LUTC PKT 02-04-2013February 4, 2013
5:30 p.m.
City of Federal Way
City Council
Land Use /Transportation Committee
City Hall
Council Chambers
MEETING AGENDA
1. CALL TO ORDER
2. PUBLIC COMMENT (3 minutes)
3. COMMITTEE BUSINESS
Topic Title /Description
A. Approval of Minutes: January 7, 2013
B. Adelaide NTS '12 — 8th Ave SW (SW Dash Pt. Road
to SW 296th St)
C. S 320th St at 20th Ave S Intersection
Improvements - 100% Design Report and
Authorization to Bid
D. 21st Ave SW at SW 336th St Intersection
Improvements — 100% Design Report and
Authorization to Bid
E. Amendments to the King County Countywide
Planning Policies
4. OTHER
Action
Presenter Page or Info
LeMaster 2 Action
Hannahs 4 Action
Roberts 7 Action
Council
Date
N/A
Feb. 19, 2013
Consent
Time
5 min.
5 min.
Feb. 19, 2013 5 min.
Consent
Roberts 9 Action Feb. 19, 2013 5 min.
Consent
Clark 11 Action Feb. 19, 2013 15 min.
Business
5. FUTURE MEETINGS /AGENDA ITEMS:
The next LUTC meeting will be Monday, March 4, 2013 at 5:30 p.m. in City Hall Council Chambers.
6. ADJOURN
Committee Members
Bob Ce /ski, Chair
Jeanne Burbidge, Member
Susan Honda, Member
G :ILUTC1LUTCAgendas and Summaries 2013102 -04 -13 LUTCAgenda.dor
City Staff
Cary M. Roe, P.E., Director of Parks, Public Works and Emergency Management
Darlene LeMaster, Administrative Assistant II
253 - 835 -2701
City of Federal Way
City Council
Land Use and Transportation Committee
January 7, 2013
5:30 PM
City Hall
City Council Chambers
MEETING SUMMARY
Committee Members in Attendance: Committee Chair Bob Celski and Committee members Susan Honda and Jeanne
Burbidge.
Staff in Attendance: Deputy Director of Public Works Ken Miller, Deputy Public Works Director Marwan Salloum,
Surface Water Manager Will Appleton, City Traffic Engineer Rick Perez, Assistant City Attorney Peter Beckwith, and
Administrative Assistant II Darlene LeMaster.
1. CALL TO ORDER
Committee Chair Celski called the meeting to order at 5:32 PM.
2: PUBLIC COMMENT
There was no public comment.
3. BUSINESS ITEMS
Topic Title/Description
A. Approval of the December 3, 2012 LUTC Minutes
Committee approved the December 3, 2012 LUTC minutes as presented.
Moved: Honda Seconded: Burbidge Passed: Unanimously, 3 -0
Forward
to Council
N/A
B. Grant Funding for Transportation Improvement Projects — Authorization to Accept Jan. 15, 2013
Grant Funding Consent
City Traffic Engineer Rick Perez presented information on this item. Mr. Perez gave a brief
explanation of the grants applied for, what was awarded to the City and what was not.
Committee member Honda asked if staff will re -apply for those grants not received in the
future. Mr. Perez responded that staff may apply for this grant in the future using the same
projects or staff may try to find other projects that are a better fit to the grant criteria at the time
of grant submittal.
Committee forwarded Option #1 as presented.
Moved: Burbidge Seconded: Honda
Passed: Unanimously, 3 -0
C. Grant Funding for Transportation Improvement Projects — Authorization to Accept Jan. 15, 2013
Grant Funding Consent
Deputy Public Works Director Marwan Salloum presented information on this item. Mr.
Salloum offered a brief explanation of the grants received. Committee member Burbidge
commented that the second of the two street improvement projects is the first project, in her
experience, to be awarded as a preservation project. Committee member Burbidge was pleased
that this allows agencies taking care of their roads the ability to acquire funding as well.
Chair Celski asked if the required City match had been secured. Mr. Salloum confirmed that
the funds are secure.
Land Use /Transportation Committee Page 2 January 7, 2012
Committee forwarded Option #1 as presented.
Moved: Burbidge Seconded: Honda
Passed: Unanimously, 3 -0
D. Steel Lake Management District - Reformation Jan. 15, 2013
Consent
Surface Water Manager Will Appleton presented information on this item. Committee member
Honda asked if a Lake Management District (LMD) is already in place, why start over again?
Mr. Appleton explained that the RCW(s) state a LMD has a ten year life. Mr. Appleton gave a
brief outline of the process to re- create the new LMD and a tentative timeline for the process.
A dollar figure is assessed to each property via an Ordinance. This creates a funding
mechanism for the annual activities for the lake's water quality program. Even if a property
owner votes against the formation of the LMD, if the measure passes, that property owner will
be required to pay the assessed amount toward the LMD.
Committee member Burbidge highlighted that the City is also a property owner affected by the
LMD and will be required to pay its assessed fee for its share of the LMD. Committee member
Burbidge also noted the success the LMD has had in the past.
Chair Celski asked what it takes to pass the LMD vote. Mr. Appleton responded that a simple
majority with pass the measure. The LMD has not received any significant opposition in its
past and has been a model for other agencies.
Committee forwarded Option #1 as presented.
Moved: Honda Seconded: Burbidge
Passed: Unanimously, 3 -0
E. National Estuary Watershed Protection and Restoration Grant Program — Authorization Jan. 15, 2013
to Apply Consent
Surface Water Manager Will Appleton presented information on this item. Mr. Appleton noted
that $1.4M in funding has been made available to local jurisdictions, with a maximum of
$250K available per agency. Chair Celski inquired if the City has ever applied for or receive
funds from this grant before. Mr. Appleton replied that no, the City has not applied for these
funds in the past, but is confident it staffs submittal for these monies. There are a series of
studies proposed that should be very competitive in competing for this grant.
Committee forwarded Option #1 as presented.
Moved: Burbidge Seconded: Honda
4. OTHER
None
Passed: Unanimously, 3 -0
5. FUTURE MEETING
The next LUTC meeting will be rescheduled to Monday, February 4, 2013 at 5:30 PM in City Hall Council
Chambers.
6. ADJOURN
The meeting adjourned at 5:51 PM.
COMMITTEE APPROVAL:
Bob Celski, Chair
Attest:
Darlene LeMaster, Administrative Assistant II
Jeanne Burbidge, Member Susan Honda, Member
3
G: \LUTC \LUTC Agendas and Summaries 2013 \01 -07 -13 Minutes.doc
COUNCIL MEETING DATE: February 19, 2013
CITY OF FEDERAL WAY
CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA BILL
ITEM #:
SUBJECT: Adelaide NTS — 8th Avenue SW (SW Dash Point Rd to SW 296th St)
POLICY QUESTION: Should the Council approve the installation of three speed humps on 8th Avenue SW between
SW Dash Point Road (SR 509) and SW 296` Street?
COMMITTEE: Land Use and Transportation Committee
MEETING DATE: February 4, 2013
CATEGORY:
® Consent ❑ Ordinance ❑ Public Hearing
❑ City Council Business ❑ Resolution 11 ❑ Other
STAFF REPORT BY: Jesse L. Hannahs, P.E. — Senior Traffic En in DEPT: Public Works
Attachments: Land Use and Transportation Committee memorandum dated February 4, 2013.
Options Considered:
1. Authorize the installation of three speed humps on 8th Avenue SW between SW Dash Point Road SR 509)
and SW 296th Street.
2. Do not authorize the installation of the proposed traffic calming devices and provide direction to staff.
MAYOR'S RECOMMENDATION: Mayor recommends forwarding Option 1 to the February 19, 2013 City Council
Consent Agenda for approval.
MAYOR APPROVAL:
Co 'ace
DIRECTOR APPROVAL: e41/ L
Council Committee Council
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: Forward Option 1 to the February 19, 2013 City Council Consent Agenda for
approval.
Bob Celski, Chair
Jeanne Burbidge, Member Susan Honda, Member
PROPOSED COUNCIL MOTION: "I move approval of the installation of three speed humps on 8`1 Avenue SW
between SW Dash Point Road (SR 509) and SW 296`" Street."
(BELOW TO BE COMPLETED BY CITY CLERKS OFFICE)
COUNCIL ACTION:
❑ APPROVED
❑ DENIED
❑ TABLED/DEFERRED/NO ACTION
❑ MOVED TO SECOND READING (ordinances only)
REVISED — 02/06/2006
4
COUNCIL BILL #
1ST reading
Enactment reading
ORDINANCE #
RESOLUTION #
CITY OF FEDERAL WAY
MEMORANDUM
DATE: February 4, 2013
TO: Land Use and Transportation Committee
VIA: Skip Priest, Mayor �,��
FROM• Cary M. Roe, P.E., Director of Parks, Public Works and Emergency Managemene""
Jesse Hannahs, P. E., Senior Traffic Engineer j c14
SUBJECT: Adelaide NTS — 84h Avenue SW (SW Dash Point Rd to SW 296`h St)
BACKGROUND:
Residents in the vicinity of 8th Avenue SW between SW Dash Point Road (SR 509) and SW 296th Street
submitted a petition requesting the installation of traffic calming devices to control vehicle speeds in an effort to
improve vehicular and pedestrian safety along 8th Avenue SW. A traffic study was conducted and the results
are as follows:
• Roadway Classification : Minor Collector
• Average Daily Traffic (ADT): 1030
• 856 percentile speed: 34.2 mph
Based on the current adopted NTS installation criteria (per table below), 8th Avenue SW scored 3.0 total
severity points. This meets the minimum 3.0 severity point to qualify for the installation of traffic calming
devices.
Table: Minor Collector
Point
Scale
85th Percentile
Speed
Average Daily
Traffic (ADT)
Location
School/Park
5 -Year Collision History
Total
Injury
Fatal
0.0
0 -25
_
0 -1,000
No
1
-
-
0.5
26 - 27
1,001 -1,800
Yes
2
-
-
1.0
28 - 29
1,801 — 2,600
-
3
1
-
1.5
30 - 31
2,601 — 3,400
-
4
-
-
2.0
32 - 33
3,401 — 4,200
-
5
2
1
2.5
34 - 35
4,201 — 5,000
-
6
-
-
3.0
36+
5,001+
-
7+
3+
2+
A neighborhood traffic safety meeting was held on October 1, 2012 at Adelaide Elementary School to
discuss potential traffic calming devices that could be implemented on 8th Avenue SW.
To be effective in reducing speeds along 8th Avenue SW and to improve vehicular and pedestrian safety,
the group consensus was to have the City install three speed humps on 8th Avenue SW between SW Dash
Point Road (SR 509) and SW 296th Street near the following addresses:
a. 29926 8th Avenue SW
b. 29837 S 8th Avenue SW
c. 29638 S 8th Avenue SW
5
Wildwood NTS
1/28/2013
Page 2
In accordance with established NTS policies, staff sent ballots to property owners and occupants within
600 feet of the proposed traffic calming device locations and also to those with the proposal located along
their sole access route. The following table summarizes the ballot results:
Traffic Calming Device
Ballots Sent
Total
102
Ballots Returned
36
39.6%
Undeliverable
11
Yes Votes
19
52.7%
No Votes
15
41.7%
Returned w/o Response
2
5.6%
One of the installation criteria requires a 51% majority approval of the returned ballots. Based on the
ballot results represented in the above table, the balloting exceeds this majority.
The estimated cost of this project is approximately $11,000, which falls within the $15,000 per
neighborhood per year budget limitation policy. The current allocated NTS budget per year is $50,000
with $20,000 designated specifically for school NTS and/or school safety related improvements. Staff
recommends approving the installation of three speed humps on 8th Avenue SW between SW Dash Point
Road (SR 509) and SW 296th Street.
cc: Project File
Day File
K: \LUTC\2013 \02 -04 -13 Adelaide NTS - 8 AV SW (SR 509 to SW 2966ST).doc
COUNCIL MEETING DATE: February 19, 2013
CITY OF FEDERAL WAY
CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA BILL
ITEM #:
SUBJECT: S 320th Street at 20th Avenue S Intersection Improvements Project — 100% Design Status Report and
Authorization to Bid
POLICY QUESTION: Should the Council authorize staff to bid the S 320th Street at 20th Avenue S Intersection
Improvements Project and return to the LUTC and Council for bid award, further reports and authorization?
COMMITTEE: Land Use and Transportation Committee
MEETING DATE: February 4, 2013
CATEGORY:
Consent ❑ Ordinance ❑ Public Hearing
❑ City Council Business ❑ Resolution ❑ Other
STAFF REPORT BY: Brian Roberts, P. E., Street Systems Project Engineer jfj, DEPT: Public Works
Attachments: Memorandum to the Land Use and Transportation Committee dated February 4, 2013.
Options Considered:
1. Authorize staff to bid the S 320th Street at 20th Avenue S Intersection Improvements Project and return to
the LUTC and Council for bid award, further reports and authorization.
2. Do not authorize staff to bid this project and provide direction to staff.
MAYOR'S RECOMMENDATION: Mayor recommends forwarding Option 1 to the February 19, 2013 City Council
Consent Agenda for approval.
MAYOR APPROVAL:
DIRECTOR APPROVAL: O 4
Committe€ Council Committee Council
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: Forward Option 1 to the February 19, 2013 City Council Consent Agenda for
approval.
Bob Celski, Chair
Jeanne Burbidge, Member Susan Honda, Member
PROPOSED COUNCIL MOTION: "I move to authorize staff to bid the S 320`x' Street at 20th Avenue S Intersection
Improvements Project and return to the LUTC and Council for bid award, further reports and authorization."
(BELOW TO BE COMPLETED BY CITY CLERKS OFFICE)
COUNCIL ACTION:
❑ APPROVED
❑ DENIED
❑ TABLED /DEFERRED /NO ACTION
❑ MOVED TO SECOND READING (ordinances only)
REVISED — 02/06/2006
7
COUNCIL BILL #
1ST reading
Enactment reading
ORDINANCE #
RESOLUTION #
CITY OF FEDERAL WAY
MEMORANDUM
DATE: February 4, 2013
TO: Land Use and Transportation Committee
VIA: Skip Priest, Mayor
FROM: Cary M. Roe, P.E., Director of Parks, Public Works . j. Emergency Management
Brian Roberts, P.E., Street Systems Project Engine
SUBJECT: S 320"' Street at 20th Avenue S Intersection Improvements Project — 100% Design Status
Report and Authorization to Bid
BACKGROUND:
The intent of this project is to increase the capacity of the intersection by the addition of a second left -turn lane
in each direction of S 320th Street at 20th Avenue S, with 250 feet of turn lane storage. Work will include
utility relocation, storm drainage, paving, curb, gutter, sidewalk, street lighting, traffic signal replacement,
signing, channelization, and landscaping.
PROJECT ESTIMATED EXPENDITURES:
Design $ 450,000
ROW Acquisition 0.00
2013 Construction Cost 2,100,000
10% Construction Contingency 210,000
Construction Management 350,000
TOTAL PROJECT COSTS $ 3,110,000
AVAILABLE FUNDING:
Budgeted City Funds (2011/2012) $ 500,000
Budgeted City Funds ( 2013/2014) 3,500,000
Mitigation 144,284
Interest 3,245
TOTAL AVAILABLE BUDGET
$ 4,147,529
FUNDING BALANCE $1,037,529
This project is within available budget and staff anticipates bidding the project in February of 2013 and
awarding it in April 2013. Construction will commence in early May 2013 with an estimated substantial
completion before October 30, 2013.
8
COUNCIL MEETING DATE: February 19, 2013
CITY OF FEDERAL WAY
CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA BILL
ITEM #:
SUBJECT: 21st Avenue SW at SW 336th St Intersection — 100% Design Status Report and Authorization to Bid
POLICY QUESTION: Should the Council authorize staff to bid the 21' Avenue SW at SW 336th Street Intersection
Project and return to the LUTC and Council for bid award, further reports and authorization?
COMMITTEE: Land Use and Transportation Committee
MEETING DATE: February 4, 2013
CATEGORY:
Consent ❑ Ordinance
❑ City Council Business ❑ Resolution
❑ Public Hearing
❑ Other
STAFF REPORT BY: Brian Roberts, P. E., Street Systems Project Engineer DEPT: Public Works
Attachments: Land Use and Transportation Committee memorandum dated February 4, 2013.
Options Considered:
1. Authorize staff to bid the 20 Avenue SW at SW 336th St Intersection Project and return to the LUTC
and Council for bid award, further reports and authorization.
2. Do not authorize staff to bid this project and provide direction to staff.
MAYOR'S RECOMMENDATION: Mayor recommends forwarding Option 1 to the February 19, 2013 City
Council Consent Agenda for approval.
MAYOR APPROVAL:
DIRECTOR APPROVAL: 041K
ommi 1 Council Committee Council
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: Forward Option 1 to the February 19, 2013 City Council Consent Agenda
for approval.
Bob Celski, Chair
Jeanne Burbid_e, Member
Susan Honda, Member
PROPOSED COUNCIL MOTION: "1 move to authorize staff to bid the 21s` Ave SW at SW 336th Street
Intersection Project and return to the LUTC and Council for bid award, further reports and authorization."
(BELOW TO BE COMPLETED BY CITY CLERKS OFFICE)
COUNCIL ACTION:
❑ APPROVED
❑ DENIED
❑ TABLED /DEFERRED /NO ACTION
❑ MOVED TO SECOND READING (ordinances only)
REVISED — 02/06/2006
9
COUNCIL BILL #
1ST reading
Enactment reading
ORDINANCE #
RESOLUTION #
CITY OF FEDERAL WAY
MEMORANDUM
DATE: February 4, 2013
TO: Land Use and Transportation Committee
VIA: Skip Priest, Mayor n�,/j
FROM:
Cary M. Roe, P.E., Director of Parks, Public Works d Emergency Management Cl' U"
Brian Roberts, P.E., Street Systems Project Engine
SUBJECT: 21st Avenue SW at SW 336th St Intersection — 100% Design Status Report and Authorization
to Bid
BACKGROUND:
This project will improve the intersection of 21St Avenue SW at SW 336th St by constructing dual left-turn
lanes eastbound and westbound and a right —turn lane westbound. This project will include access control
along SW 336th Street and also install a new traffic signal west of the intersection to allow for left turn access
into the businesses north and south of the roadway. Additional work will include utility relocation, storm
drainage, paving, curb, gutter, sidewalk, street lighting, signing, channelization, and landscaping.
PROJECT ESTIMATED EXPENDITURES:
Design $ 650,000
ROW Acquisition 650,000
2013 Construction Cost 3,500,000
10% Construction Contingency 350,000
Construction Management 525,000
Utility Relocation (PSE) 160,000
TOTAL ESTIMATED PROJECT COSTS $ 5,835,000
AVAILABLE FUNDING:
TIB Grant $ 3,360,000
Budgeted City Funds 1,859,000
Mitigation 132,947
Interest Earning 1,871
Lakehaven Utility District 30,000
Comcast 36,000
Century Link 35,000
Puget Sound Energy 10,000
TOTAL AVAILABLE BUDGET $ 5,464,818
At this time the project budget has a funding shortfall of $370,182. The estimated funding short fall is due to
the need to relocate facilities owned by utility companies (PSE, Century link and Comcast) that was
constructed within a private easement adjacent to the existing right of way. As we proceed with bidding the
project, the total project costs will be refined and presented to the Committee and Council at the Project bid
award for further action. A possible source for additional funding for this project will be from the S 320th
Street at 20th Ave South Intersection Improvements project which is estimated to have a $1,000,000 funding
balance at the 100% design stage.
10
COUNCIL MEETING DATE: February 19, 2013
CITY OF FEDERAL WAY
CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA BILL
ITEM #:
SUBJECT: Amendments to the King County Countywide Planning Policies
POLICY QUESTION: Should the city write a letter in support of the amendments to the Countywide Planning Policies?
COMMITTEE: Land Use/Transportation Committee (LUTC) MEETING DATE: February 4, 2013
CATEGORY:
❑ Consent
City Council Business
❑ Resolution ❑ Public Hearing
❑ Resolution ❑ Other
STAFF REPORT BY: Principal Planner Margaret Clark DEPT: Community & Economic Development
Attachments: January 29, 2013 Memorandum to the City Council with Exhibit 1
Background: The City has received a request from King County to review and ratify amendments to the
Countywide Planning Policies (CPPs) (Exhibit 1). On December 13, 2012, the Metropolitan King County Council
adopted Ordinances 17486 and 17487, which approved and ratified the amendments on behalf of unincorporated
King County. Amendments to the CPPs become effective when ratified by at least 30 percent of the city and county
governments representing 70 percent of the population of King County. A city is deemed to have ratified the
amendments if it either sends a letter in support of the amendments or does nothing. If a City opposes the
amendments, it must take legislative action within 90 days of adoption by King County. The 90 -day deadline for
responding on this proposed amendment is March 4, 2013.
Options Considered: 1) Adopt the Mayor's recommendation to write a letter in support of the amendments; 2)
Do not adopt the Mayor's recommendation by adopting a resolution opposing the amendments; 3) Adopt a
resolution which specifies which amendments are being supported and which ones are being opposed.
MAYOR'S RECOMMENDATION: The Mayor recommends writing a letter in support of the amendments to the
Countywide Planning Policies
MAYOR APPROVAL:
Council
DIRECTOR APPROVAL:
ommittee Council
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: I move to adopt the Mayor's recommendation.
Bob Celski, Chair
Jeanne Burbidge, Member
Susan Honda, Member
PROPOSED COUNCIL MOTION:
"I move approval of Option 1 to write a letter in support of the amendments."
(BELOW TO BE COMPLETED BY CITY CLERKS OFFICE)
COUNCIL ACTION:
❑ APPROVED
❑ DENIED
❑ TABLED/DEFERRED/NO ACTION
❑ MOVED TO SECOND READING (ordinances only)
REVISED - 08/12/2010
11
I: \CWPP's\2013 \Agenda Bill.doc
COUNCIL BILL #
1ST reading
Enactment reading
ORDINANCE #
RESOLUTION #
CITY OF
Federal Way
MEMORANDUM
January 29, 2013
To: City Council
VIA: Skip Priest, Mayor
FROM: Patrick Doherty, Director of Community and Economic Development
Margaret H. Clark, AICP, Principal Planner
SUBJECT: Amendments to the King County Countywide Planning Policies
MEETING DATE: N/A
I. BACKGROUND
The City has received a request from King County to review and ratify amendments to the
Countywide Planning Policies (CPPs) (Exhibit 1). On December 13, 2012, the Metropolitan King
County Council adopted Ordinances 17486 and 17487, which approved and ratified the amendments
on behalf of unincorporated King County. Amendments to the CPPs become effective when ratified
by at least 30 percent of the city and county governments representing 70 percent of the population
of King County. A city is deemed to have ratified the amendments if it either sends a letter in
support of the amendments or does nothing. If a City opposes the amendments, it must take
legislative action within 90 days of adoption by King County. The 90 -day deadline for responding
on this proposed amendment is March 4, 2013.
II. SUMMARY OF AMENDMENTS TO THE CPPs
Ordinances 17486 and 17487 include the following motions previously approved by the Growth
Management Planning Council (GMPC):
Motion 11- 1(Approved September 21, 2011) —The GMPC developed and recommended the initial
set of CPPs in the early 1990s. The CPPs were adopted in phases, with Phase 1 policies ratified in
1992. Phase II policies were completed and ratified in 1994. Since that time, the policies have been
amended from time to time; however, there has never been a systematic review of the CPPs until the
GMPC started a review process in 2010. The recommended CPPs are the product of this three -year
process. This motion approved the bulk of the 2011 King County Countywide Planning Policies.
The goal of the CPP Update was to update the policies to ensure consistency with the Multi - County
Planning Policies contained within VISION 2040 (adopted in 2008), ensure consistency with the
State Growth Management Act, reflect current terminology and relevant references, and establish the
policy framework for advancing the Regional Growth Strategy.
12
The CPPs are organized similarly to VISION 2040 with the following chapters:
1. Vision and Framework
2. Environment
3. Development Pattern
4. Housing
5. Economy
6. Transportation
7. Public Services
Major changes are as follows:
• The number of policies has been reduced. Policies that have been fulfilled have been
eliminated and antiquated polices have been updated.
• A glossary of terms has been added (Pages 61 -64 of Attachment A of Exhibit 1).
• The King County Jurisdiction Growth Targets 2006 -2031 has replaced the previous
2001 -2021 targets (Pg. 20).'
• New policy areas that have developed since the adoption of the original CPPs have been
added to Attachment A of Exhibit 1:
o Climate change2
• EN -19 & EN -21 (Pg. 15)
• DP-42 (Pg. 27)
• PF-4 (Pg. 46)
o Reducing greenhouse gas emissions3
• EN -2 (Pg. 11)
• EN -16, EN -17, & EN -18 (Pg. 14)
• DP -5 (Pg. 18)
• T -22 (Pg. 44)
o Food Access4
• DP -8 (Pg. 18)
• DP -58 & DP -59 (Pg. 30)
• H -12 (Pg. 34)
• EC -10 (Pg. 37)
• EC -16 (Pg. 39)
o Increasing active living by promoting walkable and bikable communities
• DP -6 & DP -7 (Pg. 18)
• DP -32 (Pg. 25)
• H -12 (Pg. 34)
'The 2006 -2031 targets, which replaced the 2001 -2022 targets, were ratified by King County and cities per Motion
09 -2 on May 15, 2010.
2 Climate change is the variation in the earth's global climate over time. It describes changes in the variability or
average state of the atmosphere. Climate change may result from natural factors or processes, such as change in
ocean circulation, or human activities that change the atmosphere's composition, such as burning fossil fuels or
deforestation.
3Greenhouse gases include carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, and fluorinated gases.
4Food access means the availability of healthy, affordable, culturally acceptable food to residents of all
communities, e.g., community gardens, pea patches, farmers markets.
I: \CWPP's\2013\Memo to LUTC.docl: \CWPP's\2013\Memo to LUTC.doc
13
• T -21 (Pg. 44)
o Environmental justices
• EN -5 (Pg. 12)
• H -13 (Pg. 34)
Motion 12 -1 (Adopted April 4, 2012) — This motion added land on the west bank of the Duwamish
River to the City of Seattle Potential Annexation Area.
Motion 12 -2 (Adopted June 6, 2012) — This motion implemented the recommendations of the
School Siting Task Force by adding new policies and including the Report of the School Siting Task
Force as Appendix 5 to the Countywide Planning Policies. The GMPC approved the bulk of the CPP
changes in September 2011. However, at that time, it could not reach consensus on policies
governing the siting of facilities and services, especially whether school districts serving urban and
rural students should site schools in Rural Areas and whether such facilities should be served by
sewers. The GMPC formed a task force made up of representatives of jurisdictions, affected public
school districts, and citizens. The Task Force issued a final report on March 31, 2012, in which it
concluded that future schools could be sited in the Urban Growth area or in rural towns. The Task
Force also made recommendations as to the disposition of 18 undeveloped school sites located in the
Rural Area.
Motion 12 -3 (Adopted June 6, 2012) — This motion added a new Housing Chapter and revised
Housing Appendix to the Countywide Planning Policies (Pages 55 -58 of Attachment A of Exhibit
1). The new Housing Chapter takes a different approach to the previous CPPs. The proposed housing
policies:
• Establish upfront a countywide need for affordable housing
• Eliminate assigned affordable housing targets to each jurisdiction
• Focus 011 implementation strategies to meet the countywide need
• Establish four steps for jurisdictions to accomplish this approach:
1. Conduct a housing supply inventory and needs assessment
2. Implement policies and strategies to address unmet needs
3. Measure results
4. Respond to results with reassessment and adjustment of strategies
This approach recognizes that a "one size fits all" solution does not work for every jurisdiction, and
a variety of approaches may be appropriate. The Housing Chapter also recognizes that meeting the
need of the very low income [those at 30 percent or below of average median income (AMI)] should
be the focus of every jurisdiction, but actually meeting the need will depend on interjurisdictional
cooperation and public subsidies.
Motion 12 -4 (Adopted June 6, 2012) — This motion added land on the west side of 216th Ave SE to
the City of Black Diamond Potential Annexation Area.
Motion 12 -5 (Adopted June 6, 2012) — This motion amended the Urban Growth Areas (UGA's) as
follows:
• Attachment 1: Sammamish Soaring Eagle — This action added a 29.9 acre portion of
Soaring Eagle Park to the Potential Annexation Area (PAA) of the City of Sammamish
5Environmental justice is the fair distribution of costs and benefits, based on a consideration for social equity.
Environmental justice is concerned with the right of people to enjoy a safe, clean, and healthy environment and with
fairness across income, ethnic, and racial groups in the siting and operation of infrastructure, facilities, or other large
land uses.
I: \CWPP's\2013\Memo to LUTC.docl: \CWPP's\2013\Memo to LUTC.doc
14
and changed its designation from Rural to Urban in order to allow the City of
Sammamish to annex the subject property and develop it as an as active recreation city
park.
• Attachment 2: Snoqualmie — Mining Site — This action changed the designations of
certain parcels containing long -term mining operation from Urban to Rural to comply
with Countywide Planning Policies R -510 and R -676 that state that areas designated as
mining sites are by defmition Rural and not Urban.
• Attachment 3: Auburn — 148th Ave SE technical correction
• Attachment 4: Black Diamond —212th Ave SE technical correction
• Attachment 5: Redmond — NE Union Hill Road /196th Ave NE technical correction
• Attachment 6: Black Diamond — Lake Sawyer Road SE technical correction
• Attachment 7: Renton — SE Old Petrovitski Road technical correction
• Attachment 8: Maple Valley — SE 281A Way technical correction
• Attachment 9: Maple Valley — SE 288th St technical correction
• Attachment 10: Enumclaw — SE 440th St technical correction
• Attachment 11: North Bend — SE 142" St technical correction
• Attachment 12: North Bend — SE 150" St technical correction
• Attachment 13: Auburn — SE Green Valley Road technical correction
• Attachment 14: Duvall — SR203 /NE 140th St technical correction
Attachments 3 through 14 are all redesignations of portions of rights -of -way adjacent to cities
to either include or exclude that portion from the specific city's UGA based on a
recommendation from the King County Department of Transportation for the purpose of
efficient future road maintenance.
• Attachment 15: Maple Valley split parcel — This action moved a portion of the Urban
Growth Boundary which had previously split a developed parcel within a Maple Valley
subdivision, resulting in the entire parcel now being completely within the Urban Area.
III. COUNCIL OPTIONS
The City Council has the following options:
1. Do nothing
2. Write a letter in support of the amendments
3. Adopt an ordinance or resolution opposing the amendments
4. Support some and oppose others
Options 1 and 2 are deemed to be ratification of the amendments and Option 3 is non - ratification.
Option 4 is a combination.
IV. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends Option 2; write a letter in support of the amendments.
I: \CWPP's\2013\Memo to LUTC.docl: \CWPP's\2013\Memo to LUTC.doc 4
15
EXHIBIT 1
L43
King County
December 22, 2012
The Honorable Skip Priest
City of Federal Way
33325 8th Ave. South
P.O. Box 9718
Federal Way, WA 98003
Dear Mayor Priest:
cc,. (awns
Pa v .
L
Sleeve C
We are pleased to forward for your consideration and ratification the enclosed
amendments to the King County Countywide Planning Policies (CPP).
On December 3, 2012, the Metropolitan King County Council approved and
ratified the amendments on behalf of unincorporated King County. The two
ordinances will become effective December 23, 2012. Copies of the King County
Council staff reports, ordinances and Growth Management Planning Council
motion are enclosed to assist you in your review of these amendments.
In accordance with the Countywide Planning Policies, FW -1, Step 9,
amendments become effective when ratified by ordinance or resolution by at
least 30 percent of the city and county governments representing 70 percent of
the population of King County according to the interlocal agreement. A city will
be deemed to have ratified the CPP and amendments unless, within 90 days of
adoption by King County, the city takes legislative action to disapprove the
amendments. Please note that the 90 -day deadline for this amendment is
Monday, March 4, 2013.
If you adopt any legislation concerning this action, please send a copy of the
legislation by the close of business, Monday, March 4, 2013, to Anne Noris, Clerk
of the Council, Room 1200, King County Courthouse, 516 Third Avenue, Seattle,
WA 98104.
17
If you have any questions about the amendments or ratification process, please
contact Paul Reitenbach, Project/Program Manager IV, King County Department
of Permitting and Environmental Review, at 206 - 477 -0345, or Rick Bautista,
Metropolitan King County Council Staff, at 206 -296 -0329.
Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter.
Sincerely,
Ar 1-7471.0 6.4‘442
Larry Gossett, Chair Dow Constantine
Metropolitan King County Council King County Executive
Enclosures
cc: King County City Planning Directors
Suburban Cities Association
John Starbard, Director, Department of Permitting and Environment Review
(DPER)
Paul Reitenbach, Project/Program Manager IV, DPER
Rick Bautista, Council Staff, Transportation, Environment and Economy
Committee (TREE)
18
il, l
King County
KING COUNTY
Signature Report
December 4, 2012
Ordinance 17486
1200 King County Courthouse
516 Third Avenue
Seattle, WA 98104
Proposed No. 2012- 0282.3 Sponsors Phillips
1 AN ORDINANCE relating to adoption and ratification of
2 the King County Countywide Planning Policies; adding a
3 new section to K.C.C. chapter 20.10, decodifying K.C.C.
4 20.10.010, K.C.C. 20.10.020, K.C.C. 20.10.030, K.C.C.
5 20.10.040, K.C.C. 20.10.050, K.C.C. 20.10.065, K.C.C.
6 20.10.075 and K.C.C. 20.10.076 and repealing Ordinance
7 10450, Section 6, as amended, and K.C.C. 20.10.060.
8 STATEMENT OF FACTS:
9 1. The Countywide Planning Policies ( "CPPs ") are adopted in accordance
10 with the state Growth Management Act, under 36.70A.210 RCW.
11 2. The Growth Management Planning Council ( "GMPC ") was formed in
42 1992 to guide the development of the CPPs. The GMPC is a
13 representative body of elected officials from King County, the city of
14 Seattle, the city of Bellevue and the Suburban Cities Association.
15 Representatives of the special districts serve as ex officio members.
16 3. The CPPs establish a framework for guiding development in all King
17 County jurisdictions.
Ordinance 17486
18 4. The CPPs are deemed adopted when ratified by King County and the
19 requisite number of cities and satisfying the required population
20 percentage.
21 5. The GMPC recommends CPP amendments to the King County council
22 for consideration, possible revision and ratification.
23 BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF KING COUNTY:
24 SECTION 1. Findings:
25 A. On September 21, 2011, the Growth Management Planning Council adopted
26 Motion 11 -1 approving the 2011 King County Countywide Planning Policies.
27 B. On March 31, 2012, the school siting task force issued a final report.
28 C. On April 4, 2012, the Growth Management Planning Council adopted Motion
29 12 -1 adding land on the west bank of the Duwamish river to the city of Seattle Potential
30 Annexation Area.
31 D. On June 6, 2012, the Growth Management Planning Council adopted Motion
32 12 -2 implementing the recommendations of the school siting task force by adding new
33 policies and the Report of the School Siting Task Force as Appendix 5 to the Countywide
34 Planning Policies.
35 E. On June 6, 2012, the Growth Management Planning Council adopted Motion
36 12 -3 adding a new housing chapter and revised housing appendix to the Countywide
37 Planning Policies.
38 F. On June 6, 2012, the Growth Management Planning Council adopted Motion
39 12 -4 adding land on the west side of 216th Ave SE to the city of Black Diamond
40 Potential Annexation Area.
2
20
Ordinance 17486
41 G. Attachment A to this ordinance incorporates Motions 11 -1, 12 -1, 12 -2, 12 -3
42 and 12 -4 into the 2012 King County Countywide Planning Policies.
43 SECTION 2. The amendments to the King County Countywide Planning
44 Policies, and renamed the 2012 King County Planning Policies, as shown in Attachment
45 A to this ordinance, are hereby adopted and ratified on behalf of the population of
46 unincorporated King County.
47 • NEW SECTION. SECTION 3. There is hereby added to K.C.C. chapter 20.10 a
48 new section to read as follows:
49 A. After the Growth Management Planning Council approves or amends the
50 Countywide Planning Policies, the executive, as its chair, shall timely transmit to the
51 King County council an ordinance adopting the Countywide Planning Policies or
52 amendments thereto.
53 B. The King County council shall refer the proposed ordinance transmitted by the
54 executive under subsection A. of this section to the committee on transportation,
55 economy and environment or its successor for review and consideration. If the King
56 County council recommends substantive revisions to the Countywide Planning Policies
57 or amendments approved by the Growth Management Planning Council, the King County
58 council may refer the proposed revisions to the Growth Management Planning Council
59 for its consideration and response.
60 C. Within ten days after the ordinance transmitted by the executive under
61 subsection A. of this section, as amended by the council, is effective, the clerk of the
62 King County council shall send the notice of enactment and the Countywide Planning
63 Policies and amendments to each city and town in King County for ratification as
3
21
Ordinance 17486
64 provided for in the Countywide Planning Policies. Each city and town must take action
65 to ratify or reject the proposed Countywide Planning Policies or amendments as approved
66 by the King County council within ninety days after the date the ordinance approving the
67 Countywide Planning Policies or amendments was enacted. Failure of a city or town to
68 take action and notify the clerk of the King County council within ninety days shall be
69 deemed to be approval by that city or town. The notice shall include the date by which
70 each city or town must respond with its response to ratify or reject the proposed
71 Countywide Planning Policies or amendments and where the response should be directed.
72 D. Countywide Planning Policies or amendments are ratified if approved by the
73 county, cities and towns representing at least seventy percent of the county's population
74 and thirty percent of the jurisdictions. For ratification purposes, King County is the
75 jurisdiction representing the population in the unincorporated areas of the county.
76 E. Within ten days after the date for response established by the clerk of the King
77 County council under subsection C. of this section, the clerk of the King County council
78 shall notify the executive, as chair of the Growth Management Planning Council, of the
79 decision to ratify or not to ratify the Countywide Planning Policies or amendments.
80 SECTION 4. K.C.C. 20.10.010, K.C.C. 20.10.020, K.C.C. 20.10.030, K.C.C.
81 20.10.040, K.C.C. 20.10.050, K.C.C. 20.10.065, K.C.C. 20.10.075 and K.C.C. 20.10.076
82 are each hereby decodified.
4
22
Ordinance 17486
83 SECTION 5. Ordinance 10450, Section 6, as amended, and K.C.C. 20.10.060 are
84 each hereby repealed.
85
Ordinance 17486 was introduced on 8/20/2012 and passed as amended by the
Metropolitan King County Council on 12/3/2012, by the following vote:
ATTEST:
Yes: 9 - Mr. Phillips, Mr. von Reichbauer, Mr. Gossett, Ms. Hague,
Ms. Patterson, Ms. Lambert, Mr. Ferguson, Mr. Dunn and Mr.
McDermott
No: 0
Excused: 0
KING COUNTY COUNCIL
KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON
Larry Gossett, Chair
Anne Noris, Clerk of the Council
APPROVED this 13 day t , 2012.
Dow Constantine, County Executive
Attachments: A. 2012 King County Countywide Planning Policies, dated December 3, 2012
-r.
r i=' 'A
1,-"-i
.7,
;r t
.r.
ATTACHMENT A
ATTACHMENT A
2012 King County
Countywide Planning Policies
November, 2012
Amended December 3, 2012
25
2012 King County Countywide Planning Policies
November 2012
Amended December 3, 2012
CONTENTS 2
VISION 2040 STATEMENT 4
VISION & FRAMEWORK 5
Vision for King County 2030 5
Framework 7
Framework Policies 9
ENVIRONMENT 11
Environmental Sustainability 11
Earth and Habitat 12
Flood Hazards 13
Water Resources 13
Air Quality and Climate Change 14
DEVELOPMENT PATTERNS 16
Urban Growth Area 16
Urban Lands 17
Growth Targets 18
Amendments to the Urban Growth Area 21
Review and Evaluation Program 22
Joint Planning and Annexation 23
Centers 24
Urban Centers 24
Manufacturing/ Industrial Centers 25
Local Centers 26
Urban Design and Historic Preservation 27
Rural Area and Resource Lands 27
Rural Area 28
Resource Lands 29
HOUSING 31
Housing Inventory and Needs Analysis 32
Strategies to Meet Housing Needs 32
Regional Cooperation 34 cn
Measuring Results 34 W
ECONOMY 36 Z
Business Development 37 0
People 38 tj
Places 38
U
2
26
2012 King County Countywide Planning Policies
November 2012
Amended December 3, 2012
TRANSPORTATION 40
Supporting Growth 40
Mobility 42
System Operations 43
PUBLIC FACILIIIES AND SERVICES 45
Urban and Rural Levels of Service 45
Collaboration Among Jurisdictions 45
Utilities 46
Water Supply 46
Sewage Treatment and Disposal 47
Solid Waste 47
Energy 48
Telecommunications 48
Human and Community Services 48
Siting Public Capital Facilities 49
APPENDIX 1: LAND USE MAP 50
APPENDIX 2: POTENTIAL ANNEXATION AREAS MAP 51
APPENDIX 3: URBAN SEPARATORS MAPS 52
APPENDIX 4: HOUSING TECHNICAL APPENDIX 55
APPENDIX 5: KING COUNTY SCHOOL SITING TASK FORCE REPORT 59
GLOSSARY 61
Chapter: CONTENTS
3
27
2012 King County Countywide Planning Policies
November 2012
Amended December 3, 2012
VISION 2040 STATEMENT
The 2012 King County Countywide Planning Policies were prepared to address changes to the
Growth Management Act, take into account the passage of 20 years since their initial adoption,
and to specifically reflect the regional direction established in VISION 2040.
Vision 2040 is the product of the Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC), an association of cities,
towns, counties, ports, tribes, and state agencies that serves as a forum for developing policies
and making decisions about regional growth management, environmental, economic, and
transportation issues in the four - county central Puget Sound region of Washington state (King,
Kitsap, Pierce and Snohomish counties). Vision 2040's Regional Growth Strategy outlines how
the four - county Puget Sound region should plan for additional population and employment
growth.
As made clear in the Regional Growth Strategy, all jurisdictions in King County have a role in
accommodating growth, using sustainable and environmentally responsible development
practices. The 2012 King County Countywide Planning Policies support this strategy and
provide direction at the county and jurisdiction level with appropriate specificity and detail
needed to guide consistent and useable local comprehensive plans and regulations.
While VISION 2040 is consistent with the overall growth management strategy of the 1992 King
County Countywide Planning Policies, restructuring the Countywide Planning Policies —into the
six chapters of Environment, Development Patterns, Housing, Economy, Transportation, and
Public Facilities and Services —was done to match the structure of VISION 2040.
Chapter: VISION 2040 STATEMENT
4
28
2012 King County Countywide Planning PoCcies
November 2012
Amended December 3, 2012
VISION & FRAMEWORK
Vision for King County 2030
It is the year 2030 and our county has changed significantly in the roughly 40 years that have
elapsed since the first Countywide Planning Policies were adopted in 1992. In many ways this is
a result of the successful public - private partnership that has supported a diversified,
sustainable regional economy and has managed and accommodated growth while maintaining
the quality of life and the natural environment throughout King County.
King County in 2030 is characterized by:
• Protected Critical Areas. Effective stewardship of the environment has preserved
and protected the critical areas in the County, including wetlands, aquifer recharge
areas, and fish and wildlife conservation areas.
These critical areas continue to provide beneficial functions and values for
reducing flooding, protecting water quality, supporting biodiversity, and
enriching our quality of life for future generations as the as the region's
population continues to grow.
• Viable Rural Area. The Rural Area, established in 1992, is permanently protected
with a clear boundary between Rural and Urban Areas.
The successful protection of these lands is due in large part to continued
innovation within the Urban Growth Area to create new ways to use land
efficiently and sustainably. In this way, there is minimal pressure to convert rural
lands. The Rural Area is a viable option for those seeking a lifestyle contrast to
the Urban Growth Area. The pressure to urbanize the Rural Area has also been
lessened by market pressures to use the land for agriculture.
• Bountiful Agricultural Areas and Productive Forest Lands.
More people are farming and a greater number of residents are benefiting from p
King County agricultural products, which can be purchased through a network of
farmers markets and farm stands throughout the county. Since 2010, the
increase in productive farming in the Agricultural Production District and in the a
Rural Area has accelerated as more residents seek locally grown food. Thriving
markets now exist throughout the county for these products. The forests of the z
Pacific Northwest remain as some of the most productive in the world with large O
scale commercial forestry prevalent in the eastern half of the county.
• Vibrant, diverse and compact urban communities.
Within the Urban Growth Area little undeveloped land now exists and urban
infrastructure has been extended to fully serve the entire Urban Growth Area. _
29
5
2012 King County Countywide Planning Policies
November 2012
Amended December 3, 2012
Development activity is focused on redevelopment to create vibrant
neighborhoods where residents can walk, bicycle or use public transit for most of
their needs. Improvements to the infrastructure now focus on maintaining
existing capacity as opposed to extending the infrastructure into previously
unserved areas. Because of the innovations developed in public and private
partnerships, there is still ample capacity to accommodate the planned
population and employment growth targets within the Urban Growth Area.
Much of the growth in employment and new housing occurs in the Urban Centers. These
centers successfully provide a mixture of living, working, cultural, and recreational activities for
all members of the community. All the centers are linked together by a high- capacity transit
system, including light rail and high capacity bus transit. Transit stations and hubs are within
walking distance to all parts of the center and the high capacity transit system facilitates people
moving easily from one center to another. Within the collection of Urban Centers there is
balance between jobs and housing. Each center has developed its own successful urban
character and all are noted for their livability, vibrancy, healthy environment, design, and
pedestrian focus.
Smaller concentrations of businesses are distributed throughout the Urban Growth Area to
provide goods and services to surrounding residential areas. Most residents are within walking
distance of commercial areas, fostering a healthy community through physical exercise and a
sense of neighborhood. Local transit systems provide convenient connections to the Urban
Centers and elsewhere within the Urban Growth Area.
Manufacturing/ Industrial Centers continue to thrive and function as important hubs of the
regional economy. These areas too are well served by transportation systems that emphasize
the efficient movement of people, goods and information to and within Manufacturing/
Industrial Centers as well as connecting to other regions.
The entire Urban Growth Area is characterized by superior urban design with an open space
network that defines and separates, yet links, the various jurisdictions and central places.
Countywide and regional facilities have been equitably dispersed — located where needed, sited
unobtrusively —and have provided appropriate incentives and amenities to the surrounding
neighborhoods.
Rural Cities have created unique urban environments within the Rural Area and provide
commercial services and employment opportunities for their residents. These include retail,
business, educational and social services for residents both of cities and the surrounding Rural
Area while protecting and supporting the surrounding Rural Area and Resource Lands.
Federal, state and regional funds have been used to further this land use plan and to fund
needed regional facilities while local resources focus on funding local and neighborhood
facilities. The sharing of resources to accomplish common goals is done so that the regional
plan can succeed and all can benefit.
30
Chapter: VISION & FRAMEWORK
6
2012 King County Countywide Planning Policies
November 2012
Amended December 3, 2012
The economy is vibrant, vital, and sustainable, and emphasizes diversity in the range of goods
and information produced and the services provided. Regional cooperation has focused on
economic development activities that have retained and expanded key industries such as
aerospace, software, and biotechnology while using the resources of the region to attract new
business clusters such as in renewable energy. Businesses continue to locate in our county
because of the high quality of life; the preservation of the natural environment; the emphasis
on providing a superior education; the predictability brought about by the management of
growth and the effectiveness of public - private partnerships supporting these attributes.
Housing opportunities for all incomes and lifestyles exist throughout the county and with the
balanced transportation system access to employment is convenient and reliable. Innovation in
the development of a diverse range of housing types has been fundamental in accommodating
population growth. The diversity of housing types has allowed residents to stay within their
community as their housing needs change.
King County communities are extraordinarily diverse culturally and this has been embraced and
celebrated by the residents of King County. The needs of residents are attended to by a social
service system that emphasizes prevention but stands ready to respond to direct needs as well.
There is a sense of social equity within our communities and all share equitably in the
distribution of and access to parks, open space, and vibrant neighborhood centers.
The Urban Growth Area is completely located within cities, which are the primary providers of
urban services. Where appropriate, sub - regional consortia have been created for certain
services, and King County government is recognized as a significant provider of regional services
as well as the coordinator of local services to the Rural Area and Resource Lands.
Residents and businesses have recognized that, over time, through clear and reasonable
timelines and financing commitments, issues will be addressed. Residents and businesses trust
in their local governments because the plans and promises made to manage growth starting in
1992 have been followed. Change is accepted and proceeds in an orderly fashion based on the
locally adopted and embraced growth management plans.
Framework
The year 1991 was one of tremendous change for the management of growth in King County
and this environment of change gave rise to the distinctive character of the 1992 Countywide
Planning Policies. While the Countywide Planning Policies have been amended periodically to
address specific issues or revisions required by the Growth Management Act, the first thorough
update of the Countywide Planning Policies was completed in 2012 to ensure that the
Countywide Planning Policies are consistent with VISION 2040, the Growth Management Act
and changes that had occurred in the previous twenty years within King County. In addition for
the 2012 update, the Growth Management Planning Council directed that the revised policies
31
0
O
1)
ct
U
7
2012 King County Countywide Planning Policies
November 2012
Amended December 3, 2012
include countywide direction on three new policy areas: climate change, healthy communities
and social equity. Understanding the history of the 1992 policies is important in order to
establish the context for the revised policies.
In 1991 five major conditions gave rise to the first Countywide Planning Policies and the process
used in their development and adoption:
1. In 1985, the King County Council adopted a Comprehensive Plan that for the
first time established a clear boundary between Urban and Rural Areas and set
forth standards to delineate a clear development character for each.
2. In 1991, the adoption of the Growth Management Act transformed the way
that local jurisdictions looked at land use planning as well as how they
interacted with neighboring jurisdictions.
A fundamental requirement of the Growth Management Act was
coordination between a shared countywide vision on how growth would be
planned for and accommodated and how this would be implemented by local
jurisdictions. In 1991, the Growth Management Act was amended to include
the requirement that Countywide Planning Policies be adopted to describe
this vision and how these relationships would be created. These provisions
gave rise to the creation of the Growth Management Planning Council — an
advisory group of elected officials from jurisdictions throughout the county
charged with overseeing the preparation of the Countywide Planning Policies.
Since the Growth Management Act was new and many jurisdictions had not
created a comprehensive plan before, the Countywide Planning Policies
became a guide for jurisdictions to follow in complying with the Growth
Management Act in areas as diverse as critical area regulation to local growth
targets.
3. In 1991, the Puget Sound Council of Governments was dissolved and replaced
with the Puget Sound Regional Council that initially had significantly reduced
responsibilities for regional land use planning and coordination.
Without an effective regional body for land use planning, it was necessary for
the Puget Sound counties to identify their own process and organization for
developing the Countywide Planning Policies. In the case of King County, this
was the Growth Management Planning Council. Subsequently, as its
responsibilities were expanded over time, the Puget Sound Regional Council
developed VISION 2040, the multi- county vision and planning policies that set
the structure for these revised Countywide Planning Policies.
4. By 1991, the Suburban Cities Association had changed from a loose coalition of
cities outside of Seattle to a formal organization with the ability to represent
constituent jurisdictions in regional forums.
32
2012 King County Countywide Planning Policies
November 2012
Amended December 3, 2012
5. Prior to the development of the Countywide Planning Policies, King County and
METRO attempted and failed to win electoral support for merger.
This defeat left jurisdictions with concerns about the relationship between
city and county governments, and further confusion about the roles of
governments in the Urban Growth Area.
Because of these conditions and the environment they fostered, jurisdictions in King County
decided to go further than just meeting the specific statutory requirements for such policies.
The 1992 King County Countywide Planning Policies provided direction for many issues related
to growth management and established a policy structure for subsequent issue resolution.
Since their adoption, many of the initial Countywide Planning Policies have been codified into
local regulations or carried out in regional or statewide arenas and no longer need to be
included in them. Through amendments to the King County Charter and interlocal agreements,
the relationship between county and city governments has been clearly defined and
annexations and incorporations have brought most of the unincorporated urban area into the
cities.
Other key actions that were required by the 1992 Countywide Planning Policies along with their
current status are described below:
• Complete a fiscal and environmental review of the 1992 Countywide Planning
Policies — completed and adopted in 1994;
• Establish housing and employment targets for each jurisdiction — completed in 1994
and periodically updated pursuant to the Countywide Planning Policies;
• Adopt local comprehensive plans pursuant to the Growth Management Act and
Countywide Planning Policies — each jurisdiction within King County has an adopted
plan that is periodically updated;
• Develop land use capacity and urban density evaluation program — developed and
then superseded by the King County Buildable Lands Program as required by the
Growth Management Act;
• Develop a growth management monitoring program — King County Benchmarks
program established in 1994 and annually updated as described in policy G -2; and
• Evaluate the need to change the Urban Growth Boundary and work to maintain a
permanent Rural Area — established in 1994 and periodically reviewed as described
in the Development Patterns chapter.
General Policies
Unless otherwise noted, the Countywide Planning Policies apply to the Growth Management
Planning Council, King County, and all of the cities within King County.
33
9
2012 King County Countywide Planning Policies
November 2012
Amended December 3, 2012
Amendments. While much has been accomplished, the Countywide Planning Policies were
never intended to be static and will require amendment over time to reflect changed
conditions. While the formal policy development is done by the Growth Management Planning
Council, ideas for new policies begin in a variety of areas including individual jurisdictions. Policy
G -1 below describes the process for amending the Countywide Planning Policies:
G-1 Maintain the currency of the Countywide Planning Policies through periodic review and
amendment. Initiate and review all amendments at the Growth Management Planning Council
through the process described below:
a) Only the Growth Management Planning Council may propose amendments to the
Countywide Planning Policies except for amendments to the Urban Growth Area
that may also be proposed by King County in accordance with policies DP -15 and DP-
16;
b) Growth Management Planning Council recommends amendments to the King
County Council for consideration, possible revision, and approval; proposed
revisions by the King County Council that are of a substantive nature may be sent to
the Growth Management Planning Council for their consideration and revised
recommendation based on the proposed revision;
c) A majority vote of the King County Council both constitutes approval of the
amendments and ratification on behalf of the residents of Unincorporated King
County.;
d) After approval and ratification by the King County Council, amendments are
forwarded to each city and town for ratification. Amendments cannot be modified
during the city ratification process; and
e) Amendments must be ratified within 90 days of King County approval and require
affirmation by the county and cities and towns representing at least 70 percent of
the county population and 30 percent of those jurisdictions. Ratification is either by
an affirmative vote of the city's or town's council or by no action being taken within
the ratification period.
Monitoring. Periodically evaluating the effectiveness of the Countywide Planning Policies is key
to continuing their value to the region and local jurisdictions. In 1994 King County and cities
established the current Benchmarks program to monitor and evaluate key regional indicators.
G -2 Monitor and benchmark the progress of the Countywide Planning Policies towards
achieving the Regional Growth Strategy inclusive of the environment, development patterns, cki
housing, the economy, transportation and the provision of public services. Identify corrective 6
actions to be taken if progress toward benchmarks is not being achieved.
Investment. Key to ensuring the success of the Countywide Planning Policies is investment in
regional infrastructure and programs. Balancing the use of limited available funds between
regional and local needs is extremely complex.
34
U
2012 King County Countywide Planning Policies
November 2012
Amended December 3, 2012
G -3 Work collaboratively to identify and seek regional, state, and federal funding sources to
invest in infrastructure, strategies, and programs to enable the full implementation of the
Countywide Planning Policies. Balance needed regional investments with local needs when
making funding determinations.
Consistency. The Countywide Planning Policies provide a common framework for local planning
and each jurisdiction is required to update its comprehensive plans to be consistent with the
Countywide Planning Policies. The full body of the Countywide Planning Policies is to be
considered for decision - making.
G -4 Adopt comprehensive plans that are consistent with the Countywide Planning Policies as
required by the Growth Management Act.
ENVIRONMENT
Overarching Goal: The quality of the natural environment in King County is restored and
protected for future generations.
Environmental Sustainability
Local governments have a key role in shaping sustainable communities by integrating
sustainable development and business practices with ecological, social, and economic concerns.
Local governments also play a pivotal role in ensuring environmental justice by addressing
environmental impacts on minority and low- income populations and by pursuing fairness in the
application of policies and regulations.
EN -1 Incorporate environmental protection and restoration efforts into local comprehensive
plans to ensure that the quality of the natural environment and its contributions to human
health and vitality are sustained now and for future generations.
EN -2 Encourage low impact development approaches for managing stormwater, protecting
water quality, minimizing flooding and erosion, protecting habitat, and reducing greenhouse
gas emissions.
EN -3 Encourage the transition to a sustainable energy future by reducing demand through
planning for efficiency and conservation and by meeting reduced needs from sustainable
sources.
O
u,
ct
EN-4 Identify and preserve regionally significant open space networks in both Urban and
Rural Areas. Develop strategies and funding to protect lands that provide the following valuable —
functions:
35
1
1
2012 King County Countywide Planning Policies
November 2012
Amended December 3, 2012
• Physical or visual separation delineating growth boundaries or providing buffers
between incompatible uses;
• Active and passive outdoor recreation opportunities;
• Wildlife habitat and migration corridors that preserve and enhance ecosystem
resiliency in the face of urbanization and climate change;
• Preservation of ecologically sensitive, scenic or cultural resources;
• Urban green space, habitats, and ecosystems;
• Forest resources; and
• Food production potential.
EN -5 Identify and mitigate unavoidable negative impacts of public actions that
disproportionately affect people of color and low- income populations.
Earth and Habitat
Healthy ecosystems and environments are vital to the sustainability of all plant and animal life,
including humans. Protection of biodiversity in all its forms and across all landscapes is critical
to continued prosperity and high quality of life in King County. The value of biodiversity to
sustaining long -term productivity and both economic and ecological benefits is evident in
fisheries, forestry, and agriculture. For ecosystems to be healthy and provide healthful benefits
to people, local governments must prevent negative human impacts and work to ensure that
this ecosystem remain diverse and productive over time. With the impending effects of climate
change, maintaining biodiversity becomes even more critical to the preservation and resilience
of resource -based activities and to many social and ecological systems. Protection of individual
species, including Chinook salmon, also plays an important role in sustaining biodiversity and
quality of life within the county. Since 2000, local governments, citizens, tribes, conservation
districts, non - profit groups, and federal and state fisheries managers have cooperated to
develop and implement watershed -based salmon conservation plans, known as Water
Resource Inventory Area plans, to conserve and restore habitat for Chinook salmon today and
for future generations.
EN -6 Coordinate approaches and standards for defining and protecting critical areas
especially where such areas and impacts to them cross jurisdictional boundaries.
EN -7 Encourage basin -wide approaches to wetland protection, emphasizing preservation and 0
enhancement of the highest quality wetlands and wetland systems.
EN -8 Develop an integrated and comprehensive approach to managing fish and wildlife
habitat conservation, especially protecting endangered, threatened, and sensitive species.
EN -9 Implement salmon habitat protection and restoration priorities in approved Water
Resource Inventory Area plans.
36
2012 King County Countywide Planning Policies
November 2012
Amended December 3, 2012
Flood Hazards
Flooding is a natural process that affects human communities and natural environments in King
County. Managing floodplain development and conserving aquatic habitats are the main
challenges for areas affected by flooding. The King County Flood Control District exists to
protect public health and safety, regional economic centers, public and private property and
transportation corridors. Local governments also have responsibility for flood control within
their boundaries.
EN -10 Coordinate and fund flood hazard management efforts through the King County Flood
Control District.
EN -11 Work cooperatively to meet regulatory standards for floodplain development as these
standards are updated for consistency with relevant federal requirements including those
related to the Endangered Species Act.
EN -12 Work cooperatively with the federal, state, and regional agencies and forums to develop
regional levee maintenance standards that ensure public safety and protect habitat.
Water Resources
The flow and quality of water is impacted by water withdrawals, land development, stormwater
management, and climate change. Since surface and ground waters do not respect political
boundaries, cross - jurisdictional coordination of water is required to ensure its functions and
uses are protected and sustained. The Puget Sound Partnership was created by the
Washington State Legislature as the state agency with the responsibility for assuring the
preservation and recovery of Puget Sound and the freshwater systems flowing into the Sound.
King County plays a key role in these efforts because of its large population and its location in
Central Puget Sound.
E1
EN -13 Collaborate with the Puget Sound Partnership to implement the Puget Sound Action
Agenda and to coordinate land use and transportation plans and actions for the benefit of
Puget Sound and its watersheds. 0 0,
EN -14 Manage natural drainage systems to improve water quality and habitat functions, W
minimize erosion and sedimentation, protect public health, reduce flood risks, and moderate
peak storm water runoff rates. Work cooperatively among local, regional, state, national and
tribal jurisdictions to establish, monitor and enforce consistent standards for managing streams U
and wetlands throughout drainage basins.
37
1
3
2012 King County Countywide Planning Policies
November 2012
Amended December 3, 2012
EN -15 Establish a multi - jurisdictional approach for funding and monitoring water quality,
quantity, biological conditions, and outcome measures and for improving the efficiency and
effectiveness of monitoring efforts.
Air Quality and Climate Change
Greenhouse gas emissions are resulting in a changing and increasingly variable climate. King
County's snow -fed water supply is especially vulnerable to a changing climate. Additionally, the
patterns of storm events and river and stream flow patterns are changing and our shorelines
are susceptible to rising sea levels. Carbon dioxide reacts with seawater and reduces the
water's pH, threatening the food web in Puget Sound. While local governments can individually
work to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, more significant emission reductions can only be
accomplished through countywide coordination of land use patterns and promotion of
transportation systems that provide practical alternatives to single occupancy vehicles.
Efficient energy consumption is both a mitigation and an adaptation strategy. Local
governments can improve energy efficiency through the development of new infrastructure as
well as the maintenance and updating of existing infrastructure.
EN -16 Plan for land use patterns and transportation systems that minimize air pollution and
greenhouse gas emissions, including:
• Maintaining or exceeding existing standards for carbon monoxide, ozone, and
particulates;
• Directing growth to Urban Centers and other mixed use/ high density locations that
support mass transit, encourage non - motorized modes of travel and reduce trip
lengths;
• Facilitating modes of travel other than single occupancy vehicles including transit,
walking, bicycling, and carpooling;
• Incorporating energy- saving strategies in infrastructure planning and design;
• Encouraging new development to use low emission construction practices, low or
zero net lifetime energy requirements and "green" building techniques; and
• Increasing the use of low emission vehicles, such as efficient electric- powered
vehicles.
EN -17 Establish a countywide greenhouse gas reduction target that meets or exceeds the
statewide reduction requirement that is stated as the 2050 goal of a 50 percent reduction
below 1990 levels.
EN -18 Establish a greenhouse gas emissions inventory and measurement framework for use
by all King County jurisdictions to efficiently and effectively measure progress toward
countywide targets established pursuant to policy EN -17.
38
Chapter: ENVIRONMENT
1
4
2012 King County Countywide Planning Policies
November 2012
Amended December 3, 2012
EN -19 Promote energy efficiency, conservation methods and sustainable energy sources to
support climate change reduction goals.
EN -20 Plan and implement land use, transportation, and building practices that will greatly
reduce consumption of fossil fuels.
EN -21 Formulate and implement climate change adaptation strategies that address the
impacts of climate change to public health and safety, the economy, public and private
infrastructure, water resources, and habitat.
Chapter: ENVIRONMENT
39
2012 King County Countywide Planning Policies
November 2012
Amended December 3, 2012
DEVELOPMENT PATTERNS
The policies in this chapter address the location, types, design and intensity of land uses that
are desired in King County and its cities. They guide implementation of the vision for physical
development within the county. The policies also provide a framework for how to focus
improvements to transportation, public services, the environment, and affordable housing, as
well as how to incorporate concerns about climate change and public health into planning for
new growth. Development patterns policies are at the core of growth management efforts in
King County; they further the goals of VISION 2040, and recognize the variety of local
communities that will be taking action to achieve those goals.
Overarching Goal: Growth in King County occurs in a compact, centers focused pattern that
uses land and infrastructure efficiently and that protects Rural and Resource Lands.
The Countywide Planning Policies designate land as Urban, Rural, or Resource. The Land Use
Map in Appendix 1 shows the Urban Growth Area boundary and Urban, Rural, and Resource
Lands within King County. Further sections of this chapter provide more detailed descriptions
and guidance for planning within each of the three designations.
DP -1 All lands within King County are designated as:
• Urban land within the Urban Growth Area, where new growth is focused and
accommodated;
• Rural land, where farming, forestry, and other resource uses are protected, and very
low- density residential uses, and small -scale non - residential uses are allowed; or
• Resource land, where permanent regionally significant agricultural, forestry, and
mining lands are preserved.
Urban Growth Area
The Urban Growth Area encompasses all of the urban designated lands within King County.
These lands include all cities as well as a portion of unincorporated King County. Consistent
with the Growth Management Act and VISION 2040, urban lands are intended to be the focus
of future growth that is compact, includes a mix of uses, and is well - served by public p
infrastructure. Urban lands also include a network of open space where ongoing maintenance is
a local as well as a regional concern. W
The pattern of growth within the Urban Growth Area implements the Regional Growth Strategy L
Po
through allocation of targets to local jurisdictions. The targets create an obligation to plan and
provide zoning for future potential growth, but do not obligate a jurisdiction to guarantee that U
a given number of housing units will be built or jobs added during the planning period.
40
2012 King County Countywide Planning Policies
November 2012
Amended December 3, 2012
Several additional elements in the Development Patterns chapter reinforce the vision and
targeted growth pattern for the Urban Growth Area. Procedures and criteria for amending the
Urban Growth Area boundary address a range of objectives and ensure that changes balance
the needs for land to accommodate growth with the overarching goal of preventing sprawl
within the county. A review and evaluation program provides feedback for the county and cities
on the effectiveness of their efforts to accommodate and achieve the desired land use pattern.
Joint planning facilitates the transition of governance of the Urban Growth Area from the
county to cities, consistent with the Growth Management Act.
Urban form and development within the Urban Growth Area are important settings to provide
people with choices to engage in more physical activity, eat healthy food, and minimize
exposure to harmful environments and substances. In particular, the quality and safety of
walking and biking routes children use to reach school is known to affect their health.
Goal Statement: The Urban Growth Area accommodates growth consistent with the Regional
Growth Strategy and growth targets through land use patterns and practices that create
vibrant, healthy, and sustainable communities.
Urban Lands
DP -2 Promote a pattern of compact development within the Urban Growth Area that includes
housing at a range of urban densities, commercial and industrial development, and other urban
facilities, including medical, governmental, institutional, and educational uses and parks and
open space. The Urban Growth Area will include a mix of uses that are convenient to and
support public transportation in order to reduce reliance on single occupancy vehicle travel for
most daily activities.
DP -3 Efficiently develop and use residential, commercial, and manufacturing land in the Urban cn
Growth Area to create healthy and vibrant urban communities with a full range of urban
services, and to protect the Tong -term viability of the Rural Area and Resource Lands. Promote 44
the efficient use of land within the Urban Growth Area by using methods such as: d
• Directing concentrations of housing and employment growth to designated centers; H
• Encouraging compact development with a mix of compatible residential, Z
commercial, and community activities;
• Maximizing the use of the existing capacity for housing and employment; and
• Coordinating plans for land use, transportation, capital facilities and services. W
w
DP-4 Concentrate housing and employment growth within the designated Urban Growth Area. A
Focus housing growth within countywide designated Urban Centers and locally designated local
centers. Focus employment growth within countywide designated Urban and
ct
Manufacturing /Industrial Centers and within locally designated local centers. U
1
7
41
2012 King County Countywide Planning Policies
November 2012
Amended December 3, 2012
DP -5 Decrease greenhouse gas emissions through land use strategies that promote a mix of
housing, employment, and services at densities sufficient to promote walking, bicycling, transit,
and other alternatives to auto travel.
DP -6 Plan for development patterns that promote public health by providing all residents with
opportunities for safe and convenient daily physical activity, social connectivity, and protection
from exposure to harmful substances and environments.
DP -7 Plan for development patterns that promote safe and healthy routes to and from public
schools.
DP-8 Increase access to healthy food in communities throughout the Urban Growth Area by
encouraging the location of healthy food purveyors, such as grocery stores and farmers
markets, and community food gardens in proximity to residential uses and transit facilities.
DP -9 Designate Urban Separators as permanent low- density incorporated and unincorporated
areas within the Urban Growth Area. Urban Separators are intended to protect Resource Lands,
the Rural Area, and environmentally sensitive areas, and create open space and wildlife
corridors within and between communities while also providing public health, environmental,
visual, and recreational benefits. Changes to Urban Separators are made pursuant to the
Countywide Planning Policies amendment process described in policy G -1. Designated Urban
Separators within cities and unincorporated areas are shown in the Urban Separators Map in
Appendix 3.
DP 10 Discourage incompatible land uses from locating adjacent to general aviation airports
throughout the county.
Growth Targets z
DP -11 GMPC shall allocate residential and employment growth to each city and 4
unincorporated urban area in the county. This allocation is predicated on: Q
• Accommodating the most recent 20 -year population projection from the state Office a
of Financial Management and the most recent 20 -year regional employment Z
forecast from the Puget Sound Regional Council;
• Planning for a pattern of growth that is consistent with the Regional Growth a
Strategy including focused growth within cities with countywide designated centers w
and within other larger cities, limited development in the Rural Area, and protection w
of designated Resource Lands; A
• Efficiently using existing zoned and future planned development capacity as well as
the capacity of existing and planned infrastructure, including sewer and water
systems; v
1
8
42
2012 King County Countywide Planning Policies
November 2012
Amended December 3, 2012
• Promoting a land use pattern that can be served by a connected network of public
transportation services and facilities and pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure and
amenities;
• Improving the jobs /housing balance within the region and the county;
• Promoting sufficient opportunities for housing and employment development
throughout the Urban Growth Area;
• Allocating growth to individual Potential Annexation Areas within the urban
unincorporated area proportionate to its share of unincorporated capacity for
housing and employment growth.
DP -12 GMPC shall:
• Update housing and employment targets periodically to provide jurisdictions with
up -to -date growth allocations to be incorporated in state - mandated comprehensive
plan updates;
• Adopt housing and employment growth targets in the Countywide Planning Policies
pursuant to the procedure described in policy G -1; and
• Adjust targets administratively upon annexation of unincorporated Potential
Annexation Areas by cities. Growth targets for the 2006 -2031 planning period are
shown in table DP -1.
DP -13 All jurisdictions shall plan to accommodate housing and employment targets. This
includes:
• Adopting comprehensive plans and zoning regulations that provide capacity for
residential, commercial, and industrial uses that is sufficient to meet 20 -year growth
needs and is consistent with the desired growth pattern described in VISION 2040;
• Coordinating water, sewer, transportation and other infrastructure plans and
investments among agencies, including special purpose districts; and z�z
• Transferring and accommodating unincorporated area housing and employment
targets as annexations occur.
E4
z
O
WW
1
9
43
2012 King County Countywide Planning Policies
November 2012
Amended December 3, 2012
Urban Growth Area Total
233,077
44
428,068
2
0
Table
DP -1: King County Illrikd
rtinn Grn
h Targets 7006 -7(131
Nelew
Ho•.sing
Units 2006 -2031
Eptautjal Anrwxatior Area
Net N[w
Eroployroent
Jobs 2006 -2031
Potential ennevation erect
Targot Hrn icing Target Target Fmpmrgpt
Metros
olitap Cities
_
740
aouo „•o
u,nnn
c�nnn
Soattle RR nnn 14(:700
Metropolitan
..11
6
w
d
citiac Suhtntal
103,000-_
810
2,390
90
640
3,895
1- gq,7no
200
290
210
470
4Mihtirn
q,A7n
1c),150
0nn
4,440_
_9,220
R,570
4,8110
_Bothell
Buriert
Federal Way
_4,960_
17.,00-
___8,100
11,780
-Kent
- Kirkland
20,850
10,200
14,R 5-
71,000
-.Redmond
_Renton
2n,n00
caaTar
S,Rnn
7S1nn
Ti nkwila 4 Ann Sn 1 r Snn 7,1Sn
Core Cities
11
LJ
w
3
Subtotal
28,638-
1,100
290
1,06o
350
168,340
Des Mninps
-
5,000
5,250
_3,500_
.1•800
7,0(11
4,000
S,nnn
70,000
-assaquab
Kammnrp
•knnn
Maplo Valley
',non
Mor pr Island
1,100
Sammamisb
1,00
Shnrolino
S•nnn
Wnnrlinvillo Snnn S,nnn
Larger
r.
R
of -
28,050
•1
90
135
: c'
1
..
3-
.'. •• ...
'Iona
_330-
•
1,150
Carnation
370
•
.- .
• ' • _, • •
_1,470
,140__
- 1,425
1_
475.
1,320-
•
-
840
• •• -•
735
, ,
•
...
-0-
14 . •
50
0l
120_
665 -
160
Normandy Park
65-
• • .. . •
1,050
. '
-
370_ .. -
0
• • .. •
_10
1,A1 S
Snnr)nalmla
1)1Sn
Varrnw Pnint 14 n
Small
o.
o
sties- Su6tota1
-10, 922..---
10,090
87(1
910
_---- _.____ _...__.. _ _._...._...------- ._..._
- - -
Potential Annexation Areas
- _8,168
3, 220
2, 170 -
3,580
- -- -- ---.1
_North Highlinp
Bear Creek UPD
Unclaimed Urban Uninc. 650 90
I lrhan Inrnrnnratarl Suhtntal 17 470 4 nnn
Urban Growth Area Total
233,077
44
428,068
2
0
2012 King County Countywide Planning Policies
November 2012
Amended December 3, 2012
Amendments to the Urban Growth Area
The following policies guide the decision - making process by both the GMPC and King County
regarding proposals to expand the Urban Growth Area.
DP -14 Review the Urban Growth Area at least every ten years. In this review consider
monitoring reports and other available data. As a result of this review, and based on the criteria
established in policies DP -15 and DP -16, King County may propose and then the Growth
Management Planning Council may recommend amendments to the Countywide Planning
Policies and King County Comprehensive Plan that make changes to the Urban Growth Area
boundary.
DP -15 AIIow amendment of the Urban Growth Area only when the following steps have been
satisfied:
a) The proposed expansion is under review by the County as part of an amendment
process of the King County Comprehensive Plan;
b) King County submits the proposal to the Growth Management Planning Council for
the purposes of review and recommendation to the King County Council on the
proposed amendment to the Urban Growth Area;
c) The King County Council approves or denies the proposed amendment; and
d) If approved by the King County Council, the proposed amendment is ratified by the
cities following the procedures set forth in policy G -1.
DP -16 Allow expansion of the Urban Growth Area only if at least one of the following criteria
is met:
a) A countywide analysis determines that the current Urban Growth Area is insufficient
in size and additional land is needed to accommodate the housing and employment
growth targets, including institutional and other non - residential uses, and there are
no other reasonable measures, such as increasing density or rezoning existing urban
land, that would avoid the need to expand the Urban Growth Area; or
b) A proposed expansion of the Urban Growth Area is accompanied by dedication of d
permanent open space to the King County Open Space System, where the acreage of a
the proposed open space z
1) is at least four times the acreage of the land added to the Urban Growth Area;
2) is contiguous with the Urban Growth Area with at least a portion of the a0
dedicated open space surrounding the proposed Urban Growth Area WWa
expansion; and
3) Preserves high quality habitat, critical areas, or unique features that A
contribute to the band of permanent open space along the edge of the Urban
Growth Area; or
c) The area is currently a King County park being transferred to a city to be maintained "Lt
as a park in perpetuity or is park land that has been owned by a city since 1994 and
is Tess than thirty acres in size.
45
2
1
2012 King County Countywide Planning Policies
November 2012
Amended December 3, 2012
DP -17 If expansion of the Urban Growth Area is warranted based on the criteria in DP -16(a) or
DP- 16(b), add land to the Urban Growth Area only if it meets all of the following criteria:
a) Is adjacent to the existing Urban Growth Area and is no larger than necessary to
promote compact development that accommodates anticipated growth needs;
b) Can be efficiently provided with urban services and does not require supportive
facilities located in the Rural Area;
c) Follows topographical features that form natural boundaries, such as rivers and
ridge lines and does not extend beyond natural boundaries, such as watersheds, that
impede the provision of urban services;
d) Is not currently designated as Resource Land;
e) Is sufficiently free of environmental constraints to be able to support urban
development without significant adverse environmental impacts, unless the area is
designated as an Urban Separator by interlocal agreement between King County and
the annexing city; and
f) Is subject to an agreement between King County and the city or town adjacent to
the area that the area will be added to the city's Potential Annexation Area. Upon
ratification of the amendment, the Countywide Planning Policies will reflect both the
Urban Growth Area change and Potential Annexation Area change.
DP -18 Allow redesignation of Urban land currently within the Urban Growth Area to Rural land
outside of the Urban Growth Area if the land is not needed to accommodate projected urban
growth, is not served by public sewers, is contiguous with the Rural Area, and:
a) Is not characterized by urban development;
b) Is currently developed with a low density lot pattern that cannot be realistically
redeveloped at an urban density; or
c) Is characterized by environmentally sensitive areas making it inappropriate for
higher density development.
Review and Evaluation Program
The following policies guide the decision - buildable lands program conducted by the GMPC and a
King County. z
DP -19 Conduct a buildable lands program that meets or exceeds the review and evaluation
requirements of the Growth Management Act. The purposes of the buildable lands program
are:
• To collect and analyze data on development activity, land supply, and capacity for
residential, commercial, and industrial land uses;
• To evaluate the consistency of actual development densities with current sa
comprehensive plans; and
• To evaluate the sufficiency of land capacity to accommodate growth for the
remainder of the planning period.
46
2
2012 King County Countywide Planning Policies
November 2012
Amended December 3, 2012
DP -20 If necessary based on the findings of a periodic buildable lands evaluation report, adopt
reasonable measures, other than expansion of the Urban Growth Area, to increase land
capacity for housing and employment growth within the Urban Growth Area by making more
efficient use of urban land consistent with current plans and targets.
Joint Planning and Annexation
DP -21 Coordinate the preparation of comprehensive plans among adjacent and other affected
jurisdictions as a means to avoid or mitigate the potential cross - border impacts of urban
development.
DP -22 Designate Potential Annexation Areas in city comprehensive plans and adopt them in
the Countywide Planning Policies. Ensure that Potential Annexation Areas do not overlap or
leave unincorporated urban islands between cities.
DP -23 Facilitate the annexation of unincorporated areas within the Urban Growth Area that
are already urbanized and are within a city's Potential Annexation Area in order to provide
urban services to those areas. Annexation is preferred over incorporation.
DP -24 Allow cities to annex territory only within their designated Potential Annexation Area as
shown in the Potential Annexation Areas Map in Appendix 2. Phase annexations to coincide
with the ability of cities to coordinate the provision of a full range of urban services to areas to
be annexed.
DP -25 Within the North Highline unincorporated area, where Potential Annexation Areas
overlapped prior to January 1, 2009, strive to establish alternative non - overlapping Potential
Annexation Area boundaries through a process of negotiation. Absent a negotiated resolution,
a city may file a Notice of Intent to Annex with the Boundary Review Board for King County for
territory within its designated portion of a Potential Annexation Area overlap as shown in the
Potential Annexation Areas Map in Appendix 2 and detailed in the city's comprehensive plan
after the following steps have been taken:
a) The city proposing annexation has, at least 30 days prior to filing a Notice of Intent
to annex with the Boundary Review Board, contacted in writing the cities with the
PAA overlap and the county to provide notification of the city's intent to annex and
to request a meeting or formal mediation to discuss boundary alternatives, and;
b) The cities with the Potential Annexation Area overlap and the county have either:
i) Agreed to meet but failed to develop a negotiated settlement to the overlap
within 60 days of receipt of the notice, or
ii) Declined to meet or failed to respond in writing within 30 days of receipt of the
notice.
47
Chapter: DEVELOPMENT PATTERNS
2
3
2012 King County Countywide Planning Policies
November 2012
Amended December 3, 2012
DP -26 Develop agreements between King County and cities with Potential Annexation Areas to
apply city - compatible development standards that will guide land development prior to
annexation.
DP -27 Evaluate proposals to annex or incorporate unincorporated land based on the following
criteria:
a) Conformance with Countywide Planning Policies including the Urban Growth Area
boundary;
b) The ability of the annexing or incorporating jurisdiction to provide urban services at
standards equal to or better than the current service providers; and
c) Annexation or incorporation in a manner that will avoid creating unincorporated
islands of development.
DP -28 Resolve the issue of unincorporated road islands within or between cities. Roadways
and shared streets within or between cities, but still under King County jurisdiction, should be
annexed by adjacent cities.
Centers
A centers strategy is the linchpin for King County to achieve the Regional Growth Strategy as
well as a range of other objectives, particularly providing a land use framework for an efficient
and effective regional transit system. Countywide designation of Urban Centers and local
designation of local centers provide for locations of mixed -use zoning, infrastructure, and
concentrations of services and amenities to accommodate both housing and employment
growth. Manufacturing /Industrial Centers preserve lands for family -wage jobs in basic
industries and trade and provide areas where that employment may grow in the future.
Goal Statement: King County grows in a manner that reinforces and expands upon a system of
existing and planned central places within which concentrated residential communities and
economic activities can flourish.
Urban Centers
DP -29 Concentrate housing and employment growth within designated Urban Centers.
DP -30 Designate Urban Centers in the Countywide Planning Policies where city- nominated
locations meet the criteria in policies DP -31 and DP -32 and where the city's commitments will
help ensure the success of the center. Urban Centers will be limited in number and located on
existing or planned high capacity transit corridors to provide a framework for targeted private
and public investments that support regional land use and transportation goals. The Land Use
Map in Appendix 1 shows the locations of the designated Urban Centers.
48
Chapter: DEVELOPMENT PATTERNS
2012 King County Countywide Planning Policies
November 2012
Amended December 3, 2012
DP -31 Allow designation of new Urban Centers where the proposed Center:
a) Encompasses an area up to one and a half square miles; and
b) Has adopted zoning regulations and infrastructure plans that are adequate to
accommodate:
i) A minimum of 15,000 jobs within one -half mile of an existing or planned
high- capacity transit station;
ii) At a minimum, an average of 50 employees per gross acre within the Urban
Center; and
iii) At a minimum, an average of 15 housing units per gross acre within the
Urban Center.
DP -32 Adopt a map and housing and employment growth targets in city comprehensive plans
for each Urban Center, and adopt policies to promote and maintain quality of life in the Center
through:
• A broad mix of land uses that foster both daytime and nighttime activities and
opportunities for social interaction;
• A range of affordable and healthy housing choices;
• Historic preservation and adaptive reuse of historic places;
• Parks and public open spaces that are accessible and beneficial to all residents in the
Urban Center;
• Strategies to increase tree canopy within the Urban Center and incorporate low -
impact development measures to minimize stormwater runoff;
• Facilities to meet human service needs;
• Superior urban design which reflects the local community vision for compact urban
development;
• Pedestrian and bicycle mobility, transit use, and linkages between these modes;
• Planning for complete streets to provide safe and inviting access to multiple travel
modes, especially bicycle and pedestrian travel; and
• Parking management and other strategies that minimize trips made by single -
occupant vehicle, especially during peak commute periods.
DP -33 Form the land use foundation for a regional high- capacity transit system through the
designation of a system of Urban Centers. Urban Centers should receive high priority for the
location of transit service.
Manufacturing/ Industrial Centers
DP -34 Concentrate manufacturing and industrial employment within countywide designated
Manufacturing/ Industrial Centers. The Land Use Map in Appendix 1 shows the locations of the
designated Manufacturing/Industrial Centers.
49
Chapter: DEVELOPMENT PATTERNS
2012 King County Countywide Planning Policies
November 2012
Amended December 3, 2012
DP -35 Adopt in city comprehensive plans a map and employment growth targets for each
Manufacturing/ Industrial Center and adopt policies and regulations for the Center to:
• Provide zoning and infrastructure adequate to accommodate a minimum of 10,000
jobs;
• Preserve and enhance sites that are appropriate for manufacturing or other
industrial uses;
• Strictly limit residential uses and discourage land uses that are not compatible with
manufacturing and industrial uses, such as by imposing low maximum size limits on
offices and retail uses that are not accessory to an industrial use;
• Facilitate the mobility of employees by transit and the movement of goods by truck,
rail, air or waterway, as appropriate;
• Provide for capital facility improvement projects which support the movement of
goods and manufacturing/industrial operations;
• Ensure that utilities are available to serve the center;
• Avoid conflicts with adjacent land uses to ensure the continued viability of the land
in the Manufacturing/ Industrial Center for manufacturing and industrial activities;
and
• Attract and retain the types of businesses that will ensure economic growth and
stability.
DP -36 Minimize or mitigate potential health impacts of the activities in Manufacturing/
Industrial Centers on residential communities, schools, open space, and other public facilities.
DP -37 Designate additional Manufacturing/ Industrial Centers in the Countywide Planning
Policies pursuant to the procedures described in policy G -1 based on nominations from cities
and after determining that:
a) the nominated locations meet the criteria set forth in policy DP -35 and the criteria
established by the Puget Sound Regional Council for Regional Manufacturing/
Industrial Centers;
b) the proposed center's location will promote a countywide system of Manufacturing/ w
Industrial Centers with the total number of centers representing a realistic growth Q
strategy for the county; and
E4
c) the city's commitments will help ensure the success of the center.
O
Local Centers 'wa
DP -38 Identify in comprehensive plans local centers, such as city or neighborhood centers,
transit station areas, or other activity nodes, where housing, employment, and services are
accommodated in a compact form and at sufficient densities to support transit service and to
make efficient use of urban land.
50
2012 King County Countywide Planning Policies
November 2012
Amended December 3, 2012
Urban Design and Historic Preservation
The countywide vision includes elements of urban design and form intended to integrate urban
development into existing built and natural environments in ways that enhance both the urban
and natural settings. These elements include high quality design, context sensitive infill and
redevelopment, historic preservation, and the interdependence of urban and rural and
agricultural lands and uses.
Goal statement: The built environment in both urban and rural settings achieves a high degree
of high quality design that recognizes and enhances, where appropriate, existing natural and
urban settings.
DP -39 Develop neighborhood planning and design processes that encourage infill
development, redevelopment, and reuse of existing buildings and that, where appropriate
based on local plans, enhance the existing community character and mix of uses.
DP-40 Promote a high quality of design and site planning in publicly- funded and private
development throughout the Urban Growth Area.
DP -41 Preserve significant historic, archeological, cultural, architectural, artistic, and
environmental features, especially where growth could place these resources at risk. Where
appropriate, designate individual features or areas for protection or restoration. Encourage
land use patterns and adopt regulations that protect historic resources and sustain historic
community character.
DP-42 Design new development to create and protect systems of green infrastructure, such as
urban forests, parks, green roofs, and natural drainage systems, in order to reduce climate -
altering pollution and increase resilience of communities to climate change impacts.
DP-43 Design communities, neighborhoods, and individual developments using techniques that
reduce heat absorption, particularly in Urban Centers.
DP-44 Adopt design standards or guidelines that foster infill development that is compatible H
with the existing or desired urban character. w
a,
0
The Rural Area and Resource Lands encompass all areas outside of the Urban Growth Area and
include Vashon Island in Puget Sound and the area just east of the Urban Growth Area all the ki
way to the crest of the Cascade Mountains. The Rural Area is characterized by low density
development with a focus on activities that are dependent on the land such as small scale
farming and forestry. The Rural Area also provides important environmental and habitat
Rural Area and Resource Lands
51
2012 King County Countywide Planning Policies
November 2012
Amended December 3, 2012
functions and is critical for salmon recovery. The location of the Rural Area, between the Urban
Growth Area and designated Resource Lands, helps to protect commercial agriculture and
timber from incompatible uses. The Rural Area, outside of the Rural Cities, is to remain in
unincorporated King County and is to be provided with a rural level of service.
Rural Area
Goal Statement: The Rural Area provides a variety of landscapes, maintains diverse low density
communities, and supports rural economic activities based on sustainable stewardship of the
land.
DP-45 Limit growth in the Rural Area to prevent sprawl and the overburdening of rural
services, reduce the need for new rural infrastructure, maintain rural character, and protect the
natural environment.
DP -46 Limit residential development in the Rural Area to housing at low densities that are
compatible with rural character and comply with the following density guidelines:
a) One home per 20 acres where a pattern of large lots exists and to buffer Forest
Protection Districts and Agricultural Districts;
b) One home per 10 acres where the predominant lot size is less than 20 acres; or
c) One home per five acres where the predominant lot size is less than 10 acres.
d) Allow limited clustering within development sites to avoid development on
environmentally critical lands or on productive forest or agricultural lands, but not to
exceed the density guidelines cited in (a) through (c).
DP-47 Limit the extension of urban infrastructure improvements through the Rural Area to
only cases where it is necessary to serve the Urban Growth Area and where there are no other
feasible alignments. Such limited extensions may be considered only if land use controls are in
place to restrict uses appropriate for the Rural Area and only if access management controls are
in place to prohibit tie -ins to the extended facilities.
DP-48 Establish rural development standards to protect the natural environment by using
seasonal and maximum clearing limits for vegetation, limits on the amount of impervious z
surface, surface water management standards that preserve natural drainage systems, water
quality and groundwater recharge, and best management practices for resource -based
activities. Wa
DP-49 Prevent or, if necessary, mitigate negative impacts of urban development to the
adjacent Rural Area. a
DP -50 Except as provided in Appendix 5 (March 31, 2012 School Siting Task Force Report), limit
new nonresidential uses located in the Rural Area to those that are demonstrated to serve the
52
2012 King County Countywide Planning Policies
November 2012
Amended December 3, 2012
Rural Area, unless the use is dependent upon a rural location. Such uses shall be of a size, scale,
and nature that is consistent with rural character.
DP -51 Allow cities that own property in the Rural Area to enter into interlocal agreements with
King County to allow the cities to provide services to the properties they own as long as the
cities agree to not annex the property or serve it with sewers or any infrastructure at an urban
level of service. The use of the property must be consistent with the rural land use policies in
the Countywide Planning Policies and the King County Comprehensive Plan.
Resource Lands
The Resource Lands are designated areas with long term commercial significance for
agriculture, forestry, and mining, and are depicted in the Land Use Map in Appendix 1 as Forest
Product Districts, Agricultural Production Districts, and Mineral Resource Lands. The use and
designation of these lands are to be permanent, in accordance with the Growth Management
Act. King County has maintained this base of agriculture and forest lands despite the rapid
growth of the previous decades. The Resource Lands are to remain in unincorporated King
County but their benefit and significance is felt throughout the county into the cities. Within
cities, farmers markets are becoming important and sought after neighborhood amenities.
The forests of the Pacific Northwest are some of the most productive in the world and King
County has retained two - thirds of the county in forest cover. Large scale forestry is a
traditional land use in the eastern half of King County and remains a significant contributor to
the rural economy. In addition, forests provide exceptional recreational opportunities,
including downhill and cross - country skiing, mountain biking, hiking, and backpacking.
Goal Statement: Resource Lands are valuable assets of King County and are renowned for their
productivity and sustainable management.
DP -52 Promote and support forestry, agriculture, mining and other resource -based industries
outside of the Urban Growth Area as part of a diverse and sustainable regional economy.
DP -53 Conserve commercial agricultural and forestry resource lands primarily for their long- z
term productive resource value and for the open space, scenic views, wildlife habitat, and
critical area protection they provide. Limit the subdivision of land so that parcels remain large
enough for commercial resource production. Wa
DP -54 Encourage best practices in agriculture and forestry operations for long -term protection q
of the natural resources. c
a,
DP -55 Prohibit annexation of lands within designated Agricultural Production Districts or within ' j
Forest Production Districts by cities.
53
2012 King County Countywide Planning Policies
November 2012
Amended December 3, 2012
DP -56 Retain the Lower Green River Agricultural Production District as a regionally designated
resource that is to remain in unincorporated King County.
DP -57 Discourage incompatible land uses adjacent to designated Resource Lands to prevent
interference with their continued use for the production of agricultural, mining, or forest
products.
DP -58 Support local production and processing of food to reduce the need for long distance
transport and to increase the reliability and security of local food. Promote activities and
infrastructure, such as farmers markets, farm worker housing and agricultural processing
facilities, that benefit both cities and farms by improving access to locally grown agricultural
products.
DP -59 Support institutional procurement policies that encourage purchases of locally grown
food products.
DP -60 Ensure that extractive industries maintain environmental quality and minimize negative
impacts on adjacent lands.
DP -61 Use a range of tools, including land use designations, development regulations, level -of-
service standards, and transfer or purchase of development rights to preserve Rural and
Resource Lands and focus urban development within the Urban Growth Area.
DP -62 Use transfer of development rights to shift potential development from the Rural Area
and Resource Lands into the Urban Growth Area, especially cities. Implement transfer of
development rights within King County through a partnership between the county and cities
that is designed to:
• Identify rural and resource sending sites that satisfy countywide conservation goals
and are consistent with regionally coordinated transfer of development rights
efforts;
• Preserve rural and resource lands of compelling interest countywide and to
participating cities;
• Identify appropriate transfer of development rights receiving areas within cities;
• Identify incentives for city participation in regional transfer of development rights
(i.e. county -to -city transfer of development rights);
• Develop interlocal agreements that allow rural and resource land development
rights to be used in city receiving areas;
• Identify and secure opportunities to fund or finance infrastructure within city
transfer of development rights receiving areas; and.
• Be compatible with existing within -city transfer of development rights programs.
54
Chapter: DEVELOPMENT PATTERNS
2012 King County Countywide Planning Policies
November 2012
Amended December 3, 2012
HOUSING
The Countywide Planning Policies provide a framework for all jurisdictions to plan for and
promote a range of affordable, accessible, and healthy housing choices for current and future
residents. Within King County, there is an unmet need for housing that is affordable for
households earning less than 80 percent of area median income (AMI). Households within this
category include low -wage workers in services and other industries; persons on fixed incomes
including many disabled and elderly residents; and homeless individuals and families. A high
proportion of these households spend a greater percentage of their income on housing than is
typically considered appropriate. This is especially true for low and very low income
households earning 50 percent or less (low) and 30 percent or less (very-low) of area median
income. The county and all cities share in the responsibility to increase the supply of housing
that is affordable to these households.
While neither the county nor the cities can guarantee that a given number of units at a given
price level will exist, be preserved, or be produced during the planning period, establishing the
countywide need clarifies the scope of the effort for each jurisdiction. The type of policies and
strategies that are appropriate for a jurisdiction to consider will vary and will be based on its
analysis of housing. Some jurisdictions where the overall supply of affordable housing is
significantly Tess than their proportional share of the countywide need may need to undertake a
range of strategies addressing needs at multiple income levels, including strategies to create
new affordable housing. Other jurisdictions that currently have housing stock that is already
generally affordable may focus their efforts on preserving existing affordable housing through
efforts such as maintenance and repair, and ensuring Tong -term affordability. It may also be
appropriate to focus efforts on the needs of specific demographic segments of the population.
The policies below recognize the significant countywide need for affordable housing to focus on
the strategies that can be taken both individually and in collaboration to meet the countywide
need. These policies envision cities and the county following a four step process
1. Conduct an inventory and analysis of housing needs and conditions;
2. Implement policies and strategies to address unmet needs;
3. Measure results; and
4. Respond to measurement with reassessment and adjustment of strategies.
The provision of housing affordable to very -low income households, those earning Tess than
30% of AMI, is the most challenging problem and one faced by all communities in the county.
Housing for these very-low income households cannot be met solely through the private
market. Meeting this need will require interjurisdictional cooperation and support from public
agencies, including the cities and the county.
55
Chapter: HOUSING
2012 King County Countywide Planning Policies
November 2012
Amended December 3, 2012
Overarching Goal: The housing needs of all economic and demographic groups are met within
all jurisdictions.
H -1 Address the countywide need for housing affordable to households with moderate, low
and very -low incomes, including those with special needs. The countywide need for housing by
percentage of Area Median Income (AMI) is:
50 -80% of AMI (moderate) 16% of total housing supply
30 -50% of AMI (low) 12% of total housing supply
30% and below AMI (very-low) 12% of total housing supply
H -2 Address the need for housing affordable to households at Tess than 30% AMI (very low
income), recognizing that this is where the greatest need exists, and addressing this need will
require funding, policies and collaborative actions by all jurisdictions working individually and
collectively.
Housing Inventory and Needs Analysis
The Growth Management Act requires an inventory and analysis of existing and projected
housing needs as part of each jurisdiction's comprehensive plan housing element. Assessing
local housing needs provides jurisdictions with information about the local housing supply, the
cost of housing, and the demographic and income levels of the community's households. This
information on current and future housing conditions provides the basis for the development of
effective housing policies and programs. While some cities may find that they meet the current
need for housing for some populations groups, the inventory and needs analysis will help
identify those income levels and demographic segments of the population where there is the
greatest need. Further guidance on conducting a housing inventory and analysis is provided in
Appendix 4.
H -3 Conduct an inventory and analysis of existing and projected housing needs of all economic
and demographic segments of the population in each jurisdiction. The analysis and inventory
shall include:
a. Characteristics of the existing housing stock, including supply, affordability and
diversity of housing types;
b. Characteristics of populations, including projected growth and demographic change;
c. The housing needs of very -low, low, and moderate - income households; and
d. The housing needs of special needs populations.
C7
Strategies to Meet Housing Needs `n
VISION 2040 encourages local jurisdictions to adopt best housing practices and innovative p
techniques to advance the provision of affordable, healthy, sustainable, and safe housing for all
residents. Meeting the county's affordable housing needs will require actions by a wide range
of private for profit, non- profit and government entities, including substantial resources from
federal, state, and local levels. No single tool will be sufficient to meet the full range of needs in U
a given jurisdiction. The county and cities are encouraged to employ a range of housing tools to
56
2012 King County Countywide Planning Policies
November 2012
Amended December 3, 2012
ensure the countywide need is addressed and to respond to local conditions. Further detail on
the range of strategies for promoting housing supply and affordability is contained in Appendix
4.
Jobs- housing balance, addressed in H -9, is a concept that advocates an appropriate match
between the number of existing jobs and available housing supply within a geographic area.
Improving balance means adding more housing to job -rich areas and more jobs to housing -rich
areas.
H-4 Provide zoning capacity within each jurisdiction in the Urban Growth Area for a range of
housing types and densities, sufficient to accommodate each jurisdiction's overall housing
targets and, where applicable, housing growth targets in designated Urban Centers.
H -5 Adopt policies, strategies, actions and regulations at the local and countywide levels that
promote housing supply, affordability, and diversity, including those that address a significant
share of the countywide need for housing affordable to very -low, low, and moderate income
households. These strategies should address the following:
a. Overall supply and diversity of housing, including both rental and ownership;
b. Housing suitable for a range of household types and sizes;
c. Affordability to very-low, low, and moderate income households;
d. Housing suitable and affordable for households with special needs;
e. Universal design and sustainable development of housing; and
f. Housing supply, including affordable housing and special needs housing, within
Urban Centers and in other areas planned for concentrations of mixed land uses.
H -6 Preserve existing affordable housing units, where appropriate, including acquisition and
rehabilitation of housing for long -term affordability.
H -7 Identify barriers to housing affordability and implement strategies to overcome them.
H -8 Tailor housing policies and strategies to local needs, conditions and opportunities,
recognizing the unique strengths and challenges of different cities and sub - regions.
H -9 Plan for housing that is accessible to major employment centers and affordable to the
workforce in them so people of all incomes can live near or within reasonable commuting
distance of their places of work. Encourage housing production at a level that improves the
balance of housing to employment throughout the county.
H -10 Promote housing affordability in coordination with transit, bicycle, and pedestrian plans x
and investments and in proximity to transit hubs and corridors, such as through transit oriented
development and planning for mixed uses in transit station areas.
H -11 Encourage the maintenance of existing housing stock in order to ensure that the
condition and quality of the housing is safe and livable.
57
2012 King County Countywide Planning Policies
November 2012
Amended December 3, 2012
H -12 Plan for residential neighborhoods that protect and promote the health and well -being of
residents by supporting active living and healthy eating and by reducing exposure to harmful
environments.
H -13 Promote fair housing and plan for communities that include residents with a range of
abilities, ages, races, incomes, and other diverse characteristics of the population of the county.
Regional Cooperation
Housing affordability is important to regional economic vitality and sustainability. Housing
markets do not respect jurisdictional boundaries. For these reasons, multijurisdictional efforts
for planning and adopting strategies to meet regional housing needs are an additional tool for
identifying and meeting the housing needs of households with moderate, low, and very-low
incomes. Collaborative efforts, supported by the work of Puget Sound Regional Council and
other agencies, contribute to producing and preserving affordable housing and coordinating
equitable, sustainable development in the county and region. Where individual cities lack
sufficient resources, collective efforts to fund or provide technical assistance for affordable
housing development and preservation, and for the creation of strategies and programs, can
help to meet the housing needs identified in comprehensive plans. Cities with similar housing
characteristics tend to be clustered geographically. Therefore, there are opportunities for
efficiencies and greater impact through interjurisdictional cooperation. Such efforts are
encouraged and can be a way to meet a jurisdiction's share of the countywide affordable
housing need.
H -14 Work cooperatively among jurisdictions to provide mutual support in meeting countywide
housing growth targets and affordable housing needs.
H -15 Collaborate in developing sub - regional and countywide housing resources and programs,
including funding, to provide affordable housing for very-low, low -, and moderate - income
households.
H -16 Work cooperatively with the Puget Sound Regional Council and other agencies to identify
ways to expand technical assistance to local jurisdictions in developing, implementing and
monitoring the success of strategies that promote affordable housing that meets changing
demographic needs. Collaborate in developing and implementing a housing strategy for the
four - county central Puget Sound region. 9
Measuring Results
Maintaining timely and relevant data on housing markets and residential development allows x
the county and cities to evaluate the effectiveness of their housing strategies and to make
appropriate changes to those strategies when and where needed. In assessing efforts to meet
their share of the countywide need for affordable housing, jurisdictions need to consider public U
actions taken to encourage development and preservation of housing affordable to households
with very low -, low- and moderate - incomes, such as local funding, development code changes, 3
4
58
2012 King County Countywide Planning Policies
November 2012
Amended December 3, 2012
and creation of new programs, as well as market and other factors that are beyond local
government control. Further detail on monitoring procedures is contained in Appendix 4.
H -17 Monitor housing supply, affordability, and diversity, including progress toward meeting a
significant share of the countywide need for affordable housing for very-low, low, and
moderate income households. Monitoring should encompass:
a. Number and type of new housing units;
b. Number of units lost to demolition, redevelopment, or conversion to non - residential
use;
c. Number of new units that are affordable to very -low, low -, and moderate - income
households;
d. Number of affordable units newly preserved and units acquired and rehabilitated
with a regulatory agreement for long -term affordability for very-low, low -, and
moderate - income households;
e. Housing market trends including affordability of overall housing stock;
f. Changes in zoned capacity for housing, including housing densities and types;
g. The number and nature of fair housing complaints and violations; and
h. Housing development and market trends in Urban Centers.
H -18 Review and amend, a minimum every five years, the countywide and local housing
policies and strategies, especially where monitoring indicates that adopted strategies are not
resulting in adequate affordable housing to meet the jurisdiction's share of the countywide
need.
Chapter: HOUSING
59
2012 King County Countywide Planning Policies
November 2012
Amended December 3, 2012
ECONOMY
Overarching Goal: People throughout King County have opportunities to prosper and enjoy a
high quality of life through economic growth and job creation.
The Countywide Planning Policies in the Economy Chapter support the economic growth and
sustainability of King County's economy. A strong and healthy economy results in business
development, job creation, and investment in our communities. The Economy Chapter reflects
and supports the Regional Economic Strategy and VISION 2040's economic policies, which
emphasize the economic value of business, people, and place.
The Regional Economic Strategy is the region's comprehensive economic development strategy
and serves as the VISION 2040 economic functional plan. VISION 2040 integrates the Regional
Economic Strategy with growth management, transportation, and environmental objectives to:
• support critical economic foundations, such as education, infrastructure, technology,
and quality of life; and
• promote the region's specific industry clusters: aerospace, clean technology,
information technology, life sciences, logistics and international trade, military, and
tourism.
Each local community will have an individual focus on economic development, while the
region's prosperity will benefit from coordination between local plans and the regional vision
that take into account the county's and the region's overall plan for growth.
EC -1 Coordinate local and countywide economic policies and strategies with VISION 2040 and
the Regional Economic Strategy.
EC -2 Support economic growth that accommodates employment growth targets (see table DP-
1) through local land use plans, infrastructure development, and implementation of economic
development strategies.
EC -3 Identify and support industry clusters and subclusters within King County that are
components of the Regional Economic Strategy or that may otherwise emerge as having
significance to King County's economy.
EC-4 Evaluate the performance of economic development policies and strategies in business
development and job creation. Identify and track key economic metrics to help jurisdictions
and the county as a whole evaluate the effectiveness of local and regional economic strategies.
60
Chapter: ECONOMY
3
6
2012 King County Countywide Planning Policies
November 2012
Amended December 3, 2012
Business Development
Business creation, retention, expansion, and recruitment are the foundations of a strong
economy. The success of the economy in the county depends on opportunities for business
growth. Our communities play a significant role through local government actions, such as by
making regulations more predictable, by engaging in public - private partnerships, and by
nurturing a business - supportive culture.
These policies also seek to integrate the concept of healthy communities as part of the county's
economic objectives, by calling for support of the regional food economy, including production,
processing, wholesaling and distribution of the region's agricultural food and food products.
EC -5 Help businesses thrive through:
• Transparency, efficiency, and predictability of local regulations and policies;
• Communication and partnerships between businesses, government, schools, and
research institutions; and
• Government contracts with local businesses.
EC -6 Foster the retention and development of those businesses and industries that export their
goods and services outside the region.
EC -7 Promote an economic climate that is supportive of business formation, expansion, and
retention and emphasizes the importance of small businesses in creating jobs.
EC -8 Foster a broad range of public - private partnerships to implement economic development
policies, programs and projects.
EC -9 Identify and support the retention of key regional and local assets to the economy, such
as major educational facilities, research institutions, health care facilities, manufacturing
facilities, and port facilities.
EC -10 Support the regional food economy including the production, processing, wholesaling,
and distribution of the region's agricultural food and food products to all King County
communities. Emphasize increasing access to those communities with limited presence of
healthy food options.
61
Chapter: ECONOMY
3
7
People
People, through their training, knowledge, skills, and cultural background, add value to the
region's economy. Additionally, creating an economy that provides opportunities for all helps
alleviate problems of poverty and income disparity.
EC -11 Work with schools and other institutions to increase graduation rates and sustain a
highly- educated and skilled local workforce. This includes aligning job training and education
offerings that are consistent with the skill needs of the region's industry clusters. Identify
partnership and funding opportunities where appropriate.
EC -12 Celebrate the cultural diversity of local communities as a means to enhance the county's
global relationships.
EC -13 Address the historic disparity in income and employment opportunities for economically
disadvantaged populations, including minorities and women, by committing resources to
human services; community development; housing; economic development; and public
infrastructure.
Places
Economic activity in the county predominantly occurs within the Urban Growth Area, including
Urban Centers and Manufacturing/ Industrial Centers. Continuing to guide local investments to
these centers will help provide the support needed to sustain the economy and provide greater
predictability to businesses about where capital improvements will be located. In addition to
making productive use of urban land, economic activity adds to the culture and vitality of our
local communities. Businesses create active, attractive places to live and visit, and make
significant contributions to the arts. The Rural Area and Resource Lands are important for their
contribution to the regional food network, mining, timber and craft industries, while Rural
Cities are important for providing services to and being the economic centers for the
surrounding Rural Area.
EC -14 Foster economic and employment growth in designated Urban Centers and
Manufacturing/ Industrial Centers through local investments, planning, and financial policies.
EC -15 Make local investments to maintain and expand infrastructure and services that support
local and regional economic development strategies. Focus investment where it encourages
growth in designated centers and helps achieve employment targets.
62
2012 King County Countywide Planning Policies
November 2012
Amended December 3, 2012
EC -16 Add to the vibrancy and sustainability of our communities and the health and well -being
of all people through safe and convenient access to local services, neighborhood- oriented
retail, purveyors of healthy food (e.g. grocery stores and farmers markets), and transportation
choices.
EC -17 Promote the natural environment as a key economic asset. Work cooperatively with
local businesses to protect and restore the natural environment in a manner that is efficient
and predictable and minimizes impacts on businesses.
EC -18 Maintain an adequate supply of land within the Urban Growth Area to support economic
development. Inventory, plan for, and monitor the land supply and development capacity for,
manufacturing/ industrial, commercial and other employment uses that can accommodate the
amount and types of economic activity anticipated during the planning period.
EC -19 Support Manufacturing/ Industrial Centers by adopting industrial siting policies that limit
the loss of industrial lands, maintain the region's economic diversity, and support family -wage
jobs. Prohibit or strictly limit non - supporting or incompatible activities that can interfere with
the retention or operation of industrial businesses, especially in Manufacturing/ Industrial
Centers.
EC -20 Facilitate redevelopment of contaminated sites through local, county and state financing
and other strategies that assist with funding environmental remediation.
EC -21 Encourage economic activity within Rural Cities that does not create adverse impacts to
the surrounding Rural Area and Resource Lands and will not create the need to provide urban
services and facilities to those areas.
Chapter: ECONOMY
63
2012 King County Countywide Planning Policies
November 2012
Amended December 3, 2012
TRANSPORTATION
The Regional Growth Strategy identifies a network of walkable, compact, and transit- oriented
communities that are the focus of urban development, as well as industrial areas with major
employment concentrations. In the Countywide Planning Policies, these communities include
countywide designated Urban Centers and Manufacturing/ Industrial Centers, and locally
designated local centers. An essential component of the Regional Growth Strategy is an
efficient transportation system that provides multiple options for moving people and goods
into and among the various centers. Transportation system, in the context of this chapter, is
defined as a comprehensive, integrated network of travel modes (e.g. airplanes, automobiles,
bicycles, buses, feet, ferries, freighters, trains, trucks) and infrastructure (e.g. sidewalks, trails,
streets, arterials, highways, waterways, railways, airports) for the movement of people and
goods on a local, regional, national and global scale.
Goals and policies in this chapter build on the 1992 King County Countywide Planning Policies
and the Multicounty Planning Policies in VISION 2040. Policies are organized into three
sections:
• Supporting Growth — focusing on serving the region with a transportation system
that furthers the Regional Growth Strategy;
• Mobility — addressing the full range of travel modes necessary to move people and
goods efficiently within the region and beyond; and
• System Operations — encompassing the design, maintenance and operation of the
transportation system to provide for safety, efficiency, and sustainability.
Overarching Goal: The region is well served by an integrated, multi -modal transportation
system that supports the regional vision for growth, efficiently moves people and goods, and is
environmentally and functionally sustainable over the long term.
Supporting Growth
An effective transportation system is critical to achieving the Regional Growth Strategy and
ensuring that centers are functional and appealing to the residents and businesses they are
designed to attract. The policies in this section reinforce the critical relationship between
development patterns and transportation and they are intended to guide transportation
investments from all levels of government that effectively support local, county and regional
plans to accommodate growth. Policies in this section take a multi -modal approach to serving
growth, with additional emphasis on transit and non - motorized modes to support planned
development in centers.
64
Chapter: TRANSPORTATION
0
2012 King County Countywide Planning Policies
November 2012 .
Amended December 3, 2012
Goal Statement: Local and regional development of the transportation system is consistent with
and furthers realization of the Regional Growth Strategy.
T -1 Work cooperatively with the Puget Sound Regional Council, the state, and other relevant
agencies to finance and develop a multi -modal transportation system that enhances regional
mobility and reinforces the countywide vision for managing growth. Use VISION 2040 and
Transportation 2040 as the policy and funding framework for creating a system of Urban
Centers and Manufacturing/ Industrial Centers linked by high - capacity transit, bus transit and
an interconnected system of freeways and high- occupancy vehicle lanes.
T -2 Avoid construction of major roads and capacity expansion on existing roads in the Rural
Area and Resource Lands. Where increased roadway capacity is warranted to support safe and
efficient travel through the Rural Area, appropriate rural development regulations and effective
access management should be in place prior to authorizing such capacity expansion in order to
make more efficient use of existing roadway capacity and prevent unplanned growth in the
Rural Area.
T -3 Increase the share of trips made countywide by modes other than driving alone through
coordinated land use planning, public and private investment, and programs focused on centers
and connecting corridors, consistent with locally adopted mode split goals.
T-4 Develop station area plans for high capacity transit stations and transit hubs. Plans should
reflect the unique characteristics and local vision for each station area including transit
supportive land uses, transit rights -of -way, stations and related facilities, multi -modal linkages,
and place- making elements.
T -5 Support countywide growth management objectives by prioritizing transit service to areas
where existing housing and employment densities support transit ridership and to Urban
Centers and other areas planned for housing and employment densities that will support transit
ridership. Address the mobility needs of transit - dependent populations in allocating transit
service and provide at least a basic level of service throughout the Urban Growth Area.
T -6 Foster transit ridership by designing transit facilities and services as well as non - motorized O
infrastructure so that they are integrated with public spaces and private developments to d
create an inviting public realm.
0
T -7 Ensure state capital improvement policies and actions are consistent with the Regional
Growth Strategy and support VISION 2040 and the Countywide Planning Policies.
T -8 Prioritize regional and local funding to transportation investments that support adopted
growth targets.
U
4
1
65
2012 King County Countywide Planning Policies
November 2012
Amended December 3, 2012
Mobility
Mobility is necessary to sustain personal quality of life and the regional economy. For
individuals, mobility requires an effective transportation system that provides safe, reliable,
and affordable travel options for people of all ages, incomes and abilities. While the majority of
people continue to travel by personal automobile, there are growing segments of the
population (e.g. urban, elderly, teens, low income, minorities, and persons with disabilities) that
rely on other modes of travel such as walking, bicycling, and public transportation to access
employment, education and training, goods and services. According to the 2009 American
Community Survey, about 8.7 percent of all households in King County had no vehicle available.
For many minority populations, more than 20 percent had no vehicle available to them.
The movement of goods is also of vital importance to the local and regional economy.
International trade is a significant source of employment and economic activity in terms of
transporting freight, local consumption, and exporting of goods. The policies in this section are
intended to address use and integration of the multiple modes necessary to move people and
goods within and beyond the region. The importance of the roadway network, implicit in the
policies of this section, is addressed more specifically in the System Operations section of this
chapter.
Goal Statement: A well- integrated, multi -modal transportation system transports people and
goods effectively and efficiently to destinations within the region and beyond.
T -9 Promote the mobility of people and goods through a multi -modal transportation system
based on regional priorities consistent with VISION 2040 and local comprehensive plans.
T -10 Support effective management of existing air, marine and rail transportation capacity and
address future capacity needs in cooperation with responsible agencies, affected communities,
and users.
T -11 Develop and implement freight mobility strategies that strengthen King County's role as a
major regional freight distribution hub, an international trade gateway, and a manufacturing
area.
T -12 Address the needs of non - driving populations in the development and management of
local and regional transportation systems.
T -13 Site and design transit stations and transit hubs to promote connectivity and access for
pedestrian and bicycle patrons.
66
Chapter: TRANSPORTATION
4
2
2012 King County Countywide Planning Policies
November 2012
Amended December 3, 2012
System Operations
The design, management and operation of the transportation system are major factors that
influence the region's growth and mobility. Policies in this section stress the need to make
efficient use of the existing infrastructure, serve the broad needs of the users, address safety
and public health issues, and design facilities that are a good fit for the surroundings.
Implementation of the policies will require the use of a wide range of tools including, but not
limited to:
• technologies such as intelligent transportation systems and alternative fuels;
• demand management programs for parking, commute trip reduction and
congestion; and
• incentives, pricing systems and other strategies to encourage choices that increase
mobility while improving public health and environmental sustainability.
Goal Statement: The regional transportation system is well- designed and managed to protect
public investments, promote public health and safety, and achieve optimum efficiency.
T -14 Prioritize essential maintenance, preservation, and safety improvements of the existing
transportation system to protect mobility and avoid more costly replacement projects.
T -15 Design and operate transportation facilities in a manner that is compatible with and
integrated into the natural and built environments in which they are located. Incorporate
features such as natural drainage, native plantings, and local design themes that facilitate
integration and compatibility.
T -16 Protect the transportation system (e.g. roadway, rail, transit, air, and marine) against
major disruptions by developing prevention and recovery strategies and by coordinating
disaster response plans.
T -17 Promote the use of tolling and other pricing strategies to effectively manage the
transportation system, provide a stable and sustainable transportation funding source, and
improve mobility.
T -18 Develop a countywide monitoring system to determine how transportation investments
are performing over time consistent with Transportation 2040 recommendations.
T -19 Design roads and streets, including retrofit projects, to accommodate a range of
motorized and non - motorized travel modes in order to reduce injuries and fatalities and to
encourage non - motorized travel. The design should include well- defined, safe and appealing
spaces for pedestrians and bicyclists.
67
Chapter: TRANSPORTATION
2012 King County Countywide Planning Policies
November 2012
Amended December 3, 2012
T -20 Develop a transportation system that minimizes negative impacts to human health,
including exposure to environmental toxins generated by vehicle emissions.
T -21 Provide opportunities for an active, healthy lifestyle by integrating the needs of
pedestrians and bicyclists in the local and regional transportation plans and systems.
T -22 Plan and develop a countywide transportation system that reduces greenhouse gas
emissions by advancing strategies that shorten trip length or replace vehicle trips to decrease
vehicle miles traveled.
T -23 Apply technologies, programs and other strategies that optimize the use of existing
infrastructure in order to improve mobility, reduce congestion, increase energy - efficiency, and
reduce the need for new infrastructure.
T -24 Promote the expanded use of alternative fuel vehicles by the general public with
measures such as converting public and private fleets, applying incentive programs, and
providing for electric vehicle charging stations throughout the Urban Growth Area.
Chapter: TRANSPORTATION
68
2012 King County Countywide Planning Policies
November 2012
Amended December 3, 2012
PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES
Overarching Goal: County residents in both Urban and Rural Areas have access to the public
services needed in order to advance public health and safety, protect the environment, and
carry out the Regional Growth Strategy.
Urban and Rural Levels of Service
The Growth Management Act directs jurisdictions and special purpose districts to provide
public facilities and services to support development. The Growth Management Act
distinguishes between urban and rural services and states that land within the Urban Growth
Area should be provided with a full range of services necessary to sustain urban communities
while land within the Rural Area should receive services to support a rural lifestyle. Certain
services, such as sanitary sewers, are allowed only in the Urban Growth Area, except as
otherwise authorized. The Growth Management Act also requires jurisdictions to determine
which facilities are necessary to serve the desired growth pattern and how they will be
financed, in order to ensure timely provision of adequate services and facilities.
PF -1 Provide a full range of urban services in the Urban Growth Area to support the Regional
Growth Strategy and adopted growth targets and limit the availability of services in the Rural
Area consistent with VISION 2040.
Collaboration Among Jurisdictions
More than 100 special purpose districts, including water, sewer, flood control, stormwater, fire,
school and other districts, provide essential services to the residents of King County. While
cities are the primary providers of services in the Urban Growth Area, in many parts of the
county special purpose districts also provide essential services. Coordination and collaboration
among all of these districts, the cities, King County, the tribes, and neighboring counties is key
to providing efficient, high - quality and reliable services to support the Regional Growth
Strategy.
PF -2 Coordinate among jurisdictions and service providers to provide reliable and cost -
effective services to the public.
PF -3 Cities are the appropriate providers of services to the Urban Growth Area, either directly
or by contract. Extend urban services through the use of special districts only where there are
agreements with the city in whose Potential Annexation Area the extension is proposed. Within
the Urban Growth Area, as time and conditions warrant, cities will assume local urban services
provided by special service districts.
69
2012 King County Countywide Planning Policies
November 2012
Amended December 3, 2012
Utilities
Utilities include infrastructure and services that provide water supply, sewage treatment and
disposal, solid waste disposal, energy, and telecommunications. Providing these utilities in a
cost - effective way is essential to maintaining the health and safety of King County residents and
to implementing the Regional Growth Strategy.
Water Supply
Conservation and efficient use of water resources are vital to ensuring the reliability of the
region's water supply, the availability of sufficient water supplies for future generations, and
the environmental sustainability of the water supply system.
PF-4 Develop plans for long -term water provision to support growth and to address the
potential impacts of climate change on regional water resources.
PF -5 Support efforts to ensure that all consumers have access to a safe, reliably maintained,
and sustainable drinking water source that meets present and future needs.
PF -6 Coordinate water supply among local jurisdictions, tribal governments, and water
purveyors to provide reliable and cost - effective sources of water for all users, including
residents, businesses, fire districts, and aquatic species.
PF -7 Plan and locate water systems in the Rural Area that are appropriate for rural uses and
densities and do not increase the development potential of the Rural Area.
PF -8 Recognize and support agreements with water purveyors in adjacent cities and counties
to promote effective conveyance of water supplies and to secure adequate supplies for
emergencies.
PF -9 Implement water conservation and efficiency efforts to protect natural resources, reduce
environmental impacts, and support a sustainable Tong -term water supply to serve the growing
population.
PF -10 Encourage water reuse and reclamation, especially for high - volume non - potable water
users such as parks, schools, and golf courses.
70
Chapter: PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES
2012 King County Countywide Planning Policies
November 2012
Amended December 3, 2012
Sewage Treatment and Disposal
Within the Urban Growth Area, connection to sanitary sewers is necessary to support the
Regional Growth Strategy and to accommodate urban densities. Alternatives to the sanitary
sewer system and the typical septic system are becoming more cost effective and therefore,
more available. Alternative technology may be appropriate when it can perform as well or
better than sewers in the Urban Growth Area. Septic systems are not considered to be
alternative technology within the Urban Growth Area.
In the Rural Area and Resource Lands, which are characterized by low- density development,
sewer service is not typically provided. In cases where public health is threatened, sewers can
be provided in the Rural Area but only if connections are strictly limited. Alternative
technology may be necessary to substitute for septic systems in the Rural Area.
PF -11 Require all development in the Urban Growth Area to be served by a public sewer
system except:
a) single - family residences on existing individual Tots that have no feasible access to
sewers may utilize individual septic systems on an interim basis; or
b) development served by alternative technology other than septic systems that:
• provide equivalent performance to sewers;
• provide the capacity to achieve planned densities; and
• will not create a barrier to the extension of sewer service within the Urban
Growth Area.
PF -12 Prohibit sewer service in the Rural Area and on Resource Lands except: w
a) where needed to address specific health and safety problems threatening existing U
structures; or
b) as allowed by Countywide Planning Policy DP -47; or cn
c) as provided in Appendix 5 (March 31, 2012 School Siting Task Force Report).
Sewer service authorized consistent with this policy shall be provided in a manner that does not <
increase development potential in the Rural Area.
H
a
U
Solid Waste
U
King County and the entire Puget Sound region are recognized for successful efforts to collect apq
recyclable waste. Continuing to reduce and reuse waste will require concerted and coordinated a
efforts well into the future. It is important to reduce the waste stream going into area landfills
to extend the usable life of existing facilities and reduce the need for additional capacity.
PF -13 Reduce the solid waste stream and encourage reuse and recycling.
71
2012 King County Countywide Planning Policies
November 2012
Amended December 3, 2012
Energy
While King County consumers have access to electrical energy derived from hydropower, there
are challenges for securing long -term reliable energy and for becoming more energy efficient.
PF -14 Reduce the rate of energy consumption through efficiency and conservation as a means
to lower energy costs and mitigate environmental impacts associated with traditional energy
supplies.
PF -15 Promote the use of renewable and alternative energy resources to help meet the
county's long -term energy needs, reduce environmental impacts associated with traditional
energy supplies, and increase community sustainability.
Telecommunications
A telecommunications network throughout King County is essential to fostering broad
economic vitality and equitable access to information, goods and services, and opportunities
for social connection.
PF -16 Plan for the provision of telecommunication infrastructure to serve growth and
development in a manner consistent with the regional and countywide vision.
Human and Community Services
Public services beyond physical infrastructure are also necessary to sustain the health and
quality of life of all King County residents. In addition, these services play a role in
distinguishing urban communities from rural communities and supporting the Regional Growth
Strategy.
PF -17 Provide human and community services to meet the needs of current and future
residents in King County communities through coordinated planning, funding, and delivery of
services by the county, cities, and other agencies.
Locating Facilities and Services
VISION 2040 calls for a full range of urban services in the Urban Growth Area to support the
Regional Growth Strategy, and for limiting the availability of services in the rural area. In the
long term, there is increased efficiency and cost effectiveness in siting and operating facilities
and services that serve a primarily urban population within the Urban Growth Area. At the
72
Chapter: PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES
2012 King County Countywide Planning Policies
November 2012
Amended December 3, 2012
same time, those facilities and services that primarily benefit rural populations provide a
greater benefit when they are located within neighboring cities and rural towns.
PF -18 Locate new schools, institutions, and other community facilities and services that primarily
serve urban populations within the Urban Growth Area, where they are accessible to the
communities they serve, except as provided in Appendix 5 (March 31, 2012 School Siting Task
Force Report). Locate these facilities in places that are well served by transit and pedestrian and
bicycle networks.
PF -19 Locate new schools and institutions primarily serving rural residents in neighboring cities and
rural towns, except as provided in Appendix 5 (March 31, 2012 School Siting Task Force Report) and
locate new community facilities and services that primarily serve rural residents in neighboring
cities and rural towns, with the limited exceptions when their use is dependent upon rural location
and their size and scale supports rural character.
Siting Public Capital Facilities
While essential to growth and development, regional capital facilities can disproportionately
affect the communities in which they are located. It is important that all jurisdictions work
collaboratively and consider environmental justice principles when siting these facilities to
foster the development of healthy communities for all.
PF -20 Site or expand public capital facilities of regional or statewide importance within the
county in a way that equitably disperses impacts and benefits and supports the Countywide
Planning Policies.
73
Chapter: PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES
4
9
June 2012
Growth Management
Planning Council
Urban Growth Boundary
Urban Growth Area
Rural Area
, Urban Growth Area Boundary MO Forest Production Districts Incorporated City
• Rural Town Centers Agricultural Production Districts i Municipal Watersheds
@ Urban Centers - Open Space Tribal Lands
ewrtc KAI CANS/ Dro dMd.0.∎ a woraw M4Miw
• HiMUFw[Ni w.nv:m e+�winv
0 1 2 4 6
6
Miles
kg Mg County
Department of Development
and Ernnrormentel Sere s
A.It IMO;
wrnacrnccraccn ncT1arxa w• i,,
.>1wn•aacptccraee nw.c+ -srn ,n:
Chapter: APPENDIX 1: LAND USE MAP
o vl I
ZIGZ '£ iagtuaJaa papuawv
0 0
rte
0 0
O 0
n
0
c
a
r
b
tri0
0
0
0
0
O_
n'
ro
2012 King County Countywide Planning Policies
November 2012
Amended December 3, 2012
`....—......w..—..............."....--
rn
1
1 ,tem, Lake ont ' 8010
1
1114(4C1'
\10
amish
->=1.
Pui • '
umanAs***10.10kiyilwillogs ffri fitart,erdwoo
. duipromfulmatut ulun. - Armalmtion Ames
CONTESTED AREIS 11:3
C:1 N utranoomeAi••••..con
gm am. *ow Agria"ne Otialm aumemol.i Oftlosis.au
usillmareumus fordo.- ,"'""..r"'.
Alf YLIMPON 116. RIMMI • NW /1.4,
ATIltatett Aro.,
Ricotr.arstir c4I-Caumft
luepeatAgraeue,f,
75
Chapter: APPENDIX 1:
2012 King County Countywide Planning Policies
November 2012
Amended December 3, 2012
APPENDIX 3: URBAN SEPARATORS MAPS
I 'nu,'
rwr
exsr
kg King County _
Y
d
Urban Separators: North Overview - June 2012
^� Unen Growth Area 8Wr(bry
Ong Canty parka
Unman Separably In Awned Are
1ncmporeted Anne
- 6nanWNJrwn Werarer
- Joubor0anp0 Annecy Cenon
MI commune', &west Center
- Cammee:ul Wake a( Centers II
Pcnney 111r�1yy
n ustroal iA'01
MS Wrap
- NaphNgn000 0urinef Celan
Qlnw aarMNNOameaa
..` KIM County Open Spree System al
Rum/tr. (2 S-10 aurae)
Rural No 0044404 CanmaCIM CerRer
;tow Town
Ru41 Gay Vrwn Gwen Are8
UMW, Reenen0a1. PO1,120Wae)
Unen Resneneet M. (412 suroCl
Urban ReeAnt$ Low(l else)
UrOen abmee De.•Opmen
1 Inch a 1 miles
76
2012 King County Countywide Planning Policies
November 2012
Amended December 3, 2012
1 ,lrati,.1
1.a/xw �•
ladr
ti
1A.aayNnenr
I9 County
Depa ntas et DevelepeM
and shramentr a«apn
Urban Separators: South Overview - June 2012
•V Urban 3roM' Area Bondary al Commercial °tamale d Ceders
Nang County Parks i Forestry
® Ulban Separators al Annexed Areas Irdustnal
Incaporated Areas an hMap
• OroeneMlU. ben Separator • Naphborhood Burnes Coster
. Un- Caroaabed AcwM Center Ober varRaNWdemess
Apnoulture ° nap County Open Space System
- Community Burners Center Rurat Area (2.5-10 PAC)
AV Rural Ne.Q bahood Commercial Center
Rural Tern
Rural Cty Urban Drown, Area
• Urban ReadaNW. Mph iv12 Pal.)
UNen Rgaeme( Madam (4-12 dorm) sv
Uman Reader*. Low(1 dulact
- Urban Manned Devetopment
( inch = 0.75 miles
77
Chapter: Urban Separators: North Overview/
2012 King County Countywide Planning Policies
November 2012
Amended December 3, 2012
.1 NE 1501N ST
ql NE IpMST
r.� PL
NE NM LF
q NE lerrNn
'6 "MIT
' y. 1A"' NE NEI461NPl
3
NE 14Th PL
'4'47cr
1
1
t
WED SE
NE 14614 ST
NE 1 @100.
NE 131TN R
RE taT11ST 'MM. 7Y'�F
NE USED ST
s *OINK
tvM
3 ,p
e 2
he,
"trlrR,ar '"ft. KI rk arC7 'iNE INN PL
*1
Fnrt(y:Atpc AAO�x r Y+iA
b
NE N6TN Sr
PL
me
Woodinville
1
rA,
'QrtPt
.`�0TNST E
I
, NE13aTN K X
a U3R0 a. NE 0,10 1 ST - x
3/
2& NE 1371400, A
V NE 1315F 0. NE terse 0.
ea lSt sr ST NE 178M PL
IE **MST
NE ram", N612e4rPL
Ne 17am PL
NE 121111131.-
NE 12mm ET
°eM
La King County
raia intronteseral
Urban Separators: Kirkland/Willows- June 2012
.1,.P Urban Growth Area Boma* al Cottmwchl 2Narde *Carters 91
*NC.** Park: - ForesW III
za Urban Stromlo* et *snared Mess r Nouse* '
atostooreted Area SI LMp III
. GnanbsaU.bon &maraca, II Naaanbanead Busefosa Ganes
al Unmorbo seed netney Center Other Pada*hade sass
..: Awoke... '.`, Wog County Ooen Span System IIII
- Gen'RNnay 9wne*a Center Rotel Ants t2 5.10 aerie)
Rural Nphbdrttood Cmoraat Career
Rural To.
Rural Gay Urban Groot, Area
Vrban Reabenbal NO ( >12 dWaq
Winn ResEe'Nl Nad,urn (4124WOeJ
Urban Reradrtaai Low 11 duleq
Oben Ranted d Gevekpmwd
1 inch a 800 test
78
Chapter: Urban Separators: North Overview/
2012 King County Countywide Planning Policies
November 2012
Amended December 3, 2012
APPENDIX 4: HOUSING TECHNICAL APPENDIX
Affordable Housing Need
Each jurisdiction, as part of its Comprehensive Plan housing analysis, will need to address
affordability and condition of existing housing supply as well as its responsibility to
accommodate a significant share of the countywide need for affordable housing. In order for
each jurisdiction to address its share of the countywide housing need for very-low, low and
moderate income housing, a four step approach has been identified:
1. Conduct an inventory and analysis of housing needs and conditions;
2. Implement policies and strategies to address unmet needs;
3. Measure results; and
4. Respond to measurement with reassessment and adjustment of strategies.
The methodology for each jurisdiction to address countywide affordable housing need is
summarized as follows:
Countywide need for Housing by Percentage of Area Median Income (AMI)
1. Moderate Income Housing Need. Census Bureau estimates) indicate that approximately 16
percent of households in King County have incomes between 50 and 80 percent of area
median income; establishing the need for housing units affordable to these moderate
income households at 16 percent of each jurisdiction's total housing supply.
W
2. Low Income Housing Need. Census Bureau estimates) indicate that approximately 12
percent of households in King County have incomes between 30 and 50 percent of area
median income; establishing the need for housing units affordable to these low income
households at 12 percent of each jurisdiction's total housing supply.
U
3. Very-Low Income Housing Need. Census Bureau estimates) indicate that approximately 1$
percent of households in King County have incomes between 0 and 30 percent of area E-.
median income; establishing the need for housing units affordable to these very-low
income households at 12 percent of each jurisdiction's total housing supply. This is where
the greatest need exists, and should be a focus for all jurisdictions.
Housing Supply and Needs Analysis v
Context: As set forth in policy H -3, each jurisdiction must include in its comprehensive plan
an inventory of the existing housing stock and an analysis of both existing housing needs and 9
housing needed to accommodate projected population growth over the planning period. This
policy reinforces requirements of the Growth Management Act for local Housing Elements.
The h ousing supply and needs analysis is referred to in this appendix as the housing analysis.
As is noted in policy H -1, H -2, and H -3, the housing analysis must consider local as well as
countywide housing needs because each jurisdiction has a responsibility to address a
significant share of the countywide affordable housing need.
79
2012 King County Countywide Plan
November 2012
Amended December 3, 2012
g Policies
The purpose of this section of Appendix 4 is to provide further guidance to local jurisdictions on
the subjects to be addressed in their housing analysis. Additional guidance on carrying out the
housing analysis is found in the Puget Sound Regional Council's report, "Puget Sound Regional
Council Guide to Developing an Effective Housing Element," and the Washington Administrative
Code, particularly 365 - 196 -410 (2)(b) and (c). The state Department of Commerce also provides
useful information about housing requirements under the Growth Management Act.
Housing Supply
Understanding the mix and affordability of existing housing is the first step toward identifying
gaps in meeting future housing needs. Combined with the results of the needs analysis, these
data can provide direction on appropriate goals and policies for both the housing and land use
elements of a jurisdiction's comprehensive plan. A jurisdiction's housing supply inventory
should address the following:
• Total housing stock in the community;
• Types of structures in which units are located (e.g., single - family detached, duplex or
other small multiplex, townhome, condominium, apartment, mobile home, accessory
dwelling unit, group home, assisted living facility);
• Unit types and sizes (i.e., numbers of bedrooms per unit);
• Housing tenure (rental vs. ownership housing);
• Amount of housing at different price and rent levels, including rent - restricted and
subsidized housing;
• Housing condition (e.g. age, general condition of housing, areas of community with
higher proportion of homes with deferred maintenance);
• Vacancy rates;
• Statistics on occupancy and overcrowding;
• Neighborhoods with unique housing conditions or amenities;
• Location of affordable housing within the community, including proximity to transit;
• Transportation costs as a component of overall cost burden for housing;
• Housing supply, including affordable housing, within designated Urban Centers and local
centers;
• Capacity for additional housing, by type, under current plans and zoning; and
• Trends in redevelopment and reuse that have an impact on the supply of affordable
housing.
Housing Needs
The housing needs part of the housing analysis should include demographic data related to
existing population and demographic trends that could impact future housing demand (e.g.
aging of population). The identified need for future housing should be consistent with the
jurisdiction's population growth and housing targets. The information on housing need should
be evaluated in combination with the housing supply part of the housing analysis in order to
assess housing gaps, both current and future. This information can then inform goals, policies,
and strategies in the comprehensive plan update.
80
2012 King County Countywide Planning Policies
November 2012
Amended December 3, 2012
A comprehensive housing needs analysis should address the following population, household,
and community characteristics:
• Household sizes and types;
• Age distribution of population;
• Ethnic and racial diversity;
• Household income, including the following income groupings:
o 30 percent of area median income or lower (very -low- income),
o Above 30 percent to 50 percent of area median income (low- income)
o Above 50 percent to 80 percent of area median income (moderate- income)
o Above 80 percent to 100 percent of area median income (middle- income)
o Above 100 percent to 120 percent of area median income (middle- income)
o Above 120 percent of median income;
• Housing growth targets and countywide affordable housing need for very-low, low and
moderate income households as stated in the Countywide Planning Policies;
• The number and proportion of households that are "cost- burdened." Such households
pay more than thirty percent of household income toward housing costs.
"Severely- cost - burdened" households pay more than fifty percent of household income
toward housing costs.
• Trends that may substantially impact housing need during the planning period. For
example, the impact that a projected increase in senior population would have on
demand for specialized senior housing, including housing affordable to low- and
moderate - income seniors and retrofitted single family homes to enable seniors to age in
place.
• Housing demand related to job growth, with consideration of current and future jobs -
housing balance as well as the affordable housing needs of the local and subregional
workforce.
• Housing needs, including for low- and moderate - income households, within designated
Urban Centers and local centers.
Note on Adjusting for Household Size
As currently calculated, the affordable housing targets do not incorporate differences in
household size. However, the reality is that differently -sized households have different housing
needs (i.e., unit size, number of bedrooms) with different cost levels. A more accurate
approach to setting and monitoring housing objectives would make adjustments to reflect
current and projected household sizes and also unit sizes in new development. Accounting for
household size in providing affordable units could better inform local policies and programs as
well as future updates of the Countywide Planning Policies and affordable housing targets.
Implementation Strategies
As stated in policy H -5, local jurisdictions need to employ a range of strategies for promoting
housing supply and housing affordability. The Puget Sound Regional Council's Housing
81
2012 King County Countywide Planning Policies
November 2012
Amended December 3, 2012
Innovations Program Housing Toolkitl presents a range of strategies. The strategies are
identified as being generally applicable to single family development, multifamily development,
ownership housing, rental housing, market rate projects, and subsidized projects. Strategies
marked as a "Featured Tool" are recommended as being highly effective tools for promoting
affordable and diverse housing in the development markets for which they are identified.
Measuring Results
Success at meeting a community's need for housing can only be determined by measuring
results and evaluating changes to housing supply and need. Cities are encouraged to monitor
basic information annually, as they may already do for permits and development activity.
Annual tracking of new units, demolitions, redevelopment, zoning changes, and population
growth will make periodic assessments easier and more efficient. A limited amount of annual
monitoring will also aid in providing timely information to decision makers.
Policy H -18 requires jurisdictions to review their housing policies and strategies at least every
five years to ensure periodic reviews that are more thorough and that provide an opportunity
to adapt to changing conditions and new information. This five -year review could be aligned
with a jurisdiction's five -year buildable lands reporting process.
Chapter: APPENDIX 4: HOUSING TECHNICAL APPENDIX
PSRC Housing Innovations Program Housing Toolkit http: / /psrc.org/growth/hip/
82
2012 King County Countywide Planning Policies
November 2012
Amended December 3, 2012
APPENDIX 5: KING COUNTY SCHOOL SITING TASK FORCE REPORT
On March 31, 2012 the School Siting Task Force issued the following report and
recommendations related to 18 undeveloped school sites in King County, and future school
siting. Countywide Planning Policies DP -50, PF -12, PF -18 and PF -19 contain references to this
report, and in particular the Site Specific Solutions table found on pages 15 -19.
Chapter: APPENDIX 5:
5
9
83
2012 King County Countywide Planning Policies
November 2012
Amended December 3, 2012
Chapter: APPENDIX 5:
6
0
84
2012 King County Countywide Planning Policies
November 2012
Amended December 3, 2012
GLOSSARY
Affordable Housing: Housing that is affordable at 30 percent or less of a household's monthly
income. This is a general term that may include housing affordable to a wide range of income
levels.
Agricultural Production District: A requirement of the Growth Management Act for cities and
counties to designate, where appropriate, agricultural lands that are not characterized by urban
growth, have soils suitable for agriculture, and that have Tong -term significance for commercial
farming. The King County Comprehensive Plan designates Agricultural Production Districts
where the principal land use should be agriculture.
Area Median Income: The annual household income for the Seattle- Bellevue, WA Metro Area
as published on approximately an annual basis by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban
Development.
Buildable Lands Program: A requirement of the Growth Management Act for certain counties
in western Washington to report on a regular basis the amount of residential and commercial
development that has occurred, the densities of that development, and an estimate of each
jurisdiction's ability to accommodate its growth target based on the amount of development
that existing zoning would allow.
Climate Change: The variation in the earth's global climate over time. It describes changes in
the variability or average state of the atmosphere. Climate change may result from natural
factors or processes (such as change in ocean circulation) or from human activities that change
the atmosphere's composition (such as burning fossil fuels or deforestation.)
Climate Change Adaptation refers to actions taken to adapt to unavoidable impacts as a
result of climate change.
Climate Change Mitigation refers to actions taken to reduce the future effects of climate
change.
Comprehensive Plan: A plan prepared by a local government following the requirements of the cvA
Washington Growth Management Act, containing policies to guide local actions regarding land
use, transportation, housing, utilities, capital facilities, and economic development in ways that 0
will accommodate at least the adopted 20 -year targets for housing and employment growth.
Environmental Justice: The fair distribution of costs and benefits, based on a consideration for
social equity. Environmental justice is concerned with the right of all people to enjoy a safe,
85
6
1
2012 King County Countywide Planning Policies
November 2012
Amended December 3, 2012
clean, and healthy environment, and with fairness across income, ethnic, and racial groups in
the siting and operation of infrastructure, facilities, or other large land uses.
Forest Production District. A requirement of the Growth Management Act for cities and
counties to designate, where appropriate, forest lands that are not characterized by urban
growth and that have long -term significance for the commercial production of timber. The King
County Comprehensive Plan designates Forest Production Districts where the primary use
should be commercial forestry.
Growth Management Act: State law (RCW 36.70A) that requires local governments to prepare
comprehensive plans (including land use, transportation, housing, capital facilities and utilities)
to accommodate 20 years of expected growth. Other provisions of the Growth Management
Act require developing and adopting countywide planning policies to guide local comprehensive
planning in a coordinated and consistent manner.
Greenhouse Gas: Components of the atmosphere that contribute to global warming, including
carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, and fluorinated gases. Human activities have added to
the levels of most of these naturally occurring gases.
Healthy Housing: Housing that protects all residents from exposure to harmful substances and
environments, reduces the risk of injury, provides opportunities for safe and convenient daily
physical activity, and assures access to healthy food and social connectivity.
High - capacity Transit: Various types of transit systems, such as Tight rail and bus rapid transit,
operating on fixed guideway or dedicated right -of -way designed to carry a large number of
riders at higher speeds.
Industry Clusters: Specific economic segments that are the focus of the Regional Economic
Strategy. As of June 2011, the identified regional industry clusters included: aerospace, clean
technology, information technology, life sciences, logistics and international trade, military, and
tourism.
King County Open Space System: A regional system of county -owned parks, trails, natural
areas, working agricultural and forest resource lands, and flood hazard management lands.
Low - Income Households: Households earning between 31 percent and 50 percent of the Area
Median Income for their household size.
O
C7
Mixed -Use Development: A building or buildings constructed as a single project which contains U
more than one use, typically including housing plus retail and /or office uses.
Manufacturing/ Industrial Centers: Designated locations within King County cities meeting
criteria detailed in policies DP 35 -37.
86
2012 King County Countywide Planning Policies
November 2012
Amended December 3, 2012
Moderate - Income Households: Households earning between 51 percent and 80 percent of the
Area Median Income for their household size.
Potential Annexation Area: A portion of the unincorporated urban area in King County that a
city has identified it will annex at some future date. See Appendix 2: Interim Potential
Annexation Areas Map.
Purchase of Development Rights: Programs that buy and then extinguish development rights
on a property to restrict development and limit uses exclusively for open space or resource -
based activities such as farming and forestry. Covenants run with the land in perpetuity so that
the property is protected from development regardless of ownership.
Regional Growth Strategy: The strategy defined in VISION 2040 that was developed by the
Puget Sound Regional Council to help guide growth in the four - county region that includes King,
Kitsap, Pierce and Snohomish counties. VISION 2040 directs most of the region's forecasted
growth into designated Urban Areas, and concentrates growth within those areas in designated
centers planned for a mixes of uses and connection by high- capacity transit
Resource Lands: Designated areas within King County that have Tong -term significance for
agricultural, forestry, or mining. See Appendix 1: Land Use Map.
Rural Area: Designated area outside the Urban Growth Area that is characterized by small -
scale farming and forestry and low- density residential development. See Appendix 1: Land Use
Map.
Rural Cities: Cities that are surrounded by Rural Area or Resource Lands. Rural Cities are part
of the Urban Growth Area.
Stormwater Management: An infrastructure system that collects runoff from storms and
redirects it from streets and other surfaces into facilities that store and release it — usually back
into natural waterways.
Sustainable Development: Methods of accommodating new population and employment that
protect the natural environment while preserving the ability to accommodate future
generations.
Transfer of Development Rights: Ability to transfer allowable density, in the form of permitted
building lots or structures, from one property (the "sending site ") to another (the "receiving
site ") in conjunction with conservation of all or part of the sending site as open space or
working farm or forest.
Transportation 2040: A 30 -year action plan for transportation investments in the central Puget
Sound region intended to support implementation of VISION 2040.
87
Chapter: GLOSSARY
6
3
2012 King County Countywide Planning Policies
November 2012
Amended December 3, 2012
Transportation Demand Management: Various strategies and policies (e.g. incentives,
regulations) designed to reduce or redistribute travel by single- occupancy vehicles in order to
make more efficient use of existing facility capacity.
Transportation System: A comprehensive, integrated network of travel modes (e.g. airplanes,
automobiles, bicycles, buses, feet, ferries, freighters, trains, trucks) and infrastructure (e.g.
sidewalks, trails, streets, arterials, highways, waterways, railways, airports) for the movement
of people and goods on a local, regional, national and global scale.
Universal Design: A system of design that helps ensure that buildings and public spaces are
accessible to people with or without disabilities.
Urban Centers: Designated locations within King County cities meeting criteria detailed in
Development Pattern chapter policies 31 -32.
Urban Growth Area: The designated portion of King County that encompasses all of the cities
as well as other urban land where the large majority of the county's future residential and
employment growth is intend to occur. See Appendix 1: Land Use Map.
Very Low - Income Households: Households earning 30 percent of the Area Median Income or
Tess for their household size.
VISION 2040: The integrated, long -range vision for managing growth and maintaining a healthy
region — including the counties of King, Kitsap, Pierce and Snohomish. It contains an
environmental framework a numeric Regional Growth Strategy, the Multicounty Policies, and
implementation actions and measures to monitor progress.
Water Resource Inventory Area: Major watershed basins in Washington identified for water -
related planning purposes.
Workforce Housing: Housing that is affordable to households with one or more workers.
Creating workforce housing in a jurisdiction implies consideration of the wide range of income
levels that characterize working households, from one person working at minimum wage to
two or more workers earning the average county wage or above. There is a particular need for
workforce housing that is reasonably close to regional and sub - regional job centers and /or
easily accessible by public transportation.
88
Chapter: GLOSSARY
March 31, 2012
Dow Constantine, King County Executive
King County Chinook Building
401 Fifth Avenue, Suite 800
Seattle, WA 98104
Dear Executive Constantine,
With this letter we transmit to you the final report and recommendations of the School Siting Task Force.
The critical issues of quality education, efficient use of taxpayer dollars, equitability, preservation of rural
character, and sustainable growth made consideration of undeveloped rural school sites and all other
future school siting a complex and important undertaking.
Together, we have worked diligently since December to craft these recommendations. We represent
diverse perspectives and through our discussions we have reached agreement on specific solutions and
recommendations that we believe to be in the best interests of all King County residents, particularly our
schoolchildren. We are pleased to present to you these recommendations informed by accepted data
collected by our Technical Advisory Committee.
We would be happy to serve as a resource in any way we can as you consider these recommendations. We
look forward to your review, and we stand ready to assist in their implementation.
Thank you for the opportunity to serve on the Task Force. We look forward to having these
recommendations incorporated in future planning.
Sincerely,
King County School Siting Task Force members
(signatures on reverse)
89
Table of Contents
SECTION 1: ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 1
SECTION 2: GLOSSARY OF TERMS AND ACRONYMS 1
SECTION 3: OVERVIEW AND BACKGROUND INFORMATION 4
OVERVIEW 4
GMPC GUIDANCE FOR THE TASK FORCE 5
SECTION 4: THE TASK FORCE PROCESS 6
APPOINTING THE TASK FORCE 6
HIRING A FACILITATOR 6
STRUCTURE AND ROLES OF THE TASK FORCE 7
TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE 7
FRAMING WORK GROUP 7
MEETING STRUCTURE AND PROCESS 7
DECISION MAKING: A CONSENSUS APPROACH 8
PUBLIC PROCESS 9
INFORMATION CONSIDERED BY THE TASK FORCE 9
TASK FORCE REPORT 11
SECTION 5: RECOMMENDATIONS 11
INTRODUCTION 11
RECOMMENDED SOLUTIONS FOR UNDEVELOPED RURAL SITES 11
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FUTURE SCHOOL SITING 20
SECTION 6: IMPLEMENTING TASK FORCE RECOMMENDATIONS AND NEXT STEPS
NEXT STEPS
22
22
APPENDICES (Attached)
A. TASK FORCE MEMBERSHIP ATTACHED
B. FRAMING WORK GROUP MEMBERSHIP ATTACHED
C. TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEMBERSHIP ATTACHED
D. MAP OF 18 UNDEVELOPED SCHOOL SITES ATTACHED
E. GMPC MOTION 11 -2 ATTACHED
APPENDICES (ON CD)
F. MATRIX OF TECHNICAL INFORMATION ON UNDEVELOPED SITES ON ATTACHED CD
G. MAPS OF UNDEVELOPED SITES ON ATTACHED CD
H. DEMOGRAPHIC INFORMATION ON ATTACHED CD
1. ENROLLMENT PROJECTIONS ON ATTACHED CD
J. PUBLIC HEALTH ASPECTS OF SCHOOL SITING ON ATTACHED CD
K. TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE WORK (13 TASKS) ON ATTACHED CD
L. STATE SCHOOL SITING GUIDEUNES ON ATTACHED CD
M. EXISTING POLICY AND REGULATORY FRAMEWORK ON ATTACHED CD
N. EXCERPT FROM PSRC ISSUE PAPER ON RURAL AREAS ON ATTACHED CD
O. LAND USE PLANNING OVERVIEW ON ATTACHED CD
P. MEETING SUMMARIES ON ATTACHED CD
Q. OPERATING PROTOCOLS ON ATTACHED CD
R. PROCESS SCHEMATIC ON ATTACHED CD
90
S. TASK FORCE MEMBER INTERESTS ON ATTACHED CD
T. INTERVIEW SUMMARY ON ATTACHED CD
U. PUBLIC COMMENTS ON ATTACHED CD
91
SECTION 1: Acknowledgements
The School Siting Task Force thanks the King County Executive and the Growth Management Planning
Council for the opportunity to provide input on an issue critical to supporting K -12 education and to
preserving natural resources, public health, and quality of life in King County.
The Task Force would especially like to thank its members who agreed to serve on the Framing Work
Group. This group met on multiple occasions throughout the process, generally twice between each Task
Force meeting, to develop and frame issues and meeting approaches for the full Task Force. Without the
considerable efforts of this group, the Task Force would not have been able to accomplish its work.
The Task Force also thanks the Technical Advisory Committee (TAC), whose members worked
throughout January, February, and March of 2012 to gather data and information on the undeveloped
rural school sites and to compile additional information relevant to future school siting.
The Task Force also acknowledges the many members of the public who submitted comments and/or
attended one or more Task Force or TAC meetings. Their contributions provided valuable insight for the
Task Force's consideration.
Finally, the Task Force thanks Triangle Associates for their exemplary support throughout the process.
See Appendices A, B, and C for Task Force, Framing Work Group, and TAC membership.
SECTION 2: Glossary of Terms and Acronyms
Comprehensive Plan
A generalized coordinated land use policy statement of the governing body of a county or city that is
adopted pursuant to 36.70A RCW. (Washington State Growth Management Act)
Countywide Planning Policies (CPPs)
A written policy statement or statements used solely for establishing a countywide framework from which
county and city comprehensive plans are developed and adopted pursuant to the Growth Management
Act. (Washington State Growth Management Act)
Growth Management Act (GMA)
The GMA was enacted in 1990 in response to rapid population growth and concerns with suburban
sprawl, environmental protection, quality of life, and related issues. The GMA requires the fastest
growing counties and the cities within them to plan for growth. The GMA provides a framework for
regional coordination; counties planning under the GMA are required to adopt county-wide planning
policies to guide plan adoption within the county and to establish urban growth areas (UGAs). Local
comprehensive plans must include the following elements: land use, housing, capital facilities, utilities,
92
transportation, and, for counties, a rural element. (Municipal Research and Services Center of
Washington)
Growth Management Planning Council (GMPC)
The GMPC, which was established by an Interlocal agreement, is a 15- member council of elected
officials from Seattle, Bellevue, suburban cities and King County. The GMPC has been responsible for
the preparation and recommendation of the Countywide Planning Policies to the Metropolitan King
County Council, which then adopts the policies and sends them to the cities for ratification. (King County
Comprehensive Plan)
Identified Need
Identified need exists if a school district has determined the type of school needed and a timeframe for
development on one of the 18 undeveloped school sites. (Source: School Siting Task Force)
Multi- County Planning Policies
An official statement, adopted by two or more counties, used to provide guidance for regional decision -
making, as well as a common framework for countywide planning policies and local comprehensive
plans. (Puget Sound Regional Council)
Nonconformance
Any use, improvement or structure established in conformance with King County rules and regulations in
effect at the time of establishment that no longer conforms to the range of uses permitted in the site's
current zone or to the current development standards of the code, due to changes in the code or its
application to the subject property. (King County Code)
Regional Growth Strategy
An approach for distributing population and employment growth within the four -county central Puget
Sound region (King, Kitsap, Pierce, Snohomish). (Puget Sound Regional Council)
Rural Area
Outside the urban growth area, rural lands contain a mix of low- density residential development,
agriculture, forests, open space and natural areas, as well as recreation uses. Counties and adjacent small
towns provide a limited number of public services to rural residents. (Puget Sound Regional Council)
Rural Character
Rural Character refers to the patterns of land
element of its comprehensive plan:
a. In which open space, the natural
environment;
b. That foster traditional rural lifestyles,
work in rural areas;
use and development established by a county in the rural
landscape, and vegetation predominate over the built
rural -based economies, and opportunities to both live and
93
c. That provide visual landscapes that are traditionally found in rural areas and communities;
d. That are compatible with the use of the land by wildlife and for fish and wildlife habitat;
e. That reduce the inappropriate conversion of undeveloped land into sprawling, low- density
development;
f. That generally do not require the extension of urban governmental services; and
g. That are consistent with the protection of natural surface water flows and groundwater and
surface water recharge and discharge areas
(Washington State Growth Management Act)
Rural Cities
A free - standing municipality that is physically separated from other cities and towns by designated rural
lands. Also referred to as "Cities in the Rural Area." The incorporated rural cities are Black Diamond,
Carnation, Duvall, Enumclaw, North Bend, Skykomish and Snoqualmie. (Puget Sound Regional Council,
King County Comprehensive Plan)
Rural Towns
Rural towns are unincorporated areas governed directly by King County. They provide a focal point for
community groups such as chambers of commerce or community councils to participate in public affairs.
The purposes of rural town designations within the County's Comprehensive Plan are to recognize
existing concentrations of higher density and economic activity in rural areas and to allow modest growth
of residential and economic uses to keep them economically viable into the future. Rural towns in King
County include Alpental, Fall City and Vashon. (King County Comprehensive Plan)
Rural Zoning
The rural zone is meant to provide an area -wide, long -term, rural character and to minimize land use
conflicts with nearby agricultural, forest or mineral extraction production districts. These purposes are
accomplished by: 1) limiting residential densities and permitted uses to those that are compatible with
rural character and nearby resource production districts and are able to be adequately supported by rural
service levels; 2) allowing small scale farming and forestry activities and tourism and recreation uses that
can be supported by rural service levels and are compatible with rural character; and 3) increasing
required setbacks to minimize conflicts with adjacent agriculture, forest or mineral zones. (King County
Comprehensive Plan)
Tightline Sewer
A sewer trunk line designed and intended specifically to serve only a particular facility or place, and
whose pipe diameter should be sized appropriately to ensure service only to that facility or place. It may
occur outside the local service area for sewers, but does not amend the local service area. (King County
Comprehensive Plan)
Unincorporated Area
Unincorporated areas are those areas outside any city and under King County's jurisdiction. (King County
Comprehensive Plan)
94
Urban Growth Area (UGA)
The area formally designated by a county, in consultation with its cities, to accommodate future
development and growth. Given that cities are urban, each city is within a county- designated urban
growth area. Cities may not annex lands outside an urban growth area, nor may they formally identify
additions to the urban growth area independently of the county designation process. Development that is
urban in character is to occur within the designated urban growth area, preferably in cities. Development
outside the designated urban growth area is to be rural in character. (Puget Sound Regional Council)
VISION 2040
VISION 2040 is the growth management, environmental, economic, and transportation vision for the
central Puget Sound region. It consists of an environmental framework, a regional growth strategy,
policies to guide growth and development, actions to implement, and measures to track progress. (Puget
Sound Regional Council)
SECTION 3: Overview and Background Information
Overview
The Washington State Growth Management Act (GMA) requires counties and cities to work together to
plan for growth. In King County, the Growth Management Planning Council (GMPC) is the countywide
planning body through which the County and cities collaborate. The GMPC is comprised of elected
officials from King County, Seattle, Bellevue, the Suburban Cities Association, and special purpose
districts. The GMPC develops and recommends Countywide Planning Policies (CPPs) to the King
County Council where they are reviewed, adopted, and sent to the cities for fmal ratification. The CPPs
were initially adopted in 1992; certain elements of the policies have been updated over the years.
In 2010 and 2011, the GMPC undertook the first comprehensive evaluation of the CPPs since their initial
adoption. A full set of updated policies is required to bring the CPPs into compliance with the
multicounty planning policies (VISION 2040) adopted by the Puget Sound Regional Council in 2008.
VISION 2040 is the regional growth strategy for the four -county region including King, Kitsap, Pierce
and Snohomish Counties.
On September 21, 2011 the GMPC completed its review and voted to recommend an updated set of CPPs
to the King County Council. However, they could not reach consensus on policies governing the siting of
public facilities and services. At issue was whether public schools serving primarily urban populations
should be sited in rural areas, and whether such facilities should be served by sewers. The recent update
of VISION 2040 included policies stating that schools and other community facilities serving primarily
urban populations should be sited in the urban growth area, and that urban services (sewers) should not be
provided in rural areas. In the interest of consistency, the GMPC was considering adding similar policies
to the CPPs.
95
While the GMA is clear that sewers are not permitted in rural areas (except in limited circumstances), the
CPPs have since 1992 contained a policy that allows public schools to be served by sewer when a finding
is made that no alternative technologies are feasible. King County implements this policy by authorizing a
tightline sewer connection after the finding is made.
This potential change in policy was of concern to school districts, many of which owned or had an
interest in undeveloped rural properties. While some had acquired their properties before the adoption of
the GMA and CPPs, most had not. Those school districts purchasing land after 1992 did so under a
regulatory framework that permitted schools in rural areas and that allowed a tightline sewer if needed. At
the time, with rising land costs in urban areas and rapid growth, choosing less expensive rural sites
seemed the most judicious use of limited taxpayer funds. Many school districts pointed out the difficulty
of finding large parcels in urban areas, and the importance of siting schools so that they are convenient for
all students, including those in rural areas. School districts leaders testified that they do not distinguish
between the urban and rural portions of their service areas; their planning takes into account the needs of
their districts as a whole.
The policy debate generated testimony from rural residents, many of whom expressed concerns about the
impacts of siting schools in rural areas, including traffic congestion, environmental degradation, and loss
of rural character. They pointed out that while initial land costs might be lower in rural areas, the total
costs to society of siting schools in non -urban areas might be greater. In addition to the impacts of
transporting large numbers of urban students to schools in rural areas, the cost of transportation
investments needed to support new schools are borne only by unincorporated area residents. These
community impacts and financial burdens are not shared equally by residents in incorporated areas. Much
of the testimony from rural residents questioned the fairness and sustainability of siting in rural areas
infrastructure supporting primarily urban development.
In order to address these concerns, to acknowledge the changing environment and to support school
districts in their obligation to provide quality education for the children of King County, the GMPC
agreed to set aside the policies related to siting public facilities and postpone their consideration until a
task force made up of school districts, cities, King County, rural residents, and other experts could study
the issue and report back to the King County Executive.
GMPC Guidance for the Task Force
The GMPC established guidance for formation of the School Siting Task Force in their Motion 11 -2
(Appendix E) on September 21, 2011.
The Task Force was given the Mission to:
Develop recommendations to better align city, county, and school districts' planning
for future school facilities in order to provide quality education for all children and
maximize health, environmental, programmatic, fiscal, and social objectives.
-GMPC Motion 11 -2, School Siting Task Force Work Plan, Task Force Mission
96
To fulfill this Mission, the GMPC recommended a specific scope of work. As described in GMPC Motion
11 -2, the Task Force's primary task is "to evaluate the current inventory of rural properties owned by
King County school districts" and to make recommendations as to their use or disposition. Collectively,
the Task Force identified 18 undeveloped sites in rural areas. To further support the fulfillment of its
Mission, it was anticipated that the Task Force might recommend legislative and other strategies.
The GMPC established a set of eight principles to guide the Task Force in its work. All of the solutions
recommended by the Task Force in this Report reflect the Guiding Principles established by GMPC:
• Academic Excellence: Educational facilities should promote and support the academic achievement of
students.
• Equitable: All children should have access to quality educational facilities.
• Financially Sustainable: School siting should be financially sustainable for each impacted jurisdiction
(school districts, cities, county unincorporated areas, and sewer /water districts) and make the most
efficient use of total tax dollars.
• Support Sustainable Growth: Planning for school facilities shall comply with state law and be
integrated with other regional and local planning, including land use, transportation, environment, and
public health.
• Community Assets: Schools should unite the communities in which they are located and be
compatible with community character.
• Based on existing data and evidence: The Task Force process shall utilize recent demographic,
buildable lands inventory, and other relevant data and information.
• Public Engagement: The Task Force process should include robust community engagement with
impacted communities. Meetings will be transparent and open to the public for observation. The Task
Force shall provide opportunities for public comment.
• Best Practice and Innovation: Lasting recommendations should serve the region well for years to
come and support education, health, environmental, programmatic, fiscal, and social objectives.
SECTION 4: The Task Force Process
Appointing the Task Force
The GMPC designated categories of membership in Motion 11 -2, but did not specify individual members.
Task Force members were appointed by the King County Executive (see Appendix A).
Hiring a Facilitator
Public Health - Seattle King County hired Triangle Associates as the independent facilitator to help
coordinate the work of the Task Force, including conducting initial assessment interviews of all Task
Force members, organizing Task Force meetings, facilitating development of recommendations by the
Task Force and providing support through drafting and production of the Task Force's Final Report and
Recommendations.
97
Structure and Roles of the Task Force
The Task Force established two workgroups to assist in the effort: the Technical Advisory Committee,
(also recommended by the GMPC) and the Framing Work Group. Both are described below.
Technical Advisory Committee
The Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) was comprised of representatives from King County, the
Puget Sound Regional Council, school districts, water and sewer districts, and the Suburban Cities
Association. A membership list is included in Appendix C. The TAC met throughout the beginning and
middle stages of the Task Force process; its role was to provide data and information to support Task
Force decision making. TAC meetings were open to the public and included dialogue with those who
attended. Meeting summaries (Appendix P) were developed to provide a record of their work.
The primary work product of the TAC involved compiling a matrix containing information related to the
18 undeveloped school sites (Appendix F). In addition to populating the matrix with site - specific
information, the TAC was asked to collect data and information in several other areas of inquiry, which
collectively were referred to as the "13 Tasks ". This included subject areas such as demographic trends
and school enrollment projections. A complete list of the 13 tasks is included as Appendix F.
The TAC work and products enabled swift evaluation of, and development of solutions for, specific sites
by the Task Force. The breadth and detail of the data compiled by the TAC, and that Committee's timely
response to Task Force requests, played a critical role in the accomplishments of the Task Force.
Framing Work Group
Due to the short timeline for the Task Force to complete its work, the Task Force created a Framing Work
Group (Appendix B) to frame issues for its consideration. Prior to each meeting of the full Task Force, the
Framing Work Group met to review information gathered by the TAC and to discuss how best to organize
information and issues for discussion. Doing so helped the Task Force have focused and substantive
discussions and stay on task to meet their deadlines.
The Framing Work Group made recommendations on process to the Task Force; however, all decision -
making power remained with the full Task Force. Framing Work Group members were appointed by the
Task Force Chair from the general Task Force roster. The group met on average twice between each Task
Force meeting, and meeting summaries (Appendix P) were included in the materials that the Task Force
received.
Meeting Structure and Process
The Task Force met six times from December 2011 through March 2012, using the process schematic
(Appendix R) as a visual guide for navigating its work effort:
98
1. The first meeting, December 14; 2011, focused on introducing Task Force members, establishing
a process for the work effort, and hearing Task Force member perspectives on hopes and desired
outcomes from the process.
2. The second meeting, January 25, 2012, focused on learning information from the TAC and
creating a set of interests (Appendix S) based on the Task Force's Guiding Principles as
established in the GMPC Motion 11 -2. The Task Force also agreed upon a set of Operating
Protocols (Appendix Q).
3. On February 16, 2012, the Task Force held a 4 -hour workshop to begin developing solutions for
the 18 undeveloped rural school sites and for future school siting. The Technical Advisory
Committee presented data on each of the 18 sites, and each school district was given the
opportunity to present additional information on their sites. The Task Force reached consensus on
an approach for evaluating sites that was developed by the Framing Work Group. This approach
involved identifying the critical or "threshold" factors that would allow Task Force members to
create four categories into which the 18 sites would eventually be sorted. The first step was to
brainstorm potential solutions for each category.
4. On March 1, 2012, the Task Force met for the fourth time, also in a 4 -hour workshop. Working in
small groups, Task Force members accepted possible solutions for the four categories of sites.
They then sorted the 18 sites into the four categories and also considered future school siting. The
Task Force reached consensus agreement on several items, including:
• The "Solutions Set and Criteria" document (Document 1 in the Recommendations
section), with agreement that a few items needed additional definition, clarification, and
confirmation at its next meeting
• The placement of all school sites in appropriate quadrants of the solutions table
5. On March 15, 2012, the Task Force accepted by 100% consensus:
• A final version of the "Solutions Set and Criteria" document
• Recommended and prioritized solutions for 12 specific sites
• The following technical documents: Matrix of school sites, list of 13 tasks, population
and demographic information, enrollment trends by school district, public health aspects
of school siting.
• Recommendations to the Growth Management Planning Council and Washington State
legislature related to school siting
6. On March 29, 2012, the Task Force accepted the Recommendations Report to be submitted to the
King County Executive.
Decision Making: A Consensus Approach
At the second Task Force meeting, the Task Force members accepted the Operating Protocols (Appendix
Q). This document established roles for all non -Task Force members involved in the process, clarified
communications protocols and workgroup composition, and defined a specific decision - making approach.
99
The Task Force defined consensus as obtaining the full acceptance of all members; short of that, decisions
and recommendations would move forward with the approval of at least 70% of the Task Force members
present, with at least one member from each primary interest group (county, cities, school districts, and
residents) voting in favor to accept a document or decision.
Public Process
The GMPC Motion stated that the Task Force process should include robust public engagement. All Task
Force meetings and TAC meetings were open to the public. All written materials (agendas, meeting
summaries, and other information) were made available on the Task Force website, and public comments
were accepted throughout the process at Task Force meetings, through the Task Force website and via
email. Comments from the public were summarized by the facilitator at the beginning of every Task
Force meeting, and the compiled comments were emailed to Task Force members after each meeting (see
Appendix U).
Information Considered by the Task Force
As Task Force members studied the issues associated with siting schools in rural areas, they considered a
range of data and information. The majority of this information was provided by the TAC. It included the
following documents, reports and policy frameworks, many of which are included in the appendices to
this Report.
• 18 undeveloped rural school sites. The TAC prepared a matrix containing factual information
related to each of the 18 sites including: general site information (e.g., zoning, acreage, assessed
value), land use and transportation considerations (e.g., landscape position, distance to UGA,
distance to sewer /water connection, environmental features), and the school districts' plans (e.g.,
intended use, development timeline). School districts were given the opportunity to correct and/or
augment the information about their school sites.
• Planning context. King County staff provided the Task Force with a brief history of the land use
planning in two areas where many of the undeveloped sites are located: the Bear -Evans Corridor
and the Soos Creek Basin. The county's land use strategy in both areas employed zoning and
development regulations on an area -wide basis so the cumulative impact of development would
not cause environmental degradation. A summary of this history is included as Appendix O.
• GMA policy framework. There is a strong policy basis in Washington State for focusing growth
in urban areas, protecting rural areas and the environment, and the efficient provision of
government services and facilities. The growth management framework considered by the Task
Force included GMA, VISION 2040, the Countywide Planning Policies, King County
Comprehensive Plan and King County Code. Relevant portions of these documents can be found
in Appendix M.
• Demographic information. The Task Force was presented with information from the 2010
census that identified population trends in the urban and rural portions of each school district, and
100
also district -wide. Significant demographic shifts have occurred in the past decade: from 2000 to
2010, the overall rural population in King County declined by 1 %, and the rural population under
the age of 18 declined by 18.4 %. During the same time, the urban population saw an overall
increase of 12.1% and under -18 increase of 8.3 %. This information can be found in Appendix H.
• School district enrollment projections. The Task Force was presented with information related
to current and projected school enrollment, which illustrates that district populations will continue
to grow to varying degrees and that urban students will continue to comprise the majority of those
populations. The anticipated enrollment for students from rural areas generally failed to
materialize in the vicinities of the sites owned by school districts. The enrollment projections can
be found in Appendix I.
Funding for school construction. Although there was no formal presentation on this topic, it
came up on several occasions and was an important consideration for the Task Force. The State
of Washington does not provide funding to school districts for acquisition of properties; school
districts must rely on their own funding sources (through bonds, levies, grants, and donations).
Once properties are acquired, school districts can apply for state assistance for school
construction as part of a state match program.
• Current criteria and process for school siting. Using both state regulations and locally adopted
standards, school districts consider many factors when locating a site to develop a public school
facility. Following guidance set forth by the Office of the Superintendent of Public Instruction
and the Washington Administrative Code (392- 342 -020 WAC), districts look at site quality, cost,
projected enrollment, distance to students / transportation, and timing of school construction. The
WAC guidelines can be found in Appendix L.
• Funding for county road maintenance. The TAC determined that the cost for upgrading,
operating and maintaining county roads to serve future schools on the 18 undeveloped sites could
range from $30 -35 million over 20 years. This is important to consider because the County road
fund has become severely strained, and because that cost would be borne solely by
unincorporated area residents through the county road levy. In addition to cost of road
infrastructure and tax equity issue, there are climate impacts associated with transporting large
numbers of students to schools in rural areas, in the form of increased greenhouse gas emissions.
• Public health aspects of school siting. One member of the TAC and one member of the Task
Force presented information on the public health aspects of school siting. In recent years, best
practices in school siting have evolved to reflect a more community- centered approach, placing
schools in urban areas where children can walk to school and where school facilities can serve as
community assets. The major themes identified in this research (included in Appendix J) include:
a. School siting determines the proximity of schools to a student's home and larger
community and can affect whether children achieve and maintain good health,
b. Physical activity is key to children's health,
c. School travel impacts children's health in multiple ways, and
101
d. Education policy is also health policy.
Task Force Report
This Report was drafted by the independent facilitation team. The Framing Work Group refined the initial
draft document, which the Task Force considered at the March 15t meeting. Between the March 15t and
March 29th meetings, the Framing Work Group, project team, and facilitation team refined iterations of
the Report, with a final draft presented to the Task Force at its last meeting on March 29, 2012. The Task
Force accepted the document, with revisions, at that meeting. The facilitation team made final revisions
based on Task Force input before submitting this Report to the King County Executive.
SECTION 5: Recommendations
Introduction
The GMPC and King County Executive requested that the Task Force recommend solutions for the 18
undeveloped rural sites and guidelines for future school siting. The Task Force analyzed data and
information to create and prioritize specific solutions for each of the sites and to develop
recommendations for future sites. These are encapsulated below in Recommended Solutions for
Undeveloped Sites and Recommendations for Future School Siting, respectively. Throughout the process,
Task Force members identified other recommendations in support of its Mission; the other
recommendations are listed under Recommendations for Future School Siting.
Recommended Solutions for Undeveloped Rural Sites
The Task Force focused the major part of its effort on the 18 undeveloped sites, seeking logical and
sustainable solutions. Once the Task Force process was underway, the Task Force surveyed all the school
districts to ensure the Task Force's scope included the universe of undeveloped rural property with a
school district interest. No other undeveloped rural sites were identified by the school districts.
The Task Force, with guidance from the Framing Work Group, decided to use a "threshold" approach for
determining solutions for each of the 18 undeveloped sites. This threshold approach identified two
specific criteria; a site must possess one or the other in order to be considered for development. After
some refinement, the Task Force accepted the following criteria for decision making:
1) Does the school district have an identified need for a school site? (Identified need exists if
a district has identified a type of school and a time frame in which the school is needed.)
2) Does the site border the Urban Growth Area (UGA) or have an existing sewer
connection? (Bordering the UGA means the site is directly contiguous to the UGA. An
existing sewer connection means sewer line is on site. This does not include sites with sewer
on an adjacent parcel or across the street.)
102
Based on these criteria, the Task Force accepted the threshold approach for sorting the 18 sites and
created the Solutions Table, which separated the school sites into four quadrants:
• Box A, in the upper left comer, includes sites that border the UGA and/or have an existing sewer
connection and for which school districts have an identified need.
• Box B, in the upper right corner, includes sites that do not border the UGA and have no sewer
connection and for which school districts have an identified need.
• Box C, in the lower left comer, includes sites for which school districts do not have an identified
need and that border the UGA and/or have an existing sewer connection on site.
• Box D, in the lower right corner, includes sites for which school districts do not have an
identified need and that do not border the UGA and have no existing sewer connection on site.
Any and all other undeveloped rural school sites (those not among the 18 recognized sites) fall into
"future school siting" in Box E of the Solutions Table. Future school siting issues are addressed in greater
detail in the section entitled Recommendations for Future School Siting.
The Task Force then developed possible solutions for each box and ranked these possible solutions in
order of preference, recognizing that circumstances for specific sites within each category might merit a
different order.
The recommended Solutions Set and Criteria are shown here as Document 1.
103
Document 1— Solutions Set and Criteria
Existing Undeveloped School Sites in the Rural Area
Assumptions for Solution Set:
• For any solution that would result in a school district not being permitted to use a site for a school, the Task Force
recommends options through which the school district could receive fair and appropriate value.
• All solutions resulting in site development should mitigate impacts and provide community benefits.
• Any solutions that involve a change in the UGA or allow /prohibit sewer service shall be governed by the laws,
policies, and/or administrative procedure(s) in place at the time.
• Additional solutions may apply; detailed analysis may be required to determine optimal solution for any site.
• All sites, site conditions, and identified needs are included in the Matrix. School districts were asked to bring forward
any additional sites and no other sites emerged so the full and final list of specific sites is shown in Documents 2 -3.
NOTE: Solution Sets in each box is listed in priority order.
All Other Undeveloped School Sites (Future)
Future School
Siting
All future school siting should be consistent with Vision 2040.
E
104
Site borders UGA or has sewer
connection. "Sewer connection" defined as having
sewer on site already (not adjacent).
Site does not border UGA and has no sewer
connection.
School district
A
B
has an
1. Find an alternative site in the UGA
1. Find an alternative site in the UGA
identified need
2. Allow school district to connect to
2. Find an alternative site bordering UGA (if
for a school
existing sewer
this occurs, see Box A for possible
site.
3. Incorporate site into adjacent UGA
solutions)
3. Sell, or hold with the understanding that
"Identified need"
exists ifdistrict has
identified a type of
school and a time
frame in which they
need the school.
Prohibit: Extending additional sewer outside
any future development must be
consistent with Vision 2040 as
implemented by King County Code
Prohibit: Moving UGA; tight -line sewer
UGA
C
D
School district
1. Find an alternative site in the UGA
1. If the site is of value to the county, cities
does not have
an identified
need for a
2. If the site is of value to the county, cities
or community, facilitate the purchase,
sale, or land swap of property
or community, facilitate the purchase,
sale, or land swap of property
2. Find an alternative site in the UGA
school site.
3. Sell, or hold with the understanding that
3. Sell, or hold with the understanding that
any future development must be
any future development must be
consistent with Vision 2040 as
consistent with Vision 2040 as
implemented by King County Code
implemented by King County Code
Prohibit: Moving UGA; new sewer
connections
Prohibit: Moving UGA; tight -line sewer
All Other Undeveloped School Sites (Future)
Future School
Siting
All future school siting should be consistent with Vision 2040.
E
104
Once the Task Force accepted these criteria and categories plus the prioritized solution sets for each
quadrant, members considered each undeveloped school site. At the March 1s` meeting, the Task Force
reached consensus agreement for the placement of each site in accordance with the accepted criteria.
The accepted placement of each rural school site is shown below as Document 2.
Document 2 —Site Categorization
Task Force breakout groups identified the sites in each category. The full Task Force reached 100% Consensus on March
1, 2012 on the following site categorization:
Existing Undeveloped Sites in the Rural Area (18 sites)
All Other Undeveloped School Sites (Future)
Future School
Siting
All future school siting should be consistent with Vision 2040.
E
Once the Task Force accepted the threshold criteria and site categories, developed the basic solution sets
for each quadrant, and placed the school sites in categories based on the threshold criteria, members
brainstormed possible solutions for each site. Task Force members developed a preferred solution for
each site, with a prioritized list of additional solutions. Where appropriate, they included notes,
considerations, and rationale to support each site's recommended solution(s).
The Task Force recognized that VISION 2040, the CPPs, the King County Comprehensive Plan, and the
King County Code will ultimately govern what happens on both current undeveloped school sites and on
any other future school sites in rural areas. In addition, school districts will control the timing and specific
actions within that framework. The involvement of cities is needed to facilitate siting within urban areas.
Document 3 below shows the recommended solution(s) for each school site, along with site - specific
considerations.
105
Site borders UGA or has sewer
connection.
Site does not border UGA and has no sewer
connection.
School district
has an
identified need
for a school site
Sites:
A
Sites:
B
Enumclaw A, D
Lake Washington 2, 4
Snoqualmie Valley 1
Tahoma 1
Enumclaw B
Issaquah 1
School district
does not have
an identified
need for a
school site
Sites:
C
Sites:
D
Kent 4
Auburn 1, 2, 3
Kent 1, 2, 3
Lake Washington 1, 3
Northshore 1
All Other Undeveloped School Sites (Future)
Future School
Siting
All future school siting should be consistent with Vision 2040.
E
Once the Task Force accepted the threshold criteria and site categories, developed the basic solution sets
for each quadrant, and placed the school sites in categories based on the threshold criteria, members
brainstormed possible solutions for each site. Task Force members developed a preferred solution for
each site, with a prioritized list of additional solutions. Where appropriate, they included notes,
considerations, and rationale to support each site's recommended solution(s).
The Task Force recognized that VISION 2040, the CPPs, the King County Comprehensive Plan, and the
King County Code will ultimately govern what happens on both current undeveloped school sites and on
any other future school sites in rural areas. In addition, school districts will control the timing and specific
actions within that framework. The involvement of cities is needed to facilitate siting within urban areas.
Document 3 below shows the recommended solution(s) for each school site, along with site - specific
considerations.
105
Document 3— Site - Specific Solutions
Box A
106
SITE BORDERS UGA or HAS SEWER CONNECTION
School
district has
Overview:
an
identified
In general, while the Task Force's preference is to find alternative sites in the UGA, the Task Force fmds
need for a
that for the sites in Box A the particular site conditions and circumstances facing the impacted school
school site
districts may warrant other solutions. Thus the recommended solutions vary by site. For any
recommendations that allow for development on a site, the Task Force recommends that the district work
with the county and community to minimize impacts on the rural surroundings and rural residents.
Because of the identified need by the school districts, the Task Force recommends that these sites receive
prioritized attention from city, county and school district decision makers.
Sites and their Solutions:
Snoqualmie Valley 1
1. Allow school district to connect to existing sewer
Site specific: The high percentage offloodplain land in this school district makes finding an alternate site
very challenging. The site does not have significant conservation value. The site has an existing school,
which was developed with the intent that another school would be built on the site. The district has
undertaken site preparation for the addition of an elementary school on the site. The school district
invested in the Local Improvement District that enabled the sewer to reach the site.
Tahoma 1
1. Find alternative site in the UGA
2. Allow school district to connect to existing sewer
Site specific: The Task Force encourages the district to work with the county and cities in the district to
explore opportunities for finding an alternative site in the UGA that would meet the pressing need for
additional capacity that development of another school would provide. If no viable alternative site that fits
within the district's financial plans can be expeditiously found, the availability of sewer and an existing
school on the site present compelling reasons for development of the site to meet the district's needs. The
site does have conservation value and the Task Force recommends that any new development on the site
occur adjacent to the existing school so that impacts to the site's forest cover are minimized.
Lake Washington 2
1. Find alternative site in the UGA
2. Incorporate site into adjacent UGA
Site specific: The site borders the Redmond watershed and has conservation value. The Task Force
therefore encourages the school district, the county and the City of Redmond to find an alternative site
within the UGA that would meet the district's need for additional capacity that development of another
school would provide. The parties should identify other partners and funding mechanisms that would
allow for purchase of the property (perhaps in conjunction with the Lake Washington 1 site) for
permanent conservation as well as provide resources to the district for purchase of an alternative site. If
no viable alternative site can be expeditiously identified, the Task Force recommends that the school
district develop the site in a manner that preserves as much of the conservation value of the site as
106
possible. This may be accomplished through, for example, incorporation of a small developable portion of
the site (about five acres) into the UGA for a small environmental school* while placing the remainder of
the site into permanent conservation. The district should also work closely with the county and community
to minimize other impacts, such as transportation. The Task Force does not recommend extension of
sewer to any portion of that site that remains outside of the UGA. If the site is proposed for incorporation
into the UGA, it shall go through the King County docket process.
*Environmental School will have sustainable or "green" buildings and grounds (refer to State RCW
39.35D, "High Performance Public Buildings — Guidelines for School Districts").
Lake Washington 4
1. Allow school district to connect to existing sewer
Site specific.- The Task Force recognizes the school district's need for additional capacity in the eastern
portion of the district, which straddles the City of Redmond, the rural area, and an unincorporated urban
"island" surrounded by rural area. The site is part of a large parcel on which there is an existing
elementary and middle school, both already connected to sewer. The undeveloped portion of the site was
previously used as a mink farm and portions of the site are cleared. The Task Force recommends that the
district work closely with King County and the community to minimize both existing and additional
impacts on the area surrounding the parcel, particularly the transportation impacts related to several
facilities being located or developed on the site.
Enumclaw A & D:.
1 a. Find alternative site /s in the UGA
lb. Place all school buildings and impervious surfaces on the urban side of the UGB and place
ballfields /playfields on the rural side of the UGB.
Site specific (la): This joint site lies on the south - eastern boundary of the Black Diamond UGA and a
master-planned development (MPD) that has yet to be constructed. The identified need of the school
district is associated primarily with the population projections of the MPD and with students residing
outside of the MPD but in the northern part of the district; the sites are planned for an elementary and a
middle school. The fee title to both sites is held by the developer, with the district's property interest
recorded as an encumbrance on title, and would only be conveyed to the school district if the MPD
materializes. The Task Force recommends that no sewer be extended to the rural portion of the site and
that the City of Black Diamond and county work with the developer and the school district to site all
schools associated with the MPD completely within the UGA. The Black Diamond City Council supported
this solution in a resolution passed 3 -1 -12. The Black Diamond City Council previously approved the
Comprehensive School Mitigation Agreement identifying Enumclaw Sites A, B, and D as agreed -upon
school sites.
Site specific (Ib): The Enumclaw School District and the developer have identified as an alternative to la
the placement of a portion of the proposed school - related facilities on rural lands. If attempts to site each
of these schools fully within the UGA are unsuccessful, alternative Ib may be contemplated. Alternative
lb consists of siting all school buildings, storm water detention and other support facilities, and all
parking and impervious surfaces within the UGA and limiting any development in the adjacent rural area
to ballfields/playfields. The Task Force further recommends maintaining significant forest buffers between
the ballfields /playfields and adjacent rural lands including the Black Diamond Natural Area.
Recommendation of this urban /rural alternative by the Task Force is meant to address the unique
circumstances of the Enumclaw A & D sites and is not to be construed as a precedent for locating schools
on adjacent rural lands. Consequently, it is not recommended for any other sites.
107
Box B
108
SITE DOES NOT BORDER UGA and HAS NO SEWER CONNECTION
School district
has an identified
Overview:
need for a school
The Task Force recommends that alternative sites in the UGA be found for all sites in this box and
site
that sewer not be extended to these sites. Because of the identified need by the school districts and
the recommendation to find alternative sites, the Task Force recommends that these sites receive
prioritized attention by school district, county and city decision makers.
Sites and their Solutions:
Issaquah 1
1. Find alternative site in the UGA
Site specific: The site is a large parcel (80 acres) on May Valley Road between Squak Mountain to
the north and Cedar Hills Landfill to the south. The site has conservation value. The Task Force
recommends that the school district work expeditiously with King County, the City of Issaquah and
the City of Renton. These partners shall work diligently to find an alternative site within the UGA
that would meet the school district's need for additional capacity that development of another
school would provide. The county, cities and school district should identify other partners and
funding mechanisms that may allow for purchase of the property for permanent conservation or
other rural- related uses while also providing resources to the district for purchase of an
alternative site.
Enumclaw B:
1. Find alternative site in the UGA
Site specific: The site is in the rural area west of the Black Diamond UGA and a master - planned
development (MPD) that has been approved but is yet to be constructed. The identified need of the
school district is associated with the population projections of the MPD; the site is planned for a
middle school. The fee title for the site is held by the developer, with the district's property interest
recorded as an encumbrance on title, and would only be conveyed to the school district if the MPD
materializes. The Task Force recommends that no sewer be extended to the site and that the City of
Black Diamond and the county work with the developer and the school district to site schools
associated with the MPD in the UGA.
108
Box C
109
SITE BORDERS UGA or HAS SEWER CONNECTION
School district does
not have an
Overview:
identified need for
Because the site in this box is not associated with an identified need, the Task Force recommends
a school site.
that the school district plan to develop the site consistent with Vision 2040 or manage the site as
part of its capital portfolio.
Site and its solution:
Kent 4
1. Sell, or hold with the understanding that any future development must be consistent with
Vision 2040 as implemented by King County code.
109
Box D
110
SITE DOES NOT BORDER UGA and HAS NO SEWER CONNECTION
School district does
not have an
identified need for
a school site
Overview:
Because sites in this box are not associated with an identified need, the Task Force
recommends that school districts plan to develop the sites consistent with Vision 2040 or
manage the sites as part of their capital portfolio. The Task Force also recommends that while
the school districts will ultimately determine how sites are handled, the county, cities, and
other interested parties should investigate whether sites may be suitable for permanent
conservation or other public purposes; if so, these entities should work to facilitate the
acquisition of the properties for the identified public purposes.
Solutions for sites with conservation value:
1. If the site is of value to the county, cities or community, facilitate the purchase, sale, or
land swap of property
The Task Force recommends that the county, cities and school districts investigate whether
the properties may be appropriate for permanent conservation or acquisition for other public
purposes.
• Auburn 1: The site has value for flood hazard reduction.
• Kent 3: The site has forestland of value for environmental, social, and potentially
economic benefits.
• Lake Washington 1: The site has value for flood hazard reduction and regionally
significant aquatic or terrestrial natural resources. Facilitating the sale of the property
into conservation may assist with solutions for other Lake Washington sites in Box A.
• Northshore 1: The site has forestland of value for environmental, social, and potentially
economic benefits.
Solutions for sites without identified conservation value:
Auburn 3, Kent 1, and Lake Washington 3
1. Sell, or hold understanding that any future development must be consistent with Vision
2040.
The Task Force recommends that school districts plan to develop the sites consistent with
Vision 2040 or manage the sites as part of their capital portfolio.
Solution for Auburn 2:
Auburn 2: The site has an existing elementary school, but no sewer extension. The school
district plans to redevelop the existing elementary school or build a middle school to replace
the elementary school. No time frame has been specified. The Task Force recommends that
the school district be allowed to redevelop, if no sewer connection is needed and as allowed
by development regulations in place at the time of development.
110
Note: In developing the above recommendations for schools sites, Task Force members reached out to all
school districts whose service area includes rural land, even those districts not represented on the Task
Force. To make sure the solutions recommended by the Task Force would encompass all known sites and
create lasting solutions, school districts were asked if they owned or had interest in any rural sites not
already under consideration in this process. School district representatives stated there were no
additional rural sites needing to be addressed at this time. Therefore, no other sites are included and all
future school siting should be guided by the recommendations below.
Recommendations for Future School Siting
The Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC) comprehensively updated VISION 2040 in 2008. In
preparation for the update, the PSRC developed an issue paper regarding Rural Areas that included a
discussion on Special Purpose Districts and Institutional Uses (Appendix N). The issue paper noted that
special purpose district planning is disconnected from GMA, and that many facilities (including schools)
had expanded into rural areas, taking advantage of relatively low land values and large tracts of land. The
issue paper recommended that policies be established that provide regional guidance on siting special
purpose districts within rural areas. Thus, the following policies were established and incorporated into
VISION 2040:
MPP -PS-4 Do not provide urban services in rural areas. Design services for limited access when
they are needed to solve isolated health and sanitation problems, so as not to increase the
development potential of the surrounding rural area.
MPP -PS -5 Encourage the design of public facilities and utilities in rural areas to be at a size and
scale appropriate to rural locations, so as not to increase development pressure.
MPP -PS-21 Site schools, institutions, and other community facilities that primarily serve urban
populations within the urban growth area in locations where they will promote the local desired
growth plan.
MPP -PS-22 Locate schools, institutions, and other community facilities serving rural residents
in neighboring cities and towns and design those facilities in keeping with the size and scale of
the local community.
Also in 2008, VISION 2040 incorporated new policies integrating public health considerations into land
use and transportation planning, and addressing climate change through the regional growth strategy
(reducing greenhouse gas emissions by focusing growth in urban centers).
Consistent with all of the above, VISION 2040 now encourages the siting of public facilities in urban
areas, and states that "Schools should be encouraged to become the cornerstone of their communities by
locating in more urban settings and designing facilities to better integrate with their urban
neighborhoods."
111
Given the adopted policies in VISION 2040 and after consideration of the wide range of technical
information presented, the Task Force recommends that all future school siting be consistent with
VISION 2040.
Box E
The Task Force recommends that all future school siting be consistent with
VISION 2040.
In support of this recommendation, the Task Force further recommends:
1. The Growth Management Planning Council (GMPC) should develop policies and adopt a work
program that commits jurisdictions to working together to identify future school sites within the UGA.
These policies shall direct jurisdictions to use zoning and other land use tools to ensure a sufficient
supply of land for siting schools.
2. King County should work with the school districts, community representatives, and other stakeholders
to address any future redevelopment of existing schools on rural sites to accommodate school districts'
needs while protecting rural character.
3. The Growth Management Planning Council should add a school district representative to its
membership.
4. The Puget Sound Regional Council should collaborate with counties and cities in working with school
districts to ensure coordination in regional (4- county) growth management discussions (per VISION
2040 PS- Action -6).
5. The Washington State Legislature and the Office of the Superintendent of Public Instruction should
examine, together with the State Department of Commerce, how state laws, guidelines, policies and
administrative procedures can influence school siting decisions, including:
a. Reconsideration of existing transportation policies and funding that incentivize busing and
siting schools away from population centers
b. Identifying new funding for school land acquisition, including incentives for purchases, land
swaps, and other avenues for obtaining land inside the UGA
c. Revising existing guidelines for school siting such that districts who build on small sites in
urban areas are eligible for state match funds
d. Increasing the compensation to school districts for the construction costs of schools sited
within the UGA
Note: The Task Force did not specifically consider redevelopment of existing schools on sites in the rural
area. Redevelopment issues were not included in the Task Force scope of work. Information emerged late
in the Task Force process regarding redevelopment and will be passed on to appropriate officials for
consideration at a future date. Redevelopment is addressed in #2 in Box E.
112
Communicating Task Force Findings to Stakeholders
To help communicate its findings, Task Force members are available to speak with interested parties
(school boards, city councils, etc.) to discuss its work, its process, and its recommendations.
SECTION 6• IMPLEMENTING TASK FORCE RECOMMENDATIONS AND NEXT STEPS
Implementation of these recommendations will require additional work by and ongoing coordination
between King County, the cities, school districts, and other stakeholders. For this reason, the Task Force
has recommended including school districts in regional planning bodies.
Recognizing that the Task Force's recommendations will require school districts to reconsider their real
estate portfolios and/or financial plans, one of the first implementation items should be to explore the
recommended solutions for specific sites, including:
• Finding alternative sites in the UGA
• Exploring land swaps for undeveloped sites
• Exploring acquisition of undeveloped rural sites for public purposes, including conservation,
recreation, or other rural -based uses
The Task Force suggests that this work commence immediately, and defers to the King County Executive
on identifying the appropriate forum(s).
Next Steps
The following are the next formal steps in the development of new policies to support the Task Force's
recommendations:
1. The King County Executive will review this Task Force Report and propose new Countywide
Planning Policies for Growth Management Planning Council (GMPC) consideration
2. The GMPC will review the Executive's proposal, and recommend new Countywide Planning
Policies to the King County Council for their consideration
3. The King County Council will review the GMPC's recommendation, adopt new Countywide
Planning Policies, and send them to the cities for ratification
4. The King County Council will adopt new Comprehensive Plan policies and development
regulations that are consistent with the new Countywide Planning Policies
113
Appendices (Attached)
A. Task Force Membership
B. Framing Work Group Membership
C. Technical Advisory Committee Membership
D. Map of 18 Undeveloped School Sites
E. GMPC Motion 11 -2
Appendices (on CD)
F. Matrix of Technical Information on Undeveloped Sites
G. Maps of Undeveloped Sites
H. Demographic Information
I. Enrollment Projections
J. Public Health Aspects of School Siting
K. Technical Advisory Committee Work (13 Tasks)
L. State School Siting Guidelines
M. Existing Policy and Regulatory Framework
N. Excerpt from PSRC Issue Paper on Rural Areas
0. Land Use Planning Overview
P. Meeting Summaries
Q. Operating Protocols
R. Process Schematic
S. Task Force Member Interests
T. Interview Summary
U. Public Comments
King County
Metropolitan King County Council
Committee of the Whole
REVISED STAFF REPO
Agenda Item:
6
Name:
Kendall Moore
Proposed No::
2012 -0282
Date:
November 26, 2012
Invited:
Paul Reitenbach, GMPC staff coordinator
Karen Wolf, Executive's office
SUBJECT
A proposed ordinance adopting Growth Management Planning Council ("GMPC ")
recommended revisions to the King County Countywide Planning Policies ( "CPPs "),
including changes to he Potential Annexation Area ( "PAA ") map.
COMMITTEE ACTION
On November 26, 2012 the committee voted out Proposed Ordinance 2012 -0282 as
amended with a "do pass" recommendation.
BACKGROUND
Please see October 29, 2012 staff report.
ANALYSIS
Attached to this staff report as Attachment 4 is a matrix identifying all the changes
made to the CPPs that are proposed by the striking amendment.
The only addition to the changes described at the October 29, 2012 committee meeting
is the change found at page 33 of the CPPs, which is new text to provide the reader
context for jobs housing balance strategy called out in policy H -9 (CPPs, page 33), as
well as in the Housing Appendix at page 57.
As reported in the discussion at the October 29, 2012 committee meeting, these
changes were reviewed by the interjuridictional team ( "ITJ ") members, who are staff to
the GMPC. No objections to the changes were received.1
At the October 26 meeting several members commented that these changes improved the document's
clarity and readability.
1 of 2
115
AMENDMENT
A new Attachment A, incorporating the changes discussed at the October 29, 2012
committee meeting has been prepared. Additionally as also discussed at that
committee meeting, .a striking amendment has been prepared to make code changes
so that listing every GMPC action and ratification by the Council will no longer called
out in code. The proposal is to decodify. those listing sections in the code rather than
repeal, so that history will be preserved. This approach is similar to what is proposed
for the Comprehensive Plan code sections that list the history of amendments to the
Comprehensive Plan.
116 2of2
nig Cy
KING COUNTY
Signature Report
December 3, 2012
Ordinance 17487
1200 King County Courthouse
516 Third Aventu
Seattle, WA 98104
Proposed No. 2012- 0436.2 Sponsors Phillips
1 AN ORDINANCE adopting Growth Management Planning
2 Council Motion 12 -5 and ratifying Motion 12 -5 for
3 unincorporated King County.
4 STATEMENT OF FACTS:
5 1. The Countywide Planning Policies ( "CPPs ") are adopted in accordance
6 with the state Growth Management Act, under 36.70A.210 RCW.
1 2. The Growth Management Planning Council ( "GMPC ") was formed in
8 1992 to guide the development of the CPPs. The GMPC is a
9 representative body of elected officials from King County, the city of
10 Seattle, the city of Bellevue and the Suburban Cities Association.
11 Representatives of the special districts serve as ex officio members.
12 3. The CPPs establish a framework for guiding development in all King
13 County jurisdictions.
14 4. The CPPs are deemed adopted when ratified by King County and the
15 requisite number of cities and satisfying the required population
16 percentage.
17 5. The GMPC recommends CPP amendments to the King County council
18 for consideration, possible revision and ratification.
19 BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF KING COUNTY:
1
117
Ordinance 17487
20 SECTION 1. Findings:
21 A. On June 6, 2012, the Growth. Management Planning Council introduced
22 Motion 12 -5 listing the proposed changes to the. urban growth area then under
23 consideration by the King County Council and accepted public testimony regarding the
24 proposed changes.
25 13. On September 11 2012 the Growth
ept , , Management Planning Council . approved
26 Motion 12 -5 following additional public testimony regarding-the proposed changes to the
27 urban growth area.
26 C. Attachment A to this ordinance incorporates Motion 12 -5.
29 SECTION 2. The amendments to 2012 Kiiag County Planning Policies, as shown
•
2
118
Ordinance 17487
30 in Attachment A to this ordinance, are hereby adopted and ratified on behalf of the
31 population of unincorporated King County.
32
Ordinance 17487 was introduced on 10/29/2012 and passed by the Metropolitan King
County Council on 12/3/2012, by the following vote:
Yes: 9 - Mr. Phillips, Mr. von Reiehbauer, Mr. Gossett, Ms. Hague,
Ms. Patterson, Ms. Lambert, Mr. Ferguson, Mr. Dunn and Mr.
McDermott
No: 0
Excused: 0
ATTEST:
KING COUNTY COUNCIL
KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON
Anne Noris, Clerk of the Council
APPROVED this 1.3 day of ti�G :E.ri k, 2012.
Dow Constantine, County Executive
Attachments: A. Motion No. 12 -5
3
119
17487
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
t9
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
ATTACHMENT A
9/11/12
Decision: Approved Sponsored By: Executive Committee
/pr
MOTION NO. 12 -5
A MOTION to amend the Urban Growth Area of King
County. This Motion also modifies the Potential Annexation
Area map in the Countywide Planning Policies.
WHEREAS, the Washington State Growth Management Act, RCW 36.70A.110 requires
counties to designate an urban growth area or areas within which urban growth shall be
encouraged and outside of which growth can occur only if it is not urban in nature; and
WHEREAS, Countywide Planning Policy FW 1 Step 8 recognizes that King County may
initiate amendment to the Urban Growth Area; and
WHEREAS, the King County Executive and the Metropolitan King County Council
requests the Growth Management Planning Council consider the attached amendments to
the Urban Growth Area for eventual adoption .by the Metropolitan King County Council
and ratification by the cities; and
WHEREAS, Countywide Planning Policies LUJ 31 and LU -32 anticipate the collaborative
designation of Potential Annexation Areas and the eventual annexation of these areas by
cities. The attached amendments are supported by the affected city.
BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLANNING COUNCIL OF
KING COUNTY HEREBY MOVES AS FOLLOWS:
1. Amend the Urban Growth Area as designated by the Urban Growth Areas Map in the
Countywide Planning Policies, the Potential Annexation Area map, as depicted on the
following attached maps:
Attachment 1: Sammamish— Soaring Eagle
Attachment 2: Snoqualmie — Mining Site
Attachment 3: Auburn — 148th Ave. SE technical correction
Attachment 4: Black Diamond — 212t Ave. SE technical correction
Attachment 5: Redmond — NE Union Hill Road/196d' Ave NE technical correction
Attachment 6: Black Diamond — Lake Sawyer Road SE technical correction
Attachment 7: Renton — SE Old Petrovitski Road technical correction
120
1
17487
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
Attachment 8: Maple Valley — SE 281` Way technical correction
Attachment 9: Maple Valley — SE 288th St. technical correction
Attachment 10: Enumclaw — SE 440th St. technical correction
Attachment 11: North Bend — SE 142" St. technical correction
Attachment 12: North Bend — SE 150th ST technical correction
Attachment 13: Auburn — SE Green Valley Road technical correction
Attachment 14: Duvall — SR 203/NE 140th St technical correction
Attachment 15: Maple Valley split parcel
2. Amend the Interim Potential Annexation Area Map by including any additional
unincorporated urban land created by these UGA amendments in the Potential
Annexation Area of the adjoining city, and deleting any land changed from urban to
rural from the respective PAA.
3. These amendments are recommended to the King County Council and the Cities of
King County for adoption and ratification.
ADOPTED by the Growth Management Planning Council of King County in open session
on September 11, 2012 and signed by the chair of the GMPC.
Dow Constantine, Chair, Growth Management Planning Council
121
2
Attachment 1
1 14S/
The infotmaton included on this map has been compiled by
King County staff from a variety of sources and is subject to change
wihout notice. King County makes no representations or
warranties, express or implied. as to accuracy, completeness,
hmetness, or rights to the use of such information.
TMs document le not intended for use as a survey praduq.
King County shall not be gable for any general. special.
indirect, locidantal, or consequential damages indading, but not
&hied to, lost revenues or lost profs resulting from the use
or misuse a the information contained on this map. Any sale of
this map or information on this map 6 prohibited incept by written
permission of King County.
Date: January 26, 2012
llgisnas1Wrojectslddes\2012 CompPlan1ProjectMDaringEagle rec lubw.mxd
\lgisries1tPrajectsWdes12012 CotnpPlenWetvery %SoaringEagle_reckrbw.pdf
MCCOMBSP
Soaring Eagle
Recommended Land Use Map
OS KC Open Space System
op Other ParksNVildemess
OS
Incorporated Areas
Urban Growth Boundary
Study Area
A Proposed Urban
�" `� Growth Boundary
King County
Department of Development and
Environmental services
+N
200
400
Feet
` - I t`I 5°
SE:9TH +WAY:':.
17487
Snoqualmie - Mining
Recommended Land Use Map
Attachment 2
King County
Department of Development and
Environmental Sends.
The information included on this map has been compiled by
King County staff from a variety of sources and Is subject to change r.___.1
wahoat notice. King County manes no representations or rx Rural Cities Urban Growth Area - r incorporated Areas
warranties. express or implied, as to accuracy, completeness, ����`�
dmeliness, or rights to the use of suds idfbrmdion. ra Rural Area
This document Is not intended for use as a survey product.
King County shag not be sable for any general, special, m Mining Urban Growth Boundary
indirect, incidental, or consequential damages indud'mg, but not N
limited b, lost revenues or lost pmfas resulting from the use
or misuse of the Conrwtian contained on this map. any sale of 0 S King County Open Space System
this map or infommtion on this map b pttxltibbed except by welters Q Change
permission of King County.
Dale: August 1 f, 2012 i ff Proposed Urban
OgisnasltprojeUStddes12012 CompPlantProjedslSnoquakniel4�nfng .mxd i� 0 250 500
Vlgisnas11projectslddes12012 CompPlanlDeliverylSnoqualmieMining .pdf Growth Boundary
MCCOMBSP Feet
/47
m
3901,H-AVE•S,-
Portion of
2024089017
20 '.89017
402Ne•AVE6
•SE•591:H•ST
2
2024089020
02408901
ra
Attachment 3
17487
Urban Growth Boundary Right of Way Issues - 148th Avenue SE
Move UGB to east margin of ROW
to include entire road segment
in urban area. Road is already
maintained by City of Auburn..
4..• all Urban Growth Line
County Roads
1 Parcels
Cities
Unincorporated Area
i adsaanaamao -raRw aoiawaoe..M
. wfN
wrn.rvariw.ara.orapq.�w.r, 1.0
na 4+tl•�wwa!ui� W avw+noia p pwc
.oMLna•osrwa. 'a'.M sarirl m
o.war.a.,n..ran..a wa�a:au..�
aaanwner �- O.114elioMOLFrt1�N�M .
asaw.w.wownarrN-na..w-d -raa bd
n►aar Mir -rar ra.�d- a.wwsower
-a�„�i�.+n
125 62.5 0
125 Feet
May 10, 2011
King County
hhmaDGV l6mea alkama
124
17487
Attachment 4
Urban Growth Boundary Right of Way Issues - 212th Avenue SE
Move UGB to west
ROW margin to include
entire road in Urban Area.
.Right of Way Issue
•••'Si
„� �,� Urban Growth Line
•
County Roads
Parcels
an Cities
.Unincorporated Area
n.Mb- r,.nmbs- a- ewl..r..bbwe>r..70. ,
wt.- e midi *I bbb►rusy eM } dw e nan
N b w ' MbIM. . edbebUevb
.
rriw.711.aew.rrnsMrWi trio b:nrypMa
Avg CoArdI sae a NI6ibbiibulw.dk6ewa . ee.a.
. .aimatbmjbmee%bu ...
by iwini031101600.%
290
145
290 Feet
King County
May 10,2011 wore oedsouftrat fos-m ,lar nuod
125
Attachment 5
17487
Urban Growth Boundary Right of Way Issues - NE Union Hill Road
•,•-•-a-•-.
1.e
i •
It
11
968-03
See-erwerirerm•NE-WnioneNilleRdirsoirenrwompArr----
Move UGB to north margin
of NE Union Hill Road ROW
to include entire road in Urban Area.
Redmond
Move UGB to west margin
of 196th Ave NE ROW to include
entire road in Rural Area.
at-twamelones-se-ae-:;
Right of Way Issue
• wa •
Urban GrOWth Line
Iv • .9
• County Roads
Parcels
Cities
Unincorporated Area
thwtfserwoLdpiol Immo. ten toolarroW10463Carey
ddlosmidep Osamu onOssoloOdletlitputcalawai
KneetalyeSes.ne nontenblempraminein. lows oi*Oni,
CHISXMO.COVINMV.100111L #1104011M110
idemaloa Tth aranammealWavirl betsemounly pieloo
:sitaily.riirellr41111AbWf10...1
amaxmallampoolnakcloalatos learlieleirtmoas
ertespoprearargiostanuarnhaseatIns.welkomund
*delta edamo4poWia0
septapiankOkoska'allariCeSibe
Private-Rd
•
49..
•
a .. • • ."
Redmond
CP
•%6
7,0 NE 76th St
uJ
• 2
co
-Po
a
Ne
170
85
0
170 Feet
1111•111111•1111111111111111111
King County
May 10, 2011 Worolstadsatshs*DCAGIS.maplKelloy.actd
126
17487
Attachment 6
Urban Growth Boundary Right of Way Issues - Lake Sawyer Rd SE
Move UGB to west ROW margin
to include road in urban area.
I
Right of Way Issue
'r ' Urban Growth Line
gar of
County Roads
Parcels
MD Cities
Unincorporated Area
Thertrrnall¢.0.0 11* am tea Yen esirol.byltt, Campy
.sew..:.+rawe.. ant inul Maue.ew•ollkwmaw
• TNtamMi i ww ss in. ( pidep51
W ausp { Mmb 4p•for ar.ag * Wyk
¢er.r
La▪ p Wore momtibna qiV 4.4. - /mn..YpAt.tl
340 170
340 Feet �t
1r/
La King County
May 10, 2011,„A,ha„yg,,.,,
17487
Attachment 7
Urban Growth Boundary Right of Way Issues -.SE Old Petrovitsky Road
Move UGB to south margin of ROW
to include road in .Urban Area
Right of Way: Issue
r w r
r "' Urban Growth Line
County Roads
Parcels
Cities
Unincorporated Area
n ▪ o -v N tla _
aa/aq aegarn a/eidyy,or VbuMa/d
Ml�iaba Til4aAlablblan40tlWalaarappelM
16bOaf�agliOMM,bltla%p!aX wlYiMC1*Mi el
degnryaatwwww MWi* Wai1bI11�bL W iFwM
a1Yp_banWgem U anI rewd ∎Mower aMMrO
_caw* Npnb MN.. et a/anMee.ns moisonilan
MNtv.amps t/M, OIarat
230. 0
230 Feet
May 10, 2011
LAI King County
WomroadesdsIrrel1GwIsdapVte9ey oud
17487
Urban
dart' Right o f Way issu
SE 281st Way
Attachment 8
,. Parcels
b
Ur
an Groff. Una
Right of way Issue
Coanry Road$
cities
Unincorporated Area
17487
Attachment 9
Urban Growth Boundary Right of Way Issues - SE 288th Street
Move UGB to south ROW margin .
to include. entire road. in Urban Area.
Kent
--SE-288th-St-
Right of Way Issues
,M ■ " Urban Growth Line
County Roads
1 j Parcels
gri Cities
Unincorporated Area
grrwrrewenfa MID rve- .an'.f aaacam
Alfew.eiMraNOaiiAlr..1 lbd4W14.afe -
�,da„m..nrwaanfea . rms. ami.e
raanfta. isInmO r...>+A« efrwp..e
a
* le nosaanslrnabwafr.n.wrsm. n
a�a aswwraggiOi i : tiwedwrxi:...a
waver MY Ma ViesaiwMiMaranlian
rrani+ranr�' :,rwal.w.Aw..r..fw "
�a°7.14I rr.,atrze rwm.nmorewrm
Black Diamond
270
135
0
270 Feet
130
May 10, 2011
L1 King County
Morelroedaslehar elOGIGISmepYCdkylmod
17487
Attachment 10
Urban Growth Boundary Right of Way Issues - SE 440th Street
1
s
19-11- -E 21- 21 -19.19di
Move UGB to north margin of ROW
to include entire road in Urban Area.
P
� 1
1 '6 i
a ■ iH 19.21 is 21-19-21 19-21-: -#-1-- M `•...
CO
--- Right of VVay Issue
.111. *
n
,� M Urban Growth Line
County Roads
_1 Parcels
Cities
Unincorporated Area
The Fba9aaieaa.p bn Na aga easbfaeaiaaMlbyNNVCo.,
Mgsxasagdv.aan0 r asiw re- v..w....e.
Nni Cowry miles a lea.e!(aeCg a f vi.AAae. ipeY s Hera
Mmo.egia.Mere+ :piaeathewda.f.
en* Thisbe.. ism* MaOrp Yumaa vv. ;salmi
Key MolypwaalMGW tom, 9e.sd. q.ed,:dwa.:,am,m.
aeaeoare.e .rpaofta9.pfe. b.nw:
slap wa4..aJ11 bn erw diVr. afdi tlida catinea
MI MOW Mg fide 01 esyarManepws.NSaMY Re9l9a,
bk.413y 14(sN. P•Sb•d /WI COM*
.r
SE'44Oth +St%
31000
.i
i
21 ■ ha 19 -x-21 -e- e-a- m- 21- m-vi-E21 -ai-s- are -w -19-i
i
+ t .t
1
`t t
McHugh Ave SE432n,
so
0:' /
N
170
85
0.
Enumclaw
Watson St N
SR 410
, . j
u4
ED i
f.
1_,1
vr t
co
N t
t J
�..SR410 t
■
170 Feet
May 10, 2011
King County
Worotroadsa OG1GISfffaplKelley.mxd
1...___1_,..L. , 1._ t !
Pro'p'osed Revision
For Informational Use Only
SE 142nd Street
Section 15, Township 23,
Range 8 E
1 0
_...: City of North Bend
North Bend Potential
Annexation Area
11/'x'' KC Maintained
A/ Current UGBL
N Proposed UGBL
.
L411
King County -
250 125 0 250 500 Feet
.....""'�.���
June 21, 2011
The informatwrrkxludedonthis map has been compiled by
County s a variety of soufcesana Is subject Co •
K1119 C
.
tang County makes no representations or warranties, express
or impked, es to accuracy, completeness. tinieliness, or rights
to the use of such lnformatlon.
Ns document is not intended for use as a survey product.
16ng Countlyy shat not be liable tor anV general, special,
krdkeit, Incklentat or consequentlel damages Incudinil. but
not Imltedto, lost revenues or lost profits resulting from the
use or misuse of the information contained on this map.
MY Sate of this map or kifa ne:eon on this map re prohibited
axcep[ by written permission of Kng Canty.
... .._ —=s
i�
....�.�� _......_
'
._
1 1
CO.
I 1 in
, .= ;-'
y'
•
,
SE. 1.4or `
HST
i j 1
, , -_ _
- 1
cNi
i j.__ _..__.d
Nort1�'�n
sf
„._-
€i
(ti ...'
I ! '� ,
f ,
1 ,
�'
�-,: +
, !
____.___ _..
_.._... _._ . _-----
i
_______._-- ,SE ~140TH.ST -._.
..��—
Li:
1_90 1_90 Q
_
Pro •osed Revision to UGBL .
UGBL
SE 142N P ST _ —_._
8
.. ... .
{` i i•. ����,
1 – w.:SE 142ND_Si"�_
' ' ;
1 ‘
f_. 1 l
r
i
. j
..:....._ /.._...L_......`� ._.__...._......__.�_.., -., ......_._: _...�
Move UGB'to north margin of ROW
to include road in Rural Area.
Road selves rural properties.
!,..
I `.
'
i
,
(
(
�..�.�..-
3
-- -
1,---.--
S
" } -
'..,, �. ---•�
` ��.,....
!! !
ti,
1f 1
`
{
h
\ r
"
I
,3 UrKwsriesti ortnBerd Nee - WM. EdihclSEi42ill •t.)P;.!
`
' !I , \L—
r , , : \\..
...
_, .L....R.._ /.4,.' f \ 1 t 1 ti k --- —
—) .
P
Proposed Revision
-- -
' _ _.. _ -T S
co
co
Zt luawLpeuw
Attachment 13
17487
Urban Growth Boundary Right of Way Issues - SE Green Valley Road
Move UGB to south ROW
margin to include road in
Rural Area. All other segments
of SE Green. Valley Road
are rural.
Right of Way Issue
N. r
V Urban Growth Line
la v. County Roads
-I Parcels
Cities
Unincorporated Area
SR164
Auburn
II* %R.N.. Whaled mW.awls.OmWOWMNovuw.r
"I*Pa aM sr.gs
N bvO�.Rpsimv.sra.iwbx
Asp Cow' TNdhlusmtb Mawr
rb+w.was Nsrm NmMmts
m.6q yb.W gdNan i ankloa Aiigbr.Mteid
1*./..
110 55 0
110 Feet
134
May 10, 2011 meroaoadahhamoom.m.pucanar.,w
La King County
17487
Attachment 14
Urban Growth Boundary Right of Way Issues - SR 203 & NE 140th Street
1
Move U.GB to east Margin of
SR 203 ROW to include all
OW fog` NE 140th Street in
Urban Area and eliminate
oprhaned ROW segment.
• 11 11 1 Urban Growth Line
County Roads
Parcels
Cities
.Unincorporated Area
►.rPew..rp*w..rattest. m....P.MmPV.
Ifryf,'siq wM.mnMM.nYiel wmmWb4..YM.i A.
.ww!u..ar.wa n...... Ewa. b. P. N
-OSa4 M. 0R.eW Mw•i..1 AWN Mip2 MMY
- VmpYlasimo wAtW1p, W m4pH41dNwwiu
sbilAmiim.lgPs.. wmihtw.. t.liaman .t
wsc4spr :w w:c..
#1
It
"` i'
r , I y� bola t'r
1.
St
tti._� cr
ii Ot s.
i •. keZig itackB4,.
t
r�r
90 45 0
90 Feet
May 10, 2011
La King County
waPalroaasxynarewa sm.p■ca.ym.e
135
17487
Attachment 15
r
011414 t? Paroet440 $88005013101410wiihin,thiiC401iN60114you r
WOW. i ilal oou"darY
troy. ar 189671f1.'
s « ef�te"s'i:cr 4q ad N Us r
'66046 d.4*acras .SrpCoduCL dplt!S�o� ba�
• 9. CuII *NNW to bst:twonws or last rows 89rp ul ins O suie of the
4a1#! IU map 15 ri,r A;kd rxcapi Cy wnUan p o40l XIn9 COuA!Y .
4t2•12: , "Scan.IWy Ccunty"IMAP- Property Inrormaiiori ildW I1www mdtroRo.puYlf3ISIIMAP1;
136
King County
Metropolitan King County Council
Committee of the Whole
REVISED STAFF REPORT
Agenda Item:
Name:
Kendall Moore
Proposed No ::
2012 -0436
Date:
November 26, 2012
Invited:
Paul Reitenbach, GMPC staff coordinator
Karen Wolf, Executive's office
SUBJECT
Adoption of the UGA and PAA1 map amendment recommendations by the Growth
Management Planning Council
COMMITTEE ACTION
On November 26, 2012 the committee voted out Proposed Ordinance 2012 -0436 as
amended with a "do pass" recommendation.
SYNOPSIS
Adoption of Proposed Ordinance 2012 -0436 would approve and ratify for the population
of unincorporated King County the recommendations made by the Growth Management
Planning Council ( "GMPC ") relevant moving the Urban Growth Boundary ( "UGB ") in 15
different instances, none of which are controversial. These changes have already been
forwarded as part of the King County Comprehensive Plan ( "KCCP ") Update for
consideration. Additionally, except for the split parcel correction (Attachment 15 to
GMPC Motion 12 -5) all have been subject to the County's KCCP public review and no
one has opposed these changes. Additionally, no one testified at the GMPC hearing in
opposition to these changes.
BACKGROUND
At its June 6, 2012 meeting, the GMPC took up for consideration Motion 12 -5 listing the
proposed changes to the Urban Growth Area ( "UGA ") then under consideration by the
King County Council and accepted public testimony regarding the proposed changes.
No one testified against the proposals.
1 UGA is the acronym for Urban Growth Area and PAA is the acronym for Potential Annexation Area.
1 of 8
137
On September 11, 2012, the GMPC approved Motion 12 -5 following additional public
testimony regarding the proposed changes to the UGA. Again, no one testified against
the proposals.
ANALYSIS
1. GMPC Motion 12 -5 Attachment 1 (Soaring Eagle)2
The proposal would change the from Rural to Urban a 29.9 acre portion of Soaring
Eagle Park and add it to the Potential Annexation Area ( "PAA ") of the City of
Sammamish. It is expected that a later time, the ownership of the parcel will be
transferred from King County to the City and an interlocal agreement would ensure that
this property to be permanently kept in park use. This will allow the City to annex the
subject property and develop it with an active recreation city park.
KCCP Policy U -104 supports this change.3 The transfer will result in a public benefit in
the form of a city park with restrooms served by public sewers.
2 All of the map amendments recommended by the GMPC in Motion 12 -5 were included in the striking
amendment to Proposed Ordinance 2012 -0103, the 2012 Updates to the King County Comprehensive
Plan. .
3 U -104 Rural properties that are immediately adjacent to a city and are planned or designated for park
purposes by that city may be redesignated to urban when the city has committed to designate
the property in perpetuity in a form satisfactory to the King County Council for park purposes
and:
a. The property is no more than 30 acres in size and was acquired by the city prior to 1994;
b. The property is no more than 30 acres in size and receives county support through a park
or recreation facility transfer agreement between King County and a city; or
c. The property is or was formerly a King County park and is being or has been transferred to
a city.
2 of 7
138
TM elmogiso ate. r Ina ar *an oar rower
IOepC- Ynpirp M�raa.aaaalaY swear* abort
wars se. l
.. w a sob re....
a ....a I*.
TIN Nv•• } — •Ia.Y/ M r. as • sag.., poll—
a—fnt Inn.n.. un.�i - ..y __ire Arno
N../ a. tot a•p•W • 1S pens mon% 4. -
.pow --.bra ao.W Y as Avg eta l
.a amp a ra..r.•• r. one. rl'M+•••p•....
a..r•p••• w+r
OAK. Java., 211. 9012
WYrYIM yF1<:.NNr.N
Soaring Eagle
Recommended Land Use Map
OS KC Open Space System
O P Other Packs. W Idemess
incorporated Areas
Urban Growth Bout dary
• Snubby Area
• Growth Boundary
e
KimOsunt,
4-
9m
.ou
OS
0�.1•�J� fin■
1
u .a ■'1 *ash mApoach valitm a1
op
1
l��
P'iuUiii rr . a�
Sammamish r I - Jr Nara
torimp ilti .., - _. z,' of. 1.4, # AIN, 41,7
, 4.. %..__.,411BEP,'
3 of 8
139
2. GMPC Motion 12 =5 Attachment 2: (Snoqualmie Mining Site)
This recommendation would change the land use designation from Urban (and in
Snoqualmie's PAA) to Rural for a portion of parcel 2024089017 and all. of parcel
2024089020. Both of these properties contain a long -term mining operation and are
zoned Mining. Both the City and the property owner, Weyerhaeuser, support the
change.
KCCP Policies also support this change:
• R- 510,4 which calls for land designated in a Rural City's PAA should be planned
and developed with urban uses, not mining activity.
• R -676,5 support the designating existing mining sites as a Designated Mineral
Resource. By definition. designated Resource Lands are not within the Urban
Area.
4 In substantive part, R -510 The cities in the rural area and their Urban Growth Areas are considered
part of the overall Urban Growth Area for purposes of planning land uses and facility
needs.
5 In substantive part, R -676 King County shall identify existing and potential mining sites on the
Mineral Resources Map in order to conserve mineral resources, promote
compatibility with nearby land uses, protect environmental quality, maintain and
enhance mineral resource industries and serve to notify property owners of the
potential for mining activities. The county shall identify:
a. Sites with existing Mineral zoning as Designated Mineral Resource Sites;
4 of 7
140
• 1..I..II.M .rY.16 . N ••• ,.......w. y
O.. Co*t a6tk.a..sr.l 1r00 001.0010 ..l.
vault 0~0* +SFr 10110 ... - or
6..arr rMY . M. r M u.. 1•0•06..
T11. N. .d 110006 tr i. M • •Y.. 06E0
4. C.** 00 1.l M bW 1...'1 000 00111
ittiletti at 0001•00e 10.0a 0000 *a or
▪ NSW ... 1.10•00 Y1111•11/100 MR 66. r. Mr .. .1
*Wawa 00■0110 M 110 ...b .M.6.1 rm. Jr .1.w
i..1M1W dt•rrftur 1i
Oda Amy* /1.9111
ib$.1 Y1161Aaryq, ild
2, "21 VII 1..lnegn6liMfYrQ J „Unroll
Snoquaimie Mining
Recommended Land Use Map
rx
ra
m
os
Rai Cities Urban Growth Area 1 incorporated Areas
Rural Area
Mining { Urban Growth Boundary
9 County Open System al
Change
l Urban
T ^# Growth Boundary
7!O
y
y
m
5 of 7
141
3. GMPC Motion 12 -5 Attachments 3 -14: (ROW /UGA Technical Corrections)
Pursuant to T -2056, King County Department of Transportation determined 12
segments of King County road rights -of -way ( "ROW ") should be redesignated on the
KCCP Land Use map for the purposes of efficient future road maintenance. In eight
cases, the ROW segment should be included within the UGA so that the adjacent city
will have long -term maintenance responsibility. In three cases, the ROW segment
should be included in the Rural Area, since King County will continue to have
maintenance responsibility. One case involves two segments; one should be
designated Rural and the other Urban to clarify maintenance responsibility between
King County and the City of Redmond.
Map Amendments — These map amendments are attached to this staff report as part of
Attachment A to proposed Ordinance 2012 -0436.
Redesignate from Rural to Urban:
• 148th Ave SE, adjacent to Auburn
• 212th Ave SE, west of Black Diamond
• NE Union Hill Road, east of Redmond
• Lake Sawyer road SE, west of Black Diamond
• SE Old Petrovitsky Road, "east of Renton
• SE 281st Way, east of Maple Valley
• SE 288th Street, south of Maple Valley
• SE 440th Street, north of Enumclaw
• SR 203 at NE 140th Street, south of Duvall.
Redesignate from Urban to Rural:
• 196th Ave NE, east of Redmond
• SE 142nd Street, south of North Bend
• SE 150th Street, south of North Bend
• SE Green Valley Road, northeast of Auburn
4. GMPC Motion 12 -5 Attachment 15: Maple Valley Split Parcel
Council Staff discovered" a split parcel in the city of Maple Valley during their review of
the map amendments for the 2012 KCCP Updates. This developed parcel, located
within a subdivision totally within the city limits of Maple Valley, shows up on the UGA
map with the UGB running through it, resulting in half designated Urban and half
6 T -205 Any segment of a county roadway that forms the boundary between the Urban Growth Area and
the Rural Area shall be designed and constructed to urban roadway standards on both sides of
such roadway segment.
This map amendment was not included as an area study for the 2012 KCCP Update; however, it is a
technical change rather than substantive change and merely corrects the UGA map to reflect the existing
conditions on the ground.
6 of 7
142
designated Rural. This change results in the parcel being completely within the Urban
Area.
This map amendment is attached to this staff report as part of Attachment A to
proposed Ordinance 2012 -0436.
The change comports with KCCP Policy U -103.8
AMENDMENT
A striking amendment has been prepared to comport this legislation with the revisions to
the code that are included in the striking amendment for Proposed Ordinance 2012-
0282. As members will recall, the striking amendment to Proposed Ordinance 2012-
0282 will simplify the King County Code changes so that listing every GMPC action and
ratification by the Council will no longer called out in Code. The striking amendment to
Proposed Ordinance 2012 -0282 will decodify those listing sections in the Code rather
than repeal. them, so that history will be preserved. This approach is similar to what is
proposed for the Comprehensive Plan code sections that list the history of amendments
to the Comprehensive Plan. Therefore, the section in the transmitted proposed
ordinance reflecting the history of past GMPC and Council action relative to CPP
amendments are not necessary and have been removed. Findings are added to set the
context.
8 U -103 Parcels which are split by the Urban Growth Area boundary line should be redesignated to either
all urban or all rural unless the parcel is split to recognize environmentally sensitive features or
the requirements of interlocal agreements or King County plans.
This parcel was not split for environmental reasons or as a result of planning or agreements with the City.
Maple Valley supports this change.
7 of 7
143