1

Vashon-Maury Island CSA Plan

Record of Written Public Comments1

March 2016 – March 7, 2017

(Last updated: 3/8/2017)

10/26/16

Hi Bradley, This is Gene Kuhns, Jr. I think we met each other earlier this year at one of the schools on island. I’d love to be involved in the planning process for Vashon Island. I’m interested in self sufficiency methods to be allowed in the code, allowing grid reduced or grid independent tiny houses to be placed on more properties, & creative building methods utilized, providing for more affordable housing. Some methods could include, but not limited to: composting toilets, grey water systems, rainwater catchment systems, solar electric, solar hot water, passive solar design, windmills, micro hydro, high efficiency wood stoves, super insulation, earth homes, straw bail homes, homes made from recycled materials, etc. I look forward to being involved in the process as possible. Please also put me on your mailing list. Thank you, Gene Kuhns, Jr. Sr. Estimator, MacDonald-Miller Owner, Live Innovations Farm & Education Center

Thanks for adding me. I am very concerned about proposed expansion of town center as well as upzoning. Celia Congdon

10/27/16

Hi Bradley, I was at last Thursday night’s meeting on Vashon and have a couple of follow-up thoughts I’d like to share. First, on the question of whether to allow more density south along the highway or east and west along Bank, I wasn’t sure during the meeting – but having thought about it more, I think it makes more sense for greater density south of

2

town. One reason is because Vashon Highway is already a busy road, and some of the roads off of Bank (107th, for instance) are quiet country roads. Why bring more traffic there? And second, we have mass transit along Vashon Highway but not these secondary roads to the east and west, and if some of these apartments would house people of moderate means, access to mass transit is important. Second, we didn’t get a chance to talk about changes in District 19 policy so as to allow more ADUs, but I do have a very strong opinion about that issue. Until we figure out a way to address the proliferation of Airbnb on Vashon, I don’t think more ADUs will translate into more rentals on the island. We’ve lost dozens and dozens and dozens of small, affordable rentals to Airbnb. I know this is a very difficult issue for planners to tackle. But I think it’s significant part of the problem on Vashon. So unless King County is willing to try to address it, I don’t see any reason to encourage more ADUs. Thanks for coming out to Vashon. I thought it was a great meeting. And having gone to many community meetings on Vashon over the years, I was impressed by the turn-out. Best, Leslie Brown

11/1/16

I am not able to make the meeting tonight but wanted to share my thoughts with the Community Advisory Group

members and King County staff. As I mentioned when I attended the 10/18/16 meeting, there are concrete steps that

can be implemented in a revised code that would provide greater flexibility to those who create the spaces and places

we desire. Specifically:

1. Parking – Eliminate parking requirements, particularly in Vashon Town. This is a major inhibitor of new developments, particularly housing. I’d like to build affordable housing like I’ve done in Seattle, but I can’t on Vashon because most parcels do not have enough land to accommodate the required parking. Even if we can accommodate some parking, that means we create fewer units at a higher cost per unit.

2. Density – Increase allowed density in Vashon Town. There are economies of scale to any project so the ability to provide more units on a parcel would increase both the number and affordability of a building (e.g., that includes housing).

3. Inclusionary Zoning – I support voluntary inclusionary zoning whereby incentives (such as property tax abatement, additional FAR, and/or expedited permitting) are provided that compel a developer to add them. Mandatory inclusionary zoning – particularly in a place like Vashon that already suffers from a lack of affordable housing – would make new projects more infeasible and further inhibit much-needed development (particularly in Town). In Seattle, we’ve been able to create workforce housing without a mandatory requirement because we want to meet a need. When possible, we have utilized the multi-family tax exemption (MFTE) program that limits the rental rates of 20% of the units to a certain percentage of area median income (AMI).

4. Camping – Allow for temporary camping on private property in Vashon Town. At our Lodges on Vashon with only 16 rooms, we reach capacity quickly during peak times (e.g., summer, Strawberry Festival). We’d like to creatively meet the higher demand during peak times (like the summer months) by having airstream trailers, yurts, and/or tents. This would allow us to accommodate more guests in a different experience who can explore and enjoy Vashon

Thanks for your consideration. Feel free to contact me with questions or to discuss at any time.

Regards,

Scott Shapiro

3

11/4/16

Hi Bradley

I’m one of the three members of the Board at Water District 19. I also have a background in Architecture and Design (MS

Arch, Cal Poly) and an MBA.

Here is a summary of my comments on what was discussed at the last public meeting. (Note: this is a copy of my

postings on FB – You will note I’m encouraging others to also connect with you so that more rather than less people

directly contribute to this process!)

Vashon Town Plan –SPEAK UP NOW – LET YOUR VOICE BE HEARD (submit via bradley.clark@kingcounty.gov – don’t wait..things seem to be moving quickly) My opinion? – DON”T SUPERSIZE ME! Increased density ≠ affordable housing (AH). (see reasons below)

One of the struggles of being on a public committee is that you really want to hear what people want, but often Vashonites restrict ourselves to just talking amongst friends, instead of passing on the info. To the people making the decisions so YOUR voice is HEARD.

Please, please submit something to Bradley Clark via email and help the committee make a decision based on all our views.

ADDRESS AFFORDABLE HOUSING THROUGH ‘NOT FOR PROFIT’ – we DON’T need to trade off with developers to get AH. WHY I DON”T WANT ‘CARTE BLANCHE’ CHANGES TO DENSITY ZONING: 1/ Current density on Vashon is maxed at 12 dwellings / acre

2/ UPSIZING (They call it upzoning) means they want to go to something like 18 24 or 48 per acre.

3/ Want an idea of how the existing system does UPSIZING? How well the system protects aesthetics and community inputs? Think Fauntleroy Way SW (esp. on cnr of SW Alaska). Imagine those apartments on both sides of the street? 7 storeys, Dense, maximizing per square inch, big BOXES. (From a design perspective, in my opinion – its about $$ per square inch, not aesthetics or good design. Think New York city – 1916 zoning to ensure air and light got to the streets below forced the move from BOXES to better design with setback requirements) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1916_Zoning_Resolution

4/ Vashon is not expected to grow much..but SEATTTLE is. We need to solve a problem of housing EXISTING Vashon residents who can’t afford the current rents.Build using higher density and we will DRAW MORE PEOPLE from Seattle whose growth rate is 3ogether3ing. This WILL NOT help AH.

5/ WANT REAL PROGRESS ON AFFORDABLE HOUSING (AH)?: Studies show successful AH occurs when housing built is done by NOT-FOR-PROFIT. Think about how a land trust protects the trees from financial interests dominating. One solution is a NON-PROFIT COMMUNITY LAND TRUST. (see article link for more info: http://www.bpichicago.org/…/Success-in-Affordable-Housing.p…)

6/ WE DON”T NEED TO TRADE-OFF WITH DEVELOPERS to get AH. (One of the suggestions is for every 3 dwellings built, zoning would require 1 dwelling be allocated to AH). We can do so much better than this!!!! (People

are already getting together and organizing ;)

7/ DON”T allow vested interests (for personal profit) dominate our community conversations ..often really important concepts like AH get ‘CO-OPTED’ (tricking us into thinking we will get AH, but we just end up getting increased density, increased concentration of wealth in the hands of the few at the expense of the many)

8/ CONNECTING TO THE TOWN CENTER SEWAGE ≠ GREEN! (And its expensive!!)The Septic system EXPORTS Vashon Water off island. FOR MAXIMIZING AQUIFER RECHARGE, wastewater should be returned to the aquifer via SEPTIC SYSTEMS. (See Golder report used by King County when determining rainwater harvesting as sole source MUST be connected to septic systems in order for positive impact on recharging groundwater) “Rain harvesting for year-round use provides environmental and water supply benefits regardless of the size of the storage tank, when combined with discharge of used water to septic systems.” (Page 6) (Golder Associates. 2007. Technical memorandum regarding Analysis Impacts on Water Resources of Rainwater Harvesting on San Juan Islands from Chris V. Pitre and Elizabeth Shea to Roma Call, Washington State Department of Ecology. July 9.) See PDF of this report on FB group page “Future Water Vashon”

4

9/ PERCEPTIONS OF WATER AVAILABILITY. There are an enormous quantity of variables influencing our perceptions of water availability. Climate change impact is one. How much groundwater is actually available? Do you know WD19 groundwater is mostly sourced from deep aquifer which has a ‘guesstimated’ replenishment rate of 100 yrs from the rain hitting the surface to it replenishing the aquifer? We recently conducted a fish survey on streams under wd19 stewardship which identified one of our key creeks as ‘salmon viable’ once barriers to salmon are removed from the private property towards the mouth of the creek.If 50% of wd19 water comes from surface water, the importance of protecting a salmon stream when things are so difficult for them right now- could produce quick shifts in perceptions of water availability. Key considerations encouraging conservatism include our reliance on sole source aquifer, existing and potentially increased salt water intrusion into our groundwater, maintaining and increasing the quality of water, uncertainty of actual recharge rates of deepest aquifers given ‘guesstimate’ of 100 yr recharge rate, a history of sharp declines in capacities (flow rates) for WD19 wells and some wells on island, recharge to the deep aquifer may come from areas outside of the peninsula (decreased snowpack will impact), portions of the aquifer are unconfined (making recharge estimates difficult), and assessments being based on a minimum quantity of studies on our groundwater.

10/ Expanding town boundaries – NEGATIVE IMPACT ON GROUNDWATER RECHARGE CAPACITIES. As a member of the WD19 Board, my position is: “The Board does not endorse expansion of the Rural Town Boundary. Of particular concern is a proposal that would annex a large area up-grade from and proximate to the Beall Creek watershed, which is fed by springs near Beall Road and which is also the site of the Beall Well. Beyond this, all the other land outside of the current town boundary which has been targeted for annexation is within the Rural Area zone, in which allowed development is very sparse with five- or ten-acre minimum lot sizes, allowing high rainfall recharge of the underlying aquifer, as mentioned above. Since sustainability of the water resource is the District’s highest priority, as laid out in past and current Plan policies, pushing the town boundary out and allowing denser development in the recharge area constitutes a serious risk to that resource”

SOO many reasons not to upsize... Soo many reasons to speak up – whether you agree or not with my points..let them be a stimulation point for you to carefully consider what is being proposed...AND BE AN ACTIVE PART OF THE COMMUNITY PROCESS BY DIRECTLY SUBMITTING YOUR COMMENTS TO bradley.clark@kingcounty.gov

Looking forward

Jenny Bell

P.S. Crucial typo in no. 8 point Bradley- the town sewage system EXPORTS Vashon water off island.

Apologies!

11/6/16

Hi Bradley- I have been a long time resident on Vashon Island and was on the committee that created the last Town

Plan.I have two comments to make about the new plan.

1) I think it is a big mistake to zone the Vashon Highway from town to Center with multiuse. I think strip development is

ugly and detracts from a vibrant town core.

2) I think that increasing the housing density in Town without imposing strict low income requirements is a huge

mistake for the rural character of Vashon. As a community member, I like that the developer can apply for a rezone and

the community can review the plan before approving it. In the past all of the projects that have included low income

housing have been granted a rezone. Why mess with a system that is working? Up zoning by itself has never increased

low income housing simply because it is not profitable for the builder. Vashon wants to be rural. Upzoning will make

Vashon look like Eagle Harbor with condos, condos, condos.

Thank you so much for considering my opinion.

Sincerely, Trish Howard

5

11/7/16

WHOA! Please do NOT upzone Vashon town. Certainly not in the name of affordable housing – which studies show is

better served by non-profit community land trust rather than private development and higher density zoning. The

suggestion/proposal to upzone is misguided and not at all in the interests, health or well-being of our Island community.

There are a number of critical issues at play here:

Current density on Vashon is maxed at 12 dwellings/acre. The upzoning being discussed proposes from 18 to 48 units/acre. This is entirely out of the realm for what our Island’s natural environmental and cultural community systems can handle! Water availability, groundwater recharge, aquifer and sensitive area protection, septic/sewer, aesthetics, growth rate/development/appropriate density, community values???? This is WAY out of line.

Vashon is experiencing a housing deficit, especially affordable housing. Projections show that not much growth is anticipated here (maybe the difficulty of living with ferries?) so we need to solve the problem of housing EXISTING Vashon residents not focus on high density housing which could DRAW MORE PEOPLE from Seattle with its alarming accelerating growth rate. High density housing will tax our fragile water/sewer/septic systems as well as be in direct opposition to long-expressed community/historical values and priorities.

Studies show successful affordable housing works best when managed by NOT-FOR-PROFIT community-based groups. WE DON”T NEED TO TRADE-OFF WITH DEVELOPERS for affordable housing. Even the suggestion that for every 3 dwellings built, zoning would require 1 dwelling be allocated low-income housing is not really in our interests. We can do better; people are already getting together and organizing. I am concerned that moving forward with current town plan proposals allows vested interests for personal profit dominate our community conversations ..although affordable housing is a carrot in the current conversation, I am concerned that the increased density that is being proposed/discussed simply increases concentration of wealth in the hands of the few at the expense of the many.

I am also concerned about potential waste solutions being proposed. I am unconvinced that connecting to the town sewer system is a green solution. It’s expensive and involves the export of Vashon Water off island. For best aquifer recharge, wastewater should be returned to the aquifer via SEPTIC SYSTEMS.

I am also concerned about the long-term impacts on water availability if we allow higher density development. There are many conflicting studies, opinions, information about this making it very difficult to make decisions based on predictions. BETTER SAFE THAN SORRY! If we go over our capacity to provide water from local resources, there would be disastrous and hugely expensive consequences.

Expanding town boundaries will have an adverse impact on groundwater recharge, exacerbating all of the concerns expressed here vis water availability, septic/sewer and groundwater runoff. Sustainability of the water resource is Water District 19’s highest priority, as laid out in past and current Plan policies, and it is also a high priority among residents, especially THIS resident. Pushing the town boundary out and allowing denser development in the recharge area constitutes a serious risk to our water resources.

Thank you for your consideration of my concerns.

Mary G.L. Shackelford

11/20/16

6

Thank you Martin for all your work in gathering this information. To me this goes way beyond the issue of affordable housing. It snowballs into so many infrastructure and service issues. Vashon would need to become a town and elect officials, police force? Stop lights? Walmart for affordable groceries? More foot ferries or a bridge? What about garbage trucks, more schools, gas lines, more entertainment , more doctors, dentists, medical clinics, fire department, road repair, bus service. Do we think the county will provide all these up zoned needs? What about the aging population? Add another VCCBuilding? And how do we address a much larger population in the event of an earthquake or other emergency? With concern, 6ogether blue On Nov 19, 2016, at 8:56 PM, Martin Baker wrote: Dear Friends, As you may know – or perhaps you don’t! – King County has been conducting a “Community Service Area Plan” (CSAP) process since March. This process is expected to result in changes to zoning and density. The planning applies to the whole island not just Vashon Town. There is a Citizen Advisory Group (CAG), with various subcommittees, working on it with King County staff from the Department of Permitting and Environmental Review (DPER). The DPER selected the CAG from people who volunteered following a request in the Beachcomber. Neither the King County Executive nor the County Council appointed the CAG. At least one result of this selection process is the Land Use and Affordable Housing subcommittee is heavily weighted with members representing development interests. Soon, the whole CAG, which is not well balanced either, will hear recommendations from its subcommittees. In my opinion, without significant counter pressure, there will be some very disturbing recommendations coming forward and potentially adopted as early as the Spring of 2017. With this paper, I try to layout for you the issues and key information. My recommendations on what to do come first to save you time. Hopefully, you might use the information in the rest of the paper, along with your own investigation, to engage. I know we are grieving with the results of the National election. I suggest this is a place to take action. It is after all our home. My Recommendations: I served as the sewer and water subcommittee chair for the 1984-1986 Community Plan process and as the Co-chair of the 1996 Vashon Town Plan. I can tell you that I am truly concerned with what I am hearing and the forces as play. So here are my thoughts on what to do and what will make a difference if you share my concern. And thank you for considering all this information! Actions to consider: 1) Attend the CAG meeting on November 29, 6:30-8:30pm, at the Land Trust building. 2) Also attend the meeting of the Land Use and Affordable Housing subcommittee meeting on December 6th at 6pm in the County building directly across from the Land Trust building 3) Write a letter or send an email to Bradley.clark@kingcounty.gov and be sure and cc. Executive Dow Constantine (Dow.Constantine@kingcounty.gov), and Councilmember Joe McDermott (Joe.McDermott@kingcounty.gov). My suggestions on points to communicate include: a) Do not expand the boundary of the Rural Town planning area. b) Preserve the existing rural residential character between the business centers – Center and Vashon Town core. c) Be creative about enabling affordable housing within the existing Vashon Town core. This could include upzoning in the Town core, more flexibility on parking requirements in the Town core for residential housing, and improve policies that support accessory dwellings and duplexes. d) Better coordinate King County subsidy programs and fund them to enhance federal programs. e) Continue and improve protection for aquifer recharge areas and protection and mitigation of wetlands.

7

f) Keep the plan preliminary until a full and creative public engagement program is completed. Provide planning funds for the public process. g) Conduct a competent and thorough environmental analysis and environmental process. 4) See the resource page at: http://www.kingcounty.gov/depts/permitting-environmental-review/community-service-area-plan/2016-vashon-maury-island-CSAP.aspx This site has a number of good resources including links to the 1986 Community Plan and the 1996 Town Plan. Both these latter documents are in the Vashon Library for review, in the library. The general issue: The biggest area of concern relates to zoning, water supply and the need for more affordable housing in the Vashon Rural Town. To be clear, there are two critical terms worth differentiating. “Vashon Rural Town” is a planning term with an adopted boundary. It includes the town and extends to Center (see attached map). The “Vashon Town core” is what we think of as the area from roughly the Library to the Methodist Church. It is critical to understand that the Vashon Rural Town boundary and planning area was adopted in 1996 with the Vashon Town Plan. At that time, this planning area enabled the citizen committee to insure that “rural business centers” would remain distinct and the area between Vashon and Center would not become strip development. The options now in play affect the zoning, water supply and potential for affordable housing in this planning area in particular and are worrisome precedents for the whole island. Furthermore, the options so far would increase development opportunity and pressure without meeting affordable housing needs. And they certainly threaten the rural character of the center of our Island. The affordable housing: Affordable housing has always been a concern and objective worth achieving going back to the 1986 Community Plan and the 1996 Vashon Town Plan. I was involved in both those plans and in my view, this objective is critical. It should be, and can be, accomplished while respecting the finite resources of the island and their protection – especially water and Vashon’s rural nature. If we lose these elements of our Vashon life, we never can retrieve them. As I argued in a letter to the Beachcomber recently, real affordable housing always results through a combination of nonprofit work, public subsidy and government support. It is not a solution to simply provide more land and up zoning. Such a strategy is too often the easy default, with little, if any, affordable housing result. Somebody definitely gains, but not the people who need the housing. The options in play: Here are a few of the most prominent options that are being discussed at the subcommittee. Up zone the area in the Vashon Town core as well as the rest of the Vashon Rural Town – the area between town and Center (see attached map). The idea is to up zone the current R1, R4, R8 and R12 zones to allow 12, 18, 24, and even 48 units per acre. Currently, the zoning on either side of the highway in this area is R1 and R4 – one house per acre and four houses per acre, respectively. The Town core has several R8 and R12 zoned parcels. This complete up zone is really quite massive. Up zone the Town core and some as-yet-to-be defined area east and west of Center, keeping the current zoning between the Town and Center the same. At the next meeting of the subcommittee, DPER staff will present some analysis of this idea. Combinations of the above. I should emphasize that the whole rationale being used to justify these up zone options is to provide affordable housing. In effect, the legitimate affordable housing objective is being used to drive up density within zones put in place to protect natural resources, including wetlands and water recharge aquifers. Let’s look at the numbers.

8

1) There is a current need of roughly 125 affordable units, a fair number of which would need to provide for people whose income is 30% of the median income for King County. No private developer can provide housing economically and that would be inexpensive enough for these people. They can provide units that would enable people with 60 or 65% of median income maybe, but more realistically 80% of median income. The rest of the units in such private projects would need to be market rate for the development to pencil out. At least one leader of an affordable housing nonprofit, working with government funds, described his organization might be able to meet the 60% income target, including some units for the 30% income target, with projects that would need 40 units to pencil out. 2) Current zoning in the Vashon Rural Town larger area (not just the Town core) would allow an additional 278 units assuming 50% of available parcel acres. Not only does the 50% assumption need scrutiny, but the potential second story capacity in the commercial zone is not included in the 278. One inhibiter of commercial second story development may be current requirements to provide parking spaces per unit. If this requirement were reduced, perhaps more second story units might develop over time. Bottomline, the 278 estimate is really one of the lowest possible for this area’s current zoning. 3) The option to up zone current zones to the south of the Town core to 183rd for up to 18 units per acre results in an additional potential 844 units. 4) Additional increments for various up zone options and expansions under discussions would increase the potential units even more ranging from 1,751 up to 2900 units. To put these figures in perspective, consider that the 2010 census population for Vashon was 10,624. A regional 2014 estimate calculated 10,800. If you calculate the range of up zoning units in the options under discussion, these options could enable an additional population of between 700 people (278 units x 2.5 household factor) to 7,000 people (2900 units x 2.5). For your interest, total Island jobs in 2014 equaled 2,390 and 2014 housing units equaled 5,370 single family units and 370 multifamily. The 2014 median 2 bedroom rent was $1000. The 2014 medium home value was $395,000. Let’s talk about water: There are two key points: First, we all know Vashon is dependent for its water supply on rain percolating to our aquifer recharge areas. The past Carr study in the 1980s along with the Community Plan of 1986 suggested that the Island carrying capacity was about 11,000 people. The Carr study identified critical recharge areas and a percolation rate for rain reaching the aquifers. Subsequent study has roughly doubled the carrying capacity number based on a conclusion that rain percolates faster to the recharge areas than originally estimated. But this conclusion is controversial and there is disagreement over the model that was used. There is no disagreement, however, that our aquifer recharge areas are critical to our sustainability, property value and way of life. The down zone to 5 and 10 acre zones for the critical aquifer recharge areas that occurred as a result of the 1986 Community Plan was based on protecting the critical aquifer recharge areas. Secondly, Water District 19 provides the water to the Rural Town planning area (Vashon Town to Center). It has estimated that the District can release 14 new water units a year through 2036, with current capacity and planned improvements. Early on, those new water units would serve those on the current waiting list (requests for 85 units are outstanding). Remember that there are an estimated 278 new residential units possible under current zoning in the Rural Town planning area and up to 2,900 new residential units under the most aggressive up zone option under discussion. How has Water District 19 responded just to the waiting list need. They’ve drilled 9 deep wells, most unsuccessful and pursued conservation. They’ve raised rates to among the highest in the state to spur conservation. With the greater demand represented by the up zone options, the question is what other supply options would the District have to look at as pressure to develop within up zoned areas increased. Would they create an expensive hodge-podge of shallow wells? Dam a creek to create storage? Seek to build a pipeline to the mainline? Seek to install a large desalination plant? Some of these “solutions” may seem ridiculous now, and economically infeasible, but beware. Even if feasible “solutions” are found for greater supply, they will raise water rates significantly. And in the process make affordable living for Water District 19 customers difficult.

9

What is truly bothersome is that the current conversation in the Land Use and Affordable Housing subcommittee sounds as if a majority of members would do the upzone, assuming water availability will control. We know where such thinking leads – to immense developer pressure on Water District 19 -- and out of view of the Island citizens. Thank you for considering these thoughts and any action that you may take! Martin Baker Attachments: Map of Vashon Rural Town area <Map re VashonProposedRuralTownExpansion-8-30 ver.pdf>

I am in favor of affordable housing, but definitely want it handled in a way that preserves the existing rural character

between the business centers of the town core and the area called “Center,” rather than opening it up to potential

strip mall appearance and density. Please, do not expand the the boundary of the Rural Town planning area, since

this could be expanded without any change in affordable housing, in addition to water concerns. As written by

Martin Baker in a recent letter to our local paper:

Real affordable housing always results through a combination of nonprofit work, public subsidy and government

support. It is not a solution to simply provide more land and up-zoning. Such a strategy is too often the easy default,

with little, if any, affordable housing result. Somebody definitely gains, but not the people who need the housing.

Thank you,

Nancy Roehm

11/21/16

Joe McDermott,

I feel it’s important to make you aware of a storm brewing, that you may be able to defuse.

There is a major mismatch between the extensive upzoning being proposed for Vashon Town and Vashon’s water

availability.

In order to promote affordable housing, the Vashon Community Plan Citizens Advisory Group (CAG) is proposing drastic

upzoning for Vashon Town and the area south to Center, thinking that private development is the solution.

The proposals now on the table far exceed the water availability. There are few prospects for more water from Vashon’s

sole source aquifer.

Here are the initial numbers:

Reacting to a current need for about 100 new affordable housing units, the 20-year Town Plan zoning proposals call for

an estimated 844 to 2,945 new dwelling units at buildout. Water District 19, with current and planned improvements,

estimates it can provide14 water units per year or about 280 units over 20 years. This is a major mismatch!

King County Water District 19 has implemented extensive (and expensive) water supply improvement measures over the

past twenty years. Background is attached, which includes maps from the Vashon Groundwater Committee of the

Vashon water situation and my letter to the CAG in September: “Effects of Community Planning on Vashon’s Future

Water Situation”. An email below provides further information.

10

Past Vashon plans were based on water and livability premises. This Vashon Plan is based on affordable housing

objectives, using private development. While stating support for preserving groundwater down amongst its guiding

principles, the Plan largely ignores the Vashon water situation with its zoning proposals.

Other options to provide affordable housing make a lot more sense.

Your involvement could make a huge difference. Could you perhaps meet with Brad Clark, King County CAG facilitator,

to emphasize the importance of Plan zoning that matches water availability?

Thank you!

Frank Jackson (These are my personal thoughts of course; not those of any groups to which I belong.)

Former Water District 19 Commissioner 1984-1990 and 2004-2010.

Member of the Vashon Maury Island Groundwater Protection Committee, 2004 to present

;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;

This is my email to fellow Vashon Groundwater Committee members, which contains further background:

All,

Attached is information that I shared with the Vashon Plan Community Advisory Group (CAG) in September about the Vashon water situation. I wanted to provide the CAG with information from our Liquid Assets publication and point out the importance of analyzing the projected water demand of various options considered.

After attending Vashon Plan CAG public meeting on Oct 20, it seemed that almost no water analysis of various options was being done. That led to the unanimously supported motion at our Groundwater Committee meeting on Oct 26 respectfully requesting that the Plan CAG “analyze the impact of their proposals on water supply, recharge, water quality and stormwater. The analysis should include an estimate of the total peak-use water requirement at buildout for the new proposals, and compare those to the current water requirement at buildout. Thanks, from our committee to yours.”

At the November 15 affordable housing/land use subcommittee meeting, the proposals being forcefully promoted were upzones by two steps (e.g., R-8 zoning goes to R-18 zoning) for large areas of not just the town core, but all the way to Center. There was still no water analysis, but in response to end-of-the-meeting comments, the clear message was that the majority of the CAG is trying to remove all barriers to affordable housing and let Water District 19 work out the water problem.

This is a frightening situation, and several at the meeting commented about it.

The next day Brad Clark, the King County Vashon Plan facilitator, was very responsive and emailed me some initial charts of the impact of the proposals. The charts, which use a questionable 50% “Discount” factor, show an increase of 278 housing units at buildout with current zoning. The new proposals show increases ranging from 844 to 2,945 housing units. Water District 19 commissioners have met and have told the CAG that they can provide 14 water units a year, hence 280 units in 20 years.

This is a major mismatch of new zoning (844 to 2,945 units) and water supply (280 units) over the next 20 years.

11

The attached information gives background on the situation.

Thanks,

Frank Jackson

463-3729

11/23/16

Dear Dow, I’m writing to express concern for the future of our Island. It appears that the Community Service Area Plan process has the potential to recommend zoning and density proposals that are worrisome. In particular, I hope the County will: 1) Not expand the Rural Town Planning area, 2) Between Center and the Vashon town core, preserve the existing residential rural character, and 3) Protect aquifer recharge areas and protection and mitigation of wetlands. The CSAG should be kept preliminary until an in-depth analysis is complete – including impacts on traffic, housing affordability, and water availability. Also, it seems obvious that a more representative and creative public engagement process is essential. You have contributed so much to protecting Vashon’s natural places and rural character. As we consider how to shape the future, please help us use solid analysis and the best brains on the Island. Thank you. Julie Burman

11/27/16

One word: NO!!!!!! Sir, Vashon is a RURAL town. We wish it to remain rural. A radical rezone in the fashion done in Seattle is not in keeping with the town as it wants to be. Vashon in a rezone under the idea of providing affordable housing is infuriating. As a government official you have all the data that shows that high density housing has never solved the problem!!! Vashon does not have enough water available for a huge rezone. All residents of 11ogeth have lived under water restrictions for a long time and developers have to do the same. This rezone benefits only large (off island) developers using county money to rape one more place for profit. Believe me, as a person displaced by rezone they will all be gone when the problems surface. A radical rezone is economically , environmentally and socially detrimental to this rural community and really detrimental to the very population needing affordable housing. Vashon would need greater infrastructure to handle any high density and since King County consistently tells us they don’t have resources to manage what is currently available it would be irresponsible to add to that burden. Vashon has a couple of housing projects that better fit the island life and culture such as Roseballen. Let King County contribute to a better idea such as those projects rather than the current default of rezone. Vashon has space, no need to crowd and it has people of intelligence and passion. Lets try a real community approach first.

12

I urge you to visit Vashon and not Support a radical rezone. Thank you Judy Wright Vashon

Sir, As a Vashon resident I STRONGLY oppose any rezone of its town center I believe the guise of it creating affordable housing is insane. That has not solved the problem anywhere else so that rhetoric needs to end. This is developers ready to rape the next piece of land and accept government funds to do so. Vashon has no water to accept this rezone. IT is he fundamental limiting factor on Vashon and ignoring that is shameful. Additionally, Vashon would need considerable upgrade in infrastructure to uphold rezoning and since we as a town and we in King County already cant handle what we have adding more is irresponsible. There is no economy on Vashon to support this when built and as a member of this rural town we don’t want to be seattle island. Do NOT vote for or support this rezone for any reason most especially not for affordable housing. Work with the Vashon residents in need of housing in a much more personal, community responsible dignified way. The problems from a new rezone will eventually fall to government to solve anyway be they social, economic, or environmental. Why add to that?? Please say no to rezone of Vashon Thank you JUDY WRIGHT Vashon

11/28/16

Hello.

I am writing to update my comment submitted November 7….and to make sure that copies go to our elected representatives.

I plan to attend the meeting tomorrow. From what I have read and learned, I am very concerned about what is being

considered visavis an update for our planning/zoning on Vashon Island.

Here is my input with my specific requests:

First off, I’m curious and concerned about the planning process. Please provide funds for a robust public involvement in the

public planning process. Make sure the plan is a draft plan until public engagement and input is complete. Please don’t allow

this to be rushed through!

Be very cautious about water availability, waste water treatment and runoff issues. Continue and improve protection for aquifer recharge areas and protection and mitigation of wetlands. Before final draft and approval stages, make sure there is a thorough environmental analysis.

Keep the Rural Town planning boundary intact. Maintain the separation of business centers at Vashon town and Center. Preserve the rural residential character that currently separates them.

Enable creative solutions to provide affordable housing in Vashon town, which might include some upzoning in the core, but not radically increased density and might also include easing of restrictions concerning accessory dwellings. It might also involve improving coordination and access to county subsidy programs and addn’l funding to strengthen existing federal programs.

Thank you for your attention to my concerns,

13

Mary G.L. Shackelford

Dear Mr. Clark, As a Vashon Island long-time resident, I am extremely concerned about the workings of the Vashon Planning Advisory Group, and the recommendations I understand they are making about growth on the island. Years ago studies were done focusing on the fact that the island has a single-source aquifer. Community groups made recommendations which have been carefully followed that would protect this water source. The number of additional dwellings should be carefully planned to conform to this information. Extending the area of town center is not a plan that is sustainable. There are other considerations besides the water supply that should enter into any determination to expand housing here on Vashon. Affordable housing has been a goal for the community. This should go forward very carefully and with input from the community. I hope a more representative group can be informed to be sure more voices can enter the process. It would seem that many parts of the planning have not been carefully considered. There is so much at stake here. Please do not support the plans being developed by this Planning Advisory group. Thank you, Jill Andrews

I believe it is very important for you to oppose the expansion of the Vashon Town area at this time. The number of

possible additional dwelling sites

(said to between 844 and 2945) over the next 20 years greatly exceeds the available water supply, estimated to about

enough to serve 280 units in

the same period. The committee proposing the expansion does not represent the Island community, has not properly

considered the water needs and availability

and appears to be only working in a selfish and greedy manner. The Rural Town Plan is adequate as it is. There is no

need for this huge addition of housing.

Other organizations on the Island are addressing the need for affordable housing, sheltering the homeless and

associated problems. This new “committee”

is not in step with workable plans and should be opposed by you as they are by many forward-thinking Islanders.

Murray Andrews

11/29/16

Dear Mr. Clark, Mr. Constantine, and Mr. McDermott,

I am distressed about the current proposals for the Vashon Town Plan that would push our zoning up a couple of levels

to allow more density for building and development in our core area. Our infrastructure will not support this increase in

demand for water, and the proposed housing is not aimed at providing affordable housing for those that need it.

Basically, I feel that the plan is aimed at providing more density with more development on our island where we are

constrained by Nature with limited resources. This does not meet my needs as a Vashon resident, and I am against this

plan. I moved to Vashon because I was drawn by its rural nature. If I wanted development, I could have stayed in Seattle.

Yours truly,

14

John C Havekotte

Hello Bradley,

I attended this evenings meeting (11/29/16) to better understand the logic behind the CAG’s up-zoning proposal. I

understand the committee’s thinking that this will enable affordable housing. (I do not necessarily agree, but understand

it.) What troubles me is the perceived disconnect between the CAG’s understanding of VMI’s water source capacity and

the limitations identified in the Carr Report (1983), and the VMI Watershed Plan (2005). It is my understanding that

many of the Watershed Plan’s recommendations made it into the Comprehensive Plan (2008), such as:

• Plan density so that demands on water resources do not exceed capacity to provide supply without

deterioration of water quality

• Public water systems on VMI shall assess the ability of water sources to serve growth

• Special considerations should be given to the impacts of new development on VMI groundwater resources

• Quality and quantity of VMI’s groundwater supply should be monitored, along with building permit and

subdivision data, to determine if planned densities can be achieved

I first learned of proposed zoning changes at the October community forum. During the “small group” discussion, the

CAG and KC rep for our group were immediately asked where the water would come from to meet the increase in

demand?... especially in light of WD 19’s waiting list for water service. The CAG rep then explained how that WD 19

would have to meet demand, simple as that.

I have served on the board of a fully-subscribed, 100 member water system since 2009, and have learned a thing or two

about supply and demand in the process. I think your committee members would be well served by reading the

previously mentioned reports and/or Managing Water Resources for Sustainability on VMI

(http://nsglc.olemiss.edu/sglpj/Vol2No1/Stockton.pdf) for a better understanding of our sole source aquifer. I would

also sugest consultation with water purveyors about sustainable source capacity. I fear that at least some of the

committee have confused “water rights” with “source capacity”.

I apologize if this comes off an attack, as that is not how it was intended. I only wish to convey a sense of sustainability

to the planning process. I applaud the efforts of all involved and look forward to the next public forum.

Thank you and good luck,

John Martinak

12/5/16

Bradley,

I attended last Tuesday night’s committee meeting, and plan to follow future plan developments carefully. I would like

to offer these comments about the housing and land use issues under discussion:

• Consideration of changes to the density in the town center and core should begin with an assessment of the

availability of resources which would be needed to support additional development. Existing Comp Plan policies relating

to water, sewer and waste water treatment on Vashon should be reviewed; the availability of these resources and

utilities should also be assessed. Any changes in the zoning should be consistent with the findings. I worked as a

member of the Vashon-Maury Island Groundwater Committee for many years and know that water issues have been

thoroughly reviewed, wells are being monitored, and several critical policies on the importance of preserving this

resource are in the Comp Plan. These are foundational, and help preserve all of our property values.

15

• I fully support the provision of affordable/low-cost housing, but not at the expense of these resources, and not

without a thorough understanding of the impact of additional densities in our town core. In addition, I do not support

the goal of having developers provide this housing for a covenanted period of less than 50 years. This approach to

providing affordable housing would result in few units being built, and the ultimate conversion of these units to market

rates.

• I do not support up zoning of the area between Vashon and Center. We cannot do this and preserve our rural

character.

• I do not support up zoning of Center. I have heard that one of the rationales for this is that Center is now

becoming more of a business area with the new arts building. This was a very controversial location for this building for

many islanders because of several factors, among them: the demolition of an historic building, the size of the structure

crowded between the highway and wetlands to the east, the height and volume of a structure inconsistent with the

character of what was then the most historic intersection on the island and the fact that the building was permitted

while providing insufficient parking for its planned use. I do not believe this building should be used as part of a

rationale for up zoning Center.

Another rationale I have heard regards sewer availability, currently provided to the high school campus. I was on the

school board when our community funded renovations to the middle and high schools. There was discussion at that

time of the issue of sewers leading to development. I recall explicit comments about the need to provide sewers to

these structures, but the desire that this not lead to increased development. It would be interesting to find if there is a

historic record of the rationale used by decision-makers, and if there is a record of such intention between the school

and sewer districts. It is my memory that there was agreement that the force main was sized and extended to the

school to reflect the school board’s intention; my memory is that this approach was followed specifically to prevent

sewers from leading to further density and growth. I do not believe that the availability of sewers to the high school

should be used as a rationale for up zoning Center.

• I support some kind of overlay in the town core to provide for affordable/low-cost housing that will permanently

meet that standard.

• Given the resource constraints, we should have an incremental approach to any changes in zoning to provide

greater densities (and, therefore, greater demand on water and other utilities). There will be periodic review of our

Community Service Area Plan, and we should, with each review, assess if we have achieved the objectives we have

sought, consistent with Comp Plan policies, and make incremental changes accordingly.

Thank you very much for your work on this and the opportunity to comment; I would like to submit additional

comments as our community moves through the CSAP process.

Donna Klemka

12/6/16

I am writing to comment on the current land use planning effort underway on Vashon.

I am concerned that some people seem to want to use “affordable housing” as a reason to substantially alter the current

Vashon Town Plan. I believe the current Town Plan has served Vashon well. It promotes a vision of a rural community,

with a cluster of businesses and denser housing in the heart of Vashon, and another commercial node at Center, about a

mile to the south. The area in between still has a rural character. The idea of the plan was to concentrate commercial

activities in a couple of spots, while not allowing “strip development”, as has so often occurred along arterials elsewhere

in the County.

16

This current Town Plan has worked well. The center of Vashon has grown over the years, with more businesses, and

more housing, while the surrounding area has continued to maintain its rural character. I urge that any revisions to the

Town Plan be made consistent with this earlier vision, of a rural community with a denser core.

As for “affordable housing”, I put quotes around the term because I do not think that is primarily what the proposals

now on the table are all about. These proposed changes seem to be about more housing, mostly at market rates.

“Affordable housing” seems to be attractive packaging for what is actually something else.

I believe that Vashon needs more Affordable Housing. Vashon Household, our low income housing advocacy

organization, has been one of my two most significant charities on Vashon for many years. Vashon Household, using

Island donors and government funds, has built specific projects that house people of modest means. We need more of

that. We need the County and other levels of government to support Vashon Household and similar efforts, using a

variety of ways.

The proposed rezone does not do that. Instead, it would add mostly new market rate housing units, while promoting

sprawl, and threatening water supplies.

Which brings me to water. It’s a serious mistake in logic to zone for substantially more housing units than our water

supplies can support. It’s a mistake that penalizes new land buyers, who may buy land, hoping to develop it with

housing, only to find that in practice they must sit on a waiting list for years, hoping for water shares that may never

come. It’s a mistake that can force Water District 19 to devote ever more resources to chasing new water supplies,

hoping to satisfy those waiting list would-be customers. That’s expensive for Water District 19 and its ratepayers. And

it’s environmentally unsound to push the limits of good water management.

We should zone for housing based on what we want in our community, and what current water system management

can support. We should want more affordable housing, that’s for certain, but adding several hundred or a few thousand

more housing units through a blanket upzone is not the way to do that.

Thank you for listening.

Randy Smith

12/7/16

Dear Bradley-

It was clear from the meeting last night that the Vashon Community does not feel that there has been adequate

public outreach. I was a committee member for the 1996 Town Plan. At that time there were meetings that presented

options and the community was able to comment and vote on the options. I have looked at every tab on your web site

and I cannot find a map illustrating the proposed change in zoning or the proposed change for the strip between Town

and Center. I think you will have a lot of angry folks and have trouble passing this plan if you do not increase your public

outreach soon! Please.

1) Have a map of the proposed zoning changes published in the Beachcomber soon.

2) At the meetings distribute handouts of the proposed zoning changes and words describing them.

3) Post a map of the changes in zoning the committee wants to propose on the web site.

4) Post any changes the committee is advising for the strip between Town and Center on the website

There was a lot of confusion about what your process is going to be. Multiple people asked whether there were going

to be another public forum meeting before the committee presents the final Town Plan in March? A lot of islanders

want to comment on zoning but there is no draft proposal to respond to????? The Islanders that are coming to the

17

meetings are strong supporters of Vashon Household and affordable housing, but we are getting angry because we feel

left in the dark. When and where will a Draft Proposal appear and when can we comment on it?

5) Update the schedule of meetings on your website and in the Beachcomber.

Thank you for your efforts to increase public involvement.

Trish Howard

12/9/16

Bradley,

I’m a resident of Vashon Island and I’m writing about the recent discussions about affordable housing and the plan to

upzone the town of Vashon. I absolutely support affordable housing because it’s become very difficult for people to find

places to live. We need more options. I don’t think we should upzone the town without careful consideration of the use

of resources, e.g., water, and consistency with the look, feel, and needs of our town. \ I urge you to carefully consider

plans for zoning and not to make any rash decisions.

Sincerely,

Jenny Sorensen

12/12/16

Dear Mr. Clark,

My husband and I live at 22801 107th Ave SW on Vashon Island. I have owned my home for 35 plus years. We have

been attending King County sponsored planning discussions for the Vashon Rural Town Area regarding the need for

increased affordable housing. We support the development of some units of such housing. We greatly fear that the

proposed SDO-Up zone preliminary ideas, currently under discussion, would lead to serious future problems for this

island regarding potable water, sewage collection and disposal and suburban sprawl. We strongly oppose up-zone plans

that might support zoning changes, which unintentionally encourage strip development between Vashon Town and

Center. We believe that up-zoning, based on the assumption that water availability and sewer capacity themselves will

control future development, is incorrect.

For these reasons, we support the recent recommendation for the implementation of a special district overlay (SDO) for

The Vashon Town core and possibly immediate adjacent parcels. We do not support any up-zoning south of 180th and

any expansion of the Rural Vashon Town area boundary.

Thank you very much for you consideration of our concerns. We look forward to monitoring further discussions of these

issues and hope that the county panning process will proceed at a modest pace to allow for additional citizen input as

more island residents become aware of the larger implications of zoning changes to accommodate affordable housing.

Yours truly,

Katie Bunnell

Del Langbauer

Bradley,

Thanks for doing a great job facilitating the Vashon Community Plan meetings. It is not easy herding the independent

cats that show up at these meetings.

18

Can you please share the name of the person on the committee who did the research on water conservation and said

they were going to talk to Water District 19 about water conservation.

Water District 19 has a meeting coming up tomorrow afternoon and I would like to talk with that person before that

meeting.

I encourage you to come up with a number of proposed affordable housing apartments and ADUs that are proposed in

the plan, so that people can stop debating about an uncertain number.

I think it would also be helpful to point out how many new homes and apartments are built each year typically on

Vashon to give people perspective on the numbers.

As I said before I encourage you to look at allowing the combination of compost toilet and greywater system as a low

cost alternative to requiring a new septic system when an ADU is proposed at an already developed site that has a

properly functioning septic system.

In addition you could ask that very efficient water using appliances be installed in the existing home and the ADU and

have the septic as a back up to the compost toilet and greywater system. The net affect would be that the post ADU

situation would have less wastewater going to the septic system.

These technologies are already allowed and I know of at least one recreational home recently permitted on Vashon

where a compost toilet was allowed as the only toilet.

So there is precedent for accepting these technologies now.

It has been stated that people are only wanting to provide ADUs when they can make a lot of money renting them.

This idea is contrary to what a growing number of people have told me.

Someone from the county mentioned the Whatcom County Hirst water rights ruling and they mentioned that King

County was going to look into that, but they would not likely be finished before the Vashon Community Plan is complete.

I strongly encourage the County to wrap up their evaluation and decisions related to the Hirst ruling before the Vashon

Community Plan is complete.

I say this because I attended the event below and in a number of counties around the state the response to the Hirst

decision has been to stop allowing all permit exempt wells. If King County decides that it will have a major impact on the

Community Plan because it would force all future development on Vashon to be with the existing water utilities.

CELP’s Annual Water CLE on December 1st:Protecting Instream Values in the Face of Climate Change

The presentations from that conference can be found here:

https://www.dropbox.com/sh/t8pzol8wb78mobk/AABLWRLSDXOcWnci4nzO31d-a?dl=0

I also strongly encourage you to take a hard look at the large role that water conservation can play in the plan.

I have been a water and energy efficiency and green building consultant around Puget Sound and the country for over

30 years, and I have seen how water conservation can reduce water demand substantially when carried out properly.

Thanks for your time.

Michael Laurie

Watershed LLC

19

12/13/16

Hello Gentlemen,

I was born and raised on Vashon, lived elsewhere as an adult, and now have returned to live here the rest of my

life. I have been to two meetings recently of committees charged with procuring low income/affordable housing on

Vashon. Many people have worked long and hard to find solutions.

One of the solutions presented would give private builders rights to build large (by Vashon standards) complexes with a

small number of units designated low income for only a limited number of years. This sounds horrendous to me. We

cannot let Vashon become a bedroom community for commuters to the mainland.

I am learning that providing affordable housing is very complicated and may be impossible if we are to maintain the

character of Vashon. But once we allow large apartment/condo buildings on the Island, we will have lost the rural

nature which is the very essence of Vashon.

Please do not make any decisions yet. There is too much at stake.

There is another meeting Thursday this week, December 15th, 6-8 PM, at the Land Trust Building on Vashon. Please

come.

Respectfully,

Marcia Crecelius

Regarding the CAG for Vashon, Land Use/ Affordable Housing :

We advocate for the following:

-No General Rezone for Town Core; no general rezone between town core and center.

-Target any individual rezone to affordable housing, not as a percentage but in its entirety.

-Any rezone and development proposal must fit within environmental and infrastructure limits. Any action must

consider water availability first.

-Respond to the specific numbers and needs on Vashon: household income and number of members. Develop reliable

information on these demographics.

-Seek to develop response to needs using current zoning.

- Develop response within the framework of preserving rural character, keeping in mind scale, density, congestion, and

impacts on infrastructure and service networks.

- No recommendation by CAG that in itself raises rates for Water District 19.

-King County should help with adjusting regulations inorder to promote creative solutions. King County should help in

finding financing solutions.

submitted by John and Carolyn Candy

residents of Vashon for 37 years, homeowners for 30 years...Westside Water District.

Dear Mr. Clark Just a few comments on the above subject: Zoning for increased density anywhere other than in the Vashon town core is very undesirable.

20

The goal from the perspective of the community as a whole is to provide housing on the island for workers who staff island businesses, not just for low income people in general. Neither public assistance or construction regulations could practically or legally target this segment of the population. Housing assistance to lower income people is beneficial and laudable but just having more people in subsidized housing will do nothing to address the problem of working people finding affordable shelter. While many low income people have jobs in the community, many do not or cannot hold them. The best way to assist the workers in local business is through an NGO which establishes a fund through contributions and fund raising from among those who benefit from having local workers living on the island. This includes every business and individual on the island. Many of use would be willing to support such a fund if clear and transparent standards were set for payout. Doug Johnson

I have attended the last two meetings of the subcommittee working on affordable housing as part of the town plan

update. I agree with many of my fellow 20ogeth residents that up zoning is not the answer. There is very little rural

area left in the county and increasing density on an island with limited natural resources seems unwise. I have proposed

that a real estate trust could be an option. I have been researching how this has been used in other parts of the country.

There are many small houses on 20ogeth, some that do not meet code requirements. A trust could be used to purchase

properties as they came on the market, and they could be fixed up if needed and rented. Because property taxes go

hand in hand with rising rents, it would seem that the county could reduce property taxes for trust houses, or initiate a

public benefit tax reduction for home owners who would provide affordable rents. This approach has worked on the

island to preserve forest and farm land from development and I think it could work for housing. On an island, I think you

must consider the whole when looking for solutions for economic diversity, not just the core. Before up zoning and

opening more land to private development with questionable results, please consider creative and alternative solutions.

I have also been looking into the return of boarding houses which could be a solution for the elderly as well as low

income residents.

Thank you, Saphire Blue

FYI. Saphire Blue

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Housing_trust_fund

http://www.sightline.org/2012/11/14/rooming-houses-historys-affordable-quarters/

12/15/16

I am fully in favor of maintaining a rural feeling in the area outside the town core. My family originally moved to the

island partially to get away from urban ‘sprawl’/random development and as a business owner hoping to move my

company to Vashon, this same quality is a big part of the rational for that move well.

All of the most comfortable, enjoyable, attractive small town centers I have been in have enough density to make them

vibrant, but they do not stretch out awkwardly into the surrounding area. The best ones are surrounded by open space.

My two cents.

Scott Hudson

Mr. Clark,

21

My family and I have been involved in community planning since the 1960’s when my parents, Jack and Enid Dolstad

participated in the what was then known as Operation Jigsaw. At that time some 57,000 residents were forecast to be

living on Vashon in years to come. Hmmm. Whose ideas was that?!

Years later we participated in crafting the Vashon Comprehensive Plan that was based on the J. Carr study of water on

Vashon. Our family continued to be involved with planning updates into the 1990’s We have been involved in the

Groundwater protection committee, the WUCC and, my father authored the Sole Source Aquifer document that was

adopted and applied to Vashon. I am a water professional, a graduate of Huxley College of Environmental Studies and

did my senior project on the planning activities undertaken in the late 1980’s.

With this correspondence I wish to address the aspect of “affordable housing” on Vashon and advocate for the

importance of using an ecological footprint process as a planning tool.

The importance of establishing a planning target for housing as an essential aspect of planning can hardly be overstated.

This target needs to be guided by and within an assessment of, the ecological footprint (Ecological footprint, and also:

Case Study: San Francisco )

so the town plan does not source its vision from a “crisis consciousness” but , rather, is guided by what is desired by the

community within the “footprint” it adopts, while also supporting our collective creativity to resolve community needs –

housing included. The importance of establishing limits is of tremendous importance. Why? Because without such

declaration, there will be no limit to how much housing and of what type is “enough”. Furthermore, who exactly will

have access to such housing? We were told at recent meetings that this housing will be “for islanders”. Pray tell: how

would you identify a legitimate “islander”? Who will be deciding that?

What is also of utmost importance is some way of measuring – for the purposes of providing feedback- whether the

goals of the plan are being met. I argue that using the well regarded ecological footprint metric is such a mechanism

that is applicable to our community. Anyone who has reviewed their own footprint arrives at the sobering realization

that the ways we have been meeting our needs and desires is not sustainable. We can continue to live in denial or we

can engage with uncomfortable conclusions that require creative and inherently flexible solutions that can more easily

adapt to the needs.

Using multi unit buildings to address housing needs is an outdated approach that reflects misguided policies and

structural economic biases. By contrast, a distributed approach takes advantage of existing housing, is reflexive to

needs without wholesale commitment of resources and supports individual initiative to be a contributing member of the

community. It is a “solution from within” rather than being imposed by outside agents who may be (and likely are) only

economically connected to the community.

A desirable approach would include tax and other financial incentives to create such a distributive approach to

affordable housing . This needs to be done within a planning process that has built in feedback loops for assessing

whether the aim (goal) is being realized. Using a footprint analysis would provide measurable and on-going feedback to

the community and would guide creative approaches to resolving housing (and other) needs while acknowledging the

impact on other desirable community characteristics such as “ruralness” and the “sense of connection” many people

value in this community.

Many of us regret the primacy the private automobile had in previous versions of the community plan. While the

automobile bias is understandable in the context of history, the unintended consequences of this approach on the very

values islanders say they prize is becoming more well known.

One unfortunate outcome of previous planning efforts based on the automobile has been to create the conditions for

“strip development” along Vashon Hwy south of the “town core” (PSE yard is a common reference point). No one I

know actually wants this “Aurora Avenue” type of community or town. Strip development relying on the car is

22

antithetical to the realization of a healthy town and is to be avoided at all costs. Any proposal to increase the density

allowed in the area between the Town Core (PSE) and Center is contrary to the conditions that contribute to a desirable

town.

Alternatively, we have a unique opportunity to take advantage of the nature of this island community by considering the

forementioned distributive approach to housing. There are many extra rooms, guest cottages and ADU’s that might be

made available if there were sufficient financial incentive for owners and if certain restrictions were removed or relaxed

relative to ADU’s. Additionally, in the case of some elderly who are living on fixed incomes, such incentives would

accomplish the goal of keeping those on fixed incomes from becoming part of the population that needs affordable

housing! In addition, much greater community connection is likely to be achieved by a distributed approach to housing.

Even greater financial incentives could be offered to those willing to forego the use of a private automobile – an act that

significantly reduces a carbon footprint. I note that one of the topics of discussion at the community meeting at

McMurray some weeks ago had to do with acknowledging and strategically addressing climate change. It is hard for me

to see that any approach that involves building even more buildings instead of using what we have available (and in

excess) will do anything but move us further away from effectively addressing climate change.

In summary: Do we want to provide a variety of housing options? Of course. Do we want strip development?

Absolutely not. Are we concerned about our water resources (an aspect that would be included in an ecological

footprint analysis of course)? Yes. Is an ecological footprint analysis an appropriate and needed planning tool? Yes.

Sincerely,

Douglas P Dolstad

Vashon Island, Cascadia Bioregion

12/16/16

Greetings, Bradley Clark,

I am a resident of Vashon Island and customer of Water District #19. I would like to contribute to the discussion

on the updating of the town plan, specifically affordable housing.

I believe it is fairest to potential buyers of land/lots on Vashon that the availability of water be clear up front. I

was part of a group in the 1980’s which bought land (outside Water District #19) with the intent to develop and our

plans failed because it proved impossible to get water permits within any reasonable time. I lost money and a dream.

So when I see an “up zone” plan which encourages people to buy land without the certainty of water availability I see a

plan designed to disappoint dreams. I urge you not to so this.

I also believe Vashon can produce more affordable housing by building it directly and not as a part of a larger,

private development. The island routinely raises large amounts of money for worthy causes; our Community Care

Center; a new Arts Center; a new Neighborcare Health Clinic; a food bank; land conversation, and affordable housing.

We can do more.

I support the broad terms of the “Special District Overlay” recently brought into the discussion. I hope you will

give it serious consideration.

Thank you for your efforts toward a well-planned community on our island.

Yours

James W. Hauser

12/18/16

23

(Notes from oral presentation by Martin Baker to CAG subcommittee 12/06/2016)

Realities:

1. There is a deep and wide commitment to affordable housing on the island. Many of us, if not all of us, in this room are either involved directly or contributing financial resources to nonprofits accomplishing this work. ---

2. There are mega economic forces that we have no, or relatively little, control over – property value increases, demand on limited supply of land, ownership trend of Vashon parcels.

3. We live on an island that has limited resources. Those resources, especially water, can be diminished without us seeing it happen. This is why we must be careful, observant and engaged.

a. In addition, the Sewer system will soon be, if not already, facing capacity limitations. b. Both water and sewer systems have high rates that will go higher in order to add capacity, and these

rates will also challenge affordability. c. The most fundamental reality is that Water District 19 is projecting availability of only 14 water shares

per year (280 total) through 2036. This capacity matches the calculated units of housing that could be produced from vacant and underutilized parcels within the Rural Town area boundary (Vashon Town to Center) under existing zoning.

4. Private developers projects produce few affordable housing units. These are “nested” within a project that is predominantly market rate units. Furthermore, the covenants for these affordable units only require retaining the units for 12-20 years, after which they can revert to market rate. We don’t get permanent affordable housing units.

5. Our island has proven time and again it does not want zoning conditions between Vashon Town and Center that lead to strip development and greater density.

6. Finally, this community is generous, talented and skilled at organizing to get what we want. We have proven it time and time again.

Our Proposal Principles:

1. Plan recommendations should align with available resources. In other words, don’t up zone assuming that available water and sewer capacity will control what happens.

2. Recommendations should assume and plan for incremental changes. Nothing happens over night, and conditions and technology changes over time. Given the plan has to be reviewed again in 8 years, we should focus on a modest incremental step now.

3. Recommendations should try to enable affordable housing to happen faster. 4. We should create an approach that the vast majority will support, contribute to, and organize for.

Key Elements:

1. The basic idea: Put in place incentives, more flexible regulatory standards, and an expedited permit process that would enable a variety of affordable housing units for households earning 60% or less of the area median income. In recognition of the limited water resource, the number of units permitted would need to be consistent with the projected water availability from District 19. Different Incentives would be provided for a project or projects that produce temporary to permanent affordable housing within a annual water budget of 10 water units. For example, a four-plex would probably need less than 4 water units from Water District 19. Conservation incentives might also reduce water units needed.

2. Units would likely be in the form of ADUs, houses with multiple living units, duplexes, tiny houses, cottages, micro-housing, etc.

3. The tool to implement this approach would be a special district overlay (SDO) for the Vashon Town core and possibly adjacent parcels within the Rural Town area boundary between roughly Cove Road on the north, extending to the south of town no further than 180th . There would be no change to the zoning south of 180th to Center and no extension of the Rural Vashon Town area boundary.

24

4. A project proponent would need to fill out a check list that demonstrated how the project was producing affordable units and of what kind. For example, is the project for permanent affordable housing or not? Does it utilize government subsidies? Are there environmental mitigation partnership arrangements, etc. Depending on the proposal and check list, the project within the SDO would be qualified for a range of incentives and the degree of permanency of the affordable units produced. Incentives might include relaxation of various regulatory standards (e.g., fewer required parking spaces), priority for available water units, an expedited permit process, financial resources, a property tax break, higher density on a specific parcel basis, and/or government insurance.

Bradley,

I have attached the list of water conservation measures that Kim Goforth created with my comments added.

As I told her, I think a lot of the ideas could be good but like with all the conservation projects I have worked on in the

last 30 years, the devil is in getting the details right for each measure, having good approved product lists, and having

someone who is qualified to verify that the measures did get installed and they were installed correctly.

If you decide you want help on more of the details of those measures I would be happy to help working as a paid

consultant.

I have done that kind of work on many other projects including the recent city of Seattle Tune-up legislation that will

require all buildings above a certain size, to implement water and energy efficiency measures on an O and M basis

periodically.

On a related note, I want to encourage you to not just look at water conservation for new construction in the Vashon

Town Plan, but consider it as a way to stretch the limited water resource by looking at water conservation as a supply

option just like what has been done in other communities.

I encourage you to take a look at the following web links that address that subject, especially the first one.

“These policies require offsetting the projected water demand of new development with water efficiency measures to

create a neutral impact on overall service area demands and water use.”

http://www.allianceforwaterefficiency.org/net-blue.aspx

This one addresses the rate impacts of water efficiency.

http://www.allianceforwaterefficiency.org/declining-sales-and-revenues.aspx

This one provides lessons on how water efficiency was used to dramatically lower water use in Australia.

Vashon does not have a drought but it certainly could be facing something similar to a drought with more people

wanting access to water than what is made available.

http://www.allianceforwaterefficiency.org/AWE-Australia-Drought-Report.aspx

On the subject of limited water on Vashon and the Hirst decision, I want to suggest two things.

The Vashon and Maury Islands Groundwater Protection Committee, with Greg Rabourn as the key King County

contact person, has been undertaking monitoring of wells and stream flows for many years through this Committee.

I was on the committee for 5 years and chair for 2 years and since I left I have attended many meetings.

In all the years I have been involved I have never seen evidence that we are running low on water.

No long term declines in any wells.

25

In light of that evidence I think we should be cautious about assuming that we are running out of water as some claim,

there is just no evidence to back up the claim that our annual water use on Vashon is exceeding the annual recharge.

It seems to me that one of the best ways to address the Hirst ruling is to continue these studies and models of the

water use on Vashon, and maybe even expand the studies to include more wells especially the wells of more of the

public water systems, and stream flows.

In the all day event I attended a few weeks ago sponsored by CELP, where there were presentations on the Hirst

decision, all of the basins that decided to ban permit exempt wells did so because they had evidence of declining water

levels in wells and or declining in stream flows.

To me it would be premature for King Count to ban permit exempt wells without similar evidence of declining water

supply.

And continued studies thru the Vashon and Maury Islands Groundwater Protection Committee could help ensure that

we detect and respond to any decreases in supply, before they become a big issue.

Thanks for your time on these important issues.

Michael Laurie

Watershed LLC

12/21/16

Bradley Clark,

I would like to comment on the Vashon Town Plan options currently being considered by the subcommittee on Land Use

and Affordable Housing, two of whose meetings I attended in December, 2016. I am a Vashon resident and customer of

Water District 19 for the past 25 years.

I don’t understand why the subcommittee is considering upzoning when the water availability of both the Island and

Water District 19 is so limited. Water District 19 has made it’s constraints known to this Plan update process, and

estimated that, at the best, 14 or 15 water units per year can be provided. The Citizens Advisory Group (CAG) seems

focused on upzoning beyond that capacity anyway. How is Water District 19 going to find the water?

• Drill even more wells?

• Pipeline to the mainland?

• Desal plant?

• Dam a creek?

• Raise rates even higher?

Water District 19 rates are already amongst the highest in the state. The sewer plant is also near capacity. Who is going

to pay for the resulting chaos from a Vashon town upzone? Upzoning will NOT making living on Vashon more

affordable, but quite the reverse.

The current Vashon Town plan zoning and boundaries are adequate for projected growth. Further upzoning is

extremely poor planning.

Thanks you for the opportunity to comment.

Sincerely,

Martin Koenig

12/22/16

26

Dear Mr. Clark:

I am writing to comment on the Vashon Community Service Area Plan, having lived on the Island for about 40 years.

The current Vashon Community and Town Plans have worked well, encouraging business development and higher housing density in the town of Vashon while maintaining a primarily rural character elsewhere. It has been particularly successful in avoiding transformation of the highway south of Vashon Town into a strip development.

The current Plan has also helped us limit pressure to use our finite water supply in an unsustainable way. Lack of water was a primary reason for changing zoning on much of the Island to decrease the number of dwellings allowed.

These aspects of the current Plan remain critical in maintaining the character and liveability, even habitability, of our community.

Vashon, like most of western Washington, lacks sufficient affordable housing. As we can see in Seattle though, simply building high density housing, even with a small number of units dedicated for a limited period to somewhat-less-than-market rents, clearly fails to meet this need.

If we wish to provide housing for people with low incomes, we need to pursue doing so specifically.

We would be deeply unwise to negate the fundamental goals of the current Plan by allowing erosion of Vashon’s rural character to greatly increase housing density, particularly when hundreds of parcels could be developed under the current Plan—if there were enough water.

We would be foolhardy to increase the number of housing units allowed when we have no clear plan to provide water for them.

Yours truly,

Mary Ellen Walker

12/27/16

Dear Bradley,

Seems that the old plan is working OK. I was just looking at some demographic data:

Population growth 1990 To present:

U.S. 27.57%

King Co 40.64%

Vashon 12.23% …. And considering Vashon is included in the KC +40% it’s even better.

Cost of living is 167% of the US average but right in line with the rest of King County.

Median home cost:

27

US $185,800

KC $495,700

VI $531,200

Which sort of indicates “affordable” is unlikely ANYWHERE in KC. A ”Cheap” rental is about $1000 either in KC or on the

island, and if you budget 1/3 of your income for housing you still need to make about $20/hr. Not too many island jobs

pay enough to allow you to live there, let alone BUY there.

So let us preserve the water supply and the natural environment as much as possible, and be thankful for the moat. We

all know our kids probably won’t be able to stay on the island unless they are lucky and get a really good job and don’t

mind commuting. (And we leave them the house).

Good luck with the plan.

Rick Ames

1/8/17

Hello Committee Members:

Thank you for the long months of time, energy and investigation you have put – and continue to invest – in this process. I have

written before to share my voice in the process. Unfortunately after due diligence trying to be involved and heard on this, I

cannot attend Tu night meeting.

Perhaps the most difficult place to find balance and agreement is the tension b/t wise water resource use/protection and our

pressing need for affordable housing. I’m very opposed to expanding town core boundaries or increasing allowable density –

AND I do recognize that it’s really dire, for our young people who do want to live and work here, for immigrant families who

provide diversity and character as well as important services and contributions to our community, for those with limited

income, the elderly – etc etc and so forth. Diversity is a strongly-held community value.

I favor creative and potentially more flexible solutions for encouraging affordable housing that would align with realities of

water availability etc. Perhaps we could recommend boundaries/guidelines that are definitive about the priority to safeguard

our water while advocating for flexibility in building codes, financing, incentives etc and local input/oversight that would

support sustainability – for community, individuals, non-profit or small-scale entrepreneurial business models, the land, water

etc with sustainable practices that are in alignment with our unique community character being the common ground. NOT by

drastically increasing allowed density.

Perhaps identifying the scope of stakeholders will make it clear how many of us are actually affected….ie everyone….this is not

just a town or low income or elderly issue…..

I appreciate your continued advocacy for unique solutions that meet our unique and particular Island needs.

Again thank you for your efforts.

Respectfully,

Mary G.L. Shackelford

Bradley:

As of this moment, the website is not functional. The supposed hyperlinks to resources don’t work. Hope you will fix that

asap.

I would like to have the following comments on the planning process and potential outcomes added to the record.

28

Let me say, first that I appreciate the hard work that you and your CAG do. It is important to our community. However,

that being said, I believe much of the community feels that the process is being “jammed down our throats” in order to

satisfy a County government – based planning requirement.

I have the following specific concerns about the planning process:

1. There is no apparent SEPA process. As this is a formal plan that will have environmental impact to primarily the built environment, with connected impacts to water and land resources, economics, transportation, and others, a SEPA document should be prepared. I will note that the last significant rezone which changed the defunct K2 Company site from industrial to community business was done as a single line addition to the annual County zoning ordinance. No SEPA process relating to the specific rezone was completed; no public comment period was allowed. This particular rezone action was done without proper notification or hearings. Without correcting this oversight, the CSAP process is not valid.

2. There is no process that allows for actively seeking community input, that is designed to afford the community, outside the CAG to directly affect the outcome of the planning process. The CAG was essentially self-selected from those who applied. There is no organized method included in their work that is an active community outreach, in stark contrast to the last plan update, completed in 1996. The CAG process is designed to gain input from a select few of the community; the CAG was not effectively chosen by the community, but rather by the County staff; therefore the CAG does not effectively represent the community.

I have the following specific concerns about the proposed outcomes of the planning process:

1. There is no apparent connection between the proposed zoning changes that increase density within the service area of Water District 19 and the Vashon Sewer District, and the likely impacts to required public services within the town plan area. Without consideration of the limitations of service that are real and current, the proposed upgrade in zoning is invalid. Thanks to very recent activity by concerned citizens, I am sure you are now aware that actualization of potential rezones in the town plan area are significantly limited by water resource availability. It remains a puzzle to most of the community how the CAG process could have overlooked this limitation.

2. There has been apparently no consideration of the impacts of the proposed zoning upgrades on transportation, public safety, economics, or natural environment; without these considerations being included in the zoning discussion, the discussion is incomplete. For instance, where is the traffic study or opinion from the King County Roads Division that recognizes the impact of increased traffic related to density changes; where is the economic impact assessment of the cost of required improvements that will likely be borne by the general public on Vashon.

3. The proposed planning description that purports to encourage and support affordable housing is naïve and unrealistic. Simply upzoning and providing some loose rules to provide advantages to developers in exchange for a small percentage of ‘affordable’ housing for a limited, 12-year commitment will not likely, in my view result in any affordable housing stock increases in our community. The unintended consequences are likely to be increased assessment values for large parcels of land that will benefit only the County’s coffers in property taxes, while not realistically providing any real incentive to implement affordable housing. The most recent ‘affordable’ housing development on Bank Road, has been over ten years in coming to fruition, a delay, in part I am sure due to the unforeseen County requirement for the development to fund a major redesign of the roadway that fronts the development. This is an example of how the County ‘encourages’ affordable housing.

In summary, there are actions you, as the leader of this process must take to insure credibility of the planning process.

1. Implement an organized process of community outreach, accompanied by real information and alternatives for increasing density based on the real limitations of resources available.

29

2. Direct the CAG to be active in outreach, and make them responsible for the outcome and base the outcome on community input; do not think that the CAG represents the community at this stage in your process; they do not.

3. Propose, as one alternative, an incremental, staged process (say, five year increments, over the next 20 years of the planning horizon)for upzoning that first encourages densifying existing multi-unit zoned parcels; then evaluate the results to determine if additional upzones are required to support community needs.

4. Propose that assessed value of upzoned parcels (as evaluated and approved by a community process) increase at rates consistentent with values prior to the rezone, until such time as the property is actually developed at its denser level.

Thank you for including my comments in the record. I will look for them there.

Regards,

Allen de Steiguer

1/9/17

Mr. Clark,

I, once again wish to say Vashon is RURAL and an upzone doesNOT keep with that character Please no rezone!

I am a Vashon resident. The values I hold dear on 29ogeth are their commitment to community and each person

therein, their compassion for the islands established rural character, and most especially their intense passion for the

environment they live within most deliberately with respect to water.

Upzone and development threaten each of these.

I wish to ask King County to serve the problem of affordable housing with government assistance by subsidies toward

organizations already on 29ogeth addressing the affordable housing issues , and by support toward the projects already

on board on Vashon.

Thank you

Judy Wright

1/10/17

Attn: Bradley Clark

Subarea Planner

Department of Permitting and Environmental Review

Date: 10 January, 2017

Dear Mr. Clark,

The Vashon Alliance to Reduce Substance Abuse (VARSA) would like to comment on King County’s proposed zoning for

the Vashon town plan that would allow marijuana retailers, producers, and distributors be considered “acceptable use”

for commercial/business zoning purposes. We do not support this proposal.

VARSA plans, develops, and implements community-wide strategies to reduce and prevent underage drug and alcohol

use. We do this by engaging, educating and empowering all sectors of our Vashon community. The coalition is made up

of leaders across our community, representing Business, Schools, Law Enforcement, Government, Healthcare, Substance

Abuse Professionals, Social Services, Faith-Based Organizations, Youth Serving Organizations and Youth. We are funded

through state and local donations, and participate in the Community Prevention and Wellness Initiative administered by

30

King County. We are working hard to decrease substance use but cannot do this work alone. We rely on partnerships

with other agencies, including government, to work with us to address this issue in a multi-faceted way.

Our reality is that Vashon has a very high rate of underage substance use, as evidenced by data from the state-wide

Healthy Youth Survey, an island-wide community attitudes survey, as well as internal assessments done in our local

middle and high schools. According to the 2012 Healthy Youth Survey, 53% of Vashon 12th graders used pot, compared

to a 36% state average. Since there has been federal and state funding for VARSA, there has been a steady decline in

these numbers as a direct result of the prevention work being done in the community. We could see all that hard work

reversed if this proposal is accepted. Our kids are known by other schools as “Pothead Pirates” (Pirates are our high

school mascot). This is not acceptable. Youth marijuana use can have significant negative short, intermediate, and long-

term health, social, learning, and emotional impacts on our youth, especially for our vulnerable populations like LGBTQ

youth. Emerging research and evidence from the alcohol prevention field predict that marijuana use is expected to grow

even further with our recent state legalization of recreational marijuana.

At our coalition meeting last night, we discussed the issue of marijuana zoning and voted to take a position to reject the

Vashon subarea plan proposal that would allow marijuana retailers, processers, and producers to operate in areas zoned

for commercial business (CB) for two very important reasons; to reduce access and perceived community tolerance for

drugs.

Access:

We need to make it as hard as possible for kids to get marijuana. Increasing access means increasing supply, which leads

to increased use. Public health research shows that zoning to restrict access can be an important and successful strategy

to decrease youth substance use rates.

Tolerance:

Research shows that the more tolerant a community is regarding drug use, the less a child will perceive it as harmful,

thus leading to higher use. Allowing marijuana uses in a highly visible and visited part of the island (e.g. in the CB zone)

will influence our childrens’ perceptions of what is normal and okay. Once developed, these social norms are very

difficult to change.

We understand that King County has amended their Comprehensive Plan to allow marijuana uses in CB zoning.

However; there are precedents across the state of local jurisdictions that have enacted ordinances that prohibit the

siting of licensed marijuana producers, processors, and retailers within their borders. Other cities and counties have

enacted special zoning ordinances limited the location of recreational marijuana businesses to certain areas.

According to the I-502 (2E2SHB 2136) final bill report, “In 2014, the Washington State Attorney General published a

formal opinion stating that state law does not preempt local ordinances that impose bans or moratoria regarding the

siting of marijuana producers, processors, and retailers”.

We want the King County Planning Division and the King County Council to know that “Weed Island” and “Pothead

Pirates” are not acceptable ways that we want our youth to be perceived – and that the health and wellbeing of our kids

should be considered before any zoning and planning considerations are made.

If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me.

Best regards,

Lisa MacLeod

1/19/17

31

Bradley Clark,

I’m commenting on the Vashon Community Service Area Plan.

Estimates of Residential Units and People at Half of Buildout

The following data was compiled to estimate the potential housing that could be built under current zoning, and

compare that with the need for affordable housing.

Summary observations:

1. Estimates of potential new residential units indicate that the current zoning is sufficient to provide for existing and potential future demand for many years.

2. Vashon Household (VHH) reports its current waiting list is about 60. 3. Current Vashon town zoning, at half of buildout, allows 278 new units in residential zoned parcels

alone.[1] (“Buildout” is the eventual maximum development allowed by the zoning. These estimates are for half of buildout.)

4. The potential for new housing units from half of potential ADU’s in town is 77 units. (ADU=Accessory Dwelling Units, often called mother-in-law units)

5. Total potential at half of buildout with existing zoning (278 units) and half of ADU projected new units (77units) and Masi/Gorsuch Road project (41 units) is 396 units, or housing for about 950 people at 2.4 people per unit.

6. Upzone options at half of buildout from initial King County parcel analysis show 844 units for the lowest option and 2,945 units for the highest option. That’s housing for 2,025 to 7,068 new people, within the rural town area.

The County parcel analysis of existing vacant (264) and underutilized (291) parcels in the Rural Town Area (which has R1, R4, and R8 zoning) = a potential for 555 units

X 50% of buildout =278 new units

Data sources for chart above and table below:

Initial numbers for existing residential units are from data presented at the Dec 6, 2016 meeting of the Land Use

Subcommittee of the Vashon CAG for residential units with the Rural Town Area (Vashon – Center).

The County parcel analysis of existing vacant (264) and underutilized (291) parcels in the Rural Town Area (which has R1, R4, and R8 zoning) = a potential for 555 units X 50% of buildout =278 new units.

32

Data on units at half buildout of upzoning options are from King County’s Vashon Parcel Analysis matrix.

Type of Res. Units Number existing Percent of total People[2]

Market Rate 260 residential units 62% 624 people using 2.4 people per unit

Subsidized units 160 38% 384 people

Total Units 420 100% 1008 people

New – expected 41 (Masi/Gorsuch Rd)

9.7% resulting in new total of 43.5%

98 people = roughly current demand

Potential R1 zone Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs)

154 Estimate 50% will happen = 77

370 people If half of ADU’s (77) come into use, 185 people

Existing ADUs R4 zone

4

Estimated Potential new units

118 (41 Masi + 77ADU)

283 people

Potential units at buildout – existing zoning – without ADU’s

555 units (264 vacant +291 underdeveloped )

278 units Estimate for 50% of buildout

1332 people. At half buildout, 667 people

Total – at buildout with existing zoning and potential ADU units + Masi

750 units (41 Masi +154 ADU + 555 existing

396 units Estimate 50% ADUs(77) and 50% buildout(278) + Masi (41)

1800 people. At half buildout, 950 people

Converting dwelling units to people using 2.4 people per unit

In November I submitted comments that expressed dismay at the land use plans that were being discussed for Vashon

Town, seemingly without adequate regard to the limited water resources. Herein I am providing a graphical and tabular

summary of data that compares the affordable housing need both to water availability and to the most currently

available parcel analysis and buildout data for various town land use options being considered.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment.

Frank Jackson

1/25/17

Hello Bradley,

I attended last night’s meeting and have been thinking about all of the “unbuildable wetland” parcels I keep hearing

about. Would it be possible to reallocate the buildout potential of these lots (assuring they can’t be developed) to areas

conducive to high density affordable housing?... If feasible, this would provide a conduit for affordable housing without

Converting dwelling units to people using 2.4 people per unit

33

an increase to potential buildout. I fully support the development of affordable housing, but all growth must be

sustainable.

Thanks for all your work,

John Martinak

1/31/17

I am writing in response to the housing and land use committee’s proposal of a density bonus which will allow zoning changes between town and center. I am opposed to this proposal because allowing this level of development is not consistent with the infrastructure, water availability, or rural character of 33Vashon. The subsidized housing in the town core area has been working very well. The waiting list of approximately 60 people should be addressed incrementally and consistent with district 19 forecasts of water availability. I would support further subsidizing of existing housing by the county to provide affordable housing. There is little rural land left in king county. Please consider the irreplaceable value of the natural resources of this island. More affordable housing can be achieved through thoughtful public policy rather than density bonuses. Thank you, Saphire Blue and Gordon Smith

2/2/17

Dear Mr. Clark,

I moved to Vashon Island many years ago because I liked its rural character. I believe that Vashon is a special and indeed

unique place that requires special consideration. While I recognize the need to address income inequality and low

income housing I believe that those issues can be addressed within the current zoning and confronting wage issues. The

current need for low income housing is for around 100 units. Water District 19 has said that it can handle 240 more units

in the next ten years. I don’t see why making a potential 1000-2000 units available is a reasonable response to the

situation. It seems like bad public policy.

I also think that the term “rural town” is an oxymoron used as an intellectually deceitful of saying make the town bigger.

I hope these comments are helpful to you.

All the best,

Mark Graham

2/6/17

To the members of the Community Advisory Group:

I strongly oppose the proposed “density bonus” zoning. The level of density allowed by this recommended policy is unsustainable and unnecessary.

I strongly urge you to include a policy that clearly states that development on Vashon MUST be in quantity and scale that is consistent with

protecting our natural resources.

I advocate taking reasonable and incremental steps to support affordable housing on Vashon at a lesser scale.

I support inclusion of policy recommendations for more flexible and creative solutions to encourage affordable housing that align with realities of

water availability. I urge you to recommend setting guidelines that are definitive about the priority to safeguard our water while advocating for

flexibility in building codes, financing, better use of accessory dwelling units – maybe there’s some way to discourage the conversion of rental

housing to 33ogeth or vrbo.

Surely there is a scale of development that is appropriate to our needs and consistent with what is sustainable – for community, individuals, non-

profit or entrepreneurial business, the land, the water, the earth.

34

We must make a commitment to sustainability of natural resources, specifically our water resources, and we can also support better business models

and creative alternatives to provide affordable housing at a scale that recognizes the limitations and is consistent with the character and values of our

community.

Thank you for taking my views and voice into account,

Mary G.L. Shackelford

2/9/17

February 9th 2017 (From My desk to Yours)

Hello Bradley,

First off; I’d like to, ‘Thank you and those responsible’ for the up and coming meeting/forum that will be held on Vashon,

the 23rd of this month.

Having been forced into homelessness for 2.5 years; having been ‘on-hold’ on a waiting list for many-MANY years, and

for being (for a lack of better words) ‘passed over’ on many occasions due to bad management of the system... and

finally for having a very strong compassion for the world in whole, but also close to home, I feel that I am very well

qualitified to respond to thus forum... passionately so. I also happen to be an expert at solving problems far and beyond

those who attempt on any given level... except for my own. You see, I’ve spent my entire life time taking care of

everyone else... making sure that they were ‘good to go’ before even considering (if I ever did) myself. I don’t need much

to sustain me, so my efforts are directed to the betterment of my fellow human beings... man, woman and child kind, as

well animals and nature.

So Mr. Clark; here we are... here is every state in the USA and every City... needing a PLAN to deal with the over-

abundance and growing community of Homeless human beings, brothers, sisters, Mothers, Fathers, Grand Parents etc...

Homelessness; (I will say regardless of whether or not YOU personally understand it or not) CAN and WILL strike ANY

human being, family etc... at any time... given the right combination of unfortunate turns of events, as well unfortunate

decisions or choices made. We really NEED an answer to help EVERYONE... EVERY SIDE OF THE COIN on this one. So that

ALL FIND SUCCESS... not just the homeless, but everyone trying to help and come up with a plan of attack, but the plan

MUST BE... TO SUCCEED... NOT TO FAIL as it SO OFTEN IS.

PEOPLE... OUR PEOPLE... ARE DYING... they’re dropping like flies and why? Because they could not get housing? A meal?

A bed? A tent? A place to park themselves? A cover to protect them from the elements? Because they took drugs or

drank to try and forget thee unfortunatcy that surrounds them each and every moment of every day that comes? Can

you truly imagine... living moment-by-moment... fearing for your life, fearing for a safe place, fearing to starve etc... this

equates to NON-STOP-FEAR and two VERY REAL ELEMENTS come hand-in-hand with fear.... STRESS and AXIETY.

In thee above mentioned, people become drug attics, alcoholics, thieves, abusers, killers... they become RUTHLESS

because they don’t know what else to do.

So; there is a LOT there to be thought of; but in thinking about this, heartfull, soulfully, spiritually, businessly,

passionately, seekingly, caringly and in so many more ways... it occurred to me that, “THERE IS A WAY TO SOLVE THIS

CRISIS and BETTER EVERYONE’S LIVES... AT THE SAME... EXACT... TIME!

Boy HOWDY... YOU BETCHA THERE IS! And I have the riddle solved I believe... and not JUST for OUR State and Cities, but

FOR EVERY STATE and CITY IN THEE/OUR U.S.A.

35

I would like to have a pow-wow or a sit-down with you and the Planning commity in regards to this idea that I have put

35ogether through sincere contemplation.

Unfortunately; I myself do not have much in thee ability dept these days, being disabled; as well recently injured badly...

As disability goes; I have vascular disease that does not allow me to do as I so dearly wish that I could... which is to BUILD

Custom homes... that is what I did up and until a massive heart attack that nearly ended my life, let alone my career. It

also ended my Marriage and put me into a homeless state back then. But I DO still have a mind, a spirit, a soul and a

never ending passion for all of humanity. So regardless of my disabilities, I decided that I would reach out, to help the

homeless, the users, thee abusers, the thieves, the good, the bad and thee untrusted. And at the same time, helping our

Cities, States, and Government and our inner-most... Communities! Vashon I believe can be THEE PROTO-TYPE as well

the TEMPLATE FOR SUCCESS. I really don’t think of a better place to find the way to end homelessness, curb drugging

and alcohol-abuse etc...

This plan that I have in mind, also gives back to the very society that supports it. I’m hoping that it’s a WIN WIN WIN...

for... ALL of us!

You know Mr. Clark, my dear wondrous Mother said to me one time; way back when; before I was in my teen years...

she said to me, “Son, you have been given a the middle name of ‘Nicholas’ for a good reason. The meaning of the name

is, “Victor For The People... so always DO for others, as you wish they would DO... for... you!” And I have done so... all of

my life. It’s what “I” love and adore doing honestly... it seems to be one of God’s purposes for me.

Enough talk.... let’s sit and talk and hash out a solution to these problems that nobody else seems to be able to do. WE

CAN and IF allowed... WILL!

Sincerely,

L. Nicholas Joseph Kip Abell Jurus IV

2/10/17

Dear Mr. Clark:

My husband and I, full-time Vashon residents, are definitely in favor of increasing low-income housing here, but

we do have some concerns. The four primary ones are:

1. Ensuring that low-income housing developments be consistent with the rest of island residences; that is, no more

than 2-3 (at the most) stories tall and not dense masses filling in the entire space available.

2. Ensuring that there is sufficient water available. We are shareholders in the Maury Mutual Water System and are

well aware of the challenges facing all Vashon-Maury water systems. This is a very important issue.

3. Ensuring that developers guarantee that the low-income units would always be designated as such.

4. Because development on a small island has a huge impact on all residents, we hope that all aspects of the

process will be open and unhurried and that, before any construction takes place, all options (not just the building of

apartment houses) are explored carefully and infrastructure issues fully dealt with.

Thank you.

Sincerely,

Robin and Grant Branstator

2/15/17

36

Dear Mr Bradley Clark,

My husband and I live at 22801 107th Ave SW on Vashon Island. I have owned my home for 35 plus

years.

We are commenting on the current CAG proposal of the Citizen Advisory Group regarding its proposal

for affordable housing on Vashon Island. We have attended earlier planning meetings and support

increased affordable housing on the island, while insuring the maintenance of the rural character of

Vashon. We feel that the development of the CAG proposals between initial community discussions and

the close of the January 23rd meeting, were quite positive. As the planning process moves to the next

stage, we wish to submit the following comments:

1 – We feel strongly that a firm policy should be established, stating that development on Vashon must

be in quantity and scale, consistent with protecting and sustaining our natural resources, most

importantly, our water resource. Some citizens may assume that the limited water supply will control

future development, regardless of zoning densities permitted. We are very doubtful that that would be

the case; clear policy and limits must be established.

2 – We feel that any pace or scale of development should be curtailed that might require expensive new

supply improvements regarding water delivery or wastewater transport disposal and treatment.

3 – We believe that the move to increase affordable housing should be incremental in order to best

adapt development plans as technology, climate and economies evolve. For this reason, we feel that

reducing the density bonus allowed for the R4 Zone from 18 units to 12 is preferable.

Thank you very much for your consideration of our concerns regarding the Vashon CAG.

Yours very truly,

Katie Bunnell

Del Langbauer

2/16/17

I am writing in support of the work that is being done to consider allowing more dense housing in the core area of

Vashon town. I am unable to make the meeting on 2/23, but feel very strongly that with the homeless situation as well

as the unaffordability of housing on Vashon, the situation is forcing people to leave, when they may have lived here all

their lives. I understand many rentals are being sold now in this period of housing prices going through the roof. Many

are selling out now and as a result, there is very little left on Vashon for many of its inhabitants.

I have worked on the Interfaith Council for the Prevention of Homelessness (IFCH) on Vashon for many years and know

how we lack for affordable housing. I have heard people express they "don't want to see housing like that" on Vashon,

that it will "spoil the feel of the island". I am very disappointed that folks can't see beyond their own benefit and try to

think of how they would feel if they couldn't afford to live here and very much wanted to.

I hope there will be many people at the meeting next Thursday that will echo my feelings and not those who take an

elitist attitude.

Thank you for your consideration of my email to you.

37

Sincerely,

Beverly Skeffington

Greetings, I guess my position would be not to allow the upzoning for affordable housing or any other reason. The

existing plan has served us well and we have as a community built a reasonable amount of affordable housing. I think we

should look for other ways to provide affordable housing than blanket increases in density. I am confident that any

project that the community supported would be allowed to happen without throwing the door open.

thanks,

jim Garrison

2/23/17

Hello Mr. Clark, I cannot be at the meeting on affordable Housing tonight but wish to comment and have my comments

considered in the final plan.

I work as part of the Interfaith Council To Prevent Homelessness. Our island has become a very difficult to do this

work. The rental stock here is quite low and a great deal of it is expensive. In many cases if people can afford the rent it

is so high they could probably afford purchase. We have low to moderate employees in our island businesses, people

with low income, seniors all of whom cannot afford the prices which are at unreasonable rates. Many of these people

grew up on the island, attended school on the island, work on the island, etc. People are selling homes rather than

renting homes. Consequently we have 77 people who are homeless or inadequately sheltered. These are families,

individuals who have social security income only, people who have disability, veterans, etc. Those who have section 8

are experiencing discrimination, either in attitude or in the way the financial formula is derived. Those of us who have

chosen this community appreciate the economic diversity and in no way want Vashon to become a yuppie bedroom

community for Seattle.

A planning group I am part of have determined that the affordable way to address this situation is to encourage ADU's

throughout the island. This could be done in an attractive way. Also, there is a very well built building with about 15

potential rooms that is zoned commercial. If the zoning could be changed this building would provide some very nice

housing in a setting that would blend and add value to Vashon. It is within easy walking distance to stores, churches,

restaurants, etc. What can be done to change the zoning?

Thank you for the work the planning committee is doing. I hope you will not let the few nay sayers destroy a plan that

represents our entire community. If you have advice or suggestions for our planning committee they will be welcomed.

Nancy M. Vanderpool, Ph.D.

2/24/17

Gentlemen,

I am contacting you regarding the recent push to change the current density restrictions

within the limits of Vashon to allow more housing options in a denser format. It is

paramount that those in charge do not take action which will put our limited water source

in jeopardy. This is a unique place both geographically and sociologically and in an ideal

world the two meet well to serve all those who want to participate. However, you cannot

put aside the limitations of this big rock just to accommodate cheap housing. Unless a

plan includes a source of water from a pipeline it should never be seriously considered.

38

Thank you.

M. DeGroot

3/1/17

Dear Mr Clark,

First, thank-you for all the time and effort you are spending to facilitate the preparation of a

thoughtful and thorough Vashon Town Plan. I hope it does not feel like a thankless job—

definitely, your work is appreciated!

Second, after attending the Feb 23 community meeting (as well as a couple previous CAG

meetings) and hearing comments, I want to add my thoughts (below) for the CAG’s

consideration.

My main concern related to land use is availability of water and urge the CAG to put this at the

top of their list when considering land use recommendations.

While I support increasing needed affordable housing on Vashon-Maury Island and appreciate that the Land Use, Housing, and Health subcommittee made major reductions in their original recommendations (eg, eliminating up-zoning, providing for limited growth along the Vashon Hwy from Vashon Town to Center, etc), I feel that I cannot support the density bonus approach now in the proposed Vashon Town plan. This plan may open the door to excessive development without truly addressing Vashon’s affordability needs. I feel that the draft plan is likely to have unintended consequences especially regarding water supply and rates.

Additionally, by promising development at levels greater than the land/water can support could lead to suits of WD19 (and King Co?) by developers, leading to even greater costs for WD19 rate payers. In my view, the town plan should provide a framework for future development rather than developers pushing the growth. I have been listening on NPR to their reports on the over-development situation in Black Diamond (where I used to live many years ago) and, while Vashon-Maury may never have a developer planning to build 6,000 units, I think that our zoning and development plan should ensure that nothing like that happens here. Better alternatives, which will result in more immediate and targeted affordable housing, have been proposed. Current town density and zoning are adequate to implement about 278 new housing units at half build-out, without jeopardizing our water sustainability.

In short, it appears to me that current zoning is more than adequate to support affordable housing in the amount identified by Chris Szala of Vashon Household while maintaining a balance between growth and water resources.

I will add, that if the current density bonus recommendations are maintained, I urge the CAG to at least reduce the R-18 maximum dwelling units per acre to R-12.

39

Thank-you again for all your work!

Sincerely,

Debby Jackson

Portage, Vashon Island, WA

3/2/17

While I support increasing affordable housing here, I do not support the density bonus in the proposed Vashon

Town plan. This plan may open the door to excessive development without truly addressing Vashon’s

affordability needs. I feel that the draft plan is likely to have unintended consequences especially regarding

water supply and rates. Better alternatives, which will result in more immediate and targeted affordable

housing, have been proposed. Current town density and zoning are adequate to implement about 278 new

housing units at half buildout, without jeopardizing our water sustainability. Thank you.

Joanne Ryan

Dear Bradley, Planning and zoning changes cannot be decoupled from the environmental and service context that zoning decisions will impact. These impacts are not mitigated by the tenuous claims of significant affordable housing benefits under current county rules. Yours, Jody Pritchard

Bradley Clark, I would like to comment on the Vashon Town Plan proposed at the February 23 public meeting, which I attended. I am a Vashon resident and customer of Water District 19 for the past 25 years. I have attended several Vashon Town plan meetings since November. I don’t understand why the CAG and the County are considering extensive density incentives of R-12 and R-18, which could eventually result in hundreds of new dwelling units, when the water availability of both the Island and Water District 19 is so limited. Water District 19 has made its constraints known to this Plan update process, and estimated that, at the best, 14 or 15 water units per year can be provided. The Citizens Advisory Group (CAG) and King County seem focused on growing affordable housing beyond that capacity anyway. How is Water District 19 going to find the water? • Drill even more wells? • Pipeline to the mainland? • Desal plant? • Dam a creek? • Raise rates even higher?

40

Water District 19 rates are already amongst the highest in the state. The sewer plant is also near capacity. Who is going to pay for the resulting chaos from this Vashon town high density development? Developers building R-12 and R-18 housing projects will NOT make living on Vashon more affordable, but quite the reverse. Further, I believe that using density incentives is dangerous because they speed development and do not allow adequate public comment on upcoming housing projects. The current Vashon Town plan zoning and densities are adequate for projected growth. Further development using density incentives is extremely poor planning.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment. Sincerely, Martin Koenig

3/4/17

Mr. Clark- I am a Vashon resident, having lived on the island for over twelve years. I am a lawyer, and worked with low-income individuals in Seattle for many years. I understand, from first-hand experience, the importance of affordable housing. And its benefits to the larger community. Vashon has a serious lack of affordable housing, and indeed, many people who work on the island have to commute in. This is a growing problem and must be addressed now. I read with interest the news article opinion piece authored by a Water District 19 commissioner. Water shares are available or will soon become available, allowing us a window now to build a significant number of new housing units that would be available to lower income individuals and families. I am in full support of any measure that maximizes the number of new affordable units that can be built now and in the upcoming years. Please add my name to the list of Vashon residents that support an ambitious up-scaling of affordable housing units, sooner rather than later. This housing will enhance the Vashon experience: we want to increase diversity— economic and racial— and allow more people to work and live in this community. I strongly oppose any plan to limit the development of new housing units to a small number. I support density in the town core area. I also support any mechanism to increase the number of accessory dwelling units and other housing options, again available to lower income individuals. Vashon prides itself on being an inclusive community. Building and developing many more affordable housing units is an important component of this. Thank you. Lynn Greiner

3/5/17

To Bradley Clark, Dow Constantine, and Joe McDermott,

Thank you for providing the community this opportunity to comment on the proposed plan. Because of the need for 1)

affordable housing for people with low incomes AND 2) for people who are homeless with or without an income source,

41

and 3) the complex issue of limited water supply in the town core, this is a difficult and sensitive decision. I come to it

with a background of advocating for Vashon streams and working as a volunteer helping with citizen scientist efforts to

monitor and learn about Vashon’s riparian habitats and marine shorelines.

To me it seems obvious that the housing problems faced by 1) people with low incomes and 2) people who are homeless

are both region-wide. They are faced by people in the whole area of Seattle and vicinity. My 37-year-old son spends half

his income (from a skilled 40-hr-per-week woodworking job) on a one-room apartment in Capital Hill. My 40-year-old

daughter’s high school classmate is employed in Seattle but cannot afford to buy a house in the area so she recently

purchased one in South Tacoma and commutes. They know people who work part-time and live in cars or couch-surf.

We have all read about the many ways people become homeless after losing a job or having a sudden life challenge. I

don’t think we have yet come up with adequate solutions, but I think we do need county-wide ones.

I am in favor of granting incentives to nonprofit housing developers who will build entire complexes of affordable

housing units, but due to the limits on Water District 19’s supply I do not favor allowing as many as 18 units per parcel

unless the plan only allows one such maximum size every ten years. For the homeless, I favor government –planned

housing solutions. For those willing to live in a single multi-unit efficient building, I would like to see a site with a large

kitchen and commons area to serve 30 or 40 single rooms each suppled with heat and bathrooms. I visualize something

like a college dormitory. County services such as job counseling, dental care, rudimentary health services (including

innoculations) and education about vocational training opportunities could be provided efficiently.

For the homeless who don’t want to be in a group housing situation, we need incentives for more citizens to provide

small living units on their property, with incentives such as expedited permitting and assistance to the property owners

willing to offer free housing in exchange for a bit of help with yard work, gardening, animal care, etc. I know a long-time

Island couple who have participated in such arrangements with Vashon gardeners but are temporarily without a site.

Naturally, the county would need to identify alternatives to expensive septic systems, ideally something like compost

toilets, so that natural processes can transform human waste into useful fertilizer for ornamental beds or forested areas.

The same principle would apply to creating widely distributed housing units for low income people.

Because of my interest in streams, I feel that all of these ideas must be framed in the context of the inevitable clash

between the needs and impacts of our growing human population and the gradually deteriorating quality of the wild

areas that make it possible to have a continuing supply of clean water, safe air, and a healthy food web sustaining the

many forms of freshwater and marine seafood we want to survive. I remember a 1990s era Vashon Salmon Summit type

of workshop co-sponsored by the Vashon-Maury Island Land Trust and the Vashon Sportsmen’s Club at which a lifelong

commercial fisherman then in his declining years said that when he was a boy Judd Creek was bigger and hosted far

more spawning salmon every fall. “Now there’s so many people here, needing the water for homes and farms and

gardens, the water and the fish are pret’ near gone,” he summed up. And I think it’s true that when we take water from

aquifers, we are also taking it from the streams supplied by the aquifers, if the aquifer level begins to drop. Water used

on lawns and farms is more exposed to evaporation and run-off. Cleared land and impervious surfaces do not slow down

and capture rain nearly as well as forests with many layers of branches filled with needles and leaves. When I helped

with the 2000-2001 Vashon Stream Survey performed by Washington Trout (now the Wild Fish Conservancy), I noted

that they found juvenile salmonids in numerous stream stretches where the property owners living nearby had never

noticed them. They found about 20 streams on Vashon that either supported fish or could support fish if a perched

culvert were removed so that stream access would not be blocked. They measured water pH and oxygen, looked at

water quantity and gradient, and electro-shocked the streams to check for fish presence. It was their conclusion that

Vashon had a considerable capacity to shelter juvenile salmonids until they are ready to move into the Island nearshore

habitat, where our 50 miles of shoreline and eelgrass and kelp can offer habitat for further growth before they head out

to the ocean. Island streams and shorelines have a valuable role to play in helping Puget Sound regain its capacity to

provide salmon habitat, but only if we can stop polluting it and dealing death by a thousand blows from unaware

householders.

42

As the Washington Trout folks and others have noted, many island streams are vulnerable to toxins that ignorant

landowners use on their yards, automobiles, or in other activities, not realizing they are jeopardizing water quality. The

Burton Water Company has detected over many decades the gradual appearance of nitrates (I think that was the culprit)

due to intensive livestock raising by Misty Isle Farms within their watershed. Manure is something that in small

quantities, or widely distributed, should not cause a problem, but in a commercial-sized operation can be harmful if not

correctly managed. There are so many many ways that a rapidly expanding human population puts growing pressure on

water quantity and quality. It is my belief that we need to do more to educate citizens about the importance of

protecting both by avoiding use of toxic substances in places where they can wash into aquifers and streams (we need

our Vashon businesses to stop selling such things, and return to carrying educational handouts explaining why not, with

a list of recommended alternatives).

Human population growth jeopardizes both aquifers and streams of Vashon-Maury Island, as the wise old fisherman

suggested. We humans are constantly doing things that cause unintended consequences for our neighbors the bees, the

herps, the fish, the seastars, and the shellfish. In my opinion, we are nearing the comfortable carrying capacity for the

Island, and to accommodate more we must not only find ways to make affordable housing available, we need to find

ways to protect the water and habitat we still have, so that it can regenerate itself for the future needs of all life,

including humans. So I oppose offering the higher incentives of 18 units per parcel, for developers of low income

housing (unless it is limited to once in a decade). I feel strongly that slowing growth is part of the solution to managing it

wisely, until we can stop population growth and simply maintain ourselves at a sustainable level.

Thank you for your time,

Rayna Holtz

3/6/17

Re CAG recommendations for Vashon Community Plan Update, specifically rural town zoning:

Thanks to all members of the CAG for the long months of work. And thanks to Bradley Clark and other County staff for a very informative

community presentation on Feb 23.

Having reviewed the current CAG recommendations and attended the community meeting, I write now to register my opinion and desires:

Do not allow density bonus for R-1 or R-4. Maximum density bonus allowed should be R-12 and only for existing R-8 and R-12

within the Rural Town. No R-18 or higher density bonus anywhere. Density bonus approval must include requirement for permanent dedication to low income/affordable housing development. Low income/affordable housing proposals should target 60% AMI (not 80%). Density bonus requests must include public hearing with opportunity to have input. Include policy recommendations to encourage non-profit, community trust models for affordable housing. Include policy

recommendations to encourage local community administration/management with priority given to meeting the housing needs of current

Island residents. Include a statement that development on Vashon MUST be in quantity and scale that is consistent with protecting our natural

resources, specifically water.

Thank you for taking my views and voice into account,

Mary G.L. Shackelford

I would like to record my input regarding proposed changes to the Vashon Community Plan.

• No implementation of a density bonus for R-1 or R-4. • If allowed, a density bonus should only apply to existing R-8 and R-12, and should not exceed R-12. • No R-18 or higher bonus anywhere. • Include a statement that development on Vashon MUST be in quantity and scale that is consistent with

protecting our natural resources, specifically water.

43

Thank you,

Julie Werbel

3/7/17

Bradley Clark, I was on the District 19 waiting list for almost 11 years until I took my name off, and used my well. We are ALL on the same hole of water, the single source aquifer, and WE ALL have to be responsible for the use of that water. Until someone can prove that we will have no ill effects from adding all the housing that will use the water. I say No to increasing the housing to allow 1500 units. The existing low income housing structures that have been built on the Island are a better model for bringing in low income housing because it takes time and a commitment from all of the community. Allowing a developer from off Island does nothing for the community except fill that developers pockets and wreck whatever was in the developers path. There has to be a more sustainable way to achieve low income useable housing. Thank you, Alun Vick

3/10/27

Coming to Vashon: The Low Income Housing Institute

The meeting last night, Feb 22, of the Northwest Eco-building Guild was all about tiny homes and Accessory Dwelling

Units, and there were 10 speakers at the meeting. It was sold out. They turned people away.

The most impressive speaker there was from The Low Income Housing Institute (LIHI), https://lihi.org/ They have built

several tiny home villages, low-income housing and apartment buildings. Eighty percent of LIHI housing is reserved for

households earning less than 30 percent of the area median household income. They have been doing it very

successfully for years, and it’s working. They started back in 1991. They work with professional builders and volunteers

to get these projects built, especially with the tiny homes. They get a lot of donations from nonprofits and individuals

such as Paul Allen, and they are also very good with working with the city and county officials to get what they want

approved. They know how to navigate their way through the system.

The Low Income Housing Institute doesn’t just get the housing built. They help with many other services. They provide

residents with case management, life skills training, technology access and training, financial literacy training and savings

programs, and activities for children in LIHI housing. They help people to try to move on to bigger, better housing, they

try to get them jobs. Affordable housing is their whole mission.

They are available to come to Vashon to speak to us. I think this is could be one of our real, and more rapid solutions, to

the affordable housing situation on Vashon.

Presentation Date:

Time:

44

Location:

The tiny homes have heat, electrical, and kitchens. The village has a community kitchen, a community tent, a shower

trailer, a donation hut, and a security booth. Each house is about eight feet by 12 feet, the size of a bedroom. Singles,

couples, families and people with pets are living in them. A family of four can fit snugly in a tiny house. A family of seven

who showed up at Othello Village lived in two tiny houses side by side! The cost per insulated tiny house is only $2,200

for wood and building materials. They can be constructed on site, or built elsewhere and brought in on a flatbed truck.

LIHI believes that affordable housing does not mean poor quality housing. We believe that innovative partnerships,

creative project development and sustainable design features in affordable housing makes for a healthy, strong, and

committed community.

Michael Laurie and I believe this may be one of the best, most affordable, and quickest solution to our island’s

affordable housing problem. Please join us to learn more about this option.

Diane Emerson, dianeemerson@yahoo.com

3/12/17

Hi Brad,

Thank you for emailing the background used for deriving the numbers in the following statement from the February 23

2017 presentation of the Vashon Community Plan to the Vashon community:

On page 27 of the presentation: “If all 182 parcels built to maximum number of units, it would exceed Water District

19’s estimated surplus by between 74,000 and 161,000 gallons per day”.

I believe this statement is both misleading and incorrect, and leads to the wrong conclusions.

Briefly, the main problems I see are these:

1. The estimated peak day demand is significantly understated, primarily due to using numbers for Water District 19

that are both outdated and incorrectly used.

2. The estimated potential units being introduced by the proposed Vashon plan are greatly understated, primarily due

to a complete lack of calculation for the units planned for density incentives to move from R-8 to R-18 in the CB zoned

parcels, and also by use of a 50% “discount factor” throughout.

3. Consequently the estimates of the water deficits that this plan would cause, while already large, are seriously

understated.

Some observations are detailed in red in the attached “E Ferguson-Vashon Zoning Water Analysis with FJ Comments”

and in the annotated spreadsheet “Vashon RT_Bonus calcs-2-10-17_ewf-FJ”.

Using the attached updated April 2016 capacity report from Water District 19 (that you previously emailed to me), this

replacement statement would be far more correct and complete:

“If all 182 parcels built to 50% of the maximum number of units, it would exceed Water District 19’s estimated surplus

capacity by between 74,000 199,000 and 161,000 296,000 gallons per day. In addition, if all _______ parcels zoned CB

take advantage of the density incentives to move from R-8 to R-18, at 50% buildout the water deficit would further

increase by _______ gallons per day to a total of ________ gallons per day.” Here you will need to fill in the blanks, but

I believe that including the proposal for CB parcels will greatly increase the deficit.

45

I continue to be alarmed by the threat to water supplies and water rates that is introduced by the proposed density

overlay. The need for affordable housing is roughly 100 units. The proposed plan allows for about 1500+ units at half

buildout. Water District 19, a small operation of about 1600 existing connections, has estimated it can provide about 14

units per year. This is a major mismatch between water available and new water demand created. These incomplete

and misleading calculations obscure the impact of this plan on Water District 19. The land use portion of this plan seems

to unheedingly promote far more affordable housing on Vashon than the water situation allows or than the community

needs. There are better alternatives to address our affordable housing needs more quickly and effectively.

Thank you,

Frank Jackson, P.E.

Former Water District 19 commissioner, 1984-1990 and 2004-2010

3/17/17

Dear Bradley Clark,

I have attended the working meetings of the Vashon Affordable Housing CAG and the Public Meeting held February 23.

I DO NOT SUPPORT the Special District Overlay--it opens the door to more development than is necessary to solve the

affordable housing needs. The changes it would allow would forever alter the rural character of Vashon. We need about

100 units of affordable housing, which can be accommodated by current zoning.

The CAG recommendations would potentially have an unsustainable impact on the water resources of the island--this is

a primary concern and was voiced over and over again at all of the meetings.

We need more than zoning changes to create affordable housing that will match the scale of our rural community. The

discussion has unfortunately become focused on amending zoning, which is truly a blunt instrument for addressing the

lack of affordable housing. In the past months, as awareness of the process broadened, numerous other ideas have been

circulated that could result in more measured and effective results.

I urge King County NOT to accept the recommendations as proposed. The community needs more time to evaluate

better ideas, and we need leadership and support from King County in exploring alternatives.

Thank you,

Cris Bruch

_____________________________________________________________________________________

3/14/17

Dear Mr. Clark,

I have lived on Vashon for 17 years. Our family enjoys our vibrant Vashon town life and our generous community, and

value our proximity to Seattle.

We are fully supportive of the plan to add affordable housing to encourage economic diversity. However, we feel that

the plan as devised by the local planning committee may not be considering the limited water supply on the island. Here

is some recent history on Water District 19, our water supplier:

•Moratorium on new water connections since 1996

46

•Conservation has helped to reduce water demand

•Waiting list of approx. 80 water units

•Existing accounts (about 1,450) and water for fire storage are priorities

•Expect to average 14 new water units provided per year over next 20 years

•Some new water shares are possible but difficult and expensive to obtain

The currently proposed Vashon Town plan includes density incentives that would allow 1500+ new housing units at half buildout. This is a

major mismatch with the 240 water units that will be available. (14 units/yr x 20 yrs = 280 units (less waiting list of at least 40) = 240 units)

I am opposed to this kind of density, and, in fact, low cost housing experts on the island indicate the need for housing is less than 250

homes.

I urge you to place a realistic limit on the density of home building and to ensure that any low cost housing built will remain low

cost permanently.

Thank you for your help and support.

3/13/17 Sir, I must, once again voice my opposition to this community plan containing the rezone of Vashon town. You don't buy 10 cars when you need one. The costs and logistical problems overwhelm the original idea. Same happens in rushed large development. This is a thin veil to bring development to Vashon under the guise of affordable housing yet no developer will stay to assure said affordable housing. We(the island) will not carry the financial burden for The build as that will be developers but we will never again have any control over all that we covet today The most important being water availability and long term management and the rural Vashon lifestyle. All rules change with an R-18 rezone. Rules that don't come to light until its to late such as lot line clearances, traffic revisions, outdoor and road lighting, environmental checks and balances and proper infrastructure to carry new development. We need 100 homes NOT 1500! We need economy homes of quality not cramped ugly compounds. There is R-18 development all over greater King County and yet there is an affordable housing problem. Why does the county keep presenting this as a solution?? I have personally lived through King County R-18 development to great personal and property harm. THIS IS NOT THE ANSWER!!!! Judy Wright Vashon

3/17/17

Bradley Clark, Councilmember Joe McDermott, King County Executive Dow Constantine:

Once I arrived on Vashon in 1975 it became my home and I intend to die here in the distant future.

I founded and operate Island Spring Organics with 25 employees. Most of whom, although all are making over $15/hr

plus benefits, fall into the category of would be affordable housing recipients. Therefore I have a personal and strong

business interest in the debate on increasing affordable housing.

47

Vashon prides itself on our rural character and close knit community. Our current community plan for development has

been carefully crafted to match three streams of thought.

1. Keep growth tied to the carrying capacity of the infrastructure and natural resource base.

2. Match the projected need for affordable housing to the projected percentage of the population that needs that

additional support.

3. Keep our population inclusive and well balanced across a broad spectrum of economic and cultural levels.

The current King County Vashon Community Plan addresses the need adequately while matching the available water

resources. Both the Plan’s designation of affordable housing zoned parcels and Water District 19’s projections on

available water for the next ten years match almost perfectly.

I oppose the density incentives in the proposed Vashon Town Plan. If we need about 100 units of affordable housing,

why are we opening the door to ten or twenty times that at half buildout? This proposed town plan could easily create

an unsustainable water situation for Vashon.

For six years I sat on the Department of Ecology funded study of the available ground and surface waters connected with

our sole source aquifer.

It would be irresponsible of King County to force any plan on Vashon that both did not take the above seriously and

disregarded the intense community involvement in creating the Plan and knowledge base that currently exists.

We locally raised the necessary funding to create Vashon Community Care Center for our elderly, we bonded ourselves

to build a new high school, and we completed our new $20 million locally funded arts center, and we can continue to

develop additional community based affordable housing.

There are alternatives to the blanket rezones and excessive density incentives that would increase units to the projected

build out being proposed. Rezone applications can be taken on a case by case basis.

Let the situation in our Community evolve organically. We are lovers of the land and we take care of our own. At this

time we do not need a Special District overlay.

Best Regards,

W M "Luke" Lukoskie Founder & CEO Luke@IslandSpringOrganics.com

3/18/17

I have submitted comments before, but I would like to reiterate several key points.

First, I believe that the revised standards for the Vashon Town core are appropriate and good clarifications.

Second, it is critical that a policy be kept in place that protects the rural character of the area between the Vashon Town

Core and Center, and complements the recommended preservation of the R1 zone and landscaping standards for the

area. Similarily, I strongly support that the plan does not allow expansion of the current boundary of the Rural Town

area, even where that boundary splits lots. Future planners and regulators of King County need to respect the fact that

just outside this boundary lies the aquifer recharge area that is critical to preserving and sustaining the drinking water

resource of private systems and Water District 19.

48

Third, from recent slide shows, I don't believe the county really understands the availability of water supply for the

island, and Water District 19 in particular. Specifically, there is no "surplus" as one of the County's slide suggested at the

public forum. For Water District 19, the water supplier for the Rural Town Area, there is a forecasted supply that

includes estimates of peak based on planned improvements over the next 20 years. A surplus would only exist if there

was an available supply (flow that could be supplied sustainably) above the peak. There is none! And any competent

water supply manager has to assess year to year weather patterns and rainfall, percolation rate to aquifers, stream flow,

water quality, drought or no drought, and fire protection reservation capacity in order to determine how many water

units can be reasonably supplied. Furthermore, all basins on Vashon are closed per the Department of Ecology. Vashon

Water District 19 Commissioners, taking all these factors into account, have concluded that a reasonable number of

waters units that might be available based on planned improvements over the next 20 years (to 2036) is an average of

14 per year. This figure can be increased or lowered depending on annual conditions. And I emphasize that it depends

on planned improvements both for quantity and quality. This figure roughly matches the units that existing zoning might

produce, assuming 50% development. It is thus fair to say that the increased zoning density proposed in the plan

exceeds forecasted water supply and this is unwise. It does not appear at this point that the County is taking

responsibility for its responsibility here.

Fourth, this latter water supply reality is what challenges us all regarding producing more affordable housing. While I

have fought for affordable housing on Vashon through three planning process since 1986 when I served on the first

Vashon Planning Committee, I know that incremental change is critical to balancing our responsibility to meet obvious

social needs with our island natural resources limits. In my judgment, I can and do support the density bonus concept if

three changes are made.

The definition of 100% affordable currently tied to 80% of median income should be limited to 60% of median income, and

The density allowance should be reduced from 18 to 12 units per acre, and The density bonus incentive should only be available in zones within the Rural Town Area of R8 and above, and

for the R4 zoned lots north of 180th. It should not be available, as currently proposed, for R4 zoned lots south of 180th.

These changes would better respect the need to match the units that zoning would allow with forecasted water supply

and the proximity to urban services. These changes would be more consistent with State and County Growth

Management policies; and the County would better demonstrate its responsibility to account for water supply as it

meets its general planning and land regulation responsibilities.

Finally, there is a clear need for the County to provide for better subsidies, incentives and support programs that

generate new business models, which can result in affordable housing better scaled and suited for rural communities. It

is extremely frustrating that current subsidies and economics apparently lock nonprofits into proposing developments of

40 units per acre. It is no wonder that the general community is opposed to such developments, when less dense

projects, of smaller scale, would be received well and would be better for those with the need for more affordable

choices.

Thank you for considering these comments.

Sincerely, Martin Baker

49

3/18/17

Hi, I strongly believe in "affordable" housing. What the Community Plan rewrite gives us, is not what I think we need or can sustain. The density incentives proposed in the Vashon Town Plan are excessive. If we need about 100 units of affordable housing, why are we opening the door to ten or twenty times that at half buildout? The island water resources, the ferry system, and other infrastructure cannot support the level of changes being proposed. Please retain existing zoning, densities, and rules. Thanks for all your hard work. Let's make this PLan something we can live with. Yvonne Kuperberg 567-4005

3/18/17

Bradley Clark, Joe McDermott, and Dow Constantine,

The density incentives proposed in the Vashon Town Plan are excessive. If we need

about 100 units of affordable housing, why are we opening the door to ten or twenty times

that at half buildout? The island water resources, the ferry system, and other infrastructure

cannot support the level of changes being proposed. Better alternatives have been

presented. Please retain existing zoning, densities, and rules.

I am offended that King County would support a plan that would push up our zoning and

place even more pressures on our current infrastructure than we already have now. Our

ferry system is inadequate and our water systems are already straining to meet current

demands. From my perspective, the County would only encourage this upzoning so that

developers might make more money from the suggested development, but that

development would come at the expense of us, who are currently living here. Please

retain existing zoning, densities, and rules.

Yours truly,

John C Havekotte

3/17/17

Dear Bradley,

I have attended many of the working meetings of the Vashon Land Use and Affordable Housing CAG and the Public

Meeting held February 23. I have serious misgivings about the proposals being considered for affordable housing.

I DO NOT SUPPORT the current recommendations proposed by the Citizens Advisory Group.

I DO NOT SUPPORT the Special District Overlay that provides density bonuses for development in Vashon Rural Town.

50

The proposed plan would allow for far more development than is necessary to solve the affordable housing needs, and

would remove citizens' ability to comment on and/or challenge large-scale development projects in our own

neighborhoods. The changes it would allow would deeply alter the rural character of Vashon and provide for alarming

growth, far in excess of what is needed.

The CAG recommendations would lead to unsustainable impact on the water resources of the island, dramatically

challenge the sewer capabilities and increase costs of corresponding infrastructure on the island. Limited water on the

island is a primary concern and was voiced over and over again at all of the meetings. The mismatch between available

water units (avg. of 14 per year from Water District 19 for the next two decades) and the Special District Overlay plan's

potential residential units at half buildout (1,500 new units!) is shocking.

We need more models and financial tools for making affordable housing that will match the scale of our rural

community. The current CAG recommendations were the result of a good deal of effort by a handful of committed

Vashon residents. However, it has been moved along too quickly and in only one direction. In the past months, as

awareness of the process broadened among our community, numerous other ideas have been circulated that could

result in more measured and effective results.

As has been stated by many others who object to CAG recommendations--If we need about 100 units of affordable

housing, which can be accommodated by current zoning, why are we opening the door to 1,500+ units at half

buildout? Our existing Vashon density and zoning are adequate for aligning affordable housing with water/natural

resources while also retaining the rural character of the island.

I urge King County NOT to accept the recommendations as proposed. The community needs more time to evaluate

better ideas than blanket density bonus upzoning.

Thank you,

Allison South

3/18/17

Dear Bradley Clark, First, thank you for all the time and attention you have put into this island. Your work has been professional and sensitive to local needs. Without delving into each level of the plan, I want to reiterate what I said in an earlier comment. First, that zoning should not exceed the capacity to provide water. (Your estimate of Water District 19’s supply may be out of date and too high). If more water is found later we can always rezone appropriately. Second, using private development to provide affordable housing may work in Seattle, but on Vashon it makes a lot more sense to organize community resources and build it directly. There needs to be a clear plan and responsible leadership and a clear need, but when those are in place the island steps up. I remember last year when our medical clinic needed new management and Neighbordcare agreed to do it if islanders pledged $500,000 as a start-up bridge, it took us just over two weeks to collect the pledges. Once again, thank you for your time and attention, James W. Hauser

3/18/17

The density incentives proposed in the Vashon Town Plan are excessive. If we need about 100 units of affordable

housing, why are we opening the door to ten or twenty times that at half buildout? The island water resources, the

51

ferry system, and other infrastructure cannot support the level of changes being proposed. Better alternatives have

been presented. Please retain existing zoning, densities, and rules.

Reimnitz

3/18/17

Bradley and Joe,

I live on Vashon island and am writing you about the Vashon Town Plan. I have two small children and am concerned

about the future of Vashon.

The density incentives proposed in the Vashon Town Plan are excessive. If we need about 100 units of affordable

housing, why are we opening the door to ten or twenty times that at half buildout? The island water resources, the ferry

system, and other infrastructure cannot support the level of changes being proposed. Better alternatives have been

presented. Please retain existing zoning, densities, and rules.

This island is an amazing place to raise a family with values that center around appreciation of the environment, the arts,

and community. But we need a functional infrastructure that provides resources like water, ferry services, etc., so it's

critical to grow this community with a smart, strategic plan.

Thank you for considering the alternatives to the current Vashon Town Plan. We need to retain existing zoning and

densities in order to protect this beautiful island for future generations.

Jenny Sorensen

3/18/17

I am writing to you about the proposed Vashon Town Plan.

The intent of the Vashon Town Plan is to bring additional affordable housing units to Vashon Island. Vashon is not an

affordable place to live and to offer “affordable housing” on Vashon Island is misleading, at best. In order to get to the

Island, residents must pay to take a ferry. If there are children involved, that means that additional passenger tickets are

required. With limited options for shopping for clothing and other household supplies, residents must make frequent

trips off island to shop. In addition, gasoline is around $.70 to $.90 per gallon more expensive than on the main

land. Groceries, too, are more expensive. Public transportation is on a limited schedule and only offers service along

the main highway that runs the length of the island with another spur that leads to a limited portion of Maury Island.

3/18/17

Other considerations are related to the carrying capacity of the Island with respect to water, sewer and solid waste. You

have likely heard much about this topic from others.

Offering “affordable housing” on Vashon Island to low income families is very misleading because of the higher cost of

living. It is unfair to introduce hundreds of units to low income families and individuals when they will only be forced to

move off Island once they realize that they cannot afford to live here. Moving expenses to the Island and then off again

are additional expenses that low income families cannot afford and could be the very thing that forces them into

homelessness.

52

Keep affordable housing off of Vashon Island and keep it in areas where the cost of living is affordable and the services

that families need are more readily available.

Gregg Rocheford

3/18/17

I sent a comment earlier, and hope it was received.

To add to it, I want to make it clear that I am concerned about increasing aquifer withdrawals lowering stream flows, rising

populations presenting more water pollution, and development incentives that encourage excessive building beyond the

carrying capacity of Vashon's rainfall and aquifer storage capability.

I agree with the following ideas:

There are alternatives to the blanket “density bonus” approach being proposed:

* Ten new affordable housing units per year – Proposal for the Vashon Town Core1

Give substantial incentives for ten affordable units each year. Incentives could include property tax exemptions, rent

vouchers, group insurance, community resources (land or $), water unit priority, and/or zoning and regulation

allowances. The first ten owners applying each year would get the incentives, spurring immediate affordable housing

construction. This would provide affordable housing units directly, timely, and predictably and the units would remain

affordable.

The scale and pace would be better matched to Vashon. Smaller projects such as ADU’s, tiny houses, duplexes, cottage

groups, small apartments, etc would receive the incentives, and could start soon. These typically generate more Island

jobs than corporate high density housing projects. Larger projects, which have more impact on water, infrastructure,

and the community, would have to proceed under current zoning and regulations.

* Encourage Accessory Dwelling Units (ADU’s). This approach enables “aging-in-place” with elderly owners having

housing for care-givers, and allows flexibility regarding use of current water connections. Incentives to keep ADU’s as

long-term rentals, rather than vacation rentals, would increase affordable housing supply.

* Encourage owner-built housing. This is the most affordable type of housing there is. A County effort could promote

and help those building or remodeling their own homes. The owner-built approach is popular on Vashon and constitutes

much of our affordable housing supply.

* Establish new community land trusts for affordable housing, so that land and housing can be made permanently

affordable. For more details, see Terry Sullivan’s February 15, 2017 comments in the Housing section of the on-line Plan

comments.

h <raynaholtz

3/20/17

Re CAG recommendations for Vashon Community Plan Update, specifically rural town zoning:

53

Thanks to all members of the CAG for the long months of work. And thanks to Bradley Clark and other County staff for a very informative

community presentation on Feb 23.

Having reviewed the current CAG recommendations and attended the community meeting, here is what I think is appropriate for Vashon town:

Do not allow density bonus for R-1 or R-4. Maximum density bonus allowed should be R-12 and only for existing R-8 and R-12 within the Rural Town. No R-18 or higher density bonus anywhere.

Density bonus approval must include requirement for permanent dedication to low income/affordable housing development.

Low income/affordable housing proposals should target 60% AMI (not 80%). Density bonus requests must include public hearing with opportunity to have input. Include policy recommendations to encourage non-profit, community trust models for affordable housing. Include

policy recommendations to encourage local community administration/management with priority given to meeting the housing needs of current Island residents.

Include a statement that development on Vashon MUST be in quantity and scale that is consistent with protecting our natural resources, specifically water.

Sincerely James S. C. Burke

3/19/17

Dear Brad,

Thank you for all your efforts on the Vashon Maury Island CSA. I am writing to comment on the Affordable Housing

Density Bonus Overlay. I support affordable housing as well as an economically and culturally diverse community on

Vashon Island. However, it concerns me that the County is proposing to use zoning and density bonuses in a misguided

attempt to create affordable housing on the island. I do not believe that zoning is the appropriate tool to expand

housing—instead it is a tool that off-island private developers would use to build and profit from. The most appropriate

way to achieve the housing that we need is through an affordable housing land trust that is local, community driven, and

committed to building housing that fits the rural character of Vashon Town.

I also have great reservations about the potential number of units that could be built under this proposed overlay.

Vashon Household needs about 100 units of affordable housing. Yet the potential buildout of the proposed overlay

allows for far greater than 1500 units. Why does the potential supply far outstrip the known demand?

Furthermore, I am concerned about the effect this overlay may have on Vashon natural resources and infrastructure.

District 19 has wisely managed water supply for Vashon Town. This overlay may result in pressure on the District to

release water for political or financial reasons. Additionally, many water resource experts on the island believe that a

building boon could endanger water resources and put additional pressure on the aging water and wastewater

infrastructure. Lastly, added development in Town will result in increased traffic on Vashon Highway. During commuter

hours, Vashon Highway through Town already is heavily congested.

Finally, I would like to emphasize that the Affordable Housing, Land Use, and Health Subcommittee of the Community

Advisory Group was split 4 verses 3 on the overlay. This was the most contentious aspect of the plan and the committee

members differed sharply in opinions. In nearly all cases the larger CAG followed the recommendations of the various

subcommittees. Thus, the final CAG recommendation for the overlay was not representative of the split

recommendation or the highly controversial nature of the proposal.

54

Sincerely,

Jiji Saunders

3/19/17

My wife and I have lived on Vashon-Maury Island for forty years and raised our two children here. I served as a board member for the Maury Mutual Water Company, spent two terms as a member of the Vashon-Maury Island Groundwater Protection Committee and worked twenty-seven years for the U.S Environmental Protection Agency, with a focus on water issues. If I have learned anything in all those years, it's live within your means.

From a water resources perspective, the proposed "density bonus" zoning appears to exceed the ability of our limited groundwater resources and water delivery infrastructure to support such an increase in housing units. While affordable housing is most certainly a critical issue, I fear that non-sustainable zoning, with respect to our limited, sole-source aquifer fresh water resources, may lead not only to water shortages but to "investor-backed expectations" regarding "rights" to potable water that may not, in fact, be available. This situation is not new to Vashon. I fear that such unsustainable zoning could ultimately lead to expensive lawsuits over water availability and, in a worst case scenario, the need to import water to the island via a pipeline from external sources. That would be the end of Vashon as we know it.

We respectfully request rejecting the proposed density bonus zoning and choosing a path forward that is sustainable with respect to not only our known drinking water capacity but with other critical infrastructure, including waste water management. We appreciate this opportunity to comment as well as all the work that has been invested by so many in this effort to date.

Bill and Jan Riley

3/19/17

I would like to add the following comments to those I have previously made on the proposed revisions to the Vashon Town

Plan, now the Vashon Community Service Area Plan:

The changes made to the plan for the VCSA should be made incrementally. There is wisdom in this approach: we can assess whether the objectives sought have been achieved, and make adjustments in the future that insure balance between maintaining the rural character of our island centers and the pressure for more dense development, whether it be for market rate or affordable housing.

I fully support three elements of the proposed plan: o no expansion of our rural town area, o The preservation of the R1 zone in the area between our town core and Center, and o Landscaping standards for this area.

I recognize that the proposed changes to the plan are significantly scaled back due to resource availability, in this case, water. I am not convinced that the proposed changes take this into enough consideration, since the build-out potential far exceeds the water shares projected to be available. This means that the water district may becomes the agency that limits increases in density. I do not believe this is sound planning, and if, during the period until the next plan review, this is what happens, no additional changes in allowed density should be permitted. I can support an increased density allowed for affordable housing only within this framework.

55

While water has been the “limiting” resource in this plan review, resource availability should be the fundamental first analysis of any changes to zoning This review should include not only availability/capacity of water, but also sewers and water treatment.

Affordable housing allowed in the proposed overlay should be defined as 60% of median regional income rather that 80%, consistent with comments at the last housing forum.

Based on the limited water availability, and the fact that sewer and water treatment capacity was not considered, and the wisdom of incremental changes within this uncertainty, the density bonus should be established at 12 units per acre, not 18, and not available for R4 lots south of 180th.

Thank you for your thoroughness and for your consideration,

Donna Klemka

3/19/17

Dear Bradley,

I am a college student and Vashon resident who would like to register my complaints with King County about the

proposed Density Bonus incentive in the VMI CSA Plan. I feel that the incentive would have a negative impact on my

community and is simply the wrong approach to expand affordable housing on Vashon. I know your time is valuable so I

will be brief with my concerns:

1. Affordable housing ought to be community driven; private development through zoning incentives is not an effective means to achieve this goal

2. Development under this overlay would have a negative impact on Vashon's infrastructure 3. There may not be enough water to supply these developments

I hope that you will take this into consideration. Thank you.

Best,

Ella Maierhofer

3/19/17

Dear Mr. Clark,

I am concerned about the King County Density Bonus Incentive for affordable housing. As I understand it,

current zoning can accommodate affordable housing needs on the island. There is clear opposition in the

community to the density bonus overlay. Like others, I am concerned about impacts on water supplies, water

and wastewater infrastructure, and roads.

It is inappropriate to look to developers to meet our island's affordable housing needs. Instead we should

depend on our own community non-profits to do this work. Such non-profits have no need for an overlay that

would produce thousands more units than needed. Increased density may work well for urban communities

that need housing. Our rural town needs a different approach.

Please respect the community opposition to the density overlay and delete it from your plan.

WT Maierhofer, P.E.

Vashon Resident for 14 years

56

3/19/17

Mr Bradley Clark-

We want to reaffirm our comments of February 15th, 2017 and at this time, would simply want to add the

observation that, establishing a level of 80% of the median state income seems unrealistically high as a

qualification for affordable housing on Vashon Island. We would suggest that something nearer 50% is more

appropriate, given the actual income level of many of those employed in this community.

Thank you very much for your consideration of our concerns regarding the Vashon CAG.

Yours very truly,

Katie Bunnell

Del Langbauer

3/19/17

Dear Mr. Clark and Mr. McDermott,

Thank you for considering my comments below concerning the Vashon Town Plan, particularly the issue of high density

housing being proposed for the town center.

I served on the board of the Westside Water Association for 6 years and saw firsthand the tenuous and expensive nature

of water extraction from a sole source aquifer such as exists on Vashon. Westside Water served only about 250 houses –

a number dwarfed by that of District 19, the organization that will be primarily involved in managing the water supply

for any new town core development. Despite our small size, we were constantly mitigating the variable and

unreliable nature of our water source on top of maintaining sufficient funds for ongoing repairs and capital

improvements.

It seems essential that any large-scale development on Vashon must be consistent with realistic water management

practices. Conservative estimates of what is possible must rule the day. To my mind, the existing high density housing

proposal seems inordinately large in scale, given the unknowable nature of the true limits of the Vashon aquifer.

King County has already laudably demonstrated their commitment to the restoration and protection of Vashon Island’s

shoreline. I believe that the same conservative, committed approach to the island’s other natural resources and quality

of life should be the correct and consistent philosophy when creating next Town Plan.

Best Regards,

Sam Van Fleet

3/19/17

Bradley Clark,

I recommend against the Density Bonus Incentive proposed by the CAG. I believe that current zoning is capable of

meeting Vashon's affordable housing needs. Vashon Household has produced 100 units in the last 15 years (with a

major recession during that time). With community backing and King County support, affordable housing can be built that

is tailored to the needs of Vashon and conforms to the limits of water availability and other infrastructure elements. The

Density Bonus Incentive may send the wrong message to KC council and developers that Vashon Rural Town is seeking

57

to augment its population beyond what the current zoning allows. Furthermore, suggestions by the current director of

Vashon Household ( Beachcomber March 1) that he is planning a 35-40 unit complex is clearly out of scale with the

current and historic town. Vashon's rural town is protected by the Growth Management Act in ways that are contravened

by the densities proposed by the CAG.

I support the mission of providing for affordable housing and clearly understand its importance to the community. I have

contributed over 500 hours and several hundred dollars to the Roseballen project. But I cannot endorse the current

proposal. The liabilities of the proposal are well established in numerous letters on record, most notably the failure to

reconcile with infrastructure and public services limits and failure to be aligned to the specific housing needs of Vashon.

Let's work together to truly address Vashon's affordable housing needs without threatening the environment, the integrity

of the utilities serving the town, and the rural character of the town.

Thank you,

John Candy

3/19/17

Bradley,

Please include the following comments as part of the record.

1. This is NOT a "Town Plan" It is really a plan that affects the entire island and should be consistently presented as such. We're not Bainbridge where the entire island was made into a political unit of a "city". That there are public hearings for all islanders is a good thing but presenting this as a "town plan" is misleading and doesn't give honest weight to the impact of this plan for the entire island community.

2. WHERE IS THE ViSION STATEMENT??? A fatal flaw of this entire planning effort is that the present "plan" isn't planning based on any vision reflecting an assessment of physical capacity and community values but rather it is based on a reaction to an unstable data set representing "need" . A needs assessment and subsequent measurable goal setting in the context of community values has not happened. This entire effort is based on some floating list of people who have expressed a desire for housing. These people are presented as being "islanders". (Who is doing the vetting for that???? ) Some presenters offer a number of 60. Others say that 100 people need a place to live. Those numbers, however, are not a reason to change zoning densities because the number representing "need" can change in a matter of months. Then what happens? Do we, as a community, scramble to create more such housing? This is a terrible way to "plan".

1. A Community Statement reflecting values might read: "To be regionally responsible and to promote a healthy community, Islanders will promote housing policies for the built environment on Vashon-Maury Island to accommodate our island community's fair share of regional housing.

1. Definitions: 1. "affordable" XXX % of the King County average gross income as averaged over the *

last decade". (*or some other scientifically defensible calculation) 2. "Fair share of affordable housing" means that Islanders will create such housing that

reflects the % of affordable housing that is needed in the County as calculated by the need for such housing as an average of all population (KC) over that past decade.

2. Further: That Islanders may elect to disproportionately weight any tier of income within the range of of AGI and provide housing for that tier.

3. Further: That existing housing used differently might realize the stated goal and intent to provide affordable housing and policies will be crafted to allow and promote this

3. HOW WILL WE EVER KNOW IF WE'VE SUCCEEDED? A doable and measurable metric is lacking relative to the NEED. Yes, we can plan to build 60 or 1000 more housing units but how will doing so give any indication of whether the desire to provide affordable housing is met in the absence of a stated and measurable GOAL? The chant of "we need more affordable housing" because there exists a list that changes month to month is an absurd basis on which to do planning! A "carrying capacity" and "ecological footprint" analysis are needed to

58

establish a baseline for a needed discussion of what our community values are relative to affordable housing and the creation of a measurable GOAL reflecting {those values + the capacity of the island}

4. The proposed zoning that allows many times over the purported "need" completely ignores any assessment of "need" based on any assessment of carrying capacity or community values.

Douglas P Dolstad

3/19/17

The density incentives proposed in the Vashon Town Plan are excessive. If we need about 100 units of affordable

housing, why are we opening the door to ten or twenty times that at half buildout? The island water resources, the

ferry system, and other infrastructure cannot support the level of changes being proposed. Better alternatives

have been presented. Please retain existing zoning, densities, and rules.

Barb McMahon

3/19/17

Bradley Clark,

I am submitting these comments regarding the proposed Vashon Community Plan presented Feb 23, 2017:

The Citizens Advisory Committee (CAG) and King County, in their single-minded quest to greatly increase affordable

housing, has failed to do the necessary analysis of the probable impacts of the proposed plan. The plan shows an

alarming disregard for fundamental planning issues, most notably the lack of water availability. The result has been

unnecessary conflict in the community and widespread opposition to this plan. If we need about 100 new units of

affordable housing, why allow for 1500+ units?

While pursuit of subsidized housing grants seem to drive proponents to 40-unit projects, that approach is not acceptable

to the Vashon community. Better approaches are needed to address the housing needs in rural communities such as

ours. Other alternative approaches for affordable housing have been proposed and are widely supported by the Vashon

community. It is expected that those alternatives will be included in others’ comments on this plan.

To try to address affordable housing issues by significantly increasing Vashon Town zoning or density is simply an

inappropriate and irresponsible plan. The Citizens Advisory Committee (CAG) was divided on this proposal, and for good

reason. I oppose the density incentives proposed for these reasons:

1) Vashon Island is an EPA-designated sole-source aquifer area which requires special attention be taken to avoid

exceeding the limits of the water resource. This plan will likely create water demands that greatly exceed available

supply. The plan does not adequately address preservation of recharge, water quality, or runoff control to offset the

probable impacts being introduced.

2) Water District 19 (WD 19) is a small district of about 1600 connections that serves the area being proposed for higher

densities. The District has estimated that it can provide about 14 water units a year until 2036, with planned

improvements. That means about 240 water units will be available after the current waiting list is served. The plan as

proposed allows in excess of 1,500 new dwelling units at half buildout, when both R and CB zoned parcels are accounted

for. This is a major mismatch, of 240 water units available for 1500+ dwelling units. This is an alarming concern.

59

3) The information presented February 23rd (p 27) regarding the impact of this plan on Water District 19 capacity is both

misleading and incorrect, and leads to wrong conclusions. The statement incorrectly asserts that a portion of the density

increases proposed, at half buildout, would “exceed Water District 19’s estimated surplus by between 74,000 and

161,000 gallons per day”. While this is a huge shortfall, it understates the problem by at least a factor of 3. The

reference to a WD 19 “surplus”, a district with a waiting list for water, is irresponsible and highlights a lack of knowledge

regarding water planning. The statement was a result of three primary errors: A) using a 2014 WD 19 capacity report

that did not include recent peak day demand, B) incorrectly applying those incorrect figures in assessing the district

capacity, and C) the a complete lack of calculation for the units planned for density incentives to move from R-8 to R-18

in the CB zoned parcels.

Further explanation is included in a detailed analysis and my exchange of emails with Bradley Clark. See “Comments

regarding Water District 19 capacity” dated March 12, 2017, with the commented Word document, annotated

spreadsheet, and April 2016 WD 19 capacity report. Please include the email exchange and these documents in the

public comments.

4) The plan does not adequately address the probable impacts at half buildout to sewer, traffic, ferry and school

systems.

5) The purpose of the Growth Management Act is to direct new housing to cities and areas where the infrastructure is

in place. Vashon Island is not one of those areas. Why does this plan allow for such unsustainable growth on Vashon?

6) The existing Vashon town zoning and density incentives are adequate to meet the foreseeable need for affordable

housing here ... provided there is not a major migration of people from Seattle to Vashon. Providing for 1500+ units

would spur developers to market their projects widely and would definitely cause an influx. Defining “affordable” at

80% AMI encompasses 40% of the population, allowing such projects to “pencil out” for private developers even without

subsidies. The density incentive approach precludes public hearings on projects that may be of major concern to the

community.

7) There are much better alternatives to address the local affordable housing situation that do not involve major density

changes. One such proposal for a sustainable, permanent, not-for-profit approach has a petition with about 100 Vashon

residents supporting it. King County would be well served by pursuing better models for affordable housing in rural

communities.

8) The community comments made regarding this plan have overwhelmingly opposed and warned against the excessive

densities that are being proposed.

Thank you for considering these comments.

Frank Jackson, P.E.

Former Water District 19 Commissioner (1984-1990 and 2004-2010) and Member of Vashon Groundwater

Committee (These comments are my personal comments of course.)

3/19/17 The purpose of this letter is to provide my comments on the proposed revisions to the current Vashon Town Plan. The proposed density bonus increase from R-8 to R-18 is an unrealistic increase that could adversely impact all current and future residents of Vashon. Below I have identified my concerns and respectively wish to share the addressees.

60

Impact to water -availability We all know Vashon is an island with a water supply dependent on rain percolating to our aquifer recharge areas. The past Carr study in the 1980s along with the Community Plan of 1986 suggested that the Island carrying capacity was about 11,000 people. The Carr study identified critical recharge areas and a percolation rate for rain reaching the aquifers. Subsequent study has roughly doubled the carrying capacity number based on a conclusion that rain percolates faster to the recharge areas than originally estimated. But this conclusion is controversial and there is disagreement over the model that was used. There is no disagreement, however, that our aquifer recharge areas are critical to our sustainability, property value and way of life. The down zone to 5 and 10 acre zones for the critical aquifer recharge areas that occurred as a result of the 1986 Community Plan was based on protecting the critical aquifer recharge areas. The now near universal acceptance of climate change was most likely not factored into this study, so I think it would be most prudent to make a smaller increase in the density bonus. How can we be sure that our percolation rate and ability to recharge the aquifer has not changed since the Carr study? Increases in impermeable surfaces (addition of homes, driveways, roads, etc.) further reduce the capability of an island to provide its own water. Isn’t it very possible that the R-18 density bonus would put the island into an unsustainable/ self-sufficient situation? These very key questions regarding the availability of water reinforce my position that the most prudent change to support the needs of the county and more importantly the needs of the island residents is to allow for a reduction in the increase of the density bonus to a maximum of R-12 Impact to water -financial Water District 19 rates are already amongst the highest in the state. Who is going to pay for the resulting chaos from a Vashon town zoning increase? Developers offering to pay for the cost of water supply improvements will ultimately pass on that cost to either the occupants of these density bonuses or the current Water District #19 customer base. Either way we are going to see that island residents incur the financial burden, which will ultimately reduce island affordability for all. Impact to sewage treatment processing The sewer plant is at near capacity limitations. The cost to increase capacity will be financially significant and again the costs will ultimately be passed on to island residents. Impact to off-island commuting The Washington State Ferry system’s ability to increase capacity is very limited. The cost to build new ferries is significant and is not something that the majority of Washingtonians are interested (or willing) to bare. The internet has allowed for an increase in the number of Islanders who can work from home, but this is predominately a benefit for households that have incomes significantly above the AMI. The access to Vanpooling/Carpooling has already been factored into the ferry capacity. Anyone who lives on-island is already taking advantage of this option. In the 27 years that I have lived on and commuted from the ferry lines (and wait times) have only increased. It is my opinion that;

us should set to a threshold of 50% or less of the Area Median Income.

-12 which represents a 50% increase of the current R-8 limit.

A) a public notification of the pending density bonus revision

B) provisions to allow for the collection of comments by Vashon residents in response to item A) revision

C) direct specific responses to questions provided under item B)

D) the responses collected in item C) shall be made available to Vashon residents a minimum of 10 (ten) calendar days prior to public meeting/

E) Attendees at the meeting shall include King County Council members, contributors to the revision of the Community Area Plan for Vashon and most importantly, residents of Vashon.

61

In order for our fellow Puget Sounders noted in item E) to fully appreciate the potential impact of this density bonus revision, I suggest that they get into the Fauntleroy ferry line by 3:45pm to ensure that they could attend a public meeting that would start no earlier than 6:00pm. In summary Vashon Island residents are not looking to turn their backs on the needs of King County for increases in housing availability, rather we are interested in offering reasonable levels in increased density that are sustainable and do not compromise our access to water, price us out of our homes or decrease our time with our families because we are “waiting in the ferry line”. Compromise is not a word that we hear on a national level, but it time to enact it on a local level. Regards, Darrell (Doug) Campbell Jr.

3/19/17

Bradley: I would like to have the following comments on the planning process and potential outcomes added to the record as an addendum to my comments earlier this year. Let me say again, that I appreciate the hard work that you and your CAG have done to this point. It is important to our community. However, that being said, I believe much of the community feels that the process is being “jammed down our throats” in order to satisfy a County government – based planning requirement. I have the following specific concerns about the planning process: 1. There is no apparent SEPA process. As this is a formal plan under the King County Comprehensive Plan and the

Growth Management Act, that will have environmental impact to primarily the built environment, but with a significant potential for connected impacts to water and land resources, economics, transportation, and others, a SEPA process is required, and an integrated GMA/SEPA process under WAC 197-11-210 through 235.

(I will note that the last significant rezone which changed the defunct K2 Company site from industrial to community business was done as a single line addition to the annual County zoning ordinance. No SEPA process relating to the specific rezone was completed; no public comment period was allowed. This particular rezone action was done without proper notification or hearings. Without correcting this oversight, the CSAP process is not valid.)

Specifically, under the relevant RCW and WAC requirements, I cite the following:

a. From King County: http://kingcounty.gov/depts/executive/performance-strategy-budget/regional-planning/Growth-

Management.aspx.

“This year 2015 marked the 25th anniversary of the Washington State Growth Management Act (GMA). The GMA, adopted by the state legislature in 1990 and 1991, requires large and fast-growing counties and cities to collaborate and manage population, housing, and job growth. Preserving the environment and protecting valuable resources such as farm and forest land are among key GMA goals. The GMA calls on counties and cities to accommodate growth and create great communities.”

b. From Ecology SEPA Handbook, 7.2 GMA Nonproject Review: http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/sea/sepa/handbk/hbch07.html#7.2

“In 1995, the SEPA Rules were amended to help cities and counties combine SEPA and GMA processes and analyses, including issuing combined SEPA/GMA documents [WAC 197-11-210 through 235]. These amendments affirmed that environmental review should begin at the early stages of plan development in order to ensure that early studies are

62

available and useful throughout the planning and environmental review process [WAC 197-11-030(2)(d)]. Planning and decision-making under GMA is best done concurrently with environmental analysis under SEPA.

Environmental analysis at each stage of the GMA planning process should, at a minimum, address the environmental impacts associated with planning decisions at that stage of the planning process. Impacts associated with later planning stages may also be addressed to the extent that sufficient information is known for the analysis to be meaningful. “

c. From Ecology: SEPA FAQ: http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/sea/sepa/faq.htm

“Q: When is SEPA environmental review required? A: Environmental review is required for any proposal which involves a government "action," as defined in the SEPA Rules (WAC 197-11-704), and is not categorically exempt (WAC 197-11-800 through 890). Project actions involve an agency decision on a specific project, such as a construction project or timber harvest. Nonproject actions involve decisions on policies, plans, or programs, such as the adoption of a comprehensive plan or development regulations, or a transportation plan.

Q: What are "elements of the environment"? A: The elements of the environment, as used in SEPA, are listed in WAC 197-11-444, and include both the natural environment (earth, air, water, plants and animals, energy and natural resources) and the built environment (environmental health, land and shoreline use, transportation, public services and utilities). “

d. A very interesting paper presented in the Sea Grant Law and Policy Journal, Vol. 2, No. 1 (June 2009)is a comprehensive analysis of the connection of water to land use on Vashon Island: Managing Water Resources for Sustainability on Vashon-Maury Island, King County, Washington ,Laurence Stockton, Er ic Ferguson., Chapter III.G, V.D, and VII.G:(http://nsglc.olemiss.edu/sglpj/Vol2No1/Stockton.pdf)

“G. Growth Management Act

The Growth Management Act (GMA) provides a clear link between the development of land and water availability.40 Under the GMA, persons applying for a building permit for a structure that will require drinking-quality water must provide evidence of an adequate water supply for the intended use of the building. The same concept applies to the subdivision of land where a developer must show there is an adequate water supply for the intended subdivision. The GMA also includes specific requirements to “protect the quality and quantity of groundwater used for public water supplies.”

King County has adopted a Comprehensive Plan, most recently updated in October 2008, and development regulations to implement the GMA.

The Comprehensive Plan contains a number of policies related to management of growth in relation to water availability on Vashon-Maury Island. The Comprehensive Plan establishes a clear preference for new development to be served by existing public water suppliers (Group A over Group B), but allows development on self-supply permit exempt wells if service cannot be provided in a timely and reasonable manner (this is also a requirement of the CWSP). GMA development regulations also protect Critical Aquifer Recharge Areas (CARAs). CARAs seek to protect areas overlaying aquifers used for water supply from land uses that could potentially be detrimental to the water quality. All of Vashon-Maury Island is designated as a CARA because of the Island’s unique status as a sole source aquifer surrounded by saltwater.

D. King County Comprehensive Plan

63

Local governments in Washington experiencing a certain level of growth are required under the state’s Growth Management Act to develop and periodically update a comprehensive plan to assure the growth is accommodated while protecting natural resources. Local governments are obligated to implement their comprehensive plan with formal development regulations (zoning, subdivision, critical areas, etc.) and capital facilities plans. State agencies and special purpose districts are generally required to conduct their operations in conformance with adopted local comprehensive plans. The Comprehensive Plan for King County, most recently updated in 2008, contains extensive policy support for the protection of the County’s groundwater resources. For all of the rural area in King County, including VMI, the Comprehensive Plan calls for protection of groundwater resources as follows: • Implement Critical Aquifer Recharge Areas; • Incorporate groundwater quality/quantity into land use and water service decisions; • Implement adopted groundwater management plans with partner agencies; • Retain a high ratio of permeable to impermeable surface area in the rural area; • Evaluate the likely effects of climate change on aquifer recharge and groundwater; • Educate the public to protect groundwater; • Promote low-impact development to infiltrate storm water runoff; and 80 Sea Grant Law and Policy Journal, Vol. 2, No. 1 (June 2009) • Develop best management practices to promote aquifer recharge. “ VI II . Desired Outcomes As the Committee develops long-term strategies to sustain the Island’s water resources, they will need to effectively coordinate their actions through the multiple agencies with implementation authority. The Carr Report prepared in 1983 included a recommendation to have one lead agency coordinate all aspects of water resources of VMI. While creating one agency is unlikely to happen given the underlying state enabling legislation, greater coordination between agencies/program could help. The GWPC membership charter includes representatives from some of the government agencies charged with responsibility for water resource management along with utilities and water user interest groups. Expanding the committee to include representation from all of the government agencies responsible for water resource management on VMI might provide better coordination. Giving the GWPC a more direct role in oversight of key water policy and regulatory decisions affecting VMI could move closer to the one lead agency for water resource management envisioned in the Carr Report. Having multiple agencies speak with “One Government Voice” is not a new idea in Washington State. Ecology and thirteen other state agencies have agreed on roles and responsibilities to coordinate the watershed planning process. Settlement of a recent federal court case in Washington State included establishment of a shared responsibility for management of groundwater resources between the state and tribe in a manner similar to the way Ecology manages a surface watershed under its Water Resource Inventory program. The GWPC and WRE could be expanded into a “pilot coordination project” with the Committee composed of representatives from all water resource agencies and stakeholders charged with coordinating the water resource management actions by partner agencies to achieve long-term water resource sustainability on VMI. Implementing the Committee’s long-term strategies to sustain the Island’s water resources may require additional financial resources. Two possible funding mechanisms currently available under state law include adopting a groundwater protection fee via the Board of Health or forming an Aquifer Protection Area. The Groundwater Protection Program conducted an extensive analysis of the county-wide groundwater protection needs and the available funding options in their 2005 report to the King County Council and Seattle King County Board of Health.66 Managing the water resources on VMI to ensure they are sustained long-term will be an ongoing challenge for Island residents and government agencies.

64

Population growth and climate change will create new challenges to the protection of water quality and quantity. The new challenges will create new opportunities for creative solutions and coordinated management to sustain the VMI water resources. Existing programs and laws provide most of the tools necessary to meet the future water resource management challenges. The GWPCs working with stakeholders, King County, and state agencies, has already completed many important studies and actions to protect and manage VMI water resources. By continuing to work together in a coordinated and cooperative manner all of the stakeholders will ensure that water resources on VMI is sustained long-term.”

e. And Finally, from WAC 197-11-210

“SEPA/GMA integration.

(1) The purpose of WAC 197-11-210 through 197-11-235 is to authorize GMA counties/cities to integrate the requirements of SEPA and the Growth Management Act (GMA) to ensure that environmental analyses under SEPA can occur concurrently with and as an integral part of the planning and decision making under GMA. Nothing in these sections is intended to jeopardize the adequacy or require the revision of any SEPA or GMA processes, analyses or document deadlines specified in GMA. (2) GMA counties/cities may use the procedures of these rules to satisfy the requirements of SEPA for GMA actions. Other jurisdictions planning under GMA may also use these integration procedures. (3) Environmental analysis at each stage of the GMA planning process should, at a minimum, address the environmental impacts associated with planning decisions at that stage of the planning process. Impacts associated with later planning stages may also be addressed. Environmental analysis that analyzes environmental impacts in the GMA planning process can: (a) Result in better-informed GMA planning decisions; (b) Avoid delays, duplication and paperwork in project-level environmental analysis; and (c) Narrow the scope of environmental review and mitigation under SEPA at the project level. [Statutory Authority: 1995 c 347 (ESHB 1724) and RCW 43.21C.110. WSR 97-21-030 (Order 95-16), § 197-11-210, filed 10/10/97, effective 11/10/97. Statutory Authority: RCW 43.21C.110. WSR 95-07-023 (Order 94-22), § 197-11-210, filed 3/6/95, effective 4/6/95.]”

f. And, WAC 197-11-230

“Timing of an integrated GMA/SEPA process.

(1) A formal SEPA document (which may be a draft integrated GMA document under WAC 197-11-235): (a) Shall be prepared and issued no later than the time that a proposed GMA action is issued for public and interagency review. For comprehensive plans and development regulations, the date of issue shall be at least sixty days prior to final adoption under RCW 36.70A.106; (b) Shall be provided: (i) To the legislative body that will consider issuing a GMA action; and (ii) To any advisory body designated by the local legislative body or chief executive of the city or county to make a formal recommendation to the local legislative body on whether to propose a GMA action. The draft document shall also be circulated as otherwise required by WAC 197-11-455 or 197-11-340 as appropriate. (2) The responsible official shall make a SEPA threshold determination: (a) At any time, as long as it is early enough in the process so that the appropriate environmental document can accompany or be combined with a proposed GMA action; (b) As soon as it can be determined under WAC 197-11-330 that a significant adverse environmental impact is likely to result from the implementation of the GMA action being developed. (3) A threshold determination is not required when there has been a previous threshold determination or a notice of adoption or an addendum is prepared, except when a new threshold determination is required pursuant to WAC 197-11-600(3).

65

(4) If a formal SEPA document is issued concurrently with a proposed GMA action which has a public comment period, the public comment period on the formal SEPA document shall be the same as the comment period on the GMA action, provided the comment period is not less than otherwise required of a SEPA document. (See WAC 197-11-340 (2)(c) and 197-11-455(6).) (5) When a draft integration GMA document includes a draft EIS, the final EIS and the adoption of the GMA document may occur together, notwithstanding the requirements of WAC 197-11-460(5). [Statutory Authority: RCW 43.21C.110. WSR 95-07-023 (Order 94-22), § 197-11-230, filed 3/6/95, effective 4/6/95.]”

In summary, the current CSA process seems not to be in compliance with either SEPA nor the GMA.

Thank you for including my comments in the record. I will look for them there.

Regards, Allen de Steiguer

3/20/17

Bradley,

The proposed Vashon Town Plan spent a lot of effort looking at

how to secure affordable housing, which is certainly an important

issue. But no one is talking about the underlying cause of the lack

of such housing, which is that the economy of our island community

is stagnating. Our island economy may not seem to be a top

priority for islanders. In fact it is last on the list of Principles in

Vashon's Vision statement. But given the symptoms of

homelessness and lack of affordable housing, perhaps it deserves

to rise to the top.

"Support and foster a diverse, dynamic and sustainable island

economy."

I do not have all the data to present nor do I have a plan. But I can

say that Vashon is not benefiting enough from the growth being

experienced in Seattle and King County.

66

As prices rise in King County so do they here, and when rents and home prices rise there so do they here. Yet jobs have not increased and wages have barely moved up.

Commuters continue to move here and buy homes here despite the long commute and $100 to $300 per month ferry cost. Yet

many

spend little of their earnings here on the Island. In fact,

many

seem to have very little attachment or involvement in the community.

The Vashon Island School District is the largest employer on the island, but they have great difficulty getting bonds passed despite the fact that these commuters send their kids to school there.

When children with good grades graduate from Vashon High School they go away

to college and are then lured away by good paying jobs elsewhere. Few return to live here.

Many of those who didn't make the grade often stay for years working minimum or lower wage jobs in retail, services or part time construction.

A great many people here are self employed or work for small companies providing personal and home services for those who can afford them, services such as gardening, cleaning, animal care, handywork and repairs. Many only work part time.

Vashon's population has a larger percentage of elderly.

Many are retired, long time residents unwilling or unable to afford to move or who

choose to live our their lives in this beautiful place.

Vashon's second-hand thrift stores are among the busiest non-grocery stores on the island

Like so many other rural towns in America, Vashon is falling behind

its urban neighbors. Providing additional affordable housing is one

solution to the housing problem . But I feel that the current proposal

is likely to attract few investors. ADU's would relieve some of the

67

housing pressure but they are not a long term sustainable solution

as property can change hands.

As for supporting the principle of a "dynamic and sustainable

economy," There may be several other ways King County can help

by:

Creating an Economic Development Plan, which would provide tax incentives for new business startups, as well as for businesses moving to, or establishing new centers on Vashon Island (in keeping with our Values and Principles, of course).

Encouraging tech companies to locate here by first negotiating with a communications company to provide fast 1Gb or more fiber optic cable to the Island. This is essential infrastructure for high tech and internet companies

In the area of land and water use within the town plan or else where on the island, King County could ease the way for one or more small hotels/conference centers to locate here. These would bring tourists to Vashon which would support local restaurants, shops and other services.

I am sure there are other creative ways in which King County could support Vashon to

achieve economic sustainability and thus reduce the need for affordable housing. To that

end I suggest that King County along with members of the Vashon Community initiate a

process for creating an Economic Development Plan that will lead to fulfilling the promise

of our Vision for Vashon.

I hope to discuss this with you further in the near future, once we have more data and

stories with which to support this idea.

Thank you for all your work.

Art Chippendale

3/22/17

Dear King Council member my name is Caleb Cullimore I am a student at McMurray

Middle school on Vashon Island. I am concerned about having available sources of

marijuana on Vashon. I understand that recently there was a law that limited

accessibility in other places in rural king county except Vashon. I would hope that you

68

would consider this law to apply to Vashon Island. There are many kids on Vashon and

some may be tempted to try it I hope that you would help to prevent this. Thank you for

taking the time to read this and please please try to stop marijuana from being allowed

on Vashon.

Caleb Cullimore

3/19/17

Thank you for reading my support of revised standards for the core of Vashon town.

I urge that the rural character of Vashon be protected by disallowing expansion of the

downtown area, even though this would be beneficial to a non profit I am currently

supporting.

Expansion would infect our important aquifer which the Island depends on.

I wish there was more understanding of our water situation which is very precarious and can

not sustain the 18 units proposed. 12 is the utmost limit.

Affordable house should be given to those whose income is 60% not 80% of the median

income so the truly needy have an opportunity.

Thank you,

C. Hunter Davis

3/24/17

You have done a very good job with this project. I am sorry that I missed the time to comment.

I do want to say that it is just not low income people who need housing near town. There are

many Seniors and more all the time (see census data) who are single and could afford to

purchase or rent $250,000 to $450,000 multi-unit, single story housing near town as they age,

can’t take care of their homes, lose their partners, etc. There is almost nothing available so

they stay isolated in houses that they eventually can’t take care of.

Thank you.

Jane

3/19/17

Hello Bradley

Please find attached the Petition SUPPORT SUSTAINABLE, PERMANENT COMMUNITY-BASED

'AFFORDABLE HOUSING' and the names of the 114 signatories and their comments as at Mar 19, 2017. This

69

is submitted to you for your consideration as part of your Land Use and Affordable housing process -

comments are due by today - Mar 19.

I have also attached the 3 Information sheets that accompanied the petition as supporting information / detail of the

suggested policy for development on our island that supports environmentally-appropriate, permanent, not for profit

'affordable housing'.

I intend to keep the petition open and going in order to garner more signatories in support of changing legislation /

facilitating government administrative support for sustainable development - particularly for water on Vashon.

As an example of policies I will pursue: about 2 years ago - I gained the verbal support from the Chief Plumbing Inspector

of KC Public Health for NO PERMIT required for year round 'Laundry to Landscape' greywater reuse on Vashon-Maury.

This is standard/common in other water-conscious jurisdictions in the US. To date, official support of this has not been

achieved. The push for affordable housing has again brought to the forefront our need to pursue a supportive regulatory

framework for sustainable building on our water-sensitive island.

Thanks for your efforts.

Looking forward

Jenny Bell

Attachment 1 of 4 (from Jenny Bell)

Successful NOT FOR PROFIT

Affordable Housing -“Community Land Trusts”

‘Bernie Sanders’ style, Vermont March 10, 2017– Permanent Community-Based AH Info Sheet #2

This info sheet is one of a series providing detail about a petition “Supporting sustainable, permanent, community-based ‘affordable housing’ on Vashon-Maury”

What is the petition about? There are important decisions being made in

the short and long term about development

on Vashon-Maury Island (VMI). This petition

has been created to give decision-makers an

idea of the numbers of people who support

Vashon needs permanent affordable housing (AH)

Choosing community-based permanent affordable housing (AH) options is a vote of confidence in ourselves to serve our own needs. The alternative is turning to FOR PROFIT developers to ‘save us’ and give up something in the process as a ‘cost’ of retaining their services. Things developers commonly ask the community to give up as a condition of their services include:

70

SUSTAINABLE, COMMUNITY-BASED, NOT

FOR PROFIT, PERMANENT, AFFORDABLE

HOUSING

The info sheets give more information to

help people understand the detail behind the

solutions that the petition proposes – the

topic of this Info Sheet is PERMANENT

COMMUNITY-BASED HOUSING

Short term: A group of volunteers on Vashon

Island are making decisions for the

community about what development should

look like on the Island – providing

‘affordable housing’ for a current shortfall of

about 100 dwellings is a key concern. Public

comment is due to KC by Mar 19, 2017

Long term: We need to move our regulators

and legislators towards 100% sustainable

development solutions – this petition will

help demonstrate the numbers of people

who want it on Vashon-Maury – A STRONG

VOICE IS ONE BACKED BY EVIDENCE OF

STRONG NUMBERS WHO WANT SOMETHING

Why do I need to share and sign this petition?

We are realizing as a society that our

community has to get really good, from the

ground up, at expressing what we want –

and providing solutions to achieve it.

Understanding issues of importance to our

community takes sharing and discussing of

information, coming to a broad consensus on

what to do, and most importantly–making

it happen.

While there are conflicting points of view,

the purpose of this petition is to

demonstrate a consensus view that exists

among like-minded VMI residents about

what our development should look like –

AND PROVIDE SOLUTIONS FOR HOW IT CAN

OCCUR. This is about finding the place

where we CAN largely agree. This creates a

path for positive, consensus-based action

based on demonstrated proof of support.

What do I do next?

Loss of a permanent solution to the AH issue by limiting the time a dwelling they build is available to the community – e.g. 20 years, then revisit the issue

Fast-tracked processes that bypass the ‘norm’ of a community assessing the projects that impact them on a case-by case basis. e.g. granting a ‘density bonus’ – such as proposed on Vashon, where a group of properties are all ‘upzoned’ from a current maximum density of 12 dwellings per acre to 18 or 24 per acre.

Loss of the ‘small town aesthetic’- increasing the numbers of dwellings per acre to increase the developer’s profit to a level they consider ‘reasonable’

Loss of community funds / the people’s money – in the form of tax-breaks, grants and funding to developers

Vashon-Maury ‘can do’ history. We don’t have to give up a thing.

Turning to developers for a solution is a lack confidence in our community’s ability to save ourselves. But, we’ve done it before...

Vashon-Maury has a strong history of community-based solutions like Granny’s Attic, Vashon Community Care and Roseballen Community Land Trust (CLT) (Click on

these names in Blue for links to their histories).

A CLT is the same method of developing permanent AH as used in Bernie Sanders home town of Burlington, Vermont since 1984. Now 7.6% of their housing stock of 16,897 homes is on CLT land.

71

SIGN the petition. CLICK HERE FOR PETITION or copy and paste this link into your browser:

https://www.ipetitions.com/petition/path-to-

sustainable-permanent-community-based-vmi

SHARE the petition. To be effective the petition must be shared far and wide – send it to your email lists, share it on social media, talk about it with your friends and neighbors. Follow the instructions after you sign that show you how to share.

Don’t agree? Talk in specifics with others about

problems you have agreeing with this petition. Discuss alternative SOLUTIONS. If you don’t ultimately propose a solution about things that matter to VMI – a positive or effective outcome is not possible. Consider creating your own petition.

Links

Future Water Vashon – Facebook (FB) group Click on the Blue line above to go to FB group “Future Water Vashon” to talk about water with your neighbors and access further details and information

Article about CLT success in Burlington,Vermont Click on the Blue line above to go to a magazine story about Bernie Sanders home town and successful CLTs

Champlain Housing Trust – Bernie Sanders’ CLT Click on the Blue line above to go to a the home page of the CLT that began and flourished in Burlington, VT and in 2015 had 6000 members Summary of how a CLT works Click on the Blue line above to see a great summary of how a CLT works..start researching yourself…you could start here. Map of CLTs in the US Click on the Blue line above to see a map of locations of CLTs Portland CLT – Partners in the Common Good Click on the Blue line above to see an example of an AH CLT in Portland, Oregon

King County link for submissions Click on the Blue line above to go to KC link for individual submissions to the Land Use and AH recommendations for the 20 year VMI town plan

Want to help in this process?

Contact Jenny Bell at jennybell111@gmail.com

or message me on FB ‘Future Water Vashon’

Group page

Burlington, VT: Permanent community assets-a model of successful AH

Community Land Trust (CLT) – The basics:

Land owned by the NGO, a community-controlled nonprofit corp.

Housing is owned by individuals

A CLT is about permanent controls over the current use and future price of the house:

o to preserve affordability

o to promote sound maintenance

o to prevent foreclosures

Here’s another way to look at it. We, the people, retain:

community control over the ownership & development of the land

community control over the organization owning the land and overseeing development

A PERMANENT SOLUTION –No more giving away PRECIOUS

COMMUNITY ASSETS to the private, for profit sector.

The gain for the community when we support developers is

limited and the people must incur losses.

Support for community projects means the gains are shared

and forever.

It’s like Vashon’s VMI Land Trust– but instead of encouraging the trees on Vashon-Maury – we encourage

the people and the maintenance of the fabric of our community.

Encouraging ADUs for AH: ..a Granny flat – but not just for Grannys

We need just 100 dwellings to cover our AH shortfall on

Vashon – in the center of town, we have more than 200

properties where adding a building < 1000 sq ft could solve the

AH issue (< 1000 sq ft Accessory Dwelling Unit or ADU)

72

We can choose to assist a greater number of members of our

community to develop their own land – rather than assisting a

small number of developers to increase their profits by giving

them community resources and monies.

Developing a Vashon-Maury

Green ADU non-profit

organization to fast track

100% sustainable AH for our

island community is a way for

the greater community to

help our neighbors to help

their neighbors

Features of Vashon-Maury Green ADU include:

ADU support – pre-approved designs for fast-track through King County, construction services

Co-op style bulk purchase of materials (e.g. for sustainable water use like rainwater harvesting tanks)

Participating land owners must cap their rental rates to get assistance from the organization

It’s like adding a granny flat

but the whole community benefits

How can I learn more? GET ACTIVE 1/Connect on social media through pages like the FB group “Future Water Vashon” where info is circulated and discussions are had

2/Chat to your neighbors about what you are thinking. Ask for info from people you trust and links to data that supports their opinions

3/ Go to the next public meeting about important issues – e.g. look for dates on social media pages

4/ Find out about the most important issues that may impact our community – like the VMI town planning process (Comments to KC due Mar 19)

Attachment 2 of 4 (from Jenny Bell)

73

What is SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT

for WATER on Vashon-Maury?

March 6, 2017– Sustainable Development: Vashon-Maury

Info Sheet #1

This info sheet is one of a series providing detail about a petition “Supporting sustainable, permanent, community-based ‘affordable housing’ on Vashon-Maury”

What is the petition about? There are important decisions being made in

the short and long term about development

on Vashon-Maury Island (VMI). This petition

has been created to give decision-makers an

idea of the numbers of people who support

SUSTAINABLE, COMMUNITY-BASED, NOT

FOR PROFIT, PERMANENT AFFORDABLE

HOUSING

The info sheets give more information to

help people understand the detail behind the

solutions that the petition proposes – the

topic of this Info Sheet is SUSTAINABLE

DEVELOPMENT

Short term: A group of volunteers on Vashon

Island are making decisions for the

community about what development should

look like on the Island – providing

‘affordable housing’ for a current shortfall of

about 100 dwellings is a key concern. Public

comment is due to KC by Mar 19, 2017

Long term: We need to move our regulators

and legislators towards 100% sustainable

development solutions – this petition will

help demonstrate the numbers of people

who want it on Vashon-Maury – A STRONG

VOICE IS ONE BACKED BY EVIDENCE OF

STRONG NUMBERS WHO WANT SOMETHING

We need 100% sustainable development There is no such thing as being 'partly sustainable' in the way we do development. This info sheet gets 'Vashon specific' about sustainable development for WATER...

Vashon-Maury was designated by the EPA as a sole source aquifer. The Vashon-Maury Aquifer System supplies approximately 71% of the drinking water to persons living here. (see EPA page). Our aquifer also feeds our streams – with a smaller percentage of stream water coming from precipitation. That means our aquifer is mostly where our current ground (aquifer) and surface (stream) water supply comes from.

(See Info sheet “State of the Water: How much is too much?” for more detail)

Sustainability: Mimic nature- Don’t add. Don’t Take.

The best simple description of sustainable development I have come across came from John Asquith, Director of the Sydney Water Catchment Authority, at a 2007 International water management conference I attended: “Mimic Nature. Don’t add anything to the environment. Don’t take anything away that isn’t renewable”

74

Why do I need to share and sign this petition?

We are realizing as a society that our

community has to get really good, from the

ground up, at expressing what we want –

and providing solutions to achieve it.

Understanding issues of importance to our

community takes sharing and discussing of

information, coming to a broad consensus on

what to do, and most importantly–making

it happen.

While there are conflicting points of view,

the purpose of this petition is to

demonstrate a consensus view that exists

among like-minded VMI residents about

what our development should look like –

AND PROVIDE SOLUTIONS FOR HOW IT CAN

OCCUR. This is about finding the place

where we CAN largely agree. This creates a

path for positive, consensus-based action

based on demonstrated proof of support.

What do I do next?

SIGN the petition. CLICK HERE FOR PETITION

SHARE the petition. To be effective the petition must be shared far and wide – send it to your email lists, share it on social media, talk about it with your friends and neighbors. Follow the

instructions after you sign that show you how to

share.

Don’t agree? Talk in specifics with others about problems you have agreeing with this petition. Discuss alternative SOLUTIONS. If you don’t ultimately propose a solution about things that matter to VMI – a positive or effective outcome is

not possible. Consider creating your own petition.

Links

Future Water Vashon - FB group Click on the Blue line above to go to Facebook Group “Future Water Vashon” to talk about water with your neighbors and access further details and information

King County link for submissions Click on the Blue line above to go to KC link for individual submissions to the Land Use and AH recommendations for the 20 year VMI town plan

Sustainable water practices for Vashon-Maury

To do water in a way that

does not TAKE anything

away that is not renewable

– requires a building to use

a combination of

techniques.

RAINWATER HARVESTING (RH) /GREYWATER (GW) RE-USE + WASTEWATER TO AQUIFER (GW TO DRAINFILED or IRRIGATION, BLACKWATER to SEPTIC DRAINFIELDS)

Rainwater harvesting breaks the cycle of TAKING from our streams and aquifers. Greywater reuse does not take from our water supply. Instead, it reuses light greywater (wastewater) from laundry, shower and bath for garden irrigation. Irrigation and drainfields (e.g. Septic drainfields) are a direct return of water to the Vashon-Maury aquifer through the earth. Green wastewater solutions that return our water to our aquifer are vital to its replenishment.

The KC Town Treatment Plant for sewerage is NOT GREEN and currently treats 180,000 gallons/day which is then mostly shipped off island as sludge (about the same consistency as septic system sludge). To be green technology – this wastewater should be treated on site using water reclamation technology for re-use in places such as irrigating sporting fields – which occurs in other areas in WA state and the US. Alternatively, wastewater sent through a drainfield or septic system, or greywater used for plant irrigation, returns Vashon water directly to our aquifer.

(see Info Sheet: “Sustainable water supply” for more detail)

How can I learn more? Find out more and get active in community

discussions about water.

1/Connect on social media through pages like the

FB group “Future Water Vashon” where info is

circulated and discussions are had

2/Chat to your neighbors about what you are

thinking. Ask for info from people you trust and links

to data that supports their opinions

3/ Go to the next meeting of your local water

board

4/ Find out about the most important issues that

may impact water next in our community – like the

75

Want to help in this process?

Contact Jenny Bell at jennybell111@gmail.com

or message me on FB ‘Future Water Vashon’

Group page

VMI town planning process (Public comments due Mar

19 to King County on Land Use and AH) – see link to

the left.

Attachment 3 of 4 (from Jenny Bell)

LIVING WAGES on Vashon-Maury

Creating affordable housing on the other side of the equation - being able to pay for it

March 10, 2017– Living Wages on Vashon-Maury

Info Sheet #3

This info sheet is one of a series providing detail about a petition “Supporting sustainable, permanent, community-based ‘affordable housing’ on Vashon-Maury”

What is the petition about? There are important decisions being

made in the short and long term

about development on Vashon-Maury

Island (VMI). This petition has been

created to give decision-makers an

idea of the numbers of people who

support SUSTAINABLE, COMMUNITY-

BASED, NOT FOR PROFIT,

PERMANENT, AFFORDABLE HOUSING

The info sheets give more

information to help people

understand the detail behind the

solutions that the petition proposes –

the topic of this Info Sheet is LIVING

WAGES ON VASHON-MAURY

Short term: A group of volunteers on

Vashon Island are making decisions

for the community about what

development should look like on the

Island – providing ‘affordable

housing’ for a current shortfall of

What is a ‘living wage’?

Let’s cut straight to the chase – because everyone wants the number. An MIT article defines the US living wage broadly:

The living wage in the United States is $15.12 per hour in 2015, before taxes for a family of four (two working adults, two children).

http://livingwage.mit.edu/articles/19-new-data-calculating-the-living-wage-for-u-s-states-counties-and-metro-areas

Bernie Sanders recently proposed a national minimum wage of $15 an hour. That is, in effect, a living wage.

https://berniesanders.com/issues/a-living-wage/

History of the ‘living wage’

The concept of the living wage was first established in Australia in 1907 where the Harvester Judgment ruled that an employer was obliged to pay his employees a wage that guaranteed them a standard of living which was reasonable for "a human being in a civilised community" to live in "frugal comfort estimated by current... standards."

We are very familiar with the concept of the minimum wage in the

US, but the ‘living wage’ seems like a new idea for many. It turns out,

76

about 100 dwellings is a key concern.

Public comment is due to KC by Mar

19, 2017

Long term: We need to move our

regulators and legislators towards

100% sustainable development

solutions – this petition will help

demonstrate the numbers of people

who want it on Vashon-Maury – A

STRONG VOICE IS ONE BACKED BY

EVIDENCE OF STRONG NUMBERS

WHO WANT SOMETHING

Why do I need to share and sign this petition?

We are realizing as a society that our

community has to get really good,

from the ground up, at expressing

what we want – and providing

solutions to achieve it.

Understanding issues of importance

to our community takes sharing and

discussing of information, coming to

a broad consensus on what to do,

and most importantly–making it

happen.

While there are conflicting points of

view, the purpose of this petition is

to demonstrate a consensus view

that exists among like-minded VMI

residents about what our

development should look like – AND

PROVIDE SOLUTIONS FOR HOW IT

CAN OCCUR. This is about finding the

place where we CAN largely agree.

This creates a path for positive,

consensus-based action based on

demonstrated proof of support.

What do I do next?

SIGN the petition. CLICK HERE FOR PETITION or copy and paste this link into

your browser:

https://www.ipetitions.com/petition/path-to-sustainable-permanent-community-based-vmi

SHARE the petition. To be effective the petition must be shared far and wide –

President Franklin Delano Roosevelt was talking about it in 1933 as

part of the National Industrial Recovery Act.

“No business which depends for existence on paying less than living wages to its workers has any right to exist in this country”

Franklin D. Roosevelt, 1933

For many, this is a significant shift from the way they have looked at the basics of doing business. For others, ensuring a

basic standard of living through paying adequate wages is a vital part of a thriving society.

Minimum wage doesn’t cut it. Let’s cover the basics…

MIT’s Carey Nadeau summarizes the issues well regarding the

difference between the minimum wage and a living wage.

Click here for link

“While the minimum wage sets an earnings threshold under which our society is not willing to let families slip, it fails to approximate the basic expenses of families in 2015.”

“The minimum wage does not provide a living wage for most American families. A typical family of four (two working adults, two children) needs to work nearly four full-time minimum-wage jobs (a 75-hour work week per working adult) to earn a living wage. Single-parent families need to work almost twice as hard as families with two working adults to earn the living wage. A single-mother with two children earning the federal minimum wage of $7.25 per hour needs to work 138 hours per week, more hours than there are in a 5-day week, to earn a living wage.”

How does our state compare to the rest of the US? for article link click here

77

send it to your email lists, share it on social media, talk about it with your friends and neighbors. Follow the instructions after you sign that show you

how to share.

Don’t agree? Talk in specifics with others about problems you have agreeing with this petition. Discuss alternative SOLUTIONS. If you don’t ultimately propose a solution about things that matter to VMI – a positive or effective

outcome is not possible. Consider creating your own petition.

Links

Future Water Vashon – Facebook (FB)

group Click on the Blue line above to go to FB group “Future Water Vashon” to talk about water with your neighbors and access further details and information

Article about where you can live on min.

wages Click on the Blue line above to go to a story with a great graphic showing that min. wage does not cover basic living needs anywhere in the US. It shows clearly the states that have the biggest gap to cover. National Low Income Housing Coalition-NLIHC This organization has great data and links

King County link for submissions Click on the Blue line above to go to KC link for individual submissions to the Land Use and AH recommendations for the 20 year VMI town plan

Want to help in this process?

Contact Jenny Bell at

jennybell111@gmail.com or message me

on FB ‘Future Water Vashon’ Group page

Going further-beyond business decisions about pay rates Refocusing on how we spend our community monies. Where do we spend our national monies when it comes to subsidizing

housing? The NLIHC has an answer.

The federal government spends almost $200 billion each year to help

Americans buy and rent their homes. A full ¾ of those resources goes

to subsidize higher income homeowners - most of whom would be

stably housed without the government’s help - through the mortgage

interest deduction (MID) and other homeownership tax breaks.

Only a 1/4 is left to assist the poorest families— those with the

greatest and the clearest needs. The MID alone costs taxpayers more

than $62 billion each year. Four out of every 10 dollars spent through

MID benefits families earning more than $200,000 a year. Eight out of

every 10 dollars goes to families making more than $100,000.

In fact, we spend more to subsidize the homes of the 7 million

households earning >$200,000 a year through MID than we do to

help the poorest 55 million households with incomes of $50,000 or

less, even though lower-income families are far more likely to

struggle to afford housing.

78

At a time when America’s housing affordability crisis has reached new heights, our nation should be investing scarce resources into programs that serve those with the greatest needs.

Click here for link to NLIHC doc.

How can I learn more? GET ACTIVE 1/Connect on social media where info is circulated and discussions are had

2/Chat to your neighbors about what you are thinking. Ask for info from people you trust and links to data that supports their opinions

3/ Go to the next public meeting about important issues – e.g. look for dates on social media pages, local paper

4/ Find out about the most important issues impacting our community – like the VMI town planning process

Attachment 4 of 4 (from Jenny Bell)

This petition has collected 116 signatures using the online tools at iPetitions.com Printed on 2017-03-19 Page

SUPPORT SUSTAINABLE, PERMANENT COMMUNITY-BASED 'AFFORDABLE HOUSING' About this petition To the representatives, legislators and groups that represent us - We the undersigned people of Vashon-Maury Island declare our support for the concept of ‘affordable housing‘ as an important ingredient for a flourishing community with all of the following conditions met: 1/ PERMANENT (e.g. No time limits such as those imposed by FOR PROFIT private developers on how long affordable housing will be ‘affordable’ i.e. available to the community) 2/ Development is 100% SUSTAINABLE (NO HARM done to our ecosystems as a result, especially our precious water resources- e.g. No export of Vashon water (via the existing setup of the KC sewage system); No extraction of water from aquifer /stream (e.g. use rainwater harvesting) + recycling /reuse of wastewater (greywater reuse for toilets or landscaping) + conserving water ( e.g. lowest water use fixtures ONLY, composting toilets) 3/ Adds value AESTHETICALLY to our community (e.g. retaining a ‘small town’ feel)

79

4/ NOT FOR PROFIT (e.g. based on successful models such as that of Burlington, Vermont championed by Bernie Sanders using constructs like Community Land Trust and other vehicles supporting PERMANENT COMMUNITY ASSETS) In addition to addressing the ‘supply’ part of the affordable housing equation, we further declare our support for addressing WAGE JUSTICE issues and commit to developing ‘living wages’ for those in our community that provide the services that sustain us where their wage is high enough to maintain a basic standard of living. We the undersigned, ask those who make decisions on our behalf to consider our views. Need more info? See Facebook Group 'Future Water Vashon' for Info sheets on: What is 'Sustainable' development? There is no such thing as being 'partly sustainable'. A simple definition of sustainable development is: “Mimic Nature. Don’t add anything to the environment. Don’t take anything away that isn’t renewable”. This info sheet gets 'Vashon specific' about sustainable development... Successful models of NOT FOR PROFIT affordable housing: Overview of successful models developed elsewhere -e.g. Bernie Sanders in Burlington, Vermont. NO EXPORT of Vashon water: Describing how the current KC sewage system in town exports Vashon water. Encouraging KC to develop a water reclamation system at their sewage system in order that it be a sustainable option. Sustainable wastewater systems: How our dwellings can return our greywater to the aquifer via drainfields or greywater reuse landscaping systems. How composting toilets successfully process our blackwater and are 'no drain' on our water resources Page 2 of 13

Sustainable water supply: How rainwater harvesting breaks the cycle of TAKING from our streams and aquifers. Greywater reuse and green wastewater solutions that return our water to our aquifer or do not use water (composting toilets) State of the Water: How much is too much? A discussion of aquifers, the specifics of VMI water supply, signs of aquifer stress, case studies of aquifer failures -how did it happen? Developing a 'VM Green ADU' non profit - fast track, pre-approved ADU support ('Accessory Dwelling Unit' =less than 1000 sq ft housing with Co-op style bulk purchase of sustainable water use materials (RH tanks,access to free 'fast track' rainwater harvest (RH) and building designs, locally available services to build structures and systems) with participating owners committing to making housing available to those in need of AH (i.e. capped rental charges) 'Living wages' on VM: How we can support our community and those who provide services through wages that support the maintenance of a basic standard of living Page 3 of 13

Signatures 1. Name: Jenny Bell on 2017-03-06 19:43:42 Comments: 2. Name: Tamara Stone on 2017-03-06 22:27:53 Comments: 3. Name: Linda Lotus on 2017-03-06 22:29:51 Comments: 4. Name: Christine Phillips on 2017-03-06 23:08:44 Comments: Absolutely vital to implement. 5. Name: Terry Sullivan on 2017-03-07 00:15:43 Comments: Thanks for starting this, Jenny! I'll pass it along 6. Name: Michael Barker on 2017-03-07 01:14:33 Comments: I declare my support for the concept of "affordable housing" 7. Name: Emily and Gar MacRae on 2017-03-07 02:49:07

80

Comments: 8. Name: Kate Smith on 2017-03-07 03:07:29 Comments: Vashon could and should become a leader in developing and maintaining sustainable affordable housing! 9. Name: christina Jensen on 2017-03-07 03:34:54 Comments: We need to use catchment water 10. Name: Marcia McKinzie on 2017-03-07 03:45:52 Comments: 11. Name: Laurel Boyajian on 2017-03-07 05:28:26 Comments: 12. Name: Marshall Murray on 2017-03-07 21:03:21 Comments: 13. Name: Elizabeth Hall on 2017-03-07 21:05:25 Comments: Page 4 of 13

14. Name: Roderick McClain on 2017-03-07 21:30:03 Comments: 15. Name: Ken Miller on 2017-03-07 21:44:41 Comments: 16. Name: Candice matson on 2017-03-07 23:16:24 Comments: Please read! 17. Name: Kari Hilwig on 2017-03-07 23:57:32 Comments: 18. Name: Julie Shannon on 2017-03-08 00:51:19 Comments: Vashon needs diversity, and housing for the young families and youth leaving home. Housing has become a crisis on this island, and it is hurting the community as a whole, as well as schools and service providers. 19. Name: Brad Roter on 2017-03-08 01:52:48 Comments: 20. Name: Kristina Turner on 2017-03-08 02:46:25 Comments: 21. Name: Roxy Hathaway on 2017-03-08 16:02:04 Comments: 22. Name: Susan Day on 2017-03-08 16:11:34 Comments: 23. Name: Laurie Boroughs on 2017-03-08 16:18:19 Comments: 24. Name: sheila brown on 2017-03-09 05:57:56 Comments: 25. Name: Reeney OReilley on 2017-03-10 21:52:53 Comments: 26. Name: Terry Sullivan on 2017-03-10 21:54:53 Comments: I signed the last one. I'm assuming this is a new one. 27. Name: Karina Juliana Macdonald on 2017-03-12 17:18:14 Page 5 of 13

Comments: 28. Name: scott durkee on 2017-03-12 18:01:40 Comments: we need permanent affordable housing on vashon island. 29. Name: Monditza Fournier on 2017-03-12 19:30:34 Comments:

81

30. Name: Marcia McKinzie on 2017-03-12 20:55:27 Comments: 31. Name: Gerald r sawyer iii on 2017-03-12 21:28:04 Comments: 32. Name: Janie Starr on 2017-03-12 22:23:21 Comments: 33. Name: Kat Hostetler on 2017-03-12 22:38:16 Comments: 34. Name: Karen Dale on 2017-03-12 23:10:15 Comments: 35. Name: Kim Curry on 2017-03-13 01:06:19 Comments: 36. Name: Steve Graham on 2017-03-13 12:57:16 Comments: A community based solution is far better than letting off-island developers rape and pillage. 37. Name: Susan Nyman on 2017-03-13 13:28:20 Comments: Let's have sustainable community development not overdevelopment on vashon 38. Name: Tina shattuck on 2017-03-13 14:27:39 Comments: 39. Name: Leslie Wu on 2017-03-13 15:11:28 Comments: 40. Name: Douglas Skove on 2017-03-13 15:37:41 Comments: Strongly support this plan Page 6 of 13

41. Name: David Reed on 2017-03-13 16:24:55 Comments: I agree 42. Name: James Hauser on 2017-03-13 17:29:24 Comments: 43. Name: Linda kimmel on 2017-03-13 18:01:20 Comments: 44. Name: Linda kimmel on 2017-03-13 18:01:40 Comments: 45. Name: Rob Harmon on 2017-03-13 18:06:53 Comments: 46. Name: Susan B Powell on 2017-03-13 18:34:44 Comments: 47. Name: karen nelson on 2017-03-13 19:14:06 Comments: 48. Name: Douglas P Dolstad on 2017-03-13 19:31:10 Comments: Community needs a planning target for affordable housing. % of total population? % of total dwellings? Something measurable to plan toward in the context of what the community is willing to accommodate, not what the "demand" is. That demand will always be excessive - especially if people come from off island just because affordable housing exists here. At that point, it is a regional/national/global issue. What we need to do is have an agreement on how much such housing we are willing to offer and how. A community non profit is a good option for supplying what is actually needed. 49. Name: Joseph Bogaard on 2017-03-13 19:59:14 Comments: 50. Name: Pamela Fouke on 2017-03-13 20:36:52

82

Comments: 51. Name: Debby Jackson on 2017-03-13 20:52:12 Comments: This is a great idea for both Affordable Housing and Sustainable Vashon! 52. Name: Rev David Godsey on 2017-03-13 21:03:50 Comments: This is a core feature of Vashon's sustainable future on all levels. Page 7 of 13

53. Name: Carolyn Anderson on 2017-03-13 21:07:09 Comments: 54. Name: Susie Kalhorn on 2017-03-13 21:14:04 Comments: It is essential to have long-term affordable housing. Only a non-profit enterprise can ensure AH in perpetuity. 55. Name: Frank Jackson on 2017-03-13 21:32:09 Comments: 56. Name: Roxy Hathaway on 2017-03-13 21:34:52 Comments: 57. Name: Alun Vick on 2017-03-13 21:57:46 Comments: It only makes sense for a community to draw from within, than to pay for outside development that doesn't care about our community except for profit. 58. Name: Judy wright on 2017-03-13 21:58:08 Comments: I would work hard toward this COMMUNITY plan!!! As a carpenter I know there are sustainable ways to house our neighbors. I abhor the thought of development as I was a victim of development in King County 59. Name: Remony Henry on 2017-03-13 22:05:57 Comments: 60. Name: Wynne mentink on 2017-03-13 22:09:10 Comments: 61. Name: kyle britz on 2017-03-13 22:19:16 Comments: 62. Name: Stephanie Barbee on 2017-03-13 22:46:03 Comments: This sounds like a thoughtful, ecologically and socially sound project. Let's keep Vashon affordable. 63. Name: Annie on 2017-03-13 22:51:40 Comments: 64. Name: Catherine Henderson on 2017-03-13 22:53:17 Comments: These are all great ideas. 65. Name: Cyra J Hobson on 2017-03-13 22:57:35 Comments: Page 8 of 13

66. Name: Charlotte Dardis on 2017-03-13 22:59:10 Comments: 67. Name: Hugh Straley on 2017-03-13 23:27:20 Comments: 68. Name: Martha Enson on 2017-03-13 23:33:08 Comments: Grateful to all the people who have put work into such a thoughtful and sustainable approach to VMI Housing, Water and Wages. Let us be leaders in this comprehensive approach to sustainability of community. 69. Name: Aaron Hendon on 2017-03-14 00:27:18 Comments: 70. Name: Joan Hanna on 2017-03-14 00:37:47 Comments: Please support our diversity on vashon

83

71. Name: Liana Duffield on 2017-03-14 00:43:04 Comments: 72. Name: Amy B on 2017-03-14 00:51:11 Comments: Sustainable development, affordable housing - what more could we ask for? Thank you for those who are putting in so much effort to make this happen 73. Name: Karen Barich on 2017-03-14 01:00:23 Comments: 74. Name: Bonnie Auer on 2017-03-14 01:29:17 Comments: 75. Name: christina on 2017-03-14 03:46:10 Comments: 76. Name: Abby Enson on 2017-03-14 03:57:24 Comments: 77. Name: Emily Pruiksma on 2017-03-14 04:48:42 Comments: 78. Name: Jane Radke Slade on 2017-03-14 04:53:47 Comments: Page 9 of 13

79. Name: Mary rose on 2017-03-14 16:05:25 Comments: Thank you. 80. Name: Lynne Shepherd on 2017-03-14 16:50:01 Comments: 81. Name: Joanna Guglielmino on 2017-03-14 17:36:20 Comments: We support sustainable housing on Vashon! 82. Name: Barbara McMahon on 2017-03-14 19:57:49 Comments: 83. Name: Robert McMahon on 2017-03-14 19:59:48 Comments: 84. Name: Diane brenno on 2017-03-15 14:46:08 Comments: Housing for Seniors on Vashon...there is nothing!?

85. Name: Leslie chertok on 2017-03-15 15:19:40 Comments: 86. Name: Linda Moore on 2017-03-15 16:01:43 Comments: 87. Name: Adam Kahn on 2017-03-15 16:19:09 Comments: 88. Name: Kate Smith on 2017-03-15 18:10:56 Comments: I have lived on Vashon for almost 50 years. I am now a retired low income senior. I am 77th and 37th on the two affordable housing waiting lists on Vashon. I have been on the list for over 2 years. 89. Name: Abby antonelis on 2017-03-15 19:09:43 Comments: 90. Name: Irene Tokar on 2017-03-15 19:58:33 Comments: 91. Name: Tim Baer on 2017-03-15 20:48:39 Comments: Permanent, Non-profit, Sustainable, Aesthetic. That's what we want. Page 10 of 13

92. Name: John C Havekotte on 2017-03-16 05:00:07 Comments: This makes good sense to me. I don't expect developers to agree, however. 93. Name: Bill Moyer on 2017-03-16 15:30:08

84

Comments: I am fascinated by this proposal and agree with Doug Dolstad on the need for a vision-based model, not demand-driven development. Vashon-Maury is the perfect place to implement a new model for separating grey and black water and implement the widespread use of composting toilets to reduce water usage and requirements, and create living wage jobs . We could certainly harness the creative technical people to create a unique composting toilet unit for retrofitting existing water guzzling toilets on the island. The manufacture and installation of those toilets, safe, well designed blackwater/greywater separation and processing, and even a utility-like service for compost collection and processing could all be part of a sustainable employee-owned sustainable business/co-op. This holistic, systems approach aligns with the the values of our community and the necessities of our time. Teamwork! 94. Name: Susan McCabe on 2017-03-17 15:37:22 Comments: Affordable housing is crucial to our island and our county. It supports a healthy, diverse economy for the long term. 95. Name: Brittany Rozier on 2017-03-18 04:56:55 Comments: So exciting to see progress toward a community-led solution for affordable housing rather than a developer's plan to make money and leave town. 96. Name: Carla Decrona on 2017-03-18 06:19:59 Comments: I completely support this effort to provide affordable and sustainable housing, and wages, for our Vashon island community. Thank you. 97. Name: Annie on 2017-03-18 19:16:19 Comments: 98. Name: Susan DuFresne on 2017-03-18 20:18:08 Comments: 99. Name: Danny OBrien on 2017-03-18 20:18:12 Comments: Yes! 100. Name: Linda Henley on 2017-03-18 20:22:17 Comments: Page 11 of 13

101. Name: Christine Wood on 2017-03-18 21:53:45 Comments: 102. Name: Seven Dunsmore on 2017-03-18 21:58:14 Comments: 103. Name: Charles on 2017-03-18 22:41:27 Comments: 104. Name: Emily Herrick on 2017-03-18 23:28:44 Comments: 105. Name: Michael Denslow on 2017-03-18 23:29:27 Comments: 106. Name: Tracy mclaren on 2017-03-19 00:59:43 Comments: 107. Name: eric perlman on 2017-03-19 01:06:30 Comments: Affordable housing for all 108. Name: Allison Cox on 2017-03-19 02:45:09 Comments: 109. Name: Sue Letsinger on 2017-03-19 04:44:44 Comments: 110. Name: Marcia McKinzie on 2017-03-19 04:50:36

85

Comments: 111. Name: Kat Hostetler on 2017-03-19 06:34:13 Comments: 112. Name: Kristi Janssen on 2017-03-19 06:42:15 Comments: 113. Name: gale lurie on 2017-03-19 18:37:16 Comments: 114. Name: Angela Lewis on 2017-03-19 20:34:31 Comments: Page 12 of 13

115. Name: kelly chevalier on 2017-03-19 20:44:36 Comments: 116. Name: Arlette Moody on 2017-03-19 20:46:07 Comments: Powered by TC PDF ( www.tcpdf.org)

---------

1 This unedited public record is updated weekly and distributed monthly (around the 20th of each month). It does not

include comments submitted during community forums or special events. Those comments are recorded separately and

posted on the plan web site.