HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOW 2003-07-28 Item 3B - Resolution - Ratify Amendments to 2003 Countywide Planning PolicyAgenda Item Title:
CAS Number: 03-099
Original Sponsor:
Timeline:
Sponsor's Summary:
Recommendations:
Sponsor:
Committee:
Administration:
Cost Impact (if known):
I Fund Source (if known):
Meeting Date
07 -28 -03
Meeting Date Prepared by
07 28 03 SL
Council
Admin. X
Initials
I Mayor's review I Council review
I AA-ft' I (,d.C.
I I
I I
I I
ITEMNO.
07 -28 -03
Proposed Resolution Ratifying the 2003 Countwide Planning Policy Amendments
Action requested by 08 -17 -03
King County adopted seven amendments to the Countywide Planning Policies for
King County on May 19, 2003. Tukwila's City Council may act to ratify or oppose the
amendments within 90 days of the County's action (by 08- 17 -03). In the event the
City Council takes no action by that date, the City will be deemed to have ratified the
amendments.
Ratify the proposed Countywide Planning Policy amendments Approve Resolution
Ratify the proposed Countywide Planning Policy amendments Approve resolution.
Same as sponsor.
None
N/A
Attachments
Memorandum from S. Lancaster, to City Council dated July 23, 2003
Minutes Community Affairs Parks Committee dated July 15, 2003
Proposed Resolution Draft Format
CITY OF TUKWILA
INTER-OFFICE MEMO
TO: City Council
FROM: Steve Lancaste~.~bc~
SUBJECT: Ratification of 2003 Countywide Planning Policy amendments
DATE: July 23, 2003
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 GM_PC 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 2003 CPP amendments described below expires on August 17.
2003 CPP AMENDMENTS
King County Ordinance No. 14652 adopts GMPC Motion No. 02-04, adding new policy support
to ongoing water supply planning and development. King County Ordinance No. 14653 adopts
three CPP amendments relating to revised housing and employment targets (GMPC Motions No.
02-01, 02-02 and 02-03). King County Ordinance No. 14654 adopts GMPC Motion 02-05,
amending the CPP's "Urban Separator Map" to refieet a negotiated modification to the Renton
Urban Separator. King County Ordinance No. 14655 adopts GMPC Motion 02-06, amending
the CPPs to designate the Totem Lake area in Kirkland as an "Urban Center." Finally, King
County Ordinance No. 14656 adopts GMPC Motion 01-2, amending the CPPs to add new
policies addressing long-term governance of Agricultural Production Districts.
These amendments are more fully described below.
Q:\STEVE\GMA\CPP\CC 2003 ratification.doc Page 1 of 4
Water Supply Plannine and Develonment (Kine County Ordinance No. 14652)
The issue of regional water supply was raised during discussions related to the adoption of new
housing and employment targets (see below). The proposed new policy was offered in the spirit
of ensuring ongoing infrastructure planning efforts. The proposed new policy reads:
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.
Staff Recommendation - City Council ratification of King County Ordinance No. 14652
Housing and Employment Targets (King County Ordinance No.14653)
In February 2002 the Washington State Office of Financial Management (OFM) released new
population forecasts for the 20-year period 2002-2022. GMA requires King County and the
cities to plan to accommodate these updated projections. The GMPC is responsible for
developing updated housing and employment targets for each jurisdiction in King County, and
the aggregate of the housing targets must be consistent with OFM's population forecast.
GMPC's interjurisdictional staff worked with a subcommittee of the King County Planning
Directors to extend the previous 1992-2012 targets through 2022. Development of the updated
targets was done on a county sub-region basis in order to further the goal of jobs/housing
balance.
King County Ordinance No. 14643 approves three related GMPC motions. Motion No. 02-01
(see Attachment B.2) does the following:
· Specifies the process for allocating targets in King County.
· Makes clear the importance of federal, state, regional and local transportation
investments in achieving growth targets.
· States it is the responsibility of each jurisdiction to plan for and accommodate the
housing and employment targets, but recognizes that the targets do not obligate
jurisdictions to guarantee that the targets will be met.
· Provides for target adjustments when annexations occur.
Motion No. 02-02 adopts the specific household growth targets for each jurisdiction (see
Attachment B.3). The new household targets represent the most significant aspect of the 2003
Countywide Planning Policy amendments from Tukwila's perspective. Under the amendments,
Tukwila's 2022 household target (3200) is actually lower than our previous 2012 target (4761 -
6014). The new target is much more realistic in light of our current zoning and other
development constraints.
Q:\STEVE\GMA\CPP\CC 2003 ratification.doc Page 2 of 4
Motion No. 02-03 adopts specific employment growth targets for each jurisdiction (see
Attachment B.4). The new employment targets for 2022 are 16,000, compared to our previous
2012 target of 22,500. The most significant factor in this reduction is the dramatic change in
Boeing expansion plans for the Duwamish industrial area.
Staff Recommendation - City Council ratification of King County Ordinance No. 14653
Renton Urban Separator (Kin~ County Ordinance No. 14654)
Urban Separators are low-density areas or areas of little development within the Urban Growth
Area. They are intended to protect adjacent resource lands, Rural Areas and environmentally
sensitive areas and create open space corridors within and between Urban Areas. 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 constraints. Renton
identified 119 acres within the city limits that they felt would be a more appropriate Urban
Separator. GMPC Motion No. 02-05 approves Renton's proposal to remove the designation
from the unincorporated 76 acre area and designate the 119 acre area as an Urban Separator
instead (see Attachment C.2).
StaffRecotnmendation - City Council ratification of King County Ordinance No. 14654
Urban Center designation for Totem Lake (Kin~ County_ Ordinance No. 14655)
In January 2002 the Kirkland City Council adopted a new plan for the Totem Lake area, and
requested that the area be designated as an Urban Center in the Countywide Planning Policies.
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. The GMPC
interjurisdictional staff team reviewed Kirkland's request against the CPP criteria governing
urban centers, and concluded the designation would be appropriate. GMPC Motion No. 02-06
approves this proposal (see Attachment D.2).
Staff Recommendation - City Council ratification of King County Ordinance No. 14655
Governance of Agricultural Protection Districts (King County_ Ordinance No. 14656)
The Countywide Planning Policies prohibit urban development of designated agricultural lands.
The amendments proposed by GMPC Motion No. 01-2 (see Attachment E-3) modify this general
policy direction by:
· Prohibiting the annexation of designated Agricultural Protection Districts (APDs) by
cities.
· Specifically identifying the Lower Green River Valley Agricultural Protection
District (lying between Aubum and Kent) as a regionally designated resource, and
allowing King County to contract with adjacent jurisdictions for provision of local
services to the area.
Q:\STEVE\GMA\CPP\CC 2003 ratification.doc Page 3 of 4
· Amending the CPP's Potential Annexation Area (PAA) Map so that the Lower Green
APD is not included in any city's PAA.
· Amending the CPP's Urban Growth Area Map to remove the Lower Green APD
from the designated Urban Area.
The cities of Auburn and Kent are most directly affected by these proposed amendments. The
city of Auburn supports the proposed amendments. The Kent City Council Planning Committee
has opposed the proposed amendments, apparently unconvinced that the County will provide
adequate agricultural protection over the long nm. The full Kent City Council has not taken final
action as of this writing.
StaffReeotntnendation -Staff will continue to coordinate with the City of Kent and inform the
City Council of Kent's position when it is known. Our preliminary recommendation is that the
Tukwila City Council ratify King County Ordinance No. 14656.
RECOMMENDATION
Forward the proposed 2003 Countywide Planning Policy Amendments to the next regular
meeting of the City Council for ratification.
Q:\STEVE\GMA\CPP\CC 2003 ratification, doc Page 4 of 4
KING COUNTY
Signature Report
May 19, 2003
Ordinance 14652
Proposed No. 2003 -0123.1 S; Hague
1
Alt (AAMCMt Ae 1
1200 King County Courthouse
516 Third Avenue'
Seattle, WA 98104
1 AN ORDINANCE adopting amendments to the
2 Countywide Planning Policies; adding a new policy to
3 support ongoing water supply planning and development;
4 ratifying the amended Countywide Planning Policies for
5 unincorporated King County; and amending Ordinance
6 10450, Section 3, as amended, and K.C.C. 20.10.030 and
7 Ordinance 10450, Section 4, as amended, and K.C.C.
8 20.10.040.
9
10
11 BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF KING COUNTY:
12 SECTION 1. Findings. The council makes the following findings.
13 A. The metropolitan King County council adopted and ratified the Growth
14 Management Planning Council recommended King County 2012 Countywide Planning
15 Policies (Phase I) in July 1992, under Ordinance 10450.
Ordinance 14652'
16 B. The metropolitan King County council adopted and ratified the Phase II
17 amendments to the Countywide Planning Policies on Augt~st 15, 1994, under Ordinance
18 11446.
19 C. Th6 Growth Management Planning Council met on September 25, 2002 and
20 voted to recommend amendments to the King County 2012 - Countywide Planning
21 Policies, adding a new policy to support ongoing water supply planning and
22 ' development.
23 SECTION 2. Ordinance 10450, Section 3, as amended, and K.C.C. 20.10.030 am
24 each hereby amended to reed as follows:
25 Phase IL
26 A. The Phase H 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 Planmng
29 Policies are amended, as shoTM by Attachment I 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 am amended, as shown by Attachment 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 Attachment 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.
2
Ordinance 14652
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.
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 !' The Phase II Amendments to the King County 2012 - Countywide Planning
43 Policies am amended, as shown by Attachment 1 to Ordinance 14~92.
44 J. The Phase li Amendments to the King County 2012 - Countywide Planning,
45 Policies are amended, as shown by Attachment 1 to this ordinance.
46 SECTION 3. Ordinance 10450, Section 4, as amended, and K.C.C. 20.10.040 are
47 each hereby amended to read as follows:
48 Ratification for unincorporated King County.
49 A. Countywide Planning Policies adopted by Ordinance 10450 for the purposes
50 specified are hereby ratified on behalf of the population of unincorporated King County.
51 B. The amendments to the Countywide Planning Policies adopted by Ordinance
52 10840 ar~ hereby ratified on behalf of the population of unincorporated King County.
53 C. The amendments to the Countywide Planning Policies adopted by Ordinance
54 11061 are hereby ratified on behalf of the population of unincorporated King County.
55 D. The Phase.II amendments to the King Coanty 2012 Countywide Planning
56 Policies adopted by Ordinance 11446 are hereby ratified on behalf of the population of
57 unincorporated King County.
58. E. The amendments to the King County 2012 - Countywide Planning Policies, as
59 shown by Attachment 1 to Ordinance 12(Y27 are hereby ratified on behalf of the
60 population of unincorporated King County.
3
Ordinance 14652
61 F. The amendments to the Kihg County 2012 - Countywide Planning Policies, as
62 shown by Attachment 1 to Ordinance 12421,. are hereby ratified on behalf of the
63 population of unincorporated King County.
64~ G. The amendments to the King County 2012 - COUntywide Planning Policies, as '
65 shown by Attachments 1 and 2 to Ordinance 13260, am hereby ratified on behalf of the
66 population of unincorporated King County.
67 H. The amendments to the King County 2012 - Countywide Planning Policies, as
68 shown by Attachment 1 through 4 to Ordinance 13415, are hereby ratified on behalf of
69 the population of unincorporated King County.
70 I. The amendments to the King County 2012 - Countywide Planning Policies, a~ ~
71 shown by Attachments 1 through 3 to Ordinance 13858, are hereby ratified on behalf of
72 the population of unincorporated King County.
73 J. The amendments to the King County 2012 - Countywide Plm/ning Policies, as
74 shown by Attachment 1 to Ordinance 14390, ar~ hereby ratified on behalf of the
75 population of unincorporated King County.
76 K. The amendments to the King County 2012 - Countywide Planning Policies, aa
77 shown by Attachment 1 to Ordinance 14391, are hereby ratified on behalf of the
78 population of unincorporated King County. '
79 L. The amendments to the King County 2012 - Countywide Planning Policies, as
80 shown by Attachment 1 to Ordinance 14392, are hereby ratified ma behalf of the
81 population of Unincorporated King County.
4
Ordinance 14652
82 M. The amendments to the Kin County 2012 Countywide Planning Policies. as
83 shown by Attachment 1 to this ordinance are hereby ratified on behalf of the population
84 of unincorporated King County.
85
Ordinance 14652 was introduced on 3/17/2003 and passed by the Metropolitan King
County Council on 5/19/2003, by the following vote:
ATTEST:
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
Anne Noris, Clerk of the Council
APPROVED this day of_ la 2003.
Attachments Attachment 1. GMPC Motion 02-4
5
KING COUNTY COUNCIL,
KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON
ynthia Sullivan, Chair
:r
30
31
32
33
September 25, 2002
!cm
1 MOTION NO. 02-4
A- hroac.HMtNT A.2
Attachment 1 2 003 -0123
Sponsored By: Executive Committee
2 A MOTION by the Growth Management Planning Council of King
3 County recommending the amendment of the Countywide Planning
4 Policies adding a new policy to support ongoing water supply
5 planning and development.
6
7 WHEREAS, in July 2002, the Growth Management Planning Council approved additions
8 and changes to the 1994 Countywide Planning Policies approving the countywide process
9 developed to recommend a new 22 -year household and employment target; and
10
11 WHEREAS, an amendment to add a new policy supporting ongoing water supply planning
12 and development was considered and tabled; and
13
14 WHEREAS, the GMPC allowed reconsideration of the amendment at such time agreement
15 could be reached on the language; and
16
17 WHEREAS, it is in the interest of the county to encourage regional efforts to plan for and
18 develop sufficient water supply sources to accommodate population growth and to meet
19 environmental needs related to conservation of fish habitat.
20
21 THE GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLANNING COUNCIL OF KING COUNTY
22 HEREBY MOVES AS FOLLOWS:
23
24 Add a new policy to Section III C of the King County Countywide Planning Policies as
25 follows:
14652
26 FW -12c Ensuring sufficient water sunnlv is essential to accommodate growth and
27 conserve fish habitat. Due to the substantial Lead -time reauired to develop water sunnly.
28 sources. infrastructure and management strategies. Long -term water sunnlv nlanning efforts
29 in the Region must be ongoing.
1
2 ADOPTED by the Growth Management Planning Council of King County on
3 September 25, 2002 in open session.
4
5
6
8
10
LGMPC/02GMPC/Mot02-4.du
14652
Ron Sims, Chair, Growth Management Planning Council
KING COUNTY
Signature Report
May 19, 2003
Ordinance 14653
Proposed No. 2003 -0124.1 Sponsors Hague
1200 King County C_
516 Third Avenue
Seattle. WA 98104
1 AN ORDINANCE adopting amendments to the
2 Countywide Planning Policies; adopting new household
3 and employment targets for the period 2001 through 2022;
4 revising existing policies and adding new policies in
5 support of the new targets; ratifying the amended
6 Countywide Planning Policies for unincorporated King
7 County; and amending Ordinance 10450, Section 3, as
8 amended, and K.C.C. 20.10.030 and Ordinance 10450,
9 Section 4, as amended, and K.C.C. 20.10.040
10
11
12 BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF KING COUNTY:
13 SECTION 1. Findings. The council makes the following findings.
14 A. The metropolitan King County council adopted and ratified the Growth
15 Management Planning Council recommended King County 2012 Countywide Planning
16 Policies (Phase I) in July 1992, under Ordinance 10450.
1
pr tm.,1l MINT 1
Ordinance 14653
17 B. The metropolitan King County council adopted and ratified the Phase 11
18 amendments to the Countywide Planning Policies on August 15, 1994, under Ordinance
19 11446.
20 C. The Growth Management Planning Council met on July 24, 2002 and voted to
21 rec ad amendments to the King County 2012 Countywide Planning Policies,
22 revising existing policies and adding new policies to support extending household and
23 employment targets for the period 2001 through 2022.
24 D. The Growth Management Planning Council met on September 25, 2002 and
25 voted to recommend amendments to the King County 2012 Countywide Planning
26 Policies, adopting new household and employment targets for the period 2001 -2022.
27 SECTION 2. Ordinance 10450, Section 3, as amended, and K.C.C. 20.10.030 are
28 each hereby amended to read as follows:
29 Phase II.
30 A. The Phase II Amendments to the King County 2012 Countywide Planning
31 Policies attached to Ordinance 11446 are hereby approved and adopted.
32 B. The Phase II Amendments to the King County 2012 Countywide Planning
33 Policies are amended, as shown by Attachment 1 to Ordinance 12027.
34 C. The Phase 11 Amendments to the King County 2012 Countywide Planning
35 Policies are amended, as shown by Attachment 1 to Ordinance 12421.
36 D. The Phase II Amendments to the King County 2012 Countywide Planning
37 Policies are amended, as shown by Attachment 1 and 2 to Ordinance 13260.
38 E. The Phase 11 Amendments to the King County 2012 Countywide Planning
39 Policies am amended, as shown by Attachment 1 through 4 to Ordinance 13415.
2
Ordinance 14653
40 F. The Phase li Amendments to the King County 2012 - Countywide Planning
41 Policies are amended, as shown by Attachments 1 through 3 to Ordinance 13858.
42 G. The Phase Ii Amendments to the King County 2012 - Countywide Planning
43 Policies are amended, as shown by Attachment I to Ordinance 14390.
44 H. The Phase 11 Amendments to the King County 2012 - Countywide Planning
45 Policies are amended, as shown by Attachment 1.to Ordinance 14391..
46 I. The Phase H Amendments to the King County 2012 -, Countywide Planning.
47 Policies are amended, as shown by Attachment I to Ordinance 14392.
48 J. The Phase H Amendments to the King County 2012 - Countywide P]annlno
49 Policies are amended, as shown by Attachments 1 through 3 to this ordinance.
50 SECTION 3. Ordinance 10450, Section 4, as amended, and ICC.C. 20.10.040 are
51 each hereby amended to read as follows:
52 Ratification for unincorporated King County.
53 A. Countywide Plaun!ng Policies adopted by Ordinance 10450 for the purposes
54 specified are hereby ratified on behalf of the population of unincorporated King County.
55' B. The amendments to the Countywide Planning Policies adopted by Ordinance
56 10840 are hereby ratified on behalf of the population of unincorporated King County.
57 C. The amendments to the Countywide Planning Policies adopted by Ordinance
58 11061 are hereby ratified on behalf of the population of unincorporated King County.
59 D. The Phase H amendments to the King County 2012 Countywide Planning ·
60 Policies adopted by Ordinance 11446 are hereby ratified on behalf of the population of
61 unincorporated King County.
Ordinance 14653
62 E. The amendments to the King County 2012 - Countywide Planning Policies, as
63 shown by Attachment 1 to Ordinance 12027 are hereby ratified on behalf of the
64 population of unincorporated King County.
65 F. The amendments to the King Count~, 2012 - Countywide Planning Policies, as
66 shown by Attachment 1 to Ordinance 12421, are hereby ratified on behalf of the
67 population of unincorporated King County.
68 G. The amendments to the King County 2012 - Couniywide Planning Policies, as
69 shOWn by Attachments 1 and 2 to Ordinance 13260,.are hereby ratified on behalf of the
70 population of unincorporated King County.
71 H. The amendments to the King County 2012 - Countywide Planning Policies, as
72 shown by Attachment I through 4 ~o Ordinance 13415, are hereby ratified on behalf of
73 the population of unincorporated King County.
74 I. The amendments to the King County 2012 - Countywide Planning Policies, as
75 shown by Attachments 1 through 3 to Ordinance 13858, are hereby ratified on behalf of
76 the population of unincorporated King County.
77 J. The amendments to the King County 2012 - Countywide Planning Policies, as '
78 shown by Attachment 1 to Ordinance 14390, are liereby ratified on behalf of the
79 population of unincorporated King County.
80 IC The amendments to the King County 2012 - Countywide Planning Policies, as
81 shown by Attachment 1 to Ordinance 14391, are hereby ratified on behalf of the
82 population of unincorporated King County.
Ordinance 14653
83 L. The amendments to the King County 2012 - Countywide Planning Policies, as
84 shown by Attachment 1 to Ordinance 14392, are hereby ratified on behalf of the
85 population of unincorporated King County.
86 M. The amendments to the King Coumy 2012 - Countywide Planning Policies, as
87 shown bv Attachments 1 through 3 to this ordinance, are hereby ratified on behalf of the
88 population of unincorporated King County.
89
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
~ynthia Sulliva~ Chair ,~> ::~- IT1
A'rr/~ST:
Anno Nm'is, Clerk of the Council
Attachments 1. OMPC Motion 02-I, 2. GMPC Motion 02-2, 3. OMPC Motion 02-3
' Attachment I
2003-0124
14653
July 24, 2002
· SponsorextBy: Executive Committee
/em
i MOTION NO. 02-1
2 A MOTION by the Growth Management Planfdng Council of King
3 County recxnmnending the amendment of the Countywide Planning
4 Policies revising existing policies and adding new policies to support
5 the extension of the household and employment targets for the period
6 2001-2022.
7
8 WHEREAS, in accordance with the Growth Management Act (GMA), the 1994
9 Countywide Planning Policies established a household and employment target range for
10 each city and for King County through 2012; and
I1
12 WHEREAS, the 1994 targets need to be extended to reflect projected growth through 2022
13 in accordance with the GMA (RCW 36 70A 110); and
14
15 WHEREAS, Countywide Planning Policy FW-3 states that the adopted household and
16 employment targets shall be monitored by King County annually with adjustments made
17 by the Growth Management Planning Council utilizing the process established in FW-I,
18 Step 6; and .
19
20 WHEREAs since February 2001 staff from King County and the cities in King County
21 'have worked cooperatively to analyze and recommend new 20-year household and
22 employment targets; and
23
24 WHEREAS the Growth Management Planning Council met and discussed the extension of
25 the household and employment targets for the period 2001-2022, with opportunity for
26 public comment ~n March 28, 2001, July 25, 2001, October 24, 2001 and May 22, 2002.
27 THE GROWTH MANAG~ PLANNING coUNcIL OF KING COUNTY
28 HERFmy MOVES AS FOLLOWS:
29
30 Amend Sections llI. C and Ill. F of the King County Countywide Planning Policies'as
31 follows:
32
33 III. Land Use Pattern
34
35 C. Urban Areas
36
14653
1 The following policies establish an Urban Growth Area (UGA). determine the amount of
2 household and employment growth to be accommodated within the UGA in the form of
3 targets for each jurisdiction, and identify methods to phase development within this area in
4 order to bring certainty to long -term planning and development within the County. All
5 cities are included in the UGA, with the cities in the Rural Area identified as islands of
6 urban growth. The UGA is a permanent designation. Land outside
7 the UGA is designated for permanent rural and resource uses.((
8 Countywide Policies on Rural and Resource Areas
9 are found in Chapter ILIA, Resource Lands, and Chapter lllR, Rural Areas.
10
11 In accordance with the State Growth Management Act (GMA) (36. the State
12 Office of Financial Management (OFM) provides a population projection to each county_
13 The county. through a collaborative intergovernmental process established by the Growth
14 Management Planning Council. allocates the population as growth targets to individual
15 jurisdictions. Forecasts prepared by the Puget Sound Regional Council are used to
16 establish the employment projection.
17
18 The process for allocating targets in King County is as follows.
19
20 1. The PSRC employment forecasts are calculated for the four geographic subareas
21 the UGA (Sea- Shore. South. Fast. and Rural Cities). These then become subarea
22 employment targets.
23 2. The jurisdictions collectively allocate the OFM population projection to the four
24 .subarea's based on the projected ernvlovment for each area. A small amount of
25 growth is assumed to occur in the Rural area.
26 3. The technical staff translates the nopulation nroiectjons.into projected households.
27 taking into account different average household sizes within each subarea. These
28 projections then become subarea household targets.
29 4. Jurisdictions within each subarea negotiate the distribution of subarea household
30 and employment targets using criteria based on Countywide Planning Policies.
31
32
33
34.
35
36
37
38 as growth occurs.
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
The housing capacity in the (JGA (Orr 6 ,0 1,411)), based on adopted
plans and regulations, ((meets -the)) should accommodate the protected 20 -year
growth((..•
population forecasts)). ))Growth is to be accommodated within
permanent Urban Areas by increasing densities, as needed Phasing ((is-to)) should occur
within the UGA. as necessary. to ensure that services are provided
FW -11
The land use pattern for King County shall protect the natural
environment by reducing the consumption of land and concentrating
development. An. Urban Growth Area, Rural Areas, and resource lands
shall be designated and the necessary implementing regulations
adopted. This includes Countywide establishment of a boundary for the
Urban Growth Area. Local jurisdictions shall make land use decisions
based on the Countywide Planning Policies.
IICMPC/02GMPCJMa02 -1.doc 2
la. 653
! FW-12 The Urban Growth Area shall provide enough land to accommodate
2 future urban development. Policies to phase the provision of urban
3 services and to ensure efficient use of the growth capacity within the
4 Urban Growth Area shall be instituted.
5
6 FW-12a All iurisdictions within Kinq County share the responsibility to
? accommodate the 20-year poPulation proiection. The qrowth projection
8 shall be assi,qned to the four subareas of Kinq County (Sea-Shore, East,
p South, and the Rural Cities) proportionate with the share of projected
]0 employment qrowth. The .qrowth shall be allOCated pursuant to the
] ] followin.q objectives:
]2 a. To ensure efficient use of land within the UGA by directinq growth to
13 Urban Centers and Activity Centers;-
]4 b. To limit development in the Rural Areas;
15 c. To protect desiqnated rasoume lands;
16 d. To ensure efficient use of infrastructure;
17 e. To improve the iobs/housin.q balance on a subarea basis;
is f. To promote a land use pattern that can be served by public
19 transportation and other alternatives to the sin.qle occupancy vehicle;
20 and
21 g. ,To provide sufficient opportunities for qrowth within the jurisdictions.
23 FW-12b The ,qrowth tar,qets established pursuant to the meth0doloqy described in
24 LU-25c and 25d shall be supported by both re,qio'nal and local
25 transportation investments. The availability of an ade(~uate
26 transportation system is.critically important to accommodatinq qrowth.
2? The rapional responsibility shall be met by'planninq for and deliverinq
28 county, state, and federal investments that support the growth tarqets
29 and the land use pattern of the County. This includes investments in
30 transit, state hiqhways in key reqional transpo~ation corddore, 'and in
31 improved access to the desi.qnated Urban Centers. The local
32 responsibility shall be met by local transportation system inveslments
33 that SUDOOrt the achievement of the tarqets.
34
35 LU - 25a Each iurisdiction shall plan for and accommodate the household and
36 employment tarqets established pursuant to LU-25c and LU-25d. This
37 obli,qation includes:
3s a. Ensudn.q adequate zoninR capacity; and
39 b. Planninq for and delivedna water, sewer, transportation and other
4o infrastructure, in concert with federal and state investments and
41 recO~, nizinq where applicable special purpose districts; and
42 c. Accommodatinq increases !n.household and employment tareets as
43 annexations occur.
The tar.qets will be used to plan for and to accommodate .qrowth within
46 each iurisdiction..The tarqets do not obliqate a iurisdiction to .quarentee
4? that a ,qiven number of housinq units will be built or iobs added durinq the
48 planninq period.
IJGNIP~JO2GZv~otO2-l.doc
14653
] LU25b AS annexations occur, qrowth tar.qets sh~ll be adjusted. Household and
2 employment tarqets for each jurisdiction's potential annexation area,
3 adopted in Table LU-1, shall be t~ansferred to the annexinq iurisdiction
4 follows:
6 a. Kinq county and the respective city will determine new household
7 and employment tar.qets for areas under consideration for
s annexation prior to the submittal of the annexation proposal to thA
9 Kinq County Boundary Review Board;
lO b. A city's household and employment tar.qets shall be increased by a
1 t share of the tarqet for the potential annexation area proportionate to
t2 the share of the potential annexation area's development capacity
13 located within the area annexed. Each city will determine how and
14 where within their corporate boundaries to accommodate the tar.qet
15 increases;
16 c. The County's tarqet shall be correspondingly decreased to ensure
]? *that overall tarqet levels in the county remain the same;
18 d. The household and employment tarqets in Table LU-1 will bA
19 updated periodically to reflect chanqes due to annexations. These
20 tarqet updates do not require adoption by the Growth Manaqement
21 Planninq Council.
22
23 LU - ((6~)) 25cThe target ((s-aml~-egalafierm)) objectives identified in ((LU
24 FW-12a (( ....... ~. ch)) shall be realized thmuqh the following ((=tcp=))
25 methodolo.qv for allocatinq household larqets:
28 ..... *t.,~, ..,,-,..+ on ...... 3~ .sn¢; nnn)) Determine the additional
29 pooulation that must be accommodated countywide by calculatinq the
30 difference between the most recent Census count and.the Stm~-
31 Office of Financial Manaqement population projection for the end of
32 the twenty year plannin.q period;
36 Subtract a percentaqe from that number to represent the amount of'
37 .qrowth that is assumed to.occur in the unincorporated Rural Arch;
............. , ................, .............. r,))
IdGMPC./02GMPC/Mot02-1.doc - Z~ --
14653
] c. Assi,qn proportions of the urban population qrowth to each of the four
2 subareas (Sea-Shore, South, East, and Rural Cities) based on the
3 ' proportion of future employment qrowth forecasted for each of those
4 subareas by the Puqet Sound Re,q onal Council;
5 d.Convert the estimated preiected population for each subarea to an
6 estimated number of households+ usin,q pmiected averaqe
? household sizes that reflect the variation amonq those subaren~
s observed in the most recent Census;
9' e.Allocate a household target to individual iurisdictions, within each
m . subarea, based on FW-12a and considerinq the followin,q factors:
H 1. the availability of water and the capacity of'the sewer system;
t2 2. the remaininq portions of previously adopted household tar,clets;
13 3. the presence of urban centers and activity areas within each
14 iurisdiction;
]5 4. the availability of zoned development capacity in each jurisdiction;
]6 and
]? 5.' the apparent ma~'ket trends for housin.q in the area.
28 r' ...... ))
29 f. Jurisdictions shall plan for household targets as adopted in Table'
30 LU-1; and
3] ((f))g; Monitoring should follow the process described in policy FW-
32 1.
33
34 A portion of the urban employment growth will occur in Activity Areas and neighborhoods
35 in the Urban Area, This employment growth will support the Urban Centers, while
36 balancing local employment opportunities in the Urban Area.
37
38
39 LU - ((68)) 25d ((._.~ ......~ .........~...., ....... ~
42 ...~..)) The tarqet obiectives identified in FW-12a shall be realized
43 throu,qh the followinq methodolof~ for allocating employment targets:
44
45 a. ((Thc ~...,..,k..._...,, .-.-.,-~-,,,-,,-s's ........ · .......... u ........... pled ...... .
14653
1
2
3
4
5
6
'7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23 b.
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44 c. Jurisdictions shall plan for employment targets as adopted in Table
45 LU -1.
46 (INSERT TABLE LU-1)
UGMPCJO2GMPC/Mm02 -1.doc
Papasity;
residential-ma)) Determine the number of lobs that must be
accommodated in each of the four subareas of Kina County (Sea
Shore. South. East. and the Rural Cities) in accordance with the most
recent PSRC lob estimates and forecasts for the 20 -year planning
period. To account for uncertainty in the employment forecasts,
establish a range of new lobs that must be accommodated in each
subarea. Unless exceptional circumstances dictate. the range should
be 5% on either side of the PSRC forecast.
For each subarea. determine the
point within the ranae uoon which iurisdictions within the subarea will
base their taraets and allocate employment Growth targets to
individual jurisdictions based on consideration of the following:
1. the PSRC small area forecasts;
2. the presence of urban centers. manufacturina/industrial
centers, and activity areas within each iurisdiction:
3. the availability of zoned commercial and industrial
development capacity in each iurisdiction and
4. the access to transit. as well as to existing hiahways and
arterials.
6
1&653
F. 1. Urban Residential Areas
2 [/rban residential areas form the bulk of the UGA, and are home to a large portion of the
3 County's population. They will contain a mix of uses and will have different
4 characteristics in differbnt neighborhoods. Generally, the character, form, preservation
5 and development of these areas ((is a)) are the responsibility of the local jurisdiction ((et
6 , ~or ......... ;)). However, th~ residential areas need to support the Centers concept and
7 provide sufficient opportunity for growth within the [/GA. A substantial majority of new
$ residential units will be cOnstructed within urban residential areas.
9
10
1 ] LU-66 In order to ensure efficient use of the land within the UGA, provide for
12 housing opportunities, and to support efficient use of infr~istructure, each
- 13 jurisdiction shall:
]4
]5 a. Establish in its comprehensive plan a target minimum number of net
]6 new households the jurisdiction will accommodate in the next 20
]7 years in accordance with the adopted household qrowth tar.qets
la identified in Table LU-1. Jurisdictions shall adopt regulations to and
]~.) commit to fund infrastructure sufficient to achieve the target number;
2o b. Establish a minimum density (not including critical areas) for new
2] construction in each residential zone; and
22 c. Establish in the comprehensive plan a target mix of housing types for
23 new development and adopt regulations to achieve the target mix.
uGMPC/O2G/vIPC/MotO'2-I,doc - 7 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
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
31
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
41
48
vobaD20MPem.1024 Ax
1.465
1
14653
ADOPTED by the Growth Management Planning Council of King County on July 24,
2 2002 in open session.
3
4
5
6
7 Ron Sims, Chair, Growth Management Planning Council
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
L/GMPC /02OMPC/MO102 -1.doc 9
Attachment 2
2003-0124
14653
July 24, 2002
Sponsored By: Executive Committee
Icm
1 MOTION NO. 02-2
2 A MOTION by the Growth Management Planning Council of King
3 County recommending the amendment of the Countywide Planning
4 Policies adding targets for new household for the period 2001-2022
5 by deleting Appendix 2, 2A and 2B and amending Table LU-I: 2001-
6 2022 Household and Employment Growth Targets which will be
7 located in Section HI. C of the Countywide Planning Policies.
8
9 WHEREAS, the 1994 Countywide Planning Policies established a housing target range for
10 eeeh city and for King County; and
11
12 WH~S, the Growth Management Act requires the 1994 targets need to be revised to
13 establish an extension of the targets through 2022; and
14
15 WHEREAS the Growth Management Planning Council met and discussed the extension of
16 tho household and employment targets for the period 2001-2022, with opportunity for
17 public comment on'March 28, 2001, July 25, 2001, October 24, 2001 and May 22, 2002.
18 THE GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLANNING COUNCIL OF KING COUNTY
19 HEREBY MOVES AS FOLLOWS:
2O
21. The attached Table LU-I: 2001-2022 Household and Employment GroWth Targets
22 is hereby recommended for adoption in the Countywide Planning Policies to revise
23 the household growth targets to reflect the target extension from January 1, 2001
24 through December 31, 2022 and Appendix 2, 2A, 2B are .recommended for
25 deletion.
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
36
14653
1
2
3 ADOPTED by the Growth Management Planning Council of King County on
4 September 25, 2002 in open session.
5
6
7
8
9
10
11 Ron ms, Chair, Growth Management Planning Council
12 Attachment:
13 1. Table LU -1: 2001 -2022 Household and Employment Growth Targets.
LGMPC/02GMPC)Ma02.2.doc 2
1
Subareas
Sonth Kinn County
IMR9e
Anhnm
IBlack Diamond
Dmitai
c'ovinvtm.
Pes Moinr•
I1 Way
Kent
41119^
Manta Valley
Normandy Park
gAdfie
grLtnn
Scalise
Tukwila
Uoinsom Kinn County
T9t
ewe
lvdt Hill
{11n is Pnim
aural,
Kenronre
Mgr
bMM411'
W ater island
Newcastle
Effirmind
Sammamich
W jnville
Rural /Vties
746
1.037
1.927
636
20
Snooualmie 1 1.697
tamovaidai I 5_563
1 151932
IIGMPC/02GMPC/M0102 -2.doe
Household 1111 Capacity PAA RF1
Job Target
Target in PAA' Target
1
209 1
5.92R 2.635 9261
1.099
1 552
1.173 "1
1 576 5 21
6.188 3.754 1370
4.294 1.763 6111
50 106 371
3681 I 1
1001 1
996 1 127 451
6.198 1 5.622 1.9761
4478' 1 14 51
371101 13 51
4.935 1 1
421155 1 14.039 4.935 1
I I
3 1
10.117 1 184 1711
1 751 603 5841
21 1
1 1
3.093 R27 9921
1 325
5480 77t 747
31 1
1.437 1
R63 1 1 11
9 093 407 3901
3942 1
1.869 1
2R
6.801 "4222 "4099
47.645 7109 6.R91I
51R 1
51 510 1
2.651 1
1.670 1,670 1.670 1
56.369 1.670 t.6Q1
3
lob Capacity PAA lob
in PAA Target
*FAA: Potential Annexation Area in UDIcayaated King County Urban Area; **Bear Creek UPD; ***Noah lbgb8uee
me Rural Cities' targets are for the current city limits and =al expansion area for each city. Thus the methodology
for adjusting targets as annexations otter is not applicable to the coral vices.
14653
Attachment 3
2003-0124
14653
July 24, 2002
Sponsored By: Executive Committee
/em
I MOTION NO. 02-3
2 A MOTION by the Growth Management Planning Council of King
· 3 County recommending thc amendment of the Countywide Planning
4 Policies adding targets for new jobs for the period 2001-2022 by
5 amending Table LU-I: 2001-2022 Household and ~mploymant
6 Growth Targets which will be located in Section m. C of the
7 Cogntywidc Planning Policies.
8
9 WHEREAS, thc 1994 Countywide Planning Policies established an employment target
10 range for each city and for King County; arid
11
12 WHEREAS, thc 1994 targets need to be revised to establish an extension of thc t,grgets
13 through 2022 ~s required by thc Growth Management Act.
14
15 WI-Ikfl~AS the Growth Management Planning Council met and discussed the extension of
16 the household and employment targets for the period 2001-2022, with opportunity for
17 public comment on March 28, 2001, July 25, 2001, October 24, 2001 and May 22, 2002.
18 THE GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLANNRqG COUNCIL OF KING COUNTY
19 ItEREBY MOVES AS FOLLOWS:
20
21 The attached Table LU-I: 2001-2022 Household and F. mployment Growth Targets
22 is hereby 'recommended for adoption in the Countywide Planning Policies to revise
23' ~10 employment growth targe.ts to reflect the target extensi°n from January I, 2001
24 through December 31, 2022.·
'25
26
27
28
29
3O
31
32
33
34
36
1
2
3 ADOPTED by the Growth Management Planning Council of King County on
4 September 25, 2002 in open session.
5
6
7
8
9
10
11 l• I /IM
12 r Ron Sims, Chair, Growth Management Planning Council
13
14 Attachment:
15 1. Table LU-P 2001-2022 Household and Employment Growth Targets.
LGMPC/020MPC/Mot02-3.dcc 2
14653
South Kin, County
Algona
A
Black Diamond
Roden
Covington
Drs Mninea
Federal Wav
got
nle Valley
Normandy bp4r
Pacific
Rentnn
t'nc
Tukwila
Unincom Ring County
Tots)
Mar Corm&
Remy Arts Vitiate
levee
Bolhel
Clyde Hill
Broils Point
]ssa9ygh
Kenmore
JCirkUnd
Medina
Mopor Island
tie
Subareas
IIGMPC/02GMPC/Mot02 -3.doc
Household HH Capacity PAA 1111 lob Capacity PAA lob
Target in PAA* Target lob Target in PAA* Target
10R
6 079! 252
7.525 I
1712
91111
1695
7.481 1
11 500 44
1A54
R04
67
10R
77.597 45R
9 7RR 496
16 497
2.582 701
R9 4011 2 SR2
40/11111
2.000
14. non
2.1/00
R 1100
1100
500
114
1
97k
21.760
1.210
villa 7 000
Yarrow Point
Uninomo Kinn County 4.637 "4193
Ta &1 911S27 4.637
tile
Unincom King Countva"
To tal
Rnrd of
Cpmstirm 75
Ihrvalt 1.125
l 291 1
Rend 1.125
SSni vkomish
oqualmie 1,800
Total .4.250
comity Total I 2119.127
MAA: Potential Annexation Area in Unincorporated King County Urban Arts: "Hear Creek UPD; t•Monh Rightist
7beRunI Cites' targets are for the tartan city limits and rural expansion area for each city. 71ms the methodology
for adjusting targets as amexations occur is not applicable to dwrotal dues.
40_
92 Mll
2.618
694
95A511
71
1.544
1 544
259
114
44
4511
496
497
70 1{ 7.51
77
124
771
21
"4193
4.637
694
694
14653
KING COUNTY
Signature Report
May 19, 2003
Ordinance 14654
Proposed No. 2003-0125.1 Sponsors Hague
1 AN ORDINANCE adopting amendments to.the
2 Countywide Planning Policies; amending the Urban
3 Separator map to reflect negotiated modifications to the
4 Renton Urban Separator;, ratifying the amended
5 Countywide Planning Policies for unincorporated King
6 County; and amending Ordinance 10450, Section 3, as
7 amended, and K.C.C. 20.10.030 and Ordinance 10450,
8 Section 4, as amended~ and K.C.C. 20.10.040
9
10
11 BE. 1T ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF KING COUNTY:
12 SECTION 1. l~lndings. The council makes the following findings..
13 A. The metropolitan King County council adopted and ratified ~e Growth
14 Management Planning Council recommended King County 2012 - Countywide Planning
15 Policies (Phase I) in July 1992, under Ordinance 10450. . -
l
Ordinance 14654
16 B. The metropolitan King County council adopted and ratified the Phase II
17 amendments to the Countywide Planning Policies on August 15, 1994, under Ordinance
18 11446.
19 C. The Growth Management Planning Council met on October 23, 2002 and
20 voted to recommend amendments to the King County'2012 - Countywide Planning
21 Policies, amending the Urban Separator map to reflect negotiated modifications to the
22 Renton Urban Separator. -
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 H Amendments to the King County 2012 - Countywide Planning
31 Policies am amended, as shown by Attachment 1 to Ordinance 12421.
32 D. The Phase H Amendments to the King County 2012 - Countywide Planning
33 Policies are amended, as shown by Attachment 1 and 2 to Ordinance 13260.
34 E. The Phase II Amendments to tho King County 2012 - Countywide Planning
35 Policies am amended, as shown by Attachment I through 4 to Ordinance 13415.
36' F. The Phase II Amendments to the King County 2012 - Countywide Planning
37 Policies .a~ amended, as shown by Attachments 1 through 3 to Ordinance 13858.
2
Ordinance 14654
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.
40 H. The phase Il 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 I to Ordinance 14392.
44 J. The Phase II Amendments to the King County 2012 - Countywide Plannin~
45 Policies am amended, as shown by Attachment I to this Ordinance.
46 SECTION 3. Ordinance 10450, Section 4, as amended, and K.C.C. 20.10.040 are
47 each hereby amended to read as follows:
48 Ratification for unincorporated King County.
49 A. Countywide Planning Policies adopted by Ordinance 10450 for the purposes
50 specified are hereby ratified on behalf of the population of unincorporated King County.
51 B. The amendments to the Countywide Planning Policies adopted by Ordinance
52 10840 are hereby ratified on behalf of the population of unincorporated King County.
53 C. The amendments to the Countywide Planning Policies adopted by Ordinance
54 11061 are hereby tariffed on behalf of the population of unincorporated King County.
55 D. The Phase II. amendments to the King County 2012 Countywide Planning
56 Policies adopted by Ordinance 11446 are hereby ratified on behalf of the population of'
57 unincorporated King County.
58 E. The amendments to the King County 2012 - Countywide Planning Policies, as
59 shown by Attachment 1 to Ordinance 12027 are hereby ratified on behalf of the
60 population of unincorporated King County.
Ordlnanc~
61 F. The amendments to the King County 2012 - Countywide Planning Policies, as
62 shown by Attachment 1 to Ordinance 12421, arc hereby ratified ~)n behalf of the
63 population of unincorporated King County.
64 G. Thc amendments to the King County 2012 - COUntywide PlanningPolicies, as
65 shown by Attachments 1 and 2 to Ordinance 13260, are hereby ratified on behalf of the
66 population of unincorporated King County.
67 H. The amendments to the King County 2012 - Countywide Planning Policies, as
68 shown by Attachment 1 through 4 to Ordinance 13415, are hereby ratified on behalf of
69 the population of unincorporated King County.
70 I. The amendments to the King County 2012 - Countywide Planning Policies, as
71 shown by Attachments 1 through 3 to Ordinance 13858, are hereby ratified on behalf of
72 the population of unincorporated King County.
73 J. The amendments to the King County 2012 - Countywide Planning Policies, as
74 shown by Attachment 1 to Ordinance 14390, are hereby ratified on behalf of the
75 population of unincorporated King County..
76 K. The amendments to the King County 2012 - Countywide Planning Policies, as
77 shown by Attachment 1 to Ordinance 14391, are hereby ratified on behalf of the
78 population of unincorporated King County.
79 L. The amendments to the King County 2012 - Countywide Planning Policies, as
80 shown by Attachment 1 to Ordinance 14392, are hereby ratified on behalf of the
81 population of unincorporated King County.
4
Ordinance 14654
82 M. The amendments to thc King County 2012 - Countywide Planning Policies, as
83 shown by Attachment 1 to this ordinance,.are hereby ratified on behalf of the oooulation
84 of unincorporated King County.
85
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. Edm6nds, Mr. von Reichbauer, Ms. lambert, Mr.
Phillips, Mr. Pelz, Mr. McKenna, Mr. Constantine, Mr. Gossett, Ms. Hague,
Mr. Irons and Ms. Pattemon
No: 0
Excused: 0
KING COUNTY COUNCIL
KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON
Cynthia Snllivan,~atr
A'I'I'EST:
Anne Noris, Clerk of the Council
APPROVED this ~ day of J']Ot~4 ,2003
Attachments 1. OMPC Motion 02-5
5
Attachment 1
2003-0125
14654
October 23, 2002
Sponsored By: Executive Committee
1 MOTION NO. 02-5
2 A MOTION to amend the Urban Separator Map in the
3 Countywide Planning Policies to reflect the negotiated
4 modifications of the Renton Urban Separator.
5
6 WHEREAS, .The Growth Management Act states that each Urban Growth Area shall
7 permit urban densities and shall include'greenbelt and open space areas;
8
9 WHEREAS, Urban Separators are an adopted regional strategy'serving multiple functions
10 and providing environmental, visual, recreational and wildlife benefits to the citizens and
11 communities of King County;
13 WHEREAs, Consistent With the Countywide Planning Policies, the King county
14 Comprehensive Plan recognizes that Urban Separators create open space corridorS, provide
15 a visual contrast to continuous development, and reinforce the unique identities of
16 cunmaunitie~;
17
18 WHEREAS, King County has designated Urban Separators on the land Use 2000 map in
19 the King County Comprehensive Plan, and King County has provided advance copies of
20 Urban Separator maps to cities that have designated Urban Separators located within their
21 Potential Annexation Areas;
22
23 WI-I~REAS, the City of Renton disagreed with Urban Separator.designation for 76 acres of
24 land within its Potential Annexation Area; and
25
26 WHEREAS, the Growth Management Planning Council directed staff to attempt to
27 negotiate a'mutually acceptable resolution of this disagreement
28
29
30
31
32
33
:1.4654
2
3 THE GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLANNING COUNCIL OF KING COUNTY
4 HEREBY MOVES AS FOLLOWS:
5
6 The Urban Separators map included within the Countywide Planning Policies document is
7 amended to reflect the negotiated modifications of the Renton Urban Separator described
8 and mapped in the September 25, 2002 GMPC staff report. Specifically, 76 acres of
9 unincorporated land is deleted from Urban Separator designation and 118.8 acres within
10 the City of Renton shall be designated Urban Separator.
11
12 ADOPTED by the Growth Management Planning Council of King County on
13 October 23, 2002 in open session.
14
15
16
17
20 '
21
22 Ron Sims, Chair, Growth Management Planning Council
IdGMPC/2002GMPC/Motlon02-5.dec
KING COUNTY
516 Tl~td Avenne
Signature Report
May 20, 2003
Ordinance 14655
Proposed No. 2003-0126.1 Sponsors Hague
1 AN ORDINANCE adopting amendments to the
2 Countywide Planning Policies; designating Totem Lake as
3 an Urban Center; ratifying the amended Countywide
4 Planning Policies for unincorporated King County; and
5 amending Ordinance 10450, Section 3, as amended, and
6 K.C.C. 20.10.030 and Ordinance 10450, Section 4, as
7 amended, and K.C.C. 20.10.040
8
9
10 BE IT ORDAI1VED 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 ti
16 amendments to the Countywide Planning Policies on August 15, 1994, under Ordinance
17 11446.
1
Ordinance 14655
18 C. The Growth Management Planning Council met on October 23, 2002 and
19 voted to recommend amendments to the King County 2012 - Countywide Planning
20 Policies, designating Totem Lake as an Urban Center.
21 SECTION 2. Oxdinance 10450, Section 3, as amended, and K.C.C. 20.10.030 are
22 each hereby amended to read as follows:
23 Phase II.
24 A. The Phase H Amendments to the King County 2012 Countywide Plahning
25 Policies attached to Ordinance 11446 are hereby approved and adopted.
26 B. Thc Phase II Amendments to the King County 2012 - Countywide Planning
27 Policies are mended, as shown by Attachment 1 to Ordinance 12027.
28 C. The Phase Il Amendments to the King County 2012 - Countywide Planning
29 Policies are amended, as shown by Attachment I to Ordinance 12421,
30 D. The Phase Il Amendments to the King County 2012 - Countywide Planning
31 Policies are amended, as shown by Attachment 1 and 2 to Ordinance 13260.
32 E. The Phase II Amendments to the King County 2012 - Countywide Planning
33 Policies are amended, as shown by Attachment 1 through 4 to Ordinance 13415.
34 - F. The Phase II Amendments to the King County 2012 - Countywide Planning
35 · Policies are amended, as shown by Attachments 1 through 3 to Ordinance 13858.
36 (3. The Phase II Amendments to the King County 2012 - Countywide Planning
37 Policies are amend~cl, as shown by Attachment 1 to Ordinance 14390.
38 Iq. The Phase II Amendments to the King County 2012 - Countywide Planning
39 .Policies are amended, as ~hown by Attachment I to Ordinance 14391.
-2
On~inanoe 14655
40 I. The Phase II Amendments to the King County 2012 - Countywide Planning
41 Policies are amended, as shown by Attachment 1 to Ordinance 14392.
42 J. The Phase II.Amendments to the King County 201:2 - Countywide Plannim,
43 Policies are amended, as shown by Attachment 1 to this ordinance.
44 SECTION 3. Ordinance 10450, Section 4, as amended, and K.C.C. 20.10~040 are
45 each hereby amended to read as follows:
46 Ratification for unincorporated King County.
47 A. Countywide Planulng Policies adoptedby Ordinance 10450 for the purposas
48 specified are hereby ratified on behalf of the population of unincorporated King County.
49 B. The amendments to the Countywide Planning Policies adopted by Ordinance
50 10840 are hereby ratified on behalf.of the population of unincerporated King County.
51 C. The amendments to the Countywide Planning Policies adopted by Ordinance
52 1106i are hereby ratified on behalf of the population of unincorporated King County.
53 D. The Phase li amendments to the King County 2012 Countywide Planning
54 Policies adopted by Ordinance 11446 are hereby ratified'on behalf of the population of
55 unincorporated King County.
56 E. The amendments to the King County 2012 - Countywide Planning Policies, as
57 shown by Attachment 1 to Ordinance 12027 are hereby ratified on behalf of the -
58 population of unincorporated King County.
59 P. The amendments to tho King County 2012 - Countywide Planning Policies, as
60 shown by Attachment 1 to Ordinance 12421, are hereby ratified on behalf of the
6I population of unincorporated King County.
Ordinance 14655
62 G. The amendments to thc King County 2012 - Countywide Planning Policies, as
63 shown by Attachments 1 and 2 to Ordinance 13260, are hereby ratified on behalf of thc
64 population of unincorporated King County.
65 H..The amendments to the King C~unty 2012 - Countywide Planning Policies, as
66 shown by Attachment 1 through 4 to Ordinance 13415, am hereby ratified on behalf of
67 thc population of unincorporated King County.
68 I. The amendments to the King County 2012 - Count)wide Planning Policies,'as
69 shown by Attachments I through 3 to Ordinance 13858, am h6reby ratified on behalf of
70 the population of unincorporated King County.
71 $. The amendments to the King County 2012 - Countywide Planning Policies, as
72 shown by Attachment 1 to Ordinance 14390, arc hereby ratified on behalf of thc
73' population of unincorporated King County.
74 K. The amendments to the King County 2012 - Countywide Planning Policies, as
75 shown by Attachment 1 to Ordinance 14391, arc hereby ratified on behalf of the
76 population of unincorporated King County.
77 L. The amendments to thc King County 2012 - Countywide Planning Policies, as
78 shown by Attachment 1 to Ordinance. 14392, are hereby ratifiid on behalf of thc
79 population, of unincorporated King County.
80 M. The amendments to the King County 2012 - Countywide Planning Policies, as
4
Ordinance 14655
81 shown by Attachment 1 to this ordinance, are hereby ratified ~n behalf of the population
82 of unincorporated King County.
83
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, Ms. von Reichbaner, 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
· Cynthia Sullivan, Chair
ATI'IdST:
Anne Nofis, Clerk of th~ Council (.v2 FT', ~ '
Attaelunonts 1. GMPC Motion 02-6
Attachment 1
2003-0126
14655
October 23, 2002
Sponsored By: Executive Committee
1 MOTION NO. 02-6
2 A MOTION to amend the Countywide Planning Policies by
3 designating Totem Lake as an Urban Center. Totem Lake is
4 added to the list of Urban Centers following Countywide
5 Planning Policy LU-39.
6
7
8 WHEREAS, A goal of the Growth Management Act is to encourage.development in Urban
9 Areas where adequate public facilities exist or can be provided in an efficient manner;
10
11 WHEREAS, Policy LU-39 of the Countywide Planning Policies of King County describes
12 the criteria for Urban Center designation;
13
14 WHEREAS, Policy LU-40 of the Countywide Planning Policies of King County describes
15 standards for planned land uses within Urban Centers;
16
17 WHEREAS, the City of Kirkland has demonstrated that Totem Lake meets the criteria for
18 designation as an Urban Center,-and that Kirkland's "Totem Lake Activity Area"
19 designated on the City's comprehensive plan land use map is con.sistent with the standards
20 established by the Countywide Planning Policies for Urban Center designation.
21 ' ·
22 ~AS, King County Comprehensive Plan Policy U-106 supports the development of
23 Urban Centers to meet the region's needs for housing, jobs, services, culture and
24 recreation.
25
26
27
28
29
.30
31
32 ' 'I).2.
33
14655
1
2
5 THE GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLANNING COUNCIL OF KING COUNTY
6 HEREBY MOVES AS FOLLOWS:
7
8 Totem Lake is designated as an Urban Center. The list of Urban Centers following
9 Countywide Planning Policy LU-39 is modified to include Totem Lake.
10
11 ADOPTED by the Growth Management Planning Council of King County on
12 October 23, 2002 in open aession.
13
14
15
16
18
19
20 .
21 Ron Sims, Chair, Growth Management Planning Council
KING 'COUNTY ~=oo ~= co~yco~...
516 Tl~tcl Avenue
~eat tle~ WA 98104
Signature Report
May 20, 2003
Ordinance 14656
Proposed No. 2003-0127.1 Sponsor~ Hague
I AN ORDINANCE adopting amendments to the
2 Countywide Planning Policies addressing the long-term
3 protection of agricultural production districts; ratifying the
4 amended Countywide Planning Policies for unincorporated
5 King County; and amending Ordinance 10450, Section 3,
6 as mended, 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 enuncil adopted and ~atified the Growth
13 Management Planning Council recommended King County 2012 -Coml. tywid¢ Planning
14 Policies (Phase 1) in July 1992, under Ordinance 10450.
15 B. The.metropolitan King county council adopted and ralified the Phase H
16 amendments to the Countywide Plann!ng Policies on August 15, 1994, uhder Ordinance
17 11446.
OiMinanen 14656 .
18 C. The Growth Management Planning Council met on June 16, 1999, and
19 adopted Motion 99-3, recommending amendments to the King County 2012 -
20 Countywide Planning Policies addressing thc long-term protection of agricultural
21 production districts; adopting new polic!as LU-2A and LU-2B, revising thc interim
22 potential annexation area map so that thc lower green river valley agricultural production
23 district is not within the potential annexation area of any city, and drawing thc urban
24 growth area bounda~ around the lower green river valley agricultural production district
25 to clarify that it is outside of the urban growth area.
26 E. The King County Council adopted Motion 11208 on May 21, 2001, requesting
27 that the GMPC review and reconsider its Motion'99-3 and provide for a thorough public
28 process, including oppommities for public testimony.
29 D. The Growth Management Planning Council met on September 26, 2001 and
30 adopted Motion 01-2, reaffh-'ming Motion 99-3.
31 SECTION 2. Ordinancc 10450, Section 3, as amended, and K.C.C. 20.10.030 are
32 each hereby amended to read as follows:
33 Phase II.
34 A. The Phase II Amendments to the King County 2012 Countywide Planning
35 Policies attached to Ordinance 11446 are hereby approved and adopted. ·
36 B. The Phase II Amendments to the King County 20i2 - Countywide Plaunifig
37 Policies are amended, as shown by Attachment 1 to Ordinance 12027.
38 C. The Phase II Amendments to the King County 2012 - Countywide Planning
39 Policies are amended, as shown by Attachment 1 to Ordinance 12421.
2
Ordinance 14656
40 D. The Phase II Amendments to the King County 2012 ~ Countywide Planning
41 Policies are amended, as shown by Attachment 1 and 2 to ordinance 13260.
42 E. The Phase II Amendments to tbe King County 2012 - Countywide Planning
43 Policies are amended, as shown by Attachment 1 through 4 to Ordinance 13415.
44 F. The Phase H Amendments to the King County 2012 - Countywide Planning
45 Policies are amended, as shown by Attachments 1 through 3 to Ordinance'13858.
46 G. The Phase II Amendments to the King County 201-2 - Countywide Planning
47 Policies are amended, as shown by Attachment 1 to ordinance 14390.
48 H. The Phase H Amendments to the King County 2012 - Countywide Planning
49 Policies are amended, as shown by Attachment 1 to ordinance 1439L
50 I. The Phase 1I Amendments to the King County 2012 -'Countywide Planning
51 Policies are mended, as shown by Attachment 1 to Ordinance 14392.
52' $. The Phase H Amendments to the King County 2012- Countywide Plannino
53 Policies are amended, as shown by Attachments 1 and 2 to this ord;nsnee.
54 SECTION 3. Ordinance 10450, Section4, as amended, and K.C.C. 20.10.040 are
55 each hereby amended to read as follows:
56 Ratification for unincorporated King County.
57 A. Countywide PlauningPolicies adopted by ordinance 10450 for the purposes
58 specified are hereby ratified on behalf of the population of unineorporat:ed King County.
59 B. The amendments to the Countywide Planning Policies adopted by Ordinance
60 10840 am hereby ratified on behalf of the population of unincorporated King County.
61 C. The amendments to the Countywide Planning Policies adopted by Ordinance
62 11061 are hereby ratified on.behalf of the population of unincorporated King County.
3
Ordinance 14656
63 D. The Phase II amendments to the King County 2012 Countywide Planning
64 Policies adopted by ordinance 11446 are hereby ratified on behalf of the population of
65 unincorporated King County.
66 E. The amendments to the King County 2012 - Countywide Planning Policies, as
67 shown by Attachment 1 to Ordinance 12027 arc hereby ratified on behalf of the
68 population of unincorporated King County.
69 F. The amendments to the King County 2012 - Counfywide Planning Policies, as
70 shown by Attachment 1 to Ordinance 12421, are hereby ratified on behalf of the
71 population of unincOrpOrated King County.
72 G. The amendments to the King County 2012 - Countywide Planning Policies, as
73 shown by Attachments 1 and 2 to Ordinance 1.3260, are hereby ratified on behalf of the
74 population of unincorporated King County.
75 H. The amendments to the King County 2012 - Countywide Planning Policies, as
76 shown by Attachment 1 through 4 to Ordinance 13415, are hereby ratified on behalf of
77 the population of unincorporated King County.
78 I. The amendments to the King County 2012 - Countywide Planning Policies, as
79 shOWn by. Attachments 1 through 3 to Ordinance 13858, me hereby ratified on behalf of
80 the population 6f unincorporated King County.
81 J. The amendments to the King County 2012 - Countywide Planning Policies, as
82 shown by Attachment 1 to Ordinance 14390, are hereby ratified on behalf of the
83 population of unincorporated King County. '
4
Ordinance 14656
84 K. The amendments to the King County 2012 - Countywide Planning Policies, as
85 shown by Attachment I to Ordinance 14391, are hereby ratified on behalf of the
86 population of unincorporated King County.
87 L. The amen,dments to the King County 2012 - Countywide Planning Policies, as
88 shown by Attachment I to Ordinance 14392, are hereby ratified on behalf of the
89 population of uulncorpomted King County.
90 M. The amendments to the King County 2012 ? Count3nv~de Plannln~ Policies,
5
O~dinance 14656
91 shown by Attachments 1 and 2 to this ordinance, are hereby ratified on behalf of the
92 population of unincorporated King County.
93
Ordinance 14656 was introduced on 3/17/2003 and passed by the Metropolitan King
County Council on 5/1912003, 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, WASHINGTOlq
nthia Sullivan,
A-i-i-I~T:
Anne Noris, Clerk of tho Council
Attachments 1. GMPC Motion 99-3, 2. GMPC Motion 01-2
6
Attachment 2
2003-0127
14656
September 26, 2001
Sponsored By: Executive Committee
/pr
1 MOTION NO. 01-2
2 . .A MOTION reaffirming Motion 99-3 passed by the GMPC on June 16,
3 1999 amending the Countywide Planning Policies to add new policies that
4 address the long-term governance of Agricultural Production Districts.
5
6 . WHEREAS, Thc Grovnh Management Act requires the maintenance, enhancement and
7 conservation of agricultural industries and lands though a variety of methods and programs;
8
9 WHEREAS, .King County residents have supported efforts to preserve good farmland and active
10 farms for the value of local crops, dairy and livestock and for scenic and historic values;
11
12 WHEREAS, King County, through the Farmlands Preservation Program, has purchased the
· 13 development rights of 12,600 acres of farmland and has established the Agricultural .Production
14 Dislricts (APDs) to farther protect these and adjacent prime agricultural lands;
15
16 WHEREAS, the Lower Green River AID is ~ompletely surrounded by Urban designated lands and
17 as ~uch is under inm~nse pressu~ for development and annexation; and'
18
19 WHEREAS, King County and the City of Auburn have signed an interlocal agreement .tha[
20 removes the southea'n portion of the Lower Green APD out of the city's potential mmexation area.
21 THE GROWTH MANA(3EMENT P~G COUNCIL OF KING COUNTY HFa0tEBY
22 MOVES AS FOLLOWS:
23
24 Reaffirm the unanimous vote by this Council on June 16, 1999 t9 add the following new
25 Countywide Planning Policies:
26
..27 LU-2A Designated Agricultural Productibn District lands shall not be annexed by
28 cities.
29
30 LU-2B The Lower Green River Agricultural Production District is a regionally
31 designated resource that is to remain in unincorporated King County.
32 Preservation of the Lower Green River Agricultural Production District will
33 provide an urban separator as surrounding Urban areas are annexed and
34 developed. King County may contract with other jurisdictions to provide
35 some local services to this area as appropriate.
~.A656
2 In the event that this motion is ratified by the member jmisdictions of Growth Management
3 Planning Council, then the Interim Potential Annexation Area Map shall be revised
4 accordingly and the Urban Growth Boundary will be drawn around the Lower Green
5 Agricultural Production District (APD) m clarify that the APD is outside of the Urban area.
6
7 ADOPTED by the Growth Management Planning Council of King County on September 26, 2001
8 in open session.
9
10
11
13
14 .
15
16 ~-~n~/, Growth Management Planning Council ·
LtOMPC/'2fl01GMPC/Molien01-2.doe - 2 -
11
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA,
WASHINGTON, RATIFYING SEVEN PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE
COUNTYWIDE PLANNING POLICIES FOR KING COUNTY, AS
RECOMMENDED BY THE ICING 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
x,,,-....,ended seven proposed amendments to the Countywide Planning Policies; and
WHEREAS, on May 19, 2003 the King County Council approved and ratified the
proposed amendments on behalf of unincorporated King County through adoption of
Ordinance 14562, Ordinance 14653, Ordinance 14654, Ordinance 14655 and Ordinance
14656; 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 CliY OF TUKWILA,
WASHINGTON HEREBY RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Ratification of GMPC Motion 02 -04. The City of Tukwila supports
ratification of Growth Management Planning Council Motion 02 -04, attached hereto as
Exhibit A, amending the Countywide Planning Policies to support ongoing water
supply planning and development.
Section 2. Ratification of GMPC Motion 02-01. The City of Tukwila supports
ratification of Growth Management Planning Council Motion 02 -01, attached hereto as
Exhibit B, amending the Countywide Planning Policies concerning the allocation and
implementation of housing and employment targets for jurisdictions within King
County.
Section 3. Ratification of GMPC Motion 02-02. The City of Tukwila supports
ratification of Growth Management Planning Council Motion 02 -02, attached hereto as
Exhibit C, amending the Countywide Planning Policies by establishing new housing
targets for jurisdictions in King County for the 2012 to 2022 period.
Section 4. Ratification of GMPC Motion 02-03. The City of Tukwila supports
ratification of Growth Management Planning Council Motion 02 -03, attached hereto as
King County Planning Policies 724/03
Exhibit D, amending the Countywide Planning Policies by establishing new
employment targets for jurisdictions in King County for the 2012 to 2022 period.
Section 5. Ratification of GMPC Motion 02-05. The City of Tukwila supports
ratification of Growth Management Planning Council Motion 02 -05, attached hereto as
Exhibit E, amending the Countywide Planning Policies' "Urban Separator Map" to
reflect a modification to the urban separator in the vicinity of the City of Renton.
Section 6. Ratification of GMPC Motion 02 -06. The City of Tukwila supports
ratification of Growth Management Planning Council Motion 02 -06, attached hereto as
Exhibit F, amending the Countywide Planning Policies by designating the Totem Lake
planning area within the City of Kirldand as an Urban Center.
Section 7. Ratification of GMPC Motion 01 -2. The City of Tukwila supports
ratification of Growth Management Planning Council Motion 01 -2, attached hereto as
Exhibit G, amending the Countywide Planning Policies to add new policies addressing
the long -term governance of Agricultural Protection Districts.
PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA, WASHINGTON,
at a Regular Meeting thereof this day of 2003.
ATTEST /AUTHENTICATED:
Jane E. Cantu, CMC, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM BY:
Office of the City Attorney
King County Planning Policies 724/03
Filed with the City Clerk:
Passed by the City Council:
Resolution Number:
Pam Carter, Council President
Community and Parks Committee
July 15, 2003
Tukwila Community Center
Present: Joan Hernandez, Chair; Jim Haggerton, Joe Duffle
Steve Lancaster, Bruce Fletcher, Rhonda Berry, Lucy Lauterbach; Dennis
Robertson
1. New Half Time Position Since the pool has opened, it has increased greatly in use. That has
resulted in more hours of maintenance being needed, and it is the aquatic staff who do their own
maintenance. Bruce also pointed out that both the 50 acre Fort Dent Park and skateboard park
have been added to park maintenance staff's workload when they have not increased in staff.
Brace proposed increasing one Facilities Operation Technician position from its current half time
status to full time. One quarter of a position would be used for more pool maintenance, and one
quarter would be used for more park maintenance. The half time increase would cost $18,000
plus $4,000 in benefits, totaling $23,000. He proposed the increased pool fees and rental fees
fi'om Fort Dent's one city field there paying for the increase. So far pool revenues are higher
than originally projected. Jim said if the city has enough staff to do a better job we can perhaps .
charge higher pool fees than the average. The committee agreed the original fee schedule, and
one with slightly higher fees be brought to the COW when this position increase is taken there.
Jim said since not every department can charge for its services we'll need to look harder where
we can charge for service. Recommend position increase to COW.
2. TOD moratorium Steve reminded the committee that the city has passed two six-month
moratoriums on the TOD area. The second one loosened its applicability and allowed many
em-rent uses there to expand or change, or change signs. Auto dependent uses, land divisions, and
manufacturing and industrial uses are under the moratorium. The current moratorium expires
August 30th, SO a new one would be in effect September 1st tO the end of February. When asked,
Steve said the current businesses largely support the planning effort that is ongoing now. Joan
asked how many times a moratorium could be renewed, and was told it isn't limited. Steve said
he hoped the TOD study would be finished by the time a new moratorium expired; he thought it
would be in process at the Planning Commission or at the Council by then. As meeting time was
short, he recommended Lynn Miranda brief the committee on what staff have learned at their
workshops and public meetings. Steve pointed out on a map who owned what land in the TOD.
A public hearing will be needed, and Steve will brief the Council at the hearing on August 11th.
Recommend extending moratorium to COW.
3. Countywide Planning Policies Steve explained the 1990 Growth Management Act set up
procedures for adopting countywide planning policies. That was done in 1992, and is being done
again now. Ratification by 30% of the cities/county in King County, representing 70% of the
county's population, is needed.
Steve said the most important policy for Tukwila was the one that changed our housing and job
market targets for the next twenty years. When the targets were first set, they relied on PSRC
numbers and were higher than could be achieved. The new numbers are more realistic, and
consider not only our current size but also our buildable lands available for more development.
Our housing target was reduced from 6,000 new units to 3,200. That is living units, and can be
houses, apartments, or condo units. Steve said jurisdictions don't need to supply the housing, but
they need to have available land and zoning that can accommodate the growth in population.
Since our goals were first set in 1992, Tukwila has added about 300 housing units. There will be
more capacity if can put housing in the TVC and TOD. Jim noted that replacing old apartments
with newer and larger ones could add housing. Tukwila is also expected to add 16,000 new jobs
in 20 years. There are not penalties for not meeting your goals. Joan said she talked to people at
Tukwila Days who said they moved here for Tukwila's rural feel, which people are afraid they'll
lose with too much infill. Our new comp plan will need to show how to increase our housing
stock. Steve and the committee briefly reviewed the other policies, which have little effect on us.
Recommend policies to COW.
Committee chair approval