Council PKT 08-14-2000 Special
AGENDA
FEDERAL WAY CITY COUNCIL
Council Chambers - City Hall
August 14, 2000
(www.ci.federal-way. wao us)
*****
SPECIAL MEETING - 5:30 p.m.
I.
CALL MEETING TO ORDER
II.
KING COUNTY COUNTYWIDE PLANNING POLICIES
ill.
ADJOURNMENT
~~
MEETING DATE: August 14, 2000 ITEM#
"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""-""""""""""""CITY"Õ'F'"FEDERAL"WAY"""""""""""""""""""""""""""........................................................................
City Council
AGENDA ITEM
SUBJECT: AMENDMENTS TO THE COUNTYWIDE PLANNING POLICIES
""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""'"..........,......................................................................................................................
................................................................................................
CATEGORY:
CONSENT
ORDINANCE
X BUSINESS
HEARING
FYI
RESOLUTION
STAFF REPORT
PROCLAMATION
STUDY SESSION
OTHER
BUDGET IMPACT:
Amount Budgeted: $
Expenditure Amt: $
ContingencyReqd: $
.......................................................................................................................................................................................................
..........................."""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""............................................................
ATTACHMENTS: Draft Response to the King County Office of Regional Policy and Planning; August 3,2000 Memorandum
to the Land Use/Transportation Committee with Exhibits A through H; and July 13, 2000, Memorandum to the Land Use/
Transportation Committee with Exhibits A through H.
...............................................................................................................................,.................................."....................................
....................................................................................................................................................................
SUMMARYIBACKGROUND: The City of Federal Way has received a request from King County to review and ratify
three amendments to the King County Countywide Planning Policies (CPPs). These amendments include several items: (1)
changes to the CPPs to adjust City household targets to include additional households, which reflect annexations and
incorporations from April 1994 through April 1998; (2) reassignment of new household targets from unincorporated King
County (Potential Annexation Areas [PAAs]) to the City; (3) adoption of an annexation area map, along with provisions
requiring it to remain interim until all unincorporated urban areas are included in City P AAs without gaps or overlaps,
regardless of whether cities have entered into interlocal agreements to set annexation area boundaries; and (4) replacement of
the six-year development capacity work item with the review and evaluation ("Buildable Lands") program that creates a role
for the County in addressing cities' growth targets.
.......................................................................................................................................................................................................
.....................................................................................................................................................................
CITY COUNCIL COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: The Land Use/Transportation Committee (LUTe)
reviewed the request at its July 17 and August 1, 2000, meetings and voted to forward the following recommendation to the
full Council: Do not accept Motion 99-1, an amendment to the CPPs to adjust targets for new housing units to reflect
annexations and incorporations from April 1994 through January 1998. Do not accept the portion of Substitute Motion 99-2
which proposes to reassign new housing targets for PAAs, unless the Motion is revised to clarify that a city's PAA boundaries
agreed upon by all adjacent cities are final. Do not accept Motion 99-4, an amendment to the CPPs to replace the six-year
development capacity work item with the review and evaluation ("Buildable Lands") program, unless the Motion is revised to
clarify that responsibility for identifying and taking action in response to the Buildable Lands review lies with the particular
local jurisdiction whose progress towards growth targets is at issue. Amendments proposed by the City are spelled out in the
August 3,2000, Staff Report and in the attached draft letter.
.................................................................."""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""".....................................................................................................
.....................................................................................................................................
CITY MANAGER RECOMMENDATION: Motion to authorize sending the attached letter to the King County Office of
Regional Policy and Planning, per the LUTe's recommendation.
.. ..¡;;; ~.~~.. ;.~; ..~~ ~ .~~~~~ ~.;..~. ~~.~ ~~.; ¡ ~~;.. ~.. ~........................ ............................ ...................... .................... .......... ..............
(BELOW TO BE COMPLETED BY CITY CLERK'S OFFICE)
COUNCIL ACTION:
APPROVED
DENIED
T ABLEDIDEFERRED/NOACTION
COUNCIL BILL #
ORDINANCE #
RESOLUTION #
1:\KCWPPS\O81400 CC AGENDA COVER SHEET.doc/8/II/OO 8: 18 AM
(253) 661-4000
FEDERAL WAY. WA 98003-6210
August 14, 2000
DRAFt
Ms. Carol Chan, Policy Analyst
King County Office of Regional Policy and Planning
516 3rd Avenue, Room 402
Seattle, WA 98104
Re:
Amendment to the King County Countywide Planning Policies
Dear Ms. Chan:
The Federal Way City Council at its August 14,2000, meeting reviewed the following p"roposed
amendments to the King County Countywide Planning Policies (CPPs):
l. Motion 99-1 - An amendment to the CPPs to adjust targets for new housing units to reflect
annexations and incorporations from April 1994 through January 1998.
2. Substitute Motion 99-2 - An amendment to the CPPs to reassign new housing targets for
Potential Annexation Areas (PAAs) and adoption of an annexation area map, along with
provisions requiring it to remain interim until all unincorporated urban areas are
included in city P AAs without gaps or overlaps regardless of whether cities have entered
into interlocal agreements to set annexation area boundaries.
3. Motion 99-4 - Replacement of the six-year development capacity work item with the
review and evaluation ("Buildable Lands") program that creates a role for the County in
addressing cities' growth targets.
The Council made the following motions:
l.
Do not accept Motion 99-1. The City Council has determined that the housing targets assigned
to the City of Federal Way are too high, and therefore acceptance of additional targets at this
time is not acceptable. In addition, for the most part the areas recently annexed by Federal Way
are not residential and therefore the transfer of additional housing targets along with these
annexation areas is not appropriate.
2.
Do not accept that portion of Substitute Motion 99-2, which proposes to reassign new housing
targets for P AAs, based on the same reasoning as Motion 99-1. In addition, the Council
determined that it cannot accept Substitute Motion 99-2 unless language relating to Potential
Annexation Area boundaries is amended as follows:
Ms. Carol Chao
Page 2
August 14, 2000
".... The Interim P AA Map describes the areas receiving target allocations in
Table cpr Appendix 2B. This map is considered to be interim until-all
unincorporated urban areas are included in City P AAs without gaps or overlaps~
except for those jurisdictions, which have entered into P AA Interlocal Agreements
with all surrounding jurisdictions, in which case, the PAA boundaries shall be
considered final. Other than final P AA boundaries, this map may also be amended
to reflect other cpr policy direction."
3.
Do not accept Motion 99-4, an amendment to the CPPs to replace the six-year development
capacity work item with the review and evaluation ("Buildable Lands") program, unless the
following proposed amendment is incorporated into the motion:
Under Step 5b, "...If the results of this program are inconsistent with the
requirements of the Growth Management Act (GMA), King County and its citíes
each jurisdiction not achieving urban densities as demonstrated by the review and
evaluation program shall identify reasonable measures in accordance with.the
GMA, other than adjusting the Urban Growth areas, that are reasonably likely to
increase consistency that '""ill be taken to comply with those requirements."
If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact Bob Sterbank, Interim City
Attorney, at 253-661-4572.
Sincerely,
Mike Park, Mayor
City of Federal Way
c:
Stephen Clifton, AICP, Director of Community Development Services
Margaret H. Clark, AICP, Senior Planner
1:\KCWPPS\O80800 Lcucr to King County.docI8IlllOO 8:27 AM
CITY OF FEDERAL WAY
MEMORANDUM
August 3, 2000
SUBJECT:
Phil Watkins, Chair
Land Use/Transportation Committee (LUTC) -
Stephen Clifton, AICP, Director of Community Development servi#
Margaret H. Clark, AICP, Senior Planner ~
David M~anager
Follow-Up - Ameqdments to the King County Countywide Planning Policies
TO:
FROM:
VIA:
BACKGROUND
The city has received a request from King County to review and ratify three amendments (Motion 99-1,
Substitute Motion 99-2, and Motion 99-4) to the King County Countywide Planning Policies (CPPs). For
background purposes, please find attached the July 13, 2000 Staff Report to the LUTC. The LUTC
discussed these motions at their July 17,2000, meeting and took the following actions:
1.
Motion 99-1 (Exhibit A) - An amendment to the CPPs to adjust targets for new housing units
to reflect annexations and incorporations from April 1994 through January 1998.
The LUTC made a motion not to accept these amendments and directed staff to draft a letter to
King County conveying this information.
2.
Substitute Motion 99-2 (Exhibit B) - An amendment to the CPPs to reassign new housing
targets for Potential Annexation Areas (PAAs) and adoption of an interim Potential
Annexation Area Map (Exhibit C) that will remain interim until all unincorporated urban
areas are included in City P AAs without gaps or overlaps.
The LUTC made a motion not to accept these amendments and directed staff to draft a letter to
King County conveying this infonnation. The question also came up on whether the formula for
reallocating targets from King County to the P AA was being consistently applied to all
jurisdictions. Staff followed up with King County staff on this question and the following explains
the background of the reallocation process.
Countywide Planning Policies LU-66 and 67 require all jurisdictions to establish 20-year household
targets in their comprehensive plans. The Growth Management Planning Council (GMPC) adopted
the target number of net new households to be accommodated by King County by the Year 2012 as
195,000 new households. The cities portion was 150,803 new households and unincorporated King
County's portion was 44,897 (Exhibit D). Unincorporated King County's Targets was comprised of
both the Rural Growth Area Targets (5,800 to 8,200) and Urban Growth Area Targets (34,200 to
Land Use Transportation Committee
Page 2
August 3, 2000
41,800). The 1994 King County Comprehensive Plan then broke down the Urban Growth Area 20
Year targets (34,200 to 41,800 with a midpoint of38,000, please refer to Table 1) between the
various Community Planning Areas. These household targets were allocated ~etween the
Community Planning Areas based on proximity to Centers, availability or pòtèntial of transit and
adequate roads, water and sewer services, and analysis of vested development aç!ivity. The Federal
Way Community Planning Area received a target 00,300 to 4,200 new households to be
accommodated by the Year 2012 (Exhibit E). As can be seen in Exhibit F, the Federal Way
Planning Area includes a larger area than the P AA. Please note that the proposed target for the
Federal Way Potential Annexation Area (PAA) is 1,894.
Household targets for individual cities were adopted as part of the Countywide Planning Policies
(CPPs) in July 1994. The targets were drafted by a staff committee, the Urban CenterslPopulation
Allocation Subcommittee, chaired by Rob Odle (then of Bellevue). The sub-committee treated
household and associated growth targets as ways of expressing the major goals of the CPPs, which
were to encourage growth in Urban Areas, and to the extent possible, focus growth particularly in a
number of Urban Centers connected by high-speed transit. In order to determine city household
targets, two main factors were used, land capacity of each city and the policy intent of each city to
accommodate growth. .
Since the 20-year household targets were allocated, there had been a number of incorporations of
new cities and annexations by existing cities. However, as these incorporations and annexations
took place, households were not being reallocated from unincorporated King County
(unincorporated portions of the Urban Growth Area) to the cities. Therefore, unincorporated King
County was left with the same housing target that was established in 1994, while the amount of land
available to meet this target had decreased.
As a result, in early 1998, the Growth Management Planning Council (GMPC) asked the Urban
Centers/Population Allocation Sub-committee to look at reallocation of household targets. This
committee was the same committee that was originally involved in allocating household targets
in 1994; however, Steve Cohn of Bellevue now chaired the sub-committee. The sub-committee
started meeting to discuss various methodologies to reallocate targets. Federal Way staff attended
these discussions. After examining a number of strategies to calculate the adjustment, the sub-
committee settled on a methodology, which was based on the proportion of Urban Land Area (water
and designated open space is excluded) to household targets in the Community Planning Area.
Therefore, if a city annexed 12 percent of the Urban-designated Planning Area's non-park and non-
water acreage, it should add 12 percent of the unincorporated Planning Area's Urban target.
Because the original unincorporated targets were deliberately set lower than those of cities, the
added target would be proportionately much lower that the city target.
The total acreage in the Federal Way Community Planning Area is 10,573 acres and the household
target for the Planning Area is 3,750 (the midpoint of the 3,300 - 4,200 range). This works out to
3,750/10,573, which is equal to 0.35 households per acre. The following table (Table 1) shows the
comparison of households per acre for each planning area based on total acreage as of April 1,
1994, and assigned housing target.
Land Use Transportation Committee
Page 3
August 3, 2000
TABLE 1
Community Planning Area Total Acreage Housing Target - . Households! Acreage
Bear Creek 2,672 3,400 1.27
East Sammamish 15,565 7,650 -- 0.49
Federal Way 10,573 3,750 0.35
Highline 6,341 1,650 0.26
Newcastle 9,377 3,050 0.33
Northshore 9,734 . 3,000 0.31
Shoreline 7,962 3,000 0.38
Soos Creek 20,835 9,100 0.44
TahomalRaven Heights 8,332 3,400 0.41
Total 91,393 38,000 0.42
Source: May 16, 1998 Memorandum to Members of the GMPC from Steve Cohn, CIty of Bellevue and Chandler
Felt, King County
The second part of Motion 99-2 states, "The Interim PAA Map describes the areas receiving target
allocations in Table CPP Appendix 2B. This map is considered to be interim until all
unincorporated urban areas are included in City P AAs without gaps or overlaps. This map may also
be amended to reflect other CPP policy direction."
If the LUTC desires to ratify this portion of the Motion, staff recommends the following
amendment, "The Interim P AA Map describes the areas receiving target allocations in Table CPP
Appendix 2B. This map is considered to be interim until all unincorporated urban areas are included
in City P AAs without gaps or overlaps" except for those jurisdictions which have entered into P AA
Interlocal Agreements with all surrounding jurisdictions, in which case, the P AA boundaries shall
be considered final. This map may also be amended to reflect other CPP policy direction."
3.
Motion 99-4 (Exhibit G) - An amendment to the CPPs to remove the six-year development
capacity work item and to incorporate the review and evaluation ("Buildable Lan~s")
program as required by the State Growth Management Act under RCW 36.70A.215.
The LUTC requested that someone from King County attend the August 7, 2000, LUTC meeting to
explain this proposed amendment (motion). Paul Reitenbach with the King County Office of
Regional Policy Planning will be attending the August 7h LUTC meeting.
Following the July 17,2000 LUTC meeting, staff contacted King County for clarification on this
proposed amendment. Chandler Felt, King County Demographer, explained that when the CPPs
were initially adopted, the GMPC established the Land Capacity Task Force. The purpose of this
Task Force was to develop a standard methodology for measuring land capacity (both residential
and commercial/industrial) and also to develop a baseline set of estimates to ensure that adequate
capacity existed to meet the 20-year population projections established by the state. The Task Force
came up with the capacity analysis methodology, which is being used by all jurisdictions to estimate
land capacity. They also prepared the 1997 residential report, which concluded that there was
adequate capacity to meet the 20-year population projections.
Land Use Transportation Committee
Page 4
August 3, 2000
The remaining work for the Task Force was to develop a method for calculating six-year
development capacity. This methodology would ensure that all jurisdictions had adequate
infrastructure capacity to ensure theoretical vacant land capacity. However, thè Task Force could
not determine how to accomplish this, so a methodology was never arrived at. -
In 1997, the Growth Management Act (GMA) was amended to adopt the "Buildable Lands"
legislation that required a review and evaluation program, which duplicated the work required of the
Task Force because Buildable Lands required jurisdictions to develop similar information for a
five-year period. Please see Exhibit H -RCW 36. 70A.2I5. Review and Evaluation Program
(Buildable Lands Legislation).
Therefore, the GMPC recommends deleting the policy language requiring the six-year capacity
analysis, and replacing it with a policy supporting the Buildable Lands program as required by the
GMA. Washington State Community, Trade, and Economic Development has recently issued (July
12,2000) the Buildable Lands Program Guidelines. These guidelines allow flexibility for each
county to approach the Buildable Lands requirement as it sees fit. King County is working with all
its jurisdictions to come up with a methodology to address the Buildable Lands Requirements.
If the LUTC desires to ratify this Motion, staff recommends the following amendment:
Under Step 5b, "oo.Ifthe results of this program are inconsistent with the requirements of the
Growth Management Act (GMA), King County and its cities each jurisdiction shall identify
reasonable measures in accordance with the GMA, other than adjusting the Urban Growth areas
that will be taken to comply with those requirements."
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Julyl3, 2000, Staff Report to the LUTC
Exhibit A Motion 99-1
Exhibit B Substitute Motion 99-2
Exhibit C Interim Potential Annexation Area Map
Exhibit D Chart Showing Proposed Growth Target Ranges for Households and Employment as
Adopted by GMPC .
Page 30 of the 1994 King County Comprehensive Plan
Map - Federal Way Community Planning Area Boundary
Motion 99-4
RCW 36.70A.215, Review and Evaluation Program (Buildable Lands Legislation)
Exhibit E
Exhibit F
Exhibit G
Exhibit H
1:\KCWPPS\O80700 LUTC M«ting.d0d8ntoo II :4J AM
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
May 26, 1999.
Sponsored By:
Executive Committee
Ipr
1
MOTION NQ. 99-1
2
3
4
A MOTION amending the Countywide Planning Policies to adjust targets
for new housing units to reflect annexations and incorporations from April
1994 through January 1998.
WHEREAS,. the 1994 Countywide Planning Policies established a housing target range for each
city and for King County, and annexations and incorporations have occUlTed since that time; and
WHEREAS, the 1994 targets need to be revised to establish target ranges for the new incorporated
areas and to increase the target range for cities which have annexed fonnedy unincorporated areas,
and to correspondingly decrease the target range for un~ncorporated areas. .
TIlE GROWTII MANAGEMENT PLANNING COUNCIL OF KING COUNTY HEREBY
MOVES AS FOLLOWS:
The attached Table CPP Appendix 2A is hereby adopted in the Countywide
Planning Policies to revise housing growth targets to reflect annexations and
incorporations from April 1994 through January 1998.
EXH ~ ~ n~ __._A
PAGE ( OF' 3
UGMPCl99GMPClMot99-1.doc
- 1 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8'
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
ADOPTED by the Growth Management Planning Council of King County on
7--~-1? and signed by the members of the G~PCKC Executive Committee on
/d- - 7 - c¡ 1 in open sessi - aut en . ation of its doption.
"
aIr, Growth Management Planning Council
Bo Edwards, Suburban Cities Representative
Attachment:
1. Table CPP Appendix 2A - Household GroWth Target Re-Allocation Based on Annextions
and Incorporations between 4/94 and 1/98.
EXrrl"".[?:-' r~ A
. "! II i :~ ,) i
. ,. ,,> .. .. ...",
PAGE ~ OF2
UGMPCI99GMPClMot99-I,doc
- 2 -
CPP2A
EVR,-n r r- ~~
¡"\\Ir.~
A
n A ,...... r g.." '\\ K::' . ~
Cpp Appendix 2A . I I .- . ,U L r - ......, . , La I ~~ craft
Household Growth Target Re-Allocation Based on Annexations & Incorporations between 4/94 & 1/98 -
Rev 4/26/99 I I ¡ -
I I I
Column A Column 81 Column 82 Column C -
Adopted Household Target Added Through Target Added Through New Target Effective 1/98
Growth Target I Incorporation Annexation (A+81+82) I ~
Jurisdiction Low: Hioh: 4/94 to 1/98 4/94 to 1/98 Low: HJ9ïï.
Algona 346 462 0 0 346 .46~
Auburn 6553 9610 0 .6 6559 961E
Beaux Arts 0 0 0 0 0 (
Bellevue 7680 9550 0 112 7792 966~
Black Diamond 947 1119 0 591 1538 17H
Bothell 1448 2413 0 20 1468 243:
. Burien 1596 1995 0 0 1596 199~
Carnation 404 404 0 0 404 40L
Clyde Hill 12 12 0 0 12 1;
CovingtQl1 nla nla 1493 0 1343 164;
Des Moines 1437 2155 0 358 1795 251:
Duvall 1563 1759 0 0 1563 175~
Enumclaw 2182 2667 0 0 2182 266ì
Federal Way 13425 16566 0 243 13668 1680~
Hunts Point 4 4 0 0 4 L
Issaquah 1879 3508 0 686 2565 419L
Kent 6120 7500 0 2265 8385 976~
Kirkland 5328 6346 0 0 5328 634£
Lake Forest Park 101 168 0 316 417 48<:
Maple Valley nla nla 1539 0 1385 169;
Medina 17 17 0 0 17 17
Mercer Island 1056 1188 0 0 1056 118~
Milton 18 18 0 11 29 2~
Newcastfe nla nla 833 0 749 91E
Normandy Park 135 135 0 0 135 13~
North Bend 1266 1787 0 0 1266 1787
Pacific 606 1818 0 0 606 18H
Redmond 9637 12760 0 418 10055 1317i
Renton 7730 10049 0 70 7800 101H
Seattle 48233 59520 0 0 48233 5952(
SeaTac 3546 7500 0 2 3548 . 750:
Shoreline nla nla 2484 75 2303 281'
Skykomish 27 27 0 0 27 2;
Snoqualmie 1942 3625 0 0 1942 362~
Tukwila 4761 6014 0 0 4761 601'
Woodinville 1750 1842 0 1 1751 184:
Yarrow Point 18 18 0 0 18 11
.
City Total: 131,767 172,556 6,349 5,174 142,646 184,71~
Unincorporated County: 40,048 50,000 -6,349 -5,174 28,525 38,41'
- urban 34.248 41.800 -6.349 -5,174 22,725 30,2T
- rural 5,800 8.200 0 0 5,800 8,20'
Total King County Target: 171,815 222,556 0 0 171,171 223,19
NI columns are household growth targets. expressed as numbers of households to accommodate during the 20-year Growth Management period.
Column A represents adopted household targets from Appendix 2 of the Countywide Planning Policies.
'Column B1 represents household targets associated with incorporated areas between 4/94 and 1/98.
Column B2 represents household targets associated with annexed areas between 4/94 and 1/98.
Column C represents sum of adopted household targets. incorporated. and annexed targets, including ranges for new cities.
I I I I
Methodology: Column A growth targets were based on city boundanes as of Apn11994. Columns 81 and 82 are additional households to be
accommodated due to incoq>ofëltion (81) or annexation (82) between April 1994 and January 1998. These additional households coostitute a
proportional share of the urban unincorporated targets by Community Planning Nea. TIle additional households are based on the land-area
proportion of urban unincorporated area less desigl1<lled parks and mapped water bodies. That proportion is applied to the Planning Area's urbar<
target. the midrange of the table on page 30 of the King County Comprehensive Plan.
~~~". ~.~
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
Ex~n c:- ~..
PAG E {
B
ur
M:ay 26June 15, 1999
Sponsored By:
. Executive Committee
Ipr
1
Substitute MOTION NO. 99-2
2
3
A MOTION amending the Countywide Planning Policies 'to assign new
housing targets for potential annexation areas. .
WHEREAS, the 01994 Countywide Planning Policies established a housing target range for each
city and for King County, and annexations and incorporations have occurred since that time;
WHEREAS, the housing targets have been revised to reflect annexation and incorporation that
have occurred between April 1994 and January 1998; aRè
WHEREAS, there is a need to establish household target ranges for the remaining potential
annexation areas in order to corresporidingly decreaseidentifv the target range for King County in
the urban area outside current potential annexation areas:.,.
WIiEREAS. there is a need to advise cities about how their respective housing targets would
increase i[the existing agreed upon potential annexation areas were now annexed: and
WHEREAS. housing targets will change over time as the region receives new census data.
THE GROWTII MANAGEMENT PLANNING COUNCIL OF KING COUNTY HEREBY
M()VES AS FOLLOWS:
The attached Table CPP Appendix 2B and Interim Potential Annexation Areas Map
are hereby adopted in the Countyn,Jt'ide Planning Policics to revise the housing
grov.1h targets for tho potential ar.nexation areas to estimate housing targets for the
Potential Annexation Areas as shown on the Interim Potential Annexation Area
(P AA) Map. The Interim P AA Map-. describes the areas receiving target allocations
in Table CPP Appendix 2B. This map is considered interim until all
unincoI:porated urban areas are included in city P AAs without gaps or overlaps.
This map may also be amended to reflect other CPP policy direction.
UGMPCI99GMPCIM 0(99- 2 odoc
- 1 -.
1
2
3
4
'5
6
7
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
E}fP_nrr-o .-- ~.._-
. PAGE ;;2. v.~~ ~
ADOPTED by the Growth Management Planning Council of King County on
'7-JP-.cr1 and signed by the members of the GMPCKC Executive Committee on
IJ.-- 7 -qc¡ in open sessio ~rfãiillïeñ:ti~ation of its adoption.
air, Growth Managëiñent Planning Council
8
9
OL
2£6 &@a¡1/
Bob Edwards, Suburban Cities Representative
Attachments:
1. CPP Appendix 2B - Household Growth Target Re-Allocation based on Annexations and
Incorporations after 1/1/98 and Potential Annexation Areas.
2. ' Interim Potential Annexation Areas Map
[JGM PCl99GM PC/M ot99- 2 ,doc
-' 2 -
CPP'Appendix 28 DRAFT 4/28 I 99
These are draft estimates of growth targets associated with recent
. incorporations and potential annexaüon areas (PAAs).
Household Growth Target ~e-Allocation Based on Ann~xations and Inco~~6;/~8. ~
& Potential Annexation Areas .' . E:.3 J r <J
Column A Column 8-1 Column B-2 Column C
H'hold Growth Target to 1/98 Target from Completed Target Remaining Total Target (A + B )
Jurisdiction Low: HiQh: Annexation or IncorD in PMs - Low: Hioh:
Algona 346 .462 0 1!.i 361 477
Auburn 6559 9616 1 1977 8537 11594
Beaux Arts 0 0 0 0 0 0
Bellevue 7792 9662 6 515 8313 10183
Black Diamond 1538 1710 0 353 1891 2q63
Bothell 1468 2433 4 309 1781 2746
Burien 1596 1995 71 0 1667 2066
Carnation 404 404 0 0 404 404
Clyde Hill 12 12 0 0 12 12
Covington 1343 1642 0 0 1343 1642
Des Moines 1795 2513 38 0 1833 2551
Duvall 1563 1759 O . 0 1563 1759
Enumclaw 2182 2667 0 0 2182 2667
Federal Way 13668 16809 45 1606 15319 18460
Hunts Point 4 4 0 0 4 4
Issaquah 2565 4194 11 1538 <1114 5743
Kenmore % 0 0 1082 0 974 1190
Kent 8385 9765 0 1980 10365 11745
. Kirkland 5328 6346 0 1248 6576 7594
La.ke Forest Park 417 484 18 38 473 540
Maple Valley 1385 1692 0 0 1385 1692
Medina 17 17 0 0 17 17
Mercer Island 1056 1188 0 0 1056 1188
Milton 29 29 11 59 99 99
Newcastle 749 916 3 2 754 921
Normandy Park 135 135 0 0 135 135
North Bend 1266 1787 0 0 1266 1787
Pacific .606 1818 0 73 679 1891
Redmond 10055 13178 0 293 10348 13471
Renton 7800 10119 60 4260 12120 14439
Sammamish % 0 0 5465 0 4919 6012
Seattle 48233 59520 0 33 48266 59553
SeaTac 3548 7502 0 5 3553 7507
Shoreline 2303 2814 0 108 2411 2922
S1<ykomish 27 27 0 0 27 27
Snoqualmie 1942 3625 0 0 1942 3625
Tukwlla 4761 6014 0 36 4797 6050
Woodlnville 1751 1843 0 O . 1751 1843
Yarrow Point 18 18 0 0 18 18
City Total: 142,646 184,719 6,815 13,973^ 162,779 206,162
Unincorp. County . 28,525 38,477 -6,815 -13,973 7737* 17,689
- urban 22,725 30,277 -6,815 -13,973 1,937 9,489
- rural 5;800 8.200 0 0 5,800 8,200
Total Target: 171,171 223,196 0 0 170,516 223,581
Column A represents household growth targets adjusted far annexation and incorporation through 1/98. I
Column 8 represents household targets associated with recent annexations, two new dtie~ and potential annexation areas. ,
Column C represents sum of adopted targets, annexed / incofporated targets. and targets in PAAs.
A Que to overlapping PAAs., same duprlCaOOo OCCUfS In PM targets. This total eliminates dupficate targets.
. Represents areas of King County not covered by potential annexatioo areas. 4/99 draft
% Target for Kenmore and Sammamish,.incorporated after January 1998, is draft fO( discussion purposes.
,,'
"
f\
f"\
""-
-....-......
"
"'-j'\,j' "'"
r"
':\
E)r"-" "~ "~ 1>-
PAGE l OF I .
. .
Proposed Growth Target Ranges for Households and Employment
(
Net New Net New Hhld Rant:es Net New Net New Emo. Ra~ès
cmES Households Low Hit:h Emnlovment Low Hit:h
AIgona 404 346 462 350 - 300 400
Auburn 8,082 6,553 9,610 11,100 9,000 13.200
Beaux Arts .0 0 0 0 0 0
Bellevue 8,575 7,680 9,550 28,250 25,300 31.200
Black Diamond 1,033 947 1,119 1,200 1,100 1,:;00
Bothell (KC part) 1,931 1,448 2,413 2,900 2,150 3,600
Burien 1,796 1,596 1,995 450 400 . 500
Carnation . 404 404 404 0 0 0
Clyde Hill 12 12 12 o 0 0
Des Moines 1,796 1,437 2,155 2,500 2,000 3,000
DuvaU 1,886 1,563 1,759 1,700 1,600 1,800
Enumclaw 2,626 2,182 2,667 1,000 900 1,100
Federal Way 14,996 13,425 16,566 14,800 13,300 16,400
Hunts Point 4 4 4 o 0 0
Issaquah 2,694 1,879 3,508 4,300 3,000 5,600
Kent 6,735 6,120 7,500 11,500 10,450 12,550
Kirkland 5,837 5,328 6,346 8,600 7,800 9,300
Lake Forest Park 135 101 168 200 150 250
Medina 17 17 17 O' 0 0
Mercer Island 1,122 1,056 1,188 1,700 1,600 1,800
Milton 18 18 18 0 o 0
Normandy Park 135 135 135 0 o 0
North Bend 1,527 1,266 1,787 2,050 1,700 2,400
Pacific 1,212 606 1,818 100 50 150
Redmond 11,458 9,637 12,760 29,509 29,500 34,750
Rento~ 8,890 7,730 10,049 23,000 20,000 26,000
Sea Tac 3,592 3,546 7,500 15,800 15,600 26,900
Seattle 53,877 48,233 59,520 132,700 118,800 146,600
Skykomish 27 27 27 0 0 0
Snoqualmie 2,784 1,942 3,625 4,500 3,100 5,820
Tukwila 5,388 4,761 6,014 22,250 19,000 24,000
Woodinville 1,796 1,750 1,842 1,950 1,900 2,000
Y àrrow Point 18 18 18 0 0 0
.
City Totals 150,803 131,768 In,s58 322,409 288,700 370,620
Uninc. KC 44,897 40,048 50,000 25,000 23,300 28,700
GRAND TOTAL 195,700 171,816 222,558 34 7 ~409 312,000 399,320
Source: Growth ManagementP1annÏng Council, May 14, 1994.
\
IE
P A l:4 C '<J F-..J
by Urban Subarea" Table establishes a breakdown by subarea of the King County new household targets
for the Urban Growth Area. (Rural Area growth target ranges are presented in Chapter Three, Rural Land
Use.) These subarea household target ranges were developed for transportation modeling pwposes to test
for the adequacy of transportation facilities. The test establishes whether the facilities are equal to, less
than or greater than an established level of service, based on the initial recommended household tafget
range derived fÌom the Urban Centers Subcommittee andInterjurisdictional staff GTOUp. The effect of
reducing the unincorporated growth target ranges is that transportation modelin~rovides a more con-
servative estimate of King County's ability to provide inITastructure to support future growth.
E ~... r r f' n.-- . . --
. of" .
These household target ranges were allocated based on the share of both vacant and redevelopable acres
available to support new development in the subareas as well as the following considerations:
.
Proximity to centers;
Availability or potential of transit and adequate roads, water and sewer services, and
Analysis of vested development activity.
.
.
Although they may be refilled through future planning with affected comm\lllÍties and adjacent cities;
these ranges are intended to be used as a guide for future planning of land uses and decisions on services
. and infrastructure.
Household Growth Ranges by Urban Subarea
(
1992
2012
New Household
Growth
Subarea
Households
Shoreline
Northshore
Bear Creek
East Sammamish
Newcastle
Tahoma Raven Heights
Soos Creek
Federal Way
HigWine
23,700
22,300
100
10,650
13,900
5,300
30,200
11,300
32,600
2,600-3,400
2,600-3,400
2,900-3,900
7,200-8,100
2,600-3,500
3,000-3,800
8,600-9,600
3,300-4,200
1,400-1,900
::'. ¡ "';'
U-209
King County shall use population and employment target ranges to implement the Com-
prehensive Plan in urban communities. The target ranges allocated to subareas of unin-
corporated King County will be monitored and may be refined through future planning
that includes communities, affected cities and service providers.
30
December 1996
FEDERAL WAY
PLANNING AREA BOUNDARY
. PLANNING AREA
........ BOUNOARX
I
J .
\
POTENTIAL-ANNEXATION
AREA BOUNDARY
-CITY LIMITS
.- ...
,
~- -~@
,.(1
soo'
KinO' Count y Plonninq Division
<i>
1
2
3
4
'5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
.25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
. .
Ex.~"n:-"~ G
.ÞAGE: I .OF 2-
July 16, 1999
Sponsored By:
Executive Committee
cells
-
MOTION NO.. ~ .
A MOTION amending the CQuntywide PlalUling Policies to remove the 6
year development capacio/ work item and to incorporate the reView and.
evaluation program as required by the State's Growth Managetnent Act
underRCW36.70A.215. .
WHEREAS, In 1994, the Growth Management Planning Council (GMPC) established the Land
Capacity Task Force (LCTF) and charged them tö produce an improved, updated .set of land
capacity estimates, to establish a baseline from w~ch regular, ongoing monitoriIig could proceed;
~REAS, The LCTF has .reviewed and recommended a standardized methodology for
jurisdictions to measure the zoned land capacity for residential, and non-residential development
for the 20 year plalUling period; .
. .
WHEREAS, The jurisdictions have completed this analysis and the results show tþ.at the .
jurisdic~ions in King County have adequate capacity to accommodate the. growth expected in their
20-year plans;
WHEREAS, The remaining work program item for the LCTF is to develop a method for
calculating 6-year development capacity; .
WHEREAS, In 1997 the State Growth Management Act was amended to require a review and
evaluation program be established in King and five other counties and the cities within those. .
counties consistent with elementS ofRCW36.70A.215;
WHEREAS, The review and evaluation program requíred of King County and its cities will
produce infonnation to infonn the GMPC and the jurisdictions on whether there is sufficient land
. to accommodate the countywide population projection, detennine whether the actual density of
housing constructed and the amount of land developed for commercial and ind~trial uses within
the urban growth boundary is consistent with the adopted comprehensive plans, and to detennine
the amount of land needed for commercial, industrial and housing for the remaining portion of the
20 year plalUling period; and
WHEREAS, The review and evaluation program will provide infonnation that is similar to what
the 6-year development capacity would have provided; .
UGM PCl99GMPCIM ot99 -4 .doc
- 1 -
1
2
3
" 4 "
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
THE GROWTII MANAGEMENT PLANNING COUNCIL OF KING COUNIY HEREBY
MO~ AS FOLLOWS: .' "EXfFr. r ~ n~ G
PAGE ;¿ OF Z
. 1. Amend the following policy:
FW-l
Countywide growth management is a multi-step proçess...
Step 5.a:'
The Growth Management Planning Council or itS successor shall'
established a Land Capacity Task Force to accomplish the work program
prepared in April 1994 (see Appendix if). '.fhe Task Force completed the
Residential Land Capacity"Report in 1997 and the Industrial and
Commercial Land Capacity Report in 1998. In 1999. in order to comply
with RCW 36.70A.215. the April 1994 work program was deleted and.
replaced with the State's review and evaluation program. .
Step 5b: . The Growth Management Planning Councilor its successor shall conduct
a review and evaluation program in compliance with RCW 36.70A.2I5.
The pur:pose of the review and evaluation program shall be to determine
yvhether King County and its cities are achieving urban densities within
Urban qrowth Areas: This shall be accomplished by comparing the
growth and development assumptions. targets and objectives contained in
these policies (and in county and city compr~hensive plans) with actual
growth and development that has occurred. I[the results ?[this program
are inconsistent with the requirements of the Growth Management Act
. . (GMA), King County and its cities shall identify reasonable measures in
accordanc~ with the GMA. other than adjusting the Urban Growth Areas.
that will-be taken to comply with those requirements. .
2. Deiete Appendix 4, the April 1994 Lan~ Capacity Work Program.
ADOPTED by the Growth Management Planning Council Of ~ing County on 7 - ~ -11
and signed by the. members of the GMPCKC Executive Committee on I J- - 7 -q1 In
open session in authentication of its adopti
ue Dona dson, City of Seattle RepresentatIve
~Çbß1d/
Bob Edwards, Suburban Cities Representative
Lo e Miller, King County Representative
UGMPCl99GMPC/M ot99-4 .doc
- 2 -
COUNTIES
36~70A;210
Note 7
did not provide justiciable eontroVel'!!Y. allowing eounties to dietate cities~ eompre-
postem,a v. S~ohomish County (1996),8.3. . hensive plans, sine!" ,he~did;not reside ~,
Wash.A.pp. 574, 922 P.2d 176, review'de- ' one or the cities that he claim!!d would be.
nied 131 Wuh.2d 1019~ 936 P.2d 417. . , prejudieed. postema v. Snoþonrlsh. ~n-'
!; Standing , . ' 'ty (1996),83 Wuh.App.J¡74;,922"J;I.2d 176;
Plåintiff laeked standing to' usert claim review denied 131 w~h~,4 ~o.i~,'~6,P.2d'
that statute would have praetiea1 effect or 417. ' ,,', ,,' :',
" " ,.: \";:1, :"', "
36.70A.215. Review and evaluation' program ' 'ô',", ""-:: ;;:', ':' '.;.
(1) Subjecttö the llmitations in subsection (1) of this sêctiO1);:;~'~countyshan '
adopt, in consultation with its cities, county-wide planning poUcies 'tó: establish ~
a .review and 'evaluation program~ This program shall be fu ådpition :t9 th~ I
requirements of, ROW 36.70A.1l0, 36.70A.130, ånd 36.70A.210; In develçpipg
and implementing the review and evaluation program re<l'1Û'ed by)hls ,section,'
thê county and its cities shall consider information from other 'aP1.'):'opriate
jurisdictiops and sources. The purpose of the review and evaluation.þi:ogram
shall be to::;" '
(a) Determine whether å county and its cities are achieving urban densities
within urban growth areas by comparing growth and development assump-
tions, targets, and objectives contained in the county-wide planning 'policies.
and the county and city comprehensive plans with actual growt:~ aild develop.,'
, ment that has occurred in the county and its cities; and ' ' ': ; "
, (b) Identify reasonable measures,'other than adjusting,~b~~'~h ~eas,'
'that will be taken to comply with the requirements of this chap~.. ,',' ,
(2) The review and evaluation program shan: ,':'"" 1'.'.\ ,:' ,
(a). Encompass land uses and activities both within and outside òf.1n'ban
growth. areas and provide for annual ,collection of data on urban and ru.ra1land
uses, development, critical areas, and capital facilities to the exœntnecessary
to detenninethe quantity and type of land suitable for deVelopment;, both for
residential and employment-based activities; ".:,,' ~;; .r.. , . ",
. ' " "', ,," , "
(b) Provide for evaluation of the'data collected under (a): of this'Subsection'
every five years as provided in subsection (3) of this ,section~",~e'first
evaluation shall be completed not later than September 1, 2002ð1ìe countY
and its cities may establish in the county~wide planning policies indicators,
benchmarks, arid other similar criterla to use in conducting' :tþ,~ )r~uation;
(c) Provide for methods to resolve disputes among jurisdictions ,relating to
the county-wide planning, policies required' by' this section and procedures to
resolve inconsistencies in collection and analysis of data; and'!. .:, ,', :'" , '
(d) Provide for the amendment of the county-wide poli~e~; ~rid;'~óunty. and '
city comprehensive plans as needed to remedy an :inconsisteñëy, .identified
through the evaluation required by this séction, or to bring .thèsé;p'~~cies into
compliance with the requirements oHhis chap~.' ;.:,'; 0 ;,;'. ': '
(3) At' a minimum, the evaluation component of the piogråm, ~~d by,
subsection (1) of this section shall: ,"'0' ,.; " "
(a) Determine whether there is sufficient suitable land to accommodate the.
county-wide population projection established for the county pursuant. to ROW
43.62.035 and the subsequent population allocations within ther;Ì!ounty and
between the county and its cities and the requirements of ROW'~36.70A.ll0;
, .- ." ,. '
(b) Determine the actual density of housing that has beeIt.~onS~cted and
0.' .i' ,~~~ ~M'Ø'(\"øn for commercial and industrial uses Within
. ",;,":' ..~,~~.. ~"'Q
COt.JNTmS
36'~70k250
(c) 13ased on the actual density. of. development as determine~ under (b) of
this subsection, review commercial, :industrial, 'and housing needs by type and
density range tQ determirie the amount of land needed for commercial,
industrial, and housing for the: remaining, portion of the twenty-year planning
period ,used in the most recently adopted ,comprehensive plan.
(4) If'the evaluation 'required by'subsection (3) of this section demonstrates
an inconsistency between what has occurred' since' the adoption of the countY-
wide planning policies and the county" and city comprehensive plans, and
development regulations and w1iat Was enVi$ioned in those policies and plans
and the planning goals and the requirements of this chapter, as the inconsis-
tency relates. to the evaluation factors specified in 8t1bsection (3) of this section,
the, ,county and its cities shall adopt ,and implement measures that are
reMop-ably likely to increase consistency during the subsequent five-year
period. If necessary, a county, in consultation with .its cities 'as required by
ROW 36.70A.210, shall adopt amendments to county-wide planning policies to
increase consistency. The county' an4 its cities shall annually monitor the
measUres adopted under this subsection to determine their effect and may
revise or rescind them as appropriate.
(5)(a) Not later than July 1, 1998, the department shall prepare a list of
methods used by counties and cities in can-y:ing out the types of actiVities
required by this section. The department shall provide this information and
appropriate technical assista.D.ce to counties and cities required to or choosing
to comply with the provisions ofthÍs section.
(b) By December 31,2007, the department shall submit to the appropriate
committees of' the legislãture a report .analyzing the effectiveness of the
activities described in this section in achieviIig the goals enVisioned by the
county-wide planning policies and the comprehensive plans and development
regulations of the counties and cities. !
(6) From funds appropriatèd oy the legislature for this, pUrpose, the depart.
ment shall proVide grants to .counties, cities, and regional planning organiza-
tions re,quired under subsection (7) of this section to conduct the review and
perform the evaluation required by.this section. ' .
, .(7) The provisions of this section shall apply to counties, and the cities'
withiri those counties, that were grea'ter than one hundred fifty thouæm
population in 1995 as determined by office of financial management po ol\-."..J,
estimates and that are located west of the crest of the Cascade m )
range. Any, other county plannin, g under .ROW 36.70A.O40. may carry~' e ?
, review, evaluation, and amendment programs an~ procedure~ as p in;
this section. 0 , I' , .1
[1997 e 429 § 25;] . I "
'0 '
HiStorical and Statutory Notes
SeverabiUty-1997 c 429: See note tol- '
lowing ROW 36.70A.3201.
"-
L
36.70A.250. Growth m~agement hearings bo~ds Á. ; -=t:'
(1) There are hereby created three growth management hearings bo ds fo
the state of Washington. The boards shall be ~stab1ished as follows: . , '
(a) An Eastern Washington board with jurisdictional boundaries in udin
aD ",,"des that are required to or ,c:hoos, to plan ""der RCW 36. 'lOA-! 0 an
:I.'I'P. l~C!:l.tP.ò eMt of the crest of the Cascade mountains; ~r.
CITY OF FEDERAL WAY
MEMO RAND UM .
July 13,2000
.0
SUBJECr:
Phil Watkins, Chair -
Land UseITransportation Committee (LUTC) . ~ .
Stephen Clifton, AICP, Director of Community Development Services J-/
Margaret H. Clark, AICP, Senior Planner ~
David M~anager
Amendments to the King County Countywide Planning Policies
To:
FROM:
VIA:
1.
BACKGROUND .
The city has received a request fro~ King County to review and ratify amendments to the King,
County Countywide Planning Policies (CPPs) (Exhibit A). Generally, the amendments include the
following:
1. Motion 99-1 (Exhibit B) - An amendment to the CPPs to adjust targets for new housing units to
reflect annexations and incorporations from April 1994 through January 1998.
2. Substitute Motion 99-2 (Exhibit C) - An amendment to the CPPs to rèassign new housing
targets for Potential Annexation Areas (P AAs) and a<i;option of an interim Potential Annexation
A1:ea Map (Exhibit D) that will remain interim until all unincorporated urban areas are included
in City P AAs without gaps or overlaps.
3. Motion 99-4 (Exhibit E) - An amendment to the CPPs to remove the six-year development
capacity work item and to incorporate the review and evaluation eBuildable Lands") program
as required by the State Growth Management Act under RCW 36.70A.215.
II. HISTORY
July 28, 1999
Growth Management Planning Council (GMPC) adopted Motion 99-1,
Substitute Motion 99-2, and Motion 99-4, which recommend these
amendments.
May 22, 2000
Per Ordinance No. 13858 (Exhibit F), the King County Council approved and
ratified these amendments on behalf of the population of unincorporated King
County.
August 21, 2000
Federal Way will have been deemed to have ratified the amendment unless tl~e
amendment is disapproved by legislative action.
Land Use Transportation Committee
Page 2
July 13, 2000
III. DISCUSSION
This section will address each amendment request followed by staff discussion.
-
1.
Motion 99-1-An amendment to the CPPs to adjust targets for new housing units to reflect
annexations and incorporations from April 1994 through January 1998 (Exhibit B).
Staff Disc\1ssion .
Since the adoption of the CPPs in 1994 when the 20-year household targets were allocated,
.there have been a number of incorporations of new cities and annexations by'existing cities.
However, as these iQ.corporations and annexations took place, households were not being
reallocated from unincorporated King County to cities. Therefore, unincorporated King County
was left with the same housing target that was originally established in 1994, while the amount
of land available to meet this target had decreased. The GMPC recommends amending
Appendix 2 (Proposed Growth Target Ranges for Households and Employment) (Exhibit G) of
the CPPs to account for the transfer of household targets from unincorporated King County to
cities as a result of airnexations and incorporation. CP P Appendix 2A shows Household Growth
Target Re-Allocation Based on Annexations & Incorporations between April 1994 and
Januqry 1998 (page 3 of Exhibit B). The amendment to the policies would affect all cities and
is basically reallocating targets from unincorporated King County to cities as cities incorporate
or annex.new land. For the City of Federal Way, this shows that Federal Way's target would
increase by 243 housing units, going from the original target of 13,425 - 16,566, to a new
target of 13 ,668 - 16,809. This increase is based on the 1994 Weyerhaeuser annexation. of
approximately 700 acres. An inter jurisdictional team led by King County demographer,
Chandler Felt, developed the methodology for the transfer of targets to cities. The City of
Federal Way participated in the discussion of the approved methodology, which amounts to the
addition of approximately 0.35 household per acre annexed.
2.
Substitute Motion 99-2 -An amendment to the CPPs to reassign new housing targets for
Potential Annexation Areas (P AAs) and adoption of an interim Potintial Annexation Area Map
(Exhibit D) which will remain interim un(i/ all unincorporated urban areas are included in
City P AAs without gaps or overlaps (Exhibit C).
Staff Discussion
l11Ís motion recommends amending the CPPs by adopting CP P Appendix 2B Household
Growth Target Re-Allocation Based on Annexations and Incorporations after January 1, 1998
(Page 3 of Exhibit C) to reassign targets from unincorporated King County to each city's P AA.
For the City of Federal Way, this shows that as of April 28, 1999, the City had been allocated
an additional 45 housing units (based on the Enchanted Park Annexation of approximately 72
acres, and the Weyerhaeuser North and South Annexations of approximately 47 acres). This
table also shows that the remaining target in the Federal Way PAA is 1,606 housing units.
Once an the PAA has been annexed, the target for the City, including all of the PAA, would be
15,319 to 18,460 units. This motion also adopts an Interim Potential Annexation Areas Map,
which shows PAAs, as adopted in jurisdictions' comprehensive plans (Exhibit D).
')
Land Use Transportation Committee
Page 3
July 13, 2000
3. . Motion 99-4 - An amendment to the CP Ps to remove the six-year deyeJopment capacity work
item and to incorporate the review and evaluation «<Buildable Lands'7 program as required
by the State Growth Management Act under RCW 36. 70A-2I5 (ExhibitJQ.
Staff Discussion
When the CPPs were initially adopted, the GMPC established the Land Capacity Task Force.
The purpose of this Task Force was to develop a standard methodology for measuring land
capacity (both residential and commerciallind~al) and also to develop a baseline set of
estimates to ensure that" adequate capacity existed to meet the 20-year population projections
established by the State. The Task Force completed their work in 1998, concluding that there
was adequate capacity to meet the 20-year population projections. The.cemaining work for the
Task Force was to develop a method for calculating six-year development capacity. However,
in 1997, the Growth Management Act (GMA) was amended to adopt the "Buildable Lands"
legislation that required a review and evaluation program, which duplicated the work required
of the Task Force. Therefore, the GMPC recommends deleting the policy language requiring
the six-year capacity analysis, and replacing it with a policy supporting the "Buildable Lands"
program as required by the GMA.
IV RECOMMENDATION
The recommendations contained in Motion 99-1 and Substitute Motion 99-2 are intended to adopt a
methodology to reallocate targets from King Comity to PAM of cities, and also to transfer targets to
cities from their P AAs as annexations occur. In the case of incorporations, there is a transfer of
targets from unincorporated King County to cities. The policies affect all cities and are based on a
standard methodology prepared by an interjurisd1ctional team. Motion 99-4 is intended to remove
the need for duplicative monitoring of six-year capacity of jurisdictions.
Staff recommends that the LurC forward a recOmmendation of approval to the full citY council anq.
vote to ratify the proposed amendments to the CPPs.
V.LIST OF EXI{[8ITS
Exhibit A
Exhibit B
Exhibit C
Exhibit D
Exhibit E
Exhibit F
Exhibit G
Exhibit H
June 8, 2000, Correspondence from King County{
GMPC Motion No.99-1
GMPC Motion Substitute Motion No. 99-2
Interim Potential Annexations Area Map
GMPC Motion No. 99-4
King County Council Ordinance No. 13858
Appendix 2 of the King County Countywide Planning Policies
King County Council Staff Report
(:\ (CWI'I'S'O111OOU1.WI'OIMy 13,2000
{TIle City of Feda-al Way never received tbe original com~spondcncc from King County.
EXH ~ B n?~_.._. A
PAGE , OF -2
. ,!
-
June 8, 2000
The «Salutation» «FIRST NAME» «LAST .NAME»
Mayor; «ORGANIZATIONDEP ARTMENTPUBLICATION»
. «ADDRESSb>. .
«City», «STATE» «ZIPC<!DE»
. RECf..\\~~ ~',-,t:~;t.q:'"'~Nì
(;()IJMI!\o.Jrrv flC"r,:!.!"';," ..'\; '.
Dear Mayor «LAST_NAME»:
",fUN 2, tì 2.000
V!e are pleased to forward for your consideration and ratification the enclosed amendments to
the King'County Countywide Planning Policies (CPPs).
The Growth Management Planning Council (GMPC) met on June t6th and July 28th 1999 and
approved the following motions:
.
Motion 99-1: reconunends amendin.g the CPPs to adjust targets for new housing units to
reflect annexations and incorporations from April 1994 through January 1998.
Substitùte Motion 99-2: reconunends am~nding the CPPs to reassign new housing
targets for potential annexation areas (P AAs) and adoption of an Interim Potential
Annexation Areas map which will remain interim until all unincorporated urban areas are
included in city P AAs without gaps or overlaps.
.
.
Motion 99-4: recommends amending the CPPs to remove the 6 year development
capacity work item and to incorporate the review and evaluation ("Buildable Lands")
program as required by the State Growth Management Act under RCW 36.70A.215,
On May 22, 2000, the King County Council approved and ratified these amendments on behalf
of unincorporated King ~ounty. A copy of King County Ordinance 13858 is enclosed to assist
you in your review of these amendments, along with the council staff report.
As you know, amendments to the Countywide Planning Policies become effective when ratified
by ordinance or resolution by at least 30 percent ofthe city and county governments representing
70 percent of the population of King County according to the Interlocal Agreement. A city will
be deemed to have ratified the amendments to the Countywide Planning Policies unless, within
90 days of adoption by King County, the city takes legislative action to disapprove the
amendments. Please be aware that the 90-day deadline in this instance is August 21, 2000. If
you have any questions about these amendments or the ratification process, please feel free to
contact Carol Chan, Policy Analyst for the Office- of Regional Policy and Planning at 205-0772,
or Laurie.Smith, Legislative Analyst for the Metropolitan KÎng County Council at 296'-Û352.
The «Salutation» «FIRST_NAME» «LAST_NAME»
June 8, 2000 .
Page 2
E"~~.,J:~r-...- .'
IAd1 h!!I=.:' 1'\
PAGE-2-~.~~
If you adopt any legislatiçn relative to this action, please submit one certified copy to Carol
Chan, Policy Analyst with the ~ng County Office of Regional Policy and PlalUling at 516 3rd
Avenue, Ròom 402, Seattle, W A 98104. Uno action is taken please &uþmit a letter to the
above address stating the same.
Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter.
Sincerely,
Pete van Reichbauer, Chair
King County Council
Ron Sims
King. County Executive
Enclosures: King County Ordinance 13858 and Attaclunents
May 22, 2000. Staff Report
cc: Laurie Smith, Legislative Analyst, Metropolitan King County Council
Stephanie Warden, Director, Officè of Regional Policy and Planning
Carol Chan, Policy Analyst, Office of Regional Policy and Planning
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
EVrl...~"r...n-:' . ~
út.(r.~;~ !- ~
PAGE-LOF 3 -
May 26, 1999.
Sponsored By:
Executive Committee
. -
Ipr
1
MOTION NQ. 99-1
2
3
4
A MOTION amending the Countywide Planning Policies to adjust targets
for new ~ousing units to reflect annexations and incorporations from April
1994 through January 1998.
WHEREAS,.the 1994 Countywide Planning Policies established a housing target range for each
city and for King County, and annexations and incorporations have occUlTed since that time; and
WHEREAS, the 1994 targets need to be revi~ed to establish target ranges for the new incorpor~ted
areas and to increase the target range for cities which have annexed fonnedy unincorporated areas,
and to correspondingly decrease the target range for unincorporated areas. .
THE GROWrn MANAGEMENT PLANNlliG COUNCIL OF KING COUNTY HEREBY
MOVES AS FOLLOWS:
The attached Table CPP Appendix 2A is hereby adopted in the Countywide
Planning Policies to revise housing growth targets to reflect annexations and
incorporations from April 1994 through January 1998.
UGMPC/99GMPClMo(99-t .doc
- 1 -
1
2
3
4
.5
6
1
8'
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
n~í <'~' Q
EX~!ILL.:- . .J.;l._'-
'PAGE~Or--3-
ADOPTED by the Growth Management Plaming Council of King County on
7- ~-1Î and signed by the members of the GMPCKC Executive Committee on
. /d - 7 -11 in open sessi . au en' ation of its doptìon..
,
air, Growth Management Planning Council
Bo Edwards, Suburban Cities Representative
Attacrunent:
1. Table cpr Appendix 2A - Household GroWth Target Re-Allocation Based on Annextions .
and Incorporations between 4/94 and 1/98.
- ? -
Jurisdiction
Algona
Auburn
Beaux Arts
Bel1evue
Black Diamond
BotheU
, Bunen
Carnation
Clyde Hi((
CovingtQn
Oes Moines
Duvall
Enumdaw
Federal Way
Hunts Point
I,ssaquah
Kent
Kirkland
Lake Forest Park
Maple Valley
Medina
Mercer Island
Millon
Newcastte
Normandy Park
North Bend
Pacific
Redmond
Renton
Seattle
SeaTac
ShQ(eline
Sky\<omish
Snoqualmie
Tukwila
Woodinville
Yarrow Point
E~l7rU1" 8
II". -
PA(=1F ~ (Jr
Cpp Appendix 2A , , i
Household Growth Target Re-Allocation Based on Annexations & Incorporations between 4/94 & 1/98
Rev 4/26/99 I i
I I I
Column A Column 81 Column 82 Column C
Adopted Household Target Added Through Target Added Through New Target Effective'1/9~
Growth Target I Incorporation Annexation. - (A+B1.+B2) ~
Low: I:fioh: 4/94 to 1/98 4/94 to 1/98 Low: J
346 462 '0 .-0 346 -
6553 9610 0 . 6 6559
0 0 0 0 0
7680 9550 0 112 7792
947 1119 0 591 1538
1448 2413 0 20 1468
1596 1995 0 0 1596
404 404 0 0 404
12 12 . 0 0 12
nJa nJa 1493 0 1343
1437 2155 0 358 1795
1563 1759 0 0 1563
2182 2667 0 0 2182
13425 16566 0 243 13668
4 4 0 0 4
1879 3508 0 686 2565
6120 7500 0 2265 8385
'5328 6346 0 0 5328
101 168 0 316 417
nJa nJa 1539 0 1385
17 17 0 0 17
1056 1188 0 0 1056
18 18 0 11 29
nJa nJa 833 0 749
135 135 0 0 135
1266 1787 0 0 1266
606 1818 0 0 606
9637 12760 0 418 10055
7730 10049 0 70 7800
48233 59520 0 0 48233
3546 7500 0 2 3548
nJa nJa 2484 75 2303
27 27 0 . 0 27
1942 3625 0 0 1942
4761 6014 0 0 4761
1750 1842 0 1 1751
18 18 0 0 18
CPP2A
'~'.-"-
~~ .
4/28 - ,
-
-
1
-
1
1
~
City Total:
131,767
172,556
6,349
5,174
142,646
18
Unincorporated County:
- urban
- (Ural
40,048
34,248
5,800
50,000
41,800
8,200
-6,349
-6,349
0
-5,174
-5.174
0
28,525
22,725
5,800
3
3
Total King County Target:
171,815
222,556
0
0
171,171
22
All columns are household growth targets. expressed as numbers of households to aœommodate during the 20-year Grow1h Management p<
Column A represents adopted household targets (rom Appendix 2 of the Countywide Planning Policies,
'Column 81 represents household targets associated with incoq>O<"ated areas between 4/94 and 1/98.
Column 82 represents household targets associated with annexed areas between 4/94 and 1/98.
Column C represents sum of adopted household targets, incorp<><"3ted. and annexed targets, induding ranges (or new cities.
I . I T I I
MeUlOdology: Column A growth targets were based on city boundanes as 0( Apo11994. Columns 81 and 82 are addiüooal households to b.
accommodated due to iococp<xaüoo (81) or a(\(\exation (82) between Apôl1994 and Januacy .1998. These additiooal households constitute
proporliooat share 0( tIle uc1Jan uniocorporated targets by Community Ptanrnog Mea. 'The additiooal households are based Q(\ Uw land-area
propoction 0( uc1Jan uniC1OO<"pOr3ted area less designated paó<s and mapped ~ter bodies. That pcopoctioo is appfled to the Planniog Area's,
ta~t. the midraoge 0( tIle table on page 30 0( the Kiog County Compcehensive Plan.
-
r-no"^ vi.
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
'27
28
29
30
31
EXlHlnc};': ,,C.
PAGEj Oi~_,'~--~
Jvfay 26June 15, 1999
, Executive Con:miittee
Sponsored By:
/pr
1
Substitute MOTION NO., 99-2
A MOTION amending the Countywide PlalU1ing Policies 'to assign new
housing targets for potential alU1exation areas.
WHEREAS, the '1994 Countywide Planning Policies established a housing target range for each
city and for King County, and alU1exatlons and incorporations have occurred since that time'
,
wHEREAS, the housing targets have been revised to reflect aIU1exation and incorporation that
håve occurred between April 1994 and January 1998; aa4
WHEREAS, there is a need to establish household target ranges for the remaining potential
annexation areas in order to corresporidingly decreaseidentifv the target range for King County in
, the urban area outside current potential annexation areas:.. '
WH;EREAS. there is a need to advise cities about how their respective housing targets would
increase if the existing agreed upon potential annexation areas were now anneXed: and"
WHEREAS. housing targets will change over time as the region receives new census data.
TIlE GROwm: MANAGEMENT PLANNING COUNCIL OF KING COUNrY HEREBY
MQVES AB FOLLOWS:
The attached Table CPP Appendix 2B and Interim Potential Annexation Areas Map
are hereby adopted HHflC Count)'vlÍdc Planning Policiec to revise the housing
gro',,".th targets for th~ontiûl aHflcKation areas to estimate housing targets for the
Potential Annexation Areas as shown ~m the Int~rim Potential Annexation Area
(P AA) Map. The Interim P AA Map-. describes the areas receiving target allocations
in Table CPP Appendix 2B. This map is considered interim until all '
unincorp~rated urban areas are included in city P AAs without gaps or overlaps.
This map may also be amended to reflect other CPP policy direction.
UG MPCf99GMPCIM 0<99 -2 .do<:
- 1 -.
1
2
3
4
'5
6
7
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
ADOPTED by the Gro~h Management Planning Council ofKiÍ1.g County on
"7- dJ>..c.rÎ and signed by the members of the GWCKC Executive Committee on
/;}-- 7 -q1 in opensessio "ñãiillïèntication of its adoption.
. . \
air, Growth Management Plarming Council
8
9
OL
;;;ø ~ihl/
Bob Edwards, Suburban. Cities Representative
Attachments:
1. CPP Appendix 2B - Household Growth Target Re-Allocation based on Annexations and
Incorporations after 1/1198 and Potential Annexation Areas.
2. . Interim Potential Annexation Areas Map
EVR..Jlnrr=r- c:
¿\o¡ lfl\ II l;;:1 ' i, .
PAG.EjOF .-L-
r f<'.MP('jq<XtMP<'JMn¡q< ., A~
..: 2 -
CPP' Appendix 28
These are draft estimates of growth targets associated with recent.
incorporations and potential annexation areas (PAAs).
DRAFT 4 I 28 I 99
Household Growth Target Re-Allocation Based on Annexations and Incorporations after 1/1/98
& Potential Annexation Areas' .
Column A Column B-1 Column B-2 Column C
H'hold Growth Target to 1/98 Target from Completed Target Remaiòing Total Target (A + B )
Jurisdictioo Lpw: Hi h: Annexation or Inco in PMs . Low: Hi h
Algooa 346 .462 0 15 361 47
Auburn 6559 9616 1 1977 8537 1159
Beaux Arts 0 0 '0 0 0
Bellevue 7792 9662 6 515 8313 1018
Black Diamond 1538 1710 0 353 18.91 2{16
Bothell 1468 2433 4 309 1781 274
Burien 1596 1995 71 0 1667 206
Carnation' 404 404 0 0 404 40
Clyde Hill 12 12 0 0 12 1
Covington 1343 1642 0 0 1343 164
Des Moines 1795 2513 38 0 1833 255
Duvall 1563 1759 0 0 1563 175
Enumc.law 2182 2667 0 0 2182 266
Federai Way 13668 16809 45 1606 15319 1846
Hunts Point 4 4 0 0 4
Issaquah 2565 4194 11 1538 4114 574
Kenmore % 0 0 1082 0 974 119
Kent 8385 9765 0 1980 10365 1174
. Kirkland 5328 63.46 0 1248 6576 759
Lake Forest Park 417 484 .18 38 473 54
Maple Valley 1385 1692 0 0 1385 169
Medina 17 17 0 0 17 1
Mercer Island 1056 1188 0 0 1056 1H
Milton 29 29 11 59 99 ~
Newcastle 749 916 3 2 754 9;
Normandy Park 135 135 0 0 135 1:
Noith Bend 1266 1787 0 0 1266 171
Pacific .606 1818 0 73 679 18'
Redmond 10055 13178 0 293 10348 134
Renton 7800 10119 60 4260 12120 144
Sammamish % 0 0 5465 0 4919 60
Seattle . 48233 59520 0 33 48266 595
SeaTac 3548,' 7502 0 -5 3553 75
Shoreline 2303 2814 0 108 2411 29
Sl<ykomish 27 27 0 0 27
Snoqualmie 1942 3625 0 0 1942 36
Tukwila 4761 6014 0 36 4797 60
Woodinville 1751 1843 0 0 1751 it;
Yarrow Point 18 18 0 0 18
City Total: 142,646 184,719 6,815 13,973^ 162,779 206,1
Unincorp. County . 28,525 38,477 -6,815 -13,973 7737" 17,.
- urban 22,725 30,277 -6,815 -13,973 1,937 9,'
- rural 5;800 8.200 0 0 5,800 8.:
Total Target: 171,171 223,196 0 0 170,516 ' 223,
Column A represents household growth targets adjusted for annexation aM incorporation Ulrough 1/98.
Calumo B represents household targets associated with recent aonexatioos, two new dtie~ aM potential anoexatioo areas.
Column C represeots sum of adopted targets, anoexed / ïncoq>orated targets, aM targets io PAAs.
^ Que to ovec1appiog PAA$.. some duprK:3lioo OCCUfS in PM targets. This total elimioates dupti<:ate targets.. C
. Represeots areas 0( Kiog Coooty not covered by poteotial aooexalioo areas. t:' V U ft ~ 1. T-
% Target (0( KeomO(e aM Sammamish..iocoqJOrated aficr Jaooa<y 1998, is dC4fi (0( ~o ,,~eJ~. i: --
199 '
0 " .
-----------7-~T'----------""'~~---- -- ------- Í: --- " '
, ,~- :' - f~:~1 ' , '~>~~~tk'L" I :2 - -r------------""-;ï-----------------------------
,f" ~{OjU¡I1t{\' / 1'1\«i<. ""',;~ C8. t{.4 . :~'~" . ,J, ~. ,/"
, . t ~ .' Kr:NMORf j~/ '" ". t t....;-< "
H . At \ ~:\ -J~~:~':,'~~~. '1-t[1 i, (1~A~:' \J,
- í ' , ~ '. ,"" ,'-
'~, - \ ',' '04 ,\...~ ' ..,' "IT
,~ ':--. s'f1~' > -l \~~~~ "RI~" . UPO , '^,-- \ ~ "",'.~' " ¡..c
fl' I . ; .... r .\.
m. " .,', ,v,c. IIlItH!> V4R ~:~(~ -', ,.', ï
, ., l!~..., i" I C(YlIf. "f -
" ~ .. \ 1! : H«.I, ..... J .
" ' to" .~" .
, "1~lo\kIITi¡I\, I "\' )... r .
,- ,. 1 If " :.,'.... ' /! 1-
,"" .,.-,}, ~.', ':.' :§ :-^, . \ \. ~~.r;~~ .(~ / MMMMII5tt ...' ", ' \ I ..
.,",oj' l'l' ;,,81;1\\,."""'\" ::;.. '.~ I..
,0 o. . 'r ~...) r/) ~ \, . - ,
.. ,') J'f! ,-\P.R<!f:R' ,; .~'/::~:/"1~\r' '\, ","" -". ,""
'\ ~::: ,::.; ~, - o<\,I¥~1 i~ê\(1-,iA~g~;;¡""\~-' ~ ¡:
. sr:~ntr.: , c 'j /-.: ¡T '~~,"i' ~g~f ,,' '. "", .
~-' ~,L-\ ~,:t¡NÊw'i" A '~ì"'o'
~ r .[0\- \!Ii. \ . ~a..::.-..... I.J'~ -.., , ^~IIAi\ .
. J, -, 'r ' \ -:-'\ t' i".. , L
. (Nort~Hi~hlin~\' . . ' " ..' ,;", '\ ~..-""
0 Ii - ,I. "í., Wfs~ '\ ',' . '{:' ....
~. ,,¡ 11< ~ ~,~ ~¡II \..#: . ,"',
.1--. r./4 iff . \ "':-4"t' R~Qf!1k....EãstRelJton
: nUR~ " 11J~11 t . . .1.:-'T-"'-4I. ..~ .. '. .A
'. ('-." ., \ \
NORMANOY ',!'r~rA(; ,,/ ,( )' . l' :'" ...\
, "I.,t t.Fa(cwood! .c......-
r'ARI<- - :r' f :' ,soo! Cree \
. r, J f F., \' \;
(Õ(5. '\~ (. I ' ~.
1'-.......' ~O\Nr:~},...¡, K :( "
~..... . '\!t"... '. '" '",,").
- '~ ;...,:'( '~t" ".
" '" (~l-.I'~~,-, . :,~~" r V^~~ ,
~~=- c1:UCQAC '~t,',' _roo , RLA', .~ ~ t "
'" 1 ~A)f~ <~¡). BURN 'j plAMONt J "
",.;/: 'C?ØU J, ..'" 't ',"
""""""'»""':.1 F "(/~~':ll ^,C"';:~'{:,"" .SfW"'l(~fi'tC J
"',"'.,¡ A' ,/ X ~ J.I
, '~~~;~ ':' /é "~~~:~~~T7~\!{
",:>IiìtcfJiriPótèntial '~~
~¡;~::~~~!6fB\ë1'~" L.,,~. /~.~ . ¿'~;;~;~
u.Mc1Hea~ ,noI"",'~':~:"",..':,.CCtr~hocf'lo"" " ',':' "> , ,l ,"...-' 1 -..../..'..,~",'~
/'
"~
~..'
'...
..,..
c:,-
. ,
"" ','".'
"
,,------
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
July 16, 1999
Sponsored By:
- Executive CoI1ll1littee
cells
1
MOTION NO. 22::4 .
A MOTION amending the ~untywide Plarming Policies to remove the 6
year development capacity work item and to incorporate the reView and
evaluation program as required by the State's Growth Management Act"
under RCW 36.70A.215. .
WHEREAS, In 1994, the Growth Management Plarming Council (GMPC) established the Land
Capacity Task Force (LCIF) and charged them tó produce an improved, updated .set of land
capacity estimates, to establish a baseline from which regular, ongoing monitoring could proceed;
WHEREAS, The LCfF has .reviewed and recommended a standardized methodology for
jurisdictions to measure the zoned land capacity for residential, and non-residential development
for the 20 year plarming period;
WHEREAS, The jurisdictions have completed this analysis and the results show tþ.at the .
jurisdictions in King County have adequate capacity to accommodate the. growth expected in their
20-year plans;
WHEREAS, The remaining work program item for the LCfF isto develop. a method for
calculating 6-year development capacity;
WHEREAS, In 1997 the State Growth Management Act was amended to require a review and
evaluation program be established in King and five other counties and the cities within those
counties consistent with elements ofRCW 36.70A.215;
WHEREAS, The review and evaluation program required of King County and its cities will
produce infonnation to infonn the GMPC and the jurisdictions on whether there is sufficient land
. to accommodate the countywide population projection, detennine whether the actual density of
housing constructed and the amount of land developed for commercial and indU!>trial uses within
the urban growth boundary is consistent with the adopted comprehensive plans, and to detennine
the amount of land needed for commercial, industrial and housing for the remaining portion of the
20 year planning period; and
WHEREAS, The review and evaluation program will provide infonnation that is similar to what
the 6-year development capacity would have provided;
f Ir.Mor/O",""",nr-",,^,()()Á <10<'
- 1 -
EXHR¡?'P""' .£_.
PAGEj.JF t
1
2
3
. 4 .
5'
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
THE GROW1H MANAGEMENT PLANNING COUNCIL OF KING COùN1Y HEREBY
MOVES AS FOLLOWS: .
~~\r~~!~"-:-:- ~
1. Amend the following policy: a.;.~: . ¡,.. "' \. ---~-
. PAGE~OF 2
FW-I Countywide growth management is a multi-step proç~ss... .
-
Step 5£:
The Growth Management Planning Council or its successor shall "
established a Land Capacity Task Force to accomplish the work program
prepared in April 1994 (see Appendix 11). The Task Force completed the
Residential Land Capacity"Report in 1997 a~d the Industrial and
Commercial Land CapaCity Report in 1998. In 1999. in order to comply
with RCW 36.70A.215. the April 1994 work program was deleted and
replaced with the State's review and evaluation p"rogranJ.. "
Step 5b:
The Growth Management Planning Councilor its succeSsor shall conduct
a review and evaluation p~ogram in compliance with RCW 36.70A.215.
The pUl:pose of the review and evaluation program shall be to determine
y.rhether King County and its cities are achieving urban densities within
Urban Growth Areas. This shall be accomplished by comparing the
growth and development assumptions. targets and objectives contained in
these policies (and in county and city comprehensive plans) with actual
growth and development that has oceun-ed. I[the results ofthis program
are inconsistent with the requirements o[the Growth Management Act
. (GMA). King County and its cities shall identify reasonable measures in
accordanc~ with the GMA. other than adjusting the Urban Growth A1;-eas.
that wi1l-be taken to comply with those requirements.
2. Delete Appendix 4, the April 1994 Land Capacity Work Program.
ADOPTED by the Growth Management Planning Council oOZing County on 7 - ~-1C¡
and signed by the"members oftheGMPCKC Executive Conunittee on IJ- - 7-C/í In
open session in authentication of its adopti "
('~J L .
ue Dona dson, City of Seattle Representative
~i6Ç¿¿h d/
~~ro~dZ(ive
Lo e Miller, King County Representative
UGMPCl99GMI'C/MO«)<}-4.doc
- 2 -
1 .
2
3
4
5
6
.7
8
9
lO
11
12
13
14
IS
16
17
18
KING COUNTY
1200 King County Courthouse
St6ThirdAvenue .
Seattle, WI. 98104
Signature Report
May .31,2000
E..",rr ;':"'- F.
..,' .
; . ; , .
P A G ~--L 0 FJ.5
Ordinance 13858
Proposed No. 2QOO-O212.2
Sponsors Sullivan
AN ORDINANCE adopting amendments to the.
Countywid.e Planning Policies under RCW 36.70A.2IO;
ratifying the amended Countywide Planning Policies for
unincorporated King County; and amending Ordinance
10450, Section 3, as amended, and K.C.C. 20.10.030 and
Ordinance 10450, Section 4, as amended, and K.C.c.
20.10.040.
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF KING COUNTY:'
SECTION 1. Findings. The council makes the following findings.
A. The metropolitan King County council adopted and ratified the GMPC
recommended King County 2012 - Countywide Planning Policies (Phase Í) in July, 1992,
under Ordinance 10450.
B. The metropolitan King County council adopted and ratified the Phase II
amendments to the Countywide Planning Policies on August 15, 1994, under Ordinance
11446.
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
.32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
<?r?inance 13858
C. The GMPC met on July 29, 1999, and voted to pass amendments to the King
County 2012 - Countywide ~laruùng .Policies [5/25/94], to accomplish the folÌowing:
1. Amend Appendix 2A to revi~e the housing growth targets'to reflect
-
annexations and incorporations from April 1994 to January 1998;
2. Adopt Appendix 2B and'the Interim Potential Annexation Areas. Map to
include the estimated housing targets for the potential annexation areas as shown -on the
Interim Potential Annexation Area (P AA) Map. The Interim P AA Map describes the.
areas receiving target allocations in Table CPP Appendix 2B;
3. Amend Framework Policy FW-l (Step 5a) to reflect the completion of the'
work charged to the land cap8:city task force;
4. Amend Framework Policy F.W-I (Step 5b) to establish a review and
evaluation program in compliance with RCW.36.70A.215; and
5. Delete Appendix 4, the April 1994 Land Capacity Work Program.
SECTION 2. Ordinance 10450, Section 3, as amended, and K.c.c. 20.10.030 are
each hereby amended to rea.d as follows:
Phase II. A. The Phase II Amendments to the King County 2012 - Countywide
Planning Policies attached to Ordinance 11446 are hereby approved and adopted.
B. The Phase II Amendments to the King County 2012 - Countywide Planning
Policies are amended, as shown by Attaclunent 1 to Ordinance 12027.
C. The Phase II Amendments to the King County 2012 - Countywide Planning
Policies are amended, as shown by Attaclunent 1 to Ordinance 12421.
D. The Phase II Amendments to the King County 2012 - Countywide PlaillÚng
Policies arc amended, as shown by Attacluncnt 1 and 2 to Ordinance 132.60.
EXHIBDT~
-PAGE' ;
2
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54'
55
56
57
58
Ordinance 13858
E. The Phase II Amendments to the King County 2012 - ~ountywide Plarming
Policies are amended, as shown by Atta,chment I through 4 to Ordinance 134is.
F. The Phase II Amendments ,to the King County 2012 -Count~ide Planning
--
Policies are,amended. as shown by Attachments I through 3 to this ordinance.
SECTION 3. Ordinance 10450, Section 4. as amended, and K.C.C. 20.10.040 are
each hereby amended to read as follows:
Ratification for unincorporated IGng County. A. Countywide Planning
, I .
Policies adopted by Ordinance 10450 for the purposes specified are hereby ratified on
behalföfthe population of unincorporated King County.
B. The amendments to the Countywide Planning Policies adopted by Ordinanye
10840 are hereby ratified on behalf ofthe population of unincorporated King County.
C. The amendments to the Countywide Planning Policies adopted by Ordinance
11061 are hereby ratified on behalf of the population of unincorporated King County.
, .
D. The Phase II amendments to the King County 2012 Countywide Planning
Policies adopted by Ordinance 11446 are hereby ratified on behalf of the population 'of
unincorporated King County.
E. The amendments to the King County 2012 - Countywide Planning Policies, as
59
shown by Attaclunent 1 to Ordinance 12027 are hereby ratified on behalf of the
60
population of unincorporated King County.
61
F. The amendments to the King County 2012 - Countywide Planning Policies, as
62
shown by Attachment 1 to Ordinance 12421, are hereby ratified on behalf of the
63
population of unincorporated King County.
64
G. The amendments to the King County 2012 - Countywide Planning Policies, as
EXHl8BOT ß
'D/\ 'r-r= '2 ()~ (
65
66
67
68
69
70 .
71
72
73
74
75
Ordinånce 13858
shown by Attaclunents 1 and 2 to Ordinance 13260, are hereby ratified on behalf of the
population ofunincorporated King County.
H. The amendments to the King County 2012 - Countywide PI~ng Policies, as
shown by Attaclunent 1 through 4 to Ordinance 13415, are hereby ratified on behalf of
the population of únincorporated King County.
I.. The amendments to the King County 2012 - Countywide Planning Policies. as
shown by Attachments 1 through 3 to this Ordinance. are hereby ¡;atified on behalf ofthe
population of unincorporated King County.
Ordinance 13858 was introduced on 3/13/00 and passed by the Metropolitan King County Council on
5/22/00, by the following vote: .
Yes: 12 - Mr. von Reichbauer, Ms. Miller, Ms. Fimia, Mr. Phillips, Mr. Pelz, Mr. McKeIll1a,
Ms. Sullivan, Mr. Nickels, Mr. Pullen, Mr. Gossett, Ms. Hague and Mr. Vance
No:O
Excused: 1.- Mr. Irons
KING COUNTY COUNCIL
KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON
AIll1e Noris
A TrEST:
E'V7fWl, n ~ n~ 1
/~..f ';, ,....".11 .
PAUL~OF ,
AIll1e Noris
. .
A
Ordinance 13858
APPROVED this - day of
, "
Anne Noris
-0
-
Attachments
. "
A. GMPC Motion 99:1, da,ted 5/26/99, with attaclunents, B. GMPC Substitute Motion 99-
2, dated 6/15/99, with attachments, C. GMPC Motion 99-4, dated 7/16/99 .
E~fr-"'f.I-'-"'7 F""
,",,' "
PAGE~Òt= ~
5
, ^rret'¿'~
&'
Proposed Growth Target Ranges for IIouseholds and Empl9yment
Net New Net New Hhld Ranf';es Net New Net New Emp. Ranf';es
CITIES Households Low Hi£h Emplovment Low Hi£h
Algona 404 3M> M>2 350 "":'"
300 400
Auburn 8,082 6,553 9,610 11,100 9,000 13,200
Beaux Arts 0 0 0 0 0 0
Bellevue 8,575 7,680 9,550 28,250 25,300 31,200
Black Diamond 1,033 947 1,119 1,200 1,100 1,300
Bothell (KC part) 1,931 1,448 2,413 ' 2,900 2,150 3,600
Burien 1,796 1,596 1,995 ' 450 400 . 500
Carnation ' 404 4ú4 404 0 0 0
Clyde Hill 12 12 12 0 0 0
Des Moines 1,796 1,437 2,155 2,500 2,000 3,000
Duvall 1,886 1,563 1,759 1,700 1,600 1,800
Enumclaw 2,626 2,182 2.,667 1,000 900 1,100
Federal Way 14,996 13,425 16,566 14,800 13,300 16,400
Hunts Point 4 4 4 o 0 0
Issaquah 2,694 1,879 3,508 4,300 3,000 5,600
Kent 6,735 6,120 7,500 11,500 10,450 12,550
Kirl:land 5,837 5,328 6,3M> 8,600 7,800 9,300 \
Lake Forest Park 135 101 168 200 150 250 !
Medina 17 17 17 0' 0 0
Mercer Island 1,122 1,056 1,188 1,700 1,600 1,800
Milton 18 18 18 0 0 0
Normandy Park 135 135 135 o 0 0,
I
North Bend 1,527 1,266 1,787 2,050 1,700, 2,400
Pacific 1,212 606 1,818 100 50 150
Redmond 11,458 9,637 12,760 29,509 29,500 34,750
Rentol:!. 8,890 7,730 10,049 23,000 20,000 16 ,000
SeaTac 3,592 3,5M> 7,500 15,800 15,600 26 ,900
Seattle 53,877 48,233 59,520 132,700 118,800 1M>,6OO
Sk:ykomish 27 27 27 o 0 0
Snoqualmie 2,784 1,942 3,625 4,500 3,100 5,820
Tukwila 5,388 4,761 6,014 22,250 19,000 24,OOC
W oodinville 1,796 1,750 1,842 1,950 1,900 2,OOC
Yårrow Point 18 18 18 o 0 (
City Totals 150,803 131,768 1n,558 322,409 288,700 370,62'
Uninc. KC 44,897 40,048 50,000 25,000 23,3001 28,70
GRAND TOTAL 195,700 171,816\ 222,558 347..409 312,000 \ 399,32
Sourœ: Growth Man.a~mcntP1a.nning Council, May 14, 1994.
EX ~ n [8 Wf.._.ß-
0/\ r-q-- t n£:: ,
<8
lYIetropolitan King County Council .
Growth Maria,gement and Unincorporated Areas Committee
Revised Staff Report .
Agenda Item No.:
Proposed Ordinance:
Attending:
2000-0212 .
Paul Reitenbach. Office of Regional Policy and Planning
Name:
Date:
laurie Smith
SUBJECT:, '
Ar\ Ordinance adopting amendments to the Countywide Planning Policies pursuant to RCW 36.70A.21 0 and
ratifying the amenged Countywide Planning Policies for unincorporated King County.
BACKGROUND:
In 1999, the Growth Management Planning Council (GMPC) adopted the following three motions recommending
amendments to the King County 2012 -Countywide Planning Policies (CPPs):
Motion 99-1 :.Aw~hdfqg;th~'Cq.Urifu'ii~~i:P¡!~Qfiì")":ß9~~.iii~JLõ;@w.g~tJ?}.9~D":';'X1":Ie-' :1""":' " ;þ,n,its, ,{o,;re, "flect :
annexations and":if1cor.nöratio;:"s fro'n:{¡~"';i'~'" "ô~gaiÏìí)~ñtfärÿ~9.98~$ .:.:M'1 ' , 7~ "k{¡~~d",<,*..¡.rd"":,'" ;.
20o.0,~2'1'2J~ ~ .;' ::;:);,:,;;':]:Ll~:~A;~~2::~:;.¡~' 4, ~,'"\«~i;~~~~;';i1~1ij~¡~=~t~~;?jhi~%,å~~:~~I~~;~~;:¡~:~ "I!19PG.;e
Summary: Since the adoption of the CPPs in May.1994, there have been'nJ.lmerous annexations and
incorporations. These annexations and incorporations have significantly reduced the size and population of
unincorporated King County, and increased the size and populåtion of specific incorporated cities. The GMPC
recommends amending Appendix 2 (household growth targets) to the CPPs to account for the transfer of .
unincorporated lands to the jurisdiction of incorporated cities. The housing targets associated with each annexation
or incorporation would be assumed by the annexing (or new) jurisdiction. An interjurisdictional team led by King
County Demographer Chandler Felt developed the revised housing targets.
Vote: Motion 99-1 was adopted by a vote of 5 ~ to 0 on June 16th, 1999.
Substitute Motiön 99-2: Amending ì.h(fGô~ntyw,iØ~rR(~'frh¡iig:'Polléiès (oiéåss1gn'r1E3iMí'ðÛ$iri¡;f;targetsforpotentiål
anne?<ation areas ,(see Attachment2{(ÚPrOP9~~i;i~~ø.<td.iQ»(l~;2Q9Q.!O2.1~),.,., ,"'. '., .":,,,.,'" " ", ,'.', ,.' '..'
Summary: In order to advise cities the extent to which their housing targets will increase onc.e Potential Annexation
Areas are annexed, the GMPC recommends adding a new table to Appendix 2 of the CPPs, assigning target ranges
to potential annexation areas. Additionally, Motion 99-2 adopt~ an Interim Potential Annexation Areas Map, which
shows the boundaries of potential annexation areas as adopted in local jurisdictions' comprehensive plans.
Vote: Motion 99-2.was adopted by a vote of 5 ~ to 0 on June 16th, 1999.
Mo~io~ 99-4:'þ#~I)?ing ~tie éountyYt'¡~~~,t!~þfl, r,i~,~.Ê:~G~r.~,..,tgf~m9X~,'..,J~,'~,i~iY~,~~,~",R~~~t1,rlg8Bi\~P~;,~,. P,'<~,é~,i.,J¥.:~o, ,r,~.it,~I11,,'
and to Incorporpte lhêrevlewand eva (J9,tlon. pç9~ram~~§:r<~qy'r.(~ß:~¥.:t~~~¡~?,J~,»'i?,W~~JŒ,?t\.a,geme.q,l{lKbt.tmdeF"
RCW36.70A.2f5. . "':',' ",~..".,."",~....~ '
Summary: In conjvnction with the initial adoption of the CPPs, the GMPC established the land Capacity Task
Force (lCTF) to develop a standard methodology for measuring land capacity, and to produce a baseline set of
estimates to ensure adeqUate urban area capacity (both residential and commercial/industrial). The lCTF
completed their work in 1998, concluding that there was adequate capacity to meet the 20-year population
projections set forth by the State. The remaining work item for the lCTF was to develop a method for calculating 6-
year development capacity, however in 1997 the GMA was amended to require a review and evaluation program
that would essentially duplicate the work of the LCTF with respect to the 6-year analysis. Therefore, the GMPC
recommends deleting the policy language requiring a 6-year capacity analy;>is, and replacing it with a policy
supporting the "Buildable lands" program, as required by GMA.
Vote: Motion 99.4 was adopted unanimously on July 28«', 1999.
~.::-.,:.-'" """-'r.~'..,..,~
<c' .
- .,,' ;1
PAGE , OF ~
SUMMARY:
Proþo$ed Substitute Ordinance 2000-0212 would amend the Countywide Planning Policies by:
. Adjusting housing targets to reflect the annexations and incorporations that occurred between April, 1994 and
January, 1998; . .
. Assign housing targets to Potential Annexation Aleas (PAAs), to advise jurisdictions the extent to which their
respective housing targets would Increase If certain PAAs are annexed;
. Removing the 6-year development capacity work item and replacing it with the review and evaluation ("Buildabl
Lands" ) program required by the Washington State Growth Management Act. -
Additionally, the ordinance would ratify the changes on behalf of the population of u!lincörporated King County, as
required by Countywide Planning Policy FW-1, Step 9.
Amendments to the Countywide Planning Policies become effective when ratified by ordinance or resolution by at
least 30% of the city and county ~ovemments representing 70% .of the population of King County according to the
Interlocal agreement. A city shall be deemed to have ratified the countywide planning policy unless, within 90 days
of adoption by King County, they city by legislative action disapproves the countywide planning policy. .
ATTACHMENTS:
EVlU1pf:)r.~ ß.
. ..,Þ.~.!n:; ~~~I,.': ---- .
PAGE 2.0F-2
'.
ED~~
RY' 33530 1 5T W/,\Y SOUTH
(253) 661.4000
FEDERAL WAY. WA 98003-6210
August 14, 2000
Ms. Carol Chan) Policy Analyst
King County Office of Regional Policy and Planning
516 3rd Avenue, Room 402
. Seattle) W A 98104
Re:
Amendment to the King County Countywide Planning Policies
Dear Ms. Chan:
The Federal Way City Council at its August 14,2000, meeting reviewed the following proposed
amendments to the King County Countywide Planning Policies (CPPs):
1. Motion 99-1 - An amendment to the CPPs to adjust targets for new housing units t~ reflect
annexations and incorporations from April 1994 through January 1998.' ..
2. SubsTitute Motion 99-2 - An c.mendment to the CPPs to reassign new housing targets for
Potential Annexation Areas (P AAs) and adoption of an annexation area map, along \\lith
provisions requiring it to remain interim until all unincorporated urban areas are
included in city P AAs W'ithout gaps or overlaps regardless of whether cities have entered
into interlocal agreements to set annexation area boundaries.
3. Motion 99-4 - Replacement of the six-year development capacity work item with the
review and evaluation ("Buildable Lands") program that creates a role for the County in
addressing cities' growth targets.
The Council made the following motions:
1.
Do not accept Motion 99-1. The City Council has determined that the housing targets assigned
to the City of Federal Way are too high, and therefore acceptance of additional targets at this
time is not acceptable. In addition, for the most part the areas recently annexed by Federal Way
are not residential and therefore the transfer of additional housing targets along with these
annexation areas is not appropriate.
2.
Do 110t accept that portion of Substitute Motion 99-2, which proposes to reassign new housing
targets for P AAs, based on the City's reasoning regarding Motion 99-1. In addition, the
Council detennined that it c:mnot accept Substjtute Motion 99-2 unless language relating to
Potential Annexation Area boundaries is amended as follows: . .
09/19/00 TUE 14:48
[TX/RX NO 62011
,~
~,
Ms. Carol Chan
Page 2
August 14,2000
".... The Interim PAA ,'vIap describes the areas receiving target allocations in
Table cpr Appendix 2B. This map is considered to be interim until all
unincorporated urban areas are included in City P AAs without gaps or overlaps-.
except for those jurisdictions. which have entered into PAA lnterlocal Agreements
with all surrounding jurisdictions. in which case, the PAA boundaries shall be
considered final. Other than final P AA boundaries. this map may also be amended
to reflect other CPP policy direction."
3.
Do not accept Motion 99-4, an amendment to the CPPs to replace the six-year development
'capacity w{),k item with the review and evaluatio:1 ("Buildåble Lands") progra.m,. unless:1.he
following proposed amendment is incorporated into the motion: ' " .
Under Step Sb, ".. .If the results of this program are inconsistent with the
requirements of the Gro\vth Management Act (GMA), KiRg CQQ~' anà its eiti@s
each jurisdiction not achievinS!: urban densities as demonstrated by the review and
evaluation program shall identify reasonable measures in accordance with the
GMA, other than adjusting the Urban Growth areas, that are reasonably likely to
increase consistency tflat-vim be taken-to comply with those requirements."
If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact Bob Sterqank, Interim City
Attorney, at 253-661-4572, .
Sincerely,
c:
Stephen CHiton, AICP, Director ofCommunit¥ D,cyclopmcnt Services
Margaret H, Clark, AICP, Senior Planner
I.\KCWPPSIOSOSOO Lout'[ IX> King County.do,¡RI I 5100 7:4. Nooi
09/19/00
TUE 14:48
[TX/RX NO 6201]