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.

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

On October 6, 2008 the King County Council completed its third major review of the King County Comprehensive Plan by unanimously adopting four of the five implementing ordinances that comprise the 2008 updates to the set of policies by which King County manages growth in the unincorporated areas. Comprehensive plans adopted by local governments provide the blueprint to effectively combine certainty for development decisions, reasonable environmental protection, long-range planning for cost-effective infrastructure, and orderly growth and development. The King County Comprehensive Plan (KCCP) is updated annually for minor changes and technical corrections, with major updates occurring every four years. The first major review occurred in 2000, the second in 2004.

Council review

Council adoption of the 2008 updates completes a review process that began when the Council received the County Executive's proposed updates on March 1, 2008. Throughout the spring and summer, the County Council's Growth Management and Natural Resources Committee held sixteen public meetings on the Comp Plan, including five throughout suburban and rural King County, and heard from more than 200 residents. The Committee presented the Chair's striking amendments, or "strikers," which modified the Executive's proposal to the full Council on August 5.

Among updates to the comprehensive plan adopted by the full council at the October 6, 2008 council meeting are:

• Providing incentives for farmers and those living in agricultural production zones to continue raising crops for sale, and promoting partnerships with local farmers' markets that bring healthy produce to the public. The continued use of farmland ensures the strength of King County's rural heritage, and guarantees a local food supply that requires less energy to pack and ship to market.

• Encouraging planning that places growth in urban communities by providing incentives for increased participation in the Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) program, and revising the model for computing transportation concurrency in order to permit more housing units per development where there are the roads, sewers and other infrastructure and services to support them.

• Simplifying the current concurrency system with a more transparent model and growth map that clearly defines where there are enough roads, sewers and other infrastructure and services that can support more growth.

• Strengthen sustainable development and low impact development by encouraging its use for not only affordable housing programs but all county construction projects.

• Addressing climate change by completing and updating the County's greenhouse gas emissions inventory on a regular basis. The plan calls for King County to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 80 percent of 2007 levels by the year 2050, and to work with state and local governments to account for greenhouse gas emissions in evaluating regional investments. In the future, King County will consider projected impacts of climate change, including the potential for more severe winter flooding, when updating disaster preparedness, levee investment and land use plans as well as development regulations.

• Completing a regional trails system that links trail corridors to form a countywide network.

• Clarifying water supply polices to specify the roles of the different jurisdictions involved in managing and protecting our water resources.

• Promoting fairness and opportunity for all residents by implementing some of the principles of King County's Equity and Social Justice Initiative to ensure that health, equity, social and environmental justice impacts are considered in the development, implementation and funding of County projects and programs.

To review the complete copy of the 2008 Updates to the King County Comprehensive Plan, please see the side bar to the right of this page.

Ordinance 16263 contains the changes made to the Comprehensive Plan document itself as well as planning updates.
Attachment A is the Comprehensive Plan document
Attachment B is the Technical Appendix for Capital Facilities
Attachment C is the Technical Appendix for Housing
Attachment D is the Technical Appendix for Transportation
Attachment E is the Transportation Needs Report

Ordinance 16264 contains the changes made to the County's stormwater code provisions.

Ordinance 16265 contains the changes made to the County's sewer and water code provisions.

Ordinance 16266 contains the changes made to the County's transportation code provisions.
Attachment A is the 2008 Concurrency Map
Attachment B is the 2008 Travel Sheds Map

Ordinance 16267 contains the changes made to the County's zoning and development code provisions.
Attachment A is the Critical Aquifer Recharge Areas Map