HomeMy WebLinkAbout1263RESOLUTION NO. ld 0 _B
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON
ACCEPTING GRANT FUNDS TO IMPLEMENT THE
GROWTH MANAGEMENT ACT OF 1990
WHEREAS, the 1990 Washington State Legislature passed an Act
dealing with Growth Management (HB 2929) which requires all
jurisdictions in King County to prepare comprehensive plans
consistent with new guidelines; and
WHEREAS, The Act requires that jurisdictions prepare these plans in
cooperation with their neighbors and with King county; and
WHEREAS, the Act assigns near term deadlines for the completion of
1) an inventory and regulations for the protection of resource
lands and critical areas, 2) a process to identify an urban growth
area, and 3) an assessment of land use data collection needs; and
WHEREAS, the Legislature appropriated $7.4 million dollars for each
year of the 1989-1991 biennium to assist the Department of
Community Development and local governments to comply with and
implement the Act; and
WHEREAS, the Department of Community Development will provide
approximately $2. 1 million dollars to a consortium of general
purpose governments in King County provided that 60% of those
governments representing 75% of the county's population agree to
the grant distribution formula and to jointly develop and
cooperatively implement a work program; and
WHEREAS, a technical committee of representatives from City of
Seattle, King County and Suburban Cities have prepared a draft work
program (attachment A) and a grant distribution formula (Attachment
B) ;
NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT HEREBY RESOLVES
as follows:
Section 1. To be eligible for a share of the Growth Management Act
grant funds, the City agrees to:
a) Designate the King County Planning Directors as the
group which will manage the completion of the workprogram, receive
regular briefings on the activities and progress of the technical
forums, and coordinate preparation of the annual reports to the
State Department of Community Development (Attachment C).
b) Send a representatives to and actively participate in
technical forums to accomplish the work program (Attachment A),
specifically, the inventory and protection of resources and
critical areas, the designation of an urban growth area, and
creation of a countywide data sharing group.
c) The grant distribution formula (Attachment B), which
is that every general purpose government in King County will
receive a base amount of $35,000 plus a per capita allocation based
on the jurisdiction's proportional share of total county
population.
d) Designation of King county as the jurisdiction that
will accept the grant funds from the Department of Community
Development and disburse and administer those funds consistent with
the provisions of this resolution including attachments.
e) Submit a short written description of a high priority
project which is unique to this City and upon which the
jurisdiction intends to begin work in this funding year (September
1, 1990 to July 1, 1991).
F) Complete the Growth Management Needs Assessment and
return it to the State Department of Community Development by
January 1, 1991, with a copy to the King County Planning Division.
RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Kent this ~ day of October, 1990.
APPROVED:
ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED:
~Jv, ~
D~p~ty City Clerk,
"ATTACHMENT A"
WORK PROGRAM
Each of the following work items will include a citizen
participation/community involvement element. Consistent with
Section 14 of the Growth Management Act, the Technical Forums,
Planning Directors Association, and the various jurisdictions will
establish procedures for disseminating information, involving
citizens and interest groups, and considering alternatives. these
procedures will be identified in a detailed scope of work developed
for each technical forum.
RESOURCE AND CRITICAL LANDS TECHNICAL FORUM
BACKGROUND: SHB 2929 requires that King County, and each city
within King County, designate natural resource lands and critical
areas within their respective jurisdictions. The County and each
city must then adopt development regulations to assure the
conservation of resource lands, and to preclude land uses or
development that is incompatible with critical areas. These
actions must be completed by September 1, 1991.
OBJECTIVE: To facilitate and coordinate the designation and
regulation of natural resource lands and critical areas by King
County and each city within King County, as required by Sections 6
and 17, SHB 2929.
ACTIONS: King County and the cities of King County will establish
and participate in a Resource and critical Lands Technical Forum
charged with carrying out this objective. The Technical Forum will
undertake the following activities:
1. Seek consensus on a common or compatible approach to the
criteria for designation and regulation of both natural
resource lands and critical areas.
2. Coordinate designation, mapping and other issues relating
to the political boundaries between jurisdictions.
3. Exchange ideas, experiences and expertise and relating to
the designation and regulation of natural resource lands
and critical areas.
4 . Explore the joint use of consultants, data and other
resources among jurisdictions.
5. Coordinate with the designation and regulation efforts of
Snohomish and Pierce Counties.
6. Periodically brief elected officials through established
intergovernmental forums.
"Attachment A" Continued/Page 2
PRODUCT: Each jurisdiction will adopt regulations which product a
coordinated and compatible system of natural resource lands and
critical areas throughout King county by September 1, 1991.
URBAN GROWTH AREAS DESIGNATION
BACKGROUND: SHB 2929 requires that by July 1, 1991, King County
begin consulting with each city regarding the location of an Urban
Growth Area. Urban Growth Areas must include areas and densities
sufficient to permit the urban growth that is projected to occur in
King County over a twenty year period. Due to the complexity of
urban growth issues, ongoing planning efforts and other
consideration, it is imperative that the County and Cities begin
work on growth areas immediately. A cooperative effort will ensure
that the legitimate interests of all jurisdictions are considered
in the ultimate designations.
OBJECTIVE; To foster inter-jurisdictional cooperation and provide
an accurate information base upon which King County Urban Growth
Area decisions will be made.
ACTIONS: The urban/rural boundary of the King County Comprehensive
Plan, together with the land use, development and urban service
policies of the County and cities, will provide the basis upon
which Urban Growth Area decisions will be made. The first step
toward making these decisions will be to determine the growth
capacity of the county and cities, based on existing plans and
policies and on criteria established for urban Growth Areas. King
County and the cities of King County will:
1. Establish and participate in an Urban Growth Area
Technical Forum, which will seek consensus on criteria,
methodologies and format to be used by the County and
each city to estimate their population and employment
growth capacities.
2. Each city and the County will estimate their own
capacities for population and employment growth, based
upon a.) local plans and policies and b.) consistent with
agreed to criteria, methodologies and format.
3. The Urban Growth Area Technical Forum will compile the
capacity estimates prepared by King County jurisdictions
for purposes of evaluating the countywide Urban Growth
Area.
4. As a second priority, the Urban Growth Area Technical
Forum will take initial steps toward delineation of Urban
Growth Areas. This effort will be undertaken in light of
SHB 2929's recognition that cities are the appropriate
providers of urban government services. This effort will
also recognize and support King County's ongoing efforts
PRODUCTS:
"Attachment A" Continued/Page 3
to refine the existing urbanjrural boundary through the
adoption and updating of Community Plans. Initial steps
will include:
a. Seeking consensus on criteria to guide
decisions on the future boundaries of King
County's cities. Decision-making criteria
should include such issues as development
densities, efficient urban services provision
and timing of annexation.
b. Identifying and mapping agreed-to Urban Growth
Areas and areas where there is not agreement.
c. Identifying key elements of a process for
achieving agreement on Urban Growth Areas.
d. King County will work directly with cities in
establishing Urban Growth Areas according to
the following sequence: 1) cities in areas of
Community Planning projects in progress and
cities near or bordering rural
areas/unincorporated areas; and 2) Cities in
western King County urban area, not near rural
designation areas or not bordering
unincorporated areas.
1. Estimate of countywide population and employment growth
capacity, based on existing plans and policies by July 1,
1991.
2. Process for delineating and agreeing to Urban Growth
Areas, by July 1, 1991.
3. Map(s) identifying agreed-to Urban Growth Areas
highlighting areas where there is not agreement,
September 1, 1991.
4. Urban Growth Area designations by end of 1991.
KING COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN REGIONAL GOALS CHAPTER
and
by
BACKGROUND: The current King County Comprehensive plan was adopted
in 1985. King County has recently initiated a major review of that
plan, and has taken steps to solicit the active involvement of all
local jurisdictions. This involvement is especially important in
light of the coordination and consistency requirements of SH 2929.
"Attachment A" Continued/Page 4
OBJECTIVE: To promote coordination and consistency between the
King County Comprehensive Plan and the planning of other King
county local jurisdictions through the King County Comprehensive
Plan review process.
ACTIONS: The Resolution of the Suburban Cities Association of King
County Regarding Priorities of the 1990 review of the King County
Comprehensive Plan (adopted May 9, 1990, will provide the starting
point for a joint effort to review, maintain and strengthen the
regional policies of the 1985 King county Comprehensive Plan. King
County will continue to actively involve cities in the review and
refinement of goals and policies having regional import. The
cities will actively participate in the Comprehensive Plan Review,
through the King County Suburban Cities Association and, where
appropriate, through direct involvement and discussions with the
County. At a minimum, each city will be responsible for
identifying any conflict or inconsistency between their own plans
and policies, and any proposed regional policies for King County.
cities should also make suggestions for resolving any such conflict
or inconsistency.
PRODUCTS: Adopt updated, strengthened and coordinated regional
goals and policies for the King County Comprehensive Plan and city
Comprehensive Plans by the end of 1991.
GROWTH MANAGEMENT DATA SHARING GROUP
BACKGROUND: Successful implementation of SHB 2929 will depend upon
a high level of cooperation and coordination among local
jurisdictions. Such coordination is currently hampered by a lack
of comparable land use and development data from jurisdiction to
jurisdiction.
OBJECTIVE: To share land use and development data and work toward
common methods of compiling and reporting information.
ACTIVITIES: First year activities will involve consultation
between the cities and the County on standardization of references.
PRODUCTS:
1. Identify and compare data collection and tabulation
systems used by each jurisdiction, by July 1, 1991.
2. Identify common data needs by July 1, 1991.
3. Agree to a common format for collecting and tabulating
common data needs by September 1, 1991.
"Attachment A" Continued/Page 5
WORK PROGRAMS FOR INDIVIDUAL KING COUNTY JURISDICTIONS
Each adopting jurisdiction is to provide a paragraph describing an
individual multi-year work program designed to implement SHB 2929.
The focus of the work program should be on activities to be
completed July 1, 1990 to July 1, 1991 with highlights for the
years 1992, 1993, 1994. Milestones and timelines are the two key
words in completing this requirement as they will be used as the
basis for measuring progress and disbursing funds during this first
year.
UUC!KIU 8
GROWf! KAllGIKI.f ACf IORDIRG
18121/98
ro~D! lVAaULI 17~ue,ue xac conn
lJGIOilL lLLOCl!IOI
DOl WlrLAIDS PDRD!SG (073,5U] ($75,tte+perctDt} $2,Ut,U2
COOifY BOLDOCf (5 CODlfllS) ($6U,IU)
1989 POPDLUIOM 1,482,&00
PD~OS AV!!LlBll TO RlGlOIS H,4H,59e PIRCIIf 0! RIGIOIAL POPDLlfiOJ H.tl\
4, 798,100 Sflfl POPULAriOI CHIU 31
3, 715,660 POrDLA!lOK OP !Bl 15 RIGIOK8 caovn un 14.31\
···········~-----····-···············································-··························~···4············
ICr!: !AS! AMODJT IS lOR O~l fLAIMIR/CO.SOLf!lf lOR 011 TllR.
····-··············-~---·······························-···········-··4·······-·····-·-·······················-··
PIR ClPIU
on DIB!RUUflOI
me 1990 POPDLUIOR 18 UAR usa usn oa
JOR!S~!criOR POPULAfiOI PO~OLA,!OI PlkCIKf GROl!l Rl~l &KOUif l 0! RIGIOI !O!AL
HGOU lU1 1,726 i.12\ 17.25\ $3S,tii u,m J3',2H
AU8VU 26t17 3f ,158 2.30\ 29,27\ us,eee 125,389 $60,389
UAUI AR!S 321 2H e. tH ·lt.37\ $l5,ue $219 ll5,11t
ULUVUE 73903 !8890 uu 28.28\ m.eee $66,185 f11l,US
BLACl Dili!OJD 117t 1,519 e. m zt. e6' $35,iel 81.123 $36,123
!O!KlLL (PARf) •t• 7943 ll,SQe e.m H. 78\ 831,866 $8,55& U2,U6
CARIU!OX 951 1, 25 5 e.ee\ 31.97\ m,eu Ull 1)5,933
CLYD! HILL 3229 3e90 • '21\ •4' 36\ 135,tU $2,297 $31,297
DIS KO!US 737& 15,490 1.9U 189. B\ fH ,tee 811.~16 IH,516
DUVALL 729 2,05 e.1H 234.9H m,ue u,ue 836,818
UOMCLU 5&27 G,390 e.m 17.74\ SH,UI $4,751 139,751
UDIRAL HY 63,989 &.31\ 14.37\ $3S,t8i U7,5U Ul,HS
SUUS POIH U3 5U • '03\ '' 35\ $35,118 13 75 $35,315
ISSAQOAH 5536 7,390 e. H\ 33.U\ m.ue H,tH $U,&U xm
&811 ~2UJ, 37.!U 2. ~it .. Jl..ti\ JH.Ift , JV.OU ,.Hl·!~L
iTiG COUHY . ~
503363 514,834 34. 7H 2. 24\ tH,ue '382, He $4171750
uu~uo 18779 37,790 2.H\ 1U.7H 835,tte 128,828 tn,e2a
L~~! lO~!!! PARK 2485 2!00 t.m 12.68\ t3S,Ue $2,182 H7,U2
KID IXA me 2,968 e. 2t\ ·&'." us.ee• 12,211 $37,281
KIRCIR ISLHD . 215 22 a,ne uu ·4.1H ns,eee f!5,337 858,337
MILfOH [PU!) Ill 21& 565 1.0U m.m "·'" H28 $4,869
IORKUDY PARI &268 66H e.H\ -55.11\ $35,tte H,t12 $39,922
MORfB BUO 1781 2, ue 0.16\ U.27\ us.eu Sl, 799 SH,H9
PACiliC W1 t,eu e. 28\ 8e.m us,eee U,t33 f38,i33
RIDMOKD 2 331B 35,426 2. 39\ !UU m.eu $26,333 $61,333
Rll fOl 3Hl2 39,3U 2.65\ 28.5H m.eee IU,H7 $&4, H7
SIHAC 24,0U l.6H 1&.37\ us,eee $11,643 ,52,843
SIAffL! HlSU 561,808 33.8H ). 61' IH,tte 1373,tU UU,e&i
SIYEOM!SH 289 243 •• 82\ 16.27\ 835,889 $181 $35,181
HOQOALMII . 1376 1, 545 Q,le\ 12.77\ us,eee fl,lU 136,1U
fDU!U ma a,aa e .13\ 2e2. U\ m,eee $8,144 SU,0U
YARROW POl Rr 1677 m • '87\ ·8. sn llS,tte $732 135,132
32 1,482,808 U,ta8,315 t1,1t2,377 $2,198,692
••• BOfBILL ARD ~ILrOR fiLL RIC!IVI ~ PROtORfiOIAfl SHARI or !BI 81SI AMOOif
~OfHILL'S SBARI IS 9£. 76' KILfOI'& !!ARB IS 12.71\
ATTACHMENT "C"
GOVERNMENTAL FRAMEWORK
For approximately the past five years, the general purpose
governments in King County have been working more cooperatively to
resolve land use and service delivery issues. The Solid Waste
Interlocal Forum and the Eastside Transportation Forum are two
examples of effective regional problem solving groups in this area.
Building on the success of these and other groups, the County's
general purpose governments have b~en discussing the creation of a
more formal COUNTYWIDE PLANNING COUNCIL "to assure coordination,
consensus, consistency and compliance" among local governments as
they implement the Growth management Act and adopt comprehensive
planning policies to be applied countywide. Decisions on the
formation of a countywide planning council and other strategies for
local coordination and cooperation are anticipated during Fall 1990
and Winter 1991.
In the interim, the general purpose governments in this county have
agreed to designate the King county Planning Directors Association
as an appropriate forum for discussing issues, exchanging
information, promoting standardization and consistency, encouraging
cooperation and providing technical assistance. The directors have
been functioning in this capacity for several years with
considerable success. The group meets regularly each month,
attracts planning directors from city of Seattle, King County, and
from most of the suburban cities and small towns in the county.