Form revised: July 12, 2011

 

 

 

FISCAL NOTE FOR NON-CAPITAL PROJECTS

 

Department:

Contact Person/Phone:

CBO Analyst/Phone:

Planning and Development

Patrice Carroll 684-0946 / Ketil Freeman 684-8178

Joe Regis 615-0087

 

Legislation Title:

AN ORDINANCE amending the Seattle Comprehensive Plan to incorporate changes proposed as part of the 2011-2012 Comprehensive Plan annual amendment process.

 

Summary of the Legislation:

The legislation would amend the City’s Comprehensive Plan in the following ways:

 

A.    Adopt a new Container Port Element.

 

B.     Amend the urban trails system map in the Transportation Element to reflect the Lake-to-Bay loop.

 

C.     Amend the Environment Element to delete duplicate policies and ensure consistent policies with the Urban Forest Management Plan

 

D.    Add a new policy in the Human Development Element for transitional encampments.

 

E.     Amend the Roosevelt Urban Village Future Land Use Map to redesignate an area from single-family to multi-family.

 

F.      Amend the Potential Annexation Area to add an area known as the “Sliver by the River” and delete the southern portion of the unincorporated area of North Highline that was annexed by the City of Burien in 2010.

 

G.    Amend policy T8 in the Transportation Element to better address pavement damage from heavy vehicles.

 

H.    Amend Goal EG7 to establish preliminary, sector-based greenhouse gas emission reduction targets.

 
 
 


Background:  

The City’s Comprehensive Plan was first adopted in 1994, as a requirement of the state Growth Management Act (GMA), to guide City actions related to future development in the city.  The GMA allows the City to amend the comprehensive Plan only once each year and consequently the City batches amendments for consideration.  The Ordinance is the second step in a two-step legislative process.  The first step is a Resolution identifying the amendments that would be analyzed for the current year.  This year, Resolution 31313 was adopted on August 1, 2011.

 

 

Please check one of the following:

 

_X___ This legislation does not have any financial implications.

 

 

Other Implications: 

 

a)      Does the legislation have indirect financial implications, or long-term implications?

The legislation does not have indirect financial implications. The long term implications of Amendment F are increased tax revenues if the City does proceed with an annexation. The annexed area would be served by existing public facilities.

 

b)     What is the financial cost of not implementing the legislation?  

There is no cost to the City for not implementing this legislation.

 

c)      Does this legislation affect any departments besides the originating department? 

Yes, SDOT requested amendment B., and SDOT staff are aware of our recommendation. OSE staff that support the Urban Forestry Commission helped prepare amendment C. SDOT is affected by amendment G. and SDOT staff helped prepare that amendment.    

 

d)     What are the possible alternatives to the legislation that could achieve the same or similar objectives?

There are alternatives to the proposed legislation.  For items A., D., and G. different language could achieve the same outcome.  The proposed language has been vetted through affected departments and with elected officials, and alternative approaches would not affect the cost implications of the proposal.

 

e)      Is a public hearing required for this legislation? 

Council will hold a public hearing in early 2012.

 

f)       Is publication of notice with The Daily Journal of Commerce and/or The Seattle Times required for this legislation?

Changes to the Comprehensive Plan do require publication of notice. Notice of the proposed amendments as well as date and time of the public hearing will be published in the Daily Journal of Commerce, as well as in the DPD Land Use Information Bulletin.

 

g)      Does this legislation affect a piece of property?

Amendment E.  Changes the Future Land Use Map designation for an area in the Roosevelt neighborhood from “single-family” to “multifamily.”  This map change does not constitute a change to the zoning of that area, but indicates that certain rezones in that area would be appropriate in the future.  (Map is attached to the legislation.)

Amendment F. designates land that is currently outside the City limits as a potential annexation area.  This designation is necessary under the King County Countywide Planning Policies for the City to consider future annexation of this property, but it does not commit the City to such annexation.  Also, part of this amendment would adjust an existing map in the Plan to reflect that the City of Burien has already annexed part of the North Highline area that had been part of Seattle’s potential annexation area.

 

h)     Other Issues: None.

 

List attachments to the fiscal note below: N/A