On Wednesday, July 22nd the Planning Commission acted on their final recommendations for the T-3 Comp Plan amendment regarding water treatment facilities.  The Planning Commission voted to recommend the Staff Recommendation and the alternative policy language that was developed by the WUCC subcommittee.  The whole Comp Plan amendment package will now be forwarded to the County Council for further legislative action.  There will be another public hearing before the Council's Community Development Committee and then final hearing by the full Council.  I will forward you more information on the Council process and hearing dates as it becomes available. 

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

(e)   Water:  water service area

19A.100.050     Implementation Programs.

CFP Objective 5.  The following programs shall be implemented to ensure that the goals and policies established in the Capital Facilities Plan will be achieved or exceeded, and that the capital improvements will be constructed.  Each implementation program will be adopted by ordinance, resolution or executive order, as appropriate for each implementation program.

A.    Review of Applications for Development Permits.  The County shall amend its land development regulations to provide for a system of review of various development permit applications which, if granted, would impact the levels of service of Category A and Category B public facilities.  Such system of review shall assure that no final development permit shall be issued which results in a reduction in the levels of service below the standards adopted in CFP 1.3.1 (PCC 19A.100.010 C.1.) for Category A public facilities.  The land development regulations shall include, at a minimum, the provisions of CFP 3.3 (PCC 19A.100.030 C.) in determining whether a development permit can be issued.

The proposed new text may inadvertently preclude public water treatment facilities, a key component of a public water system, potentially making it difficult to provide potable water and fire flow concurrent with new development as required by the above listed Comprehensive Plan policies.

The Comprehensive Plan Essential Public Facilities (EPF) Chapter, Section 19A.120.010 establishes siting process and criteria for determining what public facilities meet the definition of EPF as follows:

19A.120.010.A

1.   The facility meets the definition of an essential public facility consistent with the GMA provision in RCW 36.70A.200;

2.   The facility is a public facility of statewide significance and is identified in the state Office of Financial Management list of capital projects consistent with RCW 36.70A.200(4);

3.   The facility is a public facility of regional significance and provides essential public services serving more than one county;

4.   The facility is a public facility of county-wide significance and provides essential public services serving more than one jurisdiction (city or county);

5.   The facility is a public facility of local significance and provides essential public services serving a community; or

6.   The facility is on the state, Puget Sound Regional Council, Pierce County Regional Council, or County list of essential public facilities. [Emphasis Added]

Public water system treatment facilities constitute an essential public facility per the criteria in 19A.120.010.A.1, 3, 4, and 5 above.  By limiting the siting of a public water system’s treatment facilities, the proposed new text is inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan’s Essential Public Facilities’ policies as outlined above, and may limit a public water system’s ability to complete federal, state, or local mandated improvements or modifications at existing facilities. 

The proposed new text uses the term “large capacity regional water treatment and water purification facilities”.  Because this term is currently not defined, it is unclear what types of facilities are proposed to be included under the term.  Does this refer to public water systems or private, commercial facilities such as bottled water plants?  If it only refers to the latter then these types of facilities are not a component of a public water system regulated by the State Department of Health but rather are commercial businesses regulated by the Food and Drug Administration.  Such commercial facilities would not be subject to the above listed Pierce County Comprehensive Plan policies.

Effect on general land values or housing costs

Will there be increased densities or commercial intensities?  If so, will land values increase? 

The proposed text amendment would not alter land use designations but is intended to mitigate for any negative impacts that large water treatment facilities may have on residential and rural land use designations.  However, the preclusion of necessary public water system treatment facilities may have the undesired and unintended consequence of impacting the ability of public water systems to provide public water supplies necessary for future development.

Whether capital improvements or expenditures are being made or completed as expected

Is the County planning for and funding improvements that would be needed with approval of the amendment?

The proposed amendment is a text amendment that would not result in the need for capital improvements.

Consistency with GMA, the Plan and County-Wide Planning Policies

Identify key goals, objectives, and policies and discuss how the amendment is or is not consistent.

In addition to the Comprehensive Plan policies noted above, the Growth Management Act (GMA) requires Counties to set out a process for identifying essential public facilities to ensure that essential public facilities are not precluded from being sited.  The Washington Administrative Code states that the broadest view shall be taken in identifying which public facilities are considered essential, including public water systems, which Pierce County lists as Category B public facilities requiring concurrency.  The following section of the Pierce County Comprehensive Plan discusses this in detail:

19.100.010  Introduction.

      Essential public facilities are capital facilities "typically difficult to site, such as airports, state education facilities, state or regional transportation facilities as defined in RCW 47.06.140, state and local correctional facilities, solid waste handling facilities, and in-patient facilities including substance abuse facilities, mental health facilities, group homes, and secure community transition facilities as defined in RCW 71.09.020" (RCW 36.70A.200(1), Siting of essential public facilities – Limitation on liability).  The County and the cities and towns may have additional public facilities that are essential to providing services to Pierce County residents and without which development cannot occur.  The Washington Administrative Code (WAC 365-195-340) states in subsection 2.a.1., "In the identification of essential public facilities, the broadest view should be taken of what constitutes a public facility, involving the full range of services to the public provided by government, substantially funded by government, contracted for by government, or provided by private entities subject to public service obligations."

      GMA requires that comprehensive plans set out a process for identifying essential public facilities to ensure that essential public facilities are not precluded being sited.  This Chapter outlines the process for identifying essential public facilities, defining locational criteria for siting facilities and developing appropriate development standards.  The process stresses avoiding duplication in approval processes.  It provides for effective public review of facilities and the amenities or incentives for affected neighborhoods and emphasizes reasonable compatibility with neighboring land uses.  The process recognizes and builds on objectives and approaches adopted in the Development Regulations implementing the Comprehensive Plan.  The Development Regulations provide for sufficient, properly zoned land to accommodate any potential land use that may want or needs to be located in Pierce County.  It also acknowledges the work being done by other agencies.

      State legislation in 1995 and 1996, specifically ESHB 1724, has established a more streamlined process for the approval of development permits, including facilities which might be identified as "essential public facilities." [Emphasis Added]

(Ord. 2004-87s § 2 (part), 2004; Ord. 2003-103s § 1 (part), 2003; Ord. 97‑87S2 § 7 (part), 1997)

19.100.020  Issues.

      F.    Some facilities need to be sited near or within residential areas and are facilities which do not generate traffic or activity but may need buffering to be compatible with existing uses (e.g., pump stations).

19.100.030  State Mandates.

      No local comprehensive plan or development regulation may preclude the siting of essential public facilities (RCW 36.70A.200(5)).

Public water system treatment facilities constitute an essential public facility per the criteria in 19A.120.010.A.1, 3, 4, and 5 above.  By limiting the siting of a public water system’s treatment facilities, the proposed new text is inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan’s Essential Public Facilities’ policies as outlined above, and may limit a public water system’s ability to complete federal, state, or local mandated improvements or modifications at existing facilities. 

Effect on critical areas and natural resource lands

How might development allowed through the amendment, or restriction on development offered by the amendment affect critical areas and resource lands?

The proposed text amendment does not address the issue of critical areas and natural resource lands only neighborhood compatibility and rural areas.

Consistency with locational criteria in the Comprehensive Plan and application requirements established by Chapter 19C.10

The Land Use and Rural Elements of the Plan include locational criteria addressing minimum distances between commercial designations, minimum distances from rural commercial centers to an UGA boundary, maximum length of some designations along an arterial, and maximum acreage for some designations.  Chapter 19C.10 also limits when single parcel or single ownership amendments are allowed, and requires that an application involving EC properties ensures no net loss of EC acreage in the County.  This criterion may not be directly applicable to most text amendments.

The provisions in Chapter 19C.10 are not applicable to this proposed text amendment.

Effect on other considerations

Identify any other important issues that did not come out in the previous impact analysis items.

An essential service that could be precluded if siting conditions are too rigorous is the retrofitting or construction of treatment facilities that are necessary for a public water system to maintain or achieve compliance with ever changing State and Federal drinking water quality standards. Systems that go out of compliance with State and Federal drinking water quality standards lose their "Compliant" status with DOH and not only put public health at peril but risk imposition of a moratorium on growth by County and State Health Departments for failing to meet these standards. Siting requirements can not preclude water systems from effecting construction that is required for them to stay compliant with drinking water quality standards.

In addition, over the years, the County has adopted community plans, which have included implementing regulations on bulk standards and design standards.  Some of these new and varied or inconsistent regulations have adversely affected the ability of public water purveyors to construct other important components of water infrastructure.  For example:

·         Setback requirements that effectively dictate maximum water storage tank size and height (e.g. one foot back for every one foot in height) rather than the actual engineering requirements for that point in the water system;

·         Height limitations that restrict storage capacity and function (i.e. reservoirs usually exceed established height limitations in order to maintain adequate system pressure and provide required fire flow storage);

·         Screening requirements that are contrary to open visibility around public water utility facilities, which is necessary for Homeland Defense and other security requirements;

·         Color requirements that inadvertently promote algae growth and water quality issues in water storage tanks; and

·         Other requirements that promote risks to the security of water infrastructure. 

These standards were designed to promote neighborhood compatibility but may result in the inability of water purveyors to provide safe and reliable drinking water and adequate volume and pressure required to meet County fire protection standards.

Staff Recommendation

You have 3 options here: Recommend approval, approval of a portion of the proposal, and denial.  Do not recommend conditions of approval.  Also explain your rationale for your recommendation (e.g., consistency with plan, ability to provide public services, etc.).

Staff recommends denial of the proposed new policies 19A.90.070A.5, 6, 7 and 8.  If policy language is necessary for this issue consider replacing with the following text:

5. Implementing development regulations should not preclude the siting of public water facilities but may consider reasonable mitigation measures as necessary to promote neighborhood compatibility.

6. Amend Title 18A-Zoning to designate public water facilities as Essential Public Facilities and determine uniform zoning code requirements throughout the County that does not preclude these facilities.

7. Amend Titles 18A-Zoning and 18J-Design Standards and Guidelines to establish uniform standards for public water facilities that consider safety, public health, security, reliability, engineering requirements, redundancy, topography/elevation, fire protection, and other State and Federal compliance issues.

8. Recognize flexible bulk regulations for public water facilities.

9. Engage the public water system providers in any process to amend development regulations regarding public water systems and public water facilities.

In addition, the language in the Comprehensive Plan related to public water systems and domestic water requires a more thorough evaluation and update.  There is some language that has been discovered through this review process that is either outdated or incorrect.  This more complete update regarding public water system & facility language should be conducted as part of the 2011 Comprehensive Plan amendment cycle.

In any case, the water purveyors of Pierce County should be engaged in any process to develop changes to the Pierce County Comprehensive Plan and Development Regulations involving public water systems and public water facilities.  

Implementation Requirements 

Text amendments commonly require follow up amendments to the Development Regulations - Zoning, or other County regulations related to land use.  Identify briefly what those changes will entail.

The proposed text amendments may result in amendments to the Title 18A-Zoning Code standards and Title 18J-Design Standards and Guidelines.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

19A.90.070 Domestic Water Systems.

A.  

5. Implementing development regulations shall not preclude the siting 
of public water facilities but may consider reasonable mitigation 
measures as necessary to promote compatibility with adjacent neighborhoods.

6. Amend Title 18A-Zoning to designate uniform zoning code requirements
throughout the County that do not preclude these facilities.

UT-Wa Objective 21. Promote reliable water service throughout Pierce 
County.