The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutPermit L94-0052 - CITY OF TUKWILA - TUKWILA URBAN CENTER COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT (TUKWILA TOMORROW)L94 -0052 TUKWILA TOMORROW TUKWILA URBAN CENTER COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT • L02-049 Draft Sign Code Changes October 17, 2002 0 PERCENT OF A 1 [0% bo„.,, f r VSR-Agfeernente 41+e term3 efthc VSI ESTABLISHING THE EXTENDED COMPLIANCE PERIOD Perce„♦ o f Ro uctie„ Using FeF 1 1 rll.rrlll Less than 30%, Atieast30 buy„et ath n5 At least n 5 but „et a the 60 Page 12 of 13 Attachment B COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLAN AMENDMENT City of Tukwila John W. Rants, Mayor Department of Community Development Steve Lancaster, Director MEMORANDUM Tukwila Tomorrow Committee Members Rick Beeler CSMN February 14, 1995 Final Review of Tukwila Urban Center Recommendation. Attached are the revised Tukwila Urban Center goals and policies and a revised transmittal letter from the Committee for your review. I'd like to thank Pat, Cheryl, and Bill H. for the use of their revision notes, and Anna and John for meeting with Vern to check his work. I believe that together, the Committee's revisions have been captured. Briefly, the initial staff draft started with a merger of Committee Urban Center recommendations in Section 11 of the "Red Book" and revisions based on previous Committee work. Initial staff revisions to Red Book policies were and shown with overstrikes and underlines. Subsequent Committee revisions to the staff draft are presented as additional overstrikes and underlines which are contained within brackets or l additional text) Please contact Vernon Umetsu at 431 -3684, if we can be of further help. MEETING AGENDA 2/15/95 6:00 P.M. D.C.D. Conference Room 6300 Southcenter Blvd. 1. Complete Review of Tukwila Urban Center Goals and Policies. 2. Select Committee Spokespersons to Present the Urban Center to the Planning Commission on Tuesday, February 21st at 6:00 P.M. 3. Adjourn. 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • (206) 431-3670 • Fax (206) 431-3665 From: Rick Beeler To: Vern Umetsu Date: 2/14/95 Time: 15:54:56 Page 2 of 3 DRAFT TO: Planning Commission FROM: Tukwila Tomorrow Committee . DATE: February 15, 1995 SUBJECT: Urban Center Alternatives The Tukwila Tomorrow Committee was asked to prepare and forward to the Planning Commission and CityCouncil two alternatives to the Committee's recommended "urban center" in the Red Book. Attached are those alternatives, labeled a "Commercial Area" and "Activity Area ", that comply with the Countywide Planning Policies. We were also asked to prepare a recommendation for the central business district that is not constrained by the Countywide Planning Policies, but reflects our vision of the realistic growth of the central business district over the next 30 50 years. Such a "revisit" of our original recommendation in the Red Book is based in the latest revisions to the Countywide Planning Policies increasing flexibility for local implementation and phasing of growth toward becoming an urban center. needed revisions as a result of our development of the two alternatives. C . t•u-` -p-u -C: The Tukwila Tomorrow Committee's recommended alternative for the central business district is a third alternative, termed the "Tukwila Urban Center ". (Attached). This alternative recognizes where the business district was years ago, where it is now, and where it is going. Over time market forces have shaped the business district into something greater than an "activity area ", and it is emerging as an "urban center ". But an "urban center" level of growth will take 30 - 50 years. In the meantime there are policies that ,need be implemented to keep growth on course, and we included them in our recommendation. Members of the Committee will be available at your meetings to answer questions about this recommendation. Sincerely, The Tukwila Tomorrow Committee: Bill Arthur Anna Bernhard Cheryl A. Brown Pat Cagampang Bill Holstine Paul Seely Richard Simpson John Welch Mike West City of Tukwila Centers Comparative. Analysis, Phase II Development Goals and Policies for the Recommended Tukwila Urban Center City of Tukwila Department of Community Developmen PREPARED BY Kask Consulting, Inc. Arai /Jackson Mundy & Associates 13 FEBRUARY 1995 (Revision of the 26 January 1995 Draft) TABLE OF CONTENTS Section.1.0 Introduction and Background 1.1 Introduction 1 1.2 Vision Statement 2 1.3 A Comparison of the Tukwila Urban Center with Regional Policies 4 1.4 Boundaries for the Tukwila Urban Center 6 Section 2.0 Recommended Goals, Policies, and Implementation Strategies 2.1 • Introduction 7 2.2 Land Use Issues 8 2.3 Urban Development Issues 16 2.4 Transportation and Circulation Issues 30 List of Figures Tukwila Urban Center Boundaries 6 Illustrative Composite of Center Areas 8 3 &the ei:o Plan f r Tukwila Pond 4-Pedestrian-Ffiendly-Etwirenment 15 5 Improvements in the Riverfront District .. • . 16 7 Illustrative Street Section Configuration 18 8 Vehicle and Pedestrian Connections Between Parcels... 21 9 Street- Building Orientation 22 tea. sin an a Scale 22 11 Landscape in Parking Areas 23 24 2S 14 Possible Park and Open Space Amenity 27 15 Connections to Regional Rail System 30 16 Improved Transit Facility 32 City of Tukwila Centers Comparative Analysis Recommended { Tukwila } Urban Center SECTION 1.0 INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND 1.1 Introduction This document modifies existing Tukwila Tomorrow Committee recommendations for { lbe Tukwila ) Urban Center development. Committee modifications have been made after a review of alternative development approaches in the Comparative Analysis Report (December 15, 1994), { which evaluated the lications of developing the Tukwila Urban Center as an "activi • area" and as a "commercial This second phase to the Centers Comparative Analysis Study { is a revised set of goals and policies which better reflect the Committee's vision for a Tukwila Urban Center 2 1.2 Vision Statement • ( The existing Tukwila Urban nter is n econonically i nl, motor vehicle oriented area 1t owes much of • c success to a igh level of regional_ accessibiity and efficient local acme s roads, well ac th 30+ ear vision • d vigor of its development comrnuni I regional employmmt, hoopping and recreational onnortanilies for business maple. esidentss and Pond and the Green River, Achieving his long -r nee future vision is anticipated to be a la[ process It should no e operations of a isting busin -ss s Rather, it should be achieved bx rei_n_fojci a the businesses and the market transition to higher densities. een e } Notable future features include: • Enhanced connection between Southcenter Mall and Tukwila Pond Recreation Area. '95 -02 -13 16:15 KASK CONSULTANTS STAFF NOTE: The f • Higher density urban center wi employees per • Lower to mod characteristics of industrial uses, p employees per a ing two items may need revision. opment north of Minkler Boulevard, envisioned to take the form of a traditional 0 to 12 story buildings, pedestrian -oriented concentrated development, 50 15 households per acre; nsity in the southern { Tukwila } Urban Center { area ), taking on the activity center with 3 to 6 story buildings, mix of regional commercial and amenities to accommodate both pedestrians and motorists, and 15 to 25 • { Concentrated ) Anchor areas linked by frequent transit service (5 to 10 minute bus or shuttles), enhanced with public and private pedestrian facilities, and development standards supporting this type of built environment. • . ( Enhanced and integrated high -qualify transit and pedestrian facilities. ) • Overall improvements to the network of streets, trails, sidewalks, and other infrastructure. • Encouragement of pedestrian -oriented environment through building and streetscape design features. • Sensitivity to the needs of existing businesses while facilitating the area's transition to higher development intensities. • • 3 4 1.3 A Comparison of the Recommended ( Tukwila) Urban Center with Regional Policies { The Tukwila Urban Center vision takes into account theKing County Countywide Planning Policies criteria for_urban ce ters and has been formulated by recognizing hat "the intent of the Countywide Planning Policies is to encourage the growth of each Urban Center as a unique, vibrant community that is an attractive place to live and work. will support efficient public services including transit, and responds to local needs and mark s for i, o�d_ho�u.�irg" (Ordinance No. 11446. Section D2, lines 25- 28). The goals and policies for the Tukwila Urban Center respond to the area's existin' economicall vibrant motor -vehicle oriented development pattern and recognizes that its path for higher -density growth will take place beyond the 20-year horizon of the Countywide Planning Policies,The } While these centers play an integral role in the regional vision, the Countywide Policies clearly delineate that the form and function of thescenters will be dpte fnin5d at the local level. The characteristics of the (Tp};wila) Urban Center (� compaii rwithe King County Countywide Planning Policies and the Puget Sound Regional Council's Vision 2020 Plan. ; --eve ' ) Amended Countywide Planning Policies Urban Center Criteria Recommended Tukwila Urban Center Characteristics Planned for 20 years Tukwila Urban Center planned for 30+ years Total land area of up to 1.5 square miles (1,440 acres) Proposed {Tukwila) Urban Center area approximately 1.35 square miles Requires 15,000 employees within one-half mile (walking distance) of a transit center The area is zoned to allow this density Average of 50 employees per gross acre The'(ttio tprrt Tukwila Urban Center concentrated development -am ) is zoned to allow this density and excludes lower density uses. ila pea on to to sl. sy nsitio o hi h r sc Average of 15 households per gross acre (All Tukwila Urban Center areas are development -area -is) zoned to allow (25 household& per gross acre .) Market forces will determine what is actually built. 9JMHl1fSNOD NSH>1 tt:Lt Ft-20-S(, Amended Countywide Planning Policies Urban Center Criteria , _ Recommended Tukwila Urban Center - Characteristics Emphasis on mass transportation and non -motorized modes, while lessening dependency on single occupancy vehicles • Two potential transit (facility center: } locations have been shown. Actual location will require further study. Streetscape improvements throughout the (Tukwila Man,) Center will enhance transit and pedestrian travel. Roadway improvements will enhance (motor vehicle auto} travel and provide pedestrian linkages,* Promotion of high caliber built form, with urban design standards and support for capital public improvements Yes Receives first priority for development of high -capacity transit center and regionally funded support infrastructure Anticipated. This will require active City involvement in regional planning bodies Receives other funding and streamlined permit processing incentives Yes • ` Ammzzi 4---eld-ez2„/ m 5 6 1.4 Boundaries for the Recommended [ Tukwila J Urban Center { Misting -Boundaries } () { } { { Recommended ( Tukwila ) Urban Center Bonn cries `q ? 7k WTI oe o west valley wall FIGURE 1: [ Tukwila j Urban Center Boundaries City of Tukwila Centers Comparative Analysis Recommended { Tukwila }Urban Center SECTION 2.0 RECOMMENDED GOALS, POLICIES, AND IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGIES 2.1 Introduction The following discussion provides a set of recommended goals, policies, and implementation strategies for the { Tukwila } Urban Center. Expanding on and refining the work currently in place as pars of Section 11 of the City Comprehensive Plan, these goals, policies, and strategies have been formulated to better reflect the established vision for the { Tukwila Urban Center stiffly -area ). These policies will help achieve the desired form and function of the center over the { 30- to 50-year 20-year) planning period. Like Section 11 of the City Comprehensive Plan and Section 3.0 of the December 15, 1994 Comparative Centers Analysis, these goals and policies cover the issues of land use, urban development, and transportation and circulation. They aim to develop and protect the long-term economic vitality .of the urban center by creating -an attractive and functional environment that retains its reputation as a good place to work, shop, live, do business, and recreate. with identifying where • etions, a ' di ons, an ► ch ges hav n ban - deleti %ns « the : oals and . s licie • and co end ' ch. s. 7 v Q • n cr a: U 7 c r 1 v: 8 2.2 Land Use Issues The following land use goals and policies depict how the visions for the ( Tukwila ) Urban Center will be achieved. The attached . Development Concept Map graphically summarizes the intentions of the goals and policies. Figure 2 demonstrates a composite of the built form likely to be achieved. ( ' of -development } For the purposes of comparison, the numbering system for the policies currently used in the City Comprehensive Plan Urban Center section , Section 1 1.0, are used here. Land Use Goal { The Tukwila Urban Center will contain a high -density, diverse mix of uses, wh' evolvec&over time. The character and pace of this evolution will have been set by market conditions. proactive private/public actions which reinforce existing strengths and open new opportunities, and the desire for a high uali environment for workem visitors. and residents } Aff-tifban-eenter- ,..j of land us d a. nsilie .t,.,. • pt..ne4��e+nnilaM �e�Mw fps ne.4‘. �s { Ahem) High"` ' evelopment TV C. 0 { Southern} Medium FIGURE 2: Illustrative Composite rV C, of Center Areas • '95-02-13-i6119 KASK CONSULTANTS Land Use Policies 11.1.0a Recognize the { Tukwila Urban Center as a regional commercial/industrial area whichis transitioning toward higher densities,) and ce,.*1,,:er,. ++ erg na urban ..enter whose growth_ must_be nu_ Wired { a motor -vehicle oriented ) market environment {with a ba1_ance of pedestrian and transit facilities: {11.1.0b The northern T iii-bafreenter-ereasinc by an equal balance o and motor vehicle 11.1.0c The .south {11.1.0c a Urban Center e higher gh ensity uses supported lity transit, pedestrian. . rn nr.. n1,n11 %.e ren„nnt{ Urban Center areas shall allow both the exist' a • wer intensity uses (i:e., warehousing And low busin - : .•.I l .uses) and {moderate future high) Lure development areas 11 allow 7 1 1 A ept c le..io of the name?? road ne iorv� J 9 ' 1J -bG-1b 16: 1.J KHbK LONbULTHN l 5 10 (j 1.1.0d Public investment shall facilitateoverall growth in the Tukwila Urban Center (e.g.. Tukwila Pond, park development, and transii street. and roadside improvements), } 11.1.1 Regional Commercial District. Ensure that the (Tukwila} Urban Center continues to serve the region as a major shopping area, while also ensuring that public investment and amenities provide opportunities for in neighborhood retail businesses, a variety. of services, parks, and public open spaces, and recreation and entertainment uses. -opportunities Implementation Strategies • Public Amenities Plan. • Development regulations that _allow the following building heights: of 110 feet ( ) . • Development of p program to implement ee iein amenities in exchange for certain densities, lot coverage, or other bonuses. • Design guidelines that promote a high -quality !emit environment and facilitate development. • Public environment investment. • Transit improvements, as coordinated wit , '95-02-13 16:20 KASK CONSULTANTS w public scree • Business leader/community member involvement in district development. 11.1.2 Commercial and Light Industrial pistrict. �_ light industriand warehouse and distribution uses to support the { Real retail } Commercial District; provide light industrial uses for the region and maintain the economic�di-versity-and_employnient base that exists in the center.— I ..:1p _ the market-dnven . sr ion o regional retail uses --ta.castioae.in this district. Implementation Strategies • Development regulations to address setback and lot coverage restrictions that allow for future street expansions and other circulation improvements • Standards to enforce quality sir -lei landscape and design standards n truck loading, service area, and outdoor storage in front yard setback or within view of the primary 11.1.3 Community Resources (Oveplay.) Recognize {and Fmk the unique features of the Tukwila Urban Center such as Tukwila Pond_ (_r,,.. .,..,lq ._and Green River, conservation of natural sensitive areas, improved air and water quality, and areas for active and 11 'yS-02-1j 16:gib KHSK CONSULTANI5 12 passive recreation and educatio .1 activities. th ' •' . Ts ' l edestrian and open space network. plementalion Strategies a,•� d- 9 - DeA. desi: revi: • gur• • s tha eipluznctme properli and projects. prop gove ote op it re spe a prat lotto A.. rw. lt,s rw....l1J..•ieta DIn .. •.g Tool,' ... a..tab1i!,l the ur a e rater to if;rdanlar Tian n•l. we• roses. e.e. n fs•r.•.nif fnnititx Ftner .+.• ve.Tiw1..r11a601 .l:..l..:.1.1• nnet anlnt.t:nl% n.. w.•e.•r.lt (Ann( • c..w.+ lt.;n wwemeaas.w ...irk • ■.r:il. /f\ tfl•A��l�lYi1�Mlilb•7flAMl'n n.f� •wf.alrflr.rAn CAM} FM: : niAA ar eIAMA�w.'. �ne�ptrf►in.r wriawl...: ran/� , an [nsnw.ie.n n..nnine+` n�.im.miL (N tc 2 disiieguism.e.from_a_tRegiend_commeFejarLdishiet ) S1NdlMSN09 )1Sd01 T2:91 ES-2 -S6, s shoPPefss a that Allse—eeeemnledate5-411e—autemebilt--afid--PriAtide—a 1115, .r rr ..a e•b..... A. 6rmL fr ... .,...vale,,.. per,,.,.. ....a PI fmnir.ef„.. T . n �..,..eI 13 14 areas. STAFF tied • • • • • • NOTE: The following implementation strategies must be to a policy. Associated Policy 11.1.4 has been deleted. Auxiliary pedestrianways within the District to link major activity areas. . Slreetscape Improvement Plan with distinct identities for major streets, and strategies for creating incentives for pedestrian -oriented improvements and linkages such as new pathways. arcades. awnings. sidewalk eating areas_ and special displays. Develop strategies for public private partnerships That will result in nvajer public open spacer to serve as a focal points and setting,£ ) for . special events and activities. Additional signalized pedestrian crossings along the corridor. pi v 4-G-wee-a a- p' w s w ti7:0 f�i . Development ofsecondary streets and service alleys. Incentive prografor density, open spaces, and other public amenities. • (Phasing-Plan-fer-reolimatien-efthe-Speelal-Develepment:Dien•lekiember Geneentreded-Developmeni. • • Develop a ( Tukwila) Urban Center Master Plan coordinated with City farj(j& improvements. for centralized transportation facilities such as a transit ( center facjliry) and structured parking easily accessed by service streets and from freeways. ( (.14 '95-02-13 16:26 KASK CONSULTANTS (1 1.1.5—z iyrfrrent—Disttfictt..-'--Resegniz z"gs— alue of the a r }. /1t • . • 4T* 15 S.I.WHi1f5NOD NSEiN FT-PA-c, 16 2.3 Urban Development Issues Urban development goals and policies address the issue of the nvisioned built and natural environments. Because of their istinction in use, density, and scale, these policies, and the overall development approach portrayed in the Concept Map, depict the potential for differing develo •ment in the Tukwila Urban Qnter. Figure 2 on p :_ ustrates e ram. er both the high -density and medium density ., . ;`. theme. Urban Design Development Goat { To encourage and allow ereate } a central focus for { I& Tukwila Urban Center, } with natural and built environments that are is attractive, functional, and distinctive, and supports a range of mixed uses promoting business, shopping, recreation, and entertainment, and residential opportunities. Urban Design Development Policies 5Ie�aa •� t.ln,.e 46... cen eease s �.we..i•.w� n e.ewle.:de....�, *.r�rn.w .:::..nl,. wmr:.�n..-�s�n •thr, wester nwGho (South,. me nd Tu - .:le Dowd ere l nwd tLa el,.,.wde.nv v,.ltear ''5-02-13 16: ( KASK CONSULTANTS { -} • . • IdBnffRf. 4'' 11.s,..l.r—,,..- l..a..r • l 11.2.2 Natural Environment. Recognize, protect, and enhance the-funetieg-of the natural environment in the urban landscape by augmenting existing park, open space, and natural area resources, fir•-4-,g yisuahtds,) enhancing access to passive and active recreation areas such as Tukwila Pond, Minider Pond, and the Green River, and effectively integrating the natural and•built environments in the ( Tukwila) Urban Center. Implementation Strategies • .i 17 18 • { Utilize a public/private partnership approach.. 1 •.. • A lcuuiscape preservation program in conjunction with the historic preservation program outlining use of indigenous plant materials. water - raving plant materials. ond,QlIInt materials with habitat value . ice elm. 11.2.3 Streets, Streetscape, and Pedestrian Ervi Bien Create . street network that funatiefti f effeetive• o -automobi1as; tiffs; transit, pedestrians, and bicyclists; provides a safe. convenient. attractive, and comfortable pedestrian and bicycling environment that eliminates potential conflicts and promotes safety for all modes of travel; ssafe, eou;enieni, n«sti ve end ee ble; and prometes reinforce the different functions of { th2S78Int } streets by creating distinct identities for major rights-of--way.antity-fer—the Ped-ar ll fed ('4.,,N..1 Mot OMNI alto Li • ea' sow NM NAM. Ytitdbook -Ent•rnpt a+b.o..+lw.,a. rem bait tt,A.n FIGURE 7: Illustrative Street Section Configuration [AlAr41•......214+.•r .•er,f .•Ann 4:nfe.f eie, relA f.mnr•4: efinfe^i.•tn• 1•r'rn•.rn n xnawefrinn �+r�iori ar.\nrpn�nnrt :.rif {t features .t_... _n :_..ae b f•Am 1e.e..•nfnr• n/rsnf n.•A 1.•ssi1.f•nl rnin••temr.i.\i�\n wr�in.�► fisw pe+n f1.nk frA rAI,PA rA0ioe.M.nM n nf' t .rne �f!rr.:e1 1.1..n4 [•rAn n•r•r ►n nre..n .•nf1+ 1••e1.en►r.n� f..n • rowannif+en re•n.linn ie1.•e•.ie• fA f•r rla•in. Cwm 1nA 11.. A ffer.� jwwAi, free 1nr•fi e+w w tstin•ifiwei AE ■nfera•e.•f.An .fl:ane.IAV reth•n•A.• erne.i,,..fr..,., .... ilevel_n.raewefe•••) Ce.•.li.e kl••r1•nn ne..ler ..reo nifrarrnfewrs..n _FAA. ivij nrol �e..elAt..r•.•e•f• Il,•\t.•1 I, i•lnnw r \.1e•\M1i. nr•.i ►. .... train A�rovem. nfe wddi!' 1 r • r oientecl-f=tures eA a .•f' n F s.•� a (,•f e :.. of aswznv plan .lewrvnn.ng reeks' n..•f. .enf1+ .e•Afnr•nfn lm ffiern t goneepts to 11r i eri fi f' f t • .i ._ Implementation Strategies • ID1Plemenl a system of public service streets and alleys; coordinate with Ciy Public Works Depm7ment 19 20 • Driveway and access point consolidation,( wherever possible.} • Mininnem-ilistanes-between-entranee-drives-andutejer-intiretienS. • Free-401410961-IfiriFffifiefitiff • Signaliestien-efrighi-hand-turn, • Development Regulations to maximize visibility at intersections for WO. "-Vision-Triatsgie4) • Prehibitiart-efsigns-in-right-efivay. • (Develefr-Dsirn-Guidelimes46-ereate) distinet-identitiesfer-majer-streeis. (Reinfereemern-afdifferingfifnetiens: Strander-Bauleverd-aspedestrian-andiransit-oriented-andtrtee-eore Andever-Perli-Wst-as-primary-ALS-streei-tying-tegether-several-impaNant areas-andfuneliens 74ndeeast-as-heart-ef-industrial-areaeltaraelerized-by-high- VidifY49Fidge6Pkg Seinhenter-Parkway-as-autemobile-erienied-retail-street;-eheraelerked by-imaginative-signage-and-landseeping Seuth-1801h-Stret-es-an-imperiant-trmelt-refne-with-few-pedestrian 130fifideFailt911,-) • ( t,'liiiEafieif-ei-5l3'et#--ePePs5'-get4i'9If-defignf"ifig-'Perd'aiien5""4"r, selbaefersite-desig?t)rdetign-guiiklines-eddressing-streel-eharaeterr4ra,vel spedsr-und-treete-mansgmenstreet-furniskingsr-ktndseepiand lighting-te-reirferee-identilies.) • Sensitive-stsi-apprepriaiesite-design-al-designaied-gatewe,40e6Wena • Streeoeve-deetn-thatpremetestedeefflem-safiee. • (Street -design -guidelines.) • Prieritizatien-efpedestrienafety-in-prajeets. • Sagteienifedesfrion-eremirig4ime. • Well-mearhasi-amei-weil-liitpedeirawereeising. • (Regtilefiewsler toreet-arki-sidewisik-design-thal-oneeo-ADA-gwidelines. ) • 30-mph-speed-limio-in-eeffier. • PrieFily-pede5triemrtig7.a15. • Signaliee4-nriat Neeit-eFessing-for-petiesfrens-where44eekg-ere4eng-and ihere-is-high-volootte-elpede5triart4m(fie. • ticipreweeipetilestrien-eressinge4vhereverfassible. • ( Trees-eard-lettdseapeatsfrips-beA•yerksidewelles-sted-sireets. ) • PedesiPiem4ightifigrfiestin&-landseering.-emi-fireet-irees;4Pook-emettrand eiker-eometrietwes. 11.2.4 Site Design Development. {Establish Utilize existing) regulations and design guidelines that result in high - quality site design and contribute to the creation pf hospitable pedestrian environments through the use of tolintegration of architectural. site design. and landscape clernenig, the { co -existence of motor vehiclesseparatien of car, }.service, and pedestrian traffic. -efienting • buildings-teward-the-main-publie-stssei. site density and jntensity. and/or implementing physical and natural clements that Vance an area's overall aesthetic iglita , (- 4. 8 and 9, antl=lk. ) eiwifeninent, whik-respending PENA TRAM ANSA '--- - ' FIGURE 8: Vehicle and Pedestrian Connections Between Parcels \ (l I - CS/ ' IN) I • en U) CS) , X . 2 U) ✓ . -I : Ul co 22 must respond to the needs of land owners, developers, and { business peeple. 1[Arthe re, 11rltnn ner.}e.r nron ne+ne+enlrn*eae; elmrelnr$eanl pm- •tanl el. An ii n.+s !'►d n�mt •A dm in\r�J •iis r@ p r1lo rr1 Ml.1nqg A-ef p i• e-amen l: r• f3oI•mk �\oeinolr.a� . r\In e<+e\r.iiwnlecl, sig l to Ehe iy distinelen r Inr+tVnnr.e { ,L•.ir••. l'1T_ ..`►'1.11\r •r S.. i\`i_{•\•..AML.t•\7\1'• • .• •: re'ipp --to FIen..re.,*n lA ko ..riann.•c eA .r+44"A.»a L...tei.n 6,/1r1,.l r1e,I et. lr.elftf1MlA� r..1,0 emulas f ..f.. .1 It, eh.. ivrciA:mg one Implementation Strategies • FIGURE 9: Street -Building Orientation '95-02-13 16:30 KASK CONSULTANTS • ,,MegreMen-BIM • { )• 11.2.5 Parking. { Develop Continue existing) parking policies and regulations 10 ensure that the supply of parking for visitors, employees, and businesses meet the demands of all transportation modes: on -going needs shall be assessed to ensure that development regulations may allow for flexibility in minimum parking requirements, encourage efficient and effective use of land iijarking design. and does not preclude a less auto -dependent development pattern in the future. To address standards for the development of parking areas, developers shall 23 FIGURE 11: Landscaping In Parfcing Areas '95-02-13 16:31 KASK CONSULTANTS 24 also examine screening. landscaping. and corner site parking relationships (Figures i A { anfLua ) enipleyeesrancl-1)usiftesses-Eneets-the-11eed9-of-all-modes of-transpodetietvanfl-asess-efigeing-needs-te-enstre-that Implementation Strategies • Effeient-and-effeetive-use-epte-land-inprking-lei-design • ( Review-minimunt-parking-requirenteffier-4vith Allow the flexibility to exceed these minimum parking standards.. ) • ( feonpaer ear -allewaneepereentage: • ( Coordinate • ffo Is with Commute Trip Reduction Program. preferential parkingfor earpols-anstwanpools-fepsertainitypes-alland-uses-misf-lets aver-o-oefsain-siee. ) • (D1ep,Slie42-lanning-siandord9-thai-ollewpreferred-4,elationhp-aneng ofreeirperkingareasrenefdveiures.) • Study the potential for (-esploisalien-ofspeelal reduc(ngparking prevision, requirements within one -quarter mile of a transit station or transit eenter facilitw.) • (Shift ) Minimum requirements for trees and plcmters within parking lots and at the perimeter. • (Mstionmnsite-fer-parking-lei. ) ▪ Pedestrian safety and convenience in parking loi design standards. • Parking lot design standards That comply with ADA guidelines for pedestrian connections from parking areas to structures, to streets, and between sites Commission a long-term parking needs study and parking standard. • Spsilmor Feasibility Study ofa public/private centralized parking structure. • Continue Commute Trip Reduction Programs and Other Transportation Demand Management Programs. {11.2.6 Atehileelural- i..:Id:.... n_sign. h•• -corral Ye•revin .i : n« e..•."«levi iinl.ve.e• n..a nl.ve -c ws.f '1•At■•IAa•.!�7•?AI•f, .•%7•eats^..l!1M■•IlZC1!111112I• MNe.�!H l'f.,\O�t r.nle,.••in1 ne.a n:q«nn 1n«ei..n..r. Iwesnleme..k lei: 4:. ..de. «h deta is _ "69�fA•E£ Gfeen R iver—amd TulavilIPen $I n� es.. .e,lea ei! kf Iben pasty wepfessieli- vc � Twil0 •Aidh ms lOrp L A 41-Vinarreir 1141r�rs=��sC 4661 25 '95-02-13 16:32 KASK CONSULTANTS 26 giediethialiftrdetivi- • r... • plann+ngguideli • 8evelv-6i Reedgcbst public-emeni:'e,-plan• ) 11.2.7 Signage. ( Establish Revise sign regulations 1& t ) promote clear identification of businesses and directions, and signage that complements and-is-iategrated-with the design of the structure or facility contribute visual consistency at street eve an for passing motorists, and promotea high -quality . retailing and business development appropriate to high -density. "concentrated" mixed -use area within the (.Tukwila Urban ) Center. 11.2.8 Parks, Open Space, and Public Amenities. Support existing plans, policies, projects, and programs to expand and improve the parks, open space, and other amenities in the { Tukwila ) Urban Center and { aetively ) seek opportunities to develop new facilities that enhance the overall experience of employees, residents, business owners, and visitors. { ). in-suppert-of • Design guidelines that ensure. that uses and structures adjacent to parks recognise and complement open spaces and public amenities . • Parks and open spaces with access to sunlight, a sense of security, seating, landscaping, accessibility, and connections to surrounding uses and activities. • ) 11.2.9 Historic Preservation. Develop and implement plans, projects, and programs to protect and promote the historical legacy of the Green River Valley and its natural and built environment. Implementation Strategies • Develop a local historic preservation program. • Develop and seek funding resources for educational programs and interpretive facilities. 27 FIGURE 14: Possible Park and Open Space Amenity N%N P.P2:9T PT-70-S�. . 28 • �.FD+�d ou evelop.1_4..sepr m oa iliti .,,. • Coordinate a public art program that incorporates local h&ir aL,Yst� [p►icical t cultural references 11.2.10 Economic Development. Actively promote development in the { Tukwila } Urban Center by supporting existing uses, expanding the range of allowable uses, developing iurplementble design guidelines. increasing amenities, adop improvements: and proactively { developingprograms and incentives to attract new businesses, investing in infrastructure and public amenities, and encouraging business owners and developers to invest in the quality of both the built and natural environment. ) Implementation Strategies (. eenter4-essets. • . • Support public/private partnerships to enhance nailing and future business activity in the Tukwila Urban Center. ) tEs CSt u2 N Ql ' 7 0 2 . r 0 01 11.2.11 Human Services. Ensure that land use, urban design, and transportation and circulation policies, plans, and projects in the urban center benefit existing and future populations in an. equitable manner ' Efforts should be made to promotcX health, safety, and the quality of life through the and-represents-e responsive and responsible use investment of public funds toward social and human services. NSHN bE:9T ET-20-SG, Implementation Strategies z r • Seek strategies and incentive plans for public/private partnerships that will promote the development of daycare and similar services, (-neighbefheed retail —tees, )soda! service and medical offices, { end ) public and recreational uses, and ( institutions communi(v facilities ) in the commercial areas. { } • Design guidelines that implement defensible space principles for crime prevention. ( . ) 29 2.4 Transportation and Circulation Issues (r. The following transportation and circulation goals and policies help to achieve the desired vision for the ( Tukwila ) Urban Center. They provide a network of motorized and non -motorized (.0 modes, addressing regional and local access, as well as transportation alternatives. 0 Transportation and Circulation Goal A balanced transportation network that implements the ( Tukwila) Urban Center land use and design policies and provides access for all transportation modes to, from, and within the center. Transportation and Circulation Policies 11.3.1 Regional Access. Promote transportation and transit services and facilities, end as well as traffic management systems that increase and improve access to and from the { Tukwila) Urban Center for all transportation modes; encourage a range of solutions, including but not limited to local circulator systems. regional serving park-n-ride sites, connections to regional rail alignments (Figure 15), andsegional and local high -occupancy vehicle systems. FIGURE 15: Connections to Regional Ralf System Implementation Strategies • Implement alternative bus transit modes such as pgRittot airport, and hotel shuttles, and a local circulator service. Work with jfjad.Afetso- to develop and fund regional park n' ride and rail locations where traffic and visual impacts on the { Tvkwila) Urban Center are minimized through site design and management. lanned. • Work with-ALTA to coordinate regional rail systems !hat facilitate access to alternative travel modes. • Regionai-epaitements-that-soppopt-loesi-aeeests-optione-and pede3fr10r1oystetn. • Regional-and-loecti-high-eeempattey-vehiele-syiem. . • Develop. in coqiunction with appropriate agencies and a-Gentzalty ltife&P ) transit faciliolies1 in the (Tukwila) Urban Center. with bus-eeeessrencleortneetions-te-majer-aetivity-elvers. 11.3.2 Local Access. Support the development of a continuous, comprehensive, and hierarchical public street network that serves all transportation needs, (in-the-eeater} allows a range of travel route choices, that reute-af--t*avel and facilitates access within the (Tukwila Urban Center for both motorized and non -motorized ell transportation modes. Implementation Strategies • A keel street system master plan. • keerpofaiien-ofirensporgatien-aliernatives-ifte-modeling. (Trytek-eioeuielion+eviet-anck-itruek-traffee-managernent-plan.) • Coordinate with land use ;donning efforts ( to ensure ) that the transportation and circulation system Met is concurrent . with projected growth in the (Tukwila) Urban Center. 31 acr(12 r. 0 32 • A Capital Improvements Plan that ►venter policies_ • Expansion of the( leeel) street network • • Acquisition of rights -of -way, ( ) for future sheet use. • Acquisition ofrailroad rights -of -way easenren e. • Street and utility rights -of -way retention_ reflect ba • (.) • Shared access drives. () 11.3.3 Transit Service and Facilities. • In an effort to provide the greatest benefit to employees, business people, shoppers, visitors, and . residents in Qf the { Tukwila } Urban Center, promote the development and enhancement of transit service and facilities; { _ __ ___ improv feei>iity(ieg};) coordinate with regional transit agencies to enhance existing and future bus and rail facilities; ensure consistency in jnning between land use and lransportation to create { compatibility between motor vehicles. transit_ and pedestrians, - `) • FIGURE 16: Improved Transit { } Implementation Strategies • ( Beloit -and . fi'ci1k1cs ) • (west • • centers. • Parking implementation strategies pelieies that support transit and HOV use, including such possibilities as: • Parking requirements based on their proximity to transit 33 34 - Liberal joint parking and flexible parking allowances for uses adjacent to transit facilities { .w Study the feasibilkv and financing of a public Rath= facility.';.. .- l z 0 0 z 11.3.4 Transportation Alternatives. Ensure that land use, urban '~ C design, and transportation and circulation actions for -� employees support and reinforce transportation alternatives, including the Commute Trip Reduction programs, Transportation Demand Management (TDM) programs, Rideshare programs, and related projects and programs (i.e.. parking provisions for alternative transportation modes. 1"4•^1-- r, )). t tat--encourage—reduelion--in the—n mbe —ef- nngle- Implementation Strategies Support for businesses in implementing the Commute Trip Reduction Program and related transportation demand management programs emirenment. • Land use regulations and design guidelines that implement the goals of this policy and associated programs. Development regulations p that encourage alternative transportation modes. 11.3.5 Pedestrian Network. Create (a non -motorized transportation such a ) network by exploring the use of railroad. rights -of -way as pedestrian paths; utilizing public funds to augment the existing network, and creating connections within sites from entrances to the street. Implementation Strategies • Public funding of augmented pedestrian network. • • • A comprehensive pedestrian master plan with implementation strategies for both public and private development. ( .I Development standards to augment the pedestrian network and sidewalk and trail system. . 35 to to CO w N A 0 0 ic 2) In N N roa • to cD A 0 0 rt 0 ct K 0 0 0 (-t to et co CD rn tr ieq in; ;o GiolH r+ nnli d 6 o (D 0 ID °.rs ° p n d h It eii 0 et 0 •• c b o a) rrt• K 5 0' O.•�• �CDm.- . 0 aw° h n• P o Pe o•a a o wrta 0‘4 rn Z 0 rr w iQ 4 11 4 CD 0 0 ppg �! w M M I h 00 • •D 0 O (DPI d 4 N 3 E r°ia 5 0 �•m1O 0 tri D H wty� wacro 4 0 - I In0 m n rrct0 ( n r 0 ocD r•cDxarr4 (D co "c 4 0 m D' w 0°�(D o r• r CA 4 w o�`° 1 0w0u M n r• N r• CD r• a 0 rt �• cD 0 N p• _ w p• O. O r0t a o 0 tr m cD1 cat O ��4 j'13/ 0 co a%0 M�0(a b orbs It D a�Dw 0 0) ilwh+Kr° co u)- n II 0 w rr rt • G hi o r• ct 0 x0' �� w 0' 0' �a aoo°B li 0 CO. 'b fD 0 N rrr 0 N11 0.�aCCD wr•rtdM 0ao•K - rat D•litD IT' ta a w 0 Department of Community Development 0 04 O . 0 ►r wa'ayla a Jai y C'.0 y iD D y0O=G.<(D :�A(`'Rg(.cs 0^ 5 y ° ✓ ar°4 =.`� yCA o u 5 VI 4 N 0 c0D -4. E. `A, w ►+ 5 A. O O lD '►3 O (D y ►z W =' (zD ►.cri. O 0 y• (D A ►t CD▪ ,At ►sr-+�A 0 a0.A Q4 a (D + r+ N alD '• A+ 0.0 p�� <. vAi nt N ¢.A in rf.'= 5.O.O.to a Fit '" 5 G y .sr = Cr w E' 6 CI. CD O. N 0 p. or4 O O c.v. ►o A • r p A. 0 N (AD p. ° .0e 0, a C 0..r• .Oo .r'C3 (CD tD .-, 2 =6�►,0 .0 o.0.°c cDla V) CrCCDD q H ►C" • CD 0 ' .w•► CD CA r7 to ci D y.o D CN U4C y.IT o `, .tv cry Q. ( m. CA' • '... (D D 'L3 A CD y (D y a w ... ►d (D y �• 0° o a �# tD a. ° �� E. r N M E1 0 Recommended Urban Center Alternative S66T `8 kruniqad UOISSIunuo0 Eu►ucreid From: Rick Beeler To: Sylvia Schnug Date: 2/6/95 Time: 14:19:56 Pli z i 0 0 0 o N 0' 0'0 a CA z °, • �' (D m 0 (D r i H 11 rm ct n a H. P. En o m o (D (D PI Cr ti u. 00 0 a 0Pd C c tD a a b N• CDD ((DD A• 0 m m cat o at cot 0 w c 0 ID ▪ rh a a Pta rt.cr+ uo sesseappu buTMoTZ aoi�oH TuToT;;011 uoT.oV 3o ao-poM 0 0 0 a.� 0ttP. wcot CI) u,r• 0(D. 0 to a g Vo r•( 0•0 P.a h"ha a a `oo 00 mo O 0(D P. HI PI O N. (Dtn 0 z w a 0 W Ct 0 FF.. 0 1 HI 0 P. NI 0 0 CD H :�pu� eipToep Agaiau PzI H H 0 H to H CO H H 0 x w n SZL ces 0 • 41) co cn CD C b4 C n O 1'of4 o P.• = o o P y K C C :3 y >o4n • Po lig �G e 0 e a S a a 0 1 R. S66I `II Cauna103 qupm;us C N O ... OQ CD Wgrq E. 5. 2q R. a xA co a go to gl 8 a CD 0 n 0 6-3 2 oq c c I= Ott 222 �r0 ta to to I•ti ND NO cal Pio 0. c (I a' o ny 9 g Psi tt po Po 5 aQ C, aoauuvooD yy%O `aajaag loni 0 0 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 omemo44\Iquose1T; iaTaag NOTE • (DCD ►y13) K CD 0 64 o cr+ a n ct Fs 0 0 rt t89£-T£fi iaunin; ;o aq up° am 3T I look forward to seeing you at the meeting tonight. m O m C k W N F+ c+ H CI n 1-h d 1-3 G O 0 O ti 0 0' O O O ct cD O a cnLCcotac 0 co'� 50 Di K 0 0 0' 0 4 0. cD M ct n r• a w Fh (D 1-J.P. r• 1-4 CI a O. E� 11hd 0' 0' CI rPt• °i0((DDN Cn0coto fD0aK° PO4r.. n. (• (D� DIr• crt c+ n 000'0' POCDCDac°+ a0w0oo rt ~' crt n a (D ct'C rt t h 11 0' 0'Pit too' (DII II t0' w nw°m n a • 0' m M (-'• F-' rt xi a w o CD Fr F'• K F-i F-+ H m Fi (D CD at It P. F•r m CD ab,t0to O IS B Ir* r• a co+ a crt (o C aD CD C P. I-h w 11 CD • A. n DI Ia o ~ 0 . sE Peat, sTgq. 4 PO 0 C 0 K o 0 H. = a CDI-O 00 CD ro a to 1-3 N I cD n rt g 0 a (D I—, 5 o H. r• 0 a, O K'd IC ,0 ct Oa a 0 M rt 0 PO CD O I a H. c+ PO c+ ct 0 g o 11 E ti 0 ct 0' rt (D H N CD ct a Imo• r• o HI o N 0 0' (D 11 Uo 0wc+ P.m (D amN(D 0 to rt W ct (D O FII) O. 0 X E in r• a o 11 0) CD o 5' rt to CD F0 -'0 0 t°-'ce H.0 H. Hs 0 0 H.on O Imo• O c+ CD CD 11 b' H 11 n rt II n c+ 0' • M O O •• r• H. w 11 (DD (D ct m 0 N• � rt to rt 0 DI O n 1-3 0' 0 H CD • (D rt -• ct 0 p' I-• ct tD (D (D `�• 1c w 0 3 0) 10 DI 0 co • tc) A.U a(D' ct 11CI II a w Fno0 o CD rK�� N N• a'p.o a cI Di aA. r.p Uctn �Km•nN • 64 • 64 1 0 Eh O 0 n 'b rt r• o CD 0 ct ct O (D •. (D cw+ k ((DD ((DD O oDF-+ o 0 nctm( as w(c+ Do CN P• n (DPi o ac• e+ x w°'0`t claM m Q. rt� CD 0 ( H. a 11 (D 11 m Department of Community Development Jopai/Q `Jalaag xol?I ellisopu fo /OD Jam 'muff %H uyof • • City of Tukwila Centers Comparative Analysis, Phase II Urban Center Development Goals and Policies City of Tukwila Department of Community Development PREPARED BY • Bask Consulting, Inc. Arai/Jackson 26 JANUAFtY 1995 TABLE OF CONTENTS Section 1.0 Introduction and Background 1.1 Introduction l 1.2 Vision Statement 1 1.3 An Expansion of the Reconunended Urban Center with Regional Policies 2 4 1.4 Boundaries for the Recommended Urban Center Section 2.0 Recommended Goals, Policies, and Implementation Strategies 2.1 Introduction 5 2.2 Land Use Issues 6 2.3 Urban Development Issues 13 2.4 Transportation and Circulation issues 27 List of Figures 1 Urban Center Boundaries 2 Illustrative Composite of Center Areas 3 Schematic Plan for Tukwila Pond 4 Pedestrian -Friendly Environment 5 Improvements in the Riverfront District 4 6 8 9 6 Community Image, Creating a Sense of Place 12 13 7 Illustrative Street Section Configurations 15 8 Vehicle and Pedestrian Connections Between Parcels 18 9 Street -Building Orientation 10 Massing and Scale 19 19 11 Landscape in Parking Areas 20 12 Treatment of Parking at Corner Sites 21 13 Building Design 22 14 Possible Park and Open Space Amenity. 23 15 Connections to Regional Rail System 27 16 Improved Transit Center, Vicinity of Baker Street 29 S1Nd11fSNO9 NSbA LI:ET 92-TO-S6t City of Tukwila Centers Comparative Analysis Recommended Urban Center SECTION 1.0 INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND 1.1 Introduction This document modifies existing Tukwila Tomorrow Committee recommendations for urban center development. Committee modifications have been made alter a review of alternative development approaches in the Comparative Analysis Report (December 15, 1994). This report provided a vision and corresponding goals and policies for alternative center types. Utilizing an activity area or commercial area as a possible alternative to the designated urban center, these options recognized the characteristics of each type of area in the Countywide Planning Policies, Tukwila's desired vision, and economic market realities. This second phase to the Centers Comparative Analysis Study incorporates by reference the relevant content of that document, including the description of characteristics, the regional economic setting, vision statements, and the comparison of center type features. However, the basis of this follow up analysis will be to develop a consistent set of goals and policies that respond to the comments of the Committee and better reflect the change in the overall vision for the Southcenter business district. 1.2 Vision Statement The vision for the business district foresees a high -density area with employment, shopping, and recreational opportunities for business people, residents, and visitors of the Tukwila CBD. This approach to future development promotes a pedestrian -oriented environment that creates linkages between the area's valuable employment and natural resources such as the Southcenter commercial core, Tukwila Pond, and the Green River corridor. As a regionally significant destination for employment and shopping, the future Tukwila urban center envisions the development of a major transit station connected to the regional high capacity transit system to support the higher densities anticipated for the center. Among the notable future features include: 1 2 • Enhanced connection between Southcenter Mall and Tukwila Pond Recreation Area. • Higher density development north of Minider Boulevard, envisioned to take the form of a traditional urban center with 10 to 12 story buildings, pedestrian -oriented concentrated development, 50 employees per acre, and 15 households per acre; • Lower to moderate density in the southern urban center area, taking on the characteristics of an activity center with 3 to 6 story buildings, mix of regional commercial and industrial uses, public amenities to accommodate both pedestrians and motorists, and 15 to 25 employees per acre. • Support for a special Green River Development District. • Concentrated anchor areas linked by frequent transit service (5 to 10 minute bus or shuttles), enhanced with public and private pedestrian facilities, and development standards supporting this type of built environment. • Overall improvements to the network of streets, trails, sidewalks, and other infrastructure. Encouragement of pedestrian -oriented environment through building and streetscape design features. • Sensitivity to the needs of existing businesses while facilitating the area's transition to higher development intensities. This vision for the Southcenter business district is most consistent with an urban center designation. 1.3 A Comparison of the Recommended Urban Center with Regional Policies The Countywide Planning Policies define the characteristics and required elements of urban centers. While these centers play an integral role in the regional vision, the Countywide Policies clearly delineate that the form and function of these centers will be determined at the local level. The characteristics of the urban center listed below, are based on the King County Countywide Planning Policies, the Puget Sound Regional Council's Vision 2020 Plan; and have been compared with the recommended development policies. • Total land area of up to 1.5 square miles (1,490 acres) - Proposed urban center area is approximately 1.35 square miles. • Requires 15,000 employees within one-half mile (wallcing distance) of a transit center - The area is zoned to allow this density. • Average of 50 employees per gross acre - The concentrated development area is zoned to allow this density and excludes lower density uses. The southern center area is zone to allow existing uses and easy transition to higher densities. • Average of 15 households per gross acre - The concentrated development area is zoned to allow this level of residential density. Market forces will determine what is actually built. • Emphasis on mass transportation and non -motorized modes, while lessening dependency on single occupancy vehicles - Two potential transit center locations have been shown. Actual location will require further study. Streetscape improvements throughout the Center will enhance transit and pedestrian travel. Roadway improvements will enhance auto travel and provide pedestrian linkages. • Promotion of high caliber built form, with urban design standards and support for capital public improvements - Yes. • Receives first priority for development of high -capacity transit center and regionally funded support infrastructure - Anticipated. This will require active City involvement in regional planning bodies. • Receives other funding and streamlined permit processing incentives - Yes. 3 NSdN BT:BT 92-I0-S6, 4 1.4 Boundaries for the Recommended Urban Center Existing Boundaries N- Residential/off ce district north of Interstate 405 S- Minkler Boulevard E- Green River Corridor W- Interstate 5/Southccnter Parkway Recommended Urban Cuter Boundaries N- Interstate 405 S- Properties on south side of 180th Street E- Center of Green River Corridor/East of Green River north of Strander Boulevard W- Toe of west valley wall E USIINO URBAN COVER REB ESA FIGURE 1: Urban Center Boundaries City of Tukwila Centers Comparative Analysis Recommended Urban Center SECTION 2.0 RECOMMENDED GOALS, POLICIES, AND IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGIES 2.1 Introduction The following discussion provides a set of recommended goals, policies, and implementation strategies for the urban center. Expanding on and refining the work currently in place as part of Section 11 of the City Comprehensive Plan, these goals, policies, and strategies have been fonnulated to better reflect the established vision for the urban center study area. These policies will help achieve the desired form and function of the center over the 20-year planning period. Like Section 11 of the City Comprehensive Plan and Section 3.0 of the December 15, 1994 Comparative Centers Analysis, these goals and policies cover the issues of land use, urban development, and transportation and circulation. They aim to develop and protect the long-term economic vitality of the urban center by creating an attractive and functional environment that retains its reputation as a good place to work, shop, live, do business, and recreate. To assist the conunittee with identifying where deletions, additions, and changes have been made, this document. "strikes out" (urban design) deletions to the goals and policies, and "double underlines" (urban development) recommended changes. 5 6 2.2 Land Use Issues The following land use goals and policies depict how the visions for the urban center will be achieved. The attached Development Concept Map graphically summarizes the intentions of the goals and policies. Figure 2 demonstrates a composite of the built form likely to be achieved at the center's different districts. For the purposes of comparison, the numbering system for the policies currently used in the City Comprehensive Plan Urban Center section are used here. Laid Use Goal An urban center with a mix of land uses and densities that provide e range of development opportunities taking advantage of its re io i : y significant convnercial character, but also for the phased transition from the area's existing reg onal significance to a future higher density of employees, business people, shoppers, visitors, and residents. -land-use-nixes Land Use Policies 11.1.Oa Recognize the Southcentcr Business District as an emerges urban center whose growth must be nurtured is e market environment. The northern urban center arm include higher intensity uses developing_around a transit center hub_ Public investment shall be focused here to facilitate growth (Le— Tukwila__Pond Park transit hub. and roadside improvements), Northern Hlgh Intensity Development Southern Medium Intensity Development FIGURE 2: Illustrative Composite of Center Areas 11,1.0b The southern urban center area shall allow both the existing lower intensity uses (i.e.. warehousing and low business campuses) and moderate intensity usesui associated with activity area development_ as defined by m the King County Countywide Planning Policies. This future development area shall allow a market -driven Q1 transition 10 higher intensities. w iv- 0 11.I.Oc Public support for facilities shall be focused within the N Urban Center's concentrated development areas (Policy x 11.1.4) except completion of the center's road network. z c r - 1 11.1.1 Regional Commercial District. Ensure that the urban center continues to serve the region as a major shopping o' area, while also ensuring that public investment and amenities provide opportunities for its -auto providing neighborhood retail businesses, a variety of services, parks, end public open spaces, and recreation and entertainment nses. -oppertanities Implementation Strategies Public Amenities Plan. • Development regulations that allow the following building heights: of 110 feet in the Concentrated Development Areas as shown on the comprehensive plan map; , and 4133 feet in the remainder of the urban center. • Development of a program to implement serial's amenities in exchange for certain densities, lot coverage, or other bonuses • Design guidelines that promote a high -quality retail environment and facilitate development 7 8 • Public environment investment. col• Transit improvements, as coordinated with RTA and Metro, cn • Business leader/community member involvement in district development. 6.1 11.1.2 Commercial and Light Industrial District. Encourage light industrial and warehouse and distribution uses to cn support the retail commercial district; provide Iight z industrial uses for the region and maintain the economic c diversity and employment base that exists in the center. As_the center grows, allow the market -driven transition to z regional retail uses to continue in this district. Implementation Strategies • Dewloping)t regulations to a�s setback and lot coverage restrictions that allow for future street expansions and other circulation improvements. • ► iandards to enforce quality stria landscape and design standard, • Mitigation strategies to ensure prohibition on truck loading service area, and outdoor storage in front yard setback or within view of the primary public street,- develop Itandardsfor screening. 11.13 Community Resources Overlay. Recognize open space as a community resource and as an important asset to the urban center. providing Provide opportunities for protection and enhancement of the unique features of the center such as Tukwila Pond (Figure 3). the west valley wall. and.Sireen River, conservation of natural sensitive TUKWILA POND • su+a,a,c MAN. wouris FIGURE 3: Schematic Plan for Tukwila Pond areas, improved air and water quality, and areas for active and passive recreation and educational activities. Enhance these resources byitnprovin the center's pedestrian and open space network, Implementation Strategies • Develop design review guidelines that promote open space protection and enhancement the guidelines shall also govern their relationship to adjacent properties and projects. 11.1.4 Concentrated Development Areas District. As per the Countywide Plannine Policies. establish an area in the urban center to concentrate a transit -oriented and pedestrian -friendly environment (Figure 4) that caters to a diverse mix of shoppers, business people_ and residents. Promote and allow greater densities' designate a transit center_ provide for a major employment district. and establish an overall focal point and source of identity for the center. all within one-half mile of the transit center and with particula[ attention to the Strander Boulevard corridor. Support this concentrated development area with public improvements and developer incentives for provision of storefront pedestrian -oriented activities (arcades. awning, sidewalk uses) that help achieve the vision for the urban center. NOTE: This is the designation for the northern urban center area to clearly distinguish it from a "Regional Commercial" district. FIGURE 4: Pedestrian -Friendly Environment 9 Ul m N m N W 0 N Z' 10 Establisi}e_speei-eaf"f urban develoPment-and-diwfse-uses-afe-€eneentfaiedrin-erdet 142,_efeme_a_koed_peint_and_seutee..e&identiiy4er_the aolivitieg that sheppersrbusiness-peePler and-iesidagst-ereate-a-tfansit- Ihal-alse-aeeernmedates-the-Getefsebilet-and-Previde--a mojef_empiernefit. gfewth.ffienfigefnent.polieje. Implementation Strategies • Allewfor-greatep-dermilies. • Retail and service -oriented uses on the ground floor of strudures fronting the =liar pedestrian street • Coordinate with transportation plans and Commuter Trip Reduction Program to encourage high -occupancy vehicle improvements. • Nelvie°41Ftga°4"eheve4160"""fatilewrideg. • Workjeith Metro and coordinate Cio efforts for a major transit facility. • Include in future capitgiumnauguLprograms fundinefor a local -serving fired -route shuttle drculaior =tem to serve the area's various concentrated development districts. reatosit-siope-withoslleusivord-shellees aleng-the-lengikef-thteeseisko-(ti-olifliMWD-17600fearepat4) • Provide incentives to encourage street improvements and street furniture for pedestrians. • Majee-anatminorpublie-speeeelangkeespidee. aeeaa. • Auxiliary pedestrianwiays within (he District to link major activity areas. • Strreetscape Improvement Plan with distinct identities for major streets, and strategiesfor creating incensivat or pedantian-o,rientea(in{pravements and linkages such as new pathways. arcades. awnings. sidewalk eating areas. and special displays. • Develop strategies for publiciitivate 4iarftterships that will result in a major public open space to serve as a focal point and setting for special events and activities • Additional signalized pedestrian crossings along the corridor. • Limitation on number of curb cuts. • Development ofsecondary streets and service alleys. • Incentive prjacanifor density, open spaces, and other public amenities. Phasing Plan for realization of Areas of Concentrated Development. • Develop an Urban Center ' Master Plan. coordinated with City facility improvements for Centralized transportation facilities such as a transit center and structure parking easily accessed by service streets and from fi'ee• 11 12 11.1.5 Riverfront District. Recognizing the value of the Green/Duwamish River to the community and the center, establish a Riverfront District that extends the policies of the Shoreline Master Program to the areas adjacent to the west bank of the Green River. and -augments Augment these policies with special performance standards that enctourige the development of public amenities such as courtyards, common spaces. formal landscaped areas,and pocket parks (Figure 5.). In addition to commercial and industrial uses, allow multi -family housing, including a percentage of affordable housing, in this district. Implementation Strategies • knprovedommit-oerviee-analfeeiliiies. • Augmented-and-mdmoded-pulolie-anenities-suelf-at-eourtyarrfeignal lndseapeekspesrandpeheopaphs. • A public tree preservation and replacement program. • A program promoting the historic importance oft& river. - , -I,...:s4,...11:'r' '-.:! ,, FUTi -7.:.-- 1.,,;:,..,*,.,:‘,,,;%:,,v..;...7:4-"t:', , 1.•.‘"-; .r.. ,, rfr Pe '1.1 It c-7..c I 1 1 r r V ` ,, a Mr , ' Ill 'II 'Immult,41 !:".. !Ili I 11 ,11 dt.---;i111- Til .k• .,' Br-.--- = — _ - i r FIGURE 3: Improvements in the Rivsrfront District t13 Ul 1S3 1:11 U1 33 in 0 • C — 1 —1 11) 13 • 2.3 Urban Development Issues Urban development goals and policies address the issue of the envisioned built and natural environments. Because of their distinction in use, density, and scale, these policies, and the overall development approach portrayed in the Concept Map, magnify the differences among the form and function of the different districts of the urban center. Figure 2 on page 6 illustrates the anticipated environments for both the high -density and medium density parts of the center. Urban Design Development Goal To create a central focus for Tukwila, with natural and built environments that arc is attractive, functional, and distinctive, and supports a range of mixed uses promoting business, shopping, recreation, and entertaintnent, and residential opportunities. Urban Design Development Policies 11.2.1 Community Image. Develop an image and identity for the urban center that promotes a sense of place and distinction throughout the center; encourage this by c�tia. e a cent r identity pro •h emphasizes the western anchors (Southcenter and Tukwila Pond). au eastern anchor (the Hotel/Exhibition C1z/Boewg Once area). and the Strander/West Valley Highway Corridor. 13 bi • 4^/Nh;� fa A i1 r • lbw FIGURE 6: Community Image, Creating a Sense of Place 14 Implementation Strategies • Identity program. • • Regulations and design guidelines for the Concentrated Development Areas and Riverfront District. • Pedestrian and bikeway standards that convey a specific urban center image character. • M Outreach Program to ensure business community involvement in developing an urban center image and identity. • Public funding support of multiple benefits that promote the image and identity of downtown & Tukwila jtban enter. 11.2.2 Natural Environment. Recognize, protect, and enhance the- eeing,e€ the natural environment in the urban landscape ! tn_ent•Q sting natural area resources protecting significant viewsheds, access to passive and active recreation area Such as Tukwila Pond. Minkler Pond. and the Grew River. and effectivelyintegrating the natural and built environments in the urban center. Implementation Strategies Development regulations to ensure incorporation of significant drainage ways in the landscape treatment and site design '95-01-26 13:27 • Development regulations for landscape treatments and site designs that improve air quality, respond to climatic concerns, and provide buferung for noise and aesthetic reasons. • • A landscape preservation program in conjunction with the historic preservation program, outlining use of indigenous plant materials. water - saving plant materials. and plant materials with habitat value • Interpretive and educational programs, utilizing passive recreation areas, along the Green River and protected wetlands, as well as at Tukwila nd Minkler Ponds. Meng -the -pi er 11.2.3 Streets, Streetscape, and Pedestrian Environment. Create a street network that functions in --an equally effeetivwey for automobiles, trucks, transit, pedestrians, and bicyclists; provides a safe. convenient. attractive. and comfortable pedestrian and bicycling environment that eliminates potential conflicts and promotes safety for all modes of travel; , eemferiable; and pfemetes reinforce the different motions of the CBD's streets by creating distinct jdentities for major rights -of -way. e f the Pukorim d 1•0111n (e.a_ it'd toes, Net WO) I- Edits luddedd "gad bo ROW lab way d awl kid infrap• deb Weir swig poSedwiellic FIGURE 7: Illustrative Street Section Configurations 15 16 Northern urban center area, concentrated development districts: Ensure a strian-oriented environment with features that shall include but may not be limited to complementaiy street and building relationships, project designs that improve pedestrian safely, use ofrnid block crossing in areas with high pedestrian_ traffic. transit amenities, median islands to restrict free left-hand turn lanes. tree planting, prohibition of intersection widenings without corresponding pedestrian improvements. and inclusion of pedestrian. street -level amenities. Southern urban center area, characteristic of activity area development: Develop plans for sidewalk and street tree planting improvements; promote additional pedestrian - oriented features to increase attractiveness of street. while also decreasing conflict with motorists. implement concepts to reinforce differing functions of streets. Implementation Strategies • seielYtioPmes• • Implement a system of public service streets and alleys; coordinate with op, public Works Department_ • Driveway and access point consolidation. • • • Development Regulations to address "Vision Triangle." • Develop Design Guidelines to creole distinct identities for major streets. - Strander Boulevard as pedestrian and transit -oriented and office core - Andover Park West as primary h S street tying together several important areas andfunctions - Andover Park East as heart of industrial area, characterized by high - quality landscaping - Southcenter Parkway as automobile -oriented retail street, characterized by imaginative signage and landscaping South 180th Street as an important truck route with few pedestrian considerations • Utilization of street cross-section design, zoning regulations (i.e., setbacks, site design), design guidelines addressing street character, travel speeds, and traffic management, street furnishings, landscaping, and lighting to reinforce ideittitie9. • • • Street design guidelines. 17 w U i\) Ql r 0) N 03 D N- 0 0• w C Z N • Suffunentposiestrieny-ereasing-finfe. • Well-nouFkedlund-well-iiipedestPieFeressings. • Regulations for street and sidewalk design that meet ADA guidelines. 18 VI eJ I rJ Crl 1 w▪ . .• t.0 • 30-iplrepeed-limite-in-eenter. • Prieriypedestrionsignals. • Signelife*-ntid-bleek-eresings-fet,pedeigns-where-eleeks-ere-leng-and these-ia-high-syshune-elpedestrion4raffie. • Narremedpedesimen-eressings-witeFevawasible. • Trees and landscaped strips between sidewalks and streets. ethersvrien. 11.2.4 Site Design Development Establish regulations and design guidelines that result in high -quality site design and contribute to the creation of hospitable pedestrian environments tiro I the e of site design_ techniques that may include but •ot be limited to integration of architectural. site design. and landscape dements. the separation of car, service, and pedestrian traffic.orientin4 buildings toward the_ main public street site_density and imcnsity. and/or implementing pfrysical and natural elements that enhances an areas overalLaestbdic Morn 4, 8, 9. and 10); efa-distinetive-pui3lie-envireffinet, while--fespending implementation standards and regglitions must respond to the needs of land owners, developers, business people. FIGURE 8: Vehkie and Pedestrian Connections Between Parcels Northern urban center area, concentrated development districts: Site development elements which shall be addressed include building relationship to the street. auto and pedestrian connections between _parcels, pedestrian orientation from the street to the building, site massing and scale. and implementation of public amenities (i.e., landscape pattern pedestrian access points, coordinated Southern urban_center area. characterislic_of activity area development: Site development shall contribute to creating a high -quality public environment that equally balances _pedestrian and auto orientation, and responds to the needs of landowners, developers_ and residents, Element to be addressed include building/street relationship. auto and ped connections between parcels, pedestrian orientation from the street to the building • d site massing and scale, Implementation Strategies • Require the preparation of Site Plans that address climate on the macro - and microscale in the orientation of structures and open spaces, in landscape design, and in provision ofsite amenities. FIGURE 9: Street-Bullding Orientation ... gare Owl blows Wisp pi ail Ms I • FIGURE Massln0 and Scats 19 SINdl1fSN00 >SUM 62:ET 92-10-S6, ao 20 • • Require preparation ("Master Plans that show full development of the site for sites ofcertain scale. • Board of Architectural review of Master Plans. 11.2.5 Parking. Develop parking policies and regulations IQ ensure that the supply of parking for visitors, employees, and businesses meet the demands of all transportation modes; on -going needs shall be assessed to ensure that development regulat may allow for flexibility in minimum parking requirements, encourage efficient and effective use of land in parking design. and does not preclude a less auto -dependent development pattern in the future. To address standards for the development of par jp areas, developers shall also examine screening, landscaping. and corner site parkingselationships (Figure 11 and 12). , FIGURE 11: Landscaping in Parking Areas Implementation Strategies • Review aiming of minimum parking requirements, with Allow the flexibility to exceed those standards. • Enlargement of compact car stalls allowance percentage. • Coordinate worts with Commute Trip Reduction Program to provide preferential parking for carpools and vanpools for certain types of land uses or for lots over a certain size. • Develop Site Planning standards that show preferred relationship among sheet, parking areas, and structures • Stuffy the potential for pleretien-efspecial parking provisions within one - quarter mile of a transit station or transit center_ • Strict minimum requirements for trees and planters within parking lo►s and al the perimeter. • Maximum size for parking lots • Pedestrian safety and convenience in parking lot design standards. • Parking lot design standards that comply with DADA guidelines for pedestrian connections from parking areas to structures, to streets, and between sites. • Cammissian a long-term parking needs study and parking standards • Sponsor Feasibility Study of a publidprivate centralized parking structure. • ambit bit Commute Trip Reduction Programs and Other Transportation Demand Management Programs. T r FIGURE 12: Treatment of Parking at Corner Sites 21 22 11.2.6 Afehiteetw el Building Design. Create erehitect ual design guidelines that promote an appropriate display of scale and proportion; special attention should be placed on developingAgr an -rented features and streelfront activity areas (Figures 4 and 13) such as ground floor windows, modulated building facades. rich details in material and signage` landscape treatment. and relationship to ascent sites and features. Encourage overall building quality. and sensitivi y to andlespect for the area" important features such as the west valley wall. Green River and Tukwila Pond-, urban commercial - oriented design guidelines will be developed to ensure that the intent of this policy is met. sni1ebility—ef expressien- ; Implementation Strategies • Prepare commercial -oriented urban development guidelines to ensure guano, building designs. • Conduct an urban design study to determine desired image and architectural design guidelines • Commission a visual preference study. r- 0 0 0 d�I� III AIIIi111J111111111111` FIGURE 13: Building Design N planning-guidelinas. • Develop a streetscape identity plan. • Develop a public amenities plan. 11.2.7 Signage. Establish sign regulations that promote clear identification of businesses and directions, and signage that complements and4s-integfated-with the design of the structure or facility; signage should contributes visual consistency at street level and for passing motorists, and promotes a high -quality retailing and business development appropriate to high -density, concentrated mixed -use areas distric-t-areas within the center. 11.2.8 Parks, Open Space, and Public Amenities Support existing plans, policies, projects, and programs to expand and improve the parks, open space, and other amenities in the urban center and actively seek opportunities to develop new facilities that enhance the overall experience of employees, residents, business owners, and visitors of the urban center. Implementation Strategies • Design guidelines that ensure that uses and structures adjacent to parks recognize and complement open spaces and public amenities. • FIGURE 14: Possible Park and Open Space Amenity 23 • 24 • Parks and open spaces with access to sunlight, a sense of security, seating, landscaping, accessibility, and connections to surrounding uses and activities. • Prepare an integrated and comprehensive public amenities plan for the public realm of the center. • Institute a public art program for the center. 11.2.9 Historic Preservation. Develop and implement plans, projects, and programs to protect and promote the historical legacy of the Green River Valley and its natural and built environment. Implementation Strategies • Develop a local historic preservation program. • Develop and seek funding resources for educational programs and interpretive facilities. • Funding resources to develop these programs and facilities. a public art program that incorporates local hist� mid c and references 11.2.10 Economic Development. Actively promote development in the urban center by supporting existing uses, cxnendina the range of allowable uses.. developing adopting workable �nlations. nd inves i g m public movement: and proactively s infraatniettne—ancl--publio—anienitiok-and encouraging business owners and developers to invest in the quality of both the built and natural environment. Implementation Strategies • Greater specificity and guidance from design guidelines. • Improved infrastructure through Capital Improvement Program. • Dewlap workable and implementable regulations. • ('omission a Marketing Plan for the urban center--Pronlotion-ef tke oeter''s assets. • Develop «public improvement master plan Organization of a redevelopment board, a merchants association with representation from the Ciry, or special urban center tasking of the Tukwila Economic Development Commission 11.2.11 Human Services. Ensure that land use, urban design, and transportation and circulation policies, plans, and projects in the urban centerbenefit existing and future populations in an equitable manner ' . Efforts should be made to promotes health, safety, and the quality of life through the andesentt-a responsive and responsible use investment of public funds toward, social and human services. 25 • 26 Implementation Strategies • Seek strafe • 'es and i fiveldasis forimblic/private,partnerships that will promote the development of daycare and similar service,s, neighborhood retail uses, social service and medical offices, and public and recreational uses, and institutions in the commercial areas and in proximity to planned residential areas. • Design guidelines that implement defensible space principles for crime prevention and neighborhood surveillance. • Sa*--rasSily—seetwibier-eemvertienty--19%wilable—publie—sePveesr—ood sommunityfueilitiee. 2.4 Transportation and Circulation Issues The following transportation and circulation goals and policies help to achieve the desired vision for the urban center. They provide a network of motorized and non -motorized modes, addressing regional and local access, as well as transportation altematives. Transportation and Circulation Goal A balanced transportation network that implements the urban center land use and design policies and provides access for all transportation modes to, from, and within the center. Transportation and Circulation Policies 11.3.1 Regional Access. Promote transportation and transit services and facilities, and as well as traffic management systems that increase and improve access to and from the urban center for all transportation modes; encourage a range of solutions._ including but not limited to local circulator systems. regional serving park-n-ride sites, connections to region rail alignments (Figure 15), and regional and local high -occupancy vehicle systems. Implementation Strategies • Implement alternative bus transit modes such as DART .service, airport, and hotel shuttles, and a local circulator service. Work with RTA and Metro to develop and fund regional park ir' ride and rail locations where traffic jic and visual impacts on the urban center are minimized through site design and management FIGURE 15: Connections to Regional Rail System 27 28 • Nark with RTA to coordinate regional rail systems that facilitate access to alternative travel modes. N W • D W • O • Develop. in conji unction with gpprapriale City vies and Metro, a ;r--"'N+ co centrally located major tranut facility in the urban center with appropriate land use planning, good pedestrian, bicycle, automobile and bus access, and connections to major activity areas. pedcwtr+mryi1cins 11.3.2 Local Access. Support the development of a continuous, comprehensive, and hierarchical public street network that serves all transportation needs in the center, allows a range of travel route choices, mute -of -travel and facilitates access within the center for both motorized and non -motorized all transportation modes. Implementation Strategies • A local street system master plan. • Truck circulation routes and a truck traffic management plan. • Coordinate with land use planning Forts that the transporldion and circulation system that is concurrent with projected growth in the urban canter_ • A Capital Improvements Plan that reflects urban center policies. • Expansion of the local street network • A long-range street system master place. • Acquisition of rights -of -way, easement or reservations for future street use. • Acquisition ofrailroad easements. • Street and utility rights -of -way retention.. • A master plan for a street and/or an alley system. • Shed access drives. • Pedestrian and bicycle use of local access streets. 11.3.3 Transit Service and Facilities. they-ean- provide -the In an effort to provide the greatest benefit to employees, business people, shoppers, visitors, and residents in t f the urban center, promote the development and enhancement of transit service and facilities such as an improved transit hub in the center's area of development concentration; coordinate with regional transit agencies to enhance existing and future bus and rail facilities: ensure consistency in planning between land use and transportation to create a transit- oriented, pedestrian -friendly urban cam. FIGURE 16: Improved Transit Center, Vicinity of Baker street Implementation Strategies • roes* with' Metro and other CO agencies to improve the .1,, inrprened transit center in the urban center. 29 -o 1 w 30 • hnpveved4rensit-senilees-eldfaellitio. Rail-Ogaret-elatiOnCrbilt•transil-eenteror-and-other-tvensit-foelliles-lited-to reinfereeosoistint andplamtedonii-oeowlee-andfailifies. • Tfnsit-statonriransii-oentersraisdotheogrenitfaeilifiesolled-where-land useonisesond-deniles4hon-swppert-them-evistor-owleasible. • Implement Countywide Planning Policies b • olennine or retail and services -related activities within one -quarter -mile of major transit facilities. • 7igasei1-eMfelWr4renrii-eavitirerend-ether-trenilifeeilifies-5iteaffer-geed OWN" • A-pedestrien-environmenl-thei-eneourages-lronsit-sose. • SepeAste-oeees-points-fooL-eeeh4rwel-noode-al-mansil-SteliONS-01d4F6POSii eanie109. • Direei-md-sefe-oenowelions-fre01--nonsit-faellities-to-olgnfieent-ae&ify censers. • Maj8fgronol1foellitie14oeoleti4o-minimise-speiRoeenflie1o. i ; • Dieeowageent—Of--Oditnifitnel—owfoiee—paking—in—the—urban—eoreter l' aiseeletedmilia-tvenvit c ,.1 • roveamic_deetwohlepagagfeeifiges. 5 • Parking implementation strategies potholes that support transit and HOV use. including such possibilities as: - Parking requirements based on their proximity to transit I 1 - Liberal joint parking andfkxible parkng allowances for ures adjacent to i transit facilities - Redevelopment 0. land devoted to surface parking through the -u 1 COMMIClIOR of structured parking • 1 1-. - Zoning overlay with reduce d parking requiremenb in designated areas u) i i , Si tt ,f - Provisions for a fee -in -lieu -of -parking requirement for constructing a public faciliry - d prototype for a transit stop, standards for a bus pullout and guidelines for other possible transit facilities 11.3.4 Transportation Alternatives. Ensure that land use, urban design, and transportation and circulation actions for employees support and reinforce transportation akematives, including the Commute Trip Reduction programs, Transportation Demand Management CUM) programs, Rideshare programs, and related projects and programs fix.. parkin provisions for alternative Transportation modes. promotion of bicycle paths) that encourage reduction in the number of single -occupancy vehicles on the road. Implementation Strategies • Support for businesses in implementing the Commute Trip Reduction Program and related transportation demand management programs environment • land use regulation: and design guidelines that implement the goals of this policy and associated programs. • Development regulation that encourage alternative transportation modes. 31 0 01 N Ql 1 W w 01 D 0 1 En c r -•a z N 32 11.3.5 Pedestrian Network. Develop a pedestrian and non - motorized transportation network that provides is continuous link provides -line between major activity areas in the center, and connects the center to surrounding neighborhoods. Create such a network by exploring the iise of railroad.tights-of-way as pedestrian paths; utilizing public funds to augment the existing network. and ereation of connections within sites from entrances to the Street and between contiguous developments. Implementation Strategies Public funding of augmented pedestrian network • A comprehensive pedestrian master plan with implementation strategies for both public and private development. • Pedestrian master plan coordinated with other pedestrian programs and projects in the center. Development standards to augment the pedestrian network and sidewalk and trail system. • 92-TO-SG, -n N A F F I D A V I T O F D I S T R I B U T I O N hereby declare that: J Notice of Public Hearing E Determination of Non - significance XNotice of Public Meeting O Mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance Li Board of Adjustment Agenda E Determination of Significance Packet and Scoping Notice O Board of Appeals Agenda E Notice of Action Packet O Planning Commission Agenda 0 Official Notice Packet fl Short Subdivision Agenda 0 Other Packet O Notice of Application for j Other Shoreline Management Permit D Shoreline Management Permit fAA(a was jaakkgd to each of the following addresses on 1 d ((' -611/viyttit h&t 5 1c'e O-k, 1?-� ?3 —�� Name of Pro j ectOA PIS_ 1,1/4"S ignature File Number • . PUBLIC MEETING TUKWILA DRAFT COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DELIBERATIONS The Tukwila Planning Commission will be holding a workshop to discuss Comprehensive Plan mapping and policy issues. The next work session is noted below: TUKWILA PLANNING COMMISSION WORK SESSION DATE: January 7,1995 TIME: 9:00 a.m. - 4:00 p.m. LOCATION: City Council Chambers Tukwila City Hall 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, WA The Commission will accept public comment on issues discussed in the work session during the last 10 minutes of the session. Specific topics and dates for future workshops will be determined by the Commission at a later date. For more information, contact: Ann Siegenthaler TUKWILA DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT (206) 431 -3670 DATE I PLANNING COMMISSION ACTIVITIES July 19 Tukwila Tomorrow Draft Comprehensive Plan Available July 21 Joint Meeting of City Council/Planning Commission/Tukwila Tomorrow Committee SPECIFIC TOPIC WORKSHOPS July 28 Vision/Blocks /Goals/Field Trip August 4 Regional Issues /Community Image/Economic Development/Roles and Responsibilities August 11 Housing/Residential Neighborhoods August 18 Natural Environment /Shoreline /Community Resource August 25 Annexation/Transportation Corridors/Tukwila South September 8 MIC/Urban Center September 22 Utilities/Transportation/Capital Facilities GENERAL TOPIC WORKSHOPS August 23 Open discussion for community members September 20 Open discussion for community members PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARINGS September 27 Public Hearing September 29 Public Hearing DELIBERATIONS & DECISION October 13, 20, 27 Deliberations November 3, 10,17 Deliberations and Decision P: SCHEDULE TO: FROM: DATE: City of Tukwila John W. Rants, Mayor Department of Community Development Rick Beeler, Director Tukwila Planning Commission Moira Carr Bradshaw 22 September 1994 SUBJECT: COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE MAP LEGEND The Planning Commission has asked for more information to better understand the proposed Comprehensive Plan Map 'Legend' designations. This memorandum is to provide that information and explanation. The 'Legend' is a list of groups of land uses, envisioned in the Comprehensive Plan goals and policies. These groups have general names and descriptions that were created in thinking at the policy level, not the implementation level of the Zoning Map and Zoning Code. The Comprehensive Plan directs future sub -area planning efforts, capital improvement projects, City programs and operations, and the development of regulations. The Zoning Map and Zoning Code names and descriptions are much more specific, intended to actually regulate development of land. The following matrix has been developed in a format to show the relationship between the Plan's goal and policies and the Comprehensive Plan's Land Use Map, and to illustrate with examples of current zoning districts what are traditional uses for the designations in the 'Legend.' The matrix has three columns: • the left column is the 'Legend' language from the Comprehensive Plan's Land Use Map, • the middle column highlights some of the Plan policies and strategies that correspond to the areas identified in the 'Legend,' and • the third column is the current zoning most similar the 'Legend's' designation and the interim designation to be adopted until the City's revised development codes are prepared to reflect the adopted Comprehensive Plan. 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 •. Tukwila, Washington 98188 . • (206). 431-3670 s Fax (206) 4313665 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP LEGEND DESIGNATIONS PLAN RECOMMENDATIONS CURRENT ZONING CODE DISTRICTS RESIDENTIAL Low- density residential: Areas characterized by detached residential structures; 0 to 6.9 units per net acre. * Establish a new R -2 Two Family Dwellings (4,000 square feet minimum lot area per unit) R -3 Three and Four Family Dwellings (3,000 square feet minimum lot area per unit) High - density residential: Areas characterized by residential apartment buildings: 17-i- units per net acre. R-4 Low Apartments (2,000 square feet minimum lot area per unit) • RMH Multiple- residence High Density (1,500 square feet minimum lot area per unit) * Additional density may occur where affordable units are approved. COMMERCIAL Office: Areas characterized by professional and commercial office structures, mixed with certain complementary retail and residential uses. Allow offices commercial uses. - PO - Professional Office zone allows single family and two family units, offices, schools, studios and as conditional uses banks and mixed use officelretail developments. Neighborhood: Areas characterized by commercial uses, structures, and activities that are compatible with residential areas. Structures are characterized by residential scale and architectural treatment Residential units are mixed horizontally or vertically, and in some special districts are required to be mixed with the commercial use. C1 - Community Retail Zone allows those uses permitted in the PO zone as well as typical neighborhood retail and service uses such as clothing, book, fix -it, florist, jewelry, laundrettes, offices, restaurants, excluding drive -ins, and service stations without engine or body repair work Regional: Areas include commercial services, retail activities with associated warehousing, and compatible and complementary uses including offices, lodging, and entertainment serving both local and regional markets. Structures are of a regional commercial scale, unless in proximity to residential areas, when residential structure scale is reflected. C-2 - Regional Retail Business allows those uses allowed in the PO and C-1 zones as well as uses located in larger facilities and attract large volumes of customers at one time such as bowling alleys, convention facilities, funeral homes, and uses that are auto- oriented such as sales, car washes, drive -ins, bus stations, garages, as well as pet shops, taverns, hotels and motels. CP - Planned Business Center has identical uses to the C-2, and allows shopping malls that exceed 300,000 square feet. 3 Commercial /Light Industrial:Areas characterized as either commercial, light industrial or a mix of the two uses typical of the regional commercial and light industrial categories. • Truck loading, districts. . The Zoning Code has two light industrial zones; see above. Heavy industrial:Areas characterized by heavy or bulk manufacturing uses and distributive and light manufacturing uses, with accessory commercial and office uses. M -2 zone allows R -1, R -2, PO, C-1, C-2, CM, M -1 and including truck terminals, the manufacturing of equipment; iron and steel fabrication; rock crushing; asphalt and concrete batching or mixing; stone cutting. 4 PUBLIC RECREATION Areas owned by the City of Tukwila or dedicated for either passive or active public recreation use. • • Parks and the zones. COMMUNITY RESOURCE OVERLAY A special designation that overlays both public and private lands. The designation identifies land that supports the community's need for recreation and natural resources and acts as a vegetated buffer to break up the urban landscape. It includes public facilities for passive and active recreation; storm and surface water retention, drainage, and biofiltration areas; and visual separators between districts. Special development needs and constraints are recognized through an acquisition program and special development zones. No special district; operates with special procedures and standards similar to the sensitive areas overlay zone. . Planned Area(s): This designation is based on unique conditions including large parcel ownership, the presence of significant water features such as wetlands, watercourses and the river, and topographic conditions, that will influence the future development of the land. The complex problems unique to this planned areas can be overcome best through coordinated development of the areas as a total unit. A public review Would include multiple zoning districts and the Special Development Overlay District, including C-2 Regional Commercial and CM Industrial Park. 6 Special Development District An area within the Urban Center where more intense development and diverse uses are concentrated in order to: *create a focal point and source of identity for the center; .promote a broad range of activities that cater to employees, business people, shoppers and residents; *create a transit - oriented and pedestrian friendly transportation corridor; and *provide for a major employment center. Create design guidelines for the inclusion of amenities within development sites. Within the Center's Planning Area, allow the tallest buildings in the Special Development District. Retail and service oriented uses on ground floor. Off - street parking location and landscape standards. C-2 Regional Commercial Manufacturing 'Industrial Center: A major employment area containing manufacturing or other uses supportive of manufacturing; industrial industries which cannot easily be mixed at higher densities or with other uses or which relay upon the transportation facilities and infrastructure of the area. M -1 Light Industry and M -2 Heavy Industry 7 URBAN CENTER SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION ATTACHMENTS A. King County Countywide Planning Policies for Urban Centers B. Urban Center Projections C. Housing Survey for Urban Centers D. Soil Conditions for Building in Center E. Ground Water Conditions on Valley Floor F. Commercial Trends in South King County KING COUNTY COUNTWIDE PLANNING POLICIES for URBAN CENTERS D. Urban and Manufacturing /industrial Centers Urban Centers are envisioned as areas of concentrated employment and housing, with direct service by high capacity transit, and a wide range of other land uses such as retail, recreational, public facilities, parks and open space. Urban Centers are designed to 1) strengthen existing communities, 2) promote housing opportunities close to employment, 3) support development of an extensive transportation system to reduce dependency on automobiles, 4) consume less land with urban development, and 5) maximize the benefit of public investment in infrastructure and services, 6) reduce costs of and time required for permitting, and 7) evaluate and mitigate environmental impacts. Manufacturing/Industrial Employment Centers are key components of the regional economy. These areas are characterized by a significant amount of manufacturing or other industrial employment. They differ from other employment areas, such as Business /Office parks (see FW-13 and LU- 58 -62), in that a land base is an essential element of their operation. FW -11 Within the Urban Growth Area, a limited number of Urban Centers which meet specific criteria established in the Countywide Planning Policies shall be locally designated. Urban Centers shall be characterized by all of the following: a. Clearly defined geographic boundaries b. Intensity/density of land uses sufficient to support effective rapid transit; c. Pedestrian emphasis within the Center; d. Emphasis on superior urban design which reflects the local community; e. Limitations on single occupancy vehicle usage during peak hours or commute purposes; f. A broad array of land uses and choices within those uses for employees, resi- dents; g. Sufficient public open spaces and recreational opportunities; and h. Uses which provide both daytime and nighttime activities in the Center. FW -12 Within the Urban Growth Area, the Countywide Planning Policies shall assure a number of locally - designated Manufacturing /Industrial Centers which meet specific criteria established in the Countywide Planning Policies will be locally designated. The Manufacturing /Industrial Centers will be and are characterized by the following: a. Clearly defined geographic boundaries; b. Intensity /density of land uses sufficient to support manufacturing and industrial uses; and c. Reasonable access to the regional highway, rail, air and /or waterway system for the movement of goods. FW -13 Urban and Manufacturing /Industrial Centers shall be complemented by the land use pattern outside the centers but within the urban area. This area shall include: urban residential neighborhoods, activity areas, business /office parks, and an urban open space network. Within these areas, future development shall be limited In scale and intensity to support the countywide land use and regional transportation plan. ATTACHMENT A 1. Urban Centers Designation Process LU -28 The location and number of Urban Centers in IGng County will be determined through the joint local and countywide adoption process, based on the following steps: a. The Countywide Planning Policies include specific criteria for Urban Centers; b. By October 1, 1992, local jurisdictions shall determine if they will contain an Urban Center(s). Jurisdictions electing to contain these centers will provide the GMPC with a statement of commitment describing the city's intent and commitment to meet the Centers' criteria defined in these policies and a timetable for the required Centers Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement or identification of existing environmental documentation to be used; and c. By December 1, 1992, the Growth Management Planning Council shall review and confirm the Centers that are elected by local jurisdictions (consistent with Policy FW- 1), or make adjustments based on: 1) The Center's location in the region and its potential for promoting a countywide system of Urban Centers; 2) The total number of centers in the county that can be realized over the next twenty years, based on twenty years projected growth; 3) The type and level of commitments that each jurisdiction has identified for achieving Center goals; and 4) Review of /other jurisdictional plans to ensure that growth focused to Centers is assured.' 2. Urban Centers Criteria LU -29 Each jurisdiction which has designated an Urban Center shall adopt in its comprehensive plan a definition of the urban center which specifies the exact geographic boundaries of the center. All centers shall be up to 1 -1/2 square miles of land. Each center shall be zoned to accommodate: a. A minimum of 15,000 jobs within 1/2 mile of a transit center; b. At a minimum, an average of 50 employees per gross acre; and c. At a minimum, an average 15 households per gross acre. LU-30 Jurisdictions which contain urban centers, in conjunction with METRO, shall identify transit station areas and right -of -way in their comprehensive plan. Station areas shall be sited so that all portions of the Urban Center are within walking distance (one half mile) of a station. LU-31 In order to reserve right -of -way and potential station areas for high - capacity transit or transit hubs in the Urban Centers, jurisdictions shall: a. Upon adoption of specific high- capacity transit alignments by METRO, adopt policies to avoid development which would restrict establishment of the high - capacity transit system; b. Preserve right-of-ways controlled by the jurisdiction which are identified for potential transit use; and c. Provide METRO an option to acquire property owned by the jurisdiction. LU-32 To encourage transit use, jurisdictions shall establish mechanisms to charge for single- occupancy vehicle parking and /or a limit on the number of off - street parking spaces for each Urban Center, and establish minimum and maximum parking requirements that limit the use of the single- occupant vehicle and develop coordinated plans that incorporate Commuter Trip Reduction guidelines. All plans for Urban Centers shall encourage bicycle travel and pedestrian activity. LU-33 Jurisdictions' comprehensive plans for Urban Centers shall demonstrate compliance with the 'Urban Centers criteria In order to promote urban growth within centers, the Urban Center plan shall establish strategies which: a b. c. d. e. f. 9. Support pedestrian mobility, bicycle use and transit use; Achieve a target housing density and mix of use; Provide a wide range of capital improvement projects, such as street improvements, Schools, parks and open space, public art and community facilities; Emphasize superior urban design; Emphasize historic preservation and adaptive reuse of historic places; Include other local characteristics necessary to achieve a vital urban center; and Include facilities to meet human service needs. LU-34 The system of urban centers shall form the land use foundation for a regional high capacity transit system. Urban centers should receive very high priority for the location of high - capacity transit stations and /or transit centers. (See also LU -47) 3. Incentives for Urban Centers In order to help create Urban Centers, incentives to jurisdictions to establish Urban Centers, and to the community to build in Urban Centers, should be established. The provision of high - capacity transit (HC7) is one such incentive. Others include funding, and streamlined permitting. LU-35 Countywide financing strategies shall be developed by the GMPC by July 1, 1993 which: a. b. Identify regional funding sources; and Set priorities and allocate funds for urban facilities and services including social and human services, and subarea planning efforts, in Urban Centers. LU-36 Each jurisdiction electing to contain an Urban Center under Policy LU -28 shall prepare a Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (PEIS) for each proposed center. The PEIS shall be prepared in a comprehensive manner and shall address probable significant adverse environmental impacts from and reasonable alternatives to the proposal. These may include, but are not necessarily limited to subjects of area -wide concern such as cumulative impacts, housing, schools, public utilities, and transportation. Subsequent project - specific proposals shall not be required to perform duplicative environmental review of issues which have been adequately reviewed in the PEIS, but shall provide additional environmental review of other issues. These may include, but are not necessarily limited to the direct impacts of the specific proposal, substantial changes in the nature of the proposal or information regarding impacts which indicate probable significant adverse environmental impacts which were not adequately analyzed in the PEIS. Examples of project- specific direct impacts include local traffic impacts, site aesthetics, and other issues not addressed by the PEIS. LU-37 In support of centers, additional local action should include: a Strategies for land assembly within the center, if applicable; b. Infrastructure and service financing strategies and economic development strategies for the centers; c. Establishing expected permit processing flow commitments consistent with the PEIS; and d. Establishing a streamlined and simplified administrative appeal process with fixed and certain timelines. LU-38 Jurisdictions should consider additional incentives for development within Urban Centers such as: a. Setting goals for maximum permit review time and give priority to permits in Urban Centers; b. Policies to reduce or eliminate impact fees; c. Simplifying and streamlining of the administrative appeal processes; d. Eliminating project - specific requirements for parking and open space by providing those facilities for the Urban Center as a whole; and e. Establishing a bonus zoning program for the provision of urban amenities. To: MEMO Rick Beeler, Director Jack Pace, Senior Planner Moira Bradshaw, Associate Planner From: Diana Painter, Associate Planner Subject: Urban Center projections Date: August 30, 1993, revised September 2, 1993 The following are projections from the urban center study, comparing actual conditions to Fling County urban center criteria and PSRC growth forecasts for the year 2010: Acres Urban center Study area* Actual King County PSRC criteria projections 665 no min. 644# 1025 960 max. NA Employment Urban center 11,105 33,250 25,969 Study area 15,575 51,250 NA Employment density Urban center 17 /ac 50 /ac 40 /ac Study area 15 /ac 50 /ac NA Households Urban center 10 9,975 453 Study area 21 15,375 NA Household density Urban center .01 /ac 15 /ac .7 /ac Study area .02/ac 15 /ac NA The following are required increases in non- residential building area (GFA) to meet employment projections. This assumes a mix of retail and office uses similar to that which occurs in the urban center today. Implicit in this assumption is no increase in warehouse space. Another assumption here is that redevelopment will continue to occur in the study area in the same way it has in the urban center to the north. Existing non - residential building square footage (GFA) urban center study area 7,299,103 sq. ft. 11,294,411 sq. ft. ATTACHMENT B:' Projected employment requirements urban center (PSRC) urban center (KC) study area (KC) 25,969 employees 33,250 employees 51,250 employees Required increases in non - residential space to meet employment projections urban center (PSRC) 450 sf /employee x 19,363 employees = 8,713,350 sf retail 300 sf /employee x 6,454 employees = 1,936,200 sf office 25,969 10,711,800 sf commercial space urban center (KC) 450 sf /employee x 24,937 employees = 11,221,650 sf retail 300 sf /employee x 8.312 employees = 2,493,600 sf office 33,250 13,715,250 sf commercial space study area (KC) 450 sf /employee x 38,437 employees = 17,296,650 sf retail 300 sf /employee x 12,812 employees = 3,843,600 sf office 51,250 21,140,250 sf commercial Required acreage to accommodate household projections urban center (PSRC) 8 units /acre x 57 acres = 453 households ** 15 units /acre x 30 acres = 453 households urban center (KC) 8 units /acre x 1,247 acres = 9,975 households 15 units /acre x 665 acres = 9,975 households study area (KC) 8 units /acre x 1,921 acres = 15,375 households 15 units /acre x 1,025 acres = 15,375 households IGng County Assessor records show 72.3 acres of vacant land in the urban center and 105.7 acres in the study area. These figures do not adequately reflect land available for development however. Much of this land has poor access, much of it is held by utility and railroad companies and government agencies (see memo dated 8- 30 -93), and two of the major sites are already being developed; Segale Retail and McLeod Exhibition Center. On a brighter note, many properties in the center and study area are under- utilized, much of the building stock is nearing 30 years old, and much of the land is currently devoted to surface parking, making this a prime area for redevelopment when land values warrant it. Nonetheless, meeting both required employee and household projections is challenging. The requirement that the jobs be located within a half mile of a planned transit center is difficult when considering likely sites for redevelopment, wherever you plan the transit center (I still like the idea of a shuttle around the center!). The required number of jobs can be provided with increased densities for commercial development. This can be facilitated with incentives for structured parking, improved transit service, improved access, better transportation management, a more attractive work environment in the center, etc. The projected acreage requirements for residential uses is more difficult to accomplish however. Zoning for residential uses in the center would be down - zoning, always a difficult thing to accomplish. In addition, I can't imagine that converting revenue - generating commercial development to residential uses will gain much following in the city. I believe that the way to proceed with this planning process is: o create a mixed -use zone that accommodates a broader variety of uses than our current zoning categories; o target a few areas that, given the physical setting and current land values, are the most likely candidates for redevelopment for housing, accommodating the numbers that it is possible to accommodate; o increase projected office uses in relationship to retail uses to meet required employee projections, and build on current and future markets such as the hotel /exhibition /support services market (support services can more easily housed in mid -rise development than retail, for example); • o protect and enhance current retail environment with transportation, transit and circulation improvements, and publicly- funded or supported amenities; o develop a strong urban design plan addressing the pedestrian environment, building on existing natural features, etc., that provides public sector improvements and provides incentives for private sector investment in both the short and long term; o create several alternative development scenarios and `test' these through a market study and participation process with the local business community; o plan for transit. friendly .development, but be flexible in where and how improved transit is provided. Feedback is welcome! TAZ zone, roughly equivalent in acres to Tukwila's urban center nomination * The urban center boundaries are the original boundaries presented in the urban center nomination. The study area takes in the designated urban center, plus those properties between Minkler and South 180th, to give added flexibility in targeting potential redevelopment areas.:; ** 8 units per acre is a minimum threshold for transit -served residential areas, according to Lori Peckol of the PSRC. 15 units per acre has greater potential for frequent local bus service (see. 'Combining Transport and Community Development'), and is typical of multi- family development in this area. MEMORANDUM To: File From: Diana Painter Subject: Housing survey for urban center Date: July 27, 1994 The direction given to staff in developing the urban center element of the comprehensive plan was to not consider multi - family housing north of I -405 as part of the designated urban center. It was felt that this area was too far removed in physical and psychological terms to be considered part of the Southcenter area. It was also felt that residents in this area might have reservations about being included. In their May 12, 1994 review of the Draft Comprehensive Plan Urban Center Element, the Tukwila Tomorrow Committee elected to extend the boundary of the proposed urban center north of I -405 in order to include the housing units in this area to fulfill urban center housing requirements. A preliminary boundary for this area was suggested at the meeting. In order to find out how many units were actually located there and at what densities, we subsequently did a housing survey of the area. We did a windshield survey to determine the character of the area, researched housing densities through King County records, and had conversations with property managers for additional data on the buildings. Our recommended boundary for this area is shown on the attachment. There are approximately 65 acres of multi - family development here. There are 1450 units, and the area averages 22 units per acre. Coincidentally, this is the same number of units, at the same average density, as proposed in the Riverfront District in the Background Report. The difference between the Riverfront District and the multi - family area north of I -405 is that the Riverfront District can be zoned for a density appropriate to meet King County urban center criteria (9,975 units). To zone for the equivalent density north of I -405 may be unacceptable to property owners and /or the community. ATTACHMENT C COURSE Multi- family boundary recommendation north of I -405 FORT DENT PARK ' SOUTHCENTER _.. SHOPPING CENTER EVAN% MACK II I Multi -Family Unit Count for the Proposed Urban Center Complex Name Anderson 4-plex Balash 4-plex Canyon Estates Cottage Creek Condos Crystal Ridge Condos Hampton Heights Apts Heatherwood Apts Heinz 4-plex Karenal 4-plex La Vista Estates Maplecrest Newport Hills Apts North Hill Apts Parkside Townhomes Parkview Apts Pyramid Pointe Apts San Juan South Sibonga 4-piex Southcenter Apts Southcenter View Condos Sunwood Condos Tukwila Estates Verona Apts 4-piex The density of the six Address 6523 S 153rd St 6507 S 153rd St 15140 65th Av S 15344 62nd Av S 15310 Sunwood B1 5711 S 152nd St units across 152nd 5861 S 152nd St 6519 S 153rd St 6503 S 153rd St 5555 S 152nd St 15100 65th Av S 5550 S 152nd St 5820 Southcenter Bl 6530 S.153rd St 15130 65th Av S 15304 57th Av S 6250 S 153rd St 6515 S 153rd St 15036 Macadam Rd S 15210 Macadam Rd S 15165 62nd Av S 15110 Macadam Rd 15016 Macadam Rd 6511 S 153rd St S S Units/. # of Total Acres Units/ Build. Bldgs Units Acre 4 1 4 1.26 19 4 1 4 19 10 186 7.22 26 2 4 8 4.71 10 7 40 120 3.77 32 6 68 2.76 25 3 45 1.93 23 6 66 2.71 24 4 1 .4 19 4 1 4 19 varies 4 114 3.15 36 32 1 32 1.97 16 varies .12 80 4.51 18 varies 5 54 2.52 21 2 1 2 0.36 14 3 1 3 30 1 30 1.95 25 18 1 18 29 1 29 4.55. 18 30 1 30 24 1 24 8 54 2.65 20 4 1 4 19 6 2 12 1.21 30 12 2 24 2 66 2.06 32 Phase 1 10 92 11.53 15 Phase 2 19 86 81 2.12 38 31 '2 62 1.51 _. 41 4 1 4 .. 19 Totals 1450 64.45 22 4-plexes was calculated over their combined area MEMO To: Planners From: Diana Painter Date: September 27, 1993 Subject: Soil conditions for building in center The following is (in part) from a conversation I had with John Koloski, a principal with Geo Engineers, about soils and their limitations on building on the valley floor. I was inquiring as to whether there were any conditions in the center that prohibited ten story buildings. He has worked on projects in this area for about 30 years, and is currently involved with the Boeing project in Renton, among others. Most of the soils in the urban center (valley floor) are fill. Even those areas that are not fill (the Boeing site, for example), have seismic sensitivity requiring special treatment. Soils that are fill and have been sitting for a long time (are compacted), such as at the Target site, are better to work with for a spread foundation than unfilled soils. Building in the center requires that either the soils be pre - loaded, or that there be a pile foundation. Pre - loading involves bring in fill and allowing it to compact by 'sitting' on the site (example is Segale retail site), or engineering and compacting the soils. Slab foundations can then be constructed. For structures higher than two stories (in general), he indicated that the use of pile foundations is more usually more feasible. They can either be end bearing piles or friction piles. (Caisson piles are not feasible when soils are noncohesive or there are subsurface water conditions.) End bearing piles gain stability by going deep enough to hit bedrock, or dense sand and gravel. Friction piles gain their load carrying capacity 'through frictional resistance between the sides of the piles and soil through which it is driven.' Friction piles are used when no firm bearing stratum exists at a reasonable depth. Both friction piles and end bearing piles in the center average from 50 to 80 deep. There are usually more piles required for a friction pile foundation. End bearing piles are steel, but friction piles can be steel or concrete, whichever is more cost effective. Pre -cast concrete piles can be used for either. The cost of a structure does not increase incrementally with the number of stories. The cost of a 2 -3 story structure is not 1/3 that of a 9 story structure; it is more like 1 /10th the cost. Cost, and therefore feasibility, also depends on the market (the ATTACHMENT D cost of various materials and construction methods, a including distance from supplier), and the rigidity of the structure; that is, the planned construction method. It also depends on specific soil conditions at the site. In conclusion, he indicated that there is no limit on the number of stories that can be built on soils in the center. The feasibility depended on the market and soil conditions specific to the site. • MEMO To: Planners From: Diana Painter Subject: Ground water conditions on valley floor Date: October 21, 1993 This is a follow -up information memo to the soil conditions memo I sent around earlier. I spoke with Jon Koloski of GeoEngineers again, asking whether it was possible to have underground parking on the valley floor in the urban center area. The following outlines the conditions under which this is possible. The water table level on the valley floor ranges from 2' to 12' below the natural ground level. To put a partially underground parking area under a building is not much of a problem here. But a fully underground level, which would have to be at least 12' below the natural ground level, poses two major problems. One is the uplift on the slab; the bouyancy of the slab requires -a massive foundation to 'anchor it.' The other problem is keeping water out. Not only does this require careful construction and pump systems to pump it out in the event of a flood, the pump systems need backup pump systems for emergencies. A serious flood can cause structural damage. The reason the Bon Marche was able to build a basement level is because it is on about 12' of fill, and so the water table is still slightly below the basement slab. In the case of the Oakdale Street tunnel under 405 at Longacres, water empties by gravity into the T -1 channel. If the flood is bad enough, they just let it flood. Another solution to building a below ground level structure in this area is seen in a utility shaft /walkway at the Longacres site. In this project, the structure is waterproof, and open to the air. The analogy that Jon used was putting a length of garden hose below the surface of the water. If it happens to flood anyway, they pump it out. 1114(25& What this means for the center is that underground parking is not impossible, but there are some serious constraints which of course, are eventually translated into dollars. ATTACHMENT E To: Planners From: Diana Painter Subject: Commercial Trends in South King County Date: February 9, 1994 I had an interesting conversation with Joe Shepard today, who is the Northwest Division President for Koll Company. I had called to ask him about rends in light industrial /distribution /warehouse properties, and ended up talking about the whole range of commercial uses. Light industrial /manufacturing /warehouse distribution space There is nearly 60 million sq. ft. of this type of space in the kent Valley (Renton /Kent /Tukwila). There is nearly 4 million sq. ft. vacant. Last year there was a 'net absorption' (total new space rented out) of 800,000 sq. ft. Historically, there is 1.4 million sq. ft. of absorption of this type of space annually in the Kent Valley. At this rate, there is enough space available for the next four years. In addition, he sees less demand for this type of space in the future because of trends in downsizing and consolidation. Another important factor affecting the demand is automation. Another is a trend on the part of manufacturers to by -pass distribution centers and respond directly to the end user. Office space Office space in the Kent Valley is glutted. There is a 30% vacancy rate. Tukwila in particular has a real problem because of Boeing moving out. Property owners are exploring converting these properties to other uses if they can. For these properties, he said, the value of the property is now less than the mortgage. Trends that will affect the amount of office space needed in the future area: o telecommuting o trends towards smaller disperse offices, rather than large centralized offices o less office space needed per employee because of computers o 'hoteling' - where businesses have employees share offices when people are in the office only part of the week; for example, if employees travel a lot between different business offices Retail The competition among big box retailers is fierce, and the' expansion cycle is already played out. Big box retailers have the choice of consolidating, or closing the less profitable stores and selling these properties in order to improve earnings. An example ATTACHMENT F is Costco buying out Price Club. In short, he doesn't see any local commercial growth market, and no need to build anything (he didn't mention a time frame) with the current inventory of buildings. Name )2,924/Aj/ /1% Cit (3 / Welcome to the Open House! 7Dt2g ( 4(/2 4,t) 2t / -7-:=n't/ 20N /A/6, /99.1 Address Please sign in 0/IC /(5/9/Z_ 7.0 'q-fL 2 S, ' :fie_ /0/ 5-0A00411-- 5 -4 7)) / Pe i 3 /V2/1 o /S- S. , ,1 aia ''2 �i ke) > ; j Al.e64(Rti -y 73vD/>,.J1c--I , NJ.Dsafv rt- Mr- / LI) 06 r 7 C. NutcA4 IRE►i.or., 1'.O. a4G &7 a 1e wA. `tg1.14 / / , r_ 4/0"), S Phone 72 2- 37387 76 Z °' /zfy 02f -Q 0 &z4 -SgOQ 7!0 -„2 1a.3 yE r -2 j zy1-i- (747 z g /5c,- 15042_t-LJ 9 iL C) (c) 1-417,� e9 ll, --Sr SUE" (105'4117w r✓�7_. 42 � s eSS 'id 'Poi- At, 2 S 1 Seco,'d A-c/e 7 Z l 3 a Voi Ste - 4,00,0,,u// LLS 9'8072- (3S /- Lf3''< S, calcoe r. �`7 / Cf oa,^ �c./' « //S So_ /32 VAV( 1) CD VAC_ 1 Ocx)r- 91.9 -o 3 4 .scfe r,)A E /ukt 4-asi• j- /?,Ftr sr L01410,1111- £ LMM, L. okoMftirzcc_/3xCD ) 2-06 � 4tit* Wh!- 1_. ac- oNrt 4'1n+ .f" P,A-1 esoo ?POI- 257 eg63 clyz 7776. s�e ?� 762 244 .... �22 79.0 -f) ove t Grru�t, C_av10,-7-1/ g a 1/ cE. ,.00 rjf 9e0 c/. I r r fr 4- ifTc3 s� "Y /- ,moo7 fr /J, G,� `.1L�1�.4 -CIO c. g,av, 61 ( 6 7 7.-)K4,7 G l6 D I19 ©.J Name 20 772 L Welcome to the Open House! Address Please sign in Phone w 3l S .S 11.DeE/) S"OR 1 lAyt kP �o flr(0 1-2_7_0 so k e a • �".�s.i.�r �-� k i E 3 c o g 5675(433 Lc-9-76 90A 1 f3i- '3310 11031W._ BLVD, %c5 &) ��6 3 v_ l S ?S < ?RP /PVC So, I ©a?c-S sz City of Tukwila John W. Rants, Mayor Department of Community Development Rick Beeler, Director MEMORANDUM TO: Tukwila Tomorrow Committee FROM: Mayor Rants City Council resident Mullett " Planning Commission Chairman Haggerton DATE: November 16, 1994 SUBJECT: Comprehensive Plan - Urban Center Alternatives The Planning Commission has held a public hearing on the draft Comprehensive Plan authored by the Tukwila Tomorrow Committee and is now deliberating on the comments received. During that public review process concerns were expressed that consideration was not being given to alternatives to the "urban center" designation for the central business district. Therefore, the Mayor convened a meeting of a few representatives of the City Council, Planning Commission and Tukwila Tomorrow Committee to address these concerns. As a result, the representatives reached concensus that the Tukwila Tomorrow Committee should reconvene to prepare alternatives to the "urban center" designation. Tukwila Tomorrow had done a commendable job on the draft Comprehensive Plan, and the representatives wanted to again call on their experience and perspective. It was important to the representatives to follow the same process of drafting the Comprehensive Plan through preparing the alternatives to the Urban Center. Tukwila Tomorrow is not expected to prepare a recommendation to the Planning Commission, only to draft alternatives for the Commission's concern. The goal is for Tukwila Tomorrow to begin work as soon as possible and forward a draft to the Planning Commission by January 30, 1995. Staff will prepare a preliminary draft for Tukwila Tomorrow's consideration within the next three weeks and will be contacting members soon after receipt of this memorandum. Because Tukwila Tomorrow members have already spent many voluntary hours on drafting the Comprehensive Plan, committments to this additional work may not be possible for all members. This is understood, and their past work is very much appreciated. Accordingly, those members of Tukwila Tomorrow who can make this additional commitment are requested to convene on November 30 at 6:00 pm in the DCD conference room (dinner provided) and organize the new work while maintaining the Committee's balance of residential and business interests and perspectives. 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • (206) 431-3670 • Fax (206)'4313665 Urban Ctr. Alternatives Memo. 11/16/94 Page 2 We want to thank Tukwila Tomorrow again for their generosity of time in drafting the Comprehensive Plan. And we thank them for going the "extra mile" in helping in this final initiative to continue the good work begun by Tukwila Tomorrow and to make the public review process significantly more fruitful. In the end the final Comprehensive Plan will be a lot better because of the work Tukwila Tomorrow has done and will do. cc: City Council Planning Commission „ City of Tukwila Department of Community Development September 15, 1994 TO: Tukwila Planning Commission FROM: Sylvia Schnug RE: Open House John W. Rants, Mayor Rick Beeler, Director A reminder that we need your attendance at the open house regarding the Draft Comprehensive Plan, on Tuesday, September 20th from 6:00 p.m. - 8:00 p.m. at Foster High School Commons (Cafeteria) S. 144th Street and 42nd Ave. S. , • ' • 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • (206) 431-3670 • Fav (206) 4313665 City of Tukwila John W. Rants, Mayor Department of Community Development Rick Beeler, Director September 9, 1994 TO: Planning Commission Members FROM: Sylvia Schnug RE: Work session minutes Enclosed are the minutes which have been completed, but not approved. I thought I would send them out before your packet so you would have some extra time to review them. Our next meeting is on September 22nd and it will include a work session regarding the Utilities, Transportation and Capital Facilities elements, as well as a Board of Architectural Review hearing. The packets containing those reports, the staff report for the BAR, and other requested materials will be mailed around the 15th. If you don't think you will be able to attend, please let me know in advance so I can notify the applicant if we cannot get a quorum. Feel free to call me if you have any questions, 431 - 3654. 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 :•: (206) :4131 -3670 Fax (206) 431- 3665 To: From: Subject: Date: . City of Tukwila John W. Rants, Mayor Department of Community Development Rick Beeler, Director MEMORANDUM Planning Commission Jack Pace Urban Center Issues September 8, 1994 The following is a brief discussion of the impetus behind the policies for Tukwila's Phase ll Draft Urban Center Land Use Element and the issues that need to be resolved in the May 12th Draft Comprehensive Plan. Influences on the plan A little over a year ago Tukwila's City Council elected to nominate Tukwila for consideration as one of the region's designated urban centers. This action committed the City to creating a plan for the urban center that fulfilled the GMPC King County Countywide Policies, which stipulate criteria for urban center designation (see Appendix B, Urban Center Phase II Draft report). In addition, the policies for the Phase Il Draft Land Use Element were influenced by visions for the urban center expressed by Vision Tukwila and the Tukwila Tomorrow Committee in the Tukwila Tomorrow Phase I Report (see Appendix A, Urban Center Phase II Draft report). Other influences on development of the plan were the' need to more closely reflect existing conditions and trends in the center, and develop a plan which would anticipate future trends in support of the continued economic vitality in the center. The planning process An evaluation of existing conditions in the urban center (Background Report.Part I) was presented to the Tukwila Tomorrow Committee in October of 1993. At that time, future directions for the center were discussed. In March city staff came back to the Committee with draft goals, policies and implementation strategies (Background Report Part II). Over the course of two meetings, the Committee commented on and made amendments to the proposed goals and policies. These changes, as well as supporting documentation, were incorporated in the Phase, ll Draft Land Use Element. They were also incorporated in the Phase III Comprehensive Plan. In May of 1994 the Committee had an opportunity to review the entire Phase III document. At their May 12, 1994 meeting they re- visited the urban center element of this plan, and made some radical changes in the overall direction of the plan, as well as in the strategies to implement the plan. These changes are reflected in the Tukwila Tomorrow Draft Comprehensive Plan dated May 12, 1994. Scope of changes 1 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • (206) 431 -3670 • Far. (206) 431-3665 The Committee's changes to the Urban Center Land Use Element were made at the time that the Draft Comprehensive Plan was to be issued. As a result, the changes were incorporated verbatim, with no resolution of the implications of the changes for other aspects of the plan or inconsistencies this created within the urban center element between policies and between policies and implementation strategies. Changes made by the Committee include: the proposed boundaries for the designated urban center; the boundaries of the land use districts within the center; the definition of land use designations, i.e. land uses allowed in each district; and the purpose of the special development districts. A detailed analysis of the differences between the Phase II Draft policies and the Draft Comprehensive Plan policies for the urban center, and the implications of these changes for the City's urban center nomination, is contained in a memo from Diana Painter to Rick Beeler dated June 15, 1994 and entitled 'Urban Center Policies Changes.' This is available on request. Urban center nomination The issues that these changes raise in the urban center range from philosophical to practical. The first question that needs to be asked is whether the City wants to be a designated urban center. The advantage of this designation is preferential treatment by regional transit agencies for fixed rail transit and other transit service and facility improvements. The Phase II Draft policy plan fulfills King Country urban center criteria. The Draft Comprehensive Plan does not have the potential of fulfilling these criteria. The criteria established by the County are very explicit. They require that an urban center be a maximum size of one and a half square miles; and provide for a minimum of 15,000 jobs within one half mile of a transit center; a minimum of 50 employees per gross acre; and a minimum of 15 households per gross acre (see p. 12 of Phase II Draft report to see what this means for Tukwila's urban center). The changes made by the Committee that undermine the City's urban center designation are as follows. The County requires that cities desiring urban center status provide for a certain number of employees overall (based on land area), and a certain number of employees within a half mile of transit. This was the impetus in the Phase II Draft plan for providing for a centrally located mix of office and retail uses, and serving these employees with a centralized bus transit facility. The light industrial and warehouse uses called for in this area in the Draft Comprehensive Plan do not provide for the employment density required to realize the objectives of the King County policies. (They also continue growing conflicts between the types of traffic generated by industrial uses and by the growing number of retail and service uses in the center). The Phase II Draft plan also calls for creating a multi- family district in proximity to the river that would be zoned to achieve the densities required by King County (this does not mean that housing is required; it means that housing is allowed at appropriate densities). While the number of probable housing units in this area equal the number of units provided north of the center per the Draft Comprehensive Plan, there are other problems associated with the latter solution. For one, this area is physically and psychologically separated from the center. Two, it is nearly completely developed and much of the development here is fairly recent. This decreases the likelihood that it would be redeveloped to greater densities within the time frame addressed in this plan. Third, this entire area would have to be 'up- zoned' to fulfill King County criteria, and this may not be acceptable to local residents. Differences between Phase II Draft & Draft Comprehensive Plan The main features of the Phase II Draft Land Use Element for the Urban Center are: 2 o Focus office and retail growth along the east -west spine of Strander with a transit and pedestrian friendly street, thereby providing for the concentration of jobs required under Growth Management; o Add a bus transit facility in the center, and create stronger pedestrian connections to the planned regional transit facility northwest of the center, again fulfilling Growth Management requirements; o Allow for a mix of commercial and light industrial uses in the southeast portion of the center, retaining much of the character it has today, but with transportation improvements; o Create a special district along the river that contains housing and commercial uses, developed in a way that takes advantage of this waterfront location; o Allow a mix of commercial uses in the northeast corner of the center that takes advantage of the planned exhibition center, hotels and restaurants located here; o Take advantage of the planned development of Tukwila . Pond Park and pedestrian connections between the regional trail system and the park by adding a major public open space and improved pedestrian environment here; o Concentrate auto- oriented retail uses along Strander Boulevard in the southwest corner of the center. The major differences between the Phase II Draft and Draft Comprehensive Plan, as a result of revisions by the Tukwila Tomorrow Committee on May 12, 1994, are: o Decrease the size of the special district along the river (thereby decreasing the area in which housing is possible), and broaden the uses here to include industrial uses; o Extend the mix of commercial and light industrial uses to the remaining parcels of land along the river in the Riverfront District; o Change the area in the northeast corner that was designated for commercial uses in support of the exhibition center, hotels and restaurants to include industrial uses; o Change the eastern boundary of the urban center so that it stops at the river,, rather than at the eastern city limits (thereby excluding the hotels, exhibition center, and links to regional transit center); o Extend the northern boundary of the center to include multi-family uses north of the center, across 1-405, Southcenter Boulevard and Tukwila Parkway. Issues The issues to be resolved between the Urban Center Element of the Draft Comprehensive Plan and the rest of the plan are: 1. The policies for the shoreline in the urban center require water - enjoyment uses. The light industrial and warehouse uses that the Draft Comprehensive Plan now allows in this area cannot 3 be defined as water - enjoyment uses. 2. The policies for area north of the urban center, across 1-405, are included in the Southcenter Boulevard Land Use Element. The inclusion of this area within the urban center has not been addressed in either the Urban Center or Southcenter Boulevard Land Use Element. 3. In the Draft Comprehensive Plan for the City, light industrial and warehouse uses have been targeted for the Manufacturing and Industrial Center, along the Transportation Corridors, including Interurban Avenue South, and south of the urban center. The addition of more light industrial land within the urban center has not been addressed. Inconsistencies between the two planning documents, the Phase II Draft and the Draft Comprehensive Plan, as they relate to the urban center are extensive. In general, certain policies that have been amended by changes in the map or definitions of allowed land uses invalidate other policies. For example, the overall intention of the Riverfront District is undermined by allowing industrial uses in the shoreline. Policies such as this need to be amended so that they do not conflict with other objectives of the plan. In other instances, policies have been changed but implementation strategies not amended. This means that the implementation strategies discussed will not implement the policy. Conversely, some implementation strategies were changed such that they no longer implement the policy as proposed. In other words, the implementation strategies, which will guide development of the development code and design guidelines for the center, need to be revised so that they will achieve the policy direction for the center established by the City. Future decisions The urban center has not stopped growing and changing since its beginning in the 1960s. Most recently, the center has seen broad based redevelopment of its industrial and warehouse buildings for retail uses, with an accompanying increase in traffic congestion. Changes that can be foreseen in the immediate future include the addition of a commuter rail line on the eastern boundary of the center, more redevelopment of properties for retail uses, the addition of a major park, a bus transit facility in the center, the addition of a major exhibition facility, an increase in service - oriented uses, and a decrease in industrial and warehouse uses as these facilities locate elsewhere in the city or region. Our mission in planning for the center is to try to anticipate change, and direct it in a way that serves our long term objectives. Our success in doing this will be measured by the efficient and effective use of public funds for infrastructure improvements and public amenities. Another measure of success will be our continued ability to attract and keep a wide variety of businesses, particularly commercial businesses, in the center. Another measure will be our ability the maintain good access to the center and improve access within the center for all transportation modes. Another will be our ability to convince the regional transit agencies that this is a productive market, with strong ridership, in which to locate facilities. The center will also benefit from our continued ability to garner public monies for transportation improvements for cars, trucks, bicycles and pedestrians. The potential for the center is served by anticipating the future. 4 CITY OF TUKWILA DRAFT COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ISSUE PAPER SUBJECT: ZONING MAP AMENDMENTS OBJECTIVE: To preclude the inappropriate introduction of uses contrary to the Comprehensive Plan being adopted. BACKGROUND: In 1992 the City started the process to update Tukwila's Comprehensive Plan because the City had doubled in size, due to annexations, and because the State Growth Management Act (GMA) was adopted. Following adoption of the Comprehensive Plan, anticipated for the summer of 1995, must then come implementation through revisions to existing regulations, and potential reprioritization and redesign of public construction projects and programs /services. DISCUSSION: The goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan direct multiple changes in how the City develops. General land use designations are determined by the Comprehensive Plan's Land Use Map but specific uses and the details of how uses will be allowed in each of the designations will be implemented through a new development code. Until adoption of implementing regulations, existing regulations will allow land uses that conflict with the Plan. Therefore, amendments to the existing zoning map are proposed to prevent these conflicts between the time frame of the Plan's adoption and preparation and adoption of a complete implementation package. The proposed zoning map amendments are a bridge that would be effective until then. FUTURE ACTION: During 1995, staff will work with decision makers on a draft "development code" that unifies existing city regulations and procedures and modifies the Zoning Code and Map to reflect the direction of the adopted Plan. It is anticipated that existing zones will be amended to include additional uses and that there will be additional zones. Review of the code will include community debate and input but the final revisions must ultimately implement the Comprehensive Plan eventually adopted. 8i23$4 City of Tukwila John W. Rants, Mayor Department of Community Development Rick Beeler, Director PLANNING COMMISSION BRIEFING DRAFT COMPREHENSIVE PLAN 18 August 1994 CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS 6200 Southcenter Boulevard 6:00 - 8:00 P.M. I. Phase II Draft Reports, Tukwila Tomorrow Review 6:00 p.m. II. Natural Environment Element - Moira Can Bradshaw 6:05 p.m. III. Shoreline Element - Ann Siegenthaler 6:45 p.m. IV. Community Resource Element - Moira Carr Bradshaw 7:25 p.m. 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 ; • (206) 431 -3670. Fax (206) 431-3665 SHORELINE ENVIRONMENTS Recommended Corrections /Revisions 8/18/94 The Shoreline Management Act requires a community to designate "Shoreline Environments" along the length of its shoreline. Like specific goals and policies, a Shoreline Environment designation becomes an integral part of the policy framework which will guide development along the river. Each Shoreline Environment allows a certain type and level of development. Future regulations will then be developed to specify which uses are prohibited or allowed in a particular Environment. The Shoreline Background Report proposed that the current Shoreline Environment designation of "Urban" continue. The Tukwila Tomorrow Committee (ITC) elected to use three different Environment designations, identified specific locations for each Environment, and gave general direction as to the types of uses which would be allowed there. To implement the TTC's direction, staff recommends the specific policy wording noted below. These policies would be included as a separate section in the Comprehensive Plan, and would be incorporated into Tukwila's new Shoreline Master Program. POLICIES for SHORELINE ENVIRONMENT DESIGNATIONS A. Open Space Environment In the Open Space Environment, priority shall be given to the following: • Protection and restoration of natural environment features and riverbank characteristics; • Visual, physical and cultural access to the river; • Low- impact uses, such as agriculture, recreation, wildlife habitat, and interpretation. The following areas shall be designated as the Open Space Environment: A 50' -wide corridor which extends outward from the river channel to a point 50' from the top of bank, and which extends from the current city limits at approximately South 192nd Street upstream to South 204th Street (see map). B. Urban -Open Space Environment In the Urban -Open Space Environment, priority shall be given to the following: • Maintenance of existing single - family residential development patterns, • Re- development of existing commercial and industrial areas, with enhanced visual, physical and cultural public access to the river; • Protection and restoration of natural environment features and riverbank characteristics where compatible with development. The following areas shall be designated as the Urban-Open Space Environment: The entire shoreline zone from the Highway 99 bridge upstream to the point at which the South 180th bridge crosses the river; except for the Urban Center Environment (see map). C. Urban Environment In the Urban Environment, priority shall be given to the following: • Re- development of under - utilized areas and development of intensive commercial and industrial activities. • Enhancement and restoration of recreational areas and public access to the water. The following areas shall be designated as the Urban Environment: i. the entire shoreline zone from the northern city limits upstream to the Highway 99 bridge; and ii. a 150' -wide corridor which extends outward from a point 50' from the top of bank, and which extends from the . current city limits at approximately South 192nd Street upstream to. South 204th Street (see map). Upstream URBAN extends from north city limits to SR 99 bridge MANUFACTURING/ INDUSTRIAL CENTER URBAN -OPEN SPACE from SR99 to S. 180th St •URBAN CENTER URBAN:upstrem f S180tt St to appro ..............: Upstream URBAN extends from north city limits to SR 99 bridge MANUFACTURING/INDUSTRIAL CENTER URBAN CENTER SW 43 ST IIENIMIINSINSPr URBAN upstream from S. 180th St. to approx. S. 192nd St. URBAN located from approx. S. 192nd to S. 204th (50' from top of bank) II OPEN SPACE extends 50' from Top of Bank from approx. S. 192nd St to S. 204th St upstream SHORELINE GOALS/POLICIES Recommended Corrections/Revisions The Tukwila Tomorrow Committee (ITC) felt it was important to include policies which specifically address: a) public health and welfare, and b) private property rights. The Draft Comprehensive Plan includes goals to address these, but no policies (see Page 5 -11 of Draft). To follow through on the recommended goals of the TTC, staff recommends the additional policies noted below. Additions are highlighted in edict` format. A. Goal 5.9 Public Health, Safety and Welfare Shoreline uses that do not endanger public health, safety and welfare, or the capacity of the river to provide long -term benefits and resources to the community. W. "•r.):v "4::S:;;il:. r:::' ti •.:;fii'•'S:ia:5f:13i:'L.}}: mc,•:. <•..{xY• :'t;i:•:.:.1.•:Z.{;hi!: r.::`• .,•}: #ti.` ?;�iL°s'{ ,Yr,.v:6XV:vvnn}. }:;'•i+fiY' %•: ` ii }r?.•%grr.•}:}}.vm4xf{ahvge.; j }iX,:rh`v.J:•:: 5� :::tt •Y}x�.f�#r x;r;i is�rif4}. c4. w: v: <C::;;if{{t;;•dcc {A•rr}V:i>:•. ) r i;c;•A }r.;G:;%di:{Yw.v ':'..'. <4•`. . t.•`; o%:{,' tt�.: o'[F�: Kc` i.:!,'' w�.,'+�`:`•:z? ""r "::4`�'. *bYJ�7 Aph�i+�.GR•a :h { ::vpivR•:w�fv�FCyJ.�,v(w�;�.t: :,;4'ifi'ty Sxk'G:tot }ail.G:;:f:,�r.o-A CTG> FY? iF$ F£ i .•rA`r•:M.'.4 %6Ci%�,'s'GFdA2... ffiaSF: {:C{+iiCfoY.i{i$':4jiv:{'•,,.�' •• {�• B. Goal 5.10 Private Property Rights Protected rights of property owners to reasonable use and enjoyment of private property through appropriate location and design of shoreline uses. Y:.v,.A ; :}`x . y.. Y�%4}x},} r,}:4vr+y:{.Z Y•154: n #i}i:. xy, }}Y V, •4:•>i:x:•,'ifdbii}.ri-0G;;2vT n24:{{{ %� • J.�'�i •fir n ". nvi}:}< :JC'•w�iM'v� �' `:'•�''� •.•`r'•''r ' .. "��• •n• �• •: ............................ ......... ....✓� 0.{d} ,rr:G+,W�.v�n`•v•%{•ACivMZN �7PmW :R{i i iS:tiy{•..:.,.w: r.v:i {•x.•n4 :.2:riii i•+ 4 }.,4.t• }i:•n}•:$:f mx{ :i .}:r. t • "' y��►ryY•, Y i r,}}/��i}f isV!:I[17 ab Si W.eS f/l�:i !�: 7Q:. ..0 :v. n' S'i wri4: �iivF. 4. vY: viWiw. SiriiYm •Fi{4}ii }iii}:•iv'iry } }i� r h`•.ivii7vri• • .• . ", ( • City of Tukwila Department of Community Development PLANNING COMMISSION BRIEFINGS DRAFT COMPREHENSIVE PLAN 11 August 1994 CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS 6200 Southcenter Boulevard 6:00 - 8:00 P.M. I. Housing Element Vernon Umetsu, Tukwila Department of Community Development Evelyn Boykan, Tukwila's Mayor's Office of Human Services 6:00 - 7:00 p.m. II. Neighborhood Land Use Element Vernon Umetsu 7:00 - 8:00 p.m. III. Adjournment John W. Rants, Mayor Rick Beeler, Director • . . • 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 (206J 431-3670 • :Fax 1206). 43.1•3065: CITY OF TUIKWILA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN PROPOSED MAP CHANGES SITE NUMBER I CHANGE 1 HEAVY INDUSTRY TO REGIONAL COMMERCIAL 2 TO LIGHT INDUSTRY 3 TO LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL 4 LIGHT INDUSTRY TO LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL 5 TO RIVERFRONT 6 TO REGIONAL COMMERCIAL 7 TO COMMERCIAL /LIGHT INDUSTRY 8 TO PUBLIC RECREATION 9 _OFFICE TO MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL 10 TO LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL 11 REGIONAL COMMERCIAL TO NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL 12 TO MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL 13 TO HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL 14 TO COMMERCIAL /LIGHT INDUSTRY 14A TO LIGHT INDUSTRY 15 I TO LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL 16 IHIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL TO MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL 17 MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL TO LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL 18 TO HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL 19 TO NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL 20 LOW DENSITY REDIDENTIAL TO HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL 21 TO MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL 22 I LOW DENSITY TO COMMERCIAL /LIGHT INDUSTRY 23 1PARKS AND OPEN SPACE TO LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL PUBLIC FACILITY TO MULTIPLE DESINATIONS SEE LARGER MAP };•••••r••.: •• ••••••• 8 -18 -94 CITY OF TUKWILA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN PROPOSED MAP CHANGES SITE NUMBER CHANGE 1 HEAVY INDUSTRY TO REGIONAL COMMERCIAL 2 TO LIGHT INDUSTRY 3 TO LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL 4 LIGHT INDUSTRY TO LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL 5 TO HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL 6 TO REGIONAL COMMERCIAL 7 TO COMMERCIAL /LIGHT INDUSTRY 8 TO PUBLIC RECREATION 9 OFFICE TO MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL 10 TO LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL 11 REGIONAL COMMERCIAL TO NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL 12 TO MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL 13 TO HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL 14 TO COMMERCIAL /LIGHT INDUSTRY 15 TO LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL 16 HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL TO MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL 17 MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL TO LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL 18 TO HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL 19 TO NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL 20 LOW DENSITY REDIDENTIAL TO HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL 21 TO MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL 22 LOW DENSITY TO COMMERCIAL /LIGHT INDUSTRY 23 PARKS AND OPEN SPACE TO LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL , PUBLIC FACILITY TO MULTIPLE DESINATIONS SEE LARGER MAP -26 -94 Puget Sound Regional Council PSRc DKAF Public Involvement Calendar \fccropolicanTransportation Plan fr if M. ViSIOm020 Information & Issue Development November 8, 1993 Public announcement of plan to update VISION 2020 and adopt a Metropolitan Transportation Plan (MTP) November 1993 - March 1994 Distribution of video "Let's Get Moving" to community and government access TV stations; presentations to jurisdictions and other organizations around the region; telephone survey; written survey; work- shops on growth management issues; other outreach March 10, 1994 Preliminary discussion of VISION 2020 Update /MTP issues by Regional Council policy boards March Il, 1994 Presentation to Regional Council General Assembly, overview of VISION 2020 progress to date, and major work that needs to be completed by March 1995 April 1994 Workshops on some MTP elements; additional outreach to jurisdictions and community groups Working Through The Issues May - June 1994 Additional workshops and outreach June I, 1994 Release VISION 2020 /MTP Progress Report Working Through The Issues ...continued July 1994 — Open Houses July 14 -- 4 -8 p.m., Broadway Center Rehearsal Hall, 901 Broadway, 3rd Floor, Tacoma July 20 -- 4 -8 p.m., Snohomish County PUD Auditorium, 2320 California St., Everett July 27 -- 4 -8 p.m., Silverdale on the Bay Resort Hotel, 3073 Bucklin Road, Silverdale July 28 -- 4 -8 p.m., Puget Sound Regional Council, 6th Floor Conference Room, 101 Western Avenue, Seattle July- October 1994 Presentations, workshops, board meetings, other events Developing Recommendations October 3, 1994 Release preliminary draft of VISION 2020 Update /MTP October 7, 1994 Joint meeting, for discussion of prelimi- nary draft VISION 2020 Update /MTP, of Growth Management and Transportation Policy Boards October - November 1994 Presentation of draft to countywide policy groups; additional meetings of Growth Management and Transportation Policy Boards to discuss preliminary draft; additional presentations and outreach Recommending A Draft Plan Update November 1994 Policy boards' action on a draft VISION 2020 Update /MTP implementation strategy for recommendation to the Executive Board December I, 1994 Executive Board meeting to receive recommended draft VISION 2020 Update/ MTP, to make an air quality conformity finding, and to release the draft along with a draft environmental document, for public review Preparing A Final Plan Update January 6, 1995 Annual Conference, focusing on opportu- nities and impacts of emerging technolo- gies on VISION 2020 Update /MTP issues; open houses in each of four counties , January 26, 1995 Executive Board work session on VISION 2020 Update /MTP January 21 - February 15, 1995 A public hearing and additional Executive Board work sessions, reports back to policy boards Action On VISION 2020 Update /MTP February 23, 1995 Executive Board decision meeting on draft VISION 2020 Update /MTP March 16, 1995 General Assembly action on VISION 2020 Update/MTP City of Tukwila John W. Rants, Mayor Department of Community Development Rick Beeler, Director TO: City Departments FROM: Rick Beeler DATE: 9 August 19 4 SUBJECT: Draft Comprehensive Plan The Tukwila Tomorrow Draft Comprehensive Plan (Plan) that you have received is currently under review by the City's Planning Commission. A public hearing is scheduled for the 27th of September 1994. Upon the close of the hearing we will prepare staff analysis on: comments received, inconsistencies identified, and critical new initiatives for the Planning Commission. You have given us comments before. Due to the start of the Planning Commission deliberation, you have another opportunity to provide remarks. Please review the document and provide comment on: • goals and policies that should be added due to new information, and • policies that are inconsistent with current or anticipated actions and explain the rational for preferred action, especially as it relates to the goal. If you have any issues and recommendations, provide a written response to us by 7 September 1994. The draft has been distributed to a wide array of public agencies as well as to private individuals. If there is an agency or individual who you feel would be interested in the Plan, please let us know and we will forward a copy to them if they haven't received one already. The Planning Commission will forward their recommendation to the City Council who will review and then adopt a Final Comprehensive Plan. We anticipate the Council review to occur in 1995. The ideas and directions in this document will take precedence over any future action by the City. The success of its goals will be monitored on a regular basis. If inconsistencies are found between the Plan and proposed future action, the proposed action will be reviewed in light of the Plan, which may then be modified. Modification may only occur once a year. If you have any questions, please call Moira Bradshaw at 431 -3651. 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • (206) 431-3670 • Fax (206) 4313665 City of Tukwila .� John W. Rants, Mayor Department of Community Development Rick Beeler, Director PLANNING COMMISSION BRIEFING DRAFT COMPREHENSIVE PLAN 4 August 1994 CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS 6200 Southcenter Boulevard 6:00 - 9:00 P.M. I. Vision 2020/Metropolitan Transportation Plan Update Overview - Lori Peckol, Puget Sound Regional Council - Jon Layzer, Puget Sound Regional Council 6:00 p.m. - 6:40 p.m. II. Regional Transit Project Update - Barbara Gilliland, Regional Transit Authority 6:40 p.m. - 7:15 p.m. III. Community Image Element - Moira Carr Bradshaw, City of Tukwila 7:15 p.m. - 7:55 p.m. BREAK TV. Economic Development Element - Jack Pace, City of Tukwila 8:00 p.m. - 8:40 p.m. V. Roles & Responsibilities Element - Moira Carr Bradshaw, City of Tukwila 8:40 p.m. - 9:00 p.m. 6300 Southcenter Boulevara4 Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 (206) 4313670 . Fax (206) 4131:3665 Puget Sound Regional Council PSRC MEMORANDUM TO: Members, Tukwila Planning Commission FROM: Lori Peckol, Growth Management Planner Ned Conroy, Transportation Planner SUBJECT: August 4 Planning Commission Meeting July 26, 1994 RECE VE.3 JUL 27 1994 GUrvlwluoir 1 Y DEVELOPMENT VISION 2020, adopted collectively in 1990 by the region's cities, towns and four counties, is the long -range growth and transportation strategy for the central Puget Sound region. The plan provides regional guidance on issues that cross the boundaries of individual jurisdictions. VISION 2020 is being updated to respond to federal and state mandates and changes. Major areas that will be part of the draft update include the following: • a detailed Metropolitan Transportation Plan that responds to specific federal deadlines and requirements; • refinements of existing VISION 2020 policies based on local plans and additional policies developed in accordance with the Growth Management Act; • an economic element resulting from the development of a regional economic strategy, and other possible additions based on regional policy work; • regional benchmarks or "yardsticks" against which our progress toward implementing VISION 2020 can be measured. Enclosed are two documents recently prepared by the Regional Council as part of the VISION 2020 update process: the Update Progress Report and Baseline /Framework Report. The documents are designed to provide general information about VISION 2020, identify issues to be included in the update, and stimulate agency and citizen involvement. The Baseline /Framework Report describes in more detail, the primary goals and transportation strategies embodied in VISION 2020, and reviews assumptions about the projected performance of the transportation system if VISION 2020 were fully implemented. A preliminary draft of the VISION 2020 Update will be produced in October 1994. A final draft Update and Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement will be released for public review in December, and the Regional Council's General Assembly is scheduled to take action in March 1995. We look forward to talking with you about VISION 2020 and its update at your August 4 meeting. 1011 Western Avenue, Suite 500 • Seattle, Washington 98104.1035 • (206) 464.7090 • FAX 587.4825 0 Goal 1.1 A community for which residents feel a strong emotional attachment, including: o Opportunities for interaction with neighbors and public servants o Open communication methods and accessible programs and services o Protection of privacy and security o An image consistent with neighborhood identity Goal 1.2 A heritage conserved and interpreted so that Tukwila's citizens can be aware of connections with the past. Goal 1.3 Identifiable boundaries for Tukwila so that residents, workers, and visitors know they are entering the city. • Goal 1.4 Vegetated hillsides and freeway corridors. Goal 1.5 A riverfront that is accessible, developed, and appreciated as a major amenity of the community and region. Goal 1.6 Residential neighborhood physical features that are "small town" in character: o Narrow streets, with on- street parking allowed (in addition to required off- s t r e e t parking) o Lawns, trees, and low -scale fences in front yards o Garages located toward the rear of the lot . o Front porches and sidewalks that allow interaction between passing neighbors . o Shallower front yards consistent with the adjacent pattern of development Goal 1.7 A more attractive form of commercial development along major streets in the community, in which buildings and plantings are prominent and oriented towards pedestrians and transit, instead of signs and automobiles. Goal 1.8 A civic focal area for facilities and services within the City that serves as a "center" for Tukwila's residents. Goal 1.9 An economically strong Urban Center, with a distinct image and . character, of bold architectural form that provides for an intensive mixture of uses along with access to transit, public amenities, and civic facilities. Goal 2.1 Continuing enhancement of the community's economic well- being. Goal 3.1 Assumption of the City's fair share of regional housing. Goal 3.2 Assumption of the City's fair share of affordable housing. Goal 3.3 An improved housing stock in support of enhanced neighborhood quality. Goal 3.4 A full range of housing for persons in all stages of life. Goal 4.1 Increased quantity and quality of wetl &ds and watercourses for wildlife habitat, recreational uses, water quality enhancement, and flood control functions. Goal 4.2 Protected fish and wildlife habitat. Goal 4.3 Reduced potential impacts and liabilities associated with geolo development. and mining area - Goal 4.4 An educated citizenry that understands Tukwila's ecosystems and acts responsibly regarding their functions. Goal 4.5 Protected paleontological and archeological artifacts. Goal 5.1 Shoreline Planning and Management Expanded value of the river as a community and regional resource through regional coordination of shoreline management programs and through programs that foster river awareness, involving partnerships among businesses, schools, and government and community organizations. Goal 5.2 Land Development Use and Economic Vitality Development along the shoreline that fosters the economic vitality of Tukwila while preserving the long -term benefits of the river. Goal 5.3 River Design Quality Enhanced identity of the river as a unique community asset through high- quality development and public activities that reflect Tukwila's rich, diverse history and sense of community pride. Goal 5.4 Access and Recreational Use Varied opportunities for public access to and along the river, including visual and cultural access, access to the water's edge, opportunities for small boat navigation, and connections to other neighborhoods. Goal 5.5 Transportation Use Safe corridors and amenities for pedestrians, cyclists, and users of public transportation, allowing more residents to access and enjoy the river. Goal 5.6 Historical Resource Use Recognition of the river's contribution to Tukwila history and community identity through identification, enhancement, restoration, and protection of sites with historic and cultural value and through development of interpretive and educational programs. Goal 5.7 Natural Environment and Habitat Use ( Restored, enhanced, and protected natural environmental resources along the river, including trees, wildlife habitat, and features with value for long -term public, scientific, and educational uses. Goal 5.8 Water Quality, Surface Water, and Flood Control Use Improved water quality and quantity control programs affecting the Green/Duwamish River that improve the river's water quality, provide habitat for fish and wildlife, protect public health and safety, and enhance public enjoyment of the river. Goal 5.9 Public Health, Safety, and Welfare Shoreline uses that do not endanger public health, safety, and welfare or the capacity of the river to provide long -term benefits and resources to the community. Goal 5.10 Private Property Rights Protected rights of property owners to reasonable use and enjoyment of private property through appropriate location and design of shoreline uses. Goal 6.1 A network of lands, connected with other such regional networks, that includes and connects Tukwila's recreational amenities, water resources, and other natural resources and provides visually significant bands of vegetation that contrast with the built environment. Goal 6.2 A safe path or trail system that links significant community focal points. Goal 7.1 A logical and serviceable municipal boundary within which residents and business can be served. Goal 8.1 Neighborhood Quality Urbanization and development that fosters a sense of community and replaces lost vegetation with improvements of at least equal value to the community. Goal 8.2 Overall Land Use Pattern A land use pattern that encourages a strong sense of community by grouping compatible and mutually supportive uses and separating incompatible uses. Goal 8.3 Streetscape Development Streetscapes that enhance neighborhood quality and a strong sense of community. Goal 8.4 Neighborhood Gathering Spots Neighborhood gathering spots that provide a social focal point for supporting and enhancing neighborhood communication and quality. Goal 8.5 Private Sector Development Residential neighborhoods with a high- quality, small-town, pedestrian character. Goal 9.1 Pacific Highway Corridor Goal A Pacific Highway corridor that is an attractive, safe, and profitable place to do business, shop, work, and live and is a positive reflection of the City as a whole and of the surrounding residential and business community. Goal 9.2 Interurban Corridor Goal A high- amenity multi -modal transportation corridor with three distinct areas that are characterized by their mix of uses and development size and standards. Goal 9.3 Southcenter Boulevard Goal A corridor of low -rise offices, residences, and localized commercial uses at major intersections that act as a buffer to the low- density residential neighborhoods to the north. Goal 9.4 General Transportation Corridor Transportation corridors that are functional, attractive and diverse along their lengths both for the people traveling through and those traveling to these areas. Goal 10.1 Enhanced and enlarged commercial and industrial land supply within the Puget Sound urban area, with community resources such as the shoreline, wetlands, hillsides, and watercourses maintained, enhanced, and utilized. Goal 11.1 Land Use An urban center where diverse opportunities exist for employees, business people, shoppers, visitors, and residents, with land use mixes and densities that support these opportunities. Goal 11.2 A central focus for Tukwila, with an environment that is attractive, functional, and distinctive and supports business, shopping, recreation and entertainment, and residential opportunities. Goal 11.3 Transportation and Circulation A balanced transportation network that implements the urban center land use and design policies and provides access for all transportation modes to, from, and within the center. Goal 12.1 Support for existing industrial activities in the Manufacturing/Industrial Center and development of new industrial activity in order to maximize the employment and economic benefits to the people of Tukwila and the region. Goal 13.1 Utility services and facilities that meet the community's current and future needs in a safe, reliable, efficient, economic and environmentally responsible manner. Goal 14.1 Overall Safe and efficient movement of people and goods to, from, within, and through Tukwila. Goal 14.2 Transportation System Expansion of the existing public street network into a hierarchy of street designs that serve vehicle and pedestrian safety, traffic movement, and adjacent property. Goal 14.3 Level -of- Service Residential, commercial, central business district, arterial, and access street levels -of- service that provide safe and efficient traffic movement and incorporate evolving traffic patterns. Goal 14.4 Public Transportation, Transit, Rideshare, and Personal Rapid Transit Efficient transit capacity that will reduce single- occupancy - vehicle trips to, from, and through Tukwila and provide public transportation for Tukwila residents who depend on it. Goal 14.5 Nonmotorized Transportation Bicycle and walking capacity for regional Category I and local Category II trips. Goal 14.6 Freight, Rail, Water, and Air Transportation Geometric capacity for commercial freight transportation located in and serving Tukwila. Goal 14.7 Funding Sources and Mitigation Payment System Funding through grants, mitigations, and general funds for safety and capacity measures to maintain adopted LOS standards. Goal 15.1 Public facilities that reflect desired levels of quality, address past deficiencies, and anticipate the needs of growth through acceptable levels of service, prudent use of fiscal resources, and realistic timelines. Goal 15.2 A capital improvement program and facility designs that meet the broad spectrum of the City's human needs rather than just traditional needs such as vehicular and pedestrian circulation, drinking water distribution, and sewage collection. Goal 16.1 A strong sense of community fostered and supported by a physical and social environment that meets the daily needs of residents and businesses and, in coordination with regional providers, meets the community's long -term needs.. PUGET SOUND REGIONAL COUNCIL POLICY AND PLAN REVIEW PROCESS' The process for reviewing planning policies and local and regional plans includes: (1) coordination and consultation regarding local comprehensive plans, transportation agency plans, and VISION 2020, (2) the consistency review of countywide planning policies and multicounty policies, and (3) the certification of countywide planning policies and transportation elements in local comprehensive plans. Type 1: Coordination and Consultation In order to coordinate planning for issues that are interjurisdictional in nature, the Puget Sound Regional Council will provide comments to localities and agencies during their plan review period. Coordination and consultation regarding these plans and VISION 2020 provides an opportunity to identify how local governments and transportation agencies are using the regional growth strategy in their planning efforts. This coordination is voluntary. A questionnaire to be completed by agency staff will be the chief tool used in coordination and consultation. Regional Council staff will be available to local jurisdictions and transportation agency staff to discuss any issues or problems. Type 2: Consistency Review of Countywide Planning Policies and Multicounty Policies The review of countywide planning policies and multicounty policies will be based upon a comparative analysis of countywide and multicounty policies. The comparison will focus on policy areas for regional planning identified in the Growth Management Act. These policy areas include (1) designation of urban growth areas, (2) contiguous and orderly, development and the provision of services, (3) transportation facilities and strategies, (4) siting regional capital facilities, (5) interjurisdictional planning, (6) economic development, and (7) affordable housing. In addition, multicounty policies also include policies on open space, resource protection and critical areas. During the period prior to the updating of the multicounty policies, the primary effort of the consistency review will be directed toward transportation policies.2 Adopted by the Puget Sound Regional Council's Executive Board April 28, 1994 and amended May 26, 1994 in response to Substitute House Bill 1928. 2 The Regional Council's General Assembly is scheduled to take action on updated multicounty policies in March 1995. 1 The review of countywide planning policies and multicounty policies is a collaborative and informational review which is intended to provide information to allow enhanced coordination of regional planning. The comparison will focus on the consistency of each county's countywide policies with adopted multicounty policies. Regional Council staff together with local government staff, will prepare a draft consistency report and circulate it for review and comment by the counties and any countywide growth management planning bodies. Any identified problems shall first be addressed through staff to staff discussions. Unresolved issues will be referred to the Executive Board, counties, and countywide growth management planning bodies for consideration of possible amendments to individual countywide policies or multicounty policies. If inconsistencies remain after such consideration, the Regional Council, any county, or any countywide growth management planning body may request the Washington state Department of Community, Trade, and Economic Development to provide mediation services pursuant to the Growth Management Act. In preparation of the report, and throughout the review and appeals process, consideration shall be given whether multicounty policies are based on and developed from local comprehensive plans which are developed and adopted from the framework established by the countywide and multicounty planning policies. Type 3: Certification of Countywide Planning Policies and Transportation Elements in Local Comprehensive Plans Certification of Countywide Planning Policies and the Adopted Regional Transportation Plan for Consistency In July 1994 the Regional Council will request each county to submit its adopted countywide policies for certification and certify that those policies and the adopted Regional Transportation Plana are consistent with each other. The consistency certification of countywide planning policies and the Regional Transportation Plan will be based on a comparative analysis of the adopted countywide transportation - related planning policies and the Regional Transportation Plan. 3 In the central Puget Sound region, the term "Regional Transportation Plan" and "Metropolitan Transportation Plan" are one in the same. "Regional Transportation Plan" is the term used in the Washington State Growth Management Act. "Metropolitan Transportation Plan" is the term used in the federal Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act. The Regional and Metropolitan Transportation Plan for the region is VISION 2020, as amended with the adoption of the Multicounty Planning Policies in March of 1993. Regional Council staff will review the policies and the plan and prepare a certification report noting any possible inconsistencies. The report shall identify any recommended amendments to the policies or the plan, or both, to make them consistent with each other. The report shall be submitted to the Executive Board for action and then to the counties and the respective countywide growth management planning bodies for consideration. Any inconsistencies shall be addressed by consideration of amendments either to the policies or the plan, or both, according to the procedures established by law for amendment. If a county or a countywide growth management planning body disagrees with a recommended amendment to its policies, it may appeal the recommendation. Appeals shall be made to the Executive Board which shall either make recommendations to the General Assembly to amend the Regional Transportation Plan to allow certification or deny certification. Proposed amendments or updates to countywide planning policies shall be submitted by each county to the Regional Council for preliminary review at least sixty days in advance of action by the countywide growth management planning body. Preliminary review shall identify and recommend amendments to allow certification. After adoption of the policies they shall be reviewed for any changes made after the preliminary review which would affect certification. A certification report and recommendation shall then be prepared as described above. The Regional Council by action of the Executive Board and the General Assembly, under the provisions of Article VI.B of the PSRC Interlocal Agreement, shall adopt a Regional Transportation Plan, and any amendments thereto, consistent with the multicounty planning policies, which are based upon and developed from countywide planning policies adopted pursuant to the requirements of the Growth Management Act. Countywide planning policies remain certified until amended. Amendments to countywide planning policies shall be reviewed for certification in the manner set forth above. Certification of Transportation Elements in Local Comprehensive Plans The certification of transportation elements in local comprehensive plans will be based on (1) conformity with requirements in the Growth Management Act for comprehensive plan elements, (2) consistency with the Regional Transportation Plan, and (3) after July 1, 1995 consistency with established regional guidelines and principles as required by Substitute House Bill 1928. Conformity with the Growth Management Act. Conformity with the Growth Management Act focuses on five requirements for transportation elements listed in the Act: (1) consistency with the land use element, (2) identification of facilities and service needs, (3) discussion of financing for transportation facilities and services, (4) description of intergovernmental coordination efforts, and (5) development of transportation demand - management strategies. 3 Consistency with the Regional Transportation Plan. Consistency with the Regional Transportation Plan will be determined through a comparison of the transportation elements in local plans with the transportation provisions in the adopted Regional Transportation Plan. Consistency with Established Regional Guidelines and Principles. Regional guidelines and principles will be adopted by the Executive Board and incorporated into the certification process by July 1, 1995. Plans that are reviewed for certification after this date must reflect the established guidelines and principles to be certified. The Regional Council's existing policy and plan review process will be used to certify transportation elements in local plans submitted for certification prior to the adoption of the regional transportation guidelines and principles. Once the guidelines and principles are established, they will be used in the future certification of transportation elements, including any amendments and /or updates to those elements. The certification of transportation elements includes a two -step review. In the first step, the Regional Council will perform a preliminary review as soon as the draft comprehensive plan is available, but not later than the time that the draft plan is being reviewed by state agencies; that is, at least 60 days prior to plan adoption. Review of the transportation element in draft form provides the opportunity for the jurisdiction to address inconsistencies or potential problems prior to plan adoption. The certification review will include a checklist which agency staff will complete and return to the Regional Council for review and comment. Once the final plan is adopted, the transportation element will be reviewed a second time, focusing on any changes made to the plan after the preliminary review. The Regional Council will then prepare a report on certification and send it to the jurisdiction. After the jurisdiction has had an opportunity to review the report and comment, a recommendation on certification will be presented to the Regional Council's Executive Board. An appeals process is identified in the Interlocal Agreement for jurisdictions wishing to take issue with the Board's action. Upon receipt of an appeal, the Executive Board will direct that a five- member board of hearing examiners be constituted from the membership of the Board to resolve the conflict in a manner that would allow the transportation element to be certified.' Certification and Air Quality Conformity For jurisdictions in the central Puget Sound region that are within the designated non - attainment areas for carbon monoxide, ozone, and /or particulate matter, air quality conformity will be determined based on the consistency of local plans with VISION 2020. Inter local Agreement for Regional Planning of the Central Puget Sound Area (VII.A.4 and VILA.5). 4 For the purpose of determining conformity with the state's Clean Air Conformity Act and consistency with VISION 2020 at this time, the transportation element should include, at a minimum, policy language that commits the jurisdiction to developing programs and measures that address federal and state air quality regulations and laws. Frequency of Certification Local jurisdictions' transportation elements are certified until amended or updated. Any changes to the transportation element will require certification. Should the Regional Transportation Plan be found in non - conformity with federal and /or state air quality requirements, then all local transportation plans in the region would have to be revisited. Revised transportation elements would be subject to recertification. The policy and plan review process needs to be flexible in order to incorporate changes made over time. The Regional Transportation Plan will itself be amended and updated regularly in accordance with federal requirements to reflect changes in local comprehensive plans and other related transportation plans. Changes in the Regional Transportation Plan will only affect certification status of local plans if the metropolitan plan is revised because the region as a whole is found not to be in compliance with air quality requirements. Questions concerning this document may be directed to: Puget Sound Regional Council, Growth Management Planning Department, 1011 Western Avenue, Suite 500, Seattle, WA 98104 -1035, (206) 464 -5815. Implementing VISION 2020... 1995 Update of the Metropolitan Transportation Plan for the Central Puget Sound Region Baseline /Framework Report MTP -1 May 1994 Puget Sound Regional Council ( Role of the May 1994 Baseline /Framework Report In Development of the 1995 Metropolitan Transportation Plan The transportation component of VISION 2020, adopted in October 1990, provided a long - range, coordinated multimodal transportation strategy integrated with a growth management strategy for the central Puget Sound region. The current metropolitan transportation planning effort is focused on developing a preferred implementation strategy that will advance the transportation vision in light of new federal and state transportation, air quality and growth management legislation, a changed economic environment, and major funding constraints. A Discussion Document The primary purpose of the May 1994 Baseline /Framework Report is to facilitate and stimulate discussion within the region as part of the update of VISION 2020 and development of a detailed Metropolitan Transportation Plan for King, Kitsap, Pierce and Snohomish Counties. The Report is a complement to the May 1994 VISION 2020 update Progress Report and describes, in more detail, the primary goals and transportation strategies embodied in VISION 2020, and reviews assumptions about the projected performance of the transportation system if VISION 2020 were fully implemented. Subsequent sections identify: • Major challenges confronting the region as it attempts to implement VISION 2020; • Major considerations as it develops its implementation strategy; • A proposed methodology to help the region analyze its implementation options; and finally, • Major outstanding issues which need to be addressed as the region deliberates on the question of which implementation strategy it chooses to support. Development of a metropolitan transportation implementation strategy is a complex and difficult effort; there are many federal and state regulations which must be followed and numerous transportation user groups whose transportation needs and aspirations frequently conflict. The May 1994 Baseline /Framework Report is designed to clarify the focus of the current metropolitan transportation planning effort and clearly identify our region's options to enhance mobility /accessibility with alternative travel modes in a way that protects the environment and overall quality of life in the region. The Puget Sound Regional Council, as the growth and transportation planning agency for the four - county region, is scheduled to adopt an update to VISION 2020, including a detailed Metropolitan Transportation Plan, in March 1995. i Table of Contents Page Role of the May 1994 Baseline /Framework Report In Development of the 1995 Metropolitan Transportation Plan Preface: Why a Metropolitan Transportation Plan? v Chapter Page I. Legal Mandates Requiring a Metropolitan Transportation Plan 1 II. Summary of Transportation Goals /Strategies Currently Identified in VISION 2020 2 III. VISION 2020's Transportation Strategy 4 IV. Defining a Preferred Implementation Strategy 11 V. Major Challenges Confronting the Region in its Effort to Implement VISION 2020's Transportation Strategy 16 VI. Considerations in Developing a Preferred Implementation Strategy 24 VII. Proposed Methodology to Develop a Preferred Implementation Strategy 26 VIII. Major Outstanding Issues 32 IX. Environmental Review Process 49 X. Major Public Meetings and Events 50 List of Figures Figure Paae 1 -1. Map of the Central Puget Sound Region 1 3 -1. VISION 2020 Regional Rapid Transit Corridors 6 3 -2. VISION 2020 Regional HOV System 7 3 -3. Major Park - and -Ride and Transit Hub Facilities 8 34. VISION 2020 Highway /Ferry Improvements 9 5 -1. Growth of Vehicle Miles Travelled, Population and Employment in the Central Puget Sound Region: 1981 -1991 16 5 -2. Population and Employment in the Central Puget Sound Region: 1940 -2020 17 5 -3. Growth in Population, Vehicles and Work Trip Travel Time in the Central Puget Sound Region, 1980 -1990 17 5-4. Average Travel Time for Home -Based Work Trips in the Region, 1970, 1980, 1990 18 5 -5. Sources & Uses of Transportation Funds in the Four - County Region 22 7 -1. Considerations in Analyzing System Performance and Selecting a Preferred MTP Implementation Strategy 27 7 -2. Framework Strategy for Transportation System Development /Evaluation 28 7 -3. Role of the Management Systems in the Metropolitan Transportation Planning Process 30 List of Tables Table Page 3 -1. Investment /Program, Estimated Cost 10 4 -1. Transportation System Performance 12 5 -1. Percent of Adults Age 16 and Over Who Worked, 1980 and 1990 .... 18 . Background Information NOTE: Additional detailed background information from which this document was summarized is available for the following subject areas upon request to the Regional Council's Information Center, phone (206) 464 -7532. Description Reference Transportation Demand Management Component MTP -2 Pedestrian/Bicycle Component MTP -3 Transit Component MTP -4 High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) Component MTP -5 Streets and Highways Component MTP -6 Marine /Ferries Component MTP -7 Freight and Goods Mobility Component MTP -8 Aviation Component MTP -9 Preliminary Financial Capacity Information ............ .. MTP -10. MTP -11. Glossary Preface Why a Metropolitan Transportation Plan? The 1995 Metropolitan Transportation Plan (MTP) is being developed primarily in response to federal mandates contained in the 1991 Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA). This legislation requires that the current long -range transportation plan contained in VISION 2020 be much more explicit in defining long -term transportation strategies and investments for King, Pierce, Snohomish and Kitsap counties. Additionally, the state's Growth Management Act requires long -range development assumptions of cities and counties be balanced with the transportation infrastructure that can support such development and be compatible with the VISION 2020 growth and transportation strategies. However, even if there were no mandates to prepare the MTP, it would be in our region's best interest to prepare such a plan. Most of our acute transportation problems and potential solutions under consideration are regional in nature. In addition, we currently invest approximately $1.3 billion annually within our region on our transportation system in public expenditures alone. Individuals and businesses invest many times more than this amount each year. As all levels of government search for funding for many competing demands, an overall blueprint is needed to help guide the public investment of transportation dollars to ensure maximum benefit to the region. In addition, many aspects of our lives are influenced by the type of transportation system available and how it operates. Access and mobility are important to our personal lives, to the economic health of the region, and to the overall quality of our lives. I. Legal Mandates Requiring A Metropolitan Transportation Plan The Metropolitan Transportation Plan (MTP) is scheduled for adoption by the Puget Sound Regional Council's General Assembly in March 1995, in order to preserve the uninterrupted flow of federal transportation funds into the region. The 1995 MTP will be the central Puget Sound region's first statement of long -range transportation planning goals, objectives, strategies and actions which directly respond to the mandates of the federal Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA), the federal 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments (CAAA), and the State of Washington's Growth Management Act (GMA). These legislative mandates require a much more comprehensive approach to regional transportation planning; an approach that recognizes the critical relationships among land use, transportation and air quality, and that attempts to balance mobility with growth management, environmental, equity and economic objectives. Previous transportation planning efforts have tended to focus narrowly on providing additional capacity to serve the movement of vehicles, rather than exploring alternatives that would enhance movement of people, goods and services, improve access for various transportation users, or manage demand on regional facilities. Snohomish ,. Figure 1 -1. The Central Puget Sound Region The central Puget Sound region moved ahead of other metropolitan regions in 1990 when it adopted VISION 2020, thereby establishing overall goals for managing the region's future growth, and identifying a regional transportation system which would both respond to the growth management goals and efficiently serve the recommended regional growth strategies. The transportation system described in VISION 2020, however, was highly conceptual in nature. Passage of federal and state legislation (noted above) requires a more thorough and specific description of the region's long -range transportation plan. The 1995 MTP, upon completion, will fulfill this requirement. As an overall blueprint to guide the region's long -term transportation investment, the MTP will be responsive to the dual needs of providing users of the region's metropolitan transportation system with greater transportation options and improving intermodal connections. May 1994 Baseline /Framework Report Page 1 II. Summary of Transportation Goals /Strategies Currently Identified In VISION 2020 As a result of amendments to the Washington State Growth Management Act in 1991, King, Pierce and Snohomish counties were required to adopt multicounty planning policies [RCW 36.70A.210] to provide a framework for regionally addressing multicounty growth management issues. With Kitsap County choosing to participate, the Regional Council General Assembly adopted policies on March 11, 1993, for the four -county region. These multicounty policies address transportation facilities and strategies, and articulate the overall goals of the region with respect to transportation. They guide development of both the 1995 MTP and the transportation elements of local comprehensive plans. By adopting the multicounty policies, the region is committed to achieving the following transportation goals: • An efficient, balanced, multimodal metropolitan transportation system which connects centers and residential areas. [RT -2]* • A transportation system providing both mobility and accessibility for people, freight and goods. [RT -3] * • A transportation system which reduces air pollution, conserves energy, and offers the best opportunity to cope with future energy shortages. [RT -4] * • Maintenance of the existing transportation system in a safe and usable state. [RT -10] * • A transportation system which serves the needs of business and industry. [RT -11] * To accomplish these goals, the region is committed to the following strategies: ■ Provision of travel options to single- occupancy vehicles, such as transit, bikeways and pedestrian paths, passenger ferry service, and demand management. [RT -5] * ■ Development of an interconnected system of high- occupancy vehicle lanes serving the urban areas, focusing on centers and accessing regional facilities that provide options for ridesharing and for facilitating other local and express transit services. [RT -6]* • Development of a regionally coordinated network of facilities for pedestrians and bicycles, which also provides effective accessibility to transit, ferry and rail stations and within centers. [RT -7]* May 1994 Baseline /Framework Report Page 2 • Promotion of demand management and educational programs that would increase the share of travel by transit, ridesharing, pedestrians and bicycles; reduce travel demand on the region's transportation facilities during peak periods; and minimize vehicle trips by providing alternative forms of transportation.. [RT-8]* Moderate expansion of key roadways that support centers and provide ' access to non-center job and residential areas within designated urban growth areas and rural centers. [RT-9]* Promotion of local jurisdiction requirements and goals to reduce the share of non-single-occupancy vehicle travel to significant employment centers. [RT-12]* * Refers to policy notation in adopted Multicounty ,Policies [March 19931 4. • 4 . May 1994 Baseline/Framework Report • .• • • i • , III. VISION 2020's Transportation Strategy The central Puget Sound region is more fortunate than others in the country in that it has an overall growth management and transportation strategy outlined in VISION 2020 upon which it will be able to develop its more detailed long -range transportation plan. VISION 2020 emphasizes transportation investments to support the centers - and - corridors growth concept. The policies of VISION 2020 require that transportation investment decisions be redirected from an approach that primarily responds to travel demand reflected in current trends, to one that advances new travel trends. The process employed during the last year to develop the region's 1994 -96 Transportation Improvement Program was an important step toward achieving the needed balance in public investment. As the 1995 MTP is developed, the region can build upon the previous work and link long -range project /program selection even more closely to the goals and policies articulated in VISION 2020 and reflected in the emerging growth management plans of the region's cities and counties. ISTEA emphasizes three primary considerations with respect to the development of metropolitan transportation plans. • Plans should be financially constrained and ensure maintenance of the current metropolitan transportation system to ensure efficient and safe use of the various modes. • Plans should be multimodal in nature in order to provide users with options in moving people, goods and services. • Plans should improve intermodalism to ensure efficient and user - friendly transfers between modes, whether for people or goods. There is a recognition in ISTEA that neither the federal government nor the metropolitan regions are positioned to undertake massive infrastructure investments of the magnitude of the interstate highway program developed during the last four decades. For this reason, the legislation requires that the metropolitan regions view the MTP as a statement of how a region intends to manage its transportation system and ensure its most efficient use, rather than concentrating primarily on facilities development as in previous years. The current transportation strategy contained in VISION 2020 does stress overall system and demand management. However, it lacks the detail and specificity to demonstrate how the strategy could be implemented, including financing and phasing. The improvements and programs described in the following sections and depicted in Figures 3 -1 through 3 -4 represent both the region's commitment to provide additional people and goods - carrying capacity, and a commitment to develop the linkages and services required to reinforce the growth concepts outlined in VISION 2020. These improvements and programs should be viewed as a framework within which more detailed refinements will be developed during the MTP update process. May 1994 Baseline /Framework Report Page 4 Transit and Ridesharing Improvements VISION 2020 emphasizes transit and ridesharing investments to support a centers concept. It strongly emphasizes movement of people over movement of vehicles, especially during peak periods. The transit and ridesharing improvements are designed to: ensure mobility in high - density, high- capacity corridors; provide feeder transit service from neighborhoods to regional corridor transit service; and provide radial transit service between designated centers. A regional rapid transit system is recommended to provide adequate carrying capacity for very high volumes of passengers. The Regional Transit Authority is currently developing more detailed plans for the regional rapid transit system called for in VISION 2020. Additional improvements identified in VISION 2020 include a 300 -mile system of high occupancy vehicle (HOV) lanes serving congested corridors and linking centers; an additional 20,000 park- and -ride spaces to provide improved transit and HOV lane access; an additional 135 route miles of passenger ferry service; and extensive local transit improvements to support access to regional rapid transit, passenger ferry service, and centers, while concurrently improving neighborhood circulation. Highway Improvements VISION 2020 calls for additional east -west access; completion of key network linkages for system continuity; expansion of capacity to improve circulation to and among centers; expansion of capacity in and to existing non - center major employment areas; highway safety and efficiency improvements; and access control on highways that traverse areas to be protected from urban development. Specific improvements include the widening of 60 miles of freeway, constructing 10 miles of new freeway, constructing several missing east -west links in the arterial network, widening 250 miles of regional arterials, and auto ferry capacity improvements. VISION 2020 endorses the continuation of maintenance programs to sustain the condition of the existing and planned system in a manner considered to be acceptable and safe. Demand Management Programs VISION 2020 calls for transportation demand management programs that both reinforce the investment emphasis in transit and ridesharing facilities and support the concept . of centers. The programs identified include both incentives to encourage transit patronage, ridesharing, and pedestrian/bicycle travel, and disincentives to discourage trips in single- occupant vehicles. Specific programs recommended include telecommuting, compressed work weeks, parking pricing, employer -based demand management, and parking supply strategies. In developing the 1995 MTP, additional demand management strategies will be investigated to determine their appropriateness for implementation in the region. May 1994 Baseline /Framework Report Page 5 rigure -I. v !OMANI e.lJtV neyrui Ica •iplu iicuIit vui Nu' \ , , • ---; .i, •\ ,....s,,....,4f i .-_ • \.2. ..‘ ,- ''.•-• 1 ) ') ‘‘, -.. ,... • -A? ) I. \ \ •, ,4,,1.‘ , , .;., °I,;• V-,,, ..,,, ' • \ •• t / :: V- 1'.I , 's r .•.-•. •t ' 1- .// . i - '• ,. i 1 , b Everett ` ': • i 1 ",""---T ) ( • ) i : I ■. 1 ", I, , „ S., .....,, ,•-....__ • „......„ •, .,, \ —( .. L.-. el ) • / ....... 4-, / ...,.:. -,.„....: 'Paine 4'-' L'):•• \ \ t •• , ., Fleld rf.. ) t ) :A.. c----....--1 •• : t • x° .' • . ---Z). , ,P .. ..x . • . •. ..},' ■ 0 g ,Aynnwood I c-, 7 ..:t •••••' ,- • t I I- s `.1 (awe. / •'...,,,,..,.:1 .../. .'-',, '\, F. / ... \\ ii C • (' t."1 ,, ICrolon - . . . i 4-' • k ..'itaclit 1 'A .0 mon ..- ) i I. r" 1 ' '‘) : r irs, r -.. ..: iti ......-, th .., ? ,-,'' r , • ( 1 s.t'l ,, T -i... . "-: ) c' ; Redmond .1 k. (11.) ,,s, erre I ,,, .. \ ....... • '(k"cd 's Seattle z • p ) .Qenter e Otnae ,, i ,,,„ • n ) 0s ° Seattle (' ,. \ • • u Ilevue , \ 4 . I ‘ 6 • 1 1 ) ., -‘., f , . „ t , 1, el , ki il .1,1":,.. • • • •• ''s • • ,„,/ 'A " 1 •-, / ... ..:1 I.• - m' 'Bra erton-' '• , 4.1 • i ) 1 .„.,.„ / Port Orchard / el ar;;;;;.ven 1"---"..... • ..., xi ...i /. ,. 's \ , ,e',-.• ' ;i , . , (., t . --..„ ,...... ' : 1 1 .=. 4 -.. , • la ., . s Flocnw4;1 - ..1 ..t 6., SeaTac r : ? ; is X, \ • ' ' x. PICOICI CO' 47./ •It Ulf. CO ii '''e .............. AltF00" et\ st. ("1 • , 1, . \ t 1•, 1 :.; . ..1 I \ ) .1.."..N•1.•-• c• 1 '' \ "'----/ t: • ! / . i i i-, ... i ...‘ I-' ,....... 1 1 7 ( i .,•.' ..../ Redondo `1-N., , I , I ( r ; • i r C'e9L41 ' (''-'-' . --.. t "?..., ...,, \ • .. • .,...-•' Federal r ,-. ,,, ...1'..3.. C.-e-•'" i. ? I-\ • ...,-... ,I ! . 11, .. , \ i . i AJAX ''. ay Q',..-- -.. ''N, I ) ) • .,.,.......,„ ,, , . s, \ . ■,.; Abirm 7-,xl.s\ --- .......,4-......-"If. ,-:.^••01.' C • ICi; -.72 /%':—. Tacoma . ::` '..s's ..-., ,',..:-., ....,..--- .., \ - \ \.../ i-...,...4 N , -. j kv •\ F (., C:•\ i f Tacoma -• s ;,;--"I '...../ • yi-..-... 1 \ \ , ) ) F.c,:ii".rj. '''4,x,x, s. /. "C‘ / \ .--... ..." • .........• 1 ir '''''''.7 Mall /,,. .., . '.''' 1:1...•LakeyOtid sum/ Puyallup 1!)-- ,:...3r " 1) LaA• \ • %.,.' \ . , 1.] r b i ' ,•• r C ie.,,,,7 :.,2:, deffu.„„„,.......,,r.......43,..................j It • -., • ., i •,.... .,• •-, , s.., .,..... t ......,„, ,...., ,, NA , . '1 • • MI MUM NI Proposed Extensions ....,...,.....:, / • I ...VI C . O Pont taY- i..., EA.A.. x, ). Source: VISION 2020, Growth and Transportation Strategy, Oct. 1990 ...A Northgate • -ss, *Maki University ."District f ‘1, I FIA Captiol FAA ••••.. May 1994 Base low/Framework Report Page 6 rigure J-c. V IJI\Jty GVGV 14cyi„t tat I I I v vyawt t t i? l � t I Paine • Field •'. �+ / Lynnwo•. EOnan / 5 { Seattle ••Center Seattle \ ' \Y \t� Everett :, • " • t; • r.nacwd ) C ~ „l' I o .r,..• C°!r`. ( . •,..C. CO: / C—' g ✓_• r • • • • ti • Totem U t >. i Redmond University District • "a ital U.e�. Cap Hill ( ;'••' } - Mow l I' ti brim • • it eaT o« \ Mann • `/ 1�v ''r i woa,.. omen { OV13tfatte \y 1• ellevue / , ECM: C: • anion r. 1 vt N J.: ila M ! am•eo ep urbi ant } \ ,•t, l'..- h ' \, \ i I { ^” y Tacoma ^' I Mall ,^ • �\ ;:,r • ,...y.,( a ` ,lakew :'.,/ °P, Pont ' Federal Way ._. Tacoma \\ ' ` has tW Puyallup 1 'i t Swam,yy{ "•,_\ NAV 1. 3 ='1 O 1 2 3 4 Wes O 1 2 3 4 3 1 7 1 Apr111994: Source: VISION 2020, Growth and Transportation Strategy, Oct. 1990 May 1994 Baseline /Framework Report Page 7 nyult; II/IC/VI I (41 1% tAl R.A I mod MI $5.1. I iuts 'vs% I •m." I 1,011\1111115/5.0 0 1 2 3 4 5 OHM 0 1 2 3 4 5 7 I, kildkolttf s -s, . 1 ) ........,...._,: .1. \ ,'';''''• i l.... .. : .., `-• ''.: • ,..... z: =.:1„ •-..,, , ,-.., ‘ , , ,-,,,. i .: , „ , • \ .' ..T. Everett ..., is .4:::;.•.i-41,:, 041 , I t; i j ) .... e...; 6 ....1 '. ...„‘ / .: • .--; %;.. ) , .. l . 1 ; ... • • / . • +e, :.:-.- i 1 1 - f \ • ,, ,7 • / -;.; : i -., ,.....t-.: r . / ! -.......4*........1 ‘..-..-... ; / • A `,. ' %., l t, Paine . -.‘. •• Field ASA 1' • .1 1 ••• i '/ -.' ri ) .3••• o. - t •#!; S o° 1 1/441/4 ; /../41, Ii 1., , ) '• 2'!'"' ..'. . ' 1 "1 I Gook i \ G, ''' ,-/ • / k., ,, elE......1. //Lynnwood 447X, i 1/4 •-,Z..,,,,421 ,. •. • „.2,: ,#1° , '\ , .' ' \ (- or ) ; - (/ Lk...um t. Ai.% .\ 0 l'ortaot •• • \ • 1 l' IGnallon -k J - -1 , . \ „ ta lia' — , ;..,........_.._____, I, ... A .1,,,..! ,.. ,■. .) , Boodt •1/4 Itchotood,, .4.:,...,..... ...r....... ,.,. .; . f* lis ) 1\, )A • c .. , • ''.. „k .Totetn .: .. r•-• I . . A :, ti. , - .,.• ....r,•,—. :", ' ,.... .wlake i. 'I .I.C')..1 pNorthgate \ ■ • 5 , 5-, 5;',. t "• ,•• .t, 'Y r ..,,,.. : .,„....,. . 1,.. J • / ,,„:„., %, UniverSity l'; ' ...',1,4.41.1110 1 S;jledmond : 5i /.1tf,, • District i 7 • iel.. 3 --t .kearclale ; .' "..,. .1 • _„ ' Vio•too\ 1 g ••,,,.,, Li l ,.. ,. • \ . % e ilif7I.' 06e I ; \ ; ■ I, * Seattle `1i' Capitol •• , rt Bellevue ./ .: ., I ...;!! .. A ; ,...i.'...., ,•-: ,',.‘,.....)'.47.11--1.411.-*1;::.6,,Nkk 0 i' , , ,,.:- :,•••• ,.a. , • .. , • ,,,.... , — l •.,-, 1.....,, ...., sareinerton..' 's , ' .: .'• •■■•;,...41k Ape.' / ', l'.\ • tt : 764.11 gA.,;'•-•-;kortOrci,u0 I • :• 1 N,41,)"••,„„„!"4., ?..it I. -- „/ .:. I ( II s. .. :,.."\i4r. ''i 1::)RentOn • ..7 • ...., ji1,..'.. 1 4 '7 S. • wV / \ . v• ‘1,410 s-, \,, . — SI A •II.• CO/ P / . •: ti (• t t 7 i r •t? ? 4...- . Norman; 4 0 tr,rf • e3 • , 4. • .... re Tu wita Pw,eaTac i.-4...= c. 7, \ i i &PAL, _ .0■••:„111 ••••- D.. \ ; I 1. (Ar/ e 1 1 1 `• .. ., 1,.. ..,.. .... , '.1 .. .1 . \ ..,. ., . f... „I .\". < % C' / ? 1 . 1 .., i P.* f % , ' ', . n•-e:rti‘..--_,:„.... lhotoc C _ ,i- -1' ,d ... ....- l' \ 5 / . Icr.Z? V. V .- --.' • \ ........_,/ --' Federal '''. t.., 4.! 04j7460i • 1 ( —./ St \ \\.- .-: ..-- ...,dA Way ,;•—•41111-i.o.z..::-: . ... . • A , r i rt : t t • --. • .:;: 1, •:-. .V t;t•-"?... ,rii `:•• It 1, \ \ i 1),••••,, ‘ ) i \ • `..... \ • e ...:::. e\-'•tl. • ,.... . • • : . ......-2 • , \ .ee: • . 6 Paote , . sv•I . , • ••,_. Tacoma •...;•:. - ''` \. - \ \....... I ort.\ e:: I - \ a ( ::1`.°.. ''' . s \. I 01 'l 1"°;. ,s„ • s. ,, '.... :..; L ; • '.1 ‘ 1 irs-‘- \ I 6. . ,i \ , i • i Tacoma Mall rewea---• • •t.,,_ N*„,„... lc:: • ::::." :.;...' -oi- \ ;. 6r:::.,,., ',. .:, trr. s. ( . " -.....,..›......er ,-...---• r-----7 i N.„:...e ,,,„,...• (-s, Puyallup j \---1 'Uil-' •, I '..\-\ siwwwri' i • ,, ,. 7%. Lakew .7 i .I, ill Proposed Expansions: =. fi ; 5. _ ,.„ , ,x...................45-0........... ,t j.. i w i...•.„,,,, PHtlar47 t-, •• 1/4.: ,O,...., * 1/4, South ..•-• /r..... 7 O Ho ,..,.) /' ' (4, ---*/ co, ••••••••••••••••, Park-and-Ride • Transit Hut) • - -l■ 'it. .„)-:/1 raft* tS) t.; sana■er s. ,. ii..: April 1994 May 1994 Baseline/Framework Report Source: Regional Transit System Plan June 1993, Kitsap Transit Long-Range Plan, March 1993 Page 8 F-rgure ;S -4. V IOILM cucu nlyi iwdyir. i i u l 1NtuvCI I lei na ,, 1 i1 i' / ' 1 ; K+q'w' ••1 Y r� '•'I '' N`Powaoo ,/ ( t: r c\.'" E:'' 1. • Sd+rrdri r + y `•, f rdmerton,,f .+' - � ;•�'-' PclorNVd jr • (• 1 ;•s«nn.,d • L, \ Everett,,'.: / h• j Paine .• Field i Lynnwood f , MOOOMMNO M • i ,r \. ! A 'l Northgate\ 5 `\_ r /.1� ' -% University - District Seattle • `• 'rs ,,,, ; ._ __ww 1,403,4 Seattle '' Capitol ; e r VIP Hill i .,I '? ,\, \\ t 1. \ ). ,,'t,rgrl 1 1/411 %Jt oiI. ) la `\ arc /.. Lakewyiid ;••' I'll _ ~ \. .04.1 ponl fiver• wV 6 0" ! .. rno May 1994 Baseline /Framework Report Paund Roam Federal • Way uyallup tC f r and • Ovedlake ellevue ,/ 0 I r' • l� e. L' ` ti P � r ‘srl `� Ns. o t z 3 4 s W4f O 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 6 rc>antm April 1994 New passenger ferries Freeway widenings New freeway segments Arterial widenings --- ~-- -•°-` New arterial segments Source: VISION 2020, Growth and Transportation Strategy, Oct. 1990 Page 9 Pedestrian /Bicycle Programs Non - motorized transportation in the form of walking and bicycling support both the development and functioning of transit services and the central place concepts of VISION 2020. These strategies, when combined with investments in public transportation and supportive pricing policies, contribute to long -term congestion relief and community livability. Those who crafted VISION 2020 recognized that investments in pedestrian facilities and bicycle paths and lanes, and encouraging pedestrian and bicycle - friendly development, should be accompanied by changes in local zoning codes, site planning requirements, and street design standards. Strategies and policies to be considered in developing the 1995 MTP could assist the region in creating a more pedestrian and bicycle - friendly environment, recognizing these forms of transportation are critical components of other aspects of VISION 2020. Summary of VISION 2020's Recommended Transportation Investments and Programs VISION 2020 emphasizes transit and ridesharing investments to support the centers concept, and also assures continued commitment to completing and maintaining the region's extensive system of regional and local streets and highways by the year 2020. The plan allocates about 52 percent of public transportation expenditures to transit and ridesharing, 38 percent to highways, and 10 percent to demand management programs that encourage greater use of transit, ridesharing and non - motorized forms of transportation. Table 3 -1 below lists the major transportation investments identified in VISION 2020 and their estimated costs in 1989 dollars. It should be noted that these costs were 1989 estimates which are now being updated. Table 3 -1. Investment /Program • 130 -mile regional rapid transit system • 300 -mile HOV system • 20,000 park- and -ride spaces • 135 -mile cross -Sound ferry system [Including 5 new terminals] • Transit operating & maintenance • Pedestrian and bicycle improvements • Widening of 60 miles of existing freeways Construction of 10 miles of new freeways Construction of 35 freeway interchanges • Widening of 250 miles of regional arterials • Freeway and arterial maintenance • Completion and maintenance of local arterials • Demand management programs Estimated Cost $3 to 5 billion $3 to 4 billion $100 to 200 million $500 million to $1 billion $3 to 4 billion $200 to 300 million $2 to 3 billion $1 to 2 billion $3 to 5 billion $4 to 6 billion $3 to 4 billion Source: Final Environmental Impact Statement, VISION 2020, PSCOG, September 1990. -May 1994 Baseline /Framework Report Page 10 IV. Defining A Preferred Implementation Strategy The Need to Focus On More Than Infrastructure Investment Given the growth anticipated in the central Puget Sound region, it is unreasonable to assume the region can build itself out of congestion. The region lacks the financial capacity to add enough infrastructure to bring service levels on streets and highways to those levels enjoyed 10 and 20 years ago. In addition, the public will not tolerate the destructive intrusions of major highways through built -up areas and, because of the region's geographic constraints, there are no open corridors available to construct major new highway facilities. With respect to transit, existing dispersed regional land use patterns make it financially impossible to deliver transit service to all areas served by the automobile. Furthermore, the region has little control over the demographic and socioeconomic changes that in many instances are the result of national and international forces. For these reasons, it is not realistic to assume congestion and automobile dependency can be eliminated, but they should be better managed (see Table 4 -1). In order to manage congestion and dependency on the automobile, and maintain federal air quality standards, however, the region will need to do more than implement the projects and programs identified in VISION 2020's current transportation component. It is becoming more apparent that changes to the transportation "operating environment" in which transportation choices are made are essential, if our transportation goals are to be met. Some of the factors which comprise the operating environment include: existing land use; the degree of access to various forms of transportation; the actual costs of providing, operating and using various forms of transportation; the price and availability of fuel; and fiscal and taxation policies that may provide incentives or disincentives to use various forms of transportation. New and expanded transportation facilities will help the region meet future travel demand to move people, freight and services, but major changes in the operating environment are likely to be needed to ensure that the region's infrastructure is used efficiently and wisely. On -going forecasting and periodic enhancements and modifications to the Regional Transportation Model will assist the region in developing sound technical foundations from which wise decisions can be made. May 1994 Baseline /Framework Report Page 11 Table 4 -1. VISION 2020 Comparison of Transportation System Performance Criteria 1990 Existing Plans* Centers -Based Concept 2020 Noted in VISION 2020 Vehicle miles travelled (mil) during PM peak period" 2.02 3.36 2.81 Average vehicle speed (mph) during PM peak period on arterial /freeway network 26.2 19.6 22.2 Hours of delay (mil) during PM peak period on arterial /freeway network .15 .70 .42 % of increase in hours of delay during PM peak period on arterial /freeway network - 466 280 % Mode choice for all trips: * " SOV 67.7 64.7 57.2 Carpool 28.3 31.7 35.3 Transit/Ferry 4.0 3.6 7.5 `7 Mode choice for work trips:•** SOV 72.8 70.7 63.5 Carpool 19.7 21.3 24.0 Transit/Ferry 7.5 8.0 12.5 % Mode choice for non -work trips: "" SOV 61.4 62.9 54.8 Carpool 36.1 34.9 39.4 Transit/Ferry 2.5 2.2 5.8 % of network experiencing congestion during PM peak period: Freeways 27.2 36.9 32.3 Regional Arterials 8.1 24.1 15.4 Overall 12.0 26.7 18.9 * Plans in place in 1990, carried forward as trends to 2020. ** PM peak period is assumed to be 3 hours in duration. * ** Does not include non - motorized trips. The Importance of Linking Transportation Investments to VISION 2020 Land Use Concepts A major component of the operating environment that impacts transportation decision making is land use. The central Puget Sound gion, in recognition of this relationship, integrated VISION 2020's growth management po'. ies with those relating to transportation to the greatest extent possible. VISION 2020 supportF Jmpact, pedestrian - oriented living and working places to reverse current trends where less dense suburban places have become increasingly dependent upon individual autos for personal mobility. Implicit in this vision is the need to identify urban areas where most growth is encouraged to occur. On the transportation side, it means shifting the emphasis of transportation investments from highways and vehicle movement to transit and people movement. As regional, countywide and local growth management and transportation policies, plans and strategies are implemented, it is essential that these efforts be mutually supportive. May 1994 Baseline /Framework Report Page 12 Guiding the Transportation Planning Process If the region is to achieve the goals set out in VISION 2020, it needs to reexamine the way in which it defines its transportation problems and develops solutions. In an era of scarce public financial resources, it is essential that public investments made in the region's transportation system yield the greatest possible benefits. VISION 2020 will serve as the overall backdrop from which that determination can be made. The Regional Council's Growth Management Policy Board and Transportation Policy Board reached a consensus that was affirmed in their joint meeting on March 10, 1994, that development of a preferred transportation implementation strategy should be guided by the following: • Assure adequate maintenance, preservation and safety of existing transportation systems. • Identify both "access" and "mobility" needs. • Address transportation problems using an integrated "systems" approach (rather than assembling fragmented projects). • Recognize the need to identify optimal system solutions that address congestion in a manner compatible with both air quality and economic development objectives. • Recognize there is no single solution to . transportation problems; a comprehensive approach requires a combination of short- and long -range solutions. • Consider the needs of all transportation system users (people, freight /goods, communications). • Predicate long -range solutions on what the region can realistically afford. • Support achievement of growth management and economic development strategies. • Evaluate ability of current legal and institutional structures and . financial mechanisms to efficiently and effectively implement desirable transportation system solutions. May 1994 Baseline /Framework Report Page 13. Significant Issues A number of significant issues related to current regional travel patterns, overall transportation system design, and transportation investment need to be considered as alternative implementation strategies are designed, tested and analyzed. The major issues are identified below. Regional Travel Patterns and System Design Issues: • Major New System Capacity Plans Focus on Commuter Travel Market Transportation planning for most major capacity expansion (highway and transit) focuses largely on commute trips (20 percent of daily travel), rather than the other 80 percent of daily travel. Question: Recognizing the critical importance of work trips and their impact on peak period congestion, to what extent should the region expand the focus of its transportation planning to provide greater emphasis on meeting needs associated with non -work travel? • Future Investments Emphasize Long vs. Short Trips Consistent with planning, the focus of most major future planned investments in the transportation system is primarily on longer trips (those over 10 miles). Yet 56 percent of work trips and 89 percent of non -work trips are under 10 miles in length. Question: Is an investment focus on travel facilities principally supporting longer length trips consistent with the intent of VISION 2020 and current travel patterns? What balance is desirable? • System Service Orientation and Employment Accessibility Continued growth and decentralization of jobs outside of both older traditional and new emerging centers results in increasingly complex travel patterns and difficult employment access from centers to decentralized employment sites. Question: What types of transportation investments and service improvements are most appropriate? • Designing Accessible Communities in an Auto - Oriented Environment The general lack of pedestrian and bicycle - friendly urban design features in many communities and at the regional level reinforces auto dependency for mobility and accessibility. Question: Would the region's automobile dependency be reduced if a greater share of resources were provided to reshape the urban environment and provide for more pedestrian and bicycle facilities? May 1994 Baseline /Framework Report Page 14 • Emerging Influence of the "Information Superhighway" on Transportation Demand There is a need to examine the potential role that advanced communications technologies may play in changing intra - regional travel patterns and literally redefining "transportation access." Question: What is the potential for advanced communication technologies in reducing travel demand on the region's transportation infrastructure? Transportation System Investment Issues: • Lack of Level "Modal" Playing Field for Transportation Resources There has been an historic imbalance with respect to overall transportation pricing and investments which has favored private automobile travel since WWII. Question: What actions are needed to support VISION 2020's policies to begin shifting this historic imbalance to provide significant alternative travel options? • Attention to the Traditionally Underserved Access and general mobility needs of the young, elderly, disabled and low income populations for employment and essential services have often been neglected. Question: Do current transportation project /program investments adequately consider special needs of underserved populations and the central city areas? • Link Transportation Investments to Economic Development Objectives The region lacks a policy strategy to link major transportation system investments with urban economic development priorities and objectives. Question: How could a combined transportation system /economic development strategy help the region achieve its desired economic development goals? • Inadequate Framework for Balancing and Prioritizing Competing Policy Objectives The region currently lacks a framework or set of policy priorities to balance access /mobility /congestion management concerns with economic growth and environmental quality concerns. Question: How can the region concurrently manage congestion, minimize costly freight delay, ensure access, and enhance mobility without increasing, vehicle miles travelled (VMT) and exacerbating air quality problems? .May 1994 Baseline /Framework Report Page 15 V. Major Challenges Confronting the Region in its Effort to Implement VISION 2020's Transportation Strategy Reflecting national trends, the number of annual vehicle miles travelled (VMT) in the region has grown and continues to grow at a faster rate than population and employment (see Figure 5 -1). Some of the factors explaining this growth are described in the following sections. BO 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Vehicle Miles Travelled Employment -10 _t t t t t t ___s ._1 t__ -1_ 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 Figure 5 -1. VMT, Population and Employment in the Central Puget Sound Region (Cumulative Percentage Increases Since 1981) Sources: \'NlT:,Itphs +ay Pcrlurmance Monitoring System. \ \'ash. Depattntcnt of 1 ranspottauon Population: Population Washington State. \L'ash. State Ott ice col Financial Management Employment: Washington Stale Employment Security Department. * VMT - Vehicle Miles Travelled. Population /Employment Growth Continued population and employment growth are principal factors underlying the central Puget Sound region's difficulty in enhancing mobility and minimizing traffic congestion over the long term (see Figure 5 -2). The region's population is forecast to increase from 2.7 million residents in 1990 to 4.1 million in 2020. Similarly, the region's employment is forecast to grow from 1.4 million in 1990 to 2.4 million in 2020 [Source: Puget Sound Regional Council, Preliminary 1994 Updated Forecast]. VISION 2020 recognizes that the travel demand resulting from these increases will make it virtually impossible to restore service levels on the region's freeways and arterials to those the region experienced in previous decades. However, implementation of the preferred transportation strategy identified in VISION 2020 would result in better performance on these systems than would otherwise occur if historic transportation investment strategies were to continue. May 1994 Baseline /Framework Report ',Page 16 4 Pc'ru4iUjn Er,r',.ynont 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 Figure 5.2. Population and Employment in the Central Puget Sound Region (Millions) Source: Puget Sound Regional Council Database. June 1993. Automobile Preference Similar to other American metropolitan regions, the central Puget Sound region exhibits a collective preference for automobile use. All indications are that this preference is increasing. In recent years, the number of registered vehicles in the four -county region has been growing at a much faster rate than the increase in population during the same period (see Figure 5 -3). By 1991 there was nearly one registered vehicle for every man, woman and child in the region. Additionally, registered drivers are a growing proportion of the region's residents. These figures provide a partial explanation of why traffic is growing faster than both population and employment. One result of having more drivers and vehicles on the roads is that more people are driving alone to work. According to U.S. Census data, the proportion of workers in the region who drove alone to work increased from 64 percent in 1980 to 73 percent in 1990. Socioeconomic Changes Another major factor contributing to growth in traffic in recent years is the increasing proportion of adults who work. Between 1980 and 1990, the proportion of women age 16 and over in the region who worked increased from less than 60 percent to 67.5 percent. As a result, the proportion of people age 16 and over in the region who worked grew from 71.6 percent to 75.4 percent, causing substantial increases in tripmaking (see Table 5 -1). Many of these trips occur during peak travel periods of the day. 30 25 _ 20 15 C d X10 5 Population Vehicles Figure 5 -3. Growth in Population, Vehicles and Work Trip Travel Time in the Puget Sound Region, 1980 -1990 Souiee. Puget Sound Regional Cowl, it May 1994 Baseline /Framework Report Page 17 County Table 5 -1. Percent of Adults Age 16 and Over Who Worked Male Female Total 1980 1990 1980 1990 1980 1990 King Kitsap Pierce Snohomish Region 84.8 81.7 80.6 83.9 83.6 84.4 81.9 81.0 84.9 83.6 62.8 52.5 54.1 59.7 59.9 69.7 61.0 62.9 68.3 67.5 Source: 1980 and 1990 U.S. Census of Population and Housing 73.6 67.5 67.4 71.6 71.6 76.9 71.6 71.9 76.5 75.4 In addition, census data and household travel surveys conducted by the Regional Council indicate that the average distance of trips from home to work in the region increased from 9 miles to 9.8 miles between 1980 and 1987, reflecting an increasingly dispersed pattern of housing and jobs. The increased travel distance, in addition to increasing congestion, is resulting in increased travel time for the typical home -based work trip in the region (see Figure 5 -4). The increase in labor force participation has increased the proportion of households with two wage- earners, and decreased the proportion of households with an adult who stays at home. This has resulted in even more trip- making per household, much of which is for non -work purposes. Household travel surveys conducted in the region in 1971 and 1987 indicate that the average number of daily trips per household increased 28 percent during this period. More significantly, a 33 percent increase in trips per household between home and non -work destinations occurred during the same period. Declining Share of Trips By Transit Figure 5 -4. Average Travel Time for Home -Based Work Trips in the Region, 1970, 1980, 1990 Source: Puget Sound Regional Council The central Puget Sound region reflects national trends with respect to transit patronage. Between 1961 and 1990, though the absolute number of total daily transit trips increased, the proportion of all trips by transit within the region declined from 5.2 percent to 2.5 percent. Transit's share of the travel market for work trips has declined in a similar fashion. Considerable investment and implementation in innovative programs by the region's five major transit operators has been modestly successful in increasing actual total ridership, but even these efforts have been unsuccessful in reversing the decline of transit's share of the total travel market. Continued decentralization of housing and employment, coupled with low density May 1994 Baseline /Framework Report Page 18 patterns of development, results in increasing difficulty in meeting travel demand in suburban and outlying portions of the region. Major Growth in Freight /Goods Movement Excellent port facilities and rail /highway infrastructure have helped make the region competitive with other West Coast ports. Both deep -water and inland ports within the region have been able to keep up with the growth in cargo handling. However, in the future it may be difficult to accommodate forecasted demand. Cargo handling is expected to continue to grow, with containerized cargo showing the most dramatic increases. The region's two container - handling ports at Seattle and Tacoma together have increased their share of international cargo containers passing through West Coast ports from 23 percent in 1980 to 27 percent in 1990, a trend expected to continue. The number of container units handled by the Port of Seattle is expected to increase by 50 to 80 percent by the year 2003. Container units handled by the Port of Tacoma are expected to grow similarly due, in part, to improved ground transportation access with the completion of State Route 509 and the removal of the Blair Waterway bridge. Intermodal rail traffic (ship to rail, and vice versa) is expected to grow most rapidly (by up to 127 percent for the Port of Seattle). These trends will provide the region with major challenges as it seeks to continue moving freight and goods efficiently while improving overall regional mobility. Growing congestion within the region's major transportation corridors will result in increasing conflicts between the movement of freight and goods and the movement of people using automobiles, transit and non - motorized forms of transportation. Transportation Equity Considerations The auto - orientation of our society has disadvantaged many in our region who, for whatever reason, are either unable or choose not to use the automobile as a primary mode of transportation. Without the use of an automobile, access to jobs, schools, health care, and other needs is frequently restricted, particularly for the poor, the disabled, the elderly and children. Anyone who has limited access to transportation alternatives can be considered disadvantaged to the extent that they are forced to rely on a single mode of travel. If automobile availability and use by all groups in society continues to increase at historical rates, those populations unable to own/operate automobiles will remain highly dependent on public transportation and be disproportionately affected by the costs of automobile use. There is evidence to suggest that there is a strong inverse relationship between the degree of capital- intensiveness in a transportation program and the degree of benefit to the disabled, elderly, young and poor. Specifically, capital expenditures on roadways perpetuate a transportation system in which these groups, from a mobility perspective, have the least opportunity to participate. In developing the 1995 MTP, it is essential to keep in mind the needs of everyone being served by the transportation system while attempting to minimize overall costs. A flexible, integrated approach to transportation can produce compatible, mutually beneficial changes to the region's transportation system. In developing the long -range transportation plan, the current and eventual size of the populations represented by these various groups should not be underestimated. More than 300,000 people are currently age 65 and older in the region, approximately 10 percent of the region's population. By 2010, the elderly population could increase to 13.4 percent of the May 1994 Baseline /Framework Report Page 19 region's population. By 2020, when half of the post -World War II "baby boom" cohort will be age 65 and over, the elderly could account for 16.6 percent of the region's population [Source: Puget Sound Trends, Regional Council, June 1993] . Federal Institutional and Policy Barriers The Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA) requires metropolitan transportation plans to reflect coordination of transportation policies for all forms . of transportation in a unified, interconnected manner. Plans must include transportation policies encompassing enhanced capacity investment strategies as well as demand and system management strategies. Plans must also be measured against other major policy objectives, including economic and environmental sustainability, safety /security, energy conservation, social equity, and fiscal responsibility. These ISTEA policy objectives are consistent with VISION 2020's goal of providing a long - range vision to properly plan for growth and change. However, some federal institutional structures and policies form major barriers to implementation of VISION 2020's transportation strategy. Institutional Barriers Federal institutional barriers to implementing metropolitan transportation plans including VISION 2020's transportation strategy, while not widely acknowledged, are formidable. While ISTEA calls for "intermodalism ", federal transportation agencies continue to operate primarily along modal lines, with separate agencies for highways, transit, rail, marine and aviation. This separation creates additional administrative burdens for agencies planning and implementing multimodal projects, making integration of transportation modes more difficult, and providing an incentive to revert to the more traditional, single mode approach. The Federal Role in Subsidized Automobile Use A substantial portion of the capital and operating costs associated with the transportation system in this country are paid through government subsidies rather than fees and taxes paid by system users. The creation of the National System of Interstate and Defense Highways in 1956 initiated the largest domestic public works program in the world's history. Today, the U.S. Department of Transportation estimates that roadway -user taxes and fees (such as gas taxes and vehicle excise taxes) pay for about 60 percent of public expenditures for roadway construction, maintenance and administration. Federal tax policies reflect a bias toward subsidizing automobile use. Prior to 1992, employers were able to deduct the full cost of parking provided for employees, but could deduct just $21 per month for each employer - provided transit pass. In 1992, Congress reduced but did . not eliminate the bias, capping the allowable deduction for parking at $155 per month and raising the allowable transit deduction to $60. Proposed legislation requiring employers to provide workers with the option of "cashing out" the value of each parking space, and thereby eliminating the bias toward automobile use, has not yet received broad -based support in Congress. •May 1994 Baseline /Framework Report Page 20 National energy policy has kept gasoline prices lower than most other nations: a gallon of gasoline cost roughly the same in 1994 as it did in the early 1970s in constant dollars, even before the 1970s energy crisis. After accounting for inflation, the price of gasoline has declined steadily over the past two decades. Meanwhile, gasoline prices in other industrialized countries are two, three, or four times as high as in the United States, largely due to dramatically higher fuel taxes. For example, in 1990, the cost per gallon of premium gasoline including taxes was $1.04 in the U.S. compared with $3.40 in France, $4.27 in Italy, $3.05 in Japan and $2.72 in West Germany [Source: Statistical Abstract of the United States 1992, Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census] . In many cases, the additional fuel taxes are used to pay for a far greater proportion of the public costs of transportation, including both investments in facilities and mitigation of negative side - effects such as environmental degradation, which is paid for less directly in the U.S. Funding Barriers In the Puget Sound Regional Council's 1994 -1996 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) approved by the Regional Council, 41 percent of regionally allocated federal funds were dedicated to traditional roadway projects, while 59 percent were committed to intermodal and transit projects, transportation enhancements, and other innovative projects. This allocation of federal funds may represent an historic shift in funding within regional priorities, but it is only an incremental step toward shifting the balance of spending from highway and roadway construction to other transportation priorities. If all public expenditures on transportation in the region are taken into account, highway and roadway building continues to dominate public transportation investment. Although 59 percent of regionally allocated federal funds went to non - traditional projects in the 1994 -1996 TIP, the actual dollar amount represents only about 2 percent of total transportation expenditures by public agencies in the region. The shift in regionally allocated federal funds toward alternative transportation investments resulted, in part, from ISTEA's provisions for flexible funding. But local governments and the State and U.S. Departments of Transportation have struggled to make flexible funding work in practice after projects are approved in the TIP. Traditional procedures for the final technical and financial processing of projects are still geared toward traditional projects, and are slowly being adapted to new types of projects such as procurement of alternative fuel vehicles, transportation demand management programs, and construction/support of non - motorized facilities and programs. It is not uncommon that the practical administration of new program opportunities often lags behind the policy direction and intent of such programs. Financial Capacity Constraints Financial capacity refers to the region's ability to generate sufficient revenues, over the period being examined by the MTP, to pay the costs of existing and new transportation facilities and services. It can be thought of as determining the size of an envelope that defines the affordability of the MTP. Explicit recognition of the region's financial capacity to implement the MTP is both good public policy and a federal requirement. It serves as a litmus test of the MTP's fundamental assumptions: can the region pay for all new transportation improvements, while at the same time May 1994 Baseline /Framework Report Page 21 provide for the preservation, maintenance and operation of existing facilities and services? Federal metropolitan transportation planning regulations reinforce this discipline. The Financial Element of the MTP must include an estimate of revenues for all existing and contemplated sources of funds, and demonstrate that these revenues cover all capital and operating costs of the metropolitan transportation system (MTS). The sources and uses of funds that exist today serve as a good starting point for evaluating the region's financial capacity. Currently, the region receives and spends approximately $1.3 billion . annually for the basic physical components of the MTS. This is allocated approximately as follows: (1) state and federal highways, 25.3 percent; (2) city streets, 20.9 percent; (3) county. roads, 16.5 percent; (4) public transit 28.7 percent; and (5) state ferries 8.6 percent. A. summary of the sources and uses of funds is presented in the following pie charts (Figure 5 -5). The region's financial capacity to implement VISION 2020 can be evaluated in a very preliminary sense by comparing its costs to the financial profile presented above. The VISION 2020 Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) of 1990 estimated all the transportation components of the plan to cost approximately $33.1 billion over a 20 year period. Direct comparisons of cost figures (average annual transportation expenditures) cannot be made between VISION 2020 and 1992 transportation expenditures. The VISION 2020 cost estimates do not represent total transportation needs, do not include a completed analysis of local facility needs, understate the overall maintenance needs for all roads, and also underestimate the cost of some major regional transportation facilities such as the regional transit system and an intensive regional transportation demand management program. The funding shortfall identified in VISION 2020 is approximately $10 -15 billion. This is the difference between Figure 5 -5. Sources & Uses of Transportation Funds in the Puget Sound Region (approximate annual values (000s), 1992$) Sources of Funds Federal Olher(02%) Federal- Transit(1.4 %) Operations(8.8 %) Federal•FHWA(172%) Other Stale(2.2 %) State Vehicle Fees(2.7%) State MVET(12.1 %) Local Sales Tax(14.5 %) State Fuel Tax(16.8 %) Highways (24.3 %) County Road Levies(7.0 %) Local Vehicle License Fees(2.0%) City Generat Funds(8.8 %) Other Local Taxes & Fees(6.5%) Uses of Funds County Roads (18.9%) PublcTrans9 (29.2%) City Streets (19.5 %) revenues generated from existing transportation revenue sources, and the estimate of what is needed to implement VISION 2020, and provides a rough baseline approximation of what,the region's financial capacity is to implement the plan. The region would need approximately an additional $333 million to $500 million per year to implement . VISION 2020's transportation plan. May 1994 Baseline /Framework Report Page 22 In 1992, 29 percent of the region's transportation funding went to public transit (see Figure 5 -5). The VISION 2020 FEIS estimated that 52 percent of the regional transportation funding would be required for transit to implement VISION 2020 transportation strategies. In 1992 (see Figure 5 -5), roads received approximately 62 percent of the funding while VISION 2020 envisions the need for 38 percent of funding for roads. As stated above, road - related costs are understated in VISION 2020; also, there are differences in definitions for modal categories. For example, high occupancy vehicle lanes are included under transit in VISION 2020, and in the 1992 funding, they are included in the road category. Even with these differences, the comparison of figures indicates that further shift from roads to transit is most likely needed to implement VISION 2020. However, both the magnitude and the distribution of VISION 2020's financial requirements need further consideration before drawing a firm conclusion about the region's financial capacity to implement the plan. VISION 2020 anticipated a substantial shift in the distribution of funds toward transit and away from roads. Approximately 73 percent of state and local funds now used for roads, however, are restricted either to the city or county of origin, or restricted to "highway purposes" as defined in the 18th Amendment to the State Constitution. These restrictions make a transfer of roadway funds to transit purposes difficult without substantive legislative change. A portion of the remaining 27 percent of roadway funds, which derive primarily from federal apportionments, could be transferred to transit provided that certain conditions are met. However, it is more likely that such an action would occur for a specific purpose or period of time, rather than being a permanent transfer of funds. As noted above, funding for road and highway improvements were understated in VISION 2020, and the "shift" of funding more likely means a proportional shift of new transportation expenditures for transit rather than significantly reducing current sources for roads. Regional financial capacity could be substantially augmented by the implementation of local option taxes already authorized by state legislation. If all were implemented, these taxes could generate an additional $390 million per year, approximately 30 percent of 1992 regional transportation revenues. The most prominent of these taxes and their approximate revenues are as follows: (1) high capacity transit taxes, $280 million (assuming the maximum 0.9 percent sales tax or equivalent); (2) a motor vehicle excise tax surcharge for HOV system acceleration ($38 million); (3) local option motor fuels tax, $35 million; and (4) city street utility, $32 million (already adopted in Seattle and Kent). An evaluation of the technical, political and institutional character of these underutilized local option tax resources will be undertaken to determine if they are truly viable and logical candidates to fulfill the overall needs of the regional transportation system. An assessment of the region's financial capacity is a complex undertaking that must recognize the many conditions affecting the availability and use of funds, including the local and statewide political context within which the need for new revenues is debated. The summary above has provided a glimpse of the key aspects of the current financial structure, and the basic financial assumptions underlying VISION 2020. As the MTP is refined over the next several months, each element of the financial capacity picture -- needs, revenue sources, tax rates, and distributions of revenues -- will be evaluated to clearly identify the political decisions that could support the plan's implementation. May 1994 Baseline /Framework Report Page 23 VI. Considerations in Developing a Preferred Implementation Strategy A New Transportation Ethic Many people are unaware of the magnitude and impacts of costs and subsidies associated with hidden single occupant vehicle use. These costs and subsidies affect communities and different groups of individuals to varying degrees. Increased awareness of the costs of congestion and diminished air quality, and how people could change their transportation behavior to reduce these problems, can improve the livability of communities. Just as a new recycling ethic in the 1980s help promote behaviors beneficial to the environment, a new transportation ethic could promote the use of alternatives to the automobile where possible, linking trips together in chains, driving the speed limit, and respecting and encouraging pedestrians and bicyclists. Guiding Community Investments to Favor Efficiency New public infrastructure investments could be dedicated to projects that will enhance opportunities to reduce the number of vehicle trips and vehicle miles of travel per household, per individual, and per job, rather than stimulating demand. The power of the public sector to influence real estate development through zoning and subdivision regulations, and related provision of infrastructure and services, could be used to ensure more efficient use of existing and planned investments and to promote more livable communities. The role of advanced telecommunication systems in reducing travel demand also needs to be considered as part of the overall investment strategy. Expanding Freedom to Choose Alternatives to the Automobile The basic human right to walk safely in our communities could be given a high priority in the programming of projects. Use of public transportation is sharply diminished in many communities by the poor quality of access and egress to and from transit when walking and bicycling. Investments in sidewalks, bicycle paths and lanes, and traffic calming could be accompanied by changes in local zoning, site planning, and street design standards, to promote the use of alternative forms of transportation. These strategies, combined with investments in public transportation and supportive pricing policies, could produce long -term congestion mitigation and community livability benefits. Changes in Transportation Pricing Market -based strategies can encourage efficient consumer choice of transportation resources through appropriate pricing. Transportation strategies involving pricing changes can be implemented to address equity issues to ensure that lower income individuals and the traditionally transportation- disadvantaged sectors of our communities do not suffer diminished accessibility to transportation services. Many transportation pricing changes are difficult to advance or implement because they represent a recognition of the full costs of transportation and suggest a new way of thinking about the May 1994 Baseline /Framework Report Page 24 provision and use of transportation services in an automobile dependent environment. However, the central Puget Sound region could be a leader in advancing pricing changes. The region currently offers more transportation choices to its residents than most metropolitan areas in the nation. In addition, the population has a high level of environmental consciousness and concern for maintenance of its relatively high quality of life. This awareness /concern, if reflected in into the transportation policy, strategies development and programming, could help the region improve mobility, transportation access and air quality. Economists have long argued that for industries with large fixed facilities and variable demand, pricing can help spread demand more evenly, increasing efficient use of existing facilities and reducing the need for expensive investments in significant additional capacity. Peak period pricing has been successfully introduced in a wide range of capital- intensive industries including electric utilities, water systems, and telecommunications. This same concept could be applied to transportation by charging a premium for driving during peak hours, or for driving in congested areas on certain facilities at particular times. All of these approaches, broadly defined as congestion pricing, are not new; toll roads, toll bridges, and tunnels have a long history in this country and are still widely used in other countries. The feasibility of congestion pricing for this region is being examined as part of the development of the MTP. An approach and methodology to evaluate candidate pricing strategies has been developed. Results from the evaluation of candidate pricing strategies will be integrated into the MTP development process. May 1994 Baseline /Framework Report Page 25 VII. Proposed Methodology to Develop the Preferred Implementation Strategy Traditional regional transportation planning efforts focused primarily on variations in the supply of modal facilities, testing how various levels of investment in new facilities accommodated increasing regional tripmaking and vehicle miles travelled. Development of the 1995 MTP will differ from these previous efforts in two major ways. First, the design of the alternative implementation strategies to be modeled will not focus exclusively on facilities, but will include alternative assumptions pertaining to the overall operating environment in which transportation choices are made. Second, analysis of the alternative implementation strategies will involve consideration of many performance -based indicators beyond the traditional street /highway performance indicators. Broadening the range of performance indicators for analysis of alternatives is a direct result of ISTEA requirements and interest by local governments to respond to state - mandated planning requirements and local transportation needs. The Regional Council's Transportation Policy Board is considering three major implementation strategies. Each of the strategies will include a baseline of existing facilities and currently funded facility improvements. The strategies will differ primarily with respect to two key assumptions: 1) the amount and types of new revenues assumed for additional transportation investment beyond the baseline; and 2) the degree to which travel demand management and transportation system pricing is employed. The alternative implementation strategies to be modeled will be analyzed to determine the extent to which they address the following considerations: • Maintenance and preservation of the current transportation system • Safety and security • Management of the transportation system for maximum efficiency • Overall transportation demand management • Increases in transportation supply (capacity expansion) • Improved access opportunities to various modes of transportation for the general population and freight /goods interests • Equity with respect to equal opportunity for transportation services, with particular sensitivity to needs of traditionally transportation - disadvantaged populations Both "performance goals" and "performance objectives" will be used in the analysis of the alternative implementation strategies to provide a consistent means of determining the extent to which each alternative is addressing major planning considerations. The performance objectives will be quantified, where possible. In the absence of quantifiable performance objectives, regional consensus on qualitative objectives will be sought. This should not be viewed as a weakness in the transportation planning process as many of these areas of consideration have previously been neglected in developing metropolitan transportation plans. The current planning cycle should be viewed as a transitional phase. As the post -ISTEA planning era evolves, better methods of quantifying performance objectives will be developed. It is a major step forward that May 1994 Baseline /Framework Report Page 26 i areas of consideration previously neglected are now being incorporated into the transportation planning process to make it more comprehensive and more results- oriented. During the next several months, the Regional Council will be working with local governments, transportation agencies, and other interested parties and individuals to develop the performance goals and performance objectives which will provide the primary means of evaluating the alternative implementation strategies [See Figure 7.1]. The results of the modeling effort and performance -based analysis of the alternatives should lend itself to development of: 1) a project - specific long -range transportation plan; 2) a financially- constrained program of projects based on implementation priorities; and 3) a long -range transportation plan which considers regional goals /objectives that are both comprehensive in scope and realistic in terms of implementation potential. Figure 1.1 Considerations in Analyzing System Performance and Selecting a Preferred MTP Implementation Strategy Package 1 Baseline: Current Avenues ?adage 3 Expanded Travel Options w--^ -BASIC PAIOAITIES—+1 a CONGESTION MANAGEMENT- ^--- -1 q—SEAVICE CONSIOENATIONS—+ By July 1994, the Regional Council will have completed the task of defining the three major packages of alternative implementation strategies to be modeled. These are identified in Figure 7.2. The three packages vary primarily in terms of their assumed levels of investment and the timing of improvements between 1995 and the year 2020, and changes in the operating environment. May 1994 Baseline /Framework Report Page 27 Package 1, "Baseline: Current Revenue ", will consist of the existing regional transportation network in addition to projects /programs which have funding commitments or have a reasonable assurance of being funded between now and the year 2020. This alternative will be compared against probable travel demand in the year 2020 to account for the additional 1.4 million people to identify the extent to which optimizing the efficient operation of existing transportation systems will mitigate systemwide transportation problems. Package 1 assumes no new major revenue will become available to the region for transportation investment during the planning horizon. As is the case for all of the alternative implementation strategies, an air quality conformity analysis must be performed to determine whether Package 1 will maintain federal air quality standards between its adoption and the year 2020. Should results indicate Package 1 cannot meet air quality conformity requirements, a modified version of this alternative will be analyzed (Package 1B). This alternative will identify and test the effect of additional policy and regulatory actions on Package 1 to ensure air quality conformity.. Package 2 will build off of the regional transportation network assumed in Package 1, but will assume a modest increment of new revenue increases to fund various new programs and projects. The focus of Package 2 emphasizes more efficient "management" of the transportation system rather than major investment in infrastructure. Package 2 does assume the initial increment of RTA system development and some new HOV and construction. Model outputs from Package 2 will inform the region of the extent of transportation benefits which might accrue if the region minimizes future demand on transportation facilities with various regulatory and market incentive /disincentive programs. Package 3 will build off of the regional transportation network assumed in Packages 1 and 2. This alternative will assume major revenue increases to fund more aggressive HOV, transit and rail programs than the previous alternatives. The focus of Package 3 is to provide expanded travel "options" by assuming major investments in facilities and services to support greater non- SOV travel. Figure 1.2 Framework Strategy for Transportation System Development /Evaluation I. Baseline: Current Revenue (projected as trend) IA. Optimize Existing Systems: • Seek efficient operation of existing and committed system - foundation for Congestion Management System (CMS) and major investment studies IB. Air Quality Conformity Option: • Potential additional policy/regulatory actions to assure Air Quality Conformity compliance 2. System Management Emphasis Baseline (IA) + Conservative Revenue Increases for Variations of: • New TSM/TDM /non•motorized options • CMS with "pricing" options • Moderate transit expansion (bus/rail; local and RTA) • Moderate NOV development • Minimal new highway expansion 3. Expanded Travel Options Includes Alternative 2 + Additional Revenue Increases for: • Variable transit capacity options (RTA) • Complete NOV system development Defining each of the three packages will require regional consensus as to assumptions regarding the types, extent, and schedules of projects /programs included. It is anticipated that the preferred implementation strategy embraced as a result of the planning process will likely be a hybrid of all three packages that includes: May 1994 Baseline /Framework Report Page 28 • Projects /programs currently funded. • Some forms of system, and demand management, with market incentives and disincentives to minimize SOV use, based upon a recognition that we cannot build our way out of congestion. • Some form of HOV system expansion with initial high capacity transit system development with expanded transit service to provide transportation alternatives that would to allow the system management and demand management programs to operate effectively. Transportation Management Systems in ISTEA The passage of ISTEA [23 CFR Chapter 1, Subchapter F] and subsequent regulations require states to develop, establish and implement the following six management systems: (1) Highway pavement of federal -aid highways Pavement Management System (PMS) (2) Bridges on and off federal -aid highways Bridge Management System (BMS) (3) Highway safety Safety Management System (SMS) (4) Traffic congestion Congestion Management System (CMS) (5) Public transportation facilities and equipment Public Transportation Management System (PTMS) (6) Intermodal transportation facilities and system Intermodal Management System (IMS) In addition, states must develop a traffic monitoring system for highways and public transportation facilities /equipment. The Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) has made use of pavement, bridge and safety management systems as tools to support infrastructure investment decisions for some time. The other three required management systems, the Congestion Management System (CMS), the Public Transportation Management System (PTMS), and the Intermodal Management System (IMS), have not been addressed previously by WSDOT and are currently being developed in cooperation with regional organizations, including the Regional Council, local governments, public transportation providers, and others. The overall goal of the management system requirement is to provide useful information to decision makers as they deliberate on investment decisions intended to improve the performance of the region's transportation system (See Figure 7 -3). The management systems should identify strategies which can be considered in the metropolitan transportation planning process in order to analyze investment decisions from a "network" perspective rather than a project -by- project perspective. Using information derived from the management systems will ensure that projects /programs advanced by the region in its Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) do indeed advance the goals and objectives articulated in the MTP. The Regional Council will make use of the information resulting from each of the management systems as they are developed in final form during the coming year. May 1994 Baseline /Framework Report Page 29 Requirement for a Regional Congestion Management System As a designated Transportation Management Area (TMA), the PSRC is required to develop a Congestion Management System (CMS) as part of the metropolitan planning process [23 CFR Chapter 1, Subchapter F, Subpart E]. The federal regulations define a CMS as "a systematic process that provides information on transportation system performance and alternative strategies _ to alleviate congestion and enhance the mobility of persons and goods." In general, the CMS must include methods to monitor and evaluate performance, identify alternative actions, assess and implement cost - effective actions, and evaluate the effectiveness of implemented actions. The performance measures are to be developed jointly by the state, the Metropolitan Transportation Planning Organization, and operators of major modes of transportation; in this region, WSDOT, the Regional Council, public transit operators, and various freight /goods interests. The core of the congestion management planning process centers on the identification and evaluation of congestion mitigation strategies. Federal requirements identify the following strategies which must be considered, including: Figure 1 -3. Role of the Management Systems in the Metropolitan Transportation Planning Process System Performance PMS I BMS PTMS SMS (MS IMS Strategies Planning Process Metropolitan Transportation Plan Transportation Improvement Program Implementation • Transportation demand management measures • Traffic operational improvements • Measures to encourage HOV use • Public transit capital improvements • Public transit operational improvements • Measures to encourage the use of non - motorized modes • Congestion pricing • Growth management and activity center strategies • Access management techniques • Incident management • Intelligent vehicle- highway system and advanced public transportation system technology • The addition of general purpose lanes Some of these strategies are already being employed in the central Puget Sound region, while others are in various phases of study. A major purpose of the CMS is to integrate each of the May 1994 Baseline /Framework Report Page 30 strategies into the MTP so there is an overall improvement in their combined effectiveness. Periodic assessment of the effect of the implemented strategies will provide guidance to local decision makers in selecting effective strategies and projects for future implementation. The development of the region's CMS will be an integral part of the development of the 1995 MTP. Many of the CMS strategies will provide benefits beyond; those associated with congestion management. May 1994 Baseline /Framework Report VIII. MAJOR OUTSTANDING ISSUES In addition to the general issues already discussed in this Baseline /Framework Report, a number of other more detailed issues focusing on specific elements of the MTP will be considered during the development of a detailed Metropolitan Transportation Plan for the central Puget Sound region. TRANSPORTATION DEMAND MANAGEMENT (TDM) Planning Issues • Lack of TDM- Effectiveness Data. Little data exists to compare the regionwide effectiveness and costs of TDM strategies to those of traditional supply -side investments. Examples of TDM strategies are such measures as advocated the Washington State's Commute Trip Reduction (CTR) legislation which requires major employers to consider incentives for reducing single - occupant vehicle travel, such as transit pass subsidies, preferential parking for carpools /vanpools, greater flextime and alternative work hours /days, and encouraging commuting by bicycle by putting in storage lockers and showers. In addition, the effect of certain TDM strategies cannot be adequately represented in current regional transportation models and will require other evaluation methods. • Emerging Technology and Social Shifts. The impacts of emerging technologies and cultural changes are nearly impossible to predict and are therefore impossible to forecast, yet they could have profound effects on demand management and the transportation system in general. • Lack of Regionwide Coordination. Most of the current and planned TDM efforts in the region are being conducted by many agencies, locally or countywide, and are based on diverse needs and political perspectives. Implementation Issues • Non -work Trips. Non -work trips constitute the majority of trips, but their diversity of origin, destination and purpose makes them the most difficult to address with TDM strategies. • Lack of Funding Flexibility. Most current funding sources are dedicated to supply -side investments and preclude much financing being available for TDM strategies. The issue of funding distribution among HOV modes should also be addressed as it relates to demand management. • Lack of Alternatives to SOV Travel. TDM strategies can be effective only if alternatives to SOV travel are available. • Lack of Public Support. A general lack of understanding regarding TDM strategies often results in these strategies being perceived as punitive rather than beneficial to commuters and employers. .May 1994 Baseline /Framework Report Page 32 PEDESTRIAN /BICYCLE Planning Issues • Lack of Data. A more accurate method of evaluating the regional or localized impacts of actual investments in terms of travel reductions for SOVs and corresponding air quality benefits is required. • Lack of Criteria for Identifying Regionally Significant Projects. This issue needs to be resolved to satisfy the requirements of federal regulations and the program priorities of the region. • Lack of Consistency in Pedestrian and Bicycle Facility Planning. The level of effort that local jurisdictions place on pedestrian and bicycle facility planning varies greatly. Some of these differences can be attributed to the size of a jurisdiction and available resources. • Resource Allocation. How will the level of resources allocated to pedestrian and bicycle modes be determined? How will the regional allocation be further divided by local jurisdictions? Implementation Issues • Need for Design Standards. Pedestrian and bicycle design standards to match appropriate development and accessibility objectives do not exist in most jurisdictions. Even where they do exist, the standards tend to be prescriptive in nature and do not necessarily identify the best type of bicycle or pedestrian facility to provide in certain situations. • Funding Prioritization. What funding priorities should be used to distinguish between facilities that might serve large numbers of pedestrians or bicyclists (even if such facilities are largely used for recreational purposes) and facilities that may serve fewer persons but are also facilities that create or complete the only non -auto travel option for a given area? TRANSIT /RAIL Planning Issues • Transit's Role in Serving Regional Mobility Needs. VISION 2020 provides a conceptual framework for defining public transit's role in serving the region's mobility needs. The plan primarily focuses on facility improvement recommendations, including the development of a high- capacity transit system, completion of the freeway HOV lane system, expansion of park - and -ride capacity, and the operation of additional passenger -ferry routes. VISION 2020 also assumed local transit service but provides little direction in defining the role the transit facility or service improvements should play in serving the numerous and diverse travel needs. of residents. Some questions to be addressed in further defining transit's role include: May 1994 Baseline /Framework Report Page 33 • What is the appropriate balance between regional high- capacity transit services and local transit service in serving different types of trips? VISION 2020 emphasizes transit and rideshare improvements that offer people a variety of travel options, especially during peak travel demand periods. Consistent with this direction, much of the region's existing transit services and a large share of transit investments currently being contemplated are focused on serving longer distance commute trips. Commute trips comprise a decreasing proportion of all trips (about 20 percent of all trips) and the majority of all daily trips are made over relatively short distances (82 percent of all trips are under 10 miles and 55 percent are under 5 miles). How should transit agencies consider restructuring or refocusing their transit services over the short term and the long term to effectively capture the greatest share of all daily travel? Identifying the appropriate service emphasis and dealing with its phasing will be a major regional policy issue for the plan to address as the RTA begins to grow in regional services. • What travel markets are best served by regional transit services? Connecting major centers with a regional transit system and serving these centers with local transit services is a major focus of VISION 2020. However, VISION 2020 did not address the growing need to serve suburb -to- suburb travel or suburb -to- center travel. While high - capacity regional transit service is ideally suited for serving and linking major centers with rail, more attention needs to be given to the full range of travel markets in defining transit's role to support centers - oriented development and serve suburban travel options. • How should transit services and facility planning be structured to address the travel needs of different population segments? VISION 2020 provides no direction for allocating transit services among the diverse travel needs of different population segments. Structuring transit service to address the travel needs of those who are generally more dependent on transit services, such as the elderly, youth, and low - income communities, needs to be addressed in the MTP. Issues related to service allocation and distribution as well as increased attention to transit safety (an ISTEA requirement for facilities and operations) and accessibility should also be considered as part of defining transit's role in the region. • Transit's Role in Achieving the Region's Land Use and Economic Goals. VISION 2020 recommends the development of a more transit - oriented transportation system that supports concentration of growth, promotes a local balance of jobs and households, and encourages new homes to be constructed within walking distance of transit service. The plan does not define how transit services (as opposed to zoning regulations, road building, and /or other public decisions that influence land development patterns) should be provided to promote changes in land development. Questions to be addressed in clarifying transit's role in achieving regional land use goals include: • How and for what purpose should major regional centers be linked by regional transit services? May 1994 Baseline /Framework Report Page 34 VISION 2020 envisions a regional land use pattern that contains growth within designated urban areas by promoting concentrated rather than dispersed development and focuses much of that growth into major regional centers. The strategy places emphasis on the need to develop a regional rapid transit system that "links" the major regional centers. VISION 2020 does not define specific objectives for connecting centers with rapid transit and no guidance is provided for the type of travel to be facilitated (e.g., commute, recreational, shopping, business) between centers. • What role should transit play in encouraging changes in travel behavior and promoting changes in land development patterns? Inherent in VISION 2020's growth strategy is the concept that travel behavior will, over time, change to realize regional land use objectives. Fewer people will need to depend exclusively on the automobile for their travel needs and more trips will be made close to home or work. VISION 2020 does not specifically address how transit agencies, through the services they provide, should or will be able to influence changes in travel behavior. Regional coordination is needed for making transit decisions that help influence travel behavior, such as the location and size of park- and -ride facilities, allocation and distribution of local feeder service, and the siting and function of major transit stations to support growth management objectives. • Appropriate Integration Among and Between Modes. ISTEA emphasizes a multimodal /intermodal planning approach to provide system users with travel options and to ensure efficient and user- friendly transfers between travel modes. Although VISION 2020 supports this planning approach, it provides little direction on how travel options should be integrated among and between modes. The interrelationship between different travel modes needs to be refined before individual facilities and services are able to function as a seamless web of transportation services. Questions to be addressed in the transit component of the MTP include: • What are the primary "linkage" relationships between transit and other travel modes? VISION 2020 describes a general framework for individual transportation modes but does not specifically address "connectivity" between modes. The plan makes references to providing walk and bike access to transit, transit linkages to ferry terminals, and auto access to regional transit services, but does not provide a framework as to how these connections will be made and how such improvements might be prioritized. • • What is the relationship between the conventional array of public transit services and other potential privately provided transportation services? VISION 2020 encourages a wide range of public transportation services including regional rail transit, buses, paratransit, passenger -only ferries, vanpools, and ridesharing. The plan does not address other forms of public transportation that are typically privately operated such as charter bus service, taxis or jitney service (like a group taxi /van on a specific high volume street /route), and intercity rail. Connections between different forms of public transportation and how they are integrated with other travel modes should be more clearly defined in the MTP. May 1994 Baseline /Framework Report Page 35 Implementation Issues • Changes in the Operating Environment to Support Greater Transit Use. A major strategy behind VISION 2020 is to change the environment within which transit is expected to function to improve its competitiveness with the automobile. VISION 2020 recommends focusing new growth into compact, pedestrian- oriented land development patterns that are more supportive of a transit - oriented transportation system. VISION 2020 also encourages reordering the proportional revenue spending decisions to provide more support for transit facility investments. Among the questions that are not resolved in VISION 2020 include: • How can changes in transportation pricing be promoted to more accurately reflect the true cost of different travel options? VISION 2020 includes references to the pricing of transportation services within its discussion of transportation demand management (TDM) programs. Transportation pricing is suggested as a means of providing a disincentive to auto use. Concepts include encouraging higher parking costs in major centers, reducing the practice of employer - subsidized parking, and further investigating road pricing (or tolls) as a strategy. These and other transportation pricing issues will also be addressed within the TDM component of the MTP. • What are the critical land development changes necessary to promote greater transit use? VISION 2020 provides a general description of the land use changes that should occur to support a transit - oriented transportation system. Guidelines currently exist and will be refined describing basic land use objectives needed to support transit in centers, including minimum employment and population densities. Centers are a major consideration in supporting transit, but most transit trips will still begin and /or end outside of centers. The regional vision needs to be expanded to include an appropriate transit service response that can be effective for non - centers areas as well, such as urban residential neighborhoods, high- capacity transit station areas outside of centers, and major urban transportation corridors. Land development issues affecting transit use will be addressed in conjunction with revisions to the growth strategy of VISION 2020. • Institutional Coordination Among Transit Providers. VISION 2020 provides a general framework for regional coordination among various agencies and jurisdictions. However, no direction is provided that deals specifically with how transit operators, WSDOT, and other agencies can coordinate programs to provide more efficient transit services. With the creation of a new transit agency -- the Regional Transit Authority -- and the potential development of transit services and facilities that provide service across county lines, there is an even greater need to coordinate activities. A question which the MTP needs to address is: • What are the general roles and responsibilities of the RTA, local transit agencies, the Regional Council, and WSDOT, and how can they best coordinate transit services and programs? Many areas of coordination could be addressed in the MTP. Some specific issues might be: May 1994 Baseline /Framework Report Page 36 RTA's role in supporting the operation of vanpools and carpools that cross county lines, operation of regional bus routes and decisions about where they should be, RTA representation on the Regional Council's policy board, preventing conflicts due to different operating procedures of transit agencies, and integration of transit fares between agencies to promote ease of transit use. While ISTEA also requires agreement between the Regional Council, WSDOT and local transit agencies to deal with coordinated transportation planning and programming, the MTP can provide a policy framework for resolving these and other issues related to coordinating transit operations among numerous agencies. HIGH OCCUPANCY VEHICLE (HOV) AND ASSOCIATED FACILITIES Planning Issues • Defining the Strategic Role of HOV Facilities in the Transportation System. A clear definition of the intended role of HOV facilities in the overall transportation system would help provide guidance in resolving policy choices affecting the priority, design and operation of the HOV system. The mission of different transportation modes and services should be discussed strategically as a top -level policy element of the Metropolitan Transportation Plan (MTP). Specific questions include: • What balance should be achieved between serving transit and carpools? If the HOV system is intended to focus on meeting the needs of carpools, the priority will be to expand the HOV lane system as quickly as possible. If the HOV system is thought of as serving as a primary right -of -way for transit, then more attention is needed on design for operational access to ensure that transit vehicles can gain access to the HOV lanes, and that they operate reliably -- resulting in a potentially shorter, more expensive system. • How can HOV lanes complement regional transit? If high- capacity rail lines are planned in the same corridors as HOV lanes, would most buses be removed from the HOV lanes? Should HOV lanes be of a higher or lower priority if they serve carpools only? And is it cost effective to provide for the same travel market with two separate facilities rather than to provide for new travel opportunities in a different corridor? • What is the role of HOV facilities in meeting GMA Requirements? How can level of service be calculated meaningfully on HOV lanes for concurrency determination, and should that matter? Should policy objectives to support access to centers take precedence over other objectives, such as mitigating congestion, in determining the priority of HOV facilities? • What regional policies should be developed and adopted regarding the HOV System? May 1994 Baseline /Framework Report Page 37 WSDOT has developed the "Washington State Freeway HOV System Policy," a set of policies to guide the development and operation of freeway HOV lanes. Many of these policies directly affect the capacity and reliability of the HOV system, and whether that capacity and reliability will be maintained into the future. This freeway policy document also addresses the importance of public acceptance and education as a part of developing these issues. Is it appropriate for the region to review and decide whether to support or reinforce these policies as part of the MTP? • What measures can be taken to overcome potential coordination problems between the MTP development and other local and regional HOV planning efforts, given their different schedules and planning horizons? The MTP schedule is being driven by federal transportation program requirements and has a planned completion date of March 1995. The Regional Transit Authority (RTA) has a goal to present a proposed first -phase regional transit system to voters within the three - county transit district as early as May 1995. Cities within the region are complying with GMA requirements and developing comprehensive plans, which are scheduled to be finalized by the fall of 1995. All of these efforts include some aspects of planning for HOV system elements. The WSDOT recently began a one -year project called the Puget Sound region HOV Pre Design Studies, which will serve to update and propose additional freeway HOV system improvements over the next 20 years. An additional consideration for HOV system implementation is that all MTP modal elements are essentially "competing" for priority and funding within the VISION 2020 update. Finally, most of these efforts are being developed under different planning horizons, in part due to their legal mandates and interest in community representation. Will the MTP process be able to coordinate all of these plans into development of a comprehensive, regional HOV system? • Service and System Development Objectives, Phasing and Prioritization Criteria. As part of developing the MTP, it will be necessary to establish some method for assessing the need for HOV facilities, and then for prioritizing them against one another. These service objectives and prioritization criteria should be an elaboration of the policy objectives identified above. Specific questions include: • How extensive should the 2020 freeway HOV system be? Especially considering that the MTP must be financially constrained, should the region ensure HOV facilities are provided wherever congestion is forecast? • To what extent should the MTP specify 2020 arterial transit priority and HOV improvements? Arterial transit priority and HOV improvements can range from spot improvements at individual intersections, queue bypass lanes, individual or interconnected signal improvements, turn restrictions, etc., up to construction of HOV lanes. To what extent should specific treatments be included in a long -range plan? Which of these improvements should be considered regionally significant, either separately or grouped together as corridor or system improvement programs? How will the need for these improvements be .May 1994 Baseline /Framework Report Page 38 measured? • Should the freeway HOV system be amended to provide direct HOV ramp access? WSDOT is studying the feasibility and benefit of providing direct access ramps into median - side HOV lanes. Direct access ramps would reduce the delay to HOVs, especially for 60- foot transit vehicles, caused by the need to weave across several lanes of general purpose traffic to reach center HOV lanes. Not only does weaving reduce the benefit of HOV lanes to HOV users, but it also worsens general purpose traffic congestion and accident rates. However, access improvements will raise the cost of the HOV system. What conditions or criteria should be used to justify these costly improvements? • When should lane conversion be considered? The WSDOT freeway system policy says simply that conversion of existing general purpose highway lanes to HOV use should be considered. Under what circumstances is this appropriate? While it is generally accepted that this region will not substantially increase freeway capacity, is it beneficial to air quality or growth management goals to reduce traffic capacity if it causes severe traffic congestion? And under what circumstances will the public and their elected representatives agree? • How can unlike facilities and programs be compared against one another? On what basis can the region establish the priority of a freeway HOV lane against an arterial transit priority improvement, an HOV access ramp, or a park- and -ride lot? Is it appropriate to try to do so, or should facilities be prioritized only against other similar projects, with the distribution of resources between types of facilities made at the policy level? Are there methods of comparison such as travel time or costs savings which can be used to analyze projects and programs to assist with prioritization decisions? • How will regional project prioritization and phasing be accomplished? Regional system success requires the ability to establish priority for projects in a way that is acceptable to jurisdictions and that assures initial project development occurs first in areas offering greatest impact. As identification of regionally significant facilities is completed, criteria for prioritizing and phasing regional projects must be developed and a process implemented. • How can phasing to ensure continuous facilities be factored into prioritization? Sometimes the priority of one HOV segment is dependent on the completion of an adjacent segment. • HOV Lane Operation Issues. A degree of consistency in the development and operation of freeway and arterial HOV lanes may be needed to ensure efficient operation of the regional system. WSDOT has implemented policy which guides freeway HOV lane development and operation. How should these policy issues be addressed regionally? Should freeway HOV lane May 1994 Baseline /Framework Report Page 39 policy be used as the framework strategy for developing policies for the arterial HOV system? Specific questions include: • How should HOV lane vehicle occupancy /eligibility be defined? The definition of who is eligible to use the HOV system will determine how well it performs, and who will benefit. WSDOT has established the basic freeway system carpool definition as 2 or more (2 +) persons, except in cases where safety would be compromised, or a desirable minimum design speed cannot be reliably maintained. Some feel that a 2+ definition is too low and may result in an expansion of general purpose highway capacity by shifting existing 2- person carpools into the HOV lane. Also, if it proves politically difficult to raise the definition to 3 + in the future to meet the minimum operating speed condition, many HOV lanes could become congested, compromising their benefit and limiting their long -term capacity. • Should other users be allowed to use the HOV lanes? Aside from transit and carpools, other potential users have requested access to the HOV system. For example, other uses that are suggested for consideration for priority access include inter - regional traffic, freight and goods carriers, and commercial vehicles. If additional users are allowed into HOV facilities, the facilities' effectiveness may decrease, and enforceability and public acceptance of the system may be affected. Should these "other" potential users be considered only for individual freeway ramps or separated roadways? These may offer more flexibility to cater to a variety of users. • What standards of reliability are appropriate? WSDOT has adopted a freeway system speed and reliability standard that requires an HOV lane to operate at 45 mph or above during 90 percent of peak hours over a three -month period. As this policy offers greater assurance of long -term effectiveness of the freeway HOV system, should this standard be considered as a regional policy? • Should HOV lanes be restricted to HOV traffic 24 hours a day? The WSDOT policy specifies that freeway HOV facilities should be operated 24 hours a day, rather than allowing general purpose traffic during the off -peak periods. This policy is intended to improve enforceability, and to recognize that congestion is increasingly spilling over to midday and weekend travel. In fact, auto occupancy is considerably higher during off -peak periods, raising the number of vehicles eligible to use the HOV lanes. What conditions might warrant consistent policy applications on arterial systems within the region? • Park - and -Ride Issues. Park- and -ride lots serve bus riders, carpool and vanpool users, and potentially, future rail rapid transit riders. Planning for park- and -ride lots in some corridors has been on hold for many years in anticipation of decisions on rapid transit, to make sure new freeway park- and -ride lots do not become quickly obsolete when rapid transit is constructed. Additionally, new information about the contribution of cold starts to air quality problems, and increases in the cost of building park- and -ride spaces, raise new issues about park- and -ride lot development. Specific questions include: May 1994 Baseline /Framework Report Page 40 • To what degree should p vanpools? Should additi rk- and -ride lots built to serve rail transit also serve carpools and nal separate lots be built for either purpose? • What is the appropriate ix of small or large lots to address future needs? Smaller lots farther fro freeway lots, in part bec land with good freeway bicycles and pedestrians. to serve large freeway 1 transit routes to provide larger lots may be easie • Can transit service be d lot network? It now can cost $20,000 to the increasing value o other factors. Addition . and -ride use, since the than those produced to envisioned as a cost -eff service is impractical. more beneficial than pr. the freeway have sometimes been less fully utilized than large use freeway lots tend to have more frequent transit service. But access is more expensive, and is sometimes less accessible for It is more operationally efficient for the system and customers, is with freeway flyer stops or stations, allowing consolidation of igher frequency service. As security becomes a greater concern, to police. signed to reduce the magnitude of expansion of the park - and -ride or more per space to design and construct a park- and -ride lot, due land near freeways, increased environmental mitigation cost, and ly, concern has been raised about the air quality impacts of park - missions produced to get to a park- and -ride lot are not much less ake the entire journey by car. Park - and -ride lots were originally ctive way to provide transit access in places where neighborhood I s there a threshold point where providing a park- and -ride lot is viding some form of neighborhood collection or shuttle service? • Should pricing be used o manage park- and -ride demand? Should parking charges be considered in the future to help manage demand for parking spaces and perhaps sup s ort improved security? • Financing and Institutio al Issues. Since HOV facilities and park- and -ride lots benefit both highway and transit users a d require coordination between many jurisdictions and agencies, there are a number of outst nding funding and institutional issues. Specific questions include: ns • How should the eleme be financed? There is no consensus planners and the state a it is generally assumed specific financing has n for what share of park - matters for long -range among transit agencies, local public works departments, regional out who should pay for which elements of the HOV system. While hat the state should find the money to pay for freeway HOV lanes, t yet been identified. Conceptual agreement about who should pay nd -ride lots and HOV direct access ramps would greatly simplify lanning and programming. • Should arterial HOV d. sign guidelines and operating policies be regionally, consistent? Unlike freeway HOV acilities, which are designed and operated by a single agency and May 1994 Baseline /Framework Re.' ort Page 41 which are subject to state design guidelines and operating policies, arterial HOV improvements are developed and operated by many separate jurisdictions which have independent authority and responsibility for determining operating standards under the Growth Management Act. To what degree should regional guidance or coordination be required of arterial HOV improvements? Specifically, should design guidelines for signage, pavement markings, and other treatments be prepared to increase user expectancy? Should a regionally consistent definition of a carpool be established? Who should play this coordinating role? • Improving the Performance of the HOV System. To ensure that HOV facilities are used to their best advantage requires an ensemble of marketing, technological and transportation demand management (TDM) measures to promote incentives and awareness to travelers to use higher occupancy modes. Additionally, there are a number of policy choices that local governments could make to ensure that HOV programs and facilities are successful. TDM measures will be addressed as a separate element of the MTP. Specific questions include: • To what extent should access control be pursued along arterial HOV facilities? For arterial HOV lanes to be successful, access control reduces conflicts at driveways next to the HOV lane. Before jurisdictions commit to developing arterial HOV lanes, consideration should be given to the full cost of potential access control measures that might be needed. • How can technology be applied to snake HOV facilities more effective? New federal and state emphasis on Intelligent Vehicle /Highway System (IVHS) technology provides an opportunity for improving the efficiencies of HOV lanes and treatments. Some of these strategies have the additional potential of enhancing overall transportation system efficiency. How might these and other mobility technologies be applied and utilized to enhance regional transportation planning and policy decisions? • Will HOV and transit priority measures be built into traffic management? Significant improvements in transit and ridesharing performance can be realized by developing a regional approach to consistent signal priority treatments. Should this be advocated as a regional policy? • What strategies need to be developed to support marketing, education and public acceptance of the HOV system? Public acceptance and use of the HOV system is recognized as foremost in measuring project and program success. Public education that provide information on the objectives, performance and benefits of the HOV system can encourage mode shift and use of the system. Although many local jurisdictions and transit agencies contribute to educating the public and marketing HOV and TDM programs, should there be broader coordination and implementation of these marketing and education strategies? May 1994 Baseline /Framework Report Page 42 STREETS AND HIGHWAYS Planning Issues • The Role of the Regional Highway System. The current and future role of the region's highway system is somewhat downplayed in VISION 2020. The freeways, state routes, and principal arterials that comprise the regionally significant system are the backbone of the region's transportation system and will continue to be for many years. The issue to be resolved involves clarifying the most effective role the street and highway system should play in meeting regional policy goals in other areas such as economic development and congestion management. • Highway Performance Objectives. Current trends indicate increasing use of and reliance on the private automobile. In establishing performance objectives for the street and highway system, the region could assume that current trends will continue or could develop policy- driven performance objectives based upon assumptions reflecting a tapering off of future growth in automobile use. These would include assumptions of a reduction in the rate of growth for auto travel due to demographic changes, intervention in the pricing of transportation services, increased travel options, and applications of new technologies. The MTP should test the technical and political viability of such assumptions. • Deteriorating Service Levels. The MTP is required to be a financially constrained plan. Relative to other modes, VISION 2020 specifies limited highway capacity improvements on the regional system over the long -term. Without incorporating major travel demand management programs, highway improvements and additions alone would have a negligible impact on overall regional congestion, as projected future growth will more than offset planned increases in capacity. Is the region ready to accept and live with lower system performance in the form of decreased average speeds, increased delay, and increased congestion for general purpose highway travel? Most surveys suggest the public is already aware that this is a future probability. • The Role of Transportation Demand Management and Transportation System Management in Accommodating Future Travel Demand. Given that highway capacity improvements alone will not be able to maintain current service levels on the region's street and highway system in the long -term, what changes in public policy are necessary to integrate demand management and system management into the region's street and highway planning? A clear statement of performance expectations for the highway system will be an essential element of the required Congestion Management System (CMS). • The Implications of Business As Usual. If the region were to maintain its present levels of effort in terms of capacity expansion, demand management, and system management in light of forecasted population/employment growth, deteriorating service levels would be inevitable. One default option the region has is to conduct business as usual and assume that the travelling public will automatically avail itself of all options that avoid the capacity "wall ". VISION 2020 recognizes that the region cannot control individual mobility decisions, nor can it afford to build enough capacity to respond to future travel demand. The implications of a business as usual strategy for the regional economy and adjacent counties is unknown. The MTP must set May 1994 Baseline /Framework Report Page 43 marine travel capacity requirements while potentially requiring little public financial support (some subsidy would likely be necessary for fleet and terminal developments). • Growth in Ports Traffic. Other waterborne transportation may also affect the ferry service's operations in the.future. The Ports of Seattle and Tacoma are continuing to increase their share of the cargo container trade on the West Coast. As trade continues to increase, ship traffic on Puget Sound waters could become a factor affecting ferry schedules and access to terminal facilities. Congestion of ship traffic around Washington State Ferry terminals would need to be addressed to maintain the system's ability to provide convenient, on -time service to riders. • Funding Concerns. A major fare increase is under discussion to keep ferry rider revenues in line with state requirements. Such modifications to the fare structure should be well coordinated with other adjacent transit systems and regional transportation and growth management policies. FREIGHT AND GOODS MOBILITY Planning Issues • Institutional. A freight and goods knowledge gap exists between system users (carriers and shippers) on the one hand and policy makers and the general public on the other. The public sector for the most part has little understanding about the operation of freight carriers, the logistics needs of shippers, and the impact of congestion and infrastructure decisions on goods pricing and the regional economy. The system users, on the other hand, have only a minimal understanding of the political and institutional processes necessary to address issues and take effective corrective action. • Infrastructure. Increased intermodal rail yard capacity is needed to keep pace with the growth in the number of containers handled at the ports of Seattle and Tacoma. Where, how, and when this occurs will impact significantly the cost, transit time, and schedule reliability of freight and goods movement to, from and through the region. • Increasing Congestion. The broadening of commuter peak travel periods into traditional off - peak periods is of concern for freight traffic. The window for moving oversized loads (including components 127 feet long by 13.5 feet wide and 15.5 feet high) has diminished at the same time manufacturers increasingly move large parts to plants spread out around the region. For example, at Boeing, tail sections from Frederickson (located in Pierce County) transit the region to the Everett assembly plant. Just -in -time delivery requirements of today's industry means that the entire metropolitan area is the manufacturing floor and the reliability and cost of deliveries within this factory are critical to the cost and quality of manufacturing and to the competitiveness of its product in the world market place. • Airside /Groundside Capacity. Solutions to airside and groundside capacity problems at Sea - Tac, King County and other cargo airports in the region could significantly affect the cost, transit time, and schedule reliability of the movement of freight and goods. May 1994 Baseline /Frame►vork Report Page 45 performance expectations that establish a public policy /investment framework that realistically represents what can be achieved to support VISION 2020's growth management /transportation objectives. • Highway Improvements /Growth Management Compatibility. It is critical to assure that both state and local transportation system plans be developed in concert with the MTP, so that the objectives of all efforts are consistent and mutually supportive. These transportation plans should address other concurrent planning activities required under the state Growth Management Act (GMA), ISTEA, and state and federal Clean Air Acts. The Regional Council, the WSDOT and local governments will be cooperating on the development of state highway system performance objectives, standards and ongoing system monitoring procedures to be part of the final MTP. • Rural Areas. Where highway widening solutions are proposed to address safety and existing capacity deficiency concerns in rural areas, there is a need to evaluate and integrate these solutions with appropriate plans or conditions for controlled access and potential local zoning controls to avoid unintended new development pressures in rural areas. In some cases, there may be a need to revise conceptual solutions developed by state and local agencies in highway corridors for different access controls or to defer development of the highway improvement until coordinated state and local planning concludes that land use plans are compatible, to assure maintenance of the rural character. These revisions should be in concert with broader policy considerations. MARINE /FERRIES Planning Issues • Demand on the System. The state ferry system cannot meet current vehicle demand during certain peak and seasonal periods, yet the ferries must continue to serve a growing population, increasing recreation and increasing tourism on both sides of Puget Sound. Will this demand be satisfied through more auto or passenger ferries or will it go unmet? What service level will the state and the region decide is appropriate and acceptable? • ISTEA Planning Environment. The ferries must address often complex connections to other modes besides autos, such as transit, pedestrians and even freight. As key parts of the region's multimodal transportation system, terminal facilities require careful evaluation and planning to handle access and connectivity . Implementation Issues • The Role of the Private Sector. The ferry system is affected by a desire from private operators to initiate ferry service on certain routes. Earlier bond covenant restrictions which acted to disallow private operations within specific distances of the state ferry routes have now been eliminated. A few private operators also have permits from the Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission to operate ferry service. Private ferries could fulfill a portion of .May 1994 Baseline /Framework Report Page 44 • Regulatory Mandates. Regulatory mandates affect freight planning just as all other modes. Cities, counties and the region must balance environmental [i.e., Clean Air Act compliance] and economic development goals with efforts to improve efficiency in the movement of freight and goods. The broader regional planning processes should include the active involvement of members of the shipping community. • System Management Issues. The region's existing highway network should be examined to assure that sufficient route redundancy, signing, controls and emergency management procedures are in place, This will help mitigate the occurrence, under adverse conditions, of excessive delays and schedule unreliability, especially as they may affect the movement of freight and goods. Exclusive truck lanes analogous to HOV lanes, located on the right side of arterials and /or freeways, have been suggested for consideration. Strategically selected streets in major commercial or industrial areas could be dedicated to trucks to improve travel time and remove physical barriers to truck movements. Freight access zones (uniquely different in concept from existing curbside loading zones) might be considered for priority areas. Where such specialized access might be warranted, careful consideration would be given to location, time of day, and land use characteristics. Special design standards should be developed for consistent application at selected sites. • Need for Subarea Studies. Independent decision making by separate private and public bodies for high use subareas produces larger issues of access to the subarea in general. For example, in the area south of the Kingdome in Seattle, growing congestion problems result from a number of decisions: the ferry system and the city relocated ferry- related vehicle access to the south; passenger (commuter and intercity) rail travel is focused at the King Street Station; operation of the 4th Avenue exit ramps from I -90 adds traffic; and expansion of rail and port operations also compound the problems. Each of these decisions has solid merit on its own. A need exists to examine entire subarea solutions as these congestion problems grow in high freight traffic areas. • Need Guidelines for Local Freight /Goods Planning. While cities and counties are preparing transportation and land use plans in response to the Growth Management Act (GMA), planning for freight movement was never addressed or required by the GMA. At the local level, traffic operational designs sometimes restrict and hinder truck movements. Intersections designed to achieve aesthetics and pedestrian safety may interfere with truck access. For example, designs requiring sharp right turns result in trucks making a series of left turns to avoid the insufficient turning radius of the initial right turn. This is sometimes through residential neighborhoods and can increase local street congestion and vehicle miles travelled. Freight movements and access needs should be included when planning for improved community accessibility and specific highway /roadway designs. Development of guidelines for use by cities and counties to assist in incorporating of freight planning into GMA planning would be very beneficial. Operational Issues • Systemwide Operational Problems. The movement of containers by truck and by rail to and from the major marine facilities of the Ports of Seattle, Everett, Tacoma and Bremerton May 1994 Baseline /Framework Report Page 46 intersects the flow of their local commuter, commercial and ferry traffic. This often produces substantial delays for all concerned. Growing import/export markets will increase truck travel to and from port terminals. Currently there is about a six -hour window during the day for accessing port terminals. Consideration to keep the terminals open longer for intermodal transfers could allow more traffic to operate during off -peak periods. • Specific Problems. Certain congested areas of the region's highway network produce delays and unreliable travel times that severely affect the efficiency of freight and goods movement. Examples include SR 167 from Kent to Renton, SR 18 from Auburn to SR 99, East Marginal Way at South Michigan, Royal Brougham Way at 4th Avenue South and at the Burlington Northern Railroad in the South Kingdome area of Seattle. Shippers and carriers have identified these and other specific locations in the road network that pose difficulties for trucks. Ramp geometry may sometimes result in dangerous merging or diverging vehicle movements for trucks, and /or long delays. This has been a particular problem in areas such as access onto the West Seattle Freeway and Spokane Street, entry to and exit from Alaskan Way, and various intersections with SR 99 near the Ship Canal. Off -road trailer parking sites adjacent to the freeways could be considered to facilitate separation of two - trailer truck units. Double trailers leaving Seattle for local deliveries need legal places to park on the Eastside, as well as north and south of the city. Portland has a few such sites, as does the Port of Seattle. • Use of Rail Mainlines for Passenger Service. The addition of commuter service on railroad mainlines will require a reexamination of the basic operations of freight traffic. WSDOT is serving as coordinator to address potential technical problems. Ports are extremely sensitive to impacts on their access to mainline rail services. To remain competitive on the West Coast, ports need to assure their clientele that they will move shipments on schedule. • Overweight Containers. Overweight containers moving on the highways out of seaports and intermodal rail yards are a problem. Multistate and federal policy development is needed to address this issue and implement the federal Safe Container Transportation Act of 1992. • Safety. Safety is the overriding issue at rail crossings. Existing lights and gates limit railroad liability; however, costs associated with closing down a high volume line for clearing and investigating an accident suggest that public and private cooperation is needed (especially with railroad corporations) to jointly support more grade- separated crossings. Commuter trains are planned to run through the same corridors, increasing the number of crossing closures and further complicating scheduling on freight lines. Implementation Issues • Funding. Both public and private sources of funds are used to build, maintain and operate the facilities needed for freight and goods movement. ISTEA has established new funding categories on the public side and new flexibility in their application. The proposed federal Aviation Investment Act of 1994 has new flexibility in funding intermodal and land -use planning and in addressing various land -side issues. May 1994 Baseline /Framework Report Page 47 Privately -owned rail facilities, truck terminals, warehouses and shipping docks are normally financed from private sources. The services they render directly or indirectly generate the funds which support them. The New Partners program, a public - private initiative being undertaken by WSDOT for transportation system development, could provide funding for elements that will improve regional freight and goods movement. A key financial issue is how to mix, match and coordinate expenditures on multimodal investments in order to serve regional freight and goods movement most effectively as other aspects of the regional transportation system are being improved. May 1994 Baseline /Framework Report Page 48. IX. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PROCESS FOR STATE ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT (SEPA) COMPLIANCE The Puget Sound Council of Governments (now the Puget Sound Regional Council) adopted the VISION 2020 Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) in September 1990. An addendum to the VISION 2020 FEIS was prepared for the multicounty policies which were adopted m March 1993 replacing the original growth and transportation policies. The transportation system described in VISION 2020 and the subsequent addendum were highly conceptual in nature. This current effort to update VISION 2020, and articulate and provide a more specific and thorough description of the region's long -term transportation investment strategy in the Metropolitan Transportation Plan (MTP), will include a Supplemental EIS (SEIS). The SEIS will incorporate the prior FEIS by reference, will build upon the FEIS, and will include a more focused analysis of the more specific implementation strategies articulated in the draft MTP. The resulting SEIS will be a programmatic document which will include an analysis of the cumulative and regional impacts associated with implementation of specific transportation strategies and operating environments articulated in the draft MTP. Individual transportation projects will subsequently require focused SEPA documentation to analyze construction and site - specific impacts. However, the SEIS will serve to analyze cumulative environmental implications of the implementation strategies in a regional context. The alternatives to be examined in the SEIS will consist of three groups of implementation strategies within the VISION 2020 Preferred Alternative. A comparison of impacts associated with emphasizing various combinations of transportation system management, demand management and capacity expansion will be undertaken. The three groups of implementation strategies to be investigated will include a financially- constrained program, a program comprised primarily of system /demand management programs and an alternative emphasizing enhancement of transit capacity. The analysis of each group of implementation strategies will consist of a review of respective performance based upon transportation modeling and a review of respective performance in areas required by the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA). It is anticipated that the implementation strategy ultimately embraced by the region [ "preferred strategy "] as a result of the transportation planning process will be comprised of major components from each of the three groups of strategies modeled and analyzed. The Final SEIS will include an analysis of the cumulative environmental implications of this preferred strategy. .May 1994 Baseline /Framework Report Page 49 X. Major Public Information & Issue Development November 8, 1993 Public announcement of plan to update VISION 2020 and adopt a Metr politan Transportation Plan (MTP) November 1993 - March 1 eetings and Events Distribution of video "Lees Get M community and government acces tions; presentations to jurisdicti other organizations around the telephone survey; written sury shops on growth management issu outreach 94 ing" to TY sta- ns and region; ; work- s; other March 10, 1994 Preliminary discussion of VISIO 2020 Update /MTP issues by Regional Council policy boards March 11, 1994 Presentation to Regional Council General Assembly, overview ofYISION 2020 progress to date, and major work that ne ds to be completed by March 1995 April 1994 Workshops on some MTP eleme ts; addi- tional outreach to jurisdictions nd com- munity groups Working Through the Issues May 1, 1994 Release VISION 20I0 /MTP Progress Report May - June 1994 Additional workshops and outreach Working Through the Issues ((tad..) July 1994 — Open Houses July 14 -- 4-8 p.m., Broadway Center Rehearsal Hall, 901 Broadway, 34 Floor, Tacoma July 20 -- 4.8 p.m., Snohomish County PUD Auditorium, 2320 California St., Everett July 27 -- 4.8 p.m, Silverdale on the Bay Resort Hotel, 3073 Buddin Road, Silverdale July 28 -- 4 -8 p.m., Puget Sound Re- gional Council, 6th Floor Conference Room, 1011 Western Avenue, Seatde July- October 1994 Presentations, workshops, board meetings, other events Developing Recommendations October 3, 1994 Release preliminary draft of VISION 2020 Update /MTP October 1, 1994 Joint meeting, for discussion of prelimi- nary draft VISION 2020 Update /MTP, of Growth Management and Transportation Policy Boards October - November 1994 Presentation of draft to countywide policy groups; additional meetings of Growth Man- agement and Transportation Policy Boards to discuss preliminary draft; additional pre- sentations and outreach Metropolitan Transportation Plan • VISION OZO Recommending A Draft Plan Update November 1994 Policy boards' action on a draft. VISION 2020 Update/MTP implementation strat- egy for recommendation to the Executive Board December 1, 1994 Executive Board meeting to receive rec- ommended draft VISION 2020 Update /MTP, to make an air quality conformity finding, and to release the draft along with a draft environmental document, for public review Preparing A Final Plan Update January 6, 1995 Annual Conference, focusing on opportu- nities and impacts of emerging technolo- gies on VISION 2020 Update/MTP issues; open houses in each of four counties January 26, 1995 Executive Board work session on VISION 2020 Update /MTP January 21- February 15,1995 A public hearing and additional Execu- tive Board work sessions, reports back to policy boards Action On VISION 1020 UpdatelM1P February 23, 1995 Executive Board decision meeting on draft VISION 2020 Update/MTP March 16, 1995 General Assembly action on VISION 2020 Update/MTP May 1994 Baseline /Framework Report Page 50 This report and any portion thereof may be duplicated in any form without permission of the Puget Sound Regional Council, provided the following reference is cited: 1995 Metropolitan Transportation Plan, Baseline/Framework Report: Puget Sound Regional Council, Seattle, May 1994. Additional copies of this report or its background information may be obtained by contacting: Puget Sound Regional Council Information Center 216 First Avenue South, Fourth Floor Seattle, Washington 98104 (206) 464 -7532 Funding for this report was provided in part by member jurisdictions, grants from U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, Federal Highway Administration and Washington State Department of Transportation Puget Sound Regional Council President Vice President Mayor Mitch Mitchusson, City of Poulsbo County Executive Doug Sutherland, Pierce County Transportation Policy Board Chair County Executive Bob Drewel, Snohomish County Vice Chair Councilmember Martha Choe, City of Seattle Growth Management Policy Board Chair Councilmember Jim Street, City of Seattle Vice Chair Councilmember Paul Cyr, Pierce County Executive Director Director of Transportation Planning MTP Program Manager Mary McCumber King Cushman Ralph Cipriani For Further information The following people may be contacted for further information regarding each of the following components: Transportation Demand Management, Lindy Johnson (206) 464 -6297 Pedestrian and Bicycle, Ralph Cipriani (206) 464 -7122 Transit, Ned Conroy (206) 587 -5670 High Occupancy Vehicle, Karen Richter (206) 464 -6343 Streets and Highways, Lawrence Black (206) 464 -6977 Marine and Ferries, Tony Lickteig (206) 464 -6180 Freight and Goods Mobility, Peter Beaulieu (206) 464 -7537 Aviation, Peter Beaulieu (206) 464 -7537 Financial, Don Pethick (206) 464 -7536 c City of Tukwila John W. Rants, Mayor Department of Community Development Rick Beeler, Director PLANNING COMMISSION BRIEFINGS DRAFT COMPREHENSIVE PLAN 28 July 1994 CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS 6200 Southcenter Boulevard 6:00 - 8:00 P.M. I. Schedule & Process Overview Legislative process Tukwila Process (Schedule on reverse side) Critical time frames and products II. Vision III. Blocks IV. Goals Summary V. Van Tour Element Briefings: Time frames can vary somewhat depending on the items on the agenda. If there are only 2 items then 60 minutes will be allocated to each element with 30 minutes each of presentation and questions. Element Briefings Purpose: The Planning Commission has been receiving the Tukwila Tomorrow Committee minutes for the last two years and therefore are familiar with the debate the Committee has had regarding the issues. These briefings are an opportunity for the Commission to ask their own questions and raise their own issues or concerns that he or she might have regarding a particular element of the Plan. Comments and questions from others will be directed to the open houses. Staff Presentation - 20 minutes A. External Setting B. City Setting C. Major Issues regarding Element (ie. friction between external and internal conditions) D. Alternatives Considered E. Recommendation Summary F. Noteworthy issues of TTC decision for future debate II. Planning Conunission Questions - 20 minutes 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • (206) 431-3670 • Fax (206) 4313665 c TUKWILA PLANNING COMMISSION REVIEW OF TUKWILA TOMORROW DRAFT COMPREHENSIVE PLAN Tukwila Tomorrow Draft Comprehensive Plan Available 19 July Joint Meeting City Council/ Planning Commission/Tukwila Tomorrow Committee Workshops Series - Planning Commission Briefings Vision / Blocks / Goals / Field Trip Regional Issues / Community Image / Economic Development / Roles and Responsibilities Housing / Residential Neighborhoods Natural Environment / Shoreline / Community Resource Annexation / Transportation Corridors / Tukwila South MIC / Urban Center Facilities (Utilities & Transportation) 21 July 28* July 4 August 11 August 18 August 25* August 8 September 22 September General Public Involvement Speakers bureau for interested groups August - September ie. Chamber, Rotary, School Board, Duwamish Improvement Club Community Open Houses - Foster High School 16 or 17 August & 20 September Notification - Brochure with proposed land use map & advertisement of Planning Commission workshops, open houses and public hearing. Public Hearing Notification - additional notice to all taxpayers at least 10 days in advance of hearing 27 September (29 Sept and 4 Oct if needed) Deliberations & Decision The Planning Division will prepare and distribute in October a series of staff reports that will address the comments received up to the close of the public hearing and other issues that are raised by the Commission; recent legislation or county wide policies; and internal and external consistency issues. 13, 20, 27* October 3, 10, 17* November * Denotes a regular meeting of the Planning Commission (Board of Architectural Review,) therefore the meeting will be limited to 6:00 - 8:00 p.m. at which time their regular business will commence. rev. 28 July 1994 L- :,;, +xty r:: Yw:: is�. fir�a�:t,�S.fYit�_�v.�;;?xc,,;e �aecsrax�xrs�ar�x+.ras • mnblerstottuitt,go City of Tukwila Department of Community Development AGENDA JOINT MEETING TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL TUKWILA PLANNING G COMMISSION TUKWILA TOMORROW COMMITTEE 7:00 - 8:00 P.M. Social Hall Tukwila Community Center Opening Remarks - Draft Comprehensive Plan II. Vision Affirmation III. Planning Commission Schedule - Draft Comprehensive Plan Review IV. Questions / Clarifications on Tukwila Tomorrow Goals and Policies John W. Rants, Mayor Rick Beeler, Director 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 . (206) 41313670.. Fax. (206) 41313665 c TUKWILA PLANNING COMMISSION REVIEW OF TUKWILA TOMORROW DRAFT COMPREHENSIVE PLAN Tukwila Tomorrow Draft Comprehensive Plan Available Joint Meeting City Council/ Planning Commission/Tukwila Tomorrow Committee Workshops Series - Planning Commission Briefings Vision / Blocks / Goals / Field Trip Regional Issues / Community Image / Economic Development / Roles and Responsibilities Housing / Residential Neighborhoods Annexation / Transportation Corridors / Tukwila South Natural Environment / Shoreline / Community Resource MIC / Urban Center Facilities (Utilities & Transportation) General Public Involvement 19 July 21 July 28* July 4 August 11 August 18 August 25* August 8 September 22 September Speakers bureau for interested groups August - September ie. Chamber, Rotary, School Board, Duwamish Improvement Club Community Open Houses 16 or 17 August & 20 September Notification - Brochure with 11x17 inch proposed land use map & advertisement of Planning Commission workshops, general workshops and public hearings. Public Hearings 27 & 29 September (4 October if needed) Notification - additional notice to all taxpayers at least 10 days in advance of above hearings Deliberations & Decision 13, 20, 27* October 3, 10, 17* November * Denotes a regular meeting of the Planning Commission (Board of Architectural Review,) therefore the meeting will be limited to 6:00 - 8:00 p.m. at which time their regular business will commence. schedule.cp 19 July 1994 4 .1 4a.a. ef—e, r+r • rla..17.4.1... Dent Pork N n 1. 4,1 N AV! 'IO Ave S he Stye S� oys 11 NAME I/cctitti, 6-tow • l -X/� orzZY/99Y ATTENDANCE SIGN -UP SHEET ADDRESS /325g L/044/1- like . 5-0 - PHONE # aY3-75-041 <� c (n nCZ Q ..1p -3' a /393 z 3 7 "bS 2 1€3 77/,5— ?i ,.:LA, ).)`' a 4 I L.0 u , t-j c'o r , +.t._ o ,.,.* t CI) , 1.1 (TS- b i/YvI m atv 1a.4 ( t t, c9,v7„-iciq� /-�!i y cF-4. J r. , 14,9 y.'/ 3e c_1 J Q V1 Vl 1 S Qt)1-z:51\ Gyv, 43-4,4-1/-61 ' 7'D , /1?,c. -o *\(\ 32,7,ZA If ( is-45V1 S r 1-t :3 -- )2M F2D 0 2-'i4 ` 137 2_- 2+1 64S-1- ��. __ 1 mac= 1 F1� ar 14 J L' 1.) 4-r CA- 0 4-7- NAME 7 44,e4) ATTENDANCE SIGN-UP SHEET ADDRESS PHONE # /Si% ©e% 4Nnavc: 9-"in 42,s-71" /CA C3c! 9/7 2-3 AA ice -s' ,ASS 8 /as iteW .14 e faeak • /ni,/<///1 ed(n Wp916,16,0 po 6 't.a jc.(7,4„ I-4 C1cic�[sCi/' . Il rcic jAc cf_A/A/ c \_v It) W /674 4,Cit Rl��elr.r" C� % ( al.l,4,,, %c. FS 3707, ".4,' (Zol 3vd 4vcitorFl. v45-1+ ci Flo I n Q.v L(E-c cH laO7Z ;fiL114,9/ 7vgJ '//4 z49 3 __r3 -ty(.< /.4, Implementing Our Regional Vision .. VISION 2020 Update Progress Report Table of Contents Part 1 — Introduction 2-5 What is VISION 2020? What is the "vision" of VISION 2020? Why update VISION 2020 now? What are the issues? What is the role of the Regional Council? Where do we go from here? Part 2 — Progress So Far 6-11 How Are We Doing? Identifying Urban Growth Areas Critical Areas, Resources Lands and Open Space Major Urban Center Designation and Development Creating Complete, Compact Communities Redeveloping Urban Transportation Corridors Diversity and Choice in Housing and Employment High Capacity Transit Planning Moving People Rather Than Cars Managing Transportation Demand Enhancements for Transit and Other High Occupancy Vehides Bicyde and Pedestrian Trails The Next Steps Part 3 — The VISION 2020 Update 12-40 The Issues Are Intertwined.. Adding a Metropolitan Transportation Plan What are the problems? How does VISION 2020 respond to these transportation challenges? What additional transportation provisions are necessary? Some questions to be answered in developing the MR_ Defining an implementation strategy How can we make the transportation strategies in VISION 2020 work? Relining the Regional Strategy Centers High Capacity Transit Station Areas Areas Outside Centers Rural Areas and Open Space VISION 2020 and Our Economy Monitoring Our Progress Part 4 — How to Get Involved in the VISION 2020 Update 41-43 CC PART Introduction ision is the art of seeing things invisibie...if you can dream it, you can do it...the horizon leans forward, offering you space to place new steps of change...."' VISIOI020 What is VISION 2020? We are a region truly blessed, with for- ests and farms, mountains and streams, friendly people, thriving small towns, and prospering big cities. Yet like any region, we have our problems. We know what we want, and especially what we do not want. Numerous surveys of people in this re- gion have found the same over - riding concerns and hopes. Traffic is congested From Jonathan Swift, Walt Disney, and Maya Angelou. and frustrating; we want to be able to get around safely and efficiently. We want safe neighborhoods and housing that's affordable; we're concerned about what growth and sprawl are doing to the quality of our lives. We want good jobs and a strong economy. We don't want to become "another California." VISION 2020 is the long -range growth and transportation strategy for the central Puget Sound region. It sets our sights on the horizon, and says this is what we have, this what we want, and these are some of the changes we want to make to keep our dreams alive well into the future. It is a flexible plan, designed to be updated and adapted to changing times and needs. VISION 2020 was adopted collectively in 1990 by the region's cities, towns and four counties — King, Kitsap, Pierce and Snohomish -- following three years of public forums, briefings, meetings, sur- veys, technical reviews, and consider- ation of alternatives. VISION 2020 responded to the need for "a shared vision...that fosters a range of strategies to achieve containment of growth and conservation of open space, better transit and ridesharing use, reduced dependence on single- occupant vehicles, more energy efficient and less - polluting development patterns, and a more equi- table distribution of economic growth that benefits all areas of the region...." At that time, federal law required met- ropolitan areas around the country to have a general transportation strategy to remain eligible for federal transportation funding. VISION 2020 satisfied that requirement for our region. It also re- sponded to other specific and antici- pated requirements in federal and state transportation, air quality, and growth - related laws. Now, new federal and state require- ments, emerging issues, and progress and change require that VISION 2020 be updated. This PROGRESS REPORT is designed to: provide general information about VISION 2020 and how the region has responded so far, identify major issues that must be and could be included in the VISION 2020 update, and stimulate agency and citizen involvement in advancing issues to the next level in the up- coming months. This report has four sections. The In- troduction provides an overview of VISION 2020, the reasons it needs to be updated, some general issues to be addressed, the role of the Puget Sound Regional Council in the update, and a brief description of the update process. Part Two gives examples of progress the region has made related to VISION 2020. Part Three discusses the issues to be addressed in the update. And Part Four indicates how to get involved, and includes a general schedule of events re- lated to the update. What is the "vision" of VISION 2020? Our regional vision in VISION 2020 is for diverse, economically and environ- mentally healthy communities, framed by open space, and connected by a high - quality, efficient transportation system. VISION 2020 calls for containing growth by restricting the expansion of urban areas, thereby limiting the extent of sprawl into surrounding farmlands, forests and open spaces. VISION 2020 is an integrated growth and transportation strategy. It recog- nizes that how we accommodate growth -- where we choose to grow and what areas we choose to protect -- is inextricably linked with how we travel. Where and how development occurs is a key to what kind of transportation is required; where transportation is avail- able, development naturally follows; and the kinds or modes of transporta- tion available can help determine the kind of development that occurs, and can have a major impact on our neigh- borhoods, our communities, and the quality of our lives. This region has achieved national and international recognition for its spec- tacular natural areas and resources, its aerospace, high technology, and other prominent enterprises, and its rising stature in world trade. Recognition and a strong economy bring growth. In the 30 years before VISION 2020 was adopted, our population grew by 1.2 million people; another 1.4 mil- lion residents and 860,000 more jobs are forecast for the region by 2020. The region's growth has fueled a build- ing boom, with new subdivisions, shop- ping malls, office campuses and parking lots consuming land at a fast rate. These sprawling development patterns, together with more people, more cars, and more miles being driven, created traffic con- gestion and worsened air pollution. De- mand for housing pushed housing prices out of reach for many low- income and moderate - income families. • IL -y: •- L.i.xy. "J I /. "•- - / • fir. F,:ri" f..l�f.✓ fij eat • 3 4 ViSIOI1020 VISION 2020 responds to several press- ing questions: Where will the new resi- dents live and work? How will we all get where we need to go? And how can we maintain a high quality of life for future generations? VISION 2020 attempts to answer these questions by focusing development in urban areas and increasing housing op- tions and affordability, to provide more flexibility and choice in where we all live and work, including those who cannot afford their own car or whose mobility is limited due to age or physical challenge. It promotes transportation choices such as transit, carpooling, biking and walk- ing, to slow down the increase in traffic delays, and to provide options to driving alone, to save money, improve air qual- ity, lower fuel consumption, and provide for more efficient freight movement. It seeks to make the best and most effi- cient use of our lands, and preserve open space, resources, natural beauty and rec- reational opportunities. And, it seeks to make the most of our fi- nancial resources, by encouraging growth in areas served by existing public services, and promoting ridesharing for more effi- cient use ofour transportation investments. By establishing a long -term vision for the region, our growth and transporta- tion strategy provides the framework for improved mobility, economic prosper- ity, and environmental protection and enhancement; it provides a guide for local planning efforts, and the means to monitor our collective progress toward these regional goals. Why update VISION 2020 now? The VISION 2020 update is needed to reflect changes to state and federal laws and to keep our collaborative, imagina- tive vision for the year 2020 current and focused. Much has changed since VISION 2020 was adopted in 1990. The most sig- nificant changes have been the passage of the federal Intermodal SurfaceTrans- portation Act (ISTEA) and the state Growth Management Act (GMA). ISTEA requires this region to adopt a Metropolitan Transportation Plan that is much more detailed than the existing transportation provisions of VISION 2020. The GMA requires cities and counties to develop local and county- wide growth management policies and plans; it requires our region to have multicounty growth management poli- cies; and, it requires that plans be con- sistent with each other. VISION 2020 is being updated to re- spond to these mandates and changes through region -wide consideration of: • a detailed MetropolitanTransportation Plan that responds to specific federal deadlines and requirements; • refinements of existing VISION 2020 policies based on local plans and addi- tional policies developed in accordance with the Growth Management Act; • an economic element resulting from the development of a regional economic strategy, and other possible additions based on regional policy work; and • regional benchmarks or "yardsticks" against which our progress toward implementing VISION 2020 can be measured. What are the issues? As we all work together to develop the elements noted above, many questions will be considered, including: How can our land use and transportation decisions and actions be more integrated and complementary to achieve our regional vision? What specific improvements do we want to make to our transportation system over the next 25 years, and how can we pay for them? What will encourage us to choose an alternative to driving alone for at least some of our travel, and how can we manage growth in our communities to be more supportive of transportation alternatives? How can we use growth management and our transportation system to sustain and improve our economy, promote equal opportunity in housing and employment and provide access to transportation for all of us in the region? What regional policies and actions would be useful to local jurisdictions to help focus growth and promote appropriate development in urban areas, and help maintain and enhance the character of communities and rural areas? What is the role of the Regional Council? The Puget Sound Regional Council is a forum created by local governments in the central Puget Sound region to find cooperative solutions to problems that cross jurisdictional boundaries. One of its principal duties under federal and state laws is to maintain, and refine as needed, the region's growth and trans- portation strategy, VISION 2020. Members of the Regional Council indude the four counties, 54 cities and towns, the ports of Everett, Seattle, andTacoma, and the Washington State Department of Transportation andTransportation Com- mission. Island County, theThurston Re- gional Planning Council, and the Port of Bremerton are associate members. The Regional Council is governed by a General Assembly and Executive Board. The General Assembly includes elected officials from all member governments and representatives of the state agencies; it meets at least once annually to make decisions on key issues, including revi- sions to VISION 2020. A 26- member Executive Board of elected officials and state agency representatives meets monthly to carry out delegated powers and responsibilities, and will make final recommen- dations to the General Assembly on VISION 2020 Update issues. Transportation and Growth Management Policy Boards, which include officials from member governments and business, environmental and community rep- resentatives, provide recommendations to the Ex- ecutive Board, including specific advice on issues related to the VISION 2020 Update. Where do we go from here? Issues identified in this Progress Report will be more fully de- veloped and refined throughout 1994 and early 1995. A pre- liminary draft of the VISION 2020 Update will be produced in October. A final draft Update and Supplemental Environ- mental Impact Statement will be released for public review in December, and the Regional Council's General Assembly is scheduled to take action in March 1995. Part Four of this report (pages 41 -43) includes a calendar that identifies the key events and decision points in the update process, and discusses how individuals and organi- zations can get involved. For more information, contact the Puget Sound Regional Council at (206) 464 -7090. 5 6 ViSIOt 020 PART Progress So Far How Are We Doing? VISION 2020 recognizes that the natural environment, the economy, the transportation system, and the hous- ing market all operate beyond the bounds of a single ju- risdiction, and are therefore appropriately examined from a regional perspective. The Growth Management Act (GMA), ISTEA (Intermodal Surface Transportation Ef- ficiency Act) and the federal and state Clean Air Acts provide a strong set of tools for working toward the goals of VISION 2020. Four years after VISION 2020's adoption, it's striking to see the progress we've made through the actions of cities, counties, ports, transportation agencies, businesses, com- munity groups and individuals throughout the region. Through the Regional Council, the re- gion has made major decisions on air transportation capacity, transportation funding priorities, multicounty plan- ning policies, and other regional issues. In cooperation with local jurisdictions, the Regional Council is developing a process to advance consistent planning throughout the region, as required by GMA, so policies and plans developed by cities, counties, transit agencies, and other entities, andVISION 2020, work in concert with each other and help achieve the regional vision. In each county, new multijurisdictional policy and staff groups have been formed to work through key Growth Manage- ment Act issues. Community and neigh- borhood interest and involvement in the planning process has grown and many new citizen groups have been formed to help develop comprehensive plans. Following are examples (not a complete list) of specific steps taken that can help achieve VISION 2020 goals. Some were occurring prior to adoption of VISION 2020, but are noteworthy because they help implement it. Identifying Urban Growth Areas Cities and counties are working coop- eratively to identify urban growth areas. Equalling roughly 1,150 square miles, these areas would accommodate ap- proximately 86 percent of the additional 832,000 people expected in the region by the year 2010, so services can be pro- vided efficiently, and rural areas, open spaces, and resource lands can be saved from sprawling development. Critical Areas, Resource Lands, and Open Space Counties and most cities have desig- nated critical areas, including wetlands, fish and wildlife habitat, floodplains, and geological hazards, and adopted ordinances or regulations protecting these areas. More than a million acres of forest lands, and thousands of acres of other resource lands, including farms and fish and shellfish areas, have been designated to carry on this key economic, environ- mental, cultural and aesthetic feature of our region. King and Snohomish coun- ties have set aside special funds for farm- land preservation. Thousands of acres of open space have been set aside. Snohomish County has acquired approximately 2,140 acres of open space since 1990, and King County passed a $117 million open space bond in 1989 to purchase approxi- mately 4,250 acre of open space and 125 miles of trails. So far, more than 2,800 acres of open space have been purchased, including the 800 -acre Redmond wa- tershed and 633 acres of open space on the East Sammamish Plateau. Kitsap and Pierce counties have made signifi- cant progress as well. Major Urban Center Designation and Development Local jurisdictions are selecting major urban centers as locations for concen- trated growth. Urban centers have been proposed or designated in Bellevue, Bothell, Bremerton, Everett, Federal Way, Kent, Kirkland, Lynnwood, Puyallup, Redmond, Renton, SeaTac, Seattle, Tacoma, Tukwila and Snohomish and Pierce counties. Bellevue has shown that centers can be livable and accessible. The downtown, where more than 23,000 people work, many in high rises, includes a regional shopping mall, convention cen- ter, regional library, motels and hotels, several housing developments, a major transit center, and a 20 -acre park. Increased transit service, reduced parking re- quirements, and design for a vital pedestrian environ- ment help reduce auto use. Downtown Everett features a new community theater, offices, banking and retail space being developed, a remodeled and expanded library, and a significant amount of new affordable housing. Tacoma has purchased nearly 27 acres of former indus- trial lands along theThea Foss Waterway for redevelop- ment as landscaped parks, waterfront promenades, urban shopping playas, residential villages, scenic viewpoints, office and retail developments and cultural facilities. In the past two years, the 80 -year old Union Station re- opened as a federal courthouse and ground was broken on the adjoining site for a new $38 million Washington State History Museum. Nearby, an historic warehouse district is the future permanent site of the University of Washington Tacoma Branch Campus. 1 8 WSION1141020 Creating Complete, Compact Communities Jefferson Square and Madison Valley in Seattle and Winslow Green on Bainbridge Island are examples of lively neighborhoods in which housing, shopping, recreation and other urban activities are within walking distance of each other. Each of the counties and several cities including Bremerton, Everett, Federal Way, Renton, SeaTac, Seattle, Sumner and Tacoma are also identifying neighborhood centers that will enable more people to live near transit, stores, jobs, recreation and other acitivities. Seattle plans to accommodate approximately 45,000 new households and 120,000 new jobs within urban centers and a network of urban villages. Housing for a range of age and income needs, easy transit access, and public open space, schools, and grocery stores would be within walk- ing distance of residents. The goal of the proposed Seattle Commons on South Lake Union is to create a thriving urban community where people can live, work and play without needing a car. Mill Creek is putting together a new town center that focuses on accessibil- ity through transit and walking, and includes housing, retail, offices, a com- munity center, a plaza for public gath- erings and outdoor sports courts. In King County and the cities of Sno- homish, Lynnwood, DuPont, Sumner, Bainbridge Island, Gig Harbor, and Kirkland, attractive single- family resi- dences have been developed or are planned at densities ranging from 6 to 14 units per acre. These densities sup- port transit, increase housing choices, and enable residences to be closer to shops, parks, and other amenities. Local jurisdictions and agencies have begun or completed design guidelines and standards for creating livable, af- fordable and efficient places where tran- sit and walking are easier and a "sense of community" is strong. Examples in- clude The Residential Development Handbook for Snohomish County Com- munities and SNO- TRAN's Guide to Land Use and Public Transportation. Redeveloping Urban Transportation Corridors Throughout the region, jurisdictions are planning to revitalize urban transporta- tion corridors that have been prone to strip development. Plans for Aurora Avenue North and North 175th Street in King County include a transit station served by underground parking, a covered Saturday market, a govern- ment center, open space and plazas, re- tail and office buildings, and multi - family housing. Tukwila is look- ing at ways of enhancing the safety, vi- tality and visual interest of major transportation corridors identified along Interurban Avenue, Pacific Highway South, and Southcenter Boulevard. In IGtsap County, design guidelines for Kingston, including a 1 -mile portion of the SR 104 corridor, were developed to address location of parking and access points, building orientation, land use mix, and improvements in pedestrian access, signage and landscaping. Jurisdictions in Pierce and Snohomish counties also are planning for transportation corridors. Diversity and Choice in Housing and Employment Policy groups in Snohomish and Pierce counties have adopted procedures to eq- uitably distribute future low and mod- erate income housing among the cities and unincorporated areas. Kirkland, Bellevue, Redmond and King County formed A Regional Coalition for Hous- ing (ARCH) to increase the supply of affordable housing on the eastside of King County; in its first year, ARCH funded 9 projects that will provide over 135 units of affordable housing. A public - private partnership of business, labor, government, education, and eco- nomic development groups completed an in -depth analysis of the region's economy as the first phase of a Regional Economic Strategy Work now under- way includes identifying strategic eco- nomic opportunities and analyzing the region's institutional resources. Based on this work, an action plan will be de- veloped. And within each of the coun- ties, economic strategies are being developed and implemented. High Capacity Transit Planning VISION 2020 provided the framework for developing an initial Regional Tran- sit System Plan. A Regional Transit Authority was formed to review and re- fine a plan for consideration by the vot- ers in King, Pierce and Snohomish counties in 1995, and jurisdictions have begun to plan for high capacity transit stations, including potential station area sites and land uses and design around those sites. Through the collaborative Lynnwood Legacy planning project, Lynnwood cre- ated a vision for the areas surrounding two stations proposed as part of the re- gional transit system plan. The vision advances compatible land uses and transportation facilities, reduced single occupant auto use, increased transit use, and enhanced pedestrian movement. Tacoma, Puyallup, Sumner, Seattle, Auburn, Kent, Renton and Tukwila, together with Regional Transit Author- ity, Metro and Pierce Transit, have ini- tiated station area planning for commuter rail. Seattle, Everett and 9 0 ViSIONN 020 Tacoma among others are moving forward with plans for developing multi -modal terminals where trav- ellers could transfer directly among a variety of transportation modes, including buses, taxis, and rail systems. In Bremerton, the ferry terminal is being trans- formed into a multimodal regional transporta- tion plaza. A hotel with convention facilities, specialty retail and offices, restaurants, resi- dences, permanent farmers market and a public plaza are planned within walking distance of the terminal. Moving People Rather Than Cars In October 1993, the Regional Council ap- proved a three -year, $1.4 billion Transportation Improvement Program to finance the design and construction of 127 miles of bicycle lanes and pedestrian facilities, the design of 207 miles of HOV lanes, increases in ferry and transit ser- vice, and construction along 77 miles of tradi- tional roadways. Managing Transportation Demand The state's 1991 Commute Trip Reduc- tion Law requires major employers to institute programs to reduce commute trips 35 percent by 1999 to help main- tain air quality. In this region, 39 juris- dictions, 700 worksites, and approximately 320,000 jobs are cur- rently affected by this law. All affected jurisdictions in the region have adopted implementing ordinances, and all af- fected employers have submitted ap- proved programs. At the University of Washington, the U- Pass Program initiated by Metro, Com- munity Transit, the City of Seattle and the UW encourages employees and stu- dents to use transit. Of 50,000 people in the University community, more than 36,000 are participating, with transit trips up 35 percent and vanpools up 200 percent. Enhancements for Transit and Other High Occupancy Vehicles Transit centers in downtown Bellevue and Tacoma and at the Northgate, Tacoma and Lakewood malls integrate transportation and commerce. The transit center in Tacoma's Broadway Theatre District includes a hillclimb with fountains and waterfalls, and the newest of three performing arts theaters in the district was constructed above a bus turn - around facility. The Downtown Seattle Transit Tunnel provides an attractive, sheltered, safe and efficient way for downtown commuters to use transit, and removes 843 daily bus trips from downtown streets, signifi- cantly reducing noise, diesel emissions and congestion in the downtown area. Transit service in the region has ex- panded. Pierce Transit added express bus service betweenTacoma and Seattle, expanded its service area in Orting, on the Gig Harbor Peninsula, and in south Pierce County, and has begun a Bikes and Bus program, enabling riders to bring their bikes onto any bus in the system. The Washington State Department of Transportation is expanding ferry ser- vice with the addition of passenger -only runs between Seattle and Vashon and between Bremerton and Seattle, and additional passenger service planned at Kingston and Southworth. Other recent enhancements include construc- tion of a new terminal building in Kingston and access improvements at Colman Dock. Bicycle and Pedestrian Trails Throughout the region, a network of pedestrian /bike rights of ways and trails is being designed and developed to pro- vide interconnected non - motorized ac- cess. For example, more than a dozen local jurisdictions and agencies in King, Pierce and Snohomish counties are piec- ing together the InterurbanTrail system. When complete, the trail will extend from Everett to Tacoma, linking numer- ous cities in between and providing a new route to access jobs and shopping, or just for recreation. In Kitsap County, work is underway on a countywide greenway master plan to define and implement connections be- tween educational and recreational fa- cilities, major employment centers, residences, and transit facilities. The goal of this project is not only to ad- dress recreation needs, but also to en- courage bicycling and walking as means of commuting. The Next Steps These examples of progress are impres- sive, but only a beginning. Our quality of life already is threatened by traffic congestion, sprawl and related concerns. Adding 1.4 million people to the region over the next 25 years will create sig- nificant additional demand for efficient transportation, affordable housing, and productive employment in livable com- munities. Updating our regional vision can help accomplish these goals. 11 The VISION2O2O Update The Issues are intertwined . . Metropolitan Transportation Plan 4 12 VISlO O20 Every major metropolitan region in the country is struggling with issues related to growth, transportation and the economy. However, compared to many areas, the quality of our environment, the health of our cities, and the strength of our economy give us significant advan- tages, and are major reasons why tens of thousands of people move here every year. Another advantage is that we do have an existing, integrated growth and trans- portation strategy upon which to base many of the decisions and actions that are required. When transportation and land use decisions are not made in con- cert with each other, the resulting pat- tern of development is not likely to help people travel most efficiently, and fewer transportation options are likely to be available. And when consideration is not given to economic concerns, trans- portation investments and new devel- opment may not make their best possible contribution to sustaining and improving the economy. VISION 2020 is a solid foundation upon which to build an even more de- tailed and integrated strategy. Accord- ingly, the VISION 2020 update will consider ways to strengthen and fill in gaps in existing growth management provisions, add a significantly greater level of detail to its transportation ele- ments to meet federal and state require- ments, and incorporate new provisions relating to the economy and measuring performance. AddingA Metropolitan Transportation Plan The most substantial change that must be made to VISION 2020 through the current update is the addition of a de- tailed MetropolitanTransportation Plan (MTP). The transportation system de- scribed in the existing VISION 2020 document is highly conceptual. Under federal law, we now must expand VISION 2020 to specifically include elements that address the region's long - range plans for: • roads, including major highways, arterials, and high occupancy vehicle (HOV) lanes; • transit, including a specific proposal related to the proposed three- county Regional Transit Project; • marine (the ferry system); • freight and goods movement; • non - motorized transportation such as bicycles and walking; • and aviation. The MTP also must include a greater level of detail in describing our long- term transportation strategies and in- vestments, including: • the steps we'll take to manage con- gestion and influence demand, so more people will be able and willing to choose alternatives to driving alone; • how we'll maintain and preserve our transportation system for maximum efficiency and safety; • and how we will pay for our plans. The MTP will be the region's first state- ment oflong -range transportation plan- ning goals,- strategies and actions that directly responds to new federal and state laws -- the federal Intermodal Sur- face Transportation Efficiency Act (IST- EA), the federal and state Clean Air Acts, and the state Growth Management Act (GMA). These laws require a comprehensive ap- proach to regional transportation plan- ning that recognizes the integration of land use, transportation and air quality, and that attempts to balance mobility, growth management, environmental protection, economic development, and fairness. The plan also must ensure the region maintains federal air quality stan- dards, to avoid punitive sanctions, in- cluding a cutoff of federal transportation. funding. What are the problems? We are like every other major region of the country — we love the freedom Char cars provide. But we've gotmore people, more cars, and more miles being driven. From 1981 to 1991... • Population — up 20 percent, 2.3 mil- lion to 2.8 million • Registered vehicles — up 40 percent, 1.9 million to 2.7 million • Total miles driven daily (weekday) - - up 80 percent, from 30 million to 55 million And, more people are driving alone, and a.smaller percentage are using. transit. According to U.S. Census data, the pro- portion of workers in the region who drove: alone to work increased from 64 percent in 1980 to 73 percent in 1990, 13 14 YiSIOR020 while the proportion of all trips by tran- sit declined from 5.2 percent to 3.3 per- cent. A significant part of the problem is land use patterns, with dispersed de- velopment throughout the region mov- ing people farther and farther away from major employment centers and making transit connections more difficult and costly to implement. One reason more cars are on the road is that more people are working. Between 1980 and 1990, the proportion of women age 16 and over in the region who worked increased from less than 60 percent to 67.5 percent, and the total adult population that worked grew from 71.6 percent to 75.4 percent. With fewer adults staying at home, more trips are being made per household, many for purposes other than work. From 1971 to 1987, the average num- ber of daily trips per household increased from 7.73 to 9.89. That translates into about 4 million more auto trips per day in the region. In the face of increasing congestion, there is greater need to make sure freight and goods get to market to keep our economy strong. Excellent port terminals and our rail and highway systems helped make our re- gion competitive with otherWest Coast ports. But in the future it may be diffi- cult to keep up with the expected growth in cargo handling. More than 27 per- cent of the international cargo contain- ers now move through the ports at Seattle andTacoma, up from 23 percent in 1980, and the ports are projecting as much as 50 to 80 percent growth by the year 2003. All these trends are making travel more of a challenge, and a threat to our air quality and quality of life. Anyone who travels in the region during "peak" hours knows how congested traffic can be. Peak period vehicle miles travelled, traf- fic delay and congestion are forecast to increase significantly by the year 2020. How does VISION 2020 respond to these transportation challenges? As an integrated growth and transpor- tation strategy, VISION 2020 can mini- mize these growing problems with compact, people- oriented living and working places that could have a posi- tive influence on the performance of the region's transportation system. • But it also requires that we redirect our transportation investment decisions from the old way -- mostly building more roads -- to investing in a balance of options that are based upon a broader vision of what our region can and should be. We began this change as a region through our 1994- 96Trans- portation Improvement Program (see page 10). Transit and Ridesharing. VISION 2020 em- phasizes transit and ridesharing invest- ments to support the focus of growth within the urban area. It heavily em- phasizes movement of people, rather than just moving cars, especially during peak periods. In addition to a regional rapid transit sys- tem, VISION 2020 calls for 300 miles of high occupancy vehicle (HOV) lanes; an additional 20,000 park- and -ride spaces to provide improved transit and HOV lane access; an additional 135 route miles of passenger ferry service; and ex- tensive local transit improvements to sup- port access to regional rapid transit, passenger ferry service, and centers, and to improve neighborhood circulation. Highway Improvements. VISION 2020 also calls for widening 60 miles of freeway and constructing 10 miles of new free- way, widening 250 miles of regional ar- terials, and improving auto ferry capacity. It assumes continued mainte- nance of the existing and planned sys- tem to keep it efficient and safe. These improvements would provide additional east -west access; assure access to a regional transit system and centers; complete key network linkages and ex- pand capacity to improve circulation to and among centers and non - center ma- jor employment areas; improve highway efficiency; and control access on high- ways that traverse rural areas to protect them from urban development. Demand Management. VISION 2020 em- phasizes managing transportation demand to reinforce investments in transit and ridesharing, and reduce the rate of sprawl. Specific programs rec- ommended include telecommuting, compressed work weeks, parking prices and other strategies that discourage driv- ing alone, and other incentives and dis- incentives. What additional transportation provisions are necessary? Now, under federal law, the general strat- egies in VISION 2020 must be devel- oped in much greater detail. We must decide what we want, how to accom- plish it, and how to pay for it. ISTEA emphasizes that metropolitan transportation plans should: • be "multimodal," providing a vari- ety of modes or options to move people, goods and services; • promote "intermodalism," improv- ing connections to ensure efficient and user - friendly transfers from one mode of travel to another; and • ensure that the transportation system is maintained for efficiency and safety. There is a recognition in ISTEA that neither the federal government nor the metropolitan regions can make massive investments similar to the interstate highway program. Instead, the MTP must demonstrate how we will target investments to enhance and manage the system efficiently. In developing the Metropolitan Trans- portation Plan, the people, local govern- ments, businesses and interests of the 15 16 YiSIO 020 region, working through the Regional Council, will have to do more than de- cide what kind of projects we want to build over the long term to coincide with each of the elements noted above (see page 12). We can't build our way out of conges- tion. We lack the financial capacity, and have little control over demographic and socioeconomic changes that in many in- stances are the result of national and in- ternational forces. It is no longer realistic to assume we can eliminate congestion or automobile de- pendency, but we can minimize them. To do so, however, while maintaining federal air quality standards, we will need to do more than implement the projects and programs identified in VI- SION . 2020's current transportation component. This will require changes to the "oper- ating environment" in which transpor- tation choices are made. Elements of this operating environment include ex- isting land use; the degree of access to various forms of transportation; the ac- tual costs involved in providing, oper- ating and using various forms of transportation; the price and availabil- ity of fuel; and fiscal and taxation poli- cies which may provide incentives or disincentives to use various forms of transportation. New and expanded transportation fa- cilities will help us meet future travel demand to move people, freight and services, but major changes in the oper- ating environment will help ensure that our infrastructure is used efficiently and wisely. Some questions to be answered in developing the MTP... Do we continue to focus primarily on commutes to and from work? - Transportation planning for most ma- jor future investments in capacity ex- pansion (highway and transit) focus largely on commute trips (20% of daily travel), but tend to neglect the other 80% of daily travel. Do we continue to emphasize long trips, or short trips? - Current long -range plans for regional transportation systems tend to empha- size transportation system capacity in- vestments on facilities serving long trips (greater than 10 miles) rather than short trips (less than 10 miles). Yet the average daily trip length in 1990 was about 6.3 miles, 82% of current daily travel involves trips un- der 10 miles, and 55% of daily trips are under 5 miles. How do we ensure that people can get efficiendy to and from work? Continued growth and decentraliza- tion of jobs outside of both older tra- ditional and new emerging centers results in increasingly complex travel patterns and difficult employment ac- cess from centers to decentralized em- ployment sites. How can we make communities more bicycle and pedestrian friendly? - General lack of pedestrian and bicycle - friendly urban design at the commu- nity level, and the lack of a regionwide non - motorized transportation net- work, reinforces auto dependency for mobility. How do we balance our transportation priorities for less auto dependency? - Since the 1940s, transportation pric- ing and investments have historically favored highways. How do we make sure our transportation system serves the needs of all people in the region? - ISTEA specifically requires that our plans and programs consider the spe- cial needs of central city areas, includ- ing employment access and mobility for the young, elderly, disabled and low income populations. What effect can the "information superhighway" have on transportation demand? How can we link our transportation investments to our economic development objectives? How do we balance "competing" policy objectives such as access, mobility, and congestion management with economic growth and environmental concerns? Defining an implementation strategy In developing the Metropolitan Trans- portation Plan to respond to these and other issues, the Regional Council will be working with local governments, or- ganizations and individuals throughout the region to develop several major al- ternative implementation strategies, and performance goals and objectives to evaluate them. These alternative implementation strat- egies will be based on VISION 2020 and local government planning under the Growth Management Act, and will not focus exclusively on existing and new facilities, but will be "packages" that include alternative assumptions about the overall operating environment in which transportation choices are made. The strategies also assume an incremen- tal investment approach for system im- provements over the next 25 years. Package 1 will include the existing re- gional transportation network, plus all major transportation projects and pro- grams that either are funded or have a reasonable assurance of being funded from current revenue sources between now and the year 2020. This package assumes no new transportation revenues become available to the region. Package 2 will include all facilities in Package 1, plus moderate increases in transit, HOV and highway capacity, as- suming some additional transportation 17 18 ViSI01020 revenues are obtained. The major fo- cus of Package 2, however, will be in- creased system /demand management investment, the inclusion of some type of congestion pricing program and a modest start on a regional rail system. Package 3 will consist of the facilities identified in Packages 1 and 2, plus a ma- jor investment in transit /rail operations and infrastructure, and an expanded HOV system for which funding does not currently exist. As required by federal law, these imple- mentation alternatives will be analyzed to determine the extent to which they address the following considerations: • Maintenance of the current transpor- tation system • Safety • Overall system management • Overall demand management • Increases in transportation supply (capacity expansion) • Access opportunities to various modes of transportation • Equity with respect to equal oppor- tunity for transportation services Defining each of the three packages will require regional consensus as to assump- tions regarding the types, extent, sched- ules of projects /programs included. Ultimately, a preferred implementation strategy must be adopted, which could be a hybrid of the three packages. How can we make the transportation strategies in VISION 2020 work? To be a successful growth and transpor- tation strategy, VISION 2020 will re- quire many kinds of decisions and actions by people and interests through- out this region. In addition to manag- ing growth, we'll need to consider changing some habits and attitudes. A New Transportation Ethic. Just as a new recycling ethic changed many habits in the 1980s, a new transportation ethic would promote the use of alternatives to the automobile, combining travel needs into fewer individual trips, driv- ing the speed limit, and respecting pe- destrians and bicyclists. All of us need increased awareness of the costs of con- gestion and diminished air quality and how we could change our transporta- tion behavior to reduce these problems and improve the livability of our com- munities. Investments that Favor Efficiency. Targeted investments could provide opportuni- ties for greater personal convenience and efficiency by reducing the number of vehicle trips and vehicle miles traveled per household and per job, rather than stimulating inefficient travel demand. The power of the public sector to influ- ence effective real estate design and de- velopment, through zoning and subdivision regulations and related pro- vision of infrastructure and services, could be used to ensure more efficient use of existing and planned investments and promote livable communities. Expanded Choices. The basic human right to walk safely in our communities should be given a high priority in de- ciding what kind of transportation projects we want. Use of public trans- portation is sharply diminished when access to and from transit by walking and bicycling is inadequate. Investments in sidewalks, bicycle paths and lanes, and traffic calming in local neighborhoods could be accompanied by changes in local zoning, site plan- ning, and street design standards, to encourage the use of alternative forms of transportation. Combined with in- vestments in public transit and more balanced transportation pricing policies, these steps could produce long -term congestion relief and community livabil- ity benefits. Changes in Pricing. Market -based strate- gies can encourage efficient consumer choice of transportation resources through appropriate pricing. A key place to start is to identify hidden sub- sidies (e.g., parking subsidies) which now strongly encourage overuse of the automobile and resultant sprawl devel- opment. Parking fees and excise taxes can modify transportation demand. So can charging more direct user fees for the external costs of automobile use (e.g., fees based on vehicle miles trav- eled, congestion pricing, automated toll collections). Any pricing programs adopted should ensure that lower in- come individuals do not suffer dimin- ished accessibility to transportation services. Many of these changes represent a new way of thinking about transportation in an auto- depen- dent nation. However, our region can be a leader in advancing these changes. The region offers more transportation choices than most metropoli- tan areas, and collectively we have a high level of environmental consciousness and concern for our high quality of life. Translating these feelings into transportation decisions and actions can improve our mobility, air quality and the generally high livability of our communities. Note: A Baseline /framework Report; which provides much more detail on the issues involved in developing a Metropolitan Transportation Plan for the central Puget Sound region, is available from the Regional Council Information Center. Call (206) 464 -7531 for more information. 19 Refining the Regional Strategy Land use that supports the region's trans- portation system is essential to achiev- ing our regional vision. Sprawled development leaves residents with few options to using their cars, swallows up open space, and drives up the cost of providing essential public services. Compact development that supports transportation alternatives can produce thriving, people - friendly com- munities, preserve natural areas, and help make the most productive and ef- ficient use of public investments. And integrating transportation and land use with economic development needs and initiatives can help sustain and enhance our regional economy. The requirement for a Metropolitan Transportation Plan provides an oppor- tunity to make other significant and timely refinements to our regional strat- egy, by incorporating policies resulting from local and countywide planning efforts, filling in gaps in existing regional policies, and adding complementary details and new elements. With these considerations in mind, elected and agency officials and business, environment and community represen- tatives on the Regional Council identi- fied specific issue areas that merit attention in the VISION 2020 Update, including centers, high capacity transit station areas, areas outside of centers, rural areas and open space, an economic element, and performance monitoring. Centers A regional system of compact central places, framed by open space and con- nected by expanded transit and passen- ger ferry service, is a key component of VISION 2020. Though they are only a small part of the urban area, the highest density central places, called centers, are the focus for em- ployment and housing growth and would be connected by regional rapid transit. These centers are lively, people- oriented, downtown -type places. Other kinds of central places, including activity dusters Metropolitan Center, Downtown Everett An example of increased density and land use mix in Everett's metropolitan center through addition of housing, offices, shops and restaurants Awnings, landscaping and other amenities help create a "pedestrian- friendly" atmosphere and strengthen the link to Everett's waterfront . Based on Everett's Community Image Preference Report, Central Business District policies and discussions with city staff. 21 and small towns, would grow to meet local population needs, but would not be the focus of regional growth. The VISION 2020 central place strat- egy has provided the framework for subsequent local development of cen- ter definitions and criteria in county- wide policies and comprehensive plans. Jurisdictions have added and subtracted center types, and the central place names, definitions and multicounty • policies in VISION 2020 need to be updated to reflect local work and re- sult in a consistent set of guidelines. For example, jurisdictions in King and Snohomish counties filled a gap in the existing VISION 2020 strategy by es- tablishing a center type called "manu- 12 VISION O2O facturing /industrial centers," defined as major employment areas containing manufacturing and other non - office uses which cannot easily be mixed at higher densities with other uses. The VISION 2020 update provides an opportunity to advance centers imple- mentation strategies such as: 1. Supporting regulatory reform, to streamline development permit re- view processes so local jurisdictions can reduce review time and increase the attractiveness of centers for de- velopment. This would involve co- ordination with the Governor's Regulatory Reform Task Force, which is looking statewide at streamlining regulations. 2. Providing a regional forum for work- ing with financiers, developers, build- ers, service providers, local jurisdictions and others to identify and address obstacles and incentives to centers development. 3. Coordinating with SNO-TRAN, Snohomish County's long range pub- lic transportation planning agency, on an urban center incremental develop- ment study which may have applica- tion throughout the region. SNO- TRAN's project, scheduled for completion in November 1994, is designed to help Local governments and transit agencies take incremental steps toward conversion of existing and suburban development to be- come transit and pedestrian friendly. - -a ..s .�. �!! tG t� ; /'i7 / %�y.Cr�'' .11(/ �. \1�'YjIL�W��,(�� ', . �..� •:�� • -� -r:r - ,��e �- �if.T9: ?, dr J ' 'A. 4 —4. Yilf`I } '��'�i'1�\' �� `y ��`�► • ,1 Central Business District Center; Thea Foss Wzterway Tacoma A draft illustration of plans to redevelop nearly 27 acres of former industrial lands as urban shopping plazas, residential villages, offices, landscaped parks, waterfront promenades, scenic viewpoints and cultural facilities. Pedestrian connections would link the waterway to the rest of the city's downtown. Based on Tacoma's Thea Foss Waterway Design and Development Plan and discussions with city staff. 23 24 ViSI01► 020 High Capacity Transit Station Areas High capacity transit stations are places where people gather -- by foot, bicycle, cars and transit. High capacity transit vehicles, such as express buses, ferries and trains, carry large numbers of people from stations to work, school, home or recreation. VISION 2020 does not specifically dis- cuss high capacity transit station areas or differentiate station areas from centers. VISION 2020 provides guidance for pedestrian pockets, which are new com- munities developed at regional rapid tran- sit stations that include different uses mixed together enabling people to walk easily from one place to another. However, issues such as access, land use mix and density, and design for the range of different types of station areas are not addressed. The existing policies do not speak to the character of different station area types such as rapid rail stations, com- muter rail stations, ferry terminals, ma- jor bus centers, or major park- and -ride facilities, and the different land use and transportation objectives of these stations. • ,r1171�!�' ,-M� / . ii /f,.. Numerous jurisdictions throughout the U.S. and Canada provide examples of how land use and investment policies influence the success of high capacity transit. Portland, Sacramento, Atlanta and Vancouver, B.C., have integrated land use and investment policies with rapid transit decisions to focus housing, retail, employment and leisure activities within walking distance of transit sta- tions. The development of some form of high capacity transit system in the central Puget Sound region is a key to the suc- cessful implementation of VISION 2020. A system of relatively dense, I `y- :._r • t •� i-r7', / - - 7:4 -p. t,,.. :„.......„....,..$ -_,..._::,_. ... ,..,i, • ..1"-..,-, 4 - -_,*.:14,1V,,ot ;ic:1- ri 0. �• • •S- ,. �-, # • %•r•' iii `= ! : ��'�.: -. =.j "- / /i'.i. ......... -.;,. 3�lg1 ∎i1I 1 Fi , /� f _i -�_, ;aii awfi ;i �:: •• / //d // i -' k7 , ,1,..; 2 ... U� l'1nj11 e;�l..i • 4 Al • • • Transit Station Area, NE 40th and 156th Street, Redmond An example of development of a high capacity transit station within walking distance of high density residences and one of the regions major employers, located within Redmond s high technology corridor. Adjacent to the station are stores, restaurants, offices and other uses. Based on discussions with city staff. 25 Transit Station Area, Downtown Waterfront District, Bremerton An example of how a vibrant, high density area could be created near a high capacity transit station. This draft illustration shows plans to add offices, residences, a public plaza, a hotel with convention facilities, specialty retail, res- taurants and a permanent farmers market within walk- ing distance of a new trans- portation plaza and ferry terminal. Based on conceptual plans for development in downtown Bremer- ton and discussions with city staff.. livable, efficient station areas would pro- vide ridership for the transit system and serve as a nucleus for developing urban centers and activity centers throughout the region. Many local jurisdictions and agencies are working on plans for variety of types of station areas. Several cities have begun planning with transit agencies for com- muter rail station areas. Planning is un- derway for the areas surrounding ferry terminals in Bremerton, Edmonds and other locations to address issues such as pedestrian and vehicle access and land use mix and density. In Snohomish, King and Pierce counties, local jurisdic- tions and transit agencies are preparing plans for dense, livable areas surround- ing potential rapid transit stations. The Regional Transit System Plan calls for minimum standards for develop- ment in the vicinity of transit stations to ensure regional consistency commen- surate with investment in stations. As part of the Metropolitan Transpor- tation Plan update, the Regional Coun- cil is working with transportation interests and local governments to draft development guidelines, standards and policies for areas around different types of transit stations, including rail, bus, ferry and multimodal facilities. The VISION 2020 update provides an opportunity to draw upon this work, and strengthen and clarify our regional vision for high capacity transit station areas, by considering issues such as: 1. The different types and functions of transit stations (including ferry ter- minals). 2. Standards or guidelines that could ensure regional consistency in station area development commensurate with transit investments, and how these standards and guidelines could be implemented by regional and lo- cal governments and agencies. • 21 Areas Outside Centers While urban centers are a priority for development, they will account for only part of the region's future growth. Ur- ban areas outside centers, roughly 97 percent of the region's urban land area, were home to about 90 percent of the population and 58 percent of the em- ployment in 1990. Though centers are planned for large increases in popula- tion and employment, a significant share of the region's growth is expected to oc- cur in urban areas outside centers dur- ing the next 20 years. VISION 2020 discusses the general character of growth in urban areas. However, it does not recognize urban areas outside of centers as special areas or offer significant regional guidance to preserve and enhance the vitality of ex- 28 VISION:O2O isting communities and to ensure that development is compact and increases the completeness of these communities. The VISION 2020 update will consider three types of development outside of centers. Compact Communities. In many instances, suburban development forces people to use their cars for even the most basic errands. Homes are in one location, schools and parks in another, shops and jobs someplace else. Disconnected streets, few sidewalks, large lots, multi- lane streets, and shopping malls with acres of parking make it easier and more appealing to travel by car than by any other means. Much of the suburban development over the past 40 years does not provide people with the option of meeting daily needs through transit, walking or biking. Also, houses empty during the day can be susceptible to crime. Sense of com- munity may be limited if residents have little time for neighbors or local civic activities. The standard three- bedroom house on a large lot in a subdivision may not meet the needs or preferences of households which are becoming a larger share of the population: the elderly, single - parent families, and childless couples, as well as couples with children who would like to spend more time with families and less time driving. The update could attempt to clarify the regional vision for compact communi- ties and recognize their importance in implementing VISION 2020 by discussing the need for a regional model that encourages: 1. The location of transit stops and neighborhood scale retail and offices within walking distance of existing residences. 2. Increased housing choices and resi- dential density without loss of char- acter by allowing infill housing such as accessory units. 3. More transportation choices, includ- ing opportunities to use transit, to walk and to cycle to nearby places of work and activity. 4. Improved connections between nearby communities for transit, bi- cydes and other non-single occupant vehicle travel modes. AtalL•4•'' • '1"." Compact and Complete Community Dash Point Road and 312 Street SW Federal Way An example of development that promotes walking and transit in an existing urban area A neighborhood commercial center provides stores, restaurants, day care and other services within walking distance of residences. Transit stops, a recreation center, and school facilities are also nearby. Housing serves different ages and incomes, including seniors. Based on Federal Way's Draft Land Use Element and discussions with city staff. . Urban Transportation Corridors. Urban trans- portation corridors provide another op- portunity for development that enhances the regional growth and trans- portation strategy. Corridors range from low- density com- mercial strip areas to urban neighbor- hoods. The primary function of transportation corridors varies from in- ter -urban transportation arteries to pro- viders of local and regional services. Many transportation corridors are prod- ucts of our automobile- oriented society, resulting in underutilized land, a sea of parking lots, and a lack of pedestrian amenities and landscaping. They often are poorly connected to neighborhoods and other adjacent uses. A multitude of signs and overhead utilities and un- coordinated building design contribute to a chaotic appearance. Toronto, and jurisdictions in Colorado, Michigan, Florida and Massachusetts, provide examples of reurbanization along main streets and arterials that cre- ate a community focus, providing a sense of place, local services and ameni- ties that people can walk to from sur- rounding neighborhoods. Transportation corridor planning and revitalization projects and strategies have been initiated in each of the four coun- ties and several cities in the region, in- cluding Bremerton, Port Orchard, Everett, Tukwila and SeaTac. Many corridors are significantly underutilized and could accommodate additional development. Existing con- centrations of residences are often located within walking distance of cor- ridors. Several corridors in the region are major transit routes which connect activity centers. Adding or restoring population and jobs to these corridors could significantly increase transit use and support improved service. Corridors could augment the imple- mentation of VISION 2020 by support- ing efficient and effective transit service, improved pedestrian access and greater land use intensity and mix. We could strengthen our vision for urban trans- portation corridors by encouraging a re- gional development form that would: 1. Address the differ- ent types and functions of trans- portation corri- dors. 2. Promote the addi- tion of transit facilities, neigh- borhood retail, housing and amenities such as landscaping to make certain types of corridors more transit and pedes- trian compatible and reduce the domination of auto- oriented uses. 3. Support connections between urban transportation corridors and adjoin- ing neighborhoods to make corridors useful for nearby residents. Urban Transportation Corridor, Aurora Avenue and North 130th, Seattle An example of how an urban transportation corridor could be redeveloped to provide stores and jobs for nearby residents, support transit service, create a pleasant walking environment, and contribute to community focus. Based on Seattle's Draft Comprehensive Plan and discussions with city staff. 31 32 ViSION11020 Raw Land Conversion to Urban Uses. The Growth Management Act requires the designation of urban growth areas suf- ficient to accommodate 20 years of ur- ban growth. The typical pattern for developing land in this region is based on a premise that no longer holds true today. That premise is that families are large and have only one breadwinner, that jobs are downtown, and that land and energy are endless. The result is often large -lot residential subdivisions with disconnected street patterns and few sidewalks. Many communities are beginning to take a different approach. In Maryland, Florida, California, Massachusetts and Virginia, communities have been devel- oped that exemplify a new image for sub- urban development. Housing is located within walking distance of shops, small offices, parks and other activities. Hous- ing types are varied, and could include single family homes on standard or small lots, attached single - family houses or small groups of apartments. Streets are direct and connected, with sidewalks to encourage walking; open space, includ- ing parks and other recreational areas, are also included in the development. In Pierce County, the City of DuPont is incorporating many of these concepts into alternative land use plans for North- west Landing, a 3,000 -acre mixed use project that will provide more land for employment and less for residences than other planned communities in the region. A large proportion of residents can live within walking distance of commercial services, schools and parks. A greater variety of housing options, including multi -family units and single - family resi- dences on small lots are included. De- sign features include sidewalks and bicycle paths, alleys and front porches. Efficient conversion of undeveloped lands to urban uses can conserve land and natural resources, provide appropri- ate density to improve transit service and reduce reliance on automobiles, reduce commuting time and costs, and allow the elderly and young to walk to the store, movies or visit friends. People of various incomes and ages can live and work within a community. By drawing upon the framework which VISION 2020 provides, we could strengthen our vision for conversion of undeveloped lands by encouraging a re- gional development form that advances: 1. Greater diversity of lot sizes and housing types to provide more choices and enable people of differ- ent ages and incomes to live within a community. 2. Development of more complete communities that include stores, small offices, transit stops, schools and recreation within walking dis- tance of residences. 3. A network of streets, alleys and paths that supports efficient travel for ve- hicles, pedestrians and bicycles, and integrates developing areas with es- tablished areas to allow most resi- dents to walk to stores, transit and other major activities. 4. Incentives to encourage development of "master plans" for large areas. Master plans allow developers to construct various parts of a commu- nity in coordination over time as the market develops. Conversion of Undeveloped Land Within the Urban Growth Area into New Neighborhoods, Snohomish County An example of how undeveloped land within the urban growth area could be efficiently converted to neighborhoods, where shops, transit and parks are within walking distance of residences. Housing choices meet the needs of people of different ages and incomes. Based on Snohomish County's Residential Development Handbook and discussions with Snohomish County staff. 33 y;_'� J ;OP ';10:77‘`..,— c: 34 ViSIOR020 Rural Areas and Open Space Protecting and managing rural lands and open space, including critical areas and resource lands, is another key compo- nent of VISION 2020. VISION 2020 promotes the concentra- tion of growth into central places and limits the extent of urban sprawl in sur- rounding farmlands, forests, and open spaces. It seeks to create a regional sys- tem of central places separated through the creation and preservation of a net- work of permanent urban and rural open space and recreation areas, includ- ing, agriculture and forest areas, sensitive environmental areas, trails, greenbelts and parks. The vision also promotes the establish- ment of resource protection areas, where an extra effort will be made to preserve critical resources such as, aquifers, wet- lands, rivers and shorelines, prime agri- culture, forest lands, mineral lands, and historical and archaeological resources. But while the current VISION 2020 strategy outlines policies for open space, natural resources and the environment, the vision for rural lands is unclear. The policies only indirectly refer to rural lands as areas where growth will be lim- ited and where open space and resource lands will be preserved. Also, VISION 2020 does not clearly state how a re- gional system of open spaces and re- source lands should be created. Some Key Rural Issues. All counties in the region are currently developing rural elements of their comprehensive plans, as required by the GMA, that address land use for areas not designated for urban growth, agriculture, forest, or mineral resources. The rural element should also identify land uses compat- ible with rural character and provide for a variety of rural densities. The goal of this requirement is to reduce sprawl, enhance the rural landscape, and save on the cost of providing essential pub- lic facilities. Counties are identifying and designat- ing rural lands, establishing densities and appropriate land uses, defining lev- els of services, establishing provisions for controlling development at the urban/ rural fringe and adjacent to resource lands, and using methods such as clus- tering and density bonuses to govern de- velopment in rural areas. A number of complex rural planning issues have been raised during the local comprehensive planning process. This winter, the Regional Council conducted two rural issue workshops to discuss is- sues common to jurisdictions and areas throughout the region. The VISION 2020 update could ad- dress the following questions arising from these discussions. What is "rural"? No regionally agreed -upon definition exists. Workshop participants sug- gested the following: Rural lands primarily contain a mix of low density residential development, agriculture, forests, open space and natural areas, as well as recreation uses. Counties, small towns and rural centers provide limited public services to rural residents. Rural lands are integrally linked ere- .....»sx -7 «err. / iii / ��/ i :�� /�y/ �� -�-� •ri•�' _ - • ��Y »ate / � , ,i�� iii /��il ,:4---. / -.--: .• -.— ......;-�,,..�,,,. ..rte - ,--•,_.--._,..../.5-----• i i�- ii. y��- - %� /l - -ice >, J oy , /! 9 to and support resource lands. They buffer large resource areas and nurture small scale farming, forestry, cottage industries as well as other resource based activities. Rural lands contain limited non- resource based commercial or industrial activities. However, workshop participants could not agree on a more specific defini- tion of rural, one that included spe- cific criteria to be applied throughout the region. They did agree that each county's definition should address spe- cific criteria regarding development density, appropriate uses of rural lands, and the type and level of services that should be available, such as roads, emergency services, schools, water, sewer, police response, etc. A clearer understanding ofwhat constitutes and defines rural lands could assist policy 35 36 ViSIO 020 and plan development, and help long- term preservation of rural lands. What mix of densities is appropriate to maintain rural character, while allowing some growth and development in rural areas? Density is important -- small mini- mum lot sizes could result in contin- ued conversion of rural land and undermine the existing rural charac- ter, yet many feel that large lot devel- opment of 1 to 5 acres does not maintain rural character, but simply institutionalizes Large lot urban sprawl. The Growth Management Act requires a variety of rural densities. Densities can be defined for residential areas, small farm and forest lands, environ- mentally constrained lands, and lands for possible future urban expansion. What are the appropriate levels of service? - Generally, services should meet the ba- sic needs of residents in rural areas, and the needs of non - residential uses. If urban levels of service are extended into rural areas, it is very expensive and allows land to be developed at higher densities. Zoning and land regulation that compliments established service levels can ensure that residential den- sities don't exceed service capacity and the carrying capacity of the land. What land uses are appropriate in rural areas? Specifying appropriate uses for rural land is important to ensure that rural lands are protected and rural charac- ter is maintained. Counties generally limit industrial and commercial uses to resource -based industries, and small scale cottage or home occupation in- dustries that don't require urban ser- vices. Counties have defined preferable land uses as farming and forestry - related activities, mining, nurseries, tourism, outdoor recreation, and other open space activities. What about future expansion into rural areas? - The GMA calls for provisions to regu- late development on lands outside the urban growth area, so that the possible orderly inclusion of such areas in the future is not foreclosed. As development occurs within the urban growth area, there may be an interest in expanding it. Counties do not agree on whether all rural areas are permanent or whether some rural areas should be planned to allow future growth if needed. How can rural resources be conserved? Rural areas include an abundance of small agricultural and forest lands, and environmentally sensitive areas. Pro - tection of these areas is fundamental to the long -term conservation of rural lands. Counties have designated re- source lands, including agricultural, forest and mineral lands. They also have in place or are exploring mecha- nisms to promote preservation of non - designated resource lands in rural areas; however, these mechanisms do not protect the resource lands outright, and the potential remains that these areas could be developed. What is the best way to manage rural areas? - Techniques such as clustering, bonus density incentives, large tracts, planned unit developments, transfer of devel- opment rights, design standards and other techniques are being utilized by some counties to manage development in rural areas. For example, clustering allows devel- opment to be organized at higher den- sities on a portion of a site, in exchange for keeping the remaining portion as open space. It can lower the costs of providing public services and private improvements by decreasing the length of roads and utility lines needed to serve development. It also provides an opportunity to plan around distinctive site features or envi- ronmental constraints and to conserve land for open space and recreational purposes, including trails or greenbelt segments which tie into regional sys- tems. However, extensive clustering could cause suburbanization of rural areas, require expensive urban-level ser- vices, and change rural character. How can an integrated, region -wide system of open spaces be created? - Many jurisdictions throughout the re- gion have been successful in protecting open space and trails. This has helped begin a regional network of open spaces. In addition, all counties in the region have designated forest and agricultural lands (see pages 6, 7). This will play an important role in linking open spaces and natural habitat. However, much of this work is fragmented and lacks regional integration. A regional open space plan could coordinate efforts of all jurisdictions, as well as state and pri- vate efforts. The plan could resolve cross - jurisdictional issues and lead to a regionwide system of open space that is permanently protected. 37 38 ViSION1020 VISION 2020 and Our Economy A healthy economy provides jobs and opportunity, and pays for vital public services, from transportation to educa- tion and criminal justice. It also enables us to care for those in need, protect the environment, and enhance our quality of life. But there is no guarantee of suc- cess. Global economic competition is accelerating. The economic health of our region de- pends upon how all our people, com- munities and businesses are faring. The health of our small cities depends on our large cities doing well; strengths in one industry create ripples of economic ad- vantage that flow to supporting busi- nesses and the people who work for them; when individuals and families are suffering in one area, the whole region is affected. When VISION 2020 was adopted, many areas of our economy were coming off a number of years of sustained growth. While calling for more equitable distri- bution of economic growth, the original document did not specifically address economic issues in relation to the growth and transportation strategy. But since then, the cyclical nature of the economy has shown the leaders of the region that not taking all possible steps to sustain our economic health into the future can place all our aspirations in jeopardy. The Growth Management Act, which came after VISION 2020's adoption, re- quires economic development policies to be included in the multicounty policies for the region that are a part of VISION 2020, and in countywide planning poli- cies, but not in Local comprehensive plans. Thus, some jurisdictions have cho- sen to develop specific economic devel- opment elements, while others are addressing economic issues in their land use, housing, or facilities elements. The level of detail and issues addressed varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. Encouraging economic growth that is compatible with a local jurisdiction's goals is a high priority for most local governments. Most local comprehen- sive plans discuss the connections be- tween economic growth and at least some of the following issues: land use planning, infrastructure (transportation, communications, utilities), and afford- able housing. In addition, they often discuss industrial siting, adequacy of educational and training opportunities, environmental protection and regula- tory reform. Relationship to the Regional Economic Strategy Business, labor, education, government, ports, and other interests are working in concert to develop a long -term re- gional economic strategy for King, Kit - sap, Pierce, and Snohomish counties. The goals identified by this public -pri- vate partnership include: (1) support the evolution of a strong, diversified and sustainable regional economy; (2) pro- vide equal opportunity for all citizens in the region; (3) protect the natural en- vironment for future generations; and (4) preserve the quality of life. The first phase of this effort involved compiling a profile of the regional economy and was completed in Octo- ber 1993 under the direction of the Re- gional Council.2 The region's economic development organizations are now seek- ing to identify the region's strategic eco- nomic opportunities, and evaluating the region's capabilities with regard to eco- nomic development planning and implementation. The final phase will in- volve creating an action plan. While most of the steps needed to sus- tain and improve our economy will be taken by the businesses and industries of the region, work on the Regional Eco- nomic Strategy can provide the basis for better integration of transportation, growth management and the economy, including new multicounty policies to be incorporated into VISION 2020. Possible Components of the Economic Element The VISION 2020 Update provides the opportunity to address economic issues such as: • Infrastructure. What kind of facili- ties can help achieve the region's eco- nomic and growth vision? • Business Climate and Government Services. What can the region do, and/or what services might it pro- vide, to improve its business climate? • Balancing Economic and Environ- mental Goals. How can governments encourage economic growth that moves us closer to achieving long term environmental sustainability? • Equal Opportunity. What can the region do to pro- mote social equity? Should steps indude regional tax base sharing and encouraging investment in businesses of disadvantaged populations and /or geographical areas? • Implementation. How can the region overcome ob- stacles to implementing its vision for growth and eco- nomic development? What can the region do to encourage firms to Locate near employees, housing, transportation, and complementary firms? Should incentive opportunities, community -based develop- ment corporations, targeting capital improvements, tax increment financing, zoning incentives, fast track ap- provals, and fee waivers or reductions be considered? • Industrial Siting. How can regional policies be used to support the well-being and expansion of the region's industries? A clear and consistent economic element in VISION 2020 would recognize that how we handle growth and trans- portation will have tremendous impacts on our economy, and all our plans for transportation and managing growth would be impossible if our economy is not healthy. Foundations for the Future. An Economic Strategy for the Central Puget Sound Region; Volume One — An Economic Profile: Our Jobs, People and Resources; Puget Sound Regional Council, October 1993. 39 40 ViSI011141020 Monitoring Our Progress The current VISION 2020 strategy and the potential additions resulting from its update provide a comprehensive set of policies and guidelines designed to help preserve and enhance the quality of our lives, our communities, and our entire region. But how can we tell if these policies and guidelines are working? Over the next few months, the Regional Council will be working with local ju- risdictions, citizens and other interested parties to come to agreement on a pro- posed set of benchmarks -- specific ac- tions that can be tracked or measured -- to see whether we are successfully imple- menting our regional strategy, and if so, or if not, what effect that is having. These benchmarks could include the amount of open space that is being pre- served, how fast population is growing in an area, whether the population and employment tragets for centers are be- ing achieved, whether transit ridership and use of HOV lanes is increasing, the rate and type of crimes in an area, high school graduation rates, employment rates, and the supply of affordable hous- ing. Also, specific targets will be estab- lished to indicate the level of performance desired to be achieved through VISION 2020 policies by the year 2020. By keeping track of these kinds of items, the region should be able to see what ef- fect the policies and projects that arise out of VISION 2020 are having, and de- termine what additions or changes are necessary and appropriate. A more detailed report on the Perfor- mance Monitoring Program is available through the Regional Council's Informa- tion Center by calling (206) 464 -7532. How To Get Involved in the VISION2O2O Update Transportation, growth and the economy are repeatedly cited by the people of this region as among their fore- most concerns.3 Over the next 10 months, all of us have a significant op- portunity to affect how we deal with these issues well into the next century. VISION 2020, our general regional strategy to deal with these issues, was adopted by the cities and counties of the region in 1990, at the conclusion of one of the most extensive public involve- ment efforts ever conducted in this re- gion. That kind of involvement is needed again as we refine and update our vision for the future. The challenge of achieving VISION 2020's objectives is in creating attrac- tive, safe, convenient, and pedestrian friendly neighborhoods that people want to live in, and that can be served efficiently by transit and other alterna- tives to driving alone. Throughout the summer, fall and winter, there will be public discussions of these and other issues, leading to final action by the Regional Council General Assembly in March 1995 (see schedule, pages 42 -43). With meetings, workshops, a public hearing, open houses around the region, a major conference, and other public events, the Regional Council will be try- ing to get as many people as possible involved in the major decisions ahead. A video titled "Lets Get Moving" that gives an overview of VISION 2020 up- date issues is available on loan from se- lected local libraries and from the Re- gional Council Information Center, (206) 464 -7532. To be included on the general mailing list, receive the Regional Council's newsletter, or be informed of meetings and key decision points on specific top- ics, please complete the postcard in- cluded in this report, or call the Regional Council office at (206) 464 -7090. Make sure you're part of the discussion. The decisions are too important to leave to someone else. VISION 2020 Update Survey, December 1993, completed for the Regional Council by Elway Research, Inc, of Seattle. Also, survey in Regional Council newsletter Regional View, January 1994. 41 Public Involvement Calendar 42 ViSION O20 Information & Issue Development November 8, 1993 Public announcement of plan to up- date VISION 2020 and adopt a Met - ropolitan Transportation Plan (MTP) November 1993 - March 1994 Distribution of video "Let's Get Mov- ing" to community and government accessTV stations; presentations to ju- risdictions and other organizations around the region; telephone survey; written survey; workshops on growth management issues; other outreach March 10, 1994 Preliminary discussion of VISION 2020 Update /MTP issues by Regional Council policy boards March 11, 1994 Presentation to Regional Council Gen - eralAssembly, overview of VISION 2020 progress to date, and major work that needs to be completed by March 1995 April 1994 Workshops on some MTP elements; additional outreach to jurisdictions and community groups Working Through The Issues May 1994 Release VISION 2020 Update Progress Report June 1994 Additional workshops and outreach July 1994 Open houses in each of the four coun- ties for information /feedback on VISION 2020 /MTP issues July- October 1994 Presentations, workshops, other out- reach N Developing Recommendations October 3, 1994 Release preliminary draft of VISION 2020 Update /MTP October 1, 1994 Joint meeting, for discussion of pre- liminary draft VISION 2020 Update/ MTP, of Growth Management and Transportation Policy Boards October - November 1994 Presentation of draft to countywide policy groups; additional meetings of Growth Management and Transpor- tation Policy Boards to discuss prelimi- nary draft; additional presentations and outreach Recommending A Draft Plan Update November 1994 Policy boards' action on a draft VISION 2020 Update /MTP imple- mentation strategy for recommenda- tion to the Executive Board December 1, 1994 Executive Board meeting to receive recommended draft VISION 2020 Update /MTP, to make an air quality conformity finding, and to release the draft along with a draft environmen- tal document, for public review Preparing A Final Plan Update January 1995 Annual Conference, focusing on opportunities and impacts of emerg- ing technologies on VISION 2020 Update /MTP issues; open houses in each of four counties January 26, 1995 Executive Board work session on VISION 2020 Update /MTP January 21 - February 15, 1995 A public hearing and additional Ex- ecutive Board work sessions, reports back to policy boards Action On VISION 2020 Update /MTP February 23, 1995 Executive Board decision meeting on draft VISION 2020 Update /MTP March 16, 1995 General Assembly action on VISION 2020 Update /MTP i w •* ++ "4. 0 M 0 ,_ , Vii'' -.> _ i . it -..4.2k a i . . - ....""' , ).?_.9.:!;,--;;..-::',-,..-„...",-:- a .,,,:, ___.,,,/,. -_-..."/„:"4-, /cyV,;Yid rs .ri i - 43 Puget Sound Regional Council Executive Board President _.._.� _ _ ...__ _ „ Mayor "Mitch" Mitchusson Gry of Poulsbo Kitsap County Cities/Towns Vice President Chair, Transportation Policy Board... County Executive Doug Sutherland Pierce County Chair, Operations Committee County Executive Bob Drewel Snohomish County Chair, Growth Management Policy Board ..... ._ ..„ „ Coundlmember Jim Street Gry of Seattle Mayor Roger Bergh Gty of Mountlake Terrace, Snohomish Co. Suburban Gties Mayor Earl Clymer Gty of Renton, Ring County Suburban Cities Commissioner Aubrey Davis Washington State Transportation Commission Commissioner Patricia Davis Pon of Seattle Commissioner Billie Eder Kitsap County Councilmember Robert Evans Gry of Tacoma Commissioner Jack Fabulich Port of Tacoma Councilmember John Garner Snohomish County Councilmember Christine Giron City of Milton, Pierce County Suburban Cities Mayor Ed Hansen Gty of Everett Mayor Jeanne Hansen Go, of Snoqualmie, King County Suburban Gties Councilmember Sherry Harris Gry of Seattle Councilmember Bruce Laing King County County Executive Gary Locke Ring County Councilmember Terry Lukens Gry of Bellevue, King County Suburban Gties Secretary Sid Morrison Washington State Department of Transportation Commissioner Ed Morrow Port of Everett Mayor Harold Moss Go, of Tacoma Mayor Norm Rice Gry of Seattle Councilmember Barbara Skinner Pierce County Councilmember Cynthia Sullivan Ring County Councilmember Christopher Vance King County Mary McCumber Executive Director 45 Members of the Puget Sound Regional Council King County Kitsap County Pierce County Snohomish County State Agendes Algona Bainbridge Island Bonney Lake Arlington Washington State Department of Transportation Auburn Bremerton Buckley Edmonds Washington State Transportation Commission Bellevue Kitsap County DuPont Everett Burien Port Orchard Eatonville Lake Stevens Associate Members Island County Bothell Poulsbo Fife Lynnwood Port of Bremerton Clyde Hill Fircrest Marysville Des Moines Gig Harbor Mill Creek Thurston Regional Planning Council Duvall Milton Monroe Enumdaw Orting Mountlake Terrace Federal Way Pierce County Mukilteo Hunts Point Port of Tacoma Port of Everett Issaquah Puyallup Snohomish County Kent Steilacoom Stanwood King County Sumner Sultan Kirkland Tacoma Lake Forest Park Medina Mercer Island Normandy Park North Bend Port of Seattle Redmond Renton SeaTac Seattle Snoqualmie. Tukwila - 47 Puget Sound Regional Council Staff f Executive Director Nary Mdumber Project Managers ............_._. Norman Abbott, Principal Planner, Growth Management Ralph Cipriani, Principal Planner, Transportation Contributing Staff._ ._ _ .w.._ ..King Cushman, Director of Transportation Planning Jerry Dinndorf, Director of Growth Management Planning Douglas Campbell, Ned Conroy, Stephanie Glazerman, Judy Leslie, Lori Peckol, Rocky Piro, Bob Sicko Editor M _. m .___ _ _ _._.._.... w _ __..._ _. _..._...._.. Richard Milne Graphic Design _ . ._ _w_._ w.._ _ .. Douglas Clinton, Rebecca Stewart YiS10t1141020 Design Illustrations _ _ _ ..- ...._...._ Anita H. Lehmann, AR Many people from local governments and regional and transit agencies contributed to VISION 2020 Update Progress Report by reviewing sections of the report and assisting with the illustrations Their work is very appreciated. Additional Design and Illustration Credits ......_......_..... _.w...._.........._.__.___.___. • Thea foss Waterway Tacoma. Based on an illustration prepared by MAKERS Architecture and Urban Design with modiffcations from the City of Tacoma Planning and Development Services Department • Downtown Waterfront District Bremerton. Based on illustrations prepared by Leland Consulting Group, Inc and Stass ' Architects, PC. • Transit Station Area, Redmond. Portions of image courtesy of the Regional Transit Authority. tart T4=0'4 QrJT2 ' ttt) M>7 • fl n' El a D Lynnwood High School 47Flsher Business D Etnte D mrx n t7 i F a 5 This illustration is from Lynnwood Legacy, the Gty of Lynnwood's collaborative planning project for high capacity transit Additional copies of this report may be obtained from the Puget Sound Regional Council Information Center, (206) 464.7532. Funding for this report provided in part by member jurisdictions, grants from US. Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, Federal Highway Administration and Washington State Department of Transportation. Cover and text printed on 100% reryded paper (including at least I0' /s post - consumer waste). Paper is recyclable.