June 23, 2021 Virtual Meeting

1200 King County King County Courthouse 516 Third Avenue Seattle, WA 98104 Meeting Agenda Mobility and Environment Committee

Councilmembers: Rod Dembowski, Chair; Pete von Reichbauer, Vice Chair; Claudia Balducci, Kathy Lambert, Jeanne Kohl-Welles, Joe McDermott, Dave Upthegrove, Girmay Zahilay

Lead Staff: Leah Krekel-Zoppi (206-477-0892) Committee Clerk: Marka Steadman (206 477-0887)

9:30 AM Wednesday, June 23, 2021 Virtual Meeting

REVISED AGENDA

PUBLIC NOTICE: The Mobility and Environment Committee meetings will be held virtually until further notice. To help prevent the spread of the COVID 19 virus, the Chambers will be closed and all committee members and staff will be participating in the meeting remotely. The live feed of the video conference will be streaming on the King County Council's website and on KCTV Channel 22. Ways to provide public comment are noted below.

Pursuant to K.C.C. 1.24.035 A. and F., this meeting is also noticed as a meeting of the Metropolitan King County Council, whose agenda is limited to the committee business. In this meeting only the rules and procedures applicable to committees apply and not those applicable to full council meetings.

HOW TO PROVIDE PUBLIC COMMENT: The Mobility and Environment Committee values community input and looks forward to hearing from you on agenda items.

You may comment in writing on agenda items by submitting your written comments to [email protected]. If your comments are submitted before 8:00 a.m. on the day of the Mobility and Environment Committee meeting, your comments will be distributed to the committee members and appropriate staff prior to the meeting.

HOW TO WATCH/LISTEN TO THE MEETING: There are several ways to watch or listen in to the meeting if you don't wish to provide public comment:

1) Stream online via this link https://livestream.com/accounts/15175343/events/4485487 or input the link web address into your web browser.

King County Page 1 Printed on 6/15/2021 ME Meeting Materials Page 1 June 23, 2021 Mobility and Environment Committee Meeting Agenda June 23, 2021

2) Watch King County TV Channel 22 (Comcast Channel 22 and 322(HD), Wave Broadband Channel 22)

3) Listen to the meeting by telephone.

Dial: 1 253 215 8782 Meeting ID: 977 5503 9180 Passcode: 551514

To help us manage the meeting, please use the Livestream or King County TV options, if possible, to watch or listen to the meeting.

1. Call to Order To show a PDF of the written materials for an agenda item, click on the agenda item below. 2. Roll Call

3. Approval of Minutes

April 28, 2021 meeting pp. 5-7

Consent

4. Proposed Motion No. 2021-0073 pp. 8-28

A MOTION accepting the King County-Cities Climate Collaboration (K4C) 2021 Work Plan and Budget, prepared as the annual work plan and budget requested under Motion 14449. Sponsors: Mr. Dembowski

Jenny Giambattista, Council staff

5. Public Benefit Rating System pp. 29-54

Hearing on Current Use Assessment-Open Space Classification (Public Benefit Rating System) Applications for incorporated areas.

The Committee, acting as the Granting Authority provided for in RCW 84.34.037, will hold a public hearing for the purpose of considering the following applications for Current Use Assessment-Open Space Classification of the Public Benefit Rating System.

E20CT029S – Nobuo Ohashi for property located at 8240 43rd Avenue NE, Seattle, WA 98115; STR: NW-03-25-04; SIZE: 0.13 acres; REQUEST: Public Benefit Rating System; TAX #044300-0075.

E20CT037I – Overdale Homeowners Association for property located south and abutting 5652 229th Avenue SE, Issaquah, WA 98027; STR: SW-22-24-06; SIZE: 2.76 acres; REQUEST: Public Benefit Rating System: TAX #222406-9057.

King County Page 2 Printed on 6/15/2021

ME Meeting Materials Page 2 June 23, 2021 Mobility and Environment Committee Meeting Agenda June 23, 2021

Discussion and Possible Action

6. Proposed Ordinance No. 2021-0204 pp. 55-74

AN ORDINANCE relating to the electric scooter share pilot program; amending Ordinance 18989, Section 2, as amended, Ordinance 18989, Section 6, as amended, and Ordinance 18989, Section 8, as amended, and adding a new section to Ordinance 18989.

Sponsors: Mr. McDermott

Erica Newman, Council staff

7. Proposed Motion No. 2021-0230 pp. 75-87

A MOTION related to the transfer of retired vanpool vans to nonprofit organizations and local governments to meet the needs of low-income, seniors or young people or people with disabilities; and rescinding Motion 15646.

Sponsors: Mr. Dembowski Mary Bourguignon, Council staff

8. Proposed Motion No. 2021-0231 pp. 75-87

9. Proposed Ordinance No. 2021-0211 pp. 88-112

AN ORDINANCE establishing the alignment and station locations of, and meeting federal assistance conditions for, RapidRide J Line. Sponsors: Mr. Dembowski and Mr. Zahilay

Leah Krekel-Zoppi, Council staff Mary Bourguignon, Council staff

King County Page 3 Printed on 6/15/2021

ME Meeting Materials Page 3 June 23, 2021 Mobility and Environment Committee Meeting Agenda June 23, 2021

Briefing

10. Briefing No. 2021-B0095 pp. 113-145

Fall 2021 transit service restorations Mary Bourguignon, Council staff Bill Bryant, Managing Director, Service Development, Metro Transit Jeremy Fichter, Transportation Planner, Metro Transit Chris O’Claire, Director, Mobility Division, Metro Transit

11. Briefing No. 2021-B0096 pp. 146-161

Clean Water Plan: Wastewater Treatment Actions and Policy Considerations Mike Reed, Council staff Tiffany Knapp, Clean Water Plan Project Lead, King County WTD Steve Tolzman, Clean Water Plan Project Lead, King County WTD

Other Business

Adjournment

King County Page 4 Printed on 6/15/2021

ME Meeting Materials Page 4 June 23, 2021 1200 King County King County Courthouse 516 Third Avenue Seattle, WA 98104 Meeting Minutes Mobility and Environment Committee Councilmembers: Rod Dembowski, Chair; Pete von Reichbauer, Vice Chair; Claudia Balducci, Kathy Lambert, Jeanne Kohl-Welles, Joe McDermott, Dave Upthegrove, Girmay Zahilay

Lead Staff: Leah Krekel-Zoppi (206-477-0892) Committee Clerk: Marka Steadman (206 477-0887)

9:30 AM Wednesday, April 28, 2021 Virtual Meeting

DRAFT MINUTES

1. Call to Order Chair Dembowski called the meeting to order at 9:32 a.m

2. Roll Call Present: 8 - Ms. Balducci, Ms. Kohl-Welles, Ms. Lambert, Mr. McDermott, Mr. Dembowski, Mr. Upthegrove, Mr. von Reichbauer and Mr. Zahilay

3. Approval of Minutes Councilmember von Reichbauer moved approval of the April 26, 2021, meeting minutes. There being no objections, the minutes were approved.

Consent

4. Proposed Ordinance No. 2021-0029

AN ORDINANCE authorizing the King County executive to execute an emergency mutual aid agreement with the Washington Water/Wastewater Agency Response Network. A motion was made by Vice-Chair von Reichbauer that this Ordinance be Recommended Do Pass Consent. The motion carried by the following vote:

Yes: 8 - Ms. Balducci, Ms. Kohl-Welles, Ms. Lambert, Mr. McDermott, Mr. Dembowski, Mr. Upthegrove, Mr. von Reichbauer and Mr. Zahilay

King County Page 1

ME Meeting Materials Page 5 June 23, 2021

Mobility and Environment Committee Meeting Minutes April 28, 2021

Discussion and Possible Action

5. Proposed Ordinance No. 2021-0130

AN ORDINANCE approving October 2021 public transportation service changes for King County.

Leah Krekel Zoppi, Council staff, briefed the committee via PowerPoint presentation and answered questions from the members. Michelle Allison, Deputy General Manager, Metro Transit Department also answered question from the members.

Councilmember Zahilay moved amendment 1 and title amendment 1. The amendments were adopted.

This item was expedited to the May 4, 2021 Council Agenda.

A motion was made by Councilmember Kohl-Welles that this Ordinance be Passed Out of Committee Without a Recommendation. The motion carried by the following vote:

Yes: 8 - Ms. Balducci, Ms. Kohl-Welles, Ms. Lambert, Mr. McDermott, Mr. Dembowski, Mr. Upthegrove, Mr. von Reichbauer and Mr. Zahilay

Briefing

6. Briefing No. 2021-B0047

Service Guidelines Reductions, Restructures, Partnerships

Katie Chalmers, Service Planning Supervisor, Metro Transit Department (MTD) briefed the committee via a PowerPoint presentation and answered questions from the members. Tessa McClellan, Government Relations Administrator, MTD, and Terry White, Director, MTD, answered questions from the members.

This matter was Presented

7. Briefing No. 2021-B0049

Clean Water Plan: Making the Right Investments at the Right Time

Mike Reed, Council staff, provided opening comments. Mark Isaacson, Director, Wastewater Treatment Division (WTD) commented and answered questions from the members. Tiffany Knapp, Clean Water Plan Project Lead, Sonia-Lynn Abenojar, Clean Water Plan Project Lead and Steve Tolzman, Clean Water Plan Project Lead, Wastewater Treatment Division, briefed the committee via a PowerPoint presentation and answered questions from the members.

This matter was Presented

Other Business There was no further business to come before the committee.

King County Page 2

ME Meeting Materials Page 6 June 23, 2021

Mobility and Environment Committee Meeting Minutes April 28, 2021

Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 11:11 a.m.

Approved this ______day of ______

Clerk's Signature

King County Page 3

ME Meeting Materials Page 7 June 23, 2021

Metropolitan King County Council Mobility and Environment Committee

STAFF REPORT

Agenda Item: 4 Name: Jenny Giambattista Proposed No.: 2021-0073 Date: June 23, 2021

SUBJECT

A motion accepting the King County-Cities Climate Collaboration (K4C) 2021 Work Plan and Budget.

SUMMARY

Motion 2021-0073 accepts the 2021 work plan and budget for the King County-Cities Climate Collaboration (K4C), as requested by Motion 14449. The 2021 K4C budget includes expenditures of $44,900.

BACKGROUND

The K4C is a voluntary but formal partnership between King County, the Port of Seattle and 161 cities to work together on climate and sustainability issues. The K4C is supported by an Interlocal Agreement (Ordinance 17285) outlining areas of focus for joint work and cost-share requirements. Through K4C, staff from the partner cities share ideas and best practices and host an annual summit of elected officials from the partner cities to discuss climate related topics.

As specified in the interlocal agreement, K4C is funded by a shared funding model, scaled to member jurisdictions’ population. Participating cities determine how to use shared resources to support regional climate progress. The K4C Interlocal Agreement (ILA) includes a stipulation that 75 percent of parties must approve of budget expenditures.

In 2019, K4C elected officials and staff updated and strengthened the K4C’s Joint Climate Action Commitments. The actions are intended to get the region on track towards shared and ambitious countywide, greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction targets formally adopted by King County in King County’s Strategic Climate Action Plan (SCAP). Many of the strategies and priority actions of the King County’s SCAP mirror the K4C commitments. As noted in the 2021 work program, much of the K4C’s work is

1 Bellevue, Burien, Issaquah, Kenmore, Kent, Kirkland, Lake Forest Park, Mercer Island, Normandy Park, Redmond, Renton, Sammamish, Seattle, Shoreline, Snoqualmie, and Tukwila

ME Meeting Materials Page 8 June 23, 2021 completed by staff and elected officials of K4C partners and does not require K4C budget or expenditure.

Motion 14449, adopting the County’s SCAP includes the following requirement for reporting on K4C:

“Consistent with Ordinance 17285, which authorized the Interlocal Agreement for the King County-Cities Climate Collaboration, the executive is requested to coordinate with staff of the transportation, economy and environment committee, or its successor, in developing the annual work plans and budget for the King County-Cities Climate Collaboration under the interlocal agreement. The executive is requested to submit by January 31, and every year thereafter, the King County-Cities Climate Collaboration annual work plan and budget to the council for acceptance by motion. The 2016 work plan should include recommendations on the timing and approach for an update to the interlocal agreement that includes addressing drafting issues identified during the council’s initial review of the agreement.”

ANALYSIS

The 2021 K4C budget and work plan priorities include: support updates to countywide planning policies that will strengthen shared GHG emission targets and update measurement policies; engagement by elected officed on state legislative issues; involvement in work to develop regional approaches to supporting energy efficiency retrofit programs; and developing a climate preparedness agenda.

The 2021 K4C budget is listed below.

2021 K4C Budget

2021 K4C Revenues from ILA Defined Partner Contribution $44,900 Planned expenditures for city specific GHG data and development of stronger GHG emissions reduction targets $35,000 Unallocated resources for expenditures $9,900 Total Resources Available for 2021 $44,900

The Work Plan reports K4C will partner with King County to expend $35,000 to develop additional city specific greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions data and complete technical work to support adoption of stronger countywide GHG emissions reductions targets. There is another $9,900 of unallocated resources for expenditures.

In addition to King County’s ILA contribution ($10,000), in past years the County has also contributed $15,000 from the County’s climate change cost share budget which is funded by cost shares from county agencies based on their greenhouse gas emissions from energy and fuel. These funds can be spent without approval of the cities. For 2021, King County is providing $11,250 from the County’s climate change cost share budget which will be used for King County staff time to help coordinate the K4C.

ME Meeting Materials Page 9 June 23, 2021 2020 Expenditures

Executive staff provided the following list of actual expenditures that occurred in 2020.

K4C Related 2020 Expenditures Approved Actual by K4C Community Support development of shared messaging about $25,000 $25,000 Outreach climate action and develop materials to be used for “roadshow” to K4C member councils and to be used by K4C partners in their outreach. Goals of materials are to make councils and residents aware of work K4C is doing and provide guidance for actions that councils and residents can take to support K4C members. National Several K4C partners planned are interested in $5,000 $5,000 Energy supporting strong energy code provisions in the Codes proposed 2021 International Energy Conservation Code (IECC). Local Develop a review and report of commercial building $20,000 $0 Commercial codes in K4C partner jurisdictions, including review of Energy best practices across the Pacific Northwest. The Codes Regional Code Collaboration researched and developed advanced commercial energy codes in a separate initiative, making this project unnecessary. Subtotal Approved by K4C $50,000 $30,000 Climate Toolkit and tool to support city climate action. $0 $47,525 Action Supports K4C but not funded by ILA contributions. Toolkit Funded by combination of King County's K4C "additional" contributions and other County budget sources. Subtotal Additional County contributions to support K4C $0 $47,525 Totals $50,000 $77,525

ATTACHMENTS

1. Proposed Motion 2021-0073 (and its attachments) 2. Transmittal Letter

ME Meeting Materials Page 10 June 23, 2021 ATTACHMENT 1 KING COUNTY 1200 King County Courthouse 516 Third Avenue Signature Report Seattle, WA 98104

Motion

Proposed No. 2021-0073.1 Sponsors Dembowski

1 A MOTION accepting the King County-Cities Climate

2 Collaboration (K4C) 2021 Work Plan and Budget, prepared

3 as the annual work plan and budget requested under Motion

4 14449.

5 WHEREAS, confronting climate change through effective strategies to reduce

6 greenhouse gas emissions and prepare for the impacts of a changing climate requires an

7 integrated countywide effort involving public, private and non-governmental

8 partnerships, and

9 WHEREAS, the King County executive and council unanimously adopted the

10 2015 King County Strategic Climate Action Plan, and

11 WHEREAS, in August 2020, the King County executive transmitted a

12 comprehensive update to the county's climate priorities in the 2020 King County

13 Strategic Climate Action Plan, and

14 WHEREAS, both the 2015 and 2020 King County Strategic Climate Action Plan

15 support progress toward achieving the countywide goal to reduce greenhouse gas

16 emissions by eighty percent by 2050, and

17 WHEREAS, King County will continue to play a key role in the King County-

18 Cities Climate Collaboration, whose members represent more than eighty percent of the

19 population of the county, and which lays out a shared countywide vision for reducing

ME Meeting Materials Page 11 June 23, 2021 Motion

20 health- and environment-threatening greenhouse gas emissions upon which the 2020

21 King County Strategic Climate Action Plan is built, and

22 WHEREAS, the 2020 King County Strategic Climate Action Plan strengthens the

23 county's strategy to prepare for the impacts of a changing climate on local communities,

24 infrastructure, economy, public health and safety and the natural environment, and

25 WHEREAS, the 2020 King County Strategic Climate Action Plan is developed

26 with an environmental justice framework in partnership with frontline communities

27 disproportionately impacted by climate change and in a manner consistent with

28 Ordinance 16948, which establishes the county's fair and just principle, and

29 WHEREAS, consistent with Ordinance 17285, which authorized the interlocal

30 agreement for the King County-Cities Climate Collaboration, and with Motion 14449,

31 which adopted the 2015 King County Strategic Climate Action Plan, the executive was

32 requested to coordinate with staff of the transportation, economy and environment

33 committee, or its successor, in developing the annual work plans and budget for the King

34 County-Cities Climate Collaboration under the interlocal agreement, and

35 WHEREAS, Motion 14449 also requested that the executive submit by January

36 31, 2016, and every year thereafter, the King County-Cities Climate Collaboration annual

37 work plan and budget to the council for acceptance by motion;

38 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT MOVED by the Council of King County:

39 The King County-Cities Climate Collaboration (K4C) 2021 Work Plan and

ME Meeting Materials Page 12 June 23, 2021 Motion

40 Budget, which is Attachment A to this motion and prepared as the annual work plan and

41 budget as requested by Motion 14449, is hereby accepted.

KING COUNTY COUNCIL KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON

______

Claudia Balducci, Chair ATTEST:

______

Melani Pedroza, Clerk of the Council

APPROVED this _____ day of ______, ______.

______

Dow Constantine, County Executive

Attachments: A. King County-Cities Climate Collaboration (K4C) 2021 Annual Work Plan and Budget January 2021

ME Meeting Materials Page 13 June 23, 2021 Attachment A

King County-Cities Climate Collaboration (K4C) 2021 Annual Work Plan and Budget

January 2021

ME Meeting Materials Page 14 June 23, 2021 I. Contents II. Motion Text ...... 3 III. Executive Summary ...... 3 IV. Background ...... 4 V. Report Requirements ...... 5 A. Budget ...... 5 B. Expenditures ...... 5 C. Work Plan ...... 5 VI. Conclusion/Next Steps ...... 9

King County-Cities Climate Collaboration (K4C) 2021 Annual Work Plan and Budget Page | 2

ME Meeting Materials Page 15 June 23, 2021 II. Motion Text

Motion 144491, Section B, Paragraph 1:

B. Consistent with Ordinance 17285, which authorized the Interlocal Agreement for the King County- Cities Climate Collaboration, the executive is requested to coordinate with staff of the transportation, economy and environment committee, or its successor, in developing the annual work plans and budget for the King County-Cities Climate Collaboration under the interlocal agreement. The executive is requested to submit by January 31, and every year thereafter, the King County-Cities Climate Collaboration annual work plan and budget to the council for acceptance by motion.

Motion 14449 is also attached as Appendix A.

III. Executive Summary

This report provides annual information about the King County-Cities Climate Collaboration (K4C) work plan and budget, as required by Motion 14449. This is the sixth annual K4C work plan and budget submitted to the King County Council.

The King County-Cities Climate Collaboration (K4C) is a voluntary but formal partnership of King County, 16 cities, and the Port of Seattle, (‘partners’) focused on coordinating and enhancing the effectiveness of local climate and sustainability action.

In 2020, K4C elected officials worked to have their jurisdictions adopt the recently updated K4C Joint Climate Action Commitments (2019), developed shared K4C State Policy and Legislative Interests, engaged many partners and the King County Council to develop a Climate Action Toolkit, created a communications toolkit to equip K4C partners with unified messaging and tools about why the K4C’s work matters, and contributed to King County’s 2020 Strategic Climate Action Plan (SCAP), among other accomplishments.

The K4C budget is based on shared contributions by K4C partners as stipulated in the K4C interlocal agreement (ILA). The total K4C budget for 2021 is $44,900. In 2021, the K4C will partner with King County to expend $35,000 to develop additional city specific greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions data and complete technical work to support adoption of stronger countywide GHG emissions reduction targets.

Much of the K4C’s work is completed by staff and elected officials of K4C partners and does not use K4C budget. Examples of 2021 staff work will include engaging through the Growth Management Planning Council and related forums to support updates to Countywide Planning Policies (CPPs) that will strengthen shared GHG emission targets and update measurement policies; elected official engagement on state legislative issues; engaging in King County 2020 SCAP work to develop regional approaches to supporting energy efficiency retrofit programs; and developing a K4C climate preparedness agenda.

The work of the K4C is an important part of the County’s commitment to climate action and supports and is integrated with King County’s 2020 SCAP.

1 Link to Motion 14449

King County-Cities Climate Collaboration (K4C) 2021 Annual Work Plan and Budget Page | 3

ME Meeting Materials Page 16 June 23, 2021 IV. Background

Organizational Overview: The King County-Cities Climate Collaboration (K4C) is a voluntary but formal partnership of King County, 16 cities, and the Port of Seattle focused on coordinating and enhancing the effectiveness of local government climate and sustainability action. K4C county and partner staff collaborate on the following: • Outreach – to develop, refine, and utilize messaging and tools for climate change outreach to engage decision makers, other cities, and the general public • Coordination – to adopt consistent standards, benchmarks, strategies, and overall goals related to responding to climate change • Solutions – to share local success stories, challenges, data and products that support and enhance climate mitigation efforts by all partners • Funding and resources – to secure grant funding and other shared resource opportunities to support climate related projects and programs Staff from the King County Executive Office and Department of Natural Resources and Parks (DNRP) help lead and support the K4C, with support and participation from additional County staff from Metro Transit, the Department of Executive Services, and the Department of Local Services. Staff and elected officials from K4C partners are equal decision makers and partners in the work of the K4C.

Key Historical Context: This report is the sixth annual K4C work plan and budget to be submitted to the King County Council, as required by Motion 14449. Details of requirements of Motion 14449 are included in Section III of this report.

Key Current Context: In 2020, K4C elected officials worked to have their jurisdictions adopt the recently updated K4C Joint Climate Action Commitments (2019), developed shared K4C State Policy and Legislative Interests, and created a communications toolkit to equip K4C partners with unified messaging and tools about why the K4C’s work matters.

Additionally, King County, in partnership with the K4C, responded to King County Council direction and developed a new Climate Action Toolkit which will help mobilize cities throughout King County, uniting efforts to rapidly cut GHG emissions and realize multiple co – benefits, including equitable distribution of benefits, and preparing our region for climate impacts. The toolkit, with actionable and practical actions and policies and an excel-based analysis model, is designed to enable cities to develop customized climate solutions to meet the specific needs of all local cities – urban, suburban, and rural – while working toward region-wide carbon emission reductions.

King County and K4C partners also collaborated on a comprehensive update to King County’s Strategic Climate Action Plan (SCAP) which was transmitted to the County Council on August 27, 2020. The K4C collaboration on the 2020 SCAP update included shared technical analyses, collaborative updates to the Joint Climate Action Commitments which frame the SCAP, and K4C partner engagement and collaboration in developing many of the 2020 SCAP’s commitments and actions.

Report Methodology: This report was drafted by County staff that support the K4C. The report summarizes decisions and work completed in 2020 and outlines the 2021 K4C work plan and priorities based on this recent work. No additional outreach was conducted for the preparation of this report. This

King County-Cities Climate Collaboration (K4C) 2021 Annual Work Plan and Budget Page | 4

ME Meeting Materials Page 17 June 23, 2021 report builds on previous K4C work plans and budgets that have been submitted to the King County Council annually since 2016.

V. Report Requirements

This report is organized to respond to and to align with Motion 14449, which requires coordination and information annually about the K4C’s budget, and work plan. This section includes the following subsections:

A. Budget B. Expenditures C. Work Plan A. Budget

The K4C budget is based on shared contributions by K4C partners as stipulated in the K4C Interlocal Agreement (ILA). The K4C budget for 2021 is detailed below.

K4C Budget Planning for 2021 Notes K4C Annual $44,900 K4C ILA defined contributions are based on the Membership/ILA - Budget population of partner jurisdictions.

B. Expenditures

The K4C ILA includes a stipulation that at least 75 percent of partner jurisdictions must approve of budget expenditures. An initial 2021 budget item was approved by vote of the partner jurisdictions in November of 2020. Additional 2021 budget items may be decided on by formal vote of K4C partners.

2021 K4C Budget Expenditures Notes GHG Inventories and $35,000 Expenditure agreed to at November 2020 K4C staff Modeling Project steering committee meeting. See details in Work Plan category #1. Unallocated Resources $9,900 As of January 2021

C. Work Plan

The K4C’s 2021 Work Plan focuses on the below priorities and supporting actions, organized by relevant section of the K4C’s Joint Climate Action Commitments. Priorities included are recommended by elected officials at Elected Official Work Sessions, as defined in the K4C’s Joint Climate Action Commitments, and as developed in shared K4C State Policy and Legislative Interests. It is important to note that much of the K4C’s work is completed by staff and elected officials of K4C partners and does not require K4C budget or expenditures.

King County-Cities Climate Collaboration (K4C) 2021 Annual Work Plan and Budget Page | 5

ME Meeting Materials Page 18 June 23, 2021 1. Shared Goals . K4C staff will engage through the Growth Management Planning Council and related forums to support updates to Countywide Planning Policies (CPPs) that will strengthen shared GHG emission targets and update measurement policies including that: o K4C staff will work with elected officials and partners such as the Sound Cities Association, the County’s Climate Equity Community Task Force, and environmental and climate related nongovernmental organizations to develop recommended updates to GHG targets. The work will build from direction provided at an October 2020 Elected Official Work Session to strengthen 2040 and 2050 targets and build broader support for proposed changes. o K4C staff will also consider and recommend updates to CPPs to expand GHG measurement and reporting commitments and responsibilities to King County cities. An existing policy on this topic (EN-18) focuses on reporting countywide emissions with responsibilities for measurement and reporting ascribed to King County. . K4C partners will leverage the Climate Action Toolkit, which contains both technical resources for conducting a GHG inventory, and an appendix of potential grant and loan resources for climate planning and measures, to explore opportunities to develop city specific emissions inventories, such as in partnership with local academic institutions or as part of consultant work.

Shared Goals - Special 2021-2022 K4C Partnership Project – GHG Inventories and Modeling The K4C will partner (with staff time and budget) with King County, the Puget Sound Regional Council, the Puget Sound Clean Air Agency, the City of Seattle, and Pierce County on a comprehensive data and inventory update about local GHG emissions sources and trends. From the K4C’s perspective, a major goal of this work is to provide as much city specific data to each K4C partner (and other cities in King County, as possible), while recognizing that some data may only be available at a broader geographic level, such as at the countywide scale. K4C related deliverables from the project are listed below. Deliverable Deliverable Details Countywide Update of countywide inventory including analysis of recent trends and update of geographic emissions existing countywide GHG pathways analysis2 toward new stronger 2040 and 2050 inventory and targets being considered by the K4C and the Growth Management Planning analysis Council. Countywide Update of countywide inventory and analysis that articulates actions to reduce consumption consumption emissions for two 2050 scenarios: an 80 percent reduction and net emissions inventory carbon neutrality and analysis Assess viability of Recommendations about which data sources to use for major local emissions different city scale sources including consideration of local data sources and third party sources such emissions data as those developed by Google’s Environmental Insights Explorer, the Department of Energy’s City Energy Profile or Boston University’s Database of Road Transportation Emissions. City specific data Collect and tabulate city specific local data from local sources including Seattle City collection and Light and Puget Sound Energy and the Puget Sound Regional Council. Additionally, reporting develop a tool with city specific emissions data (for 2019) city specific data visualizations.

2 See pages 51 and 52 of the Executive proposed 2020 King County Strategic Climate Action Plan for details of existing countywide GHG pathways analysis.

King County-Cities Climate Collaboration (K4C) 2021 Annual Work Plan and Budget Page | 6

ME Meeting Materials Page 19 June 23, 2021 Guidance about Develop a guidance or a tool to support cities completing government operations government GHG inventories in ways consistent with the methodologies used for community operational GHG scale emissions inventories. inventories

2. Climate Policy . The K4C developed shared state policy and legislative interests for 2021 that K4C partners can use in support of developing legislative agendas and K4C staff can use as a basis for drafting sign on letters or testimony. . Several K4C Elected Officials are leading a K4C Elected Outreach Committee including working on state legislative issues. Throughout 2020, the Outreach Committee included participation from elected officials of the cities of Shoreline, Snoqualmie, Sammamish, Kirkland, Burien, Kenmore, Mercer Island, Bellevue, Issaquah, and from the Port of Seattle. . During the 2021 State Legislative Session, transportation issues are expected to be a priority issue, including discussion of a statewide clean fuels standard, road usage charges such as road tolls, and other potential funding for roads and mobility investments such as transit service and bike and walk infrastructure.

3. Transportation and Land Use . K4C partners will work to update local plans and incentives to support transit friendly development and easy connections, including through the Puget Sound Regional Council’s Vision 2050 update. . K4C partners will learn about, and as appropriate support, countywide transportation related policy updates occurring in 2021 such as land use updates to CPPs; updates to Metro’s Service Guidelines; and new equitable transit-oriented development (TOD) policies.

4. Clean Fuels and Electric Vehicles . K4C partners will support engagement and partnership with utilities and organizations to develop pilots or programs to incentivize the transition to electric vehicle (EV) ownership. . K4C partners will support adoption of a proposed EV charging code that was developed through the Regional Code Collaboration. . The State Legislature is also likely to consider a bill enabling a statewide clean fuels standard, and other measures to reduce transportation related emissions, during the 2021 legislative session. . K4C and King County Metro Transit staff will coordinate on countywide EV data compilation and information sharing, for example on electric buses and public EV purchases.

5. Energy Supply . K4C partners will continue engagement between elected officials, Puget Sound Energy, Seattle City Light, and state utility regulators to work toward a renewable energy-powered future, with accelerated coal phase-out and limitation of new natural gas-based electricity. . K4C partners will be engaged in King County 2020 SCAP work to develop regional approaches to supporting energy efficiency retrofit programs. For example in the development of a countywide Commercial - Property Assessed Clean Energy Program (C-PACER), building on C-PACER legislation passed by Washington State in 2020.

King County-Cities Climate Collaboration (K4C) 2021 Annual Work Plan and Budget Page | 7

ME Meeting Materials Page 20 June 23, 2021 6. Green Building and Energy Efficiency . K4C will continue to partner through the Regional Code Collaboration on implementation and development of ambitious energy and green building policies and codes, including advancing energy efficiency in small residential buildings. . K4C staff will consider using K4C budget to support tools and training as new energy code requirements are adopted. . Collaborate with the Washington State Department of Commerce to increase awareness of, and provide support to, building owners about new incentives for energy efficiency projects related to the State’s Clean Buildings Act.

7. Consumption and Materials Management . Zero Waste of Resources: K4C partners will engage on and support the zero waste of resources (ZWR) by 2030 regional plan to support a more circular economy where waste is minimized and materials stay in use longer, thereby reducing GHG emissions. This ZWR plan is in development with support of the Metropolitan Solid Waste Management Advisory Committee through a convened Task Force which includes many cities. This work will help develop and implement related policy, projects, and programs focused on options for (1) waste prevention and reuse, (2) product stewardship, recycling, and composting, and (3) beneficial use. Strategies will include a combination of education, incentives, and regulatory tools. . Tools to Reduce Consumption Emissions: Building on K4C participation and contributions to the GHG Inventories and Modeling Project (see Section 1 of this document), in 2021 and 2022 K4C partners will collaborate with King County on community engagement and strategy development to support development of new tools and guidance to inform choice and use of low GHG emissions products and services3, so that residents, governments and businesses can understand and play their part in reducing consumption GHG emissions.

8. Forests and Farming . K4C partners will work jointly to increase tree canopy, improve forest health, and encourage tree planting including through King County’s 3 Million Trees initiative and in support of the new 30- Year Forest Plan, which was developed with input from K4C partners.

9. Government Operations . K4C partners will work to increase use of clean vehicles and alternative fuels in local fleets. For example, King County will jointly host Fleet Managers Working Group4 events with the K4C to enhance information sharing and to support development of best practices for vehicle use and fleet investments across partners. . K4C partners will be supported to reduce energy use in their facilities and operations to reduce GHG emissions. For example, King County offers low–cost financing through the Cities Fund to Reduce Energy Demand (C-FRED) loan program and all cities are encouraged to use this program to invest in their own projects.

3 Low GHG emissions products include those sustainably produced and delivered. Low GHG emissions services refers to services that have low associated emissions and/or that are provided by companies that have reduced their GHG footprint. 4 The Fleet Managers Working Group is a King County staff team led by the Fleet Services Division that as part of its role works to implement the County’s commitment to increase the efficiency of County vehicle fleets and minimize their GHG emissions.

King County-Cities Climate Collaboration (K4C) 2021 Annual Work Plan and Budget Page | 8

ME Meeting Materials Page 21 June 23, 2021 . K4C staff will support analysis for partners considering lengthening their operational renewable electricity Green Direct contracts and/or enrolling in the next offering of Puget Sound Energy’s Green Direct program, should it become available. . K4C partners will work to increase demand for recycled content products and materials, such as compost and recycled plastic, by exploring and implementing best practices in sustainable procurement policies and actions.

10. Climate Preparedness . K4C staff will expand the model to collaborate on preparedness topics and issues, increasing community resilience by planning and preparing for the impacts of climate change on K4C communities. . In coordination with King County, K4C staff will develop a preparedness agenda. This will identify overarching goals and desired outcomes for K4C work on preparedness, and include a plan for meeting staffing/facilitation needs for work sessions around preparedness topics. Priorities may include those identified at the October 2020 Elected Official Work Session.

11. Collaboration . Green Building Task Force and Regional Code Collaboration: K4C partners with the Green Building Task Force5, a group led by King County’s Solid Waste Division that collaborates with cities on research, tools and policies related to green building. The K4C also partners with a second building collaborative effort called the Regional Code Collaboration, which includes partners outside of King County, and is focused on code development for local governments to further sustainable development. The K4C will continue to partner with these groups. . Local Best Practices and Coordination: In 2021, the K4C will host dedicated staff work session(s) topics such as: local climate action planning and equitable community engagement. . Climate Planning: The K4C will continue to serve as a forum for partners to share their approaches to developing local climate and sustainability plans as a resource to other partners so that others are not “reinventing the wheel”. In 2021, K4C will integrate into its existing collaboration platform new ways to share existing local plans and best practices and to support local peer to peer information sharing. . Support Adoption of the K4C’s Joint Climate Action Commitments by All Partners: In 2019, K4C partners updated and strengthened the K4C’s Joint Climate Action Commitments. As of December 2020, 15 of the 18 K4C partners have adopted the updated commitments.

VI. Conclusion/Next Steps

The 2021 K4C work plan and budget builds on the K4C’s Joint Commitments, elected official input and engagement, and interests and direction of all K4C partners. The K4C budget is defined by the K4C ILA. The 2021 spending priorities will align with the direction provided by the K4C’s Joint Climate Action Commitments and recommendations from K4C Elected Official Work Sessions.

The work of the K4C is an important part of the County’s commitment to climate action and supports, and is integrated with, King County’s 2020 Strategic Climate Action Plan.

5 The Green Building Task Force is an interjurisdictional staff team that helps provides green building education countywide for residential and commercial construction and is led by staff in King County’s Solid Waste Division.

King County-Cities Climate Collaboration (K4C) 2021 Annual Work Plan and Budget Page | 9

ME Meeting Materials Page 22 June 23, 2021 Appendix A KING COUNTY 1200 King County Courthouse 516 Third Avenue Seattle, WA 98104 Signature Report King County November 6, 2015

Motion 14449

Proposed No. 2015-0252.3 Sponsors Phillips and Dembowski

1 A MOTION adopting the 2015 King County Strategic

2 Climate Action Plan, submitted in compliance with K.C.C.

3 18.25.010.A.4.

4 WHEREAS, K.C.C. 18.25.010.A.4. requires the King County executive to

s transmit to the council a plan by June 29, 2015 updating the King County Strategic

6 Climate Action Plan, and

7 WHEREAS, with this motion, the executive has transmitted to the council as

8 Attachment A to this motion the updated plan called for in K.C.C. 18.25.010.A.4., and

9 WHEREAS, confrontingclimate change through effective strategies to reduce

10 greenhouse gas emissions and prepare for the impacts of a changing climate requires an

11 integrated countywide effort involving public, private and non-governmental

12 partnerships, and

13 WHEREAS, the 2015 King County Strategic Climate Action Plan presents a bold

14 course of action that will make progress toward achieving the countywide goal to reduce

15 greenhouse gas emissions by eighty percent by 2050, and

16 WHEREAS, the 2015 King County Strategic Climate Action Plan identifies the

17 county's top sources of greenhouse gas emissions and quantifies the greenhouse gas

18 emissions reduction benefits of key strategies, and

ME Meeting Materials Page 23 June 23, 2021 ME Meeting Materials Page 24 June 23, 2021 ME Meeting Materials Page 25 June 23, 2021 ME Meeting Materials Page 26 June 23, 2021 ATTACHMENT 2

January 27, 2021

The Honorable Claudia Balducci Chair, King County Council Room 1200 C O U R T H O U S E

Dear Councilmember Balducci:

As called for by Motion 14449, this letter transmits the 2021 work plan and budget for the King County-Cities Climate Collaboration (K4C), and a proposed motion that would, if enacted, accept receipt of the report.

The K4C is a voluntary formal partnership between King County, the Port of Seattle, and 16 King County cities that together represent more than 80 percent of King County’s over two million residents. The enclosed work plan and budget outline the K4C work priorities, investments for K4C cost-share revenues, and next steps.

The 2021 K4C work plan highlights work by partners to adopt the recently updated K4C Joint Climate Action Commitments, development of shared K4C State policy and legislative interests, new communications materials to support the County and partners’ work through the K4C, and partnership to support development of a local Climate Action Toolkit.

Included with the work plan are K4C’s 2021 budget and planned expenditures. The 2021 K4C budget and work plan priorities include: support updates to countywide planning policies that will strengthen shared greenhouse gas (GHG) emission targets and update measurement policies; engagement by elected officials on state legislative issues; involvement in work to develop regional approaches to supporting energy efficiency retrofit programs; and, developing a climate preparedness agenda.

King County’s 2015 and 2020 Strategic Climate Action Plan (SCAP) outline that effective strategies to reduce GHG emissions and prepare for the impacts of a changing climate require an integrated countywide effort involving public, private and non-governmental partnerships. Motion 14449, which adopted the 2015 SCAP, outlined that King County will continue to play a key role in the K4C, which has collaborated to develop a shared countywide vision and priority actions for confronting climate change. All included priorities and investments were co-developed by King County and the members of the K4C.

ME Meeting Materials Page 27 June 23, 2021 The Honorable Claudia Balducci January 27, 2020 Page 2

The efforts outlined in the work plan support the King County Strategic Plan healthy environment goal by advancing the shared goal of reducing countywide GHG emissions by half by 2030 and also by expanding K4C collaboration on climate preparedness.

The work advances King County’s Equity and Social Justice Initiative and K4C principles to address climate change in ways that are fair, equitable, empowering, and inclusive and also that ensure that low income residents do not bear unfair costs of climate solutions, as articulated by the K4C’s Joint County-City Climate Commitments. Additionally, the work supports King County’s 2015 and 2020 SCAP commitments to engage and partner with cities to develop and implement climate solutions.

The K4C work plan and budget support collective work representing unincorporated King County and the K4C’s partners. The priorities outlined in this report were developed in collaboration with K4C partners.

It is estimated that the report required 12 staff hours to produce, costing approximately $1,000.

Thank you for your consideration of the proposed motion. The work outlined in the K4C 2021 work plan and budget exemplify how the K4C’s work and shared actions are helping King County residents more efficiently and collaboratively confront climate change. I look forward to continuing to work with the Council on the efforts of the K4C.

If your staff have any questions, please contact Rachel Brombaugh, Director of Climate and Energy Initiatives, at 206-263-9633.

Sincerely,

for

Dow Constantine King County Executive

Enclosure

cc: King County Councilmembers ATTN: Carolyn Busch, Chief of Staff Melani Pedroza, Clerk of the Council Shannon Braddock, Deputy Chief of Staff, Office of the Executive Karan Gill, Director, Council Relations, Office of the Executive Rachel Brombaugh, Director of Climate and Energy Initiatives, Office of the Executive Dwight Dively, Director, Office of Performance, Strategy and Budget Christie True, Director, Department of Natural Resources and Parks

ME Meeting Materials Page 28 June 23, 2021

Metropolitan King County Council Mobility and Environment Committee

STAFF REPORT

Agenda Item: 5a Name: Andy Micklow Proposed No.: E20CT029S Date: June 23, 2021

SUBJECT

A hearing on an open space classification application under the Public Benefit Rating System, proposing enrollment of 0.13 acres in the City of Seattle.

SUMMARY

This hearing will consider a Public Benefit Rating System (PBRS) application for 0.13 acres of the Ohashi property (Parcel No. 0443000075) located in the City of Seattle to be enrolled as open space land resource.

This PBRS application is located within an incorporated area and must be approved by both the county and applicable city legislative body after each jurisdiction holds a public hearing pursuant to RCW 84.34.037 and KCC 20.36.090. Approval of this application will result in an additional 0.13 acres preserved in the PBRS program. Currently, there are 2,188 parcels totaling over 13,850 acres are enrolled in the PBRS program.

BACKGROUND

The Public Benefit Rating System (PBRS) program, established in 1992, is intended to preserve and conserve privately-held open space, farmland, or forestland through a property tax reduction. Property owners may enroll their property or a portion of their property in the voluntary program for preservation. In exchange, the qualifying portion of the property is assessed at the “current use” value rather than the full market value. Whereas full market value considers the highest and best use of the property, current use is only the value of the existing land and improvements. Under PBRS, the reduction in taxable value is 50 to 90 percent for the portion of the property placed in current use status.

Any property owner within King County may submit a PBRS application for review. Most commonly, the properties enrolling in the program are located in unincorporated King County and are heard by the King County Hearing Examiner prior to Council approval. On occasion and in the case of this application, the property is located within city boundaries, requiring a hearing by both the Mobility and Environment Committee and the city’s

ME Meeting Materials Page 29 June 23, 2021 legislative body (K.C.C. 20.36.090). Approval of this application by this committee is the final County legislative action.

A property must contain one or more qualifying open space resources and score at least five points in order to be eligible for the PBRS program. Water and Land Resources Division (WLRD) staff review applications to establish site characteristics, qualifying land areas, and eligible open space resources. The PBRS program covers 19 types of open space resources ranging in eligible points (K.C.C. 20.36.100.B):

1. Public recreation area: five points 2. Aquifer protection area: five points 3. Buffer to public or current use classified land: three points 4. Equestrian-pedestrian-bicycle trail linkage, providing public access: thirty-five points 5. Active trail linkage, providing public access a. Twenty-five points: property owner enters into an agreement regarding improvement of the trail, including trail pavement and maintenance. b. Fifteen points: the property owner allows a soft-surface, nonpaved trail. 6. Farm and agricultural conservation land: five points 7. Forest stewardship land, not enrolled in the timberland program: five points 8. Historic landmark or archeological site - buffer to a designated site: three points 9. Historic landmark or archeological site - designated site: five points 10. Historic landmark or archeological site - eligible site: three points 11. Rural open space, 10 or more acres: five points 12. Rural stewardship land: five points 13. Scenic resource, viewpoint or view corridor: five points 14. Significant plant or ecological site: five points 15. Significant wildlife or salmonid habitat: five points 16. Special animal site: three points 17. Surface water quality buffer: five points 18. Urban open space: five points 19. Watershed protection area: five points

Bonus points may be awarded on top of the points above if properties qualifying for an open space category provide additional benefit such as resource restoration, additional surface water qualify buffers, are contiguous to other enrolled parcels under a separate ownership, include a conservation or historic preservation easement, or provide public access.

The public benefit rating system uses the total number of awarded points to determine the property’s current use value. This current use value is based on a percentage of the land’s the assessed fair market value. For enrolled properties, current use value are calculated as between 10 and 50 percent of the market value:

Public Benefit Rating Current Use Value 0-4 points 100% of market value 5-10 points 50% of market value 11-15 points 40% of market value 16-20 points 30% of market value 21-34 points 20% of market value

ME Meeting Materials Page 30 June 23, 2021 35-52 points 10% of market value

ANALYSIS

The Executive staff report providing detailed information on the application and the property seeking enrollment in the PBRS program is included in Attachment 1.

Ohashi Property (Application No. E20CT029S)

The property (Parcel No. 0443000075) is located at 8240 43rd Avenue NE in the City of Seattle. The property is 0.32 acres in total size and located in the SF5000 (Residential, Single-family 5,000) zoning district.

The applicant is requesting to enroll the 0.13 acres of the property into the PBRS program as designated under K.C.C. 20.36.100.

WLRD recommends approval of the request for current use taxation “Open space” classification with a Public Benefit Rating of 11 points. If approved, the 0.13 acres enrolled would have a 40% market value and a 60% reduction Figure 1 Ohashi Property shown in yellow. The area outlined in in taxable value for the portion of land light blue is excluded from the PBRS area. enrolled.

Application Process

The application must be approved by both the city and county legislative bodies after each jurisdiction holds a public hearing. Approval of this application by the Mobility and Environment Committee is the final legislative action by the County. The City of Seattle hearing date has yet to be determined.

INVITED

1. Megan Kim, WLRD 2. Bill Bernstein, WLRD

ATTACHMENTS

1. Ohashi Property WLRD Report

ME Meeting Materials Page 31 June 23, 2021 ATTACHMENT 1

KING COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES AND PARKS WATER AND LAND RESOURCES DIVISION

Report to the Metropolitan King County Council Mobility and Environment Committee for Enrollment in the Public Benefit Rating System (PBRS)

June 11, 2021

APPLICANT: Nobuo Ohashi File No. E20CT029S

A. GENERAL INFORMATION:

1. Owners: Nobuo and Venessa Ohashi 8240 43rd Avenue NE Seattle, WA 98115

2. Property location: same as above

3. Zoning: SF5000

4. STR: NW-03-25-04

5. PBRS categories requested by the applicant and suggested by staff:

Open space resources *Buffer to public or current use classified land *Significant wildlife or salmonid habitat *Special animal site Surface water quality buffer

NOTE: *Staff recommends credit be awarded for these PBRS categories. Enrollment in PBRS for property within an incorporated area requires approval by impacted granting authorities following public hearing(s). For this application, the granting authorities are the King County Mobility and Environment Committee and the City of Seattle. The City of Seattle hearing date has yet to be determined.

6. Parcel: 044300-0075 Total acreage: 0.32 Requested PBRS: 0.13 Home site/excluded area: 0.19 Recommended PBRS: 0.13

ME Meeting Materials Page 32 June 23, 2021

NOTE: The portion recommended for enrollment in PBRS is the entire property less the excluded area as measured. The attached 2019 aerial photo outlines the parcel in yellow and the area proposed to be excluded from PBRS in blue. In the event the Assessor’s official parcel size is revised, PBRS acreage should be administratively adjusted to reflect that change.

B. FACTS:

1. Zoning in the vicinity: Properties in the vicinity are zoned SF5000 and SF7200.

2. Development of the subject property and resource characteristics of open space area: The property contains a single-family residence, garden and landscaping. The open space portion of the property is a mix of deciduous and coniferous trees and mostly native understory, which slopes eastward into an undisturbed ravine. Some areas of the enrolling open space on the westernmost slope abutting the non-enrolling portion of the property are impacted by invasive species, mostly notably ivy/or Himalayan blackberry, which the owners plan to work to control to the extent possible.

3. Site use: The property is used as a single-family residence.

4. Access: The property is accessed from 43rd Avenue NE.

5. Appraised value for 2020 (based on Assessor’s information dated 6/5/2021):

Parcel #044300-0075 Land Improvements Total Assessed value $585,000.00 $114,000.00 $699,000.00 Tax applied $5,447.05 $1,061.48 $6,508.53

NOTE: Participation in PBRS reduces the appraised land value for the portion of the property enrolled resulting in a lower taxable value.

C. REQUIREMENTS SPECIFIED BY KING COUNTY CODE (KCC):

KCC 20.36.010 Purpose and intent.

It is in the best interest of the county to maintain, preserve, conserve and otherwise continue in existence adequate open space lands for the production of food, fiber and forest crops, and to assure the use and enjoyment of natural resources and scenic beauty for the economic and social well-being of the county and its citizens. It is the intent of this chapter to implement RCW Chapter 84.34, as amended, by establishing procedures, rules and fees for the consideration of applications for public benefit rating system assessed valuation on "open space land" and for current use assessment on "farm and agricultural land" and "timber land" as those lands are defined in RCW 84.34.020. The provisions of RCW chapter 84.34, and the regulations adopted thereunder shall govern the matters not expressly covered in this chapter.

E20CT029S Ohashi report 2 ME Meeting Materials Page 33 June 23, 2021

KCC 20.36.100 Public benefit rating system for open space land – definitions and eligibility.

A. To be eligible for open space classification under the public benefit rating system, property must contain one or more qualifying open space resources and have at least five points as determined under this section. The department will review each application and recommend award of credit for current use of property that is the subject of the application. In making such recommendation, the department will utilize the point system described in section B. and C. below.

B. The following open space resources are each eligible for the points indicated: 1. Public recreation area – five points 2. Aquifer protection area – five points 3. Buffer to public or current use classified land – three points 4. Equestrian-pedestrian-bicycle trail linkage – thirty-five points 5. Active trail linkage – fifteen or twenty-five points 6. Farm and agricultural conservation land – five points 7. Forest stewardship land – five points 8. Historic landmark or archaeological site: buffer to a designated site – three points 9. Historic landmark or archaeological site: designated site – five points 10. Historic landmark or archaeological site: eligible site – three points 11. Rural open space – five points 12. Rural stewardship land – five points 13. Scenic resource, viewpoint, or view corridor – five points 14. Significant plant or ecological site –five points 15. Significant wildlife or salmonid habitat – five points 16. Special animal site – three points 17. Surface water quality buffer – five points 18. Urban open space – five points 19. Watershed protection area – five points

C. Property qualifying for an open space category in subsection B. of this section may receive credit for additional points as follows: 1. Resource restoration - five points 2. Additional surface water quality buffer - three or five points 3. Contiguous parcels under separate ownership - two points 4. Conservation easement of historic easement – fifteen points 5. Public access - points dependent on level of access a. Unlimited public access - five points b. Limited public access - sensitive areas - five points c. Environmental education access – three points d. Seasonal limited public access - three points e. None or members only – zero points 6. Easement and access – thirty-five points

E20CT029S Ohashi report 3 ME Meeting Materials Page 34 June 23, 2021

D. 2020 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN POLICIES AND TEXT:

E-101 In addition to its regulatory authority, King County should use incentives to protect and restore the natural environment whenever practicable. Incentives shall be monitored and periodically reviewed to determine their effectiveness in terms of protecting natural resources.

NOTE: Monitoring of participating lands is the responsibility of both department PBRS staff and the landowner. This issue is addressed in the Resource Information document (page 4) and detailed below in Recommendation #B10.

E-112a The protection of lands where development would pose hazards to health, property, important ecological functions or environmental quality shall be achieved through acquisition, enhancement, incentive programs and appropriate regulations. The following critical areas are particularly susceptible and shall be protected in King County: a. Floodways of 100-year floodplains; b. Slopes with a grade of 40% or more or landslide hazards that cannot be mitigated; c. Wetlands and their protective buffers; d. Aquatic areas, including streams, lakes, marine shorelines and their protective buffers; e. Channel migration hazard areas; f. Critical Aquifer Recharge Areas; g. Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas; and h. Volcanic hazard areas.

E-421 Terrestrial and aquatic habitats should be conserved and enhanced to protect and improve conditions for fish and wildlife.

NOTE: PBRS is an incentive program provided to encourage voluntary protection of open space resources and maintain high quality resource lands.

E-429 King County should provide incentives for private landowners who are seeking to remove invasive plants and noxious weeds and replace them with native plants, such as providing technical assistance or access to appropriate native plants.

NOTE: Participation in PBRS requires landowners address invasive plant and noxious weed control and removal within enrolled portions of a property. Replacement with native vegetation is also encouraged via the implementation of approved forest stewardship, rural stewardship or resource restoration plans.

E-443 King County should promote voluntary wildlife habitat enhancement projects by private individuals and businesses through educational, active stewardship, and incentive programs.

E20CT029S Ohashi report 4 ME Meeting Materials Page 35 June 23, 2021

E-476 King County should identify upland areas of native vegetation that connect wetlands to upland habitats and that connect upland habitats to each other. The county should seek protection of these areas through acquisition, stewardship plans, and incentive programs such as the Public Benefit Rating System and the Transfer of Development Rights Program.

E-504 King County should protect native plant communities by encouraging management and control of nonnative invasive plants, including aquatic plants. Environmentally sound methods of vegetation control should be used to control noxious weeds.

NOTE: Lands participating in PBRS provide valuable resource protection and promote the preservation or enhancement of native vegetation. Addressing nonnative vegetation (invasive plant species), through control and eradication is a PBRS requirement.

E-449 King County shall promote retention of forest cover and significant trees using a mix of regulations, incentives, and technical assistance.

R-605 Forestry and agriculture best management practices are encouraged because of their multiple benefits, including natural resource preservation and protection.

NOTE: The implementation of an approved forest stewardship, farm management or rural stewardship plan benefits natural resources, such as wildlife habitat, stream buffers and groundwater protection, as well as fosters the preservation of sustainable resources.

E. PBRS CATEGORIES REQUESTED and DEPARTMENT RECOMMENDATIONS:

Open space resources • Buffer to public or current use classified land The property is abutting land participating in the PBRS program to the north (parcel# 044300-0070) and south (parcel#044300-0080). The enrolling open space area is providing a buffer of native vegetation of more than 50 feet to this adjacent land, which exceeds the category’s requirement. Credit for this category is recommended. • Significant wildlife or salmonid habitat Although credit for this category was not requested, the property contains habitat for numerous wildlife species, including foraging and nesting habitat for the pileated woodpecker, which is listed as a candidate species of concern by the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. Upon conducting a site visit, program staff observed evidence of pileated woodpecker activity and determined areas of the forest on the property is of sufficient age and diversity to support the species regular use of the property. Award of this category is consistent with habitat as defined by KCC 20.36.100, section B.15.a (1). Receiving credit for this category is acceptable to the applicant and credit is recommended.

E20CT029S Ohashi report 5 ME Meeting Materials Page 36 June 23, 2021

• Special animal site The property is south of the City of Seattle’s Inverness Ravine Park and an extension of the protected ravine and its natural resources. The portion of the ravine within the enrolling open space is identified as part of the City’s wildlife habitat network, as noted on pages 17 and 18 of the Urban Wildlife and Habitat Management Plan – 2000 Update, approved by the Seattle City Council in Resolution 30325 on 5/29/01. Credit for this category is recommended. • Surface water quality buffer In order to be eligible for this category, the enrolling land must be providing a qualifying buffer of native vegetation to a lake, pond, stream, wetland or shoreline within the enrolling portion of a property. The property does not contain any aquatic features. Credit for this category cannot be recommended.

NOTE: It is important to note that enrollment in the PBRS program requires the control and removal of invasive plant species. This issue is addressed in the Resource Information document (page 3) and below in Recommendation #B7.

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

A. CONCLUSIONS:

1. Approval of the subject request would be consistent with the specific purpose and intent of KCC 20.36.010. 2. Approval of the subject request would be consistent with policy E-101 of the King County Comprehensive Plan. 3. Of the points recommended, the subject request meets the mandatory criteria of KCC 20.36.100 as indicated:

Open space resources Buffer to public or current use classified land 3 Significant wildlife or salmonid habitat 5 Special animal site 3 Surface water quality buffer 0

TOTAL 11 points

PUBLIC BENEFIT RATING For the purpose of taxation, 11 points result in 40% of market value and a 60% reduction in taxable value for the portion of land enrolled.

E20CT029S Ohashi report 6 ME Meeting Materials Page 37 June 23, 2021

B. RECOMMENDATION:

APPROVE the request for current use taxation "Open space" classification with a Public Benefit Rating of 11 points, subject to the following requirements:

Requirements for Property Enrolled in the Public Benefit Rating System Current Use Taxation Program

1. Compliance with these requirements is necessary to continue to receive the tax benefits from the King County Public Benefit Rating System (PBRS) current use taxation program for the property enrolled in the program (Property). Failure to abide by these requirements can result in removal of current use designation and subject the property owner (Owner) to the penalty, tax, and interest provisions of RCW 84.34 and assessment at true and fair value. The King County Department of Assessments (DoA) and the Water and Land Resources Division, Director’s Office, Agriculture, Forestry and Incentives Unit (AFI) or its successor may re-evaluate the Property to determine whether removal of the open space designation is appropriate. Removal shall follow the process in RCW 84.34.108.

2. Revisions to these requirements may only occur upon mutual written approval of the Owner and granting authority. These conditions shall apply so long as the Property retains its open space designation. If a conservation easement acceptable to and approved by the City of Seattle and King County is granted by the Owner or the Owner’s successors in interest to the Department of Natural Resources and Parks, King County or a grantee approved by King County, these requirements may be superseded by the terms of such easement, upon written approval by King County.

3. The open space classification for this Property will continue so long as it meets the open space purposes for which it was initially approved. Classification as open space will be removed upon a determination by King County that the Property no longer meets the open space purposes for which it was initially approved. A change in circumstances which diminishes the extent of public benefit from that approved by the City of Seattle and King County Council in the open space taxation agreement will be cause for removal of the current use assessment classification. It is the Owner's responsibility to notify the DoA and the AFI Unit or its successor of a change in circumstance with regard to the Property.

4. When a portion of the open space Property is withdrawn or removed from the program, the AFI Unit or its successor and the DoA shall re-evaluate the remaining Property to determine whether it may continue to qualify under the program. If the remaining portion meets the criteria for priority resources, it may continue under current use taxation.

5. Except as provided for in sections 6 and 7 and below, no alteration of the open space land or resources shall occur without prior approval by the City of Seattle and the AFI Unit or its successor. Any unapproved alteration may constitute a departure from an

E20CT029S Ohashi report 7 ME Meeting Materials Page 38 June 23, 2021

approved open space use and be deemed a change of use, and subject the Property to the additional tax, interest, and penalty provisions of RCW 84.34.080. "Alteration" means any human-induced action that adversely impacts the existing condition of the open space Property or resources including but not limited to the following: (Walking, horseback riding, passive recreation or actions taken in conjunction with a resource restoration plan, or other similar approved activities are permitted.) a. erecting structures; b. grading; c. filling; d. dredging; e. channelizing; f. modifying land or hydrology for surface water management purposes; g. cutting, pruning, limbing or topping, clearing, planting, introducing, relocating or removing vegetation, however, selective cutting may be permitted for firewood; h. applying herbicides or pesticides or any hazardous or toxic substance; i. discharging pollutants excepting stormwater; j. paving, construction, application of gravel; k. storing of equipment, household supplies, play equipment, or compost; l. engaging in any other activity that adversely impacts the existing vegetation, hydrology, wildlife, wildlife habitat, or other open space resources.

6. Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 5 trees posing a hazard to structures or major roads may be removed. Any trees removed must be replaced.

7. If an area of the Property becomes or has become infested with noxious weeds, the Owner may be required to submit a control and enhancement plan to the City of Seattle and the AFI Unit or its successor in order to remove such weeds. If an area of the Property becomes or has become invaded by non-native species, the Owner may be required to submit, or may voluntarily submit, an enhancement plan to the City of Seattle and the AFI Unit or its successor, in order to replace such species with native species or other appropriate vegetation.

8. There shall be no motorized vehicle driving or parking allowed on the open space Property, except for medical, public safety, or police emergencies.

9. Grazing of livestock is prohibited on the open space Property.

10. An owner of property enrolled in the program may be required to submit a monitoring report on an annual or less frequent basis as requested by program staff. This report must include a brief description of how the property still qualifies for each awarded resource category. It must also include photographs from established points on the property and any observations by the owner. The owner must submit this report to the department by email or by other mutually agreed upon method. An environmental consultant need not prepare this report.

E20CT029S Ohashi report 8 ME Meeting Materials Page 39 June 23, 2021

11. Enrollment in PBRS does not exempt the Owner from obtaining any required permit or approval for activity or use on the Property.

TRANSMITTED to the parties listed hereafter:

Andy Micklow, Senior Legislative Analyst, Metropolitan King County Council Nobuo Ohashi, applicant Lise Ward, Seattle Parks and Recreation Melani Pedroza, Clerk of the King County Council Debra Clark, King County Department of Assessments

E20CT029S Ohashi report 9 ME Meeting Materials Page 40 June 23, 2021

Metropolitan King County Council Mobility and Environment Committee

STAFF REPORT

Agenda Item: 5b Name: Andy Micklow Proposed No.: E20CT037I Date: June 23, 2021

SUBJECT

A hearing on an open space classification application under the Public Benefit Rating System, proposing enrollment of 2.76 acres in the City of Issaquah.

SUMMARY

This hearing will consider a Public Benefit Rating System (PBRS) application for 2.76 acres of the Overdale Homeowners Association property (Parcel No. 2224069057) located in the City of Issaquah to be enrolled as open space land resource. The property is currently enrolled in the PBRS program (E14CT040I). The property owners are reapplying to add credit for an additional program category.

This PBRS application is located within an incorporated area and must be approved by both the county and applicable city legislative body after each jurisdiction holds a public hearing pursuant to RCW 84.34.037 and KCC 20.36.090. Approval of this application will result in an additional 2.76 acres preserved in the PBRS program. Currently, there are 2,188 parcels totaling over 13,850 acres enrolled in the PBRS program.

BACKGROUND

ME Meeting Materials Page 41 June 23, 2021 requiring a hearing by both the Mobility and Environment Committee and the city’s legislative body (K.C.C. 20.36.090). Approval of this application by this committee is the final County legislative action.

Public Benefit Rating Current Use Value 0-4 points 100% of market value 5-10 points 50% of market value 11-15 points 40% of market value 16-20 points 30% of market value

ME Meeting Materials Page 42 June 23, 2021 21-34 points 20% of market value 35-52 points 10% of market value

ANALYSIS

The Executive staff report providing detailed information on the application and the property seeking enrollment in the PBRS program is included in Attachment 1.

Overdale Homeowners Association Property (Application No. E20CT037I)

The property (Parcel No. 2224069057) is located south and abutting 5652 228th Avenue SE in the City of Issaquah. The property is 4.06 acres in total size and located in the C- REC (Conservancy Recreation) zoning district.

The applicant is requesting to enroll the 2.76 acres of the property into the PBRS program as designated under K.C.C. 20.36.100. The property is currently enrolled in the PBRS program (E14CT040I). The property owners are reapplying to add credit for an additional program category (additional surface water quality buffer).

WLRD recommends approval of the request for current use taxation “Open space” classification with a Public Benefit Rating of 30 points. If approved, the 2.76 acres enrolled would have a 20 percent market value and an 80 percent reduction in taxable value for the portion of land enrolled.

If credit is awarded for the resource restoration category, the point total would increase to 35 and the reduction in Figure 1 Overdale HOA Property shown land assessed value for the portion enrolled would increase in yellow. The area outlined in light blue to 90 percent. In order for the property to qualify for this is excluded from the PBRS area. additional category, a restoration plan must be provided by the owner and approved by the WLRD by December 31, 2021.

Application Process

INVITED

1. Megan Kim, WLRD 2. Bill Bernstein, WLRD

ATTACHMENTS

1. REVISED Overdale Homeowners Association Property WLRD Report

ME Meeting Materials Page 43 June 23, 2021 ATTACHMENT 1

KING COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES AND PARKS WATER AND LAND RESOURCES DIVISION

REVISED Report to the Metropolitan King County Council Mobility and Environment Committee Enrollment in the Public Benefit Rating System (PBRS)

June 11, 2021

APPLICANT: Overdale Homeowners Association File No. E20CT037I

A. GENERAL INFORMATION:

1. Owner: Overdale Homeowners Association P.O. BOX 1412 Issaquah, WA 98027

2. Property location: 5805 229th Avenue SE South and abutting 5652 229th Avenue SE Issaquah, WA 98029

3. Zoning: C-Rec

4. STR: SW-22-24-06

5. PBRS category requested by the applicant:

NOTE: The property is currently enrolled in the Public Benefit Rating System program (E14CT040I). The owners of the property are reapplying to add credit for an additional program category. The new open space taxation agreement should supersede any existing agreement for this property’s PBRS participation.

Open space resources *Aquifer protection area *Significant wildlife or salmonid habitat *Surface water quality buffer *Urban open space *Watershed protection area

Bonus categories **Resource restoration *Additional surface water quality buffer

NOTE: *Staff recommends credit be awarded for these PBRS categories. **Award of this category is also possible but will be dependent upon specific category

ME Meeting Materials Page 44 June 23, 2021 requirements being met (see resource category discussion under Section E beginning on page 6).

Enrollment in PBRS for property within an incorporated area requires approval by impacted granting authorities following public hearing(s). For this application, the granting authorities are the King County Mobility and Environment Committee and the City of Issaquah. The City heard and acted on this application June 7, 2021.

6. Parcel: 222406-9057 Total acreage 4.06 Requested PBRS: 4.06 Home site/excluded area: 1.30 Recommended PBRS: 2.76

NOTE: The portion recommended for enrollment in PBRS is the entire property less the excluded areas as measured. The attached 2019 aerial photo outlines the parcel in yellow and the areas proposed to be excluded from PBRS in blue. In the event the Assessor’s official parcel size is revised, PBRS acreage should be administratively adjusted to reflect that change.

B. FACTS:

1. Zoning in the vicinity: Properties in the vicinity are zoned SF-S, SF-E, M and MU-CI and MF-M.

2. Development of the subject property and resource characteristics of open space area: The property consists of a community park containing a playfield and maintained grassy areas. The open space portion of the property consists primarily of deciduous and coniferous forest with native understory. However, some areas of the re-enrolling open space are impacted by invasive species (Himalayan blackberry), primarily in the north east corner of the property and where there are openings within the tree canopy. The owner plans to address the impacted areas via the implementation of a resource restoration plan. A portion of seasonal stream flows north to south within the forested areas to the east and south of the excluded field.

3. Site use: The property is used as a community park.

4. Access: The property is accessed from 229th Avenue SE.

5. Appraised value for 2020 (based on Assessor’s information dated 05/17/21):

2 E20CT037I Overdale Homeowners Association report

ME Meeting Materials Page 45 June 23, 2021 Parcel #222406-9057 Land Improvements Total Appraised value $137,000.00* $0.00 $137,000.00 Tax applied $1,362.42 $0.00 $1,362.42

NOTE: *This value is presently impacted by the land’s participation in the PBRS program (RCW 84.34), which is reflected in the land’s current and lower taxable value of $62,494 (tax applied $621.48). Participation in PBRS reduces the appraised land value for the portion of the property enrolled resulting in a lower taxable value

C. REQUIREMENTS SPECIFIED BY KING COUNTY CODE (KCC):

KCC 20.36.010 Purpose and intent.

KCC 20.36.100 Public benefit rating system for open space land – definitions and eligibility.

3 E20CT037I Overdale Homeowners Association report

ME Meeting Materials Page 46 June 23, 2021 10. Historic landmark or archaeological site: eligible site – three points 11. Rural open space – five points 12. Rural stewardship land – five points 13. Scenic resource, viewpoint, or view corridor – five points 14. Significant plant or ecological site –five points 15. Significant wildlife or salmonid habitat – five points 16. Special animal site – three points 17. Surface water quality buffer – five points 18. Urban open space – five points 19. Watershed protection area – five points

D. 2020 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN POLICIES AND TEXT:

4 E20CT037I Overdale Homeowners Association report

ME Meeting Materials Page 47 June 23, 2021 c. Wetlands and their protective buffers; d. Aquatic areas, including streams, lakes, marine shorelines and their protective buffers; e. Channel migration hazard areas; f. Critical Aquifer Recharge Areas; g. Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas; and h. Volcanic hazard areas.

E-421 Terrestrial and aquatic habitats should be conserved and enhanced to protect and improve conditions for fish and wildlife.

NOTE: PBRS is an incentive program provided to encourage voluntary protection of open space resources and maintain high quality resource lands.

E-443 King County should promote voluntary wildlife habitat enhancement projects by private individuals and businesses through educational, active stewardship, and incentive programs.

E-449 King County shall promote retention of forest cover and significant trees using a mix of regulations, incentives, and technical assistance.

5 E20CT037I Overdale Homeowners Association report

ME Meeting Materials Page 48 June 23, 2021 R-605 Forestry and agriculture best management practices are encouraged because of their multiple benefits, including natural resource preservation and protection.

E. PBRS CATEGORIES REQUESTED and DEPARTMENT RECOMMENDATIONS:

• Aquifer protection area The entire property is located in an area designated by the City of Issaquah as a Class 3 High Critical Aquifer Recharge Area (see city code, Chapter 18.10.796). The natively forested area is greater than one acre in size and meets the minimum required acreage for this category. Credit for this category is recommended. The City of Issaquah approved award of this category. • Significant wildlife or salmonid habitat The property contains habitat for numerous wildlife species, including foraging and nesting habitat for the pileated woodpecker, which is listed as a candidate species of concern by the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. Upon conducting a site visit, program staff observed evidence of pileated woodpecker activity and determined the forest on the property is of sufficient age and diversity to support the species regular use of the property. Award of this category is consistent with habitat as defined by KCC 20.36.100, section B.15.a(1). Credit for this category is recommended. The City of Issaquah approved award of this category. • Surface water quality buffer The property contains a portion of small seasonal stream, likely Class 4, flowing north to south within the forested areas to the east and south of the excluded field. As required by the City of Issaquah’s code, Chapter 18.10.785, the buffer width required for Class 4 waters is 25 feet. In order to be eligible for this category, the participating land must provide a buffer greater than 1.5 times that required, or 37.50 feet in this case. The owners are providing a buffer of native vegetation to the east of this steam that averages more than 150 feet in width, which is more than six times the buffer required. Credit for this category is recommended. The City of Issaquah approved award of this category. • Urban open space The property is located within the City of Issaquah. The enrolling property is more than one acre is size and is natively vegetated. Credit for this category is recommended. The City of Issaquah approved award of this category. • Watershed protection area In order to be eligible for this category, the enrolling area must consist of additional native forest cover beyond that required and be at least 65% of the property acreage. By voluntarily enrolling the property in PBRS and not pursuing development or land use that might be allowed under current zoning regulation, the owners are directly contributing to the preservation of forest and open spaces within the city limits. Retention of this urban

6 E20CT037I Overdale Homeowners Association report

ME Meeting Materials Page 49 June 23, 2021 forest will surpass this category’s requirement and promote wildlife habitat, stabilize and enrich existing soils and slow runoff from precipitation, as well as provide many other resource benefits to the surrounding area and City. The 2.76 acres of enrolling forest represents 68% of the property, which exceeds category requirements and provides valuable watershed protection benefits. Credit for this category is recommended. The City of Issaquah approved award of this category.

Bonus categories • Resource restoration The owners would like to improve the health and diversity of their forest, which includes the removal of invasive species and restoration with native plants and shrubs. In order for the property to qualify for this category, a restoration plan must be provided by the owner and approved by the department. At this time, because a plan has not been provided, credit for this category cannot be granted. However, if a plan is provided to the department by November 1, 2021, and approved by the department by December 31, 2021, then credit for this category could be awarded administratively. Award of this category may allow restoration activities to occur in the participating open space area. It is the landowner’s responsibility to apply for and receive the necessary approvals from the applicable state and local governmental agencies for activities that may require a permit or approval, such as clearing and grading. It should be noted that this planting activity must be completed within a three-year period, which begins on the restoration plan approval date. The City of Issaquah approved award of this category. • Additional surface water quality buffer The property contains a portion of small seasonal stream, likely Class 4, flowing north to south within the forested areas to the east and south of the excluded field. As required by the City of Issaquah’s code, Chapter 18.10.785, the buffer width required for Class 4 waters is 25 feet. In order to be eligible for this category, the participating land must provide a buffer greater than two times that required (or 50 feet) for three points to be awarded or provide a buffer greater than three times that required (or 75 feet) for five points to be awarded. The owners are providing a buffer of native vegetation to the east of this steam that averages more than 150 feet in width, which is more than six times the buffer required. Credit for this category is recommended at the five-point award level. The City of Issaquah approved award of this category.

7 E20CT037I Overdale Homeowners Association report

ME Meeting Materials Page 50 June 23, 2021 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

A. CONCLUSIONS:

Open space resources • Aquifer protection area 5 • Significant wildlife or salmonid habitat 5 • Surface water quality buffer 5 • Watershed protection area 5 • Urban open space 5

Bonus categories • Resource restoration * • Additional surface water quality buffer 5

TOTAL 30 points

NOTE: *If credit is awarded for the resource restoration category the point total would increase to 35 and the reduction in land assessed value for the portion enrolled would increase to 90%.

PUBLIC BENEFIT RATING For the purpose of taxation, 30 points result in 20% of market value and an 80% reduction in taxable value for the portion of land enrolled.

B. RECOMMENDATION:

APPROVE the request for current use taxation "Open space" classification with a Public Benefit Rating of 30 points, subject to the following requirements:

Requirements for Property Enrolled in the Public Benefit Rating System Current Use Taxation Program

1. Compliance with these requirements is necessary to continue to receive the tax benefits from the King County Public Benefit Rating System (PBRS) current use taxation

8 E20CT037I Overdale Homeowners Association report

ME Meeting Materials Page 51 June 23, 2021 program for the property enrolled in the program (Property). Failure to abide by these requirements can result in removal of current use designation and subject the property owner (Owner) to the penalty, tax, and interest provisions of RCW 84.34 and assessment at true and fair value. The King County Department of Assessments (DoA) and the Water and Land Resources Division, Director’s Office, Agriculture, Forestry and Incentives Unit (AFI) or its successor may re-evaluate the Property to determine whether removal of the open space designation is appropriate. Removal shall follow the process in RCW 84.34.108.

2. Revisions to these requirements may only occur upon mutual written approval of the Owner and granting authority. These conditions shall apply so long as the Property retains its open space designation. If a conservation easement acceptable to and approved by the City of Issaquah and King County is granted by the Owner or the Owner’s successors in interest to the Department of Natural Resources and Parks, King County or a grantee approved by King County, these requirements may be superseded by the terms of such easement, upon written approval by King County.

3. The open space classification for this Property will continue so long as it meets the open space purposes for which it was initially approved. Classification as open space will be removed upon a determination by King County that the Property no longer meets the open space purposes for which it was initially approved. A change in circumstances which diminishes the extent of public benefit from that approved by the City of Issaquah and King County Council in the open space taxation agreement will be cause for removal of the current use assessment classification. It is the Owner's responsibility to notify the DoA and the AFI Unit or its successor of a change in circumstance with regard to the Property.

5. Except as provided for in sections 6, 7 and 10 and below, no alteration of the open space land or resources shall occur without prior approval by the City of Issaquah and the AFI Unit or its successor. Any unapproved alteration may constitute a departure from an approved open space use and be deemed a change of use, and subject the Property to the additional tax, interest, and penalty provisions of RCW 84.34.080. "Alteration" means any human-induced action that adversely impacts the existing condition of the open space Property or resources including but not limited to the following: (Walking, horseback riding, passive recreation or actions taken in conjunction with a resource restoration plan, or other similar approved activities are permitted.) a. erecting structures; b. grading; c. filling;

9 E20CT037I Overdale Homeowners Association report

ME Meeting Materials Page 52 June 23, 2021 d. dredging; e. channelizing; f. modifying land or hydrology for surface water management purposes; g. cutting, pruning, limbing or topping, clearing, planting, introducing, relocating or removing vegetation, however, selective cutting may be permitted for firewood; h. applying herbicides or pesticides or any hazardous or toxic substance; i. discharging pollutants excepting stormwater; j. paving, construction, application of gravel; k. storing of equipment, household supplies, play equipment, or compost; l. engaging in any other activity that adversely impacts the existing vegetation, hydrology, wildlife, wildlife habitat, or other open space resources.

6. Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 5 trees posing a hazard to structures or major roads may be removed. Any trees removed must be replaced.

7. If an area of the Property becomes or has become infested with noxious weeds, the Owner may be required to submit a control and enhancement plan to the City of Issaquah and the AFI Unit or its successor in order to remove such weeds. If an area of the Property becomes or has become invaded by non-native species, the Owner may be required to submit, or may voluntarily submit, an enhancement plan to the City of Issaquah and the AFI Unit or its successor, in order to replace such species with native species or other appropriate vegetation.

8. There shall be no motorized vehicle driving or parking allowed on the open space Property.

9. Grazing of livestock is prohibited on the open space Property.

10. Resource restoration must be implemented in a timely manner in accordance with any Resource Restoration Plan that applies to the Property and that has been approved by the PBRS Staff. During plan implementation and for the first 5 years of enrollment, the Owner must submit a yearly monitoring report to PBRS Staff describing the progress and success of the restoration, including photographs. An environmental consultant need not prepare the report.

11. An owner of property receiving credit for farm and agricultural conservation land, forest stewardship land, or rural stewardship land, all of which require a stewardship or management plan, must annually provide a monitoring report that describes progress of implementing the plan. The owner must submit this report, which must include a brief description of activities taken to implement the plan and photographs from established points on the property, to the department by email or by other mutually agreed upon method. An environmental consultant need not prepare this report.

12. Enrollment in PBRS does not exempt the Owner from obtaining any required permit or approval for activity or use on the Property.

10 E20CT037I Overdale Homeowners Association report

ME Meeting Materials Page 53 June 23, 2021 TRANSMITTED to the parties listed hereafter:

Andy Micklow, Senior Legislative Analyst Overdale Homeowner Association, applicant Christen Leeson, Community Planning and Development, City of Issaquah Melani Pedroza, Clerk of the King County Council Debra Clark, King County Department of Assessments

11 E20CT037I Overdale Homeowners Association report

ME Meeting Materials Page 54 June 23, 2021

Metropolitan King County Council Mobility and Environment Committee

STAFF REPORT

Agenda Item: 6 Name: Erica Newman Proposed No.: 2021-0204 Date: June 23, 2021

SUBJECT

Proposed Ordinance 2021-0204 would make technical amendments relating to the electric scooter share pilot program; amending Ordinance 18989, Section 2, as amended, Ordinance 18989, Section 6, as amended, and Ordinance 18989, Section 8, as amended, and adding a new section to Ordinance 18989.

SUMMARY

Proposed Ordinance 2021-0204 would update the start and reporting dates for the electric scooter share pilot program established by Ordinance 18989 and add a new section, Section 4 to Ordinance 18989.

There is an amendment to the Interlocal Agreement (ILA) that would make some technical corrections and clarify language throughout the ILA.

BACKGROUND

In 2019, the Washington State Legislature implemented RCW 46.61.715, which allows local authorities to regulate the operation of motorized foot scooters and shared scooters within their jurisdictions. Regulation may include, but is not limited to: • Determining if shared scooters may be operated within the local authority’s jurisdiction, and if allowed, where they may be operated; • Requiring scooter share programs to pay reasonable fees and taxes; • Requiring that shared scooters be staged in a manner compliant with the Americans with Disabilities Act, to ensure clear passage of pedestrian traffic on sidewalks; and • Adopting and addressing penalties for moving or parking violations involving shared scooters to the persons responsible for such violation.

Ordinance 18989. In October 2019, Council adopted Ordinance 18989 which required the establishment of an electric scooter share pilot program in the North Highline urban unincorporated area in King County for a pilot period of up to one year, beginning in January 2020. The pilot program would be developed, implemented and administered by the Records and Licensing Services Division (RALS) of the Department of Executive

ME Meeting Materials Page 55 June 23, 2021 Services.1 RALS would be required to consult and coordinate with other county agencies (e.g. Metro, Department of Natural Resources and Parks, Department of Local Services and Public Health) on development, implementation and enforcement criteria for the pilot program. Ordinance 18989 also required RALS to report twice on the pilot program with the reports due no later than June 30, 2020 and August 24, 2020. The reports were to provide information on program usage and costs, such as the total trips taken during the pilot, anonymized demographic data, impacts to transit ridership, and an equity analysis.

Ordinance 19137. In July 2020, Council adopted Ordinance 19137, which amended Ordinance 18989 to adjust the start date and reporting due dates for the pilot program to reflect additional needed time for program development and implementation. Under Ordinance 19137, the program start date was amended to correspond with the date upon which the shared scooters became available for public use, which was expected to occur by the effective date of the ordinance (July 31, 2020). The due dates for the two required reports were also amended to six months and nine months after the program start date.

Ordinance 19137 also updated the expiration date of Ordinance 18989 to correspond with the start date of the pilot program, expiring one year from the date upon which scooters are available for public use (July 31, 2021).

ANALYSIS

Proposed Ordinance 2021-0204 would amend Ordinance 18989, as amended, to adjust the due date for the second report on the electric scooter share pilot program and to authorize and the executive to enter into interlocal agreements (ILAs) with local jurisdictions seeking to participate in the county's pilot program. The proposed ordinance would also extend the expiration date for the pilot program.

Reporting Requirements. The proposed ordinance maintains the requirement for the executive to report twice to the council on scooter share pilot program implementation, but the second report would be due by no later than three months from the program's end date rather than nine months from the start date.

In addition, the proposed ordinance would add a requirement that the reports must include a list of local jurisdictions that have entered into an interlocal agreement with the county to participate in the pilot program, if any, and a summary of the opportunities and lessons learned by including local jurisdictions in the scooter share pilot program.

Potential Partnerships with Local Jurisdictions. The proposed ordinance would also authorize the executive to enter into interlocal agreements (ILAs) in substantially the same form as the template ILA in Attachment A with local jurisdictions seeking to participate in the county's pilot program.

1 Per Ordinance 18989, program development, implementation and administration authority shall be delegated by the Executive to RALS.

ME Meeting Materials Page 56 June 23, 2021 Expiration Date. The proposed ordinance extends the expiration date of the program from one year from the program start date, or approximately July 31, 2021, to March 31, 2023.

AMENDMENT

The amendment would attach a revised template ILA to make technical corrections and clarify language throughout the ILA.

INVITED

• Sean Bouffiou, Administrative Services Manager, Records and Licensing

ATTACHMENTS

1. Proposed Ordinance 2021-0204 (and its attachments) 2. Amendment

ME Meeting Materials Page 57 June 23, 2021 ATTACHMENT 1 KING COUNTY 1200 King County Courthouse 516 Third Avenue Signature Report Seattle, WA 98104

Ordinance

Proposed No. 2021-0204.1 Sponsors McDermott

1 AN ORDINANCE relating to the electric scooter share

2 pilot program; amending Ordinance 18989, Section 2, as

3 amended, Ordinance 18989, Section 6, as amended, and

4 Ordinance 18989, Section 8, as amended, and adding a new

5 section to Ordinance 18989.

6 BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF KING COUNTY:

7 SECTION 1. Ordinance 18989, Section 2, as amended, is hereby amended to

8 read as follows:

9 The executive shall establish a scooter share pilot program in the North Highline

10 urban unincorporated area in King County ((for up to one year)). The start date for the

11 pilot program, meaning the date upon which shared scooters offered for hire under the

12 pilot program become available to the public for use, should occur by the effective date

13 of this ordinance. The pilot program shall expire March 31, 2023. Scooter share pilot

14 program development, implementation and administration authority shall be delegated by

15 the executive to the division. The division shall work in consultation and coordination

16 with other county agencies, including, but not limited, to the Metro transit department,

17 the parks and recreation division, the department of local services and public health -

18 Seattle & King County, regarding development, implementation and enforcement criteria

19 for the scooter share pilot program. The division shall also consult disability rights

ME Meeting Materials Page 58 June 23, 2021 Ordinance

20 groups and local North Highline community groups for input throughout the scooter

21 share pilot program.

22 SECTION 2. Ordinance 18989, Section 6, is hereby amended to read as follows:

23 A. The executive shall solicit public and community feedback throughout the

24 pilot period and monitor the usage and costs associated with the scooter share pilot

25 program. Feedback must be solicited in multiple languages, including, but not limited to,

26 English and Spanish. The executive should get feedback from both scooter share pilot

27 program users and people who do not use the scooter share pilot program with the goal of

28 understanding issues such as the reasons for using electric motorized foot scooters, the

29 mode of transportation replaced by an electric motorized foot scooter ride, ease and

30 barriers of use, responsiveness of the county and operators to questions and concerns,

31 infrastructure needs, parking issues and similar issues. The executive shall report twice

32 to the council on scooter share pilot program implementation. The first report is due by

33 no later than six months from the program's start date. The second report is due by no

34 later than ((nine)) three months from the program's ((start)) end date.

35 B. Each report must contain the most current information available on scooter

36 share pilot program feedback, usage and costs, including, but not limited to, the

37 following:

38 1. The total number of shared scooter trips taken during the pilot period;

39 2. Trips per shared scooter per day;

40 3. Shared scooter availability, reliability and distribution;

41 4. Usage patterns by time of day, day of week;

42 5. Trip duration;

ME Meeting Materials Page 59 June 23, 2021 Ordinance

43 6. Spatial patterns to understand the most popular routes;

44 7. Anonymized user demographic data;

45 8. The number of any reported parking and operating violations;

46 9. The number and description of any reported safety incidents;

47 10. Operator average response time for maintenance, hazard reports and shared

48 scooter redistribution requests;

49 11. An equity analysis, including but not limited to a description of how the

50 scooter share pilot program relates to or supports one or more of the determinants of

51 equity identified in ordinance 16948, a description of any gaps in access to the scooter

52 share pilot program based on race, class, gender, ability or language spoken and a

53 description of any other impacts to the community in the North Highline urban

54 unincorporated area;

55 12. An analysis of shared scooter usage for first/last mile connections to transit,

56 including availability and reliability of shared scooters within a mile of transit hubs and

57 whether there are any impacts to transit ridership during the pilot period associated with

58 shared scooter usage;

59 13. A summary of public and user scooter share pilot program feedback

60 received by the operators and the county; ((and))

61 14. A summary of any costs to the county relating to scooter share pilot program

62 development, implementation and administration; and

63 15. A list of local jurisdictions that have entered into an interlocal agreement

64 with the county to participate in the pilot program, if any, and a summary of the

65 opportunities and lessons learned by including local jurisdictions in the scooter share

ME Meeting Materials Page 60 June 23, 2021 Ordinance

66 pilot program.

67 C. The second report must additionally include an analysis of emerging lessons

68 learned from scooter share pilot programs in other select jurisdictions, and the

69 recommendation of the executive as to whether the county's scooter share pilot program

70 should either continue or expand, or both, beyond the pilot period. If the

71 recommendation of the executive is to continue, to expand or to continue and expand the

72 scooter share pilot program beyond the pilot period, then the executive must transmit

73 proposed legislation to the council to effectuate the recommendation, including an

74 implementation plan and, if needed, applicable fee approval or supplemental

75 appropriation request legislation. The executive's recommendation should consider

76 procurement and permitting processes, number of vendors, system size, coverage area,

77 infrastructure and parking management needs, a maximum speed limit, performance

78 evaluation and data requirements, staffing needs, fees, equity and community

79 considerations including accessibility needs, transit integration and technology needs.

80 D. The executive shall file each report required by this section in the form of a

81 paper original and an electronic copy with the clerk of the council, who shall retain the

82 original and provide an electronic copy to all councilmembers, the council chief of staff,

83 the policy staff director and the lead for the mobility and environment committee, or its

84 successor.

85 SECTION 3. Ordinance 18989, Section 8, as amended, is hereby amended to

86 read as follows:

87 ((This o))Ordinance 18989, as amended, expires ((one year from the start date of

88 the pilot program, meaning one year from the date upon which shared scooters offered

ME Meeting Materials Page 61 June 23, 2021 Ordinance

89 for hire under the pilot program become available to the public for use)) March 31, 2023.

90 NEW SECTION. SECTION 4. There is hereby added to Ordinance 18989 a new

91 section to read as follows:

92 If the executive determines that the pilot program could benefit by expanding the

93 pilot area to include one or more local jurisdictions, the county executive is hereby

ME Meeting Materials Page 62 June 23, 2021 Ordinance

94 authorized to enter into an interlocal agreement in substantially the same form as

95 Attachment A to this ordinance for the provision of scooter share pilot program services.

KING COUNTY COUNCIL KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON

______

Claudia Balducci, Chair ATTEST:

______

Melani Pedroza, Clerk of the Council

APPROVED this _____ day of ______, ______.

______

Dow Constantine, County Executive

Attachments: A. INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN King County and the City of ______for Shared Scooter Regulatory Services

ME Meeting Materials Page 63 June 23, 2021 2021-0204 ATTACHMENT A

INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN King County and the City of ______for Shared Scooter Regulatory Services

THIS AGREEMENT is made between King County, a home rule charter county and political subdivision of the State of Washington, hereinafter referred to as the "County," and the City of ______, a municipal corporation of the State of Washington, hereinafter referred to as the "City," under authority of Chapter 39.34 Revised Code of Washington.

WHEREAS, the County and the City have authority to regulate the business of operating scooter share transportation services within their respective boundaries; and

WHEREAS, the business of operating shared scooters presents transportation opportunities and permitting issues of a multijurisdictional nature; and

WHEREAS, it is desirable, to adequately protect the interests of the County and the City and the public, to provide for a uniform system of permitting shared scooter transportation services, as part of a pilot program; and

WHEREAS, the County and its employees are well-qualified and able in matters relating to the permitting and enforcement of laws relating to the conduct of shared scooter transportation services; and

WHEREAS, the City desires to participate in the County’s shared scooter pilot program, with a regional approach to regulation and enforcement of laws relating to shared scooter transportation services, and the City desires to obtain the assistance of the County to provide these services; and

WHEREAS, the County is ready, willing, and able to assist the City in matters relating to the licensing and enforcement of laws relating to regulation of shared scooter transportation services;

NOW THEREFORE, the County and City hereby agree:

1. Definitions. Unless the context clearly shows another usage is intended, the following terms shall have these meanings in this Agreement:

a. “Agreement” means this Interlocal Agreement.

b. “Director” means the director of the Records and Licensing Services Division of the King County Department of Executive Services or the director’s designee.

c. “Parties” means the City and the County.

d. “Shared Scooters” or “Scooters” means electric motorized foot scooters offered for hire as part of a fleet available to the public in publicly accessible places.

e. “Shared Scooter Transportation Regulatory Services” means the services described in Section 3 (County Responsibilities), as part of the County’s scooter share pilot program.

KING COUNTY AND ______- 1 of 5 INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT - SHARED SCOOTER REGULATORY SERVICES ME Meeting Materials Page 64 June 23, 2021

2. City Responsibilities. The City shall:

a. Promptly enact an ordinance that adopts by reference King County Ordinance ______(hereinafter “the County Ordinance”) and any King County Administrative Rules promulgated pursuant to that Ordinance (hereinafter “the City Ordinance”).

b. Promptly review any revisions to the County Ordinance and any amendments to King County Rules promulgated pursuant to the County Ordinance after this Agreement is signed, and either adopt them by reference or promptly notify the Director of the City’s intention otherwise.

c. Delegate to the County the following:

i. The power to determine eligibility for limited-use permits (permits) issued under the terms of the City Ordinance.

ii. The power to enforce the terms of the City Ordinance, including the power to deny, modify, suspend temporarily, or terminate any permits issued thereunder.

iii. The services provided by the County pursuant to this Agreement do not include legal services, which shall be provided by the City at City expense.

iv. The power to conduct administrative appeals of those County permitting determinations made, and enforcement actions taken, on behalf of the City. Such appeals shall be conducted by the King County Hearing Examiner or the County’s successor administrative appeals body or officer on behalf of the City unless either the City or the County determines that the particular matter shall be heard by the City.

v. Nothing in this Agreement is intended to divest the City of authority to issue notices of violation and court citations for violations of city ordinances. The authority to issue notices of violations and court citations may be exercised by either the County or the City.

3. County Responsibilities. The County Records and Licensing Services Division shall act as the City's agent in performing the following in accordance with enabling ordinances and administrative procedures.

a. The County shall perform, consistent with available resources, all services relating to permitting and enforcement of the City Ordinance pertaining to Shared Scooter Transportation Regulatory Services.

b. The provision of such service, the standards of performance, the discipline of employees, and all other matters incident to the performance of such services and the control of personnel so employed shall remain with the County.

c. The County shall promptly advise the City of any revisions to the County Ordinance and of any amendments to King County Rules promulgated pursuant the County Ordinance after this Agreement is signed.

KING COUNTY AND ______- 2 of 5 INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT - SHARED SCOOTER REGULATORY SERVICES ME Meeting Materials Page 65 June 23, 2021

4. Compensation and Method of Payment.

a. The County shall retain all fines and fees collected pursuant to the permitting of Shared Scooters. No additional compensation will be due from the City. This provision shall not apply to business license fees collected by the City.

b. The Parties agree that all fines levied by a court of competent jurisdiction or civil penalties assessed by the Director for violation of the City Ordinance regulating Shared Scooters shall become the property of the County.

5. Duration. This Agreement shall be effective for one year from the date of execution and shall automatically renew from year to year, until March 31, 2023, when King County’s Scooter Share Pilot Program is scheduled to end. This Agreement may be terminated earlier by either party providing sixty (60) days' written notice to the other party to terminate this Agreement, with or without cause, immediately after the sixty (60) days. This Agreement may be terminated by the County for lack of appropriation authority or lack of authority to continue the Scooter Share Pilot Program by providing thirty (30) days’ written notice to the City.

6. Complete Expression of Agreement. This Agreement represents the entire understanding of the Parties and supersedes any oral representations that are inconsistent with or modify its terms and conditions.

7. Mutual Covenants. The Parties understand and agree that the County is acting hereunder as an independent contractor and that:

a. Control of County personnel, standards of performance of this Agreement, discipline, and all other aspects of performance shall be governed entirely by the County;

b. All County persons rendering services hereunder shall be for all purposes employees of the County, although they may from time to time act as commissioned officers of the City;

c. The County contact person for the City regarding all issues that may arise under this Agreement, including but not limited to citizen complaints, service requests and general information on Shared Scooter Transportation Regulatory Services is the Director.

8. Dispute Resolution. In the event of a dispute between the Parties as to the extent of the service to be rendered hereunder, or the minimum level or manner of performance of such service, the determination of the Director shall be final and conclusive in all respects.

9. Indemnification and Hold Harmless.

a. City Held Harmless. The County shall indemnify and hold harmless the City and its officers, agents, and employees, or any of them from any and all claims, actions, suits, liability, loss, costs, expenses, and damages that arise out of or are related to the negligent acts or omissions of the County, its officers, agents, and employees, or any of them and in the performance of the County’s obligations pursuant to this Agreement. In the event that any such suit based upon such a claim, action, loss, or damage is brought against the City, the County shall defend the same at its sole cost and expense; provided that the City reserves the right to participate in said suit if any principle of governmental or public law is involved; and if final judgment in said suit be rendered against the City, and its

KING COUNTY AND ______- 3 of 5 INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT - SHARED SCOOTER REGULATORY SERVICES ME Meeting Materials Page 66 June 23, 2021 officers, agents, and employees, or any of them, or jointly against the City and the County and their respective officers, agents, and employees, or any of them, the County shall satisfy the same.

b. County Held Harmless. The City shall indemnify and hold harmless the County and its officers, agents, and employees, or any of them from any and all claims, action, suits, liability, loss, costs, expenses, and damages that arise out of or are related to the negligent acts or omissions of the City, its officers, agents, and employees, or any of them and in the performance of the City’s obligations pursuant to this Agreement. In the event that any suit based upon such a claim, action, loss, or damages is brought against the County, the City shall defend the same at its sole cost and expense; provided that the County reserves the right to participate in said suit if any principle of governmental or public law is involved; and if final judgment be rendered against the County, and its officers, agents, and employees, or any of them, or jointly against the County and the City and their respective officers, agents, and employees, or any of them, the City shall satisfy the same.

c. Concurrent Negligence. In the event any such liability arises from the concurrent negligence of the indemnifying party and the other party, the indemnity obligation of this section shall apply only to the extent of the negligence of the indemnifying part and its actors.

d. Liability Related to City Ordinances, Policies, Rules and Regulations. In executing this agreement, the County does not assume liability or responsibility for or in any way release the City from any liability or responsibility that arises in whole or in part as a result of the application of City ordinances, policies, rules or regulations that are either in place at the time this Agreement takes effect or differ from those of the County; or that arise in whole or in part based upon any failure of the City to comply with applicable adoption requirements or procedures. If any cause, claim, suit, action, or administrative proceeding is commenced in which the enforceability and/or validity of any such City ordinance, policy, rule or regulation is at issue, the City shall defend the same at its sole expense and, if judgment is entered or damages are awarded against the City, the County, or both, the City shall satisfy the same, including all chargeable costs and reasonable attorney's fees.

e. Waiver Under Washington Industrial Insurance Act. The foregoing indemnity is specifically intended to constitute a waiver of each Party’s immunity under Washington’s Industrial Insurance Act, Chapter 51 RCW, as respects the other party only, and only to the extent necessary to provide the indemnified party with a full and complete indemnity of claims made by the indemnitor’s employees. The parties acknowledge that these provisions were specifically negotiated and agreed upon by them.

10. No Third-Party Beneficiaries. This Agreement is for the sole benefit of the Parties only, and no third party shall have any rights hereunder.

11. Administration. This Agreement shall be administered by the Director or the Director’s designee, and the Mayor or the Mayor’s designee.

12. Amendments. This Agreement may be amended at any time by mutual written agreement of the Parties.

13. Records. This Agreement is a public document and will be available for inspection and copying by the public in accordance with the Public Records Act, chapter 42.56 RCW. The records and

KING COUNTY AND ______- 4 of 5 INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT - SHARED SCOOTER REGULATORY SERVICES ME Meeting Materials Page 67 June 23, 2021 documents with respect to all matters covered by this Agreement shall be subject to the Public Records Act and the Records Retention Act, chapter 40.14 RCW.

14. Survivability. Notwithstanding any provision ion this Agreement to the contrary, the provisions of Section 9 (Indemnification and Hold Harmless) shall remain operative and in full force and effect, regardless of the withdrawal or termination of this Agreement.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have executed this Agreement, which shall become effective on the last date entered below.

KING COUNTY CITY OF ______

______King County Executive Mayor

______Date Date

Attest:

______City Clerk Date

Approved as to Form: Approved as to Form:

______Deputy Prosecuting Attorney Date Assistant City Attorney Date

KING COUNTY AND ______- 5 of 5 INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT - SHARED SCOOTER REGULATORY SERVICES ME Meeting Materials Page 68 June 23, 2021 ATTACHMENT 2

June 23, 2021 1

Sponsor: McDermott [EN] Proposed No.: 2021-0204

1 AMENDMENT TO PROPOSED ORDINANCE 2021-0204, VERSION 1

2 Strike Attachment A, INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN King County and the

3 City of ______for Shared Scooter Regulatory Services, and insert Attachment A,

4 INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN King County and the City of ______

5 for Shared Scooter Regulatory Services, dated June 23, 2021.

6 EFFECT: The amendment to the Interlocal Agreement includes technical

7 corrections that include formatting and clarifies the language to improve

8 consistency throughout the document.

- 1 - ME Meeting Materials Page 69 June 23, 2021 Attachment A

INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN King County and the City of ______for Shared Scooter Regulatory Services

WHEREAS, the County and the City have authority to regulate the business of operating scooter share transportation services within their respective boundaries; and

WHEREAS, the business of operating shared scooters presents transportation opportunities and permitting issues of a multijurisdictional nature; and

WHEREAS, it is desirable to protect the interests of the County, the City and the public to pilot a program for a uniform system of permitting shared scooter transportation services; and

WHEREAS, the County and its employees are well-qualified and able in matters relating to the permitting and enforcement of laws relating to the conduct of shared scooter transportation services; and

WHEREAS, the County is ready, willing, and able to assist the City in matters relating to the licensing and enforcement of laws relating to shared scooter regulatory transportation services.

NOW THEREFORE, the County and City hereby agree:

1. Definitions. Unless the context clearly shows another usage is intended, the following terms shall have these meanings in this Agreement:

a. “Agreement” means this Interlocal Agreement.

b. “Director” means the director of the Records and Licensing Services Division of the King County Department of Executive Services or the director’s designee.

c. “Parties” means the City and the County.

d. “Shared Scooters” or “Scooters” means electric motorized foot scooters offered for hire as part of a fleet available to the public in publicly accessible places.

e. “Shared Scooter Transportation Regulatory Services” means the services described in Section 3 (County Responsibilities), as part of the County’s scooter share pilot program.

KING COUNTY AND ______- 1 of 5 INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT - SHARED SCOOTER REGULATORY SERVICES (June 23, 2021 revision date) ME Meeting Materials Page 70 June 23, 2021

2. City Responsibilities. The City shall:

a. Promptly enact an ordinance (hereinafter “the City Ordinance”) that adopts by reference King County Ordinance ______(hereinafter “the County Ordinance”) and any King County administrative rules (hereinafter “the Rules”) promulgated pursuant to the County Ordinance.

b. Promptly review any revisions to the County Ordinance and any amendments to the Rules after this Agreement is signed, and either adopt them by reference or promptly notify the Director of the City’s intention otherwise.

c. Delegate to the County the following:

i. The power to determine eligibility for limited-use permits (hereinafter “permits”) issued under the terms of the City Ordinance.

ii. The power to enforce the terms of the City Ordinance, including the power to deny, modify, temporarily suspend, or terminate any permits issued thereunder.

iii. The power to conduct administrative appeals of those County permitting determinations made and enforcement actions taken on behalf of the City. Such appeals shall be conducted on behalf of the City by the King County Hearing Examiner or the County’s successor administrative appeals body or officer unless either the City or the County determines and notifies the County that a particular matter shall be heard by the City.

iv. Nothing in this Agreement is intended to divest the City of authority to issue notices of violation and court citations for violations of city ordinances. The authority to issue notices of violations and court citations may be exercised by either the County or the City.

a. The County shall perform, consistent with available resources, all services relating to permitting and enforcement of the City Ordinance pertaining to Shared Scooters.

b. The County shall promptly advise the City of any revisions to the County Ordinance and of any amendments to the Rules after this Agreement is signed.

4. Compensation and Method of Payment.

KING COUNTY AND ______- 2 of 5 INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT - SHARED SCOOTER REGULATORY SERVICES (June 23, 2021 revision date) ME Meeting Materials Page 71 June 23, 2021

7. Mutual Covenants. The Parties understand and agree that the County is acting hereunder as an independent contractor and that:

a. Control of County personnel, standards of performance of this Agreement, discipline, and all other aspects of performance shall be governed entirely by the County.

b. All County persons rendering services hereunder shall be for all purposes employees of the County, although they may from time to time act as commissioned officers of the City.

d. The services provided by the County pursuant to this Agreement do not include legal services, which shall be provided by the City at City expense.

9. Indemnification and Hold Harmless.

KING COUNTY AND ______- 3 of 5 INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT - SHARED SCOOTER REGULATORY SERVICES (June 23, 2021 revision date) ME Meeting Materials Page 72 June 23, 2021 performance of the City’s obligations pursuant to this Agreement. In the event that any suit based upon such a claim, action, loss, or damages is brought against the County, the City shall defend the same at its sole cost and expense; provided that the County reserves the right to participate in said suit if any principle of governmental or public law is involved; and if final judgment be rendered against the County, and its officers, agents, and employees, or any of them, or jointly against the County and the City and their respective officers, agents, and employees, or any of them, the City shall satisfy the same.

c. Concurrent Negligence. In the event any such liability arises from the concurrent negligence of the indemnifying party and the other party; the indemnity obligation of this section shall apply only to the extent of the negligence of the indemnifying part and its actors.

10. No Third-Party Beneficiaries. This Agreement is for the sole benefit of the Parties only, and no third party shall have any rights hereunder.

11. Administration. This Agreement shall be administered by the Director or the Director’s designee, and the Mayor or the Mayor’s designee.

12. Amendments. This Agreement may be amended at any time by mutual written agreement of the Parties.

13. Records. This Agreement is a public document and will be available for inspection and copying by the public in accordance with the Public Records Act, chapter 42.56 RCW. The records and documents with respect to all matters covered by this Agreement shall be subject to the Public Records Act and the Records Retention Act, chapter 40.14 RCW.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have executed this Agreement, which shall become

KING COUNTY AND ______- 4 of 5 INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT - SHARED SCOOTER REGULATORY SERVICES (June 23, 2021 revision date) ME Meeting Materials Page 73 June 23, 2021 effective on the last date entered below.

KING COUNTY CITY OF ______

______King County Executive Mayor

______Date Date

Attest:

______City Clerk Date

Approved as to Form: Approved as to Form:

______Deputy Prosecuting Attorney Date Assistant City Attorney Date

KING COUNTY AND ______- 5 of 5 INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT - SHARED SCOOTER REGULATORY SERVICES (June 23, 2021 revision date) ME Meeting Materials Page 74 June 23, 2021 Metropolitan King County Council Mobility and Environment Committee

STAFF REPORT

Agenda Items: 7 & 8 Name: Mary Bourguignon 2021-0230 Proposed No.: Date: June 23, 2021 2021-0231

SUBJECT

Proposed Motion 2021-0230 would rescind and replace Motion 15646, which made 36 van allocations in 2020, to remove one organization that has indicated it will not be able to use its van due to the fiscal and operational impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic.1

Proposed Motion 2021-0231 would transfer 37 retired vanpool vans to nonprofit organizations and local governments. Agencies are designated by Councilmembers.

SUMMARY

Since 1995, the Council has worked with Metro to transfer retired vans from Metro’s vanpool program to nonprofit organizations and local governments that serve low- income, seniors or young people or people with disabilities.

For 2021, Metro has 36 retired vans available to be transferred, as well as one van remaining from 2020, which was not able to be used due to the impacts of the COVID- 19 pandemic and which will be re-allocated in 2021.

Proposed Motion 2021-0230 would reflect the change to the 2020 allocation by removing the name of the organization that cannot use its van. Proposed Motion 2021- 0231 would transfer 36 vans retired in 2021 and one remaining van from 2020 to organizations that have been designated by Councilmembers following an application and review process (the organization names will be added by amendment).

Because of the operational changes many organizations have made to ensure staff and client safety during the COVID-19 pandemic, the requirements for agencies applying to receive a van have been changed for the duration of the pandemic emergency. This temporary change allows applicants for a van to provide their plans to use the van either to transport low-income, seniors or young people or people with disabilities OR during the pandemic “to transport goods or supplies, including, but not limited to, food, clothing, school supplies or medical equipment, to serve the needs of low-income, seniors or young people or people with disabilities.”2

1 To make up for the removal of this van from the 2020 allocation, the 2021 motion will allocate 37 vans. 2 Ordinance 19241

ME Meeting Materials Page 75 June 23, 2021

BACKGROUND

King County Metro Vanpool Program. Metro operates a commuter vanpool program as an alternative mobility service for individuals who don’t have convenient bus service between home and work. Vanpools range in size from five to 15 riders. Each group has at least two volunteer drivers, plus a bookkeeper to track mileage, ridership, and fares. Fares are based on mileage, number of riders, and size of van.3 Vans are kept at a driver’s house and riders usually meet at a Park & Ride, with each group determining their own route, parking, and operating rules.

Metro sets fares for the program (which are often subsidized by employers) to recover 100 percent of the program’s direct costs and at least 25 percent of the indirect and administrative costs. Metro reports that actual 2019 direct operating costs for the program were $9.4 million and indirect operating costs were $0.9 million, with an average cost per ride of $3.07.4,5 Prior to the pandemic, Metro had been piloting a transition to lower-emission vans, including all-electric and plug-in hybrid vans.

Use of the vanpool program declined significantly during 2020, as many commuters worked from home in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Metro anticipates that, as businesses transition to hybrid work arrangements, there may be less demand for vanpools and employers may reduce the subsidies they provide to employees.6

In response to the pandemic and its impacts on ridership, Metro states that its focus for the program moving forward will be on maintaining existing vanpools, while working to understand the ongoing impacts of COVID-19, including potential reductions to fleet growth to align with service planning, revised standards for vehicle age and replacement, and a revised approach to non-fixed-route electrification.7 These changes could ultimately affect the number and type of retired vans available to be transferred.

Transfer of Retired Vanpool Vans. The transfer of Metro vanpool vans to serve those in need began with a proviso in the adopted 1995 County budget. That proviso required Metro to “provide without charge at least four vanpool vehicles… for use by non-profit agencies exclusively for the purpose of transportation of low income clients.”8

A description of the program, including requirements for the use of transferred vans, was incorporated into the King County Code in 2006.9

The program has grown over the years, following the growth of Metro’s vanpool program. For 2021, there are 36 vans available for transfer, four to be designated by

3 Overview of Metro Vanpool Program: https://kingcounty.gov/depts/transportation/metro/travel- options/rideshare/programs/vanpool.aspx 4 King County Metro 2021-2022 Business Plan, September 2020, p. 65. 5 For comparison, as noted in the Metro Connects Progress Report section of the 2020 System Evaluation Report, Attachment A to Motion 15802 (p. 19), average cost per boarding for Metro bus and DART service was $5.22 in 2019. 6 King County Metro 2021-2022 Business Plan, September 2020, p. 65. 7 King County Metro 2021-2022 Business Plan, September 2020, p. 65. 8 Ordinance 11578, Section 114 9 Ordinance 15546 as amended by Ordinance 18777, KCC 4.56.100.E

ME Meeting Materials Page 76 June 23, 2021 each Councilmember, as well as one van remaining from 2020, which will be re- allocated by the Councilmember who made the original, unused allocation in 2020. Each year, the Council allocates the vans by motion to non-profit organizations or local governments based on the following criteria:

• The capacity to support ongoing van operation, including assured funding for licensing, insuring, fueling, and maintaining the van; • Ability to provide qualified and trained drivers; • Specific plans for use of the van to transport low-income, seniors, young people or people with disabilities, and assurance that the use shall be available to those persons without regard to affiliation with any particular organization; and • Geographic distribution of the van allocations in order to address the mobility needs of low-income, seniors, or young people or people with disabilities countywide.10

2021 Van Transfer. For 2021, Metro has 36 vans available for transfer, as well as one van remaining from 2020. The 36 vans for initial allocation are 2013 seven-passenger Dodge Caravan minivans, and they became available in May 2021. Proposed Motion 2021-0231 will be amended to list the organizations to which the vans will be transferred. As part of the application process, organizations were required to demonstrate their ability to meet program requirements, as listed in the King County Code. In addition, organizations have agreed to pick up their van no later than October 1, 2021.

Because of the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic, one of the organizations that was allocated a van in 2020 was unable to use it. In response, Proposed Motion 2021-0230 would rescind and replace Motion 15646, which made the 2020 allocation, by removing the organization that cannot use its van from the list of organizations in the motion.

AMENDMENTS

Amendment 1 to Proposed Motion 2021-0231 would add the names of organizations to receive a van in 2021. Because one van from 2020 is available to be re-allocated, the amendment lists 37 organizations (the Councilmember who made the 2020 allocation that was not able to be used has made an additional allocation for 2021).

ATTACHMENTS

1. Proposed Motion 2021-0230 2. Proposed Motion 2021-0231 3. Amendment 1 to Proposed Motion 2021-0231

10 KCC 4.56.100.E

ME Meeting Materials Page 77 June 23, 2021 ATTACHMENT 1 KING COUNTY 1200 King County Courthouse 516 Third Avenue Signature Report Seattle, WA 98104

Motion

Proposed No. 2021-0230.1 Sponsors Dembowski

1 A MOTION related to the transfer of retired vanpool vans

2 to nonprofit organizations and local governments to meet

3 the needs of low-income, seniors or young people or people

4 with disabilities; and rescinding Motion 15646.

5 WHEREAS, King County provides transit services to its residents to increase

6 mobility options and reduce traffic congestion and related environmental degradation,

7 and

8 WHEREAS, the provision of passenger vans to nonprofit organizations and local

9 governments serving individuals with limited resources and mobility options can support

10 those goals and provide significant public benefits, and

11 WHEREAS, high-quality passenger vans retaining value and utility are

12 periodically retired from the county's vanpool program, and

13 WHEREAS, the metropolitan King County council has previously transferred

14 retired vans to agencies serving low-income, seniors, disabled and young people, and

15 WHEREAS, K.C.C. 4.56.100 states that each year, "the Metro transit department

16 shall make available retired passenger vans for exclusive use by nonprofit organizations

17 or local governments that are able to address the mobility needs of low-income, seniors

18 or young people or people with disabilities," and

19 WHEREAS, in 2020, the King County council passed Motion 15646, which

ME Meeting Materials Page 78 June 23, 2021 Motion

20 allocated thirty-six retired passenger vans to nonprofit organizations and local

21 governments to meet the needs of low-income, senior, disabled and young county

22 residents, and

23 WHEREAS, because of the financial and operational impacts of the coronavirus

24 disease 2019 pandemic, one of the organizations named in Motion 15646 has indicated

25 that it will not be able to accept delivery of the van it was allocated, and

26 WHEREAS, the King County council wishes to rescind Motion 15646 so that the

27 unused van from the 2020 allocation can be reallocated at a later date to a different

28 organization;

29 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT MOVED by the Council of King County:

30 A. Motion 15646 is hereby rescinded.

31 B. The transfer of a retired vanpool passenger van to each of the following

32 agencies in 2020 is hereby approved:

33 Adult and Teen Challenge Seattle Campus;

34 African Community Housing & Development (2 vans);

35 Africatown Community Land Trust;

36 Africatown International;

37 American Polynesian Organization;

38 ARC of King County;

39 Ballard Troop and Crew 100 Youth Charitable Association;

40 Bridge of Promise;

41 City of Issaquah Parks & Recreation;

42 Colectiva Legal/Washington Immigrant Solidarity Network;

ME Meeting Materials Page 79 June 23, 2021 Motion

43 Decatur High School Functional Core;

44 Falis Community Service;

45 FOB Hope;

46 Friends of Youth;

47 FUSION;

48 Hope Lutheran Church;

49 Institute for Community Leadership;

50 Issaquah Highlands Council;

51 King County Law Enforcement Explorers;

52 LifeWire;

53 Millionair Club Charity (MCC);

54 Navos;

55 Northwest School for the Deaf and Hard of Hearing;

56 Sail Sand Point;

57 Seattle Housing Authority/New Holly;

58 Southwest Youth and Family Services (SWYFS);

59 Tahoma School District Student Transition Program;

60 The Auburn Food Bank;

61 The People's Harm Reduction Alliance;

62 Unkitawa;

63 Valley Cities Behavioral Health;

ME Meeting Materials Page 80 June 23, 2021 Motion

64 Vision House; and

65 YouthCare (2 vans).

KING COUNTY COUNCIL KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON

______

Claudia Balducci, Chair ATTEST:

______

Melani Pedroza, Clerk of the Council

APPROVED this _____ day of ______, ______.

______

Dow Constantine, County Executive

Attachments: None

ME Meeting Materials Page 81 June 23, 2021 ATTACHMENT 2 KING COUNTY 1200 King County Courthouse 516 Third Avenue Signature Report Seattle, WA 98104

Motion

Proposed No. 2021-0231.1 Sponsors Dembowski

1 A MOTION related to the transfer of retired vanpool vans

2 to nonprofit organizations and local governments to meet

3 the needs of low-income, seniors or young people or people

4 with disabilities.

5 WHEREAS, King County provides transit services to its residents to increase

6 mobility options and reduce traffic congestion and related environmental degradation,

7 and

8 WHEREAS, the provision of passenger vans to nonprofit organizations and local

9 governments serving individuals with limited resources and mobility options can support

10 those goals and provide significant public benefits, and

11 WHEREAS, high-quality passenger vans retaining value and utility are

12 periodically retired from the county's vanpool program, and

13 WHEREAS, the metropolitan King County council has previously transferred

14 retired vans to agencies serving low-income, seniors, disabled and young people, and

15 WHEREAS, K.C.C. 4.56.100 states that each year, "the Metro transit department

16 shall make available retired passenger vans for exclusive use by nonprofit organizations

17 or local governments that are able to address the mobility needs of low-income, seniors

18 or young people or people with disabilities," and

19 WHEREAS, in recognition of the operational, health and safety changes

ME Meeting Materials Page 82 June 23, 2021 Motion

20 organizations have made in response to the coronavirus disease 2019 emergency,

21 Ordinance 19241 provides that, "for the duration of the public emergency declared by the

22 executive in response to the coronavirus disease 2019, the specific plans may also include

23 use of the van to transport goods or supplies, including, but not limited to, food, clothing,

24 school supplies or medical equipment, to serve the needs of low-income, seniors or

25 young people or people with disabilities";

26 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT MOVED by the Council of King County:

ME Meeting Materials Page 83 June 23, 2021 Motion

27 The transfer of a retired vanpool passenger van to each of the following agencies

28 is hereby approved:

KING COUNTY COUNCIL KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON

______

Claudia Balducci, Chair ATTEST:

______

Melani Pedroza, Clerk of the Council

APPROVED this _____ day of ______, ______.

______

Dow Constantine, County Executive

Attachments: None

ME Meeting Materials Page 84 June 23, 2021 ATTACHMENT 3

June 23, 2021 1

Sponsor: Dembowski mb Proposed No.: 2021-0231

1 AMENDMENT TO PROPOSED MOTION 2021-0231, VERSION 1

2 On page 2, after line 30, insert:

3 "AmPowering;

4 Billie Pearl;

5 Boys & Girls Clubs of King County's Federal Way Boys & Girls Club;

6 Cham Refugees Community;

7 City of Auburn Senior Center;

8 City of Pacific Senior Center;

9 Comunidad Latina de Vashon;

10 Communities in Schools;

11 Community Homes;

12 Community Leaders Roundtable of Seattle;

13 Congolese Integration Network;

14 Cultures United FC;

15 Duwamish Tribal Services;

16 Duwamish Valley Youth Corps;

17 East African Community Services;

18 ECM Ministries;

- 1 - ME Meeting Materials Page 85 June 23, 2021 ATTACHMENT 3

19 El Centro de la Raza;

20 Ethiopian Community in Seattle;

21 Evergreen Treatment Services;

22 Global Social Business Partners;

23 LifeWire;

24 Low Income Housing Institute;

25 Mamma's Hands;

26 Northshore Senior Center;

27 Northwest School for the Deaf and Hard of Hearing;

28 Outdoors for All Foundation;

29 Providence Heights;

30 REACH;

31 Recovery Beyond;

32 Restoration Housing Ministries Northwest;

33 Safe Futures Youth Center;

34 Seattle Housing and Resource Effort;

35 Shoreline - Lake Forest Park Senior Center;

36 Snoqualmie Valley Shelter Services;

37 Tahoma School District;

38 The Arc of King County; and

39 Seattle's Union Gospel Mission."

- 2 - ME Meeting Materials Page 86 June 23, 2021 ATTACHMENT 3

40 EFFECT prepared by Mary Bourguignon: The amendment would add the names of

41 nonprofit organizations and local governments to receive retired vanpool vans to

42 meet the needs of low-income, seniors or young people or people with disabilities.

- 3 - ME Meeting Materials Page 87 June 23, 2021

Metropolitan King County Council Mobility and Environment Committee

STAFF REPORT

Agenda Item: 9 Name: Leah Krekel-Zoppi Proposed No.: 2021-0211 Date: June 23, 2021

SUBJECT

An ordinance establishing the alignment and station locations for Metro Transit’s RapidRide J Line serving the Seattle neighborhoods of South Lake Union, Eastlake, and the University District.

SUMMARY

The proposed RapidRide J Line serving South Lake Union, Eastlake, and the University District in Seattle was identified as a high capacity transit corridor in the Seattle Transportation Master Plan in 2012, and as part of an extended RapidRide network in the METRO CONNECTS Long-Range Plan in 2017.

Proposed Ordinance 2021-0211 would establish the alignment and station locations for the J Line, allowing design and construction to move forward for service to begin in 2026. The proposed ordinance would also authorize Metro to enter into a commitment of minimum service levels on the J Line for up to five years, which is also a condition of receiving federal funding.

The proposed alignment for the J Line largely follows the routing for the current Route 70, with a few modifications to improve speed and reliability. Stops along the route would be consolidated from an average spacing of a quarter mile to an average spacing of a third of a mile.

Capital funding for the project would come primarily from the City of Seattle and a Federal Transit Administration Small Starts Grant, for which the City will be applying and which requires the Council to authorize entering into a service commitment for J Line service. The shortfall in Metro’s budget caused by the COVID-19 pandemic has limited Metro’s ability to contribute to the capital improvements needed to implement the J Line and has required the line to be shortened to end at the U District rather than the Roosevelt Link light rail station. However, Metro’s budget does anticipate covering full operations of the J Line beginning in 2026.

ME Meeting Materials Page 88 June 23, 2021

BACKGROUND

RapidRide Implementation 2006 - Present

The first RapidRide lines were proposed as part of the successful 2006 King County Transit Now ballot measure, which added 0.1 percent to the King County Metro dedicated sales tax. Transit Now included a commitment to implement the first RapidRide lines (Lines A-E).1

The RapidRide alignments were established by ordinance, and each line’s bus service start date and frequency were defined by a service change ordinance. At the Council’s direction, the RapidRide F Line was added. Table 1 summarizes these changes.

Table 1. RapidRide Lines A-F Alignment and Service Change Ordinances

Line Alignment Ordinance Service Change Ordinance Service Start A 16725 (12/14/2009) 16844 (5/24/2010) October 2010 B 16725 (12/14/2009) 17100 (5/31/2011) October 2011 C 16725 (12/14/2009) 17320 (5/7/2012) September 2012 D 16725 (12/14/2009) 17320 (5/7/2012) September 2012 E 17391 (7/30/2012) 17584 (5/13/2013) February 2014 F 17391 (7/30/2012) 17584 (5/13/2013) June 2014 Note: Ordinance 18132, adopted 10-19-2015, revised the C and D Line alignments; the City of Seattle picked up the costs of the added service hours.

RapidRide features include greater distance between stops, on-board WIFI, larger and well-lit branded shelters, real time bus arrival signs, One Regional Card for All (ORCA) readers that let card holders pay at some bus stops and board through any of the distinctive red buses’ three doors, a variety of “intelligent transportation systems” (ITS) to improve bus speed and reliability, and some dedicated transit travel lanes.

Metro states that rider satisfaction surveys indicate that RapidRide is recognized by riders as a higher quality service, and that ridership growth has outpaced regular Metro service. As of 2018, combined ridership on the six active RapidRide lines had grown 75 percent relative to the pre-RapidRide ridership.

RapidRide Expansion and METRO CONNECTS

In 2015-2016, King County Metro worked with cities and other transportation agencies to develop the METRO CONNECTS Long Range Plan service network2. To implement the vision of an extensive, frequent service network, Metro included additional RapidRide lines in various parts of the county, proposing 13 new RapidRide Lines by 2025, with a total of 26 by 2040. Seven of the lines would be Move Seattle RapidRide

1 Ordinances 15582, 15670 2 Ordinance 18449 and http://metro.kingcounty.gov/planning/long-range-plan/

ME Meeting Materials Page 89 June 23, 2021 Lines that were included in the 2015 Move Seattle ballot measure approved by Seattle voters for development in partnership with Metro. Appendix G to the METRO CONNECTS Long Range Plan explains the process for evaluating potential new RapidRide lines. Current and future productivity, social equity, and geographic value measures are used to identify candidate corridors.

Since adoption of Metro Connects, Metro has revised the timeline for implementing new RapidRide lines due a slower than anticipated process securing federal grants and budget shortfalls resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic. The 2021-2021 Biennial Budget3 shows plans for implementing three new RapidRide lines by 2025. Table 2 lists the proposed new RapidRide lines and target implementation dates as provided by Metro at the time of the 2021-2022 budget adoption. The Move Seattle RapidRide lines are in italics.

Table 2. RapidRide Implementation Schedule, 2021-2026

Assigned Target To / via / from Letter opening Madison: G Madison Valley/E Madison St/ Seattle Central 2023 Business District (CBD) Delridge: 2021 H Burien TC/ Westwood Village/ Seattle CBD I Renton/ Kent/ Auburn 2023 Rainier: Deferred R Seattle CBD/ Mt. Baker/ Rainier Beach Roosevelt: 2026 J Seattle CBD/ Eastlake/ Roosevelt K Totem Lake/ Bellevue/ Eastgate Deferred

Though building on the foundation of the current RapidRide Lines A-F, future RapidRide Lines are expected to require larger capital investments to feature more Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) characteristics, as described in the METRO CONNECTS plan:

“METRO CONNECTS envisions RapidRide service with much more investment in speed and reliability improvements to achieve more robust BRT. We would target operating 50 percent of RapidRide service in transit-only lanes, and would make additional improvements to reduce delays caused by major bottlenecks, traffic signals, boarding, and other sources.”4

3 Ordinance 19210 4 METRO CONNECTS Long Range Plan, page 22

ME Meeting Materials Page 90 June 23, 2021 RapidRide J Line Implementation

Figure 1 shows the typical process and timeline for implementing a RapidRide line, which includes identifying capital funding through a budget ordinance, establishing the alignment, and adopting a service plan for the route.

Figure 1. Typical RapidRide Ordinance Timeline

In 2012, the Seattle Transportation Master Plan5 identified what is now known as the J Line corridor as a high capacity transit corridor that should be prioritized by the Seattle Department of Transportation for capital investments in speed and reliability. The corridor was included in the Levy to Move Seattle6 approved by Seattle voters in 2015 to receive multimodal improvements. After a public engagement process conducted by the City of Seattle, the Seattle City Council adopted a locally preferred alternative for the J Line in July 2017.7

King County's 2019-2020 budget8 included a $27.7 million King County investment in capital improvements for the J Line between 2019 and 2024, when the line was originally scheduled to begin service. That capital investment was canceled in King County's 2021-2022 biennial budget9 due to the budget shortfall resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic. Currently, Metro's direct capital contribution to the project would be limited to $222,000 appropriated in 2019-2022 which has already been spent, and an

5 http://www.seattle.gov/transportation/document-library/citywide-plans/modal-plans/transit-master-plan 6 https://www.seattle.gov/transportation/about-us/funding/levy-to-move-seattle 7 Seattle Resolution 31761 8 Ordinance 18835 9 Ordinance 19210

ME Meeting Materials Page 91 June 23, 2021 additional $2.5 million in staff time. The primary funding for the project will be $40 million from Seattle's Move Seattle Levy, approximately $8 million in Puget Sound Regional Council grants, and an anticipated $45,000,000 from a Federal Transit Administration (FTA) Small Starts Grant the City of Seattle is seeking.

Seattle will lead construction of the capital improvements for the J Line, while King County would own, operate, and maintain the J Line capital and service.

ANALYSIS

Proposed RapidRide J Line Alignment

Proposed Ordinance 2021-0211 would establish the alignment and station locations for the J Line. Approval of the alignment and station locations would allow Seattle to complete design of the capital elements of RapidRide and move forward with construction. The service for RapidRide J Line would be established by the Council through a service change ordinance in 2025.

As proposed, the J Line would replace Metro’s Route 70, which connects the University District to Downtown Seattle via Eastlake and South Lake Union. Metro Connects envisioned the Roosevelt RapidRide line terminating at Northgate. That terminus was considered during the outreach process for what was then called the Roosevelt RapidRide, but Seattle's Locally Preferred Alternative selected an alignment terminating in Roosevelt. However, due to the cancellation of King County's capital contributions to the project, Seattle is opting to move forward with an alignment that terminates in the University District, in what the FTA defines as a "minimum operable segment" of the locally preferred alternative.

The proposed J Line alignment, shown in Figure 2, would mostly adhere to the current Route 70 path. That path, northbound, starts at the south end of Downtown Seattle, traveling along Third Avenue, Virginia Street, Fairview Avenue, Eastlake Avenue, and terminating at NE 43rd Street and 12th Avenue NE near the University Link light rail station.

The proposed deviations from the current Route 70 path are that the alignment would run from Fairview Avenue E directly to Eastlake Avenue E, rather than turning onto Aloha Street. In the University District, the J Line alignment would travel along the couplets of Roosevelt Way and 11th Avenue, and 43rd Street, rather than NE Campus Parkway and 15th Avenue NE. The change in the University District routing is projected to save approximately two to four minutes of travel time.

The J Line is proposed to have 31 stations (17 southbound and 14 northbound) located an average of one‐third of a mile apart. Currently Route 70 has 42 bus stops spaced an average of one quarter of a mile apart. Attachment 4 to this staff report provides a comparison of the J Line and Route 70 alignment and bus stop and station locations.

The proposed alignment would provide connections to Link light rail, Sounder commuter rail, the South Lake Union and First Hill Streetcars, the Monorail, Amtrak service, and other RapidRide lines, regional and local bus service.

ME Meeting Materials Page 92 June 23, 2021

Figure 2: Proposed RapidRide J Line Alignment and Stations

Public Engagement

The J Line corridor serves the dense, rapidly growing urban center of South Lake Union, connecting it to Downtown Seattle, Eastlake, and the University District. According to Seattle's 2017 Roosevelt RapidRide Project Locally Preferred Alternative

ME Meeting Materials Page 93 June 23, 2021 Report,10 the corridor was projected to grow by over 16,000 residents and 84,000 employees by 2035.

The City of Seattle identified the J Line corridor as a priority for high-capacity transit in the 2012 Seattle Transit Master Plan, and began public engagement for the corridor in November 2014 and has continued work on the corridor in several phases: • November 2014 – June 2015: Locally preferred alternative engagement • June 2015 – March 2016: Design of bus rapid transit and multi-modal components • May – July 2016: Review of draft recommended corridor concept • December 2017 – present: Environmental assessment and University District option outreach

Seattle’s outreach efforts have included the following: • Stakeholder interviews • Open houses, including an online open house • Forum group • A business access survey • Mailers to residents and businesses in the corridor • A project website that accepted online comments • Design workshops • Community meetings • Door-to-door outreach to businesses on or near the corridor

According to Seattle's public engagement report, which was transmitted along with Proposed Ordinance 2021-0211, issues raised by stakeholders during the public engagement process included: • Traffic congestion • Overcrowded buses • Transit frequency, reliability, and stop location • Trade-offs between on-street parking and improved transit and bicycle facilities • Transit lanes • Stop optimization and locations

According to Seattle, staff led the J Line outreach in a manner consistent with the Seattle Race and Social Justice Initiative.11 Seattle staff conducted a Racial Equity Toolkit for the project, laying out strategies and considerations to address the impacts of the project on racial equity.

The City of Seattle provided a letter of support for the J Line alignment, available as Attachment 5 to this staff report.

10 http://www.seattle.gov/documents/Departments/SDOT/TransitProgram/RapidRide/Roosevelt/RooseveltLP A_Report_062117.pdf 11 https://www.seattle.gov/rsji

ME Meeting Materials Page 94 June 23, 2021 Consistency with METRO CONNECTS and Travel Time Improvements

METRO CONNECTS identified an enhanced RapidRide network to be built out by 2040. The RapidRide J Line is consistent with a portion of line 1013 included in the METRO CONNECTS enhanced RapidRide network12.

METRO CONNECTS envisions RapidRide service operating 50 percent in transit-only lanes, with additional improvements to reduce delays. The proposed J Line design would add 2.3 miles of new dedicated transit lanes and Business Access and Transit (BAT) lanes to the five-mile alignment. The transit lanes would be added along Virginia Street in Belltown and Fairview Ave N in South Lake Union. The J Line would also use existing BAT lanes on Stewart Street. Additionally, the J Line project would improve 24 intersections with transit signal priority or adaptive signals and add five bus queue jumps along the route. With these speed and reliability enhancements, the proposed J Line alignment is consistent with the METRO CONNECTS vision for RapidRide design.

The proposed J Line would have an average travel time reduction of 32 percent compared to the Route 70 today, which equates to an approximate improvement of 16 minutes along the entire route.

Ridership and Operating Costs

With the University District terminus, Metro projects 14,300 daily riders on the J Line by 2040, an increase of 177-198 percent over the existing Route 70.

The service plan for the J Line is to increase the frequency and span of transit service compared to the baseline Route 70 service, with the J Line expected to be proposed to run 24 hours a day. Table 3 compares the baseline frequency of Route 70 with the investment desired for the J Line. The service increase is projected to require an additional 10,000 annual service hours when the J Line begins service in 2026.

Table 3. Route 70 and RapidRide J Line Comparison

Weekdays Weekends Night Owl Peak Midday Evening 15-60 min Route 70 10 min 10-15 min 15-20 min 15-20 min Until 3:30 AM 15-60 min J LINE 7.5 min 10 min 10 min 10-15 min Overnight

Federal Grant Requirements

As a requirement for the receipt of an FTA Small Starts grant, which is expected to provide $45 million of the project’s estimated $95 million capital cost, Metro would need to enter into an agreement with the FTA committing to operate service on the J Line at a specified level for a period of five years.

12 METRO CONNECTS Long Range Plan, page 22

ME Meeting Materials Page 95 June 23, 2021

To meet the FTA Small Starts grant application deadline, the Executive would need authority to enter into a project agreement for the J Line by September 2021.

A policy consideration for entering into a service commitment for the J Line (and other RapidRide lines) is how such a service commitment would comply with the policies established in Metro’s Service Guidelines for prioritizing service investments. The Service Guidelines recognize that service investments expand and contract according to the availability of resources, but a service commitment implies a static investment in J Line service levels regardless of the availability of resources.

According to Metro, FTA project agreements typically include language allowing FTA to grant a waiver to all or a portion of the service requirement at FTA’s discretion. Metro states that if the agency were in a scenario of needing to cut service and the process of using the Service Guidelines identified a need to cut RapidRide service, Metro would enter into discussions with the FTA about seeking a waiver to comply with the Service Guidelines. If the waiver were not granted, Metro would not be able to reduce service on the J Line during the term of the service commitment.

Route 70 performs in the top 25 percent of all Metro routes, according to Metro's 2020 System Evaluation Report,13 and therefore would be unlikely to be proposed for service reductions under current Service Guidelines.

Future RapidRide lines that receive FTA Small Start grants would also have service commitments, as do the G Line and I Line, which have already been approved by the Council. RapidRide Lines A-F received federal capital grants under different FTA rules and did not have comparable service commitments. Seattle and Metro did not apply for a Small Starts grant for the H Line.

INVITED

• Jerry Roberson, Project Lead for J Line, Metro Transit Department • Garth Merrill, Project Manager, Capital Projects, Seattle Department of Transportation • Darrell Bulmer, Communications Lead, Seattle Department of Transportation • Maria Koengeter, Transit Corridors Manager, Transit & Mobility, Seattle, Department of Transportation

ATTACHMENTS

1. Proposed Ordinance 2021-0211 (and its attachments) 2. Transmittal Letter 3. Fiscal Note 4. Comparison of J Line and Route 70 Alignment and Bus Stop and Station Locations 5. SDOT Letter of Support

13 Motion 15802

ME Meeting Materials Page 96 June 23, 2021 ATTACHMENT 1 KING COUNTY 1200 King County Courthouse 516 Third Avenue Signature Report Seattle, WA 98104

Ordinance

Proposed No. 2021-0211.1 Sponsors Dembowski and Zahilay

1 AN ORDINANCE establishing the alignment and station

2 locations of, and meeting federal assistance conditions for,

3 RapidRide J Line.

4 STATEMENT OF FACTS:

5 1. Via Ordinance 18449, enacted February 1, 2017, the King County

6 council adopted and executive signed King County Metro's long-range

7 transit service and capital plan, METRO CONNECTS, which identifies an

8 expanded network of future RapidRide lines for implementation, including

9 RapidRide J Line, connecting Downtown Seattle with the neighborhoods

10 of Belltown, South Lake Union, Eastlake, University District and

11 Roosevelt.

12 2. Via Ordinance 18301, enacted June 16, 2016, the council approved the

13 2015 update to Metro's Strategic Plan for Public Transportation 2011-2021

14 and associated Service Guidelines. The plan describes current and future

15 planning work required to implement additional RapidRide bus rapid

16 transit service in King County.

17 3. Via Ordinance 18409, enacted November 17, 2016, the council adopted

18 and the executive signed the 2017-2018 Biennial Budget, which included

19 Section 132, Provisos P4 and P5, requiring the executive to submit reports

ME Meeting Materials Page 97 June 23, 2021 Ordinance

20 describing the process for implementing new RapidRide lines.

21 4. Via Motion 14956, passed September 18, 2017, the council approved a

22 report on the implementation of new RapidRide lines as required by

23 Ordinance 18409, Section 132, Proviso P5, titled Implementation of New

24 RapidRide Lines/METRO CONNECTS RapidRide Expansion, which

25 identifies RapidRide J Line as one of the next generation RapidRide lines

26 to be implemented, expanding service for the corridor over that of current

27 local Route 70 which J Line would replace.

28 5. Via the 2019-2020 Biennial Budget Ordinance, Ordinance 18835,

29 enacted November 14, 2018, the council adopted and the executive signed

30 the 2019-2020 Biennial Budget, including capital project 1132327 to

31 implement RapidRide J Line, named TDC Roosevelt RR.

32 6. As documented in the RapidRide J Line Alignment Public Engagement

33 Summary, starting in 2014, the Metro transit department and the Seattle

34 Department of Transportation ("SDOT") conducted public engagement

35 concerning the proposed alignment and station locations for RapidRide J

36 Line in the neighborhoods in which it will operate, including Downtown

37 Seattle, Belltown, South Lake Union, Eastlake, University District and

38 Roosevelt. In coordination with the Metro transit department, SDOT as

39 the lead agency conducted several rounds of public engagement regarding

40 station locations and proposed right of way improvements, street and

41 facility design and proposed transit priority treatments, consistent with bus

42 rapid transit concepts.

ME Meeting Materials Page 98 June 23, 2021 Ordinance

43 7. As approved in the 2021-2022 Biennial Budget Ordinance, Ordinance

44 19210, the Metro transit department has canceled all of its capital

45 contribution to the RapidRide J Line project, except for approximately

46 $2.5 million in Metro transit department staff time charged to the

47 RapidRide Program Management project, resulting in the city of Seattle's

48 ability to fund a Minimum Operable Segment of the capital project only as

49 far north as University District. That action removed the Roosevelt

50 neighborhood from project scope yet retained the Metro transit

51 department's plan to fund start of operations in 2026, once construction is

52 completed.

53 8. Project partner, the city of Seattle, is pursuing substantial funding for

54 RapidRide J Line through a Federal Transit Administration Small Starts

55 grant. The grant is governed by the New Starts Congressional Handbook,

56 June 2009, which defines Minimum Operable Segment (“MOS”) as, "The

57 purpose of selecting the MOS is to identify a segment of a Locally

58 Preferred Alternative that provides the most cost-effective solution with

59 the greatest benefits for the project. The MOS must be able to function as

60 a stand-alone project and not be dependent on any future segments being

61 constructed."

62 9. The report required by Ordinance 18409, Section 132, Proviso P5,

63 states that specific routing shall be determined by the council and be

64 consistent with the corridor descriptions in the report.

65 10. RapidRide J Line will compete to receive grant funding from the

ME Meeting Materials Page 99 June 23, 2021 Ordinance

66 Federal Transit Administration's Small Starts grant program, with the goal

67 of entering into a Small Starts grant agreement.

68 11. The Federal Transit Administration requires that Small Starts grant-

69 funded projects operate transit service at the level specified in the grant

70 agreement for a defined period of performance. The period of

71 performance for those service level commitments is at the discretion of the

72 Federal Transit Administration and is a prescribed condition of receiving

73 federal financial assistance.

74 BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF KING COUNTY:

75 SECTION 1. The RapidRide J Line alignment, including general station

76 locations, substantially as set forth in Attachment A to this ordinance, and including U

77 District Link light rail station as the north terminus, is hereby approved in order to allow

78 design and construction of RapidRide infrastructure and facilities design and construction

79 to proceed.

80 SECTION 2. Before the implementation of RapidRide J Line service, the

81 executive shall notify the King County council and the city of Seattle of any substantial

82 changes to station locations. The notice to the council shall be filed in the form of a

83 paper original and an electronic copy with the clerk of the council, who shall retain the

84 original and provide an electronic copy to all councilmembers. Following the

85 implementation of RapidRide J Line service, the Metro transit department shall consult

86 with the city of Seattle before making any changes to the routing or station locations.

87 SECTION 3. Before the start of RapidRide J Line service, the executive shall

88 transmit to the council a service change ordinance in accordance with K.C.C. 28.94.020

ME Meeting Materials Page 100 June 23, 2021 Ordinance

89 that identifies hours of operation and service levels by period of the day.

90 SECTION 4. For the purpose of securing federal financial assistance for the

91 development and implementation of RapidRide J Line capital projects, the executive or

92 designee is authorized to enter into a RapidRide J Line project agreement that includes

93 defined service level commitments as a prescribed condition of receiving federal moneys,

94 but only if the following conditions are met:

95 A. The contractual service commitment does not exceed the period of

96 performance specified in the federal grant agreement; and

ME Meeting Materials Page 101 June 23, 2021 Ordinance

97 B. The contractual service commitment does not exceed five years from the

98 opening of revenue service.

KING COUNTY COUNCIL KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON

______

Claudia Balducci, Chair ATTEST:

______

Melani Pedroza, Clerk of the Council

APPROVED this _____ day of ______, ______.

______

Dow Constantine, County Executive

Attachments: A. RapidRide J Line Station Locations

ME Meeting Materials Page 102 June 23, 2021 Attachment A: RapidRide J Line Station Locations

RapidRide J Line RapidRide J Line will provide fast, frequent, reliable, and safe public transportation between Downtown Seattle and the Belltown, South Lake Union, Eastlake, and University District neighborhoods.

Station Locations

Inbound / Southbound Beginning in the U District neighborhood, stations will be located at the following intersections in the inbound/southbound direction. There will be a total of 17 inbound/southbound stations, as follows:

• NE 45th St & University Way NE

• NE 43rd St & Brooklyn Ave NE

• Roosevelt Way NE & NE 42nd St

• Roosevelt Way NE & NE 41st St

• Eastlake Ave E & Harvard Ave E

• Eastlake Ave E & E Hamlin St

• Eastlake Ave E & E Lynn St

• Eastlake Ave E & E Garfield St

• Fairview Ave N & Yale Ave N

• Fairview Ave N & Harrison St

• Boren Ave & Virginia St

• Stewart St & 7th Ave

• 3rd Ave & Pine St

• 3rd Ave & Union St

• 3rd Ave & Marion St

• 3rd Ave & James St

• 3rd Ave S & S Main St

ME Meeting Materials Page 103 June 23, 2021

Outbound / Northbound Beginning in Downtown Seattle, stations will be located at the following intersections in the outbound/northbound direction. There will be a total of 14 outbound/northbound stations, as follows:

• Prefontaine Pl S & Yesler Way

• 3rd Ave & Columbia St

• 3rd Ave & Seneca St

• 3rd Ave & Pike St

• Virginia St & 6th Ave

• Virginia St & 9th Ave

• Fairview Ave N & Harrison St

• Fairview Ave N & Yale Ave N

• Eastlake Ave E & E Garfield St

• Eastlake Ave E & E Lynn St

• Eastlake Ave E & E Hamlin St

• Eastlake Ave E & Harvard Ave E

• Eastlake Ave NE & NE 41st St

• NE 43rd St & 12th Ave NE

ME Meeting Materials Page 104 June 23, 2021

ME Meeting Materials Page 105 June 23, 2021 ATTACHMENT 2

May 24, 2021

The Honorable Claudia Balducci Chair, King County Council Room 1200 C O U R T H O U S E

Dear Councilmember Balducci:

This letter transmits a proposed ordinance that, if enacted, would establish the recommended alignment and station locations for the King County Metro Transit (Metro) RapidRide J Line. RapidRide J Line will deliver critical north-south transit connecting Downtown Seattle with the neighborhoods of Belltown, South Lake Union, Eastlake, and the University District and represents a significant partnership between Metro and the City of Seattle.

RapidRide J Line will serve major regional growth centers, including the Seattle Central Business District, South Lake Union, and the University District as well as other dense residential neighborhoods. It will connect many other transit services, including Link light rail and frequent Metro service in Downtown Seattle and the University District; RapidRide service on 3rd Avenue; the Seattle Streetcar system; and other local and regional transit services. This project will also improve pedestrian and bicycle connections and access to RapidRide stations, and it will improve safety for both nonmotorized and motorized travelers along the corridor. Metro plans to begin RapidRide J Line service in 2026.

The RapidRide J, G, and H Lines are the first three RapidRide lines developed as a partnership between Metro’s RapidRide Expansion Program and the City of Seattle’s Move Seattle transportation levy. The RapidRide J Line corridor was identified and prioritized in the City of Seattle’s Transit Master Plan and in Metro’s long-range plan, METRO CONNECTS. Both of these planning efforts evaluated and prioritized RapidRide J Line based on several factors, including potential ridership, social equity measures, and network connectivity.

The City of Seattle is providing $40,000,000 in funding through the Move Seattle levy and other local funds, has been awarded $8,030,400 in Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC)

ME Meeting Materials Page 106 June 23, 2021 The Honorable Claudia Balducci May 24, 2021 Page 2

grants, and is seeking a Federal Transit Administration (FTA) Small Starts Grant for $45,000,000. The Seattle City Council approved the Locally Preferred Alternative (LPA) in July 2017.

Due to revenue shortfalls, Metro is no longer able to significantly contribute to capital funding for the J Line partnership project, resulting in the City of Seattle’s ability to fund a minimum operable segment of the capital project as far north as the University District, removing the previously-planned Roosevelt neighborhood alignment from the project scope. Metro will fund full operations of the RapidRide J Line once construction is complete, and Metro continues to be an active partner in support of all project planning and design efforts being led by the City.

Launching RapidRide J Line furthers the King County Strategic Plan objective to preserve and optimize the mobility system as well as the objective to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. It furthers the sustainability goals outlined in the Strategic Climate Action Plan because it will improve the ability of people throughout King County to travel without single- occupant vehicles. The RapidRide J Line is consistent with King County’s adopted values for the transit system which are to emphasize productivity, ensure social equity, and provide geographic value. The RapidRide program is guided by the Strategic Plan for Public Transportation 2011-2021 and associated adopted King County Metro Service Guidelines. Higher frequency, faster, and more reliable service on RapidRide J Line will provide equitable transportation access to major institutions, employers, and neighborhoods, in alignment with King County’s Equity and Social Justice Strategic Plan.

The alignment recommendations described in the attachment to this ordinance (RapidRide J Line Station Locations) are the product of collaborative work led by the City of Seattle and Metro with major employers, community organizations, and the public.

Thank you for your consideration of this proposed ordinance. If your staff have any questions, please contact Bill Bryant, Managing Director of Service Development, King County Metro Transit Department, at 206-477-6456 or [email protected].

Sincerely,

for

Dow Constantine King County Executive

Enclosure

cc: King County Councilmembers ATTN: Carolyn Busch, Chief of Staff

ME Meeting Materials Page 107 June 23, 2021 The Honorable Claudia Balducci May 24, 2021 Page 3

Melani Pedroza, Clerk of the Council Shannon Braddock, Deputy Chief of Staff, Office of the Executive Karan Gill, Director, Council Relations, Office of the Executive Dwight Dively, Director, Office of Performance, Strategy and Budget Terry White, General Manager, Metro Transit Department Christina O’Claire, Mobility Division Director, Metro Transit Department Bill Bryant, Managing Director, Service Development, Metro Transit Department

ME Meeting Materials Page 108 June 23, 2021 2021-2022 FISCAL NOTE ATTACHMENT 3 Ordinance/Motion:

Title: AN ORDINANCE establishing the alignment and station locations of, and meeting federal assistance conditions for, the RapidRide J Line Affected Agency and/or Agencies: Metro Transit Department Note Prepared By: Greg Svidenko Date Prepared: 5/25/2021 Note Reviewed By: Shelley De Wys Date Reviewed: 5/25/2021

Description of Request: The initial plan for the J Line, as was outlined in the 2019-2020 capital budget (Ordinance 18835), included $27.7M of Metro's capital investment over the 2019-2024 period. That capital investment was canceled in the 2021-2022 biennial budget (Ordinance 19210). According to the current plan, the construction will be led by the City of Seattle, and Metro's direct contribution will be limited to the $222K appropriated for the 2019-2020 biennium in the J Line project (already spent) plus $2.5M in staff time (budgeted for under the RapidRide management project, 1129747 TDC MC RR EXPANSION). For this project, the City of Seattle is providing $40,000,000 funding through the Move Seattle levy and other local funds, has been awarded $8,030,400 in Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC) grants, and is seeking a Federal Transit Administration (FTA) Small Starts Grant for $45,000,000.

Revenue to: Agency Fund Code Revenue Source 2021-2022 2023-2024 2025-2026

TOTAL 0 0 0

Expenditures from: Agency Fund Code Department 2021-2022 2023-2024 2025-2026 Metro Transit Department 3641 Transit (1,250,000) (1,250,000)

TOTAL (1,250,000) (1,250,000) 0

Expenditures by Categories

2021-2022 2023-2024 2025-2026

1 Planning 2 Prelim Design 3 Final Design (1,250,000) (1,250,000) 4 Implementation 5 Closeout 6 Acquisition TOTAL (1,250,000) (1,250,000) 0

Does this legislation require a budget supplemental?

No. The adopted CIP reflects the alignment and related costs. Notes and Assumptions:

Page 1 ME Meeting Materials Page 109 June 23, 2021

LATONA AVE NE AVE LATONA

40TH AVE NE 40TH

WOODLAND PL N PL WOODLAND

PHINNEY AVE N AVE PHINNEY 12TH AVE NE AVE 12TH

EAST GREEN LAKE WAY N ROOSEVELT WAY NE WAY ROOSEVELT KIRKWOOD PL N NE 56TH ST I-5 ATTACHMENT 4

NE 55TH ST

UNIVERSITY WAY NE WAY UNIVERSITY MERIDIAN AVE N AVE MERIDIAN

RapidRide J Line Route NE AVE 7TH June 2021

11TH AVE NE AVE 11TH 47TH AVE NE 47TH N 50TH ST AVE NE 30TH NW MARKET ST

N 46TH ST GREEN LAKE WAY N NE AVE LATONA N 45TH ST NE 45TH ST NE 45TH ST NE 45TH ST

U District 48TH AVE NE AVE 48TH LEARY WAY NW NE 43RD ST N 43RD ST AVE N FREMONT

NE 41ST ST

STONE WAY N WAY STONE

AURORA AVE N AVE AURORA 15TH AVE 15TH NE

NE CAMPUS PKWY NE 40TH ST

N 39TH ST FREMONT WAY N

MONTLAKE BLVD NE N 36TH ST N AVE WALLINGFORD N 38TH ST

BRIDGE UNIVERSITY N PACIFIC ST NE PACIFIC ST N 35TH ST FUHRMAN AVE E University Union N 34TH ST of Washington

AURORA BR AURORA Bay HARVARD AVE E AVE HARVARD

FLORENTIA ST N NORTHLAKE WAY

4TH AVE N 4TH E HAMLIN ST

EAST MONTLAKE PL E

6TH AVE N

W RAYE STW AVE 5TH E ROANOKE ST 520 WESTLAKE AVE N

SMITH ST E AVE EASTLAKE 520

W MCGRAW ST E MCGILVRA ST Eastlake E LYNN ST

7TH AVE W AVE 7TH I-5 42ND AVE E AVE 42ND

5TH AVE N AVE 5TH BOYER AVE E 43RD AVE E AVE 43RD

6TH AVE W AVE 6TH Lake Union E AVE 10TH Project Highlights

E BLAINE ST 24TH AVE E AVE 24TH 20 New RapidRide Stations

E GALER ST

DEXTER AVE N AVE DEXTER TAYLORN AVE

19TH AVE E AVE 19TH 5 Miles Project Corridor Length

15TH AVE E AVE 15TH 0.8 Miles of Overhead Contact System Added lane of SB VALLEY ST FAIRVIEWconcrete AVE N paving E ALOHA ST (OCS)/Trolley Wire ROY ST VALLEY ST QUEEN ANNE AVE N AVE ANNE QUEEN Lake Added lane of NB E ROY ST

MERCER ST concrete paving E AVE 12TH 7.5 Minute Peak Service (or Better) 5TH AVE N AVE 5TH

32ND AVE E AVE 32ND Washington

3RD AVE W AVE 3RD

BELLEVUE AVE E BELLEVUE

1ST AVE W AVE 1ST REPUBLICAN ST WAY E JR KING L M 1ST AVE N AVE 1ST South MCGILVRA BLVD E FAIRVIEW AVE FAIRVIEW N 10 Minute Midday Service (or Better)

Lake UnionN AVE WESTLAKE 9TH AVE N AVE 9TH E HARRISON ST

E THOMAS ST E JOHN ST 2.3 Miles of New Transit Lanes E JOHN ST E DENNY WAY BROAD ST DENNY WAY Capitol Hill 0 New Fleet Purchase Required

7TH AVE AVE MELROSE E OLIVE WAY (Rebranding existing ﬂeet)

15TH AVE 15TH 23RD AVE 23RD

WALL ST 6TH AVE AVE BELLEVUE MADRONA DR 19TH AVE 19TH WESTERN AVE WAY JR KING L M BATTERY ST HOWELL ST Hour Service Everyday 1ST AVE2ND AVEBelltown E PINE ST

ELLIOTT AVE S AVE 51ST 24 (Headways between 7.5 minutes or better to 34TH AVE 34TH OLIVE WAY E PIKE ST STEWART ST 9TH AVE 60 minutes) BOREN AVE

11TH AVE LENORAVIRGINIA ST ST PINE ST

ALASKAN WAY Westlake

UNION ST MADISON ST 5TH AVE SENECA ST 8TH AVE PIKE ST BROADWAY

University AVE 14TH 4TH AVE 7TH AVE AVE 12TH Street COLUMBIA ST 3RD AVE E CHERRY ST

SPRING ST JAMES ST

CHERRY ST Elliott Bay Pioneer

32ND AVE S AVE 32ND E ALDER ST Square AVE LAKESIDE BOREN AVE S

YESLER WAY 4TH AVE S AVE 4TH

S KING ST

International S AVE 6TH 35TH AVE S AVE 35TH District / Chinatown

I90 WB S AVE LAKESIDE RAINIER AVE S

S ROYAL BROUGHAM WAY RapidRide J Line Route 70 S AVE 12TH Connections Layover Corridor Treatment Station Treatment Paving Improvements BicycleS JUDKINS STFacilities Other Transit Facilities Stadium S ATLANTIC ST S AVE 14TH GeneralRapidRide Purpose J Line Lane Route Existing Station Route 70 RoutingConcrete After Paving Link JudkinsLightExisting ParkRail Protected ExistingExisting Link Streetcar Light Rail I90 EB Bike Lane (PBL) U-DistrictS AVE 4TH Station Opening (2023) I-90 Planned Link Light Rail Mill and Overlay Asphalt Paving BusinessNew/Upgraded Access & RapidRide Station S MASSACHUSETTS ST Link LightFunded Rail or Station In- Existing Streetcar Stop New RapidRide Station I-5 S MASSACHUSETTS ST Link Light Rail Station

Transit Lane Route 70 Stops to be consolidated Progress PBL S AVE 36TH Existing RapidRide Station S AVE 1ST Other Transit Improvements ExistingPlanned Streetcar Streetcar New RapidRide Stop S HOLGATE ST S HOLGATE BR NeighborhoodNew PBLgreenway proposed Transit Only Lane New Overhead Contact System crossing asof corridorpart of Project PlannedPlanned Streetcar Streetcar Stop Existing Bus Layover (OCS)/Trolley InfrastructureS AVE 17TH Existing Streetcar Stop Service Alignment

6TH AVE S AVE 6TH S WALKER ST Queue Jump S COLLEGE ST Planned Streetcar Stop

NoME Project Meeting Improvements Materials Bus Layover Option Page 110 AVES 31ST June 23, 2021 AIRPORT WAYS AIRPORT Location S DR PARK LAKE Traction Power Substation (TPSS) Option ATTACHMENT 5

April 2, 2021

Terry White General Manager King County Metro Transit 201 S Jackson St Seattle, WA 98104

Subject: Support for Metro’s RapidRide J Line Alignment Ordinance

Dear Mr. White:

This letter is to express the City of Seattle’s support for RapidRide J Line, which will deliver important transit mobility connecting Downtown Seattle with the neighborhoods of Belltown, South Lake Union, Eastlake, and the University District. The project will connect major employment hubs and dense neighborhoods with a diverse mix of housing and services to other transit services, including the Seattle Streetcar network; Link light rail stations in Downtown Seattle and the University District; other Metro RapidRide lines serving the Third Avenue transit corridor; and many other regional and local transportation services.

SDOT, in partnership with Metro, is seeking a Small Starts grant from the Federal Transit Administration. This funding, along with other federal and regional grants and local City funds, comprise the capital funding package for RapidRide J Line. SDOT and Metro plan to leverage the federal investment to deliver a high-quality, successful RapidRide Line serving a high-ridership corridor in the Metro system. The funding package accounts for recent Metro transit capital and operating budget adjustments made in response to COVID-19 pandemic financial impacts. SDOT and Metro are working together on a project memorandum of agreement; it is scheduled to be executed by the end of the year.

SDOT concurs that the planned RapidRide J Line alignment and station locations, referred to as the U District option in project environmental documents, is preferred. This route will allow RapidRide J Line to serve important locations and reach the desired level of service which incorporates both coverage and speed. RapidRide J Line is expected to significantly increase transit ridership in the corridor by providing frequent, more reliable service and faster travel times with excellent customer satisfaction. We also support the original project up to Roosevelt and we look forward to continued partnership to work toward that ultimate alignment.

The City of Seattle appreciates Metro’s partnership to contribute financially to the project, specifically assuming ownership of RapidRide J Line operation and maintenance for both service and passenger facilities once it is completed. We look forward to continuing our partnership with Metro and its RapidRide team during project implementation.

If you have further questions or need assistance from Seattle on this project, please do not hesitate to contact Maria Koengeter, SDOT’s Transit-Plus Multimodal Corridors Program Manager, at 206-733-9865 or [email protected].

700 Fifth Avenue, Suite 3800 | PO Box 34996 | Seattle, WA 98124-4996 | 206-684-ROAD (7623) | seattle.gov/transportation

ME Meeting Materials Page 111 June 23, 2021 Sincerely,

Sam Zimbabwe (Apr 2, 2021 16:52 PDT)

Sam Zimbabwe Director

ME Meeting Materials Page 112 June 23, 2021

Metropolitan King County Council Mobility and Environment Committee

STAFF REPORT

Agenda Item: 10 Name: Mary Bourguignon Proposed No.: 2021-B0095 Date: June 23, 2021

SUBJECT

Today’s briefing will focus on Metro Transit service restoration that will occur as part of the Fall 2021 service change, which will take place on October 2, 2021, to coincide with the extension of Link light rail service to Northgate.

SUMMARY

Metro implemented emergency transit service reductions in March and April 2020, and adjusted that reduced service in June and September 2020, with additional adjustments and some service restoration in March 2021.

Metro is currently operating approximately 85 percent of its pre-COVID-19 service levels, with each bus carrying approximately 50 percent of the number of seated riders that bus could carry pre-COVID (approximately 40 percent of pre-COVID capacity, standing and seated, for each bus coach). Systemwide, just under 400,000 Metro service hours are currently suspended.

King County’s adopted 2021-2022 biennial budget funds a return to pre-COVID transit service levels by the end of 2022, not including any changes to service funded by the City of Seattle through its Transportation Benefit District funding measure.

Metro staff plan to restore approximately half the suspended service during the Fall 2021 service change. For the remaining service to be restored during 2022 (approximately 200,000 service hours), Metro staff have noted that they are still in the planning process.

Today’s briefing will cover service restoration planned for Fall 2021, which will take place on October 2, 2021, to coincide with the extension of Link light rail service to Northgate.

ME Meeting Materials Page 113 June 23, 2021 BACKGROUND

In response to declining ridership and to ensure safe operating conditions for its employees, Metro began implementing emergency transit service reductions1 on March 23, 2020. Metro implemented several additional rounds of emergency service reductions in April 2020, reducing weekday transit trips by 27 percent. Metro restored some reduced service in June 2020 and made additional service restorations and adjustments during the September 2020 and March 20212 service changes.

In addition to reducing the amount of transit service, Metro also blocked off seats on buses that were still operating, in response to social distancing guidelines issued by the Centers for Disease Control. This action reduced seated rider capacity on each bus to approximately 24 percent of pre-COVID capacity. In recent months, as the rate of vaccination has increased, Metro has begun restoring seating capacity on buses: on April 7, 2021, Metro increased passenger limits to 50 percent of pre-COVID seated capacity (40 percent of total seated and standing pre-COVID capacity),3 and Metro staff have stated that they hope to return to full-capacity operations in the coming months.4

Metro also undertook a number of operational changes in response to the pandemic, including eliminating fare collection from March 21 to October 1, 2020; restricting boarding to rear doors only during that time and restoring front-door boarding only after installing dividers between operators and riders; requiring masks for operators and passengers and providing mask dispensers on board buses; sanitizing bus coaches daily; and installing new air filtration systems on coaches.

Current Metro operations. Metro is currently operating approximately 85 percent of its pre-COVID-19 service levels, with each bus carrying approximately 50 percent of the number of seated riders that bus could carry pre-COVID.5 Systemwide, just under 400,000 Metro service hours are currently suspended.

Fall 2021 service restoration. King County’s adopted 2021-2022 biennial budget funds a return to pre-COVID transit service levels by the end of 2022, not including any changes to service funded by the City of Seattle.6 Metro staff plan to restore

1 KCC 28.94.020.B.2.a. states that “if, in the opinion of the director, an emergency exists that requires any change to established routes, schedules or classes of service, the director may implement such a change for such a period as may be necessary in the director's judgment or until such a time as the council shall establish by ordinance otherwise. Such changes that the director intends to be permanent shall be reported in writing to the chair of the council.” 2 At the March 2021 service change, Metro added service to 15 routes with high ridership demand while suspending service on 10 peak-hour routes with low demand. 3 For a 40-foot bus, this increase in capacity increased the number of passengers from 12 to 20 riders; and for a 60-foot bus, from 18 to 30 riders. 4 Restoration of rider capacity within individual buses will be based on federal, state, and local public health guidance. 5 See Metro’s Rider Dashboard (The Dash) for additional pandemic ridership and route information 6 In November 2014, Seattle voters approved a six-year transportation funding measure comprised of a 0.1% sales tax and a $60 vehicle license fee. In March 2020, prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, Seattle was using this funding to purchase 358,851 hours of fixed-route Metro transit service on 55 routes. In November 2020, Seattle voters renewed the funding measure by approving a 0.15% sales tax increase that expires March 31, 2027. The new funding measure is smaller than the previous one and includes a larger set of funding priorities. Following COVID-19 service reductions, by September 2020, Seattle was

ME Meeting Materials Page 114 June 23, 2021 approximately half the suspended service at the Fall 2021 (October 2, 2021) service change. Service will be restored on 38 routes, including 21 that are currently suspended in full. Additional service hours will be restored as part of the North Link Connections project.7

Off-peak and Peak Metro Service to be Restored Fall 2021

Source: King County Metro, June 8, 2021

The service restored by Metro up to and including the Fall 2021 service change has been restored based on the existing adopted Service Guidelines, with routes prioritized for restoration or suspension based on equity and productivity during the pandemic. A total of seven routes were added to the restoration plan based on equity considerations.8 Supplemental service that was added during the pandemic on the busiest routes to meet the needs of essential workers will be maintained to ensure those routes can accommodate returning riders. Metro staff note that they will continue to study capacity and may add additional supplemental service as needed.

For service that will remain suspended beyond the Fall 2021 service change: • 19 routes remain fully suspended • 49 routes have reduced service levels (26 of these routes have some service restored in Fall 2021).

purchasing 183,941 Metro fixed-route service hours on 35 routes. This service level was used as the baseline for the new funding measure and is anticipated to continue through at least September 2021. 7 Ordinance 19280 8 Equity considerations included routes in areas with high Opportunity Scores; routes that restore access to community amenities; routes that restore access to equity priority employment areas; routes that restore access to equity priority residential areas; and routes that address gaps identified in survey feedback.

ME Meeting Materials Page 115 June 23, 2021

Status of Metro Routes Beyond Fall 2021

For the remaining service (approximately 200,000 service hours) to be restored during 2022, Metro staff have noted that they are still in the planning process. Metro staff have indicated that they will rely on the Service Guidelines (potentially updated Service Guidelines); route productivity measures; information about back-to-work and back-to- school plans; and equity measures.

Today’s briefing will cover service restoration planned for Fall 2021.

Sound Transit. Because Sound Transit is a separate government, Metro does not make decisions about Sound Transit service.9 On June 12, Sound Transit increased the frequency of Link light rail trains to run every:

• Eight minutes during peak,

9 Metro operates Sound Transit express bus and Link light rail service under contract to Sound Transit.

ME Meeting Materials Page 116 June 23, 2021 • Ten minutes during midday and weekends, and • Fifteen minutes during late evenings.

This was an increase from the schedule that had been in effect since December 2020 of every 12 minutes during peak, every 15 minutes during off-peak, and every 30 minutes during late evenings, but still less frequent than the pre-COVID schedule of every six minutes during the peak hours and every 10 minutes off-peak.

Sound Transit express buses and Sounder rail service continue to operate, though some routes are currently operating with reduced schedules.

On October 2, 2021, Link light rail service will be extended north to serve stations at the U District, Roosevelt, and Northgate.

INVITED

• Chris O’Claire, Director, Mobility Division, Metro Transit Department • Bill Bryant, Managing Director, Service Development, Metro Transit Department • Jeremy Fichter, Transportation Planner, Service Planning, Metro Transit Department

ATTACHMENTS

1. Metro presentation: Fall 2021 Service Changes 2. Fall 2021 Route Status Summary

ME Meeting Materials Page 117 June 23, 2021 ATTACHMENT 1

Metro Service Recovery Update King County Council Mobility and Environment Committee

June 2021

ME Meeting Materials Page 118 June 23, 2021 Purpose

• Overview of Fall 2021 service changes • Update on Fall 2021 service restoration plan • Update on service recovery metrics

ME Meeting Materials Page 119 June 23, 2021 Background

2020 2021 2022 March April September March October March Sept

Service restored Service Service restored restored Service suspended Service suspended Renton Kent Auburn Area Mobility Project North Link Connections North Eastside City of Seattle funding cuts City of Seattle funding changes Mobility Project Service restored Service restored Service suspended Service suspended

Monitoring ridership and making minor changes, as needed, every two weeks

ME Meeting Materials Page 120 June 23, 2021 What’s happening in the Fall 2021 service change? Restoring service Service Restoration • Partial and full restoration of routes Planning Continued temporary suspensions • Continued partial and full suspension of routes Permanent changes to service North Link Connections • Changing the structure or pathway of a route • Creating a new route • Permanently investing in service • Permanently deleting service Seattle Transportation Permanent changes to service Benefit District funding • Permanently deleting service changes • Converting suspensions to reductions • Investing in service

ME Meeting Materials Page 121 June 23, 2021 How did we make decisions?

• Multi-year engagement process and Mobility Board North Link Connections recommendation • King County Council ordinance approval

• Some reductions directed by the City of Seattle, in consultation with Metro Seattle Transportation • Some reductions determined by Metro to fill gaps caused by Benefit District reduced STBD funding and preserve all-day, frequent service • King County Council approval not required

• Monitoring of service recovery metrics Service Restoration • Feb. – Mar. 2021 engagement phase on needs and priorities • King County Council approval not required

ME Meeting Materials Page 122 June 23, 2021 Service Restoration

6 ME Meeting Materials Page 123 June 23, 2021 Fall 2021 – Service Restoration Decision Timeline

2021

January February March April May - October 2 October 2

Metro Metro reviews Service change develops engagement, Metro 200k hours Community preparation; metric-based evaluation of develops route operator recall of service planning input recovery proposals and hiring restored approach metrics

February 10 March 24 April 14 June 9 Transit Mobility & Transit Transit Interbranch Environment Interbranch Interbranch Briefing Committee Briefing Briefing

ME Meeting Materials Page 124 June 23, 2021 What has informed Fall 2021 changes?

Data & Analysis Community Input

Ridership, Crowding Regional Transit Stakeholder Mobility Board Employer Demand Estimation Equity Analysis & Productivity Rider Survey (Service Guidelines) Meetings Workshop Engagement

ME Meeting Materials Page 125 June 23, 2021 Community Engagement

Questions How should we prioritize service restorations? How have service suspensions impacted your ability to travel?

Engagement Activities • Mobility Board workshop • Partner agency groups • Community advisory groups • Direct employer engagement, regional working groups, Challenge Seattle presentation • Rider survey (February 8 – March 12) • Outreach through social media, radio, bus stop signs, rider alerts

ME Meeting Materials Page 126 June 23, 2021 What we heard… What’s changing…

Restoring some peak-only service in South King County Equity must be prioritized in proposal Equity gaps identified through analysis including a new equity priority job measure development. Prioritizing routes that address equity gaps

Operate enough service for a Restoring >= 50% or 8 trips on applicable peak only routes restoration to be usable. Restoring 100% of non-peak service on applicable all-day routes

Routes with no alternatives should be Prioritizing routes with no other options prioritized for restoration.

Lifting load limits Address crowding issues first. Prioritizing higher ridership routes Providing supplemental service where needed

Telecommuting has dramatically changed Prioritizing restoration of all-day service travel and will likely continue. From Partial restoration on higher ridership peak only routes employers and schools: expect hybrid model. Monitoring and adjusting

ME Meeting Materials Page 127 June 23, 2021 October 2021 restorations

• Metro will restore nearly half of the service hours suspended during the pandemic. • Service will be restored on 38 routes, including 21 that are currently suspended in full. • Additional service hours will be restored as part of the North Link Connections project

ME Meeting Materials Page 128 June 23, 2021 Off-peak Period Peak Period

ME Meeting Materials Page 129 June 23, 2021 How many routes will have continued suspensions?

• 19 routes remain fully suspended • 49 routes have reduced service levels • 26 of these routes have some service restored in September

ME Meeting Materials Page 130 June 23, 2021 North Link Connections: Restorations & Suspensions

• All-day routes in North Link network will operate with full service • Peak-only routes will operate with partial service

ME Meeting Materials Page 131 June 23, 2021 Update on Service Recovery Metrics

15 ME Meeting Materials Page 132 June 23, 2021 Metro Bus Weekday Boardings Ridership

• Ridership has steadily increased since the start of 2021 • The increase has been broad-based with no route or set of routes driving the change • Gains have been throughout the day

• PM (3-7pm) has increased the Change in Average Daily Boardings, January-April 2021 most • Evening has (7-10pm) increased the fastest

ME Meeting Materials Page 133 June 23, 2021 Crowding: Bus capacity changes

• Metro has passenger load limits in place to promote physical distancing. • Over time and in tandem with King County’s progression through the Governor’s phases of recovery, Metro has increased the number of people allowed to be safely on board. • On April 17, load limits increased to 40% of pre-COVID capacity (50% of seated capacity) • A return to full capacity operations in the coming months is essential to the success of transit.

ME Meeting Materials Page 134 June 23, 2021 Crowding: Busiest routes will continue to have additional service

• Service was added during Covid on the busiest routes • Adds will be maintained to ensure those routes can accommodate returning riders • Supplemental service may be added to provide additional capacity

ME Meeting Materials Page 135 June 23, 2021 Equity: How are we prioritizing equity?

Analysis to identify equity priority routes for restoration • Routes with high Opportunity Scores • Routes that restore access to community amenities • Routes that restore access to equity priority employment areas • Routes that restore access to equity priority residential areas • Routes that address gaps identified in survey feedback

7 routes were added to the proposal based on these considerations

ME Meeting Materials Page 136 June 23, 2021 Equity: How was survey feedback incorporated into decision-making?

Suspended service identified as a 1) The top routes prioritized for desired restoration by priority populations restoration by people of color below the area median income were identified. 2) Many of the priority population routes were already in the preliminary concept. Routes 22 and 255 added to restoration proposal based on survey findings 3) If routes were not already in the preliminary concept, they were selectively incorporated.

Incorporated into preliminary concept before survey findings

*Routes 13 and 14 have SDOT, not Metro, suspensions – feedback shared with SDOT ME Meeting Materials* * Page 137 June 23, 2021 Equity & October 2021 Service Network

ME Meeting Materials Page 138 June 23, 2021 Employers: Return to school, return to work planning

• More employers announcing return to work dates for July or September. • Most large employers still planning for return to on-site work, typically with a gradual increase in occupancy rates in the coming months. • Majority of Custom Passport employers still planning for a hybrid work environment. • Among large employers, ridership increased for the first time in March and again in April. • Area Passport (small business under 500 employees) customers beginning to renew contacts following COVID-era suspension, and some new employers have joined program

ME Meeting Materials Page 139 June 23, 2021 Productivity

• Many partially or fully suspended routes have productivity below 25% threshold and are top candidates for reduction based on the Service Guidelines and pre-Covid route performance: • 6 of 17 partially suspended all-day routes • 5 of 9 fully suspended all-day routes • 1 of 4 partially suspended peak-only routes • 20 of 41 fully suspended peak-only routes • Higher productivity routes and time periods prioritized for restoration in October 2021

ME Meeting Materials Page 140 June 23, 2021 Questions?

24 ME Meeting Materials Page 141 June 23, 2021 ATTACHMENT 2

Fall 2021 Route Status Summary

Route Description March Status October Status Status Details 1 Kinnear to Downtown Seattle Active Active No change - full service 2 West QA to Downtown Seattle to Madrona Park Active Active Reduced (STBD) 3 SPU to Downtown Seattle to Madrona Active Active Reduced (STBD) 4 SPU to Downtown Seattle to Madrona Active Active Reduced (STBD) 5 Shoreline CC to Downtown Seattle via Greenwood Active Active No change - full service 5X Shoreline CC to Downtown Seattle via Greenwood Suspended Deleted Deleted (North Link Connections) 7 Prentice Street/Rainier Beach to Downtown Seattle Active Active No change - full service 8 Seattle Center to Mt. Baker TC via Capitol Hill Active Active No change - full service 9 Rainier Beach to Columbia City to Broadway Suspended Active Partial restoration 10 Capitol Hill to Downtown Seattle Active Active Reduced (STBD) 11 Madison Park to Downtown Seattle via Capitol Hill Active Active Reduced (STBD) 12 Interlaken Park to Downtown Seattle via First Hill Active Active Reduced (STBD) 13 SPU to Downtown Seattle Active Active No change - full service 14 Mt. Baker to Downtown Seattle Active Active No change - full service 15X Blue Ridge to Crown Hill to Downtown Seattle Suspended Active Partial restoration 16X Broadview to Greenwood to Downtown Seattle Planned New New route - partial service (North Link Connections) 17X Sunset Hill to Ballard to Downtown Seattle Suspended Active Partial restoration 18X North Beach to Ballard to Downtown Seattle Suspended Active Partial restoration 19 West Magnolia to Downtown Seattle Suspended Suspended No change - continue full suspension 20 University District to Green Lake to Northgate to Lake City Planned New New route - full service (North Link Connections) 21 Westwood Village to Downtown Seattle via 35th Ave SW Active Active Reduced (STBD) 21X Westwood Village to Downtown Seattle Active Active No change - continue partial suspension 22 Arbor Heights to Westwood Village to Alaska Junction Suspended Active Partial restoration 24 West Magnolia to Downtown Seattle Active Active Reduced (STBD) 26 Northgate TC to East Green Lake to Downtown Seattle Active Deleted Deleted (North Link Connections) 27 Colman Park to Downtown Seattle Active Active No change - full service 28 Broadview/Carkeek Park to Downtown Seattle Active Active Reduced (STBD) 29 Ballard to SPU to Queen Anne to Downtown Seattle Suspended Active Partial restoration 31 Magnolia to Fremont to University District Active Active Revised (North Link Connections) 32 Magnolia to Fremont to University District Active Active Revised (North Link Connections) 33 Discovery Park to Downtown Seattle Active Active Reduced (STBD) 36 Othello Station to Beacon Hill to Downtown Seattle Active Active No change - full service 37 Alaska Junction to Alki to Downtown Seattle Suspended Suspended No change - continue full suspension 40 Northgate TC to Fremont to Downtown Seattle via Ballard Active Active Revised (North Link Connections) 41 Lake City to Northgate TC to Downtown Seattle Active Deleted Deleted (North Link Connections) 43 University District to Capitol Hill to Downtown Seattle Active Active Revised (North Link Connections) 44 Ballard to Wallingford to UW Station Active Active Revised (North Link Connections) 45 Loyal Heights to UW Station via Roosevelt Active Active Revised (North Link Connections) 47 Summit to Downtown Seattle Suspended Suspended No change - continue full suspension 48 Mt. Baker TC to University District Active Active Revised (North Link Connections) 49 University District to Broadway to Downtown Seattle Active Active Revised (North Link Connections) 50 Othello Station to SODO to Alki Active Active Revised 55 Admiral District to Alaska Junction to Downtown Seattle Active Active No change - continue partial suspension 56 Alki to Admiral District to Downtown Seattle Active Active Reduced (STBD) 57 Alaska Junction to Admiral District to Downtown Seattle Active Active Reduced (STBD) 60 Westwood Village to Beacon Hill to Broadway via South Park Active Active Service investment (STBD)

8 ME Meeting Materials Page 142 June 23, 2021 Route Description March Status October Status Status Details 62 Sand Point to Green Lake to Downtown Seattle via Fremont Active Active Revised (North Link Connections) 63 Northgate TC to First Hill via SLU Suspended Deleted Deleted (North Link Connections) 64 Jackson Park to First Hill via SLU Active Active Revised (North Link Connections) 65 Jackson Park to Lake City to University District Active Active Revised (North Link Connections) 67 Northgate TC to University District to Children's Hospital Active Active Revised (North Link Connections) 70 University District to Eastlake to Downtown Seattle Active Active Revised (North Link Connections) 71 Wedgwood to UW Station Suspended Deleted Deleted (North Link Connections) 73 Jackson Park to Cowen Park to UW Station Active Active Revised (North Link Connections) 74 Sand Point to Downtown Seattle Active Deleted Deleted (North Link Connections) 75 Northgate TC to Lake City to Sand Point to University District Active Active Revised (North Link Connections) 76 Wedgwood to Downtown Seattle Suspended Deleted Deleted (North Link Connections) 77 North City to Downtown Seattle Suspended Deleted Deleted (North Link Connections) 78 Children's Hospital to UW Station Suspended Deleted Deleted (North Link Connections) 79 Roosevelt to Magnuson Park to University District Planned New New route - full service (North Link Connections) 101 South Renton P&R to Downtown Seattle Active Active No change - full service 102 Fairwood to Downtown Seattle Active Active No change - continue partial suspension 105 Renton Highlands to Renton TC Active Active No change - full service 106 Renton TC to Downtown Seattle Active Active Reduced (STBD) 107 Renton TC to Beacon Hill Link via Rainier Beach Active Active Reduced (STBD) 111 Maplewood to Lake Kathleen to Downtown Seattle Active Active No change - continue partial suspension 113 Shorewood to Downtown Seattle Suspended Active Partial restoration 114 Renton Highlands to Downtown Seattle Suspended Active Partial restoration 116 Fauntleroy Ferry to Downtown Seattle Suspended Suspended No change - continue full suspension 118 Tahlequah Ferry to Vashon Ferry Active Active No change - continue partial suspension 118X Tahlequah Ferry to Downtown Seattle Suspended Suspended No change - continue full suspension 119 Dockton to Vashon Ferry Active Active No change - continue partial suspension 119X Dockton to Downtown Seattle Suspended Suspended No change - continue full suspension 120 Burien TC to Westwood Village to Downtown Seattle Active Active Service investment (STBD) 121 Highline College to Burien TC to Downtown Seattle Suspended Active Partial restoration 122 Highline College to Burien TC to Downtown Seattle Suspended Suspended No change - continue full suspension 123 Burien to Downtown Seattle Suspended Suspended No change - continue full suspension 124 TIBS to Downtown Seattle via Georgetown Active Active No change 125 Westwood Village to South Seattle College to Downtown Seattle Active Active Reduced (STBD) 128 Southcenter to Alaska Junction to Admiral District Active Active No change - full service 131 Burien TC to Georgetown to Downtown Seattle Active Active Revised (North Link Connections) 132 Burien TC to South Park to Downtown Seattle Active Active Revised (North Link Connections) 143 Black Diamond to Downtown Seattle via Renton TC Suspended Suspended No change - continue full suspension 148 Fairwood to Renton TC Active Active No change - full service 150 Kent Station to Southcenter to Downtown Seattle Active Active No change - full service 153 Kent Station to Renton TC Active Active No change - full service 154 Tukwila Station to Boeing Industrial Suspended Suspended No change - continue full suspension 156 Highline College to Sea-Tac Airport to Southcenter Active Active No change - full service 157 Lake Meridian P&R to Downtown Seattle Suspended Suspended No change - continue full suspension 160 Auburn TC to Kent Station to Renton TC Active Active No change - full service 161 Kent Station to SeaTac Airport to Burien TC Active Active No change - full service 162 Lake Meridian to Kent Station to Downtown Seattle Active Active No change - full service 165 Green River College to Kent Station to Burien TC Active Active No change - full service 167 South Renton P&R to University District Suspended Active Partial restoration 168 Maple Valley to Kent Station Active Active No change - full service 177 Federal Way to Downtown Seattle Suspended Active Partial restoration and revision

9 ME Meeting Materials Page 143 June 23, 2021 Route Description March Status October Status Status Details 178 South Federal Way P&R to Downtown Seattle Suspended Suspended No change - continue full suspension 179 Twin Lakes P&R to Downtown Seattle Suspended Suspended No change - continue full suspension 181 Twin Lakes P&R to Auburn Station to Green River College Active Active No change - full service 182 Northeast Tacoma to Federal Way TC Active Active No change - full service 183 Federal Way TC to Kent Station Active Active No change - full service 184 Auburn Station to Pacific Active Active No change - full service 187 Federal Way TC to Twin Lakes Active Active No change - full service 190 Redondo Heights P&R to Downtown Seattle Suspended Active Partial restoration 193 Federal Way P&R to First Hill Active Active No change - full service 197 Twin Lakes P&R to University District via Federal Way TC Suspended Suspended No change - continue full suspension 200 Downtown Issaquah to Issaquah Highlands Suspended Suspended No change - continue full suspension 204 South Mercer Island to Mercer Island P&R Active Active Fully restored 208 North Bend to Issaquah Active Active Full restoration and investment 212 Eastgate to Downtown Seattle Active Active No change - continue partial suspension 214 Issaquah to Downtown Seattle Suspended Active Partial restoration 216 Sammamish - Issaquah - Downtown Seattle Suspended Active Partial restoration 217 Downtown Seattle to Issaquah Suspended Active Fully restored 218 Issaquah Highlands to Downtown Seattle Active Active No change - continue partial suspension 219 Redmond to Issaquah to Downtown Seattle Suspended Suspended No change - continue full suspension 221 Education Hill to Crossroads to Eastgate Active Active Partial restoration 224 Duvall to Redmond Active Active No change - full service 225 Kenmore to Redmond Tech Active Active Fully restored 226 Eastgate to Crossroads to Bellevue TC Active Active Partial restoration 230 Bothell to Juanita to Kirkland Active Active No change - full service 231 Woodinville to Juanita to Kirkland Active Active No change - full service 232 Duvall to Overlake to Bellevue Suspended Active Partial restoration 237 Woodinville to Bellevue Suspended Active Fully restored 239 UW-Bothell to Totem Lake to Kirkland Active Active No change - full service 240 Renton to Bellevue Active Active No change - continue partial suspension 241 Eastgate to Bellevue TC Active Active Partial restoration 245 Kirkland TC to Crossroads to Factoria Active Active No change - continue partial suspension 246 Eastgate to Bellevue TC to Clyde Hill Suspended Active Fully restored 249 Redmond Tech to South Bellevue Suspended Active Fully restored 250 Bellevue to Kirkland to Redmond Active Active Fully restored 252 Kingsgate to Downtown Seattle Suspended Suspended No change - continue full suspension 255 Totem Lake to Kirkland to UW Station Active Active Partial restoration 257 Brickyard P&R to Downtown Seattle Active Active No change - full service 268 Bear Creek P&R to Downtown Seattle Suspended Active Partial restoration 269 Issaquah to Sammamish to Redmond Active Active No change - continue partial suspension 271 UW to Bellevue to Issaquah Active Active Partial restoration 301 Aurora Village to Northgate Active Active Revised (North Link Connections) 302 Richmond Beach to Northgate Station to First Hill Planned New New route - full service (North Link Connections) 303 Aurora Village to First Hill Active Active Revised (North Link Connections) 304 Shoreline P&R to Northgate Active Active Revised (North Link Connections) 308 Horizon View to Downtown Seattle Suspended Deleted Deleted (North Link Connections) 309 Kenmore P&R to First Hill Active Deleted Deleted (North Link Connections) 311 Woodinville to Downtown Seattle Active Active No change - continue partial suspension 312 UW/Cascadia College to Downtown Seattle Suspended Deleted Deleted (North Link Connections) 316 Meridian Park to Downtown Seattle Suspended Deleted Deleted (North Link Connections) 320 Kenmore P&R to Northgate to South Lake Union Planned New New route - partial service (North Link Connections)

10 ME Meeting Materials Page 144 June 23, 2021 Route Description March Status October Status Status Details 322 Kenmore P&R to Roosevelt to First Hill Planned New New route - partial service (North Link Connections) 330 Shoreline Community College to Lake City Active Active No change - full service 331 Shoreline Community College to Aurora Village to Kenmore P&R Active Active Revised (North Link Connections) 342 Shoreline P&R to Renton TC Suspended Active Partial restoration 345 Shoreline Community College to Northgate TC Active Active Revised (North Link Connections) 346 Aurora Village TC to Northgate TC Active Active Revised (North Link Connections) 347 Mountlake Terrace TC to Northgate TC Active Active Revised (North Link Connections) 348 Richmond Beach to Northgate TC Active Active Revised (North Link Connections) 355 Shoreline Community College to Downtown Seattle Suspended Deleted Deleted (North Link Connections) 372 Bothell/Lake City to University District Active Active Revised (North Link Connections) 373 Aurora Village TC to University District Active Deleted Deleted (North Link Connections) 628 North Bend to Issaquah Highlands Suspended Deleted Deleted 630 Mercer Island to First Hill Suspended Active Partial restoration 631 Gregory Heights to Burien TC Active Active No change - full service 635 Angle Lake light rail Station to the Des Moines Marina District Active Active No change - full service 671 A Line, Federal Way TC to Tukwila International Blvd Link Station Active Active No change - full service 672 B Line, Redmond to Bellevue Active Active No change - full service 673 C Line, Westwood Village to South Lake Union Active Active Service investment and reduction (STBD) 674 D Line, Crown Hill to Ballard to Seattle Center to Downtown Seattle Active Active Reduced (STBD) 675 E Line, Aurora Village to Downtown Seattle Active Active Service investment and reduction (STBD) 676 F Line, Burien to Tukwila to Renton TC to The Landing Active Active No change - full service 773 Seacrest Park to Alaska Junction Active Active No change - full service 775 Seacrest Park to Admiral District to Alki Active Active No change - full service 891 Mercer Island to Mercer Island High School Suspended Active Fully restored 892 Mercer Island to Mercer Island High School Suspended Active Fully restored 893 Totem Lake to Lake Washington High School Suspended Active Fully restored 894 Mercer Village to Mercer Island High School Suspended Active Fully restored 895 Overlake P&R to Lake Washington High School Suspended Active Fully restored 901 Mirror Lake to Federal Way TC Active Active No change - full service 903 Twin Lakes to Federal Way TC Active Active No change - full service 906 Fairwood to Southcenter Active Active No change - full service 907 Black Diamond to Renton TC Active Active No change - full service 914 Downtown Kent to Kent East Hill Active Active No change - full service 915 Enumclaw to Auburn Station Active Active No change - full service 917 Pacific to Algona to Auburn Station Active Active No change - full service 930 Kingsgate P&R to Redmond Town Center Active Active No change - full service 931 UW Cascadia Campus to Redmond TC Suspended Suspended No change - continue full suspension 980 Madison Valley to Lakeside Suspended Deleted Deleted 981 Lakeside, Houghton P&R Suspended Active Fully restored 982 Bear Creek P&R to Lakeside Suspended Active Fully restored 984 Lakeside to Downtown Seattle Suspended Active Fully restored 986 Houghton P&R to Lakeside Suspended Active Fully restored 987 Rainier Beach to Lakeside Suspended Active Fully restored; route revision 988 Madrona to Lakeside Suspended Active Fully restored; route revision 989 Factoria to Lakeside to Evergreen school Suspended Active Fully restored 992 Lakeside School summer school route Suspended Active Reinstated for Summer 2022 994 Downtown Seattle to Lakeside Suspended Active Fully restored; route revision 995 Laurelhurst to Lakeside Suspended Deleted Deleted

11 ME Meeting Materials Page 145 June 23, 2021

Metropolitan King County Council Mobility and Environment Committee

STAFF REPORT

Agenda Item: 11 Name: Mike Reed Proposed No.: 2021-B0096 Date: June 23, 2021

SUBJECT

Committee Review of the Wastewater Treatment Division Clean Water Planning project.

SUMMARY

The Wastewater Treatment Division is continuing with a broad-scale planning effort of Division priorities and strategies across programs and agency services. This review, referred to as the Clean Water Plan, comes as the agency is faced with an increasingly challenging mix of mandates and program demands, together with potential rate impacts. Today’s briefing is the second Mobility and Environment Committee briefing, following an initial briefing in March, in preparation for development of recommended legislation addressing the future direction of the wastewater system.

BACKGROUND

The regional wastewater system is at a critical juncture in its development as a system. It is facing increasing pressures across the range of its service offerings. These include the aging of the system and accelerated maintenance needs (both West Point and South treatment plants celebrated their 50-year anniversaries recently); increasing concerns about water quality-related issues; increasing regulatory requirements; increasing growth-related capacity concerns; climate change-related storm patterns that challenge system operations; and increasing rate pressures resulting from these system developments. Concurrently, there are discussions about alternative approaches to managing wastewater, including distributed systems, stricter biosolids standards, and stormwater retention opportunities. In sum, major strategic directional questions are facing the system, and have led to the initiation of a process to inventory, evaluate, and address the policy options associated with these questions.

ME Meeting Materials Page 146 June 23, 2021 In response to these developments, the Wastewater Treatment Division has undertaken a planning process, referred to as the Clean Water Plan. Planners have progressed through a number of stages in the planning effort, including outreach to stakeholders, identification of key decision areas, development of potential action alternatives for these decision areas, and policy considerations associated with potential actions.

More specifically, the identified Decision Areas include: • Treatment Plants • Pollution Source Control/Product Stewardship • Stormwater and Combined Sewer Overflows • Wastewater Conveyance System • Asset Management, Resiliency, and Redundancy • Legacy Pollution • Resource Recovery • Finance

Planners have proceeded through outreach with policymakers and the public on action alternatives and are now at the stage of engaging with key decision makers on alternative strategies. These discussions are intended to help shape the development of a preferred strategy and associated final recommendations for legislation. Today’s briefing will address potential investment decisions and policy considerations related to regional treatment plants and decentralized treatment.

INVITED • Tiffany Knapp, Clean Water Plan Project Lead, Wastewater Treatment Division • Steve Tolzman, Clean Water Plan Project Lead, Wastewater Treatment Division

ATTACHMENTS

1. Clean Water Plan powerpoint: Wastewater Treatment Actions and Policy Considerations

ME Meeting Materials Page 147 June 23, 2021 ATTACHMENT 1

Clean Water Plan

Making the Right Investments at the Right Time

Mobility and Environment Committee

June 23, 2021

Presenters: Tiffany Knapp, King County Wastewater Treatment Division Steve Tolzman, King County Wastewater Treatment Division

ME Meeting Materials Page 148 June 23, 2021 9429L 1 Clean Water Plan Planning Process Overview

We are here

Core Planning Question: What is the most appropriate path to ensure we direct the right public investments to the right actions at the right time for the best water quality outcomes?

ME Meeting Materials Page 149 June 23, 2021 9429L 2 Exploring a Range of Actions Within Each Decision Area

Pollution Source Control Wastewater Treatment Wet Weather Management Wastewater Conveyance and Product Stewardship

What treatment plant and wet Are there more efficient or effective What approach should be taken to What are the best investments in weather facility investments should methods to address pollutants of address stormwater and combined collections systems to ensure be made? concern than wastewater treatment? sewer overflows in King County’s sufficient capacity and improve Today’s Discussion system? system condition?

Asset Management, Legacy Pollution Resource Recovery Resiliency, and Redundancy Finance

What investments should be made What are the opportunities to How should King County recover How will regional water quality to care for an aging regional address legacy pollution? resources in wastewater? investments be financed? wastewater system and protect the investments that have been made?

ME Meeting Materials Page 150 June 23, 2021 9429L 3 Policy Considerations – Existing Policies Metropolitan Functions – Treatment Plant Policy Examples • TPP-1: “…provide secondary treatment to all base King County Code 28.86 sanitary flow delivered to its treatment  Wastewater Treatment plants. Treatment beyond the secondary level ► Treatment plant policies (TPP). may be provided to meet water quality standards ► Conveyance policies (CP). and achieve other goals such as furthering the ► I/I policies (I/IP). water reuse program or benefiting species listed ► Combined sewer overflow control policies under the ESA.” (CSOCP). • TPP-2: “…provide additional wastewater ► Biosolids policies (BP). treatment capacity to serve growing wastewater ► Water reuse policies (WRP). needs by…” ► Wastewater services policies (WWSP). • WWSP-15: “…will consider development and ► Water quality protection policies (WQPP). operation of community treatment systems under ► Wastewater planning policies (WWPP). the following circumstances.” ► Environmental mitigation policies (EMP). ► Public involvement policies (PIP). ► Financial policies (FP). ► Reporting policies.

ME Meeting Materials Page 151 June 23, 2021 9429L 4 Policy Considerations – Wastewater Treatment Plants

Current policy directs: Overview of Enhanced Secondary Wastewater Treatment  Secondary treatment be provided to all base sanitary flows

 Wastewater treatment capacity to serve population needs

ME Meeting Materials Page 152 June 23, 2021 9429L 5 Regional Wastewater Treatment Action Concepts

Exploring range of investments: Existing Treatment Individual Treatment Plant Level Nitrogen Reduction  Existing treatment level

 Increased treatment for nitrogen reduction

► Individual plant

► Utility-wide

 Advanced treatment to reduce discharge to Puget Sound

 Water quality trading for Potential area for new treatment facility nitrogen reduction Potential junction for diversion of flows to facility

ME Meeting Materials Page 153 June 23, 2021 9429L 6 Regional Wastewater Treatment Action Characterization

 Existing treatment level * Conceptual program planning estimate (order of magnitude over 40-years) ► Removes regulated substances (e.g., bacteria, solids)

► $1B to $2B *

 Increased treatment for nitrogen reduction

► Removes nitrogen; not designed to remove non-regulated substances (e.g., organic toxins)

► Individual plant: $9B to $22B *, including new regional treatment plant in Seattle area

► Utility-wide: $4B to $9B *

 Advanced treatment to reduce discharge to Puget Sound

► Measurable decrease in treated water discharged to Puget Sound

► $7B to $18B *

 Water quality trading for nitrogen reduction

► Nitrogen water quality credit trading framework for Puget Sound would need to be established

► Potential for other localized water quality and habitat benefits

ME Meeting Materials Page 154 June 23, 2021 9429L 7 Decentralized Wastewater Treatment Action Concepts

Exploring range of investments:

 Decentralized treatment at wet weather treatment stations

 City-scale decentralized treatment

 Community/neighborhood-scale decentralized treatment

 Building-scale decentralized treatment

1 Issaquah 2 Auburn/Kent 3 Black Diamond

Cities explored as potential city-scale decentralized treatment areas ME Meeting Materials Page 155 June 23, 2021 9429L 8 Decentralized Wastewater Treatment Action Characterization

 Small decrease in treated water discharged to Puget Sound  Decentralized treatment at wet weather treatment stations: $1.3B to $3.3B *  Satellite decentralized treatment facilities: $0.1B to $1.3B *  Increased opportunity for partnerships to use recycled water  Would not defer capacity expansion needs at regional plants before 2060

* Conceptual program planning estimate (order of magnitude over 40-years)

Regional Growth Centers explored as potential PSRC designated Regional Growth building-scale decentralized treatment areas or Manufacturing Industrial Centers

ME Meeting Materials Page 156 June 23, 2021 9429L 9 Potential Wastewater Treatment Plant Policy Discussions

 Affirm, update, or develop new polices to provide guidance on:

► Implementation of improvements at regional treatment plants including: o Level of treatment o Construction of additional regional treatment plant

► Development of a decentralized treatment program including: o Establishing roles and responsibilities for administration of program o Establishing program standards, including permitting and integration with local building requirements

► Development of a water quality trading program including: o Establishing roles and responsibilities for administration of program o Establishing cost sharing between and among other wastewater treatment service providers

ME Meeting Materials Page 157 June 23, 2021 9429L 10 Overview of Evaluations to Inform Policy Conversations

Water Quality Cost/Financial Pollutant parameter removals Capital costs Water body impacts (+/-) O&M costs Endpoint (e.g., fish) impacts (+/-) Funding (rate and borrowing) projections Wastewater System Health and Low-income affordability metrics Operations Equity and Community Regulatory implications Economic impacts (+/-) Infrastructure renewal rates Community impacts from facilities (+/-) System resiliency and redundancy Cultural uses impacts (+/-)

Sustainability Endpoint (e.g., human health) impacts (+/-)

Energy use Financial impacts to households (+/-) Greenhouse gas emissions Risk to communities from operations (+/-)

ME Meeting Materials Page 158 June 23, 2021 9429L 11 Potential 2021 Mobility and Environment Briefing Topics

Overview of Strategies – complete water quality investment approaches the County could take for the regional wastewater system and water quality

Clean Water Plan evaluation approach, including financial and water quality

Input received from external Advisory Group and Community Based Organizations

ME Meeting Materials Page 159 June 23, 2021 9429L 12 Thank you!

Steve Tolzman, PMP Tiffany Knapp, P.E., MPA Comprehensive Planning Comprehensive Planning King County Wastewater Treatment Division King County Wastewater Treatment Division [email protected] [email protected]

9427L ME Meeting Materials Page 160 June 23, 2021 9429L 13 Why the Clean Water Plan?

Threats to Capacity needs due to regional water quality growing population

Current and expected Aging infrastructure regulations (CSO, nitrogen)

Resiliency Utility rate affordability (climate change, natural hazards)

Core Planning Question: What is the most appropriate path to ensure we direct the right public investments to the right actions at the right time for the best water quality outcomes?

ME Meeting Materials Page 161 June 23, 2021 9429L 14