The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutK.C. County-wide Planning Volume 1 (8/10/1992) AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION Karen Tucker , being first duly sworn on oath states that he/she is the Chief Clerk of the VALLEY DAILY NEWS Daily newspapers published six (6) times a week. That said newspapers are legal newspapers and are now and have been for more than six months prior to the date of publication referred to, printed and published in the English language continually as daily newspapers in Kent, King County, Washington. The Valley Daily News has been approved as a legal newspaper by order of the Superior Court of the State of Washington for King County. The notice in the exact form attached, was published in the Valley Daily News (and not in supplement form) which was regularly distributed to its subscribers during the below stated period. The annexed notice a Notice of Public Hearing was published on 7-3 1 -9 2 The full amount of the fee charged for said foregoing publication is the sum of$ 19 . 90 • -://"ThiiA P Y1 . JLlt .A.,, J Subscribed and sworn before me • 31 s t day of July 19 9 2 t NOTIC ;6 ING REIN arf ens , NtJTIt;E 18 �ttEN 7HAT the �� —Pi Renton, a public hear in9 on `"1fl 1 , at 717 .in. to ?' :::7 ...- - consider Notary Public for the State of Washington The bi `the - residing at Kent card fiddr enenOltIPMMtbere et tileRenton King County, Washington Municipal Bui n ttdd M Avenue St. Renton. WA SM.,A Interested Parties: VDN#87 Revised 8/91 are invited to and'present Written and/or oral com rents. For additional infor- mation.please call 235-2502. Morti)n J. Petersen Published.in Clerk July 31, 1992. : tl CITY OF RENTON MEMORANDUM DATE: October 5, 1992 TO: Kathy Keolker-Wheeler, Chair Committee of the Whole VIA: Mayor Clymer/ FROM: Lynnnann, Administrator STAFF CONTACT: Kay S oudy, Planning Director SUBJECT: Issue Paper: Urban Growth Areas - Technical Review Issue The Growth Management Act requires that counties and cities designate in their Countywide Planning Policies areas that will accommodate urban growth for the next 20 years. The Growth Management Planning Council recommended preliminary Urban Growth Areas to the King County Council. When the King County adopted the ratification ordinance for the Countywide Policies, they designated a number of urban growth study areas for additional technical review, including several areas east of the Renton city boundary. Background The Growth Management Planning Council recommended a preliminary "Urban Growth Area" for King County, which identified potential urban and rural areas. The City of Renton had proposed that the boundary in East Renton be placed at 156th Ave. S.E., however, the County staff was not in agreement. Because the City of Renton and King County were unable to resolve issues arising from the proposed urban/rural boundary, the King County Council designated study areas where more detailed information would be obtained before the urban growth areas would finally be adopted. These areas were to be determined with the cooperation of the affected city, property owners and the general public. Several of these review areas were adjacent to the Renton city boundary as noted on the attached map. The Planning Director has met with the King County Planning staff to • Urban Growth Areas October 5, 1992 *me ,-; Page 2 review the areas designated for further technical review by the Countywide Planning Policies. A public meeting was held on Sept. 17, at Hazen High School that about 100 people attended. A staff report is scheduled to be submitted to the Growth Management Planning Council on Oct. 14. Issue 1: Area "a" and "b" (May Creek Valley) The City staff proposed that these areas be within the Urban Growth Area, and designated as an "Urban Separator". Densities would be no higher than 1 dwelling unit per ten acres in May Valley under the Resource Conservation zone. King County staff requested that these areas be designated as "Rural" because of the extreme sensitivity of May Valley to stormwater runoff and flooding from further urban development. However, County zoning would presently allow densities as high as one dwelling unit per 2.5 acres in rural areas. Staff felt that the densities allowed by rural zoning in King County were too high and the area would be better protected by the City's Resource Conservation zone. Because it is adjacent to urban areas on the north and south, it may be necessary to cross the area with urban facilities which would not be permitted in Rural areas under the Countywide Planning Policies. At the community meeting on September 17, the general consensus was that this area should remain in the lowest density possible in either classification to retain the open space character and protect the May Creek valley watershed, particularly the sensitive "gorge" area. King County Staff Recommendation: The King County staff recommends that the area remain as a study area until the May Creek Basin Study is completed and an additional citizen meeting can be held. RENTON RECOMMENDATION: Although we have no objection to an additional citizen meeting, the City of Renton staff believes that this area is appropriately designated as an "Urban Separator" within the Urban Growth Area and should be held at low densities by applying Renton's Resource Conservation zoning. Issue 2: Area "c" (East Renton) "Should the line be moved farther west to 142nd Ave. S.E.?" The low density area between 148th Ave. S.E. and 156th Ave. S.E., north of S.E. 128th, was proposed as an "Urban Separator" by the City, and as a "Rural" area by the County. Urban Growth Areas October 5, 1992 Page 3 All of this area is within the May Creek drainage basin which is suffering from drainage and flooding problems, and is currently under study in a basin plan. The existing land use in the area is mixed urban and semi-rural with small lots occurring along the arterials. Although the area is partially developed, much of it remains in large tracts which are valuable for wildlife habitat. Fire, police, water and sewer services within this area remain at rural levels, and extension of services is not likely within the 20 year planning cycle. This area is entirely outside the boundary of Fire District 25. At the community meeting, the general consensus was that the boundary should be moved west to 142nd Ave. SE. and a greater area retained as Rural. King County Staff Recommendation: The City and County staff agree that low density residential uses are appropriate for this area as it is premature for urbanization, and services are unlikely to be extended during the 20-year planning horizon. The County staff would prefer to hold this area as a technical review area until the May Creek Basin Study is completed, and an additional citizen meeting can be held. RENTON RECOMMENDATION: The City staff recommends that all area north of S.E. 128th Street between 148th Ave. S.E. and 156th Ave. S.E. up to the City's present Sphere of Influence line be designated "Rural", provided the County will agree to zone at densities consistent with our low density residential classification (e.g. the Resource Conservation Zone). Issue 3: Area "d" - Briarwood The area east of 156th Ave. S.E., and south of 128th Street, north of Maple Valley is within the City's aquifer recharge area. The area is suburban in appearance with many areas divided in parcels of 15,000 square feet developed on septic tanks. All schools within this area were constructed with septic holding systems and require frequent pumping. Existing and potential septic tank failures are a hazard, particularly in the active aquifer recharge area along Maple Valley. The area is premature for further urban development because of lack of urban services, and because the City will have adequate capacity without this area included to meet population growth targets. Existing and proposed transportation facilities are inadequate to handle potential traffic volumes from urban growth. The area is also entirely within the boundaries of Fire District 25. Because the area has been partially urbanized sewers should eventually be extended to prevent aquifer contamination from septic systems, it should be included in the Urban Growth Area. However, further subdivision and development should be limited to very low densities until adequate urban services and facilities are available. - Urban Growth Areas October 5, 1992 Page 4 King County Staff Recommendation: The City staff believes that this area should be designated "Urban", but identified for Phase II development (10 years or more). The King County Stormwater Division does not want the area to continue to be urbanized because of impacts on the Cedar River Drainage Basin, and the County Health Department believes that extension of sewers may not be necessary except in the active aquifer recharge area along Maple Valley. They are recommending that the designation remain Rural until additional drainage and aquifer studies are available, and more citizen input can be obtained. RENTON RECOMMENDATION: The County would have to agree to establish Phase II zoning similar to that established in the Soos Creek Plan until such time as it was annexed to the City of Renton, or the phasing period ended. This would allow the extension of utilities for public health and safety purposes if necessary, but would not support additional subdivision or higher density growth on septic tanks during the phasing period. attachment U O 0 0 • E-' .c - N . 'M co '� ,., Z 2 f:4 N �; N c (n O U �' E cC O O O C-1 c p ? O W 2 _ L �' O c ca p C�2 p C� a n 0 co a) V c co -a .Fi O [� U W m a 'b Z ., '. O I- ca a) 13 O <': •:. in ---",. ' ------° z U • Q 11037 . --- .sR .^ lit reOp\ , / 1 / A rirrep 17,.ofe,.. \ ' n .;;=,- rijiLiv 75 ►��:.►�7. � • •nunn A. MI 1 n1 CD to O •..♦ •i ilk.♦« ~i .di iii ! riiiniii O _per♦ �ti♦♦►irpftv ! ��i /I ♦..a�♦♦♦ ♦♦ ♦ ♦N .:- a 6 <:>i „„:.: iii iii ii${4:•:. I ► Amillion. ��` ♦�♦�♦�)��♦♦♦ �. a ; is • £:>o->: / a••71%fO� . .. :vim. -•♦ i J rfr'ss;4iki i::'i :3iii."'" s,.... i >'4;0;: di � � � � nu nndl �r � � °�♦i♦�...:��♦�♦ ��• �� ic� #::o- fr.�4#,�� In:::: n � 1•� �� r �� `ia� ,7.'3 iiii'f,':'i(•i#:>#f:#kayif'� ii: off> 711 • tip ill V ,artio. Ni,::::>.::,.:10,......•••• igit. .3 ,......., :::,....,....,......... ...., / ii.rici...,.. .... . mum.. 7411,1 .i 41::':.i.::'....7'. br e• -i To „.,.. ,,,c1 „„ ,',.... . A/•• s /.......:.::: 4 Wisp, '01111111411,14.''' , *111, ,11.4.1 itur. ril, aetiANIrL. mor T r.+-C rl2 u7 �ii��liiFii 1111 I �'t• tip::• ::::1*1.. 1y0E till -Om 0• .1 i,.l.. l 1 IELL'Ill' iiligill A Samiirtt-gri,1___, Ik___ii.:.:40.1::::::4, !Fit filaimr usm igir,kr-;,: 0E,, mut ' 11,0 j ... ,e., -':dr:::::. FIZII IMI"' "r::" dawavoraa,Q.I. , _filliarir/11_-0,.,_,. .• ii 4"7:, lir 2.,,pg-MlidiE -- N. ... - •tud.' i> i ':: #il'<E'•'•fi:•f:i�iik:'. .."?..•�I 1"`�'``` -�--%,�=��=-- "' 0'- -miraimpap 11111= `^^' � ki :ikR:f.r.;i:f.'ei f:f;i£ii asiir'i3,... :;:;>,.;ti,y .II'I�II' §iiiif i ii —� —�ii— — li.. #:#P ,.i,.0 ;°:,:' �1111� ^.iii°�ii#?i',•`v' -:`,4=:�7�� •""�iiiiiiti ii'�tiii'r ��"1} yi"'i iii�;i i'li. r- �.�. ��■ R� �G � ii ii?iliii:`'"ti;i m}ii :s:S i.;;<;•:.•; :#yi'.;i. II rzai �.160 �.IMfTI ij:,}'Y:4::.i;v{f.:•'ki:.::F'f::4;'•'::;},;!:•S'•i:'I::�I,•i;:::y;v:Y'•,:� I'�_ I • /�r #rf#: .3ry'i,�'�I f{FPI •:�:ti Y•:�4'k iii:v: nM., .1M:`.�. ,I� I {ii iiii!(i'3iiiF!ii ri£:3 ii` ii#£i'ki}.';q';a i ■1:: ,f MI WW O IV —S • •kallitx.-- \Y4';ill 4#�', :#;h,:;:;;.'�y ji{::�r£;'ll --1�� 'J ��. ,�v / . � ��. -ILI �'*'mil :iiz#`;^g„BSI>:i (sii?:z:#£�:��, ■ 11111�■ i �� , ��''lllll-�`l :S.:i;i ig ifrs' S :r•:z£tii,*,` ,, J/,,IIIIL'oz:rzink / rip•••11 •mo°hail' , U if'?fC ii5. k4i fs@Ni i'#if;gi#i i isi:iii ;7� all �1. • �'� I#i i'Piini}i :„1 <i3.i':3.,::;i;'•, 4:;f!iii,`.0lii2i:Mit :� - ::st: :?f•w.::>s,e: i<':iE iii£!;:kti#ii{ �: Mr.-. J ` •�- i�ii <#ak :::i�:..f:•f.,i€� :iff., r- -I •I) 5- - . _RN it - 11, :44 - - , gm i 1" :' cL� ... IIr ; y . o`c < '5i"siisi if+s / �1-Fl 1 - ••l .If I FImo• �/' N CITY CLERK'S OFFICE COPIES TO: CITY ATTORNEY CITY COUNCIL ADMIN. SERVICES ADMINISTRATOR FINANCE DEPARTMENT FIRE DEPARTMENT/PREVENTION HEARING EXAMINER HOUSING & HUMAN RESOURCES MAYOR PARK DEPARTMENT PERSONNEL DEPARTMENT x PLANNING COMMISSION POLICE DEPARTMENT INSURANCE CARRIER NEWSPAPER CODIFIER PARTIES OF RECORD P ING/BUILDING/P.W. DEPT ADMINISTRATION Y1 J` TIA " AIRPORT DEVELOPMENT SERVICES f\J"Q- � � (BUILDING) (ZONING) (PLAN REVIEW) u }L PLANNING & TECHN L S ICES (PROPERTY MANAGEMENT) TRANSPORTATION (TRAFFIC ENGINEERING) UTILITY SYSTEMS CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON RESOLUTION NO. 2922 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, RATIFYING THE COUNTY-WIDE PLANNING POLICIES ADOPTED BY KING COUNTY ON JULY 6, 1992, PURSUANT TO THE GROWTH MANAGEMENT ACT, RCW 36.70A.210. WHEREAS, the County-Wide Planning Policies establish a County-Wide framework for the development of city and county Comprehensive Plans as required by the Growth Management Act, RCW 36 . 70A; and WHEREAS, the county, Seattle and the suburban cities established a process through an interlocal agreement creating the Growth Management Planning Council (GMPC) , and the GMPC, after six months of deliberation, including public workshops and hearings, adopted and recommended the County-Wide Planing Policies to the King County Council; and WHEREAS, the King County Council enacted Ordinance No. 10450 adopting and ratifying the County-Wide Planning Policies and setting up a process for ratification of the policies by the cities, and completion of additional work to refine and amend the County-Wide Planning Policies; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Renton held a public hearing to allow comments on the proposed County-Wide Planning Policies from affected residents, businesses and property owners; and WHEREAS, the County-Wide Planning Policies provide for the coordination and regulation of public and private development within and between jurisdictions in King County. Page-1 *me Noire RESOLUTION NO. 2922 NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, DO RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS : SECTION 1 . The above recitals are found to be true and correct in all respects . SECTION II . The City of Renton hereby ratifies the County- Wide Planning Policies as recommended by the GMPC, subject to the provisions of Phases I, II and III identified in King County Ordinance No. 10450 . SECTION III . The following County-Wide policies and issues are of concern to the City of Renton and will require additional study, review and clarification before final ratification by the city of amendments to the County-Wide Planning Policies in Phase III : A. Coordination with King County on the definition and location of urban separators . B. Establishment of an urban growth boundary and coordination of the potential annexation areas with adjacent jurisdictions and King County. C. Adequate definition of rural character and land uses . D. Nomination and establishment of Urban/Manufacturing Centers . E . Implementation strategies for development of an inter model transit system which serves the City of Renton and links the community to the regional system. F. Phasing of growth and urban services in the Newcastle, West Hill and Soos Creek Planning Areas . Page -2 RESOLUTION NO. 2922 G. Resolution of possible inconsistencies with state law related to annexation of special districts . H . Establishment of objectives and targets for affordable housing. I . Consistency between the city ' s Wetlands Ordinance and the County-Wide Planning Policies . J. Establishment of minimum land use densities . K. Limits on establishment of Office Park zoning. L. Establishment of minimum and maximum parking standards . M. Establishment of a level of service standard on arterial streets . N. Effect of County-Wide Planning Policies and implementation strategies on the City of Renton ' s Comprehensive Plan and implementation programs . 0. Review and acceptance of population and employment targets . SECTION IV. The City of Renton will continue to work with King County and other city staffs and elected officials to resolve these issues in a timely manner and to assure that the city ' s Comprehensive Plan is prepared consistent with the County-Wide Planning Policies . PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL this 21st day of September 1992 . Marilyn . -P tersen, City Clerk Page- 3 -tame Nisi RESOLUTION NO. 2922 APPROVED BY THE MAYOR this 21st day of September , 1992 . C V Ea 1 Clymer MayN ` Approve as to f rm: Lawrence J. Warren, City Attorney RES . 228 : 8/26/92 . Page-4 A44119t g J a t l 4 Renton City Council Minutes Page 429 Committee of the Council President Keolker-Wheeler announced the following schedule for Whole adoption of the Interim Land Use Element and Area-wide Zoning: Growth Management Interim Land Use 10/13/92* Kennydale neighborhood meeting - Kennydale Element & Area-Wide Elementary School Zoning 10/20/92* Sunset/Highlands neighborhood meeting - McKnight Middle School 10/22/92* Southeast Renton neighborhood meeting - Nelsen Middle School 10/27/92 Valley neighborhood meeting - City University (Open House:4-6:00 p.m.;Discussion Session:6-7:00 p.m) 10/29/92* Central/West Hill neighborhood meeting - Renton High School 12/4/92 Issue Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) 12/14/92 Public hearing on area-wide zoning (tentative) 1/4/93 Adopt interim Land Use Element and Area-wide Zoning 1/13/93 Planning Commission hearing on interim Zoning Code amendments (tentative) 3/8/93 City Council hearing on interim Zoning Code amendments 7/1/93 Adopt Comprehensive Land Use Plan required by Growth Management Act; ratify amended County- wide Planning Policies * Agenda for meetings: Open House,6-7:00 p.m.;Discussion Session,7-9:00 p.m. Ms. Keolker-Wheeler called attention to the City of Renton Land Use Alternative tabloid (Fall, 1992), a document outlining the Comprehensive Plan process, which is available at City Hall for citizens participating in the area-wide rezoning process. Growth Management: Committee of the Whole Chairman Keolker-Wheeler reported that an County-Wide application for designation as an urban center as determined by the Planning Policies, County-wide Planning Policies has been prepared and reviewed which Urban Center incorporates the area in Central Renton. The application finds that this Designation area is an excellent candidate for the designation because it is compact, compatible with the criteria for urban centers, strategically located on the • regional transportation system, and will support a high level of employment and quality urban housing. The Committee recommends that the Council submit the application to the Growth Management Planning Council. MOVED BY KEOLKER- WHEELER, SECONDED BY EDWARDS, COUNCIL ADOPT THE COMMITTEE REPORT AS PRESENTED. CARRIED. Growth Management Committee of the Whole Chairman Keolker-Wheeler reported that a draft County-Wide resolution has been prepared to ratify the County-wide Planning Policies Planning Policies adopted by the King County Council. The resolution conditions the Ratification ratification based on a three-phased process and identifies concerns of the City of Renton that must be addressed before final adoption of the County-wide Planning Policies. The Committee recommends that the resolution ratifying the policies be adopted by the Council. MOVED BY KEOLKER-WHEELER, SECONDED BY EDWARDS, , COUNCIL ADOPT THE COMMITTEE August r . 1992 tisrr✓ Renton City Council Minutes '*'rd Paae 430 la REPORT AS PRESENTED, AND APPROVE THE RESOLUTION AS READ. CARRIED. (See Page 432 for Resolution #2922.) Utilities Committee Referred 9/14/92 - Utilities Committee Chairman Tanner presented a Utility: Aquifer report recommending concurrence with the Planning/Building/Public Protection Works Department's recommendation that the implementation ordinance Implementation for the Aquifer Protection Ordinance be approved, and that this Ordinance ordinance be scheduled for first reading. The Committee further recommends that the Council authorize the water utility to hire staff to implement the Aquifer Protection Ordinance to include one full-time Civil Engineer II and one half-time Administrative Clerk II. MOVED BY TANNER, SECONDED BY EDWARDS, COUNCIL ADOPT THE COMMITTEE REPORT AS PRESENTED AND REFER THE ORDINANCE FOR SECOND AND FINAL READING ON 9/28/92. CARRIED. (See Page 432 for first reading of the ordinance.) Referred 8/24/92 - Referred 8/24/92 - Utilities Committee Chairman Tanner presented a Latecomer Agreement report stating that the Committee concurs with the recommendation of the Storybook Homes, Planning/Building/Public Works Department and recommends Council Lind Ave NW at NW approve the water latecomer agreement recommended method of 3rd St. (Campbell), assessment (by front foot) and preliminary assessment roll. The LA-003-91 Committee recommends preliminary approval be granted for a period of one (1) year. Per City of Renton Ordinance #4189, the Committee recommends that Council set the duration of the agreement to be ten (10) years with the option to extend the agreement, for one time only, for a period of up to an additional five (5) years. The Committee recommends that Council authorize the City Clerk to notify the property owners listed on the preliminary assessment roll by registered mail of their rights and options to participate in the latecomer agreement. The Committee further recommends that the City Clerk notify the property owners that only new development or re-development of abutting properties requiring additional fire flow and additional or larger water meters will trigger latecomer reimbursement to the developer; and that all existing water services and meters abutting the route of the new watermain in Lind Avenue NW, will be disconnected from the old main (which will be abandoned) and connected to the new main. Property owners should be informed that this conversion will not require payment of the latecomer fees. The Committee further recommends that if no protests are received, Council authorize the Planning/Building/Public Works Department to prepare the final assessment roll and the latecomer agreement for execution by the developer and City officials. Upon payment of the $1,000.00 processing fee by the developer, the City Clerk is authorized to record the final agreement with King County. MOVED BY TANNER, SECONDED BY EDWARDS, COUNCIL ADOPT THE COMMITTEE REPORT AS PRESENTED. CARRIED. .Lu ust . 1992 +§tos Renton City Council Minutes Page 432 COUNCIL ADOPT THE COMMITTEE REPORT AS PRESENTED. CARRIED. SCATBD: Local Referred 8/24/92 - Transportation (Aviation) Committee Chairman Jurisdictions Declare Stredicke presented a report recommending Council adopt the resolution Intent to Join Board declaring the intention of the City of Renton to join with King County and other cities to form the South County Area Transportation Board to manage multijurisdictional transportation issues in the South County region. MOVED BY STREDICKE, SECONDED BY TANNER, COUNCIL ADOPT THE COMMITTEE REPORT AND RESOLUTION AS PRESENTED. CARRIED. (See Resolution #2923 on Page 432.) ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS The following resolutions were presented for reading and adoption: Resolution #2922 A resolution was read ratifying the County-Wide Planning Policies Growth Management: adopted by King County on 7/6/92, pursuant to the Growth Management County-Wide Act, RCW 36.70A.210. (See motion on Page 429.) Planning Policies Resolution #2923 A resolution was read declaring its intent to join with King County and SCATBD: Local other cities to form the South County Transportation Board (SCATBD) to Jurisdictions Declare manage multijurisdictional transportation issues in the South County Intent to Join Board region. (See motion on Page 432.) Resolution #2924 A resolution was read declaring the City of Renton's opposition to the King County: recommended Regional Transportation Plan draft system plan for the Regional Rail System disbursement of Regional Transportation Authority funds. MOVED BY KEOLKER-WHEELER, SECONDED BY STREDICKE, COUNCIL ADOPT THE RESOLUTION AS READ. CARRIED. The following ordinances were presented for first reading and will be adopted at the next Council meeting on 9/28/92: Utility: Aquifer An ordinance was read amending Subsection 8-4-31.A of Title VIII Protection (Health and Sanitation) of the City Code relating to water meter rates. Implementation Minimum rates for metered water supplied within the City in one month Ordinance or fractional period thereof are as follows: Size of Service Total Service Charge 3/4" $ 8.58 1" 10.30 1-1/2" 12.68 2" 3" 19.77 3" 66.22 83.73 6" 124.46 8" 171.03 10" 246.78 12" 339.92 MOVED BY TANNER, SECONDED BY EDWARDS, COUNCIL REFER THE ORDINANCE FOR SECOND AND FINAL READING ON 9/28/92. CARRIED. i--,,d 'LIJW 0 VED COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE • COMMITTEE REPORT SEPTEMBER 21, 1992 RESOLUTION RATIFYING THE COUNTYWIDE PLANNING POLICIES Referred 8/17/92 A draft resolution has been prepared to ratify the Countywide Planning Policies adopted by the King County Council. The resolution conditions the ratification based on a three-phased process and identifies concerns of the City of Renton that must be addressed before final adoption of the Countywide Planning Policies. The Committee of the Whole recommends that the Resolution ratifying the Countywide Planning Policies be adopted by the City Council. / ettYtkizi Kathy K=siker-Wheeler, Chair cc: Kay Shoudy Cr\-J e_A)-k-s-x).-c-`-9 .(\}-'\'''--€\01,k3lAra) ems-- er`�'' `'� p 13 vED COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE COMMITTEE REPORT SEPTEMBER 21, 1992 APPLICATION FOR URBAN CENTER DESIGNATION UNDER THE COUNTY-WIDE PLANNING POLICIES Referred 8/17/92 An application for designation as an Urban Center as determined by the County- wide Planning Policies has been prepared and reviewed which incorporates the area in Central Renton identified on Exhibit 1 in the application. The application finds that this area is an excellent candidate for the designation because the area is compact, compatible with the criteria for Urban Centers, strategically located on the regional transportation system and will support a high level of employment and high quality urban housing. The Committee of the Whole recommends that the City Council submit the application for designation as an Urban Center to the Growth Management Planning Council. taeLb athy K olker-Wheeler, Chair k)-4 cc: Kay Shoudy oir c v l�O ' �rrrf CITY OF RENTON MEMORANDUM DATE: September 21, 1992 TO: Kathy Keolker-Wheeler, Chair Committee of the Whole VIA: Mayor Clymer FROM: Lynn Guttmann, Administrator 6 6-al &- STAFF CONTACT: Kay Shoudy, Planning Director SUBJECT: Countywide Planning Policies and Urban Center Designation Transmitted with this memo are two items for discussion and approval by the Committee of the Whole regarding the Countywide Planning Policies: 1. Draft Resolution Ratifying the Countywide Policies (Exhibit A): As discussed at the meeting of the Committee of the Whole on August 17, a draft resolution has been prepared ratifying the Countywide policies. The Resolution identifies the City's concerns about the Countywide Policies and defines issues to be discussed further with King County. The staff recommends adoption of this Resolution. 2. Urban Center Designation (Exhibit B): The Countywide Planning Policies require that applications for designation as an Urban or Manufacturing Center must be submitted by October 1 for consideration by the GMPC. The City Council indicated at their meeting on July 27, that the City would submit an application for an Urban Center designation. The attached exhibit is a draft application to the GMPC for designation as an Urban Center. H I C5 11 t\ t: `` CITY OF RENTON Office of the City Attorney Earl Clymer, Mayor Lawrence J. Warren RECEIVED g13I/cO__ PUBUC WORKS DEPT. MEMORANDUM CITY OF RENTON To: Lynn Guttmann, Administrator Department of Planning/Building/Public Works From: Lawrence J. Warren, City Attorney Date: August 27, 1992 Subject: Resolution Ratifying the County-Wide Planning Policies Adopted by King County Pursuant to the Growth Management Act I am enclosing a copy of the above-referenced resolution. The original resolution has been forwarded along to the City Clerk. c:77 ) Lawrenarren LJW:as. cc: Mayor Earl Clymer Marilyn J. Petersen A8:88:14. �. �... ..... .. .. , ... r, _ _ ,(TT__t•_-`__ nonc,7 inns\ '1GC 04'70 • CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, RATIFYING THE COUNTY-WIDE PLANNING POLICIES ADOPTED BY KING COUNTY ON JULY 6, 1992', PURSUANT TO THE GROWTH MANAGEMENT ACT, RCW 36.70A.210. WHEREAS, the County-Wide Planning Policies establish a County-Wide framework for the development of city and county Comprehensive Plans as required by the Growth Management Act, RCW 36 .70A; and WHEREAS, the county, Seattle and the suburban cities established a process through an interlocal agreement creating the Growth Management Planning Council (GMPC) , and the GMPC, after six months of deliberation, including public workshops and hearings, adopted and recommended the County-Wide Planing Policies to the King County Council; and WHEREAS, the King County Council enacted Ordinance No. 10450 adopting and ratifying the County-Wide Planning Policies and setting up a process for ratification of the policies by the cities, and completion of additional work to refine and amend the County-Wide Planning Policies; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Renton held a public hearing to allow comments on the proposed County-Wide Planning Policies from affected residents, businesses and property owners; and WHEREAS, the County-Wide Planning Policies provide for the coordination and regulation of public and private development within and between jurisdictions in King County. Page 4 Nee `'— RESOLUTION NO. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, DO RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. The above recitals are found to be true and correct in all respects . SECTION II . The City of Renton hereby ratifies the County- Wide Planning Policies as recommended by the GMPC, subject to the provisions of Phases I, II and III identified in King County Ordinance No. 10450 . SECTION III . The following County-Wide policies and issues are of concern to the City of Renton and will require additional study, review and clarification before final ratification by the city of amendments to the County-Wide Planning Policies in Phase III : A. Coordination with King County on the definition and location of urban separators . B. Establishment of an urban growth boundary and coordination of the potential annexation areas with adjacent jurisdictions and King County. C. Adequate definition of rural character and land uses . D. Nomination and establishment of Urban/Manufacturing Centers . E. Implementation strategies for development of an inter model transit system which serves the City of Renton and links the community to the regional system. F. Phasing of growth and urban services in the Newcastle, West Hill and Soos Creek Planning Areas . Page-2 • '41,0 RESOLUTION NO. Noe G. Resolution of possible inconsistencies with state law related to annexation of special districts . H. Establishment of objectives and targets for affordable housing. I . Consistency between the city' s Wetlands Ordinance and the County-Wide Planning Policies . J. Establishment of minimum land use densities . K. Limits on establishment of Office Park zoning. L. Establishment of minimum and maximum parking standards . M. Establishment of a level of service standard on arterial streets . N. Effect of County-Wide Planning Policies and implementation strategies on the City of Renton ' s Comprehensive Plan and implementation programs. 0. Review and acceptance of population and employment targets . SECTION IV. The City of Renton will continue to work with King County and other city staffs and elected officials to resolve these issues in a timely manner and to assure that the city' s Comprehensive Plan is prepared consistent with the County-Wide Planning Policies . PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL this day of , 1992 . Marilyn J. Petersen, City Clerk Page-3 vermirmina 444,0, RESOLUTION NO. APPROVED BY THE MAYOR this day of 1992 . Earl Clymer, Mayor Approved as to form: Lawrence J. Warren, City Attorney RES. 228 : 8/26/92 . Page-4 g)Cf1IBIT B CITY OF RENTOND RA F I URBAN CENTER PROPOSAL Introduction The County-wide Planning Policies recommended by the Growth Management Planning Council define a concept for establishment of concentrated centers for employment and housing, served directly by the regional high capacity transit system. The Countywide Policies also established criteria for designating Urban Centers as follows: Clearly defined geographic boundaries; Intensity/density of land uses sufficient to support effective rapid transit; Limitations on single occupancy vehicle usage during peak hours or commute purposes; A broad array of land uses and choices within those uses for employees, residents; Sufficient public open spaces and recreational opportunities; and Uses which provide both daytime and nighttime activities in the Center. On August 14, 1992, the City Council of the City of Renton adopted a "Preferred Land Use Alternative" which will be the basis of an Interim Land Use Element to be adopted in December, 1992, following completion of the FEIS, and the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element to be adopted in July, 1993. The City Council has reviewed the proposed Urban Center designation criteria defined above in relation to the Preferred Land Use Alternative, and determined that designation of central Renton as an Urban Center is appropriate as documented in this proposal. I. Delineate Center Boundary The boundaries of the proposed Urban Center are defined on Exhibit 1 (Proposed Urban Center Boundaries). The Urban Center would consist of two nodes north and south of the Cedar River, one the North Renton office/industrial area which includes the Boeing facilities, and the other the existing city center south to I-405. The area contained within the proposed Urban Center is approximately 565 acres or .86 square miles. iiIIIIIIMMINUMMINIMIIMIMMinggiongis EXHIBIT 1 - PROPOSED URBAN CENTER BOUNDARY U N DAR Y +orr� fir, 1 _ N ,. 14th 1 e N \N.\ City of Renton A �o ^� Urban Center Boundary-a BEACH PARK HE 12th 113th If ST /' _ I SE I 11Jth < / S f 114th U I I I) 114th //� •J 1 iin, II sr II I 115th / I 115th II PL I'^ j I II 115th PL E\ //j/ `�\ r . NE ` `i.' 116N I ST Ii I < Smut ST I I itbth —f / \ ,_ — ❑ W < „, S I 117th _� BOER16 // \`� V RENTCNM. _ S 118th ST I I m 117th PI_ i \i'45 „ PLANT !�/ y \ \yClI li8th I, Z \ \ - $ i I1119th _ ` L�S R120th ST)* C 120M I >< N 8thST t NEl " > NE S iZht S i 121et II122nd 122nd (I ` >a S 122 nd ST 1 y <2-__ _ Nw7th ,�iZ3rt1 iZJrd(—\Tj1123rd PL 123rdi PL �O ' R mS 124 th ST I \I 124th 1124th ST N 5ih S7N 6th ST \\>— _FEN 6th \��w l2 > ikb, sr'6y� y ?`� _ tT8 Sth ST /N Sth Si �.D \ S iZ6th STADRIIAM �I / �m �i \ r�71— \��rsm'O g�1� _ p —^ N 4th ST y 1USTI --o z r = _ > < xp i s ` �7 \ ii��= ,�l > 130th ST v, c �' ,' �^\� / �- g ALT III/IS \\\\ S 132nd Si NW 2nd 1 �1RPOR I 1 WY I , c, _ �� wiiiiiit„ 5 132nd Si ✓ n I S II TOBIH 1.(1k 414 I- 2nd ST C© o ----,.. 1 a -n f ,JSIh.ST �.S RENTCN 1. `� < _ URTY , CEDAR �'_�� HS '< PARK RIVER wY' id S 2nd ST H — , \\, PAR J --.-..---'—---. ----N<701 iiiirOW Pt ,,,,Z'' se PE ildir ,„ . N 414 "igii RENiON y < 4 , �^ \\\ \\ -ff '�, SHOPPING 1181 I > ► \\ \ N d�PC CENTER 'A 1th 4t. _ ; a \\\\ ` lif i , lr � 56Sw 7th ST SW 7th ST 7f= _ =^— "� 8th X > N y i.Vi ate 7 El P 14 Rids Bth J ..,.-_._-_-:_i Ir_____________i_.--- /I = I _ toy+ST ��Y 1 'L m S RENTCN 'ALUM ____.---• ® S1 - N > ga j, r. vtt 511 t2 t� 5T �' P. N' Sw 111®®� S 15th �_ 1 „� �a S0 SE 161h PL 1 QJ > (� i h < 5 a N S 17!h ST N G O SE 181h a s111th % 9 H /////� "1 , % 4 i i 1 a w l 5W 19th ST " Ni 1t < t7_ , n�P / Urban Center Proposal , September 21, 1992 Page 2 II. Relationship to High Capacity Transit Stations Because of the City's strategic position in the region linking south and east King County and Seattle, central Renton is the point of intersection of five major transportation corridors all of which are currently at or near Level of Service "F", with projected demands of nearly double the existing capacity by Year 2010. Approximately 60% of the traffic on the SR arterials, and 85% of the traffic on I-405 is through traffic with neither origin nor destination in the City of Renton. Currently, regional traffic is overflowing to local arterials and neighborhood streets, threatening the quality of life in the neighborhoods and severely restricting expansion of the business and industrial community. The regional system does not presently address the problems of congestion in the I-405 corridor, and the City does not believe that reasonable growth in Renton should be restricted due to failure of regional agencies to address regional corridor problems. The City of Renton's goal is a transportation system that provides local service linked to a regional system, and is flexible as conditions change. The City's objectives are as follows: 1. The rail system should provide a viable alternative to single occupancy travel in the congested I-405 corridor. There should be a rail loop around the southern end of the lake and a rail line linking Renton with other southend communities (commuter rail). 2. Interim transit improvements should be used to reinforce Renton's ultimate land use and transportation pattern until the City is connected to the regional rail system. 3. Community transit service should be provided between Renton residential areas and Renton activity centers. This local distribution system might initially be a bus system, a dial-a-ride system, a van shuttle system or some combination. The ultimate technology might be some type of personal rapid transit system. 4. As much vehicle traffic as possible should be intercepted at the periphery of the City. The system proposed can be viewed as a hierarchy of transit service. It is comprised of a system of local bus service, functioning as a bus feeder system connected to the regional rail link. The system would link neighborhoods with neighborhoods, and neighborhoods with the proposed Urban Center. • Urban Center Proposal Now September 21, 1992 Page 3 The proposed Urban Center would include two high capacity transit stations, one located near the Boeing Plant and one located within the existing city center, on the general alignment proposed in Exhibit 3 (Conceptual Transit Network) Each station would be located in or adjacent to one of the nodes of the Urban Centers, within 1/2 mile from the housing and employment areas. This conceptual alignment has also been proposed as a corridor for light rail facilities at some time in the future, which the City of Renton views as a necessary outcome to reduce congestion in the I-405 corridor also located adjacent to or within 1/2 mile of both nodes of the Urban Center. The proposed Urban Center also includes an existing rail right-of-way which has been proposed for commute rail from Tukwila northeast to the Boeing plant in north Renton. The central high capacity transit alignment is a critical component of the City's transit network indicated on the exhibit Designation of the City's central core as an Urban Center supports the linkage of local neighborhoods and commercial centers with the regional system, as well as providing the population and employment density to support the regional transit system. M. Capacity to Achieve Employment Targets The target for employment in the proposed Urban Center would be 28,750 jobs to achieve employment densities of 50 employees per gross acre. Existing employment within the boundaries of the proposed Urban Center in 1990 was estimated to be 26,400 employees located within 1/2 mile of a proposed transit centers. Central Renton is functioning as a high density employment center at the present time. The "Preferred Land Use Alternative" adopted by the City Council designates the North Renton area as an "Employment Area - Industrial (Mixed Uses)". The primary uses in this area would be industrial, but offices, light industrial, warehousing and manufacturing uses would be allowed. Several large office complexes exist in this area and there would be additional capacity to increase employment density exists under both existing and proposed zoning, if adequate regional transportation facilities are made available. The south node of the Urban Center is proposed for two separate use areas. (See Exhibit 3) The city center is proposed to be a "Mixed Use Core" to encourage redevelopment of the City center with a balanced mix of uses. Commercial, office, multi-family residential, hotel and some light industrial uses would be allowed. The proposed land use policies encourage provision of adequate land in the city core to meet projected future needs for regional commercial space. The area adjacent to Grady Way is proposed as an "Employment Area - Office". The • Urban Center Proposal ,,, September 21, 1992 Page 4 intent of this designation is to encourage low and high intensity office uses, although some commercial and light industrial activities would also be allowed. As present height limits allow ten story structures, considerable capacity already exists within this district to increase employment densities. Policies proposed in the "Preferred Land Use Alternative" include reinforcement of downtown Renton as the primary regional commercial district for the City, and a focus for municipal and civic activities. The policies also emphasize the need to balance growth in the outlying centers, which could be accomplished through a locally linked transit system while supporting additional growth in the City Core. Both sub-areas of the Urban Center are presently developed at low population and employment densities. If adequate regional transportation facilities can be provided, significant potential for redevelopment at higher densities exists in the proposed Urban Center. IV. Capacity to Achieve Household Targets The North Renton employment area is not planned to contain additional households since this area will be maintained for office and industrial employment. The Grady Way area will be reserved for office development, and supporting services. (See Exhibit 2 - Urban Center Land Uses) The City Core and Grady Way district presently contain approximately 900 housing units or about 4 dwelling units per acre. Most of the City Core is zoned B-1, a commercial zone that allows residential units only as a mixed use with a Conditional Use Permit and ground floor retail. Because of the height limit of 95 feet, there is substantial existing capacity for conditional residential uses. A portion of the Grady Way area is also zoned for multi-family uses at a density of 35 dwelling units per acre. The Preferred Land Use Alternative proposes that use of existing urban services and civic amenities in the City Core be maximized by promotion of medium to high density residential development in the downtown areas. Multi-family residential uses will be encouraged to develop in the commercial centers and downtown. Under the policies proposed in the Preferred Land Use Alternative, net residential densities in the downtown are intended to achieve a range of 15-50 dwelling units per acre with up to 150 dwelling units per acre allowed with design review. The Urban Center target for housing would be 8,500 housing units. The City Core which is proposed as the focus for residential uses in the Preferred Land Use Alternative is 172 acres, which could generate 8,600 additional households at an average of 50 dwelling units per acre under proposed zoning. a tit s co W • •Z CT F- cma N 1-4 = r as a; a } = O P-t- u = . . xz � O• . , .0 E ,¢ c : N U2 } ACC I- � li4, m U' 4 .� F- Z ►Z a • C: •�'c y " ° t�, 1� + ,-7. _mo o tau . CI T * U w z . - • - - •. t'�xi W X LU M z a C Ca L. v tY O '-' o t3.. 1 , , SEIM= 'NIa '-‘11 lk_ .'��/.4,7.\\ • S_ L• AV N• • •• I� •, . ' �• S TY. NO lN3� . . _ A S AV ei 0 3 0� i N t IL L3 11111 [-W4 ,G 111 IIIIM %1L11&,."-t--"lb. 1 7 , sit . •'Ad STEMMI ate_ '...�.7f Lt-L T 1 `\ .iam is ----- liellEN mmrs."11111 Iffi AN miwailb Ramis ELI 2,,,. , • • le • . . • Cn �II. 11"ir' IN.,I, ..,,,okl-11P-21.1111V11.111111-16.ralMIIII libit- "1-- s' 7/7-7- e t)NY9Oi, I. �_ u._i ' �a MEV „ tk - ( . ' moo 44 \�1•�s -1 sAd Vie,_„ �I ► t 411 E—+ , _ _ ____ __ lillia 1111111111LEMII". 44) .1116-2nb : 1)14 ° C) Oa IT •• AL Ili k.....-1' ' .• • AY -..i ‘ N0f111.VHS i..* a ••.._)Z . • Crl ia..�► 111 V1 _ eZ Kul \ • ,.•i AM ��s" DER N..4 A -.11Fr 1 .. . . • - :•...: 1\ - I ••••=111111\a/CD •to V•• tu:Z ;651 . \Ali - ' ' . 4II_ ' i - Urban Center Proposal September 21, 1992 Page 5 V. Capacity for Other Land Use Activities Policies in the Preferred Land Use Alternative encourage location of cultural activities and facilities in the downtown. Regional facilities which provide services to the public on a daily basis and municipal facilities which are "people intensive" are also encouraged to remain in the downtown. Community design objectives support the intensification of downtown Renton as a multi-use urban center, with particular focus as the governmental center for the City. Also encouraged by the policies are a mix of uses in the city core that enhance and support the other uses; i.e. commercial services for residents and workers, residences near employment areas, theaters and playhouses, etc.. The City Hall, Senior Center, Library, Municipal Court, Fire Station, Liberty Park/Swimming Pool are already located within the proposed Urban Center. The City is also preparing a Municipal Campus Plan to redevelop and expand facilities at this location. The Gene Coulon Waterfront Park, Renton High School and the Renton Community Center are located directly adjacent to the boundaries of the proposed Urban Center. The City has developed a significant portion of the Cedar River trail which crosses the proposed Urban Center, and is further committed to expansion of the Trail. The Cedar River Trail, and Burnett Linear Park in the City Core are major regional pedestrian facilities, and a central design focus and public amenity within the proposed Urban Center. It will also provide pedestrian linkage and access to the proposed transit centers. VI. Access to and within Urban Centers Pedestrian and Bicycle Emphasis: The Preferred Land Use Alternative encourages improvement of the non-motorized transportation system for both internal circulation and linkages to the regional transportation system. The intent of the policies is to provide guidelines for re-evaluating the existing system and providing a better environment for walking and bicycling during the life of the plan. It should be noted that the current TCIP already reflects this change in emphasis. Walkway and bicycle projects to and within the proposed Urban Center are in various stages of development. The Preferred Land Use Alternative also promotes a reasonable balance between parking supply and parking demand. The policies call for development of appropriate parking ratios that take into account transit and ride sharing goals, and to explore alternatives to on-site and on-street parking. Utban Center Proposal , some September 21, 1992 Page 6 Limits on Single Occupancy Vehicle Usage/Support Transit Use: The Preferred Land Use Alternative contains an objective to encourage the development and use of alternatives to single occupancy vehicles, particularly transit, which is a very high priority objective for the City of Renton. The policies encourage establishment of a multi-modal center in the City Core as part'of the regional transportation system, and promotion of measures to increase use of high occupancy vehicles among employers in the City. VII. Local and Regional Incentives The City of Renton will complete the Final Environmental Impact Statement on the Preferred Land Use Alternative in December, 1992. As part of this document, the growth potential for establishing the Urban Center will be examined in relationship to the proposed plan and policies. Additional SEPA review will be scheduled as a Supplement to this document to examine the Urban Center impacts in greater detail prior to adoption of the Comprehensive Plan in July, 1992. The Transportation, Utility and Capital Facilities Elements of the Land Use Plan will also address the potential for development of an Urban Center and identify needs and costs to support the proposed Urban Center. Some examples of issues that are presently under examination are the need for sewer and water upgrades within the existing City Center. The City of Renton is also in the process of completing a "Downtown Plan" as a sub- element of the Land Use Element. The Downtown Plan will analyze needs and problems at a more detailed level, and objectives and strategies will be developed at a more specific level to implement the Urban Center proposal. The Downtown Plan is expected to be completed by September, 1993. Also under preparation is a Municipal Campus Plan, representing a commitment by the City to maintain and expand governmental services in the City Core to encourage redevelopment of the existing downtown as a regional center. VIII. Other Strategies for Achieving Urban Center Objectives The Preferred Land Use Alternative contains a "Community Design" chapter which provide a vision for community identity and improvement. The policies encourage the strengthening of the image of the City as a separate and distinctive entity in the metropolitan region. The City may be absorbed into the fabric of the larger metropolitan region if efforts are not made to revitalize the city core, create identifiable community centers, preserve outlying open spaces, and important community features. Urban Center Proposal , , iore September 21, 1992 Page 7 A major objective for the proposed Urban Center is improvement of the urban environment through design improvements such as landscaping, designation of gateways, and pedestrian improvements providing adequate access and amenities. Examples include using appropriate scale and detailing on building facades, designing the streetscape to be welcoming to pedestrians, reinforcing the edge of the proposed Urban Center to give clues to motorists and pedestrians to lead them into the area. Pedestrian linkages with the Cedar River Trail will also be a high priority. The Preferred Land Use Alternative commits the City to future financial investment in the maintenance and improvement of the infrastructure in the City Core. The City will balance public investment in the Urban Center with outlying Community Centers to help build neighborhood and community identity. SUMMARY The City of Renton proposes that the area delineated in this proposal be designated by the GMPC as an Urban Center because it is an excellent candidate for this designation based on the criteria proposed in the Countywide Planning Policies and the City's ability to implement the criteria as follows: • The area within the proposed Urban Center is compact, considerably less acreage than the maximum recommended for Urban Centers, and the growth targets can be met within those boundaries with moderate investment in infrastructure and public facilities; • The City's Preferred Land Use Alternative is compatible with the criteria and specifically outlines the objectives and strategies that the City would use to encourage development of the Urban Center; • The proposed Urban Center is strategically located on the regional transportation system, and has the capacity and potential for development of a high quality urban residential environment near major employers; • The City is committed as a highest priority to the reduction of commute trips and single occupancy vehicle use in central Renton, and this goal will not be achievable without access to the regional transit system; • The establishment of an Urban Center in central Renton will contribute to the revitalization of the city core, maintain a high level of employment and provide a regional focus for the community consistent with the City's historic role as a primary manufacturing center. Urban Center Proposal is,,. September 21, 1992 Page 8 EXHIBIT 3 CONCEPTUAL TRANSIT PLAN ...4:11. E- LIIIN _. . ► �� I BELLEVUE . 51 L"a11°Me `J,c t,c),: i 14 , O , :. •i -i:4' IN • -'• ,e.....44., ,•, wig,: .. i4iiij i _ , n �, ►... ♦ • ,, -� ,�' PARK � :1.71 = -_ Vw 11, tor r )1)1% " — �� I t-' r. ,u+�M / I :nri'�t H �^- `/r •fir.,...._ ..,.a Crrrw M /1 ,fie, -.i _ -�' ,// . 2020 1issghoil Rai llama Anp+men -K�r;`4))- - 4- 4j Z Prefect arnn t 4 r 'r3 M--� .. ..mammal r 1.1:: a. H ATTL w ��L, a Z 4//�: , LAIN WASHINGTON z `L ST„ tin GENE COULON ,. \-- R','S L�;.t . BEACH PAR f •,, ai • _, . 1 . . pi , , __..,,: _..-,-..;:..,_. ,-,__ Y�r'A'ih`7 IL. „q.,� 41 tt�'; 2 ,‘,..,, r /' �:n1. ,_ . I W } A�fyfr,/ it sy . 'p4.i,•.,.;.....T.. �' BOEING \'• i :i'<.,‘.:;.-,_•.•-1.::.-L.:..—.--..-:_.2e",.r,,..--,, 7,,,:,g.-:l.m it..t.•r ..1.-"_k. ../.,.••.t,1• .,,ll',1_.,,...,L_•.',',,•1c L.,1..,,'I,.,..,A.-•.,-.t..;.".-,'z,:'"-„,-A-•':,:i.-t 1,,i,!",xcA i,1 py :, y - it � /~ ; . ::7PA 4. .-,-'....4.,_-4.,-,_',••':L-•...oV•-.•',-••":,',•.i,,,p,,,.i :",-Y.:i':.is.!.-,.,,i<..-.;,pl'',s,, r'.7"'-1 2-i'..,.-i. 7,,).-:f-V-.-r,:I1.-.4r.-.I',4"4,r‘..•...A.....-."..,'..:.:'..i ".•, ,...4'z".-.:•.\r----',*.. -..7-:7...7-,.''..",%.C--,:-:-,'_,:-_‘.iW-.._.-.I,1„::o&.L.,,-,+L.','e4..'P.1. m i- "-.,..,.1"i l wt1-P,4,s'•-' 1,i-,,-l-i`.,.1 1,1""---„.-.7.r i„._.ia_0ii\ii.*i-riiI,!,7eIIi,' 4." , _:L RK ♦' t.( ®�,` ,i4: 11 � / : : , 4 , r M . ►'"'yA `. " NE 4TH ' CEDAR .,: .. _ :. PAID.. ' j r ; --.. . �'- # + . ��. RIVER PARK .,#`^ ,. .;iii.Y', C 70! \1 ` '�-7. , lava • Y Y! i �c „ CUij Haail : I�API:ENWV)OO R _ 1 _ ,tr•. 7 -, _ b t COURSE `� ,+• �• `F` •7 ' i1 ~'v: _ iirANy/''' ;.r:: ...If;'..,::-.'',:: iA la* Ip` Fi e ¢ / ,z= }c ..41� _ ' .--;• '•, , PARK I ! �a3,tiC�t3 - •. 11 .�+ ` c�.` .. z +�� ri r- V �:‘ is /' •� �`b s� + 'r �t f t, -., -- ) t . pk ', yr�.�.^u'_ C:n..J.-� Ti i,'" 1., �: ae f. j/ ; ,,..._. .//1 N 7%/r), 4111 'v r,463.— , , _...:.c. ,... . ® r-- ,LEVARD '�(' LANEg •• v _. _I I t: PARK /(5.0„,_ REOIONAL RAIL SYSTEM . mmukerimari TRANSIT DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM I— a r es 1 r TUKMILA TRANSIT DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM - 5 ' 1 § '., Perk • Ridgy E I -1H soos I re - PARK 5 CONCEPTUAL TRANSIT NETWORK K E N T p4 '8!R' NT LAZE -A Roos CREEK g • i • si n 0 August 24. 1992 Renton City Council Minutes Pie 401 Way. The company believes that a commercial designation with conditions will ensure consistency with these constraints. 5) James W. Dalpay, Dalpay & Associates, 4033 NE Sunset Boulevard, Renton, 98055, said that his property located between NE 12th Street and Sunset Boulevard NE and west of Union Avenue NE is not designated for multifamily or commercial zoning as he requested prior to the 7/31/92 deadline. Mr. Dalpay pointed out that in order to allow the requested zoning, the western boundary of the neighborhood commercial center should be extended along Sunset Boulevard to the west. He further stated that it seems logical to include the properties in the southwest corner of the center since properties to the north and east are included, and he noted that the power line would form a natural buffer and boundary for the uses to the west of the shopping center. 6) Dean Bitney, 108 Factory Avenue North, Renton, 98055, said that property located at 123 Factory Avenue North (SW corner of Factory Avenue North and North 2nd, Lots 8 & 9, Block 8) was included in the mixed use/commercial designation, and that an alternative designation for the first two lots south of North 2nd could be SF/4- mix to provide a buffer. He opposed a buffer in this location because the street provides a natural buffer. 7) Versie Vaupel, P. O. Box 755, Renton, 98057, stated that because of requests for high-intensity uses along North 2nd, she is submitting pages of a 14-page decision by the Hearing Examiner concerning two lots along this street. She suggested that the information be used in deciding the uses along North 2nd, and noted that the decision is available for review in the City Clerk's office. 8) Hugh Coffman, Jr., 3008 SE 5th Street, Renton, 98058, expressed concern about the reclassification of Zone 5, the greenbelt area behind SE 5th Street bordering Maplewood Golf Course and SR169. He said that any land use changes in this area would damage the delicate ecosystem. 9) Roy and Norma Fournier, 4700 Talbot Road South, Renton, submitted an enlarged map showing the existing and requested single-family zoning for Area 6. 10) Len Johnson, Pacific Capital Advisors, Ltd., 1201 3rd Avenue, 29th Floor, Seattle, 98101-3099, stated that Council has been asked to eliminate a planning and zoning classification which has been the subject of thousands of hours of work by the McMahon Estate and its consultants, and requested an opportunity to present information to the Council for a single land use focus rather than the three proposed options. Mr. Johnson said that the if the City plans to construct a roadway connection through the subject property from Maple Valley to NE 4th, a commercial/industrial land use would be necessary to adequately support the roadway from a financial standpoint. Mr. Johnson expressed concern that the study area classification would delegate the ultimate decision to staff, management, and the editorial review of the EIS. He stated further that the McMahon Estate's concern is that the current decision-making process excludes the appropriate due process of a public forum and exchange of inforation. ` �� 11) m ert, 14004 156th Avenue SE, Renton, 98059, (entered to eivoTireplace incomplete correspondence submitted at the Council meeting of 8/17/92) stated that she had received information that the rural/urban boundary would be east of Renton down the middle of 156th Avenue . • SE with urban development on the west and rural development on the eytwAi east. Ms. Nipert pointed out that the area east of 156th to Lake ce. August 24. 1992 Renton City Council Minutes Page 402 Kathleen is no longer rural and has urban problems that need urban solutions. She said the area is served by septic systems which could cause damage in the future, and that city services will be needed to accommodate continuing growth. Ms. Nipert requested that this area be included in an urban designation where City services are available. MOVED BY MATHEWS, SECONDED BY EDWARDS, COUNCIL REFER THESE LETTERS TO THE OFFICIAL FILE. CARRIED. OLD BUSINESS Referred 8/20/90 - Council President Keolker-Wheeler presented a Growth Management Committee of the Whole report recommending approval of the "Preferred" Comprehensive Plan Draft Land Use Alternative, and requesting that the Mayor direct the City Land Use Element Attorney to prepare a resolution adopting the recommendation. The "Preferred" Draft Land Use Alternative includes the following documents and maps: 1. The draft Land Use Plan Map (Exhibit A) and detailed "area" maps (Exhibit B) as amended by the Committee of the Whole. 2. The draft Land Use e Element policies submitted to the City Council by the Planning Commission on 4/27/92, with amendments and further considerations for study in the Boeing Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) as directed by the Committee of the Whole in Exhibit C - "Council Recommendations on Land Use Issues." The "Preferred" Draft Land Use Alternative will guide the preparation of draft area-wide zoning maps, draft interim zoning code amendments, and the FEIS to be presented to the City Council as determined in Resolution #2878, which adopted a process for completion of the Comprehensive Plan Interim Land Use Element. Further public hearings and citizen meetings will be held before the City Council adopts the Interim Land Use Element and Area-wide Zoning in December, 1992. MOVED BY KEOLKER- WHEELER, SECONDED BY EDWARDS, COUNCIL ADOPT THE COMMITTEE REPORT AS READ.* Councilman Tanner entered the following opposition statement into the record: "Mr. Mayor, at the Council meeting of August 17, 1992, I placed a statement into the record regarding what I considered to be improper activities relating to land use planning procedures, namely the modification of land use recommendations and maps prepared by the Planning Commission, prior to their ever having been considered in the first instance by the City Council. "At the Committee of the Whole meeting on 8/19/92, these land use recommendations and maps were placed before the Committee for consideration. Mr. Mayor, these documents did not originate with the Planning Commission and, indeed, were not approved or sanctioned by the Planning Commission at its 7/29/92 meeting, nor did they come from the Council or any of its committees. The origin of these documents is the Long-Range Planning staff who developed them in coordination with the Council President. As I stated in my statement presented to the Council on 8/17/92, no request for such changes to the Commission's land use maps had been made by Council, nor any Councilmember at Council meetings, or Committee of the Whole meetings at which I have been present. I do not know if the Commission Chairman participated in the development of these changes, but according to his statements at the 7/29/92 meeting, he Nee August 20 , 1992 a' t 10,5 199 Renton City Council Renton City Hall 200 Mill. S . Renton, WA 98055 Dear Council Members , I understand that in the near future you will be voting on the new County-Wide Planning Policies . I have sent a letter to King County regarding my concerns . I would appreciate it if you would read the attached letter that was sent to King County regarding my concerns for these policies . I would also appreciate it if you would consider , review, discuss and address these concerns as they are valid concerns . Thank you for your time and consideration. Sally Nipert 14004 156th Ave SE Renton, WA 980599 (206) 255-9983 (THIS LETTER AND THE ATTACHED LETTER IS BEING RE-SUBMITTED TO YOU BECAUSE, I UNDERSTAND, THAT YOU DID NOT RECEIVE THE ENTIRE LETTER THE FIRST TIME I SUBMITTED IT. I AM SORRY ABOUT ANY INCONVENIENCE REGARDING THIS MATTER, BUT I HOPE THIS WILL STRAIGHTEN OUT ANY CONFUSION. ) ATTACHMENT August 9, 1992 Ms . Lisa Majiak Growth Management Project Supervisor 707 Smith Tower , 506 2nd Ave . Seattle , WA 98104 Dear Ms . Majiak , I am writing in regards to my concerns for the new plans emerging concerning the division of lands into rural and urban areas . I have no problem with this , if it is done properly . My information, so far, reflects that you are considering the boundary east of Renton to be down the middle of 156th Ave. S . E . Everything to the west of 156th would be urban and everything to the east would be rural . This concerns me . I live to the east of 156th and at one time would have loved this . Except , this area already has massive growth. We have sub-divisions like Carol Wood , Briarwood, Skyfire Ridge , etc . Every road east of 156th out to Lake Kathleen has little roads with cul -de-sacs of 12 or so homes on it . It is completely urban . All of this building is on septic systems . The water this is generating into the land will eventually cause a lot of damage, especially to those homes built along the cliffs overlooking the Cedar River . I am also concerned about the Cedar River and the tremendous water run-off in this area . I live in this area and saw, with heavy rains , the damage it caused . When I was young and growing up in this area , when it rained really hard we always had surface water run-off but now it reaches a disaster state . With all of the building that has taken place and all the septic systems dumping water into the soil , when we have heavy rains now the water run-off is uncontrollable . Basements get flooded, roads get closed down, and I even saw it flood some houses . The water run-off going to the Cedar River was so bad they had to close the Jones Road . The water coming off the hill formed a bigger river than the Cedar . The only solution is sewers and city services to accommodate the extensive growth already in this area . Stopping the building is not the answer in this area, as the damage has already been done . It is no longer rural and has urban problems that need urban solutions . tv P Even the Puget Sound Air Pollution Control Agency has outlawed all burning in this area because it is classified as an urban area . Liberty High School , Maywood Jr . High School , and Briarwood Elementary are all located in this area . They all have a large influx of students creating a big impact on their septic systems . Liberty High School has to truck out their sewage daily . I am sure there has been instances where this septic tank has overflowed dumping raw sewage into the surrounding environment . When we have heavy rains there is a lot of septic failure in this area and you can see the septic trucks on the move , which of course, does not solve the problem. I cannot believe King Co . is planning to leave such an environmentally hazardous situation . If you are doing all of this planning to save the environment , then putting east of 156th to Lake Kathleen in a rural area is not the solution. The damage in this area has already been done and we need some correction in the way of sewers , etc . to stop further damage to the environment . This area must be included in an urban area where city services are available. Thank you for your time and consideration. + x ?, Sally Nipert 14004 156th Ave SE Renton, WA 98059 206 255-9983 August 17. 1992 Renton City Council Minutes Pane 379 DU/AC designation for his property. Mr. Fournier said that 18-22 DU designation was requested. 5) Penny Eskenazi, 951 Lynnwood Avenue NE, Renton, 98056, noted that the revised Area 2 map, Renton Highlands, indicates that Block 32 has been included in the single-family residential zone, and that the area bounded by NE 9th Street, Kirkland Avenue, NE 8th Street, and Harrington is proposed for SF/4 mix. Ms. Eskenazi requested that the entire area be zone for single-family. 6) Lila Campen, 4908 Talbot Road South, Renton, 98055, asked that the Comprehensive Plan Area-Wide Zoning Designation Summary, Exhibit D, be revised to reflect the zoning request for her property of an 18-24 DU designation from Talbot Road to the toe of the slope and a 6-8 DU designation from the east top of the slope. 7) Denise A. Carey, 3300 Southeast 5th Street, Renton, expressed concern about the greenbelt behind the Maplewood area, and urged that this natural area be preserved. 8) Lloyd Hoshide, 833 Kirkland Avenue NE, Renton, 98056, supported evolutionary change to the Comprehensive Plan, and the concept that SF/4 mix be separated from developed single-family areas. He opposed the proposed zoning for the area bound by NE 9th on the north and NE 8th on the south between Kirkland Avenue NE and Jefferson Avenue NE (Block 31) to SF4/mix because this is a fully developed single-family neighborhood. Mr. Hoshide requested that the area be retained as a single-family zone. 9) William Bryant, Bryant Motors, Inc., 1300 Bronson Way North, Renton, 98055, stated that businesses do not want to move into residential areas and most single-family landowners do not want to live within a commercial or light industrial area. Mr. Bryant also expressed his opinion that these two factions can co-exist successfully if people work toward a common goal. MOVED BY KEOLKER-WHEELER, SECONDED BY MATHEWS, COUNCIL REFER THESE LETTERS TO THE COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE. CARRIED. Citizen Comment: Correspondence was read from Sally Nipert, 14004 156th Avenue SE, Nipert - Rural/Urban Renton, 98059, stating that she had received information that the Boundaries, rural/urban boundary would be east of Renton down the middle of 156th Comprehensive Jlan Avenue SE with urban development on the west and rural development p- #W on the east. Ms. Nipert pointed out that the area east of 156th is no longer rural and has urban problems that need urban solutions. ,� Ms. Nipert said the area is served by septic systems which could cause Y •1 damage in the future, experiences runoff problems from the Cedar River, and that city services will be needed to accommodate continuing growth. "f4 She requested that Council address these concerns. MOVED BY KEOLKER-WHEELER, SECONDED BY MATHEWS, COUNCIL REFER THIS CORRESPONDENCE TO THE COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE AND THE ADMINISTRATION. CARRIED. RECEIVED NE,"` AU3 1 7 1992 August 13 , 1992 RENTON CITY COUNCIL Renton City Hall9//: Renton City Council 200 Mill S . Renton , WA 98055 k ,/ Dear Council Members I understand that in the near fu ur you will be voting on the new County-Wide Planning Poli i I have sent a letter to King County regarding this ; on ern . I would appreciate it if you would read the attach: ' le er that was sent to King County regarding my concerns v t ese policies . I would appreciate it if you w.Ild consider , review, discuss and address these concer s as they a very valid concerns . Thank you for your time a • consideration . Sally Nipert 14004 156th Ave SE Renton , WA 98059 t ( 206) 255-9983 ti 1 ;44;/' f Ili yi, c(\\\ f' Noy *se August 9 , 1992 Ms . Lisa Majiak Growth Management Project Supervisor 707 Smith Tower , 1/4 506 2nd Ave . Seattle , WA 98104 i/ / Dear Ms . Majiak , r'` 'W I am writing in regards to my concerns for the new ; lans emerging concerning the division of lands into rural and u an areas . I have no problem with this , if it is done proper . My information , so far , reflects that you are/considering the boundary east of Renton to be down the midd e of 156th Ave . S . E. Everything to the west of 156th would be u an and everything to the east would be rural . This concerns . I live to the east of 156th and at one time would have loved this . Except , this area already has massive growth . We have sub-divisions like Carol Wood , Briar Wood , Skyfire Ridge,' etc . Every road east of 156th out to Lake Kathleen has littl,k roads with cul-de-sacs of 12 or so homes on it . It is compl 'tely urban . Y All of this building is on septi,' systems . The water this is generating into the land will eebentually cause a lot of damage , especially to those homes built along the cliffs overlooking the Cedar River . I am also concerned about the Cedar River and the tremendous water run-off in/this area . I live in this area and saw , with heavy rains , the/damage it caused . When I was young and growing up in this area , when it rained really hard we always had surface water run-o "f but now it reaches a disaster state . With all of the building that has taken place and all the septic systems dumping water into the soil , when we have heavy rains now the water run-off is `uncontrollable . Basements get flooded , roads get closed do n , and I even saw it flood some houses . The water run-off goi to the Cedar River was so bad they had to close the Jones ' •ad . The water coming off the hill formed a bigger river tha the Cedar . The only solution is sewers and city services te accommodate the extensive growth already in this area . Stoppin_ the building is not the answer in this area , as the damage ha . already been done . It is no longer rural and has urban proble' s that need urban solutions . Even the P get Sound Air Pollution Control Agency has outlawed all burnirg in this area because it is classified as an urban area . 14110, August 13 , 1992 Renton City Hall Renton City Council 200 Mill S . Renton , WA 98055 Dear Council Members or Whom It May Concern : I understand that in the near fuure you will be voting on the new land use County-Wide P inning Policies . I have sent a letter to King County regars ng this concern . I would appreciate if you woild read the attached letter that was sent to King County regardi , g my concerns for these policies . August 10. 1992 tkimiii Renton City Council Minutes `' Page 359 MOVED BY KEOLKER-WHEELER, SECONDED BY EDWARDS, COUNCIL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. CARRIED. Councilman Tanner preferred that the policies not be ratified until economic and environmental impacts are evaluated. Councilwoman Mathews explained the action taken by Suburban Cities Association (SCA) to encourage adoption of the policies as a starting point, and individual concerns by cities will be addressed at a later date through the amendment process. It was noted by Council President Keolker-Wheeler that the matter is pending in the Committee of the Whole to be discussed on 8/17/92. AUDIENCE COMMENT Nicola Robinson, 3110 SE 5th Street, Renton, 98058, a resident of the Citizen Comment Maplewood area, submitted two petitions opposing the proposed low- Robinson - density single-family zoning designation for the following areas: Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element 1) The forest north of the Maple Valley Highway and SE 5th Street (north of the Maplewood community) to the top of the bluff and beyond extending, 1/2 - 3/4 mile whichever is the deepest point (petition signed by 177 residents). 2) The Cedar River and the forests that border it, extending on the southerly side to a depth of 3/4 - 1 mile whichever is the deepest point, and any depth of forest or other land on the opposite bank of the river (petition signed by 146 residents). Ms. Robinson said that the Maplewood Community is petitioning to the City Council to designate these two areas as permanently unavailable for • development except as park lands and walking trails. MOVED BY EDWARDS, SECONDED BY STREDICKE, COUNCIL REFER THE TWO PETITIONS TO THE COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE. CARRIED. Council President Keolker-Wheeler clarified that the proposed low-density single-family zoning designation for the subject areas allows less density than the current zoning designation. Citizen Comment Ord Lois Ord, 221 SW Langston Road, Renton, questioned the Council's role in - Comprehensive Plan, the Suburban Cities Association (SCA). Councilwoman Mathews clarified SCA Representation that all elected officials in King County belong to SCA, and that the Association's Board is elected by members of the association to represent suburban cities as a whole. Ms. Ord claimed that an area located behind the Maplewood development between the top of the bluff and the Maplewood Golf Course boundary, which has been designated as storm water runoff by the City, is a natural marsh replenished by a year-around spring. Citizen Comment: Wendell Pang, 18006 113th Avenue SE, Renton, 98055, announced that he Pang - Candidate, is a candidate for the State House of Representatives for the 47th District. State Legislature Citizen Comment Versie Vaupel, P. O. Box 755, Renton, 98057, requested a schedule for the Vaupel - development process for the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element. Ms. Comprehensive Plan Vaupel also referenced new land use alternatives from the staff which Land Use include the following land use proposals: 1) Planning Commission recommendation for single-family residential in most of the interior portion of North Renton with SF/4-Plex along the south side of N. 6th for a depth of three lots, plus SF/4-Plex '44 "' RENTON CITY COUNCIL Regular Meeting August 10, 1992 Municipal Building Monday, 7:30 p.m. Council Chambers MINUTES CALL TO ORDER Mayor Earl Clymer led the Pledge of Allegiance to the flag and called the meeting of the Renton City Council to order. ROLL CALL OF KATHY KEOLKER-WHEELER, Council President; RICHARD COUNCILMEMBERS STREDICKE; BOB EDWARDS; TIM SCHLITZER; NANCY MATHEWS; TONI NELSON; JESSE TANNER. CITY STAFF IN EARL CLYMER, Mayor; JAY COVINGTON, Executive Assistant to the ATTENDANCE Mayor; DAVID DEAN, Assistant City Attorney; MARILYN PETERSEN, City Clerk; LYNN GUTTMANN, Planning/Building/Public Works Administrator; KAY SHOUDY, Planning/Technical Service Director; MARY LYNNE MYER, Principal Planner; JIM HANSON, Development Services Director; MIKE BENOIT, Engineering Specialist; LIEUTENANT RICHARD STODDARD, Police Department. PRESS Dean Radford, Valley Daily News. APPROVAL OF MOVED BY KEOLKER-WHEELER, SECONDED BY STREDICKE, COUNCIL MINUTES COUNCIL APPROVE THE MINUTES OF AUGUST 3, 1992, AS PRESENTED. CARRIED. PUBLIC HEARING This being the date set and proper notices having been posted and SCA: County-Wide published in accordance with local and State laws, Mayor Clymer opened Planning Policies the public hearing to consider the County-Wide Planning Policies. Planning/Technical Services Director Kay Shoudy reported that King County, Seattle, and suburban cities established the Growth Management Planning Council (GMPC) to develop County-Wide Planning Policies, and that these policies meet requirements of the Growth Management Act to establish a County-wide framework for the development of comprehensive plans by the County and individual jurisdictions. GMPC membership includes the King County Executive, five members of the King County Council, three representatives of Seattle, and six representatives of the suburban cities (with three votes) and one ex-officio member representing the Port of Seattle. Ms. Shoudy said that the policies, adopted by the King County Council on 7/6/92, have to be ratified by suburban cities within 90 days. She pointed out that the County-Wide Planning Policies address environmental protection, resource lands, rural areas, urban growth areas, urban centers, manufacturing/industrial centers, urban growth outside of centers, transportation, community character and open space, affordable housing, orderly development, siting of public facilities, and economic development and finance. Within 90 days of ratification, written land use controls must be adopted by each jurisdiction. Audience comment was invited. Todd Woosley, Burnsted Construction, 1215 120th Avenue NE, Suite 201, Bellevue, 98005, noted that County- Wide Planning Policies will determine how and where residents of King County will live over the next 30 years, and urged that the Council proceed with caution. He recommended that Phase I of the policies be ratified and that ratification of Phases II and III be withheld until economic and environmental impact studies have been completed. CITY OF RENTON MEMORANDUM DATE: August 14, 1992 TO: Renton City Council VIA: Earl Clymer, Mayor �,`- FROM: Lynn Guttmann, P/B/PW Administrators `"i7 � SUBJECT: Countywide Policies Compared to the City of Renton Land Use Policies (reflecting Council changes of August 11) The Countywide policies (draft of July 6, 1992) present some opportunities and challenges for coordination with the City of Renton land use policies as reviewed and changed by the City Council at the August 11, 1992, special meeting. This memo will discuss areas of consistency and inconsistency between the Countywide policies (CWP) and the City's policies. It also raises some questions which are unanswered in the Countywide policies and will need further coordination with the County. CONSISTENCIES: SENSITIVE AREAS The CWP directs jurisdictions to protect sensitive areas. The work the City of Renton finished last year for Growth Management requirements is consistent with this requirement. The CWP mandates the designation of urban separators which is also consistent with the City's policies and maps for the Land Use Element. However, the County policies do not specify where the urban separators should be located, leaving that decision for later coordination between the County and the Cities. GROWTH BOUNDARIES The Countywide policies set up the idea of growth boundaries and establishing urban rural growth line on the map. As you are aware, the City has not agreed with the County's mapping of several of Renton's areas (i.e. Brierwood, some of the May Creek Valley area). These are labeled as study areas on the County's draft map and will require further discussion between the County and the City before October 1. The concept of growth boundaries is consistent with the City's unofficial policy, but there are no specific policies within the City's Proposed Land Use Plan to establish an urban growth area. This omission can be corrected during the time the FEIS is being written. Memorandum to City uncil — August 14, 1992 Page 2 DESIGNATE ANNEXATION AREAS Both the City and the County policies discuss annexation areas as those areas within the urban growth boundary which will eventually become part of the city. The two sets of policies appear to be consistent. CREATE CONCENTRATIONS OF DEVELOPMENT (URBAN CENTER, ACTIVITY AREAS) Both the City and the County policies discuss the efficient utilization of land, with concentrations of development. The City policies speak to bounded commercial centers and bounded multifamily districts, a specified mixed use core area. The policies appear to be consistent, although the County's designations (urban center, activity center, manufacturing center) have not been applied on the City's maps. DEVELOP MULTIMODAL TRANSIT SYSTEM; REDUCE RELIANCE ON SINGLE OCCUPANCY VEHICLE (SOV) The two policy documents are consistent on this goal. The difference seems to be how the multimodal systems will be implemented. No clear regional direction has emerged which would provide Renton with the multimodal service it needs. ESTABLISH AN AFFORDABLE HOUSING PLAN The City policies recognize the need for affordable housing and suggest a number of ways of implementing this idea. An affordable housing plan will be finished next year by July 1993 to meet Growth Management Act requirements. AREAS OF INCONSISTENCY: STANDARDS/REQUIREMENTS WHICH CONFLICT OR ARE NOT INCLUDED IN PROPOSED POLICIES PHASING OF GROWTH The Countywide policies include requirements for the phasing of growth based on concurrency and infrastructure availability. ("Urban areas in jurisdictions which do not have urban services and are not scheduled to receive urban services within 10 years shall be subject to phasing requirements.") The CWP (LU17) require all jurisdictions to develop growth phasing plans by identifying areas for growth for the next ten and twenty years. If services cannot be provided within the next 10 years, the CWP require phasing and limiting development, and establishing a process for converting land to urban densities and uses once services are available. (LU 18). The City has not yet identified areas which fit this policy. In addition, the City policies do not have phasing requirements. POSSIBLE COUNCIL ACTION: Investigate appropriate phasing and include it in the Land Use Element. Memorandum to City°'rtSuncilNoe August 14, 1992 Page 3 ANNEXATION OF SPECIAL DISTRICTS The CWP requires cities to assume the services of districts such as water and sewer if the City annexes into these areas. In some cases, this may be expensive and difficult for the City of Renton, as existing state laws in this area may conflict with the Growth Management Act. POSSIBLE COUNCIL ACTION: Request clarification from the County on policy inconsistencies with state law. AFFORDABLE HOUSING The CWP requires each jurisdiction to specify the range and amount of housing affordable to low and moderate income households, meeting countywide policies by October 1. In addition, the policies set up a process to evaluate each jurisdiction's efforts to meet countywide objectives for distribution of affordable housing by December 1. However, the County has not set targets yet for the Cities to meet, so it is unlikely the Renton, or other cities, can meet these deadlines. POSSIBLE COUNCIL ACTION: Request clarification of the deadlines for this element. WETLANDS The CWP requires that each jurisdiction classify wetlands, showing their relative status. It further requires that all top class wetlands shall remain untouched, with no filling or replacement ratios and no changes. Renton's wetlands ordinance allows for filling of Class I wetlands with a 7:1 replacement ratio. POSSIBLE COUNCIL ACTION: Investigate the impacts of complying the County's requirements. MAXIMUM LAND USE DENSITIES The CWP would also require jurisdictions to establish minimum land use densities. Presently, the City of Renton policies establish a maximum density for each residential designation, (i.e. 8 du/acre, 20 du/acre). However, they do not establish a minimum density. This approach is much different than the one taken by the Planning Commission in their work on the Land Use element. The City could complete research to establish minimum densities during the FEIS process, but we would not finish the work by November 17, as required by the policies. POSSIBLE COUNCIL ACTION: Require an extension of this deadline to December 31, 1992. OFFICE PARK ZONING The Countywide policies require that office park zoning be deleted from all jurisdictional use. Office parks generally consume a large amount of land and are not pedestrian and transit supportive. Office uses in buildings at a higher density is preferable, according to the CWP, with office uses confined to Urban Centers and Activity areas. Additionally, the CWP requires jurisdictions to establish maximum Memorandum to City 051Cincil August 14, 1992 Page 4 Floor Area Ratios and/or maximum employment levels for office use in existing business/office parks to channel future employment and office space growth to Urban Centers. The City policies do not encourage office park designations in the Land Use Element, however, some properties within the city may request this designation during the areawide zoning process. The City policies do not establish maximum floor area ratios and/or maximum employment levels for office use. It is unclear what this policy may mean for the Boeing Longacres site. POSSIBLE COUNCIL ACTION: Investigate the impacts of complying with the County requirements. The City policies do support office buildings in office residential, mixed use core designations, and all the commercial centers. But the City map has not designated each of the areas where office buildings will be accommodated as Activity centers. (i.e. Port Quendall, NARCO and the Stoneway sites, as well as the vacant areas along the 3rd- 4th street corridor.) Additionally, the city has not analyzed the effects of designating these areas "Activity Areas" under the CWP. POSSIBLE COUNCIL ACTION: Map all Renton areas with consistent County designations and include in FEIS analysis. MINIMUM AND MAXIMUM PARKING REQUIREMENTS The CWP require that the jurisdictions establish minimum and maximum parking requirements that reduce dependence on the single occupant vehicles (SOV). The City of Renton policies support reducing dependence on SOV but do not establish minimum and maximum parking requirements. POSSIBLE COUNCIL ACTION: Suggest City policies to address establishing maximum and minimum parking requirements. LOS The CWP decreases Level of Service Standards (LOS) for traffic circulation for arterial streets in urban centers. The City of Renton policies have not suggested this approach, although the idea could be accommodated in later rewrites if necessary. POSSIBLE COUNCIL ACTION: Use the FEIS and city transportation research to evaluate decreased LOS and its impacts. COUNTYWIDE ACTION IN THE FUTURE The CWP establishes a framework for countywide review of, and in some instances, control of future actions, strategies and funding for cities. For example, the CWP mandates an establishment of a Countywide classification system for wetlands, Countywide "Best Management Practices" for aquifer areas, Countywide open space system, Countywide growth phasing plans for annexation areas. The CWP also calls for the creation of interjurisdictional habitat networks, and for the siting of state or regional public capital facilities. In addition, the GMPC or its successor will develop and recommend transportation financing strategies, including the distribution of federal Memorandum to City toeuncil August 14, 1992 Page 5 funds for transportation improvements (InterModal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act or ISTEA). While countywide review may be consistent with the GMA requirements, it is not clear how much the act mandates County control of actions, strategies and funding for cities. The balance of power between local and county jurisdictions is established in the framework policies of the CWP. POSSIBLE COUNCIL ACTION: Determine Renton's idea of the balance of power and forward idea to the County. ti ,400 COUNTY-WIDE PLANNING POLICIES GMA REQUIREMENTS Definition: A "county-wide planning policy" is a written policy statement or statements used solely for establishing a county-wide framework from which county and city comprehensive plans are developed and adopted pursuant to the Growth Management Act. Mandatory Elements: Policies to implement RCW 36.70A.1 10 (Urban growth areas). Policies for contiguous and orderly development and provision of services to that development. Policies for siting public capital facilities of a countywide nature. Polices for countywide transportation facilities and strategies Policies that consider need for affordable housing and housing for all economic segments of population. Policies for joint county and city planning in urban growth areas. An analysis of the fiscal impact. Statutory Time Schedule: September, 1991 : Legislative authority of County convenes meeting with representative of each city. October, 1991 : Agreement on process and framework for completion of county-wide polices. July 1 , 1992: Adoption of County-wide planning policies. (Ratification required within 90 days of adoption - Oct. 1 ) July 1 , 1992: Adoption of local comprehensive plans consistent with County-wide policies. COUNTY-WIDE PLANNING POLICIES ADOPTION PROCESS (King County Ordinance 10450 - July 6, 1992) Phase I: a. Begin ratification process with jurisdictions. b. Provide policy framework for comprehensive plans. c. Provide policy framework for interim controls. d. Identify program of additional work to refine and amend policies. Phase II: a. Reconvene GMPC by December, 1992. b. Evaluate nominations for centers. c. Evaluate population and employment target numbers for jurisdictions. d. Receive recommendations from Task Forces on Rural Character, Affordable Housing, and Economic Development; receive further information on fiscal analysis, mobility/transportation, and public comment. e. Prepare Supplemental EIS on recommended amendments. f. Adopt amendments. COUNTY-WIDE PLANNING POLICIES ADDITIONAL WORK 1 . Nominate and confirm Urban and Manufacturing Centers 2. Affordable Housing recommendations. 3. Economic Development policies 4. Rural Character Study 5. Population and employment targets. 6. Provision of services/potential annexation areas. 7. Adjustments to Urban Growth Areas. • 0 0 m m m O _+ ,< IQ -` co m L v rn cn .P. n • • m 3. 3 n > 1 c 0 0 m C -p mn > v -0v > v v 7-cn D 3D v O a °� a O 13 < rti n d v @3 O -0 D-0 o -0 -, y92 o CD -, 3 io -5 d tD n co O co O-0 d N '0 N d —V.: -0 13 N d r, m G) �_ °� c C n co c°•< = o m ell m _5- (Da Ti— M. o < 3 m o �. CO 'Ix 0-4J� ? < =? y V.m Eilo ' CI O co ?CD -D rn o °' m co mCO D ° v 0) CA. C a -n m �' -, CD ca > m m CO a) _"°� m ° m cyn Fa' co < o m --I, 3 NO 0 - '< -, m Ti cn m m • w -, co = o a m 3 < o 3 =« ti o < .+ c ° 3 �' CD 0 3 CD rt CD m 3 2m a co y 11* °1 -o co 0 .+ a•o 0 m .- . o o o cu co m m rn C iv a calo co 3 co CD ° 3 et CI. cn Q C 0 coW m ci .p W •• -4 N -41 w Z 0 N y w '� 3 3 C�.W 0 0 • ci T 1 9 'A N " b Nire *one * 0 n DJ r> xX 0 X > X mD 0 G) v oo Dm 0 73 ?� -1 CD C3 cn v co p �o CD g o °' h 5 < m co -; cn m C 0 _.,, o ID — w m -o m ° o•Q. m co N -� fop -< Na -. 7 .-+ Na p n O _ 6 O I 0 0 n > _co al m ?0 N 7 m 7 0 m T �_ < C 77 G D 0.•< A O co_ I Z o_ v i o cc ° 0I m O m n cn ai D3 m0 � D o � D 3 .+ ny co cn 3 co c o Z -1 m o D 3 1° o m n:a 0 ° ° D y v, ,. ° Co• �' D or 3 3 Z 3 7 a - CD. Z G7 err co 0 7 — r — y (D 7 o ,+ . tn (n fo 7 CD C CM (/) -0 y D) - a m 7 m o n n D '" a U) < a D3 ', r cn -, '-i 3 , a— c� -•0 7 -< y m m „ D > j -v 7 .-+ < o ccDn 3 �p ° ° o C 3 Z -''cn z cn -, r: ° m m 5' 0 ° o a) co 3 Z fD 'S M 0 gyp' -. - a y co r coca ra o 70 N° C Oac<p n C D y 0 (5. p -n 0to cn O N j y . N TI N Cn cn cC T N < N 7• o D 7 r R1 Nc0 .. CD p cnW C a) RI j W ( v V o n Vi• < (0 .F.(7- ,< f) I CD N 7 ,-t I1 4 00 CA -o o Z. N o — tt N — `) w ll _ c, > G' 1 � W Ci D N 0 N Cl T ' 1 y 4. -34 4:1 VI t b Assur July 27. 1992 itenton City Council Minutes Page 336 O Utilities Committee Referred 7/20/92 - Utilities Committee Chairman Tanner presented a CAG: 90-082, Cedar report recommending concurrence with the Planning/Building/Public Works River Delta Project, Department's recommendation that the City Council authorize the Mayor Golder Assoc. and City Clerk to execute Task Order #4 in the amount of $145,253.00 for soils and geotechnical consultant engineering services associated with the Cedar River Delta project. These engineering services will be performed by Golder Associates under annual consultant contract CAG-082-90. MOVED BY TANNER, SECONDED BY EDWARDS, COUNCIL ADOPT THE COMMITTEE REPORT AS SUBMITTED. CARRIED. CAG: 92-073, Cedar Referred 7/20/92 - Utilities Committee Chairman Tanner presented a River Sediment report recommending concurrence with the Planning/Building/Public Works Management Department's recommendation that the Council award the construction contract for the Cedar River Delta Project to the low bid submitted by A.H. Powers, Inc. under Schedule B for the amount of $1,141,564.10. The Committee further recommends that the Council authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute the necessary construction contract documents provided that all required permits for the Cedar River Delta project have been secured. MOVED BY TANNER, SECONDED BY EDWARDS, COUNCIL ADOPT THE COMMITTEE REPORT.* Responding to Councilman Stredicke's inquiry, Mr. Tanner said that the spoils from the Cedar River dredging will be deposited at the north end of the Renton Boeing plant adjacent to Lake Washington to provide additional space. Boeing will purchase the spoils from the Department of Natural Resources. *MOTION CARRIED. Community Services Referred 6/15/92 (Inadequate Parking) and 7/20/92 (Tapestry Cleaning) - Committee Community Services Committee Chairman Nelson presented a report stating Parks: Tapestry that the Committee will keep parking at the Senior Activity Center on their Cleaning & Parking, agenda for future consideration when the Senior Activity Center needs Senior Center assessment has been completed. Overflow parking will continue to be available at the union hall adjacent to the Center and at the stadium parking lot. The Mayor's office has agreed to provide $300.00 from its budget to assist in the cleaning of the tapestry at the Center. MOVED BY NELSON, SECONDED BY STREDICKE, COUNCIL CONCUR IN THE COMMITTEE REPORT. CARRIED. SCA: County-wide Councilwoman Mathews reported that the Suburban Cities Association Plannin Policies (SCA) has recommended that cities hold public hearings regarding the County-wide Planning Policies. MOVED BY KEOLKER-WHEELER, f W SECONDED BY STREDICKE, COUNCIL SET A PUBLIC HEARING ON THE COUNTY-WIDE PLANNING POLICIES FOR 8/10/92. CARRIED. Finance Committee Finance Committee Chairman Mathews presented a report recommending Vouchers approval of payment claims checks #91793 - 92194 and two wire transfers in the total amount of $826,582.02. And approval of payroll vouchers #110016 - 110472 and 300 direct deposits in the amount of $974,064.52. MOVED BY MATHEWS, SECONDED BY NELSON, COUNCIL CONCUR IN THE COMMITTEE REPORT. CARRIED. erre RECEIVED AUG 1 71992 August 13 , 1992 RENTON CITY COUNCIL Renton City Hall Renton City Council 200 Mill S . Renton , WA 98055 Dear Council Members I understand that in the near future you will be voting on the new County-Wide Planning Policies . I have sent a letter to King County regarding this concern . I would appreciate it if you would read the attached letter that was sent to King County regarding my concerns for these policies . I would appreciate it if you would consider , review, discuss and address these concerns as they a very valid concerns . Thank you for your time and consideration . Sally Nipert 14004 156th Ave SE Renton , WA 98059 (206) 255-9983 : 4 August 9 , 1992 Ms . Lisa Majiak Growth Management Project Supervisor 707 Smith Tower , 506 2nd Ave . Seattle , WA 98104 Dear Ms . Majiak , I am writing in regards to my concerns for the new plans emerging concerning the division of lands into rural and urban areas . I have no problem with this , if it is done properly . My information , so far , reflects that you are considering the boundary east of Renton to be down the middle of 156th Ave . S .E. Everything to the west of 156th would be urban and everything to the east would be rural . This concerns me . I live to the east of 156th and at one time would have loved this . Except , this area already has massive growth . We have sub-divisions like Carol Wood , Briar Wood , Skyfire Ridge , etc . Every road east of 156th out to Lake Kathleen has little roads with cul-de-sacs of 12 or so homes on it . It is completely urban . All of this building is on septic systems . The water this is generating into the land will eventually cause a lot of damage , especially to those homes built along the cliffs overlooking the Cedar River . I am also concerned about the Cedar River and the tremendous water run-off in this area . I live in this area and saw, with heavy rains , the damage it caused . When I was young and growing up in this area , when it rained really hard we always had surface water run-off but now it reaches a disaster state . With all of the building that has taken place and all the septic systems dumping water into the soil , when we have heavy rains now the water run-off is uncontrollable . Basements get flooded , roads get closed down, and I even saw it flood some houses . The water run-off going to the Cedar River was so bad they had to close the Jones Road . The water coming off the hill formed a bigger river than the Cedar . The only solution is sewers and city services to accommodate the extensive growth already in this area . Stopping the building is not the answer in this area , as the damage has already been done . It is no longer rural and has urban problems that need urban solutions . Even the Puget Sound Air Pollution Control Agency has outlawed all burning in this area because it is classified as an urban area . August 13 , 1992 Renton City Hall Renton City Council 200 Mill S. Renton , WA 98055 Dear Council Members or Whom It May Concern: I understand that in the near future you will be voting on the new land use County-Wide Planning Policies . I have sent a letter to King County regarding this concern. I would appreciate if you woild read the attached letter that was sent to King County regarding my concerns for these policies . COUNTY-WIDE PLANNING POLICIES GMA REQUIREMENTS Definition: A "county-wide planning policy" is a written policy statement or statements used solely for establishing a county-wide framework from which county and city comprehensive plans are developed and adopted pursuant to the Growth Management Act. Mandatory Elements: Policies to implement RCW 36.70A.1 10 (Urban growth areas). Policies for contiguous and orderly development and provision of services to that development. Policies for siting public capital facilities of a countywide nature. Polices for countywide transportation facilities and strategies Policies that consider need for affordable housing and housing for all economic segments of population. Policies for joint county and city planning in urban growth areas. An analysis of the fiscal impact. Statutory Time Schedule: September, 1991 : Legislative authority of County convenes meeting with representative of each city. October, 1991 : Agreement on process and framework for completion of county-wide polices. July 1 , 1992: Adoption of County-wide planning policies. (Ratification required within 90 days of adoption - Oct. 1 ) July 1 , 1992: Adoption of local comprehensive plans consistent with County-wide policies. COUNTY-WIDE PLANNING POLICIES ADOPTION PROCESS (King County Ordinance 10450 - July 6, 1992) Phase I: a. Begin ratification process with jurisdictions. b. Provide policy framework for comprehensive plans. c. Provide policy framework for interim controls. d. Identify program of additional work to refine and amend policies. Phase II: a. Reconvene GMPC by December, 1992. b. Evaluate nominations for centers. c. Evaluate population and employment target numbers for jurisdictions. d. Receive recommendations from Task Forces on Rural Character, Affordable Housing, and Economic Development; receive further information on fiscal analysis, mobility/transportation, and public comment. e. Prepare Supplemental EIS on recommended amendments. f. Adopt amendments. COUNTY-WIDE PLANNING POLICIES ADDITIONAL WORK 1 . Nominate and confirm Urban and Manufacturing Centers 2. Affordable Housing recommendations. 3. Economic Development policies 4. Rural Character Study 5. Population and employment targets. 6. Provision of services/potential annexation areas. 7. Adjustments to Urban Growth Areas. %we Nova/ -0 0 00) c CD 0 74 10 -i. 7 •G N N 3 v c71 CD 3 I cu n cD 1 °c -13 0 CD C -0 m (') D o u D v -0 7-(n D 3 D "V o nD. e+ -0 < Ri 0 m -tD0 fi 0 -0 n w'O d dcD -+ G) m c m C m n o o co = o m m m -, N -0 0 W O -p <.w .-r - j-+ N 'O N.) -I 0 7 < -0 r+ N O • n c = o 01 < _a N (D d p tn. a -n m 7 ci m 0 cn D ii • .< C m 3 m 5 m q-n o a 3 C `D a °; ET 3 7 m CD N ? ' o - . y < n m nm com ° n. - co C • a O 7 N 7 a) m m 1 N 0 � > - ro cocu m co 0) co < 7 CD 7 7. r o 70? (D '-+ y m C cu a 7 (71 Q' cn w !4 • N 03 -4 -L ft N y 03 r 3 3 �.W y D 1--- 4 ^—t Z 0 .. _— -.1 y T :› r. VI b • * 0 0 7o r> 7J1 n 7o > X m> 0 G) -o co >m 0 73 o) C n CD m o m O c m g1 m r co N CD -e. Ul(D C o -41 Q' -0 O W O (D '3 (D O 7"a co '-- C�p < Na m --, '' 7 .-+ n Na o 0 o 0 - O O on D 5.o 3 n) m s co VI y 2 7- 0p c 0 o > a m j , - y 0 j n 7 m m - _.) CD m C Cl) D N o O.CI)0 .+ Q.a 0 CDD O D y. V) ,i n. - !CJ) �' D N 3 ED 7 3 A- 3 7 N CD 0 Z n G) —.--t O - 0 7 — r 'O cl) "U V1 co T -D . y cn j n c (� -p cn m m -i 3 m a m (� v D D .+ a m D) D CO j ,o CD 3 0 Q. C° C ° co z r cn , F.+ CL cn co 0 (� • o m co G z Z T Cr, y h. m �i rt m 'Cn G) 7 7 , 7 < n "' `G 7 < 'U - a y m r- cO o 70 N O Cn y .com O N D N LI 0 p <T 0 7 ti CD d 7+, o ni T N a) Cn < (11 5 o — 7 W w co r4iI 0 C ', 0 C NN O o N .. 0.)7 7 7 -n Wa c to (D pCD I . ti 143... > G' 3 � w CA W Ci O N ._ 4 C T 3 1 y y AN w y b INFORMATION SHEET King County Growth Management Countywide Policies DRAFT COUNTYWIDE POLICIES Attached is a copy of the Executive Summary to the draft Countywide Planning Policies. These policies are intended to meet the requirements of the State of Washington Growth Management Act to establish a countywide framework from which comprehensive plans are to be developed both by the County and by individual jurisdictions within King County. COUNTY PROCESS The County, Seattle, and the suburban cities established a process for drafting these policies by creating the Growth Management Planning Council (GMPC). The GMPC is comprised of the King County Executive, five members of the King County Council, three representatives of Seattle, and six representatives of the suburban cities (with three votes) and one ex-officio member representing the Port of Seattle. Bob Edwards of the City of Renton City Council is one of the suburban cities' representatives on this Council. After six months of deliberation which included public workshops and hearings, the GMPC adopted and recommended the Countywide Planning Policies to the King County Council. The County Council subsequently found that the existing environmental documents adopted by King County on May 5, 1992, and the supporting addendum issued on June 18, 1992, are adequate under SEPA for purposes of the County's adoption of the Countywide Planning Policies. The King County Council adopted these policies on July 1, 1992. SUBURBAN CITIES ROLES Each of the suburban cities is expected to ratify the policies, or offer amendments to them, by fall, 1992. Subsequently, the GMPC will be reconvened to evaluate and recommend on the following: nominations of urban and manufacturing/-industrial centers; target numbers for population and employment by jurisdictions, recommendations regarding rural character, affordable housing and economic development task forces, and other special studies such as transportation, and fiscal analysis. Of special note, within 90 days of ratification, certain written land use controls (establishing minimum densities and accessory manufactured housing regulations) must be adopted by each jurisdiction. CITY OF RENTON On August 10, the Renton City Council has a public hearing scheduled to receive testimony on the county wide policies. On August 17, the city staff will brief the City Council on the Countywide Planning Policies and their relationship to the City's draft interim land use comprehensive plan element. By October 1, 1992, the cities are expected to ratify the Countywide policies. 4111111111111. • titie A Vision for King County 2012 Executive Summary: Draft Countywide Planning Policies Introduction King County has long been known for unsurpassed natural beauty and a dynamic human environment. It has thriving cities and suburbs and healthy rural communities. The county's lifestyle and economy continue to draw people into our region. But unmanaged growth and development endanger some of those very qualities. An additional 325,000 people will live here by 2010,bringing the total population to 1.8 million. While growth fuels the area's strong economy, it threatens the features that are essential to a rich quality of life. The effects of growth are obvious. King County has the fifth worst traffic congestion in the nation, declining air and water quality, flooding aggravated by development and escalating housing costs. Many schools are overcrowded and local governments are struggling to pay for increased demands for public services. Clearly,unmanaged growth has high costs. Growth Management That's why King County and the 31 cities within its 2,134-square-mile boundary are working together to address growth management. It's a tremendous undertaking. It requires the cooperation and commitment of citizens and public officials representing diverse interests and lifestyles to agree upon a common vision on how and where King County should grow— or not grow—in the decades to come. It means an end to unplanned urban sprawl consuming acres of forest or costly services being extended to areas with few residents. It means a coordinated, thoughtful approach to growth that will yield tremendous economic, social and environmental benefits in the years to come. What is growth management? In short, growth management involves a determination of where new jobs and housing should go, and then matching the rate of development with the ability to provide infrastructure and services. This mcludes a workable trans- portation system, quality drinking water, affordable housing,good schools, open space and parks and, at the same time, protection of our natural environment. This planning effort marks the first time ever that all jurisdictions within King County are working together to develop a common vision for the future. This vision is embodied in a series of policies called Countywide Planning Policies. Realization of this vision involves trade-offs and difficult choices about the location of growth,public spending,governance decisions, environmental protection and the quality of life in King County. April 29,1992 1 c\gma\xaum . It's important to note that these policies, as briefly summarized on the following pages, represent a cohesive set and are not individual, stand-alone concepts. The ideas repre- sented are balanced to establish a vision for the county which builds on existing land- use patterns. By state law, these policies must be adopted by the King County Council by July 1, 1992. The policies then will be submitted to the cities for ratification. When ratified, these policies will serve as the framework for both the county's and the cities' individual comprehensive plans. These comprehensive plans must be adopted by July 1, 1993 and be consistent with these policies. It is through adoption of comprehensive plans that the vision embodied within the Countywide Planning Policies will be attained. Therefore, a decision made locally will become a commitment that the region can rely upon. Vision for King County 2012 The draft Countywide Planning Policies propose a framework to guide development patterns within King County that will preserve and protect our environment while accommodating growth. To do that, growth will be focused in a limited number of areas called Urban Centers linked by a transportation network. These Urban Centers will help to prevent urban sprawl, enhance open space, protect rural areas, and will better use social services, transportation and utilities. By changing development patterns now within the county to direct growth to specific areas, there will be ample room for development in the decades to come while, at the same time, protecting and preserving the environment. The striking of this balance now will assure the future preservation of the features considered essential to a quality lifestyle. County Planning Policies The following points highlight the topics which the framework policies address to help achieve this vision. These:topics follow the order of the Draft Countywide Planning Policies. Please see the Draft Policies for a more detailed discussion. o Environmental Protection. It is important to promote regional policies which do not erode existing regulations regarding protection of natural ecosystems (such as wetlands, aquifers, fish and wildlife habitat, flood areas, landslide or erosion areas, air and water quality). o Resource Lands. It is important to protect and manage resource lands in King County, the vast majority of which are located in unincorporated areas. These include agricultural and forest lands, and shall not be considered for urban • development. . o Rural Areas. Protection of the county's rural areas is a fundamental objective of the planning policies. In keeping with the strategy to focus growth in urban areas, the draft policies recommend that the county's rural areas formally identi- fied in 1985 be expanded to include another 53 square miles,for a total of 357 square miles. These rural areas will be permanently preserved with a clear boundary established between rural and urban areas. Rural areas will be char- acterized by low-population densities that can be sustained with minimal April 29,1992 2 c\gma\xsum r infrasin1cture improvements, srich as septic systems and rural roads, thereby fostering better use of limited public funds. In addition, low-density lands currently classified as urban (e.g. existing one-acre lots) may be redesignated to rural if these areas have not yet received a full range of services. o Urban Growth Areas. The draft policies establish an Urban Growth Area in the western part of the county where growth will be concentrated to reduce urban sprawl. This Urban Growth Area contains enough land to accommodate the new population and employment growth forecast for the next 20 years and beyond. Within the Urban Growth Area, development first will be directed to existing urbanized areas, followed by areas in which existing infrastructure could easily be extended or enhanced. The last to develop will be areas that require b up major infrastructure improvements. Using these policies as a guide, it willto individual jurisdictions to determine where growth will be encouraged and where it will be discouraged. In addition, cities located in the county's rural areas will be considered"Urban Growth Area islands"which are separate from the larger Urban Growth Area in the western portion of the county. o Urban Centers. Within the Urban Growth Area in the western part of the county,policies call for establishing a limited number of Urban Centers. These Urban Centers are envisioned as areas of concentrated employment and housing,with direct service by high-capacity transit, and a wide range of other land uses, such as retail, recreational, cultural and public facilities,parks and open space. Each center will have its own unique character, and will be noted for pedestrian orientation and superior design. An Urban Center will be no larger than 1.5 square miles and will accommodate, at minimum, 15,000 jobs within one-half mile of a transit center, an average of 50 employees per gross acre, and an average of 15 households per gross acre. Areas which currently meet this definition include downtown Seattle, Seattle's University District and downtown Bellevue. o Mannfacturing/Industrial Centers. These areas are key components of the regional economy and will be zoned to preserve and encourage industrial owth. Manufacturing/Industrial Centers differ from other employment areas (such as Business/Office Parks and Urban Centers) in that they require exten- sive land for their operations. Certain manufacturing and assembly operations which fit this description include Boeing and the Duwamish River industrial area. o Urban Growth Outside of Centers. Urban residential areas form the bulk of the Urban Growth Area, and are home to a large portion of the county's population. Under the proposed policies, these areas will continue to look much the sam • today, containing a mix of uses and characteristics in neighborhoods. Generally, the character, form,preservation and development of these areas is a local jurisdictional responsibility. However, the residential areas will need to support the Centers concept and provide sufficient opportunity for growth within the Urban Growth Area. A substantial majority of new residential units will be constructed within urban residential areas to accommodate projected population growth. Within these areas, there will be smaller concentrations of businesses that provide goods and services to surrounding residential areas. They may be linked Apn129.1992 3 c\gmaVaum Nov skay to Urban Centers by an effective local transit system. There also will be "Activity Areas"which contain a moderate concentration of commercial land uses and are distinguishable from community or neighborhood commercial centers by their larger size and their function as a significant focal point for the local community. Examples of Activity Areas might include the central business districts of Kirkland, Burien and Des Moines, East Hill in Kent, and a number of business districts in Seattle, such as Lake City, Wallingford and West Seattle. Business/Office Parks, characterized by low-density office development at loca- tions away from identified commercial areas,will be discouraged in the future. o Transportation. The ability to provide a balanced, regional transportation system, especially a high-capacity transit system linking the urban centers, will be required before growth will be allowed. This has serious implications for all junsdictions which are dependent upon the region's transportation systems. Projected traffic growth on our freeway and arterial system during the next six years greatly exceeds the ability to finance and construct the improvements needed to retain current levels of services. Providing roads for single-occupant vehicles, for example,will be a costly public investment with many negative impacts. Therefore, it will be necessary to undertake dramatically different approaches for both transportation planning and land-use planning than has been done in the past. The transportation policies promote a multi-modal system that _ includes the maintenance of our freeways, highways and arterials,while calling for an aggressive mass transit component, including high-capacity transit and development of high-occupancy vehicle facilities. The policies recognize the importance of regional and international trade to this region and emphasize the need for railroad networks, marine transportation facilities, navigable waterways and airports. Equally important will be attempts to develop non-motorized transportation alternatives and improve-ments that make our existing roads more efficient. o Community Character and Open Space. A measure of the success of planning for growth is the extent to which we restore, maintain and create good places to live,work and play. The draft policies encourage growth which improves neigh- borhoods and landscapes, and builds a strong sense of place. o Affordable Housing. Adequate housing for all King County citizens, regardless of economic status, is an issue of countywide concern. The policies call for affordable housing needs to be addressed by local governments working in coop- eration with the private sector and nonprofit housing agencies. o Orderly Development. The concept of phased development within the Urban Growth Area is reinforced throughout the proposed Countywide Planning Poli- cies to ensure that development is accompanied by a full-range of urban services. Equally important are policies which ensure that infrastructure improvements are not provided in advance of development which could undermine the county- wide development pattern. The policies establish how,when,where and which services are to be provided in the urban growth areas, rural areas and resource lands. Policies also address the need for aggressive conservation as a strategy to help meet the region's energy and water needs. April 29,1992 4 c\gma\num lire o Siting of Public Facilities. The policies call for the county and cities to develop a process for siting regional public capital facilities (such as jails, airports,waste water treatment plants and solid waste landfills) so that they are sited unobtru- sively and with proper impact mitigation. o Economic Development and Finance. The policies call for jurisdictions to coop- eratively create an environment which sustains the economic vitality of the region. King County is recognized as part of a larger regional economy strongly linked by trade to national and international economies. Infrastructure invest- ments should be focused into Urban Centers and supported by transit. • • April 29,1992 5 c\ga:a\num A Vision for King County 2012 Executive Summary: Draft Countywide Planning Policies Introduction King County has long been known for unsurpassed natural beauty and a dynamic human environment. It has thriving cities and suburbs and healthy rural communities. The county's lifestyle and economy continue to draw people into our region. But unmanaged „ owth and development endanger some of those very qualities. An additional 325,111 people will live here by 2010,bringing the total population to 1.8 million. While growth fuels the area's strong economy, it threatens the features that are essential to a rich quality of life. The effects of growth are obvious. King County has the fifth worst traffic congestion in the nation, declining air and water quality,flooding a: avated by development and escalating housing costs. Many schools are overcrow•ed and local governments are struggling to pay for increased demands for public services. Clearly,unmanaged growth has high costs. Growth Management That's why King County and the 31 cities within its 2,134-square-mile boundary are working together to address growth management. It's a tremendous undertaking. It requires the cooperation and commitment of citizens and public officials representing diverse interests and lifestyles to agree upon a common vision on how and where King County should grow--or not grow--in the decades to come. It means an end to unplanned urban sprawl consuming acres of forest or costly services being extended to areas with few residents. It means a coordinated,thoughtful approach to growth that will yield tremendous economic,social and environmental benefits in the years to come. What is growth management? In short,growth management involves a determination of where new jobs and housing should go, and then matching the rate of development with the ability to provide infrastructure and services. This mcludes a workable trans- portation system, quality drinking water, affordable housing,good schools, open space and parks and, at the same time,protection of our natural environment. This planning effort marks the first time ever that all jurisdictions within King County are working together to develop a common vision for the future. This vision is embodied in a series of policies called Countywide Planning Policies. Realization of this vision involves trade-offs and difficult choices about the location of growth,public spending,governance decisions, environmental protection and the quality of life in King County. April 29,1992 1 c\gma\xsum It's important to note that these policies, as briefly summarized on the following pages, represent a cohesive set and are not individual, stand-alone concepts. The ideas repre- sented are balanced to establish a vision for the county which builds on existing land- use patterns. By state law, these policies must be adopted by the King County Council by July 1, 1992. The policies then will be submitted to the cities for ratification. When ratified, these policies will serve as the framework for both the county's and the cities'individual comprehensive plans. These comprehensive plans must be adopted by July 1, 1993 and be consistent with these policies. It is through adoption of comprehensive plans that the vision embodied within the Countywide Planning Policies will be attained. Therefore, a decision made locally will become a commitment that the region can rely upon. Vision for King County 2012 The draft Countywide Planning Policies propose a framework to guide development patterns within King County that will preserve and protect our environment while accommodating growth. To do that,growth will be focused in a limited number of areas called Urban Centers linked by a transportation network. These Urban Centers will help to prevent urban sprawl, enhance open space,protect rural areas, and will better use social services, transportation and utilities. By changing development patterns now within the county to direct growth to specific areas, there will be ample room for development in the decades to come while, at the same time, protecting and preserving the environment. The striking of this balance now will assure the future preservation of the features considered essential to a quality lifestyle. County Planning Policies The following points highlight the topics which the framework policies address to help achieve this vision. These topics follow the order of the Draft Countywide Planning Policies. Please see the Draft Policies for a more detailed discussion. o Environmental Protection. It is important to promote regional policies which do not erode existing regulations regarding protection of natural ecosystems(such as wetlands, aquifers,fish and wildlife habitat,flood areas,landslide or erosion areas, air and water quality). o Resource Lands. It is important to protect and manage resource lands in King County, the vast majority of which are located in unincorporated areas. These include agricultural and forest lands, and shall not be considered for urban development. o Rural Areas. Protection of the county's rural areas is a fundamental objective of the planning policies. In keeping with the strategy to focus growth in urban areas, the draft policies recommend that the county's rural areas formally identi- fied in 1985 be expanded to include another 53 square miles,for a total of 357 square miles. These rural areas will be permanently preserved with a clear boundary established between rural and urban areas. Rural areas will be char- acterized by low-population densities that can be sustained with minimal April 29,1992 2 c\ ma\xmum infrastructure improvements, such as septic systems and rural roads, thereby fostering better use of limited public funds. In addition, low-densitylands currently classified as urban (e.g. existing one-acre lots) may be reesignated to rural if these areas have not yet received a full range of services. o Urban Growth Areas. The draft policies establish an Urban Growth Area in the western part of the county where growth will be concentrated to reduce urban sprawl. This Urban Growth Area contains enough land to accommodate the new population and employment growth forecast for the next 20 years and beyond. Within the Urban Growth Area, development first will be directed to existing urbanized areas, followed by areas in which existing infrastructure could easily be extended or enhanced. The last to develop will be areas that require major infrastructure improvements. Using these policies as a guide, it will be up to individual jurisdictions to determine where growth will be encouraged and where it will e discouraged. In addition, cities located in the county's rural areas will be considered"Urban Growth Area islands"which are separate from the larger Urban Growth Area in the western portion of the county. o Urban Centers. Within the Urban Growth Area in the western part of the county,policies call for establishing a limited number of Urban Centers. These Urban Centers are envisioned as areas of concentrated employment and housing,with direct service by high-capacity transit, and a wide range of other land uses, such as retail, recreational, cultural and public facilities, parks and open space. Each center will have its own unique character, and will be noted for pedestrian orientation and superior design. An Urban Center will be no larger than 1.5 square miles and will accommodate, at minimum, 15,000 jobs within one-half mile of a transit center, an average of 50 employees per gross acre, and an average of 15 households per gross acre. Areas which currently meet this definition include downtown Seattle, Seattle's University District and downtown Bellevue. o Manufacturing/Industrial Centers. These areas are key components of the regional economy and will be zoned to preserve and encourage industrial growth. Manufacturing/Industrial Centers differ from other employment areas uch as Business/Office Parks and Urban Centers) in that they require exten- sive land for their operations. Certain manufacturing and assembly operations which fit this description include Boeing and the Duwamish River mdustrial area. o Urban Growth Outside of Centers. Urban residential areas form the bulk of the Urban Growth Area, and are home to a large portion of the county's population. Under the proposed policies, these areas will continue to look much the same as today, containing a mix of uses and characteristics in neighborhoods. Generally, the character,form,preservation and development of these areas is a local jurisdictional responsibility. However, the residential areas will need to support the Centers concept and provide sufficient opportunity for growth within the Urban Growth Area. A substantial majority of new residential units will be constructed within urban residential areas to accommodate projected population growth. Within these areas, there will be smaller concentrations of businesses that provide goods and services to surrounding residential areas. They may be linked April 29,1992 3 c\ixna\xs„m , 411100 ti aa. to Urban Centers by an effective local transit system. There also will be "Activity Areas"which contain a moderate concentration of commercial land uses and are distinguishable from community or neighborhood commercial centers by their larger size and their function as a significant focal point for the local community. Examples of Activity Areas might include the central business districts of Kirkland, Buren and Des Moines, East Hill in Kent, and a number of business districts in Seattle, such as Lake City, Wallingford and West Seattle. Business/Office Parks, characterized by low-density office development at loca- tions away from identified commercial areas,will be discouraged in the future. o Transportation. The ability to provide a balanced, regional transportation system, especially a high-capacity transit system linking the urban centers,will be required before growth will be allowed. This has serious implications for all junsdictions which are dependent upon the region's transportation systems. ojected traffic growth on our freeway and arterial system during the next six years greatly exceeds the ability to finance and construct the improvements needed to retain current levels of services. Providing roads for single-occupant vehicles,for example,will be a costly public investment with many negative impacts. Therefore,it will be necessary to undertake dramatically different approaches for both transportation planning and land-use planning than has been done in the past. The transportation policies promote a multi-modal system that includes the maintenance of our freeways, highways and arterials,while calling for an aggressive mass transit component, including high-capacity transit and development of high-occupancy vehicle facilities. The policies recognize the importance of regional and international trade to this region and emphasize the need for railroad networks, marine transportation facilities, navigable waterways and airports. Equally important will beattempts to develop non-motorized transportation alternatives and improve-ments that make our existing roads more efficient. o Community Character and Open Space. A measure of the success of planning for growth is the extent to which we restore, maintain and create good places to live,work and play. The draft policies encourage growth which improves neigh- borhoods and landscapes,and builds a strong sense of place. o Affordable Housing. Adequate housing for all King County citizens, regardless of economic status,is an issue of countywide concern. The policies call for affordable housing needs to be addressed by local governments working in coop- eration with the private sector and nonprofit housing agencies. o Orderly Development. The concept of phased development within the Urban Growth Area is reinforced throughout the proposed Countywide Planning Poli- cies to ensure that development is accompanied by a full-range of urban services. Equally important are policies which ensure that infrastructure improvements are not provided in advance of development which could undermine the county- wide development pattern. The policies establish how,when,where and which services are to be provided in the urban growth areas,rural areas and resource lands. Policies also address the need for aggressive conservation as a strategy to help meet the region's energy and water needs. April 29,1992 4 c\gma\xsum • o Siting of Public Facilities. The policies call for the county and cities to develop a process for siting regional public capital facilities(such as jails, airports,waste water treatment plants and solid waste landfills) so that they are sited unobtru- sively and with proper impact mitigation. o Economic Development and Finance. The policies call for jurisdictions to coop- eratively create an environment which sustains the economic vitality of the region. King County is recognized as part of a larger regional economy strongly linked by trade to national and international economies. Infrastructure invest- ments should be focused into Urban Centers and supported by transit. • April 29,1992 5 c\gma\ ,m CITY OF RENTON (),,te MEMORANDUM DATE: August 6, 1992 TO: City Council Members VIA: Mayor Earl Clymer FROM: Lynn Guttmann LAG - l — Department Administrator STAFF CONTACT: Mary Lynne Myer, Principal Planner ''7 )'1 Long Range Planning SUBJECT: Countywide Policies for Growth Management DRAFT COUNTYWIDE POLICIES Enclosed is a copy of the King County draft Countywide Planning Policies, an executive summary, and a copy of the ordinance passed by the King County Council adopting the policies and refining the process. These policies are intended to meet the requirements of the State of Washington Growth Management Act to establish a countywide framework from which comprehensive plans are to be developed both by the County and by individual jurisdictions within King County. COUNTY PROCESS The County, Seattle, and the suburban cities established a process for drafting these policies by creating the Growth Management Planning Council (GMPC). The GMPC is comprised of the King County Executive, five members of the King County Council, three representatives of Seattle, and six representatives of the suburban cities (with three votes) and one ex-officio member representing the Port of Seattle. Bob Edwards of the City of Renton City Council is one of the suburban cities' representatives on this Council. After six months of deliberation which included public workshops and hearings, the GMPC adopted and recommended the Countywide Planning Policies to the King County Council. The County Council subsequently found that the existing environmental documents adopted by King County on May 5, 1992, and the supporting addendum issued on June 18, 1992, are adequate under SEPA for purposes of the County's adoption of the Countywide Planning Policies. The King County Council adopted these policies on July 1, 1992. ' ` Memo to City Councir' August 6, 1992 Page 2 SUBURBAN CITIES ROLES Each of the suburban cities is expected to ratify the policies, or offer amendments to them, by fall, 1992. Subsequently, the GMPC will be reconvened to evaluate and recommend on the following: nominations of urban and manufacturing/-industrial centers; target numbers for population and employment by jurisdictions, recommendations regarding rural character, affordable housing and economic development task forces, and other special studies such as transportation, and fiscal analysis. Of special note, within 90 days of ratification, certain written land use controls (establishing minimum densities and accessory manufactured housing regulations) must be adopted by each jurisdiction. CITY OF RENTON On August 10, the Renton City Council has a public hearing scheduled to receive testimony on the county wide policies. On August 17, the city staff will brief the City Council on the Countywide Planning Policies and their relationship to the City's draft interim land use comprehensive plan element. By October 1, 1992, the cities are expected to ratify the Countywide policies. Staff expects to provide the Council with any additional information that Council may desire. Please call Mary Lynne Myer (x2719) or Lynn (at x6145) if you have any questions. enclosures ' I 4114, Noose Table of Contents King County Growth Management Act Countywide Policies King County 2012 $ A. The Problem 4 B. The Process 4 C. The Growth Management Act 5 D. Vision for King County 2012 5 E. The Framework Policies 7 I. Critical Areas 9 II. Land Use Pattern 13 A. Resource Lands: Agricultural, Forestry and Mineral 13 B. Rural Areas 14 C. Urban Areas' 15 Urban Growth Area Map D. Urban and Manufacturing/Industrial Centers 19 E. Urban Growth Outside of Centers 25 III. Transportation• 29 IV. Community Character and Open Space 35 V. Affordable Housing' 38 VI. Contiguous and Orderly Development' 40 VII. Siting Public Capital Facilities of a Countywide or 44 Statewide Nature• VIII. Economic Development and Fiscal Impact' 45 Appendix I Transportation: Requirements of the Growth Management Act 47 •These elements are required by RCW 36.70A.210. _ pNoi King County Growth Management Planning Council Countywide Planning Policies Recommendation to the King County Council • June 3, 1992 Printed June 10, 1992 Adopted by the King County Council & Signed by the County Executive on July 6, 1992 Ordinance 10450 err • King County 2012 A. The Problem King County has long been known for unsurpassed natural beauty and a dynamic human environment. It has thriving cities and suburbs and healthy rural communities. The county's attractive lifestyle and economy continue to draw people into our region. But unmanaged growth and development endanger some of those very qualities. An additional 325,000 people will live here by the year 2010 (State of Washington Office of Financial Management), bringing the total population to 1.8 million. While growth fuels the area's strong economy, the absence of effective management of that growth threatens the features that are essential to a rich quality of life. The effects of uncoordinated and unplanned growth are obvious. King County has the fifth worst • traffic mess in the nation, declining air and water quality, flooding aggravated by development, and escalating housing costs. Many of the schools are overcrowded and local governments are struggling to pay for increased demands for services to control crime and to provide critical human resources. The need facing the County and State is to provide the incentives necessary to promote a vigorous, sound, and diversified economy, while reducing, controlling and managing the potential adverse effects of uncoordinated and unplanned growth. The Washington State Legislature passed the Growth Management Act (GMA) in 1990 and strengthened it in 1991 to address these problems. B. The Process Growth management involves planning for economic and population growth, determining where new jobs and housing should go and then locating and phasing population growth in accordance with the ability to provide infrastructure and services. This should include economic development, a workable transportation system, quality drinking water, affordable housing, good schools, open . space and parks and, at the same time, protection of our natural environment. King County and the 31 cities within it are addressing growth management problems together and in their local jurisdictions. Planning at both levels is called for by the Growth Management Act. All jurisdictions are working together to develop a vision for the future. This vision is embodied in this series of policies called Countywide Planning Policies. Realization of this vision involves trade-offs and difficult choices about the appropriate level of growth, its location, the type of growth to be encouraged, public spending, governance decisions, environmental protection, and the quality of life in King County. A formal body, the Growth Management Planning Council, with elected officials from Seattle, the suburban cities, and King County, has considered these draft policies, and based on public input, will make a recommendation to the King County Council for adoption. Adoption must take place by July 1, 1992. King County will then submit the adopted policies to the cities for ratification. GMA:pol Page 4 06/10/1992 • The Countywide Planning Policies will serve as the framework for each jurisdiction's own comprehensive plan, which must be in place by July 1, 1993. These individual comprehensive plans throughout the county, then, will be consistent with the overall vision for the future of King County. C. The Growth Management Act The GMA fundamentally changes the way that comprehensive planning is to be done and land use decisions are to be made in Washington State. The challenge of GMA is to establish a countywide vision and devise a strategy to achieve it. This includes balancing growth, economics, land use, infrastructure, and finance. If resources are inadequate to realize the vision, then the strategies and land use must be revised. The GMA requires Countywide Planning Policies be adopted by July 1, 1992. At a minimum, the policies must address: a. Implementation of RCW 36.70A.110 (Urban Growth Areas); b. Promotion of contiguous and orderly development and provision of urban services; c. Siting of public capital facilities; d. Transportation facilities and strategies; e. Affordable housing; f. Joint county and city planning within Urban Growth Areas; g, countywide economic development and employment; and h. Analysis of fiscal impact. Special emphasis is placed on transportation. Future development activity will be constrained by a jurisdiction's ability to provide and finance transportation improvements or strategies. This fact has implications for all jurisdictions who can no longer finance and build the facilities necessary to retain current service levels. D. Vision for King County 2012 Our county has significantly changed in the 20 years that have elapsed from 1992 to today. The ccessful paramount diversified,use for 's change has been the sound regional economy;managed andc/private partnership accommodated growth; and supported maintained the county's quality of life. An effective stewardship of the environment has preserved and protected the critical areas in the county. This stewardship has extended to the conservation of our land, air, water and energy resources for future generations. The rural areas first formally identified in 1985 and expanded in 1992 remain permanently preserved with a clear boundary between rural and urban areas. Development has emphasized the use and reuse of the existing urbanized areas. Much of the new growth after 1992 first occurred in the areas where there was existing capacity. Growth then occurred where existing infrastructure could be easily extended or enhanced. Lastly, areas which required significant new investment in infrastructure accommodated growth. Today, there still is ample room for new development within the urban area. Much of the growth in employment, and a significant share of new housing, has occurred in Urban Centers. These Centers now provide a mixture of employment, residential, commercial, cultural and recreational opportunities. The centers are linked by the high-capacity transit system, and transit stations within the centers are located within walking distance to all parts of the center. GMA:pol Page 5 06/10/1992 Each center has its own unique character, and they are all noted for their livability, pedestrian orientation and superior design. Smaller concentrations of businesses are distributed throughout the urban area, and focus on providing goods and services to surrounding residential areas. They are linked to Urban Centers by an effective local transit system. Manufacturing/industrial areas continue to thrive and be key components in the urban area. They are served by a transportation system which emphasizes the movement of people and goods to and within these areas. Rural cities provide unique environments within the rural area and provide commercial and employ- ment opportunities for their residents. This includes retail, educational and social services for city residents and surrounding rural areas. Businesses in rural cities provide employment opportunities for local residents. The entire urban area is increasingly characterized by superior urban design and an open space network which defines and separates, yet links the various urban areas and jurisdictions. Countywide and regional facilities have been located where needed, sited unobtrusively and with appropriate incentives and proper impact mitigation. Attractive and workable alternatives to the single-occupant vehicle have been built and strategies adopted which assure the mobility of people, goods and information throughout the county and beyond. Regional funds have been used to further the regional land use plan and fund needed regional facilities. Local resources have been focused on local facilities. The sharing of resources to accomplish common goals is done so that the regional plan can succeed and so that all can benefit. The economy is vibrant and sustainable, and emphasizes diversity in the range of goods produced and services provided. Businesses continue to locate in our county because of the high quality of life, the emphasis on providing a superior education, and the predictability brought about by the management of growth and the effectiveness of the public/private partnership in these areas as well as the mutually beneficial partnership in economic development. Housing opportunities for all incomes and lifestyles exist throughout the county, and with the balanced transportation system, access to employment is assured. The needs of residents are attended to by a social service system that emphasizes prevention, but which stands ready to respond to direct needs as well. The urban area is located within the incorporated cities, which are the primary urban service providers. Where appropriate, sub-regional consortiums have been created for certain services, and the county government is recognized as a regional service provider. Through a clear understanding of growth management, residents and businesses have recognized that all problems will not be cured quickly, but clear and reasonable timelines and financing commitments demonstrate to them that problems will be solved. Residents and businesses trust in their local governments because the plans and promises made to manage growth in 1992 have been followed. Change is accepted and proceeds in an orderly fashion based on the growth management plan. GMA:pol Page 6 06/10/1992 • E. The Framework Policies The GMA gives local officials new tools for planning and, for the first time, mandates that the county and cities work together to establish an overall vision. Through a collaborative process, the local jurisdictions of King County have prepared the following draft countywide planning policies. This process relies on local choice to determine the density/intensity and character of each area. All jurisdictions must recognize that the smart, long term choices for the region will require compromises in local self-determination. These policies represent a cohesive set and are not individual, stand-alone concepts. The ideas represented here balance each other to establish a vision for the county which builds on existing land use patterns. The policies are organized by topics in separate chapters. At the beginning of each chapter is a framework policy which establishes the overall direction for the following policies. The Countywide Planning Policies can only be realized through local plans and regulations. A decision made locally must become a commitment that the region can rely upon. The following framework policies outline the countywide planning process. FW-1 Countywide growth management is a five-step process: STEP 1: The Countywide Planning Policies shall become effective upon adoption by the King County Council and ratification by at least thirty percent of the city and county governments representing seventy percent of the population in King County. (September 1992 target date) STEP 2: a. The Growth Management Planning Council (GMPC) shall receive by October and confirm by December 1992 nominations from cities for Urban Centers and Manufacturing/Industrial Centers as established in the Countywide Planning Policies. (October-December 1992 target dates) b. The GMPC shall adopt 20 year target numbers for projected population growth and capacity based on Urban Centers decisions, the criteria established in policies LU-51 and LU-52, and population ranges recommended by an interjurisdictional.staff committee. (December 1992 target date) c. The GMPC shall adopt 20 year target numbers for projected employment growth and capacity based on Urban Centers decisions, the criteria established in policy LU-53, and employment ranges recommended by an interjurisdictional staff committee. (December 1992 target date) d. Housing and jobs to accommodate King County's projected population shall be planned in the context of carrying capacity of the land. Housing density and affordability shall be considered co-equal objectives. e. The GMPC shall confirm the Urban Growth Areas based on Centers designations and subarea population and employment targets, insuring sufficient capacity within the Urban Growth Area to meet projected growth. (December 1992 target date) STEP 3: All jurisdictions shall make the decisions required to implement the Countywide Planning Policies into their respective comprehensive plans. (July 1993 target date) GMA:pol Page 7 06/10/1992 STEP 4: a. The GMPC shall reconvene in July 1993 or sooner as needed to review issues raised through local plan implementation efforts, and to consider new or revised policies developed through implementation of the GMPC tasks specified in the Countywide Planning Policies. The GMPC shall recommend revisions as needed to resolve identified conflicts between policies and address implementation issues. (July 1994 target date) b. The GMPC shall establish a process for resolving conflicts between local plans and the Countywide Planning Policies as raised by local jurisdictions, and may recommend amendments to either the Countywide Planning Policies or local plans. (July 1994 target date) ,c. Amendments to the Countywide Planning Policies shall be subject to ratification by at least thirty percent of the city and county governments representing seventy of the population in King County. (July 1994 target date) STEP 5: All jurisdictions shall make the decisions required to implement the Countywide Planning Policies and their respective comprehensive plans through regulations. (July 1994 target date) FW-2 Countywide Planning Policies are effective after King County adoption and city ratification for the purposes of updating comprehensive plans, and providing a policy framework for other governmental actions of all jurisdictions. Significant planning options will be precluded if interim actions are not taken to assure capacity and direct growth in the Urban area, and to protect the Rural area from the impacts of growth. The following interim actions will be taken by all jurisdictions no later than one month after ratification. a. King County shall adopt interim rural zoning consistent with the designation of rural for the "new" Rural area adopted through the Countywide Planning Policies to ensure rural character is not threatened by additional subdivision activity. b. All jurisdictions in the Urban area will adopt interim minimum density ordinances and review and, where appropriate, remove regulatory barriers to accessory dwelling units and manufactured homes on individual lots, to ensure that urban land is used efficiently. c. Jurisdictions shall not expand the existing land area zoned for business/office parks. GMA:pol Page 8 06/10/1992 vialw I . Critical Areas Most jurisdictions in King County have sensitive areas ordinances in place or under development. These regulations are tailored to the specific needs of each jurisdiction and are not likely to be modified based on another jurisdiction's regulations. It is important to promote regional policies that do not erode existing regulations while providing guidance for achieving consistency and compatibility among them. A. Overall Environmental Protection FW-3 All jurisdictions shall protect and enhance the natural ecosystems through comprehensive plans and policies, and develop regulations that reflect natural constraints and protect sensitive features. Land use and development shall be regulated in a manner which respects fish and wildlife habitat in conjunction with natural features and functions, including air and water quality. Natural resources and the built environment shall be managed to protect, improve and sustain environmental quality while minimizing public and private costs. FW-4 Puget Sound, floodplains, rivers, streams and other water resources shall be managed for multiple beneficial uses including flood and erosion hazard reduction, fish and wildlife habitat, agriculture, open space, water supply, and hydropower. Use of water resources for one purpose shall, to the fullest extent possible, preserve and promote opportunities for other uses. B. Wetlands Protection CA-1 All jurisdictions shall use as minimum standards, the 1989 Federal Manual for Identifying and Delineating Jurisdictional Wetlands and reference the 1989 manual in their wetlands protection ordinances. CA-2 In the long term, all jurisdictions shall work to establish a single countywide classification system for wetlands. CA-3 Within each basin, jurisdictions shall formulate their regulations and other non-regulatory methods to accomplish the following: protection of wetlands; assure no-net-loss of wetland functions; and an increase of the quantity and quality of the wetlands. The top class wetlands shall be untouched. CA-4 Implementation of wetland mitigation should be flexible enough to allow for protection of systems or corridors of connected wetlands. A tradeoff of small, isolated wetlands in exchange for a larger connected wetland system can achieve greater resource protection and reduce isolation and fragmentation of wetland habitat. GMA:ool Page 9 06/10/1992 rr.o C. Aquifers Currently, there are five Ground Water Management Plans underway in King County: Redmond, Issaquah, East King County, South King County, and Veshon. The state Department of Ecology has designated Seattle-King County Department of Public Health as the lead agency. Each plan is prepared in conjunction with an advisory committee with representatives from suburban cities, businesses, private well owners, environmental groups, and state agencies. The plans will identify aquifer recharge areas and propose strategies for protection of ground water through preservation and protection of the aquifers. CA-5 All jurisdictions shall adopt regulations to protect the quality and quantity of groundwater where appropriate: a. Jurisdictions that are included in Ground Water Management Plans shall support the development, adoption, and implementation of the Plans; and b. The Seattle-King County Department of Public Health and affected jurisdictions shall develop countywide policies outlining best management practices within aquifer recharge areas to protect public health. D. Fish and Wildlife Habitat CA-6 Adjacent jurisdictions shall identify and protect habitat networks that are aligned at jurisdictional boundaries. Networks shall link large protected or significant blocks of habitat within and between jurisdictions to achieve a continuous countywide network. These networks shall be mapped and displayed in comprehensive plans. CA-7 All jurisdictions shall identify critical fish and wildlife habitats and species and develop regulations that: a. Promote their protection and proper management; and b. Integrate native plant communities and wildlife with other land uses where possible. CA-8 Natural drainage systems including associated riparian and shoreline habitat shall be maintained and enhanced to protect water quality, reduce public costs, protect fish and wildlife habitat, and prevent environmental degradation. Jurisdictions within shared basins shall coordinate regulations to manage basins and natural drainage systems which include provisions to: a. Protect the natural hydraulic and ecological functions of drainage systems, maintain and enhance fish and wildlife habitat, and restore and maintain those natural functions; b. Control peak runoff rate and quantity of discharges from new development to approximate pre-development rates; and c. Preserve and protect resources and beneficial functions and values through mainte- nance of stable channels, adequate low flows, and reduction of future storm flows, erosion, and sedimentation. CA-9 Jurisdictions shall maintain or enhance water quality through control of runoff and best management practices to maintain natural aquatic communities and beneficial uses. CA-10 The Washington State Departments of Fisheries and Wildlife and the Indian Tribes both manage fish and wildlife resources. However, local governments have authority for land GMA:pol Page 10 06/1.0/1992 F use regulation. Jurisdictions shall coordinate land use planning and management of fish and wildlife resources with affected state agencies and the federally recognized Tribes. E. Frequently Flooded Areas The State adopted comprehensive flood legislation in 1991 (Senate Bill 5411) that makes the GMA requirement for coordination and consistency on flood hazard regulations much more explicit. According to the new legislation, counties are to develop flood hazard control management plans with the full participation of jurisdictions within the planning areas. Once adopted by the county, cities within flood hazard planning areas must comply with the management plan. The draft Countywide Flood Hazard Reduction Plan is currently being reviewed by affected jurisdictions before transmittal to the King County Council for consideration and adoption. CA-1 1 All jurisdictions shall adopt and implement the relevant general and land use policies of the Flood Hazard Reduction Plan and develop appropriate regulations for implementation and enforcement of the Plan. Regulations shall: a. Reduce flood impacts on existing development by reducing risk and regulating new development; b. Reduce long term public and private costs; c. Protect natural flood storage and conveyance functions; and • d. Develop an enforcement program. F. Geologic Hazard Areas CA-12 All jurisdictions shall regulate development on certain lands to protect public health, property, important ecological and hydrogeologic functions, and environmental quality, and to reduce public costs. The natural features of these lands include: a. Slopes with a grade greater than 40%; b. Severe landslide hazard areas; c. Erosion hazard areas; d. Mine hazard areas; and e. Seismic hazards. Regulations shall include, at a minimum, provisions for vegetation retention, seasonal clearing and grading limits, setbacks, and drainage and erosion controls. G. Air and Water Quality CA-13 All jurisdictions, in coordination with the Puget Sound Air Pollution Control Agency and the Puget Sound Regional Council, shall develop policies, methodologies and standards that promote regional air quality, consistent with the Countywide Policy Plan. CA-14 All jurisdictions shall implement the Puget Sound Water Quality Management Plan to restore and protect the biological health and diversity of the Puget Sound Basin. GMA:pol Page 11 06/10/1992 H. Implementation CA-15 King County shall establish a technical committee to facilitate environmental protection which is to include representatives of the county, the cities, the federally recognized Tribes, business community, environmental community, public utilities, special districts, and interested citizens. The committee will serve as a depository of regulations and policies adopted by jurisdictions in King County. Based on information provided by all jurisdictions, the committee shall prepare a report by December 1993 which addresses consistency and compatibility of regulations and designations, cumulative impacts, and education programs. The report should be designed to assist jurisdictions in developing permanent regulations with optimal consistency among the jurisdictions. GMA:pol Page 12 06/10/1992 400 II . Land Use Pattern A. Resource Lands: Agricultural, Forestry, and Mineral The protection and management nonresoce le Theds ,n King County is a regional concrn and a vast majority of resource lands aee located in objective of the countywide planning policies. unincorporated King County. plans endeepuletionsr the 1985 King County Comprehensive Plan and subsequent community ing FW-5 Theland use pattern for the development.ll protect the natural Growth Areas, Rural , the consumption sumptioion off la land and concentrating and Resource Lands shall be designated and the necessary implementing regulations adopted. This includes Countywide establishment of a boundary for the Urban Growth Area. Local jurisdictions shall establish these land use designations, based on the Countywide Planning Policies. LU-1 Agricultural and forest lands are protected primarily for their long-term productive resource value. However, these lands also provide secondary benefits such as open space, scenic views and wildlife habitat. All jurisdictions should encourage utilization of natural resources through methods that minimize the impacts on these secondary benefits. Resource lands also contain an abundance of critical areas that shall be protected in accordance with adopted State and local regulations. LU-2 All -term commercial shall l signi significance for resource rresou resource production their Any designated that and long-term commercia g forestry lands shall not be considered for urban development. Jurisdictions are required to enact a program authorizing the transfer or purchase of development rights for designated forest or agricultural areas within Urban Growth Areas. At the request of any city, King County will work to reinstate the King County Purchase of Development Rights Program and/or establish an interjurisdictional transfer of development rights program to protect these resource lands in accordance with the GMA. LU-3 Existing mineral extractive and processing operations or designated sites may be annexed or incorporated to a city only if there are policies and regulations in place to protect the long term viability for continued operation and ensure adequate reclamation and enhancement of the site once operation ceases. LU-4 All jurisdictions shall encourage compatible land uses adjacent to natural resource areas which support utilization of the resource and minimize conflicts among uses. Each jurisdiction is responsible for implementing plat asspecified apermit in RCification W 36.70Agasrements amended for properties within-300 feet of the resource land, Jurisdictions will consider an increased distance for notification and notification to titles to property within or adjacent to the resource lands. LU-5 All jurisdictions shall require mineral e tprocessing reduce enveonmental mpacts and landl practices to implement best management practices o mitigate any unavoidable impacts. Page 13 06/10/1992 C;MA:ool B. Rural Areas The vast majority of rural areas are located in unincorporated King County. These areas were identified and regulated through the 1985 King County Comprehensive Plan and subsequent community plans and regulations. While counties are the jurisdictions specified by the GMA as responsible for designating and regulating rural areas through their comprehensive plans, the protection of King County's rural area is a regional issue and a fundamental objective of the countywide planning policies. FW-6 Urban Growth Areas, Rural Areas, and Resource Lands shall be designated and the necessary implementing regulations adopted. This includes Countywide establishment of an Urban Growth Area. Local jurisdictions shall establish these land use designations, based on the Countywide Planning Policies. FW-7 All jurisdictions acknowledge that rural areas provide an overall benefit for all residents of King County. Strategies to fund infrastructure and services in rural areas may be needed to support a defined rural level of service. Towns and cities in the rural areas play an important role as local trade and community centers. • LU-6 Through the Countywide Planning Policy process, King County, with the cooperation of the ' cities, shall be responsible for designating rural areas consistent with GMA. In designating long term rural areas, King County shall foster better use of limited public funds by allowing service providers to establish distinctly rural facility and service standards. LU-7 Designated rural areas are considered to be permanent and shall not be redesignated to an Urban Growth Area. Future growth should be accommodated by efficient use of existing urban land within the Urban Growth Area. Annexation of rural areas to cities shall be prohibited. When annexation of rural areas is necessary to link two urban areas, that intervening rural area shall be designated as permanent urban separator at low rural densities. LU-8 Designated rural areas shall have low densities which can be sustained by minimal infrastructure improvements, such as septic systems and rural roads, without degrading the environment or creating the necessity for urban level of services. LU-9 The GMPC shall establish a subcommittee to develop an outcomes-based policy recommendation on the definition of rural character and incentives for protection of rural areas. The subcommittee shall have proportional representation from King County, Seattle and suburban cities and shall make its report to the GMPC by October 1, 1992. The definition shall consider rural densities, clustering and other tools to protect rural character. Incentives to be considered include: a. Assess land in rural areas on its current use; b. Facilitate small land owners qualifying land for special categories such as forest, wetlands, riparian zones; c. Develop programs for direct marketing of produce in urban areas; d. Reinforce right to farm and forest practices in rural areas; and/or e. Develop services through existing agencies with rural expertise. LU-10 Rural areas designated by King County shall remain rural. Additional rural areas shall be designated by King County through adoption of a land use map authorized by the Growth Management Planning Council. These additional areas meet at least one of the following criteria: GMA:pol Page 14 06/10/1992 *Diet 411104 a. Opportunities exist for small scale farming and forestry which do not qualify for resource land designation; b. The rural designation serves as a buffer for designated resource lands or sensitive areas; c. Significant environmental constraints make the area generally unsuitable for intensive urban development; d. Major physical barriers exist to providing urban services at reasonable cost; e. The area is contiguous to other designated rural areas, resource areas or sensitive areas; f. The area has outstanding scenic, historic, and/or aesthetic value that can best be protected by rural land uses and densities; and g The area has limited public services, extension of full services is not planned, and infill at higher densities is not feasible or necessary to meet regional goals. Criteria specified in LU-10fgi permits the redesignation of urban lands in King County to rural. These areas have not received a full range of services, such as sewers, and are developed at densities which are too low to support cost-effective provision of all urban services. The inclusion of these new rural areas will carry out regional policies by focusing new development to urban areas that are planned to have full urban services. LU-11 Low-density urban areas meeting the criteria of LU-10(g) shall be redesignated rural and zoned for rural residential densities. Legally created existing lots within the rural area are legal building sites as authorized in the King County Code. LU-12 To maintain rural character, and to minimize the need for additional infrastructure, while maximizing undeveloped land available for traditional rural uses, clustering of new development shall be required on all existing parcels of contiguous ownership of ten or more acres, provided that clustering shall be designed and scaled to be consistent with rural area character. LU-13 King County, cities that are adjacent to or are surrounded by rural designated areas, and other agencies that provide services to rural areas shall form a technical committee to prepare a manual on rural infrastructure design, fire/wildfire protection, and service standards. C. Urban Areas The following policies establish an Urban Growth Area (UGA) and methods to phase development within this area in order to bring certainty to long-term planning and development within the county. The Urban Growth Area is a permanent designation. Land outside the Urban Growth Area is designated for permanent rural and resource uses, except for the cities in the rural area. Countywide policies on rural and resource areas are found in Chapter IIA, Resource Lands, and Chapter ll/B, Rural Areas. The capacity in the Urban Growth Area for growth, based on adopted plans and regulations, exceeds the 20-year minimum requirement of the GMA according to the current population forecasts. In the future, all urban growth is to be accommodated within permanent urban areas by increasing densities. Phasing is to occur within the Urban Growth Area to ensure that services are provided as growth occurs. All cities are to be within the Urban Growth Area. Cities in the rural area are to be UGA islands. ( Mb. nnl Page 15 06/10/1992 V C Nor Ti s u U Oc v O v e Y e O O O c .c ; — C O Y _ C c inY O ..,C so Y O •p. 0 •O E 60 o t or c 2. o E t ioe `o I i o • o t o -- d - z. v 01 . V . Y Y e 41) N ... Y 74 I1. V' 9 YCC6i O •C C > JOOCC O. YC-, s Y C MY CdL . GC V .I. OCOL OMaO7 ]CZ I O •U E 1 I 1 5 " —y ;::7:"-ir:P:*-:11i7A..:-(.4". _ i __„ :VS*1;:::*.:77.# ---- i3 •:•* .;..--%::::••••%4*:****•••• •:•• ' .f% ::-- ;::::::::.:-:-•-• c67:.t 4.4:4• 0 o I ,,-, •::::::::::::::::::**gi:K:::::::.:.:_----,--/' X•...-.7_,?•:•11:-.-It sil.":".',..6 . e,,,,,e'- ''-' li 6-' / :• �••j: •lam•••• %�• - �. ice-j� i = z o • � 4� - ...,„:,..';,:: 4. / ii!. �i � � /Aro �/ / / /� � / / or M • w c a ` o . _ *Wm.._ !•. 6-1! c� ao . -�• c o C..., = ai.. `_e m o *1110 FW-8 The land use pattern for King County shall protect the natural environment by reducing the consumption of land and concentrating development. An Urban Growth Area, Rural Areas, and Resource Lands shall be designated and the necessary implementing regulations adopted. This includes countywide establishment of a boundary for the Urban Growth Area. Local jurisdictions shall make land use decisions based on the Countywide Planning Policies. FW-9 The Urban Growth Area shall provide enough land to accommodate future urban development. Policies to phase the provision of urban services and to ensure efficient use of the growth capacity within the Urban Growth Area shall be instituted. 1 . Urban Growth Area The GMA requires King County to designate an Urban Growth Area (UGA) in consultation with cities. The Countywide Planning Policies must establish an Urban Growth Area that contains enough urban land to accommodate at least 20 years of new population and employment growth. The GMA states: "based upon the population forecast made for the county by the Office of Financial Management, the Urban Growth Areas in the county shall include areas and densities sufficient to permit urban growth that is projected to occur in the county for the succeeding twenty-year period. Each Urban Growth Area shall permit urban densities and shall include greenbelt and open space areas. " A UGA map is attached. LU-14 The lands within the Urban Growth Area (UGA) shall be characterized by urban development. The UGA shall accommodate at least the 20-year projection of population and employment growth with a full range of urban services. The Countywide Planning Policies shall establish the Urban Growth Area based on the following criteria: a. include all lands within existing cities, including cities in the rural area and their designated expansion areas; b. The GMPC recognizes that the Bear Creek Master Plan Developments (MPDs) are subject to an ongoing review process under the adopted Bear Creek Community Plan and recognizes these properties as urban under these Countywide Planning Policies. If the applications necessary to implement the MPDs are denied by King County or not pursued by the applicant(s), then the property subject to the MPD shall be redesignated rural pursuant to the Bear Creek Community Plan. Nothing in these Planning Policies shall limit the continued review and implementation through existing applications, capital improvements appropriations or other approvals of these two MPDs as new communities under the Growth Management Act. c. Not include rural land or unincorporated agricultural, or forestry lands designated through the Countywide Planning Policies plan process; d. Include only areas already characterized by urban development which can be efficiently and cost effectively served by roads, water, sanitary sewer and storm drainage, schools and other urban services within the next 20 years; e. Do not extend beyond natural boundaries, such as watersheds, which impede provi- sion of urban services; f. Respect topographical features which form a natural edge such as rivers and ridge lines; and g. Include only areas which are sufficiently free of environmental constraints to be able to support urban growth without major environmental impacts unless such areas are designated as an urban separator by interlocal agreement between jurisdictions. LU-15 Urban separators are low density areas or areas of little development and must be within the Urban Growth Area. Urban separators shall be defined as permanent low density lands ,.....__, Panw 1 Fi 06/10/1992 %Nor vow* which protect resource lands and environmentally sensitive areas and create open space corridors within and between urban areas which provide environmental, visual, recreational and wildlife benefits. These lands shall not be redesignated in the future to other urban uses or higher densities. 2. Phasing Development within the Urban Growth Area Development in the urban area will be phased to promote efficient use of the land, add certainty to infrastructure planning, and to ensure that urban services can be provided to urban development. The minimum densities required by LU-51 help ensure the efficient use of the land. Phasing will further ensure coordination of infrastructure and development. Urban areas in jurisdictions which do not have urban services and are not scheduled to receive urban services within 10 years shall be subject to phasing requirements. LU-16 Within the Urban Growth Area, growth should be directed as follows: ai first, to centers and urbanized areas with existing infrastructure capacity; b) second, to areas which are already urbanized such that infrastructure improvements can be easily extended; and c) last, to areas requiring major infrastructure improvements. LU-17 All jurisdictions shall develop growth phasing plans by identifying areas for growth for the next ten and the next twenty years where necessary urban services can be provided. These growth phasing plans shall be based on locally adopted definitions, service levels, and financing commitments, consistent with State GMA requirements. The ten and twenty year growth phasing plans for cities shall not extend beyond their Potential Annexation Areas. Interlocal agreements shall be developed that specify the applicable minimum zoning, development standards, impact mitigation and future annexation for the Potential Annexation Areas. LU-18 Where urban services cannot be provided within the next 10 years, jurisdictions should develop policies and regulations to: a. Phase and limit development such that planning, siting, densities and infrastructure decisions will support future urban development when urban services become avail- able; and b. Establish a process for converting land to urban densities-and uses once services are available. 3. Joint Planning and Urban Growth Areas around Cities The GMA requires each county to designate Urban Growth Areas, in consultation with cities. Within the countywide Urban Growth Area, each city will identify land needed for its growth for the next twenty years. Although the GMA does not explicitly equate Urban Growth Areas with municipal annexation areas, the Urban Growth Areas around cities may be considered potential expansion areas for cities. FW-10 Cities are the appropriate provider of local urban services to urban areas either directly or by contract. Counties are the appropriate provider of most countywide services. Urban ser- vices shall not be extended through the use of special purpose districts without the approval of the city in whose potential annexation area the extension is proposed. Within the urban area, as time and conditions warrant, cities should assume local urban services provided by special purpose districts. GMA:pol Page 17 06/10/1992 LU-19 In collaboration with adjacent counties and cities and King County, and in consultation with residential groups in affected areas, each city shall designate a potential annexation area. Each potential annexation area shall be specific to each city. Potential annexation areas shall not overlap. Within the potential annexation area the city shall adopt criteria for annexation, including conformance with Countywide Planning Policies, and a schedule for providing urban services and facilities within the potential annexation area. This process shall ensure that unincorporated urban islands of King County are not created between cities and strive to eliminate existing islands between cities. LU-20 A city may annex territory only within its designated potential annexation area. All cities shall phase annexations to coincide with the ability for the city to coordinate the provision of a full range of urban services to areas to be annexed. LU-21 Land within a city's potential annexation area shall be developed according to that city's and King County's growth phasing plans. Undeveloped lands adjacent to that city should be annexed at the time development is proposed to receive a full range of urban services. Subsequent to establishing a potential annexation area, infill lands within the potential annexation area which are not adjacent or which are not practical to annex shall be developed pursuant to interlocal agreements between the County and the affected city. The interlocal agreement shall establish the type of development allowed in the potential annexation area and standards for that development so that the area is developed in a manner consistent with its future annexation potential. The interlocal agreement shall specify at a minimum the applicable zoning, development standards, impact mitigation, and future annexation within the potential annexation area. LU-22 Several unincorporated areas are currently considering local governance options. Unincorporated urban areas that are already urbanized and are within a city's potential annexation area are encouraged to annex to that city in order to receive urban services. Where annexation is inappropriate, incorporation may be considered. Development within the potential annexation area of one jurisdiction may have impacts on adjacent jurisdictions. LU-23 A jurisdiction may designate a potential impact area beyond its potential annexation area in collaboration with adjacent jurisdictions. As part of the designation process the jurisdiction shall establish criteria for the review of development proposals under consideration by other jurisdictions in the impact area. The GMA has a provision granting counties the discretion to disband the Boundary Review Boards after comprehensive plans and development regulations are adopted. The following policy provides direction for considering whether to disband the Boundary Review Board for King County. LU-24 Upon the adoption and ratification of the Countywide Policies, the King County Council shall convene a meeting with municipal elected officials to determine a process for disbanding the Washington State Boundary Review Board for King County and establishing criteria to oversee municipal and special district annexations, mergers, and incorporations in King County. Until the Washington State Boundary Review Board for King County is disbanded, it should be governed in its decisions by the interim urban growth area boundary and the adopted and ratified countywide planning policies. The criteria shall include, but not be limited to: a. Conformance with Countywide Planning Policies; b. The ability of the annexing jurisdiction to demonstrate a capability to provide urban services at standards equal to or better than the current service providers; and GMA:pol Page 18 06/10/1992 c. Annexations in a manner which discourages unincorporated islands of development. The GMA requires that city and county comprehensive plans be coordinated and consistent with one another. Consistency is required "where there are common borders or related regional issues" (RCW 36.70A. 100). Joint planning is fundamental to all the framework policies. LU-25 All jurisdictions shall cooperate in developing comprehensive plans which are consistent with those of adjacent jurisdictions and with the countywide planning policies. 4. Cities in the Rural Area The cities and unincorporated towns in the rural areas are a significant part of King County's diversity and heritage. Cities in this category include: Black Diamond, Carnation, Duvall, Enumclaw, North Bend, Snoqualmie and Skykomish. They have an important role as local trade and community centers. These cities and towns are the appropriate providers of local rural services for the community. They also contribute to the variety of development patterns and housing choices within the county. As municipalities, the cities are to provide urban services and be located within designated Urban Growth Areas. The urban services, residential densities and mix of land uses may differ from those of the large, generally western Urban Growth Area. LU-26 In recognition that cities in the rural area are generally not contiguous to the countywide Urban Growth Area, and to protect and enhance the options cities in rural areas provide, these cities shall be located within an Urban Growth Areas. These Urban Growth Areas generally will be islands separate from the larger Urban Growth Area located in the western portion of the county. Each city in the rural area, King County and the GMPC shall work cooperatively to establish an Urban Growth Area for that city. Urban Growth Areas must be approved by the GMPC by January 1, 1993. The Urban Growth Area for cities in rural areas shall: a. Include all lands within existing cities in the rural area; b. Be sufficiently free of environmental constraints to be able to support rural city growth without major environmental impacts; c. Be contiguous to city limits; and d. Have boundaries based on natural boundaries, such as watersheds, topographical features, and the edge of areas already characterized by urban development. LU-27 Cities in the rural areas shall include the following characteristics: a. Shopping, employment, and services for residents, supplies for resources industries, including commercial, industrial, and tourism development at a scale that reinforces the surrounding rural characteristic; b. Residential development, including small-lot single-family, multifamily, and mixed-use developments; and c. Design standards that work to preserve the rural, small-town character and promote pedestrian mobility. D. Urban and Manufacturing/industrial Centers Urban Centers are envisioned as areas of concentrated employment and housing, with direct service by high capacity transit, and a wide range of other land uses such as retail, recreational, public facilities, parks and open space. GMA:pol Page 19 06/10/1992 Urban Centers are designed to 1) strengthen existing communities, 2)promote housing opportuni- ties close to employment, 3) support development of an extensive transportation system to reduce dependency on automobiles, 4) consume less land with urban development, and 5) maximize the benefit of public investment in infrastructure and services, 6) reduce costs of and time required for permitting, and 7) evaluate and mitigate environmental impacts. Manufacturing/Industrial Employment Centers are key components of the regional economy. These areas are characterized by a significant amount of manufacturing or other industrial employment. They differ from other employment areas, such as Business/Office perks (see F14/-13 and LU-58-62), in that a land base is an essential element of their operation. FW-11 Within the Urban Growth Area, a limited number of Urban Centers which meet specific criteria established in the Countywide Manning Policies shall be locally designated. Urban Centers shall be characterized by all of the following: a. Clearly defined geographic boundaries b. Intensity/density of land uses sufficient to support effective rapid transit; c. Pedestrian emphasis within the Center; d. Emphasis on superior urban design which reflects the local community; e. Limitations on single occupancy vehicle usage during peak hours or commute purposes; f. A broad array of land uses and choices within those uses for employees, residents; g. Sufficient public open spaces and recreational opportunities; and h. Uses which provide both daytime and nighttime activities in the Center. FW-12 Within the Urban Growth Area, the Countywide Manning Policies shall assure a number of locally-designated Manufacturing/Industrial Centers which meet specific criteria established in the Countywide Manning Policies will be locally designated. The Manufacturing/Industrial Centers will be and are characterized by the following: a. Clearly defined geographic boundaries; b. Intensity/density of land uses sufficient to support manufacturing and industrial uses; and c. Reasonable access to the regional highway, rail, air and/or waterway system for the movement of goods. FW-13 Urban and Manufacturing/Industrial Centers shall be complemented by the land use pattern outside the centers but within the urban area. This area shall include: urban residential neighborhoods, activity areas, business/office parks, and an urban open space network. Within these areas, future development shall be limited in scale and intensity to support the countywide land use and regional transportation plan. 1 . Urban Centers Designation Process LU-28 The location and number of Urban Centers in King County will be determined through the joint local and countywide adoption process, based on the following steps: a. The Countywide Planning Policies include specific criteria for Urban Centers; b. By October 1, 1992, local jurisdictions shall determine if they will contain an Urban Center(s). Jurisdictions electing to contain these centers will provide the GMPC with a statement of commitment describing the city's intent and commitment to meet the Centers' criteria defined in these policies and a timetable for the required GMA:pol Page 20 06/10/1992 Niue Centers Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement or identification of existing environmental documentation to be used; and c. By December 1, 1992, the Growth Management Planning Council shall review and confirm the Centers that are elected by local jurisdictions (consistent with Policy FW-1), or make adjustments based on: 1) The Center's location in the region and its potential for promoting a countywide system of Urban Centers; 2) The total number of centers in the county that can be realized over the next twenty years, based on twenty years projected growth; 3) The type and level of commitments that each jurisdiction has identified for achieving Center goals; and 4) Review of other jurisdictional plans to ensure that growth focused to Centers is assured. 2. Urban Centers Criteria LU-29 Each jurisdiction which has designated an Urban Center shall adopt in its comprehensive plan a definition of the urban center which specifies the exact geographic boundaries of the center. All centers shall be up to 1-1/2 square miles of land. Each center shall be zoned to accommodate: a. A minimum of 15,000 jobs within 1/2 mile of a transit center; b. At a minimum, an average of 50 employees per gross acre; and c. At a minimum, an average 15 households per gross acre. LU-30 Jurisdictions which contain urban centers, in conjunction with METRO, shall identify transit station areas and right-of-way in their comprehensive plan. Station areas shall be sited so that all portions of the Urban Center are within walking distance (one half mile) of a station. LU-31 In order to reserve right-of-way and potential station areas for high-capacity transit or transit hubs in the Urban Centers, jurisdictions shall: a. Upon adoption of specific high-capacity transit alignments by METRO, adopt policies to avoid development which would restrict establishment of the high-capacity transit system; b. Preserve right-of-ways controlled by the jurisdiction which are identified for potential transit use; and c. Provide METRO an option to acquire property owned by the jurisdiction. LU-32 To encourage transit use, jurisdictions shall establish mechanisms to charge for single-occupancy vehicle parking and/or a limit on the number of off-street parking spaces for each Urban Center, and establish minimum and maximum parking requirements that limit the use of the single-occupant vehicle and develop coordinated plans that incorporate Commuter Trip Reduction guidelines. All plans for Urban Centers shall encourage bicycle travel and pedestrian activity. LU-33 Jurisdictions' comprehensive plans for Urban Centers shall demonstrate compliance with the Urban Centers criteria. In order to promote urban growth within centers, the Urban Center plan shall establish strategies which: a. Support pedestrian mobility, bicycle use and transit use; b. Achieve a target housing density and mix of use; GMA:pol Page 21 06/10/1992 • *ea 41110 c. Provide a wide range of capital improvement projects, such as street improvements, Schools, parks and open space, public art and community facilities; d. Emphasize superior urban design; Emphasize oe historic prcharacteristics ervation nd necessa`ve reuse of ry to historic at vital urban,center; and f. Include other local g, Include facilities to meet human service needs. un n LU-34 The system of urban centers shall form the land use fo ndatio for a regional he gional igf h capacity h- transit system. Urban centers should receive e ry capacity transit stations and/or transit centers. (See also LU-47) 3. Incentives for Urban Centers hel create Urban Centers, incentives to jurisdictions to establr sh Urbaf n Ce ersaand to order to p the community to build in Urban Centers, should be established. transit (HCT) is one such incentive. Others include funding, and streamlined permitting. which: LU-35 Countywide financing strategies shall be developed by the GMPC by July 1, 1993 a. Identify regional funding sources; and and b. Set priorities and allocate funds for urban facilities to ban Centers including social and human services, and subarea planning efforts, ement (PETS) for each proposed center. The PEIS LU-36 Each jurisdiction electing to contain an a Urban Center under Policy LU-28 shall prepare Programmatic Environmental Impact St shall be prepared in a comprehensive manner and shall address probable significant adverse may environmental impacts from and raise to(e subjects oaves f area-wide the roposal.such as cumulative project-specific include, but are not necessarily limited impacts, housing, schools, public utilities, and duplicative oenvt'onmenbalereviewpof issues proposals shall not be required to pert l have been adequately reviewed in the nclude, but are shall not necessarily limited mited to the direct osal review of other issues. These may impacts of the specificig impacts which indicate probable significant adve substantial changes in the nature of rse environmental impacts informationmacts whichre eing impacts the PEIS. im acts were not adequately analyzed aesthetics,and otheramples issues not addressed f project-specific P direct impacts include local traffic impacts, by the PEIS. LU-37 In support of centers, additional local action should include: a. Strategies for land assembly within the center, if applicable; b. Infrastructure and service financing strategies and economic development strategies for the centers; flow commitments consistent with the c. Establishing expected permit processing PEIS; andappeal process with fixed d. Establishing a streamlined and simplified administrative and certain timelines. Jurisdictions should consider additional incentives for development within Urban Centers LU_38 Jur such as: a. Setting goals for maximum permit review time and give priority to permits in Urban Centers; 06/10l1992. Page 22 toe Nee b. Policies to reduce or eliminate impact fees; c. Simplifying and streamlining of the d. Eliminating project-specific requirements' for parkingnistrative appeal processes; those facilities for the Urban Center as a whole; and and open space by providing e. Establishing a bonus zoning program for the provision of urban amenities. 4. Manufacturing/Industrial Center Designation Process LU-39 The location and number of regional Manufacturing/Industrial Centers in King determined through the joint local and countywide adoption process, based on he of owing steps: ng a. Countywide Planning Polices include specific criteria for Manufacturing/Industrial Centers; b. By October 1, 1992, local jurisdictions shall determine if they will contain a Manufacturing/Industrial Center(s). Jurisdictions that elect to contain a Manufactur- ing/Industrial Center shall specify how the Center will meet the intent of the Countywide Policies, including plans to adopt criteria, incentives, and other commit- ment to implement Manufacturing/Industrial Centers; C. By December 1, 1992, the Growth Management Planning Council shall review and confirm the Manufacturing/Industrial Centers that are elected by local jurisdictions (consistent with Policy FW-1), or make adjustments based on: 1. The Center's location in the region, especially relative to existing and proposed transportation facilities and its potential for promoting a countywide system of Manufacturing/Industrial Centers; 2. The total number of centers in the county that are needed in the county over the next twenty-years based on twenty years projected need for manufacturing land to satisfy regional projections of demand for manufacturing land; 3. The type and level of commitments that each jurisdiction has identified for achieving Manufacturing/Industrial Center goals; 4. Review of other jurisdictional plans to ensure that growth focused to Manufacturing/Industrial Centers is assured; and 5. The accessibility of the Center to existing or planned transportation facilities. 5. Manufacturing/Industrial Center Criteria LU-40 Each jurisdiction which contains a regional Manufacturing/Industrial Center comprehensive plan a definition of the Center which specifies the exact geogralph copt in its boundaries of the Center. Each Center shall be zoned to: a. Preserve and encourage the aggregation of land parcels sized for manufactur- ing/industrial uses; b. Discourage land uses other than manufacturing and industrial; and C. Accommodate a minimum of 10,000 jobs. LU-41 All jurisdictions support the development of a regional industrial siting policy to link the countywide manufacturing/industrial centers into the regional network of industrial activity. GMA:pol Page 23 06/10/1992 rs Jurisdictions shalt design access to the eg regional Manufacturing/Industrial the moblity ouds Cy tterktofacai! or LU-42 of employees by transit, provide waterwayitate the mobility plans shall include strategies to as appropriate. Regional comprehensive capital improvement projects which support access for movement of goods. ters in LU-43 Jurisdictions which contain regional Manufacturing/Industrial�enth jurisdiction'sc conjunction with METRO, shall identity transit station areas and s comprehensive plan. Transit feeder systems, bicycle route stand pedestrian systems shall be established to link the Center to the transit LU-44 In order to reserve right-of-way and potential stations Centers,for oju jurisdictionsshall:high-capacityrtransit or transit hubs in the regional Manufacturing/industrial METRO, adopt ments by a. Upon adoption of specific high-capacity hwh ch otransit dnrestrict nest establishment of the policies to avoid development high-capacity transit system; b. Preserve right-of-ways controlled by the jurisdiction which are identified for potential transit use; and owned by the jurisdiction.c, Provide METRO an option to acquire property s to for i ngle-occupancy ura a transit use, jurisdictions shall establish mecofhanism parking charge for LU-45 s enco g vehicle parking or a limit on the number s single-occupancy vehicles within each regional Manufacturing/Industrial i e car ra er. All plans for regional Manufacturing/Industrial Centers shall bcycletravelnd pedestrian circulation. LU-46 Juris dictions' comprehensive plans for regional Manufacturing/Industrial Centers shall ial demonstrate compliance with the criteria. n order tgrowth, the Manufacturing/Industrial Center plan for each jurisdiction shall establish strategies: a. To provide capital improvement projects which support the movement of goods and manufacturingfiindustrial operations; b. To provide buffers around the Center to reduce conflicts with adjacent land uses; c. To facilitate land assembly; and d. l To attract the type of businesses that will ensure economic growth and stability. jobsg a minimum of 15,000 and having sufficient HCT. Manufacturing/Industrial LU-47 Each employment densitiges s Center CT should be served by HCT. alignment and which meet Cenrswhich are lost P Centers are located on the regional high capacity transit a g the tra nsit-friendly criteria in policies LU-42 through LU-46 above shall receive one or more high capacity transit stations and/or transit cep 6. Incentives for Manufacturing/Industrial Centers GMPC by July 1, 1993 which: LU-48 Countywide financing strategies shall be developed by the a. Identify regional funding sources; and b. Set priorities and allocate funds for urban facilities and seCente sc s includingnd subarea plcial and human services in regional Manufacturing/In ust refforts in Manufacturing/Industrial Centers. 06110/1 Q° Page 24 r_�ee•nnl LU-49 Jurisdictions shall consider conducting detailed SEPA review for the regional Manufacturing/Industrial Center at the planning stage so that project-specific environmental review is minimized. LU-50 To reduce or prevent conflicts, jurisdictions shall develop policies to establish and support normal manufacturing/industrial practices such as notices on development permits for properties adjacent to a manufacturing/industrial center. E. Urban Growth Outside of Centers A variety of lend uses and concentrations of growth occur within the Urban Growth Area and outside of the Urban Centers and Manufacturing/Industrial Centers. Local land use plans will be responsible for the designation, character, and utilization of urban areas outside of centers. However, Countywide Policies are presented below to provide guidance for these areas to ensure that they support the Centers growth concept. These policies do not apply to the rural cities whose land use pattern is described by policies LU 26 and LU 27. 1. Urban Residential Areas Urban residential areas form the bulk of the Urban Growth Area, and are home to a large portion of the county's population. They will contain a mix of uses and will have different characteristics in different neighborhoods. Generally, the character, form, preservation and development of these areas is a local jurisdictional responsibility. However, the residential areas need to support the Centers concept and provide sufficient opportunity for growth within the UGA. A substantial majority of new residential units will be constructed within urban residential areas. LU-51 In order to ensure efficient use of the land within the Urban Growth Area, provide for housing opportunities, and to support efficient use of infrastructure, each jurisdiction shall: a. Establish in its comprehensive plan a target minimum number of net new dwelling units the jurisdiction will accommodate in the next 20 years and adopt regulations to achieve the target number; b. Establish a minimum density (not including critical areas) for new construction in each residential zone; and c. Establish in the comprehensive plan a target mix of housing types for new development and adopt regulations to achieve the target mix. LU-52 The targets and regulations in LU-51 shall be based on the following steps: a. By October 1, 1992 the GMPC shall adopt a target number of net new dwelling units to be accommodated countywide; b. By October 1, 1992 the interjurisdictional staff committee shall report to the GMPC recommended ranges for net new dwelling units for each unincorporated urban and rural community, and each city based on the following criteria: 1. The capacity and condition of existing and forecast infrastructure, 2. Proximity to major employment centers, 3. Access to existing and projected regional transit, 4. Capacity of undeveloped land and potential for redevelopment given the character of existing development, 5. The need for a range of housing types, GMA:pol Page 25 06/10/1992 6. Each jurisdiction's share of affordable housing as required by Affordable Housing policies, 7. Consistency with the countywide numbers; c. The targets in each jurisdiction's comprehensive plan shall fall within the ranges, or shall state the reasons for deviating from the range; d. Through the process established under FW-1 Step 4b, if the jurisdiction's comprehensive plan differs from the target, the GMPC may recommend amendments to either the Countywide Planning Policies or local plans; and e. The interjurisdictional staff committee shall recommend a process to monitor the implementation of this policy. The process should include members of the public. 2. Urban Employment Growth A portion of the urban employment growth will occur in activity areas and neighborhoods in the urban area. This employment growth will support the Urban Centers, while balancing local employment opportunities in the urban area. LU-53 Targets for employment growth outside Urban Centers shall be established for cities and for unincorporated urban communities through the joint local and countywide adoption process based on the following steps: a. By December 1992 the Growth Management Planning Council shall adopt 20 year target numbers for employment growth and employment capacity inside urban centers and outside urban centers. By October 1992 the interjurisdictional staff committee shall develop preliminary recommendations for ranges of employment growth and capacity inside and outside urban areas in each city, in unincorporated urban communities and in rural areas based on the following criteria: 1. Consistency with the countywide numbers; 2. The need to direct growth to urban centers based on consistency with the multiple centers strategy; 3. Access to regional rapid transit and existing highway and arterial capacity; 4. Availabilities of undeveloped land and potential for redevelopment given the character of existing development; 5. The willingness of local jurisdictions to implement policies which encourage transit such as S.O.V. parking charges and/or limits, transit, bicycle and pedestrian supportive design, and the adoption of policies that encourage clustering of commercial and residential areas; b. As part of their comprehensive plans, all jurisdictions shall indicate planned employment capacity and targeted increases in employment for 20 years inside and outside urban centers and shall show how their plans reflect the criteria in this policy; and c. Through the process established under FW-1 Step 4b, if the jurisdiction's comprehensive plan differs from the target, the GMPC may recommend amendments to either the Countywide Planning Policies or local plans. 3. Infill Development Urban growth occurs both in "new"neighborhoods and in existing neighborhoods. Existing neigh- borhoods have a history of development patterns which have created a sense of identity. At the GMA:pol Page 26 06/10/1992 woe same time a vital neighborhood adapts to change and develops its own image. New development in these neighborhoods should build on the existing patterns in a manner which respects and enriches the neighborhood. For example in single family neighborhoods selective permitting of accessory units and carriage houses may be more compatible than new apartment buildings. LU-54 All jurisdictions shall develop neighborhood planning and design processes to encourage infill development and enhance the existing community character and mix of uses. 4. Activity Areas Activity Areas are locations that contain a moderate concentration of commercial land uses and some adjacent higher density residential areas. Activity Areas are distinguishable from community or neighborhood commercial areas by their larger size and their function as a significant focal point for the local community. Activity Areas contain a broad spectrum of locations with varied functions, geographic sizes, and land uses. Activity Areas are designated in comprehensive plans. Examples of Activity Areas might include the central business districts of Kirkland, Burien, and Des Moines; East Hill in Kent; and a number of business districts in Seattle, such as Lake City, Wallingford, and West Seattle. LU-55 Jurisdictions shall designate the boundaries, maximum densities, and uses within all activity areas to provide for local employment, commercial activities and public facilities. LU-56 All Activity Areas should receive frequent peak hour transit service. Activity Areas may contain a high-capacity transit station or transit hub if the activity area: a. Is on an HCT corridor, or can serve as a transit hub; b. Has pedestrian, bicycle, and transit-supportive site planning, building design and road design regulations; and c. Has parking regulations to encourage transit use. LU-57 To encourage transit use, jurisdictions shall establish minimum and maximum parking requirements that reduce dependence on the single-occupant vehicle. Jurisdictions should establish mechanisms to charge for single-occupancy vehicle parking and/or a limit on the number of off-street parking spaces for each activity center. All plans for Activity Areas shall encourage bicycle travel and pedestrian activity. 5. Business/Office Parks • Business/Office Parks are areas where low-density office development is collected at locations separated from an identified retail commercial core. These parks tend to have low densities and thus tend not to be supportive of transit or pedestrian circulation. These employment opportunities generally do not require extensive land for their operations, and could be accommodated in Urban Centers. Because the further development of these areas may compete with the employment growth that is planned to support Urban Centers, significant future employment will not be encouraged in these areas. LU-58 Office building development is directed primarily to Urban Centers. Office building development outside Urban Centers should occur within activity areas and promote transit, pedestrian and bicycle uses. LU-59 Jurisdictions shall not expand existing land area zoned for business/office parks. GMA:pol a, Page 27 06/10/1992 41.0 LU-60 All jurisdictions shall establish mechanisms to encourage transit use. Examples of potential mechanisms include a charge for S.O.V. parking and/or a limit on the number of parking spaces for single occupancy vehicles within each existing business/office park. Bicycle and pedestrian supportive design should be encouraged. LU-61 To implement policy LU-53, all jurisdictions shall establish maximum Floor Area Ratios and/or maximum employment levels for office use in existing business/office parks. These maximums are intended to channel future employment and office space growth from business/office parks outside of Urban Centers to Urban Centers. LU-62 All jurisdictions should develop planning mechanisms to assist in the conversion of business/office parks to mixed use areas. Jurisdictions should encourage inclusion of residential and neighborhood commercial land uses and open space within existing business/office parks. GMA:pol •- Page 28 06/10/1992 III . Transportation A. Transportation Overview RCW 36.70A.070(6) (Growth Management Act) fundamentally changes the way that comprehensive planning will be done within the State of Washington. The Act places special emphasis on transportation making it unlawful to approve development for which the approving jurisdiction cannot demonstrate the availability of facilities, strategies and services Which are needed to accommodate the growth in traffic at the adopted level-of-service within six years. Future development activity will be constrained by a jurisdiction's ability to finance and provide transportation improvements or strategies. This fact has some very significant implications for all jurisdictions which are dependent upon the region's transportation systems because: 1. Projected traffic growth on the freeway and arterial system within the region greatly exceeds the foreseeable collective ability to finance and construct the improvements needed to retain historical levels-of-service. 2. Maintaining the current level of personal mobility by single occupant vehicles will be a costly public investment that will negatively impact the regional quality of life, create severe impacts to sensitive areas, degrade environmental quality, and increase energy use and the consumption of land. 3. Development within any one jurisdiction can be severely impacted by decisions and actions beyond that jurisdiction's control: o WSDOT may be unable to program improvements concurrent with a jurisdiction's approval of a development permit. o Metro may not be able to respond to transit levels-of-service adopted by local jurisdictions. o A jurisdiction may adopt level-of-service standards for arterials within its jurisdiction and decline to accept improvements necessary to mitigate transportation impacts from a proposed development in an adjoining jurisdiction. o Cumulative growth throughout the region will cause traffic growth on the existing network and may thereby exhaust the capacity for local jurisdictions to approve development. In light of these financial constraints and potential dangers, it will be necessary to undertake a dramatically different approach for both transportation planning and land use planning, than has been done in the past. This is necessary if the region is to avoid haphazard denials of development permits following the July 1994 deadline for implementing ordinances. In order to limit sprawl, create the desired urban form, and provide some measure of predictability for landowners and developers, the region's scarce resources for transportation capacity improvements must be used prudently to focus on areas where zoning and densities support a multi-modal transportation system. System capacity investments should be.targeted first to those areas where the existing land use and transportation system provides some hope of achieving the desired multi-modal leve/-of-service within six years. GMA:pol Page 29 06/1.0/1992 B. Transportation Policies FW-14 The land use pattern shall be supported by a balanced transportation system which provides for a variety of mobility options. This system shall be cooperatively planned, financed, and constructed. Mobility options shall include a High Capacity Transit system which links the urban centers and is supported by an extensive High Occupancy Vehicle system, local community transit system for circulation within the centers and to the non-center urban areas, and non-motorized travel options. FW-15 All jurisdictions in the county, in cooperation with Metro, the Metropolitan Planning Organization, and the State, shall develop a balanced transportation system and coordinated financing strategies and land use plan which implement regional mobility and reinforce the countywide vision. Vision 2020 Regional Growth Strategies shall be recognized as the framework for creating a regional system of Centers linked by High Capacity Transit and an interconnected system of freeway High Occupancy Vehicle (NOV) lanes, and supported by a transit system. FW-16 In recognition of the fact that King County is the regional freight distribution hub and a major international trade gateway, and that freight transportation is one of the state's most important basic sector economic activities, goods mobility by all modes shall be included as a component of comprehensive plans. T-1 The countywide transportation system shall promote the mobility of people and goods and shall be a multi-modal system based on regional priorities consistent with adopted land use plans. The transportation system shall include the following: a. An aggressive transit system, including High Capacity Transit; b. High Occupancy Vehicle facilities; c. Freight railroad networks; • d Marine transportation tacilities and navigable waterways; e. Airports; f. Transportation Demand Management actions; g. Non-motorized facilities; and h. Freeways, highways, and arterials. T-2 King County, its cities, adjacent counties, Metro, and the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) shall support the continuous, comprehensive and cooperative transportation planning process conducted by the Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC) pursuant to its Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) designation. The primary forum for the development of regional transportation systems plans and strategies shall be the PSRC, as the MPO. T-3 The annual update and approval of the six-year Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) by the PSRC should be the primary tool for prioritizing regional transportation improvements and programming regional transportation revenues. T-4 The GMPC or its successor shall have the ongoing responsibility for the following: a. Developing and maintaining coordinated level-of-service standards and a concurrency system for countywide transit routes and arterial streets, including state facilities; GMA:pol Page 30 06/10/1992 ors vale b. Developing regionally consistent policies for implementing countywide Transportation Demand Management actions and the Commute Trip Reduction Act including, but not limited to, parking policies, with an examination of price as a determinant of demand; and c. Developing and recommending transportation financing strategies, including recommendations for prioritizing capacity improvements eligible to receive federal funds available to the region under the Inter-modal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act IISTEA►. 1. High Capacity Transit/Regional Transit Project (HCT/RTP) T-5 Each Urban Center will be providing for a minimum of 15,000 jobs and should be served by High Capacity Transit NCI). Each Manufacturing Center containing a minimum of 15,000 jobs and having sufficient employment densities to support HCT should be served by HCT. All jurisdictions that would be served by HCT shall plan for needed HCT rights-of-way, stations and station supportive transportation facilities and land uses in their comprehensive plans. The land use and transportation elements of comprehensive plans shall incorporate a component to reflect future improvement needs for High Capacity Transit. Interim regional transit service should be provided to centers until the center is served by HCT. If voters do not approve HCT local option taxes, jurisdictions shall address this implication in the reassessment phase. T-6 WSDOT should assign a high priority to completion of the core HOV lanes in the central Puget Sound region. King County, its cities, and Metro Council representatives on the Transportation Policy and Executive Boards of the Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC) shall make completion of this system a high priority in programming the federal funds available to the region. 2. Non-motorized Transportation T-7 The transportation element of Comprehensive Plans shall include pedestrian and bicycle travel as part of the transportation system and be developed on a coordinated, regional basis. The bicycle and pedestrian element shall be a part of the funding component of the capital improvement program. 3. Freeways/Highways/Arterials T-8 In order to maintain regional mobility, a balanced multi-modal transportation system shall be planned that includes freeway, highway and arterial improvements by making existing roads more efficient. These improvements should help alleviate existing traffic congestion problems, enhance HOV and transit operations, and provide access to new desired growth areas, as identified in adopted land use plans. General capacity improvements promoting only Single Occupant Vehicle traffic shall be a lower priority. Transportation plans should consider the following mobility options/needs: a. Arterial HOV treatments, b. Driveway access management for principal arterials within the Urban Growth Area; and c. Improvements needed for access to manufacturing and industrial centers, marine and air terminals. GMA:pol Page 31 06/10/1992 *is or FW-17 Infrastructure planning and financing shall be coordinated among jurisdictions to direct and prioritize countywide facility improvements to implement the countywide vision and land use plans. FW-18 Where appropriate, King County and its cities shall adopt a clear definition of level-of- service and concurrency requirements and establish a consistent process for implementing concurrency, including accountability for impacts for adjacent jurisdictions. FW-19 Each jurisdiction shall identify the facilities needed to ensure that services are provided consistent with the community's adopted service levels. Timelines for the construction of the needed facilities shall be identified. 4. Transportation Level-of-Service (LOS) T-9 Level-of-service standards shall be used as a "tool" to evaluate concurrency for long-range transportation planning, development review and programming of transportation investments. T-10 Each local jurisdiction shall establish mode-split goals for non-SOV travel to all significant employment centers to reflect that center's contribution to the solution of the region's transportation problem. Mode-split goals will vary according to development densities, access to transit service and other alternative travel modes and levels of congestion. Comprehensive plans shall demonstrate what transportation system improvements, demand management and land use strategies will be implemented to achieve these mode-split goals. These local goals shall be coordinated to achieve county and regional goals. T-1 1 Elements to be considered in the level-of-service standard are mobility options that encourage the use of transit, other high occupancy vehicles, demand management actions, access to transit, and non-motorized modes of travel. These standards shall be consistent with the requirements of the Commute Trip Reduction Act. T-12 Mode split goals and measures of mobility for transit, ridesharing and non-motorized travel shall be established by local jurisdictions and METRO. T-13 Level-of-service standards shall vary by differing levels of development patterns and growth management objectives. Lower arterial standards, tolerating more congestion, shall be established for urban centers. Transit LOS standards may focus on higher service levels in and between centers and decrease as population and employment densities decrease. T-14 Metro should develop transit level-of-service standards which provide the county and cities with realistic service expectations to support adopted land uses and desired growth management objectives. These standards should consider that route spacing and frequency standards are necessary for differing service conditions including: a. Service between designated centers served by High Capacity Transit; b. Service between designated centers not served by High Capacity Transit; and c. Service to areas outside centers. 5. Reassessment T-15 Local governments shall work together to reassess regional land use and transportation elements if transportation adequacy and concurrency cannot be met. Should funding fall P.A A.... I n___ n' AL.,•n,•nnn woo short for transportation improvements or strategies needed to accommodate growth, the following actions should be considered: a. Adjust land use and level-of-service standards to better achieve mobility regional vision; b. Make full use of all feasible local option transportation revenues and the yet implemented; and authorized but not c. Work with WSDOT Metro, and the private sector to seek additional state transportation revenues and local options to make system improvements necessary to accommodate projected employment and population growth. wth. 6. Financing T-16 Transportation elements of Comprehensive Plans shall reflect the maintenance of transportation facilities as a high priority to costly replacementse and to meet public safety objectives in a cost-effective manner. avoid costly and T-17 Developer impact fees shall be structured to ensure that new development contributes i fair share of the resources needed to mitigate the impact on the transportation Adjoining jurisdictions shall execute interlocal agreements for impact feess that traffic generated in one jurisdiction contributes to the need to make system. . improvements across jurisdictional boundaries. Impact fees shall which recognize that portion of the improvement attributable to correcting transportation P not be assessed to cure T-18 Existing local option transportation funding shall be applied existing deficiencies. within King County as follows: a. Employee tax base -- reserved for city b. Commercial parking tax -- defer action,street utility development; strategy; pending development of a regional TDM c. HOV acceleration financing -- defer until after High Capacity d. gas tax -- consider as potential source to address transportation "concurrency" needs of county and cities only after vote on High Ca T'19 Regional revenues (such as Inter-modal Surface Transportationpacify Transit. Efficiency provide discretion should be used to address regional mobilityprojects and including such strategies as creatingg Act funds) which centers or enhancing tr ns t/HOV SOV smategies, mode split. 7. State Transportation Role T-20 Consistent with the countywide vision, local governments shall coordinate on land use and transportation systems and strategies which affect state facilities programs. with the State and T-21 State capital improvement decisions and policy countywide goals and plans. The State shall nsure is t ansportation t aent pit improvement p r ov ement and decisions and programs support the adopted land use plans and trans o T-22 The State and local governments shall use the same capital r p nation actions. time frame that all local governments and the countyp ogrammin making capital decisions and for concurrency management a minimum of sized budgeting years, for GMA:pol Page 33 06/10/1992 leo 8. Siting Regional and Countywide Transportation Facilities T-23 King County, the cities, the Puget Sound Regional Council, the State, Metro, and other transportation providers shall identify significant regional and/or countywide land acquisition needs for transportation and establish a process for prioritizing and siting the location of transportation facilities. t;MA:nol Page 34 06/10/1992 IV. Community Character and Open Space A measure of the success of planning for growth is the extent to which create good places to live, work and play. We must encourage growth which improves neighborhoods and landscapes, and builds a strong sense of p/ace. The fW a restore, maintain and ne ghb/r oods an, civic capes, tureand and landmarks, ing ic our incentives for urban and rural design, multi-use roadways, infi/l developmeies nt, g , aim to promote good community character. FV-20 AU jurisdictions shall support the court recreate and the thnic diversitycounty's existing divers of our communities, a of places to live, work and shall include sufficient supply of quality places for housing,coon recreation, and open space and the provision of communitycountywide development pattern g. employment, education, FW-21 Each urban area shall be characterized by superior urban and social services. design as locally defined. FW-22 Significant historic, archaeological, cultural, archite be respected and preserved. ctural and environmental features shall A. Historic Resources Historic resources create a sense of local identity and history, community vitality, and otherwise enrich our lives. Historic resources are non-renewable:of life, they embody the unique heritage and evolution of particular p/aces. Thoughtful managementsupport resources contributes to economic development and moderates some of the harmful a ffe: shot rapid growth. Planning for historic resources includes protecting archaeological a historic these buildings and landscapes, encouraging expression of diverse ethnic and folk traditions,effects of supporting activities for children and g sites and Youth. and CC-1 All jurisdictions should work individually and cooperatively to identify, evaluate, and protect historic resources including continued and consistent protection for historic r public art works, esources and CC-2 All jurisdictions shall encourage land use patterns and implement regulations that protect and enhance historic resources, and sustain historic community ty character. B. Urban Design Governments should be leaders in providing structures support the quality of our region. structures, public spaces, parks and streets which should provide landmarks which contribute to our sense of place. Additionally, g Civic design should express the region's values and vision, and jurisdictions can nurture their individual character bydeveloping so individual which outline the public interest in the design of private development in the urban p g a clear set of goals and policies communities. and rural CC-3 All jurisdictions shall promote a high quality of design and site planning in publicly-funded construction (such as civic buildings,Ds, parks, bridges, transit stops), and in private GMA:pol Page 35 '06/10/1992 4100 C. Human and Community Services shelters; meeting cultural activities; schools; libraries; parks and recreation; and fire and Human and community services are: social and health services; emergency places; performing arts and c police protection. Planning CC-4 Human and community service d planning•activitvelopmentipatternes support Countywide Policies and the countywide la CC-5 All jurisdictions shall identify essential community and human services and include them in land use,, capital improvement, and transportation plans. D. Open Space They provide visual rT They wildlifevisual he community character of King County.Open space lands are developed a areas, protect environmental quality, and rovi and functionally habitat and varietyo and ppof ufrom develop and foster opportunities for outdoor recreation. Open space corridors physically link open space lands. protection, The challenge for jurisdictions is to establish programs that contribute to the p lands usefulThe for recreation, mails, wildlfe form ty and stewardship of open space lands and corridors. The GMA requires jurisdictions to ac form ndlinkages between and within popuareas. e centers witha system regionally and within habitat and connection of critical areas. These open space lands and corridors or greenwaYscal should be selected and preserved to form an interconnected su and its local components should provide for tions locally and should be stewarded to ensure sure continuing environmental andecological significance. the regional system significance. Where appropriate, benefits and functions, which will require f►is and functions. and management to multiple compatibility and long-term viability of the the card regional ensive plans d each and corridors have significance at both the local and regional scale. Identification Open space lands and protection of local open spaces will be considered within establish and protect that also compliment, adjoin or enhance the regional system. jurisdiction. On an individual basis, jurisdictions should strive to identify, that have importance open space lands of local significance The regional open space systemdar includes l equirepmulti-jur multi-jurisdictional coordination to identify, protect beyond jurisdictional boundaries a and steward. FW-23 All jurisdictions shall cooperatively identify, establish, protect and steward urban and rural open space corridors of regional significance. CC-6 A regional open space system shall be established to include lands which: to separate h Provide physical and/or visual buffers such as open spaces ew hicne urban help to growth a. uses, l or region; incompatible r establish the characterof anneighborhood, which n arci or region; boundaries, or b. ible with Provide active a d mental,ve outdoor recreational and ecological values opportunitiesof theite; and/or with the env Contain natural areas, habitat lands, drainage features, and/or other c. and scenic environmental, cultural, CC-7 All jurisdiction s shall work cooperatively to identify and protect open space corridors of regional significance. This process shall include: 06/1011��4 Page 36 GMA:pol Awe • a. Identification of regional open and physically connected systemace with environmental, ecologic form a functionally aesthetic significance and which is readily accessible to our urban b. Identification of implementation strategies and regulatoryg al, recreational and tech- niques to protect the -lands and corridors, includingpopulations; with land trusts and other land preservation organizations; collaboration and non-regulatory�evelo Development of management plans and strategies s, and oration and coordination C. p tain th space benefits and functions of the preserved lands and co ridoescorridors' open CC-8 Water bodies and rivers of the Puget space system. Jurisdictions shall wo ko und region form an important element of the open to protect visual access to water bodies and rivers, and provide for physical access where appropriate. CC-9 Countywide funding shall be available for the acquisition, maintenance and stewardship of parks and open space, a) advancing the development of the regional opens a which has been cooperatively identified by the jurisdictions, and b) ensuring ady access of our citizens residingspace system in Urban Centers to the regional open space system. CC-10 The conceptual map of open space systems contained in the 19 Space Plan shall be used as the planning basis for regional open space lands All jurisdictions will work cooperatively to revise and supplement p to direct the 88 King County Open protection of these valuable resources throughout the county.ant this ma and corridors. CC-1 1 All jurisdictions shall work cooperatively to ensure parks and open spaces are provided as development and redevelopment occur. CC-12 All jurisdictions shall use the full range of regulatory and land preservation create, maintain and steward the regional open space system which has been identified. p ervats tools cooperatively available to CC-13 All jurisdictions shall develop coordinated level of service standa rds for the provision of parks and open spaces. GMA:pol Page 37 06/10/1992 4410 V . Affordable Housing tion, is a basic Adequate housing, for all economic segments of the de�e�housing needs mus�be addressed by of King County's residents and an issue of countywide concern. Affordable Igovernments working in cooperation with the private sector and nonprofit housing agencies. Iota D The GMA requires countywide policies to address This complex oissues the lrequires ode Jastribution of �edih�oe- housing, including housing for all income groups s mation regarding current housing resources and in-depth discussion of values and priorities for dhousing needs, which is being developed for comprehensive plan housing elements, as we housing development. sin FAN-24 All jurisdictions shall cooperatively establish a pro throughout the county in accordancecess to ensure an equitable and rational distribution of low-income and affordable employment locations. All jurisdictions shall provideoh land use diversity of housing types toameet and ariety of needs and incomes. a diversity nal and ble AH-1 All jurisdictions shall share the responsibility the housing needs oflow and moderate income distribution of affordable housing toI merit residents in King County. The distribution of housing affordable to low and moderate-income households shall reflect the services;d for proximity to recopn recognize each jurisdiction'sl r ePa pond and access to transportation and human avoid current efforts to provide housing affordable i crease housing low and opportunitieses and choices for over-concentration of assisted housing; andEach juris- diction and moderate income households to local and'ties throughout King countyw de housing needs shall give equal consideration The GMPC shall define and quantify affordable housing of affordable housing foelow and me households and countywide objectives for distribution moderate-income households. The Prosess shall includ ai ye ,organi at ons. The sAffo dablh II representatives, housing interest group , nd commun Housing Technical Forum, which has rep a Auguse 1 from the County and each city, s prepare recommendations for the GMPC f By October 1, 1992 each jurisdiction househo ds to be accommodated l specify the range and amount �n housing affordable to low and moderate-income comprehensive plan, based on countywide objectives for distribution. By December 1, 1992 the GMPC will review, and the county and cities i swill a�p amount of affordable housing, the countywide ives for distribution and each jurisdiction's proposed units. The process shall address: a. Development and preservation of subsidized housing and low-cost market rate housing; b. The definition of low-income and moderate-income housing; c. Guidelines to meet affordable housing need i recognitionn ndivid fourauru risd cictio that alell as ^ dy need throughout King County, including meet the guidelines; 06/1'0/19g'" Page 38 GMA:pol d. Strategies, including land use incentives. streamlined permitting processes, and funding commitments, to be adopted by all jurisdictions to provide affordable housing; and e. Guidelines to ensure that affordable housing is provided in conjunction with regional transportation planning, including funding for acquisition and rehabilitation to pre- serve existing affordable housing; funding and incentives for development of new housing in infill and redevelopment projects; and, subject to a legal determination, inclusionary requirements to ensure that a proportion of new residential development is affordable to low and moderate income households. Providing sufficient land for housing development is en essential step in promoting affordable housing. Affordable housing can be encouraged by zoning additional land for higher residential densities, which helps provide needed capacity for growth, reduces land development cost per units, and allows for lower cost construction types such as attached dwellings. Higher density housing includes a range of housing types: small-lot single family, attached single family, mobile home parks, apartments and condominiums. In addition, zoning changes that permit additional housing in established areas, such as accessory units, carriage houses, and residences built above commercial uses, increase affordable housing opportunities. AH-2 Each jurisdiction shall show in its comprehensive plan how it will use policies, incentives, regulations and programs to provide its share of housing affordable to low and moderate-income households as determined by the process outlined in AH-1. AH-3 Each jurisdiction shall evaluate its existing resources of subsidized and low-cost non-subsidized housing and identify housing that may be lost due to redevelopment, dete- riorating housing conditions, or public policies or actions. Each jurisdiction shall develop strategies to preserve existing low-income housing where feasible and provide relocation assistance to low income residents who may be displaced. AH-4 All jurisdictions shall monitor residential development within their jurisdiction and determine annually the total number of new units constructed, housing types, developed densities and remaining capacity for residential growth. King County shall report annually on housing development, the rate of housing cost and price increases and available residential capacity countywide. AH-5 Within the urban growth area, each jurisdiction shall maximize its ability to accommodate sufficient, affordable housing by removing regulatory barriers, reviewing codes for redundancies and inconsistencies and providing opportunities for a full range of housing types such as accessory dwelling units, manufactured homes on individual lots, apartments, townhouses and attached single family housing. GMA:pol Page 39 06/10/1992 ;err Nov VI. Contiguous and Orderly Development and Provision of Urban Services to Such Development Chapter II, "Land Use Pattern," contains policies for phasing development within the Urban Growth Area. An integral component of the phasing process is ensuring that development is accompanied by a full range of urban services. Equally important is ensuring that infrastructure improvements are not provided in advance of development which could undermine the countywide development pattern. This chapter provides policies which support phasing within the Urban Growth Area and ensure the integrity of the countywide land development pattern. FW-25 Planning for and financing of services shall be coordinated among jurisdictions to direct and prioritize countywide facility improvements to implement the countywide policies. FW-26 Jurisdictions shall identify the services needed to achieve adopted service levels. Timelines for constructing needed services shall be identified. FW-27 Protection of public health and safety and the environment shall be given high priority in decision-making about infrastructure improvements. County residents in both urban and rural areas shall have reasonable access to a high-quality drinking water source meeting all federal and state drinking water requirements. Management and operation of existing on-site septic systems shall not result in adverse impacts to public health or the environment. • A. General Policies To ensure that land use is accompanied with the maximum possible use of existing facilities and cost-effective service provisions and extensions, and to encourage development of strong, interrelated communities, policies are needed which integrate a full range of urban services with land-use planning and environmental protection. Urban service definitions should be guided by public services, "public"public facilities, "and "urban governmental services"as defined in RCW 36.70A (GMA). Community end human services policies are included under Chapter IV, "Community Character and Open Space,"and transportation policies are included under Chapter III, "Transportation. * Several countywide planning efforts provide direction for achieving the integration of services, aquifer and natural resource protection, and land use planning. These include the Coordinated Water System Plans, Seattle Regional Comprehensive Water Supply Plan, Groundwater Management Plans, Basin Plans, Che/an Agreement Regional Water Resources Planning Process, Flood Hazard Reduction Plan, Wastewater 2020 Plus, Human Services Strategies Report, and the King County Sewerage General Plan. Furthermore, there are state mandates which affect the provision of services. For example, water resource allocation must accommodate all reasonable out-of-stream needs and maintain sufficient flows for in-stream uses. The following policies transcend Urban and Rural land use designations and apply countywide. GMA:pol Panda drt --.- 1. Urban Services Required as Growth Occurs CO-1 Jurisdictions shall identify the full range of urban services and how they plan to provide them. 2. Conservation, Efficiency, Cost Effectiveness and New Technologies CO-2 Jurisdictions and other urban service providers shall provide services and manage natural resources efficiently, through regional coordination, conjunctive use of resources, and sharing of facilities. Interjurisdictional planning efforts shall evaluate approaches to share and conserve resources. CO-3 Service provision shall be coordinated to ensure the protection and preservation of resources in both rural areas and in areas that are developing, while addressing service needs within areas currently identified for growth. CO-4 All jurisdictions acknowledge the need to develop a regional surface water management system which crosses jurisdictions boundaries and identifies and prioritizes program elements and capital improvements necessary to accommodate growth and protect the natural and build environment. The GMPC shall develop and recommend a financing and implementation strategy to meet this need. CO-5 Water supply shall be regionally coordinated to provide a reliable economic source of water and to provide mutual aid to and between all agencies and purveyors. The region should work toward a mechanism to address the long-term regional water demand needs of all agencies and water purveyors. CO-6 Aggressive conservation efforts shall be implemented to address the need for adequate supply for electrical energy and water resources, protect natural resources, and achieve improved air quality. Efforts shall include, but not be limited to, public education, water reuse and reclamation, landscaping which uses native and drought-resistant plants and other strategies to reduce water consumption, small lot size, low-flow showerheads, conservation credits, and energy efficiency incentives in new and existing buildings. CO-7 Water reuse and reclamation shall be encouraged, especially for large commercial and residential developments, and for high water users such as parks, schools, golf courses, and locks. CO-8 When planning for the future demand on wastewater treatment and conveyance, alternatives to the expansion of the Metro centralized system such as decentralized treatment and other treatment technologies, and wastewater reclamation and reuse shall be identified and incorporated into plans as viable options. CO-9 The presence of tightline sewers or availability of sewer pipeline capacity and water supply above what is required to meet local needs shall not be used to justify development counter to the countywide policies, and any such land use development proposal shall be denied by the permitting agency. B. Urban Areas Identified for Growth for the Next Ten Years The designation of the Urban Growth Area establishes the service area for the county. The detailed arrangement and timing of services and the installation of infrastructure improvements is GMA:pol Page 41 06/10/1992 • `i10 left to be determined through shorter-term capital improvement plans. To support the densities and land uses of urban areas identified for immediate development, urban water and sewer systems are essential to support growth anticipated in the Urban Area over the next ten years. Urban water systems are defined as a network of pipes which are designed to meet all user needs and provide fire protection. Urban sewer systems are defined as a system of pipes providing conveyance to a sewage treatment facility. 1. Urban Water and Sewer Systems Required CO-10 In the Urban Area identified for growth within the next ten years, urban water and sewer systems are preferred for new construction on existing lots and shall be required for new subdivisions. However, existing septic systems, private wells, and/or small water systems may continue to serve the developments so long as densities and physical conditions are appropriate, the systems are allowed by the relevant jurisdictions, and management keeps the systems operating properly and safely. C. Urban Areas Designated for Growth Beyond 2002 In urban areas designated for growth beyond 2002, there will be a mix of existing services which may or may not be at urban service levels. The appropriate infrastructure improvements for sewer and water systems will vary according to existing site conditions. New developments should occur contiguous to existing, fully-developed areas so that extension of services occurs in an orderly and cost-effective manner. 1. Phased and Cost Effective Extension of Urban Water and Sewer Systems CO-11 To the extent practicable, all new plats shall be contiguous to the areas identified for growth for the next ten years. The phased expansion should respect basin boundaries or other natural landscape features. CO-12 Preferred sewer and water systems in areas designated for growth beyond 2002 are community drainfields and water systems which are professionally managed. These systems shall be designed, sited, and built to facilitate eventual conversion to urban sewer and water systems. Jurisdictions shall require all known and projected costs of infrastructure improvement to urban service levels be funded at the permitting stage. CO-13 Urban sewer system extensions in unincorporated King County shall be permitted consistent with the provisions of the King County Sewerage General Plan, countywide policies, and the policies of the jurisdiction in whose potential annexation area the extension is proposed. D. Rural Areas•and Resource Lands Residents in rural areas and resource lands need to have many of the same types of services as urban areas. However, the service standards in rural areas and resource lands are not at Urban levels. Rural water systems are defined as individual or community wells or piped water systems designed to meet all user needs but, in most cases, not providing for fire protection. GMA:pol Page 42 ., ,.,,,.��_ 1. Limited Extension of Urban Water and Sewer Systems CO-14 Sewer expansion shall not occur in rural areas and resource lands except where needed to address specific health and safety problems threatening structures permitted before July 1, 1992 or the needs of public facilities such as schools. Sewers may be extended only if they are tightlined and only after a finding is made that no alternative technologies are feasible. Mechanisms to reduce cost and limit the number of individual hookups shall be explored and actions recommended to the GMPC. CO-15 Urban water system extensions shall not be permitted in rural areas and resource lands except to solve immediate health or safety problems threatening existing residents. If urban water systems are extended, the maximum number of hookups that is consistent with the countywide land development pattern shall be specified at the time of the extension. CO-16 All rural water systems outside existing service areas (planning areas) shall be professionally managed by the applicable water purveyor according to the satellite management procedures of the Coordinated Water System Plans, and designed to rural standards. • GMA:pol Page 43 06/10/1992 err" Iwo VII. Siting Public Capital Facilities of a Countywide or Statewide Nature Public capital facilities of a countywide or statewide nature generally have characteristics that make these facilities extremely difficult to site. Such characteristics include the number of jurisdictions affected or served by the facility, the size of the facility, and the facility's potential adverse impacts, such as noise, odor, traffic, and pollution generation. The facilities can be either desirable or undesirable to jurisdictions. Some of the facilities are privately owned and regulated by public entities. Facilities also can be owned by the state and used by residents from throughout the state, such as universities and their branch campuses. The county and the cities need to develop a process for siting public capital facilities with these types of characteristics, including but not limited to, utility and transportation corridors, airports, wastewater treatment plants, so/id waste landfills, higher educational facilities, correctional and in-patient treatment facilities and energy-generating facilities. FW-28 Public capital facilities of a countywide or statewide nature shall be sited to support the countywide land use pattern, support economic activities, mitigate environmental impacts, provide amenities or incentives, and minimize public costs. Amenities or incentives shall be provided to neighborhoods/jurisdictions in which facilities are sited. Facilities must be prioritized, coordinated, planned, and sited through an interjurisdictional process established by the GMPC. S-1 The Growth Management Planning Council shall establish a process by which all jurisdictions shall cooperatively site public capital facilities of a countywide or statewide nature. The process shall include: a. A definition of these facilities; b. An inventory of existing and future facilities; c. Economic and other incentives to jurisdictions receiving facilities; d. A public involvement strategy; e. Assurance that the environment and public health and safety are protected; and f. A consideration of alternatives to the facility, including decentralization, demand management, and other strategies. GMA:pol Page 44 flail Ail(Inn • VIII. Economic Development and Finance Jurisdictions should cooperatively create an environment which sustains the economic vitality of the region and which contributes to manageable economic growth. Jurisdictions shall recognize that King County is part of a larger regional economy, which is strongly linked by trade to the national and international economies. Infrastructure investments should be focused into urban centers and manufacturing/industrial employment centers which are supported by transit. Countywide policies shell be integrated with economic development. FW-29 All jurisdictions shall contribute to the economic sustainability of the county in a manner which supports the countywide land use pattern. This is to be accomplished by providing cost-efficient quality infrastructure and public services at an adopted level of service specific to the local situation, providing affordable housing, promoting excellence in education, and protecting the environment. FW-30 All jurisdictions shall act to increase work training and job opportunities for all residents and communities. FW-31 All jurisdictions shall support the development of a regional economic development strategy consistent with the countywide land use pattern. A. Economic Development Policies ED-1 By December 1, 1992, the GMPC shall adopt Economic Development policies which: a. Establish the county's role in the regional economy; b. Maintain a strong economic base within King County; c. Encourage diversification of-the economy; d. Maintain an adequate supply of land to support future economic development; e. Identify geographic areas to target public resources promoting economic development; f. Foster job training opportunities to maintain a highly educated work force; g. Protect the natural environment as a key economic value in this region; h. Consider the special needs of economically disadvantaged citizens and neighborhoods; and Include the assistance of private sector. ED-2 By July 1, 1993 regional planning shall produce a regional industrial siting policy based on a regional assessment of the need for industrial zoned land and the availability of transportation and other infrastructure to serve it. ED-3 Jurisdictions' comprehensive plans shall include economic development policies. These policies shall address the local economic concerns of each jurisdiction within the context of a regional economic development strategy. • GMA:pol Page 45 06/10/1992 errL 1411100 ED-4 Each jurisdiction's comprehensive plan shall include an economic development which will include an estimate of the type and number of jobs to be accommodated jurisdiction during the next 20 element Years. in the ED-5 The county shall work with Snohomish and Pierce Counties to develop a joint 20-year regional economic development strategy. B. Finance A fiscal analysis is required by the GMA. This section of references to financial matters found in earlier chapters (see Chapter II, "Rural and Manufacturing/lndustrie/ Centers policies is intended to briny together Sections B and D/ and to pr°vide d�ction for the fiscalan analysis of the anticipated results of implementing the coup wide planning p � p g policies. FIN-32 To implement the Countywide Planning Policies, regional funding sources and establish regional financing strategies shal cooperatively y July11 identify strategies shall consider the infrastructure and service needs of Urban Centers, g by July 1, 1993. Such Manufacturing/Industrial Centers, Activity Areas, Business/Office Parks, other activity concentrations, and rural areas. Such strategies shall also provide incentives to support the Countywide Planning Policies and should: a. Make existing and newly identified funding sources respond in the most flexible way to meet countywide needs; others b. Ensure that a balance of services is available countywide to meet, among human service, public safety, open space and recreation, education, and , transportation needs; and C. Evaluate current revenue and service demands and the potential for more effective coordination of service delivery. • GMA:pol Page 46 06/10/1992 Appendix I TRANSPORTATION: Requirements of the Growth Manag gement ement Countywide Policies (ReESHB 1025, Section 2) Countywide planning policies must be adopted by July 1, 1992 to provide a framework from which consistent county and city comprehensive plans will be developed. Policies for transportation must address: 1. Policies for promotion of contiguous and orderly development and provision of urban services to such development 132.2 (3) (bll; 2. Policies for siting public capital facilities of a countywide or state-wide nature132.2 (3) (cli; 3. Policies for countywide transportation facilities and strategies 132.2 (3) (di]; 4. Policies for joint county and city planning within growth areas 132.2 (31,(f)]; 5. An analysis of the fiscal impact.132.2 (31 (hll. Comprehensive Plans (RCW 36.70A.070) The transportation element of comprehensive plans adopted by the county or cities will be measured against the policies and standards approved and ratified as part of the countywide framework plan. By July 1, 1993 the county and cities are required to adopt a comprehensive plan with a mandatory transportation element that includes the following sub-elements: 1. Land use assumptions used in estimating travel demand; 2. Facility and service needs for attaining and sustaining level-of-service standards for arterials end transit routes; 3. Six-year financing plan based upon the needs of the comprehensive p/an; reassess land use element if level-of-service standards cannot be met with funding resources; this plan will be updated and adopted annually; 4. Intergovernmental coordination with adjacent jurisdictions; 5. Transportation Demand Management strategies. Within one year of adopting a comprehensive plan, the county and cities are required to meet: 1. Adequacy Requirements: Adopt an ordinance which prohibits development approval if the development causes the level-of-service to decline below the standard adopted in the transportation element. 2. Concurrency Requirements: Deny development unless improvements or strategies to accommodate the impacts of development can be in place at the time of development or a financial commitment is in p/ace to complete the improvements or strategies within six years. Other Laws and Regulations Federal law requires an on-going cooperative, continuous and comprehensive transportation planning process as a condition of federal transportation grants. To comply with this requirement, GMA:pol Page 47 06/10/1992 the designated Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) is responsible for long-range transportation planning and short-range transportation improvement programming (TIP). The MPO planning and programming responsibilities are strengthened and enhanced under the recent re-authorization of the Federal Surface Transportation Act. The Inter-modal Surface Transportation Efficiency l eliminates several categorical programs and creates a new flexibleSurface Transportation Program (STP) and a new Congesion Mitigation may be used for Program. Funds available to the region under these two highway programs multi-modal solutions; and the MPO has project selection authority for these programs, as well as the federal transit program funds for the region. In addition, Washington State Department and of Transportation's (WSDOT) project selections under the Interstate Maintenance, National Highway System (NHS) programs tbde in ration with the MPO and in conformance with the regional TransportationImprovement Program requires stantial of The Federal Clean Air Act Amendment (CAAA)and Regional al Counc l'sbtransporta�ont/plans and emissions from the transportation sector. ThePugete projects must conform to Transportation Control Measures contained in�t eecStatetImplemenrrattyation Plan (SIP) prepared by the Puget Sound Air Pollution Control Agency. for meeting CAAA vehicle emissions requirements include: o expanded inspection• end maintenance program, and o a regional implementation of the Commute Trip Reduction Law cited below. uctions in vehicle miles traveled. The State Commute Trip Reduction La areof dirl991 requires ecsed to reducedwork travel demand by 35 percent by Employers of 100 or more employees 1999. Ordinances adopted by thecounty'a °np/ayers; ands t be they must coordinated with with agencies,ommute regional planning organizations and1 trip reduction plans of neighboring jurisdictions. State law provides for the development of a High Capacity Transit (HCT) system within the P rget Sound Area. The law requires that transit agencies (Metro, Pierce Transit, Snotran, Transitny oitgoal Policyoli Transit)Cm jointly As fthe med and charged with the responsibility of recommending e Joint Regional Committee was a system plan and financial program that would implement the HCT system. vision. his ll plan for is b eingon of developed in support of the Vision 2020 Regional Growth Strategies, a regional system of central places linked by High Capacity Transit facilities, and an interconnected system of freeway High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) lanes. The 1990 State Legislature passed various legislation granting goo projectsl and governments authority t establish a number of taxing programs for funding transportation grams. An interim and informal group called the Local Options Strategy Development Steering Committee was formed to recommend how these fundingith ompaehensiveies �recommendation as to ho initial w eachwork funding completed in September of 1991 source should be assigned. As local jurisdictions oea simf la, grouphfor coordinating Bra sportationl d be useful to re-convene this Steering Committee funding decisions. GMA:poi Page 48 06/10/1992 SAmw 1, 1992 yrritntroduced by: Sullivan/Laing 92-439s8:MMcF/JC:hdm Gruger/Phillips Derdowski Proposed No. : 92-439 1 1 0 Z1L 5 0 2 ORDINANCE NO. 3 AN ORDINANCE adopting the Countywide 4 Planning Policies pursuant to RCW 5 36.70A.210 and ratifying the Countywide 6 Planning Policies for unincorporated King 7 County. 8 PREAMBLE: 9 For the purpose of meeting the requirements of the State 10 of Washington Growth Management Act to establish a countywide 11 framework from which comprehensive plans are to be developed as lZ specified in RCW 36.7OA.210, the King County Council makes the 13 following findings: 14 1. The Countywide Planning Policies describe the vision 15 for King County and provide the initial strategies to be used 16 by local jurisdictions, acting individually and cooperatively, 17 to achieve that vision. 18 2. RCW 36.70A.210 requires that, through a process agreed 19 to by King County (county) , the City of Seattle (Seattle) , and 20 incorporated suburban cities and towns (suburban cities) , the 21 county, as the legislative authority, adopt Countywide Planning 22 Policies no later than July 1, 1992. 23 3 . The county, Seattle, and suburban cities established 24 that process through an interlocal agreement creating the 25 Growth Management Planning Council (GMPC) . The GMPC is 26 comprised of the King County Executive, five members of the 27 King County Council, three representatives of Seattle, and six 28 representatives of the suburban cities with three votes, and 29 one ex-officio member representing the Port of Seattle. 30 4. After six months of deliberation which included public 31 workshops and hearings, the GMPC. adopted and recommended the 32 Countywide Planning Policies to the King County Council. 33 5. The council finds that the existing environmental 34 documents adopted by King County on May 5, 1992 and the 35 supporting addendum issued on June 18 , 1992 are adequate under 36 SEPA for the purposes of the county's adoption of the 37 Countywide Planning Policies. 38 6. The county recognizes that additional work is planned 39 to further refine the Countywide Planning Policies with regard 40 to numerous issues, including but not limited to urban centers, 41 manufacturing and industrial areas and centers, affordable 42 housing, mobility, transportation, economic development, rural 43 character, provision of urban services, including services in 44 potential annexation areas, and adjustments to the Urban Growth 45 Area. Based on this work, the GMPC will recommend to the 46 county amendments to the Countywide Planning Policies. These 47 amendments would be subject to further environmental review, 48 and adoption by the county and ratification by the cities. The 49 results of this work would be a refined set of Countywide 50 Planning Policies. A Supplemental Environmental Impact 51 Statement (SEIS) will analyze the impacts of the proposed set 52 of refined policies and will consider reasonable alternatives 92-439se:MMc►:hdn July 6, 1992 10:02am 1 1 to those policies. Attachment A lays out the work program an.: 2 timet ' e for refining the policies. r r1/� 3 7 . With respect to the Urban Growth Area (UGA) Boundary a 4 number of study areas have been identified which require ' 5 additional consideration by the GMPC. These study areas are 6 identified on the GMPC Recommended Urban Growth Area map. For 7 the East Sammamish area, the GMPC determined that the area 8 I should be further evaluated and possibly revised based on the 9 East Sammamish Community Plan Update process which is now under 10 way and which will be completed in January 1993 . 11 Recommendations on the UGA Boundary will be developed in 12 cooperation with the affected cities , neighborhoods, property 13 owners and the general public. Changes to the adopted UGA 14 Boundary may be recommended to the county by the GMPC and 15 subject to adoption and ratification. 16 8. The Countywide Planning Policies apply within King 17 County only and therefore only apply to unincorporated King 18 County and to that portion of a city or town located within the 19 county. 20 9. The Countywide Planning Policies provide for the 21 coordination and regulation of public and private development 22 and bear a substantial relationship to, and are necessary for, 23 the public health, safety, and general welfare of King County 24 and its residents. 25 BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF KING COUNTY: 26 SECTION 1. The county will implement the major planning 27 requirements of the Growth Management Act (GMA) in three 28 phases, each accompanied by the appropriate scope and level of 29 environmental review pursuant to both the GMA and the State 30 Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) and fiscal review. Phase I is • 31 the adoption of the Countywide Planning Policies for the 32 purposes described in Section 2. Phase II is the process for 33 refinement of Countywide Planning Policies through proposed 34 amendments to them, and the preparation of an SEIS and a fiscal 35 analysis. Phase II, which will begin upon adoption of the 36 Countywide Planning Policies, is described in Section 3 . Phase 37 III is the review and adoption of amendments to the King County 38 Comprehensive Plan. Phase III will incorporate any changes 39 made to the Countywide Planning Policies in Phase II. 40 SECTION 2 . The Countywide Planning Policies attached 41 hereto are hereby approved and adopted for purposes of 42 complying with RCW 36.70A.210; to begin the process of city 43 review and ratification; to provide a policy framework for 44 developing and updating jurisdictions' comprehensive plans; to 92-439s8:MMCF:hdn July 6, 1992 10:02em 2 • 1 ' pr' '.de a policy framework for in• -im controls to the extent 'r✓ 2 the policies expressly require them; and to establish a program 3 for the additional work necessary to refine, amend and 4 implement the Countywide Planning Policies, including SEIS 5 review and fiscal analysis. 6 ,SECTION 3 . In Phase II the county will reconvene the 7 GMPC no later than December 1992 to evaluate the following 8 information and recommendations: nominations of urban and 9 manufacturing/industrial centers by affected jurisdictions; the 10 target numbers for population and employment by jurisdiction; 11 recommendations from the Rural Character, Affordable Housing 12 and Economic Development Task Forces; further fiscal analysis; 13 analysis of mobility and transportation; other relevant 14 information and public comment, in preparing amendments. GMPC 15 will consider the results of the additional work and may 16 recommend amendments to the Countywide Planning Policies to the 17 county. Any such recommended amendments shall be subject to 18 adoption by the county and ratification by the cities according 19 to the formula in the interlocal agreement creating the GMPC. 20 Further fiscal analysis of the Countywide Planning Policies, 21 any proposed amendments and alternatives will be prepared and 22 circulated for public comment. The objectives of the fiscal 23 analysis are to a) provide information on the anticipated 24 financial and economic impacts on the individual, and on the 25 private and public sectors, and b) determine how these impacts 26 affect the fiscal viability of the individual and of the 27 private and public sectors. A SEIS will be prepared for the 28 proposed refined set of Countywide Planning Policies resulting 29 from the work described in this Section. The SEIS will analyze 30 the probable significant environmental impacts, including 31 countywide impacts, of the proposed refined set of policies and 32 reasonable alternatives to those policies. The scope of the 33 environmental impact statement will be based on a public 34 scoping process pursuant to WAC 197-11-408. 92 439s9:MMCF:hdn July 6, 1992 10:02am 3 1 cr^"T^V 4 . Countywide Planning Policies adopted by this 2 ordinance for the purposes specified herein are hereby ratified 3 on behalf of the population of unincorporated King County. 4 SECTION 5. The Countywide Planning Policies shall become effective when ratified by ordinance or resolution by at least 6 thirty percent of the city and county governments representing 7 seventy percent of the population of King County according to 8 the interlocal agreement. A city shall be deemed to have 9 ratified the Countywide Planning Policies unless, within ninety 10 days of adoption by King County, the city by legislative action 11 disapproves the Countywide Planning Policies. 12 ,SECTION 6. The county executive shall commence 13 preparation of the Phase II SEIS and fiscal analysis, and the 14 county comprehensive plan amendments and regulations to 15 implement the countywide policies, subject to completion of the 16 ratification process set out in Section 5. The Countywide 17 Planning Policies will affect the county's land use decisions 18 when the county comprehensive plan or land use regulations 19 implementing the policies are adopted. 20 SECTION 7 . The county executive shall develop and 21 propose to the council a process to enter 'into interlocal 22 agreements relating to each city's potential annexation area. 23 The process shall include consultation with affected special 24 purpose districts. 92-.39s8:MMcf:hdn July 6, 1992 10:02bm L \./ i 1 44wie 5E7.:1ON 8 . Should any se on, subsection, paragraph, 2 sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance or its application 3 to any person or circumstance be declared unconstitutional or 4 invalid for any reason, such decision shall not affect the 5 validity of the remaining portion of this ordinance or it 6 application to other persons or circumstances. 7 INTRODUCED AND READ for the first time this • day 8 of 1994 9 PASSED this day of fs , 192Z— 10 KING COUNTY COUNCIL 11 KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON 12 gits, 13 Chair 14 ATTEST: 15 16 Clerk of the Council 'zin17 APPROVED this C day of "� `-' l7 , 19�. 18 19 King County Executive 20 92-439s8:MMcF:hch July 6, 1992 10:02em i V 1 c.,, ATTACHMENT %cork Profram to Refine Counr.vride Planninz Policies The completion dates are points at which the G"IPC is expected to review and consider amendments to the Countywide Planning Policies. Jurisdictions have additional tasks to complete or re.ise local comprehensive plans. PUBLIC REVIEW WILL CONTINUE AS MATERIALS ARE PREPARED AND RECOMMENDATIONS FROM JURISDICTIONS ARE DEVELOPED. Tack • GNIPC Completion Date 1. Scoping of additional issues requiring supplemental September 1992 environmental review. 2. Urban Growth Boundary interim actions by cities and County. One month after ratification Technical review of study areas. October 1992 3. Centers and Capacity Urban and Manufacturing/Industrial • Centers nomination & confirmation (LU-28 & 39) December 1992 Dwelling units accommodated/distributed; employment growth distributed (LU-52 & LU-53) December 1992 4. Affordable Housing: needs and distribution (All-1) December 1992 (includes recommendations from Task Force of GMPC private sector) 5. Economic Development Policies December 1992 (includes recommendations from Task Force of GMPC private sector) 6. Rural Areas Rural character (LU-9) December 1992 (includes recommendations from GMPC Task Force) • Cities in rural areas growth areas (LU-26) January 1993 jbc:mmc ccpwk:62592 • 92-43918:MMO:ht*n July 6, 1992 10:02am NOTICE RENTON CITY COUNCIL PUBLIC HEARING ON AUGUST 10, 1992 AT 7:30 P. M. RENTON MUNICIPAL BUILDING COUNCIL CHAMBERS 200 MILL AVENUE SOUTH COUNTY-WIDE PLANNING POLICIES ALL INTERESTED PARTIES ARE INVITED TO ATTEND AND PRESENT WRITTEN AND/OR ORAL riryft IETIrTMTC Pnu ATITITTTnNAI_. CERTIFICATION STATE OF WASHINGTON)ss. COUNTY OF KING ) I (,(191(q HEREBY CERTIFY THAT Z-cCOPIES OF THE ABOVE NOTICE WERE POSTED BY AE IN TH EE OR MORE CONSPICUOUS PLACES ON THE PROPERTY DESCRIBED AND TWO COPIES WERE POSTED AT THE RENTON MUNICIPAL BUILDING, 200 MILL AVENUE S. , RENTON, WA ON DATE OF 7-31) — g1,2 SUBSCRIBED AND S1V i.14 TO BE RE I (4.,,ct4 cloy Lf , 19 _ S I GN E D Notary obi— a d for State of Was residing at �' *gry PUBLIC HEARING August 10, 1992 Notice of Public Hearing concerning County-wide Planning Policies. Locations of postings done on 7-30 , 1992. 1. K.(r(mac( i - ivE 1k 2. VN►ou NcLfik. 3. /'fOO t/ hron NC 4. ( 365-z 5•E- I7017'- ( . 5. t 2.-0 6. A/E 16 t\ .4-- ( t(ol 7. ivt- (6 8. I (6g ,v_ 116 9. I,✓A QLVO• .) 6 10. 6-0 0/err-AV fi- M,3d 11. Pi're4. A-v-,N A-- N - C51- 4\- 12. jolq (S-C- 13. fm Let i / A A- NW 14. Lam 5/1-o n /I✓ ,SZv(1-- 091-6 e 41f 15. 5(Iit-'(Tv Ay 5 cv- 5- 7 - 16. S h i n 4-V 5 d 5 7 - 17. 117 5_ 18. S_ 22.1 4 •�a- im....0rue 19. 1, -d,6 1-(z o- 17 .7 20. boob 21. r%Vvi ) s-- 2s- ( � 22. &iZ/),-v'- A/ S• S- (� ` 23. - 3 / tJut int .5, 24. 3-oao S C 5 fi` 25. 5 6 to ?''' �- / l ew o S 6. 26. 5 , 27 ?'' f L a-- '1',�z6vf (C)0 CITY OF RENTON NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING RENTON CITY COUNCIL NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Renton City Council will hold a public hearing on August 10, 1992, at 7:30 p.m. to consider the County-wide Planning Policies. The public hearing will be held in the second floor Council Chambers of the Renton Municipal Building, 200 Mill Avenue S., Renton WA 98055. All interested parties are invited to attend and present written and/or oral comments. For additional information, please call 235-2502. Marilyn J. et en City Clerk Date of Publication: July 31, 1992 Valley Daily News Acct No. 50640 July 20, 1992 Renton City Council Minutes Page 317 accordingly. MOVED BY EDWARDS, SECONDED BY TANNER, COUNCIL CONCUR IN THE FIRE DEPARTMENTS REQUEST. CARRIED. CORRESPONDENCE Correspondence was read from Cynthia Sullivan, Chair, King County Growth Management: Growth Management Planning Council, reporting that County-wide County-wide Planning Planning Policies have been adopted by the King County Council, and Policies requesting that cities ratify and implement the policies. MOVED BY KEOLKER-WHEELER, SECONDED BY EDWARDS, COUNCIL REFER THIS MATTER TO THE COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE. CARRIED. Citizen Comment: Councilman Tanner entered correspondence from George Post, 1122 S. Post - Property 27th Place Renton, 98055, alleging that a portion of his property was Damage, Benson Road transferred to the City by the Victoria Hills Homeowner's Association Widening, Victoria without proper authorization. Mr. Tanner requested that the Hills Administration provide him with information on the acquisition of the property in order to respond to Mr. Post's inquiry. Mayor Clymer indicated that the matter is being reviewed and a response will be provided. Parks: Tapestry Council President Keolker-Wheeler referenced a letter from the Cleaning, Senior Municipal Arts Commission requesting $300 for the cleaning of the Center tapestry weaving at the Renton Senior Activity Center. MOVED BY KEOLKER-WHEELER, SECONDED BY NELSON, COUNCIL REFER THIS CORRESPONDENCE TO THE COMMUNITY SERVICES COMMITTEE. CARRIED. Commendation: Council President Keolker-Wheeler entered a letter from the Glacier Park Glacier Park Company expressed appreciation for the extraordinary effort of City staff Company in accomplishing the completion of the wetland mitigation bank agreement and the City's acquisition of wetlands property from the Glacier Park Company. Public Works: M&H Councilman Edwards enter a letter from the Brian Nelson, Sales 929 Fire Hydrant Department, H.D. Fowler Company, 13440 SE 30th St., Bellevue, 98009, noting that the M&H 929 fire hydrant installed during Sunset Roadway intersection and water main improvements in 1987 (CAG-074-87) has performed satisfactorily; and proposing that the City revise its regulations to allow use of the M&H 929 fire hydrant as an alternate source. MOVED BY EDWARDS, SECONDED BY STREDICKE, COUNCIL REFER THIS CORRESPONDENCE TO THE ADMINISTRATION Legal: Land Use MOVED BY EDWARDS, SECONDED BY MATHEWS, COUNCIL Taking Issue REFER THE LAND USE TAKING ISSUE TO THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE. CARRIED. OLD BUSINESS Referred 7/6/92 - Utilities Committee Chairman Tanner presented a Utilities Committee report recommending concurrence in the Administration's CAG: 91-073, recommendation to authorize the two-year extension of annual consultant Hydraulics/Hydrology contract CAG-073-91 with Northwest Hydraulic Consultants, Inc. for Services, Hydraulic hydraulic/hydrology engineering services; and authorize the Mayor and Consultants, Inc. City Clerk to execute the extension letter of agreement. MOVED BY TANNER, SECONDED BY EDWARDS, COUNCIL ADOPT THE COMMITTEE REPORT AS SUBMITTED. CARRIED. '11 July 20. 1992 nenton City Council Minutes Pa2e 321 NEW BUSINESS Correspondence was entered from Pat Strosahl, Vision Seattle; J. Terry Growth Management: Lewis, The Boeing Company; Kimberly T. Ellwanger, Microsoft County-wide Planning Corporation; and Victor L. Ericson, Economic Development Council of Policies Seattle & King County, The Coalition for a Sound Economy, 2510 Columbia Seafirst Center, 700 5th Ave., Seattle, 98104, regarding the proposed County-wide Planning Policies ratified by the King County Council. The letter urged that the City limit its ratification of the policies to provide a policy framework for developing and updating the comprehensive plan and interim controls and establish a program for refining, amending, and implementing the policies, including SEIS review and fiscal analysis. MOVED BY EDWARDS, SECONDED BY MATHEWS, COUNCIL REFER THIS CORRESPONDENCE TO THE COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE. CARRIED. Growth Management: Council President Keolker-Wheeler entered a letter from the Master County-wide Planning Builders Association of King & Snohomish Counties, 2155-1I2th Ave. Policies NE, Suite 100, Bellevue, 98004, urging that the Council study the County-wide Planning Policies carefully during the ratification process. MOVED BY KEOLKER-WHEELER, SECONDED BY TANNER, COUNCIL REFER THIS CORRESPONDENCE TO THE COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE. CARRIED. Building: Sign in Councilman Stredicke requested that the Star Properties sign at Sunset and Public Right-of-Way Edmonds be removed from the public right-of-way. Growth Management: Councilman Stredicke expressed concern that citizens were not aware of Comprehensive Plan the 7/27/92 public meeting regarding the Comprehensive Plan. He Land Use Element suggested that the Comprehensive Plan proposal be reviewed page by page so that the single-family residential areas and changing areas along Kirkland and Lynnwood are carefully reviewed to preclude multi-family zoning in established single-family neighborhoods. Council President Keolker-Wheeler said that next week's public meeting was announced in the notice sent to citizens for this evening's public hearing. She also noted that zoning designations will be addressed later in the Comprehensive Plan process, and that general Comprehensive Plan policies will be the topic considered at the 7/27/92 meeting. ADMINISTRATIVE Referred 6/9/92 - Letter from Ms. Marian Shultz, 7634 South Sunnycrest REPORT Road, Seattle, 98178, regarding possible downzoning in North Renton and Citizen Comment: Schultz how such zoning would affect properties owned by her at 321 & 323 - Zoning in North Meadow Avenue North, 534 and 536 Williams Avenue North, 540 Renton Williams Ave. N., 534 Burnett Ave. N. and 541 Pelly Ave. N. Letter from Mayor Clymer clarified that the City is in the process of reviewing and updating its Comprehensive Plan as required by the Growth Management Act. The Planning Commission has made a recommendation to the City Council on preliminary land use which will be considered during July and reviewed in the autumn of 1992. The Council intends to adopt an Interim Land Use Map and Areawide Zoning in 12/92. Mayor Clymer encouraged Ms. Schultz to attend the public hearing on this issue on 7/20/92. IRECEIVFD King County Council JUL 9 1992 July 8 , 1992 Cynthia Sullivan,District Two Kathy Koelker-Wheeler, President REiViu►v Y I;UUNCIL Renton City Council 200 Mill Avenue S. Renton, WA 98055 RE: Countywide Planning Policies for King County - Ratification by Cities Dear President Koelker-Wheeler: On July 6 the King County Council adopted, and the County Executive signed, Ordinance 10450, relating to the Countywide Planning Policies required by the State Growth Management Act. Ordinances are effective ten days after signature. On July 16 the Countywide Planning Policies will therefore be formally adopted and the cities can take action to ratify the Policies. The members of the Growth Management Planning Council (GMPC) and of the King County Council appreciate having taken this first step. We also know how much is yet to be done. Your support, first by ratification of the policies, and then with the implementation of the Countywide Planning Policies through many local decisions and actions, is critical. Therefore, we want to offer as much assistance as you need during your consideration of the Policies. I am aware that city staffs who participated in the development of the Policies are providing information about the Policies, and that for suburban cities GMPC members are presenting information at Suburban City Association meetings. County Councilmembers and County staff would be happy to complement this effort, either in preparation for your meetings or at the meetings themselves. Finally, because the effective date of the Policies is an important one, I have asked Judy Chapman, County Council staff, to carefully track the ratification process. She will contact you, or you may call her (296-1671) regarding your schedule for consideration of the Policies. Since ly, Cyn hia Sullivan, Chair Growth Management Planning Council Enclosure: Ordinance 10450 402 KingCountyCourthouse Seattle,Washington 98104 �� 9 (206)296-1002 �� Printed on Recycled Paper wn P C_ Master Builders Association of King and Snohomish Counties 19` 2155 - 112th Avenue N.E., Suite 100 • Bellevue, Washington 98004 • (206) 451-7920 Master Builders Association is affiliated with the National Association of Home Builders Ci`d i Y July 17, 1992 Dear Elected Official: On July 6, 1992, the King County Council adopted Ordinance No. 10450 which adopts the Countywide Planning Policies and, by reference as well, an urban/rural boundary line for limiting growth in King County. A public hearing before the Council was held on June 22, 1992, prior to adoption. A brief summary of some the expert testimony is enclosed forf your reference,, Your city will soon be entering the ratification phase of these policies pursuant to the requirements of the Growth Management Act. As you are aware, it takes 30 percent of the cities representing 70 percent of the population in King County to ratify the policies. By the King County Council's action on July 6, they have already voted to ratify. The Master Builders Association, on behalf of the thousands of businesses and blue-collar workers involved in the construction trades in our area, urges you to give this ratification process a high level of study. Become familiar with the Countywide Planning Policies and how they will affect your constituents, your business, and where your children will one day live and work. We believe that with this level understanding, you will agree with our organization and others such as the Boeing Company, Microsoft, Vision Seattle, and the Economic Development Council of Seattle and King County, and not ratify these policies unconditionally. Should you elect to ratify these policies, we ask that you condition the ratification for certain specific purposes (see Section 2, Ordinance No. 10450) among which is "to establish a program for additional work necessary to refine, amend, and implement the Countywide Planning Policies, including SEIS review and fiscal analysis." In further sections of the Ordinance, it states a series of steps to be completed before the Policies are finalized. These are very important and were insisted upon by many who testified at the June 22 hearing. Our objective in this process of growth management should be to ensure a realistic and balanced plan at both the county and city levels. Quality of life begins with a job. Growth management planning should foster economic activity in our Puget Sound region. Since , s ames S. Williams xecutive Director JW:bcj Enclosure July 17, 1992 KING COUNTY COUNTYWIDE PLANNING POLICIES SUMMARY OF PUBLIC TESTIMONY THE PROCESS: A violation of the explicit provisions in the GMA and SEPA A substantial amount of the testimony at the public hearing held before the King County Council on June 22, 1992 was aimed at the process. The public attacked not only the rapid adoption process but the many months of closed drafting and negotiations amongst governments and agencies bargaining for power and privilege. The first draft of the Countywide Planning Policies (CPP) was a product of government without participation from any private sector party. The public's support of the Growth Management Act (GMA) up to the time the CPP were first available was based on the assumption that governments would do comprehensive planning driven by real facts, fair analysis of alternatives, and include a broad public participation leading to creative, practical solutions. Testimony at the June 22 hearing claimed the opposite had occurred as previously adopted documents including Vision 2020, not the CPP, were the basis for all impact analysis. As Pat Strosahl, citizen and neighborhood activist from the City of Seattle, stated in his testimony, "...GMA states unequivocally that all planning efforts will be characterized by early and continuous public participation in the planning processes. And the State SEPA policies require early scoping, preparation and analysis of alternatives. Those requirements are not there randomly; they are intended to force a full and fair analysis and public evaluation of all alternatives prior to making a decision." HOUSING: The Affordability factor, death-knell of the single-family home, concern for our children, and elimination of choice The hearing on the 22nd in front of the King County Council had many people asking, "What do these policies mean to the cost of land...to the cost of housing as envisioned?" The testimony highlighted the obvious, "...if growth is concentrated in very high densities in urban settings...and rural areas are established at very low densities, what about those people who still want a single-family home? What if my children want a single-family home? Will they be living with me? The testimony took exception with the tight rural/urban line drawn between the "haves and the have-nots" --- those achieving higher density opportunity and those to be downzoned. Master Builders President Colin Quinn's testimony presented the problem very well and went further to imply direct conflict with yet another of the GMA's major goal --- preservation of existing housing stock: "Within the proposed urban/rural boundary line, because of the extensive downzone anticipated in the new rural area, housing and employment growth needs over the next three decades will far exceed vacant land zoning capacity. That is certain. More redevelopment will be necessary, in addition to upzoning on remaining urban land. Vision 2020 does not address land price escalation, cost of housing and other types of de- velopment, as well as what the fiscal impact will be in the rural lands." Further "...much of the backup information prepared by County staff in determining the urban boundary line is based on a significant amount of redevelopment of existing housing stock to accommodate higher densities in urban centers. The preser- vation of existing housing stock is a major goal of the GMA, but King County seems to encourage tearing down perhaps the most affordable stock to build more expensive stock." fir►' The response from the public throughout the day was direct in that there was no comfort level in assumptions of adequate land supply and that there had been no fiscal analysis of the policies. It was even stated that a fiscal analysis was started by an independent consultant only to be discontinued. THE PREFFERED ALTERNATIVE: Rethinking Vision 2020 An extensive article was written to the King County Council and the Growth Management Planning Council (GMPC), the authors of the policies, that also could be read if one subscribed to either the SEATTLE WEEKLY or the EASTSIDE WEEKLY. Richard Morrill, Ph.D., a professor of geography at the University of Washington and Chair of the Interdisciplinary Group on Growth and its Management prepared Rethinking Vision 2020. Dr. Morrill's paper systematically described why the policies and the urban/rural line as proposed will not work and, as a student of world cities and urban planning, referred to it as "...a simple, crude cordonlike approach..."that has not worked any place, not even in China or the Soviet Union." Further, he stated, "...rather than risk the economic disruption and social discontent from a futile attempt to stop the wave of urbanization, we should explore more creative ways of accommodating this growth, while preserving what has made our area so liveable --- that it is not dense and crowded." Dr. Morrill cited Portland as an example of where urban growth boundaries worked well. Portland drew their boundaries so far out that it has not constrained land until just recently. He goes further to speak about choice and lifestyle: "The entire set of policies and plans to implement VISION 2020 are, I am convinced, unwise and unacceptable to the public. These policies are designed to compel people to live in a far denser city, where housing is more expensive and/or of lower quality than they have been accustomed to." RURAL ISSUES: Haves and Have-nots There were many more questions than there were answers to property owners at the hearing on the June 22. Would they be upzoned? Downzoned? What would their zoning be? Why weren't they notified? There was confusion. Roger K. Wagoner, a certified planner and registered architect with over 25 years of experience in assisting local governments and agencies in community development, echoed the sentiment by illustrating the fact that the Countywide Planning Policies are unclear about how they will be used as a framework for the development of a "rural element". One of the policies calls for a "Rural Subcommittee" of the GMPC to be set up to do the planning in the unincorporated area. Unfortunately, this group will not include proper representation of rural residents, service providers, or rural cities. Clustering appears to be a major strategy in the effort. However, King County and jurisdictions as well as rural residents have not been receptive to implementation of the rural clustering concept. Stakeholders in the rural community need fair access to the planning process as it is developed. Wagoner completed saying, "The Rural Subcommittee seems to be a positive approach, but it is important that rural residents, property owners and officials be able to participate here. LAND CAPACITY: The Cornerstone Michael Spence, an attorney and Director of Governmental Affairs for the Seattle-King County Association of Realtors, provided credible testimony regarding the land capacity assumptions that the GMPC based its Plan on. -2- New "The Washington Department of Community Development (DCD), which the GMA empowers to advise local governments, has prepared a guide for conducting Land Use Inventories...it's obvious that the GMPC ignored, or at best only partially complied, with these guidelines..." Mr. Spence listed several of the problems he saw which included: * The analysis does not accurately measure constrained land * The analysis did not measure landowners preferences or market realities * The analysis does not consider a landowners ability to build to maximum densities * The capacity did not include subtraction of land likely to be held out from development by owners,and; * The capacity did not include a market factor to ensure availability and choice to homebuyers Spence further indicated that the GMPC did not study what incremental costs would appear as the policies would force mid- to high-rise multifamily housing to become the housing choice of the future. He also mentioned that increased densities would also increase housing costs as infrastructure costs of retrofitting existing, soon-to-be-inadequate facilities had to be built. An excellent example here was explained as a South King County Water District recently spent almost $750,000 to remove an existing deficient water main and replace it with a larger one under a section of street. The district first had to cut across the road, remove the old pipe, dig a larger trench, replace the pipe, and cover the trench. In this case, to simply patch the trench was not enough --- the district was required to replace a large section of the road as well. Testimony from other professional sources at the hearing went further to dispel misconceptions that infrastructure costs were cheaper in higher density, urbanizing areas than in lower density areas characteristic of dispersed growth. In fact, significant long-term infrastructure limitations currently characterize major portions of the urban area. This also was not analyzed in the EIS's for either Vision 2020 or Comp. Plan '85. Further, a March 1990 report on Public Service Costs did not find any correlation between higher density and lower public service costs. Comments were provided at the hearing on the policy which limits business and office park development to existing zoning. It was stated that this policy was not based on actual knowledge of the supply of land or of the land needs of the various types of jobs forecast for King County. Plans and surveys over the past five years have recognized a shortage of industrial land and business/office park land: * Eastside Industrial Land Survey (1988)- 1/3 of supply poor quality or constrained; inadequate to meet year 2000 employment forecast * King County Economic Development Plan- zone more for business park * Kent Valley Industrial Survey (June 1992)- of total 2293 zoned acres in Kent, Auburn, Renton, and Tukwila, 60% of supply constrained by wetlands. TRANSPORTATION PLANNING: The Driving Force Testimony from professional traffic engineers in the private sector was also given at the hearing before the County Council. A summary of the technical comments speculated that if the GMA goals are adopted by the GMPC for this region, it is likely that all development in this region can be halted before the year 2000 by local road adequacy -3- Noe standards. Even Vision 2020 (which includes 400 miles of additional transit/HOV lanes plus a 160-mile rail transit system) predicts 400% worse congestion by 2020 than experienced in 1990 on our highway system. Unless our mobility standards are drastically revised between 1990 and 2020, there is no way that our GMA land use densification goals can be accommodated by the GMPC strategies. ALTERNATIVES: Alternatives presented in documents used for SEPA review vastly differ from Countywide Planning Policies The presumption by the Growth Management Planning Council (GMPC) is that the Vision 2020 EIS was adequate to cover the Countywide Planning Policies. Testimony at the June 22 hearing vehemently disputed this and also was the basis for two separate SEPA appeals filed. The testimony found many discrepancies and omissions when the CPP were compared to the Vision 2020 preferred alternative. It was also very clear that the depth of analysis possible under the broader alternatives in Vision 2020 was insufficient when compared to the much more specific targets and directives envisioned by the CPP. By using previously adopted documents as the mechanism to comply with SEPA, the general public was infuriated that an analysis of the impacts of the countywide planning policies itself was not done. • -4- THE COALITION FOR A SOON Novi 2510 Columbia Seafirst Center 701 FihhAvenue • Samba Washington 98104 Q Telephone 206/386.5040 Fax386--7821 July 14, 1992 JUL 2 0 1992 Earl Clymer • Mayor City of Renton 200 Mill Ave. South Renton, WA 98055 Re: Proposed Countywide Planning Policies Dear Mayor Clymer and Council Members: You will soon be considering ratification of the proposed Countywide Planning Policies. Should you elect to ratify the policies, we urge you to limit your ratification, as has the County Council, to the purpose set forth in the County's adopting ordinance. We ask you to incorporate the enclosed language in your ratification action (see attachment). The EDC and a significant number of citizens and corporate representatives expressed serious concern at the County Council's public hearing regarding the lack of an adequate public process associated with the development of the Countywide policies. The need to consider much more detailed environmental and fiscal impact information prior to final ratification, is to us, beyond dispute. In its action on the policies, the Council acknowledged these concerns. For your reference, we have enclosed a copy of the Council's adopting ordinance. In Section 2 of the County ordinance, the County Council adopted the Countywide • Planning Policies for certain specific purposes, among which is "to establish a program for additional work necessary to refine, amend, and implement the Countywide Planning Policies, including SEIS review and fiscal analysis." In Section 3, the County Council established the sequence of activities to be completed before final confirmation of the policies. Specifically, regarding the SEIS, the Council specified that countywide impacts of the policies need to be assessed as well as reasonable alternatives to the policies. Countywide Planning Policies, for all practical purposes, are the single most significant planning action to be taken in King County under the Growth Management Act. The policies will play an important role in planning for many years to come, as they are the governing framework for all planning by government The Economic Development Council of Seattle 6 King County • } July 14, 1992 Now Noe Page 2 agencies in the County. The GMA requires that Countywide Planning Policies be used as the standard for achieving "consistency" of local comprehensive plans. We urge you to consider the effect of these policies carefully. We believe it is imperative that final confirmation of the Countywide Planning Policies be based upon the best available information regarding both environmental and fiscal impacts. We also believe it is extremely important that the final decision be based upon a careful comparison of reasonable alternatives. Finally, there must be a sound and broad-based public process to ensure public understanding and commitment to support the final action. We are not writing to stop or delay progress in addressing King County's growth issues. We believe that coordinated implementation of the GMA is vital to safeguarding and enhancing the environmental, economic and community values and attributes of our County. However, given the need for detailed impact analysis and a broad-based public process, we believe it would be both inappropriate and premature to ratify the proposed Countywide Planning Policies unconditionally. Thank you. Sincerely, /4,6t1 t, Pat Strosahl J. Terry Lewis Vision Seattle The Boeing Company )--re-'44-122:- Kimber y T. Ellwanger Victor L. Ericson Microsoft Corporation Economic Development Council of Seattle & King County Enclosures July 14, 1992 Page 3 RATIFICATION The Countywide Planning Policies attached hereto are hereby ratified for purposes of complying with RCW 36.70A.210; to provide a policy framework for developing and updating the comprehensive plan; to provide a policy framework for interim controls to the extent the policies expressly require them; and to establish a program for the additional work necessary to refine, amend and implement the Countywide Planning Policies, including SEIS review and fiscal analysis.