EXHIBIT PROPOSED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENTS Background Attached are the

EXHIBIT A3 PROPOSED 2004 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENTS Background Attached are the summary chart of the proposed 2004 Comprehensive Plan amendments and each of the amendments. The chart includes the amendment, a brief description/reason and the dates it was presented to the PPC. With the exception of the amendment 1.b (Exhibit A1) and amendment 15 (Exhibit A2), all amendments were presented at meetings throughout the year. The amendments were included in the packet and listed on the agenda with the opportunity to discuss left up to the decision of the PPC. This format was requested at the beginning of the year so that more time and energy could be focused on the Transportation Element Update. This will be the last time to review the amendments prior to the September 23, 2004 public hearing. Requested Action Please review and be prepared to discuss and ask questions so that any issues that arise can be addressed by the Administration prior to the public hearing. Exhibit A3: Proposed 2004 Comprehensive Plan Amendments Page 1 of 118 Exhibit A3 SUMMARY OF PROPOSED 2004 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENTS Dates Reviewed by PPC 10-9-03, 7-8-04, 7-22-04, 8-26-04 9-9-04 6-10-04 # 1 Proposed Amendment Transportation Element update Most work to be completed in 2005. Background 2004 work includes: a. Update the Urban Trails Plan and incorporate into the Transportation Element as the Non-Motorized Component. b. Remove the Urban Village land use designation from Park Pointe to eliminate the potential for 255 additional PM peak hour trips. (See Exhibit A1) 2 3 4 Transportation Element: Inventory of land transportation facilities and services, including transit alignments, to define existing capital facilities and travel levels as a basis for future planning. Best Available Science as basis for all critical area regulations Sustainability Action Plan: Sustainable Development Storm water management plan and stormwater manual, FEMA maps and Puget Sound Action Team’s 2000 Water Quality Plan. Criteria for designating resource lands: (Forestry definition needs to be consistency with Minimum Guidelines) Critical areas − Review of Designations & regulations for consistency with comp plans Critical areas include: (a) wetlands, (b) aquifer recharge areas, (c) fish and wildlife conservation areas (in 2005), (d) frequently flooded areas, & (e) geologically hazardous areas. Proposed locations and capacities of expanded or new capital facilities. Inventory of existing capital facilities owned by public entities, showing the locations and capacities of the capital facilities. Capital Facilities Element: update with CIP/TIP/ Budget GMA 2004 requirement. Inventory of air, water, and land transportation facilities and services, including transit alignments, to define existing capital facilities and travel levels as a basis for future planning [RCW 36.70A.070(6)(a)(iii)(A)]. Refers to RCW 36.70A.172 (Expand Policy L-1.7) Comp Plan Volume 2: Phase 2 of the Sustainable Development Policies adopted in 2003. Sustainability Action Plan will be an implementation plan covering all aspects of sustainable development. Refers to RCW 36.70A.070 (1) 7-8-04 9-9-04 5 3-25-04 6 GMA 2004 requirement Refers to RCW 36.70A.050 WAC Chapter 365-190 See IMC 18.06.125 for mineral resources GMA 2004 requirement Refers to RCW 36.70A.030 (5) & RCW 36.70A.060(3) 7-8-04 7 7-8-04 8 9 GMA 2004 requirement GMA 2004 requirement 8-26-04 8-26-04 10 Annual update with newly adopted budget, CIP & TIP 8-26-04 Exhibit A3: Proposed 2004 Comprehensive Plan Amendments Page 2 of 118 SUMMARY OF PROPOSED 2004 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENTS Dates Reviewed by PPC 7-8-04 7-8-04 3-25-04 8-26-04 9-9-04 # 11 12 13 14 15 Proposed Amendment Introduction, Land Use Element & Volume 2: Update Land Use Introduction and Population Chart Add Highlands Drive Area as a Potential Annexation Area ALL ELEMENTS: Consistency with relevant Countywide Planning Policies. Report Card update (Parks Element Only) Capital Facilities Redesignations/ Rezones Background Based on OFM approved 2004 population number Mandate of prior agreement with King County GMA 2004 requirement Update Parks Element Report Card to reflect 2003 Parks Plan update. Land Use Designation and Zoning Designation Amendments to two adjacent parcels due to a lot line adjustment. (See Exhibit A2) Exhibit A3: Proposed 2004 Comprehensive Plan Amendments Page 3 of 118 1. Transportation Element Update: a. Incorporation of the Urban Trails Plan into the Transportation Element as the Non-Motorized Component b. Redesignation of Park Pointe from Urban Village/Low Density Residential to Low Density Residential (See Exhibit A1) 1.a. Incorporation of the Urban Trails Plan into the Transportation Element as the Non-Motorized Component 1. Introduction The non-motorized corridors, pedestrian walkways and bicycle transportation facilities, in this element address urban corridors, not recreational trails. Recreational trails are addressed in the Parks, Recreation, Trails and Open Space Element. 5.6 Non-motorized Travel. Issaquah's nonmotorized transportation facilities are described in the adopted Urban Trails Plan and illustrated in Figure 7 (Non-motorized Facilities). These facilities include bike lanes, sidewalks and trails which provide safe and effective non-motorized options for traveling within the City. Sidewalks, bicycle lanes, shared-used paths and transit services are all essential in creating a safe and efficient transportation system. The federal government agrees. Federal legislation states, “Bicycle transportation facilities and pedestrian walkways shall be considered, where appropriate, in conjunction with all new construction and reconstruction of transportation projects, except where bicycle and pedestrian use are not permitted.” (23USC217) “Due consideration,” defined by the federal government, means: A presumption that bicyclists and pedestrians will be accommodated in the design of new and improved transportation facilities The decision NOT to accommodate them should be the exception not the rule, and There must be exceptional circumstances for denying access through design or prohibition. (USDOT’s February 2000 Guidance Memorandum) Additionally, the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities states, “All highways, except those where cyclists are legally prohibited, should be designed and constructed under the assumption that they will be used by cyclists.” (AASHTO, 1999) The primary intent of non-motorized, urban corridors is to provide safe connections for commuter and recreational cyclists and pedestrians to get from point A to point B such as schools to parks, residential areas to pedestrian emphasis districts and local corridors to regional nonmotorized routes. There are often tremendous constraints in incorporating all of these elements into a transportation system; the challenge is to find the balance. 7.1.5 Shared-Use Corridor 7.1.5.1 Serve walkers, joggers, rollerbladers and cyclists and other nonmotorized forms of transportation. 7.1.5.1 Connect activity centers such as parks, schools, commercial centers, libraries and high density housing and the regional recreational trail system. 7.1.5.2 Physically separated from the roadway by a barrier or by a minimum of 5feet of open space 7.1.5.3 Minimum width of 10’ for two-way shared-use traffic and 12’ where high shared-use traffic is expected with 2-feet shoulders along each side 7.1.5.4 Signage used to indicate it is a shared-use path 7.1.5.5 A 2-feet clear distance between the corridor and the property line is usually required only if 2-feet shoulders are not possible. 7.1.5.6 ADA accessible surface Exhibit A3: Proposed 2004 Comprehensive Plan Amendments Page 4 of 118 7.1.6 On-Street Bicycle Lane 7.1.6.1 Striped bicycle lanes 4-feet lanes are used on local, collector and minor arterial roads that do no have a curb 5-feet lanes are used on local, collector and minor arterial roads that have a curb 8-feet lanes are used on principal arterials only and are wide enough to provide an additional buffer for the user as well as an emergency stopping point for drivers with automobile trouble. 7.1.6.2 Travel lanes for motor vehicles shall be a minimum of 10-feet. 7.1.6.3 Parking not allowed in the bike lanes Exhibit A3: Proposed 2004 Comprehensive Plan Amendments Page 5 of 118 14. T-4: Transportation Goals and Policies Non-Motorized Facilities Establish the design criteria and preferred locations for the various non-motorized corridors. All roadway projects shall be consistent with the Bicycle and Shared-Use Corridor Map and Non-Motorized Classifications Design Matrix except under special circumstances where physical obstacles present significant difficulties. 4.1.2.2 Sidewalk Priority Matrix: The City has several miles of arterial/collector streets that do not currently have any sidewalks for the use and safety of our citizens. The annual sidewalk program is intended to identify arterial/collector street locations that currently do not have sidewalks and to improve pedestrian safety of the City's pedestrian facilities and linkages to other modes of transportation. The priority matrix establishes a performance system to determine the location of sidewalks to be constructed or restored during the funding of the annual sidewalk program. 4.1.3 Links: Construct corridors that complete or expand the non-motorized system rather than make enhancements to existing corridors when budget constraints are a factor, because completing links is a top priority. 4.1.4 Design and Construction: Design and construct roadways and their bicycle and pedestrian components in accordance with the following: 4.1.4.1 Issaquah Street Standards (as amended, including amendments for consistency with the Non-Motorized Classifications Design Matrix (Figure XX)) 4.1.4.2 Bicycle and Shared-Use Corridor Map (Figure XX) 4.1.4.3 American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities 4.1.4.4 Manual Uniform and Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) 4.1.5 Require new or redeveloping commercial and multifamily projects or single family plats to include internal bicycle/pedestrian corridors that connect with adjacent sidewalks and existing and/or proposed Build a non-motorized bicycle and pedestrian system that: Increases efficiency of the entire transportation system by connecting the City’s internal network of non-motorized corridors to adjacent King County, state and other regional nonmotorized corridors; Accommodates pedestrians, recreational cyclists, and commuter cyclists; Puts safety first by designing corridors that include appropriate lighting, buffers, cycletriggered traffic signals, vegetation placement/ removal, and protected crosswalks and by maintaining those facilities; Provides an integrated system of pedestrian walkways and bicycle corridors which link activity areas identified in the Bicycle and Shared-Use Corridor Map (figure X, Vol. 1); Encourages transit use by providing convenient pedestrian and bicycle access to designated park-&-ride lots and transit facilities; Is sensitive to critical areas, and; Is accessible to all potential users In accordance with federal guidelines, the decision not to accommodate bicycle transportation facilities and pedestrian walkways should be the exception, not the rule. T-4.1 Design, Construction and Maintenance 4.1.1 Design, Construction and Maintenance: Use the Bicycle and Shared-Use Corridor Map (Figure XX) to balance competing demands on City right-of-way, determine use of annual non-motorized funding, and guide completion of the City’s non-motorized network. 4.1.2 Prioritization: Use the Bicycle and SharedUse Corridor Map (Figure XX) and the Sidewalk Priority Matrix (Volume 2) to prioritize the planning, design, construction and maintenance of all bicycle and pedestrian corridor projects to be included in the annual Transportation Improvement Plan and other annual maintenance programs. 4.1.2.1 The Non-Motorized Classifications Design Matrix (Figure XX) and the Bicycle and Shared-Use Corridor Map (Figure XX): Exhibit A3: Proposed 2004 Comprehensive Plan Amendments Page 6 of 118 public bicycle and pedestrian corridors shown on the Bicycle and Shared-Use Corridor Map (figure X, Vol. 1). 4.1.5.1 Require all off-street bicycle or shared use corridors to be constructed of durable, solid materials. When crossing parking lots or other motor vehicle areas, these corridors should also be made of contrasting materials rather than painted striping. 4.1.5.2 Require plats to include nonmotorized facilities that connect the ends of cul-de-sacs to existing and/or proposed non-motorized routes to achieve improved circulation when those plats are adjacent to routes identifiied in the Proposed Bicycle and Shared Use Corridor Map (Figure XX). 4.1.5.3 Require new or redeveloping properties to design and build bicycle/ pedestrian corridors that maximize the use of non-motorized transportation alternatives. 4.1.6 Continue to investigate potential off-road corridors that link existing neighborhoods with destinations such as schools and parks, where needed. Current deficiencies include: An additional I-90 crossing Links from residential areas to schools Additional linkages in the North Issaquah subarea Ensure changes to motorized transportation facilities will not eliminate existing nonmotorized transportation modes. Consider the use of alternative routes or creative alternative designs as a way to provide non-motorized routes in environmentally sensitive areas where it is not possible to include a standard nonmotorized corridor. Maintenance: Preserve bicycle and pedestrian facilities through on-going maintenance to ensure public mobility and safety. 4.2.1.1 Contributes to a priority corridor identified on the Bicycle and Shared Use Map 4.2.2.2 Contributes toward the completion of other corridors identified on the Bicycle and Shared Use Corridor Map 4.2.2.3 Connects Activity Areas identified on the Bicycle and Shared Use Corridor Map 4.2.2 Funding Sources: Use all available funding sources, including federal and state funds prioritized by the Puget Sound Regional Council, and seek additional funding sources for pedestrian and bicycle related projects. Suggested funding sources are listed in Volume 2, Transportation Element, Background Information, Appendix XX. 4.2.3 Progress: Report the progress of the nonmotorized bicycle and pedestrian system every three years. 4.2.3.1 Update the Bicycle and Shared Use Corridor Map and the Sidewalk Inventory Map annually. T-4.3. Regional Links/Coordination 4.3.1 Collaborate with WSDOT, King County, Puget Sound Regional Council and surrounding local jurisdictions to ensure a connected and comprehensive regional nonmotorized system. 4.3.2 User Groups: Continue to work with nonmotorized transportation groups to implement the Bicycle and Shared-Use Corridor Map. 4.3.3 Potential Annexation Areas (PAAs): Coordinate efforts with King County to establish a uniform process for conditioning, securing, recording, filing, and marking non-motorized easements in the City’s Potential Annexation Areas. T-4.4. Public Outreach 4.4.1 Outreach: Publicize the economic, transportation, environmental, health and social benefits of biking and walking. 4.4.2 Schools: Improve coordination with the public and private schools in Issaquah, in accordance with WAC 392-151-025, “Route Plans,” and RCW 46.61.385, “School Patrol,” to develop safe walking routes to elementary schools. Work with 4.1.7 4.1.8 4.1.9 T-4.2. Finance 4.2.1 Funding: Explore methods for establishing a funding source for the construction of non-motorized projects that are not included in the annual sidewalk program and meet the following criteria. Exhibit A3: Proposed 2004 Comprehensive Plan Amendments Page 7 of 118 4.4.3 T-4.5 4.5.1 the schools to expand this program into safe pedestrian routes to middle, junior high and high schools. Bicycle Friendly Community: Promote Issaquah’s dedication to achieving a higher quality of life through physical fitness, reduced traffic and an improved environment by becoming an officially designated “Bicycle Friendly Community.” Enforcement Safety Laws: Enforce bicycle and pedestrian safety laws equally among bicyclists, pedestrians and motorists to ensure safety and build mutual respect among all system users. Policy T-4.4 Maintenance: Maintain pedestrian and bicycle facilities at a safe level. Policy T-4.5 Education and Public Information: Educate and inform the public regarding the location and safe use of nonmotorized facilities. Ensure that the community understands the rights and responsibilities of pedestrians, bicyclists and motorists. Policy T-4.6 Enforcement: Consistently enforce regulations and laws that create greater levels of pedestrian and bicycle safety. Policy T-4.1 Urban Trails Plan: The specific goals, objectives and policies for Issaquah's nonmotorized facilities are included in the Urban Trails Plan, April, 1995, which is incorporated into the Transportation Element by reference (see Appendix T-7). The following general policies summarize the specific plan policies. Policy T-4.2 4.2.1 Facilities Development: 4.2.2 4.2.3 Expand and improve the City’s integrated network of pedestrian/bicycle trails. These facilities should be located and designed to meet the needs of pedestrians, recreational and commuter bicyclists, and the disabled. Connect these facilities to the region's pedestrian and bicycle routes and recreational trails. Connect building entrances, parking areas and neighborhoods to transit stops and facilities by paved, barrier-free pedestrian and bike trails. Develop standards for the design and construction of pedestrian and bicycle facilities. Such standards should incorporate building and site features that enhance the pedestrian realm (e.g., ground floor building fenestration, landscaping and screening, paving materials, lighting, and connectivity). Policy T-4.3 Support Facilities: Encourage the development of well-situated facilities that will maximize the utility of the trail system. Such facilities should include bicycle parking racks, shower facilities, safety lighting, benches and rest stops, etc. Exhibit A3: Proposed 2004 Comprehensive Plan Amendments Page 8 of 118 LEGEN PA A PA AB 2 B1 B3 T1 B17 1 AB PA XXX B21 B 19 B7 B2 PAAB4 B8 B23 B2 0 B22 B3 B26 T2 B9 B10 B4 B11 B24 T3 B5 T4 B25 B27 B1 B12 B2 8 B1 4 8 B16 B13 B6 B1 5 BICY B29 Exhibit A3: Proposed 2004 Comprehensive Plan Amendments Page 9 of 118 Exhibit A3: Proposed 2004 Comprehensive Plan Amendments Page 10 of 118 2. Inventory of land transportation facilities and services R Source: City of Issaquah Planning Department 2004 Exhibit A3: Proposed 2004 Comprehensive Plan Amendments Page 11 of 118 W ' W ' W ' W ' W ' W ' W ' W ' W ' W ' W ' W ' W ' W ' W ' W ' W ' W ' W ' W ' W ' W ' W ' W ' W ' W ' W ' W ' W ' W ' W ' W ' W ' W ' W ' W ' W ' W ' × W ' × W ' W ' W ' W W W ' ' × ' WW '' WW '' W ' W ' × W ' W ' W ' W ' W ' W ' W ' W ' W W ' ' × W ' × W ' W W ' ' W ' W ' W W ' ' W W ' ' W ' W ' W ' W ' W ' W ' W ' W ' W ' Source: City of Issaquah Planning Department 2004 Exhibit A3: Proposed 2004 Comprehensive Plan Amendments Page 12 of 118 3. Best Available Science 9.1 LAND USE GOAL: Establish a pattern of development that maintains and enhances the quality of life within the community and sets the framework for a sustainable community by addressing environmental, economic and social issues through: Policy L-1.1 Maintain and enhance the natural environment: The Land Use Code shall maintain and enhance the natural environment and amenities to: 1.1.7. Prohibit the inappropriate conversion of undeveloped land into sprawling, low density development through clustering uses and structures, on-site density transfers, and considering the establishment of minimum densities; 1.1.8. Require protection of critical areas., “Critical Areas” include the following areas and ecosystems: (a)Wetlands; (b) areas with a critical recharging effect on aquifers used for potable water; (c) fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas; (d) frequently flooded areas: and (e) geologically hazardous areas,fish and wildlife areas and corridors and aquifer recharge areas as defined in RCW 36.70A. 030 (5); 1.1.8.2 Maintain adequate forested and vegetative buffers along critical areas, riparian areas and fish and wildlife habitat areas. 1.1.8.3 Critical Area protection shall include measures for a net improvement in Critical Area functions in the review of new development and for re-development. 1.1.8.34 Include aquifer recharge areas as an element of the critical areas, riparian areas and fish and wildlife habitat areas. 1.1.8.4 5 include aquifer recharge areas as an element of the critical area regulations and require stormwater infiltration. Exhibit A3: Proposed 2004 Comprehensive Plan Amendments Page 13 of 118 4. Sustainability Action Plan: Sustainable Development NOTE: Everything included under this amendment (#4) is a proposed addition to the Comprehensive Plan, Land Use Element Background, Volume 2. PRELIMINARY DRAFT Sustainability In Action: Advancements and Opportunities for Growing a Thriving Community. Issaquah Strategic Action Plan for a Sustainable Community Issaquah Resource Conservation Office & Planning Department August 2004 Note: The Strategic Action Plan is currently in development and not available in full at this time. This preliminary draft describes the history and background of the sustainability planning effort and outlines current and anticipated future steps to be undertaken. Guiding policy for the Sustainable Community Development Strategic Action (Work) Plan is referenced in the Land Use element of the City of Issaquah Comprehensive Plan, Objective 7, Policy 7.1. City of Issaquah PO Box 1307 Issaquah, WA 98027 www.ci.issaquah.wa.us Ava Frisinger, Mayor Council Nancy Davidson, President Fred Butler, Vice President Bill Conley David Kappler Hank Thomas Joe Forkner Russell Joe Project Staff David Fujimoto Debi Kirac James Matthews Trish Heinonen Contributing Editors Amee Quiriconi Exhibit A3: Proposed 2004 Comprehensive Plan Amendments Page 14 of 118 City of Issaquah Sustainable Community Development Strategic Action Plan Background and History Issaquah is a community shaped largely by its connections with the natural environment. The community’s center is located at the convergence of three landmark peaks – Squak, Cougar and Tiger mountains – as well as the gateway to a major pass through the Cascade mountain range. Several salmon bearing streams meander through the Issaquah community and ultimately supply over 70% of the inflows to the adjacent shores of Lake Sammamish. For many decades, the Issaquah Valley Aquifer has provided a clean and inexpensive source of drinking water for the community. The community’s connection with the natural environment may also be witnessed through time from its history in logging, coal mining and the dairy industry, to the more recent and growing importance of outdoor recreation, protection of surface and groundwater resources and the popular annual Salmon Days Festival. As might be expected, the Issaquah community has a long history of conservation awareness and protection of natural resources. The City of Issaquah is committed to quality living through preservation and enhancement of the community's unique human and natural resources. - City of Issaquah Vision Statement Issaquah is also a rapidly developing community, shifting from a suburban bedroom community to an evolving urban center. Development of two new neighborhoods in the Issaquah Highlands and Talus urban villages alone, will, within the next ten years, double the population of the City and increase commercial uses by about one-half. At the edge of the urban growth boundary along a major interstate, Issaquah provides a unique connection between urban character and the natural environment. As urban King County continues its rapid pace of infill, infrastructure and density, Issaquah’s proximity will be increasingly challenged to blend rural amenities such as hiking trails, forested hillsides and pristine water resources Sustainable development is with urban attributes of housing, transportation, living wages and development which meets the economic growth. Ultimately, the balancing of these characteristics needs of the present without will serve to define the future of the Issaquah community - it’sits compromising the ability of future vitality, identity, sustainability. generations to meet their own needs by considering current and potential economic, environmental and social issues. - Issaquah Comprehensive Plan, Definitions Exhibit A3: Proposed 2004 Comprehensive Plan Amendments Page 15 of 118 Sustainable Actions – Strategic Work Planning as an Implementation Framework for SustainabiltySustainability The Three E’s of Sustainability Economy: the management and use of resources to meet household and community needs. Ecology: the pattern of relationships betwen living things and their environment. We all know our shoe size. How many of us know the size of our “ecological footprint” - the amount of air, land, and water it takes to support us? Equity: Equity is fairness. Ideally everyone in a community shares in its well-being. Where there is equity, decisions are based on fairness and everyone has opportunities and is treated with dignity. - American Library Association On a fundamental level, sustainability provides a useful framework for recognizing and valuing the inherent interconnections of community, economy and natural resources. At its core, sustainability encourages a systems approach to problem solving and strategic planning – recognizing that communities are inter-connected and that actions have ripple effects through multiple facets of a community. This Strategic Action Plan serves as a tool for achieving multiple, interrelated community goals and objectives through the sustainability lens. It recognizes the unique role of the public sector in local communities and its ability to apply a variety of policy, fiscal and program resources in the community. Further, it is strategic in the sense that Issaquah, like many local governments, undeniably faces limited resources - the challenge is to apply these limited resources efficiently and at key leverage points in order to improve effectiveness. The Action Plan is a sustainability implementation framework through which targeted programs, policies and other actions are identified and prioritized for implementation. The Sustainability Planning Process The City’s Resource Conservation Office and Planning Department have been jointly undertaking steps to more fully incorporate sustainability as a planning and implementation framework within the Issaquah community. Policies specific to sustainability were first integrated into City plans in 1999 - adopting a definition of sustainable development and incorporating sustainable development and sustainable building considerations into policies related to capital improvement, annexation and utility operations. In 2003, the City initiated an internal baseline study of the policies, programs and daily activities undertaken by the City which contribute to a sustainable community. The outcomes of that study identified numerous ways in which the City has successfully demonstrated effectiveness in implementing programs in a variety of areas. In general, the majority of programs were aimed at building community and conserving natural resources. The study further suggested opportunities in economic development and governance as well as several implementation ideas for future consideration. In addition, the City Council adopted a Comprehensive Plan Amendment establishing the strategy to implement Sustainable Community Development Principles. Exhibit A3: Proposed 2004 Comprehensive Plan Amendments Page 16 of 118 Efforts in 2004 build upon these studies and set into place additional community outreach efforts to provide a more comprehensive base of information as development of the Sustainable Action Plan moves forward. While this preliminary draft does not begin to outline the details of the Sustainable Community Development Action Plan, the following structural elements are anticipated within the Plan: Identifies multiple year pro-forma funding targets and expenditures; Compiles into a common local jurisdiction planning format, such as a six year (or longer) Capital Improvement Plan (CIP); Individual projects or programs spanning multiple City functions (iei.e.: multiple departmental functions, for example) can be collectively considered and prioritized in order to identify strategic actions and maximize application of limited financial resources; Identifies multi-year/dependent variable tasks/projects; Identifies implementation responsibility; Provides for a regular inventory of programs and policies (every three years); Identifies monitoring, assessment and reporting functions, and Includes development and ongoing monitoring of long-term indicators of community sustainability It is intended that the Sustainability Action Plan will be reviewed on an annual basis and incorporated into the budgeting process. This is intended to provide focus and attention for the Administration, City Council and Community in order to assess and prioritize actions for implementation. In addition, as community sustainability indicators are developed and reviewed annually, they will help provide for informed decision-making based upon quantitative data. In summary, to date the City has completed initial sustainability planning phases, including the following steps: • A comprehensive inventory of existing policies was conducted in 2003. The resulting comprehensive plan ‘report card’ on sustainability policies identified more than 67 policies and goals and reviewed the status of implementation actions. Priority Action Recommendations Governor’s Sustainable Washington Advisory Panel, February 2003 Increase Economic Vitality 1. Invest in clean energy as a major economic development opportunity for Washington State through adopting and implementing a Clean Energy Business Development Strategy and establishing clean energy standards for energy production. 2. Create an Institute for Innovation and Sustainable Development, to serve as the focal point for research, design, and investment in sustainable technologies, processes, and social system solutions. Take Action on Critical Resource Issues 3. Commit to greenhouse gas reduction targets and mitigation strategies as the basis for developing a low-carbon, high-performance economy. 4. Sustain Washington’s natural resources through collaborative planning, monitoring, protection and restoration programs, new investments, and market-based initiatives. Lead by Example 5. Adopt industry-sponsored “green building” standards for all new state government construction projects. 6. Establish goals for state government procurement of sustainable goods and services. 7. Align the state’s capital spending decisions with policies that encourage efficient development. Provide Incentives 8. Begin to shift the tax burden to promote sustainable outcomes and raise needed revenues by increasing selected user fees and pollution taxes and then lowering taxes on enterprise and citizens. 9. Provide local governments with the autonomy to implement innovative approaches to achieving sustainable outcomes. Build Awareness and Measure Progress 10. Engage and inform citizens and stakeholders about sustainability through a series of forums and by widely disseminating this Action Plan. 11. Define, document, and communicate progress towards the vision of a sustainable Washington through producing a set of sustainability performance measures. Exhibit A3: Proposed 2004 Comprehensive Plan Amendments Page 17 of 118 • • • An internal inventory of current programs and staff perceptions as well as identification of opportunities. The internal inventory involved an extensive surveying process working with all city departments to convey basic concepts of sustainability and gain input and ideas for future implementation through a sustainable development interest survey. A sustainability matrix was developed as a tool to assess sustainability programs and polices relative to sustainability objectives. Guiding policy was adopted in the Comprehensive Plan which provided direction for the development of the Sustainable Community Development Strategic Work Program. Additional, complementary policies on Development Review and management of City Owned Land were also adopted (see Appendix A). Due to the timing of the draft plan and initiation of the City’s 2005 budget process, a set of ‘early action’ items were developed for consideration in the 2005 budget. “Bottom line: you can write good policies and institute myriad new programs to encourage their application. But in order to achieve consistent and widespread adherence to the [sustainability] policies, cities need to "pave the way" for the development community. In other words, as much effort, if not more, should be put into: a) incentives, b) education, c) removing regulatory obstacles...making it feasible, if not desirable, for developers to ‘do the right thing’.” - Gillian Mittlestadt, Issaquah Resident and Sustainable Development Consultant Additional steps in development of the Sustainability Action Plan will include: • Extended community participation. A community sustainability panel is in development. The purposes of this committee are to provide a community perspective on sustainability, provide feedback on the planning process and prioritize recommended actions for implementation. The panel would include a variety of community, business, non-profit, environmental, social service and other organizations as well as governmental agencies, individual residents and business owners. If successful, the panel will also provide a connection within the community for active support and implementation of sustainability strategies. The results of the sustainability panel will be documented in a summary report and incorporated into the Sustainability Action Plan. Additional community outreach, such as an annual City sustainability calendar, an online sustainability survey, coordination with community groups and other methods are being considered. Community Sustainability Indicators. A preliminary set of long-range indicators are in development. The indicators will be tested for data reliability, political efficacy and community comprehension and will likely be expanded in the future with additional data and community input. Draft Sustainability Action Plan. The culmination of the planning process, the Action Plan is anticipated to be complete in early 2005. Adoption processes will include review by the City’s Planning Policy Commission and adoption by the City Council. The Plan’s recommendations for implementation strategies would be in place for consideration starting with the 2006 budget process (mid-year 2005). As a working document, ongoing evaluation and reporting would begin with the Plan’s adoption. • • Exhibit A3: Proposed 2004 Comprehensive Plan Amendments Page 18 of 118 Appendices Appendix A – Appendix B - Multi-Year Sustainability Strategic Action Plan Comprehensive Plan Policy on Sustainable Community Development Strategic Work Plan Inventory of Comprehensive Plan Policies Addressing Sustainable Development Appendix C - "Sustainable communities foster commitment to place, promote vitality, build resilience to stress, act as stewards, and forge connections beyond the community" - Northwest Policy Institute, University of Washington Exhibit A3: Proposed 2004 Comprehensive Plan Amendments Page 19 of 118 Appendix A City of Issaquah Multi-Year Sustainable Community Development Strategic Action Plan - In Development - Preliminary Draft FormatProgram Area / Project Description Sustain ability Categor ies GS, NR Implementation Priority Lead Affected City Depts. PWO, Plan, Bldg, RCO, Parks Implementation Year (Estimated Costs) Prior Years a) $25,000 & 0.25 fte b) $6,000 & 0.6 fte c) $500 & 0.31 fte Notes 2011 Future Years 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Example: Construction & Land Use: Low Impact Stormwater Implementation a) b) c) L.I.D. Feasibility Study L.I.D. Code Amendments L.I.D. Technical Guide a) L.I.D. Feasibility Study: A comprehensive analysis of local hydrologic conditions (the water table, soil types, etc.) and available LID methods to help provide the public with more detailed information and to help guide any subsequent regulatory effort. This would be conducted by staff with consultant assistance. b) L.I.D. Code Amendments: An integrated code package to add LID provisions throughout appropriate areas of the Issaquah Municipal Code. (Potential changes may be needed in: Stormwater: IMC 13.28 (detention and infiltration methods), Street Standards: IMC 12.04 (use of drainage swales, filter strips, cul de sac Islands, reduced pavement and street widths, porous paving), Clearing & Grading: IMC 16.26 (soil retention and prevention of compaction), Land Use/Design: IMC 18.07 (parking lot design and structural elements such as green roofs). The features of this amendment, whether mandates or incentives, would be determined through further analysis and legislative review. Potential regulatory incentives that could be examined in code development include: reduced development costs due to reduced infrastructure, increased site development due to decreased infrastructure, additional stormwater rate credits and/or discounts, additional building height in exchange for a smaller building footprint, allowance for extra parking with use of pervious paving. c) Local L.I.D. Technical Guide: Production, printing, and distribution of a detailed guide on LID implementation in Issaquah. This guide would include all Municipal Code references in a user-friendly document. The code references would be supplemented with helpful commentary, illustrations, and observations. The guide would also include engineering and environmental details presented in a cost/benefit analysis format to help promote the use of LID in local projects. a) CLU 1 b) CLU 2 c) CLU 3 PWE Example: Sustainable City Operations a) City Operations Audit a) City Operations Audit: develop and internal assessment tool and work with facilities and city staff to review current energy, water, solid waste, stormwater, purchasing and other functions associated with regular City operations. Document successes, identify opportunities for improved environmental management, assessing costs, benefits and other considerations for implementation in 1- and 3-year timeframes. Indicators: develop a set of community indicators of sustainability, incorporating public in the planning and development process. Review data annually, updates of indicators every three years. City of Issaquah Departments: Plan Planning Department PWE Public Works Engineering PWO Public Works Operations Parks Parks and Recreation Department Exec Mayor’s Office / Executive Department RCO Resource Conservation Office IPD Issaquah Police Department Fire HR Fin Eastside Fire and Rescue Human Resources Department Finance Department GS a) SCO 1 RCO All a) $3,330 & 0.07 fte a) $12,000 & 0.15 fte a) $10,000 & 0.20 fte a) $2,500 & 0.10 fte Example: Community Sustainability Indicators CC SCI 1 Plan All $550 & 0.10 fte $750 & 0.10 fte $800 & 0.10 fte Sustainability Categories GS Governing Sustainably CC Creating Community SE Growing a Sustainable Economy LS Living Sustainably NR Protecting Natural Resources IAS Bdg Information & Administrative Services Department Building Department Other Organizations: Orgs Community organizations Comm Issaquah Chamber of Commerce KC King County CWA Cascade Water Alliance SPWSD Sammamish Plateau Water & Sewer District Exhibit A3: Proposed 2004 Comprehensive Plan Amendments Page 20 of 118 Appendix B Comprehensive Plan Policy on Sustainable Community Development Strategic Work Plan Objective L-7: Implementation: Adopt a multi-year Strategic Work Program to implement Sustainable Community Development Principles related to land use, urban design, energy, transportation, resource conservation, air quality, stormwater management, critical area protection and other relevant fields. Consider methods to implement relevant non-City programs that contribute to sustainable development. Policy L-7.1 Strategic Work Program: Adopt a Strategic Work Program that identifies actions to achieve sustainable development and implement these actions through ordinances and other appropriate methods. The Work Program shall be evaluated on an annual basis. 7.1.1 7.1.2 7.1.3 7.1.4 Inventory existing City programs and resources that indicate sustainable development progress. Re-evaluate and update the inventory every three years or less. Identify and address deficiencies in the City’s existing sustainable development programs and policies. Identify and address deficiencies of Sustainable Policies in each Comprehensive Plan Element. Develop programs that promote elements of sustainability: 7.1.4.1 Promote elements of sustainability in the natural environment such as expanding non-motorized and alternative transportation modes, sustainable building programs similar to Built Green, LEEDTM Certification (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design), energy and other codes and incentives, recycling, integrated pest management, low impact stormwater measures, aquifer recharge, water conservation, habitat restoration, open space acquisition and other programs. 7.1.4.2 Promote elements of sustainability in the economic environment such as supporting principles of Smart GrowthTM, providing assistance to the business community and training for the local workforce in ecosystem friendly practices and other programs. 7.1.4.3 Promote elements of sustainability in the social environment such as encouraging affordable housing, promoting community participation in the implementation of the Strategic Work Program and other programs. 7.1.5 7.1.6 Monitor the performance of the sustainability indicators to show progress towards meeting their stated goals. Benchmark/Indicators. Evaluate the progress of the Work Program annually and present the findings to the City Council. Update the Strategic Work Program at least every five years. Exhibit A3: Proposed 2004 Comprehensive Plan Amendments Page 21 of 118 Policy L-7.2 Development Review: Integrate Sustainable Development criteria, requirements and development standards into the Issaquah Municipal Code to ensure that all projects in the City are required to achieve a minimum level of sustainability. Policy L-7.3 City Owned Land: Manage City owned land in a sustainable manner including: 7.3.1 Integrated Pest Management practices on public lands and rights-of-way; to reduce reliance on chemical pesticides, protect endangered species and public health, while also considering public safety, economic, legal and/or aesthetic requirements. A plant health care approach to designing, managing and maintaining landscapes. This approach matches appropriate plants to their respective sites, emphasizes proper site preparation to ensure plant establishment, and promotes long term success with a minimum of artificial inputs. Creekside and wetland restoration programs that improve habitat and decrease flooding potential. Public Education programs that provide an easily accessible source of information regarding the public stewardship role in a sustainable community. 7.3.2 7.3.3 7.3.4 Exhibit A3: Proposed 2004 Comprehensive Plan Amendments Page 22 of 118 Appendix C Inventory of Comprehensive Plan Policies Addressing Sustainable Development Timing Policies 1995- 2002- 2008- Implementation Actions Lead Agency 2001 2007 2022 Definitions: Sustainable Development is development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs by considering current and potential economic, environmental and social issues. LAND USE Policy L-1.1 Maintain and enhance the natural environment Title 18 of IMC - Land Use Code cluster 1.1.1 Provide incentives to concentrate new growth in the Olde Town, Gilman housing provision and Newport Subareas and in appropriate Potential Annexation Areas. Planning C 1995: Adopted Critical Areas Regulations – 1.1.2 Require clustering of buildings within developments to provide the Ord. 2072 maximum consolidated pervious surface, open space, efficient extension of urban services, and protection of critical areas and their buffers; 1.1.3 Preserve the natural forested character of Issaquah by: 1.1.3.1 Limiting the clearing/grading, size of development and the number of buildings within clusters permitted on hillsides to preserve the forested hillside view from the valley 1.1.3.2 minimizing tree disturbance and clearing during site preparation; 1.1.3.3 encouraging the retention of open space on steep slopes, promontories, ridgelines and summits; 1.1.3.4 encouraging the retention of forested linear open space corridors running from the valley floor; 1.1.3.5 balancing the use of minimal grades to minimize visual impacts on roadway and utility corridors with the desire to minimize vegetative clearing and with other environmental goals; 1.1.3.6 promoting the use of colors and textures which blend with the natural setting 1.1.4 Permit small scale agriculture, horticulture and hobby farm activities to continue where existing or where such uses would not adversely impact critical areas or the character of the surrounding area; 1.1.5 Provide a zoning overlay for urban separators that would designate them as areas of permanent low density or of little development. These lands shall not be redesignated in the future to other urban uses or higher densities; 1.1.6 Consider off-site transfer of development rights, on-site density transfers PC P03, O O 1995: Adopted Critical Areas Regulations – Ord. 2072 Partially complete. Title 18 of the IMC and IMC 16.26 – Clearing and Grading. Future code amendments may be required to ensure tree preservation. 1995: Adopted Critical Areas Regulations – Ord. 2072 Public Works Engineering / Planning C C P03 Complete. Title 18 of the IMC – Land Use Code Complete. Title 18 of the IMC – Land Use Code – zoning category C-Rec, TP-NRCA Project pending for 2000 to 2004, limited in Planning Planning Planning Exhibit A3: Proposed 2004 Comprehensive Plan Amendments Page 23 of 118 and variances to protect the property rights of landowners with critical areas; and as an incentive for protecting forested hillsides that are not defined as “steep slopes” by the Land Use Code; 1.1.7 Prohibit the inappropriate conversion of undeveloped land into sprawling, low density development through clustering uses and structures, on-site density transfers, and considering the establishment of minimum densities; 1.1.8 Require protection of critical areas, fish and wildlife areas and corridors and aquifer recharge areas; 1.1.8.1 identify and protect habitat networks that are aligned at jurisdictional boundaries through interjurisdictional cooperation; 1.1.8.2 maintain adequate forested and vegetative buffers along critical areas, riparian areas and fish and wildlife habitat areas. 1.1.8.3 include aquifer recharge areas as an element of the critical area regulations and require stormwater infiltration, where feasible, in areas with high aquifer recharge potential in order to ensure recharge of the aquifer in the Lower Issaquah Basin. 1.1.9 Work with the appropriate jurisdictions to address issues related to water levels of the North Fork of Issaquah Creek in the summer months. 1.1.10 Implement the critical areas regulations by focusing future growth in the following: 1.1.10.1 areas with no or minimal environmentally critical areas; 1.1.10.2 vacant platted lots in areas with existing public facilities; 1.1.10.3 areas where infill and redevelopment can occur with less environmental impacts due to the degree of existing development; and 1.1.10.4 areas where clustering development can protect environmentally critical lands; 1.1.11 The City's wetland protection regulations shall include the following: 1.1.11.1 reference the currently adopted Federal Manual for Identifying and Delineating Jurisdiction Wetlands as minimum standards; (Ord. No. 2111, 1996) 1.1.11.2 include any wetland that is recognized by another regulatory agency or jurisdiction in the City's wetland protection ordinance; and, 1.1.11.3 coordinate with King County to establish a countywide wetland classification system. Policy L-1.2 Balance: Balance urban development against the value associated with the protection of the natural environment and environmentally critical areas; 1.2.1 Coordinate land use planning and management of fish and wildlife part by staff time Complete. Title 18 of IMC 1996: Grand Ridge 2-Party Agr. Ord. 2104 1999: East Village 2 Party Agre. Ord. 2254 C Planning C Complete. Title 18 of IMC 1995: Adopted Critical Areas Regulations – Ord. 2072 Planning C C C C Complete. Title 18 of IMC 1995: Adopted Critical Areas Regs. – Ord. 2072 Complete. Title 18 of IMC 1995: Adopted Critical Areas Regulations Complete. Title 18 of IMC 1995: Adopted Critical Areas Regulations Complete. Title 18 of IMC 1995: Adopted Critical Areas Regulations Complete. Title 18 of IMC 1995: Adopted Critical Areas Regulations – Ord. 2072 Complete. Title 18 of IMC 1995: Adopted Critical Areas Regulations Complete. Planning Planning Planning Planning Planning C C C Planning Planning Planning C O O Complete in that City holds project specific Planning Exhibit A3: Proposed 2004 Comprehensive Plan Amendments Page 24 of 118 resources with affected State agencies and federally recognized tribes; 1.2.2 Ensure efficient use of land, provide housing opportunities and support efficient use of infrastructure through the use of the City's household targets as achieved through the land use designations and through funding of the Capital Facilities Element's Capital Improvements list; 1.2.3 Ensure that all development is consistent with the City's vision through the implementation of the Land Use Code, critical areas regulations and other development regulations. Policy L-1.4 Mountains to Sound Greenway: Support the goals of the Mountains to Sound Greenway Project (see Land Use Appendix). Policy L-1.5 Shoreline Master Program: The goals and policies of the City's adopted Shoreline Master Program (SMP) shall be considered an element of this Comprehensive Plan. All other portions of the SMP, including use regulations, shall be considered part of the City's development regulations. (Ord. No. 2111, 1996) Policy L-1.6: Endangered Species: Preserve riparian habitat in compliance with the Endangered Species Act. Policy L-1.6.1: Streamside Property: Explore methods to provide incentives to streamside property owners for enhancement of riparian habitat. Policy L-1.6.2: Coordination: Coordinate with Washington Department of Natural Resources and Ecology, King County and adjacent jurisdictions to implement the Endangered Species Act. Policy L-1.7: Best Available Science: Critical area regulations and the Shoreline Master Program shall be based on Best Available Science as defined by the rule issued by Washington State Office of Community Development. OBJECTIVE L-2: Resource Lands: Maintain opportunities for agricultural and resource land, uses or activities; encourage compatible uses adjacent to resource lands which support the use of the resource; and minimize conflicts among uses. Policy L-2.1 Agricultural Lands: Lands within the Issaquah Creek and Tibbetts Creek Valleys, which are identified as having "prime" agricultural soils, shall be considered for small scale agricultural uses. Such uses shall use best management practices to protect water quality and potential fish/wildlife habitat of the adjacent stream. Policy L-2.2 Forest Lands: Conserve productive forest resource lands and ensure that forest practices use best management practices to protect surface water quality and potential fish and wildlife habitat of adjacent streams, and minimize impact to the Issaquah viewscape of forested hillsides. 2.2.1 Forest Practices Application: Exercise the option to impose a six year development restriction for forest landowners who do not state their intent to C O O C O O O B02 B02 B02 B02 B02 O O review meetings with all affected parties, including State & federally recognized tribes Annually addressed through the CIP process and Capital improvements. 1996: Grand Ridge 2-Party Agr. – Ord. 2104 1999: East Village 2 Party Agr. – Ord. 2254 Ongoing. Amendments to Comp Plan Vision / Policies, updates of Land Use Code 1995: Adopted Critical Areas Regs – Ord. 2072 Ongoing. Issaquah Highlands, Talus projects, Tibbetts Greenway project Update Shoreline Master Program for compliance with GMA. Budgeted for 2002. Update Shoreline Master Program for compliance with GMA. Budgeted for 2002. Update Shoreline Master Program for compliance with GMA. Budgeted for 2002. Update Shoreline Master Program for compliance with GMA. Budgeted for 2002. Update Shoreline Master Program for compliance with GMA. Planning Planning All Departments Planning Planning Planning Planning Planning Complete. Title 18 of IMC C Complete. Title 18 of IMC C C Complete. Title 18 of IMC Planning Planning Planning Exhibit A3: Proposed 2004 Comprehensive Plan Amendments Page 25 of 118 convert at the time of Forest Practice application. For cases in the City’s PAA where land under development restriction is sold, the City shall encourage King County to develop means to ensure the buyers are alerted to the development restrictions. (Ord. 2162, 1997) 2.2.2 Conversion of property from Forestry Practice: Amend the Land Use Code to require an administrative review to determine whether development restrictions should be placed on those properties which did not state intent to convert the property at the time of a Forest Practice Application, or who do not harvest the site according to the City’s regulations relating to its clearing and grading standards. (Ord. 2162, 1997) Policy L-2.3 Mineral Resource Lands: Existing mining and quarry activity (using best management practices) should be continued after annexation. The mineral resource potential of any property already within the City should be realized through pre-development activities (for example, clearing, grading and site preparation). In this regard, the City's 1990 "Mineral Resource Lands" designation, for purposes of RCW 36.70A.170, designates properties with mineral resource potential to be realized through pre-development activities. (Ord. No. 2111, 1996) Policy L-2.4 Coordination: The City shall coordinate with Washington State Department of Natural Resources and King County to ensure the conservation of forest resource lands, compliance with Forest Practice Act permit requirements, and implementation of best management practices. Policy L-2.5 Best Management Practices: Require mineral extraction and processing operations and agricultural practices to implement best management practices to reduce environmental impacts and mitigate any remaining impacts. The City's concept of best management practices includes provisions in the Basin Plan and Wellhead Protection Plan. Policy L-3.3 Mixed Use Neighborhoods: Mixed use neighborhoods shall be encouraged in appropriate zones throughout the Gilman, Newport, I-90 and Olde Town Subareas as established in the Land Use Code. 3.3.1 Encourage the establishment of entrepreneurial operations such as recreational and entertainment facilities and bed and breakfasts to serve Issaquah residents and visitors to the City throughout the mixed use neighborhoods. Policy L-3.4 New Neighborhoods: Establish development regulations that require, where feasible, proposed newly developed neighborhoods to incorporate: 3.4.1 Traditional Design Elements (Land Use Element Appendix, Volume 2); 3.4.2 Park and pedestrian areas; 3.4.3 Non-motorized links to all areas of the neighborhood; 3.4.4 Neighborhood hubs; and 3.4.5 Residential mixed use. Complete. Title 18 of IMC C Planning Complete. Title 18 of IMC C Planning Ongoing. Title 18 of IMC O O O Complete. Title 18 of IMC C Planning Planning O O O Ongoing through permit review. Addressed in the Land Use Code 1996: Legislative rezones to create MUR zoning – Ord. 2111 1999: Olde Town Subarea Plan adopted – Ord. 2236 Ongoing through permit review. Ongoing through permit review. Ongoing through permit review. Ongoing through permit review. Ongoing through permit review. Ongoing through permit review. Planning O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O Planning Planning Planning Planning Planning Planning Exhibit A3: Proposed 2004 Comprehensive Plan Amendments Page 26 of 118 3.6.3 Natural System Aspects of Arterials. Implementation of arterial design and land use decision processes shall also consider: 3.6.3.3 Critical Areas: Minimize impacts to all environmental critical areas including, but not limited to, aquifer recharge areas, steep slopes, wetlands, and streams. 3.6.3.4 tributaries. Water: Avoid harmful disruptions of flood plains, creeks and O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 3.6.3.5 Water Systems: Provide water and ground water systems equal to adopted standards. 3.6.3.6 Street Features: Provide street features that will functionally meet adopted city street standards. 3.6.3.7 Surface water and ground water. Provide for treatment and percolation into the ground water for the full length of the road, as arterials will collect surface water from several locations and convey that water to common points. HOUSING Policy H-1.9 Housing Integration: Emphasize the integration of single family and multifamily areas through trails, pedestrian improvements and other forms of non-motorized transportation. Encourage planned housing developments to integrate different types and densities within the planned projects. Policy H-1.10 Neighborhood Amenities: Provide all existing and new neighborhoods access to the adjacent City trail system and all City parks and recreation facilities.. Policy H-1.11 High Density Housing Proximity to Transit: Locate the highest density housing in areas that are most accessible to transit, and within walking distance to services by encouraging Transit Oriented Development and similar uses. Policy H-7.6 Job / Housing Balance: Work with King County and other jurisdictions to establish GMA targets for jobs and housing that seek to create a regional or subregional “balance” between housing and jobs. TRANSPORTATION Policy T-12.4 Incentives for Transit: Allow additional parking above the maximum standard, and increased density bonus for developments that provide land or construct transit facilities or transit oriented uses. Policy T-12.6 Commute Trip reduction Establish parking requirements and standards that support Commute Trip Reduction objectives by: Ongoing through permit review. Addressed in the Land Use Code 1995: Adopted Critical Areas Regs – Ord. 2072 Ongoing through permit review. Addressed in the Land Use Code 1995: Adopted Special Flood Hazard Regs – Ord. 2065 Ongoing through permit review. Addressed in the IMC, Water Comprehensive Plan Ongoing through permit review. Addressed in the IMC, street standards Ongoing through permit review. Addressed in the IMC, stormwater plan Planning Planning / Public Works Public Works / Planning Public Works Public Works O O O O O O Done through case by case project review 1996: Grand Ridge 2-party agr. – Ord. 2104 1999: East Village 2-party agr. – Ord. 2254 Done through case by case project review 1996: Grand Ridge 2-party agr. – Ord. 2104 1999: East Village 2-party agr. – Ord. 2254 Multifamily areas are typically permitted in areas most accessible to public transit and/or within walking distance (e.g. downtown core). Ongoing work with King County and neighboring jurisdictions to create a job / housing balance at a subregional level. Planning/PWE/ Parks – project review Planning/PWE/ Parks – project review Planning/PWE/ Parks – project review to encourage transit Planning PC, O O I02I03 O O Exhibit A3: Proposed 2004 Comprehensive Plan Amendments Page 27 of 118 12.6.1 Providing reserved parking spaces for carpools and vanpool vehicles at location convenient to building entrances. 12.6.2 Re-evaluate parking standards to determine whether changes in parking demand resulting from the CTR law, transit improvements, employment growth or other reasons warrant revisions to the standards. 12.6.3 Work closely with employers who are not regulated by CTR program, such as Issaquah School District, to establish programs with similar goals to reduce commute trips. Policy T-14.1 Air Quality Jurisdictional Coordination: Work with the Puget Sound Regional Council, King County, the State Department of Transportation and other agencies or jurisdictions to develop and implement transportation and air quality measures as warranted. Such work would address the requirements of the Federal Clean Air Act as amended, the air quality provisions of the Federal Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act, and the Clean Air Act. UTILITIES AND PUBLIC SERVICES Policy U1.1 Conservation: Implement conservation efforts to address the need for adequate supply for electrical energy and water resources, to protect natural resources and achieve improved air quality. Efforts should include, but are not limited to, public education, water reuse and reclamation, low impact development techniques, use of native and/or drought resistant landscaping, low flow shower heads, conservation credits, and energy efficiency in new and existing buildings (KC) C, O O O, R Ongoing work done by the Resource Conservation Office in the Public Works Engineering Department Resource Conservation Office (RCO) – Evaluation of existing methods, Planning – Project Review, PWE – Project Review Planning, Public Works Policy U1.2 Land Use Code. Amend the Land Use Code and related regulations to: 1.2.1 Utility Provision: Ensure utility provision maximizes public safety, C minimizes adverse environmental impacts, and is compatible with surrounding land uses. 1.2.4 Design and Construction Standards: Include design and construction C standards which are environmentally sensitive, safe, cost effective and consistent with the serving utilities public service obligations. OBJECTIVE U2: Water. Provide for the City's long term water needs by: protecting the aquifer, providing reliable levels of service, including water for domestic use and fire protection, and ensuring future water supplies by pursuing additional sources, as well as conservation and reuse measures. Policy U2.8 Water Supply Shortage Response. Take reasonable actions to ensure that the essential needs of its customers are met and that available supplies are equitably distributed to all affected customers in the event of a water-supply shortage caused by a drought or supply interruption. R R Current standards created and updated by Public Works with review by Planning Planning, PWE, Public Works Operations I01 O The proposed Water Utility Plan requires that the City meet the essential needs of its customers and plan for possible shortages. Public Works Exhibit A3: Proposed 2004 Comprehensive Plan Amendments Page 28 of 118 Policy U-7.1 Procurement. Encourage the economics of recycling by a City procurement policy which favors products with high quality recycled materials content. Policy U-7.6 Waste Reduction and Recycling Programs. Develop targeted waste reduction and recycling programs to reduce solid waste stream disposal including: waste prevention, packaging waste reduction, construction, demolition and land clearing debris recycling, single and multifamily residential and business recycling in order to achieve City goals. Policy U2.10 Wellhead Protection Implementation. Implement the Wellhead Protection Program to protect the City’s ground water supplies from degradation based on the Wellhead Protection Plan (Golder Associates, November 1993) and coordinate implementation with the Sammamish Plateau Water and Sewer District. Promote and participate in aquifer recharge storm drainage projects within the aquifer recharge area and wellhead capture zones. Policy U2.11 Sustainable Yield. Identify, protect and maintain the sustainable yield of the aquifer in order to avoid permanently affecting water tables in a manner which would damage related ecosystems. Policy U2.12 Aquifer Recharge. Minimize the risk to, and protect the aquifer recharge quantity and quality through the regulation of types of land use allowed and mitigation required on the uses within the identified recharge areas and wellhead capture zones. Policy U2.13 Environmental Protection. Create development regulations that implement, monitor, and adapt City practices to protect environmentally critical areas. These practices shall improve and protect water quality, habitat, the aquifer, and other environmentally sensitive areas when the City must construct, operate, retrofit, maintain, or replace water system infrastructure. Policy U2.14 Sustainable Development and Best Available Conservation Technology. Design, develop, construct, operate, and maintain new development in such a manner as to provide for efficient and non-wasteful use of water that incorporates the best available water conservation technology prevailing at the time of development. Policy U2.15 Water Conservation. Continue implementation and enhancement of the current conservation program by conserving 15% per Equivalent Residential Unit (ERU) by 2015. Water conservation measures shall be consistent with, and strive to exceed, all local, state, and federal laws and regulations. O C O O O O Ongoing work by the Resource Conservation Office RCO Public Works RCO Planning, Public Works Public Works O O O O O, R O, R O O, R C O, R, P02 O I02 O The aquifer is continually monitored by Public Works to ensure that permanent damage does not occur to the water tables Currently the City limits what types of uses are allowed within the wellhead protection zones, this policy is reviewed in the Utility Plan updates The City adopted land use regulations to protect critical areas in 1996. These regulations will be updated in 2001-2002 as required by Washington State 1995: Adopted Critical Area Regulations – Ord. 2072 The City is in the process of reviewing its regulations to ensure compliance with GMA requirements regarding Best Available Sciences. 15% conservation is required by the Water Utility Plan currently under review Public Works Public Works Planning, Public Works Planning, Public Works RCO Public Works RCO I01 O Exhibit A3: Proposed 2004 Comprehensive Plan Amendments Page 29 of 118 Policy U2.16 Coordination. Coordinate and cooperate with other adjacent and regional water purveyors and state regulators to identify, protect, and maintain a reliable and sustainable water supply. Withdrawals from the aquifer, greater than the sustainable yield, for water supply to meet concurrency requirements shall not be allowed. O O, R O The City is actively coordinating with Sammamish Plateau Water and Sewer District, and other neighboring water utilities. Future water rights will likely come from regional water lines 1996: Grand Ridge 2-party agr. Ord. 2104 1999: East Village 2-party agr. Ord. 2254 Public Works Policy U2.17 Production Wells. Protect the quality and quantity of water going into the production wells from the areas designated within the Wellhead Protection Plan (Golder 1993), as recharge areas and capture zones. These methods shall include but not be limited to: 2.17.1 regulation of land use. 2.17.2 public outreach and education. O O O Public Works O O O O O O Planning, Public Works RCO 2.17.3 construction of capital facilities in appropriate areas which will aid in O O O Public Works protection the wellheads. PARKS, OPEN SPACE AND RECREATION OBJECTIVE P-1: Balanced Needs: The City's adopted Parks, Open Space and Recreation Plan shall be used to ensure that development of parks is balanced with environmental protection. The City shall promote and protect environmental quality, open space and wildlife habitat, and multi-use recreational opportunities. Policy P-1.3 Wildlife Corridors: Maintain wildlife corridors to provide adequate O O O Ongoing efforts by the City to acquire Parks Department / linkage for animal movement between remaining habitat areas, as addressed in the and preserve permanent open space Public Works / Issaquah Area Wildlife and Recreational Trails Plan (November 1992). (including the Tibbetts Greenway Project) Planning Policy P-1.4 Resource Management. 1.4.1 Natural Resources: Protect natural resources through open space and O O O Environmental protection addressed Parks Department / wildlife management and other environmental programs for the benefit of future through IMC 18.10. Ongoing efforts to Planning generations. acquire and preserve open space areas. 1.4.2 Forest Management: Protect forest lands through forest management for O O, O Environmental protection addressed Planning the benefit of future generations. P03 through IMC 18.10. Protected property through the Public Benefit Rating System (PBRS) to preserve forest areas in N. Issa Pending Tree Ord. in ’03-‘04 1996 Grand Ridge 2-party agr. Ord. 2104 1999: East Village 2-party agr. Ord. 2254 Policy P-1.5 Native Biological Diversity: Implement proper management to O O O City undertakes a minimum of one stream Public Works / maintain sustainable wildlife population levels and encourage native biological restoration project each year Planning diversity. Policy P-2.1 Visual Relief and Tranquility: Bring visual relief and tranquility to O O O Ongoing efforts to create various types of Parks Department Exhibit A3: Proposed 2004 Comprehensive Plan Amendments Page 30 of 118 mitigate the impacts of the urban environment, including noise, traffic, concrete, and park settings addressing the needs of the congestion, through the use of street trees, gardens, lawns, woods, and water through community the park system. Policy P-3.1 Planning for Future Generations: Acquire and preserve land for O O O Ongoing efforts by the City to acquire coming generations, and develop parks to meet both existing and future demand park and open space land. including multi-use activities and open space preservation. OBJECTIVE P-3: Future Generations: Ensure Issaquah's park system has a strong orientation towards providing for future generations. Policy P-3.1 Planning for Future Generations: Acquire and preserve land for O O O Ongoing efforts by the City to acquire coming generations, and develop parks to meet both existing and future demand park and open space land. including multi-use activities and open space preservation. 1996: Created Community Facility zone – Ord. 2100 & 2101 1996: Grand Ridge 2-party Agt.Ord. 2104 1999: East Village 2-party Agr. Ord.2254 Administration / Parks Department Administration / Parks Department 2001: Acquired Squak Valley Park South ECONOMIC VITALITY OBJECTIVE EV-1: Quality of Life. Maintain and enhance Issaquah's quality of life through: level of service standards1, transportation concurrency, protection of the 2 natural environment , maintenance of hillside views, and accessibility to the natural environment. In addition, in order to sustain our community's future success, the City seeks to provide the following quality of life requirements: good schools, local government that is efficient and works with business, government that provides high quality services and excellent infrastructure, affordable and quality housing, affordable and quality child care, high quality natural environment and recreational amenities, diverse cultural resources, as well as a multicultural population with an international perspective. Policy EV-1.1 Plan Review to preserve Quality of Life. Review and amend Issaquah's plans, policies and regulations to preserve important features of Issaquah's quality of life and: 1.1.1 Require non-motorized corridors connecting parks, creeks, Lake C O O The Urban Trails plan was adopted in 1995 and Parks / Planning / will be reviewed after the review of the Public Works Sammamish and other natural amenities. The City shall also identify mechanisms Transportation Element. Ongoing efforts by to provide funding for acquisition and maintenance of these corridors; the City to fund capital improvements in the plan 1.1.2 Implement the Critical Areas Regulations; C O O 1.1.3 Limit the size of cluster development on hillsides so that the primarily forested hillside view from the valley is maintained; 1.1.4 Require commute trip reduction and provide incentives to decrease the 2 3 C C O R02, O O Critical Areas regulations established in IMC 18.10. Ongoing implementation 1995 & 2001: Adopted Critical Area Regs Ord. 2072 & Ord. 2301 Cluster provision established in Title 18 of the IMC. Ongoing implementation of the Code through design review Currently require commute trip reduction Planning Planning Planning / RCO LOS are established through the Capital Facilities Element. For example, critical areas regulations, aquifer protection standards, and the Shoreline Master Program. Exhibit A3: Proposed 2004 Comprehensive Plan Amendments Page 31 of 118 dependence on single occupancy vehicles (SOV's); 1.1.5 Create transportation alternatives Transportation Plan Element policies; and to SOV, consistent with the C O P02, O O O 1.1.6 Pursue quality of life requirements (listed in Objective EV-1) upon which the City has influence. OBJECTIVE EV-2: Encourage Local Economic Vitality. Increase the local economic vitality by promoting and encouraging a diversity of goods and services and employment opportunities within the City. Policy EV-2.1 Develop Community Benefits. Encourage businesses and real estate development that address local demand for employment, shopping, business, and medical services while sustaining the existing quality of life. Consider incentives such as density bonuses, administrative review and/or parking credits for businesses that provide community benefits such as: Policy EV-4.1 Community Coordination. Collaborate with the public and the Chamber of Commerce to develop and implement a detailed community economic vitality strategy to: 4.1.1 Establish a target for local employment; 4.1.2 Retain and enhance existing businesses; 4.1.3 Identify infrastructure and human service needs; C O programs for businesses with more than 100 employees. Urban Trails Plan is an effort to promote alternative modes of transportation along with Transit. Pending review of the Transportation Element. Ongoing efforts by the City departments to maintain or improve established Levels of Service and to preserve quality of life factors Parks / Planning / Public Works Parks / Planning / Public Works / Police / Fire PC O, R05 O Partially address this policy through the Land Use Designation map and Zoning maps and planning principles. Incentives for specific businesses locating in the City have not been drafted but will be as time permits. Planning C PC R02, O O O O Established GMA job targets in 1995 for the time period between 1995 and 2015. Planning Administration Planning / City Community Services Office Planning Administration 4.1.4 Identify business and economic development opportunities the community should pursue; 4.1.5 Identify steps toward the creation of a private/public partnership to implement community vitality objectives; and 4.1.6 Promote new business startups and expansions that meet community economic development objectives and provide information and assistance to such businesses seeking to locate within the community. PC O O O O NS Not Done Ongoing work with Downtown Issaquah Association and the Chamber of Commerce to identify necessary infrastructure. Ongoing coordination with Human Services providers. Partially addressed through communication with DIA and the Chamber of Commerce City worked with the Historical society for the Trolley project and continues to partner with other groups to implement community vitality objectives Not Done Administration Exhibit A3: Proposed 2004 Comprehensive Plan Amendments Page 32 of 118 OBJECTIVE EV-7: Managed and Balanced Economic Growth. Balance economic development policies with Issaquah's vision to preserve Issaquah's unique character and the natural environment, while managing growth in a way that is consistent with the City’s ability to provide adequate facilities and services. (1999, Ord. 2222) Policy EV-7.1 Infill and Redevelopment. Develop subarea plans with design guidelines, infrastructure plans and financing strategies that are in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan while encouraging consistency with the specific community's character in existing City subareas such as Olde Town, Newport and Gilman where development and redevelopment is encouraged. PC P02, O O Policy EV-7.2 Potential Annexation Areas. Develop plans with property owners and businesses for the PAAs in coordination with King County that specify design guidelines, infrastructure plans and financing to ensure that the PAA development is consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan, policies, and community character. Policy EV-7.3 Resource Efficiency and Environmental Protection: Encourage infill, redevelopment and PAA development to design, develop, construct and maintain projects in a resource efficient and sustainable manner, which minimizes impacts to and improves the quality of the environment, community and economy. (1999, Ord 2222) CAPITAL FACILITIES O O O NS Newport and Gilman Subarea plans have not been planned or budgeted at this time. 1999: Olde Town Subarea Plan adopted – Ord. 2236 2001: Adoption of North Issaquah subarea policies Ord XXXX 2003: Adoption of Hans Jensen /Providence Point subarea policies Ord XXXX 2000: North Issaquah annexed – Ord 2255 2003: Hans Jensen /Providence Point annexed Ord 2344 City has not established an interlocal to achieve this. Planning Planning / Administration Planning / Administration GOAL Provide adequate public services and facilities which address existing deficiencies and future needs through prudent use of fiscal resources, levels of service, realistic time lines, resource management and sustainable development Policy CF-1.3: Future needs. Manage land use change and develop capital facilities and services to direct and control land use patterns, intensities and efficient service provision. Facilities need to ensure that services provided are consistent with the City's adopted level of service, are included in the Capital Improvements list, and should be funded according to funding mechanisms listed in Policy CF-1.7 Policy CF-1.9 Resource Efficiency and Environmental Protection: Encourage infill, redevelopment and PAA development to design, develop, construct and maintain projects in a resource efficient and sustainable manner, which minimizes impacts to and improves the quality of the environment, community and economy. O O O 1996: Grand Ridge 2-Party agr. – Ord. 2104 1999: East Village 2-party agr. – Ord. 2254 Ongoing. 1996 Grand Ridge 2-party agr. Ord. 2104 1996: Annexed Grand Ridge, Park Pointe, Bergsma, East Village – Ord. 2112, 2113, 2118 & 2119 1999: East Village 2-party Agr. Ord. 2254 2000: North Issaquah annexed Ord 2255 2003: Hans Jensen /Providence Point annexed Ord 2344 Planning Exhibit A3: Proposed 2004 Comprehensive Plan Amendments Page 33 of 118 5. Revise references to appropriate stormwater management and drainage plans. Background The Growth Management Act recommends that cities ensure their Comprehensive Plans provide policies that direct the city to adopt and implement the relative Stormwater and water quality plans as defined in RCW 36.70A.070 (1) Policies should include direction for adoption and implementation of storm drainage management plans and the appropriate Department of Ecology stormwater manual, FEMA maps, and for Puget Sound counties, policies that support the implementation of the Puget Sound Action Team’s 2000 Water Quality Plan. Land Use Element Amendments 6.2 Water 6.2.1 Surface/Storm Water. Flooding is the most significant stormwater issue affecting the City. There are few topographic barriers to impede flooding in the lowermost part of the basin because the City is situated on a broad, fan shaped accumulation of stream sediments. As a result, occasional flooding can occur resulting in damage to structures along Tibbetts Creek and both the main channel and East Fork of Issaquah Creek. The City has addressed stormwater and floodplain management through several ongoing programs. In 1996 the Issaquah Creek Basin and Nonpoint Action Plan was approved jointly by the City and King County, establishing goals for managing the water resources in the watershed. This plan emphasized goals which include: prevention of increased flooding, actions that reduce flooding risks to human life and health, and reduction of property damage. The City’s efforts towards effective floodplain management is reflected in an exceptionally high rating in FEMA’s Community Rating System, a program that reduces flood insurance costs to city residents if a community implements regulations and programs that reduce flood risks and damages. The City in 2004 updated the FEMA floodplain maps along Issaquah Creek to facilitate improved management of floodplain areas. The City and King County prepared the Issaquah Creek Basin and Nonpoint Action Plan, in September 1994. This Plan emphasizes goals which include: prevention of increased flooding; elimination of flooding that is hazardous to human life and health; and reduction of property damage from flooding in the future. 6.2.2 Water Quality. Another significant issue is that the water quality of Issaquah Creek and Tibbetts Creek is deteriorating from the effects of urban development, agricultural and forest practices, and other not-point pollution sources such as failing on-site septic systems. Coordinated intergovernmental solutions emphasizing education, regulation, implementation of best management practices, monitoring and enforcement are necessary to prevent further degradation and to restore surface water quality. The Puget Sound Action Team’s 2000 Water Quality Plan contains many recommendations on stormwater management policy and regulation, as does King County’s 1998 Surface Water Design Manual (to be updated in 2004) and Department of Ecology’s 2001 Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington. Policy L-1.3 Issaquah Basin Plan: Support the following goals adopted in 1996, of the September 1994 Issaquah Creek Basin and Nonpoint Action Plan, or as amended: 1.3.1 Prevent increased flooding by: 1.3.1.1 restricting new development in flood prone areas; 1.3.1.2 establishing standards to minimize peak discharges and durations of storm water runoff; Exhibit A3: Proposed 2004 Comprehensive Plan Amendments Page 34 of 118 1.3.1.3 purchasing development rights for floodplain properties that are vested but not built, when economically feasible; 1.3.1.4 allow no new building construction within the FEMA designated floodway. Utilities and Public Services Element OBJECTIVE U4: Storm Water. Manage the quantity and quality of storm water runoff to protect public health and safety, surface and groundwater quality, and natural drainage systems through implementation of the Issaquah Creek Basin and Nonpoint Action Plan (1996) and the Stormwater Management Plan polices (2002 2003 and subsequent updates). Policy U4.4 Stormwater Management And Water Quality Protection 4.4.2 Promote, support and participate in programs that improve the quantity and quality of stormwater runoff, stream flows, and groundwater, including: 4.4.2.1 Source control best management practices (BMPs), as defined in the King County Surface water Design Manual (1998, or as amended) which control pollution at its source through physical improvements and good housekeeping practices, at existing commercial and industrial properties; Capital Facilities Element Amendments 4.3.1 Surface Water Drainage Level Of Service: The City's existing minimum LOS standard for surface water drainage management is the requirement that all private or public on-site or off-site storage, conveyance and treatment facilities meet stormwater development standards in the King County Surface Water Design Manual (1998, or as amended) that result in little or no impact to downstream water quality and quantity. 4.3.2 Proposed Flow ReductionStormwater Management Criteria: As development both in and around the City continues, strategies will need to be devised to address stormwater detention and water quality so that area residents and business will not be adversely impacted. Some methods to achieve this goal are identified in the King County Surface Water Design Manual (1998, or as amended).include: 4.3.2.1 Designing onsite retention/detention facilities, located on the valley bottom areas within the Issaquah Creek basin, to the Level 1 Flow Control Standard, whereby post-development stormwater discharges for the 2-year and 10-year design storm events match the corresponding discharges that existed under pre-developed conditions. 4.3.2.2 Designing on site retention/detention facilities, not located on the valley bottom areas, to the Level 2 Flow Control Standard, whereby post-development stormwater discharges for all storm events between 50% of the 2-year and the 50-year storm event. Additionally, the 100-year post-development hourly peak flow shall be reduced to the pre-development level. 4.3.2.3 Designing water quality treatment facilities for stormwater discharges to surface and groundwater, for all areas in the Issaquah Creek, to meet the Sensitive Lake Protection Standard. Water quality treatment facilities for infiltrated stormwater are required if soil conditions and infiltration rates do not meet certain design criteria, as detailed in the Design Manual. 4.3.2.4 Designing new stormwater conveyance systems to convey the 25-year design storm, provided that overflow from a 100-year runoff event does not create a severe flooding or erosion Exhibit A3: Proposed 2004 Comprehensive Plan Amendments Page 35 of 118 problem. In addition, monitoring and maintaining existing infrastructure should continue. All new bridges shall be designed to convey the 100-year event. Policy CF-1.1: Level of Service Standards. The following standards shall be used to evaluate adequate public facilities and services and projected needs as established in Table L-2 of the Land Use Element. 1.1.2 Storm water. The flow reductionStormwater Management Criteria level of service standards are based on the following requirements of the 1998 King County Surface Water Design Manual (as amended): Exhibit A3: Proposed 2004 Comprehensive Plan Amendments Page 36 of 118 6. Criteria for Designating Resource Lands Land Use Element OBJECTIVE L-2: Resource Lands: Maintain opportunities for agricultural and resource land, uses or activities; encourage compatible uses adjacent to resource lands which support the use of the resource; and minimize conflicts among uses. Identify and classify resource lands as defined by the Washington Administrative Code Chapter 365-190 (or, as amended) Minimum Guidelines to Classify Agriculture, Forest, Mineral Lands and Critical Areas. Exhibit A3: Proposed 2004 Comprehensive Plan Amendments Page 37 of 118 7. Define Critical Areas per RCW 36.70A.030(5) Definitions Amendments AQUIFERS: A body of soil or rock that contains sufficient saturated material to conduct groundwater and yield useable quantities of groundwater to springs and/or wells. CRITICAL AREAS: Critical areas are any of those areas in King County and the City which are subject to natural hazards or those land features which support unique, fragile or valuable natural resources including fish, wildlife and other organisms and their habitat and such resources which in their natural state carry, hold or purify water. “Critical Areas” include the following areas and ecosystems: (a)Wetlands; (b) areas with a critical recharging effect on aquifers used for potable water; (c) fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas; (d) frequently flooded areas: and (e) geologically hazardous areas.Critical areas include erosion hazard areas, coal mine hazard areas, landslide hazard areas, seismic hazard areas, steep slope areas, streams, wetlands, and the adjoining protective buffers. FISH AND WILDLIFE HABITAT Conservation Areas: Areas necessary for maintaining species in suitable habitats within their natural geographic distribution so that isolated subpopulations are not created as designated by WAC 365-190-080(5). These areas include: A. Areas with which state or federally designated endangered, threatened, and sensitive species have a primary association; B. Habitats of local importance, including but not limited to areas designated as priority habitat by the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife; C. Commercial and recreational shellfish areas; D. Kelp and eelgrass beds; E. Herring and smelt spawning areas; F. Naturally occurring ponds under twenty (20) acres and their submerged aquatic beds that provide fish or wildlife habitat, including those artificial ponds intentionally created from dry areas in order to mitigate impacts to ponds; G. Waters of the state, including lakes, rivers, ponds, streams, inland waters, underground waters, salt waters, and all other surface waters and watercourses within the jurisdiction of the state of Washington; H. Lakes, ponds, streams, and rivers planted with game fish by a governmental or tribal entity; I. State natural area preserves and natural resource conservation areas; and J. Land essential for preserving connections between habitat blocks and open spaces. FREQUENTLY FLOODED AREAS: Lands in the floodplain subject to a one percent (1%) or greater chance of flooding in any given year and those lands that provide important flood storage, conveyance, and attenuation functions, as determined by the Planning Director in accordance with WAC 365-190080(3). Frequently flooded areas perform important hydrologic functions and may present a risk to persons and property. Classifications of frequently flooded areas include, at a minimum, the 100-year floodplain designations of the Federal Emergency Management Agency and the National Flood Insurance Program. GEOLOGICALLY HAZARDOUS AREAS: Areas that may not be suited to development consistent with public health, safety, or environmental standards, because of their susceptibility to erosion, sliding, earthquake, or other geological events as designated by WAC 365-190-080(4). Types of geologically hazardous areas include: erosion, landslide, seismic, mine, and volcanic hazards.Areas that, because of their susceptibility to erosion, sliding, earthquake, or other geological events, are not suited to the siting of commercial, residential, or industrial development consistent with public health or safety concerns. Exhibit A3: Proposed 2004 Comprehensive Plan Amendments Page 38 of 118 WETLANDS: Those areas of Issaquah that are inundated or saturated by ground or surface water at a frequency and duration sufficient to support a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions, or by the presence or evidence of hydric or organic soils, or other documentation of the previous existence of wetland vegetation. Wetlands generally include swamps, marshes, bogs and similar areas. See also City's Critical Areas Ordinance. Wetlands do not include those artificial wetlands intentionally created from non-wetland sites, including, but not limited to, irrigation and drainage ditches, grass-lined swales, canals, detention facilities, wastewater treatment facilities, farm ponds, and landscape amenities, or those wetlands created after July 1, 1990, that were unintentionally created as a result of the construction of a road, street, or highway. Wetlands may include those artificial wetlands intentionally created from non-wetland areas to mitigate the conversion of wetlands. For identifying and delineating a wetland, local government shall use the Washington State Wetland Identification and Delineation Manual. Land Use Element Amendments 6.4 Natural Resource Lands and Critical Areas. The City has mapped, in the Natural Resource Lands and Critical Areas Map Folio, the known critical areas and the natural resource lands within and surrounding Issaquah. The maps are not all-inclusive and will be revised and amended as additional information becomes available through additional area-wide studies and/or project specific site studies. The City also has regulations that address development in or around critical areas,. “Critical Areas” include the following areas and ecosystems: (a)Wetlands; (b) areas with a critical recharging effect on aquifers used for potable water; (c) fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas; (d) frequently flooded areas: and (e) geologically hazardous areas. including: aquifer recharge areas, wetlands, streams, slopes, landslide hazard areas, flood-prone areas, and coal mine hazard areas. The City will endeavor to protect its critical areas through regulatory measures and through other means such as encouraging low impact construction techniques for future development. Policy L-1.1 Maintain and enhance the natural environment 1.1.8 Require protection of critical areas., “Critical Areas” include the following areas and ecosystems: (a)Wetlands; (b) areas with a critical recharging effect on aquifers used for potable water; (c) fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas; (d) frequently flooded areas: and (e) geologically hazardous areas,fish and wildlife areas and corridors and aquifer recharge areas as defined in RCW 36.70A.030 (5); Policy L-3.6.3 Natural System Aspects of Arterials: Implementation of arterial design and land use decision processes shall also consider: 3.6.3.3 Critical Areas: Minimize impacts to all environmental critical areas. “Critical Areas” include the following areas and ecosystems: (a)Wetlands; (b) areas with a critical recharging effect on aquifers used for potable water; (c) fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas; (d) frequently flooded areas: and (e) geologically hazardous areas. including, but not limited to, aquifer recharge areas, steep slopes, wetlands, and streams. Utilities Element Amendments Policy 4.6 Land Use And Critical Area Regulations 4.6.1 Regulate the location and characteristics of new development to reduce impacts on “Critical Areas” include the following areas and ecosystems: (a)Wetlands; (b) areas with a critical recharging effect on aquifers used for potable water; (c) fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas; (d) frequently flooded areas: and (e) geologically hazardous areas. stormwater runoff, aquifer recharge, water quality, and fish and wildlife habitat using methods such as: Exhibit A3: Proposed 2004 Comprehensive Plan Amendments Page 39 of 118 Capital Facilities Update, including: 8. Proposed locations and capacities of expanded or new capital facilities 9. Inventory of existing capital facilities owned by public entities, showing the locations and capacities of the capital facilities. 10. Update of the Capital Facilities Element based upon the Capital Improvement Program, Transportation Improvement Program and Budget. Table CF-1A Type of Capital Facility Water Sanitary Sewer Surface Storm Water Drainage Fire Police Parks Roads and Streets Municipal Facilities (Administration and Maintenance) Lead Agency City of Issaquah Public Works Dept. City of Issaquah Public Works Dept. City of Issaquah Public Works Dept. Eastside Fire and Rescue City of Issaquah Police Department City of Issaquah Parks Department City of Issaquah Public Works Dept. City of Issaquah Operations and Maintenance Examples Provide adequate storage and fire flow Capacity adequate to handle the demand from each service connection All public on-site or off-site storage, conveyance and treatment facilities shall result in little or no impact to downstream water quality and quantity Response time within a defined geographic area Calls for service Expenditure per capita Traffic volume to planned capacity Square footage per capita or user Examples of Level of Service Measurements Table CF-1B City of Issaquah’s Level of Services Type of Capital Facility Water Lead Agency City of Issaquah Public Works Dept. Level of Service Standards Normal Operating: 40 pounds per square inch (psi) at the top floor of a building3. Maximum of 150 psi in water mains. Fire / Emergency Demand: 3,500 gallons per minute (gpm) for non residential uses. 1,000 gpm for residential uses with side yard setbacks equal to or greater than eight feet. 1,500 gpm for residential uses with side yard setbacks less than eight feet. 20 pounds per square inch (psi) at the fire hydrant. (WA. State Law) Supply: Provide as needed to meet total demand4 3 State law requires a minimum of 30 psi at the meter; the City of Issaquah has adopted a more stringent standard. 4 Current usage is approximately 205 gallons per day (gpd) per equivalent residential unit (ERU). Exhibit A3: Proposed 2004 Comprehensive Plan Amendments Page 40 of 118 Sanitary Sewer City of Issaquah Public Works Dept. Sewer System Design5: Infiltration / Inflow shall not exceed 1,100 gallons per acre per day. Convey the 5-year flow without overflowing. Capacity to safely pass the 20-year wastewater flow scenario6 Sewer System Provision: Provide sewer service to all areas within the sewer service area. Stormwater System Design: All systems meet 1998 King County Surface Water Design Manual Maintain all City owned stormwater facilities a minimum of once every two years. Storm Drainage Water City of Issaquah Public Works Dept. Flood Hazard & Warning: Monitor all critical facilities during significant storms. Provide flood warning and hazard response when the upstream Issaquah Creek gauge exceeds 6 feet. 4.1 Water. Water facilities, such as water mains and pump stations, provide for the safe and efficient delivery of water to the community. The locations of the City’s water facilities are illustrated in Figure 78, the Water System Map (Utilities and Public Services Element, Volume 1). 4.1.3 Finance: Capital facilities costs for the Issaquah City water system are identified in Table CF-2. It is estimated that approximately $10.4 $7.3 million will be needed to address existing deficiencies and to account for anticipated growth and proper functioning of the existing mains during the period 2003-20082004-2009. Another $2.17.4 million will be needed for non-capacity costs for the same period. 5 The sewer system is designed to meet 100% of the Department of Ecology’s criteria for Sewer Works Design. 6 The amount of sewage generated at the 20-year full site buildout. Exhibit A3: Proposed 2004 Comprehensive Plan Amendments Page 41 of 118 Table CF-2 City of Issaquah’s Capital Facilities Financing Plan Water (1) Sources/Uses SOURCES OF FUNDS (2) 2003 (32) 2004 (All Amounts Are Times $1,000) (43) (54) (65) (76) 2005 2006 2007 2008 1,336.0 2,660.0 0.0 1,875.6 0.0 3,211.6 2,660.0 1,329.0 4,855.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1,329.0 4,855.0 700.0 1,700.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 700.0 1,700.0 (7) 2009 (8) TOTAL Water Capital Fund 525.0 Water Fund Reservoir Construction Fund 470.0 Developer Mitigation 2,999.0 850.0100.0 1,392.0 154.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 2,385.0 0.0 7,739.0 3,075.0 13,782.0 0.0 154.6 4,730.6 800.0 800.0 Total Sources* USES OF FUNDS Capacity Projects: 995.0 5,384.0 850.0254.6 1,392.0 12,469.6* 3,875.0 14,736.6* Watermain replacement (size upgrade) 250.0 480 Zone Reservoir (9827)** 60.0 Wildwood pump station upgrade 0.0 Bellevue/Issaquah Regional 24" Main 0.0 Forest Rim Reservoir 410.0 Valley to Regional Water Capacity Projects Subtotal 0.0 250.0100.0 500.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 250.00.0 500.0 100.0 500.0 500.0 500.0 0.0200.0 500.0 2,500.02,600.0 2,385.00.0 1,875.60.0 0.0 0.0 2,457.0 0.0 0.0 5,342.0 500.0 36.045.0 0.0 0.0 0.040.0 2,411.6 585.0 3,300.0 4,320.63,500.0 0.0 415.0620.0 2,457.0 410.0 0.0 250.0620.0 379.0575.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0580.0 879.0 1,655.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 720.0 500.0700.0 10,352.6 3,800.0 7,340.0 Non-capacity Projects Parcel & Aerial Mapping Water System Plan Update 0.0 Seismic retrofits 0.0 Utility rate update West Side Reservoir MaintenanceRefurbishment 0.0 Sustainable Yield Study 180.0 Op. Sustainable Yield Study 70.0 Vulnerability Assessment 5.0 229th Ave. Access Study 20.0 Mt. Park Pump Station Upgrade Water Quality Equip: Manganese/Arsenic Removal & PH Control Chlorination Facilities Water Resource Action Program Minor Capital Outlay (Meters, pipes, etc.) 0.0 0.0 0.0 20.0 0.0 280.0 0.0 50.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 21.0 33.6 30.0 0.0 32.0 0.0 10.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 820.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 25.0 0.0 150.0 50.0 600.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1,300.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 200.0 200.0 50.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3,000.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 200.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1,000.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 55.0 400.0 382.0 120.0 610.0 460.0 70.0 55.0 20.0 0.0 75.0 0.0 0.0. 0.0 0.0 75.0 6,120.0 100.0 21.0 33.6 Non-capacity Subtotal Projects 275.0 42.0 350.0154.6 892.0 850.0 254.6 5,384.0 1,392.0 800.0 2,075.0 3,211.6 2,660.0 450.0 3,200.0 1,329.0 4,855.0 200.0 1,000.0 700.0 1,700.0 75.0 2,117.07,396.6 Total Costs Balance Surplus or (Deficit) 995.0 12,469.6 3,875.0 14,736.6 0.0* 0.0* 0.0* 0.0* 0.0* 0.0* 0.0 0.0* *Does not reflect up-to-date revenue bond issues. **Revised budget per Public Works Department. Exhibit A3: Proposed 2004 Comprehensive Plan Amendments Page 42 of 118 4.2 Sanitary Sewer. The sanitary sewer system handles the sewage needs for much of the City. There are several areas of the City not served by sewer; though the City’s goal is to provide sewer service, where feasible, to all areas within City boundaries. The inventory and locations of the City’s sewer facilities are identified in Figure 89, the Sewer System Map (Utilities and Public Services Element, Volume 1). Capital expenditures for sewer projects over the next six years are illustrated in Table CF-3. 4.2.1 Sanitary Sewer Level Of Service. The City's existing minimum LOS standard for providing sanitary sewer service is the provision of all necessary mains and other facilities to adequately handle the demand from each service connection. 4.2.2 Sanitary Sewer Future Needs. The City's future LOS goals for sewer service are as follows: 4.2.2.1 Use 100 percent of the Department of Ecology Criteria for Sewer Works Design. 4.2.2.2 Provide gravity system sanitary sewer service wherever economically feasible. 4.2.2.3 New systems shall be designed to safely pass the wastewater flow under the future 20-year development scenario, as determined by full site buildout or by the Sewer System Plan Update. Finance. Several sewer projects have been identified to correct existing deficiencies and to accommodate population growth from 2003-20082004-2009. Capacity projects over the next six years are estimated at 5.3 million$4.7 million to add or improve sewage capacity. Another $589,000$609,000 has been identified for non-capacity projects over the same time period. 4.2.3 Exhibit A3: Proposed 2004 Comprehensive Plan Amendments Page 43 of 118 Table CF-3 City of Issaquah Capital Facilities Financing 6-Year Sewer Projects (2003-2008)(2004-2009) (All Amounts Are Times $1,000) (1) Sources/Uses SOURCES OF FUNDS Sewer Capital Projects Fund ULID 22 Construction Fund Total Sources* USES OF FUNDS Capacity Projects: 1,500.0 1,950.0 614.0700.0 293.0223.0 697.0830.0 240.0345.0 691.0670.0 1,260.0 (2) 2003 (32) 2004 2,087.0 359.0 0.0 2,087.0 359.0 (43) 2005 1,402.0 450.0 0.0 1,402.0 450.0 (54) 2006 868.0 1,568.0 0.0 868.0 1,568.0 (65) 2007 645.0 2,150.0 0.0 645.0 2,150.0 (76) 2008 300.0 425.0 0.0 300.0 425.0 (7) 2009 (8) TOTAL 5,327.0 5,327.03,797.0 0.0 5,884.0 5,327.0 582.0 0.0 582.0 375.0 375.0 Sewer Main Rehabilitation (S-1) West Downtown Trunk I (S-6) Forest Drive Extension (S-12) West Downtown Trunk II (S-4) NW Cherry Extension (S-7) Lewis Lane Sewer DesignStreet Neighborhood Extension Upper Sycamore Extension (S-4) 250.0 250.0200.0 250.0350.0 250.0350.0 250.0350.0 250.0350.0 19.0 595.00.0 0.015.0 0.010.0 0.0675.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 23.0 270.0200.0 0.0 0.0 56.00.0 641.030.0 0.0800.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 20.00.0 220.015.0 0.0330.0 0.0 30.0 170.0130.0 260.0 1,000.0 491.00.0 0.0 0.020.0 0.0 0.0520.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 350.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Capacity Projects Subtotal Non-capacity Projects * Does not include misc. services. Sewer System Plan Update (S-10) 559.0 2,071 330.0 1402.0 395.0 493.0 1,218.0 520.0 2,075.0 250.0 350.0 350.0 5,295.0 4,718.0 Utility Rate Update (S-11) Manhole Rehabilitation (S-9) 0.0 Pickering Wet Well Reline 15.0 Pickering Lift Station Fuel System 8.0 Sewer Flow Monitoring Equipment Parcel and Aerial Mapping Miniature Pipe Camera 0.0 0.0 16.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 13.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 25.0 30.0 0.0 75.00.0 0.0 300.0 0.0 0.0 25.0 25.0 0.0 75.050.0 50.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 25.0 0.0 0.0 0.050.0 50.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 25.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 25.0 0.0 0.0 150.0100.0 100.0 316.0 15.0 8.0 125.0 55.0 13.0 589.0 609.0 5,884.0 5,327.0 Non-capacity Projects Subtotal 23.0 16.029.0 2,087 359.0 0.055.0 1,402.0 450.0 375.0350.0 125.075.0 868.0 1,568.0 645.0 2,150 50.075.0 300.0 425.0 25.0 Total Costs Balance: Surplus or (Deficit) 582.0 375.0 *0.0 0.0* 0.0* 0.0* 0.0* 0.0* 0.0 0.0* * Does not reflect up-to-date revenue bond issues. Exhibit A3: Proposed 2004 Comprehensive Plan Amendments Page 44 of 118 4.3 Surface Storm Water Surface Storm water management deals with the detention/ retention and movement of water on the surface of the ground, typically associated with storm water. The control of storm water is essential to preventing property damage due to flooding and to prevent the degradation of water quality. To this end, the City commits substantial resources to providing adequate storm water management facilities. An inventory of the City’s storm water facilities and their locations is provided in Figure 910, the Storm Water Drainage Map (Utilities and Public Services Element, Volume 1). 4.3.1 Surface Storm Water Drainage Level Of Service: The City's existing minimum LOS standard for surface water drainage management is the requirement that all private or public on-site or off-site storage, conveyance and treatment facilities result in little or no impact to downstream water quality and quantity. Several storm drainage projects have been identified to correct existing deficiencies and to accommodate projected growth for the period 2003-20082004-2009. Nonstructural storm drainage management measures, such as the implementation of the Issaquah Basin Action Plan, will be used to help the City plan for future storm water needs. 4.3.3 Finance. Capital facilities costs for storm drainage system improvements include approximately $ 1.7 million to account for anticipated growth and proper functioning of the existing system from 2003-20082004-2009. Approximately an additional $3.86.4 million will be needed over the same period for non-capacity projects. Exhibit A3: Proposed 2004 Comprehensive Plan Amendments Page 45 of 118 Table CF-4 City of Issaquah Capital Facilities Financing 6-Year Stormwater Projects (2003-2008)(2004-2009) (1) Sources/Uses SOURCES OF FUNDS Stormwater Capital Fund Stormwater Fund Total Sources USES OF FUNDS Capacity Projects: Property acquisition and restoration (99-48)(ST-7)(2004 Budget= Sycamore Area Stream Rehab.) Tibbetts greenway improvements (96-19) (ST-1) Gilman/Pickering Channel restoration monitoring/ maintenance (99-29/9917)(ST-10) E. Lake Sammamish Rd. Drainage Improvements Capacity Projects Subtotal: Non-capacity projects: Floodplain/floodway mapping (99-49) (ST-12) Stormwater Management Program Bianco Mine Tailings Stabilization (201-007) (ST-3) Cherry Area Channel Improvements (97-14) (ST-9) Storm Drainage Rehabilitation & Improvements (ST-8) Water Quality Retrofits/Aquifer Recharge Feasibility Study (ST-15) Stormwater System Surveying and Mapping (99-47) (ST-11) Stormwater System Surveying and Inventory (Program) Utility rate update (ST-13) Foothills Detention Pond Fencing 229th Ave. Access Study (storm share) TV Stormline Inspection (2) 2003 (All Amounts Are Times $1,000) (32) (43) (54) 2004 2005 2006 609.0 1,715.0 2.0 609.0 1,717.0 1,307.0 2,028.0 1,307.0 2,028.0 1,350.0 2,257.0 1,350.0 2,257.0 (65) 2007 690.0 910.0 690.0 910.0 (76) 2008 643.0 654.0 643.0 654.0 (7) 2009 (8) TOTAL 881.0 552.0 881.0 552.0 8,116.0 2.0 5,485.0 8,118.0* 0.0 619.0 40.0 40.065.0 50.0190.0 0.0 0.0 90.0 255.0 5.00.0 10.00.0 0.0 150.0 150.0 300.0 20.095.0 0.0 0.0 320.0 395.0 300.0 10.00.0 0.0 0.0 310.0 300.0 300.0 300.0 945.01,265.0 729.0285.0 20.00.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 320.0 300.0 0.0 300.0 40.0 150.0 1,714.0 1,700.0 659.0 0.0 50.0 10.0 15.0 75.0 0.0 0.0 0.02.0 0.0 60.0 0.05.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 5.02.0 200.0 250.0 0.0 60.067.0 250.0 26.0 1,070.0 1,149.0 1,625.0 1,250.0 225.0 220.0 190.0 9.0 40.0 250.0 100.0 0.0 120.0 20.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 1,300.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 519.0 1,462.0 609.0 1,717.0 0.0* 7.0 0.0 1,000.05.0 5.01,100.0 5.02.0 700.0 200.0 200.0 250.0 200.0 25.00.0 40.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 20.0 1,593.0 0.0 15.0 5.0 60.0 1,292.0 1,878.0 1,307.0 2,028.0 0.0* 0.0 250.0 0.0 200.020.0 0.0200.0 0.0 10.0 0.0 50.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 10.07.0 0.0 300.0 100.0 25.0 1,035.0 1,862.0 1,355.0 2,257.0 0.0* 10.0 0.0 50.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 15.03.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 380.0 610.0 690.0 910.0 0.0* 10.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 8.02.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 323.0 354.0 643.0 654.0 0.0* 0.0 22.0 20.0 15.0 0.0 0.0 Squak Valley Stream Restoration 15.0 Stormwater System Plan Update Tributary 0170 Culvert Replacement at NW Sammamish Road Tributary 0170 Drainage Improvement Parcel & Aerial Mapping 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 20.0 100.0 22.0 20.0 15.0 168.0 2,907.0 200.0 315.0 105.0 85.0 3,771.0 6,418.0 5,485.0 8,118.0* 0.0* Non-capacity projects Subtotal: 222.0 252.0 Subtotal All Projects: Balance: Surplus or (Deficit) * Does not reflect up-to-date revenue bond issues. 881.0 0.0* 552.0 0.0 * Does not reflect up-to-date revenue bond issues. Exhibit A3: Proposed 2004 Comprehensive Plan Amendments Page 46 of 118 4.4 Fire Service Facilities: Eastside Fire and Rescue, which was created 1998 by the consolidation of Issaquah Fire Department and Fire District 10, provides fire protection services to the City. The fire department provides a complete range of services including fire protection, emergency medical services, fire code planning, engineering and enforcement to both businesses and residents alike. This requires the Department to maintain appropriate resources to respond to a variety of fire fighting and medical aid needs. Capital facilities associated with fire protection include facilities such as fire stations (See Figure 12 15 for locations of fire and police stations within the City), and equipment, including service/aid vehicles and fire fighting equipment. 4.4.3 Finance: Future capital facility expenditures for fire are addressed in Table CF-6. Over the next six years, the City plans approximately $7.8 $4.0 million in investments to continue to meet the adopted fire LOS standard. In addition, approximately $276,000 in supplemental fire service investments are planned. Table CF-5 Fire Level of Service Standards Apparatus (1) (2) Population 2001 Actual 2002- Actual 2003 Actual 2004 Actual 2008 2009 Projected Total Facilities (1) (2) City Size (in sq. miles) 2002 Actual 2003 ProjectedActual 2004 Actual 2008 2009 Projected Total 9.89 .64 (additional) 0 (additional) 10.53 (3) Stations needed for LOS standard of 1 station per every 5 sq. miles 1.97 .12 (additional) 0 (additional) 2.102.09 (4) Existing/projected stations 21** 1 (additional) # 2 (total)** 3(total)## (5) Net Surplus or (Deficiency) +0.03-.97 1-.09 -.09 +.90+.91## 12,950 13,790 15,110 15,510 24,51623,229 (3) Apparatus needed @ 0.428 units per 1,000 people 5.54 5.9 6.46 6.64 10.499.9 (4) Number of units (apparatus) 6* 0 new 1 new 0 new 7 (5) Net Surplus or (Deficiency) +.46 +.1 +.54 +.36 (-3.492.9) * Does not include administrative or staff vehicles ** Does not include temporary station currently in place or the station on Newport use for administration and maintenance that is not a first response facility (Newport Station classification per Eastside Fire and Rescue 7/04).. # Planned stations for Addition of first response facility at the Issaquah Highlands & NW Issaquah. ## Additional permanent first response facility planned beside the Issaquah Transit Center. Pending final agreements with Sound Transit.. Exhibit A3: Proposed 2004 Comprehensive Plan Amendments Page 47 of 118 Table CF-6 City of Issaquah Capital Facilities Financing 6-Year Fire Projects (2003-2008)(2004-2009) (1) Sources/Uses SOURCES OF FUNDS Mitigation Fund (Fire Reserves) Highlands Fire Station Fund Impact Fees/Bond/Other Equipment Rental Fund Total Sources 2003 (2) (All Amounts Are Times $1,000) (3) (4) (5) (6) 2004 2005 2006 2007 (7) 2008 (8) 2009 (8) TOTAL 303.9 2,820.0 0.0 0.0150.0 0.065.2* 2,080.0 25.0 2,080.0 240.2 0.0 0.0 1,000.0 62.0 1,000.0 62.0 0.0 0.0 2,000.0 1,039.0 2,000.0 1,000.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3,000.0 0.0 0.0 3,000.0 0.0 303.9150.0 2,820.065.2 5,080.0 4,126.0 8,203.9 4,341.2 3,123.9 0.0 USES OF FUNDS Capacity Projects: Highland Fire Station #73 2,685.0 Land acquisition and construction of NW fire station (Station #72) 0.0 Medical Aid Car 135.0 Capacity Projects Subtotal: Non-capacity Projects Ladder truck axle replacement Station #71 (E. Sunset Way) seismic inspection and improvements plan Infrared Camera Mobile Data Computers Community Hall Kitchen remodel (for Emergency Ops Center) Fire Truck Axle Upgrade Fire Station #71 Driveway Non-capacity Projects Subtotal 2,820.0 0.0 2,000.0 0.0 2,000.0 0.0 0.0 1,000.0 0.0 1,000.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3,000.0 0.0 0.0 3,000.0 0.0 2,685.0 21,000.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 21,000.0 0.0 54,000.0 135.0 7,820.0 4,000.0 0.0 25.0 0.0 25.0 0.0125.0 25.025.0 0.0 30.0 25.0 0.0 80.0 175.0 2,080.0 175.0 0.0 0.0 0.00.0 53.0 0.0 0.0 9.0 0.0 62.0 1,000.0 62.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 39.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 39.0 2,000.0 1,039.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 25.0 125.0 25.0 92.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 25.0 30.0 25.0 9.0 105.0 276.0 7,925.0 4,276.0 Total Costs Balance: Surplus or (Deficit) 2,845.0 0.0 0.0 3,000.0 0.0 +278.9 0.0+65.2* 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0+65.2 * Represents an ending fund balance for the Highlands Fire Station Fund. Exhibit A3: Proposed 2004 Comprehensive Plan Amendments Page 48 of 118 4.5 Police Service Facilities: Police protection services are provided by the City of Issaquah Police Department. In early 2000, a new police facility was constructed across from City Hall South, which combines police, jail and emergency operations under one roof. (See Figure 1215, Municipal Facility Map, for locations of police facilities throughout the City). Since police officers are not “capital,” this standard is extrapolated to calculate the number of patrol vehicles needed. Using the standard of two officers per patrol vehicle found in the 1999 Rate Studies and Ordinances, a de facto patrol vehicle standard is one vehicle per two officers. In addition, the Rate Study equates 300 square feet of public safety building space to each officer. Capital facilities associated with police services include police stations, training facilities, and police equipment. Projected capital facility requirements are based on the number of officers needed to respond to the calls for service LOS standard. As the need for additional officers increases, so too does the need for additional police equipment and facilities. 4.5.2 Police Future Needs: With the recent construction of a new police facility in 2000, the City more thanwill easily meets its facility requirements for the next six years2004-2009 period; however, as Table CF-7 indicates, the City will need to acquire additional patrol vehicles to meet its police vehicle level of service standards. Finance: Police capital expenditures over the next six years are estimated to be $475,000$450,000. Most of the funding will be for additional vehicles and equipment. 4.5.3 Exhibit A3: Proposed 2004 Comprehensive Plan Amendments Page 49 of 118 Table CF-7 Police Level of Service Patrol Vehicles: 0.5 Vehicles per Officer (1) (2) CFS/capita (0.8410.795)1 10,988 11,599 2001 Actual 2002 Actual Population 12,950 13,790 (3) Officers required @ 640 CFS/ Officer 17.1 18.1 (4) Patrol Cars Required @ 0.5 cars/ officer 8.5 9.1 (5) (6) 2003 ProjectedActual 15,22315,110 12,80312,005 20.018.76 10.09.34 2004 Projected 2008 2009 Projected Total 15,510 24,51623,229 12,330 20,61818,467 (2) CFS/ (per capita for projections(0.848 0.795)1 10,988 11,599 12,80312,005 12,330 20,61818,467 19.27 32.228.85 (3) Officers required @ 640 CFS/ Officer 17.1 18.1 20.018.8 19.3 32.228.85 9.63 16.114.43 (4) Square feet required @ 300 sq. ft. / officer 5,130 5,430 6,0005,640 5,790 9,6608,655 Patrol Cars Net Surplus or available (Deficiency) 8 (-0.5) 8 total (-1.1) 8 total (10 total inc. 2 planned for acquisition ( -2 (-1.34) in 2004) 8 total (10 total in 2005 with planned acquisition) (-1.63) 10 (-6.1)(-4.43) (5) Square Feet available3 13,129 +0 +0 +0 13,129 (6) Net Surplus or (Deficiency) +7,999 +7,699 +7,129+7,359 +7,209 +3,469+4,474 Public Safety Building: 300 sq. ft. per Officer2 (1) 2001 Actual 2002 Actual 2003 Projected TotalActual 2004 Projected Total 2008 2009 Projected Total 1 2 Population 12,950 13,790 15,22315,110 15,510 24,51623,229 Total calls for service in 2002 2003 (11,59912,005) / Total 2002 2003 population (13,79015,110) Although the Comprehensive Plan does not include a level of service standard for police facilities, the standard from the 1999 Rate Studies and Ordinances for police services is included to calculate anticipated City expenditures for police facilities. 3 Taken from Approved Building Plans for the City’s Police & Jail facility per Issaquah Public Works Department. Exhibit A3: Proposed 2004 Comprehensive Plan Amendments Page 50 of 118 Table CF-8 City of Issaquah Capital Facilities Financing 6-Year Police Projects (2003-2008)(2004-2009) (All Amounts Are Times $1,000) (2) (32) (43) (54) (65) (76) 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 0.0 69.6 0.0 76.00.0 77.022.0 0.0 0.0161.5 150.0135.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 95.00.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 95.00.0 (1) Sources/Uses SOURCES OF FUNDS Capital Improvement Fund Mitigation Fund (Police Reserves) Police Station Construction Fund Equipment Rental Fund (Police Share) Inmate Welfare Fund Total Sources USES OF FUNDS Capacity Projects: 2 Marked Police Patrol Vehicles Non-capacity Projects Laptop Computer Upgrades Police Motorcycle Mobile Command Vehicle Administrative Vehicle Detective Vehicles First Response Equipment Special Operations Team Equipment 911 Call Receiver Station Imaging Module Security Video Equipment Patrol Vehicle Replacement (x4) Weapons Simulators Camera Equipment Non-capacity Projects Subtotal: Total Costs: Balance Surplus or (Deficit): (7) 2009 0.0 0.0 (8) TOTAL 321.0296.5 146.622.0 0.0 74.0132.0 18.9 560.5450.5 74.0 0.0132.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 18.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 143.6 171.9154.0 0.0161.5 150.0135.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 76.00.0 0.0101.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 76.0101.5 0.0 18.0 0.0 0.0 30.0 0.0 10.0 0.0 0.0 58.0 58.0 22.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 55.00.0 0.0 0.0 20.0 112.0 0.0 18.9 95.9154.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.025.0 0.0 35.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.060.0 0.0 0.0 120.0135.0 30.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 65.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 30.0 0.0 95.00.0 95.00.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 22.0 18.0 120.0135.0 30.0 65.0 30.0 55.025.0 10.0 35.0 20.0 112.0 30.0 18.9 398.9349.0 474.9450.5 150.0135.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 171.9154.0 0.0161.5 150.0135.0 0.0 +85.6 0.00.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Exhibit A3: Proposed 2004 Comprehensive Plan Amendments Page 51 of 118 Table CF-14 Capital Facilities Projects and Financing Plan 6-year Parks Projects (2003-20082004-2009)1 (All Amounts Are Times $1,000) (1) Sources/Uses SOURCES OF FUNDS Capital Improvement Fund (CIF) 0.0 160.00.0 110.0 0.0 17.0 660.0 1,981.0 0.0312.9 930.0 2,310.9 1,120.0 518.5 0.0 1,695.0 0.0 460.00.0 0.0 1,580.0 2,213.5 1,620.0 452.5 0.0 2,175.0 0.0 930.0 5,200.0 0.0 950.0 860.0 65.0 0.0 500.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 860.0 590.0 125.0 4,690.0 6,361.0 459.7 5,760.0 17.0 6,086.0 2,731.0 1,097.3 312.9 12,333.0 15,181.9 (2) 2003 (32) 2004 (43) 2005 (54) 2006 (65) 2007 (76) 2008 (7) 2009 (8) TOTAL Grants/ Donations/Mitigation Fund (with CIF contributions) 349.7 Equipment Rental Fund Highlands Park Fund Senior Center Construction Fund Total Sources USES OF FUNDS Capacity Projects: Issaquah Highlands Parks Squak Valley Park North/South Squak Valley Park North Tibbetts Tot LotValley Park Play Area Pickering Courtyard Project Pickering Trail Viewing Platform Pickering Group Picnic Area 0.0 3,886.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4,086.0 1,097.3 5,533.0 440.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 565.0 0.0 440.0 440.00.0 750.0 0.0 2,060.0 2,627.5 0.0 1,370.0 6,900.0 660.01,821.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 200.00.0 0.0 0.0 0.0312.9 0.0 460.00.0 0.0 50.0 150.0 0.0 0.0200.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 500.00.0 150.0 1,400.02 0.0 300.00.0 0.0 255.0 1,560.0 1,905.0 440.0 440.00.0 750.0 750.0 150.0 100.0 750.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 30.0 200.0 0.0 0.0 500.0 1,750.0 150.0 0.0 0.0 0.0300.0 0.0 255.0 2,040.0 2,435.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 200.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 150.0 0.0 90.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 5,886.0 2,571.0 900.0 1,050.0 150.0 90.0 0.0 90.0 200.0 30.0 400.0 1,097.3 312.9 2,000.0 1,750.0 650.0 1,400.0 50.0 300.0 500.0 250.0 5,610.0 11,673.3 14,213.9 0.0 100.0 0.0 Senior Center Improvements 1,097.3 Property Acquisition and Restoration1 0.0 Trail Expansions and ImprovementsIssaquah-High Point Regional Trail Missing Link 0.0 Bear Ridge Trailhead – Cougar Mt. Tibbetts Valley Park: Field #1, & #2, & #3 lights Hillside Park Improvements Community Center Expansion Capacity Projects Subtotal 1 0.0 500.0 500.00.0 0.0 150.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 5,100.0 1,340.0 6,800.0 150.0 0.0 50.03 200.0 0.0 0.0 840.0 500.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 250.0 0.0 440.0 50.00.0 0.0 0.0 4,983.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 910.0 2,133.9 Information for years 2004-2008 is from the 2003 update to the Issaquah Parks, Recreation, Trails and Open Space Plan to be adopted concurrently with all other amendments to the Comprehensive Plan. In future years this information will be included in the CIP. 1 Property Acquisition and Restoration includes Johnson Property and Precipice Trail Property Acquisitions from 2004 CIP, shifted to 2006 per Parks Dept. 7/04. 2 Amount increased from 2004 CIP per Parks Department 7/04. 3 Bear Ridge Trailhead from 2004 CIP shifted and increased to 2007 per Parks Department 7/04. Exhibit A3: Proposed 2004 Comprehensive Plan Amendments Page 52 of 118 Table CF-14 Capital Facilities Projects and Financing Plan 6-year Parks Projects (2003-2008) (2004-2009) (Continued) (All Amounts Are Times $1,000) (1) (2) (32) 2004 20.017.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 160.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 20.0 177.0 930.0 2,310.9 0.0 (43) 2005 20.095.0 0.015.0 0.0 0.0 55.0 6.0 12.5 45.0 0.0 20.0 0.0 60.0 0.0 20.0 308.5 1,580.0 2,213.5 0.0 (54) 2006 20.070.0 0.0 0.0 25.0 0.0 0.0 12.5 0.0 0.0 30.0 55.0 0.0 0.0 20.0 192.5 2,060.0 2,627.5 0.0 (65) 2007 20.0100.0 0.0 10.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 30.0 100.0 1,370.0 6,900.0 0.0 (76) 2008 20.045.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 20.0 20.0 65.0 860.0 590.0 0.0 (7) 2009 125.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 125.0 565.0 (8) TOTAL 102.5452.0 21.015.0 10.0 25.0 55.0 6.0 25.0 45.0 160.0 50.0 55.0 60.0 20.0 133.5 968.0 11,806.8 15,181.9 0.0 Sources/Uses 2003 Non-capacity Projects Swimming Pool Enhancements1 2.5 Park Facility Maintenance Vehicle 21.0 Hillside Park Master Plan 0.0 Hillside Park Fence Tradition and Round Lake Restoration Tibbetts Valley Park Gate Irrigation Controllers Swamp and Kees Big Tree Trail and Boardwalk reconst. Highlands Park Maintenance Equipment Park Equipment Storage Buildings2 Park Maintenance Vehicles3 Pool Feasibility Study Large Format Plotter Non-capacity Projects Subtotal Total Costs Balance: Surplus or (Deficit) 1 2 23.5 5,006.8 526.2 Combines multiple projects from the 2003 2004 CIP to refurbish the existing swimming pool. Combines multiple projects from the 2004 CIP for park storage buildings. 3 Combines multiple projects from the 2004 CIP for park maintenance vehicles. Exhibit A3: Proposed 2004 Comprehensive Plan Amendments Page 53 of 118 Table CF-15 Capital Facilities Projects and Financing Plan Parks (Annual Investment Per Capita of Population Growth) (All Amounts Are Times $1,000) (Established Rate = $2,036.26 per Person) (3) (4) (5) Population Growth Adopted LOS from previous Parks Capacity Capacity year(s) Investments Total (=Per Capita (actual/ projected) (actual/planned) Growth x $2,036.26) 1,738 $ 5,860,000 $ 3,539,022 840 $ 11,837,300 $ 1,710,458 1,320 $4,983,000 $ 2,687,863 400 $2,133,900 $814,504 $19,153,061 $15,717,890 (1) (2) (6) Annual Surplus/Deficit Total +$ 2,320,977 +$10,126,842 +$ 2,295,137 +3,614,533 +$41,082* +14,719,599* Year Population 12,950 2001 Actual 13,790 2002 Actual 15,110 2003 ProjectedActual 15,510 2004 Projected Total 20082005-2009 $6,690,000 Projected Cumulative 24,51623,229 9,4067,719 $12,080,000 Totals * Reflects the cumulative absorption of any surplus recorded for preceding years. As Table CF-13 indicates, the total amount of capital funds needed to meet the anticipated demand, or the investment needed for growth, is approximately $20,448,102. As identified in Table CF-14, funding (direct, mitigation, and donation) for capacity projects over the next six years is estimated to be $11,673,300$14,213,900. Non-capacity projects are estimated to cost $133,500 $968,000 for the same period. Table CF-15 indicates future surplus or deficit totals for planned capacity projects as recorded in the 2003 Issaquah Parks, Recreation, Trails and Open Space Plan2004 Annual Budget and the 2004 Capital Improvement Plan. 4.7.2 Maintenance: City Public Works maintenance shops, equipment rental garage and Issaquah Parks maintenance shops are all located on a 2.3- acre site in a residential neighborhood near Issaquah Creek. Building maintenance shops are dispersed in several City facilities. These This parks maintenance shop are is a semi-industrial, operational facilities facility necessary to accommodate the City’s vehicle and equipment maintenance, materials storage, and work shops and work crew quarters. The existing facilities are not adequate for the current need and will need to be expanded in the future as the City grows. In 1993, the City purchased 9.1 acres of land adjacent to I-90 as a future maintenance site. This facility became operational in 2003. By locating all shops on a single site, the City saves money by not having to duplicate facilities. 4.7.5 Finance: It will cost approximately $13.5 million to accommodate the anticipated growth and expansion of the City Administration and Shop facilities between 2002 and 20072004-2009. No estimate of Administrative and Maintenance capital facilities costs are currently available for 2008 through 2015. The Public Works Maintenance Shops require eight acres if developed alone. The Parks Maintenance shops require approximately four acres if developed alone. Exhibit A3: Proposed 2004 Comprehensive Plan Amendments Page 54 of 118 Table CF-16 City of Issaquah Capital Facilities Financing Plan 6-year Municipal Facilities Projects (2003-20082004-2009) (1) Sources/Uses SOURCES OF FUNDS Capital Improvement Fund (Municipal Facilities portion) 84.0 Shop Construction Fund Mitigation Fund Equipment Rental Fund (capital outlay) (2) 2003 (All Amounts Are Times $1,000) (32) (43) (54) 2004 2005 2006 (65) 2007 (76) 2008 (7) 2009 (8) TOTAL 662.0 1,090.3 1,244.3* 4,010.8 810.4 0.0 0.0140.0 5,063.8 1,274.7 1,428.7* 578.0 0.0 0.040.4 0.0 0.0140.0 578.0 184.4 0.0322.5 – 0.0 476.5* 491.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 322.5 476.5* 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 491.5 0.0 13.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 13.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 263.3 0.0 4,010.8 50.0 301.0 0.0 Total Sources 4,485.8 0.0 263.3 * Two options for CHNW Parking Lot in 2005. To be determined in future. USES OF FUNDS Capacity Projects: Administrative Offices (10,069 sf) ('02 carryover) PW Shop Construction (40,967 sf) Satellite Storage Sites (2x 1,500 sf)1 Pickering Barn Carriage House (Office and Meeting Space at xxx sf) 80.0 3,860.8 150.0 0.0 0.040.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 40.4 0.0 0.0 0.0150.0 0.0 0.0 150.0 0.0 0.0 0.0420.0 38.0 0.0 458.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 80.0 3,860.8 40.4 150.0 570.0 Subtotal Capacity Projects 4,090.8 Non-capacity projects Portable Night Lights Citywide Computer Plan Implementation Replace Network Switches Concrete Saw EDEN Financial System Upgrade Park Maintenance Shop Remodel Parks Shop Drive landscaping Bucket Truck VHF Radio Repeater De-Icing Unit City Hall South siding Tibbetts Creek Manor 38.0 4,090.8 648.4 100.0 19.0 0.0 15.0 15.0 16.0 75.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.033.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.013.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 19.0 100.0 15.0 15.0 16.0 75.0 50.0 101.5 150.0 38.0 13.0 69.7 13.0 50.0 0.0 150.0 38.0 13.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 101.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 69.7 13.0 0.0 Exhibit A3: Proposed 2004 Comprehensive Plan Amendments Page 55 of 118 DrivewayImprovements2 Tibbetts Creek Manor 0.0 Fencing Tibbetts Creek Barn roof replacement Community Center Carpet Replacement City Hall NW parking lot 0.0 replacement (Option #1) City Hall NW parking lot repair (Option #2) City Hall NW roof replacement City Hall NW Improvements 3 0.0 10.0 8.8 0.0 175.00.0 0.0 200.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0175.0 21.0 0.0 75.0 15.0 29.0 24.0 8.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 190.0 73.3 0.0 0.0 46.5 10.0 8.8 73.3 175.0 21.0 200.0 75.0 15.0 29.0 24.0 8.5 190.0 Multi-Purpose Utility Vehicle Facilities Maint. Truck Facilities Maint. Car Citywide Bldg. Re-Key Card Access System Subtotal A non-capacity projects w CHNW Parking Option #1 Subtotal B non-capacity projects w CHNW Parking Option #2 TOTAL A Balance: W CHNW Parking Option #1 Surplus (or Deficit) TOTAL B Balance: W CHNW Parking Option #2 Surplus (or Deficit) 1 2 578.0 140.0 0.0 326.5 0.0 33.5 0.0 13.0 0.0 263.3 929.0 776.3 140.0 172.5 33.5 13.0 0.0 263.3 622.3 578.0 184.4 0.0 0.0 476.5 0.0 0.0 491.5 0.0 0.0 13.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 263.3 0.0 5,019.8 1,428.7 0.0 184.4 0.0 322.5 0.0 491.5 0.0 13.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 263.3 0.0 1,274.7 0.0 Satellite storage square footage per Public Works Operations (6/12/03) Tibbetts Creek Manor Improvements includes multiple improvement projects from the 2004 CIP. 3 City Hall NW Improvements includes multiple improvement projects from the 2004 CIP. Exhibit A3: Proposed 2004 Comprehensive Plan Amendments Page 56 of 118 4.10 Funding of Capital Facilities. All municipal capital facility needs for existing and future development except transportation facilities are identified in this element. The previous sections describe the capacity of facilities, their level of service standards and the funding estimates for the proposed capital facility projects. Each table lists proposed projects and their funding sources over the next six years. Projects are identified as capacity or non-capacity projects. Capacity projects are those projects that address current or future level of service deficiencies. Non-capacity projects are other necessary projects, such as studies, plans, additional equipment, but do not directly address level of service deficiencies. The total capital improvement costs needed to meet the City’s 2002 2003 capital facility needs based on the adopted level of service standards are illustrated in Table CF-17. This table provides a breakdown of costs per type of capital facility and associated revenue sources to fund the projects. Table CF-17 Capital Facilities Projects and Financing Plan Municipal Facilities (Annual Investment Per Capita of Population Growth) (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) Year 2000 Actual 2001 Actual 2002 Actual 2003 Projections1Actual 2004 Projections1 1 2 Adopted New LOS Needed Single Adopted New Multi- Adopted Adopted Capacity Municipal Family LOS=9.92 Family LOS=5.36 New NonLOS=.00357 Total Facilities Dwelling sq.ft. per SF Dwelling sq.ft. per Residential sq. ft. per 1 (=Columns Floor Space Units5 Unit Units MF Unit Floor Space Non-Res sq. ft. 3+5+7) Added 2762 46 132 493tbd tbd 2,737.92 456.32 1309.44 4,890.56tbd tbd 2472 462 59 27tbd tbd 1,323.92 2,476.32 316.24 144.72tbd tbd 1,503,5073 75,954 13,506 31,618tbd tbd 5,367.52 271.15 48.22 112.88tbd tbd 9,429.36 3,203.79 1,673.89 5,148.16tbd tbd n/a 4 Annual Surplus/ Deficit Total (0) 4 51,036 n/a3,0005 +46,158.32 +41,010.16 Surplus tbd Surplus tbd Available projections address population and do not offer the level of detail needed for this LOS measure. Annual monitoring will continue. Includes new units gained in the North Issaquah annexations of 2000 as noted in the 1999 North Issaquah Annexation Evaluation Report. 3 27 businesses were noted in the 1999 North Issaquah Annexation Evaluation Report that range widely in size. This figure accounts for Issaquah permits in 2000 and the pipeline projects in the area constructed under King County. Additional data on pre-annexation existing structures to be added, but will not significantly impact LOS due to balance of municipal facilities at time of annexation. 4 Appropriations for administrative office space were made in 2001 as well as 2002. The space was not available for occupancy until 2002. 5 3000 square feet added with 2 satellite storage sites in 2003. 5 Permit Plan data counts certain attached dwellings as Single Family units when they are associated with individual lots. Permit Data Source = Permit Plan Exhibit A3: Proposed 2004 Comprehensive Plan Amendments Page 57 of 118 Table CF-18 City of Issaquah Capital Facilities Financing Plan Capital Improvement Costs 20032004 (All Amounts in Thousands of Dollars) TOTAL SOURCES OF FUNDS Capital Improvement/Capital Outlay Fund Equipment Rental Fund Highlands Fire Station Fund Highlands Park Facilities Fund Mitigation Fund Reservoir Construction Improvement Fund Senior Center Construction Fund Shop Construction Fund Sewer Capital Projects Fund Stormwater Capital Fund Stormwater Fund Water Capital Projects Fund Water Fund Other (ex. Mitigation, Donation, misc.) Total USES OF FUNDS2 Water Storm water Sanitary Sewer Police Services Fire Services Administration Parks Total 1 2 1 84.0 375.0289.0 2,820.065.2 4,086.01,981.0 773.2172.0 470.0 1,097.3312.9 4,010.840.4 582.0359.0 881.01,715.0 2.0 525.0100.0 154.6 25.0 15,704. 1 5,216.1 995.0254.6 881.01,717.0 582.0359.0 58.0154.0 2,845.0175.0 4,441.8184.4 5,006.82,310.9 14,809.6 5,154.9 Does not reflect up-to-date revenue bond issues. Does not reflect misc. services Exhibit A3: Proposed 2004 Comprehensive Plan Amendments Page 58 of 118 Exhibit A3: Proposed 2004 Comprehensive Plan Amendments Page 59 of 118 A table summarizing the street segment inventory is presented in the Appendix T-4T-2 of the Technical Appendices document. This data was then used to measure adequacy of the current transportation system. 9.1 Transportation Improvement Plan. Based on the roadway deficiencies identified for the existing facilities and those discussed above, the City has prepared a Transportation Improvement Plan for the period 1995-20152005-2022. Figure T-5 in the Comprehensive Plan, Volume #2, Transportation Element Appendix identifies the location of each proposed project. Specific project information is provided in Comprehensive Plan, Volume #2, Appendix T-3 (of the Transportation Element), including project name, estimated cost and construction year. The projects identified on FigureT-5 are keyed by number to the specific projects and categories listed in Appendix T-3. The proposed construction year is indicated for each candidate project proposed for inclusion in the City's six year (2001-20062005-2010) TIP. 10. Finance 10.1 Analysis of Funding Capability. The City does not currently possess the resources to construct all of the facilities identified in the plan. However, not all of the identified improvements are required to be constructed immediately, but rather, they will be phased in over time. This phased approach is reflected in the City's proposed Six Year (2001-20062005-2010) Transportation Improvement Program (TIP). Table T-5 in the Comprehensive Plan, Volume #2, illustrates the City’s fiscal commitment to transportation projects over the next six years. Table T-5 differs from the TIP in that it does not contain all projects listed in the TIP. Instead, the transportation capital projects represented in Table T-5 are those projects to which the City has committed over the next six years. The project list is tied to the capital budget in that the first year’s projects (20012005) have been budgeted. The remaining years, 2002-20062006-2010 are estimated costs for the identified projects but does not lock the City into those projects. The City will review project proposals each year and prioritize each based on need and funding. 11.1 Eastside Transportation Program. The Eastside Transportation Program (ETP) was organized in the Fall of 1987 as a cooperative effort to address transportation problems and issues. The ETP prepared the Recommendations Report in November 1989, to help eastside jurisdictions address common transportation problems. Also, the report included goals and policies to guide development of transportation programs in the following categories: 11.1.1 11.1.2 11.1.3 11.1.4 11.1.5 Roadway Improvements High Capacity Transit Transportation Demand Management HOV facilities Non-motorized Facilities Specific ETP projects which affect the Issaquah area are listed in Appendix T-9. Exhibit A3: Proposed 2004 Comprehensive Plan Amendments Page 60 of 118 Table T-5 City of Issaquah 6-Year Transportation Projects (2005-2010) (All Amounts in Thousands of Dollars) (1) Sources/Uses SOURCES OF FUNDS City Funds Other Funds1 (2) 2005 (3) 2006 (4) 2007 (5) 2008 (6) 2009 (7) 2010 (8) TOTAL 5,206.8 3,611.3 5,370.9 8,149.2 9,313.3 6,599.1 13,549.0 2,649.9 7,000.0 48,188.3 6,626.8 14,441.7 18,376.1 52,705.8 100,894.1 Total Sources 8,818.1 11,997.7 22,590.8 27,689.4 USES OF FUNDS: Traffic Analysis and Traffic Signal Improvements Non-capacity Projects Neighborhood Mitigation (A-1) Front Street & Dogwood Street Intersection Realignment (A-6) Neighborhood Traffic Calming Program(A3) 229th Ave. SE Traffic Signal Installation (A4) Providence Point Needs Assessment Study (A-5) 300.0 0.0 26.0 302.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 27.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 306.0 28.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1,210.7 29.0 0.0 500.0 9,249.0 20,549.0 0.0 0.0 30.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 31.0 0.0 0.0 300.0 1,516.7 171.0 302.6 500.0 Subtotal USES OF FUNDS: Major Roadway Improvements Capacity Projects Centralized ITS Traffic Signal System (A-2) Issaquah SE Bypass Project (B-2) I-90 Crossing Improvements (B-3) Newport Way improvements (B-10) North Spar Road (B-1) Front St. & NW Gilman Blvd. Intersection Improvements (B-5) East Sunset Way Improvements (B-12) Front St/I-90 Off-Ramp Three Lane Project (G-1) E. Lake Sammamish & 56th Ave Intersection Improvements (B-4) Rainier Blvd. N Improvements (B-8) NW Juniper St. Improvements (B-7) NW Dogwood St. Improvements (B-6) Maple St. Extension (B-11) NW Newport Way Improvements (B-9) E. Lake Sammamish Parkway Improvements (B-14) Subtotal 2 628.6 27.0 334.0 1,739.7 30.0 31.0 2,790.3 2005 545.9. 2006 3,399.0 2007 0.0 2008 0.0 2009 2010 3,944.9 0.0 620.2 2,121.8 2,678.0 2,554.4 0.0 350.0 380.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 350.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 13,896.8 14,313.9 4,661.8 0.0 350.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 350.0 0.0 1,034.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 30,952.7 9,894.2 8,342.2 2,100.0 380.0 2,169.5 2,544.0 1,332.0 560.0 2,081.2 973.3 3,325.0 5,017.2 350.0 0.0 350.0 0.0 92.6 1,042.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1,621.5 0.0 250.0 8,281.2 182.3 2,361.7 0.0 225.0 829.2 0.0 0.0 191.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 1,012.5 0.0 208.2 3,373.7 0.0 240.0 1,092.0 335.0 56.2 142.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 183.3 831.2 0.0 137.9 0.0 9,068.3 10,898.0 0.0 9,100.0 3,702.8 9,350.0 5,012.4 11,004.6 20,336.3 25,037.6 19,552.7 89,224.8 Non-city funding sources include grants from federal and state sources, such as WashDOT, as well as contributions and mitigations from development projects. 3 e.g. Resource Conservation Fund 1 Other funding sources include grants from federal and state sources, such as WSDOT, as well as contributions and mitigations from development projects. Exhibit A3: Proposed 2004 Comprehensive Plan Amendments Page 61 of 118 Table T-5 (Cont'd) City of Issaquah 6-Year Transportation Projects (2004-20092005-2010) (All Amounts in Thousands of Dollars) (1) Sources/Uses (2 2004 (32) 2005 (43) 2006 (54) 2007 (65) 2008 (76) 2009 (7) 2010 (8) TOTAL USES OF FUNDS: Roadway and Street Maintenance Non-capacity Projects Street overlay program (C-1) 630.0 645.0 661.0 677.0 694.0 714.8 736.0 4,127.8 4,127.8 4,127.84,0 21.8 Subtotal USES OF FUNDS: Non-motorized Projects Non-capacity Projects 630.0 645.0 661.0 677.0 694.0 714.8 736.0 Sidewalk Program (D-1) Bicycle Facilities Enhancement (D-2) Downtown Front Street Brick Paver Replacement (D-4) Issaquah-High Point Regional Trail Extension (G-3) 114.0 98.0 50.0 118.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 122.0 0.0103.9 0.0 106.0 127.0 0.0 0.0 1,256.7 127.0 1,383.7 132.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 137.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 142.0 0.0 750.0 778.0 98. 0103.9 50.0 0.0 1,362.7 898.0 2,244.6 Subtotal USES OF FUNDS: Bridge Projects Non-capacity Projects NW Juniper bridge replacement (E-3E-2) Rainier Blvd.. bridge replacement (E-2E-1) NW Sammamish bridge repair (E-1) Subtotal USES OF FUNDS: Shuttle Bus / CTR Projects Capacity Projects Shuttle Bus funding (F-1) Transit Passenger Shelters (F-2F-1) TDM Voluntary Employer Rideshare Program (F3) TDM-City Employee CTR Program (F-4) TDM- Jurisdiction CTR Program(F-6) Flex Car (F-8) 262.0 118.0 122.0331.9 132.0 137.0 142.0 40.0 4.6 40.02,000.0 550.02.0 650.02.0 2.0 30.02.0 2.0 5.02.0 2.0 15.02.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 780.0 2,010.0 560.6 8.0 245.0 289.6 0.0 590.0 2,002.0 0.0 652.04.0 0.0 32.04.0 0.0 7.04.0 0.0 15.02.0 2.0 245.0 1,585.6 2,018.0 2004 587.0 75.0 15.5 19.0 18.9 24.0 2005 591.0 77.0 15.3 19.3 19.5 24.0 2006 595.0 79.0 15.7 19.7 20.1 24.0 2007 599.0 81.0 16.3 20.1 22.9 24.0 2008 603.0 82.0 16.8 20.6 23.5 24.0 2009 607.0 84.0 17.4 21.1 24.3 24.0 2010 3,582.0 478.0 489.0 97.0 119.8 129.2 144.0 4,550.0 489.0 20.0 76.7 96.7 90,671.2 86.0 Subtotal Non-capacity Projects State Concurrency Study (F-5) TDM- Residential Transit Promotion (F-7) Subtotal TOTALS 739.4 20.0 12.5 32.5 9,138.6 746.177.0 0.0 11.9 11.9 26,360.1 753.579.0 0.0 12.4 12.4 31,125.2 763.381.0 0.0 12.8 769.982.0 777.884.0 0.0 13.3 0.0 13.8 13.8 2,467.4 86.0 12.8 13.3 5,933.3 7,162.9 10,965.2 10,614.7 Exhibit A3: Proposed 2004 Comprehensive Plan Amendments Page 62 of 118 Anticipated transportation projects and their estimated costs are identified in Table T-5 above. Twenty-oneSixteen capacity projects, totaling over $80 $89 million are identified in the six year transportation financing plan. The remaining eighteen projects are classified as non-capacity projects as they do not directly add capacity to the City’s transportation system and therefore don’t directly contribute to the City’s level of service standards. The non-capacity projects are expected to cost $ $9.7 approximately $11 million over the six year timeframe. Much of the revenue to fund both the capacity and non-capacity projects will come from grants or bonds, with contributions, impact fees and money from the City’s street improvement fund making up the remainder. Although Table T-5 identifies over three dozennearly thirty transportation projects for a total of $90.6over $100 million, not all of the projects are funded and therefore may not be developed. Because the City has limited fiscal resources which must cover a wide range of services including transportation, it may not be possible for the City to accomplish all the projects identified in Table T-5 above. Each year, the City reviews and prioritizes transportation projects and budgets money for those projects that are deemed most necessary. 11.5 King County. A summary list of King County transportation system improvements for areas adjacent to the City is presented in Appendix T-5 of the Transportation Elementare accounted for in Issaquah traffic models. Detailed project information is available from King County. In addition, King County is the lead for the South Plateau Study. The objective of this study is to develop and evaluate traffic and transit access options between the South Plateau, which includes Klahanie and I90. Exhibit A3: Proposed 2004 Comprehensive Plan Amendments Page 63 of 118 TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT TABLES, APPENDICES AND FIGURES Table T1 Table T2 Table T3 Table T4 Appendix T-1 Appendix T-2 Appendix T-3 Appendix T-4 Appendix T-5 Figure T-3 Figure T-4 Figure T-5 Key Problem Areas Deficient Principal Arterial Segments Transit LOS Guidelines for Allocating Service Transportation Coordination Committees Air Quality Maps Vehicle miles of Travel Approach for Measuring System Performance Transportation Improvement Program: 2005-2010 & Transportation Improvement Plan 1995-2015 Project List2005-2022 Eastside Transportation Program Projects King County Projects Transit Route Map Overloaded Links 1995-2015 Transportation Improvement Plan TECHNICAL APPENDIX, VOLUME 3 Table T4 Table T5 Table T6 Table T11 Street Segment Inventory Trip Generation Tables Traffic Model Calibration Standards for Site Traffic Impact Analysis Technical Appendix Technical Appendix Technical Appendix Technical Appendix Note: Comprehensive Plan Technical Appendix is contained in a separate document. SEPARATE DOCUMENT Urban Trails Plan Exhibit A3: Proposed 2004 Comprehensive Plan Amendments Page 64 of 118 Short Term Parks Improvement Program 2004 -2009 (Subject to further review, analysis, and prioritization in the City's Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) process.) Project Issaquah Highlands Parks Issaquah Highlands Parks Issaquah Highlands Maint Equip. Pickering Farm Courtyard Pickering Farm Group Picnic Area Tibbetts Valley Park Fields 1 and 2 lights Squak Valley Park North Squak Valley Park South Tibbetts Valley Park - Tot-lot by Field 5 Tibbetts Creek Manor Repairs/Renovations Hillside Park Master Plan Pool Renovations CHNW parking lot and renovations Project Total Property Acquisitions for Park Needs Budget* Trail Expansions and Improvements Grand Totals $50,000 $910,000 $860,000 $20,000 $200,000 $1,130,000 $500,000 $20,000 $20,000 $1,480,000 $500,000 $50,000 $300,000 $150,000 $750,000 $150,000 $90,000 $50,000 2004 $600,000 2005 $400,000 2006 $400,000 2007 $400,000 2008 2009 Funding Source Councilmanic Bonds- funded Un-funded Councilmanic Bonds- funded $500,000 $60,000 $200,000 $200,000 $100,000 $100,000 $60,000 $40,000 $40,000 Park Impact, Grants, CIP Park Impact, Grants, CIP Park Impact, Grants, Park Impact, Grants, Talus Funds Park Impact, Grants, CIP Park Impact, Grants, CIP Unfunded $10,000 $20,000 $20,000 $740,000 $500,000 $20,000 $20,000 $230,000 $500,000 $20,000 $20,000 $590,000 $500,000 Unfunded Grants, Park Impact, CIP $5,030,000 Grants $150,000 $1,780,000 $150,000 $2,130,000 $150,000 $1,390,000 $150,000 $880,000 $150,000 $1,240,000 Grants $8,330,000 Exhibit A3: Proposed 2004 Comprehensive Plan Amendments Page 65 of 118 New Tax Sources As funding is limited for acquisition and development of park and recreational facilities, new taxing sources and/or revenues will need to be identified in order to fully implement the short and long term goals of this plan. (See Table 9-1 Short-Term Capital Improvement List 2004-2009). The list of pProjects will be further evaluated in the City's CIP process. Additionally, maintenance and operation costs are not included in the table or bulleted information shown below, only the estimated cost for development. Maintenance and operation costs are considered during the City's budget process. Available Potentially available funds over the next 6 years includes: Issaquah Highlands Councilmanic Bonds (CB)- $1,800,000 (estimated balance after 2003) Issaquah Highlands Maintenance Equip. B) -$200,000(estimated balance after 2003) Park Impact Fee Balance (minus 2003 projects)- approx.$200,000 Projected 6 years Impact Fees -$450,000 Talus Development Mitigation Funds -$650,000 (min) Kerola Funds -$18,000 Sub-Total Available of Listed Funds (not complete list)= - $3,318,000 Short Term Project Estimated Costs -–(from Capital Facilities Element = $5,030,000$15,156,900 Short Term Acquisition Budget - $2,500,000 Short Term Trail Expansion and Improvements Budget -$800,000 Total Short Term Funds Needed - $8,330,000 Long Term Goals (2004-2022) with estimated costs only Tibbetts Valley Park Second Restroom near Tennis Courts $100,000 Tibbetts Valley Park Group Picnic Area near Field #5 $100,000 Tibbetts Valley Park Infield/Outfield renovations $200,000 Tibbetts Valley Park Field #3 Lighting Replacement. $150,000 Memorial Park Second Play Area. $100,000 Gibson Park Half Court Basketball. $50,000 Hillside Park Improvements. $500,000 Issaquah Community Center Expansion.$2,500,000 Second New Community Center (for expanded population). $8 to 10 million Julius Boehm Aquatic Center Renovations$3,000,000 Second New Aquatic Center (for expanded population). $10 to 12 million Pickering Farm Carriage House Renovation.$200,000 Tibbetts Creek Manor/Barn Renovation $200,000 Emily Darst Park, design and development.$450,000 Cybil-Madeline Park, acquisition, design, and development. $2 to 4 million Issaquah Creek Park, design $100,000 New Park Maintenance and Facility Shop $6 to 8 million Issaquah Creek Trail, acquisition, design and development. $10 to 15 million Monitor availability of properties adjacent to properties owned by the City as future park developments, adjacent to existing parks for expansion, and sites in areas lacking park facilities. Total Long Term Funds Needed = $40 to 60 million* *depending on land costs Funding Exhibit A3: Proposed 2004 Comprehensive Plan Amendments Page 66 of 118 The Park Plan provides recommendations, for both funded and unfunded improvement projects , that result in for the short term expenditures of $9 million through the year 2009 with $3 million in revenue. The Park Plan also identifies the need for an estimated $40 to $60 million in order to implement and construct the identified Long Term projects. These cost estimates are preliminary and are based on current dollars and past experience. Costs are updated yearly. Exhibit A3: Proposed 2004 Comprehensive Plan Amendments Page 67 of 118 APPENDIX T-3 Transportation Element Background Transportation Improvement Program: 2005-2010 & Transportation Improvement Plan 2005-2022 Priority A-1 A-2 A-3 A-4 A-5 A-6 B-1 B-2 B-3 B-4 B-5 B-6 B-7 B-8 B-9 B-10 B-11 B-12 B-13 B-14 B-15 B-16 B-17 B-18 B-19 B-20 Neighborhood Mitigation Centralized ITS Traffic Signal System Neighborhood Traffic Calming Program 229th Ave. SE Traffic Signal Installation Providence Point Needs Assessment Study Front Street and Dogwood Street Intersection Realignment North SPAR Road Issaquah SE Bypass Project I-90 Crossing Improvements E. Lake Sammamish Pkwy & SE 56th Street Intersection Improvements Front St. & NW Gilman Blvd Intersection Improvements NW Dogwood Street Improvements NW Juniper St. Improvements Rainier Boulevard N. Improvements NW Newport Way Improvement West of SR-900 Newport Way Improvements Maple Street Extension E. Sunset Way Improvements Klein Hill Road Stabilization E. Lake Sammamish Parkway Improvements Iss-Pine Lake Road HOV Queue Bypass and Transit Signal Priority @ SE 43rd Street Maple St & Newport Way Intersection Improvements Front Street & Sunset Way Intersection Improvements 12th Ave NW/SR 900/NW Sammamish Road Improvements SE 43rd Way/228th Ave HOV Improvements Project Dept. PWE PWE PWE PWE PWE PWE PWE PWE PWE PWE PWE PWE PWE PWE PWE PWE PWE PWE PWE PWE PWE PWE PWE PWE PWE PWE Prior Years $ 489,568 $ 35,709 $ 14,851 $ 7,094 $ $ 1,283 $ 353,689 $ 3,153,483 $ 167,765 $ 15,161 $ $ $ 283 $ $ $ 274,350 $ 3,000 $ $ 46,416 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 2004 Budget $ $ $ $ $ 85,000 15,000 2004 Estimate $ $ 85,000 $ $ $ 15,000 $ $ 375,000 $ 300,000 $ 230,000 $ 120,000 $ 60,000 $ $ $ 35,000 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 2005 $ 300,000 $ 545,900 $ 26,000 $ 302,684 $ $ $ 350,000 $ 620,164 $ 2,678,000 $ 240,000 $ 380,000 $ 142,140 $ 56,228 $ 335,000 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 2006 $ $ 3,399,000 $ 27,000 $ $ $ $ 350,000 $ 2,121,800 $ 2,554,400 $ 1,092,040 $ $ 831,210 $ 183,340 $ 225,000 $ 137,917 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 2007 28,000 306,000 350,000 $ $ $ 29,000 2008 $ $ $ 30,000 $ $ 2009 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 350,000 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 2010 31,000 Total thru 2010 $ 789,568 $ 4,150,609 $ 185,851 $ 309,778 $ 530,000 $ 1,517,982 $ 3,203,689 $ 34,706,117 $ 10,521,945 $ 1,812,201 $ 500,000 $ 973,350 $ 2,081,491 $ 630,000 $ 3,702,753 $ 8,616,643 $ 10,901,033 $ 2,169,478 $ 46,416 $ 9,350,000 $ $ $ $ $ $ Future Years $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 4,360,000 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 1,336,631 $ $ 6,000,000 $ 1,600,000 $ 2,200,000 $ 500,000 $ 1,400,000 $ Total (prior thru future) $ 789,568 $ 4,065,609 $ 185,851 $ 309,778 $ 515,000 $ 1,517,982 $ 7,188,689 $ 34,406,117 $ 10,291,945 $ 1,467,201 $ 440,000 $ 973,350 $ 2,081,491 $ 595,000 $ 3,702,753 $ 8,616,643 $ 10,901,033 $ 2,169,478 $ 1,383,047 $ 9,350,000 $ 6,000,000 $ 1,600,000 $ 2,200,000 $ 500,000 $ 1,400,000 $ $ $ 375,000 $ 300,000 $ 230,000 $ 345,000 $ $ $ 60,000 35,000 - $13,896,760 $ 4,661,780 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 829,150 191,174 - $ $ 500,000 $ 1,210,699 $ 350,000 $ 14,313,910 $ $ $ $ $ 1,012,490 $ $ 3,373,662 $ 3,325,052 $ 208,219 $ 92,663 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ - $ $ 350,000 $ $ $ $ $ $ - - - $ $ $ $ - $ $ $5,017,241 $1,621,522 $1,042,462 $ $ 250,000 $ $ $ $ $ $ - - $ $ $ $ 9,068,292 $ 1,034,354 $ $ 9,100,000 $ $ $ $ $ $ - - $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Exhibit A3: Proposed 2004 Comprehensive Plan Amendments Page 68 of 118 APPENDIX T-3 Transportation Element Background Transportation Improvement Program: 2005-2010 & Transportation Improvement Plan 2005-2022 Priority Project Dept. Prior Years $ 1,226,000 $ 290,598 $ $ 75,271 $ 32,011 $ $ $ $ $ $ 6,186,532 $ 1,024,283 $ 5,162,249 2004 Budget $ 630,000 $ 2004 Estimate $ 630,000 $ $ $ 550,000 $ 111,000 $ $ $ $ $ $ 2,511,000 $ 1,123,000 $ 1,388,000 2005 $ 645,000 $ 118,000 $ $ 2,000 $ 2,000,000 $ 77,000 $ $ $ $ $ 8,818,116 $ 3,611,324 $ 5,206,792 2006 $ 661,000 $ 122,000 $ 103,968 $ 2,000 $ 2,000 $ 79,000 $ $ $ 106,090 $ $ 11,997,765 $ 6,626,801 $ 5,370,964 2007 2008 $ 694,000 $ 132,000 $ $ 2,000 $ 2,000 $ 82,000 $ 2,361,680 $ $ $ $ 27,689,376 $ 18,376,077 $ 9,313,298 2009 $ 714,820 $ 137,000 $ $ 2010 $ 736,000 $ 142,000 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 2,000 86,000 Total thru 2010 $ 6,613,820 $ 1,068,598 $ 103,968 $ 1,183,271 $ 2,264,011 $ 489,000 $ 2,544,000 $ $ 1,362,726 $ $ 109,592,298 $ 54,853,058 $ 54,739,240 Future Years 25,000,000 $ 758,080 $ 164,000 $ $ $ $ $ $ 6,000,000 $ $ 4,500,000 $ 53,818,711 $ 9,450,000 $ 44,368,711 Total (prior thru future) 25,000,000 $ 6,741,900 $ 1,232,598 $ 103,968 $ 633,271 $ 2,153,011 $ 489,000 $ 2,544,000 $ 6,000,000 $ 1,362,726 $ 4,500,000 $ 163,411,009 $ 64,303,058 $ 99,107,951 C-1 D-1 D-2 E-1 E-2 F-1 G-1 G-2 G-3 G-4 Street Overlay Program Sidewalks Program Bicycle Facility Enhancement Rainier Boulevard Bridge Replacement NW Juniper Street Bridge Replacement Transit Passenger Shelters Front Street/I-90 Off Ramp Three Lane Project SR 900 Widening (Between NW Maple St. and NW Gilman Blvd.) Issaquah - High Point Regional Trail Extension SR 900 Pedestrian/Non-Motorized Improvement TOTAL BUDGET PWE PWE PWE PWE PWE PWE PWE PWE PWE PWE $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 677,000 127,000 2,000 2,000 81,000 182,320 $ $ 550,000 $ 111,000 $ $ $ $ $ - - $ 2,000 $ 84,000 $ $ $ $ - $ $ 1,256,636 $ - - $2,736,000 $22,590,820 $9,249,044 $20,549,646 $ 7,000,000 TOTAL FROM NON-CITY SOURCES $1,123,000 $14,441,662 $ 8,149,158 $2,649,911 TOTAL FROM CITY SOURCES $1,613,000 $6,599,134 $13,549,646 Exhibit A3: Proposed 2004 Comprehensive Plan Amendments Page 69 of 118 Exhibit A3: Proposed 2004 Comprehensive Plan Amendments Page 70 of 118 11. 4. Population Updates Existing Conditions 4.1 Population. The population of the City was 15,11015,510 persons as of April 1, 20032004. Population growth in Issaquah consistently has been greater than the King County average (see Table L2). The City's population growth over the planning period has been estimated using King County's projection at a 2 percent annual growth rate from 1995 to 2000, and at a 0.5 percent annual growth rate from 2001 to 2022 and taking into account planned developments which are known to be in the development "pipeline." These projections also recognize the numerous annexations since 1995. The population within the City is expected to grow 155 183 percent, from 10,0089,025 in 1995 to 25,53025,510 in 2022. Much of this growth is attributable to the subareas of Issaquah Highlands, Talus, North Issaquah and Providence Point/Hans Jensen. The population within the Potential Annexation Areas is expected to grow to 16,06313,597 by 2022. This growth within the Potential Annexation Areas can be attributed to developed regions such as Klahanie and Greenwood Point (see Table L-2). Exhibit A3: Proposed 2004 Comprehensive Plan Amendments Page 71 of 118 Table L-2 Population and Household Projection Based on an average 0.5% annual background growth1 from 2003 April 1, 2004 to April 1, 20222 20221 and Council Aapproved growth in the ProjectsUrban Villages Issaquah Planning Department Current Population and Projected Estimated Population and Household Growth April 1, 20024 to April Households 1, 20223 Populati Househo on lds Populati 2003as 2003as Populati Househo on Househo Populati Househo Populati Househo of April of April on April lds April April 1, lds April on April lds April on April lds April 1, 20041 1, 2004 1, 2005 1, 2005 2010 1, 2010 1, 2015 1, 2015 1, 2022 1, 2022 Area Issaquah 6 minus Urban Villages 15,11041 6,570 11,71971 5,0955,6 12,3171 5,3555,8 12,9441 5,6285,9 13,8781 6,0345,7 5,174.5 ac 5 3,041 70 2,978 5,642 3,368 12 3,701 57 4,044 55 2.3 persons per HH Council Approved Projects Issaquah Highlands 4,0872,8 1,6031,2 6,1155,9 7,3677,4 3,2033,2 7,4757,3 3,2033,2 1,520 661 2,603 Urban 66 46 87 75 50 67 50 8 Village3, 4 809 ac Talus Urban 9 2,6601,5 1,15766 1,012 440 3,991 1,735 3,991 1,735 3,991 1,735 Village 3,5 30 5 660 ac Issaquah + 15,11041 6,5706,7 18,4661 7,8557,5 22,4232 9,69310, 24,3022 10,5661 25,2362 10,9721 Council 435 5,510 7,437 81 3,346 150 5,167 0,942 5,510 1,091 Approved 6772% Change 19.512% Change 2334% Change .097.8% Change 3.81.4% Change ProjectVillages 146 1995 -20032004 20032004-2005 2005-2010 2010-2015 2015-2022 6,643.5 ac Potential Annexation Areas (PAAs)7 Populati Househo on ld Populati Househo Populati Househo Populati Househo Populati Househo 200012 200012 on ld on ld on ld on ld Greenwood Point / South Cove8e 10 338.5403 ac 2.8 9 persons per HH Lakemont Triangle 46.5 ac 2.4 persons per HH East Cougar Mountain 776 ac 2,5003,1 9551084 76 333 800 874 364 948 395 948 395 948 395 3,176 2,500 1084 955 3,176 2,500 1084 955 3,176 2,500 1084 955 3,176 2,500 1084 955 152 55 173 63 193 70 223 81 232 84 Exhibit A3: Proposed 2004 Comprehensive Plan Amendments Page 72 of 118 2.75 persons per HH Issaquah 69 40 ac 2.85 persons per HH Klahanie11Klah anie8 1,1001,242 ac 2.6 9 persons per HH King County Island 28 ac Highlands Drive Area PAA 9.3 ac PAAs Subtotal 2,3292,498.3 ac TOTAL: Issaquah + PAAs9 8,972.59,141.8 ac 0 0 0 0 142 50 171 60 171 60 9,74611, 3,8583,7 11,1189, 3,7753,8 11,1189, 3,7753,8 11,1189, 3,7753,8 11,1189, 3,7753,8 118 75 746 58 746 58 746 58 746 58 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 13,1984, 5,2014,9 15,7391 6,8124,9 15,9751 6,9004,9 16,0341 6,9215,0 16,0631 6,9245,0 446 14 4,467 22 4,629 79 4,688 00 4,697 03 28,30813 11,17113 34,2033 29,956 11,657 1,904 14,6671 2,503 38,3983 7,975 16,5931 5,129 40,3363 9,855 17,4871 5,942 41,2994 0,207 17,8961 6,094 1. An estimated 0.5% annual growth rate for housing units and 2.3 persons per household is used to calculate growth in the City without the Urban Villages. 2. The Washington State Office of Financial Management (OFM) provided the 2004 Population figures as of April 1, 2004. 3. Approximately 800 building permits are expeectedexpected to be issued in the Urban Villages by December 31, 2004; of these, 65% are in Issaquah Highlands and 25% will be issued in Talus. Background growth rate is the expected increase in housing density through development within certain areas and zones of the City. 5 6All household projections are assumed as of December 31st of the listed year and are based off an assumed 0.5% infill and 2.3 Persons Per Household (PPH). 7The Washington State Office of Financial Management (OFM) provided the 2004 Population figures as of April 1, 2004. The City’s 2004 household estimate is based on the 2004 Population figures as of April 1, 2004 from the Washington State Office of Financial Management (OFM) multiplied by an average household size of 2.3 persons per household. 8Includes SPAR (Ord. 2227 4/99) 20.5 acres and the N. Issaquah areas (Ord.2255, 2/00); Glacier Ridge Area (Ord. 2309, 5/01) and the Providence Point/ Hans Jensen Area (Ord. 2344, 1/03). 9Number based on 2003 OFM population minus population separated out for the urban villages, (MDRT reported 1,200 units for the Highlands and 375 units for Talus that would be occupied or available by December 2003 multiplied by 2.3 persons per household), then multiplied by the growth factors of .5% infill and .5% background. 104. Issaquah Highlands projection build-out based on 1996 2-party development agreement, Appendix K - Capital Facilities Plan. After completion, no further infill is expected in any of the urban villages. Issaquah Highlands is expected to be built out by 2015. 5. Talus projection build-out based on 12/16/99 development agreement, Appendix I Capital Facilities. After completion, no further infill is expected in any of the urban villages. Talus is expected to be built out by 2010. Exhibit A3: Proposed 2004 Comprehensive Plan Amendments Page 73 of 118 6. April 1, 1995 population was 9,025 as established by the Washington State Office of Financial Management. 117. 2004 Household and Population estimates are not available for the Potential Annexation Areas; totals listed for PAAs are from the year 2000. 8. Greenwood Point/South Cove PAA and Klahanie PAA information based on 2/17/04 Klahanie/South Cove Annexation Study (Nesbitt Planning & Management, Inc.). This study uses housing units rather than households. Units are always slightly larger numbers than households. Greenwood Point annexation area includes South Cove and Lakemont Triangle neighborhoods. South Cove development information based on 10/93 study (Kulits). Lakemont Triangle projection based on preannextion agreements and development by Derus (Lakemont Orchards Apt.) and I-90 Phase One Ltd. Partners (Sammamish Hills Condominiums). 12Klahanie – Chandler Felt K.C. 12/98=3800 housing units. Proposed developments inc. Hunter Land and Ragland Townhomes. 132003 Household and Population estimates are not available for the Potential Annexation Areas; totals listed for PAAs are from the year 2000. The “grand total” for 2003 is based on the 2003 OFM Household and Population estimate for the City + the 2000 Household and Population estimate for the PAAs. 14All population and households (including Urban Villages) included in 2004 citywide total and projected 2003 citywide totals for Issaquah. 9. 15April 1, 1995 population was 9,025 as established by the Washington State Office of Financial Management. Exhibit A3: Proposed 2004 Comprehensive Plan Amendments Page 74 of 118 LAND USE APPENDIX 1 LAND CAPACITY AND POPULATION PROJECTIONS (Updated September 2003) Urban Growth Area King County has established an Urban Growth Area (UGA) pursuant to the Growth Management Act (GMA). The GMA and the King County Countywide Planning Policies (CPPs) have established that growth within the established UGA shall be characterized by urban development and shall include greenbelt and open space areas. Within the UGA, Issaquah has designated Potential Annexation Areas (PAAs) in coordination with King County. In the future, the City may only annex areas within the UGA designated by Issaquah as PAAs. (RCW 35A.14.005, and King County CPP LU-20) Potential Annexation Areas Since the adoption of Issaquah's 1995- Comprehensive Plan, Issaquah has annexed the following areas: Grand Ridge/Issaquah Highlands (7/l/96); Tibbetts Creek Valley (9/16/96); Parkpointe (9/16/96); East Village (now Talus) (9/16/96); Bergsma (9/16/96); SPAR (4/30/99), North Issaquah (2/28/00), Glacier Ridge (Issaquah Highlands Expansion Area) 5/21/01 and Providence Point/Hans Jensen (1/1/03). Issaquah's Comp Plan designates the following PAAs surrounding the City and within the established UGA: Klahanie; , Lake Sammamish State Park,; East Cougar Mountain; , Greenwood Point;, and Issaquah 69;, the Highlands Drive Area and the King County Island. See Potential Annexation Areas map in Map Appendix. (Ord. XXXX, XXXX) Phasing for annexation of each area has been estimated through the Comprehensive Planning Process. Planning for the Potential Annexation Areas should occur as a cooperative effort between the property owner or developer, the City and King County. General criteria for annexation has been established in the Land Use Element. Subarea Plans will be prepared for the Potential Annexation Areas which are ten years or more away from annexation. For those subareas which would like to pursue annexation prior to a Subarea Plan being completed by the City, land use designations and other specific planning aspects of the project or area will be determined through a pre-annexation agreement and negotiation process, remaining consistent with the goals and policies set forth in the Comprehensive Plan. Land Capacity, Population, and Future Trends The population within the City is anticipated to increase at a 2.3% annual growth rate, based on past growth rate and on the fact that the majority of growth which occurs in the future will be in the form of infill and redevelopment since the City has relatively no large parcels of vacant land remaining within the existing City limits. (See Population and Household Projection Table 1-2). Land available for infill development within the existing City limits is often restricted environmentally. For estimates of land capacity, parcels considered vacant or redevelopable were multiplied by an environmental factor to take into account development restrictions. This environmental factor was established on a subarea (rather than parcel) basis. (See Housing Technical Appendix, Comparison of Alternatives data.) Household Capacity 9,287 Target 3,993 Remaining Capacity 2,791 Projects Approved Over Target 2,503 Exhibit A3: Proposed 2004 Comprehensive Plan Amendments Page 75 of 118 The East Cougar Mountain and Issaquah 69 PAAs will are projected to grow at a slightly higher annual growth rate with the exception of Greenwood Point, Klahanie and North Issaquah, because many of the PAAs arethey are largely undeveloped and there exists in these PAAs several planned development. (see Land Use Element for description of the subareas; see also Table L-2 Population and Household Projection Table). Exhibit A3: Proposed 2004 Comprehensive Plan Amendments Page 76 of 118 12. 5. Add Highlands Drive Area as a Potential Annexation Area Regions of the City 5.1 Subareas. Issaquah is divided into fourteen subareas in order to facilitate planning and discussion (See Figure 2: City of Issaquah Subarea Map): Each subarea has an existing character that will be retained and, in some subareas, enhanced, through the vision, goals and policies set forth in the Comprehensive Plan and the implementing regulations and documents. More discussion regarding each subarea can be found in the Land Use Background Report (Volume 2). • Squak • Lake Tradition Mountain • Issaquah Highlands • Sycamore • Park Pointe • Olde Town • Talus • Gilman • Tibbetts Creek • Newport • North Issaquah • Montreux • Providence Point/Hans Jensen • I-90 5.2 Potential Annexation Areas. As part of the Growth Management Act, areas within the greater King County Urban Growth Boundary are intended to be served by urban services. Potential Annexation Areas (PAAs) are unincorporated areas within the Urban Growth Area (UGA) that are adjacent to the City, and to which the City is expected to provide public services and utilities before 2022. For planning purposes, the City has identified six seven adjacent areas for potential annexation into the City (see Figure 3: Potential Annexation Areas Map):7 • • • • • • • Greenwood Point East Cougar Mountain Issaquah 69 Klahanie King County Island Lake Sammamish State Park Highlands Drive Area General Phasing. Specific annexation dates have not been identified for each PAA for two reasons. First, the timing of any particular annexation will depend on its consistency with the annexation criteria established in Policy L-5.4. Second, an annexation may include all or part of a PAA. Smaller PAAs such as Issaquah 69 may be annexed as a whole; while larger PAAs such as Klahanie may be annexed over a period of time through a series of separate, phased annexations. As of March 2001, Issaquah had annexed 2,742 acres, which represents a 74 percent increase in the geographical size of the City since adoption of the Comprehensive Plan in 1995. The three largest annexations were the Issaquah Highlands (previously known as Grand Ridge (870 acres)), Talus (660 acres) and North Issaquah (1,024 acres). Approximately half of the annexed areas 5.2.1 7 A summary of each Potential Annexation Area can be found in the Land Use Section of Volume 2. Exhibit A3: Proposed 2004 Comprehensive Plan Amendments Page 77 of 118 were undeveloped and only 881 residents joined the city as a result of the annexations. See the History of Annexations Map (Figure 4) and Annexations 1990-Present Map (Figure 5). NWith the exception of implementing standing interlocal agreements, no additional annexations are anticipated until 2006 to ensure that the City is able to continue to provide public services at adopted service levels. Annexation of the remaining PAAs is expected to be spread out over the remaining nine years of the planning cycle. The timing of any particular annexation will depend on the consistency of the annexation with the criteria in Policy L-5.4. Generally, upon annexation, PAAs should have City zoning comparable to the County’s existing zoning unless a Preannexation Agreement for a different zone has been approved by the City Council. OBJECTIVE L-5: Regional Coordination and Annexation: Use the Countywide Planning Policies as a basis for regional coordination and land use decisions. Pursue the annexation of the City's Potential Annexation Areas to accommodate the City's projected growth, apply the City's development and environmental regulations, and provide efficient services to the Issaquah community. Policy L-5.1 5.1.1 Coordination: Adjacent Rural Areas: Work with King County, the City of Sammamish, and the State of Washington to ensure that the Black Nugget Road, Issaquah Highlands, and Tradition Plateau Hillside rural areas maintain their rural character in perpetuity. Regional Funding: Proactively coordinate with regional jurisdictions and agencies to ensure that regional funding priorities do not overlook the needs of Issaquah. Potential Annexation Areas: 5.1.2 Policy L-5.2 5.2.1 Establishment of Potential Annexation Areas (PAAs): The following areas are designated as the City's Potential Annexation Areas (see Figure 3): East Cougar Mountain, Issaquah 69, Greenwood Point, Klahanie, Lake Sammamish State Park, and the King County Island and Highlands Drive Area. Land Use Element, Volume 2 Amendments 4.8 Highlands Drive Area: Two small land areas adjacent to Highlands Drive together with associated right-of-way (approximately 405,850 sf or 9.3 acres total) compose the Highlands Drive Area PAA. Most of the parcels are vacant or contain storm detention facilities that serve Highlands Drive. Only one parcel contained a house in 2004. Issaquah and King County adopted an interlocal agreement regarding the Highlands Drive project. Part of the Interlocal Agreement for the North Sammamish Plateau Access Road (SPAR) Project stated, “For the portion of the Project that is in unincorporated King County, the County will pursue a minor revision to the Urban Growth Boundary (“UGB”) that would place such portion of the Project within the UGB. If the County is successful, within one year the City shall annex that portion of the Project into the city limits.’ Addition of the small areas as an Issaquah PAA completes implementation of the adopted agreement and will unify Highlands Drive for purposes of maintenance and public safety services. 4.84.9 General Phasing: Specific annexation dates have not been identified for each PAA for two reasons. First, the timing of any particular annexation will depend on it’s consistency with the annexation criteria established in Policy L-5.4. Second, an annexation may include all or part of a PAA. Smaller PAAs such as Issaquah 69 may be annexed as a whole, while larger PAAs such as Klahanie and East Cougar Mountain may be annexed over a period of time through a series of separate, phased annexations. From the time the Comprehensive Plan was adopted in 1995 to 1999, 1,657 acres were annexed into Exhibit A3: Proposed 2004 Comprehensive Plan Amendments Page 78 of 118 Issaquah. In February 2000, North Issaquah was annexed into the City taking the total amount of land annexed since 1995 to 2710 acres. NWith the exception of implementing standing interlocal agreements, no additional annexations are anticipated for at least six years (until 2006) in order to assure that the City is able to continue to provide public services at adopted service levels. Annexation of the remaining PAAs is expected to be spread out over the remaining nine years of the twenty year planning cycle. The timing of any particular annexation will depend on the consistency of the annexation with the criteria in Policy L-5.4. Exhibit A3: Proposed 2004 Comprehensive Plan Amendments Page 79 of 118 Exhibit A3: Proposed 2004 Comprehensive Plan Amendments Page 80 of 118 13. Consistency with Countywide Planning Policies LAND USE APPENDIX #7 : King County (KC) Countywide Planning Policies Consistency King County: December, 2003 Related Countywide Planning Policy # Issaquah 2003 Comprehensive Plan References (Derived from the KC Web Site) (Titles provided for Reference Only) (Sample of supportive references; not (Excerpts Only: Full text available from KC) complete list) I. KING COUNTY 2012 E. The Framework Policies FW-1 Countywide GMA Process Not Applicable Countywide growth management is a multi-step process... FW-2 CPP Effective Date & Interim Actions Countywide Planning Policies are effective after King County adoption and Not Applicable city ratification for the purposes of updating comprehensive plans, and providing a policy framework... FW-3 Monitoring of Housing & Jobs Targets The final adopted household and employment target ranges shall be Not Applicable monitored by Metropolitan King County annually with adjustments made by the Growth Management Planning Council... II. CRITICAL AREAS A. Overall Environmental Protection L-1.1 Maintain & Enhance the Natural FW-4 Protect & Enhance Natural Ecosystems Environment All jurisdictions shall protect and enhance the natural ecosystems through L-1.2 Balance comprehensive plans and policies, and develop regulations that reflect L-1.3 Issaquah Basin Planning natural constraints and protect sensitive features... L-4.2 Additional Subarea Strategy Plans P-1.2 Natural Integrity & Heritage P-1.3 Wildlife Corridors P-1.4 Forest Management P-1.5 Biological Diversity L-1.3 Issaquah Basin Planning FW-5 Water Resource Management Puget Sound, floodplains, rivers, streams and other water resources shall be L-2.2 Forest Lands managed for multiple beneficial uses... U-2.3 Adequate Water Supply U-2.6 Water Supply B. Wetlands Protection CA-1 Standards for Wetland Delineation Until the Washington State Department of Ecology adopts a manual for the L1.1.10 Federal Manual for Identifying delineation of wetlands pursuant to section 11 of chapter 382 of the Laws of and Delineating Jurisdictional Wetlands 1995, jurisdictions shall have the option... CA-2 Countywide Wetland Classification L1.1.10 Federal Manual for Identifying In the long-term, all jurisdictions shall work to establish a single and Delineating Jurisdictional Wetlands Countywide classification system for wetlands. L-1.1 Maintain & Enhance the Natural CA-3 Wetland Protection Environment Within each basin, jurisdictions shall formulate their regulations and other non-regulatory methods to accomplish the following: protection of wetlands; L-1.3 Issaquah Basin Plan U-4.1 System Design assure no-net-loss of wetland functions... U-6.6 Environmental Sensitive Areas Exhibit A3: Proposed 2004 Comprehensive Plan Amendments Page 81 of 118 LAND USE APPENDIX #7 : King County (KC) Countywide Planning Policies Consistency King County: December, 2003 Related Countywide Planning Policy # Issaquah 2003 Comprehensive Plan References (Derived from the KC Web Site) (Titles provided for Reference Only) (Sample of supportive references; not (Excerpts Only: Full text available from KC) complete list) CA-4 Priority to Wetland Systems in Mitigation Implementation of wetland mitigation should be flexible enough to allow for protection of systems or corridors of connected wetlands. A tradeoff of small, isolated wetlands in exchange for a larger... C. Aquifers CA-5 Groundwater Protection All jurisdictions shall adopt policies to protect the quality and quantity of groundwater where appropriate L-1.1 Maintain & Enhance the Natural Environment CA-6 Land Use Impacts on Aquifers Land use actions should take into account the potential impacts on aquifers determined to serve as water supplies. The depletion and degradation of aquifers needed for potable water supplies... D. Fish and Wildlife Habitat CA-7 Cross-jurisdictional Habitat Protection Adjacent jurisdictions shall identify and protect habitat networks that are aligned at jurisdictional boundaries. Networks shall link large protected or significant blocks of habitat within and between... L-4.2 Additional Subarea Strategy Plans L-1.3 Issaquah Basin U-2.3 Adequate Water System U-2.6 Water Supply U-4.1 Systems Design L-1.1 Maintain & Enhance the Natural Environment L-4.2 Additional Subarea Strategy Plans U-2.8 Sustainable Yield U-2.10 Production Wells L-1.1.8.1 Interjurisdictional cooperation CA-8 Fish & Wildlife Habitat Protection All jurisdictions shall identify critical fish and wildlife habitats and species and develop regulations that: a. Promote their protection and proper management; and... L-1.1 Maintain & Enhance the Natural Environment L-2.1 Agricultural Lands P-1.3 Wildlife Corridors P-1.5 Biological Diversity P-6.5 Acquisition of Wildlife Habitat Areas P-2.5: Native Vegetation P-2.6: Native and Drought Tolerant Vegetation L-1.3 Issaquah Basin Plan U-4.1 System Design C-1.6 Capital Facilities LOS L-1.3 Issaquah Basin Plan U-4.1 System Design U-4.2 Additional Subarea Strategy Plans C-1.6 Capital Facilities LOS L-1.1 Maintain & Enhance the Natural CA-9 Natural Drainage System Maintenance Natural drainage systems including associated riparian and shoreline habitat shall be maintained and enhanced to protect water quality, reduce public costs, protect fish and wildlife habitat, and... CA-10 Runoff Control Jurisdictions shall maintain or enhance water quality through control of runoff and best management practices to maintain natural... CA-11 Coordinated Wildlife Management Exhibit A3: Proposed 2004 Comprehensive Plan Amendments Page 82 of 118 LAND USE APPENDIX #7 : King County (KC) Countywide Planning Policies Consistency King County: December, 2003 Related Countywide Planning Policy # Issaquah 2003 Comprehensive Plan References (Derived from the KC Web Site) (Titles provided for Reference Only) (Sample of supportive references; not (Excerpts Only: Full text available from KC) complete list) The Washington State Departments of Fisheries and Wildlife and the Indian Environment Tribes both manage fish and wildlife resources. However, local governments L-1.2.1 Coordinate with State Agencies have authority for land use regulation. Jurisdictions shall... E. Frequently Flooded Areas L-1.1 Maintain & Enhance the Natural CA-12 Coordinated Flood Hazard Reduction The cities and the County should closely plan and coordinate Environment implementation of their flood hazard reduction activities within the major L-1.3 Issaquah Basin Plan river basins (the Snoqualmie, Skykomish, Sammamish, Cedar ... F. Geologic Hazard Areas L-1.1 Maintain & Enhance the Natural CA-13 Regulation of Geologic Hazard Areas Environment All jurisdictions shall regulate development on certain lands to protect L-1.3 Issaquah Basin Plan public health, property, important ecological and hydrogeologic functions, and environmental quality, and to reduce public costs... G. Air and Water Quality CA-14 Coordinated Air Quality Protection All jurisdictions, in coordination with the Puget Sound Air Pollution Control T-7.1 Jurisdictional Coordination Agency and the Puget Sound Regional Council, shall develop policies, methodologies and standards that promote... CA-15 Regional Water Quality Management Plan U-2.6 Water Supply All jurisdictions shall implement the Puget Sound Water Quality U-2.9 Coordination Management Plan to restore and protect the biological health and diversity U-2.11 Satellite Systems of the Puget Sound Basin. H. Implementation CA-16 King County Technical Committee King County shall establish a technical committee by January 1995 to Not Applicable facilitate environmental protection which is to include representatives of the County, the cities, the federally recognized Tribes, business... III. Land Use Pattern A. Resource Lands: Agricultural, Forestry, and Mineral FW-6 Establishment of Land Use Designations L-6.1 Establishment of Land Use The land use pattern for the County shall protect the natural environment by Designations/Map reducing the consumption of land and concentrating development. Urban Growth Areas, Rural Areas, and resource lands shall be... LU-1 Agricultural & Forest Land Use & Protection Agricultural and L-1.1 Maintain & Enhance the Natural forest lands are protected primarily for their long-term productive resource Environment value. However, these lands also provide secondary benefits such as open L-2.1 Agricultural Lands space, scenic views and... C-1.6 Capital Facilities LOS L-2.2 Forest Lands LU-2 Commercially Significant Resource Lands All jurisdictions shall protect existing resource lands within their boundaries that have long-term commercial significance for resource production. Any designated agricultural and forestry lands shall not... L-1.1 Maintain & Enhance the Natural Environment L-2.1 Agricultural Lands L-2.2 Forest Lands Exhibit A3: Proposed 2004 Comprehensive Plan Amendments Page 83 of 118 LAND USE APPENDIX #7 : King County (KC) Countywide Planning Policies Consistency King County: December, 2003 Related Countywide Planning Policy # Issaquah 2003 Comprehensive Plan References (Derived from the KC Web Site) (Titles provided for Reference Only) (Sample of supportive references; not (Excerpts Only: Full text available from KC) complete list) LU-2A Annexation of Certain Agricultural Lands Designated Agricultural Production District lands shall not be annexed by cities. LU-2B Lower Green River Agricultural District The Lower Green River Agricultural Production District is a regionally designated resource that is to remain in unincorporated King County. Preservation of the Lower Green River Agricultural Production... LU-3 Annexation of Mineral Lands Existing mineral extractive and processing operations or designated sites may be annexed or incorporated to a city only if there are policies and regulations in place to protect the long-term viability for continued... LU-4 Compatible Land Use & Resource Areas All jurisdictions shall encourage compatible land uses adjacent to natural resource areas which support utilization of the resource and minimize conflicts among uses. Each jurisdiction is responsible for... LU-5 Mineral & Agricultural Environmental Impact All jurisdictions shall require mineral extraction and processing operations and agricultural practices to implement best management practices to reduce environmental impacts and mitigate any unavoidable impacts. B. Rural Areas FW-7 Urban, Rural, & Resource Designations Urban Growth Areas, Rural Areas, and resource lands shall be designated and the necessary implementing regulations adopted. This includes Countywide establishment of an Urban Growth Area.. FW-8 Benefit of Rural Areas All jurisdictions acknowledge that Rural Areas provide an overall benefit for all residents of King County. Strategies to fund infrastructure and services in Rural Areas may be needed to support a defined... FW-9 Rural Area Character A fundamental component of the Countywide planning strategy is the maintenance of the traditional character of the Rural Area with its mix of forests, farms, high-quality natural environment... FW-10 Maintenance of Rural Area Character To achieve and maintain rural character, King County, and the cities, as appropriate, shall use a range of tools including, at a minimum: land use designations, development regulations, level-of... LU-6 Rural Area Designation by King County Through the Countywide Planning Policy process, King County, with the cooperation of the cities, shall be responsible for designating Rural Areas consistent with Growth Management Act. In... LU-7 Rural Area Preservation Designated Rural Areas are considered to be permanent and shall not be Not Applicable Not Applicable L-5.5.1 Industrial Zoning Districts L-2 Resource Lands L-2.5 Best Management Practices L-6.1 Establishment of Land Use Designations/Map Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable Exhibit A3: Proposed 2004 Comprehensive Plan Amendments Page 84 of 118 LAND USE APPENDIX #7 : King County (KC) Countywide Planning Policies Consistency King County: December, 2003 Related Countywide Planning Policy # Issaquah 2003 Comprehensive Plan References (Derived from the KC Web Site) (Titles provided for Reference Only) (Sample of supportive references; not (Excerpts Only: Full text available from KC) complete list) redesignated to an Urban Growth Area until reviewed pursuant to the Growth Management Act.17 (RCW 36.70A.130 (3))... LU-8 Rural Area Farming & Forestry Districts Retention of resource-based uses and conservation of natural resource lands Not Applicable are important to maintaining the traditional character, environmental functions and values of the Rural Area. King ... LU-9 Land Use in Farming & Forestry Districts Permitted land uses within designated Rural Area farming and forestry Not Applicable districts should be limited to residences at very low densities and farming or forestry-related uses. Institutional uses or public... LU-10 Facilities & Services in Rural Areas The Rural Area shall have low densities which can be sustained by minimal Not Applicable infrastructure improvements, such as septic systems and rural roads. King County, cities adjacent to Rural Areas... LU-11 Rural Areas & Adjacent Urban Areas L-3.6 Neighborhoods and Principal Comprehensive plans covering nearby Urban Areas shall consider the Arterials potential impacts of urban development upon the adjacent Rural Area. L-5.1.1 Adjacent Rural Areas Development in Urban Areas shall not significantly... LU-12 Rural Area Residential Densities Planning for Rural Areas should comply with the following density guidelines: Not Applicable a. One home per 20 acres to protect forest lands when designated in accordance with policy LU-8... LU-13 Rural Area Development Pattern To maintain rural character, and to minimize the need for additional Not Applicable infrastructure, very large lots (five acres or more) are the preferred residential development pattern. To further the goals of rural... LU-14 Rural Area Density Transfers King County may allow transfer of density from Rural Area properties to L-4.3 Transfer of Development Rights other Rural or Urban Area properties in order to (1) secure a substantial dedication of significant land to the King County LU-15 Rural Area Ecosystems Rural Areas should retain a high proportion of undisturbed soils to maintain Not Applicable groundwater recharge, high water quality and river and stream base flows essential to navigation, recreation and the survival ... LU-16 Rural Development Standards Rural development standards should be designed to protect the natural Not Applicable environment. The tools to achieve this include: seasonal and maximum clearing limits; impervious surface limits; surface water... LU-17 Rural Area Groundwater & Base Flows Rural Areas shall be recognized as significant for the recharge and storage of Not Applicable groundwater and as areas necessary for the maintenance of base flows in rivers and natural levels of lakes and ... Exhibit A3: Proposed 2004 Comprehensive Plan Amendments Page 85 of 118 LAND USE APPENDIX #7 : King County (KC) Countywide Planning Policies Consistency King County: December, 2003 Related Countywide Planning Policy # Issaquah 2003 Comprehensive Plan References (Derived from the KC Web Site) (Titles provided for Reference Only) (Sample of supportive references; not (Excerpts Only: Full text available from KC) complete list) LU-18 Rural Area Mineral Extraction King County's Comprehensive Plan shall include policies to preserve Not Applicable opportunities for mining and to assure extractive industries maintain environmental quality and minimize impacts to adjacent land uses... LU-19 Rural Street Standards Rural level standards for streets should be refined to minimize clearing and Not Applicable grading, and avoid conflicts with the natural landscape. Pavement width should be no wider than needed to meet safety... LU-20 Rural Water Service Standards Standards for rural water service, to be developed through the rural design Not Applicable manual, should assure adequate quality and quantity for domestic supply... LU-21 Regional Facilities in Rural Areas Regional public facilities which directly serve the public shall be Not Applicable discouraged from locating in Rural... LU-22 Encouragement of Farming & Forestry King County should evaluate additional ways that small-scale farming and Not Applicable forestry, and land and watershed stewardship can be encouraged through... LU-23 Rural Area Designation Rural Areas designated by King County shall remain rural. Additional Rural Areas shall be designated by King County through adoption of a land use Not Applicable map authorized by the Growth Management Planning... LU-24 Redesignating Urban Areas as Rural Low-density Urban Areas meeting the criteria of LU-23(g) may be redesignated rural and zoned for rural residential densities. Legally created existing lots within the Rural Area are legal building sites as... LU-25 King County Documents & Strategies King County, in collaboration with affected governments, agencies and citizens shall prepare the following products: a. A manual on rural infrastructure design including... FW-11 Local Land Use & CPPs The land use pattern for King County shall protect the natural environment by reducing the consumption of land and concentrating development. An Urban Growth Area, Rural Areas, and resource lands shall.. FW-12 Urban Growth Area Capacity The Urban Growth Area shall provide enough land to accommodate future urban development. Policies to phase the provision of urban services and to ensure efficient use of the growth capacity within the... FW-12(a) 20 Year Growth Targets All jurisdictions within King County share the responsibility to accommodate the 20-year population projection and job forecast. The population projection shall be assigned to the four... FW-12(b) Transportation Support for Targets Not Applicable Not Applicable L-5 Regional Coordination and Annexation Not Applicable Comprehensive Plan Introduction T-1.4 Regional Facilities Exhibit A3: Proposed 2004 Comprehensive Plan Amendments Page 86 of 118 LAND USE APPENDIX #7 : King County (KC) Countywide Planning Policies Consistency King County: December, 2003 Related Countywide Planning Policy # Issaquah 2003 Comprehensive Plan References (Derived from the KC Web Site) (Titles provided for Reference Only) (Sample of supportive references; not (Excerpts Only: Full text available from KC) complete list) The growth targets established pursuant to the methodology described in T-2.1 Street Standards LU-25c and LU-25d shall be supported by both regional and local T-7.2 Funding transportation investments. The availability of an... T-6 Level of Service (LOS) T-11 Coordination Volume #2 Appendix: Land Use FW-12(c) Sufficient Water Supply Ensuring sufficient water supply is essential to accommodate growth and U-2 Water conserve fish habitat. Due to the substantial lead-time required to develop water supply sources, infrastructure and management... C. Urban Growth Area LU-25(a)Local Obligations for Targets Each jurisdiction shall plan for and accommodate the household and Land Use Section 7: employment targets established pursuant to LU-25c and LU-25d. This Growth Capacity & Growth Targets obligation includes:... LU-25b Annexations & Targets As annexations occur, growth targets shall be adjusted. Household and L-5 Regional Coordination and employment targets for each jurisdictions potential annexation area, as Annexation adopted in Table LU-1, shall be transferred to the... LU -25c Housing Target Allocation The target objectives identified in FW-12a shall be realized through the Volume #2 Appendix: Land Use following methodology for allocating household targets: a. Determine the additional population that must ... LU - 25d Employment Target Allocation The target objectives identified in FW-12a shall be realized through the Volume #2 Appendix: Land Use following methodology for allocating employment targets: a. Determine the number of jobs that must be LU-26 Urban Growth Area Establishment The lands within Urban Growth Areas shall be characterized by urban development. The Urban Growth Area shall accommodate the 20-year Volume #2 Appendix: Land Use projection of household and employment growth... LU-27 Urban Separators Urban separators are low-density areas or areas of little development within the Urban Growth Area. Urban separators shall be defined as permanent low-density lands which protect adjacent resource... L-1.1 Maintain & Enhance the Natural Environment L-1.2 Balance L-2.1 Agricultural Lands L-2.2 Forest Lands L-1.1 Maintain & Enhance the Natural Environment L-4.2 Additional Subarea Strategy Plans L-5.3 Annexation, Concurrency & Consistency LU-28 Infrastructure & UGA Urban Growth 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... LU-29 Concurrency & UGA Growth Phasing All jurisdictions shall develop growth phasing plans consistent with Exhibit A3: Proposed 2004 Comprehensive Plan Amendments Page 87 of 118 LAND USE APPENDIX #7 : King County (KC) Countywide Planning Policies Consistency King County: December, 2003 Related Countywide Planning Policy # Issaquah 2003 Comprehensive Plan References (Derived from the KC Web Site) (Titles provided for Reference Only) (Sample of supportive references; not (Excerpts Only: Full text available from KC) complete list) applicable capital facilities plans to maintain an Urban Area served with CF-1.1 Level of Service Standards adequate public facilities and services to meet at least the six-year... CF-1.3 Future Needs CF-1.5 Capital Improvement Projects CF-1.7 Six Year CIP & CF-1.8 Financing T-6 Level of Service (LOS) T-8 Forecasts T-9 System Expansion Needs T-13 Concurrency CF-1.3 Future Needs LU-30 Concurrency Policies & Regulations CF-1.7 Six Year CIP Where urban services cannot be provided within the next ten years, CF-1.8 Financing jurisdictions should develop policies and regulations to: T-6 Level of Service (LOS) a. Phase and limit development such that planning... FW-13 Urban Service Provision CF-1.1 Level of Service Standards Cities are the appropriate provider of local urban services to Urban Areas CF-1.3 Future Needs either directly or by contract. Counties are the appropriate provider of most Countywide services. Urban services shall not be... LU-31 Potential Annexation Area Designation In collaboration with adjacent counties and cities and King County, and in L-5.2 Potential Annexation Areas consultation with residential groups in affected areas, each city... L-5.2 Potential Annexation Areas LU-32 Annexation by Cities L-5.3 Annexation, Concurrency and A city may annex territory only within its designated potential annexation Consistency area. All cities shall phase annexations to coincide with the ability for the L-5.4 Annexation Phasing Criteria city to coordinate the provision of a full range of urban... L-5.2 Potential Annexation Areas LU-33 Development within PAAs Land within a city's potential annexation area shall be developed according L-5.3 Annexation, Concurrency and to that city's and King County's growth phasing plans. Undeveloped lands Consistency adjacent to that city should be annexed at the time L-5.4 Annexation Phasing Criteria LU-34 Annexation Preferred to Incorporation Several unincorporated areas are currently considering local governance L-5.4 Annexation Phasing Criteria options. Unincorporated Urban Areas that are already urbanized and are within a city's potential ... LU-35 Designation of Potential Impact Areas A jurisdiction may designate a potential impact area beyond its potential L-5.4 Annexation Phasing Criteria annexation area in collaboration with adjacent jurisdictions. As part of the designation process the jurisdiction shall establish criteria for ... LU-36 Disbanding the Boundary Review Board Upon the adoption and ratification of the Countywide Policies, the King Not Applicable County Council shall convene a meeting with municipal elected officials to determine a process for disbanding the Washington State L-5 Regional Coordination and LU-37 Plan Consistency with Others and CPPs All jurisdictions shall cooperate in developing comprehensive plans which Annexation are consistent with those of adjacent jurisdictions and with the Countywide L-5.2.2 Interlocal Agreements for PAAs Exhibit A3: Proposed 2004 Comprehensive Plan Amendments Page 88 of 118 LAND USE APPENDIX #7 : King County (KC) Countywide Planning Policies Consistency King County: December, 2003 Related Countywide Planning Policy # Issaquah 2003 Comprehensive Plan References (Derived from the KC Web Site) (Titles provided for Reference Only) (Sample of supportive references; not (Excerpts Only: Full text available from KC) complete list) Planning Policies. LU-38 Locating Rural Cities within UGAs In recognition that cities in the Rural Area are generally not contiguous to Not Applicable the Countywide Urban Growth Area, and to protect and enhance the ... cities D. Urban and Manufacturing/Industrial Centers FW-14 Designation of Urban Centers Within the Urban Growth Area, a limited number of Urban Centers which Not Applicable meet specific criteria established in the Countywide Planning Policies shall be locally designated. Urban Centers shall be... FW-15 Designation of Industrial Centers Within the Urban Growth Area, the Countywide Planning Policies shall Not Applicable assure the creation of a number of locally determined Manufacturing/Industrial Centers which meet ... FW-16 Land Use Surrounding Centers Urban and Manufacturing/Industrial Centers shall be complemented by the Not Applicable land use pattern outside the Centers but within the Urban Area. This area shall include: urban residential neighborhoods, Activity... 1. Urban Center Designation Process LU-39 Urban Centers Designation Process The location and number of Urban Centers in King County were determined Not Applicable through the joint local and Countywide adoption process, based on the following steps: 2. Urban Centers Criteria LU-40 Urban Center Requirements Each jurisdiction which has designated an Urban Center shall adopt in its Not Applicable comprehensive plan a definition of the Urban Center which specifies the exact geographic boundaries of the Center. All... LU-41 Urban Center Water Supply In order to be designated as Urban Centers, jurisdictions shall demonstrate Not Applicable both that an adequate supply of drinking water is available to serve projected growth within the Urban Center and that... LU-42 Urban Centers and Transit Jurisdictions which contain Urban Centers, in conjunction with METRO, Not Applicable shall identify transit station areas and rights-of-way in their comprehensive plan. Station areas shall be sited so that all portions of ... LU-43 Urban Centers and Transit Right of Way In order to reserve rights-of-way and potential station areas for high-capacity Not Applicable transit or transit hubs in the Urban Centers, jurisdictions shall: a. Upon adoption of specific high-capacity transit... LU-44 Encouraging Transit Use in Centers To encourage transit use, jurisdictions should establish mechanisms to limit Not Applicable the use of single-occupancy vehicles for commuting purposes. Such mechanisms could include charging for long-term... Exhibit A3: Proposed 2004 Comprehensive Plan Amendments Page 89 of 118 LAND USE APPENDIX #7 : King County (KC) Countywide Planning Policies Consistency King County: December, 2003 Related Countywide Planning Policy # Issaquah 2003 Comprehensive Plan References (Derived from the KC Web Site) (Titles provided for Reference Only) (Sample of supportive references; not (Excerpts Only: Full text available from KC) complete list) LU-45 Required Urban Center Strategies Jurisdictions comprehensive plans for Urban Centers shall demonstrate Not Applicable compliance with the Urban Centers criteria. In order to promote urban growth within Centers, the Urban Center plan shall ... LU-46 Urban Centers and Regional HCT System The system of Urban Centers shall form the land use foundation for a Not Applicable regional high-capacity transit system. Urban Centers should receive very high priority for the location of high-capacity transit... 3. Incentives for Urban Centers LU-47 Incentives for Urban Centers Countywide financing strategies shall be developed by the Growth Not Applicable Management Planning Council or its successor, which: a. Identify regional funding sources; and... LU-48 PEIS Required for Urban Centers Each jurisdiction electing to contain an Urban Center shall prepare a Not Applicable Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (PEIS) for each proposed Center. The PEIS shall be prepared in a comprehensive manner.. LU-49 Local Actions to Support Urban Centers In support of Centers, additional local action should include: Not Applicable a. Strategies for land assembly within the Center, if applicable;... LU-50 Additional Local Incentives for Centers Jurisdictions should consider additional incentives for development within Urban Centers such as: Not Applicable a. Setting goals for maximum permit review time and give priority to permits in Urban Centers; 4. Manufacturing/Industrial Center Designation Process LU-51 Determination of Industrial Centers The location and number of regional Manufacturing/Industrial Centers in Not Applicable King County were determined through the joint local and Countywide adoption process, based on the ... 5. Manufacturing/Industrial Center Criteria LU-52 Local Requirements for Industrial Centers Each jurisdiction which contains a regional Manufacturing/Industrial Center shall adopt in its comprehensive plan a definition of the Center which Not Applicable specifies the exact geographic boundaries of the... LU-53 Regional Industrial Siting All jurisdictions support the development of a regional industrial siting policy to promote industrial activity. LU-54 Access to Industrial Centers Jurisdictions shall design access to the regional Manufacturing/Industrial Centers to facilitate the mobility of employees by transit, and the mobility of goods by truck, rail or waterway as appropriate... Not Applicable Not Applicable Exhibit A3: Proposed 2004 Comprehensive Plan Amendments Page 90 of 118 LAND USE APPENDIX #7 : King County (KC) Countywide Planning Policies Consistency King County: December, 2003 Related Countywide Planning Policy # Issaquah 2003 Comprehensive Plan References (Derived from the KC Web Site) (Titles provided for Reference Only) (Sample of supportive references; not (Excerpts Only: Full text available from KC) complete list) LU-55 Transit & Industrial Centers Jurisdictions which contain regional Manufacturing/Industrial Centers in Not Applicable conjunction with transit agencies, shall identify transit station areas and rights-of-way in each jurisdictions... LU-56 Transit Right of Way in Industrial Centers In order to reserve rights-of-way and potential station areas for high-capacity Not Applicable transit or transit hubs in the regional Manufacturing/Industrial Centers, jurisdictions shall:... LU-57 Transit Service to Industrial Centers Transit agencies shall strive to provide convenient and economical mass Not Applicable transit service for the Manufacturing/Industrial Centers that will result in a decrease in single-occupancy non-commercial... LU-58 Required Strategies for Industrial Centers Jurisdictions comprehensive plans for regional Manufacturing/Industrial Not Applicable Centers shall demonstrate compliance with the criteria. In order to promote manufacturing/industrial growth, the... LU-59 HCT & Industrial Centers Each Manufacturing Center containing a minimum of 15,000 jobs and Not Applicable having sufficient employment densities to support high-capacity transit should be served by high-capacity transit. It is recognized ... 6. Incentives for Manufacturing/Industrial Centers LU-60 Financing Strategies for Industrial Centers Countywide financing strategies shall be developed by the Growth Not Applicable Management Planning Council or its successor which: a. Identify regional funding sources; and... LU-61 SEPA Review for Industrial Centers Jurisdictions shall consider conducting detailed State Environmental Policy Not Applicable Act review for the regional Manufacturing/Industrial Center at the planning stage so that project-specific environmental review is... LU-62 Support Normal Industrial Practices To reduce or prevent conflicts, jurisdictions shall develop policies to establish and support normal manufacturing/industrial practices such as ... E. Activity Areas FW-17 Designation of Activity Areas in the UGA Within the Urban Growth Area, jurisdictions may locally designate one or more Activity Areas characterized by the following:... LU-63 Activity Area Characteristics Jurisdictions shall designate the boundaries, and uses within all Activity Areas to provide for local employment, a mix of housing types, commercial activities, public facilities and open space. Not Applicable L-4 Activity Areas L-4.1 Cultural and Business District (CBD) L-4.2 Additional Subarea Plans L-4 Activity Areas L-4.1 Cultural and Business District (CBD) L-4.2 Additional Subarea Plans Exhibit A3: Proposed 2004 Comprehensive Plan Amendments Page 91 of 118 LAND USE APPENDIX #7 : King County (KC) Countywide Planning Policies Consistency King County: December, 2003 Related Countywide Planning Policy # Issaquah 2003 Comprehensive Plan References (Derived from the KC Web Site) (Titles provided for Reference Only) (Sample of supportive references; not (Excerpts Only: Full text available from KC) complete list) L-4 Activity Areas LU-64 Activity Area Transit Service All Activity Areas that achieve sufficient employment and household L-4.1 Cultural and Business District densities should receive frequent peak-hour transit service. Activity Areas (CBD) may contain a high-capacity transit station or transit hub if the... L-4.2 Additional Subarea Plans T-3 Transit/HOV L-4 Activity Areas LU-65 Reduction of SOV Use in Activity Areas L-4.1 Cultural and Business District To encourage transit use, jurisdictions should establish minimum and (CBD) maximum parking requirements that reduce dependence on the singleL-4.2 Additional Subarea Plans occupant vehicle. Jurisdictions should establish... T-1 Land Use T-3 Transit/HOV T-12 Transportation Demand Management & Parking H-1.2 Traditional Design Elements H-1.6 Mixed Use Areas H-1.11 High density Housing Proximity to Transit F. Urban Growth Outside Centers L-1.2.2 Balance LU-66 Establishing Household Targets L-6.1 Establishment of Land Use In order to ensure efficient use of the land within the Urban Growth Area, Designations/Map provide for housing opportunities, and to support efficient use of L-6.3 Establishment of Zoning Districts infrastructure, each jurisdiction shall:.. Land Use Section 7.2: Housing and Job Growth Targets (Policies LU-67 re: Household Targets and LU-68 re: Employment Targets were deleted by KMPC Motion 02-1, July 2002) L-3.1 Existing Neighborhoods LU-69 Encouraging Infill Development All jurisdictions shall develop neighborhood planning and design processes L-4.1 Cultural and Business District to encourage infill development and enhance the existing community (CBD) character and mix of uses. H-1.1 Housing Types/Lot Sizes L-4 Activity Areas LU-70 Locations for Office Building Development L-4.1 Cultural and Business District Office building development is directed primarily to Urban Centers. Office building development outside Urban Centers including business/office parks (CBD) L-4.2 Additional Subarea Plans should occur within Activity Areas, which can be ... T-1 Land Use T-3 Transit/HOV T-12 Transportation Demand Management & Parking LU-71 Incentives for Light Industrial/High Tech Jurisdictions where consistent with their land use plans should provide incentives for the development and redevelopment of an adequate supply of land suitable for mixed light industrial/commercial ... L-6.1 Establishment of Land Use Designations/Map L-6.3 Establishment of Zoning Districts Exhibit A3: Proposed 2004 Comprehensive Plan Amendments Page 92 of 118 LAND USE APPENDIX #7 : King County (KC) Countywide Planning Policies Consistency King County: December, 2003 Related Countywide Planning Policy # Issaquah 2003 Comprehensive Plan References (Derived from the KC Web Site) (Titles provided for Reference Only) (Sample of supportive references; not (Excerpts Only: Full text available from KC) complete list) L-4 Activity Areas LU-72 Local Encouragement of Transit Use All jurisdictions shall establish mechanisms to encourage transit use. L-4.1 Cultural and Business District Examples of potential mechanisms include a charge for single-occupancy (CBD) vehicle parking and/or a limit on the number of... L-4.2 Additional Subarea Plans T-1 Land Use T-3 Transit/HOV T-12 Transportation Demand Management & Parking LU-73 Business/Office Uses and Transportation Jurisdictions are encouraged to site business/office parks where they can be served by adequate surface transportation and transit. Where transit is available and can result in decreased demand for parking... L-6.1 Establishment of Land Use Designations/Map L-6.3 Establishment of Zoning Districts L-4 Activity Areas L-3.3 Mixed Use Neighborhoods L-3.4 New Neighborhoods L-3.1 Existing Neighborhoods L-4 Activity Areas L-6.3 Establishment of Zoning Districts LU-74 Business/Office Conversion to Mixed Use All jurisdictions should develop planning mechanisms to assist in the conversion of business/office parks to mixed use areas. Jurisdictions should provide for inclusion of residential and neighborhood ... IV. Transportation B. Transportation Policies FW-18 Land Use & Transportation Balance The land use pattern shall be supported by a balanced transportation system which provides for a variety of mobility options. This system shall be cooperatively planned, financed, and constructed... FW-19 Land Use & Transportation Reflect Countywide & Regional Vision All jurisdictions in the County, in cooperation with METRO, the Metropolitan Planning Organization, and the State, shall develop a balanced... FW-20 Goods Mobility by All Modes In recognition of the fact that King County is the regional freight distribution hub and a major international trade gateway, and that freight transportation is one of the states most important... T-1 Mobility & Multi-Modal Transportation The Countywide transportation system shall promote the mobility of people and goods and shall be a multi-modal system based on regional priorities consistent with adopted land use plans. The transportation... T-1.3 Variety of Modes T-1.4 Regional Facilities T-1.6 Mixed Use Transportation T-3 Transit/HOV T-1 Land Use T-11.1 Jurisdictional Coordination T-11.2 Regional Goals T-14 Air Quality T-1.2 Commercial Access T-1.3 Variety of Modes T-1.4 Regional Facilities T-2 Streets T-5 Rail Facilities T-1 Land Use T-2 Streets T-3 Transit/HOV T-4 Non-Motorized Facilities T-5 Rail Facilities Exhibit A3: Proposed 2004 Comprehensive Plan Amendments Page 93 of 118 LAND USE APPENDIX #7 : King County (KC) Countywide Planning Policies Consistency King County: December, 2003 Related Countywide Planning Policy # Issaquah 2003 Comprehensive Plan References (Derived from the KC Web Site) (Titles provided for Reference Only) (Sample of supportive references; not (Excerpts Only: Full text available from KC) complete list) T-6 LOS T-12 Transportation Demand Management & Parking T-2 PSRC: Primary Regional Planning Forum T-11.1 Jurisdictional Coordination King County, its cities, adjacent counties, METRO, and the Washington T-11.2 Regional Goals State Department of Transportation shall support the continuous, comprehensive and cooperative transportation... T-3 Regional TIP Update The annual update and approval of the six-year Transportation Improvement Not Applicable Program (TIP) by the Puget Sound Regional Council should be the primary tool for prioritizing regional transportation... T-4 GMPC Responsibilities The Growth Management Planning Council or its successor shall have the Not Applicable ongoing responsibility for the following: a. Developing and maintaining coordinated level-... T-5 Urban Centers & HCT Each Urban Center will be providing for a minimum of 15,000 jobs and Not Applicable should be served by high-capacity transit. Each Manufacturing Center containing a minimum of 15,000 jobs and having sufficient... T-6 HOV Lanes as WSDOT Priority Washington State Department of Transportation should assign a high Not Applicable priority to completion of the core high-occupancy vehicle lanes in the central Puget Sound region. King County, its cities, and METRO... T-1 Land Use T-7 Non-motorized Transportation The transportation element of Comprehensive Plans shall include pedestrian T-2.4 Capital Improvement Program and bicycle travel as part of the transportation system and be developed on a T-4 Non-Motorized Facilities T-12.3 Design Standards coordinated, regional basis. The bicycle and... T-1 Land Use T-8 Freeways/Highways/Arterials T-2 Streets In order to maintain regional mobility, a balanced multi-modal T-3 Transit/HOV transportation system shall be planned that includes freeway, highway and T-4 Non-Motorized Facilities arterial improvements by making existing roads more... T-7 Actions to Bring Existing Facilities Into Compliance FW-21 Coordinated Infrastructure T-11.1 Jurisdictional Coordination Infrastructure planning and financing shall be coordinated among jurisdictions to direct and prioritize Countywide facility improvements to T-11.2 Regional Goals implement the Countywide vision and land use plans. FW-22 Consistent Concurrency Process Where appropriate, King County and its cities shall adopt a clear definition of level-of-service and concurrency requirements and establish a consistent process for implementing concurrency, including... CF-1.3 Future Needs CF-1.7 Six Year Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) CF-1.8 Financing T-6 Level of Service (LOS) Exhibit A3: Proposed 2004 Comprehensive Plan Amendments Page 94 of 118 LAND USE APPENDIX #7 : King County (KC) Countywide Planning Policies Consistency King County: December, 2003 Related Countywide Planning Policy # Issaquah 2003 Comprehensive Plan References (Derived from the KC Web Site) (Titles provided for Reference Only) (Sample of supportive references; not (Excerpts Only: Full text available from KC) complete list) T-7 Actions to Bring Existing Facilities Into Compliance T-8 Forecasts T-9 System Expansion Needs T-10 Finance T-13 Concurrency CF-1.3 Future Needs FW-23 Concurrency Each jurisdiction shall identify the facilities needed to ensure that services CF-1.7 Six Year Capital Improvement are provided consistent with the community's adopted service levels. Plan (CIP) Timelines for the construction of the needed facilities shall be... CF-1.8 Financing T-6 Level of Service (LOS) T-7 Actions to Bring Existing Facilities Into Compliance T-8 Forecasts T-9 System Expansion Needs T-10 Finance T-13 Concurrency T-6 Level of Service (LOS) T-9 Transportation Level-of-Service (LOS) Level-of-service standards shall be used as a tool to evaluate concurrency for T-7 Actions to Bring Existing Facilities Into Compliance long-range transportation planning, development review and programming T-8 Forecasts of transportation investments. T-9 System Expansion Needs T-10 Finance T-13 Concurrency T-1 Land Use T-10 Transportation Mode Split Goals T-2 Streets Each local jurisdiction shall establish mode-split goals for non-singleoccupancy vehicle travel to all significant employment centers to reflect that T-3 Transit/HOV T-4 Non-Motorized Facilities centers contribution to the solution of the regions... T-11.1 Jurisdictional Coordination T-11.2 Regional Goals T-1 Land Use T-11 Multi-Modal LOS Standard T-2 Streets Elements to be considered in the level-of-service standard are mobility T-3 Transit/HOV options that encourage the use of transit, other high-occupancy vehicles, T-4 Non-Motorized Facilities demand management actions, access to transit, and ... T-5 Rail Facilities T-6 LOS T-12 Transportation Demand Management & Parking T-6.2 Establish System Performance Measure T-1 Land Use T-12 Mode Split & Mobility Goals Mode split goals and measures of mobility for transit, ridesharing and nonT-2 Streets motorized travel shall be established by local jurisdictions and METRO. T-3 Transit/HOV Exhibit A3: Proposed 2004 Comprehensive Plan Amendments Page 95 of 118 LAND USE APPENDIX #7 : King County (KC) Countywide Planning Policies Consistency King County: December, 2003 Related Countywide Planning Policy # Issaquah 2003 Comprehensive Plan References (Derived from the KC Web Site) (Titles provided for Reference Only) (Sample of supportive references; not (Excerpts Only: Full text available from KC) complete list) T-4 Non-Motorized Facilities T-11.1 Jurisdictional Coordination T-11.2 Regional Goals T-1 Land Use T-13 LOS Standards Vary by Location T-3 Transit/HOV Level-of-service standards shall vary by differing levels of development T-6 LOS patterns and growth management objectives. Lower arterial standards, T-12 Transportation Demand tolerating more congestion, shall be established for... Management & Parking T-6.2 Establish System Performance Measure T-14 METRO & Transit LOS METRO should develop transit level-of-service standards which provide the Not Applicable County and cities with realistic service expectations to support adopted land uses and desired growth management objectives... T-10 Finance T-15 Reassessment for Concurrency Failures T-10.6 Remaining Concurrent Local governments shall work together to reassess regional land use and T-13.1 Concurrency Management transportation elements if transportation adequacy and concurrency cannot System be met. Should funding fall short for transportation... T-11.1 Jurisdictional Coordination T-11.2 Regional Goals T-1.5 Existing Street System T-16 Preservation & Maintenance of Facilities T-5.1 Rail Preservation Transportation elements of Comprehensive Plans shall reflect the preservation and maintenance of transportation facilities as a high priority to T-7 Actions to Bring Existing Facilities Into Compliance avoid costly replacements and to meet public safety... T-9.2 TIP Update T-17 Developer Impact Fees Developer impact fees shall be structured to ensure that new development T-10.3 Mitigation/Accommodation of contributes its fair share of the resources needed to mitigate the impact on Growth the transportation system. Adjoining jurisdictions shall... T-18 Local Option Funding Existing local option transportation funding shall be applied within King T-10.4 Financing Plan County as follows: T-11 Coordination a. Employee tax base reserved for city street utility development;... T-19 Regional Revenues to Regional Projects Regional revenues (such as Inter-modal Surface Transportation Efficiency Not Applicable Act funds) which provide discretion should be used to address regional mobility projects and strategies, including such... T-20 State Transportation Role Consistent with the Countywide vision, local governments shall coordinate T-11.1 Jurisdictional Coordination with the State on land use and transportation systems and strategies which T-11.2 Regional Goals affect State facilities and programs. T-21 State Capital Improvement Decisions Not Applicable State capital improvement decisions and policy actions shall be consistent Exhibit A3: Proposed 2004 Comprehensive Plan Amendments Page 96 of 118 LAND USE APPENDIX #7 : King County (KC) Countywide Planning Policies Consistency King County: December, 2003 Related Countywide Planning Policy # Issaquah 2003 Comprehensive Plan References (Derived from the KC Web Site) (Titles provided for Reference Only) (Sample of supportive references; not (Excerpts Only: Full text available from KC) complete list) with regional and Countywide goals and plans. The State shall ensure its transportation capital improvement decisions ... T-11.1 Jurisdictional Coordination T-22 Coordination of Capital Program & Budget The State and local governments shall use the same capital programming T-11.2 Regional Goals and budgeting time frame that all local governments and the County use, a CF-1.3 Future Needs minimum of six years, for making capital decisions... CF-1.7 Six Year Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) CF-1.8 Financing T-9.2 TIP Update T-10 Finance & T-13 Concurrency T-1.4 Regional Facilities T-23 Siting Certain Transportation Facilities T-9 System Expansion Needs King County, the cities, the Puget Sound Regional Council, the State, T-11.1 Jurisdictional Coordination METRO, and other transportation providers shall identify significant T-11.2 Regional Goals regional and/or Countywide land acquisition needs for ... CF-1.3 Future Needs V. Community Character and Open Space L-3 Neighborhoods FW-24 Balanced & Diverse Land Use All jurisdictions shall support the County's existing diversity of places to L-4 Activity Areas live, work and recreate and the ethnic diversity of our communities. The H-1.1 Housing Types/Lot Sizes Countywide development pattern shall include... H-2.1 Housing Targets H-2.2 Location H-2.3 Housing Types H-3 Special Needs Housing H-6.1 Housing Strategy Work Program P-1.2 Natural Integrity and Heritage P-5.1 Active and Passive Park Facilities P-5.2 User Groups with Special Considerations P-6.1 Services for a Variety of Persons T-1.3 Variety of Modes & T-2.1 Street Standards L-1.2.3 Balance FW-25 Urban Design Each Urban Area shall be characterized by superior urban design as locally L-3.1 Existing Neighborhoods defined. L-3.3 Mixed Use Neighborhoods H-1.2 Traditional Design Elements H-1.3 Multifamily H-1.4 Neighborhood Types H-1.5 Hillside Neighborhoods P-3.1 Visual Relief and Tranquility P-3.2 Natural Beauty of Area Olde Town Subarea Plan L-1.1 Maintain& Enhance the Natural FW-26 Preservation of Resources Significant historic, archaeological, cultural, architectural and environmental Environment Exhibit A3: Proposed 2004 Comprehensive Plan Amendments Page 97 of 118 LAND USE APPENDIX #7 : King County (KC) Countywide Planning Policies Consistency King County: December, 2003 Related Countywide Planning Policy # Issaquah 2003 Comprehensive Plan References (Derived from the KC Web Site) (Titles provided for Reference Only) (Sample of supportive references; not (Excerpts Only: Full text available from KC) complete list) features shall be respected and preserved. L-4.1 Cultural and Business District (CBD) H-1.5 Hillside Neighborhoods H-2.7 Preservation and Relocation Assistance H-4.1 Preservation of Housing Types H-4.2 Methods of Preservation P-1.2 Natural Integrity and Heritage P-3.1 Visual Relief and Tranquility P-3.2 Natural Beauty of Area A. Historic Resources CC-1 Protect Historic Resources & Public Art All jurisdictions should P-1.2 Natural Integrity and Heritage work individually and cooperatively to identify, evaluate, and protect L-4.1 Cultural and Business District historic resources including continued and consistent protection for historic (CBD) resources and... T-11.1 Jurisdictional Coordination L-1.1 Maintain& Enhance the Natural Environment L-4.1 Cultural and Business District (CBD) H-1.5 Hillside Neighborhoods H-2.7 Preservation and Relocation Assistance H-4.1 Preservation of Housing Types H-4.2 Methods of Preservation P-1.2 Natural Integrity and Heritage P-3.1 Visual Relief and Tranquility P-3.2 Natural Beauty of Area CC-2 Land Use & Historic Protection All jurisdictions shall encourage land use patterns and implement regulations that protect and enhance historic resources, and sustain historic community character. B. Urban Design CC-3 Promote High Quality Design All jurisdictions shall promote a high quality of design and site planning in publicly-funded construction (such as civic buildings, parks, bridges, transit stops), and in private development. L-3.2 Traditional Elements Overlay L-4.2 Additional Subarea Plan H-1.2 Traditional Design Elements P-3.1 Visual Relief and Tranquility P-3.2 Natural Beauty of Area C. Human and Community Services U-2.3 Adequate Water System CC-4 Human and Community Services Plans U-2.4 Emergency Action Plan Human and community service planning activities shall support U-2.5 Fire Fighting Countywide Planning Policies and the Countywide land development U-6.2 Utility Facility Decisions pattern. P-9 Regional Coordination P-9.1 Cooperative Planning Efforts HS-1 Basic Human Needs Exhibit A3: Proposed 2004 Comprehensive Plan Amendments Page 98 of 118 LAND USE APPENDIX #7 : King County (KC) Countywide Planning Policies Consistency King County: December, 2003 Related Countywide Planning Policy # Issaquah 2003 Comprehensive Plan References (Derived from the KC Web Site) (Titles provided for Reference Only) (Sample of supportive references; not (Excerpts Only: Full text available from KC) complete list) HS-2 Sustaining Services HS-3 Quality of Life Enhancements HS-4 Evaluating Needs and Resources HS-5 Coordinated Provision HS-6 Facilitating Siting and Access CF-10 Resource Efficiency& Environ. Protection H-6.1 Housing Strategy Work Program CC-5 Identify Essential Services All jurisdictions shall identify essential community and human services and H-7.3 Local Housing Needs include them in land use, capital improvement, and transportation plans. CF-1.3 Future Needs CF-1.4 Siting New School Facilities HS-4 Evaluating Needs and Resources HS-5 Coordinated Provision HS-6 Facilitating Siting and Access T-1.3 Variety of Modes T-2.4 Capital Improvement Program D. Open Space L-1.1 Maintain & Enhance the Natural FW-27 Open Space Protection & Stewardship All jurisdictions shall cooperatively identify, establish, protect and steward Environment urban and rural open space corridors of regional significance. P-1.3 Wildlife Corridors P-9 Regional Coordination P-9.1 Cooperative Planning Efforts P-7 Acquisition and Development CC-6 Regional Open Space System A regional open space system shall be established to include lands which: P-9 Regional Coordination a. Provide physical and/or visual buffers such as open spaces which help to P-9.1 Cooperative Planning Efforts separate incompatible.. L-1.1 Maintain & Enhance the Natural CC-7 Protection of Open Space Corridors All jurisdictions shall work cooperatively to identify and protect open space Environment corridors of regional significance. This process shall include: P-1.3 Wildlife Corridors a. Identification of regional open space lands and... P-3.2 Natural Beauty of Area P-7.4 Acquisition Priority P-9 Regional Coordination P-9.1 Cooperative Planning Efforts L-1.1 Maintain & Enhance the Natural CC-8 Visual & Physical Access to Water Bodies Water bodies and rivers of the Puget Sound region form an important Environment element of the open space system. Jurisdictions shall work to protect visual P-3 Visual Environment access to water bodies and rivers, and provide... P-3.2 Natural Beauty of Area P-7.3 Minimum Facilities CC-9 Countywide Parks/Open Space Funding Countywide funding shall be available for the acquisition, maintenance and stewardship of parks and open space, a) advancing the development of the regional open space system which has been... Not Applicable Exhibit A3: Proposed 2004 Comprehensive Plan Amendments Page 99 of 118 LAND USE APPENDIX #7 : King County (KC) Countywide Planning Policies Consistency King County: December, 2003 Related Countywide Planning Policy # Issaquah 2003 Comprehensive Plan References (Derived from the KC Web Site) (Titles provided for Reference Only) (Sample of supportive references; not (Excerpts Only: Full text available from KC) complete list) CC-10 Regional Open Space Planning The conceptual map of open space systems contained in the 1988 King P-9 Regional Coordination County Open Space Plan shall be used as the planning basis for regional P-9.1 Cooperative Planning Efforts open space lands and corridors. All... P-7.1 Park Land Acquisition CC-11 Park & Open Space Concurrency All jurisdictions shall work cooperatively to ensure parks and open spaces P-7.6 Acquisition of Wildlife Habitat are provided as development and redevelopment occur. P-8.1 Partnerships with Developers P-8.2 Neighborhood and Business Partnerships P-2 Resource Management CC-12 Regional Open Space System Actions All jurisdictions shall use the full range of regulatory and land preservation P-6.4 Citizen Involvement tools available to create, maintain and steward the regional open space P-7 Acquisition and Development system which has been cooperatively... P-9.1 Cooperative Planning Efforts CC-13 Coordinated Park & Open Space LOS P-9.1 Cooperative Planning Efforts All jurisdictions shall develop coordinated level-of-service standards for the CF-1.1.7 Parks and Recreation LOS provision of parks and open spaces. VI. Affordable Housing H-1.1 Housing Types/Lot Sizes FW-28 Housing Opportunities All jurisdictions shall provide for a diversity of housing types to meet a H-2.1 Housing Targets variety of needs and provide for housing opportunities for all economic H-2.2 Location segments of the population. All jurisdictions shall... H-2.3 Housing Types H-2.5 Housing Requirements H-2.6 Financing Techniques H-2.7 Preservation and Relocation Assistance H-2.8 Support Network H-2.1 Housing Targets AH-1 Affordable Housing Projections Land Use Section 7.2: Housing and Job All jurisdictions shall plan for housing to meet the needs of all economic Growth Targets segments of the population. Each jurisdiction shall specify, based on the projected number of net new housing units... H-1.1 Housing Types/Lot Sizes AH-2 Distribution of Affordable Housing All jurisdictions shall share the responsibility for achieving a rational and H-2.1 Housing Targets equitable distribution of affordable housing to meet the housing needs of H-2.2 Location low and moderate-income residents in King... H-2.3 Housing Types H-2.4 Incentives H-2.5 Housing Requirements H-2.6 Financing Techniques H-2.7 Preservation and Relocation Assistance H-2.8 Support Network H-7.1 Resources Land Use Section 7.2: Housing & Job Targets Exhibit A3: Proposed 2004 Comprehensive Plan Amendments Page 100 of 118 LAND USE APPENDIX #7 : King County (KC) Countywide Planning Policies Consistency King County: December, 2003 Related Countywide Planning Policy # Issaquah 2003 Comprehensive Plan References (Derived from the KC Web Site) (Titles provided for Reference Only) (Sample of supportive references; not (Excerpts Only: Full text available from KC) complete list) H-2.5 Housing Requirements AH-3 Preservation of Low Income Housing Each jurisdiction shall evaluate its existing resources of subsidized and low- H-2.6 Financing Techniques cost non-subsidized housing and identify housing that may be lost due to H-2.7 Preservation and Relocation redevelopment, deteriorating... Assistance H-2.8 Support Network H-4.2 Methods of Preservation H-4.3 Neighborhood Enhancement Program H-6.1 Housing Strategy Work Program AH-4 GMPC Technical Assistance The Growth Management Planning Council or its successor shall identify Not Applicable ways to expand technical assistance to local jurisdictions in affordable housing techniques. Technical assistance should... AH-5 Monitoring Residential Development All jurisdictions shall monitor residential development within their H-6.1 Housing Strategy Work Program jurisdiction and determine annually the total number of new and redeveloped units receiving permits and units constructed... AH-6 GMPC Monitoring Housing Development Beginning in 1999, and subsequently in coordination with evaluation and Not Applicable reporting requirements of state law, the Growth Management Planning Council or its successor... VII. Contiguous and Orderly Development and Provision of Urban Services to Such Development U-2.16 Coordination FW-29 Coordination & Financing of Services Planning for and financing of services shall be coordinated among U-2.18 Satellite Systems jurisdictions to direct and prioritize Countywide facility improvements to U-3.8 Regional Coordination implement the Countywide policies. U-6.5 Coordination CF-1.8 Financing FW-30 Identification of Needed Services CF-1.1 Level of Service Standards Jurisdictions shall identify the services needed to achieve adopted service CF Project and Financing Tables levels. Timelines for constructing needed services shall be identified. U-1.1 Conservation FW-31 Protection of Public Health & Safety U-1.2 Land Use Code Protection of public health and safety and the environment shall be given high priority in decision-making about infrastructure improvements. County U-1.3 Potential Annexation Areas U-2; 1-20 Water residents in both Urban ... U-3; 1-5 Sewer U-4; Storm Water U-6.1 Reliability U-7.2 Solid Waste U-7.4 Environmental Health A. General Policies U-1.2 Land Use Code CO-1 Urban Service Planning Jurisdictions shall identify the full range of urban services and how they U-2.5 Fire Fighting plan to provide them. U-2.6 Water Supply Exhibit A3: Proposed 2004 Comprehensive Plan Amendments Page 101 of 118 LAND USE APPENDIX #7 : King County (KC) Countywide Planning Policies Consistency King County: December, 2003 Related Countywide Planning Policy # Issaquah 2003 Comprehensive Plan References (Derived from the KC Web Site) (Titles provided for Reference Only) (Sample of supportive references; not (Excerpts Only: Full text available from KC) complete list) CF-1.1 Level of Service Standards CF-1.2 Correct Existing Deficiencies CF-1.5 Capital Improvement Projects CF-1.7 Six Year Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) CF-1.8 Financing & CF-1.3 Future Needs U-2.16 Coordination CO-2 Urban Service Cooperation Jurisdictions and other urban service providers shall provide services and U-2.18 Satellite Systems manage natural resources efficiently, through regional coordination, U-3.8 Regional Coordination conjunctive use of resources, and sharing of... U-4.8 Regional Coordination and ESA U-6.2 Utility Facility Decisions U-6.5 Coordination CF-1.1 Level of Service Standards CO-3 Coordinated Service Provision CF-1.2 Correct Existing Deficiencies Service provision shall be coordinated to ensure the protection and CF-1.5 Capital Improvement Projects preservation of resources in both Rural Areas and in areas that are CF-1.7 Six Year Capital Improvement developing, while addressing service needs within areas... Plan (CIP) CF-1.8 Financing CF-1.3 Future Needs CO-4 Regional Water Management System All jurisdictions acknowledge the need to develop a regional surface water U-2.3 Adequate Water System management system which crosses jurisdictions boundaries and identifies U-2.6 Water Supply and prioritizes program elements and capital... CO-5 Regional Coordination of Water Supply Water supply shall be regionally coordinated to provide a reliable economic source of water and to provide mutual aid to and between all agencies and purveyors. The region should work toward a... CO-6 Aggressive Conservation Efforts Aggressive conservation efforts shall be implemented to address the need for adequate supply for electrical energy and water resources, protect natural resources, and achieve improved... U-2.16 Coordination U-1.1 Conservation U-2.6 Water Supply U-6.3 Alternative Technologies U-7.6 Waste Reduction and Recycling Programs T-14 Air Quality P-2.5: Native Vegetation P-2.6: Native and Drought Tolerant Vegetation U-1.1 Conservation U-2.6 Water Supply U-3.8 Regional Coordination CO-7 Water Reuse & Reclamation Encouraged Water reuse and reclamation shall be encouraged, especially for large commercial and residential developments, and for high water users such as parks, schools, golf courses, and locks. CO-8 Wastewater Treatment Alternatives Exhibit A3: Proposed 2004 Comprehensive Plan Amendments Page 102 of 118 LAND USE APPENDIX #7 : King County (KC) Countywide Planning Policies Consistency King County: December, 2003 Related Countywide Planning Policy # Issaquah 2003 Comprehensive Plan References (Derived from the KC Web Site) (Titles provided for Reference Only) (Sample of supportive references; not (Excerpts Only: Full text available from KC) complete list) When planning for the future demand on wastewater treatment and conveyance, alternatives to the expansion of the METRO centralized system such as decentralized... CO-9 Denial of CPP Inconsistent Development U-3.1 Sewer Connections for New The presence of tightline sewers or availability of sewer pipeline capacity Development and water supply above what is required to meet local needs shall not be U-3.8 Regional Coordination used to justify development counter to the... B. Urban Areas Identified for Growth for the Next Ten Years CO-10 Urban Water and Sewer Systems In the Urban Area identified for growth within the next ten years, urban U-3 Sewer water and sewer systems are preferred for new construction on existing lots and shall be required for new subdivisions... C. Urban Areas Designated for Growth Beyond 2002 CO-11 Growth Phasing of New Plats To the extent practicable, all new plats shall be contiguous to the areas L-5.3.4 Urban Growth Areas identified for growth for the next ten years. The phased expansion should respect basin boundaries or other natural... CO-12 Sewer and Water Systems Beyond 2002 Preferred sewer and water systems in areas designated for growth beyond L-5.3.4 Urban Growth Areas 2002 are community drainfields and water systems which are professionally managed. These systems shall be CO-13 PAA Sewer Systems Urban sewer system extensions in unincorporated King County shall be L-5.3.4 Urban Growth Areas permitted consistent with the provisions of the King County Sewerage U-3 Sewer General Plan, Countywide Policies, and the policies of ... D. Rural Areas and Resource Lands CO-14 Limited Extension of Sewer Sewer expansion shall not occur in Rural Areas and resource lands except U-3 Sewer where needed to address specific health and safety problems threatening structures permitted before July 1,... U-1.3 Potential Annexation Areas CO-15 Urban Water Systems in Rural Areas U-2.3 Adequate Water System Urban water system extensions are not preferred in Rural Areas. However, U-2.6 Water Supply Group A (WAC 246.290.020) water systems are permissible under the CF-1.5 Capital Improvement Projects following criteria:... CF-1.3 Future Needs CO-16 Rural Water Systems Rural water systems should be provided through private wells or small U-2.6 Water Supply public systems. In the Rural Area, all new Group A water systems should be operated by a certified water system operator... VIII. Siting Public Capital Facilities of a Countywide or Statewide Nature CF-1.3 Future Needs FW-32 Siting State & County Capital Facilities Public capital facilities of a Countywide or statewide nature shall be sited to L-5 Regional Coordination and support the Countywide land use pattern, support economic activities, Annexation Exhibit A3: Proposed 2004 Comprehensive Plan Amendments Page 103 of 118 LAND USE APPENDIX #7 : King County (KC) Countywide Planning Policies Consistency King County: December, 2003 Related Countywide Planning Policy # Issaquah 2003 Comprehensive Plan References (Derived from the KC Web Site) (Titles provided for Reference Only) (Sample of supportive references; not (Excerpts Only: Full text available from KC) complete list) mitigate environmental impacts... S-1 GMPC & Siting State & County Facilities CF-1.3 Future Needs The Growth Management Planning Council or its successor shall establish a L-5 Regional Coordination and process by which all jurisdictions shall cooperatively site public capital Annexation facilities of a Countywide or statewide nature. ... IX. Economic Development EV-4.2 Regional Coordination FW-33 Economic Sustainability All jurisdictions shall contribute to the economic sustainability of the L-5 Regional Coordination and County in a manner which supports the Countywide land use pattern. This is Annexation to be accomplished by providing cost-efficient... EV-7 Managed and Balanced Growth FW-34 Work Training & Job Opportunities EV-2.1 Develop Community Benefits All jurisdictions shall act to increase work training and job opportunities for EV-4.1 Community Coordination all residents and communities. EV-4.2 Regional Coordination FW-35 Regional Economic Development All jurisdictions shall support the development of a regional economic L-5 Regional Coordination and development strategy consistent with the Countywide land use pattern. Annexation FW-36 GMPC Monitoring & Evaluation The Growth Management Planning Council or its successor and jurisdictions shall develop monitoring and evaluation systems, including benchmarks, by which they can evaluate... ED-1 GMPC Economic Development Policies The Growth Management Planning Council has adopted economic development policies which: a. Establish the County's role in the regional economy;... ED-2 Regional Industrial Siting By July 1, 1995 regional planning shall produce a regional industrial siting policy based on a regional assessment of the need for industrial zoned land and the availability of transportation and other... ED-3 Economic Development in Comp Plans Jurisdictions comprehensive plans shall include economic development policies. These policies shall address the local economic concerns of each jurisdiction within the context of a regional... L-6.2 Amendments Land Use Section 7.2: Housing and Job Growth Targets Issaquah Comprehensive Plan Report Cards Not Applicable Not Applicable EV-1 Quality of Life EV-2 Encourage Local Economic Vitality EV-3 Concurrency EV-4 Coordination EV-5 Regulatory Reform EV-6 Downtown Revitalization EV-7 Managed and Balanced Economic Growth Comprehensive Plan Introduction Land Use Element Background Report; Volume #2 EV Technical Appendix Volume #3 ED-4 Job Estimates in Comp Plans Each jurisdictions comprehensive plan shall include an economic development element which will include an estimate of the type and number of jobs to be accommodated in the jurisdiction ... Exhibit A3: Proposed 2004 Comprehensive Plan Amendments Page 104 of 118 LAND USE APPENDIX #7 : King County (KC) Countywide Planning Policies Consistency King County: December, 2003 Related Countywide Planning Policy # Issaquah 2003 Comprehensive Plan References (Derived from the KC Web Site) (Titles provided for Reference Only) (Sample of supportive references; not (Excerpts Only: Full text available from KC) complete list) EV-2.1 Develop Community Benefits L-7 Growth Capacity & Growth Targets ED-5 Regional Economic Development The County shall work with Snohomish and Pierce Counties to develop a Not Applicable joint 20-year regional economic development strategy. A. Strengthen, Expand, and Diversify the Economy ED-6 Economic Retention & Expansion Local jurisdictions plans shall include policies that actively support the EV-4 Coordination retention and expansion of the economic base of the multi-County region. Local jurisdictions and the County shall work... ED-7 Economic Diversification Jurisdictions shall cooperate to establish economic diversification and EV-4 Coordination development goals for the multi-County region. Jurisdictions shall, in process of comprehensive planning, identify the contribution... EV-2 Encourage Local Economic ED-8 Industry Retention Where appropriate, jurisdictions plans shall include policies intended to Vitality attract and retain industries, firms and jobs, within their locally determined EV-4 Coordination or zoned manufacturing and industrial areas. EV-5 Regulatory Reform EV-6 Downtown Revitalization EV-7 Managed and Balanced Economic Growth EV-2 Encourage Local Economic ED-9 Economic Stability & Growth Jurisdictions shall recognize businesses, facilities, and institutions within Vitality their boundaries that provide opportunities to maintain economic stability EV-4 Coordination and realize economic growth for the entire region... EV-5 Regulatory Reform EV-6 Downtown Revitalization EV-7 Managed and Balanced Economic Growth B. Environment EV-2 Encourage Local Economic ED-10 Balancing Economics & Environment Jurisdictions shall adopt economic development and other policies which Vitality will recognize and help protect the environment as a key economic value in EV-4 Coordination the region. Local policies shall seek to ... EV-5 Regulatory Reform EV-6 Downtown Revitalization EV-7 Managed and Balanced Economic Growth U-1.1 Conservation ED-11 Water & Power Conservation In cooperation with water and electricity providers, local jurisdictions, U-2.6 Water Supply including sewer and water districts, shall encourage programs for water and U-6.3 Alternative Technologies power conservation in public facilities and in the... C. Human Resources: Economically Disadvantaged Citizens and Neighborhoods, Job Training and Education EV-2 Encourage Local Economic ED-12 Economically Disadvantaged Exhibit A3: Proposed 2004 Comprehensive Plan Amendments Page 105 of 118 LAND USE APPENDIX #7 : King County (KC) Countywide Planning Policies Consistency King County: December, 2003 Related Countywide Planning Policy # Issaquah 2003 Comprehensive Plan References (Derived from the KC Web Site) (Titles provided for Reference Only) (Sample of supportive references; not (Excerpts Only: Full text available from KC) complete list) Jurisdictions comprehensive plans shall address the historic disparity in Vitality income and employment opportunities for minorities, women and EV-4 Coordination economically disadvantaged individuals... HS-1 Basic Human Needs HS-2 Sustaining Services HS-3 Quality of Life Enhancements HS-4 Evaluating Needs and Resources HS-5 Coordinated Provision HS-6 Facilitating Siting and Access H-2.8 Support Network H-3 Special Needs Housing EV-2 Encourage Local Economic ED-13 Job Training & Education Job training, retraining, and educational opportunities are critical to develop Vitality EV-4 Coordination and maintain a highly skilled workforce. Jurisdictions shall cooperate in efforts to meet these training and... D. Direct Governmental Actions: Land Supply, Infrastructure and Permitting EV-2.2 Adequate Land Supply ED-14 Countywide Land Supply/Inventory Jurisdictions shall cooperate on a Countywide basis to inventory, plan for, L-5 Regional Coordination and and monitor the land supply for commercial, industrial, institutional, Annexation resource and residential uses. Local jurisdictions L-2.3 Mineral Resource Lands ED-15 Support for Industrial Siting L-2.4 Coordination Local comprehensive plans should include policies which foster a climate EV-2 Encourage Local Economic supportive of the siting needs of industrial users and that recognize the Vitality important role they play in creating high-wage... EV-2.2 Adequate Land Supply EV-4 Coordination L-6.1 Establishment of Land Use Designations/Map L-2.1 Agricultural Lands ED-16 Resource and Agricultural Industries L-2.2 Forest Lands Jurisdictions are encouraged to promote the siting of resource-based and L-2.3 Mineral Resource Lands agricultural-based industrial activities close to the location of the natural L-2.4 Coordination resource whether outside or inside the Urban... EV-2 Encourage Local Economic Vitality EV-2.2 Adequate Land Supply EV-4 Coordination L-6.1 Establishment of Land Use Designations/Map EV-2 Encourage Local Economic ED-17 Economic Development & Infrastructure Where jurisdictions, including water and sewer districts, have responsibility Vitality to provide infrastructure and/or services or to plan for them they shall EV-3 Concurrency include the goals of economic... EV-4 Coordination ED-18 Cooperative Funding Strategies EV-4 Coordination Exhibit A3: Proposed 2004 Comprehensive Plan Amendments Page 106 of 118 LAND USE APPENDIX #7 : King County (KC) Countywide Planning Policies Consistency King County: December, 2003 Related Countywide Planning Policy # Issaquah 2003 Comprehensive Plan References (Derived from the KC Web Site) (Titles provided for Reference Only) (Sample of supportive references; not (Excerpts Only: Full text available from KC) complete list) Jurisdictions shall cooperatively develop funding strategies for U-1.2.8 Joint Use of Public Facilities and governmental infrastructure which take into account economic development Utility Corridors goals, and consider the costs and benefits for the... ED-19 Environmental Clean-Up of Industrial Jurisdictions shall seek state legislative approval of state funding and EV-4.2 Regional Coordination regulatory strategies to fund environmental clean-up of industrial sites. Jurisdictions shall work together on a ... ED-20 Planning for Industry Jurisdictions shall identify geographic areas that can be developed or L-6.1 Establishment of Land Use redeveloped into Designations/Map Manufacturing/Industrial Areas, and coordinate with utility providers to build the necessary... EV-5.1 Regulatory Reform in the ED-21 Regulatory Reform & Permits Development Review Process To maintain the economic vitality of King County, regulatory reform must EV-5.2 Improve Service occur with the implementation of Growth Management Act requirements. EV-5.3 Permitting Information To carry out this goal, jurisdictions... L-1.1 Maintain and Enhance the Natural ED-22 Non-Project EIS & Future Development Jurisdictions may prepare non-project environmental impact statements to Environment address, in a comprehensive manner, the probable significant adverse L-1.2 Balance impacts of future development. L-1.3 Issaquah Basin Plan Comprehensive Plan EIS? EV-5.1 Regulatory Reform in the ED-23 Master Utility Permit Process Development Review Process Jurisdictions are encouraged to establish a master utility permit process in EV-5.2 Improve Service conjunction with approval of land use permits such as short plats, EV-5.3 Permitting Information subdivisions and master planned developments... E. Private/Public Partnerships EV-4 Coordination ED-24 Foster Private/Public Partnerships EV-6 Downtown Revitalization Jurisdictions shall foster the development and use of private/public P-8 Partnerships partnerships to implement economic development policies, programs and P-9 Regional Coordination projects. FW-37 Regional Financing Strategies EV-3 Concurrency To implement the Countywide Planning Policies, jurisdictions shall EV-4 Coordination cooperatively identify regional funding sources and establish regional financing strategies by July 1, 1996. Such strategies shall... FW-38 Identify & Implement Key Investments EV-3 Concurrency In order to implement the Countywide Planning Policies, key investments EV-4 Coordination need to be identified and implemented. Public resources shall include Countywide, regional, State and Federal funds... FW-39 Regional Governance Plan In order to implement the Countywide Planning Policies, a Regional EV-4 Coordination Governance Plan shall be adopted by King County and the cities. This Plan shall be developed in a collaborative process... EV-4 Coordination RF-1 Seek State Authority for Land Assembly Exhibit A3: Proposed 2004 Comprehensive Plan Amendments Page 107 of 118 LAND USE APPENDIX #7 : King County (KC) Countywide Planning Policies Consistency King County: December, 2003 Related Countywide Planning Policy # Issaquah 2003 Comprehensive Plan References (Derived from the KC Web Site) (Titles provided for Reference Only) (Sample of supportive references; not (Excerpts Only: Full text available from KC) complete list) King County and its cities shall seek authority from the State Legislature to facilitate public sector assemblage of land for the purpose of redevelopment. RF-2 Seek Tax Increment Financing King County and its cities shall seek authority from the State Legislature to EV-4 Coordination establish special Urban Center Districts where increments of new revenues resulting from redevelopment can be allocated ... RF-3 Affordable Housing All jurisdictions shall adopt policies to stimulate construction or EV-7 Managed and Balanced Economic preservation of affordable housing in Centers, infill and redevelopment Growth areas. RF-4 City/County Interlocals for PAAs EV-4 Coordination Each city with a potential annexation area shall enter into an interlocal EV-7 Managed and Balanced Economic agreement with the County for defining service delivery responsibilities. A Growth financing plan for investments in the annexation... RF-5 Unincorporated Urban Areas In order to transition governmental roles so that the cities become the EV-7.2 Potential Annexation Areas provider of local urban services and the County becomes the regional government providing Countywide and rural services,... B. Implementation and Transition TP-1 Implementation of Countywide Policies L-1.2.3 Balance All jurisdictions shall implement these Countywide Planning Policies L-5.5 Land Use Code through adoption of comprehensive plans. Countywide Planning Policies L-6.3 Establishment of Zoning Districts will affect existing legal zoning uses,... TP-2 Rules of Transition Local plans and development regulations may provide rules of transition, L-5.5 Land Use Code governing L-6.3 Establishment of Zoning Districts such matters as zoning and existing legal uses, structures and lots, including pending This appendix is provided to demonstrate consistency between the Issaquah Comprehensive Plan and the King County Countywide Planning Policies. Consistency of development regulations with a comprehensive plan is a requirement of the Growth Management Act (GMA). Code amendments to improve consistency with and implementation of the Issaquah Comprehensive Plan are docketed and reviewed on an annual basis. The Issaquah Land Use Code was also reviewed by means of a separate document for consistency with the Growth Management Act as part of the GMA required 2004 update. Therefore, code provisions are not included in this document. Exhibit A3: Proposed 2004 Comprehensive Plan Amendments Page 108 of 118 12. Report Card Update (Parks Element Only) Parks, Open Space & Recreation – Work Plan/Status Report Policies Timing 2002-2007 2008-2022 Implementation Actions Lead Agency & Responsibility GOAL Foster and support the stewardship of human historic, cultural and natural resources throughout our community, in the form of a Parksparks, recreation and Open open Sspace and Recreationsystem, to that serves the variety of needs for of the residents of the City of Issaquah and the surrounding area. OBJECTIVE P-1: Balanced Needs: The City's adopted Parks, Open SpaceRecreation, Trails and Recreation Open Space Plan shall be used to ensure that development of parks is balanced with environmental protection. The City shall promote and protect environmental quality, open space and wildlife habitat, and multi-use recreational opportunities. OBJECTIVE P-1: Balanced Needs: The City's O O The plan itself was completely revised in 2003.Ongoing Parks Department/ Resource adopted Parks, Recreation, Trails and Open Space efforts by the City. Projects have included park Conservation / Planning and Recreation Plan shall be used to ensure that facilities in the Issaquah Highlands, creek restorations, development of parks is balanced with open space purchases and dedications, the Pickering environmental protection. The City shall promote Barn, the adoption of the Historic Preservation and protect environmental quality, open space and ordinance, and support for the Trolley and numerous wildlife habitat, and multi-use recreational improvements to existing parks.. opportunities. Annual articles re:Ongoing efforts also include trails programs, plans to enhance or add trails, and specific accomplishments Sstewardship opportunities offered quarterly in parks, historic and natural areas. Policy P-1.1 Access and Education: Provide O O Parks programs and RCO programs through the Trail Parks Department/ Resource access to and education about Issaquah's Center, Stream Team, Pickering Garden and others. Conservation natural environment and cultural heritage through the park system. Policy P-1.2 Natural Integrity and Heritage: O O Addressed through IMC 18.10 – Environmental Parks Department / Planning Preserve and protect the natural integrity of the Protection and purchase of open spaces and flood prone environment and as well as resources and artifacts areas. Ongoing efforts to preserve & enhance the of historical and cultural significance to reinforce City’s culture. the City's cultural, historical and agricultural 1995: Adopted Critical Area Regulations – Ord 2072 heritage within the park system. 2001: Updated Critical Area Regulations – Ord. 2301 Historic Preservation Ordinance Exhibit A3: Proposed 2004 Comprehensive Plan Amendments Page 109 of 118 Policies Policy P-1.3 Wildlife Corridors: Maintain wildlife corridors to provide adequate linkage for animal wildlife movement between remaining and about wildlife habitat areas, as addressed in the Issaquah Area Wildlife and Recreational Trails Plan (November 1992). Policy P-1.4 Recreation and Habitat: When providing recreational facilities ensure that these facilities are consistent with and do not adversely affect the preservation and protection of wildlife habitat areas. Policy P-1.4 OBJECTIVE P-2: Resource Management. Preserve and protect the City's natural resources through the provision of resource management strategies and programs. Timing 2002-2007 O Implementation Actions 2008-2022 O Ongoing efforts by the City to acquire and preserve permanent open space (including the Tibbetts Greenway Project) 1996: Grand Ridge 2-party agreement – Ord. 2104 1999: East Village 2-party agreement – Ord. 2254 Ongoing efforts to balance recreation and open space / habitat areas in the Urban Villages. Squak Valley Park Master Site Plan Lead Agency & Responsibility Parks Department / Public Works / Planning / MDRT O O Parks Department / Public Works / Planning / MDRT O O Environmental protection addressed through IMC 18.10. Ongoing efforts by the City to acquire and preserve open space areas. Protected property through the Public Benefit Rating System (PBRS) to preserve forested areas in N. Issaquah. Stewardship opportunities offered twice yearly in natural areas. 1996: Grand Ridge 2-party agreement – Ord. 2104 1999: East Village 2-party agreement – Ord. 2254 Parks Department / Public Works / Planning / MDRT 1.4.1Policy P-2.1 Natural Resources: O Preserve and protect natural resources through open space and wildlife management and other environmental programs for the benefit of future generations. 1.4.2 Policy P-2.2Forest Management: O, PO3 Protect forest lands through forest management for the benefit of future generations. O Parks Department / Planning O Environmental protection addressed through IMC 18.10. Protected property through the Public Benefit Rating System (PBRS) to preserve forested areas in N. Issaquah. Pending development of the Tree Ordinance in ‘03-‘04 1996: Grand Ridge 2-party agreement – Ord. 2104 1999: East Village 2-party agreement – Ord. 2254 Planning Exhibit A3: Proposed 2004 Comprehensive Plan Amendments Page 110 of 118 Policies Policy P-1.52.3 Native Biological Diversity: Implement proper management strategies to maintain sustainable wildlife population levels and encourage native biological diversity. Timing 2002-2007 O Implementation Actions 2008-2022 O Lead Agency & Responsibility City undertakes a minimum of one stream restoration Parks / Public Works / project each year. Past projects have included: Planning 1995 1. Newport Way Bridge: 0.5 acres, 75 trees, 100 shrubs 2. Restoration Park: 2 acres, 300 trees, 500 shrubs 1996 3. Restoration Park: 1.5 acres, 400 trees, 400 shrubs 4. Restoration Park: 1 acre, 350 trees, 400 shrubs 1997 5. Cassel Building: 1 acre, 375 trees, 300 shrubs 6. W. Sunset Bridge: 0.1 acres, 20 trees, 20 shrubs 7. Restoration Park: 1 acre, 350 trees, 300 shrubs 1998 8. Cybil-Madeline Park: 2 acres, 350 trees, 400 shrubs 9. Cybil-Madeline Park: 2 acres, 350 trees, 400 shrubs 1999 10. Sycamore: 1 acre, 200 trees, 200 shrubs 11. Pickering: 1 acre, 175 trees, 200 shrubs 12. Hanson: 1 acre, 100 trees, 200 shrubs 13. Hatchery Native Garden: 0.25 acres, 20 trees, 100 shrubs 14. Darst Park: 10 acres; 1,400 trees; 900 shrubs 2000 15. Pickering: 3 acres; 1,300 plants; 120 volunteers 16. Johnson: 3.3 acres; 1,442 plants; 120 volunteers 2001 17. Pickering: Wetland C, 565 plants; 50 volunteers 18. Pickering: Wetland, 13 plants; 120 volunteers; weed control 19. Darst: 2 acres,Exhibit A3: Proposed 2004 Comprehensive Plan Amendments 150 trees and shrubs, 150 volunteers Page 111 of 118 2002 20. Pickering: 40 trees and shrubs, 400 stakes, weed control Policies Policy P-2.4 Stewardship: Promote stewardship projects located within and along the Issaquah and Tibbetts Creeks, including their tributaries, corridors and upland natural open space areas. Policy P-2.5: Native Vegetation: Within the City's designated open space natural areas, including Native Growth Protection Areas, restoration, enhancement, and stewardship projects shall use vegetative species native to the State of Washington and as appropriate for the project site plant community. Timing 2002-2007 O Implementation Actions 2008-2022 O Tibbetts Creek Greenway Issaquah Creek Restoration/Enhancement Sites South Issaquah Creek Greenway Squak Valley Park-North (City & Army Corp of Engineers) Tibbetts Creek Greenway Issaquah Creek Restoration/Enhancement Sites South Issaquah Creek Greenway Lead Agency & Responsibility Parks Department / Public Works / Resource Conservation / Planning O O Parks Department / Resource Conservation / Public Works / Planning Policy P-2.6: Native and Drought Tolerant Vegetation: Within the City's parks and streetscapes, native and drought tolerant species shall be emphasized and used as appropriate for the project site. O O Pickering Farm Teaching Garden Landscape Medians Parks Department / Resource Conservation OBJECTIVE P-23: Visual Environment: Preserve and enhance the beauty of the City of Issaquah through Issaquah's the parks and open spaces that make up the City’s park system. Policy P-23.1 Visual Relief and Tranquility O, P07 Bring visual relief and tranquility to mitigate the impacts of the urban environment, including noise, traffic, concrete, and congestion, through the use of maintained parkways including street trees, gardens, lawns, woods, and water through the park system. O Ongoing efforts to create various types of park settings addressing the needs of the community Identify specific viewscapes to be protected and methods of protection pending in 2007 Parks Department Exhibit A3: Proposed 2004 Comprehensive Plan Amendments Page 112 of 118 Policies Policy P-23.2 Natural Beauty of Area: Promote retention and replication of the area's natural beauty and ecology (mountains, plantings, water etc.) in the park system. Timing 2002-2007 P03, O Implementation Actions 2008-2022 O Partially complete through the IMC 18.10Environmental Protection. Pending code amendment for a tree retention ordinance in 2003. Purchase of open space and flood prone areas. 1996: Grand Ridge 2-party agreement – Ord. 2104 1999: East Village 2-party agreement – Ord. 2254 Maintained by the Parks department; a policy of no net loss of trees along Gilman BLVD currently established Incorporate IPM, xeriscape, and natural landscaping into management practices. Pending 2007 Lead Agency & Responsibility Planning / Parks Department Policy P-23.3 Preserve Gilman Blvd. Landscaping: Protect Gilman Boulevard’s existing signature landscaping, trees, plantings, grassy open spaces, trails and creek access from new development and improvements by ensuring no net loss of landscaping. O, P07 O Parks Department Policy P-3.4 Scenic Visual Resources: Preserve the quality of surrounding scenic and visual resources provided by the natural open space areas, such as the “Issaquah Alps.” OBJECTIVE P-34: Future Generations: Ensure Issaquah's park system has a strong orientation towards providing for parks, recreation and open space facilities and opportunities for future generations. Policy P-34.1 Planning for Future O O Ongoing efforts by the City to acquire park and open Administration / Generations: Acquire and preserve land for space land. Department coming generations, and develop parks to meet 1996: Created Community Facility zone – Ord. 2100 & both existing and future demand including multi2101 use activities and open space preservation. Parks Policy P-34.2 Planning for Future Growth: Plan the park system through population projections to determine future growth and growth patterns. 4.2.1 PAAs and Subareas. Consider and designate, when possible, locations for City owned parks when annexing property or preparing subarea plans. O O 1996: Grand Ridge 2-party agreement – Ord. 2104 1999: East Village 2-party agreement – Ord. 2254 2001: Acquired Squak Valley Park South Parks impact fees (adopted 1999) to provide for the Parks Department / Planning acquisition of new parks facilities to meet the needs of forecasted growth. Analysis on parks facilities and services is included in Planning / Parks Department all annexation studies conducted or contracted by the City. Similar analysis is done with subarea plans. Recent annexation studies include Providence Point, Klahanie, and Greenwood Point. O O OBJECTIVE P-45: Accessibility: Make the City of Issaquah's park system easily accessible by for as many recreational users groups as possible. Exhibit A3: Proposed 2004 Comprehensive Plan Amendments Page 113 of 118 Policies Policy P-45.1 Active and Passive Park Facilities: Make both active and passive park facilities available to as many persons as possible. Where appropriate, provide multi-use recreational opportunities of at park facilities consistent with the intended use of the particular park facilities. Timing 2002-2007 O Implementation Actions 2008-2022 O Ongoing efforts to acquire different types of parks facilities 1996: Created Community Facility zone – Ord. 2100 & 2101 1996: Grand Ridge 2-party agreement – Ord. 2104 1999: East Village 2-party agreement – Ord. 2254 2001: Initiated Phase II Development of Tibbetts Valley Park Special needs programs at the pool and the Community Center. 2001: Completed ADA accessibility to Memorial Park. Lead Agency & Responsibility Administration Department / Parks Policy P-45.2 User Groups with Special Considerations: Give special consideration to people with limited financial resources, youth at risk, the elderly, the disabled and others with special needs. O O Parks Department OBJECTIVE: P-56: Service and Management: Ensure Issaquah's park facilities are safe and well managed while providing all segments of the community with quality park and recreational facilities and services. Policy P-56.1 Services for a Variety of Persons: Provide natural open space, multiple-use parks, and recreational opportunities and services to a variety of age groups, interests, and abilities throughout the park system. O, P04 O Policy P-56.2 Park Programs: Offer a wide variety of Parks and Recreation programs to meet the community's diverse needs. The programs should be characterized by quality, caring and efficiency. O O Ongoing efforts by the City to provide diverse park uses, including a community center (and community center programs), hiking trails, ball fields, passive parks, and the Pickering Farm. Develop and implement biannual user surveys and other tools to evaluate park usage and quality – pending 2004 Ongoing efforts by the City to provide diverse park uses, including a community center (and Community Center programs), hiking trails, ball fields, passive parks, and the Pickering Farm Continue to cooperate with other public / private groups to provide programs Parks Department Parks Department Exhibit A3: Proposed 2004 Comprehensive Plan Amendments Page 114 of 118 Policies Policy P-56.3 Safety: Promote the opportunity for use and minimize user and neighborhood conflict, through the provision of safe and wellmanaged park facilities, including open space and recreation facilities. Anticipate the security and safety concerns of users, and design parks and parks programs with these concerns in mind. WayStrategies to alleviate potential security and safety concerns include: requesting police patrols, posting signage with regulations for behavior and appropriate times and ways to use parklands and park facilities, regular maintenance, outdoor lighting and appropriate landscaping. Policy P-56.4 Citizen Involvement: Utilize citizen involvement and participation in planning for and, developing, operating, stewarding and maintaining the City of Issaquah's park system. A variety of citizens and recreational users should be included in the review of strategies and implementation of parks planning projects. City sanctioned volunteer activities are encouraged when feasible for maintenance and stewardship of natural resources. Policy P-56.5 Trails: Use the Urban Trails Plan (Non-Motorized Transportation Plan) and the 1992 Issaquah Area Wildlife and Recreation Trails Plan as background and guidelines and policy direction for future planning for trails and supplemental facilities within the City’s parks, recreation and open space and recreation areas. Place emphasis on connecting trails to existing local, regional, and state trail systems. Timing 2002-2007 O Implementation Actions 2008-2022 O Police patrol all of the City’s facilities. City goal to separate recreational bikers and walkers from commuting bikers on the City’s Urban Trails. Signs posted with regulations for usage and times. Lighting provided, as necessary, to increase safety Lead Agency & Responsibility Police / Parks Department O O Ongoing review and consultation with the Parks Board Parks Department / Planning and public. Formation and consultation with the Nonmotorized Ad Hoc Advisory Group on trail issues. Consultation as appropriate with citizen groups such as the Mountains to Sound Greenway and Cascade Bicycle Club. P03C’03 for trails in the Park Plan; P’04 for merger and update of the Urban Trails Plan with the Transportation Element. O Urban Trails Plan update in 2003 after2004 as first step in the overall Transportation Element update. I-90/Issaquah-High Point Regional Trail Connector Project Parks Department / Planning / Public Works Exhibit A3: Proposed 2004 Comprehensive Plan Amendments Page 115 of 118 Policies Policy P-6.6: Integrated Pest Management and Plant Health Care: Design, develop and manage park facilities utilizing plant health care and Integrated Pest Management approaches and strategies. For example, these approaches include matching appropriate plants to their respective sites, emphasize proper site preparation to ensure plant establishment, promote long term success with a minimum of artificial inputs, conserve water, reduce use of chemical pesticides, herbicides and fertilizers and protect water quality, endangered species and public health, while also considering public safety, economic, legal and/or aesthetic requirements. Implementation for these approaches and strategies shall be included in a Standard Operating Procedures (SOP) or Maintenance and Operation Manual. Policy P-6.7 Facility Management: Design, develop, construct, maintain and operate facilities when feasible in a resource efficient and sustainable manner, which minimizes impacts to and improves the quality of the environment, community and economy. Timing 2002-2007 P’04 Implementation Actions 2008-2022 O Lead Agency & Responsibility Under study by the Parks Department for inclusion in a Parks Department / Public pending maintenance guide. Works / Resource Conservation O O Ongoing efforts to improve sustainability practices by Parks / Public Works / the Facilities Maintenance Division. Planning / Resource Conservation OBJECTIVE P-67: Acquisition and Development: Acquire land for future parks, trails and trail connections and natural open space, as appropriate, when such lands are available and affordable, to meet present and future community and user demands and needs. Policy P-67.1 Park Land Acquisition: Acquire suitable land when available, but development of park and recreational facilities , when appropriate, must not exceed funding or the ability to maintain or to operate facilities. O O Ongoing efforts to ensure consistency between the Capital Facilities Plan (including Park’s Department projects) and the Budget 1996: Grand Ridge 2-party agreement – Ord. 2104 1999: East Village 2-party agreement – Ord. 2254 2001: Acquired Squak Valley Park South Parks Department Administration / Exhibit A3: Proposed 2004 Comprehensive Plan Amendments Page 116 of 118 Policies Policy P-7.2 Inventory and Identification: Inventory existing developed and undeveloped parks and determine appropriate recreational uses and facilities at these sites. Policy P-6.2 7.3 Minimum Facilities: Provide minimum access, such as trails, where full development is not appropriate or possible. Policy P-6.37.4 Acquisition Priority: Where feasible,Priority should be placed on acquiringe land adjacent to existing parkland to augment the potential uses of those facilities and to improve linkages between parks. Policy P-6.47.5 Neighborhood Needs: When feasible, priority should be given to Aacquiringe, where feasible, and developing sites that provide recreational facilities within neighborhoods in the City. These areas should be easily accessible, visible, and efficient to maintain and operate. Timing 2002-2007 O Implementation Actions 2008-2022 O Issaquah Highlands Parks: Central Park, Black Nugget park, Grand View Park Tibbetts Valley Park Lead Agency & Responsibility Parks Department O O O O City goal to acquire parcels in a link along creek side. Administration City parks are linked with Mountains to Sound project. Department Fowler Creek Limited partnership (Whitaker) Property Administration Acquisition – Front Street South Department / / Parks Parks O O Issaquah Highlands Parks: Central Park, Black Nugget park, Grand View Park Tibbetts Valley Park Administration Department / Parks Policy P-6.57.6 Acquisition of Wildlife Habitat O Areas: Acquire When feasible, priority should be given to the identification, acquisition and preservation of natural open space areas and e, where feasible, wildlife corridors in order to allow animals wildlife (both aquatic and terrestrial) to move safelymigration from place to place, and and to avoid isolation of habitat areas. Acquisition sites should promote wildlife habitat connectivity. O 1996: Grand Ridge 2-party agreement – Ord. 2104 1999: East Village 2-party agreement – Ord. 2254 Fowler Creek Limited partnership (Whitaker) Property Acquisition – Front Street South Administration Department / Parks OBJECTIVE P-78: Partnerships: Pursue Continue, or create where beneficial to the public, partnerships with local, state, and regional agencies, the Issaquah School Districtschools, businesses, developers, non-profit organizations, user groups and neighborhood groups in order to provide and to assist in the management and maintenance of parks, open space, and recreation facilities, services, maintenance and security. Exhibit A3: Proposed 2004 Comprehensive Plan Amendments Page 117 of 118 Policies Policy P-78.1 Partnerships with Developers: Developers should shall mitigate or offset the impacts of their new development by providing parkland and park facilities, and/or payment of impact fees in lieu of such land or facilities, through the process established by the City. In the commercial areas of the City, developers should shall mitigate by providing public spaces and facilities such as plazas, courtyards, and pedestrian connections, and/or payment of impact fees in lieu of such land or facilities, through the process established by the City. Timing 2002-2007 O Implementation Actions 2008-2022 O Currently require parks mitigation fees. IMC 18.12 – Landscaping requires design and development of appropriate landscaping 1996: Grand Ridge 2-party agreement – Ord. 2104 1999: East Village 2-party agreement – Ord. 2254 (2003-2004: Work with Mallard Bay developers to create trail route) Lead Agency & Responsibility Planning / Parks Department Policy P-78.2 Neighborhood and Business O O City does at least one stream restoration project each Parks Department / Planning Partnerships: Encourage partnerships with year using volunteers neighborhoods and existing businesses to provide land or facilities for parks including, but not limited to: cost sharing for acquisition and development, furnishing materials or equipment, or providing maintenance or security. Promote partnerships with non-profit and service organizations. These groups provide increased expertise, interest, volunteers, and/or funding for a particular facility or program provided by the Parks and Recreation Department. OBJECTIVE P-89: Regional Coordination: Participate in coordination and , in cooperation and in partnership with local, state, and federal agencies on a regional basis in order to provide an effective and efficient parks,regional, natural open space and park system, thus providing improved recreational opportunities, recreation services, and facilities for people living in the greater Issaquah area. Key agencies include the Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife, Washington State Department of Natural Resources, Washington State Parks and Recreation Commission, and the King County Department of Natural Resources and Parks. Exhibit A3: Proposed 2004 Comprehensive Plan Amendments Page 118 of 118 Policies Policy P-89.1 Cooperative Planning Efforts: Participate in the cooperative regional planning efforts among agencies and jurisdictions in order to provide recreational opportunities and facilities on inter-jurisdictional public lands. which transcend jurisdictions such as the “Issaquah Alps” and Upper Snoqualmie Valley Interagency Committee and the Mountains-to-Sound Greenway. Work The City shall also work together with neighboring these jurisdictions and organizations to identify jurisdictional roles and responsibilities in contributing to regional needs, and identify, establish, protect and steward urban and rural open space corridors of regional significance. Timing 2002-2007 O Implementation Actions 2008-2022 O Ongoing efforts to consult and communicate with the groups identified. 1996: Grand Ridge 2-party agreement – Ord. 2104 1999: East Village 2-party agreement – Ord. 2254 Partnership efforts with Washington State, Puget Sound Regional Council, and King County on Interagency Committee for Outdoor Recreation (IAC) and TEA-21 planning and grants. Lead Agency & Responsibility Parks Department / Public Works / Planning Department Policy P-9.2 Specific Partnerships: Due to the local benefit of regional public open space lands, the City should continue its coordination and participation in the "Issaquah Alps" and Upper Snoqualmie Valley Inter-agency Committee, the Mountains-to-Sound Greenway Trust, Issaquah Alps Trail Club, and other non-profit groups. O O Ongoing participation and coordination on behalf of the City by Parks Department staff as directed by the Administration. Funding of Interagency Coordinator position to promote and administer agency and organization partnerships noted. Administration Department / Parks Exhibit A3: Proposed 2004 Comprehensive Plan Amendments Page 119 of 118