HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOW 2006-07-10 Item 4B - Resolution - Ratify 2006 Countywide Planning Policy Amendments COUNCIL AGENDA SYNOPSIS
s�Q Sy' Initial ITEM NO.
-4I� a 1, 'g.: 1 \feetin2Dat. Prepared 1 Major's review v txoar. :ilnr;
u /IR; 1 07/10/06 sil 1 P4 "1k.c I
min`- v '2,
I 1 1
I
1908 I I 1 1
I I I I I
ITEM INFORMATION
I CAS NUMBER: 06-078 IORIGL\\I. AGENDA DATE: 7-10-06
AGENDA ITEMTiTLE Ratification of 2006 Countywide Planning Policy Amendments
CATEGORY Discussion Motion Rerolution Ordinance BidAmard Public Heating Other
1tg Date? /10/06 Mtg Date `Its Date 7 /17/06 Mfg Date efts Date Mfg Date Mfg Date
SPONSOR Council Major Adm Sac, ®DCD Finance Fire Legal P &R. Police PIP/ I
SPONSOR'S The Growth Management Planning Council has recommended, and the County Council has
SUMMARY adopted two amendments to the Countywide Planning Policies for King County. One
amendment corrects a mapping error related to the Potential Annexation Area boundaries
between Tukwila and Kent. The other designates the South Lake Union area as an Urban
Center. The amendments become effective upon ratification by 30% of King County's
local jurisdictions representing 70% of the county population.
REVIEWED BY COW Mtg. CA &P Cmte F&S Cmte Transportation Cmte
Utilities Cmte Art, Comm. Parks Comm. Planning Comm.
DATE. 6 -13 -06
RECOMMENDATIONS:
SPONSOR /ADMEN. Approve the proposed Amendments
COADUTrEE Approve the proposed Amendments (unanimous aonroval from CAP)
COST IMPACT FUND SOURCE
RXTENDrrURE REQUIRED A \fOU\rI' BUDGE 1ED
APPROPRIATION REQUIRED
$0 $N /A $N /A
Fund Source:
Comments:
MTG. DATE I- RECORD OF COUNCIL ACTION
7 -10 -06 1
MTG. DATE I ATTACHMENTS
7 -10 -06 6 -8 -06 memo to CAP with attachments and 6/13/06 CAP minutes
Draft resolution
CITY OF TUKWILA
ENTER-OFFICE MEMO
TO Community Affairs and Parks Committee
FROM. Steve Lancaster �r
SUBJECT Ratification of 2006 Countywide Planning Policy amendments
DA It. June 8, 2006
ISSUE
Should the City of Tukwila ratify the proposed 2006 amendments to the Countywide Planning
Policies for King County (CPPs)? These amendments would.
1 Correct an error in the CPP Potential Annexation Area (PAA) map that inaccurately
reflects Tukwila's and Kent's respective PAAs.
2. Designate the South Lake Union area in Seattle as an Urban Center.
BACKGROUND
The 1990 Growth Management Act (GMA) requires that King County and the cities within the
county work together to adopt countywide planning policies, which serve to guide and
coordinate the development of local comprehensive plans. The Growth Management Planning
Council (GMPC) comprised of representatives of King County, the cities and special districts
was formed in 1990 to develop such countywide planning policies. The original Countywide
Planning Policies for King County (CPPs) were adopted in July 1992. These policies are
periodically reviewed and revised in response either to changing conditions or requirements of
growth management law
The GMPC develops proposed countywide planning policies or amendments to the policies, and
recommends them to the King County Council. Policies adopted by the County Council become
effective only if ratified by at least 30% of the city and county governments in King County,
representing at least 70% of the county's population. Jurisdictions failing to act within 90 days
of County Council action are deemed to have ratified the policies or amendments. The 90 -day
period for the 2006 CPP amendments described below expires on July 24, 2006.
2006 CPP AMENDMENTS
King County Ordinance No. 15426 (Attachment B) adopts GMPC Motions No. 05 -1 and 05 -2,
amending the CPPs Interim Potential Annexation Area Map and designating the South Lake
Union area as an Urban Center. These amendments are more fully described below
Q:kGIA1CPP\CAP 2006 ratification.doc -sjl- Created on 066082006 948:00 AM
Paget of 2
PAA Man Amendment (GMPC Motion 05 -11
GMPC Motion No. 05 -1 corrects a mapping error made in 2004 (and ratified in 2005). Prior to
2004, Tukwila's southern Potential Annexation Area (PAA) and a Potential Annexation Area for
the City of SeaTac overlapped and were therefore in conflict. Because of this conflict, neither
PAA was recognized by the Countywide Planning Policies (CPPs).
In 2004, the City of SeaTac amended its Comprehensive Plan to remove its PAA designation,
eliminating the conflict. The Growth Management Planning Council subsequently
recommended and the County Council approved an amendment to the CPP Interim Potential
Annexation Map showing the entire unincorporated area bordered by Tukwila, SeaTac and Kent
as lying within Tukwila's PAA. The amendment failed to recognize that the 30.3 acre area south
of S. 204 is actually within Kent's PAA. During the ratification process, both Kent and
Tukwila identified this mapping error and notified King County and GMPC staff. It was agreed
that this error would be corrected. GMPC Motion No. 05 -1 accomplishes this correction.
See Attachment A for more information.
Staff Recommendation —City Council ratification.
Desienatine South Lake Union as an Urban Center (GMPC Motion No. 05 -21
GMPC Motion No. 05 -2 would designate the South Lake Union area of Seattle as an Urban
Center, as requested by the City of Seattle. The proposal meets the requirements of the
Countywide Planning Policies for urban center designation, and also meets the Puget Sound
Regional Council criteria for designation as a regional growth center.
See Attachment A for more information.
Staff Recommendation —City Council ratification.
RECOMMENDATION
Forward the proposed 2006 Countywide Planning Policy Amendments to the next Committee of
the Whole meeting with a recommendation to ratify King County Ordinance No 15426, adopting
GMPC Motions 05 -1 and 05 -2
Attachments: A. King County Revised Staff Report dated March 21, 2006
B. King County Ordinance 15426, dated April 24, 2006
Q• \GMA \CPP \CAP 2006 ratification.doe -sjl- Created on 06/08/2006 948:00 AM
Pane 2 of 2
Metropolitan King County Council
Growth Management and Unincorporated Areas Committee
Revised Staff Report
Agenda Item: 5 Name: Rick Bautista
Proposed Ord: 2006 -0074 Date. March 21, 2006
(Adoption of GMPC Motions 05 -1 and 05 -2)
Attending: Paul Reitenbach, DDES
SUBJECT:
Adopting amendments to the Countywide Planning Policies to correct a mapping error that affects 30
acres of the potential annexation area (PAA) for the City of Kent and to designate South Lake Union
as an Urban Center
BACKGROUND:
The Growth Management Planning Council and Countywide Planning Policies
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 interlocal 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 Gtv1PC in September 2005:
GMPC Motion 05 -1 would correct a mapping error that affects 30 acres of the PAA 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.
ATTACHMENT A
GMPC MOTION 05 -1 (CORRECTION TO CITY OF KENT PAA MAP).
In 2004, the Interim PAA Map in the Countywide Planning Policies document was amended to reflect
the resolution of a disputed portion of the PAA 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 PAA of the city of Tukwila.
However, after the PAA 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 PAA of the city of Kent was inadvertently shown as part of the city of
SeaTac PAA..
The Tukwila Planning Director and Kent Planning Manager agree that this 30.3 -acre area should be
included in Kent's PAA. Motion 05-1 adds the 3(13 acre area to the city of Kent PM. and the
remainder of the previously disputed area remains within Tukwila's PAA.
GMPC MOTION 05 -2 (SOUTH LAKE UNION URBAN CENTER DESIGNATIONI:
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 amending 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 and 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:
Bellevue CBD
Downtown Auburn
Downtown Burien
Federal Way CBD
Kent CBD
Redmond CBD
Renton CBD
Seattle CDD
Seattle Center
First Hill/Capitol Hill
University District
Northgate
SeaTac CBD
Tukwila CBD
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 GMPC, 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 housing 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
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
ATTA MENTS:
1 Pro sed Ordinance 2006 -0074
2. GM Motion 05 -1
3. GMPC otion 05-2
4. GMPC S report for Motion 05 -2
KING COUNTY 1200 King County Courthouse
5I6 Third Avenue
Seanle, WA 95104
Signature Report
April 24, 2006
Ordinance 15426
Proposed No. 2006 -0074 1 Sponsors Constantine
1 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 1. 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 Ordinance
17 1 1446_
ATTACHMENT B
Ordinance 15426
18 C. The Growth Management Planning Council met on September 21, 2005 and
19 voted to recornmend 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 I 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 1 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 1 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 1 to Ordinance 14390,
Ordinance 15426
40 H. The Phase II Amendments to the King County 2012 Countywide Planning
41 Policies are amended, as shown by Attachment 1 to Ordinance 14391.
42 I. The Phase II Amendments to the King County 2012 Countywide Planning
43 Policies are amended, as shown by Attachment 1 to Ordinance 14392.
44 J The Phase II Amendments to the King County 2012 Countywide Planning
45 Policies are amended, as shown by Attachment 1 to Ordinance 14652.
46 K. The Phase II Amendments to the King County 2012 Countywide Planning
47 Policies are amended, as shown by Attachments 1 through 3 to Ordinance 14653.
48 L. The Phase II Amendments to the King County 2012 Countywide Planning
49 Policies are amended, as shown by Attachment 1 to Ordinance 14654.
50 M. The Phase II Amendments to the King County 2012 Countywide Planning
51 Policies are amended, as shown by Attachment 1 to Ordinance 14655.
52 N. The Phase II Amendments to the King County 2012 Countywide Planning
53 Policies are amended, as shown by Attachments 1 and 2 to Ordinance 14656.
54 0 The Phase II amendments to the King County 2012 Countywide Planning
55 Policies are amended, as shown by Attachment A to Ordinance 14844
56 P. The Phase II Amendments to the King County 2012 Countywide Planning
57 Policies are amended as shown by Attachments A, B and C to Ordinance 15121.
58 Q The Phase II Amendments to the King County 2012 Countywide Planning
59 Policies are amended, as shown by Attachment A to Ordinance 15122.
60 R. The Phase II Amendments to the King County 2012 Countywide Planning
61 Policies are amended, as shown by Attachment A to Ordinance 15123
Ordinance 15426
62 S. Phase II Amendments to the Kinn County 2012 Countywide Planning
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.
71 C. 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 1 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 1 and 2 to Ordinance 13260, are hereby ratified on behalf of the
84 population of unincorporated King County
Ordinance 15426
85 FL 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 I. The amendments to the King County 2012 Countywide Planning Policies, as
89 shown by Attachments 1 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 1 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 1 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 1 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 1 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
Ordinance 15426
106 0 The amendments to the King County 2012 Countywide Planning Policies, as
107 shown by Attachment 1 to Ordinance 14654, are hereby ratified on behalf of the
108 population of unincorporated King County.
109 P The amendments to the King County 2012 Countywide Planning Policies, as
110 shown by Attachment 1 to Ordinance 14655, are hereby ratified on behalf of the
111 population of unincorporated King County
112 Q. The amendments to the King County 2012 Countywide Planning Policies, as
113 shown by Attachments 1 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 2012 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, B and 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
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 ponulation of unincomorated King County.
130
Ordinance 15426 was introduced,on 3/6/2006 and passed by the Metropolitan King
County Council on 4/24/2006, 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
KING COUNTY COUNCIL
KING COUNTY, WASH N
fi,,.
"Cr
Larry Phillig�Chair
ATTEST
N
O
c
Anne Noris, Clerk of the Council
w
APPROVED this _cg day of 1 !t1 2006. 0
1 �JL .1 Adr—.4 N
Ron STh County Exec utive
Attachments A. Motion No. 05 -1 and Map, B. Motion No. 05 -2 and Map
1
1
2006_0
9/21/05 Attachment 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 of these
9 areas by cities.
10
11 WHEREAS, the attached PAA map amendment corrects an error on the interim PAA 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 PAA.
14
15 WHEREAS, the attached PAA map amendment is supported by the City of Tukwila and
16 the City of Kent.
17
18 BE TT 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 Ron Sims, Chair, Growth Management Planning Council
34
1
154 2006 gr. O
9121105 Attachment B
Sponsored By Executive Committee
/th
1 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 PlanningPolicy 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 -108 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 PLAN,NNi G COUNCIL OF
26 KJNG COUNTY HEREBY MOVES AS FOLLOWS.
27
28
29 1. 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 County for adoption and ratification.
35
36
1
1 4 n rr
c hmentA
t Y� n �i.
Proposed Amendment
I nterim PM Map Amendment K2 g aunty
2... W..:u •t -r .a w d .wi,b
n -a- y a a
Proposed Area
u..::.n.a n a..r.. wu.n
..,wlt4a..Y.. P.. st n t
net ti 3..
...arr.r.a..o.ad a
b,,,, .dea r. ..r. A 1 14. 112.-1.../ incorporated Areas
4r s
1,m1 MG 0
t,aoo 2aoo
Fat
isvrI Si SS� �/2 11 1
Y r 75114‘1=-1/W4-.1 C rS12 Q
�a 2S =Imp Y LI_ .1 iela ll� l,
z 4,...... NE rF [j 2111ut1 2rs :0 rd g I h1 u t
COOS S.‘..11--2 Is- ail r te. rya f s' 7 1 12 rte- N regi112 [I AIM s.+ 4
33 3! n li a s a3a r t
-r° 4a�r��ieui 35119 Y g, mi
3' s riF
i �itle,,,a- s�/i Ear tam' a .ffs 1 3e+ v aRaf)� gi
e
13 an a...14%.=1S.-..."...7 i 3 3 1 -.4 -e ii F x
1111,! l133 01gir! Y t.?,. 1 i3 lil
In D ci r r
:ate
I i
Hill j, 3 d
I 1 �U a k t y E ,f Vi ER.; ''S i ttl t P i 1- a 'ii i3Ttdc+nla RA
1
''T*°`hll. II' tt't d�ie(•F f lel� i ce
F m 'i' Pe a an 2 r4 :•F._ ti 3 [3w
e °ti;irU ti %•1 a 3! eE$. a
5�j m. {`l1
a i lil l
M r z �7Cud
sarih i
win Y
a. t qy
114 is
2 a I t 3 v y
7 z
I IN f.,...„.,.,:::,,‘„.
1 .a i rrs zaw a --.-,2,--- 1• v Add Outlined Area
_2a Nami,_ntaig_ 1
to Keats
a a s pm 1
I3
all a i,gj3iaii.
n.a r m 1 r
2.
r 1 EIRE H 7i:.1.-..
2 21 I 1 2 3 '1
J si
1 3 ®Inn I f
�ID =1� ear
15 42 6
1 ADOPTED by the Growth Management Planning Council of King County on
2 September 21, 2005 in open session and signed by the chair of the GMPC.
3
4
5
6 Ron Sims, Chair, Growth Management Planning Council
7
2
15426
2006,.., 074
South Lake Union Boundaries
a--
a-
a
Lake Union
l
•In. r I.
r., -73 2.;
-.1
re
1 n -•-r r
E
4 .--S-'_.-E .----r.---
Li
1 1
2. E. !i.1-1.5 E C.;•-1 3 P
t ps,
la E
h r:._;- i i
I
i
•,---1 i I 7 1 --n I
3 1-
I 4.- 1 E-3 I----c-
7-.
2 I I 1
i 1_.-..._1-.1
I i i
Uptown"- 4-- 1
Se
1
a ttliter7feril
Urban Center 1
E a
i .1--
__J i _i_ i I__ r -3
r c —I r ,r-- C
1 I a 1 1:--- aa th takeithi 101--
1 -OU
I E. I a
a
1 --f---.' 1 1 -1 I UibartHCe' nter -I
•-•-i--.1:-
E Ur iCep ter
-4 I....4.-
i r I II l•- c
I I 3 1 -I' t
I
(.7.3 E i i
-.1 .-1.-4, E--.--1 :L..; ..i_._. 1 r: al lit. I
-.2 i j i ,.__.a-..__
2,
:a a :72 4 1...- i
1...2 a r
L,
ra.- at
i 1 i
.Z i
1 2 0
L I 3
I I Sr- fr
i I -I.-
2
-2-- -3-j -L.... ..---DennviYa L___ i
-4 /V -j
Dovmtovrq&tii..-", --a 7--
1 .-i m l f-
U
rban Center-.
i
Parcels
I I Urban Center Boundary
Gty of Seattle DPD Park
Mae 19 200S
Community Affairs and Parks Committee
June 13, 2006 5 :00 p.m.
Present: Joan Hernandez, Chair; Joe Duffle, and Pam Linder
Kevin Fuhrer; Steve Lancaster; Evelyn Boykan; Diane Jenkins; and Chuck Parrish, community
member
Business Agenda:
A. Ratification of 2006 Countywide Planning Policy amendments
The 1990 Growth Management Act (GMA) requires that King County and cities work together to
adopt countrywide planning policies which serve to coordinate the development of focal
comprehensive plans. The Growth Management Planning Council (GMPC) periodically reviews and
revises amendments to the policies and makes recommendations to King County Council. King
County Council can adopt, modify, or reject the changes. Then, the information is sent out to the
cities to ratify. It is adopted If it is ratified by at least 30% of the cities. Jurisdictions must act by
July 24, 2006; if no action is taken, it will be deemed that the City ratified the changes. Two
amendments are being proposed: adding South Lake Union to the list of urban centers and
correcting a mapping error that affe6ts 30 acres for the City of Kent. Last year, after an interim
potential annexation area (PM) map was amended, the City of Kent pointed out a mapping error a
30.3 -acre area that is within the City of Kent. City of Seattle is requesting that South Lake Union be
added to the list of urban centers (areas of concentrated employment and housing with direct service
by high capacity transit and a wide range of other land uses); there are currently 15 designated urban
centers in King County Pam asked if this allows them more funding. The project would certainly
qualify for more points when making applications for funding. Unanimous approval. forward to
COW
B. Amendment to Interlocal Aoreement for Organizational Capacity Buildina Program (add cities
of Burien and Auburn
The Organizational Capacity Building Pilot (OCBP) is a program of the City of Federal Way in
collaboration with cities of Burien and Tukwila. The interiocal agreement will need to be amended to
include the City of Burien and a new grant award from United Way. It was pointed out that Aubum
notified the City of Federal Way late this aftemodn that they are declining to participate at this point in
time. This capacity building strategy is designed to increase the organizational effectiveness of small
grassroots non -profit human service agencies serving local communities (Burien, Federal Way, and
Tukwila). Many of the participants serve on a volunteer basis. Through this program, organizations
will Team techniques to successfully self -govem and manage themselves, develop assets and
resources, forge and maintain community linkages, and continue to deliver services. An outside
consultant will be hired to work with each participating group by offering seminars, training, and
coaching. Organizations will conduct self- assessments to identify their strengths and weaknesses;
organizations are being sought. Tukwila's contribution will be $5,250. The Tukwila Food Pantry will
be assisted in this endeavor Pam noted that the vehicle for the food pantry needs funding for major
repairs and increased fuel costs. It was announced that application was made to United Way for
additional funds and a $14,000 grant award has been granted to extend the time for supportive
activities. There is a lot of competition for grants and there is limited funding; many of the small
grassroots agencies are not as competitive as some larger, organized agencies many of whom have
grant writers on staff. This will help to level the playing field and help these organizations become
self sufficient. Pam noted that it is always good to strengthen connections with neighboring cities.
Joe asked why SeaTac was not participating. It was noted that the human services staff member
recently retired. Unanimous approval. forward to COW.
Announcements:
Joint Meeting with SeaTac Land Use Parks Committee
Joan asked about efforts to coordinate a joint meeting of this committee with SeaTac's Land Use Parks
Committee. Arrangements are being coordinated to select a date. This will be an informal meeting.
Adjournment 5:30 p.m.
Committee Chair Approval
Mi by DJ. Reviewed by SL EB.
Resolution No.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF TUKWILA, WASHINGTON, RATIFYING TWO
PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE COUNTYWIDE
PLANNING POLICIES FOR KING COUNTY, AS
RECOMMENDED BY THE KLVG COUNTY GROWTH
MANAGEMENT PLANNING COUNCIL.
WHEREAS, Countywide Planning Policies for King County were adopted and ratified
through an inter jurisdictional planning process in 1992, and
WHEREAS, the Growth Management Planning Council for King County has recommended
two proposed amendments to the Countywide Planning Policies, referenced as GMPC Motions
No. 05 -1 and 05 -2, and
WHEREAS, on February 14, 2005 the King County Council approved and ratified the
proposed amendments on behalf of unincorporated King County through adoption of Ordinance
No. 15426, and
WHEREAS, interlocal agreement provides that amendments to the Countywide Planning
Policies become effective only if ratified by at least thirty percent of local jurisdictions within
King County representing at least seventy percent of the county's population, and
WHEREAS, the proposed amendments have been reviewed by the Tukwila City Council and
found to be beneficial to continued regional cooperation and coordination in managing growth,
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA, WASHINGTON
HEREBY RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS.
Section 1. Ratification of G1VIPC Motion 05 -1. The City of Tukwila supports ratification
of Growth Management Planning Council Motion 05 -1, attached hereto as Exhibit A, amending
the Countywide Planning Policies' Interim Potential Annexation Area map to accurately depict
the respective Potential Annexation Areas for the cities of Tukwila and Kent.
Section 2. Ratification of GMPC Motion 05 -2. The City of Tukwila supports ratification
of Growth Management Planning Council Motion 05 -2, attached hereto as Exhibit B, designating
the South Lake Union area of the City of Seattle as an Urban Center
Q•\GMA \CPP\Draft Resolution 2006.doc -sjl- Created on 07/06/2006 11.2300 AM
Page 1 of 2
PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA, WASHINGTON, at a
Regular Meeting thereof this 17 day of July, 2006.
ATTEST /AUTHENTICATED
Dennis Robertson, Council President
Jane. E. Cantu, CMC, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM
Filed with the City Clerk:
Passed by the City Council:
Office of the City Attorney Resolution Number:
Q• \GMA \CPP\Draft Resolution 2006.doc -sjl- Created on 07/06/2006 11.23 AM
Page2of2