HomeMy WebLinkAbout01/14/2014 02 Interlocal Agreement and Countywide Planning Policies DiscussionBUSINESS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
YAKIMA, WASHINGTON
AGENDA STATEMENT
Item No.
For Meeting of: 1/14/2014
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
ITEM TITLE:
SUBMITTED BY:
SUMMARY EXPLANATION:
Discussion of Interlocal Agreement and Countywide Planning
Policies
Steve Osguthorpe, AICP, Community Development Director
(509) 575-3533
Yakima County has been working with staff of jurisdictions within Yakima County on a draft
update to the Interlocal Agreement (ILA) that implements the Countywide Planning Policies
(CWPPs). During this process, staff has identified a number of issues within the policies
themselves that merit review before amending the ILA that implements the policies. The
attached memo describes these issues with specific references to the current CWPPs, which
are also attached. Staff would like to get Council direction on this matter before moving forward
with any continued dialogue with County staff on this matter, and before any formal
communication with County Commissioners.
Resolution:
Other (Specify): Memorandum
Contract: Contract Term:
Start Date: End Date:
Amount:
Ordinance:
Item Budgeted: NA
Funding Source/Fiscal
Impact:
Strategic Priority:
Insurance Required? No
Mail to:
Phone:
APPROVED FOR
SUBMITTAL:
Partnership Development
City Manager
RECOMMENDATION:
No recommendation at this point. The intent of this workshop is to facilitate discussion and
receive Council feedback and direction.
ATTACHMENTS:
Description Upload Date
memo re ILA 1/9/2014
"Yakima County -Wide Planning Policy" revised
Oct. 2003
11/20/2013
Type
Cover Memo
Backup Materliall
1111111111111111111111,1,1)11
/29 \/or-th Second. 2nd /f` m m 'akinw, :shim*. 9890/
Phone (5 9) „575-61/3 576-6576
WWW.ya%ar11 (!W(! "!;o6'
MEMORANDUM
January 14, 2014
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: Steve Osguthorpe, AICP, Community Development Director
SUBJECT: Growth Management Act Implementation: Proposed Amendments to
City/County Interlocal Agreement and Yakima County and 2017
Comprehensive Plan Update.
Community Development staff is developing a work plan to review & revise the
comprehensive plan, as required, by June 2017 (RCW 36.70A.130 (5)(c)). There are
many tasks to meet this deadline and will require commitment of staff and resources, as
well as policy guidance by the City Council.
One preliminary task is the review of the Interlocal Agreement (ILA) between cities and
the county which implements Countywide Planning Policies (CWPPs). The ILA was
adopted in 2000, and the Countywide Planning Policies were last updated in 2003. They
reference a "visioning" document prepared in 1993. These documents do not reflect the
2006 Yakima Urban Area Comprehensive Plan or the 2007 Yakima County Plan.
Yakima County has recently been working with staff representatives from cities
throughout the county on a draft update to the Interlocal Agreement. As we discussed
the County's draft amongst our own staff, we determined that before finalizing any
updates to the ILA, we should first evaluate how effective the actual policies have been
at achieving coordinated development in the City's Urban Growth Area (UGA). There
are six areas where current policy implementation or interpretation can be particularly
problematic for the City, including:
1. Existing UGA Boundaries, Growth Areas, and Annexation Policies
2. Lack of Sewer Facilities for New Development
3. Substandard Sidewalk and Road Width for New Development
4. Development Costs Are Passed On To Tax Payers
5. Policies Limit City's Ability to Define Its Own Land Use Designations
6. Limited Opportunity for City to Comment on Development Proposals in UGA
(Ode Administration P‘5,O9), 7 0126 5()9) 575 rej/83
PO(nod P 9) 575 (/0.
Specific policies and associated challenges in these areas are more fully described
below:
1. Existing UGA Boundaries, Growth Areas, and Annexation Policies
Under the Growth Management Act, cities and counties are to designate urban growth
areas (UGA's), reflecting areas where urban levels of density and urban services will be
provided. Urban growth areas are intended to reflect those areas that a city can
reasonably commit to serve over the 20 year planning horizon and that the city expects
to annex over time. The City's UGA should be only as large as the City has the fiscal
resources to provide urban services to, and service levels should be based on agreed
upon standards.
Level of service (LOS) standards must be defined for transportation and the City must
ensure what is called "concurrency" for identified transportation needs. That means that
required transportation infrastructure must be concurrent or in place at the time of
development. But the City can also define service levels for police, fire, utilities and
parks and other public services. For example, the City of Yakima has defined in its
Parks & Recreation element of the Comprehensive Plan a recommended standard of
between two acres and five acres of park land per 1,000 people. That means that for
the existing UGA and its projected population, the City needs to develop 138 acres of
mini -neighborhood parks and 251.32 acres of community and special use parks to meet
its adopted standards. We can also determine an appropriate response time for fire and
emergency vehicles and map out current or estimated response times for various areas
of the city and UGA. These and similar LOS standards in the UGA will help to ensure
that development occurring both within corporate limits and within the UGA boundaries
meets city standards.
This is a significant policy and economic issue. Currently, the City's UGA includes land
that has low probability of ever being annexed. The Terrace Heights area is included in
the City's UGA as well as land north of Hwy 12. It is not clear to what degree the City of
Yakima has the projected financial capacity or interest to provide urban services to these
areas, and yet the city is required to account for projected population for these areas in
its comprehensive plan. Additionally, land is being developed in the UGA that is beyond
the reach and/or capacity of current infrastructure, meaning that the City can't effectively
and efficiently provide urban services. For example, the West Valley is expected to
include the largest amount of anticipated growth within the Yakima UGA, but the existing
water or wastewater trunk system cannot accommodate flows from this area. To
accommodate even an additional 5,200 equivalent dwelling units (EDU's), a 1.5 mile
stretch of upsized pipe is needed, and for an additional 10,000 EDU's an additional 1
mile stretch of upsized pipe is needed. With these and other significant costs associated
with providing urban -type services, we need to determine if the UGA boundaries make
sense and to what degree CWPPs allow opportunity to reevaluate the City's UGA
commitments.
2. Lack of Sewer Facilities for New Development
The Countywide Planning Policies call for Contiguous, Orderly Development with the
provision of urban services occurring at the time of occupancy of such development.
(See Policy B). The presumed intent is to have development occur in areas contiguous
to existing urban services rather than leapfrogging out to areas where services do not
exist or cannot readily be extended. That has apparently been difficult to implement,
2
perhaps because the City lacks a written/formal policy to issue "Certificates of
Availability" for municipal sewer. Such a procedure would direct the nature of future
sewer services.
Much of the UGA area is being developed on septic systems, meaning that as areas are
annexed into the City, we will have large areas within the City that are not served by
sewer. To compensate for lack of sewer, subdivisions have been approved in the UGA
conditioned upon installation of dry sewer lines. Currently, there is language in both the
West Valley Neighborhood Plan and Title 15A of the County Code that supports this
practice. This is problematic for a number of practical or technical reasons that we can
discuss at the workshop, but also because dry -line installation does not eliminate the
need for septic systems as an interim measure for handling sewerage. Use of septic
systems typically results in development that does not achieve targeted urban densities
due to the amount of area needed for drain fields. Also, allowance for development to
initially occur on septic systems defers and shifts the cost of sewer installation on to the
general tax payer.
3. Substandard Sidewalk and Road Width for New Development
The County Wide Planning Policies recognize that areas of the UGA will eventually be
annexed into cities, and state that a mechanism is needed to assure that planning and
permitting decision of the County are consistent with the planning objectives and
development standards of the City. (See Policy E). The Policies therefore call for
common and consistent development and construction standards throughout that urban
growth area, including standards for streets and roads. (See Policy F.3.5) The stated
intent is to "minimize differences in urban development regulations and standards
between the County and the cities and to facilitate the economical provision or urban
services to development." The presumed intent is to create a seamless network of
infrastructure as the city expands into the UGA. That has apparently been difficult to
implement. Subdivisions have been approved in the outer areas of the UGA that do not
meet city standards. They have substandard road widths, substandard road bases, and
have either no sidewalks or sidewalks on one side only. Currently, both the West Valley
Neighborhood Plan and Title 15A of the County Code supports sidewalks on one side
only in many situations. In 2011, Yakima County adopted the Tiered Sidewalk approach
for Urban Areas, which implements additional sidewalk requirements.
This is problematic in terms of long term efforts to develop a complete sidewalk network
and to make Yakima a walkable community. It is technically difficult and practically
impossible to incorporate sidewalks after the fact into existing development for reasons
we can discuss at the workshop, but the lack of sidewalks creates other related
problems. For example, subdivisions approved without sidewalks may not meet the
"safe route to school" requirement under RCW 15.17.110, which requires that local
governments approving subdivisions ensure safe walking conditions for students who
only walk to and from school. Moreover, the void in sidewalks along a particular walking
route that is created by approving one subdivision without sidewalks has a domino effect
on the city's ability to approve other subdivisions along the same school walking route. It
could leave the next developer on the hook to fill the sidewalk void left by the previous
developer.
4. Development Costs Are Passed On To Taxpayers
Policy II (F)(3)(b)(2) of the current Interlocal Agreement states that "the costs of system
extension will be generally borne by the developer." This is consistent with CWPPs that
3
anticipate urban services to be in place prior to development occupancy. However, the
allowance of septic systems in the UGA defers installation of sewer infrastructure within
the streets of a proposed subdivision, thereby allowing the developer to pass sewer
infrastructure costs on to the general public and taxpayer. Costs are similarly passed on
to the taxpayers to install sidewalks
5. Policies Limit City's Ability to Define its Own Land Use Designations
Under the proposed ILA language, the County proposes to develop a list of land use
designations that would be used by all jurisdictions, including the County, in the urban
growth areas. This would allow the County to refer to its own development standards
when development is proposed in the UGA prior to annexation. This may have merit,
provided the County's zoning designations that would then be applied to that land use
designation coincided with zoning that the city would apply under the same land use
designation. The concern is that the County's list of permitted uses in a particular zone
could be different than what uses the city would permit in that same zone. In many
cases, the County's allowed uses could be more intense than what the city would
otherwise allow. But perhaps the bigger question is whether this language belongs in
the ILA or in the actual CWPP document. I believe this is a significant policy statement
that should be considered for inclusion in the CWPP's before we attempt to implement it
through the ILA.
6. Limited Opportunity for City to Comment on Development Proposals in UGA
The Policies state that interlocal agreements shall specify the process by which affected
local governments may review and comment on comprehensive plan amendments, zone
changes and development applications processed by another jurisdiction within urban
growth areas (See Policy 5.3.4). That is occurring rather haphazardly; there is not a
process to implement this policy defined in the current ILA. The result is that
development is approved in the UGA with little opportunity to comment on many of the
deficiencies described herein.
Next Steps: The current CWPPs remind us that local governments within Yakima
County agree to strive to discuss and settle locally any planning differences that may
arise, and that any appeals to the Eastern Washington Growth Planning Hearings Board
occur only when the local resolution process has been exhausted. I believe it is
important to work with the County to find resolution to the above issues. This might
include a review of all CWPP's with County officials and an assessment of how
implementation of each policy is addressed in the ILA and/or carried out in practice. I
have discussed this with County staff who agree that these issues merit further
consideration as they continue the ILA update process. They have suggested that we
put our concerns in a letter format to begin that dialogue with the County
Commissioners. A modified version of this e-mail might serve that purpose.
Before beginning any formal correspondence with the County, we wish to first bring the
City Council up to speed on these issues and get your input on how to best move
forward. Because the Countywide Planning Policies are a required component of the
Growth Management Act, addressing these issues now will help us develop a better
sense of what issues we'll want to address with our 2017 comprehensive plan update.
A copy of the current County Wide Planning Policies is attached to facilitate discussion.
4
YAKIMA COUNTY -WIDE
PLANNING POLICY
A Policy Framework to Guide the Development of
Comprehensive Plans Under the
Washington State Growth Management Act
Originally adopted June 1993
Revised and adopted October 2003
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
1. Introduction
Countywide Planning Policies - A Policy Framework for 1
Comprehensive Planning
Policy Development 1
Guiding Principles - Coordination and Cooperation 3
Roles and Responsibilities 4
2. Yakima Countywide Planning Policy
A. Urban Growth Areas 4
B. Contiguous and Orderly Development 9
C. Siting Public Facilities 11
D. County -Wide Transportation Facilities 13
E. Affordable Housing 15
F. Joint Planning 17
G. Economic Development 19
H. Fiscal Impact Analysis 21
I. Coordination with Special Purpose Districts, Adjacent 23
Counties and State, Tribal and Federal Governments
3. Appendices
Planning Goals of the Growth Management Act
Glossary of Terms
County -wide Planning Policy Committee Membership
A-1
A-3
A-5
INTRODUCTION
Countywide Planning Policies - A Policy Framework For Comprehensive
Planning
The passage of the Growth Management Act (GMA) (ESHB 2929) by the Washington State
Legislature in 1990 fundamentally changed the way comprehensive land use planning is carried
out in the state. The GMA requires that cities and counties update their comprehensive land use
plans consistent with statewide goals and minimum requirements as established by the statute, and
coordinate their planning efforts with each other.
To assure that this principle is carried out, the 1991 Legislature passed companion legislation
(ReESHB 1025) requiring counties and cities to coordinate the independent development of local
comprehensive plans through a set of mutually developed county -wide planning policies. These
written policy statements are to address eight subject areas:
>The designation of urban growth areas;
>Promotion of contiguous and orderly development and provision of urban services to
such development;
>The siting of public capital facilities of a countywide or statewide nature;
>Countywide transportation facilities and strategies;
>The need for affordable housing for all segments of the population;
>Joint city and county planning within urban growth areas;
>County -wide economic development and employment; and
>Analysis of fiscal impact.
Optional subject areas may also be addressed. The Yakima County -wide Planning Policy also
contains a section on:
>Coordination with special purpose districts, adjacent counties and state, tribal and
federal governments.
Policy Development
1993 Plan
In 1991, hundreds of local citizens took part in Vision Yakima 2010/Focus 2010, two separate but
similar visioning projects to develop a preferred future for the Yakima Valley based on the
community's beliefs and values. In the Upper Valley, issue committees were formed in the areas
of: Economic Development, Education & Employment Training, Environment, Growth Planning,
Health Care, Housing, Humanity & Family, Quality of Life and Rural & Agriculture. In the
Lower Valley, six issue topics were addressed: Urban Growth & Land Use, Government Services
& Facilities, Housing, Transportation, Economic Development & Employment, and Environment
& Resource Protection. Committees met separately over several months and submitted reports
2003 County -wide Plamiing Policy 1
that were edited only for style and format. Though each committee had a different assignment,
there were dramatic similarities in the beliefs and values that drove their recommendations. Public
forums were held to present the citizen reports. In recognition of this citizen -based effort, the
Board of Yakima County Commissioners and city councils of the six upper valley communities
approved the Upper Valley Vision Yakima 2010 report as a foundation for more detailed
comprehensive plans and implementation programs.
Much of the visioning effort bears direct relationship to the policy areas covered in this County-
wide Planning Policy. Accordingly, each policy section is headed by selected quotations from the
visioning reports that relate to the particular policy area. In addition, a summary of applicable
statewide planning goals and a discussion of the general philosophy underlying the development of
each Countywide planning policy is provided.
A County -wide Planning Policy Committee of elected officials and staff from Yakima County,
each of the cities and towns and the Yakama Nation was formed to oversee development of the
planning policies. An initial draft was reviewed by the Committee in the fall of 1992. A second
draft with Committee changes was circulated to agencies and organizations charged with
implementing the community vision. A third draft was reviewed by city council and planning
commission members. Additional changes were made, resulting in a public hearing draft.
Hearings were held and further minor changes were recommended by the County -wide Planning
Policy Committee. After approval by a majority of cities and towns, the Board of Yakima County
Commissioners adopted the County -wide Planning Policy as required by the GMA.
The 2002-03 Update to the County -wide Planning Policy
The 1993 County -wide Planning Policy was updated during 2002-03. The entire policy
document was reviewed. This review responded to state mandates that jurisdictions update
their comprehensive plans every five years. That review cycle was later amended by the state
to every seven years. The Vision For a Better Tomorrow, an upper Valley visioning effort,
building from the previous vision effort, also provided a contest for CWPP review.
Following review and discussion, amendments were made to Section A to address urban
growth area issues and Section C, to accommodate the siting of secure community transition
facilities. In addition, language throughout the document was updated to change Yakima
Indian Nation to Yakama Nation.
The County -wide Planning Policy represents a composite framework, not a series of individual
stand-alone concepts. Ideas represented here are intended to balance each other to create an
overall direction for development of individual comprehensive plans. These policies establish the
foundation for determining consistency of individual plans with each other and with the tenets of
the Growth Management Act and will, like the planning documents they are intended to guide,
evolve over time.
2003 County -wide Plamiing Policy 2
Guiding Principles - Coordination and Cooperation
The GMA is founded on the principle that it is in the best interest of the citizens of the State to
foster coordination and cooperation among units of local and state governments. Cities and
counties must engage in a collaborative planning process under the requirements of the Act.
Specifically, the Act states that "The Legislature finds that uncoordinated and unplanned growth
... pose a threat to the environment, sustainable economic development, and the health, safety,
and high quality of life enjoyed by residents of the State. It is in the public interest that citizens,
communities, local governments, and the private sector cooperate and coordinate with one another
in comprehensive land use planning ".
The Legislature established "growth planning hearing boards" to which the state, a county, a city
or a person with standing may request a review of whether a city or county has failed to timely
adopt a county -wide planning policy, comprehensive plan, or development regulation or whether
the county -wide planning policy, comprehensive plan, or development regulation is in compliance
with the Act. Therefore, state government involvement in the local planning process will result if
cities and the county do not achieve consensus. In order to avoid state involvement in the
development of local land use plans, the following principle is declared:
A. Local governments within Yakima County do hereby agree to strive toward the principle
that all local planning differences should be discussed and settled locally. Appeals or
requests for review shall be referred to the Eastern Washington Growth Planning Hearings
Board only when the local resolution process has been exhausted.
The planning process should flow smoothly and logically beginning with the manner in which data
is collected to the way in which land use plans and development regulations are crafted. The
County and cities are utilizing a planning technical committee to develop consistent methods of
data collection, land use plan formatting, and development regulations. Common format and
consistent definitions will reduce complexity and better enable communication and understanding
between citizens and elected and appointed officials. To this end, the following principle is
declared:
B. In order to enhance coordinated planning, Yakima County and the cities agree to develop
a common system for data collection and analysis and consistent terms for comprehensive
land use categories. [Note: It is recognized that the planning process required by the GMA
is presently underway in all Yakima County jurisdictions and that full implementation of
this policy may not occur until after initial comprehensive plans are adopted.]
It should be recognized that the countywide planning policy is a new process in Yakima County.
At no other time has a similar document been prepared, adopted and implemented. Without a
history to evaluate the impact and utility of this document, the policy should be dynamic and
periodically monitored for applicability and effectiveness.
2003 County -wide Planning Policy 3
The Growth Planning Roles and Responsibilities of Yakima County, the Cities
and the Yakima Valley Conference of Governments
Yakima County, the cities and the Yakima Valley Conference of Governments are all involved in
planning activities related to their statutory authority and responsibility. The following further
clarifies the role and land use planning authority of each type of governmental unit.
Yakima County is the regional government within the county boundaries providing various
services within unincorporated and incorporated areas. Yakima County will:
• Be responsible for the development, adoption and implementation of comprehensive plans
and development regulations and the processing of land use permits within the
unincorporated portions of the County.
• Develop and maintain informational databases to support the regional geographic
information system.
• Perform responsibilities as identified in the most recent GMA regional strategy.
• Enter into separate urban growth management agreements with each city to address joint
issues identified in the countywide planning policy and other matters agreed to be of
mutual interest.
• Define and implement procedures that assure opportunities for early and continuous public
involvement throughout short and long range planning projects.
• Coordinate with other agencies as appropriate in multi jurisdictional planning activities.
Cities within Yakima County provide a variety of services primarily to residents within their
respective municipal boundaries. Cities will:
• Provide urban governmental services as identified in the GMA (Chapter 36.70A RCW)
and adopted urban growth management agreements.
• Be responsible for the development, adoption and implementation of comprehensive
plans and development regulations and the processing of land use permits within the
incorporated city and within unincorporated portions of urban growth areas as may be
agreed upon through interlocal agreements.
• Within their capabilities, develop and maintain informational databases to support the
regional geographic information system.
• Perform responsibilities identified in the most recent GMA regional strategy.
• Enter into separate interlocal agreements with Yakima County to address joint issues
identified in the countywide planning policy and other matters agreed to be of mutual
interest.
• Define and implement procedures that assure opportunities for early and continuous public
involvement throughout short and long range planning projects.
• Coordinate with other agencies as appropriate in multi jurisdictional planning activities.
2003 County -wide Plamiing Policy 4
The Yakima Valley Conference of Governments was established by interlocal agreement
to assure coordination, consensus, consistency and compliance over issues of common concern to
its membership. The Yakima Valley Conference of Governments will:
• Serve as the Regional Transportation Planning Organization (RTPO) for the region.
• Perform responsibilities as identified in the most recent GMA regional strategy.
• Develop and maintain informational databases to support the regional geographic
information system.
• Define and implement procedures that assure opportunities for early and continuous public
involvement through short and long range planning projects.
• Coordinate with other agencies as appropriate in multi jurisdictional planning activities.
2003 County -wide Plamiing Policy 5
YAKIMA COUNTYWIDE PLANNING POLICY
A. URBAN GROWTH AREAS
"We need to [ejncourage the increased centralization and density of growth to mitigate the
effects of unplanned, undefined growth in the regional area. " (U.V. Vision, p.37).
"Designated urban growth areas (UGAs) will clearly define where urban level development
ought to occur as distinguished from rural level development or no development at all. " (L.V.
Vision, p. 7).
A.1. STATEWIDE URBAN GROWTH AREA GOAL
The basic premise for designating urban growth areas is to encourage the location of urban density
residential, commercial and industrial developments in areas where services can be most
economically provided. The benefits of directing growth to designated urban areas include:
* Higher density residential development within walking distance of jobs, transit, schools,
and parks.
* Limiting urban expansion into rural, agricultural and forested areas.
* Promotion of infill or redevelopment of existing urban areas.
* Preservation of open space, critical areas and lands designated for resource protection.
* Accommodation of employment growth in a concentrated pattern.
* More economical provision and maintenance of streets, sewers and water lines and other
public facilities.
* Promotion of attractive residential neighborhoods and commercial districts which
provide a sense of community.
The GMA states that "Urban growth should be located first in areas already characterized by
urban growth that have existing public facility and service capacity to serve such development, and
second in areas already characterized by urban growth that will be served by a combination of
both existing public facilities and services and any additional needed public facilities and services
that are provided by either public or private sources. Further, it is appropriate that urban
government services be provided by cities, and urban government services should not be provided
in rural areas. " [RCW 36.70A.110(3)]
A.2. COUNTYWIDE URBAN GROWTH AREA POLICY DEVELOPMENT
Designating urban growth areas alone will not assure that development follows a desired growth
pattern. The potential remains for leapfrogging and scattered development patterns within a
designated UGA unless policies are developed to guide decisions regarding the location and timing
of development.
2003 County -wide Planning Policy 6
The policies in this section are concerned with encouraging growth in UGAs and discouraging
urban growth outside of these areas. Also, development within UGAs should occur in a logical
fashion outward from the edge of developed land in conjunction with service and infrastructure
provision.
A.3. URBAN GROWTH AREA POLICY STATEMENTS
The following countywide policies are related to the process and criteria for establishing and
amending urban growth areas in Yakima County:
A.3.1. Areas designated for urban growth should be determined by preferred development
patterns and the capacity and willingness of the community to provide urban governmental
services.
A.3.2. All cities and towns will be within a designated urban growth area. Urban growth areas
may include areas not contained within an incorporated city. [RCW 36.70A.110]
A.3.3. All urban growth areas will be reflected in County and respective city comprehensive
plans.
A.3.4. Urban growth will occur within urban growth areas only and not be permitted outside of
an adopted urban growth area except for new fully contained communities. [RCW
36.70A.350]
A.3.5. The baseline for twenty-year Countywide population forecasts shall be the official
decennial Growth Management Act Population Projections from the State of Washington's
Office of Financial Management plus unrecorded annexations. The process for allocating
forecasted population will be cooperatively reviewed.
A.3.6. Sufficient area must be included in the urban growth areas to accommodate a minimum 20 -
year population forecast and to allow for market choice and location preferences. [RCW
36.70A.110 (2)]
A.3.7. When determining land requirements for urban growth areas, allowance will be made for
greenbelt and open space areas and for protection of wildlife habitat and other
environmentally sensitive areas. [RCW 36.70A.110(2)]
A.3.8. The County and cities will cooperatively determine the amount of undeveloped buildable
urban land needed. The inventory of the undeveloped buildable urban land supply shall be
maintained in a Regional GIS database.
A.3.9. The County and cities will establish a common method to monitor urban development to
evaluate the rate of growth and maintain an inventory of the amount of buildable land
remaining
2003 County -wide Planning Policy 7
A.3.10. The local jurisdiction may initiate an amendment to an existing urban growth area
through the normal comprehensive plan amendment process, however in no case will
amendments be processed more than once a year. [RCW 36.70A.130 (2)]
A.3.11. Prior to amending an urban growth area the County and respective local jurisdiction
will determine the capital improvement requirements of the amendment to ascertain
that urban governmental services will be available within the forecast period.
A.3.12.
Annexations will not occur outside established urban growth areas. [RCW 35.13.005].
Annexations will occur within urban growth areas according to the provisions of
adopted interlocal agreements, if any.
2003 County -wide Planning Policy 8
B. CONTIGUOUS AND ORDERLY DEVELOPMENT AND THE
PROVISION OF SERVICES IN URBAN GROWTH AREAS
"As a means of achieving well planned, orderly growth and development, we believe that future
growth in the Lower Valley should be managed by limiting and encouraging urban and
industrial development to designated urban and rural settlement areas while promoting the
continued development of agriculture, agricultural processing and related service industries.
Designated urban growth areas (UGAs) will clearly define where urban level development ought
to occur as distinguished from rural level development or no development at all." (L. V . Vision,
P. 7).
"As the economic base of the region expands and diversifies the orderly flow of materials and
labor must be accommodated. Additional access to developable properties will be needed to
make such properties competitive. Certain streets and roads will require upgrading in order to
handle the anticipated increase in truck, automobile, bicycle, and pedestrian traffic. Enhanced
public transit availability will be required to effect the movement of the workforce and
consumers in an efficient and orderly manner." (U.V. Vision, p. 39).
B.1. STATEWIDE GOAL(S) RELATING TO CONTIGUOUS AND ORDERLY
DEVELOPMENT AND THE PROVISION OF SERVICES IN UGA'S
A basic goal of the GMA is to reduce sprawling, low-density development, and to avoid the
inappropriate conversion of undeveloped land. While only a percentage of the land is available for
urban development at any one time, it is important that land supply and densities within an UGA
be sufficient to ensure a climate appropriate to a competitive development market. To help ensure
this the GMA requires that ". . . those public facilities and services necessary to support
development shall be adequate to serve the development at the time the development is available
for occupancy and use without decreasing current service levels below locally established minimum
standards. [RCW 36.70A.020(12)]
B.2. COUNTYWIDE POLICY DEVELOPMENT RELATING TO CONTIGUOUS AND
ORDERLY DEVELOPMENT AND THE PROVISION OF SERVICES WITHIN
UGA' S
Upon designation of urban growth areas the County and cities will need to develop consistent
implementation measures to ensure that development occurs in an orderly and contiguous manner
The intent of the following policies is to minimize differences in urban development regulations
and standards between the County and the cities and to facilitate the economical provision of urban
services to development.
2003 County -wide Planning Policy 9
B.3. POLICIES TO PROMOTE CONTIGUOUS AND ORDERLY DEVELOPMENT
AND PROVIDING URBAN SERVICES TO SUCH DEVELOPMENT
The following policies relate to phasing growth and development with service and
infrastructure provision:
B.3.1. Urban growth should be located first in areas already characterized by urban growth that
have existing public facilities and service capacities to serve such development, and second
in areas already characterized by urban growth that will be served by a combination of
both existing public facilities and services and any additional needed public facilities and
services that are provided by either public or private sources. Further, it is appropriate
that urban government services be provided by cities, and urban government services
should not be provided in rural areas. [RCW 36.70A.110 (3)]
B.3.2. Urban growth management interlocal agreements will identify services to be provided in an
urban growth area, the responsible service purveyors and the terms under which the
services are to be provided.
B.3.3. Infill development, higher density zoning and small lot sizes should be encouraged where
services have already been provided and sufficient capacity exists and in areas planned for
urban services within the next 20 years.
B.3.4. The capital facilities, utilities and transportation elements of each local government's
comprehensive plan will specify the general location and phasing of major infrastructure
improvements and anticipated revenue sources. [RCW 36.70A.070(3)(c)(d)]. These plan
elements will be developed in consultation with special purpose districts and other utility
providers.
B.3.5. New urban development should utilize available/planned urban services. [RCW
36.70A.110(3)]
B.3.6. Formation of new water or sewer districts should be discouraged within designated urban
growth areas.
2003 County -wide Plamiing Policy 10
C. SITING PUBLIC FACILITIES OF A COUNTY -WIDE
OR STATEWIDE NATURE
"New technologies will advance the areas of energy production and solid waste reduction. For
example, in the year 2010 there will be integrated recycling, solid waste and solar facilities in
areas of the Valley not in conflict with agricultural, residential or commercial uses." (L. V .
Vision, p.39).
C.1. STATEWIDE GOALS RELATING TO THE SITING OF PUBLIC FACILITIES OF
A REGIONAL OR STATEWIDE NATURE
The GMA requires local governments to inventory existing capital public facilities to identify
location and to determine capacities to meet future demand for growth without decreasing levels of
service and to include within their comprehensive plans a process for identifying and siting
essential public facilities. The Washington State Office of Financial Management is responsible
for identifying and maintaining a list of essential state public facilities that are required or likely to
be built within the next six years as required by the GMA. Counties and cities are also required to
coordinate the siting of countywide and statewide capital facilities to mitigate potential adverse
impacts from the location and development of these facilities.
C.2. COUNTY -WIDE POLICIES RELATING TO THE SITING OF FACILITIES OF A
COUNTY -WIDE OR STATE-WIDE NATURE
The siting of essential public capital facilities such as landfills and jails is a difficult task at best.
Although these facilities are necessary for the common good, they are seldom welcome into a
community or neighborhood. Recognizing that public facilities of a statewide or countywide
nature are an essential part of our society, policies for their siting and construction are necessary to
ensure a reasonable approval process. Each jurisdiction will utilize an appropriate public process
for siting essential public facilities, as outlined in their respective comprehensive plans, policies or
regulations.
C.3 POLICIES FOR SITING PUBLIC CAPITAL FACILITIES OF A COUNTYWIDE
OR STATEWIDE NATURE
The following policies relate to the identification of needed facilities:
C.3.1. The County and the cities will inventory existing capital facilities and identify needed
facility expansion and construction. [RCW 36.70A.070(3)(a)(b)]
2003 County -wide Planning Policy 11
C.3.2. From local inventory, analysis and collaboration with state agencies and utility
providers, a list of Countywide and statewide public capital facilities needed to serve
the Yakima County region will be developed. These include, but are not limited to,
solid and hazardous waste handling facilities and disposal sites; major utility generation
and transmission facilities; regional education institutions; airports; correctional
facilities; in-patient facilities including hospitals and those for substance abuse, mental
health, group homes and secure community transition facilities; and regional park and
recreation facilities.
The following policies relate to establishing a process and review criteria for the siting of
facilities that are of a countywide or statewide nature:
C.3.3. When a public facility of a countywide or statewide nature is proposed in the Yakima
County region a Facility Analysis and Site Evaluation Advisory Committee including
citizen members will be formed to evaluate the proposed public facility siting. At a
minimum this evaluation shall consider:
a. The potential impacts (positive or negative) of the proposed project on the economy,
the environment and community character;
b. The development of specific siting criteria for the proposed project;
c. The identification, analysis and ranking of potential project sites;
d. Measures to first minimize and second mitigate potential physical impacts including,
but not limited to, those relating to land use, transportation, utilities, noise, odor and
public safety;
e. Measures to first minimize and second mitigate potential fiscal impacts.
C.3.4. Major public capital facilities that generate substantial travel demand should be located
along or near major transportation corridors and public transportation routes.
C.3.5. Some public facilities may be more appropriately located outside of urban growth areas
due to exceptional bulk or potentially dangerous or objectionable characteristics. Public
facilities located beyond urban growth areas should be self-contained or be served by urban
governmental services in a manner that will not promote sprawl. Utility and service
considerations must be incorporated into site planning and development.
C.3.6. The multiple use of corridors for major utilities, trails and transportation right-of-way is
encouraged.
2003 County -wide Plamiing Policy 12
D. COUNTY -WIDE TRANSPORTATION FACILITIES & STRATEGIES
"A key factor in the Lower Valley's future growth and development will be an upgraded
transportation system to accommodate the safe, efficient movement of people and goods." (L . V .
Vision, p. 25).
"We envision a comprehensive, multi -modal transportation system that is well planned, safe,
efficient, cost effective and capable of supporting increased levels of traffic over time." (Ibid).
"As the economic base of the region expands and diversifies the orderly flow of materials and
labor must be accommodated. Additional access to developable properties will be needed to
make such properties competitive. Certain streets and roads will require upgrading in order to
handle the anticipated increase in truck, automobile, bicycle, and pedestrian traffic. Enhanced
Public Transit availability will be required to effect the movement of the workforce and
consumers in an efficient and orderly manner." (U.V. Vision, p. 39).
D.1. STATEWIDE TRANSPORTATION GOALS
The goal of the GMA is to encourage efficient multi -modal transportation systems that are based
on regional priorities and coordinated with county and city comprehensive plans. To accomplish
this goal the GMA establishes Regional Transportation Planning Organization (RTPO's) and
directs that they develop a regional transportation plan. The RTPO is empowered to certify that
local government transportation elements are consistent with the regional transportation plan.
Local government transportation elements must be consistent with and support the land use
element of the plan. The transportation element must include an analysis and determination of the
level of service standards for all arterials and transit routes to judge the performance of the system.
A multi-year financing plan is required and if funds fall short of meeting identified needs, a local
government must either find a source of funds or reassess its land use assumptions to ensure that
an adequate level of service will be met.
Once the transportation element and the comprehensive plan is adopted, local government must
adopt ordinances which prohibit development approval if the development would cause the level of
service on the transportation facility to decline below the adopted level of service. Such
development may be approved, however, if transportation improvements or strategies to
accommodate the impacts are made "concurrent" with the development. Concurrent means the
system improvements or strategies are in place at the time of development, or a financial
commitment is made to complete the improvement or strategies within six years.
D.2. COUNTYWIDE TRANSPORTATION POLICY DEVELOPMENT
The Yakima Valley Conference of Governments serves as the lead agency for the RTPO for the
Yakima County area and is responsible for development of a regional transportation plan. Cities
and the County will each develop a transportation element to their comprehensive plans that
emphasizes local transportation needs. In developing these transportation elements, specific
linkages will be undertaken in order to integrate the local and regional plans.
2003 County -wide Planning Policy 13
D.3. TRANSPORTATION POLICY STATEMENTS
The following policies relate to the development of an integrated multi -modal transportation
system within Yakima County:
D.3.1. The transportation plan element for each jurisdiction will be consistent with and support the
land use element of its comprehensive plan. [RCW 36.70A.070(6)]
D.3.2. Each transportation plan element will include the following sub -elements:
a. Land use assumptions used in estimating travel;
b. A statement of facilities and service needs, including:
i. An inventory of air, land and water transportation facilities and services to define
existing capital facilities and travel levels as a basis for future planning;
ii. Level of service standards for arterials, collectors and transit routes, which will be
regionally coordinated;
iii. Specific actions and requirements for bringing into compliance any facilities or
services that are below an established level of service standard;
iv. Forecasts of traffic for at least ten years based on the adopted land use plans to
provide information on the location, timing and capacity needs of future growth;
and
v. Identification of system expansion needs and transportation system management
needs to meet current and future demands. [RCW 36.70A.070(6)(a)(b)]
D.3.3. Comprehensive plans for each jurisdiction will contain a multi-year financing plan which
includes an analysis of the jurisdiction's ability to fund existing or future transportation
improvements and identifies existing and new revenue sources, which may include impact
fees. If identified funding falls short, the jurisdiction will reassess land use assumptions to
assure that level of service standards will be met. [RCW 36.70A(6)(c)]
D.3.4. Transportation improvements or strategies to accommodate the impacts resulting from new
development will be implemented concurrent with new development. "Concurrent with
new development" means that improvements or strategies are in place at the time of
development, or that a financial commitment is in place to complete the improvements or
strategies within six years. [RCW 36.70A.070(6)(e)]
D.3.5. Local jurisdictions will coordinate transportation planning efforts through the Yakima
Valley Conference of Governments, which is designated as the Regional Transportation
Planning Organization (RTPO). This regional coordination will assure that an assessment
of the impacts of each transportation plan and land use assumptions on the transportation
systems of adjacent jurisdictions is conducted and conflicts prevented.
2003 County -wide Planning Policy 14
E. AFFORDABLE HOUSING
"We value communities that offer affordable housing choices to their residents; where there
exists a partnership between the public and private sectors, and results in a diverse choice of
housing affordable to all income ranges from the very low to the upper income; a community
that offers affordable housing to special needs people, e.g., persons with mobility limitations,
elderly, and developmentally disabled. We [envision a future in which] communities have
addressed the need for housing of [their] permanent and transient agricultural labor force."
(U.V. Visioning Report, p. 59).
"Shelter is one of man's most basic needs. The comfort and security of one's shelter contribute
to a sense of personal well being and the well being of the community as a whole. To a large
degree, the vitality of a community is reflected in its housing stock." (L. V. Visioning Report, p.
19) .
E.1. STATEWIDE HOUSING GOAL
A goal of the GMA is to encourage the availability of affordable housing to all economic sectors,
promote a variety of residential densities and housing types, and encourage preservation of existing
housing stock. The GMA requires the comprehensive plans of local governments to include a
housing element which, among other things, inventories and analyzes housing needs, identifies
sufficient land for all types of housing stock and provides for the needs of all economic segments
of the community
E.2. COUNTYWIDE HOUSING POLICY DEVELOPMENT
"Affordable housing" is a term which applies to the adequacy of the housing stock to fulfill the
housing needs of all economic segments of the population. The underlying assumption is that the
marketplace will guarantee adequate housing for those in the upper economic brackets, but that
some combination of appropriately zoned land, regulatory incentives, financial subsidies, and
innovative planning techniques will be necessary to make adequate provisions for the needs of
middle and lower income persons.
Local residents have discussed housing problems through the countywide visioning effort. The
results of this effort have been used as the basis for the following policy statement. The purpose
of this policy directive is to provide a common ground and some universally acceptable parameters
to help guide decision -makers through the complex topic of affordable housing.
E.3. AFFORDABLE HOUSING POLICY STATEMENTS
The following policies relate to the provision of affordable housing:
E.3.1. The County and the cities will inventory the existing housing stock and correlate with the
current population and economic condition, past trends, and twenty-year population and
employment forecasts to determine short and long range affordable housing needs. [RCW
36.70A.070(2)]
2003 County -wide Planning Policy 15
E.3.2. Local housing inventories will be undertaken using common procedures so as to accurately
portray countywide conditions and needs.
E.3.3. Each jurisdiction will identify specific policies and measurable implementation strategies to
provide a mix of housing types and costs to achieve identified affordable housing goals.
Affordable housing strategies should:
a. Encourage preservation, rehabilitation and redevelopment of existing neighborhoods,
as appropriate;
b. Provide for a range of housing types such as multi -family and manufactured housing on
individual lots and in manufactured housing parks;
c. Promote housing design and siting compatible with surrounding neighborhoods;
d. Facilitate the development of affordable housing (particularly for low-income families
and persons) in a dispersed pattern so as not to concentrate or geographically isolate
these housing types; and
e. Consider public and private transportation requirements for new and redeveloped
housing.
E.3.4. Housing policies and programs will address the provision of diverse housing opportunities
to accommodate the elderly, physically challenged, mentally impaired, migrant and settled -
out agricultural workers, and other segments of the population that have special needs.
E.3.5. Local governments, representatives of private sector interests and neighborhood groups
will work cooperatively to identify and evaluate potential sites for affordable housing
development and redevelopment.
E.3.6. Public and private agencies with housing expertise should implement early and continuous
cooperative education programs to provide general information on affordable housing
issues and opportunities to the public including information intended to counteract
discriminatory attitudes and behavior.
E.3.7. Mechanisms to help people purchase their own housing will be encouraged. Such
mechanisms may include low interest loan programs and "self-help" housing.
E.3.8. Local comprehensive plan policies and development regulations will encourage and not
exclude affordable housing. [RCW 36.70A.070(2)(c)(d)]
E.3.9. Innovative strategies that provide incentives for the development of affordable housing
should be explored.
E.3.10. The County and the cities will locally monitor the performance of their respective
housing plans and make adjustments and revisions as needed to achieve the goal of
affordable housing, particularly for middle and lower income persons.
2003 County -wide Planning Policy 16
F. JOINT PLANNING WITHIN UGA'S
"Cluster communities comprising the regional area should look to combine and assist in service
areas such as criminal justice, fire protection, public transit, water/sewer, administration, and
other services where such combinations implement efficient, cost effective delivery of services.
Cooperation among and between the separate governmental entities of each cluster will be
encouraged, and the citizens should hold elected and appointed officials accountable for
carrying out such a vision. " (U.V. Vision, p. 49).
"Individual communities will continue to provide the public services now available to citizens but
a new spirit of coordination and cooperation among all levels of government, including federal,
state, county, municipal, and tribal governments, will result in a more equitable, better balanced
delivery of services. Residents of the Lower Valley will benefit from this improved level of
coordination by less duplication of services, streamlined delivery, and cost efficiencies. " (L .V.
Vision, p. 13).
F.1. STATEWIDE JOINT PLANNING GOALS
Consistent with a goal of the GMA to ensure coordination between communities and jurisdictions
to reconcile conflicts, the countywide planning policy must address coordination of planning
efforts within urban growth areas. It is recognized that in many instances, land use activities may
be affected by the plans and regulations of several jurisdictions including Yakima County, a city
and special purpose districts. Coordinated planning is not only a requirement of local government;
it will facilitate implementation of plans, lead to more efficient delivery of urban governmental
services and will promote a sense of community through common, agreed upon development
standards.
F.2. COUNTYWIDE JOINT PLANNING POLICY DEVELOPMENT
The UGA is not only a line which distinguishes urban level growth from rural growth, it also
carries implications about coordination of planning within the UGA. Because the UGA defines
where the city is financially capable of providing urban services and may ultimately annex, land
use decisions need to respect the desires of the community Agreement on land use planning
within the UGA is as important as designating the boundary itself.
F.3. JOINT PLANNING POLICY STATEMENTS
The following policies relate to coordinated planning for land use, capital facilities and
infrastructure within urban growth areas:
F.3.1. The County and cities will work with special purpose districts and other agencies to
establish a process for mutual consultation on proposed comprehensive land use plan
policies for lands within urban growth areas. Actions of special purpose districts and other
public service providers shall be consistent with comprehensive plans of the County and
the cities. [RCW 56.08.020, RCW 57.16.010]
2003 County -wide Planning Policy 17
F.3.2. The use of interlocal agreements is encouraged as a means to formalize cooperative efforts
to plan for and provide urban governmental services.
F.3.3. Joint financing ventures should be identified to provide services and facilities that will
serve the population within the urban growth area.
The following policy relates to the process for comprehensive plan amendments, zone
changes and development review and approval within urban growth areas:
F.3.4. While it is recognized that nothing in the county -wide planning policy will be construed as
altering the land use planning authority of the County or the cities, adopted interlocal
agreements shall specify the process by which affected local governments may review and
comment on comprehensive plan amendments, zone changes and development applications
processed by another jurisdiction within urban growth areas.
The following policy relates to the establishment of common and consistent development and
construction standards:
F.3.5. Each interlocal agreement will require that common and consistent development and
construction standards be applied throughout that urban growth area. These may include,
but are not limited to standards for streets and roads, utilities and other infrastructure
components.
2003 County -wide Planning Policy 18
G. COUNTY -WIDE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT & EMPLOYMENT
"Indeed, we support future growth in the Lower Valley that is well planned and supportable by
infrastructure and which minimizes conflicting or incompatible uses in proximity to one
another." (L.V. Vision, p. 7).
"With economic diversification and expansion, we will see the development of desirable jobs and
full employment. We envision an economic and educational climate that enables our citizens to
find gainful employment within the Valley". (Ibid) .
"The next 20 years will see a broadening of the Upper Yakima Valley's economy. High-tech
industries and new businesses will complement and enhance the agricultural base." (U.V.
Vision, p. 92).
"Adequate developable property will be made available through land use planning and
appropriate zoning implementation. A diverse mixture of industrial, commercial, residential,
recreational and agricultural land uses will be planned for to concentrate development within set
community boundaries to encourage community revitalization and increased land use density
where it is specifically planned." (U.V. Vision, p. 43).
G.1. STATEWIDE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT GOALS
The goals of the GMA encourage economic development throughout the state that is consistent
with adopted comprehensive plans; promote economic opportunity for all citizens of the state,
especially for unemployed and disadvantaged persons; and encourage growth in areas experiencing
insufficient economic growth, all within the capacities of the state's natural resources, public
services and public facilities.
G.2. COUNTYWIDE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT POLICY DEVELOPMENT
Countywide economic development policies should promote a regional economic development
program consistent with local community preferences. The rural and urban economies within the
county are inextricably connected, and economic development opportunities should strengthen
linkages between population centers and outlying areas. A Countywide economic development
plan will be built in partnership with local jurisdictions to ensure that economic development goals
and objectives are community based.
G.3. COUNTYWIDE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT POLICY STATEMENTS
The following policies relate to a general strategy to help ensure future economic vitality, broaden
employment opportunities to meet the needs of projected future growth while maintaining a high-
quality environment:
2003 County -wide Planning Policy 19
G.3.1. Encourage economic growth within the capacities of the region's natural resources, public
services and public facilities.
a. Identify current and potential physical and fiscal capacities for municipal and private
water systems, wastewater treatment plants, roadways and other infrastructure
systems.
b. Identify economic opportunities that strengthen and diversify the county's economy
while maintaining the integrity of our natural environment.
G.3.2. Local economic development plans should be consistent with the comprehensive land
use and capital facilities plans, and should:
a. Evaluate existing and potential industrial and commercial land sites to determine short
and long term potential for accommodating new and existing businesses;
b. Identify and target prime sites, determine costs and benefits of specific land
development options and develop specific capital improvement strategies for the
desired option;
c. Implement zoning and land use policies based upon infrastructure and financial
capacities of each jurisdiction;
d. Identify changes in urban growth areas as necessary to accommodate the land and
infrastructure needs of business and industry;
e. Support housing strategies and choices required for economic development.
G.3.3. Coordination of efforts between the many diverse economic development organizations and
other related agencies within Yakima County should be encouraged by:
a. Identifying linkages between economic development issues and strategies and other
growth planning elements (i.e. housing, transportation, utilities and land use);
b. Defining roles and responsibilities for carrying out economic development goals,
objectives and strategies.
2003 County -wide Plamiing Policy 20
H. FISCAL IMPACT ANALYSIS
"Cluster communities comprising the regional area should look to combine and assist in service
areas such as criminal justice, fire protection, public transit, water/sewer, administration, and
other services where such combinations implement efficient, cost effective delivery of services"
(U.V. Vision, p. 49).
"Cooperation among and between separate service/government entities of each cluster should be
encouraged, ... " (Ibid) .
H.1. STATEWIDE FISCAL IMPACT ANALYSIS GOALS
The GMA requires that local governments, as part of the countywide planning policies, address
the issue of fiscal impact analysis. The legislature did not define or give specific guidance on
matters to be considered in analyzing fiscal impacts. Since the GMA devotes much of its text to
the provision of cost-effective urban infrastructure, the ability to pay for needed capital facilities
and the development of affordable housing, it is presumed that these areas should be the focus of
the fiscal impact analysis.
H.2. COUNTYWIDE POLICY DEVELOPMENT
Local plan development should provide for cooperation between the public and private sectors to
insure coordination of capital improvements with emphasis on the efficient provision of service at
adopted levels concurrent with the demand for such service.
Local government should consider the use of innovative financing strategies for capital
improvements which minimize the financial cost to taxpayers and provide for the equitable
assignment of costs between existing and new development.
Annexation is another area which may impact the fiscal resources of local government. Cost and
revenue sharing are techniques that should be examined to help alleviate the fiscal impacts
associated with annexation.
H.3. FISCAL IMPACT POLICY STATEMENTS
The following policies are related to the provision of cost-effective urban infrastructure:
H.3.1. Each local government will prepare a capital facilities plan consisting of:
a. An inventory of existing capital facilities owned by public entities, showing the
locations and capacities of the capital facilities;
b. A forecast of the future needs for such capital facilities;
c. The proposed locations, capacities and costs of expanded or new capital facilities;
d. At least a six-year plan that will finance such capital facilities within projected funding
capacities and clearly identifies sources of public money for such purposes; and
e. A requirement to reassess the land use element if probable funding falls short of
2003 County -wide Planning Policy 21
meeting existing needs and to ensure that the land use element, the capital facilities plan
element and financing plan within the capital facilities plan element are coordinated and
consistent.
H.3.2. As part of the planning process, the County and the cities should coordinate with capital
facilities providers and other interested parties to ensure that consideration is given to all
capital service requirements and the means of financing capital improvements.
H.3.3. The County and the cities should consider an impact fee process, as provided for in RCW
82.02.050-090, to insure that new development pays its fair share of the cost of
improvements necessitated by growth and contributes to the overall financing of capital
improvements.
H.3.4. To minimize the potential economic impacts of annexation activities on the County and
cities, consideration will be given to negotiating agreements for appropriate allocation of
financial burdens resulting from the transition of land from county to city jurisdiction.
2003 County -wide Planning Policy 22
I. POLICIES PERTAINING TO COORDINATION WITH SPECIAL
PURPOSE DISTRICTS, ADJACENT COUNTIES AND STATE, TRIBAL
AND FEDERAL GOVERNMENTS
Special purpose districts, adjacent counties, state agencies, Yakama Nation and the federal
government are distinct entities that have unique authorities, responsibilities, interests and/or treaty
rights affecting land use and other activities. Since the impacts of future growth and development
in Yakima County will affect all governmental units, all agencies must be well informed and
continuously involved in regional and local planning
The following policies relate to coordination among jurisdictions:
The County and the cities will work with special purpose districts, adjacent counties, state,
tribal and federal governments to formalize coordination and involvement in activities of
mutual interest.
1.2. Jurisdictions will be encouraged to coordinate plans among and between governments and
agencies to make plans consistent and compatible for lands over which they have authority.
1.3. Special districts, adjacent counties, state agencies, the tribal government and federal
agencies will be invited to participate in comprehensive planning and development
activities that may affect them, including the establishment and revision of urban growth
areas; allocation of forecasted population; regional transportation, capital facility, housing
and utility plans; and policies that may affect natural resources.
1.4. Each of the governmental entities will be included in the normal public notice and
comment procedures of other agencies and kept informed of matters of interest to them.
2003 County -wide Planning Policy 23
APPENDIX
PLANNING GOALS OF THE GROWTH MANAGEMENT ACT
(from RCW 36.70A.040)
The Washington State Legislature adopted the following goals to guide the development of
comprehensive plans and development regulations of those counties and cities that are required or
choose to plan under the Growth Management Act (Yakima County was one of the original
counties required to plan under the Act). The following goals are not listed in order of priority:
1. Urban Growth. Encourage development in urban areas where adequate public facilities and
services exist or can be provided in an efficient manner
2. Reduce Sprawl. Reduce the inappropriate conversion of undeveloped land into sprawling,
low-density development.
3. Transportation. Encourage efficient multimodal transportation systems that are based on
regional priorities and coordinated with county and city comprehensive plans.
4. Housing. Encourage the availability of affordable housing to all economic segments of the
population of this state, promote a variety of residential densities and housing types, and
encourage preservation of existing housing stock.
5. Economic Development. Encourage economic development throughout the state that is
consistent with adopted comprehensive plans, promote economic opportunity for all citizens of
this state, especially for unemployed and for disadvantaged persons, and encourage growth in
areas experiencing insufficient economic growth, all within the capacities of the state's natural
resources, public services, and public facilities.
6. Property Rights. Private property shall not be taken for public use without just compensation
having been made. The property rights of landowners shall be protected from arbitrary and
discriminatory actions.
7. Permits. Applications for both state and local government permits should be processed in a
timely and fair manner to ensure predictability.
8. Natural Resource Industries. Maintain and enhance natural resource-based industries,
including productive timber, agricultural, and fisheries industries. Encourage the conservation
of productive forest lands and productive agricultural lands, and discourage incompatible uses.
9. Open Space and Recreation. Encourage the retention of open space and development of
recreational opportunities, conserve fish and wildlife habitat, increase access to natural
resource lands and water, and develop parks.
10. Environment. Protect the environment and enhance the state's high quality of life, including
2003 County Wide Planning Policy A-1
air and water quality, and the availability of water.
11. Citizen Participation and Coordination. Encourage the involvement of citizens in the
planning process and ensure coordination between communities and jurisdictions to reconcile
conflicts.
12. Public Facilities and Services. Ensure that those public facilities and services necessary to
support development shall be adequate to serve the development at the time the development is
available for occupancy and use without decreasing current service levels below locally
established minimum standards.
13. Historic Preservation. Identify and encourage the preservation of lands, sites, and structures,
that have historical or archaeological significance.
2003 County Wide Plamiing Policy A-2
GLOSSARY OF TERMS
Unless otherwise noted, the following terms used in the County -wide Planning Policy are defined
by the Growth Management Act (RCW 36.70.030) or Washington Administrative Code (WAC
365-195-210). Definitions are restated here for convenience of the reader.
1. "Adequate public facilities" means facilities which have the capacity to serve development
without decreasing levels of service below locally established minimums
2. "Affordable housing" is a term which applies to the adequacy of housing stocks to fulfill the
housing needs of all economic segments of the population. Affordable housing for middle and
lower income persons is targeted to those whose incomes are 120% of median income or less.
3. "Available public facilities" means that facilities or services are in place or that a financial
commitment is in place to provide the facilities or services within a specified time.
4. "Concurrency" means that adequate public facilities are available when the impacts of
development occur. This definition includes the two concepts of "adequate public facilities"
and of "available public facilities" as defined above.
5. "Financial commitment" means that sources of public or private funds or combinations
thereof have been identified which will be sufficient to finance public facilities necessary to
support development and that there is reasonable assurance that such funds will be timely put
to that end.
6. "Interlocal agreements" are authorized by state law and allow local governments (through
written agreements) to cooperate with each other on a basis of mutual advantage to provide
services and facilities in a manner that best meets the needs and development of local
communities. [Paraphrase of RCW 39.34.010]
7. "Level of Service" means an established minimum capacity of public facilities or services that
must be provided per unit of demand or other appropriate measure of need.
8. "New fully contained community" is a development proposed for location outside of the
existing designated urban growth areas which is characterized by urban densities, uses and
services and meets the criteria of RCW 36.70A.350.
9. "Public facilities" include streets, roads, highways, sidewalks, street and road lighting
systems, traffic signals, domestic water systems, storm and sanitary sewer systems, parks and
recreational facilities, and schools.
10. "Public services" include fire protection and suppression, law enforcement, public health,
education, recreation, environmental protection, and other governmental services.
2003 County Wide Planning Policy A-3
11. "Rural lands" means all lands which are not within an urban growth area and are not
designated as natural resource lands having long term commercial significance for production
of agricultural products, timber, or the extraction of minerals.
12. "Transportation level of service standards" mean a measure which describes the operational
condition of the travel stream and acceptable adequacy requirements. Such standards may be
expressed in terms such as speed and travel time, freedom to maneuver, traffic interruptions,
comfort, convenience, geographic accessibility and safety.
13. "Urban growth" refers to growth that makes intensive use of land for the location of
buildings, structures, and impermeable surfaces to such a degree as to be incompatible with the
primary use of such land for the production of food, other agricultural products, or fiber, or
the extraction of mineral resources. When allowed to spread over wide areas, urban growth
typically requires urban governmental services. "Characterized by urban growth" refers to
land having urban growth located on it, or to land located in relationship to an area with urban
growth on it as to be appropriate for urban growth.
14. "Urban growth area" means those areas designated by a county pursuant to RCW
36.70A.110.
15. "Urban governmental services" include those governmental services historically and typically
delivered by cities, and include storm and sanitary sewer systems, domestic water systems,
street cleaning services, fire and police protection services, public transit services, and other
public utilities associated with urban areas and normally not associated with nonurban areas.
16. "Visioning" means a process of citizen involvement to determine values and ideals for the
future of a community and to transform those values and ideals into manageable and feasible
community goals.
2003 County Wide Planning Policy A-4
COUNTY -WIDE PLANNING POLICY COMMITTEE
(Representation as of January 2, 2002)
Jurisdiction Elected Designee Alternate(s):
GRANDVIEW Mike Bren Jim Sewell
GRANGER David Leach Alice Koerner
HARRAH Barbara Harrer Pat Krueger
MABTON David Conradt Ildia Jackson
MOXEE Greg LaBree Bill Hordan
NACHES Charles Ross
SELAH Bob Jones Dennis Davison
SUNNYSIDE Ed Prilucik Pete Squires
TIETON Jenny Korens
TOPPENISH Bill Rogers Edna Brooks -Pittman, Clara Jimenez
UNION GAP Lea Driskill Bill Rathbone
WAPATO Don Stellwagen Dean DeMaintenon
YAKAMA NATION (Did not participate in 2003 Update)
YAKIMA Mary Place Dan Valoff
YAKIMA COUNTY Ron Gamache Jim Lewis, Jesse Palacios, Dick Anderwald
ZILLAH Gary Fox Gary Clark
Others receiving Agenda materials:
YVCOG Michael Buchanan, Don Skone,
Other County Doug Cochran, Lisa Freund, Ken Irwin, Ron Zirkle
County Planning Anne Knapp
Chamber of Commerce Gary Webster
New Vision YCDA Dave McFadden
2003 County Wide Plamiiug Policy A-5
BOARD OF YAKIMA COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
IN THE MATTER OF ADOPTING THE
YAKIMA COUNTY -WIDE PLANNING
POLICY AS REQUIRED BY THE
WASHINGTON STATE GROWTH
MANAGEMENT ACT
RESOLUTION NO. 553-2003
WHEREAS, the Washington State Growth Management Act requires Yakima County to
adopt and update a county -wide planning policy in cooperation with the cities and towns
located within the county; and,
WHEREAS, the process and framework for adoption of the county -wide planning policy
is contained within an interlocal agreement entitled "Framework Agreement for the Adoption
of the County -wide Planning Policy" which was previously adopted by the Board of Yakima
County Commissioners under Resolution No. 83-1992; and,
WHEREAS, the original 1993 Yakima County -wide Planning Policy was approved and
adopted by the Board of Yakima County Commissioners under Resolution No. 322-1993 on
June 29, 1993; and,
WHEREAS, under terms of the interlocal agreement, a County -wide Planning Policy
Committee of local elected officials and staff was reconvened and has worked with Yakima
County to review and update the Yakima County -wide Planning Policy, attached hereto as
`Exhibit A'; and,
WHEREAS the County -wide Planning Policy Committee recommends to individual
jurisdictions that the policy document should now be approved and recommended for
adoption by the Board of Yakima County Commissioners; and,
WHEREAS, the Board has received resolutions recommending adoption of the Yakima
County -wide Planning Policy from fourteen of fourteen city and town councils; and
WHEREAS, the Board of Yakima County Commissioners held a public hearing on
October 7, 2003 to receive public testimony concerning the proposed planning policy and is
satisfied that the matter has been fully considered; now, therefore,
BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Board of Yakima County Commissioners that the
Yakima County -wide Planning Policy is approved and hereby adopted as the policy
framework to guide revisions to comprehensive plans under the Washington State Growth
Management Act.
G:12003 RESOS4553-2003.Counry Wide Planning Policy Changes.doc
Page I of 2
Done this 7th day of October 2003.
Attest:
Alati Wt. afdd
Carla M. Ward
Clerk of the Board
Excused
Jesse S. Palacios, Chairm
ames M. Lewis, ssioner
Ronald F. Gamache, Commissioner
Constituting the Board of County Commissioners
for Yakima County, Washington
0:12003 .RESOS4553-2003. County Wide Planning Policy Changes.doc
Page 2 of 2