HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem VIII-B-2aKing County
May 30, 2003
The Honorable Pete Lewis
Mayor, City of Auburn
25 West Main Street
Album, WA 98001-4998
RECEIVED
JUN 1 u
MAYOR'S OFFICE
Dear Mayor Lewis:
We are pleased to forward for your consideration and ratification the enclosed amendments to
the King County Countywide Planning Policies (CPPs).
On May 19, 2003, the King County Council approved and also ratified seven amendments on
behalf of unincorporated King County. Please note that the amendments approved by the
Growth Management Planning Council for the growth targets, and the household and job
target tables, were combined into one ordinance, 2003-0124. Copies of King County Council
Staff Reports, County Ordinances, and Growth Management Planning Council Motions are
enclosed to assist you in your review of these amendments.
Ordinance 2003-0123 (GMPC Motion 02-4) adopting amendments to the Countywide
Planning Policies; adding a new policy to support ongoing water supply planning and
development; ratifying the amended Countywide Planning Policies on behalf of the
population of unincorporated King County.
Ordinance 2003-0124 (GMPC Motions 02-1, 02-2 and 02-3) adopting amendments to the
Countywide Planning Policies; adopting new household and employment targets for the
period 2001 through 2022; ratifying the amended Countywide Planning Policies on behalf
of the population of unincorporated King County.
Ordinance 2003-0125 (GMPC Motion 02-5) adopting amendments to the Countywide
Planning Policies; amending the Urban Separator map to reflect negotiated modifications
to the Renton Urban Separator; ratifying the amended Countywide Planning Policies on
behalf of the population of unincorporated King County.
Ordinance 2003-0126 (GMPC Motion 02-6) adopting amendments to the Countywide
Planning Policies; designating Totem Lake as an Urban Center; ratifying the amended
Countywide Planning Policies on behalf of the population of unincorporated King County.
Ordinance 2003-0127 (GMPC Motion 01-2) adopts amendments to the Countywide
Planning Policies addressing the long-term protection of Agricultural Production Districts,
and ratifies the amended Countywide Planning Policies on behalf of the population of
unincorporated King County.
The Honorable Pete Lewis
May 30, 2003
Page 2
In accordance with the Countywide Planning Policies, FW-1 Step 9, amendments become
effective when ratified by ordinance or resolution by at least 30 percent of the city and county
governments representing 70 percent of the population of King County according to the
Interlocal agreement. A city will be deemed to have ratified the amendments to the
Countywide Planning Policies unless, within 90 days of adoption by King County, the city
takes legislative action to disapprove the amendments. Please note that the 90-day deadline
for these proposed amendments is August 19, 2003. If you have questions about the
amendments or the ratification process, please contact Paul Reitenbach, Senior Policy
Analyst, King County Department of Development and Environmental Services, at
206-296-6705 or Lauren Smith, Legislative Analyst, King County Council, at 206-296-0352.
If you adopt any legislation relative to this action, please submit by close of business,
August 19, 2003, one copy of the legislation to Paul Reitenbach, Senior Policy Analyst,
King County Department of Development and Environmental Science, 900 Oakesdale
Avenue Southwest, Renton, WA 98055-1219.
Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter.
Sincerely,
Cynthia Sullivan, Chair
King County Council King County Executive
Enclosures
CC:
Lauren Smith, Legislative Analyst, King County Council
Stephanie Warden, Director, Department of Development and Environmental
Services (DDES)
Paul Reitenbach, Senior Policy Analyst, DDES
KING COUNTY
Signature Report
May 19, 2003
Ordinance 14652
1200 King County ~e
516 ']'hird Avenue'
Seattle, WA 98104
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
Proposed No.
2003-0123.1 Sponsors Hague
AN ORDINANCE adopting amendments to the
Countywide planning Policies; adding a new policy to
support ongoing water supply planning and development;
ratifying the amended Countywide Planning Policies for
unincorporated King County; and amending Ordinance
10450, Section 3, as amended, and K.C.C. 20.10.030 and
Ordinance 10450, Section 4, as amended, and K.C.C.
20.10.040.
BE 1T ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF KING COUNTY:
SECTION 1. Findings. The council makes the following findings.
A. The metropolitan King County council adopted and ratified the GrOwth
Management Planning COUncil recommended King County 2012 - Countywide Planning
Policies (Phase I) in July 1992, under Ordinance 10450. ..
Ordinance 14652'
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
B. The metropolitan King County council adopted and ratified the Phase II
amendments to the Countywide Planning Policies on August 15, 1994, under Ordinance
11446.
C. The Growth Management Planning Council met on September 25, 2002 and
voted to recommend amendments to the King County 2012 - Countywide Planning
Policies, adding a new policy to support ongoing water supply planning and
development.
SECTION 2. Ordinance 10450, Section 3, as amended, and K.C.C. 20.10.030 are
each hereby amended to read as follows:'
Phase II.
A. The Phase II Amendments to the King'County 2012 Countywide Planning
Policies attached to Ordinance 11446 are hereby approved and adopted.
B. The Phase II Amendments to the King County 2012 - Countywide Planning
Policies are amended, as shoWn by Attachment 1 to Ordinance 12027.
C. The Phase II Amendments to the King County 2012 - Countywide Planning
Policies are amended, as shOwn by Attachment 1 to Ordinance 12421.
D. The Phase II Amendments to the King County 2012 - Countywide Planning
Policies are amended, as shown by Attachment 1 and 2 to Ordinance 13260.
E. The Phase II Amendments to the King County 2012 - Countywide Planning
Policies are amended,'as shown by Attachment 1 through 4 to Ordinance 13415.
F. The Phase II Amendments to the King County 2012 - Countywide Planning
Policies are amended, as shown by Attachments 1 through 3 to Ordinance 13858.
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58.
59
60
Ordinance 14652
G. The Phase II Amendments to the King County 2012 - Countywide Planning
Policies are amended, as shown by AttaChment 1 to Ordinance 14390.
H. -The Phase II Amendments to the King County 2012 -Countywide Planning.
Policies are amended, as shown by Attachment 1 to Ordinance 14391.
I. The Phase II Amendments to the King County 2012 - Countywide Planning
Policies are amended, as shown by Attachment 1 to Ordinance 14392.
J. The Phase II Amendments to the King County 2012 - Countywide Planning
Policies axe amended, as shown by At_t8chment 1 to thi.q ordinance
SECTION 3. Ordinance 10450, Section 4, as amended, and K.C.C. 20.10.040 are
each hereby amended to read as follows:
Ratification for unincorporated King County.
A. Countywide Planning Policies adopted by Ordinance 10450 for the purposes
specified are hereby ratified on behalf of the population of unincorporated King County.
B. The amendments to the Countywide Planning Policies adopted by Ordinance
10840 are hereby ratified on behalf of the population of unincorporated King County.
C. The amendments to the Countywide Planning Policies adopted by Ordinance
11061 are hereby ratified on behalf of the population of unincorporated King County.
D. The Phase .ii amendments to the King County 2012 Countywide Planning
Policies adopted by Ordinance 11446 are hereby ratified on behalf of the population of
unincorporated King County.
E. The amendments to the King County 2012 - Countywide Planning Policies, as
shown by Attachment 1 to Ordinance 12027 are hereby ratified on behalf of the
population of unincorporated King County.
3
61
62
63
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
8O
81
Ordinance 14652
F. The amendments to the Kihg County 2012 - Countywide Planning Policies, as
shown by Attachment 1 to Ordinance 12421,. are hereby ratified on behalf of the
population of unincorporated King County.
G. The amendments to the King County 2012 - COUntywide Planning Policies, as
shown by Attachments 1 and 2 to Ordinance 13260, are hereby ratified on behalf of the
population of unincorporated King County.
H. The amendments to the King County 2012 - Countywide Planning Policies, as
shown by Attachment 1 through 4 to Ordinance 13415, are hereby ratified on behalf of
the population of unincorporated King County.
I. The amendments to the King County 2012 - Countywide Planning Policies, a~ ~
shown by Attachments 1 through 3 to Ordinance 13858, are hereby ratified on behalf of
the population of unincorporated King County.
J. The amendments to the King County 2012 - Countywide Planning Policies, as
shown by Attachment 1 to Ordinance 14390, are hereby ratified on behalf of the
population of unincorporated King County.
K. The amendments to the King County 2012 - Countywide Planning Policies, as
shown by Attachment 1 to ordinance 14391, are hereby .ratified on behalf of the
population of unincorporated King County. '
L. The amendments to the King County 2012 - Countywide Planning Policies, as
shown by Attachment 1 to Ordinance 14392, are hereby moiled on behalf of the
population of unincorporated King County.
4
82
83
84
85
Ordinance 14652
M. The amendments to the King County 2012 - Countywide Planning Policies, as
shown by Attachment 1 to this ordinance, are hereby ratified on behalf of the population
of unincorporated .King County.
Ordinance 14652 was introduced on 3/17/2003 and passed by the Metropolitan King
County Council on 5/19/2003, by the following vote:
Yes: 12 - Ms. Sullivan, Ms. Edmonds, Mr. yon Reichbauer, Ms. Lambert, Mr.
Phillips, Mr. Pelz, Mr. McKenna, Mr. Constantine, Mr. Gossett, Ms. Hague,
Mr. Irons and Ms. Patterson
No: 0
Excused: 0
KING COUNTY COUNCIL
KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON
ATTEST:
Anne Noris, Clerk of the Council
APPROVED this ~_JSO~'' day of [T~
,~ounty Ex.~
At~achn~nts .
Attachment 1. GMPC Motion 02-4
Attachment 1 - 2003-0123
14652
September 25, 2002
]cm
Sponsored By:
ExeCutive Committee
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
· 14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
3O
'31
32
33
MOTION NO. 02-4
A MOTION by the Growth Management Planning Council of King
County recommending the amendment of the Countywide Planning
Policies adding a new policy to support ongoing water supply
planning and development.
WHEREAS, in July 2002, the Growth Management planning Council approved additions
and changes to the 1994 Countywide Planning Policies approving the countywide process
developed to recommend a new 22-year household and employment target; and
WItEREAS, an amendment to add a new policy supporting ongoing water supply planning
and development was considered and tabled; and
WHEREAS, the GMPC allowed reconsideration of the amendment at such time agreement
could be reached on the language; and '
WHEREAS, it is in the interest of the county to encourage regional 'efforts to plan for and
develop sufficient water supply soumes to accommodate population growth and to meet
environmental needs related to conservation of fish habitat.
THE GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLANNING COUNCIL OF KING COUNTY
ttEREBY MOVES AS FOLLOWS:
Add a new POlicy to Section III C of the King County Countywi.de Planning Policies as
follows:
FW-12c 'Ensuring sufficient water supply is essential to accommodate, growth and
conserve fish habitat. Due to the substantial lead-time required to develop water supply.
sources, infrastructure and management strategies, long-term water supply planning effortn
in the Region must be ongoing.
!
2
$
6
?
$
9
10
ADOPTED by the Growth .Management Planning Council of King County on
September 25, 2002 in open session.
146S2
Ron Sims, Chair, Growth Management Planning Council
UGMPC/O2GMPC/Mo~}24.doc - 2 -
Metropolitan King County Council
Growth Management and Unincorporated Areas Committee
Staff Report
Agenda Item: 6 Name:
Proposed Ordinance: 2003-0123 Date:
Attending: Paul Reitenbach, King County DDES
Kevin Wright, King County PAO
Lauren Smith
March 18, 2003
SUBJECT:
Proposed Ordinance 2003-0123 adopting amendments to the Countywide Planning Policies;
adding a new policy to support ongoing water supply planning and development; ratifying the
amended Countywide Planning Policies on behalf of the population of unincorporated King
County.
BACKGROUND:
The Growth Management Planning Council (GMPC) is a formal body comprised of elected
officials from King County, Seattle, Bellevue, the Suburban Cities, and Special Districts. The
GMPC was created in 1990 in response to a provision in the Washington State Growth
Management Act (GMA) requiring cities and counties to work together to adopt Countywide
Planning Policies (CPPs). Under GMA, countywide planning policies serve as the framework
for each individual jurisdiction's comprehensive plan, and ensure regional consistency with
respect to land use planning efforts. The GMPC drafted the CPPs, which were then adopted by
the King County Council and ratified by the cities. Changes to the CPPs are recommended by
the GMPC, adopted by the King County Council, and ratified by the cities.
GMPC Actions
On September 25, 2002 the GMPC adopted Motion 02-4 recommending the adoption of a new
policy (FW12c) related to water supply planning and development. The issue of regional water
supply was raised dudng discussions related to the adoption of new household and
employment targets for the region, and was offered in the spirit of ensuring ongoing
infrastructure planning efforts. The proposed new policy is consistent with existing policy
direction in the CPPs related to water supply planning (Policy CO-5).
FW-12c
Ensuring sufficient water supply is essential to accommodate growth and
conserve fish habitat. Due to the substantial lead-time required to develop water
supply sources, infrastructure and management strategies, long-term water
supply planning efforts in the Region must be ongoing.
SUMMARY:
Proposed Ordinance 2003-0123 would amend the Countywide Planning Policies by:
Adding a new policy, FW-12c in support of an ongoing discussion related to long-term
water supply planning.
C:\WINDOWS\TEMI:~2003-O123 (CPP Amendments - Water Supply Planning)(3-18-O3),doc 5/21/2003 8:50 AM
Additionally, the ordinance would ratify this change on behalf of the population of
unincorporated King County, as required by Countywide Planning Policy FW-1, Step 9.
Amendments to the Countywide Planning Policies become effective when ratified by ordinance
or resolution by at least 30% of the city and county governments representing 70% of the
'population of King County according to the Interlocal agreement. A city shall be deemed to
have ratified the countywide planning policy unless, within 90 days of adoption by King County,
the city by legislative action disapproves the Countywide Planning Policy.
POLICY DIRECTION
Countywide Planning Policies
CO-5
Water supply shall be regionally coordinated to provide a reliable economic source of
water and to provide mutual aid to and between all agecnies and purveyors. THe region
should work toward a mechanism to address the long-term regional water demand
needs of all agencies and water purveyors.
ATTACHMENTS:
· 1. Proposed Ordinance 2003-0123, with attachments
C:\WINDOWS\TEMP~003-0123 (CPP An~ndments - Water Supply Planning)(3-18-03).doc 5/21/2003 8:50 AM
KING COUNTY
Signature Report
May 19, 2003
1200 King County Courthouse
516 Third Avenue
Seattle, WA 98104
Ordinance 14653
Proposed No. 2003-0124.1 Sponsors Hague
1
2
3.
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16'
AN ORDINANCE adopting amendments to the
Countywide Planning Policies; adopting new household
and employment targets for the period 2001 through 2022;
revising existing policies and adding new policies in
support'of the new targets; ratifying the amended
Countywide Planning Policies for unincorporated King'
County; and amending Ordinance 10450, Section 3, as
amended, and K.C.C. 20.10.030 and Ordinance 10450,
Section 4, as amended, and K.C.C. 20.10.040
BE 1T ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF.KING COUNTY:
SECTION 1. Findings. The council makes the following findi.ngs.
A. The metropolitan King County council adopted and ratified the Growth
Management Planning Council recommended King County 2012 - Countywid0 Planning
Policies (Phase I) in July 1992, under Ordinance 10450.
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34'
35
36
37
38
39
Ordinance 14653
B. The metropolitan King County council adopted and ratified the Phase 1I
amendments to the Countywide Planning Policies on August 15, 1994, under Ordinance
11446.
C. The Growth Management Planning Council met on July 24, 2002 and voted to
recommend amendments to the King County 2012 - Countywide Planning Policies,
revising existing policies and adding new policies to support extending household and
employment targets for the period 2001 through 2022.
D. The Growth Management Planning Council met on September 25, 2002 and
voted to recommend amendments to the King County 2012 - Countywide Planning
Policies, adopting new household and employment targets for the period 2001-2022.
SECTION 2. Ordinance 10450, Section 3, as amended, and K.C.C. 20.10.030 are
each hereby amended to read as follows:
Phase II.
A. The Phase II Amendments to the King County 2012 Countywide Planning
Policies attached to Ordinance 11446 are hereby approved and adopted.
B. The Phase II Amendments to the King County 2012 - Countywide Planning
Policies are amended, as shown by Attachment 1 to Ordinance 12027.
C. The Phase II Amendments to the King County 2012 - Countywide Planning
Policies are amended, as shown by Attachment 1 to Ordinance 12421..
D. The'Phase II Amendments to the King County 2012 - Countywide Planning
Policies are amended, as shown by Attachment 1 and 2 to Ordinance 13260.
E. The Phase II Amendments to the King County 2012 - Countywide Planning
Policies are amended, as shown by Attachment 1 through 4 to Ordinance 13415.
Ordinance 14653
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
5O
51
52
53
54
55'
56
57
58
59
60
61
F. The Phase Il Amendments to the King County 2012 - Countywide Planning
Policies are amended, as shown by Attachments 1 through 3 to Ordinance 13858.
G. The Phase II Amendments to the King County 2012 - Countywide Planning
Policies are amended, as shown by Attachment I to Ordinance 14390.
H. The Phase II Amendments to the King County 2012 - Countywide Planning
Policies are amended, as shown by Attachment 1.to Ordinance 14391..
I. The Phase II Amendments to the King County 2012 -. Countywide Planning.
Policies are amended, as shown by Attachment 1 to Ordinance 14392.
J. The Phase II Amendments to the King County 2012 - Countywide Planning
Policies are amended, as shown by Attachments 1 through 3 to this ordinance.
SECTION 3. Ordinance 10450, Section 4, as amended, and K.C.C. 20.10.040 are
each hereby amended to read as follows:
Ratification for unincorporated King County.
A. Countywide Plann!ng Policies adopted by Ordinance 10450 for the purposes
specified are hereby ratified on behalf of the population of unincorporated King County.
B. The amendments to the Countywide Planning Policies adopted by Ordinance
10840 are hereby ratified on behalf of the population of unincorporated King County.
C. The amendments to the Countywide Planning Policies adopted by Ordinance
11061 are hereby ratified on behalf of the population of unincorporated King County.
D. The Phase II amendments to the King County 2012 Countywide Planning
Policies adopted by Ordinance 11446 are hereby ratified on behalf of the population of
unincorporated King County.
3
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
Ordinance 14653
E. The amendments to the King County 2012 - Countywide Planning Policies, as
shown by Attachment I to Ordinance 12027 are hereby ratified on behalf of the
population of unincorporated King County.
F. The amendments to the King County 2012 - Countywide Planning Policies, as
shown by Attachment I to Ordinance 12421, are hereby ratified on behalf of the
population of unincorporated King County.
G. The amendments to the King County 2012 - Couniywide Planning Policies, as
shown by Attachments 1 and 2 to Ordinance 13260,.are hereby ratified on behalf of the
population of unincorporated King County.
H. The amendments to the King County 2012 - Countywide Planning Policies, as
shown by Attachment I through 4 to Ordinance 13415, are hereby ratified on behalf of
the population of unincorporated King County.
I. The amendments to the King County 2012 - Countywide Planning Policies, as
shown by Attachments 1 through 3 to Ordinance 13858, are hereby ratified on behalf of
the population of unincorporated King County.
J. The amendments to the King County 2012 - Countywide Planning Policies, as
shown by Attachment 1 to Ordinance 14390, are hereby ratified on behalf of the
population of unincorporated King CountY.
K. The amendments to tho King County 2012 - Countywide Planning Policies, as
shown by Attachment 1 to Ordinance 14391, are hereby ratified on behalf of the
population of unincorporated King County.
4
Ordinance 14653
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
L. The amendments to the King County 2012 - Countywide Planning Policies, as
shown by Attachment 1 to Ordinance 14392, are hereby ratified on behalf of the
population of unincorporated King County.
M. The amendments to the King County 2012 - Countywide Planning Policies, ae
shown by Attachments 1 through 3 to this ordinance, are hereby ratified on behalf of the
population of unincorporated King County.
Ordinance 14653 was introduced on 3/17/2003 and passed by the Metropolitan King
County COuncil on 5/19/2003, by the following vote:
Yes: 12 - Ms. Sullivan, Ms. Edmonds, Mr. von Reichbauer, Ms. Lambert, Mr.
Phillips, Mr. Pelz, Mr. McKenna, Mr. Constantine, Mr. Gossett, Ms..Hague,
Mr. Irons and Ms. Patterson
No: 0
Excused: 0
KING COUNTY COUNCIL
KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON
Anne Noris, Clerk of the Council
· ::=- [.',vi
thia Sulliva Chair '~'
;Y- :.7- C.~
APPROVED ~is~ dayof
,2003.
Attachments 1. GMPC Motion 02-1, 2. GMPC Motion 02-2, 3. GMPC Moti6n 02-3
Subarens Househokl : HH Capacity PAA HH Job Target Job Capacity PAA Job
Target in PAA* Target in PAA Target
South Kin~ Co,,r~
Al~ona 298
Auburn 5,~28 2.635 926
B!ack Diamond 1,099
Burien 1,552
Covington i,173
D~s Moines 1,576 5 2
Federal Way 6,188 3,754 1.320-
Kent 4,284 ! 363
Milton 50 106
Maple Valley 300
~ormandy Park
Pacific ~6 127 45
Renton 6,198 5.622 1.976
SeaTac 4,478' 14 5
Tukwila 3,200 13 5
Unincorp King County 4,935
Tot:0 42,355 14,039 4,935
East K/rig Cm, ntv
Beaux A_ns Villaee 3
Bellevue 10,117 184 178
Bothell 1.751 603 584
Clyde Hill 21
Hunts POint 1
lssaouah · 3.993 $27 80~
Kenmore 2,325
KirlOand ~,450 770 747
Medina 31
Mercer l~land 1.437
Newcastle 863 1 !
Redmond 9,083 402
Sammnm~$h 3,842
Woodinvill~ 1
Yarrow Point 28
Unincotp KinR County 6,801 **4222 **4099
Total 47,645 7,009 6.801
Sea.Shore
Lake Forest park 538
Senttle 51.510
Shoreline 2,6~I
Unincorp King Couaty*** 1,670 I 1,670 1,670
Total 56369 1.670 1~679
Rura/
~wnati0n 246
Oxlvall 1.037
!Enumclaw 1.927
North Bend 636
Skvkomish 20
Snoqualmi¢ 1,697
Total
~ County Total 151.932
14653
LtGMPC/02GMPC/M°t02-2.doc -- · 3 --
Subareas ~ld HH Capacity PAA HH Job Capacity PAA Job
Target in PAA* Target Job Target in PAA* Target
~outh King Count~
Al~ma 108
Auburn 6,079 252 25,9
Black Diamond 2525
Burien 1,712 I
Covinzton 900
Des Moine~ 1.695
~i Way 7,451 134 1
Kent I 1.500 44
Milton ! .054
Maple Vane¥ 8O4
Normandy Park 6?
Pacific t08
Rea~oa 27,597 458
ScaTac 9,288 496
Tukwi¼ . 16.000 4~/ 497
Unincorp King County 2,582 701 701
To~ S9500 2~SS~
East Kin~ Coun~
Beaux Arts Village
Bellevue 40,000 27 27,
Bolhell 2,000 17,1 17~,
Hunts Poinl
lssamlah 14.000 I 1
Kenm0~ 2,800
Kirkland 8,800 221 221
Med~
Mercer Island 800
New~asfl~ 500
Redmond 21.760 21 21
Sammamish 1,230
Yarrow Point .
Us~p King County 4~637 *'4193 *'4193
Total 9R~/ 4~O7 4~637
~ea-Skore
!s~ Fo~e~ Pa~ 455
Shoreline 2.618
IUninco~ King'count~*** 694 1 ~,4
Rura/C~/e~
.C,~m~fion 75
Duvall 1.125
Fammchw ! .125
Nor~ Bend !.125
Skykomish _
Snoqunlmie I ~$00
To~
Ki~ ~ountv Total 289A~/
*PAA: Polential Annexagon A~. in Unincorp~2ted King Cotmty U~oan A~a; **Bear Creek UPD; ***No~h liigl~m¢
'1~ Rmal C~ti~s' targets are for ~e cur~nt city limits and ms'al ~xpansion area for each city. Thas ~e n~odology
fe~' adjusting targets as annexations occur is not applicabl~ to the rural cities,
14653
L/GMPC/O2GMPC/MoIO2-3.doc - 3 -
· Attachment 1-
2003-0124
14653
July 24, 2002
/em
. Sponsored By:
Executive Committee
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
MOTION NO. 02.1
A MOTION by the Growth Management Planning Council of King
County recommending the amendment of the Countywide Planning
Policies revising existing policies and adding new policies to support
the extension of the household and employment targets for the period
2001-2022.
WHEREAS, in accordance with the Growth Management Act (GMA), the 1994
Countywide Planning Policies established a household and employment target range for
each city and for King County through 2012; and
WHEREAS, the 1994 targets need to be extended to reflect projected growth through 2022
in accordance with the GMA (RCW 36 70A 110); and
WHEREAS, Countywide Planning Policy FW-3 states that the adopted household and
employment targets shall be monitored bY King County annually with adjustments made
by the Growth Management Planning Council utilizing the process established in FW-1,
Step 6; and
WHE~S since February 2001 staff from King County and the cities in King County
have worked cooperatively to analyze and recommend new 20-year household and
employment targets; and
WHEREAS the Growth Management Planning Council met and discussed the extension of
the household and employment targets for the period 2001-2022, with opportunity for
public comment on March 28, 2001, July 25, 2001, October 24, :2001 and May 22, 2002.
THE GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLANNING coUNcIL OF KING COUNTY
HEREBY MOVES AS FOLLOWS:
Amend Sections HI. C and HI. F of the King County Countywide Planning Policies*as
folloWs:
IlL Land Use Pattern
C. Urban Areas
1
2
3
4
$
6
7
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
45
46
47
48
1~653
The Urban Growth Area shall provide enough land to accommodate
future urban development. Poli~ies to phase the provision of urban
services and to ensure eff'mient use of the growth capacity within the
Urban Growth Area shall be instituted.
'All jurisdictions within King County share the responsibility to
accommodate the 20-year population proiection. The growth projection
shall be assiqned to the four subareas of King County (Sea-Shore, East,
South, and the Rural Cities) proportionate with the share of projected
employment growth. The growth shall be allOCated pursuant to the
followinq objectives:
a. To ensure efficient use of land within the UGA by directinq growth tn
Urban Centers and Activity Centers;-
b. To limit development in the Rural Areas;
c. To protect designated resource lands;
d. To ensure efrK~ient use of infrastructure;
e. To improve the iobs/housing balance on a subarea, basis;
f..To promote a land use pattern that can be served by public
transpodation and other alternatives to the single occupanc~ vehicle;
and
g. To provide sufficient opportunities for growth within the iurisdictions.
FW-12a
FW-12b
The grewth targets established pursuant to the methOdoloqy described in
LU-25c and 25d shall be supported by. both regional and Ioc~!
transportation investments. The availability of an adequate
transportation system is.critically important to accommodatin.q ,qrowth.
The req. ional responsibility shall be met bY'planning for and delivering
county, state, and federal investments that support the growth target.~
and the land use pattern of the County. This includes investments in
transit, state highways in key regional transportation corridors, 'and in
,improved access to the designated Urban Centers. The Ioc~!
responsibility shall be met by local transportation system investments
that support the achievement of the tarqets.
LU - 25a Each iurisdiction shall plan for and accommodate the household and
employment targets established pursuant to LU-25c and LU-25d. Thi-~
obligation includes:
a. Ensudng adequate zoning, capacity; and
b. Planning for and delivering water, sewer, transportation and other
infrastructure, in concert with federal and state investments and
recoonizinq where applicable special purpose districts; and
c. Accommodatinq increases in household and employment targets a-~
annexations occur.
The targets will be used to plan for and to accommodate growth within
'each ju'risdiction..The targets do not obl~ate a jurisdictio~ to guarantee
that a given number of hc;usinq units will ~e built or jobs adde~i dudng the
plannino period.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
· 28
29
3O
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
45
46
47
LU25b
1~653
AS annexations occur, ,qrowth ta .n:lets shall be adjusted. Household and
employment tar,qets for each jurisdiction's potential annexation area,
adopted in Table LU-1, shall be transferred to the annexinq iurisdiction
follows:
a. Kinq County and the respective city will determine new household
and employment tar.qets for areas under consideration for
~nnexation prior to the submitta! of the annexation proposal to th~
Kin,q County Boundary Review Board;
b. A cily's household and employment tar,qets shall be increased by n
share of the tarqet for the potential annexation area proportionate to
the share of the potential annexation area's development capacity
located within the area annexed. Each city will determine how and
where within their corporate boundaries to accommodate the tarRet
increases;
c. The County's tar,qet shall be correspondin.qly decreased to ensurc
that overall tar.qet levels in the county remain the same;
d. The household and employment tar.qets in Table LU-1 will be
updated periodically to reflect chanqes due to annexations. These
tar,qet updates do not require adoption by the Growth Manaqemenl
Plannin,q Council.
LU - ((6-7)) 25cThe target ((s~..'--'~,.~. ..... .........v.'"';~'"'-~.... objectives identified in ((LU-S$))
F1A/-12a ,((a~lm~m~a)) shall be realized throuqh the following ((~mO)
methodolo,qy for allocatin~l household lar.qets:
......,.,.. f~,,~......"'~"*~.._.°n ........ · ,~ .. ,~. ~ o~ nnn~ Determine the additional
population that must be accommodated counhtwide blt calcu!oUnq the
difference between the most recent Census count andthe State
Office of Financial Mana,c/ement population projection for the end of
the twen~ year plannin,q period;
----(phc ;"'~':'~';~;~"~ ~o~ -~,,--,;. ..... ~ 0^ ~,, ~ ..... ,.
Subtract a percenta,qe from that number to represent the amount of
flrowth that is assumed'to occur in the unincorporated Rural Area;
L/GMPC/02GMPC/MoI02-I.doc - 4 --
4
5
6
7
-8
9'
10
11
12
13
14
'15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
3O
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
45
46
47
14~653
Assiqn oroportions of the urban popUlation ,qrowth to each of the four
subareas (Sea-Shore, South, East, and Rural Cities) based on tho
proportion of future employment .qrowth forecasted for each of those
subareas by the Pu.qet Sound Regional Council;
Convert the estimated projected population for each subarea to an
estimated number of households~ usirgi, proiected averac~e
household sizes that reflect the variation amonq those subare_a.~.
observed in the most recent Census;
Allocate a household tar.qet to individual iurisdictions, within each
subarea, based on FW-12a and considerinq the followinq factors,
1. the availability of water and the capacity of the sewer system;
2. the remainin.q portions of previously adopted household tarqets;
3. the presence of urban centers and activity areas within each
iurisdiction;
4. the availability of zoned development capacity in each jurisdiction;
and
5.' the apparent market trends for housinq in the area.
......... , ,......,...... =A, ;))
~- .......... . .... · .... , Step 4c
(( T~ ....~,k ~e ........ +.,knok,.,~,,,,,~,.~ .m.~/_! ~+~,,. ~k !f thc
f, Jurisdictions shall plan for household tar.qets as adopted in Table
LU-1; and
((f))g: Monitoring should follow the process described in policy FW-
1.
'A portt~)n of the urban e~loyment growth will occur in Activity Areas and neighborhoods
in the Urban Area` This employment growth will support the Urban Centers, while
balancing local employment opportunities in the Urban Area.
LU - ((68)) 25d [(T .... {, ...... J~ .... I~! ...... ~. ..... t~k ,.,,,o.'.~.. Urban
~)) ~e target obi~t~es ~dent~i~ in ~-12a sh~i be realiz~
through the foflowinq me~ol~ for all~tinq employment ta~e~:
ao
IJGMPC/02GIVIPC/MotO2-I.doc - 5 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28.
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
41
42
43
45
46
14653
r~s~d~nt~:ff ar~a~}) Determine the number of lobs ~at must
a~omm~ated in each of the four subareas of Kinfl Coun~ (Sea[
Shore, S~th, East, ~d t~ Rural Cities) in a~orda~e wilh ~e most
r~ent PSRC ich estimates and forests for the 20-year
ped~. To a~ounl for u~e~in~ in the-employment forecasts,
eslablish a ranqe of new lobs that must be a~mm~at~ in each
subarea. Unle~ exceptional cimums~nces dictate~ the ranqe should
~ 5% on e~her side of lhe PSRC forest.
·
,h~ ~ .... ~ ~s ........ * P~ ~i~g ~ .... ' ~~ and
~. ~--. ,.~' "~' '~"~ ~.~ "~"~"~..-..~N-!,. -.~ ~.~ For each subarea, dete~ine the
point within the range upon whi~ iudsdictions within the subarea will
base their tarqets a~d all.ate e~ployment Rro~h ta[~ets
indi~dual iudsdi~ions bas~ on consideration of the following' 1. ihe PSRO small area fore~Sts~
2. the oresen~ of u~an cente~, ~aoufaotud~ndustri~l
centers, and ac~v~ areas withi, each ~udsd~on~
3. the availabili~ of zon~ ~m~ercial and indusld~l
development ~pa~ in ea~ iurisd~tion
4. the access to transil, as well as to existin~ highways and
a~edals.
c. Jurisdictions shall plan for emplo~ent tarRets as adopted in Table
LU-1.
(INSE~ TABLE LU-1 )
L/GMPC/02G~oI02-!.doc - 6 -
14653
F. 1. Urban Residential Areas
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
4O
41
42
43
45
46
47
Urban residential areas form the bulk of the UGtL and are home to a large portion of the
County's population. They will contain a mix of uses and will have different
characteristics in different neighborhoods. Generally, the character, form, preservation
and development of these areas ((is a)) are the responsibility of the local jurisdiction ((et
rcsFc:'.;ibili~')). However, the residential areas need to support the Centers concept and
provide sufficient opportunity for growth within the UGA. A substantial majority of new
residential units will be constructed within urban residential areas.
LU-66
In order to ensure efficient use of the land within the UGA, provide for
housing opportunities, and to support efficient use of infrastructure, each
jurisdiction shall:
a. Establish in its comprehensive plan a target minimum number of net
new households .the jurisdiction will accommodate in the next 20
years in accordance with the adopted household ~rowth tar.qetn
identified in Table LU-1. Jurisdictions shall adopt regulations to and
commit to fund infrastructure sufficient to achieve the target number;
b. Establish a minimum density (not including critical areas) for new
construction in each .residential zone; and
c. Establish in the comprehensive plan a target mix of housing types for
new development and adopt regulations to achieve the target mix.
I I 1_~7 Thr,
IJGMPC/02GMPC/Mot0'2-I.doc - 7 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
· 45
46
47
48
, ~,,-~ v ~v~,v,. ~,v ~ ~v~ ~ .~,,~..,,,~
and nl~f~id~ I I~n A~nah fnr n~nh ;~lr~hd;hf~n h~d hn fh~ f~ll~a~n~.
L/GMPC/02GMPC/MolO2-I.doc - 8 --
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
10
11
12
13
14
15
14653
ADOPTED by the Growth Man,agement Planning Council of King County on July 24,
2002 in open session.
Ron S~ms, Chair, Growth Management Planning Council
I-/GMPO02GMPC/Mot02-I.doc - 9 -
Attachment 2
2003-0124
14653
July 24, 2002
Sponsored By:
Executive Committee
2
3
4
5
6
7
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21.
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
MOTION NO. 02-2
A MOTION by the Growth Management Planning Council of King
County recommending the amendment of the Countywide Planning
Policies adding targets for new household for the period 2001-2022
by deleting Appendix 2, 2A and 2B and amending Table LU-I: 2001-
2022 Household and Employment Growth Targets which will be
located in Section 1II. C of the Countywide Planning Policies.
WHEREAS, the 1994 Countywide Planning Policies established a housing target range for
each city and for King County; and
WHE~S, the Growth Management Act requires the 1994 targets need to be revised to
establish an extension of the targets through 2022; and
WHEREAS the Growth Management Planning Council met and discussed the extension of
the household and employment targets for the period 2001-2022, with opportunity for
public comment on March 28, 2001, July 25, 2001, October 24, 2001 and May 22, 2002.
THE GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLANNING COUNCIL OF KING COUNTY
HEREBY MOVES AS FOLLOWS:
The attached Table LU-I: 2001-2022 Household and Employment GroWth Targets
is hereby recommended for adoption in the Countywide Planning Policies to revise
the household growth targets to reflect the target extension from January 1, 2001
through December 31, 2022 and Appendix 2, 2A, 2B are recommended for
deletion.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
'12
13
14653
ADOPTED by the Growth Management Planning Council of King County on
September 25, 2002 in open session.
x.._~.ff ~on Si~s, Chair, Growth Management Planning Council
Attachment:
1. 'Table LU-I: 2001-2022 Household and Employment Growth Targets.
I/GMPC./02GMPC/MotO2-2.doc -'2 -
Attachment 3
2003-0124
14653
July 24, 2002
Sponsored By:
Executive Committee
2
.3
4
5
6
7
8
9
I0
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
'25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
MOTION NO. 02-3
A MOTION by the Growth Management Planning Council of King
County recommending the amendment of the Countywide Planning
Policies adding targets for new jobs for the period 2001-2022 by
amending Table LU-1:2001-2022 Household and Employment
Growth Targets which will be located in Section llI. C of the
Countywide Planning Policies.
WHEREAS, the 1994 Countywide Planning Policies established an employment target
range for each city and for King County; and
~AS, the 1994 targets need to be revised to establish an extension of the tar. gets
through 2022 as required by the Growth Management Act.
WHEREAS the Growth Management Planning Council met and discussed the extension of
the household and employment targets for the period 2001-2022, with opportunity for
public comment on March 28, 2001, July 25, 2001, October 24, 2001 and May 22, 2002.
THE GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLANNING COUNCIL OF KING COUNTY
HEREBY MOVES AS FOLLOWS:
The attached Table LU-I: 2001-2022 Household and Employment Growth Targets
is hereby 'recommended for adoption in the Countywide Planning Policies to revise
hhe employment growth targets to reflect the target extensi°n from January 1, 2001
through December 31, 2022.-
1
2
-3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
14653
ADOPTED by the Growth Management Planning Council o'f King County on
September 25, 2002 in open session.
Ron Sims, Chair, Growth Management Planning Council
Attachment:
1. Table LU-I: 2001-2022 Household and Employment Growth Targets.
IdGMPCI02GMPC/MolO2-3.doc - 2 -
Metropolitan King County Council
Growth Management and Unincorporated Areas Committee
Staff Report
Agenda Item: 7 Name:
Proposed Ordinance: 2003-0124 Date:
Attending: Paul Reitenbach, King County DDES
Kevin Wright, King County PAO
Lauren Smith
March 18, 2003
SUBJECT:
Proposed Ordinance 2003-0124 adopting amendments to the Countywide Planning Policies;
adopting new household and employment targets for the period 2001 through 2022; ratifying
the amended Countywide Planning Policies on behalf of the population of unincorporated King
County.
BACKGROUND:
The Growth Management Planning Council (GMPC) is a formal body comprised of elected
officials from King County, Seattle, Bellevue, the Suburban Cities, and Special Districts. The
GMPC was created in 1990 in response to a provision in the Washington State Growth
Management Act (GMA) requiring cities and counties to work together to adopt Countywide
Planning Policies (CPPs). Under GMA, countywide planning policies serve as the framework
for each individual jurisdiction's comprehensive plan, and ensure regional consistency with
respect to land use planning efforts. The GMPC drafted the CPPs, which were then adopted by
the King County Council and ratified by the cities. Changes to the CPPs are recommended by
the GMPC, adopted by the King County Council, and ratified by the cities.
GMPC Development of Household & Employment Targets
In February 2002, the Washington State Office of Financial Management released new
population forecasts for the 20-year period 2002-2022 (the projections were smaller than
expected, largely due to the current economic climate). The GMA requires King County and the
cities within King County to plan to accommodate these updated projections. The GMPC is
responsible for developing updated household and employment targets for each jurisdiction in
King County.
The GMPC's interjurisdictional staff team worked with a subcommittee of the King County
Planning Directors to extend the existing targets through 2022, with the GMPC's approval of
their methodology. In recent years, the region has grappled with the concept of a jobs/housing
"balance" as part of ongoing growth management discussions. The development of the updated
targets was approached with the jobs/housing balance in mind.
The methodology approved by the GMPC took a sub-regional approach. First, the County's
urban area was divided into four subareas: "SeaShore" (comprised of Seattle, Shoreline, and
C:\WINDOWS\TEMP~2003-0124 (CPP Amendments - Household Employment Targets)(3-18-03).doc 5/21/2003, 8:50 AM
Lake Forest Park), East King County, South King County and the Rural Cities~. Next, a
percentage of the total population forecast for King County was assigned to each subarea that
was based on the percentage of expected job growth for each subarea (employment forecasts
were provided by the Puget Sound Regional Council). Finally, the raw population numbers
were converted into households (based on the average household size in each subarea), and
the jurisdictions within each subarea negotiated their household targets. The draft household
and employment targets were presented to the GMPC On May 22, 2002 at which time the
GMPC directed staff to prepare motions recommending their adoption. Policy changes related
to the new targets were adopted on July 24, 2002 and the targets themselves were adopted on
September 25, 2002.
Development of the household targets was informed by the results of the Buildable Lands work
(required by GMA), which has been developed over the past 5 years (the Buildable Lands
Report was released in August, 2002). Major findings from this work include:
· 96% of all new development in King County is occurring within Urban Growth Areas.
· 40% of the way through the 1992-2012 planning pedod, King County has reached 38%
of the household growth target, and more than 50% of the population forecast.
· King County has the capacity for 263,000 more housing units. This is more than twice
the capacity needed to accommodate the remainder of the 1992-2012 household growth
targets.
· King County has the capacity for nearly 600,000 more jobs within the Urban Growth
Area - several times the remaining target of 110,000 jobs for the period 1992-2012.
· All available evidence suggests that there is enough capacity to support the new targets
through 2022.
SUMMARY:
Proposed Ordinance 2003-0127 would amend the Countywide Planning Policies by:
· Adopting revised household targets for each jurisdiction in King County for the period
2001-2022;
· Adopting revised employment targets for each jurisdiction in King County for the pedod
2001-2022; and
· Amending the policy direction in the Countywide Planning Policies in support of the new
household and employment targets.
Additionally, the ordinance would ratify these changes on behalf of the population of
unincorporated King County, as required by Countywide Planning Policy FW-1, Step 9.
Amendments to the Countywide Planning Policies become effective when ratified by ordinance
or resolution by at least 30% of the city and county governments representing 70% of the
population of King County according to the Interlocal agreement. A city shall be deemed to
have ratified the countywide planning policy unless, within 90 days of adoption by King County,
the city by legislative action disapproves the Countywide Planning Policy.
ATTACHMENTS:
1 Although the Carnation, Duvall, Enumclaw, North Bend and Snoqualmie are called Rural Cities, the Growth
Management Act considers all municipalities to be Urban. Rural cities provide the vast majodty of services and
infrastructure for residents of the Rural unincorporated area, and they do have growth targets, albeit small ones
when compared to cities in the main urban growth area.
C:\WINDOWS~TEMP~2003-0124 (CPP Amendments o Household Employment Targets)(3-18-O3).doc 5/21/2003 8:50 AM
1. Proposed Ordinance 2003-0124, with attachments
C:\WINDOWS~TEMP'~O03-0124 (CPP Amendments - Household Employment TargetsX3-18-O3).doc 5/21/2003 8:50 AM
KING COUNTY
Signature Report
May 19, 2003
Ordinance 14654
1200 King County Courtlxmse
516 Third Avenue
Seattle, WA 98104
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
Proposed No. 2003-0125.1 Sponsors Hague
AN ORDINANCE adopting amendments to.the
Countywide Planning Policies; amending the Urban
Separator map to reflect negotiated modifications to the
Renton Urban Separator;, ratifying the amended
Countywide Planning Policies for unincorporated King
County; and amending Ordinance 10450, Section 3, as
amended, and K.C.C. 20.10.030 and Ordinance 1045~0,
Section 4, as amended; and K.C.C. 20.10.040
BE IT ORDAINED BY TBE COUNCIL OF KING COU1VrY:
/
SECTION 1. F'mdings. The council makes the following findings..
A. The metropolitan King County council adopted and ratified the Growth
Management Planning Council recommended King County 2012 - Countywide Planning.
Policies (Phase I) in July 1992, under Ordinance 10450. . .
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36'
37
Ordinance 14654
B. The metropolitan King County council adopted and ratified the Phase
amendments to the Countywide Planning Policies on August 15, 1994, under Ordinance
11446.
C. The Growth Management Planning Council met on October 23, 2002 and
voted to recommend amendments to the King County2012 - Countywide Planning
Policies, amending the Urban Separator map to reflect negotiated modifications to the
Renton Urban Separator.
SECTION 2. Ordinance 10450, Section 3, as amended, and K.C.C. 20.10.030 are
each hereby amended to read as follows:
Phase II.
A. The Phase II Amendments to the King County 2012 Countywide Planning
Policies attached to Ordinance 11446 are hereby approved and adopted.
B. The Phase II Amendments to the King County 2012 - Countywide Planning
Policies are amended, as shown by Attachment 1 to Ordinance 12027.
C. The Phase li Amendments to the King County 2012 - Countywide Planning
Policies are amended, as shown by Attachment 1 to Ordinance 12421.
D. The Phase H Amendments to the King County 2012 - Countywide Planning
Policies are amended, as shown by Attachment 1 and 2 to Ordinance 13260.
E. The Phase II Amendments to the King County 2012 - Countywide Planning
Policies are amended, as shown by Attachment 1 through 4 to Ordinance 13415.
F. The Phase H Amendments to the King County 2012 - Countywide Planning
Policies are amended, as shown by Attachments 1 through 3 to Ordinance 13858.
2
Ordinance 14654
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
G. The Phase II Amendments to the King County 2012 - Countywide Planning
Policies are amended, as shown by Attachment 1 to Ordinance 14390.
H. The Phase II Amendments to the King County 2012 - Countywide Planning
Policies are amended, as shown by Attachment 1 to Ordinance 14391.
I. The Phase II Amendments to the King County 2012 - Countywide Planning
Policies are amended, as shown by Attachment 1 to OrdinanlSe 14392.
J. The Phase II Amendments to the King County 2012 - Countywide Planning,.
Policies are amended, as shown by Attachment I to this ordinance.
SECTION 3. Ordinance 10450, Section 4, as amended, and K.C.C. 20.10.040 are
each hereby amended to read as follows:
Ratification for unincorporated King County.
A. Countywide Planning Policies adopted by Ordinance 10450 for the purposes
specified are hereby ratified on behalf of the population of unincorporated King County.
B. The amendments to the Countywide Planning Policies adopted by Ordinance
10840 are hereby ratified on behalf of the population of unincorporated King cOUnty.
C. The amendments to the Countywide Planning Policies adopted by Ordinance
11061 are hereby ratified on behalf of the population of unincorporated King County.
D. The Phase II. amendments to the King County 2012 Countywide Planning
Policies adopted by Ordinance 11446 are hereby ratified on behalf of the population of'
unincorporated King County.
E. The amendments to the King County 2012 - Countywide Planning Policies, as
shown bY Attachment I to Ordinance 12027 are hereby ratified on behalf of the
population of unincorporated King County.
1
2
3
5
6
7
8
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
3O
3!
32
33
35
36
37
38
39
4O
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
14653
The following policies establish an Urban Growth Area (UGA ), determine the amount of
household and employment growth to be accommodated within the UGA in the form of
.targets for each .jurisdiction, and identify methods to phase development within this area in
order to bring certainty to long-term planning and development within the County. All
cities are included in the UGA, with the cities in the Rural Area identified as islands of
urban growth. The ,r,~.~
~ .................. I .v~m is a permanent designation~ Land outside
the ( .. r~a:: r~ ...... t.
............ a) UGA is designated for permanent rural and resource uses.((;
...... ~. ,z.~, ~:,;~. :_ ,~.~ ~ .... ~ n.~. n tywide Poli d Re A
· ~'-'-r-.~ ............................. /~ Coun cies on Rural an source reas
are found in Chapter IIIA, Resource Lands, and Chapter IlIB, Rural Areas.
In accordance wffh the State Growth Management Act (GMA) (36.70A. 110), the State
Office of Financial Management (OFM) provides.a popu!aHon pro[eCtion to each county.
The county, through a collaborative intergovernmental process established by the Growth '
Management Planning Council, allocates the population as growth targets to individual
jurisdictions. Forecasts prepared by the Puget Sound Regional Council are used to
establish the employment proiection.
The probess for allocating targets in King County is as follows:
1. The PSRC employment forecasts are calculated for the four ~eograt~hic subareas of
the UGA (Sea-Shore, South, East, and Rural Cities). These then become subarea
employment targets.
2. The jurisdictions collectively allocate the OFM population pro~ection to the four
subarea's based on the projected emplownent for each area. A small amount of
growth is assumed to occur in the Rural area_
3.. The technical staff translates the population pro[ec, tions into projected households,
takin, g into account different average household si~es within eachsubarea. These
pro~ections then become subarea household targets.
4. Jurisdictions within each subarea negotiate the distribution of subarea household
and employment targets using criteria based on CountyWide Planning Policies.
The housing capacity in the ~rrl.~_ ~ ...... ~. n-~n
u ................... /~ UGA (6rs:' grav.'t~)), based on ~pted
p~ ~d regulations, ((~cts t~c)) should accommod~e the pro]ected'20-year
r~r ....... , ....... ~. ((In.'~, .~ ,~'*..., .... ~, ail ;r~ g))Growth_ is to be aCC° ~odated within
pe~ Urb~ Are~ by incre~g ~iaes, as nee~& P~ing ((is ts)) s~Md ~r
within t~ ttrr-~- ~ ...... a n.~
u ..... ~ ............ )) UGA. as necessa~, to e~ure t~ semices are proved
~-~ ~ Th~ land uso paa~rn for Kin9 Coun~ sh~l protect th~ natural
~n~ronm~nt b~ mduein9 th~ consumption of land and ~n~ntratin0
d~wlopm~nt. An Urban ~rowth Ama, ~uml Areas, and msoum~ lands
shall b~ d~si0natod and tha ~c~ssa~ impl~m~ntin9 moulafions
adopted. This includes ~oun~id~ ~stablishmont of a bounda~ [or lh~
U~an ~ro~h Ama. L~al jurisdictions shall mak~ land us~ d~cisions
based on th~ Court.ida Plannino Policies.
L/G'MPC/02GMPC/MoI02-I.doc -- 2 -
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
Ordinance 14654
F. The amendments to the King Couflty 2012 - Countywide Planning Policies, as
shown by Attachment 1 to Ordinance 12421, are hereby ratified 0n behalf of the
population of unincorporated King County.
G. The amendments to the King County 2012 - COUntywide Planning Policies, as
shown by Attachments 1 and 2 to Ordinance 13260, are hereby ratified on behalf of the
population of unincorporated King County.
H. The amendments to the King County 2012 - Countywide Planning Policies, as
shown by Attachment 1 through 4 to Ordinance 13415, are hereby ratified on behalf of
the population of unincorporated King County.
I. The amendments to the King County 2012 - Countywide Planning Policies, as
shown by Attachments 1 through 3 to Ordinance 13858, are hereby ratified on behalf of
the population of unincorporated .King County.
J. The amendments to the King County 2012 - Countywide Planning Policies, as
shown by Attachment 1 to Ordinance 14390, are hereby ratified on behalf of the
population of unincorporated King County..
K. The amendments to the King County 2012 - Countywide Planning Policies, as
shown by Attachment 1 to Ordinance 14391, are hereby ratified on behalf of the
population of unincorporated King County.
L. The amendments to the King County 2012 - Countywide Planning Policies, as
shown by Attachment 1 to Ordinance 14392, ~ hereby ratified on behalf of the
population of unincorporated King County.
Ordinance 14654
82
83
84
85
M. The amendments to the King County 2012 - Countywide Planning Policies, a?_
shown by Attachment 1 to this ordinance, .are hereby ratified on behalf of the population
of unincorporated King County.
Ordinance 14654 was introduced on 3/17/2003 and passed by the Metropolitan King
County Council on 5/19/2003, by the following vote:
Yes: 12 - Ms. Sullivan, Ms. Edmonds, Mr. von Reichbauer, Ms. lambert, Mr.
Phillips, Mr. Petz, Mr. McKenna, Mr. Constantine, Mr. Gossett, MS. Hague,
Mr. Irons and Ms. Patterson
No: 0
Excused: 0
KING COUNTY COUNCIL
KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON
Anne Nods, Clerk of the Council
APPROVED t~is ~ day of ~
~yntma S~Uvan,~u
fao
"" ~
'-' - '--';
_.,,~-, c.~
Attachments I. GMPC Motion 02-5
Attachment 1
2003-0125
14654
October 23, 2002
Sponsored By:
Executive Committee
MOTION NO. 02-5
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12 '
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
· 22
.23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
A MOTION to amend the Urban Separator Map in the
Countywide Planning Policies to reflect the negotiated
modifications of the Renton Urban Separator.
WHEREAS, .The Growth Management Act states that each Urban Growth Area shall
permit urban densities and shall include greenbelt and open space are~;
WHEREAS, Urban Separators are an adopted regional strategy serving multiple functions
and providing environmental, visual, recreational and wildlife benefits to the citizens and
communities of King County;
WHEREAS, Consistent With the Countywide Planning Policies, the King County
Comprehensive Plan recognizes that Urban Separators c. reate open space com'dors, provide
a visual contrast to continuous development, and reinforce the unique identifies of
communities;
WHEREAS, King County has designated Urban Separators on the Land Use 2000 map in
the King County Comprehensive Plan, and King County has provided advance copies of
Urban Separator maps to cities that have designated Urban Separators located within their
Potential Annexation Areas;
WHEREAS, the City of Renton disagreed with Urban Separator.designation for 76 acres of
land within its Potential Annexation Area; and
WHEREAS, the Growth Management Planning Council directed staff to attempt to
negotiate a'mutually acceptable resolution of this disagreement
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
14654
THE GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLANNING COUNCIL OF KING COUNTY
HEREBY MOVES AS FOLLOWS:
The Urban Separators map included within the Countywide Planning Policies document is
amended to reflect the negotiated modifications of the Renton Urban Separator described
and mapped in the September 25, 2002 GMPC staff report. Specifically, 76 acres of
unincorporated land is deleted from Urban Separator designation and 118.8 acres within
the City of Renton shall be designated Urban Separator.
ADOPTED by the Growth Management Planning Council of King County on
October 23, 2002 in open session.
Ron Sims, Chair, Growth Management Planning Council
LKiMPC/2002GMPC/Motion02-5.doc
Metropolitan King County Council
Growth Management and Unincorporated Areas Committee
Staff Report
Agenda Item: 8 Name:
Proposed Ordinance: 2003-0125 Date:
Attending: Paul Reitenbach, King County DDES
Kevin Wright, King County PAO
Lauren Smith
March 18, 2003
SUBJECT:
Proposed Ordinance 2003-0125 adopting amendments to the Countywide Planning Policies;
amending the Urban Separator map to reflect negotiated modifications to the Renton Urban
Separator; ratifying the amended Countywide Planning Policies on behalf of the population of
unincorporated King County.
BACKGROUND:
The Growth Management Planning Council (GMPC) is a formal body comprised of elected
officials from King County, Seattle, Bellevue, the Suburban Cities, and Special Districts. The
GMPC was created in 1990 in response to a provision in the Washington State Growth
Management Act (GMA) requiring cities and counties to work together to adopt Countywide
Planning Policies (CPPs). Under GMA, countywide planning policies serve as the framework
for each individual jurisdiction's comprehensive plan, and ensure regional consistency with
respect to land use planning efforts. The GMPC drafted the CPPs, which were then adopted by
the King County Council and ratified by the cities. Changes to the CPPs are recommended by
the GMPC, adopted by the King County Council, and ratified by the cities.
Countywide Planning Policies: Policy Direction related to Urban Separators
Urban Separators are regionally significant Iow-density areas within the Urban Growth Area that
create open space corridors, provide a visual contrast to continuous development and reinforce
the unique identities of communities. Urban Separators can play a significant role in preserving
environmentally sensitive areas and providing fish and wildlife habitat. They also provide
regional benefits, such as parks and trails, and meet the Growth Management Act's
requirement for greenbelts and open space within the Urban Growth Area. Urban Separators
are governed by Countywide Planning Policy LU-27:
LU-27
Urban Separators are Iow-density areas or areas of little development within the Urban
Growth Area. Urban Separators shall be defined as permanent Iow-density lands which
protect adjacent resource lands, Rural Areas, and environmentally sensitive areas and
create open space corridors within and between Urban Areas which provide
environmental, visual, recreational and wildlife benefits. Designated urban separators
shall not be redesignated in the future (in the 20-year planning cycle) to other urban
uses or higher densities. The maintenance of these urban separators is a regional as
C:\WINDOWS\TEMP',2003-0125 (CPP Amendments - Renton Urban Separator)(3-18-03).doc 5/21/2003 8:50 AM
well as local concern. Therefore, no modifications should be made to the development
regulations governing these areas without King County review and concurrence.
Urban Separators are within the Urban Growth Area and therefore are appropriate to be
annexed by cities. Once annexed, Urban Separators (and all other annexed land) are shown
as "incorporated areas" on the County's comprehensive land use map.
The lack of a map of Urban Separators in the countywide planning document was seen by the
staff as problematic because it increased the likelihood that cities might be unaware of the
presence of Urban Separators within their Potential Annexation Areas. Therefore, the
interjurisdictional staff team recommended that the GMPC adopt a map of existing Urban
Separators.
Three cities have designated Urban Separators within their Potential Annexation Areas: Auburn,
Kent, and Renton.
Past GMPC Actions related to Urban Separators
July 25, 2001
GMPC staff recommends including a map of existing urban separators in
the Countywide Planning Policies. Member jurisdictions of the GMPC
express concern over the boundaries of designated Urban Separators
and ask the interjurisdictional staff team to present additional information
at the September meeting.
September 26, 2001
GMPC directs staff to meet with affected cities (Kent, Renton and
Auburn) to answer questions and clarify the boundaries of the designated
Urban Separators.
October 5, 2001
King County staff meets with Kent, Renton and Auburn to answer
questions and clarify the boundaries of the designated Urban Separators.
November20,2001
The interjurisdictional staff team reports to the GMPC Executive
Committee that staff has successfully negotiated a solution to concerns
abOut mapping Urban Separators raised by Renton and Auburn. The
Executive Committee directs staff to develop a motion for the GMPC's
consideration at the December meeting.
December 11, 2001
GMPC adopts Motion 01-1, adopting maps of uncontested Urban
Separators and setting in place a process to further analyze and refine
the Urban Separators in Renton and Auburn's Potential Annexation
Areas, to be completed no later than September 30, 2002.
September 25, 2002
The interjurisdictional staff team reported back to the GMPC with the
following information on the City of Renton and Auburn's Urban
Separators:
City of Renton
Renton did not agree with the Urban Separator designation for 76 acres of unincorporated
urban land within their Potential Annexation Area (PAA), citing lack of environmental
C:\WINDOWS~TEMP~O03-0125 (CPP Amendments - Renton Urban Separator)(3-18-O3).doc 5/21/2003 8:50 AM
constraints. However, Renton did identify 119 acres within their city limits that they felt met the
criteria for designation of Urban Separators. The City proposed removing the Urban Separator
designation from the 76 acres within their PAA, and applying the designation to the 119 acres
within their city boundaries, for a net gain of 43 acres. The interjurisdictional staff team field-
checked the two areas and concurred with the city's conclusions.
City of Auburn
Auburn did not agree with the Urban Separator designation for 178 acres of land within their
PAA, but has identified 153 acres they do feel meets the criteria. The City of Kent recently
annexed a large piece of property adjacent to Auburn's existing Urban Separator that the
interjurisdictional staff team believes contains environmentally constrained areas and that would
make a natural extension of the existing Urban Separator. However, the City of Kent does not
wish to consider designating this area until sometime in 2003. Therefore, the interjurisdictional
staff team recommends that discussions should continue with Auburn and Kent, and that staff
should report back to the GMPC with recommendations by June 1, 2003.
October 23, 2002
The GMPC adopted Motion 02-5, amending the Countywide Planning
Policies to reflect the negotiated modifications to the Renton Urban
Separator.
SUMMARY:
Proposed Ordinance 2003-0125 would amend the Countywide Planning Policies by:
Revising the Urban Separator map to reflect the negotiated modifications to the Renton
Urban Separator, as indicated on the map in Attachment 2 to this staff report.
Additionally, the ordinance would ratify these changes on behalf of the population of
unincorporated King County, as required by Countywide Planning Policy FW-1, Step 9.
Amendments to the Countywide Planning Policies become effective when ratified by ordinance
or resolution by at least 30% of the city and county governments representing 70% of the
population of King County according to the Interlocal agreement. A city shall be deemed to
have ratified the countywide planning policy unless, within 90 days of adoption by King County,
the city by legislative action disapproves the Countywide Planning Policy.
ATTACHMENTS: 1. Proposed Ordinance 2003-0125, with attachments
2. Map of Renton Urban Separator
C:\WINDOWS\TEMP~2003-0125 (CPP Amendments - Renton Urban SeparatorX3-18-03).doc 5/21/2003 8:50 AM
KING COUNTY
Signature Report
May 20, 2003
Ordinance 14655
200 King County Courthouse
516 Third Avenue
Seattle, WA 98104
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
Proposed No.
2003-0126.1 Sponsors Hague
AN ORDINANCE adopting amendments to the
Countywide Planning Policies; designating Totem Lake as
an Urban Center; ratifying the amended Countywide
Planning Policies for unincorporated King County; and
amending Ordinance 10450, Section3, as amended, and
K.C.C. 20.10.030 and Ordinance 10450, Section 4, as
amended, and K.C.C. 20.10.040 .
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF KING COUNTY:
SECTION 1. Findings. The council makes the following findings.
A. The metropolitan King County council adopted and ratified the Growth
Management Planning Council recommended King County 2012 - Countywide Planning
Policies (Phase I) in July 1992, under Ordinance 10450.
B. The metropolitan King County council adopted and ratified the Phase Il
amendments to the Countywide Planning Policies on August 15, 1994, under Ordinance
11446.
Ordinance 14655
18
19
2O
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34-
35'
36
37
38
39
C. The Growth Management Planning. Council met on October 23, 2002 and
voted to recommend amendments to the King County 2012 - Countywide Planning
Policies, designating Totem Lake as an Urban Center.
SECTION 2. Ordinance 10450, Section 3, as amended, and K.C.C. 20.10.030 are
each hereby amended to read as follows:
Phase II.
A. The Phase II Amendments to the King County 2012 Countywide Planning
Policies attached to Ordinance 11446 are hereby approved and adopted.
B. The Phase 11 Amendments to the King County 2012 - Countywide Planning
Policies are amended, as shown by Attachment 1 to Ordinance 12027.
C. The Phase II Amendments to the King County 2012 - Countywide Planning
Policies are amended, as shown'by Attachment 1 to Ordinance 12421..
D. The Phase II Amendments to the King County 2012 - Countywide Planning
· Policies are amended, as shown by Attachment '1 and 2 to Ordinance 13260.
E. The Phase 11 Amendments to the King County 2012 - Countywide Planning
Policles are amended, as shown by Attachment 1 through 4 to Or~.'nance 13415.
F. The Phase 11 Amendments to the King County 2012 - Countywide Planning
Polimes are amended, as shown by Attachments 1 through 3 to Ordinance 13858.
O. The Phase H Amendments to thc King County 2012 - Countywide Planning
Policies are amenckid, as shown by Attachment 1 to ordinance 14390.
H. The Phase II Amendments to the King County 2012 - Countywide Planning
· Policies are amended, as Shown by Attachment 1 to Ordinance 14391.
2
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
6I
Ordinance 14655
I. The Phase II Amendments to the King County 2012 - Countywide Planning
Policies are amended, as shown by Attachment 1 to Ordinance 14392.
J. The Phase Il Amendments to the King County 2012 - Countywide Planning
Policies are amended, as shown by Attachment 1 to this ordinance.
SECTION 3. Ordinance 10450, Section 4, as amended, and K.C.C. 20.10.040 are
each hereby amended to read as follows:
Ratification for unincorporated King County.
A. Countywide Planning Policies adopted by Ordinance 10450 for the purposes
specified are hereby ratified on behalf of the population of unincorporated King County.
B. The amendments to the Countywide Planning Policies adopted by Ordinance
10840 are hereby ratified on behalf.of the population of unincorporated King County.
C. The amendments to the Countywide Planning Policies adopted by Ordinance
11061' are hereby ratified on behalf of the populati,on of unincorporated King County.
D. The Phase li amendments to the King County 2012 CountyWide Planning
Policies adopted by Ordinance 11446 are hereby ratifiedon behalf of the population of
uni.'ncorporated King County.
E. The amendments to the King County 2012 - Countywide Planning Policies, as
shown by Attachment 1 to Ordinance 12027 are hereby ratified on behalf of the
population of unincorporated King County.
F. The amendments to the King County 2012 - Countywide Planning Policies, as
shown by Attachment 1 to Ordinance 12421, are hereby ratified on behalf of the
population of unincorporated King County.
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73'
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
Ordinance 14655
G. The amendments to the King County 2012 - Countywide Planning Policies, as
shown by Attachments 1 and 2 to Ordinance 13260, are hereby ratified on behalf of the
population of unincorporated King County.
H..The amendments to the King County 2012 - Countywide Planning Policies, as
shown by Attachment 1 through 4 to Ordinance 13415, are hereby ratified on behalf of
the population of unincorporated King County.
I. The amendments to the King County 2012 - Count~vide Planning Policies,'as
shown by Attachments 1 through 3 to Ordinance 13858, are hereby ratified on behalf of
the population of unincorporated King County.
J. The amendments to the King County 2012 - Countywide Planning Policies, as
shown by Attachment 1 to Ordinance 14390, are hereby ratified on behalf of the
population of unincorporated King County.
K. The amendments to the King County 2012 - Countywide Planning Policies, as
shown by Attachment 1 to Ordinance 14391, are hereby ratified on behalf of the
population of unincorporated King County.
L. The amendments to the King County 2012 - Countywide Planning Policies, as
shown by Attachment 1 to Ordinance. 14392, are hereby ratifiid on behalf of the
population, of unincorporated King County.
M. The amendments to the King County 2012 - Countywide Planning Policies,
4
Ordinance 14655
81
82
83
shown by Attachment I to this ordinance, are hereby ratified On behalf of the population
of unincorporated King County.
Ordinance 14655 was introduced on 3/17/2003 and passed by the Metropolitan King
County Council on 5/19/2003, by the following vote:
Yes: 12 - Ms. Sullivan, Ms. Edmonds, Mr. von Reichbauer, Ms. Lambert, Mr.
Phillips, Mr. Pelz, Mr. McKenna, Mr. Constantine, Mr. Gossett, Ms. Hague,
Mr. Irons and Ms. Patterson
No: 0
Excused: 0
ATTEST:
Anne Noris, Clerk of the Council
APPROVED this .~day of
KING COUNTY COUNCIL
KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON
-C(ynthia Sullivan,
Attachments 1. GMPC Motion 02-6
5
Attachment 1
2003-0126
14655
October 23, 2002
Sponsored By:
Executive Committee
MOTION NO. 02-6
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
.30
31
32
33
A MOTION to amend the Countywide Planning Policies by
designating Totem Lake as an Urban Center. Totem Lake is
added to the list of Urban Centers following CountyWide
Planning Policy LU-39.
WHEREAS, A goal of the Growth Management Act is to encourage, development in Urban
Areas where adequate public facilities exist or can be provided in an efficient manner;
WHEREAS, Policy LU-39 of the Countywide Planning Policies of King County describes
the criteria for Urban Center designation;
WttEREAS, Policy LU-40 of the Countywide Planning Policies of King County describes
standards for planned land uses within Urban Centers;
WHEREAS, the City of Kirkland has demonstrated that Totem Lake meets the criteria for
designation as an Urban Center,-and that Kirkland's '~I'otem Lake Activity Area"
designated on the City's comprehensive plan land use map is consistent with the standards
established by the County~ride Planning Policies for Urban Cente~ designation.
~S, King County Comprehensive Plan Policy U-106 supports the development of
Urban Centers to meet the region's needs for housing, jobs, services, culture and
recreation.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
14655
THE GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLANNING COUNCIL OF KING COUNTY
HEREBy MOVES AS FOLLOWS:
Totem Lake is designated as an Urban Center. The list of Urban Centers following
Countywide Planning Policy LU-39 is modified to include Totem Lake.
ADOPTED by the Growth Management Planning Council of King County on
October 23, 2002 in open session.
~ Ron Sims, Chair, Growth Management Planning Council
Metropolitan King County Council
Growth Management and Unincorporated Areas Committee
Staff Report
Agenda Item: 9 Name:
Proposed Ordinance: 2003-0126 Date:
Attending: Paul Reitenbach, King County DDES
Kevin Wright, King County PAO
Lauren Smith
March 18, 2003
SUBJECT:
Proposed Ordinance 2003-0126 adopting amendments to the Countywide Planning Policies;
designating Totem Lake as an Urban Center; ratifying the amended Countywide Planning
Policies on behalf of the population of unincorporated King County.
BACKGROUND:
The Growth Management Planning Council (GMPC) is a formal body comprised of elected
officials from King County, Seattle, Bellevue, the Suburban Cities, and Special Districts. The
GMPC was created in 1990 in response to a provision in the Washington State Growth
Management Act (GMA) requiring cities and counties to work together to adopt Countywide
Planning Policies (CPPs). Under GMA, countywide planning policies serve as the framework
for each individual jurisdiction's comprehensive plan, and ensure regional consistency with
respect to land use planning efforts. The GMPC drafted the CPPs, which were then adopted by
the King County Council and ratified by the cities. Changes to the CPPs are recommended by
the GMPC, adopted by the King County Council, and ratified by the cities.
City of Kirkland requests Urban Center designation for Totem Lake
In 2002, the City of Kirkland requested that Totem Lake be designated as an Urban Center in
the Countywide Planning Policies. Urban Centers are envisioned in the CPPs as areas of
concentrated employment and housing, with direct service by high-capacity transit, and a wide
range of other land uses. They are expected to account for up to one half of King County's
employment growth and one quarter of household growth over the next 20 years.
In January, 2002 the Kirkland City Council adopted a new plan for the Totem Lake
neighborhood that would support its designation as an Urban Center. Totem Lake, which is
located in the northeast comer of Kirkland, encompasses about one square mile and includes
residential, office, retail, light industrial and institutional uses.
Designating Totem Lake as an Urban Center would involve amending Countywide Planning
Policy LU-39 to add it to the list of existing Urban Centers, which currently includes:
· .'- Bellevue .:-Redmond Overlake .:.Seattle CBD
· :. Kent .:.Redmond CBD -.'- Seattle Center
· :. Federal Way ..'. Renton CBD .:.First/Capitol Hill
C:\WINDOWS~TEMP~2003-OIL:'6 (CPP Amendments - Totem Lake Urban CenterX3-18-03).doc 5/21/2003 8:51 AM
· :. University District -:. Northgate -:. Tukwil~
In order to be designated as an Urban Center, jurisdictions must meet specific criteria in the
Countywide Planning Policies, including having planned land uses to accommodate:
· :. A minimum of 15,000 jobs within one-half mile of a transit center;
-:.At a minimum, an average of 50 employees per gross acre; and
· :. At a minimum, an average of 15 households per acre.
When fully realized, Urban Centers shall be characterized by the following:
o:,Clearly defined geographic boundaries;
· :- An intensity/density of land uses sufficient to support effective and rapid transit;
· :, Pedestrian emphasis within the Center;
· :- Emphasis on supedor urban design which reflects the local community;
· :o Limitations on single-occupancy vehicle usage during peak commute hours;
o:,A broad array of land uses and choices within those land uses for employees and
residents;
· :o Sufficient public open spaces and recreational opportunities; and
· :o Uses which provide both daytime and nighttime activities in the Center.
The interjurisdictional staff team analyzed the Totem Lake neighborhood against all of the
criteria in the Countywide Planning Policies governing Urban Centers, and found that an Urban
Center designation would be appropriate, for the following reasons:
· :o The City of Kirkland has completed the necessary planning to support an Urban Center
designation.
· :. By 2012, Totem Lake is projected to contain over 4,500 housing units and 21,400 jobs.
.:.Totem Lake is planned as a transit odented development district with very high
residential and commercial intensity.
· :. A new transit center will be constructed at the center of the transit oriented development
district.
· :. Within ¼ mile of the transit center, 11,000 jobs and 2000 housing units are projected by
2012. Another 3,000 to 4,000 jobs are expected by 2022.
· :. Employment densities in Totem Lake are planned for a minimum of 130 jobs per acre
(net), and will reach approximately 40 jobs per gross acre by 2022.
· :. Residential denSities are planned for 50-75 units/acre (net). Capacity will remain for
additional job and housing growth beyond 2022.
· .'. Other comprehensive plan policies are in place to support pedestrian emphasis, job
creation and re-investment, redevelopment, high density residential and high intensity
commercial uses, design principles, infrastructure, parks and open space, and
community services.
SUMMARY:
Proposed Ordinance 2003-0126 would amend the Countywide Planning Policies by:
· Adding Totem Lake to the list of Urban Centers in Policy LU-39.
Additionally, the ordinance would ratify the change on behalf of the population of
unincorporated King County, as required by Countywide Planning Policy FW-1, Step 9.
Amendments to the Countywide Planning Policies become effective when ratified by ordinance
or resolution by at least 30% of the city and county governments representing 70% of the
population of King County according to the Interlocal agreement. A city shall be deemed to
C:\WINDOWS\TEM~3-0126 (CPP Amendments - Totem Lake Urban CenterX3-18-03).doc 5/21/2003 8:51 AM
have ratified the countywide planning policy unless, within 90 days of adoption by King County,
the city by legislative action disapproves the Countywide Planning Policy.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Proposed Ordinance 2003-0126, with attachments
C:\WINDOWS\TEMP\2003-0126 (CPP Amendments - Totem Lake Urban Center)(3-18-03).doc 5/21/2003 8:51 AM
KING 'COUNTY
Signature Report
May 20, 2003
1200 King County Courthouse
516 Third Avenue
Seattle, WA 98104
Ordinance 14656
Proposed No. 2003-0127.1
Sponsors Hague
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
AN ORDINANCE adopting amendments to the
Countywide Planning Policies addressing the long-term
protection of agricultural production districts; ratifying the
amended COUntywide Planning Policies for unincorporated
King County; and amending Ordinance 10450, Section 3,
as amended, and K.C.C. 20.10.030 and Ordinance 10450,
Section 4, as amended, and K.C.C. 20.10.040
BE 1T ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF KING COUNTY:
· SECTION 1. Findings. The council makes the following findings.
A. The metropolitan King County council adopted and ratified the Growth
Management Planning Council recommended King County 2012 -Coun. tywide Planning
Policies (Phase I) in July 1992, under Ordinance 10450.
B. The.metropolitan King County council adopted and ratified the Phase li
amendments to the Countywide Planning Policies on August 15, 1994, raider Ordinance
11446.
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
35
36
37
38
39
Ordinance 14656 .
C. The Growth Management Planning Council met on June 16, 1999, and
adopted Motion 99-3, recommending amendments to the King County 2012 -
Countywide Planning Policies addressing the long-term protection of agricultural
production districts; adopting new policies LU-2A and LIJ-2B, revising the interim
potential annexation area map so that the lower green river valley agricultural production
district is not within the potential annexation area of any city, and drawing the urban
growth area boundary around the lower green river valley agricultural production district
to clarify that it is outside of the urban growth area.
E. The King County Council adopted Motion 11208 on May 21, 2001, reqUesting
that the GMPC review and reconsider its Motion' 99-3 and provide for a thorough public~
process, including opportunities for public testimony.
D. The Growth Management Planning Council met on September 26, 2001 and
adopted Motion 01-2, reaffu-ming Motion 99-3.
SECTION 2. Ordinance 10450, Section 3, as amended, and K.C.C. 20.10.030 are
each hereby amended to read as follows:
Phase II.
A. The Phase II Amendments to the King County 2012 Cou. ntywide Planning
Policies attached to Ordinance 1 I446 are hereby approved and adopted. '
B. The Phase Il Amendments to the King County 2012 - Countywide Planning
Policies are amended, as shown by Attachment 1 to Ordinance 12027.
C. The Phase II Amendments to the King CountY 2012 - Countywide Planning
Policies are amended, as shown by Attachment 1 to Ordinance 12421.
2
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
61
62
Ordinance 14656
D. The Phase II Amendments to the King County 2012 - Countywide Planning
Policies are amended, as shown by Attachment 1 and 2 to Ordinance 13260.
E. The Phase II Amendments to the King County 2012 - Countywide Planning
Policies are amended, as shown by Attachment 1 through 4 to Ordinance. 13415.
F. The Phase II Amendments to the King County 2012 - Countywide Planning
Policies are amended, as shown by Attachments 1 through 3 to Ordinance'13858.
G. The Phase II Amendments to the King County 201-2 - Countywide Planning
Policies are amended, as shown by .Attachment l to Ordinance 14390.
H. The Phase II Amendments to the King County 2012 - Countywide Planning
Policies are amended, as shown by Attachment 1 to Ordinance 14391~
I. The Phase II Amendments to the King County 2012 -' Countywide Planning
Policies are amended, as shown by Attachment 1 to Ordinance 14392.
$. The Phase II Amendments to the King County 2012 - Countywide Planning.
Policies are amended, as shown by Attachments 1 and 2 to this ordinance_
SECTION 3. Ordinance 10450, Section 4, as amended, and K.C.C. 20.10.040 are
each hereby amended to read as follows:
Ratification for unincorporated King County.
A. Countywide Planning Policies adopted by Ordinance 10450 for the purposes
specified are hereby ratified on behalf of the population of unincorporat.ed King County.
B. The amendments to the Countywide Planning Policies adopted by Ordinance
10840 are hereby ratified on behalf of the population of unincorporated King County.
C. The amendments to the Countywide Planning Policies adopted by Ordinance
11061 are hereby ratified on behalf of the population of unincorporated King County.
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
'83
Ordinance 14656
D. The Phase 1I amendments to the King County 2012 Countywide Planning
Policies adopted by Ordinance 11446 are hereby ratified on behalf of the population of
unincorporated King County.
E. The amendments to.the King County 2012 - CountYWide Planning Policies, as
shown by Attachment 1 to Ordinance 12027 are hereby ratified on behalf of the
population of unincorporated King County.
F. The amendments to the King County 2012 - Counfywide Planning Policies, as
shown by Attachment I to Ordinance 12421, are hereby ratified on behalf of the
population of unincorporated King County.
G. The amendments to the King County 2012 - Countywide Planning Policies, as
shown by Attachments 1 and 2 to Ontinance 1-3260, ale hereby ratified on behalf of the
population of unincorporated King County.
H. The amendments to the King County 2012 - Countywide Planning Policies, as
shown by Attachment 1 through 4 to Ordinance 13415, are hereby ratified on behalf of
the population of unincorporated King County.
I. The amendments to the King County 2012 - Countywide Planning Policies, as
shown by. Attachments 1 through 3 to Ordinance 13858, are hereby ratified on behalf of
the population Of unincorporated King County.
J. The amendments to the King County 2012 - Countywide' Planning Policies, as
shown by Attachment 1 to Ordinance 14390, are hereby ratified on behalf of the
population of unincorporated King County.
4
84
85
86
87
88
89
Ordinance 14656
K. Thc amendments to thc King County 2012 - Countywide Planning Policies, as
shown by Attachment 1 to Ordinance 14391, are hereby ratified on behalf of the
population of unincorporated King County.
L. The amen.dments to the King County 2012 - Countywide Planning Policies, as
shown by Attachment 1 to Ordinance 14392, are hereby ratified on bel~alf of the
population of unincorporated King County.
M. The amendments to the King County 2012 - Count~a~,ide Planning Policies,. an
5
Ordinance 14656
91
92
93
shown by Attachments I and 2 to this ordinance, are hereby ratified on behalf of the.
population of unincorporated King County.
Ordinance 14656 was introduced on 3/17/2003 and passed by the Metropolitan King
County Council on 5119/2003, by the following vote:
Yes: 12 - Ms. Sullivan, Ms. Edmonds, Mr. von Reichbauer, Ms. Lambert, Mr.
Phillips, Mr. Pelz, Mr. McKenna, Mr. Constantine., Mr. Gossett, Ms. HagUe,
Mr. Irons and Ms. Patterson
No: 0
Excused: 0
KING COUNTY COUNCIL
KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON
ATTEST:
Anne Nods, Clerk of the Council
APPROVED this t~gXdayof ~
Cynthia Sullivan, Chair
· 2003.
Attaclmaents 1. GMPC Motion 99-3, 2. GMPC Motion 01-2
6
Attachment 2
2003-O127
14656
September 26, 2001
Sponsored By:
Executive Committee
MOTION NO. 01-2
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
· 13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
.24
25
26
.'27
28
29
3O
31
32
33
34
35
.A MOTION reaffirming Motion 99-3 passed by the GMPC on June 16,
1999 amending the Countywide Planning Policies to add new policies that
address the long-term governance of Agricultural Production Districts.
WHEREAS, The Growth Management Act requires the maintenance, enhancement and
conservation of agricultural industries and lands through a variety of methods and programs;
WHEREAS, .King County residents have supported efforts to preserve good farmland and active
farms for the value of local crops, dairy and livestock and for scenic and historic values;
WHEREAS, King County, through the Farmlands Preservation Program, has purchased the
development rights of 12,600 acres of farmland and has established the Agricultural Production
Districts (APDs) to further protect these and adjacent prime agricultural lands;
WHEREAS, the Lower Green River APD is ~ompletely sun'ounded by Urban designated'lands and
as such is under immense pressure for development and annexation; and'
W%IEREAS, King County and the city of Auburn have signed an inteflocal agreement.that'
removes the southern portion of the Lower Green APD out of the city's potential armexation area.
THE GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLANNING COUNCIL OF KING'COUNTY HEREBY
MOVES AS FOLLOWS:
Reaffirm the unanimous vote by this Council on June 16, 1999 to add the following new
Countywide Planning Policies:
LU-2A
Designated Agricultural Production District lands shall not be annexed by
cities.
LU-2B
The Lower Green River Agricultural Production District is a regionally
designated resource that is to remain in unincorporated King County.
Preservation of the Lower Green River Agricultural Production District will
provide an.urban separator as surrounding Urban areas are annexed and
developed. King County may contract with other jurisdictions to provide
some local services to this area asappropriate.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
1~656
In the event that this motion is ratified by the member jurisdictions of Growth Management
Planning Council, then the Interim Potential Annexation Area Map shall be revised
accordingly and the Urban Growth Boundary will be drawn around the Lower Green
Agricultural Production District (APD) to clarify that the APD is outside of the Urban area.
ADOPTED by the Growth Management Planning Council of King County on September 26,. 2001
in open session.
Ron ~~i~, Growth Management Planning Council .
IJGMPC/2001GMPCYMotion01-2.doc - 2 -
Metropolitan King County Council
Growth Management and Unincorporated Areas Committee
Staff Report
Agenda Item: 10 Name:
Proposed Ordinance: 2003-0127 Date:
Attending: Paul Reitenbach, King County DDES
Kevin Wright, King County PAO
Lauren Smith
March 18, 2003
SUBJECT:
Proposed Ordinance 2003-0127 adopts amendments to the Countywide Planning Policies
addressing the long term protection of Agricultural Production Districts, and ratifies the
amended Countywide Planning Policies on behalf of the population of unincorporated King
County.
BACKGROUND:
The Growth Management Planning Council (GMPC) is a formal body comprised of elected
officials from King County, Seattle, Bellevue, the Suburban Cities, and Special Districts. The
GMPC was created in 1990 in response to a provision in the Washington State Growth
Management Act (GMA) requiring cities and counties to work together to adopt Countywide
Planning Policies (CPPs). Under GMA, countywide planning policies serve as the framework
for each individual jurisdiction's comprehensive plan, and ensure regional consistency with
respect to land use planning efforts. The GMPC drafted the CPPs, which were then adopted by
the King County Council and ratified by the cities. Changes to the CPPs are recommended by
the GMPC, adopted by the King County Council, and ratified by the cities.
GMPC Actions
In June of 1999, the GMPC adopted Substitute Motion 99-3, recommending amendments to the
King County Countywide Planning Policies, as follows:
Recommendation #1. Add two new policies addressing the long-term governance of
Agricultural Production Districts:
LU-2A Designated Agricultural Production Districts shall not be annexed by cities.
LU-2B
The Lower Green River Valley Agricultural Production District is a regionally
designated resource that is to remain in unincorporated King County. Preservation of
the Lower Green River Valley Agricultural Production District will provide an urban
separator as surrounding urban areas are annexed and developed. King County may
contract with other jurisdictions to provide some local services to this area as
appropriate.
C:IWINDOWS\TEMP~2003-0127 (CPP Amendments - Lower Green River Valley APD)(3-18-03).doc 5/21/2003 8:51 AM
Recommendation #2. Amend the Potential Annexation Area (PAA) Map in the CPPs so that
the Lower Green River Valley APD does not appear within the PAA boundaries of any
jurisdiction.
Recommendation #3. Amend the Urban Growth Area map by drawing the Urban Growth Area
Boundary around the Lower Green River Valley APD. This is to clarify its classification as long-
term resource land, and to emphasize that although it is located west of the main urban-rural
boundary line, it is not considered urban.
King County Council Actions
In 1999, the King County Council amended the King County Comprehensive Plan to be
consistent with the GMPC recommendations contained in Motion 99-3, by adopting policies R-
513 and R-544 (see below), and by drawing the Urban Growth Area Boundary around the
Lower Green River Valley APD (see Attachment 2).
R-513
Designated Forest and Agricultural Production District lands shall not be annexed by
cities.
R-544
The Lower Green River Agricultural Production District is a regionally designated
resource that is to remain in unincorporated King County. The Lower Green River
Agricultural Production District functions as an urban separator between the cities of
Kent and Auburn: King County may contract with other jurisdictions to provide some
local services to this area as appropriate.
In 2000, the King County Council further amended the King County Comprehensive Plan by
adopting Policy R-543, which also supports the GMPC's recommendations in Motion 99-3:
R-543
King County commits to preserve Agricultural Production District parcels in or near
the Urban Growth Area because of their high production capabilities, their proximity
to markets, and their value as open space.
Finally, in 2001 the King County Council considered the adoption of Proposed Ordinance 2002-
0256, which would have amended the CPPs consistent with the recommendations of the
GMPC and with the changes already made to the King County Comprehensive Plan. However,
because the County was engaged in negotiations to purchase certain properties within the
Lower Green River Valley APD, and out of concerns that the GMPC had adopted their
recommendations in the absence of a quorum and without an adequate public review process,
the Council did not adopt the Proposed Ordinance. Instead, the Council adopted Motion 11208
(see Attachment 3), which remanded the GMPC motion back to the GMPC for further review
and reconsideration. Motion 11208 also directed the County Executive to complete
negotiations with property owners id the Lower Green River Valley APD in the eadiest possible
timeframe.
On September 26, 2001 the GMPC reconsidered its actions with respect to Motion 99-3, and
via the adoption of Motion 01-2, reaffirmed those actions.
On November 20, 2002 King County executed the fee simple purchase of what is known as the
Nelson property in the Lower Green River Valley APD, thus fulfilling the second mandate of
Motion 11208.
C:\WINDOWS\TEMP~2003-0127 (CPP Amendments - Lower Green River Valley APD)(3-18-03).doc 5/21/2003 8:51 AM
With these two actions complete, the King County Council is asked t° consider once again
amending the Countywide Planning Policies as recommended by the GMPC in Motions 99-3
and 01-2.
SUMMARY:
Proposed Ordinance 2003-0127 would amend the Countywide Planning Policies by:
· Adding policies LU-2A and LU-2B addressing the long-term governance of Agricultural
Production Districts;
· Amending the Interim Potential Annexation Area Map to illustrate that the Lower Green
River Valley APD is not within the PAA of any jurisdiction; and
· Amending the land use map in the CPPs to illustrate that the Lower Green River Valley APD
is outside the boundaries of the Urban Growth Area.
Additionally, the ordinance would ratify the changes on behalf of the population of
unincorporated King County, as required by Countywide Planning Policy FW-I. Amendments
to the Countywide Planning Policies become effective when ratified by ordinance or resolution
by at least 30% of the city and county governments representing 70% of the population of King
County according to the Interlocal agreement. A city shall be deemed to have ratified the
countywide planning policy unless, within 90 days of adoption by King County, the city by
legislative action disapproves the Countywide Planning Policy.
ATTACHMENTS: 1. Proposed Ordinance 2003-0127, with attachments
2. Map: Lower Green River Valley Agricultural Production District
3. King County Motion 11208, Adopted May 21, 2000
C:\WINDOWS\TEMF~2.003-0127 (CPP Amendments - Lower Green River Valley APDX3-18-03),doc 5/21/2003 8:51 AM