The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutPermit L2000-038 - CITY OF TUKWILA - TRANSPORTATION BACKGROUND REPORTL2000 -038 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT TRANSPORTATION BACKGROUND REPORT COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLAN AMENDMENT TRANSPORTATION BACKGROUND REPORT City of Tukwila Washington Ordinance No. /1,P-___3 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA, WASHINGTON, AMENDING THE CITY'S 1995 COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLAN AS ADOPTED BY ORDINANCE NO. 1757, TO REVISE TRANSPORTATION - RELATED POLICIES; ESTABLISH MIC /L ZONING WITH CERTAIN CONDITIONS; ALLOW OFFICE ABOVE THE THIRD FLOOR IN THE NCC ZONE ALONG TUKWILA INTERNATIONAL BOULEVARD; ALLOW OFFICE AS 'A CONDITIONAL USE IN MIC /L; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; AND,ESTABLISHING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. Z • }-W Ce 00 U 0 J= F- U) LL w0 ? U =U WHEREAS, Tukwila's Comprehensive • Plan and development regulations are to be reviewed and W updated as appropriate; and Z H WHEREAS, the City of Tukwila Planning Commission, after having received and studied staff analysis Z O and comments from members of the public, has recommended the adoption of the certain amendments; and W w WHEREAS, the City Council held a public hearing on the proposed amendments on November 20, - n 0 2000, and held other public hearings after proper notice as Indicated below: 0 f-12; 01- 1. After due public notice the City Council held public meetings on April 3, 2000 and July 10, W W' 2000 to receive public comments, and a public hearing on November 20, 2000 to receive public testimony H U related to amendments to the•Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Code; W ~O 2. Notice of the public meetings were published and mailed in the Hazelnut; notices of the public w Z • meeting were mailed to surrounding residents, businesses and owners; sites were posted; and notices of the U 2 public hearing were mailed and published in The Seattle Times; and 0 I— Z WHEREAS, the City Council, after due consideration, believes that certain amendments to the City's Comprehensive Plan and development regulations are necessary; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA, WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Amend the Tukwila 1995 Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map Legend, as adopted by Ordinance No. 1757, to read as follows: Manufacturing /Industrial Center —Light Industrial: A major employment area containing distributive, light manufacturing and limited office uses, with supportive commercial and office uses. (See Manufacturing /Industrial Center element In Plan text.) Section 2. Amend the Tukwila 1995 Comprehensive Plan Transportation Corridor Chapter, as adopted by Ordinance No. 1757, to read as follows: Policy 8.5.7: Encourage two- to four -story buildings within the Neighborhood Commercial Centers to emphasize their importance and desired activity level, limiting commercial uses to two lower levels, except in Urban Renewal areas. Section 3. Amend the Tukwila 1995 Comprehensive Plan Transportation Chapter, as adopted by Ordinance No. 1757, to read as follows: Policy 13.3.1: Use the following LOS standards to guide City improvement and development approval decisions: • The Tukwila Urban Center area LOS average is not to exceed E. • The East Marginal Industrial and manufacturing corridor LOS average is not to exceed E. • The Interurban Avenue corridor LOS average is not to exceed E. • The Pacific HIghway corridor LOS average is not to exceed D mitigated. 4cCo ;,1q, 1;,01 1 1 • The West Valley Highway corridor LOS average is not to exceed D mitigated. • Southcenter Boulevard between Grady Way and Interstate 5 Is not to exceed average LOS E. • The Southcenter Parkway Corridor south of South 180th Street is not to exceed average LOS E without agreement with developers, including contactually scheduled capacity improvements. • The LOS of minor and collector arterials in predominantly residential areas Is not to exceed average LOS D for each specific arterial. • Residential access streets reaching a 1,000-vehicle-per-day volume will be studied to determine appropriate measures to reduce traffic volumes. Z Section 4. Amend the Tukwila 1995 Comprehensive Plan Transportation Chapter, as adopted by I Z Ordinance No. 1757, to add a new policy under "13.7 Funding Sources and Mitigation Payment System" to 1Y W read as follows: 6 Policy 13.7.4: Highways of Statewide Significance (HSS), including Interstate 5 (1-5), Interstate 405 (I.405), 0 O' and State Route 518 (SR 518), are exempt from concurrency requirements. tO Q • W: Section 5. Amend the Tukwila 1995 Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map as follows: -W-t u. Designate as MIC /L (Manufacturing Industrial Center /Light) an area generally located at the Intersection of w O Interurban Avenue South and SR 599 /East Marginal Way per Exhibit 1. (attached), with the condition that: 2 1. Any proposed development on the site will require conditional use review to determine its u_ Q appropriateness for the location; u • w. Z= O Z 1- b. If the owner fails to record the conditional use review requirement with the property .' W w within 120 days of the effective date of this ordinance, the MIC /L designation shall be null and void. _ 2 0 O • ,„ O 1- W • w tL O WZ U Cf) h O 2. In addition, the owner shall comply with the following: a. The owner shall record the requirement for conditional use review with the property. Section 6. Severability. If any section, subsection, paragraph, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance or Its application to any person or situation should be held to be invalid or unconstitutional for any reason by a court of competent Jurisdiction, such invalidity or unconstitutionality shall not affect the validity or constitutionality of the remaining portions of this ordinance or its application to any other person or situation. Section 7. Effective Date. This ordlnance or a summary thereof shall be published In the official newspaper of the City, and shall take effect and be in full force and effect five (5) days after passage and publication as provided by law. PASSED BY CITY COUN IL OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA, WASHINGTON, at a Regular Meeting thereof this 5 T day of ,/- , 2001. ATTEST /AUTHENTICAT cc. e E. Cantu, CMC, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: By Of ce of + e City orney FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK:- PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL: eV- 5 -• a / PUBLISHED:.7 -/q- u / EFFECTIVE DATE: - / V - o' / ORDINANCE NO.: /9'..5-3 Steven M. Mullet, Mayor VMItssyFPIO,Vixy}`f 'L'' "v ' kYin1%.." 3+ '4�,Fn'Xi�r4'�i�"l:+n:' r 4,.)■4' Z Minutes, 11/20/00 Page 1 of 6 TU;KWILA,CITY, COUNCI lovemberh20, 2000 '7:00 p .. Tukwila City Hall - Council Chambers REGULAR MEETING CALL TO ORDER/PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Mayor Steven M. Mullet called the Regular meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. and led the audience in the Pledge of Allegiance. OFFICIALS: City Administrator John McFarland; City Attorney Bob Noe; City Clerk Jane Cantu; Deputy City Clerk Bob Baker; Council Analyst Lucy Lauterbach; Public Works Director Jim Morrow; Community Development Director Steve Lancaster; Police Chief Keith Haines; Parks & Recreation Director Bruce Fletcher; City Engineer Brian Shelton; Senior Engineer Robin Tischmak; and Associate Planner Rebecca Fox. ROLL CALL: Ms. Cantu called the roll of Council. Present were Council President Joe Duffie; and Councilmembers Joan Hernandez, Pam Carter, Jim Haggerton, Pamela Linder, Dave Fenton and Richard Simpson. CITIZEN COMMENT /CORRESPONDENCE: None received. CONSENT AGENDA: a. Approval of Minutes — 11 -06 -00 Regular Meeting b. Approval of Vouchers - #224705- 224996, in the amount of $1,745,099.01 Duffie moved; Fenton seconded; approval of the consent agenda as presented. The motion carried 7 -0. PUBLIC HEARINGS: Comprehensive Plan Amendments Community Development Director Steve Lancaster introduced Associate Planner Rebecca Fox and suggested Council receive citizen comment as the cases are reviewed one by one. Mayor Mullet agreed. 7:07 p.m. Mayor Mullet opened the public hearing. Ms. Fox introduced seven proposed amendments to Council and relayed some specifics as to how the http://www.ci.tukwila.wa.us/clerk/rm11-20.htm 8/9/01 Minutes, 11/20/00 Page 2 of 6 Planning Commission reached decisions in each case. Case Number L99 -0094 & L99 -0095 Request: Establish C /LI (Commercial /Light Industrial) Comprehensive Plan and Zoning designation for two adjacent parcels currently designated as LDR (Low Density Residential ) Applicant: Holaday Parks /Ted Nixon, Campbell/Nixon & Associates Planning Commission Recommendation: Deny Request Matt Peters, 13552 McAdam Road South, Tukwila, noted the reason(s) behind the Planning Commission's decision to deny the request are unclear. Lawrence Campbell, Architect, o /b /o Holaday Parks Property, spoke in favor of establishing C /LI and zoning designation for two adjacent parcels currently designated as LDR. June Naelon, o /b /o Holaday Parks Property, noted an approximate time of one year until development of the property begins. Betty Gully, 13017 McAdam Road South, Tukwila., spoke against commercial development in residential neighborhoods. She does not want the City to compromise the quality of neighborhood life by allowing commercial growth. Case Number L99 -0092 & L99 -0093 Request: Approval for LDR Comprehensive Plan & Zoning Designation for a Non - Designated, Non - Zoned Area Applicant: Community Development Department Planning Commission Recommendation: Designate Intersection of East Marginal Way and Interurban Avenue South as MIC/L Ms. Fox pointed out a letter previously submitted by James Terrile, dated November 13, 2000, in support of the proposal. Others were also submitted and copied for Council and provided this evening. Case Number L2000 -0036 & L2000 -037 Request: Allow office uses in the MIC /L district Applicant: Tukwila City Council Planning Commission Recommendation: a. Office as Conditional Use in the MIC /L; b. Elements being finalized 11/9/00 Brian Kennedy, 12802 — 37th Avenue South, Tukwila, asked the following: 1. Will the new zoning create more parking problems? How many cards will the new garage hold? If it won't hold the new anticipated traffic, where will they park? 2. Will there be safeguards to protect our neighborhood from problems such as the garbage trucks and mess on 130th and East Marginal? http://www.ci.tukwila.wa.us/clerk/rm11-20.htm 8/9/01 A? IfAMY4bRY! S! LL' �6M] MY. Mn D�veM1w+ +n�.rr+r..... ».w+�..cnrte RSTEE�M. 4: iM�t��lk11NTM7�ANfL�1�5 %^RSYAY!N Minutes, 11/20/00 _ Page 3 of 6 3. When the air conditioning and other exterior devices are running they will diminish the quality of our neighborhood even more. I feel that our houses would be sound proofed and diesel or any other airborne emissions should be monitored. 4. What was the problem that sent 20 employees to the hospital a few days ago? 5. What the chances of zoning the area between 126th and 130th, East Marginal and Tukwila International Boulevard Zoned Business ? z W. r4 2 JU U0 Byron Saunders, 4118 South 130th, Tukwila, spoke against blocking residents' views. He co suggested construction of buildings be kept under 20,000 square feet. J F. u_ Mike Szluk, 3922 South 113th, Tukwila, spoke against the proposal for fear of too much traffic in al 0 his neighborhood. Ms. Szluk had previously noted his objection, in writing, via e-mail, to Rebecca Fox. u.. a =d z� 1- 0 w~ • 0 O - O I-- No questions or comments from Council. w W 1— -b- . z O -, O z Case Number L99 -0086 & L99 -0087 Request: Amend Code to allow office uses on third story in NCC zone Applicant: Community Development Department Planning Commission Recommendation: Allow Office Uses on Third Floor Case Number L99 -0085 Request: Modify part of PAA Boundary currently overlapping with City of Seattle. Amend map accordingly Applicant: Community Development Department Planning Commission Recommendation: Approve boundary change post finalization of Interlocal Agreement Case Number L99 -0088 Request: Revise /Simplify boundaries with Seattle and King County in vicinity of King County Airport; Amend map accordingly Applicant: Community Development Department Planning Commission Recommendation: Approve boundary change post Finalization of Interlocal Agreement �'a'y.`�ar« {zozfynLL'(= 3171766iS ^b may".,,.'•. oa.2z�g ^^`vb ,6.a'}L.;i:ta^'.iti.x30:0Z:: ":,..... Case Number L2000- 0038E' Request: Revise Comp. Plan for new Transportation Background Report Requirements Applicant: Public Works Department Planning Commission Recommendation: Approve change as proposed. This request is the result of a Washington State requirement. City Engineer Brian Shelton answered inquires from Council. http://www.ci.tulcwila.wa.us/clerk/rm11-20.htm 8/9/01 Minutes, 11/20/00 Page 4 of 6 .08:00 p.m. Mayor Mullet closed the public hearing. COUNCIL DELIBERATIONS :'' Post Council discussion, the following was decided with respect to each case: Case Number L99 -0094 & L99 -0095 Decision Deferred Case Number L99 -0092 & L99 -0093 Decision Deferred Case Number L00 -0036 & L00 -0037 Approve Planning Commission Recommendation 8:24 p.m. Haggerton moved; Linder seconded; approval to re -open the public hearing to review and /or accept proposed exhibit from Mr. Campbell. The motion carried 7 -0. Duffie moved; Linder seconded; acceptance of exhibit from Mr. Campbell, on behalf of Holaday Parks. The motion carried 7 -0. 8:24 p.m. Mayor Mullet closed the public hearing. Case Number L99 -0086 & L00 -0087 Approve Planning Commission Recommendation Case Number L99 -0085 Approve, pending receipt of proposed interlocal agreement Case Number L99 -0088 FAppiove; pendinggreceipt of proposed interlocal agreement Case Number L00 -0038 Approve Planning Commission Recommendation Clerical Note: Letters and map with" alternatives' ( from 1Vir Campbell) submitted to staff were marked Exhibits 9, 9a, 9b, 9c, 9d, and 10 and added to staff report for the record. OLD BUSINESS: a. Authorize Mayor to Sign an Interlocal Agreement with the City of Kent for the South 180th Grade Separation Carter moved; Duffie seconded; approval to authorize Mayor Mullet to sign an Interlocal Agreement with the City of Kent for the South 180th Grade Separation project.* City Engineer Brian Shelton commented the Transportation Improvement Board has committed to nearly $1.1 million dollars in funding for this project. In addition, FASTCAST has committed another $4.5 million dollars. Both amounts will greatly decrease the shortfall experienced by Tukwila. *The motion carried 7 -0. b. An Ordinance Authorizing the Condemnation of Property for South 180th Grade Separation Project http: / /www.ci. tukwila.wa.us /clerk/rm11- 20.htm Aq..r.f.C4 8/9/01 CITY OF TUKWILA NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Tukwila City Council will hold a public hearing on Monday, November 20, 2000 beginning at 7 PM in the Council Chambers at Tukwila City Hall, 6200 Southcenter Blvd., Tukwila, to consider the following: Changes to the Tukwila Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Code. Applications include: 1) Eliminate overlap with the City of Seattle's Potential Annexation Area (L99- 0085). 2) Revise boundary with Seattle in vicinity of Boeing Field (L99- 0088). 3) Establish LDR (Low Density Residential) designation for undesignated area at Interurban Ave. S. and E. Marginal Way (L99 -0092, L99- 0093). 4) Designate two adjacent LDR (Low Density Residential) lots as C /LI (Commercial Light Industrial) at 4625 S. 134th Pl. (L99 -0094, L99- 0095). 5) Allow 3rd floor office use in NCC (Neighborhood Commercial Center) zone along Tukwila International Boulevard (L -99 -0086, L99 - 0087). 6)' Allow office use throughout MIC /L (Manufacturing /Industrial Center - Light) zone (generally between S. 112th and S. 126th between E. Marginal Way and Tukwila International Boulevard) independent of industrial use (L2000 -036, L2000 -037). 7) Revise Transportation Background Report to include changes to Growth Management Act (L2000 -038). All interested persons are invited to be present to voice approval, disapproval, or opinions on this issue. For those unable to attend in person, you may submit written testimony to the City Clerk's office until 5 PM on November 20, 2000. Please contact Rebecca Fox, Associate Planner, Department of Community Development, at (206) 431- 3683 or rfox @ci.tukwila.wa.us if you have questions. The City of Tukwila strives to accommodate people with disabilities. Please contact the City Clerk's Office at (206) 433 -1800 or TDD 1- 800 - 833 -6388 by noon on Monday if we can be of assistance. DATED THIS '2 / DAY OF 2000. CITY OF TUKWILA c J E E. CANTU, CMC, CITY CLERK Published: Seattle Times - 11/3/00 & 11/10/00 Attachment 7 STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION Prepared September 18, 2000 MEETING DATE: September 28, 2000 NOTIFICATION: Notice published in Seattle Times, 9/18/00 FILE NUMBER:.. L2000-038 Transportation Background Report Update APPLICANT: Tukwila Public Works Depailnient REQUEST: Revise the Comprehensive Plan for new Transportation Background Report LOCATION: Citywide COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Varies ZONE DESIGNATION: Varies SEPA DETERMINATION: Determination of non-significance issued 9/18/00 STAFF: Rebecca Fox ATTACHMENTS: A. Application L2000-0038 B. Memo from Brian Shelton C. SEPA Determination FINDINGS VICINITY /SITE INFORMATION Project Description The City of Tukwila requests a Comprehensive Plan amendment to accommodate new requirements resulting from transportation- related changes made to the Washington Growth Management Act in 1998. Surrounding Land Uses Various uses throughout city. z • _ • �. w DL O 0 CO 0. J 2. w• 0 J Background D.. Changes to the Growth Management Act (GMA) in 1998 require Tukwila to include _ additional detail regarding state -owned transportation facilities in our Comprehensive ? t--; Plan. Additional requirements include: 1) an inventory of and level -of- service (LOS) z O standards for state -owned facilities in Tukwila; and, 2) an estimate of projected traffic U impacts and needs on state highway facilities in Tukwila. 0 0 0 O N The Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC) requires that changes to the Transportation o H- Element be adopted by 12/31/00. Thee revisions will be integrated into the - v Comprehensive Plan, and become part of the 5 -year Comprehensive Plan update, scheduled for 2001 -2002. ui z U =: Tukwila staff reviewed the changes mandated by the State, prepared background z materials and determined that specific policy changes would bring Tukwila's Comprehensive Plan into compliance. (Attachment B) A Transportation Update is now being prepared. Results will be used during the 5 -year Comprehensive Plan update in 2001 -2002. REVIEW CRITERIA Planning Commission review is required for Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Code Amendments. The Planning Commission has authority to recommend approval, recommend approval with conditions or recommend denial of the application based on a clear compliance with the criteria which follow. The recommendation will be forwarded to the City Council, which will make the final decision. 1. Describe how the issue is addressed in the Comprehensive Plan. If the issue is not adequately addressed, is there a need for it? Transportation issues, including LOS are primarily covered in Chapter 13 of the Comprehensive Plan. Chapters 8, 9, 10, and 11 deal respectively with Transportation Corridors, Tukwila South, Tukwila Urban Center, and the Manufacturing/Industrial Center. Each includes policies affecting transportation in Tukwila. The proposed amendment would specify LOS standards for Highways of Statewide Significance (HSS) and exempt them from concurrency requirements. Also included are an estimate of traffic impacts and needs for state highway facilities (i.e. "Highways of Statewide Significance ") as required by the State. Specific changes will be needed to policies in Chapter 13 Transportation to comply with State requirements. These amendments are shown with deletions as Gtril;cthroughs, and new wording as underline. Revising Policy 13.3.1 as follows: 13.3.1 Use the following LOS standards to guide City improvement and development approval decisions: - -The Tukwila Urban Center area LOS average is not to Exceed E. - -The East Marginal industrial and manufacturing corridor LOS average is not to exceed E. - -The Interurban Avenue corridor LOS average is not to exceed E. - -The Pacific Highway corridor LOS average is not to exceed E D mitigated. - -The West valley Highway corridor LOS average is not to exceed E D mitigated. - - Southcenter Boulevard between Grady Way and Interstate 5 is not to exceed average LOSE. - -The Southcenter Parkway corridor south of South 180`h Street is not to exceed average LOS E without agreement with developers, including contractually scheduled capacity improvements. - -The LOS of minor and collector arterials in predominantly residential areas is not to exceed average LOS D for each specific arterial. - - Residential access streets reaching a 1,000 vehicle per day volume will be studied to determine appropriate measures to reduce traffic volumes. Adding Policy 13.7.4 as follows: 13.7.4 Highways of Statewide Significance (HSS) including Interstate 5 (I -5), Interstate 405 (I- 405),and State Route 518(SR 518) are exempt from concurrency requirements. 2. Impacts The impacts are limited, making explicit the requirements to reference HSS in the Comprehensive Plan document, and exempt certain roadways from concurrency requirements. <iSii +iv`y,�•r:. 3. Is the proposed change the best means for meeting the identified public need? What other options are there for meeting the identified public need? The proposed change lets Tukwila comply with statewide GMA requirements and have the Transportation Element of the Comprehensive Plan certified by the Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC). Other options for consideration would be: • Delay amendments until the 5 -year Comprehensive Plan update in 2001 -2002. • Evaluate the extent to which Tukwila is already in compliance with the new requirements and prepare a report directly to the PSRC in hopes of gaining GMA certification. z w UO CO 0 U) • = J H U) u..: w O. 4. Will the proposed change result in a net benefit to the community? If not, what g type of benefit can be expected and why? U.. _a. The proposed change would bring a net benefit to the community through clearer Z assessment of traffic conditions and expectations for future improvements. Including O HSS in planning efforts ensures that these facilities are included in local financial w and capital improvement planning. . o 0 co CONCLUSIONS - o The Planning Commission, pursuant to Tukwila Municipal Code (TMC) 2.36.030 hereby = cw.) makes the following conclusions. —O Amending the Comprehensive Plan to reference HSS and levels of service will ensure that Tukwila's Plan complies with statewide requirements and will remain eligible for o transportation - related funding. z Another policy option would be: • Attempt to receive GMA certification by reporting directly to PSRC without amendments; • Defer revisions until the 5 -year update in 2001 -2002. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approving the proposed amendment to address Highways of Statewide Significance and levels of service as required by the State of Washington. t {•� ,... ;�;r�r ?� m:- a..c:• rya;:. ��;. �r. �.., a,: z .;:wc- ::,,:r.a�s€�n,.x�..'t�,4: CITY OF TUKWILA Department of Community Development 6300 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, WA 98188 Telephone: (206) 431 -3670 FAX (206) 431 -3665 E -mail: tukplan©ci.tukwila.wa.us Ai TACHMENT A - COMPREHENSIVE PLAN /ZONENG CODE AMENDrVrENTS APPLICATION NAME OF PROJECT/DEVELOPMENT: Revise Transportation = Element of Comprehensive PLan to include highways of statewide signi icance, concurrency etc..: as requirea oy i77o D • s L LtC C_owt`: Ufa- agnmerx &rr LOCATION OF PROJECT/DEVELOPMENT: Give street address or, if vacant, indicate lot(s), block and subdivision, access street, and nearest intersection. LIST ALL TAX LOT NUMBERS. ty —sai tl e Quarter: Section: Township: Range: (This information may be found on your tc= statement.) DEVELOPMENT COORDINATOR : The individual who: • has decision making authority on behalf of the applicant in meetings with City stag, • has full responsibility for identifying and satisfying all relevant and sometimes overlapping development standards, and • is the primary contact with the City, to whom all notices and reports will be sent. Rebecca Fox Name: Address: Tukwila Department of Community Development Phone: 206 - 431 -3683 Signature: �L FAX: 206 - 431 -3665 Date: Z W. ft UO to 0 J H c u- WO 2 LLQ tn� =d F- Z F- I- O Z U• � O N O I--° .W W' U ~O:. .Z: W U= O ~ Z FOR STAFF USE ONZY Sierra Type: 13LPAP -ZCA Planner: Rebecca Fox File Number. Application Complete (Date: ) Project File Number: Application Incomplete (Date: ) Other File Numbers: NAME OF PROJECT/DEVELOPMENT: Revise Transportation = Element of Comprehensive PLan to include highways of statewide signi icance, concurrency etc..: as requirea oy i77o D • s L LtC C_owt`: Ufa- agnmerx &rr LOCATION OF PROJECT/DEVELOPMENT: Give street address or, if vacant, indicate lot(s), block and subdivision, access street, and nearest intersection. LIST ALL TAX LOT NUMBERS. ty —sai tl e Quarter: Section: Township: Range: (This information may be found on your tc= statement.) DEVELOPMENT COORDINATOR : The individual who: • has decision making authority on behalf of the applicant in meetings with City stag, • has full responsibility for identifying and satisfying all relevant and sometimes overlapping development standards, and • is the primary contact with the City, to whom all notices and reports will be sent. Rebecca Fox Name: Address: Tukwila Department of Community Development Phone: 206 - 431 -3683 Signature: �L FAX: 206 - 431 -3665 Date: Z W. ft UO to 0 J H c u- WO 2 LLQ tn� =d F- Z F- I- O Z U• � O N O I--° .W W' U ~O:. .Z: W U= O ~ Z C:\My Documents \Comp Plan amd— transportation elcncncdoc I ' PROJECT PROPOSAL/BACKGROUND CONT'D H. Detailed description of proposal: Update the Transportation Background Report to include highways of statewide significance as required by 1998 changes to the Growth Management Act, and to meet other requirements for Comprehensive Plan recertification by the Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC). General description of surrounding land uses: Varies throughout city. IL IMPACTS OF PROPOSED CHANCE A. Adverse impacts of proposed change on surrounding properties: None anticipated. Non- conforming uses created: None. B. Impacts of proposed change on Comprehensive Plan policies, zoning regulations and City functional plans: This proposed amendment is likely to have some impact on the six —year Transportation Improvement Plan (TED). There could be changes in other functional plans. The zoning code remains unchanged. C. Impacts of proposed change on Capital Improvement Plan: Unknown at this time. Deficiencies in existing Plan /Code resolved by the proposal: 1998 changes to the Growth Management Act require that local jurisdictions, including Tukwila, incorporate an evaluation of the impacts of highways of statewide significance into the Transportation Elements of their Comprehensive Plan. D. Compliance of the proposal- with Growth Management Act: See III.A.4 below. E. Other issues presented by the proposed change: The proposed amendment will enable the City of Tukwila to begin its 5 -year update of the Comprehensive Plan by revising the Transportation Background Report and Transportation Element. Incorporating the impact of state highways into the Comprehensive Plan raises the question of how Tukwila will coordinate its transportation planning and capital improvements with the State and region. efj z 4-- w 6U 00 co U) J u) w' J LL j • a. � w Z Z t— O Z I— w w 0 O • —. 0 f-'. 111 1--- V. ti z` U= 0 z C:\My Documents \Comp Plan amd— C-snsportation elcmcnt.doc F. Alternatives to the proposed change: The City of Tukwila is required to include information about liighways of statewide significance in its Transportation element in order to have its Plan certified by the Puget Sound Regional Council. The alternative is to do nothing at this point, and instead hold discussions with the PSRC to demonstrate that this issue is already adequately covered and that Tukwila's Comprehensive Plan merits their agency's certification. III. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN /ZONING CODE AMENDMENT CRITERIA. A. COMPREHENSIVE PLAIN AivO NDrvtENT ('1'MC 18.80.010) 1. A detailed statement of what is proposed and why; The City of Tukwila proposes to revise the Transportation Element/Background Report portion of the Comprehensive Plan to comply with House Bill 1487 ( "Level of Service" Bill which amended the Growth Management Act: This is intended to clarify and distinguish local, regional and state responsibilities for monitoring transportation system performance and addressing system needs and deficiencies. This requires the City of Tukwila include additional detail regarding state -owned transportation facilities in the transportation element of its Comprehensive Plan. Tukwila will accomplish this by revising its Transportation Background Report . This will further be a first step in next year's major update of the Comprehensive Plan. 2.A statement of the anticipated impacts of the change, including the geographic area affected and the issues presented by the proposed change; A revised Transportation Element will reflect items required by the State, changed conditions since 1995 and Tukwila's priorities. Once the Transportation Background Report's content is determined, its specific impacts will be known. 3.An explanation of why the current comprehensive plan or development regulations are deficient or should not continue in effect; Tukwila's transportation policies are developed and supported through the Transportation Background Report. Revising the Background Report will provide needed information, and will•start the process for a major update of the Comprehensive Plan. 4.A statement of how the proposed amendment complies with and promotes the goals and specific requirements of the Growth Management Act; 1998 amendments to the Growth Management Act (RCW 36.70A.110 call for additional work in clarifying and distinguishing local, regional and state responsibilities for monitoring transportation system performance • and addressing system needs and deficiencies. 5.A statement of how the proposed amendment complies with applicable Countywide Planning Policies; C:\My Documents \Comp Plan amd— transportation clement.doc The proposed amendment complies with Countywide Planning Policies as follows: T -20: Consistent with the countywide vision, local governments shall coordinate with the State on land use and transportation systems and strategies which affect state facilities and programs 6. A statement of what changes, if any, would be required in functional plans (Le., the City's water, sewer, storm water or shoreline plans) if the proposed amendment is adopted; No changes are known at present. 7. A statement of what capital improvements, if any, would be needed to support the proposed change, and how the proposed change will affect the capital facilities plans of the City; No additional capital improvements have been identified. at present. 8. A statement of what other changes, if any, are required in other City codes, plans or regulations to implement the proposed change. No additional changes are known at present. ZONLNG AMENDMENT CRI'1'lRJA (TIM 18.84.030) z 6 JU 0: U 0 mow. ill J 1— • u_ w0 • a � _ z F.-, r0 z►— w uj ❑ 1—; wuj 1- Os .z 1. The use or change in zoning requested shall be in conformity v �. with the adopted Comprehensive Land Use Policy Plan, the provisions of this title, and the public interest; z Not applicable. 2. The use or change in zoning requested in the zoning rnap or this title for the establishment of commercial, industrial, or residential use shall be supported by an architectural site plan showing the proposed development and its relationship to surrounding areas as set forth in the application form. Not applicable. ATTACHMENT B To: Rebecca Fox From: Brian Shelton Subject: Transportation Update Date: September 20, 2000 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT UPDATE New Growth Management Act requirements for Transportation Elements The Washington State Legislature, in 1998, enacted the "Level of Service Bill" (House Bill 1487) which amended the Growth Management Act (GMA). The amendments to GMA are intended to clarify and distinguish local and State responsibilities for monitoring transportation system performance and addressing system needs and deficiencies. The amendments require local jurisdictions to include details regarding state -owned transportation facilities in the transportation element of comprehensive plans. The local plan must be amended by December 31, 2000 and reported to the Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC) for certification. The current transportation element includes some information regarding state -owned transportation facilities; i.e., estimated levels of service for Pacific Highway (SR99, Tukwila International Boulevard) and West Valley Highway (SR181), reference in the Functional Classification Map (Figure 1). The "Level of Service Bill" requires the transportation element to include certain additional information including inventory and level of service, traffic impacts and needs for state -owned transportation facilities. The transportation element needs to be revised by amending Policy 13.3.1 to reflect LOS D (mitigated) on State -owned transportation facilities and adding a new Policy 13.7.4 to provide that Highways of Statewide Significance are exempt from concurrency requirements of the Growth Management Act. Policy 13.3.1 should be deleted in entirety and replaced with the following: 13.3.1 Use the following LOS standards to guide City improvement and Development approval decisions: - The Tukwila Urban Center area LOS average is not to exceed E. - The East Marginal industrial and manufacturing corridor LOS average is not to exceed E. - The Interurban Avenue corridor LOS average is not to exceed E. - The Pacific Highway corridor LOS average is not to exceed D (mitigated). The West Valley Highway corridor LOS average is not to exceed D (mitigated). Southcenter Boulevard between Grady Way and Interstate 5 is not to exceed average LOS E. The Southcenter Parkway corridor south of South 180`h Street is not to exceed average LOS E without agreement with developers, including contractually scheduled capacity improvements. z W. J U. 00 CO o, w= J 1. The LOS of minor and collector arterials in predominantly residentrial w o Areas is not to exceed average LOS D for each specific arterial. 2 gQ - Residential access streets reaching a 1,000 vehicle per day volume will cn d Be studied to determine appropriate measures to reduce traffic to volumes. z �. I— 0 A new policy should be added to section 13.7 to read as follows: ILI al 13.7.4 Highways of Statewide Significance (HSS), which are I -5, I -405, and o N co SR 518 in Tukwila, are exempt from the concurrency requirements of w the Growth Management Act. 1- 0 — ~O wz 0 z BACKGROUND A. Transportation System The transportation element includes general discussion regarding all of the state -owned transportation facilities in Tukwila. The additional information needed for the transportation element covers inventory of facilities as provided in Table 1. The "Level of Service Bill" identified and declared that certain transportation facilities and services are of statewide significance. Those facilities and services include the following: 1. The interstate highway system 2. Interregional state principal arterials including ferry connections that serve statewide travel 3. Intercity passenger rail services 4. Intercity high -speed ground transportation 5. Major passenger intermodal terminals excluding all airport facilities and services 6. The freight railroad system 7. The Columbia/Snake navigable river system 8. Marine port facilities and services that are related solely to marine activities affecting international and interstate trade, and 9. High - capacity transportation systems serving regions as defined in RCW 81.104.015 B. Traffic Deficiencies Study A study to update the transportation element of the comprehensive plan is in progress with completion to occur in 2001. The study includes modeling of the transportation system to determine existing and forecast capacity and safety issues and to evaluate various improvement alternatives that will correct deficiencies. The current transportation element relies on a Traffic Deficiencies Study that was conducted in 1988 and 1989 to identify capacity and safety issues that existed and would occur by 2010. The network modeled in that study included all of the state -owned transportation facilities and the resultant levels of service are provided in Table 1. C. Functional Classification The current transportation element provides a Functional Classification Map for system network and includes state -owned transportation facilities referenced as freeways or principal arterials. The correct designations for those facilities are Urban Interstate, Urban Principal Arterial and Urban Other Principal Arterial as indicated in Table 1. The Functional Class Map will be revised in the transportation study update to reflect correct functional designations. LEVEL OF SERVICE STANDARDS E. State owned transportation facilities This is a new section to be added to the transportation element as required by the "Level of Service Bill ". The current adopted level of service for state highways in urban areas is LOS "D- mitigated" (mitigate congestion when peak period level of service falls below LOS D). The Washington state Department of Transportaion's 20 year plan for state highway capacity (mobility) improvements within the City of Tukwila are shown in Table 2. The current transportation element includes estimated impacts to LOS on Pacific Highway (Tukwila International Boulevard, SR99) and West Valley Highway (SR 181). The projected 2010 LOS for West Valley Highway meets standards through intersection or widening improvements that are completed or planned. The State's description of improvement for SR 181 in Table 2 is consistent with the impact and need identified in the transportation element. The projected 2010 LOS for Pacific Highway varies from LOS A to LOS F for the segment between SR 599 and South 152 "d Street. A traffic study for the design report for the Pacific Highway project was conducted in 1995 and the resultant projected 2020 LOS for the same highway segment varied from LOS B to LOS D. The findings of the 1995 study modify the impacts and needs identified in the current transpotation element for Pacific Highway. Martin Luther King Way (SR 900) was determined to meet LOS standards for 2010 projected traffic volumes. CONCURRENCY The City of Tukwila receives some mitigations for traffic impacts through concurrency as allowed by RCW 36.70A.070 and TMC 9.48. The "Level of Service Bill" amended The Growth Management Act to provide that the concurrency requirements of RCW 36.70A.070 do apply to transportation facilities and services of statewide significance, except for counties consisting of islands whose only connection to the mainland are state highways or ferry routes. ACRONYMS (Appendix B) The additional information required by the new legislation adds or requires the use of new terms which are explained below. ARM Actual Route Miles HSS Highways of Statewide Significance Non -HSS Regionally significant state highways HPMS Highway Performance Monitoring System AADT Average Annual Daily Traffic (for 365 day year) a�:;'ii_.ui::�::y�i r++�r' • .� :xr�txs: .. .... _...... _. �,+rrwten!Ha�� bilacai eAS'AC4 .tiYtitiui • z re w 6 00 w w =; J , w0 g Q. co 0• �w �=o zI-• w • 0 • .O �. `0 I-; Au mil 1--- wz. :0 ~1 z TABLE filto...,o•-: 1 :.Detignation. vigipc. (Arm). ; . ili-v.',•*1 Wcalt)-51; I. IP Jo iii,,Lenthrr.,. -.. i446'90.Pb.1 l'.;14Classl...'1.; ;1::1:,I.s.6,ifilp.4,-'0`..iiiAqi r-Non,HSI.: P..;111clasS.4:14! 1.4.y.:o..qlool '1! \ Speed* l''' i i ';',:. ..:1,alles1 . ".ii a : !: 411..P5IP,t0 4AA.QTA . liki 1 1 '.1 fray ,,,, tiL7AAP.T. I,: ,,,,, ::,2 • "1.1i. '',I 1 • $ ,,T.i.. 05 ' . --.4p:o.. - 1:, . ,,,, 7• t 1 A l:.'Y'''.1,-;(-)..S''','I',1: 1-5 152.45 158.24 0.22 Urban Interstate HSS Full limited access 60 8 to 10 172.000 200.00 F F . SR 99 17.02 19.32 2.30 Urban Other Principal Arterial Non-HSS Class 4 to SR599 Full limited access beyond 8R599 40 to 60 4 to 5 20.000 30.000 C D SR 99 19.33 20.53 1.20 Urban Other Principal Arterial Non-HSS Full |innitad access 40 to 60 4 to 5 30.000 45.000 D D SR 181 4.43 5.18 0.75 Urban Other Principal Arterial Non-HSS Class 3 40 to 50 4 to 6 25.000 28.000 O D 1-405 0.00 1.19 119 Urban Interstate HSS Full limited access 60 3 to 7 100.000 125.000 F F SR 518 2.12 3.42 1.30 Urban Principal Arterial HSS Full limited access 80 3 to 5 100.000 100.000 F F SR 599 0.00 1.75 1.75 Urban Principal Arterial Non-HSS Full limited access 60 2 to 5 33,000 45.800 D D SR 900 0.00 0.90 0.90 Urban Other Principal : Arterial Non-HSS Full limited access 50 4 30,845 33,000 D D 1 : ' _°---~-----'~'-' •~' 6 -J . 0 0� °� CO 111 0 g +m` � z� 0 11J ui F-� --� 0 t-� CI I--� LLI LI 0 z w co 0 1-� z TABLE 2 `I 6 0 0� 0 �CD LLI LIJ� COu uj 0� H ��k - F— I F LI 0 0 �� gC7� @�| /S�� 0��Q@O��U��;��D NHS �U�� NA�i� �8�O� �� 'bvo�ev� ' �4�� 6��e�t� �E��C�*��;� !�40o�SH�h�� ` '` �~m�' �C�0�0��! Northwest King 5 Y U 143.89 154x4 10.55 Mobility omenuv S. 320th to 1-405 Construct Core NOV lanes, truck climbing lane and SC&Dl from Pierce County line to Tukwila $oo.oeo.uouoo $ 152,750,000.00 scunmn Yes Northwest King 5 Y U 154.4* 167.19 12.75 Mobility no,exnv wosw Mercer St. Construct Core NOV lanes from Tukwila to Mercer St. scuo/ from Tukwila to Aibro $ 2,700,000.00 $ 3.104.910.00 smpin» Yes Northwest King 5 Y U 154x8 154.54 0.06 Mobility omexov . 1-5.1-405/nn5181/o Construct Freewa to Freeway Core lane NOV connection at sp5mn405/an518 interchange- NW quardrant (SB to WB) u39,1m\mm.00 $ 44,965,000.00 Scoping Yes GENERAL MOBILITY STRATEGIES THROUGH TUKWILA Northwest King 5 v U 139.56 154.21 14.65 • Mobility . Milton Vicinity to Southc nte, Study lane balance & interchange needs to determine mobility solution 10 growing congestion problem. $ 150.000.00 $ 195,000.00 Planning Yes Northwest King 181 . N U 3.39 6,05 2.66 Mobility Future S. 1oom St. mwos NFS-Study with Kent & Tukwila. 6 lane arterial with NOV lanes? Commuter rail per Regional Transit Plan. $xo.mm.ouo.00 $ 26,700,000.00 Planning Yes Northwest King 405 Y U 0.00 30.33 30.33 Mobility Backlog Southcenter to Swamp Creek ( Full Length of 1-405) wrs'wo»wajo, Investment Study $ 2,000,000.00 $ 2,600,000.00 Planning Yes Northwest King 405 Y U 0.00 30.33 Mobility Backlog Southcenter to Swamp Creek Full Length orwoo) woonaovvnamm ( Demand Management (TDM) Project $ 5,000,000.00 $ 6,500,000.00 Planning Yes Northwest King 518 Y U 0.00 3.42 3.42 Mobility Backlog unmumn5oyxcmm wpo'xov lanes u connections @ I'o//' 405 I/C or? Regional rail system $ 2,000,000.00 $ 67,600,000.00 Planning Yes `I 6 0 0� 0 �CD LLI LIJ� COu uj 0� H ��k - F— I F LI 0 0 CITY OF TUKWILA DETERMINATION OF NONSIGNIFICANCE (DNS) DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: 1999 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN & ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS PROPONENT: CiTY OF TUKWiLA LOCATION' OF PROPOSAL, INCLUDING STREET ADDRESS, IF ANY: •ADDRES'S : PARCEL �NO: •SEC: TWN!RNG THROUGHOUT CITY ATTACHMENT C LEAD. AGENCY: • CIT'( OF TUKWiLA FILE NO: E2000 -019 .The City has determined that the. proposal does not have a probable significant adverse impact on the environment. An environmental impact statement (EIS) ,is not required under RCW 43.21c.030(2)(c). This decision was made after review of a completed environmental checklist and other information on file with the lead agency. This information is available to the public on request. ' : k*: k: l•**• k: k*• k• k: k•. l: l•*• k: l' k: k: k• k:k:k **'k•.kk:l••k:k**:k***:k*: A..: k•.k: k• k•. k•. k*: k•. kA•• k• k•.k**'k:kk*:l••kk'kk:1:l•*•k•. **** P This determination . is final and signed thi's day of 200_0. St'ev 'LancastT. r, Responsible'fficial City t Tukwila; (206) 431-3670 .6300 Southcenter Boulevard ::Tukwila, WA: 9188 Copies of the. procedures for SEPA appeals are available with the Department of Community Development. •z • ' W_ • U UO w cn w; w =; • • W.Ot d, Hw • • ZO • law U w W: U I- 'LL • Z. w N_ City of Tukwila Steven M Mullet, Mayor Department of Community Development MEETING DATE: NOTIFICATION: FILE NUMBER: APPLICANT: REQUEST: LOCATION: STAFF REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL July 10, 2000 Steve Lancaster, Director Meeting notice published in Hazelnut, June 26, 2000 Meeting notice published in Seattle Times, July 1, 2000 L2000 -0038 Transportation Background Report Update Tukwila Public Works Department Revise the Comprehensive Plan for new Transportation Background Report Citywide COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Varies ZONE DESIGNATION: Varies ATTACHMENTS: A. Application L2000 -0038 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • Phone: 206 - 431 -3670 • Fax: 206- 431 -3665 z w • 6s. Jo. 00 • W= •u) ur: Li' 0. u. =d w X. z� �o Z ►- � o. ocf'' ww HU - O, ui z• FINDINGS VICINITY /SITE INFORMATION Project Description The City of Tukwila requests a Comprehensive Plan amendment to accommodate potential policy changes which may be needed as a result of updating the Plan's Transportation Background Report and Transportation Element to address additional elements required by 1998 amendments to the Growth Management Act. z =. z cc w 2 -JU 00 Surrounding Land Uses CO J i- ! LL w0 DISCUSSION g a Background Changes made to the Growth Management Act (GMA) in 1998 require jurisdictions such I as Tukwila which plan under GMA to include additional detail regarding state -owned z �. transportation facilities in the transportation element of their comprehensive plans. z O. Additional local transportation element requirements include: 1) an inventory of and w w level -of- service (LOS) standards for state -owned facilities in Tukwila; and, 2) an estimate n o of projected traffic impacts and needs on state highway facilities in Tukwila. p 1- The Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC) requires that changes to the Transportation = v Element be adopted by 12/31/00. These revisions will be integrated into the LL. F= Comprehensive Plan, and become part of the 5 -year Comprehensive Plan update which is z to be completed in 2002. v s z Various uses throughout city. THRESHOLD REVIEW CRITERIA Describe how the issue is addressed in the Comprehensive Plan. If the issue is not adequately addressed, is there a need for it? Transportation issues, including LOS are primarily covered in Chapter 13 of the Comprehensive Plan. Chapters 8, 9, 10, and 11 deal respectively with Transportation Corridors, Tukwila South, Tukwila Urban Center, and the Manufacturing/Industrial Center. Each includes policies affecting transportation in Tukwila. The proposed amendment would allow LOS standards and an estimate of traffic impacts and needs for state highway facilities (i.e. "Highways of Statewide Significance ") as required by the State. This information is not currently part of Tukwila's Comprehensive Plan. The proposed change would allow Tukwila to plan for transportation facilities (such as Interstate 5, Highway 405, SoundTransit light and commuter rail) that already, or are expected to, significantly affect transportation in the area. Preparing the information at this point, the proposed amendment will give the City a "head start" on transportation information for its Comprehensive Plan update. Impacts Is the proposed change the best means for meeting the identified public need? What other options are there for meeting the identified public need? The proposed change will enable Tukwila to comply with statewide requirements as expressed in legislation amending the GMA and in requirements for Comprehensive Plan certification from the Puget Sound Regional Council. Other possible options would be to: • Evaluate the extent to which Tukwila is already in compliance with the new requirements and prepare a report directly to the PSRC in order to receive GMA certification, or ; • Revise information about essential public facilities, since "statewide facilities of statewide significance" are considered "essential public facilities" as defined by the GMA. Will the proposed change result in a net benefit to the community? If not, what type of benefit can be expected and why? The proposed change could result in a net benefit to the community by providing a better assessment of traffic conditions and expectations for future improvements. The proposed change will promote planning efforts that are better integrated with the State and other local jurisdictions, with effective public improvements and more efficient traffic flow. Including highways of statewide significance in planning efforts will ensure that these facilities are included in financial and capital improvement planning. CONCLUSIONS Amending the Comprehensive Plan Transportation Background Report and associated policies to include impacts of highways of state -wide significance will ensure that Tukwila's Plan complies with statewide requirements. Accomplishing this will improve coordination among local, regional and state -wide transportation planning processes, and ultimately enhance the local transportation system. Alternatives for Action The City Council's threshold alternatives include the following: • Refer the proposal as is to the Planning Commission for further review; • Modify the proposal and refer to the Planning Commission for further review • Defer consideration until a later time; • Reject the proposal. If the proposal is referred to the Planning Commission, the Planning Commission could; • Recommend approval; • Modify the proposal; • Recommend denial. CITY OF TUKWILA Department of Community Development 6300 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, WA 98188 Telephone: (206) 431 -3670 FAX (206) 431 -3665 E -mail: tukplanQaci.tukwila.wa.us AT 4'ACHMENT A - COMPREHENSIVE PLAN /ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS APPLICATION NAME OF PROJECT/DEVELOPMENT: Revise TransportationEElement of Comprehensive PLan to include highways of statewide significance, concurrency etc..: as required by 1998 revisions to the Wd5h1116 uu Growth Managatuvnt Act LOCATION OF PROJECT/DEVELOPMENT: Give street address or, if vacant, indicate lot(s), block and subdivision, access street, and nearest intersection. LIST ALL TAX LOT NUMBERS. ri ty —wi cne Quarter. Section: Township: Range: (This information may be found on your tax statement.) DEVELOPMENT COORDINATOR : The individual who: • has decision making authority on behalf of the applicant in meetings with City staff, • has full responsibility for identifying and satisfying all relevant and sometimes overlapping development standards, and • is the primary contact with the City, to whom all notices and reports will be sent. Rebecca Fox Name: Address: Tukwila Department of Community Development Phone: 206 -431 -3683 FAX 206- 431 -3665 Signature: /� 3ciG"-- /1) G. APPHAMLANDUSE.APPlCOMPAPP.doe. 06/16/00 Date: FOR STAFF USE ONLY Sierra Type: P- CPA/P -ZCA Planner: Rebecca Fox File Number: e s e e Application Complete (Date: ) Project File Number: Application Incomplete (Date: ) Other File Numbers: NAME OF PROJECT/DEVELOPMENT: Revise TransportationEElement of Comprehensive PLan to include highways of statewide significance, concurrency etc..: as required by 1998 revisions to the Wd5h1116 uu Growth Managatuvnt Act LOCATION OF PROJECT/DEVELOPMENT: Give street address or, if vacant, indicate lot(s), block and subdivision, access street, and nearest intersection. LIST ALL TAX LOT NUMBERS. ri ty —wi cne Quarter. Section: Township: Range: (This information may be found on your tax statement.) DEVELOPMENT COORDINATOR : The individual who: • has decision making authority on behalf of the applicant in meetings with City staff, • has full responsibility for identifying and satisfying all relevant and sometimes overlapping development standards, and • is the primary contact with the City, to whom all notices and reports will be sent. Rebecca Fox Name: Address: Tukwila Department of Community Development Phone: 206 -431 -3683 FAX 206- 431 -3665 Signature: /� 3ciG"-- /1) G. APPHAMLANDUSE.APPlCOMPAPP.doe. 06/16/00 Date: C:\My Documents \Comp Plan amdL ..nsportation element.doc I. PROJECT PROPOSAL /BACKGROUND CONT'D H. Detailed description of proposal: Update the Transportation Background Report to include highways of statewide significance as required by 1998 changes to the Growth Management Act, and to meet other requirements for Comprehensive Plan recertification by the Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC). General description of surrounding land uses: Varies throughout city. II. IMPACTS OF PROPOSED CHANGE A. Adverse impacts of proposed change on surrounding properties: None anticipated. Non - conforming uses created: None. B. Impacts of proposed change on Comprehensive Plan policies, zoning regulations and City functional plans: This proposed amendment is likely to have some impact on the six —year Transportation Improvement Plan (TIP). There could be changes in other functional plans. The zoning code remains unchanged. C. Impacts of proposed change on Capital Improvement Plan: Unknown at this time. Deficiencies in existing Plan /Code resolved by the proposal: 1998 changes to the Growth Management Act require that local jurisdictions, including Tukwila, incorporate an evaluation of the impacts of highways of statewide significance into the Transportation Elements of their Comprehensive Plan. D. Compliance of the proposal with Growth Management Act: See III.A.4 below. E. Other issues presented by the proposed change: The proposed amendment will enable the City of Tukwila to begin its 5 -year update of the Comprehensive Plan by revising the Transportation Background Report and Transportation Element. Incorporating the impact of state highways into the Comprehensive Plan raises the question of how Tukwila will coordinate its transportation planning and capital improvements with the State and region. z ~w• . 6 J0 O 0 U) o: 111 = J 1— w0 tL Q = c� 1--w z� l— 0 Z l— w U• � O N OI-- w w. u" O' N U = 0 H. z C:\My Documents \Comp Plan amo- dansportation element.doc F. Alternatives to the proposed change: The City of Tukwila is required to include information about highways of statewide significance in its Transportation element in order to have its Plan certified by the Puget Sound Regional Council. The alternative is to do nothing at this point, and instead hold discussions with the PSRC to demonstrate that this issue is already adequately covered and that Tukwila's Comprehensive Plan merits their agency's certification. III. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN /ZONING CODE AMENDMENT CRITERIA A. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT (TMC 18.80.010) 1. A detailed statement of what is proposed and why; The City of Tukwila proposes to revise the Transportation Element/Background Report portion of the Comprehensive Plan to comply with House Bill 1487 ( "Level of Service" Bill which amended the Growth Management Act. This is intended to clarify and distinguish local, regional and state responsibilities for monitoring transportation system performance and addressing system needs and deficiencies. This requires the City of Tukwila include additional detail regarding state -owned transportation facilities in the transportation element of its Comprehensive Plan. Tukwila will accomplish this by revising its Transportation Background Report . This will further be a first step in next year's major update of the Comprehensive Plan. 2.A statement of the anticipated impacts of the change, including the geographic area affected and the issues presented by the proposed change; 'A revised Transportation Element will reflect items required by the State, changed conditions since 1995 and Tukwila's priorities. Once the Transportation Background Report's content is determined, its specific impacts will be known. 3.An explanation of why the current comprehensive plan or development regulations are deficient or should not continue in effect; Tukwila's transportation policies are developed and supported through the Transportation Background Report. Revising the Background Report will provide needed information, and will start the process for a major update of the Comprehensive Plan. 4.A statement of how the proposed amendment complies with and promotes the goals and specific requirements of the Growth Management Act; 1998 amendments to the Growth Management Act (RCW 36.70A.110 call for additional work in clarifying and distinguishing local, regional and state responsibilities for monitoring transportation system performance and addressing system needs and deficiencies. 5.A statement of how the proposed amendment complies with applicable Countywide Planning Policies; d.ignMMt.�n:V C:\My Documents \Comp Plan amd— ...,nsportation element.doc The proposed amendment complies with Countywide Planning Policies as follows: T -20: Consistent with the countywide vision, local governments shall coordinate with the State on land use and transportation systems and strategies which affect state facilities and programs. 6. A statement of what changes, if any, would be required in functional plans (i.e., the City's water, sewer, storm water or shoreline plans) if the proposed amendment is adopted; No changes are known at present. 7. A statement of what capital improvements, if any, would be needed to support the proposed change, and how the proposed change will affect the capital facilities plans of the City; No additional capital improvements have been identified at present. 8. A statement of what other changes, if any, are required in other City codes, plans or regulations to implement the proposed change. No additional changes are known at present. ZONING AMENDMENT CRITERIA (TMC 18.84.030) 1. The use or change in zoning requested shall be in conformity with the adopted Comprehensive Land Use Policy Plan, the provisions of this title, and the public interest; Not applicable. 2. The use or change in zoning requested in the zoning map or this title for the establishment of commercial, industrial, or residential use shall be supported by an architectural site plan showing the proposed development and its relationship to surrounding areas as set forth in the application form. Not applicable. s.L_sei:rrad:.tzbva:+di:: '' +'Fe�i2 sdn.SSSwIin:;iti� =i:�:+. •r•�•,:-"'• "�.,:. ,:: • <,• :. :.:.....::...:::�dt.h:s;n•..,k ac'rti:eri+id :$:ii• 7%46'. �. • •4iPt• N 0 anal v �`t a1 0 E ._.e Ql V 0 0 c 11. E Q1 � CS • Collaborative process for setting LOS. • Fall 1998 - Draft resource documents. O v X) -0 .0 'a -1 U /,^ cfc O v� /G V. Li) ti~ a, O 0)i w 3 0 ril ..47-1 = V O_ .,u� 0. bA� v V V _ us C• b F. •� (I1 V w p c; cn a) .r~ O O w w f. •.� N Li cD vii 0 r Ot N v bnA O O CZ cn V 1. O V N O C• ¢., O r 'l5 O • Li .. �• 0 n`� v 70_, bA O vv C1. v v b�A ,_, c bA m • • • • • • Define stakeholders process. • • Identify issues and concerns. Draft guidance materials. • • Stakeholders meetings. Winter 1999 - Draft guidance completed. • 75 as CD °' v • u 0 bA bA u V 0 • O o Q O0 rn O' cn cri • Tom' E 1) • ® w • = 0) 0) C J C •E 0 ® c u ig. For more infor Additional contact information: !t (1998 Legislative HB 1487 - "Level of Service Bill ") • • 0) O 0 c.� 0 0 • 0) c•i!) t, e. Q 0 U c O U (75 a) w -4-- a N O 4) U a) D O m U 0 O :0 O Q 0 O d c a a O w i n z � i j y -x� 3 ...1h ' ^pix T � 1 WSDOT-TPO bD • GH O M C l rn cn in in • X ¢ o 0 r [n tv H _ o O v Q a O E- 0 • ?, Fax: (360) 705 -6813 CTED Growth. Management Pr 0 O 1-. 0. a, G u w O tar) ▪ • G r O 0 Ca cZ CD 18 • v) G 2 bD al �. �wt�bv' P''3 }7F_e'7P^.,�nn47P`GVZ.f!•si azc....en..z..M1'i*t'(�•4[Nd.W, ASK! 4#){ c' iRF` b�YNw+ tYMb >11�1Y:: ?��+9Q'.NR,.],p.+'�xw .......r;+< -:. I`. ^.: S',:A:�'M- �' t..;. bxi^vrt, ,1w 0) t li p, cn r O .G, �+ r Cr., En o G !�• G O G C 'G u n 0 y r; rr, ¢, '� • � III (I) O -" (a % 7� 0 G u bn '� ¢„ r n n U O U O > r G_ 8 �+ 0 v p 'r b _O O- G •v 0 0 tn •.r'. w 7. , tri G •. '�" r i° ' U G -0 o ( ca' r •.+.. : Z W 6 JU 00 (f)U -i• _ F- U) W w0 u..Q w Z= F-0 Z F- w • W on O N O E- ww 0 O Z U= O~ Z Coordinating Transportation and Growth Management Planning 1998 Legislation: HB 1487 - Level of Service Bill Implementation Guidance Published by Washington State Department of Transportation Planning and Programming Service Center Transportation Planning Office Transportation Building P.O. Box 47370 Olympia, Washington 98504 -7340 (3(cp) 705 -7962 Coordinating Transportation and Growth Management Planning Guidance Development and Stakeholders Process Acknowledgments: LOS Stakeholders advisory committee Diane Carlson Association of Washington Cities Pati Otley Burlington Northern and Santa Fe Brad Collins City of Port Angeles/ Peninsula RTPO Sandra Meyer City of Renton Nick Afzali City of Renton Lee Haroo City of Renton Virginia Gunby 1000 Friends of Washington Sam Wentz County Road Administration Board Phil Bakke Island County Planning Vince Moore Island County Planning Department Mike Morton Island County Public Works Klara Fabry Jefferson County Public Works Ashley Probart Legislative Transportation Committee Jon Manton N.E.W. RTPO Richard Watson Northwest Motorcoach Association Richard A. Rolland Northwest Tribal Assistance Program Bill Brannan Northwestern Trailways Sid Stecker Palouse RTPO Jesse Hamashima Pierce County Public Works Pete Butkus Public Works Board King Cushman Puget Sound Regional Council Kevin Murphy Puget Sound Regional Council Karen Richter Puget Sound Regional Council Perry Weinberg RTA - Sound Transit Laura Arnold San Juan County Planning Department Dean Lookingbill Southwest Washington RTC Bill Bennett Spokane Regional Transportation Council Glenn Miles Spokane Regional Transportation Council Eric Tweit Seattle - Strategic Planning Office Harold Robertson Thurston Regional Planning Council Omar Mehyar Transportation Improvement Board Scott Taylor Washington Public Ports Association Dan Snow Washington State Transit Association Kim Becklund Washington Transportation Alliance Gordon Rogers Whatcom County Conference of Governments Lon Wyrick Yakima Valley Conference of Governments Steve Schulte Clark County continued Project Manager WSDOT Planning & Programming Service Center Transportation Planning Office Eric C. Phillips, AICP Project Management Team WSDOT P&PSC, Transportation Planning Office Charlie Howard, Manager CTED Growth Management Program Shane Hope, Manager Project Support Staff Todd Carlson, Regional Planning Branch Manager WSDOT P &PSC, Transportation Planning Office Holly Gadbaw, Senior Planner CTED Growth Management Program Hal Hart, Senior Planner CTED Growth Management Program WSDOT Modal and Regional Participation Paula Reeves Commute Trip Reduction Dave Bierschbach North Central Region Thomas A. Noyes Northwest Region Jerry Schutz Northwest Region Alan Harger Office of Freight Mobility Bob Jones Olympic Region Valerie Rodman Public Transportation and Rail Renee Zimmerman Rail Division Mary Legry Southwest Region Mark Rohwer Eastern Region Bob Josephson Northwest Region Chris Picard Office of Urban Mobility Jim Slakey Public Transportation and Rail Division Vicki Steigner Olympic Region Troy Suing South Central Region Ray Deardorf Washington State Ferries gKftliWl #�iFS4CJ.�Y4 Table of Contents Part 1: Executive Summary 1 Part 2: Legislative Background and Implementation Guidance 3 History of Legislation 3 Transportation and Growth Management Planning Law Changes 3 Summary of New requirements 5 Implementation Guidance 6 Part 3: New Planning Requirements: "Coordinating Transportation and Growth Management Planning" 9 Planning Deadlines 10 New Transportation Element Requirements (RCW 36.70A.070) 10 GMA Transportation Element 10 New Subelement Requirement 11 Inventory Requirement 12 Level of Service Standards 12 Concurrency Requirement 14 County Wide Planning Policies 16 Part 4: Transportation Facilities and Services of Statewide Significance 17 Background 17 Highways of State -wide Significance 18 HSS, GMA (RCW 36.70A), and RTPOs (RCW 47.80) 19 Other Transportation Facilities of State -wide Significance 19 Essential Public Facilities and Essential State Public Facilities 21 Part 5: The RTPO /MPO Planning Process 23 Part 6: Data for State -owned Transportation Facilities 25 Appendix A: Technical Resources Available WSDOT Contacts Al CTED Contacts A3 RTPO /MPO Planning Contacts AS References /Resource Materials A9 Appendix B: Highways of Statewide Significance List of Routes B1 Criteria for HSS Designation B2 HSS Maps B3 Appendix C: HB 1487 - 1998 Legislation Full Copy of HB 1487 C2 Part 1: Executive Summary Dwring the 1998 session the Washington State Legislature passed HB 1487, relating to transportation and growth management planning in Washington. House Bill 1487, also been known as the "Level of Service Bill ", was passed to enhance the identification and coordinated planning for major transportation facilities identified as "transportation facilities and services of statewide significance" (RCW 47.06.140). For these facilities the new legislation identifies specific Growth Management Act (GMA) planning requirements for local jurisdictions, clarifies that the state establishes the level of service, and changes the application of concurrency. The intent of the legislation is to enhance the coordination of planning efforts and plan consistency at the local, regional, and state level. This legislation requires jurisdictions planning under the GMA to update the transportation elements of local comprehensive plans to be in compliance by December 31, 2000. This legislation recognizes the importance of specific transportation facilities and services that are of statewide importance, from a state planning and programming perspective. In addition, these facilities are to be reflected within the local plan along with measures for monitoring in order to promote consistency among local, regional, and state transportation plans, including financial plans. The 1998 legislation, identified as Chapter 171, laws of 1998, amended several laws including the GMA (RCW 36.70A); Priority Programming for Highways (RCW 47.05); Statewide Transportation Planning (RCW 47.06); and Regional Transportation Planning Organizations (RCW 47.80). Developing guidance for this new legislation is part of the implementation process. The approach for guidance includes a description of the legislation's background and requirements, recommendations for implementing them, and identification of implementation resources and assistance. Another component of this approach is the development of a coordinated statewide transportation planning process that includes affected stakeholders. This guidance is not designed to answer all questions, rather, it addresses the key components and basic requirements of the legislation and makes suggestions on how to approach what needs to be done at the local level. An important item to consider is that many key issues required to be addressed by this legislation are process issues that will be addressed during the ongoing planning discussions within the Regional Transportation Planning Organizations (RTPOs), or as a component of the statewide transportation plan (RCW 47.06). Finally, this guidance should be considered an evolving product. For more information regarding Washington's Transportation Plan update, visit the WTPzvebsite at: www.wsdot.wa.gov/wtp/. tr. R .eco • . ize = im •`o dike s • - cific 'trans` -facilitiesfan ervices r h'cifi are'o =state Y 1 • e r a Coordinating Transportation and Growth management Planning Coordinating Transportation and Growth Management Planning Part 2: Legislative Background and Implementation Guidance History of Legislation The 1998 legislation has an eight year history that began when the Growth Management Act (GMA) was passed into law in 1990. When enacted, the GMA did not address a number of transportation related issues for a variety of reasons. In particular, there was much discussion on how state transportation facilities would be treated in local comprehensive plans, how level of service standards would be set on state facilities, and how concurrency requirements would be applied to state facilities with regard to the GMA. For many reasons the GMA was silent on many key issues. In 1994 the Legislative Transportation Committee (LTC) directed a coordinated comprehensive study on the appropriate relationship between state transportation facilities and local comprehensive plans and addressed many of the GMA gaps related to these issues. The study was guided by a legislative and multi- jurisdictional steering committee and was known as the Level of Service (LOS) study. Between May 1994 and January 1995, the steering committee, along with a technical committee comprised of staff from the LTC, Association of Washington Cities, Washington State Association of Counties, Washington State Department of Transportation, and a consultant team, conducted the study. There was general agreement on a number of broad policy issues. However, the recommendations that were provided in the report' were based on extensive review and discussion but did not represent consensus by the committee. Through coordination and additional efforts, legislation (HB 1487) was drafted to address many of the issues and recommendations identified in the LTC study, including transportation facilities determined to be "significant” from a statewide perspective. The facilities identified under the legislation (RCW 47.06.140) also include transportation facilities and services that may not be owned by the state, such as the "freight railroad system". Transportation and Growth Management Planning Law Changes HB 1487, as passed by the 1998 Legislature, amended several RCWs relating to transportation and growth management planning including: • RCW 36.70A • RCW 47.05 • RCW 47.06 • RCW 47.80 Growth Management Act Priority Programming for Highways Statewide Transportation Planning Regional Transportation Planning Organizations 1 Study of the Relationship Between State -Owned or Operated Transportation Facilities and Local Comprehensive Plans. Final Report. Washington State Legislature LTC, February 1995. coordnating Transportation and Growth Management ?,onning . .� ;ct? fir:'[: C ,•intmr }CK�n✓t.?�.%iS•d'ii�!1R7 kN T.4,.ti^� �. i it 'flee'''. ;.r' - � z rx :1:_. 'i •:Efs:.:114,7:S%-"..sk,i ttir ` s 4 r v „tF x:•t - mo?r t 1,; • • F r� In.i a>.. 7 — t; ri`�'..rr�' ,iiiiii <h' 75 _ :_ ,c4,^z -eii. ..a_�7' w -, id'''‘.-43-13' Py i t'�y�y?l f at-4,. :': y Y • L' ,r_ ,` kl}tLIV Y; }B,7 f% y i r i.' • ! - " e: zt—t n. T:.... , ! 0. +ti : . as'passed - . �F.t ., f. :-..4.40,.. . he 1998 ': . 0 ILegisicattre;amended - • s 'several., - eWse aat ii . n i�}Y:- /1TNiJS.oF� lo ansportation and 'e ttF rn i'' ' b 'a igrowthEranag em a nt 1- ..-y4.6,rvi .l,.w. ti .— .:t.M}+" 'Warm' g ' .L , y� -" _•1 . , a x i i ' — 'P r, „,,„, „ �i(i.z`•, 4 •41.4 '�^.4.' C,=Y qdi ,11.;`„!:. .s..� .xi.cktt r'�si.2; .: ,•t�z ' -x��'t A `- .2s. S.ta::!� ,`.•'..1- :V.:4' • 'L'= . rs ,•:t•a,ii1 t?--., :fstr -.... „Li -7 ur :: z. o.,7- :..cr' '•�.r. ,::fN -1•4--ti-r4 4 Y'SC t•7Li�M,,%i;w.1.i' ,' - :• � r” CCU. r it i .4 cr�F..s: y K.�:YES;? • -4 .7�y :.L' �. �� .� ,r• F.. .. ... :: 'sytre, 4;��.L ��..Tr.K- �: :�1.3.�.: C�C'a; rY2Y ~-- i.•`:. {.'Ki'�r...Xl'[li j i;�e ransportation S ti =f� c°ilificin (of• s atewid =r signiffcancte�- fdeclare"d essential axl e°-,-- :sue � - aster: R..... p.ubl lic faciIitie� un� lttie9GM'A: Several sections of the GMA (RCW 36.70A) were amended. In general, the amendments are related to the requirements for each jurisdiction's comprehensive plan transportation element, the county -wide planning process for identification and siting of essential public facilities, plan consistency, and the adoption deadlines established to meet'the new requirements. The transportation element shall now include state -owned transportation facilities in the transportation inventory, a new subelement that includes estimates of the impacts to state -owned facilities resulting from land use assumptions, and the LOS for state - owned transportation facilities. The concurrency requirements of the GMA do not apply to highways of statewide significance, except in island counties. In addition, the legislation amended Priority Programming for Highways and Functional Classification (RCW 47.05) to include a process for designation of highways of statewide significance by the Transportation Commission, including adoption by the Legislature. Additionally, the Commission is directed to give higher priority for correcting deficiencies on facilities defined as statewide significant. These facilities are identified in RCW 47.06.140, Statewide Transportation Planning, in a new section, which identifies certain transportation facilities and services to be of statewide significance and establishes who sets level of service for these facilities. Transportation facilities and services of statewide significance are declared essential public facilities under the GMA. The required county- wide planning policies for siting essential public facilities must include these facilities. The new legislation emphasizes the requirement for local plans to be consistent with the statewide plan with regard to identified needs. The process for review of methodologies and development of alternative transportation performance measures under RCW 47.80 (Regional Transportation Planning Organizations or RTPO) is also added with regard to transportation facilities and services of statewide significance, including highways of statewide significance (HSS), and other state highways and ferry routes. In summary, the new legislation creates a strong tie between the local transportation plan requirements under the GMA and the state's enhanced role in the RTPO process for designating LOS on state -owned facilities, and recognizes the importance of certain facilities as being of statewide significance. This includes provisions for consistency with Washington's Transportation Plan (WIT, currently being updated), the regional plans, related (local, regional, and state) financial plans, and funding priorities for transportation facilities and services of statewide significance, as identified by the Transportation Commission. A table is provided to identify changes related to specific sections of the legislation as adopted2. Additional reference is provided in the table regarding related state rules and regulations, and a summary of requirements. T For additional information please refer to HB 1487 Section by Section Review, WSDOT Transportation Planning Office, September 1998. Coordinating Transportation and Growth Management Planning Table 1 - Summary of Regulatory Changes Section HB 1487 What's Amended General Description Other related Rules & Re•ulations Summary Re•uirements il., Y:,; ,-'`" ,. 'C" • ri -.: I' �'�,r.'-: =:� Vie';? •:.= 5 ; �; - — • 1 R W 36.70A.040 (GMA) W o must p an - Summary requirements - Development regulations must implement comprehensive plans. RC.W 47.80 RTP s, WA 365 - 195 -510 Concurrency, WAC 173 -420 -080 Transportation Plan Conformity. Date ot comp lance tor comprehensive plans to include new requirements established (December 31, 2000). 2 RCW 36.70A.070 (GMA) ompre ensive p ans - Mandatory Elements. Transportation Element Requirements. R 47.80 'TPSs, R 47.06 State Transportation Plan, WAC 365 -195 -325 Transportation Elements, WAC 468 -86 -150 Certification. A• •s transportation element requirements (WAC rule or procedural criteria). 'r _: it ;:: •••:r. ' ... i;4:1..:,.... . ,< :• 3 R 36.70A.200 (GMA) iting o essentia pu. is facilities. OFM maintained list of essential public facilities shall include prioritized CTanned projects by the ommission. R W 47.06.140 Transportation facilities and services of statewide significance - Level of Service, WAC 365- 195 -070 Inter•retations. Inc uses transportation facilities and services of statewide significance as essential pu b public facilities. -�``', y ',s ; •, • k"4. 4 ^ 36.70A.210 (GMA) ounty-wi• e ' arming Policies. ^A 242 -12 -220 etition for review - time for filing, WAC 365 - 195 -765 State Agency Compliance, WAC 468 -86 -150 Certification. equires ounty-wi• e Planning Policies to reflect transportation facilities of statewide significance. 3fi -.4. :vfi ,at i•• RCW 47.05.021 (Priority Programming for Highways) Functional Classification ot Highways. RCW 47.06.140 Transportation facilities and services of statewide significance -LOS. Transportation Commission to designate HSS. List adopted by WSTC and sent to Legislature. .. ". - L L. .,.- -.7..z. •.. y.g: r r .'`. ri' • 6 RCW 47.05.030 (Priority Programming for Highways) Six -year programs - Investments, Improvements, Preservation. RCW 47.06.140 Transportation facilities and services of statewide significance- -LOS. HSS reelected in WSDOT priority formula. Defines transportation'? facilities and services of statewide significance,.rs_ declares identified improvements to these facilities as essential state` public facilities under GMA, and establishes a process for setting LOS for HSS. cy gt' RCW 47.06.140 Statewide Transportation Planning Transportation facilities and services of statewide significance - Level of Service Standards for HSS set by WSDOT, statewide planning process leads to essential state public facility listings. RCW 36.70A.200 GMA - Siting of Essential Public Facilities, RCW 81.104.015 High Capacity Transportation Systems. ..r -- ,M,•,..: L ,.ti -g, , = . ra^A- ; 461. .; : a 't ,k?`t ",.. 8 RCW 47.80.023 (Regional Transportation Planning) Identity process within the WTP update and existing RTPO process for establishing LOS methodologies and performance measures. oordinate approach with Coordinate required plan elements, such as concurrency and financing. RCW 47.80 RTPOs, 1'tCW 36.70A GMA, RCW 35.58 Public Transportation TIPS, RCW 35.77.010, RCW 36.81 programming, WAC 365- 195 -325 Transportation Element,+kY'1. WAC 479- 113 -010 Six year programs for transportation improvement account projects. Affirms RTPO role and responsibility in developing LOS methodologies and performance measures. - • :� ,F i ,' *� �ly �;�;,a,4 ; :i:-;.:: *_ ; ff .: • F: it.: ,l... ,, •P:; �-.,7- -t ' • k„ �..•r ;: F;: =�;.:; �C�i�1:�..� 9 RCW 47.80.030 (Regional Transportation Planning Organizations) Regional transportation planning RTPO 's set LOS on state highways which are not HSS in coordination with WSDOT. RCW 47.06.140 Transportation facilities and services of statewide significance - Level of Service, WAC 365- 195 -510 Concurrency, WAC 173- 420 -080 Transportation Plan Conformity, WAC 365 - 195 -325 Transportation Element. Affirms and clarifies RTPO responsibility to establish LOS on regional highways (State -owned transportation facilities not designated as HSS). 1{ ` (J`,r� •^'F•y�:i.1 1�.'!vi: .it`d )' l: � ...vi:CC..�.::if,;'..f ::..; J':f i.:l �.It; � ".., n„ �t !'ilh.i+4fi3i}Si!d•�w2.t47�iiN' Coordinating Transportation and Growth Management Planning Summary of. New GMA and Transportation Planning Requirements The requirements of the amended legislation that must be implemented can be divided into two broad areas. The first area relates to the need to address and include specific items within the transportation element of a locally adopted GMA comprehensive plan. An example of this includes the requirements to include state -owned transportation facilities in the transportation facility inventory (RCW 36.70A.070). The second is a much broader challenge, which is to make existing processes work more effectively in order to coordinate the overall transportation planning efforts locally, regionally, and statewide. It is important to note that many stakeholders who contributed in the development of this guidance recognized that in many instances local plans may already comply with some of the new planning requirements of the 1998 legislation. Implementation Guidance There is no direct requirement for the WSDOT and the Washington State Department of Community, Trade and Economic Development (CTED) to develop implementation guidance for the 1998 changes to the GMA and related transportation planning laws. Coordinating this effort, however, is essential in confirming the state's understanding that many of the issues related to this legislation are not without concern and /or potential conflict from a local jurisdictional perspective. In July of 1998 a coordinated effort was established involving the WSDOT and CTED to address: • An agency implementation plan for the legislation; • A process for developing guidance; and, • A process for ongoing coordination to meet the intent of the legislation, recognize the relationship to local plans, and incorporate Washington's Transportation Plan. Successful implementation of the legislation is a coordinated responsibility between the appropriate state agencies and the affected stakeholders. As a result of agency discussion and coordination, a stakeholders group, comprised of agency staff and affected interests, was formed in the fall of 1998 to provide input into the guidance drafting process. The stakeholders process was established as a way of including affected groups that have a significant interest in the outcome of the overall implementation process. The role of the stakeholders group was established to act as a "conduit" to WSDOT and CTED during development and review of implementation guidance. The development of the stakeholders process was an important component of this guidance process. Equally important is the continued and ongoing process of coordination between state agencies and the regional and local jurisdictions responsible for transportation planning in Washington. Coordinating Transportation and Growth Management Planning Coordinating Transportation and Growth Management Planning 13 The next section deals with the specific requirements mandated by the new legislation and includes, where appropriate, a discussion of process issues as related to changes in transportation and growth management planning law. -- ----___. -... _.. _. -.._ .. SCI' SM.+ �WrX 'ffitMR!°s+sw+a*rw.+nM.arno�,.k.N Here's what-we iteeZZt0 do" 10 Coordinating Transportation and Growth Management Planning Part 3: New Planning Requirements Coordinating Transportation and Growth Management Planning: Background he purpose of this section is to identify the recent transportation planning changes in the Growth Management Act (GMA) that must be addressed by local jurisdictions. Specifically, this section discusses the changes to the transportation element requirements of the GMA and identifies other planning issues under the GMA, as well as data and inventory needs, and consistency issues between local, regional, and state plans that must be included in required comprehensive plan updates. Requirements for implementation are provided, and where appropriate process issues discussed. The GMA (RCW 36.70A) was enacted in 1990 and has been amended over the past eight years. When first passed in 1990, the Legislature recognized that uncoordinated and unplanned growth posed a threat to the overall quality of life in Washington state. To address this threat, the Legislature established planning goals to guide the development of comprehensive plans by local jurisdictions required to plan under the GMA. The GMA is recognized as a "bottoms up" planning mandate, addressing the need to reflect local preferences, to improve the ability to coordinate planning processes locally and regionally, and to involve citizens. The overall planning goals of the GMA specifically identify transportation and the need to: "Encourage efficient multimodal transportation systems that are based on regional priorities and coordinated with county and city comprehensive plans" (RCW 36.70A.020). The goals further identify the importance of transportation facilities as public facilities identifying the need to: "Ensure that those public facilities and services necessary to support development shall be adequate to serve the development at the time the development is available for occupancy and use without decreasing current service levels below locally established minimum standards" (RCW 36.70A.020). The definition of "public facilities" under the GMA includes streets, roads, highways, sidewalks, street and road lighting systems, traffic signals, domestic water systems, storm and sanitary sewer systems, parks and recreational facilities, and schools. From a transportation planning perspective the GMA substantially changed and enhanced the linkage between land use and transportation planning. This linkage, consistent with the GMA planning goals, has ea p, r 6 .*fe�.-f✓ .iii f. 'i:17r- 1`.Y -7- i :ui y �, , K5 J .. -W -. i`q r.' "rte "?7• ' e... 4 t may •�;G,•.a•.ci + %'ul.....'..�.i ,.r �,��: t.....;+,n.t . ✓: !t`a .+r .•. r • t it;i1174-: -t , _v:7 L.. ill . ,.�y .�.•j . �' i tNTF =1�5 `ir � ii The;GMfAli' �- `` •- I'recogn: d r,ngimancia.044e plann� ? - addres inh e eed`jj do:refle.ett ocal • refereneess, improve the abi iht • Coordinating Transportation and Growth Management Planning . _ ::" t." ....:.,•. j: ,w 4.� & :t. : : • 4:-- ttt • - '�r }• i : ''t ,1 ri i ,' M • am`"; • Level of Service (LOS) for state -owned transportation facilities • Identified needs for state -owned facilities in local plans must be consistent with the state plan New subelement requirement Requirement: As summarized above, the requirements for a transportation element under the GMA have been expanded and jurisdictions planning under the GMA shall include a new subelement. The new subelement description is as follows: RCW 36.70A.070 (6) (a) The transportation element shall include the following subelements: (ii) Estimated traffic impacts to state -owned transportation facilities resulting from land use assumptions to assist the department of transportation in monitoring the performance of state facilities, to plan improvements for the facilities, and to assess the impact of land -use decisions on state -owned transportation facilities; Discussion: The purpose of this subelement is to address the impact to state -owned facilities resulting from the local plans land use assumptions. Some plans may already achieve this. The desired result is to provide assistance to the WSDOT to monitor the performance of state facilities, assess the impact of land -use decisions on state - owned transportation facilities, and have data to plan improvements for these facilities. This is consistent with the current process for coordination and consistency of plans, improvements, and financing and does not constitute a significant change from the current practice. Many jurisdictions already address state -owned facilities. For those jurisdictions major changes may not be necessary. Other jurisdictions, which may not have addressed state -owned transportation facilities, may need to enhance or add new sections to their transportation elements, as well as evaluate the relationships to other required plan elements. Consistency between the GMA planning goals (intent) and current law requirements for the transportation element have not changed significantly and in many instances have just been clarified. Recommendation: While each jurisdiction has many options on how to develop this subelement, local jurisdiction should consider the following to meet this requirement: • The subelement shall represent a description (text and appropriate data) of the state -owned transportation facilities located within the jurisdiction and the relationship to the land use assumptions. • The subelement description shall include estimated traffic impacts to state -owned transportation facilities. • Certification by the Regional Transportation Planning Organization (RTPO) shall continue to serve as the basis for compliance with the requirements of RCW 36.70A.070 (Transportation Element). • Jurisdictions should consider WAC 365- 195 -325 (procedural criteria) and guidance provided in GMA publications such as Your Community's Transportation System - "A Transportation Element Guidebook ", published by the Washington State Department of Community Trade and Economic Development (CTED). .:5351 ,x' :.! r+: • - 1 =-.ii .e.+. . v{ .`, Nu - .fµaYerrr..� ",,&„.e'7l- th...Atr.":rl 45"-.41t. :,C"1 TL 7::ti- .:.r-t r�L.r� .7�r.'�7'7„•f ", :„ "'.fir^ =; 14:14:1.;,<,b-v-.14. sT f t. a.�ri' ;z%pct.: s );,41,74 Coordinating Coordinating Transportation and Growth Management Planning Inventory Requirement Requirement: 1998 GMA amendments, also require local jurisdictions to include state -owned transportation facilities within the transportation facilities and services inventory as required by RCW 36.70A.070. Many jurisdictions have previously identified these facilities in their inventories, and existing state rules (WAC 365 - 195 -325) currently recommend inclusion of state -owned facilities. If a jurisdiction chose not to include these facilities in their inventories previously, they must now be included. Recommendations: The following recommendations are provided to address the inclusion of state -owned transportation facilities in the transportation facilities and services inventory as required: • Jurisdictions will need to review their existing inventories and shall include state-owned transportation facilities. • Jurisdictions should consider inclusion of non state -owned "transportation facilities and services of statewide significance" in their inventories as well, for consistency with regional and state plans. • The WSDOT will provide available data for state -owned transportation facilities within each jurisdiction for use by each GMA jurisdiction in meeting the requirements for RCW 36.70A.070. • Each jurisdiction, through the RTPO and in consultation with appropriate jurisdictions, is encouraged to coordinate the development of the transportation facilities inventory to promote local, regional, and state plan consistency. • Non GMA counties and cities within those counties should coordinate through the RTPO process to identify data and inventory information as well. Level of Service Standards The 1998 amendments to RCW 36.70A and 47.80 clarify who sets the LOS on statewide transportation facilities and strengthens coordination among state, regional, and local planning processes. Local jurisdictions planning under the requirements of the GMA are required to adopt LOS standards for all locally -owned arterials and transit routes. The adopted LOS standards are to be regionally coordinated and are established to review and judge performance of the system. Requirement: The transportation element of a locally adopted comprehensive plan must include the LOS standards for state -owned transportation facilities. The new section - RCW 36.70A.040 (6) (C) - specifically states: For state -owned transportation facilities, LOS for highways as prescribed in RCW 47.06 (Statewide Transportation Planning) and RCW 47.80 (RTPOs), to gauge the performance of the system. The purpose of reflecting LOS standards for state highways in the local comprehensive plan are to monitor the performance of the system, to evaluate improvement strategies, and to facilitate coordination between the county's or city's six -year investment program. Coordinating Transportation and Growth Monogement Planning C,trtMl,.m..Rr.!'t,!S?t`:!'.mc iS:r£ fi 41,rtx•••.MOTwu"1.,,..n,.:.., Discussion: There is a strong link that exists between the GMA and statewide transportation planning (RCW 36.70A.070 and RCW 47.06.140) regarding who has responsibility to set LOS for certain facilities, and how the adopted LOS must be included within local plans, and why. Identification of LOS within the jurisdictions GMA comprehensive plan will include three coordinated, but distinct, processes. The first includes the local transportation systems LOS, which will be identified and established by the local jurisdiction, but coordinated through the RTPOs. For highways and ferry routes of statewide significance (HSS as designated by the Legislature), LOS shall be set by the state, in consultation with the RTPOs. For all other regional state -owned transportation systems, the process for establishing LOS will be determined through the RTPO planning process. The current State Highway System Plan (HSP) identifies service objectives as a highway capacity LOS for state highways. Local jurisdictions must include the adopted LOS for designated HSS in their local plans. The LOS for state highways is divided into two categories, rural and urban. For rural areas the LOS is "C" (uncongested), and for urban areas the LOS is "D" (mitigate congestion when peak period level of service falls below LOS D). There has been confusion regarding the definition of urban and rural because federal and state designations for urban and rural areas may be different. For purposes of transportation planning under current state law, the intent is to recognize urban and rural in the context of the GMA. A jurisdiction may need to consider that there may be instances where a federal urban area designation does not match a GMA urban growth area designation. If there is a conflict with designation or concern regarding the current LOS for a state -owned facility it should be coordinated through the RTPO and the WSDOT. Overall, the process for identifying and establishing LOS as required under the current statutes is consistent with WAC 365 - 195 -325 (procedural criteria) and WAC 468 -86 (RTPO planning standards). While consistent, the actual process of establishing LOS will be a significant challenge and will be a central focal point in the development of Washington's Transportation Plan. Recommendations: The following recommendations are provided to address the inclusion of LOS for state -owned transportation facilities in the local comprehensive plan's transportation element. • LOS for state -owned transportation facilities shall be included in the local comprehensive plan. • Local jurisdictions must include the LOS adopted by the WSDOT for state -owned transportation facilities designated as HSS in their local comprehensive plans. The current service standard adopted by WSDOT for state highways is LOS "C" for rural areas and LOS "D - mitigate" for urban areas. • The WSDOT shall be included in the process for establishing LOS for other state transportation facilities not designated as HSS. • The process for setting LOS should be consistent with and consider WAC 365 - 195 -325 (procedural criteria) and WAC 468 -86 (RTPO planning guidelines /standards). }.t.A. • wt's .';:Jb.r;.�N,y. ^_e^vr++n ,.v.� — .,......�.... _.__.. ...� ;LOS, or state= ansportation jfacili t`iesshall ;cl iinu din th e rcorehensiye Coordinating Transportation and Growth Management Planning Concurrency Requirement The GMA requires that jurisdictions identify "level of service standards for all locally owned arterials and transit routes to serve as a gauge to judge performance of the system," and, "for state -owned transportation facilities, level of service standards for highways..." RCW 36.70A.070(6). The 1998 amendments to the GMA changed this section of the regulation with regard to the concurrency requirement as it relates to transportation facilities and services of statewide significance. This change included the following language: "The concurrency requirements of (b) of this section (RCW 36.70A.070) do not apply to transportation facilities and services of statewide significance except (emphasis added) for counties consisting of islands whose only connection to the mainland are state highways or ferry routes. In these island counties, state highway and ferry route capacity must be a factor in meeting the concurrency requirements in (b) of this subsection." Requirement: The 1998 changes to the GMA specifically identify that the concurrency requirement does not apply to transportation facilities and services of statewide significance. The exception, for island counties, means that the concurrency requirement of the GMA (RCW 36.70A.070) applies in counties consisting of islands whose only connection to the mainland are state highways and ferry routes. In these island counties state highway and ferry route capacity must be a factor to meet the concurrency requirements of the GMA. If transportation facilities and services of statewide significance (as identified under RCW 47.06.140) are currently included in a jurisdiction's (other than island counties) local concurrency management system appropriate changes will need to be made to assure compliance with current law. Discussion: Prior to the 1998 changes to the law, jurisdictions planning under the GMA took different approaches with regard to the inclusion of state -owned transportation facilities in local comprehensive plans, as well as identifying LOS standards for state -owned facilities. The concurrency requirement of the GMA is significant, and as a tool, provides for a basic structure to assure that a community's adopted LOS will be maintained. If development of a specific project threatens to cause the LOS on a transportation facility to decline below standards identified in the transportation element, that project shall be denied by the local government, unless improvements can be made concurrent with development that maintain the adopted LOS. It is important to note that the changes to the GMA did not affect the ability of a local jurisdiction to develop a concurency management system, just the application of concurrency on specific designated components. The 1998 amendments to the GMA and the RTPO planning process (RCW 47.80) clarify and specifically address several issues that were previously left to local interpretation with regard to identifying and including LOS for regional and statewide significant transportation lnating Transportation and Growth Management Planning n�°ChY4'vwt'M1Vty+rY. Vv., ..e facilities in the local plans, and concurrency requirements for these facilities. These issues and the relationship to the planning requirements are summarized in Table 2. Recommendations: The following recommendations are provided to address the concurrency requirement of the GMA with regard to trans- portation facilities and services of statewide significance in the local comprehensive plan's transportation element. • The concurrency requirements for transportation facilities and services of statewide significance do not apply except in counties consisting of islands whose only connection to the mainland are state highways or ferry routes. In these island counties, state highway and ferry route capacity must be a factor in meeting the concurrency requirements of RCW 36.70A.070 (6). • The concurrency requirements for all other transportation facilities are unchanged under the GMA and jurisdictions should refer to WAC 365 -195 (procedural criteria) and guidance provided in GMA publications such as Your Community's Transportation System - "A Transportation Element Guidebook ", published by CTED. • In island counties state highway and ferry route capacity must be a factor in meeting the concurrency requirements of the GMA. Island counties should coordinate with the appropriate WSDOT regional planning office in order to obtain data relating to capacity to address this requirement. See Appendix A. Table 2 - Transportation Facilities, Concurrency, and LOS * Level of service or alternative transportation performance measures as identified in RCW 47.80.023 fi the coricurrer eq�uirement_of'the • G?MA1`�is '�fican is asigni a eltiM ool ro Icte or arbasic Facility Level of Service* Concurrency Local Transportation Systems LOS identified and set by locals through the local (GMA) planning process Concurrency required under GMA for local transportation facilities. Regional State Highways and Ferries LOS set through a coordinated process (RTPO) with state, regional, and local input. Concurrency requirement (as amended in 1998) does not address state -owned transportation facilities other than HSS. State Highways of statewide significance. (HSS) LOS set by state in consultation with locals. (State has final authority to establish LOS on HSS.) Concurrency requirements of GMA do not apply to transportation facilities and services of statewide significance. (Exception Noted Below) Exception: Island Counties LOS established as identified above for local, regional, and HSS. Concurrency required for HSS. State highways and ferry route capacity must be a factor in meeting the concurrency requirements in island counties. y2 S'. ei' a,. i ..i4'7fF't".'..'?•"6.cpP�^;5::. ,�n.:�e:u.•r:•t•^�p a >-s+: <, �,. r �..,e. ..., ,. ,r,- .,, ..,- .. ,- .-, Coordinating Transportation and Growth Management Ptonning • '1 F,'•��'.�.s�'•i•�trii�l.t i- �•+_sr�. -i •••-771.14.. � rr•' "'ooi fir.''; 4�,1�-' • A ^ ;.T.1'L'''A�•F117:i+ r:'5+= > L.4J • CiYS' {( �LTi ^1.y...t'4�- •��". ~•,"'+.s�'Ii. }•LIV iris \.;-= `r'�.'aL •"Y +,.: JC' ,' 3�rT':.C....AYY.�'T!t,�.c.d7C iUnder�the new" x n� County -wide Planning Policies The GMA requires that counties planning under the act shall adopt county-wide planning policies in cooperation with the cities located within that county. Requirement: 1998 amendments to the GMA include changes to the requirements for county-wide planning policies (RCW 36.70A.210). The change specifically reflects the inclusion of transportation facilities and services of statewide significance within the policy framework for siting public capital facilities. The following includes the 1998 changes to the county-wide planning policy section of the GMA: (RCW 36.70A.210 (3) (c)] Policies for siting public capital facilities of a county -wide or statewide nature, including transportation facilities of statewide significance as defined by RCW 47.06.140. The issue of county-wide planning policies and inclusion of transporta- tion facilities and services of statewide significance is one of consistency. Under the new legislation the definition of essential public facilities is more specific and includes transportation facilities that may or may not have been addressed within the existing county-wide planning policy framework. Recommendations: The following recommendations are provided to address the requirement to develop a county-wide planning policy to address the process for siting public capital facilities of a county-wide or statewide nature, including transportation facilities and services of statewide significance as defined in RCW 47.06.140. • Counties and cities should perform an assessment of their adopted county-wide planning policies and identify if transportation facilities and services of statewide significance are adequately addressed. • An assessment should be performed by the county and each jurisdiction potentially affected by changes to adopted planning polices to assure that the changes do not conflict with other plan elements and related goals and policies. The assessment should reflect the requirement to include transportation facilities and services of statewide significance within the policy framework for siting public capital facilities as required by RCW 36.70A.210 (3) (c). • When necessary counties and cities should prepare proposed revisions to county -wide planning policies in cooperation with local jurisdictions and the assistance of the RTPO as well as adjacent counties. • Coordination of county-wide planning policy changes is essential. Notice of proposed changes should be coordinated between all jurisdictions (including the state) to gain input into the update process and review for consistency. Coordinating Transportation and Growth Management Planning Part 4: Transportation Facilities and Services of Statewide Significance Background Amajor component of the 1998 legislation, relating to transportation and growth management planning, declares that certain transportation facilities and services are of statewide significance. These facilities provide and support transportation functions that promote and maintain significant statewide travel and economic linkages. The legislation emphasizes that these significant transportation facilities should be planned for from a statewide perspective. Planning includes policy development and the accompanying funding support to represent a broad range of perspectives serving the interests of all citizens in the state who depend on the system both directly or indirectly. Examples of highways designated as transportation facilities of statewide significance include Interstate 5 and Interstate 90. Transportation facilities and services of statewide significance are identified under RCW 47.06.140 and specifically include the following: • The interstate highway system • Interregional state principal arterials including ferry connections that serve statewide travel • Intercity passenger rail services • Intercity high -speed ground transportation • Major passenger intermodal terminals excluding all airport facilities and services • The freight railroad system • The Columbia /Snake navigable river system • Marine port facilities and services that are related solely to marine activities affecting international and interstate trade, and • High- capacity transportation systems serving regions as defined in RCW 81.104.015 While the list identified in under RCW 47.06.140 identifies transportation facilities and services of statewide significance, identification of specific facilities has not been accomplished, with the exception of designation of highways of statewide significance. Criteria to identify specific facilities is being developed by a special workgroup coordinated by the Washing- ton State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) and will be forwarded as an update to this implementation guidance when complete. transpo : •: <._�. r= `tom; ;`' - facalitiesta •- services *1i Mfd tafi� ew`de - significanGe Coordinating Transportation and Growth Management Planning Figurel - Tansportation Facilities What are transportation facilities and services of statewide significance? Transportation facilities and services of statewide significance are identified under RCW 47.06.140. These facilities are recognized as having a sigruficant statewide transportation function. These facilities are also identified as essential public facilities under the Growth Managemnet Act.. Improvements to these facilities identified in the statewide plan are essential state public facilities. Transportation Plan Integration and Consistency RCW 47.06.140 - Transportation Facilities and Services of Statewide Significance Comprehensive: Plan `rr. Coordination Plan Consistency Financial Plan GMA Planning GMA Planning Goals County Wide Planning Policies : Transportation Facilities and Services '• of Statewide": Significance .: • :: RCW 47.06.140 RTPO Process Identified Improvements Integration of Plans Highways of Statewide Significance (HSS) Highways of statewide significance (HSS) are transportation facilities and services of statewide significance that have been designated under a separate process involving development of criteria, approval by the Transportation Commission and submission to the Legislature (1999) for final review and adoption. HSS include statewide principal arterials and ferry routes that are needed to connect major communities across the state and support the state's economy. The following is a summary of the process that the Transportation Commission used to identify these facilities and the relationship to this guidance. The process of identifying HSS began by reviewing the legislation and the 1995 Legislative Transportation Committee study to establish legislative intent. The bill states that this statewide system shall at a minimum include interstate highways and other statewide principal arterials that are needed to connect major communities across the state and support the state's economy. It specifically declares the interstate highway system and interregional state principal arterials including ferry connections that serve statewide travel to be facilities of statewide significance. These key points establish the intent that this system is to be comprised of principal arterial highways that provide the critical backbone of the state highway network. Using this intent as a basis, criteria were developed that define HSS (see Appendix B). The Transportation Commission approved the initial draft criteria in May, 1998. This was followed by review and comment by all Regional Transportation Planning Organizations (RTPOs) across the state. The Coordinating Transportation and Growth management Planning M1KHVA'•» as h'��s�awg.uv v xvxn*m «n _�_ • — .. ,,.,�.,.,• . «�.. ....- r•:� +wc.rxayyl. ?ivs.�n'vhr+r- Transportation Commission approved final criteria for HSS designation in August of 1998. WSDOT and RTPO staff used the approved criteria to evaluate all state highways and develop a preliminary list of the highways of statewide significance. The Transportation Commission reviewed the proposed list on November 18th 1998, at their regularly scheduled meeting. After public review and comment the Commission approved the list at the December 1998 meeting. The final list was then submitted to the 1999 Legislature for review and adoption. HSS, GMA (RCW 36.70A), and RTPOs (RCW 47.80) The purpose of the HSS component of the legislation is to identify significant state -owned transportation facilities and define state and regional roles regarding planning for these facilities. The various legislative amendments clearly define different roles for setting level of service (LOS) standards and meeting concurrency requirements for HSS versus other state highways. The state has the authority in setting the LOS for HSS, whereas the regional transportation planning organizations ( RTPOs), locals, and state jointly set LOS on other state highways. HSS are not included in concurrency requirements of the Growth Management Act (GMA), except in island counties. WSDOT is directed, in cooperation with other agencies, entities, and transportation providers, to plan for improvements to transportation facilities and services of statewide significance in the statewide multimodal plan (RCW 47.06). Improvements to transportation facilities and service of statewide significance identified in the statewide multimodal plan are essential state public facilities under RCW 36.70A.200 (GMA local plans). Other Transportation Facilities and Services of Statewide Significance- Designation Several categories of facilities were identified as statewide significant under RCW 47.06.140. Where there is no direct tie to a specific type of transportation facility of statewide significance, criteria will be developed in order to provide a methodology for review of facilities in question. Criteria developed for this process should reflect the overall intent of the legislation. Developing criteria to designate transportation facilities of statewide significance is consistent with the process included by the Legislature for designation of HSS. The following are examples of transportation facilities identified as "transportation facilities and services of statewide significance" under RCW 47.06.140 and a summary of criteria that might be considered to specifically identify these facilities. rq 104t4 ver4j" �d• =•n c .ht .r tin con_ cuire 'requirements M t 'ex,pt s. �islantl coup e is t: Coordinating Transportation and Growth Management Planning Table 3 - Transportation Facilities - Example Criteria for Identification Sample criteria for identification of Transportation Facilities and Services of Statewide Significance Facility: Intercity passenger rail services Potential criteria: Frequency of scheduled service Availability of passenger amenities Number of modal connections Population served Connection or major transfer point Facility: Major passenger intermodal terminals excluding all airport facilities and services Potential criteria: Number of modes served Regional vs. state significant connection Distance to other intermodal centers International /Interstate /Intrastate connections Major destination vs. transfer point Total boardings /trips /service frequency FHWA designated passenger terminals Facility: The freight railroad system Potential criteria: Quantity of freight moved Mainline, branchline, ancillary facilities System serves movement outside of the region Connection or major freight terminal Recommendations: Development of criteria to identify specific transportation facilities and services of statewide significance is necessary. This is considered a "secondary" task of the overall implementation effort of the 1998 legislation, and complementary to the statewide planning process currently underway to update Washington's Transportation Plan (WTP). • A process for identifying facilities of statewide significance will be developed. State, regional, and local jurisdictions will coordinate on identification of appropriate ways of identifying criteria and developing an inventory of transportation facilities and services of statewide significance that meet the legislative intent of RCW 47.06.140. • Transportation facilities and services of statewide significance under RCW 47.06.140 will be easily identified and, in general, recognizable in the context of legislative intent. The development of specific criteria will enhance and support the identification of specific facilities. • The process to define specific facilities and services will utilize existing projects or studies that have evaluated transportation Coordinating Transportation and Growth Management Planning Itni;471, 'Ita. f•N !. +41 ". '..sSBKxo.ral?s,...,'WASIAK atX, VAIVragY.blwa+ir.. .WKit4m2>`■KVI:z' facilities including review of any criteria drafted and existing state statutes that address transportation facilities and services. • The criteria will be reviewed by the Washington State Transportation Commission for endorsement and utilized to identify and plan for significant transportation facilities. Essential Public Facilities and Essential State Public Facilities The current process for identifying essential state public facilities in accordance with GMA requirements must be considered with regard to the 1998 legislative changes to that law. Previously the state Office of Financial Management (OFM), had maintained the list of "essential state public facilities" as required under RCW 36.70A.200 consistent with the state's six year capital budget. Under the GMA no local comprehensive plan can preclude the siting of essential public facilities. The 1998 amendments to RCW 36.70A.200 identify "transportation facilities and services of statewide significance" as "essential public facilities ". Requirement: 1998 amendments to the GMA identify transportation facilities and services of statewide significance as essential public facilities under RCW 36.70A.200 and states that transportation facilities and services of statewide significance are identified as essential state public facilities under the GMA when improvements to those facilities are identified in the state transportation plan (RCW 47.06.140). These facilities shall be included in the state list of essential state public facilities maintained by OFM. The changes in the statute now potentially indicate some essential state public facilities that may not be "state- owned" or controlled. For example, the "freight railroad system" (as identified in RCW 47.06.140) is now identified as an essential public facility under the GMA. If the statewide multimodal transportation plan (WTP) identifies and plans for improvements to a facility that is a component of "the freight railroad system" then the improvement to that facility (a statewide significant transportation facility that is largely private) is an essential state public facility under the GMA. Consistent with this, the improvement to the facility must be considered within the local process for siting essential public facilities, and included on the state list required to be maintained by OFM under RCW 36.70A.200 (2). ��sy��x�'r • ;,ur... .: f -(rte cs %he'x�, Yn1�•' fir'` � c�.''.4' , ;Some'essential;states ;publicfacilities may { Cnot2beotstafie ow,ne or controlled ` Coordinating Transportation and Growth Management Planning z . = z ~w 000 J CD u_ w 0 u. • d = W _ z t — w � 0 D l- ww �H O wz 0 O~ z ® Coordinating Transportation and Growth Management Planning 1 J 0 :. 00 N 0' W J t!� u- u1 0 J' U_ W S I- O: Z W U O :0 = V, u.F - O: U z; L . ' O I— Z Part 5: The RTPO /MPO Planning Process he regional transportation planning program (RCW 47.80) was created 1 concurrent with the passage of the Growth Management Act (GMA) in 1990. The intent of the program is to create a formal mechanism for local governments and the state to coordinate transportation planning at the regional level. All counties in Washington State, with the exception of San Juan County, are part of a regional transportation planning organization (RTPO). Each RTPO is charged with the development of the following planning program components: • Develop regional transportation strategies • Develop planning guidelines and principles • Develop minimum planning standards for the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) • Develop RTP • Process for review and adoption of level of service (LOS) standards on state transportation facilities • Develop a regional Transportation Improvement Program • Certification of GMA transportation elements and county-wide planning policies The overall intent of the RTPO is to provide a process for the coordination and development of a consistent regional planning process that provides for local flexibility and addresses issues of regional and state interest. "The regional transportation planning program is meant to foster an ongoing transportation planning and decision making process that actively plans for the improvement of regional transportation systems and coordinates this process among jurisdictions" (WAC 468 86 090). Reviewing for and assuring consistency between local transportation plans, and their required plan components, is an important responsibility with regard to RTPOs. "Consistency means that no feature of a plan or regulation is incompatible with any other feature of the plan or regulation. Consistency is indicative of the capacity for orderly integration or operation with other elements in the system" (WAC 468 -86 -030). Metropolitan planning organizations, required by the federal government in urbanized areas with more than fifty thousand population, are incorporated into the state's RTPOs planning process an enhance coordinated transportation planning efforts. The 1998 Legislature amended RCW 47.80.023 (RTPO duties) to include two new sections. Specifically, they include: (7) Review level of service methodologies used by cities and counties planning under chapter 36.70A RCW to promote a consistent regional evaluation of transportation facilities and corridors. Work with cities, counties, transit agencies, the department of transportation, and others to develop level of service standards or alternative transportation performance measures. lAI_ frco nties 4Washingto; :State jwith thee ceptio S'an Juan;Coun ' , .pAf; egional ';transportation, s t; rpl'anning..orggniic F_(Rj r srY4t.t?: Coordinating Transportation and Growth Management Pionning I Recommendations: Active participation in RTPO discussions is the key to coordination and consistency of LOS methodologies and developing other performance measures. This participation supports the ability to assess the local and regional transportation system and the relationships to other regional and the statewide plans. • Jurisdictions should participate during the plan update process to address potential conflicts and provide appropriate review, applicable to certification of plans by the RTPOs. • No substantial changes have been made to the RTPO statute (RCW 47.80). The Legislature has, however, emphasized the issue of LOS methodology consistency, as well as recognized the need to develop and work with other service standards or performance measures. • RTPOs will be actively involved in the regional LOS discussions and the relationship to the statewide plan for regional state -owned highways as well as HSS. Coordinating Transportation and Growth Management Planning z • . w. U' o O' N 0; ` cnw: w= J i in O; LI ▪ a, , _ z �. �— o f • w' .p O H� =w: 10. 1= _ O F- z Part 6: Data for State -owned Transportation Facilities ocal jurisdictions working to update their comprehensive plans to meet the requirements of the Growth Management Act (and related transportation planning legislation) as amended by the 1998 Legislature can get technical assistance from the Washington. State Department of Community, Trade and Economic Development and the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT). A basic assumption is that local jurisdictions may need information regarding state -owned transportation facilities and highways of statewide significance that are within each jurisdiction. The format, type, and detail of data needed by local jurisdictions varies. To address this, local jurisdictions will identify data needs and coordinate through the appropriate WSDOT regional planning offices. Once a local jurisdiction has contacted WSDOT, identi- fied local needs will be addressed and the appropriate WSDOT data resources will be provided, to the extent possible, to facilitate local planning efforts. Local agencies should be specific with regard to data needs and work cooperatively to address these needs with regard to state -owned transportation facilities. A resource directory is provided for reference (see Appendix A). For more information regarding Washington's Transportation Plan update, visit the WTP website at: wzvw.wsdot wa.gov/wtpl. .PPAirMill` r44.ir•"•MPM.Yi IWP1.V. Coordinating Tronspodation and Growth Management Planning z • • cw —I U 00 U J = t- - u w� u. co _� Fw Z= F- I- O z- • p U O N �F- LU • W � tL O .. Z w = O~ z Coordinating Transportation and Growth Management Planning Z JU UO UU U W: W =. J CO LL. W O. g Q C d , 1=- _ Z O Z F- ul O U. 0 F^: W W' II- -U'. ro W N O Z Appendix A Coordinating Transportation and Growth Management Planning • WSDOT Contacts • CTED Contacts • RTPO /MPO Planning Contacts • References /Resource Materials WSDOT - Regional Planning Contacts Eastern Region Jerry Lenzi, Region Administrator North 2714 Mayfair Street P 0 Box 5299 Spokane WA 99205 -0299 Phone: (509) 324 -6000 FAX (509) 324-6005 Mark Rohwer, Transportation Planning Manager Phone: (509) 324 -6195 Olympic Region Gary Demich, Region Administrator 5720 Capitol Blvd., M/S 7440 PO Box 47440 Olympia WA 98504 -7440 FAX (360) 357 -2601 Phone: (360) 357 -2605 Bob Jones, Transportation Planning Manager Phone: (360) 357 -2644 Shuming Yan, Transportation Planner Phone: (360) 357 -2651 North Central Region Don Senn, Region Administrator 1551 North Wenatchee Avenue PO Box 98 Wenatchee, WA 98801 -1156 Phone: (509) 667 -3000 FAX (509) 667 -2940 Dave Bierschbach, Planning Engineer Phone: (509) 667 -2906 South Central Region Leonard Pittman, Regional Administrator 2809 Rudkin Road, Union Gap PO Box 12560 Yakima WA 98909 -2560 Phone: (509) 575 -2516 Fax (509) 575 -2561 Troy Suing, Transportation Planner Phone: (509) 454 -7618 ,.• . ,. .•. ,e x.... or. ig,- t ,of! ?�Six.'arxi5'::i;ltil'kiFir . Northwest Region John Okamoto, Region Administrator 15700 Dayton Avenue North PO Box 330310 Seattle, WA 98133 -9710 FAX (206) 440 -4806 Jerry Shutz, Transportation Planner Phone: (206) 440 -4727 Bob Josephson, Mt. Baker Area Manager Phone: (206) 440 -4711 Southwest Region Don Wagner, Region Administrator 4200 Main Street M/S S-15 PO Box 1709 Vancouver WA 98668 -1709 Phone: (360) 905 -2000 FAX (360) 905 2222 Mary Legry, Transportation Planning Manager Phone: (360) 905 -2014 Office of Urban Mobility (OUM) Renee Montgelas, Director 401 Second Avenue South, Suite 307 M/S TB -55 Seattle WA 98104 Phone: (206) 464 -5878 FAX: (206) 464 -6084 Chris Picard - Systems Planning Manager Phone: (206) 464 -5420 WSDOT - Olympia Service Center Planning and Programming Service Center James Toohey, Assistant Secretary Transportation Planning Office PO Box 47370 Olympia, WA 98504 -7370 Phone: (360) 705 -7962 Fax (360) 705 -6813 Charlie Howard, Transportation Planning Manager Appendix A . Technical Resources Available Coordinating Transportation and Growth Management Planning In WSDOT Regions Whatcom Skagit Okanogan Stevens Snohomish Everett Jefferson Ce Chelan steri� Douglas Oly Grays Harbor Lincoln Spokane Kittitas Adams Whitman Thurston Yakima Yakima SO Cowlitz th Benton Franklin ent Garfield Skamania al Walla Walla olumbia Asotin Klickitat COAppendix A - Technical Resources Available Coordinating Transportation and Growth Management Planning : �1'+ Tw7. iM'. �r��...... t': isS..::.!< s; ztis.: 44�X� ;�.ti'%" ✓i!.w'J.�:ii�4 ^.+w.. iCi�a ^:apt, u. .• . ... �n ..r.C. �.sY.Li ".a.::krva �.k}:T, y•. .�+hti:'':i't •- :+c'.as;�+y . 'fl/i'F;lAhiSrrit�arr� 'E7.ti -CTED Contacts For Local Jurisdictions Department of Community, Trade and Economic Development Growth Management Program PO Box 48300 Olympia, WA 98504 Phone (360) 753 -2222 CTED Planner WASHINGTON STATE COMMUNITY, TRADE AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT Building Foundations for the Future County Assignments EASTERN REGION �.L��r.R"Y! �� ''.••, ?lj':<j'SM�.+1�p°pr�,W•7 :f•.1CV;ftr ,[:c4� .'� Contact: '� s w ; ' _ra rr,,?, tidy ^ •4 :•,J and Fryh1mg -'" t ( 360) = 753•'4319. (dickf@cted:wa;'gov) Contact: Hal Hart (360) 664 -2264 (halh@cted.wa.gov) • t::-r_ .....c- w;7,r+!.r...r ,"'.• �'}i'^,.'.';'.t•'"'•. .'•c �r..' ST ,.wtrir.- .r,,!?K•o•-- •.'rtnt�•. e� .e .. -+aT. ..•.a�� t••n.r.-�.i~p . :�•1!°.•.+.•..t: "'!e_ :,r .r.. :;,� Y.i• /.•: Y!',"C.Y:� `�y.��'`.h' /�. ��- a(�� :7',y.: �r H♦'. '.?.•-.•,'{��-::! ,.1 w:i ..'..�_'f lrw _� 1'w'i.: !'`�•7�:_.. GOntact:'s. s �. ;... >Y . ice.., y,_;thY• —. w ..,. y.. i ., ,. , : +• r.,l:': y4 ��... ,�•_,�•�;; ;3 � �Fa,<:> �: ,'��:�.._ :-� • • - - r��•� > -..., Benton;,::�:�; •:ri ;;� :,;,.� •t. .i.��.:��:�:Y�, �:,.. pF. t •.at{� �� y.:; �•e•7 ',;:a 6Y�,±�J� 2 1 "•�,,:. +� +�•." -•�.• ::: ` •.:- .%•+.L� ..;'.1: �JPrF•'r � ;,:.:. `•. 1= sr.� +'�y.:: 4.�• � ;,.:r +:.. �,', �: r� t� ° -�µ : Fraztkln -:� r� �''�;-'^ «'•- '�...a•� .,, tr::,r': • =k' ' t.,1,..., - 7:'y- .c� ?!i;�;t. ¢...: •��x , Is:: 'r:' ,: `•cta'+i+ .;.•j; •e.rty.y il.^ :.•-.. "~'3:.�., :r:;t :.vim• `i�1`S _" --h1.. r':.,:`.. 's!'•:"�.t':• 360 '586 -8 7.1 t '' r �:+ ? .., ,�':�,_ _.,x = - �7 ii•..:_.: �•': . )� • t :^_'`: uT:.G S,:f. :s"`.�:�, t:. f, •• ��-t'��; :Ci °t..l.i= � - •;.,•. c•'< ;,�j'.0 _ (edgflcted:tiSa: ov��), �;��'. r, .Yalama�� -='- ,._ i�r�. t c"- -,:; ^�:i:� •i: •F3• �'ii •.i.l...si.ML:C.�t,..:.•.}w:f 1riL +.:+.iL.N.��r:•u.•wa'1'•rwt' ri..��i! vr:! qtr h tS r ti„ lnr -l::G Y.s,'.,,e,CG,['7,7 >. t -bMe1. , , C . ! r tr' •..- r..•;•cwr+•u ."‘V. =vi :�.'•,:t oka_ner hr may_, �< . P �. ,.:;�;� ^• `Walla Walla �. a/-�' L.S r S•*'- X,�; , i, :.,�; :'r•: 1; •4ihv5i fir.:. arfield'' „r J9tyi�^�'caj' ittlta5' Ferry Pend Oreille Chelan Douglas Grant •, -.�.. y;•. ._Y ?i+�."- '�?i+:4 ,� ..S. +r }�• = -Se.. J:nJ.,g_ 5i. .,.. t .� �.x •Y .. '.L1.3»1�4 .+iC..t �QYr!• wW�JSJ:L:..t•,._i_Jfr.•+'r{.iaw WESTERN REGION t?n a... Rte: oily;Gadba a, (360);753;4315 - Contact: Patrick Babineau ..f :V -, = 1.:aZ` ^•C--Yr,7�.: �,y Y c7•- '�YtT'. :wa.gov.) (360) 586 -1239 (patrickb@cted.wa.gov) ,. ".; ^•Y,. +7Y!"_-,i•Y,^`- :+r «nw j.. «. -. r.•- •- ..w.Y�,�r....- -.�,n` _• .r...'ryr.•(!•.- m•+,w...�....... ..«. ;COWLCt: " ; 1 1r::a _ r'� {t.'1` is t_i` 1 "d' ':�� Kirzy.'•• +r:t' �.'? ='` t�3�titi 1 ;Ti J: • :i:'• C .� .r �i'_t`,:v•:,� 4. Lx.. - c %,••t :- ',.�,�t.ft, �{�? � • i4= J' -� ".. ,: •� -: •;C�,' i,• -'',Y ' --.: •..:•p?.'.`i . � ^.✓+.... � s• �.....�h 'N'S•- -t31ic •`�a�,�•,'w -;r� J 1 �r„at,•Y..- ,..�r•�xY %$E ..q C.'. ars �w �•G-r ..V1.' i v., `= iY,i.= b,3:.... ��,, iii• %'k`. r.+: !' -+ • 1`,v4. ::(360)'664-~8809' ( c�i�s Q ted'w"`�'" `` Mason J� :, > ( M P c agoY) `K, :�: ..,� , i,rr 0. 4 =' %'• • •�.. � 1wK3ul•��f+1.�A.:i? RF.: .tfL !l .t Y". n.X�n_.l.1+ r•!i�•- •�.�!?YA':i nyhif i•`,•?� '�� "l: -.. 7:Whatciom.. Island Pacific Contact: Heather Ballash 664- 2364(heatherb @cted.wa.gov) Te�•�;� 'Sr,, �+`•,�"^' mac: Jam^''.-_'- ..''�»- ---*•� `t;;•�lJ�r:+ � . , _ ti- .s'+•"'�;!-?'�.- a'- .�'Y,+► .a2� T.:... COtaCt fir„u t k Sc "may+'�tg= c��St. •tiigi, TRH; •(� V �••• �s�"S".:. a �. >�..!•�,,..•..•,r1a»i.•�: •4s; •''. a,. ' �":'?iY�'•,�::L« •'f i +.:j. f :r -1� rF,b � : •i7h'= 'R 4:: tiG Skagit Thurston •. eter''' e' ,._,: ,,_ ,...: _,.,;,, .�� .:.. :. • s,1, C . r r✓ � San• Ilan ' ,«��:,�.�s._q,.,: 753-4314- (peterr@cted:wa. w'..•_...- ..u:/.2Jt! ki.::.:c.:� :...,..•.S::L:•r.�.Q: :ntis::�; w.i -' ..- -. :''�+'- r.�.- :t'„�• {. /r_ i• w.� L. ''".0 . ,•. ;� '�� -- • ^1u.r�2.S�t::a:.1'•...�cL:.t--- --1:` "_t'.:�.+er•a.::� Appendix A • Technical Resources Available Coordinating Transportation and Growth Management Planning El CTED Planner County Assignments WESTERN REGION Cont. 'Contact ''�'r : ;.Coniue.Shumate` 360) 753=4317 (conruesQcted wagov Contact: Michael Nowak (360) 753 -2951 (michaeln @cted.wa.gov) Ti.r Wl,`4.7 wJ...h.! [ �: .rye r :"rir'v • ti_%•Y'�T'j.,•t' ', •R"1. ''•itn..y�y.5i.'9[._ j i i . y "•F. i ? Nl y S�+4C S YID Lewis ', TT 2.4--"r :.;' r7= lv��,:yy�' ...... V.,.:' �C`. w'.,' aci�' w: �w- �FYS: a.. s .{•:•..�:3'tit.'.:�•.wr.�a7:.`• ..�.. Clallam Jefferson x .r CENTRAL PUGET SOUND REGION r.riContact:''v ^ s" IkeyIVwankwo ,��•}}.��, .� � ; 60y.,586=9118,‘ (�1cenQcted wa gov) -J,. �._..i. "'"✓.u: Contact: Heather Ballash 664- 2364(heatherb @c ted.wa. gov) • ;Contact "' P�eterRiley ;'753 4374 (peters @cteU' >wa :gov) �� ;. ::`Yi4wii:d.:r^' +.m:i.'r.�t" a.i+�:v. w � :.'�.-�••;i.. ... Appendix A • Technical Resources Available Coordinating Transportation and Growth Management Planning Pierce • ,. Kitsap andi n• • . e6lr :t. Ow- Washington State Regional Transportation Planning Organization Son Juan on Wahklakum Thurston Regional Planning Council 'Kitsap County Is in both Peninsula and Puget Sound Regional Council. RTPO/ MPO - Planning Contacts RTPO /MPO COUNTIES LEAD AGENCY Tkansportation Couriciltir~;Wliitirian SR'I@ = s�L''•l'n^ 'x 7t. • Thurston Regional Planning Council (TRPC) Thurston TRPC 2404 Heritage Court S. W. #B M/S 0947 Olympia WA 98502 -6031 Phone: (360) 786 -5480 FAX: (360) 754 -4413 Harold Robertson, Director Internet: roberth @co.thurston.wa.us Jude Willcher, Transportation Planner 786 -5478 willchj @co.thurston.wa.us Thera Black, Planner Appendix A . Technical Resources Available Coordinating Tronspo 1ation and Growth Management Planning RTPO /MPO COUNTIES LEAD AGENCY " .-.. . nr xS e±_ •;: i 1 ' , K.r:5 r.r. V.,,, ..' : is :':;, r,r.,ta; "p... ;.„ -7 7 rr•.7•.�sr � � T[- ?ztfrx.`T2,72R.^ . — - rANorth East Wa`slin on c e '6: }'�t :; • n N EW: RTPO ,ii. >r r {• i tt kr ft ... B= • a '_ ;'? ; ' x TU "rPeic= Jre illewY , 347�W: 2nd; Suite N;.i _•�P a a• ; : + w -' . i � - .a i ' t, . .- 5 1 'tei . • a/.C'�t. i RTPO 1.47 : t, '• 4h��vil n � � ' ,I ` . � ; a•'^ r ., � 4i.., •• f i .: f1:. r��:W . R T O •. a � - � ' S te ns 4' ✓ •: ' , l 4 9 1 4 3 0 0 z t : • . , �a .� .s± i7 � .. I' : ii C1 ' ,'f .' . y � ' •" t 1 ' • +a • : W, � ♦) r a t . %' : t . , �r �'�: ' ::' y' '� •r v r- - � •�- 4 1 v. n C y 'r+ • � •. e7 f 1 :W' +•h. �a tic 9.i' fl: 't F v ' • . ' ;: .,•• i a 5 t . a• �3 ,; r ; r , ..iir. • :- ,-' •.',t _'� t.` _ , : 6844• hone:' J' 571 FA?;509 684 - 4788.'x. '°d r .•= • 7 r , � \ 1 • . lV TPO a+'nGary Ko.i a. �� :"'E'4'•�?t•f•i,..,k tie? . :::43+.ix.v.,4:ti. 4 ' ,4- n`.'_ � l � 's •. P,P r i , • t � ' ' L l ` � M E� . '' ' • w1 4n r . ••t.•'7 i Sk.•� ' »":u 1. git ly a= c d : ni. . p T N z I""i ' ,0" >' �s 7 - x % : 3, ,. �5.I�'�S( ... `' - ^ • ,- ri�ce,�.�, ;Skagi t }- .. ,yrM1 4- ^- - C oun:--s, • t y�,° : Cs o n •-= .fT: AeJ re-•'cy an..Y�c .e:•' �p t v.. -t e•* r. r . • ii,j n' -;:- , e n r tr SkagiVVVOi.tt , Gontg o ery'Stree ce • ;,, ■ . `•,: 'L .i ' . •5a' v.. ,- � 30):4 r 61;i , v T + t - ' y • : RTPO /MPO COUNTIES LEAD AGENCY P.nget�Sound`Regional ':.Kin j: ;. (P.SRC)) ;<:; ; #.;'... ;s_ i t: fierce :.., .._ s" 1R� - x, Y l SnoliomisYi,� ..ge-,74.4,,_:4-:.7.,,;...-zi., , t,..i. r;11:;V:„....:„.Z..,..q.,7::::::z147.: QUADCO Lincoln Grant Adams Kittitas Lincoln County (Lead Agency for Quadco) Bob Bershears, Lincoln County Public Works Direc- tor Phil Nollmeyer - RTPO Coordinator (staff) Department of Public Works 27234 SR25 North Davenport, WA 99122 Phone: (509) 725 -7041 FAX (509) 725 -4467 bbershears @co.lincoln.wa.us pnollmeyer@co.lincoln.wa.us Quadco Chair: Gerry McFaul (City Engineer, Moses Lake) (509)- 766 -9218 moseslake@atnet.net Southwest Washington RTPO (SWW RTPO) Cowlitz Grays Harbor Lewis Pacific Wahkiakum CIAppendix A - Technical Resources Available Coordinating Transportation and Growth Management Planning r! /iJJ:L4A'+'iSf.''•1u .a�S;ti�li::ll�ei::+7�i+" fdi'ltii�??sa�NfYAR�d4lkjk,& Nri1 t Y:; Cowlitz - Wahkiakum Council of Governments 207 4th Ave. N., Admin. Annex Kelso WA 98626 -4195 Phone: (360) 577 -3041 FAX (360) 425 -7760 Steve Harvey, Director Rosemary Siipola, Transportation Planner /Manager Internet: Sharvey@cwcog.org Jeff Wilkens - Assistant Transportation Planner Roxie - Accountant Z H w UO co 0 W= H- 2W WO < =d W Z= !— O Z W W U� ON OH W W I F- H Li_ O U= O ~ Z - References and Related Resource Materials Study of the relationship Between State -Owned or Operated Transportation Facilities and Local Comprehensive Plans. Final Report. Washington State Legislature - Legislative Transportation Committee. February 1995. Study of the relationship Between State -Owned or Operated Transportation Facilities and Local Comprehensive Plans. Technical Appendix. Washington State Legislature - Legislative Transportation Committee. February 1995. Your Community's Transportation System, "A Transportation Element Guidebook ". Washington State Department of Community Development - Growth Management Division. June 1993. HB 1487 Section by Section Review. Summary paper prepared by the Washington State Department of Transportation. P &PSC Transportation Planning Office. September 1998. HB 1487 Level of Service Implementation Questions. Background and Information Guide. Brochure prepared by the Washington State Department of Transportation. P &PSC Transportation Planning Office. September 1998. Plan Review Questionnaire For the Review of Comprehensive Plans Including the Certification of Transportation Elements. Certification Questionnaire. Puget Sound Regional Council. December 1998. State Highway System Plan 1999 - 2018. Washington State Department of Transportation. Planning and Programming Service Center, Transportation Planning Office. January 1998. Appendix A - Technical Resources Available Coordinating Transportation and Growth Management Planning fra Appendix B Coordinating Transportation and Growth Management Planning • List of Routes • Criteria for HSS Designation • HSS Maps Transportation Commission Proposed List of Highways of Statewide Significance By Resolution #584, dated December 17,1998 2 4 :14""41I.7:129C7"*"*'. 4-7."731"r:5;"*T:';.:0- • •••. Descnption - - I-5/Everett to Idaho (entire route) • 277;V!".' • SR10I/SheltontoSR104.(entire route 0.00 334.92 326.60 ...17RPFOT)074',-47-1.447676: 0.00 55.23 55. 22 SR 101 to SR 432 (Longview Vicinity) Oregon .to .Canad (entirdrOUte "•,;•' .1.. • • • • 8 0.00 20.67 20.67 SR12/Elma to SR101/01ympia (entire route) =.7 9 ,...5.1:046 tcT Ti anada •- 12 0.00 434.19 430.76 1. O. 101.021..- 100.93 a 16 0.00 29.19 27.01 7 7" • • 17 50.77 56.56 5.87 272B 279i--2789 20 0.00 436.93 436.55 SR101/Aberdeen to Idaho (entire route) P5 /Vancouver to SR 97: ................................... • I-5/Tacoma to SR3/Gorst (entire route) • --. '••••• - -,• .• • •77.,-: SR895/MeSa.46 P9 1-90/Moses Lake to Moses Lake Airport i:g7012.§67(eiTbrTiTgicf77-e SR101 to SR2/Newport (entire route) SR20toFerrTerixuna1 (entire route) .. 22 0.70 4.00 3.31 SR97 to 1-82 • • 0 0 -133 53:.c.‘„_.1,..,--131537::::.-4..,t,•t'",,."1-90./.Va.ritag6"..to.,'SR195 28 0.00 29.77 33.91 SR2/Wenatchee to SR281/Quincy 4.9..1'?: .:',10L9,P..".g 90 1.94 299.82 297.49 I-5/Seattle to Idaho (entire route) 99 26.04 43.60 17.44 SR509 to SR104 Astoria:Megler Bridge , • • 101 28.89 367.41 336.89 SR4 to 1-5/01ympia P4V.'tPf.gf;"4..0,_:5-,P::,.ig.;c29,7i31.:rz2,E:S:;:ir, 125 0.00 6.15 6.14 Oregon State Line to SR12/Walla Walla Frt. -..47 3777= : n .::. f2:aMO A27&31:0dg12 167 0.00 26.40 27.72 I-5/Tacoma to SR405/Renton 0.82:-4:1:15:::.17:6157:1,....,.....-7,474r57172,15.19.FLY,Sit Ii82;tb:SR3957iBasce, en e:route); 195 0.00 B 95.99 93.37 Idaho to I-90/Spokane(entire route) Yg;7.77.77:777.ge-§1P2.776Y.07-Y6-3.717:7:777:61;70717KTV.r-i-iiiMetW74P.T-:-Zi=337.5 :-..,..,....,..-........:;.::::1!:-...1.:-...:.N.N. iLV.--....:x.....,..L...--.:::: =:-.....,,........---;-:-.:..-:...:-:a...ii_......A.lia.e...:-..w....6.....2.v.CM:-.: ::v:i......•-utA;c:a,.:1A1 240 30.63 34.87 4.24 Stevens Drive to 1-182 Appendix 11 • Highways of Statewide Significance (HSS) Coordinating Transportation and Growth Management Planning 310.; 395 401; =.ti tr • 405 4a2; 433 501_:.1 509 r, -~ 509 512 518 �:•;i:•I -182 to SR395 ' 0.00 9.89 9.89 SR195 /Pullman to Idaho (entire route) _- ;gs-£ - rr. •i.:yr•2a-.r.• ;.� :r._-sz ..�;; �:' .•nu;� ^:t 744Y..�`r,•••• -re: •:rr,�; '7: ,,-H- ,17.1f� ;.•,.... 0 ' 10.55�',,,�,'t10.55:: ` ` SR28/Quincy to 190 eritire route1 A •A's ..a •. .:.Q. Sw.£:..•.�s::. . .... __ J -. . ...(.J •__ / 0.00 3.51 3.24 SR3 to Bremerton Ferry Terminal (entire route) _0A2 {;1-L; .13.31 • 13 29;: L :Winslow Fer y�Terinuia1 p SR3_(entire route) 0.00 5.25 5.25 SR305 to SR104 (entire route) xY..4- n .- •: r :re.wc:v T•80. . ,,,,vc•- ,n- 1.•.a .JZ!e„7 % ,;. -,- 7,7= --- ,t,= -rdSB - ,-'x, "'r i( 7. .};v.i�*a rf.7-, w ; • ,0.00 , u1. 4 , 184 ; . -•r :R3:to.SR304 re,merton entre route)- f.4 ;'Z V• .:L. Z S.L.•1L_ - .S } •.,y.;.. :2- •,_:i•. ,..,- .- / . • L .s..:_i `.::r. . 13.05 270.26 255.22 `0:00 +x`� �1213'� 512:13: 0.00 30.32 30.33 'O:Ob�'K'�3 =M `10.33- ,4= x10.32 0.00 0.94 0.94 0.22 a 3.20 2.98 0.00 12.06 12.06 - O OOs .13 :42= 519 0.00 1.31 1.31 520:x.• <s -�.; 522 526 ��. 529•_ 539 546 705 ;0:00 ��`�: � :7.09'��3- •'T^.708:: 0.00 24.68 24.68 I -82 to Canada SR101/ Astoria :Megler:Br fo SR4Y„ '`,"ti "'rte' <. I -5 /Tukwilla to I -5 (entire route) 4 7.Longview to I -S (entire route) „u:=' Oregon to SR432 /Longview (entire route) �---'I -5 to: Port of Vancouver :; _..,�._,. • ntra'nce . • I- 705 /Tacoma to Marine View Dr. SR518 /SeaTac`to SR99 I -5/1 akewood to SR167 /Puyallup (entire route) r- SR509 /SeaTac to I- 5 / Tukwilla- (entire :route):' I -90 to Seattle Ferry Terminal (entire route) I -5 /Seattle to SR2 /Monroe (entire route) 'Vx'^.�`l:^^-r,:e�•^.?.- • -+r-±: �.,'ti�.:.,Sr�^+• -_.. _ ;1 :. -r:r.'.r -y'.' •'+r+.- �w•.r•s•�. duets-•;•.. �_, y^. �.; � .n�t�r� +':-n••rrrS•;rsnr•!vyt +r 00 • to.SR20-(entue • 0.00 4.52 4.52 SR525 /Mukilteo to I -5 (entire route) ' T+'" - Farr .-^ - :r•••+^a -+ ., -..r. 0:00W-;T W:2:20 w =22 I -5 .Everett't Por 0.00 15.16 15.16 0:00 .1:09 ; X1:09 `=pcµ •w:.,:a..:.tr•.:•�S'.:r �::u. •..:..._,.._,1:�3++:._ ......>s_ -�,,:. I -5 /Bellingham to Canada (entire route) '.fir ' x�?:n •-- ^.7....�.�4,.. _":,ar I -S to Canada (entire:route) • 0.00 8.02 8.02 SR539 to SR9 (entire route) 0.00 1.50 1.50 I -5 /Tacoma to Schuster Parkway (entire route) „_. +yir. ..t•; ;.r.,r�.. �•S' ^,•,•:_ s.a..:...r, -.., :v._y....t r•+ -r.-�: -- _ -• -•-ri:r. -....- -.•: r..": :,rr' 970 =10 :31 • • I =90' C1e •Elum'to SR9T entire "route r • • • HSS Ferry Routes 305 x.04 "� _.� : •p��:•s �, 525 • K Seattle Bremerton'FeTT ..»:� »S,� , r'.:SY ""••.. ,+ii.:G =- ` -- r- _.:1�:3s.�.�: •'= ;..rr:. Seattle /Bainbridge Island Ferry ;.- ,�•' - -' r"•"�"''°D''- --- •s"1'+�•;w •ocl .a... •rra^�- �C."*r �s ,�i :Titi' ..�'';�``' „', •.• . ,., Y•'. Edmonds /King 67411 rry,�.r� ..,, y .' •yx -j:: Li1tQ. •. •_•iiiri. W�l R1' L.1��i:.. �.. �.� j.. t`. �.. . Mukilteo /Clinton Ferry i :4Pt:'To- wi�iseriKe�Jstone per} �j� 3' '„ L. tii•S•r�•y1��W '�r•t� • '" i•�;.7tLL�u _ -.a .e . Ir . „ J;1._, ��t�:J��s�- y�•}�'�w��j� Total HSS Highway Miles = Total State Highway System = HSS % of Total System = it f!Rh 12i(M) :1+.JiNr+ =-N".7.f +;P:fT, rk, 3806 7065 54% Anacortes /Sidney B.C. Ferry Appendix D . Highways of Statewide Significance (HSS) Coordinating Transportation and Growth Management Planning CEI •�l:i�._t:t)A5u�"'r..wL.t l- __..mar :..._Y'rr.:�� ^, �'.t_�: rxbY:.r_•. - Highway of State -Wide 'Significance (HSS) Y Start Route Analysis Here T State Highways? NHS Route? Y Interstate? Per legislation the HSS only includes state highways Long Distance Travel Routes? Urban IN Parallel NI-IS Routes? if Y Evaluate FGTS Class? Maj Pop Connect? Distance to Route? Adding Both? Evaluate Access Class? Quickest Route? FGTS Tonnage? Adding Both? - Regional State Highway Appendix 6 • Highways of Statewide Significance (MS) Coordinating Transportation and Growth Management Planning Appendix C Coordinating Transportation and Growth Management Planning •Full Copy of HB 1487 z • I w: JU. 00. co coin =: W O: u. Q. cn =d F- _. Z_ F- O Z W Up O—o OF W W: 2 W I- -O • al Z • CERTIFICATION OF ENROLLMENT HOUSE BILL 1487 z 55th Legislature -1998 Regular Session re 2 Passed by the House March 7, 1998 Yeas 91 Nays 5 v 0 O. Speaker of the House of Representatives W' w =. Passed by the Senate March 5, 1998 LL Yeas 44 - Nays 3 w O; CERTIFICATE g <. I, Timothy A. Martin, Chief Clerk of the House of Representatives of the State of Washington, w do hereby certify that the attached is HOUSE BILL 1487 as passed by the House of Representa- * Z fives and the Senate on the dates hereon set forth. O w ~' U• � O I—, w F=U' IL ~i — O 1.1.1 Z - - =. 0 ~' Z President of the Senate Chief Clerk Approved FILED Governor of the State of Washington Secretary of the State Washington HOUSE BILL 1487 AS AMENDED BY THE SENATE Passed Legislature -1998 Regular Session State of Washington - 55th Legislature -1997 Regular Session Appendix C • HIS 1487 -1998 Legislation Coordinating Transportation and Growth Management Planning By Representatives K. Schmidt, Fisher, Mitchell and Hankins Read first time 01/28/97. Referred to Committee on Transportation Policy & Budget. AN ACT Relating to transportation planning; amending RCW 36.70A.040, 36.70A.070, 36.70A.200, 36.70A.210, 47.05.021, 47.05.030, 47.80.023, and 47.80.030; and adding a new section to chapter 47.06 RCW. BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON: Sec. 1. RCW 36.70A.040 and 1995 c 400 s 1 are each amended to read as follows: (1) Each county that has both a population of fifty thousand or more and, until May 16, 1995, has had its population increase by more than ten percent in the previous ten years or, on or after May 16, 1995, has had its population increase by more than seventeen percent in the previous ten years, and the cities located within such county, and any other county regardless of its population that has had its population increase by more than twenty percent in the previous ten years, and the cities located within such county, shall con- form with all of the requirements of this chapter. However, the county legislative authority of such a county with a population of less than fifty thousand population may adopt a resolution removing the county, and the cities located within the county, from the requirements of adopt- ing comprehensive land use plans and development regulations under this chapter if this resolution is adopted and filed with the department by December 31, 1990, for counties initially meeting this set of criteria, or within sixty days of the date the office of financial management certifies that a county meets this set of criteria under subsection (5) of this section. Once a county meets either of these sets of criteria, the requirement to conform with all of the requirements of this chapter remains in effect, even if the county no longer meets one of these sets of criteria. (2) The county legislative authority of any county that does not meet either of the sets of criteria established under subsection (1) of this section may adopt a resolution indicating its intention to have subsection (1) of this section apply to the county. Each city, located in a county that chooses to plan under this subsection, shall conform with all of the requirements of this chapter. Once such a resolution has been adopted, the county and the cities located within the county remain subject to all of the requirements of this chapter. (3) Any county or city that is initially required to conform with all of the requirements of this chapter under subsection (1) of this section shall take actions under this chapter as follows: (a) The county legislative authority shall adopt a county-wide planning policy under RCW 36.70A.210; (b) the county and each city located within the county shall designate critical areas, agricultural lands, forest lands, and mineral resource lands, and adopt development regulations conserving these designated agricultural lands, forest lands, and mineral resource lands and protecting these designated critical areas, under RCW 36.70A.170 and 36.70A.060; (c) the county shall designate and take other actions related to urban growth areas under RCW 36.70A.110; (d) if the county has a population of fifty thousand or more, the county and each city located within the county shall adopt a comprehensive plan under this chapter and development regulations that are consistent with and implement the comprehensive plan on or before July 1, 1994, and if the county has a population of less than fifty thousand, the county and each city located within the county shall adopt a comprehensive plan under this chapter and development regulations that are consistent with and implement the comprehensive plan by January 1, 1995, but if the governor makes written findings that a county with a population of less than fifty thousand or a city located within such a county is not making reasonable progress toward adopting a comprehensive plan and development regulations the governor may reduce this deadline for such actions to be taken by no more than one hundred eighty days. Any county or city subject to this subsection may obtain an addi- . '�:': �'!,, r.. .-r.H.n`, u, n!¢ct :titiii' *:rdCi9;i'414, onli*Ii yi.twogv0:w.. +liYya: iti s�'ltw Appendix C - HE 1467.1996 legislation Coordinating Transportation and Growth Management Planning go v"*[" tt"..TrTs rc -r ,,o,P12 -Mrs ,V,I e Z Metirifr ?!•,'tyrn - tional six months before it is required to have adopted its development regulations by submit- ting a letter notifying the department of community, trade, and economic development of its need prior to the deadline for adopting both a comprehensive plan and development regula- tions. (4) Any county or city that is required to conform with all the requirements of this chapter, as a result of the county legislative authority adopting its resolu- tion of intention under subsection (2) of this section, shall take actions under this chapter as follows: (a) The county legislative authority shall adopt a county -wide planning policy under RCW 36.70A.210; (b) the county and each city that is located within the county shall adopt development regulations conserving agricultural lands, forest lands, and mineral resource lands it designated under RCW 36.70A.060 within one year of the date the county legislative authority adopts its resolution of intention; (c) the county shall designate and take other actions related to urban growth areas under RCW 36.70A.110; and (d) the county and each city that is located within the county shall adopt a comprehensive plan and development regulations that are consistent with and implement the comprehensive plan not later than four years from the date the county legislative authority adopts its resolution of intention, but a county or city may obtain an additional six months before it is required to have adopted its development regula- tions by submitting a letter notifying the department of community, trade, and economic development of its need prior to the deadline for adopting both a comprehensive plan and development regulations. (5) If the office of financial management certifies that the population of a county that previously had not been required to plan under subsection (1) or (2) of this section has changed sufficiently to meet either of the sets of criteria specified under subsection (1) of this section, and where applicable, the county legislative authority has not adopted a resolution removing the county from these requirements as provided in subsection (1) of this section, the county and each city within such county shall take actions under this chapter as follows: (a) The county legislative authority shall adopt a county-wide planning policy under RCW 36.70A.210; (b) the county and each city located within the county shall adopt development regulations under RCW 36.70A.060 conserving agricultural lands, forest lands, and mineral resource lands it designated within one year of the certification by the office of financial management; (c) the county shall designate and take other actions related to urban growth areas under RCW 36.70A.110; and (d) the county and each city located within the county shall adopt a comprehensive land use plan and development regulations that are con- sistent with and implement the comprehensive plan within four years of the certification by the office of financial management, but a county or city may obtain an additional six months before it is required to have adopted its development regulations by submitting a letter notifying the department of community, trade, and economic development of its need prior to the deadline for adopting both a comprehensive plan and development regulations. (6) A copy of each document that is required under this section shall be submitted to the department at the time of its adoption. {+ (7) Cities and counties planning under this chapter must amend the transportation element of the comprehensive plan to be in compliance with this chapter and chapter 47.80 RCW no later than December 31, 2000. +} Sec. 2. RCW 36.70A.070 and 1997 c 429 s 7 are each amended to read as follows: The comprehensive plan of a county or city that is required or chooses to plan under RCW 36.70A.040 shall consist of a map or maps, and descriptive text covering objectives, principles, and standards used to develop the comprehensive plan. The plan shall be an internally consistent document and all elements shall be consistent with the future land use map. A comprehensive plan shall be adopted and amended with public partici- pation as provided in RCW 36.70A.140. Appendix C . HB 1487.1998 legislation Coordinating Transportation and Growth Management Planning - Each comprehensive plan shall include a plan, scheme, or design for each of the following: (1) A land use element designating the proposed general distribution and general location and extent of the uses of land, where appropriate, for agricul- ture, timber production, housing, commerce, industry, recreation, open spaces, general aviation airports, public utilities, public facilities, and other land uses. The land use element shall in- clude population densities, building intensities, and estimates of future population growth. The land use element shall provide for protection of the quality and quantity of ground water used for public water supplies. Where applicable, the land use element shall review drainage, flood- ing, and storm water run -off in the area and nearby jurisdictions and provide guidance for corrective actions to mitigate or cleanse those discharges that pollute waters of the state, includ- ing Puget Sound or waters entering Puget Sound. (2) A housing element ensuring the vitality and character of established residential neighborhoods that: (a) Includes an inventory and analysis of existing and projected housing needs; (b) includes a statement of goals, policies, objectives, and manda- tory provisions for the preservation, improvement, and development of housing, including single- family residences; (c) identifies sufficient land for housing, including, but not limited to, government- assisted housing, housing for low- income families, manufactured housing, multi- family housing, and group homes and foster care facilities; and (d) makes adequate provisions for existing and projected needs of all economic segments of the community. (3) A capital facilities plan element consisting of: (a) An inventory of existing capital facilities owned by public entities, showing the locations and capacities of the capital facilities; (b) a forecast of the future needs for such capital facilities; (c) the proposed locations and capacities of expanded or new capital facilities; (d) at least a six -year plan that will finance such capital facilities within projected funding capacities and clearly identifies sources of public money for such purposes; and (e) a requirement to reassess the land use element if probable funding falls short of meeting existing needs and to ensure that the land use element, capital facilities plan element, and financing plan within the capital facilities plan element are coordinated and consistent. (4) A utilities element consisting of the general location, proposed location, and capacity of all existing and proposed utilities, including, but not limited to, electrical lines, telecommunication lines, and natural gas lines. (5) Rural element. Counties shall include a rural element including lands that are not designated for urban growth, agriculture, forest, or mineral re- sources. The following provisions shall apply to the rural element: (a) Growth management act goals and local circumstances. Because circumstances vary from county to county, in establishing patterns of rural densities and uses, a county may consider local circumstances, but shall develop a written record explaining how the rural element harmonizes the planning goals in RCW 36.70A.020 and meets the requirements of this chapter. (b) Rural development. The rural element shall permit rural development, forestry, and agriculture in rural areas. The rural element shall provide for a variety of rural densities, uses, essential public facilities, and rural governmental services needed to serve the permitted densities and uses. In order to achieve a variety of rural densities and uses, counties may provide for clustering, density transfer, design guidelines, conservation easements, and other innovative techniques that will accommodate appropriate rural densities and uses that are not characterized by urban growth and that are consistent with rural character. (c) Measures governing rural development. The rural element shall include measures that apply to rural development and protect the rural character of the area, as established by the county, by: (i) Containing or otherwise controlling rural development; (ii) Assuring visual compatibility of rural development with the surrounding rural area; (iii) Reducing the inappropriate conversion of undeveloped land 1W4fSi.g!E'J.::r rk 4a4 W„ 4,; 0,4• nrt, 4sai� .i.::.�.ie+lfnaYtii:idc+.YUa. a •.d:. Appendix C . HB 1487.199E Legislation Coordinating Transportation and Growth Management Planning SZY into sprawling, low- density development in the rural area; (iv) Protecting critical areas, as provided in RCW 36.70A.060, and surface water and ground water resources; and (v) Protecting against conflicts with the use of agricultural, forest, and mineral resource lands designated under RCW 36.70A.170. (d) Limited areas of more intensive rural development. Subject to the requirements of this subsection and except as otherwise specifically provided in this subsec- tion (5)(d), the rural element may allow for limited areas of more intensive rural development, including necessary public facilities and public services to serve the limited area as follows: (i) Rural development consisting of the infill, development, or redevelopment of existing commercial, industrial, residential, or mixed -use areas, whether characterized as shoreline development, villages, hamlets, rural activity centers, or crossroads developments. A commercial, industrial, residential, shoreline, or mixed -use area shall be subject to the requirements of (d)(iv) of this subsection, but shall not be subject to the require- ments of (c)(li) and (iii) of this subsection. An industrial area is not required to be principally designed to serve the existing and projected rural population; (ii) The intensification of development on lots containing, or new development of, small-scale recreational or tourist uses, including commercial facilities to serve those recreational or tourist uses, that rely on a rural location and setting, but that do not include new residential development. A small -scale recreation or tourist use is not required to be principally designed to serve the existing and projected rural population. Public services and public facilities shall be limited to those necessary to serve the recreation or tourist use and shall be provided in a manner that does not permit low - density sprawl; (iii) The intensification of development on lots containing isolated nonresidential uses or new development of isolated cottage industries and isolated small-scale businesses that are not principally designed to serve the existing and projected rural population and nonresidential uses, but do provide job opportunities for rural residents. Pub- lic services and public facilities shall be limited to those necessary to serve the isolated nonresi- dential use and shall be provided in a manner that does not permit low- density sprawl; (iv) A county shall adopt measures to minimize and contain the existing areas or uses of more intensive rural development, as appropriate, authorized under this subsection. Lands included in such existing areas or uses shall not extend beyond the logical outer boundary of the existing area or use, thereby allowing a new pattern of low - density sprawl. Existing areas are those that are clearly identifiable and contained and where there is a logical boundary delineated predominately by the built environment, but that may also include undeveloped lands if limited as provided in this subsection. The county shall establish the logical outer boundary of an area of more intensive rural development. In estab- lishing the logical outer boundary the county shall address (A) the need to preserve the charac- ter of existing natural neighborhoods and communities, (B) physical boundaries such as bodies of water, streets and highways, and land forms and contours, (C) the prevention of abnormally irregular boundaries, and (D) the ability to provide public facilities and public services in a manner that does not permit low- density sprawl; (v) For purposes of (d) of this subsection, an existing area or existing use is one that was in existence: (A) On July 1, 1990, in a county that was initially required to plan under all of the provisions of this chapter; (B) On the date the county adopted a resolution under RCW 36.70A.040(2), in a county that is planning under all of the provisions of this chapter under RCW 36.70A.040(2); or (C) On the date the office of financial management certifies the county's population as provided in RCW 36.70A.040(5), in a county that is planning under all of the provisions of this chapter pursuant to RCW 36.70A.040(5). (e) Exception. This subsection shall not be interpreted to permit in the rural area a major industrial development or a master planned resort unless otherwise RtpMmeNaGpi•. - — — __ Appendix C • HI 1437•1998 legislation Coordinating Transportation and Growth Management Planning a a.:v� -nua -specifically permitted under RCW 36.70A.360 and 36.70A.365. (6) A transportation element that implements, and is consistent with, the land use ele- ment. {+ (a) +} The transportation element shall include the following subelements: (( {- (a) - })) {+ (i) +} Land use assumptions used in estimating travel; (( {- (b) - })) (+ (ii) Estimated traffic impacts to state -owned transportation facilities resulting from land use assumptions to assist the department of transportation in monitoring the performance of state facilities, to plan improvements for the facilities, and to assess the impact of land -use decisions on state -owned transportation facilities; (iii) +) Facilities and services needs, including: (((- (i) -D) {+ (A) +} An inventory of air, water, and ground transportation facilities and services, including transit alignments and general aviation airport facilities, to define existing capital facilities and travel levels as a basis for future planning (+ . This inventory must include state -owned transportation facilities within the city or county's jurisdiction boundaries +); (( {- (ii) - })) {+ (B) +} Level of service standards for all . {+ locally owned +} arterials and transit routes to serve as a gauge to judge performance of the system. These standards should be regionally coordinated; (( {- (iii) -))) {+ (C) For state -owned transportation facilities,level of service standards for highways, as prescribed in chapters 47.06 and 47.80 RCW, to gauge the performance of the system. The purposes of reflecting level of service standards for state highways in the local comprehensive plan are to monitor the performance of the system, to evaluate improvement strategies, and to facilitate coordination between the county's or city's six -year street, road, or transit program and the department of transportation's six -year investment program. The concurrency requirements of (b) of this subsection do not apply to transportation facilities and services of state -wide significance except for counties consisting of islands whose only connection to the mainland are state highways or ferry routes. In these island counties, state highways and ferry route capacity must be a factor in meeting the concurrency requirements in (b) of this subsection; (D) +} Specific actions and requirements for bringing into compliance (( {- any - })) {+ locally owned transportation +} facilities or services thaf are below an established level of service standard; (( {- (iv) - })) {+ (E) +1 Forecasts of traffic for at least ten years based on the adopted land use plan to provide information on the location, timing, and capacity needs of future growth; (( {- (v) - })) {+ (F) +1 Identification of {+ state and local +} system (( {- expansion needs and transportation system management - })) needs to meet current and future demands {+ . Identified needs on state -owned transportation facilities must be consistent with the state -wide multimodal transportation plan required under chapter 47.06 RCW + }; (((- (c) - })) {+ (iv) +} Finance, including: (( {- (i) - })) {+ (A) +} An analysis of funding capability to judge needs against probable funding resources; (( {- (ii) - })) {+ (B) +} A multiyear financing plan based on the needs identified in the comprehensive plan, the appropriate parts of which shall serve as the basis for the six-year street, road, or transit program required by RCW 35.77.010 for cities, RCW 36.81.121 for counties, and RCW 35.58.2795 for public transportation systems {+ . The multiyear financing plan should be coordinated with the six-year improvement program developed by the department of transportation as required by RCW 47.05.030 + }; (( {- (iii) -))) {+ (C) +1 If probable funding falls short of wx;xt�;.7„r t : rr,.ya F,*,w"+:vr' X1,14.1 ' - -C; :. Appendix C • H6 1457 -1998 Legislation Coordinating Transportation and Growth Management Planning Z ct =Z O 00 J F- �w w O LL.Q =• d II_ Ili Z= I— 0 ZF-- w UC) 0-- ca ww F-FUr- O wz I 0 F' Z meeting identified needs, a discussion of how additional funding will be raised, or how land use assumptions will be reassessed to ensure that level of service standards will be met; (( {- (d) - })) {+ (v) +} Intergovernmental coordination efforts, including an assessment of the impacts of the transportation plan and land use assumptions on the transportation systems of adjacent jurisdictions; (( {- (e) - })) {+ (vi) +} Demand - management strategies. {+ (b) +} After adoption of the comprehensive plan by jurisdictions required to plan or who choose to plan under RCW 36.70A.040, local jurisdictions must adopt and enforce ordinances which prohibit development approval if the development causes the level of service on a {+ locally owned +} transportation facility to decline below the standards adopted in the transportation element of the comprehensive plan, unless transportation im- provements or strategies to accommodate the impacts of development are made concurrent with the development. These strategies may include increased public transportation service, ride sharing programs, demand management, and other transportation systems management strategies. For the purposes of this subsection (6) "concurrent with the development" shall mean that improvements or strategies are in place at the time of development, or that a finan- cial commitment is in place to complete the improvements or strategies within six years. {+ (c) +} The transportation element described in this subsection {+ (6) + }, and the six -year plans required by RCW 35.77.010 for cities, RCW 36.81.121 for coun- ties, (( {- and - })) RCW 35.58.2795 for public transportation systems, {+ and RCW 47.05.030 for the state, +} must be consistent. Sec. 3. RCW 36.70A.200 and 1991 sp.s. c 32 s 1 are each amended to read as follows: (1) The comprehensive plan of each county and city that is planning under this chapter shall include a process for identifying and siting essential public facilities. Essential public facilities include those facilities that are typically difficult to site, such as airports, state education facilities and state or regional transportation facilities {+ as defined in section 7 of this act +), state and local correctional facilities, solid waste handling facilities, and in- patient facilities including substance abuse facilities, mental health facilities, and group homes. (2) The office of financial management shall maintain a list of those essential state public facilities that are required or likely to be built within the next six years. The office of financial management may at any time add facilities to the list. No local comprehensive plan or development regulation may preclude the siting of essential public facilities. Sec. 4. RCW 36.70A.210 and 1994 c 249 s 28 are each amended to read as follows: (1) The legislature recognizes that counties are regional governments within their boundaries, and cities are primary providers of urban governmental services within urban growth areas. For the purposes of this section, a "county -wide planning policy" is a written policy statement or statements used solely for establishing a county-wide framework from which county and city comprehensive plans are developed and adopted pursuant to this chapter. This framework shall ensure that city and county comprehensive plans are consistent as required in RCW 36.70A.100. Nothing in this section shall be construed to alter the land -use powers of cities. (2) The legislative authority of a county that plans under RCW 36.70A.040 shall adopt a county-wide planning policy in cooperation with the cities located in whole or in part within the county as follows: (a) No later than sixty calendar days from July 16, 1991, the legislative authority of each county that as of June 1, 1991, was required or chose to plan under RCW 36.70A.040 shall convene a meeting with representatives of each city located within the county for the purpose of establishing a collaborative process that will provide a framework for t. Appendix C . HB 1437.1998 legislation Coordinating Transportation and Growth Management Planning fhe adoption of a county-wide planning policy. In other counties that are required or choose to plan under RCW 36.70A.040, this meeting shall be convened no later than sixty days after the date the county adopts its resolution of intention or was certified by the office of financial management. (b) The process and framework for adoption of a county-wide planning policy specified in (a) of this subsection shall determine the manner in which the county and the cities agree to all procedures and provisions including but not limited to desired planning policies, deadlines, ratification of final agreements and demonstration thereof, and financing, if any, of all activities associated therewith. (c) If a county fails for any reason to convene a meeting with representatives of cities as required in (a) of this subsection, the governor may immediately impose any appropriate sanction or sanctions on the county from those specified under RCW 36.70A.340. (d) If there is no agreement by October 1, 1991, in a county that was required or chose to plan under RCW 36.70A.040 as of June 1, 1991, or if there is no agree- ment within one hundred twenty days of the date the county adopted its resolution of intention or was certified by the office of financial management in any other county that is required or chooses to plan under RCW 36.70A.040, the governor shall first inquire of the jurisdictions as to the reason or reasons for failure to reach an agreement. If the governor deems it appropriate, the governor may immediately request the assistance of the department of community, trade, and economic development to mediate any disputes that preclude agreement. If mediation is unsuccessful in resolving all disputes that will lead to agreement, the governor may impose appropriate sanctions from those specified under RCW 36.70A.340 on the county, city, or cities for failure to reach an agreement as provided in this section. The governor shall specify the reason or reasons for the imposition of any sanction. (e) No later than July 1, 1992, the legislative authority of each county that was required or chose to plan under RCW 36.70A.040 as of June 1, 1991, or no later than fourteen months after the date the county adopted its resolution of intention or was certified by the office of financial management the county legislative authority of any other county that is required or chooses to plan under RCW 36.70A.040, shall adopt a county-wide planning policy according to the process provided under this section and that is consistent with the agreement pursuant to (b) of this subsection, and after holding a public hearing or hearings on the proposed county-wide planning policy. (3) A county-wide planning policy shall at a minimum, address the following: (a) Policies to implement RCW 36.70A.110; (b) Policies for promotion of contiguous and orderly development and provision of urban services to such development; (c) Policies for siting public capital facilities of a county-wide or state -wide nature {+ , including transportation facilities of state -wide significance as defined in section 7 of this act + }; (d) Policies for county-wide transportation facilities and strategies; (e) Policies that consider the need for affordable housing, such as housing for all economic segments of the population and parameters for its distribution; (f) Policies for joint county and city planning within urban growth areas; (g) Policies for county -wide economic development and employment; and (h) An analysis of the fiscal impact. (4) Federal agencies and Indian tribes may participate in and cooperate with the county-wide planning policy adoption process. Adopted county-wide planning policies shall be adhered to by state agencies. (5) Failure to adopt a county-wide planning policy that meets the ... .,.r +:t'.;,,w,$,��;.::�•t7 :k-,r A:d.Ao 44,": *MC ... ;• su.•,rx:fF �,.N�M7hiiw &u '316413A. Appendix C - H8 1487 -1998 Legislation Coordinating Transportation and Growth Management Planning r.,SY rw. �,.. a•. «�ws�?�•�.*::•c+a�r'�;,�,»8r1: "�5 iu.*, rrr±,, t. rc.. t,��tr9..,:sia+,tdHro!erikSN?l requirements of this section may result in the imposition of a sanction or sanctions on a county or city within the county, as specified in RCW 36.70A.340. In imposing a sanction or sanctions, the governor shall specify the reasons for failure to adopt a county-wide planning policy in order that any imposed sanction or sanctions are fairly and equitably related to the failure to adopt a county-wide planning policy. (6) Cities and the governor may appeal an adopted county-wide planning policy to the growth management hearings board within sixty days of the adoption of the county-wide planning policy. (7) Multicounty planning policies shall be adopted by two or more counties, each with a population of four hundred fifty thousand or more, with contiguous urban areas and may be adopted by other counties, according to the process established under this section or other processes agreed to among the counties and cities within the affected counties throughout the multicounty region. Sec. 5. RCW 47.05.021 and 1993 c 490 s 2 are each amended to read as follows: (1) The transportation commission is hereby directed to conduct periodic analyses of the entire state highway system, report thereon to the chairs of the trans- portation committees of the senate and house of representatives, including one copy to the staff of each of the committees, biennially and based thereon, to subdivide, classify, and subclassify according to their function and importance all designated state highways and those added from time to time and periodically review and revise the classifications into the following three functional classes: (a) The "principal arterial system" shall consist of a connected network of rural arterial routes with appropriate extensions into and through urban areas, including all routes designated as part of the interstate system, which serve corridor move- ments having travel characteristics indicative of substantial state -wide and interstate travel; (b) The "minor arterial system" shall, in conjunction with the principal arterial system, form a rural network of arterial routes linking cities and other activity centers which generate long distance travel, and, with appropriate extensions into and through urban areas, form an integrated network providing interstate and interregional service; and (c) The "collector system" shall consist of routes which primarily serve the more important intercounty, intracounty, and intraurban travel corridors, collect traffic from the system of local access roads and convey it to the arterial system, and on which, regardless of traffic volume, the predominant travel distances are shorter than on arterial routes. (2) In making the functional classification the transportation commission shall adopt and give consideration to criteria consistent with this section and federal regulations relating to the functional classification of highways, including but not limited to the following: (a) Urban population centers within and without the state stratified and ranked according to size; (b) Important traffic generating economic activities, including but not limited to recreation, agriculture, government, business, and industry; (c) Feasibility of the route, including availability of alternate routes within and without the state; (d) Directness of travel and distance between points of economic importance; (e) Length of trips; (f) Character and volume of traffic; (g) Preferential consideration for multiple service which shall include public transportation; Appendix C • HE 1487.1998 Legislation Coordinating Transportation and Growth Management Planning CO z z a: JU 000 w= F- w0 2 gQ 0� i d. III zI I- 0 ZI LU O -. CI H ww I LL • O wz = 0~ z (h) Reasonable spacing depending upon population density; and (i) System continuity. (3) The transportation commission shall designate (( {- a system of -))) state highways (( {- that have - })) {+ of +} state -wide significance {+ under section 7 of this act, and shall submit a list of such facilities for adoption by the 1999 legislature +). This state -wide system shall include {+ at a minimum +} interstate highways and other state -wide principal arterials that are needed to connect major communities across the state and support the state's economy. (4) The transportation commission shall designate a freight and goods transportation system. This state -wide system shall include state highways, county roads, and city streets. The commission, in cooperation with cities and counties, shall review and make recommendations to the legislature regarding policies governing weight restrictions and road closures which affect the transportation of freight and goods. The first report is due by December 15, 1993, and biennially thereafter. Sec. 6. RCW 47.05.030 and 1993 c 490 s 3 are each amended to read as follows: The transportation commission shall adopt a comprehensive six -year investment program specifying program objectives and performance measures for the preser- vation and improvement programs defined in this section. In the specification of investment program objectives and performance measures, the transportation commission, in consultation with the Washington state department of transportation, shall define and adopt standards for effective programming and prioritization practices including a needs analysis process. The needs analysis process shall ensure the identification of problems and deficiencies, the evalua- tion of alternative solutions and trade -offs, and estimations of the costs and benefits of prospec- tive projects. The investment program shall be revised biennially, effective on July 1st of odd - numbered years. The investment program shall be based upon the needs identified in the state -owned highway component of the state -wide multimodal transportation plan as defined in RCW 47.01.071(3). (1) The preservation program shall consist of those investments necessary to preserve the existing state highway system and to restore existing safety features, giving consideration to lowest life cycle costing. The comprehensive six -year investment program for preservation shall identify projects for two years and an investment plan for the remaining four years. (2) The improvement program shall consist of investments needed to address identified deficiencies on the state highway system to improve mobility, safety, support for the economy, and protection of the environment. The six -year investment program for improvements shall identify projects for two years and major deficiencies proposed to be addressed in the six -year period giving consideration to relative benefits and life cycle costing. {+ The transportation commission shall give higher priority for correcting identified defi- ciencies on those facilities classified as facilities of state -wide significance as defined in section 7 of this act. +} The transportation commission shall approve and present the comprehensive six -year investment program to the legislature in support of the biennial budget request under RCW 44.40.070 and 44.40.080. {+ NEW SECTION. +} Sec. 7. A new section is added to chapter 47.06 RCW to read as follows: The legislature declares the following transportation facilities and services to be of state- wide significance: The interstate highway system, interregional state principal arterials including ferry connections that serve state -wide travel, intercity passenger rail services, intercity high -speed ground transportation, major passenger intermodal terminals excluding all airport facilities and services, the freight railroad system, the Columbia/Snake navigable river system, marine port facilities and services that are related solely to marine activities gr= '&°=17'lri:t?c`9� 33 R: �nY4A Appendix C . H8 1487.1998 Legislation Coordinating Transportation and Growth Management Planning affecting international and interstate trade, and high - capacity transportation systems serving regions as defined in RCW 81.104.015. The department, in cooperation with regional trans- portation planning organizations, counties, cities, transit agencies, public ports, private railroad operators, and private transportation providers, as appropriate, shall plan for im- provements to transportation facilities and services of state -wide significance in the state- wide multimodal plan. Improvements to facilities and services of state -wide significance identified in the state -wide multimodal plan are essential state public facilities under RCW 36.70A.200. The department of transportation, in consultation with local governments, shall set level of service standards for state highways and state ferry routes of state -wide significance. Although the department shall consult with local governments when setting level of service standards, the department retains authority to make final decisions regarding level of service standards for state highways and state ferry routes of state -wide significance. In establishing level of service standards for state highways and state ferry routes of state -wide significance, the department shall consider the necessary balance between providing for the free interjurisdictional movement of people and goods and the needs of local communities using these facilities. Sec. 8. RCW 47.80.023 and 1994 c 158 s 2 are each amended to read as follows: Each regional transportation planning organization shall have the following duties: (1) Prepare and periodically update a transportation strategy for the region. The strategy shall address alternative transportation modes and transportation demand management measures in regional corridors and shall recommend preferred transpor- tation policies to implement adopted growth strategies. The strategy shall serve as a guide in preparation of the regional transportation plan. (2) Prepare a regional transportation plan as set forth in RCW 47.80.030 that is consistent with county -wide planning policies if such have been adopted pursuant to chapter 36.70A RCW, with county, city, and town comprehensive plans, and state transportation plans. (3) Certify by December 31, 1996, that the transportation elements of comprehensive plans adopted by counties, cities, and towns within the region reflect the guidelines and principles developed pursuant to RCW 47.80.026, are consistent with the adopted regional transportation plan, and, where appropriate, conform with the requirements of RCW 36.70A.070. (4) Where appropriate, certify that county -wide planning policies adopted under RCW 36.70A.210 and the adopted regional transportation plan are consistent. (5) Develop, in cooperation with the department of transportation, operators of public transportation services and local governments within the region, a six -year regional transportation improvement program which proposes regionally significant transpor- tation projects and programs and transportation demand management measures. The regional transportation improvement program shall be based on the programs, projects, and transporta- tion demand management measures of regional significance as identified by transit agencies, cities, and counties pursuant to RCW 35.58.2795, 35.77.010, and 36.81.121, respectively. The program shall include a priority list of projects and programs, project segments and programs, transportation demand management measures, and a specific financial plan that demonstrates how the transportation improvement program can be funded. The program shall be updated at least every two years for the ensuing six-year period. (6) Designate a lead planning agency to coordinate preparation of the regional transportation plan and carry out the other responsibilities of the organization. The lead planning agency may be a regional organization, a component county, city, or town agency, or the appropriate Washington state department of transportation district office. Appendix C • H6 14137.199E legislation Coordinating Transportation and Growth Management Planning OD {+ (7) Review level of service methodologies used by cities and counties planning under chapter 36.70A RCW to promote a consistent regional evaluation of transportation facilities and corridors. (8) Work with cities, counties, transit agencies, the department of transportation, and others to develop level of service standards or alternative transportation performance measures. +} Sec. 9. RCW 47.80.030 and 1994 c 158 s 4 are each amended to read as follows: (1) Each regional transportation planning organization shall develop in cooperation with the department of transportation, providers of public transporta- tion and high capacity transportation, ports, and local governments within the region, adopt, and periodically update a regional transportation plan that: (a) Is based on a least cost planning methodology that identifies the most cost - effective facilities, services, and programs; (b) Identifies existing or planned transportation facilities, services, and programs, including but not limited to major roadways including state highways and regional arterials, transit and nonmotorized services and facilities, multimodal and intermodal facilities, marine ports and airports, railroads, and noncapital programs including transportation demand management that should function as an integrated regional transporta- tion system, giving emphasis to those facilities, services, and programs that exhibit one or more of the following characteristics: (i) (( {- Physically - })) {+ C + }rosses member county lines; (ii) Is or will be used by a significant number of people who live or work outside the county in which the facility, service, or project is located; (iii) Significant impacts are expected to be felt in more than one county; (iv) Potentially adverse impacts of the facility, service, program, or project can be better avoided or mitigated through adherence to regional policies; (( {- and - })) (v) Transportation needs addressed by a project have been identified by the regional transportation planning process and the remedy is deemed to have regional significance; {+ and (vi) Provides for system continuity; +} (c) Establishes level of service standards (( {- at a minimum for all - })) {+ for +} state highways and state ferry routes {+ , with the exception of transportation facilities of state -wide significance as defined in section 7 of this act + }. These regionally established level of service standards for state highways and state ferries shall be developed jointly with the department of transportation, to encourage consistency across jurisdictions. In establishing level of service standards for state highways and state ferries, consideration shall be given for the necessary balance between providing for the free interjurisdictional movement of people and goods and the needs of local commuters using state facilities; (d) Includes a financial plan demonstrating how the regional transportation plan can be implemented, indicating resources from public and private sources that are reasonably expected to be made available to carry out the plan, and recommending any innovative financing techniques to finance needed facilities, services, and programs; (e) Assesses regional development patterns, capital investment and other measures necessary to: (i) Ensure the preservation of the existing regional transportation system, including requirements for operational improvements, resurfacing, restoration, and rehabilitation of existing and future major roadways, as well as operations, maintenance, modernization, and rehabilitation of existing and future transit, railroad systems and corridors, and nonmotorized facilities; and (ii) Make the most efficient use of existing transportation Appendix C - HIS 1487 -1998 Legislation Coordinating Transportation and Growth Management Planning CO facilities to relieve vehicular congestion and maximize the-mobility of people and goods; (f) Sets forth a proposed regional transportation approach, including capital investments, service improvements, programs, and transportation demand management measures to guide the development of the integrated, multimodal regional trans- portation system; and (g) Where appropriate, sets forth the relationship of high capacity transportation providers and other public transit providers with regard to responsibility for, and the coordination between, services and facilities. (2) The organization shall review the regional transportation plan biennially for currency and forward the adopted plan along with documentation of the biennial review to the state department of transportation. (3) All transportation projects, programs, and transportation demand management measures within the region that have an impact upon regional facilities or services must be consistent with the plan and with the adopted regional growth and trans- portation strategies. Appendix C • HIS 1487 -1998 legislation Coordinating Transportation and Growth Management Planning CID z: 2 U O; moo' • J w0 LL Ds = 1-=. z f. F- O. • z !—. .0 r •F•-, w u1 I0 • LL Z, Iii am: z Additional Comprehensive Plan amendments to be considered by City Council on July 10 The Tukwila City Council is considering adding two potential amendments for its annual review of the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Code. The Comprehensive Plan describes the broad land use goals and policies that will guide Tukwila for the next 20 years. The Zoning Code carries out the Compre- hensive Plan's policies with specific requirements for land development. The proposed amendments are as follows: 1. Allow office uses in the Manufacturing/Industrial Center - Light (MIC /L) zone whether or not they are associated with a specific permitted industrial use (File L2000 -0036) t ; ice_'lfl 5 \'' AAA 1 I , Discussion: The MIC /L zone is primarily a light industrial area with warehousing and manufacturing activities. The proposed amendment would let offices locate throughout the zone, whether or not they are linked with an existing industrial activity. 2. Update existing Transportation Background Report (File #L2000 -0038) Discussion: 1998 changes to the Washington Growth Management Act require that the City of Tukwila update the transportation portion of its Comprehensive Plan to identify the impacts of major transportation facilities (i.e. the interstate system and proposed light rail), clarify system needs, and coordinate its efforts with the State. To give residents and businesses the opportunity to express their opinions about these proposed Comprehensive Plan amendments, there will be a: PUBLIC MEETING on July 10, 2000 at 7:00PM in Council Chambers at Tukwila City Hall 6200 Southcenter Boulevard The City of Tukwila welcomes both written and verbal comments about the proposed Comprehensive Plan /Zoning Code amendments from Tukwila's citizens and business community. Please call Rebecca Fox of the Department of Community Development at 206 -431 -3683 if you have ques- tions or concerns. You may address written comments not later than July 24, 2000 to the Tukwila Department of Community Develop- ment, 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Tukwila, WA 98188. If you prefer, you may also comment via email to rfox@ci.tulcwila.wa.us. 2 Don Williams Director of Parks and Recreation Department retires from Tukwila Don Williams, Tukwila's Parks and Recre- ation Director, retired at the end of May after 31 years in parks and recreation ser- vice, 23 of those years in Tukwila. On Thursday, June 1, a dinner in Don's honor — attended by 135 of his family, co -work- ers, friends and members of the commu- nity —was held at the Tukwila Community Center. Don was presented with some fine gifts, fond mementos and many kind words from those who could attest to his many contributions to our community. Through Don's leadership, many beautiful parks and trails have been built, recreation programs have been expanded and en- hanced, and the citizens have been pro- vided with a beautiful golf course. The highlight of Don's career in Tukwila would have to be the award - winning Tukwila Community Center, which had been Don's dream for twenty years. This beautiful addi- tion to Tukwila has exceeded all expecta- tions for success. Don's friendship, leadership and contribu- tions will be greatly missed. However, he has laid substantial groundwork for this community to build upon. Thank you Don, for the wonderful, tangible assets that you have helped create for Tukwila citizens to enjoy far into the future. Enjoy your retire- ment! �'.rnEa'�r;t u..x r5.sif THE HAZELNUT