Snohomish County Council Planning and Community Development Committee Jackson Board Room April 13, :00 a.m. MINUTES

Transcription

1 Snohomish County Council Planning and Community Development Committee Jackson Board Room April 13, :00 a.m. MINUTES PRESENT: Committee Chair Somers Committee Member Koster Committee Member Sullivan (not present) Committee Member Cooper (not present) Committee Member Gossett Will Hall, Sr. Legislative Analyst Peggy Sanders, Sr. Legislative Analyst Jacqueline Reid, Planning & Development Services Richard Craig, Planning & Development Services Tom Niemann, Planning & Development Services Gary Idleburg, Planning & Development Services Ryan Countryman, Planning & Development Services Matt Zybas, Solid Waste Director John Moffat, Prosecutor s Office Matt Otten, Prosecutor s Office Shawn Aronow, Prosecutor s Office Marsha Carlsen, Boundary Review Board Arthur Lee, Public Works Doug McCormick, Public Works Linda Rhoades, Public Works JR Myers, Public Works Mike Pattison, Master Builders Association Bill Wiselogle, City of Bothell Sheila McCallister, Asst. Clerk of the Council Debbie Parris, Asst. Clerk of the Council Committee Chair Somers called the meeting to order at 9:00 a.m. ACTION ITEMS: 1. ECAF #5005: (Proposed Motion #10-189) Concerning the County Council's position on a request from the city of Bothell to negotiate an interlocal agreement for annexation of area within the Bothell MUGA Originator: Jacqueline Reid, Planning & Development Services Will Hall, Sr. Legislative Analyst, provided a detailed overview. Jacqueline Reid, Planning & Development Services, provided a PowerPoint presentation and spoke about the negotiations regarding a request for annexation with the City of Bothell. She stated an amended motion has been prepared related to the solid waste interlocal agreements and she explained the details. (See attached). Discussion ensued and staff responded to questions from committee members. Matt Zybas, Solid Waste Director, continued the presentation and spoke about solid waste issues. ACTION: Move to Regular Agenda, General Legislative Session April 14 th for action. Planning & Community Development Committee, April 13, 2010 Page 1 of 3 Minutes

2 2. ECAF #4922: (Proposed #10-185) Concerning approval of the Ronald Wastewater District 2010 Comprehensive Sewer Plan Originator: Gary Idleburg, Planning & Development Services Will Hall, Sr. Legislative Analyst, provided an overview. Gary Idleburg, Planning & Development Services, spoke in further detail about the 2010 Comprehensive Sewer Plan for the Ronald Wastewater District. Mr. Idleburg included a statement in his overview regarding the land use map included in the Sewer Plan and how it shows the designation of the Point Wells property as Urban Industrial. This is technically correct since the action the Council took in Docket 13 to re-designate the site to Urban Center (UC) has not gone into effect yet. The District did however, when preparing their plan, take into consideration the extra housing and jobs that would accompany that UC designation. The Department s recommendation is to approve the Plan conditioned upon that land use map (Figure 3-1) being revised to show the new UC designation; as well as requiring the District to comply with all franchise agreements. Committee Chair Somers inquired about conditions and what happens if Council approves the plan and the land use map does not change. Mr. Idleburg stated he would have to get back to Chair Somers with that information. Mr. Hall also responded. Committee Chair Somers requested that Mr. Idleburg have this information ready at General Legislative Session. ACTION: Move to Regular Agenda, General Legislative Session April 14 th for action. 3. ECAF #4985: (Proposed #10-188) Concerning the County Council's position on a proposed petition method annexation to the City of Granite Falls BRB Mountain Loop addition annexation Originator: Richard Craig, Planning & Development Services Will Hall, Sr. Legislative Analyst, provided a brief overview. Richard Craig, Planning & Development Services (PDS), provided details related to the annexation with the City of Granite Falls. He said PDS recommends to not oppose the annexation and to not invoke jurisdiction of the boundary review board. There were no questions from committee members. ACTION: Move to Consent Agenda, General Legislative Session April 14 th for action. Planning & Community Development Committee, April 13, 2010 Page 2 of 3 Minutes

3 DISCUSSION ITEM: 1. Countywide Planning Policy Project Update Will Hall, Sr. Legislative Analyst, provided an overview. Ryan Countryman of Planning & Development Services, here today representing the Planning Advisory Committee of Snohomish County Tomorrow, spoke about the formal review of Snohomish County Tomorrow. (See attached PowerPoint presentation) Committee Member Gossett suggested having a series of briefings related to areas of disagreement between Council and Snohomish County Tomorrow so that Council has a sense of what those areas are. Mr. Hall said he could set those meetings up. Meeting adjourned at 10:02 a.m. Planning & Community Development Committee, April 13, 2010 Page 3 of 3 Minutes

4 City of Bothell Request to Enter Annexation Interlocal Agreement Negotiations

5 Background RCW 35A Adopted in 2009 New method of annexation by interlocal agreement Applies in annexation of territory served by fire protection districts Initiated by city Requires: Agreement to enter negotiations by city, county, and fire district(s) ILA signed by county (with or without fire district signing agreement(s))

6 ILA Annexation Method under RCW 35A Different from Island Method (with ILA): Marysville Central Annexation completed Monroe Chain Lake West - proposed Key Differences from Other Annexation Methods: Public input limited. Boundary Review Board (BRB) jurisdiction No required review of factors and objectives (RCW and RCW )

7 Bothell Municipal Urban Growth Area (MUGA) Population: Approximately 19,646 Acres: Approximately 3511

8 City of Bothell Request RCW 35A Bothell Resolution February 2010 declaring city s intent to consider: o o Annexation within MUGA - Snohomish County. Annexation within Potential Annexation Areas (PAA) - King County.

9 Numbers (approx.) City of Bothell (Snoh. Co.) pop n 15,730 (2008) City of Bothell (King Co.) pop n 17,130 (2008) Bothell MUGA pop n 19,646 (2008) Bothell PAA pop n 4060 (2000) City of Bothell (Snoh. Co.) acres 4097 City of Bothell (King Co.) acres 3629 Bothell MUGA acres 3511 Bothell PAA acres

10 City of Bothell Request RCW 35A City formal notice requesting negotiations: o County received letter - March 8, 2010 o 45 day response - April 21, 2010 Fire Districts 1, 7, and 10 also given notice

11 County Options County options to city request to enter negotiations: Affirmative. Negative. Requires reasons to be stated. No response by deadline - affirmative

12 Process under RCW 35A Method continues only if all parties agree to negotiate Interlocal agreement and ordinance must include boundaries for annexation Action on ordinance must include public hearing Notice of Intention must be filed with BRB - No invoking of BRB/BRB hearing

13 Process under RCW 35A cont. Areas for Goal Statements include (but not limited to): Transfer of revenues/assets between fire protection districts and city Division of assets between fire districts and city No negative impact on [ability to provide] fire protection and emergency services Community involvement Revenue sharing Capital facilities obligations Annexation timing City s development regulations ILA term at least 5 years

14 Process under RCW 35A cont. If city, county, and fire district agree on goals: annexation ordinance proceeds (with hearing) not subject to referendum If fire districts do not agree on goals: city and county proceed with annexation under ILA annexation ordinance subject to referendum

15 Process under RCW 35A cont. Timely and sufficient referendum petition: Leads to election No referendum petition/insufficient : Area annexed consistent with effective date in ordinance. Annexation under this method cannot proceed without county agreeing to goal statements/signing ILA.

16 Potential Timing of Annexation City work program includes open houses, mailings, media, and other outreach Annexation review stages Possible effective date of April 2012 under RCW 35A Election method Possible effective dates of January 2012 and January 2013

17 Background - Proposed Bothell NEWBA Annexation percent of MUGA Initiated by citizen interest Amended County Council Motion adopted March 16, 2009 o o o Council did not oppose the annexation Invoked BRB jurisdiction - ensure MAILA approved prior to BRB hearing Stated that county intended to oppose if lack of agreement between King Co. and city of Bothell on solid waste handling remaining in Snoh. Co.

18 Background 2009 Proposed Bothell NEWBA Annexation cont. No agreement on solid waste handling Motion passed May 18, 2009: o Revoked position in Amended Motion and opposed annexation County testified at BRB hearing that factors and objectives mostly furthered: o Exception - garbage disposal from NEWBA area continuing to Snoh. Co. BRB disapproved NEWBA Annexation - June 2009.

19 Proposed Adjustment of MUGA Boundary between Mill Creek and Bothell Cities reached agreement on revised MUGA boundary o Land area and population growth target shift SCT Steering Committee recommendation o Approve Countywide Planning Policy (CPP) amendments (February 2010) o Transmitted to Council - mid-april. Amendment to GPP (Docket XIV cycle) o Planning Commission hearing - April acres and population of 718 transfer to the Bothell MUGA.

20 Proposed Revision from Mill Creek MUGA to Bothell MUGA Acres: 97 Population :718

21 Solid Waste Issues Existing interlocal agreements on solid waste services: King County and Bothell 47.3 acres. 30-year agreement Snohomish County and Bothell Canyon Park annexation MUGA s not adopted until 2004

22 Solid Waste Issues cont. With MUGA Annexation: Significantly higher population in Snoh. Co. city than King Co. city even with PAA annexation Significantly larger area in Snoh. Co. city than King Co. even with PAA annexation

23 Solid Waste Issues cont. Impacts if Solid Waste handling in MUGA transfers to King County: Lost revenue - $1,900,000 annually. Shift debt and operating costs to remaining citizens of Snohomish County. Higher fees or reduced service levels.

24 Solid Waste Issues cont. Staff-to-staff discussions King County - Interest in negotiating ILA (Letter to city of Bothell dated 3/4/2010): Maintain integrity of King County solid waste system Consistency with agreement between city and King County Transition period for Snohomish County

25 Solid Waste Issues cont. All waste generated within Snohomish County should continue to be managed under Snohomish County Solid Waste Management Plan.

26 Master Annexation Interlocal Agreement (MAILA) Good faith negotiations toward MAILA Adoption of MAILA not required under RCW 35A Considerations: Future area

27 Recommendation to Council Affirmative response to city of Bothell s formal notice of interest to enter into interlocal agreement negotiating process for annexation under RCW 35A

28 Recommendation to Council Cont. Issues to resolve to county satisfaction before executing ILA, include but not limited to: Simultaneous agreement between King County, Snohomish County, and the city of Bothell on solid waste handling. County will not sign ILA absent agreement. Fire and police service Adoption of Master Annexation Interlocal Agreement Provision for public input on proposed annexation Consistency of annexation with factors and objectives (RCW and RCW ).

29 Recommendation to Council Cont. Agreement by county to negotiate with city of Bothell under RCW 35A does not require county to execute an interlocal agreement for annexation.

30

31 SNOHOMISH COUNTY COUNCIL Snohomish County, Washington AMENDED MOTION NO CONCERNING THE COUNTY COUNCIL'S POSITION ON A REQUEST FROM THE CITY OF BOTHELL TO NEGOTIATE AN INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT FOR ANNEXATION OF AREA WITHIN THE BOTHELL MUGA AS PROVIDED FOR UNDER RCW 35A WHEREAS, a citizen group residing within the proposed North, East and West of Bothell Annexation (hereinafter NEWBA ) area originally petitioned the Bothell City Council to be annexed into the City of Bothell; and WHEREAS, on November 28, 2008, the City of Bothell (hereinafter city ) filed a Notice of Intention with the Washington State Boundary Review Board for Snohomish County (hereinafter Boundary Review Board ) for a proposed election method annexation of the NEWBA area; and WHEREAS, the NEWBA annexation included over 95 percent (approximately 3,602 acres) of the City of Bothell s Municipal Urban Growth Area (hereinafter MUGA ) and further described as Boundary Review Board File No. BRB ; and WHEREAS, the Snohomish County Council passed Amended Motion No on March 16, 2009, and did not oppose the annexation but invoked the jurisdiction of the Boundary Review Board only for the purpose of ensuring that a signed Master Annexation Interlocal Agreement (hereinafter MAILA ) was approved between the county and the city prior to the Boundary Review Board public hearing on the proposed annexation; and WHEREAS, Amended Motion stated that if the city and King County did not come to an agreement to provide that solid waste generated from the area proposed for annexation shall be disposed of at a Snohomish County owned and operated facility, Snohomish County intended to oppose the annexation; and WHEREAS, Snohomish County and King County were unable to come to agreement in regards to final disposal of solid waste generated from the area proposed for annexation; and MOTION NO A motion concerning the County Council s position on a request from the city of Bothell to negotiate an interlocal agreement for annexation of area within the Bothell MUGA as provided for under RCW 35A Page 1

32 WHEREAS, the Snohomish County Council passed Motion on May 18, 2009, revoking the county council s position in Amended Motion due to lack of agreement on solid waste generated from the area proposed for annexation to be disposed of at a Snohomish County owned and operated facility; and WHEREAS, Snohomish County opposed the annexation; and WHEREAS, Snohomish County communicated its change in position to the Boundary Review Board in a memo dated May 19, 2009, which outlined its reason for doing so based on the inability to come to resolution with King County regarding final disposal for waste generated in the annexed area; and WHEREAS, Snohomish County testified at the Boundary Review Board public hearing on May 28, 2009, that the factors contained in RCW and objectives contained in RCW were mostly furthered for the annexation with the exception of solid waste issues relating to garbage disposal from the annexation area continuing to come to Snohomish County; and WHEREAS, the Boundary Review Board voted 4-1 to disapprove the city s annexation on June 2, 2009, and the Board voted 4-0 on June 16, 2009, to adopt the written findings of their decision; and WHEREAS, the Boundary Review Board stated in its written report that there was a lack of applicable service agreements and a lack of an interlocal agreement between the city and Snohomish County and there was concern regarding the city s ability to provide police, fire and emergency services to the proposed annexation area at an adequate level of service; and WHEREAS, the Bothell City Council, at its February 23, 2010 meeting, adopted Resolution 1254 (2010) initiating consideration of annexation of all or part of the Bothell MUGA in Snohomish County and Potential Annexation Area (hereinafter PAA ) in King County using the interlocal agreement method set forth in RCW 35A ; and WHEREAS, the interlocal agreement method of annexation may be employed when a municipality proposes to annex territory within one or more fire protection districts; and WHEREAS, under this annexation method, the county and the fire protection district(s) have 45 days to respond to formal notice of the city s interest in entering into an interlocal agreement negotiating process; and MOTION NO A motion concerning the County Council s position on a request from the city of Bothell to negotiate an interlocal agreement for annexation of area within the Bothell MUGA as provided for under RCW 35A Page 2

33 WHEREAS, on March 8, 2010, Snohomish County received formal notice from the city stating the city s interest in entering into an interlocal agreement negotiating process for annexation of the entire MUGA, and the 45-day response period expires on April 21, 2010; and WHEREAS, the city and Snohomish County have been engaged in good faith negotiations toward the development of a MAILA; and WHEREAS, in 2009 the Cities of Bothell and Mill Creek reached agreement on a revised MUGA boundary between the two cities that would result in a land area and population growth target shift from the Mill Creek MUGA to the Bothell MUGA as depicted in the Countywide Planning Policies for Snohomish County; and WHEREAS, on February 24, 2010, the Snohomish County Tomorrow Steering Committee recommended that the revised MUGA boundary and targets in the Countywide Planning Policies proposed by the two cities be approved by the Snohomish County Council; and WHEREAS, the entire adopted MUGA is approximately 3665 acres with a population of approximately 19,646 as of April 1, 2008, and the area of the adopted Mill Creek MUGA proposed for inclusion in the Bothell MUGA is approximately 97 acres with a population of approximately 718 as of April 1, 2008; and WHEREAS, the population of the city in Snohomish County is approximately 15,730 as of April 1, 2008, and the population of the city in King County is approximately 17,130 as of April 1, 2008; and WHEREAS, the population of the PAA in King County is approximately 4,060 as of the 2000 census; and WHEREAS, with annexation of the MUGA and the PAA the population of the area of the city located in Snohomish County would be substantially larger than the population of the area of the city located in King County; and WHEREAS, in 1987 the city and King County signed an interlocal agreement for planning and solid waste disposal activities for a specified area of Snohomish County for 30 years; and WHEREAS, in 1992 the city and Snohomish County signed an interlocal agreement designating King County as the authority for planning and solid waste disposal activities identified as the Canyon Park Annexation; and MOTION NO A motion concerning the County Council s position on a request from the city of Bothell to negotiate an interlocal agreement for annexation of area within the Bothell MUGA as provided for under RCW 35A Page 3

34 WHEREAS, in negotiating the draft new MAILA the city is indicating its willingness to continue to send waste from the proposed annexation area in Snohomish County to a Snohomish County owned and operated facility; and WHEREAS, Snohomish County is the planning agency for solid waste management in the MUGA area; and WHEREAS, capital facilities and bonds were obtained assuming revenues from the waste within the MUGA; and WHEREAS, using data from the 2009 Snohomish County budget for the Solid Waste Division, Snohomish County estimates that the loss in revenues to the Solid Waste Division from diversion of waste generated in the MUGA area to King County is $1.9 million annually; and WHEREAS, the interlocal agreement method of annexation in RCW 35A requires that the interlocal annexation agreement include certain goals, policies and procedures; and WHEREAS, the interlocal agreement method for annexation under RCW 35A may not proceed if any negative responses are received within the 45-day response period; and WHEREAS, under this method of annexation, an annexation by the city may be accomplished by ordinance after entering into an interlocal agreement with the county and fire protection district(s) and setting a date for a public hearing on the ordinance; NOW, THEREFORE, ON MOTION: 1. The Snohomish County Council authorizes the Snohomish County Executive to send an affirmative response to the City of Bothell s formal notice of interest to enter into an interlocal agreement negotiating process for annexation under RCW 35A The response shall state that the county will not execute an interlocal agreement under RCW 35A until the issues identified below are resolved to the satisfaction of the county. Agreement by the county to negotiate with the City of Bothell pursuant to this motion in no way requires the county to execute an interlocal agreement for annexation under RCW 35A Issues that must be resolved to the satisfaction of the county prior to its execution of an interlocal agreement under RCW 35A include but are not limited to: MOTION NO A motion concerning the County Council s position on a request from the city of Bothell to negotiate an interlocal agreement for annexation of area within the Bothell MUGA as provided for under RCW 35A Page 4

35 a. Solid waste handling. The county will not sign an annexation interlocal agreement unless there is simultaneous agreement between King County, Snohomish County and the City of Bothell on the handling of solid waste. b. Fire and police service; c. Adoption of a Master Annexation Interlocal Agreement; d. Provision for public input on the proposed annexation; and e. Consistency of the proposed annexation with goals and objectives enumerated in RCW and RCW ATTEST: PASSED this day of, Asst. Clerk of the Council SNOHOMISH COUNTY COUNCIL Snohomish County, Washington Council Chair MOTION NO A motion concerning the County Council s position on a request from the city of Bothell to negotiate an interlocal agreement for annexation of area within the Bothell MUGA as provided for under RCW 35A Page 5

36 Snohomish County Planning & Development Services MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: SUBJECT: Dave Gossett, Chair, Snohomish County Council Dave Somers, Vice Chair, Snohomish County Council Mike Cooper, Snohomish County Council John Koster, Snohomish County Council Brian Sullivan, Snohomish County Council Larry W. Adamson, AICP, Acting Director, Planning & Development Services Proposed Countywide Planning Policy Amendments DATE: April 7, 2010 The purpose of this memo is to provide you with background on a project that PDS staff are working on in collaboration with other county departments and our fellow Snohomish County Tomorrow (SCT) member jurisdictions. The project is called CPP and MPP Alignment. It will result in recommendations to Council on amendments to the Countywide Planning Policies (CPPs). Under the Growth Management Act (GMA), the CPPs establish a countywide framework for developing and adopting county and city comprehensive plans. This framework ensures consistency among county and city comprehensive plans. The GMA also requires that countywide policies are consistent with regional policies. In the case of Snohomish County, the regional polices are the Multicounty Planning Policies (MPPs) adopted by Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC). There are three major reasons why the CPP and MPP Alignment project is taking place: 1. Recent changes to state law compel consideration of a handful of changes to the CPPs; 2. PSRC recently updated Vision 2040 with a large number of new MPPs, with which CPPs are required to be consistent under GMA; and 3. County and city staff see a need to recommend a number of amendments to the CPPs for internal consistency, to reflect actual practice, and for improved readability and implementation. Amendments to the CPPs must be done through an established process of consultation with member jurisdictions of SCT. Since spring 2009, a subcommittee of the Planning Advisory Committee (PAC) of SCT has been working on proposed updates to the CPPs. This PAC Page 1 of 2

37 subcommittee has been giving briefings on preliminary materials to the PAC itself as well as the SCT Community Advisory Board, SCT Executive Committee, and SCT Steering Committee. The formal SCT review of the PAC subcommittee s recommended amendments commences at the April 8 SCT PAC meeting. The draft package of amendments was electronically mailed out to recipients of the PAC agendas earlier this week. PAC will review the proposed amendments over the next several months. Concurrent with PAC review will be a public outreach process that makes use of existing mailing lists to identify stakeholders that may wish to provide comment. We expect that this process will take place largely online via materials posted to the SCT website. Some cities may possibly also use the SCT materials to run parallel public processes. Input received from public outreach will be shared with PAC and also made available for subsequent steps of the SCT review process. Once PAC finishes its review, the PAC will make a recommendation to the SCT Steering Committee. (This is anticipated for July 2010.) We anticipate that the Steering Committee will deliberate during the summer and make a formal recommendation of amendments from SCT to the County Council in late October PSRC s expectation is that the CPP update work will be completed by December 31, After council holds a hearing and takes action on proposed amendments, PSRC will review adopted amendments to the Countywide Planning Policies as part of its formal CPP certification process. In advance of this formal step, input from PSRC staff will be sought, commencing with the public outreach step during PAC review. While all areas of adopted CPPs are being reviewed, the following are policy areas that, from the PDS staff perspective, have generated particular attention: Conditions for urban growth area expansion, affordable housing allocation, manufacturing industrial center (MIC) designations, and transportation and transit-oriented development. In addition, to improve readability and to more clearly show linkages to GMA and Vision 2040, significant changes are proposed to the organization of the CPPs. Several PDS and DPW staff have been involved in the project and Ryan Countryman, PDS senior planner, has been acting as a project coordinator on behalf of PAC. If the Council would like an overview of the project, Mr. Countryman is available to give a presentation. The Council may also want to consider subsequent briefings from county staff on specific topics or proposed amendments as the project moves through the formal SCT stages of review. cc: Brian Parry, Executive Director Jacqueline Reid, AICP, Supervisor Ryan Countryman, Senior Planner Page 2 of 2

38 Snohomish County Tomorrow The CPP and MPP Alignment Project Snohomish County Council Planning Committee Briefing on 4/13/10 1

39 Reasons For Briefing Snohomish County Tomorrow (SCT) is reviewing the adopted Countywide Planning Policies (CPPs) Project recently reached milestone: Initiation of the formal SCT review process County Council will hold hearings and take action on proposed CPP amendments from SCT before Puget Sound Regional Council certification of CPPs 2

40 Process Steps for the CPP Update Countywide Planning Policy Update Process From Snohomish County Tomorrow (SCT) process to PSRC Certification 1) Subcommittee of SCT PAC w/ preliminary briefings to SCT Committees 2) SCT Planning Advisory Committee (PAC) Review and Recommendation* 3) SCT Steering Committee Review and Recommendation 4) County Council Hearing and Adoption *The project has recently moved to this formal SCT review stage, which includes a public outreach effort 5) PSRC Certification 3

41 Public Involvement Public outreach to include use of SCT website and existing mailing lists Links to further information 4

42 Why are CPP s being updated now? For consistency with Multicounty Planning Policies adopted in Vision 2040 from the Puget Sound Regional Council in 2009 In response to revisions in State Law For internal consistency, readability, and to reflect actual practice/coordinate processes 5

43 Scope of Project All areas of the adopted CPPs are being reviewed Many of the changes are in format: Introductory chapters Addition of graphics Chapter titles align with MPPs Substantive Changes under review Include: Urban Growth Area boundary issues Annexation policies New or revised policies on the environment, job-housing balance, transportation, economic development, essential public facilities 6

44 Recap Planning Advisory Committee (PAC) of Snohomish County Tomorrow (SCT) is now preparing recommendations on new CPPs PAC is also seeking input from the public Council will be holding hearings to consider the CPP recommendations from SCT before taking action on proposed amendments PSRC certifies CPPs 7

45 Next Steps Future Briefings? Any Questions? 8