Regional Centers Framework Update. Growth Management Policy Board July 6, 2017

Transcription

1 Regional Centers Framework Update Growth Management Policy Board July 6, 2017

2 Today s Meeting Project Update Purpose + Follow-up Continue discussion of: Military Installations Manufacturing/Industrial Centers Regional Growth Centers Overview of Countywide Center Guidance

3 Recent Progress June GMPB Discussion o Manufacturing/Industrial Center Alternatives o Overview of Regional Funding Additional project outreach o Special Needs Transportation, SSMCP, Lakewood + University Place Regional Staff Committee technical assistance o Social equity proposal

4 Today s Objectives Working toward a board draft recommendation Preliminary guidance: o Military installations o Manufacturing/industrial centers o Regional growth centers o Countywide centers Development of draft board proposal may continue in September

5 Proposed Schedule July o Direction to prepare draft document for discussion September o Social equity/report back from RSC o Discuss + revise draft proposal October o Complete draft proposal, release for comment November/December o Review comments + action on proposal

6 Why Centers Land Use Compact growth, reduce sprawl, provide housing choices Transportation Multimodal transportation, leverage investments Environment Reduce emissions, preserve land Equity Improve mobility and access to opportunity Economy Economic development and competitiveness

7 Guiding Principles Support the Growth Management Act and VISION 2040 Focus growth consistent with the Regional Growth Strategy Recognize and support different types and roles of regional and subregional centers Provide common procedures across the region Guide strategic use of limited regional investments Inform future planning updates at regional, countywide, and local levels

8 Centers - Type/Tiers VISION 2020 (1995 edition) Regional Center Metropolitan Center Urban Center VISION 2020 (1990 edition) Regional Center Metropolitan Center Subregional Center Phase 1 Phase 2 higher goals than current standards similar to current standards higher goals than current standards

9 Centers - Scale Employment areas Regional shopping malls Historic downtowns Metropolitan downtowns Light rail station areas

10 Military Installations

11 Framework Proposal Discussed options at May meeting Military installations matrix provided in packet Options: Move ahead with military installations option For study evaluate implications as part of overall package or Further discussion in September Identify additional information that would facilitate review of options

12 Military Installations A Countywide + Adjacent Designate as countywide centers Count facilities adjacent to RGCs B Countywide + Nearby Designate as countywide centers Count facilities nearby RGCs C Regional designation Unique center designation for large military installations D Regional geography Military Center regional geography + prioritize funding

13 Option A Description: Military facilities should be eligible to be designated as countywide centers Combine jobs and population from directly adjacent facilities (e.g. Bremerton)

14 Option B Description: Military facilities should be eligible to be designated as countywide centers Jurisdictions may count military activity in proximity to nearby regional centers

15 Option C Description Develop a Military Center designation in VISION 2040 to recognize the most significant installations: o Joint Base Lewis McChord o Naval Base Kitsap Bremerton Shipyard Bangor o Naval Base Everett

16 Pierce Proposal Description Expands on Option C Defines Major Military Installations regional geography Clarifies purpose and relationship to regional funding process Clarifies countywide designation for other military installations

17 Military Installations A Countywide + Adjacent Designate as countywide centers Count facilities adjacent to RGCs B Countywide + Nearby Designate as countywide centers Count facilities nearby RGCs C Regional designation Unique center designation for large military installations D Regional geography Military Center regional geography + prioritize funding

18 Framework Proposal Discussed options at May meeting Military installations matrix provided in packet Options: Move ahead with military installations option For study evaluate implications as part of overall package or Further discussion in September Identify additional information that would facilitate review of options

19 Manufacturing/ Industrial Centers

20 VISION 2040 Manufacturing/Industrial Center Goal: The region will continue to maintain and support viable regional manufacturing/industrial centers to accommodate manufacturing, industrial, or advanced technology uses.

21 Manufacturing/Industrial Common to all alternatives: Emphasis on: Core industrial uses Industrial retention strategies Demand management + planning for transit where appropriate Consider regional or countywide role Industrial infrastructure

22 Manufacturing/Industrial A Major employment centers B1 Industrial land + employment tiers B2 Industrial land + employment types 2 regional tiers, one larger than current job standards Guidelines for countywide designation 2 regional tiers based on current job standards Designate large areas of industrial land Center types to designate large areas of industrial land and employment centers

23 Alternative A Description: Two regional tiers: Current threshold (10,000+ jobs) Tier larger than current standard (20,000 jobs +) Also designate countywide centers for MICs less than 10,000 jobs Minimum % of industrial employment

24 Alternative B1 Description: Two regional tiers: Existing employment (10,000 jobs) and planned employment (20,000 jobs) Significant concentration of industrial land (2,000+ acres)

25 Alternative B2 Description: Two non-hierarchical regional types: Regional Industrial Lands: Significant concentration of industrial land (2,000+ acres) Regional Employment Center: Existing employment (10,000 jobs) and planned employment (20,000 jobs)

26 MIC Discussion Growth Rate. Should there be performance or growth expectations for existing manufacturing/industrial centers over time? Manufacturing/Industrial Centers Industrial-Sector Jobs Trends MIC % Change Sumner-Pacific 189% Frederickson 143% Paine Field / Boeing Everett 48% Puget Sound Industrial Center- Bremerton 39% Kent MIC -1% Ballard-Interbay -16% Duwamish & North Tukwila* -17% Port of Tacoma -18% Positive growth in industrial jobs since 2000

27 MIC Discussion Job Threshold. B1 & B2 do not require a minimum number of jobs. Should manufacturing/industrial centers have a minimum number of existing jobs or be expected to plan for job growth?

28 MIC Discussion Industrial Jobs. Several MICs have added more nonindustrial employment. Should there be a minimum percentage of industrial jobs required or expectations for market potential?

29 Manufacturing/Industrial A Major employment centers B1 Industrial land + employment tiers B2 Industrial land + employment types 2 regional tiers, one larger than current job standards Guidelines for countywide designation 2 regional tiers based on current job standards Designate large areas of industrial land Center types to designate large areas of industrial land and employment centers

30 Framework Proposal Discussed options at June meeting Options: Move ahead with manufacturing/industrial center option for study Components of alternative B2 or other alternatives, with further direction based on discussion questions? Staff will evaluate implications as part of overall package or Further discussion in September Identify additional information that would facilitate review of options

31 Regional Growth Centers

32 VISION 2040 Regional Growth Center Goal: The region will direct growth and development to a limited number of designated regional growth centers.

33 Growth Centers Existing approach: o Minimum 18 activity units per acre o Planning for 45 activity units per acre o 1.5 sq. mile maximum o Planning for a mix of uses 29 designated centers 5 centers don t meet current minimum adopted density criteria

34 Regional Growth Centers Market Study and Peer Regions research Factors correlated with growth: Transit and transportation access Walkability Location Existing jobs and housing Evidence of recent growth

35 Regional Growth Centers Common to both alternatives: Size: establish minimum size, smaller maximum size Transit measure that considers mode, quality of service, and planned future service Consideration of regional role Evidence of market potential

36 Alternative A Regional Growth Center higher growth areas Regional role (metro center or regional destination) Existing/planned activity 30/80 activity units per acre Existing or planned light rail, commuter rail, ferry, or other highcapacity transit (<15-minute headways, 18-hours weekdays) Market potential Regional Growth Center Regional or county role (county destination) Existing/planned activity 18/45 activity units per acre Existing or planned frequent & all day transit service Market potential Countywide Centers (minimum guidelines) Transit, mixed use, compact, walkable (10 activity units per acre)

37 Alternative B Regional Growth Center 3 tiers Centers with existing or planned transit service Minimum of local or express bus service, 10 au/acre Points based on menu of choices, including: Existing density Planned density Regional or county destination/role Market potential Actions supporting development Countywide Centers (minimum guidelines) Transit, mixed use, compact, walkable (10 au/ac)

38 RGC Discussion Centers have different existing conditions. Should the criteria recognize some centers are very different in size and may be expected to grow more than others?

39 RGC Discussion Existing centers. How should existing centers be considered for redesignation? Should standards or process be different than for new centers?

40 RGC Discussion Centers have seen varying levels of growth. Should there be performance and growth expectations for existing centers?

41 RGC Discussion The current criteria primarily focus on density and planning. Should the framework also include new criteria for: Level of transit service Market potential Regional role

42 RGC Discussion Alternative B provides a menu of optional criteria. Are there some criteria that should be required of all regional growth centers? Are there some that should be flexible?

43 Framework Proposal Discussions at May meeting Options: Direct staff to assemble revised or hybrid option based on discussion or Move ahead with regional growth center option for study Staff will evaluate implications as part of overall package

44 Countywide Centers

45 Countywide Centers MPP-DP-12: Establish a common framework among the countywide processes for designating subregional centers to ensure compatibility within the region. DP-Action-5: PSRC, together with its member jurisdictions and countywide planning bodies, will develop a common framework for identifying various types of central places beyond regional centers.

46 Countywide Centers Proposed process: PSRC would establish consistent minimum guidelines Countywide groups would finalize criteria and process, tailored to each county Countywide MIC designation in Alternative A Recommend countywide centers a priority for countywide investment, consistent with VISION existing funding policy

47 Current Approach King County o 17 countywide centers (same as regional centers) Kitsap County o 24 countywide centers through CPPs (not including RGCs) Pierce County o Adopted process and criteria but no centers designated o Centers of Local Importance designated Snohomish County o No process to identify countywide centers

48 Countywide Centers Center is a local planning and investment priority Land use: Minimum density of 10 activity units/acre Mixed-use zoning (including residential) Capacity for growth Multi-modal transportation: Transit service, nonmotorized infrastructure & walkable street pattern Walkable size (between ¼ and ½ square mile)

49 Countywide Centers Discussion Questions Do the guidelines provide reasonable parameters for countywide centers? Are there other factors or considerations missing? Are there other directions you d like us to explore?

50 Other Recommendations The Stakeholder Working Group report addresses a variety of other recommendations, including: o Planning requirements in advance of regional designation o Refine planning and eligibility requirements o Update designation process to consider location, distribution, overall regional planning objectives o Develop performance measures

51 Proposed Schedule July o Direction to prepare draft document for discussion September o Social equity/report back from RSC o Discuss + revise draft proposal October o Complete draft proposal, release for comment November/December o Review comments + action on proposal

52 APR MAY JUN JULY SEP OCT NOV DEC GMPB Purpose + Objectives Growth Centers Military Facilities Industrial Centers Funding Overview Framework Development Countywide Centers Framework Development Framework Development Release for comment? Comments Final recommendation Regional Staff Committee Technical Assistance Comments Technical Assistance as needed Executive Board Project Briefing Project Briefing GMPB Transmittal

53 Thank you. Liz Underwood-Bultmann Senior Planner Paul Inghram Program Manager

54 Board Direction to SWG

55 Board Direction to SWG Location as Selection Criteria Alternative Center Types or Functions Transit and Transportation Access Market Characteristics