DRAFT LETTER FOR DISCUSSION APPROVED BY SCT PLANNING ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON MARCH 9, Subject: Regional Centers Framework Update Project

Transcription

1 DRAFT LETTER FOR DISCUSSION APPROVED BY SCT PLANNING ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON MARCH 9, 2017 Puget Sound Regional Council 1011 Western Ave Suite 500 Seattle, WA Subject: Regional Centers Framework Update Project The Snohomish County Steering Committee on behalf of Snohomish County Tomorrow, which represents communities in Snohomish County and the Snohomish County government, is providing this letter to provide the Puget Sound Regional Council comments on the Regional Centers Framework Update Stakeholder Report. This has been an extensive process. The Stakeholder Working Group and PSRC staff are to be commended for their work efforts. The following comments are being provided as input to the PSRC s upcoming public review process and Policy Board discussion of the Stakeholder Working Group s recommendations. 1. PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE FOR REGIONAL GROWTH CENTERS The Stakeholder Working Group developed two alternatives for the new Regional Growth (Mixed Use) Center criteria. Alternative A is a two-tiered regional system and Alternative B is a threetiered regional system. Alternative A would differentiate centers based on role, activity, size, and transit service. Alternative B would differentiate centers based primarily on levels of transit service, with tiers further defined by activity, role, planning, and market potential. In reviewing the two Regional Growth Centers Alternatives, it is our recommendation that Alternative B be selected. For Snohomish County this would allow the existing regional growth centers to still be recognized: Tier 1 Everett, Tier 2 Lynnwood and Tier 3 Bothell Canyon Park. We also support the concept that Regional Growth Centers can be in unincorporated areas if they meet the criteria, including being locations for planned light rail stations and affiliated with cities for future annexation. We recommend Alternative B for the Regional Growth Centers Framework Update. 2. MANUFACTURING AND INDUSTRIAL CENTERS The Stakeholder Working Group developed three Manufacturing Industrial Centers (MIC) Alternatives: Alternative A, Alternative B1 and Alternative B2. Alternative A would create a higher standard for a tier one MIC, while a tier two would use the existing regional MIC criteria. Alternative B1 used the existing criteria for tier one, but developed 1

2 a tier two based on the potential for significant future growth. Alternative B2 took the tier one and tier two of Alternative B1 and gave them given equal standing in one tier. Arlington and Marysville have been working to get the Arlington/Marysville Manufacturing Industrial Center recognized as a regional MIC. Snohomish County Tomorrow and the Snohomish County Council have supported the recognition of this MIC. Alternative A would not support Arlington/Marysville MIC regional recognition at this time. Both Alternatives B1 and B2 would support Arlington/Marysville MIC regional recognition. Alternative B1 would recognize the Arlington/Marysville MIC as a tier two MIC, while Alternative B2 would recognize the Arlington/Marysville MIC within a single regional MIC category. In reviewing the three MIC Alternatives, it is our recommendation that B2 be selected with the recognition that B1 would also recognize the Arlington Marysville MIC. For Snohomish County, this would allow the existing MIC at Paine Field/Boeing Everett to still be recognized under both regional MIC Alternatives (tier one under Alterative B1), and for the Arlington/Marysville MIC to be recognized as a regional MIC under both Alternates B1 and B2. Alternative B2 is based on the idea that the designation of Manufacturing Industrial Centers should be based on potential employment and the amount of land zoned for manufacturing and industrial uses rather than just existing employment levels. This allows a community in its marketing efforts to portray a Center that is prepared for new investment and which communities are investing for growth. Requiring just a minimum existing employment level is self-defeating and does not reflect the changing market and the need to set aside manufacturing and industrial lands for the future. Manufacturing and Industrial uses are recognized in Vision 2040 as locations of intensive employment with facilities having large spaces for the assembly of goods and areas suitable for outdoor storage. It is important to recognize and set aside land for these uses. Manufacturing is changing and the number of people to produce the same amount of items is going down because of industry using manufacturing processes, which require fewer people. There are fewer people needed today to put together a Boeing airliner in Everett than 10 years ago. There are also large warehouses, which help provide items, which are sold over the internet and have few employees compared to the square footage of the building. By having criteria such as: a minimum size of 2,000 acres, evidence of future market potential, capacity for growth, industrial retention strategies, presence of key industrial infrastructure, and core industrial uses it communicates that these areas are important and need to be preserved for industrial uses to locate. Alternative B2 also recognizes the existing important Manufacturing Industrial Centers to preserve their regional role in providing areas for industrial jobs. We recommend Alternative B2 for the Manufacturing Industrial Centers framework update, with the recognition that Alternative B1 would also recognize the Arlington/Marysville MIC as a regional MIC. 3. EQUITY AND GEOGRAPHIC DISTRIBUTION 2

3 There needs to be regional equity by county for the number of regional mixed-use centers and Manufacturing and Industrial Centers. There needs to be a recognition by the PSRC that the region has a diversity of communities county by county. Each county is different and has development patterns, which reflect the history of its development and economics of its area. This approach would address the equity between counties on the number of centers each county has and those counties whose economics are different. Population can be used as a measure of equitable distribution where each county, for example, has one center per 100,000 population. This approach addresses the concerns that there is the potential for designating too many centers. By having a population cap in each county over time as population grows in the PSRC region more centers could be designated which meet the established criteria. Provide proportional distribution of regional centers by county such as one MIC per 250,000 population and one regional mixed use center per 100,000 population. 4. TIMING There have been calls for a delay in the Centers Update effort, both because Vision 2040 is due for updating in 2020 and because most local communities have just concluded their GMA Plan updates and certification. These are the very reasons this process should be concluded, not delayed. The Regional Centers Framework Update Project is an outgrowth of existing VISION 2040 policies and adopted actions. Consistent with multicounty planning policies DP-6, DP-9 and DP-12, this current PSRC effort follows through on the following implementation measure: DP-ACTION-5: The Puget Sound Regional Council, together with its member jurisdictions and countywide planning bodies, will develop a common framework for identifying various types of central places beyond regional centers. Address the role of smaller nodes that provide similar characteristics as centers. Results and Products: common framework for hierarchy of centers (for regional, countywide, and local planning purposes). The Framework Update is a clear implementation strategy for Vision Its adoption is the logical extension of a years-long process. Its results should be an input to the Vision 2040 update once centers are given a preliminary designation and the master planning called out as a condition of final approval is completed. Fitting those results into the Vision 2040 update and local comprehensive plans would be a logical conclusion to the Framework Update process. The proposed five-year centers monitoring reports will then ensure that centers remain viable and properly classified. Determine and recommend to the PSRC Growth Management Policy Board, a tiered system of regional centers and manufacturing industrial centers, with map locations and criteria for classification and reclassification. 3

4 Provide for 5-year monitoring reports, which may be used to signal changes (e.g. higher tier, lower tier, declassification). 5. IRREPLACEABLE INFRASTRUCTURE Vision 2040 calls for Manufacturing and Industrial Centers to be served by major regional transportation infrastructure, including rail, major highways and port facilities port facilities is not defined but we recommend that this include marine port facilities and airports. Follow Vision 2040 and have as a criterion that Manufacturing and Industrial Centers be served by major regional transportation infrastructure, including rail, major highways and port facilities including marine port and airports. 6. AFFORDABLE WORK FORCE HOUSING MICs should have the potential for affordable work force housing near them to ensure jobs and opportunities closer to where housing can be provided for families. A jobs-housing balance is important to have an appropriate match between the jobs and available housing supply and is encouraged by Vison Manufacturing Industrial Centers should be located where there is nearby affordable housing and the potential for more housing. 7. CENTERS LOCATION The regional mixed-use centers should allow for light rail transit centers within UGAs but outside cities. These areas should be in areas which are part of a Municipal Urban Growth Area that will be annexed in the future UGAs, which are intended to provide for population and job growth; and to ensure that public facilities are concurrent with growth. Allow regional mixed-use centers within incorporated cities or within UGA boundaries at locations for planned light rail stations where they are part of a Municipal Urban Growth Area and will be annexed in the future. 8. PROCESS AND TIMING FOR DESIGNATION AS A CENTER The current process allows communities to apply for Regional Center and Manufacturing and Industrial Center designation when they meet the criteria. Staff has suggested limiting application to only times of updates of Vision 2040 or Comprehensive Plan updates. We believe this is too long. Vision 2040 was adopted in 2008 and is planned to be updated in 2020 (12 years) and Comprehensive Plans are updated every 8 years under State Law. This is too long of a time and to put it in perspective this is 2 or 3 terms of local elected officials. 4

5 The current process allowing application at any time or an established every 2-year process is more practical then every 8 or 12 years. 9. Grace Period We support a grace period of at least five years for jurisdictions with existing regional centers to come into compliance with the new criteria, both in terms of center plan and regulation updates and of activity unit results tracked via 5-year monitoring reports. In particular, we support the recommendation contained in the Stakeholder Working Group report on page 24 under Redesignation of Existing Centers, that states: The board should use discretion in evaluating existing centers to consider when centers are very close to the existing conditions criteria, to account from economic recessions, progress and growth, local investments or the lack of investments, and regional importance of a particular area (especially related to industrial infrastructure). 10. Countywide Centers Recommendation (CPP establishment criteria): We support the criteria for Countywide Planning Policies that establish a designation process for countywide centers. 11. Military Centers We support the stakeholder group recommendation that jurisdictions should be able to count military activity towards regional center designation thresholds when the military facility is directly adjacent to the center. 12. Tribal Centers We support further work by PSRC to work with tribes in the region to evaluate the potential for addressing centers on tribal lands. Sincerely Yours, John Spencer, SCT Co-chair, SCT Co-chair 5

6 Barbara Tolbert, SCT Vice-chair, SCT Vice-chair 6