(1/30/2009) MunicipalJailSEPA - NEC Jail SEPA Comments Page 1

Transcription

1 (1/30/2009) MunicipalJailSEPA - NEC Jail SEPA Comments Page 1 From: To: CC: Date: Subject: Attachments: "Janne Kaje" <jkaje@comcast.net> <MunicipalJailSEPA@Seattle.gov> <andy.ishizaki@seattle.gov> 1/29/2009 3:15 PM NEC Jail SEPA Comments J.Kaje_Jail_Scoping_Comments.pdf; Attachment 3 J. Kaje - Property Tax Data for Shoreline Jail Site.xls; Attachment 1 J. Kaje - Current Use Within One Quarter Mile.pdf; Attachment_2_J.Kaje_Jail_site_DOJ_images.pdf Please accept the attached comments into the record and acknowledge receipt with a Reply . Thank you. Janne Kaje ********************************************************* Janne Kaje jkaje@comcast.net

2 NEC Municipal Jail Scoping Comments Submitted by Janne Kaje (Shoreline, Washington) January 29, 2009 Diane Sugimura, Director, Department of Planning and Development c/o Andy Ishizaki NEC Regional Municipal Jail EIS 700 5th Avenue, Suite 5200 P.O. Box Seattle, WA Re: NEC Municipal Jail Scoping Comments and request to be made an official party of record. I request to be made an official party of record in this proceeding. Please mail all notices, documents, decisions and correspondence to: Janne Kaje th Avenue Northeast Shoreline, WA or by to: jkaje@comcast.net I have also included several attachments to this letter that are also components of my official comments. They are: Attachment 1: Memorandum and images showing level of residential land use around proposed alternative sites. Attachment 2: Memorandum and images showing the facilities and surrounding environments of jails analyzed in the Department of Justice study 1. This study has been used by the project proponents to convince the public that there are no effects to property values from jails. Attachment 3: Spreadsheet regarding property tax revenues within ¼ mile and ½ mile of the Shoreline site and corresponding revenues to schools, libraries, etc. In addition to providing comments on specific elements of the environment that should be analyzed in the Environmental Impact Statement, this letter also comments on the reasonableness of alternatives (as allowed under rules of the scoping process), and on whether the stated purposes of the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) have been contravened for the residents of Shoreline. For the record, the selection of the Shoreline alternative site was conducted by the City of Shoreline with no public discussion or involvement, and pivotal decisions regarding this matter by the City Council including acceptance of the staff recommended site alternative - were made in Executive Session out of public view. 1 The study summarized at: 1

3 NEC Municipal Jail Scoping Comments Submitted by Janne Kaje (Shoreline, Washington) For residents of project proponent cities other than Seattle (Shoreline, Bellevue, Kirkland, Redmond), the current process contravenes the purpose of the SEPA. As described in the Department of Ecology s SEPA Handbook, the purpose and intent of SEPA direct agencies to: Consider environmental information (impacts, alternatives, and mitigation) before committing to a particular course of action; [WAC (2)(c)] Identify and evaluate probable impacts, alternatives and mitigation measures, emphasizing important environmental impacts and alternatives (including cumulative, short-term, longterm, direct and indirect impacts) [WAC (2)(b) and (g)]; Encourage public involvement in decisions [WAC (2)(f)]; and Integrate SEPA with agency activities at the earliest possible time to ensure that planning and decisions reflect environmental values, to avoid delays later in the process, and seek to resolve potential problems [WAC (2)]. For the citizens of Shoreline, none of these purposes have been met. The City of Shoreline committed to a single course of action without considering environmental information. We have been presented only one site alternative. We have had no public involvement. There have been no documents prepared to guide decisions between alternative sites in Shoreline. The City of Shoreline should have gone through a full SEPA process to select its own candidate site. Then, that documentation could easily have been integrated into a broader, streamlined regional analysis together with candidate sites from other jurisdictions. The current process attempts to do the opposite deny local residents their rights under state law while telling them they can now comment on the regional scale. Only the residents of the City of Seattle have alternatives to choose from as there are three sites under consideration within Seattle city limits. The Shoreline alternative is not reasonable. A reasonable alternative is a feasible alternate course of action that meets the proposal's objective at a lower environmental cost. How can a proposed jail site be considered reasonable when the site violates all available guidance for jail siting? The National Institute of Corrections states in their jail design guidance: It is important that the jail be located in appropriate surroundings... The best locations are in government, light industrial or commercial areas. In general, the jail should not be near a school, a housing area, a church, or a recreation area. 2 The Shoreline site is: 1) across the street from a school, 2) surrounded by housing, 3) across the street from one church and one block away from another, 4) the only large open space and recreational area in the neighborhood, and 5) across the street from a small neighborhood park. 2 National Institute of Corrections. (1998). Jail design guide: A resource for small and medium sized jails. U.S. Department of Justice, p Downloaded from: 2

4 NEC Municipal Jail Scoping Comments Submitted by Janne Kaje (Shoreline, Washington) Even the City of Seattle the lead agency for this proceeding applied some of this guidance in their site selection criteria: Seattle initially reviewed 35 potential sites for a low-rise municipal jail. The list included sites that were: Not located in residential zones; Had easy access to arterials; and Already several acres in size or could be assembled from adjacent properties. 3 Moreover, WAC describes the requirements for an analysis of alternatives. It states, in part: The agency perspective should be that each generation is, in effect, a trustee of the environment for succeeding generations. Particular attention should be given to the possibility of foreclosing future options by implementing the proposal. There are few public facilities as enduring as jails. The environment of the Shoreline neighborhood would be irrevocably altered for generations to come, and all other future options for the site would be foreclosed. Attachment 1 shows the relative proportion of residential land use around each of the proposed sites, with the exception of the downtown Seattle King County jail annex site. The data are summarized in the following table. Site Residential Non-residential Shoreline 95% 5% Unincorporated King County 30% 70% South Seattle 21% 79% Seattle Armory Way 10% 90% Bellevue 8% 92% Clearly, the Shoreline site does not meet the proposal s objectives and should thus be deemed an unreasonable alternative and removed from further consideration. Elements of the environment to be analyzed WAC identifies the elements of the environment to be analyzed under SEPA. SEPA is of course not limited to the natural environment, but also includes the built environment. I will focus on just a few elements of particular importance to this analysis. 3 City of Seattle Municipal Jail Planning Project Site Selection. Downloaded from 3

5 NEC Municipal Jail Scoping Comments Submitted by Janne Kaje (Shoreline, Washington) Under the Built Environment heading, the WAC identifies Relationship to existing land use plans and to estimated population and Housing as elements to be examined. The EIS must include a detailed analysis of the goals and policies articulated in the Comprehensive Plans of each jurisdiction with a focus on the level of consistency of the proposal to the surrounding environment. In the case of Shoreline, the analysis must also look to other documents that articulate important goals regarding residential neighborhoods. Most importantly, the Comprehensive Housing Strategy adopted by the City in 2008 is a key resource. The analysis must also consider the impact of foreclosing the site from future residential development on the city s ability to meet Growth Management Act-mandated population targets. For Shoreline, this site is one of very few large parcels within a residential neighborhood. The loss of potential density at this site will force higher density development into other neighborhoods. As highlighted in the comment letter submitted by the Ballinger Neighborhood Association (BALNA), the Shoreline site, while not a city park, serves a vital role as a park and open space for the neighborhood. There are no other comparable spaces anywhere nearby that children could access by foot or even by bicycle. They are simply too far away along routes that are unsafe for bicycling. Moreover, as also detailed in the BALNA letter, the level of service for parks in Shoreline lags well behind the regional average. Countywide Planning Policies(CPP) to which Shoreline must adhere state that All jurisdictions shall work cooperatively to ensure parks and open spaces are provided as development and redevelopment occur. and All jurisdictions shall develop coordinated level-of-service standards for the provision of parks and open spaces. While the CPP also identifies goals and procedures for essential public facilities, such as jails, the EIS must evaluate for each site the balance of local and countywide goals that are supported or compromised by each alternative. Optional elements Other (non-environmental) impacts may be included in the EIS if the lead agency determines this information would be helpful in evaluating the proposal [WAC (8)]. An analysis of impacts to residential property values is warranted since the alternatives differ so starkly on this matter, and since a reduction in property values will also directly lead to a reduction in tax revenue that supports schools, fire protection, libraries, city services and numerous other public functions. The effect of a project on public services is, after all, a required element. The project proponents publicly have recognized the importance of property values and have repeatedly cited a study that purports to show that property values are not affected by jails. As discussed in the attached memorandum (Attachment 2), the study is entirely inapplicable to the Shoreline scenario. The methodology was applied over such a broad geographic area that effects on values in the immediate neighborhood would be entirely lost. And, none of the sites studied 4

6 NEC Municipal Jail Scoping Comments Submitted by Janne Kaje (Shoreline, Washington) were in a residential neighborhood to begin with. See the attached memorandum for details about the Department of Justice (DOJ) study. It should also be noted here that while City of Shoreline staff have been helpful in providing documentation and other information upon request, they have been entirely unresponsive to the request for the original DOJ study. The document that has been provided is an agenda-driven synopsis that provides insufficient detail and is intended to convince the reader of a particular perspective rather than to provide analysis. As described in the BALNA letter, parks and open spaces have a dramatic, positive effect on property values. In contrast, a large regional jail in the middle of a residential area is clearly expected to have the opposite effect. We do not know the size of the effect and hence it should be studied. Some of the methods for doing so that were applied in the DOJ study could be modified for the Shoreline case, and for the other proposed sites. For example, residential real estate agents could be interviewed in conjunction with site visits to gain their professional opinion on the likely reduction in value for homes located directly adjacent to the site, within one block, within a quarter mile, within a half mile, and perhaps the and neighboring zip code areas. Data from prior studies at similar locations would of course be informative. However, it may be quite difficult to find such a study or site since it would likely not occur to most communities to place a 640-bed jail into a residential neighborhood within a major metropolitan area that has abundant industrial sites available. Using publicly available records of property assessments for King County, I calculated the total value of residential properties within ¼ mile and ½ mile of the Shoreline site. I then used the property tax levy rates for 2008 to calculate the contribution of residential properties in these two zones to city government, school and other services. Those values are shown in the attached spreadsheet (Attachment 3). My analysis shows, for example, that a 25% decrease in property value within a ¼ mile of the site would decrease total residential property values by over $146 million dollars. This, in turn, would translate to a decrease of nearly $800,000 per year in essential public services and $300,000 per year for the Shoreline School District alone. It is hard to see how effects on property taxes could be legitimately ignored in this analysis. Summary For the citizens of Shoreline, the current process contravenes the intent and purpose of the SEPA. The process should be halted immediately and the City of Shoreline should conduct its own, public and thorough analysis before identifying a candidate site for a regional facility. The Shoreline site is not a reasonable alternative under SEPA as it is contrary to all available guidance on jail siting criteria, including criteria applied by the lead agency in this proceeding. Special emphasis should be placed on evaluation of impacts to Relationship to existing land use plans and to estimated population, Housing and Parks or other recreational facilities. 5

7 NEC Municipal Jail Scoping Comments Submitted by Janne Kaje (Shoreline, Washington) As allowed by SEPA, an evaluation of residential property value effects should be included as an optional element. It is not only a substantial differentiating factor between sites, but it also has a very direct and long-lasting negative effect on the provision of public services, including schools and public safety, that rely on property tax revenue. Please feel free to contact me for clarification on any of the statements or issues raised in this comment letter. Sincerely, Janne Kaje 6

8 Property Tax Calculations for residential parcels in the vicinity of proposed Shoreline jail site prepared by Janne Kaje Appraised Residential Value (King Co. Only) City Qtr mile Half mile LFP $ 155,852,500 $ 362,363,000 Shoreline $ 124,614,200 $ 223,132,600 $ 280,466,700 $ 585,495,600 Residential Property Tax Generated within 1/4 and 1/2 mile of site (King County Only rates) LFP Shoreline LFP + SHORELINE Tax Levy Qtr mile Half mile Qtr mile Half mile Qtr mile Half mile CITY $ 196,345 $ 456,509 $ 157,678 $ 282,336 $ 354,023 $ 738,845 Consolidated $ 555,399 $ 1,291,324 $ 444,078 $ 795,160 $ 999,477 $ 2,086,484 School District $ 643,979 $ 1,497,277 $ 514,903 $ 921,979 $ 1,158,883 $ 2,419,256 Fire $ 127,146 $ 295,619 $ 179,788 $ 321,927 $ 306,934 $ 617,546 Library $ 70,657 $ 164,281 $ 56,495 $ 101,159 $ 127,152 $ 265,440 EMS LESS SE $ 46,756 $ 108,709 $ 37,384 $ 66,940 $ 84,140 $ 175,649 KING COUNTY $ 15,585 $ 36,236 $ 12,461 $ 22,313 $ 28,047 $ 58,550 Ferry $ 8,572 $ 19,930 $ 6,854 $ 12,272 $ 15,426 $ 32,202 TOTAL $ 1,664,439 $ 3,869,885 $ 1,409,642 $ 2,524,087 $ 3,074,081 $ 6,393,972 NOTES: The property value and property tax data for the Half Mile radius obviously includes those within the QTR mile radius Data includes King County only Lake Forest Park has several different levy rates due to differences in Fire and Library rates. I used a rate from the middle of the range. See below. Lake Forest Park levy rates Levy Code District Levy Description Levy Rate LAKE FOREST Consolidate School Fire Library EMS LESS SE KING COUNTY Ferry Rate ($) per $1000 of assessed value Levy Code District Levy Description Levy Rate SHORELINE Consolidate School Fire Library EMS LESS SE KING COUNTY Ferry Rate ($) per $1000 of assessed value

9 J. Kaje Attachment 1 12/10/2008 Re: Zoning and current use surrounding the proposed jail sites The following tables and maps were developed by Janne Kaje with King County data using the following steps: Identify target parcel (i.e., proposed site) Identify all parcels within ¼ mile of target parcel. Computed area includes portions of parcels that extend beyond the ¼ mile radius. Tabulate Present use information for all parcels Aggregate all residential uses into single category for mapping. Individual categories shown in tables. Calculate percentage of total parcel area in each category. Show residential and other remaining categories in maps Note: Zoning labels/categories vary by jurisdiction. Thus, the Present Use descriptor in King County data was used. However, all zoning data has also been retained and can be aggregated in a similar way. Note: South Seattle site not a single parcel. Current map and tables underestimate the number of parcels within ¼ mile. Summary Table Site Residential Non-residential Shoreline 95% 5% Unincorporated King County 30% 70% South Seattle 21% 79% Seattle Armory Way 10% 90% Bellevue 8% 92%

10 20TH 21ST 20TH 22ND 32nd 20TH PL NE 21ST 48TH 32nd 44TH 43RD Shoreline Site 57TH 56TH NE 205TH ST 54TH NE 205TH ST 205TH 52ND 243RD 243RD 44TH 205th 205TH 19TH AVE NE 21ST AVE NE 21ST 203RD 22ND AVE NE 22ND 24TH AVE NE 24TH NE 204TH ST 204TH 204th NE 204TH ST 203RD NE 203RD ST 203rd NE 202ND ST 19TH 201ST 201st 202nd 33rd 22ND AVE NE 200TH 199TH 198TH NE 200TH ST 25TH 200TH 199TH 200th 31ST AVE NE 33RD AVE NE NE 200TH CT 31st NE 197TH LN 196TH 20TH 20TH AVE NE 197TH 21st NE 197TH PL 23RD BALLINGER 25TH AVE NE 195TH 195TH 196TH 198TH 30th 30TH 196th 197th 32ND AVE NE 198th 197th 197th 196th NEC Site Shoreline Present Use - Shoreline Site Residential LAGO 195TH FOREST PARK 21ST AVE NE 195th FOREST PARK DR NE 23RD AVE NE 25th NE 195TH PL NE 195TH CT BALLINGER WAY NE Unnamed 26TH NE 195TH ST Ballinger 27TH 195TH 28TH AVE NE 28th 195TH 193rd 194th 31st 195th 34th 34TH AVE NE 35th 36th 36TH AVE NE Church/Welfare/Relig Srvc Office Building Park, Public(Zoo/Arbor) School(Public) Utility, Public Warehouse LAGO PL NE 20TH 21st Lago 22ND AVE NE 22nd 191st Forest Park 191st NE 191ST ST Unnamed BALLINGER 30TH AVE NE 192nd NE 192ND ST Unnamed 32ND AVE NE 35TH AVE NE 35th 192nd 190TH 190th 33rd NE 190TH ST 34th 190th ,000 1,500 2,000 Feet

11 Current use by area of parcels within ¼ mile of proposed site. Shoreline Site Type Current Use (King County Data) Percentage of acres Residential Single Family(Res Use/Zone) 64% Apartment 9% Condominium(Residential) 8% Vacant(Single-family) 4% 4-Plex 2% Vacant(Multi-family) 2% Duplex 2% Mobile Home 2% Single Family(C/I Zone) 1% Triplex 0% Condominium(Mixed Use) 0% Residential Total 95% Other Park, Public(Zoo/Arbor) 2% Utility, Public 2% Office Building 1% Warehouse 0% Church/Welfare/Relig Srvc 0% 0% (blank) 0% Other Total 5% Grand Total 100%

12 Unincorporated King County Site NE 132ND ST 130TH LN NE 127TH DR NE NE 126TH CT 128TH LN NE 129TH AVE NE NE 129TH ST 129TH CT NE NE 125TH WAY NE 131ST ST NE 131ST PL NE 130TH ST 130TH AVE NE NE 126TH PL 124TH NE 124TH ST NE 128TH PL SLATER AVE NE 131ST AVE NE 132ND PL NE NE 123RD ST 131ST PL NE 132ND AVE NE NE 129TH ST NE 128TH PL NE 131ST PL NE 130TH PL NE 129TH PL 133RD PL NE 134TH CT NE 134TH AVE NE NE 129TH ST 135TH AVE NE NE 130TH PL NE 129TH PL 136TH AVE NE NE 128TH ST 139TH AVE NE WILLOWS RD NE 141ST AVE NE Unincorporated KC Site Present Use - KC Site Residential Auto Showroom and Lot Car Wash High Tech/High Flex Industrial Park Industrial(Gen Purpose) Office Building Park, Public(Zoo/Arbor) Retail Store Right of Way/Utility, Road Service Building Utility, Public Vacant(Commercial) Vacant(Industrial) Warehouse NE 120TH ST NE 119TH ST 132ND PL NE NE 119TH WAY ,020 1,530 2,040 Feet

13 Current use by area of parcels within ¼ mile of proposed site. Unincorporated King County Site Type Current Use (King County Data) Percentage of acres Residential Single Family(Res Use/Zone) 14% Apartment 12% Vacant(Multi-family) 3% Vacant(Single-family) 1% Residential Total 30% Other High Tech/High Flex 14% Right of Way/Utility, Road 11% Industrial Park 10% Vacant(Commercial) 9% Vacant(Industrial) 6% Warehouse 5% Service Building 5% Park, Public(Zoo/Arbor) 4% Industrial(Gen Purpose) 3% Office Building 2% Auto Showroom and Lot 2% Utility, Public 0% Retail Store 0% Car Wash 0% Other Total 70% Grand Total 100%

14 WEST MARGINAL WAY SW SR 509 South Seattle Site EAST MARGINAL WAY S S FRONT ST 1ST AVE S SR 99 S FRONT ST 3RD AVE S MICHIGAN EAST MARGINAL RAMP S MICHIGAN ST 1ST NB AVE S 2ND AVE S S RIVER ST 3RD AVE S S_Seattle 14TH AVE SW SW HOLLY ST Present Use - South Seattle Residential 13TH AVE SW SW FRONT ST SW MICHIGAN ST SR 99 1ST AVE SW SR 99 Governmental Service High Tech/High Flex Industrial(Gen Purpose) SW MYRTLE ST SW ORCHARD ST SW MYRTLE ST HIGHLAND PARK WAY SW WEST MARGINAL WAY SW 1ST AVE S OCCIDENTAL AVE S Industrial(Lignt) Office Building Open Space Park, Public(Zoo/Arbor) Right of Way/Utility, Road Service Building SW OTHELLO ST Terminal(Marine/Comm Fish) 13TH AVE SW 12TH AVE SW SW WEBSTER ST 11TH AVE SW SW AUSTIN ST HOLDEN SW HOLDEN ST SW OTHELLO ST 8TH AVE SW 7TH PL SW SW AUSTIN ST SW HOLDEN ST 7TH AVE SW SW AUSTIN PL 6TH AVE SW DETROIT AVE SW WEST MARGINAL 2ND AVE SW 1ST AVE S RAMP RAMP SR 509 SR 509 RAMP HIGHLAND PARK WEST MARGINAL WAY S 2ND AVE S 3RD AVE S S WEBSTER ST S AUSTIN ST S HOLDEN ST Utility, Public Vacant(Commercial) Vacant(Industrial) Warehouse ,000 1,500 2,000 Feet

15 Current use by area of parcels within ¼ mile of proposed site. South Seattle Site Type Current Use (King County Data) Percentage of acres Residential Vacant(Single-family) 19% Single Family(Res Use/Zone) 2% Duplex 0% Residential Total 21% Other Terminal(Marine/Comm Fish) 41% Park, Public(Zoo/Arbor) 13% Vacant(Industrial) 9% Warehouse 5% Industrial(Gen Purpose) 3% Industrial(Light) 3% Right of Way/Utility, Road 2% Service Building 1% Office Building 1% High Tech/High Flex 0% Vacant(Commercial) 0% Open Space(Curr Use-RCW 84.34) 0% Utility, Public 0% Governmental Service 0% 0% Other Total 79% Grand Total 100%

16 26TH AVE W Seattle - Armory Way Site 21ST AVE W 20TH AVE W W DRAVUS ST 16TH AVE W 17TH AVE W 13TH AVE W 10TH AVE W CONKLING PL W W ETRURIA ST W FLORENTIA PL W BARRETT ST W BARRETT ST W BARRETT ST W BARRETT ST 26TH AVE W W FULTON ST 25TH AVE W W ARMOUR ST W RAYE ST W HALLADAY ST W SMITH ST 24TH AVE W PATTEN PL W W RAYE ST W HALLADAY ST W SMITH ST 23RD AVE W 22ND AVE W W RAYE ST W HALLADAY ST W HALLADAY ST W ARMOUR ST W RAYE ST 14TH AVE W PROSCH AVE W W BOTHWELL ST 12TH AVE W W RAYE ST W RAYE ST WESTVIEW DR W 10TH PL W W BOTHWELL ST W RAYE ST W FULTON ST W ARMOUR ST W NEWELL ST W RAYE ST W HALLADAY ST W BOTHWELL ST W RAYE ST Armory Way Site Present Use - Armory Way Residential Conv Store with Gas Golf Course Governmental Service Industrial(Lignt) Mini Warehouse Office Building Park, Public(Zoo/Arbor) W WHEELER ST W WHEELER ST W WHEELER ST W WHEELER ST Parking(Commercial Lot) W MC GRAW ST Parking(Garage) W LYNN PL W LYNN ST W BOSTON ST THORNDYKE AVE W 23RD AVE W W ARMORY WAY 15TH W BOSTON ST GILMAN DR W W MC GRAW ST 9TH AVE W Retail Store Retail(Discount) Retail(Line/Strip) Right of Way/Utility, Road W HOWE ST W CROCKETT ST W NEWTON ST W PLYMOUTH ST AMHERST PL W 15TH AVE W 14TH AVE W W NEWTON ST W HOWE ST 13TH AVE W 12TH AVE W 11TH AVE W 10TH AVE W W CROCKETT ST W HOWE ST 8TH AVE W 7TH AVE W School(Private) Service Building Terminal(Auto/Bus/Other) Terminal(Marine) Terminal(Marine/Comm Fish) Terminal(Rail) MAGNOLIA WAY W MAGNOLIA BR MAGNOLIA WB BR W BLAINE ST W GARFIELD ST 12TH AVE W W BLAINE ST W GARFIELD ST W BLAINE ST 8TH AVE W W GARFIELD ST Vacant(Commercial) Vacant(Industrial) Vet/Animal Control Srvc Warehouse ,080 1,620 2,160 Feet

17 Current use by area of parcels within ¼ mile of proposed site. Seattle - Armory Way Site Type Current Use (King County Data) Percentage of acres Residential Single Family(Res Use/Zone) 3% Condominium(Residential) 2% Apartment 2% Duplex 1% Single Family(C/I Zone) 1% Triplex 1% Vacant(Single-family) 1% 4-Plex 0% Vacant(Multi-family) 0% Townhouse Plat 0% Condominium(Mixed Use) 0% Single Family(C/I Use) 0% Residential Total 10% Other Terminal(Marine) 32% Terminal(Marine/Comm Fish) 25% Golf Course 11% Terminal(Rail) 7% Vacant(Industrial) 4% Governmental Service 3% Warehouse 2% Service Building 1% Retail Store 1% Right of Way/Utility, Road 1% Office Building 1% Vacant(Commercial) 0% Retail(Line/Strip) 0% Industrial(Lignt) 0% Terminal(Auto/Bus/Other) 0% Park, Public(Zoo/Arbor) 0% Conv Store with Gas 0% Retail(Discount) 0% Vet/Animal Control Srvc 0% Parking(Commercial Lot) 0% Mini Warehouse 0% Parking(Garage) 0% Other Total 90% Grand Total 100%

18 111TH AVE NE I-405 FRWY Bellevue Site NE 12TH ST LAKE BELLEVUE DR NE 11TH ST 12TH NE 10TH ST 109TH AVE NE 110TH AVE NE NE 2ND PL NE 2ND ST NE 4TH ST NE 9TH ST NE 3RD PL 111TH AVE NE NE 6TH ST NE 3RD ST 112TH AVE NE 8TH NE 4TH ST MAIN ST RAMP RAMP 114TH AVE NE I-405 FRWY I-405 RAMP RAMP 114TH AVE NE NE 2ND PL 116TH 116TH AVE NE 118TH AVE NE 119TH AVE NE NE 8TH ST NE 6TH ST 120TH AVE NE NE 1ST ST MAIN ST 120TH AVE NE NE BELLEVUE-REDMOND RD NE 5TH ST 122ND AVE NE Bellevue site Present Use - Bellevue Residential Auditorium//Assembly Bldg Auto Showroom and Lot Conv Store with Gas Daycare Center Grocery Store Hospital Hotel/Motel Office Building Parking(Assoc) Post Office/Post Service Restaurant(Fast Food) Restaurant/Lounge Retail Store Retail(Big Box) Retail(Discount) Right of Way/Utility, Road Service Building Shopping Ctr(Nghbrhood) Terminal(Auto/Bus/Other) Utility, Public Vacant(Commercial) Warehouse ,200 1,600 Feet

19 Current use by area of parcels within ¼ mile of proposed site. Bellevue Site Type Current Use (King County Percentage of acres Data) Residential Condominium(Mixed Use) 3% Apartment(Mixed Use) 2% Condominium(Office) 2% Apartment 1% Single Family(C/I Zone) 0% Apartment(Subsidized) 0% Residential Total 8% Other Office Building 16% Auto Showroom and Lot 15% Right of Way/Utility, Road 14% Hotel/Motel 10% Vacant(Commercial) 5% Retail(Big Box) 5% Retail(Discount) 5% Parking(Assoc) 4% Shopping Ctr(Nghbrhood) 3% Hospital 3% Terminal(Auto/Bus/Other) 2% Retail Store 2% Post Office/Post Service 1% Restaurant/Lounge 1% Warehouse 1% Auditorium//Assembly Bldg 1% Grocery Store 1% Conv Store with Gas 1% Utility, Public 1% Restaurant(Fast Food) 0% Daycare Center 0% Service Building 0% Other Total 92% Grand Total 100%

20

21

22

23 J. Kaje Attachment 2 January 27, 2009 Re: DOJ Study of prisons and property values The NEC has repeatedly cited the 1987 FAU-FIU Government Center of the Florida International University as evidence that jails do not decrease surrounding property values. The document itself is not a study, but rather a synopsis of a study that provides insufficient detail to evaluate the merits of the conclusions. However, we note that the sites evaluated in the study were located within one to two miles of residential areas 1. From all indications, none were located right in the midst of residential parcels. In addition, the study compared impacts to property values within target and control sites, described as follows: And, For each facility, the study defined a target area and a control area. The target area was defined by a circle, several miles in diameter, drawn using the facility as its center. The control area had comparable demographic features with one exception: no correctional facility [emphasis added]. Realtors were asked to compare sales activity, property values, and buyer concerns within a three-mile radius of the correctional facility with those from an area located farther from the facility [emphasis added]. Clearly, this study provides little insight into how a facility located in the heart of a residential neighborhood would affect the property values of adjoining single- and multi-family homes, as well as other residences within a short distance of the site. I used Google Maps to locate images of each of the sites in the study. Clearly, none bear any resemblance to the proposed Shoreline site, or any site in Shoreline for that matter. The images are in the order of the site list, below. Ada County Jail (Idaho). Arizona State Prison Complex - Perryville. Brevard Correctional Institution (Florida). Dade Correctional Institution (Florida). Durango Detention Facility (Arizona). Federal Correctional Institution - Memphis (Tennessee). Hillsborough Correctional Institution (Florida). 1 The study summarized at:

24

25

26

27