HomeMy WebLinkAbout1573RESOLUTION NO. /57 3
A RESOLUTION of the City Council of Kent,
Washington, ratifying the King County Countywide Planning
Policies adopted by the Metropolitan King County Council
and pursuant to the Growth Management Act.
WHEREAS, the Growth Management Act (RCW 36.70A.210) requires the
adoption of Countywide Planning Policies by the legislative authority ofKing County, and
that said policies are to provide a countywide framework from which local comprehensive
plans are to be developed; and
WHEREAS, King County, the City of Seattle, and the incorporated suburban
cities and towns in King County established a process for the development, adoption, and
ratification of Countywide Planning Policies by an interlocal agreement, which was approved
by the City of Kent, and that said interlocal agreement established the Growth Management
Planning Council (GMPC), a group consisting of elected officials from King County,
suburban cities, and the City of Seattle, who were authorized to develop a set of
recommended countywide planning policies for consideration by the King County Council;
and
WHEREAS, the GMPC recommended a set of Countywide Planning Polices
to the King County Council that were adopted pursuant to its Ordinance No. 10450 on July
6, 1992, as required by RCW 36.70A.210; and which furthermore were ratified by the Kent
City Council pursuant to Resolution No. 1326 on September 15, 1992; and
Countywide Planning
Policy Amendments -RatifY
WHEREAS, King County has adopted and the City of Kent has ratified Phase
I and Phase II ofthe Countywide Planning Policies, including amendments ratified pursuant
to City of Kent Resolution Nos. 1413, 1459, and 1484; and
WHEREAS, the GMPC met on July 29, 1999, and voted to pass additional
amendments to Phase II Countywide Planning Policies to accomplish the following:
1. To revise the housing growth targets to reflect annexations and
incorporations from April, 1994 to January, 1998.
2. To reassign new housing targets for potential annexation areas and
adoption of an Interim Potential Annexation Areas map which will
remain interim until all unincorporated urban areas are included in
city Potential Annexation Areas without gaps or overlaps.
3. To remove the six (6) year development capacity work item and to
incorporate the review and evaluation ("Buildable Lands") program
as required by the State Growth Management Act under RCW
36.70A.215); and
WHEREAS, the King County Council approved and ratified these
amendments on behalf of King County on May 22, 2000, pursuant to its Ordinance No.
13858; and
WHEREAS, the Kent Planning Committee reviewed the amendments to the
Countywide Planning Policies at its meeting on July 3, 2000; and
WHEREAS, the Kent Planning Committee recommended that the City
Council ratify the County's amendments to the Phase II Countywide Planning Polices; NOW
THEREFORE,
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON, DOES
HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. The City of Kent, acting pursuant to the Interlocal Agreement
among King County, the City of Seattle, and incorporated suburban cities, hereby ratifies the
2 Countywide Planning
Policy Amendments -RatifY
proposed amendments to the Countywide Planning Polices as adopted by the Metropolitan
King County Council pursuant to Ordinance No. 13858, attached hereto as Exhibit "A" and
incorporated herein by reference.
SECTION 2. The Countywide Planning Policies adopted herein shall be
filed with the City Clerk and in the Planning Office and made available for public inspection.
Passed at a regular meeting ofthe City Council of the City of Kent, Washington this
1%_ day of (/ ~ , 2000.
Concurred in by the
----riff-'wry~'----~' 2000.
ATTEST:
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
3
the Kent, this I% day of
Countywide Planning
Policy Amendments -RatifY
I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of Resolution No. /513 , passed
by the City Council of the City of Kent, Washington, the If day of a tdr-. 2000.
,A y~ /7~ (SEAL)
ITYCLERK
P:\Civii\Resolution\CountywidePlanningPolicy-Ratify.doc
4 Countywide Planning
Policy Amendments-RatifY
KING COUNTY
Signature Report
May 31, 2000
Ordinance 13858
1200 King County Courthouse
516 Third A venue
Seattle, WA 9810~
Proposed No. 2000-0212.2 Sponsors Sullivan
AN ORDINANCE adopting amendments to the
2 Countywide Planning Policies under RCW 36.70A.210;
3 ratifying the amended Countywide Planning Policies for
4 unincorporated King County; and amending Ordinance
5 10450, Section 3, as amended, and K.C.C. 20.10.030 and
6 Ordinance 10450, Section 4, as amended, and K.C.C.
7 20.10.040.
8
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 GMPC
14 recommended King County 2012-Countywide Planning Policies (Phase I) in July, 1992,
15 under Ordinance 10450.
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.
EXHIBrr· -a; :;.
1
Ordinance 13858
19 C. The GMPC met on July 29, 1999, and voted to passamendments to the King
20 County 2012-Countywide Planning Policies (5/25/94], to accomplish the following:
21 1. Amend Appendix 2A to revise the housing growth targets to reflect
22 annexations and incorporations from Aprill994 to January 1998;
23 2. Adopt Appendix 2B and the Interim Potential Annexation Areas Map to
24 include the estimated housing targets for the potential annexation areas as shown on the
25 Interim Potential Annexati.on Area (P AA) Map. The Interim P AA Map describes the
26 areas receiving target allocations in Table CPP Appendix 2B;
27 3. Amend Framework Policy FW-1 (Step 5a) to reflect the completion of the
28 work charged to the land capacity task force;
29 4. Amend Framework Policy FW-1 (Step 5b) to establish a review and
30 evaluation program in compliance with RCW.36.70A.215; and
31 5. Delete Appendix 4, the April1994 Land Capacity Work Program.
32 SECTION 2. Ordinance 10450, Section 3, as amended, and K.C.C. 20.10.030 are
33 each hereby amended to read as follows:
34 Phase II. A. The Phase II Amendments to the King County 2012 -Countywide
35 Planning 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 l to Ordinance 12421.
40 D. The Phase II Amendments to the King County 2012-Countywide Planning
41 Policies are amen~ed, as shown by Attachment 1 and 2 to Ordinance 13260.
2
Ordinance 13858
42 E. The Phase II Amendments to the King County 2012-Countywide Plarining
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-Couritvwide Planning
45 Policies are amended, as shown by Attachments 1 through 3 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. A. .Countywide Planning
49 Policies adopted by Ordinance 10450 for the purposes specified are hereby ratified on
50 behalfofthe population ofunincorporated King County.
51 B: The amendments to the Countywide Planning Policies adopted by Ordinance
52 10840 are hereby ratified on behalfofthe population ofunincorporated 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 P?Pulation of unincorporated King County.
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
3
.·
Ordinance 13858
65 shown by Attachments 1 and 2 to Ordinance 13260, are hereby ratified on behalf or the
66 population of unincorporated King Comity.
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 this Ordinance. are hereby ratified on behalf of the
72 population of unincorporated King County.
73
74
75
Ordinance 13858 was introduced on 3/13/00 and passed by the Metropolitan King County Council on
5/22/00, by the following vote:
ATIEST:
Anne Noris
Yes: 12-Mr. von Reichbauer, Ms. Miller, Ms. Fimia, Mr. Phillips, Mr. Pelz, Mr. McKenna,
Ms. Sullivan, Mr. Nickels, Mr. Pullen, Mr. Gossett, Ms. Hague and Mr. Vance
No:O .
Excused: 1 -Mr. Irons
4
KJNGCOUNTYCOUNC~
KJNG COUNTY, WASHINGTON
Anne Noris
Ordinance 13858
APPROVED this __ day of _____ _, __ .
Anne Noris
Attachments A. GMPC Motion 9971, dated 5/26/99, with attaclunents, B. GMPC Substitute Motion 99-
2, dated 6/15/99, with attaclunents, C. GMPC Motion 99-4, dated 7/16/99
5
May 26, 1999
Sponsored By: Executive Committee
/pr
1 MOTION NQ. 99-1
2 A MOTION amending the Countywide Planning Policies to adjust targets
3 for new housing units to reflect annexations and incorporations from April
4 1994 through January 1998.
5
6 WHEREAS, the 1994 Countywide Planning Policies established a housing target range for each
7 city and for King County, and annexations and incorporations have occurred since that time; and
8
9 WHEREAS, the 1994 targets need to be revised to establish target ranges for the new incorporated
10 areas and to increase the target range for cities which have annexed formerly unincorporated areas,
11 and to correspondingly decrease the target range for unincorporated areas.
12
13 THE GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLANNING COUNCIL OF KING COUNTY HEREBY
14 MOVES AS FOLLOWS:
15
16 The attached Table CPP Appendix 2A is hereby adopted in the Countywide
17 Planning Policies to revise housing growth targets to reflect annexations and
18 incorporations from April 1994 through January 1998.
UGMPCI99GMPCJMot99-l.doc - 1 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
g·
9
. 10
11
12
13
14
15
16
ADOPTED by the Growth Management Planning Council of King County on
1-fl-3-11 and signed by the members of the GMPCKC Executive Committee on
/d-7 -17 · aut en · ation of its doption.
Attachment:
1. ·Table CPP Appendix 2A-Household Growth Target Re-Allocation Based on Annextions
and Incorporations between 4/94 and 1/98.
UGMPC/99GMPC/Mot99-l.doc - 2 -
CPP2A
.
::;pp Appendix 2A ' I I i
-lousehold Growth Target Re-Allocation Based on Annexations & Incorporations between 4/94 & 1/98,
14/28/99 draft
~ev 4/26/99 I I
I I
Column A Column 81 Column 82 Column C
Adopted Household Target Added Through Target Added Through New Target Effective 1/ 98
Growth Target I Incorporation Annexation (A+81+82)
Jurisdiction Low:! Hiqh: 4/94 to 1/98 4/94 to 1/98 Low: Hiqh:
\lgona 346 462 0 0 346 462
\ubum 6553 9610 0 6 6559 9616
3eaux Arts 0 0 0 0 0 0
3ellevue 7680 9550 0 112 7792 9662
31ack Diamond 947 1119 0 591 1538 1710
3othell 1448 2413 0 20 1468 2433
3urien 1596 1995 0 0 1596 1995
:amation 404 404 0 0 404 404
Clyde Hill 12 12 0 0 12 12
Covingtqn n/a n/a 1493 0 1343 1642
Des Moines 1437 2155 0 358 1795 2513
Duvall 1563 1759 0 0 1563 1759
Enumclaw 2182 2667 0 0 2182 2667
Federal Way 13425 16566 0 243 13668 16809
Hunts Point 4 4 0 0 4 4
Issaquah 1879 3508 0 686 2565 4194
Kent 6120 7500 0 2265 8385 9765
Kirkland 5328 6346 0 0 5328 . 6346
Lake Forest Park 101 168 0 316 417 484
Maple Valley nla n/a 1539 0 1385 1692
Medina 17 17 0 0 17 17
'Mercer Island 1056 1188 0 0 1056 1188
;Milton 16 18 0 11 29 29
!Newcastle n/a n/a 833 a 749 916
; Normandy Park 135 135 0 a 135 135
I North Bend 1266 1787 0 a 1266 1787
I Pacific 6a6 1818 0 0 606 1816
Redmond 9637 12760 0 418 10055 13176
Renton 7730 10049 0 70 7800 10119
Seattle 48233 59520 0 0 48233 59520
SeaTac 3546 7500 0 2 3548 7502
Shoreline n/a n/a 2484 75 2303 2614
Skykomish 27 27 0 0 27 27
Snoqualmie 1942 3625 0 0 1942 3625
Tukwila 4761 6014 0 0 4761 6014
Woodinville 1750 1842 0 1 1751 1843
Yarrow Point 18 18 0 0 18 18
City Total: 131,767 172,556 6,349 5,174 142,646 184,719
Unincorporated County: 40,048 50,000 -6,349 -5,174 28,525 38,477
·urban 34,248 41,800 -0,349 -5,174 22,725 30,277
-rural 5,800 8,20a a a 5,8aa 8,2aO
Total King County Target: 171,815 222,556 0 0 171,171 223,196
All columns are household growth targets, expressed as numbers of households to accommodate during the 2a-year Growth Management period.
Column A represents adopted household targets from Appendix 2 of the Countywide Planning Policies.
Column 81 represents household targets associated with incorporated areas between 4194 and 1/98.
Column 82 represents household targets associated with annexed areas between 4/94 and 1/98.
Column C represents sum of adopted household targets, incorporated. and annexed targets, including ranges for new cities.
I J J I I
MethodOIQ9y: Column A growth targets were based on city boundaries as of April1994. Columns 81 and 62 are additional households to be
accommodated due to incorporation {8 1) or annexation (82) between April 1994 and January 1998. These additional households constitute a
proportional share of the urban unincorporated targets by Community Planning Area. The additional households are based on the land-area
proportion of urban unincorporated area less designated parks and mapped water bodies. That proportion is applied to the Planning Area's urban
target, the midrange of the table on page 30 of the King County Comprehensive Plan. I I
I I I I I, jCPP2A.xls
P.<l:ay 26June 15, 1999
Sponsored By: Executive Committee
/pr
1 Substitute MOTION NO. 99-2
2 A MOTION amending the Countywide Planning Policies to assign new
3 housing targets for potential annexation areas. ·
4
5 WHEREAS, the 1994 Countywide Planning Policies established a housing target range for each
6 city and for King County, and annexations and incorporations have occurred since that time;
7
8 WHEREAS, the housing targets have been revised to reflect annexation and incorporation that
9 have occurred betWeen Aprill994 and January 1998; aHd
10
11 WHEREAS, there is a need to establish household target ranges for the remaining potential
12 annexation areas in order to correspondingly desreasejdentify the target range for King County in
13 the urban area outside current potential annexation areas·~
14
15 WHEREAS, there is a need to advise cities about bow their respective housing targets would
16 increase if the existing agreed upon potential annexation areas were now annexed· and
17
18 WHEREAS housing targets wjll change over time as the region receives new census data
19
20 THE GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLANNING COUNCIL OF KING COUNTY HEREBY
21 MQVES AS FOLLOWS:
22
23 The attached Table CPP Appendix 2B and Interim Potential Annexation Areas Map
24 are hereby adopted in the Cowrtyvriee PlaHil:i:ng Polisies to revise the aoHsing
25 growth targets fur the potential aanexation areas to estimate housing targets for the
26 Potential Annexation Areas as shown on the Interim Potential Annexation Area
27 (PM) Map. The Interim PM Map; describes the aieas receiving target allocations
28 in Table CPP Appendix 2B. This map is considered interim until all
29 unincorporated urban areas are included in city PMs without gaps or overlaps.
30 This map may also be amended to reflect other CPP policy direction.
31
UGMPC/99GMPC/Mot99-2.doc - 1 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
ADOPTED by the Growth Management Planning Council of King County o'n
·1-Jf'-11 and signed by the members of the GMPCKC Executive Committee on
IJ--7-97 . "Ilaiitlleiltication of its adoption.
I
a1r, Growth Management Planning Council
Bob Edwards, Suburban Cities Representative
14 Attachments:
15 1. CPP Appendix 2B -Household Growth Target Re-Allocation based on Annexations and
16 Incorporations after 111/98 and Potential Annexation Areas.
17 2. · Interim Potential Annexation Areas Map
UGMPCI99GMPC/Mot99-2.doc - 2 -
CPP Appendix 28 DRAFT 4/28/99
These are draft estimates of growth targets associated with recent
incorporations and potential annexation areas (PAAs).
Household Growth Target Re-Allocation Base-d on Annexations and Incorporations after 1/1/98
& Potential Annexation Areas .
ColumnA Column 8·1 Column B-2 Column C
H'hold Growth Target to 1/98 Target from Completed Target Remaining Total Target (A+ B)
Jurisdiction Low: High: Annexation or lncoro in PAAs Low: Hioh:
Algona 346 462 0 15 361 477
Auburn . 6559 9616 1 1977 8537 11594
Beaux Arts 0 0 0 0 0 0
Bellevue 7792 9662 6 515 8313 10183
Black Diamond 1538 171a a 353 1891 2063
Bothell 1468 2433 4 3a9 1781 2746
Burien 1596 1995 71 a 1667 2a66
Carnation 4a4 4a4 a 0 4a4 4a4
Clyde Hill 12 12 . a a 12 12
Covington 1343 1642 o· a 1343 1642
Des Moines 1795 2513 38 0 1833 2551
Duvall 1563 1759 0 a 1563 1759
Enumclaw 2182 2667 a a 2182 2667
Federal Way 13668 168a9 45 16a6 15319 1846a
Hunts Point 4 4 a 0 4 4
Issaquah 2565 4194 11 1538 4114 5743
Kenmore% a a 1082 0 974 1190
Kent 8385 9765 0 1980 1a365 11745
Kirkland 5328 6346 a 1248 6576 7594
Lake Forest Park 417 484 18 38 473 54 a
Maple Valley 1385 1692 a a 1385 1692
Medina 17 17 a a 17 17
Mercer Island 1a56 1188 a a 1056 . 1188
Milton 29 29 11 59 99 99
Newcastle 749 916 3 2 754 921
Normandy Park 135 135 a a 135 135
North Bend 1266 1787 a a 1266 1787
Pacific 6a6 1818 0 73 679 1891
Redmond 10055 13178 0 293 1a348 13471
Renton 78ao 10119 . 6a 426a 12120 14439
Sammamish% a a 5465 a 4919 6012
Seattle 48233 59520 a 33 48266 59553
SeaTac 3548 75a2 a 5 3553 7507
Shoreline 2303 2814 a 1a8 2411 2922
Skykomish 27 27 0 a 27 27
Snoqualmie · 1942 3625 0 a 1942 3625
Tukwila 4761 6a14 0 36 4797 6a5o
Woodinville 1751 1843 0 0 1751 1843
Yarrow Point 18 18 0 0 18 18
City Total: 142,646 184,719 6,815 13,973" 162,779 206,162
Unincorp. County 26,525 36,477 -6,815 -13,973 mr 17,689
-urban 22,725 30,277 -6,815 -13,973 1,937 9,489
-rural 5,600 6,200 0 0 5,800 8,200
Total Target: 171,171 . 223,196 0 0 170,516 223,581
Column A represents household growth targets adjusted for annexation and incorporation through 1/98.
Column B represents household targets associated with recent annexations, two new cltie~ and potential annexation areas.
Column C represents sum of adopted targets, annexed I incorporated targets, and targets in PAAs.
" Due to overlapping PAAs, some duplication oecurs in PAA targets. This total eliminates duplicate targets.
• Represents areas of King County not covered by potential annexation areas.
% Tar11et for Kenmore and Sammamish,-incorporated after January 1998, is draft for discussion purposes . 4/99 draft
.
King County
Office ofRegtonal Policy and Planning
King County Courthouse
516 Third Avenue, Room 420
Seattle, WA 98104
(206) 205-0700
(206) 205-07:19 fAX
14 June 2000
TO:
FM:
All King County Mayors
Betty Capeha~
King County dffice of Regional Policy and Planning
RE: CORRECTION TO COUNTYWIDE PLANNING POLICIES
RATIFICATION PACKI\GE
RECEIVED
JUN 2 9 2000
CITY OF KENT
PLANNING Dei'ARTMENT
On June gth our office mailed out a ratification package for your review amending the King
County Countywide Planning Policies through Motion 99-1, Substitute Motion 99-2, and Motion
99-4.
Unfortunately Motion 99-4 has been reported missing from numerous packets. To ensure that
you all have Motion 99-4 we are resending it. My apologies for this error.
If you have questions, please call me at 206.205.0778 or Carol Chan at 206.205.0702.
Encl.
;:_.
·,·.c,
uc·c~••
July 16, 1999
Sponsored By: Executive Committee
cells
MOTION NO. 99-4
2 A MOTION amending the Countywide Planning Policies to remove the 6
3 year development capacity work item and to incorporate the review and
4 evaluation program as required by the State's Growth Management Act
5 underRCW36.70A.215.
6
7 WHEREAS, In 1994, the Growth Management Planning Council (GMPC) established the Land
8 Cap2.city Task Force (LCTF) and charged them to produce an improved, updated set of land
9 capacity estimates, to establish a baseline from which regular, ongoing monitoring could proceed;
10
11 WHEREAS, The LCTF has reviewed and recommended a standardized methodology for
12 jurisdictions to measure the zoned land capacity for residential, and non-residential development
13 for the 20 year planning period;
14
15 WHEREAS, The jurisdictions have completed this analysis and the results show that the
16 jurisdictions in King County have adequate capacity to accommodate the growth expected in their
17 20-year plans;
18
19 WHEREAS, The remaining work program item for the LCTF is to develop a method for
20 calculating 6-year development capacity;
21
22 \VHEREAS, In 1997 the State Growth Management Act was amended to require a review and
23 evaluation program be established in King and five other counties and the cities within those
24 counties consistent with elements ofRCW 36.70A.215;
25
26 WHEREAS, The review and evaluation program required of King County and its cities will
27 produce information to inform the GMPC and the jurisdictions on whether there is sufficient lai1d
28 ·to accommodate the countywide population projection, determine whether the actual density of
29 housing constructed and the amount of!and developed for commercial and industrial uses within
30 the urban growth boundary is consistent with the adopted comprehensive plans, and to determine
31 the amount of land needed for commercial, industrial and housing for the remaining portion of the
32 20 year planning period; and
33
34 WHEREAS, The review and evaluation program will provide information that is similar to what
35 the 6-yea.r development capacity would have provided;
36
37
UGMPC/99GMPC/Mot99-4.doc - 1 -
THE GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLANNING COUNCIL OF KING COu~TY HEREBY
2 II MOVES AS FOLLOWS:
1
.)
4 II I. Amend the following policy:
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
71 _.)
24
25
26
27
28
FW-1 Countywide growth management is a multi-step process ...
Step 5g,: The Growth Management Planning Council Qj i~s succes:o~ s~a~!
established a Land Capacity Task Force to accomplish the work program
prepared in April 1994 (see Appendi:c '!). The Task Force completed the
Residential Land Capacirv Report in 1997 and the Industrial and
Commercial Land Capacitv Report in 1998. In 1999 in order to complv
with RCW 36.70A.215 the April 1994 work program was deleted and
replaced with the State's review and evaluation program.
Step 5b: The Growth Management Planning Council or its successor shall conduct
a review and evaluation program in compliance with RCW 36.70A.2 15.
The purpose of the review and evaluation program shall be to determine
whether King Countv and its cities are achieving urban densities \vjthin
Urban Growth Areas. This shall be accomplished bv comparing the
growth and development assumptions targets and obiectives contained in
these policies (and in countv and citv comprehensive plans) with actual
growth and development that has occurred. If the results of this program
are inconsistent with the requirements of the Growth Management Act
(GMA) King Countv and its cities shall identify reasonable measures in
accordance with the GMA other than adjusting the Urban Growth Areas
. that wjll be taken to complv with those requirements.
29 II 2. Delete Appendix 4, the April 1994 Land Capacity Work Program.
30
31 ADOPTED by the Growth Management Planning Council of King County on 7-Jf --17
32 and signed by the members of the GMPCKC Executive Committee on I,).. -7-97 m
33 open session in authentication of its adoption.-----
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
UGMPC/99GMPC/Mot99-4.doc
ue Donaldson; City of Seattle Representative
~fb&hcL
Bob Edwards, Suburban Cities Representative
- 2 -
D
1111
D
Urban Ansas which ans not within
the designated PM of any clty-
"GAPS"
Pending Annexation
Potential Annexation Areas Sourc:ea:
City Comprahenalve Plans:
Algona, August 1995
· · Bothell, Decambar 1994
Federal Way, Novambar 1995
Issaquah, Saptambar 1997
Kent, April 1995
Ml~on. Decambar 1995
Comprehensive Plan Amendment Countywide Planning Polley Map
Novambar 1997 Rural City Urban Growth Areas:
. Newcastle, June 1997 Carnation, Black Diamond, Duvall, Enumclaw, om
D
Potential Annexation Ansa
Recognized by City-County
lnteriocal Agreement
Interim Potential
Annexation Ansas
Cities · Paclflc, July 1995 North Bend (North Bend Potential Annexation Area
Redmond, Decambar 1997 nsflects resolution of a joint planning ansa, see
ltiil\f.! I Lower Green River Ordl 12535 Sectl 1 Skykomish ( Agricultunsl Production Districts Renton, Decambar 1997 nance on .D), not
SeaTac, Decambar 1995 shown), and Snoqualmie. ~ ·. = -~.~·· ·~·:·.:-~~:S>:':2?.F,!.~ i~~~z;;t:~~~'~"~itil. . .
4
"®
King County
June 8, 2000
PLANNING COMMITTEE
JULY 3, 2000
ATTACHMENT 1
The Honorable Jim White
Mayor, City of Kent
220-4th Ave. South
RECEIVED
fJUN 0 9 2000
City of r\<.o.
Office of the Mayor
::::·:c:e: .
We are Oased to forward for your consideration and ratification the enclosed amendments to
the King County Countywide Planning Policies (CPPs).
The Growth Management Planning Council (GMPC) met on June 16th and July 28th 1999 and
approved the following motions: ·
• Motion 99-1: recommends amending the CPPs to adjust targets for new housing units to
reflect annexations and incorporations from April1994 through January 1998.
• Substitute Motion 99-2: recommends amending the CPPs to reassign new housing
targets for potential annexation areas (P AAs) and adoption of an Interim Potential
Annexation Areas map which will remain interim until all unincorporated urban areas are
included in city P AAs without gaps or overlaps.
• Motion 99-4: recommends amending the CPPs to remove the 6 year development
capacity work item and to incorporate the review and evaluation ("Buildable Lands")
program as required by the State Growth Management Act under RCW 36.70A.215.
On May 22, 2000, the King County Council approved and ratified these amendments on behalf
of unincorporated King County. A copy of King County Ordinance 13858 is enclosed to assist
you in your review of these amendments, along with the council staff report.
As you know, amendments to the Countywide Planning Policies become effective when ratified
by ordinance or resolution by at least 30 percent of the city and county governments representing
70 percent ofthe 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 be aware that the 90-day deadline in this instance is August 21, 2000. If
you have any questions about these amendments or the ratification process, please feel free to
contact Carol Chan, Policy Analyst for the Office of Regional Policy and Planning at 205-0772,
or Laurie Smith, Legislative Analyst for the Metropolitan King County Council at 296-0352.
{~
DICYC:~ID
~-PED
The Honorable Jim White
June 8, 2000
Page 2
If you adopt any legislation relative to this action, please submit one certified copy to Carol
Chan, Policy Analyst with the King County Office of Regional Policy and Planning at 516 3rd
Avenue, Room 402, Seattle, WA 98104. If no action is taken please submit a letter to the
above address stating the same.
Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter.
~
Pet von Reichbauer, Chair Ron Sims
King County Council King County Executive
Enclosures: King County Ordinance 13858 and Attachments
May 22, 2000 Staff Report
cc: Laurie Smith, Legislative Analyst, Metropolitan King County Council
Stephanie Warden, Director, Office of Regional Policy and Planning
Carol Chan, Policy Analyst, Office of Regional Policy and Planning
!
...
-
DIII
D
Urban Areas which are within .'·'" : :. ' ·
the designated PAA of two or more .•...
cltles-"OVERIJ.PS"-OR OTHERWISE .· Potential Annexation Areas Soun:8s:
CONTESTED AREAS , . . , : ; : ... City Comprehenslft Plans: ·
Urban Areas which are not within !h~e;!gnated PAA of any city-."';· . :: :~~~; ~:~:r9;994 .
Pending Annexation : Federal Way, November 1995 .
Potential Annexation Area
Recognized by City-County
lnterlocal Agreement
Interim Potential
Annexation Areas ·
Cities
· -' · · Issaquah, September 1997 ·
· Kent, Aprll1995
· · · · · .. Milton, December 1995
: · .. Comprehensive Plan Amendment
November 1997
·, Newcastle, June 1997
· · ' · Pacific, July 1995
Redmond, December 1997
Renton, December 1997
SeaTac, December 1995
: ·· · ,'. Seattle .' . , ·
~.;t:J:u;:·~0~i~fii~.;<:1;r;~, T.
Countywide Planning Polley Map ·
Rural City Urban Growth Areas:
Carnation, Black Diamond, Duvall, Enumclaw, ·
North Bend (North Bend Potential Annexation Area ·
reflects resolution of a joint planning area, see · ..
Ordinance 12535 Section 1.0), Skykomish (not -'· ··.·
shown), and Snoqualmie. ·
·.· · ·lnterlocal Agreement: ·
':· March 1999
2 ·0. 2' 4