HomeMy WebLinkAboutITEM VIII-B-2
*
AEiIDtN
WASHINGTON
AGENDA BILL APPROVAL FORM
Agenda Subject: Kinq County CountyWide Planninq Policies I Date: June 12, 2006
Department: Planning Building and Attachments: Resolution No. 4043 I Budget Impact:
Community Administrative Recommendation: City Council to adopt of Resolution No. 4043.
Background Summary:
The King County Countywide Planning Policies (CPPs) were developed in the early 1990s to
bring countywide and local planning efforts into compliance with the Washington State Growth
Management Act. Periodically, the CPPs are amended to deal with changing issues, circumstances and
information.
Amendments are initially developed at the staff level (Planning, Building and Community Director Krauss
serves on the staff Interjurisdictional Team (IJT)). Amendments are then routed through the Growth
Management Planning Council (GMPC).
After adoption of the amendments by the King County Council, amendments are transmitted to city/town
councils and are deemed ratified when approved by at least 30% of the governments representing at
least 70% of the county population. Individual actions by the respective city/town councils on the
attached amendments must be taken by July 24, 2006. Failure to act is construed to be a vote to ratify.
Two CPP amendments are currently under consideration. These include:
GMPC Motion 05-1. Amends the interim Potential Annexation Area map in the countywide planning
policies by deleting a 30.3 acre area from the City of Tukwila PM and adding it to the City of Kent
PM. The amendment is supported by both the cities of Kent and Tukwila. This amendment corrects a
mapping error.
GMPC Motion 05-2. Amends the Countywide Planning Policies by designating the South Lake
Union area of Seattle as an urban center.
Detailed information regarding the proposed amendments is attached to the resolution.
At its June 12, 2006 meeting, the Planning and Community Development Committee recommended that
the City Council approve the proposed amendments to the Countywide Planning Policies
03.4.1
Reviewed by Council & Committees: Reviewed by Departments & Divisions:
o Arts Commission COUNCIL COMMITTEES: o Building o M&O
o Airport o Finance o Cemetery o Mayor
o Hearing Examiner o Municipal Servo o Finance o Parks
o Human Services ~ Planning & CD o Fire ~ Planning
o Park Board OPublic Works o Legal o Police
o Planning Comm. o Other o Public Works o Human Resources
o Information Services
Action:
Committee Approval: DYes ONo
Council Approval: DYes ONo Call for Public Hearing _1_1-
Referred to Until -1_1-
Tabled Until ~_I-
Councilmember: Norman I Staff: Krauss
Meeting Date: June 19, 2006 .1 Item Number: VIII.B.2
AUBURN * MORE THAN YOU IMAGINED
RESOLUTION NO. 4043
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF AUBURN, WASHINGTON, RATIFYING AMENDMENTS
TO THE KING COUNTY COUNTYWIDE PLANNING
POLICIES
WHEREAS, the Metropolitan King County Council adopted and ratified
the original countywide planning policies in July 1992; and
WHEREAS, the Growth Management Planning Council (GMPC) was
established by interlocal agreement in 1991 to provide for the collaborative policy
development process of Countywide Planning Policies as mandated by the State
Growth Management Act amendments of 1991; and
WHEREAS, the policies are subject to periodic review and amendment;
and
WHEREAS, the Growth Management Planning Council (GMPC) met on
September 21,2005, and took action to recommend approval of amendments to the
King County Countywide Planning Policies amending the interim potential annexation
areas map and also designating South Lake Union as an Urban Center; and
WHEREAS, the King County Council subsequently adopted Ordinance
No. 15426 on April 24, 2006, which ratified the proposed amendments on behalf of
unincorporated King County; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of Auburn approved the original Countywide
Planning Policies through Resolution No. 2349 in November 1992 "with specific
clarifications;" and
Resolution No. 4043
June 14, 2006
Page 1
WHEREAS, the 1991 interlocal agreement remains in effect, requiring
ratification of Countywide Planning Policies and amendments to the Countywide
Planning Policies by 30% of the jurisdictions representing at least 70% of the
population of King County, within 90 days of adoption by the King County Council;
and
WHEREAS, the City Council's Planning and Community Development
Committee met on June 12, 2006 and recommended that the City Council ratify the
amendments.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF AUBURN,
WASHINGTON, IN A REGULAR MEETING DULY ASSEMBLED, HEREWITH
RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. The City of Auburn hereby ratifies the amendments to the King
County Countywide Planning Policies as shown in Exhibit A attached hereto.
Section 2. The Mayor is hereby authorized to transmit a copy of this
resolution and other supporting documentation to the Clerk of the King County
Council.
Section 3. This Resolution shall be in full force and effect upon its passage
and signatures hereon.
Resolution No. 4043
June 14, 2006
Page 2
DATED AND SIGNED THIS
ATTEST:
Danielle E. Daskam,
City Clerk
Resolution No. 4043
June 14, 2006
Page 3
Day of June
CITY OF AUBURN
2006.
PETER B. LEWIS
MAYOR
KING COUNTY
1200 King County Courthouse
516 Third Avenue
Seattle, WA98104
Signature Report
April 24, 2006
Ordinance 15426
Proposed No. 2006-0074.1
Sponsors Constantine
AN ORDINANCE adopting amendments to the
2
Countywide Planning Policies; amending the interim
3
potential annexation areas map and ratifying the amended
4
Countywide Planning Policies for unincorporated King
5
County; and amending Ordinance 10450, Section 3, as
6
amended, and K.C.C. 20.10.030 and Ordinance 10450,
7
Section 4, as amended, and K.C.C. 20.10.040.
8
9
10 BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF KING COUNTY:
11 SECTION I. Findings. The council makes the following findings:
12 A. The metropolitan King County council adopted and ratified the Growth
13 Management Planning Council recommended King County 2012 - Countywide Planning
14 Policies (Phase I) in July 1992, under Ordinance 10450.
15 B. The metropolitan King County council adopted and ratified the Phase II
16 amendments to the Countywide Planning Policies on August 15, 1994, under 9rdinance
17 11446.
~XJzlb /1 A-
Ordinance 15426
18 C. The Growth Management Planning Council met on September 21, 2005 and
19 voted to recommend amendments to the King County Countywide Planning Policies,
20 amending the interim potential annexation areas map as shown in Attachment A to this
21 ordinance and designating South Lake Union an Urban Center as shown on Attachment B
22 to this ordinance.
23 SECTION 2. Ordinance 10450, Section 3, as amended, and K.C.C. 20.10.030 are
24 each hereby amended to read as follows:
25 Phase II.
26 A. The Phase II Amendments to the King County 2012 Countywide Planning
27 Policies attached to Ordinance 11446 are hereby approved and adopted.
28 B. The Phase II Amendments to the King County 2012 - Countywide Planning
29 Policies are amended, as shown by Attachment 1 to Ordinance 12027.
30 C. The Phase II Amendments to the King County 2012 - Countywide Planning
31 Policies are amended, as shown by Attachment 1 to Ordinance 12421.
32 D. The Phase II Amendments to the King County 2012 - Countywide Planning
33 Policies are amended, as shown by Attachments 1 and 2 to Ordinance 13260.
34 E. The Phase II Amendments to the King County 2012 - Countywide Planning
35 Policies are amended, as shown by Attachments I through 4 to Ordinance 13415.
36 F. The Phase II Amendments to the King County 2012 - Countywide Planning
37 Policies are amended, as shown by Attachments I through 3 to Ordinance 13858.
38 G. The Phase II Amendments to the King County 2012 - Countywide Planning
39 Policies are amended, as shown by Attachment I to Ordinance 14390.
2
Ordinance 15426
3
Ordinance 15426
62 S. Phase II Amendments to the King County 2012 - CountyWide Plmming
63 Policies are amended, as shown by Attachments A and B to Ordinance xxx.
64 SECTION 3. Ordinance 10450, Section 4, as amended, and K.C.C. 20.10.040 are
65 each hereby amended to read as follows:
66 Ratification for unincorporated King County.
67 A. Countywide Planning Policies adopted by Ordinance 10450 for the purposes
68 specified are hereby ratified on behalf of the population of unincorporated King County. .
69 B. The amendments to the Countywide Planning Policies adopted by Ordinance
70 10840 are hereby ratified on behalf of the population of unincorporated King County.
7l (:. The amendments to the Countywide Planning Policies adopted by Ordinance
72 11061 are hereby ratified on behalf of the population of unincorporated King County.
73 D. The Phase II amendments to the King County 2012 Countywide Planning
74 Policies adopted by Ordinance 11446 are hereby ratified on behalf of the population of
75 unincorporated King County.
76 E. The amendments to the King County 2012 - Countywide Planning Policies, as
77 shown by Attachment I to Ordinance 12027 are hereby ratified on behalf of the
78 population of unincorporated King County.
79 F. The amendments to the King County 2012 - Countywide Planning'Policies, as
80 shown by Attachment 1 to Ordinance 12421, are hereby ratified on behalf of the
81 population of unincorporated King County.
82 G. The amendments to the King County 2012 - Countywide Planning Policies, as
83 shown by Attachments I and 2 to Ordinance 13260, are hereby ratified on behalf ofthe
84 population of unincorporated King County.
4
Ordinance 15426
85 H. The amendments to the King County 2012 - Countywide Planning Policies, as
86 shown by Attachment 1 through 4 to Ordinance 13415, are hereby ratified on behalf of
87 the population of unincorporated King County.
88 1. The amendments to the King County 2012 - Countywide Planning Policies, as
89 shown by Attachments I through 3 to Ordinance 13858, are hereby ratified on behalf of
90 the population of unincorporated King County.
91 J. The amendments to the King County 2012 - Countywide Planning Policies, as
92 shown by Attachment I to Ordinance 14390, are hereby ratified on behalf of the
93 population of unincorporated King County.
94 K. The amendments to the King County 2012 - Countywide Planning Policies, as
95 shown by Attachment I to Ordinance 14391, are hereby ratified on behalf of the
96 population of unincorporated King County.
97 L. The amendments to the King County 2012 - Countywide Planning Policies, as
98 shown by Attachment I to Ordinance 14392, are hereby ratified on behalf of the
99 population of unincorporated King County.
100 M. The amendments to the King County 2012 - Countywide Planning Policies, as
101 shown by Attachment I to Ordinance 14652, are hereby ratified on behalf of the
102 population of unincorporated King County.
103 N. The amendments to the King County 2012 - Countywide Planning Policies, as
104 shown by Attachments 1 through 3 to Ordinance 14653, are hereby ratified on behalf of
105 the population of unincorporated King County.
5
Ordinance 15426
106 O. The amendments to the King County 20]2 - Countywide Planning Policies, as
107 shown by Attachment] to Ordinance] 4654, are hereby ratified on behalf of the
.108 population of unincorporated King County.
109 P. The amendments to the King County 20]2 - Countywide Planning Policies, as
110 shown by Attachment] to Ordinance] 4655, are hereby ratified on behalf of the
11 ] population of unincorporated King County.
112 Q. The amendments to the King County 2012 - Countywide Planning Policies, as
113 shown by Attachments ] and 2 to Ordinance 14656, are hereby ratified on behalf of the
114 population of unincorporated King County.
115 R. The amendments to the King County 20] 2 - Countywide Planning Policies, as
116 shown by Attachment A to Ordinance 14844, are hereby ratified on behalf of the
117 population of unincorporated King County.
118 S. The amendments to the King County 2012 - Countywide Planning Policies, as
119 shown by Attachments A, Band C to Ordinance 15121, are hereby ratified on behalf of
120 the population of unincorporated King County.
121 T. The amendments to the King County 2012 - Countywide Planning Policies, as
122 shown by Attachment A to Ordinance 15122, are hereby ratified on behalf of the
123 population of unincorporated King County.
124 U. The amendments to the King County 2012 - Countywide Planning Policies, as
125 shown by Attachment A to Ordinance 15123, are hereby ratified on behalf of the
126 population of unincorporated King County.
6
Ordinance 15426
127 V. The amendments to the King County 2012 - Countywide Planning Policies, as
128 shown by Attachments A and B to Ordinance xxx, are hereby ratified on behalf of the
129 population of unincorporated King County.
130
Ordinance 15426 was introduced on 3/6/2006 and passed by the Metropolitan King
County Council on4/24/2006, by the following vote:
Yes: 8 - Mr. Phillips, Mr. von Reichbauer, Ms. Lambert, Mr. Dunn, Mr.
Gossett, Ms. Hague, Ms. Patterson and Mr. Constantine
No: 0
Excused: 1 - Mr. Ferguson
ATTEST:
~
Anne Noris, Clerk of the Council
APPROVED this -R day of ~~
\
Attachments
KING COUNTY COUNCIL
KING COUNTY, WASH
, 2006.
A. Motion No. 05-1 and Map, B. Motion No. 05-2 and Map
7
......J
o-.c c:::>
- =
..r. <::l? --""\
00 :JC ,,-r~...)
r-"'''1
::-'~ ,11
.1 -< ..;--.",
- ,') , /
I
'X W r"1
..,.1 ! ".
-< -. ./"
:::r:~ 4:J f:"',.-.
.' .....:;.. ~_._-,
.~.. :' i .
-
c: ~~ 0
'X
C')
- N
J
9/21/05
~'006-07 4
Attaclunent A
Sponsored By:
Executive Committee
/pr
1 MOTION NO. 05-1
2 A MOTION to amend the interim Potential Annexation Area
3 map in the Countywide Planning Policies.
4
5
6
7 WHEREAS, Countywide Planning Policies LU-31 and LU-32 anticipate the collaborative
8 designation of Potential Annexation Areas (PAA) and the eventual annexation ofthese
9 areas by cities.
10
11 WHEREAS, the attached P AA map amendment corrects an error on the interim P AA map
12 by deleting a 30.3 acre area from the City ofTukwila's PAA and adding this area to the
13 City of Kent P AA.
14
15 WHEREAS, the attached P AA map amendment is supported by the City of Tukwila and
16 the City of Kent.
17
18 BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLANNING COUNCIL OF
19 KING COUNTY HEREBY MOVES AS FOLLOWS:
20
21
22 1. Amend the Interim Potential Annexation Area Map by including the 30.3 -acre area in
23 the Potential Annexation Area of the City of Kent.
24
25 2. This amendment is recommended to the Metropolitan King County Council and the
26 Cities of King County for adoption and ratification.
27
28 ADOPTED by the Growth Management Planning Council of King County on
29 September 21, 2005 in open session and signed by the chair of the GMPC.
30
31
32
33
34
Ron Sims, Chair, Growth Management Planning Council
- 1 -
N
+
-I
.
-J
chment A
Proposed Amendment
Interim P AA Map Amendment
e
K'mg County
.... W_rion Nlude4 Of' INI .., hM been &:oInphd .,.
1CIrf~..a<<tg""l_jlllJ.,_..........;.ed"d.""Il"
....... nriee. ~ CouNr 11I"- ... ~ or
.".....-. ...... or ~. .. .. .-.ctnq'. ~
"'-"-.. ., rigits 10"", .r MIdt ~ t<Iflg c-ty
ttIlIII _ " Ii... far '"' ~ .,.0_, hired, iWOderUI. Of
--.-.. 4_at.. iIt~ ..... nil fWlecI' '-. 1M'
..--... ., tMf ".tIft resUllng InmI .. '* . __. fII ..
......... ~. '" .. -..p. hwr" '" lhiI .... .
~""'....lstnlti"-.c"'Wt'ItetI~r;I
....""""'.
1,000 500 0
,
C]
Proposed Area
lH8
Incorporated Areas
1,000
2,000
'Feet
15426
2v06-074
9121/05
Attachment B
Sponsored By:
Executive Committee
Ith
MOTION NO. 05-02
2 A MOTION to amend the Countywide Planning Policies by
3 designating the South Lake Union area of Seattle as an Urban
4 Center. South Lake Union is added to the list of Urban
5 Centers following Countywide Planning Policy LU-39.
6
7
8
9 WHEREAS, a goal. of the Growth Management Act is to encourage development in Urban
10 Areas where adequate public facilities exist or can be provided in an efficient manner;
11
12 WHEREAS, Policy LU-39 of the Countywide Planning Policies of King County describes
13 the criteria for Urban Center designation;
14
15 WHEREAS, Policy LU-40 of the Countywide Planning Policies of King County describes
16 standards for planned land uses within Urban Centers;
17
18 WHEREAS, the City of Seattle has demonstrated that South Lake Union meets the criteria
19 for designation as an Urban Center; and
20
21 WHEREAS, King County Comprehensive Plan Policy U-l 08 supports the development of
22 Urban Centers to meet the region's needs for housing, jobs, services, culture and recreaton
23 and to promote health.
24
25 BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLANNING COUNCIL OF
26 KING COUNTY HEREBY MOVES AS FOLLOWS:
27
28
29 L The South Lake Union area of Seattle is designated as an Urban Center. The list of
30 , Urban Centers following Countywide Planning Policy LU-39 is modified to include
31 South Lake Union.
32
33 2. This amendment is recommended to the Metropolitan King County Council and the
34 Cities of King COWlty for adoption and ratification.
35
36
- 1 -
15426 .1
ADOPTED by the Growth Management Planning Council of King County on
2 September 2] , 2005 in open session and signed by the chair of the GMPc.
3
4
5
6
7
Ron Sims, Chair, GrowthManagement Planning Council
- 2 -
15426 2006-074
South lake Union Boundaries
lake Union
;J stlii,J~ .
(:~I*OJ ffl~L :
-Utban iCi!pl~
-: : .::"
City of Seattle - DPD
May 19,1005
Parcels
D Urban Center Boundary
_ Park
(;)
Metropolitan King County Council
Growth Management and Unincorporated Areas Committee
Revised Staff Report
Agenda Item:
Proposed Ord:
5
2006-0074
(Adoption of GMPC Motions 05-1 and 05~2)
Paul Reitenbach, DOES
Name: Rick Bautista
Date: March 21, 2006
Attending:
SUBJECT:
Adopting amendments to the Countywide Planning Policies to correct a mapping error that affects 30 ,
acres of the potential annexation area (PM) for the City of Kent and to designate South Lake Union
as an Urban Center.
BACKGROUND:
The Growth Management Planning Council and Countywide pranning ~olicies
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 1992 by inter/ocal agreement, 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 countywide consistency with respect to land use planning efforts.
As provided for in the interlocal agreement, the GMPC developed and recommended the CPPs,
which were adopted by the King County Council and ratified by the cities. Subsequent amendments
to the CPPs follow the same process: recommendation by the GMPC, adoption by the King County
Council, and ratification by the cities.
Amendments to the CPPs become effective when ratified by ordinance or resolution by at least 30%
of the city and county governments representing at least 70% of the population of King County. A city
shall be deemed to have ratified an amendment to the CPPs unless, within 90 days of adoption by
King County, the city by legislative action disapproves it.
SUMMARY:
Proposed Ordinance 2006-0074 would adopt the following two motions (05-1 and 05-2) approved by
the GMPC in September 2005:
· GMPC Motion 05-1 would correct a mapping error that affects 30 acres of the PM for the City of
Kent.
· GMPC Motion 05-2 would amend the CPP Policy LU-39by adding South Lake Union to the list of
Urban Centers. .
The ordinance would also ratify the change on behalf of the population of unincorporated King
County, as required by Countywide Planning Policy FW-1, Step 9.
GMPC MOTION 05-1 (CORRECTION TO CITY OF KENT PM MAP):
In 2004, the Interim PM Map in the Countywide Planning Policies document was amended to reflect
the resolution of a disputed portion of the PM between the cities of SeaTac and Tukwila, wherein the
PAAs of each city overlapped. With the adoption of GMPC Motion 04-1, the entire previously
disputed area was included within the PM of the city of Tl!.kwila.
However, after the PM map was amended and in the process of being ratified, the city of Kent
pointed out a mapping error at the south margin of the previously disputed area. A 30.3-:acre area
that is actually within the PM of the city of Kent was inadvertently shown as part of the city of
SeaTac PM.. .
The Tukwila Planning Director and Kent Planning Manager agree that this 30.3-acre area ,should be
included in Kent's PM. Motion 05-1 adds the 30.3acre area to the city of Kent PM. and the
remainder of the previously disputed area remains within Tukwila's PM.
GMPC MOTION 05-2 (SOUTH LAKE UNION URBAN CENTER DESIGNATION):
The City of Seattle requests that the King County Council amend the Countywide Planning Policies to
, add its South Lake Union area to the list of Urban Centers in Policy lU-39. The city has followed the
correct process for obtaining such a designation, starting with ame'nding its own plans, policies and
capital improvement programs, and also by securing the recommendation of the Growth Management
Planning Council, which indicated its approval through the unanimous adoption .of GMPC Motion 05-2
on September 21, 2005.
The.final steps in the center designation process are approval by the King County Council and
ratification by the cities (see background section for an explanation of the ratification process).
Requirements for Urban Center Designation
The Countywide Planning Policies describe Urban Centers as areas of concentrated employment and
housing, with direct service by high-capacity transit and a wide range of other land uses. Collectively,
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. The list of Urban Centers in Countywide Planning Policy
lU-39 currently includes:
· Sellevue CSD
· Downtown Auburn
· Downtown Burien
· Federal. Way CSD .
· Kent CSD
· Redmond CSD
· Renton CSD
· Seattle CDD
· Seattle Center
· First Hill/Capitol Hill
· University District
· Northgate
· SeaTac CSD
· Tukwila CSD.
· Totem lake
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.
In addition to these requirements, Policy LU-40 states that fully realized Urban Centers shall be
characterized by the following:
· Clearly defined geographic boundaries;
· An intensity/density of land uses sufficient to support effective and rapid transit;
· Pedestrian emphasis within the Center;
· Emphasis on superior urban design which reflects the local community;
· Limitations on single-occupancy vehicle usage during peak commute hours;
· A broad array of land uses and choices within those land uses for employees and residents;
· Sufficient public open spaces and recreational opportunities; and
· Uses which provide both daytime and nighttime activities in the Center.
GMPC Recommendation
The GtV1PC, through the adoption of Motion 05-1, has declared that the City of Seattle has
demonstrated its commitment to developing a fully realized Urban Center at South Lake Union as
envisioned in the Countywide Planning Policies. A complete analysis. of the city's proposal as
presented to the GMPC is included as Attachment 4 to this staff report.
Specific factors leading to the GMPC action are that South Lake Union:
· Is adjacent to three of Seattle's existing urban centers, and together with those other centers,
forms the geographic basis of the City's Center City strategy. This strategy aims to attract and
accommodate high-quality urban development serving both the region's and the City's goals.
· Is in a key location within the regional transportation system, between 1-5 and SR99.
· Contains a wide mix of uses, including major employers like the Fred Hutchinson Cancer
Research Center, the Seattle Times, and PEMCO Insurance, along with a growing amount of
residential uses.
· Already exceeds the CPPs' employment criteria, for both the number and density of jobs. The
area currently has over 19,000 jobs, which is about 57 jobs per acre, compared to the criteria
of 50 jobs per acre. The City has established a growth target for South Lake Union of 16,000
additional jobs over the next 20 years, which would increase the density to over 100 jobs per
acre.
· Is being planned to accommodate an additional 8,000 housing units over the next 20 years,
producing a density of 27 hOl!sing units per acre within the Center, compared to the criteria
that calls for 15 units per acre.
· Exceeds PSRC's criteria for a regional growth center. There are currently 60 activity units
(population + employment per gross acre) in South Lake Union, while the PSRC criteria call for
f'
an ability to achieve 45 activity units. With the City's plans, South lake Union would reach 127
activity units by the year 2024.
· Is being supported as an Urban Center through a coordinated set of City plans, policies, and
investments. Seattle's Comprehensive Plan designated the Urban Center, and the City is
currently updating the neighborhood plan for South lake Union to meet the CPP criteria. The
neighborhood plan includes transportation, parks and other capital improvement plans, as well
as a historic building inventory and guidance for the provision of human services and public
safety.
· Has zoning and neighborhood-specific design guidelines that encourage pedestrian-oriented,
mixed-use development.
· Will have a new streetcar connection to Downtown Seattle, funded largely by property owners
in the neighborhood.
Council staff concurs that the city proposal meets the requirements in the Countywide Planning
Policies for designation as an Urban Center.
1.
2.
3.
4.
King County
..'
~/
May 15, 2006
RECEIVED
MAY 11 2006
The Honorable Pete Lewis MAYOH'S OFFiCE
City of Auburn
25 West Main Street
AU~ 98001-4998
Dear ~ ~
We are pleased to forward for your consideration and ratification the enclosed
amendments to the King County Countywide Planning Policies (CPP).
On April 24, 2006, the Metropolitan King County Council approved and ratified
amendments on behalf of unincorporated King County. Copies of the King
County Council staff report, ordinance and Growth Management Planning
Council motions are enclosed to assist you in your review of these amendments.
· Ordinance No. 15426, GMPC Motion Nos. 05-1 and 05-02, amending the
Countywide Planning Policies by amending the interim potential
annexation areas map and ratifying the amended Countywide Planning
Policies for unincorporated King County.
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 this amendment is July 24, 2006,
"~.
If you adopt any legislation relative to this action, please send a copy of the
legislation by the close of business, July 24, 2006, to Anne Noris, Clerk of the
Council, W1039 King County Courthouse, 516 Third Avenue, Seattle, WA 98104.
If you have any questions about the amendments or ratification process, please
contact Paul Reitenbach, Senior Policy Analyst, King County Department of
Development and Environmental Services, at 206-296-6705, or Rick Bautista,
Council Staff, King County Council, at 206-296-0329.
Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter.
Sincerely,
cc: King County City Planning Directors
Suburban Cities Association
Stephanie Warden, Director, Department of Development and Environmental
Services (DDES)
Paul Reitenbach, Senior Policy Analyst, DDES
Rick Bautista, Council Staff, Growth Management & Natural Resources
Committee (GM&NR)