCW])
and the Regional Transportation Planning Organization (Chapter 47.80 RCW), and
developing a consensus among jurisdictions regarding the development and
modification of the Pierce County Countywide Planning Policies (CPPs); and
Whereas, the CPPs are written policy statements which are to be used solely for
establishing a countywide framework from which the County and municipal
comprehensive plans are developed and adopted; and
Whereas, the framework is intended to ensure that the County and municipal
comprehensive plans are consistent; acid
Whereas, the County adopted its initial CPPs on June 30, 1992; and
Whereas, the Pierce County Growth Management Coordinating Committee
(GMCC) is a technical subcommittee to the PCRC, and the GMCC includes staff
representatives from the County and the cities and towns within Pierce County; and
Whereas, the PCRC, based upon the recommendation from the GMCC and its
own discussions, recommended approval of the proposal at its October 17, 2013
meeting; and
DI.A Ordinance No. 2014 -17s
Page 1 of 3
Pierce County CourIa
930 Tacoma Ave S Rai 1046
Tacoma, WA 98402
of 65
Whereas, amendments to the CPPs must be adopted through amendment of the
original interlocal agreement or by a new interlocal agreement ratified by 60 percent of
member jurisdictions in Pierce County representing 75 percent of the total population;
and
Whereas, demonstration of ratification shall be by execution of an interlocal
agreement or the absence of a legislative action to disapprove a proposed amendment;
and
Whereas, an Interlocal Agreement entitled "Amendments to the Pierce County
Countywide Planning Policies" has been developed for this purpose, and is included as
Exhibit B to this Ordinance; and
Whereas, a jurisdiction shall be deemed as casting an affirmative vote if it has
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; and
Whereas, when ratified by the necessary number of cities and towns, Section
19D.240 of the Pierce County Code (PCC), "Pierce County Countywide Planning
Policies ", shall be amended by a subsequent ordinance of the County Council to
incorporate the recommended proposal; and
Whereas, the Pierce County Planning Commission, at its November 26, 2013,
regular public hearing, reviewed the proposed amendments to the CPPs and
recommended approval; and
Whereas, the Pierce County Environmental official has determined the proposal
is exempt from SEPA per WAC 197 -11 -800 (19); and
Whereas, after a properly noticed public hearing, the Community Development
Committee of the Pierce County Council considered oral and written testimony and
forwarded its recommendation to the full County Council; and
Whereas, the County Council held a public hearing on June 24, 2014, where oral
and written testimony was considered; and
Whereas, the County Council finds that it is in the public interest to authorize the
Pierce County Executive to execute the interlocal agreement; Now Therefore,
BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of Pierce County:
Section 1. The Pierce County Council acknowledges its approval of the
amendments to the CPPs recommended by the Pierce County Regional Council as set
forth in Exhibit A, which is attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference.
DI.A
Ordinance No. 2014 -17s
Page 2 of 3
Pierce County Couip'
930 Tacoma Ave S, Rm 104G-
Tacoma,
WA 98402
of 65
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
28
29
30
31
32
Section 2. The Pierce County Council authorizes the Pierce County Executive to
execute Interlocal Agreements as set forth in Exhibit B, which is attached hereto and
incorporated herein by reference, thereby ratifying the attached amendments to the
CPPs and amending Chapter 19D.240 of the Pierce County Code as recommended by
the Pierce County Regional Council.
Section 3. The Pierce County Council adopts Findings of Fact as shown in
Exhibit C, which is attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference.
PASSED this (h r day of �¢— , 2014.
ATTEST:
s,e \e, (SD
Denise D. Johnson
Clerk of the Council
Date of Publication of
Notice of Public Hearing:
Effective Date of Ordinance:
DI.A
PIERCE COUNTY COUNCIL
Pierce County, Washington
/ 1
Dan Roach
Council air If
Pat McCarth
Pierce County ` xecutive
Approved toed
day of
2014.
swt , a-014
907)1 , a-014
Ordinance No. 2014 -17s
Page 3 of 3
, this
Pierce County Co ys;h,
930 Tacoma Ave 9, Rm 9 cg
Tacoma, WA 98492
of 65
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
DI.A
Exhibit A to Ordinance No. 2014 -17s
Proposed Amendments
to the
Pierce County Countywide Planning Policies
Addressing
Potential Annexation Areas
and
Annexation
Exhibit A to Ordinance No. 2014 -17s
Page 1 of 15
Pierce County Couril
930 Tacoma Ave S, Rm 1049
Tacoma, WA 98402
of 65
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
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
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 has as planning goals 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 (Le., 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.
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 it is
not appropriate that urban governmental services be extended to or expanded in rural
areas except in those limited circumstances shown to be necessary to protect basic public
health and safety and environment, and when such services are financially supportable at
rural densities and do not permit urban development [RCW 36.70A.110(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)].
DI.A
Exhibit A to Ordinance No. 2014 -17s
Page 2 of 15
Pierce County Courps
930 Tacoma Ave S, Rm 110104
Tacoma, WA 98402
of 65
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
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
VISION 2040 Multicounty Planning Policies (MPPs)
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 way. VISION 2040 calls for directing development to
the region's existing urban lands, especially in centers and compact communities, and
limiting growth on rural lands. The Regional Growth Strategy found in VISION 2040
allocates 93 percent of the region's future population growth and 97 percent of its
employment growth into the existing 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 recognizes 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, provide housing and
transportation choices, and use our resources wisely. The Multicounty Planning Policies
support the effective 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, services, 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 growth centers. These places play an
important role as locations of the region's most significant business, governmental, and
cultural facilities. The 18 cities that have one or more regional growth centers are
expected to accommodate a significant portion of the region's residential growth (53
percent) and employment growth (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 designated. These are locations for more intensive commercial and
industrial activity. Both regional growth centers and regional manufacturing/industrial
centers are focal points for economic development and transportation infrastructure
investments. Subregional centers, including downtowns in suburban cities and other
neighborhood centers, also play an important role in VISION 2040's Regional Growth
Strategy. These, too, are strategic locations for 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 facilities.
DI.A
Exhibit A to Ordinance No. 2014 -17s
Page 3 of 15
Pierce County Cou i%
930 Tacoma Ave 8, Rm 3 4
Tacoma, WA 98402
of 65
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
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
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 healthy, safe, and economically viable. Conservation is a
major theme throughout VISION 2040. The Multicounty Planning Policies address
increasing recycling and reducing waste and encouraging more efficient use of water, low -
impact development techniques, and renewable and alternative energy. The Multicounty
Planning Policies also address siting of public facilities and the appropriateness and scale
of particular public services.
VISION 2040 calls for jurisdictions to invest 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 serving urban residents from locating
outside the urban growth 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. Although annexation is preferred, these are also areas where
incorporation of new cities could occur. The County will work with existing municipalities
and emerging communities to make such transitions efficiently. The identification of
"Potential Annexation Areas" (PAAs) is intended to serve as the foundation for future
strategies to annex areas within the urban growth area. A Potential Annexation Area refers
to an unincorporated area within the designated urban growth area which a city or town
has identified as being appropriate for annexation at some point in the future. A Potential
Annexation Area designation does not obligate a jurisdiction to annex an area within a
defined timeline. It is the County's authority, in consu[tation with cities and towns, to adopt
the urban growth area(s), and identify individual Potential Annexation Areas.
DI.A
Exhibit A to Ordinance No. 2014 -17s
Page 4 of 15
Pierce County Cou
930 Tacoma Ave S, Rm 04
Tacoma, WA 98402
of 65
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
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
In order to promote logical, orderly, and systematic annexations of the urban growth
area(s), the County in partnership with cities and towns, should establish joint planning
agreements and annexation plans prior to expanding or adding to existing PAAs. Creation
of new PAAs prior to the annexation of existing PAAs may directly impact Pierce County
government and its service obligations, and may undermine the transition of existing
unincorporated lands into cities and towns.
The County encourages cities and towns to annex land within its respective PAAs. The
County recognizes cities and towns may not have a financial incentive to annex areas that
will require more expenditures than the revenue produced through property or sales tax.
Jurisdictions need to be creative in identifying potential financial incentives, in addition to
establishing partnerships to overcome the financial obstacles. As a means to allocate
resources, the County should prioritize the PAAs, with the highest being unincorporated
"islands" between cities and towns. Pierce County shall support future annexations for
areas in which a joint planning agreement exists between the County and appropriate city
or town.
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.
Growth Targets
The Regional Growth Strategy set forth in VISION 2040 provides 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, provides a framework for establishing growth targets
consistent with the requirements of the Growth Management Act. Consistent with VISION
2040, these growth targets are the minimum 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 developed 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
DI.A
Exhibit A to Ordinance No. 2014 -17s
Page 5 of 15
Pierce County Coup6
930 Tacoma Ave 9, Rm 1 4
Tacoma, WA 98402
of 65
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
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
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
County from 2000 to 2007 has already accounted for more than half of the 40 -year
growth allocation), 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 (PSRC) will 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 division patterns, and other factors than is needed to
accommodate the growth target of the associated geography. In many 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 the 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.
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 centers as an
integral feature for accommodating residential and employment growth. The strategy
describes Regional Growth Centers, and other centers that may be designated through
DI.A
Exhibit A to Ordinance No. 2014 -17s
Page 6 of 15
Pierce County Courp
930 Tacoma Ave 8, Rm 1 4
Tacoma, WA 98402
of 65
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
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
countywide processes or locally. Regional Growth Centers once regionally designated are
located either in Metropolitan Cities, or in Core Cities. VISION 2040 also identifies
Manufacturing /Industrial Centers, which consist primarily of manufacturing and industrial
uses. Pierce County has five Regional Growth Centers and two Manufacturing /Industrial
Centers that have been adopted into the regional growth strategy. Pierce County Regional
Growth Centers are located in Tacoma, which is a Metropolitan City, and in Lakewood and
Puyallup, which are Core Cities.
Regional Growth Centers in the Metropolitan City
Tacoma Central Business District
Tacoma Mall
Regional Growth Centers in Core Cities
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 areas by an efficient muitimodal
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:
Manufacturing / Industrial 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
DI.A
Exhibit A to Ordinance No. 2014 -17s Pierce County Coup%
930 Tacoma Ave S, Rai 1046
Tacoma, WA 98402
Page 7 of 15
of 65
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
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
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:
DI.A
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.
Exhibit A to Ordinance No. 2014 -17s
Page 8 of 15
Pierce County Courph
930 Tacoma Ave S, Rm 1t47
Tacoma, WA 98402
of 65
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
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
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 (TCC) 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.
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.
Three candidate regional centers have been included into the Countywide Planning
Policies. One of the candidate centers is a Regional Growth Center and the other two
candidate centers are an Industrial /Manufacturing Center.
Candidate Regional Centers
University Place — Candidate Regional Growth Center
South Tacoma — Candidate Industrial /Manufacturing Center
Sumner - Pacific — Candidate Industrial /Manufacturing Center
DI.A
Exhibit A to Ordinance No. 2014 -17s
Page 9 of 15
Pierce County Coup
930 Tacoma Ave S, Rm 1 4
Tacoma, WA 98402
of 65
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
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
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
DI.A
UGA -1. The County shall designate the countywide urban growth area and Potential
Annexation Areas within it, in consultations between the County and each
municipality.
1.1 County referral of proposed urban growth area and Potential Annexation
Area designations to the Pierce County Regional Council (PCRC).
1.1.1 The PCRC may refer the proposed designations to the Growth
Management Coordinating Committee (GMCC), or its successor
entity for technical advice and for a report.
1.1.2 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.
1.1.3 At the conclusion of its review and analysis, the PCRC shall make
a recommendation to the County and to the municipalities in the
County.
1.2 Once adopted by the County, the urban growth area and Potential
Annexation Area(s) designations shall not be changed except in
Exhibit A to Ordinance No. 2014 -17s
Page 10 of 15
Pierce County Courprih
930 Tacoma Ave S, Rm 1648—
Tacoma, WA 98402
of 65
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
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
DI.A
accordance with the Countywide Policy on "Amendments and
Transition."
1.2.1 A jurisdiction shall not be required to modify existing urban growth
area boundaries or Potential Annexation Areas in order to reduce
the residential or employment capacity to conform to adopted
growth targets reflecting VISION 2040's Regional Growth Strategy.
Jurisdictions shall, however, consider the adopted growth targets
when updating their local comprehensive plans.
1.2.2 Growth targets are the minimum number of residents, housing
units, or jobs a given jurisdiction is planning to accommodate
within the appropriate planning horizon and are to be developed
through a collaborative countywide process that ensures all
jurisdictions are accommodating a fair share of growth. These
targets are informational tools integrated into local land use plans
to assist in formulating 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 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;
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.
2.1.2 The County, and each municipality in the County, shall
cooperatively develop and propose objective standards and criteria
Exhibit A to Ordinance No. 2014 -17s
Page11 of 15
Pierce County Courpia
930 Tacoma Ave S, Rm l 4
Tacoma, WA 98402
of 65
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
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
to disaggregate the State Office of Financial Management's
Countywide growth forecasts and VISION 2040 Regional Growth
Strategy forecasts for the allocation of projected population to the
County and municipalities, taking 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 vision, including establishing:
a. local employment targets,
b. local housing targets based on population projections, and
c. local housing and employment targets for each designated
regional growth center.
2.2 Boundaries
2.2.1 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 jurisdictional entities;
f. destination 2030 urban /rural line and PSCAA burn ban line.
Phasing of Development within the Urban Growth Area
DI.A
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.
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.
Exhibit A to Ordinance No. 2014 -17s Pierce County Courpb
930 Tacoma Ave S, Rm 104€
Tacoma, WA 98402
Page 12 of 15
of 65
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
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
DI.A
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 The urban growth area in unincorporated portions of the County shall be
limited to the following:
2.4.1 build -out of existing partially developed areas with urban services;
2.4.2 new fully contained communities;
2.4.3 redevelopment corridors.
2.5 The County's urban growth area may be extended to allow for build -out
of newly developed areas only if development capacity within Potential
Annexation Areas and growth in the areas identified in Policy 2.4 is
determined to be inadequate to meet total population and employment
projections consistent with the other policies set forth herein.
2.6 Encourage efficient use of urban land by maximizing the development
potential of existing urban lands, such as advancing development that
achieves zoned density.
2.7 The urban growth area in existence prior to the adoption of VISION 2040
may contain capacity beyond that needed to accommodate the growth
target per regional geography for the succeeding 20 -year planning period
based upon existing zoning designations, allowed density, existing 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 and strongly discouraged if the urban growth area expansion is
not in accordance with policy AT -2.3.
UGA -3, Potential annexation areas shall be designated through the Pierce County
Comprehensive Plan in consultation with cities and towns.
3.1 A city or town shall first identify a Potential Annexation Area(s) within its
respective Comprehensive Plan;
3.2 Potential Annexation Area boundaries shall be determined with
consideration for the following additional factors;
3.2.1 the VISION 2040 document, including Multicounty Planning
Policies;
3.2.2 the carrying capacity of the land considering natural resources,
agricultural land and environmentally - sensitive lands;
3.2.3 population, housing, and employment projections;
3.2.4 financial capabilities and urban services capacities;
Exhibit A to Ordinance No. 2014 -17s
Page 13 of 15
Pierce County Courp
939 Tacoma Ave S, Rm 1 4
Tacoma, WA 98402
of 65
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
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
3.2.5 consistency and compatibility with neighborhood, local and
regional plans;
3.2.6 the existing land use and subdivision pattern;
3.2.7 property access and ownership.
3.3 Potential Annexation Areas should not overlap or leave unincorporated
urban islands between cities and towns.
3.3.1 Future requests to establish a new Potential Annexation Area shall
not result in an overlap with an existing Potential Annexation Area
or create islands between cities and towns.
3.3.2 Cities and towns with existing Potential Annexation Area overlaps
should work toward resolving the existing overlaps.
3.4 The urban service areas and satellite urban growth areas as designated
through the Pierce County Comprehensive Plan as of June 30, 2013
shall be recognized as designated Potential Annexation Areas.
3.4.1 Urban service area designations approved by the Pierce County
Council through its 2013 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Cycle
shall be recognized as a Potential Annexation Area.
3.4.2 Boundaries of the Potential Annexation Areas should not split
parcels. Efforts should be put forth to resolve split parcels prior to
the initial designation of Potential Annexation Areas.
Annexation within the Urban Growth Area
DI.A
UGA -4. Pierce County, in conjunction with its cities and towns, shall establish a
strategy for future annexations within the urban growth area.
4.1 Annexation is preferred over incorporation within the urban growth area,
4.2 The Potential Annexation Areas as identified in the Pierce County
Comprehensive Plan shall be the foundation to an annexation strategy.
4.2.1 Cities and towns are allowed to annex territory only within their
adopted Potential Annexation Area as identified in the Pierce
County Comprehensive Plan.
4.2.2 Annexation of an area should be phased to coincide with a city or
town's ability to coordinate the provision of a full range of urban
services to the areas proposed for annexation.
4.3 The County and its cities and towns should proactively coordinate the
annexation of unincorporated areas within the urban growth area that are
within each respective city or town's Potential Annexation Area,
Exhibit A to Ordinance No. 2014 -17s
Page 14 of 15
Pierce County Courp
930 Tacoma Ave S, Rm 1046-
Tacoma, WA 98402
of 65
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
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
4.3.1 The County and each city and town should work towards the
establishment of annexation plans and joint planning agreements,
with an exception for lands associated with Joint Base Lewis
McChord and Camp Murray.
4.3.1.1 A joint planning agreement is to serve as a mechanism
where the County or a city can, prior to notice of
annexation, identify potential objections and resolutions.
4.3.1.2 An annexation plan should identify a potential schedule
for annexation of areas with a city or town.
4.3.2 The County should explore and implement financial incentives for
a city or town to annex areas associated with its respective
Potential Annexation Area.
4.3.2.1 Financial incentives may include the establishment of a
County level grant fund to assist in financial challenges a
city or town may have in annexing an area.
4.3.2.2 Financial incentives may include the elimination or
reduction in a fee associated with a County service to a
city or town in exchange for annexing an area.
4.3.3 The County, and cities and towns, should explore potential
partnerships in grant funding opportunities to overcome obstacles
associated with annexing specific areas.
4.3.4 Cities and towns should recognize the financial impacts
experienced by the County when annexation only encompasses
commercial or greenfield areas and avoids existing residential
development.
4.3.4.1 Cities and towns are encouraged to include a mix of
existing commercial, residential, and greenfield areas,
where appropriate, in future annexation proposals.
4.4 The County should prioritize the adopted Potential Annexation Areas for
annexation.
4.4.1 The County's highest priority should be Potential Annexation Areas
representing unincorporated "islands" between cities and towns;
and
4.4.2 The County shall support annexation for areas in which a joint
planning agreement exists between the County and appropriate
city or town.
Note: The policy numbers /citations for all policies that follow will need to be
changed.
DI.A
Exhibit A to Ordinance No. 2014 -17s
Page 15 of 15
Pierce County Courmih
930 Tacoma Ave S, Rm 1 4
Tacoma, WA 98402
of 65
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
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
Exhibit 13 to Ordinance No. 2014 -17s
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 agreement is made pursuant to the provisions of the Interlocal
Cooperation Act of 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.
BACKGROUND:
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 (Chapter 47.80 RCW), and developing a
consensus among jurisdictions regarding the development and modification of
the Countywide Planning Policies,
B. 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 jurisdictions in Pierce County representing 75
percent of the total Pierce County population as designated by the State Office of
Financial Management at the time of the proposed ratification.
C. A demonstration of ratification shall be by execution of an interlocal agreement or
the absence of a Legislative action to disapprove a proposed amendment.
D. A jurisdiction shall be deemed as casting an affirmative vote if it has 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.
E. The amendment incorporates new policies intended to provide a more
coordinated annexation strategy for unincorporated urban areas adjacent to cities
and towns.
F. The Pierce County Regional Council recommended adoption of the proposed
amendment on October 17, 2013.
DI.A
Exhibit B to Ordinance No. 2014 -17s
Page 1 of 3
Pierce County Couih
930 Tacoma Ava 0, Rm 045€"
Tacoma, WA 98402
of 65
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
PURPOSE:
This agreement is entered into by the cities and towns of Pierce County and Pierce
County for the purpose of ratifying and approving the attached amendment to the Pierce
County Countywide Planning Policies (Attachment).
DURATION:
This agreement shall become effective upon execution by 60 percent of the jurisdictions
in Pierce County, representing 75 percent of the total Pierce County population as
designated by the State Office of Financial Management at the time of the proposed
ratification. This agreement will remain in effect until subsequently amended or repealed
as provided by the Pierce County Countywide Planning Policies.
SEVERABILITY:
If any of the provisions of this agreement are held illegal, invalid, or unenforceable, the
remaining provisions shall remain in full force and effect.
FILING:
A copy of this agreement shall be filed with the Secretary of State, Washington
Department of Commerce, the Pierce County Auditor, and each city and town clerk.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this agreement has been executed by each member
jurisdiction as evidenced by the signature page affixed to this agreement.
DI.A
Exhibit B to Ordinance No, 2014 -17s
Page 2 of 3
Pierce County Courpi'
930 Tacoma Ave S, Rm i 4
Tacoma, WA 98402
of 65
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
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT
AMENDMENTS TO THE PIERCE COUNTY
COUNTYWIDE PLANNING POLICIES
Signature Page
The 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
BY:
DATE:
DI.A
(Name of City/Town /County)
(Mayor /Executive)
Approved:
BY:
(Director /Manager /Chair of County Council)
Approved as to Form:
BY:
Approved:
(City Attorney /Prosecutor)
BY:
(Pierce County Executive)
Exhibit B to Ordinance No. 2014 -17s Pierce County Counpla
930 Tacoma Ave 5 Rm 1646
Tacoma, WA 98402
Page 3 of 3
of 65
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
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
DI.A
Exhibit C to Ordinance No. 2014 -17s
FINDINGS OF FACT
The Pierce County Council finds that:
1. The Pierce County Regional Council (PCRC) was created in 1992 by interlocal
agreement among the cities and towns of Pierce County and Pierce County
Government (the County), and charged with responsibilities, including: Serving as a
local link to the Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC), promoting intergovernmental
cooperation, facilitating compliance with the coordination and consistency
requirements of the Growth Management Act [GMA] (Chapter 36.70A RCW) and the
Regional Transportation Planning Organization (Chapter 47.80 RCW), and developing
a consensus among jurisdictions regarding the development and modification of the
Countywide Planning Policies.
2. The GMA required the County to adopt a countywide planning policy in cooperation
with the cities and towns located within Pierce County.
3. The Countywide Planning Policies are to be used for establishing a countywide
framework from which the comprehensive plans for Pierce County and the cities and
towns within Pierce County are developed and adopted.
4. On June 30, 1992, the Pierce County Council passed Ordinance No. 92 -74 adopting
the initial Pierce County Countywide Planning Policies.
5. The GMA requires the central Puget Sound region to adopt multi- county planning
policies.
6. The PSRC membership is comprised of central Puget Sound counties (King, Pierce,
Snohomish, and Kitsap), cities and towns, ports, tribes, and transit agencies.
7. The PSRC is the regional authority to adopt multi - county planning policies.
8. The PSRC adopted VISION 2040 at its May 2008 General Assembly meeting.
9. VISION 2040 is the central Puget Sound region's multi- county planning policies.
10. VISION 2040 "assumes that by 2040 all of the urban area will be within municipalities
and the unincorporated urban growth area will be a thing of the past."
11. VISION 2040 "calls for joint city - county planning ... including establishing common
standards for development review and permitting, as well as for services and
infrastructure, to ensure that development is efficient and compatible with adjacent
communities."
12. VISION 2040 contains a goal that envisions "all unincorporated lands within the urban
growth area will either annex into existing cities or incorporate as new cities."
13. VISION 2040 policy MPP -DP -18 calls for the County to "affiliate all urban
unincorporated lands appropriate for annexation with an adjacent city or identify those
that may be more feasible for incorporation."
Exhibit C to Ordinance No. 2014 -17s
Page 1 of 3
Pierce County Coup
930 Tacoma Ave 9, Rm 1 4
Tacoma, WA 98402
of 65
1
2 14. VISION 2040 policy MPP -DP -19 states to "support joint planning between cities and
3 counties to work cooperatively in planning for urban unincorporated areas to ensure an
4 orderly transition to city governance ... "
5
6 15. VISION 2040 policy MPP -DP -20 states to "support the provision and coordination of
7 urban services to unincorporated urban areas by the adjacent city or, where
8 appropriate, by the county as an interim approach."
9
10 16. The PCRC directed the Growth Management Coordinating Committee (GMCC) to
11 recommend policies addressing annexation.
12
13 17. The GMCC recommended new policies intended to provide a more coordinated
14 annexation strategy for unincorporated urban areas adjacent to cities and towns.
15
16 18. The PCRC, based upon the recommendation from the GMCC, and its own
17 discussions, recommended approval of the proposal at its October 17, 2013 meeting.
18
19 19. The Pierce County Planning Commission recommended approval of the proposal at its
20 November 26, 2013 meeting.
21
22 20. The Pierce County Planning Commission recommendation to approve the proposal
23 was unanimous.
24
25 21. The Pierce County Environmental Official has determined the proposal is exempt from
26 SEPA per WAC 197 -11- 800(19).
27
28 22. The Pierce County Countywide Planning Policies include provisions addressing
29 procedures for amending the Countywide Planning Policies.
30
31 23. The Pierce County Countywide Planning Policies require amendments to the
32 Countywide Planning Policies to be adopted through an amendment of the original
33 Interlocal Agreement or by a new interlocal agreement. The amendment will become
34 effective when 60 percent of the cities, towns, and the County, representing 75 percent
35 of the total population as designated by the State Office of Financial Management at
36 the time of the proposed ratification become signatories to the agreement.
37
38 24. A demonstration of ratification shall be by execution of an interlocal agreement or the
39 absence of a legislative action to disapprove a proposed amendment.
40
41 25. A jurisdiction shall be deemed as casting an affirmative vote if it has not taken
42 legislative action to disapprove a proposed amendment within 180 days from the date
43 the Pierce County Council formally authorizes the Pierce County Executive to enter
44 into an interlocal agreement.
45
46 26. The Community Development Committee of the County Council, after a properly
47 noticed public hearing, considered oral and written testimony, and forwarded its
48 recommendation to the full Council.
49
50 27. The County Council held a public hearing on June 24, 2014, where oral and written
51 testimony was considered.
52
DI.A
Exhibit C to Ordinance No. 2014 -17s
Page 2 of 3
Pierce County Courpli
930 Tacoma Ave 8, Rm ibb4
Tacoma, WA 98402
of 65
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
DI.A
28. It is in support of the amendment for providing consistency between the Pierce
Countywide Planning Policies and VISION 2040.
29. A subsequent ordinance of the County Council shall be necessary to acknowledge the
ratification process and amend Section 19D.240 PCC, "Pierce County Countywide
Planning Policies ".
30. It is in the public interest to authorize the Pierce County Executive to execute the
interlocal agreements.
Exhibit C to Ordinance No. 2014 -17s
Page 3 of 3
Pierce County Courpii
930 Tacoma Ave S, Rm 1 4
Tacoma, WA 98402
of 65
o
Focav"�
00
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
Attachment C
Fife City Hall
www.cityoffife.org
5411 23rd Street East, Fife, WA 98424
Tel (253) 922 -2489 Fax (253) 922 -5355
PCRC
MEMORANDUM
May 15, 2014
Pierce County Regional Council
Chris Pasinetti, GMCC Chair
Ryan Windish, City of Sumner
Countywide Planning Policies (CPPs) for Urban Growth Area (UGA) Expansions -
Options
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The Pierce County Regional Council (PCRC) considered the T -1
2013 Pierce County Comprehensive Plan Amendment that would have amended the policies
and required a county -wide need for growth capacity prior to allowing an Urban Growth Area
expansion, rather than allowing for an individual jurisdiction to expand based on individual
capacity needs. The T -1 Amendment would have made the Comprehensive Plan consistent with
already adopted Countywide Planning Policies (CPPs) that require both a demonstrated need
for the individual jurisdiction and county -wide prior to expansion.
Some members of the PCRC were concerned with the fairness and appropriateness of limiting
individual jurisdictions ability to expand to meet a local need if there is capacity elsewhere in
the County. The PCRC did not take action on the T -1 Amendment and instead referred the
issue to the GMCC for consideration of amendments to the CPPs.
In this memo, the GMCC presents three options for consideration by the PCRC; each option
has its own legal risks and varying degrees of flexibility.
Option 1 retains the requirement for both an individual and county -wide showing of a need or
capacity prior to an expansion; however, it also allows for amendments that create "no net
gain" in capacity and land area. This allows for modifications to the UGA that may benefit an
individual jurisdiction, but doesn't allow for expansion of an oversized countywide UGA, unless
a companion amendment is being proposed to ensure no net gain in land area or capacity
(capacity and land neutral amendment). Option 1 also provides clarifying language to what is
meant by "demonstrated need" and "no net gain "; in terms that to one degree or another have
been debated at the Growth Management Hearings Board (GMHB).
Option 2 provides the most flexibility for individual jurisdictions but also contains the most
legal risk. This option allows for expansion of the UGA if individual or countywide capacity is
needed, and allows for an amendment to the UGA if there is no net gain in capacity or no net
gain in land area. Finally, Option 2 also allows, regardless of capacity, for expansion of the
UGA if 4 acres of open space is preserved for every 1 acre of expansion. Several GMHB cases
DI.A Page 36 of 65
are cited throughout this document that indicates the GMHB consistently denies UGA
expansions when there is excess countywide capacity.
Option 3 is the status quo and recommends no changes to the current policy. In this case, both
an individual and a countywide need for expansion must be shown and the terms
"demonstrated need" and "no net gain" would remain vague. This option likely poses the least
amount of immediate legal risk for an appeal as it is adopted language and appeal deadlines
have passed.
A number of pertinent GMHB cases and excerpts are referenced throughout the document in
an attempt to demonstrate to the PCRC the various levels of risks and the rationale and
decisions of the GMHB on various cases around the state related to expansion of UGAs and
growth capacity.
BACKGROUND: The existing Pierce County Countywide Planning Policies (CPPs) allow for
the expansion of the urban growth area if there is a demonstrated need for additional
residential or employment capacity within the urban growth area affiliated with an individual
jurisdiction and a demonstrated need county -wide. The existing policy was established
through the Vision 2040 Consistency amendment package, which was approved by the Pierce
County Regional Council (PCRC) at its April 21, 2011 meeting. This amendment package was
ratified by 6o percent of Pierce County jurisdictions representing 75 percent of the County's
population on June 26, 2012. The Vision 2040 consistency amendment package was certified
by the Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC) on September 27, 2012. This action taken by the
PSRC Executive Board certified the adopted Pierce County CPPs.
In October 2013, the PCRC directed the GMCC to analyze options for language in the CPPs
regarding the expansion of UGAs for individual cities and towns. This directive stemmed from
the PCRC discussion of the T -1 Text Amendment being considered for the Pierce County
Comprehensive Plan during the 2013 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Cycle for Pierce
County.
On April 3, 2014, the GMCC voted to move forward three options for consideration by the
PCRC, including two options that would amend the CPP criteria for UGA expansions and a
third option to leave the CPPs unchanged. The Options are presented in summary below and
analyzed in detail in this memo.
SUMMARY: The Growth Management Act (GMA, RCW 36.70A) contains laws governing the
sizing and location of an UGA. This law has been further clarified through GMHB decisions
and court decisions over the years.
Page 1 2 of 10
DI.A Page 37 of 65
The following is a summary of pertinent points in state law regarding sizing of UGAs:
Washington State law states, (RCW36.7oA.115)
"Comprehensive Plans and development regulations must provide sufficient land capacity for
development. Counties and cities that are required or choose to plan under RCW 36.70A.040
shall ensure that, taken collectively, adoption of and amendments to their comprehensive plans
and /or development regulations provide sufficient capacity of land suitable for development
within their jurisdictions to accommodate their allocated housing and employment growth,
including the accommodation of, as appropriate, the medical, governmental, educational,
institutional, commercial, and industrial facilities related to such growth, as adopted in the
applicable countywide planning policies and consistent with the twenty -year population
forecast from the office of financial management."
Washington State law states, (RCW36.7oA.11o(2)
RCW 36.7oA.11o(2) Based on the growth management population projection made for the
county by the office of financial management, the county and each city within the county shall
include areas and densities sufficient to permit the urban growth that is projected to occur in
the county or city for the succeeding twenty year period, except for those urban growth areas
contained exclusively within a national historical reserve. As part of this planning process, each
city within the county must include areas sufficient to accommodate the broad range of needs
and uses that will accompany the projected urban growth including, as appropriate, medical,
governmental, institutional, commercial, service, retail and other nonresidential uses.
Vision 2040, the multi- county planning policies, address urban growth areas and states,
"Counties must work with their cities to designate an urban growth area as the
primary location for growth and future development. All four counties in the
region designated such an urban growth area in the mid- 199os. Subsequently,
only relatively minor adjustments to the urban growth area have been made. The
Regional Growth Strategy was developed with the assumption that, with good
planning and efficient land use, existing urban growth area designations can
accommodate the population and employment growth expected by 2040. Any
adjustments to the urban growth area in the coming decades should continue to
be minor."
Vision 2040 further provides policies related to adjustment and amendments to the UGA and
state,
"MPP -DP -i: Provide a regional framework for the designation and adjustment of the
urban growth area to ensure long -term stability and sustainability of the urban growth
area consistent with the regional vision." (page 47, Vision 2040)
Page 1 3 of 10
DI.A Page 38 of 65
MPP- DP -31: Support the sustainability of designated resource lands. Do not convert
these lands to other uses." (page 56, Vision 2040)
In the Central Puget Sound GMHB case City of Snoqualmie v. King County, the board
discussed the meaning of whether GMA allows for an UGA expansion based on the need of
"each city" or the need "countywide ". The GMHB concluded:
RCW 36.7oA.115 provides that cities and counties must ensure that "taken
collectively" their comprehensive plans, development regulations, and
amendments "provide sufficient capacity of developable lands within their
jurisdictions" to accommodate projected growth.
In a parallel [SHB] 1825 amendment, the provision now specifies: "including, as
appropriate, the medical, governmental, educational, institutional, commercial,
and industrial facilities related to such growth."
RCW 36.7oA.215, the buildable lands section, requires King County and its cities
to monitor development patterns and take "reasonable measures" to ensure that
urban growth occurs in existing urban areas and avoid expansion of UGAs. The
buildable lands provisions already mandate consideration of sufficiency of
commercial lands by cities and counties and were not amended by SHB 1825.
RCW 36.7oA.13o(3) requires each county to periodically review its UGA
designations and permitted urban densities. Each city is required to review, not
the size of its UGA, but the "densities permitted within its boundaries." If more
capacity is needed to accommodate projected growth, both UGA and density
revisions must be considered. The UGA update provisions were not amended by
SHB 1825.
Taken together, the GMA's UGA provisions require each city to project its land
capacity for population and employment growth taking into consideration the
need for commercial, institutional and other facilities. The County and cities
must attempt to accommodate the projected growth, including non - residential
uses, in the existing urban area through density revisions or other "reasonable
measures." The County then adopts a UGA which may not be over -sized as a
whole."'
1 CPSGMHB City of Snoqualmie v. King County, Case No. 13 -3 -0002, FDO at 39 -40
Page 1 4 of 10
DI.A
Page 39 of 65
OPTION 1— See Exhibit 1
Option 1 proposes amendments to the CPPs that would:
• Require the adoption of the T -1 Text Amendment in order for the Pierce County
Comprehensive Plan to be consistent with the CPPs.
• Require the showing of a "demonstrated need" of insufficient capacity in the Buildable
Lands Report (BLR) or an updated evaluation using the same methodology as the BLR;
• Retain the requirement that capacity be shown to be insufficient in both the individual
jurisdiction and county -wide UGAs before expansion.
• Clarify that "no net gain" means no net gain in development capacity and no net gain in
land area within the UGA when expanded.
• Combines subpolicies 2.3.2 and 2.3.1 to more clearly connect the Buildable Lands
Report and consistency evaluation instead of maintaining them as separate policies.
The intent of Option 1 is to clarify certain policies in the CPPs that have the potential for
misinterpretation. This option would require the adoption of the T -1 Text Amendment in order
for the Pierce County Comprehensive Plan to be consistent with the CPPs. The proposed
language accomplishes this clarification through the least amount of change from existing
policy language and is considered to be the most legally defensible in light of GMHB decisions.
The GMHB has consistently found UGA amendments that allow for an increase in UGA
capacity beyond that which is needed for the next 20 years of growth to not be compliant with
the GMA. Exhibit 7 includes a summary list of hearings board cases from across the state.
Each number references a case that supports the proposed policy actions throughout this
document.
The existing CPP's regarding UGA expansion state,
"2.3.2 there is a demonstrated need for additional residential or employment capacity
within the urban growth area affiliated with an individual jurisdiction and a
demonstrated need county -wide; or the expansion result in no net gain to the
countywide UGA." (See Exhibit 3, the existing Countywide Planning Policies)
The current policies do not define what "no net gain to the countywide UGA" means. The policy
as written could mean no net gain in land area, or capacity, or both. The draft policy states in
part,
"2.3.3 no net gain in residential or employment capacity to the county -wide
UGA and no net gain in land area" (See Exhibit 1, the proposed
amendments to the CPP's [Option i])
This policy is supported by a number of hearings board cases. (Exhibit 7).
Page 1 5 of 10
DI.A Page 40 of 65
The proposed policies indicate that a jurisdiction who proposes expansion of its UGA would
first need to adopt reasonable measures and monitor those measures before proposing an
expansion of the UGA. This language currently exists within the CPPs, but the GMCC felt that
combining the language under section 2.3.1 would add clarity to the provision.
The existing Countywide Planning Policy states,
"2.3.3 the consistency evaluation, as required through the Countywide Planning
Policies on Buildable Lands, policies BL -3. and BL -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. "(See Exhibit 3, Existing CPPs)
The proposed policies state,
"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 RCW36.7oA.215. If the consistency
evaluation, as required through the Countywide Planning Policies on Buildable
Lands, policies BL -3. and BL -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; (See
Exhibit 1, the proposed amendments to the CPP's [Option i])
This policy is supported by a number of hearings board cases. (Exhibit 7, see case #5, #8,
and #9)
The proposed policies within Option 1 would still maintain the Regional Growth Strategy as
intended (see MPP -DP 1 & MPP- DP -31- Vision 204o) because any adjustments would still be
minor due to the current over -sized UGA.
Page 1 6 of 10
DI.A Page 41 of 65
The existing policy states,
"2.3.2 there is a demonstrated need for additional residential or employment capacity
within the urban growth area affiliated with an individual jurisdiction and a
demonstrated need county -wide; or the expansion results in a no net gain to the
countywide UGA. (See Exhibit 3, the existing Countywide Planning Policies)
The proposed policy states,
"2.3.2 the most recently published Buildable Lands Report, or an updated buildable
lands evaluation using the same methodology, demonstrates a need for additional
residential or employment capacity within the urban growth area affiliated with an
individual jurisdiction and the countywide UGA; or
2.3.3 no net gain in residential or employment capacity to the county -wide UGA and
no net gain in land area. (see Exhibit 1, Option i)
This policy amendment retains the need to clarify that a demonstrated need for additional
employment capacity within an urban growth area affiliated with an individual jurisdiction and
a need countywide would be necessary for an urban growth area expansion. The proposed
policy amendment would also require that there is no net gain in land area.
There have been other instances where the validity of individual capacity analysis has been
questioned. On September 16, 2010, the Washington State Department of Commerce sent a
letter to the Chair of the PCRC regarding the proposed amendments to the CPPs. In general,
the letter had concerns that the amendment would allow an individual jurisdiction to expand
an UGA based on a local need for residential or employment capacity. The letter referenced the
2008 State Supreme Court, in Thurston County v. W. Wash. Growth Mgmt.
"Hearings Bd. No. 80115 -1, held that changes to the size of individual growth
areas associated with single cities constitute a change to the size of the overall
county urban growth area. In the August 2, 2010 Growth Management Hearings
Board decision regarding 2009 Pierce County Comprehensive Plan amendments
(Case # 10 -3 -0003, North Clover Creek), the board was clear that UGA sizing for
residential, employment and other purposes was to be based on OFM projections
and not to be based on individually demonstrated need unless considered within
the context of countywide need for UGA expansion." (See Exhibit 4, letter
dated September 16, 2010 from the Department of Commerce)
The above referenced case also supports the policy changes provided in Option 1 to this
memorandum.
Page 1 7 of 10
DI.A Page 42 of 65
Both King and Snohomish Counties have similar language regarding expansion where a
countywide need is necessary for expansion. Exhibit 5 is the existing King County Countywide
Planning Policies includes language regarding the expansion of the UGA.
DP -16 Allow expansion of the Urban Growth Area only if at least one of the following
criteria is met:
a) A countywide analysis determines that the current Urban Growth Area is insufficient
in size and additional land is needed to accommodate the housing and
employment growth targets, including institutional and other non - residential uses,
and there are no other reasonable measures, such as increasing density or
rezoning existing urban land, that would avoid the need to expand the
Urban Growth Area; [etc] (emphasis added)
Exhibit 6 is the existing Countywide Planning Policies for Snohomish County include language
regarding the expansion of the UGA. DP -2 outlines when UGA expansions are only allowed
under certain circumstances.
In conclusion, the proposed policy amendments in Option 1 are consistent with the existing
CPPs. Option 1 adds clarity to the existing CPPs and is consistent with recent GHMB cases.
This option would not allow an individual city to receive an UGA expansion based on a local
need or desire without a Buildable Land Report documenting a need for additional housing or
employment capacity county -wide. This option would allow an UGA amendment or adjustment
if there is no increase in capacity or in land area.
Option 1 (the proposed updated policies in Exhibit 1) & Option 3 (existing policy in the CPPs in
Exhibit 3), in staffs opinion, present the least amount of legal risk for an appeal to the GMHB,
presuming that the County's Comprehensive Plan is consistent with the CPPs.
OPTION 2- See Exhibit 2
Option 2 proposes amendments to the CPPs that would:
• Not require the adoption of the T -1 Text Amendment in order for the Pierce County
Comprehensive Plan to be consistent with the CPPs.
• Clarify meaning of "demonstrated need" same as Option 1.
• Allows for an individual jurisdiction to expand their affiliated UGA regardless of an
oversized county -wide UGA.
• Clarify that "no net gain" means no net gain in development capacity or no net gain in
land area within the UGA.
• Create the option for setting aside open space at a ratio of 4 acres to every 1 acre of
allowed expansion regardless of oversized capacity.
• Combines subpolicies 2.3.2 and 2.3.1 the same as Option 1.
Page 1 8 of 10
DI.A Page 43 of 65
Option 2 (as does Option i)includes proposed policies indicating that a jurisdiction who
proposes expansion of its UGA would first need to adopt reasonable measures and monitor
those measures before proposing an expansion of the UGA. This language currently exists
within the CPPs, but the GMCC felt that combining the language under section 2.3.1 would add
clarity to the provision.
Option 2, while providing the most flexibility for individual jurisdictions, this option also
creates the greatest legal risk under GMA. As mentioned in Option 1, the GMHB has
consistently denied UGA amendments when there is an expansion that results in a net gain in
capacity when the county -wide UGA is already oversized. Excerpts from several cases before
the GMHB regarding UGA expansions, several regarding Pierce County specifically, concluded
that: 1) the County UGA is oversized based on the Buildable Lands Report (BLR) and; 2) any
amendment to the UGA must be size and capacity neutral, essentially a "no net gain" because
the UGA is oversized.
If the UGA is oversized or there is capacity elsewhere in the UGA, the GMHB has consistently
denied the expansion of UGAs based on economic needs such as expansions to accommodate
freeway interchange areas. The GMHB looks to whether there is capacity within the
jurisdiction or the UGA to accommodate this growth. The GMHB does not consider location of
this land in comparison to more marketable options proposed. It is simply a matter of capacity.
The GMHB reviews the capacity for such commercial or industrial growth within the
jurisdiction, and if it is concluded there is ample capacity the UGA amendment is denied. The
GMHB also looks into the current land use and zoning, as they did with Eatonville (see
Exhibit 7), and points out that instead of expanding the UGA the town should rezone
overcapacity residential areas for commercial or industrial uses, or implement some type of
"reasonable measure" like rezoning.
Furthermore, the GMHB consistently points to the BLR as the means for determining the
capacity of the UGA county -wide, and the analysis to be used for the periodic to -year update to
the County's Comprehensive Plan. There is allowance for updated land- capacity analysis to be
completed for individual UGA expansions, to show that the city requesting the UGA does not
have sufficient capacity. However, regardless of an individual need, the GMHB considers
whether there is a need county -wide for such growth.
Option 2 also proposes allowing an UGA expansion when permanent open space is preserved
at a ratio of 4 acres for every 1 acre of UGA expansion. This is essentially the same policy as
adopted in the King County CPPs. An earlier version of this policy was challenged in 1995 and
upheld by the GMHB as compliant with GMA because it was innovative and accomplished
other goals of GMA, such as the creation of open space corridors between rural and urban
lands (RCW 36.7oA.16o). The GMHB upheld challenges to the 4 to 1 policy because it was
restrictive enough to prevent abuse and promoted goals of GMA. However, the proposed policy
Page 1 9 of 10
DI.A Page 44 of 65
in Option 2 is different than the 1995 case upheld by the Board in two ways: 1) it does not have
a maximum size limit and 2) it is not limited to residential expansion. While this option allows
the most flexibility, without these added restrictions this policy may not comply with GMA.
There are several excerpts from GMHB decisions regarding UGA expansions and use of the
BLR. (See Exhibit 7: #1, #2, #6, #7, #8 and #9).
OPTION 3- See Exhibit 3
Option 3 proposes no changes to the current CPPs and:
• Requires the adoption of the T -1 Text Amendment in order for the Pierce County
Comprehensive Plan to be consistent with the CPPs.
• Would not clarify the relationship between the Buildable Lands Report and the
consistency evaluation.
• Would not clarify the meaning of "demonstrated need" thereby retaining options for
how a jurisdiction may attempt to demonstrate need for expansion without regard to
capacity.
• Would not clarify the meaning of "no net gain" and thereby leave open for interpretation
by the GMHB or court whether it means capacity or land area or both.
Option 3 would retain current language requiring both the individual UGA and the countywide
UGA to show a need for capacity prior to expansion. This option also creates the least legal risk
under GMA. Option 3 would not contain certain clarifications regarding the definition of
"demonstrated need" and "no net gain" thereby leaving these terms up for interpretation at the
time of application and potential legal challenge. For instance, "demonstrated need" could be
interpreted to mean a "market demand" basically arguing that the UGA needs to be expanded
to meet the need of certain commercial real estate markets. Also, "no net gain" in the county-
wide UGA could be interpreted to mean no net gain in capacity or no net gain in land area or
both. Based on previous discussion regarding Options 1 and Options 2, and the excerpts from
the various GMHB cases provided in Exhibit 7, it is apparent that these terms have been left up
to interpretation by jurisdictions and further clarified through the GMHB decisions. For
instance, reference #5 and #6 both provide a GMHB discussion of how a market study does not
justify a UGA expansion when there is ample land within a jurisdiction's UGA for commercial
uses.
With the information provided within this memo, the GMCC has provided the PCRC options
for amendments the Countywide Planning Policies (CPPs).
EXHIBITS:
Exhibit 1— Option 1— Proposed Amendments to the CPPs
Page 1 10 of 10
DI.A Page 45 of 65
Exhibit 2— Option 2 — Proposed Amendments to the CPPs
Exhibit 3 — Existing CPPs- Amendments and Transition
Exhibit 4 — Letter from the Department of Commerce dated September 16, 2010
Exhibit 5 — Existing King County CPPs
Exhibit 6 — Existing Snohomish County CPPs
Exhibit 7 — List of summary GMHB Cases
GMCC RECOMMENDATION: On March 13, 2014 the GMCC made their recommendation
to the PCRC. The recommendation was to provide Options to the PCRC for CPP amendments
with an analysis of effects of potential amendments and in light of various GMHB cases.
RECOMMENDATION: The PCRC move to:
A. Approve Option 1 as shown in Exhibit 1; OR
B. Approve Option 2 as shown in Exhibit 3; OR
C. Do not approve any amendments to the Countywide Planning Policies.
Page 1 11 of 10
DI.A Page 46 of 65
Underlined is new proposed language
Strikcthrough is removed language
EXHIBIT 1
OPTION 1
DRAFT - -CPPs
CPPs -- Amendments and Transition
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 Conti &uous and Orderly
Development and Provision of Urban Servico ® to Su ®®® evelopmen
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 Gro th Area b daries shall include:
2.2.1 a map indicating the existing urban growth area boundary and the
proposed boundary modification;
c2.2.2 a statement indicating how, and the extent to which, the proposed
boundary modification complies with each of the factors listed in
subpolicies 2.2, 2.3, 2.4 and 2.5 and-276 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 can only 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.215. If the
consistency evaluation, as required through the Countywide Planning
Policies on Buildable Lands, policies BL -3. and BL -4., identifies an
DI.A Page 47 of 65
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; and
2.3.2 the most recently published Buildable Lands Report, or an updated
buildable lands evaluation using the same methodology, demonstrates a
need for additional residential or employment capacity within the urban
growth area affiliated with a Linn dividual jur iction and the countywide
UGA; or
2.3.3 no net gain in residenti e!- mployment capacity e county -wide UGA
and no net gain in land are
2.3.5 the consistency evaluation, as required through the Count ide Planning
Policies on Buildable Lands, policie
1) demonstrate reasonable measures were adopted to rectify the
inconsistcncics. Documentation shall also be submitted that summarizes
the monitoring results of the effectiveness of the measures in rectifying
density inconsistcncics, or
2) document updated dcvclopmcnt data that indicates consistency.
o ensure the orderly development of urban lands, predictability in the provision
urban services, and the eventual annexation of urban growth areas, Pierce
ty may incorporate criteria into its comprehensive plan policies for
evaluating amendments proposing to remove properties from the urban growth
area. The criteria should, at a minimum, include the existing dcvclopmcnt pattern
and density, vested development applications, and infrastructure and service
needs to accommodate the existing and future residents. In general, any lands
proposed to be removed from the urban growth area shall be rural in character and
not require any urban level infrastructure or service needs.
2.5 a proposed amendment to the Urban Growth Area boundaries shall be referred to
the PCRC for its review and recommendation.
DI.A Page 48 of 65
Underlined is new proposed language
Strikethrough is removed language
EXHIBIT 2
OPTION 2
DRAFT - -CPPs
CPPs -- Amendments and Transition
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 Ar were originally adopted and
pursuant to subpolicies UGA -1 and UG 2 of the "Count i e Planning Policy on Urban
Growth Areas, Promotion of Contiguou d Orderly Develop and Provision of Urban
Services to Such Development."
2.1 An amendment to Urba
municipality in the Coun
th Area bo daries may be initiated the County or any
2.2 A proposed amendment to Urban Growth Area boundaries shall include:
2.2.1 a A4ap indicating the existing urban growth area boundary and the proposed
boundary modification; f
•
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, 2.3, 2.4
and 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 e existing Urban Growth Area boundaries that have prompted the proposed
amendment.
2.3 The urban growth area of a jurisdiction may be can only be expanded e1y 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.215. If the consistency evaluation, as
required through the Countywide Planning Policies on Buildable Lands, policies
BL -3. and BL -4., identifies an inconsistency between the observed and planned
densities, the jurisdiction shall either:
DI.A Page 49 of 65
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; and
2.3.2 the most recently published Buildable Lands Report, or an updated buildable
lands evaluation using the same methodology, demonstrates a need for additional
residential or employment capacity within ban growth area affiliated with an
individual jurisdiction and or the county GA; or
2.3.3 no net gain in residential or employment capacy to the county -wide UGA or no
net gain in land area; or
2.3.4 an urban growth area expansion by any city or tow accompanied by dedication
of permanent open space to Pierce County, where the acreage of the proposed
open space:
1) is at least four times the acreage of the land added to the UGA;
2) is contiguous with the UGA with at least a portion of the dedicated open space
surrounding the proposed UGA expansion.
3) Preserves high quality habitat, critical areas, or unique features that contribute to the band of
permanent open space alone the edge of the UGA.
2.3.5 the consistency evaluation, as required through the Countywide Planning Policies
1) demonstrate reasonable measures were adopted to rectify the inconsistencies.
Documentation shall also be submitted that summarizes the monitoring results of
2) document updated dcvclopmcnt data that indicates consistency.
2.4 to ensure the o ®log development of urban lands, predictability in the provision of urban
services, and the eventual annexation of urban growth areas, Pierce County may
incorporate criteria into its comprehensive plan policies for evaluating amendments
proposing to remove properties from the urban growth area. The criteria should, at a
minimum, include the existing dcvclopmcnt pattern and density, vested dcvclopmcnt
applications, and infrastructure and service needs to accommodate the existing and future
residents. In general, any lands proposed to be removed from the urban growth area shall
be rural in character and not require any urban level infrastructure or service needs.
DI.A Page 50 of 65
2.5 a proposed amendment to the Urban Growth Area boundaries shall be referred to the
PCRC for its review and recommendation.
DI.A Page 51 of 65
EXHIBIT 3
CPPs -- Amendments and Transition (Current)
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.215, and
2.3.2 there is a demonstrated need for additional residential or employment
capacity within the urban growth area affiliated with an individual
jurisdiction and a demonstrated need county -wide; or the expansion results
in a no net gain to the countywide UGA.
2.3.3 the consistency evaluation, as required through the Countywide Planning
Policies on Buildable Lands, policies BL -3. and BL -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.
DI.A Page 52 of 65
2.4 To ensure the orderly development of urban lands, predictability in the provision
of urban services, and the eventual annexation of urban growth areas, Pierce
County may incorporate criteria into its comprehensive plan policies for
evaluating amendments proposing to remove properties from the urban growth
area. The criteria should, at a minimum, include the existing development pattern
and density, vested development applications, and infrastructure and service
needs to accommodate the existing and future residents. In general, any lands
proposed to be removed from the urban growth area shall be rural in character and
not require any urban level infrastructure or service needs.
2.5 A proposed amendment to the Urban Growth Area boundaries shall be referred
to the PCRC for its review and recommendation.
DI.A Page 53 of 65
STATE OF WASHINGTON
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
128 — 10th Avenue SW • PO Box 42525. Olympia, Washington 98504 -2525 • (360) 725 -4000
www.commerce.wa.gov
September 16, 2010
Bobbi Allison
Chair, Pierce County Regional Council
2401 South 35th St. Rm. 228
Tacoma, WA 98409
Dear Ms. Allison:
Thank you for sending the Washington State Department of Commerce the proposed
amendments to the Pierce County Countywide Planning Policies. We received the final
transmittal from the Piece County Regional Council (PCRC) on September 9, 2010. We
recognize the substantial investment of time, energy, and resources of all the local governments
represented by the PCRC, and we appreciate the opportunity to comment.
We especially like that the PCRC has worked to update the countywide planning policies, and is
incorporating language from Vision 2040 and addressing emerging issues such as community
design, health, and climate change The proposed policies also support a center -based approach
to prioritizing urban growth and infrastructure which should provide opportunities for
multimodal transportation, a range of housing types and efficient use of infrastructure
investments.
We are concerned about proposed Policy 2.3.2 in the Amendments and Transitions section of the
Pierce County Countywide Planning Policies which allows for the expansion of the urban growth
areas affiliated with an individual jurisdiction if there is a demonstrated local need for additional
residential or employment capacity. We are concerned that this is inconsistent with the
requirements of the Growth Management Act and with recent court and growth management
hearings board cases.
RCW 36.70A.110 is clear that the county is to designate an urban growth area or areas (UGA)
for the entire county, sized to accommodate the countywide population projection from the
Washington State Office of Financial Management (OFM) for the succeeding twenty -year
period. This statute requires that the countywide urban growth areas are sized to accommodate
DI.A Page 54 of 65
the residential, employment, and other needs associated with the countywide population
projection. The requirement for countywide sizing of urban growth areas was a topic in two
recent legal cases.
The 2008 State Supreme Court, in Thurston County v. W. Wash. Growth Mgmt. Hearings Bd.
No. 80115 -1, held that changes to the size of individual growth areas associated with single cities
constitute a change to the size of the overall county urban growth area. In the August 2, 2010
Growth Management Hearings Board decision regarding 2009 Pierce County Comprehensive
Plan amendments (Case # 10 -3 -0003, North Clover Creek), the board was clear that UGA sizing
for residential, employment and other purposes was to be based on OFM projections and not to
be based on individually demonstrated need unless considered within the context of countywide
need for UGA expansion. Commerce's WAC 365- 196- 310(3)(e) also recommends that
piecemeal changes to an individual UGA have county -wide implications, and should not be
made unless part of a comprehensive review of the countywide UGA.
The statute, the WAC, and these court and hearing board cases provide clear direction to the
PCRC regarding the appropriateness of this policy language. We recommend that this policy be
revised before adoption to state that the urban growth area of a jurisdiction may be expanded
only if there is both a locally demonstrated need for additional residential or employment
capacity and a demonstrated need county -wide.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on these proposed amendments. If you have any
questions or concerns about these comments, please contact me at (360) 725 -3064 or
Anne.Fritzel @commerce.wa.gov. We extend our continued support to Pierce County and all of
her cities and towns in achieving the goals of growth management.
Sincerely,
Anne Aurelia Fritzel
Growth Management Planner
Growth Management Services
cc: Dan Cardwell, Pierce County Planning and Land Services
Leonard Bauer, Managing Director, Growth Management Services, Commerce
Ike Nwankwo, Financial & Technical Assistance Manager, Growth Management Services
Norm Abbot, Director of Growth Management Planning, Puget Sound Regional Council
Jeff Storrar, Growth Management Planner, Puget Sound Regional Council
DI.A Page 55 of 65
Attachment D
EXHIBIT 7
Washington State law states, (RCW36.7oA.115)
"Comprehensive Plans and development regulations must
provide sufficient land capacity for development.
Counties and cities that are required or choose to plan under
RCW 36.7oA.o4o shall ensure that, taken collectively, adoption of and
amendments to their comprehensive plans and /or development
regulations provide sufficient capacity of land suitable for development
within their jurisdictions to accommodate their allocated housing and
employment growth, including the accommodation of, as appropriate, the
medical, governmental, educational, institutional, commercial, and
industrial facilities related to such growth, as adopted in the applicable
countywide planning policies and consistent with the twenty -year
population forecast from the office of financial management."
1. "An adjustment to UGAs must be done by the County through the
County Council, supported by a county -wide land capacity analysis.
UGA expansions cannot be unilaterally done by community
advisory groups, nor ... by cities — these decisions are made by the
County from a county -wide perspective. [Bonney Lake, o5- 3- oo16c,
FDO, at 34.11
2. It is true that urban growth must be assessed on a countywide basis,
rather than on a UGA by UGA basis since urban growth is allocated
for the county as a whole. Skagit County Growthwatch v. Skagit
County, Case NO. 07 -2 -0002, FDO at 34 (Aug. 6, 2007) 2
3. The size of any UGA must be based upon the projected population
growth allocated to that UGA. Since the supply of urban residential
lands (18,789 acres) significantly exceeds the projected demand for
such lands over the course of the 20 -year planning horizon (11,582
acres), the County's UGAs fail to comply with RCW 36.70A.110.
woo Friends v. Thurston County, WWGMHB Case No. 05 -2 -0002
(FDO, 7- 20- 05). "3
4. "Under the GMA, urban growth areas may not be expanded unless
there is a need for additional capacity, based on the state Office of
Financial Management (OFM) population projections, patterns of
development, and other similar factors identified in 36.70A.110.
The purpose of a land capacity analysis is to provide the
information necessary to determine whether there is a need to
http: / /www.gmhb.wa.gov/ Documents / Digest _CPS_1992 -2010_ Edition_012.pdf
2 http:// www .gmhb.wa.gov/Documents/Digest WW 2010 -06 -30 FinalEdition.pdf
http:// www .gmhb.wa.gov/Documents/Digest WW 2010 -06 -30 FinalEdition.pdf
DI.A Page 56 of 65
expand an UGA. In the absence of a land capacity analysis, there is
no demonstration of need and expansion is not justified. Kittitas
Conservation v. Kittitas County, EWGMHB Case No. 07- 1- 0004c,
FDO, at 76 (Aug. 20, 2007). "4
5. "The County's CPP, allowing an individual UGA to be potentially
expanded for economic development purposes to adjacent land that
had previously been designated as resource lands, is permissible if a
need for additional commercial or industrial land within the UGA is
demonstrated in a land capacity analysis and if reasonable
measures have been taken." (CTED, 03- 3- 0017, FDO, at 39.)5
6. A UGA must provide for sufficient area and densities to
accommodate the urban growth that is projected for the succeeding
20 -year period. RCW 36.7oA.11o(2). This subsection specifically
contemplates that UGA boundaries may expand over time as
necessary to meet population projections, imposing another
limitation on their expansion. Counties must review, and if
necessary, revise their UGAs at least every ten years to
accommodate urban growth projected for the succeeding 20- years.
RCW 36.7oA.13o(3). A county -wide land capacity analysis must
accompany these statutorily mandated periodic revisions of UGAs.
(Citations omitted.) [Bremerton II, Case No. 04- 3 -009c, FDO, at
34.]
7. County Response at 31, citing Vashon -Maury v. King Co.,
CPSGMHB Case No. 95 -3 -0008, Final Decision and Order (Oct. 23,
1995), at 45 -46 ( "King County's Four to One Program is the type of
innovative land use management technique that the Act
encourages. It therefore complies with the Act. ")
8. In recognition of excess UGA capacity, the County has adopted
Comprehensive Plan policies to forestall further urban sprawl
[allowing companion applications to remove and add land to the
UGA.] The [subarea] plan also has policies allowing UGA boundary
adjustments while preventing sprawl [allowing a `land swap' so long
as there is no net loss of rural separator land.] The Amendment
with companion applications makes a size - neutral and capacity -
neutral boundary adjustment. [North Clover Creek, 10- 3- 0003c,
FDO (8 -2 -10) at 15.]
9. The Board finds that Pierce County by Amendment U -5 has
expanded the Eatonville UGA without evidence in the record
establishing additional urban land is necessary to accommodate the
4 http: / /www.gmhb.wa.gov/ Documents / Digest _EW_2010- 06- 30_FinalFdition.pdf
5 http: / /www.gmhb.wa.gov/ Documents/ Digest _CPS_1992- 2010_Fdition_012.pdf
DI.A Page 57 of 65
County's adopted OFM 20 -year population projection with
associated uses. Pierce County has more than enough capacity in its
UGA county -wide (and in Eatonville, specifically) to accommodate
the OFM projected residential population and associated non-
residential uses. No further UGA expansion can be allowed, without
a new land capacity analysis or population allocation. [WWGMHB,
Case No. 04 -2 -0022, FDO (May 2005)]
10. [The UGA sizing criterion of RCW 36.70A.110 a land capacity
analysis must be done.] Neither the County nor Intervenor
indicates that a revised land capacity analysis supporting the need
for a commercial /industrial UGA expansion has been conducted.
Intervenor even acknowledges that the existing land capacity
analysis may not have supported expansion. CTED correctly argues
that there is nothing in the County's recent Buildable Lands Report
that supports the expansion of the Arlington UGA for commercial
or industrial uses to include the Island Crossing area. The County
does not dispute this assertion. [woo Friends, 03- 3- 0019c, FDO, at
36.]
11. See UGA Expansion Issue starting on page 29 - "Snoqualmie
asserts the 2009 amendments in SHB 1825 require King County to
amend its criteria for considering UGA expansions. Rather than
solely a county -wide assessment of adequacy of urban lands based
on population and employment targets, Snoqualmie contends the
County is now required to respond to individual city analyses of
land capacity for "the broad range of needs and uses" that
accompany such growth.... The County argues the fundamental
GMA principles of coordinating growth and reducing sprawl would
be undermined by Snoqualmie's reading of SHB 1825 to allow each
city to decide unilaterally to expand the UGA for whatever non-
residential uses it wants to... The Board concludes, under this
analysis, King County cannot review a city request for UGA
expansion, however modest, in isolation from a "county -wide
analysis. "... RCW 36.70A.130(3) requires each county to
periodically review its UGA designations and permitted urban
densities. Each city is required to review, not the size of its UGA,
but the "densities permitted within its boundaries." [City of
Snoqualmie v King County, Case No. 13 -3 -0002]
12. Just as RCW 36.7oA.110 requires a land capacity analysis for
counties in designating UGAs, it compels a land capacity analysis
for cities [cities with and without unincorporated urban areas
adjacent to their city limits] to ensure they can accommodate newly
projected growth allocations. The required land capacity analysis in
.110 is also reflected in .130, for Plan Updates, again, to assure that
the latest projected growth can be accommodated. This supporting
DI.A Page 58 of 65
documentation is required to enable cities and counties to discharge
their respective duties to accommodate projected growth. There is a
sound and logical link between the BLR's assessment of past
activities, or periodic "check -in" and the land capacity analysis
evaluation of accommodating growth. The information derived
from the BLR should provide the basis for modifying planning
assumptions, policies and designations and testing them against
future land capacity analysis to determine whether jurisdictions
have the capacity to accommodate newly assigned growth within
their jurisdictions. [Strahm, 05 -3 -0042, FDO, at 11.]
13. Several post -SHB 1825 Board decisions have wrestled with
the question of whether land that has better characteristics for a
desired economic purpose can be added to a UGA which is already
oversized. In Brodeur v. Benton County the Eastern Board found
noncompliant a proposed commercial /retail UGA extension that
would link the City of West Richland to a potential freeway
interchange. The Board found no support in the record that
additional commercial land was needed when the existing UGA
contained hundreds of acres of vacant and under - developed land.
In Kittitas County Conservation v. Kittitas County, the Eastern
Board found a proposed commercial extension of the UGA to link to
the interstate and accommodate big -box stores was not supported
in the record, where ample vacant commercial land was already
available in the UGA. In DCCRG v. Douglas County the Eastern
Board rejected and remanded the County "s expansion of the UGA
to include 84 additional acres for commercial use. [City of
Snoqualmie v. King County, Case No. 13 -3 -0002, FDO, at 54 -55]
DI.A Page 59 of 65
C=ITY or
AUBURN
\VASH E NGTo
Agenda Subject:
PCDC Status Matrix
Department:
Community Development
and Public Works
AGENDA BILL APPROVAL FORM
Attachments:
PCDC Status M atrix
Administrative Recommendation:
For discussion only.
Background Summary:
Reviewed by Council Committees:
Councilmember: Holman
Meeting Date: September 8, 2014
Date:
September 4, 2014
Budget Impact:
$0
Staff: Tate
Item Number: DI.D
DI.D AUBURN * MORE THAN YOU IMAGINED
Page 60 of 65
PCDC Work Plan Matrix — September 8, 2014
LAND USE CODES /POLICIES
Comments
marijuana to full Council for approval. At the 9/2/14 City Council meeting, the
Council adopted Ordinance No. 6525.
Staff to develop a work plan as part of the overall comprehensive plan updates.
meeting. At the 9/3/14 Planning Commission meeting, the Commission
expressed support to bring forward the amendments to increase the short plat
September 3, 2014 meeting, the Commission is supportive of the amendments 1
Staff will formulate a strategy action plan and bring back to Committee as part of
the overall comprehensive plan update.
Code concepts and ideas to be developed based on Council retreat direction
and linked to the overall comprehensive plan update.
Funding options and ideas to construct and install the remaining 6 pedestrian
kiosks downtown. Staff is moving forward with the project ideas presented at
the 3 -7 -14 PCDC meeting and will look for other funding opportunities with the
City Council for the upcoming 2015 -2016 two year budget cycle.
Staff /Council
Lead
cn
a)
c
o
Chamberlain
a) o
as
I-
Chamberlain
Chamberlain
Chamberlain
Chamberlain
Next on PCD
D
N
0
September
-4-
N
N
0
I-
Topic /Issue
Code Amendments
• Marijuana /Cannabis
• Healthcare District Overlay
• Short Plat Threshold
• FAR (Floor Area Ratio) with
DUC zone
Historic Preservation Strategies
Strategy Areas for
Population /Business /Employment
Pedestrian Kiosks
0
0
0
0
Please Note: New additions underlined, deletions removed.
Page 61 of 65
Comments
PARKS, ARTS & RECREATION
Discussion of the Auburn Avenue Theater.
COMMUNITY SERVICES DIVISION
PCDC requested an update at a future meeting; briefing to be scheduled.
Updates provided as needed or requested.
Community Services to give annual updates.
BOARDS, COMMISSIONS & HEARING EXAMINER
On 12/09/13 the Arts Commission provided a presentation updating PCDC of
their 2013 plans and activities and will return for an update in 2014.
The Human Services Committee provided a 2013 update before PCDC on
01- 27 -14. The Human Services Committee is scheduled to present a 2014
update in 12 -2014.
The Hearing Examiner attended PCDC to present an annual briefing on
11/12/13. The next briefing is scheduled for fall of 2014.
Annual update occurred 7 -22 -13 with PCDC; the next update will take place
September 8, 2014.
The Committee held a Joint Meeting with the Planning Commission on 3/18/14.
The next joint meeting will be in September, 2014.
Annual update occurred on 5 -28 -13 with PCDC.
Staff /Council
Lead
Faber
Hursh
Hursh
Hursh
Faber
Hursh
C
O
X_
0
Faber
Chamberlain
Thordarson
Next on PCD
kienuer
0
Co
1—
Ongoing
0
co
1—
December
2014
December
2014
Fall 2014
September
September
Summer 2014
Topic /Issue
Theater Lease
Building Community
Human Services Center
Unify communities through
centralized communication and
outreach
Arts Commission
Human Services Committee
Hearing Examiner
Parks & Recreation Board
Planning Commission
Transportation, Transit, and Trails
L)
O
(o
O
N.
O
00
O
0)
O
CD
N
Cr)
cr
Page 62 of 65
Comments
Annual update occurred 10 -28 -13 with PCDC.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN /CAPITAL FACILITIES PLANNING (Long Range Planning)
Major update of the comprehensive plan for the next 20 years +;
Community visioning meetings were held the week of March 11 -13 and March
18 -20 with grocery store intercept events held April 7 -9. Report back to the
community of the vision themes was held May 21St. The draft report was
presented at the June 30th COW meeting and has now been finalized. Copies
will be shared with the City Council.
Update to the three utility comprehensive plans as the City updates its
comprehensive plan. Joint PCDC and PWC meeting held on June 2nd to review
the draft policies for the three utility comprehensive plans.
Comprehensive Transportation Plan Update in concert with the comprehensive
plan update project.
Major update of the comprehensive plan. Now that Imagine Auburn is
complete, staff is working through updating the various elements of the
comprehensive plan. Anticipate a working draft available late Fall 2014.
Resolution No. 5075, the 2015 -2020 Transportation Improvement Program
(TIP) was approved on 6 -16 -14 by City Council.
Staff /Council
Lead
Faber
Chamberlain
Chamberlain
Public Works
L
as
LL
Chamberlain
L
as
LL
Next on PCD
Fall 2014
co
I—
0
0
0
0
co
Topic /Issue
Urban Tree Board
Major Comprehensive Plan
Update
• Visioning for the major update
• Water, Sewer, Storm
Scope: Update to the Water,
Sewer, and Storm
Comprehensive Plans in concert
with the Comprehensive Plan
Update project.
• Transportation Planning
Scope: Long -term planning for
the interrelationship between
land use and transportation
infrastructure.
• Update the Elements of the
Comprehensive Plan
Transportation Improvement
Program (TIP)
Scope: 6 -year TIP that is
updated annually identifying
transportation related capital
projects
N—
r
r
Page 63 of 65
0
N
CO
_c)
EP
'a)
VJ
Comments
Update annually as needed as part of the comprehensive plan update process.
City Council adopted Ordinance No. 6489, the 2013 Comprehensive Plan
Amendments at the 12 -2 -13 City Council meeting.
Committee discussion on impact fees and calculations.
UPDATES AND BRIEFINGS
An Economic Development update was provided to the Committee on 4- 14 -14,
future briefings will be provided as needed.
Staff to stay in touch with Planning Dept. and keep coordination &
communication open with Tribe. The City met with the Muckleshoot Tribe on
11- 19 -13.
The Auburn Downtown Association provided an update at the 04 -14 -14 meeting
and will return in the spring of 2015 for their annual update.
City tracking potential station stops expansion study by Amtrak. Public Works
staff provided an update at the Committee's 3 -25 -13 meeting, the WSDOT
station stop expansion feasibility study is expected to be complete in June,
2013. Council passed Resolution No. 4949 supporting an Amtrak stop in
Auburn.
LGCC to provide a briefing as needed.
Stream and wetland restoration activities are ongoing.
Staff /Council
Lead
Finance
Tate/
Chamberlain
Mayor
a)
rs
c-
Chamberlain
Mayor Backus
Wagner
Andersen
Next on PCD
as
c
'0
0
0
1-
0
1- 1-
0
1-
Spring
2015
0
1-
0
Spring 2015
Topic /Issue
Capital Facilities Plan
Scope: 6 -year capital facilities
plan for the City's public
facilities /utilities
Fee discussions
Economic Development Updates
Muckleshoot Tribe
The ADA
Amtrak
Les Gove Community Campus
Auburn Environmental Park
co
0)
N
N
N
N co
N
N
Page 64 of 65
Comments
CRS: Staff is evaluating the 2013 changes to the CRS program requirements
and developing policy options for the Committee to consider for City's future
approach to CRS participation. FEMA on -site audit of the City's CRS Program
is scheduled for November 6, 2014.
NFIP -ESA: City has received notice that FEMA's model floodplain ordinance
has been revised and new City regulations must be adopted and submitted to
FEMA. Staff is preparing amendments to the City's regulations to meet this
requirement.
CP0746: Mill Creek Wetland 5K Restoration — Final design has been
Resolution No. 5031, the Comprehensive Downtown Parking Management Plan
was adopted by City Council on 2 -3 -14. The parking permit program will be
blended into the CDPMP. Staff will provide monthly briefings on the
development and implementation of parking management strategies.
Ordinance No. 6477 was adopted by City council on 9 -3 -13. Staff provided an
update at the 6/09/14 meeting. The City Council passed a one -year moratorium
on 6 -16 -14 to look at the regulations that were adopted back in September.
Now that the new regulations have been implements for about nine months, the
City is evaluating whether additional code modifications are needed. Staff
reviewed several policy questions with PCDC at their July 14, 2014 meeting.
Staff anticipates taking a discussion forward to Planning Commission in
September 2014.
Staff /Council
Lead
a)
L
73
c
Q
a
L
73
c
Q
Chamberlain/
Yao
c
as
L
E L
as
_c
0
Next on PCD
0
,Lc)
(n N
September
0
1-
Topic /Issue
Floodplain programs — NFIP and
CRS
c
O
L
O
Na)
N
Ts
y-+
a)
E N
c - .i
O U
L_ a)
i Q
c ^L
W LL
Downtown Parking
Management Plan
Communal Residences
co
I--
N
N
Page 65 of 65