Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPermit 77-33 - CITY OF TUKWILA - 1978-1980 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PLAN COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLAN COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MEMORANDUM CITY of TUKW LA OFFICE o? COMMUNITY C. VELOPMENT 29 September 1977 PLANNING COMMISSIONERS TO: . FROM: Gary Crutchfiel•e ssistant Planner SUBJECT: Community Develop ent Plan:. 1978 - 1980 GC /ch Enclosure" Please find enclosed herewith copy of the above - referenced document. A public hearing has been scheduled for the regular October meeting of the Commission to discuss and recom- mend those projects which implement the objectives of the Plan and which will be executed in fiscal year 1978. Staff will be recommending certain projects and should any of the Commissioners have any suggested projects or desire to verbally discuss ideas, please contact me at your convenience prior to 27 October. . • COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PLAN 1978 -1980 City of Tukwila August 1977 CITY COUNCIL George D. Hill, President Lionel C. Bohrer Dwight Gardner Phyllis Pesicka Dan •Saul Dwayne :.Traynor Gary L. VanDusen PLANNING. COMMISSION Richard f.,. Kirsop, ,Chairman Eileen Avery: Richard Bowen Lloyd: Hartong John Richards Leo Sowinski - Hans: West ACK9OWLEDGMEIITS Edgar D. Bauc This document was prepared by..the Planning Division of the. Office of Community Development: Kjell Stoknes, Director Fred Satterstrom, Planning Supervisor *Gary Crutchfield, Assistant Planner Charlene Howat, Secretary *Project Planner This 4ocurstnt 1§ print 4 on 1 recycled paper, l-' 4 COUNCIL ACTION MEEAN, nn we AGENDA ttk A AGtON a k 9 9 41 IH /6 F' CITY OF TUKWL WASHIN GTON RESOLUTION NO 600 A RESOLUTION OF THE TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL APPROVING A THREE YEAR COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PLAN REQUIRED FOR PARTICIPATION WITH KING COUNTY IN APPLYING FOR FUNDS PURSUANT TO THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ACT OF 1974. WHEREAS, the Housing & Community Development Act of 1974 requires preparation and adoption of a Three -Year Housing &Community Development Plan which identifies the needs of the community and the strategy by which those needs will be met through the expenditure of Housing & Community Development Block Grant funds; and WHEREAS, the Tukwila Planning Commission during a public hearing conducted 11 August 1977 did recommend and forward to the Tukwila City Council for its consideration and approval a three year Community Develop- ment Plan for program years 1978 - 1980, as required by said Act; and WHEREAS, the City Council conducted a public hearing on said Plan. at a regular meeting on 6 September 1977; and WHEREAS, a Housing Assistance Plan, as required by said Act, will be prepared by King County for the geographical area within the City of Tuk- wila, consistent with the "Technical Data for Assisted Housing" contained in the Appendix of the three year Community Development Plan. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Tukwila, as follows: Section 1. The Tukwila City Council hereby approves the three year Community Development Plan and authorizes said Plan to be submitted to King County for inclusion in the King County Consortium application to the Depart- ment of Housing and Urban Development. PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA, WASHINGTON, at a regular meeting thereof, this 6th ( o , September , 977. ATTEST: Mayor i y C ?le 9/Z ) I. INTRODUCTION: Purpose Funding Process II. THE TUKWILA COMMUNITY CONTENTS III. GOALS AND OBJECTIVES Long -Term Objectives Short -Term Objectives Management Guidelines IV. COMMUNITY NEEDS Housing Conditions Population Characteristics Environmental Factors V. TARGET AREA VI. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY VII. CITIZEN PARTICIPATION VIII. APPENDICES Congress, in 1974, established the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974 (H &CD). This Act replaced and consolidated previous Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) categorical grant programs into a single block grant program. The Act fosters COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING FOR THE EXPENDITURE OF GRANT FUNDS within each community. the purpose of this plan. PURPOSE Y FUNDING PROCESS Communities within King County have an option as to application status. They may either apply under a "discretionary" status as an individual appli- cant, or they may elect to apply as a member of the King County's "Urban County" consortium application. Under the "discretionary" status, each applicant must prepare a Community Development Plan and a Housing Assistance Plan and compete with other dis- cretionary applicants to determine the greatest need fulfilled by the dollars requested with HUD retaining the authority for making the decision and subsequent allocations. This process is similar to the very categorical grant programs the Act seeks to replace. As a member of the Urban County application, a community develops its own Community Development Plan and projects (within the Federal guidelines) and may elect to prepare its own Housing Assistance Plan or simply be a member to King County's Housing Assistance Plan. The agreement entered into by both King County and each member community assures that community of receiving the amount of funds allocated by HUD on a per capita basis. This, in effect, assures each community which meets minimum qualifications of receiving its share of the pie in terms of POPULATION FUNDS, The City of Tukwila has elected to be a member of the County consortium, both in the previous three -year plan and again in this plan. As a result, Tuk- wila is assured of receiving approximately period for which this Plan has been prepared. -2- $47,000 over the three -year • In addition to the "population monies ", the agreement provides for "NEEDS MONIES" which will be allocated to fulfill those special COMMUNITY NEEDS identified through the planning and application process. A "JOINT PROJECT" fund is also provided which is designed to fund interjurisdictional projects of special need. TUKWILA COMMUNITY The Puget Sound Electric Railroad was a major impetus of incorporation for the Town of Tukwila in 1908. The "Interurban ", as it was commonly referred to, was the region's first rapid mass transit system linking Everett, Seattle and Tacoma. It's transfer point in Tukwila provided a commercial stimulus to the small residential town. Interurban Avenue, the first motor vehicle roadway to link Tacoma and Seattle, soon followed and maintained the small commercial activities in Tukwila after the death of the "Interurban" in 1928. Remaining a small bedroom community and commercial corridor for decades, Tukwila was thrust into the industrialized world in the late 50's and early 60's with the construction of the Howard Hansen Dam, associated diking of the Green River, and, moreover, the Interstate 5 and 405 freeways which now disect the City. Along with the major transportation routes and the flood protection of fertile agricultural lands came commercial and industrial development. Tukwila, once a serene rural community, has nearly overnight become a bustling artery in the heart of the Puget Sound economic region. With the economic benefits of commercial /industrial development, however, came the physical and social disadvantages. The transformation of lush green agricultural lands into asphalt parking lots and huge rooftops has diminished the visual pleasantness afforded the occupants of the resi- dential hillsides. Tens of thousands of automobiles and trucks, their motors emanating distasteful air pollution and deafening noises, have detracted from the residential serenity once offered in Tukwila. Residential neighborhoods, once bound by common development characteristics and community identity, are in danger of becoming isolated by man -made bar- riers and are threatened by the cancerous nature of industrial and related -4- growth. The population continues to decline from its high of 3500 in 1970. Residential building activity has only recently increased to a measurable level. The single- family home has, until only recently, given way to the multiple -unit structure. The PROTECTION AND MAINTENANCE of its RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOODS are of VITAL CONCERN to Tukwila. The ARREST OF BLIGHTING INFLUENCES and their effect to the prolonged vitality of the residential neighborhoods is of primary import in its effort to MAINTAIN A SUITABLE LIVING ENVIRON- MENT for its residents and the use of Community Development Block Grant.. funds is essential to this endeavor. GOALS AND OBJECTIVES LONG — TERM OBJECTIVES The development of viable urban communities, including decent housing and a suitable living environment and expanding economic opportunities, prin- cipally for persons of low and moderate income is the primary goal estab- lished in the H &CD Act. To attain that goal, the Act further provides specific objectives for: • The elimination of slums and blight and the prevention of blighting influences and the deterioration of property and neighborhood and community facilities of importance to the welfare of the community, principally persons of low and moderate income. • The elimination of conditions which are detrimental to health, . safety, and public welfare, through code enforcement, demoli- tion, interim rehabilitation assistance, and related activities. • The conservation and expansion of the Nation's housing stock in order to provide a decent home and a suitable living environment for all persons, but principally those of low and moderate income. ■ The expansion and improvement of the quantity and quality of com- munity services, principally for persons of low and moderate in- come, which are essential for sound community development and for the development of viable urban communities. ■ A more rational utilization of land and other natural resources and the better arrangement of residential, commercial, industrial, recreational, and other needed activity centers. -6- ■ The reduction of the isolation'of income groups within communi- ties and geographical areas and the promotion of an increase in the diversity and vitality of neighborhoods through the spatial deconcentration of housing opportunities for persons of lower income and the revitalization of deteriorating or deteriorated neighborhoods to attract persons of higher income. • The restoration and preservation of properties of special value for historic, architectural or esthetic reasons. In addition to the objectives established in the Act itself, the King County Council has established long -term objectives for the use of com- munity development funds and the City of Tukwila acknowledges their value through their inclusion in this plan. ECONOMIC OBJECTIVES EC -1 Enhance the financial ability of persons to obtain and retain decent dwelling units. Specific means of accomplishing this objective could include: • builder guarantee of workmanship and materials; • an insurance program to cover major defects in housing construc- through: tion and materials; • cash payments to help defray the increase in property taxes due to home improvements. EC -2 Assure an adequate housing supply to low and moderate income persons • production of new dwelling units; • maintenance of existing standard dwelling units; • rehabilitation of below standard dwelling units; • removal of obsolete dwelling units. EC -3 Improve economic opportunities through housing and human service programs for low and moderate income persons, minorities, elderly, handicapped and youth. -8- EC -4 Insure that public utility investment (such as storm and sanitary sewers and water, drainage, etc.) is used to serve areas which will improve housing conditions and provide employment opportunities for low and moderate income persons. EC -5 Encourage the accessibility of employment to persons of low and moderate income through coordinating the development of housing, employment opportunities, and transportation within local communities. EC -6 Use funds in areas where they will be appropriate to generate and promote additional involvement of the private sector. EC -7 Encourage public and private cooperation in programs to construct or rehabilitate buildings which will subsequently be used to employ people of low and moderate income. SOCIAL OBJECTIVES S -1 Recognizing the importance of their supporting role, allocate up to 20% of the total amount of Block Grant funds for Human Services.. S -2 Improve the availability and accessibility of human services by the following: • promote geographical decentralization; • increase mobility through improved public transportation services and facilities; • encourage the use of joint facilities, including those of County -wide or regional significance. -9- S -3 Encourage personal development and self sufficiency of persons of low and moderate income, the elderly and handicapped, by the following: • assuring adequate nutrition and health care; • developing new skills for livelihood; • overcoming social barriers which limit opportunities; • providing accommodations for people who are physically handicapped. S -4 Provide opportunities for involvement of elderly to gain the benefits of their knowledge and experience. S -5 Assure an open housing market and equal opportunity for all, irrespec- tive of sex, marital status, race, creed, color or national origin. S -6 Use funds to provide open space and recreational facilities located and designed to improve neighborhoods and to serve low and moderate income persons. ENVIRONMENTAL OBJECTIVES EN -1 Correct existing public health problems of an environmental nature in low and moderate income neighborhoods. The following environmental objectives are desirable consequences to be achieved in the course of carrying out the previously stated economic and social objectives. Although not the primary objectives of the program, these objectives should be followed in achieving the Economic and Social Objectives. EN -2 Assure desirable environmental quality in residential areas. -10- EN -3 Minimize and offset adverse industrial, commercial and residential blighting influences. EN -4 Retain open space and agricultural lands. EN -5 Preserve and restore historical sites and buildings. SHORT - TERM OBJECTIVES The Tukwila Planning Commission and City Council, in their review of the 1977 Program, established short -term objectives by which to guide devel- opment of yearly programs and projects. ST -1 Program the use of Community Development funds for projects which will have the GREATEST POSITIVE IMPACT WITHIN THE COMMUNITY. ST -2 Stress continuation or augmentation of programs which IMPROVE THE VISUAL AND FUNCTIONAL QUALITIES OF THE COMMUNITY, . ST -3 Emphasis, in the form of projects, should be directed toward the REINFORCEMENT AND MAINTENANCE OF VIABLE RESIDENTIAL NEIGH BORHOODS WITHIN THE COMMUNITY. The management guidelines established by King County are further included . in this plan and are intended to guide the planning, execution and admin- istration of the Community Development programs established in Tukwila under this plan. M -1 Assure appropriate and effective working relationships among other governmental jurisdictions, the private sector and the general pub- lic. M -2 Coordinate and cooperate in planning and execution both within.and between jurisdictions. MANAGEMENT GUIDELINES M -3 Establish and fund continual and representative citizen involvement within the Target Area to assist planning, monitor implementation . and evaluate program impacts. M -4 Inasmuch as the federal regulations prohibit it, these funds will not be used to fund recurring operation and maintenance costs. M -5 Plan for and evaluate both intended and unintended social, economic. and environmental impacts of major program actions to assure the achievement of program objectives and purposes. M -6 These funds shall not be substituted for committed expenditures appearing in existing capital improvement programs and operating budgets, but may be utilized for matching funds where applicable or to augment existing commitments. -13- 1 1 IV COMMUNITY NEEDS This section of the Plan is intended to provide insight as to the:charac- teristics of Tukwila and extrapolate from them the NEEDS of the community. To that end, the characteristics are grouped under HOUSING CONDITIONS, POPULATION CHARACTERISTICS, or ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS. Much of the basic data used in this Section has been extracted from the 1970 U.S. Census of Housing and Population. While it is'becoming.out- dated, it provides a reasonable comparative basis from which needs:can be identified. -14- HOUSING CONDITIONS King County Tukwila Median Value 21,000 22,800 Median Rent 114 132 Owner /Renter Ratio 1.7/1 .5/1 Units Built Before 1940 31.2% 15 %. Units Lacking Adequate Plumbing 2.8% .7% Vacancy Rate 7.4% 6.2% (1977 census) Overcrowded Units 4% 2.3% (est.) The value of homes and rent value of housing units in Tukwila are somewhat higher than the County average and the percentage of homes constructed since 1940 is notably higher. The relative youth of Tukwila's housing accounts for its negligible percentage of units without adequate plumbing facilities. The owner /renter ratio in Tukwila is the reverse of the County's, signifying a greater number of apartment units than single - family homes. A census per- formed by the City of Tukwila in April 1977 established the overall vacancy . rate at 6.2 %, most of which were apartment units. As a result of HUD's re- definition of "overcrowded unit" ( +1.25 persons per room), the 1970 Census figure was proportionately reduced to an estimate of a little more than 2 percent of the units in Tukwila, nearly half the percentage for King County. The most significant condition of Tukwila's housing appears to be the ratio of renter - occupied units to owner - occupied units. The fact Tukwila contains virtually twice the number of apartment units (1,111) than single - family homes (574) raises the question of ADEQUATE RECREATION FACILITIES. Secondly, while the percentage of housing units constructed before 1940 is less than half of that found in King County, the City must continue to moni- tor this factor and encourage, through appropriate means, the UPGRADING AND MAINTENANCE OF THE OLDER PORTION OF ITS HOUSING STOCK. -15- • • • • POPULATION CHARACTERISTICS Characteristic King County Tukwila Median Income 9,361 11,365 Persons 62 Years & Older 10.9% 6.5% Households with Female Head 9.7% 6.1% Families Receiving Public Assistance 27.7% 16.7% Households Below Poverty 9.7% 3.9% Non -High. School Graduates 31.0% ' 30.6% Income levels in Tukwila compare very favorably with those of King County. While the average family income is notably higher in Tukwila, the percent of families receiving public assistance and the percent of households below poverty are far below the respective County percentages. A smaller percen- tage of Tukwila's residents are elderly and a smaller rate of households are headed by females. ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS While the 1970 Census data is outdated and its figures are open to some debate, the analysis of Environmental Factors in Tukwila provide a cur- rent assessment of physical characteristics which are much more tangible and, therefore, understandable. As a result of a Community Development Questionnaire in June 1976, assess- ment of Environmental Factors was determined necessary in the Interurban Avenue corridor. The rating system employed in this assessment is based on environmental factors and the rating indicates the adverse severity of each. S= Severe; M = Moderate; N = Negligible. The rating is based on comparison of the Interurban Avenue corridor with another commercial corridor in distant por- tion of Tukwila. Factors Structural Conditions Health Hazards Property Conditions Rating M M M Street Conditions M Environmental Stress M Natural Deficiencies M Availability of Public Facilities N Arrested Land S Visual Blight S Functional for Residential Neighborhood S Functional for Commercial Activity M Compatability of Uses M'S -17- A narrow valley parallelled by a steep bluff on one side and the Duwamish River on the other, the Interurban Avenue corridor was once the commercial center of Tukwila. With the advent of the Interstate freeway system and Southcenter Shopping Center, Interurban Avenue has been relegated to an arterial whose only functional quality is the through- movement of automobile traffic. The land on either side, once a viable commercial commodity, lies relatively dormant with little private investment over the past fifteen years. Where the old Puget Sound Electric Railroad once journeyed through Tukwila on its way to either Seattle or Tacoma, there now lies an abandoned right - of -way varying from 50 to 100 feet in width and parallelling the east line of Interurban Avenue. This strip is divided in ownership, a portion being owned by Puget Power and another by Seattle City Light. Smaller portions are leased to the adjacent developments for uses varying from automobile parking to outdoor industrial storage, constituting in many instances a vis- ual blight to both the passerby and the residential neighborhood perched above. Usefulness of the corridor for the adjacent residential neighborhood has greatly diminished over the past twenty years. Community facilities such as the City Hall and Post Office have been relocated from this corridor. Interurban Avenue, a State highway, does not include sidewalks or any other consideration for pedestrians. Signals and crosswalks are noticeably absent, a significant safety hazard to potential residential users. The functional quality of the corridor for commercial activity has also regressed with the "freeway" nature of the State Highway Department's improvements over the past twenty years. Ease of ingress /egress, essential to any viable commercial facility, is greatly inhibited by the abandoned Puget Sound Electric Railroad right -of -way. Residential, commercial and industrial uses are juxtaposed along the corridor, further generating conflicts. -18- The many BLIGHTING INFLUENCES found in the Interurban Avenue corridor MUST BE ARRESTED AND REMEDIED if private investment, neighborhood use- fulness, and preservation of an historical asset is . to be assured. V TARGET. AREA 4 1 As noted in the Needs analysis, families of low /moderate income are not concentrated . to any recognizable degree but are dispersed throughout the Tukwila community. To ensure that projects undertaken to aid principally persons of low /moderate income, the Target Area is defined to include all residential neighborhoods of Tukwila. In so doing, persons of low /moder- ate income will benefit at least to their proportionate share. Insofar as the Interurban Avenue corridor is identified as being in a deteriorating condition as a reusit of blighting influences discussed in the Needs section of this plan, the Target Area also encompasses the Interurban Avenue corridor. Programs and projects implemented with Community Development funds will be undertaken only within this Target Area. -21- \, ••• CITY .OF TUKWILA mia-ssoitsiAtch•isr I C2 11.0•11 .1 1.0o. 7 272 •1E101M 282 283 • • a . • 1til.414,. ▪ 1 A't 511, .1 MI Tr •I•1•IIIM l• 1•11•1111111• In I 3. S S C111 ji : CITY OF TUKWILA TARGET AREA •6NOC 1 IASI U5; MK/ 5 EAU . ,„ Inasmuch as Tukwila is small in terms of population and therefore will be allocated small amounts of population monies, significant projects cannot hope to be undertaken solely with Community Development funds. In order to achieve the objectives spelled out in this plan, PROGRAMMING OF MAJOR PROJECTS MUST SEEK AND IDENTIFY OTHER FUNDING SOURCES, WHETHER PUBLIC OR PRIVATE, TO SUPPLEMENT THE AMOUNT OF COMMUNITY DEVEL- OPMENT FUNDS PROGRAMMED, This attitude must prevail in any attempt to arrest blighting influences and further deterioration, principally in the Interurban Avenue corridor. -22- 0 A small amount of money can have a significant effect if properly programmed. Tukwila, because of its small allocation of money, must seek innovative pro- grams which will be of benefit principally to the relatively small number of low /moderate income households which are dispersed throughout the Tukwila community. As new data becomes available or as changes in community conditions are per- ceived, the Community Development Plan must be reviewed and its programs updated to assure attainment of contemporary community goals and objectives. -24 Initial citizen participation in the development of this plan was conducted in June 1976 through the distribution of a Community Development Question- naire to all residents and businesses located within the City of Tukwila. With the tabulation of responses, initial identification and prioritization of needs was accomplished. (A copy of the Questionnaire and the. Tabulation. of Responses is found in the Appendices.) Further public input was solicited at public hearings before the Planning Commission on 11 August 1977 and the City Council on 6 September 1977. (A, copy of the minutes of the respective hearings is found in the Appendices.). • • TECHNICAL DATA FOR ASSISTED HOUSING #4 DILAPIDATED CONDITION OF HOUSING STOCK A windshield survey was conducted during the summer of 1976 to assess the general condition of the housing stock within the Tukwila corporate limits. The rating method established by King County was employed to provide a con- sistent manner of assessment. Four general rating classifications, as defined below, were used. #2 BASICALLY SOUND Structurally sound, providing apparently adequate housing. Having slight or minor defects resulting from lack of ordinary maintenance. Defects can be easily corrected or minor hazards on the premises readily removed. How- ever, prolonged neglect can eventually lead to deteriora- tion, structural unsoundness and inadequate housing. #3 DETERIORATED Does not provide apparently adequate housing. Having one or more major defects contributing to structural unsoundness and/or a� cking in adequate weather protection. Requiring replacement of materials and /or repair beyond ordinary main- tenance. Does not provide safe and adequate shelter. Having several critical deficiencies, particularly in structural compo- nents, to the extent that correction would require very sub- stantial overhaul and rebuilding. Likelihood exists that rehabilitation would be infeasible. The results of the windshield survey, as updated through July 1976, areas tabu- lated below: #SF #MF % OF ALL UNITS UNITS TOTAL UNITS #1 476 808 1,284 76% #2 82 303 385 23% #3 11 11 .7% #4 5 5 .3% 574 1,111 1,685 100% CITY OF TUKWILA NILL,:NCAWN,ChASE • Ca 272 ■I •i.I.1 282 111111•11•1 11111111111111111 183 ■ 0�� I- i • a a a1 CITY OF TUKWILA PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION NIAG[ • wT METRO Routes • Transfer Points Wee 5 (UT c oo 3 o9 ) 272 Y OF TUKWILA LIC SERVICES& FACILITIES :government office C: golf course : fire station : park : school H: shopping : medical 1141G1 • CUT OOOOOO •• nA1411 S CUT ccoao9 CITY OF TUKWILA WiL :NOM& CMS/ a C2 corm. ammo. Mms wow.. - • In In IOU 282 1 283 • tbALtLA eit 7- 7L- • l• 1•1111111•111111111•111111111 • 3 \ , GC • :11 CIT PUB G G F 282 283 .u� �: \II .„t. 272 k • s r • • •...L • DoS • ••T • • EXISTING PLANNED CITY OF TUK ILA • CITY OF TUKWILA EMPLOYMENT CENTERS 00030? !ILL, /NGIt 1K OAS(d Cl ice: 1�-- �/ zit 282 • ..s.s.i.i.i.mI.ImiI 233 I • ML • /4T MKf ' Wm p }7 1 u, T }� • CITY OF TUKWILA PERMANENTLY ASSIGNED ASSISTED HOUSING UNITS. • (NONE) . 000ao9 clr' cc TIKwlu - 27 282 283 tUl i • . _ •_mom R�. •..1■ 1.1 ■1.1 ■1.1.1.1.1 to I I I•M=• • ••• CITY OF TUKWILA AVAILABLE LAND ZONED FOR MULTIPLE - FAMILY USE ._. /1N•f 181? - 7 0003 GTY OF TUKWLA luLL, /NGMi 4CMSEB - 272 ainiamemilesusierammriss 282 a lb LIIR ,.. \ ru.i [7 • w1wit•ita1•i111iratrauui 283 s 1 + { 1 ` IJI ll:ll il � t E jau luau • • YT m . I IT CITY OF TUKWILA RESIDENTIAL AREAS WITH SEWAGE DISPOSAL PROBLEMS - 000309 CITY OF TUKWILA N.'LL, INCb61A(, chnsE A C 2 Hi I. .WG41-14 CMS 8 L am % • • O ?, 212 I ' ~ r ifiLlk 282 283 -CITY OF TUKWILA ENVIRONMENTAL PROBLEMS • `- Land Use Areas Incompatible with Residential Housing. E - 272 1► -�: ■1 ■1■1 ■I:i�l ■1 ■rw ■1 ■�• ■1 • 282 _.. .. ll ■1 ■1 ■1 ■1 ■1 ■1 ■1 ■1 ■1 ■1( ■! 283 • :1 4-11A , ite ? 1l.�;lJ I� (1 �•!l1.1•1 ■ ■1 ■ 1 ■1 flillw 4 l / + CITY OF TUKWILA CONCENTRATIONS OF LOWER INCOME HOUSEHOLDS (NONE) IU I 1 4 =YT ILNC= It =.=T 1 CITY OF TUKW!LA diLL,.NGM.1A Ck4SE B C% QUESTIONNAIRE RESULTS THE HAZELNUT Page 3. HOUSING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PLAN The Housing and Community Development Act of 1974 consolidates and replaces a myriad of grant programs. The Act combines a wide variety of programs, ranging from federal hous- ing to historic preservation, into a single block of funds called a Community Development Block Grant. The Act focuses on the needs of low and moderate income people, and on communities which are blighted or which are in danger of becoming blighted. It is divided into eight major sections, or "Titles ". The Title of the Act which affects Tukwila is Title I, Community Development. To receive funds under this title, the City is required to develop a 3 year Community Development Plan and, if not included in the County's Housing Assistance Plan, must develop a local Housing Assistance Plan. These documents must be included in the annual block grant application for Community Development projects. The Act identifies seven broad objectives for Community Development Plans. They are: 1. Eliminate slums and blight and prevent neighborhood decay; 2. Eliminate conditions detrimental to health, safety and public welfare; 3. Conserve and expand the Nation's housing stock in order to provide a decent home and environment for all persons; 4. Expand and improve public services which are essential to sound com- munity development; 5. Utilize land and other natural resources more rationally; 6. Reduce the isolation of different income groups by deconcentrating housing opportunities for people with low and moderate incomes, and by revitalizing deteriorated neighborhoods; 7. Restore and preserve properties with historical or other special value. The funding formula of the Act is primarily based on population. Thus, Tukwila's popu- lation allocation is quite small. The secondary level of fundingis that of "needs" which is based on concentrations of low income households, elderly and overcrowded housing. Due to Tukwila's generally average household income level and lack of concentrations of elderly households, as well as Tukwila's per capita revenue, the likelihood of receiving any needs allocation is dim at best. The 1975 and 1976 population allocations were $4,468 and $9,728, respectively. During the past two years since the birth of the KCD Act, Tukwila has elected to have the population allocation retained until a local Community Development Plan is created thus allowing the use of the three year total (estimated to be $28,000) in one project year, 1977. To assist in the identification of community development needs within the City of Tukwila, this questionnaire is segregated into general groups of need with potential project con- cepts listed under each group. Please indicate which needs you perceive to be most urgent and what project concepts you feel will best fulfill that need. If you have specific pro- ject proposals please write them in the space provided. PLEASE COMPLETE THIS QUESTIONNAIRE BY SIM PLY INDICATING YOUR PREFERENCES IN THE BOXES OR WRITING IN YOUR IDEAS AND RETURN IN ACCOR DANCE WITH THE DIRECTIONS ON THE REVERSE SIDE. Page 4. THE HAZELNUT SOCIAL NEEDS D Library D Youth Programs Child Care D Youth Employment Service n Senior Citizen Programs D Crime Prevention H O UTILITY NEEDS Storm Drainage Improvements 0 Underground Power 0 Street Improvements (lighting, paving) 0 Street signalization PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION NEEDS 0 Rapid Transit Improvements D Sidewalk /Walkway Improvements 1 4 4 BUSINESS DISTRICT NEEDS 0 Interurban Avenue Improvement (boulevard with sidewalks and landscaping) RECREATION NEEDS 0 Expanded Recreation Programs 0 More Parks 0 Community Center 0 Better Development/Use of Existing Parks 0 Coordination for use of county facilities 0 Foster Golf Course • C1) HOUSING NEEDS 0 Code Enforcement 0 Housing Rehabilitation 0 Develop Low-Cost Housing THE HAZELNUT Page 5. Page 6: THE HAZELNUT COMMUNITY ENHANCEMENT I would like to have the results of this survey mailed to me when it is. tabulated. Q I would like to have a copy of the proposed Community Development projects mailed to me before they go to a public hearing. My address is: CITY OF TUKWILA PLANNING DEPARTMENT 6230 Southcenter Blvd. Tukwila, WA 98188 FOLD HERE PLANNING DEPARTMENT 6230 Bouthcenter Blvd. Tukwila, Wn 98188 FOLD HERE & OVERLAP STAPLE OR TAPE CLOSED Place Stamp Here. HOUSING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PLAN Signalization (34 %) Street Improvements (31 %) Underground Utilities (27 %) Storm Drainage (13%) RESULTS OF QUESTIONNAIRE A principal guideline set forth by the Housing & Community Development Act of 1974 is citizen involvement at the basic level. To initiate the development of such a plan, it was first necessary to attempt to identify the principal needs of the community. In an attempt to accomplish that fundamental step, a questionnaire was made available to each and every resident and business in Tukwila. The contents'of the questionnaire included a brief summary of the requirements of the Act itself and a description of the funding formula in addition to the estimated amount of dollars for which the plan was to be developed. With that in mind, the questionnaire proceeded to display seven general categories of need, specifically SOCIAL, UTILITY, PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION, BUSINESS DISTRICT, RECREATION, HOUSING, AND COMMUNITY ENHANCEMENT. Within each general category, at least one specific need was listed and adequate space was provided for the respondant to list any specific need he /she deemed viable. The questionnaire was made available to approximately 2,000 residents and busi- nesses. Twenty -nine were completed and returned, representing one and one -half percent of those made available. The results of those returned are briefly summarized on the following pages. The needs perceived by the respondants are . listed in order of priority within each general category and the percent of all respondants is parenthetically indicated for each specific need. SOCIAL NEEDS Youth Employment Service (38 %) Library (31 %) Crime Prevention (20 %) Child Care (17 %) Senior Citizen Programs (13%) Youth Programs (13%) As indicated by the percentages, the need for a Youth Employment Service or a library was considered utmost by the respondants. UTILITY NEEDS Housing & Community Development Plan Results of Questionnaire A notable diversity of opinion is evident in this category. Signalization, street improvements and underground utilities all 'received a relatively equal indication of importance. PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION Sidewalks (69 %) Rapid Transit (10 %) A significant majority of all respondents indicated a lack, or need for improvement, of a sidewalk system. Page 2 10 June 1976 BUSINESS DISTRICT Interurban Avenue Improvement (58 %) • Again, a considerable percentage of all respondents indicated a need for improvement to Interurban Avenue with respect to aesthetic enhancement, and useability for the residents. RECREATION NEEDS Better Development /Use of Existing Parks (34 %) Community Center (31 %) Expand Programs (20 %) More Parks (20 %) Foster Golf Course (17 %) Coordination for use of County Facilities (6 %) Both a community center and better development /use of existing parks were rated higher than the remaining needs. HOUSING NEEDS Code Enforcement (27 %) Housing Rehabilitation (17 %) Development of Low -Cost Housing (17 %) Enforcement of code restrictions received a notably higher., response than did construction of low- income housing or rehabilitation of existing homes. Housing & Community Development Plan Results of. Questionnaire COMMUNITY ENHANCEMENT The only considerable response under this category was the suggestion that some sort of program be developed which would induce maintenance of residences to instill a sense of pride in the community and, in turn, enhance both community spirit and appearance. In order to display the priority of needs perceived by the respondants, the list below simply lists each specific need according to the respective per- centage of responses beginning with the highest level of response. PRIORITY Sidewalks (69 %) Interurban Avenue Improvement (58 %) Youth Employment Service (38 %) Better Development /Use of Existing Parks (34 %) Signalization (34 %) Library (31 %) Street Improvements (31 %) Community Center (31 %) Code Enforcement (27 %) Underground Utilities (27 %) More Parks (20 %) Expand Recreation Programs (20 %) Crime Prevention (20 %) Child Care (17 %) Foster Golf Course (17 %) Housing Rehabilitation (17 %) Develop Low -Cost Housing (17 %) Senior Citizen Programs (13 %) Youth Programs (13 %) Storm Drainage (13 %) Rapid Transit (10 %) Coordination for use of county facilities ( 6 %) Page 3 10 June 1976 Housing & Community Development Plan Results of Questionnaire RANK Unsightly lots or structures 1 Lack of sidewalks, unsafe sidewalks 2 Aircraft noise overhead 3 Commercial blight along Interurban 4 Page 4 10 June 1976 By far the most significant needs indicated were sidewalk improvements and improvement of Interurban Avenue. More than half the respondants consistently indicated these two project concepts sorely needed attention. To provide a better indication of problems (which can certainly be interpreted as needs) within the city, a portion of the results of the 'Tukwila Tomorrow' residential questionnaire are indicated below. That questionnaire distributed. in June 1975, listed fifteen separate problems, four of which received the highest response levels and they are indicated in order of priority. The number 1 and number 2 problem cited by the. Housing & Community Development questionnaire respondants correspond to the number 2 and number 4, respectively, . cited by. the Tukwila Tomorrow questionnaire respondants. This correlation . serves to underscore the validity of the results of both questionnaires as well as the identification and prioritization of needs portrayed in this report. i i 1 PUBLIC HEARING: Housing & Community Development Plan 1978 - 1980 Mr. Crutchfield briefly explained the purpose of the hearing was to solicit public input regarding the proposed plan. Chairman Kirsop opened the Public Hearing at 8:05 P.M. Mr. Crutchfield explained each section of the plan in succession, focusing on the Funding. Process, Needs, and Community Development Strategy sections. Also explained eligible and ineligible projects as a result of recent HUD management directive. Commissioner Avery expressed the potential for a Youth Employment Service as a possible project. Also questioned the types of housing programs. Mr. Crutchfield explained the basic objective of any project must be to aid principally persons or households of low /moderate income. Also explained the two options regarding Housing Assistance Plans, Staff recommending Tuk- wila not prepare its own such Plan but rather be a part of King County's. There being no further comments, Chairman Kirsop closed the hearing at 9:15 P.M. Motion by Mrs. Avery, seconded by Mr. Sowinski and carried to recommend the City Council adopt the Community Development Plan for 1978 - 1980 as proposed and that the City of Tukwila be a part of the King County Housing Assistance Plan. I, the undersigned, do hereby certify that the above is a true and accurate copy of a portion of the 11 August 1977 Planning Commission meeting minutes. Gary Cr chfield Assist • t Planner 4 4 PUNLIC HEARINGS The Community Development Plan (1978 - 1980) Resolution #600 - Approving a three - year Community Development Plan This bein the City Three -Yea the needs will be m Developme money whi identifie of Tukwil throughou as being Kj el l Sto to Counci allocatio Mayor Bau ments or Bauch clo MOVED BY TO INCLUD THREE -YEA CARRIED. Deputy Ci Community County in Act of 19 *MOTION C RRIED. the time and date published, Mayor Bauch explained that' s required to hold a Public Hearing on adoption of a Housing and Community Development Plan which identifies of the community and the strategy by which those needs t through the expenditures of Housing and Community t Block Grant Funds. The City qualifies under population h amounts to approximately $15,000 per year. The Plan two target areas of need. The residential neighborhoods where the families of low /moderate income are dispersed and the Interurban Avenue corridor which is identified n a deteriorating condition. nes, OCD Director, stated that his department will be back at a later date with a specific proposal on spending the for 1978. h declared the Public Hearing open . uestions from the audience. There ed the Public Hearing. ILL, SECONDED BY MRS. PESICKA, THAT A RESOLUTION AND THAT THE PROPOSED COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PLAN BE READ and asked for any com- being no comments, Mayor THE AGENDA BE AMENDED RESOLUTION APPROVING A BY TITLE ONLY. MOTION y Attorney Hard read a resolution approving a three -year Development Plan required for participation with King applying for funds pursuant to the Community Development 4. MOVED BY ILL, SECONDED BY MRS. PESICKA, THAT RESOLUTION N0. 600 BE ADOPTED A READ.* Councilma Hill asked if Council wants to adopt this resolution the same nigh as the public hearing. Mayor Bauch explained that there is a requirement to submit this to the County by September 9. Since there was no audience comment at the public hearing, he requested Council adopt the resolution this evening. I, the undersigned, do he eby certify that the above is a true and accurate copy of a portion of the 6 Se' ember 1977 C t Council meeting minutes. Gary Crutchfield Assistant Planner 27 October 1977 (date) CITY OF TUKWILA NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING 8:00 P.M. (time) Notice is hereby given that the Tukwila PLANNING COMMISSION' will conduct a PUBLIC HEARING on the above date at City Hall, 14475 - 59th Avenue South, to consider RECOMMENDATION of PROJECTS to be IMPLEMENTED in FISCAL YEAR 1978 with COMMUNITY DEVE FUNDS availahlP under thr }!OUcING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ACT of 1974. All interested persons are encouraged to appear and be heard. Hans West, Secretary Tukwila Planning Commission For further information please contact Gary Crutchfield, Assistant Planner, at 242 -217; Published in the Renton Record - Chronicle on 12 & 19. October 1977, 1 Sep hmb 6, 1977 7:Ct P.M. TUK !ILA CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING Tukwila City Hall M I N U T E S Council Chambers FLAG SALUTE AND Mayor Bauch, presiding, called the regular, meeting of the Tukwila Ci CALL TO ORDER - Council to order. ROLL CALL OF COUNCIL MEMBERS OFFICIALS IN ATTENDANCE MINUTE APPROVAL VOUCHER APPROVAL PUBLIC , ARINGS e Community Development Plan (1978 - 1980) LIONEL C. BOHRER, DWIGHT R. GARDNER, GEORGE D. HILL, PHYLLIS D. PESII DANIEL J. SAUL, DWAYNE D. TRAYNOR, GARY L. VAN DUSEN. KJELL STOKNES, OCD Director; MABEL J. HARRIS, City Treasurer; LAWRENCE HARD, City Attorney; MAXINE ANDERSON, City Clerk. MOVED BY HILL, SECONDED BY MRS. PESICKA, THAT THE MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF AUGUST 15, 1977, BE APPROVED AS PUBLISHED. MOTIO CARRIED. MOVED BY HILL, SECONDED BY VAN DUSEN, THAT THE VOUCHERS, INCLUDING VOUCHER NO. 3189, BE ACCEPTED AND WARRANTS BE DRAWN IN THEIR RESPECTI AMOUNTS. * Councilman Traynor asked if it is the intent of Council to purchase sunglasses for every employee that presents a voucher? Councilman Hill stated that this was discussed, and it was decided th Council cannot initiate a policy and make it retroactive. The Mayor has initiated an Administrative Policy that does not include sunglas Councilman Traynor stated that this started some time ago, and it seems Council is paying for "just one more." Councilman Van Dusen stated that there has been no directive to stop Policy 01 -12 will do that. Councilman Traynor stated that he disagrees and does not think it a wise expenditure of the tax payers' money and cannot approve the voucher. * MOTION CARRIED WITH TRAYNOR VOTING NO. Vouchers No. 3432 - 3570 Current Fund 3432 - 3534 $37,632.13 Street Fund 3535 - 3543 • 6,255.55 Title II Revenue 3544 74.73 Fed. Shared Revenue 3545 - 3553- 1,668.43 City Hall Construction 3554 27,546.93 Water Fund 3555 - 3561 3,471.19 Sewer Fund 3562 - 3570 889.68 $77,538.64 BID OPENINGS AND AWARDS Call for Bids, MOVED BY HILL, SECONDED BY MRS. PESICKA, THAT OCTOBER 3, 1977, 2:00 Notice of Bond Sale, BE SET AS THE DATE FOR THE CALL FOR BIDS FOR THE SALE OF THE LIMITS[ City Hall Construction GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS. MOTION CARRIED. This being the time and date published, Mayor Bauch explained that 1 City is required to hold a Public Hearing on adoption of a Three -Yei Housing and Community Development Plan which identifies the needs o1 community and the strategy by which those needs will be met through expenditures of Housing and Community Development Block Grant Funds. The City qualifies under population money which amounts to approximi $15,000 per year. The Plan identifies two target areas of need. Ti residential neighborhoods of Tukwila where the families of low /model income are dispersed throughout and the Interurban Avenue corridor t is identified as being in a deteriorating condition. Kj ell Stoknes, OCD Director, stated that his department will be bad Council at a later date with a specific proposal on spending the al " t ion r „Y 1;7E, i U :I L A CITY COUNCIL REGULAF( September 6, 1977 Page 2.". PUCLIC HEARINGS - Cont. The Community Development Plan (1978 - 1980) - Cont. CITIZENS' COMMENTS Frances North, ingress and egress to property at 42nd Ave. South and Interurban FIRST READING OF ORDINANCES Ordinance #1033 - providing for the issuance of $1,500,00 Limited G.O. Bonds for constructing and equipping a new city hall Mayor Bauch .ieclared the Public Hearing open and asked for any coma questions f:-�m the audience. There being no comments, Mayor Bauch closed the Public Hearing. Mrs. Frances North, Box 441, North Bend, Washington, explained an item of concern involving a piece of property owned by her family, the Codigases, in the north end of the City. There is a proposal now for the sale of an adjacent piece of property, formerly belonging to Mr. Banchero, to a trucking company. They are proposing a new ingress and egress to the property, and Mrs. North states that this change is a dangerous one.. This access is only 157 feet from the three phase signi at 42nd Avenue South and Interurban. There is no area provided for the stacking of large rigs wanting to make left turns. She states that to allow an access at this point will jeopardize safety and doesn't make sense. She asked Council to look over this situation before it i! approved. She further stated that the present access in the area is used at least once a day to move the cattle, and they need it open. Kjell Stoknes, OCD Director, verified that there has been a proposal f( a trucking company to locate on this property. He stated that the access is a problem; it may not be the best place to put it, but it is available. Councilman Bohrer stated that he has traveled this route and found tha trucks do not respect the intersection; they see a caution light but continue through the intersection on the red signal. He also expresser concern over this access. Mayor Bauch stated that he will refer this matter to the Office Engine( for a staff report. PETITIONS, COMMUNICATIONS, APPEALS, AND SIMILAR MATTERS Summons No. 833525, Mayor Bauch recognized for the record receipt of Summons No. 833535, Carlina Wheeler vs. Carlina Wheeler and Carlina Wheeler as Guardian ad litem for Terrell City of Tukwila Edward Espanol, a minor, vs. City of Tukwila and John Doe Policeman an Jane Doe, his wife. This has been referred to the City Attorney who informed the Mayor that it is an insurance matter. MOVED BY HILL, SECONDED BY SAUL, THAT THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE BE READ BY TITLE ONLY. MOTION CARRIED. Deputy City Attorney Hard read an ordinance providing for the issuance of $1,500,000 par value of "Limited General Obligation Bonds, 1977," c the City to provide a part of the funds to pay the cost of constructin and equipping a new City Hall on the site of the existing building housing the Public Works Department, Planning Department and Office of Community Development at 6230 Southcenter Boulevard; specifying the maturities and fixing the form and maximum effective interest rate of such bonds; establishing a "Limited General Obligation Bond Fund, 1977 and providing for the sale of the bonds. MOVED BY HILL, SECONDED BY MRS. PESICKA, THAT ORDINANCE NO. 1033 BE ADOPTED AS READ. * Councilm:n Saul asked about the denomination of the bonds being in the amount of $5,000 and wondered how anyone could buy them. Mayor Bauch explained that someone will probably bid on the whole group. C. #:= == ziir , T ITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING 6, 1977 tST READING OF ORDINANCES - Cont. Proposed Ordinance - establishing procedures for review of projects inconsistent with the new Comprehensive Land Use Plan - Cont. RECESS 8:35 P.M. - 8:45 P.M. esolution #600 - Approving a three - year Community Development Plan this last year because the access was not good enough. If the road goes through this next year, he would like to build. Mr. Smith askec if this ordinance goes through will his property be R -1 or R -4? Frank Todd, audience, stated that the Highline Community Plan does nc address the area south of South 178th and east of the freeway. Jim McKenna commented that the concept of the Comprehensive Plan and this ordinance go together. The two should be voted on the same nigh Kjell Stoknes stated that some seem to see this ordinance as zoning t there is another way to look ,at it. It is a policy that says if it i not consistent with the map, it will come before Council for review a input and they will decide if it is consistent with the plan. There a vast difference between zoning and policy decision. Councilman Pesicka stated that this is a target date to develop and adopt a zoning ordinance and map that should reflect the desires of the comprehensive plan. It does not mean that it will be done by the Council has the power to change this date. Mayor Bauch stated that in drawing a new zoning map usually a'morator on building permits is declared until the map is completed. This ordinance says we are not going to do this; we are going to discuss t areas of concern. To say that this ordinance is a down -zone it's not. Councilman Hill stated he is bothered bypassing a Comprehensive Land Us Plan that will be revised severaT times in the next year. This isn' good planning. Councilman Bohrer stated that he is eager to get this ordinance and t Comprehensive Plan passed. Council has been very diligent to hear everyone express his opinion. The problem here is that we have not h time to review this ordinance, and it is essential to allow time. MOVED BY BOHRER, SECONDED BY HILL, THAT THIS ORDINANCE AND THE COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLAN BE PLACED ON THE AGENDA FOR THE COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 12, 1977. MOTION CARRIED. MOVED BY MRS. PESICKA, SECONDED BY HILL, THAT COUNCIL RECESS FOR 10 MINUTES. MOTION CARRIED. Mayor Bauch called the meeting back to order. All Council members WE present as previously reported, except Councilman Saul. Mayor Bauch noted two resolutions not on the agenda to be considered at this time. MOVED BY HILL, SECONDED BY MRS. PESICKA, THAT THE AGENDA BE AMENDED 1 INCLUDE A RESOLUTION AND THAT THE PROPOSED RESOLUTION APPROVING A THE YEAR COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PLAN BE READ BY TITLE ONLY. MOTION CARRIE Deputy City Attorney Hard read a resolution approving a three -year Community Development Plan required for participation with King Count in applying for funds pursuant to the Community Development Act of 1S MOVED BY HILL, SECONDED BY MRS. PESICKA, THAT RESOLUTION NO. 600 BE ADOPTED AS READ. * Councilman Hill asked if Council wants to adopt this resolution the s night as the public hearin Mayor Bauch explained that there is a requirement to submit this to the County by September 9. Since therE was no audience comment at the public hearing, he requested Council adopt thz resolution this evening. * MOTION CARRIED. Kitig County State of Washington John D. Spellman, County Executive The Honorable Edgar Bauch • Mayor, City of Tukwila 14475 - 59th •Avenue South Tukwila, Washington 98057 PLANNING DIVISION KAREN RAHM, MANAGER W217 King County Courthouse 516 - 3rd Avenue Seattle, Washington 98104 206 - 344.4218 August 31, 1977 Dear Mayor Bauch: In the Spring, Tukwila, along with other jurisdictions, co- sponsored the funding of'a Joint Block Grant weatherization project of $25,000. This fund was intended to provide a match for future federal These federal funds, from the Community Service Administration and the Federal Energy Administration, are expected to be received by the County in the next few months. When they do become available, they will be combined with the allocated $25,000 of Block Grant funds into one Unified Weatherization Program. The federal funds could amount to as much as $350,000 for the third Community Development program year. Negotiations are now proceeding with the Housing Authority of King County to carry out the weatherization.program. This weatherization program will, of course, be available to the low income homeowners in Tukwila. King County is at present putting together joint projects for program year four, which begins in July, 1978. We anticipate that federal weatherization funds will also be available in 1978 at amounts equal . to or greater than that available this year. In.order to anticipate for these funds, it is necessary at this time to apply for $50,000 in Joint Community Development funds for the fourth program year: We are requesting that Tukwila once again co- spolisor•with King County and other jurisdictions a request for $50,000 in weatherization funds. -more- Department of Planning and Community Development John P. Lynch, Director c The 'Honorable Edgar Bauch August 31, 1977 Page 2 Thank you for your consideration on this matter. I realize that it is difficult to be thinking about sponsoring an additional allocation of funds when the present program has not gotten off'the ,ground. However, due to the long lead time needed' in allocating joint funds, it is necessary to undertake this sponsorship at this time. PS:TP:mos cc: Gary Crutchfield cerely, Peter. Shepherd, Coordinator Housing & Community Development PARKS d RECREATION PLANNING BUILDING CITY of TUKWILA OFFICE of COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PLANNING COMMISSION Minutes of Special Meeting, 11 August 1977. Chairman Kirsop declared a 5- minute recess at 9:15 P.M. 6230 Southcenter Boulevard 13 Tukwila, Washington 98188 r (206) 242-2177 This Special Meeting of the Tukwila Planning Commission was called to order at 8:00 P.M. by Chairman Kirsop with Commissioners Hartong, Richards, Bowen, Avery, Sowinski and West present. Fred Satterstrom and Gary Crutchfield represented the Planning Division. PUBLIC HEARING: Housing & Community Development Plan 1978- 1980 Mr. Crutchfield briefly explained the purpose of the hearing was to solicit public input regarding the proposed plan. Chairman Kirsop opened the Public Hearing at 8:05 P.M. Mr. Crutchfield explained each section of the plan in succession, focusing on the Funding Process, Needs, and Community Development Strategy sections. Also explained eligible and ineligible projects as a result of recent HUD management directive. Commissioner Avery expressed the potential for a Youth Employment Service as a possible project. Also questioned the types of housing programs. Mr. Crutchfield explained the basic objective of any project must be to aid principally persons or households of low /moderate income. Also explained the two options regarding Housing Assistance Plans, Staff recommending Tuk- wila not prepare its own such Plan but rather be a part of King County's. There being no further comments, Chairman Kirsop closed the hearing at 9:15 P.M. Motion by Mrs. Avery, seconded by Mr. Sowinski and carried to recommend the City Council adopt the Community Development Plan for 1978-1980 as proposed and that the City of Tukwila be a part of the King County Housing Assistance Plan. Chairman Kirsop reconvened the meeting at 9:20 P.M. with all Commissioners present. C. Planning Commission Page 7 Minutes 28 July 1977 12. In the event the proposed project is not completed to an extent such that the reclamation bond is exercised, the zone classifica- tions hereby granted shall revert. Motion by Mr. Sowinski to amend the motion to include the following stipu- lations: 1. That the property located in the northeast corner of the site located above the 150 -foot contour line be dedicated to the City of Tukwila for recreation purposes. 2. That a 5 -foot strip of property running along the north property line be dedicated to the City of Tukwila for trail purposes. 3. Landscape Plan dated 11 July 1977, Exhibit MF- 77- 11 -R(A). 4. Preliminary Grading Plan dated 25 June 1977, Exhibit MF- 77- 11 -R(B). 5. Storm Drainage Plan dated 11 July 1977, Exhibit MF- 77- 11 -R(C). 6. Exterior Materials Plan as outlined in letter dated 7 July 1977, Exhibit MF- 77- 11 -R(D). 7. Ingress- egress Report by TRANSPO Group dated June 1977 and entitled "Traffic Analysis: Southcenter VIP's Expansion ", Exhibit MF- 77- 11 -R(E). Mr. Smith, VIP's, noted that VIP's has executed a long -term lease on the property and therefore cannot dedicate the land described. Indicated a public use easement would be more appropriate. Motion to amend died for lack of second. Motion by Mr. Sowinski to amend the motion to include items 3 through 7 of his previous motion. Motion died for lack of second. *Motion carried. /LIC HEARING: Housing & Community Development Plan 1978 - 1980 Mr. Crutchfield requested the Planning Commission formally postpone this scheduled public hearing until the Special Meeting to be conducted 11 August 1977. Motion by Mrs. Avery, seconded by Mr. Hartong and carried to postpone the public hearing for the 1978 - 1980 Housing & Community Development Plan until 8:00 P.M. Thursday, 11 August 1977. There being no further business, motion by Mr. Hartong, seconded by Mr. Bowen and carried to adjourn the meeting. . IV. ADJOURNMENT PLANNING COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING AGENDA 11 August 1977 I. CALL TO ORDER II. PUBLIC HEARING: Housing & Community Development Plan 1978 —1980. III. OPEN SPACE ORDINANCE: Discussion & Review V.P.C. Form No. 87 Affidavit of Publication STATE OF WASHINGTON COUNTY OF KING Maz rrrM being first duly sworn on oath, deposes and says that ` is the of THE RENTON RECORD - CHRONICLE, a newspaper published four (4) times a week. That said newspaper is a legal newspaper and it is now and has been for more than six months prior to the date of publication referred to, printed and published in the English language continually as a news- paper published four (4) times a week in Kent, King County, Washington, and it is now and during all of said time was printed in an office maintained at the aforesaid place of publication of said newspaper. That the Renton Record - Chronicle has been approved as a legal newspaper by order of the Superior Court of the County in which it is published, to -wit, King County, Washington. That the annexed is a Notice of ::a. °'rirl7 as it was published in regular issues (and not in supplement form of said newspaper) once each issue for a period ttVC, of consecutive issues, commencing on the 1.114 77 day of ,19 , and ending the 20 77 day of u17 ,19 both dates inclusive, and that such newspaper was regularly distributed to its sub- scribers during all of said period. That the full amount of the fee charged for the foregoing publication is the sum of $ '' has been paid in full at the rate of per folio of one hundred words for the first insertion and per folio of one hundred words for each subsequent insertion. , 19 Notary Public ss. Rel,e Subscribed and sworn to before me this C; day of d for the State of W ngton, residing at Kent, Ki County. — Passed by the Legislature, 1955, known as Senate Bill 281, effective June 9th, 1955. — Western Union Telegraph Co. rules for counting words and figures, adopted by the newspapers of the State. DISTRIBUTION: Mayor CITY OF TUKWILA NOTICE OF MEETING OF THE TUKWILA PLANNING COMMISSION Any and all interested persons are invited to attend. NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Tukwila PLANNING COMMISSION has fixed the 11th day of August , 19 77 at 8 : 00 P.M. in the Council Chambers of Tukwila City Hall, 14475 - 59th' Avenue South, Tukwila, Washington as the time 'and place fora SPECIAL_ MEETING to CONSIDER the FOLLOWING MATTERS: • . PUBLIC HEARING to obtain input regarding the proposed Housing. & Community Development Plan for 1978 - 1980. B. Informal discussion with interested Apartment Managers regarding the effects of the proposed Open Space Ordinance. TUKWILA PLANNING COMMISSION Hans West Secretary Further information may be obtained from Gary Crutchfield; Assistant Planner, at 242 -2177. Published &,Posted: City Hall & Annex' Date: 3 August 1977 Record Chronicle Date: 5 & 7 August 1977 C MEMORANDUM C8 u of 1f't�b�l�p A, OFFICE of COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 16 August 1977 T0: MEMBERS, CITY C CIL FROM: Gary Crutchfi el Assistant Planner SUBJECT: GC /ch Community Development Plan (1978 - 1980) Two major differences are evident in the new Plan: • Please find attached a copy of the Draft Community Development Plan prepared by the Planning Division for program years 1978 - 1980. The Plan was prepared in accordance with the Housing & Community Develop- ment Act of 1974 and is an updated version of the Plan prepared in 1976. 1. The section entitled Community Development Strategy is new and required under a recent management directive issued by HUD. This section describes the "game plan" for programming of funds. 2. The Plan does not contain a one -year Program. This is a deliberate effort to separate the two documents thus allowing the three -year Plan to remain valid for the three -year period and to allow more time and citizen participation in development of the one -year Program. Inasmuch as. King County has indicated that Community Development Plans be submitted 1 September, it is recommended the Council conduct a Public Hearing on 6 September 1977 and adopt the Plan, as may be revised, by Resolution at the same meeting. This will allow retyping, printing and binding the final document and submitting by 9 September. . C ATTEST: CITY OF TUKWILA RESOLUTION NO WASHINGTON 'A RESOLUTION OF THE TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL APPROVING A THREE YEAR COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PLAN REQUIRED FOR PARTICIPATION WITH KING COUNTY IN APPLYING FOR FUNDS PURSUANT TO THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ACT OF 1974. WHEREAS, the Housing & Community Development Act of 1974 requires preparation and adoption of a Three-Year Housing & Community Development Plan which identifies the needs of the community and the strategy by which those needs will be met through the expenditure of Housing & Community Development Block Grant funds; and WHEREAS, the Tukwila Planning Commission during a public hearing conducted 11 August 1977 did recommend and forward to the Tukwila City Council for its consideration and approval a three year Community Develop- ment Plan for program years 1978 - 1980, as required by said Act; and WHEREAS, the City Council conducted a public hearing on said Plan at a regular meeting on 6 September 1977; and WHEREAS, a Housing Assistance Plan, as required by said Act, will be prepared by King County for the geographical area within the City of Tuk- wila, consistent with the "Technical Data for Assisted Housing" contained in the Appendix of the three year Community Development Plan. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Tukwila, as follows: Section 1. The Tukwila City Council hereby approves the three year Community Development Plan and authorizes said Plan to be submitted to King County for inclusion in the King County Consortium application to the Depart- ment of Housing and Urban Development. Date Approved • . • PLANNING PARKS & RECREATION BUILDING CITY of T UKWILA OFFICE of COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PLANNING COMMISSION Minutes of Special Meeting, 11 August 1977. Chairman Kirsop declared a 5- minute recess at 9:15 P.M. 6230 Southcenter Boulevard N Tukwila, Washington 98188 r (206) 292 -2177 This Special Meeting of the Tukwila Planning Commission was called to order at 8:00 P.M. by Chairman Kirsop with Commissioners Hartong, Richards, Bowen, Avery, Sowinski and West present. Fred Satterstrom and Gary Crutchfield represented the Planning Division. PUBLIC HEARING: Housing & Community Development Plan 1978-1980 Mr. Crutchfield briefly explained the purpose of the hearing was to solicit public input regarding the proposed plan. Chairman Kirsop opened the Public Hearing at 8:05 P.M. Mr. Crutchfield explained each section of the plan in succession, focusing on the Funding Process, Needs, and Community Development Strategy sections. Also explained eligible and ineligible projects as a result of recent HUD management directive. Commissioner Avery expressed the potential for a Youth Employment Service as a possible project. Also questioned the types of housing programs. Mr. Crutchfield explained the basic objective of any project must be to aid principally persons or households of low /moderate income. Also explained the two options regarding Housing Assistance Plans, Staff recommending Tuk- wila not prepare its own such Plan but rather be a part of King County's. There being no further comments, Chairman Kirsop closed the hearing at 9:15 P.M. Motion by Mrs. Avery, seconded by Mr. Sowinski and carried to recommend the City Council adopt the Community Development Plan for 1978 - 1980 as proposed and that the City of Tukwila be a part of the King County Housing Assistance Plan. Chairman Kirsop reconvened the meeting at 9:20 P.M. with all Commissioners present. C: Planning Commission Minutes of Special Meeting 11 August 1977 REVIEW AND DISCUSSION: Open Space Ordinance Mr. Crutchfield explained the proposal is in rough draft form and is wholly open to revision. Noted that all apartment complex managers had been noti- fied of the meeting. Mr. Ronald Mettler, Village Green Apartments explained his agreement with the concept but noted it needs some refinement to preclude the lack of open grass areas. Considerable discussion focused on types of open space. Mr. Satterstrom displayed slides depicting several types of open recreation areas in conjunction with multiple- family complexes. General concensus of the Commission to direct Staff to prepare draft Ordinance for "Recreation Space in Multiple - Family Development" rather than Open Space, to include concerns expressed throughout the discussion, and have it ready for Public Hearing at the regular August meeting. There being no further business, motion by Mr. Sowinski, seconded by Mr. Hartong and carried to adjourn the meeting. Chairman Kirsop adjourned the Special Meeting at 10:50 P.M. Minute ! prepared by: Gary Crutchfield Assistant P anner Hans West, Secretary Tukwila. Planning Commission STATE OF WASHINGTON COUNTY OF KING Affidavit of Publication ss. ii:J ;::•T�. 1F�•: •�• : t �•2 being first duly sworn on oath, deposes and says that is the ....... 1.:: ... ?.. of THE RENTON RECORD - CHRONICLE, a newspaper published four (4) times a week. That said newspaper is a legal newspaper and it is now and has been for more than six months prior to the date of publication referred to, printed and published in the English language continually as a news- paper published four (4) times a week in Kent, King County, Washington, and it is now and during all of said time was printed in an office maintained at the aforesaid place of publication of said newspaper. That the Renton Record - Chronicle has been approved as a legal newspaper by order of the Superior Court of the County in which it is published, to -wit, King County, Washington. That the annexed is a ...... .i7,:: * • t;.C!w c.... z l a.•.i:lannirq,..•C.anni.'l as it was published in regular issues (and not in supplement form of said newspaper) once each issue for a period of 4.k consecutive issues, commencing on the V.P.C. Form No. 87 day of .: :.,,L..t1S. ,19 .. 7..., and ending the ...day of l � ;•� ,19 7.,c ,both dates inclusive, and that such newspaper was regularly distributed to its sub- scribers during all of said period. That the full amount of the fee charged for the foregoing publication is the sum of $.>l::ti.v.. has been paid in full at the rate of per folio of one hundred words for the first insertion and per folio of one hundred words for each subsequent insertion. Subscribed and sworn to before me this 7 19 7 Notary Public day of and for the State of Was gton, residing at Kent, Ki ounty. — Passed by the Legislature, 1955, known as Senate Bill 281, effective June 9th, 1955. — Western Union Telegraph Co. rules for counting words and figures, adopted by the newspapers of the State. A 28 July 1977 CITY OF TUKWILA PLANNING DIVISION PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT 8:00 P.M. AGENDA ITEM VII B: PUBLIC HEARING: H &CD Plan 1978-1980 Due to the July workload and anticipated need for a work meeting on 11 August, for the Open Space Ordinance, Staff requests the Commission table this hearing by motion until 8:00 P.M. Thursday, 11 August 1977. CITY OF TUKWILI\ NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING 28 July 1977 8:00 P.M. (date) (time) Notice is hereby given that the Tukwila Pdate LANNINtG CCOMMISSION l 475 59th will conduct a PUBLIC FIEARI,( „T1 the t a I H RE E P Hall ONE-YEAR PROGRAM for the EXPENDITURE of Bt OPMENT ACT of 1974. � . l 1 1 `I 1 T s - 11 e All interua::ted persons are encouraged to appear and be heard. Hans West, Secretary Tukwila Planning Commission For further information contact Gary Crutchfield at 242 -2177. Published in the Renton Record - Chronicle on 13 & 20 July 1977 King County State of Washington John D. Spellman, County Executive • • PLANNING DIVISION IRVING BERTEIG, ACTING MANAGER W217 King County Courthouse 516 - 3rd Avenue Seattle, Washington 98104 206 - 344 - 4218 May 24, 1977 TO: BLOCK GRANT PARTNERS FROM: PETER SHEPHERD, HOUSING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COORDINATOR SUBJECT: THREE YEAR COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY Department of Planning and Community Development Thomas M. Ryan, Director Now that our third year program is about to move into the implementation state, it is time to start looking ahead to the next three years of the Block Grant Program. The federal law which authorizes the Block Grant Program states as follows: No grant may be made...unless an application shall have been submitted to the Secretary in which the applicant (1) Sets forth a summary of a Three Year Community Development Plan which identifies community development needs, demonstrates a comprehensive strategy for meeting those needs, and specifies both short and long term community development objectives which have been developed in accordance with area -wide planning and national urban growth policies; (2) Formulates a program which (A) includes the activities to be undertaken to meet its community development needs and objectives together with the estimated costs and general location of such activities, (B) indicates resources other than those provided under this title which are expected to be made available toward meeting its identified needs and objectives, and (C) takes into account appropriate environmental factors... In the last several months, we have been seeing a new policy direction at the federal level concerning the Block Grant Program. Last month the HUD Assistant Secretary in charge of Block Grant Programs issued the attached Management Directive, which will give you some insight into the current federal government thinking. -2- Page 7 of the attached Directive states: Next year the Department will require that the Comprehensive Strategy for Community Development required by Section 104 (a)(i) of the Act be specifically described in the Application for Block Grant funds. Grantees should therefore be advised that in developing subsequent Applications, consulting the citizens, and selecting priorities they should work within the context of a Comprehensive Strategy and be prepared to describe that strategy in the Application. Moreover, they should program activities which are consistent with that strategy and therefore appropriate to meeting the needs and objectives addressed by the Community Development Plan. With this information as background, the Joint Policy Committee, at its meeting of May 11, 1977, adopted a motion requiring each member jurisdiction of our Block Grant Consortium to prepare a Three Year Community Development Plan or Strategy, to have it adopted by its local Council, and to submit it for review by the Joint Policy Committee no later than September 1, 1977. Each Plan or Strategy should address specifically at least each of the following points: 1. A general statement about the history, topography, and demographic characteristics of the community. 2. A statement of the community's overall approach to housing and community development matters. 3. Information about the low and moderate income population of the community, and the means by which the community will attempt to insure that Block Grant funds maximally aid these persons. 4. A description of how the community will attempt to address the problem of slum and blight with Block Grant funds. 5. An explanation of how the community will assist in carrying out consortium goals for fair housing and for affirmative action. 6. Other plans, priorities and approaches that the local government will be utilizing in connection with the Block Grant Program. 7. Citizen Participation Plan that the local government has used to develop its strategy and will use in the selection of individual Block Grant projects. By obtaining these individual Plans from each jurisdiction, the consortium will be able to prepare an overall strategy, acceptable to HUD, which also recognizes the paritcular needs and desires of the member jurisdictions of the consortium. The Joint Policy Committee, at its meeting, was concerned that Block Grant staff provide adequate technical assistance and back -up to consortium members so that they can prepare tIe required Plans. PS:sa As a first step in providing this assistance, Block Grant staff will set up a series of half -day workshops to be scheduled in mid -June. Our plan at this time is to hold three of these workshops, each one in a different area of the county. We are doing this to reduce the distance that staff of individual jurisdictions would need to travel, and to allow these to be small group sessions, to give the maximum amount of individual attention to each jurisdiction. We request that each jurisdiction begin to consider what it will need to do to prepare a Three Year Plan. In the meantime we will be calling you to set up a convenient workshop time in your area. Please feel free to call Gayle kright, head of our Technical Assistance Staff, at 344 -7605 to answer questions you might have concerning the Three Year Plan. cc: The Honorable Mike Lowry, Chairman, Joint Policy Committee 6QiOT1C; TO: 221317 -P HUD- Wc.h., D. G U. S. DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT HUD Field Staff Involved in CDBG Program April 1977 SUBJECT: Management of' the Community Development Block Grant Program The Secretary recently presented her program and strategy for housing and community development to both the House and the Senate. One of the major initiatives that the Secretary wants to begin immediately is the orientation of HUD's efforts toward the achievement of statutory objectives, particularly those objectives that speak to the interest of low- and moderate - income people. The review of this round of block grant applications provides an immediate opportunity to redirect our efforts. We will shortly be receiving the bulk of the entitlement applications for Fiscal Year 1977. These applications should be subjected to a thorough and meaningful review which goes beyond conformity with eligibil- ity and technical requirements to consider the substance of what is proposed and how it serves statutory objectives. It is through such a qualitative review that we can make a major difference in the planning and carrying out of community development programs. It is not my objective to deny funds or to disapprove applications. Rather, it is my purpose to see that the block grant program is administered in a manner to further the purposes of the. Act, and that this be done in a spirit of partnership and cooperation. The Community Development Program is designed tial discretion to local government to establish priorities and develop programs appropriate for their needs, and local initiative should be supported. At the same time, the Act specifies national objectives and priorities, and imposes specific program require- ments to accomplish them. The various program requirements should - therefore be interpreted in light of the statutory objectives, particularly the objective of providing decent housing and a suit- able living environment and increased economic'0000rtunties principally for persons of low and moderate income. HUD•21g 147 i We also want to emphasize the importance of citizen partici- pation in the block grant program. We will expect communities to involve their citizens in the setting of priorities and in the process of developing implementing and evaluating community development and housing programs. The Act requires that adequate opportunities be provided for citizen participation and we expect to see that this national objective is attained. Carrying out these responsibilities will require considerable judgment and tact, and a willingness to ask questions and discuss issues that arise. To ask questions should not be equa -ted with dictating priorities or limiting local flexibi- lity. Rather, it should be regarded as part of an effort to work with localities in a cooperative manner toward common ends. Whenever possible, questions should be resolved through discussion and negotiation, and in a manner that preserves the greatest amount of local discretion. Therefore, whenever proposed programs do not appear to meet statutory objectives of applicable program requirements, or applications are not sufficiently clear to confidently conclude that they do, additional information should be obtained. Because many' applications have already been submitted, and others are under review at clearinghouses, you will undoubtedly need to develop different responses to individual situations, depending on the amount of time left in the 75 -day review period. For instance, if the application contains activities that are eligible under S570.200(a) of the regulations, but there is uncertainty as to whether they meet the maximum feasible priority certification and it is too late in the review period to obtain the additional information needed, you should accept the applicant's certification, approve the application and advise the applicant in the approval letter that the program will be closely monitored early in the program year. However, if the activities are eligible, but there is substantial evidence that they do not meet the requirements of Section 570.303(b)(5) of the regulations, funding for the activities affected by such deficiencies is to be conditionally approved. Such approvals are appropriate only where specifically identi- fied corrective or remedial actions can be taken by the grantee within a reasonable time after the end of the review period to overcome the deficiencies to the extent necessary to permit the activities to be undertaken as proposed, or, if necessary, with modifications. All conditional approvals must be inserted in item 20 of the Funding Approval Form (HUD -7082) and the reasons for the conditions and the actions necessary to remove them must be specified. 2 404 m n r 1 . 1 On the other hand, if it is determined toward the latter part of the review period that the deficiencies are not amenable to such measures, a timely recommendation for disapproval or grant reduction should be submitted through the Regional Office to the Central Office. This would include cases where the applicant has refused.to modify its program although there was sufficient time to do so within the 75 -day review period, and cases where there is no specific remedial action which the applicant can be expected to take within a reasonable time after approval of the application. Where activities are proposed which are ineligible under S570.200 (a), and the applicant has not substituted eligible activities during the review period, the grant should be reduced. The following is a more specific discussion of particular issues of concern. Maximum Feasible Priority In accordance with statutory objectives,. applicants for block grant funds are required to certify that their Community Development Programs have "been developed so as . to give maximum feasible priority to activities which will benefit low- or moderate - income families or aid in the prevention or elimination of slums or blight." The Act also permits approval of activities "which the applicant certifies and the Secretary determines are designed to meet other community development needs having a particular urgency." Although localities have broad discretion in establishing priorities and selecting activities, their programs must be designed to meet these statutory objectives. A clarification of these requirements was included in the interim regulation promulgated on February 2, 1977. Section 570.303(b)(5) of that regulation states that "Each activity contained in a Community Development Program must: (1) Benefit low- or moderate - income persons; or (2) Aid in the prevention or elimination of slums or blight; or (3) Meet other community development needs having a particular urgency as specifically • described in the application." If a proposed activity cannot be shown to meet one of these objectives, it should not be approved. The following general principles should guide your review. 3 Activities which benefit low- or moderate- income persona • are defined as activities which are so designed or so located as to principally benefit lower-income persons. Thus, activities of general benefit, such as street and park improve- ments, must serve areas a majority of whose residents are lower income. Activities which provide direct benefits to individuals are those designed to meet identified needs of lower income persons who are required to be the principal beneficiaries. These could include a public service activity the majority of whose clients are lower income persons, or a rehabilitation loan program under Which the majority of the residents whose housing is to be improved are lower income. An exception to this definition may be made for applicants whose lower income populations are small and so dispersed that they do not constitute the majority of any census tract, neighborhood, or area. In such cases an activity may be deemed to benefit low- or moderate - income persons if it meets the following conditions: the activity must be located in or serve those areas having the largest proportion of lower income residents; it must be clearly designed to meet identified needs of lower income persons; and, it must benefit such persons at least in proportion to their share of the popula- tion of the area. Examples of activities which would meet this definition are construction of sewer lines and recreational facilities in an area thirty percent of whose population is lower income, as compared to twenty percent of the total city population, where the facilities are needed by the lower income residents, and at least thirty percent of the beneficiaries are expected to be lower income persons:. A considerable measure of judgment will have to be exercised by Area Offices in reviewing activities coming under this exception. You should ask applicants to explain the basis for proposing such activities whenever their justification is not clear. Also, you should question such activities where there are concentrations of lower income persons with serious needs which could be directly met with block grant funds but which are not addressed in the application. For example, if a census tract has thirty percent lower income residents, but most of them are concentrated in one quadrant of the tract, an activity which serves the entire tract could not be deemed to benefit lower income persons unless it meets the test of the exception given above. Close attention should be given by Area Offices to unreasonable administrative costs since these can divert funds from activities which principally benefit low- or moderate- income persons or eliminate slums or blight. 4 i In your review of activities to determine whether they conform to the maximum feasible priority requirements, a judgment should be made whether it is necessary to look beyond mere general census tract location to determine who actually would benefit from proposed activities. Activities may be designed or located to benefit only limited part of the census tract or area in which it is located and serve only a limited part of the resident population in that area. This is particularly likely with respect to communitywide development activities or activities in large and economically varied individual census tracts. Conversely, certain activities, especially those which generate employment for lower income persons, may be located outside neighborhoods or census tracts containing a large number of low or moderate - income persons. . In addition, even if an activity is located in a lower income area, the nature of the activity may be such that it does not directly benefit the lower income residents. An example of this is acquisition of land for provision of a civic center to be located in a lower income area. There- fore, whenever it is unclear that lower income persons will be the principal beneficiaries of a proposed activity, you should obtain more detailed information about the geographic area or segment of the population benefitting from the activity or service. Activities which aid in the Prevention or elimination of slums • or blight are activities designed to alleviate or eliminate specific conditions of physical decay where they now exist, or where there are current objectively determinable signs of deterioration, economic decline or disinvestment. Examples of activities which would meet this definition are construc- tion of playgrounds or streets in a neighborhood where building code violations have been increasing. Examples of activities which would not meet this definition are construc- tion of parking lots in business districts which are not mani- festing clear signs of deterioration, economic decline, or disinvestment, or construction of recreation facilities on a vacant lot in an affluent area on the basis that the lot constitutes a blighting influence. The blighting influences proposed to be removed should clearly constitute the kind of conditions the Act intended to ameliorate. Thus, acquisition of vacant land would generally not be considered an activity designed to aid in prevention or elimination of slums or blight unless it is located in an area which is generally • deteriorated; acquisition of vacant land in undeteriorated areas could only be justified if it directly benefits low - and moderate - income persons. 5 HUD - 'hash., D. C. �; i Activities des!- ^.ned to meet othc'..' uroent CU°^'Lnity develon- ment needs are activities aesignea to alleviate a serious •threat to 'health or welfare which requires prompt resolution and for which other sources of funding are not available. This means that funding should not be available from other public sources and should be beyond the fiscal capacity of the commu- nity to provide with its own resources. Such needs must be of recent origin, since extended failure to remedy certain condi- tions would tend to raise questions regarding their urgency. Opportunity acquisition and similar activities would not be eligible solely under this definition; such activities would have to meet one of the other tests. Housing Assistance Plans The review of Housing Assistance Plans (HAP) shall assure that each HAP meets the requirements of the regulations, is complete and accurate, and constitutes a serious effort to meet housing needs. The HAP is instrumental in obtaining community develop- ment block grant program assistance, and in guiding the delivery of housing assistance. It is an integral part of a • recipient's total program and its function is to provide clear and consistent coordination of community development and housing assistance activities in a community. It is also a key means of measuring the performance of each recipient against achieving the statutory objectives. In the review of HAPs, a basic judgment must be made with regard to whether the goals directly address known needs. Goals must be large enough to represent practical and feasible housing development. Goals must include a reasonable mix in terms of the types of housing assistance proposed and should be determined according to the criteria established in Section 570.303(c)(3) of the HAP regulations. With regard to total goals, the requirement in §570.303(c)(3) (v) that HAPs with only "minimal housing goals" are plainly inappropriate recognizes that communities with very substantial housing needs have a responsibility to propose substantial housing goals. The size of proposed three year goals for each -major type of housing assistance should be based both on a reasonable projection of all available Federal and local resources in the next three years and the desirability of meeting a significant percentage of need at an early date. With regard to component goals, the regulations require that the three year total address the needs of the three household types generally in proportion to their percentage of the total 6 HUD-Wash., D. C 1 l lower- incc.;,e housing needs identified. In addition, the types and quantities of housing assistance proposed (e.g. renter vs. owner; Section 8 existing, substantial rehabilitation, and new construction; Section 312 or block grant rehabilitation financing) should be appropriate to meeting identified needs, including needs of those expected to reside in the community. For example, where a community's three year housing goals are substantially disproportionate to the needs of families and large families for rental units, and the community is unwilling to provide such housing even though appropriate Federal or local resources can reasonably be expected to be available, the application should be disapproved on the basis that the goals are "plainly inappropriate" to meeting the community's needs. A second critical judgment involves the general areas that are designated for location of housing. Our pr incipal concern here is that the areas are not drawn so narrowly that the resulting locations are inconsistent with statutory housing assistance plan objectives, particularly the objectives of promoting greater choice of housing opportunities and avoiding undue concentrations of assisted persons. Therefore, proposed locations should be carefully reviewed in light•of the Depart- ment's knowledge of local conditions, including geography, population and economic trends. Finally, the HAP review should be conducted with consideration to the applicant's past performance in addressing previous HAP goals. The review should be guided by the provisions of Section 570.909(e)(2) and (f)(2) of the regulations which outline the factors to be considered in reviewing recipient's performance under the HAP. The applicant's past performance will provide an indication of whether the applicant can reason- ably be expected to accomplish the goals stated in the HAP. Comprehensive Strategy Next year the Department will require that the comprehensive strategy for community development required by Section 104(a)(1) of the act be specifically described in the application for block grant funds. Grantees should therefore be advised that in developing subsequent applications, consulting with citizens, and selecting priorities they should work within the context of a comprehensive strategy and be prepared to describe that strategy in the application. Moreover, they should program activities which are consistent with that strategy and therefore appropriate to meeting the needs and objectives addressed by the Community Development Plan. 7 HUD - Wash., D. C. A -95 R'ocuirements Applicants are required to provide A -95 clearinghouses a period of forty -five days to review the completed application and transmit comments to the applicant, and to certify that any comments made are attached to the application and have been considered prior to submitting the application, or that the required procedures have been followed and no comments or recommendations have been received. Careful attention should be paid to meeting the A -95 requirements. These requirements are particularly important in the block grant program since the statutory objectives call for encouracing activities consistent with comprehensive areawide development planning and undertaking housing and community development activities in a coordinated and mutually supportive manner. Review of Grantee Performance The Secretary has stated that HUD will be knowledgable about the progress and problems of cities and that we will . be willing and able to make objective judgments of local performance. Effective ongoing monitoring is the principal means to accomplish this. There has.already been a significant amount of monitoring of block grant recipients, and considerable knowledge of local experience is available. Deficiencies in carrying out the program or compliance with Federal requirements have been identified in a substantial number of communities. In many cases, after notice from HUD, communities have been correcting the identified deficiencies. However, as you know, .there are some communities which are still lagging substantially behind recipients of comparable size with similar activities and grant amounts. There are also communities with serious noncompliance problems which have not been corrected. In accordance with the performance standards published on January 27, 1977, further review should be conducted by the Area Offices of their grantees, and all major performance issues should be carefully considered in reviewing applica- tions. Where deficiencies are noted, the grantees should be advised in specific terms of the nature of the deficiencies and of the steps to be taken to remedy them. Grantees should be given a full opportunity to respond to Area Office findings and to explain the actions they are taking or plan to take to expedite programs or to correct cases of non- compliance. Area Offices should work with those cities to be sure that they understand the Federal requirements, 8 HUD - Wash., D. C. r i and sh nu id provide assistance in identifying and correcting problems which impede satisfactory performance. With respect to the HAP, you should review the actions taken by gr..n tees to provide ide housin. . Because of limited resources this fiscal year, it is not expected that all HAP goals will have been achieved. Nonetheless, cities are to be held to account for reasonable progress toward achieving their goals. Where a community has not taken sufficient action within its control toward achieving both its one and three year goals, or has in fact taken steps to impede housing assistance, appropri- ate remedial actions should be commenced by the Area Office. With respect to citizen participation, grantees are required to have a local citizen participation plan which has been made public and which indicates the timing and means of disseminating information and involving citizens. In addition, grantees must afford citizens an adequate opportunity to articulate needs, express preferences, assist in the selection of priorities, and participate in the development of the application. It is expected that grantees will meet these requirements. You should carefully review any situations where there is evidence that grantees have failed to meet citizen participation performance standards, and review whether crantees are responding promptly and fully to written citizen complaints. The grantee's performance under the equal opportunity require- ments should also be closely scrutinized. The Department has a responsibility to see that the civil rights provisions of applicable laws are complied with. Where a grantee has previously been advised that it is not in compliance with equal opportunity or affirmative action requirements, and it has not taken sufficient action to remedy the noncompliance, a certifi- cation should not be accepted, and the applicant must provide specific assurances, progress schedules, and other information which may be appropriate. In cases where communities were given an adequate opportunity to correct or remove the causes of delay or noncompliance, but have not taken adequate steps, the grantees should be placed on notice in writing of the remedial or corrective actions to be taken to overcome the deficiencies, and that failure to comply may result in a conditional approval of the succeedin_, year's application or the imposition of funding sanctions pursuant to Subpart J of the regulations. In the most serious such cases of continued nonperformance or noncompliance, the HUD Area Office should transmit, throuch the Regional Office, a recd- -endation to Central Office for reduction of current or 9 HL' -W, ., D. C. 1 Central Office will support your management decisions if there is an adequate administrative record. Urban Counties Community development block grants to urban counties have been a new experience, both to HUD and to many of the urban counties. I am pleased to note that in many urban counties substantial progress has been made in forming new multi - jurisdictional cooperative efforts as well as in carrying out the block grant activities themselves. In particular, I wish to note that a number of counties have developed countywide approaches to providing housing assistance. This is precisely the kind of approach that I wish to encourage. In a few cases, however, urban counties have served only as a pass - through vehicle for conveying funds to subunits of government without any assessment of relative needs and priorities on a countywide basis. While it may be appropri- ate to pass funds on to included units of general local government, such an approach meets the statutory objectives of the Act only if it is done within the framework of a ' broader countywide approach to housing and community develop- ment needs and activities. Therefore, applications from urban counties and their performance shall be reviewed and monitored in accordance with the same criteria as all other applications on the basis that the urban county, as the applicant grantee, is the responsible unit of general local government. • You should work closely with the counties to improve their performance in accordance with statutory objectives. Particular attention should be paid to performance in the area of housing, especially location of housing in areas which promote deconcentration and increased choice of housing opportunities for lower income persons. In this regard, it is appropriate to consider the availability of countywide mechanisms for implementing HAP goals, and to review the cooperation agreements to determine whether they provide adequate legal authority for HAP implementation. While urban counties have undoubtedly had special problems, the time has arrived that we may expect their performance to approximate that of other block grant recipients. 10 Urban Renewa Applications from localities with ongoing urban renewal projects should be reviewed to determine whether funds have been budgeted for repayment of temporary loans. Whenever an approved loan repayment plan calls for it, or the analysis performed by the Area or Regional Office indicates that the Federal financial interest in such projects is not adequately protected and an acceptable loan repayment plan has not been developed, the Community Development Budget should include funds for this purpose. Where it does not, you should deduct up to twenty percent of the grant amount pursuant to the authority of Section 112(a) of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974. It is assumed that consultations with localities and with local public agencies carrying out such projects have taken place in most instances. Where such consultations have not been completed, or where there has not been a recent adequate analysis of the financial status of specific projects, these actions should be performed immediately, and completed no later than the end of the review period of the applicable block grant application. This is essential so that timely steps may be taken to protect the . financing of these projects and avoid later difficulties. Conclusion Just as we see the relationship between HUD and localities as a partnership, we see the relationship between Central Office and HUD field offices as a partnership as well. Your knowledge and skills are essential and we will welcome your comments and involve you fully in undertaking new initiatives. We are now asking you to carry out important responsibilities in a more dynamic fashion. We anticipate that this will provide an opportunity for all HUD staff to play a more constructive and creative role in furthering the important objectives of the Community Development Program. 11 HUD- Wnrh., D. C. RoSert C. Embry, J Assistant Secre ary for Community Planning and Development