No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMiscd d King County Department of Development and Environmental Services 900 Oakesdale Avenue SW Renton, WA 98055-1219 June 6, 2005 David Casey Casey Engineering PO Box 1255 Fall City, WA 98024 RE: Plat of Liberty Grove Contiguous (DDES File No. L03P0005) Recreation/Landscape Activity No. L04MI045 Dear Mr. Casey: This is in response to your request for approval of the landscape and recreation space plan associated with the plat of Liberty Grove. We have reviewed your submittal and with the following conditions, approve it as submitted: 1. The equipment (structures, benches, picnic table, etc.) shall meet at a minimum, Consumer Product Safety Standards and be appropriately anchored. 2. Street trees shall be reviewed with the engineering plans and are not part of this approval. 3. Split rail fence with landscaping, or other approved fencing shall be added along the street frontages of SE 136 Street. The placement of the fencing shall comply with King County Road Standards Chapter 5. The landscaping and recreation space improvements (i.e. play structures) must be installed and inspected or a performance bond posted, prior to plat recording. The amount of the performance bond has been established at $28,000. This includes the additional fencing requirement, landscaping, equipment, surfacing materials, etc. The bond amount also includes a thirty -percent contingency. An inspection fee is also due prior to recording. This fee covers the cost of an installation inspection and a maintenance inspection. The amount of the inspection deposit will be determined by the Land Use Inspection Section (LUIS). If a performance financial guarantee is posted, the improvements must be installed within two year's from the date of recording. At the time of inspection by the Land Use Inspection Section, if the improvements are fully installed per the approved plan, the performance financial guarantee may be reduced. Enclosed is a copy of the approved plans for your records. If you have any questions, please call me at (206) 296-6758. If you have questions regarding the financial guarantee please contact Stacy Graves, Financial Guarantee Management Unit at (206) 296-7009. Questions regarding the inspection process may be directed to the Land Use Inspection Section (206) 296-6642. Sincerely, &U Tri ah Bull, Planner II urrent Planning Section, LUSD Cc: Joanne Carlson, ASH, Engineering Review Section, LUSD wlencs Steve Townsend, Supervising Engineer, Land Use Inspection Section, LUSD wlencs FGMU wlencs File wlencs Our most popular bench. Shown in 6' length with 2"x4" cedar. Comes with 2"x4", 4"x4" or plastisol steel seat. Available in surface mount (as shown) or inground. Contour bench shown in 6' length with 2"x4" cedar, Comes with 2"x4", 4"x4" or plastisol steel seat. Available in surface mount or inground (as shown). Single pedestal 4' contour bench with 4"x4" cedar. Comes with 2"x4" or 4"x4" cedar seat. Available in surface mount or inground (as shown), Single pedestal 6' contour bench. with 2"x4" cedar. Comes with 2"x4" or 4"x4"ceda wailable in surface mount or i 4unlL (as shown), K.C. r, Portable and economical picnic table with 6' cedar 2"x 10" top and seats, Frame can be galvanized or powdercoated. Portable heavy duty picnic table with powdercoated steel frame and plastisol steel top and seats, Shown in 6' length, Also available in 4'. n Pedestal 6' picnic table shown with 2"x 10" cedar top and seats. Also available with plastisol steel fop and seats. Surface mount (as shown) or inground, Can be made ADA accessible, Square 4' two sided picnic table with plastisol top and seats. Also available with 2"x10" cedar top and seats. Surface mount or inground� (as shown), 2 Poly Curve Slide Firi Oy rof LI.I-A slep Roof Snake """"C' Panel Climber We Play Zone 26' x 30' Firepole Steering Wheel Arch U-Bend Climber 48' Climber 8'x 18'Slide We Play Zone 28' x 30' U-8entl Ciiniher i'nly Ronf Raie play Zone 26, x 30' Vertical Ladder Chnibing Tire turning 13,1, KING COUNTY Dept. of Development and Environmental Services 900 Oakesdale Avenue Southwest EA"SCAPE BOND QUANTITY WORKSMEET FORM PROJECT NAME: L i .c�C�fy-�ZI-0yG CCI 22 c7yQUS DDES PROJECT #: L 4310000.5- Renton, WA 98055-1219 ADDRESS: 206/296-d600 PREPARED BY: QaVlGl 141 Cg$-ef _ PHONE: Z O -Z Z7 Bonds are based upon required landscaping only and will he posted for performance and/or maintenance. Required landscaping includes perimeter landscaping, surface panting area landscaping, (KCC 21 A.16) and any landscaping required by SEPA environmental review. The maintenance period is for the life of the project, however, after posting for maintenance, the performance bond will be reduced to 30% ($1,000.00 minimum) and be held for a two year period. Upon re -inspection of the site the bond will be released if the site has been properly maintained (2 IA. 16.180). A landscape maintenance inspection deposit of $316.80 is required prior to permit Issuance to cover the costs of the 2-year maintenance inspection. Landscape inspections are billed at the current hourly rate once the initial deposit is exhausted. If the project has not been maintained and there are dead trees, shrubs, ground cover, or other deficiencies noted in the required landscaping, the band will be held until the deficiencies are corrected. IUNff PRICE I UNIT TM J QUANffW I PRIG SOD LAWN AREAS $500.00 MSF (1000 SQ. FT) S7 3 Z �S HYDROSEEDING $50.00 MSF(1000 SQ. PT) �d Fve/ Chr' S /.5~ % c/ 34 ycli yS0 J SOH, PRF.PAAAnON A. TOPSOIL (6 INCHES DEEP) $25.00 CY (CUBIC YARD) / rf B. MULCH (2 INCHES DEEP) $4.00 SY (SQUARE YARD) C. PEAT MOSS (TWO WCHI?S DEEP) $2.30 SY (SQUARE YARD) D. COMPOST Q INCHES DEEP & TILLING $26.00 SY (SQUARE YARD) I,. FERTILIZER $6.67 CY (CUBIC YARD) r�75 TERIMS OUS TREES CALIPER (minimum height l0D $250.00 EACH COST & LABOR R & PARKING AREASALIPER $225A0 EACH COST & LABOR APM3Oa MER PIQUIM LANDWAPM B. EVERGREEN TREES II-FIVE(5) FEET OR ABOVE $150.00 EACH II - COST & LABOR3 5, zlo Q , II C. SHRUBS 1 $35.00 EACH I COST & LABOR I I U BOND AMOUNT SUB TOTAL: SUB TOTAL BOND AIVIMINT longe Re axd 3.aQw SMOD1 PAGE I OF 2 UNrr PRICE UNIT TYPE QUANTITY PRICE D. GROUND COVER $4.00 EACH COST & LABOR MISCELLANEOUS 'TREE STAKES $2.65 EACH PER STAKE & LABOR FENCING: SOLID WOOD CEDAR $28.50 LINEAR FOOT INCLUDES LABOR BERMING $17.50 LINEAR FOOT 11 IRRIGATION 1 Soo 1 SQUARE FOOT 1 1 11 RELOCATING TREES ON SITE 36" BALL $260.00 EACH 60" BALL $920.00 EACH RELOCATING SHRUBS ON SITE 12" HALL $26.00 EACH 24" BALL $33.00 EACH 11 ADDITIONAL ITEMS � CGS act % OGi i GS e G i? %4 � he c/ � t'a z 3, 5 orf 7, Z 571or Z 0O d z % y 1-0 SuB TOTAL BOND AMOUNT BOND SUB TOTAL: Add 30% of the Bond Sub -Total for Contingency iu accordance with 30 % CONTINGENCY: Financial Guarantee Ordinance 120220, Section 13. TOTAL BOND PRICE Revised LBQW S/29R001 TOTAL BOND PRICE: $ ZS, qFy._ P.O. BOX 1255 FALL CM, WA 98024-1255 CULL: 206-227-8187 t SASE 4 ENGINEER]Nq June 17, 2004 Kim Claussen, Senior Planner Current Planning Section Land Use Services Division King County D.D.E.S. goo Oakesdale Avenue Southwest Renton, VVA 98055-1219 Liberty Grove Contiguous- Site Engineering Review -- Recreation Space Plan (DDES Project File 1-03P0005) REF: SUBJ: Itemization of Components for Recreational Space Dear Ms. Claussen: osed to be provided following is an itemization (and costs) of the components prop The within the t.iberty Grove Contiguous "Tract A" recreational area. Supplier: Catalog#: Total Cost: Item: Picnic Tables (3) Pacific Outdoor Products �-_35 $1,914.0 $4,310.0 Play Facility (1} Pacific Outdoor Products WS-573 $1,194.0 Pacific Outdoor Products Park Benches (3) $P-25 13T-57 $1;2Q5A Basketball Pale with playWorld Systems Alum. Backboard and Lifetime Rims. Thank you for your consideration. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at any time. Sincerely, �� l 'mil/ r David W . Casey, P CASEY ENGINEERING C-0QII/Documents/Kim Claussen rec plan contiguous costs 6-17-04.Doc STORIWATER HYDRAULIC ANALYSIS CI M ENGINEERING DESIGN LAND PLANNING 'JULRECEHED so 2004 K.C. D.D.E.S. Page I 01 I Scharer, Karen From: sday [srday2@mindspring.com] Sent: Tuesday, February 03, 2004 9:13 PM To: karen.scharer@metrokc.gov Cc: Highlands Neighbors Subject: L03P0005 & L03P0015 Karen Scharer Project/Program Manager DDES/LUSD - Current Planning Section 900 Oakesdaie Ave. SW Ste 100 Renton, WA 98055 Re: Liberty Grove hearing on 2/10/04 and Nichols Place Hearing on 2/24/04 I would like to go on record as against the use of density transfer credits for the above projects. It has been established that density above R4 is not compatible with the area. Traffic and'flooding problems are not being addressed due to the huge growth in our area. To use density credits to get around decisions already made, makes no sense. I find it hard to believe that the developers can not build better homes with an R4 density and realize equal or greater profit. Do they no longer take pride in homes they build? There have been too many unattractive box houses recently built in the area. It is time for some thought about future development. Thank you for giving this matter your attention. I hope Renton continues to be a place I want to live. Sincerely, Shirley Day 14412-167th. Place SE Renton, WA 98059 (425)255-7005 02/04/2004 Exhibit No. 3 Item No.LQ2RO :��— CACOto(. Received King County Hearing Examiner Scharer, Karen From: Glenda Johnson [Glenda@nowimpressions.com] Sent: Tuesday, February 10, 2004 8:08 AM To: karen.scharer@metrokc.gov Subject: re: questions on hearing @ 9:30 am file no's t_03TY40311-03P0006 KAREN, I CALLED YOU LAST NIGHT IN REGARDS TO MY CONCERNS ON WHAT WILL BE HAPPENING ALONG MY PROPERTY LINE, NORTHEAST SIDE OF THE ADJACENT PLOT OF 13535. 1 AM CONCERNED ABOUT THE ABANDONING OF THE DRAIN FIELD AND SEWER LINE THAT WILL BE PUT IN ALONG THE SOUTH SIDE OF MY PROPERTY @ 13425. NOT ME OR MY NEIGHBORS WHOSE PROPERTIES BORDER THE NORTH SIDE OF THE ADJACENT PROPERTY GOT ANY NOTIFICATION OF THIS HEARING. I JUST HAPPEN TO TALK WITS MY BROTHER (GUY PLATZ) ON SUNDAY AND HE SAID HE RECEIVED HEARING PAPERS AND THAT'S HOW I FOUND OUT. PLEASE AT ME TO A LIST TO BE NOTIFIED OF ANY FUTURE DEVELOPEMENTS. THEY SHOULD HAVE DONE THIS ANYWAY, SINCE THIS CONCERNS PART OF MY PROPERTY. I WOULD ALSO LIKE TO BE NOTIFIED AS TO THE OUTCOME OF THIS HEARING•SINCE I AM UNABLE TO ATTEND. THANKS, GLENDA JOHNSON 13425-160TH AVENUE SE RENTON, WA 98059 425-226-2950 Exhibit No. Item No. �p�(Q Received _ — /o —0 King County Hearing Examiner February 7, 2004 Karen Scharer Project/Program Manager II DDES/LUSD - Current Planning Section 900 Oakesdale Ave SW, Ste. 100 Renton, WA 98055-1219 RE: L03P0005 - Liberty Grove Contiguous (east of Evendell on 160th - hearing on Feb 10) L03P0006 - Liberty Grove (north of Evendell on 160th - hearing on Feb 10) L03P0015 " Nichols Place (south of Evendell on 160th - hearing on Feb 24) Dear Ms. Scharer: I -am writing to ask that you submit the written comments we made for the public record for the Evendell re -zone application into the public record for the above - listed Liberty Grove applications. Our major concerns regarding increased density are: Character of our neighborhood Increased traffic Water runoff problems As I write this (less than one year since our letter registering opposition to the Evendell rezone application) my wife and I have witnessed nothing that would cause us to lessen our concerns in these three areas. In particular, we see the damage from water runoff as potentially very serious. The Liberty Grove and Evendell subdivisions represent a significant percentage of the total area directly uphill from our house in the Cedar River watershed. As these developments go in, we are extremely concerned that, together, they will have an adverse and unanticipated impact on drainage above, around and through our property. There has been testimony in the public record documenting problems already occurring with drainage and runoff in our neighborhood. What assurances do we have that these new developments will not make the problem worse? Sincerely, Bill and Dona Mokin 14404 162nd Ave. SE Renton, WA 98059 (425) 430 2446 email: zigsterdog@mac.com Exhibit No. !) G Item No.LJAQno oca Received King County Hearing Examiner lauiwex3 6ulAROH 4junoo 6ul� pan!aaa� � 000 'ON wall -ON l!Q!ux3 .1-11 eo?� 04 PA ` ,�b �> `c;46-x�p�;�'�8 �` �•� o o� elft.,*,on`,� I+F�''�S' . 7,{ O � ���iFa c:'+.�G�CY' j� -`s`bq � •� y* � ,, 3 G� Q'�,F' V "� J O � J G. '�• •VC�(o n,.. 1O '`;pf4 t.� �1.• �'�i i'1�� -, - av, ti•�'!, o• o�0apd, r.i ,Vi.:.o„JY.n �Q a . C.A.R.E. Response: Liberty Grove/Liberty Grove Contiguous Plat Applications - L03P0006 and L03PO006 February 10, 2004 Who We Are Since November 2001, Citizens' Alliance for a Responsible Evendell has been meeting with and recording the concerns of the neighbors who will be most impacted by the subject and adjacent applications. C.A.R.E., a Washington state non-profit corporation, represents over 80 households and over 150 individuals whose residencies in our community range from one year to more than sixty years. Their contact information, including parcel numbers, is attached. (C.A.R.E. Households List and Community Map) Gwendolyn High presents this documentation and will speak for C.A.R.E. in this hearing. She is a data analyst, programmer and information technology project manager. She is the elected district representative for this neighborhood on the Four Creeks Unincorporated Area Council, where she serves as Secretary and Transportation Committee Chair. In October 2002 she was appointed the only citizen representative on the King County Transportation Concurrency Advisory Committee. Ms. High is co-founder and current president of C.A.R.E. What We Have Accomplished Since April 5'h, 2002, with the delivery of our first Response to the original Evendell applications, C.A.R.E. has respectfully and effectively communicated the concerns of this community, related to the Evendell, Liberty Grove/Liberty Grove Contiguous and Nichols Place applications, to DDES staff, the King County Hearing Examiner, the King County Council and King County Superior Court. Our initially reported concerns over drainage impacts were further investigated and found to be factual. Applicants have been required to perform Level III Downstream Analyses and additional drainage mitigation has been subsequently required. As a result of our participation and efforts, increased density through zone reclassification has been proven to be inappropriate in this community and consistently rejected — by the King County Hearing Examiner, the King County Council and King County Superior Court. This unequivocal rejection of the Evendeli zone reclassification application has resulted in the withdrawal of the zone reclassification applications originally filed for Liberty GrovelLiberty Grove Contiguous and Nichols Place applications. The requested density increase, under theTransfer of Development Rights (TDR) program, is identical to the original applications and equally inappropriate for this community. What We Hope To Achieve The request for increased density under the subject application through the utilization of Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) is identical to the density originally requested under the untenable (and withdrawn) zone reclassification applications. KCC 21A.37.010 states that the TDR program is "intended to supplement land use regulations... and to encourage increased residential development density... where it can best be accommodated with the least impacts on the natural environment and public services..." KCC 21A.37.010 (2) further requires that the use of TDR must be "... balanced with other county goals and policies, and... adjusted to the specific conditions of each receiving site." We oppose the approval of the application to utilize Transfer of Density Rights for these proposed subdivisions. The same Comprehensive Plan and Countywide Planning Policies that require rejection of a rezone equally apply to the use of TDR. Additionally, data from the King County Department of Transportation, the Issaquah School District and the City of Renton strengthen the body of evidence submitted and conclusively indicates the state of infrastructure deficit in this community. The local infrastructure can not support the requested density and there is no indication that improvements will ever be constructed to support it. We strongly urge the denial of the Liberty Grove/Liberty Grove Contiguous Plat Applications - L03P0006 and L03P0005. Exhibit No. Item No. Hewved King Cotmty Hung Eli' Dana 1 of q C.A.R.E. Response: Liberty Grove/Liberty Grove Contiguous Plat Applications - L03P0006 and L03P0005 February 10, 2004 Who We Are Since November 2001, Citizens' Alliance for a Responsible Evendell has been meeting with and recording the concerns of the neighbors who will be most impacted by the subject and adjacent applications. C.A.R.E., a Washington state non-profit corporation, represents over 80 households and over 150 individuals whose residencies in our community range from one year to more than sixty years. Their contact information, including parcel numbers, is attached. (C.A.R.E. Households List and Community Map) Gwendolyn High presents this documentation and will speak for C.A.R.E. in this hearing. She is a data analyst, programmer and information technology project manager. She is the elected district representative for this neighborhood on the Four Creeks Unincorporated Area Council, where she serves as Secretary and Transportation Committee Chair. In October 2002 she was appointed the only citizen representative on the King County Transportation Concurrency Advisory Committee. Ms. High is co-founder and current president of C.A.R.E. What We Have Accomplished Since April 5`", 2002, with the delivery of our first Response to the original Evendell applications, C.A.R.E. has respectfully and effectively communicated the concerns of this community, related to the Evendell, Liberty Grove/Liberty Grove Contiguous and Nichols Place applications, to DDES staff, the King County Hearing Examiner, the King County Council and King County Superior Court_ Our initially reported concerns over drainage impacts were further investigated and found to be factual. Applicants have been required to perform Level III Downstream Analyses and additional drainage mitigation has been subsequently required. As a result of our participation and efforts, increased density through zone reclassification has been proven to be inappropriate in this community and consistently rejected — by the King County Hearing Examiner, the King County Council and King County Superior Court. This unequivocal rejection of the Evendell zone reclassification application has resulted in the withdrawal of the zone reclassification applications originally filed for Liberty Grove/Liberty Grove Contiguous and Nichols Place applications. The requested density increase, under theTransfer of Development Rights (TDR) program, is identical to the original applications and equally inappropriate for this community. What We Hope To Achieve The request for increased density under the subject application through the utilization of Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) is identical to the density originally requested under the untenable (and withdrawn) zone reclassification applications. KCC 21A.37.010 states that the TDR program is "intended to supplement land use regulations... and to encourage increased residential development density... where it can best be accommodated with the least impacts on the natural environment and public services..." KCC 21A.37.010 (2) further requires that the use of TDR must be balanced with other county goals and policies, and ... adjusted to the specific conditions of each receiving site." We oppose the approval of the application to utilize Transfer of Density Rights for these proposed subdivisions. The same Comprehensive Plan and Countywide Planning Policies that require rejection of a rezone equally apply to the use of TDR. Additionally, data from the King County Department of Transportation, the Issaquah School District and the City of Renton strengthen the body of evidence submitted and conclusively indicates the state of infrastructure deficit in this community. The local infrastructure can not support the requested density and there is no indication that improvements will ever be constructed to support it. We strongly urge the denial of the Liberty Grove/Liberty Grove Contiguous Plat Applications - L03P0006 and L03P0005. Exhibit No. _,..,..,.� Item No. � Received King County Healring Ex w Panp 1 of 4 C.A.R.E. Response: Liberty Grove/Liberty Grove Contiguous Plat Applications - L03P0006 and L03P0005 February 10, 2004 Introduction The argument has been made that the impacts on C.A.R.E., its members and our entire community are no different under the requested increased density (equivalent to R-6(gross)) than they are under the current R-4(gross) density designation. This argument ignores reality. There is a difference between R-4(gross) and R-6(gross) and that difference is approximately 50°% more newly constructed houses in an area that is the same size. The additional houses will mean, among other things, approximately 50% more traffic, and 50°% more impervious surfaces, as well as additional emergency responses, pollution and noise. In particular, C.A.R.E. and its members are interested in ensuring, in compliance with Countywide Planning Policies, coordinated and responsible development of our community consistent with state and local zoning laws and regulations that are aimed at ensuring that development does not exceed infrastructure capacity, and does not dmamge current owners' properties or the character of our neighborhood. C.A. R.E. has serious concerns about the ability of King County and the City of Renton to provide adequate police and fire protection services for this area, either immediately or in the longer term, in the face of rampant new and denser development such as that proposed. C.A.R.E. and its members are also concerned with protecting against physical damage to existing residences and properties as a result of site preparation, construction, and use associated with the proposed development. Such impacts would harm C.A.R.E. members' interests in protecting their property values, along with their privacy and the quiet enjoyment of their property. Any one or more of these interests may be negatively impacted if increased density is allowed for the proposed Evendell development. A. The purpose of the transfer of development rights program is to provide a voluntary, incentive -based process for permanently preserving the rural resource and Urban Separator lands that provide a public benefit. The TDR provisions are intended to supplement lands use regulations, resource protection efforts and open space acquisition programs and to encourage increased residential development density, especially inside cities, where it can best be accommodated with the least impacts on the natural environment and public services by: 1. Providing an effective and predictable incentive process for rural, resource and Urban Separator land property owners to preserve lands with public benefit as describes in K.C.C. 21A.37.020; and 2. Providing an efficient and streamlined administrative review system to ensure that transfers of development rights to receiving sites are evaluated in a timely way and balanced with other county goals and policies, and are adjusted to the specific conditions of each receiving site. Though the legislation regulating the TDR program allows increased density within the entire area of the Urban Growth Boundary such allowance is not without restriction. The statement of purpose acknowiedges that not all parcels within that area are equally capable of supporting such increased density. With this documentation, C.A.R.E. will show that the subject parcel is not capable of supporting the requested increased density and that approval of the requested increased density will violate multiple King County Comprehensive Plan and Countywide Planning policies that are mandated to be balanced when evaluating applications for utilization of the TDR program. "Best" and "least" are absolute superlatives. There is no legislative justification for approval of Increase density in areas that cannot "best' accommodate its negative consequences with the "Ieasf impacts. Rana 9 of 4 C.A.R.E. Response: Liberty Grove/Liberty Grove Contiguous Plat Applications - L03P0006 and L03P0005 February 10, 2004 Infrastructure Capacity The attached press releases from King County highlight the appropriate application of TDR by setting the receiving sites inside adopted Urban Centers. (March and April 2000 Press Releases) The subject parcels are neither in nor near any urban center with the established capacity to meet the needs of the proposed development. (Six Year Plan Map showing Urban Centers) In July of 2003, the King County General Government Budget Advisory Task Force issued a Recommendations Report. (Report of the King County General Government Budget Advisory Task Force) The Task Force report repeatedly cites the major impediment to cities' enthusiasm for annexation to be the critical infrastructure deficit in urban unincorporated areas. The Suburban Cities Association responded with a White Paper (A Joint City Position) which also emphasizes the infrastructure deficit in Potential Annexation Areas such as the one in which the proposed developments are located. Despite the mutually acknowledged existence of significant infrastructure deficit, the Task Force has proposed, and the King County Executive has agreed, that not only should the unincorporated area property tax levy, which has always been dedicated to roads and transportation, be redirected to other uses; but that services in the Urban Unincorporated Areas should be reduced or eliminated. The Task Force Conclusions state (in part): "Despite several years of aggressive budget cuts by the County, unless continued steps are taken to trim programs, streamline operations, apply greater management rigor, challenge traditional service delivery mechanisms, shed remaining urban unincorporated areas to cities, and successfully lobby the state for additional revenue tools, a steady decline in the quality of County government services is unavoidable. Even if the County is able to make major progress in terms of efficiencies, ultimately it cannot achieve long-term financial stability without the assistance of the state and local governments in this region (particularly those who are stakeholders in annexation)." The King County Executive's Office and the DOT have issued several statements in support of limiting and/or eliminating expenditures within the Urban Unincorporated Areas. In fact, the proposed 2004 Budget includes the initial steps in that direction - specifically the deferral of four major roads projects in the PAAs totaling $5.7 million in 2004 alone. (July 2003 Message to Employees; Budget & Fiscal Management Committee Capital Budget Panel - 2004 CIP Budget Overview; In Transportation - Facing the Challenges) According to the KCDOT (Community Action Strategies - Subarea Priority Ranking Map), our area is in line behind at least four high priority areas and one medium priority area for any retrofit or new capacity improvements. Additionally, neither the Urban Retrofit nor the Capacity Improvements indicated on the Subarea Priority Ranking Map are either scheduled or funded. This indicates that even with the least impact from the implementation of the Task Force's recommendation, our bad situation will continue to get far worse before there is any attempt at correction. The intersection of SE 128 St at 160"' Avenue SE has been on the KCDOT High Accident Locations Report since 1995. (High Accident Locations Report) In July 2003, this intersection was reprioritized from #98 on the HAL to #16, though the DDES report incorrectly states this date as that at which the intersection was added to the list.. This is an alarming elevation. C.A.R.E. members passionately testified at the Public Hearing for the Evendell application in March 2003 concerning the current conditions at this intersection. These dangerous conditions exist today - before the impacts of the Evendell (70 units), Hamilton Place (26 units), Liberty Grove I & II (60 units), or Nichols Place (25 units) applications - which all access 160t' Ave SE and will all contribute traffic to this intersection. The issuance of transportation concurrency certificates for densities in excess of the current zoning has artificially pushed the zone out of compliance and prevents any application for development in compliance with current zoning. (King County Concurrency Maps 2001, 2002 and 2003; Concurrency Detail Comparison Graphic) The entire area from the City Limits of Renton to the City Limits of Issaquah; from May Valley to the Cedar River Valley has been out of compliance with King County Transportation Concurrency standards since spring 2002. The current Concurrency Status Map shows no improvement, even with the introduction of averaging factors to prevent a single critical link from driving a zone out of compliance. The Issaquah School District's School Concurrency Certificate records the simple fact that there are no safe walkways between the subject parcels and any of the local schools (Briarwood Elementary, Maywood Middle School or Liberty High School) even though they are only blocks away. Even after the theoretical construction of walkways to Liberty High School and Maywood Middle School, there will be no safe walkway to Briarwood Elementary. As a Parma 'A of q C.A.R.E. Response: Liberty Grove/Liberty Grove Contiguous Plat Applications - L03P0006 and L03P0006 February 10, 2D04 consequence, the District will be required to bus these children. Worse than that, the proposed development falls outside the standard radius of bus service, so additional funds, at taxpayer expense, are to be provided by the State. Development Density New residential development in the Urban Growth Area should occur where facilities and services can be provided at the lowest public cost and in a timely fashion. The Urban Growth Area should have a variety of housing types and prices, including mobile home parks, multi -family development, townhouses and small -lot, single- family development. Once again, the superlative requirement of "lowest public cost' is clear. The requirement for additional taxpayer funds to bus school children from Liberty Grove/Liberty Grove Contiguous to schools merely blocks away clearly violates the "lowest public cost* requirement. 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... LU-28 Within the Urban Growth Area, growth should be directed as follows: a) 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-29 All jurisdictions shall develop growth phasing plans consistent with applicable capital facilities plans to maintain an Urban Area served with adequate public facilities and services to meet at least the six -year intermediate household and employment target ranges consistent with LU-67 and LU-68. These growth phasing plans shall be based on locally adopted definitions, service levels, and financing commitments, consistent with State Growth Management Act requirements. The 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-30 Where urban services cannot be provided within the next ten years, jurisdictions should develop policies and regulations to: a. Phase and limit development such that planning, siting, density and infrastructure decisions will support future urban development when urban services become available; and b. Establish a process for converting land to urban densities and uses once services are available. LU-33 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. Approval of increased density violates expectations of the community and the City of Renton, in whose PAA the subject parcels are located, for the for the final build -out density we had all expected over the long term. LU-28 again employs the superlative "first" in directing that growth should be directed where services and infrastructure currently exist in adequate levels to accommodate new growth. The closest Urban Center is in downtown Renton and is not full, neither have the areas inside the Renton City Limits been developed to the point of depleting capacity. Therefore there is no justification for increasing density in the unincorporated area where major infrastructure improvements, such as significant construction of new sewer system network and liftstations, are required. Such areas are specifically designated by LU-28 to develop "last". On -site sewer Iift/pump stations are not the only alternative to bring sewer infrastructure to this area. (Renton Long Range Wastewater Management Plan Excerts) City of Renton Long Range Waste Water Management Plan 1 East Pang 4 of q C.A.R.E. Response: Liberty Grove/Liberty Grove Contiguous Plat Applications - L03P0006 and L03P0005 February 10, 2004 Cedar River Basin Sewer Collection Report states that Option A (gravity lift station at the Elliot Bridge) is the best option for the following reasons: • Least requirement for force main pipe of all options considered • Lowest cost of all options considered - for both construction and maintenance • Better performance than pump lift station systems • More reliable than pump lift station systems - less chance of environmental damage due to failure If our community must bear an unequal burden in the name of the public interest that would be served by the provision of sewer infrastructure, we are entitled to a system that does not subject us to the potential consequences of an inferior infrastructure. King County is in violation of the Countywide Planning Policies articulated in LU-29, LU-30 and LU-33. Ten years after ratification of the CPP by all the municipal jurisdictions of King County, and despite the repeated please from the citizens of the East Renton Plateau PAA and their representatives on the Four Creeks Unincorporated Area Council, there is not a single interlocal agreement to fulfill the mandate of these policies in the East Renton Plateau PAA. As a result, all plat and related land use applications have been, and continue to be, processed in violation of these fundamental legislative requirements. King County is not allowed the option to neglect to negotiate and adopt interlocal agreements "that specify the applicable minimum zoning, development standards, impact mitigation and future annexation for the potential annexation areas" at its discretion. This is a fundamental legislative requirement. Neighborhood Compatibility "... King County supports increases in urban residential density through a rezone or a proposal to increase density through the density transfer or the density incentive programs when the proposal will help resolve traffic, sewer, water narks or ooen soace deficiencies in the immediate neiahborhood." In his recommendations for the original Evendeli applications, the King County Hearing Examiner recorded the following in regard to U-122: "...Most of the same improvements also would be built to support the 46 lot alternative plat proposed under the existingR-4 zone classification. The impacts from the development of 46 lots require similar sewer and surface water drainage improvements..." C.A.R.E. supports this finding and finds it directly applicable to the current application for the use of TAR. lnfiill Development Urban growth occurs both in new neighborhoods and in existing neighborhoods. Existing neighborhoods have a history of development patterns which have created a sense of identity. At the 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... LU-69 All jurisdictions shall develop neighborhood planning -and design processes to encourage infill development and enhance the existing community character and mix of uses. , Approval of the requested increased density violates LU-69. Increased density has been proven to be incompatible with the existing community character. The issue here is the difference between Rural Character and Rural Zoning. This area may now be zoned Urban, but there are still such rural infrastructural configurations as mailboxes at the street - or worse - along only a single side of arterials. The U.S. Post Office refuses to allow any change to the current configuration. Within a two block radius of the subject parcel there are multiple flocks of ducks, geese, and goats as well as at least twenty (20) horses, six (6) cows, two (2) llamas, and at least three (3) roosts of chickens. The proposed development site is completely surrounded -by an existing well established neighborhood with a definite rural character. Many of the members of C.A.R.E. have purchased their homes fairly recently, as compared to our neighbors of thirty or more years. The most consistent factor in their decision criteria has been that this community is one of the last places in King County that offers housing on large lots with large trees. Not only will the proposed development be immediately incompatible with the character of the existing neighborhood, but the site plan itself completely prevents Panes .r, of q C.A.R.E. Response: Liberty Grovell-iberty Grove Contiguous Plat Applications - L03P0006 and L03P0005 February 10, 2004 the possibility of growth of the species or scale of trees to ever mask its presence or mitigate its impact. It will remain an expanse of rooftops and blacktop forever. The development pattern of the wider surrounding neighborhood indicates a well defined scale of not greater than R-4 development that has been in place since the early 1960s. In his recommendations for the original Evendell applications, the King County Hearing Examiner recorded his acknowledgment of these conditions: "Existing development in the area surrounding Evendell is generally on lots ranging from 15,000 square feet to 1 % acres, with a few smaller and a few larger. Redevelopment and infill will occur over time in much of the area, creating smaller lots, but a substantial portion of the area will remain as currently developed for the indefinite future. The general character of existing development is individually built homes, with yards, gardens, trees and some pasture area and outbuildings, generating an overall impression of a suburban or somewhat rural area." The Evendell parcel is adjacent to the Liberty Grove parcel and across the street from the Liberty Grove Contiguous parcels. These findings still characterize the surrounding area. Potential Annexation Area Issues RF-4 Each city with a potential annexation area shall enter into an interlocal agreement with the County for defining service delivery responsibilities. A financing plan for investments in the annexation areas shall be included in the interlocal agreement for capital facilities and service delivery. Level -of -service standards and financial capacity should be considered for each area, together with density issues and phasing of developments. Rl~-5 In order to transition governmental roles so that the cities become the provider of local urban services and the County becomes the regional government providing Countywide and rural services, unincorporated Urban Growth Areas are encouraged to annex or incorporate within the 20-year timeframe of these Policies. To achieve this goal, all cities that have identified potential annexation areas shall enter into interlocal agreements with King County that includes a plan for development standards and financing of capital and operating expenditures during the period prior to annexation. King County is in violation of the Countywide Planning Policies articulated in LU-29, LU-30 and LU-33. Ten years after ratification of the CPP by all the municipal jurisdictions of King County, and despite the repeated please from the citizens of the East Renton Plateau PAA and their representatives on the Four Creeks Unincorporated Area Council, there is not a single interlocal agreement to fulfill the mandate of these policies in the East Renton Plateau PAA. As a result, all plat and related land use applications have been and continue to be processed in violation of these fundamental legislative requirements. The city of Renton specifically identified the need for roadway widening, pavement section, curb and gutter, sidewalks, street lighting, internal street system (including right-of-way width) to be constructed to City of Renton standards in their letter of May 6'h 2003. DDES failed to fulfill the requirement to "collaboratively address level -of servioe standards and costs". In fact, they failed to even acknowledge the issues raised by Renton. If a city desires a level -of -service higher than King County's service standard, the city should be responsible for paying all of the incremental costs of the higher level -of -service above what the County would provide. Since DDES failed to engage with the City of Renton in any way, Renton was not afforded to opportunity to pay any incremental cost associated with their higher design and construction standards. Thus, the recommendations proposed by staff are in violation of KC Comprehensive Plan Policy U-209 and must not be approved. Additionally, the City of Renton provides fire protection services for this area of unincorporated King County. This constitutes a kind of functional interlocal agreement for which consideration of Renton's standards for the accommodation of emergency vehicles and zoning must be included in the evaluation of these applications. Renton requires additional site access and road network connectivity, wider and thicker road surfaces with larger turning radii. In the absence of the interlocal agreements required by the Countywide Planning Policies, the requirement of KC Comprehensive Plan Policies U-208 and 209 carry all the more weight, It is not an option for King County to address these issues, or not, at its discretion. King County is required to address the issues raised by the City of Renton. Panes A of q C.A.R.E. Response: Liberty Grove/Liberty Grove Contiguous Plat Applications - L03P0006 and L03P0005 February 10, 2004 The Washington State Office of Financial Management sets the projected growth targets for all local governments. Its 2003 reports show that the rate of population increase has slowed sharply. There is a significant probability that all growth targets inside King County will be lowered as a result of these trends. (State, County, City Populations) In 2003 the City of Renton conducted a major study of the East Renton Plateau Potential Annexation Area in which the proposed Liberty Grove/Liberty Grove Contiguous developments are located. Like King County's, Renton's Comprehensive Plan is a relatively recent legislative development - the result of the requirement of the Growth Management Act for local jurisdictions to plan for their share of anticipated growth. In 2003, Renton completed a review and update to its Comprehensive Plan. Interestingly, the Evendell, Liberty Grove/Liberty Grove Contiguous and Nichols Place applications were critical motivations for these studies. These applications brought to staff s attention the need to refine the zoning and development standards for this area to provide sufficient authority to ensure that the development of Renton's PAA would allow the achievement of core Comprehensive Plan Polices. (Renton Strategic Planning Department - Staff Reports of June 3, September 23, October 1, October 10; Renton Planning Commission Recommendation of October 22; Ordinance 5026; and Renton City Council Regular Meeting Minutes of November 24, 2003) As the acknowledged future local government for the East Renton Plateau PAA, the City of Renton is best qualified to evaluate the long term potential for development and the associated costs of such development. The results of their research were dramatic. The assumptions at the start of the process included the option of either confirming the extension of the city's standard base density of R-8(net) throughout the PAA or setting aside 2 limited bonus areas of up to R-6(net) within an area -wide designation of R4(net). Ultimately, Renton determined that either standard would critically impede the implementation of other of its Comprehensive Plan Policies. The final action resulted in the entire PAA being designated as R-4(net) and new, more stringent, site and building design restrictions being added. Traffic Issues -. King County should seek to improve pedestrian safety both within residential areas and at arterials near pedestrian activity centers such as schools, retail centers, concentrations of housing, transit facilities and trails.... To foster safe walking conditions for students, King County should continue the School Walkway Program. As stated above, the Issaquah School District has determined that there is no safe walkway for students between Liberty Grove/Liberty Grove Contiguous site and any of the local schools (Briarwood Elementary, Maywood Middle School or Liberty High School) even though they are only blocks away. DDES has recommended a condition that requires additional facilities to accommodate school children. C.A.R.E. supports this recommendation. However, even these recommendations are inadequate, as there is no possibility of constructing a safe walkway to the elementary school and all those children will still have to be bussed at taxpayer expense under exceptional arrangements. Staff recommendations have not been updated to reflect the fact that Evendell has been required to make the left turn lane improvements at the intersection of SE 13(P St. and 156!h Ave SE. Therefore, these improvements are no longer an appropriate alternative to the mitigation at the dangerous intersection at SE 128th St. and 160th Ave SE. At the very least, should this application for increased density be approved, the applicant must be required to fully mitigate the dangerous intersection at SE 128th St. and 160th Ave SE. Drainage Issues There are significant know drainage issues at several properties on 160t" Ave SE. While the applicant repeatedly asserts that property owners have agreed to conveyance upgrades or flow crossing into these properties, not a single letter of consent has been presented. Approval of these application must not be granted without guarantee that these owners have agreed to these impacts, and alternately ,that in the case that, such consent letters can not be obtained the alternate mitigation sufficient to prevent off -site drainage impacts are fully specified in the conditions of these applications. Staff report on page 4 at point f#2 (Liberty Grove Contiguous) regarding the approved drainage variance (1-03V0065) states: 'The volume for the detention facility will be based on all the flows directed to the facility at the full development under current zoning." If the requested increased density is approved, this requirement must be adjusted to accommodate that increased density. paneRofP C.A.R.E. Response: Liberty Grove/Liberty Grove Contiguous Plat Applications - L033P0006 and L03P0005 February 10, 2004 Conclusions The Liberty Grove/Liberty Grove Contiguous proposal for increased density is not in the public interest. On the contrary, the proposed higher density development will cause the destruction of the character of the existing and established surrounding neighborhood while burdening the community with increased noise, traffic and pollution. Approval of the subject application per the recommendations of staff would not only violate the specific requirements and limitations of KCC 21A.37.010, the Comprehensive Plans of both King County (U-113, U-122, U-208, U-209 and T-321) and the City of Renton, as well as the Countywide Planning Policies (LU-28, LU-29, LU-30, LU-33, LU-69, RF- 4, RF-5 and CO-11) but jeopardizes King County`s interests and its stated goal of accelerated annexations of the Urban Unincorporated Areas by exacerbating the existing infrastructure deficit. We are the Public. Our interest is in protecting our homes, preserving the character of our existing neighborhood, promoting fair and reasonable use of property for all land owners and preventing harm to our community. We strongly urge the denial of the Liberty Grove/Liberty Grove Contiguous Plat Applications - L03P0006 and L03P0005. pans q of q CARE Households List r Whjbb State Z�i ,ParcONWN56--'-,*i�* 1 Tim and Gina Lex 13116 158th Ave SE Renton WA 98059 3664500068 2 Danielle and Davis Eckstrom 156th Ave SE Renton WA 98059 3 Ronda Bryant 15406 SE 136th Renton WA 98059 1423059006 4 Gary Stanford 13111 160th Ave SE Renton WA 98059 3664500062 5 Laurie Hindes 14115 160 Ave SE Renton WA 98059 1423059056 6 Rene and Lilly Threadwell 14005 133rd ST Renton WA 98059 6928000170 7 Mary Ann Huniu 15642 SE 139 PL. Renton WA 98059 1423059090 8 Debbie Erickson 16031 SE 135th ST Renton WA 98059 2006000210 9 Bob Elwell 16020 SE 130th St Renton WA 98059 1457500054 10 Roge r & J udy Paulson 15657 SE 139 PL Renton WA 98059 9425200080 11 Randy and Bonnie Homer 13404 160 Ave SE Renton WA 98059 2006000030 12 Sally Nipert 14004 156th Ave SE Renton WA 98059 1423059057 13 Eloise Stachowiak 15652 SE 139th PL Renton WA 98059 1423059088 14 Leonard & Linda Johnston 16016 SE 135th ST Renton WA 98059 2006000150 15 Ray Conwell 13006 158th Ave SE Renton WA 98059 161Bruce Osgoodby Sr. 13456 156 Ave Se Renton WA 98059,3664500281 17 Esther Delp 12820 156th Ave SE Renton WA 9805913664500165 18 Wendy Downs 13825 156th Avenue SE Renton WA 98059 1463400057 19 Shirlene Day 14412 167th PI SE Renton WA 98059 1081200580 20 Kathleen Quimet 14038 156th Ave SE Renton WA 98059 1423059023 21 Kerrie and Bill Mason 13111 156th Ave SE Renton WA 98059 1423059073 22 Don and Diane Kezele 15657 SE 137 PL Renton WA 98059 1423059051 23 Charles and Viola Scoby 13112 158th Ave SE Renton WA 98059 3664500071 24 Neal Seeer 12914 158th Ave SE Renton WA 98059 3664560006 25 Bud, June and Kris Hill 13527 156th Ave SE Renton WA 98059 1423059059 26 Mark and Gail Costello 13012 158th Ave SE Renton WA 98059 3664500041 27 Jeff and Karen Sidebotham 13004 158th Ave SE Renton WA 98059 3664500043 28 Ed and Nancy Hilton 13414 158th Ave SE Renton WA 198059 3664500135 29 Dave Petrie 811 S 273rd CT - Des Moines WA 198198 30 David Kupcho 13110 158th Ave SE Renton WA 98059 3664500064 31 Fred y and Helga Jaques 13114 158th Ave Se Renton WA 98059 3664500069 32 Michael Cooke 13125 158th Ave SE Renton WA 98059 3664500210 33 Marilynn Carlson 13616 156th Ave SE Renton WA 98059 1423059019 34 K. Sarguist 14204 160th Ave SE Renton WA 98059 1457500115 35 Jan Milbrath 15624 SE 137th IPL. Renton WA 98059 1423059043 36 Richard Savage 12909 158th Ave SE Renton WA 98059 3664500160 37 Geneva D. Scholes 12924 158th Ave SE Renton WA 198059 3664500009 38 Dale and Don Fisher 13155 158th Ave SE Renton WA 98059 3664500215 39 Bret Bowden 13814 160th Ave SE Renton— WA 98059,1457500096 40 Gloria Peters 13025 158th Ave SE Renton WA 98059 3664500190 41 Penny, Dave and DJ Thorbeck 15650 SE 138th PI~ Renton WA 98059 7418000080 42 Dan and Lynn Peterson 13118 158th Ave SE Renton WA 98059 3664500073 43 Dorothy Riley 14525 167th PI SE Renton WA 98059 1081200330 44 Martha Newton 14518 167th PI SE Renton WA 98059 1081200540 45 Delores MenKing 13415 163rd Ave SE Renton WA 98059 3590000030 46 Terri R. Williams 13421 163rd Ave SE Renton WA 98059 3590000040 47 Alice Lee 16304 SE 135th Renton WA 98059 3590000010 48 Robin and Donna Allred 13412 163rd Ave SE Renton WA 98059 1457500034 49 Roxi and J.S. Greider 13420 163rd Ave SE Renton WA 98059 3590000020 50 Warren and Sara Pape 13420 162nd Ave SE Renton WA 98059 1457500037 51 Constance and Richard Allen 13411 168rd Ave SE Renton WA 98059 52 �52,Dave Kenneth and Dorothy Olson 16210 SE 1 34th St j:XhjWj Nif enton w _9AO59 1457500025 � Olson 116206 SE 134th I+QM W. [Renton fWA9805911457500026 V %-a, " V wt-ai- -k�" ReceivedZ—.M —n . ') King County Healing E=TiNr C.A.R.E. Response: Liberty Grove/Liberty Grove Contiguous Plat Applications - L03P0006 and L03P0005 February 10, 2004 DDES utterly failed to do so, and thus the recommendations proposed by staff are in violation of KC Comprehensive Plan Policy U-208 and must not be approved. Failure to coordinate the standards to which infrastructure improvements are to be constructed with the jurisdiction in whose PAA the subject parcels are found violates LU-28, LU-29, LU-30, LU-33 U-208and U-209. Required mitigation must be modified to the negotiated satisfaction of both King County and the City of Renton. 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. 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. The proposed Evendell, Liberty Grove/Liberty Grove Contiguous and Nichols Place developments are completely and without exception isolated from any fully -developed areas. Approval of any of these applications would violate KC Countywide Planning Policy CO-11. 1. Residential Densities The density of eight homes per acre expressed below is a long-term goal and would be an average density of single-family and multifamily developments. The latest data from King County illustrates that all growth targets throughout the county are being met. (2003 Annual Growth Report - excerpts) 50% of the anticipated growth in King County for the entire 20 year planning cycle has been achieved in the first 38% of that cycle. Even more telling, the Unincorporated Area of the South Subregion, in which the proposed Evendell is located, has achieved 37% of its total 20 year goal in the last 2 years (9% of the total period). (King County Benchmark Report 2003: Land Use - excerpts) This rate far exceeds the anticipated and planned rate of growth, and the impacts are sorely felt in our community. Achieved Density on New Plats and Achieved Density on New Permits far exceeded the Average Planned Density for areas, such as ours, currently zoned. 3-5 DUlacre in the South Subregion. Our area is more than meeting its growth targets and fulfilling the goals of the Comprehensive Plan for urban densities inside the UGB. There is no shortage of housing or of housing capacity. The Buildable Lands Evaluation Report 2002 has indicated no such shortage now or in the foreseeable future. (Buildable Lands Evaluation Report 2002 - excerpts) On page 183, the Residential Capacity Analysis for the South County urban unincorporated area, in which the proposed Evendell site is located, states: "The South County Urban Unincorporated Area has a total residential capacity of 17,283 units. Its remaining target to 2012 is 4,935 households. This amounts to a surplus capacity of 12,384 units greater than its target. It has achieved 53% of its target in the first eight years of the twenty year planning period.' On page 9 the following summary conclusions are reported for the entire County: o King County has well over the capacity needed to accommodate the growth that is expected to occur by 2012. • Sufficient capacity exists to accommodate further growth beyond the 2012 planning horizon. o All the sub -areas of King County show adequate capacity for the target period through 2012, and beyond. The data clearly shows that we have much more than sufficient capacity in this area, and in all of King County, to meet all mandated targets — without approval of any application for densities higher than the current base densities anywhere in the County or at any time within the planning period. To achieve an average density within the Urban Zone, county wide, of up to eight houses per acre, there must be areas with density lower than that average. Where circumstances in a specific area, such as ours, make higher density inappropriate, this provision for the allowance of lower density makes it not only possible, but necessary to allow that lower density to be maintained. Pans 7 of 4 CARE Households List 54 Donald Helms 13404 162nd Ave SE Renton WA 98059 1457500036 55 Bill & Donna Mokin 14404 162nd Ave SE Renton WA 98059 1081310190 56 John and Sharon Nanney 16169 SE 146th PI Renton WA 98059 1081320090 57 Albert Krush 14103 160th Ave SE Renton WA 98059 1423059011 58 Ro er and ShirleyAnderson 15813 SE 141st Renton WA 98059 1423059048 59 Bill and Bonnie King 17011 SE 136th Renton WA 98059 7229800340 60 Jackie Blanchard 13007 162nd Ave SE Renton WA 98059 3243000080 61 Fred and Gloria A. Martin 13019 160th Ave SE Renton WA 98059 3664500047 62 Harold and Roxaine Reynolds 13016 156th Ave SE Renton WA 98059 3664500205 63 Jeff Casebeer 14051 156th Ave SE Renton WA 98059 5336700015 64 David Stevens 15910 SE 142nd St Renton WA 98059 1423059052 65 Kathryn Monroe 14131 160th Ave SE Renton WA 98059 1423059078 66 Carolyn Ann Buckett 116524 SE 145 ST Renton WA 98059 1081200080 67 Sally and Ga Williams 13204 156th Ave SE Renton WA 98059 3664500220 68 Lon A. Crosslin 15430 SE 132nd ST Renton WA 98059 1423059115 69 Sam Tacher 15514 SE 132nd ST Renton WA 98059 1423059116 70 Brent Flatau and Do an Jarcell 11453 163rd Ave SE Renton WA 98059 1656500430 71 Russ Waterhouse 12925 158th Ave SE Renton WA 98059 3664500161 72 Gerald Smith 8524 S. 125th Renton WA 98055 7961500020 73 Calvin and Barbara Chin 14517 157th Pi SE Renton WA 98059 74 Harold and Eleanor Zeek 16621 SE 145th Renton WA 98059 .1081200310 75 Jennifer Armstrong 16613 SE 145th ST Renton WA 98059 1081200300 76 Gary and J.Y. Smith 14504 166th PI SE Renton WA 98059 1081200290 77 Michael S. Otis 14521 166th PI SE Renton WA 98059 1081200140 .78 Barbara J. Thomas 14537 166th PI SE Renton WA 98059 1081200160 79 Richard and Anita Oliphant 16519 SE 145th Renton WA 98059 1081200120 80 David Roz malski 16511 SE 145th St Renton WA 98059 1081200110 81 James and Patricia McDougal 14502 167th PI SE Renton WA 98059 1081200560 82 Paula Chipman 14210 171 st Ave SE Renton WA 98059 7229800495 83 Ed and Dorthea Haggarman 13710 156TH AVE SE Renton WA 98059 1423059012 84 Don and Eilleen Ehlert 15502 SE 136TH ST Renton WA 98059 1423059033 85 David Michalski 15635 SE 139th PL Renton WA 98059 9425200050 86 Victor and Gwendolyn High 13405 158th Ave SE Renton WA 98059 3664500245 87 Marsha Rollin er 1%46 SE 138th Place Renton WA 98059 7418000070 88 Rachel Pickens 6780 Abrams Rd. #103-326 Dallas TX 75231 89 Robert Graves 14034 180th Ave. SE Renton WA 98059 7230100170 90 L nda Cords 15900 SE 142nd St. Renton IWA 198055 1423059113 �—�Pll Lynda and Mike Voi t 15713 SE 148th St. lRenton IWA 198055,1081800360 wt Liberty Grove/Liberty Grove Contiguous Evendell Nichols Piaw Existing or Proposed RA Development CARE Households king County FT News F,�es 1ommen1King Sear News -release, Ron Sims j.a County Home News Schedule E-mail March 28, 2000 [Forst Transfer of Development Credits an HW celebrated King County Executive Ron Sims today celebrated the first successful transfer of development credits that will preserve rural areas, prevent sprawl and increase densities in cities. The public private partnership involves sales of 62 "development rights" from the 313-acres McCormick Forest to Port Blakely, the developer of the Issaquah Highlands inside the city of Issaquah. "To keep our rural areas rural, we have implemented effective incentives to compensate rural land owners who 'trade' their development rights to ensure it is not developed," Sims explained. "In turn, cities like Issaquah can increase density within their city limits at a higher level than is currently allowed. This innovative transaction is not only the first success of our fledgling Transfer af_Deyelopment Credits_pr_ogram, it is the first such interjurisdictional transfer in the Northwest." Port Blakely paid $2.75 million for the development rights and will be allowed to add 500,000 square feet of commercial space in the Issaquah Highlands. They will also contribute $1 million to Issaquah for construction of the southern central business district bypass. King County has acquired the remaining interest in the Mitchell Hill property for public forestry purposes. Sims said the King County program is modeled after programs in Montgomery County, Maryland and Boulder, Colorado, in which 44,0000 acres and 10,000 acres respectively have been preserved. King County will be just as aggressive in this ac King County Executive Ron Sims celebrates the first successful transfer of development credits that will preserve rural areas, prevent sprawl and increase densities in cities. Executive Sims recognizes the efforts of Issaquah Mayor Ava Frisinger, King County Councilmember Larry Phillips and Washington State Commissioner of Public Lands Jennifer Belcher in the development of the TDC program and the purchase of the 120-acre Mitchell Hill property. J 0U . cl,O YJ I � A:: groundbreaking effort as those areas, Sims said. "The purchase of the Mitchell Hill property is finally a reality. After 15 years of work, it is great to see the fruits of our collective labor finally paying off. With the TDC program firmly in place, we have added yet another tool to our arsenal to fight sprawl and its associated negative impacts on our natural environment," said Metropolitan King County Councilmember Larry Phillips. "Purchase of the Mitchell Hill connector is another shining jewel added to our stock of permanently protected open space to be enjoyed by generations to come. I am proud to have devoted my time and effort to this cause and look forward to seeing more successes in the future." Sims added that such innovative efforts could only be successful by outstanding working partnerships. He recognized the Mountains to Sound Greenway, the city of Issaquah, Port Blakely and the landowner of Mitchell Hill, the Hooker Family Trust. Sims said the Hooker family's patience with the complex public process required for completion of this transaction has resulted in " a permanent legacy for future generations." He also thanked Councilmember Phillips for his work on this project over the last 15 years. "It is projects like this that typify regional cooperation," said Issaquah Mayor Ava Frisinger. "When governments cooperate, much can be accomplished that benefit each partner." Sims announced that King County would complete an updated Forest Management Plan in partnership with Issaquah in 2000. The plan's top goal will be to increase biodiversity on site and speed the natural succession process to achieve a mature forest. The property is important for salmon habitat as it drains into the east fork of Issaquah Creek and Patterson Creek in the Snoqualmie River Basin. A soft surfaced trail will also be included. Acquisition negotiations on the adjoining 120-acre Mitchell Hill Partnership property will be completed within the next week. "This utilizes Forest Legacy funding Enlarged view Executive Sims is pictured with the Hooker family; King County purchased the Mitchell Hill property from the Hooker Family Trust for public forestry purposes. administered by the Washington State Department of Natural Resources," said Washington State Commissioner of Public Lands Jennifer Belcher. "The Forest Legacy grants have been a tremendously valuable tool to help us purchase the development rights on very expensive parcels of forest -- forests that are immediately at risk of being developed," said Belcher. "We wouldn't be able to protect key wildlife corridors, water quality and recreation in this area of high population growth without the Legacy program. The US Forest Service continues to be a significant partner with us in the Greenway." Updated: March 28, 2000 Executive's home { Executive's.. news Executive's schedule I Executive's e-mail King County I Executive j News j SeryEces. I Comments 1 Search Links to external sites do not constitute endorsements by King County. By visiting this and other King County web pages, you expressly agree to be bound by terms and conditions o1 the site. The details. • +Hottie News ? s Home News April: 10, 2000 King County Execut Schedule E-rnaii Transfer ®f Development Credits Program gets a boost Li;]U Ron Sims applauded the King County Council today for it's unanimous approval of the Denny Triangle Transfer of Development Credits (TDC) Interlocal Agreement, As part of the agreement, qualified rural landowners from the Cedar, Green and Snoqualmie River Basins may now sell their development rights to property owners in the Denny Triangle neighborhood of Seattle. New buildings inside the Triangle.can achieve a 30 percent increase in building height only through the acquisition of rural development rights. In exchange for sale of their development rights, rural landowners accept a pdrmanent conservation easement to preserve forest and farm lands, and preclude new residential development. "Today represents an historic leap forward for growth management in the Puget Sound Region," Sims said. "This is the first open-ended TDC agreement between two separate jurisdictions in the Pacific Northwest, allowing transfers of development credits between private rural and urban property owners. Rural forests and farms will be preserved and rural sprawl will be curtailed. I especially want to thank Councilmem.b.er..,Larry. Philii.ps for his tireless work to make the TDC program a reality." King County will contribute $500,000 for the design and construction of public amenities to make the Denny Triangle neighborhood a vibrant place to live. This will be matched by developer contributions based on the additional square footage acquired under the TDC Program. The interlocal agreement was unanimously adopted by the Seattle City Council in November of 1999. At today's King County Council meeting, Jim Cook, owner of 285 acres in the Cedar River Basin, urged the council to act. "This interlocal agreement is a win -win for everyone. I can sell 56 development credits, allowing me to preserve my 285-acre tree farm property. Without this program, I'm afraid would have had to sell my property to developers." Link to: Transfe�r.of Deyelopment..Credits_Pil_ot Program Updated: April 10, 2000 i f f Vashon Island I� f� WIMI urien ay R Pacific tlpy 6pu./! Aen�e Lynl. LEGEND All -Day @) Urban Center Transit Routes no Manufacturing Center Peak -Only Transit Routes Rural King County N 1 0 1 Mlles �+� ® T January 31 , 2002 S0r1�F•�le w ila on dCovington Auburn f Q Maple Valley Metork: Ioutf� Sut��re� Appendix B-3 King County Metro Six -Year Transit Development Plan (February 2002) Enumclaw King County Deparrment of TRANSPORTATION MW Report of the King County General Government Budget Advisory Task Force to County Executive Ron Sims June 25, 2003 INTRODUCTION Task Force Mission Process and Re ort The general government services provided by King County are fundamental to the quality of life in our region. Criminal justice services, including the superior and district courts, prosecutor and public defender's offices, the sheriff's office, jail and detention facilities, ensure the public safety of our communities. Providing public health services and basic human services, as well as the day-to-day functions of public record keeping, issuing licenses, conducting elections, assessing property and providing treasury services are also County responsibilities. These essential functions comprise the basic governing services and structures that we all rely on, and which are often overlooked because they are so much a part of the fabric of our daily lives. The County's ability to continue to provide these essential government services is in serious jeopardy. Last year, a record $51 million in cuts to general government programs were required in order to balance the County Budget. County Executive Ron Sims indicated that this trend would continue because of the basic limitations of the County's revenue structure. In October 2002, the Executive created the King County General Government Budget Advisory Task Force ("Task Force"), to provide advice on this challenge. The Task Force is composed of 13 citizens (See Attachment A). The Executive recruited these Task Force members in order to secure a broad range of perspectives and experience. Task Force members come from backgrounds in government, business, labor and the non-profit sector. The mission of the Task Force, as presented by the Executive, is as follows: Examine the County's Current Expense (CX) Fund, programs, policies, processes and budgets, and make recommendations regarding policy and operational changes that may provide appropriate additional cost savings, as well as the need, if any, for additional revenues in support of CX programs. The work of the Task Force will include examination ofgeneral government functions and budgets, including but not limited to the courts, sheriff, jail, public health, human services, parks and central government Exhibit N . peril�� No � 1 � r King Coinq Hearing Examiner functions. The Task Force will also review the 2003 budget process and make recommendations about 2004 budget cuts. The Task Force had its inaugural meeting in early November 2002. This was followed by a series of tours of many County general government functions in December. The Task Force then met every two weeks from January through June. All meetings were open to the public. Multiple stakeholder panels were held in order that the Task Force could hear not only from the Executive staff, but also directly from others in government and in the region, including mayors and city managers, judges, the King County Sheriff, the King County Prosecutor, the King County Bar Association, unincorporated area council representatives and County Councilmembers — among others. The Task Force identified three primary tasks for its work: 1. Identify short-term and long-term direction/priorities for budget cuts. 2. Identify short-term and long-term operational and other changes to address CX shortfalls. 3. Determine whether there is a structural problem with the County's funding, and if so, are new funding sources required? What type offunding sources? This report presents the Task Force's assessment of the critical fiscal problems facing King County general government and a series of short and longer -term recommendations to address those problems. We begin with a general description of the challenge. Then, we in turn address four key substantive areas: o Service Priorities for King County; o Administrative and Operational Efficiencies; o Aligning Services and Revenues; and o Revenue Options. in each of these substantive areas, we first present a challenge statement and analysis, then a list of recommendations, including: (1) County action steps (short term and long term); (2) State action steps; and (3) Regional dialogue recommendations. We have reviewed a tremendous amount of information regarding the various general service budgets, the statutory obligations of the County, the limitations placed on it by state law, the array of revenue authorities granted the County, and the policies and practices governing expenditure of those revenues. The complexity of the budget challenge, and the County organization itself, is such that despite our work over the last eight months, we believe it is neither appropriate nor possible for us to offer line -item budget cut recommendations that will erase the ongoing budget deficits facing King County. Rather, this report reflects our assessment of the current direction of the County, poses several questions for further inquiry, and recommends several policy directions and actions that we believe should guide County leaders in managing the budget crisis in the near and longer -term. 2 3 Report of the King County General Government Budget Advisory ''ask ]Force to County Executive Ron Sims June 25, 2003 INTRODUCTION Task Force Mission Process and Report The general government services provided by King County are fundamental to the quality of life in our region. Criminal justice services, including the superior and district courts, prosecutor and public defender's offices, the sheriff's office, jail and detention facilities, ensure the public safety of our communities. Providing public health services and basic human services, as well as the day-to-day functions of public record keeping, issuing licenses, conducting elections, assessing property and providing treasury services are also County responsibilities. These essential functions comprise the basic governing services and structures that we all rely on, and which are often overlooked because they are so much a part of the fabric of our daily lives. The County's ability to continue to provide these essential government services is in serious jeopardy. Last year, a record $51 million in cuts to general government programs were required in order to balance the County Budget. County Executive Ron Sims indicated that this trend would continue because of the basic limitations of the County's revenue structure. In October 2002, the Executive created the King County General Government Budget Advisory Task Force ("Task Force"), to provide advice on this challenge. The Task Force is composed of 13 citizens (See Attachment A). The Executive recruited these Task Force members in order to secure a broad range of perspectives and experience. Task Force members come from backgrounds in government, business, labor and the non-profit sector. The mission of the Task Force, as presented by the Executive, is as follows: Examine the County's Current Expense (CA) Fund, programs, policies, processes and budgets, and make recommendations regarding policy and operational changes that may provide appropriate additional cost savings, as well as the need, if any, for additional revenues in support of CX programs. The work of the Task Force will include examination ofgeneral government functions and budgets, including but not limited to the courts, sheriff, jail, public health, human services, parks and central government Exhibit N . �-3 L Item Ho. @ � k m Ruehw King County Hearing Examiner functions. The Task Force will also review the 2003 budget process and make recommendations about 2004 budget cuts. The Task Force had its inaugural meeting in early November 2002. This was followed by a series of tours of many County general government functions in December. The Task Force then met every two weeks from January through June. All meetings were open to the public. Multiple stakeholder panels were held in order that the Task Force could hear not only from the Executive staff, but also directly from others in government and in the region, including mayors and city managers, judges, the King County Sheriff, the King County Prosecutor, the King County Bar Association, unincorporated area council representatives and County Councilmembers — among others. The Task Force identified three primary tasks for its work: 1. Identify short-term and long-term direction/priorities for budget cuts. 2. Identify short-term and long-term operational and other changes to address CX shortfalls. 3. Determine whether there is a structural problem with the County's funding, and ifso, are newfunding sources required? What type offunding sources? This report presents the Task Force's assessment of the critical fiscal problems facing King County general government and a series of short and longer -term recommendations to address those problems. We begin with a general description of the challenge. Then, we in turn address four key substantive areas: n Service Priorities for King County; o Administrative and Operational Efficiencies; o Aligning Services and Revenues; and o Revenue Options. In each of these substantive areas, we first present a challenge statement and analysis, then a list of recommendations, including: (1) County action steps (short term and long term); (2) State action steps; and (3) Regional dialogue recommendations. We have reviewed a tremendous amount of information regarding the various general service budgets, the statutory obligations of the County, the limitations placed on it by state law, the array of revenue authorities granted the County, and the policies and practices governing expenditure of those revenues. The complexity of the budget challenge, and the County organization itself, is such that despite our work over the last eight months, we believe it is neither appropriate nor possible for us to offer line -item budget cut recommendations that will erase the ongoing budget deficits facing King County. Rather, this report reflects our assessment of the current direction of the County, 'poses several questions for further inquiry, and recommends several policy directions and actions that we believe should guide County leaders in managing the budget crisis in the near and longer -term. 2 PART 1: KING COUNTY GENERAL GOVERNMENT FISCAL. CRISIS: PROBLEM STATEMENT King County's general government operations as currently constituted are not sustainable. Simply stated, the problem is that general revenues are growing at less than two percent per year and general service expenditures are growing at between 51/2 to 61/: percent per year. Unless things change, County general fund budget cuts are a permanent, annually recurring event. It is important to understand the reasons for this situation, in order to identify solutions. We emphasize at the outset that the solution is not simply a matter of finding new revenue. while ultimately we believe new revenues are required, the County must also address certain basic operations and service delivery decisions. The County has undertaken major budget cuts in general government services in the last two years — together in excess of $90 million. (See Attachment B for a list of the 2001 and 2002 general government budget cuts, by program area). This is the cumulative equivalent of nearly 19 percent of 2003 general government service budgets. General government services are budgeted out of the County's "Current Expense ("CX") Fund," which receives a variety of general revenues sources.` The 2003 CX Fund budget is $492 million.z The County budget office estimates that status quo Current Expense expenditures will outpace revenue growth by over $20 million each year in 2004 and 2005, with the gap dropping to approximately $15 million in 2006 and each year thereafter,3 Continued status quo service delivery means that the only way to balance the budget each year is to fire more County employees every year and reduce services to the public accordingly: an untenable outcome. We believe that other options must be identified and pursued in order to maintain an adequate level of public services. King County must be first and foremost a deliverer of quality public service. The causes of the current situation are varied, and defy simple resolution. In our work, we found no "easy wins" or "low hanging fruit" — the County has identified and addressed these. There is no "silver bullet" to resolve the problem. The County has clearly made many difficult decisions in the past two years to deal with a serious budget crisis. But further changes in the way services are provided, and managed, are necessary. Ultimately, however, the County cannot resolve this crisis alone. This portion of our report reviews some of the basic facts about general County services and revenues. These basic facts are not well understood by the public, but illustrate the sources of the budget crisis. The average County resident probably has little idea which ' We use the terms "general fund" and "CX Fund"interchangeably in this report. Technically, the CX Fund is a sub -fund of the "General Fund," constituting over 99 percent of the General Fund budget. Approximately $4 million in dedicated sales tax revenues is also included within the General Fund budget. 2 The sources of CX Fund dollars, and their application, are summarized in Tables 2 and 3. 3 Passage of the May 2003 parks levy will reduce the amount of 2004 budget cuts needed by providing funding directly for regional parks. If approved by Council, the Executive's Solid Waste Initiative would provide additional CX dollars to further reduce the needed 2004 budget cuts. services are provided by the County, or where the money to support these services comes from. The County is largely invisible to residents. However, both County government and the public must understand the current situation, its root causes, and the implication for our region if nothing is done to change the situation. Distinguishing the CX Fund from the Rest of the County Budget. It is important to understand that the County's fiscal crisis is within one small (in terms of percentage) but critical part of County budget. As shown in Table I, the total County budget in 2003 is in excess of $3 billion. The County's general fund budget — or "Current Expense" (CX) Fund budget — is only about 16 percent of the total annual budget. The rest of the County budget is comprised of programs that are entirely fee supported or have dedicated tax revenues — so-called "enterprise funds" such as regional wastewater treatment, solid waste disposal, transit service, and Boeing Field. Additionally, there are capital funds to which revenues have been pledged to pay debt service. These fee and revenue supported services and funds are not in crisis — although they do share some concerns as clients of the internal services that are budgeted out of the CX Fund. Actions taken to reduce the CX budget may, in some cases, have a beneficial "ripple" effect to these dedicated service areas (or, if overhead functions are not flexibly structured such reductions may actually increase central service charges to those agencies). Table I 2003 Adopted Budget Public Health, roads, 911, in, , �e•J , „. 3 Solid Waste, Transit, EMS, Veterans, Mental Wastewater, Airport Health, various grants "$640:3-in-12 }%)z Sm (11%) Via; �'tej' Az 4.ItttauiServteo ' Fmployee benefits, IT, A�:•tf2:�'}-5�%a) facilities, furance, workers C+.3tn.(16°/• "X' "' ctnnnencation Qb �!Al r; g1. Vx. Debt Service ": .CapititiQlrmprrivrnent' $179.1 m (6%) 4. TheCX Facility Improvements:`fund is the largesrsubfured hwitin the nerd ndaccount Boling Field Jail;,' ^ jtt ' "�jor Harborview County roads ° ` 99%of all expenditures Hospital Parks Data source: King County Offier ojManagement and Budget The Role of the CX Fund. The CX Fund supports a disparate array of general government services, primarily services mandated by the state, as well as a few 4 discretionary services such as parks and human services. In addition, the CX Fund supports the basic internal operations of King County: the Council, Executive, human resources — general overhead functions. With a few notable exceptions,4 these general government services are not self-supporting through fees: they require tax support. While utility funds contribute their share to support general overhead, there are clear prohibitions in state law preventing the diversion of utility dollars to pay for non -utility functions. Thus, CX programs such as the courts or parks cannot be supported by sewer fees, garbage disposal charges or bus fares. The CX Fund is supported primarily by: (1) a countywide property tax; (2) the County's share of sales tax, collected both inside cities and in the unincorporated areas; (3) fees for service, such as city sheriff contract payments; and (4) transferred revenues from other enterprise functions of the County in payment for services (typically overhead services) provided by CX agencies. Tables 2 and 3 detail the sources and application of revenues to the CX Fund. Table 2 2003 Adopted CX Revenues (in mlllions) City Contracts $78 Internal Charges 16% for Services $41 8% 4 Grants, Licenses, Fines & Forfeits $77 6% �b rti i. Interest& Other 1 Property Tax $12 $219 2%D 44% Sales Tax $68 14% Data aauree: King Caunry office of Management and Budge, 4 Treasury services and public records not only cover the cost of operations through fees they generate several million dollars a year that are spun off to support other CX services. 5 Table 3 Parks CIP Miscellaneous ServiccOnternal Support Records, Elections $18 m and Licensing Assessors S16m Council S12m Human Resources S 6 m Budget & Finance S 6 m Contingencies S 5 m Executive S 3 m Executive Services S 2 m Property Services S 2 m Business Relations S 2 m & Econ. Develop. internal Support S 2 m Other' S 6 m ' Other includes: Ombudsman, Tax Advisor, Board of Appeals, Boundary Review Board, Cable Communications, Auditor, and Hearing Examiner 2003 CX Fund Expenditures Health & Human Services Public Health $14 m 1luman Services S 8 m Children & Family S 4 m Set- Aside Mental Health/ S 4 m Alcoholism Housing S .5 m Work Training S .6 m Memberships $ .5 m R 0 Capital Improvement ($9 m) 0 Miscellaneous Serviceslinternal Support ($80 m) Health & Human Services ($32 m) 0 Law, Safety & Justice ($352 m) 0 Parks, Open Space & DDES ($20 m) Data Source: King Cuunry lire alManagemem and Budget Law, Sarety and Justice Adult & Juvenile $103 m Detention Sheriff $97m Prosecuting $41 on Attorney Superior Court $32 m Public Defense $29 m District Court $20 to Judicial Admin Sl4 m Contingencies S 7 m Internal Support S 5 m Courthouse S 1 m Security Inmate Welfare $ 2 m Emergency S 1 m Management Parks Parks, Pools, King $16 m County Fairgrounds, Rec Programs DDES$ 3 m Other $ .5 m ' DDES provides code enforcement, planning and fire marshal services for unincorporated King County Root Causes of the Fiscal Crisis. We now turn to a brief examination of what we believe to be the root causes of the current CX budget crisis: o Doing two jobs, defined by the state: The County has a set of expensive, but critical public services that it is required to provide by state law, including both regional and local mandated services. e Decisions made to provide discretionary services: The County has over time chosen to provide many discretionary services. o Service Costs — which primarily consist of salaries and benefits, are growing each year. o The County has a limited revenue base, dependent upon cappedproperty taxes. There are major limitations on County revenue authority imposed by state law and voter initiative. o Conflicting constituencies and multiple service obligations have led to misalignment of revenues and expenditures. o A complex, politicized, and fragmented organization suffering from a lack of healthy central systems and challenging corporate culture. We address each of these challenges in turn below. Doing two jobs, defined by the state. King County, like all Washington counties, is a creature of the state.5 Although operating under a voter -approved charter, King County is required by the state to provide a wide array of public services. Whereas counties were originally envisioned to serve as the general government for an overwhelmingly rural population, over time a dual role has evolved, particularly in urbanized counties containing many cities. The County today has a dual role as the local government for unincorporated areas, and as the regional government for the County as a whole. King County provides a broad array of regional services to a population of 1.7 million. At the same time, it provides "city" local services to nearly 350,000 residents in the unincorporated areas6 — a population equivalent of the second largest city in the state. Even if all residents in the urban area were to incorporate or annex, the County would still be responsible for providing basic government services to rural residents (currently approximately 135,000 in number — equivalent to the second largest city in King County). The complexity of the County's task is made clear by examining a partial list of regional and local mandated service responsibilities: 5 That is, it was initially created by the state (as opposed to cities, which are created by citizen action). 6 Unincorporated areas are defined as all areas of King County outside of city boundaries, including both rural and urban areas. See Attachment C for a pie chart expressing the current population divisions. 7 Table 4 Regional Service Mandates (") per state law (+) service obligation approved/created by region's voters *Superior Court *District Court (certain case types) "Public Defender (all felony and some misdemeanors) *Prosecutor (all felony and some misdemeanors) *Felony Jail *Treasurer *Assessor 'Mental Health and Substance Abuse treatment *Sheriff (some statutory authorities) *Public Records *Elections Public Health +Sewage treatment +Transit +Automatic Fingerprint I.D. system +Emergency Medical Services Funding Table 5 Local (Unincorporated Area) Service Mandates (per state law) Roads District Court (misdemeanor offenses) Sheriff Fire Inspections Jail for misdemeanant offenders Prosecution and public defense of misdemeanant offenders Surface water management/storm drainage Building Perm itslZoninglLand-use King County is like a conglomerate that operates dozens of unrelated businesses. The merger of King County and METRO in the mid- 1990s completed this picture, moving two very large fee and dedicated tax supported service structures — wastewater and transit — into the County. As noted above, however, the former METRO services are not the source of the CX Fund's budget problem. The mandated services provided out of the CX Fund have evolved significantly over time: Public health responsibilities today are far more complex than was the case 100 years ago: simply consider the impact of SARS, bio-terrorism and AIDS. The requirements of our modern judicial system are another example where we see significant evolution in the standards that must be followed, from "Miranda rights" to the dozens of foreign languages spoken by defendants for which translators must be daily provided. New crimes are added to the books yearly by the state legislature, which increases the number of people the County must arrest, try, prosecute, defend, and provide detention. Major crimes pose a particular burden: the combined cost for investigation, prosecution, and defense of the Ridgeway murder hail will exceed $6.5 million in 2003. c Today, King County Department of Adult and Juvenile Detention spends over $19 million a year in jail health care for prisoners, including what is in essence the largest mental health care service program in the state. Table 6 shows how much of the available CX dollars are consumed by different CX agencies -- and the level of fees and criminal justice sales tax dollars supporting such programs. In terms of dollars, law, safety and justice functions combined consume over 70 percent of the total CX revenue of the County — a percentage that has grown steadily over time. The state mandates these functions, but provides little in the way of financial support. Vor example, the state retains nearly 40 percent of revenue generated by district court fines and forfeitures but provides no direct financial support in exchange. The only state support of the superior court is to fund one-half of judicial salaries and all judicial benefits, as well as a portion of juvenile court programs. The number of district court judges is set in state statute — the County cannot alter these based on caseload changes absent consent of the state. Washington state ranks 49`}' in the nation in providing financial support for the operation of its trial courts. The state provides little direct funding for the operation of the County's jail function, the prosecutor and public defender offices. The County adult detention (jail) function is the largest single consumer of CX dollars — and each new crime put on the books by the state legislature impacts the average daily population of the County jails. Table 6 2003 CX Funded Services: Fees and Charges for Services, Q Tax Support, and CX Tax Support G7 $0- -, �G ago ,og�}` ns ���� d e " �X b VP ate. 9 Revenue -Backed Expenditures (fees and charges for service) GCJ Tax Supported Expenditures 0 CX Tax -Supported Expenditures 5 Source: Washington State office of Administration of the Courts, based on U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice statistics FY 1999 data. E Decisions made to provide discretionary service& Overtime, the County has chosen to provide a number of discretionary services, in addition to its mandated services. Some of these services are extremely popular with the public, such as the regional parks and open space system. Human services, children and family services, and animal control are other examples of such discretionary services. As law, safety and justice budgets increase, budgets for discretionary services are being cut. The parks budget was slashed by over 30 percent in the last two years and now is preserved only because of passage this May of a special 4-year levy. The human services budget has been cut by similar percentages in this same period. Perhaps the decisions to enter into these service arenas were made without regard to the County's long-term fiscal capacity; perhaps they were an appropriate response to its mission of public service in an increasingly urbanized environment. Regardless, in a very real sense, the County's ability to continue. to provide these services is at stake. Services Costs — consisting primarily of salaries and benefits — are growing each year. The fact is that CX Fund services are provided by people. Salaries and benefits constitute over 70 percent of the expenditure of CX Funds. Per employee salaries have been growing at a rate offive percent per year (after considering retirements, new hires, cost of living allowances, and longevity increases). During the past two years elimination of almost 10 percent of the CX workforce reduced the aggregate growth rate in salaries to less than 1 percent per year. However, it will take cuts of similar magnitude each year in the future to keep the growth rate to such level. County employee benefit costs over the last several years on average have grown at an annual rate of nearly 10 percent — on par with private sector experience across the country. However, for the next several years, this rate is expected to grow at around 15 percent per year (also on par with an expected increase in the national rates). While labor costs are a major challenge, the County is constrained by both state laws and County policies in tackling these costs. The County currently has 94 different union bargaining units operating under 66 different union contracts. Over two-thirds of CX program employees are unionized, and this percentage has grown steadily over time. State law requires interest arbitration for sheriff employees and jail guards (as well as transit workers, not a part of the CX budget) — sending wage and working condition impasses to binding arbitration. Most significantly, County labor policies discourage contracting out of work. State case law interprets portions of the County Charter as preventing contracting out in certain situations.8 Union leaders, we are told, much prefer budget cuts be taken through employee reductions — rather than salary or benefit cuts or contracting out of work: this forces the County to cut service levels in order to balance the budget. It must be acknowledged that the County has achieved significant cost savings in working with its unions. For example, the most recent benefits contract (jointly negotiated with the County by all unions), doubled employee medical co -payments, allowing a one-year reduction in growth of benefits to around 1 percent as compared to a Joint Crafts Council v. King County, 76 Wash. App. 18 (1994), 10 the roughly 10 percent annual national average in recent years. Also, through agreement with unions, the County has for the last many years used a national cost of living allowance index for most employees that is lower than the regional Seattle -Everett metropolitan area cost of living index. State data suggests that County top managerial salaries lag significantly behind their public and private sector counterparts — an issue that we are told is having negative impact on the County's ability to attract high-level managerial employees. In aggregate, the cost of funding status quo CX services, after considering the cost of salaries, benefits, and all other factors(inflation, growth of service demand, regulatory changes, etc.) is growing at a rate of 5Y: to 6%: percent per year. The County has a limited revenue base, dependent upon capped property taxes. Although the services performed by the County have evolved over time, its fiscal resources to provide these services have changed little since its creation. The County's revenue tools are defined by state law. This includes two separate general property taxes (one levied countywide, the other in the unincorporated areas — currently dedicated by policy to roads), a share of sales tax (collected at one rate within cities, and a higher rate in unincorporated areas), some dedicated property and sales tax authorities (such as real estate excise tax and a share of a regional criminal justice sales tax). The County also has authority to impose a variety of fees (many of which, such as court and licensing fees, are fixed in amount by state law). The County's primary revenues sources for providing regional and local services are listed below in Table 7.10 This table illustrates the County's overwhelming dependence upon property taxes — taxes that have been capped by voter initiative' to an annual growth rate of one percent plus new construction. The revenue and expenditure gap in general County government is thus in the range of 4 percent to 5 percent a year: this is the amount that must be cut each year from CX budgets. To date, the budget gap has been filled primarily by cuts to internal government functions and discretionary services. Human services and parks — discretionary items -- have been hardest hit, but all central internal service budgets (overhead functions) have also been targeted in an effort to preserve regionally mandated services such as public health. The County's budget cutting priorities have been commendable and appropriate to date, but cannot resolve budget problems indefinitely. 9 Workers entitled to interest arbitration are not included in this: state law generally provides their salary increases are based on West Coast public sector comparable salaries. 1OAs noted in Table 7, many of these revenues are not part of the CX fund. Criminal Justice sales tax revenues are budgeted in a separate fund. Unincorporated area property tax levy is dedicated by policy to the County Road Fund. The Conservation Futures tax is dedicated by state law to acquisition of open space. Real Estate Excise Taxes are dedicated by County policy to fund park and recreation capital projects. Surface water management fees are required by state law to be applied towards storm drainage and similar environmental projects benefiting unincorporated areas. 11 initiative 1-747, which went into effect January 1, 2001, caps the growth of property taxes without a vote of the people to 101 percent of the previous years' receipts, plus taxes on new construction. A simple majority ofthe voters can override this limitation. 11 Regional mandated services can no longer escape significant budget cuts, given current policies and revenues. Unlike cities, counties cannot impose utility taxes or business and occupation taxes. The heavy reliance on property taxes means that unlike cities, the County's revenue challenge does not resolve itself when the region comes out of recession. Should inflation return, the problem becomes even more intractable. Collectively, the County's CX Revenues are expected to grow at an aggregate rate of less than two percent per year for the foreseeable future. Table 7 Major County General Government Revenue Sources (" identifies those revenues included in the CX Fund budget) Revenues collected countywide: *Countywide property tax (maximum rate: $1.80 per $1,000 assessed value) *0.15% of sales tax generated in cities *Countywide special levies (EMS, ARS) Conservation Futures tax Criminal Justice sales tax (regional allocation per state law) Revenues collected in unincorporated areas only: Unincorporated area property tax (maximum rate: $2.25 per $1,000 assessed value) "1 % of sales tax generated in unincorporated areas Real Estate Excise Tax dollars collected in unincorporated areas *Gambling taxes collected in unincorporated areas Criminal Justice sales tax (per capital allocation based on unincorporated area population) Surface Water Management Fees Conflicting constituencies and multiple service obligations have led to misalignment of revenues and expenditures. The dual regional and local role of the County has led to confusion and conflict over time about what the County should be doing, particularly as more and more residents live in cities and no longer depend on the County for local services. With nearly two hundred local governments in King County, it is difficult if not impossible to generate consensus around public issues at the governmental level, let alone with the public. The Growth Management Act, and subsequently adopted Countywide Planning Policies (CPPs) propose a long-term vision that apparently has substantial support from most of the governments in King County. At its essence, the growth management vision calls for a clear distinction between urban areas and rural areas. King County is to be the provider of regional services and the local government in the rural areas; cities are to be the providers of urban local services. Urban areas should receive urban levels of service, and rural areas should receive lower, rural areas of service. While the CPPs vision seems simple, in practice, it has proven difficult to achieve. As the region has taken steps towards achieving its vision, the results have been less than optimal for King County. Today we observe a major, but we believe largely resolvable, conflict between the County's regional and local responsibilities. 12 The primary challenge is in the County's role in local urban service delivery. While some full -service cities would prefer the County focus on regional mandates, many other cities rely heavily on the County to provide local services under contract .12 The County today has substantial resources dedicated to urban, in -city local service delivery — although these efforts are largely "revenue -backed" by fees from cities. More significantly, over 210,000 people live in urban areas that are not yet part of cities — equivalent to the second largest city in the state. Thus, over a dozen years into implementing the Growth Management Act, King County remains heavily involved in delivering urban services to areas inside and outside of cities. Some urban unincorporated areas desperately want to be annexed; others want to be left alone. Some cities are interested in annexing neighboring territories; others are not. Annexation is dependent upon several things, chiefly: (1) cities agreeing to assume the territory; and (2) residents agreeing to be annexed, 13 The County itself has been ambivalent towards the issue of annexation, sometimes finding it difficult to encourage constituents to turn to cities for services. And, special purpose districts — fire districts, water and sewer districts, among others — can pose significant challenges to annexation as it often means for them both loss of service territory and tax base. 14 The CPPs call for the remaining unincorporated areas to annex or incorporate (with a preference towards annexation) by 2012. Throughout the 1990s there was a wave of annexations and incorporations in King County, as nearly a dozen new cities were formed. Most of the remaining unincorporated urban areas (with notable exception of the Highline/White Center area) have been claimed by cities as part of their future territory so-called "Potential Annexation Areas" (PAAs). However, the rate of annexation has slowed significantly in the last few years. And, the County has no legal authority to cause the remaining annexations to occur. Areas annexing or incorporating have included key commercial centers — areas that (together with their surrounding neighborhoods) can be self-sufficient as cities, and can provide urban services with a reasonable tax load. As a result, the County has been left with a patchwork of geographically separated unincorporated urban areas to serve — areas that consist primarily of residential areas and largely excluding commercial centers. See map of King County at Attachment D. These areas typically (although not universally) require tax subsidy in order to provide urban services — indeed, a city would typically subsidize these areas from its commercial center or downtown if these areas were annexed. 12 The magnitude of these contract services is significant, and includes areas such as road maintenance, district court, marine patrol, and police services, among others. The sheriff's department reports that over 40 percent of its budget is "revenue backed" from city and other government service contracts. 13 New state legislation appears to create an opportunity for annexation to now occur in certain "islands" of unincorporated territory simply through agreement between the City and County. This could create a major opportunity to accelerate the pace of remaining annexations. 14 A recent highly publicized case with statewide implications was the Grant County Fire District No. � _y. City of Mimes Lake, 145 Wn.2d 702 (2002), in which the District challenged the constitutionality of the petition method annexation — and won. The District sued in response to an effort by the City of Moses Lake to annex a portion of the Fire District. 13 In addition to its responsibilities for urban unincorporated area residents, the County is (and by law will remain) the local government for approximately 135,000 rural residents — a population equivalent to the second largest city in King County. The CPPs call for the rural area to receive lower, rural levels of service than are found in urban areas and, because development in rural areas is limited, the CPPs recognize that a regional subsidy is necessary to support local government services to these areas. In sum, the regional land use vision proposes that the County to provide subsidized services to rural areas. And, the practical result of GMA in the last 15 years has been to also leave the County with responsibility for a large urban area that generates relatively little sales tax (compared to commercial areas and high density residential areas in cities). Not surprisingly then, many of the County's local service budgets are subsidized through regionally -generated revenues. As the County Executive outlined in his 2003 Proposed Budget to the Council last Fall, the County proposed to spend nearly $42 million in regionally -generated revenues to provide local services to unincorporated area residents. Of this, $42 million, it is roughly estimated that $15 million is attributable to subsidizing the rural area, and the remaining $27 million to subsidizing the urban unincorporated area.15 Excluding roads, unincorporated area residents are collectively receiving nearly twice the amount of services than their local taxes pay for. To date, County budgets have not tracked the change in this subsidy over time, nor pinpointed its size within various PAAs." The subsidy means that regional services and central government functions are being cut in order to fund local services. Nearly sixty (60) percent of the County's annual locally generated unrestricted revenues come from the unincorporated area property tax levy — dedicated as a matter of policy since the early 1980s to roads and transportation purposes. This property tax is legally available for any unincorporated area purpose. Cities do not spend this high a revenue percentage on roads. Absent new revenues, as long as the unincorporated area levy remains dedicated to roads, the remainder of local services — particularly law safety and justice expenditures (if provided at any semblance of their current levels) — will be subsidized by regional revenues. Absent new revenues, re -allocating the unincorporated area property tax away from roads towards other local services is one of the only means for the County to avoid further cuts to regional services. But re -aligning "road" revenues cannot solve the problem for any length of time without devastating unincorporated area road programs. t5 The County's current financial system does not track rural versus urban expenditures — something we recommend addressing in the 2004 budget. The $15 million figure is based on inflating the only recent estimate of the rural subsidy, calculated in 1997 to be approximately $12 million. 16 For example, it is suspected — but difficult to prove — that local service budgets have not been cut commensurate with annexations and the subsidy has grown on a per capita basis over time, even accounting for inflation. 14 Ultimately, unless the region fundamentally revisits its growth management plans, the conflict between County's regional and local roles will continue and regional service budgets will suffer— until annexations or incorporations remove urban local service responsibility from the County and/or new revenues are made available to the County to meet these local service obligations. Annexations require city consent and resident support. The County is a necessary player, but does not control annexations. Fortunately, we are seeing unprecedented solidarity from cities as to the need to address the urban subsidy.E7 Because the dollars associated with this revenue/expenditure misalignment are so significant, this is a major area for corrective action. A complex, politicized, fragmented organization suffering from a lack of healthy central systems and challenging corporate culture. King County is an extremely complex organization in terms of service delivery, governance, organizational structure, and culture. The diversity of County operations manifests itself most obviously in dozens of County offices spread throughout King County: County employees in different programs have little or no interface with one another on a daily basis. County employees work out of offices at Marymoor Park, sewage treatment plants in Magnolia and Renton, airport offices at Boeing Field, several sheriff precincts, County health clinics, courthouses in eight cities, and hundreds of buses, each day. The sense of a single, united government is lacking. There are 93 separately elected officials in King County government, some elected countywide, some by district.' 8 The Executive and Council are elected on a partisan basis. The multitude of unions, bargaining units, and restrictive overlay of labor policies further complicates County management as we have noted earlier. Budget pressures have resulted in competition between departments for funding. Related to these factors, the County does not have a consistent set of business practices, processes, and systems across all departments and programs. This results in missed opportunities for efficiencies. Central governmental systems at King County suffer from a lack of investment, and a lack of standard procedures. There is no unified financial system; no single human resources or payroll system; and no budget to achieve these goals. There is no uniform policy for computer hardware or software purchases. The County still relies on mainframe systems for core functions. With limited exceptions, no programs encourage employees to find efficiencies, or to work across government functions to identify possible savings. Recent initiatives to introduce managing for performance and benchmarking are relatively undeveloped, but their introduction, together with the Wastewater Division productivity initiative and unification initiatives sponsored by the Department of Executive Services, evidence a recognition of the need for change. Acknowledging success to date —and the difficult path ahead. While we have concerns about the internal business functions and practices, we must also acknowledge that the budget cutting activity undertaken by the Executive and Council in the last two years has been significant. The over $90 million in CX fund cuts and savings accomplished in 17 See Attachment F. 's Comprised of I county executive, 13 county councilmembers, 1 county assessor, Icounty prosecutor, 1 county sheriff, 51 superior courtjudges, 25 district court judges. 15 these recent budgets has been painful and has required strong leadership. County government is facing up to its budget challenges. The fact is, however, that the budget cutting "degree of difficulty" increases every year: cuts and changes rejected last year as too painful are among the only options left on -the table this year. At this point, we see no remaining easy fixes or "silver bullets." Managing the budget challenge this year and in the future will require many smaller actions, and patience. It will require challenging the way County government has traditionally managed and provided service. It will mean a commitment to sharing the pain in all areas, to finding efficiencies at all levels of County government. It means managing for the long-term, rather than the immediate crisis. PART H: WHAT IS THE COUNTY'S ROLF? SERVICE PRIORITIES, SERVICE LEVELS The Challenge: Facing a significant annually recurring gap between revenues and expenditures, what should be the County's service priorities? Are there services or programs that the County can no longer provide? For King County, the vast majority of services provided not only have their own constituency, they are mandated by the state. While specific aspects of programs may be eliminated, or provided in a different way, some actions are not tenable, for example, the County cannot stop operating superior court. Yet, the question: "what is the County's role?" has come up repeatedly throughout our deliberations. Analysis: The County's mission, vision statement and goals provide little guidance in the quest for prioritizing or culling programs. t9 Within the context of considering reductions in previous years' budgets, the County has employed sensible criteria for making budget reductions, which bear repeating: o Direct services prioritized over administrative functions (unless necessary to assure adequate oversight and control); o Mandatory services prioritized over discretionary services; o Regional services prioritized over local services; o Unincorporated services prioritized over in -city services (e.g., parks); o Raising fees prioritized over cutting services; o Full cost recovery for contracts; and o Limited subsidy of rural areas per GMA/CPPs. 9 King County's current adopted Mission, Vision statement and goals are: Mission: Enhance King County's quality of life and support its economic vitality by providing high -quality, cost-effective, valued services to our customers. Vision: King County — Leading the region in shaping a better tomorrow. Goals: I, Promote the health, safety and well being of our communities. 2. Enrich the lives of our residents. 3. Protect the natural environment. 4. Promote transportation solutions. S. Increase public confidence through cost-effective and customer -focused essential services. 16 These criteria are appropriate. But, given: the extent of budget cuts to date; the large number of mandated regional and local services that the County provides; citizen and city concern over discretionary service cuts (particularly in parks and human services); limits in state law and the market to further increasing many fees for service; and the fragile condition of basic County central government systems, these criteria will be less helpful in the future. The County must now determine if there are any services that can be completely eliminated, or significantly scaled back.20 And, new criteria must be developed to guide budget decisions. Our review suggests the following three general categories of activity in which the County is now engaged: (1) Regional activities around which there seems to be consensus that the County's role is appropriate; (2) Regional activities generating a number of possible questions/alternatives; and (3) Clearly local activities. We acknowledge up front that others will disagree with our categorization — indeed, this is inevitably a somewhat subjective exercise, which accounts for the ongoing disputes as to the appropriate role of the County. Beginning with the first category, there appears to be consensus, (except as noted parenthetically), that the County is the appropriate Regional Service Provider for: e Sewage treatment (not a direct CX issue. Note: service area covers only part of County); e Transit service (not a direct CX issue. Subject to discussion of multi -county delivery, consolidation of transportation systems); o Superior court (state mandate); o Public defender (state mandate); o Prosecutor (state mandate); o felony jail (state mandate); o Treasurer (state mandate); o Assessor (state mandate); o Public records (state mandate); o Elections (state mandate); a District Court (unique jurisdiction for small claims cases and certain other filings, per sate law); c Sheriff (regional jurisdiction on some matters defined by state law); a Public health (state mandate, and some discretionary services; service level issue); o Human services (discretionary; service level issue; lack of partnership funding from cities is an ongoing issue); c Regional parks (discretionary; service level issue); o Funding and oversight of Automatic Fingerprint I.D. system (funded through special periodic property tax levy); and o Funding and oversight of Emergency Medical Services (funded through special periodic property tax levy). It appears that questions exist as to County's appropriate regional role in: 20 Part III of this Report looks at the issues of providing services in different ways to gain efficiencies. 17 o Specialized police services (K-9, Bomb Squads, SWAT teams, helicopters, marine patrol, etc.). Multiple service providers exist in King County. Some cities rely on the Sheriff's Office for specialized police functions that the County makes available to the region; others prefer to provide their own services, or work in sub -regional coalitions that provide these services. It appears that significantly more resources are collectively dedicated to this area countywide than are necessary to meet the needs of the population)21; o Animal control (Currently there are several service providers within the County; the County's covers most of the geographical are of the County and is largely self supporting through animal licenses fees.); o District court (We understand there is a disagreement as to whether the County has the option to provide this service to cities; the question is whether providing the service at full cost can be achieved?); o Economic development (discretionary); o Regional transportation (discretionary); o Medic 1 services (These are provided by the County in south King County, and are provided elsewhere in the County by cities and fire districts. The service is almost completely funded by the EMS levy.); and o Airport. We do not here attempt to resolve the differences of opinion about the County's regional service role in the foregoing areas. That is beyond the scope of our work. We would simply note that these are all potential areas for continued regional dialogue. King County is the Local Service Provider in the unincorporated areas for the following services (mandated by state law except as noted with asterisked o Unincorporated area roads; o Courts of limited jurisdiction for misdemeanor crimes arising in unincorporated areas; c Building permits; o Fire inspections; e Local police services; o Jail for unincorporated area misdemeanor offenders; o Prosecution and public defense of misdemeanant offenses arising in unincorporated areas; o Human Services*; c Parks*; and e Surface water management/storm drainage. * Not mandated by state law. Given the extent of mandated services, and the regional consensus around discretionary services provided by the County, we conclude that major savings are not achievable 21 See Attachment E for excerpt of recent state -funded report summarizing current number of such units funded and staffed across icing County by numerous governments. 18 through "getting out of the business" in major service areas. However, what must be addressed is means of service delivery and level of service. We believe significant savings may be achieved by selectively eliminating various programs within service areas, changing the way services are provided, and in some cases reducing service levels. Generally, limited CX revenues mean that even if annexations enable local service budgets to shrink over time, regional CX service budgets cannot grow significantly. Growth and/or service improvements must be accommodated in large part through efficiencies. Absent new revenues, however, the public must anticipate eventual reductions in regional service levels. Specifically, it is not clear that local service budgets have been commensurately reduced as annexations have occurred in the last 15 years: this issue must be rigorously managed in the future -- or annexations will have the ironic impact of worsening the County's fiscal situation. Recommendations: Near-Term/Immediate Actions: We identify no services that should immediately be eliminated. However, services and programs must be constantly reviewed for effectiveness and efficiency. And, restraint must continue in considering the establishment of any new programs. Specific recommendations include: 1. Ensure discretionary contract services are full cost recovery. This must include not only consideration of overhead and operation costs, but capital costs as well. 2. Make budget decisions consistent with the County's growth management vision (as encompassed in the Countywide Planning Policies). Budget choices should promote annexation of urban unincorporated areas, and reflect a lower service level for rural areas than for urban service levels (acknowledging some rural subsidy will be appropriate.)22 3. Continue to use restraint in initiating new services and programs. These should not be initiated unless they (1) are mandated, or (2) if discretionary, are either demonstrably able to save money over a period of years (not necessarily immediately); financially self-sustaining; or serve a highly compelling public purpose and can be delivered at a sustainable service level without undermining other budget criteria. 22 We commend the work of the Metropolitan Parks Task Force in laying out a vision for the County's engagement in regional and local park and recreation that is based on, and consistent with, the County's growth management vision. 19 4. Consider long-term fiscal impacts of decisions; exercise restraint in expending one-time savings or revenues. One-time revenues should not be used to support ongoing operations, and, it should be a priority to levelize the rate of ongoing budget cuts (rather than have zero cuts one year and major cuts the next year). Where possible, the County should take actions now that can save money in future years. Commendable examples of steps taken to reduce costs in the long run include restructuring of the juvenile justice operations and renegotiated city jail contract. 5. Determine the impact of discretionary contract services on overhead. The clearest opportunities to get out of lines of business are in the area of discretionary contracts, such as road maintenance, sheriff service, and district court. The decision to continue these contracts must be based on sound fiscal policy, rather than popularity. The impact of these contracts on organizational overhead should be examined. Specifically, do such contracts provide relief to other County functions by supporting necessary overhead infrastructure — or do these contracts compel larger system investments, including capital investments (at the Department or Countywide level) than otherwise is required, thus driving up costs to the organization? b. Give basic service functions of government records, elections, property assessment — the necessary resources to operate in a highly reliable manner. Lonuer-Term Actions. 7. Develop long-term funding plans for human services and parks, clearly delineating regional and local roles. Providing these services will become harder to justify if other regional mandates are constantly threatened by budget cuts and service reductions — as is the case today. Passage of the parks levy in May bought a temporary respite for parks. Although we are not here recommending the mechanism for doing so, action may be needed to preserve a similar baseline of regional human services funding. While we acknowledge there is some consensus emerging between cities and the County as to the County's regional human services role, we could not reach consensus on whether funding of human services is in fact a regional service or the responsibility of cities. And, despite the parks levy, funding parks operations remains a long-term challenge. The County simply cannot contribute significantly more to human services funding or parks unless new revenue sources become available. 8. Reduce the jail healthcare budget. While we lack the expertise to make specific recommendations here, a $19 million a year budget for jail health services -- outstripping CX support for either parks or human services — calls out for an examination of potential service reductions. State Action: 20 9. Aggressively oppose additional state unfunded mandates. This must remain a major effort of the County in its advocacy work at the state level. Regional Dialogue: 10. Consolidate and restructure delivery of specialized police functions: The County should initiate a regional dialogue with cities, the port, and the state to examine this service delivery area. Within King County, there are reportedly 80 different specialty police units provided by at least 8 cities and the County z For example, there are three different marine patrol providers patrolling Lake Washington. There are multiple SWAT, Bomb, and K-9 teams. There is unquestionably excess capacity here. Can the County continue to afford an air patrol? The control issues here are formidable — but the dollars on the table are potentially very significant if a more rationalized service delivery mechanism can be agreed upon. We are not proposing necessarily that the cities get out of this business nor that the County do so: we believe duplication means the public is collectively paying much more than necessary for these services which creates the potential for significant savings to King County and other governments. On the one hand, a single service provider may provide the greatest opportunities for efficiencies; on the other hand, absent competition and operational reviews, a single provider may have little incentive to continually seek efficiencies. Perhaps the existing Emergency Medical Service (EMS) model is an appropriate place to begin discussion, in that it has multiple service providers but the total amount of services funded is based on a regional assessment of medic units required to meet agreed upon standards, and operations are regularly assessed for their cost and efficiency. PART III: ADMINISTRATIVE AND OPERATIONAL POLICIES AND EFFICIENCIES The Challen e: King County is not as efficient as it could be. Causes include: The complexity of the County organization, including the broad diversity of services provided. A highly political organizational environment with a multitude of separately elected officials. This can make the internal governmental processes time consuming, duplicative, and unconstructive. 23 See Attachment E, Excerpts from "Study of Law Enforcement Specialty Services" commissioned by the State and completed in September 2001 by MGT of America, Inc. 21 o Labor policies discourage contracting services out to other service providers where such alternatives may be more efficient. o Recurring concern and confusion about overhead costs: the overhead model is complex and little understood by internal or external clients. o Lack of standardized practices, processes and systems for basic business functions. o Lack of funding to develop and maintain needed central systems, particularly information technology systems and financial and payroll systems. Anal: Significant savings and efficiencies have been found in the last two budgets. But opportunities for greater efficiencies clearly exist. Sound management principles must continue to be reinforced in the government. We note with concernGoverning Ma azg ine's February 2002 report card of King County giving weak grades in "Information Technology," "Managing for Results," and "Human Resources." It does not appear to us that the County has an internal culture that generally rewards efficiency or manages for performance. The County's future success requires that it is able to make the case that it is an efficient and effective steward of public tax dollars. We see two major challenges to the County's operations: the lack of strong central management systems and practices, and the labor environment. These issues have been outlined in Part I of this report. The multiple financial and payroll systems are particularly of concern, as is the disparity of operational practices and procedures. In recognition of the challenge, the Department of Executive Services has or is about to launch a series of "unification projects" that seek to balance the departmental desire for autonomy with the need for standardized rules and procedures — and holding departments accountable for compliance. This is a common practice in the business world, with notably positive results and should be encouraged within the County. Regarding the labor environment: the County's first job is to provide public service, not to employ people. New ways of providing service must be considered if they are the only ways to maintain service levels within available revenues. This may or may not suggest contracting out of services and programs — depending on the public service objectives and the opportunities to meet those objectives with fewer taxpayer dollars. Recommendations: Near Term/Immediate Actions. 1. Create a stronger culture of efficiency within the organization. All branches, and all departments, of the County government must consider whether they are themselves efficient, and whether they are supporting efficiencies within the government as a whole. The County should not limit its efforts to addressing efficiencies only within CX agencies. An emerging culture of "haves" and "have- nots" within the County (distinguishing cash -strapped CX agencies from others) 22 is apparent and not positive for County government as a whole. Being "revenue - backed" is not a reason to ignore the need for efficiencies, particularly in the delivery of local services that are collectively being subsidized. Drawing from the input we received from department directors, we encourage the County to increase accountability at all levels of the organization. Managing for performance, benchmarking, and performance measures: these tools must become part of daily management practice at the County. Incentives should be put in place to help make this cultural change take place: examples such as the Wastewater productivity initiative should be replicated elsewhere in County government. Policies that arguably discourage savings — such as the budget office capturing all under -expenditures — should be eliminated. Duplicative processes and reporting requirements that waste time and resources should be streamlined. For example, we question the value of including over 140 budget provisos in the 2003 budget: the time required to respond to these provisos is significant, and it is not clear that the benefit of the reports outweighs the diversion of so much managerial time. 2. Implement additional efficiencies and control costs in the law, safety and justice arena, through pro -active work of the Criminal Justice Council. With over 70 percent of the CX Fund expenditures, unquestionably, law, safety and justice functions should not be immune from the need to become more efficient. The culture of autonomy within the separately elected areas of government — sheriff, prosecutor, district court, superior court — must be challenged: coordination and transparency are key to efficiency. The Criminal Justice Council must provide leadership to identify efficiencies and ways to control costs. Without their input, cuts will still have to be made — but perhaps in a less than optimal way. The Task Force respects the expertise of these groups to help identify the most appropriate efficiency tools. All law safety and justice agencies need to be actively engaged in this effort with the Executive. Are current means of providing services the most efficient and effective? Are specialty courts worth their higher operating costs because of other systemic savings provided? is service delivery becoming more or less efficient on a per capita or caseload basis? Are service levels growing or declining? Questions such as these should be answered and tracked over time in a consistent manner. Innovations that can streamline operations and save money must be aggressively sought out and implemented. Recent initiatives such as creating a Community Corrections Division with the Department of Adult and Juvenile Detention are important steps, as is the work encompassed in the Juvenile Justice Operational Master Plan and Adult Justice Operational Master Plan. Efforts to reduce the average daily jail population in the County's jails should also continue. As an initial step, we strongly encourage an investigation of the potential to save money through consolidating the administration of district and superior courts. Ultimately, consolidation of the courts themselves may also be needed to bring additional efficiency to operation (this would require state legislation). 23 Provide greater transparency in presenting the budget and budget and operating policies. The County budget should set forth separate regional service and local service budgets — detailed by.type of service and geography. The County should know how much it spends in each PAA on local service. This should be a priority in developing the 2004 budget. Clarity is particularly needed for the law, safety and justice budgets managed under direction of separately elected officials: budget and management information from these departments must be fully accessible to the Executive and Council. Uniform definitions should be developed and employed across the organization when presenting budget information — particularly in the area of departmental and division overhead. Effort should also be made to make the overhead model more understandable, as we heard considerable concern and confusion on this subject. 4. Streamline, simplify and standardize operations, practices and policies. Departments, separately elected officials, and union leaders must be willing to align operations practices and procedures for the benefit of the entire County organization. It is not possible for the Task Force to quantify the savings possible from these items, but our observations suggest that the savings could be significant, given adequate time and funding to implement these suggestions. Engaging all employees in a search for productivity improvements has had demonstrated effect in the business world, yielding as much as five percent annual savings on an ongoing basis. The Department of Executive Services (DES) initiative to make internal practices more uniform is potentially very important initiative. In addition, there should be an ongoing rigorous and comprehensive effort (again involving personnel at all levels of the organization) to find internal and external barriers to efficiency — outdated code provisions and policies — and to remove these barriers where possible. 5. Invest in central systems: Technology investment in central systems is lagging and must be addressed. The price tag associated with these investments is significant. The County should make it a priority to direct one-time resources to fund these capital investments. Financial Systems Replacement Program (FSRP) should be a high priority. We also believe the timeline for replacement/acquisition of needed systems can and should be significantly accelerated. To truly realize the benefits of upgraded systems, the County must simultaneously implement greater standardization of basic business practices and procedures. As part of this whole effort, the County should review the experience of the City of San Diego that apparently outsourced much of its Information Technology (IT) function in a manner that preserved individual employee jobs by moving them to private employer. Longer -Term Actions: 6. Secure efficiencies through new methods of service delivery: first seek employee ideas and actions; if necessary, contract out services to other 24 governments or to the private sector. Contracting out is not universally appropriate or cost effective. In particular, the ability to perform services may not exist in some cases outside government, and in all cases sunk investments and the interests of the public must be considered. The County has achieved significant successes through partnership with labor, and this should continue wherever possible. Employees may have the best ideas about how and where to find efficiencies in County operations — and should be actively engaged in this type of inquiry. In fairness, public employees should be given the opportunity to provide services at a competitive cost to private sector options before alternative service providers are engaged. But ultimately, the goal should be to preserve service levels to the public, not public sector jobs. Some specific ideas that we believe should be pursued include: a. Amend the County Charter and labor policies to expand the ability to contract out to both the public and private sector where it can preserve public service levels. b. Pursue "reverse contracting" with cities. For example, can the City of Bellevue provide equivalent police services as are currently being provided by King County in the neighborhood of Eastgate — but at less cost? Can some cities provide maintenance of neighboring County parks at less cost than the County? The geographically fragmented service area of King County suggests there may well be such opportunities — and the lack of current examples is therefore somewhat surprising. The Task Force encourages the County to actively investigate this idea — where it can save public dollars. 7. Collaborate with other governments. We would emphasize the importance of maintaining positive dialogue with regional partners — cities, special purpose districts, other counties. King County does not exist in isolation, and we are convinced that the cooperation of other governments will be key to resolving the County's problems in the longer -term. For example, there may be savings achieved through joint purchasing agreements in areas such as fleet or insurance. We suspect there is a great amount of duplication in the delivery of public services as between the nearly 200 units of government within King County. Opportunities for more efficient service delivery through consolidation must continually be sought out. Aggressively seek cost control of salaries and benefits. With these items consuming over seventy percent (70 percent) of the CX dollars, these areas must be a central consideration balancing the budget. The County must consider its employee benefits package: the County has yet to adopt innovations in this area that may assist in controlling annual cost increases. Work on this should begin now, even though the current benefits contract will be renegotiated in three years. Data from the state indicates that King County top managerial salaries lag behind both private and public sector comparables. While the County must continue to 25 be vigilant in controlling costs, this raises an underlying basic competitiveness issue: King County must be able to attract and retain good employees. 9. Examine options to reduce facilities costs. The County now rents nearly 300,000 square feet in downtown Seattle in numerous office buildings. Should the County buy some building instead? Or build them on land it owns? Should so many County services be in downtown Seattle, given real estate market, lower cost options elsewhere in County? Would greater efficiencies occur from having County functions physically consolidated? The County should undertake a comprehensive analysis of office space options. 10. Explore detention alternatives. The County should determine whether it would be less expensive to send its low risk prisoners (who otherwise do not qualify for alternative detention) to Yakima, as many cities have done. We understand that the County could only reduce costs on a marginal basis through such steps, so this may not result in savings (in which case, it should not be pursued). 11. Revise jail employment structures. In partnership with unions, the County should investigate whether operating efficiencies at jail could be achieved through broader — and far fewer — employee job descriptions than the current 64 separate job titles currently in place. State Action: 12. Advocate for greater flexibility in the labor area. In particular the County should seek changes to binding arbitration requirements in order to provide greater ability to control costs. 13. Seek changes in state law that will give cities and county tools to act together to achieve greater efficiency. Regional Dialogue: 14. Sponsor "Best Practices" forums with other governments in the region. These may be helpful in identifying ways others have addressed common challenges of controlling cost of benefits, managing for performance, benchmarking, contracting out, and similar matters. PART IV: ALIGNING SERVICE EXPENSES AND REVENUES: ANNEXATION AND THE "URBAN SUBSIDY" F The Challenge: The current allocation of regional dollars to fund local service budgets is significant: over $40 million a year. While some rural service subsidy is necessary and appropriate under growth management principles, the Task Force believes that acting to address the urban area subsidy may be the single most important step the County can take to address its fiscal challenges. If the "urban subsidy" is eliminated, it will create significant breathing space for regional service budgets for several years — although it will not eliminate the County's long-term revenue problem. Analysis: As noted in Part I of this report, the County has a number of regional service roles and local service roles. The County similarly has revenue sources that are collected regionally, and others that are collected only from unincorporated local service areas. As a policy mailer there is consensus that, ideally, regionally collected dollars should be spent to support regionally provided services — thereby matching those who pay for, and those who receive, the service. Similarly, as a policy matter, unincorporated area dollars should support local services provided in the unincorporated areas. There is now general consensus between the Executive and cities as to which of the County's revenues are "regional" and which are "local," resulting in the calculation of the subsidy at approximately $42 million this year.24 Of this $42 million, an estimated $27 million is attributable to local service delivery in the urban unincorporated areas — areas that as a matter of regional policy (as expressed in the CPPs, which were developed in partnership between cities and the County) are to be annexed by cities. The County cannot force annexations to occur under current law. And, after over a dozen years of growth management, major annexations have not yet occurred. A key barrier for cities to annexing is the cost of providing service in these areas, and infrastructure deficits. Providing incentives to cities in service dollars or capital project funding has helped promote some annexations in the past. Citizen support has also been a critical component of successful annexations. The County has unsuccessfully sought to close the "subsidy" through new taxing authority. Specifically, an unincorporated urban area utility tax, similar in nature and amount to that currently authorized for cities, would generate an estimated $30 million a year. We endorsed this concept earlier this year in hopes the state legislature would pass authorizing legislation.25 This single action could eliminate the urban subsidy in the short-term. We believe the County should no longer maintain current local service levels in urban unincorporated areas at the expense of regional service budgets. Urban unincorporated area residents crust understand that their taxes do not support their current level of service and that the region's plans call for them to annex (or if viable, 24 The key change occurred when the County agreed to classify its sales tax collections from within cities as "regional" in nature: A further refinemeni has been to split the County's unincorporated area sales tax receipts into two categories: 85 percent of such receipts are considered local, 15 percent are considered regional. When the County previously considered all sales tax receipts to be "local" in nature, this meant there was no subsidy — "local" dollars fully paid for local services. zs See Attachment I for a copy of our letter to state legislators on this subject. 27 incorporate). And, if cities are truly committed to having the County provide quality regional government services and ending the "urban subsidy," cities must work to complete the remaining annexations. The subsidy did not arise overnight, and will not be eliminated overnight. Currently, nearly 70 percent of the subsidy from regional dollars is being applied to fund local law, safety and justice expenditures. At the same time, the County is spending an estimated 60 percent of its local revenues on roads.26 The major local revenue sources - and key policy limitations in their expenditure — are as follows: Unincorporated Area Property Tax (generally known as the "road levy"). This revenue source generates over $58 million a year. it is legally available for all general government purposes in the unincorporated area but as a matter of policy has been dedicated solely to roads purposes since the 1980s. There is a small penalty for "diversion" to other uses in the loss of some state revenue. Currently, significant road dollars are expended on transportation improvements within cities and otherwise classified as "regional" in nature. o Real Estate Excise Taxes (REET). This tax raises about $13 million a year. Similar to the unincorporated area levy, this funding source is legally available for a broad array of capital purposes in the unincorporated area — but is limited by County policy to be spent entirely for parks and recreation purposes. C Surface Water Management Fees (SWM). SWMfees generate over $18 million a year in total revenue. These funds can be used to provide local surface water management and drainage projects, as well as projects with related environmental benefit. Unless the County is willing to make an explicit decision that local services to the urban unincorporated are more important than regional services then the County must actively take steps to reduce the subsidy of the urban unincorporated areas. However, until these areas are annexed, options to address the subsidy are limited.27 The County can, 26 See Attachment G, which sets forth the major sources of unincorporated area revenues. Excluding criminal justice sales tax dollars and surface water management fees that cannot legally be spent on transportation, over 60 percent of the remaining local revenues are currently allocated by King County to roads and transportation purposes. 27 With'a remarkable degree of consensus, cities have proposed a set of solutions to this issue (and to the County's CX challenges, generally): Attachment F includes letters and a white paper submitted by cities. Included in suburban city recommendations specific to the subsidy are: imposing a moratorium on all building in the UGA, diverting the road fund, promoting annexation, and reducing local service levels. We reject the first solution, and endorse the latter as described herein, Regarding the moratorium, it is probably true that residential development along the urban fringe exacerbates the urban subsidy in some places. The County should consider this fact in its development decisions. Rezoning to allow commercial development in some urban unincorporated areas may be appropriate if it would result in a better balance of expenditures and revenues for the County. Ultimately, a moratorium may not be legal. 28 o Re -allocate revenue from all local revenue budgets to pay for more of these urban local services that are being subsidized by regional dollars, most notably, law, safety and justice expenditures. This would directly reduce the subsidy and increase the amount of regional dollars available for regional services --with corresponding cuts to those local service budgets. o Reduce services to match revenue levels; o Continue to subsidize local service budgets; or o Secure new revenue from state. Although it will be politically challenging, we believe the County should pursue all these options — while also working to promote the annexation of remaining urban unincorporated areas. We believe it is neither politically feasible, nor fair to urban unincorporated area residents, to simply slash services overnight in order to eliminate the subsidy — particularly so long as cities have not annexed these areas, and so long as the CPPs require that these areas receive an urban level of service. Completely eliminating the subsidy by reallocating other local service budgets may be too devastating to those service areas — but the allocation of over 60 percent of local revenues to roads is no longer supportable in this crisis. The County has unsuccessfully sought new revenue from Olympia to address the subsidy, but we believe that effort must continue. In sum, the County must pursue a variety of options to reduce the subsidy and minimize the conflict between its regional and local service responsibilities. Recommendations: Near Term/Immediate Actions: 1. Initiate a comprehensive strategy to simultaneously encourage annexation and reduce the "urban" portion of the local service subsidy. On a time -limited basis — we propose three years at the longest — the County should re -direct its local revenues to (1) encourage annexation and (2) reduce the subsidy amount. All local revenues — particularly the unincorporated area property tax levy, Real Estate Excise Taxes, and surface water management fees — should be made available in some degree to support this program. The goal is to focus as much money as feasible — on a time -limited basis — to secure annexation through agreements with cities and take immediate steps to reduce the subsidy by (1) reducing service levels and (2) reallocating local dollars to fund more of the local service budgets. At the end of this period, progress must be assessed, and new budget limits established to ensure that the subsidy thereafter does not get worse. This initiative should be launched as part of the 2004 budget. 29 The County must be unwavering in its commitment to publicly promote annexation. It must be willing to start to immediately reduce services and realign expenditures. In partnership with cities, the County must initiate public dialogue to build grass roots support in PAAs for annexation. Residents must understand that they will see service reductions — and that the only way this can change is if the County imposes new taxes on them or if they annex. Outreach efforts must be tailored to the needs and characteristics of individual communities. The County must be prepared to put substantial dollars on the table for cities (albeit far short of various estimates of `urban infrastructure deficit') to promote annexation. This initiative will require significant restructuring of current capital improvement programs and operating budgets for local service programs. It will also mean halting or scaling back plans to bond these revenues — since if the effort is successful, the tax base to repay such bonds will be transferred to cities. We believe this re -structuring, while painful, is well worth the end result of aligning County revenues and expenditures, transferring responsibility for expensive service areas, and achieving the regional land -use vision. In practical terms, the reallocation of local revenues can simply mean a delay, rather than cancellation, of projects. Given the magnitude of the budget problem the region must understand the urgency and importance of achieving these remaining annexations. Three important clarifications to this proposal must be clear: First, we are not proposing that the County "buy" its way out of the urban unincorporated areas by eliminating infrastructure deficits. There is woefully inadequate funding to do so. Frankly, we do not believe immediate infrastructure upgrades are required in an annexation. Portions of Seattle have been without sidewalks for decades since they were annexed. Eliminating infrastructure deficits using only unincorporated area dollars is not possible in any reasonable time frame, and eliminating infrastructure deficits using regional dollars is not a responsible action given the current pressure on those budgets. And, funding today is much tighter than it has been historically. Second, Cities cannot fairly insist that the County completely eliminate the subsidy if the urban areas do not in fact annex. Cities would themselves subsidize these areas. Service reductions are inevitable (and appropriate) absent new local revenue streams. But ultimately, if areas remain un-annexed, the cities cannot fairly continue to complain about the subsidy — and some nominal subsidy will, absent new revenue, be necessary to provide urban levels of service. Third, we are not proposing a "dollar -in dollar -out" approach to serving each individual PAA. Just as cities transfer tax dollars from their commercial areas to support residential neighborhoods, the County needs budget flexibility in directing its local service dollars. A few PAAs may now be net exporters of local service dollars: that may well be appropriate. 30 2. Identify the basis and targets for cutting from all local service budgets as annexations occur. Dollar -for -dollar budget reductions may well be impossible as tax base gradually disappears, leaving potentially even more diffuse geographic service responsibility for the County. -However, every effort must be made to reduce local service budgets commensurate with the loss of local revenues. Work must begin immediately to map out the basis on which these cuts will occur. Quantify the current rural subsidy and rural service levels — and track them over time. Unless the region wishes to revisit its growth management vision, a rural subsidy is appropriate. 'But as part of the overall challenge of making the County budget more transparent, the rural subsidy and rural service levels should be quantified and tracked, so that the region can see that rural service levels are provided, and the price tag for doing so. As called for in the CPPs, rural service levels should be demonstrably lower than urban service levels. Longer -Term Actions: 4. Consider seeking legislation to equalize taxing authorities as between cities and unincorporated areas. In the long-term, if annexations do not occur, and the County's revenue problems continue, such solutions may be dictated. We recognize that this would take major state legislation, and would probably be a more costly alternative for these areas than annexing to neighboring cities, but we do not think the County should continue to sacrifice regional service levels to fund its local service responsibilities. State Action: In addition to new revenues sources (outlined in Part V of this report), the County should: 5. Advocate for a change in state law that will provide for automatic transfer of local parks and recreation facilities to cities upon annexation. 6. Advocate for changes in law that will streamline the annexation process. Regional Dialogue: 7. King County and cities should work in the immediate term to refine the annexation strategy we have outlined. Even absent consensus, we believe implementation of this strategy should begin in the 2004 budget. PART V: REVENUES 31 Challenge: The County revenue structure is inadequate to meet the demands of the County's service obligations. While significant effort can be made to forestall or reduce service cuts by doing business differently, ultimately it will not be possible to maintain service levels for a growing population with revenue growth of less than 2 percent per year. Anal sis: As was noted at the outset of this report, the primary cause of the revenue challenge is the heavy dependence of the County on property tax, and the absence of other viable revenue options. The County must provide local services but has far less revenue authority than cities enjoy. This inequity not only contributes to the regional subsidy of local services, it also creates a potentially significant barrier to annexation — urban unincorporated area residents observe that they will be subject to new types of taxation should they annex. As we have also seen, cities have expressed reluctance to annex because of the poor condition of urban unincorporated area infrastructure, a result of the County's limited revenue authorities. Even if our proposed strategy to accelerate annexation and reduce the subsidy succeeds, the slow growth of regional revenues — again, heavily dependent on property tax — will continue to be a problem for the County. The city mayors who spoke to us during our deliberations noted the importance to tbeir jurisdictions of having a strong regional government. We concur: all residents have a stake in the County becoming fiscally stable and providing quality regional services. The lack of state support for courts, indigent defense, and handling of aggravated murder cases is a particularly frustrating aspect of the County's challenge. The legislature's rejection of the unincorporated area utility tax is similarly discouraging. Pressure must be brought to bear on the state to address these issues if the County is to achieve long- term fiscal stability. Absent additional'state shared revenue, or revenue authority, the County has limited options to maintain regional service levels. We would not expect voters to approve general tax increases for the County. Rather, as we have seen in the past — with AFIS, EMS, and more recently, the parks levy — voters prefer to know where their money is going. Cities themselves routinely use special levies to secure program funding. For the County to do so as well is not inappropriate. At the same time, the more the County can convey about its priorities, its vision, its plans for providing all services over a several year period, the more concerns about "piecemeal" funding solutions can be answered. Recommendations: Immediate/Near Term: 1. Provide better public information about the County's roles and revenues. Lack of public understanding is a barrier to reform in Olympia, and a barrier to moving the annexation agenda. It is critical that the public better understand the implications for basic County services resulting from the current property tax 32 limitations and annexation patterns. The County public television station could be a useful tool for this purpose. County elected officials need to become educators and advocates for the government: much could be accomplished if the County's 94 elected officials presented a united front. 2. Include a concise statement of the fiscal vision for the next several years in the annual budget. Will new taxes be necessary? If so, for what purposes? Are major new initiatives planned? Are major reductions planned? As noted, while the public generally is unlikely to grant generic "county purposes" tax increases, funding solutions will in all Iikelihood include periodic special purpose levies as there are limited options to otherwise avoid service cuts and secure wanted new programs. Special purpose levies are easier to justify, however, in the context of an overall plan for the government — so the public isn't wondering when the next request for tax dollars is coming. Secure full cost recovery on all contracts. This should include not only overhead and operating, but capital costs as well. This recommendation has been earlier stated, but bears repeating. It is illogical to undertake a major effort to annex areas in order to eliminate the subsidy of County local urban unincorporated area services — only to then continue to subsidize cities through contracts. 4. impose fee increases where possible to avoid further service cuts. 5. Aggressively pursue grant opportunities. 6. Develop a long-term funding plan for parks and human services. State Action: The State must act to grant more revenue autonomy to counties, particularly in fee setting.28 And, again, the State must refrain from enacting more unfunded mandates. Some specific proposals for state legislation follow: 7. Grant urban counties planning under GMA authority to impose a councilmanic utility tax in urban unincorporated areas, comparable to existing city authority in scope and amount. This is single most significant step the state could take (without impacting its own budget) to assist the County. 8. Grant counties authority to raise district and superior court fees. We would propose full -cost recovery for some civil cases where for example large corporate parties are involved who can easily afford such fees. 28 SB 5659, Laws of 2003, was signed into law by Governor Locke as we concluded our deliberations. This legislation provides new voter -approved sales tax authority to the County, proceeds of which are to be shared on a 60-40 basis with cities. We have not had an opportunity to discuss how, or whether, the County should use this new authority and we make no recommendations in this regard. 33 9. Reduce the state's take from locally generated court fees. Over 40 percent of the fees generated at District Court now are remitted to the state for other programs: those dollars would make a- critical difference in the County's ability to continue District Court programs. 10. Institute authority to impose Superior Court fees on a "per pleading" basis, as is done in California and numerous other states. 11. Increase direct state support for District and Superior Court. The slate's sole current contribution —'one half the salaries of Superior Court judges — puts it 49" in the nation in supporting courts, according to the State Administrative Office of the Courts. 12. Provide some funding support for indigent defense costs. 13. Increase legally permissible uses of the Real Estate Excise Tax (REET). This tax can only be spent for capital purposes. As was recommended by the Metropolitan Parks Task Force, some portion of this significant tax source should be available for maintenance purposes — for example to support the operation of capital improvements acquired with REET funds. A further change worth considering would be to allow larger portions of this tax — perhaps all of it to be applied to maintenance purposes in times of an economic downturn. 14. Continue to fund basic public health. 15. Provide state funding for a greater share of the extraordinary aggravated murder costs experienced by counties. These have reached such a magnitude in King County — even excluding the Ridgeway case — that they threaten the ability to maintain service levels throughout the County's criminal justice system. 16. Provide direct state funding to counties for defense costs independency and termination cases. It is inequitable for the state to pay for prosecution of these cases at several times the rate that counties are able to pay for defense of these matters. 17. Allow Counties to set public records and license fees at levels that will more closely approximate the full cost of service. Regional Dialogue 18. Work with other government associations to jointly develop and advocate legislative agendas. The "Tri-Association" agenda approach in which the cities, counties and public safety lobbying organizations all worked together in the 2003 legislative session is a potentially very powerful new initiative that should be continued. And, given the importance to the business community of a healthy 34 regional government, we would encourage the County to seek business community support of its legislative agenda where possible. PART VI: CONCLUSION King County general government is in a crisis situation. Current service delivery is not sustainable. The challenge before the County — indeed, the region — is daunting. After the few short months of our inquiry into general County government funding and operations, we are sobered by the complexity of the situation, and by the many steps that have already been taken to address this challenge. Despite several years of aggressive budget cuts by the County, unless continued steps are taken to trim programs, streamline operations, apply greater management rigor, challenge traditional service delivery mechanisms, shed remaining urban unincorporated areas to cities, and successfully lobby the state for additional revenue tools, a steady decline in the quality of County general government services is unavoidable. Even if the County is able to make major progress in terms of efficiencies, ultimately it cannot achieve long-term financial stability without the assistance of the state and the local governments in this region (particularly those who are stakeholders in annexation). It is said that democracy has many attributes but efficiency isn't one of them. Yet, we are confident that the County can and will take important steps to improve its effectiveness and efficiency in delivering services. In so doing, citizen confidence in our government will improve. We appreciate the difficulty of the task ahead. We appreciate also the opportunity that the Executive has given us to provide him our assessment and recommendations. A strong regional government, and effective local government for the rural area, is in the interest of the entire region. We would offer as a Task Force to reconvene briefly in 2004 to assess progress on the agenda of work we here propose, and offer as well our continued services in advocacy for the betterment of County government. 35 A Joint City Position The Cities' Suggestions for Inclusion in the King County Budget Advisory Task Force's Recommendations Introduction Actions have consequences; recent actions to resolve the County's budget woes have had significant negative consequences for cities and on the problem -solving environment. The cities of King County` have developed this joint position concerning solutions to the County's fiscal challenges and offer it for your consideration. As a matter of principle, the cities believe the following: o "Urban subsidy" revenue, the $41 million now agreed to represent a diversion of re- gional dollars into local unincorporated services, should be re -directed into regional service as soon as possible'; o Motivating annexations past the present point of stalemate will require compromise and a shared responsibility for success, including the possibility of reducing the present service levels in urban unincorporated areas; o King County should refrain from delegating services to cities as a solution to its fiscal problems; this results in shifting the costs to another political subdivision representing the same taxpayers, risking the future relevancy of the County as a regional government; o King County should seek a way of actively collaborating with its cities in designing so- lutions; the current unilateral actions are negatively impacting services systems and dis- couraging regionalism. Cities are not mere stakeholders in King County's future; cities are peer political subdivisions with overlapping responsibilities and a shared revenue base. Cities are equally affected by revenue loss and much of the statutory inflexibility plaguing King County. To date, cities have created solutions to the county's jail cost issues, the regionally -created parks and pools cost issues, and now may be forced to create more municipal courts, if the County persists in the executive decision to cease providing a centralized court service. The `urban subsidy' and unincorporated services The County must take affirmative steps to extinguish the urban subsidy, returning regional revenues to the provision of regional services At present, the County Budget Office re- ports that the expenditures in unincorporated areas exceed revenues derived from these areas by $41 million, Le., the urban subsidy. These funds should be returned largely to regional service delivery. 1 Staff from several cities, including Bellevue, Seattle and member cities of the Suburban Cities Associa- tion Management Board, took part in the creation of this paper. 1 Definition of urban subsidy is consistent with the meaning, "expenditures for local services exceed local revenues," and with the Option I definition of revenues, contained in the Unincorpor ted Budget chapter from the Executive's Proposed 2003 Budget. E" Nt� KCBATF FINAL Mar 12 printed on 01119/04 i MO. D Q O�� Qa.- art f !C7 King Ct Huft Examiner 1. Asa policy goal, the County should adopt the principle that revenues derived from all taxpayers, whether they are located in unincorporated areas or cities, shall be used to pay for services available to all county residents, by a certain date 2. The County should collaborate with cities in establishing an agreed level of service in rural areas, and the conditions on which that subsidy will be politically supported by cities, to assure future acceptance of this use of regional funds. 3. The County should collaborate with cities in establishing exactly how the $41 million will be extinguished, addressing whether those funds should be immediately redi- rected to regional services or should be directed to the improvement of infrastructure in the PAAs3. 4. The County should. institute a moratorium on residential building in the PAAs until such time that the unincorporated expenditures and revenues are balanced. S. The County should continue to prusue revenue authority that brings parity to unin- corporated areas, such as the city -supported utility tax. This authority, if imposed at the existing city rate of 6%, could raise as much as $32 million in additional reve- nues. Regional service delivery The County's current expense fund must support a mix of regional services, delivered to citizens throughout the County. Cities find the categorization of services as mandatory or discretionary to be misleading, as these categories tend to distort practical realities about the levels of service and about the multiple roles of the County in an urban environment Focusing on mandated services, such as courts, corrections, records and elections, dis- counts the county's role as administrative agent for pass -through funds and the need for important programs like public health and human services. 6. The County should adopt a financial policy that allocates property tax revenue col- lected from the road levy, and 85% of the sales tax from unincorporated areas, as the revenue base for local services in unincorporated areas. All remaining property tax and sales tax revenue should be allocated to regional services. 7. Before dropping existing lines of services or adopting new ones, the County must consult with the cities. Eliminating court services or adding a solid waste export pro- gram are major decisions that impact other services, citizens and rate payers. These decisions call out for collaborative policy discussion among all affected governments. 8. The County should acknowledge that some actions have moved problem -solving downstream to cities, thus avoiding solution at the county level. Individually and in partnership, the cities solved the misdemeanant incarceration problem and the need for some one to take responsibility for County parks and pools operations. The char- acterization of these actions as County solutions misstates the true nature of the ac- tions taken and risks the relevancy of the County as a centralized, regional govern- ment. 3 PAA is a potential annexation area, an urban area within the Urban Growth Area that is expected to be annexed to an existing city or, in the alternative, incorporated as a new city. Under the Countywide Plan- ning Policies adopted pursuant to the Growth Management Act, most of these areas were formally claimed by cities, indicating an affirmative policy of working toward absorbing these PAAs into the city. KCBATF FINAL Mar 12 printed on 01/19/04 2 duplication of specialized mandatory Services for dup cities or could be Pro - should examine m service are provided by ces, like the SWAT g. The CouritY ersonnel when those s r certain limited use servi equipment and p vided by the private sector. For examphe le, or the cities. team, should only be provided by he `urbn subsidy' and annexation T. a nnexation by cities. The targeted fora recognize the necessity Of tee 148,000 residents live in areas Punning Policies expensivefor Approxima y e,nent Act and the countyK' [oval services to these areas n C must Growth Afanag into cities. providing However, the cities and County in these residents unaffordablefor cities, annexation in the near term. bringing but financially the likelihood of King County increase economic incentives for an - pursue active collaboration to cities in identifying These might in - should collaborate with ort for those incenti d cr increasing revenues 1� The County legislative supP the road fun , nexations and ui seeking service, through the Jude removing restrictions sy Match the cost of c in unincorporated areas ° prohibit cities from unincorporated areas utility taxolicy obstructions that labor P the PAAs• polacent cities can of- e County should remove existing de services in 11. with the County contracting meet plans and ordinances noting services to these areas more efficiently- develop or to annexation is ten p fanning and 12. The County should consider adopting at with the city fox p ed PAAs, so that dev°occumng p of the cities with adopt cities standards, and contractingsuch consistent with the a annexation, permit services. Should refrain from actions which hinder or discoura u •ch serves to reduce the motivation or abil- l3. The County sho 5689, whi as the recent introduction of SB exatiou agents. s to annex these area in cities as unilateral aim should ityfrom characteriz g ether with city officials, 14 The County should refrain ortive of annexations. the executive and district councilineniber ent together Rather, to create a political environm collaborate on how Budge' strategies: E�cpenses and revenues ears and Bud9 initiatiVeS in recent y lica- ro ess in cost4aving best practices app s� n� ant p gr estions here are largely re work on The County has made 'g orts. Stive. Cities do believe that ma nd them for these efJ of ex potential of existrngfunds. cities comme nis' this list is exhaust the p . ble to all governo, policies is tequired to consideratioi , requires Consultation - service levels and p including cost recovery burden and long tern services, thorny, Any new revenue au taking into account the overall tax Bement of �� on our governments' shared population, both and agr man - dons of these cho functional service areas, of fun benchmarks and/ per - should continue financial analysis 15 The County and review the level of servicane' ce expectations or levels rep- datory and discretionary, services. These perform fortnance measures for be s bject to modification. resent policies that may 3 KCSA7F FINAL Mar 12 pt+nted on 01118104 16. The County should provide transparency in its budgeting, to improve segregation of costs between incorporated and unincorporated areas and urban and rural areas. The separation and attribution of expenses will be critical to the cities' ability to support any subsidization of local services in rural areas. 17. The County must find motivational ways to save money, rewarding employees for cutting costs, rather than rewarding divisions or functions that see increased costs. 18. The County should continue to examine the role of overhead in the current expense fund, in the enterprise funds, and in the pricing of interlocal contracts. While steady improvement has occurred, this remains a concern especially in evaluation of interlo- cal contracts for service. 19. The County should continue to examine expensive discretionaryservices within mandated service areas, e.g., marine and air patrols, and pursue alternative service delivery ideas, such as contracting with cities. 20. The County should actively challenge obstructions to efficiencies, such as the labor contract provisions and internal policies limiting the ability to contract out services to cities. Where needed, the County should partner with its cities in seeking legislative corrections, and take on the hard task of discussions with its labor representatives re- garding the long term impacts of restrictions. 21. The County must seek the cities' agreement in seeking new revenue streams. Both cities and the County share the same taxpayers and tax bases. When that agreement is not first sought, County initiatives are unlikely to garner support. When that agreement is sought, it is more likely that the initiative will be successful. 22. The County should be cautious in seeking dedicated revenue streams for individual service areas. A primary component on the Tri-Association legislative agenda re- quests that the legislature reverse previous dedication or limitations on fund use. 23. The County should partner with its cities in resisting unfunded mandates, existing or new, from both the federal and state governments. Comprehensive analysis, governance and long term planning: Recent choices of action by the County in addressing fiscal issues concern cities Success- ful shared policy initiatives require hard work and multiple discussions among many con- stituent bodies The cities believe that a more comprehensive and systemic analysis of King County 's future will better serve the county and its cities 24. In the short term, the County must improve the processes governing executive and council work, placing more reliance on program staff and less on duplicative analysts. Also, duplicative media offices and strategic planning staff should be consolidated. 25. The County should tie its disparate task force and commission efforts into a compre- hensive effort. Single -issue recommendations need some congruence with other rec- ommendations. The inability to identify a shared strategic vision for the County and, most importantly, how these recommendations work together may further erode voter confidence in all local governments' ability to solve problems. KCBATF FINAL Mar 12 printed on 01119/04 4 Report of the King County General Government Budget Advisory Task Force To Executive Ron Sims .tune 25, 2003 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY King County faces a fiscal crisis. Absent dramatic changes in the way King County does business, and the availability of new revenues, every year in the future, County general government service budgets will be cut and service levels will suffer. As currently structured and funded, King.County's general government services are not sustainable. The funding crisis is the result of several factors: o The County is responsible for providing an unusual mix of governmental services: mandated regional services are provided to 1.7 million County residents; and mandated local services provided to over 350,000 residents living in rural and urban unincorporated areas. o In addition to mandated services, the County also has chosen to provide various discretionary services such as parks and human services. o The County has an antiquated revenue structure, strictly defined by state law and recent voter initiatives, which has not kept pace with evolving service responsibilities. o There is a serious misalignment of regional and local revenues and expenditures — to the detriment of regional services — resulting from a combination of policy choices as to how to allocate limited revenues, together with the failure (for a variety of reasons) of many urban areas to annex to cities. o Salary and benefits costs for County employees are growing faster than revenues, a situation made more problematic by the fact that the County operates under a set of inflexible labor laws and policies. o The County has a complex, fragmented organizational structure with inefficient internal systems. In total, general government expenditures are projected to grow at an annual rate of between 55 percent and 6.5 percent a year while revenues are projected to grow at a rate of less than two percent per year. The current recession is not a cause of this crisis but it has exacerbated the challenge. Actions have been taken to address this crisis. In the last two years, over $90 million in cuts have been made to general government services in order to balance the budget. There are no easy budget cuts left. There is no "silver bullet" to resolve the crisis. The situation is urgent. Unless things change, the County will need to reduce services every year, given revenue constraints. Delaying action will make it much more difficult and painful in the future. The complexity of the budget challenge, and the County organization itself, is such that despite the work of our Task Force over the last eight months, we believe it is neither appropriate nor possible for us to offer line -item budget cut recommendations. Rather, this report reflects our assessment of the current direction of the County, poses several questions for further inquiry, and recommends several policy directions and actions that we believe should guide County leaders in managing the budget crisis in the near and longer -term. Our report presents our analysis of the current situation and recommendations in four areas: Service Priorities; Administrative and Operational Policies and Efficiencies; Alignment of Services and Revenues; and Revenues. The Task Force makes 39 recommendations in total. Our most important recommendations and conclusions are summarized below. Service Priorities: o We identify no general areas where King County should stop providing services. Most services provided are mandated. Others, such as parks or human services are valued public services and have strong constituencies supporting an ongoing County role. Significant savings may be achieved over time from eliminating some specific programs within general services areas or reducing the level of service. The County should initiate a regional dialogue to rationalize delivery of specialized police services (such as marine patrol, K-9 teams, and bomb squads). There are currently 80 such units in King County provided by the County and eight cities. We do not recommend any particular governance or delivery outcome, but we believe that significant savings are achievable to the County, cities and the region if less duplicative service delivery can be agreed upon. o The County must seek full cost recovery on its discretionary contract services -- including not only operating and overhead costs, but also capital costs. o Budget decisions must be consistent with the County's growth management vision. Actions should promote annexation, and reflect a lower level of service in rural areas than in urban areas. o The County must identify a long-term regional plan for funding of important discretionary programs such as parks and human services. Administrative and Operational Policies and Efficiencies: o King County can become more efficient. All levels of County government, and all programs, should be engaged in identifying ways to become more efficient and eliminating duplication. Both for the real impact and symbolic impact, such action can help restore the public's confidence in our government. Significant 2 effort should be made to build an organizational culture that rewards efficient service delivery. Because law safety and justice programs consume over 70 percent of the CX dollars, it is imperative that the County's Criminal Justice Council — composed of separately elected leaders from the courts, sheriff's office, prosecutor's office and other parts of County government — work more pro -actively to identify ways to become more efficient and control costs. We recommend immediately investigating possible savings from consolidating the administrative functions of the district and superior courts o The County must improve the transparency of its budget, financial and operating policies. Efficiencies often flow from visibility. The budget issues must be more understandable to the public, and more clearly reflect the County's distinct roles as a regional and local service provider. 0 The County must simplify, unify and streamline its management practices. Basic management systems of the County are fragmented. There are multiple financial systems and human resources systems. Basic business policies and practices of the government differ widely across the organization. The County should engage all employees in a search for improved productivity. o The County must place a higher priority on investing in central systems technology. Unifying business practices will be necessary to take full advantage of such investment. G The County's primary mission is to provide public service, not to,provide employment. If public sector employees cannot supply services effectively or, efficiently as private or other governmental service deliverers, then contracting out those services must be considered. For example, "reverse contracting" with cities to provide services in unincorporated areas or rural areas may be a far more efficient means of delivering service within the County's physically scattered areas of local service responsibility. O Collaboration —with other governments, as well as internally within the County organization — is an important key to securing greater efficiencies. Generally we believe there are efficiencies to be gained by working with other governments in the region — and through streamlining internal processes. - Alignment of Services Expenses and Revenues: C Currently, local service delivery to unincorporated area residents is being significantly subsidized by regional dollars at an estimated annual rate of $42 million in 2003. This is happening at the expense of regional services. Iris a result of the unique mix of services King County is required to provide on a limited set of revenues, but is also the result of annexations and incorporations over the last 15 years leaving a patchwork of urban service areas behind for the County. King County's own policy decisions, restricting certain general local revenues to limited purposes, also contribute to the problem. We recommend the County launch a major effort of at most three years in length to reduce the `Urban subsidy" and encourage annexation. This effort should be funded by reprogramming existing local revenues. Cities and unincorporated urban area residents must be engaged as partners in this effort. Service levels in urban unincorporated areas must be reduced beginning in the 2004 budget -- and residents must understand further reductions are inevitable. Cities must accelerate their annexation plans, and the County must make some money available to cities as a modest incentive to annex. There is urgency to this proposal: the longer the County remains in the urban service business, the longer the budget crisis will continue. Work must occur now to identify clear targets and policies for reducing local service budgets as annexations occur. Revenues The County revenue structure is inadequate to meet the demands of the County's service obligations. While significant effort can be made to forestall or reduce service cuts by doing business differently, it will not be possible to maintain service levels for a growing population with revenue growth of less than two percent per year. The County must provide better information to the public about its services and its revenue challenge. And, the County must use its limited revenue and fee setting authority to address its challenges — including through full cost recovery in contract services and ensuring fees reflect the cost of service. The single most important action the State should take to assist the County would be to authorize it to impose a utility tax in unincorporated urban areas on the same basis as currently imposed by cities. This would be a potent fiscal tool to address local service budget subsidies — and, by creating better tax equity with cities, it would remove a potentially significant barrier to annexation. if annexations do not occur, additional revenue tools may need to be made available to residents of these areas. o The State should grant greater fiscal autonomy to the County— particularly in setting fees for services. 0 The State should also provide more direct fiscal support for critical law, safety and justice functions such as superior and district courts, indigent defense, and aggravated murder cases. As we conclude our work, we acknowledge the ongoing efforts of several other groups addressing very similar issues. The County's Governance Commission in particular will be reviewing and we hope, building on, our recommendations. The Municipal League is studying King County's future, as is the League of Women Voters. The King County Bar Association has just completed a study on court efficiencies. In some respects, these 4 multiple efforts are an encouraging sign of growing public recognition that critical services provided by King County are threatened by a serious fiscal crisis. Perhaps with greater understanding, there will be better opportunity to address the crisis. Indeed, we believe all County residents, and all government jurisdictions within King County, have reason to work together to find solutions to this challenge. King County Home News Services ICocnmerits Search July 9, 2003 Exec's_home I News I Schedule I Site -map I E-mail C% e$ r cri Budget Ad,iso Task sk Force A f6'�( U�l�i�a�'i�ti¢ons Dear King County employees: Thebudget advisory task force I created last fall recently issued its set of recommendations at its final meeting. Co-chaired by Bob Wallace, a Eastside businessman and former chair of the Greater Seattle Chamber of Commerce, and John Warner, a retired Boeing executive, this group of 13 citizens included former governors Booth Gardner and John Spellman, two retired judges, a former labor representative and several business people from both the for -profit and non-profit sectors. I asked them to come in and take a look at our budget, our operations, the regulations that guide us, our mandates, existing laws and anything else that affects and has an impact on our budget in hopes of getting a clean look and a fresh approach to keeping King County on strong financial legs. Like you, I read many of the task force's recommendations in the newspaper and I have now received their full report. To our credit, the members found that we have done a very good job to date of finding efficiencies and priDritizing our efforts so that we are providing only core services to our public. However, as we all read, they found no "silver bullet." Many of their recommendations however bear looking into. They include looking at the urban unincorporated areas and what services we currently provide there. One recommendation is to promote annexations to nearby cities. Other recommendations include initiating a regional dialogue to rationalize delivery of specialized police services, seeking full cost recovery on contract services and encouraging all parts of the county to look at efficiencies. Key recommendations would require state action on both revenue enhancements and changes to existing laws that make our budgeting difficult. There are many other interesting suggestions as well, and the highlights of their recommendations can be viewed online, at http,a/www mptrokc.goy/exec/batf/news/062503.htm. Their full report to me is also available on the Budget Advisory Task Force Web site, at http-wyvwwTmetrokq govlex_ec/ba.tff. This group spent untold hours reviewing our operations, our budget and our activities and I thank them. I want you to know that I will take the report very seriously and will likely be incorporating many of the recommendations of 4 � Of :C $ � U i the task force when putting together the 2004 budget, which I will present to the Council in October. As the task force pointed out, this government faces severe budget shortfalls that will mean reductions year after year unless there are significant changes that result in more efficient ways of doing business at less cost and the task force offered many suggestions which we will follow up on. Thank you for your outstanding service delivery to our residents as we continue to move forward. I will keep you posted as we develop our budget over the summer. Sincerely, Ron Sims King County Executive Updated: July 9, 2003 EmployeeQ-news Executive's home I Executive's. news Executive's schedule I Exec.u. tive's_.e mail. King_Co_unty I Executive I News I Services I Comments I Search Links to external sites do not constitute endorsements by King County. By visiting this and other King County web pages, you expressly agree to be bound by terms and conditions of the site. The details. Exhibit No. 1tein Reow King Cou* Hearing Examiner Metropolitan King County Council Budget & Fiscal Management Committee Capital Budget Panel Tuesday, October 21, 2003 -- 9.30 a.m. Wednesday, October 22, 2003— 9:30 a.m. Panel Members: Larry Phillips, Chair; Kathy Lambert, Vice -Chair; Carolyn Edmonds, Cynthia Sullivan, Dwight Pelz, Pete von Reichbauer, Dow Constantine, Steve Hammond, Larry Gossett, Jane Hague, David Irons, and Julia Patterson Lead Staff Megan Smith 296-0345, William Nogle (296-1632) Panel Staff• Olivia Aguilar (296-1691), Mike Alvine (296-0350), Rick Bautista (296-0329), Paul Carlson (296-1673), Carrie Cihak (296- 0317), Monica Clarke (296-1638), Peggy Dorothy (296-1658), Doug Hodson, (296-1668), David Layton (296-1679), Janice Mansfield (296- 1683), David Randall 296-1635 Mike Reed (296-1627 Lauren Smith (296-0352), Arthur Thornbu 296-1680 F-T - INDEX I. Transportation --- William Nogle Page No. 1. DOT.director's_office ; -Dou Hodson 2, Roads 3 _ -Paul Carlson 3, Roads.. C1P /.Roads. construction transfer 7 - -Paul Carlson Storinwater decant program 4. 11 - z= Dorothy 5, Transit oper.ating 13 - -Arthur nornbua and Dou& Hodson (, Transit CiP / Transit revenue vehicle replacement j( -Arthur nornbury and DoM Hodson 7. Airport 19 _ -Mike Alvine g, Motor,pool 22 - - Do& Hodson 9, Public eguipment.repair and replaceinent_.(ER&R) 24 Hodson 10. Wastewater ER&R 27 - - Doug Hodson II. Parks — Megan Smith Page No. 1, Parks._and _recrea-t-ion._-_or) erating 29 - -Mike Reed 2, Parks and., recreation_. _CJ. jl -Mike Reed 3, Youth, sports,facilities ,.grant 33 -Mike Reed 4 Parks., and„recreation.,.- CIP 36 -Monica Clarke j Cultural. development 44 -Mike Reed ���, Capital Improvement Program (CIP) - William Nogle Page No. Metropolitan lung County Council Budget & Fiscal Management Committee MEETING 1 -OVERVIEW PANEL: I Capital Budget 2004 CIP Budget AGENCY: Roads ORD. SECTION: 63,122 FUND: 3850, 3860 PROGRAM NAME: Roads CIP PROGRAM DESCRIPTION AND PURPOSE: DATE: October 21, 2003 PREPARED BY: Paul Carlson REVIEWED BY: William Nogle The Roads CIP consists of road, bridge, and related infrastructure projects in unincorporated King County, along with intergovernmental partnership projects that provide transportation benefits to the County. The 2004 appropriation request of $59 million is part of a 2004-2009 CIP that totals $402 million. Projects range from major corridor widening, bridge replacement, and intersection improvement projects to smaller scale improvements. Project scope and schedule vary widely. Proposed 2004-2009 Roads CIP 2004 1 2005 1 2006 1 2007 2008 1 2009 1 Total $59 170 000 1 $100 03fi 000 1 $51 334 000 1 $6621 fi 000 1 $77 88fi 000 1 $46 914 000 1 $401 556 000 Note: Table includes County Road and Renton Maintenance Givs FUNDING SOURCE: Funding sources include the Roads Construction Transfer from the Road Fund, Vehicle License Fee (VLF), bond revenues, federal and state grants, and developer fees. The Roads Construction Transfer is proposed for $29,788,813 in 2004. ISSUES and HIGHLIGHTS: Annexation Strategy The 2004 appropriation request includes two proposals to support the Executive's Annexation Strategy: One is the creation of a new project, RDCW 27, Agreements with Cities, with a 2004 appropriation of $5.6 million. Funds from this project will be available for use in the PAAs subject to interlocal agreements between the county and an annexing city. Funds for the project are derived from cost savings and cancellations. The Executive's 1 /20/2004 11:13 AM Annexation Strategy refers to this as reprioritization of funds. Attachment 1, Part 1 shows projects cut or reduced to fund this new project. Second, four projects in PAAs totaling $5.7 million are deferred from 2004 to 2005. Funds attributable to a project would be transferred to a city if the area where a project is located is annexed within the deferral period. Projects with grant funding and safety projects were not considered for deferral. Attachment 1, Part 2 lists the projects that would be delayed. 2004-2008 Bonding The proposed 2004-2009 Roads CIP continues to rely on bond funding like previous CIPs, but the structure and interest payment assumptions are modified. Last year's budget included $40 million in bonds to be issued in 2004 for expenditure in 2004 and 2005, and another $40 million to be issued in 2006 for expenditure in 2006 and 2007. The 2004-2009 CIP proposes to issue $15,420,000 in 2004, $19,580,000 in 2005, $11,000,000 in 2006, $11,670,000 million in 2007, and $22,330,000 in 2008. By issuing bonds each year, the intent is to provide more flexibility in changing plans if annexation activity results in a loss of revenue or a change in projects. The repayment terms are also proposed to change. An annexation agreement could provide for an annexing city to assume the outstanding debt on bond -funded projects in its PAA. Otherwise, revenue raised in the remaining unincorporated areas will pay these debts. While much of the 2004-2008 bond revenue is earmarked for projects in the rural area (notably Novelty Hill Road and the Mount Si Bridge), a substantial share is allotted to projects in PAAs. These are typically regionally significant projects that benefit rural residents. As part of its review of the Annexation Strategy, the Council may want to evaluate the impact of the multi -year debt service on the remaining unincorporated areas. The Executive may address this issue in the supplemental work program required by Motion 11820, which is due by December 31, 2003. The bonds issued in 2004 will be used to fund the following projects: Projects Receiving 2004 Bond Revenue CIP # Name Total 2004 Appropriation Bond share of total. Location 100389 NE 124 St. — Phase II 750,000 750,000 Rural 100799 Woodinville -Duvall Rd @ Avondale 2,025,000 2,000 000 Rural 101088 NE 132nd SUNS 128 St. 51870,000 2 950 000 Rural 400197 140,nAve SE @ Petrovitsky Road 735,000 700,000 Fairwood PAA 400400 Petrovitsky Road ITS 1,102,000 850,000 Fairwood PAA 400698 Benson Road @ Carr Road 7,074,000 4t470,000 Fairwood PAA 400898 Carr Road ' 2,598,000 11050,000 Fairwood PAA 401288 Elliott Bridge #3166 1 314,000 1,300,000 Renton East PAA 999386 Cost Model Contin enc 3,105,000 1 000 000 Count ide RDCW 07 Intelligent Transportation Mang ement Systems ITMS 1,109,000 1,100,000 Countywide 101289 North SPAR savings -750,000 Total bond revenues 15,420,000 Each of the projects in the Fairwood and Renton East PAAs is regionally significant and would benefit unincorporated area residents, and each is partially grant -funded. 1 /20/2004 11;13 AM Proiect cost changes The cost estimates for a number of projects have changed since the last CIP was adopted. Among the significant changes are: • Tolt Bridge #1834A (CIP #200394) was funded in last year's CIP at $10.6 million in 2003-2004 with 67% grant funds, now funded at $14.6 million in 2004- 2005 with 68% grant funding. o Mount Si Bridge #2550-A (CIP #200994) was funded in last year's CIP at $12.7 million in 2004-2007 of which 85% was grant -funded; now funded at $18 million in 2004-2009, with grant funds down to 47% of the total. o Benson Rd SE (SR 515) 0 Carr Rd (CIP #400698), funded in last year's CIP at $9.3 million in 2004-2005 with 67% grant funding, and now at $16.2 million in 2004-2005 with 48% grant funding. Novelty Hill Road (CIP #100992 - $40.6 million in 2004-2009) and the South Park Bridge (CIP #300197 - $12 million in County funds 2005-2008, with non -County funds assumed for the project but not shown in the proposed CIP) are two major projects that pose scoping and funding challenges. Both are in the environmental review process. RetrolRehab Pronosal Modifications The 2004-2009 CIP modifies the RetrolRehab proposal, first included in the adopted 2002-2007 CIP, which increases funding for the Countywide Overlay, Signal, 3R, Guardrail, and other projects. The Overlay program, which restores degraded arterials before their condition deteriorates enough to require more costly reconstruction, is scaled back by $690,000. It appears that the proposed $4.8 million funding level will allow about 60 miles of overlay work; staff is reviewing the project to determine if this is sufficient to meet the expanded program's goal of avoiding costly reconstruction. Countvwide Proiect Consolidation The budget proposes to create a new countywide project, RDCW 28, Non -Motorized, by combining three existing projects (RDCW 06, Countywide Pedestrian Safety and Mobility; RDCW 13 School Pathways; and RDCW 24, Neighborhood Road Enhancement Program). Funding for the new combined project in 2004-2009 is the same as the total for the three programs that would be consolidated. Vehicle License Fee (VLF The proposed budget assumes continued collection of the $15 Vehicle License Fee in King County. VLF revenues are allocated to the county and cities according to a population -based formula. For 2004-2009, VLF revenue is estimated at $27.9 million; these funds will pay a portion of the bond debt payments. During the next few weeks, the State Supreme Court is expected to rule on the constitutionality of Initiative 776, which sought to eliminate the VLF. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Project changes and delays relating to Annexation Strategy 1/20/2004 11:13 AM In "Tr;anst.tal .n Facing Iv 0 F b i i/.? 5-.�y e l s ai$ By Harold Taniguchi DOT Director King County Executive Ron Sims recently released his proposed annual budget — one that, like last year's budget, reflects declining revenues, a soft economy, and rising employee costs. We estimate that our department will have to cut 46 permanent positions because of declining revenues. We will have to focus on minimizing impacts to public services and projects by doing business differently. Harold Tardquchl The proposed transit division operating budget of $404.2 million—$6.1 million less than last year —reflects continuing weakness in sales tax and fare collections, along with increasing costs. This comes on top of more than $20 million in cuts taken since 2000. Because of the way we are managing these reductions, which support direct and indirect bus services, Metro Transit will be able to offer slightly increased bus service in 2004 to serve park -and -ride expansion. Transit also is projected to spend more than $157 million on capital projects and programs in 2004. The Road Services Division's proposed 2004 operating budget totals $64.4 million for 2004. Among the ways the division will meet its financial challenges is a range of efficiencies that will allow it to consume less electricity while cutting waste disposal and other miscellaneous costs. Road Services also will achieve staffing and program reductions by shifting workload and reducing maintenance work with contract cities. The 2004-2009 Executive Proposed CIP for Road Services is $401.6 million, with a new appropriation in 2004 of $59.2 million. Road Services has tailored its CIP budget to encourage cities to annex remaining urban unincorporated areas —a key recommendation from the Executive's Budget Advisory Task Force —by setting aside $5.6 million in road CIP revenues for annexation -agreement -related road infrastructure needs. Exhibit N . Item No. Received King County Hearing Exanikw Fleet Administration is proposing a status quo budget for 2004, continuing to emphasize clean air technology and partnerships with other government agencies. The division will continue purchasing hybrid electric vehicles to replace regular gas -powered vehicles that have reached the end of their useful .life. Fleet estimates it will have over 50 hybrid vehicles next year, nearly 13 percent of the county's vehicle fleet. For our Airport division, still affected not only by the local economic downturn but by the aviation industry's 9/11-related downturn as well, the Executive's 2004 proposed budget is guarded. Safety and security continue to be key elements of the airport's business operations, with increased emphasis on trained personnel and infrastructure. The proposed budget supports a major division reorganization that establishes an Operations and Compliance Unit to meet FAA -mandated requirements. The airport's 2004 operating request maintains current staffing levels and shows an increase of approximately $800,000 to cover employee costs and significantly increased general utility costs. The 2004 revenue forecast includes approximately $584,000 of new revenues, with the largest increases reflected from lease adjustments implemented during 2003 and completed in 2004, The 2004 airport CIP includes money for South Pump House equipment, security improvements, new Lot 13 tie -downs, Duwamish clean-up, an airport survey, facility repair, and redevelopment, among other things. It is no secret.to any of you that these are challenging times. But I believe we are meeting these challenges both collectively and individually, and I am proud of the work you are doing. Our 2004 budget, while lean, manages to provide good services to our constituents and to introduce efficiencies that benefit taxpayers while causing as little pain as possible to our workforce. It hasn't been easy, but the quality of employee we have in the Department of Transportation has made these solutions easier to find than they might have been. I want to thank all of you for your help, for rising to these challenges along with us in management, and for staying the course with us as we navigate through this downturn. Updated: November 4, 2003 DOT Home I In Transportation King County I News I Se_ryices I Comments ( Search t HAL NO. 16 I EXECUTIVE SUMMARY There were 12 accidents recorded at this location during the period 1998-2000. The predominant accident patterns consist of left turn accidents and rear -end accidents. The intersection is stop sign controlled in the NB and SB directions. The 1998-2000 average accident rate is 0.64 acc/mev compared to a median average rate of 0.58 acc/mev for our 48 HAL locations. This location was No. 98 on the 1995 HAL list, with no recommended improvement due to lack of accident pattern. Analysis of the accident patterns indicates that injury accidents may be reduced by 44% and property damage accidents may be reduced by 12% by adding a left turn lane in the WB/EB directions. The estimated cost for these revisions is $362,000. The estimated public benefit/cost ratio for the improvement is 3.5, and the estimated net benefit of constructing this project is $894,000. Predominant Accident Patterns o Left Turn • Rear -End Primary Countermeasures D Add Left Turn Lane 160t" Ave SE / SE 128" St j Soo 0 Soo 1000 Feet — l Y Map data source: FGng County, 2002. HA VHARS Analysis July 2003 Ro .. ' 79 W, � i I R� oi-M-1-1 114 .r,i » 14 S lip RUN.. PT U '; }4 �4 : w { n 3 s I 00-1033337 98-0�V2 98-111 49- 99-6 9302 98-096569_� 98-061837� 99-103329� 11] sE IZ8 sr. 00-138 L_--((Ts ance= accidents with insufficient_ data tor isp ay 4 Straight ® Parked X Pedestrian 'Fixed objects: < Stopped Erratic X Bicycle ❑ General o Pole < Unknown Out of control p Injury s Signal a Curb �-->• Backing ,i Right turn © Fatality ® Tree animal Overtaking .0 Left turn -P Nighttime Q 3rd vehicle Sideswipe U-turn �a DUI )K Extra data DETAILED ACCIDENT SUMMARY HAL # 16 160`h Ave SE / SE 128`h'St Pavement Conditions Number Dry 8 Vet 4 Grand Total 12 Entering Volume (vehicles/day): 17,070 Accident Rate: 0.64 (accidents/million entering vehicles) Lighting Conditions Number Dark 0 Dawn 0 Day 8 Dusk 0 Lights -on -night 4 Grand Total- 12 Type of Accident Total *Total Accidents Reduced by Primarqy Countermeasure s PDO Injury Fatality Total PDO Injury Fatality Total Left Turn 0 4 0 '4 0.0 2.0 0.0 2.0 Right Turn 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Right Angle 3 0 0 3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Side Swipe 0 1 0 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Head On 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Rear -end 1 3 0 4 0.5 1.5 0.0 2.0 Run -off -road 0 0 0 0 0.0 .0.0 0.0 ' 0.0 Roll-over 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Driveway 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 -0.0 Parking 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Pedestrian/Bike 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Fixed Object 0 0 0 0 .0.0 0.0 .0.0 0.0 Animal 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Other 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Grand Total 4 8 0 12 0.5 3.5 0.0 4.0 * Number of accidents of type that will be reduced by recommended countermeasure. HAL/HARS Analysis July 2003 PROJECT: DATE; COST ESTIMATE HAL#16-160THAVESE/SE128TI-IST 2002 HAL/ HARS UPDATE 20-Dec-02 MADE BY: Si JOB NO.: W3X37702 tips, CE: I SIGNAL TIMING/ PHASING (INCLUDES STUDY) L.S. 0 $5,000 $o 2 WARNING BEACON EACH 0 $25,000 $o 3 NEW SIGNAL L.S. 0 $100,000 $o 4 SIGNAL MODIFICATION L.S. 0 $75,000 $o 5 IMINOR SIGNAGE L.S. 1 $2,000 $2,000 6 PAINT LINE L.F. 3360 $1 $1,680 7 PLASTIC WIDE LINE L.F. 0 $ 1 $o 8 RAISED PAVEMENT MARKERS 'HUND 0.4 $600 $252 9 FLEXIBLE GUIDE POST EACH 0 $25 $0 10 BEAM GUARDRAIL TYPE I L.F. 100 $25 $2,500 11 CLEAR AND GRUB L.F. 1 $1,500 $1,500 12 DEMOLITION / REMOVAL L.S. 1 $10,000 $10,000 13 TYPE C BLOCK TRAFFIC CURB L.F. 0 $13 $0 14 CURB AND GUTTER L.F. 400 $15 $6,000 15 SIDEWALK S.Y. 226 $25 $5,650 16 GRAVEL BORROW INCL. HAUL TON 346 $20 $6,920 17 CRUSHED SURFACING BASE COURSE TON 230 $25 $5,750 18 ASPHALT TREATED BASE TON 255 $70 $17,850 19 ASPHALT CONC. PAVEMENT CL. 8 TON 128 $70 $8,960 20 CEMENT CONCRETE PAVEMENT C.Y. 190 $250 $47,500 21 DRAINAGE L.S. 1 $19.000 $19,000 22 ENVIRONMENTAL MITIGATION / TRAFFIC CONTROI L.S. 1 $50,00() $50,000 23 ROADWAY EXCAVATION INCL. HAUL C.Y. 370 $20 $7,4DO 24 UTILITIES L.S. 1 $6,000 $6,000 25 ILLUMINATION L.S. 0 $o SUBTOTAL DESIGN CONTINGENCY BID ITEM SUBTOTAL 30% $198,962 $59,689 $258,651 CONSTRUCTION INSPECTION / MANAGEMENT CONSTRUCTION CONTINGENCIES CONSTRUCTION SUBTOTAL 15% 5% $38,798 $12,933 $51,730 DESIGN ENGINEERING ENVIRONMENTAL/PERMITTING TOTAL PROJECT ESTIMATE 15% 5% $38,798 $12,933 $3629111 NOTE: No cost is included for purchase of right of way. HALIHARS Analysis July 2003 King County Comprehensive Plan 2000 Chapter Six, Transportation Cog7+ptt W Such& Yew-W F,*d 9e m-.+ n�pojec� fl�xX�o-y20061haaEtrar_�rv-a,s Graphr ik-S_Y_2CO�G510.6m r Rtpol • - '' ti _ � '� .-- r .... — ' - ate' "__„_..- --- -_ ' S MAMMH CP o � Jf e� P Transportation "C? ° Service Areas 2000 Transportation Service Area 1 Transportation Service Area 2 _J 0 Transportation Service Area 3 .". - i _I�- m 141lm11 w,narxln Transportation Service Area 4 AP -- ,t Transportation Service Area 5 Incorporated Areas ;3 j,��- Muckleshoot Indian Reservatic ��� `` Urban Growth Area Line • Municipal Watershed Boundar a �n The maps in the King County Comprehensive Plan and its rechnicat appendices are pnxuced wilt a computer geographic information system. They are reduced in size but available at a larger scale Source: King County Department of Development and Environmental Services { This map is intended forplanning purposes onty and is not guaranteed to show a( measurements. ® King County 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 6 w t NO• Z9 Miles hem N0. Februar! King County Hearing W/Miner 2001 2002 2003 King County Department of Transportation Transportation Concurrency R no. f= W. � 0— King Cw* Hearing Examiner a.m s�.i.M 4r c.y came. reen• wry T.�r W w•. o� �.�a-ram.sP.an�www-.w mn Legend ❑ Urban Growth Line 2000 Zone Numbers [] Zone Boundaries ® Over Threshold ❑ Near Threshold Under Threshold Transportation concurrency Level of Service Standards Status 1ho.0—n d.n M M -W40.j X" Count' RK "r r-*V a.as:a..MA- m Oww �+em��novw Ktgcvnq reta`ro�e{w.enrivnv nln�ia �D,liY b'+'PMd.M a�rn 7mnPkkn.�. W—Y 10, 7f/1.� '7.X0— m nTt. m fM w ¢f.uM IMwpVydn }%p( , .dpMue.G lM. Y., 07 D V 1.4 RI 2e 15 `wm. oE.nNW09�—ro- WypmVba.t +NnoL wMa", rt.nwd O. mu �}pmein m aron. i.Wrg Imm !m a. � v n.m o? ¢w uMann.am vs�+Y.e m M. rs MY iYM dhlt mepn Memv11g1 N. n'BC �O�E� smpi by ..mm� permWnn NlUnp Ce�ay. Received cZ_/-n _ King County H&-Ong Attachment A [3 urban Growth Line 2000 70ne Numb6Ts r''''� t..�.l ZDrw BotmdBdes ` Over Threshold NeaThresholdmshol ,�y �y � urxler rnn3snoicf UrO I Transportation Concurrency Level of Service Standards Status wf pcmdu� 16n.eSnrkx� oxw+..wriasn�, Ygrm.ry �a� nu/Mw6io�%Had�1 TNOr Oriw dylallmbO.nn byfkAh'MY4bJ �� irr/ n.m.r1 � m1"�•*�'�w me �.eawxkeMuhwta.�.. dRRP 7af.d'apexiMu4e�JWtNi'� �e5'��"��'r°Pcn�ne�dil h�bl� ar a 07'A x, zs 76 miw. sYwid din ree�+. lieiMcsd � AI�rrS, i, NJatl Legend © Urban GM.M line 20M 09 Z. N."m Zone 8amdariss ® D«er TTraeha�d © Nm 'lrrechdd - Under TRroaWd One Proposed new developments are pursuing extension of sewers. These developer extensions will bring sewers into the basin in the near future, allowing the potential for service to properties in the vicinity of these extensions. To the best ability possible, the development of the sewer system in the East Cedar River Basin should be guided by the ability to serve the greatest area possible for the least cost. However, the needs and wants of the property owners in the area will strongly influence the option(s) and phasing chosen. Sewer System Option Development Project goals and physical and regulatory factors set the framework for the initial option to serve the study area. The initial objective was to create an all gravity option for the study area. Careful analysis of topography revealed that two small areas (one on the western edge of the study area and one along the western edge of Jones Road) could only be served with lift stations_ These two small lift stations became common elements to all options. They were labeled: o SE 135`h Street Lift Station o SE Jones Road Lift Station . Option A became the "all gravity" alternative for this study. While it does include the two small lift stations described above, all other wastewater would be conveyed by gravity via three main routes. Sewage is directed out of the study area through the southern end of Basin Three out to M 1 if11 H' - *��aa Yi'f!, W-+��il'..:'=:�'•1 _''1`5- �'�1G . 1tH �. .. w I3G '{'Y4' •, 1; ^'•iT ' .'4'r'A _ �::'+:.. �'rit 4a i.`s^ _ a Y� ap e a ey ghway. Sewage will also flow out the southwestern corner of Basin Two, also to the Maple Valley Highway. Finally, sewage will be directed through the western side of Basin One along SE 128`h Street (see Figure 9, Sanitary Sewer Option A). Relying on gravity to move sewage allows a minimum amount of lift stations and force main; reducing the cost of this option. Option A consists of about 260,000 feet of gravity sewer pipe and about 1,100 feet of force main pipe through four sewage basins of roughly the -same size Using Option A as a starting point, permutation of options began. These options were limited by the physical and regulatory consideration discussed above. Therefore, since Option A represented the "most" gravity dependent option, only options that included more force mains (and lift stations) presented themselves. Options B and C present two variations on the theme of increasing the amount of force mains to serve the study area. Option B assumes that sewage cannot be directed out the southwest corner of Basin Two. This requires that sewage be pumped up to Basin One, where a gravity system can then transport r East Cedar River Basin sewer Collection Report EXiliblt No. __4 ___ _ - RH2 Engineering, Inc- 05/20199 ltItemNo � Page 10 POWYKI King County Hearing Examiner One LIT174 a H3 M. Table 1-1, Option Ratings, illustrates the relative ranking of each of the five sewer system options for this study. While no option dominates the ratings, Option D narrowly scores higher than the �-`g_. r7- :'�. ,:r-=�.�i :i� �-��'' .a,� ,'�„ '�'-5��� - s'�� a ��•-�.. ". f y� others. More detailed descriptions and analysis of the basis for these ratings are contained in Chapters Three and Four. REOOMMENDATIONS Follow-up to this study lies in two main areas: phasing and funding. Much of the desirability and feasibility of any of the options depends on the phasing of sewer improvements in the study area. The phasing of the required elements of the system is affected by many elements (most of which are unpredictable and beyond control) nevertheless, three primary arenas of effort stand out. The first phasing consideration is provision for a sewer interceptor on the proposed new Elliott Bridge. The most reliable and cost effective options for carrying wastewater out of the study area would bring flows by gravity south down 154' Avenue and across the Cedar River. Crossing the Cedar on a bridge would be the most prudent type of crossing involving the least complicated permitting process and environmental impacts. The City has worked with both King County and King County Water District 90 to assure provisions for a sewer interceptor on the Elliot Bridge. The bridge design is now complete and contains the provision for utility casing construction for such an interceptor. It is anticipated that once sewer service is extended to the area, this interceptor will become part of Renton's sewer system in accordance with State Law. The second phasing consideration is the dry sewer system in the plats of Briar Hills and Briarwood ;Tarr r�yilili:Yafirrj:doc `< ,=Ys''" GirYrrrrl flr_:r, I�iafr-rFllyd Tullir, I��rrl Trrisl Frrrrd o . 1Jrvr,-iGTrr8leni br, Lane. The precise size, location, condition, and slope of the sewer systems will dramatically shape the selection process for providing sewer service to the study area. Therefore, it would be most East Cedar River Basin Sewer Collection Report RH2 Engineering, Inc. 05/20/99 Page 15 Two I Peaking Wastewater does not flow at even rates. Flow rates vary according to the time of day and weather conditions. Wastewater flows rise during the morning and evening hours, which corresponds to a typical household routine of preparing for work or school, meal preparation, bathing, washing, etc. Conversely, domestic wastewater flows are lowest during the very early morning hours. Because of infiltration and inflow, wastewater flows also rise during rainstorms. Together these factors create flows that are highest during a heavy evening rainstorm. Sewage facilities must be designed to accommodate such peaks; otherwise overflows and backups will occur. For this report, a peaking factor of 2.0 times the average total flows (domestic plus commercial/industrial) is used. GRAVITY SEWER DESIGN CRITERIA The City of Renton prefers gravity sewers for two main reasons. First, they are more reliable. Force mains rely on mechanical and electronic systems. Any such system will periodically fail or malfunction. Gravity sewers are not mechanical and rely solely on the- laws of gravity to operate. Second, they are less expensive. The electricity to operate lift stations and the staff to inspect and maintain the stations costs money. While gravity sewers must also be inspected and maintained, they almost always take less time and require less maintenance. The following criteria outline the sizing, performance and construction design criteria that a gravity sewer system must meet. East Cedar River Basin Sewer Collection Report RH2 Engineering, Inc. 10/18/99 Page 20 t Q 00 ` � g� J Chapterl. Highlights 10 Capacity in Relation to Target: King County jurisdictions have permitted more than 68,000 housing units in Urban areas in the first eight years of the planning period. That amount is 36% of the Urban growth target of 188,000 households. As of 2001, the King County UGA has 263,000 units of residential capacity. This is more than twice the capacity needed to accommodate the remaining 2012 housing target of 120,000 units. There is a surplus of 143,000 units of capacity over and above the units needed to accommodate the 2012 target. - Capacity in King County is somewhat unevenly distributed among sub -areas, with Sea -Shore having the largest share (more than 122,000 units). The capacity in Sea -Shore is the result of a fairly limited amount of land that is zoned for high multifamily densities. The development history of the sub -area indicates that it can achieve high densities in the future, even with the smallest land supply of the three urban sub -areas. Although South King County has more housing capacity numerically than the Eastside, the Eastside has a larger surplus of capacity over its current 2012 target. The South County has more of its current target still to achieve, and thus less surplus capacity (18,200) beyond that target. But sub -area differences in household size play a role. Although the South County achieved less of its housing target, it has accommodated much more than its share of population growth, because.it is housing more people per housing unit. The original target allocation did not take this differential into consideration. In comparing the actual growth to targets, it is important to remember the cyclical nature of Puget Sound growth. Recent permits have exceeded the annualized targets all over King County. In the next few years, slower growth may balance this rapid growth period and bring us back to the 20--year forecasted trend. The Rural area forecast or cap was set at less than four percent of Countywide growth, an average of under 400 units per year. in the first few years after the target was set actual building construction in Rural designated areas was two to three times this annualized average. As a percentage of Countywide construction, Rural activity remains small: less than eight percent of new housing units, and down to 4% since 2000. This percentage is well below the 13 to 15% of earlier decades, and far less than Rural growth in other Puget Sound counties. Further, the 2000 Census found fewer than 137,000 persons in Rural areas, only 8% of the Countywide population and 9% of the 1990-2000 population growth. Nevertheless, in the fiv years 1995 -1999, new housing construction is more than halfway (52%) to the 20-year target of up to 8,200 units in Rural areas. Much of this growth is due to the large number of pre-existing lots in rural areas. Rate of residential construction remains stable Despite the slowing population growth, residential construction dropped only slightly in 2002, demonstrated by construction ` of nearly 11,500 new residential units. Construction of single family homes was up to almost 6,000 new houses and mobile homes. Permits for single family construction have stayed remarkably consistent each year since 1991, at about 5,000 new houses in King County. Only one third of the new houses were permitted in unincorporated areas. Multifamily construction is often much more volatile, responding to changes in the regional economy. Again this year, multifamily construction decreased to about 5,500 new.apartments and condominium units (half the 1998-2000 average). Total new construction is comparable to the mid-1990s, but well below levels of the late 1980s and late 1990s. 9 Total Ni Residen Units Single Family' and Multifamil! 1980 — 200 9 9 9 9 9 9 §•� 9 9§ 9§1 9 A g § � I § 1 2 2 2003 King County Annual Growth Repo Chapter i . Definitions 11 King County Growth Terms Annexation - Adding or taking more land into a city's jurisdiction. Growth Target- Policy statement indicating an approved number of new households and jobs to be accommodated in a jurisdiction during the 20-year Growth Management period. Incorporated- Within a city, or the city's jurisdiction. King County contains 35 whole incorporated cities and parts.of four others. Rural Areas - Unincorporated areas outside the Urban Designated Area on which little residential or job growth is planned. Rural Cities - Cities in rural areas. There are seven in King County: Black Diamond, Carnation, Duvall, Enumclaw, North Bend, Skykomish, and Snoqualmie. Subareas - Grouping of King County by geographic areas. See subareas map on page 43. Suburban Cities- The cities in King County excluding Seattle. Includes rural cities. Transportation Concurrency - requires that transportation facilities must be available to carry the traffic of a proposed development. A certificate of transportation concurrency is issued when a proposed development meets the county's adopted level of service standards. Concurrency is the first step in the permit process and concurrency approvals are an indicator of future development. Unincorporated- Outside any city and under King County's jurisdiction. Urban Centers - Areas located in cities which are meant to accommodate concentrations of housing and employment over the next 20 years. Urban Growth Areas - Areas designated for urban use under the Growth Management Act with activities supported by urban services and facilities. Q Economic Terms Affordable Housin -Assumes that no more than 25% of a homeowner's income goes to mortgage payments (exclusive of tax and insurance costs), and that no more than 30% of a renter's income goes to rent payments. Affordability Gap - The difference between the average home sales price or apartment rental price and the affordable price. See pages 40-41. Covered Employment- Workers covered by unemployment insurance. They make up approximately 90% of total employment. Covered employment excludes military, railroad, and self-employed persons. Household - An occupied housing unit; can consist of one person, unrelated persons, or a family. Income - Wage and salary income; self-employment income (farm or non -farm); interest, dividend, and rental income; Social Security income; public assistance; retirement and disability pensions; and other income. Mean - Same as average. The sum of observations divided by the total number of those observations. 2003 King County Annual Growth Report a �ir��,"�f�i�$i;4'i`�����;•i`.� .'i'�;::'•&�ih�i¢'�$�i�ih�''R�. P�sN+� ,�':<l ;la'; `'.y L I, Benchmarking as a Strategy for Change: King County Leads the Way Throughout the United States and Canada - even as far away as Japan - people are inquiring about the King County Benchmark Program. As one of the first and most durable efforts at monitoring outcomes in the public sector, this program has provided an example to other government bodies. It demonstrates how measurement of broad quality -of -life outcomes can help determine if public policy and programs are making a difference. The purpose of King County's Benchmark Program is to provide the Growth Management Council and other users with a method for. • Evaluating the progress of the County and its jurisdiction in managing growth, and in • Implementing the goals outlined in the Countywide Planning Policies It is a strategy for a change: it alerts us to what we are doing well, and to where we need to do better, As such, it is intimately connected to both the policy goals that it monitors, and to the strategic planning, programs, and services that (Continued on page sixteen) � a 3 166 a longterm trend lh a oostty �,I nNi;i,. I. �.n„!,�}N•�.l,j ,p v.���'•���I``x�'��;a�'-':L2.��f11i.I' ,� fidtGy,i... �I, ,�;rtl('a;l,, •��'lyt�•'f' rr;1�>Mi'',i Ms,�A�' Highlights: Indicators Show Efficient Use of Urban Land; Protection of Rural Area • Within the urban area of King County, 53% of all new residential permits issued in 2002 were on redevelopable land. This trend is key to growth management, because it indicates that urban land is being used efficiently, and that sprawl is being contained through use of infitl development. • Since 1996, the proportion of new development taking place in the rural areas has been cut in half - from about 8% in 1996 to 4% in 2002. • From 1999 to 2001, King County exceeded its goal that 25%of residential units would be located in Urban Centers. However, in 2002, only 18% of new units were in Urban Centers, and nearly all of it was in Seattle and Bellevue rather than in the suburban Urban Centers. • Urban land is being consumed at about half the rate of urban population growth. • There has been marked improvement in the achievement of planned densities in King County's urban areas. • Parks acreage in urban King County has increased by about 8%since 1996, while the urban population grew byjust 7%. • We are maintaining our resource lands. Total acres of forest and farmland remains aboutthe same as in the mid-1990s Same Benchmarks, New Format The King County Benchmark Program is in its eighth year of publishing an annual report on progress in meeting the Countywide Planning goals. This year it comes to its readers in a new bi-monthly format. This format is experimental and will be evaluated in mid-2004. It will consist of five issues, of which this is the first. The Economic Indicators will be published in October, the Affordable Housing in December, with Transportation and Environmental Indicators to follow in February and April of 2004. n'dicitor .Flags• lonurmost �� -" There has bean a Ir1ng term`n`egative trend 'or.the- ;r;.' recent date shows a j F'' "; z Y E,, rrtost recent data shows a significant downti}m'R'` , ,, °.e J': .�,f 1, l g'i { 7hore hssbeenEittlesl�nIf)aa movemefrilnthlalndlcator oriFie a 1 ;, "lherg i6 tnsuftldenfr�fab[e,'d&a for this,hdi66tor trend Table of Coif#eats Page r; Benchmarking as a Strategy for Change ..............................i`•.1-1 •• '' F{ighllghts:: Land UseTiends to............ r y!u._ , s' *. .- Tlhe Land Ilse:fndlcators Y New Housing.Units in Urban and Rural Areas and �n Urban Centers :.................................. 2 31,. Empicyrieitt in. Urban and Rural Areas, rr Urban Centers and in MfgdIndust Canters`. .....i:..................................4 32., Now Housing Units Built Through Redevelopment:......... ................................................. :. 33 Ratio of Land Consumption to Population Growth:.........'.. 8 34 Ratio of Achleved Density.to Planned Density of;Residential Development. 6 r "Sr' Map,oi King County Jurisdictions; Sub Regions and Urban Centers 9 35: Ratio of.i and Capacity to 20-Year Job and Household Targets..:..: ......... 36 i L.and''with Six Years of. infrastructure Ca act p ty'......:......... ......... 37:' Acres of Urban Parks and Open Space.....:.:::c.:................................... .... 12 J,,. 36, Ratio of Jobs to Housing in Central Puget Sound and King County Sub -Regions....,. .:............:...:........................... 13 39i Acres in Forest and Farm Land.. ....................:::............................................................:................... ...:...................14 40: Number and Average Size of Farms........:.:::..:.::...............:...::..::.......:.........:......::.:....:..... .......... ..........15 ",_,Data Sources and Acknowledgments. .....� :I' OR 006L� King County Hearing Examiner Encourage a Greater Share of Growth in Urban Areas and Urban Centers; Limit Growth in RuraVResource Areas Indicator 30: Percent of New Housing Units in urban Areas, Rural Areas, and Urban Centers Countywide Planning Policy Rationale ',Th6'I9hd use pattern for King County shall pro- tect.66 natural environment by reducing the con-- • . , . �; ,. :.sumption of land and 6� centrating deJetopmeht:, Urban Growth'AFeas;~Rural Areas; and.resource' 'Ian& shall be designated and tht necessary imple- `^meriting tegttlatiorts a[lopted...:'.Urbari Centers are' expecteif to account for.. -one quarter of,the house- ai ' blo; '_eiext20years." W(C-6PSP FN-6lawoverth' ":gn.p Vv,:- )&AW9'1O,,LU-26, 40,F Indicator 30 measures King County's progress in in- creasing the proportion of new housing that is built within urban areas, and reducing the proportion in rural areas. It also monitors residential development in the 14 designated Urban Centers of the County, two of which were designated in the past year. Key Trends Rural vs. Urban Growth le The percent of development in the urban area of King County has gradually increased to about 96% in 2002, with just 4% occurring in the rurallresource areas, In comparison to the 1996 —1998 period, the proportion of new development taking place in the rural areas has been cut in half. Fig. 30.1 Urban Housing Unit Permits as a Percent 120% j of All New Housing Unit Permits 100% -i I k' 40% 20% 799E.199E 1099 2000 208/ 2002 t7 Urban wa Rural f Resource Countywide Growth and the New Target Fig. 30.2 Cumulative Net New Housing Units 120,000 Permitted in Relation to ion 80,000 Caslmblc Gro 60.000 (Extended Target) 40,000 20,000 A Actual crow rh ICP Extended Target: By 2022, a total of about 230,000 net now housing units should be bush in King County, including those built from 1993 - 2000. 2 ° Uountywide residential growth continues to meet or slightly exceed the newly -adopted 22-year growth target. ° Total new residential development increased about 2% over the 2001 level, at just under 11,000 new units permitted, Despite the recession, permit levels have remained fairly consistent since 1996. (See Fig. 30.5 for city and sub -region detail). Growth in Urban Centers Urban Centers in King County are "areas with concentrated housing and employment, supported by high capacity transit and... retail, recreational, public facilities, parks and open space." ° From 1999 to 2001 King County exceeded its goal that 25% of new residential permits would be located in Urban Centers. 1n 2002, just 18% of new residential permits were issued for Urban Centers. Fig. 30.3 Urban Center Residential Development as a Percent of New Residential Permits Issued 40%�9". i �I::� L r 1996-1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 pUrban Center uAll Units ° Nearly all of the 2002 growth in Urban Centers was in Seattle's five Urban Centers and in Bellevue. ° Bellevue's center had moderate growth with 252 new units, but centers in the suburban cities are not showing continued residential growth during this recession period. Fig. 30.4 Ono :Itt�.itgUtlttsiij*,iiaid = t3tikt by of Mf (Cerledadby �' 6t2011Q 'tides>, .tYEwetQ t?R[iirlf8ln ao?z Unlni< 4e ikew piivlr� 4n x6o2 Seattle 52,006 54,04 1708 56122 ickstHdCa italHill 23531 24,183 393 24,576 t)owrrh)" r2,852 14,344 1060 15,404 Mort to 3,650 305 15 3,680 Unive 6898 6,917 144 7,061 U 5,075 5,305 96 5,401 Auburn- 900 Bellevue 2,709 3,068 252 3,320 Federal Way* 892 892 0 892 K9rtt 6581 572 0 572 KirhlandlTolem Lake" 1 2.944 Redmond 1,324 1,324 0 1,324 Renton 1,015 1 P051 •2 1,049 see'rac 41 4,085 1 086 Tukwila 2 2 0 2 71101 'Federal way has an urban me with no residential units. ff has 692 units in its 'urban Frame' which strmunds the urban core. 'Two new urban centers were designated in 2003' Totem Lake in Kirkland, and Downtown uburn. The number is an estimate of raWenUal units existing in each center at the Ume or des7iabon. ',li "•{li` ;st��,ry. ,,1.�:. ` - `+ : ,: '..y,' a��- e.; a • ' ai e4,'.- i�: f } •� 3i �mzrr fret yaa='.;5�3F,r3�yl r ai,i4F7 1 I I a 1 I ,t �,:°, .S FiU -s 7.�I , rl�if , Fig. 3o.5 ry '* rtW 81-d, A a a •�� it 11 2DOV2002 In 2 years (VA of 'SFASHORE GIOH , � Lake Fcrest Park-� 9 11 20 538 49r6 Seattle- 3.824 3,261 7,085 51,510 14% Shoreline 63 104 167 2,651 61/0 ne 4 0 Total for SeaShore 3,9% 3,450 7,440 56,369 13% `,Fr , r+ _ SOWN 5 •Mona WN-_ _ _ ' c? 16 41 57 298 19% Auburn 165 78 243 5,928 4% Black Diamond 7 4 11 1,099 1% Burien 17 27 44 1,552 30/0 Covington 222 353 575 1,173 49% OesWnes 26 8 34 1,576 20/6 Federal Way 32 201 233 6.188 4% Kent 457 347 804 4.284 19% Maple Valley 166 341 5017 3001 169% Milton 1 1 50 2% Norma Part( 5 91 96 10o 96% Pacific 14 99 113 996 11 % Renton 65B 619 1,277 6,198 21% SeaTac 20 35 55 4,478 1% Tukwr1a 42 51 93 3.200 30/6 Total for South 2,545 3,407 5,952 42,355 14% Beaux Arts 2 - 67 ° Bellevue 509 381 890 10,117 9% Bothell 26 121 147 1,751 8% Clyde Hill - - 21 0% Hunts Point 1 2 1 1 100% 499 200 699 3,993 18% Kenmore 32 138 170 2,325 7% Kirkland 225 195 4 5,480 8% Mena 2 3 5 31 16% Mercer Island 63 BZ 14 1,437 10% Newcastle 67 109 176 863 20% Redmond 694 465 1,159 9,Un 13% mmam Woodinville 51 134 185 1,869 10% Yarm Point - - - 28 0% Total for East 3170 3095 626 447,645 130/6 • ", . RUF%ME$$UBMID �­!, mabon U 1 1 246 ° Duvall 208 86 294 1,037 280/6 Enumclaw 28 59 67 1927 50/6 North Bend 7 -1 6 636 1 % SkAonlish 0 0 - 20 0% S 136 291 427 1,697 25% UK Rural 2U UGA's 7 7 u z All Current Cities 8,753 8,459 172121368,5261 12°/a ' KC 1,331 1,936 3,267 24% l:At A,. 1 20i478= i " . 939f6a OT=UrAAI;- KC 1,884 2,377 4,261 A 1 14% ber in this oahmn is the rxvrber reported by ftAmsdchon kr trwd W lands data Mdarv. 7 may dffier AghNy from the sum of the nurrrbers reported for ft Annual Growth PxpM. "Seattle reports net perne's rr>aed, raCrer Ira r netperm Ls issued. "'There a no stated target kr Rurat KM Ca rNy The number gv n is the ddAarwm bomew the urban area target and toe omral CouTy brget Indicator 30 (continued) City and Sub -Region Progress The original 20 year residential target ran from 1993 to 2012. In 2002 that 20 year target was evaluated, and a 22 year target, running from 2000 to 2022, was adopted. The line on Fig. 30.2 shows the original target up through 2000, and the new target from 2001 on. It assumes an equal distribution of growth In each year of the target period. ° Countywide we have achieved 14% of the newly -adopted residential target in the first two years of the 22 year period. ° Although there is wide variation in the degree of new development in each city, there is considerable consistency from one sub -region to another. ° Each sub -region has permitted between 13% and 15% of its 22 year target during these first two years. Two year's represents about 9 Vo of the target period. What We Are Doing ° Preserving rural and resource areas from development through purchase of conservation easements for forest land that was slated for development. ° Refining and enforcing rural development codes to limit development, protect environmentally -sensitive areas, and maintain rural character. ° Allowing clustering of housing on constrained land, easing height restrictions, and providing other incentives to maximize net densities in appropriate urban areas. ° Promoting transit -oriented development in urban centers through city -county and private partnerships. ° Providing 10 years of tax exemption for new residential units in Auburn's Urban Center. ° Extending urban area targets to 2022 with an emphasis on sub -regional balance. Issues Residential development has slowed, or has never occurred, in most of the designated urban centers outside of Seattle. Some of this has been the result of the slowdown in the economy just as plans were ready to be implemented. The County and cities need to continue to seek ways to stimulate development in those urban centers, with the vision of bringing jobs, people, public transportation, and shopping into closer proximity in lively, pedestrian -oriented communities. 3 !' ;t �' ;bi#:AU98StS2QD3 IAHQ.USE Indicator34 (continued) Key Trends a In multifamily zones, however, Sea -Shore has e There has been a marked improvement in the achievement of planned increased its achieved density to an average densities in 2002 when compared to the 1996 to 2000 period. of 77.7 dwelling units per acre in 2002, from 52.2 dwelling units per acre during the 1996 e This improvement has occurred in both the creation of new plats, and - 2000 period. in new development permitted on existing lots. e The improvement has happened in all sub -regions of the County with Fig. 34.3 the exception of a few zone groups. Change in Achieved Densities in • King County jurisdictions have surpassed planned densities in much Multifamily Zones: 1996-2000 to 2002 of their multifamily development. 90 i 90 T7.7 ksAvg. Permit Density in MF Zones: As part of the five-year state -mandated report on buildable lands in King 1s9s • 2000 � County, each jurisdiction reported the plat and permit densities they m 70 pAvg. Permit Density In MF Zones: actuallyachieved in each zone for the 1996- 2000 period. Figures 34.1 s e° 2M . - 34.3 show the average densities achieved for that five-year period (blue d s2. CL column) and the densities achieved in 2002 (green column). ao 'r, 38.3 Plat Densities A In every sub -region except the rural cities, the average plat densities 27.5 31:3O ��° t'" 22.0 '° 'T� '•�. achieved in all zones were higher in 2002 than in the earlier period. 20.4 20 17.4 17.2 12A 5 Fig. 34,1 M',p 1a :i,, Change in Achieved Densities on Plats: c from 1996-2000* to 2002 SEA. EAST SOUTH RURAL URBAN 7,0 6.0 6.3 6.4 6.0 SHORE COUNTY COUNTY CITIES ES AREA 5.8 1i 5.4 as.o 4.4 4.6 TOTAL Overall, the cities and urban areas of King 3.9 38 19 4.0 ' County are showing a Clear trend toward IL 3.0 2.01 ; achieving higher densities and more efficient use c 1.0 4 �aaF� ; of land within the urban areas. 0.0 SEASHORE EAST SOUTH RURAL URBAN Zone by Zone Comparison COUNTY COUNTY CITIES AREA TOTAL When achieved density is compared to the 13 Avg. Plat Density: 1996-2000 13 Avg. Plat Density. 2002 planned density in specific zone ranges, the Skmodwmreprwmtymnuede&nesacr*vea"merl e-taope,Wftm ss6-2000. accomplishment is more mixed. e The urban region as a whole averaged 6.0 lots per acre on its new Figures 34.4 - 34.7 (on the following page) show single-family plats in 2002. Six lots per acre is considered a benchmark how achieved densities in each sub -region of urban density for single family tots.. compare to the average planned density in that Permit Densities zone range. Because each jurisdiction has slightly e Permits issued in single family zones in 2002 showed an increase in different zones, zones have been aggregated in general density ranges for each sub -region of achieved densities in all regions of the County except for the Sea -Shore the County. sub -region, which includes the already highly -urbanized areas of Seattle, For instance, the lowest density category Shoreline, and Lake Forest Park. includes zones with planned densities from one Fig. 34.2 Change in Achieved Densities for Permits in to three dwelling units per acre. Achieved Single Family Zones: from 1996-2000 to 2002 densities in those zones are compared to an 70, 6.6 58 average planned density of approximately two • C 6.0 + w 5.2 q g q 7 5.3 dwelling units per acre. 42 a 4.0 a 3.4 :' 3.6 ; I In general, newly -platted land (light blue column) C 3.0 , 1.0 ' `' o has matched or exceeded the planned densities . r 1 (green column) in each zone category. Newly- 19 ,,,, 0 0 L ' FF platted land is the best indicator of how successful SEASHORE EAST SOUTH RURAL URBAN current land use policies are in achieving efficient COUNTY COUNTY CMES AREA TOTAL land use. pur success in developing new land at Avg. Permit Density In SF Zones: 1996-2000 planned densities or higher is a positive signal for p Avg. Permit Density In SF Zones: 2002 the future. 7 Vmei�tqe"olltan King Counry.Cauntywlde,P[alnNng Pollcies'Benchmari� Program ;r', ,f 7 Indicator 34 (continued) for the Rural Cities, where aggregated permit activity fell short of the overall The Sea -Shore sub -region (Fig. 34.4) has relatively planned density, despite the fact that planned densities were achieved or small amounts of plat activity, but it has done well in exceeded in all the zones designed for over three dwelling units per acre. A platting new land in accordance with its planned similar effect is evident in permit activity in the South Sub -Region. densities. Its permit activity in 2002 however, shows Fig. 34.4 infill development taking place at lower than planned Seattle -Shoreline Sub -Area: Achieved vs. densities in most single family zones. 141 Planned Densities In Single Family zones On the Eastside (Fig, 34.5), the picture is different. 1z 1 0 Achieved Density on New Plats' Plat densities nearly matched, or exceeded, planned 10 I7 Achieved Density on Now Permits densities in three out of five zone ranges, as well as a e Average Planned Oenaly -Missing bar indicates that there vns overall. In the lowest densityzones, and in the seven e no pial activlry In this zone a W to nine DU /acre zones, plat development was less a ;g dense than planned. 2 The net densities achieved' on new permits were 0 t-3 DU 3-5DU1 3.7 IV 7.9 DUI 9+Out Acre Aggregated slightly below planned densities in the low and mid- Acre Acre Acre Acre Single tly range zones, while in higher density zones (over zo es Planned Density Range seven DU per acre), permitted development occurred Fig. 34.5 at higher than the planned density 25.0 E;astside Sub -Area: Achieved vs. Planned - Jurisdictions in the South sub -region (Fig. 34.6) � zD.D Densities In Single Family Zones achieved higher -than -planned densities on new plats in their low and high density single-family zones. But c is.o d Achieved Density on New Plats' land was platted at slightly less than the planned jP v 13 Achieved Density on NOW Permits 160 density in their mid -range zones. The reverse was .2 ■ Average Planned Density true with permitting activity in the South County, with a $ °', 1 ' the lowest and highest zones falling significantly short 00 Ely of planned density, but the mid -range zones building t - 3 DU t 3.5 DUI s -7 DUI 7 -9 DU 1 9 + DU! Acre Aggregated more densely than planned. Acre Acre Acre Acre Single Fam Ily When all the single family zones in the South sub- Planned Density Range zones region are considered together, achieved density on Fig. 34.6 South Sub -Area: Achieved vs. Planned plats surpassed planned density, while permit Densities In Single Family Zones development nearly equalled the planned densities. t2 0 �1D.0 j a Achieved Density on Now Plata' The Rural Cities (Fig. 34.7) had very little plat activity 8.0 1 [] Achlered Density on New Permits in 2002. Permitted development occurred at higher ■ Average P) Inedensity ,a6.oi densities than planned, with the exception of the t m4.01 lowest density zones. <2.0I r Countywide Conclusions 0.0 Urban King County is making good progress on using t-3DU1 3-50ur 5-7DUI 7-9DU1 9+DUrAcre Aggregated Acre Acre Acre Acre Single urban land efficiently. In particular it has shown a Family marked improvement in 2002 over densities achieved Planned Density Range zones in the 1996 — 2002 period. It has been remarkably Fig_ 34.7 Rural Cities Sub -Area: Achieved vs. Planned successful in building at or beyond planned densities 12.o Densities In Single Family Zones in high density single-family zones and in multifamily 'Missing bar tes zones. to.o t3Achieved Density on New Plate J icaKass that D D Achieved Density on New Permits re no Issues B4O I activity in `o ■ Average Planned Density roue range. The one area in which improvement could be made ; 6.0 is in building at planned density in -lower- and mid- s 4.0 range single family zones. When land that is zoned -K w� 4 2.0 t for 2.5 DUs per acre is built at one DU per acre, _ rl considerable land supply is lost for more intense 00 � ; ppy 1-3DUI 3-5DUI 5-7OU1 7.9DUI 9+DUI Aggregated development, and overall urban densities become Acre Acre Acre Acre Acre single more difficult to achieve. This is evident in the result Family Planned Density Range zones B Outcome: Accommodate Residential and Job Growth in Urban Areas Indicator 35: Comparison of Remaining Land Capacity to Household and Job Targets r Countywide Planning Policy Rationale "The Urban Growth Area shall,provide enough land .to accommodate future urbaneevelopment. Policies to phase .the,provision of,,urban'services and to ens6re'effEcient,tlse of the growth capacity within the Urban 'Growth'Area shalt be instituted.... The Urban Growth Area shall acco'mi nodate the 20 year a projection of household a6d;employment growth,' (CPP FW-12 B LD-26) The concern of Indicator 35 is whether King County has sufficient remaining land capacity to accom- modate the residential and1ob growth that is projected to occur over the next 20 years. For the 2002 Kinu Countv Buildable Lands Re,00rt jurisdictions studied their remaining land supply and calculated the number of housing units and jobs that could be accommodated on that land. Discounts were applied for sensitive areas and for other land constraints, including a market factor. New targets forhousing andjobs were established to extend from 2000 to 2022, a twenty-two year planning period. These targets supplant the original targets for f 993 - 2012. We have now completed the first two years of the new 22 year planning horizon. Fig. 35.1 shows f) the number of housing units built during these two years, 2) the 22 year housing target, and 3) the remaining target for 2022. it also shows 4) the estimated remaining residential capacity as of the end of 2002, and 5) the estimated remaining capacity once the targets are met.. In the last column of Fig. 35. f the remaining housing target is shown as a percent of the current remaining capacity. It is likely that more capacity will become available between 2012 and 202Z but that is not included in this measure: Capacity is illustrated in Fig. 35.2. Fig. 35.3 shows the new employment targets established for the 2022 planning horizon, by sub -region. it also shows the job capacity by sub- region, as determined for the 2002 Buildable Lands Report. There has been a net loss ofiobs in King County from 2000 - 2002, so overall capacity has increased. Employment data by sub -region is not yet available for 2002, so it is not possible to update the sub -regional capacity. '�. €iltl�eairf 22Ymr•' .�..�� ReSl�entiai i r "' - °�` Remaining' ' Remaining 1percent'ofI d . Fr tJni1 -, : igclty A t En In- l htg 7 ReMdLinilal ' Iti sldeft, i, ai: Curre n>t bit ' Nead.to Ally - a i target ytlars(V/oof n 21aOCi'(irir * _: Target w Capacity -at `CaPa t.at Meet _; f�4, .,I m - i(2Di}1=Twulaparlwo „f R Housing end of Units} end of Remaining 2022 Target' 200;k! 20i2:�* a .: J 554-%C /E 7.440 56,369 130/6 4B 929 122,340 114 900 65,971 43% E4STCOWTY 1 6.265 47,645 13% 41380 62,771 56,506 15,126 73% SOUTH COUVM 5952 42,355 14% 36,403 68,991 63.039 26,636 58% RLS4AL CiTES 822 5,563 15% 4,741 9 178 8,356 3 615 57% urbanA�Tarai2q,479 151,93213% 131453263280 242,801ry111,346 54% 'Residential capacity as of the end of 2000 was calculated by each city for the 2002 Buildable Lands Report. The estimated remaining capacity is arrived at by subtracting the new units permitted during 2001 and 2002 from the capacity reported at the end of 2000. However, zoning changes and other events may affect the actual capacity of each jurisdiction as time goes on. The "remaining capacity" will necessarily be an estimate until a new study of capacity is undertaken. "or capacity remaining whenever the 2022 targets are achieved. Key Trends • In the entire urban area there is currently capacity for 111,000 more Residential Capacity units than will be needed to meet the 2022 household growth target. • Countywide, 54% of the remaining residential capacity will be needed to meet the 2022 housing target. This leaves considerable room for growth beyond 2022. • 73% of the capacity on the Eastside will be consumed to meet the 2022 target, while just 43% of the Sea -Shore capacity will be used up. • Since the available housing capacity was calcu- lated only for land likely to be available by 2012, it is probable that more housing unit capacity will emerge between 2012 and 2022, as market conditions make more land available, and redevelop- ment becomes a more cost-effective alternative. 10 Fig. 35.2 Sub -Regional Residential Capacity In Relation to Sub -Regional Targets 140.000 1 120,000 114,900 aRemaining 2022 Household Target 100,000 :' CtEst. Remaining Capacity 80,000 i 63,039 8,92 60,000 �! 456, 506 41,3807- 40,000 36,403 ' 8,35E 20.000 t 4,741 SEASHORE EAST COUNTY SOUTH COUNTY RURAL CITIES Unincorporated South King County Residential Land Supply After deducting constraints, the South County urban unincorporated area has about 5,240 net acres of vacant and redeveiopable land. With an adjustment for market variables, and the removal of the portions of redevelopable parcels that have an existing unit, about 3,216 acres of this land is potentially available for development during the planning period. In single-family zones, there are approximately 4,960 net acres, with about 3,000 acres of this land potentially developable during the planning horizon. In multifamily zones, there are about 280 net acres, with about 215 acres of this land potentially developable during the planning horizon. Gross Acres Deductions Net Acres Market Factor k Adjusted Net Acres Adjusted Net Acres Minus land with existing units Critical Areas ROWS Public Purposes SF Vacant 3 041.41 482.68 10% - 2 302.86 15% 1,957.43 1,957.43 SFRedevelopable 3189.37 237.44 10% - 2�656.74 50% 1328.37 1043.55 MF Vacant 264.04 20.42 10% - 219.26 15% 186.37 186.37 MF Redevelopable 70.12 2.42 10% - 60.93 50% 30.47 28.51 Total Residential 6,564.94 742.96 5,239.78 1 3,502.631 3,215.96 Residential Capacity The South Unincorporated Urban Area has capacity for 17,283 new housing units given its current land supply and zoning. There is capacity for 13,442 units in single-family zones and 3,841 units in multifamily zones. The largest amount of its land supply is in the R-4 zone with capacity for over 7,500 units. Caped ty In Singh Family Zones Capacity In Multifemlly Zones TOW CapseMy In Total In Mhced Usa TOW MF MF Zones Zom Cap zone A►lzones 0-2 du 2-4du1 4-adul a-8du/ CapaciTOWy in 8-12du1 12.18dul is-Wdul 3U•48du) Total Total Mixed whir acre acre acre acre SF Zwonees 1 acre acre acre acts mu Itllarnlly use Reslderrlta! Ca r. Not Acres of Land 384.01 1,710.6E 676.97 229.61 3,001,27 79.82 61.16 61.68 12.22 214.88 - 3,216.15 Dens' 0.71 4.42 5.79 7.33 4.48 - 12.60 15.47 25.60 25.37 5.37 in tarots 273 7,5&6 3 921 1 682 13.442 _ 1,0061 946 1,579 314 3,841 - 17,283 r'w ans" eteee, frmrt-d ror se>o,o? w a KWnbP5b* kM w +needs 00 dFeea,e.a wainpe m . Net capacity 2731 7,566 1 ` 3,921 1 1,6821 13,442 1,0061 946 1579 1 3101 3,841 - 17,283 Residential Capacity Analysis The South County Urban Unincorporated Area has a total residential capacity of 17,283 units. Its remaining target to 2012 is 4,935 households. This amounts to a surplus capacity for 12,348 units greater than its target. It has achieved 53% of Its target in the first eight years of the twenty-year planning period. -- -- Residential Capacity in Relation to Target Net New 20 Year Surplus or Units: 1993 Housing Percent Remaining Current Deficit in 2000 Target Achieved Target Capacity Relation to Tar et �� nt 5,5651 10,5001 53% 4,935 17,283 J 12,348 183 Eft Igo. SJ ; Item No. Buildable Lands Report 08/22�m�� King County Buildable Lands Report Conclusions King County has been successful in accommodating strong population and employment growth from 1993 - 2000. o King County has well -over the capacity needed to accommodate the growth that is expected to occur by 2012. o Sufficient capacity exists to accommodate further growth beyond the 2012 planning horizon. o However, the supply of vacant land is limited, especially of large parcels for single family development. The remaining supply must be used efficiently. o Densities of recent residential and commercial I industrial projects indicate efficient use of the land supply. o All the sub -areas of King County show adequate capacity for the target period through 2012, and beyond. A few individual cities have a potential shortfall with respect to their target. O The remedy phase of Buildable Lands is not addressed by this report. Capacity issues at the city level are being addressed in part by the targets review now underway. O Density issues will be addressed by jurisdictions individually. Caveats This work is not a market feasibility study. While it includes an inventory of "buildable lands", it does not answer the question of what land is "available". for development, either now or in the future. Availability depends on many market factors and individual decisions that are beyond public control, and difficult to predict a decade ahead. Nor is this study an infrastructure capacity analysis. There may be a need for further work on the adequacy of current infrastructure, including transportation and utilities, to support future growth, and on plans to provide that infrastructure, but those topics are not addressed in this report Although the Buildable Lands program provides data on remaining residential land supply, it does not answer questions about housing affordability. Land supply is one factor on the cost side of housing. There are many other factors, on both the supply side and the demand side that affect the cost of housing. Related to that is the -cautionary note that Buildable Lands is not a prediction of the economic climate over the next 12 to 20 years. When the economic climate is positive, 9 BL Ch1 3Final 08/29/02 STATE, COUNTY, CITY POPULATIONS ae yTarEoi, PART I o � State, County, City Populations Dy dyl �BB9 d POPULATION TRENDS provides demographic data for the state, counties, cities, and towns as of April 1, 2003. Population determinations contained in this document were developed by the Office of Financial Management (OFM) and represent the official state population figures. Annual population figures for Washington's cities, towns, and counties have been developed and released for over three decades. These estimates are cited in numerous statutes using population as criteria for fund allocations, program eligibility, or program operations and as criteria for determining county participation in the Growth Management Act. The 2003 population estimates for cities and towns presented in Table 4 will be used in'the allocation of selected state revenues beginning January 2004 (RCW 43.62.020). Population estimates for counties are used to allocate revenues as specified in RCW 36.13.100. Revenue allocations to counties using the 2003 figures will begin with liquor profits in September 2003 (RCW 66.08.200). Summary of Population Trends Washington State population growth is still slowed by economy. Washington State's population continues to grow, but at a much slower rate, reflecting the state's weak economy. Annual population estimates prepared by the Office of Financial Management show the state's rate of growth has dropped from about 1.5 percent in the late 1990s to a current low of 0.9 percent. Washington's population reached 6,098,300 on April 1, representing annual growth of 56,600 for 2003 compared to an increase of 66,800 for 2002 and 80,800 for 200). The slower population growth is consistent with the weak economy and with the OFM state forecast released in fall 2002. When the economy rebounds, so will the state's population growth. Migration has always been driven by economic opportunity and is a major component of Washington's growth. But for now, slower growth is expected to last through 2004 and into 2005. Thus, population growth will really depend upon how fast Washington's economy recovers and how that recovery compares to what other states have to offer in terms of job opportunities. 175,000 150,000 125,000 100,000 75,000 50,000 25,000 -25,000 Figure I. State Growth Continues to Slow 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 OFM Forecasting, State of Washington ExhN No. S Co _ Item No. � �- Ret King County Healing Examirtlel' STATE, COUNTY, CITY POPULATIONS The Census 2000 population count marks the baseline for tracking a new decade of population change in Washington. The majority of growth since 2000 remains concentrated in Western Washington with the largest gains including increases of 42,254 in King County, 32,882 in Pierce County, 31,476 in Snohomish County and 27,062 in Clark County. The fastest growing counties — in terms of percentage change — are Franklin County (8.6 percent), Clark County (7.8 percent), Benton County (6.4 percent) and Kittitas County (5.5 percent). East-West growth trends change. Until 2003, annual growth in Eastern Washington had not outpaced that in the West since 1996. This year, Eastern Washington population grew 0.96 percent over last year. This compares with 0.93 percent for the West. Figure 2. Percent Population Growth by Region Percent Change from Prior Year 5 - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 4 -------=---- ------ r'------------------------- - - - - -- 3 ------"-'`--------------- ---------:�------------ _ West 2 - ----- -----r - -------------- - - r-`---- - 1---------- -- ------------ -------- East-------- -- - 0 1 -- ---------------------------------- -2 - -- ------------------------------------------ 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 April 1 Office of Financial Management July 2003 Growth in Western Washington has been slowly declining, from over 3.0 percent in the early 1990s, to 2.0 percent in 1995, and to 0.93 percent in 2003. Annual growth is at its lowest since 1983. Based on Census 20ti0, 22.2 percent of the state's residents live east of the Cascades. This proportion has been relatively stable over the last ten years. 1n 2003, the Eastern Washington share is 22.0 percent. Washington's population in cities and towns reached 3,736,468 by April 1, 2003, up 117,861 over the last year. Of this increase, almost 84,000 were due to annexation and incorporation. Incorporating at 80,693, Spokane Valley accounted for the largest chunk of the increase. Only five other cities annexed over 100 population: Issaquah (1,699), Pasco (796), Lynden (161), Auburn (139), and Washougal (116). Detailed information on the April 1, 2003 population estimates for cities, towns and counties is contained in this publication and on the Office of Financial Management web page at www.o m.iva.gov, OFM Forecasting. State of Washington Growth Management Population Projection Tracking Report Office of Financial Management, Forecasting Division January 2004 In January 2002 the Office of Financial Management (OFM) released a new series of county population projections for the Growth Management Act (GMA). This projection series started with the Census 2000 tabulations as a base and used actual growth trends through the 1990s and prior historical periods to develop county growth expectations. This tracking report shows how annual county population estimates for 2001 through 2003 line up with the 2005 GMA projections. Since the series only produced growth expectation by five-year intervals, annual population change through 2005 for this report was developed by linear interpolation. The following table shows OFM's April 1, 2003 population estimate for each county compared to the intermediate GMA population projection. The general findings are summarized below. -One-third of the counties are tracking closely, within one percent, of their intermediate projection. This includes large counties like Clark, King, Snohomish, and Spokane —and small counties like Garfield, Lincoln, and Pacific. -All but two counties, Franklin and Pend Oreille Counties, are tracking within the high and low projection range. Franklin County's 2003 population estimate is 310 persons above their high projection series. Pend Oreille County's 2003 population estimate is 14 persons less than their low projection. About 70 percent of the counties are tracking below their intermediate projection series. This largely reflects lower migration gains due to Washington's flat economy. More counties may drop below their low growth expectations before there is an upturn in the state's economy. population growth. The graphs that follow show the specific tracking status for each county. If you have any questions, please contact Theresa Lowe at 360.902.0588. This tracking document is also on the OFM web page at: http://www.oftn.wa.gov/pop/index.htm#growth Comparison of Office of Financial Management Growth Management Population Projections with 2003 Population Estimates GMA Prooc4ons Eslimate Low Medium High Dif from Medium Projection 2003 2003 2003 2003 Number Percent Washington 6,098,300 5,918,936 6,097,655 6,330,296 645 0.01 Adams 16,600 16,522 17,046 17,638 -446 -2.62 Asotin 20,600 20,456 21,100 21,828 -500 -2.37 Benton 151,600 142,821 147,903 155,722 3,697 2.50 Chelan 67,900 67,394 69,348 71,312 -1,448 -2.09 Claliam 65,300 62,537 64,653 66,671 647 1.00 Clark 372,300 360,177 372,854 386.059 -554 -0.15 Columbia 4,100 3,814 3,974 4,156 126 3.17 Cowlt 94,900 93,186 96,438 102,201 -1,538 -1.59 Douglas 33,600 33,381 34,795 36,367 -1,195 -3.44 Ferry 7,300 7,260 7,645 8,143 -345 -4.51 Franklin 53,600 49,666 51,324 53,290 2,276 4.43 Garfield 2,400 2,312 2,420 2,536 -20 -0.84 Grant 77,100 76,536 79,317 82,222 -2,217 -2.80 Grays Harbor 68,800 64,627 66,772 68,916 2,028 3.04 Island 74,000 70,439 73,466 76,493 534 0.73 Jefferson 26,700 26,372 27,504 28,637 -804 -2.92 King 1,779,300 1,727,765 1,766,895 1,805,490 12,405 0.70 Kitsap 237,000 224,701 234,629 259,133 2,371 1.01 Kitbtas 35,200 32,749 33,933 35,400 1,267 3.73 Klickitat 19,300 19,105 19,867 20,782 -567 -2.85 Lewis 70,400 68,013 71,243 75,316 -843 -1.18 Lincoln 10,100 9,781 10,131 10,706 -31 -0.30 Mason 50,200 49,857 52,035 55,101 -1,835 -3.53 Okanogan 39,600 39,357 40,700 42,168 -1,100 -2.70 Pacific 20,900 20,352 20,968 21,848 -68 -0.32 Pend Oreille 11,800 11,814 12,300 12,825 -500 4.07 Pierce 733,700 707.050 724,831 755,168 8,869 1.22 San Juan 14,800 14,350 14,919 15,543 -119 -0.80 Skagit 106,700 105,340 109,073 114,062 -2,373 -2.18 Skamanla 9,900 9,822 10,239 10,806 -339 -3.31 Snohomish 637,500 622,949 642,451 661,952 -4,951 -0.77 Spokane 428,600 418,915 431,816 449,150 -3,216 -0.74 Stevens 40,600 39,881 41,289 44,321 -689 -1.67 Thurston 214,800 214,421 223,374 236,364 -8,574 -3.84 Wahkiakum 3,800 3,723 3,873 4,023 -73 -1.89 Walla Walla 55,800 54,488 56,557 59,195 -757 -1.34 Whatcom 174,500 169,725 175,003 183,395 -503 -0.29 Whilman 41,000 39,167 40,563 43,876 437 1.08 Yakima 226,000 218,111 224,406 231,479 1,594 0.71 OFM Forecasting Division, January 2004 2 Tracking the 2002 GMA Projections Ding County 1,900,000 1,850,000 1,800,004 1,750,000 1,700,000 1,654,404 Census/Est ••••••• Medium 1,600,000 ...... high 1,550,000 --•••• Low 1,500,000 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 Kitsap County 290,000 - 270,000 - 250,000 - 230,000 - 210,000 - 190,000 170,000 CensuslEst Medium High •..... Low 150,000 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 OFM Forecasting Division, January 2004 1 f CITY OF RENTON ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, NEIGHBORHOODS, AND STRATEGIC PLANNING DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM DATE: June 3, 2003 ��� TO: Planning Commission FROM: RebeccaWin,lanning Manager STAFF CONTACT: Don Erickson, (X6581) SUBJECT: East Renton Plateau CPA Land Use Alternatives Initial Background Briefing ISSUE: Whether the current Comprehensive Plan land use designations for specific areas within the study area are still appropriate? o What is the desired residential character and density within the East Renton Potential Annexation Area (PAA)? o Which areas should be Single Family Residential (RS) with R-5 or R-8 zoning, and which should be Residential Rural (RR) with R-5 zoning? a Should a plat and density pattern with larger lots be allowed to encourage upper income and/or higher quality developments in portions of the study area? o Does the concept of having a transition zone between rural designations outside of the Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) and more intense zones such as the R-8 zone still make sense? Whether current zoning classifications adequately address the desired character and development patterns for the study area or whether revised or new zoning would be more appropriate? 4 o Does the R-5 zone as currently configured still fulfill its intended purpose as a l' "1 transition zone between lower density 2� rural designations such as R-1 and more intense + _ zones such as the R-8 zone? o Should a new zoning designation, such as R-4, be considered if it was more 0 compatible with much of the study area's existing suburbanlrural character than the existing R-5 zoning designation? LU �c June 3, 2003 Page 2 RECOMMENDATION: Continue analysis and study of these issues. Specific recommendations will be presented to the Planning Commission at subsequent meetings. ' BACKGROUND SUMMARY: The East Renton Plateau CPA study area is defined as the area within Renton's PAA north of Maple Valley Highway, east of 13e Avenue SE (Bremerton Avenue NE) to the Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) to the east, and SE May Valley Road on the north. The area is approximately 2,730 acres in size. Comprehensive Plan Designations and Zoning Renton Plan Currently the study area is designated both Residential Rural (RR) and Residential Single Family (RS) on the City's Comprehensive Plan land use map (see Figure 1). The RR designation represents 28 % of the study area and allows three different zones: Resource Conservation, R-1 and R-5. Resource Conservation and R-I are applied to lands with significant environmental constraints. Lower densities ranging from one unit per 10 acres to one Unit per acre are allowed in these two zones. Within the RR designation, the R- 5 zone with density at five units per net acre, is only applied to lands that do not include significant sensitive areas. Development. may be clustered in small lots with a minimum lot size of 4,500 sq. ft., but typical lots are 7,200 sq. ft. or larger. There is no minimum density in the R-5 zone. The RS designation represents 72% of the study area and allows two zones, R-5 and R-8. In the RS designation, R-5 zoning can only be applied within one-half mile of the Urban Growth Boundary. The provisions of the zoning are the same as in the RR designation. The R-8 zone allows residential densities ranging from five units per net acre (minimum density) to as high as 9.7 units per net acre (the latter on pre-existing lots of less than 1/2 acre in size). It typically encourages small lot single-family development with a minimum lot size of 4,500 square feet. These smaller lots usually are developed with two-story houses and an attached garage. Most of the study area is not yet designated with one of Renton's zoning designations. Renton's Comprehensive Plan applies outside the City within the PAA, but zoning is applied either upon annexation or upon adoption of a pre -zoning ordinance. King Counts —Plan The study area is designated Urban Residential (4-12 units per gross acre) on King County's Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map. The wide range allows the flexibility to rezone land before the King County Hearing Examiner. Currently, most of the area is zoned R-4 with a small amount of land zoned R-6 near the existing City of Renton boundary. King County uses gross density, which allows approximately 20% greater density than the net density Planning Commission Issue Paper #3.doc June 3, 2003 Page 3 system used in Renton. Consequently R-4 zoning in King County is roughly equivalent to R- 5 zoning in Renton. Services Renton Fire currently provides service in this area under contract with Fire District #25. The study area is primarily within Water District 90's service area. Renton is the sewer provider within the study area. In the late 1990s, the City Council decided to allow out -of -city sewer service if proposed development within the study complied with Renton's Comprehensive Plan. However, the Comprehensive Plan was silent on the issue of whether R-5 or R-8 zoning was appropriate. At that time the City agreed to provide sewer to single family projects at densities up to 8 units per net acre because this was the maximum density allowed under the Plan. Because a number of projects approved by King County in the study area do not conform to City road, lot dimension, emergency access and other development standards, as well as the prospect of full development at R-8 zoning, the Administration became increasingly concerned. Due to its inability to reach agreement with King County on development standards for new plats, the City Council changed policy and stopped providing out -of -city sewer service to this area early 2002. A number of parcels are still vested for Renton sewer service, but additional service requests are currently not being processed within the study area. Growth Targets Under GMA, cities receive a growth target based on their zoning and land area, as does unincorporated King County. The PAA targets are established based on County zoning and development trends_ When Renton annexes land, the City target is amended based on a predetermined formula and a percentage of the unincorporated area target is added to the Renton target. The growth target assigned to the East Renton PAA is quite low based on current R-4 (gross) zoning. Based on the municipal boundary as of July 2002, the East Renton PAA had 955 units of capacity on vacant land, and 867 units of capacity on redevelopable land for a total of 1,822 units. The unincorporated area target for 2022 is 35 % of capacity or 638 units. Within the Renton city limits, capacity is 10,620 units and the 2022 target is 6,198 units. Character of Eidsting Development Development in the study area is exclusively single family.' There is no existing multi -family or commercial development and no zoning that allows it in the future. Most of the area still retains a rich vegetative cover throughout. Platted lots are in the 7,200 square foot to 21,000 square foot range and there are a significant number of parcels over one acre (see Figure 2). The area is served by two major arterial roads, NE 4'h (128 h St.) and 156" St. (the major north/south connection to the Maple Valley Highway). The study area includes four schools Planning Commission Issue Paper 43.doe June 3, 2003 Page 4 and one developed park. King County owns several undeveloped park lands in the area and another developed park out of the study area. (See Figure 3.) Development in this area is characterized by suburban style housing on larger lots often with large front yard setbacks. Housing styles are typical of the architectural styles from the 1960s through the present. More recent development along the NE 4`h corridor conforms to the Renton R-8 standards. Figure 4 shows the location of new development within the recently annexed portions of the study area compared with older development that reflects a larger lot development standard. Recent applications within both the recently annexed area, and on larger parcels within the unincorporated area,propose plats at approximately 8 du/acre net or 6 du/acre gross. Two of these new plats are illustrated on Figure 4. The type of housing most recently built on plats of this type is also shown. City of Renton Land Use and Housing Policies Both the Land Use Element and Housing Element of the Comprehensive Plan provide policy direction for single family development within the RS and RR designations. Several policies, summarized in Figure 5, are relevant to the issues under review for this study area. The City Council has expressed an interest in having some opportunities for larger lot development in order to attract a wider range of housing stock. The policies adopted in the Housing Element generally call for 30% of Renton's new housing to be upper income units, and support development on lots larger than 7,200 square feet to accommodate upper income development. The question is whether the market and the current growth management policy framework will support land use policy that allows new larger lot single family plats. In the Growth Management era, urban is defined as a minimum density of four dwelling units per net acre. Consequently, one -acre or one-half acre zoning can not be allowed to promote higher income housing types and/or a different type of life style. Many surrounding suburban cities already have a significant number of recent plats with larger lots (greater than 7,200 sq. ft.), but this type of development is noticeably absent in Renton_ Renton has been an urban city since its beginning and has many smaller lot neighborhoods with older housing stock. With the present land development and platting patterns in Renton, there are few places where larger plat develop is an alternative. Some adjacent lower density housing areas, such as Newcastle, which might have annexed to Renton, have incorporated into separate cities. The study area is one district where larger parcels of vacant and under-utilized land are still available, and there is the potential for a range of housing options. At present there is significant market demand. for R-8 style small lot (4,500 sq. ft.) single-family development in this area as well as the slightly larger R-5 form of new development (7,200 sq. ft.). Under present policies it is reasonable to expect the eventual development of remaining parcels in this area at the higher densities. Planning Commission Issue Paper #3.doe June 3, 2003 Page 5 Conclusion The East Renton Potential Annexation Area Land Use Study provides an opportunity for the City to debate significant policy issues that will direct both the type and density of future development in this area. Through land use, zoning and sewer extension policies, Renton can determine the future development pattern of much of this area. The larger question is: Is it desirable for a city like Renton to have a residential district that continues to allow the large lot form of single family development, or should this form of development remain only outside the UGB, and as vested in pre-GMA cities? cc: Mayor Tanner Jay Covington Alex Pietsch Planning Commission Issue Paper #1doc CITY OF RENTON ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, NEIGHBORHOODS, AND STRATEGIC PLANNING DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM DATE: September 23, 2003 TO: Natalie Dohrn, Chair Planning Commission FROM: Rebecca Lind, Planning Manager Neighborhoods & Strategic Planning Department STAFF CONTACT: Don Erickson (x-6581) SUBJECT: East Renton Plateau PAA Comprehensive Plan Amendments ISSUES: • Whether redesignating much of the area for lower net densities would further City objectives while still allowing future development to meet County established growth management housing targets o Whether there is a market for large lot single fanuly detached housing in the study area? e Whether redesignating much of the area for lower net densities would leave sufficient economic incentive for developers to extend and develop sewer infrastructure throughout the area? O Whether redesignating the area to a lower density will make it more or less costly for the City to provide services to the affected areas if annexation occurs at some future time? C Whether new subdivisions fronting on major community arterials such as SE 128`h Street should be required to provide landscaped setbacks along and adjacent to the public right of way, provide more attractive unit d ' for units seen from these arterials. RECOMMENDATL0 : G Retain RS designation with R-8 potential zoning for 540 acres. G Support revisions to Renton's current land use designations reducing the area's overall allowed density from R-8 to R-4 for 1,818 acres. G Allow a density bonus of two dwelling units per net acre in two designated areas: 1) 158 acres along NE 4`h/128"' Street; and, 2) 94 acres west of Liberty High School. Adopt new land use policies for creating a new Low Density Residential zoning designation with a base of four units per net acre and increased density up to six units per net acre as a bonus for East Renton Plateau PAA 2003 Comprehensive flan Amendments Update September 26, 2003 Page 2 improved architecture (materials, articulation, fenestration, etc.) and landscaping within above two designated areas. STUDY UPDATE: Since last meeting with the Commission on June 3, 2003, staff has been continuing gather input from residents of the study area and to refine the alternatives and evaluate them. We have also begun to look at possible implementation tools. Over the last few months City staff have held an open house in the area and met with the Four Creeks Community Council. In addition we have received numerous phone calls and letters from residents expressing their opinions about future land use options for the 2,700-acre area. There clearly is opposition to the City's Residential Single Family land use designation because of the resulting R-8 zone densities that occur. Not only is it the density of these new developments but often their very different development patterns that residents in this area are opposed to. Table 1. Existing Development Standards Affecting Area As we saw earlier, the predominate lot size in the study area was over 10,880 square feet with front yards of 40 feet or more. Moderate density urban single-family zoning in both King County and Renton allow development patterns at odds with the current prevalent development patterns in the study area. County/City Yard Setbacks King County Urban Residential Development Standards -- R-1 through RA8 City of Renton Residential Single Family Development Standards — R-5 and R-8 R-5 Zone R-8 Zone Minimum Front Yard Setback 10 feet 15 feet 15 feet Minimum Side Yard Setback 5 feet 5 feet 5 feet Minimum Rear Yard Setback 5 feet 25 feet 20 feet Minimum Lot Size 3,000 sq. ft. 7,200 sq. ft. 4,500 sq. ft. Minimum Lot Width 30 feet 60 feet 50 feet These existing development standards, whether County or City, do not reflect the established character of the majority of the area. Implications of Alternatives in Meeting County Established Growth Targets for Area As noted above the PAA growth targets established for this area are based on County zoning and development trends. When Renton annexes land, the City target is amended based on a predetermined formula and a percentage of the unincorporated area target is added to the Renton target. The growth target assigned to the East Renton PAA is quite low based on current R-4 (gross) zoning. As of July 2002, the East Renton PAA had 1,822 units of capacity with a target of only 638 additional units to be achieved by 2022. King County's Buildable Lands Report indicates that there are approximately 367 developable acres remaining in the study area. Staff has narrowed the previous five land use scenarios down to four. These include the City's existing land use designations as shown on the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map. These four scenarios are as follows: PC Issue Paper.doc East Renton Plateau PAA 2003 Comprehensive Plan Amendments Update September 26, 2003 Page Scenario A reflects Renton's current land use designations with predominantly Residential Single Family (RS) and R-8 zoning. 72% of the area is currently designated RS with R-8 zoning potential and the remaining 28%n is Residential Rural (RR) with primarily R-5 zoning. Assuming development of the 367 acres identified for development in the King County Buildable Lands Study, future capacity under this scenario is 2,212 units. Scenario B revises Renton's current land use designations of Residential Single Family and Residential Rural within the study area. Under this alternative Residential Rural, with R-5 zoning, would comprise approximately 87%n of the area and Residential Single Family, with R-8 zoning_, would comprise approximately 13°Io of the area, practically reversing the existing ratios. Scenario C, the preferred alternative, revises Renton's current mix of land use designations. Within the RS designated areas (20%) R-8 zoning would continue to be the underlying zone.- The RR designation is changed to represent approximately 80% of the study area under this alternative. In lieu of R-5 zoning a new R4 zone would be developed which would have an underlying base density of 4 units per net acre. A 158-acre portion along SE 128`s Street and a 92-acre portion west of Liberty High School, where new sewers are anticipated, both in the RR designation, would qualify for a density bonus of two units per net acre, The 2-du/net acre bonus would be for quality design for such features are improved architecture, landscaping, product diversity, and the like. Scenario D was developed at the recommendation of the development community. It is similar to Scenario C but would allow a density increase tip to 6 units per net acre throughout the R-4 zone for improved building design (articulation, modulation, materials, etc.), site planning, and landscaping. This scenario could, theoretically, accommodate I4,688 units at an average density of 5.44 units per acre. Staff analyzed these four scenarios in terms of their transportation and fiscal impacts from new development occurring on the 367 acres of remaining buildable lands, as identified by King County_ The following tables sununarize these findings. Table 2. Comparative Traffic Impacts: Land Use Alternative Potential New Units Potential New AWDTE Density w/o bonuses Density w/ bonuses Bonusable Acres Scenario A 2,060 19,714 N/A N/A N/A Scenario 13 1,841 17,618 5 du/net ac 6 du/net ac 252 acres (125 dev ac), Scenario C 1,509 14,441 4 du/net ac 6 du/net ac 252 acres (125 dev ac) Scenario D 1,987 19,016 4 du/rtet ac 6 du/net ac 367 acres From this analysis it is clear that Scenario C comes closest to satisfying City objectives for the East Renton Plateau Potential Annexation Area. The potential number of new units under this alternative easily satisfies the County's target of 638 units by 2022. This alternative also has the least number of new vehicle trips and is some 5,273 fewer average weekday trips than under the existing City of Renton land use designations for this area. PC Issue Paper.doc East Renton Plateau PAA 2003 Comprehensive Plan Amendments Update September 26, 2003 Page 4 Staff also looked at the fiscal impacts of all four land use scenarios in arriving at a recommendation. Interestingly, Scenario C ranked the most favorable of the four. The following table summarizes those findings. Table 3. Comparative Fiscal Impacts Land Use Alternative Potential New Units Estimated Revenues I Estimated Costs Net Annual Fiscal Impact Onetime Parks & Recreation Costs Scenario A 2,060 $3,090,681 $2,947,363 $143,318 $1,259,659 Scenario B 1,841 $3,059,715 $2,812,384 $247,331 $1,143,137 Scenario C 1,509 $2,945,236 $2,483,643 $461,593 $966,185 Scenario D 1,987 $3,195,967 $2,936,370 $259,597 $978,588 Housing Market Considerations Because Scenario C is predicated on larger lot development with new homes having an average assessed value of $550,000. Staff was concerned whether a market for large lot single family detached housing of this type existed. Over the last few months staff have conducted two meetings with developers to get their input on current obstacles to development and what could be done to improve the quality of development in the area. On the question of whether they believed there is a market for larger lot, higher incorne housing, the group response was positive, if the City intervened to ensure that certain things having a bearing on the market happened. These included improving the image along NE 4`h Street/SE 128`h Street since this is a gateway access corridor that buyers of higher priced homes would drive through. There was a consensus that existing development was not adequately addressing the NE 4d' Street/SE 138`a Street edge and that new landscape treatments and buffering should be required of all new residential developments abutting the street. In addition, screening unsightly storm water detention facilities was felt to be desirable. The developers also indicated that in their opinion the absorption rate for these higher priced homes would be slower than that for more moderately priced housing in the R-5 and R-8 zones. Staff also believes that there is an opportunity to do a better job along community arterials such as NE 4d'/SE 128d' Street. The results of recent development are discouraging and do not create a positive image for the community. In addition to improved landscaping and screening staff believe that the City could be encouraging better unit design, particularly of the rear and side fagades of dwelling units visible from and abutting major streets. The staff is currently looking at the best way to achieve some of these objectives. The feeling is that improvements such as landscape buffers along community arterials should be required rather than bonused to ensure continuity of treatment. In regards to encouraging better and more diversified unit design staff believes that a bonus of up to two units per net acre could be provided within the two portions of the study area where there is likely to be the greatest concern. The first of these is the 158- acre rectilinear area along the south side of NE 4`a/SE 128" Street between 152Id Avenue SE on the west and 169`h Avenue SE on the east. The second of these is the 94-acre square area west of Liberty High School between 158"' Avenue SE on the west and 164`h Avenue SE on the east, SE 136`s Street on the north, and SE 142nd Street on the south. The latter is an area that has been identified where sewers are to be installed by developer extension. PC Issue Paper.doc East Renton Plateau PAA 2003 Comprehensive Flan Amendments Update September 26, 2003 Page 5 Sewer Extension Considerations One of the concerns about reducing the base density to four units per net acre in much of the area was whether it would make the extension and installation of sewers by the private sector less feasible. This is because the costs of extending sewer are the same, on a lineal foot basis, whether serving larger or smaller lots. With narrower lots the cost is spread out over a greater number of property owners. In those areas where sewer was likely to be extended, such as the area immediately west of Liberty High School, the design team recommended that a minimum density of six units per net acre be allowed if developers, rather than the public, were being asked to extend and install sewers in these areas. Staff believes that the best way to achieve this density increase from 4 units per net acre to 6 units per net acre is through bonus density for quality unit design, improved subdivision layout and design, and better landscaping. Examples of improvements that might be bonused include better unit modulation and/or articulation, the use of quality building materials, and improved landscaping and fencing that improves the appearance and overall quality of newer subdivisions occurring at these higher densities. CONCLUSION: The 2,700 acre East Renton Plateau Potential Annexation does not need to develop at the densities allowed under the City's current mix of land use designations. Land use Scenario A, Current Designations, would result in 2,060 additional units whereas -Scenario C, Low Density Urban, would result in 1,509 additional units. Scenario B, Low/Moderate Density Urban, results in 1,841 additional units, and Scenario D, Moderate Density Urban, results in 1,987 additional units. Although slightly less than the long-term growth target for this area, Scenario C comes the closest to it without exceeding it. Scenario C, also furthers City objectives and policies relating to providing a greater diversity of housing types in the community and in particular acconunodating upper income residents in areas that can develop with larger lots. Few areas in Renton allow for such development because of pre-existing development patterns, including lot sizes and street layouts. Because of its pre-existing larger lots, underdeveloped street systern, and difficulties in accommodating future sewer, particularly in the eastern third of the area, the East Renton Plateau lends itself to lower density larger lot development. Scenario C, also furthers City objectives in that it results in the lowest number of Average Week Day Trip Ends of the three new land use scenarios looked at and generates 5,273 fewer AWDTE than Scenario A, Current Designations. Scenario C also benefits the City by having the largest positive fiscal impact of the three new land use scenarios looked at. With an estimated $461,593 annual return for 1,661 units on the estimated 367 acres of remaining buildable lands, this scenario theoretically generates some $310,404 a year more than would occur under the City's current land use designations shown in Scenario A. It also generates more that $201,996 a year more than its closest rival, Scenario D. However, in order for Scenario C to come to full fruition, new tools will be needed to ensure that future subdivisions along NE 4 h StreeUSE 128a' Street develop with quality landscape buffers and screening, that housing within these subdivisions, which is readably visible from such arterials is attractive, and that stormwater detention facilities are sited and designed to be attractive when viewed from the road. cc: Alex Pietsch Rebecca Lind Don Erickson I'C Issue Paper.doe PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC MEETING ON THE EAST RENTON PLATEAU POTENTIAL ANNEXATION AREA 2003 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENTS 6:00 PM, October 1, 2003 Renton City Council Chambers 71" Floor, Renton City Hall 1055 South Grady Way The Renton Planning Commission will hold a briefing on the staff recommendation for changing the City's current Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map designations for its 2,700-acre East Renton Plateau Potential Annexation Area. A public hearing on this item will be held on October 15, 2003 in the same chambers. Renton's Comprehensive Plan currently designates approximately 72% of this area as Residential Single Family (RS), with potential R-S zoning upon annexation, with the remaining plus or minus 28% of the area as Residential Rural (RR), with potential R-I to R-5 zoning, upon annexation. Potential Annexation Areas are areas that are designated "urban" on the County's Comprehensive Plan but located in unincorporated King County. By mutual agreement these areas have been assigned to adjacent cities which, it is hoped will eventually annex them. Because most annexations are initiated by residents outside a city petitioning to be brought into it, and because the process is inherently slow, it is unlikely that this whole area will be brought into the City at any time in the near future. Even though these areas may not be annexed into the City in the foreseeable future, the City can influence what happens in them through its sewer extension policies, which are based on current land use designations, and possibly interlocal agreements with the County for joint project review and the use of similar development standards. Staff reviewed in detail three new land use scenarios in addition to the City's existing Land Use Map designations for the 2,700-acre study area. These ranged from revisions to the current mix of land use designations using existing zones to a revised mix of designations with a new R-4 zoning designation. All three new land use scenarios would result in a fewer number of new units on the estimated 367 remaining acres of developable land in the study area. In addition, all three scenarios would result in fewer vehicular trips during the day. The table below is a comparative summary of the existing (Scenario A) and new land use scenarios staff looked at. Table 1. — Comparative Summary of Land Use Scenarios Land Use Alternative Potential New Units Potential New AWDTE Density w/o bonuses Density w/ bonuses Bonusable Acres Scenario A 2,060 19,714 N/A NIA NIA Scenario B 1,841 17,618 5 du/net ac 6 du/net ac ±125 acres Scenario C 1,509 14,441 4 du/net ac 6 du/net ac +125 acres Scenario D 1,987 19,016 4 du/net ac 6 du/net ac 367 acres Staff are recommending that the Planning Commission endorse Scenario C, which would result in an estimated 1,509 new residential units at buildout. This land use scenario would change the (over) Fast Renton Plateau PAA Comprehensive Plan Amendment, 2003-M4 2 - October 1, 2003 current land use designation mix so that approximately 80% of the 2,700-acre study area would have the Residential Rural (R4 zone) land use designation and only ±20% of it would continue to have the Residential Single Family (R-8 zone) land use designation. Under this land use scenario there.would be an estimated 5,273 fewer average weekday trip ends (AWDTE) than would be generated finder the City's current land use designations on the estimated 367 acres of remaining developable land. In terms of their fiscal impacts on the City, Scenario C reflected a more positive cash flow to the City from new development than the other scenarios. This, presumably, is because this lower density (predominantly 4 du/net acre) alternative would result in larger 9,000 plus square foot lots with new housing on them assessed at more than $500,000 per unit. Such housing is consistent with the City's existing residential housing policies, which encourage both a mix and range of housing types and prices in the community. Staff are also recommending that the Commission endorse the development of mandatory - community arterial street edge landscaping and buffering standards that would apply eventually along all community arterials* and at least initially, along NE 4,h /SE 128"' Street. These would include planting strips with plant materials such as evergreen trees and hedges, durable decorative fencing, and irrigation systems, sufficient to screen abutting residential development. Staff is also recommending that the Commission endorse the development of optional bonus improvements in specified areas. A density bonus of up to two units per net acre (maximum 6 du/net acre) would be provided for improvements, which would result in higher quality of design and site planning. Such bonus improvements could include: improved landscaping, building design and mix of housing styles; the use of durable building materials such as wood, brick and masonry; and improved unit articulation through the use of modulation, and decorative fenestration and roof forms. Scenario A — Existing Land Use Designations Scenario C — Low Density Urban Designation East Renton Plateau Study Area o NXKI 4000 Scenario A • Curleol R-5 8 R-8 Lard Ui..w.•- ---- se Desgnations *includes "Principal", "Minor", and "Collector" arterials ZONES - ACREB . EAIST.UNRS Nrw UNITS R-4 Vac. 140 495 RJ, Red". f10 88 405 R-B V— 20 148 R-8 Rad yp 2B 1S9 R-8 Vac. 24 '48 WO .d., 27 18 170 TOTMS 367 157 1 r" East Renton Plateau Study Area Sce laoo C Lcm Density urban (R-4m-6'R-8t .» " .. � 7 a. =---- _..__ _'...' , mow.-"�..�•"" I CITY OF RENTON ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT NEIGHBORHOODS, AND STRATEGIC PLANNING MEMORANDUM DATE: October 10, 2003 TO: Natalie Dohrn, Chair Planning Commission FROM: Rebec a Lind, Planning Manager STAFF CONTACT: Don Erickson, Senior Planner SUBJECT: East Renton Plateau PAA Comprehensive Plan Amendments Attached are the proposed amendments to the Land Use Element necessary for the implementation of a new land use sub -area, in the City's East Renton Plateau PAA. This sub- area is being proposed since it is believed that it would better reflect the existing character of the area than the current land use designations while providing opportunities for larger lot, higher - income, housing. Proposed changes that were discussed at the briefing on October 1, 2003, include: 1) A revision to the name of the Residential Rural land use designation changing it to Residential Low Density; 2) The creation of a Low Density Residential Sub -Area where many of the new policies apply; 2) A change in the base density within this new sub -area from 5 units per net acre to 4 units per net acre; 3) A proposed bonus overlay district within the new Low Density Residential sub -area applying to a 165-acre area along the south side of SE 128" Street and a 89-acre area west of Liberty High School where the base density could be increased up to 6 units per net acre to offset the higher development cost of new infrastructure; and, 4) A list of proposed bonus criteria for higher quality housing, landscaping features and innovative site plans to mitigate the increase in density. Besides changing the name of the Residential Rural designation to Residential Low Density, the proposed new policies establish large portions of the East Renton Plateau as a land use sub -area shown in the Comprehensive Plan (see Figure 1). "The proposed policies advocate for new suburban and estate -style housing. In order to contribute to the provision of a broad range of housing opportunities and lifestyle choices, particularly for higher income families. As noted above, the base density within the Low Density Residential Sub -area is changed from 5 units per net acre to 4 units per net acre and a bonus density is provided up to 6 units per net acre as an incentive for the provision of high quality housing and subdivisions with features to help mitigate their higher density. East Renton Plateau PAA Comprehensive Plan Amendments 10/ 10/03 2 Bonus criteria encourage changes such as the provision of multiple compatible architectural styles on the same block fronts as a way of breaking up the monotony of overly repetitive housing styles found in some developments, and the provision of steeper decorative roofs, as well as decorative cornices, fenestration and trim. As provided is some housing overlay districts elsewhere in the City, the bonuses also encourage building modulation and the use of durable exterior building materials that have been tested over time. Bonus criteria also encourage the provision of landscape features that typically would not be provided, as well as innovative site planning. HAMNSMonrip Plan\Arnendn ter ts120031East Renton Plateau CPA\Planning Commission\proposed E Renton Plateau Policies memo3.docljw Suggested 2003 CPA Revisions to Residential Rural Land Use Policies 1 Residential — Types Policy LU-18. The City should encourage large lot single family development in Rural Residential Low Densit designations providing a more rural life style -in environmentally sensitive, habitat -valuable, er agriculturally resource laden areas or in areas providing a transition to the Urban Growth Boundary and King County Rural Designation. The City should discourage more intensive platting patterns in these areas. Residential Density Policy LU-23. New development within all residential designations except Racal Residential Low Density -should achieve a minimum density. The minimum density may be adjusted to reflect constraints on a site. Policy LU-24. New development within all residential designations except Ill ResidentialLow Density -should be platted in a way, which does not preclude eventual development at the required minimum density in each residential designation. Residential Rural Lore Density Objective LU-l: Preserve open space and natural resources and protect environmentally sensitive areas by Iimiting residential development in critical areas, areas identified as part of a city-wide or regional open space network, or -agricultural lands within the City, or in areas providing a transition to the Urban Growth_ Boundary and King_County Rural Designation. Policy LU-26. -Base development densities should range from 1 home per 10 acres to 5 homes per acre in Residential l­-Low Density except in areas with significant environmental constraints including but not limited to: steep slopes, erosion hazard, floodplains, and wetlands where density shall not exceed 1 home per acre. Policy LU-27. Rural activities including agricultural and animal husbandry, should be allowed except where such uses would have negative environmental impacts which can not be mitigated. Policy LU-28. To provide for more efficient development patterns and maximum preservation of open space, residential development may be clustered in Residential Rare} -Low Density designations. Policy LU-29. Deeds of lots adjacent to rural residential areas should carry a notice reading "The adjacent lot may be expected to have impacts associated with rural lifestyleg. These uses are expected to continue and are given priority status over more intensive urban uses on adjacent lots." Policy LU-30. Minimize impacts of animal and crop raising on adjacent residential uses and critical areas such as wetlands, streams, and rivers. Policy LU-31. Control scale and density of accessory buildings and barns to maintain compatibility with other residential uses. Policy LU-32. Residential Rural Low Density areas may be incorporated into community separators. 10/ 10/03 1 "8/03 4:2 3 PMS:'�R Suggested 2003 CPA Revisions to Residential Rural Land Use Polieies 2 Policy LU-33.1 Undeveloped portions of Residential Ruff Low Density OFeas may be considered as part of the private open space network Residential Low Density — Low Density Residential Sub -Area Objective LU-1.2: Establish a new Low Density Residential_ Sub -area within the Residential Low Density Designation as shown in Figgre 1, as a means of contributing to the provision of a full range of housing opportunities and lifestyle choices within the_community_ Objective LU4.3: Establish a new Low Density Residential Sub area within the Residential Low Density Designation, as shown in FiKqre 1, in order to provide -and_ protect suitable. environments for suburban and/or estate style, single family_ residential dwellings. Policy LU-33.2.. Within the Low Density+ Residential Sub -area limit maximum base density to 4 units per net acre to encourage larger lot development and increase upper income housing consistent with the City's Housing Element. Policy LU-33.3. Within the Low Density Residential Sub -area allow a bonus above the base density in areas where additional_densi1y is needed to stimulate private investment in infrastructure imorovements. Policy LU-33.5. A bonus of up to 2 units per net acre should be allowed in twospecific areas: i Policy LU-33.6. To ensureguality development, that will help mitigate „the -effects of increased density in areas eligible for bonus densities, establish bonus criteria to address design and landscaping issues. Policy LU-317. Bonus criteria should: encourage higherquality housing through the provision of design amenities that normally would not be provided. Criteria should include: 1) A variety of compatible housing_styles making up block fronts 2 Additional architectural features such as pitched roofs roof overhangs, and/or decorative cornices fenestration and trim. 3) Building modulation; and, 4) Use of durable exterior_ materials such as wood, masonry, stucco, or brick. Policy LU-2&3 Bonus criteria should encourage the provisibn of landscape features that typically would not otherwise be provided as well as innovative site -planning. Criteria should include: 1) Attractive residential streetscapgs with attractively andscaxd,frolyards that are visible from the street: 2) Decorative landscaping preferably with draught resistant evergreen plant materials,; 10/10/0310/85/34:23 PM540-PM e Suggested 2003 CPA Revisions to Residential Rural Land Use Policies 3 3) Lar eg r caliper street trees; 4 Irrigated landscape planting strips; 5) Low impact development using landscaped buffers, open spaces, and other pervious surfaces and 6 Significant native tree and vegetation retention and/or replacement. 10110/0340&*34:23 PMS 1-0-PM PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION October 22, 2003 2003-M-04 (LUA-01-168), East Renton Plateau CPA After having been briefed on these proposed amendments on October 1, 2003, having held a public hearing on October 15, 2003 on them at which time testimony was taken, after reviewing written testimony on them, and deliberating on October 22, 2003 on them, the Commission concludes that: o The character of the East Renton Plateau has changed over the last few years and that the name Residential Rural was a misnomer in that there really is very little rural land use in the areas where it is applied. As a result the name for this land use designation should be changed to Residential Low Density. c The recent King County Buildable Lands Report identified only 367 acres of land with significant future capacity for housing under current methodologies in the 2,700-acre area. C Based upon King County housing targets for the year 2022 only 638 units must be accommodated even though the capacity of the area is an estimated 1,822 new units. G Renton has not yet achieved its housing target for upper income housing (30%) identified in the Housing Element policies of the Comprehensive Plan, or those encouraging larger lot, higher income, estate style housing. C The East Renton Plateau, because of its existing development pattern of large Iots, lends itself to future large lot development. O Larger lot development would produce a positive cash flow to the City for the 367-acres in question as well as result in a reduction of more than 5,200 AWDVT over the level of development that could occur under the current Comprehensive Plan land use designations for this area. C Since Renton is the sewer service provider for this area, and since sewer certificates must be compatible with the Comprehensive Plan, and'in particular densities achievable under current land use designations, higher density development at up to 6 units per net acre will occur until the City's land use designation for this area is reduced. o Because sewer certificates are unlikely to be issued in the area without annexation there is no longer a need to provide density bonuses to compensate for the extension of sewer to the area by developers. a� Recommendation 1. Support changing the name of the Residential Rural (RR) land use designation to do Residential Low Density (RI-D), noting that few areas having this designation are rural in character; _ J 2. Support redesignation of the City's 2,700-acre East Renton Plateau Potential Annexation Area so that a majority of the area currently designated RS with concurrent R-8 zoning at the time of [a annexation is changed to RLD with concurrent R4 zoning (see attached figure); Y Planning Commission Recommendation, #2003-M-04 10/22/03 2 3. Retain the current RS land use designation with concurrent R-8 zoning at the time of annexation in the areas outside of the City west of 140 Avenue SE; 4. Support new land use policies that create a new Residential 4 du/net acre Overlay District within the RLD land use designation that will be applied in the East Renton Plateau PAA, as shown on the attached exhibit; 5. Support new land use policies that encourage new development within the Residential 4-dulnet acre Overlay District to develop as higher quality residential developments through the use of revised development standards that encourage innovative site planning, the use of durable exterior materials, the modulation of building masses, the provision of quality landscaping, and similar attributes that help ensure attractive and healthy neighborhoods; 6. - Support revised development standards for the R-4 Overlay District that increase the minimum lot size, provide for more flexible lot widths, and increase the minimum front, side, and rear yard requirements over those provided for in the R-5 zone; and, 7. Support new policies grandfathering in parcels prior to October Eric Cameron, Vice -Chair cc: Rebecca Lind Don Erickson that were granted sewer availability certificates PLANNING COMMISSION REPORTAm% Rev OM2 bh ����-®�.F�•, r'�a t� � }� � 1 13 �,x,S q7� � i�� -z,'�j �r t 1 '_ r hJi�l.•'Vti �l '�� ItN�a I,J AN �� !40 i� - I sF , i� ��v b`•i I il`y � !I t I � vv *v lt� t aria4- `f t � 3}'kt t� !i3 �f�4 r*'_"T^L'' f.,. �. �r •+d3 i 1�, t`r, �r",«r 'rt ti.. l -`�;`ll 37;`>; rl tl sy i� -. 11-- t r �, 4N �F t.iatiat '; r; t -+11v \ ♦. i .+a. {� ^s,�r 7 t v't r a v, ♦ 1 \'! e7� \ t � S, 1I ` v I 14 t i t It ; j. ` r 1 i j e i\ I• i w11r r - itoil- 1 LI L ` 1\- t -, �t a _ I �•�. l r l -7 l t l i } -l. v } _,^ � }� -3F !: i Fr+� r�l �-'� Iiyp f'+ I J , � 7iV •r,. c11 d`t-"%'+�.: �ir � Ill teh, �• .j 1 h1� c�.. r � I 1J i�mu shows Fv hh 11 !V'"`r N i'ZAr`E� Tip lJ Ls� F;n top i�[/1y�` •t� Y �� __ _ Wiz- 3 � �"�• �- 9 r `� e x �, rr� s �€� m Suggested 2003 CPA Revisions to Residential Rural Land Use Policies 1 Residential —Types Policy LU-18. The City should encourage large lot single family development in 1 Residential Low Density designations providing a more rural life style in environmentally sensitive, habitat -valuable, of agriculturally resource laden areas, or in -areas providing a transition to the Urban Growth Boundary and King County Rural Designation. The City should discourage more intensive platting patterns in these areas_ Residential Density Policy LU-23. New development within all residential designations except Rufal Residential Low Density should achieve a minimum density. The minimum density may be adjusted to reflect constraints on a site. Policy LU-24. New development within all residential designations except RufM Residential Low Density should be platted in a way, which does not preclude eventual development at the required minimum density in each residential designation. Residential dal Low Density, Objective LU-1: Preserve open space and natural resources and protect environmentally sensitive areas by limiting residential development in critical areas, areas identified as part of a city-wide or regional open space network, er-agricultural lands within the City, or in areas providing a transition to the Urban Growth Boundary and King County Rural Desigpation. Policy LU-26.-Ma*inv&m-Base development densities should range from 1 home per 10 acres to 5 I Domes per acre in Residential dal -Low Density except in areas with significant environmental constraints including but not limited to: steep slopes, erosion hazard, floodplains, and wetlands where density shall not exceed 1 home per acre. Policy LU-27. Rural activities including agricultural and animal husbandry, should be allowed except where such uses would have negative environmental impacts which can not be mitigated. Policy LU-28. To provide for more efficient development patterns and maximum preservation of open space, residential development may be clustered in Residential Rum1-Low Densi designations. Policy LU-29. Deeds of lots adjacent to rural residential areas should carry a notice reading "The adjacent lot may be expected to have impacts associated with rural lifestyles. These uses are expected to continue and are given priority status over more intensive urban uses on adjacent lots." Policy LU-30. Minimize impacts of animal and crop raising on adjacent residential uses and critical areas such as wetlands, streams, and rivers. Policy LU-31. Control scale and density of accessory buildings and barns to maintain compatibility with other residential uses. Policy LU-32. Residential moral Low Density areas may be incorporated into community separators. 10/22/0310/0&0311:12 AM5:10 PM Suggested 2003 CPA Revisions to Residential Rural Land Use Policies 2 Policy LU-33.1 Undeveloped portions of Residential Rol -Low Density area-9-may be considered as part of the private open space network Residential Low Density — Residential 4 da/ac Overlay Objective LU-1.2: Establish a new Residential 4 du/acre overlay area within the Residential Low Densi designation, as shown in Figpre 1 as a means of contributing to the provision of a full range of housing a rtunities and lifes le choices within the communi Objective LU-I.3: Establish a new Residential 4 du/acre overlay area within the Residential Low Densi Designation, as shown in Fig2re 1 in order to pLovide and protect suitable environments for suburban and/or estates le single family residential dwellings. Polio LU-33.2. Within the Residential 4 du/acre overlay area limit maximum densi to 4 units per net acre to encourage larger lot development and increase the .suonly of upper income housing consistent with the City's Housing Element. Policy LU-33.3. _Ensurequality-development by establishing development standards that address building design and -landscaping issues. Polio LU-33.4. Development standards should encourage higher gualily housing through- rovisions that encourage: 1 )_. A variety of compatible housing styles making up block fronts; 2 Additional architectural features such as pitched roofs, „roof overhangs, and/or decorative cornices fenestration and trim. 3)_ Building modulation; and, 4) Use of durable exterior materials such as wood, masonry,; stucco, or brick. Policy LU-33.5. Development standards should encourage the provision of landscape features that typically would not otherwise be provided as well as innovative site planning. Criteria should include: 1 Attractive residential streetsca s with attractivel landsca d front yards that are visible from the street: 2) Decorative landscaping` preferably with draught resistant evergreen plant materials: 3) Larger caliper street trees; 41 Irrigated landscape planting strips, 5 Low impact development using, lands ca ed buffers open spaces, and other pervious surfaces; and, 6 Significant native tree and vegetation retention and/or replacement. 10/22/031 WO"311:12 AM 5:'�M Revised 11/19/03 CITY OF RENTON LAND USE ELEMENT ORDINANCE NO. 5026 Policy LU-26. Base development densities should range from 1 home per 10 acres to 5 homes per acre in Residential Low Density except in areas with significant environmental constraints including but not limited to: steep slopes, erosion hazard, f7oodplains, and wetlands where density shall not exceed 1 home per acre. associated with rural lifestyles. These uses are expected to continue and are given priority status over more intensive urban uses on adjacent lots." Policy LU-30. Minimize impacts of animal and crop raising on adjacent residential uses and critical areas such as wetlands, streams, and rivers. Policy LU-27. Rural activities including agricultural Policy LU-31. Control scale and density of and animal husbandry, should be allowed except accessory buildings and barns to maintain where such uses would have negative environmental compatibility with other residential uses. impacts, which cannot be mitigated. Policy LU-32. Residential Low Density areas may Policy LU-28. To provide for more efficient be incorporated into community separators. development patterns and maximum preservation of open space, residential development may be Policy LU-33. Undeveloped portions of Residential ' clustered in Residential Low Density designations. Rural areas may be considered as part of the private open space network. Policy LU-29. Deeds of lots adjacent to rural residential areas should carry a notice reading, "The adjacent lot may be expected to have impacts Residential Low Density —Residential 4 du/ac Overlay Policy LU-33.1. Undeveloped portions of Residential Low Density may be considered as part of the private open space network. Objective LU-1.2: Establish a new Residential 4 du/acre overlay area within the Residential Low Density designation, as shown in Figure 1, as a means of contributing to the provision of a full range of housing opportunities and lifestyle choices within the community. Objective LU 13: Establish a new Residential 4 du/acre overlay area within the Residential Low Density Designation, as shown in Figure 1, in order to provide and protect suitable environments for suburban and/or estate style, single family residential dwellings. Policy LU-33.2. Within the Residential 4 du/acre overlay area limit maximum density to 4 units per net acre to encourage larger lot development and increase the supply of upper income housing consistent with the City's Housing Element. Policy LU-333. Ensure quality development by establishing development standards that address building design and landscaping issues. Policy LU-33.4. Development standards should support higher quality housing through provisions that encourage: a. A variety of compatible housing styles making up block fronts; b. Additional architectural features such as pitched roofs, roof overhangs, and/or decorative cornices, fenestration and trim. c. Building modulation; and, Use of durable exterior materials such as wood, masonry, stucco, or brick. Policy LU-33.5. Development standards should support the provision of landscape features that typically would not otherwise be provided as well as innovative site planning. Criteria should include: a. Attractive residential streetscapes with attractively landscaped front yards that are visible from the street; b. Decorative landscaping, preferably with draught resistant evergreen plant materials; c. Larger caliper street trees; d. Irrigated landscape planting strips; EAU No. Item No.Lo�@c�c� ,0— —b FIAMNSMorrip PlanlAmendments12003Tina1 land Use Policies12003 Final rand Use Policies (I1-19).doe �" 1-9 King Cotmry Ht�a ng Examiller Revised II/19/03 CM OF RENTON LAND USE ELEMENT e. Low impact development using landscaped buffers, open spaces, and other pervious surfaces; and, Residmlial Low Den* Land use Destrolion (formerly RR) 4 •d-, -, (fit a xwwowa i mo *uawa,N" Residential Single Family ORDINANCE NO. 5026 f- Significant native tree and vegetation retention and/or replacement. Objective LU-J: Protect and enhance the Residential Single Family areas, encourage re -investment and rehabilitation resulting in quality neighborhoods, improve opportunities for better public transportation, and make more efficient use of urban services and infrastructure. Policy LU-34. Net development densities should fall within a range of 5 to 8 dwelling units per acre in Residential Single Family neighborhoods. Policy LU-35. A minimum lot size of 4,500 square feet should be allowed in single-family residential neighborhoods except when flexible development standards are used for project review. Policy LU-36. Allow development at 9.7 dwelling units per acre on infill parcels of one acre or less as an incentive to encourage single-family small lot development on 4,500 sq. ft. lots. Policy LU-37. Maximum height of structures should generally not exceed 2 stories in single- family residential neighborhoods. Policy LU-38. Development standards for single- family neighborhoods (e.g. lot size, lot width, building height, setbacks, lot coverage) should encourage quality development in neighborhoods. Policy LU-39. Development standards for single- family neighborhoods should address transportation and pedestrian connections between neighborhoods and compatible boundaries between neighborhoods. 11:TEDNSP%ConT P1anWmendments120031Final Land Use Policies12003 Final Land Use Policies (I 1-19).doc 1-10 RENTON CITY COUNCIL Regular Meeting November 24, 2003 Council Chambers Monday, 7:30 p.m. MINUTES Renton City Hall CALL TO ORDER Mayor Jesse Tanner 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; TERRI BRIERS; KING COUNCILMEMBERS PARKER; DON PERSSON; RANDY CORMAN; TONI NELSON; DAN CLAWSON. CITY STAFF IN JESSE TANNER, Mayor; JAY COVINGTON, Chief Administrative Officer; . ATTENDANCE LAWRENCE J. WARREN, City Attorney; BONNIE WALTON, City Clerk; GREGG ZIMMERMAN, Planning/Building/Public Works Administrator; LYS HORNSBY, Utility Systems Director; ALEX PIETSCH, Economic Development Administrator; ELAINE GREGORY, Fiscal Services Director; SYLVIA DOERSCHEL, Finance Analyst Supervisor; JILL MASUNAGA, Finance Analyst; DON ERICKSON, Senior Planner; DEREK TODD, Assistant to the CAO; COMMANDER KENT CURRY, Police Department. PUBLIC HEARINGS This being the date set and proper notices having been posted and published in Budget: 2004 Annual City of accordance with local and State laws, Mayor Tanner opened the public hearing Renton to consider the proposed 2004 City of Renton Budget. Sylvia Doerschel, Finance Analyst Supervisor, reported that the total proposed 2004 Budget for the City of Renton is $145,700,500, a 2.3 percent increase above the 2003 Budget. She noted that the General Governmental Funds, which represent the general services offered to citizens, are in the amount of $65,920,600. Ms. Doerschel indicated that the proposed 2004 Budget maintains the 2003 levels of service, and staffing changes add 8.1 full time equivalent (part time/temporary) employees due to the opening of the Henry Moses Aquatic Center. Public comment was invited. There being none, it was MOVED BY PARKER, SECONDED BY NELSON, COUNCIL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. CARRIED. Annexation: Falk, S 47th St & This being the date set and proper notices having been posted and published in 102nd Ave SE accordance with local and State laws, Mayor Tanner opened the public hearing to consider the proposed annexation and R-8 (Residential - eight dwelling units per net acre) zoning of 6.43 acres, including the abutting 102nd Ave. SE right-of- way, bounded by S. 47th St. to the north, SE 185th Pl. to the south, and 102nd Ave. SE to the east (Falk Annexation). Senior Planner Don Erickson reported that the first public hearing on this matter was held on January 27, 2003; subsequently, the Boundary Review Board approved the annexation on April 11, 2003, and voters unanimously approved the annexation, R-8 zoning, and acceptance of the fair share of the City's debt at the Special Election held on September 16, 2003. Mr. Erickson stated that the subject site contains two single-family dwellings, and noted that the essentially Exhibit No.flat site hosts a seasonal stream along the eastern property line. ItW No.�,,� t� Pointing out that the site is within the Soos Creek Water and Sewer District, and Received �r _ O— is served by Fire District #40, Mr. Erickson indicated that roadway and King County HeMng !~ November 24, 2003 Renton City Council Minutes Page 428 7. Make amendments to definitions in Renton Municipal Code Title I.V. 8. Amend existing urban center design overlay standards and guidelines to establish a new District C, encompassing the Urban Center -North. Provide guidance to accomplish quality urban scale development, define pedestrian streets, and achieve gateway entry features into the redevelopment area.* Responding to Council President Keolker-Wheeler's inquiry, City Attorney Larry Warren confirmed that the recent Planning Commission recommendations were included in the related ordinances. *MOVED BY KEOLKER-WHEELER, SECONDED BY PARKER, COUNCIL CONCUR IN THE COMMITTEE REPORT. CARRIED. (See pages 432 to 435 for ordinances.) Planning & Development Planning and Development Committee Chair Briere presented a report regarding Committee the 2003 Comprehensive Plan amendments and rezones. The Committee met on Comprehensive Plan: 2003 October 30, November 6, and November 13, 2003, to consider the Amendments recommendation of the Planning Commission for the 2003 Comprehensive Plan amendments and rezones. The Committee recommended approval of the Planning Commission's recommendations with modifications, as appropriate, as shown on the matrix entitled "Attachment A - 2003 Comprehensive Plan Amendments" dated November 24, 2003, listed as follows: 2003-M-1 — City of Renton applicant; S. Talbot Rd. and S. 43rd St. (WSDOT) 2003-M-2 — City of Renton applicant; King County Public Health Department; NE 4th St. (on hold until 2004 amendment cycle) 2003-M-3 — City of Renton applicant; 1-405/Cedar River Trail (WSDOT); on hold until 2004 amendment cycle 2003-M-4 -- City of Renton applicant; East Renton Plateau 2003-M-5 — City of Renton applicant; Fry's Electronics 2003-M-6 — City of Renton applicant (withdrawn) 2003-M-7 — City of Renton applicant (holdover - 2004 update) 2003-M-8 — City of Renton applicant; SR 900 LLC (Merlino) 2003-M-9 — JDA Group LLC applicant; Rainier Ave. N. 2003-M-10 — JDA Group LLC applicant; NW 5th St. 2003-M-I I — JDA Group LLC applicant (on hold until 2004 amendment cycle) 2003-M-12 — James Dalpay applicant; NE 12th St 2003-M-14 — Liberty Ridge LLC (Tydico) 2003-T-3 — The Boeing Company applicant (on hold until 2004 amendment cycle) MOVED BY BRIERE, SECONDED BY CLAWSON, COUNCIL CONCUR IN THE COMMITTEE REPORT. CARRIED. (Seepages 432,435 & 436 for November 24, 2003 Renton City Council Minutes Page 432 general fund cannot be put into the utility fund to pay for capital improvement projects. Council President Keolker-Wheeler acknowledged the importance of fully funding the utilities, and expressed her support to raise the rates in a nominal amount this year, Mayor Tanner confirmed that the City will not have to defer a single project if the rate increase is not approved; however, a larger rate increase will be necessary next year. He stated that although he is not proposing a rate increase, he is not opposed to one. In response to Councilwoman Nelson's inquiry regarding the dollar amount of the increase, Mr. Zimmerman stated that the average residential customer would see an increase of approximately one dollar per month. - *ROLL CALL: FOUR AYES: KEOLKER-WHEELER, BRIERE, NELSON, CLAWSON; THREE NAYS: PARKER, PERSSON, CORMAN. MOTION CARRIED. (See page 435 for ordinance.) ORDINANCES AND The following ordinances were presented for first reading and advanced for RESOLUTIONS second and final reading: Comprehensive Plan: 2003 An ordinance was read adopting the 2003 amendments to the City's 1995 Amendments Comprehensive Plan, maps, and data in conjunction therewith, and declaring an emergency. MOVED BY BRIERE, SECONDED BY CLAWSON, COUNCIL ADVANCE THE ORDINANCE FOR SECOND AND FINAL READING. CARRIED. Ordinance #5026 Following second and final reading of the above ordinance, it was MOVED BY Comprehensive Plan: 2003 BRIERS, SECONDED BY CLAWSON, COUNCIL ADOPT THE Amendments ORDINANCE AS READ. ROLL CALL: ALL AYES. CARRIED. Planning: Urban Center -North An ordinance was read amending Chapter 2, Zoning Districts - Uses and Zoning Designations Standards, of Title IV (Development Regulations) of City Code to add the Urban Center -North zoning designations, and declaring an emergency. MOVED BY BRIERE, SECONDED BY NELSON, COUNCIL ADVANCE THE ORDINANCE FOR SECOND AND FINAL READING. CARRIED. Ordinance #5027 Following second and final reading of the above ordinance, it was MOVED BY Planning: Urban Center -North BRIERS, SECONDED BY CLAWSON, COUNCIL ADOPT THE Zoning Designations ORDINANCE AS READ. ROLL CALL: ALL AYES, CARRIED. Planning: Urban Center -North An ordinance was read amending Chapter 1, Administration and Enforcement; Zoning, Addition to Processes Chapter 2, Zoning Districts - Uses and Standards; Chapter 3, Environmental & Procedures Regulations and Overlay Districts; Chapter 8, Permits and Decisions; Chapter 9, Procedures and Review Criteria; and Chapter 11, Definitions; of Title W (Development Regulations) of City Code by adding regulations implementing the Urban Center -North zoning to Citywide processes and procedures, and updating names of City site plan processes, and declaring an emergency. MOVED BY CORMAN, SECONDED BY CLAWSON, COUNCIL ADVANCE THE ORDINANCE FOR SECOND AND FINAL READING. CARRIED. Ordinance #5028 Following second and final reading of the above ordinance, it was MOVED BY Planning: Urban Center -North CORMAN, SECONDED BY NELSON, COUNCIL ADOPT THE Zoning, Addition to Processes ORDINANCE AS READ. ROLL CALL: ALL AYES. CARRIED. n C.A.R.E. Exhibits List: Liberty Grove/Liberty Grove Contiguous Plat Applications - L03P0006 and L03P0005 February 10, 2004 The letters attached here were originally submitted under the Evendell application. The Liberty Grove and liberty Grove Contiguous parcels are adjacent to the Evendell parcel and share the same downstream drainage system. These letters are submitted at this time to record the outstanding concerns of the current residents and property owners of anticipated adverse impacts, and at the request of the authors. Thank you, Gwendolyn High - CARE President Exhibit No. �C- i Ittemn No. L-cbR-QQQ J King County Hwft E x O! ter unincorporated area council Mr. James O'Conner Deputy Hearing Examiner King County Hearing Examiner's Office 850 Union Bank of California Bldg 900 Fourth Ave Seattle WA 98164 March 5, 2003 RE: Proposed Evendell Zone Reclassification and Plat Permit Applications (1-01 P0016 and L01 TY401) Dear Mr. Examiner, The Four Creeks Unincorporated Area Council was created and serves under the Citizen Participation Initiative, by order of King County Executive Gary Locke, as of December 30, 1994. Our Bylaws state our purpose in Article II: To represent the interests of the Four Creeks Unincorporated Area in dealings with the government of King County and other entities, with respect to issues affecting the area. Those issues may include, without limitation, zoning and re -zoning, utility planning, open spaces and parks, capital funding, human service plans, surface water management plans, land use regulations, health and safety regulations, governmental services, transportation, annexation, taxes and fees, business regulations, nominations to King County boards and commissions, projects to improve the quality or delivery of County services, community services, community service centers and representatives, police storefronts, King County grants for local projects or activities, or any other matters of concern to this area. The issues of concern brought before us by the citizens we represent, in regard to the Proposed Evendell Zone Reclassification and Plat Permit Applications (L01 P0016 and L01TY401), compel us to write to you today. The Four Creeks Unincorporated Area has seen tremendous residential growth on all sides - Newcastle, Renton and Issaquah. Now the applications are beginning to be submitted in earnest beyond the cities limits and into our community. The police, fire and transportation irrfrastn3dures are not up to the strain that the impending population boom will bring, and there are no plans for King County to invest in the improvements necessary to support even greater density. The lack of interlocal agreements has led to the consistent occurrence for each jurisdiction blaming the lack of services and infrastructure on the other. And the citizens are left to suffer the consequences without recourse. The Four Creeks Unincorporated Area Council has asked specifically for relief of transportation inadequacies repeatedly to no avail. The geographic and jurisdictional isolation of the Urban portion of our community has, and will continue to, effectively prevented adequate infrastructure from being installed to accommodate denser development. ❑ Fire and Police funding in the Four Creeks Unincorporated Area have seen no increase to accommodate the burden of greater population and no funding increase is anticipated. o The City of Renton has given notice of its intent to annex approximately 9 acres between the Renton City Limits and the proposed Evendell development at levels comparable to the existing R-4 zoning designation. ❑ There are no adjacent or contiguous parcels of comparable density to that being requested. ❑ No current applications in the Newcastle Planning Area have requested Zone Reclassification. o The Evendell application for Zone Reclassification is out of scale and is not compatible with existing character for the established surrounding neighborhood, and are likewise incompatible with all anticipated development in the area. For these reasons we oppose the Zone Reclassification Application. It is unjustified, unnecessary and insupportable from an infrastructure perspective. As the elected representatives of our community, we trust that the concerns of our neighbors, which we bring to you in this letter, will be considered with the some gravity with which we deliver them to you. We urge you to deny the application for Zone Reclassification. Respectfully submitted, 3/8/02 Mr, James O'Conner Deputy Hearing Examiner King County Hearing Examiners Office 850 Union Bank of California Bldg. 900 4th Avenue Seattle, WA 98164 Dear Examiner O'Conner: RE: Rezone from R4 to R6 or greater for Proposed Plat of Evendell pile No's: LO 1 TY401 and L01 P0016 (plan 1 for 1 1 and 1/2 acres and plan 2 for 15 acres). Also RE: Also in preparation for two more hearings scheduled on 2 other plots planned for development. I have been unable to get a copy of the hearings from DDES for them so I do not have the File No's, but they are: • Rezone of R4 to R6 or greater for approximately 4 and 112 acres bounded by 158th Ave. SE, SE 136th, 134th and 160th SE. • Rezone of R4 to R6 or greater for an additional 2 and 1/2 acres bounded by 158th Ave. SE, SE, 132nd and 134th and 160th Ave_ SE. (in a reverse L shape). o Rezone: There is a fifth area being eyed within the same boundaries. See the King County proposed development maps submitted by land developer companies. General Comments: 1. First let me say thank you for coming out of retirement to hear this case. It is a landmark case for our area, since outside developers and land companies are vying to develop 5 substantial acreage plots, 3 within 1,600 feet of my home, and 2 within 200 and 400 feet of my home. (See the maps presented by Gwendolyn High and Marsha.) How do we know it's a landmark case: Page 14, last paragraph, of the report says "The sewer and road improvements for this rezone/plot are necessary to make this first stage of urban conversion successful, and will provide an infrastructure foundation for the further development of other properties consistent with the R-4 designation." P.S. Thank you for the interception and questioning you did from time to time in difficult areas. 2. Secondly, let me say thank you for extending the hearing so that the current family residential land owners could he heard adequately. It is my hope that in the future there will be enough time allowed for the resident citizens land owners to cross examine the developers and DDES as they have been allowed to do to us. 3. If the R6 or greater zoning for these two plots is placed in the middle of our R4 zoning, the impact of this will open the way for the other 3 acreage plots to be re -zoned as R6 or above which would have substantial adverse effects. The safety of the current residents and the environment of this area, which contains Class I1 Wetlands, cannot support such a great number of homes in such a confined area. a. This would conservatively add 132 homes on approximately 22 acres. (Evendell File plat at R-6 zoning would be Evendell 90 homes on both plots, plus 27 and 15 on the other proposed developments). b. In comparison, at R-4 the density would be 72 homes total as follows: the Evendell plot at 44 on one plot, plus 18 and 10 for the other two proposed plots. c. Again this does not even include the 5th plot development which is planned. *4. OF GRAVE CONCERN TO ALL THE RESIDENT FAMILY PROPERTY OWNERS IS THE UNMISTAKABLE SUBVERSIVE WAY IN WHICH LANGUAGE AND ACTIONS WORK AROUND THE EXISTING LAW BY GIVING "MODIFICATIONS. EXAMPLES ARE: THE TRANSFER OF DENSITY CREDITS (see page 5, paragraph 3 under "g"), AND LOT LINE ADJUSTMENTS TO REVISE THE BOUNDARY (see page 5, paragraph 8 and 9 under "g", and again as "BOUNDARY LINE ADJUSTMENT (BLA) on page 16 at 4 paragraph 2), and"DENSITY TRANSFER" OR "DENSITY INCENTIVE PROGRAMS" (see page 9 last paragraph from the bottom), WITH LANGUAGE SUCH AS "DDES AND DOT STAFF DO NOT ANTICIPATE..." (page 14, paragraph 3), "POTENTIAL DEFICIENT CONDITION" (page 15 p. 3. line 6), "MINOR REVISIONS TO THE PLAT WHICH DO NOT RESULT IN SUBSTANTIAL CHANGES MAY BE APPROVED AT THE DISCRETION OF THE DDES." (Page 3, at 15 Plat, paragraph 3). In other words the statutes, zones, and laws are "gray" rather than "black and white". Together with a passing -of -the -buck to the other jurisdiction and back again, our experience as resident family land owners is that we are factually being ping-ponged back and forth between the city who hopes to annex us and provides partial services under the new King County Charter, and the County who provides the rest of the services, so as to make the R-4 zoning almost null and void and open to anything developers, the city, and the county would like to do. That is painfully obvious in this DDES Preliminary Report. 5. There are a lot of "should's", "mosts" and "expectations" in the language. These are not binding and are subjective conclusions of opinion, which carry no formal weight and may never come to fruition. They should not be admitted as fact, in favor of, nor influence a decision to rezone. These types of irregularities in the DDES Preliminary Report to the Hearing Examiner, March 6, 2003, Rezone & Proposed Plat of Evendell, File No's: L01 TY401 and LO 1 P0016 make the resident land owners suspect that important issues the report addresses are inaccurate and subject to conjecture. 6. Regarding the hearing on March 6, 2003,1 was not able to get a copy of the Preliminary Report to the Hearing Examiner, March 6, 2003, at the DDES Hearing Room in Renton, until the evening of the day before and thus my earlier comments did not take in a response the this report or the hearing on March 6, 2003. C Question: I have previously requested to be on the DDES mailing list in April 2002 when I submitted the "Resident Survey Response to Proposed Rezone and Preliminary Plat of Evendell, 1-01 P0016 and LOITY401" and again at this hearing. Karen Scharer, DDES assigned planner, to whom I made this request again in writing during the hearing said it should not go to her but to the clerk who was taking in letters for THIS case. I want to be included on all cases within 2 miles of my home. Can you tell me how to ensure this? 7. Conduct of the hearing: Even though you cautioned all to speak up, the microphones, not being both recording and speaking did not enable us to hear the DDES staff, who most of the time had their backs either fully turned to us or partially turned when testifying. Therefore, it was very difficult for many of us to follow and I heard public frustration, even anger, about this over and over. For the benefit of all this should be corrected. 8. Please review the following comments made subsequent to the hearing, which I was not able to express to DDES or the developer and his representatives due to the time and formalities imposed. The comments are made in response to the text of the Preliminary Report to the Hearing Examiner, March 6, 2003- Public Hearing at 9:30 a.m., 900 Oaksdale Avenue SW, Renton, WA. a. PAGE ONE: ZONING AND PROPERTY RIGHTS: paragraph two cites a 46 lot plat based on the existing R-4 zoning on the east 11.46 acres. However, the description below at "Acreage Rezone/Plat" lists 13 acres with a density of 5.6 dwellings per acre with 7.4 dwellings per net acre. These statistics seem to stretch 4 single family dwellings to an acre to 7 an acre and are incongruous. The numbers have been bandied about throughout. Further in to the document 15 acres is the amount listed. On attachment 4 page one is shown R-6 zoning and 4-12 units per acre; on attachment 4, page 2 is shown a 12.43 acre site with 6 houses per acre, for 74.58 dwelling units, and residential subdivision and townhouses developed at a density of 8 units or less per acre, number of proposed units 70; on attachment 4, page 3, 48.17 minimum dwelling units are required; on attachment 4, page 4, is a maximum density of 12.43 acres. ACTION: I CALL THIS TO YOUR ATTENTION AND I WOULD LIKE AN EXPLANATION OF SO MANY VARIANCES. It is very confusing -and opens the way for misinterpretation. On page 13 of the report at Rezone, 2. Paragraph one states 5.6 dwellings are appropriate per acre. Page 13 determines that the properties now owned byresident families "have not developed to their highest potential use and densi ". JUST WHO IS MAKING A DETERMINATION THAT BY LIVING ON MY ONE ACRE, OR ON FIVE ACRES, WE ARE IN CONFLICT WITH THE HIGHEST POTENTIAL USE AND DENSITY AS OTHERS who are not the property owners SEE IT. WE EACH OWN THESE PIECES OF LAND BY LAW. NO ONE HAS THE RIGHT TO TELL ANY OTHER OWNER OR ME WHAT THE BEST USE OF THAT LAND IS NOR TO SET UP ORDNANCES IN SUCH A WAY THAT THEY TAKE AWAY OUR RIGHTS AS PROPERTY OWNERS. b. On page one and in appendix 8, the Renton School District is listed. It is the Issaquah School District. Yes I see where the Issaquah .transportation officer's card business card appears on appendix 8, but page one remains unchanged, and Karen Scharer, DDES, made an administrative error when she said that the East side of 158th Ave. S.E. goes to Issaquah and the West side to Renton. In fact, both go the Issaquah. ACTION: ]'lease ensure the testimony data is corrected. c. Page 2. "Community Plan: Newcastle". This is not the Newcastle community, which ends at the May Valley Road substantially north of here. It is the Four Creeks Unincorporated area, bounded by Briarwood, Coalfield, and Lake Kathleen, with May Valley on the North and East flanks. d. Page 2, C 1. o Question: What pipeline are we talking about? We are unaware of any existing or planned. e. Page 2, D. Threshold Determination of Environmental Significance: All of the submittals to DDES by a large number of the current residents in April 2002 requested an environmental impact study (EIS) be done. As residents we find the mitigated determination of non -significance (MDNS) rather surprising in that we presented evidence to the contrary on animal, reptile (newts, snakes, lizards), bug, insect, flora, and fauna, as well as surface water Class II Wetlands, the presence of substantial ponds in the area (two private on 158,h Ave SE, and a large one the size of a small lake on 164th Ave. SE), and other drainage issues. ACTION: We request again that an EIS be required by the Cedar Basin Steward and other appropriate officials from the King County Surface Water and Land Management offices, of the Department of Natural and Land Resources, King Street Station,.101 South Jackson Street, Suite 700, Seattle, WA 98104, prior to rezoning_. An EIS was also requested on page 5 of the resident survey submitted by Gwendolyn High in April or so of 2002 regarding species with sensitive classifications. f. Page 2, D, MDNS: Notification was not received by the current residents on the mailing list that I contacted, of the 21 days to appeal the MDNS. g. Page 2, D. The statement is made in the MDNS "other sources of substantive authority may exist but are not expressly listed." Y Question: If they have substantive authority, why aren't they listed. h. Page 3, E, Agencies Contacted: Question: Why were four State agencies contacted, but not other King County Agencies. At the very least King County Surface Water and Land Management of the Department of Natural Resources (address listed at e.), and the appropriate King County offices for Ecology, Fish and Wildlife, and Transportation should have been contacted, apart from DDES for analysis input. ACTION: Please require that the other King County offices are coordinated with and included in the analysis requirements for rezoning and not just DDES. i. Page 4, F. Natural Environment: We ask you to consider in your determination: (1) A 20-foot difference in height is substantial. (2) The soil survey was made 30 years ago. Substantial changes in tree growth, etc. have occurred. (3) 200 square feet of wetland to be filled means permanent loss. My lymnologist Civil Engineer daughter who has lived here over 30 years and worked for King County as a lake manager for six, says that the wetland will never recover. (4) Almost 7,000 (6,989) Square Feet of wetland impact is substantial. (5) Paragraphs P3. Par 3, paragraph 4, 5, and 6. ACTION: The analysis items at page 4, F. should be done by the King County Surface Water and Land Management office of the Department of Natural Resources, listed earlier at "e." (6) Paragraph 6, Wildlife, The flat statement "there was no specific information provided in the citizen's documentation to indicate the presence of nesting sites on the proposal property for any protected species" is inaccurate. Submittals were made as required, in time for the deadline. j. Page 5, G. Neighborhood Characteristics: (1) Paragraph 1. As stated earlier this is the Four Creeks Area, not the Renton Highlands, which is a distinct community within the City of Renton and has been for 60 years. (2) Paragraph 2 and paragraph 6 refer to a rezone within the Renton City Limits. ACTION: Please investigate and note that and R-5, R-6 or R-8 zone within the Renton City Limits is not the same as an R-6 or R-8 zone outside the Renton City Limits. (3) Paragraph 2. The sewers for Highland Estates are over a mile away. (4) Paragraph 4. Please spell out what .9 d.u, per acre means. (5) Paragraph 5. Time for submittal of the applications for three other plats IS partially known. My neighbor just received notice of a hearing on March 18, 2003, for one of them. (6) Paragaph H. 1. QUESTION: If it is R-4 than how can density be accepted at 5.6 d.u.'s? until the re -zoning is approved? (7) Paragraph H. 2. The 46-lot plat is more than 4 single family dwellings to I I acres. No accuracy here. k. Pages 5 and 6 regarding the "public loop". One access entrance into the entire development at 70 plus homes traps homeowners and is not safe should a major disaster created by high winds or fire occur and all be trying to exit at the same time and find emergency vehicles or simply mass exodus blocks the way. 1. Page 6. Drainage: Drainage is referred to in several places throughout the document, the largest sections being on page 3, page 18, page 20, and 21 of the DDES report. There are confusions and inequities which are important issues prior to the type of permit being granted. During presentations on March 6, 2003, at the public hearing there were many regarding sewers and drainage. Mr. Romano's and the DDES presentations were confusing and alluded that sewers and storm ponds would alleviate the ground water problems in the area, while protecting the Wetlands and provide recreational space. ACTION: We request that DDES present Gwendolyn High, our chosen representative, with reports from King County Surface Water and Land Management, and from the Cedar River Basin Steward regarding the following issues: Note: My daughter is a professional lymnologist by trade and a civil engineer. She lived at 13125 158th Ave. SE. for over 30 years. For 6 years, ending in June 2001, when she married and left the immediate area, she worked for King County Surface Water and Land Management (KCSWLM). She was a specialist and lake manager for numerous lakes and streams in King County. She is especially concerned about the sewer, storm pond, and storm drainage systems, and that KCSWLM be included as authorities with substantive shareholder rights in this rezone. . a. Storm Ponds: (1) Until storm pond statistics from the King County Surface Water and Land Management offices and the Cedar River Basin Steward are obtained for a comparison on how well the storm ponds (detention as they are called in this document) actually function in this area and surrounding areas of like land during the ►vet season and over time, and _are presented for public access, the reports by DDES and the Haozous Engineering, Inc.; are subject to subjective misinterpretation and conjecture. (2) As landowners owners we feel we are subject to being easily misled without accurate studies and facts from these other authoritative and substantial shareholders being required and incorporated into the DDES findings. b. Sewers and Storm Drains; The issues of sewers and ground water handling as presented were confusing, Homeowners were led to believe by the language used by both DDES and the developer and his representatives that sewer installation would take care of part of the surface water issues. There was barely any mention of storm drains in the hearing presentation itself, if they were mentioned at all. In fact this is still a significant issue which needs to be clarified and resolved before ANY approval is giving to the developers who seek to expand the zoning beyond R4. (1) Sewers are specifically designed so that storm drain surface water cannot penetrate them. This is because penetration from storm drain surface water will compromises the entire sewer system and leads to overflow and collapse (2) On page 3 at A. East Drainage Basin, you do not mention the who hired Haozous Engineering to do the level 3 Downstream Drainage Analysis by Ilaozous Engineering. There is no provision for upstream, which evacuation of downstream will surely impact. (In fact on attachment 9 this is alluded to, page 2 of 3, at the top of the page at f14." What King County Surface Water and Land Management authorities has DDES submitted this Analysis to. If Haozous Engineering was hired by the developer, then the county has a responsibility to ensure through County authorities that the analysis is accurate and unbiased when it affects county residents. 40 (3) 1,700 ft downstream is an insignificant area when talking about the affect or non - affect on the larger area of this neighborhood which such installations will have. Therefore, using it as a justification for applying this to the greater neighborhood, is in question. (4) On page 3 at B. West Drainage Basin you quote KCSWI)M Core requirement 2. How old is the manual. Has it been affected by any modifications or changes? Where is a current and comparative study from the KCSW and LM? Furthermore you do not identify the streets as you did on page 3 at A. East Drainage Basin. (5) Note on page 16 Tc. that there is no approved permanent storm drain outlet # yet on file with DDES and/or the King County Department of Transportation, And, 1 still wonder at "e" how you can use a drainage tract for required recreation space. (6) On Attachment 9, page 2 of 3, at the top 'A." "As a result, controlled outflows from the western area will be released FARTHER UPSTREAM IN THE DITCH SYSTEM OF 156TH AVE. SE." In the analysis, DDES states that the culverts are undersized. It is my understanding that the Cedar River Basin Steward has a legitimate concern about this fall out. m. Page 6. I. 2: Transport Plans: "Most trips will be via 156th Ave. SE." That is pure conjecture. You cannot predict what drivers will do. We get heavy overflow from 160th across 132nd and up 158th, now and opening 136th with one egress to the development is sure to increase traffic up 158th substantially. At I.3. The report states 11700 vehicle trips a day will be generated" leaving the single egress under the developer's plan for R-6 zoning. Even at zoning for R-4, those residents living on 158th believe these cars will go in a straight line up 158th. n. Page 7, 4. Adequacy of Arterial Roads: Relies heavily on modifying traffic standards by allowing a payoff Mitigation Payment System, Fact: As residents who will suffer over the six years mentioned, we find this most curious and again a way of taking an existing ordnance and moving it into the gray area rather than black and white to get around or stall the requirement, which gives a break to the developer and not the existing residents. o. Page 7, Public Services J. 1. Does not apply as stated since it refers to the Renton School District and School Board and should be from the Issaquah School Board and District. ACTION: Please see that this is corrected. p. Page 7, 2. , and page 19 at items 18. and 19. Parks and Recreation Space. (1) We understand the county is selling the one parcel that would have benefited all of the immediate neighborhood (adjacent to 160th). (2) The county is not in a position to guarantee parks for us since they are closing so many due to funding. (3) Later in the DDES document it states that the homeowners will be responsible for upkeep of the "Park" in the Evendell plots. The neighborhood at large will not be comfortable going to a park inside the Evendell development, and with 70 house on 11 acres, plus a pump station, and a storm pond, the park will be insufficient to serve the entire neighborhood surrounding the Evendell plot. ACTION NEEDED ON A FIRE SAFETY ISSUE: Sandwiched in here ON PAGE 8, J.3 is water for fire prevention. Documented FACT: When my neighbors and I cannot take showers in the summer because of low water pressure, how is the fire protection eoinQ to be maintained? q. Page 8 Comprehensive and Community Plan: (1) As I established in the hearing on March Oh, the KC Comprehensive Plan with Land Use Map designating this area at 4-12 dwellings per acre, does not override the R-4 zoning in affect in this area. ACTION: Therefore this statement is irrelevant, misleading, and should be removed. (2) U-114 and U-118 appear to be in conflict with U-120 which states, KING COUNTY SHALL NOT APPROVE PROPOSED ZONING CHANGES TO INCREASE DENSITY WITHIN THE URGAN AREA UNLESS: A. THE DEVELOPMENT WILL BE COMPATIBLE WITH THE CHARACTER AND SCALE OF THE SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHOOD." Going on below to r.. r. Page 9. a. b. c. e., and on page 11, especially the last two paragraphs: THE "NEIGHBORHOOD" IDENTITY IS USED VARIOUSLY TO INDICATE THE IA,IEMDIATE AREA BOUNDED BY 160TH, SE 128TH, SE 138TH, AND 156TH IN UNCORPORATED KING COUNTY AND THEN IS STRECHED INTO THE CITY OF RENTON AREA OR FUTURE PLANS, WHEN 1T SUITS THE PURPOSE OF THE DDES AND THE DEVELOPER. IF WE FOLLOWED THE LINE OF LOGIC THAT RENTON'S PLANS SHOULD OVERRIDE THE PLANS OF THE RESIDENTS OF UNINCORPORATED KING COUNTY BECAUSE THE LATER'S PLANS MIGHT NOT FIT IN TO THE FUTURE. ANNEXATION PLANS OF CITIES, THEN ALL LAW FOR THE PROTECTION OF THE UNINCORPORATED COUNTY RESIDENTS WOULD BE OF NO EFFECT, AND THEY WOULD BE AT THE MERCY OF THE CITY. FACT: THE RESIDENTS OF UNINCORPORATED KING COUNTY E ARE NOT PART OF THE CITY OF RENTON, YET, AND UNTIL WE ARE, RENTON CITY COVENANTS AND ZONINGS DO i NOT APPL Y. THEREFORE AT (9.d) The DDES comment that the Evendell plat plan does not exceed the City of Renton Comprehensive Plan for 8 dwellings per acre, has no bearing on application in unincorporated King County. I repeat, City of Renton zoning is not the same as unincorporated King County ACTION: THESE COMMENTS in section U120 AS RELATED TO THE CITY OF RENTON, SHOULD BE REMOVED AND NOT APPLY IN THE DECISION TO GRANT A REZONE IN UNINCORPORATED KING COUNTY. s. Page 10: Charts; (1) Footage statistics developers and DDES are using on page 10 of the DDES report are truly miniscule when you look at the area to be served and make the chart totally irrelevant. t. Page 12 KCC20.24.195 at Additional examiner findings - preliminary plats. A. "Appropriate provisions are made for the public safety , and general welfare and for such open spaces.... Etc." Please consider these requirements carefully and apply them to your decision. There will be no open spaces when the developers get through, No safe roads to walk on except in Evendell itself. The rest of us are asked to put up with unsafe road conditions for a minimum of 6 years. We who have lived here 30 years will not have access to parks contained in private neighborhoods. Our children will have to endure 700 more cars a day without benefit of sidewalks or wider streets because once they leave the egress to Evendell, guess what, they go straight past my house. u. Page 13 SEPA and Rezone. (1) MDNS, which applies to SEPA is addressed on page 3 at items e, f, and g of this letter. (2) Rezone and property owners rights are addressed on page 2, 8 a of this letter. (3) The maps shown by the developer of how they will develop properties and seek permits to do so are in question. A minimum of 4 large tract property owners stood up in the meeting and said they do not plan to sell and they find it unnerving that the DDES or anyone else can give permits ahead of the fact to developers. w. Attachment 6, We as property owners and resident citizens find it a questionable ethics and a breach of property owners rights and wonder how it will stand in a court of law, for the City of Renton, to make the statement that "In order to receive sewer service from the City, the plat must also develop as detached single family and the property owner(s) will be required to execute a covenant to annex form. Will future buyers be presented with this requirement before they have already sold their homes and are ready to sign the final papers to buy.in this area so they can change their minds, or will they not find that they must sign away their votinp, rights until the day they sign their final papers, have already sold their other house and are in effect forced to sicn. . In closing: THERE APPEAR TO BE SERIOUS LEGAL ISSUES HERE REGARDING AN ABRIDGEMEN'r OF PERSONAL RIGHT, NOT JUST AS PROPERTY OWNERS, BUT AS VOTERS, We wonder if this will be construed by the courts and the public that the City of Renton, the County, and the land developers appear to be in collusion. Especially as it has been the factual experience of many residents that, when inquiring about who has jurisdiction and how can we get fair and just treatment, the buck gets passed in this area from one governmental authority to the other and back again, leaving us high and dry. And then we get a document like this full of mitigations which seem to support that conclusion. So many people worked on this report at DDES, and with the confusion they must experience in dealing with so many laws and regulations, and probably being short funded and short staffed, I wonder if anyone in a higher position checked it to see to it that each one's work agreed with the others. There are so many inconsistencies in this document that 1 don't see ethically and in good conscience how you can award the rezone to R-5 or higher. Even at R-4, the inconsistencies will need to be addressed before granting any pemtits and zoning standards to the developer at all. Thank you for the time and effort you will be putting into your decision Respectfully submitted, Michael Rae Cooke 13125 158h Ave. SE. Renton, WA 98059 Work number 425-227-2505 Homeowner Program Analyst, DOT, FAA Former Sierra Club and Mountaineer's member March 4, 2003 To: Greg Kip, Director of DDES, King County DDES, Land Services Division (Current Planning Section) Karen Scharer, assigned DDES planner Kim Claussen, Planner 11I, Current Planning Section Trishah Bull, Planner II, Current Planning Section Bruce Whittaker, Senior Engineer, Engineering Review Section Kris Langely, Supervisor, Traffic and Engineering KCDOT Laura Casey, Senior Ecologist, Site Development Services Larry West, Senior Geologist, Site Development Services At King County DDES Land Use Services Division (Current Planning Section) Department of Development and Environmental Services 900 Oaksdale Avenue SW. Renton, WA 98055-1219 David Irons, King County Representative District 12 King County Courthouse 516'fhird Avenue, Room 1200 Seattle, WA' 98104-3272 hitlr:, `�~w��.metrokc., o�./mkcciMemlrerslilI2iindea.htm King County Surface Water and Land Management 206 296 6519 Department of Natural Resources King Street Station 201 South Jackson Street, Suite 700 Seattle, WA 99104 Jesse Tanner, Mayor of Renton 1055 S. Grady Way Renton, WA 98055 David M. Christensen, Renton Wastewater Utility Supervisor 1055 S. Grady Way Renton, WA 98055 From: Michael Rae Cooke 13125 158" Ave. SE Renton, WA 98059 Subj: Proposed Rezone and Preliminary Plat of Evendall— LOIPO0]6 and LOITY401 Proposed Rezone of 4 and '/2 additional acres bounded by 158'h Ave. SE, SE 136", and 160'h SE Proposed Rezone of 2 and '/2 additional acres bounded by 158a' Ave. SE, SE 1321d, and 160€h SE Who am I? A Washington native, born in Seattle, and a resident of unincorporated King County for 30 years, who has just completed paying off the mortgage to my home. lam employed by the Federal Aviation Administration. I hold the position of Program Analyst and Freedom of Information Act Officer, and have been a Management and Program Manager. I represent 4 families, my household, the Fishers next door, and the Peterson and families who live across the street. As an access professional, I know that you have a myriad of sometimes confusing and overlapping regulations to deal with in making your decisions. As the existing community, we look to your expertise in different disciplines to provide careful analysis and consideration as you make your official determinations regarding rezoning and building permits in.our area. I have also been a member of the Sierra Club and the Mountaineers. We would like to see the reports you are required to seek from King County Surface Water and Land Management, Department of Natural Resources, located at King Street Station, 201 South Jackson Street, Suite 700, Seattle, WA 98104. We recognize that growth is inevitable. As it occurs we have three major concerns a.• That development be within existing zoning and current law and guidelines, b. That it not pose dangers to ourselves, others, or the environment, and c. That adequate provisions for water supplies, drainage, utilities, road and traffic maintenance, fire and police be protected and required. Regarding item a: development within existing zoning and current law and guidelines. The developers have not met the conditions of the urban grid pattern zoning requirements. a. There are current statutes and laws, which were specifically designed to provide reasonable growth management.for King County, and that impose requirements on applications of this type, b. The developers application for R8 does not meet the current King County Requirement that rezoning must be within the character of the existing neighborhood, and that a rezone with no contiguous boundaries cannot be made deep IN THE CENTER of an existing approved zone, in this case an area already rezoned as R4. The area has not been properly identified, which makes the current studies null and void: (1) This area has never been included in the Renton Highlands, which was a specific area in the City of Renton. (2) The area has been known as Renton Hills (see the U. S, Bank designator/ they have another branch which is in the Highlands), Coalfield, and Briarwood. (3) This is not the Green River Watershed and Basin. It is the Cedar River Watershed and Basin, one of only 4 WIRA drainage basins in all of King County. (4) Therefore, parcel location and context data in this application must be reviewed, and the assertions of the developers reassessed, and a report of this analysis be made and placed in the public file. d. The developers have been successful in getting THREE FINAL extensions from DDES. The existing residents are entitled to know the conditions on which the developer received a waiver from a final determination three times. Not only is the effort to rezone to R8 irregular, but so is the extension. e. The statutes and laws appear not to have been uniformly applied: (1) One developer has secured a rezone substantially inside the western border of the R4 to R8 within Renton City limits. (2) Now comes this outside developer trying to add another R8, well into the center of the R4 area in the county, which is clearly in definace of the existing law. (3) if this is successful we understand the plan by developers is to rezone again in the 4 % acres (bounded by 158`h Ave. SE, 160`h Ave SE„ SE 136`h and SE 134'h) , adjacent to the Evendall plait (bounded by 160`h Ave. SE, SE 130h, and 1561h Ave SE to about SE 138th), and again to the north bounded by 160`h Ave SE, SE 132 and SE 134`h and 158,h Ave SE, all without a vote of the existing residents in the area. Regarding item b. That it not pose dangers to ourselves, others, or the environment. Currently the area is under severe stress from unsafe traffic patterns that have resulted in multiple accidents, one death, and inadequate support for road maintenance by a county strapped for funding. (1) The two lane 156`h Ave SE has been reclassified from a minor throughfare to a major tluoughfare due to the increased volume of traffic. (2) 1561h Ave SE is designated by King County as a Life Line Route and already presents a danger to citizens due the outstripping of the maximum safe traffic volume. Citizens risk not being able to access this exit route because of a resulting mass traffic jam. (3) Inadquate maintenance and over use has caused one death and multiple accidents when residents try to get onto SE 128" from current avenues existing from 158°' Ave. SE, through 160 Ave. SE. Regarding item c. That adequate provisions for water supplies, drainage, utilities, road and traffic maintenance, fire and police be protected and required. a. Regarding the basic need for water, access to adequate water pressure is already compromised by the addition of the new housing on SE 1281'. Water pressure this summer was so low that my daughter and I had trouble taking a shower. b. Storm drainage has become an increasing problem with the removal of at least 200 trees that used up 25 gallons of water a day and breathed it safely back into the atmosphere. That's 5,000 gallons of water that has nowhere to go. As a result: (1) Neighbors down 160 Ave. SE, and 156 Ave. SE, have had severe flooding of basements, crawl spaces, and fields that they have never experienced prior to the new 254 new family residences built in the last 'two years just on SE 128`4. The impact of 150 new houses in a small area will be disasterous. (2) Storm water ponds have proven totally inadequate to contain the run off, breed plagues of mosquitos, and are not maintained by anyone, remaining public eyesores and decreasing property values. (3) 1 have lived here 30 years and for the first time since the new houses have gone in have regular flooding under my house which is distinctly unsanitary and for which I now have to have a sump pump. Sewers will NOT allieviate the majority of the problem. If allowed then to proceed the dwelling density proposed will cause not just new but addtional endangerment to the existing residents, irreplaceable wildlife, and fauna regarding: (1) Exit routes during disasters of fire, flooding will be severely compromised. (2) Fire danger. As a member of a third generation fire fighting family I can vouch that allowing this type of zoning density will increase the serious injury or death rate of firefighters and residents. It is a scientific fact that houses 10 feet apart will be involved in a traveling fire. A house is typically fully involved in 5 minutes with family having only 60 seconds to get out. (3) The current Evendell plan is for one egress with the road branching into a circle inside the development, That means one egress for fire fighters or police to get in and the same egress for people fighting to get away from the fire. (4) The resulting loss of life in the Evendell development is too horrible to contemplate (5) Contamination of water supplies, destruction of adequate water pressure and water availability for daily living let alone fire danger. (6) Severe storm water damage. (7) .Lack of recreational area forcing children into the streets. (8) Lack of King County funding has prevented the development of two King County park lands for the citizens of this area already. (9) Sociological studies have proven that inadequate protection from disease and crime occur when packing a dense number of people into a contained area. The King County Sheriff's office warned our community of and said that is why they opened the Four Greeks State Patrol Office on 164'h Ave. SE. (14) The developer has not adequately answered basic environmental requirements for licenses to proceed listing as unknown the dangers to the environment, impact on wildlife and fauna and the results of grading and water runoff to areas south of the proposed development. (a) We request a new Environmental Study, including Wildlife Field Data Forms by qualified, independent biologists. (b) We request independent assessments by engineers regarding the regrading of the topography in this neighborhood and the effects on the properties down the hill towards SE 140' and the Jones Road as well. In conclusion, we are here to go on record as saying, the current zoning of four houses to an acre, achieved without a vote of the current residents, already does not fit the character of the existing community and is not our ideal. it poses safety issues, quality of life issues, and allows the destruction of some irreplaceable wildlife and fauna found in our neighborhood. However, it is for us the lesser of two severe zoning impacts and is currently law. We recognize that you in your official positions of decision making can determine a reasonable development. You have the power to address some of the safety issues for the lives of families already living in the neighborhood by choosing to enforce R4 and other regulations already on the books. The existing public in this neighborhood has the right to be as valued and protected as the developers, who do not live in the area, will not inherit the fall.out of their actions, and who leave many neighborhoods and environments irreplaceably damaged or destroyed at the expense of both existing and future residents. If four houses to an acre will protect the character and lives of the families already living there, provide a modified semblance of safety for the environment and wetlands and still provide housing for the population in the greater area then that should be your decision. Six or eight houses to an acre will not only totally destroy the existing character of our neighborhood, but poses serious physical safety issues for both current and new residents. In summary, you from many disciplines are in an official position of service to the existing residents and property owners of our neighborhood. We seek justice and fair application of current statutes on the books to ensure growth in our neighborhood is reasonable and provides decent conditions and safety for the existing residents as well as any new residents, and for the environment. Mr. Hearing Examiner, We are not fighting development W�,, respect anti understand its necessity, hart we also feel it should he compatible with the character and scale of the existing neighborhood We feel that is also the intention of those who created U-120. Neighborhoods are known for their character and assets, whether it be lake or mountain views, tree -lined streets, large estates, etc. People move to Briarwood, our neighborhood, for the tali trees, lots with large yards for gardening and for its natural/rural feel. This is what we want to protect. Plenty of land exists elsewhere in the UGB that lias complete infrastmewres already in place to acr_.ernmodate greatly increased densities and we, feel that is where, if even necessary, the highest densities should occur. A King County "Buildable Land" report exists which clearly shows there is enough land still existing inside the iJGB for develonment in King County to handle growth for the next 20 years without a single upzone. Granting this upzone for Evendell would undoubtedly cause complete destruction of our neighborhood since all other development will likely decide to go with higher densities to make more money, all at our expense. After all, we are the ones left with overcrowded schools, inadequate police protection, loss of property values, and, of course, r.tnhearable traffic issues. Asking ifs to trade_. all of this for a simple road conne_.ction is too mor.b. They say this road connection from 160th to 156th is an "improvement", however, we, the residents, see it differently. We see it as more congestion an the only north -south arterial route that fire trucks and police need to access our neighborhoods and the Renton Highlands above us. We see it as even more difficulty leaving our driveways and harder for the children to cross and catch school buses. This road connection should be addressed at the same time that.] 56th's problems are addressed. There are also other traffic/road options that could be considered. For example, a light could be added at 128th and lh()th, which woitld allow everyone in the n6g}rhorhoods between 158th and westward (out to Liberty High. School) to exit safely onto an existing four lane arterial. Having these numerous developing neighborhoods funnel onto an already insufficient; busy two lane road doesn't make the best sense. If you've ever been on 156th and tried to pull over to the side to leave a fire truck pass by ---with 3 foot deep ditches 2 feet from the edge of the road —you may understand what we mean. 1561b is currently unable to handle more traffic safely in our opinion. Our other major concerns deal with direct property damage. A Level 3 Drainage analysis was requested by the residents because we had shown (in our submitted report to DDES) that there had been several complaints on record showing a variety of existine drainage problems and feared more will result. Our fears were shown to he iusi_ We now also know that more property damage will occur from this development unless a 50' existing tree buffer remains along the western edge of the Evendell site. Mr. Ramano offered a I0' limited buffrr/tract, but after inspection, Mr. Baker said it would not be adequate enough to protect adjacent properties' trees from damage or death. I also have a -mails from 26 other arhorists who have stated the same thing, our trees will he damaged without this buffer. Based on 20.24.180, "...and that the recommendation or decision 14411 not be unreasonably incompatible with or delrimental to affected nrrmerties and the Kener-al public ", we ask that you require the developer to revise his plans to iriclude the 50' buffer. Not only will this buffer protect adjacent properties from tree damages, it will also help with a variety of other issues such as privacy, pollution, noise control, habitat for urban animals, a windbreak for our community, and of course, aesthetic value by keeping the character of our neighborhood intact. The developer can also charge more for the lots that back this "greenbelt", .since there. are many studies that show, as Mr. Baker pointed out, people want to liver to urban areas with trees and will pay more to do so: We would also like to have the opportunity to salvage vegetation from the constniction area and replant it into this buffer, so that the buffer will continue to be a vital part of our neighborhood and the Evendell neighborhood to be. We hope we have demonstrated, through our presentation and the number of people who took the time to come to this hearing, how much residents currently living in Briarwood care and want to keep the character of the neighborhood intact. R-4 is and should stay, the zoning in our area. The Evendell rezone should be denied. Sincerely, Marsha L. Rollinger L-41 "' *- - I 15646 SE 138th Place Renton, WA 98059 G EXAMINER �yiARCH 6 x003 ATTN . HEAD T AND ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICE DEPART MED USE SF DIVISION SION , MICHAEL ROMANO LAN wASUINGTON KING COUN Y, ING SECTION LU" I ASSOCIAT14N[REPRESENTATI oPMEN' AGER il, CiIRRENT PLANK U.S. LAND DEVEL pR03ECT MAN KAREN SCIIARER,: xT OF EVEN! ED L FILE: RE: 1kLL U0 L — - I,01T1' 401 &I,O1P0016 ou plan on routing any of this action. If y P roblems. The Notice of some problems arising from Ave.you will be causing P I have I am putting you on N meat down 156 rains or snowy conditions. e or runoff from this svudent during years of heavy use of the drainage aarisen15 b et �pletely is currently ow some very difficult si�ationx have drainage on 156 ears and kn 14438156` g the for many y mother's basement C+ r coming down lived In this area seasons. l have seen e s water,lsurface orate like a river and comFiyflooded Washington's heavy n being able to handle the storm driveway washing machine flooded from'erts not r yam, s. She lost her the es during bad weatt It out severe!°es. ditches. The water ran over erred several timtihe strict 25 Fire Dept. to lu p This happened Di 1400� 15�' and the drivewayothers her basewe� She has also had to call the driveway @ and many & hot water tank. ears the water also can over flow There was road flood ny bit is from During rainy, snowy y where the a rise The cnivertlpipes could not handle the bottom of 156th from th door. drainage and eventually handle the problems. I have seen the road tiesJones Road flooded from m 15e. It could not overflow drainage. 1 have sea Toad was flooded where It met fro from Cedar River• Also 139 l some of heavy drainage. d woodlands that helped to cotrtro the place of trees an live on 156a` and in this most development will be e, The eo le who ma a that will The new produce more dralnag lan was to build and this drainage and it will p t to know who wi4 be res onsible o F t the new County Land Management i hoods into consideration net bar and areto believe the the existing In and c9%!W l occur. 1 wason sense and to felts meat world be done a lived Wilt !� develop mrefun- y and with comet a that develoti► boyhood and of the people who have erty rights. I was led to be!!ev the neigh tbe bad Problems of their I F the Integrity now of Tome d of common sense with in out destroy g eu,s, I asn gig salt of tide kin loges far ye�'s and y lx definitely a forexeeable reso here and paid theirdevelopment Flooding trouble s'ysu VAdch will arise from over water already added to a meat and more runoff surface now or safely go develop t not safety get out of my driveway c to 15e , which I canno a has become dangerous for the propotn Also adding ail this traffic ttli d comin€l up this bil! if we are g g er hazardous s#tuation• 156 ere move on to my mailbox, wifl mouse another o travel it. We need another roe Ieud and the develop d mice of who live an It and the peOFle nsibiiities, and the destroy tins develoPme Later the problem$, restm ism to Wig a ones that witt be left WE are th the neighborhood . Thank you, sally Nipert 1,400,115e Ave SE Renton, WA 98059 b, 2003 9:30 A.1Vl SUBMITTED TO HEARING EXAM�ER M� March 3, 2003 James O'Connor Deputy Nearing Examiner King County Hearing Examiners Office 850 Union Bank of California Building 900 Fourth Avenue Seattle, WA 98164 SUBJECT: EVENDELL--LO1T401 AND L01P0016 Dear Mr. O'Connor, We have lived in this community since 1961. We chose to raise our family here in this once rural and beautifully wooded community, abundant with wildlife. It was not unusual to see owls, rabbits, deer, raccoons and beautiful birds in and around our back yards. Now, we only occasionally see wildlife as if tries to escape the increasing traffic and new housing developments. Their natural habitat is nearly all gone due to the massive construction that has been taking place since around the 1990's. We, like many of our neighbors are growing increasingly frustrated with the felling that King County is simply not listening to the communities concerns on the proposed zoning changes to'increase density within the urban areas. The rezone that is based on King County Policy U-120 tells developers that they are supposed to be compatible with the character and scale of the surrounding neighborhoods. Like many of our neighbors, our home sits on 3.5 acres, while others sit on very large lots. The developers would like you to believe that putting 6 houses per acre of land is within character and scale of it's surrounding neighborhood. That sounds like fuzzy match to us. • o Developers come and go, but we are stuck with over crowded schools, underdeveloped sidewalks and parks: The current roads are expected to carry the increased loads of more and more traffic, with little or no improvements. Are there any plans for this developer to help build new schools, crosswalks or replace the WW H memorial 50-year-old Poplar F .� trees that had to be sacrificed along 156h Ave. SE? E Lastly but not least, I would like to voice my deep concerns about public safety. I am a X retired volunteer fire fighter for nearly 40 years and a District 25 Fire Commissioner for 6 C a, years. I have first hand experience when tragedy strikes. I have gone on many car .9 accidents that have occurred on 156'h over the years. I truly that feel that adding more and more houses will drastically increase the amount of accidents on the two lane road. o 2 a W 0 o I would strongly encourage you, Mr. O'Connor to make the right choice. And that choice CD o, should be to keep the Evendell community as close as possible that way it was originally u, y Y planned. A quiet environment, with privacy and distinct rural favor. Allowing 6 house per acre would surely destroy the very reason many of us have lived here for many years. We would like to be allowed to continue growing old in the same community that we raised our families, or at least with some of the rural atmosphere that drew us here in the first place. Sincerely, Mr. and Mrs. Don and Janice Milbrath i 15624 SE 137'h Place I Renton, WA 98059 nristy J. Hill 13527 156 Ave, S.-E. Menton, WA 98059 Ph.(425) 226-9686 March 6, 2003 ]sir. James O'Connor Leputy Hearing Examiner King County Hearing Examiners Office 850 Union Bank of California Building. 900 Fourth Avenue Seattle, WA 98164 SUBJECT: EVENDELL - LOITY4O1 AtZ LGIPCO16 Lear Sir; I want to address the issue of the character of our neighbor- hood, and of how ill-fitting the proposed up -zone (to M-6) of this project would be. Earlier developments in this area made an effort to maintain the integrity of the established neighborhood. This one doer not! Our neighborhood has pastureland and wooded areas; horses, llamas, and other livestock; bee keepers and. exotic bird keepers; vegetable, rose and dahlia gardens, etc. We have hundred year -old. native trees and a wide variety of landscape trees. Two storey homes are generally situated. on lots of one-half acre or larger, while smaller one -quarter acre lots contain rambler -style homes. Previous developments in our area were required to leave some existing trees and/pi replace a significant percentage of those that were removed. These trees provide more than a pretty background and privacy. They also.absort massive amounts of water which, in turn, helps control run-off snd soil erosion. In a time when power shortages are oecoming the norm, they provede a natural cooling option rather than scraining limited power suppiies with air -conditioners during nog weather. Tney also aid in removing pollutants rrom the air: air quality in an area with a permanent burn ban should be or paramount con- cern. This aoesn't even address the issue or loss of wilalire habitat: wllaliie with which the neighbors have nor, only co- existed, but which we nave also protected anu enjoyed. If this new development is granted. an R-o aesignation, there Is no possibility of it ever fitting the welt -established. neighborhood. Large nouses, on even smaller than presently zoned lots, ao not allow l'or gardens let alone any significant tree replacement. A flowering cherry does not equal a nun - area year -old cedar ( or even a broa} -leas- maple) in beneficial properties. House owners wiii not �ave adequate space to cre- ate an air of individuality in their "yards" as Lneir prede- cessors have been able and eager to do. While we in tns neighborhood are not anxious to nave any major aevelopments in our midst, we understand the need r or some controlled growth. What we don't understand, and do not accept, is any real need for a greater density than the present R-4. King County's own studies show that there is more than twice as much buildable area available, than is reauired to meet pro- jected growth goals tnrougn 2U22. R-4 allows for slightly larger lots per house which is safer (ask a firefighter) and afroras a mucn oetter quality of life for all residents. Anotner frightening aspect of granting an up -zone is the prece- dent it would set. Every other proposea aevelopment in this area can use it as an arguir.ent (excuse) to also request and support their own R-o assignation. 'these additional aevelop- ments Nouia be a patchwork cutting right through the nearc of a previously compatible neighborhood. It seams tnat the wishes of people who nave pala property taxes in, ana have been caretakers of' this area i or several years; anu the aishes of' newcomers who snoppea aroung and fell In love with the personality o7- tnis neighborhood should count as much or more tnan cne aesires of developers who will great- ly impact the neighborhood and then walk away without having to aeal with any of the negative impact. i•hose or us who live here will be stuck with it. Respectfully, Kristy J. Hill March b, 200J Mr. James O'Connor Depu-cy Hearing Examiner King County Hearing Examiners Off -ice b,)o Union Bank of California Bul iding eour'tn Avenue 5eatitie , WA 1)b1d4 SUBJECT: EVENDELL - L0ITY401- AND LOIPOC16 Lear Mr. O'Connor; We moved to the Renton area in the fall of 1969. We started shopping for a home to buy early in 1970. We looked at sever- al properties but nothing satisfied us. My husband and laugh -- ter drove 156th Ave. S.E. every day on their way to Hazen High School where he taught and she was a student. They often re- marked how attractive this one particular home was and that they, -wished it was for sale, Pagitally, one day it was! They riot the phone number from the homemade "For Sale" sign, we called for an appointment that afternoon, saw the house that evening and put earnest money down on it before we left. Our home is situated on a half -acre parcel.. We have large trees, smaller landscaping trees, several rhododendrons and azaleas, and a wide variety of shrubs, bushes and.flowers. We grow our own raspberries, and we have a vegetable garden. our cucumbers did very well this past summer. As a result, our homemade "dill pickles graced the tables of many of our neigh- bors last winter. In the tree outside our picture window we hang a seed. -filled bird feeder and a suet basket. These attract a variety of birds: flickers, downy woodpeckers, chickadees, juncos, nuthatches, and the occasional hawk who .takes the term."bird feeding station" very literally. We also get squirrels and chipmunks who don't mind sharing with the birds. We find. watching the birds and squirrels, gardening, even yard work very soul -soothing, as do most of our neighbors. 'Unfortunately, if this upzone is granted, our new neighbors will'.' -have no chance to experience any of this. At least an R-4 designation allows for a little more space for them to put their individual stamp on their own property. In addition an R-4 may also allow a nominal replacement of the trees lost during construction. In the summer, we know the trees a- round our property help keep our home much cooler, thereby elim- inating the need for an air conditioner. During our recent power shortages, that made life much more bearable. Fly about public safety. sever- MYto voice CDnvolunteer and paidaccess to also like titer t ve ready aCe be - would worked as a f ref be adequate Space t0 husband qe ,mows i There must reaching al years. a fire occurs• settinE ladders cl for e proximity? an area when to allow f °r houses in too structure buildings•it all. t,,Teen then hbors upper floors ° endangers All neig 1 6th Ave. S.E. + even a fire in one it difficult traf f i c on i56th f ind s. Cjther Another concern is exit those drIVewaysame diffi- with driveways Imes tolY experience those at tunes enter or Brous side streets Bang accessing exiting i56th Ave, �idents ht choice to re� tering Or e you to make the rigto the way it culties en possible would I strongly tyIIras close as P er acre Yr. p+�onnor+ unity wing six houses p have lived here the Evende7lann.• Allo us whO ha keep ina11Y p here those �� peaceful env�rhoent was orig roythe atmOsp A qui new surely des ears have en 3oye something to cherish' We hope f or many y flavor is Leasure, with a rural experience the same P families can since elv E 211 and June Hill Ave. S 13 52'� i 56 AE �8Q59 Renton+ VA 4 I • � ent and p�nvironment Services ' Department of Developrll A Arch 1, 2003 our reasons far objecting to building so many houses in our -neighbor are - mall, quiet, countryfied neighbor here and - - - �Ne have a s c problem and noise to an intolerable leVe]. This is extremely stressful on additional houses would increase the traffic raf I Too many a - more crime Increased density could increase crime. More people lucre lawn mower &leaf seniors especially. cles, due to many more cars and matorcy ready trucks,etc. Noise would increase greatly s barking, and delivery blowers, people noise g• more vehicles, burning of fire places, barbeques have residents who have medical conditions lution would greatly increase with thee aready Pol ui tment etc. W ,gas po�rered outdoor eq p that make it difficult to breath on certain days' hich is already bad enough• t lace many of our wildlife, w drains, police and her density would di sp electricity, storm llig water, es would put a strain on our utilities such as with the More hour of keep up Fire protection. est action or a community to grow so fast that services cannot It just is not the b le need tune to adjust also - demand. peop Charles W . Scoby 13112 -158 Ave S. F. Renton, WE'' t x Benton, WA `�8059 13112 -158 Ave. S.E. Viola,M• Scoby ` /"/' ' Re on, Wa 98059 ).....�s`6, 4 -158 Ave. S. E- Geneva D• Scholes - 1292 1.3nrle Hindes • 14115 160" AVE SE Renton, Wa. 99059 February 26, 2003 King County Hearing Examiner Evendell Project Dear Sir or Madam: I reside less than one quarter of a mile south of several proposed housing projects along 160" AVE SE in Renton. There is a slope along 16e and I am at the lower end of the slope, I have numerous concerns regarding this development: 1) Character of the neighborhood: I reside in a largely rural neighborhood. Lot sizes are at least half an acre but generally larger. I am appalled at the state of development along 12e (Cemetery Road). It looks like Southern California. No large trees remain. Homes are crowded, boldike structures. The proposed developments will create a similar setting on 160"' Ave. 2) Water run-off: I am concerned with the water run-off that will no doubt be created by such large developments. Previously I resided in Newcastle below the new Golf Course. Citizens were told by developers and County employees that no flooding etc would be created by stripping an entire hillside of large trees and adding a Golf Course. This did not prove to be the case. I currently reside "down slope' from the current proposed developments and am concerned with assurances that flooding etc won't be an issue. I have found when profits are the main concern, half-truths and inadequate studies are used to 'push" a development through. 3) ' Displaced Animal Population: Clearly when a woodland habitat is destroyed, numerous animal species are displaced. A curious occurrence in Newcaslte was greatly increased rodent populations in residences. Larger animals reside in the forested area including deer and coyotes. It is not clear where they will go when the area is stripped of vegetation. 4) Traffic: I am concerned with increased traffic on 16e Ave SE. This road was not designed to handle the great increase in traffic. I am opposed to the current development plan. I realize development is inevitable, but I request it be managed to allow no more than three or four homes per acre. Sincerely, �j Laurie A. Hindes Concerned citizen, home owner, tax payer ' ,..}Y- S-'^ YryxYF✓(xh'rµl fa •♦ •�F • • • • • • • • . . • • • • • . . • • . • • . March 4, 2003 James O'Connor Deputy Hearing Examiner King County Hearing Examiners Office 850 Union Bank of California Building 900 Fourth Avenue Seattle, WA 98164 Re: Evendell- LO I TY401 and LO 1 POO 16 Dear Mr. O'Connor: I write this letter as a lifelong resident of King County to express my concerns about the proposed Evendell development referenced above. My wife and two young children (ages 8 and 5) moved into our neighborhood about five years ago. We chose this spot (which is about a quarter mile from the proposed development) not only because of its central location but because of the unique character of the neighborhood. My street is made up of mature homes on treed lots, typically one -quarter and one-half acre in size, with some larger residences situated on one acre parcels. In addition, the homes are interspersed with several vacant lots which are used to house a variety of animals, including horses, cows, rabbits and geese. In short, the neighborhood has a uniquely rural flavor despite its location within King County's urban growth boundary. I was not particularly surprised to see the proposed land use sign at the end of my street about a year ago given the fierce pace of residential development occurring in the area surrounding our neighborhood. Up to that time, I had taken some solace in the fact that the new development seemed to be occurring to the West of our street. I understand the concept of the urban growth boundary, I recognize that our street is within that area, and I realize that people need to have a place to live. However, I was taken aback when I noted the proposed density of this development- 75 homes on approximately I l acres. Bringing this many new homes into our neighborhood will undeniably alter the character of the area, and one need only walk down our street (158 h Ave. SE) to conclude that the development will not be compatible with the character and scale of the surrounding neighborhood. In addition to this incompatibility, I have very, real safety concerns related to this proposal. Specifically, as a result of the dramatically increased level of traffic on our street, I will no longer be able to walk up and down the street with my family without being constantly on the alert for speeding cars, and my children will clearly be exposed to a higher level of risk as they go about the simple process of living their lives (e.g., playing in the front yard, walking to the bus, etc.). Further, the main arterials in the area are already clogged as a result of the hundreds and hundreds of new homes already completed. I have definite concerns about my ability to simply turn from 158"' Ave. SE onto 128cn (to get to work or get the kids to school) givej1 - -.P- g the dramatic growth in residential units in this area. rowth areal would simply behind the urban g be reasonable to As 1 stated above understand the theory reason. In rnY view, while it may it is not process be governed bypopulation, ask that the p hborhood and at the expense develop the Evendell lots to facilitate the surdrounding growing reasonable to do so ell the detriment s dents. of the safety and well being ou consider the proposed development. Please take my concerns under advisement as parties by developing, say, 20 homes at the ' d all be safer, the impact on the infrastructure and Could we not balance thainlwe interests °f all the e na cable, and a considerable site rather than 75? Certainly providers (i.e., police and fire) would be more ou reasonable consideration of my service p ou for y questions - number to call me at (2a6)553-7312 if You have any q number of homes would eelstill be built. Tha y concerns, and please f Sincerely, y, MC so 13012 158`" Ave_ SE Renton, W A III le", Lee LUG �ill�i f. i moo_ . t%sl�.., ac'� . . Gd_C�L' .. ^ . c � 4 . 5.7 ... �.- .� �1. J_..... C ... . IY7 0,� 70 rZX,,Q a-Z -Ilk S. Z IL LD i- 07 c'M 41 1k; 4- ..... ..... I . 4 NYV �og IWO HE MI M 711 i ijiflirrr 79�1'.. I or." tz Nkt PIP, CIAA I rif t" V. kills ��►' ff.� L - mu pie ! wM6. i�i:�iTi�i it rr �•f• 1, 3'�;. •^ ): fb F _ i f I y lot YT, 7 i � f f I S: •� If 4 ' f I A. 0 1 4 R - //���// - - - - - Exhibit No. ftem No. Yt Received, - K+ng Courftv Heaft November 16, 2003 From: Claude R. & Eloise M. Stachowiak 15652 SE 139th Place Renton, Washington 98059-7422 To: Karen Scharer, Permit Manager Department of Development and Environmental Services Land Use Service Division 900 Oaksdale Avenue Southwest Renton, Washington 98055-1219 References: Nichols Place Plat and Rezone, File Xs: L03P0015 & L03TY404 Dear Ms. Scharer, We currently reside in our home of 35 years located on property adjacent to the western boundary and within the 100 foot offset of the property proposed for rezone. We are opposed to the rezone and formal plat as follows. Rezone 1. The adjacent properties are zoned R-4 and in most cases the building density is even less. For example our lot size is 17,000 square feet not including right-of-ways which equates to less than an R-3 zoning. The proposed R-6 zoning density is not compatible with existing development in the area. We are concerned it will result in a reduction of resale value for our property. Formal Plat 1. Approximately 113 of the proposed plat slopes to the southwest. The formal plat has a surface water retention basin at the southeast comer of the plat but does not address surface water run-off to the southwest direction. 2. The plat indicates deciduous trees in the southwest comer. In reality there is a cluster of three large fir trees on the western property line.. One of the trees is on my lot within 6 feet of the property line, the second straddles the property line and the third is within 2 feet of the property line on the Nichol's property.. The formal plat map does not address these trees or a plan to avoid damage to their root structure that could occur during grading and construction on lots 15 and 16. ExI W4 No, Item No. Recom 22 - - c�, King Camty Hearing Examiner In closing, we would like to state that in addition to our concern about property value, our observation of surface water run-off across our property during medium and heavy rainfall with the adjacent property as a grassland and available information that the root structure of trees extends 2 to 4 times their limb diameter, we believe the issues of surface water run-off and possible damage to these trees fall in a major category that must be addressed in the development and permitting process for this property regardless of the zoning density. If you have any questions regarding this correspondence, we can be contacted at the following telephone numbers: (Home) 425-226-3408, (Work) 206-544-8203 or via e-mail at °miltfd4l@ comcast.net". Sincerely, Claude R. Stachowiak Eloise M. Stachowiak i ii February 10, 2004 Mr. James O'Connor Hearing Examiner Pro Tem Kristy J. Hill 13527 156 Ave SE Renton, WA 98059 (425) 226-9686 Re: Liberty Grove Contiguous (LO3PO05) & Liberty Grove (L030006) Mr. Examiner, the applicants in this case withdrew an earlier request for a site rezone because they apparently realized that the residents of the established neighborhood had good and compelling reasons to defeat such a redesignation, Sadly, although the good and compelling reasons still exist, the applicants can achieve the same "rezone" by simply using the TDR Plan. By purchasing density transfers (a cost they in turn pass on to home buyers) the applicants are allowed to develop at higher density, and. we, the neighbors, are left with no recourse. Can this truly be considered a fair and. logical approach to devel.6pment? R6 is not compatible with the previously occurring development, nor will itablend with future development in this area. The new Renton Comprehen- sive Plan for the East Renton Plateau was designed to specifically cur- tail high density developments in which little, or no regard., is paid to concerns raised by Renton. Ignoring those concerns is not the same as Renton having no objections to the proposed developments as has been maintained by staff at DDES. The new comprehensive plan ensures that future applications for sewer certificates will be granted at a level no more than R4 density, and along with other stringent criteria, -will cause development to con- form to the character and scale of the neighborhood as it presently exists. This guarantees that a pocket of R6 will stand as an island in the very heart of lower density development. Finally, language in the TDR Plan suggests that density transfers would be most efficiently used inside urban centers. The area in question is not�_an urban center nor is it close to one. We understand that while this application may be technically within the letter of the TDR Plan, it seems to be in violation of the true spirit of the program. Respectfully, Kristy J, Hill Exhibit No. G Item No. R � Received — 0 - o King Courrty Hearing Examiner 13527 156 Ave SE Rentoni,. WA 98059 February 10, 2004 Mr. James O'Connor Hearing Examiner, Pro Tem Subjects: Liberty Grove Contiguous (L03PO05) & Liberty Grove(L030006) Those Of us who live in the area of the proposed applications for development of Liberty Grove Contiguous and Liberty Grove continue to oppose development higher than R4 for many reasons. 10 Some of the homes in our area are already experiencing flood- ing in basements and have resorted to the use of sump pumps which are running much of the time. 2) Traffic on 156th Ave SE already is at capacity. Emergency fire, police, and ambulance service is already seriously compromised and could be life threatening with higher development density. It takes us 10-20 minutes now to get out of our driveway. 3? Flooding. Water runs down streets and into yards as storm drains can't handle the volume of water. 4) Clearcutting the land and. removal of trees whose roots can absorb massiver-amounts of water exacerbates deterioration of the quality of life we have enjoyed here for over thirty years. (From a few years to over sixty years for one neighbor) 5) While TDR is not considered an upzone of houses per acre, it does, in fact, add additional houses to our area and had the same impact. 6) The TDR Plan, while not called an upzone, actually accomplishes that very th_ lnE through the purchase of density credits. The serious problems of higher density housing remain and will con- tinue to remain for all the area residents. The TDR Plan was desighed to add additional housing to urban centers. This area is not an urban center. It is not even close to one. The TDR Plan will only increase the problems we now have if what amounts to R6 is allowed in these developments. In addition, the R6 does not fit in with the character and scale of our neighborhood. With the new Renton Comprehensive Plan and their expressed plan to deny applications to any developer asking for higher than R4 density, this higher density development will never fit the character and scale of our neighborhood. Respectfully,,, Edward and June Hill Exhibit No. Item No. SO Received O King Courdy Headng Examiner PRE -APPLICATION REVIEW FOR SUBDIVISIONS Project Name: L_%r!n_� Activity No. : -- da11cy2_1p en. \'S ( Date :,7 — i t—Cs rL Roads Evaluate neighborhood circulation and for stub streets. tL ZSc .. gyp-1b ha S ter l0a� � oD Identify street classifications and designate urban or rural. �Es L3Cr*`' Evaluate design standards:• horizontal curves grade intersection angle and spacing L Cul-de-sac length No _ Tracts serving 2-6 lots and < 150 feet V t Lo Evaluate frontage improvements and need for ROW dedicati n Review Non -Motorized Plan for equestrian and bike lanes Evaluate sight distance requirements for all intersections and driveways. Evaluate suitability of otf-site serving roadways: Minimum 20 feet paving,, Sufficient shoulders, hazardous intersections. Determine if. sufficient public ROW serves the property. Evaluate existing or proposed half streets serving >35 lots 72' Drainage 1`1 CR #1:Evaluate sub -basins, diversions, and discharge points— CR #2:Inform applicant of requirement need for off -site analysis.7'6`� ¢.u- CR #3:Evaluate location of R/D, bioswales, and access roads. All facilities located within separate County tracts. Evaluate upstream flows and bypass issues. SR #1:Critical Drainage Areas SR 43:Master Drainage Plan for >100 lots and 200 acre basin SR #4 : Basin Plans and Community Plan P-Suffix:CA"t.. Vi sa �9 c SR #5:iaet pond requirements 0 SR #6 : Lake Management Plan e_y.%d.=J i L t) (aob1 4�. SR #7:Closed Depressions 2..7C 4Ae4,Q, L.'LA-4., SR#11:Geotechnical analysis of.ponds/infiltration near steep slopes or >15%.. Sensitive Areas Wetlands, streams, steep slopes, and associated buffers located in tracts. Evaluate requirements for Erosion Hazards (KCC 21A.24.220). Evaluate wildlife corridors or habitat issues. Notes: 1/3/97 prerevmisc C% 4-1 Friday, Jun 28, 2002 11 Al AM King County - DOES Parcel Number: 3664500141 Taxpayer. PLATZ GUY E ET AL Annexation: NIA Jurisdiction: Unincorporated King County Situs Address: 13535 160TH AVE SE Postal City: Renton, 98059 Plat Name: JANETTS RENTON BOULEVARD TRS Rec: nil Lot: 6-7; Block: 1 Kroll Page: 811 E Thomas Bros. Page: 657 1/4S-T-R: NE-14-23-5 Acres: 4.84 (210830 SgFt.) Current Zoning: R-4 Potential Zoning: Comp. Plan Land Use: um Assessors Open Space: NIA Commercial Use: NIA Number of Units: NIA Mobile Home: N Land Value: 151000 Improvements Value: 238000 Community Plan Area: Newcastle Unincorporated Area Council: Four Creeks Unincorporated Area Council School District: Renton 411 Fire District: 25 Roads MPS Zone: 452 ($2128.00) Waterfront: PRIVATE Water Service: WATER DISTRICT Water Service Planning Area: King County Water District 90 Sewer Service: PRIVATE Airport Noise Remedy Program: NIA Bald Eagle Flag: NIA Council District (1996-2001): 12 David Irons Jr. (R) Council District (2002): 12 David Irons (R) Drainage Basin: Lower Cedar River, WRIA 8 Police: King County, Pct: 3, Dist: F2 Service/Finance Strategy Area: Service Planning Snowload Zone: Standard Agricultural Production District: N Forest Production District: N Rural Forest Focus Area: N TDR Type: NIA TDR Status: NIA TDR Permit Number: NIA Building Inspection Area: Keller Rockey Clearing Inspection Area: Bruce Engell Code Enforcement Inspection Area: Parcel Number: 1457500090 Taxpayer: BOWEN VIRGIL E Annexation: N/A Jurisdiction: Unincorporated King County Situs Address: 13644 160TH AVE SE Postal City: Renton, 98059 Plat Name: CEDAR PARK FIVE -ACRE TRS Rec: nil Lot: 2; Block: 3 Kroll Page: 811 E Thomas Bros. Page: 657 114S-T-R: SE-14-23-5 Acres: 4.50 (196020 SgFt. ) Current Zoning: R-4 Potential Zoning: Camp. Plan Land Use: um Assessors Open Space: NIA Commercial Use: NIA Number of Units: NIA Mobile Home: N Land Value: 156000 Improvements Value: 153000 Community Plan Area: Newcastle Unincorporated Area Council: Four Creeks Unincorporated Area Council School District: Issaquah 411 Fire District: 25 Roads MPS Zone: 452 ($2128.00) Waterfront: -PRIVATE Water Service: WATER DISTRICT Water Service Planning Area: King County Water District 90 Sewer Service: PRIVATE Airport Noise Remedy Program: N/A Bald Eagle Flag: NIA Council District (1996-2001): 12 David Irons Jr. (R) Council District (2002): 12 David Irons (R) Drainage Basin: Lower Cedar River, WRIA 8 Police: King County, Pct: 3, Dist: F2 Service/Finance Strategy Area: Service Planning Snowload Zone: Standard Agricultural Production District: N Forest Production District: N Rural Forest Focus Area: N TDR Type: NIA TDR Status: NIA TDR Permit Number: NIA Building Inspection Area: Keller Rockey Clearing Inspection Area: Bruce Engell Code Enforcement Inspection Area: Parcel Number: 1457500085 Taxpayer. PLATT DAVID+GEORGIA Annexation: NIA Jurisdiction: Unincorporated King County Situs Address: 13612 160TH AVE SE Postal City: Renton, 98059 Plat Name: CEDAR PARK FIVE -ACRE TRS Rec: nil Lot: 1; Block: 3 Kroll Page: 811 E Thomas Bros. Page: 657 1/4-S-T-R: SE-14-23-5 Acres. 3.42 (146975 SgFt.) Current Zoning: R-4 Potential Zoning: Comp. Plan Land Use: um Assessors Open Space: NIA Commercial Use: NIA Number of Units: NIA Mobile Home: N Land Value: 122000 Improvements Value: 128000 Community Plan Area: Newcastle Unincorporated Area Council: Four Creeks Unincorporated Area Council School District: Issaquah 411 Fire District: 25 Roads MPS Zone: 452 ($2128.00) Waterfront: PRIVATE Water Service: WATER DISTRICT Water Service Planning Area: King County Water District 90 Sewer Service: PRIVATE Airport Noise Remedy Program: NIA Bald Eagle Flag: NIA Council District (1996-2001): 12 David Irons Jr. (R) Council District (2002): 12 David Irons (R) Drainage Basin: Lower Cedar River, WRIA 8 Police: King County, Pct: 3, Dist: F2 Service/Finanoe Strategy Area: Service Planning Snowload Zone: Standard Agricultural Production District: N Forest Production District: N Rural Forest Focus Area: N TDR Type: NIA TDR Status: NIA TDR Permit Number: NIA Building Inspection Area: Keller Rockey Clearing Inspection Area. Bruce Engeil Code Enforcement Inspection Area: ESA Inspection Area: Chris Tiffany ESA Inspection Area: Chris Tiffany ESA Inspection Area: Chris Tiffany Grading Inspection Area: Chris Tiffany Grading Inspection Area: Chris Tiffany Grading Inspection Area: Chris Tiffany Land Use Inspection Area: Gary Casad Land Use Inspection Area: Gary Casad Land Use Inspection Area: Gary Casad 0 0 In ' e4 ASg(B& � �ppA�•� TW9 7Jlr i 141 Tv F011 THE !-uldr 11.i. OF � � N ASSICTrrr. T'I L r r A90 71 AETD S8 SSESSC LE ". lao! (; Yp[j$ I K.C. 54 e"� �� COUNTY g •� paor£rrx nrrn zC J10T GhARANT'l:..i (�/, cn CP Yr) ;H'7 ArrTrlt/�,'•A„IIHS1tF1STST rn 7 3 WE 14 3-55 97-40-II w SCALE I " - loo, r ; 36i06.74 7 • .17e c - 7 n rn �nr as S7 - • n + +d'� _rat s .-o r.rr A'ivli•w wvr. ]), x g pap ; i3 iw o� °Y v 53 Y / y I 1t G I P, 44 ♦ UI NP a!•cw ::!_Jary ur .aC fl u rr S ri a 3 4 6 6T Q w .LLJ' +Lille ; ,ti �'° e, ' �� ?" sir. +L• °o Q i a+aa •� x Y e I on. LIFER-T-Y--L-ANIr- .vo3/20-21 + 2= I SSE 137TH PL "'.' 430650 sr r tV1 " v w eta. c. 1240 {Iro; it 4+ i0t' - +7r+e1� a J' d� : �¢!4ay1 +•l, � , = ° �lllS a :: 7 • ,� 001 •/ to ce ~ .. ll w • �• ti i y v " LF I yi j�v < y " • ..r ,• . .�. < ll LJ KCSP 481066 8109100503 �.J ^—r OL oM Cl r'n Jra crs.� Il 7711160735 ? LOT I Sr�� •1 7 %c F lPF. •.C�'�b•tl 9 9010090734 Ai i-fd!•17] (1 Jn Jp U A♦ DIP ry 17 n 130 •73 1 3 5TH _ ST Ad N87-a0-fl w •re.s�_.� SE I4 -23--5 J90 p , Z J 0 SE.'13 C4�4 7� 'tL~ Jb Jo h h 3 ,,z' ti � • Itsiy A C q b � L D, I ti tit 7` 0 ! 4ti + h • 1/ 7 0 � • L •� � M � � M ,,let 41i 7� Dotg �§n ♦ 1p� h 1� ° •s ss• •0- -�} 1 ^ J ti q A Dti a 9 < v a 8B •u• �1E � C � Dip v Development Conditions Search Engine - DDES, King County Washington Page 1 of 1 • Home �ews [SerVices Comments �Searctr Department of Development and Environmenital. Services Use this search engine to find out about P-suffix Conditions, Special District Overlays, Special Drainage Requirements, and certain clearing restrictions. Choose a search method below by clicking on the appropriate button and then enter the criterion you wish to search by in the space provided. For more information about this site or the p-suffix conversion project, use the following links: Help Page, P-suffix Conversion Summary Matrix. Condition Search r Search by Parcel Identification Number: , - --- 0141 r Search by Development Condition Code: I Sea chi i ,:Reset F Updated: January 2, 2002 K nq ------ County. DDES_Page I DDES/GIS Page j News I Services 1 Comments Search Links to external sites do not constitute endorsements by King County. By visiting this and other King County web pages, you expressly agree to be bound by terms and conditions of the site. The t ils. httpJ/www.metrokc.gov/ddes/gis/dev_Cond.htm 06/28/2002 Dev. Cond. Query Result - DDES, King County Washington Page I of I (a KingCounty GIM j.3 No P-Suffix Conditions Fund The Parcel Number you entered "3664500141" does not have any Development Conditions. To start over click on the New Query link below. Updated: December 29, 1998 King County I DDES Page I DDESIGIS Page I New, uerX I News 1 Services I Comments Search Links to external sites do not constitute endorsements by King County. By visiting this and other King County web pages, you expressly agree to be bound by terms and conditions of the site, The details. http://www6.metrokc.gov/ddes/new_direct.efin 06/28/2002 Dev. Cond. Query Result - DDES, King County Washington Page 1 of 1 01 * � Home thews [Se v`_i-ces [Comments [Se_a�ch IRA The Parcel Number you entered "1457500090" does not have any Development Conditions. To start over click on the New Query link below. Updated: December 29, 1998 King County I DOES Page I DDESIGIS Page I New Query I News I Services I Comments j Search Links to external sites do not constitute endorsements by King County. By visiting this and other King County web pages, you expressly agree to be bound by terms and conditions of the site. Thq OWIls, http://www6.metrokc.gov/ddes/new—direct.efin 06/28/2002 Dev. Cond. Query Result - DDES, King County Washington Page 1 of 1 King County Lam] No P-Suffix Conditions Fund The Parcel Number you entered "1457500085" does not have any Development Conditions. To start over click on the New Query link below. Updated: December 29, 1998 King County I DDES Page I DDESIGIS Page I New Query I News I Services I Comments Search Links to external sites do not constitute endorsements by King County. By visiting this and other King County web pages, you expressly agree to be bound by terms and conditions of the site. http://www6.metrokc.gov/ddes/new_direct.cfm 06/28/2002 e 0 x I td G C o u tJ 7 Y IP 47 . ,I! r - A. AMA tlf 2000 PHOTO . TownalvpLines LIBERTY GROVE _ .cllli, •A frH �b TVVPUNES Parcels i , n €E� *� y ! NL •~# °+ - {_A1 + 6F V OL qtr ` Az { 7N 41 yt fir i I I 100 .11 Feet Alk t �' _ ; - t. rrs- -- .... -13411 Pt ..�34Eh.St emenS■ E 1 Poll � -ter- - t,t P a Liberty jSE 138M PI Senior - High SE .13W PIammool 4pp2 i _ SE 141st PI �a - - aplewood 42nd St > SE 1�` eights ParUj ' _ =$E 142r1aSf - SE 143rd St - - SE 143rd PI I A A02PO146 A02PO151 r ZONING r /Trails * Schodaisc toot f=aalities r �Y7atnuirp Llraa � y QSUNES NSECUNES NTWPUNES i A; Street$ 1;=.: Water Bndbs Road Rignts cf.Way Pance?_s Perk Goes C` Iles I Inning A.10-Agialtur* one DU per 10 acres A: S - AgrkLitr ral one DU per 35 sass F_l=;aq fd - ttireersi - ...._... RA-25 - Rural Ares. one DU per 5 acres RA-S- Reel Area, one DU Per 5 acres { R1410 - Rud Area, one DU per 10 acres ---�--L_ - i UR - Wban Reaer'l, one DU per 5 saes R-1 - Retaderttisi, one DU per acres RA - Realdentli, 4 DU per acre R6 - Residattiai. 8 DU per awe i R-8 - Residential 8 DU par acre Mg, R-12 - Residential, 12 DU per acre R-18 - Resldentlal, 18 DU par aura R,24 - Residential: 24 DU per area R48 - Raaidenbai, 48 DU per acre .__ M N8- Neighbwfuad Buainsae . CB - Business pCan�murpoily RB -'tsed Bwnsae II- I uow 0 -- 500 _ -- 1000 Feat 'j'"'tk��"•�ljll 4-L 1000taa1 V KWV l P& nlop is rased on a d.gtal database m piled --.-..._ by"Cry from a variety of sources ... King County cannot accept responsibility for erran, ornsska a posittcnd accuracy There are no warratees, expressed or implied Plot date: Jun 27, 2002, Gk02p0146.apr A ® * r A02PO146 A02P0151 ARTERIALS NTowrmhp Lima S-T-q - " , ,i OSCINES A/ SECLiNES A/ TWPLINM Waw Radios � Parcels A/ Gty ti0�sdanea CM" 0 1000 20M MW 4Wo Feet 3=ftm TMs nW is baaW an a doW daUboo oanipW by iGnp Canty from a +sty of sarcaa. Wnp Canty aamd axapt roaponiWyfor aurora oftnwm or paat>iorw a=ncy Than am no vmmw n. wWrew" or mWhod. Plot tlale: Jun 2& 200Z ale02p014&gx Y s r F :;���• —��/ !1'; • � ':_''r���� � � ■ice ,w�i . ,; � . C Ak kit VA I ME Rule - wig Pro MORE NOW Old. tN �i '� �r � ��� +I�R .r• i j i law ami�r 1 w IN fill r i lowi r `i , 70, 40, PON L 8�..1 5t rn SE 134th Pi m SE 135th St LO I POO a 6 ,mob (-� --� � Lei------ A SE 137th PI- Q~ } �' SE 137th PI SE 138th Pi '~ w 7 SE 13M Pt <, P SE 141st Pi yOb LU Co �l SE 142nd St > vp SE 142,,d pf SE 143rd St SE 43rd P4 t r r F r r r r r' SE 134th St M SE 138tt± St SE 142nd St A02PO146 A02P0151 WATER QUALITY . NTownship Linea !� SECU NES /TWPUNES Streets ..._ VVara BM.68 Psrbgls Gees �DA OWN SE 135th S; J ® Sole Source Aquifer Area Spadfw Water Quality Requirements ----- ------- Bavc WO TranT*m Are" (TA) ,,. Smvative Lake TA Regionally 5nt Stream TA Zignifl® .ie Water Qw t Rw¢arwnepYs Q Beak WO TA -. SWSM a Lake TA Cihl Bouneanas 0 wa 1000 Fee! ®King County This map Is based on a di" database compiled �- --- by ling County From a variety of scuross. King County c omot. accept responsibility far errors. orreswi s a posrtoonai a racy ---- Thera"rib�Amsrmes,exareasedaimplied. Plat date. Jun 27. 2002. c-WM90146 apr i Aikkk ! 1 i ! i ! i _..!24th i SE ?34*h Sty �� r 51 _PI Rr' ' SE 1'll-d '< ( 5c i 37th Pi i ISE 138th P1 SE 13ft Pit SE 14151 P! U1 Lei SE 143rd St TSE43rd �1tr A02PO146 A02P0151 FLOW CONTROL LHDA'S i S-T-R ��.✓ ( n,,' QSUNES v - _ V SECLINES •:➢ - � � rI NrwPUNES w9w eddies SE 134th St . '/ ' P. �ls alias 5ens,4ve slope Level 2 areas Da � f •'� SE 135th 5t m EPS - _ landallCe Hazard Level 2 Areas DA ------------------------- Am specific Floes Caretiv Roqjtwnwft Level i Fr- Area Level 2 FCnrne - - - Level PC area Basirfvntle Flow Control Regvinamenta Level 2 FC area 5E 14277L1 Si r ! - 0 500 1000 Feel 1 "- low reel Qjk Y Klrq County This map is to dd � a digital awt curie cdmpEed oy King County from a vanety of sources. 14rg Ccumot y cannaccept mspo ibllity to Crors, 015SIrts a Lasltional eClllraCy ?I`V a one :no wadarrtles, expressed a implftai Plot date. dun 27. 20M C ta02p0146,apr