HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Committees - Planning and Economic Development Committee - 07/15/2003 -3-
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Fred N. Satterstrom,AICP, Director
• PLANNING SERVICES
KEN T Charlene Anderson,AICP,Manager
W A$M I N O T O N Phone:253-856-5454
Fax: 253-856-6454
Address: 220 Fourth Avenue S.
Kent, WA 99032-5895
DATE: JULY 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
KING COUNTY COUNCIL ORDINANCES
SUMMARY: At your April 8`h meeting, staff presented motions passed by the Growth
Management Planning Council (GMPC) to amend the Countywide Planning Policies. 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. On
May 19th, the King County Council approved and ratified seven amendments that had been
approved by the GMPC and now these amendments are presented to jurisdictions in King
County for ratification.
BUDGET IMPACT: None
MOTION: I move to recommend/not recommend ratification of the seven amendments to the
Countywide Planning Policies approved by the GMPC under Motions 01-2 and 02-1 through 02-
6 and to direct the City Attorney to prepare the necessary resolution to be considered on the
Consent Calendar at the August 5"h City Council meeting.
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. Over
the years, the City has ratified other proposed amendments. 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.
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.
• 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 subsequently were approved and ratified by
-4-
7115l03 Planning Committee
Countywide Planning Policies—Amendments
Growth Management Planning Council Motions
Staff Report
Page 2
the full County Council on May 19`h. The 90-day deadline for legislative action on these
proposed amendments is August 19, 2003.
Motion No. 01-2: Adds new policies that address the long-tern 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.
CA1pm:S:Temiit\PlanlCompPlanAmdments120031cpppc2.doc
Enc: May 30,2003 letter from King County Council including Ordinances 14652 through 14656
cc: Fred N.Satterstrom,AICP,C.D Director
Charlene Anderson,Planning Manager
Project File
-5-
JUN la 2003
King County
')4h f r_,r i Ficvc7f
May 30, 2003
The Honorable Jim White
Mayor, City of Kent
220 - 4th Avenue South
Kent, WA 98032
Dear Mayor White:
We are pleased to forward for your consideration and ratification the enclosed amendments to
the King County Countywide Planning Policies(CPPs).
On May 19,2003,the King County Council approved and also ratified seven amendments on
behalf of unincorporated King County. Please note that the amendments approved by the
Growth Management Planning Council for the growth targets, and the household and job
target tables,were combined into one ordinance, 2003-0124. Copies of King County Council
Staff Reports,County Ordinances, and Growth Management Planning Council Motions are
enclosed to assist you in your review of these amendments.
• Ordinance 2003-0123 (GMPC Motion 02-4) adopting amendments to the Countywide
Planning Policies; adding a new policy to support ongoing water supply planning and
development; ratifying the amended Countywide Planning Policies on behalf of the
population of unincorporated King County.
• Ordinance 2003-0124 (GMPC Motions 02-1, 02-2 and 02-3)adopting amendments to the
Countywide Planning Policies;adopting new household and employment targets for the
period 2001 through 2022;ratifying the amended Countywide Planning Policies on behalf
of the population of unincorporated King County.
• Ordinance 2003-0125 (GMPC Motion 02-5)adopting amendments to the Countywide
Planning Policies; amending the Urban Separator map to reflect negotiated modifications
to the Renton Urban Separator;ratifying the amended Countywide Planning Policies on
behalf of the population of unincorporated King County.
• Ordinance 2003-0126 (GMPC Motion 02-6)adopting amendments to the Countywide
Planning Policies;designating Totem Lake as an Urban Center; ratifying the amended
Countywide Planning Policies on behalf of the population of unincorporated King County.
• Ordinance 2003-0127 (GMPC Motion 01-2) adopts amendments to the Countywide
Planning Policies addressing the long-term protection of Agricultural Production Districts,
and ratifies the amended Countywide Planning Policies on behalf of the population of
unincorporated King County.
-6-
The Honorable Jim White
May 30, 2003
Page 2
In accordance with the Countywide Planning Policies, FW-1 Step 9, amendments become
effective when ratified by ordinance or resolution by at least 30 percent of the city and county
governments representing 70 percent of the population of King County according to the
Interlocal agreement. A city will be deemed to have ratified the amendments to the
Countywide Planning Policies unless,within 90 days of adoption by King County,the city
takes legislative action to disapprove the amendments. Please note that the 90-day deadline
for these proposed amendments is August 19, 2003. If you have questions about the
amendments or the ratification process,please contact Paul Reitenbach, Senior Policy
Analyst, King County Department of Development and Environmental Services, at
206-296-6705 or Lauren Smith,Legislative Analyst,King County Council, at 206-296-0352.
If you adopt any legislation relative to this action,please submit by close of business,
August 19, 2003, one copy of the legislation to Paul Reitenbach, Senior Policy Analyst,
King County Department of Development and Environmental Science, 900 Oakesdale
Avenue Southwest,Renton, WA 98055-1219.
Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter.
Sincerely,
Cynthia Sullivan, Chair ims
King County Council King County Executive
Enclosures
cc: Lauren Smith, Legislative Analyst, King County Council
Stephanie Warden, Director, Department of Development and Environmental
Services(DDES)
Paul Reitenbach, Senior Policy Analyst, DDES
•
KING COUNTY 12oo King County Courtliom
I
5167hW Avenue-
Seattle,WA9g104 Signature Report
May 199 2003
Ordinance 14652
Proposed No. 2003-0123.1 Sponsors Hague
1 AN ORDINANCE adopting amendments to the
2 Countywide Planning Policies;adding a new policy to
3 support ongoing water supply planning and development;
4 ratifying the amended Countywide Planning Policies for
5 unincorporated King County;and amending Ordinance
6 10450,Section 3,as amended,and K.C.C. 20.10.030 and
7 Ordinance 10450,Section 4,as amended, and K.C.C.
8 20.10.040.
9
10
11 BE TT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF KING COUNTY:
12 SECTION 1. Findings. The council makes the following findings.
13 A. The metropolitan King County council adopted and ratified the Growth
14 Management Planning Council recommended King County 2012-Countywide Planning
15 Policies (Phase 1)in July 1992,under Ordinance 10450.
1
-e-
Ordinance 14652'
16 B. The metropolitan King County council adopted and ratified the Phase 11
17 amendments to the Countywide Planning Policies on Angust 15, 1994,under Ordinance
18 11446.
19 C. The Growth Management Planning Council met on September 25,2002 and
20 voted to recommend amendments to the King County 2012-Countywide Planning
21 Policies, adding a new policy to support ongoing water supply planning and
22 development.
23 SECTION 2. Ordinance 10450,Section 3,as amended,and K.C.C.20.10.030 are
24 each hereby amended to read as follows:
25 Phase 11.
j 26 A. The Phase H Amendments to the King County 2012 Countywide Planning
f 27 Policies attached to Ordinance 1.1446 are hereby approved and adopted.
28 B. The Phase 11 Amendments to the King County 2012-Countywide Planning
29 Policies are amended,as shown by Attachment 1 to Ordinance 12027.
30 C. The Phase 11 Amendments to the King County 2012-Countywide Planning
31 Policies are amended,as shown by Attachment 1 to Ordinance 12421.
i
j 32 D. The Phase II Amendments to the King County 2012-Countywide Planning
33 Policies are amended,as shown by Attachment 1 and 2 to Ordinance 13260.
34 E The Phase 11 Amendments to the King County 2012-Countywide Planning
35 Policies are amended,as shown by Attachment 1 through 4 to Ordinance 13415.
36 F. The Phase H Amendments to the King County 2012-Countywide Planning
37 Policies are amended,as shown by Attachments I through 3 to Ordinance 13858.
2 .
_g_
Ordinance 14652
38 G. The Phase 11 Amendments to the King County 2012—Countywide Planning
39 Policies are amended,as shown by Attachment 1 to Ordinance 14390.
40 H. The Phase H Amendments to the King County 2012—Countywide Planning
41 Policies are amended,as shown by Attachment 1 to Ordinance 14391.
42 I. The Phase II Amendments to the King County 2012—Countywide Planning
43 Policies are amended,as shown by Attachment 1 to Ordinance 14392.
44 J. The Phase 11 Amendments to the King County 2012—Countywide Planning
45 Policies are amended as shown by Attachment I to this ordinance.
46 SECTION 3. Ordinance 10450,Section 4,as-amended,and K.C.C.20.10.040 are
i
47 each hereby amended to read as follows:
48 Ratification for unincorporated King County.
49 A. Countywide Planning Policies adopted by Ordinance 10450 for the purposes
50 specified are hereby ratified on behalf of the population of unincorporated King County.
51 B. The amendments to the Countywide Planning Policies adopted by Ordinance
52 10840 are hereby ratified on behalf of the population of unincorporated King County.
53 C. The amendments to the Countywide Planning Policies adopted by Ordinance
54 11061 are hereby ratified on behalf of the population of unincorporated King County.
55 D. The Phase II amendments to the King County 2012 Countywide Planning
56 Policies adopted by Ordinance 11446 are hereby ratified on behalf of the population of
57 unincorporated King County.
58. E. The amendments to the King County 2012-Countywide Planning Policies,as
59 shown by Attachment 1 to Ordinance 12027 are hereby ratified on behalf of the
60 population of unincorporated King County.
3
-10-
Ordinance 14652
61 F. The amendments to the King County 2012-Countywide Planning Policies,as
62 shown by Attachment 1 to Ordinance 12421,.are hereby ratified on behalf of the
63 population of unincorporated King County.
j64 G. The amendments to the King County 2012-Countywide Planning Policies,as
65 shown by Attachments 1 and 2 to Ordinance 13260,are hereby ratified on behalf of the
66 population of unincorporated King County.
i
67 H. The amendments to the King County 2012-Countywide Planning Policies,as
68 shown by Attachment 1 through 4 to Ordinance 13415,are hereby ratified on behalf of
69 the population of unincorporated King County.
70 I. The amendments to the King County 2012-Countywide Planning Policies,as
71 shown by Attachments 1 through 3 to Ordinance 13858,are hereby ratified on behalf of
72 the population of unincorporated King County.
Ie 73 1 The amendments to the King County 2012-Countywide Planning Policies,as
i
74 shown by Attachment 1 to Ordinance 14390, are hereby ratified on behalf of the
75 population of unincorporated King County.
76 K. The amendments to the King County 2012-Countywide Planning Policies,as
77 shown by Attachment 1 to Ordinance 14391,are hereby ratified on behalf of the
78 population of unincorporated King County.
79 L. The amendments to the King County 2012-Countywide Planning Policies,as
80 shown by Attachment 1 to Ordinance 14392,are hereby ratified on behalf of the
81 population of unincorporated King County.
4
-11-
Ordinance 14652
82 M. The amendments to the Kin County ounty 2012-Countywide Planning Policies,as
83 shown by Attachment 1 to this ordinance,are hereby ratified on behalf of the population
84 of unincorporated King County.
85
j
Ordinance 14652 was introduced on 3/17/2003 and passed by the Metropolitan King
County Council on 5/19/2003,by the following vote:
Yes: 12-Ms.Sullivan,Ms.Edmonds,MT.von Reichbauer,Ms.Lambert,Mr.
Phillips,Mr.Pelz,Mr.McKenna,Mr.Constantine,Mr.Gossett,Ms.Hague,
Mr.Irons and Ms.Patterson
No:0
Excused:0
i
KING COUNTY COUNCIL
KING COUNTY,WASHINGTON
ynthia Sullivan,Chair :: o
ATTEST:,
-0
Anne Noris,Clerk of the Council c_ _ i 1.4
SV
.97
APPROVED this,30t day of 2003.
n onnty E�Xvej
Attachments . Attachment 1.GWC Motion 02-4
5
-12-
Attachment 1 - 2003-0123
14652
September 25,2002
Sponsored By: Executive Committee
1 /cm
t 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.
i 6
7 WIJEREAS,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
i 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.
I 20
s 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 supoly 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 supplyplannins efforts
29 in the Region must be ongoing.
30
31
32
33
i
-13—
14652
1
2 ADOPTED by the Growth Management Planning Council of King County on
3 September 25,2002 in open session.
4
5
6
7
8
9
i� Ron Sims, Chair,Growth Management Planning Council
VGMPMGMPClM0IO2-4.doc — 2 —
-14-
Metropolitan King County Council
Growth Management and Unincorporated Areas Committee
Staff Report
Agenda Item: 6 Name: Lauren Smith
Proposed Ordinance: 2003-0123 Date: March 18, 2003
Attending: Paul Reitenbach, King County DDES
Kevin Wright, King County PAO
SUBJECT:
Proposed Ordinance 2003-0123 adopting amendments to the Countywide Planning Policies;
adding a new policy to support ongoing water supply planning and development; ratifying the
amended Countywide Planning Policies on behalf of the population of unincorporated King
County.
BACKGROUND:
The Growth Management Planning Council (GMPC) is a formal body comprised of elected
officials from King County, Seattle, Bellevue, the Suburban Cities, and Special Districts. The
GMPC was created in 1990 in response to a provision in the Washington State Growth
Management Act(GMA)requiring cities and counties to work together to adopt Countywide
Planning Policies (CPPs). Under GMA, countywide planning policies serve as the framework
for each individual jurisdiction's comprehensive plan, and ensure regional consistency with
respect to land use planning efforts. The GMPC drafted the CPPs, which were then adopted by
the King County Council and rated by the cities. Changes to the CPPs are recommended by
the GMPC, adopted by the King County Council, and ratified by the cities.
GMPC Actions
On September 25, 2002 the GMPC adopted Motion 02-4 recommending the adoption of a new
policy (FW12c)related to water supply planning and development. The issue of regional water
supply was raised during discussions related to the adoption of new household and
employment targets for the region, and was offered in the spirit of ensuring ongoing
infrastructure planning efforts. The proposed new policy is consistent with existing policy
direction in the CPPs related to water supply planning (Policy CO-5).
FW-12c Ensuring sufficient water supply is essential to accommodate growth and
conserve fish habitat. Due to the substantial lead-time required to develop water
supply sources, infrastructure and management strategies, long-term water
supply planning efforts in the Region must be ongoing.
SUMMARY:
Proposed Ordinance 2003-0123 would amend the Countywide Planning Policies by:
♦ Adding a new policy, FW-12c in support of an ongoing discussion related to long-term
water supply planning.
C:IWINOOWSTEMP\2803-0123(CPP Amendment-Water Supply P1annhVJ(3.18-03).doc Sf UM3 8:50 AM
-15-
Additionally,the ordinance would ratify this change on behalf of the population of
unincorporated King County, as required by Countywide Planning Policy FW-1, Step 9.
Amendments to the Countywide Planning Policies become effective when ratified by ordinance
or resolution by at least 30% of the city and county governments representing 70% of the
population of King County according to the Interlocal agreement. A city shall be deemed to
have ratified the countywide planning policy unless,within 90 days of adoption by King County,
the city by legislative action disapproves the Countywide Planning Policy.
POLICY DIRECTION
Countywide Planning Policies
CO-5 Water supply shall be regionally coordinated to provide a reliable economic source of
water and to provide mutual aid to and between all agecnies and purveyors. THe region
should work toward a mechanism to address the long-term regional water demand
needs of all agencies and water purveyors.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Proposed Ordinance 2003-0123, with attachments
CAWINDOWMTEMP1200.40123(CPP Amendments-Water Supply Planningx3.1 M3).doc 5/2112003 8:50 AM
-16-
KING COUNTY 12ooxugc� co»nn�,5e
516 T&W Avenue
Seatlk,WA 98104
Signature Report
May 19, 2003
Ordinance14653
Proposed No. 2003-0124.1 Sponsors Hague
1 AN ORDINANCE adopting amendments to the
2 Countywide Planning Policies; adopting new household
3- and employment targets for the period 2001 through 2022;
4 revising existing policies and adding new policies in
5 support of the new targets;ratifying the amended
6 Countywide Planning Policies for unincorporated King
7 County; and amending Ordinance 10450,Section 3,as
8 amended,and K.C.C. 20.10.030 and Ordinance 10450,
9 Section 4, as amended,and K.C.C.20.10.040
10
11
12 BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF KING COUNTY:
13 SECTION 1. Findings. The council makes the following findings.
14 A. The metropolitan King County council adopted and ratified the Growth
15 Management Planning Council recommended King County 2012-Countywide Planning
16 Policies(Phase 1)in July 1992,under Ordinance 10450.
1
-17-
Ordinance 14653
17 B. The metropolitan King County council adopted and ratified the Phase 11
18 amendments to the Countywide Planning Policies on August 15, 1994,under Ordinance
19 11446.
20 C. The Growth Management Planning Council met on July 24,2002 and voted to
i
21 recommend amendments to the King County 2012-Countywide Planning Policies,
22 revising existing policies and adding new policies to support extending household and
23 employment targets for the period 200I through 2022.
24 D. The Growth Management Planning Council met on September 25,2002 and
25 voted to recommend amendments to the King County 2012-Countywide Planning
1 26 Policies,adopting new household and employment targets for the period 2001-2022.
4 27 SECTION 2. Ordinance 10450,Section 3,as amended,and K.C.C.20.10.030 are
28 each hereby amended to read as follows:
29 Phase I1.
30 A. The Phase II Amendments to the King County 2012 Countywide Planning
31 Policies attached to Ordinance 11446 are hereby approved and adopted.
32 B. The Phase II Amendments to the King County 2012-Countywide Planning
33 Policies are amended,as shown by Attachment 1 to Ordinance 12027.
34 C. The Phase II Amendments to the King County 2012-Countywide Planning
35 Policies are amended,as shown by Attachment 1 to Ordinance 12421. .
36 D. The Phase 11 Amendments to the King County 2012-Countywide Planning
37 Policies are amended,as shown by Attachment I and 2 to Ordinance 13260.
38 E. The Phase H Amendments to the King County 2012-Countywide PIanning
39 Policies are amended,as shown by Attachment 1 through 4 to Ordinance 13415.
2 .
-18-
Ordinance 14653
i
40 F. The Phase 11 Amendments to the King County 2012-Countywide Planning
41 Policies are amended, as shown by Attachments 1 through 3 to Ordinance 13858.
42 G. The Phase 11 Amendments to the King County 2012-Countywide Planning
43 Policies are amended,as shown by Attachment 1 to Ordinance 14390..
44 H. The Phase II Amendments to the King County 2012-Countywide Planning
45 Policies are amended,as shown by Attachment i-to Ordinance 14391..
46 I. The Phase 11 Amendments to the King County 2012-Countywide Planning-
47 Policies are amended,as shown by Attachment 1 to Ordinance 14392.
48 1 The Phase 11 Amendments to the King County 2012-Countywide Planning
49 Policies are amended,as shown by Attachments 1 through 3 to this ordinance.
50 SECTION 3. Ordinance 10450,Section 4,as amended,and K.C.C.20.10.040 are
51 each hereby amended to read as follows:
52 Ratification for unincorporated King County.
53 A. Countywide Planning Policies adopted by Ordinance 10450 for the purposes
54 specified are hereby ratified on behalf of the population of unincorporated King County.
55 B. The amendments to the Countywide Planning Policies adopted by Ordinance
56 10840 are hereby ratified on behalf of the population of unincorporated King County.
57 C. The amendments to the Countywide Planning Policies adopted by Ordinance
.58 11061 are hereby ratified on behalf of the population of unincorporated)Ung County.
59 D. The Phase 11 amendments to the King County 2012 Countywide Planning
60 Policies adopted by Ordinance 11446 are hereby ratified on behalf of the population of
61 unincorporated King County.
3
-19-
Ordinance 14653
I 62 E. The amendments to the King County 2012-Countywide PIanning Policies,as
63 shown by Attachment 1 to Ordinance 12027 are hereby ratified on behalf of the
64 population of unincorporated King County.
i
65 F. The amendments to the King County 2012-Countywide Planning Policies,as
66 shown by Attachment l to Ordinance 12421, are hereby ratified on behalf of the
67 population of unincorporated King County.
68 G. The amendments to the King County 2012-Countywide Planning Policies,as
69 shown by Attachments i and 2 to Ordinance 13260,.are hereby ratified on behalf of the
j 70 population of unincorporated King County.
71 H. The amendments to the King County 2012-Countywide Planning Policies,as
72 shown by Attachment 1 through 4 to Ordinance 13415,are hereby ratified on behalf of
73 the population of unincorporated King County.
74 1. The amendments to the King County 2012-Countywide Planning Policies,as
75 shown by Attachments 1 through 3 to Ordinance 13858,are hereby ratified on behalf of
76 the population of unincorporated King County.
77 J. The amendments to the King County 2012-Countywide Planning Policies,as
78 shown by Attachment 1 to Ordinance 14390,are hereby ratified on behalf of the
79 population of unincorporated King County.
80 K. The amendments to the King County 2012-Countywide Planning Policies,as
81 shown by Attachment 1 to Ordinance 14391,are hereby ratified on behalf of the
82 population of unincorporated King County.
i
4
-20-
Ordinance 14653
83 L. The amendments to the King County 2012-Countywide Planning Policies,as
84 shown by Attachment 1 to Ordinance 14392,are hereby ratified on behalf of the
85 population of unincorporated King County.
86 M. The amendments to the King County 2012-Countywide Planning Policies as
87 shown by Attachments 1 through 3 to this ordinance,are hereby ratified on behalf of the
88 population of unincoroorated King Count
89
Ordinance 14653 was introduced on 3/17/2003 and passed by the Metropolitan King
County Council on 5/19/2003,by the following vote:
Yes: 12-Ms. Sullivan,Ms.Edmonds,Mr.von Reichbauer,Ms.Lambert,Mr.
Phillips,Mr.Pelz,Mr.McKenna,Mr.Constantine,Mr.Gossett,Ms.Hague,
Mr.Irons and Ms.Patterson
No: 0
Excused:0
KING COUNTY COUNCIL
KING COUNTY,WASH NGTON
CJ
C7
r `,
ynthia Sullivan,Chair
ATTEST: w '
(AVAN�
Anne Noris,Ckak of the Council ~- r
APPROVED this day of YY19M 2003.
4S ,C unty Executive
Attachments I.GMPC Motion 02-1,2.GMPC Motion 02-2,3.GMPC Motion 02-3
i 5
-21-
14653
Subareas Household HH Capacity PAA HH lob T lob Capacity PAA lob
Target in PAA• Target ib PAA TargU
Soulk i
Aigm 2
n 5.929 2,635
Black Digowd
Budn 2
Des Moints 1.5761
2
FedAid Wily 6.18812D
Kent 4.2941 6
Mi
Mault Valk Valky 300
45
4
Wwoorp King 1
Cam 49M
70tw 42.3SS 14.0394-935
g
Ovde
I 21
Mt 747
1
1,437
Newcasde 63 1 1
w Y
uphbmp King 6 901 **4= **4099
TOW 47A6 7.W9 6
sbonrme
unimmp 1Cm *** 1 1.670 1.670
1,670
Dung 1,037
246
S 1697
5-110
*PM:Pokndal An xadm Am in Uoiocmpmatsd ffiag CmAy Ur6aa Area:**Bmr trek UM.***NmPo HigMw
7be Rmd Cldes'bM to we for the cmmat city Iimb aml rant c"awim am for mcb city.7hns the metbo&*u
for adlosdog brgeb as ameatiom omtr is ad applimbk to ds mrd tides.
1
2
IIGMPCl02GMPClMog23.tkx - . 3 -
-22-
14653
Subareas Household HH Capacity PAA HH lob Tar q lob Capacity PAA lob
Target in PAA* Target g in FAA' Target
South
IM
County
n
federalBurim
Des Wim
a 4 134
upt It 44
valleymapic
67
Pacific 103
Realon T 45 45
9,288 4
j 16,000 497 497
uninocap King couny 2,582 701 101
Total 99.5061 2
Bag Mr COMFOO?
Beaux Am Villan
Botha 174
R1414-M
01)
Medina
Mumbland
Newcasdo
iRedwood 21 21
Samnsmaxisit 1230
Woodinville 2
yarrow Point
Unincorp King County 4,637 ••4193 ••4193
MOW 98 7 4
cauk
Sbarclim 2.619
U Kin 694 1
Total
7
FAWWUW Uyvall
North Bend
Skykq4sh
ftogualmie 1,800
Total 0
'PAA:Fatential Annexation Area in Uoincorpatased King Cwmry Urban Am-,"%ar Creek UPD**'North Highfice
The Rural Grief mgets am for the corrmt city gaits and rural expansion area for each dry.Thus the memodology
for adjwtm6 mrgets as amexariom o is as applicable to do rural cities.
1
t/GMPC/020MPCtMut02-3.doc. - 3 -
-23-
Attachment 1
2003-0124
14653
July 24,2002
Sponsored By: Executive Committee
f /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
i 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
I1
12 WHEREAS,the 1994 targets need to be extended to reflect projected growth through 2022
13 in accordance with the GMA(RCW 36 70A 110);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-19
1s 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 20-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 Ili. Land Use Pattern
34
35 C. Urban Areas
36
-24-
14653
l 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 targets 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 growth. The( ) UGA is a permanent designation. Land outside
7 the(Ufban Growth Area) UGA is designated for permanent rural and resource uses.((;
8 )) Countywide Policies on Rural and Resource Areas
9 are found in Chapter ILIA, Resource Lands,and Chapter 111B,Rural Areas.
10
11 In accordance with the State Growth Management Act(GMA)(36.70A.110), the State
12 Office of Financial Management(OFM)provides.a population protection 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 iurisdictions. Forecasts prepared by the Puget Sound Regional Council are used to
16 establish the enrp_loyment projection.
17
18 The process for allocating targets in King County is as follows:
19
20 1. The PSRC employment forecasts are calculated for the fourgCographic subareas of
21 the UGA(Sea-Shore. South.East.and Rural Cities). These then become subarea
22 employment targets.
23 2. The jurisdictions collectively allocate the OFM population projection to the four
24 subareas based on the proiected employment for each area. A small amount of
25 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 pr fections then become subarea household targets.
29 4. Jurisdictions within each subarea negotiate the distribution of subarea household
30 and MWIoMent targets using criteria based on Countywide Planning Policies.
31
32 The housing capacity in the(( )) UGA((fer lwowth)), based on adopted
33 plans and regulations, ((mesh the))should accommodate the projected 20-year
34- growth((
35 pepuletien fereEssts)). (( ))Growth is to be accommodated within
36 permanent Urban Areas by increasing densities,as needed Phasing(("))should occur
37 within the (U4an Greivih Area)) UGA,as necessary, to ensure that services are provided
38 as growth occurs. .((
39 ))
40 FWA i 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
a6 based on the Countywide Planning Policies.
47
L*MP=GMrCn OW-t.dW - 2 -
-25-
14653
t FEW-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 iurisdictions within King County share the responsibility to
7 accommodate the 20-year population projection The growth projection
s shall be assigned to the four subareas of King County (Sea-Shore East
9 South, and the Rural Cities) proportionate with the share of protected
io employment growth. The growth shall be allocated pursuant to the
t 1 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 iobsthousing balance on a subarea basis:
is f. To promote a land use pattern that can be served by public
i19 transportation and other alternatives to the single occupancy vehicle:
20 and
21 g. To provide sufficient opportunities for growth within the iurisdiictions.
22 _
23 FW-12b The growth targets established pursuant to the methodology described in
24 LU-25c and 25d shall be supoorted 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 byplanning 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. Ensudnq 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 ourpose 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 jurisdiction. The targets do not obligate a jurisdiction to guarantee
47 that a given number of housing units will be built or iobs added during the
48 planning period.
ucMrcrozcMao2a.aa - 3 -
-26-
14653
1 W25b 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 follows:
5
6 a. King Countv and the respective city will determine new household
7 and employment targets for areas under consideration for
s 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 the 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
i 19 updated periodically to reflect changes due to annexations. These
20 targeet updates do not require adoption by the Growth Management
j 21 Plannina Council.
22
23 LU -((97)) 25cThe target((s-arm regulations)) objectives identified in ((W-"))
24 FW-12a((afe based err))shall be realized through the following ((steps))
25 methodology for allocating household targets:
26 a• ((The GFewth Management Planning GeunGil adopted the taW
27
28 I )) 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 projection for the end of
32 the twenty year planning period;
33 b.
34
35 new households fGF GaGh jWFiSdiGtiGA based on the fallewing GdteFia:))
36 Subtract a percentage from that number to represent the amount of
37 growth that is assumed to occur in the unincorporated Rural Area:
3s ((!.The
39 faGilkles and utHities,
40 2. PFoxiFnhy to FnajGF employment Genters,
41
42
43 given the GhaFaGteF of existing developmea,
44 6. The need 19F a range of housing typesp
45 '
46 affoFdable housing p9liGiest
4? ;))
. UGMPMC;MPC/MoM2-1 doe - 4 -
-27-
14653
1 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 usingproiected averag2
7 household sizes that reflect the variation among those subareas
i 8 observed in the most recent Census:
9- e. Allocate a household target to individual jurisdictions, 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 actively areas within each
14 jurisdiction:
- 15 4. the availability of zoned development capacity in each lurisdiction:
i 16 and
17 5. the apparent ma'rket trends for housing in the area.
i8 ((
19
20 ,))
21 (( '
22 be GeRsWent with the target ranges iR Appet;dix 2 eF shall rWe
23 ;))
24 (( ,
25
26
27
28 {glans.))
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 the joint legal and GeunyMdq adoption preGess based on the 109GWR
42 steps)) The target obiectives'identified in FW-12a shall be realized
43 through the following methodology for allocating employment targets:
44
45 a.
46 . The
47
UGMPMGMPf1MotO2-1Am 5 -
-26-
1.4653
1
3
4 ;
5
6 ,
7
8 Gapad1 p,
9
10 ww of existiRg development,
11
12
13 , bigyr4e and pedestOaA suppeFfive design, an
14
15 Fesidential areas)) Determine the number of iobs 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 iob estimates and forecasts for the 20-year planning
19 period. To account for uncertainty in the employment forecasts,
20 establish a ranee of new iobs 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 the GFwAdh Management Planning Goungil, adopted and falgied
25 pumwapt W peliry PA9 4, Step 4)) For each subarea,determine the
26 point within the range upon which jurisdictions within the subarea wiii
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, manufacturingrndustdal
31 centers, and activity areas within each iurisdiction:
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 , all jugsdiGgens shall indimle
37
38 am Wqid�nnd
39
40
41 ,
42
43 ,))
44 c. Jurisdictions shall plan for employment targets as adopted in Table
45 LU-1.
46 (INSERT TABLE LU-1)
• ucMPMGMrMoW2-l.doc - 6 -
-29-
14653
1 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 e))are the responsibility of the local jurisdiction((sl
6e+rssibi7ity)). However, the residential areas need to support the Centers concept and
j 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
11 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
1s 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
zs LU 67 The targets and FegulatieRs in I=IJ 66 are based on the following
26
27 FiumbeF of not Aew households to be agGemmedated GOU"i4e as
29 4 95,000;
29
30
31 new households 4GF eash judsdiGtion based OR the fOlIGAng GAtieFia-
32
33 taGilities and utalkies,:
34
35 3. AGGess tG exISUAg aAd pFejeeted Fegienal Uansitj
36
37 given the GhaFaGWF of the existing develgoment,
38 ;
39 '
40 a#eFdable ;
41 7, Gensislen itywide numbew,
42 G. ges as shown in Appendix 2 were reeemmended b
43 the Gr4rom4h DAR ageFR9PA MaMiRg GOURGil, adopted and mWed
44
45ges iA eaGh jurisdiGlion's
46 Gensistent wM target Fanges I r shall state the reasons
i 47
WMM020NWCJ ►ao2_t.aoc - 7
-30-
j 14653
I 1 e. TWOugh the proGess established und9F FW 1 Step 4b,-44he
2 '
q
S .
6
7 2. Urban Employment Growth
8
9 ,
10 employment Wep4unities in Me UfibanArea.
l7
12
13
T�the
14
15
16 . Th
17
18
19
20 GFi#8Fia6 '
21 ;
22
23 wnsistenGy with the multiple GeF#ers strategy;
24
25 6apa6oty;
26
27 ;
28
29
30 , ,
31
32 Gormemial nnd rasidp Rial aFeas!,
33
34
35 ;
36 G. As paFt Gf th8iF Gampmhensive plans, all jUFosdiWens shall indioate
37
38
39 ; and
40 ,
41Fanqe4, ho
42
43
44 OF lOGalplans.
45
46
47
48
UGMPCM2GMPCIMoW-t doc — 8 —
-31-
14653
1 ADOPTED by the Growth Management Planning Council of King County on July 24,
2 2002 in open session.
3
4
5
6
7 Ron Sims,Chair,Growth Management Planning Council
s
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
I
LGNteCm2GklPcnrtao2-l.doc - 9 -
-32-
Attachment 2
i 2003-0124
14653
July 24,2002
Sponsored By: Executive Committee
kin
i 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 M. 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
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
-33—
14653
1
2
3 ADOPTID by the Growth Management Planning Council of King County on
' 4 September 25,2002 in open session.
5
6
E 8
j 9
10
11 Ron Sims,Chair,Growth Management Planning Council
12 Attachment:
13 1. Table LU-1:2001-2022 Household and Employment Growth Targets.
I
UGMPCl02GMYGMo*02 2.aoc 2 -
-34-
Attachment 3
200 -0124
14653
24653
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.
g
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,W22.
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
-35-
14653
2
3 ADOPTED by the Growth Management Planning Council of King County on
4 September 25,2002 in open session.
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12 Ron Sims,Chair,Growth Management Planning Council
13
14 Attachment:
15 1. Table LU-1:2001-2022 Household and Employment Growth Targets.
LGMPUMMPGM002-1doc - 2 -
-36-
Metropolitan King County Council
Growth Management and Unincorporated Areas Committee
Staff Report
Agenda Item: 7 Name: Lauren Smith
Proposed Ordinance: 2003-0124 Date: March 18, 2003
Attending: Paul Reitenbach, King County DDES
Kevin Wright, King County PAO
SUBJECT:
Proposed Ordinance 2003-0124 adopting amendments to the Countywide Planning Policies;
adopting new household and employment targets for the period 2001 through 2022; ratifying
the amended Countywide Planning Policies on behalf of the population of unincorporated King
County.
BACKGROUND:
The Growth Management Planning Council (GMPC)is a formal body comprised of elected
officials from King County, Seattle, Bellevue, the Suburban Cities, and Special Districts. The
GMPC was created in 1990 in response to a provision in the Washington State Growth
Management Act (GMA) requiring cities and counties to work together to adopt Countywide
Planning Policies (CPPs). Under GMA, countywide planning policies serve as the framework
for each individual jurisdiction's comprehensive plan, and ensure regional consistency with
respect to land use planning efforts. The GMPC drafted the CPPs, which were then adopted by
the King County Council and ratified by the cities. Changes to the CPPs are recommended by
the GMPC, adopted by the King County Council, and ratified by the cities.
GMPC Development of Household & Employment Targets
In February 2002, the Washington State Office of Financial Management released new
population forecasts for the 20-year period 2002-2022(the projections were smaller than
expected, largely due to the current economic climate). The GMA requires King County and the
cities within King County to plan to accommodate these updated projections. The GMPC is
responsible for developing updated household and employment targets for each jurisdiction in
King County.
The GMPC's interjurisdictional staff team worked with a subcommittee of the King County
Planning Directors to extend the existing targets through 2022, with the GMPC's approval of
their methodology. In recent years, the region has grappled with the concept of a jobs/housing
"balance" as part of ongoing growth management discussions. The development of the updated
targets was approached with the jobs/housing balance in mind.
The methodology approved by the GMPC took a sub-regional approach. First, the County's
urban area was divided into four subareas: "SeaShoree (comprised of Seattle, Shoreline, and
C:IWINDOWSITEMP12003.0124(CPP Amendnenls-Household Empoyment Tsrgels)(358-03).doc 5Q1=03 8:50 AM
-37-
Lake Forest Park), East King County, South King County and the Rural Cities'. Next, a
percentage of the total population forecast for King County was assigned to each subarea that
was based on the percentage of expected job growth for each subarea (employment forecasts
were provided by the Puget Sound Regional Council). Finally,the raw population numbers
were converted into households (based on the average household size in each subarea), and
the jurisdictions within each subarea negotiated their household targets. The draft household
and employment targets were presented to the GMPC On May 22, 2002 at which time the
GMPC directed staff to prepare motions recommending their adoption. Policy changes related
to the new targets were adopted on July 24, 2002 and the targets themselves were adopted on
September 25, 2002.
Development of the household targets was informed by the results of the Buildable Lands work
(required by GMA), which has been developed over the past 5 years (the Buildable Lands
Report was released in August, 2002). Major findings from this work include:
♦ 96% of all new development in King County is occurring within Urban Growth Areas.
♦ 40% of the way through the 1992-2012 planning period, King County has reached 38%
of the household growth target, and more than 50% of the population forecast.
♦ King County has the capacity for 263,000 more housing units. This is more than twice
the capacity needed to accommodate the remainder of the 1992-2012 household growth
targets.
♦ King County has the capacity for nearly 600,000 more jobs within the Urban Growth
Area—several times the remaining target of 110,000 jobs for the period 1992-2012.
♦ All available evidence suggests that there is enough capacity to support the new targets
through 2022.
SUMMARY:
Proposed Ordinance 2003-0127 would amend the Countywide Planning Policies by:
♦ Adopting revised household targets for each jurisdiction in King County for the period
2001-2022;
♦ Adopting revised employment targets for each jurisdiction in King County for the period
2001-2022; and
♦ Amending the policy direction in the Countywide Planning Policies in support of the new
household and employment targets.
Additionally, the ordinance would ratify these changes on behalf of the population of
unincorporated King County, as required by Countywide Planning Policy FW-1, Step 9.
Amendments to the Countywide Planning Policies become effective when ratified by ordinance
or resolution by at least 30% of the city and county governments representing 70% of the
population of King County according to the lnterlocal agreement. A city shall be deemed to
have ratified the countywide planning policy unless,within 90 days of adoption by King County,
the city by legislative action disapproves the Countywide Planning Policy.
ATTACHMENTS:
1 Although the Carnation,Duvall,Enumclaw, North Bend and Snoqualmis are called Rural Cities,the Growth
Management Act considers all municipalities to be Urban. Rural cities provide the vast majority of services and
infrastructure for residents of the Rural unincorporated area,and they do have growth targets,albeit small ones
when compared to cities in the main urban growth area.
C1W1W0WWEMPQ003-0124(CPP Amendments.Household Employment Targels)(3.18-03),doc 6/21/2003 8:50 AM
-38-
1. Proposed Ordinance 2003-0124, with attachments
C:\WIND0WS%TEMPppp3-0124)CPP Amendments•Household Employmem Tarpetax3.1 M3).doc 5QI12W3 8{.a8 AM
-39—
KING COUNTY 1200Yin&countycowlbmse
5167Lird Avenue
Seavk WA 98104
Signature Report
May 19, 2003
Ordinance 14654
Proposed No, 2003-0125.1 Sponsors Hague
1 AN ORDINANCE adopting amendments to the
2 Countywide Planning Policies;amending the Urban
3 Separator map to reflect negotiated modifications to the
4 Renton Urban Separator,ratifying the amended
5 Countywide Planning Policies for unincorporated King
6 County; and amending Ordinance 10450,Section 3,as
7 amended,and K.C.C.20.10.030 and Ordinance 10450,
8 Section 4,as amended;and K.C.C.20.10.040
9
10
11 BE TT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF KING COUNTY:
12 SECTION 1. Findings. The council makes the following findings..
13 A. The metropolitan King County council adopted and ratified the Growth
14 Management Planning Council recommended King County 2012-Countywide Planning,
15 Policies(Phase I)in July 1992,under Ordinance 10450.
1
-40-
Ordinance 14654
16 B. The metropolitan King County council adopted and ratified the Phase II
i
17 amendments to the Countywide Planning Policies on August 15, 1994,under Ordinance
i
18 11446.
19 C. The Growth Management Planning Council met on October 23,2002 and
? 20 voted to recommend amendments to the King County 2012-Countywide Planning
21 Policies,amending the Urban Separator map to reflect negotiated modifications to the
22 Renton Urban Separator.
23 SECTION 2. Ordinance 10450,Section 3,as amended,and K.C.C.20.10.030 are
24 each hereby amended to read as follows:
l25 Phase 11.
26 A. The Phase II Amendments to the King County 2012 Countywide Planning
i
27 Policies attached to Ordinance 11446 are hereby approved and adopted.
28 B. The Phase II Amendments to the King County 2012-Countywide Planning
29 Policies are amended,as shown by Attachment 1 to Ordinance 12027.
30 C. The Phase II Amendments to the King County 2012-Countywide Planning
31 Policies are amended,as shown by Attachment 1 to Ordinance 12421.
32 D. The Phase II Amendments to the King County 2012-Countywide Planning
33 Policies are amended,as shown by Attachment 1 and 2 to Ordinance 13260.
34 E. The Phase II Amendments to the King County 2012-Countywide Planning
35 Policies are amended,as shown by Attachment 1 through 4 to Ordinance 13415.
36 F. The Phase II Amendments to the King County 2012-Countywide Planning
37 Policies are amended,as shown by Attachments 1 through 3 to Ordinance 13858.
2
-41-
Ordinance 14654
38 G. The Phase II Amendments to the King County 2012—Countywide Planning
39 Policies are amended,as shown by Attachment 1 to Ordinance 14390.
40 H. The Phase II Amendments to the King County 2012—Countywide Planning
41 Policies are amended,as shown by Attachment 1 to Ordinance 14391.
42 L The Phase 11 Amendments to the King County 2012—Countywide Planning
43 Policies are amended,as shown by Attachment 1 to Ordinance 14392.
44 J. The Phase 11 Amendments to the King County2012—Countywide Planning
45 Policies are amended,as shown by Attachment 1 to this ordinance.
46 SECTION 3. Ordinance 10450,Section 4, as amended,and K.C.C.20.10.040 are
47 each hereby amended to read as follows:
48 Ratification for unincorporated King County.
49 A. Countywide Planning Policies adopted by Ordinance 10450 for the purposes
50 specified are hereby ratified on behalf of the population of unincorporated King County.
51 B. The amendments to the Countywide Planning Policies adopted by Ordinance
52 10840 are hereby ratified on behalf of the population of unincorporated King County.
53 C. The amendments to the Countywide Planning Policies adopted by Ordinance
54 11061 are hereby ratified on behalf of the population of unincorporated King County.
55 D. The Phase 17 amendments to the King County 2012 Countywide Planning
56 Policies adopted by Ordinance 11446 are hereby ratified on behalf of the population of
57 unincorporated King County.
58 E. The amendments to the King County 2012-Countywide Planning Policies,as
59 shown by Attachment 1 to Ordinance 12027 are hereby ratified on behalf of the
60 population of unincorporated King County.
3
-42
Ordinance 14654
61 F. The amendments to the King County 2012-Countywide Planning Policies,as
62 shown by Attachment 1 to Ordinance 12421,are hereby ratified on behalf of the
63 population of unincorporated King County.
64 G. The amendments to the King County 2012-Countywide Planning Policies,as
65 shown by Attachments 1 and 2 to Ordinance 13260,are hereby ratified on behalf of the
66 population of unincorporated King County.
67 H. The amendments to the King County 2012-Countywide Planning Policies,as
68 shown by Attachment 1 through 4 to Ordinance 13415,are hereby ratified on behalf of
69 the population of unincorporated King County.
70 1. The amendments to the King County 2012-Countywide Planning Policies,as
i 71 shown by Attachments i through 3 to Ordinance 13858, are hereby ratified on behalf of
72 the population of unincorporated King County.
73 1 The amendments to the King County 2012-Countywide Planning Policies,as
74 shown by Attachment 1 to Ordinance 14390,are hereby ratified on behalf of the
i
75 population of unincorporated King County.
76 K. The amendments to the King County 2012-Countywide Planning Policies,as
77 shown by Attachment 1 to Ordinance 14391,are hereby ratified on behalf of the
78 population of unincorporated King County.
79 L. The amendments to the King County 2012-Countywide Planning Policies,as
80 shown by Attachment 1 to Ordinance 14392,arc hereby ratified on behalf of the
81 population of unincorporated King County.
4
-43-
Ordinance 14654
82 M. The amendments to the King County 2012-Count ide Planning Policies as
83 shown by Attachment i to this ordinance are hereby ratified on behalf of the polRulation
84 of unincorporated King County.
85
Ordinance 14654 was introduced on 3/17/2003 and passed by the Metropolitan King
County Council on 5/19/2003,by the following vote:
Yes: 12-Ms. Sullivan,Ms.Edmonds,Mr. von Reichbauer,Ms.Lambert,Mr.
Phillips,Mr.Pelz,Mr.McKenna,Mr. Constantine,Mr.Gossett,Ms.Hague,
Mr.Irons and Ms.Patterson
No:0
Excused:0
KING COUNTY COUNCIL
KING COUNTY,WASHINGTON
ATTEST:
Cynthia Sullivan,Chair
co
rz
Anne Noris,Clerk of the Council -0 <
N
4S'Ron
APPROVED this 1 day of 2003
unty Executive
Attachmeims 1.GMPC Motion 02-5
5
-44-
Attachment 1
2003-0125
.14654
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.
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
j 16 communities;
17
j 18 WHEREAS, King County has designated Urban Separators on the Land Use 2000 map in
19 the Ding 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 of
24 land within its Potential Annexation Area;and
25
i 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
-45-
14654
1
2
3 THE GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLANNING COUNCIL OF KING COUNTY
4 HEREBY MOVES AS FOLLOWS:
5
6 The Urban Separators map included within the Countywide Planning Policies document is
7 amended to reflect the negotiated modifications of the Renton Urban Separator described
8 and mapped in the September 25,2002 GMPC staff report. Specifically,76 acres of
9 unincorporated land is deleted from Urban Separator designation and 118.8 acres within
10 the City of Renton shall be designated Urban Separator.
11
12 ADOPTED by the Growth Management Planning Council of King County on
13 October 23,2002 in open session.
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22 Ron Sims,Chair,Growth Management Planning Council
LrAPW002cMPCnKouon02-5.d%
-46-
O
Metropolitan King County Council
Growth Management and Unincorporated Areas Committee
Staff Report
Agenda Item: 8 Name: Lauren Smith
Proposed Ordinance: 2003-0125 Date: March 18, 2003
Attending: Paul Reitenbach, King County DDES
Kevin Wright, King County PAO
SUBJECT:
Proposed Ordinance 2003-0125 adopting amendments to the Countywide Planning Policies;
amending the Urban Separator map to reflect negotiated modifications to the Renton Urban
Separator; ratifying the amended Countywide Planning Policies on behalf of the population of
unincorporated King County.
BACKGROUND:
The Growth Management Planning Council (GMPC) is a formal body comprised of elected
officials from King County, Seattle, Bellevue, the Suburban Cities, and Special Districts. The
GMPC was created in 1990 in response to a provision in the Washington State Growth
Management Act (GMA) requiring cities and counties to work together to adopt Countywide
Planning Policies (CPPs). Under GMA, countywide planning policies serve as the framework
for each individual jurisdiction's comprehensive plan, and ensure regional consistency with
respect to land use planning efforts. The GMPC drafted the CPPs, which were then adopted by
the King County Council and ratified by the cities. Changes to the CPPs are recommended by
the GMPC, adopted by the King County Council, and ratified by the cities.
Countywide Planning Policies: Policy Direction related to Urban Separators
Urban Separators are regionally significant low-density areas within the Urban Growth Area that
create open space corridors, provide a visual contrast to continuous development and reinforce
the unique identities of communities. Urban Separators can play a significant role in preserving
environmentally sensitive areas and providing fish and wildlife habitat. They also provide
regional benefits, such as parks and trails, and meet the Growth Management Act's
requirement for greenbelts and open space within the Urban Growth Area. Urban Separators
are governed by Countywide Planning Policy LU-27:
LU-27 Urban Separators are low-density areas or areas of little development within the Urban
Growth Area. Urban Separators shall be defined as permanent low-density lands which
protect adjacent resource lands, Rural Areas, and environmentally sensitive areas and
create open space corridors within and between Urban Areas which provide
environmental, visual, recreational and wildlife benefits. Designated urban separators
shall not be redesignated in the future (in the 20-year planning cycle) to other urban
uses or higher densities. The maintenance of these urban separators is a regional as
C:IWINODWMTEMp12003-0125(CPP Amendments.Renlon Urban SeparatorN3.18-03).doc 5/21/2003 8:50 AM
-47-
well as local concern. Therefore, no modifications should be made to the development
regulations governing these areas without King County review and concurrence.
Urban Separators are within the Urban Growth Area and therefore are appropriate to be
annexed by cities. Once annexed, Urban Separators (and all other annexed land) are shown
as"incorporated areas" on the County's comprehensive land use map.
The lack of a map of Urban Separators in the countywide planning document was seen by the
staff as problematic because it increased the likelihood that cities might be unaware of the
presence of Urban Separators within their Potential Annexation Areas. Therefore, the
interjurisdictional staff team recommended that the GMPC adopt a map of existing Urban
Separators.
Three cities have designated Urban Separators within their Potential Annexation Areas: Auburn,
Kent, and Renton.
Past GMPC Actions related to Urban Separators
July 25, 2001 GMPC staff recommends including a map of existing urban separators in
the Countywide Planning Policies. Member jurisdictions of the GMPC
express concern over the boundaries of designated Urban Separators
and ask the interjurisdictional staff team to present additional information
at the September meeting.
September 26, 2001 GMPC directs staff to meet with affected cities (Kent, Renton and
Auburn)to answer questions and clarify the boundaries of the designated
Urban Separators.
October 5, 2001 King County staff meets with Kent, Renton and Auburn to answer
questions and clarify the boundaries of the designated Urban Separators.
November 20,2001 The interjurisdictional staff team reports to the GMPC Executive
Committee that staff has successfully negotiated a solution to concerns
about mapping Urban Separators raised by Renton and Auburn. The
Executive Committee directs staff to develop a motion for the GMPC's
consideration at the December meeting.
December 11,2001 GMPC adopts Motion 01-1, adopting maps of uncontested Urban
Separators and setting in place a process to further analyze and refine
the Urban Separators in Renton and Auburn's Potential Annexation
Areas, to be completed no later than September 30, 2002.
September 25,2002 The interjurisdictional staff team reported back to the GMPC with the
following information on the City of Renton and Auburn's Urban
Separators:
City of Renton
Renton did not agree with the Urban Separator designation for 76 acres of unincorporated
urban land within their Potential Annexation Area (PAA), citing lack of environmental
CiWIND0WSITEMP120D3-0125(CPP Amendments-Renlon Urban S"rator)(3.10-03).Eoc WlrLmm3 a-m AM
-48-
constraints. However, Renton did identify 119 acres within their city limits that they felt met the
criteria for designation of Urban Separators. The City proposed removing the Urban Separator
designation from the 76 acres within their PAA, and applying the designation to the 119 acres
within their city boundaries, for a net gain of 43 acres. The interjurisdictional staff team field-
checked the two areas and concurred with the city's conclusions.
City of Auburn
Auburn did not agree with the Urban Separator designation for 178 acres of land within their
PAA, but has identified 153 acres they do feel meets the criteria. The City of Kent recently
annexed a large piece of property adjacent to Auburn's existing Urban Separator that the
interjurisdictional staff team believes contains environmentally constrained areas and that would
make a natural extension of the existing Urban Separator. However, the City of Kent does not
wish to consider designating this area until sometime in 2003. Therefore, the interjurisdictional
staff team recommends that discussions should continue with Auburn and Kent, and that staff
should report back to the GMPC with recommendations by June 1, 2003.
October 23, 2002 The GMPC adopted Motion 02-5, amending the Countywide Planning
Policies to reflect the negotiated modifications to the Renton Urban
Separator.
SUMMARY:
Proposed Ordinance 2003-0125 would amend the Countywide Planning Policies by:
♦ Revising the Urban Separator map to reflect the negotiated modifications to the Renton
Urban Separator, as indicated on the map in Attachment 2 to this staff report.
Additionally, the ordinance would ratify these changes on behalf of the population of
unincorporated King County, as required by Countywide Planning Policy FW-1, Step 9.
Amendments to the Countywide Planning Policies become effective when ratified by ordinance
or resolution by at least 30% of the city and county governments representing 70% of the
population of King County according to the Interlocal agreement. A city shall be deemed to
have ratified the countywide planning policy unless,within 90 days of adoption by King County,
the city by legislative action disapproves the Countywide Planning Policy.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Proposed Ordinance 2003-0125, with attachments
2. Map of Renton Urban Separator
•
CAW NDDWS TEMP120030125(CPP Amendments.Renton Urban Sawralor)(3.18.03).doc 52 V2003 8:50 AM
-50—
KING COUNTY 1200 King cocaycomthom
516 Third Avenut
Seattle,WA 98104
Signature Report
May 20,2003
Ordinance 14655
i
Proposed No. 2003-0126.1 Sponsors Hague
1 AN ORDINANCE adopting amendments to the
2 Countywide Planning Policies;designating Totem Lake as
3 an Urban Center;ratifying the amended Countywide
4 Planning Policies for unincorporated King County;and
i
5 amending Ordinance 10450,Section 3,as amended, and
I 6 K.C.C.20.10.030 and Ordinance 10450, Section 4, as
7 amended,and K.C.C.20.10.040 .
8
9
10 BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF KING COUNTY:
11 SECTION 1. Findings. The council makes the following findings.
12 A. The metropolitan King County council adopted and ratified the Growth
13. Management Planning Council recommended King County 2012-Countywide Planning
14 Policies(Phase 1)in July 1992,under Ordinance 10450.
15 B. The metropolitan King County council adopted and ratified the Phase H
16 amendments to the Countywide PIanning Policies on August 15, 1994,under Ordinance
17 11446.
i.
1
-61-
Ordinance 14655
18 C. The Growth Management Planning Council met on October 23,2002 and
19 voted to recommend amendments to the King County 2012-Countywide Planning
20 Policies,designating Totem Lake as an Urban Center.
21 SECTION 2. Ordinance 10450,Section 3,as amended,and KC.C.20.10.030 are
22 each hereby amended to read as follows:
23 Phase IL
24 A. The Phase II Amendments to the King County 2012 Countywide Planning
25 Policies attached to Ordinance 11446 are hereby approved and adopted.
f
26 B. The Phase II Amendments to the King County 2012-Countywide Planning
{
27 Policies are amended,as shown by Attachment 1 to Ordinance 12027.
28 C. The Phase II Amendments to the King County 2012-Countywide Planning
29 Policies are amended,as shown by Attachment 1 to Ordinance 12421.
30 D. The Phase II Amendments to the King County 2012-Countywide Planning
31 Policies are amended,as shown by Attachment 1 and 2 to Ordinance 13260.
32 E. The Phase 11 Amendments to the King County 2012-Countywide Planning
33 Policies are amended,as shown by Attachment 1 through 4 to Ordinance 13415.
34 - F. The Phase II Amendments to the King County 2012-Countywide Planning
35 - Policies are amended,as shown by Attachments 1 through 3 to Ordinance 13858.
36 G. The Phase II Amendments to the King County 2012-Countywide Planning
37 Policies are amended,as shown by Attachment 1 to Ordinance 14390.
38 H. The Phase II Amendments to the King County 2012-Countywide Planning
39 Policies are amended,as shown by Attachment I to Ordinance 14391.
2
-52-
Ordinance U655
40 I. The Phase 11 Amendments to the King County 2012—Countywide Planning
41 Policies are amended,as shown by Attachment 1 to Ordinance 14392.
42 J. The Phase II Amendments to the King County 2012—Countywide Planning
43 Policies are amended, as shown by Attachment 1 to this ordinance.
44 SECTION 3. Ordinance 10450,Section 4,as amended,and K.C.C.20.10.040 are
45 each hereby amended to read as follows:
46 Ratification for unincorporated King County.
47 A. Countywide Planning Policies adopted by Ordinance 10450 for the purposes
48 specified are hereby ratified on behalf of the population of unincorporated King County.
49 B. The amendments to the Countywide Planning Policies adopted by Ordinance
50 10840 are hereby ratified on behalf of the population of unincorporated King County.
51 C. The amendments to the Countywide Planning Policies adopted by Ordinance
52 11061 are hereby ratified on behalf of the population of unincorporated King County.
53 D. The Phase 11 amendments to the King County 2012 Countywide Planning
54 Policies adopted by Ordinance 11446 are hereby ratified on behalf of the population of
55 unincorporated King County.
56 E. The amendments to the King County 2012-Countywide Planning Policies,as
57 shown by Attachment 1 to Ordinance 12027 are hereby ratified on behalf of the
58 population of unincorporated King County.
59 F. The amendments to the King County 2012- Countywide Planning Policies,as
60 shown by Attachment 1 to Ordinance 12421,are hereby ratified on behalf of the
61 population of unincorporated King County.
3
-53-
Ordinance 14655
62 G. The amendments to the King County 2012-Countywide Planning Policies,as
63 shown by Attachments 1 and 2 to Ordinance 13260,are hereby ratified on behalf of the
64 population of unincorporated King County.
65 H. The amendments to the King County 2012-Countywide Planning Policies,as
66 shown by Attachment 1 through 4 to Ordinance 13415,are hereby ratified on behalf of
67 the population of unincorporated King County.
68 1. The amendments to the King County 2012-Countywide Planning Policies,as
69 shown by Attachments 1 through 3 to Ordinance 13858,are hereby ratified on behalf of
70 the population of unincorporated King County.
71 1. The amendments to the King County 2012-Countywide Planning Policies,as
72 shown by Attachment 1 to Ordinance 14390,are hereby ratified on behalf of the
i
• 73' population of unincorporated King County.
74 K. The amendments to the King County 2012-Countywide Planning Policies,as
I
75 shown by Attachment 1 to Ordinance 14391,are hereby ratified on behalf of the
76 population of unincorporated King County.
i
77 L. The amendments to the King County 2012-Countywide Planning Policies,as
78 shown by Attachment 1 to Ordinance.14392,are hereby ratified on behalf of the
79 population of unincorporated King County.
80 M. The amendments to the Kin Cg gMM 2012-Countywide Planning Policies.as
4
-54-
Ordinance 14655
81 shown by Attachment 1 to this ordinance,are hereby ratified on behalf of the population
82 of unincorporated King County.
83
Ordinance 14655 was introduced on 3/17/2003 and passed by the Metropolitan King
County Council on 5/19/2003,by the following vote:
Yes: 12-Ms.Sullivan,Ms.Edmonds,Mr.von Reichbauer,Ms.Lambert,Mr.
Phillips,Mr.Pelz,Mr.McKenna,Mr.Constantine,Mr.Gossett,Ms.Hague,
Mr.Irons and Ms.Patterson
No:0
Excused:0
KING COUNTY COUNCIL
KING COUNTY,WASHINGTON
nthia Sullivan,Chair iv
ATTEST: Cam,,
w
o
Anne Ncris,Clerk of the Council
-' t"
APPROVED this day of �,2003.
n S' , ounty Executive
()
Attachments 1.GMPC Motion 02-6
5
-55-
Attachment 1
2003-0126
14655
i
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
I I WHEREAS,Policy LU-39 of the Countywide Planning Policies of King County describes
12 the criteria for Urban Center designation;
13
14 WHEREAS,Policy LU40 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
21 Center designation.
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
-56-
1 14655
2
3
4
5 THE GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLANNING COUNCIL OF KING COUNTY
6 HEREBY MOVES AS FOLLOWS:
7
8 Totem Lake is designated as an Urban Center. The list of Urban Centers following
9 Countywide Planning Policy LU-39 is modified to include Totem Lake.
10
11 ADOPTED by the Growth Management Planning Council of King County on
12 October 23,2002 in open session.
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21 Ron Sims,Chair, Growth Management Planning Council
•
LAGMPM0MGMPc1Mwion02a.dx
-57
• O
Metropolitan King County Council
Growth Management and Unincorporated Areas Committee
Staff Report
Agenda Item: 9 Name: Lauren Smith
Proposed Ordinance: 2003-0126 Date: March 18, 2003
Attending: Paul Reitenbach, King County DDES
Kevin Wright, King County PAO
SUBJECT:
Proposed Ordinance 2003-0126 adopting amendments to the Countywide Planning Policies;
designating Totem Lake as an Urban Center; ratifying the amended Countywide Planning
Policies on behalf of the population of unincorporated King County.
BACKGROUND:
The Growth Management Planning Council (GMPC) is a formal body comprised of elected
officials from King County, Seattle, Bellevue, the Suburban Cities, and Special Districts. The
GMPC was created in 1990 in response to a provision in the Washington State Growth
• Management Act (GMA) requiring cities and counties to work together to adopt Countywide
Planning Policies (CPPs). Under GMA, countywide planning policies serve as the framework
for each individual jurisdiction's comprehensive plan, and ensure regional consistency with
respect to land use planning efforts. The GMPC drafted the CPPs, which were then adopted by
the King County Council and ratified by the cities. Changes to the CPPs are recommended by
the GMPC, adopted by the King County Council, and ratified by the cities.
City of Kirkland requests Urban Center designation for Totem Lake
In 2002, the City of Kirkland requested that Totem Lake be designated as an Urban Center in
the Countywide Planning Policies. Urban Centers are envisioned in the CPPs as areas of
concentrated employment and housing, with direct service by high-capacity transit, and a wide
range of other land uses. They are expected to account for up to one half of King County's
employment growth and one quarter of household growth over the next 20 years.
In January, 2002 the Kirkland City Council adopted a new plan for the Totem Lake
neighborhood that would support its designation as an Urban Center. Totem Lake, which is
located in the northeast corner of Kirkland, encompasses about one square mile and includes
residential, office, retail, light industrial and institutional uses.
Designating Totem Lake as an Urban Center would involve amending Countywide Planning
Policy LU-39 to add it to the list of existing Urban Centers,which currently includes:
Bellevue Redmond Overlake Seattle CBD
• ❖ Kent Redmond CBD s Seattle Center
Federal Way s Renton CBD c• First/Capitol Hill
C:1WIND0WMTEMP12o03-0126(CPP Amendments-Totem Lake Urban Center)(3.18-03).doc 5212003 8:51 AM
-58-
University District Northgate + Tukwila
In order to be designated as an Urban Center,jurisdictions must meet specific criteria in the
Countywide Planning Policies, including having planned land uses to accommodate:
v A minimum of 15,000 jobs within one-half mile of a transit center;
At a minimum, an average of 50 employees per gross acre; and
At a minimum, an average of 15 households per acre.
When fully realized, Urban Centers shall be characterized by the following:
Clearly defined geographic boundaries;
❖ An intensity/density of land uses sufficient to support effective and rapid transit;
Pedestrian emphasis within the Center;
Emphasis on superior urban design which reflects the local community;
Limitations on single-occupancy vehicle usage during peak commute hours;
.� A broad array of land uses and choices within those land uses for employees and
residents;
Sufficient public open spaces and recreational opportunities; and
Uses which provide both daytime and nighttime activities in the Center.
The interjurisdictional staff team analyzed the Totem Lake neighborhood against all of the
criteria in the Countywide Planning Policies governing Urban Centers, and found that an Urban
Center designation would be appropriate, for the following reasons:
The City of Kirkland has completed the necessary planning to support an Urban Center
designation.
te By 2012, Totem Lake is projected to contain over 4,500 housing units and 21,400 jobs.
Totem Lake is planned as a transit oriented development district with very high
residential and commercial intensity.
A new transit center will be constructed at the center of the transit oriented development
district.
Within Y2 mile of the transit center, 11,000 jobs and 2000 housing units are projected by
2012. Another 3,000 to 4,000 jobs are expected by 2022.
Employment densities in Totem Lake are planned for a minimum of 130 jobs per acre
(net), and will reach approximately 40 jobs per gross acre by 2022.
•� Residential densities are planned for 50-75 units/acre (net). Capacity will remain for
additional job and housing growth beyond 2022.
Other comprehensive plan policies are in place to support pedestrian emphasis,job
creation and re-investment, redevelopment, high density residential and high intensity
commercial uses, design principles, infrastructure, parks and open space, and
community services.
SUMMARY:
Proposed Ordinance 2003-0126 would amend the Countywide Planning Policies by:
♦ Adding Totem Lake to the list of Urban Centers in Policy LU-39.
Additionally, the ordinance would ratify the change on behalf of the population of
unincorporated King County, as required by Countywide Planning Policy FW-1, Step 9.
• Amendments to the Countywide Planning Policies become effective when ratified by ordinance
or resolution by at least 30% of the city and county governments representing 70% of the
population of King County according to the Interlocal agreement. A city shall be deemed to
Q ND0VMTEMP12883..8128(CPP Amendments-Totem Lake Urban CenterN318-03).dx&21=3 8:61 AM
-59-
have ratified the countywide planning policy unless, within 90 days of adoption by King County,
• the city by legislative action disapproves the Countywide Planning Policy.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Proposed Ordinance 2003-0126, with attachments
•
C:IWINDOWStTEMP1200UM(CPP Amendments-Totem Lake Urban Center)(3.1"3).doc 5212003 8:51 AM
-60-
KING COUNTY 12001Cing county Coudhmw
516 Third Avenue
. S
Signature Report eatde,WA 99104
May 209 2003
Ordinance 14656
Proposed No. 2003-0127.1 Sponsors Hague
1 AN ORDINANCE adopting amendments to the
2 Countywide Planning Policies addressing the long-term
3 protection of agricultural production districts;ratifying the
4 amended Countywide Planning Policies for unincorporated
5 King County; and amending Ordinance 10450,Section 3,
6 as amended,and K.C.C. 20.10.030 and Ordinance 10450,
7 Section 4,as amended,and K.C.C.20.10.040
8
9
10 BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF KING COUNTY:
11 SECTION 1. Findings. The council makes the following findings.
12 A. The metropolitan King County council adopted and ratified the Growth
13 Management Planning Council recommended King County 2012-Countywide Planning
14 Policies(Phase I)in July 1992, under Ordinance 10450.
15 B. The.metropolitan King County council adopted and ratified the Phase 11
16 amendments to the Countywide Planning Policies on August 15, 1994,under Ordinance
17 11446.
• 1
-61-
Ordinance 14656 ,
18 C. The Growth Management Planning Council met on June 16, 1999,and
i 19 adopted Motion 99-3,recommending amendments to the King County 2012-
20 Countywide Planning Policies addressing the long-term protection of agricultural
21 production districts;adopting new policies LU-2A and LU-2B,revising the interim
1
22 potential annexation area map so that the lower green river valley agricultural production
23 district is not within the potential annexation area of any city,and drawing the urban
24 growth area boundary around the lower green river valley agricultural production district
25 to clarify that it is outside of the urban growth area.
26 E. The King County Council adopted Motion 11208 on May 21,2001,requesting
27 that the GMPC review and reconsider its Motion'99-3 and provide for a thorough public
28 process,including opportunities for public testimony.
i29 D. The Growth Management Planning Council met on September 26,2001 and
'# 30 adopted Motion 01-2,reaffirming Motion 99-3.
j 31 SECTION 2. Ordinance 10450,Section 3,as amended,and K.C.C.20.10.030 are
i
32 each hereby amended to read as follows:
_ 33 Phase II.
34 A. The Phase II Amendments to the King County 2012 Countywide Planning
35 Policies attached to Ordinance 11446 are hereby approved and adopted.
36 B. The Phase 11 Amendments to the King County 2012-Countywide Planning
37 Policies are amended,as shown by Attachment 1 to Ordinance 12027.
38 C. The Phase H Amendments to the King County 2012-Countywide Planning
39 Policies are amended,as shown by Attachment 1 to Ordinance 12421.
2
-62-
Ordinance 14656
40 D. The Phase II Amendments to the King County 2012-Countywide Planning
41 Policies are amended, as shown by Attachment 1 and 2 to Ordinance 13260.
42 E. The Phase 11 Amendments to the King County 2012-Countywide Planning
43 Policies are amended,as shown by Attachment 1 through 4 to Ordinance-13415.
44
F. The Phase 11 Amendments to the King County 2012-Countywide Planning
45 Policies are amended,as shown by Attachments 1 through 3 to Ordinance 13858.
46 G. The Phase II Amendments to the King County 2012—Countywide Planning
47 Policies are amended,as shown by Attachment 1 to Ordinance 14390.
48 H. The Phase II Amendments to the King County 2012—Countywide Planning
49 Policies are amended,as shown by Attachment 1 to Ordinance 14391.
50 I. The Phase 11 Amendments to the King County 2012—Countywide Planning
51 Policies are amended,as shown by Attachment 1 to Ordinance 14392.
• 52 7. The Phase II Amendments to the King County 2012—Countvwjde Planning
53 Policies are amended, as shown by Attachments 1 and 2 to this ordinance
54 SECTION 3. Ordinance 10450,Section 4,as amended,and K.C.C.20.10.040 are
55 each hereby amended to read as follows:
56 Ratification for unincorporated King County.
.57 A. Countywide Planning Policies adopted by Ordinance 10450 for the purposes
58 specified are hereby ratified on behalf of the population of unincorporated King County.
59 B. The amendments to the Countywide Planning Policies adopted by Ordinance
60 10840 are hereby ratified on behalf of the population of unincorporated King County.
61 C. The amendments to the Countywide Planning Policies adopted by Ordinance
62 11061 are hereby ratified on behalf of the population of unincorporated King County.
•
3
-fi3-
Ordinance 14656
r
• 63 D. The Phase 11 amendments to the King County 2012 Countywide Planning
64 Policies adopted by Ordinance 11446 are hereby ratified on behalf of the population of
65 unincorporated King County.
66 E. The amendments to the King County 2012-Countywide Planning Policies,as
67 shown by Attachment 1 to Ordinance 12027 are hereby ratified on behalf of the
68 population of unincorporated King County.
69 F. The amendments to the King County 2012-Countywide Planning Policies, as
70 shown by Attachment l to Ordinance 12421,are hereby ratified on behalf of the
71 population of unincorporated King County.
72 G. The amendments to the King County 2012-Countywide Planning Policies,as
i
j 73 shown by Attachments 1 and 2 to Ordinance 13260,are hereby ratified on behalf of the
74 population of unincorporated King County.
75 H. The amendments to the King County 2012-Countywide Planning Policies,as
76 shown by Attachment 1 through 4 to Ordinance 13415,are hereby ratified on behalf of
I
77 the population of unincorporated King County.
78 I. The amendments to the King County 2012-Countywide Planning Policies,as
79 shown by.Attachments 1 through 3 to Ordinance 13858,are hereby ratified on behalf of
80 the population of unincorporated King County.
81 J. The amendments to the King County 2012-Countywide Planning Policies,as
82 shown by Attachment 1 to Ordinance 14390,are hereby ratified on behalf of the
83 population of unincorporated King County.
i
4
i
-64-
Ordinance 14656
84 K. The amendments to the King County 2012-Countywide Planning policies,as
85 shown by Attachment 1 to Ordinance 14391,are hereby ratified on behalf of the
86 population of unincorporated King County.
87 L The amendments tb the King County 2012-Countywide Planning Policies,as
88 shown by Attachment 1 to Ordinance 14392,are hereby ratified on behalf of the
89 population of unincorporated King County.
90 M. The amendments to the King County 2012.-Countywide Planning Policies as
i
I
r
5
-65-
Ordinance 14656 ,
91 shown by Attachments 1 and 2 to this ordinance,are hereby ratified on behalf of the
92 emulation of unincgMmted King County.
93
Ordinance 14656 was introduced on 3/17/2003 and passed by the Metropolitan King
County Council on 5/19/2003,by the following vote:
Yes: 12-Ms.Sullivan,Ms.Edmonds,Mr.von Reichbauer,Ms.Lambert,Mr.
Phillips,Mr.Pelz,Mr.McKenna,Mr.Constantine,Mr.Gossett,Ms.Hague,
Mr.Irons and Ms.Patterson
No:0
Excused: 0
KING COUNTY COUNCIL
KING COUNTY,WASIENGTON
•v: cp
. Cynthia Sullivan Chair w
ATTEST:
Awe Noris,Clerk of the Council
r t1
APPROVED this day of .2003.
Ron ,County Executi
Attachments 1.GMPC Motion 99-3,2.GMPC Motion 01-2
•
6
-66-
• Attachment 2
2003-0127
14656
September 26,2001
Sponsored By: Executive Committee
/pr
I 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 L-U-2A Designated Agricultural Production District lands shall not be annexed by
28 cities.
29
30 LU-2B 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.
-67-
14656
1
2 In the event that this motion is ratified by the member jurisdictions of Growth Management
3 Planning Council,then the Interim Potential Annexation Area Map shall be revised
4 accordingly and the Urban Growth Boundary will be drawn around the Lower Green
5 Agricultural Production District (APD)to clarify that the APD is outside of the Urban area.
6
7 ADOPTED by the Growth Management Planning Council of King County on September 26,2001
8 in open session.
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16 Ron 1ms, ,Growth Management Planning Council
17
•
11GMPC/2001GMPCJMo6on01-2Aw - 2 -
-68-
• O
Metropolitan King County Council
Growth Management and Unincorporated Areas Committee
Staff Report
Agenda Item: 10 Name: Lauren Smith
Proposed Ordinance: 2003-0127 Date: March 18, 2003
Attending: Paul Reitenbach, King County DDES
Kevin Wright, King County PAO
SUBJECT:
Proposed Ordinance 2003-0127 adopts amendments to the Countywide Planning Policies
addressing the long term protection of Agricultural Production Districts, and ratifies the
amended Countywide Planning Policies on behalf of the population of unincorporated King
County.
BACKGROUND:
The Growth Management Planning Council (GMPC) is a formal body comprised of elected
officials from King County, Seattle, Bellevue, the Suburban Cities, and Special Districts. The
• GMPC was created in 1990 in response to a provision in the Washington State Growth
Management Act (GMA) requiring cities and counties to work together to adopt Countywide
Planning Policies (CPPs). Under GMA, countywide planning policies serve as the framework
for each individual jurisdiction's comprehensive plan, and ensure regional consistency with
respect to land use planning efforts. The GMPC drafted the CPPs, which were then adopted by
the King County Council and ratified by the cities. Changes to the CPPs are recommended by
the GMPC, adopted by the King County Council, and ratified by the cities.
GMPC Actions
In June of 1999, the GMPC adopted Substitute Motion 99-3, recommending amendments to the
King County Countywide Planning Policies, as follows:
Recommendation #1. Add two new policies addressing the long-term governance of
Agricultural Production Districts:
LU-2A Designated Agricultural Production Districts shall not be annexed by cities.
LU-26 The Lower Green River Valley Agricultural Production District is a regionally
designated resource that is to remain in unincorporated King County. Preservation of
the Lower Green River Valley Agricultural Production District will provide an urban
separator as surrounding urban areas are annexed and developed. King County may
contract with other jurisdictions to provide some local services to this area as
appropriate.
•
CAVANDOW3lTEM1312003-0127(CPP Amendments-Lower Green River Valley APD)(3-18.03).dw 512W003 8:51 AM
-69-
Recommendation #2. Amend the Potential Annexation Area (PAA) Map in the CPPs so that
• the Lower Green River Valley APD does not appear within the PAA boundaries of any
jurisdiction.
Recommendation #3. Amend the Urban Growth Area map by drawing the Urban Growth Area
Boundary around the Lower Green River Valley APD. This is to clarify its classification as long-
term resource land, and to emphasize that although it is located west of the main urban-rural
boundary line, it is not considered urban.
King County Council Actions
In 1999, the King County Council amended the King County Comprehensive Plan to be
consistent with the GMPC recommendations contained in Motion 99-3, by adopting policies R-
513 and R-544(see below), and by drawing the Urban Growth Area Boundary around the
Lower Green River Valley APD (see Attachment 2).
R-513 Designated Forest and Agricultural Production District lands shall not be annexed by
cities.
R-544 The Lower Green River Agricultural Production District is a regionally designated
resource that is to remain in unincorporated King County. The Lower Green River
Agricultural Production District functions as an urban separator between the cities of
Kent and Aubum. King County may contract with other jurisdictions to provide some
local services to this area as appropriate.
In 2000, the King County Council further amended the King County Comprehensive Plan by
adopting Policy R-543, which also supports the GMPC's recommendations in Motion 99-3:
R-543 King County commits to preserve Agricultural Production District parcels in or near
the Urban Growth Area because of their high production capabilities, their proximity
to markets, and their value as open space.
Finally, in 2001 the King County Council considered the adoption of Proposed Ordinance 2002-
0256, which would have amended the CPPs consistent with the recommendations of the
GMPC and with the changes already made to the King County Comprehensive Plan. However,
because the County was engaged in negotiations to purchase certain properties within the
Lower Green River Valley APD, and out of concerns that the GMPC had adopted their
recommendations in the absence of a quorum and without an adequate public review process,
the Council did not adopt the Proposed Ordinance. Instead, the Council adopted Motion 11208
(see Attachment 3), which remanded the GMPC motion back to the GMPC for further review
and reconsideration. Motion 11208 also directed the County Executive to complete
negotiations with property owners in the Lower Green River Valley APD in the earliest possible
timeframe.
On September 26, 2001 the GMPC reconsidered its actions with respect to Motion 99-3, and
via the adoption of Motion 01-2, reaffirmed those actions.
On November 20, 2002 King County executed the fee simple purchase of what is known as the
• Nelson property in the Lower Green River Valley APD, thus fulfilling the second mandate of
Motion 11208.
C:\WIND0WS\TEMP12003-0127(CPP Amendments•Lower Green RKw Valley APD)(3-18-03).dm 5212003 8:51 AM
-70
• With these two actions complete, the King County Council is asked to consider once again
amending the Countywide Planning Policies as recommended by the GMPC in Motions 99-3
and 01-2.
SUMMARY:
Proposed Ordinance 2003-0127 would amend the Countywide Planning Policies by:
♦ Adding policies LU-2A and LU-213 addressing the long-term governance of Agricultural
Production Districts;
♦ Amending the Interim Potential Annexation Area Map to illustrate that the Lower Green
River Valley APD is not within the PAA of any jurisdiction; and
♦ Amending the land use map in the CPPs to illustrate that the Lower Green River Valley APD
is outside the boundaries of the Urban Growth Area.
Additionally, the ordinance would ratify the changes on behalf of the population of
unincorporated King County, as required by Countywide Planning Policy FW-1. Amendments
to the Countywide Planning Policies become effective when ratified by ordinance or resolution
by at least 30% of the city and county governments representing 70% of the population of King
County according to the Interlocal agreement. A city shall be deemed to have ratified the
countywide planning policy unless, within 90 days of adoption by King County, the city by
legislative action disapproves the Countywide Planning Policy.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Proposed Ordinance 2003-0127, with attachments
• 2. Map: Lower Green River Valley Agricultural Production District
3. King County Motion 11208, Adopted May 21, 2000
C:IWINDDWS%TEMP%200"lZT(CPP Amendments-Lower Green War Valley APDH3.18-03).d= 521/2803 8:51 AM
-71—
i
Urban Sub-Areas
N y �8m on 111=0 "Ue r+•s c•••„
part
Shoreline enmere Dlrvall
/ l 1
Seattle o 1
R 3 Kirkland Redmond
� 1
SEA 1 matron Rural
1 Area
Bellevue '
E A ' T
S�mmamise /
1
`Meu
Issaeaa� /
aeyj�(/�I�1� / S
1.} /
Ln "s"u.. 1 / // on
Non
Hill' � � / en
i ' t RURAL,"
Rural "°'"'; CITIES
Area H °. I
1
\ I Rural
Area
1
1
SOUTH MIulEl 1
r
E��F'<EtsTslsutFA �
F!Bira ckm
En
\ jPA Urban Growth BMW"
01111'111UNW01i'llW9111
Ftic
�� 1 .r. I._IJ J adrllM. i I_ r i o➢s.v wu w: ffi —7ww e
- n [rr.:i r :_y;. - �kffi s I.�°'°wI�'1+1 K. I,1LIT Iffi ) I gI I kl Iffi
>7< l l i I � I �L L__.._l _ sr«v wool 'M, app� I
Sr 7a z �wwl - ffi — .iyy�',1,',I wm All .�. �
I, •MN C F'OKlrq� --1C961�SE -. � �' X � II M� 1
11 ii
Z yB
�
cc x---
t. 0 79 f i, I I l Qr I-
-------
I
1 1T_
,mom""" - —
114
n v3a1Wtl�y a pp Iy
O f Sb
£ i I NAME
I
l I o I I1.4
I1'
�f� = l
Ijl � g •$€; � i�..uvl�l T I I...._- -- °a' ,.,� rr,,,,w.«B^ ,. P B I � .ICY.
�j
I i !
21V t Mwt
i 4 I
"a
It
r BF�SII it I wJj
"•o las
� I � f
wlila' ll
ffi.II ,i f
Iagg""III II I „ w+Wr�ro
nrl'til
�.
wa; It
�rB7 µa�'I
� I#I l ' .
r 1 - IJ
a 1
qri s -n I 1 1 ffi r II II t 1 �,
I NwP.a1Mtl w w - 4 I-i I� I 11I / �� l _
a I 1 1 _ u ."I I I J
1 .. I - Mrat^BMB I' _ MrNVa / m- -BW ww -'-MNKS F-
' ` My aI NI Nwa•�aga"MNB [ir 1 i�r�iF i ', s r'Posi � I � � % _� I _. _ L_— 7 1_— I
as, 11177
svrwu I
;_� ffi 3 � ' II IIrr ffiy y1M1� I MNKa --1
YJ �.
3
Kill
_ I I
snaer
la1115
N�yffd lal BB
-------------
e I I 1:
!III 3I,r 1JWall-
It
!
--t
r r
aM
,I — 0 Saw wis
01
r'°N *M
SHPCI ;
lid
Fw
1
RQIaM sMvnlB
j �;I' Ll(
II P I I a ' _ LsasTl�tS ---
-
I i '
Ps 'ffi i III '.1 r -v ---1 i. wswww ""swwBr ffiI awrw»_ s ;a c A. .
�..8 a _
.-{ rl 1i°'we 1+p�t5 I
r.I Tr �t�' bl. i I I$I � 8., T ffi $ swm" a .
I I f'S`rirlla w sMra�si - ffi B
-73—
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Fred N. Satterstrom, AICP, Director
PLANNING SERVICES
KEN T Charlene Anderson,AICP,Manager
W A s H I N o T o N Phone:253-656-5454
Fax: 253-656-6454
Address: 220 Fourth Avenue S.
Kent, WA 98032-5895
DATE:JULY 8, 2003
TO: CHAIR LEONA ORR AND PLANNING COMMITTEE MEMBERS
FROM: FRED N. SATTERSTROM,AICP, COM.DEV. DIRECTOR
THROUGH: MAYOR JIM WHITE
SUBJECT: ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES FOR CODE AMENDMENTS
SUMMARY: At the Planning Committee's June 17, 2003 meeting, staff agreed to come back with preliminary
administrative procedures for allowing citizen-initiated code amendment proposals on a "docketing" format.
This followed a two-month discussion by the Committee of opening up additional avenues for citizens to
petition for changes in City zoning regulations. The docketing format was suggested by staff as a way of
increasing the public's ability to influence changes in regulations (at no cost to the citizen) without disrupting
the normal work program of the Department.
BUDGET IMPACT: None
MOTION: None required(For Information Only)
BACKGROUND: At the request of Councilman Bruce White, staff and Planning Committee have been
exploring ways in which the public, at little or no cost, may petition for changes to City zoning regulations. A
formal application process presently exists by ordinance,but there is a fee associated with the application which
some believe inhibits the public's desire to seek code modifications. While the Committee seemed to favor
opening up the regulatory review process, it did not want to create a monster for the staff in terms of workload.
Therefore, the option of creating a docketing process—whereby the public may suggest code amendments at no
fee, and where priority amendments are blended into the Department's annual work program— seemed to be a
good compromise. The Committee requested the staff to come back and review the proposed administrative
procedures which would implement this strategy.
Therefore, the following procedures would be implemented by the Community Development Department in
order to implement the docketing process for zoning code amendments:
• A docketing form for a proposed zoning code amendment will be created by the Community
Development Department. This form will be different from the present regulatory review application.
There will be no fee.
• The docketing form will be submitted to the Planning Services Division for routing and internal
comment.
• An official docketing list will be maintained by the Planning Services Division.
• The official docketing list will be presented to the Planning Committee on an annual basis in March.
The role of the Planning Committee will be to review and prioritize the docketed amendments.
• Proposed amendments which receive high priority rankings will be absorbed into the annual work
program of the Planning Services Division.
• High priority amendments will be reviewed by the Planning Services Division and brought before the
Land Use&Planning Board for consideration and public hearings. The Board's recommendations will
be brought before the City Council for consideration and final decision.
FS\pm P:\Planning\ADMINIplanningcommittee.doc
cc: Charlene Anderson,AICP,Planning Manager
Project File
Planning Committee Agenda
Councilmembers: Tim Clark.Bruce White.Leona Orr, Chair
ZKENO
WAS HIN GTGN July 15, 2003
Item Description Action Speaker Time Page
1. Approval of Minutes dated June 17, 2003 YES 1
2. Countywide Planning Policies-Amendments
King County Council Ordinances YES Charlene Anderson 15 min 3
3. Administrative Procedures for Code Amendments NO Fred Satterstrom 15 min 73
Unless otherwise noted,the Planning Conunittee meets at 3:00 p.m. on the 3`d Tuesday of each month.
Council Chambers East,Kent City Hall,220 4th Avenue South,Kent,98032-5895.
For information please contact Planning Services at(253)856-5454.
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.
-3-
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: JULY 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
KING COUNTY COUNCIL ORDINANCES
SUMMARY: At your April 8"' meeting, staff presented motions passed by the Growth
Management Planning Council (GMPC) to amend the Countywide Planning Policies. 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. On
May 19th, the King County Council approved and ratified seven amendments that had been
approved by the GMPC and now these amendments are presented to jurisdictions in King
County for ratification.
BUDGET IMPACT: None
MOTION: I move to recommend/not recommend ratification of the seven amendments to the
Countywide Planning Policies approved by the GMPC under Motions 01-2 and 02-1 through 02-
6 and to direct the City Attorney to prepare the necessary resolution to be considered on the
Consent Calendar at the August 5t" City Council meeting.
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. Over
the years, the City has ratified other proposed amendments. 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.
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.
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 subsequently were approved and ratified by
•
-4-
7/15/03 Planning Committee
Countywide Planning Policies—Amendments
Growth Management Planning Council Motions
Staff Report
Page 2
the full County Council on May 19`h. The 90-day deadline for legislative action on these
proposed amendments is August 19, 2003.
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. 024: 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.
CA\pm:S:1Permit\Plan\CompPlanAmdments\20031cpppc2.doc
Enc: May 30,2003 letter from King County Council including Ordinances 14652 through 14656
cc: Fred N. Satterstrom,AICP,C.D Director
Charlene Anderson,Planning Manager
Project File
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Fred N. Satterstrom, AICP, Director
• PLANNING SERVICES
KEN T Charlene Anderson,AICP, Manager
WASHINGTON
Phone: 253-856-5454
Fax: 253-856-6454
Address: 220 Fourth Avenue S.
Kent, WA 98032-5895
DATE: JULY 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
KING COUNTY COUNCIL ORDINANCES
SUMMARY: At your April 8tr, meeting, staff presented motions passed by the Growth
Management Planning Council (GMPC) to amend the Countywide Planning Policies. 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. On
May 19th, the King County Council approved and ratified seven amendments that had been
approved by the GMPC and now these amendments are presented to jurisdictions in King
County for ratification.
BUDGET IMPACT: None
MOTION: I move to recommend/not recommend ratification of the seven amendments to the
Countywide Planning Policies approved by the GMPC under Motions 01-2 and 02-1 through 02-
6 and to direct the City Attorney to prepare the necessary resolution to be considered on the
Consent Calendar at the August 5tn City Council meeting.
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. Over
the years, the City has ratified other proposed amendments. 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.
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.
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 subsequently were approved and ratified by
7/15/03 Planning Committee
Countywide Planning Policies—Amendments
Growth Management Planning Council Motions
Staff Report
Page 2
the full County Council on May 19`h. The 90-day deadline for legislative action on these
proposed amendments is August 19, 2003.
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. 024: 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.
CA1pm:S:\Permit\PlanlCompPlanAmdments120031cpppc2.doe
Enc: May 30,2003 letter from King County Council including Ordinances 14652 through 14656
cc: Fred N. Satterstrom,AICP,C.D Director
Charlene Anderson,Planning Manager
Project File
-5-
_.. JUN 10 2003
King County
May 30, 2003
The Honorable Jim White
Mayor,City of Kent
220 - 4th Avenue South
Kent, WA 98032
Dear Mayor White:
We are pleased to forward for your consideration and ratification the enclosed amendments to
the King County Countywide Planning Policies(CPPs).
On May 19, 2003,the King County Council approved and also ratified seven amendments on
behalf of unincorporated King County. Please note that the amendments approved by the
Growth Management Planning Council for the growth targets, and the household and job
target tables,were combined into one ordinance, 2003-0124. Copies of King County Council
Staff Reports, County Ordinances, and Growth Management Planning Council Motions are
enclosed to assist you in your review of these amendments.
• Ordinance 2003-0123 (GMPC Motion 02-4) adopting amendments to the Countywide
Planning Policies; adding a new policy to support ongoing water supply planning and
development;ratifying the amended Countywide Planning Policies on behalf of the
population of unincorporated King County.
• Ordinance 2003-0124(GMPC Motions 02-1, 02-2 and 02-3) adopting amendments to the
Countywide Planning Policies; adopting new household and employment targets for the
period 2001 through 2022; ratifying the amended Countywide Planning Policies on behalf
of the population of unincorporated King County.
• Ordinance 2003-0125 (GMPC Motion 02-5)adopting amendments to the Countywide
Planning Policies; amending the Urban Separator map to reflect negotiated modifications
to the Renton Urban Separator;ratifying the amended Countywide Planning Policies on
behalf of the population of unincorporated King County.
• Ordinance 2003-0126 (GMPC Motion 02-6)adopting amendments to the Countywide
Planning Policies; designating Totem Lake as an Urban Center; ratifying the amended
Countywide Planning Policies on behalf of the population of unincorporated King County.
• Ordinance 2003-0127 (GMPC Motion 01-2) adopts amendments to the Countywide
Planning Policies addressing the long-term protection of Agricultural Production Districts,
and ratifies the amended Countywide Planning Policies on behalf of the population of
unincorporated King County.
-6-
The Honorable Jim White
May 30, 2003
Page 2
In accordance with the Countywide Planning Policies, FW-1 Step 9, amendments become
effective when ratified by ordinance or resolution by at least 30 percent of the city and county
governments representing 70 percent of the population of King County according to the
Interlocal agreement. A city will be deemed to have ratified the amendments to the
Countywide Planning Policies unless,within 90 days of adoption by King County,the city
takes legislative action to disapprove the amendments. Please note that the 90-day deadline
for these proposed amendments is August 19, 2003. If you have questions about the
amendments or the ratification process,please contact Paul Reitenbach, Senior Policy
Analyst, King County Department of Development and Environmental Services, at
206-296-6705 or Lauren Smith, Legislative Analyst, King County Council, at 206-296-0352.
If you adopt any legislation relative to this action,please submit by close of business,
August 19,2003, one copy of the legislation to Paul Reitenbach, Senior Policy Analyst,
King County Department of Development and Environmental Science, 900 Oakesdale
Avenue Southwest, Renton, WA 98055-1219.
Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter.
Sincerely,
Cynthia Sullivan, Chair tms
King County Council King County Executive
Enclosures
cc: Lauren Smith, Legislative Analyst, King County Council
Stephanie Warden, Director, Department of Development and Environmental
Services (DDES)
Paul Reitenbach, Senior Policy Analyst, DDES
•
KING COUNTY 1200 King County Courthouse
516 Tivrd Avenue'
- Sea[Ik,WA9g104
Signature Report
May 1% 2003
Ordinance 14652
Proposed No. 2003-0123.1 Sponsors Hague
1 AN ORDINANCE adopting amendments to the
2 Countywide Planning Policies;adding a new policy to
3 support ongoing water supply planning and development;
4 ratifying the amended Countywide Planning Policies for
5 unincorporated King County;and amending Ordinance
6 10450,Section 3,as amended,and K.C.C. 20.10.030 and
7 Ordinance 10450,Section 4, as amended, and K.C.C.
• 8 20.10.040.
9
10
11 BE 1T ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF KING COUNTY:
12 SECTION 1. Findings. The council makes the following findings.
13 A. The metropolitan King County council adopted and ratified the Growth
14 Management Planning Council recommended King County 2012-Countywide Planning
15 Policies(Phase I)in July 1992,under Ordinance 10450.
1
Ordinance 14652
16 B. The metropolitan King County council adopted and ratified the Phase 11
17 amendments to the Countywide Planning Policies on August 15, 1994,under Ordinance
18 11446.
19 C. The Growth Management Planning Council met on September 25,2002 and
` 20 voted to recommend amendments to the King County 2012-Countywide Planning
21 Policies, adding a new policy to support ongoing water supply planning and
22 development.
23 SECTION 2. Ordinance 10450,Section 3,as amended,and K.C.C.20.10.030 are
24 each hereby amended to read as follows:
25 Phase II.
i26 A. The Phase H Amendments to the King County 2012 Countywide Planning
27 Policies attached to Ordinance 1.1446 are hereby approved and adopted.
28 B. The Phase lI Amendments to the King County 2012-Countywide Planning
29 Policies are amended, as shown by Attachment 1 to Ordinance 12027.
30 C. The Phase H Amendments to the King County 2012-Countywide Planning
31 Policies are amended, as shown by Attachment 1 to Ordinance 12421.
i
i 32 D. The Phase H Amendments to the King County 2012-Countywide Planning
33 Policies are amended,as shown by Attachment 1 and 2 to Ordinance 13260.
34 E. The Phase H Amendments to the King County 2012-Countywide Planning
35 Policies are amended,as shown by Attachment 1 through 4 to Ordinance 13415.
36 F. The Phase H Amendments to the King County 2012-Countywide Planning
37 Policies are amended,as shown by Attachments 1 through 3 to Ordinance.13858.
2
-9=
Ordinance 14652
38 G. The Phase II Amendments to the King County 2012—Countywide Planning
39 Policies are amended,as shown by Attachment 1 to Ordinance 14390.
40 H. The Phase 11 Amendments to the King County 2012—Countywide Planning
41 Policies are amended,as shown by Attachment 1 to Ordinance 14391.
42 I. The Phase 11 Amendments to the King County 2012—Countywide Planning
43 Policies are amended,as shown by Attachment 1 to Ordinance 14392.
44 J. The Phase 11 Amendments to the King County 2012—Countywide Planning
45 Policies are amended,as shown by Attachment 1 to this ordinance.
46 SECTION 3. Ordinance 10450,Section 4,as amended, and K.C.C.20.10.040 are
i
47 each hereby amended to read as follows:
48 Ratification for unincorporated King County.
49 A. Countywide Planning Policies adopted by Ordinance 10450 for the purposes
50 specified are hereby ratified on behalf of the population of unincorporated King County.
51 B. The amendments to the Countywide Planning Policies adopted by Ordinance
52 10840 are hereby ratified on behalf of the population of unincorporated King County.
53 C. The amendments to the Countywide Planning Policies adopted by Ordinance
54 11061 are hereby ratified on behalf of the population of unincorporated King County.
55 D. The Phase It amendments to the King County 2012 Countywide Planning
56 Policies adopted by Ordinance 11446 are hereby ratified on behalf of the population of
57 unincorporated King County.
58. E. The amendments to the King County 2012-Countywide Planning Policies,as
59 shown by Attachment 1 to Ordinance 12027 are hereby ratified on behalf of the
60 population of unincorporated King County.
3
-10=
Ordinance 14652
61 F. The amendments to the King County 2012-Countywide Planning Policies,as
62 shown by Attachment 1 to Ordinance 12421,are hereby ratified on behalf of the
I 63 population of unincorporated King County.
64 G. The amendments to the King County 2012-Countywide Planning Policies,as
65 shown by Attachments I and 2 to Ordinance 13260, are hereby ratified on behalf of the
66 population of unincorporated King County.
i
67 H. The amendments to the King County 2012-Countywide PIanning Policies,as
I
68 shown by Attachment I through 4 to Ordinance 13415,are hereby ratified on behalf of
69 the population of unincorporated King County.
70 I. The amendments to the King County 2012-Countywide Planning Policies,as
71 shown by Attachments 1 through 3 to Ordinance 13858,are hereby ratified on behalf of
72 the population of unincorporated King County.
j� 73 J. The amendments to the King County 2012-Countywide Planning Policies,as
i
74 shown by Attachment I to Ordinance 14390,are hereby ratified on behalf of the
75 population of unincorporated King County.
76 K. The amendments to the King County 2012-Countywide Planning Policies,as
77 shown by Attachment 1 to Ordinance 14391,are hereby ratified on behalf of the
i
78 population of unincorporated King County.
79 L. The amendments to the King County 2012-Countywide Planning Policies,as
80 shown by Attachment 1 to Ordinance 14392,are hereby ratified on behalf of the
i
81 population of unincorporated King County.
4
Ordinance 14652
82 M. The amendments to the King County 2012-Countywide Planning Policies.as
83 shown by Attachment 1 to this ordinance,are hereby ratified on behalf of the population
84 of unincorporated King County.
i
85
Ordinance 14652 was introduced on 3/17/2003 and passed by the Metropolitan King
County Council on 5/19/2003,by the following vote:
Yes: 12-Ms.Sullivan,Ms.Edmonds,Mr.von Reichbauer,Ms.Lambert,Mr.
Phillips,Mr.Pelz,Mr.McKenna,Mr.Constantine,Mr.Gossett,Ms.Hague,
Mr.Irons and Ms. Patterson
No: 0
Excused:0
i
KING COUNTY COUNCIL
KING COUNTY,WASUNGTON
/ _
ynthia Sullivan,Chair o
ATTEST:
j l
O rt1
Anne Noris,Clerk of the Council a
� N
APPROVED this day of ,2003.
Son; my Exec ve
Attachments . Attachment 1.GMPC Motion 02-4
5
-12-
Attachment 1 - 2003-0123
14652
September 25,2002
Sponsored By: Executive Committee
1 /cm
1 MOTION NO. 024
2 A MOTION by the Growth Management Planning Council of King
3 County recommending the amendment of the Countywide PIanning
4 Policies adding a new policy to support ongoing water supply
5 planning and development.
1 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.
i 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 powth 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 suppjl planning efforts
29 in the Region must be ongoing:
30
31
32
33
-13-
14652
t
2 ADOPTED by the Growth Management Planning Council of King County on
3 September 25, 2002 in open session.
4
5
6
7
8
9
10 Ron Sims,Chair,Growth Management Planning Council
LGMPG02GMPCJMoi02d.dac - 2 -
-14-
Metropolitan King County Council
Growth Management and Unincorporated Areas Committee
Staff Report
Agenda Item: 6 Name: Lauren Smith
Proposed Ordinance: 2003-0123 Date: March 18, 2003
Attending: Paul Reitenbach, King County DDES
Kevin Wright, King County PAO
SUBJECT:
Proposed Ordinance 2003-0123 adopting amendments to the Countywide Planning Policies;
adding a new policy to support ongoing water supply planning and development; ratifying the
amended Countywide Planning Policies on behalf of the population of unincorporated King
County.
BACKGROUND:
The Growth Management Planning Council (GMPC) is a formal body comprised of elected
officials from King County, Seattle, Bellevue, the Suburban Cities, and Special Districts. The
GMPC was created in 1990 in response to a provision in the Washington State Growth
Management Act (GMA) requiring cities and counties to work together to adopt Countywide
Planning Policies (CPPs). Under GMA, countywide planning policies serve as the framework
for each individual jurisdiction's comprehensive plan, and ensure regional consistency with
respect to land use planning efforts. The GMPC drafted the CPPs, which were then adopted by
the King County Council and ratified by the cities. Changes to the CPPs are recommended by
the GMPC, adopted by the King County Council, and ratified by the cities.
GMPC Actions
On September 25, 2002 the GMPC adopted Motion 02-4 recommending the adoption of a new
policy (FW12c) related to water supply planning and development. The issue of regional water
supply was raised during discussions related to the adoption of new household and
employment targets for the region, and was offered in the spirit of ensuring ongoing
infrastructure planning efforts. The proposed new policy is consistent with existing policy
direction in the CPPs related to water supply planning (Policy CO-5).
FW-12c Ensuring sufficient water supply is essential to accommodate growth and
conserve fish habitat. Due to the substantial lead-time required to develop water
supply sources, infrastructure and management strategies, long-term water
supply planning efforts in the Region must be ongoing.
SUMMARY:
Proposed Ordinance 2003-0123 would amend the Countywide Planning Policies by:
♦ Adding a new policy, FW-12c in support of an ongoing discussion related to long-term
water supply planning.
C:IWINDOWMTEMP0003-0123)CPP Amendments-Waler Supply Planningx3.18-03).dw 51210003 8:50 AM
-15-
Additionally, the ordinance would ratify this change on behalf of the population of
unincorporated King County, as required by Countywide Planning Policy FW-1, Step 9.
Amendments to the Countywide Planning Policies become effective when ratified by ordinance
or resolution by at least 30% of the city and county governments representing 70% of the
population of King County according to the Interlocal agreement. A city shall be deemed to
have ratified the countywide planning policy unless, within 90 days of adoption by King County,
the city by legislative action disapproves the Countywide Planning Policy.
POLICY DIRECTION
Countywide Planning Policies
CO-5 Water supply shall be regionally coordinated to provide a reliable economic source of
water and to provide mutual aid to and between all agecnies and purveyors. THe region
should work toward a mechanism to address the long-term regional water demand
needs of all agencies and water purveyors.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Proposed Ordinance 2003-0123, with attachments
C:%WIND0WSITEMP12M3.0123(CPPAm ndm is-Water Supply PWnning)(3.184)3).doc 5/212003 8:50AM
-16-�
KING COUNTY 1200 ring county coaftouse
516 Third Avenue
• � Seattle.WA 98104
Signature Report
May 19, 2003
Ordinance 14653
Proposed No. 2003-0124.1 Sponsors Hague
1 AN ORDINANCE adopting amendments to the
2 Countywide Planning Policies;adopting new household
3 and employment targets for the period 2001 through 2022;
4 revising existing policies and adding new policies in
5 support of the new targets;ratifying the amended
6 Countywide Planning Policies for unincorporated King'
7 County; and amending Ordinance 10450,Section 3,as
8 amended,and K.C.C. 20.10.030 and Ordinance 10450,
9 Section 4, as amended, and K.C.C.20.10.040
10
11
12 BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF KING COUNTY:
13 SECTION 1. Findings. The council makes the following findings. .
14 A. The metropolitan King County council adopted and ratified the Growth
15 Management Planning Council recommended King County 2012-Countywide Planning
16 Policies(Phase I)in July 1992, under Ordinance 10450.
1
-17-
Ordinance 14653
17 B. The metropolitan King County council adopted and ratified the Phase II
18 amendments to the Countywide Planning Policies on August 15, 1994,under Ordinance
19 11446.
20 C. The Growth Management Planning Council met on July 24,2002 and voted to
21 recommend amendments to the King County 2012-Countywide Planning Policies,
22 revising existing policies and adding new policies to support extending household and
23 employment targets for the period 2001 through 2022.
24 D. The Growth Management Planning Council met,on September 25,2002 and
25 voted to recommend amendments to the King County 2012-Countywide Planning
26 Policies,adopting new household and employment targets for the period 2001-2022.
27 SECTION 2. Ordinance 10450,Section 3,as amended,and K.C.C.20.10.030 are
28 each hereby amended to read as follows:
29 Phase II.
30 A. The Phase II Amendments to the King County 2012 Countywide Planning
31 Policies attached to Ordinance 11446 are hereby approved and adopted.
32 B. The Phase II Amendments to the King County 2012-Countywide Planning
33 Policies are amended,as shown by Attachment 1 to Ordinance 12027.
34 C. The Phase H Amendments to the King County 2012-Countywide Planning
35 Policies are amended,as shown by Attachment 1 to Ordinance 12421.
36 D. The Phase 11 Amendments to the King County 2012-Countywide Planning
37 Policies are amended,as shown by Attachment 1 and 2 to Ordinance 13260.
38 E. The Phase 11 Amendments to the King County 2012-Countywide Planning
39 Policies are amended,as shown by Attachment 1 through 4 to Ordinance 13415.
2
-18-
Ordinance 14653
j
{ 40 F. The Phase H Amendments to the King County 2012-Countywide Planning
41 Policies are amended,as shown by Attachments 1 through 3 to Ordinance 13858.
42 G. The Phase 11 Amendments to the King County 2012—Countywide Planning
43 Policies are amended,as shown by Attachment i to Ordinance 14390..
44 H. The Phase II Amendments to the King County 2012—Countywide Planning
45 Policies are amended,as shown by Attachment l to Ordinance 14391.
46 I. The Phase II Amendments to the King County 2012-Countywide Planning
47 Policies are amended,as shown by Attachment i to Ordinance 14392.
48 J. The Phase II Amendments to the King County 2012-Countywide Planning
49 Policies are amended,as shown by Attachments 1 through 3 to this ordinance.
50 SECTION 3. Ordinance 10450,Section 4,as amended,and K.C.C. 20.10.040 are
51 each hereby amended to read as follows:
52 Ratification for unincorporated King County.
53 A. Countywide Planning Policies adopted by Ordinance 10450 for the purposes
54 specified are hereby ratified on behalf of the population of unincorporated King County.
55' B. The amendments to the Countywide Planning Policies adopted by Ordinance
56 10840 are hereby ratified on behalf of the population of unincorporated King County.
57 C. The amendments to the Countywide Planning Policies adopted by Ordinance
.58 11061 are hereby ratified on behalf of the population of unincorporated)King County.
59 D. The Phase 11 amendments to the King County 2012 Countywide Planning
60 Policies adopted by Ordinance 11446 are hereby ratified on behalf of the population of
61 unincorporated King County.
3
-19=
Ordinance 14653
I 62 E. The amendments to the King County 2012-Countywide Planning Policies,as
63 shown by Attachment 1 to Ordinance 12027 are hereby ratified on behalf of the
64 population of unincorporated King County.
f
65 F. The amendments to the King County 2012-Countywide Planning Policies,as
I
66 shown by Attachment 1 to Ordinance 12421,are hereby ratified on behalf of the
67 population of unincorporated King County.
68 G. The amendments to the King County 2012-Countywide Planning Policies,as
69 shown by Attachments 1 and 2 to Ordinance 13260,.are hereby ratified on behalf of the
j
j 70 population of unincorporated King County.
71 H. The amendments to the King County 2012-Countywide Planning Policies,as
72 shown by Attachment 1 through 4 to Ordinance 13415,are hereby ratified on behalf of
73 the population of unincorporated Ding County.
74 I. The amendments to the King County 2012-Countywide Planning Policies,as
75 shown by Attachments 1 through 3 to Ordinance 13858,are hereby ratified on behalf of
76 the population of unincorporated King County.
77 1 The amendments to the Ring County 2012-Countywide Planning Policies,as
78 shown by Attachment 1 to Ordinance 14390,are hereby ratified on behalf of the
79 population of unincorporated King County.
80 K. The amendments to the King County 2012-Countywide Planning Policies,as
81 shown by Attachment 1 to Ordinance 14391,are hereby ratified on behalf of the
82 population of unincorporated King County.
4
-20-
Ordinance 14653
83 L. The amendments to the King County 2012-Countywide Planning Policies,as
i84 shown by Attachment I to Ordinance 14392,are hereby ratified on behalf of the
! 85 population of unincorporated King County.
86 M. The amendments to the King County 2012-Countywide PlannipZ Policies as
87 shown by Attachments 1 through 3 to this ordinance, are hereby ratified on behalf of the
88 population of unincorporated King County.
89
Ordinance 14653 was introduced on 3/17/2003 and passed by the Metropolitan King
County Council on 5/19/2003,by the following vote:
Yes: 12-Ms.Sullivan,Ms.Edmonds,Mr.von Reichbauer,Ms.Lambert,Mr.
Phillips,Mr.Pelz,Mr.McKenna,Mr.Constantine,Mr.Gossett,Ms.Hague,
Mr.Irons and Ms.Patterson
No: 0
Excused:0
ICING COUNTY COUNCIL
KING COUNTY,WASHINGTON
N
T CJ
GZ)
CU
ynthia Sullivan,Chair _
t;
ATTE n ST: o =71
'- 47- t J
i+ ry
Anne Noris,Clerk of the Council
APPROVED this, day of M 2003.
Ron S unty Executive 1 1
Attachments 1.GMPC Motion 02-1.2.GMPC Motion 02-2,3.GMPC Motion 02-3
5
-21=
14653
Subareas Household HH Capacity PAA HH Job T Job Capacity PAA Job .
Target in PAA* Target in PAA Target
7optA .
A 299
obum 5.9291 2,635 9261
Black Dionand 1.0991
Burim 1.5521
Covisom 1.1731
1.5761 2
fqkw way 6 88 1,320
Kent 4 6
7
Mapk Valley
k IOD
45
6
ScaToc 4,479 14
Tukwila 3 13 5
unincolp lung county 4.935
TOW 42355 14.039035
Eaw Mar CQRm*v
Beam Arta Won 3
BOUCYUC 10,117 B
Bothell 1 584
1 2
3,993 927 802
Kcamm 2,323
Kirkland SABO 1 77 47
Modica 31
d tA37
e I 1
Redmond402 390
WQodimlle 6
Yastrow point 28
UUhICOP KiHX Coup 801 **4222 **4099
TOW 47A45 9 6AI
stank
U ' Km Conn *** 1 70 1670 1.670
Total M70 7
Rural
Carmition
Ncath Bend 636
S 'e 1,697
Total 5,563
Muff County Total 11
*PA&Potential Annexation Arta 1n Uaincmpnated King County Us=Arta;**Bear Creek UPD:*"M%HighGa
The Ronal(Idea'hrgets are for the evuent city Enrits and rural expansion area far each city.Thus the methodology .
for aQusdag targets as annexations acorn is not applicable to the rural cities.
2
ucMPCf02cMPCJMotW-2.doc — . 3 —
-22-
14653
77776AM
Job Capacity PM Job
Subareas in PAA* Target
SouA K u
AILQm
An
Black
Burien 1
C4VinZM
Federal WAY 4
Kent 1 44 44
Milton 1-054
Valley 04
Nonmwdl PAt 67
Pacific log
7 458 4
SMTM 9,298
jTukwila 16.000 1 497 497
unincerp,King Cmwtv 25821 701 701
Total 99.500 2
I Bag in
Dam AM Vl
Bdkme 4
717
Ctvde MR
Imoals 14
Kenzwe 2.800
i g
n 800
NewcaWe 500
{ Redmond
Sammamisb 0
'WoudinyMe z
f w ; -
Uaio Kin Coup 4637 **4193 **4193
T 98 27 4,6M 4A37
Sborefints Scank
Kin 'Coua *** 694 15" 694
Total
RUWCNW
Carmatim 75
Emmwjaw Duvall 1,125
North Bend 1.1251
SkxkQmm
SuoQualmde 118001
TOW 0
*PAA:Poseocal Annexation Area inUmeempuated Ring Comaty Urban Area;**Bear Creek UPA***North BagNroe
The Rug Gties'urgeta are for the curent city limits and nvA expansion area for each city.Thus the methodology
for adjoatb*targets as annexations ocr ur is not applicable to the rums cities.
1
1/GMPCJ02GMPCWc102-3.doc - 3 -
-23=
Attachment 1
2003-0124
14653
July 24,2002
Sponsored By: Executive Committee
{ km
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 110);and
14
15 WHEREAS, Countywide Planning Policy FW-3 states that the adopted household and
16 employment targets shalt be monitored by King County annually with adjustments made
11 by the Growth Management Planning Council utilizing the process established in FW-I,
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 20-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
2s HEREBY MOVES AS FOLLOWS:
29
30 Amend Sections M.C and M.F of the King County Countywide Planning Policies�as
31 follows:
32
33 III. Land Use Pattern
34
35 C. Urban Areas
36
-24-
14653
1 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 o,f
3 targets for each iurisdiction, and idenli 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 growth. The(Urban G4wiwh Ama) UGA is a permanent designation. Land outside
7 the( ) UGA is designated for permanent rural and resource uses.((;
8 exeepifer dw eWm in the RuraMma)) Countywide Policies on Rural and Resource Areas
9 are found in Chapter IIIA, Resource Lands, and Chapter 111B,Rural Areas.
10
11 In accordance with the State Growth Management Act(GMA)(36.70A.110). the State
12 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 employment projection.
17
18 The process for allocating targets in King County 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 iurisdiction collectively allocate the OFM population projection to the four
24 subarea's based on the projected employment for each area. A small amount of
25 growth is assumed to occur in the Rural area.
26 3. The technical staff translates the population projections into projected households,
27 taking into account di,�erent average household sizes within each.subarea. These
28 projections then become subarea household targets.
29 4. Jurisdictions within each subarea negotiate the distribution of subarea household
30 and employment targets using criteria based on Countywide Planning Policies.
31
32 The housing capacity in the(( )) UGA((f&Fgmwth)), based on adopted
33 plans and regulations, ((men, -tom))should accommodate the proiected 20-year
34 g�h(l
35 pepula#ien gMC*M)). (( ))Growth is to be accommodated within
36 permanent Urban Areas by increasing densides, as needed. Phasing((*a-te))should occur
37 within the(( )) UGA, as necessary, to ensure that services are provided
38 as growth occurs. ((All Mies am to be ivAin the U4�Groivg Area Odes ils Me Rural
39 ))
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. Art 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
LGMPC/MGMPC(MotO2-I.dce - 2 -
-25-
1FW-12 The Urban Growth Area shall provide enough land to accommodate4653
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 The growt roiection
8 shall be assigned to the four subareas of Kinq County (Sea Shore East
9 South and the Rural Cities) pro ortionate with the share of projected
to employment growth. The growth shall be allocated pursuant to the
11 following objectives
12 a. To ensure efficient use of land within the UGA b directin rowth to
13 Urban Centers and Activity Centers-
14 b. To limit development in the Rural Areas,•
15 c. To protect designated resource in,
16 d. To ensure efficient use of infrastructure;
17 e. To improve the iobsthousing balance on a subarea basis
18 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 iurisdictions
22
23 FW-1215 The growth targets established pursuant to the methodology described in
24 LU 25c and 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 resoonsibility shall be met bvplanning for and delivering
28 coun . state and federal investments that support the growth taroets
z9 and the land use Dattem of the County. This includes investments in
30 transit, state highways in key regional transportation corridors and in
31 i_mproved 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 iurisdiction 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
al recognizing where applicable special purpose districts and
42 c. Accommodating increases in household and employment taroets as
43 annexations occur.
44
45 The targets will be used to plan for and to accommodate growth within
46 each jurisdiction. The targets do not obligate a iurisdiction to guarantee
47 that a given number of housing units will be built or jobs added during the
as planrnng period.
. L/GMPMGMPGMW2-I.dw - 3 _
-26-
14653
1 LU25b As annexations occur, growth targets shall be adjusted. Household and
2 employment targets for each iurisdiction's potential annexation area. as
3 adopted in Table LU-1, shall be transferred to the annexing jurisdiction
4 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
4 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 the 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
14 updated periodically to reflect changes due to annexations. These
20 target updates do not require adoption by the Growth Management
j 21 Planning Council.
22
23 LU - 2kThe target((s and regulations)) objectives identified in((W-66))
24 FW-12a((are4hased-er1)) shall be realized through the following((steps))
25 methodology for allocating household targets:
26 a. ((
27
28 )) Determine the additional
24 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 projection 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 ((
34 farilities and utilities,
40 2. Proximity to FFiajGF eMPIG, ,
41 ,
42 4. GapaGity of undeveloped land and potential fGF redevelopme
43 ,
44 ,
45 S. Eash iWisdietien'
a sha;e of affordable housing as requifGd-I�y
46 affeFdable heusing peliGiesp
47 ;))
• UGMFM2GMPCJMot02-l.doc — 4 -
-27=
14653
l 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 proiected population for each subarea to an
6 estimated number of households, using proiected average
7 household sizes that reflect the variation among those subareas
s observed in the most recent Census:
9 e. Allocate a household target to individual iurisdiction,within each
io subarea, based on FW-12a and considering the following factors:
i 1 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 iurisdiction:
15 4. the availability of zoned development capacity in each iurisdiction:
16 and
17 5: the apparent market trends for housing in the area.
is (( .
19
20 puFsuant to polisy PS 1, ,))
21 (( . '
22
23 ; ))
24 ff ,
25 , the
26
27
29 plafls))
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 - ((88)) 25d
40
41 the joint legal apod Geuntywidq adoption prOG68S based on the Mlewing
42 steps)) The target oblectives identified in FW-12a shaft be realized
43 through the following methodology for allocating employment targets:
44
45 a. ((The Qr-ewth Management Planning GeunGR adopted the 20 yeaF
46 , Th
47
iLGMPC/02GMPC1Mot02-l.dac 5 -
-28-
1 14653
2
4
5 '
FeGt-gFGMh to ";;-I; rantprq based on rAR-q!
7 3. AGGeSS to regiDRal Fapid tFansi '
8 Gapa
9
10 VI.the chara
11 '
12
13
14
15 fesidential areas)) Determine the number of iobs that must be
16 accommodated in each of the four subareas of in Coun Sea-
17 Shore South East and the Rural Cities in accordance with the most
18 recent PSRC iob estimates and forecasts for the 20 year planning
19 period. To account for uncertainty in the employment forecasts
20 establish a range of new iobs 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 '
26 , )) For each subarea determine the
oint within the ran e upon which iurisdi lions within the subarea wili
27 base their targets and allocate employment growth targets to .
2g individual iunsdictions based on consideration of the following
29 1. the PSRC small area forecasts:
30 2. the presence of urban centers manufacturino/industrial
31 centers, and activity areas within each
jurisdiction-the availability of zoned commercial and industrial
33 development capacity m each jurisdiction and
34 4. the access to transit as well as to stinga hi hw s and
3s arteria
36paF ls.
37 '
38
39 plans
40
41 >
42 ,
43 OF its sur.GessGFaiay-FeGGffvnend
as C. Jurisdictions shall Ian for em to merit tar 45 LU-1. ets as adopted in Table))
46 (INSERT TABLE LU-1)
v MWA20MPCJMao2-1.dx _ 6 _
-29-
1 F. I. Urban Residential Areas 14653
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((i iii are the responsibility of the local jurisdiction((sl
6 re�l )). However, the residential areas need to support the Centers concept and
7 provide sujJicient opportunity for growth within the UGA. A substantial majority of new
8 residential units will be constructed within urban residential areas.
9
10
11 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 ado 2ted household rowth to eis
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 23 new development and adopt regulations to achieve the taret mix.for
24
25
26
27
28
29 be The intequFisdiGtional staff Gernmitte
30 Manag
am WM
31
32and .
33
34 '
35 '
36 _�
37
38
39 '
40
41
42 11 ,
43
44 ,
45d. The tal '
46
47
II13MPCWGMPCJMoto21.doa 7 '
r.
1
r. . . a
as
.�
1
..
1 _
1 m,
-31-
14653
1 ADOPTED by the Growth Management Planning Council of King County on July 24,
2 2002 in open session.
4
5
6
7 Ron Sims,Chair,Growth Management Planning Council
8
9
10
I
12
13
14
15
I
i
f
LIGMPG02GMPC/Ma02-l.dm - 9 -
-32-
Attachment 2
2003-0124
14653
July 24,2002
Sponsored By: Executive Committee
km
l 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
]1
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
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
•
- —33--
14653
1
2
3 ADOPTED by the Growth Management Planning Council of King County on
f 4 September 25,2002 in open session.
5
6
g
9
10
11 Ron Sims,Chair,Growth Management Planning Council
12 Attachment:
13 1. Table LU-1:2001-2022 Household and Employment Growth Targets.
i
f
i
uGMfPG02G%PCJMoaa2-2.doc - 2 -
-34-
Attachment 3
2003-0124
14653
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
to 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
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36 .
-35-
14653
1
• 2
3 ADOPTED by the Growth Management Planning Council of King County on
4 September 25,2002 in open session.
5
6
7
S
9
10
11
12 Ron Sims,Chair,Growth Management Planning Council
13
la Attachment:
15 1. Table LU-1:2001-2022 Household and Employment Growth Targets.
i
• VGMW.WGMPCJMa02-3.doc - 2 -
-36-
Metropolitan King County Council
Growth Management and Unincorporated Areas Committee
Staff Report
Agenda Item: 7 Name: Lauren Smith
Proposed Ordinance: 2003-0124 Date: March 18, 2003
Attending: Paul Reitenbach, King County DDES
Kevin Wright, King County PAO
SUBJECT:
Proposed Ordinance 2003-0124 adopting amendments to the Countywide Planning Policies;
adopting new household and employment targets for the period 2001 through 2022; ratifying
the amended Countywide Planning Policies on behalf of the population of unincorporated King
County.
BACKGROUND:
The Growth Management Planning Council (GMPC) is a formal body comprised of elected
officials from King County, Seattle, Bellevue, the Suburban Cities, and Special Districts. The
GMPC was created in 1990 in response to a provision in the Washington State Growth
Management Act (GMA) requiring cities and counties to work together to adopt Countywide
Planning Policies (CPPs). Under GMA, countywide planning policies serve as the framework
for each individual jurisdiction's comprehensive plan, and ensure regional consistency with
respect to land use planning efforts. The GMPC drafted the CPPs, which were then adopted by
the King County Council and ratified by the cities. Changes to the CPPs are recommended by
the GMPC, adopted by the King County Council, and ratified by the cities.
GMPC Development of Household & Employment Targets
In February 2002, the Washington State Office of Financial Management released new
population forecasts for the 20-year period 2002-2022(the projections were smaller than
expected, largely due to the current economic climate). The GMA requires King County and the
cities within King County to plan to accommodate these updated projections. The GMPC is
responsible for developing updated household and employment targets for each jurisdiction in
King County.
The GMPC's interjurisdictional staff team worked with a subcommittee of the King County
Planning Directors to extend the existing targets through 2022,with the GMPC's approval of
their methodology. In recent years, the region has grappled with the concept of a jobs/housing
"balance" as part of ongoing growth management discussions. The development of the updated
targets was approached with the jobs/housing balance in mind.
The methodology approved by the GMPC took a sub-regional approach. First, the County's
urban area was divided into four subareas: "SeaShore" (comprised of Seattle, Shoreline, and
i
C:IWIND0WWEMP12003.0124(CPP Amendments-Household Employment Targels)(3.18-03).doc 5212003 8:50 AM
-37-
Lake Forest Park), East King County, South King County and the Rural Cities'. Next, a
percentage of the total population forecast for King County was assigned to each subarea that
was based on the percentage of expected job growth for each subarea (employment forecasts
were provided by the Puget Sound Regional Council). Finally, the raw population numbers
were converted into households (based on the average household size in each subarea), and
the jurisdictions within each subarea negotiated their household targets. The draft household
and employment targets were presented to the GMPC On May 22, 2002 at which time the
GMPC directed staff to prepare motions recommending their adoption. Policy changes related
to the new targets were adopted on July 24, 2002 and the targets themselves were adopted on
September 25, 2002.
Development of the household targets was informed by the results of the Buildable Lands work
(required by GMA), which has been developed over the past 5 years (the Buildable Lands
Report was released in August, 2002). Major findings from this work include:
♦ 96% of all new development in King County is occurring within Urban Growth Areas.
♦ 40% of the way through the 1992-2012 planning period, King County has reached 38%
of the household growth target, and more than 50% of the population forecast.
♦ King County has the capacity for 263,000 more housing units. This is more than twice
the capacity needed to accommodate the remainder of the 1992-2012 household growth
targets.
♦ King County has the capacity for nearly 600,000 more jobs within the Urban Growth
Area —several times the remaining target of 110,000 jobs for the period 1992-2012.
♦ All available evidence suggests that there is enough capacity to support the new targets
through 2022.
SUMMARY:
Proposed Ordinance 2003-0127 would amend the Countywide Planning Policies by:
♦ Adopting revised household targets for each jurisdiction in King County for the period
2001-2022;
♦ Adopting revised employment targets for each jurisdiction in King County for the period
2001-2022; and
♦ Amending the policy direction in the Countywide Planning Policies in support of the new
household and employment targets.
Additionally, the ordinance would ratify these changes on behalf of the population of
unincorporated King County, as required by Countywide Planning Policy FW-1, Step 9.
Amendments to the Countywide Planning Policies become effective when ratified by ordinance
or resolution by at least 30% of the city and county governments representing 70% of the
population of King County according to the Interlocal agreement. A city shall be deemed to
have ratified the countywide planning policy unless, within 90 days of adoption by King County,
the city by legislative action disapproves the Countywide Planning Policy.
ATTACHMENTS:
I Although the Carnation, Duvall,Enumclaw, North Bend and Snoqualmie are called Rural Cities, the Growth
Management Act considers all municipalities to be Urban. Rural cities provide the vast majority of services and
infrastructure for residents of the Rural unincorporated area,and they do have growth targets,albeit small ones
. when compared to cities in the main urban growth area.
C:IWINDOW&TEMP12003-0124(CPP Amendments-Household Employment Targetsx3•11&03).doc 5/2112003 8:50 AM
-38-
1. Proposed Ordinance 2003-0124, with attachments
•
•
C:IWINDOWS%TEMP=3-0124(CPP Amendments-Household Employment Targetsx3.18-03),doc 5/212D03 8:50 AM
-39-�
KING COUNTY 12MYing County Comthom
5167Urd Avenue
Seattle,WA 98104
Signature Report
. May 19,2003
Ordinance 14654
Proposed No. 2003-0125.1 Sponsors Hague
] AN ORDINANCE adopting amendments to-the
2 Countywide Planning Policies;amending the Urban
3 Separator map to reflect negotiated modifications to the
4 Renton Urban Separator,ratifying the amended
5 Countywide Planning Policies for unincorporated Ring
6 County;and amending Ordinance 10450,Section 3,as
7 amended,and K.C.C.20.10.030 and Ordinance 10450,
8 Section 4,as amended;and K.C.C.20.10.040
9
10
11 BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF KING COUNTY:
12 SECTION 1. Findings. The council makes the following findings..
13 A. The metropolitan King County council adopted and ratified the Growth
14 Management Planning Council recommended King County 2012-Countywide Planning
15 Policies(Phase 1)in July 1992,under Ordinance 10450.
1
-40=
Ordinance14654
16 B. The metropolitan King County council adopted and ratified the Phase II
. 17 amendments to the Countywide Planning Policies on August 15, 1994,under Ordinance
18 11446.
19
C. The Growth Management Planning Council met on October 23, 2002 and
20 voted to recommend amendments to the King County 2012-Countywide Planning
21 Policies,amending the Urban Separator map to reflect negotiated modifications to the
22 Renton Urban Separator.
23 SECTION 2. Ordinance 10450, Section 3,as amended,and K.C.C.20.10.030 are
i
24 each hereby amended to read as follows:
25 Phase I1.
26 A. The Phase II Amendments to the King County 2012 Countywide Planning
i
27 Policies attached to Ordinance 11446 are hereby approved and adopted.
28 B. The Phase II Amendments to the King County 2012-Countywide Planning
29 Policies are amended,as shown by Attachment 1 to Ordinance 12027.
30 C. The Phase II Amendments to the King County 2012-Countywide Planning
31 Policies are amended,as shown by Attachment i to Ordinance 12421.
32 D. The Phase II Amendments to the King County 2012-Countywide Planning
33 Policies are amended,as shown by Attachment 1 and 2 to Ordinance 13260.
34 E. The Phase II Amendments to the King County 2012-Countywide Planning
35 Policies are amended,as shown by Attachment 1 through 4 to Ordinance 13415.
36 F. The Phase II Amendments to the King County 2012-Countywide Planning
37 Policies are amended,as shown by Attachments I through 3 to Ordinance 13858.
• 2
-41=
Ordinance 14654.
38 G. The Phase H Amendments to the King County 2012—Countywide Planning
• 39 Policies are amended, as shown by Attachment 1 to Ordinance 14390.
40 H. The Phase Il Amendments to the King County 2012—Countywide Planning
41 Policies are amended,as shown by Attachment 1 to Ordinance 14391.
42 I. The Phase 11 Amendments to the King County 2012—Countywide Planning
43 Policies are amended,as shown by Attachment 1 to Ordinance 14392.
44 J. The Phase II Amendments to the King County 2012—Countywide Plannin
45 Policies are amended,as shown by Attachment 1 to this ordinance
46 SECTION 3. Ordinance 10450,Section 4,as amended,and K.C.C.20.10.040 are
47 each hereby amended to read as follows:
48 Ratification for unincorporated King County.
49 A. Countywide Planning Policies adopted by Ordinance 10456 for the purposes
50 specified are hereby ratified on behalf of the population of unincorporated King County.
51 B. The amendments to the Countywide Planning Policies adopted by Ordinance
52 10840 are hereby ratified on behalf of the population of unincorporated King County.
53 C. The amendments to the Countywide Planning Policies adopted by Ordinance
54 11061 are hereby ratified on behalf of the population of unincorporated King County.
55 D. The Phase 11 amendments to the King County 2012 Countywide Planning
56 Policies adopted by Ordinance 11446 are hereby ratified on behalf of the population of
57 unincorporated King County.
58 E. The amendments to the King County 2012-Countywide Planning Policies,as
59 shown by Attachment I to Ordinance 12027 are hereby ratified on behalf of the
60 population of unincorporated King County.
• 3
. -42--
Ordinance 14654
61 R The amendments to the King County 2012-Countywide Planning Policies,as
62 shown by Attachment 1 to Ordinance 12421,are hereby ratified on behalf of the
63 population of unincorporated King County.
64 G. The amendments to the King County 2012-Countywide Planning Policies,as
65 shown by Attachments 1 and 2 to Ordinance 13260, are hereby ratified on behalf of the
66 population of unincorporated King County.
67 I- The amendments to the King County 2012-Countywide Planning Policies,as
68 shown by Attachment 1 through 4 to Ordinance 13415, are hereby ratified on behalf of
69 the population of unincorporated King County.
70 I. The amendments to the King County 2012-Countywide Planning Policies,as
71 shown by Attachments 1 through 3 to Ordinance 13858, are hereby ratified on behalf of
72 the population of unincorporated King County.
73 1 The amendments to the King County 2012-Countywide Planning Policies,as
74 shown by Attachment 1 to Ordinance 14390,are hereby ratified on behalf of the
i
75 population of unincorporated King County..
76 K. The amendments to the King County 2012-Countywide Planning Policies,as
77 shown by Attachment 1 to Ordinance 14391,are hereby ratified on behalf of the
78 population of unincorporated King County.
79 L. The amendments to the King County 2012-Countywide Planning Policies,as
1 80 shown by Attachment 1 to Ordinance 14392,are hereby ratified on behalf of the
81 population of unincorporated King County.
4
-43---
Ordinance 14654
82 M. The amendments to the King County_2012-Countywide Planning Policies,as
83 shown by Attachment 1 to this ordinance,are hereby ratified on behalf of the population
84 of unincorporated King County.
85
Ordinance 14654 was introduced on 3/17/2003 and passed by the Metropolitan King
County Council on 5/19/2003,by the following vote:
Yes: 12-Ms.Sullivan,Ms.Edmonds,Mr.von Reichbauer,Ms.Lambert,Mr.
Phillips,Mr.Pelz,Mr.McKenna,Mr. Constantine,Mr. Gossett,Ms.Hague,
Mr.Irons and Ms.Patterson
No:0
Excused:0
KING COUNTY COUNCIL.
KING COUNTY,WASHINGTON
Cynthia Sullivan,Chair
y'
ATTEST:
L
z: -R
Anne Noris,Clerk of the Council
v
_ N
APPROVED this 'day ofMIN
,2003
Ron y Executive
Attachments 1.GMPC Motion 02-5
5
-44--
Y
Attachment 1
2003-0125
.14654
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
i
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
i 1 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 of
24 land within its Potential Annexation Area; and
25
i 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
-45=
14654
1
• 2
3 THE GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLANNING COUNCIL OF KING COUNTY
4 HEREBY MOVES AS FOLLOWS:
5
6 The Urban Separators map included within the Countywide Planning Policies document is
7 amended to reflect the negotiated modifications of the Renton Urban Separator described
8 and mapped in the September 25,2002 GMPC staff report. Specifically,76 acres of
9 unincorporated land is deleted from Urban Separator designation and 118.8 acres within
10 the City of Renton shall be designated Urban Separator.
11
12 ADOPTED by the Growth Management Planning Council of King County on
13 October 23, 2002 in open session.
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22 Ron Sims,Chair,Growth Management Planning Council
1XMrcn002cMP0Modon02-1.doc
-46-
Metropolitan King County Council
Growth Management and Unincorporated Areas Committee
Staff Report
Agenda Item: 8 Name: Lauren Smith
Proposed Ordinance: 2003-0125 Date: March 18, 2003
Attending: Paul Reitenbach, King County DDES
Kevin Wright, King County PAO
SUBJECT:
Proposed Ordinance 2003-0125 adopting amendments to the Countywide Planning Policies;
amending the Urban Separator map to reflect negotiated modifications to the Renton Urban
Separator; ratifying the amended Countywide Planning Policies on behalf of the population of
unincorporated King County.
BACKGROUND:
The Growth Management Planning Council (GMPC) is a formal body comprised of elected
officials from King County, Seattle, Bellevue, the Suburban Cities, and Special Districts. The
GMPC was created in 1990 in response to a provision in the Washington State Growth
Management Act (GMA) requiring cities and counties to work together to adopt Countywide
Planning Policies (CPPs). Under GMA, countywide planning policies serve as the framework
for each individual jurisdiction's comprehensive plan, and ensure regional consistency with
respect to land use planning efforts. The GMPC drafted the CPPs, which were then adopted by
the King County Council and ratified by the cities. Changes to the CPPs are recommended by
the GMPC, adopted by the King County Council, and ratified by the cities.
Countywide Planning Policies: Policy Direction related to Urban Separators
Urban Separators are regionally significant low-density areas within the Urban Growth Area that
create open space corridors, provide a visual contrast to continuous development and reinforce
the unique identities of communities. Urban Separators can play a significant role in preserving
environmentally sensitive areas and providing fish and wildlife habitat. They also provide
regional benefits, such as parks and trails, and meet the Growth Management Act's
requirement for greenbelts and open space within the Urban Growth Area. Urban Separators
are governed by Countywide Planning Policy LU-27:
LU-27 Urban Separators are low-density areas or areas of little development within the Urban
Growth Area. Urban Separators shall be defined as permanent low-density lands which
protect adjacent resource lands, Rural Areas, and environmentally sensitive areas and
create open space corridors within and between Urban Areas which provide
environmental, visual, recreational and wildlife benefits. Designated urban separators
shall not be redesignated in the future (in the 20-year planning cycle) to other urban
• uses or higher densities. The maintenance of these urban separators is a regional as
CAW INDOW&TEMP12003-0125(CPP Amendments-Renton Urban Separator)(3.15-03).doc 5121IM3 5:50 AM
-47-
well as local concern. Therefore, no modifications should be made to the development
regulations governing these areas without King County review and concurrence.
Urban Separators are within the Urban Growth Area and therefore are appropriate to be
annexed by cities. Once annexed, Urban Separators (and all other annexed land)are shown
as "incorporated areas"on the County's comprehensive land use map.
The lack of a map of Urban Separators in the countywide planning document was seen by the
staff as problematic because it increased the likelihood that cities might be unaware of the
presence of Urban Separators within their Potential Annexation Areas. Therefore, the
interjurisdictional staff team recommended that the GMPC adopt a map of existing Urban
Separators.
Three cities have designated Urban Separators within their Potential Annexation Areas: Auburn,
Kent, and Renton.
Past GMPC Actions related to Urban Separators
July 25, 2001 GMPC staff recommends including a map of existing urban separators in
the Countywide Planning Policies. Member jurisdictions of the GMPC
express concern over the boundaries of designated Urban Separators
and ask the interjurisdictional staff team to present additional information
at the September meeting.
September 26, 2001 GMPC directs staff to meet with affected cities (Kent, Renton and
Auburn) to answer questions and clarify the boundaries of the designated
Urban Separators.
October 5, 2001 King County staff meets with Kent, Renton and Auburn to answer
questions and clarify the boundaries of the designated Urban Separators.
November 20, 2001 The interjurisdictional staff team reports to the GMPC Executive
Committee that staff has successfully negotiated a solution to concerns
about mapping Urban Separators raised by Renton and Auburn. The
Executive Committee directs staff to develop a motion for the GMPC's
consideration at the December meeting.
December 11, 2001 GMPC adopts Motion 01-1, adopting maps of uncontested Urban
Separators and setting in place a process to further analyze and refine
the Urban Separators in Renton and Auburn's Potential Annexation
Areas, to be completed no later than September 30, 2002.
September 25, 2002 The interjurisdictional staff team reported back to the GMPC with the
following information on the City of Renton and Auburn's Urban
Separators:
City of Renton
Renton did not agree with the Urban Separator designation for 76 acres of unincorporated
urban land within their Potential Annexation Area (PAA), citing lack of environmental
CAWINDOWSITEMP12003-W25(CPPAme drnents-Renton Urban Sepanatw)(3.18-03).doc 5/21I2003 8:50AM
-48-
constraints. However, Renton did identify 119 acres within their city limits that they felt met the
criteria for designation of Urban Separators. The City proposed removing the Urban Separator
designation from the 76 acres within their PAA, and applying the designation to the 119 acres
within their city boundaries, for a net gain of 43 acres. The interjurisdictional staff team field-
checked the two areas and concurred with the city's conclusions.
City of Auburn
Auburn did not agree with the Urban Separator designation for 178 acres of land within their
PAA, but has identified 153 acres they do feel meets the criteria. The City of Kent recently
annexed a large piece of property adjacent to Auburn's existing Urban Separator that the
interjurisdictional staff team believes contains environmentally constrained areas and that would
make a natural extension of the existing Urban Separator. However, the City of Kent does not
wish to consider designating this area until sometime in 2003. Therefore, the interjurisdictional
staff team recommends that discussions should continue with Auburn and Kent, and that staff
should report back to the GMPC with recommendations by June 1, 2003.
October 23, 2002 The GMPC adopted Motion 02-5, amending the Countywide Planning
Policies to reflect the negotiated modifications to the Renton Urban
Separator.
SUMMARY:
Proposed Ordinance 2003-0125 would amend the Countywide Planning Policies by:
♦ Revising the Urban Separator map to reflect the negotiated modifications to the Renton
Urban Separator, as indicated on the map in Attachment 2 to this staff report.
Additionally, the ordinance would ratify these changes on behalf of the population of
unincorporated King County, as required by Countywide Planning Policy FW-1, Step 9.
Amendments to the Countywide Planning Policies become effective when ratified by ordinance
or resolution by at least 30% of the city and county governments representing 70% of the
population of King County according to the Interlocal agreement. A city shall be deemed to
have ratified the countywide planning policy unless, within 90 days of adoption by King County,
the city by legislative action disapproves the Countywide Planning Policy.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Proposed Ordinance 2003-0125,with attachments
2. Map of Renton Urban Separator
i
CAWINDOWSITEMP12003-0125(CPP Amendments-Renton Urban Separatorx3.18-03).doe&21/2003 8:50 AM
IIlIl1i11���� 0 9i
•L G. a'C. a
r. � � !Ulf�-�",t b.-�. � �1����� t ■ ��
Legend Renton Urban - • . •
Urban �out notos. King county motors no WresenteMons or
Parcel Boundaries vainant". copress,or implied.as to aomaracy, ooffoenana&s,
ldismages inckiding. but not limited to, lost
-�
Incorporated Areas wnKnmpKm containecl on We map. Any sale of his map or
inforrhMion or ms map is ancInbled except by written permission of
Urban Residential,4-12 du/ac — —
` -50--
KING COUNTY 1200Ringcouutycoutlhouse
516 l Avenue
Seattle,WA98104
Signature Report
May 209 2003
Ordinance 14655
Proposed No. 2003-0126.1 Sponsors Hague
1 AN ORDINANCE adopting amendments to the
2 Countywide Planning Policies;designating Totem Lake as
i 3
an Urban Center;ratifying the amended Countywide
4 Planning Policies for unincorporated King County;and
i 5
amending Ordinance 10450,Section 3,as amended,and
6 K.C.C.20.10.030 and Ordinance 10450,Section 4,as
7 amended,and K.C.C. 20.10.040 .
8
9
10 BE 1T ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL.OF KING COUNTY:
I I SECTION 1. Findings. The council makes the following findings.
12 A. The metropolitan King County council adopted and ratified the Growth
13 Management Planning Council recommended King County 2012-Countywide Planning
14 Policies(Phase 1)in July 1992, under Ordinance 10450.
15 B. The metropolitan King County council adopted and ratified the Phase 11
16 amendments to the Countywide Planning Policies on August 15, 1994,under Ordinance
17 11446.
1 '
-51=
Ordinance 14655
18 C. The Growth Management Planning Council met on October 23,2002 and
19 voted to recommend amendments to the King County 2012-Countywide Planning
20 Policies,designating Totem Lake as an Urban Center.
21 SECTION 2. Ordinance 10450,Section 3,as amended, and K.C.C. 20.10.030 are
I
22 each hereby amended to read as follows:
I
23 Phase II.
24 A. The Phase II Amendments to the King County 2012 Countywide Planning
25 Policies attached to Ordinance 11446 are hereby approved and adopted.
26
B. The Phase H Amendments to the King County 2012- Countywide Planning
27 Policies are amended,as shown by Attachment 1 to Ordinance 12027.
' 28
C. The Phase II Amendments to the King County 2012-Countywide Planning
i
29 Policies are amended,as shown by Attachment 1 to Ordinance 12421.
30 D. The Phase 11 Amendments to the King County 2012-Countywide Planning
31 Policies are amended,as shown by Attachment 1 and 2 to Ordinance 13260.
i
32 E. The Phase H Amendments to the King County 2012-Countywide Planning
33 Policies are amended,as shown by Attachment 1 through 4 to Ordinance 13415.
34 R The Phase 11 Amendments to the King County 2012- Countywide Planning
35 Policies are amended,as shown by Attachments 1 through 3 to Ordinance 13858.
36 G. The Phase II Amendments to the King County 2012—Countywide Planning
37 Policies are amended,as shown by Attachment 1 to Ordinance 14390.
38 H. The Phase 11 Amendments to the King County 2012—Countywide Planning
39 Policies are amended,as shown by Attachment 1 to Ordinance 14391.
2
-52--
Ordinance 14655
40 1. The Phase H Amendments to the King County 2012—Countywide Planning
41 Policies are amended, as shown by Attachment 1 to Ordinance 14392.
42 J. The Phase II Amendments to the King County 2012—Countywide Planning
43 Policies are amended,as shown by Attachment 1 to this ordinance.
44 SECTION 3. Ordinance 10450,Section 4,as amended,and K.C.C.20.10.040 are
45 each hereby amended to read as follows:
46 Ratification for unincorporated King County.
47 A. Countywide Planning Policies adopted by Ordinance 10450 for the purposes
48 specified are hereby ratified on behalf of the population of unincorporated King County.
49 B. The amendments to the Countywide Planning Policies adopted by Ordinance
50 10840 are hereby ratified on behalf.of the population of unincorporated King County.
51 C. The amendments to the Countywide Planning Policies adopted by Ordinance
52 11061 are hereby ratified on behalf of the population of unincorporated King County.
53 D. The Phase 11 amendments to the Ring County 2012 Countywide Planning
54 Policies adopted by Ordinance 11446 are hereby ratified on behalf of the population of
55 unincorporated King County.
56 E. The amendments to the King County 2012-Countywide Planning Policies,as
57 shown by Attachment i to Ordinance 12027 are hereby ratified on behalf of the
58 population of unincorporated King County.
59 F. The amendments to the King County 2012-Countywide Planning Policies, as
60 shown by Attachment 1 to Ordinance 12421,are hereby ratified on behalf of the
6I population of unincorporated King County.
• 3
-53--
Ordinance 14655
62 G. The amendments to the King County 2012-Countywide Planning Policies,as
63 shown by Attachments 1 and 2 to Ordinance 13260, are hereby ratified on behalf of the
64 population of unincorporated King County.
65 H. The amendments to the King County 2012-Countywide Planning Policies,as
66 shown by Attachment 1 through 4 to Ordinance 13415,are hereby ratified on behalf of
67 the population of unincorporated King County.
68 I. The amendments to the King County 2012-Countywide Planning Policies,as
69 shown by Attachments 1 through 3 to Ordinance 13858,are hereby ratified on behalf of
70 the population of unincorporated King County.
I
71 1 The amendments to the King County 2012-Countywide Planning Policies, as
72 shown by Attachment 1 to Ordinance 14390,are hereby ratified on behalf of the
i
73 population of unincorporated King County.
74 K. The amendments to the King County 2012-Countywide Planning Policies,as
75 shown by Attachment 1 to Ordinance 14391,are hereby ratified on behalf of the
76 population of unincorporated King County.
77 L. The amendments to the King County 2012-Countywide Planning Policies,as
78 shown by Attachment 1 to Ordinance.14392,are hereby ratified on behalf of the
79 population of unincorporated King County.
80 M. The amendments to the King County 2012-Countywide Planning Policies.as
4
Ordinance14655
81 shown by Attachment I to this ordinance, are hereby ratified on behalf of the population
82 of unincorporated King County.
83
Ordinance 14655 was introduced on 3/17/2003 and passed by the Metropolitan King
County Council on 5/19/2003,by the following vote:
Yes: 12-Ms.Sullivan,Ms.Edmonds,Mr. von Reichbauer,Ms.Lambert,Mr.
Phillips,Mr.Pelz,Mr.McKenna,Mr. Constantine,Mr. Gossett,Ms.Hague,
Mr.Irons and Ms.Patterson
No:0
Excused:0
KING COUNTY COUNCIL
KING COUNTY,WASHINGTON
yntbia Sullivan,Chair
ATTEST:
C
C_� o y
Anne Noris,Clerk of the Council
TS
tr. 9'v
APPROVED this day of Mg24 2003.
Si unty Executive
o
Attachments 1.GMPC Motion 02-6
- 5 .
-55=
Attachment 1
200 -0126
14655
14655
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
-56--
1 14655
2
3
4
5 THE GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLANNING COUNCIL OF KING COUNTY
6 HEREBY MOVES AS FOLLOWS:
7
8 Totem Lake is designated as an Urban Center. The list of Urban Centers following
9 Countywide planning Policy LU-39 is modified to include Totem Lake.
10
11 ADOPTED by the Growth Management Planning Council of King County on
12 October 23,2002 in open session.
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21 Ron Sims,Chair, Growth Management Planning Council
I
IJ0A M002G IIWIq0fi(MQ2'V.do
-57-
a
Metropolitan King County Council
Growth Management and Unincorporated Areas Committee
Staff Report
Agenda Item: 9 Name: Lauren Smith
Proposed Ordinance: 2003-0126 Date: March 18, 2003
Attending: Paul Reitenbach, King County DDES
Kevin Wright, King County PAO
SUBJECT:
Proposed Ordinance 2003-0126 adopting amendments to the Countywide Planning Policies;
designating Totem Lake as an Urban Center; ratifying the amended Countywide Planning
Policies on behalf of the population of unincorporated King County,
BACKGROUND:
The Growth Management Planning Council (GMPC) is a formal body comprised of elected
officials from King County, Seattle, Bellevue, the Suburban Cities, and Special Districts. The
GMPC was created in 1990 in response to a provision in the Washington State Growth
Management Act(GMA) requiring cities and counties to work together to adopt Countywide
Planning Policies (CPPs). Under GMA, countywide planning policies serve as the framework
for each individual jurisdiction's comprehensive plan, and ensure regional consistency with
respect to land use planning efforts. The GMPC drafted the CPPs, which were then adopted by
the King County Council and ratified by the cities. Changes to the CPPs are recommended by
the GMPC, adopted by the King County Council, and ratified by the cities.
City of Kirkland requests Urban Center designation for Totem Lake
In 2002, the City of Kirkland requested that Totem Lake be designated as an Urban Center in
the Countywide Planning Policies. Urban Centers are envisioned in the CPPs as areas of
concentrated employment and housing, with direct service by high-capacity transit, and a wide
range of other land uses. They are expected to account for up to one half of King County's
employment growth and one quarter of household growth over the next 20 years.
In January, 2002 the Kirkland City Council adopted a new plan for the Totem Lake
neighborhood that would support its designation as an Urban Center, Totem Lake, which is
located in the northeast corner of Kirkland, encompasses about one square mile and includes
residential, office, retail, light industrial and institutional uses.
Designating Totem Lake as an Urban Center would involve amending Countywide Planning
Policy LU-39 to add it to the list of existing Urban Centers, which currently includes:
Bellevue :• Redmond Overtake Seattle CBD
Kent Redmond CBD ❖ Seattle Center
Federal Way :• Renton CBD rr First/Capitol Hill
CAWINDOWMTEMP12003-0126(CPP Amendments-Totem Lake Urban Centerx3.1&03).doc 52112003 6:51 AM
-58-
s University District :• Northgate r Tukwila
In order to be designated as an Urban Center,jurisdictions must meet specific criteria in the
Countywide Planning Policies, including having planned land uses to accommodate:
A minimum of 15,000 jobs within one-half mile of a transit center;
At a minimum, an average of 50 employees per gross acre; and
:• At a minimum, an average of 15 households per acre.
When fully realized, Urban Centers shall be characterized by the following:
:• Clearly defined geographic boundaries;
s An intensity/density of land uses sufficient to support effective and rapid transit;
Pedestrian emphasis within the Center;
Emphasis on superior urban design which reflects the local community;
Limitations on single-occupancy vehicle usage during peak commute hours;
A broad array of land uses and choices within those land uses for employees and
residents;
c• Sufficient public open spaces and recreational opportunities; and
Uses which provide both daytime and nighttime activities in the Center.
The intedurisdictional staff team analyzed the Totem Lake neighborhood against all of the
criteria in the Countywide Planning Policies governing Urban Centers, and found that an Urban
Center designation would be appropriate, for the following reasons:
The City of Kirkland has completed the necessary planning to support an Urban Center
designation.
By 2012, Totem Lake is projected to contain over 4,500 housing units and 21,400 jobs.
:• Totem Lake is planned as a transit oriented development district with very high
residential and commercial intensity.
A new transit center will be constructed at the center of the transit oriented development
district.
Within %2 mile of the transit center, 11,000 jobs and 2000 housing units are projected by
2012. Another 3,000 to 4,000 jobs are expected by 2022.
• Employment densities in Totem Lake are planned for a minimum of 130 jobs per acre
(net), and will reach approximately 40 jobs per gross acre by 2022.
:• Residential densities are planned for 50-75 units/acre (net). Capacity will remain for
additional job and housing growth beyond 2022.
Other comprehensive plan policies are in place to support pedestrian emphasis,job
creation and re-investment, redevelopment, high density residential and high intensity
commercial uses, design principles, infrastructure, parks and open space, and
community services.
SUMMARY:
Proposed Ordinance 2003-0126 would amend the Countywide Planning Policies by:
♦ Adding Totem Lake to the list of Urban Centers in Policy LU-39.
Additionally, the ordinance would ratify the change on behalf of the population of
unincorporated King County, as required by Countywide Planning Policy FWA, Step 9.
Amendments to the Countywide Planning Policies become effective when ratified by ordinance
or resolution by at least 30% of the city and county governments representing 70% of the
population of King County according to the Interlocal agreement. A city shall be deemed to
C:IMNDOWSITEMP12003-0126(CPPAnmdments-Totem Lake Urban Cw1erx3-16-03).doc&21/2003 8:51 AM
-59-
have ratified the countywide planning policy unless,within 90 days of adoption by King County,
the city by legislative action disapproves the Countywide Planning Policy.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Proposed Ordinance 2003-0126, with attachments
i
CAVVINDOVVMTEMP12003-0126(CPP Amendments-Totem Lake Urban Cenler)(3-18-03).doc 5/21/2003 0:51 AM
-60--
KING COUNTY 1200 King County Canthom
516 Third 98104Avenue
Seattle,WA
Signature Report
May 203 2003
Ordinance 14656
Proposed No. 2003-0127.1 Sponsors Hague
I AN ORDINANCE adopting amendments to the
2 Countywide Planning Policies addressing the long-term
3 protection of agricultural production districts;ratifying the
4 amended Countywide Planning Policies for unincorporated
5 King County; and amending Ordinance 10450,Section 3,
6 as amended,and KC.C. 20.10.030 and Ordinance 10450,
7 Section 4,as amended, and K.C.C.20.10.040
8
9
10 BE IT ORDAINED BY TIC COUNCIL OF KING COUNTY:
11 SECTION 1. Findings. The council makes the following findings.
12 A. The metropolitan King County council adopted and ratified the Growth
13 Management Planning Council recommended King County 2012-Countywide Planning
14 Policies (Phase I)in July 1992, under Ordinance 10450.
15 B. The.metropolitan King County council adopted and ratified the Phase 11
16 amendments to the Countywide Planning Policies on August 15, 1994,under Ordinance
17 11446.
1
-61--
Ordinance 14656
18 C. The Growth Management Planning Council met on June 16, 1999, and
19 adopted Motion 99-3,recommending amendments to the King County 2012 -
20 Countywide Planning Policies addressing the long-term protection of agricultural
j 21 production districts; adopting new policies LU-2A and LU-2B,revising the interim
i
22 potential annexation area map so that the Iower green river valley agricultural production
23 district is not within the potential annexation area of any city, and drawing the urban
24 growth area boundary around the lower green river valley agricultural production district
25 to clarify that it is outside of the urban growth area.
26
E. The King County Council adopted Motion 11208 on May 21,2001,requesting
27 that the GMPC review and reconsider its Motion 99-3 and provide for a thorough public
28 process,including opportunities for public testimony.
29 D. The Growth Management Planning Council met on September 26,2001 and
30 adopted Motion 01-2,reaffirming Motion 99-3.
l 31 SECTION 2. Ordinance 10450,Section 3,as amended, and K.C.C. 20.10.030 are
32 each hereby amended to read as follows:
I
33 Phase II.
34 A. The Phase II Amendments to the King County 2012 Countywide Planning
35 Policies attached to Ordinance 11446 are hereby approved and adopted.
36 B. The Phase II Amendments to the King County 2012-Countywide Planning
37 Policies are amended, as shown by Attachment 1 to Ordinance 12027.
38 C. The Phase II Amendments to the King County 2012-Countywide Planning
39 Policies are amended,as shown by Attachment 1 to Ordinance 12421.
•
2
-62-
Ordinance 14656
40 D. The Phase II Amendments to the King County 2012-Countywide Planning
41 Policies are amended, as shown by Attachment 1 and 2 to Ordinance 13260.
42 E. The Phase II Amendments to the King County 2012-Countywide Planning
43 Policies are amended,as shown by Attachment 1 through 4 to Ordinance 13415.
44
F. The Phase II Amendments to the King County 2012-Countywide Planning
45 Policies are amended,as shown by Attachments 1 through 3 to Ordinance 13858.
46 G. The Phase II Amendments to the King County 2012-Countywide Planning
47 Policies are amended,as shown by Attachment 1 to Ordinance 14390.
48 H. The Phase II Amendments to the King County 2012-Countywide Planning
49 Policies are amended,as shown by Attachment 1 to Ordinance 14391.
50 I. The Phase II Amendments to the King County 2012-'Countywide Planning
51 Policies are amended,as shown by Attachment 1 to Ordinance 14392.
52 J. The Phase II Amendments to the King County 2012-CounLyffide Plannin
53 Policies are amended as shown by Attachments 1 and 2 to this ordinance -
54 SECTION 3. Ordinance 10450,Section 4,as amended,and K.C.C.20.10.040 are
55 each hereby amended to read as follows:
56 Ratification for unincorporated King County.
57 A. Countywide Planning Policies adopted by Ordinance 10450 for the purposes
58 specified are hereby ratified on behalf of the population of unincorporated King County,
59 B. The amendments to the Countywide Planning Policies adopted by Ordinance
60 10840 are hereby ratified on behalf of the population of unincorporated King County.
61 C. The amendments to the Countywide Planning Policies adopted by Ordinance
62 11061 are hereby ratified on behalf of the population of unincorporated King County.
3
-63--
Ordinance 14656
r
63 D. The Phase If amendments to the King County 2012 Countywide Planning
64 Policies adopted by Ordinance 11446 are hereby ratified on behalf of the population of
65 unincorporated King County.
66 E. The amendments to the King County 2012-Countywide Planning Policies, as
67 shown by Attachment 1 to Ordinance 12027 are hereby ratified on behalf of the
68 population of unincorporated King County.
69 F. The amendments to the King County 2012-Countywide Planning Policies,as
70 shown by Attachment 1 to Ordinance 12421,are hereby ratified on behalf of the
i
71 population of unincorporated King County.
72 G. The amendments to the King County 2012-Countywide Planning Policies,as
j 73 shown by Attachments I and 2 to Ordinance 13260,are hereby ratified on behalf of the
74 population of unincorporated King County.
75 H. The amendments to the King County 2012-Countywide Planning Policies,as
76 shown by Attachment 1 through 4 to Ordinance 13415,are hereby ratified on behalf of
77 the population of unincorporated King County.
78 I. The amendments to the King County 2012-Countywide Planning Policies,as
79 shown by.Attachments 1 through 3 to Ordinance 13858,are hereby ratified on behalf of
80 the population of unincorporated King County.
81 J. The amendments to the King County 2012-Countywide Planning Policies,as
82 shown by Attachment 1 to Ordinance 14390,are hereby ratified on behalf of the
83 population of unincorporated King County.
i
f
•
4
-64—
Ordinance 14656
84 K. The amendments to the King County 2012-Countywide Planning Policies,as
85 shown by Attachment 1 to Ordinance 14391,are hereby ratified on behalf of the
86 population of unincorporated King County.
87 L. The amendments to the King County 2012-Countywide Planning Policies,as
88 shown by Attachment 1 to Ordinance 14392,are hereby ratified on behalf of the
89 population of unincorporated King County.
90 M. The amendments to the King County 2012-Countywide Planning Policies,as
i
i
I
5
-fi5—
Ordinance 14656 ,
91 shown by Attachments 1 and 2 to this ordinance, are hereby ratified on behalf of the
92 population of unincorporated King County;
93
Ordinance 14656 was introduced on 3/17/2003 and passed by the Metropolitan King
County Council on 5/19/2003,by the following vote:
Yes: 12-Ms. Sullivan,Ms.Edmonds,Mr. von Reichbauer,Ms.Lambert,Mr.
Phillips,Mr.Pelz,Mr.McKenna,Mr. Constantine,Mr.Gossett,Ms.Hague,
Mr.Irons and Ms.Patterson
No:0
Excused: 0
KING COUNTY COUNCII.
KING COUNTY,WASHINGTON
I
I
i
Cynthia Sullivan,Chair w
ATTEST:
Q.„f7 W Ll
[ V
Anne Noris,Clerk of the Council z
rJ
APPROVED this 3eday of ,2003.
Ron ,County Executi
Attachments 1.GMPC Motion 99-3,2.GMPC Motion 01-2
6
-66-
Attachment 2
2003-0127
14656
September 26,2001
Sponsored By: Executive Committee
Apr
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 API)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-2B 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.
-67-
i
14656
i 1
2 In the event that this motion is ratified by the member jurisdictions of Growth Management
3 Planning Council,then the Interim Potential Annexation Area Map shall be revised
4 accordingly and the Urban Growth Boundary will be drawn around the Lower Green
5 Agricultural Production District (APD)to clarify that the APD is outside of the Urban area.
6
7 ADOPTED by the Growth Management Planning Council of King County on September 26,2001
8 in open session.
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16 Ron uns, h ' ,Growth Management Planning Council
17
•
LGMPCnW1GMPCJMo6w01-2.doc - 2 -
-68-
Metropolitan King County Council
Growth Management and Unincorporated Areas Committee
Staff Report
Agenda Item: 10 Name: Lauren Smith
Proposed Ordinance: 2003-0127 Date: March 18, 2003
Attending: Paul Reitenbach, King County DDES
Kevin Wright, King County PAO
SUBJECT:
Proposed Ordinance 2003-0127 adopts amendments to the Countywide Planning Policies
addressing the long term protection of Agricultural Production Districts, and ratifies the
amended Countywide Planning Policies on behalf of the population of unincorporated King
County.
BACKGROUND:
The Growth Management Planning Council (GMPC) is a formal body comprised of elected
officials from King County, Seattle, Bellevue, the Suburban Cities, and Special Districts. The
GMPC was created in 1990 in response to a provision in the Washington State Growth
• Management Act (GMA) requiring cities and counties to work together to adopt Countywide
Planning Policies (CPPs). Under GMA, countywide planning policies serve as the framework
for each individual jurisdiction's comprehensive plan, and ensure regional consistency with
respect to land use planning efforts. The GMPC drafted the CPPs, which were then adopted by
the King County Council and ratified by the cities. Changes to the CPPs are recommended by
the GMPC, adopted by the King County Council, and ratified by the cities.
GMPC Actions
In June of 1999, the GMPC adopted Substitute Motion 99-3, recommending amendments to the
King County Countywide Planning Policies, as follows:
Recommendation #1. Add two new policies addressing the long-term governance of
Agricultural Production Districts:
LU-2A Designated Agricultural Production Districts shall not be annexed by cities.
LU-213 The Lower Green River Valley Agricultural Production District is a regionally
designated resource that is to remain in unincorporated King County. Preservation of
the Lower Green River Valley Agricultural Production District will provide an urban
separator as surrounding urban areas are annexed and developed. King County may
contract with other jurisdictions to provide some local services to this area as
appropriate.
•
CAWINDOWSITEMP12003-0127(CPP Amendments•Lower Green River Valley APDx318-03).dw 512112D03 8:51 AM
-69-
Recommendation #2. Amend the Potential Annexation Area (PAA) Map in the CPPs so that
the Lower Green River Valley APD does not appear within the PAA boundaries of any
jurisdiction.
Recommendation #3. Amend the Urban Growth Area map by drawing the Urban Growth Area
Boundary around the Lower Green River Valley APD. This is to clarify its classification as long-
term resource land, and to emphasize that although it is located west of the main urban-rural
boundary line, it is not considered urban.
King County Council Actions
In 1999, the King County Council amended the King County Comprehensive Plan to be
consistent with the GMPC recommendations contained in Motion 99-3, by adopting policies R-
513 and R-544 (see below), and by drawing the Urban Growth Area Boundary around the
Lower Green River Valley APD (see Attachment 2).
R-513 Designated Forest and Agricultural Production District lands shall not be annexed by
cities.
R-544 The Lower Green River Agricultural Production District is a regionally designated
resource that is to remain in unincorporated King County. The Lower Green River
Agricultural Production District functions as an urban separator between the cities of
Kent and Auburn. King County may contract with other jurisdictions to provide some
local services to this area as appropriate.
In 2000, the King County Council further amended the King County Comprehensive Plan by
adopting Policy R-543, which also supports the GMPC's recommendations in Motion 99-3:
R-543 King County commits to preserve Agricultural Production District parcels in or near
the Urban Growth Area because of their high production capabilities, their proximity
to markets, and their value as open space.
Finally, in 2001 the King County Council considered the adoption of Proposed Ordinance 2002-
0256, which would have amended the CPPs consistent with the recommendations of the
GMPC and with the changes already made to the King County Comprehensive Plan. However,
because the County was engaged in negotiations to purchase certain properties within the
Lower Green River Valley APD, and out of concerns that the GMPC had adopted their
recommendations in the absence of a quorum and without an adequate public review process,
the Council did not adopt the Proposed Ordinance. Instead, the Council adopted Motion 11208
(see Attachment 3), which remanded the GMPC motion back to the GMPC for further review
and reconsideration. Motion 11208 also directed the County Executive to complete
negotiations with property owners in the Lower Green River Valley APD in the earliest possible
timeframe.
On September 26, 2001 the GMPC reconsidered its actions with respect to Motion 99-3, and
via the adoption of Motion 01-2, reaffirmed those actions.
On November 20, 2002 King County executed the fee simple purchase of what is known as the
Nelson property in the Lower Green River Valley APD, thus fulfilling the second mandate of
. Motion 11208.
C:\WINDOWS\TEMP0003.0127(CPP Amendments-Lower Green River Valley APDx3.18-03).doc 5/21/2003 5:51 AM
-70-
With these two actions complete, the King County Council is asked to consider once again
amending the Countywide Planning Policies as recommended by the GMPC in Motions 99-3
and 01-2.
SUMMARY:
Proposed Ordinance 2003-0127 would amend the Countywide Planning Policies by:
♦ Adding policies LU-2A and LU-213 addressing the long-term governance of Agricultural
Production Districts;
♦ Amending the Interim Potential Annexation Area Map to illustrate that the Lower Green
River Valley APD is not within the PAA of any jurisdiction; and
♦ Amending the land use map in the CPPs to illustrate that the Lower Green River Valley APD
is outside the boundaries of the Urban Growth Area.
Additionally, the ordinance would ratify the changes on behalf of the population of
unincorporated King County, as required by Countywide Planning Policy FW-1. Amendments
to the Countywide Planning Policies become effective when ratified by ordinance or resolution
by at least 30% of the city and county governments representing 70% of the population of King
County according to the Interlocal agreement. A city shall be deemed to have ratified the
countywide planning policy unless, within 90 days of adoption by King County, the city by
legislative action disapproves the Countywide Planning Policy.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Proposed Ordinance 2003-0127, with attachments
2. Map: Lower Green River Valley Agricultural Production District
3. King County Motion 11208, Adopted May 21, 2000
•
CNANDOWSUBAM003-0127(CPP Amendments-Lower Green River Valley APD)(3-18-03).dm Wi/2003 8:51 AM
-71—
Urban Sub-Areas
• S..h..i.h C...Ir
N forest -wheN WODdI IIE ,r i•` [...r r
hrY
Shoreline enmare Duvall
A // L
I
Seattle o I
f Q xirNland Redmond
i
` � I
SEA- `M I mataa Rural
U 19
1
Area
h I
e�
• I o a
�v
Bellevue ; I
E A
B'. o
mmamish I
/ Issaaaa� /
UL
• VI NI...1N. I / ,
NUP an�
Barr en
RURAL _ —
Mmma
CITIES
Rural � p ,
Area I
`tA•
I
I Rural
Area
RISEA4IIBRE I
SOM SI MEA
�EASTSIRiAREA a ,
17"Rlral Cities
� n
W w ` BrW Growth B=Wary
�Urhml BaiCorporeted
=Rural uacwpwgw
Epp
Fk Ei 1 .epdi 3
�[W
w -w a1�Aw�
.xeAwc «y_. t n'N11'a Aw .w AHDR.n/y�y"1'
!^ 1MYR9 '1f Awds E uy. 6. «. i9
Y MTWR .gYp e Aws
S { IJ g iAW a
APRl Y e�.lx4d5 Y Aw6
a
16n A.$ Y AM A.G Y N Y
4y RA yg«g °; « .Be'ds tj =: QL p sy'M y p .xRG Za
itea.F
len Aw a II 1
y ➢ 9 IM Aw6 Y y UU A.Sw
4b
w L yAA{TIaa1"•1
iv+ ^.._.._.
G SMAw6 B]N AnS G_41pRB Sa IL I .- fir--- �...��.-.._..9
'n >•
B Jms 5
yy 9 NMytli t 'OAS
f Av.S Y ---
7-11 SMRS - I L r '1
! , E
..._................._
. 1
1 Y
1M Av.9 WOe.ylm Aw
Y p Y L: Q
`� 11. WOW
................![110Awa MIN MtN )yaApa RMM9 9P b>SP tat alUgA'M
tla
. -. •� y ]MMB E I N LA~Aw Y�
wm owI ON1loA
cfe -E
aMAw p
a 1 Y
Irn
1-DOW
y t rFnMa 1 van Ms'\ „ r
✓ - I,C«M8 91«M WY..IIw F{IwM NINM
Y
GPA.aNAw E
y ( w PanaNM P.Fs.MN
Y
S 1 S - N A.S YM PwI.JB 6CwMYM
w
yy yap
wby
L...�-"-•. B, dab .M'.FlBG fY E
. - 9
CFK j aM Aryl-. i..^ Y. I' .." _. 1.,\ � NAW�P ''._.•.\ ,. Nb�IM �O'e-.� ,� �Q MM
� die•• oFK !' i^(' '. w \ I Y p(r
N1np - 1'n B aaK A
IY. 1Ip
C {ate -/-t�'l yy wy M M Rny Fa r p CAP.MI
q ./� I Irowa.aM gypp' f ^l
! ! ale
aMR{
/ aMRe ea li ^�
u..,,rFer9Y Gnn rovwK ......................1 y IeMMx F. C
,/oa..'PMA I air lod AwO 41
mw.PPN.,IIe d r.
i loaa
p e
taMR st Z
Kj ! IaMMN lath Aw Sl["y 1Wn mrV WWI WM':D1� ' �•
a4
35.M'aaal Y IOalME - 3B.W Wlal IJa.'w 1INl cN�
C IoYn Aw SE %VSM51 15
Y S' � rlpn A..BM _
p.._
'_-V A. Nry p yy yp li 7
1}dAw6 {�,wy `- � qm Aw$n � y O_9 ��.. 6 Ln. f � n n.. I•`�/�
N ASN%S t A15 C,S
w yy 9 MYMp nA w RM _
«n�s ANA Aws e J � 8 � �p � S � syrrA �, y "�. SqA AO ors ns •
N
ASmRS� ABNAw3 n n AAn Pw6 �R�AMML �'. E- O �1 Sy MT �� � A9n N6 �S.A•{'
�n'RYt y]n y yyw � PSmps i s Q g. y
w � � ! p X .MMS w 1 NNnp Q Ig Sd
y 9 ASn AwS n w 4 AM Aws
--------- --- .__..�
5I.M S 3�Y.4
ywy 61MR3 � F LLt
n
I
I I(I
i
t
I
I
. I '
l
I
y )M MVf ]IM Aw3 WwIM'WnAw
• n n n g llmpw�M n.
�� 7FY IrvAB , SRN] BR NI rlNM9 T AwS SP 13]yN is] �IARAN LS,NL - N4wnM
_ ]AnMi E NWnAnN14M�w�Aw �ewo
w i Ip __ Nmwn NTL
SMAw
n BRA Aw� n
«y N
0 �.•�r
iMAw
5 DYNW �Y.�'Y1 f .. IM AwS'
WYMI&L1N Aw N1wM
� LOn AwB 81Y Aw
• -"—� ' IN.AwyYy i' SPYwOM PIIYwOM PI1rMCMN
.so" WIAM.s. y i S
� n Y NCww.lAw
` dv*'N awwo wM i p n
cow
_\ n AYYy1Y.Aw JuanM
n
DYNf i��" w �. /: n Vw10A VwaNM � PrtNPAJ AA�
NAeA.
Yy i • I, � -GYIAw wAMurNwM
•-----'I
or]u I. �. .�' i1MA n ry
tYNF mom
I
iTl � �' '►��• Plf'�w� Gwr,Sur RP . � EYNCARNnI ai L,(O E5
,� AYPrrOM W Ila'
p S �
-i ru.AM Gt �s C
� . ! I iMwnww^M yy Jit DN%B f ray.—.._..—.• � Lone 6 5w + e C
6wn Nrt RC pAAII PortN i a..._—..___--.—._—__—._—_- a tpM Aw Si
�✓�nM'MA i ri{ pRV\ ,OINMii � /"r
-OwPn Pwrp3 4i1 i 1DM/m s� ...
_.._..—.._.._.._c n 25
I �
s r
n �
•— ............... 1 Y mSnReE 1M
�UUMSE w Y SE 35Btl19�- IS
i 60 4 n
-73-
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Fred N. Satterstrom, AICP, Director
400 PLANNING SERVICES
Charlene Anderson,AICP, Manager
KENT
W N S H I N G T O N Phone:253-856-5454
Fax: 253-856-6454
Address: 220 Fourth Avenue S.
Kent, WA 98032-5895
DATE:JULY 8,2003
TO: CHAIR LEONA ORR AND PLANNING COMMITTEE MEMBERS
FROM: FRED N. SATTERSTROM,AICP, COM. DEV. DIRECTOR
THROUGH: MAYOR JIM WHITE
SUBJECT: ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES FOR CODE AMENDMENTS
SUMMARY: At the Planning Committee's June 17,2003 meeting, staff agreed to come back with preliminary
administrative procedures for allowing citizen-initiated code amendment proposals on a "docketing" format.
This followed a two-month discussion by the Committee of opening up additional avenues for citizens to
petition for changes in City zoning regulations. The docketing format was suggested by staff as a way of
increasing the public's ability to influence changes in regulations (at no cost to the citizen) without disrupting
the normal work program of the Department.
BUDGET IMPACT: None
MOTION: None required(For Information Only)
BACKGROUND: At the request of Councilman Bruce White, staff and Planning Committee have been
• exploring ways in which the public, at little or no cost, may petition for changes to City zoning regulations. A
formal application process presently exists by ordinance, but there is a fee associated with the application which
some believe inhibits the public's desire to seek code modifications. While the Committee seemed to favor
opening up the regulatory review process, it did not want to create a monster for the staff in terms of workload.
Therefore, the option of creating a docketing process-whereby the public may suggest code amendments at no
fee, and where priority amendments are blended into the Department's annual work program- seemed to be a
good compromise. The Committee requested the staff to come back and review the proposed administrative
procedures which would implement this strategy.
Therefore, the following procedures would be implemented by the Community Development Department in
order to implement the docketing process for zoning code amendments:
• A docketing form for a proposed zoning code amendment will be created by the Community
Development Department. This form will be different from the present regulatory review application.
There will be no fee.
• The docketing form will be submitted to the Planning Services Division for routing and internal
comment.
• An official docketing list will be maintained by the Planning Services Division.
• The official docketing list will be presented to the Planning Committee on an annual basis in March.
The role of the Planning Committee will be to review and prioritize the docketed amendments.
• Proposed amendments which receive high priority rankings will be absorbed into the annual work
program of the Planning Services Division.
• High priority amendments will be reviewed by the Planning Services Division and brought before the
Land Use &Planning Board for consideration and public hearings. The Board's recommendations will
• be brought before the City Council for consideration and final decision.
FS\pm P:\Planning\ADMIN\planningcommittee.doc
cc: Charlene Anderson,AICP,Planning Manager
Project File
Planning Committee
220 4 h Ave. South,Kent,98032
PLEASE SIGN IN
DATE:
Name Address Phone Number
�✓� S Gt f-ITNS-fYd1M. G . I' � '��,5�-
75 ex- car f d �„ SSA 5! `�S(- =`1 2G
•
Fax Transmission Cover Sheet
Date: 07I/0/6 5
To: �I nq a1 � nC
Fax: q - s-72,�&1
Re: r' hinGI?1
Sender:
YOU SHOULD RECEIVE_Z,, PAGE(S)t INCLUDING THIS COVER SHEET, IF YOU
DO NOT RECEIVE ALL THE PAGES PLEASE CALL 253-356,6454.
P:WOMINIF0RM5%FAXC0VER.dor
W03 N NO Z00 .8Z .00 00 1199 ZL8 £SZ 4b b1 01 "7nP L99
30OW 11cis 32i 'SOd NO I.Lvana NOIIVNIIS30 3WI,L/3.Ltl0 X.L 'ON
pa;aldwoo (s) uolloesua4y
UolsslwSuVJ,L
fjINOd3?1 N0110VSN
100 'd bSb9 998 £SZ :'73,L ONINNtl'7d ,LN3N vv : b1 MH.L) £0 .01- "1nP ,
Fax Transmission Cover Sheet
Date: 01 oz
To: rS L
Fax:
Re:
Sender:
YOU SHOULD RECEIVE_�PAGE(S)l INCLUDING THIS COVER SHEET. IF YOU
DO NOT RECEIVE ALL THE PAGES, PLEASE CALL 253-856-5464.
P;1A MlN%F0PtMS%FAXCdVER.dOc
1tiO3 N AO Z00 .Ob .00 .0 9T09 LEP £SZ bb:PT 01 '11)? 892
300W lgns321 'SOd NOI,LV21(10 NOIIVNIIS30 3WI,L/3.LV0 X,L 'ON
pa;aldwoo (3) u01 ;0esuea,l
uOISSIMSueay
4,LNOd3N NOI.LOVSN
100 'd VgP9 928 £2Z :'7HI ONINNV'Id IN3A 9 V: PT (f1H,L) £0 .0 T- "IAP,
Mottram, Pamela
From: Mottram, Pamela
t: Thursday, July 10, 2003 3:37 PM
49 Steve Dowell (E-mail); Crystal Nicole Fincher(E-mail); David Malik (E-mail); Deborah
Ranniger(E-mail); Greg Worthing; Jon Johnson (E-mail); Ron Harmon
Subject: Planning Committee Agenda for July 15, 2003
I have attached the Agenda for the upcoming Planning Committee Meeting for July 15, 2003.
Q�
71503Agenda-PC.d
oc(38 KB)
Thank you.
PavweLa A. MottvCl
Adm v,Lstvat V✓ Secretav�
plaww;uLO sew�ces
e-vuail:pvuOttvavu@c�.I2ev�t.wa.u5
i
Mottram, Pamela
From: Mottram, Pamela
itt: Thursday, July 10, 2003 7:24 AM
Ted Nixon (ten@cn-arc-architects.com); Jeff Barker Qeffreybarker@seattlepi.com); Kelly Snyder
(ksnyder@rothhill.com); M. Simmer (msimmer@projectdimensions.com); Mary Ausburn
(mausbu@puget.com); Mary Simmons (MSimmons@ci.kent.wa.us); Pam Cobley
(pcobley@rothhill.com); Puget Sound Energy(gnomen@puget.com); Shaunta Hyde
(shaunta.r.hyde@boeing.com); Wickstrom, Don; Cameron, Renee; Crawford, Ed; Garrett
Huffman; Gill, Gary; Givens, Rosalie; Hodgson, John; Laurent, Dena; Lopez, Barbara;
Schneider, Jim; Senecaut, Kathleen; Sprotbery, Kevin; Vinson, Brett
Subject: Agenda for the July 15, 2003 Planning Committee
I have attached the Agenda for the upcoming Planning Committee meeting on July 15, 2003.
Q�
71503Agenda-PC.d
oc(38 KB)
If you have questions, please contact the respective planners as indicated on the agenda.
Thank you.
pavueLa A. Mcttvavu
Ak /v,%wLstvat%veSedietar�
"PLt?wVw.(vL� .SerVi,ces
° 253-850-.5454
.a%L: pvtiot-vo.n�@ci,.l�cev.t.wa.us
•
1
Mottram, Pamela
From: Mottram, Pamela
t; Thursday, July 10, 2003 7:56 AM
Ted Nixon (ten @cn-architects.com); Jeff Barker Qeffreybarker@seattlepi.com); Kelly Snyder
(ksnyder@rothhill.com); M. Simmer(msimmer@projectdimensions.com); Mary Ausburn
(mausbu@puget.com); Mary Simmons (MSimmons@ci.kent.wa.us); Pam Cobley
(pcobley@rothhill.com); Puget Sound Energy(gnomen@puget.com); Shaunta Hyde
(shaunta.r.hyde@boeing.com); Wickstrom, Don; Cameron, Renee; Crawford, Ed; Garrett
Huffman; Gill, Gary; Givens, Rosalie; Hodgson, John; Laurent, Dena; Lopez, Barbara;
Schneider, Jim; Senecaut, Kathleen; Sprotbery, Kevin; Vinson, Brett
Subject: Amended Agenda for the July 15, 2003 Planning Committee
I have attached an "amended" Agenda for 7/15/03 Planning Committee meeting. I corrected the numbering for the
"minutes".
71503Agenda-PC.d
oc(38 KB)
Thank you again.
PavvtLP. A. MottOW.
AdvvI.w StOtive SecvetOr�
T>IP Vw �O Se V ce5
phowe: 25s-8s�-s4s�
e-vuGt%�:pvucttraw@ci,.l2ewt.�,'Gi.us
1