Snohomish County Tomorrow Steering Committee

Transcription

1 Snohomish County Tomorrow Steering Committee Agenda Bill Action Item 3.c. Date: February 27, 2013 Subject: 2012 Buildable Lands Report Exhibits: SCT Planning Advisory Committee Feb 14, 2013 Recommendation; Draft 2012 Buildable Lands Report Summary Statement: The Planning Advisory Committee, at their February 14, 2013 meeting, took action to recommend the draft 2012 Buildable Lands Report (BLR) to the Steering Committee. Upon approval by the Steering Committee, the SCT-recommended report would then be forwarded to the County Council for public hearing and adoption. Background: The attached draft Buildable Lands Report (BLR) is a requirement of the state Growth Management Act (RCW 36.70A.215). According to the Countywide Planning Policies, it is developed jointly by cities and the county using the Snohomish County Tomorrow process. The BLR is intended to periodically review and evaluate whether urban densities are being achieved within the UGA (in both city and county portions) and, based on the densities achieved, determine whether the UGA is capable of accommodating adopted growth targets. If not, corrective actions other than adjusting UGA boundaries are required of jurisdictions (reasonable measures). This is Snohomish County s third BLR, with reports previously prepared in 2002 and During 2010, SCT reviewed various scope of work options for a 2012 BLR in light of the cancellation of state grant funding for the 2012 report and local government budget difficulties. SCT recommended, and the County Council concurred, that a reduced scope of work be used for the 2012 report compared with previous reports, but that the work should be augmented above the most reduced option. SCT funds were recommended by SCT to support this effort, resulting in the hiring of an Associate Planner in to assist with data preparations for the report (i.e., development history, parcel database development, and production of maps for city staff and public/stakeholder review). This work was accomplished via one-on-one meetings and follow-up s with city staffs to review and correct the base map data for the project. Using these inputs, draft estimates of population and employment capacity were calculated. The web address showing the draft maps and draft results for individual cities, unincorporated MUGAs/UGAs is: g/information/demographics/buildable_lands/blr12_draftmisc.htm Even though the GMA was amended in by the fiscal relief bill to extend the deadline for completion of Snohomish County s next BLR to June 2014, adoption of the current BLR well in advance of this new deadline is still being pursued. This is because an earlier report provides key planning data in a more timely manner to support the next round of: SCT growth target updates (to 2035) during , and City and county GMA plan updates during Contact Person: Stephen Toy, , ext 2361

2 Snohomish County Tomorrow Steering Committee Agenda Bill Action Item 3.c. In preparation for a possible February 2013 Steering Committee recommendation on the draft 2012 Buildable Lands Report, Steering Committee representatives at both the November 28, 2012 and January 23, 2013 Steering Committee briefings were encouraged to consult with their PAC representative. Executive Committee Recommended Action: The Executive Committee has scheduled the Draft 2012 Buildable Lands Report for review and possible approval by the Steering Committee at the February 27, 2013 regular meeting. Contact Person: Stephen Toy, , ext 2361 SCT Steering Agenda Bill_Draft-BLR_Feb _updated.doc

3 PLANNING ADVISORY COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION TITLE: 2012 Buildable Lands Report DATE OF RECOMMENDATION: February 14, 2013 RECOMMENDED ACTION: The PAC recommends that the Steering Committee approve the 2012 Buildable Lands Report and transmit it to the Snohomish County Council for adoption. Attachments: COUNTYWIDE PLANNING POLICY (IES): 1. PAC-Recommended Draft 2012 Buildable Lands Report GF-7 DESCRIPTION/BACKGROUND: The 2012 Buildable Lands Report responds to the review and evaluation requirements of the Washington State Growth Management Act (GMA) in RCW 36.70A.215, commonly referred to as the buildable lands statute. The draft report was prepared by staff from the county and the cities using the Snohomish County Tomorrow (SCT) process. This is the third buildable lands review and evaluation report completed by Snohomish County and its cities. It is based on the methods and approaches first developed and used by the county and cities for the two previous buildable lands reports prepared by Snohomish County Tomorrow in 2002 and The current report evaluates whether there is sufficient suitable land within UGAs to accommodate the forecasted residential, commercial and industrial growth anticipated through the end of the 20-year GMA planning period, currently If the results of the buildable lands review and evaluation reveal that planned densities are not being achieved or that deficiencies in buildable land supply exist within UGAs, cities and counties are required to adopt and implement measures, other than adjusting urban growth areas, that are reasonably likely to ensure sufficient buildable lands throughout the remaining portion of the 20-year GMA planning period. 1

4 METHODOLOGY: Using geographic information systems (GIS) technology, the present analysis began with a spring extract of all Assessor parcel records within incorporated and unincorporated portions of the Snohomish County urban growth area (UGA). Parcels with additional development potential were classified into one of four categories: Vacant parcels without structures. Partially-used parcels where existing structures use a portion of the site and where additional development is possible without demolition. Redevelopable parcels with existing structures that are expected to be demolished and replaced with new and more intensive uses. Pending parcels with pending applications for new construction. Structures existing as of April 1, were considered developed and counted as part of the population or employment base, while everything proposed, built or occupied after that date was counted as future capacity for the 2012 report. Future land use information was then transferred to individual parcels using zoning classifications for most cities and plan designations for most parcels within unincorporated urban areas. There were some exceptions to this general rule, especially in areas where cities control utility extensions in unincorporated UGAs through a requirement to annex, in which case city pre-zoning (or plan designations) for unincorporated areas was used. Unbuildable land area in developable parcels was then removed from the buildable lands inventory for parcels affected by: critical areas and buffers (steep slopes, wetlands, streams and lakes, frequently flooded areas); major utility easements; future arterial rights-of-way and land needed for other capital facilities (schools, parks, etc.). The unbuildable land estimate within parcels was further increased by 5% to account for unmapped critical/unbuildable areas. Observed development densities (represented as housing units and/or jobs per buildable acre), derived from an analysis of actual residential, commercial and industrial development activity within both city and county plan and/or zone designations, were then applied to the parcel-level estimates of buildable acres. This resulted in an estimate of additional housing units and employment capacity by parcel. The resulting additional capacity estimates were then reduced to account for development uncertainties. These reductions pertained to uncertainties regarding: ability to obtain necessary capital facilities and services to support urban development over the next 20 years; removal of land for miscellaneous public/institutional uses (churches, schools, municipal purposes, etc.); and market availability (property that is held out for development over the next 20 years). Once these adjustments for uncertainties were made, the additional residential and employment capacities were aggregated from parcels to the city, UGA and Municipal UGA (MUGA) level in order to compare with the adopted 2025 population and employment targets, contained in Appendix B of the Countywide Planning Policies for Snohomish County. 2

5 The following flowchart depicts the major steps in conducting the buildable lands analysis: Conceptual Model for 2012 Buildable Lands Report (BLR) 2. What density actually happens in each zone? 5. What are the growth targets? 1. What land in the UGAs could be developed? 3. What is the land capacity as of? 4. How much is likely to be available by 2025? 6. Is there enough land capacity? RESULTS: Below are the key observations from the draft 2012 SCT Buildable Lands Report, recommended by the PAC on February 14, These observations describe the estimated capacity shortfalls (termed inconsistencies under the GMA buildable lands statute) and capacity surpluses shown in the 2012 BLR. Overall, at the countywide UGA level: o Urban densities are being achieved consistent with GMA comprehensive plans, and o There is adequate land capacity to accommodate the adopted 2025 total UGA population and employment growth targets Target UGA Total 595, , , , ,245 32,039 1 For the countywide UGA, additional population capacity exceeds projected UGA population growth by 32,039 (19.5%). This net overall UGA surplus population capacity results from a combination of UGAs showing excess capacity (totaling 37,928) above projected population growth, and those showing deficits (totaling -5,888), as shown in the UGA-specific table below. 3

6 Employment 2025 Employment Target Emp Employment Employment Emp UGA Total 234, , , , ,803 60,898 UGA- and city-specific observations show: o At the individual UGA level, there appear to be 2025 population capacity shortfalls within the Arlington UGA, Gold Bar UGA, Monroe UGA, and Sultan UGA: UGA 2025 Targets Arlington UGA 18,489 27,000 8,511 25,467 6,978 (1,533) Darrington UGA 1,420 2, , Gold Bar UGA 2,909 3, , (167) Granite Falls UGA 3,517 6,970 3,453 8,651 5,134 1,681 Index UGA Lake Stevens UGA 33,218 46,125 12,907 46,634 13, Marysville UGA 60,869 79,800 18,931 84,829 23,960 5,029 Monroe UGA 18,806 26,590 7,784 24,782 5,976 (1,808) Snohomish UGA 10,559 14,535 3,976 14,907 4, Stanwood UGA 6,353 8,840 2,487 11,452 5,099 2,612 Sultan UGA 4,969 11,119 6,150 8,739 3,770 (2,380) SW County UGA 434, ,125 98, , ,182 27,482 UGA Total 595, , , , ,245 32,039 o At the individual city level 2,3, there appears to be a 2025 population capacity shortfall within the Town of Darrington (although the Darrington UGA as a whole has enough capacity to accommodate the 2025 growth), and the cities of Monroe and Sultan. Within the SWUGA, which has enough overall capacity to accommodate the projected 2025 growth, there appear to be 2025 population capacity shortfalls within the cities of Bothell, Brier, Mill Creek, and Mukilteo: City 2025 Targets Arlington City 16,620 18,150 1,530 18,965 2, Bothell City 16,570 22,000 5,430 19,899 3,329 (2,101) Brier City 6,100 7,790 1,690 6, (1,002) 2 Using April 1, 2002 city boundaries (the date at which city boundaries were used to develop the 2025 targets). 3 deficits of less than 100 are not considered to be inconsistencies. 4

7 2025 Targets Darrington Town 1,345 1, , (230) Edmonds City 39,800 44,880 5,080 44,865 5,065 (15) Everett City 101, ,060 21, ,987 25,839 3,927 Gold Bar City 2,060 2, , (91) Granite Falls City 3,317 4,770 1,453 5,532 2, Index Town Lake Stevens City 7,644 8, ,777 1, Lynnwood City 35,767 43,782 8,015 44,624 8, Marysville City 32,418 36,737 4,319 38,627 6,209 1,890 Mill Creek City 14,554 16,089 1,535 15, (972) Monroe City 17,237 20,540 3,303 19,637 2,400 (903) Mtlk Terrace City 19,987 22,456 2,469 23,096 3, Mukilteo City 20,310 22,000 1,690 21,642 1,332 (358) Snohomish City 8,838 9,981 1,143 10,802 1, Stanwood City 4,438 5,650 1,212 5,910 1, Sultan City 4,655 8,190 3,535 7,203 2,548 (987) Woodway Town 1,305 1,170 (135) 1, City Total 354, ,202 65, ,161 69,867 3,960 o Within cities overall, there is adequate land capacity to accommodate the adopted 2025 total city population growth targets. o For all other UGAs and cities not mentioned in the bulleted text above, the BLR determined that there is adequate capacity for accommodating the adopted 2025 population growth targets. o There are no individual UGAs or cities within UGAs where there is a 2025 employment capacity shortfall. NOTE: The county and cities are already in the process of updating growth targets and comprehensive plans by 2015, so the inconsistencies identified above may be resolved through that update process. 5