History of Comprehensive Planning in King County
1964 - 1985
King County adopted its first comprehensive plan in 1964. While the plan anticipated growth in King County, it did not foresee, and therefore did not address, the consequences of that growth, including traffic congestion, pollution, and the loss of critical habitats and resource lands to development.
Over the years the plan was amended, albeit in a patchwork fashion. Functional plans (i.e. those developed by municipalities addressing the location and operation of public facilities and services such as sewer and water) and community plans (developed by and for citizens of discreet subareas within the County) were adopted, but not linked to the comprehensive plan. As a result, the usefulness of the comprehensive plan as an integrated planning tool diminished over time for residents, property owners and local governments alike. Constituencies also articulated a need for policies to better address the coordination between private development and necessary public services, and for recognition that the costs of growth needed to be controlled.
1978 - 1985
In 1978, the County embarked on a study of its planning policies with the intent of again revising the 1964 plan. However, input from property owners, business owners, developers, public agencies and municipalities, and other interested groups, led the County to revise its approach. The consensus was to develop a new comprehensive plan. After years of study and further input from various constituencies, the County adopted a new comprehensive plan in 1985. The new plan created the links between the comprehensive plan policies and the community and functional plans. It addressed the need to coordinate development concurrent with public improvements and outlined development costs measures. It was also the first plan in the state to take the revolutionary step of clearly differentiating between rural areas and urban areas and to delineate the different goals and values through specific growth management policies and approaches for each area. This was accomplished by establishing an Urban Growth Boundary and adopting a policy framework that encouraged growth in the urban areas and sought to preserve the rural area through a slower the rate of growth. The 1985 plan was also the first provide for the protection and preservation of critical habitats, open spaces and resource lands.
While the plan set forth the policies that King County would follow with respect to the unincorporated areas within the County, it also was intended to be used by local municipalities and the private sector as a guide to effective and responsible planning for long-term growth and the inevitable changes accompanying such growth.
1990 - 1994
In 1990/1991 the Washington State Legislature passed the Growth Management Act ("GMA"), codified at chapter 36.70A of the Revised Code of Washington ("RCW"). The read the full text of the GMA.
The Legislature determined that uncoordinated and unplanned growth (together with a lack of common goals expressing the public’s interest in the conservation and wise use of the land) posed a threat to the environment, sustainable economic development, and the health, safety and high quality of life enjoyed by residents of the State of Washington. The Legislature also found it to be in the public interest for citizens, communities, local governments and the private sector cooperate and coordinate with one another in comprehensive land use planning. The GMA requires the most populous counties to plan for growth on a 20 year cycle.
King County had, five years earlier, adopted a comprehensive plan that addressed many of the goals set forth in the GMA. However, it embarked, along with the other municipalities within its boundaries (cities and towns, special purpose districts and the Port of Seattle), and its neighboring three counties (Pierce, Snohomish and Kitsap) to comply with the now state-mandated comprehensive planning requirements of the GMA.
In anticipation of, but prior to the passage of the GMA, King County and those neighboring three counties formed a regional and transportation agency, now known as the Puget Sound Regional Council ("PSRC"). This agency developed VISION 2020, a planning document that now serves as the GMA-required multi-county planning policies. VISION 2020 sets forth the regional consensus of where and how Central Puget Sound will grow and meet the transportation, economic and housing needs of those living and working in this region. Those strategies, consistent with the goals of the GMA, envision that growth to be concentrated into urban areas, thus protecting the rural and resource lands from the effects of sprawl and unchecked development. VISION 2020 is now being updated to consider regional growth to the year 2040 and beyond. For more information about the PSRC, VISION 2020 and the draft of VISION 2040, you can visit PSRC's website at: www.psrc.org.
The GMA also requires counties, in concert with the municipalities within its boundaries, to develop countywide planning policies ("CPPs"). In compliance with this requirement, King County with the municipalities formed the Growth Management Planning Council ("GMPC"), made up of elected officials from the various jurisdictions. Between 1992 and 1994, the GMPC drafted the initial CPPs (Phase I and Phase II) which were then adopted by the King County Council and by the requisite number of jurisdictions representing seventy percent of the County's population.
The CPPs define the countywide vision as to where growth will be focused and establish the parameters for the comprehensive plans of the County and each city and special district in King County. The CPPs direction must be consistent with the GMA and the four-county regional VISION 2020 plan. The 1992-1994 CPPs were the framework which the King County Council used when adopting the UGA in the 1994 King County Comprehensive Plan.
Over the ensuing years the CPPs have been amended, but the underlying premises of directing growth to the urban areas, and preserving and enhancing the rural areas has remained constant.
For more information regarding the GMPC and the CPPs go to: www.metrokc.gov/permits/codes/GMPC
1994
With the ratification of the CPPs, the County proceeded to adopt its first comprehensive plan under the auspices of the GMA. In accordance with the GMA, the King County Comprehensive Plan ("KCCP") is the long-term, 20 year vision for how and where growth should occur in unincorporated King County. The plan must be consistent with both the GMA and the CPPs, and contain policies related to urban and rural land use, economic development, housing, resource lands, natural environment and critical habitats, facilities and services, transportation, and parks, recreation and open space. The County was the first jurisdiction in the State to adopt a GMA comprehensive plan.
1995
In early 1995 the County also adopted the Development Regulations necessary to implement the KCCP. By definition Development Regulations include zoning ordinances, critical areas ordinances, shoreline master programs, official controls, planned unit development ordinances, subdivision ordinances, and binding site plan ordinances that control the development or land use of a property. The most significant outcome of this process was the rezone of approximately 54,000 parcels, consisting of 52 square miles, from urban to rural densities.
1996 - 1999
The KCCP may be amended by King County Council no more than once a year. In 1998 the County adopted a review process that limited annual updates to "technical’ amendments" and reserved substantive policy issues to be addressed once every four years. The first quadrennial substantive review occurred in 2000.
2000
The major goals for the 2000 KCCP were to improve usability of the plan, eliminate plan inconsistencies, and improve public understanding of growth management issues. The 2000 KCCP also acknowledged (1) King County’s changing role as a regional government with significant responsibilities as a local service provider to the rural area; (2) the need to effectively integrate land use and transportation planning; and (3) the protection of Chinook salmon in accordance with the Endangered Species Act.
2001 - 2003
On an annual basis, the 2000 KCCP was updated with technical changes.
2004
In 2004, the County Council undertook the second substantive review and update of the KCCP. Some highlights of the changes the Council made to the 2004 KCCP include:
- Rural Economic Development: Cottage Industries. The Council added a requirement for the County to evaluate its own regulations and policies for their impact on rural cottage industries.
- Cottage Housing. The Council recognized the benefits of cottage housing, a new land use which puts small, well-designed homes around a common central green space, allowing for denser and more affordable housing to be developed inside existing urban neighborhoods. However, because it was a new use, the Council made cottage housing a conditional use rather than an outright permitted use, with a requirement for community notification so the County could work with developers and neighborhoods to produce quality housing.
- Annexations and Incorporations. The Council provided clearer policies to guide the County’s support for annexations and incorporations of the urban unincorporated areas, and to provide more predictability for cities and for residents of those areas.
- Sustainable Development. The Council added a new policy requiring a cost/benefit analysis of sustainable development projects that may carry higher up-front costs for design, equipment and materials, but which can save money over the life of a building.
- Parks, Open Space & Cultural Resources. The Council added new language to address the County’s role in managing the regional trail system, and to acknowledge the continuing and important role the County continues to plays in cultural affairs.
- Transportation. The Council adopted policies prioritizing the spending of limited transportation dollars in the urban unincorporated areas, and required the transportation system to find innovative ways to address the mobility needs of persons with disabilities.
- Air Quality. The Council added new language to emphasize the importance of clean air to the health of all citizens, underline the importance of partnerships between public agencies and private interests, and the need to focus on such critical issues as greenhouse gases.
2005 and 2006
In both these years, technical amendments were made to the 2004 KCCP.
2008
King County Executive Ron Sims published a public review draft of proposed amendments to the KCCP on Oct. 1, 2007, and held five public hearings in the fall to take public testimony. The Executive transmitted his proposed 2008 KCCP Update to the King County Council on March 3, 2008.
The Council is now conducting its in-depth review and analysis of the existing Comprehensive Plan and the Executive's proposed changes. Public participation is critical to this process. You can testify in person at a community public hearing or submit written testimony online. Testimony will be also taken at regularly scheduled meetings of the Council's Growth Management and Natural Resources Committee throughout the spring and summer of 2008.
The Growth Management and Natural Resources Committee is scheduled to complete its recommendation by August 5. Hearings before the full King County Council are scheduled for late September, with final adoption of the 2008 Comprehensive Plan Update expected by October 6, 2008. See the full timeline of the Council's review. Check the Council's 2008 KCCP Update home page for any updates.
If you cannot attend a meeting, the Council will provide alternative methods to testify, including e-mail, fax and a telephone message line. Of course, the Council will also accept comments received by postal mail.
If you have any questions, please contact Kendall Moore, the Council's Comprehensive Plan manager. Her telephone number is 206-296-1631; or email her at kendall.moore@kingcounty.gov. |
