HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Committees - Planning and Economic Development Committee - 04/15/2003 PAM MOTTRAM
PLANNING
s
KENT WASHINGTON PLANNING COMMITTEE
CITY COUNCIL
Judy Woods April 15, 2003
Council President
220 Fourth Ave. S.
Kent,WA 98032-5895
The City Council Planning Committee will meet in Council Chambers East, Kent
Phone: 253-856-5712 City Hall, 220 4`h Avenue South, at 3:00 PM on Tuesday, April 15, 2003.
Fax:253-856-6712
Committee Members: Leona Orr, Chair Tim Clark Bruce White
Action Speaker Time
1. Approval of Minutes of YES
March 18, 2003
2. Comprehensive Plan Grant YES Charlene Anderson 20 min
— Scope of Work Revision
• 3. Urban Growth Area 10 Year Update NO Charlene Anderson 15 min
4. Countywide Planning Policies NO Charlene Anderson 15 min
— Amendments; Growth Management
Planning Council Motions
5. Regulatory Review Process NO Fred Satterstrom 10 min
The Planning Committee meets the third Tuesday of each month at 3:00 PM in Chambers East,Kent
City Hall, 220 4t'Ave. South,unless otherwise noted. For agenda information please contact Jackie
Bicknell at(253) 856-5712.
ANY PERSON REQUIRING A DISABILITY ACCOMMODATION SHOULD CONTACT THE
CITY CLERK'S OFFICE AT(253)856-5725 IN ADVANCE. FOR TDD RELAY SERVICE
CALL THE WASHINGTON TELECOMMUNICATIONS RELAY SERVICE AT 1-800-833-
6388.
MARCH 11, 2003
THE AGENDA COVER SHEET FOR THE 04/15/03
PLANNING COMMITTEE MEETING (4:00 PM)
of—OF ITEM #1 "COMPREHENSIVE PLAN GRANT SCOPE OF WORK REVISION"
ACTION ITEM: To recommend/not recommend approval of the revised GMA grant Scope of'work and to
forward the contract amendment to the City Council to authorize the Mayor's signature.
BACKUP MATERIAL: Staff Report from Charlene Anderson dated April 15, 2003, Revised Scope of Work, Original
grant contract.
PRESENTER(s): Charlene Anderson
TIME: 20 Minutes
• TITLE OF ITEM #2 `UR64NGROWTHAREA10•YEARUPDA7E"
INFORMATION ITEM: Staff will review Urban Growth Areas as required by the GMA.
BACKUP MATERIAL: Staff Report from Charlene Anderson dated April 8, 2003, GMPC 3/26/03 agenda
materials, including PowerPoint presentation.
PRESENTER(s): Charlene Anderson
TIME: 15 Minutes
TITLE OF ITEM #3 'COUNTYIMDE PLANNING POUCIESAMENDMENTS GROWTH MANAGEMENTPLANNINGCOUNCIL
M0770NS"
INFORMATION ITEM: Staff will discuss countywide planning policies as required under the State Growth
Management Act(GMA).
BACKUP MATERIAL: Staff Report from Charlene Anderson dated April 8, 2003, GMPC Motions 01-2, 02-1 thorugh
02-6.
PRESENTER(s): Charlene Anderson
TIME: 15 Minutes
TITLE OF ITEM #4 'REGULATORYREVIEWPROCESS'
INFORMATION ITEM: Staff will discuss a mechanism for the public to initiate amendments to City regulations as
requested by Councilmember Bruce White.
BACKUP MATERIAL: Staff Report from Fred. N. Satterstrom dated April 8, 2003
PRESENTER(s): Fred N. Satterstrom
TIME: 10 minutes
•
SAPermitTlanTianning Comm ittee1030415pc-cvrsht.doc
ITEM 12
tPLANNING COMMITTEE
April 15,2003
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN GRANT
SCOPE OF WORK REVISION
Recommended Motion:
I move to recommend that Council authorize the Mayor to sign the
contract amendment for the revised GMA Grant Scope of Work.
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Fred N. Satterstrom, AICP, Director
PLANNING SERVICES
KENT Charlene Anderson,AICP, Manager
WASHINGTON Phone:253-856-5454
Fax: 253-856-6454
Address: 220 Fourth Avenue S.
Kent,WA 98032-5895
DATE: April 15, 2003
TO: CHAIR LEONA ORR AND PLANNING COMMITTEE MEMBERS
FROM: CHARLENE ANDERSON, AICP, PLANNING MANAGER
THROUGH: MAYOR JIM WHITE
SUBJECT: COMPREHENSIVE PLAN GRANT SCOPE OF WORK REVISION
SUMMARY: In March 2002 the City of Kent was awarded a grant totaling $57,500 from the
State Office of Community Development for work on the mandated Growth Management Act
updates. All work under this grant contract must be completed by June 30, 2003. Attached is a
revised Scope of Work for this grant which reallocates available funding toward the Critical
Areas Ordinance update.
BUDGET IMPACT: None
MOTION: I move to recommend/not recommend approval of the revised GMA grant Scope of
Work and to forward the contract amendment to the City Council to authorize the Mayor's
signature.
BACKGROUND: The original Scope of Work for the GMA grant included work on the
Critical Areas Update, Transportation Element of the Comprehensive Plan, and Agricultural
Lands update. This work incorporates a portion of the mandated GMA updates. In the fall 2002,
the state legislature postponed the deadline for completion of the GMA updates to December
2004. As such, the Critical Areas update will proceed as scheduled to have a draft for public
review by the grant deadline of May 31, 2003. However, it is not expected that the
Transportation Element of the Comprehensive Plan will be completed before the close of the
grant period. Therefore, the enclosed revised Scope of Work removes that grant task. Money
previously earmarked for the Transportation Element will be utilized for the Critical Areas
Update.
Since the Transportation Element was to be completed in-house, the grant budget was reduced
by 1 FTE ($43,000). The amount of money allocated to contract work remains the same. This
change in the overall budget does not affect the grant disbursement. The City will still be
eligible to receive the full allocation.
Both the original contract and the proposed amendment are included in the agenda packet.
KM\pm S:\Permit\Plan\Planning Committee\2003\grantupdatememo.doc
Enc: Revised Scope of Work
Original grant contract
cc: Kim Marousek,AICP,Principal Planner
Fred N.Satterstrom,AICP,CD Director
Charlene Anderson,AICP,Planning Manager
GMA grant file
' V" ' ,
e — x
STATE OF WASHINGTON
OFFICE OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
906 Columbia St. SW • PO Box 48350 • Olympia, Washington 98504-8350 • (360) 725-2800
March 24, 2003
RECEIVED
Ms. Kim Marousek IIAR 2 6 2003
Principal Planner CITY OF KENT
City of Kent PLANNING SERVICES
220 Fourth Avenue South
Kent, Washington 98032-5895
Dear Ms. Marousek:
Enclosed are two copies of the contract amendment between the City of Kent and the
Department of Community, Trade and Economic Development for your FY 2002 Growth
Management Act Grant. This amendment is based on the changes you submitted. If the
amendment meets your approval, please have both copies signed and return them to me. Please
fill in the Federal I.D. number for the City of Kent on both the amendments so that we may them
more quickly.
Please note that a report of the expenses that were incurred in the completion of this grant project
will need to be included in the close out report. If you have any questions about this or the
contract process, please call Ike Nwankwo at (360) 725-3056 or myself at(360) 725-3057.
Regards,
Matthew Ojennus
Assistant Planner
Growth Management Services
Enclosures
r
• INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT
WASHINGTON STATE
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY,TRADE AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
AMENDMENT TO CONTRACT NUMBER: s02-63000-084
Amendment Number s02-63000-084A
This AMENDMENT, entered into, by, and between the City of Kent (hereinafter referred to as the
GRANTEE) and the Washington State Department of Community, Trade and Economic
Development(hereinafter referred to as the DEPARTMENT),WITNESSES THAT:
The DEPARTMENT and the GRANTEE desire to modify the original CONTRACT.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of covenants, conditions, performances, and promises
hereinafter contained,the parties hereto agree as follows:
3. SERVICE PROVISIONS
Funds provided to the GRANTEE under this AGREEMENT shall be used solely for
activities undertaken to fulfill the mandates required by the Growth Management Act to
implement the GRANTEE'S growth management strategy as described in
• ATTACBMENT: AMENDED SCOPE OF WORK, which,by this reference, is made a part
of this AGREEMENT and supercedes ATTACHMENT: SCOPE OF WORK.
This AMENDMENT shall be read in conjunction with the original CONTRACT. Each and
every provision of the original CONTRACT shall remain in full force and effect except as
amended herein.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the DEPARTMENT and the GRANTEE have executed this
AGREEMENT as of the date and year written below:
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY,TRADE CITY OF KENT
AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
By: By:
Nancy K. Ousley, Assistant Director
Local Government Division Title:
Date: Date:
Federal Tax Identification Number
Approved as to Form
Alan Consev
Assistant Attorney General
May 7, 1998
Date
ATTACHMENT: AMENDED SCOPE OF WORK
CITY OF KENT
CONTRACT s02-63000-084
The GRANTEE is responsible for the preparation of all contract deliverables set forth below.
The process and product shall be substantially consistent with the GRANTEE's grant application
submitted to the Department for this round of funding and with the requirements of the Growth
Management Act. Deliverables will be provided to the Department in electronic format
wherever possible. At the Department's or the GRANTEE's request, deliverables may be
provided in paper format. All draft ordinances and resolutions developed by the GRANTEE in
the completion of this AGREEMENT shall be submitted to the DEPARTMENT at least sixty
day prior to adoption. All ordinances and resolutions adopted by the GRANTEE in the
completion of this AGREEMENT shall be submitted to the DEPARTMENT per RCW
36.70A.106.
Project Description: The City of Kent proposes to review and update its comprehensive land
use plan and development regulations according to RCW 36.70A.130(1), specifically completing
update of the critical areas ordinance and transportation element.
Milestones:
2°d Quarter 2003 Critical Areas:
• Digitize hazard area maps
• Update wetland inventory maps
• Incorporate soils maps into comp plan maps
• Review zoning code regulations for hazard area development for consistency with Best
Available Science—propose amendments as appropriate
• Review BMP's for sewer/water system and road maintenance for consistency with Best
Available Science—propose amendments as appropriate
• Adopt Integrated Pest Management regulations consistent with Best Available Science
• Adopt stormwater management plan.
3rd Quarter 2002 Natural Resources:
• Finalize consideration of agricultural lands, including TDR/PDR as appropriate
Deliverables:
March 31, 2002
• Digitized hazard area, wetland and soils maps
• Draft Stormwater Management Plan
• Draft or Ordinance for BMP's for sewer, water&road maintenance
• September 30,2002
• Draft ordinance related to Agricultural lands, including TDR/PDR as appropriate
, Y
May 30, 2003
• • Draft Integrated Pest Management Plan
• Draft Critical Areas Ordinance amendment
Resources:
July 1, 2001 —June 15, 2003: Salaries/Benefits $172,000 (4.5}-
Contracts 335,000
$ 507,000
Status Reports: brief status report on or about June 15, 2002 indicating progress-to-date and
describing how the FY 2002 work items will be completed by June 15, 2002; a report on or
about January 15, 2003, only if the GRANTEE has not completed their project.
Close-out-Report: brief report (500 words or less) describing project accomplishments when
project as specified in the scope of work is completed but no later than June 1, 2003.
•
•
`\ wn-�-
J.
• STATE OF WASHINGTON
OFFICE OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
906 Columbia St. SW • PO Box 48350 • Olympia, Washington 98504-8350 • (360) 715-2800
March 13, 2002
Charlene Anderson
City of Kent
Planning Services Office
220 Fourth Avenue South
Kent, WA 98032-5895
Dear Ms. Anderson:
Enclosed is your signed original contract between the City of Kent and the Department of
Community, Trade and Economic Development for your FY 2002 Growth Management Update
Grant. We are processing the voucher that you returned,and you should be receiving your first
payment within a few days. If you have any questions about the contract,please call me at
(360) 725-3057.
Sincerely,
AD
Matthew Ojennus
Assistant Planner
Growth Management Services
Enclosure
MO:sb
® iOO
RECEIVE[)
FEB 2 5 2002
• INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT LOCAL GOVERNMEry
WASIIINGTON STATE
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY,TRADE AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
CONTRACT NUMBER: s02-63000-084
This AGREEMENT, entered into by and between the City of Kent (hereinafter referred to as the
GRANTEE) and the Washington State Department of Community, Trade and Economic
Development(hereinafter referred to as the DEPARTMENT),WITNESSES THAT:
WHEREAS, the DEPARTMENT has the statutory authority under RCW 43.330.050(5) to
cooperate with and provide assistance to local governments and local agencies serving the
communities of the state for the purpose of aiding orderly, productive, and coordinated
development of the state; and
WHEREAS, the DEPARTMENT also has the responsibility to administer programs and
projects assigned to the DEPARTMENT by the Governor or the Washington State Legislature;and
WHEREAS, the DEPARTMENT has the statutory responsibility under
RCW 36.70A.190(1) to establish a program of financial assistance and incentives to counties,
cities, and towns to encourage and facilitate the adoption and implementation of comprehensive
plans and development regulations throughout the state;and
WHEREAS, the DEPARTMENT desires to engage the GRANTEE to perform certain
tasks as hereinafter specified.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of covenants, conditions, performances, and promises
hereinafter contained,the parties hereto agree as follows:
1. FUNDING
The total funds to be disbursed to the GRANTEE,for the agreement period shall not exceed
fifty-seven thousand five hundred dollars($57,500).
2. AGREEMENT PERIOD
The effective date of this AGREEMENT shall be July 1, 2001. The termination date shall
be June 30, 2003.
3. SERVICE PROVISIONS
Funds provided to the GRANTEE under this AGREEMENT shall be used solely for
activities undertaken to fulfill the mandates required by the Growth Management Act to
implement the GRANTEE'S growth management strategy as described in
ATTACHMENT: SCOPE OF WORK, which, by this reference, is made a part of this
AGREEMENT.
• 4. DISBURSEMENT/REIMBURSEMENT PROVISIONS
s02-63000-084
• The GRANTEE shall submit an invoice voucher(Form A-19)to the DEPARTMENT
upon signing this AGREEMENT for an amount equal to no more than twenty thousand
one hundred twenty-five dollars ($20,125). No later than June 30, 2002, and upon
completion of that portion of the scope of work to that date, the GRANTEE shall submit
an invoice voucher to the DEPARTMENT for an amount equal to no more than eight
thousand six hundred twenty-five dollars ($8,625).
On or after July 1, 2002, and upon completion of that portion of the scope of work to that
date, the GRANTEE shall submit an invoice voucher to the DEPARTMENT for an
amount equal to no more than twenty thousand one hundred twenty-five dollars
($20,125). Upon completion of the entire scope of work,no earlier than July 1,2002, and
no later than the expiration of this AGREEMENT,the GRANTEE shall submit an
invoice voucher to the DEPARTMENT for an amount equal to no more than eight
thousand six hundred twenty-five dollars ($8,625). Any funds apportioned to be
distributed by the terms of this AGREEMENT and not requested by the GRANTEE, or,
if requested and not approved for distribution by the DEPARTMENT, shall be forfeited
by the GRANTEE.
5. NONASSIGNABILITY
Neither this agreement, nor any claim arising under this agreement shall be transferred or
assigned by the GRANTEE. PROVIDED that, in order to establish a review and
evaluation program pursuant to RCW 36.70A.215,the GRANTEE may consult,
coordinate, and contract with the cities and towns within the county serviced by this
AGREEMENT and may contract for the personal services of consultants.
6. RECORDS AND DOCUMENTS
The GRANTEE shall maintain books,records, documents and other evidence of
accounting procedures and practices,which sufficiently and properly reflect all direct and
indirect costs of any nature expended in the performance of this contract. These records
shall be subject at all reasonable times to inspection,review, or audit by personnel duly
authorized by law,rule,regulation, or contract. The GRANTEE will retain all books,
records, documents, and other materials relevant to this AGREEMENT for six years from
the date of final payment, and make them available for inspection by persons authorized
under this provision.
7. RIGHT OF INSPECTION
The GRANTEE shall provide right of access to its facilities to the DEPARTMENT, or
any of its officers,or to any other authorized agent or official of the state of Washington
or the federal government at all reasonable times, in order to monitor and evaluate
performance, compliance, and/or quality assurance under this AGREEMENT.
8. NONDISCRIIyIINATION
During the performance of this AGREEMENT,the GRANTEE shall comply with all
federal and state nondiscrimination laws, including,but not limited to chapter 49.60 RCW,
• Washington's Law Against Discrimination, and 42 U.S.C. 12101 et seq.,the Americans
with Disabilities Act.
Page 2 of 6
s02-63000-084
In the event of the GRANTEE noncompliance or refusal to comply with any
nondiscrimination law,regulation,or policy,this AGREEMENT may be rescinded,
canceled or terminated in whole or in part, and the GRANTEE may be declared ineligible
for further AGREEMENTS with the DEPARTMENT. The GRANTEE shall,however,be
given a reasonable time in which to cure this noncompliance. Any dispute may be resolved
in accordance with the DISPUTES procedure set forth here in.
9. GRANTEE NOT EMPLOYEE OF THE DEPARTMENT
The GRANTEE and his/her employees or agents performing under this AGREEMENT are
not employees or agents of the DEPARTMENT. The GRANTEE will not hold
himself/herself out as nor claim to be an office or employee of the DEPARTMENT or of
the state of Washington by reason thereof,nor will the GRANTEE make any claim of right,
privilege or benefit which would accrue to an employee under Chapter 41.06 RCW or
Chapter 28B.16 RCW.
10. AGREEMENT AMENDMENTS
The DEPARTMENT and the GRANTEE may, from time to time,request changes to this
AGREEMENT. Any such changes that are mutually agreed upon by the DEPARTMENT
and the GRANTEE shall be incorporated herein by written amendment to this
AGREEMENT. It is mutually agreed and understood that no alteration or variation of the
terms of this AGREEMENT shall be valid unless made in writing and signed by the parties
. hereto,and that any oral understanding or agreements not incorporated herein, shall not be
binding.
AGREEMENT amendments shall not be made which result in an extension of the
CONTRACT period beyond June 30, 2003.
11. DISEIJTES
Except as otherwise provided in this AGREEMENT,when a bona fide dispute arises
between the parties and it cannot be resolved through discussion and negotiation,either
party may request a dispute hearing. The parties shall select a dispute resolution team to
resolve the dispute. The team shall consist of a representative appointed by the
DEPARTMENT, a representative appointed by the GRANTEE and a third party mutually
agreed by both parties. The team shall attempt,by majority vote,to resolve the dispute.
The parties agree that this dispute process shall precede any action in a judicial or quasi-
judicial tribunal.
12. TERMINATION OF AGREEMENT
If,through any cause,the GRANTEE shall fail to fulfill in a timely and proper manner its
obligations under this AGREEMENT,or if the GRANTEE shall violate any of its
covenants, agreements or stipulations of this AGREEMENT,the DEPARTMENT shall
thereupon have the right to terminate this AGREEMENT and withhold the remaining
allocation if such default or violation is not corrected within twenty(20)days after written
• notice describing such default or violation is received by the GRANTEE's representative.
Page 3 of 6
s02-63000-084
Notwithstanding any provisions of this AGREEMENT, either party may terminate this
• AGREEMENT by providing written notice of such termination, specifying the effective
date thereof,at least thirty(30)days prior to such date. Reimbursement for services
performed by the GRANTEE, and not otherwise paid for by the DEPARTMENT prior to
the effective date of such termination, shall be as the DEPARTMENT reasonably
determines.
In the event funding from the state, federal, or other sources is withdrawn,reduced,or
limited in any way after the effective date of this AGREEMENT and prior to normal
completion,the DEPARTMENT may unilaterally reduce the scope of work and budget or
terminate this AGREEMENT.
15. SPECIAL PROVISION
The DEPARTMENT'S failure to insist upon the strict performance of any provision of this
AGREEMENT or to exercise any right based upon breach thereof or the acceptance of any
performance during such breach shall not constitute a waiver of any right under this
AGREEMENT.
16. HOLD HARMLESS
It is understood and agreed that this AGREEMENT is solely for the benefit of the parties
hereto and gives no right to any other party. No joint venture or partnership is formed as a
result of this AGREEMENT. Each party hereto agrees to be responsible and assumes
• liability for its own negligent acts or omissions, or those of its officers, agents,or employees
to the fullest extent required by law, and agrees to save,indemnify,defend, and hold the
other party harmless from any such liability. In the case of negligence of both the
DEPARTMENT and the GRANTEE, any damages allowed shall be levied in proportion to
the percentage of negligence attributable to each party,and each party shall have the right to
seek contribution from the other party in proportion to the percentage of negligence
attributable to the other party.
This indemnification clause shall also apply to any and all causes of action arising out of the
performance of work activities under this AGREEMENT by a consultant through a
personal services contract with the GRANTEE as permitted by paragraph 5 herein. Each
contract between the GRANTEE and such consultant for services or activities utilizing
funds provided in whole or in part by this AGREEMENT shall include a provision that the
DEPARTMENT and the state of Washington are not liable for damages or claims from
damages arising from any such consultant's performance.
17. GOVERNING LAW AND VENUE
The AGREEMENT shall be construed and enforced in accordance with, and the laws of
the State of Washington hereof shall govern the validity and performance. Venue of any
suit between the parties arising out of this AGREEMENT shall be the superior court of
Thurston County,Washington.
• 18. SEVERABILITY
Page 4 of 6
s02-63000-084
• In the event any term or condition of this AGREEMENT or application thereof to any
person or circumstances is held invalid, such invalidity shall not affect other terms,
conditions, and applications of this AGREEMENT which can be given effect without the
invalid term,condition, or application. To this end the terms and conditions of this
AGREEMENT are declared severable.
19. REDUCTION IN FUNDS
The DEPARTMENT may unilaterally terminate all or part of this AGREEMENT, or may
reduce its scope of work or budget under this AGREEMENT, if there is a reduction of
funds by the source of those funds, and if such funds are the basis for this AGREEMENT.
20. RECAPTURE OF FUNDS
In the event that the GRANTEE fails to expend state funds in accordance with state law or
the provisions of this AGREEMENT,the DEPARTMENT reserves the right to recapture
state funds in an amount equivalent to the extent of noncompliance.
Such right of recapture shall exist for a period not to exceed six(6)years following
termination of the AGREEMENT. Repayment by the GRANTEE of state funds under this
recapture provision shall occur within thirty(30)days of demand. In the event that the
DEPARTMENT is required to institute legal proceedings to enforce the recapture
provision, the DEPARTMENT shall be entitled to its cost thereof, including reasonable
attorney's fees.
• 21. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF STATE FUNDING
A. The GRANTEE shall provide all project-related press releases to the
DEPARTMENT. Press releases shall identify the DEPARTMENT as a project
financier.
B. Publication such as reports and pamphlets which are developed totally or in part
with funds provided under this Agreement shall give credit to the funding source by
including the following: "Funds made available through the Washington State
Department of Community,Trade and Economic Development."
22. OWNERSHIP OF PROJECT MATERIALS
A. All finished or unfinished documents, data, studies, surveys, drawings, models,
photographs, films, duplicating plates, computer disks and reports prepared by the
GRANTEE under this Agreement shall be works for hire under U.S. copyright law.
The DEPARTMENT may duplicate, use, and disclose in any manner and for any
purpose whatsoever,all materials prepared under this Agreement.
B. The GRANTEE must have prior approval of the DEPARTMENT to produce
patents, copyrights, patent rights, inventions, original books, manuals, films, or
other patentable or copyrightable materials, in whole or in part with funds received
under this Agreement. The DEPARTMENT reserves the right to determine whether
• protection of inventions of discover shall be disposed of and administered in order
to protect the public interest. Before the GRANTEE copyrights any materials
Page 5 of 6
r
s02-63000-084
produced with funds under this Agreement, the DEPARTMENT reserves the right
to negotiate a reasonable royalty fee and agreement.
23. ENTIRE AGREEMENT
This AGREEMENT including referenced exhibits represents all the terms and conditions
agreed upon by the parties. No other understandings or representations, oral or otherwise,
regarding the subject matter of this AGREEMENT shall be deemed to exist or to bind
any of the parties within.
24. ADN41MSTRATION
A. The DEPARTMENT'S representative shall be
Ike Nwankwo, (360) 725-3056
B. The GRANTEE'S representative shall be
Charlene Anderson, (253) 856-5431
IN WITNESS WHEREOF,the DEPARTMENT and the GRANTEE have executed this
AGREEMENT as of the date and year written below:
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY,TRADE CITY OF KENT
AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
By: By:
Steve Wells, Director /1 ,,' y�,�,u''�� "
Local Government Division Tit e:lm In�tAt Ir�y(/F -
Date: �WOOL Date:
Federal Tax Identification Number
Approved as to Form - boo 12 5 y
Melissa Burke-Cain
Assistant Attorney General
November 30,2001
Date
Page 6 of 6
ATTACHMENT: SCOPE OF WORK
CITY OF KENT
CONTRACT s02-63000-084
The GRANTEE is responsible for the preparation of all contract deliverables set forth below.
The process and product shall be substantially consistent with the GRANTEE's grant application
submitted to the Department for this round of funding and with the requirements of the Growth
Management Act. Deliverables will be provided to the Department in electronic format
wherever possible. At the Department's or the GRANTEE's request,deliverables may be
provided in paper format. All draft ordinances and resolutions developed by the GRANTEE in
the completion of this AGREEMENT shall be submitted to the DEPARTMENT at least sixty
day prior to adoption. All ordinances and resolutions adopted by the GRANTEE in the
completion of this AGREEMENT shall be submitted to the DEPARTMENT per RCW
36.70A.106.
Project Description: The City of Kent proposes to review and update its comprehensive land
use plan and development regulations according to RCW 36.70A.130(1), specifically completing
update of the critical areas ordinance and transportation element.
Milestones:
I'Quarter 2002 Critical Areas:
• Digitize hazard area maps
• Update wetland inventory maps
• Incorporate soils maps into comp plan maps
• Review zoning code regulations for hazard area development for
consistency with Best Available Science—propose amendments as
appropriate
• Review BMP's for sewer/water system and road maintenance for
consistency with Best Available Science—propose amendments as
appropriate
• Adopt Integrated Pest Management regulations consistent with Best
Available Science
• Adopt stormwater management plan.
2nd Quarter 2002 Transportation:
• Inventory/describe state-owned facilities;relate to land uses
(Commuter Rail?Freight railroad?)
• Inventory/describe locally-owned transportation facilities
• Estimate traffic impacts to all transportation facilities
• Identify LOS for state-owned facilities (Add definition of"urban"
LOS for HSS?—LOS "D" for urban"C"for rural)
• Coordinate needs for state-owned facilities with DOT
• Determine relationship of state-owned facilities to other comp plan
elements
• Update LOS standards for locally-owned arterials and transit;
coordinate with adjacent jurisdictions; coordinate with RTPO
• Review concurrency ordinance—concurrency not required for facilities
of state-wide significance
• Review definitions section to ensure appropriate new terms are
defined.
• Review definition of public capital facilities/essential public facilities
—include transportation facilities of statewide significance
• Update Projects and financing section(TIP/CIP)
3rd Quarter 2002 Natural Resources:
• Finalize consideration of agricultural lands, including TDR/PDR as
appropriate
Deliverables:
March 31, 2002
• Digitized hazard area,wetland and soils maps
• Draft Stormwater Management Plan
• Draft or Ordinance for BMP's for sewer,water&road maintenance
• Draft Integrated Pest Management Plan
• Draft Critical Areas Ordinance amendment
June 30, 2002
• Draft Transportation Element update,including inventory of and impacts to facilities of
statewide significance
August 31, 2002
• Draft ordinance related to Agricultural lands, including TDR/PDR as appropriate
Resources:
July 1, 2001 —June 15, 2002: Salaries/Benefits $172,000 (4.5 FTE @ 4/5 of$215,000)
Contracts 268,000 (4/5 of$335,00�
$ 440,000
July 1, 2002—June 15, 2003 Salaries/Benefits$ 43,000 (115 of$215,000)
Contracts 67,000 (1/5 of$335,000)
$ 110,000
Status Reports: brief status report on or about March 15, 2002 indicating progress-to-date and
describing how the FY 2002 work items will be completed by June 15, 2002; a report on or about
January 15,2003, only if the GRANTEE has not completed their project.
Close-out-Report: brief report (500 words or less) describing project accomplishments when
project as specified in the scope of work is completed but no later than June 1, 2003.
ITEM#3
PLANNING COMMITTEE
April 15,2003
URBAN GROWTH AREA
10NEAR UPDATE
Information Only
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Fred N. Satterstrom, AICP, Director
• PLANNING SERVICES
KEN T Charlene Anderson,AICP, Manager
WASHINOTON
Phone:253-856-5454
Fax: 253-856-6454
Address: 220 Fourth Avenue S.
Kent, WA 98032-5895
DATE: APRIL 8, 2003
TO: CHAIR LEONA ORR AND PLANNING COMMITTEE MEMBERS
FROM: CHARLENE ANDERSON, AICP, PLANNING MANAGER
THROUGH: MAYOR JIM WHITE
SUBJECT: URBAN GROWTH AREA 10-YEAR UPDATE
SUMMARY: The Growth Management Act (GMA) requires counties planning under the Act to
designate Urban Growth Areas (UGAs) that delineate areas planned for urban vs. rural
development (RCW 36.70A.110). The GMA further requires that counties and cities 1) review
• designated UGAs every ten years, evaluating the adequacy of the UGAs to accommodate the next
20 years anticipated population growth, and 2) amend their comprehensive plans as needed to
ensure accommodation of that growth (RCW 36.70A.130). This requirement may be met in
concert with the review and evaluation required by the "Buildable Lands" amendment to the
GMA (see RCW 36.70A.215).
BUDGET IMPACT: None
MOTION: None needed—For Information Only
BACKGROUND: In February, 2002, staff presented to the Planning Committee an evaluation
of the Buildable Lands Program in Kent and proposed growth targets. The Buildable Lands
statute (RCW 36.70A.215) directs local governments to undertake a series of data collection and
analysis tasks with the objective of determining the adequacy of the current supply of "lands
suitable for development' to accommodate growth needs for the remainder of the current
planning horizon. Projections of future densities of development (e.g., dwelling units per acre)
are based on development outcomes reflected in recent permits and plats. If a jurisdiction has less
capacity than its growth targets, it must adopt measures expected to increase densities and overall
development potential in the future. The analysis for Kent determined no action was required
under Buildable Lands for accommodating household and employment targets through 2012. The
analysis also showed King County as a whole has the capacity to accommodate the household and
employment targets through 2012,
4/15/03 Planning Committee Meeting
Urban Growth Area 10-Year Update
Staff Report
Page 2
In January, 2002, the state Office of Financial Management released forecasts for population
growth in King County through 2022, the new 20-year planning horizon under the King County
Countywide Planning Policies. An interjurisdictional group — the Buildable Lands and Targets
(BLT) committee —worked for many months in 2001 and 2002 on a methodology for converting
population to households and for distributing household and job growth among localities.
Draft subarea growth target distributions were presented to the King County Growth Management
Planning Council (GMPC) in May and July of 2002. The GMPC approved the targets in
September, 2002.
Once growth allocations have been approved, GMA requires a re-evaluation of the Urban Growth
Area (UGA) boundary and local areas within it with respect to their ability to absorb that
projected growth. Staff briefed the GMPC on the findings of this evaluation on March 26, 2003.
Comparison of the capacity analysis from the 2002 Buildable Lands report with the household
and job targets for the 2001-2022 planning period indicates the existing UGA encompasses more
than enough developable land, zoned at densities sufficient to meet growth needs for the next 20
years. GMPC will vote on a motion affirming the adequacy of the existing UGA at its May,
2003, meeting.
The City of Kent continues to move forward in planning efforts for efficient land utilization while
still meeting goals of environmental protection, open space, mobility, economic development and
other quality of life concerns. These growth management strategies will be important as we look
to accommodate the continued growth of our region.
CA\pm:S:\Permit\Plan\CompPlanAmdments\2003\ugal0yrupdate.doc
Enc: Growth Management Planning Council(GMPC)3/26/03 agenda materials, including PowerPoint
presentation
cc: Fred N. Satterstrom,AICP, CD Director
Charlene Anderson, Planning Manager
Project File
•
Council Meeting Date: March 26,2003 Agenda Item: IV
GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLANNING COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM
KING COUNTY,WASHINGTON
AGENDA TITLE:Ten-Year Urban Growth Area Review
PRESENTED BY:Michael Hubner,Suburban Cities Association
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Staff will give an overview of the requirements under the Growth Management Act and
Countywide Planning Policies for a 10-year Urban Growth Area(UGA) review. Staff will
summarize two items—Buildable Lands Report and Growth Targets—that were brought before
the Growth Management Planning Council in 2002 and will describe how these exercises,
together with King County Benchmarks monitoring, satisfy the technical requirements of the
UGA review mandate.
An evaluation of the UGA—drawing upon Buildable Lands, Growth Targets, and
Benchmarks indicators—finds that the current UGA is adequate to accommodate
Household Growth Targets through the year 2022. Therefore, no change to the UGA is
recommended.
BACKGROUND
L Statutory and Policy Requirements for a 10-Year UGA Review
Washington State's Growth Management Act (GMA) (1990, 1991) requires counties planning
under the act to designate Urban Growth Areas (UGAs), which delineate areas planned for
Urban vs. Rural development (RCW 36.70A.110). The GMA further requires that counties and
cities 1)review designated UGAs every ten years, evaluating the adequacy of the UGAs to
accommodate the next 20 years anticipated population growth, and then 2) amend county and
city comprehensive plans as needed to ensure continued ability to accommodate that growth
(RCW 36.70A.130). This requirement may be met in concert with the review and evaluation
required by the "Buildable Lands" amendment to the GMA (see RCW 36.70A.215)1.
1 RCW 36.70A.130 Comprehensive Plans--Review--Amendments...(3)Each county that designates urban growth
areas under RCW 36.70A.110 shall review,at least every ten years,its designated urban growth area or areas,and
the densities permitted within both the incorporated and unincorporated portions of each urban growth area.In
conjunction with this review by the county,each city located within an urban growth area shall review the densities
permitted within its boundaries,and the extent to which the urban growth occurring within the county has located
within each city and the unincorporated portions of the urban growth areas.The county comprehensive plan
designating urban growth areas,and the densities permitted in the urban growth areas by the comprehensive plans of
the county and each city located within the urban growth areas,shall be revised to accommodate the urban growth
projected to occur in the county for the succeeding twenty-year period.The review required by this subsection may
be combined with the review and evaluation required by RCW 36.70A.215.
1
The King County UGA, which encompasses the contiguous Urban area as well as the "Rural'
cities expansion areas, was adopted in 1992 by the Growth Management Planning Council
(GMPC). The Metropolitan King County Council (MKCC)revised and finalized the UGA
boundary in 1994, following recommendations from the GMPC. FW-I (Step 8a) of the King
County Countywide Planning Policies (CPPs) implements the state UGA review requirement
locally. This policy requires that the GMPC "review all Urban Growth Areas ten years after
adoption and ratification" of the UGA boundary. The review is to be conducted "utilizing
monitoring reports and benchmark evaluation and be coordinated with evaluation and reporting
requirements of state law." Based on this review, the GMPC may recommend to the MKCC
changes to the UGA, if such changes are deemed necessary in order to accommodate growth
targeted for the next 20-year planning period. The GMPC, alternatively, may affirm the
sufficiency of the current UGA.
The technical requirements of the GMA-mandated UGA review are satisfied by two state-
mandated exercises that were completed, reviewed, and acted upon by the GMPC in 2002: the
Buildable Lands Evaluation Report (2002) and allocation of Household and Employment
Growth Targets for the 2001-2022 planning period. In the following sections, these exercises are
briefly summarized. Their findings provide a basis for evaluating the UGA consistent with the
statutory mandate. Further support for the UGA review as required by the CPPs is provided by
data tracked for the annual King County Benchmarks Report.
II. Buildable Lands Evaluation Report(2002)
Staff briefed the GMPC at its May 22, 2002 meeting on findings of the Buildable Lands Program
and presented materials from the draft Buildable Lands Evaluation Report (2002). Analysis
results—reported for cities, four subareas of the UGA, and the entire UGA—included the
following:
• Population, housing unit, and job growth (1993-2000)
• Densities achieved in permitted residential and non-residential projects (1996-2000)
• Vacant and redevelopable land deemed "suitable for development" (2000)
• Development capacity of such lands, specifically potential for new additional housing
units and jobs; Capacity estimates reflect current plans and zoning, as well as actual
development densities and other market trends measured during the review period
The Buildable Lands statute requires an evaluation of the sufficiency of the supply of
developable land to accommodate targets established in the "most recently adopted"
comprehensive plans. This was accomplished in King County by comparing development
capacity estimates for housing and employment with Household and Job Growth Targets for the
1992-2012 planning period.
The report concluded that capacity in the UGA as a whole, within each subarea, and in the great
majority of jurisdictions is sufficient to accommodate growth targeted for the remaining 12 years
of the 20-year planning period. Capacity in several cities was found to be insufficient to
2
accommodate 2012 targets, necessitating the adoption of remedial measures in those jurisdictions
to increase the consistency between targets, local plans, and actual development.
In addition to the capacity evaluation, the Buildable Lands report also presented data on
achievement of OFM population projections and CPP Household Growth Targets during the first
eight years of the 1993-2012 planning period. These data show that,UGA-wide, the county is on
track to meet 2012 targets for households. While the data also revealed some unevenness in
target achievement among cities, further analysis showed that population growth in all subareas
of the UGA met or exceeded OFM projections for the 1993-2012 period.
At the May 22 meeting, the GMPC discussed the methodology and findings of the draft report
and directed staff to proceed with finalization of the Evaluation Report. The final draft of the
report was submitted to the State Department of Community, Trade, and Economic Development
in September 2002.
Further detailed findings of the Buildable Lands Program are available in the staff report for the
May 22, 2002 GMPC meeting or in the Evaluation Report, copies of which were provided to the
GMPC and which is available online at http://www.metrokc.govibudget/buildlandlbldlnd02.htm.
X. Growth Targets (2001-2022)
In presentations at a series of meetings from July 2001 through July 2002, staff briefed the
GMPC on progress toward allocation of new Household and Job Growth Targets to cities and
unincorporated Urban areas. The GMPC voted to approve the recommended Growth Targets at
its September 25, 2002 meeting.
The approved Growth Targets specify anticipated housing and employment development needs
for the 2001-2022 planning period. They also satisfy the GMA requirement that counties and
their cities plan to accommodate 20-year population projections issued by the State Office of
Financial Management in January 2002. The targets, which were recommended to the GMPC by
a multi-jurisdictional committee of senior planning staff,reflect several principles, including:
• Continuity with existing targets for the 1992-2012 period
• Fair share among jurisdictions
• Proportional allocation of households and jobs to subareas of the county
• Technical support based on best available data, including from the Buildable Lands
Program and Census 2000
Overall, the allocation process resulted in distribution of a 22-year growth projection of nearly
152,000 households (based on a projected population growth of 282,000) to individual cities and
to unincorporated areas within the UGA.
Further details on the approved Growth Targets, including the individual jurisdiction targets and
the process and methodology to establish them, are available in archived staff reports to GMPC
and in the text of Motion 1, approved on July 25, 2002, and Motions 2 and 3, approved on
• September 25, 2002.
3
IV. Review and Evaluation of UGA
Both the GMA and the CPPs direct the GMPC to consider development capacity as a primary
criterion for evaluating whether expansion of the existing UGA is warranted in order to
accommodate the next 20 years anticipated population and household growth. Table 1 (below)
compares targeted household growth and housing capacity, for the UGA as a whole as well as
within each of four subareas of the UGA.
Table 1: Household Growth Targets vs. Housing Capacity in UGA and Subareas
A B C
Household Target Housing Unit Capacity Capacity Above Target
(2001-2022) (2001) (--B-A)
Sea-Shore 56,369 122,340 65,971
East County 47,645 62,771 15,126
South County 42,335 68,991 26,656
Rural Cities 5,563 9,178 3,615
Urban Growth Area 151,932 263,280 111,348
As highlighted in column C, the findings indicate that the existing UGA encompasses more
than enough developable land,zoned at densities sufficient to meet growth needs for the
next 20 years.Further,the analysis shows that sufficient development capacity exists in all
major urban subareas to meet projected housing needs.
Countywide Planning Policy FW-1 goes further in identifying several criteria, in addition to
development capacity, to be considered in the UGA review. They include the rate of growth and
land consumption, capacities for infrastructure and service provision, and indicators relating to
economic development, affordable housing, and the environment. Growth and achieved density
data tracked for Buildable Lands indicate that the UGA has accommodated housing and jobs
commensurate with established targets. The adequacy of infrastructure and services necessary to
support accommodation of 2022 targets are addressed with the context of local jurisdiction
comprehensive plan and capital improvements program updates. Finally, the King County
Benchmarks Program has tracked progress toward achieving a range of economic development,
affordable housing, and environmental policy outcomes since 1995. County staff presented the
2002 Benchmarks Report to the GMPC at the September 25 meeting. None of the indicators in
the report suggests the need to expand the UGA at this time.
It is important to note that monitoring and evaluation are ongoing countywide responsibilities.
This includes annual data collection for Benchmarks and Buildable Lands. The next Buildable
Lands evaluation, due in 2007, and the next UGA review, due ten-years from now, each
represent opportunities to take stock of new information on land supply, development capacity,
growth targets, and other relevant factors that may suggest the need to amend local plans or the
UGA boundary in the future.
At this point in time, the next step is for individual jurisdictions in the county to incorporate the
new Growth Targets into their local planning. Most jurisdictions already have more than enough
capacity under their existing plans to accommodate the new targets; a small number show small
to modest gaps between current capacity and targets. The process to eliminate the long-term
capacity deficiencies of these jurisdictions is already underway and in some cases has been
completed. All jurisdictions will be adopting measures, such as comprehensive plan revisions
4
and various plan implementation strategies, to ensure their continuing ability to accommodate
targeted household growth. After the completion of the current round of state-mandated plan
updates, which are due for completion by December 2004, staff will be able to report back to the
GMPC on the results of these efforts, specifically their impact on development capacity within
jurisdictions, subareas, and the UGA as a whole.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the GMPC affirm the adequacy of the existing UGA to
accommodate anticipated growth for the planning period ending in 2022. Staff requests
direction to prepare a motion to this effect for consideration and potential vote at the May
21 GMPC meeting. Staff also requests direction to report back to the GMPC in 2005 on
measures adopted by local jurisdictions to accommodate targeted growth.
•
5
•
�U
O
U
c
'c
W a
c
4=J
Q fu
^ , c
W ry
L �
W �
(D
/ 2=J 3:W c
O
rv000 U
0)
L L c
fu (D
O M
�- o
C N
� O fu +�
fu
W � �
L � i
� � N
f0 i� io
V
N
Ln. . 4 Q
.Q O N
._ E M
N
cr Ov V) U C
Ln a� � a `� o
o
U o ... f°
Q v �- >
a)
4-J fu fo N Q > V
'Ln C (Jl
Q� V Q ate-J o 'C
�
o .� J
i -C Q� �� o V C 0- 0
ra o E " �
i' V Q cn
Q tea. oo 0
� M �� o -0
O v tieWo Q0 row
(D DC • • Q •
"O
O
O = 0) E
4- E
4-10 .� C
L- 0 0
Y O
� > �° � o c
-a .�
co
ro
a ro u
0 a) u -0 cn O
> a) a-+ � a)
V ro a) '� a� c
ro n 4-' O cn
° H Q) J c
U N to •u V)
ca a) a)
N ,O m ( i E fu c �
C _4 F •� O
�
�- �� O cn a-+
O Q -O a) M Ou m Q.
C� L to O m O
N � a=' '� cn :' LLn rya
a. 0 ,u Q
O � a� V ra o aj U- c�
O
N
� C
. .
fu O c.. ro
0 ra � CL
O o o 0
~ u
L OV C O d
p1
Ofo O Q. ._
4-J (D O d O
� -p d O-
O O
lB 'v -C w c N
(n Lnn C .� O DC
.0 = O N CD�•�•� > O
t�1� V C .� Ov N W u
Lm
a V .O Ofop
>. p = Q J C
O .V > '~
O E CO O � O
.> O UL
� = O ro
• C
(13 O Q O (a N (V
Q L O .n O O
W • 5. • to • • •
CW
4 O
�Y r
31 pv �j �e5g�,
s2
• � Xd
r, u
® G
Ln
O L
4-0
CL
M _ c
i 0
d
cn
0
.O a) . . 4W
a� E o 3
o L cn o
-�
ca �' ra c V
fu u 3 J
.�
•� Q r1
fa N •v c 3 ra
-a _
iL — •—
0
c
N Q CD o � u � � � �
Ln u f 70 o
N p p N
o
U
O
O fufu o 0, 0 U) NL
L
L � � 0 U N
O � ._ p E O
o o •�, > `� NVap�.v u
N o •�p� �
p
N = O �' O
p LS~+
i- _ CL �+
� fl.
a co V 47
Q C V L O •� d C1
L 0 � U LL a- C�
C7 C. Q ra • • • • V H
O cn
O fa
F-
j �
Q E 0.
O
O cn 5 fV
> .-q
a) -O N
.� L O N
.,.�
�.
O O O
L
fo E S d a_+ fo
> p C :-+ C "a
p u 3 w o
cn
C: E
O
J 4'' fp =3 U
E
W �rya 4-J >% a rya o
-a O o_
Q o o
V) 'S E -a
E w --
o o -03 fo 4-
N N V 0 L O
L fo O
U ro co (A O
CD
_ �_' fo -W
� a.-' O 4-- � 'V m
N a_ a) Q U m R
•� ro
_ p � o c G > V W
V) • • • • •
• (n
f6
N a ;o
cn Q to c
tLn
U a Ln
r V4 I O
to m >p *�'� N M � O-
E L '0 CO C E
Q _. .0 '-
IS Q _ a-+ -0
U_
O 'G _ c -v rco
U cC s m m U o M n rn � w 4
Q a N N 00 CIF)
0 � '3
c ro c
.T 4W p -a N
Q 1.0 0 > Q (v 2) 1 M l0 M 111
4-2 CD Ln
U E N c
0
a)
_ Q E
0 o V
o U U
U U C a_+
0 o V) w c�i � Q O
•
� fu u
(01
fl.
.c 2 U
ENEM
ru
r -
wo m (D
V
2 ImLn
3 Nl 9d m
N
o ra
CD
4 a
ru
a
ru
_ =y WU a
(' N
'G cn t o
U = N
Q
o 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 a
0 0 0 0 0 0 �^
J
'U spioyasnoH/smug
fu
m
m
V r, 0
O O
V
O
U o :J n � ru
, � aLQ ro
4— •p
o > O
•O _O °' O
LL U o V ra O
._ cn v = o
Ln• c o o .�
fB v U c O � O u
W a�
U U .w o -a
O ra O ra U
-a fuu
O Ln Z
ifi j o O_
L •�
Q -O _N L Ln
.a ate' p� • p r0
u "a � -O (M �O '� Q
rp O p _ u N
> �l "a O L L
W C � � Q. .20 O
4-1
qj
O v Q E D .28c
U 0) Ln
4 U � o .� U O CZ
Via)
L •�
� -O CST
o
Q U U U-
V W � cn
W L
fu c
L N a..i :
3 � o � N
V) L
ra -a � N
0) � O O
Q O o cn `� �
cu au
o E Q i
o u
Los fa
o = cnQ ° c o
UJ � (D
�fu Lonu
O 0 L fo
a� Q Q
.MMISL O 4-- m O E
O O N O N L
O O O 0 .� CDuu
'
V �' N c ca
A -a to fa
f �
aE _
0) o fu
4-j O Z _ 0- 47 N Z a
(� Z .�.+ 0 LA OC 0 0 u
i
L
0
V
N
i 0 0)
U u >' 'o
u �
+, O '
(D o o
O • •• _0 0 m �V O fo -C
V N
Ln
� =3
O a) . . � o
w c N =
fo
V U o a w N
a 0) L E
� ca. i N
�� fp O O 4-
f� L L 3: - O
O C C.3 .O
N a
N O O O 'a
fu
O o � i.n o0
-0 o E
L N o
o o
o a) o
DC U- 0 u U- ac fa
- ---
m M Co M N r d N 0 CA d' O r O CO CD ) cc
M N OO r 1� M O 00 r 1� O) N
CD LO co M CO) 00 1� LO cM CO)
U Q c Lci �i
.� VO ~ Q
CO 1� r - r CM LO O r 1� cM M N CA 00 r Cn
a N N r LO N O N 00 M M (0d a w ' O N O '
o ++ N - r 1�, O co 194, � 00 O co 00 00 co
0 a) CDp r M N w r CA C'M r CO 1\
0 co Co N
o ~ O
_0 2 N2
CD M O M N 1� N O r N " r I�- E N V-
r--� .-. Cf) 00 N 1-- M O d f� 1� Q0 CD a M O
1� N 00 CD r N LO CD r O d
CNZ
T CV 00 'd' It CV CV CA � r CD
Q � cc
Q1 = V Clq
o
fo� c
0
m Y
E _ a
O a °�
u m :3`
a� c o
0
V (D o a s
a ° =O x > n� = ° ° c L ' ° c
Fo°
o co 4 o u mmm0 = Y1 � � Z � co n
r
IZ
r
u
c
E
O
N
N
• m N r � � r
C) L (n 1` m C17 O)
co
Um
CEO t�0
0- 0 E
-a N Cf) r � ti �
p r+ N LO LO C4 CO CV)
C t d 0 0 Cu r
O ro 0) N
o N
U O ~ O O
-p 2 2
In
cn C4 r 1` CO O
^ C= lrn M CNV M N M
Op CV r C\
N Q U) Q o
I- =
O
O
C R y
u d
U W O
Q m O O 1►
O m = p 'E- C co
LL _
Z. m � O L =
N Y m O Q
� -i c) co co)
Q
U
c
cu
E
Cl.
O
a�
v
m o0 QO r Lo O I-- O O M O e N N I M Co
N
a) M w LO N rt w LO 19t M r M Co
(� .Q � C r CV v (V N v C\ N
V O ~ Q
4-J 00 C70 Q� N M (o m ct CD CD O M M M CDLo U)
a C j 0 O N m 0 I-- ti w M O Cn 0 M M I� O M Lo
Q O N - N O O In � LO .- N M r m r � N m M
t N L L e- T- V- CD --: CD Ici CM lqzf N
O m m r N
a ' O F- C O
U = CN =
"d
Ln
L„ N CD CD O M M M ' M O LO O 0 CD M
"= N I� I�- CD O � M r I- 0 ti M N CO r 00 CA
tm N M O d' O 0 M � M r M CD M O N CA
rn C • r = CD N N C'M N L CD N O d M � 0
Q = Q N c
co
ra =
ffo
o
p u Y
E L m
pO N m d O
v ra O cE—
u L v �_ O _� -p Q.
d .
v) QQmmUOU- Y 1212 IzamcnHIn I CO
U
ro
a
(O
U
4J
c
a
O
N
O
M O M 00 �
d Cl) CO ql- O In t0
(�
H M > c C\i cv
m E
.� a
Co P�- ti Cfl O I-- co
p +.+ N N O 0) CD N (0 LO
O) N V- V- � �
O L. Q)
m � �
U O C
-a 2 2
L D] 00 r I�- M d 00
O M CO r CV) r Il,
E N CO M f� N
Cj r r N N N C)
.N Q C 0)
7
cn = m v
O
a"' C
� O
O v
E
E • co
W O
F►
O c`o U 0 m W E co M
— v o 0 i
ma E t Cr m
U V O W Z N N
fo
Q
(6
U
c
N
E
0-
0
cu
cu
I
•� I O
c? Co
^ O
L N M
C
L
U 0) L
M
0
C
� p i
4) o
J
co
u
4- 3 0) ul
O
(0 N Q
O �+
rn U
a--J
FL
f0
•V LL (0 ►n qr M N r O n
cI >, V)
4— c E
W m
N �_ o
L- a) a
� 0 z
C: fa E3 ■
•� U. aaod iad slo�
ca fo
C)) m
.—
H U) 0 0
O Gj II � � I
0
o
21
rz
V � ~
to L
•— °' }
(D
r d
.M fu
G1
i.�
Ln
.M v
U _ °
Q
Ln
cD u
I rn
V (n E �,
T
U
eJ3V ION jad s�
W o
N
-o
c
J
W _0
V/ m
V �
H LZ,.,/ 0
0
L w
rn
o
rn = o 0
�••� u
V■ O cL^6
2 cM H
fu
I
m
C
'a
c
60dZ �
a
O t sadz
LOOZ a
900Z
O ar 5ooz
m
v� tooz "0
� H• EgOZ
c
ZOOZ U
1 ,a
loaz
000z
ui a sssl D
i
6661 E
Lssl o
L
9661 y
L
�..� 9661
u
W
^ 46s1 c
L.L N
m
E66I C:
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
U
•,^�,^ O O O O O O O
V/ CD
't N O 000 (00 V N
O (ani;einwno) suun Buillem(3 u
Z 0
W O T y
' ca
e N CM w
'••S d I p N _ (V
O o c
^ � c � O
W = I O N O
w
o
C)
C� N m
L
d I o }GGG�
c aU) M
ccca0
= >
C� I N � � ,�
M G Cd N
N
W CD O cc
O a
402 N o N C, F c
4~ O e y w
4 J
Gs c oo
G1 N CC ¢
G C U o
�r Q I N .0 In
-coo
T t
W Z O O c 3
O
Loa. m
E = a � I
p C O o
.— al p
T N
C O
m O �O
^ , co m i
W e � a d O
.V r2 M
+-• L d
C
m C
0) •— a I O a
�* =3
•— o
I = C Q Y
O
lO, e o e o 0 0
T- 'e} M N O O 0
GOIJd awoH uelpaw
C C C C C 0 0
fu o CD o o CD o
0 o Ln O In O O
H 0
OE cD
O * N L
C
— O
m W cm Q
M _ G 0 0
NC4 CD
N
fa 4) °
^ CDN p
t 0
E
• C
U CL
H m co
ccu
'0
rn
° 'a
fu p c °� cu L
rn
c m O cu o
m
= o a
0 U U) (� g E
Q C
Q —� T—
m
•� V 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
C O O O O O O O O O O O
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (D CD V
•� O OOtiMM � MNO
M O
c
� 69 69 69 ti} 6R U) EA 69} 61), Y
0
_ .C: awOOul HH uelpaw 0
c7 a1
0
a Ira a
0
ca o a
f0
W o l
4—J N C
4— •—
a
O O E
C
L E12
U
d
Li o T
Ed con'
O
T
L E 9 gyp] a
o a
>_, o cc
co cc
U '~ d �
ca
LL o l o
l C U2
^ p
■ ■ W Nu C v to
f0 U
y (A co
M co
■- C 10
'� lL
to
•^— L d o I ■ o
.L ' '> � a E
V o m O
mO O
C ate+ L L
O a Ae
iN a a f6
d o
w _ 10 u
p ! (o
O -0 c En co O
V• W y a
1 p N co C
OJ m c
® a V
_ J �
■— \ \\ \ \ \ \ \\ \ \ C
o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 00 O O CDC)
Y
O p) oD f,- cp LA -q- CO N �—
O O
(00 - L6► a6ueyO ;uaoaad =3
L.L. 0
TEM#,4
PLANNING COMMITTEE
April 15,2003
COUNTYWIDE PLANNING POLICIES
AMENDMENTS
GROWTH N ANAGEMENT
PLANNING COUNCIL MOTIONS
Information Only
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
• Fred N. Satterstrom, AICP, Director
PLANNING SERVICES
T Charlene Anderson,AICP, Manager
K E N
WASHINGTON Phone:253-856-5454
Fax: 253-856-6454
Address: 220 Fourth Avenue S.
Kent, WA 98032-5895
DATE: APRIL 8, 2003
TO: CHAIR LEONA ORR AND PLANNING COMMITTEE MEMBERS
FROM: CHARLENE ANDERSON, AICP, PLANNING MANAGER
THROUGH: MAYOR JIM WHITE
SUBJECT: COUNTYWIDE PLANNING POLICIES - AMENDMENTS
GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLANNING COUNCIL MOTIONS
SUMMARY: The adoption of countywide planning policies is required under the State Growth
Management Act (GMA), pursuant to RCW 36.70A.210. The Countywide Planning Policies
(CPPs) provide a framework for Kent and other cities in King County to conduct planning under
the requirements of GMA. This framework ensures that city and county comprehensive plans
. are consistent. In May, the county council is expected to pass the attached seven motions that
then will be presented to jurisdictions in King County for ratification.
BUDGET IMPACT: None
MOTION: None needed—For Information Only
BACKGROUND: The City of Kent ratified the original CPPs on September 15, 1992, with
Resolution No. 1326 and ratified Phase II amendments to the CPPs on November 16, 1994.
Through the Growth Management Planning Council (GMPC),jurisdictions within King County
work together to plan for economic and population growth in King County, including
consideration of CPPs. Six 2002 GMPC motions and one 2000 GMPC motion to amend the
CPPs were voted out of county council committee on March 18, 2003 and will be up for full
county council consideration via consent in May.
Motion No. 01-2: Adds new policies that address the long-term governance of Agricultural
Production Districts. Removes the Lower Green River Agricultural Production District from the
Urban Growth Boundary and states these lands shall not be annexed by cities.
Motion No. 02-1: Revises existing policies and adds new policies to support extension of the
household and employment targets for 2001-2022.
Motion No. 02-2: Adds targets for new households for 2001-2022.
Motion No. 02-3: Adds targets for new jobs for 2001-2022.
• Motion No. 02-4: Adds a policy to support ongoing water supply planning and development.
Motion No. 02-5: Reflects the negotiated modification of the Renton Urban Separators.
Motion No. 02-6: Adds Totem Lake to the list of Urban Centers.
• 4/15/03 Planning Committee
Countywide Planning Policies—Amendments
Growth Management Planning Council Motions
Staff Report
Page 2
The Countywide Planning Policies become effective when ratified by ordinance or resolution of
at least 30 percent of the city and county governments representing 70 percent of the population
of King County according to the established Interlocal Agreement. A city will be deemed to
have ratified the amendments to the Countywide Planning Policies unless the city takes
legislative action to disapprove the amendments within 90 days of adoption by King County.
CA\pm:S:\Permit\PlanlCompPlanAmdments\2003\cpppc.doc
Enc: GMPC Motions 01-2,02-1 through 02-6
cc: Fred N. Satterstrom,AICP, C.D Director
Charlene Anderson,Planning Manager
Project File
•
•
• September 26, 2001
Sponsored By: Executive Committee
/pr
1 MOTION NO. 01-2
2 A MOTION reaffirming Motion 99-3 passed by the GMPC on June 16,
3 1999 amending the Countywide Planning Policies to add new policies that
4 address the long-term governance of Agricultural Production Districts.
5
6 WHEREAS,The Growth Management Act requires the maintenance, enhancement and
7 conservation of agricultural industries and lands through a variety of methods and programs;
8
9 WHEREAS,King County residents have supported efforts to preserve good farmland and active
10 farms for the value of local crops, dairy and livestock and for scenic and historic values;
11
12 WHEREAS, King County, through the Farmlands Preservation Program,has purchased the
13 development rights of 12,600 acres of farmland and has established the Agricultural Production
14 Districts(APDs)to further protect these and adjacent prime agricultural lands;
15
16 WHEREAS,the Lower Green River APD is completely surrounded by Urban designated lands and
17 as such is under immense pressure for development and annexation; and
18
19 WHEREAS, King County and the City of Auburn have signed an interlocal agreement that
20 removes the southern portion of the Lower Green APD out of the city's potential annexation area.
21 THE GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLANNING COUNCIL OF KING COUNTY HEREBY
22 MOVES AS FOLLOWS:
23
24 Reaffirm the unanimous vote by this Council on June 16, 1999 to add the following new
25 Countywide Planning Policies:
26
27 LU-2A Designated Agricultural Production District lands shall not be annexed by
28 cities.
29
30 LU-213 The Lower Green River Agricultural Production District is a regionally
31 designated resource that is to remain in unincorporated King County.
32 Preservation of the Lower Green River Agricultural Production District will
33 provide an urban separator as surrounding Urban areas are annexed and
34 developed. King County may contract with other jurisdictions to provide
35 some local services to this area as appropriate.
36
37 In the event that this motion is ratified by the member jurisdictions of Growth
38 Management Planning Council, then the Interim Potential Annexation Area Map shall be
L/GMPC/2001GMPC/Motion0l-2.doc — 1 —
I revised accordingly and the Urban Growth Boundary will be drawn around the Lower
• 2 Green Agricultural Production District(APD)to clarify that the APD is outside of the
3 Urban area.
4
5 ADOPTED by the Growth Management Planning Council of King County on September 26,2001
6 in open session.
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14 Ron Sims, Chair, Growth Management Planning Council
15
16
17
18
19
20
•
L/GMPC/200IGMPC/Motiono1-2.doc - 2 -
Ur an Sub-Areas
Sne how ith C..n,y
N Fare &Ihgil Weed! He g i n g c o o n tY
PBfe'
Shofellne eamere Duvall
1
Seattle 0 1
IdrNlandRedmond
1
matan Rural
1 Area
1
o cp I a
a N NO Bellevue 1
C
� 1 1
EA mamish /
V ' .
a lssaqu" /
Newc / S
o /
North 1 /
f11 Highfins on
N!! 1 .01 an
_
RURAL , _ -- --
Rural a , CITIES
� Name
Area H
I
I
I Rural
' Area
I
I
R SEHM I
SOUiB SUBAREA I
EAST SMMEA
a
=Raul Clues �-
Cl lll'baR IMuleol'pel'at�
0 Reral Blie:ol4o dW
MPMap M Narotre Mor�ea
MaD h:Pall 17,4 rhneh3
.e Olag12VIW .ap
July 24, 2002
Sponsored By: Executive Committee
/cm
1 MOTION NO. 02-1
2 A MOTION by the Growth Management Planning Council of King
3 County recommending the amendment of the Countywide Planning
4 Policies revising existing policies and adding new policies to support
5 the extension of the household and employment targets for the period
6 2001-2022.
7
8 WHEREAS, in accordance with the Growth Management Act (GMA), the 1994
9 Countywide Planning Policies established a household and employment target range for
10 each city and for King County through 2012; and
11
12 WHEREAS, the 1994 targets need to be extended to reflect projected growth through 2022
13 in accordance with the GMA (RCW 36.70A.I 10); and
14
15 WHEREAS, Countywide Planning Policy FW-3 states that the adopted household and
16 employment targets shall be monitored by King County annually with adjustments made
17 by the Growth Management Planning Council utilizing the process established in FW-1,
18 Step 6; and
19
20 WHEREAS since February 2001 staff from King County and the cities in King County
21 have worked cooperatively to analyze and recommend new 22-year household and
22 employment targets; and
23
24 WHEREAS the Growth Management Planning Council met and discussed the extension of
25 the household and employment targets for the period 2001-2022, with opportunity for
26 public comment on March 28, 2001, July 25, 2001, October 24, 2001 and May 22, 2002.
27 THE GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLANNING COUNCIL OF KING COUNTY
28 HEREBY MOVES AS FOLLOWS:
29
30 Amend Sections III. C and III. F of the King County Countywide Planning Policies as
31 follows:
32
33 111. Land Use Pattern
34
. 35 C. Urban Areas
36
L/GMPC/02GMPC/Mot02-1.doc - 1 -
I The following policies establish an Urban Growth Area(UGA), determine the amount of
2 household and employment growth to be accommodated within the UGA in the form of
3 tares for each jurisdiction, and identi methods to phase development within this area in
4 order to bring certainty to long-term planning and development within the County. All
5 cities are included in the UGA, with the cities in the Rural Area identified as islands of
6 urban r th. The ( ) UGA is a permanent designation. Land outside
7 the ( ) UGA is designated for permanent rural and resource uses.((-
8 . pt`v Me Mies i in Me Du ffl j-`'�)) Countywide Policies on Rural and Resource Areas
9 are found in Chapter ILIA, Resource Lands, and Chapter IIIB, Rural Areas.
10
11 In accordance with the State Growth Management Act(GMA) (36.70A.110), the State
12 Of ice of Financial Management(OFM) provides a population proiection to each county.
13 The county, through a collaborative intergovernmental process established by the Growth
14 Management Planning Council, allocates the population as growth targets to individual
15 jurisdictions. Forecasts prepared by the Puget Sound Regional Council are used to
16 establish the county employment projection.
17
18 The process for allocating targets in King ounty is as follows:
19
20 1. The PSRC employment forecasts are calculated for the four geographic subareas of
21 the UGA (Sea-Shore, South, East, and Rural Cities). These then become subarea
22 employment targets.
23 2. The iurisdictions collectively allocate the OFM population proiection to the four
24 subareas based on the projected employment for each area. A small amount of
25 population growth is assumed to occur in the Rural area.
26 3. The technical staff translates the population projections into proiected households,
27 taking into account different average household sizes within each subarea. These
28 proiections then become subarea household targets.
29 4. Jurisdictions within each subarea nezotiate the distribution of subarea household
30 and employment targets using criteria based on Countywide Planning Policies.
31
32 The housing capacity in the (( )) UGA based on adopted
33 plans and regulations, ((niCG1J4he)) should accommodate the proiected 20 year
34 growth((
35 R )). (( )Growth is to be accommodated within
36 permanent Urban Areas by increasing densities, as needed. Phasing((i&-te)) should occur
37 within the qpeewth ) UGA, as necessary, to ensure that services are provided
38 as growth occurs. ((
39 Arya ,. ,. se 7.., T T,.7.,n !'_..,.wth A...,,,. :.:1,.,..,7..,))
40 FW-11 The land use pattern for King County shall protect the natural
41 environment by reducing the consumption of land and concentrating
42 development. An Urban Growth Area, Rural Areas, and resource lands
43 shall be designated and the necessary implementing regulations
44 adopted. This includes Countywide establishment of a boundary for the
45 Urban Growth Area. Local jurisdictions shall make land use decisions
46 based on the Countywide Planning Policies.
47
UGMPC/02GMPC/Mot02-Ldoc — 2 —
i FW-12 The Urban Growth Area shall provide enough land to accommodate
2 future urban development. Policies to phase the provision of urban
3 services and to ensure efficient use of the growth capacity within the
4 Urban Growth Area shall be instituted.
5
6 FW-12a All jurisdictions within King County share the responsibility to
7 accommodate the 20-year population projection and job forecast. The
s population projection shall be assigned to the four subareas of King
9 County (Sea-Shore, East, South and the Rural Cities) proportionate with
10 the share of projected employment growth. Anticipated growth shall be
>> allocated pursuant to the following objectives:
12 a. To ensure efficient use of land within the UGA by directing growth to
13 Urban Centers and Activity Centers;
14 b. To limit development in the Rural Areas;
15 c. To protect designated resource lands;
16 d. To ensure efficient use of infrastructure;
17 e. To improve the lobs/housing balance on a subarea basis;
Is f. To promote a land use pattern that can be served by public
19 transportation and other alternatives to the single occupancy vehicle;
20 and
21 g. To provide sufficient opportunities for growth within the jurisdictions.
22
23 FW-12b The -growth targets established pursuant to the methodology described in
. 24 LU-25c and LU-25d shall be supported by both regional and local
25 transportation investments. The availability of an adequate
26 transportation system is critically important to accommodating -growth.
27 The regional responsibility shall be met by planninq for and delivering
28 county, state, and federal investments that support the growth targets
29 and the land use pattern of the County. This includes investments in
30 transit, state highways in key regional transportation corridors, and in
31 improved access to the designated Urban Centers. The local
32 responsibility shall be met by local transportation system investments
33 that support the achievement of the targets.
34
35 LU — 25a Each jurisdiction shall plan for and accommodate the household and
36 employment targets established pursuant to LU-25c and LU-25d. This
37 obligation includes:
38 a. Ensuring adequate zoning capacity; and
39 b. Planning for and delivering water, sewer, transportation and other
40 infrastructure, in concert with federal and state investments and
41 recognizing where applicable special purpose districts; and
42 c. Accommodating increases in household and employment targets as
43 annexations occur.
44
45 The targets will be used to plan for and to accommodate growth within
46 each iurisdiction. The targets do not obligate a jurisdiction to -guarantee
47 that a given number of housing units will be built or gobs added during the
48 planning period.
L/GMPC/02GMPC/Mot02-l.doc — 3 —
I LU25b As annexations occur, growth targets shall be adjusted. Household and
2 employment targets for each jurisdiction's potential annexation area, as
3 adopted in Table LU-1, shall be transferred to the annexing jurisdiction
4 as follows:
5
6 a. King County and the respective city will determine new household
7 and employment targets for areas under consideration for
8 annexation prior to the submittal of the annexation proposal to the
9 King County Boundary Review Board;
10 b. A city's household and employment targets shall be increased by a
11 share of the target for the potential annexation area proportionate to
12 the share of the potential annexation area's development capacity
13 located within the area annexed. Each city will determine how and
14 where within their corporate boundaries to accommodate target
15 increases;
16 c. The County's target shall be correspondingly decreased to ensure
17 that overall target levels in the county remain the same;
18 d. The household and employment targets in Table LU-1 will be
19 updated periodically to reflect changes due to annexations. These
zo target updates do not require adoption by the Growth Management
21 Planninq Council.
22
23 LU - ((67)) 25cThe target ((6 and Fegulati objectives identified in ((LU 66))
24 FW-12a ((aFe based o:)) shall be realized through the following ((ems))
25 methodology for allocating household targets:
26 a. ((
27
28 GVeF the next 20 years a6 195,900)) Determine the additional
29 population that must be accommodated countywide by calculating the
30 difference between the most recent Census count and the State
31 Office of Financial Management population proiection for the end of
32 the twenty year planning period;
33 b. ((
34
35 :))
36 Subtract a percentage from that number to represent the amount of
37 growth that is assumed to occur in the unincorporated Rural Area;
38 ((
39 fa Gilities and utilities.
r
40 ,
41 ,
42
43 n the GhaFaGteF of existing development,
44 5. The need- fed a range Of hg,,&.ing type&
,
45
46
47 ;))
L/GMPC/02GMPC/Mot02-l.doc - 4
I c. Assign proportions of the urban population growth to each of the four
2 subareas (Sea-Shore, South, East, and Rural Cities) based on the
3 proportion of future employment growth forecasted for each of those
4 subareas by the Puget Sound Regional Council;
5 d. Convert the estimated projected population for each subarea to an
6 estimated number of households, using projected average
7 household sizes that reflect the variation among those subareas
8 observed in the most recent Census;
9 e. Allocate a household target to individual iurisdictions, within each
10 subarea, based on FW-12a and considering the following factors:
11 1. the availability of water and the capacity of the sewer system;
12 2. the remaining portions of previously adopted household targets;
13 3. the presence of urban centers and activity areas within each
14 jurisdiction:
15 4. the availability of zoned development capacity in each jurisdiction:
16 and
17 5. the apparent market trends for housing in the area.
18 (( .
19
20 :))
21 (( .
22 be GGR6!6teRt With the taFget FaRg86 on Appendix 2 9F shall state
23 ; ))
24 ((e. ThFOUgh the nFeneS6 votnhli e.herd „nrter FLVV 1 Step 4b, if the
25
26
27
28 ptanrs-))
29 f. Jurisdictions shall plan for household targets as adopted in Table
30 LU-1: and
31 ((f))g. Monitoring should follow the process described in policy FW-
32 1.
33
34 A portion of the urban employment growth will occur in Activity Areas and neighborhoods
35 in the Urban Area. This employment growth will support the Urban Centers, while
36 balancing local employment opportunities in the Urban Area.
37
38
39 LU - ((68)) 25d ((
40
41
42 steps)) The target objectives identified in FW-12a shall be realized
43 through the following methodology for allocating employment targets:
44
45 a. ((
i 46
47
L/GMPC/02GMPC/Mot02-Ldoc - 5 -
t
2
3
4 GoRsisteRGY With the GoURtyWide RUFnb9FS;
5
6 with the multiple GeRtem stFategy;
,
7
8 GapaGity;
9
10 in the GhaFaGt9Fef exi6tiRg developmeRt;
11
12
13 ,
14
15 )) Determine the number of jobs that must be
16 accommodated in each of the four subareas of King County (Sea-
17 Shore, South, East, and the Rural Cities) in accordance with the most
18 recent PSRC job estimates and forecasts for the 20-year planninq
19 period. To account for uncertainty in the employment forecasts,
20 establish a range of new jobs that must be accommodated in each
21 subarea. Unless exceptional circumstances dictate, the range should
22 be 5% on either side of the PSRC forecast.
23 b. ((
24
25 )) For each subarea, determine the
26 point within the range upon which jurisdictions within the subarea will
27 base their targets and allocate employment growth targets to
28 individual jurisdictions based on consideration of the following:
29 1. the PSRC small area forecasts;
30 2. the presence of urban centers. manufacturing/industrial
31 centers, and activity areas within each jurisdiction;
32 3. the availability of zoned commercial and industrial
33 development capacity in each jurisdiction and;
34 4. the access to transit, as well as to existing highways and
35 arterials.
36 ((G. As a p-alrt of their c-;n-FiqpFeheRsive plans, all jUFi6diGtiGR6 shall MiGate
37
38
39
40 , if the
41
42
43 aFqendFReRtS to eitheF the Gountywide PlaRRiRg P014GO86 OF IGGal pla .))
44 c. Jurisdictions shall plan for emplovment targets as adopted in Table
45 LU-1.
46
47 (INSERT TABLE LU-1)
L/GMPC/02GMPC/Mot02-I.doc - 6 -
I F. 1. Urban Residential Areas
2 Urban residential areas form the bulk of the UGA, and are home to a large portion of the
3 County's population. They will contain a mix of uses and will have different
4 characteristics in different neighborhoods. Generally, the character,form,preservation
5 and development of these areas ((s-q)) are the responsibility of the local jurisdiction ((W
6 Fespensibdky)). However, the residential areas need to support the Centers concept and
7 provide sufficient opportunity for growth within the UGA. A substantial majority of new
8 residential units will be constructed within urban residential areas.
9
10
I LU-66 In order to ensure efficient use of the land within the UGA, provide for
12 housing opportunities, and to support efficient use of infrastructure, each
13 jurisdiction shall:
14
15 a. Establish in its comprehensive plan a target minimum number of net
16 new households the jurisdiction will accommodate in the next 20
17 years in accordance with the adopted household growth targets
18 identified in Table LU-1. Jurisdictions shall adopt regulations to and
19 commit to fund infrastructure sufficient to achieve the target number;
20 b. Establish a minimum density (not including critical areas) for new
21 construction in each residential zone; and
22 c. Establish in the comprehensive plan a target mix of housing types for
23 new development and adopt regulations to achieve the target mix.
24
25 .
26
27
28 195,000;
29
30
31
32
33utilities;
34 2. 12F9AFRity t "6 rrraJOF tFaAS+t$enteFs;
35 ;
36
37 given the Gharnnter of the existing deyeleervment•
38 6. The Reed f4eF a Fange of heusiRg types;
39
40 ;
41 ;
42
43
44 PUFSuaRt W peliGy FW 1, Step 4 G;
45
46 GORsisteRt With taFg8t FaRge6 in Appendix 2 9F shall state the Feasens
47 ;
L/GMPC/02GMPC/Mot02-Ldoc - 7 -
1 • I
1
1 I • • • • • • P.M.". •• •• •• • • • ••
• • 1
11 �
I
1
1
1 • I
•
1 ADOPTED by the Growth Management Planning Council of King County on
2 in open session.
3
4
5
6
7 Ron Sims, Chair, Growth Management Planning Council
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
•
L/GMPC/02GMPC/Mot02-Ldoc - 9 -
July 24, 2002
Sponsored By: Executive Committee
/cm
1 MOTION NO. 02-2
2 A MOTION by the Growth Management Planning Council of King
3 County recommending the amendment of the Countywide Planning
4 Policies adding targets for new household for the period 2001-2022
5 by deleting Appendix 2, 2A and 2B and amending Table LU-1: 2001-
6 2022 Household and Employment Growth Targets which will be
7 located in Section III. C of the Countywide Planning Policies.
8
9 WHEREAS, the 1994 Countywide Planning Policies established a housing target range for
10 each city and for King County; and
11
12 WHEREAS, the Growth Management Act requires the 1994 targets need to be revised to
13 establish an extension of the targets through 2022; and
14
15 WHEREAS the Growth Management Planning Council met and discussed the extension of
16 the household and employment targets for the period 2001-2022, with opportunity for
17 public comment on March 28, 2001, July 25, 2001, October 24, 2001 and May 22, 2002.
18 THE GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLANNING COUNCIL OF KING COUNTY
19 HEREBY MOVES AS FOLLOWS:
20
21 The attached Table LU-1: 2001-2022 Household and Employment Growth Targets
22 is hereby recommended for adoption in the Countywide Planning Policies to revise
23 the household growth targets to reflect the target extension from January 1, 2001
24 through December 31, 2022 and Appendix 2, 2A, 2B are recommended for
25 deletion.
26
27 ADOPTED by the Growth Management Planning Council of King County on
28 in open session.
29
30
31 Ron Sims, Chair, Growth Management Planning Council
32 Attachment:
33 1. Table LU-1: 2001-2022 Household and Employment Growth Targets.
L/GMPC/02GMPC/Mot02-2.doc - 1 -
Table LU-1: King County 2001-2022 Household and Employment Targets
Household HH Capacity PAA HH Job Capacity! PAA Job
Subareas Target in PAA* Target Job Target in PAA Target
South King County
AlIzona 298
Auburn 5,928 2,635 926
Black Diamond 1,099
Burien 1,552
Covington 1.173
Des Moines 1,576 5 2
Federal Way 6,188 3,754 1,320
Kent 4,284 1763 619
Milton 50 ! 106 37
Maple Valley 300
Normandy Park 1001
Pacific 996 127 45
Renton 6,198 5,622 1976
SeaTac 4 478 14 5
Tukwila 3,200 13 5
Uninco King County 4,935
Total 42,355 q
East King Coun
Beaux Arts Village 3'
Bellevue 10,117 1 184 178
Bothell 1751 603 584
Clyde Hill 21
Hunts Point I
Issaquah 3,993 ' 827 802
Kenmore 2325
Kirkland 5,480 770 747
Medina 31
Mercer Island 1437
Newcastle 863 1 1
Redmond 9 083 402 390__ r
Sammamish 3,842
Woodinville 1869
Yarrow Point 28
Unincorp King County 6,801 **4222 **4099
Total 47 7.009 6 801
Sea-Shore
_ Lake Forest Park 538
Seattle 51,510
Shoreline 2,651
Unincorp King County*** 1,670 1,670 1,670
Rural Cities
Carnation 246
Duvall 1 037
Enumclaw 1 927
North Bend 636 1 �...
Sk komish 20
Sno ualmie 1,697
3
*PAA:Potential Annexation Area in Unincorporated King County Urban Area;"Bear Creek UPD;***North Highline
The Rural Cities'targets are for the current city limits and rural expansion area for each city.Thus the methodology
for adjusting targets as annexations occur is not applicable to the rural cities.
1
2
L/GMPC/02GMPGMot02-2.doc — 2 —
July 24, 2002
Sponsored By: Executive Committee
/cm
1 MOTION NO. 02-3
2 A MOTION by the Growth Management Planning Council of King
3 County recommending the amendment of the Countywide Planning
4 Policies adding targets for new jobs for the period 2001-2022 by
5 amending Table LU-1: 2001-2022 Household and Employment
6 Growth Targets which will be located in Section III. C of the
7 Countywide Planning Policies.
8
9 WHEREAS, the 1994 Countywide Planning Policies established an employment target
10 range for each city and for King County; and
11
12 WHEREAS, the 1994 targets need to be revised to establish an extension of the targets
13 through 2022 as required by the Growth Management Act.
14
15 WHEREAS the Growth Management Planning Council met and discussed the extension of
16 the household and employment targets for the period 2001-2022, with opportunity for
17 public comment on March 28, 2001, July 25, 2001, October 24, 2001 and May 22, 2002.
18 THE GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLANNING COUNCIL OF KING COUNTY
19 HEREBY MOVES AS FOLLOWS:
20
21 The attached Table LU-1: 2001-2022 Household and Employment Growth Targets
22 is hereby recommended for adoption in the Countywide Planning Policies to revise
23 the employment growth targets to reflect the target extension from January 1, 2001
24 through December 31, 2022.
25
26 ADOPTED by the Growth Management Planning Council of King County on
27 in open session.
28
29
30
31 Ron Sims, Chair, Growth Management Planning Council
32
33 Attachment:
34 1. Table LU-1: 2001-2022 Household and Employment Growth Targets.
L/GMPC/02GMPC/Mot02-3.doc - I -
• Table LU-1:King County 2001-2022 Household and Employment Targets
Subareas Household PAA HH lob Target PAA lob
Target Target Target
South King County
Algona 108
Auburn 6,079 252
Black Diamond 2,525
Burien 1,712
Covington 900
Des Moines 1,695
Federal Way 7,481 134
Kent 11,500 44
Milton 1,054
Maple Valley 804
Normandy Park i 67
Pacific 108
Renton 1 27,597 458
SeaTac 9,288 496
Tukwila 16,000 497
Unincorp King County 2,582 701
Total 89,500 2,582
East King County
Beaux Arts Village -
Bellevue 40,000 27
Bothell 2,000 174
Clyde Hill -
Hunts Point -
Issaquah 1 , 00 1
2
Kenmore ,800
Kirkland 8,800 221
Medina -
Mercer Island 800
Newcastle 500
Redmond 21,760 21
Sammamish 1,230
Woodinville 2,000
Yarrow Point -
Unincorp King County 4,637 **4193
Total 98,527 4,637
Sea-Shore
Lake Forest Park 455
Seattle 92,083
Shoreline 2,618
Unincorp King County 694 ***694
Total 95,850 694
Rural Cities
Carnation 75
Duvall 1,125
Enumclaw 1,125
North Bend 1,125
Skykomish -
Snoqualmie 1,800
Total 5,250
Kin County Total 289,.27
*PAA:Potential Annexation Area in Unincorporated King County Urban Area
**Bear Creek UPD;***North Highline
The Rural Cities'targets are for the current city limits and rural expansion area for each city.
Thus the methodology for adjusting targets as annexations occur is not applicable to the mml cities.
i
L/GMPC/02GMPC/Mot02-3.doc - 2 -
• September 25, 2002
Sponsored By: Executive Committee
/cm
1 MOTION NO. 02-4
2 A MOTION by the Growth Management Planning Council of King
3 County recommending the amendment of the Countywide Planning
4 Policies adding a new policy to support ongoing water supply
5 planning and development.
6
7 WHEREAS, in July 2002, the Growth Management Planning Council approved additions
8 and changes to the 1994 Countywide Planning Policies approving the countywide process
9 developed to recommend a new 22-year household and employment target; and
10
11 WHEREAS, an amendment to add a new policy supporting ongoing water supply planning
12 and development was considered and tabled; and
13
14 WHEREAS, the GMPC allowed reconsideration of the amendment at such time agreement
15 could be reached on the language; and
16
17 WHEREAS, it is in the interest of the county to encourage regional efforts to plan for and
18 develop sufficient water supply sources to accommodate population growth and to meet
19 environmental needs related to conservation of fish habitat.
20
21 THE GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLANNING COUNCIL OF KING COUNTY
22 HEREBY MOVES AS FOLLOWS:
23
24 Add a new policy to Section III C of the King County Countywide Planning Policies as
25 follows:
26 FW-12c Ensuring sufficient water supply is essential to accommodate growth and
27 conserve fish habitat. Due to the substantial lead-time required to develop water supply
28 sources, infrastructure and management strategies, long-term water supply planningefforts
fforts
29 in the Region must be ongoing,
30
31
32 ADOPTED by the Growth Management Planning Council of King County on
33 in open session.
34
35
36
37 Ron Sims, Chair, Growth Management Planning Council
L/GMPC/02GMPC/Mot024.doc - 1
October 23, 2002
Sponsored By: Executive Committee
1 MOTION NO. 02-5
2 A MOTION to amend the Urban Separator Map in the
3 Countywide Planning Policies to reflect the negotiated
4 modifications of the Renton Urban Separator.
5
6 WHEREAS, The Growth Management Act states that each Urban Growth Area shall
7 permit urban densities and shall include greenbelt and open space areas;
8
9 WHEREAS, Urban Separators are an adopted regional strategy serving multiple functions
10 and providing environmental, visual, recreational and wildlife benefits to the citizens and
11 communities of King County;
12
13 WHEREAS, .Consistent with the Countywide Planning Policies, the King County
14 Comprehensive Plan recognizes that Urban Separators create open space corridors, provide
15 a visual contrast to continuous development, and reinforce the unique identities of
16 communities;
17
18 WHEREAS, King County has designated Urban Separators on the Land Use 2000 map in
19 the King County Comprehensive Plan, and King County has provided advance copies of
20 Urban Separator maps to cities that have designated Urban Separators located within their
21 Potential Annexation Areas;
22
23 WHEREAS, the City of Renton disagreed with Urban Separator designation for 76 acres
24 of land within its Potential Annexation Area; and
25
26 WHEREAS, the Growth Management Planning Council directed staff to attempt to
27 negotiate a mutually acceptable resolution of this disagreement
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
UGMPC/2002GMPC/Motion02-5.doc
I THE GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLANNING COUNCIL OF KING COUNTY
2 HEREBY MOVES AS FOLLOWS:
3
4 The Urban Separators map included within the Countywide Planning Policies document is
5 amended to reflect the negotiated modifications of the Renton Urban Separator described
6 and mapped in the September 25, 2002 GMPC staff report. Specifically, 76 acres of
7 unincorporated land is deleted from Urban Separator designation and 118.8 acres within
8 the City of Renton shall be designated Urban Separator.
9
10 ADOPTED by the Growth Management Planning Council of King County on
11 2002 in open session.
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20 Ron Sims, Chair, Growth Management Planning Council
•
L/GMPC/2002G M PC/Motion02-5.doc
5 ,505 .
sE
3® ,� c7r l Mu' err
WPM�-�I-TffftT
MEN
i
Pa r
• October 23, 2002
Sponsored By: Executive Committee
1 MOTION NO. 02-6
2 A MOTION to amend the Countywide Planning Policies by
3 designating Totem Lake as an Urban Center. Totem Lake is
4 added to the list of Urban Centers following Countywide
5 Planning Policy LU-39.
6
7
8 WHEREAS, A goal of the Growth Management Act is to encourage development in Urban
9 Areas where adequate public facilities exist or can be provided in an efficient manner;
10
11 WHEREAS, Policy LU-39 of the Countywide Planning Policies of King County describes
12 the criteria for Urban Center designation;
13
14 WHEREAS, Policy LU-40 of the Countywide Planning Policies of King County describes
15 standards for planned land uses within Urban Centers;
16
17 WHEREAS, the City of Kirkland has demonstrated that Totem Lake meets the criteria for
18 designation as an Urban Center, and that Kirkland's "Totem Lake Activity Area"
19 designated on the City's comprehensive plan land use map is consistent with the standards
20 established by the Countywide Planning Policies for Urban Center designation.
21
22 WHEREAS, King County Comprehensive.Plan Policy U-106 supports the development of
23 Urban Centers to meet the region's needs for housing, jobs, services, culture and
24 recreation.
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
L/GMPC/2002GMPC/Motion02-6.doc
1
2
3 THE GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLANNING COUNCIL OF KING COUNTY
4 HEREBY MOVES AS FOLLOWS:
5
6 Totem Lake is designated as an Urban Center. The list of Urban Centers following
7 Countywide Planning Policy LU-39 is modified to include Totem Lake.
8
9 ADOPTED by the Growth Management Planning Council of King County on
10 2002 in open session.
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19 Ron Sims, Chair, Growth Management Planning Council
•
L/GMPC/2002G MPC/Motion02-6.doc
,JTEM*5
PLANNING COMMITTEE
April 15,2003
REGULATORY REVW PROCESS
Information Only
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Fred N. Satterstrom, AICP, Director
PLANNING SERVICES
Charlene Anderson,AICP, Manager
WA EN T WPSHINGTGN Phone:253-856-5454
Fax: 253-856-6454
Address: 220 Fourth Avenue S.
Kent,WA 98032-5895
DATE: APRIL 8, 2003
TO: CHAIR LEONA ORR AND PLANNING COMMITTEE MEMBERS
FROM: FRED N. SATTERSTROM, AICP, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
DIRECTOR
THROUGH: MAYOR JIM WHITE
SUBJECT: REGULATORY REVIEW PROCESS
SUMMARY: Councilmember Bruce White has approached City staff about creating a
mechanism for the public to initiate amendments to City regulations. Such a mechanism
presently exists for zoning code and other land use ordinances, but not for other City
codes. In addition, there is presently a fee for such code amendments (established at
$1500) which may have the unintended effect of discouraging code amendments. Mr.
White has discussed this situation with City staff, and we bring the issue of fee reduction
forward for Committee consideration.
BUDGET IMPACT: No direct budgetary impact. There may be an indirect budgetary
impact should the fee be reduced and applications for such amendments increase.
MOTION: None at this time.
FNS1pm P:Planning/Admin/RegReviewFeeRed.doc
cc: Fred N. Satterstrom,AICP,CD Director
Charlene Anderson,AICP,Planning Manager
Project File