Issaquah Mayor Fred Butler will declare city officials’ interest in annexing Lake Sammamish State Park.

The city council Tuesday voted to pass a bill that would allow the mayor to submit a notice of intent to the Washington state Boundary Review Board of King County. The bill also affirmed the boundaries of potential annexation, affirmed the expected zoning of the five parcels that make up the park should it be annexed and affirmed that, by moving forward with annexation, the park lands would assume their share of the city’s debt.

The Washington State Parks agency sent a letter to the city in March requesting officials consider annexation, in part to expedite permitting of projects on park grounds. The city was also heavily involved in development of the park’s 2007 concept plan.

“We look around the park now and see that we’re this tiny little island of King County right in the middle of Issaquah and we see our main partnership base is coming from the city and the organizations that are home here,” said Peter Herzog, State Parks’ assistant director of park development. “So we would like to formalize that relationship with the city in a way that really acknowledges the partnership we’ve had all along now (for 12 years) … we’re practically on a first name basis with most of your staff so, really, this is a formalizing of that partnership.”

The motion passed 6-1, with councilmember Joshua Schaer casting the sole dissenting vote.

At issue was whether the zoning for two parcels would be too permissive to future development.

All parcels of the park would fall under the “Community Facilities” zoning category in Issaquah’s municipal code. But that category includes subclasses for Recreational use and Facilities use. The Recreational subclass — applied to three parcels of the park — governs outdoor areas lightly developed for public enjoyment, such as the park’s existing soccer field, shoreline and boat launch. The Facilities subclass — applied to the two parcels closest to the park entrance — governs somewhat heavier development, like a drainage ditch and Lake Sammamish’s parking and shelter area.

The zoning plans — added to the bill at the Aug. 12 Land and Shore Committee meeting — were made with respect to existing development and State Parks’ plans for future redevelopment, such as a bathhouse on Sunset Beach.

But the “Community Facilities – Facilities” zone’s allowance of “private/public projects” rattled Schaer and councilmember Tola Marts, the latter of whom proposed an amendment to strike the zoning from the bill, designating all lands as “Community Facilities – Recreation.” Marts cited commercial developments like restaurants or lodges as projects he would not want to see come to pass in the park.

Other councilmembers countered that the amendment would not lend State Parks enough flexibility to adapt operations as it saw fit in respect to the nearby urban core.

Councilmember Stacy Goodman asserted both the city and state parks have a number of checks and balances that would prevent inappropriate use of park lands.

“The public is very involved in the park,” Goodman said. “If they don’t like what’s going on there, we’ll hear about it.”

The amendment failed 5-2. Marts said he would support the bill anyway and oppose commercial development — should it materialize at all — as a private citizen.

Schaer said he could not support the bill without the zoning amendment.

“Once it’s zoned, it’s zoned,” he said.

The annexation process is far from over. The city and State Parks staff must complete an Interlocal Agreement to be approved by all parties. The Boundary Review Board must then review the agreement and provide its stamp of approval. The city council would then invite public comment on annexation before moving ahead on a council vote.