Staff Report for the 2010 Countywide Planning Policy Update

Transcription

1 Staff Report for the 2010 Countywide Planning Policy Update Snohomish County Tomorrow As prepared by the Planning Advisory Committee

2 Contents Introduction... 3 Relationship of CPPs to State Law and MPPs... 3 Table 1 -- Alignment of Countywide Planning Policies to Outside Requirements... 5 Process and Guiding Principles... 6 Changes to the Policy Landscape... 6 What s New CPP Document Highlights... 7 Reorganization of the CPPs to Better Align with the Vision 2040 Multicounty Planning Policies... 7 How to read these Goals and Policies... 7 Stronger and Broader Ties Between Transportation and Other Policies... 8 More Emphasis on Economic Development... 8 Concentration on Centers and Multimodal Transportation... 9 UGA/MUGA Boundary Issues... 9 Stronger Emphasis on Jobs-to-Housing Balance Sustainability Specific Issues for Discussion Local Vision for Snohomish County Proposed Formatting of the CPPs Process Issues Implementation Program Response to MPPs That Go Beyond GMA Requirements Growth Targets Fiscal Considerations Service Provision Fair Share Housing Allocations Maps in the CPPs Rural/Urban Transition Area Stakeholder Input Community Advisory Board comments: Master Builders Association (MBA) Comments Futurewise/Pilchuck Audubon Comments Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC) Comments Department of Commerce comments Department of Transportation Comments Dissenting Views and Abstentions Introduction Central Principles and Framework Policies Development Patterns Housing Economic Development and Employment Transportation The Natural Environment Public Services and Facilities Appendices Page 2 of 49

3 Introduction The proposed 2010 update to the Countywide Planning Policies (CPPs) is the most comprehensive attempt at updating of the CPPs since their creation. It was undertaken for three reasons: 1. To align with new Multicounty Planning Policies (MPPs) in Vision 2040, 2. To comply with updates to state law, and 3. A desire to improve coordination of local planning. While many of the proposed revisions are minor to improve consistency, organization, and clarity there are also proposals to add entirely new sections and major new policies. These policies, if adopted, will provide important direction for the next round of updates to local jurisdictions Growth Management Comprehensive Plans. Relationship of CPPs to State Law and MPPs CPPs are a requirement of the Growth Management Act (GMA), specifically RCW 36.70A.210. They must be consistent with both State Law and the Multicounty Planning Policies (MPPs) in Vision Consistency with means that the CPPs must be free of conflicts or contradictions to GMA and MPPs. The minimum requirements for CPPs are established by RCW 36.70A.210(3). RCW 36.70A.210 requires the CPPs to include policies that: Implement Urban Growth Areas (UGAs) (210(3)(a)) Promote the contiguous and orderly development and provision of urban services to UGAs (210(3)(b)) Provide for the siting of public capital facilities (210(3)(c)) Address transportation facilities and strategies (210(3)(d)) Consider the need for affordable housing (210(3)(e)) Provide for joint county and city planning in UGAs (210(3)(f)) Provide for countywide economic development and employment, including consideration of future commercial and industrial facilities (210(3)(g)) Include an analysis of the fiscal impact (of the CPPs) (210(3)(h)) Further, because Snohomish County is a buildable lands county, GMA also requires CPPs to include policies establishing a process to establish a review and evaluation program (the Buildable Lands Report) (RCW 36.70A.215(1)). While it is not a requirement that the CPPs respond directly to every MPP, the proposed CPPs do in fact respond to most of the MPPs including adding an entirely new CPP The Natural Environment chapter to coincide to Vision 2040 s all-new environment MPPs. However, some Page 3 of 49

4 MPPs do not provide directives for GMA comprehensive plans and thus are not addressed by a CPP. Finally, in many cases, GMA topic areas overlap with the categories of MPPs. In those cases, a single CPP can address both a GMA requirement and a MPP policy. The PAC recommends a number of changes to the CPPs to improve compliance with state law. In this context, state law requirements are applied broadly. For instance, there are proposals to revise land use and transportation CPPs to promote walking and bicycling. This is a response to a 2005 amendment to the GMA calling for local plans to promote physical activity. Similarly, some proposed policy revisions are in response to Washington State Growth Management Hearings Board decisions, such as revisions regarding the siting of essential public facilities to comply with a recent Board decision. Many of the proposals to revise the CPP are in response to the MPPs, including the reorganization of the CPPs. The proposal submitted by the PAC combines three existing CPP chapters Urban Growth Areas, Orderly Development, and Rural Lands into one chapter titled Development Patterns. This chapter thus becomes a direct response to a chapter of the same title in Vision There also is a new CPP chapter, The Natural Environment that was created because Vision 2040 has a category of MPPs called Environment. Beyond these broad organizational changes, the intent of many of the specific proposals to revise or add policies is to respond to individual MPPs. Table 1 on the next page shows the basic alignment of policy chapters in the CPPs to outside requirements. Elements for meeting the requirements to implement RCW 36.70A.210(3)(a) appear in different parts of the CPPs. Finally, some of the CPPs do not have a direct connection to GMA or MPPs but rather are intended to provide context or to establish local initiatives. Page 4 of 49

5 Table 1 -- Alignment of Countywide Planning Policies to Outside Requirements General MPP Chapter Development Patterns Orderly Land Use Development Housing Economy Minimum GMA Requirements CPP Chapter Introduction Central Principles and Framework General Framework Policies 210(3)(a) 215 Joint Planning Policies 210(3)(f) Essential Public Facilities 210(3)(c) Development Patterns Land Use Urban Growth Areas 210(3)(a) Orderly Development 210(3)(b) Housing 210(3)(e) Economic Development 210(3)(g) Transportation 210(3)(d) The Natural Environment Public Services Appendices A UGA and MUGA Maps 210(3)(a) B Growth Targets 210(3)(a) C List of Reasonable Measures 215 D Growth Target Procedures 210(3)(a) E Buildable Lands Procedures 215 F Interlocal Agreements G Definitions H Fiscal Impact Analysis 210(3)(h) Environment Transportation Public Services Other Page 5 of 49

6 Process and Guiding Principles The CPP s were originally adopted by the County Council in 1993 following an extensive public process through Snohomish County Tomorrow. The process for the 2010 update began in March 2009, with the Planning Advisory Committee of SCT. Armed with nearly two decades of experience implementing the CPP s through local comprehensive plans, interlocal agreements, and other implementation efforts, PAC members approached the CPP update and revision process using a set of principles to guide policy changes. These principles include the following: Ensure consistency with the Multicounty Planning Policies in Vision 2040 Provide unifying countywide vision for future growth Minimize changes to existing policies except where clarification or new direction is required Fill gaps in the previous policies Simplify policies where appropriate Remove outdated policy directives Remove policies that are more appropriate for local comprehensive plans Ensure internal consistency Eliminate redundancy Update policies consistent with recent changes in state law Clarify various issues concerning coordination among jurisdictions Changes to the Policy Landscape The major factors that require SCT to consider changes to the CPP s include: Legislative changes to the Growth Management Act Interpretations of GMA by the courts or Growth Hearings Boards Experience applying and implementing CPP s since 1992 Government funding for services and infrastructure is much more constrained by state law than it was at the time of the original adoption of the CPP s Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC) adoption of Vision 2040, which provides a much more defined direction for the region, including: o Environmental sustainability o A stronger connection between Land Use and Transportation o Greater focus on economic development o Adaptation to and mitigation of climate change Page 6 of 49

7 What s New CPP Document Highlights The major areas of proposed change fall into seven broad themes: Reorganization of the CPPs to better align with the Vision 2040 Multicounty Planning Policies Stronger and broader ties between transportation and other policies More emphasis on economic development Concentration on centers and multimodal transportation UGA and Municipal Urban Growth Area (MUGA) boundary issues Stronger emphasis on jobs-housing balance Sustainability Reorganization of the CPPs to Better Align with the Vision 2040 Multicounty Planning Policies The proposed CPPs are reformatted in a way to facilitate a consistency comparison to both GMA and Vision Previously, the CPP format was based only on the structure of GMA. The chapter categories have been altered to be less GMA-based and more MPP-based. This was done to ease review and recertification of the CPPs by the Puget Sound Regional Council. The reformatting is mainly cosmetic and for administrative purposes and does not present substantive changes by itself. Some of the significant substantive changes are explained below. How to read these Goals and Policies Along with the reformat, a more precise use of language and terms has been applied to the proposed CPPs. Most CPPs apply to all cities and the County. For these, County and cities is used interchangeably with jurisdictions and municipalities. Policies normally state who implements the policy. Policies without a subject apply to all jurisdictions. However, by state law, the CPPs are applicable only to the cities and towns of Snohomish County and the County they are not applicable to special districts. CPPs which refer to those districts are not binding on those districts. Instead, the reference means the County and cities will need to reach out and pro-actively seek the cooperation and support of special districts. The CPPs specify how directive a policy should be. They make use of three different words to do this: shall, should, and may. Usage of these verbs in the CPPs is more precise than their use in common expression. Shall means implementation of the policy is mandatory and imparts a higher degree of substantive direction than should. Shall is used for polices that repeat State of Washington requirements or where the intent is to mandate action. However, shall cannot be used when it is largely a subjective determination whether a policy s objective has been met. Page 7 of 49

8 Should means implementation of the policy is expected but not mandatory, yet is directive with substantive meaning, although to a lesser degree than shall. Should policies recognize the policy might not be applicable or appropriate for all municipalities due to special circumstances. The decision to not implement a should policy is appropriate only if implementation of the policy is either inappropriate or not feasible. May means the actions described in the policy are either advisable or are allowed. May gives permission and implies a preference. Because may does not have a directive meaning, there is no expectation the described action will be implemented. Even though in common usage will is synonymous to shall, in the CPPs the use of will does not specify how directive a policy is. Instead, it is used to express a future situation (i.e. after this happens then that will happen). It is an expression of intention. Unless otherwise stated, all policies have equal priority and each one should be understood in the context of the entire document. Stronger and Broader Ties Between Transportation and Other Policies The proposed transportation CPPs provide a new focus on recognizing the relationship between land use and transportation policies, which in the past has been understated. They also reflect an emphasized focus on transit planning and have benefited from the participation by Community Transit in drafting these policies. As a result, the transportation CPPs reflect: Improved consistency and active support between regional growth plans and transportation plans; Recognition of Transit Emphasis Corridors as an essential element in joint planning among local jurisdictions and transit service providers; The need to expand the scope of transit planning beyond the current Public Transit Benefit Area and Regional Transit Authority boundaries in order to adequately serve underserved areas, future growth and to promote a better jobs/housing balance in Snohomish County; The necessity to begin early planning for the alignment of light rail service for Sound Transit Phase 3; and Pursuit of sustainable funding and informed decision-making that recognizes the economic, environmental and social context of transportation. More Emphasis on Economic Development The proposed CPPs place a new emphasis on economic development. Many address the larger goal of achieving a sustaining regional economy that does not compromise quality of life. Also emphasized is the necessity to integrate growth management, transportation, economic and environmental policies and preserving regional assets without reducing social, economic or Page 8 of 49

9 environmental values. Therefore, the proposed policies for Economic Development have an added new direction to: Identify key industry clusters as the likely focus for employment growth; Rely on manufacturing and industrial centers as a key element towards meeting the area s economic development goals; Emphasize the need for greater balance between the location of jobs and housing in Snohomish County and transportation access between home and work; Call for protection of industrial lands for future job growth; and Affirm the need to increase the opportunities for county residents to work closer to home. Concentration on Centers and Multimodal Transportation Both updated GMA objectives and Vision 2040 s MPPs call for a focus on promoting new development and redevelopment in centers be they urban centers or manufacturing/industrial centers and on increasing multimodal transportation opportunities. This new focus has resulted in some new directions for the CPPs. Policies now: Relate directly to centers planning concepts on a wide range of scales; and Address how land use, housing, public services and economic development policies can directly support increased multimodal transportation service and facilities. Urban Growth Area / Municipal UGA Boundary Issues The location and size of Urban Growth Areas continues to be a major issue. In the proposed CPPs, these issues have moved from the former Urban Growth Policies chapter to a new chapter called Development Patterns (which is more in line with the MPP format in Vision 2040) which include urban growth area, rural land use and orderly development policies in a single chapter. Several of the proposed UGA-related policies offer dissenting view and/or abstentions. This is a direct reflection of both the continued significance of UGA boundaries and of the differing needs of the cities among themselves and with the County. See the section on Dissenting Views and Abstentions for more information. The manner in which MUGA boundaries are established and amended to address gaps and overlaps, and their relationship to annexations is also a major issue in the Southwest UGA. The changes proposed by PAC clarify policy language relating to MUGAs that has led to confusion in the past; however, there remain differing views on the relationship between MUGA boundaries, annexation, and the provision of public services. See the section on Dissenting Views and Abstentions for more information. Page 9 of 49

10 Stronger Emphasis on Jobs-to-Housing Balance The PAC generated the following two viewpoints regarding housing affordability and the jobsto-housing balance, only one of which has been incorporated into a proposed policy: Recognition that it should be viewed as a two-way street that locating housing and jobs in proximity to each other is a good thing. Not only should housing be created near existing employment concentrations but new employment centers should be located near existing housing concentrations. HO-12 addresses this. Housing affordability is more than just the direct costs of factors such as rent, mortgage payments and utilities. Transportation costs affect housing affordability and should also be factored into the equation. However, given the lack of data and tools that could be used to do this, the subcommittee is not proposing a policy requiring transportation costs to be included when calculating affordability. Sustainability Sustainability and climate change issues were not originally addressed by GMA. However, Vision 2040 introduces an entire chapter of Environment MPPs that do address climate change and sustainability. In response, the PAC is proposing a new category of policies called Natural Environment. Some of the new policies reflect the MPPs related to sustainability and climate change. However, the proposed environment policies do not direct action because local action has not been mandated and the cost of directly implementing action in response to climate change impacts would be beyond the reach of jurisdictions. Rather, there are CPPs directing the County and jurisdictions to support state efforts to implement climate change initiatives and to establish planning guidelines in anticipation of the need to adapt to impacts created by climate change. Page 10 of 49

11 Specific Issues for Discussion During preparation of the new CPPs, PAC identified issues that, for one reason or another, would be expected to generate discussion during the adoption process. Anticipating that discussion, the following sections provide brief comments on those issues. Reasons for highlighting specific policies or other parts of the document include (but are not limited to): Significant change in a policy intent or direction Significant new policy purpose/intent Issue or policy that has generated substantial discussion in the past Local Vision for Snohomish County The last time a future vision for Snohomish County (including all jurisdictions) was adopted was in 1990 (by Snohomish County Tomorrow and the County Council). Adoption of this document will, in effect, replace that vision statement with the goals and purposes in this document. This document proposes the following goals for Snohomish County: Development Patterns: The cities, towns, and Snohomish County will promote and guide welldesigned growth into designated urban areas to create more vibrant urban places while preserving our valued rural and resource lands. Housing: Snohomish County and its cities will promote an affordable lifestyle where residents have access to safe, affordable, and diverse housing options near their jobs and transportation options. Economic Development and Employment: Cities, towns and Snohomish County will encourage coordinated economic growth by building on the strengths of the county s economic base and diversifying it through strategic investments in infrastructure, education and training, and sound management of land and natural resources. Transportation: The County and cities will work proactively with transportation planning agencies and service providers to plan, finance, and implement an efficient multi-modal transportation system that supports the Regional Growth Strategy and local comprehensive plans. The Natural Environment: Snohomish County and local jurisdictions will act as a steward of the natural environment by protecting and restoring natural systems, conserving habitat, improving air and water quality, reducing greenhouse gas emissions and air pollutants, and addressing potential climate change impacts. Planning for the future will embrace sustainable ways to integrate care of the environment with economic and social needs. Public Services and Facilities: Snohomish County and its cities will coordinate to develop and provide adequate and efficient public facilities and services to ensure the health, safety, and economic vitality of our communities. Page 11 of 49

12 Proposed Formatting of the CPPs The format of the document is changed substantially from the prior document. Major changes include: Each chapter begins with an introductory narrative that explains the legal, regional and local context for the policies in that chapter. The narrative describes the purpose of and the issues that each chapter addresses. Several existing policies, especially UG-2 and UG-14, have been divided into two or more new policies, while background material (particularly processes or procedures) have been moved to appendices. The proposed CPPs do not include illustrative lists of examples because those lists can change over time and omitting a particular example could be understood as excluding that example from the policy (such as elements of good urban design in a policy calling for urban design guidelines for new development). Where appropriate, and to emphasize that such lists are only illustrative, those lists have been moved to an appendix. Process Issues The recommendations by the PAC are the product of the collaborative efforts of staff from almost all jurisdictions in Snohomish County, under the direction of the SCT Steering Committee. The PAC established a subcommittee that oversaw the drafting process and established work-groups that prepared chapters on the major issues for the CPPs (Development Patterns, Economic Development, etc.), with a County staff planner coordinating the entire effort. In general, those work-groups and the Subcommittee worked on a consensus basis. Once completed at the Subcommittee level, the entire PAC participated in the review and refinements to the Subcommittee recommendations. During this process, the PAC gave regular briefings to the Steering Committee on the status of the project and the preliminary recommendations that had undergone review by PAC. Where differences of opinion were not resolved, dissenting views and abstentions appear in this staff report. Implementation Program The CPPs establish a framework for comprehensive planning in all jurisdictions in Snohomish County (and particularly for the 2014 Update of comprehensive plans by all jurisdictions). In this framework, the policies identify a variety of issues that each jurisdiction will need to address in that update. These policies also envision that SCT and its committees will address a number of issues or proposals in the next few years, as part of its annual work programs, including, but not limited to: Airport / land use compatibility Interim updates to population targets Affordable housing program Transit corridors (land use and transportation issues) Page 12 of 49

13 Expansion of Sound Transit district Consider designation of new Manufacturing Industrial Center(s) Rural/Urban Transition Area policies Response to MPPs That Go Beyond GMA Requirements The scope of the Multi-county Planning Policies in Vision 2040 is substantially broader than the scope of the Growth Management Act (GMA) and, in some respects, that of Vision For example, Vision 2040 contains policies and actions that are intended to promote sustainability and other green purposes and goals, and to create a stronger connection between economic development and land use planning. However, some of these policy directions are not reflected in the GMA or other state law. As the CPPs must be consistent with the GMA and Vision 2040, this document includes policies that support the broader policy scope of Vision 2040 (such as promoting a more sustainable future for Snohomish County), even where the GMA does not directly support that broader policy scope. Note that in no way do any of these policies conflict with the GMA. In addition, the CPPs do not (and are not required to) respond to every Multi-county Planning Policy. Note that the absence of a CPP corresponding to each Multi-county planning policy only means that a local policy statement was unnecessary. Growth Targets Work on these proposed CPPs does not include preparation of new growth targets for all jurisdictions in Snohomish County based on the Vision 2040 Regional Growth Strategy. The PAC did not undertake this effort for both technical, practical, and growth management policybased reasons, as follows: Data from the 2010 Census, vital for providing current base data for planning and forecasting purposes, will not be available until 2011, at the earliest; Data from the next Buildable Lands Report, also critical for establishing base data for planning and forecasting purposes, will not be available until 2012; The state Office of Financial Management will not provide new growth projections (county-level) until 2012; The Growth Management Act does not require updating of Snohomish County s 20-year growth target allocations until the next deadline for the county s 10-year plan update (2015); All Snohomish County jurisdictions are facing substantial funding issues and planning staffs have been reduced in a number of jurisdictions. Deferring preparation of new (initial) growth targets until 2013 will allow agency funding to (somewhat) recover from the current situation and will be better synchronized with the next round of local comprehensive plan updates in 2014 and Concurrently with these proposed CPPs, however, the cities and the county have agreed to develop a technical working paper through SCT that will provide a preliminary indication of Page 13 of 49

14 potential growth to 2035 for each city, MUGA, and UGA, based on the Vision 2040 Regional Growth Strategy. This information would only be produced to provide an early opportunity for jurisdictions to review and begin preparing for the post-2025 growth levels potentially called for in Vision This information would not be used to update the CPPs during this current review process, nor would it be used to guide UGA sizing decisions until replaced by formal 2035 growth targets adopted in the CPPs in preparation for the next County comprehensive plan 10-year update in Fiscal Considerations Both the Growth Management Act and the prior set of CPPs were first adopted at a time when the financial situation of local jurisdictions was very different from that of today. The combination of the current economic situation (and its long-term effects) and statewide initiatives limiting funding for local government, together with requests for new/expanded local services and unfunded state mandates, have substantially limited the ability of local jurisdictions to provide both the services and the infrastructure to support future growth. While the CPPs do not, and cannot, address the impact of these trends on each jurisdiction in Snohomish County, it is important to understand that the goals and aspirations in the CPPs are recommended in the context of an uncertain financial future for local government. Service Provision A basic principle of the GMA, and therefore of the CPPs, is that, in the future, urban services will be provided by cities and towns, and rural and regional services will be provided by the County. By state law, the CPPs are applicable only to the cities and towns of Snohomish County and the County they are not applicable to special districts. Where implementation of the CPPs will require the support or cooperation of those districts, the cities/towns and the County will need to reach-out and pro-actively seek that cooperation and support. Fair Share Housing Allocations The adopted CPPs relating to housing include a process for determining fair share allocations of new housing affordable to lower income groups throughout Snohomish County. The last time this allocation was made was in Substantial dissatisfaction was expressed with the mathematical model for making these allocations and the feasibility of planning for them. Following the 2005 allocations, the SCT Steering Committee asked the PAC to redevelop the fair share model, and investigate other ways to report the data, so that it is easier to understand, implement, and monitor for use in future comprehensive plan updates. The PAC considered making changes to the Housing chapter as a part of this project; however, discussion of how to implement the Steering Committee direction is ongoing and recommendation to update the Housing chapter of the CPPs has become a separate project (such updates are not necessary for alignment with Vision 2040). Page 14 of 49

15 Maps in the CPPs The CPPs make a number of references to maps that are adopted and maintained by other agencies (such as PSRC s Regional Growth Centers, transit service areas and routes, environmentally sensitive areas, etc.). Copies of those maps are not attached to the CPP document, as those maps are (legally) not part of the CPPs. Copies of these maps are readily available from their parent agency and staff can assist in obtaining and/or distribution copies. Two maps have been the subject of substantial discussion at SCT in the past: Urban Growth Area (UGA) Boundaries; and Municipal UGAs. This proposal makes no changes to the maps of Urban Growth Area (UGA) or Municipal UGA boundaries. This proposal does, however, include proposed changes to the criteria for making changes to UGA boundaries; see Policies (DP 2 and DP 3) in the Development Patterns chapters. The MUGA map is attached to the CPP document because the MUGA boundaries were developed through the SCT process (with County Council final action) and are considered part of the CPPs. Rural/Urban Transition Area The current CPPs are silent on the Rural/Urban Transition Area (RUTA), an overlay that appears on the Future Land Use map adopted by Snohomish County. This overlay appears on areas adjacent to most UGAs. County policy and code provide guidance on the purpose of the RUTA although the purpose of the RUTA has been subject to debate and various interpretations. SCT has requested that the PAC develop new CPPs that would provide guidance for the RUTA. The PAC has considered this request and concluded against proposing new policies on the RUTA as a part of the current CPP update. The reasons for this conclusion are: RUTA policies are beyond the scope of the current project RUTA policies are not necessary for alignment with the MPPs in Vision 2040, nor are they necessary to respond to changes in GMA; and The task of developing new policies for RUTAs would be time-consuming and might possibly delay progress on CPP updates that are required for alignment with the MPPs or state law. Therefore, the PAC recommends that SCT add a discussion of RUTA issues as a work plan item for the future. Airport Compatibility The existing CPPs are silent on the issue of airport-land use compatibility and the proposal from PAC does not include any policies on this topic. This is because: 1) guidelines are currently being developed by both PSRC and WSDOT that will provide substantive, technical guidance regarding airport and land use compatibility; and 2) this matter is both complex and controversial, and will require more time than is available for this CPP update. The PAC recommends that SCT add a discussion of airport and land use compatibility issues as a future work plan item. Page 15 of 49

16 Stakeholder Input The Planning Advisory Committee (PAC) sought input from CPP stakeholders including industry and advocacy groups, governmental agencies, and citizens. The process for seeking feedback included using existing mailing lists, announcements on the SCT website specific to this project, professional contacts, outreach to targeted stakeholder groups, the public comment period regularly included in PAC meetings, and the Community Advisory Board (CAB) of Snohomish County Tomorrow. This resulted in the PAC receiving input from the following: Four individual members of the CAB o Gina Clark-Bellak (dated 3/30/10) o Will Brandt (dated 3/31/10) o Diana Levi (dated 3/31/10) o Bill Grosse (dated 4/5/10) Master Builders Association (MBA) of King and Snohomish County (dated 5/11/10) Futurewise (joint letter with Pilchuck Audubon, dated 5/28/10) Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC) (dated 6/2/10) Washington State Department of Commerce (dated 6/2/10) Washington State Department of Transportation (dated 7/29/10) Most of the comments (those not from CAB) were responses to an April transmittal from the PAC CPP Subcommittee to the PAC. Note that PAC members were concurrently considering changes to the Subcommittee transmittal. The topics addressed in the stakeholder comments vary widely and it is difficult to summarize positions as a whole, partly because of the diversity of comments and partly because the CPP document itself was still evolving. However, most stakeholders did provide input on the UGA expansion conditions in DP-2.d. Table 2 on the next page summarizes these comments. Page 16 of 49

17 3. More than 50% of Residential Land Used 4. More than 50% of Employment Land Used 5: Transfer of Development Rights 6: Mapping Errors/ Corrections 7: Schools, Churches, Public Facilities 8: Preservation of Natural or Cultural Features 9: Affordable Housing 10: Reuse of Former Resource Lands 11: Large Industrial Developments** COUNTYWIDE PLANNING POLICY UPDATE 2010 Table 2: Stakeholder and final PAC recommendations on UGA expansion conditions 3-11* Name Clark- N/A N/A Delete N/A N/A Retain Gives Delete Delete Bellak Reservations Brandt N/A N/A Neutral N/A N/A Delete Delete Delete Delete Levi N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Grosse N/A N/A Retain N/A N/A Retain Retain Retain N/A MBA N/A N/A Retain Retain Retain Retain Retain Retain Retain Futurewise N/A N/A Modify N/A Delete Delete Delete Delete Delete PSRC*** N/A N/A *** *** Delete *** *** *** *** or Modify Dept. of Delete Delete Delete N/A Delete Delete Delete Delete Modify** Commerce Dept. of N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Transport. * The stakeholder comments refer to an April 2010 draft of the CPP proposal; in this draft, Condition 7 appears as DP-3 and the PAC has made a number of modifications since that draft. ** The stakeholder comments on Condition 11 refer to an earlier version of Condition 11. The final majority PAC recommendation for Condition 11 reflects substantial changes in response to suggestions from Commerce. *** The PSRC letter does not specifically address the individual UGA expansion conditions, with the exception of Condition 7 (in the April 2010 draft of the CPP proposal, Condition 7 appears separately as DP-3). PSRCs approach is to propose a revision to the heading of DP-2 that begins, Vision 2040 does not anticipate anything other than minor adjustments to the UGA Details on these comments are below. Page 17 of 49

18 Community Advisory Board comments: CAB members submitted their input as individuals via to the project coordinator. The coordinator made a package of these s in a memo from the coordinator to the PAC on April 8. Summaries of those comments follow: Gina Clark-Bellak begins by offering some observations about the strengths and shortcomings of introduction and central principles of the CPPs. A key early observation is that the CPPs give a good concise overview of our county and goals, but it [the CPPs] doesn t state upfront why this document is important, what it does and how we got here. Subsequent versions of the CPPs have expanded the introduction to add context on the relationship between the CPPs and local GMA plans; however, these changes do not address every issue that she identifies. Many of Gina Clark-Bellak s comments involve a discussion of the pros and cons of several subpolicy conditions of DP-2 allowing for UGA expansion. She offers support for retaining condition 8; suggests deleting conditions 5, 10, and 11; and identifies a number of reservations (no recommendation) on condition 9. Table 2 above, summarizes these comments and the eventual PAC recommendations on these conditions. Gina Clark-Bellak closes her comments with some observations on housing, the natural environment, and transportation. She offers a number of specific suggestions on these topics that are more detailed than the final PAC recommendations for the CPPs. Will Brandt begins by giving his support for the majority positions as identified in the April draft on the UGA expansion conditions in DP-2.d. In general, he favors limiting UGA expansions to maximize the use of existing urban lands and to minimize sprawl. Table 2 above, summarizes these comments and the eventual PAC recommendations on these conditions. Will Brandt addresses two additional topics. One comment says that annexations should be discouraged in areas where more than one city claims the territory. Since the April draft, the policy on annexation, DP-18, has since had a number of changes by the PAC. Some of these may clarify the role of agreements prior to annexation. Another comment requests a more visible stance in support of commuter rail (and promoting higher densities in transit corridors in general). Changes to the transportation policies in the April draft as well as further refinements since Mr. Brandt s comments serve to strengthen the support for rail and density in transit corridors; however, not to the extent that the comment letter is suggesting. Diana Levi limits her comments to the amount of time occurring between analyses [in DP-1, UGA establishment, and DP-2, UGA expansion which] appears to be too long and not reflective of economic cycles that heavily impact growth. The PAC discussed the comments. All PAC members agree that economic cycles do sometimes depart growth forecasts. The length of time between analyses can be both a disadvantage as well as an advantage. For instance, growth in the mid-2000s was faster than expected and, more recently, the reverse has been true. When Page 18 of 49

19 long-term trends do depart from earlier forecasts, then updates that are more frequent would be helpful. However, it is also possible to misinterpret short-term oscillations around a longer trend as representing a departure from the trend (as many who said that the growth rate in the mid- 2000s would continue had claimed). In these instances, less frequent updates are actually helpful in preventing overreactions to temporary patterns. The PAC s conclusion was that the proposed CPPs reflect the review and update cycles mandated under GMA. There is no prohibition on a jurisdiction updating analyses more frequently, but no basis for the CPPs to require this. Bill Grosse says that his major concern is a sluggish attempt at concurrency because infrastructure improvements have not kept pace with growth. Along this theme, he offers a number of specific suggestions to strengthen policy language. The PAC subsequently made some of these (or similar) changes to strengthen policies. For instance, language saying that jurisdictions should strive to now reads, jurisdictions should. In other places, the language proposed by the PAC remains the same as what was in the version that Bill Grosse was commenting on. This was generally because there was not a requirement that an individual policy should have stronger phrasing and, in many cases, PAC members saw stronger language as undesirable because implementing a stronger policy would require resources that local jurisdictions may not have. Regarding UGA expansion conditions in DP-2.d, Bill Grosse says that he favors retaining conditions 5, 8, 9, and 10 because the effect of prohibiting expansions could have a pressure cooker effect on life within [UGAs], especially if growth projections continue to propel density increases. Table 2 above, summarizes his support for retaining these conditions for UGA expansion. Master Builders Association (MBA) Comments The MBA letter says that, most of the document is acceptable to our members and moves on to those areas of concern, beginning with the policies on UGA boundaries. It says that the proposed policy language makes change [expansion of UGAs] even more difficult and most importantly undermines the flexibility of the community to act to provide affordable housing and to foster economic development. As a specific concern, the MBA cites a deletion proposed by the majority of PAC members in DP-2.d.3 that would cut language on use of new information presented at public hearing[s]. This is a concern because the deletion would seem to preclude the type of information sharing that the MBA has previously participated in. (See the section on Dissenting Views and Abstentions for more information on the PAC member positions on this topic). Apart from UGA boundaries, the MBA comments on several other topics. One suggestion is to broaden the policy language on rural clustering to allow rural villages in addition to rural cluster subdivisions. 1 The PAC discussed this suggestion and concluded that it exceeds what 1 This policy and comments have a complex lineage. The MBA comments address what had been DP-24 in the April draft of the CPP proposal. In the April draft, DP-24 was a successor policy to the currently adopted RU-4. Subsequently, a majority of PAC members voted to remove the RU-4 language from the CPPs entirely for reasons Page 19 of 49

20 GMA authorizes for development in rural areas and does not appear to be consistent with Vision A second suggestion is to consider language that addresses preserving rural land value in DP-29 (a policy that speaks to supporting agriculture and forest activities, DP-26 in the April draft). The PAC declined this suggestion because local jurisdictions are not responsible for maintaining land values and lack the ability to do so. Third, the MBA suggests including recognition in the CPPs of the design standards recently adopted by Snohomish County in its zoning code; however, the PAC felt that this suggestion was appropriate for consideration only at the local plan level because the standards referenced by the MBA only apply in the unincorporated areas. Fourth, the MBA objects to an apparent deletion of language in the former HO-16. This language says to ensure that expeditious processing of development applications shall not result in the lowering of environmental standards. The comment from the MBA says, that it is important to memorialize the need for expeditious and efficient processing of development applications. The PAC agrees that the language in the former HO-16 is important and notes that the April draft was actually moving it to the Economic Development and Employment chapter. In the final PAC recommendation, this language has become policy ED- 15. The PAC believes that the concern expressed by the MBA reflects a misunderstanding that the proposal was to delete the policy language rather than to move it. Fifth, the final comment from the MBA is that a recommendation to delete the proposed new policy ENV-7 (supporting the state s climate change initiatives) because it could lead to new, potentially unnecessary and costly project review. The PAC considered this objection but found that the proposed policy is a statement of support for the state s climate change initiatives and by itself has no effect on project review costs. When state initiatives require local implementation, actions by the County and cities must be consistent with state mandates and inclusion of support for state initiatives is appropriate in the CPPs because of the importance of the topic in Vision Futurewise/Pilchuck Audubon Comments The joint letter from Futurewise and Pilchuck Audubon (hereafter simply Futurewise) is generally supportive of the changes proposed to the CPPs and makes a large number of specific suggestions that would make the policy language more prescriptive and/or more specific. Along with these specific suggestions, Futurewise offers its rationale for each suggestion. Comments on polices for UGA expansion are prominent in the letter from Futurewise. An overall comment is that the urban growth area expansion criteria in DP-2 have been used to justify expanding urban growth areas onto working farms and other expansions. These expansions are not consistent with Vision 2040 and we support amendments to bring it [the CPPs] into compliance with Vision Generally, Futurewise is saying that past UGA expansions have been contrary to Vision 2040 and that policy amendments to revise or remove conditions for UGA expansion would prevent future expansions that would also be inconsistent with Vision unrelated to the MBA comments. A minority of PAC members prefer to retain RU-4 with some modifications for clarity. See the section on Dissenting Views and Abstentions for more information. Because of these changes, what appears as DP-24 in the final PAC recommendation is an unrelated policy. Page 20 of 49

21 Futurewise offers five specific comments on the UGA expansion policies. (A summary of these positions appears in Table 2 above.) 1. How should land capacity analysis fit into UGA expansion? The first recommendation is to revise the April draft of DP-2.a as follows: DP-2 Expansion of the boundary of an individual Urban Growth Area (UGA) to include additional residential, commercial and industrial land shall not be permitted unless: a. The expansion is evaluated by a A land capacity analysis adopted by the County Council pursuant to RCW 36.70A.110 documents that the additional land is needed to accommodate the jurisdictions adopted growth projections;[ ] Futurewise explains these changes by saying: We recommend that DP-2(a) be clarified so that the need for the urban growth area expansion is documented by the land capacity analysis, not that [it] has been merely evaluated. This change will clarify that the policy is consistent with state law which limits the size of the urban growth area to the land needed to accommodate the adopted population and employment projections. The PAC discussed this proposal and agrees with the reasoning from Futurewise but concluded that the recommended change to the policy language appears to remove much of the discretion provided to counties when sizing UGAs under RCW 36.70A.110(2). The outcome of the PAC discussion was to restore to DP-2 the test in the currently adopted UG- 14.d that an expansion must have the support of a land capacity analysis. 2 Specifically, the final PAC proposal reads (the other change from the April draft is for clarity): DP-2 An expansion of the boundary of an individual Urban Growth Area (UGA) that results in a net increase of residential, commercial or industrial land capacity shall not be permitted unless: a. The expansion is supported by a land capacity analysis adopted by the County Council pursuant to RCW 36.70A.110; [emphasis added] In conclusion, the PAC agrees with the explanation from Futurewise that the test for UGA expansion in the April draft of DP-2.a was too accommodating of UGA expansion. The PAC did not agree to the new language provided by Futurewise. The PAC chose instead to restore language from the current UG Futurewise concurs with the PAC majority on deleting UGA expansion Condition 5 in DP-2, which allows for expansion for Transfer of Development Rights (TDR). In its place, Futurewise proposes new language that would make TDR a requirement for any UGA 2 The currently adopted policy UG-14 covers 2 ½ pages. The recommendation from the PAC is to split UG-14 into several policies and appendices. In both the April draft that Futurewise is commenting on as well as the final recommendation from PAC, DP-2 is the main successor to language found in UG-14.d. Page 21 of 49

22 expansion authorized by other conditions. The PAC did not agree with this approach because implementation would be prohibitively complex. GMA allows expansion without TDR and any expansions where TDR is to be a requirement should be determined on a caseby-case basis. 3. The letter from Futurewise expresses agreement with the PAC majority whose recommendation is to delete Condition 8 (expansion to preserve of natural or cultural features), Condition 9 (expansion for affordable housing), and Condition 10 (expansion for economic development of former resource lands) from DP-2. The rational from Futurewise is that these subpolicies are not aligned with Vision The section in on Dissenting Views and Abstentions in this staff report includes discussion of the various positions of PAC members on these conditions and the reasons for those positions. 4. Futurewise recommends deleting Condition 11 from DP-2 (as it appears in the April draft of the CPP proposal), saying that: [T]his policy does not comply with Vision 2040 and will stand in the way of achieving the benefits of well-drawn urban growth areas. If local governments want increased tax base from retail uses, they should zone centers with adequate retail capacity within the existing urban growth areas. The PAC chose to rewrite Condition 11 based on comments received from the Department of Commerce rather than to respond directly to comments from Futurewise. The April draft version that Futurewise is objecting to would allow UGA expansion to include commercial or industrial land if the expansion is based on an assessment that shows a deficiency of larger developable sites. The final PAC recommendation ties the expansion to the criteria contained in RCW 36.70A.365 for the establishment of a major industrial development. Notably, these criteria no longer provide for expansion to accommodate commercial development. The position of Futurewise on the final PAC proposal for Condition 11 is unknown. 5. Futurewise recommends deleting Condition 7 from DP-2 as it appeared in the April draft of the CPP proposal (it was proposed to become a separate policy, DP-3, in that draft and was phrased to apply to public facilities ). The reasons for requesting this deletion were: Allowing UGA expansions for schools and churches leads to more sprawl, and encourages the use of cars, increasing greenhouse gas emissions. While it is true that schools want large amounts of acreage to build high schools, and that some churches want to build megachurches as well, allowing UGA expansions will ultimately put such needed services on the fringes of communities. Since people like to live close to schools and churches, there will be more pressure to build in the rural areas surrounding these important services. The majority of PAC members also support deleting Condition 7. A minority support revising it and moving back into Condition 2. See the section on Dissenting Views and Abstentions for more information on these positions. Beyond policies on UGA expansion, the letter from Futurewise proposes many changes to the April draft of the CPPs. For space considerations, this staff report illustrates how the PAC chose Page 22 of 49