View
1
Download
0
Category
Preview:
Citation preview
Regional Centers Framework UpdateGrowth Management Policy Board • July 6, 2017
Today’s Meeting
Project Update
Purpose + Follow-up
Continue discussion of:
Military Installations
Manufacturing/Industrial Centers
Regional Growth Centers
Overview of Countywide Center Guidance
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
Today’s Objectives
Working toward a board draft recommendation
Preliminary guidance:
o Military installationso Manufacturing/industrial centers o Regional growth centerso Countywide centers
Development of draft board proposal may continue in September
Proposed Schedule
Julyo Direction to prepare draft document for discussion
September o Social equity/report back from RSCo Discuss + revise draft proposal
October o Complete draft proposal, release for comment
November/December o Review comments + action on proposal
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
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
Centers - Type/Tiers
VISION 2020 (1995 edition)Regional CenterMetropolitan Center Urban Center
VISION 2020 (1990 edition)Regional CenterMetropolitan CenterSubregional Center
Phase 1Phase 2
higher goals than current standards
similar to current standards
higher goals than current standards
Centers - Scale
Employment areas
Metropolitan downtowns
Regional shopping mallsHistoric downtowns
Light rail station areas
Military Installations
Discussed options at May meetingMilitary installations matrix provided in packet
Options:• Move ahead with military installations option
For study – evaluate implications as part of overall packageor
• Further discussion in September Identify additional information that would facilitate review of options
Framework Proposal
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
DRegional geography
• Military Center regional geography + prioritize funding
Option A
• Military facilities should be eligible to be designated as countywide centers
• Combine jobs and population from directly adjacent facilities (e.g. Bremerton)
Description:
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
Option C
Develop a “Military Center” designation in VISION 2040 to recognize the most significant installations:
o Joint Base Lewis McChordo Naval Base Kitsap
• Bremerton Shipyard• Bangor
o Naval Base Everett
Description
Pierce Proposal
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
Description
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
DRegional geography
• Military Center regional geography + prioritize funding
Discussed options at May meetingMilitary installations matrix provided in packet
Options:• Move ahead with military installations option
For study – evaluate implications as part of overall packageor
• Further discussion in September Identify additional information that would facilitate review of options
Framework Proposal
Manufacturing/Industrial Centers
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.
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
Manufacturing/Industrial
Manufacturing/Industrial
B2 Industrial land + employment
types
B1 Industrial land + employment
tiers
A Major
employment centers
2 regional tiers, one larger than current jobstandards
Guidelines for countywide designation
2 regional tiers based on current job standards
Designate large areas of industrial land
Center types to designate large areas ofindustrial land and employment centers
Alternative A
• 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
Description:
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)
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)
Growth Rate. Should there be performance or growth expectations for existing manufacturing/industrial centers over time?
MIC Discussion
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
Job Threshold. B1 & B2 do not require a minimum number of jobs. Shouldmanufacturing/industrial centers have a minimum number of existing jobs or be expected to plan for job growth?
MIC Discussion
Industrial Jobs. Several MICs have added more non-industrial employment. Should there be a minimum percentage of industrial jobs required or expectations for market potential?
MIC Discussion
Manufacturing/Industrial
B2 Industrial land + employment
types
B1 Industrial land + employment
tiers
A Major
employment centers
2 regional tiers, one larger than current jobstandards
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
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
Framework Proposal
Regional Growth Centers
VISION 2040
Regional Growth Center Goal:
The region will direct growth and development to a limited number of designated regional growth centers.
Growth Centers
Existing approach:o Minimum 18 activity units per
acreo Planning for 45 activity units
per acreo 1.5 sq. mile maximumo Planning for a mix of uses
29 designated centers• 5 centers don’t meet current
minimum adopted density criteria
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
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
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 high-
capacity 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)
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)
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?
RGC Discussion
Existing centers. How should existing centers be considered for redesignation? Should standards or process be different than for new centers?
RGC Discussion
Centers have seen varying levels of growth. Should there be performance and growth expectations for existing centers?
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
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?
Framework Proposal
Discussions at May meeting
Options:• Direct staff to assemble revised or hybrid option based
on discussionor
• Move ahead with regional growth center option for study• Staff will evaluate implications as part of overall package
Countywide Centers
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.
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 2040 + existing funding policy
Current Approach
King Countyo 17 countywide centers (same as regional centers)
Kitsap Countyo 24 countywide centers through CPPs (not including RGCs)
Pierce County o Adopted process and criteria but no centers designatedo Centers of Local Importance designated
Snohomish Countyo No process to identify countywide centers
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)
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?
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
Other Recommendations
Proposed Schedule
Julyo Direction to prepare draft document for discussion
September o Social equity/report back from RSCo Discuss + revise draft proposal
October o Complete draft proposal, release for comment
November/December o Review comments + action on proposal
APR MAY JUN JULY SEP NOV DECOCT
GMPB Purpose + Objectives
Project Briefing
Project Briefing
Executive Board
Regional Staff Committee
Growth Centers
Military Facilities
Industrial Centers
Funding Overview
Framework Development
Countywide Centers
Framework Development
Comments
Technical Assistance –
Comments
Final recommendation
GMPB Transmittal
Technical Assistance as needed
Framework Development
Release for comment?
Thank you.
Liz Underwood-BultmannSenior Planner
LUnderwood-Bultmann@psrc.org
Paul InghramProgram Manager
PInghram@psrc.org
Board Direction to SWG
Location as Selection Criteria Alternative Center Types or Functions
Transit and Transportation Access Market Characteristics
Board Direction to SWG
Recommended