The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutITEM V-DWASHINGTON Memorandum Planning and Development Dept. To: Councilmember Lynn Norman, Chair, Planning and Community Development Committee Councilmember Nancy Backus, Vice- Chair, Planning and Community Development Committee Councilmember John Partridge, Member, Planning and Community Development Committee From: Elizabeth Chamberlain, AICP, Planning Manager CC: Kevin Snyder, AICP, Director of Planning and Development Date: May 2, 2011 Re: 2011 Update to King County's Countywide Planning Policies - Current Status Background When Vision 2040 was adopted by the Puget Sound Regional Council General Assembly in May 2008, there were provisions for the four counties to update their Countywide Planning Policies (CPP) to be consistent with the Multi-County Planning Policies identified in Vision 2040. King County began the amendment work through the Interjurisdictional Team (IJT), which is comprised of Planning Directors from several cities, and presenting the proposed amendments to the Growth Management Planning Council (GMPC). The GMPC is a group of elected officials representing King County, Seattle, Bellevue, and other cities and towns in King County (See Exhibit B). The IJT has been working on proposed changes to the CPPs to be consistent with Vision 2040 has made their recommendation to the GMPC over several meetings beginning in September 2010. The following chapters have been presented to the GMPC as follows: • Environment Chapter (Chapter II) - September 22, 2010 meeting • Development Patterns (Chapter III), Housing (Chapter IV), and Economy (Chapter V) - December 8, 2010 meeting • Transportation (Chapter VI) and Public Facilities and Services (Chapter VI l) - February 23, 2011 meeting • April 27, 2011 meeting - reviewed the entire draft amendments to CPPs Page 1 of 3 AUBURN * MORE THAN YOU IMAGINED Status of Proposed Countywide Planning Policies Amendments Attached to this memo for the Committee's reference is the April 27, 2011 Public Review Draft that the GMPC reviewed at their April 27, 2011 meeting (Exhibit A). King County has taken a different approach then Pierce County to the amendments. Pierce County elected to amend the existing CPPs and included necessary changes to be consistent with Vision 2040 (strikeout/underline). King County elected to re-write the CPPs (existing document 92 pages; current amendment proposal 56 pages). Included as an exhibit is the IJT staff report, which provides a good summary as well of the proposed CPP updates. The proposed update to the CPPs is outlined as follows: Vision and Framework (Pages 4-9) • Outlines the vision of King County in year 2030 • Provides information on origin and purpose of the Countywide Planning Policies • Three framework policies regarding the process for amending the CPPs (FW-1), monitoring of the CPPs (FW-2), and identifying and directing investments to regional infrastructure and programs (FW-3) 2. Environment Re-written to be consistent the Multicounty Planning Policies from Vision 2040 Includes policies in regards to climate change (Pages 13-14) 3. Development Patterns • Consolidates several chapters including Land Use Pattern, Community Character and Open Space, and Contiguous and Orderly Development • DP-7 addresses Urban Separators (Page 17); minor modification to the policy from what is currently adopted in the CPPs. Changes to Urban Separators are made pursuant to the CPP amendment process described in Policy FW-1 • There is a typo on Page 19 for Auburn's Housing Target number that staff has identified to IJT 4. Housing • Policy direction for local comprehensive plans to include a housing needs assessment (Page 31) • Affordable Housing Targets (Pages 32-33) - South County Cities submitted a joint letter signed by the Mayors to the GMPC requesting that the methodology for establishing affordable housing targets be reevaluated. At the April 27, 2011 GMPC meeting, the council provided direction to staff (IJT) to work with the South County cities in developing an alternate methodology. • Measuring results of jurisdictions (Pages 35-36) in providing range of housing supplies 5. Economy • Incorporates the Regional Economic Strategy outlined in Vision 2040 • Policies to support the 20-year employment target for jurisdictions (Page 37) • Supporting the region's industry clusters within King County (Page 37-38) 6. Transportation • Consistency with Vision 2040 and supporting Transportation 2040 Page 2 of 3 AUBURN * MORE THAN YOU IMAGINED • Supporting the Regional Growth Strategy - prioritize regional and local funding to transportation investments that support adopted growth targets (Page 42) • Maintenance and preservation policy (Page 44) • Multimodal transportation policies (Pages 43-44) Public Facilities and Services • Combines policies from several chapters in the current CPPs including Contiguous and Orderly Development, Community Character, and Siting Public Capital Facilities. • Policies on utilities (Pages 47-49) • Human and Community Service policies (Page 49) • Siting of Public Capital Facilities (Pages 49-50) 8. Appendix • King County Land Use Map • Interim Potential Annexation Areas Map • Urban Separators Map (See current map for Auburn, Exhibit C) • Housing Technical Appendix Next Steps At the May 9, 2011 Planning and Community Development Committee meeting, staff will review the 2011 Update to the King County Countywide Planning Policies with the Committee. The South County jurisdictions will be working with the Interjurisdictional Team on the affordable housing targets. Comments on the 2011 Update Public Review Draft are due by May 20, 2011. The tentative schedule is to have the Growth Management Planning Council take action on the King County CPPs 2011 Update at their June 29, 2011 meeting. Once the GMPC takes action then the updates are forwarded to King County Council for action then forwarded to the King County jurisdictions for ratification. Amendments must be ratified in 90 days from the King County Council adoption by the county and jurisdictions representing at least 70 percent of the county population and 30 percent of those jurisdictions (see policy FW-1). Exhibits Exhibit A - King County Countywide Planning Policies 2011 Update, Public Review Draft dated April 27, 2011 Exhibit B - Growth Management Policy Council membership Exhibit C - Urban Separators Map Page 3 of 3 AUBURN * MORE THAN YOU IMAGINED Exhibit A 56 Pages King County Countywide Planning Policies 2011 Update Public Review Draft For GMPC consideration April 27, 2011 King County Countywide Planning Policies Public Review Draft April 27, 2011 CONTENTS VISION & FRAMEWORK Vision for King County 2030 Framework Framework Policies VISION 2040 STATEMENT ENVIRONMENT Environmental Sustainability Earth and Habitat Flood Hazards Water Resources Air Quality and Climate Change DEVELOPMENT PATTERNS Urban Growth Area Urban Lands Growth Targets Amendments to the Urban Growth Area Review and Evaluation Program Joint Planning and Annexation Centers Urban Centers Manufacturing/Industrial Centers........... Local Centers Urban Design and Historic Preservation..... Rural Area and Resource Lands Rural Lands Resource Lands HOUSING Housing Supply and Needs Analysis.......... Affordable Housing Targets Strategies to Meet Housing Needs Regional Cooperation Measuring Results ECONOMY Business Development People Places ..2 ..4 ..4 ..6 ..8 10 11 11 12 12 13 13 15 15 16 17 20 21 21 23 23 24 25 26 26 27 28 31 31 31 34 35 35 37 37 38 39 H W H z O 2 King County Countywide Planning Policies Public Review Draft April 27, 2011 TRANSPORTATION Supporting Growth Mobility System Operations PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES Urban and Rural Levels of Service Collaboration Among Jurisdictions Utilities Water Supply Sewage Treatment and Disposal Solid Waste Energy . Telecommunications . Human and Community Services Siting Public Capital Facilities APPENDIX 1: LAND USE MAP APPENDIX 2: INTERIM POTENTIAL ANNEXATION AREAS MAP APPENDIX 3: URBAN SEPARATORS MAP APPENDIX 4: HOUSING TECHNICAL APPENDIX GLOSSARY 41 41 42 43 46 46 46 47 47 47 48 48 49 49 49 51 52 53 54 55 H W H z 0 3 King County Countywide Planning Policies Public Review Draft April 27, 2011 VISION & FRAMEWORK Vision for King County 2030 It is the year 2030 and our county has changed significantly in the 40 years that have elapsed from 1992 when the first Countywide Planning Policies were adopted and implemented. In many ways this is a result of the successful public-private partnership that has supported a diversified, sustainable regional economy and has managed and accommodated growth while maintaining the quality of life and the natural environment throughout the county. King County in 2030 is characterized by: • Effective stewardship of the environment that has preserved and protected the critical areas in the County. This stewardship is most apparent in the protection and sustainability of our land, air, water and energy resources for future generations. • Permanently preserved Rural and Natural Resource Lands with a clear boundary between Rural and Urban Lands. The successful protection and preservation of these lands, as established in 1992, is due in large part to continued innovation within the urban areas to creating new ways to efficiently and sustainably use urban lands. In this way, little pressure is exerted on the Rural Areas for conversion to urban development. The pressure to urbanize Rural Areas has also been lessened by market pressures to use the land for agriculture. Since 2010 the expansion of agriculture in the Rural Area has accelerated as more residents seek locally grown food and a thriving market system now exists throughout the county for these products. The forests of King County remain productive with large scale commercial forestry prevalent in the eastern portion of the County. Compact urban development that has emphasized the use, development and redevelopment existing urbanized areas. Within the Urban Areas little undeveloped land now exists and urban infrastructure has been extended to fully serve the entire Urban Area. Development activity is focused on redevelopment to create vibrant neighborhoods. Improvements to the infrastructure now focus on expanding and maintaining existing capacity as opposed to extending the infrastructure into previously unnerved Urban Areas. Because of the innovations developed in public and private partnerships; there is still ample capacity to accommodate the planned population and employment growth targets with the Urban Areas. Much of the growth in employment and new housing occurs in the Urban Centers. These centers successfully provide a mixture of living, working, cultural, and recreational activities for all members of the community. All the centers are linked together by a high-capacity transit 9 O a w z O 4 King County Countywide Planning Policies Public Review Draft April 27, 2011 system, including light rail and high capacity bus transit. Transit stations within the centers are within walking distance to all parts of the center. The high capacity transit system facilitates people moving easily from one center to another. Within the collection of Urban Centers there is balance between jobs and housing. Each center has developed its own successful urban character and all are noted for their livability, vibrancy, healthy environment, design, and pedestrian focus. Smaller concentrations of businesses are distributed throughout the Urban Area to provide goods and services to surrounding residential areas. Most residents are within walking distance of commercial areas and this fosters a healthy community through physical exercise and a sense of neighborhood. Local transit systems provide convenient connections to the Urban Centers and elsewhere within the urban area. Because of the established multi-modal systems and strategies along with the proximity of services to residents, there has been a steady decrease in the need to use single occupant vehicles either for commuting or other daily activities. Manufacturing and industrial areas continue to thrive and function as important hubs of the regional economy. These areas too are well served by transportation systems that emphasize the efficient movement of people, goods and information to and within manufacturing and industrial areas as well as connecting to other regions. The entire Urban Area is increasingly characterized by superior urban design with an open space network that defines and separates, yet links the various urban areas and jurisdictions. Countywide and regional facilities have been equitably dispersed, located where needed, sited unobtrusively, and have provided appropriate incentives and impact mitigation to the surrounding neighborhoods. Rural Cities have created unique urban environments within the Rural Area and provide commercial services and employment opportunities for their residents. These include retail, business, educational and social services for residents both of city and the surrounding rural area while protecting and supporting the surrounding rural and resource lands. Federal, state and regional funds have been used to further this land use plan and to fund needed regional facilities while local resources focus on funding local and neighborhood facilities. The sharing of resources to accomplish common goals is done so that the regional plan can succeed and all can benefit. Regional cooperation has focused on economic development activities that have retained key industries such as aerospace, software, and biotech, while leveraging the resources of the region to attract new business clusters such as renewable energy development. The economy is vibrant, vital, and sustainable, and emphasizes diversity in the range of goods and information produced and the services provided. Businesses continue to locate in our county because of the high quality of life; the preservation of the natural environment; the emphasis on providing a superior education; the predictability brought about by the 9 O a w z 0 5 King County Countywide Planning Policies Public Review Draft April 27, 2011 management of growth and the effectiveness of public-private partnerships supporting these attributes. Housing opportunities for all incomes and lifestyles exist throughout the county, and with the balanced transportation system, access to employment is convenient and reliable. Innovation in the development of a diverse range of housing types has been fundamental in accommodating population growth. The diversity of housing types has allowed residents to stay within their community as their housing needs change. King County communities are extraordinarily diverse culturally and this has been embraced and celebrated by the residents of King County. The needs of residents are attended to by a social service system that emphasizes prevention but stands ready to respond to direct needs as well. The Urban Area is completely located within cities, which are the primary providers of urban services. Where appropriate, sub-regional consortiums have been created for certain services, and King County government is recognized as the provider of regional services as well as the coordinator of local services to the Rural Area and Resource Lands. Through a clear understanding of growth management, residents and businesses have recognized that all problems will not be cured quickly, but clear and reasonable timelines and financing commitments demonstrate that problems will be solved. Residents and businesses trust in their local governments because the plans and promises made to manage growth starting in 1992 have been followed. Change is accepted and proceeds in an orderly fashion based on the locally adopted and embraced growth management plans. Framework The year 1991 was one of tremendous change for the management of growth in King County and this environment of change gave rise to the distinctive character of the 1992 Countywide Planning Policies (CPPs). While the CPPs periodically have been amended to address specific issues or revisions required by the Growth Management Act (GMA), the first thorough update of the CPPs was completed in 2011 to ensure that the CPPs are consistent with VISION 2040, the GMA and changes that have occurred in the previous twenty years within King County. In 0 addition for the 2011 update, the Growth Management Planning Council (GMPC) directed that the revised policies include countywide direction on three new policy areas; climate change, healthy communities and social justice. Understanding the history of the 1992 policies is important in order to establish the context for the revised policies. w In 1991 five major conditions gave rise to the first CPPs and the process used in their p development and adoption: 6 King County Countywide Planning Policies Public Review Draft April 27, 2011 1. In 1985, the King County Council adopted a Comprehensive Plan that for the first time established a clear boundary between Urban and Rural Areas and set forth standards to delineate a clear development character for each. 2. The adoption of the GMA in 1990 transformed the way that local jurisdictions look at land use planning as well as how they interacted with neighboring jurisdictions. In 1991, the GMA was amended to include the requirement that CPPs be adopted to describe how these relationships would be created. These provisions gave rise to the creation of the GMPC - an advisory group of elected officials from jurisdictions throughout the county charged with overseeing the preparation of the CPPs. Since the GMA was new and many jurisdictions had not created a comprehensive plan before, the CPPs became a guide for jurisdictions to follow in complying with the GMA in areas as diverse as critical area regulation to local growth targets. 3. The Puget Sound Council of Governments had been dissolved in 1991 and was replaced with the Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC) that initially had significantly reduced responsibilities for regional land use planning and coordination. Without an effective regional body for land use planning, it was necessary for the Puget Sound counties to identify their own process and organization for developing the CPPs. In the case of King County, this was the GMPC. Subsequently, as its responsibilities were expanded over time, PSRC developed VISION 2040, the multi-county planning policies that have set the structure for these revised CPPs. 4. By 1991, the Suburban Cities Association had changed from a loose coalition of cities outside of Seattle to a formal organization with the ability to represent constituent jurisdictions in regional forums. 5. Prior to the development of the CPPs, King County and METRO had attempted and failed to win electoral support for merger. This defeat left concerns with jurisdictions over the relationship between city and county governments as well as further confusion over the roles of governments in the urban areas. Because of these conditions and the environment that they fostered, the role of the CPPs and the process to develop a countywide land use policy became significantly more detailed and elaborate than needed to meet the specific statutory requirements for county wide planning policies. However, the development of the policies and the resulting 1992 CPPs helped resolve many of the issues and established a policy structure for subsequent issue resolution. 9 O a w z O 7 King County Countywide Planning Policies Public Review Draft April 27, 2011 Since their adoption, many of the initial CPPS have been codified into local regulations or carried out in regional or statewide arenas and no longer need to be included in the CPPS. Through amendments to the King County Charter and interlocal agreements, the relationship between county and city governments has been clearly defined and annexations and incorporations have brought most of the unincorporated urban area into the cities. Other key actions that were required by the 1992 CPPS along with their current status are described below: • Complete a fiscal and environmental review of the 1992 CPPS - completed and adopted in 1994; • Establish housing and employment targets for each jurisdiction - completed in 1994 and periodically updated pursuant to the CPPS; • Adoption of local comprehensive plans pursuant to the GMA and CPPS - each jurisdiction within King County has an adopted plan that is periodically updated; • Development of a land use capacity and urban density evaluation program - developed and then superseded by the GMA required Buildable lands program; • Develop a growth management monitoring program - King County Benchmarks program established in 1994 and annually updated as described in policy FW-2; and • Evaluation of the need to change the urban growth boundary and work to maintain a permanent Rural Area - established in 1994 and periodically reviewed as described in the Development Patterns chapter. Framework Policies Amendment. While much has been accomplished, the CPPS were never intended to be static and will require amendment over time to reflect changed conditions. Policy FW-1 below describes the process for amending the CPPS: FW-1 Maintain the currency of the Countywide Planning Policies through periodic review and amendment. Initiate and process all amendments at the Growth Management Planning Council (GMPC) through the process described below: a) Only the GMPC may initiate amendments to the CPPS except for amendments to the Urban Growth Area (UGA) that may also be initiated by King County; b) GMPC recommends amendments to the King County Council for consideration, possible amendment and approval; c) A majority vote of the King County Council both constitutes approval of the amendment and ratification on behalf of the residents of Unincorporated King County. Amendments cannot be modified during the ratification process; d) After approval and ratification by the King County Council, amendments are forwarded to each city and town for ratification; and e) Amendments must be ratified within 90 days of King County approval and require affirmation by the county and cities and towns representing at least 70 percent of the county population and 30 percent of those jurisdictions. Ratification is either by 9 O a w z O g King County Countywide Planning Policies Public Review Draft April 27, 2011 an affirmative vote of the city's or town's council or by no action being taken within the ratification period. Monitoring. Periodically evaluating the effectiveness of the CPPs is key to continuing their value to the region and local jurisdictions. In 1994 King County and cities established the current Benchmarks program to monitor and evaluate key regional indicators. FW-2 Monitor and benchmark the progress of the CPPS towards achieving the regional growth strategy inclusive of the environment, development patterns, housing, the economy, transportation and the provision of public services. Identify corrective actions to be taken if benchmarks are not being achieved. Investment. Key to ensuring the success of the CPPs is investments in regional infrastructure and programs. Balancing the use of limited available funds between regional and local needs is extremely complex. FW-3 Work collaboratively to identify and seek regional, state, and federal funding sources to invest in infrastructure, strategies, and programs to enable the full implementation of the CPPs. Balance needed regional investments with local needs when making funding determinations. 9 O rx w z 0 9 King County Countywide Planning Policies Public Review Draft April 27, 2011 VISION 2040 STATEMENT VISION 2040 calls for a brief report or statement in the CPPs of how the plan addresses VISION 2040's MPPs and conformity to relevant planning requirements in the GMA (as per VISION 2040/ Part IV: Implementation). This will be available in the final draft of the revised King County Countywide Planning Policies. H z w H H 0 0 N z 0 1 0 King County Countywide Planning Policies Public Review Draft April 27, 2011 ENVIRONMENT Overarching Goal: The quality of the natural environment in King County is restored and protected for future generations. Environmental Sustainability Local governments have a key role in shaping sustainable communities by integrating sustainable development and business practices with ecological, social, and economic concerns. Local governments also play a pivotal role in ensuring environmental justice by addressing environmental impacts on minority and low-income population groups and by pursuing fairness in the application of policies and regulations. EN-1 Incorporate environmental protection and restoration efforts into local comprehensive plans to ensure that the quality of the natural environment and its contributions to human health and vitality are sustained now and for future generations. EN-2 Encourage low impact development approaches for managing stormwater, protecting water quality, minimizing flooding and erosion, protecting habitat, and reducing green house gas emissions. EN-3 Encourage the transition to a sustainable energy future by reducing demand through planning for efficiency and conservation and by meeting reduced needs from sustainable sources. EN-4 Identify and preserve regionally significant open space networks in both Urban and Rural Areas. Develop strategies and funding to protect lands that provide the following valuable functions: • Physical or visual separation delineating growth boundaries or providing buffers between incompatible uses; • Active and passive outdoor recreation opportunities; • Wildlife habitat or migration corridors that preserve and enhance ecosystem resiliency in the face of urbanization and climate change; • Preservation of ecologically sensitive, scenic or cultural resources; Z • Urban green space, habitats, and ecosystems; • Forest resources; or 0 • Food production potential. z EN-5 Identify and address disproportionate negative impacts of public actions on people of W color and low-income populations in King County to ensure effective implementation of environmental justice principles. 1 1 King County Countywide Planning Policies Public Review Draft April 27, 2011 Earth and Habitat Healthy ecosystems and environments are vital to the sustainability of all plant and animal life, including humans. Protection of biodiversity in all its forms and across all landscapes is critical to continued prosperity and high quality of life in King County. The value of biodiversity to sustaining long-term productivity and both economic and ecological benefits is evident in fisheries, forestry, and agriculture. For ecosystems to be healthy and provide healthful benefits to people, local governments must work to ensure that this ecosystem remain diverse and productive overtime and prevent negative human impacts. With the impending effects of climate change, maintaining biodiversity becomes even more critical to the preservation and resilience of resource-based activities and to many social and ecological systems. Protection of individual species, including Chinook salmon, plays an important role in sustaining biodiversity and quality of life within the county. Since 2000, local governments, citizens, tribes, conservation districts, non-profit groups, and federal and state fisheries managers have cooperated to develop and implement watershed-based salmon conservation plans, known as Water Resource Inventory Area (WRIA) plans, to conserve and restore habitat for Chinook salmon today and for future generations. EN-6 Coordinate approaches and standards for defining and protecting critical areas especially where such areas and impacts to them cross jurisdictional boundaries. EN-7 Encourage basin-wide approaches to wetland mitigation, emphasizing preservation and enhancement of the highest quality wetlands and wetland systems. EN-8 Develop an integrated and comprehensive approach to managing fish and wildlife habitat conservation, especially protecting endangered, threatened or sensitive species. EN-9 Implement salmon habitat protection and restoration priorities in approved WRIA plans. Flood Hazards Flooding is a natural process that affects human communities and natural environments in King County. Managing floodplain development and conserving of aquatic habitats are the main Z challenges for areas affected by flooding. The King County Flood Control District exists to protect public health and safety, regional economic centers, public and private property and p transportation corridors. The District takes a comprehensive and coordinated approach to managing and reducing flood hazards. Z W EN-10 Coordinate and fund flood hazard management efforts through the King County Flood Control District. 1 2 King County Countywide Planning Policies Public Review Draft April 27, 2011 EN-11 Work cooperatively to meet regulatory standards for floodplain development as these standards are updated for consistency with relevant federal requirements including those related to the Endangered Species Act. EN-12 Work cooperatively with the federal, state, and regional agencies and forums to develop regional levee maintenance standards that meet public safety and habitat protection objectives. Water Resources The flow and quality of water is impacted by water withdrawals, land development, stormwater management, and climate change. Since surface and ground waters do not respect political boundaries, cross jurisdictional coordination of water is required to ensure its functions and uses are protected and sustained. The Puget Sound Partnership was created by the Washington State Legislature as the state agency with the responsibility for assuring the preservation and recovery of Puget Sound and the freshwater systems flowing into the Sound. King County plays a key role in these efforts because of its large population and its location in Central Puget Sound. EN-13 Collaborate with the Puget Sound Partnership to implement the Puget Sound Action Agenda and to coordinate land use and transportation plans and actions for the benefit of Puget Sound and its watersheds. EN-14 Manage natural drainage systems to improve water quality and habitat functions, minimize erosion and sedimentation, protect public health, reduce flood risks, and moderate peak storm water runoff rates. Work cooperatively among local, regional, state, national and tribal jurisdictions to establish, monitor and enforce consistent standards for managing streams and wetlands throughout drainage basins. EN-15 Establish a multi-jurisdictional approach for funding and monitoring water quality, quantity, biological conditions, and outcome measures and for improving the efficiency and effectiveness of monitoring efforts. H z Air Quality and Climate Change 0 Greenhouse gas emissions are resulting in a changing and increasingly variable climate. King County's snow-fed water supply is especially vulnerable to a changing climate. Additionally, the W patterns of storm events and river and stream flow patterns are changing and our shoreline is susceptible to rising sea levels. Carbon dioxide reacts with seawater and reduces the water's pH, threatening the food web in Puget Sound. While local governments can individually work to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, more significant emission reductions can only be 1 3 King County Countywide Planning Policies Public Review Draft April 27, 2011 accomplished through countywide coordination of land use patterns and promotion of transportation systems that provide practical alternatives to single occupancy vehicles. Efficient energy consumption is both a mitigation and an adaptation strategy. Local governments can improve energy efficiency through the development of new infrastructure as well as the maintenance and updating of existing infrastructure. EN-16 Plan for land use patterns and transportation systems that minimize air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions, including: • Maintaining or exceeding existing standards for carbon monoxide, ozone, and particulates; • Directing growth to urban centers and other mixed use/ high density locations that support mass transit, encourage non-motorized modes of travel and reduce trip lengths; • Facilitating modes of travel other than single occupancy vehicles including transit, walking, bicycling, and carpooling; • Incorporating energy-saving strategies in infrastructure planning and design; • Encouraging new development to use low emission construction practices, low or zero net lifetime energy requirements and "green" building techniques; and • Increasing use of low emission vehicles, such as efficient electric-powered vehicles. EN-17 Establish a countywide greenhouse gas reduction target that meets or exceeds the statewide reduction requirement that is stated as the 2050 goal of a 50 percent reduction below 1990 levels. EN-18 Establish a greenhouse gas emissions inventory and measurement framework for use by all King County jurisdictions to efficiently and effectively measure progress toward countywide targets established pursuant to policy EN-17. EN-19 Promote energy efficiency conservation methods and sustainable energy sources to support climate change reduction goals. EN-20 Plan and implement land use, transportation, and building practices that will greatly reduce consumption of fossil fuels. H EN-21 Formulate and implement a climate change adaptation strategy that addresses the Z impacts of climate change to public health and safety, the economy, public and private infrastructure, water resources, and habitat. 0 z w 1 4 King County Countywide Planning Policies Public Review Draft April 27, 2011 DEVELOPMENT PATTERNS Countywide Planning Policies on development patterns address the location, types, design and form, and intensity of land uses throughout King County and its cities. They describe and guide implementation a vision for future growth within the county, including its relationship to other functional elements of the CPPs, such as transportation, public services, the environment, and affordable housing, as well as emerging policy themes related to climate change and public health. Development patterns policies are at the core of growth management efforts in King County, in furtherance of the goals and objectives of VISION 2040, and with recognition of the variety of local communities within which those goals and objectives are realized. Overarching Goal: Growth in King County occurs in a compact centers focused pattern that uses land and infrastructure efficiently and that protects rural and resource lands. The Countywide Planning Policies designate land as Urban, Rural, or Resource. The Land Use map in Appendix 1 shows the Urban Growth Area boundary and Urban, Rural, and Resource Lands within King County. Further sections of this chapter provide more detailed descriptions and guidance for planning within each of the three designations. DP-1 Designate all land within King County as either: • Urban land within the Urban Growth Area (UGA), where new growth is focused and accommodated; • Rural land, where farming, forestry, and other resource uses are protected, and very low-density residential uses, and small-scale non-residential uses are allowed; or • Resource land, where permanent regionally significant agricultural, forestry, and mining lands are preserved. Urban Growth Area The Urban Growth Area (UGA) encompasses all of the Urban designated lands within King County. These lands include all cities as well as a portion of unincorporated King County. Consistent with the Growth Management Act and VISION 2040, Urban lands are the focus of future growth that is compact, includes a mix of uses, and is well-served by public infrastructure. Urban lands also include a network of open space where ongoing maintenance is a local as well as a regional concern. The pattern of growth within the UGA implements the Regional Growth Strategy in VISION 2040 through allocation of targets to local jurisdictions. The targets create an obligation to plan and provide zoning for future potential growth, but do not obligate a jurisdiction to guarantee that a given number of housing units will be built or jobs added during the planning period. w H H a H z a O W W Q 1 5 King County Countywide Planning Policies Public Review Draft April 27, 2011 Several additional elements in the Development Patterns chapter reinforce the vision and targeted growth pattern for the UGA. Procedures and criteria for amending the UGA boundary address a range of objectives and ensure that changes balance the needs for land for growth with the overarching goal of preventing sprawl within the county. A review and evaluation program provides feedback for the county and cities on the effectiveness of their efforts to accommodate and achieve the desired land use pattern. Joint planning facilitates the transition of governance of the UGA from the county to cities, consistent with the GMA. Goal Statement: The Urban Growth Area accommodates growth consistent with the regional vision and targets through land use patterns and practices that create vibrant, healthy, and sustainable communities. Urban Lands DP-2 Promote a pattern of compact development within the UGA that includes housing at a range of urban densities, commercial and industrial development, and other urban facilities, including medical, governmental, institutional, and educational uses and parks and open space. The UGA will include a mix of uses that are convenient to and support public transportation in order to reduce reliance on single occupancy vehicle travel for most daily activities. DP-3 Efficiently develop and use residential, commercial, and manufacturing land in the UGA to create healthy and vibrant urban communities with a full range of urban services, and to protect the long-term viability of Rural Areas and Resource Lands. Promote the efficient use of Urban land by using methods such as: • Directing concentrations of housing and employment growth to designated centers; • Encouraging compact development with a mix of compatible residential, commercial, and community activities; • Maximizing the use of the existing capacity for housing and employment; and • Coordinating plans for land use, transportation, capital facilities and services. DP-4 Concentrate housing and employment growth within the designated Urban Growth Area Focus housing growth within countywide designated Urban Centers and locally designated centers. Focus employment growth within countywide designated Urban and Manufacturing/Industrial Centers and with locally designated centers. DP-5 Decrease greenhouse gas emissions through land use strategies that promote a mix of housing, employment, and services at densities sufficient to promote walking, bicycling, transit, and other alternatives to auto travel. DP-6 Plan for development patterns that promote public health by providing all residents with opportunities for safe and convenient daily physical activity, access to healthy food, social connectivity, and protection from exposure to harmful substances and environments. W H H a H a O W W Q 1 6 King County Countywide Planning Policies Public Review Draft April 27, 2011 DP-7 Designate Urban Separators as permanent low-density incorporated and unincorporated areas within the UGA. Urban Separators are intended to protect Resource Lands, Rural Areas, and environmentally sensitive areas, and create open space and wildlife corridors within and between communities while also providing public health, environmental, visual, and recreational benefits. Changes to Urban Separators are made pursuant to the CPP amendment process described in policy FW-1. Designated Urban Separators within cities and unincorporated areas are shown in the Urban Separators Map in Appendix 3. Growth Targets DP-8 Allocate residential and employment growth to each city and unincorporated urban area in the county to meet the following objectives: • To accommodate the most recent 20-year population projection from the state Office of Financial Management and the most recent 20-year regional employment forecast from the Puget Sound Regional Council; • To plan for a pattern of growth that is consistent with the Regional Growth Strategy contained in VISION 2040 including focused growth within cities with countywide designated centers and within other larger cities, limited development in the Rural Areas, and protection of designated Resource Lands; • To efficiently utilize existing zoned and future planned development capacity as well as the capacity of existing and planned infrastructure, including sewer and water systems; • To promote a land use pattern that can be served by a connected network of public transportation services and facilities and pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure and amenities; • To improve the jobs/housing balance within the region and the county; • To promote sufficient opportunities for housing and employment development throughout the UGA; • To allocate growth to individual Potential Annexation Areas (PAAs) within the Urban unincorporated area consistent with the capacity for housing and employment growth within each PAA. DP-9 Update housing and employment targets periodically to provide jurisdictions with up-to- date growth allocations to be incorporated in state-mandated comprehensive plan updates. Adopt housing and employment growth targets in the CPPs pursuant to the procedure described in policy FW-1. Adjust targets administratively upon annexation of unincorporated PAAs by cities. Growth targets for the 2006-2031 planning period are shown in table DP-1. DP-10 Plan to accommodate housing and employment targets in all jurisdictions. This includes • Adopting comprehensive plans and zoning regulations that provide capacity for residential, commercial, and industrial uses that is sufficient to meet 20-year growth needs and is consistent with the desired growth pattern described in VISION 2040; W H H a H z a O W W Q 1 7 King County Countywide Planning Policies Public Review Draft April 27, 2011 • Coordinating water, sewer, transportation and other infrastructure plans and investments among agencies, including special purpose districts; and • Transferring and accommodating unincorporated area housing and employment targets as annexations occur. W H H a H z a 0 w w ra 1 8 King County Countywide Planning Policies Public Review Draft April 27, 2011 Table DP-1: King County Jurisdiction Growth Targets 2006-2031 Net New Units 2006-2031 Net New Jobs 2006-2031 Housing Target FAA Housing Target Employment Target FAA Emp Target Metropolitan Cities Bellevue 17,000 290 53,000 Seattle 86,000 146,700 Metropolitan Cities Subtotal 103,000 199,700 Auburn 9,6200 19,350 Bothell 3,000 810 4,800 200 Bu rie n 3,900 4,600 v Federal Way 8,100 2,390 12,300 290 Kent 7,800 1,560 13,200 290 2 Kirkland 7,200 1,370 20,200 650 U Redmond 10,200 640 23,000 Renton 14,835 3,895 29,000 470 SeaTac 5,800 25,300 Tukwila 4,800 50 15,500 2,050 Core Cities Subtotal 75,255 167,250 Des Moines 3,000 5,000 Issaquah 5,750 290 20,000 v Kenmore 3,500 3,000 Maple Valley 1,800 1,060 2,000 io Mercer Island 2,000 1,000 J Sammamish 4,000 350 1,800 Shoreline 5,000 5,000 Woodinville 3,000 5,000 Larger Cities Subtotal 28,050 42,800 Algona 190 210 Beaux Arts 3 3 Black Diamond 1,900 1,050 Carnation 330 370 Clyde Hill 10 0 Covington 1,470 1,320 Duvall 1,140 840 Enumclaw 1,425 735 Hunts Point 1 0 U Lake Forest Park 475 210 E Medina 19 0 Milton 50 90 160 Newcastle 1,200 735 Normandy Park 120 65 North Bend 665 1,050 Pacific 285 135 370 Skykomish 10 0 Snoqualmie 1,615 1,050 Yarrow Point 14 0 Sma ll Cities Subtotal 10,922 8,168 n PAAs 12,930 3,950 o North Highline 1,360 2,530 E Bear Creek UPD 910 3,580 D Unclaimed Urban Uninc. 650 90 Urban Incorporated Subtotal 15,850 10,150 King County UGA Total 233,077 428,068 r~ H H H z 0 W Q 9 King County Countywide Planning Policies Public Review Draft April 27, 2011 Amendments to the Urban Growth Area DP-11 Review the UGA at least every ten years. This review shall consider monitoring reports and other available data. As a result of this review, and based on the criteria established in policies DP-12 and DP-13, the GMPC may recommend amendments to the CPPs and King County Comprehensive Plan that make changes to the UGA boundary. DP-12 Allow amendment of the UGA only when the following steps have been satisfied: a) The proposed expansion is under review by the County as part of an amendment process of the King County Comprehensive Plan, b) The proposal is transmitted to the GMPC for the purposes of review and recommendation to the King County Council on the proposed amendment to the UGA; c) The King County Council approves or denies the proposed amendment; and d) If approved by the King County Council, the proposed amendment is ratified by the cities following the procedures set forth in policy FW-1. DP-13 Allow expansion of the UGA only if at least one of the following criteria is met: a) A countywide analysis determines that the current UGA is insufficient in size and additional land is needed to accommodate the housing and employment growth targets, including institutional and other non-residential uses, and there are no other reasonable measures, such as increasing density or rezoning existing urban land, that would avoid the need to expand the UGA; or b) A proposed expansion of the UGA is accompanied by dedication of permanent open space to the King County Open Space System, where the acreage of the proposed open space 1) is at least four times the acreage of the land added to the UGA; 2) is contiguous with the UGA with at least a portion of the dedicated open space surrounding the proposed UGA expansion; and 3) Preserves high quality habitat, critical areas, or unique features that contribute to the band of permanent open space along the edge of the UGA; or c) The area is currently a King County park being transferred to a city to be maintained as a park in perpetuity or is park land that has been owned by a city since 1994 and is less than thirty acres in size. DP-14 If expansion of the UGA is warranted based on the criteria in DP-13(a) or DP-13(b), add land to the UGA only if it meets all of the following criteria: a) Is adjacent to the existing UGA and is no larger than necessary to promote compact development that accommodates anticipated growth needs; b) Can be efficiently provided with urban services and does not require supportive facilities located in the Rural Area; W H H a H z a O W Q 2 0 King County Countywide Planning Policies Public Review Draft April 27, 2011 c) Follows topographical features that form natural boundaries, such as rivers and ridge lines and does not extend beyond natural boundaries, such as watersheds, that impede the provision of urban services; d) Is not currently designated as Resource land; e) Is sufficiently free of environmental constraints to be able to support urban development without significant adverse environmental impacts, unless the area is designated as an Urban Separator by interlocal agreement between King County and the annexing city; and f) Is subject to an agreement between King County and the city or town adjacent to the area that the area will be added to the city's Potential Annexation Area (PAA). Upon ratification of the amendment, the CPPs will reflect both the UGA change and PAA change. DP-15 Allow redesignation of Urban land currently within the UGA to Rural land outside of the UGA if the land is not needed to accommodate projected urban growth, is not served by public sewers, is contiguous with the Rural Area, and: a) Is not characterized by urban development; b) Is currently developed with a low density lot pattern that cannot be realistically redeveloped at an urban density; or c) Is characterized by environmentally sensitive areas making it inappropriate for higher density development. Review and Evaluation Program DP-16 Conduct a buildable lands program that meets or exceeds the review and evaluation requirements of the Growth Management Act. The purposes of the buildable lands program are: • To collect and analyze data on development activity, land supply, and capacity for residential, commercial, and industrial land uses; • To evaluate the consistency of actual development densities with current comprehensive plans; and • To evaluate the sufficiency of land capacity to accommodate growth for the remainder of the planning period. DP-17 If necessary based on the findings of a periodic buildable lands evaluation report, adopt reasonable measures, other than expansion of the UGA, to increase land capacity for housing and employment growth within the UGA by making more efficient use of urban land consistent with current plans and targets. Joint Planning and Annexation W H H a H z a O W Q 2 1 King County Countywide Planning Policies Public Review Draft April 27, 2011 DP-18 Coordinate the preparation of comprehensive plans among adjacent and other affected jurisdictions, as a means to avoid or mitigate the potential cross-border impacts of urban development. DP-19 Designate potential annexation areas (PAAs) in city comprehensive plans and adopt them in the Countywide Planning Policies. Ensure that PAAs do not overlap or leave unincorporated urban islands between cities. DP-20 Allow cities to annex territory only within their designated PAA as shown in the Interim Potential Annexation Areas Map in Appendix 2. Phase annexations to coincide with the ability of cities to coordinate the provision of a full range of urban services to areas to be annexed. DP-21 Within the North Highline unincorporated area, where PAAs overlapped prior to January 1, 2009, strive to establish alternative non-overlapping PAA boundaries through a process of negotiation. Absent a negotiated resolution, a city may file a Notice of Intent to Annex with the Boundary Review Board for King County for territory within its designated portion of a PAA overlap as shown in the Interim Potential Annexations Map in Appendix 2 and detailed in the city's comprehensive plan after the following steps have been taken: a) The city proposing annexation has, at least 30 days prior to filing a Notice of Intent to annex with the Boundary Review Board, contacted in writing the cities with the PAA overlap and the county to provide notification of the city's intent to annex and to request a meeting or formal mediation to discuss boundary alternatives, and; b) The cities with the PAA overlap and the county have either: i) Agreed to meet but failed to develop a negotiated settlement to the overlap within 60 days of receipt of the notice, or ii) Declined to meet or failed to respond in writing within 30 days of receipt of the notice. DP-22 Develop agreements between King County and cities with PAAs to apply city-compatible development standards that will guide land development prior to annexation. DP-23 Facilitate the annexation of unincorporated areas within the UGA that are already urbanized and are within a city's PAA in order to provide urban services to those areas. Annexation is preferred over incorporation. DP-24 Evaluate proposals to annex or incorporate unincorporated land based on the following criteria: a) Conformance with Countywide Planning Policies including the UGA boundary; b) The ability of the annexing or incorporating jurisdiction to provide urban services at standards equal to or better than the current service providers; and c) Annexation or incorporation in a manner that will avoid creating unincorporated islands of development. W H H a H z a O W Q 2 2 King County Countywide Planning Policies Public Review Draft April 27, 2011 DP-25 Resolve the issue of unincorporated road islands within or between cities. Roadways and shared streets within or between cities, but still under Kind County jurisdiction, should be annexed by adjacent cities. Centers A centers strategy is the linchpin for King County to achieve the regional land use vision as well as a range of other objectives, particularly providing a land use framework for an efficient and effective regional transit system. Countywide designation of Urban Centers and local designation of local centers provide for locations of mixed-use zoning, infrastructure, and concentrations of services and amenities to accommodate both housing and employment growth. Manufacturing/Industrial Centers preserve lands for family-wage jobs in basic industries and trade and provide areas wherein that employment may grow in the future. Goal Statement: King County grows in a manner that reinforces and expands upon a system of existing and planned central places within which concentrated residential communities and economic activities can flourish. Urban Centers DP-26 Concentrate housing and employment growth within designated Urban Centers. DP-27 Designate Urban Centers in the CPPs where city-nominated locations meet the criteria in policies DP-28 and DP-29 and where the city's commitments will help ensure the success of the center. Each center's proposed location will promote a countywide system of Urban Centers, and the total number of centers should represent a realistic growth strategy for the county. The Urban Growth Areas Map in Appendix 1 displays the designated Urban Centers. DP-28 Allow designation of new Urban Centers where the proposed Center: a) Meets the criteria for designation by the PSRC as a Regional Growth Center; b) Encompasses an area up to one and a half square miles; and c) Has adopted zoning regulations and infrastructure plans that are adequate to accommodate: i) A minimum of 15,000 jobs within one-half mile of an existing or planned high-capacity transit station; ii) At a minimum, an average of 50 employees per gross acre within the Urban Center; and iii) At a minimum, an average of 15 housing units per gross acre within the Urban Center. W H H a H z a O W Q 2 3 King County Countywide Planning Policies Public Review Draft April 27, 2011 DP-29 Adopt a map and housing and employment growth targets in city comprehensive plans for each Urban Center, and adopt policies to promote and maintain quality of life in the Center through: • A broad mix of land uses that foster both daytime and nighttime activities and opportunities for social interaction; • A range of affordable and healthy housing choices; • Historic preservation and adaptive reuse of historic places; • Parks and public open spaces that are accessible and beneficial to all residents in the Urban Center; • Strategies to increase tree canopy within the Urban Center and incorporate low- impact development measures to minimize stormwater runoff; • Facilities to meet human service needs; • Superior urban design which reflects the local community vision for compact urban development; • Pedestrian and bicycle mobility, transit use, and linkages between these modes; • Planning for complete streets to provide safe and inviting access to multiple travel modes, especially bicycle and pedestrian travel; and • Parking management and other strategies that minimize trips made by single- occupant vehicle, especially during peak commute periods. DP-30 Form the land use foundation for a regional high-capacity transit system through the designation of a system of Urban Centers. Urban Centers should receive high priority for the location of transit service. ManufacturinOndustrial Centers DP-31 Concentrate manufacturing and industrial employment within countywide designated Manufacturing/Industrial Centers (MICs). The Urban Growth Areas Map in Appendix 1 displays the designated Manufacturing/Industrial Centers. DP-32 Adopt in city comprehensive plans a map and employment growth targets for each Manufacturing/Industrial Center and adopt policies and regulations for the Center to: • Provide zoning and infrastructure adequate to accommodate a minimum of 10,000 jobs; • Preserve and enhance sites that are appropriate for manufacturing or other industrial uses; • Strictly limit residential uses and discourage land uses that are not compatible with manufacturing and industrial uses, such as by imposing low maximum size limits on offices and retail uses that are not accessory to an industrial use; • Facilitate the mobility of employees by transit and the movement of goods by truck, rail, air or waterway, as appropriate; W H H a H z a O W Q 2 4 King County Countywide Planning Policies Public Review Draft April 27, 2011 • Provide for capital facility improvement projects which support the movement of goods and manufacturing/industrial operations; • Ensure that utilities are available to serve the center; • Avoid conflicts with adjacent land uses to ensure the continued viability of the land in the MIC for manufacturing and industrial activities; and • Attract and retain the types of businesses that will ensure economic growth and stability. DP-33 Minimize or mitigate potential health impacts of the activities in Manufacturing/Industrial Centers on residential communities, schools, open space, and other public facilities. DP-34 Designate additional Manufacturing/Industrial Centers in the CPPs pursuant to the procedures described in policy FW-1 based on nominations from cities and after determining that a) the nominated locations meet the criteria set forth in policy DP-31 and the criteria established by the PSRC for Regional Manufacturing/Industrial Centers; b) the proposed center's location will promote a countywide system of Manufacturing/Industrial Centers with the total number of centers representing a realistic growth strategy for the county; and c) the city's commitments will help ensure the success of the center. Local Centers DP-35 Concentrate local housing and employment growth within locally designated centers. DP-36 Adopt in city comprehensive plans policies that identify one or more Local Centers, such as city or town centers, neighborhood centers, transit station areas, or other activity nodes, that are characterized by existing and planned elements to include the following: • A diversity of land uses, including commercial, residential, public facilities, and open spaces; • Housing and employment densities that, while lower than most Urban Centers, are sufficient to support transit service; • A range of affordable and healthy housing choices; • Pedestrian and bicycle facilities that connect residential areas to commercial districts, recreation, and transit facilities; • Urban design provisions that reflect the community's vision for local center development; and • Parking management and other strategies that minimize trips by single-occupant vehicle, especially for commute purposes during peak hours. H H a H z a O W W Q 2 5 King County Countywide Planning Policies Public Review Draft April 27, 2011 Urban Design and Historic Preservation The countywide vision includes elements of urban design and form intended to integrate urban development into existing built and natural environments in ways that enhance both the urban and natural settings. These elements include high quality design, context sensitive infill and redevelopment, historic preservation, and the interdependence of urban and rural and agricultural lands and uses. Goal statement: The built environment in both urban and rural settings achieves a high degree of high quality design that recognizes and enhances, where appropriate, existing natural and urban settings. DP-37 Develop neighborhood planning and design processes that encourage infill development, redevelopment, and reuse of existing buildings and that, where appropriate based on local plans, enhance the existing community character and mix of uses. DP-38 Promote a high quality of design and site planning in publicly-funded and private development throughout the UGA. DP-39 Preserve significant historic, archeological, cultural, architectural, artistic, and environmental features, especially where growth could place these resources at risk. Where appropriate, designate individual features or areas for protection or restoration. Encourage land use patterns and adopt regulations that protect historic resources and sustain historic community character. DP-40 Design new development to create and protect systems of green infrastructure, such as urban forests, parks, green roofs, and natural drainage systems, in order to reduce climate- altering pollution and increase resilience of communities to climate change impacts. DP-41 Design communities, neighborhoods, and individual developments using techniques that reduce heat absorption, particularly in Urban Centers. DP-42 Increase access to healthy food in communities throughout the UGA by encouraging the location of healthy food purveyors, such as grocery stores and farmers markets, and community food gardens in proximity to residential uses and transit facilities. DP-43 Adopt design standards or guidelines that foster infill development that is compatible with the existing or desired urban character. Rural Area and Resource Lands W H H a H a O W W Q 2 6 King County Countywide Planning Policies Public Review Draft April 27, 2011 The Rural Area and Resource Lands encompass all areas outside of the Urban Growth Area and include Vashon Island in Puget Sound and the area just east of the UGA all the way to the crest of the Cascade Mountains. The Rural Area is characterized by low density development with a focus on activities that are dependent on the land such as small scale farming and forestry. Rural lands also provide important environmental and habitat functions and are critical for salmon recovery. The location of the Rural Area, between the UGA and designated Resource Lands, helps to protect commercial agriculture and timber from incompatible uses. The Rural Area, outside of the Rural Cities, is to remain in unincorporated King County and is to be provided with a rural level of service. Rural Lands Goal Statement: The Rural Area provides a variety of landscapes, maintains diverse low density communities, and supports rural economic activities based on sustainable stewardship of the land. DP-44 Limit growth in the Rural Area to prevent sprawl and the overburdening of rural services, reduce the need for new rural infrastructure, maintain rural character, and protect the natural environment. DP-45 Limit residential development in the Rural Area to housing at low densities that are compatible with rural character and comply with the following density guidelines: a) One home per 20 acres where a pattern of large lots exists and to buffer Forest Protection Districts and Agricultural Districts; b) One home per ten where the predominant lot size is less than 20 acres; or c) One home per five acres where the predominant lot size is less than ten acres. d) Allow limited clustering within development sites to avoid development on environmentally critical lands or on productive forest or agricultural lands, but not to exceed the density guidelines cited in (a) through (c). DP-46 Limit the extension of urban infrastructure improvements through Rural Areas to only cases where it is necessary to serve the UGA and where there are no other feasible alignments. Such limited extensions may be considered only if land use controls are in place to restrict uses appropriate for the Rural Area and only if access management controls are in place to prohibit tie-ins to the extended facilities. DP-47 Establish rural development standards to protect the natural environment by using seasonal and maximum clearing limits for vegetation, limits on the amount of impervious surface, surface water management standards that preserve natural drainage systems, water quality and groundwater recharge, and best management practices for resource-based activities. H H a H z a O W Q 2 7 King County Countywide Planning Policies Public Review Draft April 27, 2011 DP-48 Prevent or, if necessary, mitigate negative impacts of urban development on adjacent Rural Areas. DP-49 Limit public facilities located in the Rural Area to a size and scale appropriate to serve the Rural Area unless the public facilities are consistent with a rural location, such as a large passive park. DP-50 Allow cities that own property in the rural area to enter into interlocal agreements with King County that would allow the cities to provide services to the property. The cities shall not be allowed to annex the property or serve it with sewers or any infrastructure at an urban level of service. The use of the property must be consistent with the rural land use policies in the CPPs and the King County Comprehensive Plan. Resource Lands The Resource Lands are designated areas with long term commercial significance for agriculture, forestry, and mining, and are depicted in the Land Use Map in Appendix 1 as Forest Product Districts, Agricultural Production Districts, and Mineral Resource Lands. The use and designation of these lands are to be permanent, in accordance with GMA. King County has maintained this base of agriculture and forest lands despite the rapid growth of the previous decades. The Resource Lands are to remain in unincorporated King County but their benefit and significance is felt throughout the county into the cities. Within cities, farmers markets are becoming important and sought after neighborhood amenities. Urban residents are becoming interested in how food is grown and want to visit farms, pick their own food, and shop at roadside farm stands. The forests of the Pacific Northwest are some of the most productive in the world and King County has retained two-thirds of the county in forest cover Large scale forestry is a traditional land use in the eastern half of King County and remains a significant contributor to the rural economy. In addition, forests provide exceptional recreational opportunities, including downhill and cross-country skiing, mountain biking, hiking, and backpacking for the nearly two million residents of King County. Goal Statement: Resource lands are valuable assets of King County and are renowned for their productivity and sustainable management. DP-51 Promote and support forestry, agriculture, mining and other resource-based industries outside of the UGA as part of a diverse and sustainable regional economy. DP-52 Conserve commercial agricultural and forestry resource lands primarily for their long- term productive resource value and for the open space, scenic views, wildlife habitat, and critical area protection benefits they provide. H H a H z a O W Q 2 8 King County Countywide Planning Policies Public Review Draft April 27, 2011 DP-53 Encourage best practices in agriculture and forestry operations for long-term protection of the natural resources. DP-54 Prohibit annexation of lands within designated Agricultural Production Districts or within Forest Production Districts by cities. DP-55 Retain the Lower Green River Agricultural Production District as a regionally designated resource that is to remain in unincorporated King County. DP-56 Discourage incompatible land uses adjacent to designated Resource Lands to prevent interference with their continued use for the production of agricultural, mining, or forest products. DP-57 Support local production and processing of food to reduce the need for long distance transport and to increase the reliability and security of local food. Promote activities and infrastructure, such as farmers' markets, farmworker housing and agricultural processing facilities, that benefit both cities and farms by improving access to locally grown agricultural products. DP-58 Ensure that extractive industries maintain environmental quality and minimize negative impacts on adjacent lands. DP-59 Support institutional procurement policies that encourage purchases of locally grown food products. DP-60 Use a range of tools, including land use designations, development regulations, level-of- service standards, and transfer or purchase of development rights to preserve Rural and Resource Lands and focus urban development within the UGA. DP-61 Use transfer of development rights (TDR) to shift potential development from Rural and Resource lands into Urban areas, especially cities. Implement TDR within King County through a partnership between the county and cities that is designed to: • Identify Rural and Resource sending sites that satisfy countywide conservation goals and are consistent with regionally coordinated TDR efforts; • Preserve rural and resource lands of compelling interest countywide and to participating cities; • Identify appropriate TDR receiving areas within cities; • Identify incentives for city participation in regional TDR (i.e. county-to-city TDR); • Develop Interlocal Agreements that allow Rural and Resource land development rights to be used in city receiving areas; • Identify and secure opportunities to fund or finance infrastructure within city TDR receiving areas; W H H a H a O W W Q 2 9 King County Countywide Planning Policies Public Review Draft April 27, 2011 • Permit existing King County allowance for very limited transfers of development rights within the Rural Area; and • Permit existing within-city TDR programs. W H H a H z a 0 w w ra 3 0 King County Countywide Planning Policies Public Review Draft April 27, 2011 HOUSING The Countywide Planning Policies provide a framework for all jurisdictions to plan for and promote a range of affordable, accessible, and healthy housing choices for current and future residents. "Affordable housing" is generally considered housing for which a household pays thirty percent or less of its income, particularly for households with low and moderate incomes and households with special housing needs. Meeting the county's affordable housing needs will require actions by a wide range of private for profit, non-profit and government entities, including substantial resources from federal, state, and local levels. As part of this effort, all jurisdictions share the responsibility to plan for and encourage a sufficient stock of housing that is affordable to households for all income levels and demographic groups. The housing policies in this chapter encompass a full range of public actions, from assessment of needs to target setting to implementation actions to monitoring outcomes. More detailed guidance is provided in Appendix 4. Overarching Goal: The housing needs of all economic and demographic groups are met within all jurisdictions. Housing Supply and Needs Analysis The Growth Management Act requires a housing inventory and needs analysis as part of the housing element of each jurisdiction's comprehensive plan. Development of effective housing policies and programs requires adequate information on current and future conditions, local and countywide housing needs, and available resources. Assessing local housing needs includes reviewing the needs of a full range of income groups, among both current and expected future residents. The housing supply and needs analysis complements the affordable housing targets for each jurisdiction with a more comprehensive assessment to guide a full range of policies and regulations that influence housing. Further guidance on the elements of the assessment is provided in Appendix 4. H-1 Include in each jurisdiction's comprehensive plan an inventory and analysis of housing needs of all economic and demographic segments of the population, including individuals and families. Include in this analysis, at a minimum, relevant characteristics of housing supply and housing need, especially the needs of very-low, low- and moderate-income households, special needs populations in the county, and changing demographic needs of the community. Address in the analysis each jurisdiction's existing housing needs as well as its responsibility to accommodate a fair share of the projected future demand for affordable housing countywide over the planning period as expressed in the affordable housing targets shown in table H-1. O Affordable Housing Targets 3 1 King County Countywide Planning Policies Public Review Draft April 27, 2011 Within King County, the most pressing unmet need for affordable housing is for households earning less than 80 percent of area median income (AMI). Households that fall below this threshold include low wage workers in services and other industries; persons on fixed incomes including many disabled and elderly residents; homeless individuals and families; and many other community members. The county and all cities share in the responsibility to increase the supply of housing that is affordable to these households. The CPPs assign Affordable Housing Targets to each jurisdiction in order to focus local plans, regulations, and programs on increasing housing choice and opportunity for households at the lower end of the income range, increasing the housing stock affordable to those households in areas of higher cost housing, and increasing the range of housing choices and affordability levels in areas with existing concentrations of low cost housing. While neither the county nor the cities can guarantee that a given number of units at a given price level will be produced during the planning period, setting planning targets makes explicit the scope of the effort required in each jurisdiction. Progress toward affordable housing targets may be accomplished through the addition of newly constructed affordable units or existing units newly preserved or acquired and rehabilitated with a regulatory agreement for long-term affordability. Local governments may also achieve targets through the efforts of multijurisdictional organizations. H-2 Adopt in each jurisdiction's comprehensive plan policies and strategies that accommodate at a minimum the affordable housing targets described as follows and shown below in Table H- 1: a) Housing affordable to moderate income households, with incomes between 50 and 80 percent of the area median household income, which is equal to 16 percent of the jurisdiction's overall housing target; and b) Housing affordable to low-income and very-low income households, with incomes at or below 50 percent of area median household income, which is equal to either 22 percent or 26 percent of the jurisdiction's overall housing target, as determined by the low wage jobs-low cost housing indices described in Appendix 4. L7 O 3 2 King County Countywide Planning Policies Public Review Draft April 27, 2011 Table H-1: King County Jurisdiction Affordable Housing Targets 2006-2031 Moderate Income Housing Targets Low Income Housing Targets Percent of Housing Growth Target in Table DP-1 New Affordable Housing Units (2006-2031) Percent of Housing Growth Target in Table DP-1 New Affordable Housing Units (2006-2031) Metropolitan Cities Bellevue 16% 2,720 26% 4,420 Seattle 16% 13,760 22% 18,920 Metropolitan Cities Subtotal 16,480 23,340 Auburn 16% 1,539 22% 2,116 Bothell 16% 480 26% 780 Burien 16% 624 22% 858 U Federal Way 16% 1,296 22% 1,782 Kent 16% 1,248 22% 1,716 2 Kirkland 16% 1,152 26% 1,872 0 U Redmond 16% 1,632 26% 2,652 Renton 16% 2,374 22% 3,264 SeaTac 16% 928 22% 1,276 Tukwila 16% 768 22% 1,056 Core Cities Subtotal 12,041 17,372 Des Moines 16% 480 22% 660 Issaquah 16% 920 26% 1,495 a, Kenmore 16% 560 26% 910 0 Maple Valley 16% 288 26% 468 uvn Mercer Island 16% 320 26% 520 Sammamish 16% 640 26% 1,040 Shoreline 16% 800 22% 1,100 Woodinville 16% 480 26% 780 Larger Cities Subtotal 4,488 6,973 Algona 16% 30 22% 42 Beaux Arts 16% 0 26% 1 Black Diamond 16% 304 26% 494 Carnation 16% 53 22% 73 Clyde Hill 16% 2 26% 3 Covington 16% 235 26% 382 Duvall 16% 182 22% 251 Enumclaw 16% 228 22% 314 Hunts Point 16% 0 26% 0 Lake Forest Park 16% 76 26% 124 E Medina 16% 3 26% 5 Milton 16% 8 22% 11 Newcastle 16% 192 26% 312 Normandy Park 16% 19 22% 26 North Bend 16% 106 26% 173 Pacific 16% 46 22% 63 Skykomish 16% 2 22% 2 Snoqualmie 16% 258 26% 420 Yarrow Point 16% 2 26% 4 Sma ll Cities Subtotal 1,748* 2,698* Urban Uninc. Total 16% 2,536 Varied 3,795 King County UGA Total 37,292 54,178 *summing difference due to rounding of jurisdiction estimates. r~ 0 3 3 King County Countywide Planning Policies Public Review Draft April 27, 2011 Strategies to Meet Housing Needs VISION 2040 encourages local jurisdictions to adopt best housing practices and innovative techniques to advance the provision of affordable, healthy, sustainable, and safe housing for all residents. No single tool is likely to be sufficient to meet the full range of needs in a given jurisdiction, and the county and cities are encouraged to adopt a range of housing tools, supported by land use, transportation, and other policies, regulations, and investments. Sufficient capacity for housing to meet targeted needs, provided in a variety of unit types and sizes, is the foundation for implementing the housing policies. More detailed guidance on the range of strategies for promoting housing supply and affordability is contained in Appendix 4. H-3 Provide zoned residential capacity within each jurisdiction in the Urban Growth Area for a range of housing types and densities, sufficient to accommodate each jurisdiction's overall housing targets, affordable housing targets, and, where applicable, its housing targets for designated Urban Centers. H-4 Adopt strategies, at the local and countywide levels, that promote housing supply, affordability and diversity. At a minimum, these strategies should address the following areas: • New housing that increases the overall supply and diversity of housing, including both rental and ownership housing suitable for a range of household types and sizes; • New housing that is affordable to very-low, low, and moderate income households; • Provision of housing that is suitable and affordable for households with special needs; • Preservation of existing housing units, especially affordable housing units; • Acquisition and rehabilitation of housing units for long-term affordability; • Universal design and sustainable development of housing; and • Increased housing supply, including affordable housing and special needs housing, within Urban Centers and in other areas planned for concentrations of mixed land uses. H-5 Plan for housing that is accessible to major employment centers and affordable to the workforce in them so people of all incomes can live near or within reasonable commuting distance to their places of work. Encourage housing production at a level that improves the balance of housing to employment throughout the county. (D H-6 Promote housing development, preservation, and affordability in coordination with transit, 4 bicycle, and pedestrian plans and investments and in proximity to transit hubs and corridors, such as through transit oriented development and planning for mixed uses in transit station areas. 3 4 King County Countywide Planning Policies Public Review Draft April 27, 2011 H-7 Plan for residential neighborhoods that protect and promote the health and well-being of residents by supporting active living and healthy eating and reducing the risk of injury and exposure to environmental toxins. H-8 Adopt comprehensive plan policies that promote fair housing and plan for communities that include residents with a range of abilities, ages, races, incomes, and other diverse characteristics of the population of the county. Regional Cooperation Housing affordability is important to regional economic vitality and sustainability. Housing markets do not respect jurisdictional boundaries. For these reasons, multijurisdictional efforts to plan for and adopt strategies to meeting regional housing needs are an additional tool for identifying and meeting affordable housing needs. Collaborative efforts, supported by the work of Puget Sound Regional Council and other agencies, contribute to producing affordable housing and coordinating equitable, sustainable development in the county and region. Where individual cities lack sufficient resources, collective efforts to fund or provide technical assistance for affordable housing development and programs can help to meet the housing needs identified in comprehensive plans. H-9 Collaborate in developing new countywide housing resources and programs, including funding, with a focus on meeting the affordable housing needs of very-low, low, and moderate income households. Support countywide affordable housing programs, contribute resources and other in-kind assistance to local affordable housing development, and support countywide partnership efforts that encourage equitable and sustainable development. H-10 Work cooperatively among jurisdictions to provide mutual support in meeting overall housing targets and affordable housing targets. H-11 Work cooperatively with the Puget Sound Regional Council and other agencies to identify ways to expand technical assistance to local jurisdictions in developing, implementing and monitoring the success of strategies that promote affordable housing that meets changing demographic needs. Collaborate in developing and implementing a housing strategy for the four-county central Puget Sound region. L7 Measuring Results 0 x Maintaining timely and relevant data on housing markets and residential development allows the county and cities to evaluate the effectiveness of their housing strategies and to make appropriate changes to those strategies when and where needed. In assessing efforts to meet affordable housing targets, jurisdictions need to consider public actions taken to encourage 3 5 King County Countywide Planning Policies Public Review Draft April 27, 2011 development and preservation of very low-, low- and moderate-income housing, such as local funding, development code changes, and creation of new programs, as well as market and other factors that are beyond local government control. Further detail on monitoring procedures is contained in Appendix 4. H-12 Monitor housing supply and affordability, including progress toward achieving affordable housing targets, both countywide and within each jurisdiction. Local and countywide monitoring should encompass: • Number and type of new housing units; • Number of units lost to demolition, redevelopment, or conversion to non-residential use; • Number of new units that are affordable to very low, low, and moderate income households; • Number of affordable units newly preserved and units acquired and rehabilitated with a regulatory agreement for long-term affordability for very low, low, and moderate income households; • Housing market trends including affordability of overall housing stock; • Changes in zoned capacity for housing; • The number and nature of fair housing complaints; and • Housing development and market trends in Urban Centers. H-13 Report regularly on the results of the housing monitoring program and consider those data in evaluating progress in the county and cities toward achieving housing goals and targets, and in developing and updating countywide and local housing policies and strategies. L7 O 3 6 King County Countywide Planning Policies Public Review Draft April 27, 2011 ECONOMY Overarching Goal: People throughout King County have opportunities to prosper and enjoy a high quality of life through economic growth and job creation. The Countywide Planning Policies in the Economy Chapter support the economic growth and sustainability of King County's economy. A strong and healthy economy results in business development, job creation, and investment in our communities. The Economy Chapter reflects and supports the Regional Economic Strategy and VISION 2040's economic policies, which emphasize the economic value of business, people, and place. The Regional Economic Strategy is the region's comprehensive economic development strategy and serves as the VISION 2040 economic functional plan. VISION 2040 integrates the Regional Economic Strategy with growth management, transportation, and environmental objectives to: • support critical economic foundations, such as education, infrastructure, technology, and quality of life; and • promote the region's specific industry clusters: aerospace, clean technology, information technology, life sciences, logistics and international trade, military, and tourism. Each local community will have an individual focus on economic development, while the region's prosperity will benefit from coordination between local plans and the regional vision that take into account the county's and the region's overall plan for growth. EC-1 Coordinate local and countywide economic policies and strategies with VISION 2040 and the Regional Economic Strategy. EC-2 Support economic growth that accommodates employment growth targets (see table DP- 1) through local land use plans, infrastructure development, and implementation of economic development strategies. EC-3 Identify and support industry clusters and subclusters within King County that are components of the Regional Economic Strategy or that may otherwise emerge as having significance to King County's economy. EC-4 Evaluate the performance of economic development policies and strategies in business development and job creation. Identify and track key economic metrics to help jurisdictions and the county as a whole evaluate the effectiveness of local and regional economic strategies. Z O U W Business Development Business creation, retention, expansion, and recruitment, are the foundations of a strong economy. The success of the economy in the county depends on opportunities for business 3 7 King County Countywide Planning Policies Public Review Draft April 27, 2011 growth. Our communities play a significant role through local government actions, such as by making of regulations more predictable, by engaging in public-private partnerships, and by nurturing a business-supportive culture. These policies also seek to integrate the concept of healthy communities as part of the county's economic objectives, by calling for support of the regional food economy, including production, processing, wholesaling and distribution of the region's agricultural food and food products. EC-5 Help businesses thrive through: • Transparency, efficiency, and predictability of local regulations and policies; • Communication and partnerships between businesses, government, schools, and research institutions; and • Government contracts with local businesses. EC-6 Foster the retention and development of those businesses and industries that export their goods and services outside the region. EC-7 Promote an economic climate that is supportive of business formation, expansion, and retention and emphasizes the importance of small businesses in creating jobs. EC-8 Foster a broad range of public-private partnerships to implement economic development policies, programs and projects. EC-9 Identify and support the retention of key regional and local assets to the economy, such as major educational facilities; research institutions; health care facilities; manufacturing facilities; and port facilities. EC-10 Support the regional food economy including the production, processing, wholesaling, and distribution of the region's agricultural food and food products to all King County communities. Emphasize increasing access to those communities with limited presence of healthy food options. People People, through their training, knowledge, skills, and cultural background, add value to the y., region's economy. Additionally, creating an economy that provides opportunities for all helps 0 alleviate problems of poverty and income disparity. Z O U EC-11 Work with schools and other institutions to increase graduation rates and sustain a W highly-educated and skilled local workforce. This includes aligning job training and education offerings that are consistent with the skill needs of the region's industry clusters. Identify partnership and funding opportunities where appropriate. 3 8 King County Countywide Planning Policies Public Review Draft April 27, 2011 EC-12 Celebrate the cultural diversity of local communities as a means to enhance the county's global relationships. EC-13 Address the historic disparity in income and employment opportunities for economically disadvantaged populations, including minorities and women, by committing resources to human services; community development; housing; economic development; and public infrastructure. Places Economic activity in the county predominantly occurs within Urban Areas, including Urban Centers and Manufacturing/Industrial Centers. Continuing to guide local investments to these centers will help provide the support needed to sustain the economy and provide greater predictability to businesses about where capital improvements will be located. In addition to making productive use of urban land, economic activity adds to the culture and vitality of our local communities. Businesses create active, attractive places to live and visit, and make significant contributions to the arts. Rural Areas and Resource Lands are important for their contribution to the regional food network, mining, timber and craft industries, while Rural Cities are important for providing services to and being the economic centers for surrounding Rural Areas. EC-14 Foster economic and employment growth in designated Urban Centers and Manufacturing/Industrial Centers through local investments, planning, and financial policies. EC-15 Make local investments to maintain and expand infrastructure and services that support local and regional economic development strategies. Focus investment where it encourages growth in designated centers and helps achieve employment targets. EC-16 Add to the vibrancy and sustainability of our communities and the health and well-being of all people through safe and convenient access to local services, neighborhood-oriented retail, purveyors of healthy food (e.g. grocery stores and farmers markets), and transportation choices. EC-17 Promote the natural environment as a key economic asset. Work cooperatively with local businesses to protect and restore the natural environment in a manner that is efficient z and predictable and minimizes impacts on businesses. O W EC-18 Maintain an adequate supply of land to support economic development. Inventory, plan for, and monitor the land supply and development capacity for, manufacturing/industrial, commercial and other employment uses that can accommodate the amount and types of economic activity anticipated during the planning period. 3 9 King County Countywide Planning Policies Public Review Draft April 27, 2011 EC-19 Support Manufacturing/Industrial Centers (MICs) by adopting industrial siting policies that limit the loss of industrial lands, maintain the region's economic diversity, and support family-wage jobs. Prohibit or strictly limit non-supporting or incompatible activities that can interfere with the retention or operation of industrial businesses, especially in MICs. EC-20 Facilitate redevelopment of contaminated sites through local, county and state financing and other strategies that assist with funding environmental remediation. EC-21 Encourage economic activity within Rural Cities that does not create adverse impacts to surrounding Rural Areas and Resource Lands and will not create the need to provide urban services and facilities to those areas. O z 0 w 4 0 King County Countywide Planning Policies Public Review Draft April 27, 2011 TRANSPORTATION The Regional Growth Strategy adopted in VISION 2040 identifies a network of walkable, compact, and transit-oriented communities that are the focus of urban development, as well as industrial areas with major employment concentrations. In the Countywide Planning Policies, these communities include countywide designated Urban Centers and Manufacturing/Industrial Centers, and locally designated Local Centers. An essential component of the Regional Growth Strategy is an efficient transportation system that provides multiple options for moving people and goods into and among the various centers. Transportation system, in the context of this chapter, is defined as a comprehensive, integrated network of travel modes (e.g. airplanes, automobiles, bicycles, buses, feet, ferries, freighters, trains, trucks) and infrastructure (e.g. sidewalks, trails, streets, arterials, highways, waterways, railways, airports) for the movement of people and goods on a local, regional, national and global scale. Goals and policies in this chapter build on the existing Countywide Planning Policies and the Multicounty Planning Policies in VISION 2040. Policies are organized into three sections: • Supporting Growth -focusing on serving the region with a transportation system that furthers the regional growth strategy; • Mobility - addressing the full range of travel modes necessary to move people and goods efficiently within the region and beyond; and • System Operations - encompassing the design, maintenance and operation of the transportation system to provide for safety, efficiency, and sustainability. Overarching Goal: The region is well served by an integrated, multi-modal transportation system that supports the regional vision for growth, efficiently moves people and goods, and is environmentally and functionally sustainable over the long term. Supporting Growth An effective transportation system is critical to achieving the regional growth strategy and ensuring that centers are functional and appealing to the residents and businesses they are 0 designed to attract. The policies in this section reinforce the critical relationship between development patterns and transportation and they are intended to transportation investments from all levels of government that effectively support local, county and regional plans to 0 accommodate growth. Policies in this section take a multi-modal approach to serving growth, a with additional emphasis on transit and non-motorized modes to support planned Z development in centers. H Goal Statement: Local and regional development of the transportation system is consistent with and furthers realization of the regional growth strategy. 4 1 King County Countywide Planning Policies Public Review Draft April 27, 2011 T-1 Work cooperatively with the Puget Sound Regional Council, the State, and other relevant agencies to finance and develop a multi-modal transportation system that enhances regional mobility and reinforces the countywide vision for managing growth. Use VISION 2040 and Transportation 2040 as the policy and funding framework for creating a system of Urban Centers and Manufacturing/Industrial Centers linked by high-capacity transit, bus transit and an interconnected system of freeways and high-occupancy vehicle lanes. T-2 Avoid construction of major roads and capacity expansion on existing roads in Rural Areas and Resource Lands. Where increased roadway capacity is warranted to support safe and efficient travel through Rural Areas, appropriate rural development regulations and effective access management should be in place prior to authorizing such capacity expansion in order to make more efficient use of existing roadway capacity and prevent unplanned growth in Rural Areas. T-3 Increase the share of trips made countywide by modes other than driving alone through coordinated land use planning, public and private investment, and programs focused on centers and connecting corridors, consistent with locally adopted mode split goals. T-4 Develop station area plans for high capacity transit stations and transit hubs. Plans should reflect the unique characteristics and local vision for each station area including transit supportive land uses, transit rights-of-way, stations and related facilities, multi-modal linkages, and place-making elements. T-5 Support countywide growth management objectives by prioritizing transit service to areas where existing housing and employment densities support transit ridership and to Urban Centers and other areas planned for housing and employment densities that will support transit ridership. Address the mobility needs of transit-dependent populations in allocating transit service and provide at least a basic level of service throughout the UGA. T-6 Foster transit ridership in Urban Centers, Local Centers, and other areas planned for higher densities of housing and employment by designing transit facilities and services and non- motorized infrastructure so that they are integrated with public spaces and private developments to create an inviting public realm. T-7 Ensure State capital improvement policies and actions are consistent with the Regional Growth Strategy and support VISION 2040 and the Countywide Planning Policies. T-8 Prioritize regional and local funding to transportation investments that support adopted growth targets. Mobility z O H H rx O a H 4 2 King County Countywide Planning Policies Public Review Draft April 27, 2011 Mobility is necessary to sustain personal quality of life and the regional economy. For individuals, mobility requires an effective transportation system that provides safe, reliable, and affordable travel options for people of all ages, incomes and abilities. While the majority of people continue to travel by personal automobile, there are growing segments of the population (e.g. elderly, teens, low income, minorities, and persons with disabilities) who rely on other modes of travel such as walking, bicycling, and mass transit to access employment, school, goods and services. According to the 2009 American Community Survey, 8.7 percent of all households in King County had no vehicle available. For many minority populations, more than 20 percent of households in King County have no vehicle available. For certain minority groups (e.g. Asian-Pacific Islander, Black, Hispanic, and Native American) the percentage of households with no vehicle available is generally greater. The movement of goods is also of vital importance to the local and regional economy. International trade is a significant source of employment and economic activity in terms of transporting freight, local consumption, and exporting of goods. The policies in this section are intended to address use and integration of the multiple modes necessary to move people and goods within and beyond the region. The importance of the roadway network, implicit in the policies of this section, is addressed more specifically in the System Operations section of this chapter. Goal Statement: A well-integrated, multi-modal transportation system transports people and goods effectively and efficiently to destinations within the region and beyond. T-9 Promote the mobility of people and goods through a multi-modal transportation system based on regional priorities consistent with VISION 2040 and local comprehensive plans. T-10 Support effective management of existing air, marine and rail transportation capacity and address future capacity needs in cooperation with responsible agencies, affected communities, and users. T-11 Develop and implement freight mobility strategies that strengthen King County's role as a major regional freight distribution hub, an international trade gateway and a manufacturing area. T-12 Address the needs of non-driving populations in the development and management of local and regional transportation systems. T-13 Site and design transit stations and transit hubs to promote connectivity and access for pedestrian and bicycle patrons. System Operations z O H H a O a H 4 3 King County Countywide Planning Policies Public Review Draft April 27, 2011 The design, management and operation of the transportation system are major factors that influence the region's growth and mobility. The policies stress the need to make efficient use of the existing infrastructure, serve the broad needs of the users, address safety and public health issues, and design facilities that area good fit for the surroundings. Implementation of the policies will require the use of a wide range of tools including, but not limited to: • technologies such as intelligent transportation systems and alternative fuels; • demand management programs for parking, commute trip reduction and congestion; and • incentives, pricing systems and other strategies to encourage choices that serve a common good such as public health and environmental sustainability. Goal Statement: The regional transportation system is well-designed and managed to protect public investments, promote public health and safety, and achieve optimum efficiency. T-14 Prioritize essential maintenance, preservation, and safety improvements of the existing transportation system to protect mobility and avoid more costly replacement projects. T-15 Design and operate transportation facilities in a manner that is compatible with and integrated into the natural and built environments in which they are located. T-16 Protect the transportation system (e.g. roadway, rail, transit, air, and marine) against major disruptions by developing prevention and recovery strategies and by coordinating disaster response plans. T-17 Promote the use of tolling and other pricing strategies to effectively manage the transportation system, provide a stable and sustainable transportation funding source, and improve mobility. T-18 Develop a countywide monitoring system to determine how transportation investments are performing overtime consistent with Transportation 2040 recommendations. T-19 Design roads and streets to accommodate a range of motorized and non-motorized travel modes in order to reduce injuries and fatalities and to encourage non-motorized travel. The design should include well-defined, safe and appealing spaces for pedestrians and bicyclists. T-20 Develop a transportation system that minimizes negative impacts to human health, including exposure to environmental toxins generated by vehicle emissions. T-21 Provide opportunities for an active, healthy lifestyle by integrating the needs of pedestrians and bicyclists in the local and regional transportation plans and systems. z O H H a O a H 4 4 King County Countywide Planning Policies Public Review Draft April 27, 2011 T-22 Plan and develop a countywide transportation system that reduces greenhouse gas emissions by advancing strategies that shorten trip length or replace vehicle trips to decrease vehicle miles traveled. T-23 Apply technologies, programs and other strategies that optimize the use of existing infrastructure in order to improve mobility, reduce congestion, increase energy-efficiency, and reduce the need for new infrastructure. T-24 Promote the expanded use of alternative fuel vehicles by the general public with measures such as converting public and private fleets, applying incentive programs, and providing for electric vehicle charging stations throughout the UGA. z 0 H H x 0 a H 4 5 King County Countywide Planning Policies Public Review Draft April 27, 2011 PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES Overarching Goal: County residents in both Urban and Rural Areas have access to the public services needed in order to advance public health and safety, protect the environment, and carry out the regional vision. Urban and Rural Levels of Service The Growth Management Act (GMA) directs jurisdictions and special purpose districts to provide public facilities and services to support development. The GMA distinguishes between urban and rural services and states that land within the Urban Growth Area (UGA) should be provided with a full range of services necessary to sustain urban communities while land within the Rural Area should receive services to support a rural lifestyle. Certain services, such as sanitary sewers, are allowed only in the UGA, except as otherwise authorized. The GMA also requires jurisdictions to determine which facilities are necessary to serve the desired growth pattern and how they will be financed, in order to ensure timely provision of adequate services and facilities. PFS-1 Provide a full range of urban services in the Urban Growth Area to support the Regional Growth Strategy and adopted growth targets and limit the availability of services in the Rural Area consistent with VISION 2040. Collaboration Among Jurisdictions More than 100 special purpose districts, including water, sewer, flood control, stormwater, fire, school and other districts, provide essential services to the residents of King County. While cities are the primary providers of services in the UGA, in many parts of the county, special purpose districts, also provide essential services. Coordination and collaboration among all of these districts, the cities, King County, the tribes, and neighboring counties is key to providing efficient, high-quality and reliable services to support the regional growth strategy. PFS-2 Coordinate among jurisdictions and service providers to provide reliable and cost- effective services to the public. PFS-3 Cities are the appropriate providers of services to the UGA, either directly or by contract. Extend urban services through the use of special districts only where there are agreements with the city in whose Potential Annexation Area the extension is proposed. Within the UGA, as time and conditions warrant, cities will assume local urban services provided by special service districts. Ln w U a W W H W U w U W a 4 6 King County Countywide Planning Policies Public Review Draft April 27, 2011 Utilities Utilities include infrastructure and services that provide water supply, sewage treatment and disposal, solid waste disposal, energy, and telecommunications. Providing these utilities in a cost-effective way is essential to maintaining the health and safety of King County residents and to implementing the regional growth strategy. Water Supply Conservation and efficient use of water resources are vital to ensuring the reliability of the region's water supply, the availability of sufficient water supplies for future generations, and the environmental sustainability of the water supply system. PFS-4 Plan for long-term water provision to support growth and to address the potential impacts of climate change on regional water resources. PFS-5 Support efforts to ensure that all consumers have access to a safe, reliably maintained, and sustainable drinking water source that meets present and future needs. PFS-6 Coordinate water supply among local jurisdictions, tribal governments, and water purveyors to provide reliable and cost-effective sources of water for all users, including residents, businesses, fire districts, and aquatic species. PFS-7 Plan and locate water systems in the Rural Area that are appropriate for rural uses and densities and do not increase the development potential of the Rural Area. PFS-8 Recognize and support agreements with water purveyors in adjacent counties to promote effective conveyance of water supplies and to secure adequate supplies for emergencies. PFS-9 Implement water conservation efforts to protect natural resources, reduce environmental impacts, and support a sustainable long-term water supply to serve the growing population. PFS-10 Encourage water reuse and reclamation, especially for high-volume non-potable water users such as parks, schools, and golf courses. Sewage Treatment and Disposal Ln W U rx W W H W U w U W a 4 7 King County Countywide Planning Policies Public Review Draft April 27, 2011 Within the UGA, connection to sanitary sewers is necessary to support the regional growth strategy and to accommodate urban densities. Alternatives to the sanitary sewer system and the typical septic system are becoming more cost effective and therefore, more available. Alternative technology may be appropriate when it can perform as well or better than sewers in the UGA. Septic systems are not considered to be alternative technology within the UGA. In the Rural Area and Resource Lands, which are characterized by low-density development, sewer service is not typically provided. In cases where public health is threatened, sewers can be provided in the Rural Area but only if connections are strictly limited. Alternative technology may be necessary to substitute for septic systems in the Rural Area. PFS-11 Require all development in the UGA to be served by a public sewer system except: a) single-family residences on existing individual lost that have no feasible access to sewers; or b) development served by alternative technology that: ■ provides equivalent performance to sewers; provides the capacity to achieve planned densities; and will not create a barrier to the extension of sewer service within the UGA. PFS-12 Prohibit sewer expansion in Rural Areas and resource lands except where needed to address specific health and safety problems threatening existing structures. If needed, provide such sewer expansion in a manner that does not increase development potential in the Rural Area. Solid Waste King County and the entire Puget Sound region are recognized for successful efforts to collect recyclable waste. Continuing to reduce and reuse waste will require concerted and coordinated efforts well into the future. It is important to reduce the waste stream going into area landfills to extend the usable life of existing facilities and reduce the need for additional capacity. PFS-13 Reduce the solid waste stream and encourage reuse and recycling. Energy While King County consumers have access to electrical energy derived from hydropower, there are challenges for securing long-term reliable energy and for becoming more energy efficient. PFS-14 Reduce the rate of energy consumption through efficiency and conservation as a means to lower energy costs and mitigate environmental impacts associated with traditional energy supplies. Ln W U a W W H W U w U W a 4 8 King County Countywide Planning Policies Public Review Draft April 27, 2011 PFS-15 Promote the use of renewable and alternative energy resources to help meet the county's long-term energy needs, reduce environmental impacts associated with traditional energy supplies, and increase community sustainability. Telecommunications A telecommunications network that is provided throughout King County is essential to fostering broad economic vitality and equitable access to information, goods and services, and opportunities for social connection. PFS-16 Plan for the provision of telecommunication infrastructure to serve growth and development in a manner consistent with the regional and countywide vision. Human and Community Services Public services beyond physical infrastructure are also necessary to sustain the health and quality of life of all King County residents. In addition, these services play a role in distinguishing urban communities from rural communities and supporting the Regional Growth Strategy. PFS-17 Provide human and community services to meet the needs of current and future residents in King County communities through coordinated planning, funding, and delivery of services by the county, cities, and other agencies. PFS-18 Locate human, community, and educational services and facilities that serve urban populations within the Urban Growth Area, where they are accessible to the populations that they serve. Site these services and facilities in locations that are well served by transit and pedestrian and bicycle networks. PFS-19 Locate human, community, and educational services and facilities that serve rural residents in neighboring cities, rural towns, and rural neighborhood centers. Siting Public Capital Facilities While essential to growth and development, regional capital facilities can disproportionately affect the communities in which they are located. It is important that all jurisdictions work collaboratively and consider environmental justice principles when siting these facilities to foster the development of healthy communities for all. Ln W U a W W H W U w v W a 4 9 King County Countywide Planning Policies Public Review Draft April 27, 2011 PFS-20 Site public capital facilities of regional or statewide importance within the county in a way that equitably disperses impacts and benefits and supports the Countywide Planning Policies. Ln W U rx W W H W U w U a 5 0 King County Countywide Planning Policies Public Review Draft April 27, 2011 APPENDIX 1: LAND USE MAP The maps in these appendices will be updated to reflect completed land use and annexation decisions. They will be available in the final draft of the updated King County Countywide Planning Policies. a W W ~C W a 5 1 King County Countywide Planning Policies Public Review Draft April 27, 2011 APPENDIX 2: INTERIM POTENTIAL ANNEXATION AREAS MAP N W 5 2 King County Countywide Planning Policies Public Review Draft April 27, 2011 APPENDIX 3: URBAN SEPARATORS MAP a O H a~ w M x w a 5 3 King County Countywide Planning Policies Public Review Draft April 27, 2011 APPENDIX 4: HOUSING TECHNICAL APPENDIX The Housing Technical Appendix will be available in the final draft of the updated King County Countywide Planning Policies. Q~ Z W a W U U W H O Q~ Z W a 5 4 King County Countywide Planning Policies Public Review Draft April 27, 2011 GLOSSARY The Glossary will be available in the final draft of the updated King County Countywide Planning Policies. Following is a preliminary set of terms for inclusion. Affordable Housing Agricultural Protection District (APD) Area Median Income (AMI) Buildable Lands Program Climate Change Adaptation Climate Change Mitigation Complete Streets Comprehensive Planning Environmental Justice Forest Protection District (FPD) Growth Management Act Greenhouse Gas Healthy Housing High-capacity Transit Industry Clusters Industry Subclusters King County Comprehensive Plan King County Open Space System Level of Service Standards Local Centers Low-Income Households Manufacturing/ Industrial Centers Mixed Use Development Moderate-Income Households Potential Annexation Area (PAA) Public Capital Facilities Puget Sound Partnership Purchase of Development Rights Regional Economic Strategy Regional Growth Strategy Resource Lands Rural Area Rural Cities Stormwater Management Sustainable Development Transfer of Development Rights Transportation Demand Management Transportation System Universal Design rx O 5 5 King County Countywide Planning Policies Public Review Draft April 27, 2011 Urban Centers Urban Growth Area Urban Separators Very Low-Income Households VISION 2040 Water Resource Inventory Area (WRIA) Workforce Housing rx O 5 6 Exhibit B Page 1 of 5 GMPC: Membership The Growth Management Planning Council (GMPC) is a formal body. The GMPC currently consists of elected officials from Kinq County, Seattle, Bellevue, other cities and towns in King County, special ur ose districts, and the Port of Seattle, as well as staff members. The indicates Executive Committee Representatives. King County King County Executive Dow Constantine,** Chair King County Chinook Building 401 5th Ave. Suite 800 Seattle, WA 98104 206-296-4040 206-296-0194 (Fax) King County Councilmember Reagan Dunn 1200 King County Courthouse 516 Third Avenue Seattle, WA 98104 206-296-1009 206-296-0198 (Fax) King County Councilmember Larry Gossett 1200 King County Courthouse 516 Third Avenue Seattle, WA 98104 206-296-1010 206-296-0198 (Fax) King County Councilmember Jane Hague - Alternate 1200 King County Courthouse 516 Third Avenue Seattle, WA 98104 206-296-1011 206-296-0198 (Fax) King County Councilmember Larry Phillips 1200 King County Courthouse 516 Third Avenue Seattle, WA 98104 206-296-1004 206-296-0198 (Fax) King County Councilmember Pete von Reichbauer 1200 King County Courthouse 516 Third Avenue Exhibit B Page 2 of 5 Seattle, WA 98104 206-296-1007 206-296-0198 (Fax) Seattle City of Seattle Mayor Michael McGinn Seattle City Hall 600 - 4th Avenue, 7th Floor Seattle, WA 98124 206-684-4000 206-684-5360 (Fax) City of Seattle Councilmember Richard Conlin Seattle City Hall 600 - 4th Avenue, 2nd Floor Seattle, WA 98124 206-684-8805 206-684-8587 (Fax) City of Seattle Councilmember Sally Clark Seattle City Hall 600 - 4th Avenue, 2nd Floor Seattle, WA 98124 206-684-8802 206-684-8587 (Fax) City of Seattle Councilmember Jean Godden - Alternate Seattle City Hall 600 - 4th Avenue, 2nd Floor Seattle, WA 98124 206-684-8807 206-684-8587 (Fax) Bellevue City of Bellevue Councilmember Jennifer Robertson 11511 Main Street P.O. Box 90012 Bellevue, WA 98009-9012 425-452-6800 Other cities and towns in King County City of Redmond Councilmember Kimberly Allen P.O. Box 97010 Exhibit B Page 3 of 5 Redmond, WA 98073-9710 425-556-2902 425-556-2110 (Fax) City of Renton Councilmember Terri Briere 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98055 425-228-7170 City of Burien Councilmember Lucy Krakowiak 415 SW 150th Burien, WA 98166 206-242-8378 City of Sammamish Councilmember Mark Cross 486 - 228th Avenue NE Sammamish, WA 98074-7222 425-836-7904 City of Kirkland Councilmember Robert Sternoff 255 - 7th Avenue S. Kirkland, WA 98033 425-828-4438 City of Shoreline Councilmember Chris Eggen - Alternate 17500 Midvale Avenue N Shoreline, WA 98133 206-801-2206 City of North Bend Mayor Ken Hearing - Alternate P.O. Box 896 North Bend, WA 98045 425-888-2301 City of Federal Way Councilmember Dini Duclos -Alternate PO BOX 9718 Federal Way, WA 98063 253-835-7678 City of Kent Councilmember Jamie Perry-Alternate 220 Fourth Avenue South Kent, WA 98032 253-856-5712 Exhibit B Page 4 of 5 City of Maple Valley Councilmember Layne Barnes P.O. Box 320 Maple Valley, WA 98038 Special districts Cedar River Water and Sewer District Commissioner Walt Canter, (Ex-Officio) 14417 Southeast 169th Street Renton, WA 98058 425-255-7541 425-228-4880 (Fax) Fire District 10 Commissioner Marlene Ciraulo - Alternate 4615-193rd Place SE Issaquah, WA 98027 425-562-9266 425-391-8764 Port of Seattle Commissioner Bob Edwards, (Ex-Officio) P.O. Box 1209 Seattle, WA 98111 206-728-3037 206-728-3381 (Fax) Staff Bellevue Intergovernmental Relations Manager Paul Inghram Bellevue Comprehensive Planning P.O. Box 90012 Bellevue, WA 98009-9012 425-452-4070 Seattle Comprehensive and Regional Planning Manager Tom Hauger 700 Fifth Ave., Suite 2000 Seattle, WA 98104 206-684-8380 206-233-7883 (Fax) King County DDES Senior Policy Analyst Paul Reitenbach Department of Development and Environmental Services 900 Oakesdale Avenue SW Renton, WA 98057-5212 Exhibit B Page 5 of 5 206-296-6705 206-296-6614 (Fax) King County Council Legislative Analyst Ricardo Bautista 1200 King County Courthouse 516 Third Avenue Seattle, WA 98104 206-296-0329 206-205-5156 (Fax) Kirkland Planning Director Eric Shields 123 Fifth Ave. Kirkland, WA 98033-6189 425-828-1247 425-803-2859 (Fax) Renton Planning Director Chip Vincent 1055 S. Grady Way Renton, WA 98055 425-430-6588 Redmond Planning Manager Rob Odle 15670 NE 85th St. Redmond, WA 98073-9710 425-556-2417 425-556-4242 (Fax) Suburban Cities Association - Land Use Coordinator Michael Hubner 220 - 4th Avenue South Kent, WA 98032-5895 253-856-5443 253-856-6454 (Fax) Panther Lake i- P..-~gc 1 1 CE 'oath st North Soos Creek ~d11PSCt Kent CE '40th s, South Soos Creek C'OVIn(tOn North Green River sewndSt 164 acre area for further s ,le discussion with the City of Auburn Lea Hill = Green River A ub u171 n, A N Urban Separators: South Overview King County + UGA Boundary Urban Residential 4-12 du/ac Urban Plan Development Inc f ,mp„ed by ° chan e Urban Separators Urban Residential > 12du/ac Forest g Urban Separators Urban Residential 1 du/ac Mining in Annexed Areas b, or or 1 ap the Areas for Further Discussion Rural Residential 1du/2.5-10ac King County Owned Parks nly w Incorporated Areas Neighborhood Business Center Other Parks/Wilderness Rural Neighborhood Community Business Scale: One inch = 3/4 mile Map Produced: Dec. 17, 2003