Page 1


[This page was intentionally left blank.]

[This page was intentionally left blank.]

2

Regional Center Planning in the Central Puget Sound


Regional Center Planning in the Central Puget Sound

University of Washington Department of Urban Design & Planning Master of Urban Planning Studio, Autumn 2011

Graduate students Melanie Mayock Jonathon Morrison Winters Eva Ringstrom Eun Jin Shin Catherine Silva Michelle Whitfield

Instructor Alon Bassok, PhD

Special thanks to Ivan Miller, Puget Sound Regional Council

Regional Center Planning in the Central Puget Sound

3


[This page was intentionally left blank.]

4

Regional Center Planning in the Central Puget Sound


Table of contents Executive summary ........................................................................................................................................ 7 Glossary ........................................................................................................................................................... 9 1. Introduction ............................................................................................................................................... 11 2. Methods: Analyzing regional center planning ..................................................................................... 15 3. Summary of regional center planning ................................................................................................... 17 Auburn .......................................................................................................................................................... 24 Bellevue ......................................................................................................................................................... 26 Bothell – Canyon Park ................................................................................................................................. 28 Bremerton ...................................................................................................................................................... 30 Burien ............................................................................................................................................................. 32 Everett ............................................................................................................................................................ 34 Federal Way .................................................................................................................................................. 36 Kent ................................................................................................................................................................ 38 Kirkland – Totem Lake ................................................................................................................................ 40 Lakewood ..................................................................................................................................................... 42 Lynnwood ..................................................................................................................................................... 44 Puyallup – Downtown ................................................................................................................................ 46 Puyallup – South Hill .................................................................................................................................. 48 Redmond – Downtown ............................................................................................................................... 50 Redmond – Overlake.................................................................................................................................... 52 Renton ............................................................................................................................................................ 53 SeaTac ............................................................................................................................................................. 56 Seattle – Downtown ..................................................................................................................................... 58 Seattle – First Hill/Capitol Hill ................................................................................................................... 60 Seattle – Northgate ....................................................................................................................................... 62 Seattle – South Lake Union.......................................................................................................................... 64 Seattle – University ...................................................................................................................................... 66 Seattle – Uptown Queen Anne .................................................................................................................... 68 Silverdale ....................................................................................................................................................... 70 Tacoma – Downtown .................................................................................................................................. 72 Tacoma – Tacoma Mall ............................................................................................................................... 74 Tukwila ......................................................................................................................................................... 76 Ballard/Interbay Manufacturing/Industrial Center ................................................................................ 78 Duwamish ..................................................................................................................................................... 79 Kent ................................................................................................................................................................ 80 North Tukwila .............................................................................................................................................. 81 Frederickson .................................................................................................................................................. 82 Port of Tacoma .............................................................................................................................................. 83 Paine Field…………………………………………………………………………………………………….84 South Kitsap Industrial Area ...................................................................................................................... 85

Regional Center Planning in the Central Puget Sound

5


4. Assessing the checklist as an evaluation tool........................................................................................ 87 Center Plan Concept (or “Vision�) ............................................................................................................. 93 Environment .................................................................................................................................................. 93 Land Use ........................................................................................................................................................ 95 Housing .......................................................................................................................................................... 96 Economy ........................................................................................................................................................ 97 Public Services............................................................................................................................................... 97 Transportation ............................................................................................................................................... 97 5. Sub-regional centers literature review and GIS analysis................................................................... 109 6. Recommendations .................................................................................................................................. 129 References .................................................................................................................................................... 133 Appendix A: Copy of Regional Growth Centers Checklist .................................................................. 137 Appendix B: Checklist item analysis and performance tables ............................................................. 141 Appendix C: Planning documents consulted ......................................................................................... 325 Appendix D: Notes from academic literature review............................................................................ 331

List of Figures Table 3-1. Summary of center planning ..................................................................................................... 20 Table 4-1. Suggested checklist revisions .................................................................................................... 89 Table C-1. Planning documents consulted .............................................................................................. 325

6

Regional Center Planning in the Central Puget Sound


Executive summary The Puget Sound Regional Council collaborated with an Urban Design and Planning studio at the University of Washington. The studio was tasked with evaluating planning efforts of the 27 designated Regional Growth Centers and eight Manufacturing/Industrial Centers using the Regional Center Plans Checklist items as evaluation criteria, and to offer suggestion on potential changes to the checklist. To this end, a content analysis of jurisdictions’ comprehensive plans and sub-area center plans was conducted. The studio was also asked to consider the implications of enacting sub-regional center designations. Research was conducted on how centers have been defined in the academic literature and how other regions have defined and employed growth center concepts. Regional Growth Center Planning Jurisdictions’ center planning efforts vary widely. On average, centers addressed 36%, or fewer than 12 of 32 checklist items. (Three checklist items were not reviewed due to redundancy.) The best performing center’s planning received a 54% (in terms of how well they addressed the checklist items overall), while the worst received 16%. Only four centers fully addressed any single checklist category. Only seven centers addressed the Economy checklist items. All centers did not address or poorly addressed the Public Service checklist item with center-specific policies. Manufacturing/Industrial Center Planning On average, jurisdictions’ planning efforts addressed 65 percent, or 13 of 20 checklist items. No centers received a 100% rating for all items in a checklist category. The best performing center’s planning received an 80%, while the worst received 50%. Half of all center plans fully address at least one checklist category. Six checklist items were commonly not addressed/poorly addressed. In general, transportation related checklist items were the best addressed. Literature review on sub-regional centers and GIS analysis Academics have defined centers as areas of concentrated employment relative to their immediate surroundings. The study of other regions has revealed a range of techniques employed to establish centers: target densities, numbers of households served, and close coordination with transit. Here in the Puget Sound Region, measuring concentrations of employment as well as residential population revealed that average activity unit densities (at the census tract level) vary considerably by county: King County (15.94), Snohomish County (7.8), Pierce (7.54), and Kitsap (6.59). Region-wide, the average is 12.46. Applying county-specific density criteria would allow areas outside currently designated centers to pursue sub-regional center designation and would augment existing center planning efforts. Recommendations 1. All jurisdictions should be required to have sub-area plans for designated centers. 2. The Regional Center Plans Checklist should be modified and shortened. 3. The checklist should specify whether certain items (and which items) are most important. 4. The region may benefit from a designation procedure for sub-regional centers. 5. Items for further review and study include: • The review of additional related plans and programs, and • Further study of the appropriate jobs/housing balance criteria.

Regional Center Planning in the Central Puget Sound

7


[This page was intentionally left blank.]

8

Regional Center Planning in the Central Puget Sound


Glossary

Activity Unit – An activity unit is either a job or a resident. Total activity units for an area are calculated by adding the residential population of the area to the number of jobs contained within the area. Activity units are used as a measure of nonspecific urban activity. Puget Sound Regional Council has established 18 activity units per acre as a threshold criterion for designating new Regional Growth Centers. Employment sub-center – Term used to describe concentrations of employment within a polycentric metropolitan region. Employment sub-centers differ from Regional Growth Centers because they are not necessarily designated, and they are defined only in terms of employment uses. Manufacturing/Industrial Center – Manufacturing and Industrial Centers “are existing employment areas with intensive, concentrated manufacturing and industrial land uses that cannot be easily mixed with other activities. Manufacturing/Industrial Centers are intended to continue to accommodate a significant amount of regional employment” (Puget Sound Regional Council, 2009a, p. 14). Regional Growth Center – Regional Growth Centers are designated areas of high-intensity residential and employment development. They are most typically located in the historic downtowns or other major activity areas of the region’s five Metropolitan Cities and in Core Cities. Regional Growth Centers serve as a primary framework for regional transportation and economic development planning (Puget Sound Regional Council, 2009a, p. 51). Urban Center – Urban centers are the Regional Growth Centers located in the City of Seattle. Urban centers are the densest of four categories of growth strategies in Seattle’s Urban Village Strategy. There are more Seattle “urban centers,” than the six designated Regional Growth Centers, however, because “Larger urban centers are divided into urban center villages to recognize the distinct character of different neighborhoods within them” (City of Seattle, 2005, p. 1.3). Urban Village – Urban villages are part of the City of Seattle’s growth strategy for increasing housing and employment density throughout the city. The urban village strategy includes four types of urban villages, the densest of which include “urban centers” (City of Seattle, 2005, pp. 1.3-1.4). They also include Manufacturing/Industrial Centers, “hub urban villages,” and “residential urban villages.”

Regional Center Planning in the Central Puget Sound

9


[This page was intentionally left blank.]

10

Regional Center Planning in the Central Puget Sound


1. Introduction Purpose of the report The Puget Sound Regional Council collaborated with an Urban Design and Planning studio at the University of Washington. The studio was tasked with an evaluation of existing designated Regional Centers, using the Regional Center Plans Checklist. This checklist is designed to assist jurisdictions in developing, updating, or amending their center plans. In pursuance of the task, the checklist was used to frame the evaluation of planning for existing designated centers and to determine how comprehensively each center addresses the checklist’s criteria. In addition, the studio was tasked with providing a review of the checklist itself and offering suggestions on how it might be revised. In conjunction with the analysis of existing centers, the studio was asked to consider the potential benefits of a designation procedure for sub-regional centers at the county level. Research questions To carry out this evaluation, a set of research questions was established to guide the assessment of planning for existing designated centers. These questions are as follows: What are designated Regional Growth Centers and regional Manufacturing/Industrial Centers? Defining designated regional centers was essential to best perform the evaluation and analysis of existing center planning. There are two types of designated regional centers within the Central Puget Sound Region: •

Regional Growth Centers are high-intensity urban areas central to the cultural, civic, and commercial life of their respective jurisdictions. The definition of Regional Growth Centers in VISION 2040 encourages mixed-use areas containing concentrations of employment, housing, retail, and recreational uses (Puget Sound Regional Council, 2009a, p. 51). Manufacturing/Industrial Centers are “existing employment areas with intensive, concentrated manufacturing and industrial land uses that cannot be easily mixed with other activities. Manufacturing/Industrial Centers are intended to continue to accommodate a significant amount of regional employment” (Puget Sound Regional Council, 2009a, p. 14).

What should center plans include (vis-à-vis the center plan checklist)? This question considers the checklist and what planning activities checklist sections and items encourage. The Regional Center Plans Checklist is divided into several sections addressing specific areas of planning. Within each section, a varying numbers of items are provided as guidance, often encouraging particular strategies or the inclusions of certain elements in center plans. Plans for Regional Growth Centers are expected to address the following areas: • • • • • • •

Center plan concept, Environment, Land use, Housing, Economy, Public services, and Transportation.

Regional Center Planning in the Central Puget Sound

11


Plans for Manufacturing/Industrial Centers are expected to address the following areas: • • • • • •

Center plan concept, Environment, Land use, Economy, Public services, and Transportation.

See Table C-1 in Appendix C for a list of all planning documents consulted, organized by centers. How well do the jurisdictions’ center planning efforts match the checklists? To assess how well center plans address each checklist item, a rating system was developed as an evaluation tool. This allowed the studio to compare the performance of centers and make conclusions regarding the relevance and usefulness of each item. See the Methods section in Chapter 2 for an explanation of the rating scale and center evaluations. Regional Growth Center plans generally addressed items in four of the seven checklist sections. The items in the Economy section are addressed by less than a third of the center plans and it was determined that no center plans addressed the ‘public services’ section. Over a quarter of checklist items were considered ‘well addressed’ by center plans on average. See the summary of regional center planning in Chapter 3 for a summary and graphics describing the performance of each Regional Growth Center. Manufacturing and Industrial Center plans generally addressed, at least in part, five of the six categories. Items in the ‘Environment’ were rarely addressed, particularly with any specific detail to the Manufacturing and Industrial Centers. Four of the twenty checklist items were uniformly addressed for all centers. See summary of regional center planning in Chapter 3 for a summary of planning in Manufacturing/Industrial Centers and graphics describing the performance of each of these centers. Are there improvements that can be made to the Regional Center Plans Checklist? Using the Regional Center Plans Checklist as an evaluation tool for center planning allowed for an analysis of the checklist itself. Each individual checklist item was assessed during the evaluation and analysis of centers. Findings indicate that checklist items are vague and their interpretation can be subjective. Items within the checklist are sometimes redundant, with items in two different sections addressing the same concept. Another result of the analysis was a discussion of what counts as planning for centers. The checklist is unclear as to whether citywide policies are acceptable or if center-specific policies and planning are requisite for items to be addressed. Based on the analysis and these findings, recommendations have been made to retain, revise or remove checklist items. The evaluation recommends that nearly half of the checklist items should be revised and a quarter should be removed.

12

Regional Center Planning in the Central Puget Sound


See Assessing the checklist as an evaluation tool in Chapter 4 for details on the four recommended improvements to the Regional Center Plans Checklist. Additional research questions included in Chapter 5 address how centers have been defined in the academic literature and how other regions have conducted center planning, compared with planning efforts in the Central Puget Sound.

Regional Center Planning in the Central Puget Sound

13


[This page was intentionally left blank.]

14

Regional Center Planning in the Central Puget Sound


2. Methods: Analyzing regional center planning Evaluating regional center planning using the Regional Center Plans Checklist To evaluate regional center planning, a checklist was adapted to assess the 27 Regional Growth Centers and eight Manufacturing/Industrial Centers. The Regional Center Plans Checklist was originally developed by the Puget Sound Regional Council as a tool to assist jurisdictions in developing, updating, or amending their center plans. As noted on the checklist, “It provides the key expectations for the center plans for Regional Growth Center and Regional Manufacturing/Industrial Centers plans (beyond the general requirements for comprehensive plans). These expectations are based on the procedures established by PSRC’s Executive Board for designating new centers” (Puget Sound Regional Council, 2009b). Because the checklist was not originally intended as an evaluation tool, it was adapted and interpreted in the ways described below. Not all checklist items are relevant as evaluation criteria. Some items list requirements for new center applications. However, centers designated before the checklist was completed in 2009 were not required to produce specific documents or evidence of planning. Therefore, many never developed a center-specific planning document. For example, the checklist asks whether a center includes “a market analysis of the center’s development potential.” Centers designated before 2009, however, are unlikely to have conducted a market analysis. It would be faulty to assume that an existing regional center designated prior to 2009 was conducting poor planning because such a market analysis does not exist. Interpreting the checklist The checklist contains seven categories: Center Plan Concept (or “Vision”), Environment, Land Use, Housing, Economy, Public Services, and Transportation (including Transportation 2040 Physical Design Guidelines and Additional Transportation Issues). Each category contains a number of criteria that were used for center review. For each item, major concepts and keywords related to the topic were generated. These key terms were used to conduct key word searches of the major planning documents for each Regional Growth Center: Comprehensive Plans, Sub-area Plans, and Transportation Master Plans. While this keyword-based policy scan method may overlook some relevant policies, it is an efficient way to begin to understand the role of planning in center performance. For lists of key terms, assumptions made, and details on how items were interpreted, see Appendix B: Checklist item analysis and performance tables. For each checklist item, there is a description of the methods for interpreting the checklist item, the key search terms, a summary of the findings, and responses to the following questions: • • • • •

How was the checklist item addressed? How many centers did/did not address the checklist item? Were many of the policies addressing the checklist item were specific to centers? Is the checklist item a useful evaluation tool of the center’s planning? Should the checklist item be revised to require policies to address the item more explicitly?

Regional Center Planning in the Central Puget Sound

15


Scanning key policy documents For each checklist item, goals, objectives, policies, and implementation items from key planning documents containing search terms were copied into a spreadsheet. Page numbers and policy numbers were noted, along with whether the policy was center-specific (i.e., refers specifically to activities and planning in the Regional Growth Center) rather than citywide (e.g., a general Comprehensive Plan policy). Except for descriptive checklist items, general text that was not attached to specific goals and policies was not accounted for. While this language may contain intentions, it is less binding in terms of a center’s planning. Appendix C contains a summary table of planning documents consulted. Compiling the data Using the policy scan database, the performance of each checklist item was summarized. Appendix B contains tables for each checklist item noting the number of center-specific and citywide policies relating to that item for each center. Innovative and unique policies or other details are also noted. Finally, a qualitative assessment was conducted to summarize how planning for each center performed for a given checklist item. These assessments use a scale of ‘well addressed’ (++), ‘addressed’ (+), and ‘poorly/not addressed’ (-). Appendix B contains details of how these values were assigned for each checklist item. Assessing each center’s planning efforts Using the policy scan database, the extent to which each jurisdiction’s citywide comprehensive plan and center-specific plans addressed an item was measured. The standard for determining (a) well addressed, (b) addressed, and (c) poorly/not addressed varies for different items. Then, each center planning was assigned a number from 0 to 2 according to the rating scale mentioned above. Center planning efforts were evaluated for each individual checklist item, as well as for overall performance in checklist sections. The results of the analysis were expressed as graphics. The scores of 0, 1, and 2 were assigned the colors red, yellow, and green respectively. The assessment result for each category was visualized using gradual brown colors. It was rare for centers to receive a score higher than 80%, and centers that ‘addressed’ every checklist item received a score of 50%. Due to the distribution of scores, 60% was the threshold above which scores were considered high. Assessing the checklist as an evaluation tool Chapter 4 summarizes the main findings and offers recommendations for modifying each checklist item for use as an evaluation tool.

16

Regional Center Planning in the Central Puget Sound


3. Summary of regional center planning In this chapter, planning for each regional center is summarized in a series of images, each one depicting sections of the Regional Center Plans Checklist. The green, yellow, and red dots indicate how well planning for a center has addressed each item on the checklist. These ratings are combined to get an overall “score”—a percentage describing performance, according to the rating scale—for how well the center planning addresses the section topics broadly. Darker brown colors indicate that the center planning policies more thoroughly addressed sections of the checklist. The overall performance of each center is described with arrows reflecting the same gradient color scale. Centers performing in the top, middle and bottom third of centers are depicted with up, horizontal and down arrows, respectively. Regional Growth Centers The average overall “score” that was given to centers, as determined by the content analysis and center planning evaluation, is 36 percent. Scores describe how well center plans address individual checklist items and the checklist as a whole. Center planning was evaluated on a tri-level scale, determining if checklist items were ‘well addressed’, ‘addressed’ or ‘poorly/not addressed’ by each center. The best performing center’s planning received a 54%, while the worst received 16%. Only four (4) centers received a score of 100% on all items within any given checklist section. Average totals for each level found among Regional Growth Centers are as follows: • • •

Items considered to be “well addressed” – 9 Items considered to be “addressed” – 11 Items considered to be “poorly/not addressed” – 12

All of the Regional Growth Centers were reviewed for thirty-two (32) of a total of thirty-five checklist items. Three checklist items were intentionally left out of the review process for Regional Growth Centers. The checklist items not included in the analysis are items number 1 and 6 in Transportation Physical Design’ and item 8 in Transportation Additional Issues’. Only seven (7) Regional Growth Centers plans addressed items within the Economy section and all center plans were determined to ‘poorly/not address’ the only item within the Public Services section. Manufacturing/Industrial Centers The average overall “score” that Manufacturing and Industrial Center plans were given is 65%. No center plans received a 100% rating for all items. The best performing center plan received an 80%, while the worst received 50%. Half of all Manufacturing and Industrial Center plans have at least one section of the checklist for which they receive 100%. Average totals for each level among Manufacturing and Industrial Centers are as follows: • • •

Items considered to be “well addressed” – 3 Items considered to be “addressed” – 11 Items considered to be “poorly/not addressed” – 6

All eight of the Manufacturing and Industrial Center plans were reviewed across all 20 of the checklist items.

Regional Center Planning in the Central Puget Sound

17


See the Checklist Item Analyses and Performance Tables for individual items in Appendix B for further details of each checklist item, and the overall center plan evaluation matrix on the following page. Planning documents consulted Nineteen of 27 Regional Growth Centers have either stand-alone sub-area plans or comprehensive plan elements devoted to the Regional Growth Center areas. Lakewood, Tacoma Mall, and the six Seattle Regional Growth Centers do not have sub-area plans. (While Seattle’s Neighborhood Element has geographically specific policies for these areas, they are often separated into “urban center” levels smaller than the regional center itself.) Four of eight Manufacturing/Industrial Centers have sub-area plans. Kent, Everett, and Tacoma have not created sub-area plans for their designated Manufacturing/Industrial Centers. The table in Appendix C: “Planning documents consulted” categorizes the plans reviewed according to whether they are stand-alone sub-area plans, comprehensive plan elements, comprehensive plans, or other related planning documents. These findings differ from a previous account of regional center planning (Puget Sound Regional Council, 2011) in the following ways: • • • •

• • • • •

18

The Bellevue Downtown Subarea Plan has been adopted as an element of the Comprehensive Plan. The Bothell – Canyon Park Subarea Plan has been included in the Comprehensive Plan. Burien has two separate documents addressing the downtown area. Kirkland’s Totem Lake center planning is addressed through the Totem Lake Neighborhood Element; the plan review did not identify a stand-alone sub-area plan. However, there is a separate document containing a Totem Lake Action Plan, though it does not contain goals and policies. The plans for Puyallup’s two centers are Comprehensive Plan elements rather than stand-alone sub-area plans. The plans for Redmond’s two centers are Comprehensive Plan elements rather than stand-alone sub-area plans. The plans for Seattle’s six centers are included in the Urban Village and Neighborhood Elements of the Comprehensive Plan; they are not stand-alone sub-area plans. There is a Silverdale sub-area plan that is included as part of the Kitsap County Comprehensive Plan. Tukwila’s Comprehensive Plan includes an Urban Center Plan Element. The stand-alone sub area plan is currently in draft form.

Regional Center Planning in the Central Puget Sound


[This page was intentionally left blank.]

Regional Center Planning in the Central Puget Sound

19


           

Transportation Issues

Public Services

           

Transportation Physical Design

Economy

40 - 60% 60 - 100%

Housing

0 - 20% 20 - 40%

Land Use

0%

Center Plan Concept

How well addressed was this topic as a whole?

Environment

Table 3-1. Summary of center planning evaluation

           

           

Regional Growth Centers Auburn Bellevue Bothell – Canyon Park Bremerton Burien Everett Federal Way Kent Kirkland – Totem Lake Lakewood Lynnwood Puyallup – Downtown

           

           

           

           


Puyallup – South Hill Redmond – Downtown Redmond – Overlake Renton SeaTac Seattle – Downtown Seattle – First Hill/Capitol Hill Seattle – Northgate Seattle – South Lake Union Seattle – University Seattle – Uptown Queen Anne Silverdale Tacoma – Downtown Tacoma – Tacoma Mall Tukwila

              

Regional Center Planning in the Central Puget Sound

              

              

              

              

              

              

              

21


Port of Tacoma Paine Field/Boeing Everett So. Kitsap Industrial Area

Transportation

Frederickson

Public Services

North Tukwila

Economy

Kent

Land Use

Duwamish

Environment

Ballard/Interbay

Center Plan Concept

Manufacturing / Industrial Centers

       

       

       

       

       

       

How well addressed was this topic as a whole? 0% 0 - 20% 20 - 40% 40 - 60% 60 - 100%

22

Regional Center Planning in the Central Puget Sound


[This page was intentionally left blank.]

Regional Center Planning in the Central Puget Sound

23


Auburn | This Regional Growth Center’s overall performance on the checklist item policy evaluation is in the top third among all centers. Auburn achieved the second highest average rating for the items within both the Economy and Center Plan Concept sections of the checklist. The center also ties with the second highest performance for items within the Environment section and performance for the Housing and Transportation Additional Issues sections is in the bottom third. Auburn ties as the center with the second lowest number of items rated as ‘addressed’ and is in the third of centers with highest number of ‘poorly/not addressed’ items. Documents Reviewed: Auburn Downtown Plan (2001); Auburn Comprehensive Plan (2009); and Transportation Comprehensive Plan (2009).

24

Regional Center Planning in the Central Puget Sound


Regional Center Planning in the Central Puget Sound

25


Bellevue | This Regional Growth Center’s overall performance on the checklist item policy evaluation is in the top third among all centers. Bellevue performed in the top third of centers for checklist items in the Center Plan Concept, Land Use, and Housing sections, and the second highest for the Transportation Physical Design section. The center performed in the bottom third of centers for items in the Environment and Transportation Additional Issues sections. The center has the second lowest number of ‘poorly/not addressed’ rated checklist items and is in the third of centers with the highest number of ‘addressed’ items. Documents Reviewed: Final Report on Downtown Plan Update (2003); Bellevue Comprehensive Plan, the Downtown Subarea Plan (2010).

26

Regional Center Planning in the Central Puget Sound


Regional Center Planning in the Central Puget Sound

27


Bothell – Canyon Park | This regional growth center’s overall performance on the checklist item policy evaluation is in the bottom third among all centers. Canyon Park ties as second lowest performing among centers in for items in the Land Use and Transportation Physical Design sections. The center also ties as the lowest performing center for items in the Transportation Additional Issues section of the checklist. All items in the Economy checklist section were not addressed. The center received a ‘well addressed’ rating for only two checklist items, the fewest of all centers, and the second highest number of items receiving a rating of ‘poorly/not addressed’. Documents Reviewed: Canyon Park Subarea Plan element in the Bothell Comprehensive Plan (2004).

28

Regional Center Planning in the Central Puget Sound


Regional Center Planning in the Central Puget Sound

29


Bremerton | This Regional Growth Center’s overall performance on the checklist item policy evaluation is in the top third among all centers. The center received a rating of 100% for items in the Land Use section of the checklist. Bremerton also performed in the top third of centers for the Center Plan Concept and Environment checklist sections. The center is in the bottom third of centers for items in the Transportation Additional Issues section. The center ties as the center with the second lowest number of items rated as ‘addressed’ and was in the third of centers with highest number of ‘poorly/not addressed’ items. Documents Reviewed: Downtown Regional Sub Area Plan (2007); and Bremerton Comprehensive Plan (2004).

30

Regional Center Planning in the Central Puget Sound


Regional Center Planning in the Central Puget Sound

31


Burien | This Regional Growth Center’s overall performance on the checklist item policy evaluation is in the bottom third among all centers. Burien received a rating of 100% for the Land Use section and performed in the top third of centers for items within the Transportation Physical Design section of the checklist. The center ties for second lowest performance for checklist items in the Housing section’. The center also ties for the fewest number of items rated as ‘addressed’ and is in the third of centers with the highest number of ‘poorly/not addressed’ rated items checklist. Documents Reviewed: Downtown Burien Master Plan Phase II (2002); Town Square (2000); Burien Comprehensive Plan (2011); Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities Plan (2004); and Downtown Burien Handbook (2001).

32

Regional Center Planning in the Central Puget Sound


Regional Center Planning in the Central Puget Sound

33


Everett | This Regional Growth Center’s overall performance is tied as the third highest of all centers on the checklist item policy evaluation. Everett preformed highest for items in the Transportation Physical Design section and second highest for items in the Center Plan Concept sections of the checklist. The center performed in the bottom third of centers for checklist items in the Environment section. Everett received the second highest rating of ‘addressed’ for checklist items among centers. Documents Reviewed: Everett Downtown Plan (2006); and 2025 Comprehensive Plan (2011).

34

Regional Center Planning in the Central Puget Sound


Regional Center Planning in the Central Puget Sound

35


Federal Way | This Regional Growth Center’s overall performance on the checklist item policy evaluation is in the bottom third among all centers. Federal Way performed in the top third of centers for checklist items in the Center Plan Concept section and in the bottom third for items in the Housing and Transportation Additional Issues sections. The center was rated ‘addressed’ on the highest number checklist items on the evaluation. Documents Reviewed: City Center (2010); and Federal Way Comprehensive Plan (2010).

36

Regional Center Planning in the Central Puget Sound


Regional Center Planning in the Central Puget Sound

37


Kent | This Regional Growth Center’s overall performance is the second highest of all centers on the checklist item policy evaluation. Kent had the highest performance for items in the ‘center plan concept’ checklist section and received a rating of 100% for the Housing. The center also performed in the top third of centers for checklist items in the ‘transportation-physical design’ section and the second lowest performance for items in the Transportation Additional Issues section. Documents Reviewed: Kent Downtown Strategic Action Plan (2005); and Kent Comprehensive Plan (2004).

38

Regional Center Planning in the Central Puget Sound


Regional Center Planning in the Central Puget Sound

39


Kirkland – Totem Lake | This Regional Growth Center’s overall performance on the checklist item policy evaluation is average among all centers. Kirkland Totem Lake has the highest performance for items in the Transportation Additional Issues section of the checklist and the second highest performance for items in the Environment section. The center performs in the top third of centers for items in the Economy section and ties for lowest performing center for checklist items in the Land Use section. The center is in the top third of centers with the highest number of ‘addressed’ rated checklist items and is also in the bottom third for ‘poorly/not addressed’ items. Documents Reviewed: Kirkland Comprehensive Plan, the Totem Lake Neighborhood element (2010).

40

Regional Center Planning in the Central Puget Sound


Regional Center Planning in the Central Puget Sound

41


Lakewood | This Regional Growth Center’s overall performance on the checklist item policy evaluation is in the second lowest among all centers. Lakewood performed in the top third of centers for checklist items in the Center Plan Concept section. The center also had the lowest performance for items in the Environment and Transportation Additional Issues and the second lowest performance for items in the Land Use and Housing sections of the checklist. The center had the fewest checklist items rated as ‘well addressed’ and ‘addressed’ and the greatest number of ‘poorly/not addressed’. Documents Reviewed: Lakewood Comprehensive Plan (2000).

42

Regional Center Planning in the Central Puget Sound


Regional Center Planning in the Central Puget Sound

43


Lynnwood | This Regional Growth Center’s overall performance on the checklist item policy evaluation is in the top third among all centers. Lynnwood is one of seven centers that addressed items in the Economy section of the checklist and performed in the top third of centers for the section. The center also performed in the top third of centers for checklist items in the Center Plan Concept, Land Use and Transportation Physical Design sections. Lynwood also performed in the bottom third of centers for items in the Transportation Additional Issues sections of the checklist. The center was in the third of centers with the fewest number of ‘poorly/not addressed’ rated checklist items. Documents Reviewed: City Center Sub-Area Plan (2007); and 2020 Comprehensive Plan (2011).

44

Regional Center Planning in the Central Puget Sound


Regional Center Planning in the Central Puget Sound

45


Puyallup – Downtown | This Regional Growth Center’s overall performance on the checklist item policy evaluation is average among all centers. Puyallup Downtown performed in the top third of centers for checklist items in the Environment and both Puyallup centers had the second highest performances for the ‘transportation additional transportation’ section. The center also performed in the bottom third of centers for items in the Environment and Housing sections of the checklist. The center was in the third of centers with the highest number of ‘addressed’ rated checklist items and had a below average number of ‘poorly/not addressed’ items. Documents Reviewed: Puyallup Comprehensive Plan, the Downtown Revitalization Neighborhood Plan (2009).

46

Regional Center Planning in the Central Puget Sound


Regional Center Planning in the Central Puget Sound

47


Puyallup – South Hill | This Regional Growth Center’s overall performance on the checklist item policy evaluation is average among all centers. Puyallup South Hill had the second highest performance for items in the Environment checklist section and both Puyallup centers had the second highest performances for the Transportation Additional Issues section. The center also performed in the top third of centers for items in the Economy and Center Plan Concept sections. Puyallup South Hill has an average number of checklist items at each rating level compared to all centers. Documents Reviewed: Puyallup Comprehensive Plan, the South Hill Neighborhood Plan Policies (2009).

48

Regional Center Planning in the Central Puget Sound


Regional Center Planning in the Central Puget Sound

49


Redmond – Downtown | This Regional Growth Center’s overall performance on the checklist item policy evaluation is in the bottom third among all centers. Redmond Downtown performed in the top third of centers for checklist items in the Transportation Physical Design section. The center had average overall performances for items in the Environment, Land Use, Housing and Transportation Additional Issues sections of checklist. Redmond Downtown has an average number of checklist items at each rating level compared to all centers. Documents Reviewed: Redmond Comprehensive Plan (2010), the Urban Centers Element (2009).

50

Regional Center Planning in the Central Puget Sound


Regional Center Planning in the Central Puget Sound

51


Redmond – Overlake | This Regional Growth Center’s overall performance on the checklist item policy evaluation is average among all centers. Redmond Overlake The center received a rating of 100% for the Environment section. The center also performed in the bottom third of centers for items in the Housing and Transportation Physical Design checklist section and ties as the second lowest performing center for items in the Land Use section of the checklist. The center was in the third of centers with the highest number of ‘poorly/not addressed’ rated checklist items. Documents Reviewed: Redmond Comprehensive Plan (2010), the Urban Centers Element (2009).

52

Regional Center Planning in the Central Puget Sound


Regional Center Planning in the Central Puget Sound

53


Renton | This Regional Growth Center’s overall performance on the checklist item policy evaluation is average among all centers. Renton performed in the top third of centers for items in the Land Use and Transportation Physical Design checklist sections. The center ties for the second lowest performance of all centers for checklist items in the Environment section. Renton has an average number of checklist items at each rating level compared to all centers. Documents Reviewed: City Center Community Plan (2011); and Renton Comprehensive Plan (2009).

54

Regional Center Planning in the Central Puget Sound


Regional Center Planning in the Central Puget Sound

55


SeaTac | This Regional Growth Center’s overall performance on the checklist item policy evaluation is in the bottom third among all centers. SeaTac performed in the top third of centers for items in the Center Plan Concept and Housing checklist sections. The center ties for the second lowest performance of all centers for checklist items in the Land Use section and in the bottom third of centers for items in the Transportation Physical Design sections of the checklist. The center was in the third of centers with the highest numbers of ‘poorly/not addressed’ rated checklist items. Documents Reviewed: City Center Plan (2010); and SeaTac Comprehensive Plan (2011).

56

Regional Center Planning in the Central Puget Sound


Regional Center Planning in the Central Puget Sound

57


Seattle – Downtown | This Regional Growth Center’s overall performance on the checklist item policy evaluation is the best of all centers. Seattle Downtown performed second highest of all centers for items in the Economy, Land Use and Transportation Additional Issues checklist sections, and tied for second highest for items in the Housing section. The center performed in the top third for items in the Transportation Physical Design and in the bottom third for items in the Environment sections of the checklist. The center received the most ‘well addressed’ ratings for checklist items than any other center, and also the fewest number of ‘poorly/not addressed’ ratings. Documents Reviewed: Seattle Comprehensive Plan (2009), the Urban Village Element and the Neighborhood Elements – Belltown, Denny Triangle, Chinatown-International District, Commercial Core, and Pioneer Square (2005).

58

Regional Center Planning in the Central Puget Sound


Regional Center Planning in the Central Puget Sound

59


Seattle – First Hill/Capitol Hill | This Regional Growth Center’s overall performance on the checklist item policy evaluation is in the top third among all centers. Seattle First Hill/Capitol Hill ties for the second highest performance for checklist items in the Housing section and for second lowest performance for items in the Environment. The center also performed in the top third of centers for items in the Land Use and Transportation Additional Issues checklist sections. The center was in the third of centers with the highest number of ‘addressed’ rated checklist items and had a below average number of ‘poorly/not addressed’ items. Documents Reviewed: Seattle Comprehensive Plan (2009), the Urban Village Element and the Neighborhood Elements – Capitol Hill and First Hill (2005).

60

Regional Center Planning in the Central Puget Sound


Regional Center Planning in the Central Puget Sound

61


Seattle – Northgate | This Regional Growth Center’s overall performance on the checklist item policy evaluation is in the top third among all centers. Seattle Northgate performed in the top third of centers for checklist items in the Land Use, Housing and Transportation Additional Issues sections. The center also performed in the bottom third of centers for items in the Environment section of the checklist. The center is in the third of centers with the highest number of ‘addressed’ checklist items and has a below average number of ‘poorly/not addressed’ rated items. Documents Reviewed: Seattle Comprehensive Plan (2009), the Urban Village Element and the Neighborhood Element – Northgate (2005).

62

Regional Center Planning in the Central Puget Sound


Regional Center Planning in the Central Puget Sound

63


Seattle – South Lake Union | This Regional Growth Center’s overall performance on the checklist item policy evaluation is in the top third among all centers. Seattle South Lake Union performed in the top third of centers for items in both Transportation sections and is one of seven centers addressing items in the Economy section. The center also ties for the second highest performance for checklist items in the Housing section, but is in the bottom third of centers for items in the Land Use section. The center has the second fewest number of ‘poorly/not addressed’ rated checklist items. Documents Reviewed: Seattle Comprehensive Plan (2009), the Urban Village Element and the Neighborhood Element – South Lake Union (2005).

64

Regional Center Planning in the Central Puget Sound


Regional Center Planning in the Central Puget Sound

65


Seattle – University | This Regional Growth Center’s overall performance on the checklist item policy evaluation is average among all centers. Seattle University performed in the top third of centers for items in the Housing, ‘transportation physical design and Transportation Additional Issues checklist sections. The center is in the third of centers with the fewest ‘poorly/not addressed’ rated checklist items. Documents Reviewed: Seattle Comprehensive Plan (2009), the Urban Village Element and the Neighborhood Element – University Community Urban Center (2005).

66

Regional Center Planning in the Central Puget Sound


Regional Center Planning in the Central Puget Sound

67


Seattle – Uptown Queen Anne | This Regional Growth Center’s overall performance on the checklist item policy evaluation is average among all centers. Seattle Uptown Queen Anne performed in the top third of centers for checklist items in the Land Use, ‘Environment ‘and’ transportation physical design’ sections. The center is in the third of centers with the lowest number of ‘addressed’ rated checklist items and slightly more than average ‘well addressed’ and ‘poorly/not addressed’. Documents Reviewed: Seattle Comprehensive Plan (2009), the Urban Village Element and the Neighborhood Element – Queen Anne (2005).

68

Regional Center Planning in the Central Puget Sound


Regional Center Planning in the Central Puget Sound

69


Silverdale | This Regional Growth Center’s overall performance on the checklist item policy evaluation is in the bottom third among all centers. Silverdale performed the lowest for items both in the Land Use and Transportation Physical Design sections of the checklist and is in the bottom third of centers of checklist items in the Housing section. The center also performed the second highest among centers in the Environment section of the checklist. The center is in the third of centers with the highest number of ‘poorly/not addressed’ rated checklist items and ties with the lowest number of ‘addressed’ items. Documents Reviewed: Kitsap County Comprehensive Plan, specifically the Silverdale Sub-Area Plan element (2006).

70

Regional Center Planning in the Central Puget Sound


Regional Center Planning in the Central Puget Sound

71


Tacoma – Downtown | This Regional Growth Center’s overall performance on the checklist item policy evaluation is average among all centers. Tacoma Downtown performed in the top third of centers for checklist items in the Economy and Environment sections and both Transportation sections. The center also ties as a second lowest performing center for items for the Land Use section of the checklist. Tacoma Downtown is in the third of centers with the fewest number of ‘poorly/not addressed’ rated checklist items. Documents Reviewed: Tacoma Comprehensive Plan (2011), the Downtown Element (2008).

72

Regional Center Planning in the Central Puget Sound


Regional Center Planning in the Central Puget Sound

73


Tacoma – Tacoma Mall | This Regional Growth Center’s overall performance on the checklist item policy evaluation is the lowest among all centers. Tacoma Mall performed in the bottom third of centers for all checklist item sections. The center ties as the lowest performing center for items in the Land Use and Transportation Physical Design sections and ties for second lowest performance for items in the Environment and Housing sections of the checklist. The center has the second highest number of ‘‘poorly/not addressed’’ rated items and the second fewest number of ‘well addressed’ checklist items. Documents Reviewed: Tacoma Comprehensive Plan (2011), the Neighborhood Element – South Tacoma Neighborhood (2008).

74

Regional Center Planning in the Central Puget Sound


Regional Center Planning in the Central Puget Sound

75


Tukwila | This Regional Growth Center’s overall performance on the checklist item policy evaluation is in the bottom third among all centers. Tukwila tied for the lowest performing center for items in the Transportation Physical Design sections of the checklist. The center also performed in the top third of centers in the Center Plan Concept checklist section and is average for items in the Environment, Land Use and Transportation Additional Issues sections.is in the top third of centers for both ‘addressed’ and ‘poorly/not addressed’ and the bottom third of center for ‘well addressed’ rated items on the checklist. Items in the Economy and Housing checklist sections were not addressed. Documents Reviewed: Tukwila Comprehensive Plan, the Tukwila Urban Center Element (2008) and the Tukwila Urban Center Plan (Draft 2009).

76

Regional Center Planning in the Central Puget Sound


Regional Center Planning in the Central Puget Sound

77


Ballard/Interbay Manufacturing/Industrial Center | This Manufacturing/Industrial Center’s overall performance on the checklist item policy evaluation is in the top third among all centers. Ballard/Interbay achieved the highest average rating for the items within both the Economy and Public Services (tied) sections of the checklist. The center also ties with the second highest performance for the Center Plan Concept checklist section. However, this center’s plans ranked the poorest among the Environment (tied), Land Use, and Transportation (tied) sections. Documents Reviewed: Ballard-Interbay Northend Manufacturing/Industrial Area Neighborhood Plan (1998); Seattle Comprehensive Plan (2009).

78

Regional Center Planning in the Central Puget Sound


Duwamish Manufacturing/Industrial Center | This Manufacturing/Industrial Center’s overall performance on the checklist item policy evaluation is in the top third among all centers, and received the highest overall rank among plans for manufacturing and industrial centers. Duwamish achieved the highest average rating for the items within the Center Plan Concept, Economy (tied), and Land Use (tied) sections of the checklist. The center also ties with the second highest performance for the Transportation item. However, the center’s plans were ranked the poorest for the Environment (tied) and Public Services (tied) sections. This center had the fewest number of checklist items that were ‘poorly/not addressed’. Documents Reviewed: Greater Duwamish Manufacturing and Industrial Center Plan (1999); Seattle Comprehensive Plan (2009).

Regional Center Planning in the Central Puget Sound

79


Kent Manufacturing/Industrial Center | This Manufacturing/Industrial Center’s overall performance on the checklist item policy evaluation is in the middle third among all centers. Kent achieved the highest average rating for the Transportation section within the checklist. However, the center’s plans were ranked the poorest for the Public Services (tied) item. This center had the highest number (tied) of checklist items that were ‘well addressed’. Documents Reviewed: Kent Comprehensive Plan (2004).

80

Regional Center Planning in the Central Puget Sound


North Tukwila Manufacturing/Industrial Center | This Manufacturing/Industrial Center’s overall performance on the checklist item policy evaluation is in the top third among all centers. Tukwila achieved the highest average rating for the Land Use item within the checklist. Tukwila’s plans also received the second highest rating for the Center Plan Concept (tied), and Economy (tied) checklist sections. However, the center’s plans were ranked the poorest for the Public Services (tied) item, and second poorest for the Environment checklist section. This center had the highest number (tied) of checklist items that were ‘well addressed’. Documents Reviewed: Tukwila Comprehensive Plan (2008); Tukwila Manufacturing Industrial Center Comprehensive Plan Update Background Report (2010).

Regional Center Planning in the Central Puget Sound

81


Frederickson Manufacturing/Industrial Center | This Manufacturing/Industrial Center’s overall performance on the checklist item policy evaluation is in the bottom third among all centers. The center’s plans were ranked the poorest for the public services (tied) item, and second poorest for the Center Plan Concept (tied) and Transportation (tied) items. Documents Reviewed: Frederickson Community Plan (2003); Pierce County Comprehensive Plan (2003).

82

Regional Center Planning in the Central Puget Sound


Port of Tacoma Manufacturing/Industrial Center | This Manufacturing/Industrial Center’s overall performance on the checklist item policy evaluation is in the top third among all centers. The Port of Tacoma’s center’s plans achieved the highest rating for the Environment checklist section, and the second highest rating for the Land Use, Economy (tied), and Transportation (tied) section. The center’s plans were ranked the poorest for the Public Services (tied) item. This center had the highest number (tied) of checklist items that were ‘well addressed’. Documents Reviewed: Tacoma Comprehensive Plan (2011).

Regional Center Planning in the Central Puget Sound

83


Paine Field/Boeing Everett Manufacturing/Industrial Center | This Manufacturing/Industrial Center’s overall performance on the checklist item policy evaluation is in the bottom third among all centers, and received the poorest overall rating among all manufacturing and industrial centers. The center’s plans were ranked the poorest for the Economy and ‘public services’ (tied) sections, and second poorest for the Center Plan Concept (tied) and Transportation (tied) checklist section. This center also had the highest number (tied) of checklist items that were ‘poorly/not addressed’. Documents Reviewed: Everett Comprehensive Plan.

84

Regional Center Planning in the Central Puget Sound


South Kitsap Industrial Area Manufacturing/Industrial Center | This Manufacturing/Industrial Center’s overall performance on the checklist item policy evaluation is in the bottom third among all centers. The center’s plans were ranked the poorest for the Center Plan Concept and Transportation (tied) sections, and second poorest for the Economy section of the checklist. However, this center ranked highest (tied) for the Public Services item. This center also had the highest number (tied) of checklist items that were either ‘poorly/not addressed’. Documents Reviewed: South Kitsap Industrial Area Sub-Area Plan (2003).

Regional Center Planning in the Central Puget Sound

85


4. Assessing the checklist as an evaluation tool The previous chapter offers a summary of how each Regional Growth Center and Manufacturing/Industrial Center performs on the checklist. The graphics can be used to compare center planning efforts to one another. This chapter summarizes how center planning as a whole performs on each checklist item and offers suggestions for whether each item should be retained, revised, or removed from the checklist, to assess the checklist’s “fit” as an evaluation and review tool. As a whole, the Regional Centers Plan Checklist is a useful tool for plan assessment. The primary categories are useful indicators of important elements to include in center plans. The following findings identify how the checklist can be improved. The Checklist is open to multiple interpretations Some checklist items are vague. As a result, it is unclear what strategies are considered “best practices” for center planning. Greater specificity can clarify planning expectations and lead jurisdictions to employ successful or recommended practices. This chapter includes suggestions for clarifying checklist language based on the range of policies identified through the policy scan. The Checklist contains redundant items The checklist contains overlapping items. For example, the Environment and Transportation sections contain these requirements, respectively: “Describe parks and open space, including public spaces and civic places,” and “Provide usable open spaces.” Similarly, two items state: “Manage the supply of parking,” and “Include a parking management strategy.” Given the lack of detail on the checklist, it is unclear that these items cover substantially different topics. Condensing similar or duplicate items will streamline the checklist and clarify expectations. It is unclear whether citywide policies are considered adequate for planning, or whether centers should address the checklist item via center-specific policies Jurisdictions address many checklist items through broad, citywide policies, found mostly in Comprehensive Plan elements. As a result, it is unclear whether jurisdictions are planning for the specific geographic, social, environmental, and economic circumstances of their centers. Even if jurisdictions do address most of the checklist across multiple planning documents, it is recommended that jurisdictions consolidate these policies in a single sub-area plan. Doing so would provide cities and the Puget Sound Regional Council with a useful evaluation and review tool. Such a document can also serve as a strategic communication tool for developers and other parties interested in participating in center growth and development. Checklist revision summary As described in the following sections, the checklist will require revisions in order to be effectively used to evaluate Regional Growth Center planning efforts. Of the 35 Regional Growth Center checklist items: • • •

10 items should be retained as written 16 items should be revised 9 items should be removed due to overlap with other items

Regional Center Planning in the Central Puget Sound

87


The items suggested for removal or combination with other items include two Transportation 2040 Physical Design items and seven Additional Transportation items. In consideration of these suggestions and that there are eighteen items between Transportation sections, it is recommended that these sections be consolidated and streamlined. Of the 20 Manufacturing/Industrial Center checklist items, all but one should be retained. The item suggested for removal is Land Use item #5, which requires design guidelines to mitigate aesthetic impacts. This checklist item appears to be inconsistent with the desired development in Manufacturing/Industrial Centers. Table 4-1: “Suggested checklist revisions,� illustrates which checklist items are suggested to be retained, revised, or removed. The remainder of this chapter summarizes how each checklist item was addressed and offers suggestions for clarification and modification.

88

Regional Center Planning in the Central Puget Sound


Table 4-1. Suggested checklist revisions

Retain

Revise

Remove

Details

Center Plan Concept

1. Vision for the center

2. Relationship with city and regional plans

3. Market analysis

Environment 1. Protects critical areas

2. Describes parks and open space

3. Stormwater and drainage

4. Air pollution and emissions

Land Use

1. Defined center boundaries

2. Growth targets

Regional Center Planning in the Central Puget Sound

 89


Retain 3. Land use mix

4. Transit-supportive design standards

Revise

Remove

Details

Housing 1. Existing and projected housing units

 

2. Variety of housing types

3. Housing target strategies/monitoring

Economy 1. Describes the role of the center

2. Describes key sectors/industries

Public Services 1. Describes capital facilities and financing

Transportation – Transportation 2040 physical design guidelines

1. Complementary land use mix

2. Compact growth and linked neighborhoods 90

Combine with Land Use item #3

 Regional Center Planning in the Central Puget Sound


Retain

Revise

3. Integrate activity areas with each other

4. Locate public uses near stations

5. Design for pedestrians and cyclists

Remove

6. Provide usable open spaces

7. Parking supply management

8. Promote on-street parking

9. Reduce/mitigate parking effects

Details

Combine with Environment item #2 Combine with Additional Transportation Issues #8

Transportation – Additional transportation issues 1. Integrated multimodal network

Combine with Transportation Physical Design items #2 and #3

2. Transit-supportive design criteria

Combine with Land Use items #2 or #4

Combine with Land Use item #4

3. Address relationships with transit agencies

4. Complete streets standards

5. Context-sensitive design of facilities Regional Center Planning in the Central Puget Sound

 

91


Retain

Revise

Remove

Details

6. Green streets

Combine with Environment item #3

7. Level-of-service and concurrency

Combine with Transportation Additional Issues #9

8. Parking management strategy

Combine with Transportation Physical Design item #7

9. Mode-split goals

Combine with Environment item #4, or vice versa

92

Regional Center Planning in the Central Puget Sound


Center Plan Concept (or “Vision”) #1: Include a vision for the center. This should include a commitment to human scale urban form. Most center plans (24) included some type of vision statement for the center describing the desired future conditions for the area. But only about half included statements about orienting buildings, streets, blocks, and the built environment toward pedestrians. Some sub-area plans referenced detailed design documents for centers – for example, Burien has a “Conceptual Framework for the Town Square” document. The vision statement requirement on this checklist item should be retained. To plan for the future of the center requires first having agreement on what the center should look like in the future and how it should function; a vision statement does this. The requirement that the vision include a commitment to human scale urban form should be re-thought; the concept is too vague and should either be removed or spelled out in more detailed terms. In addition, this item could be combined with Economy Item #1, “Describe the economic and residential role of the center within the city and the region.” A vision will be more complete if it also includes the center’s role in the region. #2: Include an overview of the relationship of the center plan to the city’s comprehensive plan, as well as VISION 2040 and countywide planning policies. This checklist item was addressed sporadically, not comprehensively. For those centers that mentioned city, county, or regional planning documents, many simply stated the existence of the plans or mentioned the definition of a Regional Growth Center. Most of the plans did not state how the sub–area plan helped fulfill county or regional goals. This item should be retained in the checklist. Sub-area plans for designated centers should explain how the plan and the center relate to city, county, and regional policies. #3: Include a market analysis of the center’s development potential. This checklist item is most relevant for areas applying for Regional Growth Center designation, rather than existing growth centers which are already developed. Therefore, this checklist item was not researched as closely. A cursory glance at the plans showed that most did not include a market analysis of development potential. However, a substantial number of centers have separate reports with market analyses. This item should be retained for evaluating proposed Regional Growth Centers. Designation of a center requires a concentration of housing and jobs; a market analysis will help determine the likelihood of the necessary number of units. In addition, jurisdictions applying for Regional Growth Center status should be encouraged to include any existing market analysis documents directly in the plan for the center rather than in separate reports.

Environment #1: Identify and develop provisions to protect critical/Environmentally sensitive areas. Critical areas and sensitive Environments are mainly addressed through general critical areas planning in Comprehensive Plans. Centers vary in the level of center-specific planning related to this criterion. At the center planning level, locations that addressed this item either included one or Regional Center Planning in the Central Puget Sound

93


two broad policy statements about Environmental protection or the promotion of growth management strategies, or they included multiple (over a dozen) specific policies. The checklist item should be retained; Environmentally sound planning is a main tenant of growth management and center strategies. If used for plan review, this checklist item should specify the level of detail expected for these policies (if any) in centers without large critical or sensitive areas. The checklist should also specify whether there is interest for inclusion of resource conservation, Environmental enhancement, or restoration policies in center plans. #2: Describe parks and open space, including public spaces and civic places. For the majority of centers, the item is addressed comprehensively. Policies address a wide range of topics: upgrading existing spaces or adding new ones; relating parks, open space, and plazas to livability goals and growth management goals; using them as connecting pathways within the center and between the center and other neighborhoods; maintaining them for Environmental purposes; and incentivizing private development to provide future parks and open spaces. This checklist item should remain as a checklist item for new centers and as an evaluation criterion for existing centers. It could be clarified so that it requests that plans “describe existing and planned parks and open space, and related goals and policies for their maintenance and development.� #3: Include policies and programs for innovative treatment of stormwater and drainage. This item is poorly addressed in most center-specific planning documents. While most comprehensive plans contain a full range of stormwater runoff, drainage, and surface water management policies, most centers addressed the topic more specifically only if the center contained or bordered a water body. Center-specific policies commonly address topics such as infrastructure capacity and financing arrangements. No policies were identified that address gray water systems or rainwater catchment. Very few policies address reduction of combined sewer overflow events. The checklist item should be retained, and it should clarify whether it is interested in citywide water quality policies with respect to center planning. Given the impact of density and impervious surfaces on runoff, center plans should address the specific water quality and stormwater management needs of their urban centers and their future development. For center application and review purposes, it would be useful for center plans to aggregate or cross-reference other planning documents containing related policies. #4: Include strategies and programs to reduce air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions. Common topics across all comprehensive plans include Commute Trip Reduction goals, transportation system controls, travel modes, supporting state and federal air quality standards and regulations, and improving city vehicle fleets. Air pollution and emissions from non-vehicle sources are rarely addressed. Many plans refer to Commute Trip Reduction Ordinances, which is how many cities implement Vehicle Miles Traveled and Single Occupancy Vehicle commute trip reduction programs for major employers and worksites, required by the State Commute Trip Reduction Act (RCW 70.94.521 through 70.94.555) for local governments that experience auto-related air pollution and traffic congestion. These actions are not required for all cities, so despite the fact that center development

94

Regional Center Planning in the Central Puget Sound


implies increased population and traffic, it does not appear that all centers must include this planning. Most center plans and transportation elements refer to external documents. This item should be retained, and Item #9 from Additional Transportation Issues, which discusses mode split goals, should be folded into this checklist item. (Alternatively, this item could be moved to the Transportation section.) The text should state specifically (a) what types of policies Puget Sound Regional Council recommends for Center sub-area plans, and (b) whether these plans are expected to refer to the multiple strategies and policies contained in other plans, ordinances, and programs. It should also be explicitly stated whether Centers are expected to have policies for nonvehicle emissions air quality issues.

Land Use #1: Demonstrate defined boundaries and shape for the center (boundaries should be compact and easily walkable. This suggests a roughly uniform shape of about 1 mile. Boundaries should not be elongated or gerrymandered). Overall, this checklist item was addressed comprehensively and very well. There were many phrases that were repeated across plans. One such example is, “focus growth and development into the center area.” This checklist item should be retained. However, it fails to address the following issues: •

What is the spatial relationship between the boundary and the center of density or the location of a transit center? For example, Downtown Redmond locates the future transit station on the edge of the downtown area, and adjacent to a freeway interchange. The metric of a one-mile diameter circle could be further explained. Bremerton is 126 acres (compared to 500 acres for the ideal center), yet it seems to function as a center.

#2: Establish residential and employment growth targets that accommodate a significant share of the jurisdiction’s growth, as well as residential densities and building intensities with capacity to accommodate these levels of growth (note that targets are aspirational and state the minimum number of residents or jobs that a jurisdiction must be zoned to accommodate and will strive to absorb by the planning horizon year. Targets are distinct from zoned development capacity). This checklist item was rarely addressed through policy language. Targets were often provided in tabular form, or in written narrative. Many jurisdictions had language targeting growth to the centers in nominal, but not numeric, terms. Generally, only large jurisdictions (Lynnwood, Renton, and Seattle) calculated numeric targets for the Centers. This points to the question of whether it is too costly for jurisdictions to provide growth targets for centers. The checklist item should be retained. It is a useful evaluation tool of center planning because it encourages a specific quantity of growth into centers. #3: Describe the mix, distribution and location of uses (such as residential, commercial, civic, public). Include a map showing uses. Because this item is intended to be part of a market analysis, it is assumed that this checklist item is well addressed by all new centers. For those Centers with a Market Study, an in depth analysis of potential uses is available. Floor Area Ratio is the most common way density is described. Maximum floor area is also used.

Regional Center Planning in the Central Puget Sound

95


This checklist item is sufficiently narrow and should be retained for evaluating new center applications. It is interesting to consider density, and whether the future land use map contains one land use, as long as single land use designation is well defined and desirable. This checklist could be expanded to include these items. #4: Include design standards for pedestrian-friendly, transit-oriented development and other transit-supportive planning that orients land uses around transit. Just less than half of the Centers have Design Guidelines that address transit-oriented development. The checklist item should be retained. It seems that centers are able to meet the criteria.

Housing #1: State total existing and projected housing units. Most cities merely stated the number of units somewhere in the comprehensive plan, often in tabular form in an introductory section. Only two cities (Everett and Kent) had a specific policy to allow or provide for a stated number of new housing units. This checklist item should be retained. A simple statement of existing and projected housing units should be the starting point for housing planning in each center. #2: Include provisions for a variety of housing types that addresses density standards, affordable housing, and special housing needs. Some plans contained language about promoting higher densities and mixed uses in urban centers, while many contain provisions relating to preserving single family neighborhoods (these were not included, as they are presumed to relate to areas totally or predominantly outside urban centers). Affordable housing was universally mentioned, but only rarely did the plans mention housing specifically for low-income or very-low income individuals. Similarly, special needs housing was a common theme, but fewer plans mentioned what populations they were seeking to serve with special needs housing – some mentioned senior housing or housing for individuals with disabilities. Only two plans mention housing for the homeless (Kitsap County, Auburn) or the mentally ill (Federal Way, Kitsap County), and only one plan mentioned housing for individuals with drug or alcohol dependencies (Kitsap County). This item should be retained. If possible, the item should be made more specific to provide for a better evaluation of policies. Plans should state how dense centers will be and for whom, specifically, housing will be provided. #3: Include implementation strategies and monitoring programs for addressing housing targets and goals. Implementation strategies included zoning code changes, allowances of specific housing types (such as accessory dwelling units), tax incentives and development partnerships for affordable housing. Very few of these strategies were center-specific, but those that are citywide typically cover centers as well as other areas. Bothell, for instance, has a detailed monitoring program citywide that applies to their center. SeaTac lists implementation strategies for both affordable housing and special needs housing goals.

96

Regional Center Planning in the Central Puget Sound


This item should be retained. Implementation and monitoring should be separate criteria, as both are important for housing goals to be met.

Economy #1: Describe the economic and residential role of the center within the city and the region. This item was addressed only partially by the center plans, in several different ways: a description of the existing economic or residential role of the center (but not both) or a description of the desired future role of the center and policies for achieving that goal. The checklist item should be retained because a description of existing conditions aids future planning. The item could be expanded to include a description of desired future industries and policies to retain and attract these industries. #2: Describe key sectors and industry clusters in the center. Most centers did not include a description of the existing key sectors and industry clusters in the center. Many sub-area plans do not include a section on existing conditions, and those that do often do not describe industries in the area. Some plans included a description of the types of industries they would like to have in the future; this was often in a Vision section or Economic Development section of the plan. The checklist item should be retained because a description of existing business conditions in the center helps plan for the future. The item could be expanded to include a description of desired future industries and policies to retain and attract these industries.

Public Services #1: Describe existing and planned capital facilities, as well as their financing (such as sewer, water, gas, electric, telecommunications). Explain strategies to ensure facilities are provided consistent with targeted growth. Many sub-area plans did not have a section on capital facilities and did not address capital facilities for the center area specifically. However, all Comprehensive Plans have sections on Capital Facilities, as required. It can be assumed that the policies that apply to the jurisdiction as a whole also apply to the centers. No center plans fully addressed this item. If it was partially addressed for the center, it was usually regarding concurrency requirements. This item should be retained. Ensuring adequate public facilities to meet targeted or planned growth is an important mandate of the Growth Management Act and should be included in centerspecific planning.

Transportation Transportation 2040 Physical Design Guidelines #1: Encourage a mix of complementary land uses. This checklist item was not considered as the subject of this policy scan because it overlaps with checklist item #3 under the section ‘Transportation 2040 Physical Design Guidelines.’ This item may be better suited for the Land Use section, and would fit well with item #3. Regional Center Planning in the Central Puget Sound

97


#2: Encourage compact growth by addressing density and by linking neighborhoods, connect streets, sidewalks and trails. Most plans included language about improving the connectivity of transportation systems of urban centers by either enhancing the internal transportation connectivity within a center, or better connecting centers with surrounding areas/other centers. However, the majority of plans did not directly mention higher densities or compact cities, so that policies addressing the connectivity of the transportation system in relation to centers were just included. Overall, the item was not addressed comprehensively since in many cases, plans contained only one or two policies addressing this item. While some plans only addressed policies related to transportation connectivity within a center, others only addressed policies with regard to linkages between neighborhoods. This item should be retained. #3: Integrate activity areas with surrounding neighborhoods. The plans mentioning integration with surrounding areas are not likely to mention a focus on the connectivity of activities. Very few plans directly mention an ‘activity center’ or specific land uses such as commercial and open spaces that imply activities occurring in those areas. In many cases, policies reflect ‘integrate activity’ by including the improvement of connectivity between adjacent areas from the pedestrian or non-motorized users’ perspective. This item should be retained but clarified. #4: Locate public/semipublic uses near stations. Over half of the jurisdictions have citywide plans or center specific plans mentioning the location of public or semi-public uses near stations. This checklist item should be retained, with revisions to the definition of “station” to include all transportation facilities. #5: Design for pedestrians and bicyclists. For the majority of centers, the item is addressed comprehensively. Policies address a wide range of topics ranging from design aspects such as streetscaping and pedestrian-oriented design, to installing new facilities to improve the movement of pedestrian and bicycle users. This item should be retained, but divided into two separate items. This item is too broad because physical design for walkers and bicyclists can be interpreted in two ways: 1) aesthetic aspect of non-motorized transportation facilities to encourage people to walk and bicycle and 2) design the connectivity of pedestrian/bicycle facilities to improve movement by providing and maintaining facilities. #6: Provide usable open spaces. This checklist item is not considered as the subject of this policy scan because this item is overlapped with checklist item #2 under the section of ‘Environment.’ It is unclear how specifically this item is meant to relate to transportation topics. This item should be integrated into the Environment section.

98

Regional Center Planning in the Central Puget Sound


#7: Manage the supply of parking. All comprehensive plans reviewed addressed parking. However, only some plans contained policies related to parking management. Parking is one policy area for which cities were more likely to have policies specifically related to their urban centers. This is unsurprising, as parking tends to be more of a problem in dense, urban areas. Plans containing only broad policy statements do not acknowledge the parking needs and specific parking situation in centers. For this reason, this item should be revised by merging it with “Additional Transportation Issues” item #8, which more specifically calls for a parking management strategy. #8: Promote on-street parking. On-street parking does not appear to be a prominent concern for any cities in the region, and it is only addressed minimally by some. The plans mentioning on-street parking typically do so in the context of street design (as providing a buffer for pedestrians) or as a way to provide sufficient parking in a more urban context. No plans promote on-street parking as a replacement for offstreet parking, although two plans (Seattle and Everett) call for the reduction of off-street parking requirements, while another plan (Federal Way) contained a policy of including on-street parking as a component of parking supply. This checklist item should be revised for clarification, since on-street parking does not appear to apply to all centers equally. For example, the densest urban centers have no need to “promote” onstreet parking, since it is already well utilized and, in some cases, priced. Additionally, it is not clear what the benefits are to promoting on-street parking. If the benefit relates to an associated reduction of off-street parking, the criteria could indicate the importance of low off-street parking requirements. #9: Reduce/mitigate parking effects. Nearly all cities have policies to reduce or mitigate the negative impacts of surface parking lots and/or parking structures. It seems that cities in the region have recognized the design problems associated with parking, and have sought to address them in their plans. Policies typically provide for landscaping, screening, or other design elements to make parking more aesthetically pleasing. In the narrow scope of urban design, this criterion was addressed well by all but those cities having no parking policies. This item should be retained. When reviewing center policies it may be helpful to decide which specific parking effects should be reduced or mitigated. If the reduction of surface parking lots is desired, a criterion related specifically to this goal would be helpful. Additional Transportation Issues #1: Develop an integrated multimodal transportation network, including pedestrian and bicycle facilities, as well as linkages to adjacent neighborhoods and districts. Overall, this checklist item was compressively addressed by the centers. Twenty-three (23) of twenty-seven centers were determined to have ‘well addressed’ the item according to the rating system. This item should be folded into other checklist items. The analysis recognizes that there are two separate ideas being presented within this checklist item. Although one option would be to split Regional Center Planning in the Central Puget Sound

99


the item into two items, a better alternative exists. Item #2 in the ‘transportation physical design’ section encourages the same multi-modal transportation systems. Item #3 in the ‘transportation physical design’ section involves the integrating the activity within a center to adjacent areas. It is recommended that this checklist item be removed and the two themes it encompasses be consolidated into the mentioned two mentioned items. #2: Include detailed design criteria that advances transit-supportive land uses. Sixteen (16) of the twenty-seven centers ‘well addressed’ this checklist item. Aside from Uptown Queen Anne, which ‘poorly/not addressed’ the item, all centers addressed this item in some form. Many policies discussed parking reduction strategies and a handful recommended charging for on-street parking. Another common way policies addressed this item was by encouraging the development of transit facilities and improvement of pedestrian Environments surrounding future and existing facilities. This item should be folded into another checklist item. In the Land Use section, item #2 suggests jurisdictional growth targets and residential and employment densities. If the land use item were updated to also mention transit, this item is no longer needed. The item is also very similar to item #4 in the Land Use section, which calls for transit oriented development and transit design standards. #3: Address relationships to regional high-capacity transit (including bus rapid transit, commuter rail, light rail, and express bus) and local transit by working with transit agencies. The two Puyallup centers addressed this checklist item the most comprehensively. Fourteen total policies were found for Puyallup that directly addressed different actions to improve transit by working with transit providers. Ten policies were found for Renton, also thoroughly addressing relationships necessary to improve transit. Although not all centers addressed the checklist item this comprehensively, each center did meet at least one aspect of the item’s criteria. The item should be retained on the checklist. #4: Include provisions for full standards for streets and urban roadways that serve all users, including pedestrians, bicyclists, transit, vehicles, and – where appropriate – freight (see “complete streets” description in VISION 2040). Eleven (11) of twenty-seven centers addressed this checklist item well, by having policies that specifically reference complete streets. Another eight (8) centers ‘addressed’ this item, but complete streets were not directly mentioned in the policies. Centers that did not mention complete streets provided policies that discussed balance use for all users, expansion of walkways and other directions improving access for multiple modes of transportation. This checklist item should be retained. As complete streets are specifically mentioned in VISION 2040, their development should be addressed by designated centers. That said, there exists an opportunity to reframe this the concept of complete streets within the ‘transportation physical design’ section. Many of the items within ‘transportation additional issues’ are superfluous and migrating items like this into other sections may make the checklist more concise. #5: Include provisions for context-sensitive design of transportation facilities. Because ‘context-sensitive design’ can be interpreted many different ways, policies determined to meet the criteria for this checklist item were quite varied. Very few centers had policies specifically referring to the design of transportation facilities, and thus only four (4) of twenty-seven centers 100

Regional Center Planning in the Central Puget Sound


were determined to have ‘well addressed’ the item. Twelve (12) centers ‘addressed’ the item with regards to context-sensitive design practices, but did not contain polices specifically for transportation facilities. Overall, eleven (11) of twenty-seven centers were determined to ‘not address/poorly address’ the item. This item should be folded into other checklist items. Item #4 in the Land Use section of the checklist discusses design standards for transit stations. If the wording of the item #4 in Land Use were modified to address context-sensitive design when developing transportation facilities, this item could be left out of the checklist. #6: Include provisions for Environmentally friendly street (“green street”) treatments. This checklist item was addressed in a variety of different ways. Many centers had policies requiring green infrastructure and low impact development methods. The most common element of green streets addressed by center policy is the implementation of green streets. Some centers go as far as to dictate tree species within policy. Overall, eleven (11) of twenty-seven centers were found to explicitly address green streets. That said, only three (3) centers ‘well addressed’ the item and these centers are: Puyallup-Downtown, Puyallup-South Hill, and Redmond-Overlake. The Redmond-Overlake center did not address green streets directly; fourteen comprehensive and center-specific policies were found that allowed for the high rating. This item should be folded into other checklist items. Green streets are specially referenced in VISION 2040 and are supportive of other items in both the Transportation and ‘Environment’ sections of the checklist. Within the ‘Environment’ section, item #3 touches on stormwater runoff. Theses two items could be consolidated, as they inherently deal with the similar issues. #7: Tailor level-of-service standards and concurrency provisions for the center to encourage transit. This item was addressed by most (22) centers, but not comprehensively so. There were no centers determined to well address this item. Many of the centers addressing this item did so in similar ways. Generally, policies that address this item include discussion of transit, concurrency or reducing reliance on single occupancy vehicles. This item should be folded into Transportation Additional Issues #9. Although level of service standards are important in in and of themselves, other items on the checklist overlap with the general concepts surrounding these standards. See the analysis for item #9 in the Transportation Additional Issues section for further details. #8: Include a parking management strategy. All city comprehensive plans reviewed said something about parking. However, only some plans contained policies related to parking management. Parking is one policy area for which cities were more likely to have policies specifically related to their urban centers. This is unsurprising, as parking tends to be more of a problem in dense, urban areas. This item should be folded into Transportation 2040 Design Guidelines item #7 about parking, since these items are substantially similar. The wording for this item may be more appropriate, since it requires the inclusion of a strategy to manage parking, rather than merely policies related to parking supply management.

Regional Center Planning in the Central Puget Sound

101


#9: Develop mode-split goals. The majority of Regional Growth Centers were found to have policy addressing this item. More than three-quarters of the centers directly stated mode split goals and many of the policies were specific to the center. This is critical because mode split goals should be higher for centers than for the rest of a jurisdiction. Other centers addressed the criteria by citing Commute Trip Reduction programs. Most centers have addressed this item. Policies addressing this item were mainly found within the transportation elements of plans. This item should be folded into other checklist items. Item #4 in the ‘Environment’ section deals with Commute Trip Reduction programs and the reduction of greenhouse gas. Additionally, they item in this section mentioning transit-supportive level of service standards encourage the same general topic as these two items. These three items could be consolidated without the individual strengths of the items being weakened.

102

Regional Center Planning in the Central Puget Sound


Regional Manufacturing Industrial Center Plan Checklist: Policy Analysis Checklist Section: Center plan concept (or “vision”) Checklist Item: #1 – Include a vision for the center. This should include a commitment to preservation of an urban industrial land base. Only two centers had explicit vision statements discussing industrial lands preservation. Of the remaining six, five had clear articulation of industrial land preservation as an important goal for the area. This checklist item should be retained. It is critical to explain the role of the center, especially for those centers that do not have sub-area plans. A vision statement binds the subsequent goal and policy statements into a cohesive framework. Checklist Item: #2—Include an overview of the relationship of the center plan to the city’s comprehensive plan, as well as VISION 2040 and countywide planning policies. This checklist item was addressed in plans for all eight of the Manufacturing/Industrial Centers. It is common to find language related to city and countywide policies, and less common to find explicit mention of regional policy. Because of when these plans were created, mostly prior to adoption of VISION 2040, the relationship to regional guidance often refers to VISION 2020, or just broadly to regional planning. This checklist item should be retained. A clear articulation of the relationship of the center to the county, aids understanding of the role of the center and the need for the subsequent policies. Checklist Item: #3—Include a market analysis of the center’s development potential. This checklist item was addressed minimally for three of the eight centers. No center has a complete market analysis or discussion of future demand. This checklist item should be retained. An understanding of future demand would demonstrate 1) why it may (or may not be) important to protect these areas, and 2) what specific actions and policies should be implemented to support future growth.

Checklist Section: Environment Checklist Item: #1— Identify and develop provision to protect critical/environmentally sensitive areas. Two centers did not treat this item at all. Five of the eight centers made an attempt to mention environmental issues and critical areas. The most robust discussion was for the South Kitsap Industrial Area, though it still fell short of providing location specific guidance and policies beyond suggesting that broader critical areas policies should be followed. This checklist item should be retained. While Manufacturing/Industrial Centers play a critical role in supporting business, employment and the needs of the region, this should not be at the expense of environmentally sensitive areas. More discussion on this topic should be included.

Regional Center Planning in the Central Puget Sound

103


Checklist Item: #2— Include policies and programs for innovative treatment of stormwater and drainage (related to Public Services). This checklist item is not particularly well addressed. Five of eight centers have some discussion on this topic, but mainly focused on public services. This checklist item should be retained. The checklist item helps to identify infrastructure needs, and if used properly, identify strategies to improve environmental systems. Checklist Item: #3— Include strategies and programs to reduce air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions. This checklist item is uniformly poorly addressed in plans related to Manufacturing/Industrial Centers. There is little, if any treatment of this topic. This checklist item should be retained. While Manufacturing/Industrial Centers play a critical role in supporting business, employment and the needs of the region, this should not be at the expense of air quality related issues. The number of freight vehicles travelling through these areas alone merits considerations. More discussion on this topic should be included.

Checklist Section: Land Use Checklist Item: #1 – Demonstrate and explain the defined boundaries and shape for the center. None of the plans included both a description and explanation of the center boundaries. Only two plans included a written description of the center boundaries. This checklist item should be retained. To plan for a manufacturing/industrial center, it’s imperative to know exactly where the center is. The item could be clarified by stating that both a map and a written description of the boundaries are needed. Checklist Item: #2 – Establish employment growth targets that accommodate a significant share of the jurisdiction’s manufacturing/industrial employment growth, and demonstrate capacity to accommodate these levels of growth (note that targets are aspirational and state the minimum number of jobs that a jurisdiction must be zoned to accommodate and will strive to absorb by the planning horizon year. Targets are distinct from zoned development capacity). Most plans did not establish employment growth targets for manufacturing/industrial centers. The exceptions are the two Seattle plans, BINMIC and Duwamish. None of the plans stated the jurisdiction’s expected or targeted industrial job growth. Several plans included an analysis of the employment capacity of the center. This item should be retained. One purpose of having designated manufacturing/industrial centers is to attract and retain industrial businesses and jobs in the region and concentrate them in these areas. Because of the nature of industrial businesses, they don’t mix easily with other uses and should be concentrated in defined areas. Therefore, it’s important to estimate future industrial employment and ensure it can be accommodated in manufacturing/industrial centers.

104

Regional Center Planning in the Central Puget Sound


Checklist Item: #3 – Describe the percentage of planned land use and zoning in the center for industrial and manufacturing uses. Only one center plan addressed this item, the Duwamish. This item should be retained; planning for manufacturing/industrial centers will be improved with a description of the lands zoned industrial. The item could be revised to also require a zoning map. Checklist Item: #4 – Describe strategies to avoid land uses that are incompatible with manufacturing, industrial uses, such as large retail uses, high concentrations of housing, or non-related office uses (other than as an accessory use). All of the center plans address this item in some manner; many plans simply state that nonindustrial uses should be limited while some plans have more specific strategies. This item should be retained. Avoiding incompatible uses in centers is one of the most important ways to retain and attract manufacturing and industrial businesses. Checklist Item: #5 – Include design standards that help mitigate aesthetic and other impacts of manufacturing and industrial activities both within the center and on adjacent areas. All of the suburban jurisdictions with manufacturing/industrial centers addressed this item with language or policies to lessen the impact of businesses on neighbors. The plans for BINMIC and the Duwamish did not include any policies. This checklist item should be removed or substantially changed. It could be clarified to state the purpose more clearly – for example, is it primarily to lessen aesthetic and noise impacts on neighboring residential communities, or on sensitive environmental lands? Also, providing examples of types of design standards would be useful. However, it could also be removed, since one goal of the MICs is to limit incompatible land uses (such as residential) from manufacturing and industrial areas.

Checklist Section: Economy Checklist Item: #1 – Describe the economic role of the center within the city and the region. In general this item was not well addressed in many plans. Most plans did not include thorough descriptions of the current economic role of the center in the city and region. Some plans described the desired future role of the center, rather than the current role. This checklist item should be retained. To gain designation as a manufacturing/industrial center or plan for the future of an existing center, it’s important to know and explain how important the area is for jobs and revenue within the jurisdiction and the region. Checklist Item: #2 – Describe strategies to support or maintain manufacturing industrial industries (i.e., workforce, apprenticeships, land value policies, parcel aggregation, etc.). Every manufacturing/industrial center addressed this item at least partially. This item should be retained in the checklist. Because part of the goal of designating these centers is to retain and attract manufacturing and industrial businesses, jurisdictions should be required to institute strategies for supporting these businesses. Regional Center Planning in the Central Puget Sound

105


Checklist Item: #3 – Describe key sectors and industry clusters in the center. None of the center plans fully addressed this item by listing specific types of industries clustered in the sector. Some plans included a very general description of business types, such as “heavy manufacturing.” This item should be retained. A firm knowledge of existing conditions in the center, including existing industries, is necessary to plan land use, infrastructure, and other public policies to meet regional goals.

Checklist Section: Public Services Checklist Item: #1—Describe local capital plans for infrastructure, as well as their financing (such as sewer, water, gas, electric, telecommunications). Explain strategies to ensure facilities are provided consistent with targeted growth. This item was addressed by all jurisdictions. Discussion commonly focused around existing conditions and needs, with limited discussion regarding future demand or financing. This item should be retained. Manufacturing/Industrial Centers will not be able to function without the provision of appropriate public services. Jurisdictions engages with center’s planning should be encouraged to consider growth targets and meeting future demand, not just accommodating the current needs.

Checklist Section: Transportation Checklist Item: #1— Describe the transportation networks to and within the manufacturing industrial center, and plans to identify and address deficiencies. This item was addressed by all jurisdictions. Discussion commonly focused around existing conditions and needs, particularly in terms of maintenance and preservation. This item should be retained. Manufacturing/Industrial Centers would not be able to thrive or continue their function without effective transportation networks. Additional discussion on deficiencies would help target the most significant investments necessary to allow the centers to thrive. Checklist Item: #2— Describe strategies that address freight movement, including local and regional distribution. This item was addressed by six of the eight center plans. Discussion commonly focused around specific movements, and specific actions to improve movements on a set of corridors for freight. Direct discussion of distribution was less common. This item should be retained. Manufacturing/Industrial Centers would not be able to thrive or continue their function without effective transportation networks. Understanding which part of the transportation system are most crucial for a particular center aids in targeting investments.

106

Regional Center Planning in the Central Puget Sound


Checklist Item: #3— Describe strategies that address freight movement and employee commuting (such as by encouraging modes such as fixed-route and high-capacity transit, rail, trucking facilities, or waterway, as appropriate). This item was addressed by seven of the eight center plans. Discussion commonly focused around ensuring good access to transit for employees of center businesses. This item should be retained. Manufacturing/Industrial Centers would witness improved roadway conditions if there were less modal conflicts with passenger vehicles. There would be secondary benefits to center business employees from commuting by transit and non-motorized modes, as well as the associated environmental benefits. Checklist Item: #4— Address relationships to regional high-capacity transit (including bus rapid transit, commuter rail, light rail, and express bus) and local transit by working with transit agencies. This item was addressed by six of the eight center plans. Discussion commonly focused around where and when additional transit service would be useful. This item should be retained. Direct coordination with transit agencies provides direct steps for implementing actions that would benefit center business employees. Checklist Item: #5— Develop mode split goals. No centers addressed this item. While some centers mentioned the need for CTR or TDM programs, none discussed specific targets or establishing them. This item should be retained. This checklist item helps operationalize a centers goal of improving access for employees and improving conditions for the movement of goods.

Regional Center Planning in the Central Puget Sound

107


[This page was intentionally left blank.]

108

Regional Center Planning in the Central Puget Sound


5. Sub-regional centers literature review and GIS analysis Research Questions This supplemental chapter concerns five key issues pertinent both to the assessment of current center planning contained in this document as well as the direction of the region’s future center planning – including the consideration by PSRC of whether to support the designation of subregional centers at the county level. This chapter addresses: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

A synthesis of the academic literature on centers regarding how they are defined and their form. A peer comparison of other regions in regards to centers. Whether or not PSRC should support the designation of sub-regional centers by Central Puget Sound counties. The number and location of places not currently designated as centers that have centerlike densities. Potential density thresholds for sub-regional centers.

Methodology As a preliminary step toward addressing these five issues, two methods were used: a literature review, and a GIS analysis. Reviewed literature included recent academic journal articles, as well as planning documents of planning organizations and government agencies outside the Central Puget Sound region. In the academic literature, special attention was given to how researchers have defined centers, how many centers they identified in the regions they studied, and what economic or social forces they found important to the viability of centers. A summary of the academic literature review, with an eye to its application in the Central Puget Sound region is presented here, while more details are provided in Appendix D. The review of planning documents focused on the Portland, OR and Vancouver, BC regions because they are our neighbors and share similar geography and economic drivers as the Puget Sound Region. This study could be further expanded to include the same cities that the Puget Sound Regional Council has previously identified as peer regions in their 2004 Regional Economic Strategy. In addition to San Francisco and San Diego, this would include Denver, Twin Cities, and Phoenix. Raleigh, North Carolina is another promising location to consider in future work given their efforts with center planning. Portland, OR, and Vancouver, BC conduct center planning at the regional level. Vancouver, BC has taken several proactive steps to connect transit planning and the funding of incentives with the planning of new centers. This is evident in the case of “SkyTrain” west stations. This implies that further study of designating urban centers could additionally be informed by transit planning efforts. The GIS analysis was designed to gain a sense of how many potential sub-regional centers exist in the region according to county-specific “activity unit” (population and employment) density criteria, and where these centers are likely to be located. In order to determine average activity unit densities at the census tract level, the total number of jobs located in each census tract in the

Regional Center Planning in the Central Puget Sound

109


region were added to the total number of residents living in the tract. The resultant figure was divided by the area of the tract in acres, yielding the activity unit density of each census tract. Using average densities at the county level, potential density thresholds for the designation of sub-regional centers were established. Tracts containing activity unit densities higher than the threshold were mapped. More details and further justification of this method are included in the GIS Analysis section of this chapter. Academic Literature Review The academic literature reviewed for this report has primarily focused on the identification of locations within metropolitan regions having higher than average employment densities. “Employment sub-centers” as they are often called, are areas of concentrated employment within a polycentric metropolitan region (Redfearn, 2007). An answer to the policy question of whether or how best to support the development of centers was only tangentially addressed in the reviewed literature. When explaining the formation of centers, the literature does not typically refer to policy support, instead noting that centers have formed due to geography and macro-trends in demographics and socio-economics. One study, for example, concluded that 80% of the variation in the number of subcenters is accounted for by population and commuting costs (D. P. McMillen & S. C. Smith, 2003). McMillen and Smith found that both of these factors are positively correlated with the formation of additional centers (p. 332). The dynamic of center formation are explained by McMillan (2004): “A polycentric urban structure combines advantages of Central Business District-dominated and decentralized cities: large employment subcenters offer firms some of the cost advantages of agglomeration economies, while potentially allowing suburban workers to live close to their jobs. In addition, mass transit can potentially be built to service large subcenters” (p. 240). In other words, multiple centers have formed in metropolitan regions due to changes in transportation accessibility (as with freeway expansion), lower land values stimulating transformative development, and a simultaneous agglomeration and dispersion of urban activity that improves regional economic competitiveness. Waddell and Ulfarsson detail how the paradox of agglomeration and dispersion result in multiple centers: “the essence of agglomeration economies is the idea of increasing returns to scale for firms that cluster with other firms in their own or related industrial sectors. There are offsetting forces that neutralize the agglomeration advantages of clustering as centers become large, producing opportunities for the creation and growth of suburban centers” (p. 3). Further describing the historical phenomena whereby clustering of suburban employment takes place, Margulis (2007), writes: “As retailing firms experienced increasing demand thresholds for their goods, they coalesced into commercial centres around which factories and corporate offices clustered. Commercial centres favourably located in regard to freeway accessibility became primary employment generators and came to dominate segments of their metropolitan regions” (p. 249). According to the literature, location and geography are important to the development of centers. Craig and Ng (2001) defined centers, in part, according to their distance from a historical Central Business District. They examined employment density relative to distance from the Central Business District, under the assumption that employment density typically decreases as distance

110

Regional Center Planning in the Central Puget Sound


increases. According to this method, deviations from this expected pattern would qualify an area as a potential center. As noted, the literature tends to define centers in terms of employment densities. This definition is narrower than the goals of PSRC’s Centers policy, which is to foster the development of mixeduse areas, with housing included among other land uses. McMillen (2003) notes that “results [from previous studies] suggest that subcenters may still be primarily a non-residential phenomenon” (p. 2). Including residential population and/or housing in a centers analysis will require moving beyond the methods used to define employment sub-centers in much of the literature. Using a threshold of activity unit density rather than employment density will help correct this deficiency. Others are suggested by Moudon and Hess (2000), who have identified suburban locales with high residential densities in the Central Puget Sound region. Moudon and Hess found “that the region contained 85 [suburban residential] clusters, twelve of which contained “between 5,000 and 8,800 people” (p. 247). They also noted that “the average cluster’s net population density could easily reach 40 persons per acre or higher” (p. 247, emphasis original) – more than three times the average activity unit density of urban census tracts in the region. Recognizing these residential clusters as potential centers may help correct for an over-emphasis on employment. One preliminary conclusion from this cursory review of the academic literature is that place matters on a sub-regional scale. Academics have noted that different employment density can be expected at different distances from an historical Central Business District, while defining centers in contrast to their immediate surroundings. It follows that different designation criteria may be appropriate in different sub-regions in a larger metropolitan region such as the Central Puget Sound. For example, counties in the region could set different activity unit density thresholds when establishing criteria for sub-regional center designation. However, to be a center as defined in much of the literature reviewed for this report, a location must have higher employment density than the immediately surrounding area. Finally, in studying regions where centers are not designated by policy, scholars have defined centers according to observed characteristics. The focus of academic studies on actual conditions indicates the importance of longitudinal monitoring of densities and other conditions in designated centers to determine whether they have maintained their economic viability and central importance from the time of designation. Planning in other regions This study of planning in other regions focuses on planning efforts by Portland, Oregon and Vancouver, British Columbia. Each of these areas employs the urban center concept in their planning process. The following sections summarize strategies for each region. Portland, Oregon The Metropolitan Services District in Portland, Oregon designated 38 centers according to its 2040 Growth Concept, the long-range plan for future growth. It’s ‘2040 Growth Concept’ was developed in the 1990s in consultation with an extensive public outreach process and the input of local agencies. The plan divided the region into conservation and growth areas, and created an urban design typology for each development type. Each typology is associated with goals and standards. Typology designations include a tiered system of center development ranging from Regional Center Planning in the Central Puget Sound

111


Central city, which is the most intense form of development, to Regional centers, to Town centers. Linear-type development is in a different typology, either Main street or Corridors. Station communities are at a much smaller scale development occurring near stations.

Regional centers are defined as “centers of commerce and local government services serving a market area of hundreds of thousands of people. “ Portland recognizes the following characteristics of regional centers: There is a need to maintain and improve transit and highway connections • Housing and employment exists in compact often mid-rise or higher level buildings • A strong connection to high – quality transit is desirable There are nine regional centers in Portland, each serving a larger area. For example, downtown Gresham serves the east side of Multnomah County. Others include Gateway, Hillsboro, Tanasbourne/AmberGlen, downtown Beaverton, Washington Square, downtown Oregon City, Clackamas Town Center, and downtown Vancouver serves Clark County Washington. •

Source: Metropolitan Service District, 2040 Growth Concept Map, 2011.

Town centers are defined as providing localized service to tens of thousands of people within a two to three-mile radius. Portland refers to these as small city centers. An example Town center is Lake Oswego. Others include Tualatin, West Linn, Forest Grove and Milwaukie and large neighborhood centers such as Hillsdale, St. Johns, Cedar Mill and Aloha. Town centers are often transit-served one to three story buildings. Source: Metropolitan Service District, 2040 Growth Concept Map, 2011.

112

Regional Center Planning in the Central Puget Sound


Station communities are linear centers that are developed around transit stops.

Source: Metropolitan Service District, 2040 Growth Concept Map, 2011.

Corridors are areas of mainly commercial development that develop along arterials.

Source: Metropolitan Service District, 2040 Growth Concept Map, 2011.

Main streets are linear commercial developments that occur within the context of an urban area.

Portland has been tracking progress made toward the 2040 Growth Concept with the release of its 2009 “Portland Centers Report�, which has been updated in 2011. Knowledge about existing center performance will guide decisions about future development efforts, and will ensure that the 2040 Growth Concept is realized.

Regional Center Planning in the Central Puget Sound

113


Vancouver, British Columbia Metro Vancouver has prepared “Metro Vancouver 2040”, which guides growth to urban centers and supports the development of transit to serve the centers. Metro Vancouver’s role is to accept “Regional Context Statements” that are prepared by local municipalities. These statements “prioritize growth and focus higher density development primarily in urban centers”. Municipalities then “provide dwelling unit and employment projections that contribute to achieving the regional share of growth for Urban Centers and Frequent Transit Development Areas” (1.2.6a). These statements also identify the general location, boundaries, and types of Urban Centers on a map generally consistent with the guidelines set out in Table 3 (below), and focus growth, transit, and office development to these areas through incentives and zoning. The criteria / thresholds for different center types are outlined in Table 3 of Metro Vancouver 2040 as follows: Regional-Serving Centres: The Metropolitan Core is the principal business, employment, cultural and entertainment location for the region. Surrey Metro Centre and the Regional City Centres are major activity areas for the subregion. • Defined as appropriate locations generally within 800 metres of one or more rapid transit stations or within 400 metres of the intersection of two or more corridors on TransLink’s Frequent Transit Network, Regionalscale employment, services, business and commercial activities • Major institutional, community, cultural and entertainment uses • High and medium density housing (in General Urban only), including affordable housing choices • Industrial uses • Parks, greenspace and ecological areas Municipal Town Centres: • Hubs of activity within municipalities. • Defined as appropriate locations generally within 800 metres of a rapid transit station or within 400 metres of TransLink’s Frequent Transit Network • Employment, services, business and commercial activities, typically serving the municipal or local area • Institutional, community, cultural and entertainment uses • High and medium density housing (in General Urban only), including affordable housing choices • Industrial uses • Parks, greenspace and ecological areas • Services and activities oriented to the local needs of the surrounding communities • Municipal focus for community and cultural activities

114

Regional Center Planning in the Central Puget Sound


Once municipalities define centers, Metro Vancouver maintains a general map of locations of Urban Centre and Frequent Transit Development Area overlays.

Source: Metro Vancouver 2040, Regional Growth Strategy, 2011

Metro’s role is to provide incentive funding for development in centers and to foster coordination with transit agencies. Policies for transit are closely aligned with policies for centers. West Vancouver is an example area where Metro Vancouver worked closely with local jurisdictions to create centers in the ½ mile radius around the proposed “SkyTrain” transit stations. Each center has a target of 100,000 to 200,000 residents. Coordination with local governments resulted in revisions to the comprehensive plan and supporting zoning code revisions to make broad based changes by allowing for an increase in density, and to prohibit incompatible land uses. Surface parking is minimized, and buildings have no setback requirements. GIS Analysis Methods Since the review of academic literature and planning in other regions did not definitively answer the question of how many centers are economically viable in the Central Puget Sound region, a GIS analysis was conducted under the assumption that economic viability may be operationalized as higher than average existing activity unit density. In this section, a common method used by scholars to identify centers is modified to locate potential sub-regional centers.

Regional Center Planning in the Central Puget Sound

115


Identifying these areas may assist policy-makers in determining how many centers should be designated and where these potential centers are likely to be located. Despite the various statistical models that have been developed (see Appendix D), scholars note that when identifying centers, simpler is often better, particularly in a political context (Bassok, 2009; Modarres, 2003). The consensus from the academic literature is that the method developed by Guiliano and Small in 1991 “is by far the easiest to use, and produces good results when the researcher has sufficient knowledge of the local area” (Mcmillen, 2003, p. 2). This method “sets a priori threshold levels for both employment and employment density; geographical areas (typically TAZs [Transportation Analysis Zones]) which exceed these values belong to activity centers” (Casello & T. E. Smith, 2006, p. 20). Giuliano and Small (1991) explain this method in some detail: We therefore define a center as a contiguous set of zones, each with density above some cutoff D, that together have at least E total employment and for which all the immediately adjacent zones outside the subcenter have density below D. (To be classified as adjacent, the zones must have at least 0.25 miles of common boundary.) With this definition, all high-density zones in the region are classified as part of some center unless they are both small (less than E employment) and isolated (not part of a cluster of high-density zones with E employment in total). The peak of the center is defined as the highest-density zone or group of contiguous zones within the subcenter that together have at least E employees (p. 5). A similar method was used for this analysis. One distinction was that activity unit density was used, rather than job density. Activity unit density was chosen because of its use in the current designation criteria for Regional Growth Centers, as well as the stated policy objective of promoting mixed-use centers and jobs/housing balance. The size of Transportation Analysis Zones varies by metro region. In the some regions, Transportation Analysis Zones are larger than census tracts. Several researchers note that larger units of analysis will obscure any centers that are contained within zones or tracts also containing low-density areas. However, the advantage of larger units of analysis is that, since small, isolated high-density areas are automatically excluded, no additional aggregation is necessary. This analysis was conducted at the census tract level for the sake of simplicity and availability of data. In order to exclude areas that are obviously not well-suited for centers, census tracts outside the Urban Growth Area or with employment density less than one were excluded from the analysis. 2010 population data at the census tract level was aggregated with 2010 jobs numbers to arrive at activity unit totals. These totals were divided by the area of each tract in acres, minus any areas intersecting large bodies of water, to arrive at an activity unit per acre figure for each urban census tract in the region. As indicated, total jobs (E) was used by Giuliano and Small to eliminate potential centers that they deemed to be too small or too isolated. Since small, isolated centers are automatically excluded at the census tract level of analysis, and to be consistent with current designation criteria for Regional Growth Centers, which does not contain a requirement that centers contain a specific number of jobs or activity units, total units (E) was not as a disqualifier. The identified high-density areas are presumably most appropriate as Sub-Regional Growth Centers, but they may also be well-suited for Manufacturing/Industrial Center designation, depending on their urban form and the types of activities they contain.

116

Regional Center Planning in the Central Puget Sound


Results The average (mean) activity unit density for urban census tracts in the region was determined to be 12.46 units per acre. However, average density varies considerably by county. The average density for census tracts intersecting the King County Urban Growth Area (excluding tracts with activity unit density less than one) is 15.94 activity units/acre. For tracts in Snohomish, Pierce, and Kitsap Counties, the average densities are 7.80, 7.54, and 6.59 respectively. Through an iterative process, it was determined that an activity unit density threshold of 1.5 times the average county-wide census tract density would identify the location of a few potential sub-regional centers in each county. Higher thresholds tended to omit all but a few tracts, while lower thresholds highlighted an overwhelming number of tracts. The respective density thresholds were 23.91 for King County, 11.70 for Snohomish, 11.31 for Pierce, and 9.89 for Kitsap. The results are displayed in the following maps. For a region-wide comparison, census tracts meeting a 17 activity units per acre threshold are shown on a separate map. This threshold is near the midpoint between the current designation threshold for new Regional Growth Centers and the average density of census tracts in King County. One challenge with this analysis was that employment data for seven census tracts in the study area were suppressed due to the proprietary nature of employment data for individual employers. This data suppression does not skew the results of this analysis to a significant degree. Researchers (Leslie & HUallachรกin, 2006) have noted that areas containing only a single large employer are unlikely to have the clustering characteristics of a true center. They are also unlikely to contain a diversity of land uses, since large employers would presumably use a large percentage of land area for their facilities. The results of the GIS analysis, presented in the following maps, show that there are places in the region having higher activity unit densities than many of the designated Regional Growth Centers, as well as higher densities than their immediate surroundings. 76.25% of parcels meeting the current Regional Growth Center criterion of 18 activity units per acre are located within the city of Seattle, illustrating one potential problem, from a regional equity standpoint, with a onesize-fits-all approach to new center designation. The development of a sub-regional center designation process drawing upon an analysis of this nature might serve as a first step toward better provision of services to marginalized populations outside of Seattle, better jobs/housing balance region-wide, and a better coordination of the Regional Growth Strategy, which recognizes centers at various scales. In King County, census tracts at 1.5 times the county average density were found in the cities of Seattle, Bellevue, and Redmond. Most of these tracts intersect with existing Regional Growth Centers or Manufacturing/Industrial Centers. Tracts that do not intersect designated centers were found in the Seattle neighborhoods of Beacon Hill, Fremont, Eastlake, Wallingford, and Greenlake. Note that the density threshold used here is actually about one-third higher than the current threshold used as a criterion for Regional Growth Center designation (23.91 versus 18 activity units). It would likely be appropriate to use a lower threshold for sub-regional centers than that used for Regional Growth Centers. The 1.5 times county average threshold was used here to provide a comparison with potential centers in other counties and to avoid an overwhelming number of tracts from qualifying. Tracts at 17 activity units per acre are shown on the region-

Regional Center Planning in the Central Puget Sound

117


wide map. It highlights additional tracts in the cities of Seattle, Kirkland, Bellevue, Renton, SeaTac, and Kent. The mix of activity units in the census tracts identified in King County tends toward employment. On average, these tracts contained 1.98 jobs for each resident. The four most employment-heavy tracts intersect three of the current Regional Growth Centers (Downtown Seattle, Redmond-Overlake, and Downtown Bellevue). Excluding these four tracts yields an average of 1.20 jobs for each resident, more similar to the mix of activity units in the other three counties. Interestingly, the two most residential tracts also intersect designated Regional Growth Centers (Capitol Hill and University Community).

118

Regional Center Planning in the Central Puget Sound


Regional Center Planning in the Central Puget Sound

119


In Snohomish County, census tracts at 1.5 times the county average density were found in the cities of Edmonds, Lynnwood, Mukilteo, Everett, and Marysville, as well as unincorporated Snohomish County. The threshold for these tracts (11.9 activity units) is about one-third lower than the currently adopted regional threshold (18 activity units). While many of these tracts intersect with current Regional Growth Centers or Manufacturing/Industrial Centers, the cities of Edmonds, Mukilteo, and Marysville currently do not contain any designated centers. The section of the I-5/SR-99 corridor stretching from South Everett to the north border of Lynnwood also does not currently contain a designated center, despite a relatively high activity unit density in this area. The mix of activity units in the census tracts identified in Snohomish County tends to be nearly even. On average, these tracts contained 1.01 jobs for each resident. The most employment-heavy tract intersects the South Everett Manufacturing/Industrial Center. The five most residential tracts are all within the I-5/SR-99 corridor in unincorporated Snohomish County.

120

Regional Center Planning in the Central Puget Sound


Regional Center Planning in the Central Puget Sound

121


In Pierce County, census tracts at 1.5 times the county average density were found in the cities of Tacoma, Lakewood, and Puyallup, as well as unincorporated Pierce County. The threshold for these tracts (11.3 activity units) is about one-third lower than the currently adopted regional threshold (18 activity units). Tracts not intersecting existing Regional Growth Centers were found in the city of Tacoma, as well as unincorporated Pierce County. Notably, the tract containing the unincorporated communities of Dash Point and Browns Point, which is a Potential Annexation Area of Tacoma, meets the density threshold, as does the unincorporated area near Joint Base Lewis-McChord. The mix of activity units in the census tracts identified in Pierce County tends to be nearly even. On average, these tracts contained 0.97 jobs for each resident. The most employment-heavy tract intersects the Downtown Tacoma Regional Growth Center. The most residential tract is within the City of Tacoma, on the southern border with unincorporated Pierce County.

122

Regional Center Planning in the Central Puget Sound


Regional Center Planning in the Central Puget Sound

123


In Kitsap County, census tracts at 1.5 times the county average density were found in the city of Bremerton. The threshold for these tracts (9.89 activity units) is about one-half of the currently adopted regional threshold (18 activity units). While Bremerton does contain a Regional Growth Center, the greater extent of parcels with higher than average density, including tracts to the west and north of Navel Base Kitsap and one tract north of the Port Washington Narrows indicate that Bremerton may be a good location for additional, sub-regional centers. The mix of activity units in the census tracts identified in Kitsap County tends to be nearly even. On average, these tracts contained 1.002 jobs for each resident. The most employment-heavy tract contains Naval Base Kitsap and does not intersect a current Regional Growth Center or Manufacturing/Industrial Center. The most residential tract is directly west of Downtown Bremerton.

124

Regional Center Planning in the Central Puget Sound


Regional Center Planning in the Central Puget Sound

125


As would be expected, a single threshold for the entire region results in proportionally more parcels in King County and fewer parcels meeting the threshold elsewhere. Region-wide, the census tracts meeting this threshold contain about 1.5 jobs for every resident. Six tracts have greater than four jobs per resident, all of which intersect currently designated centers. Four tracts, none of which intersect currently designated centers, contain over 10 residents per job. Three of these are located within the city of Seattle, while the last is in unincorporated Snohomish County.

126

Regional Center Planning in the Central Puget Sound


Regional Center Planning in the Central Puget Sound

127


Conclusion One goal of centers policy is to support those places where jobs and housing aggregate so that services can be delivered efficiently and urban development in rural and resource lands can be avoided. This analysis reveals that there are areas outside of designated Regional Growth Centers that have high activity unit densities compared to their immediate surroundings – a quality that academics have used to define a center. Because there are agglomerations of population and employment, essentially comprising centers, but on a smaller scale than the Regional Growth Center, it may be appropriate to designate these areas as sub-regional centers, or county-wide centers. Designation of such county-wide centers should occur at activity levels consistent with each county’s unique circumstances. Any place that meets the activity threshold, and any other useful designation criteria should be allowed to be designated. One concern of allowing sub-regional centers is diluting the region’s investment in already designated regional centers. However, investing in other areas may yield benefits to the region. Allowing sub-regional centers may facilitate greater jobs/housing balance and better transit in more of the region’s cities. Regional policies could be better coordinated in smaller jurisdictions if they are given an incentive to “opt-in” to regional planning. Additional advantages could include the provision of essential services to more individuals, and a decreasing of development pressure in “non-center” areas, including rural lands, resource lands, and open space. Regional equity might also be better promoted by allowing some level of center designation for more jurisdictions, particularly when recalling that most of the currently designated centers were not subject to a stringent density threshold requirement at the time of their designation. Should this analysis be continued or extended, next steps could include analyzing densities at smaller levels of analysis to identify small centers or comparing the results presented here to those obtained through more complex statistical analysis techniques.

128

Regional Center Planning in the Central Puget Sound


6. Recommendations After 16 years of planning for designated centers in the Central Puget Sound, this review of planning documents shows that jurisdictions plan for centers in varied ways: they plan extensively for some topics and in a more limited fashion for others. Thus, the review of these plans and policies, along with a review of the literature on centers, raises a number of recommendations for improving center planning and modifying the checklist. 1. All jurisdictions should be required to have sub-area plans for designated centers. Jurisdictions may plan for centers through citywide policies or multiple planning documents, but without a sub-area plan that compiles or references these policies in one place, it is difficult to grasp the full extent of policies that shape and define regional centers. This report’s review of center planning displays that jurisdictions take a wide range of approaches to address certain topics, with varying levels of specificity. Even if a jurisdiction has center-related plans on other policy documents, it would be useful for center plans to aggregate or cross-reference other planning documents containing related policies. Furthermore, there is a discrepancy between the policies reported in this text-based plan review and responses from surveys of jurisdiction’s planning staff regarding center planning, such as the recent Central Puget Sound Regional Growth Centers Status Update report (Bennion & Ward, 2011). In those surveys, for example, respondents (planning staff) may report that they have policies related to a specific topic on the checklist. Yet these same policies may not have been captured by this report’s text-based content analysis. When these related policies are not codified in center plans, the planning experts’ knowledge is not codified and accessible to other entities that develop and shape the form and activities within the center. A more specific and unified level of planning in the form of a sub-area plan would offer a level of clarity about what the jurisdiction envisions for its center, so that businesses, developers, industry, organizations, and the community at large can align their work more closely with this vision. Based on the review of existing plans, regional center sub-area plans should include: • • • •

Goals and policies, not just general text; A description of existing conditions; An implementation section that identifies action items, responsible actors, and timelines; and References to external documents where center-related policies exist.

2. The Regional Center Plans Checklist should be modified and shortened. The checklist should be modified and condensed according to the recommendations in the previous sections. Of the 35 Regional Growth Center checklist items: • • •

10 items should be retained as written 16 items should be revised 9 items should be removed due to overlap with other items

The items suggested for removal or combination with other items include two Transportation 2040 Physical Design items and seven Additional Transportation items. In consideration of these Regional Center Planning in the Central Puget Sound

129


suggestions and that there are eighteen items between Transportation sections, it is recommended that these sections be consolidated and streamlined. Of the 20 Manufacturing/Industrial Center checklist items, all but one should be retained. The item suggested for removal is Land Use item #5, which requires design guidelines to mitigate aesthetic impacts. This checklist item appears to be inconsistent with the desired development in Manufacturing/Industrial Centers. For more details and nuanced discussion, see Chapter 3: “Summary of regional center planning” and Appendix B: “Checklist item analysis and performance tables.” 3. The checklist should specify whether certain items (and which items) are most important. Some items on the checklist may be viewed as more important for successful center planning than others. For example, policies to limit incompatible uses in Manufacturing/Industrial Centers could be viewed as more important for accomplishing the purposes of Manufacturing/Industrial Centers than providing a description of industries. If the region deems some checklist items as more important than others, this fact should be specified in the checklist. 4. The region may benefit from a designation procedure for sub-regional centers. The analysis in Chapter 5: “Growth center literature review and GIS analysis,” suggests there are areas outside of designated Regional Growth Centers that have high activity unit densities compared to their immediate surroundings – and therefore may be good center locations. For those areas not meeting the density threshold for Regional Growth Centers or the job number threshold for Manufacturing/Industrial Centers, a subordinate level of center could be established. Allowing sub-regional centers may facilitate better jobs/housing balance and good transit service in more of the region’s cities. Promoting development in more of the region’s areas that have urban characteristics could decrease development pressure in “non-center” areas, including rural lands, resource lands, and open spaces – an objective of VISION 2040. One possibility would be to allow counties, within certain guidelines, to establish their own designation criteria. For example, counties could use the density thresholds found in Chapter 5, which are generally lower than the density threshold for new Regional Growth Centers, yet higher than countywide average urban densities. 5. Items for further study and review Additional plans and programs needing review This review did not analyze capital improvement programs or smaller stand-alone plans such as stormwater management plans. Further study should review these documents to consider how jurisdictions link center planning to these more specialized, implementation-focused documents. An analysis of zoning codes and other regulations would also reveal the extent to which center planning has been legally implemented.

130

Regional Center Planning in the Central Puget Sound


Jobs/Housing Balance Additional analysis of regional and potential sub-regional centers should consider including jobs/housing balance as a part of designation criteria. While chapter 5 included preliminary data regarding the mix of jobs and residents extracted from the GIS data, no research was done on the mix of jobs and housing in designated centers.

Regional Center Planning in the Central Puget Sound

131


[This page was intentionally left blank.]

132

Regional Center Planning in the Central Puget Sound


References Bassok, A. (2009). The Effectiveness of Regional Growth Center Policy at Increasing Transit Use. University of Washington. Bennion, R., & Ward, M. (2011). Central Puget Sound Regional Growth Centers Status Update. Public Administration. Retrieved from http://evans.washington.edu/students/forms-advising/degreeprojects/archive/central-puget-sound-regional-growth-centers-status-update Buliung, R. N., & Kanaroglou, P. S. (2006). Urban Form and Household Activity-Travel Behavior. Growth and Change, 37(2), 172-199. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2257.2006.00314.x Casello, J. (2007). Transit competitiveness in polycentric metropolitan regions. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 41(1), 19-40. doi:10.1016/j.tra.2006.05.002 Casello, J. M., & Smith, T. E. (2006). Transportation Activity Centers for Urban Transportation Analysis. Journal of Urban Planning and Development, 132(4), 247. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)07339488(2006)132:4(247) Cervero, R., & Duncan, M. (2006). ’Which Reduces Vehicle Travel More: Jobs-Housing Balance or Retail-Housing Mixing? Journal of the American Planning Association, 72(4), 475-490. doi:10.1080/01944360608976767 Chen, C., & Mcknight, C. (2007). Does the built Environment make a difference? Additional evidence from the daily activity and travel behavior of homemakers living in New York City and suburbs. Journal of Transport Geography, 15(5), 380-395. doi:10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2006.11.010 City of Seattle. (2005). Urban Village Element. Toward a Sustainable Seattle: Seattle’s Comprehensive Plan. Craig, S., & Ng, P. T. (2001). Using Quantile Smoothing Splines to Identify Employment Subcenters in a Multicentric Urban Area. Journal of Urban Economics, 49(1), 100-120. doi:10.1006/juec.2000.2186 Giuliano, G., & Small, K. A. (1991). Subcenters in the Los Angeles region. Regional Science and Urban Economics, 21(2), 163–182. Elsevier. Retrieved from http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/016604629190032I Greenwald, M. (2006). The relationship between land use and intrazonal trip making behaviors: Evidence and implications. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 11(6), 432446. doi:10.1016/j.trd.2006.09.003 Krizek, K. J. (2003). Residential Relocation and Changes in Urban Travel. Journal of the American Planning Association, 69(3), 265–281. Taylor & Francis. Retrieved from http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/01944360308978019

Regional Center Planning in the Central Puget Sound

133


Leslie, T. F., & HUallacháin, B. Ó. (2006). Polycentric Phoenix. Economic Geography, 82(2), 167–192. Wiley Online Library. Retrieved from http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.19448287.2006.tb00295.x/abstract Margulis, H. L. (2007). Commercial Sub-markets in Suburban Cuyahoga County, Ohio. Urban Studies, 44(2), 249-274. doi:10.1080/00420980601075034 McMillen, D. (2001). Nonparametric Employment Subcenter Identification. Journal of Urban Economics, 50(3), 448-473. doi:10.1006/juec.2001.2228 McMillen, Daniel. (2003). Identifying Sub-centres Using Contiguity Matrices. Urban Studies, 40(1), 57-69. doi:10.1080/00420980220080161 McMillen, D. P. (2004). Employment Densities, Spatial Autocorrelation, and Subcenters in Large Metropolitan Areas. Journal of Regional Science, 44(2), 225-244. doi:10.1111/j.0022-4146.2004.00335.x McMillen, D. P., & Smith, S. C. (2003). The number of subcenters in large urban areas. Journal of Urban Economics, 53(3), 321-338. doi:10.1016/S0094-1190(03)00026-3 Mcmillen, D. P. (2003). Employment Subcenters and Home Price Appreciation Rates in Metropolitan Chicago. Advances, 18(Mc 144). Metropolitan Service District. 2040 Growth Concept. Not available online; retrieved from email. 1994. Metro Vancouver. Metro Vancouver 2040. http://www.metrovancouver.org/planning/development/strategy/Pages/default.aspx.2011. Modarres, A. (2003). Polycentricity and transit service. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 37(10), 841-864. doi:10.1016/S0965-8564(03)00059-4 Moudon, A. V., & Hess, P. M. (2000). Suburban clusters: The nucleation of multifamily housing in suburban areas of the central Puget Sound. Journal of the American Planning Association, 66(3), 24364. Musterd, S., Bontje, M., & Ostendorf, W. (2006). The Changing Role of Old and New Urban Centers: the Case of the Amsterdam Region. Urban Geography, 27(4), 360-387. doi:10.2747/02723638.27.4.360 Puget Sound Regional Council. (2009a). VISION 2040. Assembly. The Council. Retrieved from http://psrc.org/assets/366/7293-V2040.pdf Puget Sound Regional Council. (2009b). Regional Center Plans Checklist. Puget Sound Regional Council. (2011). Proposed Updates to the Designation Procedures for New Regional Growth and Manufacturing Industrial Centers. Retrieved from http://www.psrc.org/assets/5440/Centers_-_GMPB_Presentation_-_1-14-11.pdf

134

Regional Center Planning in the Central Puget Sound


Redfearn, C. (2007). The topography of metropolitan employment: Identifying centers of employment in a polycentric urban area. Journal of Urban Economics, 61(3), 519-541. doi:10.1016/j.jue.2006.08.009

Revised Code of Washington. (n.d.). . Waddell, P., & Ulfarsson, G. F. (2003). Accessibility and agglomeration: Discrete-choice models of employment location by industry sector. 82nd Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC. Citeseer. Retrieved from http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.202.5658&rep=rep1&type=pd f Wang, F. (2000). Modeling Commuting Patterns in Chicago in a GIS Environment: A Job Accessibility Perspective. The Professional Geographer, 52(1), 120-133. doi:10.1111/0033-0124.00210

Regional Center Planning in the Central Puget Sound

135


[This page was intentionally left blank.]

136

Regional Center Planning in the Central Puget Sound


Appendix A: Copy of Regional Growth Centers Checklist This checklist is designed to assist jurisdictions in developing, updating, or amending their center plans. It provides the key expectations for the center plans for Regional Growth Center and Regional Manufacturing Industrial Centers plans (beyond the general requirements for comprehensive plans). These expectations are based on the procedures established by PSRC’s Executive Board for designating new centers. Additional detail can be found in PSRC’s Plan Review Manual Appendix E-4: Center Plans.

Regional Growth Center Plan Checklist Center Plan Concept (or "Vision") 

Include a vision for the center. This should include a commitment to human scale urban form

Include an overview of the relationship of the center plan to the city’s comprehensive plan, as well as VISION 2040 and countywide planning policies

Include a market analysis of the center’s development potential

Environment 

Identify and develop provision to protect critical/environmentally sensitive areas

Describe parks and open space, including public spaces and civic places

Include policies and programs for innovative treatment of stormwater and drainage

Include strategies and programs to reduce air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions

Land Use 

Demonstrate defined boundaries and shape for the center (boundaries should be compact and easily walkable. This suggests a roughly uniform shape of about 1 mile. Boundaries should not be elongated or gerrymandered)

Establish residential and employment growth targets that accommodate a significant share of the jurisdiction’s growth, as well as residential densities and building intensities with capacity to accommodate these levels of growth (note that targets are aspirational and state the minimum number of residents or jobs that a jurisdiction must be zoned to accommodate and will strive to absorb by the planning horizon year. Targets are distinct from zoned development capacity)

Describe the mix, distribution and location of uses (such as residential, commercial, civic, public). Include a map showing uses.

Include design standards for pedestrian-friendly, transit-oriented development and other transit-supportive planning that orients land uses around transit

Regional Center Planning in the Central Puget Sound

137


Regional Growth Center Plan Checklist Housing 

State total existing and projected housing units

Include provisions for a variety of housing types that addresses density standards, affordable housing, and special housing needs

Include implementation strategies and monitoring programs for addressing housing targets and goals

Economy 

Describe the economic and residential role of the center within the city and the region

Describe key sectors and industry clusters in the center

Public Services 

Describe existing and planned capital facilities, as well as their financing (such as sewer, water, gas, electric, telecommunications). Explain strategies to ensure facilities are provided consistent with targeted growth

Transportation

Transportation 2040 physical design guidelines

138

Encourage a mix of complementary land uses

Encourage compact growth by addressing density and by linking neighborhoods, connect streets, sidewalks and trails

Integrate activity areas with surrounding neighborhoods

Locate public/semipublic uses near stations

Design for pedestrians and bicyclists

Provide usable open spaces

Manage the supply of parking

Promote on-street parking

Reduce/mitigate parking effects

Regional Center Planning in the Central Puget Sound


Regional Growth Center Plan Checklist Additional Transportation Issues 

Develop an integrated multimodal transportation network, including pedestrian and bicycle facilities, as well as linkages to adjacent neighborhoods and districts

Include detailed design criteria that advances transit-supportive land uses

Address relationships to regional high-capacity transit (including bus rapid transit, commuter rail, light rail, and express bus) and local transit by working with transit agencies

Include provisions for full standards for streets and urban roadways that serve all users, including pedestrians, bicyclists, transit, vehicles, and – where appropriate – freight (see “complete streets” description in VISION 2040)

Include provisions context-sensitive design of transportation facilities

Include provisions for environmentally friendly street (“green street”) treatments

Tailor level-of-service standards and concurrency provisions for the center to encourage transit

Include a parking management strategy

Develop mode-split goals

Regional Manufacturing Industrial Center Plan Checklist Center Plan Concept (or "Vision") 

Include a vision for the center. This should include a commitment to preservation of an urban industrial land base

Include an overview of the relationship of the center plan to the city’s comprehensive plan, as well as VISION 2040 and countywide planning policies

Include a market analysis of the center’s development potential

Environment 

Identify and develop provision to protect critical/environmentally sensitive areas

Include policies and programs for innovative treatment of stormwater and drainage (related to Public Services)

Include strategies and programs to reduce air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions

Regional Center Planning in the Central Puget Sound

139


Regional Manufacturing Industrial Center Plan Checklist Land Use 

Demonstrate and explain the defined boundaries and shape for the center

Establish employment growth targets that accommodate a significant share of the jurisdiction’s manufacturing/industrial employment growth, and demonstrate capacity to accommodate these levels of growth (note that targets are aspirational and state the minimum number of jobs that a jurisdiction must be zoned to accommodate and will strive to absorb by the planning horizon year. Targets are distinct from zoned development capacity)

Describe the percentage of planned land use and zoning in the center for industrial and manufacturing uses

Describe strategies to avoid land uses that are incompatible with manufacturing, industrial uses, such as large retail uses, high concentrations of housing, or non-related office uses (other than as an accessory use)

Include design standards that help mitigate aesthetic and other impacts of manufacturing and industrial activities both within the center and on adjacent areas

Economy 

Describe the economic role of the center within the city and the region

Describe strategies to support or maintain manufacturing industrial industries (i.e., workforce, apprenticeships, land value policies, parcel aggregation, etc.)

Describe key sectors and industry clusters in the center

Public Services 

Describe local capital plans for infrastructure, as well as their financing (such as sewer, water, gas, electric, telecommunications). Explain strategies to ensure facilities are provided consistent with targeted growth

Transportation

140

Describe the transportation networks to and within the manufacturing industrial center, and plans to identify and address deficiencies

Describe strategies that address freight movement, including local and regional distribution

Describe strategies that address freight movement and employee commuting (such as by encouraging modes such as fixed-route and high-capacity transit, rail, trucking facilities, or waterway, as appropriate)

Address relationships to regional high-capacity transit (including bus rapid transit, commuter rail, light rail, and express bus) and local transit by working with transit agencies

Develop mode split goals

Regional Center Planning in the Central Puget Sound


Appendix B: Checklist item analysis and performance tables Checklist Section: Center Plan Concept (or "Vision") Checklist Item: #1 – Include a vision for the center. This should include a commitment to human scale urban form.

Policy Scan Method: This checklist item asks whether the planning document contains a “vision” or description of what the center will be or should be in the future. In the context of planning, this statement would generally contain land uses, building types, visual features, and how the area is used by residents, workers, visitors, and others. While a vision statement could also include the role of the center in the city and region, that information is covered in Economy item #1 and so was not analyzed here. The checklist item also says that the vision should include “a commitment to human scale urban form.” This was interpreted to mean statements about building type, building orientation, block size, street width, and other elements of urban form being oriented toward pedestrians rather than cars. To locate the policies, goals, and statements relating to this checklist item, the “Vision” section of each document was skimmed. If there was not a Vision section, the search term “vision” was used to locate policies. The search term “urban form” was used, but without much success. The item was considered ‘well addressed’ (++) if the plan included a vision statement with several descriptions of human scale urban form, addressed (+) if it included a vision statement with some reference to human scale urban form, and ‘poorly/not addressed’ (-) if there was either no vision statement or a vision statement with minimal reference to human scale urban form.

Key Search Term(s): Vision, urban form

Findings 1.

Summary

Most center plans (24) included some type of vision statement for the center describing the desired future conditions for the area. But only about half included statements about orienting buildings, streets, blocks, and the built environment toward pedestrians. Also, some of the subarea plans referenced detailed design documents for centers – for example, Burien has a “Conceptual Framework for the Town Square” document; these additional documents were not scanned due to time constraints.

2.

How was the checklist item addressed?

The vision statements described what the community would ideally look and feel like in the future, including buildings, land use, transportation, and housing. A variety of language was used to address urban form. Regional Center Planning in the Central Puget Sound

141


3.

How many centers did/did not address the item?

Twenty-four of the twenty-seven centers had some type of vision statement for the center. Fifteen of the vision statements included a reference to human-scale urban form, with varying depth. Centers with strong statements about human scale urban form include: a) Puyallup South Hill (Puyallup Comprehensive Plan, South Hill Neighborhood Plan Policies): “Building frontages will incorporate combinations of uses, amenities and architectural details and artistic expressions that are both appealing to people on foot and provide a safe Environment.” b) Auburn (Downtown Plan, Section 1.4.1, Policy C): “Throughout downtown Auburn building form can be improved by ensuring that: buildings are located adjacent to the sidewalk, retail and service uses occupy street-level floors, doors and windows face the street, and office or residential uses occupy upper floors. c) Lynwood (City Center Sub-Area Plan, Planning and Urban Design Principles): “Building frontages should incorporate combinations of uses, amenities, and architectural details and artistic expressions that are appealing to people on foot.”

1.

Were many of the policies addressing the checklist item specific to centers?

Yes; any language addressing a vision for the center is specific to the center.

2.

Is the checklist item a useful evaluation tool of the center’s planning?

This checklist item addresses an important issue, but the inclusion of “human scale urban form” is vague and difficult to measure.

3. Should the checklist item be retained or revised to require policy to address the item more explicitly? The vision statement requirement on this checklist item should be retained. To plan for the future of the center requires first having agreement on what the center should look like in the future and how it should function; a vision statement does this. The requirement that the vision include a commitment to human scale urban form should be re-thought; the concept is too vague and should either be removed or spelled out in more detailed terms. In addition, this item could be combined with Economy Item #1, “Describe the economic and residential role of the center within the city and the region.” A vision for the center will be more complete if it also includes the center’s role in the region.

142

Regional Center Planning in the Central Puget Sound


Center Plan Concept (or "Vision") #1: Include a vision for the center. This should include a commitment to human scale urban form. Regional Growth Center

Included?

Rating

Auburn

Yes

++

Vision statement includes several descriptions of human-scale urban form.

Bellevue

Yes

+

Vision includes reference to pedestrian orientation.

Bothell – Canyon Park

No

-

No vision statement at all.

Bremerton

Yes

-

Vision statement but minimal reference to human scale urban form.

Burien

Yes

-

Vision statement but minimal reference to human scale urban form.

Everett

Yes

+

Vision statement with some reference to human scale urban form.

Federal Way

Yes

+

Vision statement with some reference to human scale urban form.

Kent

Yes

++

Vision statement includes several descriptions of human-scale urban form.

Kirkland – Totem Lake

Yes

+

Vision statement with some reference to human scale urban form.

Lakewood

No

-

Small vision statement; no human scale urban form.

Lynnwood

Yes

++

Vision statement with many references to human scale urban form.

Puyallup – Downtown

Yes

+

Vision statement with some reference to human scale urban form.

Puyallup – South Hill

Yes

++

Vision statement includes several descriptions of human-scale urban form.

Redmond – Downtown

Yes

-

Vision statement but minimal reference to human scale urban form.

Redmond – Overlake

Yes

+

Vision statement with some reference to human scale urban form.

Renton

Yes

-

Vision statement but minimal reference to human scale urban form.

SeaTac

Yes

+

Vision statement with some reference to human scale urban form.

Seattle – Downtown

Yes

+

Vision statement with some reference to human scale urban form.

Seattle – First Hill/Capitol Hill

Yes

+

Vision statement with some reference to human scale urban form.

Seattle – Northgate

Yes

-

Vision statement but minimal reference to human scale urban form.

Seattle – South Lake Union

Yes

-

Vision statement but minimal reference to human scale urban form.

Seattle – University

Yes

-

Vision statement but minimal reference to human scale urban form.

Regional Center Planning in the Central Puget Sound

Details

143


Seattle – Uptown Queen Anne

Yes

-

Vision statement but minimal reference to human scale urban form.

Silverdale

No

-

No vision statement.

Tacoma – Downtown

Yes

+

Vision statement with some reference to human scale urban form.

Tacoma – Tacoma Mall

No

-

No vision statement.

Tukwila

Yes

+

Vision statement with some reference to human scale urban form.

Rating Scale: Poorly/not addressed (-) Addressed (+) Well addressed (++)

144

Regional Center Planning in the Central Puget Sound


Checklist Section: Center Plan Concept (or "Vision") Checklist Item: #2 – Include an overview of the relationship of the center plan to the city’s comprehensive plan, as well as VISION 2040 and countywide planning policies.

Policy Scan Method: This item addresses whether the sub-area plan states its relationship to county and regional planning documents, including the city Comprehensive Plan, Vision 2040, and countywide planning policies. Search terms were used to locate relevant polices or language; these included “PSRC”, “Puget Sound Regional Council”, “Comprehensive Plan”, “Vision 2040”, “Vision 2020’, and “countywide”. This combination of search terms was an efficient way to locate the relevant language. This item was considered well addressed (++) if the sub-area plan’s relationship to two of the following three planning documents is described: city Comprehensive Plan, Vision 2020 or Vision 2040, and countywide planning policies. It was considered addressed (+) if the sub-area plan’s relationship to one city, county, or regional planning document is described. It was considered ‘poorly/not addressed’ if there is no description of the sub-area plan’s relationship to city, county, or regional plans.

Key Search Term(s): “PSRC”, “Puget Sound Regional Council”, “Comprehensive Plan” “Vision 2040”, “Vision 2020”, and “countywide”.

Findings 1.

Summary

Most center plans did not give an overview of how the plan relates or helps fulfill Vision 2040 (or Vision 2020), countywide planning policies, or the city Comprehensive Plan. Most commonly addressed was the relationship of the center’s sub-area plan to the city Comprehensive Plan; many sub-area plans are elements of Comprehensive Plans.

2.

How was the checklist item addressed?

This checklist item was addressed sporadically, not comprehensively. For those centers that mentioned city, county, or regional planning documents, many simply stated the existence of the plans or mentioned the definition of a Regional Growth Center. Most did not state how the sub – area plan helped fulfill county or regional goals.

3. How many centers did/did not address the item? Three centers addressed the item reasonably well: Bellevue downtown (Sub-Area Plan within Comp Plan), Federal Way (City Center Plan), and Lakewood (Comprehensive Plan). Nine centers partially addressed this item, most frequently by relating the Sub-Area Plan to the Regional Center Planning in the Central Puget Sound

145


Comprehensive Plan. Only one plan was found that mentioned Vision 2040 (Renton City Center Community Plan), largely because most plans were created before Vision 2040. Many plans that mentioned city or regional planning documents did not actually provide an overview of how the sub-area plan related to or helped fulfill the goals of the other plans. Center plans that did not address this item include: all Seattle Urban Centers (Neighborhood Elements of Comprehensive Plan), Bothell Canyon Park, Overlake, Puyallup South Hill, Redmond downtown, Silverdale, Tacoma downtown, Tacoma Mall, and Totem Lake. Examples of center plans that addressed the item well include: a. The Bellevue Downtown Plan Update of 2003 (Section 2, page 2-1): “Bellevue’s Downtown Subarea Plan and Downtown Implementation Plan provide the guidelines that enable development of downtown Bellevue as the primary urban center of the Eastside, consistent with regional, metropolitan and county-wide plans. Downtown Bellevue plays a key role in the region’s growth management strategy. The Puget Sound Regional Council’s (PSRC) Vision 2020 and King County’s Countywide Planning Policies identify downtown Bellevue as an urban center—a place where growth should be focused if the region is to further growth management goals such as reducing sprawl and retaining open space. Downtown Bellevue, with only 2 percent of this City’s land area, is working to accommodate the vast majority of the City’s future employment and residential growth.”The Federal Way City Center Plan (Chapter 7, page VII-1): “The chapter integrates the community’s vision for a City Center with the Puget Sound Regional Council’s (PSRC) adopted VISION 2020 plan, and King County’s countywide strategy for developing a network of centers.”

4.

Were many of the policies addressing the checklist item specific to centers?

Some city Comprehensive Plans did have language relating the Comp Plan to Vision 2020 or countywide planning policies, but not specifically in relationship to the designated center.

5.

Is the checklist item a useful evaluation tool of the center’s planning?

While it’s possible to have a sub-area plan for a center that does not explain the plan’s relationship to regional planning documents, an explanation puts the plan in context. The centers do not exist in isolation or within one city, but in a regional context, and this should be explained. Further, these are regionally designated centers, with a regional role and purpose that should be described.

6. Should the checklist item be retained or revised to require policy to address the item more explicitly? This item should be retained in the checklist. Sub-area plans for designated centers should explain how the plan and the center relate to city, county, and regional policies.

146

Regional Center Planning in the Central Puget Sound


Center Plan Concept (or "Vision") #2: Include an overview of the relationship of the center plan to the city’s comprehensive plan, as well as VISION 2040 and countywide planning policies. Regional Growth Center

Included?

Rating

Auburn

Yes

-

Bellevue

Yes

Bothell – Canyon Park

No

-

No relationship described.

Bremerton

Yes

+

Relationship to Comp Plan.

Burien

Yes

+

Some relationship is described, but not complete.

Everett

Yes

+

Relationship to Comp Plan.

Federal Way

Yes

++

Good description of Center’s relationship to city, county, and regional planning documents.

Kent

Yes

+

Relationship to Comp Plan.

Kirkland – Totem Lake

No

-

No relationship described.

Lakewood

Yes

Lynnwood

Yes

Puyallup – Downtown

Yes

Puyallup – South Hill

++

Details Some relationship is described, but not complete. Good description of Center’s relationship to city, county, and regional planning documents.

++

Good description of Center’s relationship to city, county, and regional planning documents.

+

Relationship to Comp Plan.

+

States how plan will accomplish Regional Growth Center objectives.

No

-

No relationship described.

Redmond – Downtown

No

-

No relationship described.

Redmond – Overlake

No

-

No relationship described.

Renton

Yes

+

States how plan will accomplish regional growth targets.

SeaTac

Yes

+

Relationship to Comp Plan.

Seattle – Downtown

No

-

No relationship described.

Seattle – First Hill/Capitol Hill

No

-

No relationship described.

Seattle – Northgate

No

-

No relationship described.

Seattle – South Lake Union

No

-

No relationship described.

Seattle – University

No

-

No relationship described.

Seattle – Uptown Queen Anne

No

-

No relationship described.

Silverdale

No

-

No relationship described.

Regional Center Planning in the Central Puget Sound

147


Tacoma – Downtown

No

-

No relationship described.

Tacoma – Tacoma Mall

No

-

No relationship described.

Tukwila

Yes

+

Some relationship to regional plans is described.

Rating Scale: Poorly/not addressed (-) Addressed (+) Well addressed (++)

148

Regional Center Planning in the Central Puget Sound


Checklist Section: Center Plan Concept (or "Vision") Checklist Item: #3 – Include a market analysis of the center’s development potential.

Policy Scan Method: This item addresses whether the development potential of the center has been examined in the planning document. Development could include housing, office, retail, or other services. To locate policies for this item, sections on Economic Development were skimmed and search terms of “market analysis” and “development potential” were used, though with few results. This item was considered well addressed (++) if the plan included estimates of future residential, retail, and office demand in the center, addressed (+) if the plan has some analysis of development potential, but not for all sectors, and ‘poorly/not addressed’ (-) if there was no market analysis in the plan.

Key Search Term(s): “market analysis” and “development potential”

Findings 1.

Summary

This checklist item is more relevant for areas applying for Regional Growth Center status, rather than existing growth centers which are already developed. Most plans did not include a market analysis of development potential. However, a substantial number of centers have separate reports with market analyses.

2.

How was the checklist item addressed?

Among center plans that included this item, estimates of future demand for housing, retail, and office space were commonly included. Most did not include discussion of the barriers to development or whether the demand for different sectors fit with the goals for the center.

3.

How many centers did/did not address the item?

Three centers addressed this item well: Auburn, Everett, and Kent. Bremerton addressed this item partially. The remaining twenty-three centers did not include any market analysis of development potential. An example of a center that addressed this item well is the Everett Downtown Plan (Chapter 3, page 19-21) that includes estimates of projected demand for housing units, retail space, and office space over the next twenty years.

4.

Were many of the policies addressing the checklist item specific to centers?

Regional Center Planning in the Central Puget Sound

149


The market analyses that were identified were geared toward centers.

5.

Is the checklist item a useful evaluation tool of the center’s planning?

This checklist item is most useful for evaluating planning for emerging or struggling centers, rather than well established centers, although it has some value for every center. Analyzing the market for housing and jobs in the center will help uncover barriers to development, how much development to expect, how much to plan for, and how to encourage more development.

6. Should the checklist item be retained or revised to require policy to address the item more explicitly? This item should be retained for evaluating proposed Regional Growth Centers. Designation of a center requires a concentration of housing and jobs; a market analysis will help determine the likelihood of the necessary number of units. In addition, jurisdictions applying for Regional Growth Center status should be encouraged to include any existing market analysis documents directly in the plan for the center rather than in separate reports.

150

Regional Center Planning in the Central Puget Sound


Center Plan Concept (or "Vision") #3: Include a market analysis of the center’s development potential. Regional Growth Center

Included?

Rating

Auburn

Yes

++

Bellevue

No

-

No market analysis included.

Bothell – Canyon Park

No

-

No market analysis included.

Bremerton

Yes

+

Includes analysis of existing conditions and some analysis of future potential.

Burien

No

-

No market analysis included.

Everett

Yes

++

Federal Way

No

-

Kent

Yes

++

Kirkland – Totem Lake

No

-

No market analysis included.

Lakewood

?

-

No market analysis included.

Lynnwood

No

-

No market analysis included.

Puyallup – Downtown

No

-

No market analysis included.

Puyallup – South Hill

No

-

No market analysis included.

Redmond – Downtown

No

-

No market analysis included.

Redmond – Overlake

No

-

No market analysis included.

Renton

No

-

No market analysis included.

SeaTac

No

-

No market analysis included.

Seattle – Downtown

No

-

No market analysis included.

Seattle – First Hill/Capitol Hill

No

-

No market analysis included.

Seattle – Northgate

No

-

No market analysis included.

Seattle – South Lake Union

No

-

No market analysis included.

Seattle – University

No

-

No market analysis included.

Seattle – Uptown Queen Anne

No

-

No market analysis included.

Silverdale

No

-

No market analysis included.

Regional Center Planning in the Central Puget Sound

Details Includes estimates of future residential, retail, and office demand in the center.

Includes estimates of future residential, retail, and office demand in the center. No market analysis included. Includes estimates of future residential, retail, and office demand in the center.

151


Tacoma – Downtown

No

-

No market analysis included.

Tacoma – Tacoma Mall

No

-

No market analysis included.

Tukwila

No

-

No market analysis included.

Rating Scale: Poorly/not addressed (-) Addressed (+) Well addressed (++)

152

Regional Center Planning in the Central Puget Sound


Checklist Section: Environment Checklist Item: #1 – Identify and develop provision to protect critical/environmentally sensitive areas.

Policy Scan Method: This item considers whether the Regional Growth Centers protect and account for critical areas, which are required to be protected under the Growth Management Act, RCW 36.70A. The Growth Management Act mandates protection of the following areas and ecosystems: (a) wetlands; (b) areas with a critical recharging effect on aquifers used for potable water; (c) fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas; (d) frequently flooded areas; and (e) geologically hazardous areas (“Revised Code of Washington,” n d). Related search terms (see below) were used to determine whether center’s sub-area plans or center-specific elements and policies specifically address these topics. Because critical areas planning is mandated and all comprehensive plans contain many policies on these topics, general critical areas policies that are not center-specific were not captured unless they are more specifically targeted toward growth areas, denser development, parks and open-space, or building techniques. In addition, because Shoreline Management Programs are mandated by the State and reviewed by the Department of Ecology, no shoreline policies were included unless specific to a Regional Growth Center. Policies were rated as “well-addressed” (++) when they addressed environmental features specific to the center’s geography, as “addressed” when they contained either (a) policies calling for specific environmental protection strategies (like use of Transfer of Development Rights, or (b) they contained a multi-faceted set of general environmental protection policies, and were rated as ‘poorly/not addressed’ (-) when they contained no policies or a policy that relates to one portion of environmental protection.

Key Search Term(s): critical area, environment, protect, habitat, wetland, fish, wildlife, steep slope, sensitive, stream, flood, aquifer, recharge, hazard

Findings 1.

Summary

The majority of critical area policies are found within environment elements of comprehensive plans, and they are not specific to designated centers. Each topic is addressed thoroughly at this planning level, given the statewide planning requirements. The content of center-specific policies is varied.

2.

How was the checklist item addressed?

Critical areas and sensitive environments are mainly addressed through general critical areas planning in the comprehensive plan. Centers vary in the level of center-specific planning related to this criterion. At the center planning level, locations that addressed this item either included

Regional Center Planning in the Central Puget Sound

153


one or two broad policy statements about environmental protection or the promotion of growth management strategies, or they included multiple (over a dozen) specific policies.

Some sub-area plans are prepared alongside a Draft Environmental Impact Statement (Auburn). Kent’s sub-area plan was prepared with a Planned Action Environmental Impact Statement.

3.

How many centers did/did not address the checklist item?

Sixty-seven policies (plus 5 general urban center policies for Seattle) from 17 centers are specific to environmental protection in centers. Eight centers do not specifically address critical areas or sensitive environments: Auburn, Bellevue, Bremerton, Lakewood, Lynnwood, Puyallup Downtown, Renton, Tacoma Mall. Two Seattle centers, First Hill/Capitol Hill and Northgate, do not address these areas specific to their center geography, though Seattle’s general urban center policies address environmental issues. Strong policies include three types: a. b.

Policies that identify specific critical areas for protection, such as Canyon Park, Silverdale, and Totem Lake’s sets of policies. Policies offering a comprehensive set of environmental goals for the center, such as the following goal and policy from Seattle: Enhance the urban village strategy through the provision of: 1. Amenities in more densely populated areas 2. Recreational opportunities for daytime populations in urban centers 3. Mitigation of the impacts of large-scale development 4. Increased opportunities to walk regularly to open spaces by providing them close by 5. Connections linking urban centers and villages, through a system of parks, boulevards, community gardens, urban trails, and natural areas 6. A network of connections to the regional open space system 7. Protected environmentally critical areas 8. Enhanced tree canopy and understory throughout the city (UVG40) Designate and preserve important natural or ecological features in public ownership as greenspaces for low-intensity open space uses. (UV47)

c.

4.

Policies that seek to go beyond environmental protection and aim to enhance the environment and also offer specific strategies on how to achieve that aim, such as the policy of South Lake Union (Seattle): “Seek to increase tree coverage, reintroduce native plant species into the neighborhood and provide for additional wildlife habitat appropriate to the urban environment.”

Were many of the policies addressing the checklist item specific to centers?

[see #3 above]

154

Regional Center Planning in the Central Puget Sound


5.

Is the checklist item a useful evaluation tool of the center’s planning?

This checklist item seems most relevant to centers that contain particular sensitive environments or critical areas, such as water bodies and steep slopes (e.g., Totem Lake, Silverdale, SeaTac, Redmond, Canyon Park). In this case, it is a useful evaluation tool: center-specific Environmental policies can be more specific than general critical areas policies about how to go about preventing conflict between urban development and environmental goals.

6. Should the checklist item be retained or revised to require policy to address the item more explicitly? The checklist item should be retained; environmentally sound planning is a main tenant of growth management and center strategies. If used for plan review, this checklist item should indicate the level of detail expected for these policies (if any) in centers without large critical or sensitive areas. The checklist should also specify whether it is interested in seeing resource conservation, environmental enhancement, or restoration policies in center plans.

Regional Center Planning in the Central Puget Sound

155


Environment #1: Identify and develop provision to protect critical/environmentally sensitive areas. # Centerspecific Policies

Rating

Auburn

0

-

Bellevue

2

+

General goals about promoting growth management strategies that protect the environment and considering long-range environmental impacts

Bothell – Canyon Park

17

++

Policies delineate appropriate development types adjacent to critical areas; they also identify specific areas to be preserved or maintained

Bremerton

0

-

Burien

1

-

One “environmental excellence” goal

Everett

1

+

One policy related to using the downtown business zone as a receiving site for transfer of development rights

Federal Way

2

+

Kent

1

-

Indirectly related to protecting a salmonid habitat at Mill Creek Bridge

Kirkland – Totem Lake

15

++

Most policies related to protecting Totem Lake and Juanita Creek; also related to steep slopes and landslides

Lakewood

0

-

Lynnwood

0

-

Puyallup – Downtown

0

-

Puyallup – South Hill

7

++

Redmond – Downtown

1

-

Redmond – Overlake

4

++

Renton

0

-

SeaTac

5

++

Regional Growth Center

156

Details

Policies protect wetlands and promote a green infrastructure system Related to protecting and celebrating the Sammamish River in downtown development Policies cover slope protection and Environmental sustainability

Policies on general environmental and wetland protection, plus policies specific to Bow Lake

Regional Center Planning in the Central Puget Sound


Seattle – Downtown

1 + 51

+

Seattle – First Hill/Capitol Hill1

0+5

+

Seattle – Northgate1

0+5

+

Seattle – South Lake Union1

1+5

+

Seattle – University1

2+5

++

Seattle – Uptown Queen Anne1

2+5

++

Silverdale

17

++

Tacoma – Downtown

1

-

Tacoma – Tacoma Mall

0

-

Tukwila

1

+

One of the only policies related to enhancing, not simply protecting, the natural environment

Policies emphasize protection of Silverdale’s shoreline, inlets, and creeks Related to collaboration between property owners and the city on development projects

Seattle’s Urban Villages element contains five policies within this category that apply to all six Regional Growth Centers. The neighborhood plans for each center may outline additional policies that are more specific to critical areas and sensitive environments within the boundaries of that particular center.

1

Rating Scale: Poorly/not addressed (-) Addressed (+) Well addressed (++)

Regional Center Planning in the Central Puget Sound

157


Checklist Section: Environment Checklist Item: #2 – Describe parks and open space, including public spaces and civic places.

Policy Scan Method: This item accounts for policies that seek to balance the goals of dense, urban development with the types open space that makes centers desirable places to live, work, play, and visit. General parks and open space policies (not center-specific) were not included unless they related to topics such as balancing density and open space, geographic distribution, and development incentives for private or semi-public open space. Trees, streetscaping, and urban forestry policies are not included unless specific to a park or open space, as they more often relate to green streets, urban design, and sidewalk programs. Similarly, trail policies are only included if they are discussed in light of open space; more often, however, they are a part of mobility networks. This scan searched for overarching parks and open space policies contained in the comprehensive and sub-area plan; more details on implementation may be available in separate parks and recreation plans. Centers received a “well-addressed” rating (++) if policies described specific existing or future park plans and policies that outline goals, design guidelines, and/or rationales for the look and feel of those open spaces (e.g., “makes space available for families,” “provides relief from density for employees and visitors”). They received an “addressed” (+) rating if parks were referenced in the abstract without specific plans. They received a ‘poorly/not addressed’ (-) if plans said little or nothing about parks and open space goals specific to the center, or only mentioned parks in a broad way. (E.g., “Include parks and open spaces in all centers.”)

Key Search Term(s): park, open space, plaza, recreation, public space, civic place

Findings 1.

Summary

All but one all center plans or elements include many parks and open space policies; often totaling between ten and 70 policies covering a range of issues. Some parks elements in comprehensive plans also included center-specific policies.

2.

How was the checklist item addressed?

For the majority of centers, the item is addressed comprehensively. Policies address a wide range of topics: upgrading existing spaces or adding new ones; relating parks, open space, and plazas to livability goals and growth management goals; using them as connecting pathways within the center and between the center and other neighborhoods; maintaining them for environmental purposes; and incentivizing private development to provide future parks and open spaces.

158

Regional Center Planning in the Central Puget Sound


3.

How many centers did/did not address the checklist item?

All but one center (Auburn) outline plans and policies for parks and open spaces. Tukwila, Lakewood, Burien, and Bremerton outline four or fewer policies. Meanwhile, other centers have between ten and 70+ policies. Seattle has 34 parks and open space policies related to all of its Urban Villages (considered here as center-specific); these policies are in addition to policies specific to each of the six center’s unique context. Some unique, specific examples include: • • •

4.

Everett outlines Floor Area Ratio bonuses and other development incentives for developer provision of public space. Downtown Tacoma relates its park plans to goals for increasing the number of children and families living within the center. First Hill/Capitol Hill (Seattle)’s plan contains policies for using park design to promote neighborhood safety.

Were many of the policies addressing the checklist item specific to centers?

The checklist item specifically asks about parks and open space inside the centers; therefore all policies noted were those specific to centers.

5.

Is the checklist item a useful evaluation tool of the center’s planning?

Yes. Particularly as many Regional Growth Centers strive to meet residential goals in addition to employment goals, these policies are important components of making centers attractive as places to live, play, and visit. Addressing parks and open space specifically within the center can help to balance competing development and open space preservation goals and outline potential funding sources.

6. Should the checklist item be retained or revised to require policy to address the item more explicitly? This checklist item should remain as a checklist item for new centers and as an evaluation criterion for existing centers. It could be clarified so that it requests that plans “describe existing and planned parks and open space and related goals and policies for their maintenance and development.”

Regional Center Planning in the Central Puget Sound

159


Environment #2: Describe parks and open space, including public spaces and civic places. # Centerspecific Policies

Rating

Auburn

0

-

Bellevue

34

++

Describes specific park development and use plans, lineal connections between parts of the center and neighborhoods, and developer contributions and incentives for providing open space.

Bothell – Canyon Park

8

+

Includes plans for acquisition via the capital facilities plan.

Bremerton

8

++

Includes sunlight goals for parks and open space.

Burien

1

-

Everett

25

++

Suggests future parks and offers Floor Area Ratio and other development incentives for the private sector to provide open space.

Regional Growth Center

Details No policies, but describes plan for a large public plaza near the Transit Center, as well as two existing plazas.

Describes overall parks concept for the area.

Federal Way

11

++

Despite noting "There are no truly public spaces within the City Center. Private green spaces, plazas and public meeting spaces are few,” policies outline pathways to other parks, and plans for a City Center park and green corridors.

Kent

16

++

Outlines park upgrades, a new Town Square park, and design guidelines.

Kirkland – Totem Lake

16

++

Lakewood

4

+

Suggests park upgrades, density bonuses for open space provision, and use of the mall as open space.

Lynnwood

33

++

Links park strategy to assumptions of the types of housing development that will occur; includes feasibility and financing policies.

Puyallup – Downtown

9

++

Puyallup – South Hill

25

++

Redmond – Downtown

13

++

Redmond – Overlake

15

++

Renton

31

++

SeaTac

17

++

37 + 34

++

Seattle – Downtown1

160

Emphasizes connecting parks to trail systems.

Also contains a list of City Center “public amenities.”

Regional Center Planning in the Central Puget Sound


Seattle – First Hill/Capitol Hill1

12 + 34

+

Includes safety goals for public spaces.

Seattle – Northgate1

2 + 34

+

Seattle – South Lake Union1

10 + 34

++

Seattle – University1

12 + 34

++

Seattle – Uptown Queen Anne1

10 + 34

++

Silverdale

13

++

Contains plans for a “community campus”; suggests open space as a transitional buffer.

Tacoma – Downtown

24

++

Policies emphasize being family-friendly. Another policy group describes community gardens and arable land as green space.

Tacoma – Tacoma Mall

9

++

Encouraging Pierce Transit to locate stops near major parks and recreation facilities to enhance resident accessibility.

Tukwila

4

+

1 – The Seattle Centers share 34 center-specific policies that apply to all Urban Villages/Regional Growth Centers.

Rating Scale: Poorly/not addressed (-) Addressed (+) Well addressed (++)

Regional Center Planning in the Central Puget Sound

161


Checklist Section: Environment Checklist Item: #3 – Include policies and programs for innovative treatment of stormwater and drainage.

Policy Scan Method: Regional Growth Center development guarantees a more highly paved environment, this checklist item seeks to ensure that sufficient water management techniques and preventative measures are included in the center’s growth. All plan policies related to stormwater were captured, regardless of whether they were center-specific. In some policies, stormwater and drainage policies overlap with critical areas policies for wetlands and aquifer recharge areas. Those policies were treated as discussed in Environment Checklist Item #1: they were included if the policies are center-specific; they were not included if they were broader critical areas policies. There is often crossover between the policies in this category and other Environmental items such as open space and emissions reduction; in that case, they are included in each section and a note is made in the policy database. This scan reviewed Comprehensive Plans and sub-area plans; next steps could include reviewing stormwater management plans and comprehensive drainage plans, as applicable. Centers were rated as ‘well addressed’ (++) if they outline stormwater and drainage policies specific to center development, as “addressed (+) if they outline center-specific policies on one or two topics (e.g., only drainage in parks, but not development principles) or only cover sewers or retention facilities (i.e., they are not “innovative”) and , and as ‘poorly/not addressed’ (-) if they have no or minimal policies on the topic that are center-specific. This rating does not pass judgment on citywide stormwater plans.

Key Search Term(s): impervious/pervious, stormwater/storm water, drainage, grey/gray water, combined sewer, low impact development, rainwater capture

Findings 1.

Summary

This item is poorly address in most center-specific planning documents. While most comprehensive plans contain a full range of stormwater runoff, drainage, and surface water management policies, most centers addressed the topic more specifically only if the center contained or bordered a water body. Some centers reference related policies, such as Comprehensive Stormwater Master Plans (Bothell), Surface Water Comprehensive Plans or Management Plans (Bothell, Federal Way), Downtown Drainage Plan or Comprehensive Drainage Plan (Auburn), or other similar plans. These were not reviewed due to time constraints, but may provide additional information on area-specific infrastructure needs and services.

162

Regional Center Planning in the Central Puget Sound


2.

How was the checklist item addressed?

Stormwater management policies span a number of common topics across the citywide (or county plans): Low impact development strategies such as reducing impervious surfaces, development or impact fees, interjurisdictional collaboration, water pre-treatment and monitoring, requiring new development to maintain pre-development peak discharge rates, recognizing runoff’s impact on habitats, incorporating retention ponds into parks and open space areas. Centers-specific policies commonly address topics such as infrastructure capacity and financing arrangements. No policies were identified that address gray water systems or rainwater catchment. Very few policies address reduction of combined sewer overflow events.

3.

How many centers did/did not address the checklist item?

Though all cities or counties have stormwater management policies, seven centers had no centerspecific policies on this topic (Bellevue, Everett, Lakewood, Downtown Seattle, First Hill/Capitol Hill (Seattle), University District (Seattle), Tukwila). Six had only one center-specific policy (Burien, Downtown Puyallup, Downtown Redmond, Northgate (Seattle), South Lake Union (Seattle), Uptown Queen Anne (Seattle), Tacoma Mall). Downtown Redmond’s single policy implies that it is the only area of the city that does not need to plan for reduced impervious surfaces. Examples of good policy sets include the following items: • •

4.

Bremerton has a multi-policy set of street design and impervious surface guidelines. Lynnwood has a comprehensive package of policies that address the following topics: storm drainage requirements, water conservation, water distribution, new conveyance and hydraulic modeling, new city street analysis, public spaces and storm water detention, LID (local improvement district) formation, underground overhead utilities, underground utility study, decorative street covers, and other utility-related topics. Though not specific to Silverdale, Kitsap County has a package of low impact development policies that may provide a model for other jurisdictions seeking to develop center-specific policies. Tacoma does a good job of offering a streamlined set of policies that addresses nine of the most common stormwater management-related categories.

Were many of the policies addressing the checklist item specific to centers?

No. The majority of stormwater management policies are not specific to centers. Many other policies may be contained in additional plans that were not scanned.

5.

Is the checklist item a useful evaluation tool of the center’s planning?

This item is not currently specific enough to review center planning.

Regional Center Planning in the Central Puget Sound

163


6. Should the checklist item be retained or revised to require policy to address the item more explicitly? The checklist should be retained, and it should clarify whether it is interested in overall water quality policies with respect to center planning. Given the impact of density and impervious surfaces on runoff, center plans should address the specific water quality and stormwater management needs of their urban centers and their future development. For center application and review purposes, it would be useful for center plans to aggregate or cross-reference other planning documents containing related policies.

164

Regional Center Planning in the Central Puget Sound


Environment #3: Include policies and programs for innovative treatment of stormwater and drainage. # Centerspecific Policies

# Citywide Policies

Rating

Auburn

9

51

++

Bellevue

0

13

-

Bothell – Canyon Park

2

6

+

Bremerton

12

8

++

Burien

1

41

-

Everett

0

12

-

Federal Way

0

16

-

Regional Growth Center

Details

Proposes a downtown study area for stormwater design standards; requiring downtown developers to provide off-site improvements to the system. Citywide policies include using incentives to minimize impervious surfaces.

Includes downtown parking lot design standards and specific maximum allowable impervious surface ratios for lots. Public education program for homeowners to reduce pollutants in runoff.

Kent

3

10

+

Promoting environmentally sensitive builder programs such as King and Snohomish County Built Green, LEED training, and Construction Works. Allowing underground detention for certain downtown sites to maximize revenue generating land use potential. Center-specific policies address sewer systems, but not low-impact development or impervious surfaces.

Kirkland – Totem Lake

3

9

+

Specific policies to decrease peak flows.

Lakewood

0

n/a

-

(no electronic version of Comprehensive Plan available)

Lynnwood

9

31

++

Forming a Local Improvement District to fund utilities, street, and storm drainage improvements. Including storm drainage facilities in parks plans (without allowing them to substitute for open space requirements).

Puyallup – Downtown

1

9

+

Using Local Infrastructure Financing Tools to fund infrastructure improvements, including stormwater capacity.

Puyallup – South Hill

9

9

++

Redmond – Downtown

1

20

-

Regional Center Planning in the Central Puget Sound

Suggests that Redmond does not aim to limit impervious surfaces in the downtown area by noting 165


that it should be limited everywhere except the downtown. Redmond – Overlake

7

20

++

Renton

2

16

-

SeaTac

3

6

-

Seattle – Downtown

0

12

-

Seattle – First Hill/Capitol Hill

0

12

-

Seattle – Northgate

1

12

+

Seattle – South Lake Union

1

12

-

Seattle – University

0

12

-

Seattle – Uptown Queen Anne

1

12

-

Using street trees to and landscaping strips to filter stormwater drainage.

Policy on Thornton Creek restoration and runoff prevention.

Silverdale

13

35

++

Contains Low Impact Development policies that address incentives, a system of fair flow credits, preserving natural and historic drainage, and monitoring these policies’ effectiveness.

Tacoma – Downtown

3

9

++

Developing a Green Street Demonstration Project.

Tacoma – Tacoma Mall

1

9

-

Tukwila

0

27

-

Rating Scale: Poorly/not addressed (-) Addressed (+) Well addressed (++)

166

Regional Center Planning in the Central Puget Sound


Checklist Section: Environment Checklist Item: #4 – Include strategies and programs to reduce air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions.

Policy Scan Method: This section captures policies related to items related to vehicle miles traveled (VMT), transportation mode split goals, and other transit-supportive policies that serve to directly or indirectly reduce air pollution and emissions. These items were more captured when they explicitly included the search terms and related to air quality and emissions. Because these topics overlap with the Transportation checklist items, please see the policies captured in that scan for additional details on street trees and green streets, parking strategies, and mode split, and other transportation demand management/system management items beyond this keyword search. Other transit-supportive policies are included in the transportation checklist item reviews. Policies were rated as ‘well addressed’ (++) when they include specific targets or employ a set of multiple policies that work hand-in-hand, as “addressed” (+) when they mention a single, but mutli-part policy, and as “not addressed” (-) when there were no policies or when policies were very narrow (e.g., targeted only at drive-through uses).

Key Search Term(s): pollution, greenhouse gas, emission, carbon, air quality, green roof, green building, mode split, vehicle miles traveled (VMT), commute trip reduction (CTR), transportation/travel demand management (TDM), transportation system management

Findings 1. Summary. This item is primarily addressed through the transportation element of comprehensive plans as well as external planning documents, city ordinances and programs. While Commute Trip Reduction programs and similar initiatives inherently address issues related to high travel demand areas like Regional Growth Centers, few center sub-area plans/center elements contain policies on this topics specifically, nor do they reference other planning policies and programs.

2. How was the checklist item addressed? Common topics across all comprehensive plans include Commute Trip Reduction goals, transportation system controls, travel modes, supporting state and federal air quality standards and regulations, and improving city vehicle fleets. Air pollution and emissions from non-vehicle sources were are rarely addressed. Many plans refer to Commute Trip Reduction Ordinances, which is how many cities implement Vehicle Miles Traveled and Single Occupancy Vehicle commute trip reduction programs for major employers and worksites, required by the State Commute Trip Reduction Act (RCW 70.94.521 through 70.94.555) for local governments that experience auto-related air pollution and traffic congestion (WAC 468-63-010 and RCW 70.94.521). These actions are not required for all Regional Center Planning in the Central Puget Sound

167


cities, so despite the fact that Center development implies increased population and traffic, it does not appear that all centers must include this planning. Most center plans and transportation elements refer to external documents. For example, Kent notes multiple locations of these policies and programs: "More information on the City’s Transportation Demand Management strategies can be found in the Comprehensive Transportation Plan; in Kent City Code (KCC) Chapter 12.04; the Kent Subdivision Code; KCC Chapter 6.12 referring to the Kent CTR Ordinance No. 3474; and can be found throughout this chapter." (Kent Comprehensive Plan, p. 9-22).

3. How many centers did/did not address the checklist item? While Commute Trip Reduction and Transportation Demand Management strategies are mentioned in all Comprehensive Plans, over half of Centers (14 of 27) did not address this item specifically with Center plans. Those Centers include Burien, Canyon Park, Everett, Lakewood, Lynwood, Puyallup Downtown, Puyallup South Hill, Seattle Downtown, First Hill/Capitol Hill (Seattle), Northgate (Seattle), University District (Seattle), Uptown Queen Anne (Seattle), Silverdale, and Tacoma Mall. No center plan contained more than four policies related to the key search terms. • •

Federal Way’s Center goals and policies include specific goals about creating and promoting a bicycle and pedestrian transportation system. Downtown Tacoma’s action items include specific steps to transform land use standards: “Integrate policies developed by the Green Ribbon Climate Action Task Force into downtown land use development standards.” (2.3A.1) Totem Lake plans include an expanded version of Kirkland’s Transportation Demand Management program. It also considers Totem Lake as a Growth and Efficiency Transportation Center, part of the state’s Commute Trip Reduction law that works with smaller employers. Other cities with Regional Growth Centers have Growth and Efficiency Transportation Center Plans (Bellevue, Puyallup, Redmond, Seattle, Tacoma, Tukwila), but these are not mentioned in center planning documents.

4. Were many of the policies addressing the checklist item specific to Centers? Most policies were not specific to air quality and emissions issues in Centers. Some policies contained within Center plans also appear to be reiterations of citywide policies, without being tailored to Center conditions. For example, “Support programs to meet air quality standards including the continuation and expansion of the state vehicle emission inspection and maintenance program” (Bellevue).

5. Is the checklist item a useful evaluation tool of the Center’s planning? No. This item is too broad to be used as an evaluation tool. Many transportation planning actions, from parking to bicycle and pedestrian plans, may be interpreted as meeting these goals. As a result, it is difficult to catalogue and evaluate all potentially related policies and actions.

168

Regional Center Planning in the Central Puget Sound


6. Should the checklist item be retained or revised to require policy to address the item more explicitly? This item should be retained, and Item #9 from Additional Transportation Issues, which discusses mode split goals, should be folded into this checklist item. (Alternatively, this item could be moved to the Transportation section.) The text should state specifically (a) what types of policies Puget Sound Regional Council recommends for Center sub-area plans, and (b) whether these plans are expected to refer to the multiple strategies and policies contained in other plans, ordinances, and programs. It should also be explicitly stated whether Centers are expected to have policies for non-vehicle emissions air quality issues.

Regional Center Planning in the Central Puget Sound

169


Environment #4: Include strategies and programs to reduce air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions. # Centerspecific Policies

# Citywide Policies

Rating

Auburn

1

26

-

One policy discouraging single-use vehicle trips in the downtown (e.g., fast-food drive-through).

Bellevue

2

21

-

Covers parking and unspecified air quality programs.

Bothell – Canyon Park

0

12

-

Bremerton

2

14

+

Burien

0

6

-

Everett

0

6

-

Federal Way

4

13

+

Kent

2

5

+

Kirkland – Totem Lake

2

13

+

Expands the Transportation Demand Management program specific to the Center.

Lakewood

0

n/a

-

(no electronic version of Comprehensive Plan available)

Lynnwood

0

18

-

Puyallup – Downtown

0

9

-

Puyallup – South Hill

0

9

-

Redmond – Downtown

1

8

++

The single policy is a detailed, multi-part policy.

Redmond – Overlake

2

8

++

One of the only centers listing specific mode split goals within Center plans.

Regional Growth Center

Renton

3

2

12

-

Details

Two policies, but they address Transportation Demand Management, Commute Trip Reduction, and transit strategies.

Mostly details non-motorized and transit goals or policies.

Outlines how the City’s Urban Forestry Plan and street tree planting can increase tree cover in the City Center for the purpose of improving air quality and mitigating greenhouse gas emissions’ effects.

This is a reference to an ordinance, not a stand-alone comprehensive plan policy.

170

Regional Center Planning in the Central Puget Sound


SeaTac

1

5

-

Seattle – Downtown

0

21

-

Seattle – First Hill/Capitol Hill

0

21

-

Seattle – Northgate

0

21

-

Seattle – South Lake Union

0

21

-

Seattle – University

0

21

-

Seattle – Uptown Queen Anne

0

21

-

Silverdale

0

2

-

Tacoma – Downtown

2

18

+

Tacoma – Tacoma Mall

0

18

-

Tukwila

2

4

++

Links bike and pedestrian trails plans to emissions reduction in the City Center.

Also includes description of other strategies and policies employed, e.g., Commute Trip Reduction Ordinance. Center policies include promoting Green Ribbon Climate Action Taskforce downtown land use development standards.

Mentions land use goals in addition to transportation/circulation goals.

Rating Scale: Poorly/not addressed (-) Addressed (+) Well addressed (++)

Regional Center Planning in the Central Puget Sound

171


Checklist Section: Land Use Checklist Item: #1 – Demonstrate defined boundaries and shape for the Center (boundaries should be compact and easily walkable. This suggests a roughly uniform shape of about 1 mile. Boundaries should not be elongated or gerrymandered).

Policy Scan Method: This checklist addresses whether policies are in place in the Comprehensive Plan and Urban Center Element (if applicable) that will establish a compact and easily walkable area with a defined boundary.

Key Search Term(s): • •

Compact: boundary, edge, compact, Center, density Walkability: walk, walkable, walkability, pedestrian, size, "transit oriented", "transit oriented development", "pedestrian friendly", density, dense, "dense development"

Findings 1.

Summary

The search for policy language produced mixed outcomes. The search based on key words listed as COMPACT above was productive, and produced center-specific language. The search for terms related to walkability (listed as WALKABILITY) produced an unmanageably high number of policies. Policies addressing walkability are commonplace in almost all of the plans.

2.

How was the checklist item addressed?

Overall, this checklist item was addressed very well. There were many phrases that were repeated across plans. One such example is, “focus growth and development into the center area.” The item was addressed comprehensively overall.

3.

How many centers did/did not address the checklist item?

All Centers had language stating that walkability is desired. Four of the twenty-seven centers stopped at that level. These polices are indicated by the (-) symbol on the table for Land Use question #1. Seven additional centers also have policies specific to compact development and the promotion of walking. These policies are indicated by the (+) symbol on the table for Land Use question #2. The remaining sixteen centers have multiple policies addressing compact pedestrian oriented development. These policies are indicated by the (++) symbol on the table for Land Use question #1.

172

Regional Center Planning in the Central Puget Sound


Tukwila and Kirkland Totem Lake both acknowledge that the growth area is very large and is in need of smaller sub areas to provide a unified concept and to promote walkability. Renton and Redmond include language on designating an urban growth area. Redmond includes separate criteria for each center, and proposes a range of uses for each. Redmond acknowledges that uses in Overlake will likely be large lot office parks, but an overall increase in density and walkability can be achieved through pedestrian trails and multi-family housing. Kent’s plans offer an example of specific policy language related to developing a compact urban center: LU-24 “Encourage well designed, compact land use patterns to reduce dependency on the automobile, and thereby improve air and water quality and conserve energy resources. Establish mixed-use commercial, office, and residential areas to present convenient opportunities for travel by transit, foot, and bicycle.”

4.

Were many of the policies addressing the checklist item specific to centers?

About half of the policies addressing this checklist item were specific to centers. Information pertaining to center size and configuration was not generally found in policies.

5.

Is the checklist item a useful evaluation tool of the center’s planning?

Overall, the checklist item is a useful evaluation tool of the center’s planning. Some centers are not currently walkable, and even state this in their plans. Two examples are SeaTac and Tukwila. It is useful to see that these areas have policies that will change the areas so they will become more walkable.

6. Should the checklist item be retained or revised to require policy to address the item more explicitly? This checklist item should be retained. However, it fails to address the following issues: •

What is the spatial relationship between the boundary and the center of density or the location of a transit center? For example, Downtown Redmond locates the future transit station on the edge of the downtown area, and adjacent to a freeway interchange. The metric of a one-mile diameter circle could be questioned. Bremerton is 126 acres (compared to 500 acres for the ideal center), yet it seems to function as a center.

Regional Center Planning in the Central Puget Sound

173


Land Use #1: Demonstrate defined boundaries and shape for the center (boundaries should be compact and easily walkable. This suggests a roughly uniform shape of about 1 mile. Boundaries should not be elongated or gerrymandered). # Centerspecific Policies

# Citywide Policies

Rating

Auburn

0

8

++

Extensive language about promoting walkability in the Downtown Center, within ¼ mile walking distance.

Bellevue

1

0

++

One policy is supported by extensive language supporting a compact, dense center.

Bothell – Canyon Park

2

0

+

Promotes development in the Center that is transit and pedestrian-oriented.

Bremerton

3

7

++

Walkability is promoted in Center

Burien

9

2

++

Class ‘A’ Streets are highly pedestrian oriented.

Everett

3

0

++

Center location will be determined with transit decision. Possible locations are shown on Future Land Use Map.

Federal Way

3

1

+

Center shall be walkable.

Kent

6

2

++

Model language – encourage compact land use pattern to reduce dependency on automobile

Kirkland – Totem Lake

3

0

-

Pedestrian access centers around the connection to the transit center.

Lakewood

0

6

-

Two areas exist, CBD and Lakewood Station District. CWPPs are adopted by reference.

Lynnwood

0

0

+

Center is defined and described according to checklist criteria, but without policies.

Puyallup – Downtown

6

7

++

Compact, walkable, area surrounding transit. (7) general policies apply throughout downtown.

Puyallup – South Hill

3

0

+

Recognize the area is not currently walkable, make it more so through improvements.

Redmond – Downtown

2

1

++

Pedestrian access and walkability are emphasized.

Redmond – Overlake

3

0

-

Center is not currently compact and walkable, but policies exist to establish walkability.

Renton

0

4

++

Regional Growth Center

174

Details

Two sub-areas make up a vibrant core that is peopleintensive

Regional Center Planning in the Central Puget Sound


Center is not currently compact and walkable, but policies exist to establish walkability.

SeaTac

2

0

-

Seattle – Downtown

0

6

++

Present and future boundary is addressed to ensure that a compact pedestrian oriented Environment is maintained.

Seattle – First Hill/Capitol Hill

0

6

++

Present and future boundary is addressed to ensure that a compact pedestrian oriented Environment is maintained.

Seattle – Northgate

0

6

++

Present and future boundary is addressed to ensure that a compact pedestrian oriented Environment is maintained.

Seattle – South Lake Union

0

6

++

Present and future boundary is addressed to ensure that a compact pedestrian oriented Environment is maintained.

Seattle – University

0

6

++

Present and future boundary is addressed to ensure that a compact pedestrian oriented Environment is maintained.

Seattle – Uptown Queen Anne

0

6

++

Present and future boundary is addressed to ensure that a compact pedestrian oriented Environment is maintained.

Silverdale

0

0

+

Areas such as Old Town and mixed-use centers will receive amenities.

Tacoma – Downtown

4

0

++

In addition to policies for livable streets and distinct boundaries, multi-modal transportation and compactness are concepts mentioned throughout the plan.

Tacoma – Tacoma Mall

0

1

+

Policy to establish and maintain a compact center. Plan calls for establishment of a Subarea Plan.

Tukwila

2

0

+

Center is large. Subcenters have been created. Pedestrian network.

Rating Scale: Poorly/not addressed (-) Addressed (+) Well addressed (++)

Regional Center Planning in the Central Puget Sound

175


Checklist Section: Land Use Checklist Item: #2 – Establish residential and employment growth targets that accommodate a significant share of the jurisdiction’s growth, as well as residential densities and building intensities with capacity to accommodate these levels of growth (note that targets are aspirational and state the minimum number of residents or jobs that a jurisdiction must be zoned to accommodate and will strive to absorb by the planning horizon year. Targets are distinct from zoned development capacity).

Policy Scan Method: This Checklist Item asks whether there are employment and / or population projections for the Center.

Key Search Term(s): "growth target", growth, target, population, employment

Findings 1.

Summary

This checklist item was not well addressed. Generally, only large jurisdictions (Lynnwood, Renton, and Seattle) calculated specific targets for the centers. Citywide targets are often provided, even for employment, which is not a requirement of GMA.

2.

How was the checklist item addressed?

This checklist item was rarely addressed through policy language. Targets were often provided in tabular form, or in written narrative. Many jurisdictions had language targeting growth to the centers in nominal, but not numeric, terms.

3.

How many centers did/did not address the checklist item?

Sixteen of the twenty-seven centers did not include growth targets for employment or population for the center. These centers are indicated by the (-) symbol on the table for Land Use question #2. Of the eleven centers with growth targets, all eleven had growth targets for both employment and population, as opposed to one or the other. These centers are indicated by the (++) symbol on the table for Land Use question #2. Six of these eleven centers with growth targets are within the City of Seattle. For the sixteen centers without targets, growth was often directed to downtown. Since only Bremerton, Burien, Kent, Lynnwood, Renton, and Seattle have targets for the centers, the item was not addressed very well.

176

Regional Center Planning in the Central Puget Sound


a.

Though not a specific policy, Kent has model language on page 4-27.

“Using the updated minimum targets standards from VISION 2020 for urban Center employment and housing targets, Kent’s Urban Center would need to accommodate 7,437 employees and 2,975 households, which is quite ambitious. The target assigned Kent’s Urban Center from VISION 2020 is 11,500 employees and 2,500 households by 2010. The Buildable Lands Analysis illustrates the market trend in Downtown Kent has been slow to capitalize on the zoning district’s openness to increased residential development. The 2000 Census further illustrates this trend, reporting only 877 households within the Urban Center.”

4.

Were many of the policies addressing the checklist item specific to centers? Eleven centers had growth target language specific to centers.

5.

Is the checklist item a useful evaluation tool of the center’s planning?

This checklist item is a useful tool in evaluating the center’s planning because it is useful for jurisdictions to plan for a specific quantity of growth in their centers. This number would be a useful component of Market Studies.

6. Should the checklist item be retained or revised to require policy to address the item more explicitly? The checklist item should be retained. It is a useful evaluation tool of center planning because it encourages a specific quantity of growth into centers.

Regional Center Planning in the Central Puget Sound

177


Land Use #2: Establish residential and employment growth targets that accommodate a significant share of the jurisdiction’s growth, as well as residential densities and building intensities with capacity to accommodate these levels of growth (note that targets are aspirational and state the minimum number of residents or jobs that a jurisdiction must be zoned to accommodate and will strive to absorb by the planning horizon year. Targets are distinct from zoned development capacity). Regional Growth Center

Exist?

Rating

Auburn

no

-

No population or employment targets for center. Growth is directed to center.

Bellevue

no

-

No population or employment targets for center. Growth is directed to center.

Bothell – Canyon Park

no

-

No population or employment targets for center. Growth is directed to center.

Bremerton

yes

++

Housing and Employment targets are provided for the center.

Burien

yes

++

Housing and Employment targets are provided for the center, growth generally is directed to center.

Everett

No

-

Targets are not provided for center.

Federal Way

no

-

Targets are not provided for center.

Kent

yes

++

Kirkland – Totem Lake

no

-

Growth targets for city but none found for center. Center is target for increased intensity of land uses.

Lakewood

no

-

Targets are not provided for center.

Lynnwood

yes

++

Puyallup – Downtown

no

-

No population or employment targets for center. Growth is directed to center.

Puyallup – South Hill

no

-

No population or employment targets for center. Growth is directed to center.

Redmond – Downtown

no

-

No population or employment targets for center.

Redmond – Overlake

no

-

No population or employment targets for center. Growth is directed to center.

Renton

yes

++

SeaTac

no

-

Seattle – Downtown

yes

++

178

Details

Housing and Employment targets are provided for the center.

Housing and Employment targets are provided for the center.

Per acre residential and employment targets for center. No population or employment targets for center. Growth is directed to center. Housing and Employment targets for are provided for the center.

Regional Center Planning in the Central Puget Sound


Seattle – First Hill/Capitol Hill

yes

++

Housing and Employment targets are provided for the center.

Seattle – Northgate

yes

++

Housing and Employment targets are provided for the center.

Seattle – South Lake Union

yes

++

Housing and Employment targets are provided for the center.

Seattle – University

yes

++

Housing and Employment targets are provided for the center.

Seattle – Uptown Queen Anne

yes

++

Housing and Employment targets are provided for the center.

Silverdale

no

-

Growth targets for city but none found for center. Center is target for increased intensity of land uses.

Tacoma – Downtown

no

-

Growth targets for city but none found for center. Center is target for increased intensity of land uses.

Tacoma – Tacoma Mall

no

-

Growth targets for city but none found for center. Center is target for increased intensity of land uses.

Tukwila

no

-

Citywide housing targets only, no figures for center.

Rating Scale: Poorly/not addressed (-) Addressed (+) Well addressed (++)

Regional Center Planning in the Central Puget Sound

179


Checklist Section: Land Use Checklist Item: #3 – Describe the mix, distribution and location of uses (such as residential, commercial, civic, public). Include a map showing uses.

Policy Scan Method: This checklist item applies to new centers, which will have a land use mix proposed as part of their market analysis. These centers are Seattle – South Lake Union, Auburn, Burien, Overlake – Redmond, Totem Lake, and Silverdale. It is assumed that all new centers have completed a Market Study, and four of the five Market Studies have been identified through the internet. Each of these centers is given a (++) symbol on the table for Land Use question #3. This checklist item is interpreted in a different way for older centers. The Future Land Use Map, Zoning Map, Development Regulations, and other applicable plans are checked to see if the center is designated as one use with a specified density. If an older center has no separate designation for the center, the center is given a (-) symbol on the table for Land Use question #3. If the center is recognized with one land use or zoning designation, it is given a (+). If density is specified for the center, whether it be FAR, average dua, or max and min dua, the center is given a (++) symbol on the table for Land Use question #3.

Key Search Term(s): density, "future land use map", DUA, dwelling units per acre, FAR, floor area ratio.

Findings 1.

Summary

Because this item is intended to be part of a market analysis / study, it is assumed that this checklist item is well addressed by all new centers, even though the Market Study for Silverdale could not be located.

2.

How was the checklist item addressed?

For those centers with a Market Study, an in depth analysis of potential uses is available. Floor Area Ratio is the most common way density is described. Maximum floor area is also used. For example, Bremerton designates a DC District Center Density as being 20 units per acre (average).

3.

How many centers did/did not address the checklist item?

Including the five new centers, a total of twelve centers receive the top ranking of (++) for having the center identified with density. An additional three centers have the center identified, but do not include density. 180

Regional Center Planning in the Central Puget Sound


4.

Were many of the policies addressing the checklist item specific to centers?

Roughly half of the centers are either listed as a single use on the Future Land Use Map, or are considered by zoning to be one use. For these jurisdictions planning for centers in this way, densities are provided for all but three center areas.

5.

Is the checklist item a useful evaluation tool of the center’s planning?

This checklist item is a useful tool for the evaluation of new Centers. For the purposes of this study, it has been difficult to apply this checklist item to existing Centers, thus the two-pronged approach. This item is useful to evaluate because if a jurisdiction plans for a center as a separate use, then more center-specific policies could be created that apply just to that use. The creation of a center land use, such as that in Renton, creates a vehicle by which a jurisdiction can do specific planning for the Center.

6. Should the checklist item be retained or revised to require policy to address the item more explicitly? This checklist item should be retained. It has been interesting to consider density and whether the future land use map contains one land use. This checklist could be expanded to include these items. Also, the very similar checklist item under Transportation Additional Considerations Item #1 could be added to this checklist item. That item asks if there is a compatible land use mix of uses for the center.

Regional Center Planning in the Central Puget Sound

181


Land Use #3: Describe the mix, distribution and location of uses (such as residential, commercial, civic, public). Include a map showing uses. Regional Growth Center

Description?

Map?

Rating

Details

Auburn

yes

yes

++

This new Center contains proposed uses and a market study with densities.

Bellevue

yes

yes

++

Downtown has FAR standards

Bothell – Canyon Park

no

no

-

Bremerton

yes

yes

++

Density is provided for downtown Center

Burien

yes

yes

++

This new Center contains proposed uses and a market study with densities.

Everett

yes

yes

++

Minimum and maximum density is provided for the Center.

Federal Way

yes

yes

+

City Center Core (CC-C) zone does not mention density

Kent

no

no

-

No one use with overall density

Kirkland – Totem Lake

yes

yes

++

Lakewood

no

no

-

Canyon Park subarea plan does not list densities.

This new Center contains proposed uses and a market study with densities. No single use for Center.

Lynnwood

yes

yes

++

City Center District Zone. FAR allowable and with bonuses. 21.60.800 Maximum amount of development in city center (maximum square footage).

Puyallup – Downtown

yes

yes

+

“Downtown Mixed Use” zone does not designate density

Puyallup – South Hill

no

no

-

South Hill is made up of multiple zones.

Redmond – Downtown

no

no

-

Downtown is made up of multiple zones.

Redmond – Overlake

yes

yes

++

This new Center contains proposed uses and a market study with densities.

Renton

yes

yes

+

Three center designations exist, CV Center Village, UC-D Urban Center Downtown and UC-N Urban Center North. No density is provided in the City Center Community Plan.

SeaTac

no

yes

-

Center is identified, no distinct use

Seattle – Downtown

no

yes

++

182

Center is identified, no distinct use. Baseline and

Regional Center Planning in the Central Puget Sound


maximum FARs are provided. Seattle – First Hill/Capitol Hill

no

yes

-

Center is identified, no distinct use.

Seattle – Northgate

no

yes

-

Center is identified, no distinct use.

Seattle – South Lake Union

yes

yes

++

Seattle – University

no

yes

-

Center is identified, no distinct use.

Seattle – Uptown Queen Anne

no

yes

-

Center is identified, no distinct use.

Silverdale

no

no

-

This new Center is identified, no distinct use. Market Study could not be located.

Tacoma – Downtown

no

no

-

Future Land Use map shows multiple uses.

Tacoma – Tacoma Mall

no

no

-

Future Land Use map shows multiple uses.

Tukwila

yes

yes

++

This new Center contains proposed uses and a market study with densities.

TUC Land Use for Tukwila Urban Center. Employment and Household density is provided.

Rating Scale: Poorly/not addressed (-) Addressed (+) Well addressed (++)

Regional Center Planning in the Central Puget Sound

183


Checklist Section: Land Use Checklist Item: #4 – Include design standards for pedestrian-friendly, transit-oriented development and other - transit-supportive planning that orients land uses around transit

Policy Scan Method: There are two components to the checklist item. 1. 2.

Are there design standards that address the center? If so, do the standards address transit oriented development.

Design Standards are most frequently found in the development regulations. Often times, Design Standards are not available, but design guidelines are available.

Key Search Term(s): "design standard", “design guidelines�, transit

Findings 1.

Summary

Just less than half of the centers have Design Guidelines that address transit-oriented development. One reason for such a high number is that all Seattle centers address transitoriented development, and three also address transit-oriented development. 2.

How was the checklist item addressed?

By their nature, Development Standards are highly detailed, and generally provide prescriptive measures that must be followed. Many standards addressed building orientation to transit. High density uses must face and address transit. Buildings should not have blank walls next to the transit. 3.

How many centers did/did not address the checklist item?

Four out of twenty-seven centers have no Design Standards or Design Guidelines. These centers are indicated by the (-) symbol on the table for Land Use question #4. Eleven additional centers have Design Standards, but no mention of transit-oriented development. These centers are indicated by the (+) symbol on the table for Land Use question #4. Ten additional centers have Design Standards (or Guidelines) that address transit-oriented development. These centers are indicated by the (+) symbol on the table for Land Use question #4.

184

Regional Center Planning in the Central Puget Sound


One example of specific policy language comes from Redmond: “Provide direct access to transit stops from buildings via defined, safe pathway systems. Locate parking lots to the side and rear of buildings. Avoid making pedestrians walk across expansive parking lots to reach transit stops.” SeaTac’s Development Regulations 15.36.510 for Off-Site Improvements calls for the areas within comfortable walking distance (1,500 feet) of high capacity transit facilities to have pedestrian access assessed for overpasses, links to park and ride facilities, and sidewalk needs.

4.

Were many of the policies addressing the checklist item specific to centers?

While, no policies exist in Design Standards, many of the Design Standards were written to apply specifically to centers. 5.

Is the checklist item a useful evaluation tool of the center’s planning?

The checklist is very useful. Design Standards are an excellent tool to use to help shape the future of transit-oriented development in centers because they are enforceable at the local level and operate at the right level of detail. 6. Should the checklist item be retained or revised to require policy to address the item more explicitly? The checklist item should be retained. It seems achievable that centers are able to meet the criteria.

Regional Center Planning in the Central Puget Sound

185


Land Use #4: Include design standards for pedestrian-friendly, transit-oriented development and other transit-supportive planning that orients land uses around transit. Regional Growth Center

Exists?

Rating

Auburn

yes

+

Design Standards address walkways to transit.

Bellevue

yes

++

Design Standards are very specific for walkways to transit.

Bothell – Canyon Park

no

-

Bremerton

yes

++

Design Standards are visionary but not specific.

Burien

yes

++

Design Standards address transit-oriented development.

Everett

no

-

No Design Standards were found for Everett

Federal Way

no

-

No Design Standards were found for Federal Way

Kent

no

-

No Design Standards were found for Kent

Kirkland – Totem Lake

yes

+

Design Regulations address center, but not Transit Oriented Development.

Lakewood

yes

++

Design Standards address transit-oriented development.

Lynnwood

yes

-

Design Guidelines appear to be referred to in City Center Zone as “Standards”. Standards do not mention transit.

Puyallup – Downtown

no

-

No Design Standards

Puyallup – South Hill

no

-

No Design Standards

Redmond – Downtown

yes

++

Design Standards address transit-oriented development.

Redmond – Overlake

yes

++

Design Standards address transit-oriented development.

Renton

yes

-

SeaTac

yes

++

“Special Standards for City Center” include detailed language regarding pedestrian connection to transit.

Seattle – Downtown

yes

-

Belltown Design Guidelines do not mention Transit Oriented Development

Seattle – First Hill/Capitol Hill

yes

++

Center specific Design Guidelines for Capitol Hill mention transitoriented development.

Seattle – Northgate

yes

++

Center specific Design Guidelines call for Transit-Oriented Development.

Seattle – South Lake Union

yes

+

Center specific Design Guidelines do not mention transit.

Seattle – University

yes

+

Center specific Design Guidelines mention dense pedestrian

186

Details

No Design Standards were found for Canyon Park

Urban Design Guidelines address pedestrian but not transit oriented.

Regional Center Planning in the Central Puget Sound


oriented development near transit, but not in great detail. Seattle – Uptown Queen Anne

yes

++

Silverdale

no

-

Tacoma – Downtown

no

-

Tacoma – Tacoma Mall

no

-

Tukwila

no

-

Center specific Design Guidelines mention dense pedestrian oriented development near transit.

Guidelines are in draft form only.

Rating Scale: Poorly/not addressed (-) Addressed (+) Well addressed (++)

Regional Center Planning in the Central Puget Sound

187


Checklist Section: Housing Checklist Item: #1 – State total existing and projected housing units.

Policy Scan Method: For this checklist item, as well as the other Housing section items, a scan of each city’s comprehensive plan was conducted in order to determine what the plan said about housing issues. In addition to a key word search, each plan’s Housing Element was reviewed to check for conformity with the checklist. For this specific checklist item, each city met this criteria if existing and projecting housing units were listed somewhere in the comprehensive plan, even if these figures were not related to a specific policy. For those comprehensive plans for which a single file download was not available, a key word search was conducted in the Land Use Element, as well as any Comprehensive Plan Element or subarea plan related to the city’s Regional Growth Center(s). Jurisdictions stating existing and projected housing units were deemed to have addressed this item. Those specifying the number or percentage of housing units allocated to their center(s) rated “addressed well.” Key Search Term(s): Housing (Note: in addition to this singe search term, each comprehensive plan’s Housing Element was thoroughly reviewed).

Findings 1.

Summary

Each city in the region is required to plan for a certain number of housing units. However, the number of projected housing units was not always stated in each city’s comprehensive plan. The number of housing units projected for urban centers was even less common than for entire cities.

2.

How was the checklist item addressed?

Through the policy scan, it was discovered that most cities merely stated the number of units somewhere in the comprehensive plan, often in tabular form in an introductory section. Only two cities (Everett and Kent) had a policy to allow or provide for a specific number of new housing units.

3.

How many centers did/did not address the item?

Most comprehensive plans state total existing and projected housing units. However, these were not generally stated in policies. Most plans did not state projected units in centers. The plans that did were Kent, Lynnwood, SeaTac and Seattle. Bellevue’s plan stated that 80% of new housing units should go in the center.

188

Regional Center Planning in the Central Puget Sound


4.

Were many of the policies addressing the checklist item specific to centers?

As noted, existing and projected housing units were typically not specific to centers.

5.

Is the checklist item a useful evaluation tool of the center’s planning?

Using this checklist item to evaluate the planning for each center reveals that center planning in many cases has not advanced beyond vague policies to more specific planning for a certain number of housing units. Given the fundamental nature of this checklist item, it provides a good gauge of housing planning in urban centers. Given that most urban centers in the region have been predominantly commercial areas, it is unsurprising that planning for housing, as evaluated by this checklist item, has been limited.

6. Should the checklist item be retained or revised to require policy to address the item more explicitly? This checklist item should be retained. A simple statement of existing and projected housing units should be the starting point for housing planning in each of the urban centers.

Regional Center Planning in the Central Puget Sound

189


Housing #1: State total existing and projected housing units.** # Centerspecific Policies

# Citywide Policies

Rating

Auburn

No

Yes

+

Bellevue

No

Yes

++

Bothell – Canyon Park

No

Y

+

Bremerton

No

No

_

Burien

No

Yes

+

Everett

No

Yes

+

Federal Way

No

Yes

+

Kent

Yes

Yes

++

Kirkland – Totem Lake

No

Yes

+

Lakewood

No

No

_

Lynnwood

Yes

Yes

+

Puyallup – Downtown

No

No

_

States citywide projected units only

Puyallup – South Hill

No

No

_

States citywide projected units only

Redmond – Downtown

No

Yes

+

Redmond – Overlake

No

Yes

+

Renton

No

Yes

+

SeaTac

Yes

No

++

Seattle – Downtown

Yes

Yes

++

Seattle – First Hill/Capitol Hill

Yes

Yes

++

Seattle – Northgate

Yes

Yes

++

Seattle – South Lake Union

Yes

Yes

++

Seattle – University

Yes

Yes

++

Seattle – Uptown Queen Anne

Yes

Yes

++

Silverdale

No

No

_

States projected units only

No

No

_

States existing units only (Downtown element gives projected units to 2010 only)

Regional Growth Center

Tacoma – Downtown

190

Details

Plan states that 80% of new units will go downtown

States citywide existing units only

States citywide existing units only

Citywide figures not listed in comp plan

Regional Center Planning in the Central Puget Sound


Tacoma - Tacoma Mall4

No

No

_

Tukwila

No

No

_

States existing units only

**NOTE: This is a binary item. Units are either stated or not stated for each city and for centers.

Rating Scale: Poorly/not addressed (-) Addressed (+) Well addressed (++)

Regional Center Planning in the Central Puget Sound

191


Checklist Section: Housing Checklist Item: #2 – Include provisions for a variety of housing types that addresses density standards, affordable housing, and special housing needs.

Policy Scan Method: For this checklist item, as well as the other Housing section items, a scan of each city’s comprehensive plan was conducted in order to determine what the plan said about housing issues. In addition to a key word search, every policy each plan’s Housing Element was reviewed to check for conformity with the checklist. Every comprehensive plan said something about providing or allowing a variety of housing types, so for this checklist item, a policy was only considered to have met the criteria if it addressed density, affordable housing, and/or special housing needs. Policies regarding residential lands outside urban centers (for example, in single family neighborhoods) were not included. For those comprehensive plans for which a single file download was not available, a key word search was conducted in the Land Use Element, as well as any Comprehensive Plan Element or subarea plan related to the city’s Regional Growth Center(s). Centers were rated as having addressed this item (+) if they had more than one center-specific policies, or one detailed center-specific policy. They were not considered to have addressed this item (-) in their center if policies were limited in scope to a single housing type or a single population (e.g. senior housing). Four or more center-specific policies qualified as “welladdressed” (++).

Key Search Term(s): Housing (Note: in addition to this singe search term, each comprehensive plan’s Housing Element was thoroughly reviewed).

Findings 1.

Summary

Every city’s comprehensive plan contains provisions related to housing variety, so focusing on the three sub-criteria of density standards, affordable housing, and special housing needs was more revealing. Even within these sub-criteria, most plans contained numerous policies related to each, though only some related these policies to urban centers.

2.

How was the checklist item addressed?

Some plans did contain language about promoting higher densities and mixed uses in urban centers, while many contain provisions relating to preserving single family neighborhoods (these were not included, as they are presumed to relate to areas totally or predominantly outside urban centers). Affordable housing was universally mentioned, but only rarely did the plans mention housing specifically for low-income or very-low income individuals. Similarly, special needs housing was a common theme, but fewer plans mentioned what populations they were seeking

192

Regional Center Planning in the Central Puget Sound


to serve with special needs housing – some mentioned senior housing or housing for individuals with disabilities. Very few plans mention housing for the homeless (Kitsap County, Auburn), the mentally ill (Federal Way, Kitsap County), or individuals with drug or alcohol dependencies (Kitsap County).

3.

How many centers did/did not address the item?

All cities address housing variety citywide, and most in their center(s). The cities of Bremerton and Tukwila do not address density, affordability, or special-needs housing in their center policies (note that Tukwila has an Urban Center Plan in draft form). The Overlake Center potentially limits density by seeking to “maintain the overall single-family character” of the center.

4.

Were many of the policies addressing the checklist item specific to centers?

The cities of the region have created numerous policies to support the housing goals of this criterion. All cities have citywide policies and many have policies specific to their urban centers.

5.

Is the checklist item a useful evaluation tool of the center’s planning?

In order to evaluate city policies, a more specific criterion must be established. Those cities seeking to go “above and beyond” in their provision of housing can either allow higher densities in their urban center in order to serve more individuals, or commit to serving more “difficult” populations, such as very low-income individuals, the homeless, the mentally ill, or individuals with drug dependencies. By way of illustration, a city could meet this criterion by allowing one adult family home in an otherwise single family neighborhood that they consider “more affordable” because of a four units per acre density.

6. Should the checklist item be retained or revised to require policy to address the item more explicitly? This item should be retained. If possible, the item should be made more specific to provide for a better evaluation of policies. Currently, a city could address this criterion by allowing one adult family home in an otherwise single-family neighborhood that city planners consider “more affordable” because of a four units per acre density. Plans should state how dense centers will be and for whom, specifically, housing will be provided.

Regional Center Planning in the Central Puget Sound

193


Housing #2: Include provisions for a variety of housing types that addresses density standards, affordable housing, and special housing needs. # Centerspecific Policies

# Citywide Policies

Auburn

1

6

Bellevue

1

4

+

Bothell – Canyon Park

3

5

+

Bremerton

0

4

-

Burien

1

2

-

Everett

2

4

+

Federal Way

2

5

+

Kent

4

6

++

Kirkland – Totem Lake

2

4

+

Lakewood

1

5

+

Lynnwood

2

4

+

Puyallup – Downtown

2

6

+

Puyallup – South Hill

2

6

-

Only student housing addressed in Subarea Element

Redmond – Downtown

2

5

+

Senior housing promoted in center.

Redmond – Overlake

2

5

-

Density limit – plan seeks to “maintain overall single family character” of urban center (See N-OV-82)

Renton

1

11

+

SeaTac

3

4

+

Seattle – Downtown

3

6

+

Seattle – First Hill/Capitol Hill

7

6

++

Seattle – Northgate

3

6

+

Seattle – South Lake Union

5

6

++

Seattle – University

3

6

+

Seattle – Uptown Queen Anne

3

6

+

Silverdale

2

9

+

Regional Growth Center

194

Rating +

Details Special needs housing for elderly and handicapped individuals promoted in center.

Not addressed in center

Addressed in Comp Plan and in Subarea Plan

Senior housing promoted in center.

Well-addressed in neighborhood element

Regional Center Planning in the Central Puget Sound


++

Tacoma – Downtown

6

6

Tacoma – Tacoma Mall

3

6

+

Tukwila

0

4

-

Center-specific policies in Comp Plan, Subarea Plan, and Downtown Element

No center-specific housing policies

Rating Scale: Poorly/not addressed (-) Addressed (+) Well addressed (++)

Regional Center Planning in the Central Puget Sound

195


Checklist Section: Housing Checklist Item: #3 – Include implementation strategies and monitoring programs for addressing housing targets and goals.

Policy Scan Method: For this checklist item, as well as the other Housing section items, a scan of each city’s comprehensive plan was conducted in order to determine what the plan said about housing issues. In addition to a key word search, each plan’s Housing Element was reviewed to check for conformity with the checklist. A city was considered to have met this criterion if their comprehensive plan or Center subarea plan either listed housing implementation strategies, or contained policies that could be considered implementational. It was also noted when a policy called for monitoring. For those comprehensive plans for which a single file download was not available, a key word search was conducted in the Land Use Element, as well as any Comprehensive Plan Element or subarea plan related to the city’s Regional Growth Center(s). Rating centers required determining whether or not a policy should be considered “strategic” or “implementational.” Policies included in Housing Checklist Item #2 were not also included here, which limited the number of policies included. “Not addressed” (-) means that no Center policies or less than three total policies were included. ‘well addressed’ (++) Centers were those that listed more than twelve implementation strategies, including more than two Center-specific strategies.

Key Search Term(s): Housing (Note: in addition to this singe search term, each comprehensive plan’s Housing Element was thoroughly reviewed).

Findings 1.

Summary

Surprisingly few comprehensive plans list implementation strategies as such. Most plans, however, contain housing policies that are specific enough to be considered implementational.

2.

How was the checklist item addressed?

Implementation strategies that emerged include zoning code changes, allowances of specific housing types (such as accessory dwelling units), tax incentives and development partnerships for affordable housing. Very few of these strategies were Center-specific, but those that are citywide cover Centers as well as other areas. In some cases, this may not have been necessary. Bothell, for instance, has a detailed monitoring program citywide that applies to their Center. SeaTac helpfully lists implementation strategies for both affordable housing and special needs housing goals.

196

Regional Center Planning in the Central Puget Sound


3.

How many centers did/did not address the item?

While some housing policies for each city are implementational and/or strategic. Many cities do not identify implementation strategies as such. Even cities with a large number of housing strategies, only 16 cities had policies specifically related to Centers.

4.

Were many of the policies addressing the checklist item specific to Centers?

Some, though many were not.

5.

Is the checklist item a useful evaluation tool of the Center’s planning?

This item encourages follow-up, which is important. Both implementation and monitoring efforts will ensure that cities are following through with their policies. Most plans do contain either specific implementation strategies or policies that are implementational in nature. Fewer plans explain how housing goals will be monitored. This is an important omission, as monitoring will reveal whether a center is moving towards the goal or stagnating. If no local monitoring is being done, cities may still rely on census data. However, this is census data is not current enough for good planning.

6. Should the checklist item be retained or revised to require policy to address the item more explicitly? This item should be retained. Implementation and monitoring should be separate sub-criteria, as jurisdictions will need to do both if housing goals are to be met.

Regional Center Planning in the Central Puget Sound

197


Housing #3: Include implementation strategies and monitoring programs for addressing housing targets and goals. # Centerspecific Policies

# Citywide Policies

Rating

Auburn

0

3

-

Bellevue

3

3

+

Innovated housing types and processes highlighted under “Housing Opportunities”

Bothell – Canyon Park

0

4

-

Not addressed in center, but detailed monitoring program citywide

Bremerton

0

0

-

Burien

0

2

-

Everett

2

3

+

Federal Way

0

3

-

Kent

4

18

++

Kirkland – Totem Lake

1

2

+

Lakewood

0

1

-

Various implementation strategies citywide.

Lynnwood

2

0

-

One strategy erroneously listed under “public space/parks” section. Potential zoning-changes and other strategies suggested.

Puyallup – Downtown

3

0

+

Citywide strategies given in various zoning designations

Puyallup – South Hill

1

0

-

Redmond – Downtown

0

12

+

Redmond – Overlake

1

12

+

Renton

0

11

+

SeaTac

1

2

+

Lists implementation strategies for affordable housing and special needs housing goals

Seattle – Downtown

2

41

++

various housing strategies listed in downtown section

Seattle – First Hill/Capitol Hill

1

41

+

Seattle – Northgate

2

41

+

Seattle – South Lake Union

1

41

+

Seattle – University

2

41

+

Regional Growth Center

198

Details

Some strategies only listed as possibilities

Regional Center Planning in the Central Puget Sound


Seattle – Uptown Queen Anne

1

41

+

Silverdale

0

1

+

Tacoma – Downtown

2

1

+

Tacoma – Tacoma Mall

0

1

-

Tukwila

0

2

-

9 incentives listed

Rating Scale: Poorly/not addressed (-) Addressed (+) Well addressed (++)

Regional Center Planning in the Central Puget Sound

199


Checklist Section: Economy Checklist Item: #1 – Describe the economic and residential role of the center within the city and the region.

Policy Scan Method: The checklist item addresses in the most basic terms how an area qualifies as a regional center – it has both housing and economic components that serve the larger surrounding area. In terms of becoming a new center, this is essentially a “pitch” from a potential center as why they deserve to be recognized. Therefore, it is not as critical for existing centers to include this in their plans as they have already been designated a regional center. This item was interpreted to mean the existing role of the Center, not the planned or desired future role.

Searching for this in the subarea and city plans involved looking for either a direct mention to the designation as a regional center or a mention of both economic and residential components. Key terms weren’t as efficient of a search technique as simply scanning the general goals of the plan. If this checklist item is addressed in the plan it is most typically towards the beginning of the document as a an introductory goal. If it isn’t stated in terms of a goal or policy, many times it is included in the narrative introduction of the document. This item was considered well addressed (++) if the plan included a full description of the center’s current economic and residential role in the city and the region. It was considered ‘poorly/not addressed’ (-) if there was no description of the center’s current economic or residential role in the city or region. The addressed (+) rating was not used, as the item was either well addressed or not.

Key Search Term(s): None

Findings 1.

Summary

Only one center plan gave a complete description of the existing economic and residential role of the center (Seattle-downtown). Instead, many centers focused on a vision for the future role of the center and policies for accomplishing that vision.

2.

How was the checklist item addressed?

This item was addressed only partially by the center plans, in several different ways: a description of the existing economic or residential role of the center (but not both) or a description of the desired future role of the center and policies for achieving that goal.

200

Regional Center Planning in the Central Puget Sound


3.

How many centers did/did not address the item?

Only one center fully addressed this item by describing the existing economic and residential role of the center in the city and region: Seattle Downtown (Seattle Comprehensive Plan, Neighborhood Planning Element, page 8.79). Several plans described the economic or retail role but not the residential role; several described only the desired future role of the center, but not the existing role; and several centers did not contain any reference to the existing or desired future role of the center. Examples of centers that partially fulfilled this item include: a. Everett downtown (Everett Downtown Plan, page 13): “Downtown Everett is the financial, governmental, and cultural center of the both the City and Snohomish County.” b. Puyallup Downtown (Puyallup Comprehensive Plan, page IX-17): “I.3 To continue to recognize the downtown as the governmental and cultural focal point of the community.” c. Redmond Downtown (Redmond Comprehensive Plan, page 14-4) “DT-2: Support the Downtown as one of Redmond's primary locations for residential development to help create an economically healthy and vibrant Downtown in the morning, daytime, and evening.”

4.

Were many of the policies addressing the checklist item specific to centers?

The checklist item asks about the role of the center in the city and region; therefore any role description is specific to centers.

5.

Is the checklist item a useful evaluation tool of the center’s planning?

Yes. Regional Growth Centers are designated because they are designed to be centers of population and employment density within the region; this regional context should be described.

6. Should the checklist item be retained or revised to require policy to address the item more explicitly? The checklist item should be retained. As mentioned above, centers are designed to play a regional role and that role should be described explicitly in planning documents. This item could be changed to explicitly address both the existing and future role of the center, and could then be combined with Center Plan Concept Item #1 (Include a vision for the center).

Regional Center Planning in the Central Puget Sound

201


Economy #1: Describe the economic and residential role of the center within the city and the region. In SubArea Plan?

Rating

Auburn

No

-

No description of current economic or residential role in the city/region.

Bellevue

No

-

Downtown Bellevue’s current economic role is mentioned, as is the envisioned future residential role; current residential role not mentioned.

Bothell – Canyon Park

No

-

No description of current economic or residential role in the city/region.

Bremerton

No

-

No description of current economic or residential role in the city/region.

Burien

No

-

No description of current economic or residential role in the city/region.

Everett

No

-

Current economic role described, but residential role is not.

Federal Way

No

-

No description of current economic or residential role in the city/region.

Kent

No

-

No description of current economic or residential role in the city/region.

Kirkland – Totem Lake

No

-

No description of current economic or residential role in the city/region.

Lakewood

No

-

No description of current economic or residential role in the city/region.

Lynnwood

No

-

No description of current economic or residential role in the city/region.

Puyallup – Downtown

No

-

Describes the governmental, cultural, and retail role, but not the overall economic or residential role.

Puyallup – South Hill

No

-

Describes the retail role, but not the overall economic or residential role in the city/region.

Redmond – Downtown

No

-

Mentions that downtown Redmond is a primary location for residential development, but no description of overall residential or economic role in the city/region..

Redmond – Overlake

No

-

No description of current economic or residential role in the city/region.

Renton

No

-

Partial description of current economic role only.

SeaTac

No

-

No description of current economic or residential role in the city/region.

Regional Growth Center

202

Details

Regional Center Planning in the Central Puget Sound


The Commercial Core Neighborhood Element of the Comp Plan contains a description of downtown’s economic and residential role in the region.

Seattle – Downtown

Yes

++

Seattle – First Hill/Capitol Hill

No

-

Neighborhood Element of the Comp Plan does not include a description of the Center’s role.

Seattle – Northgate

No

-

Neighborhood Element of the Comp Plan does not include a description of the Center’s role.

Seattle – South Lake Union

No

-

Neighborhood Element of the Comp Plan does not include a description of the Center’s role.

Seattle – University

Yes

-

The University Community Neighborhood Element of the Comp Plan mentions several regional roles: the University of Washington, arts and culture, and the commercial district.

Seattle – Uptown Queen Anne

No

-

Neighborhood Element of the Comp Plan does not include a description of the Center’s role.

Silverdale

No

-

No description of current economic or residential role in the city/region.

Tacoma – Downtown

Yes

-

Current economic and cultural role is briefly described, but not the residential role.

Tacoma – Tacoma Mall

No

-

No description of current economic or residential role in the city/region.

Tukwila

No

-

Partial description of economic and retail role; no description of residential role.

Rating Scale: Poorly/not addressed (-) Addressed (+) Well addressed (++)

Regional Center Planning in the Central Puget Sound

203


Checklist Section: Economy Checklist Item: #2 – Describe key sectors and industry clusters in the center.

Policy Scan Method: Similar to Checklist Item #1, this addresses the significance of the area but more specifically in regards to the economic industries and sectors; this is also more tailored to an area applying for regional center designation. This item was interpreted to mean the existing key sectors and industry clusters, not the planned or desired future key sectors and industry clusters.

Addressing this checklist item involved finding a reference to specific business or economic activities that occur in the center; usually this was mentioned in regards to supporting them and/or growing them. Key words were not efficient for this search; instead the general goal and policy section of the plan was scanned as well as the “Economy” section if one existed. This item was considered well addressed (++) if the plan included a full description of key industries in the center, addressed (+) if the plan included a mention of major industries in the center, and poorly or not addressed (-) if the plan had no description of key sectors or industry clusters in the center.

Key Search Term(s): None

Findings 1.

Summary

Most centers did not include a description of the existing key sectors and industry clusters in the center. Many sub-area plans do not include a section on existing conditions, and those that do often do not describe industries in the area. Some plans included a description of the types of industries they would like to have in the future; this was often in a Vision section or Economic Development section of the plan.

2.

How was the checklist item addressed?

For those center plans that did address this item by describing existing industries, the language used was simple – generally a couple sentences or a paragraph mentioning the primary sectors in the area.

3.

204

How many centers did/did not address the item?

Regional Center Planning in the Central Puget Sound


Seven centers addressed this item at least partially by describing existing industry clusters (Auburn, Lynnwood, Puyallup South Hill, Seattle Downtown, South Lake Union, Tacoma Downtown, and Totem Lake) The majority of center plans did not contain any reference to existing or desired industry clusters. The following centers had good descriptions of existing key industries:

The Lynnwood City Center Sub Area Plan included this language (page 6): “There is a strong concentration of employment in the sectors of finance, insurance and real estate (FIRE, 39%) and retail trade (32%). There is also a concentration of government and education employment (15%) but this employment sector is projected to decline within the coming years.” The South Lake Union section of the Seattle Comprehensive Plan (Neighborhood Element) includes policies to promote existing industries (page 8.154), such as: “SLU-P9 Support the growth of innovative industries in South Lake Union including biotechnology, information technology, Environmental sciences and technology, and sustainable building.”

4.

Were many of the policies addressing the checklist item specific to centers?

The checklist item specifically asks about industry clusters inside centers; therefore any descriptions of industries in centers were specific to centers.

5.

Is the checklist item a useful evaluation tool of the center’s planning?

Yes. Before planning for the future of a center, it is useful to describe existing conditions. Because having a strong employment base is a key part of being a center, retaining those businesses and attracting new businesses is key, and planners should understand the existing businesses in the center.

6. Should the checklist item be retained or revised to require policy to address the item more explicitly? The checklist item should be retained because a description of existing business conditions in the center helps plan for the future. The item could be expanded to include a description of desired future industries and policies to retain and attract these industries.

Regional Center Planning in the Central Puget Sound

205


Economy #2: Describe key sectors and industry clusters in the center. In SubArea Plan

Rating

Auburn

Yes

++

Bellevue

No

-

No description of key sectors or industry clusters.

Bothell – Canyon Park

No

-

No description of key sectors or industry clusters.

Bremerton

No

-

No description of key sectors or industry clusters.

Burien

No

-

No description of key sectors or industry clusters.

Everett

No

-

No description of key sectors or industry clusters.

Federal Way

No

-

No description of key sectors or industry clusters.

Kent

No

-

No description of key sectors or industry clusters.

Kirkland – Totem Lake

Yes

+

Several industries mentioned.

Lakewood

No

-

No description of key sectors or industry clusters.

Lynnwood

Yes

+

Describes major employer sectors.

Puyallup – Downtown

No

-

No description of key sectors or industry clusters.

Puyallup – South Hill

Yes

+

Three large employers are mentioned.

Redmond – Downtown

No

-

No description of key sectors or industry clusters.

Redmond – Overlake

No

-

No description of key sectors or industry clusters.

Renton

No

-

No description of key sectors or industry clusters.

SeaTac

No

-

While major industries in the city as a whole are described, the key industries in the designated center are not.

Seattle – Downtown

No

+

Major industries in the center are described.

Seattle – First Hill/Capitol Hill

No

-

No description of key sectors or industry clusters.

Seattle – Northgate

No

-

No description of key sectors or industry clusters.

Seattle – South Lake Union

Yes

+

Several major industries in the center are listed.

Seattle – University

No

-

No description of key sectors or industry clusters.

Seattle – Uptown Queen Anne

No

-

No description of key sectors or industry clusters.

Silverdale

No

-

No description of key sectors or industry clusters.

Tacoma – Downtown

Yes

+

Several industry clusters are mentioned.

Regional Growth Center

206

Details Describes key industries in the center.

Regional Center Planning in the Central Puget Sound


Tacoma – Tacoma Mall

No

-

No description of key sectors or industry clusters.

Tukwila

No

-

No description of key sectors or industry clusters.

Rating Scale: Poorly/not addressed (-) Addressed (+) Well addressed (++)

Regional Center Planning in the Central Puget Sound

207


Checklist Section: Public Services Checklist Item: #1 – Describe existing and planned capital facilities, as well as their financing (such as sewer, water, gas, electric, telecommunications). Explain strategies to ensure facilities are provided consistent with targeted growth.

Policy Scan Method: This checklist item has two objectives. The first involves a survey of existing facilities and a description of planned facilities and their financing. The second portion of the item addresses the need for concurrency strategies to ensure facilities will keep up with growth. This item would typically be addressed in a public services/capital facilities/utilities section of a subarea plan, if at all. Note: While all Comprehensive Plans have sections on Capital Facilities; this item was searched for specifically in sub-area plans. This item was considered well addressed (++) if the sub-area plan contained a description of existing and planned facilities, their financing, and strategies for ensuring new facilities are provided consistent with growth. It was considered poorly or not addressed (-) if the sub-area plan did not contain description of existing and planned facilities, their financing, and strategies for ensuring new facilities are provided consistent with growth.

Key Search Term(s): Capital, facilities, utilities, sewer, gas, telecommunications, electric, concurrency

Findings 1.

Summary

Many sub-area plans did not have a section on capital facilities and did not address capital facilities for the center area specifically. However, all Comprehensive Plans have sections on Capital Facilities, as required. It can be assumed that the policies that apply to the jurisdiction as a whole also apply to the centers.

2.

How was the checklist item addressed?

No center plans fully addressed this item. If it was partially addressed for the center, it was usually regarding concurrency requirements.

3.

How many centers did/did not address the item?

No center plans fully addressed this item; some sub-area plans address it partially (Auburn, Lynnwood, Puyallup South Hill, Overlake, Redmond Downtown, and SeaTac). Examples of policies include:

208

Regional Center Planning in the Central Puget Sound


a. Overlake (Redmond Comprehensive Plan, Urban Centers Chapter, page 14-38): “N-OV46: Create and implement facility plans for Overlake to provide adequate utilities, transportation, and other infrastructure to accommodate anticipated growth” b. Auburn (Auburn Downtown Plan, page 71): “Policy 4-1: Coordinate utilities with development: Coordinate water service, sanitary sewer and storm water utilities, electrical and fiber optic facilities with the increasing development Downtown. Pursue opportunities to develop technologically advanced high speed communication infrastructure that supports or could attract desired businesses to Downtown Auburn.”

4.

Were many of the policies addressing the checklist item specific to centers?

Many policies addressing capital facilities and concurrency are included in Comprehensive Plans for the entire city, not specifically for the center.

5.

Is the checklist item a useful evaluation tool of the center’s planning?

This item is not as useful as many others on the checklist, primarily because ensuring adequate capital facilities for growth is dealt with elsewhere under the Growth Management Act.

6. Should the checklist item be retained or revised to require policy to address the item more explicitly? This item should be retained. Ensuring adequate public services to meet targeted or planned growth is an important mandate of the Growth Management Act and should be included in center-specific planning.

Regional Center Planning in the Central Puget Sound

209


Public Services #1: Describe existing and planned capital facilities, as well as their financing (such as sewer, water, gas, electric, telecommunications). Explain strategies to ensure facilities are provided consistent with targeted growth. Regional Growth Center

Described?

Rating

Auburn

Yes

-

Concurrency policies described.

Bellevue

No

-

No descriptions or concurrency strategies.

Bothell – Canyon Park

No

-

No descriptions or concurrency strategies.

Bremerton

No

-

No descriptions or concurrency strategies.

Burien

No

-

No descriptions or concurrency strategies.

Everett

No

-

No descriptions or concurrency strategies.

Federal Way

No

-

No descriptions or concurrency strategies.

Kent

No

-

No descriptions or concurrency strategies.

Kirkland – Totem Lake

No

-

No descriptions or concurrency strategies.

Lakewood

No

-

No descriptions or concurrency strategies.

Lynnwood

Yes

-

Description of existing facilities, but no concurrency strategies.

Puyallup – Downtown

No

Puyallup – South Hill

Yes

-

Concurrency policies for the Center described, but not existing or planned facilities.

Redmond – Downtown

Yes

-

Concurrency policies described.

Redmond – Overlake

Yes

-

Concurrency policies described.

Renton

No

-

No descriptions or concurrency strategies.

SeaTac

Yes

-

Concurrency policies described.

Seattle – Downtown

No

-

No descriptions or concurrency strategies.

Seattle – First Hill/Capitol Hill

No

-

No descriptions or concurrency strategies.

Seattle – Northgate

No

-

No descriptions or concurrency strategies.

Seattle – South Lake Union

No

-

No descriptions or concurrency strategies.

Seattle – University

No

-

No descriptions or concurrency strategies.

Seattle – Uptown Queen Anne

No

-

No descriptions or concurrency strategies.

Silverdale

No

-

No descriptions or concurrency strategies.

Tacoma – Downtown

No

-

No descriptions or concurrency strategies.

210

Details

No descriptions or concurrency strategies.

Regional Center Planning in the Central Puget Sound


Tacoma – Tacoma Mall

No

-

No descriptions or concurrency strategies.

Tukwila

No

-

No descriptions or concurrency strategies.

NOTE: All Comprehensive Plans are required under GMA to contain Capital Facilities Elements.

Rating Scale: Poorly/not addressed (-) Addressed (+) Well Addressed (++)

Regional Center Planning in the Central Puget Sound

211


Checklist Section: Transportation 2040 Physical Design Guidelines Checklist Item: #1 – Encourage a mix of complementary land uses.

Policy Scan Method: This checklist item was not considered as the subject of our policy scan because it overlaps with checklist item #3 under the section ‘Transportation 2040 Physical Design Guidelines.’ This item may be better suited for the Land Use section.

212

Regional Center Planning in the Central Puget Sound


Checklist Section: Transportation 2040 Physical Design Guidelines Checklist Item: #2 – Encourage compact growth by addressing density and by linking neighborhoods, connect streets, sidewalks and trails.

Policy Scan Method: The main objective of this item is to ensure that transportation facilities play a role in supporting compact growth by better linking adjacent neighborhoods to each other or connecting streets within a neighborhood. Therefore, a scan of each city’s comprehensive plan and each center specific subarea plan was conducted for this checklist item in order to identify what the plan include contents related to both compact growth and neighborhood or street connection. As for the center specific subarea plan, policies in this section, designed to connect transportation facilities to surrounding neighborhoods were considered to address this checklist item regardless of words related to growth. For those comprehensive plans for which does not allow to access a single file, a key word search was mainly conducted in the Transportation Element and Land Use element. Policies were rated as “well-addressed” (++) when they addressed both improvement of connectivity between and within city centers, as ‘addressed’ when they contained either (a) improving connectivity between city centers, or (b) they contained improving connectivity within a city center, and were rated as ‘poorly/not addressed’ (-) when they contained no policies or a policy that relates to connection between and within city centers. Key Search Term(s): compact, density, growth, center, link, connect, surrounding, adjacent, neighborhood.

Findings 1.

Summary

This checklist item was only addressed for centers, not addressed for cities. All city comprehensive plans saying something about the ‘density’ and ‘compact growth’ are related to city centers. This was expected because the concept of a growth center includes the area encouraged to accommodate compact growth or higher densities. Since I used ‘centers’ as a search term when I was not able to find policies with search terms, ‘density’ or ‘compact growth,’ this item was closely related to center plans rather than citywide plans.

2.

How was the checklist item addressed?

Most plans included language about improving the connectivity of transportation systems of urban centers by either enhancing the internal transportation connectivity within a center or better connecting centers with surrounding areas/other centers. However, the majority of plans did not directly mention higher densities or compact cities, so that policies addressing the connectivity of transportation system in relation to centers were just included. Overall, the item was not addressed comprehensively since in many cases, plans contained only one or two policies addressing this item. While some plans only addressed policies related to transportation Regional Center Planning in the Central Puget Sound

213


connectivity within a center, others only addressed policies with regard to linkages between neighborhoods.

3.

How many centers did/did not address the item?

Most cities address compact growth in association with connectivity improvement in their Center(s). Forty-three policies from 23 centers address this item. Seven centers do not specifically address connectivity improvement for compact growth: Auburn, Bremerton, Burien, Puyallup South Hill, Redmond – Overlake, Tacoma – Downtown, Tacoma – Tacoma Mall, and Tukwila.

4.

Were many of the policies addressing the checklist item specific to centers?

Yes, as you can see answer 3 above, most of the policies addressing the checklist item were specific to centers.

5.

Is the checklist item a useful evaluation tool of the center’s planning?

Using the checklist item to evaluate the plans for each center is useful and it provides a good gauge of transportation planning in terms of the connectivity of transportation facilities.

6. Should the checklist item be retained or revised to require policy to address the item more explicitly? This item should be retained.

214

Regional Center Planning in the Central Puget Sound


Transportation 2040 Physical Design Guidelines #2: Encourage compact growth by addressing density and by linking neighborhoods, connect streets, sidewalks and trails. # Centerspecific Policies

# Citywide Policies

Rating

Auburn

0

0

-

Bellevue

3

0

+

Create pedestrian linkage b/w centers and surrounding area

Bothell – Canyon Park

2

0

+

Increase bicycle/pedestrian access to Canyon Park (center) and Downtown Bothell

Bremerton

0

0

-

Burien

1

0

-

Everett

1

0

++

Develop an integrated public transit plan to serve key urban centers and higher density land uses

Federal Way

1

0

+

Provide service between centers and nearby areas

Kent

4

0

++

Enhance pedestrian/bicyclist circulation in a center as well as extend interurban trail to the core

Kirkland – Totem Lake

1

0

Lakewood

2

0

Regional Growth Center

+ +

Details

Support the non-motorized transportation facilities for established for Totem Center Improve non-motorized transportation connectivity & create pedestrian orientation within CBD Provide bicycle linkages between the

Lynnwood

2

0

++

Puyallup – Downtown

3

0

++

Puyallup – South Hill

1

0

-

Very poorly addressed

Redmond – Downtown

1

0

+

Create a dynamic urban place that emphasizes pedestrian activity and minimizes parking facilities through consideration of land use density and mix

Redmond – Overlake

0

0

-

Renton

10

0

++

Regional Center Planning in the Central Puget Sound

City Center, the Interurban Trail & Promote Many Pedestrian Connections within the City Center Enhance bicycle/pedestrian linkage within the downtown area, between the downtown & surrounding area

Pedestrian connectivity/access are improved throughout the downtown; provide transportation connection to improve access to and from the City

215


Center Focus local transit service on major employment centers and feeder service to the Urban Center; SeaTac

3

0

++

Seattle – Downtown

2+0

0

++

Design transportation infrastructure in urban villages to support land use goals for compact neighborhoods

Seattle – First Hill/Capitol Hill

2+0

0

++

Do.

Seattle – Northgate

2+0

0

++

Do.

Seattle – South Lake Union

2+0

0

++

Do.

Seattle – University

2+0

0

++

Do.

Seattle – Uptown Queen Anne

2+0

0

++

Do.

3

0

++

Promote higher residential densities and mixed use development where there is greatest access to transportation facilities

Tacoma – Downtown

1+0

0

-

Tacoma – Tacoma Mall

1+0

0

-

0

0

-

Silverdale

Tukwila

Develop sidewalks and trails within the City Center

Poorly addressed

Rating Scale: Poorly/not addressed (-) Addressed (+) Well addressed (++)

216

Regional Center Planning in the Central Puget Sound


Checklist Section: Transportation 2040 Physical Design Guidelines Checklist Item: #3 – Integrate activity areas with surrounding neighborhoods.

Policy Scan Method: This checklist addresses linking adjacent areas based on activity level from the perspective of transportation planning. For this checklist item, a scan of each city’s comprehensive plan and center specific subarea plan was conducted. One of the difficulties with analyzing plans for this checklist item is the wide range of definition of ‘activity.’ Therefore, key search terms such as ’integrate,’ ‘link,’’ connect,’ ’surrounding,’ and ‘adjacent’ were used and the relationship between these terms and activity-related terms including types of land use (i.e. commercial, residential) were identified. A combination of a keyword search was useful. For those comprehensive plans for which does not allow to access a single file, a key word search was mainly conducted in the Transportation Element and Land Use element.

Policies were rated as “well-addressed” (++) when they addressed (a) the connection of neighborhoods and (b) its purpose —to provide convenient connections between activities, as “addressed” when they contained the connection of adjacent neighborhoods, and were rated as ‘poorly/not addressed’ (-) when they contained no policies or a policy that relates to connection between neighborhoods

Key Search Term(s): activity, activities, integrate, link, connect, surrounding, adjacent, land use, neighborhood.

Findings 1.

Summary

Many center plans did not include a policy related to the integration of activity areas with surrounding areas. However, the majority of cities have policies to link activity areas with adjacent neighborhoods.

2.

How was the checklist item addressed?

The plans mentioning integration with surrounding area are not likely to mention its focus on the connectivity of activities. Very few plans directly mention an ‘activity center’ or specific land uses such as commercial and open spaces that imply activities occurring on those areas. In many cases, policies reflect ‘integrate activity’ by including the improvement of connectivity between adjacent areas from the pedestrian or non-motorized users’ perspective.

3.

How many centers did/did not address the item?

Regional Center Planning in the Central Puget Sound

217


Most cities address integration of activity areas with adjacent areas in their Center(s). Forty-seven policies from 22 centers address this item. compact growth in association with connectivity improvement in their center(s). Forty-three policies from 23 centers address this item. Eight centers do not specifically address integration of areas by connecting surrounding areas: Bremerton, Everett, Lakewood, Redmond – Overlake, Renton, SeaTac, Tacoma – Downtown, and Tacoma – Tacoma Mall.

4.

Were many of the policies addressing the checklist item specific to centers?

Many policies addressing the checklist items are not specific to centers. See above.

5.

Is the checklist item a useful evaluation tool of the center’s planning?

No, deciding which policies to meet the criterion of this item was difficult because the definition of ‘activity’ is unclear. Sometimes policies mentioning ‘mixed use’ with surrounding areas are confusing because not all mixed-use areas do have activity-base. Clearer checklist item is needed. In addition, some parts of intentions of this item may be overlapped with checklist item 2 under physical transportation section.

6. Should the checklist item be retained or revised to require policy to address the item more explicitly? This item should be retained but changed to be clear. For instance, ‘integrate land uses with surrounding area’ can be one kind of options.

218

Regional Center Planning in the Central Puget Sound


Transportation 2040 Physical Design Guidelines #3: Integrate activity areas with surrounding neighborhoods. # Centerspecific Policies

# Citywide Policies

Rating

Auburn

0

2

+

Addressed the connectivity of adjacent neighborhoods; but did not address activity base

Bellevue

3

1

++

Addressed the connectivity of adjacent neighborhoods to integrate functional aspects

Bothell – Canyon Park

1

4

++

Addressed the interconnection of neighborhoods to provide convenient connections between activities

Bremerton

0

0

-

Burien

0

2

++

Everett

0

1

-

Poorly addressed

Federal Way

0

3

+

Addressed the improvement of access to activity centers, but missed the point of ‘surrounding neighborhood’

Kent

0

1

++

Addressed the pedestrian and bicycle connections between residential developments, neighborhood commercial centers, recreation areas

Kirkland – Totem Lake

1

3

++

Mention the linkage between Kirkland neighborhoods, business districts and other important local and regional destinations.

Lakewood

0

1

-

Lynnwood

1

0

++

Addressed the integrated non-motorized “skeleton” transportation system that link neighborhoods and activity centers

Puyallup – Downtown

1

2

+

Addressed either increasing access to activity center or increasing connectivity between neighborhoods

Puyallup – South Hill

0

2

+

Addressed only increasing access to activity center

Redmond – Downtown

0

4

++

Addressed connectivity between adjoining neighborhoods to improve commercial/ service activities

Redmond – Overlake

0

0

-

Renton

0

0

-

Regional Growth Center

Regional Center Planning in the Central Puget Sound

Details

Addressed the development of pedestrian and bicycle paths between neighborhoods and other activity centers

Poorly addressed

219


SeaTac

0

0

-

Seattle – Downtown

0

1

+

Addressed the mixes of activity in commercial areas combined with adjacent areas

Seattle – First Hill/Capitol Hill

0

1

+

Do.

Seattle – Northgate

0

1

+

Do.

Seattle – South Lake Union

0

1

+

Do.

Seattle – University

0

1

+

Do.

Seattle – Uptown Queen Anne

0

1

+

Do.

Silverdale

3

0

+

Addressed the development of an effective transportation system in the core districts and surrounding area; but did not mention activity base

Tacoma – Downtown

2

0

-

Poorly addressed

Tacoma – Tacoma Mall

0

0

-

Tukwila

3

0

+

Addressed either connection among commercial activities or increasing connectivity between adjacent areas

Rating Scale: Poorly/not addressed (-) Addressed (+) Well addressed (++)

220

Regional Center Planning in the Central Puget Sound


Checklist Section: Transportation 2040 Physical Design Guidelines Checklist Item: #4 – Locate public/semipublic uses near stations.

Policy Scan Method: This checklist item asks that goals and policies are developed to place public or semipublic uses near public transportation facilities. Terms related ‘public uses’ (i.e. public facilities, public institution, and public use) were employed and ‘public uses’ were broken down into types of uses such as school and government building to search plans for goals and policies addressing this checklist item. As for the interpretation of ‘station,’ this term was expanded into public transportation facilities including bus stop, station, transit center, etc. Goals and policies talking about the provision of public transportation facilities close to public/semipublic uses were also considered to apply to this item. The Comprehensive Plan and subarea plan of Urban Center were scanned in order to determine what the plan said about the location of public or semipublic uses. For those comprehensive plans for which does not allow to access a single file, a key word search was mainly conducted in the Transportation Element and Land Use element. Policies were rated as “well-addressed” (++) when they addressed the placement of public/semi public uses near public transportation facilities including stations, as “addressed” when they contained the connection of specific one type of public/semipublic uses and public transportation facilities, and were rated as ‘poorly/not addressed’ (-) when they contained no policies or a policy that relates to the provision of public/semipublic uses near public transportation facilities.

Key Search Term(s): public use, public facilities, public institution, school, government building, transit, station, bus stop

Findings 1.

Summary

Almost half of centers do not have citywide plans or center specific plans mentioning the location of public or semi-public uses near the station.

2.

How was the checklist item addressed?

In many cases, policies related to the location of public/semi-public uses link those uses to transportation facilities, not just station. In addition, not many cities directly employ term ‘public use,’ or ‘semi-public’ which are inclusive rather than education facilities, parking lot, etc.

3.

How many centers did/did not address the item?

Most cities do not address the provision of public/semipublic spaces near stations in their center(s). Six policies from 6 centers address this item and 21 centers do not specifically address

Regional Center Planning in the Central Puget Sound

221


this item: Auburn, Bremerton, Canyon Park (Bothell), Kent, Lakewood, Lynnwood, Puyallup – Downtown, Redmond Downtown, Redmond Overlake, Renton, SeaTac, Seattle-Downtown, Seattle – First Hill/Capitol Hill, Seattle – Northgate, Seattle – South Lake Union, Seattle – University, Seattle – Seattle – Uptown Queen Anne, Silverdale, Tacoma – Tacoma Mall, Totem Lake (Kirkland), and Tukwila.

4.

Were many of the policies addressing the checklist item specific to centers?

See above.

5.

Is the checklist item a useful evaluation tool of the center’s planning?

Using this checklist item to evaluate the planning for each center reveals that many cities do not have consideration of the location of public uses/semi-public uses in connection with transportation facilities. However, in order to convey the original intention, the way this item is addressed should be revised. First, as for the word choice, station should be expanded to public transportation related facilities. Second, we also should consider the provision of public transportation facilities near public/semipublic uses because both of them are ultimately interconnected.

6. Should the checklist item be retained or revised to require policy to address the item more explicitly? This checklist item should be retained, with revisions to the definition of “station” to include all transportation facilities.

222

Regional Center Planning in the Central Puget Sound


Transportation 2040 Physical Design Guidelines #4: Locate public/semipublic uses near stations. # Centerspecific Policies

# Citywide Policies

Auburn

0

0

Bellevue

0

1

Bothell – Canyon Park

0

0

Bremerton

0

0

Burien

0

1

Everett

0

1

Federal Way

0

1

Kent

0

0

-

Kirkland – Totem Lake

0

0

-

Lakewood

0

0

-

Lynnwood

0

0

-

Puyallup – Downtown

0

0

-

Puyallup – South Hill

0

1

+

Redmond – Downtown

0

0

-

Redmond – Overlake

0

0

-

Renton

0

0

-

SeaTac

0

0

-

Seattle – Downtown

0

0

-

Seattle – First Hill/Capitol Hill

0

0

-

Seattle – Northgate

0

0

-

Seattle – South Lake Union

0

0

-

Regional Growth Center

Regional Center Planning in the Central Puget Sound

Rating

Details

+

Locate new community facilities near major transit routes

-

++

Addressed that local transit routes should provide efficient service to public services, community centers, parks, medical facilities, schools, etc.

++

Addressed connections to and from schools and bus stops, neighborhood parks and activity centers, transit hubs, and other places of public interest.

+

Addressed link between public buildings and transportation facilities; but did not mention specifically public transit facilities

Only addressed link between school & BRT

223


Seattle – University

0

0

-

Seattle – Uptown Queen Anne

0

0

-

Silverdale

0

0

-

Tacoma – Downtown

1

0

Tacoma – Tacoma Mall

0

0

-

Tukwila

0

0

-

+

Only addressed link between university and transit stops

Rating Scale: Poorly/not addressed (-) Addressed (+) Well addressed (++)

224

Regional Center Planning in the Central Puget Sound


Checklist Section: Transportation 2040 Physical Design Guidelines Checklist Item: #5 – Design for pedestrians and bicyclists.

Policy Scan Method: The primary objective of this item is to ensure that cities or neighborhoods are designed for those who use non-motorized transportation including walking and bicycling. This can address aesthetic aspects of space that encourage people to walk or bike as well as functional aspects of design. Also, goals and policies regarding the installation and improvement of facilities relate to improving the circulation and movement of pedestrian and bicyclists were considered to apply to this checklist item. Each city’s comprehensive plan and center specific subarea plan were scanned. For those comprehensive plans for which does not allow to access a single file, a key word search was mainly conducted in the Transportation Element and Urban Design Element. Policies were rated as “well-addressed” (++) when they addressed both (a) aesthetic aspects of design and (b) functional aspects of design for pedestrians and cyclists, as “addressed” when they mention either an aesthetic aspect or functional aspect, and were rated as ‘poorly/not addressed’ (-) when they contained no policies or a policy that relates to the design for nonmotorized transportation users.

Key Search Term(s): bicycle, bike, pedestrian, cyclist, non-motorized transportation, sidewalk, trail, bike lane, alternative transportation.

Findings 1.

Summary

This checklist item is very well addressed. All but two all cities include many policies for pedestrians and bicycle users in their comprehensive and center specific plan. Some transportation elements in comprehensive plans also included center specific policies.

2.

How was the checklist item addressed?

For the majority of centers, the item is addressed comprehensively. Policies address a wide range of topics ranging from design aspects such as streetscaping and pedestrian-oriented design to installing new facilities to improve the movement of pedestrian and bicycle users.

3.

How many centers did/did not address the item?

All cities address design for pedestrians and bicyclists in their Center(s). 229 policies from 27 centers address this item and only one center do not specifically address this item: Silverdale.

Regional Center Planning in the Central Puget Sound

225


4.

Were many of the policies addressing the checklist item specific to centers?

Yes, the majority of policies addressing the checklist item are specific to centers.

5.

Is the checklist item a useful evaluation tool of the center’s planning?

This item is not currently specific enough to review center planning.

6. Should the checklist item be retained or revised to require policy to address the item more explicitly? This item should be retained, but divided into two separate items. This item is too broad because physical design for walkers and bicyclists can be interpreted in two ways: 1) aesthetic aspect of non-motorized transportation facilities to encourage people to walk and bike and 2) design the connectivity of pedestrian/bicycle facilities to improve the movement by providing and maintaining facilities.

226

Regional Center Planning in the Central Puget Sound


Transportation 2040 Physical Design Guidelines #5: Design for pedestrians and bicyclists. # Centerspecific Policies

# Citywide Policies

Rating

Auburn

0

4

++

Addressed amenity (design) & functional (design) aspects

Bellevue

16

6

++

Specifically addressed amenity & functional aspects

Bothell – Canyon Park

0

10

+

Only addressed amenity aspect

Bremerton

8

1

++

Addressed amenity & functional aspects

Burien

0

4

++

Addressed amenity & functional aspects

Everett

8

4

++

Addressed amenity & functional aspects

Federal Way

13

1

++

Addressed amenity & functional aspects

Kent

7

5

++

Addressed amenity & functional aspects

Kirkland – Totem Lake

4

6

++

Addressed amenity & functional aspects

Lakewood

1

5

++

Addressed amenity & functional aspects

Lynnwood

8

4

++

Addressed amenity & functional aspects

Puyallup – Downtown

6

7

++

Addressed amenity & functional aspects

Puyallup – South Hill

7

7

++

Addressed amenity & functional aspects

Redmond – Downtown

2

5

++

Addressed amenity & functional aspects

Redmond – Overlake

2

-

+

Renton

8

10

++

Addressed amenity & functional aspects

SeaTac

5

6

++

Addressed amenity & functional aspects

Seattle – Downtown

1

2

+

Addressed only functional aspects

Seattle – First Hill/Capitol Hill

1

2

+

Addressed only functional aspects

Seattle – Northgate

1

2

+

Addressed only functional aspects

Seattle – South Lake Union

1

2

+

Addressed only functional aspects

Seattle – University

1

2

++

Addressed amenity & functional aspects

Seattle – Uptown Queen Anne

1

2

++

Addressed amenity & functional aspects

Silverdale

1

0

-

Tacoma – Downtown

6

3

++

Regional Growth Center

Regional Center Planning in the Central Puget Sound

Details

Poorly addressed Addressed amenity & functional aspects

227


Tacoma – Tacoma Mall

6

-

+

Addressed only functional aspects

Tukwila

1

14

++

Addressed amenity & functional aspects

Rating Scale: Poorly/not addressed (-) Addressed (+) Well addressed (++)

228

Regional Center Planning in the Central Puget Sound


Checklist Section: Transportation 2040 Physical Design Guidelines Checklist Item: #6 – Provide usable open spaces.

Policy Scan Method: This checklist item is not considered as the subject of our policy scan because this item is overlapped with checklist item #2 under the section of ‘Environment.’ It is unclear how specifically this item is meant to link to transportation topics. This item should be integrated into the Environment section.

Regional Center Planning in the Central Puget Sound

229


Checklist Section: Transportation 2040 Physical Design Guidelines Checklist Item: #7 – Manage the supply of parking.

Policy Scan Method: For this checklist item and the other items related to parking, a scan of each city’s comprehensive plan was conducted in order to determine what the plan said about parking. As it is highly likely that any parking-related policy would contain the word “parking,” the key word search was limited to it. This checklist item was deemed to be sufficiently similar to transportation “additional issues” checklist item #8 for the two to be merged. For the purposes of this policy review, any policy designed to manage the supply of parking through means other than simply providing “sufficient” spaces was considered to have met this criterion. For those comprehensive plans for which a single file download was not available, a key word search was conducted in the Land Use Element, the Transportation Element, and the Urban Design or Neighborhood Character Element, as well as any Comprehensive Plan Element or subarea plan related to the city’s Regional Growth Center(s). Centers were considered to have addressed this item if they had more than one center-specific policy (or, in the case of Burien, a detailed Parking Management policy) and more than three total policies. Those Centers with multiple or highly detailed policies were considered to have addressed this item well.

Key Search Term(s): Parking

Findings 1.

Summary

All city comprehensive plans reviewed said something about parking. However, only some plans contained policies related to parking management. Parking is one policy area for which cities were more likely to have policies specifically related to their urban centers. This is unsurprising, as parking tends to be more of a problem in dense, urban areas.

2.

How was the checklist item addressed?

The simplest policies related to parking are those in which cities commit to providing “sufficient” parking for various uses, which is often accomplished through minimum on-site parking requirements for new development. These policies were not considered to have met this criterion. Most cities have gone beyond minimum parking requirements and have begun to more strategically manage the supply of parking, particularly in their urban centers.

3.

230

How many centers did/did not address the item?

Regional Center Planning in the Central Puget Sound


Some cities plans call for the creation of a parking management strategy without giving any details or stating specific steps they will take to manage parking. All but three centers had some form of parking management strategy or tools for managing the supply of parking. These three centers were Federal Way, Silverdale, and Totem Lake. Bellevue had 9 specific policies listed under a parking management strategy. Canyon Park only mentioned “shared parking” as a strategy. SeaTac’s policies only related to Transportation Demand Management and discouraging “hide-&-ride” parking. Everett was the only city to call for the formation of a transportation management association.

4.

Were many of the policies addressing the checklist item specific to centers?

As noted, parking supply management is often related to urban centers, as centers tend to be where parking problems arise.

5.

Is the checklist item a useful evaluation tool of the center’s planning?

This checklist item was deemed to be sufficiently similar to transportation “additional items” checklist item #8 to be merged with the item. If possible, the more specific wording from that item should be used.

6. Should the checklist item be retained or revised to require policy to address the item more explicitly? Plans containing only broad policy statements do not acknowledge the parking needs and specific parking situation in centers. For this reason, this item should be retained, but clarified and merged with “Additional Transportation Issues” item #8, which more specifically calls for a parking management strategy.

Regional Center Planning in the Central Puget Sound

231


Transportation 2040 Physical Design Guidelines #7: Manage the supply of parking. # Centerspecific Policies

# Citywide Policies

Rating

Auburn

3

0

+

Bellevue

10

1

++

Bothell – Canyon Park

0

2

-

Bremerton

4

0

++

includes detailed parking management strategy

Burien

1

0

+

Parking management is for commercial areas, including Center.

Everett

5

1

++

Calls for formation of a downtown transportation management association and on-street parking management

Federal Way

0

0

-

Kent

1

0

-

Kirkland – Totem Lake

0

0

-

Lakewood

2

2

+

Lynnwood

4

0

+

Puyallup – Downtown

2

0

+

Puyallup – South Hill

2

0

+

Redmond – Downtown

1

1

+

Redmond – Overlake

2

1

+

Renton

8

2

+

SeaTac

1

0

-

Seattle – Downtown

3

2

++

Seattle – First Hill/Capitol Hill

2

2

+

Seattle – Northgate

2

2

+

Seattle – South Lake Union

2

2

+

Seattle – University

2

2

+

Seattle – Uptown Queen Anne

1

2

+

Regional Growth Center

232

Details

9 specific polices under parking management strategy Shared parking was only strategy mentioned.

only mentioned in reference to TDM and discouraging “hide-&-ride”

Regional Center Planning in the Central Puget Sound


Silverdale

0

0

-

Tacoma – Downtown

4

3

++

Tacoma – Tacoma Mall

0

3

+

Tukwila

1

0

-

detailed policies related to parking management

Rating Scale: Poorly/not addressed (-) Addressed (+) Well addressed (++)

Regional Center Planning in the Central Puget Sound

233


Checklist Section: Transportation 2040 Physical Design Guidelines Checklist Item: #8 – Promote on-street parking.

Policy Scan Method: For this checklist item and the other items related to parking, a scan of each city’s comprehensive plan was conducted in order to determine what the plan said about parking. As it is highly likely that any parking-related policy would contain the word “parking,” the key word search was limited to it. Any policy mentioning on-street parking in a positive context was considered to have met this criterion. For those comprehensive plans for which a single file download was not available, a key word search was conducted in the Land Use Element, the Transportation Element, and the Urban Design or Neighborhood Character Element, as well as any Comprehensive Plan Element or subarea plan related to the city’s Regional Growth Center(s). Cities with any related center-specific policies related to on-street parking were considered to have addressed this item. No cities were deemed to have addressed this item well. No Centers promote on-street parking in more than one or two policies, and none of these policies are unambiguously promotional of on-street parking. This checklist item must be clarified in order for cities to better address it.

Key Search Term(s): Parking

Findings 1.

Summary

This checklist item was only addressed by 11 jurisdictions. On-street parking does not appear to be a prominent concern for any cities in the region.

2.

How was the checklist item addressed?

The plans mentioning on-street parking typically do so in the context of street design (as providing a buffer for pedestrians) or as a way to provide sufficient parking in a more urban context. No plans promote on-street parking as a replacement for off-street parking, although two plans (Seattle and Everett) call for the reduction of off-street parking requirements, while another plan (Federal Way) contained a policy of including on-street parking as a component of parking supply.

3.

234

How many centers did/did not address the item?

Regional Center Planning in the Central Puget Sound


No centers promote on-street parking in more than one or two policies. Seattle did not promote on-street parking (except in South Lake Union), but did call for the reduction or elimination of off-street parking. Tukwila’s policy applied to residential areas only, not to the center.

4.

Were many of the policies addressing the checklist item specific to centers?

As with other parking-related items, cities that address this do tend to refer to their centers. However, most cities do not promote on-street parking.

5.

Is the checklist item a useful evaluation tool of the center’s planning?

Promotion of on-street parking may be useful for centers that are transitioning from suburban to urban centers. For the densest centers, promotion of on-street parking is no longer necessary, since it is already in high demand. Suggesting that centers ought to promote on-street parking is reflective of the suburban nature of many of the region’s centers. As centers urbanize, this item should become less important as an evaluation tool.

6. Should the checklist item be retained or revised to require policy to address the item more explicitly? This checklist item should be revised and clarified, since it does not apply to all centers equally. For example, the densest urban centers have no need to “promote” on street parking, since it is already well utilized and, in some cases, priced. Additionally, it is not clear what the benefits are to promoting on-street parking. Cities may be better off squarely addressing the problem of being “over-parked” by reducing or eliminating off-street parking requirements in their centers. The policy scan revealed that those cities that do not believe that they are “over-parked” are more likely to promote structured parking rather than on-street parking as a way to provide more parking spaces without adding surface lots. On-street parking has an added benefit of creating a buffer for pedestrians. However, the same effect can be achieved through other means such as planting strips.

Regional Center Planning in the Central Puget Sound

235


Transportation 2040 Physical Design Guidelines #8: Promote on-street parking. # Centerspecific Policies

# Citywide Policies

Rating

Auburn

0

0

-

Bellevue

1

0

+

Bothell – Canyon Park

0

0

-

Bremerton

1

1

+

Burien

0

1

-

Everett

1

2

+

Federal Way

1

1

+

Kent

2

0

+

Kirkland – Totem Lake

0

0

-

Lakewood

1

0

+

Lynnwood

1

0

+

Puyallup – Downtown

0

0

-

Puyallup – South Hill

1

0

-

Redmond – Downtown

1

0

+

Redmond – Overlake

1

0

+

Renton

1

0

-

SeaTac

1

0

-

Policy is specific to one street.

Seattle – Downtown

0

0

-

Plan calls for the reduction of off-street parking.

Seattle – First Hill/Capitol Hill

0

0

-

Plan calls for the reduction of off-street parking.

Seattle – Northgate

0

0

-

Plan calls for the reduction of off-street parking.

Seattle – South Lake Union

1

0

+

Seattle – University

0

0

-

Plan calls for the reduction of off-street parking.

Seattle – Uptown Queen Anne

0

0

-

Plan calls for the reduction of off-street parking.

Silverdale

0

0

-

Tacoma – Downtown

2

0

+

Regional Growth Center

236

Details

Center policy includes eliminating minimum off-street parking requirement

Regional Center Planning in the Central Puget Sound


Tacoma – Tacoma Mall

0

0

-

Tukwila

0

1

-

Rating Scale: Poorly/not addressed (-) Addressed (+) Well addressed (++)

Regional Center Planning in the Central Puget Sound

237


Checklist Section: Transportation 2040 Physical Design Guidelines Checklist Item: #9 – Reduce/mitigate parking effects.

Policy Scan Method: For this checklist item and the other items related to parking, a scan of each city’s comprehensive plan was conducted in order to determine what the plan said about parking. As it is highly likely that any parking-related policy would contain the word “parking,” the key word search was limited to it. Policies were considered to have met this criterion if they contained design standards or guidelines for surface parking lots or parking structures, or if they were included to prevent “spillover” parking. Policies related solely to curb-cuts or pedestrian access were not included. For those comprehensive plans for which a single file download was not available, a key word search was conducted in the Land Use Element, the Transportation Element, and the Urban Design or Neighborhood Character Element, as well as any Comprehensive Plan Element or subarea plan related to the city’s Regional Growth Center(s). Cities with more than one center-specific policy or at least three total policies were deemed to have addressed this item. Cities with more than two center-specific policies were deemed to have addressed this item well. Renton was also deemed to have addressed this item well, despite not have a center-specific policy, due to the inclusion of extensive citywide policies to mitigate parking effects that apply in the Center.

Key Search Term(s): Parking

Findings 1.

Summary

Nearly all cities have policies to reduce or mitigate the negative impacts of surface parking lots and/or parking structures. It seems that cities in the region have recognized the design problems associated with parking, and have sought to address them in their plans.

2.

How was the checklist item addressed?

Policies typically provide for landscaping, screening, or other design elements to make parking more aesthetically pleasing. In the narrow scope of urban design, this criterion was addressed well by all but those cities having no parking policies.

3.

How many centers did/did not address the item?

All but 2 plans had center-specific policies for reducing or mitigating parking effects. Those cities were Renton and Tukwila. However, Renton had extensive citywide policies that also apply to the center. Seattle and Puyallup only had center-specific policies for their downtown center and

238

Regional Center Planning in the Central Puget Sound


not other centers. Bremerton had two center-specific policies, as well as various urban design principles designed to mitigate parking effects. Tacoma helpfully included detailed reasoning of parking-lot design components.

4.

Were many of the policies addressing the checklist item specific to centers?

As with many parking policies, those addressing parking effects were often, though not always, center-specific.

5.

Is the checklist item a useful evaluation tool of the center’s planning?

Deciding which policies to include on this list was difficult because there are at least two quite distinct “effects” of parking which cities are seeking to reduce or mitigate – design aesthetics and “spillover” parking from centers. Responses to these distinct effects are different or potentially opposite. For instance, a city may reduce spillover parking by removing landscaping to make room for more stalls. This makes applying this criterion difficult.

6. Should the checklist item be retained or revised to require policy to address the item more explicitly? This item should be retained. When reviewing center policies it may be helpful to decide which specific parking effects should be reduced or mitigated. If the reduction of surface parking lots is desired, a criterion related specifically to this goal would be helpful.

Regional Center Planning in the Central Puget Sound

239


Transportation 2040 Physical Design Guidelines #9: Reduce/mitigate parking effects.. # Centerspecific Policies

# Citywide Policies

Rating

Auburn

4

1

++

Bellevue

1

3

+

Bothell – Canyon Park

1

2

+

Center policy is for “community activity centers,” which includes Regional Growth Center

Bremerton

2

0

+

Various urban design principles also design to mitigate effects of parking

Burien

2

0

+

Everett

3

0

++

Federal Way

1

0

_

Kent

1

2

+

Kirkland – Totem Lake

2

0

+

Lakewood

1

3

+

Lynnwood

1

1

_

Limited discussion

Puyallup – Downtown

0

2

_

Nothing specific to center

Puyallup – South Hill

1

2

+

Redmond – Downtown

2

0

+

Redmond – Overlake

3

0

++

Renton

0

14

++

SeaTac

2

1

+

Seattle – Downtown

1

4

+

Seattle – First Hill/Capitol Hill

0

4

+

Seattle – Northgate

0

4

+

Seattle – South Lake Union

0

4

+

Seattle – University

0

4

+

Seattle - Uptown Queen Anne

0

4

+

Silverdale

0

0

_

Regional Growth Center

240

Details

Extensive citywide policies for mitigating parking effects apply in center

Center policy related to surface lots

Regional Center Planning in the Central Puget Sound


Tacoma – Downtown

3

3

++

Tacoma – Tacoma Mall

1

3

+

Tukwila

0

1

_

Detailed reasoning for design components

Requires parking-lot landscaping

Rating Scale: Poorly/not addressed (-) Addressed (+) Well addressed (++)

Regional Center Planning in the Central Puget Sound

241


Checklist Section: Additional Transportation Issues Checklist Item: #1 – Develop an integrated multimodal transportation network, including pedestrian and bicycle facilities, as well as linkages to adjacent neighborhoods and districts.

Policy Scan Method: This item requires that center plans include provisions encouraging the application of multimodal planning that accommodates the many different modes of travel. A multimodal transportation network provides pedestrians, cyclists, drivers and transit riders equally convenient infrastructure and considers moving people over moving cars. Additionally, the checklist item asks centers to address connections between other neighborhoods and districts. The key search terms pinpoint those policies that address the multimodal development and/or linkages element of this item. Policies that touched-on one or both of these concepts were considered to have addressed the checklist item. Other policies discussing regional connections and access to other centers were also included. The item is considered ‘well addressed’ if the center’s policies covered both multimodal networks and linkages to surrounding locale. Centers addressing only one of the concepts laid out in the item are considered to have “Address” the item.

Key Search Term(s): multimodal; multi-modal; transit; connections; connectivity; linkage; network; circulation; access; mobility

Findings 1.

Summary

This checklist item was very well addressed by most all of the centers. In addressing this item, discussing multimodal systems was more common than linkages and connections in center policy. Often these two concepts are addressed separately, though there are many examples of those that do. Policies addressing this checklist item were generally found within transportation or land use elements of plans.

2.

How was the checklist item addressed?

Overall, this checklist item was compressively addressed by the centers. Twenty-three (23) of twenty-seven centers were determined to have ‘well addressed’ the item according to the rating system.

3.

How many centers did/did not address the item?

All twenty-seven (27) centers addressed this item. Policies considered to be well addressing this checklist item are as follows:

242

Regional Center Planning in the Central Puget Sound


a. The Auburn Comprehensive Transportation Plan (Chapter 5, pages 2-3 and 2-3): “TR-8: Encourage the use of trails and other connections that provide ease of travel within and between neighborhoods, community activity centers, and transit services. Development patterns that block direct pedestrian access are discouraged. Ample alternatives should exist to accommodate non-motorized transportation on arterials, collectors, and local roads.” b. The Redmond Comprehensive Plan (Chapter 2, page 2-13): “FW-32: Promote mobility choices by developing a range of practical transportation alternatives. Increase transportation investments that enhance the attractiveness of walking, bicycling, local and regional transit routes, and ridesharing to promote the quality of life and health of Redmond’s citizens and the Environment. Address travel demand through mobility choices, as well as through projects and programs that increase street safety and operating efficiency.” c. The Kirkland (Totem Lake) Comprehensive Plan (Chapter 6, page VI-10): “T-1.1: Establish a transportation system that provides access by a variety of modes of travel to neighborhoods, the Downtown, Totem Lake, other commercial and industrial areas, and major institutions.”

4.

Were many of the policies addressing the checklist item specific to centers?

A total of twenty-one of twenty-seven centers were found to have center-specific policies addressing the development or maintenance of integrated, multimodal and well-connected transportation systems.

5.

Is the checklist item a useful evaluation tool of the center’s planning?

This item could be considered a useful evaluation tool, but it may require refining. Because the criteria are so broad, many concepts could be captured under the scope of the item (described below). With so many policies qualifying the criteria, the analysis is muddled with many various policies that have a degree of variety. That said, there is some overlap between this policy and two from the ‘transportation physical design’ section.

6. Should the checklist item be retained or revised to require policy to address the item more explicitly? This item should be folded into other checklist items. The analysis recognizes that there are two separate ideas being presented within this checklist item. Although one option would be to split the item into two items, a better alternative exists. Item #2 in the ‘transportation physical design’ section encourages the same multi-modal transportation systems. Item #3 in the ‘transportation physical design’ section involves the integrating the activity within a center to adjacent areas. It is the recommendation of the analysis that this checklist item be removed and the two themes it encompasses be consolidated into the mentioned two mentioned items.

Regional Center Planning in the Central Puget Sound

243


Additional Transportation Issues #1: Develop an integrated multimodal transportation network, including pedestrian and bicycle facilities, as well as linkages to adjacent neighborhoods and districts. # Centerspecific Policies

# Citywide Policies

Rating

Auburn

0

2

+

Strong on non-motorized systems

Bellevue

6

2

++

Strong policies for linkages

Bothell – Canyon Park

0

3

+

Focus on the construction of sidewalks and bicycle lanes along major roads

Bremerton

1

1

+

Center-specific policy only calls for “sharrows”

Burien

0

3

++

Policies cover linkages and multimodal systems

Everett

0

13

+

Only some mention of linkages

Federal Way

5

4

++

Strong on pedestrian circulation

Kent

0

4

+

No mention of linkages

Kirkland – Totem Lake

10

11

++

Comprehensive policies

Lakewood

0

1

-

Lynnwood

7

9

++

Maintenance multimodal systems and facilities discussed

Puyallup – Downtown1

2+2

9

++

Comprehensively addressed

Puyallup – South Hill1

3+2

9

++

Implementation details to develop multimodal network

Redmond – Downtown2

2+5

7

++

Comprehensive; one especially thorough Downtown specific policy

Redmond – Overlake2

2+5

7

++

Comprehensive; considers CTR to encourage alternative modes

Renton

9

14

++

Freight is included

SeaTac

6

8

++

Strong on transit

Seattle – Downtown3

2+4

3

++

Very thorough specific policies

Seattle – First Hill/Capitol Hill3

8+4

3

++

Strong on multimodal

Seattle – Northgate3

1+4

3

++

Focus on pedestrian networks

Seattle – South Lake Union3

4+4

3

++

Waterborne modes included

Seattle – University3

2+4

3

++

Strong on multimodal

Regional Growth Center

244

Details

Not well addressed

Regional Center Planning in the Central Puget Sound


Seattle – Uptown Queen Anne3

6+4

3

++

Strong on linkages

3

16

++

Very thorough citywide policies

Tacoma – Downtown4

6+2

9

++

Center policies well address item

Tacoma – Tacoma Mall4

0+2

9

++

No Mall specific policies

8

13

++

Strong on access for all modes

Silverdale

Tukwila

1 – The Puyallup centers share two center-specific policies and all of their citywide policies. 2 – The Redmond centers share five center-specific policies and all of their citywide policies. 3 – The Seattle centers share four center-specific policies and all of their citywide policies. 4 – The Tacoma centers share two center-specific policies and all of their citywide policies.

Rating Scale: Poorly/not addressed (-) Addressed (+) Well addressed (++)

Regional Center Planning in the Central Puget Sound

245


Checklist Section: Additional Transportation Issues Checklist Item: #2 – Include detailed design criteria that advances transit-supportive land uses.

Policy Scan Method: This checklist item asks that centers encourage land use and design that is supportive of transit. Examples of ways centers can address this item are: aiming for residential densities to support transit facilities, lowering parking requirements such that transit becomes a more convenient mode; or enhancing facilities as a means of encouraging use of public transit. As methods of achieving transit-supportive land uses are quite varied, key search terms were not sufficient in locating policies addressing this item. All transportation, land use and center related plan elements were thoroughly reviewed as a primary means of locating policies. For the sake of taking a thorough look at this issue, policies were included in the search if they addressed transitsupportive land uses even with the absence of detailed design criteria. Centers were considered to have ‘well addressed’ the checklist item if policies were found that include transit-supportive land uses that are innovative and/or comprehensive discussed. If a center has policies meeting the item’s criteria but do not provide detailed concepts, the center ‘addressed’ the item.

Key Search Term(s): transit-supportive; transit-orientated; density

Findings 1.

Summary

Overall, the vast majority of centers ‘well addressed’ this item. Many policies were found that provided strategies to promote transit as a viable mode of transportation, but not all went so far as to describe design elements. Those that did provide design criteria often did so broadly, although center-specific policies were more often specific in their details. Policies addressing the item were most regularly found within transportation elements of plans, thought they were also located elsewhere.

2. How was the checklist item addressed? Sixteen (16) of the twenty-seven centers ‘well addressed’ this checklist item. Aside from Uptown Queen Anne, which ‘poorly/not addressed’ the item, all centers addressed this item in some form. Many policies discussed parking reduction strategies and a handful recommended charging for on-street parking. Another common way policies addressed this item was by encouraging the development of transit facilities and improvement of pedestrian Environments surrounding future and existing facilities.

246

Regional Center Planning in the Central Puget Sound


3.

How many centers did/did not address the checklist item?

All twenty-seven (27) centers addressed this item. The following are particularly strong or interesting policies found to address this item: a. The Auburn Comprehensive Plan (Chapter page 2-5): “GP-18: Flexibility should be provided to encourage compact urban development, to protect critical areas and resource lands, to facilitate the use of transit or non-motorized transportation, and to encourage the redevelopment of underutilized or deteriorated property.” b. The Bellevue Comprehensive Plan (Volume 2, page 107): “S-DT-136: Encourage convenient and frequent transit services and provide incentives for attractive waiting areas in Downtown in recognition that transit extends the range of the pedestrian.” c. The Seattle Comprehensive Plan (Chapter 8, page 8.68) : “DT-TP7: To encourage improvements that enhance pedestrian circulation and increase pedestrian comfort, consider floor area bonuses for the following features provided in specified locations: 1. Hillclimb Assist; 2. Shopping Center; 3. Transit Statin Access.” (Applies to the Seattle-Downtown Center.)

4.

Were many of the policies addressing the checklist specific to the centers?

A total of nineteen (19) of twenty-seven centers were found to have center-specific land use policies supportive of transit.

5.

Is the checklist item a useful evaluation tool of the center’s planning?

By including this item, the checklist ensures that transit and transit facilities are promoted as a means of transportation. As such, this item evaluates how well centers support transit in their planning. However, the Land Use section includes items that also impact transit and this item may be superfluous.

6. Should the checklist item be retained or revised to require policy to address the item more explicitly? This item should be folded into another checklist item. In the Land Use section, item #2 suggests jurisdictional growth targets and residential and employment densities. If the land use item were updated to also mention transit, this item is no longer needed.

Regional Center Planning in the Central Puget Sound

247


Additional Transportation Issues #2: Include detailed design criteria that advances transit-supportive land uses. # Centerspecific Policies

# Citywide Policies

Rating

Auburn

0

6

++

Very transit oriented policies

Bellevue

0

2

+

Discusses transit facilities

Bothell – Canyon Park

0

1

-

Not well addressed

Bremerton

4

3

++

Density, lowed parking requirements

Burien

0

4

++

Signal prioritization, development near transit center

Everett

1

13

++

Charge for on-street parking, preference for high occupancy vehicles

Federal Way

2

1

+

Transit-supportive land patterns

Kent

2

5

++

Lowered parking requirements and housing density near transit

Kirkland – Totem Lake

1

3

++

Density, park-and-ride use, accessibility

Lakewood

0

2

+

Density, connected pedestrian paths

Lynnwood

1

1

+

Development of light rail station

Puyallup – Downtown1

2+3

12

++

Parking to encourage transit use

Puyallup – South Hill1

5+3

12

++

Design develop transit, pedestrian and bicycle facilities

Redmond – Downtown2

2+3

0

++

Redevelop the Downtown park-and-ride facility

Redmond – Overlake2

2+3

0

+

Park-and-ride, TOD

Renton

2

11

++

Strong on residential density

SeaTac

2

1

++

Mix of land uses and high density

Seattle – Downtown

4

2

++

Pedestrian circulation supporting transit

Seattle - First Hill/Capitol Hill

2

2

+

Transit complimentary open spaces

Seattle – Northgate

3

2

++

Develop near transit centers

Seattle – South Lake Union

1

2

+

Improve access through transportation

Seattle – University

1

2

+

Develop near transit stations

Seattle – Uptown Queen Anne

0

2

-

Not well addressed

Silverdale

3

8

++

Regional Growth Center

248

Details

Promote all modes, mixed land uses and high

Regional Center Planning in the Central Puget Sound


density uses Tacoma – Downtown3

4

13

++

Neighborhood transit pass, site near transit

Tacoma – Tacoma Mall3

0

13

++

Well addressed citywide

Tukwila

0

2

+

Development pattern and projects

1 – The Puyallup centers share three center-specific policies and all of their citywide policies. 2 – The Redmond centers share three center-specific policies and none of their citywide policies. 3 – The Tacoma centers share no center-specific policies and all of their citywide policies.

Rating Scale: Poorly/not addressed (-) Addressed (+) Well addressed (++)

Regional Center Planning in the Central Puget Sound

249


Checklist Section: Additional Transportation Issues Checklist Item: #3 – Address relationships to regional high-capacity transit (including bus rapid transit, commuter rail, light rail, and express bus) and local transit by working with transit agencies.

Policy Scan Method: This checklist item requires that centers address coordination with transit agencies to develop, improve or expand local and regional transit service. It was, therefore, understood that policies must mention working with agencies in order to meet the criteria of addressing this checklist item. This includes policy that addresses relationships with any local and regional transit agencies or government transit agencies and authorities. The key search terms included the major transit providers and programs, as well as various specific transit types. Any chapters specific to transportation were also scanned for policies missed by the search. Centers were considered to ‘well address’ this checklist item if they specifically state agencies and authorities with which coordination is necessary to develop local or regional transit systems or many strong policies without mention of specific transit agencies. Those centers determined to ‘address’ the item either mention transit agencies broadly or mention specific agencies but do not provide much detail.

Key Search Term(s): transit agencies; Metro; METRO; Sound Transit; LINK; RapidRide; HCT; express bus; high-capacity; regional; rail; light rail; county transit; local transit

Findings 1.

Summary

This checklist item was ‘well addressed’ by twenty (20) of twenty-seven centers and all one center did not address the item at all. Policies addressing this item were found namely within transportation elements of plans.

2.

How was the checklist item addressed?

The two centers in Puyallup addressed this checklist item the most comprehensively. Fourteen total policies were found for Puyallup that directly addressed different actions to improve transit by working with transit providers. Ten policies were found for Renton, also thoroughly addressing relationships necessary to improve transit. Although not all centers addressed the checklist item this comprehensively, each center did meet at least one aspect of the item’s criteria.

3.

250

How many centers did/did not address the checklist item?

Regional Center Planning in the Central Puget Sound


All of the centers addressed this checklist item. Some centers specifically detailed relationships and coordination with transit authorities. Other centers discussed the need for transit systems, but do not directly mention authorities running those systems. The only center that did not address this checklist item is Lakewood. The following two policies provide examples of both ways of addressing the item: a. The Federal Way Comprehensive Plan (Chapter 7, page VII-21): “CCP28: Participate actively in regional efforts to develop an HCT system to serve the City Center.” b. The Seattle Comprehensive Plan (Chapter 8, page 8.67): DT-TP1: Recognize the critical role that high capacity transit corridors play, including the transit tunnel, in supporting the distribution of development density and the movement of goods and people within and through downtown. Seek to improve the system, through actions by the City, with Sound Transit and King County Metro Transit, and other transit agencies that: 1. provide capacity to meet forecast transit growth; 2. reduce travel time by transit; 3. reduce transit rider crowding on sidewalks; 4. reduce diesel bus noise and odor; and 5. provide an attractive and pleasant street Environment for the pedestrian and transit rider.”

4.

Were many of the policies addressing the checklist item specific to centers?

Eighteen Urban Centers were not found to have policy specifically addressing the center itself. The remaining nine centers also addressed this checklist item, but did so with policies not specific to a center.

5.

Is the checklist item a useful evaluation tool of the center’s planning?

This checklist item is a good indicator of the degree to which centers are actively involved in extending transit services.

6. Should the checklist item be retained or revised to require policy to address the item more explicitly? The item should be retained on the checklist. No other items on the checklist discuss collaboration with transit agencies and these are important relationships that centers should foster.

Regional Center Planning in the Central Puget Sound

251


Additional Transportation Issues #3: Address relationships to regional high-capacity transit (including bus rapid transit, commuter rail, light rail, and express bus) and local transit by working with transit agencies. # Centerspecific Policies

# Citywide Policies

Rating

Auburn

0

6

++

Comprehensive; Sound and Pierce Transit, WSDOT, Metro, Amtrak

Bellevue

2

1

++

Comprehensive; Sound Transit

Bothell – Canyon Park

0

1

+

Addressed; WSDOT, agencies, jurisdictions

Bremerton

4

2

++

Comprehensive; WSF, WSDOT, Kitsap County, Kitsap Transit

Burien

0

5

++

Comprehensive; Metro, Sound Transit, Seattle Monorail, jurisdictions

Everett

0

3

++

Comprehensive; Sound and Everett Transit

Federal Way

2

0

+

Addressed; transit providers

Kent

0

2

+

Addressed; Sound Transit, Metro, jurisdictions

Kirkland – Totem Lake

2

5

++

Sound, WSDOT, Metro

Lakewood

0

1

-

Lynnwood

2

1

++

Comprehensive; Sound and Community Transit

Puyallup – Downtown1

4+3

6

++

Comprehensive; Pierce Transit, Sound Transit

Puyallup – South Hill1

2+3

6

++

Comprehensive; Sound and Pierce Transit

Redmond – Downtown2

1+4

0

++

Comprehensive; Sound Transit

Redmond – Overlake2

0+4

0

++

Comprehensive; Sound Transit

Renton

6

5

++

Comprehensive; Sound Transit, Metro, Port of Seattle, Boeing, BNSF

SeaTac

4

3

++

Comprehensive; Metro, Sound Transit, WSDOT, Port of Seattle

Seattle – Downtown

2

2

++

Comprehensive; King County DOT Transit Division, Metro

Seattle – First Hill/Capitol Hill

3

2

++

Comprehensive; Sound Transit, light rail

Seattle – Northgate

0

2

+

Addressed; transit providers

Seattle – South Lake Union

2

2

++

Comprehensive; transit agencies

Regional Growth Center

252

Details

Not well addressed

Regional Center Planning in the Central Puget Sound


Seattle – University

2

2

++

Comprehensive; Sound and Community Transit, Metro,

Seattle – Uptown Queen Anne

0

2

+

Addressed; transit providers

Silverdale

2

8

++

Comprehensive; Kitsap Transit, WSF, WDOT

Tacoma – Downtown

4

1

++

Comprehensive; Sound and Pierce Transit

Tacoma – Tacoma Mall

0

1

-

Tukwila

5

4

++

Not well addressed Comprehensive; Expand dial-a-ride, transit agencies

1 – The Puyallup Centers share three center-specific policies and all of their citywide policies. 2 – The Redmond Centers share four center-specific policies.

Rating Scale: Poorly/not addressed (-) Addressed (+) Well addressed (++)

Regional Center Planning in the Central Puget Sound

253


Checklist Section: Additional Transportation Issues Checklist Item: #4 – Include provisions for full standards for streets and urban roadways that serve all users, including pedestrians, bicyclists, transit, vehicles, and – where appropriate – freight (see “complete streets” description in VISION 2040).

Policy Scan Method: This checklist item requires that centers provide provisions that encourage the development of “complete streets.” VISION 2040 defines complete streets as being designed to safely accommodate all user, including motorists, transit riders, bicyclists, and pedestrians of all ages and abilities. The key search terms used to located policies addressing this item were intentionally limited. This allowed for a focused search for policies explicitly addressing complete streets. To complete the search, sections of plans specific to design or transportation were also scanned through to find policies related to the concept of complete streets. Any center found to have one or more policies expressly addressing complete streets were considered to have ‘well addressed’ this checklist item. Centers that ‘addressed’ this item are those with policies promoting and encouraging the development of concepts related to complete streets—including provisions to better integrate different modes along the same corridors.

Key Search Term(s): complete street(s); all users

Findings 1.

Summary

This checklist item was addressed well by the centers. Most centers were found to have policies directly mentioning complete streets and several that did not still provided policies addressing aspects of the concept. Policies addressing this item were generally found within design and transportation related elements.

2.

How was the checklist item addressed?

Eleven (11) or twenty-seven centers ‘well addressed’ this checklist item by having policies that specifically reference complete streets. Another eight (8) centers ‘addressed’ this item, but complete streets were not directly mentioned in the policies. Centers that did not mention complete streets provided policies that discussed balance use for all users, expansion of walkways and other directions improving assess for multiple modes of transportation.

3.

How many centers did/did not address the checklist item?

Twenty (20) of twenty-seven centers had polices addressing complete streets and topics the concept encompasses. The six (6) centers that did not address this item are: Bellevue, Kent,

254

Regional Center Planning in the Central Puget Sound


Lakewood, Lynnwood, Seatac and Tacoma Mall. Of the centers that did address complete streets or related topics, the following are examples of strong policies found: a. The Federal Way (Chapter 7, VII-17): “CCP15: Provide a balanced transportation network that accommodates public transportation, high occupancy vehicles, pedestrians, bicyclists, automobiles, and integrated parking.” b. The Redmond Comprehensive Plan (Chapter 9, page 9-8): “TR-21: Establish standards for the design and construction of arterial and local streets in Redmond. Achieve the following as part of the development process: Require that all arterial and local streets be built to comply with the City's design standards and plans for streets, bicycles, and pedestrian facilities; Require that all property be conveniently accessible from streets, walkways, and trails, subject to Environmental limitations; Maintain continuity of the street pattern by avoiding dead-end and half-streets not having turnaround provisions; Avoid the creation of excessively large blocks and long local access residential streets; Complete missing links and improve street connections; Whenever possible, separate pedestrians from traffic lanes by the use of street trees and landscaped strips, the avoid the construction of sidewalks next to street curbs; Manage access to arterials; and Identify specific street improvements that benefit transit operations, and work with transit providers to prioritize street improvements.” (Applies to both the Redmond-Downtown and Redmond-Overlake Centers.) c. The Seattle Comprehensive Plan (Chapter 3, page 3.14): “T48: Recognize the importance of the freight network to the city’s economic health when making decisions that affect Major Truck streets as well as other parts of the region’s roadway system. Complete Street improvements supporting freight mobility along with other modes of travel may be considered on Major Truck streets.”

4.

Were many of the policies addressing the checklist item specific to centers?

Policies were found for eight (8) or twenty-seven centers that include provisions for complete streets specifically for the centers, respectively.

5.

Is the checklist item a useful evaluation tool to the center’s planning?

This is an excellent evaluation tool in determining centers’ commitment to and planned development for complete streets.

6. Should the checklist item be retained or revised to require policy to address the item more explicitly? This checklist item should be retained. As complete streets are specifically mentioned in VISION 2040, their development should be addressed by designated centers. That said, there exists an opportunity to reframe this the concept of complete streets within the ‘transportation physical design’ section. Many of the items within ‘transportation additional issues’ are superfluous and migrating items like this into other sections may make the checklist more concise.

Regional Center Planning in the Central Puget Sound

255


Additional Transportation Issues #4: Include provisions for full standards for streets and urban roadways that serve all users, including pedestrians, bicyclists, transit, vehicles, and – where appropriate – freight (see “complete streets” description in VISION 2040). # Centerspecific Policies

# Citywide Policies

Rating

Auburn

0

3

++

Bellevue

0

0

-

Bothell – Canyon Park

0

0

-

Bremerton

3

0

+

Balanced, safe for all users, not ‘complete street’ specific

Burien

0

1

+

Not ‘complete street’ specific

Everett

0

2

+

Not ‘complete street’ specific

Federal Way

1

0

+

Not ‘complete street’ specific, all users

Kent

0

0

-

Kirkland – Totem Lake

0

2

++

Lakewood

0

0

-

Lynnwood

0

0

-

Puyallup – Downtown

0

3

+

Walkways and bikeways, not ‘complete street’ specific

Puyallup – South Hill

2

3

+

Balance for all users, not ‘complete street’ specific

Redmond – Downtown

0

1

+

Not ‘complete street’ specific, thoroughly described standards

Redmond – Overlake

0

1

+

Not ‘complete street’ specific, thoroughly described standards

Renton

2

0

++

Residential streetscape designs

SeaTac

0

0

-

Seattle – Downtown

0

2

++

Two ‘complete street’ policies

Seattle – First Hill/Capitol Hill

1

2

++

Two ‘complete street’ policies, a pedestrianoriented neighborhood

Seattle – Northgate

0

2

++

Two ‘complete street’ policies

Seattle – South Lake Union

1

2

++

Two ‘complete street’ policies, balance to move

Regional Growth Center

256

Details Create design standards

Improved access and facilities

Regional Center Planning in the Central Puget Sound


people and freight Seattle – University

0

2

++

Two ‘complete street’ policies

Seattle – Uptown Queen Anne

0

2

++

Two ‘complete street’ policies

Silverdale

2

0

++

Develop a finer grained network

Tacoma – Downtown

4

0

++

Three policies specifically to ‘complete streets’

Tacoma – Tacoma Mall

0

0

-

Tukwila

0

1

+

Not ‘complete street’ specific

Rating Scale: Poorly/not addressed (-) Addressed (+) Well addressed (++)

Regional Center Planning in the Central Puget Sound

257


Checklist Section: Additional Transportation Issues Checklist Item: #5 – Include provisions context-sensitive design of transportation facilities.

Policy Scan Method: The primary objective of this item is to ensure that new transportation facilities fit into the surrounding context of the specific regional Center within which they are located. Because ‘context-sensitive design’ by addressing a number of design considerations, the key search terms were constructed to capture policies addressing this item in various ways. Furthermore, transportation facility design was not always specifically addressed by Centers but general contextual street design was. If t was clear that the design was related to transportation facilities, policies not explicitly stating ‘transportation facilities’ were considered to address the checklist item. In order to augment the key term searches, plan elements related to transportation or design were entirely scanned through. Centers were considered to ‘well addressed’ this item if polices contain context-sensitive design criteria for transportation facilities. A rating of ‘addressed’ was given to those Centers that have policies for context-sensitive design that may encompass transportation facility design but are not specifically directed at those facilities. Centers were also considered to have ‘addressed’ the item if they did have policies specific to transportation facilities, but those policies were not strong or comprehensive.

Key Search Term(s): context; facilities; station; scale; character; impact; surrounding; historic; aesthetic

Findings 1.

Summary

Approximately two-thirds of Centers were found to have addressed this checklist item. Most Centers had policies discussing context-sensitivity with regards to design, but only a handful of policies are specific to transportation facilities.

2.

How was the checklist item addressed?

Because ‘context-sensitive design’ can be interpreted many different ways, policies determined to meet the criteria for this checklist item were quite varied. Very few Centers had policies specifically referring to the design of transportation facilities, and thus only four (4) or twentyseven Centers were determined to have ‘well addressed’ the item. Twelve (12) Centers ‘addressed’ the item with regards to context-sensitive design practices, but did not polices specifically for transportation facilities. Overall, eleven (11) of twenty-seven Centers were determined to ‘not address/poorly address’ the item.

258

Regional Center Planning in the Central Puget Sound


3.

How many centers did/did not address the checklist item?

Eighteen (18) of twenty-seven the Centers had policy meeting the criteria for this checklist item. The nine Centers not addressing context-sensitive design are as follows: Auburn, Canyon Park; Bremerton; Burien; Federal Way; Kent; Lakewood; Lynnwood; and Renton. Totem Lake in Kirkland provides the most straightforward example of a policy addressing this item and the Tacoma Centers share a well-detailed policy. Where these policies discuss facility design, Silverdale provides an example of a policy that does not reference design, but instead considers the contextual sensitivity involved with locating transportation facilities. These examples of policy are as follows: a. The Silverdale Comprehensive Plan (Chapter 8, page 8-4): “T-20: Locate transportation projects away from fish and wildlife habitat, recharge areas, steam corridors, aquifer recharge areas, and sensitive areas wherever possible.” b. The Tacoma Comprehensive Plan (Chapter 7, page T-5): “T-ES-5: Give maximum consideration to aesthetics and beautification while insuring compatibility with safety standards in the design and location of both local and state owned transportation facilities to ensure a positive contribution to the appearance and form of the city.” c. The Kirkland Comprehensive Plan (Chapter 9, page IX-19): “T-6: Design transportation facilities that reflect neighborhood character.”

4.

Were many of the policies addressing the checklist item specific to Centers?

Policy addressing this item, specifically written for a Center, was found for only six Urban Centers.

5.

Is the checklist item a useful evaluation tool of the Center’s planning?

Because this item is somewhat vague, it can be argued that it is not a highly useful evaluation tool for Center planning. Defining ‘context-sensitive design’ is somewhat subjective, and thus meeting criteria achieving such is equally subjective.

6. Should the checklist item be retained or revised to require policy to address the item more explicitly? This item should be folded into other checklist items. Item #4 in the Land Use section of the checklist discusses design standards for transit stations. If the wording of the item #4 in Land Use were modified to address context-sensitive design when developing transportation facilities, this item could be left out of the checklist.

Regional Center Planning in the Central Puget Sound

259


Additional Transportation Issues #5: Include provisions context-sensitive design of transportation facilities. # Centerspecific Policies

# Citywide Policies

Rating

Auburn

0

0

-

Bellevue

0

1

+

Bothell – Canyon Park

0

0

-

Bremerton

0

0

-

Burien

0

0

-

Everett

0

2

+

Federal Way

0

0

-

Kent

0

0

-

Kirkland – Totem Lake

2

3

++

Lakewood

0

0

-

Lynnwood

0

0

-

Puyallup – Downtown

1

4

++

Station to reflect sense of place and of details historic buildings

Puyallup – South Hill

1

4

++

Multi-modal street design with community character

Redmond – Downtown

0

1

-

Maintain vision of character

Redmond – Overlake

0

1

-

Maintain vision of character

Renton

0

0

-

SeaTac

0

1

++

Regional Growth Center

260

Details

Facilities consistent with character

Transit shelters and parking facilities to reflect community character

Address design and impact, create a ‘sense of identity’ for Totem Lake

Coordinate development of station area character

Regional Center Planning in the Central Puget Sound


Seattle – Downtown

0

1

+

Design and scale compatible with place

Seattle – First Hill/Capitol Hill

2

1

+

To reflect character and compliment historic character

Seattle – Northgate

1

1

+

Minimize impacts on surroundings

Seattle – South Lake Union

0

1

+

Design and scale compatible with place

Seattle – University

0

1

+

Design and scale compatible with place

Seattle - Uptown Queen Anne

4

1

+

Facilities to be character-enhancing

Silverdale

0

1

+

Locate way from critical areas

Tacoma – Downtown

0

1

+

Facilities to contribute to appearance

Tacoma – Tacoma Mall

0

1

+

Facilities to contribute to appearance

Tukwila

0

1

+

Shelters to reflect historic character

Rating Scale: Poorly/not addressed (-) Addressed (+) Well addressed (++)

Regional Center Planning in the Central Puget Sound

261


Checklist Section: Additional Transportation Issues Checklist Item: #6 – Include provisions for Environmentally friendly street (“green street”) treatments.

Policy Scan Method: This item asks that Centers include provisions for green streets and other Environmentally friendly treatments. One of the difficulties with analyzing plans for this checklist item is the wide variety of interpretations of the term “green streets”. Policies addressing this item range from those mentioning ‘greening’ the streetscape with street trees to those supportive of stormwater management and other ‘green’ infrastructure. Key search terms were designed to locate policies discussing sustainable landscaping on streets as well as innovative stormwater management techniques. The checklist item does not state that Centers must explicitly address green streets, As such, Centers were considered to have ‘well addressed’ the item if policies were found to comprehensively address and encourage various elements of green streets. Centers that ‘addressed’ the item are those that mention elements but do not provide detail.

Key Search Term(s): green street(s); bioswale; stormwater; runoff; green infrastructure; street tree(s); sidewalk; median; landscape; vegetation; bicycle; pedestrian

Findings 1.

Summary

Nearly all of the centers addressed this item and approximately one-third specifically referenced green streets. Policies were found within transportation, land use and Environmental elements, as well as within Center specific chapters and plans.

2.

How was the checklist item addressed?

This checklist item was addressed in a variety of different ways. Many centers had policies requiring green infrastructure and low impact development methods. The most common element of green streets addressed by center policy is the implementation of green streets. Some centers go as far as to dictate tree species within policy. Overall, eleven (11) of twenty-seven centers were found to explicitly address green streets. That said, only three (3) Centers ‘well addressed’ the item and these centers are: Puyallup-Downtown, Puyallup-South Hill, and Redmond-Overlake. The Redmond-Overlake center did not address green streets directly; fourteen comprehensive and center-specific policies were found that allowed for the high rating.

3.

262

How many centers did/did not address this item?

Regional Center Planning in the Central Puget Sound


Canyon Park and Silverdale are the only two Centers determined not to address this item. This means that a total of twenty-five (25) of twenty-seven centers were found to have policies meeting the criteria of this item. The following are three examples of policies that addressed the checklist item without specifically referencing green streets:

a. The Burien Comprehensive Plan (Chapter 2, page 2-84): “TR 7.2.1: The City should explore street improvement standards that incorporate surface water management strategies such as the minimization of impervious surfaces and landscaping that works to reduce runoff, consistent with the City‘s Stormwater Management Plan.” b. The Everett Comprehensive Plan (Chapter 8, page 12-13): “8.4.2: Designate “Gateway Arterial Streets” which can, over time, be upgraded to include features such as street trees, special lighting, broad sidewalks, banners and planted medians that will produce visually appealing linear corridors into the city. (Possible candidates: Everett, Pacific, Hewitt, North Broadway to Broadway & 41st, 112th, Evergreen Way, Everett Mall Way and 19th Avenue SE.)” c. The Lynnwood Comprehensive Plan (Environmental Resources, page 24-25): “ER-7.7: Street trees shall be planted in planter strips or tree wells located between the curb and sidewalk, where feasible. Tree species and planting techniques shall be selected to create a unified image for the street, provide an effective canopy, avoid sidewalk and utility damage and minimize water consumption. The trees required as street trees shall be deciduous shade trees that are suited to the climate and to planting along streets and sidewalks.” 4.

Were many of the policies addressing the checklist item specific to centers?

Thirteen (13) of 27 centers were found to have center-specific policies addressing green streets and elements thereof.

5.

Is the checklist item a useful evaluation tool of center’s planning?

This checklist item is a good measure of the degree to which green infrastructure is involved in center planning. If a center does not meet this item, this is an indicator that the jurisdiction may not be encouraging sustainable development practices to the same levels discussed in VISION 2040.

6. Should the checklist item be retained or revised to require policy to address the item more explicitly? This item should be folded into other checklist items. Green streets are specially referenced in VISION 2040 and are supportive of other items in both the Transportation and ‘Environment’ sections of the checklist. Within the Environment section, item #3 touches on stormwater runoff. These two items could be consolidated, as they inherently deal with the similar issues.

Regional Center Planning in the Central Puget Sound

263


Additional Transportation Issues #6: Include provisions for Environmentally friendly street (“green street”) treatments. # Centerspecific Policies

# Citywide Policies

Rating

Auburn

0

2

-

Transportation supporting air quality improvement

Bellevue

0

2

+

Street trees and landscaped sidewalks

Bothell – Canyon Park

0

0

-

Bremerton

4

2

++

Addresses ‘green streets’ explicitly, comprehensive details

Burien

0

2

+

Street trees, non-motorized travel, reduce runoff

Everett

0

7

+

Strong on street trees and aesthetic character

Federal Way

2

0

+

Street trees; public space design

Kent

0

1

+

Addresses ‘green streets’ explicitly

Kirkland – Totem Lake

3

8

+

Landscaped boulevards, street trees, stormwater management practices

Lakewood

0

4

+

Addresses ‘green streets’ explicitly, runoff treatment

Lynnwood

0

3

+

Stormwater treatment on roadways, sidewalks, paths

Puyallup – Downtown1

3

1

++

Addresses ‘green streets’ explicitly, rain gardens, bioswales

Puyallup – South Hill1

7

1

++

Addresses ‘green streets’ explicitly, plan green infrastructure

Redmond – Downtown2

1

3

+

‘Green’ gateway on Leary Way

Redmond – Overlake2

14

3

++

Polices do not mention ‘green streets’, but comprehensively cover the concept

Renton

2

8

+

Create a landscape plan, reduce impact of streets

SeaTac

0

3

+

Establish street tree corridors, new vegetation

Seattle – Downtown3

1

1

+

Addresses ‘green streets’ explicitly, details on curb cuts

Seattle – First Hill/Capitol Hill3

1

1

+

Addresses ‘green streets’ explicitly

Seattle – Northgate3

2

1

+

Addresses ‘green streets’ explicitly and their development

Seattle – South Lake Union3

0

1

+

Addresses ‘green streets’ explicitly

Regional Growth Center

264

Details

Regional Center Planning in the Central Puget Sound


Seattle – University3

0

1

+

Addresses ‘green streets’ explicitly

Seattle – Uptown Queen Anne3

3

1

+

Addresses ‘green streets’ explicitly and green spaces

Silverdale

0

0

-

Tacoma – Downtown4

1

2

+

Strong on stormwater management, tree-lined streets

Tacoma – Tacoma Mall4

0

2

+

Strong on stormwater management

Tukwila

0

3

+

Street trees, improvements to pedestrian Environment

1 – The Puyallup Centers share no center-specific policies and their one citywide policy. 2 – The Redmond Centers share no center-specific policies and all of their citywide policies. 3 – The Seattle Centers share no center-specific policies and their one citywide policy. 4 – The Tacoma Centers share no center-specific policies and their two citywide policies.

Rating Scale: Poorly/not addressed (-) Addressed (+) Well addressed (++)

Regional Center Planning in the Central Puget Sound

265


Checklist Section: Additional Transportation Issues Checklist Item: #7 – Tailor level-of-service standards and concurrency provisions for the center to encourage transit.

Policy Scan Method: This checklist item address creating a multi-modal center by promoting transit in two different ways. The first is adapting the “Level-of-Service” standards to reduce single occupancy vehicle use. This can be done by requiring a lower traffic mitigation costs for development in the center which promotes growth there. By lowering the level of service for single occupancy vehicles, funds can be diverted to promoting transit concurrency. Concurrency is ensuring that facilities and services are adequately increased as growth occurs. This item is supportive of many of the other items within the transportation section of the checklist, as transit supportive level of service standards are an important part of a multimodal transportation system. Many times these issues are not addressed in the subarea plans instead only in the city comprehensive plans. However, simple keywords allow a quick determination of the presence using the following terms. Centers found to have transit supportive level of service and/or concurrencies were considered to ‘address’ the checklist item. For a Center to ‘well address’ an item, details of or specific recommendations for standards must be included.

Key Search Term(s): level of service; level-of-service; LOS; L.O.S.; concurrency; mitigation; traffic; single occupancy vehicle; SOV

Findings 1.

Summary

Centers addressing this item display a level of commitment to the development of a multimodal transportation system by encouraging transit to be integrated into the system. Polices were found for many centers that focus on this concept, thought specific standards were not mentioned in the policies themselves. Policies addressing this item were namely found with transportation elements of plans. 2.

How was the checklist item addressed?

This item was addressed by most (22) centers, but not comprehensively so. There were no centers determined to well address this item. Many of the centers addressing this item did so in similar ways. Generally, policies that address this item include discussion of transit, concurrency or reducing reliance on single occupancy vehicles. 3.

How many centers did/did not address the checklist item?

Twenty-two (22) of 27 Centers addressed this item. The five centers that did not address this item are: Bellevue, Canyon Park (Bothell), Kent, Lakewood, and SeaTac. Of the centers that

266

Regional Center Planning in the Central Puget Sound


incorporated transit into level of service standards, the following provided good examples of policy addressing this item:

a. The Burien Comprehensive Plan (Chapter 2, Page 2-70): “TR1.1.5: The City should consider mobility options (transit use, high-occupancy vehicles, demand management actions, access to transit and nonmotorized transportation modes, consistent with Commute Trip Reduction Act requirements) in relation to level of service standards and to relieve congestion.” b. The Everett Downtown Plan (Chapter 5, page 41): “3.1: Establish transportation system level-of-service standards to support desired changes in travel behavior and to encourage multimodal system development.” c. The Puyallup Comprehensive Plan (Chapter 12, page XXII-16): "XXII-21: Consider modifying the required Level of Service standards for transportation concurrency in the South Hill Center, including changes to the current volume/capacity threshold and the development of a multi-modal concurrency standard that are more consistent with the land use and community vision for the South Hill Plan. Develop measures to fully integrate the analysis of all modes into future transportation modeling.” 4.

Were many of the policies addressing the checklist item specific to centers?

A total of nine of 27 centers were found to have center-specific policies addressing level of service standards encouraging transit. 5.

Is the checklist item a useful evaluation tool of the center’s planning?

This item is an appropriate and effective way of measuring a center’s commitment to transit. Levels of service standards for transportation explicitly discuss how different modes of transportation share infrastructure. Centers tailoring standards to be supportive of transit are therefore supportive of multimodal transportation systems—this is a central issue this section of checklist items addresses. 6. Should the checklist item be retained or revisited to require policy to address the item more explicitly? This item should be folded into other items. Although level of service standards are important in in and of themselves, other items on the checklist overlap with the general concepts surrounding these standards. See the analysis for item #9 in the Transportation Additional Issues section for further details.

Regional Center Planning in the Central Puget Sound

267


Additional Transportation Issues #7: Tailor level-of-service standards and concurrency provisions for the center to encourage transit. # Centerspecific Policies

# Citywide Policies

Rating

Auburn

0

2

+

Bellevue

0

0

-

Bremerton

0

1

-

Bothell – Canyon Park

0

0

-

Burien

0

2

+

LOS considers mobility options, ensure concurrency

Everett

0

1

+

Develop LOS standards to support multimodal system

Federal Way

1

0

+

LOS standard to lower SOV travel

Kent

0

0

-

Kirkland – Totem Lake

1

6

+

LOS standards for 2022 for non-motorized system

Lakewood

0

0

-

Not well addressed

Lynnwood

0

1

-

LOS standard not related to transit

Puyallup – Downtown1

0

2

+

Establish LOS standards and fixed-route bus service

Puyallup – South Hill1

0

2

+

Establish LOS standards and fixed-route bus service

Redmond – Downtown2

0

5

+

Concurrency to achieve multimodal travel and transit

Redmond – Overlake2

0

5

+

Concurrency to achieve multimodal travel and transit

Renton

0

2

+

Focus on transit and HOV improvements

SeaTac

0

0

-

Seattle – Downtown3

1

2

+

Seattle – First Hill/Capitol Hill3

1

2

+

Seattle – Northgate3

1

2

+

Seattle – South Lake Union3

1

2

+

Seattle – University3

1

2

+

Seattle – Uptown Queen Anne3

1

2

+

Silverdale

1

6

+

Goal 5: Emphasize moving people rather than vehicles

Tacoma – Downtown4

0

2

+

Establish LOS standards, ensure concurrency

Tacoma – Tacoma Mall4

0

2

+

Establish LOS standards, ensure concurrency

Regional Growth Center

268

Details Develop a multimodal LOS system

To adopt LOS standards supportive of development

Regional Center Planning in the Central Puget Sound


Tukwila

0

2

+

1 – The Puyallup Centers share no Center-specific policies and their two citywide policies. 2 – The Redmond Centers share no Center-specific policies and all of their citywide policies. 3 – The Seattle Centers share one Center-specific policies and their two citywide policies. 4 – The Tacoma Centers share no Center-specific policies and their two citywide policies.

Rating Scale: Poorly/not addressed (-) Addressed (+) Well addressed (++)

Regional Center Planning in the Central Puget Sound

269


Checklist Section: Additional Transportation Issues Checklist Item: #8 – Include a parking management strategy.

Policy Scan This checklist item was deemed to be sufficiently similar to transportation design guidelines item #7 for the two to be merged. Findings [See Parking Design Guidelines Item #7]

270

Regional Center Planning in the Central Puget Sound


Checklist Section: Additional Transportation Issues Checklist Item: #9 – Develop mode-split goals.

Policy Scan Method: This item asks that goals are developed addressing mode split goals for the and/or around the center. To expand the scope of the analysis, policies not directly developing mode split goals were able to meet the criteria if they were directly or indirectly beneficial to this end. It was understood that developing mode-split goals could be addressed by: directly stating mode split goals; Commute Trip Reduction programs that encouraged transit use; expanding transit programs; and other policy supporting alternative commute modes. The key search terms were designed to both capture the various ways to write ‘mode split’ and policy encouraging alternative modes of transportation. These words were searched for throughout each document and individual elements of plans containing policy were often scanned through. Centers found to have stated mode split goals were considered to ‘well address’ the item. Any centers that either mention developing those goals or have policies supportive of alternative forms of transportation were considered to ‘address’ the item.

Key Search Term(s): mode split; mode-split; modal split; modal-split; mode goals; commute; commute trip reduction; CTR; alternative commute modes; transit; non-SOV

Findings 1.

Summary

The majority of Urban Centers were found to have policy addressing this item. More than threequarters of the Urban Centers directly stated mode split goals and many of the policies were specific to the Urban Center. Other centers addressed the criteria by citing Commute Trip Reduction programs. Most centers have addressed this item. Policies addressing this item were namely found within the transportation elements of plans.

2.

How was the checklist item addressed?

As the methodology supports, many of the policies addressing this item were related to issues of commutes and transit. Commute Trip Reduction programs are mentioned in policies. Puyallup, for example, encouraged the City to practice CTR programs with its employees. Data many plans found lacking are the center or City’s aspirational mode split goals over several years. Several centers do project over a decade into the future, but many goals are outdated as plans only considered a year or two after the plans publish date. These short-term goals do not appear to be as valuable as long-term goals.

3.

How many centers did/did not address the checklist item?

Regional Center Planning in the Central Puget Sound

271


Twenty-four (24) of twenty-seven centers addressed this item. Policy addressing mode split goals was found in for all centers besides Burien and Lakewood. Of the Centers that do address this item, the following are different examples of policies discussing mode split goals both indirectly and directly:

a. The Downtown Bremerton Sub Area Plan (Chapter 5, page 5-67): “Create a fully functional and appealing street Environment to increase mode share of pedestrians and bicyclists using the downtown city streets.” b. The Redmond Comprehensive Plan (Chapter 9, page 9-14): “TR-39: Establish minimum and maximum parking ratio requirements consistent with the transportation and land use objectives of the Comprehensive Plan, by considering constraints considering financial institutions. Consider reducing the minimum and maximum parking ratio requirements further as transportation options increase with development of enhanced transit service or as demand drops with achievement of mode split goals. Create for inclusion in the Redmond Community Development Guide a process and decision criteria to allow under special circumstances the granting of parking ratios above or below the established ratios.” 4.

Were many of the policies addressing the checklist item specific to centers?

A total of seventeen centers were found to have center specific policies supporting the development of mode split goals.

5.

Is the checklist item a useful evaluation tool of the center’s planning?

Mode split goals require that city planning has considered multi-modal transportation networks, another Vision 2040 requirement. This provides a good evaluation tool, ensuring that not only is the center working to accommodate multiple modes of transport, it is doing so with stated purpose aimed to reduce SOV commutes.

6. Should the checklist item be retained ore revisited to require policy to address the item more explicitly? This item should be folded into other checklist items. Item #4 in the Environment section deals with Commute Trip Reduction programs and the reduction of greenhouse gas. Additionally, they item in this section mentioning transit-supportive level of service standards encourage the same general topic as these two items. These three items could be consolidated without the individual strengths of the items being weakened.

272

Regional Center Planning in the Central Puget Sound


Additional Transportation Issues #9: Develop mode-split goals. Regional Growth Center

# Centerspecific Policies

# Citywide Policies

Rating

Details

Auburn

0

0

-

Bellevue

0

3

+

Bothell – Canyon Park

0

0

-

Bremerton

2

0

+

No goal; focus on mode sharing

Burien

0

2

+

No goal; policies to minimize reliance on vehicles and alternative modes

Everett

0

3

+

Goal for 2012; additional supportive policies

Federal Way

1

3

+

No goal; supportive policies

Kent

0

2

+

No goal; TDM strategies and supportive city-wise policies

Kirkland – Totem Lake

3

3

++

Citywide goal for 2022; TDM strategies and supportive policies

Lakewood

0

0

-

Lynnwood

1

1

+

Puyallup – Downtown1

0+1

3

Puyallup – South Hill1

2+1

3

+

No goal; one specific policy applies to both Centers, two are specific to South Hill

Redmond – Downtown

1

2

+

Goal for 1993 and 2012 specific to Downtown

Redmond – Overlake

3

2

++

Goal for 1993 and 2012 specific to Overlake; additional policy with a goal for 2030

Renton

0

3

+

No goal; supportive citywide policies

SeaTac

0

3

+

No goal; policy to develop a goal for non-SOV travel; policies encouraging HOV and transit

Seattle – Downtown

1

1

++

Goals for 2020; also citywide goals for 2020

Seattle – First Hill/Capitol Hill

2

1

++

Goals for 2020; also citywide goals for 2020 and policy encouraging non-SOV commuting

Seattle – Northgate

1

1

++

Goals for 2020; also citywide goals for 2020

Seattle – South Lake Union

1

1

++

Goals for 2020; also citywide goals for 2020

Seattle – University

1

1

++

Goals for 2020; also citywide goals for 2020

Regional Center Planning in the Central Puget Sound

Only goal found was for 2005

CTR goal for 2011; policy to reduce vehicle trips No goal; the specific policy applies to both Centers

273


Seattle – Uptown Queen Anne

1

1

++

Goals for 2020; also citywide goals for 2020

Silverdale

1

6

+

No goal; CTR programs and supportive policy

Tacoma – Downtown

5

2

+

No goal; TDM strategies and mentions a 10% shift away from SOV transportation by 2010.

Tacoma – Tacoma Mall

0

2

+

No goal; supportive citywide policy

Tukwila

2

4

+

No goal; CTR programs and supportive policies

1 – The Puyallup Centers share one Center-specific policy and all of their citywide policies.

Rating Scale: Poorly/not addressed (-) Addressed (+) Well addressed (++)

274

Regional Center Planning in the Central Puget Sound


Regional Manufacturing Industrial Center Plan Checklist: Policy Analysis

Checklist Section: Center plan concept (or “vision”) Checklist Item: #1 – Include a vision for the center. This should include a commitment to preservation of an urban industrial land base.

Policy Scan Method: This item was interpreted to consider whether an explicit vision statement was present, and if not, if one was implied through language in the various planning documents. To locate language for this item, the introduction, executive summaries and opening materials to any sub-area plans were surveyed. If none were present, (as in the case for jurisdictions that include MICs through comprehensive plans, the land use, transportation, and any other relevant sections of the comprehensive plans were also consulted. Only statements directly related to the MIC were considered—i.e. vision statements for a comprehensive plan were not considered a vision statement for a MIC.

The item was considered ‘well addressed’ (++) if the plan included an explicit vision statement with discussion of preservation of an industrial land base, addressed (+) if it included an implicit vision statement, with some reference to industrial land preservation, and ‘poorly/not addressed’ (-) if there was either no vision statement, or no implied vision (through introductory language, goals, or policies).

Key Search Term(s): “vision”, “concept”, “intent”

Findings 1. Only two centers had explicit vision statements discussing industrial lands preservation. Of the remaining six, five had clear articulation of industrial land preservation as an important goal for the area. 2. Although industrial lands preservation was a clear goals for most center’s plans, the main concept that emerged from vision statements was more focused on job creation, and retention, especially in terms of manufacturing. 3. Seven of the eight centers addressed the checklist item. However, only two had an explicit vision statement, likely related to a lack of sub-area plans for Manufacturing/Industrial Centers. The South Kitsap Industrial Area (SKIA) Manufacturing/ Industrial Center was the only center to not include material related to this checklist item. The SKIA plan appears to be more concerned with the creation of a new center rather than supporting existing activities. The most promising vision

Regional Center Planning in the Central Puget Sound

275


statement was in the Ballard/Interbay plan, which went beyond land preservation and included some of the other checklist items. 4. In general, the language surrounding preservation of industrial lands was specific to Manufacturing/Industrial Centers, especially apparent in sub-area plans. 5. This checklist item is a useful evaluation tool. A clear vision statement expresses the intent for the policies that guide center development, and lays out the framework for policies and other materials that support center development. 6. This checklist item should be retained. It is critical to explain the role of the center, especially for those centers that do not have sub-area plans. A vision statement binds the subsequent goal and policy statements into a cohesive framework. Center Plan Concept 1.) Include a vision for the center. This should include a commitment to preservation of an urban industrial land base Manufacturing/Industrial Center

Details

Ballard/Interbay

++

Goes beyond land and employment, and includes discussion of commuting and mode split.

Duwamish

+

There is no specific vision statement, but a discussion of what the center should be and rationale for it is included.

Kent

+

Not a specific vision statement, but the issues of concern for this checklist items are addressed within the goals.

North Tukwila

++

Inclusion of a specific vision, focusing on industrial activity to create and sustain employment and businesses.

Frederickson

+

There is a specific vision statement, but, being a plan for a sub-area that is larger than the center, the main focus is on reducing conflict between industry and residential activities.

Port of Tacoma

+

The vision focuses on a the center being well served by transportation systems, rather than protection of industrial lands.

+

Not a specific vision statement, and the relevant implicit vision focuses on the economic health of the city, rather than on the preservation of the center.

Paine Field

276

Rating

Regional Center Planning in the Central Puget Sound


South Kitsap

-

This plan is trying to respond to an earlier plan. The main question asked is how to create a business park, and conduct joint planning. There does not appear to be existing industrial that need to be preserved.

Rating Scale: Poorly/not addressed (-) Addressed (+) Well addressed (++)

Regional Center Planning in the Central Puget Sound

277


Regional Manufacturing Industrial Center Plan Checklist: Policy Analysis

Checklist Section: Center plan concept (or “vision”) Checklist Item: #2—Include an overview of the relationship of the center plan to the city’s comprehensive plan, as well as VISION 2040 and countywide planning policies.

Policy Scan Method: This item addresses whether the sub-area plan states its relationship to county and regional planning documents, including the city Comprehensive Plan, Vision 2040, and countywide planning policies. Search terms were used to locate relevant polices or language; these included “PSRC”, “Puget Sound Regional Council”, “Comprehensive Plan”, “Vision 2040”, “Vision 2020’, and “countywide”. This combination of search terms was an efficient way to locate the relevant language.

This item was considered well addressed (++) if the sub-area plan’s relationship to two of the following three planning documents is described: city Comprehensive Plan, Vision 2020 or Vision 2040, and countywide planning policies. It was considered addressed (+) if the sub-area plan’s relationship to one city, county, or regional planning document is described. It was considered ‘poorly/not addressed’ if there is no description of the sub-area plan’s relationship to city, county, or regional plans.

Key Search Term(s): “PSRC”, “Puget Sound Regional Council”, “Comprehensive Plan” “Vision 2040”, “Vision 2020”, and “countywide”.

Findings 1. This checklist item was addressed in plans for all eight of the Manufacturing/Industrial Centers. It is common to find language related to city and countywide policies, and less common to find explicit mention of regional policy. Because of when these plans were created, mostly prior to adoption of VISION 2040, the relationship to regional guidance often refers to VISION 2020, or just broadly to regional planning. 2. For the most part, this checklist item was addressed by stating that the sub-area plans supported regional and/or countywide planning policies. In several instances designation and importance were also addressed. 3. All eight centers addressed this checklist item in some way. 4. In general, the language surrounding the relationship to broader planning efforts was specific to Manufacturing/Industrial Centers, especially apparent in sub-area plans.

278

Regional Center Planning in the Central Puget Sound


5. This checklist item is a useful evaluation tool. The connection to other planning efforts demonstrates an understanding that Manufacturing/Industrial Centers serves a purpose beyond the immediate needs of the community in which they are located. 6. This checklist item should be retained. A clear articulation of the relationship of the center to the county, aids understanding of the role of the center and the need for the subsequent policies. Center Plan Concept 2.) Include an overview of the relationship of the center plan to the city’s comprehensive plan, as well as VISION 2040 and countywide planning policies Manufacturing/Industrial Center

Rating

Details

Ballard/Interbay

++

No specific mention of regional guidance. Includes discussion of targets.

Duwamish

+

Contains reference to county wide planning policies, but not to regional guidance.

Kent

++

Description of Coutywide Planning Policies, intent and designation; earlier discussion of VISION 2020 and Destination 2030

North Tukwila

++

Discussion of VISION 2040 and Countywide Planning Policies.

Frederickson

+

Consistency with Pierce County, no mention of regional guidance. However, the Pierce County plan describes regional designation of Manufacturing/Industrial Centers.

Port of Tacoma

++

Best of the Manufacturing/Industrial Centers. Includes relationship to regional and countywide policies.

Paine Field

+

Includes discussion of designation and importance.

South Kitsap

+

The only mention is that policies support regional guidance.

Rating Scale: Poorly/not addressed (-) Addressed (+) Well addressed (++)

Regional Center Planning in the Central Puget Sound

279


Regional Manufacturing Industrial Center Plan Checklist: Policy Analysis

Checklist Section: Center plan concept (or “vision”) Checklist Item: #3—Include a market analysis of the center’s development potential.

Policy Scan Method: This item addresses whether the development potential of the Center has been examined in the planning document. Development could include manufacturing or industrial activities, or the activities that support them. To locate policies for this item, sections on Economic Development were skimmed and search terms of “market analysis” and “development potential” were used, though with few results. This item was considered well addressed (++) if the plan included estimates of future demand in the center, addressed (+) if the plan has some analysis of development potential, but not for all sectors, and ‘poorly/not addressed’ (-) if there was no market analysis in the plan. Key Search Term(s): “market analysis” and “development potential”

Findings 1. This checklist item was addressed minimally for three of the eight centers. No center has a complete market analysis or discussion of future demand. 2. For the most part, when addressed, this checklist item was used to describe existing conditions, rather than describing future demand. 3. Three of eight centers addressed this item, and all did not conduct a full analysis. 4. There are policies, for example, related to employment, that are both center specific and could be construed responsive to this checklist item. However, because none of the centers conducted a market analysis, it is difficult to suggest a direct link between the policies and an analysis. 5. If this checklist item were better addressed, it would be useful for evaluation purposes, because it would detail anticipated future demand and activities. This understanding would, as do the other checklist items in the center plan and concept area, provide the necessary context for the subsequent goal and policy statements. 6. This checklist item should be retained. An understanding of future demand would demonstrate 1) why it may (or may not be) important to protect these areas, and 2) what specific actions and policies should be implemented to support future growth.

280

Regional Center Planning in the Central Puget Sound


Center Plan Concept 3.) Include a market analysis of the center’s development potential Manufacturing/Industrial Center

Rating

Details Some discussion of existing conditions.

Ballard/Interbay

-

Duwamish

+

Kent

+

Analysis was conducted for the sake of describing existing conditions.

North Tukwila

+

Analysis was conducted for the sake of describing existing conditions.

Frederickson

-

Port of Tacoma

-

Paine Field

-

Descriptive discussion of future expectations, but no analysis.

South Kitsap

-

None conducted, but mention of one being done in the future.

Technical analysis was conducted for context and background, but not explicitly as a market analysis.

Some discussion of existing conditions, but no discussion of future demand.

No analysis was conducted.

Rating Scale: Poorly/not addressed (-) Addressed (+) Well addressed (++)

Regional Center Planning in the Central Puget Sound

281


Regional Manufacturing Industrial Center Plan Checklist: Policy Analysis

Checklist Section: Environment Checklist Item: #1— Identify and develop provision to protect critical/environmentally sensitive areas.

Policy Scan Method: This item considers whether the Regional Growth Centers protect and account for critical areas, which are required to be protected under the Growth Management Act, RCW 36.70A. The Growth Management Act mandates protection of the following areas and ecosystems: (a) wetlands; (b) areas with a critical recharging effect on aquifers used for potable water; (c) fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas; (d) frequently flooded areas; and (e) geologically hazardous areas (“Revised Code of Washington,” n d). Related search terms (see below) were used to determine whether center’s sub-area plans or center-specific elements and policies specifically address these topics. Because critical areas planning is mandated and all comprehensive plans contain many policies on these topics, general critical areas policies that are not center-specific were not captured. In addition, because Shoreline Management Programs are mandated by the State and reviewed by the Department of Ecology, no shoreline policies were included unless specific to a Regional Growth Center.

Policies were rated as “well-addressed” (++) when they addressed Environmental features specific to the center’s geography, as “addressed” when they contained either (a) policies calling for specific Environmental protection strategies, or (b) they contained a multi-faceted set of general Environmental protection policies, were rated as ‘addressed’ when they made an attempt to consider critical areas within the context of center planning, and were‘poorly/not addressed’ (-) when they contained no policies or a policy that relates to one portion of Environmental protection.

Key Search Term(s): critical area, Environment, protect, habitat, wetland, fish, wildlife, steep slope, sensitive, stream, flood, aquifer, recharge, hazard Findings 1. Two centers did not treat this item at all. Five of the eight centers made an attempt to mention environmental issues and critical areas. The most robust discussion was for the South Kitsap Industrial Area, though it still fell short of providing location specific guidance and policies beyond suggesting that broader critical areas policies should be followed. 2. For the most part, this checklist item was minimally addressed. Most centers made reference to broader planning efforts.

282

Regional Center Planning in the Central Puget Sound


3. Six of eight centers minimally addressed this checklist item, though only one center (SKIA) produced sufficient materials to lay the groundwork for a full understanding of the issues to be considered in the center. 4. In general, the language surrounding critical areas was not specific to centers. 5. This checklist item is a useful evaluation tool. Were considerably more information provided in the planning documents, it would be possible to assess what measures would be necessary to protect environmentally sensitive areas. It would be useful, if, at a minimum, center’s plans would include a map of critical areas in relation to the center. 6. This checklist item should be retained. While Manufacturing/Industrial Centers play a critical role in supporting business, employment and the needs of the region, this should not be at the expense of environmentally sensitive areas. More discussion on this topic should be included. Environment 1.) Identify and develop provision to protect critical/environmentally sensitive areas Manufacturing/Industrial Center

Rating

Details

Ballard/Interbay

-

No treatment of the environment, beyond explaining relationship to SEPA.

Duwamish

-

Some discussion of remediation of point source pollution, but no discussion of critical areas.

Kent

+

Minor discussion and mention of conducting an area wide EIS in the future.

North Tukwila

+

Some discussion in a natural environment section.

Frederickson

+

Not MIC specific, but some discussion of an orderly transition between industrial activities and critical areas.

Port of Tacoma

+

Some minor, not MIC specific discussion.

Paine Field

+

Some minor, not MIC specific discussion.

+

The plan contains a chapter dealing with environment, mostly in terms of conforming with other plans and conducting site specific analysis as development occurs.

South Kitsap

Rating Scale: Poorly/not addressed (-)

Regional Center Planning in the Central Puget Sound

283


Addressed (+) Well addressed (++)

284

Regional Center Planning in the Central Puget Sound


Regional Manufacturing Industrial Center Plan Checklist: Policy Analysis

Checklist Section: Environment Checklist Item: #2— Include policies and programs for innovative treatment of stormwater and drainage (related to Public Services).

Policy Scan Method: Manufacturing/Industrial Center development requires a more highly paved Environment, this checklist item seeks to ensure that sufficient water management techniques and preventative measures are included in the center’s growth. All plan policies related to stormwater were captured, regardless of whether they were center-specific. In some policies, stormwater and drainage policies overlap with critical areas policies for wetlands and aquifer recharge areas. Those policies were treated as discussed in Environment Checklist Item #1: they were included if the policies are center-specific; they were not included if they were broader critical areas policies. There is often crossover between the policies in this category and other Environmental items such as open space and emissions reduction; in that case, they are included in each section and a note is made in the policy database. This scan reviewed Comprehensive Plans and sub-area plans; next steps could include reviewing stormwater management plans and comprehensive drainage plans, as applicable.

Centers were rated as ‘well addressed’ (++) if they outline stormwater and drainage policies specific to center development, as “addressed (+) if they outline center-specific policies on one or two topics (e.g., only drainage, but not development principles) or only cover sewers or retention facilities (i.e., they are not “innovative”) and , and as ‘poorly/not addressed’ (-) if they have no or minimal policies on the topic that are center-specific. This rating does not pass judgment on citywide stormwater plans.

Key Search Term(s): impervious/pervious, stormwater/storm water, drainage, grey/gray water, combined sewer, low impact development, rainwater capture

Findings 1. This checklist item is not particularly well addressed. Five of eight centers have some discussion on this topic, but mainly focused on public services. 2. For the most part, this checklist item was minimally addressed. Most centers made reference to broader needs for the infrastructure system. No center plan discussed innovative practices. 3. Five of eight centers somewhat addressed this checklist item. Only the South Kitsap Industrial Areas devoted considerable discussion to the topic. Regional Center Planning in the Central Puget Sound

285


4. In general, the language surrounding stormwater and drainage was specific to centers, but only in terms of infrastructure needs. 5. This checklist item is a useful evaluation tool. As currently used, it could explain the demand for new or improved infrastructure. It should be further expanded in the center plan treatment to include discussion of the environment and innovative practices. 6. This checklist item should be retained. The checklist item helps to identify infrastructure needs, and if used properly, identify strategies to improve environmental systems. Environment 2.) Include policies and programs for innovative treatment of stormwater and drainage (related to Public Services) Manufacturing/Industrial Center

Rating

Details

Ballard/Interbay

-

Some treatment of public services, but not related to the environment.

Duwamish

-

Some minor treatment, and discussion of conducting a study.

Kent

+

Discussion of upgrading a variety of facilities to support development.

North Tukwila

-

No discussion, but do include a statement there are sufficient facilities to serve the center.

Frederickson

+

Not a MIC specific discussion, but some discussion for the broader area.

Port of Tacoma

+

Not a MIC specific discussion, but some discussion for the broader area.

Paine Field

+

Not a MIC specific discussion, but some discussion for the broader area.

South Kitsap

+

Includes a chapter on the topic, but falls short of being comprehensive, or "innovative".

Rating Scale: Poorly/not addressed (-) Addressed (+) Well addressed (++)

286

Regional Center Planning in the Central Puget Sound


Regional Manufacturing Industrial Center Plan Checklist: Policy Analysis

Checklist Section: Environment Checklist Item: #3— Include strategies and programs to reduce air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions.

Policy Scan Method: This section captures policies related to items related to vehicle miles traveled (VMT), transportation mode split goals, and other transit-supportive policies that serve to directly or indirectly reduce air pollution and emissions. Particularly for the Manufacturing/Industrial Centers, reduction in pollution related to trucks is important. These items were more captured when they explicitly included the search terms and related to air quality and emissions.

Policies were rated as ‘well addressed’ (++) when they include specific targets or employ a set of multiple policies that work hand-in-hand, as “addressed” (+) when they mention a single, but mutli-part policy, and as “not addressed” (-) when there were no policies or when policies were very narrow (e.g., targeted only at drive-through uses).

Key Search Term(s): pollution, greenhouse gas, emission, carbon, air quality, mode split, vehicle miles traveled (VMT), commute trip reduction (CTR), transportation/travel demand management (TDM), transportation system management

Findings 1. This checklist item is uniformly poorly addressed in plans related to Manufacturing/Industrial Centers. There is little, if any treatment of this topic. 2. For the most part, this checklist item was minimally addressed. When discussed, reference was made to point source pollution, or to vehicle emissions (non-truck) for broader geographic areas. 3. None of the center’s plans successfully address this checklist item. 4. When addressed, the language surrounding air quality and emissions was not specific to centers. 5. This checklist item is a useful evaluation tool. Manufacturing/Industrial Centers require a large number of freight trips, by trucks and trains. Beyond vehicle pollution, the industries themselves, as well as employees commuting to those businesses may cause air pollution, and, in larger amounts than non-industrial areas. Greater attention should be given to this item. Regional Center Planning in the Central Puget Sound

287


6. This checklist item should be retained. While Manufacturing/Industrial Centers play a critical role in supporting business, employment and the needs of the region, this should not be at the expense of air quality related issues. The number of freight vehicles travelling through these areas alone merits considerations. More discussion on this topic should be included.

Environment 3.) Include strategies and programs to reduce air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions Manufacturing/Industrial Center

Rating

Details

Ballard/Interbay

-

No discussion

Duwamish

-

Only addresses remediation from point sources.

Kent

-

No MIC specific policies

North Tukwila

-

No MIC specific policies

Frederickson

-

Some discussion of general vehicle emissions, but specific to the broader area, not MIC.

Port of Tacoma

+

No MIC specific policies, but some discussion relevant to the MIC.

Paine Field

-

No discussion

South Kitsap

-

No discussion

Rating Scale: Poorly/not addressed (-) Addressed (+) Well addressed (++)

288

Regional Center Planning in the Central Puget Sound


Regional Manufacturing Industrial Center Plan Checklist: Policy Analysis

Checklist Section: Land Use Checklist Item: #1 – Demonstrate and explain the defined boundaries and shape for the center.

Policy Scan Method: This item was interpreted to address two issues: whether the boundary of the center is described and whether the rationale for the boundary is given. To locate language for this item, the Introduction and Land Use sections of sub-area plans were skimmed and the search terms “boundary” and “industrial center” were used.

Checklist items were considered ‘well addressed’ when a plan includes a written description and explanation of the center boundaries and shape, ‘addressed’ when a description of the center’s boundaries is included in the plan, and ‘poorly/not addressed’ when there is no description, map, or explanation of the center boundary

Key Search Term(s): “Boundary” “industrial center”

Findings 1. None of the plans included both a description and explanation of the center boundaries. Only two plans included a written description of the center boundaries. 2. Several plans included maps showing the boundary of the center, but did not describe the boundary in text. 3. Plans for two of the eight centers included descriptions of center boundaries (Duwamish and North Tukwila). The South Kitsap Industrial Area plan has a partial description of the boundary. The Port of Tacoma and BINMIC plans did not include a boundary description, but included maps showing the boundary. The plans for Kent, Frederickson, and Paine Field did not include any description of the center boundary or a map. An example of a plan that included a boundary description is North Tukwila:

Regional Center Planning in the Central Puget Sound

289


a. City of Tukwila Comprehensive Plan (page 125): “It comprises an area of 998 acres along the Duwamish River, bounded generally by the City of Seattle on the north, South 125th Street on the south, the Burlington Northern railway right-of-way on the east, and the Duwamish River on the west (Figure 33).” 4. By definition, any language referring to this item is specific to centers. 5. This item is a useful way to evaluate the planning for a manufacturing/industrial center. When creating goals or policies for a designated center, the public needs to inform stakeholders and the public of the exact area that those policies will apply in. 6. This checklist item should be retained. To plan for a manufacturing/industrial center, it’s imperative to know exactly where the center is. The item could be clarified by stating that both a map and a written description of the boundaries are needed.

Land Use #1:

Demonstrate and explain the defined boundaries and shape for the center.

Regional Growth Center

In Plan?

Ballard Interbay

No

Duwamish

Yes

Kent

No

North Tukwila

Yes

Frederickson

No

Port of Tacoma

No

Paine Field/Boeing Everett

No

South Kitsap Industrial Area

Yes

Rating

Details

-

The boundary of the center is not described or explained, but a map showing the boundary is included.

+

The boundary of the center is described, but not explained.

-

No description or explanation of the center boundary is included.

+

The boundary of the center is described, but not explained.

-

No description, map, or explanation of the center boundary is included.

-

The boundary of the center is not described or explained, but a map showing the boundary is included.

-

No description, map, or explanation of the center boundary is included.

+

A partial description of the center boundaries is included.

Rating Scale:

290

Regional Center Planning in the Central Puget Sound


Poorly/not addressed (-) Addressed (+) Well addressed (++)

Regional Center Planning in the Central Puget Sound

291


Regional Manufacturing Industrial Center Plan Checklist: Policy Analysis

Checklist Section: Land Use Checklist Item: #2 – Establish employment growth targets that accommodate a significant share of the jurisdiction’s manufacturing/industrial employment growth, and demonstrate capacity to accommodate these levels of growth (note that targets are aspirational and state the minimum number of jobs that a jurisdiction must be zoned to accommodate and will strive to absorb by the planning horizon year. Targets are distinct from zoned development capacity).

Policy Scan Method: This item has several components: • •

Employment growth targets for the center; A demonstration that the targets are a significant share of the jurisdiction’s expected or targeted industrial job growth (which requires an estimate of the jurisdiction’s expected industrial job growth); and A demonstration that the center can accommodate those targets.

To locate language for this item, Land Use, Introduction, and Economic Development Elements of plans were skimmed. In addition, search terms “growth target” “employment” and “jobs” were used.

This item was considered well addressed if a plan includes center’s employment growth target, demonstrates it’s a significant share of the jurisdiction’s manufacturing/industrial employment growth, and demonstrates the capacity to meet the target, is considered ‘addressed’ of a plan includes the center’s employment growth target and an analysis of capacity to meet the target, and is considered ‘not addressed or poorly addressed’ if a plan does not include MIC employment growth target or employment capacity.

Key Search Term(s): “growth target” “employment” “jobs”

Findings 1. Most plans did not establish employment growth targets for manufacturing/industrial centers. The exceptions are the two Seattle plans, BINMIC and Duwamish. None of the plans stated the jurisdiction’s expected or 292

Regional Center Planning in the Central Puget Sound


targeted industrial job growth. Several plans included an analysis of the employment capacity of the center. 2. Most plans did not include employment growth targets for the center; some plans included an analysis of employment capacity. 3. Two center plans partially addressed this item, BINMIC and Duwamish, by including employment growth targets for the center. The Kent Comprehensive Plan included an employment growth target for the city, but not for the center, and did not analyze the employment capacity of the center. North Tukwila, Port of Tacoma, and Paine Field plans did not include any employment growth targets or any analysis of the employment capacity of the center. Frederickson and South Kitsap Industrial Area plans include employment capacity but not employment growth targets. An example of relatively strong language: a. Greater Duwamish Manufacturing and Industrial Center Plan (Chapter 2, page 15): “Using employment-based forecasts for land use planning, the Duwamish M and I Center can expect to accommodate an employment growth of 7,389 over the next two decades. This is lower than the Seattle Comprehensive Plan anticipates for the area by over 3,000 jobs. To meet the City’s anticipated growth in jobs will require more intensified uses of existing industrial land, employing such strategies as adding shifts to existing businesses, investing in production, improving technology, and more education for employees.” 4. Because this item refers specifically to employment targets and capacity of centers, any relevant language is specific to centers. 5. This item is a useful tool for evaluating planning for manufacturing/industrial centers. One purpose of having designated manufacturing/industrial centers is to attract and retain industrial businesses and jobs in the region and concentrate them in these areas. Because of the nature of industrial businesses, they don’t mix easily with other uses and should be concentrated in defined areas. Therefore, it’s important to estimate future industrial employment and ensure it can be accommodated in manufacturing/industrial centers. 6. This item should be retained; see above item.

Regional Center Planning in the Central Puget Sound

293


Land Use #2: Establish employment growth targets that accommodate a significant share of the jurisdiction’s manufacturing/industrial employment growth, and demonstrate capacity to accommodate these levels of growth. Regional Growth Center

In Plan?

Ballard Interbay

Yes

Duwamish

Yes

Kent

No

North Tukwila

No

Frederickson

No

Port of Tacoma

No

Paine Field/Boeing Everett

No

Rating +

Plan includes the center’s employment growth target and analyzes capacity of the center to meet target.

+

Plan includes expected employment growth and analysis of capacity to meet expected growth.

-

Plan includes an employment growth target for the city, but not for the center. Employment growth capacity of the MIC not included.

-

Plan does not include the center’s employment growth targets or employment capacity.

-

Plan includes employment growth capacity of the center, but not employment growth targets.

-

Plan does not include the center’s employment growth targets or employment capacity.

-

South Kitsap Industrial Area

No

Details

Plan does not include the center’s employment growth targets or employment capacity. Plan includes employment capacity of the center and capacity of the County to meet needs for industrially zoned lands. No center employment growth target included.

Rating Scale: Poorly/not addressed (-) Addressed (+) Well addressed (++)

294

Regional Center Planning in the Central Puget Sound


Regional Manufacturing Industrial Center Plan Checklist: Policy Analysis

Checklist Section: Land Use Checklist Item: #3 – Describe the percentage of planned land use and zoning in the center for industrial and manufacturing uses.

Policy Scan Method: This item addresses whether the center plan describes the percentage of land in the center that is zoned for industrial and manufacturing uses. Language for this item was located by skimming the Introductions, Land Use, and Economic Development sections of plans.

No plans for this checklist item were considered ‘well addressed’. Plans were considered ‘addressed’ if a plan describes the percentage of land in the center zoned for manufacturing and industrial uses, and ‘not addressed/poorly addressed’ if a plan does not include the percentage of land in the center zoned for industrial and manufacturing uses.

Key Search Term(s): None.

Findings 1. Only one center plan addressed this item, the Duwamish. 2. Only one center plan addressed this item. Most plans did not include thorough descriptions of existing conditions, where this item might be expected to fit. 3. Only one of the eight center plans addressed this item, the Duwamish: a. Greater Duwamish Manufacturing and Industrial Center Plan (Chapter 3, page 35): “51 percent of the lands in the Duwamish M and I Center are zoned IG1. 46 percent of the lands in the Duwamish M and I Center are zoned IG2…” Together, 97% of the land in the center is zoned for General Industrial use. 4. This item is specific to centers, so any language addressing it is specific to centers. Regional Center Planning in the Central Puget Sound

295


5. This item is a useful way to evaluate planning for a manufacturing/industrial center. If one of the goals for these centers is to concentrate industrial activities in them, it should be clear in planning documents how much of the land is zoned industrial. 6. This item should be retained; planning for manufacturing/industrial centers will be improved with a description of the lands zoned industrial. The item could be revised to also require a zoning map.

Land Use #3: Describe the percentage of planned land use and zoning in the center for industrial and manufacturing uses. Regional Growth Center

In Plan?

Rating

Details

-

Plan does not include the percentage of land in the center zoned for industrial and manufacturing uses.

+

Plan describes all the zoning categories in the center and the percentage of land in each zoning category.

-

Plan does not include the percentage of land in the center zoned for industrial and manufacturing uses.

No

-

Plan does not include the percentage of land in the center zoned for industrial and manufacturing uses.

No

-

Plan does not include the percentage of land in the center zoned for industrial and manufacturing uses.

No

-

Plan does not include the percentage of land in the center zoned for industrial and manufacturing uses.

Paine Field/Boeing Everett

No

-

South Kitsap Industrial Area

No

-

Ballard Interbay

No

Duwamish

Yes

Kent

No

North Tukwila Frederickson Port of Tacoma

Plan does not include the percentage of land in the center zoned for industrial and manufacturing uses. Plan does not include the percentage of land in the center zoned for industrial and manufacturing uses.

Rating Scale: Poorly/not addressed (-) Addressed (+) Well addressed (++) 296

Regional Center Planning in the Central Puget Sound


Regional Center Planning in the Central Puget Sound

297


Regional Manufacturing Industrial Center Plan Checklist: Policy Analysis

Checklist Section: Land Use Checklist Item: #4 – Describe strategies to avoid land uses that are incompatible with manufacturing, industrial uses, such as large retail uses, high concentrations of housing, or non-related office uses (other than as an accessory use).

Policy Scan Method: This item addresses whether the center plan discourages or disallows land uses incompatible with manufacturing and industrial uses, including large retail, housing, or non-related office. To locate language for this item, Land Use and Economic Development elements were skimmed.

This checklist item was considered ‘well addressed’ if a plan includes multiple, specific strategies for preventing or restricting incompatible land uses in manufacturing/industrial centers, is considered ‘addressed’ if a plan includes language restricting incompatible land uses in manufacturing/industrial centers, and is considered ‘not addressed or poorly addressed’ if a plan includes no strategies or language for preventing incompatible land uses in manufacturing/industrial centers.

Key Search Term(s): None.

Findings 1. All of the center plans address this item in some manner; many plans simply state that non-industrial uses should be limited while some plans have more specific strategies. 2. Most center plans simply called for limiting non-industrial uses in the center. Some plans included more specific strategies, such as zoning changes. 3. All eight plans for manufacturing/industrial centers addressed this item in some manner. Examples of good language include: a. Greater Duwamish Manufacturing and Industrial Center Plan (Chapter 3, page 42): “Pol. LU 2.2 Protect industrial lands from encroachment of nonindustrial uses by increasing the distinctions between IGl and IG2 298

Regional Center Planning in the Central Puget Sound


zones. IGl would allow primarily industrial uses and more strictly limit nonindustrial uses, and IG2 would allow a greater range of nonindustrial support uses. Reduce allowable size of commercial and retail uses in both the IGl and IG2 to implement the County-Wide Planning Policies and the Seattle Comprehensive Plan.� b. Everett Comprehensive Plan (Land Use Element, page 27): “Policy 2.3.8 Limit the non-industrial use of industrial lands to uses that are of a type, size and number so as to be complementary to industrial activities, and that do not deplete the supply of industrial land, and do not create potential land use conflicts with industrial activities.� 4. This item is specific to centers. 5. This item is very useful for evaluating planning for manufacturing/industrial centers. The purpose of M&I centers is to concentrate industrial and manufacturing businesses, which do not mix well with other uses, such as residential. Therefore, plans should discourage or disallow residential or other incompatible uses in the center. 6. This item should be retained. Avoiding incompatible uses in centers is one of the most important ways to retain and attract manufacturing and industrial businesses.

Regional Center Planning in the Central Puget Sound

299


Land Use #4: Describe strategies to avoid land uses that are incompatible with manufacturing, industrial uses, such as large retail uses, high concentrations of housing, or non-related office uses (other than as an accessory use). Regional Growth Center

In Plan?

Ballard Interbay

Yes

Duwamish

Yes

Kent

Yes

North Tukwila

Yes

Frederickson

Yes

Port of Tacoma

Yes

Paine Field/Boeing Everett

Yes

South Kitsap Industrial Area

Yes

Rating

Details

+

Calls for discouraging non-industrial uses in the center.

++

Limit the location or expansion of non-industrial uses; calls for strengthening zoning policies to stop encroachment by non-industrial uses.

+

Limits land uses other than manufacturing, high technology, and warehousing in the center.

++

Limits uses unrelated to manufacturing and industry; residential and large retail uses are largely prohibited.

+

States that any changes in zoning should not adversely affect the viability of the center.

++

Calls for zoning restrictions on incompatible land uses in manufacturing/industrial centers.

+

Plan includes policies that limit non-industrial uses of lands in industrial lands. (Language not specific to the designated center.)

+

Most retail uses not allowed in the center; but other uses not mentioned.

Rating Scale: Poorly/not addressed (-) Addressed (+) Well addressed (++)

300

Regional Center Planning in the Central Puget Sound


Regional Manufacturing Industrial Center Plan Checklist: Policy Analysis

Checklist Section: Land Use Checklist Item: #5 – Include design standards that help mitigate aesthetic and other impacts of manufacturing and industrial activities both within the center and on adjacent areas.

Policy Scan Method: This item asks that jurisdictions encourage or require manufacturing and industrial businesses to take steps to lower the impacts of their activities on others, such as nearby residential communities. Policies for this item were located by skimming Land Use and Economic Development elements of plans. Search terms were not used.

The checklist item was considered ‘well addressed’ if a plan includes several specific policies for lessening impact of industrial businesses on neighboring communities, ‘addressed’ if a plan calls for standards to lessen impacts of businesses on neighboring communities, and ‘not addressed or poorly addressed’ if no design standards or strategies for lessening the impact of industrial business activities on neighbors.

Key Search Term(s): None.

Findings 1. All of the suburban jurisdictions with manufacturing/industrial centers addressed this item with language or policies to lessen the impact of businesses on neighbors. The plans for BINMIC and the Duwamish did not include any policies. 2. Most frequently this item was addressed by simply stating that measures should be taken to reduce impacts of industrial businesses, without stating specific types of actions. When specifics were mentioned, they included requiring buffers between industrial areas and residential areas, blight control, and beautification measures. 3. Plans for six of the eight manufacturing/industrial centers addressed this item; the exceptions were the BINMIC and Duwamish neighborhood plans. Examples of thorough policies include: Regional Center Planning in the Central Puget Sound

301


a. Kent Comprehensive Plan (page 4-37): “Goal LU-17: Utilize development standards in the Manufacturing/Industrial Center to create an attractive employment center and to mitigate the impacts of manufacturing and warehouse uses.” b. City of Tukwila Comprehensive Plan (page 130): “11.1.6 Develop and designate appropriate zoning, buffers, mitigation and access opportunities where manufacturing zoning directly abuts or impacts residential zoning so that MIC uses may operate without significant degradation of the residential environment.” 4. Most of the policies were specific to centers, though some (Everett Comprehensive Plan, Tacoma Comprehensive Plan) referred to any industrial developments. 5. This item is a useful evaluation tool for planning of manufacturing/industrial centers. While requiring design standards or other policies to lessen impacts of industrial businesses could be viewed as not supporting these businesses, the policies will likely be necessary in any areas where residential or sensitive environmental areas are nearby. 6. This checklist item should be removed or substantially changed. It could be clarified to state the purpose more clearly – for example, is it primarily to lessen aesthetic and noise impacts on neighboring residential communities, or on sensitive environmental lands? Also, providing examples of types of design standards would be useful. However, it could also be removed, since one goal of the MICs is to limit incompatible land uses (such as residential) from manufacturing and industrial areas.

302

Regional Center Planning in the Central Puget Sound


Land Use #5: Include design standards that help mitigate aesthetic and other impacts of manufacturing and industrial activities both within the center and on adjacent areas. Regional Growth Center

In Plan?

Ballard Interbay

No

Duwamish

No

Kent

Yes

North Tukwila

Yes

Frederickson

Yes

Port of Tacoma

Rating -

No design standards or strategies for lessening the impact of industrial business activities.

-

No design standards or strategies for lessening the impact of industrial business activities.

++

Calls for development standards to mitigate impacts; discourage parking lots next to the street in public transit corridors.

++

Calls for multiple specific policies to mitigate impacts.

++

Requires developments to mitigate impacts on neighboring residential areas and requires buffer areas next to industrial areas.

++

Encourage aesthetic enhancements to industrial businesses, screening of parking and loading areas from view, design compatible with adjacent land uses, and performance standards.

++

Encourage siting and design and standards to minimize impacts on “sensitive land uses� nearby; operation of industrial businesses should minimize impacts on neighboring residential communities.

+

Calls for buffers with rural areas and mitigation of impacts on resource lands.

Yes

Paine Field/Boeing Everett

Yes

South Kitsap Industrial Area

Yes

Details

Rating Scale: Poorly/not addressed (-) Addressed (+) Well addressed (++)

Regional Center Planning in the Central Puget Sound

303


Regional Manufacturing Industrial Center Plan Checklist: Policy Analysis

Checklist Section: Economy Checklist Item: #1 – Describe the economic role of the center within the city and the region.

Policy Scan Method: This item asks whether the plan includes a description of the existing economic role of the center in the city and region. This could include a subjective statement about the economic importance of the center or a quantitative statement about the percentage of jobs or tax revenue in the jurisdiction that is produced in the center. To locate language for this item, the Introduction, Land Use, and Economic Development Elements of plans were skimmed.

This checklist item was considered to be ‘well addressed’ if a full description of the center’s current economic role in the city and region was provided, ‘addressed’ if there is a partial description of economic role, and ‘poorly addressed or not addressed’ if there is no description of the center’s current economic role in the city or region.

Key Search Term(s): None

Findings 1. In general this item was not well addressed in many plans. Most plans did not include thorough descriptions of the current economic role of the center in the city and region. Some plans described the desired future role of the center, rather than the current role. 2. Several plans included descriptive statements about the current or desired future economic role of the center in the city and region, generally as one of very few industrial centers. The more thorough statements included figures on the proportion of jobs and tax revenue for the city found in that center. 3. Four of the eight centers addressed this item, at least in part. Centers that did not address this item are: Kent, North Tukwila, Paine Field, and South Kitsap Industrial Area. An examples of a plan that addressed this item well:

304

Regional Center Planning in the Central Puget Sound


a. Greater Duwamish Manufacturing and Industrial Center Plan (page 31): “As the largest center for industry in the State of Washington, the Greater Duwamish Manufacturing and Industrial Center is unparalleled in its importance to the City of Seattle, the region, and to the entire State of Washington. In addition to having the largest concentration of family wage jobs, the manufacture, processing, and transport of goods also generates enormous tax and export revenues.� 4. By definition of this item, any policy or language describing the role of the Center will be specific to the Center. 5. This checklist item is useful for both existing and new manufacturing/industrial centers. To qualify as a regional MIC, a jurisdiction should demonstrate that the center contains a significant proportion of local and/or regional employment. 6. This checklist item should be retained. To gain designation as a manufacturing/industrial center or plan for the future of an existing center, it’s important to know and explain how important the area is for jobs and revenue within the jurisdiction and the region.

Regional Center Planning in the Central Puget Sound

305


Economy #1: Describe the economic role of the center within the city and the region. Regional Growth Center

In Plan?

Rating

Details

++

Describes the center’s role, including its percentage of jobs in the city and region.

++

Description includes center’s proportion of taxes and employment in the city.

Ballard Interbay

Yes

Duwamish

Yes

Kent

No

-

The role of the center is not described.

North Tukwila

No

-

The role of the center is not described.

Frederickson

Yes

+

Partial statement about the center’s role in the county’s economic strategy.

Port of Tacoma

Yes

+

Description of role but no employment or tax revenue figures.

Paine Field/Boeing Everett

No

South Kitsap Industrial Area

No?

The role of the center is not described. -

The role of the center is not described.

Rating Scale: Poorly/not addressed (-) Addressed (+) Well addressed (++)

306

Regional Center Planning in the Central Puget Sound


Regional Growth Center Plan Checklist: Policy Analysis

Checklist Section: Economy Checklist Item: #2 – Describe strategies to support or maintain manufacturing industrial industries (i.e., workforce, apprenticeships, land value policies, parcel aggregation, etc.).

Policy Scan Method: This item addresses whether plans include policies or strategies for retaining manufacturing and industrial businesses in the center. To locate policies and language for this item, the Economic Development and Land Use Elements of plans were skimmed.

This checklist item was considered ‘well addressed’ if a plan includes several specific strategies to support manufacturing and industrial businesses, ‘addressed’ if a plan included some strategies to support manufacturing and industrial businesses, and ‘poorly addressed or not addressed’ if a plan includes minimal and un-specific strategies to support manufacturing and industrial businesses.

Key Search Term(s): None.

Findings 1. Every manufacturing/industrial center addressed this item at least partially. 2. Strategies to support manufacturing and industrial businesses include: permit and regulation reform; provision of new infrastructure; assistance with parcel aggregation; capital assistance; and assistance with finding skilled workers. 3. All eight center plans had some language addressing this item. Examples of plans with good language include: a. City of Tukwila Comprehensive Plan (page 127): “11.1.1 Support the efforts of existing industries to expand and new industrial businesses to develop in the Manufacturing/Industrial Center by providing them with economic data, information on available development sites, help in

Regional Center Planning in the Central Puget Sound

307


b.

c.

d.

e.

understanding and getting through the permit processes, and other appropriate assistance.” Frederickson Community Plan (page 29): “Continued growth and development within the Frederickson Employment Center will be actively encouraged by ensuring that necessary infrastructure is available and by promoting an efficient and predictable regulatory environment.” Kent Comprehensive Plan (page 12-7): “Policy ED-5.4: Designate a portion of taxes generated from manufacturing activity to be reinvested in infrastructure improvements that support manufacturing.” Greater Duwamish Manufacturing and Industrial Center Plan (page 26): “Provide opportunities for aggregation of parcels for industrial purposes, including street vacations, street ends, temporary uses, and reuse of vacant public property.” Seattle Comprehensive Plan (page 8.16): “BI-P9 Support efforts to locate and attract appropriately skilled workers, particularly from adjacent neighborhoods to fill family-wage jobs in the BINMIC.”

4. Were many of the policies addressing the checklist item specific to Centers? Most policies addressing this item were specific to manufacturing/industrial centers, though some addressed industrial businesses in general (e.g. Tacoma). 5. This item is a useful tool for evaluating planning for a manufacturing/industrial center. Because part of the goal of designating these centers is to retain and attract manufacturing and industrial businesses, jurisdictions should be required to institute strategies for supporting these businesses. 6. This item should be retained in the checklist. Because part of the goal of designating these centers is to retain and attract manufacturing and industrial businesses, jurisdictions should be required to institute strategies for supporting these businesses.

308

Regional Center Planning in the Central Puget Sound


Economy #2: Describe strategies to support or maintain manufacturing industrial industries (i.e., workforce, apprenticeships, land value policies, parcel aggregation, etc.). Regional Growth Center

In Plan?

Ballard Interbay

Yes

Duwamish

Yes

Kent

Rating ++

Plan includes several specific strategies to support manufacturing and industrial businesses in the center (including land assembly, infrastructure, workforce development, and industrial land preservation).

++

Plan includes several specific strategies to support manufacturing and industrial businesses in the center (including infrastructure, land assembly, and permitting).

++

Plan includes several specific strategies to support manufacturing and industrial businesses in the center (including infrastructure, permitting, and regulatory processes).

++

Plan includes several specific strategies to support manufacturing and industrial businesses in the center (including permit assistance, environmental remediation assistance, and permit assistance).

Yes

North Tukwila

Yes

Frederickson

Yes

Port of Tacoma

Yes

-

Paine Field/Boeing Everett

Yes

South Kitsap Industrial Area

Yes

Details

Plan includes minimal and un-specific strategies to support manufacturing and industrial businesses (infrastructure and regulation policy).

++

Plan includes several specific strategies to support manufacturing and industrial businesses in the center (including land assembly and infrastructure).

-

Plan includes minimal and un-specific strategies to support manufacturing and industrial businesses (encourage industrial uses and protect industrial lands with land use policy).

+

Plan included some strategies (provision of infrastructure and commitment to recruit new industries).

Rating Scale: Poorly/not addressed (-) Addressed (+) Well addressed (++)

Regional Center Planning in the Central Puget Sound

309


Regional Manufacturing Industrial Center Plan Checklist: Policy Analysis

Checklist Section: Economy Checklist Item: #3 – Describe key sectors and industry clusters in the center.

Policy Scan Method: This item asks for a listing of several prominent industries that are located in the center. To locate language for this item, Introduction, Land Use, and Economic Development elements were skimmed. Search terms were not used.

This checklist item was considered ‘well addressed’ if a plan includes listing of major industries in the center, ‘addressed’ if a plan includes some mention of major business categories, and ‘poorly addressed or not addressed’ if a plan does not include a description of key sectors and industry clusters located in the manufacturing/industrial center.

Key Search Term(s): None.

Findings 1. None of the center plans fully addressed this item by listing specific types of industries clustered in the sector. Some plans included a very general description of business types, such as “heavy manufacturing.” 2. This item was not addressed comprehensively in any of the center plans. Some plans included a very general description of business types, such as “heavy manufacturing.” Most plans do not extensively address existing conditions in the center, which is where this item would best fit. 3. Four center plans partially addressed this item (BINMIC, Duwamish, North Tukwila, and Frederickson); the other four center plans had no description of major industries. Examples of plans that partially addressed this item include: a. Frederickson Community Plan (Land Use, page 18): “As of 2003, nearly three million square feet of commercial and industrial buildings exist within the Employment Center. The Boeing Company owns over one million square feet of these buildings. Other large manufacturing 310

Regional Center Planning in the Central Puget Sound


operations include Toray Composites, Medallion Foods, and Hardie Board. A wide range of goods are currently produced including aircraft components, carbon composites, construction materials, packaged foods, musical instruments, and fireworks.” b. Greater Duwamish Manufacturing and Industrial Center Plan (Chapter 2, page 16): “There were approximately 60,700 employees located in the M and I Center in 1997. Most of the jobs were in the heavy and light industrial categories, dominated by manufacturing, transportation/ communications/ utilities (TCU) and wholesale trade. Together, these three sectors accounted for 67 percent of total employment. The next largest sectors were services, retail trade and construction, representing approximately 30 percent of total jobs.” c. City of Tukwila Comprehensive Plan (page 126): “The Center is characterized by light to heavy manufacturing uses, storage facilities, office development, small areas of commercial development along arterials, and a few older residences. The southern third of King County International Airport occupies 175 acres of the Center, and there are County plans to redevelop this portion of the airfield as leases lapse.” 4. This item is specific to manufacturing/industrial centers, so any language is therefore specific to centers. 5. This item is useful for evaluating planning for manufacturing/industrial centers. To plan future growth, a knowledge of the existing conditions is necessary, which includes the major industries in the center. 6. This item should be retained. A firm knowledge of existing conditions in the center, including existing industries, is necessary to plan land use, infrastructure, and other public policies to meet regional goals.

Regional Center Planning in the Central Puget Sound

311


Economy #3: Describe key sectors and industry clusters in the center. Regional Growth Center

In Plan?

Ballard Interbay

Yes

Duwamish

Yes

Kent

No

North Tukwila

Yes

Frederickson

Yes

Port of Tacoma

No

Paine Field/Boeing Everett

No

South Kitsap Industrial Area

No

Rating

Details

+

Plan includes general listing of industry categories (fishing and maritime industry, small manufacturing and industrial operations, and high technology).

+

Plan includes listing of top business categories, by employment and by land use. Key sectors or clusters are not mentioned.

-

Plan does not include a description of key sectors and industry clusters located in the manufacturing/industrial center.

+

Plan includes a very general listing of business categories (light to heavy manufacturing uses, storage facilities, office development, commercial development).

+

Plan includes listing of the large manufacturing companies in the center and major goods produced in the center.

-

Plan does not include a description of key sectors and industry clusters located in the manufacturing/industrial center.

-

Plan does not include a description of key sectors and industry clusters located in the manufacturing/industrial center.

-

Plan does not include a description of key sectors and industry clusters located in the manufacturing/industrial center.

Rating Scale: Poorly/not addressed (-) Addressed (+) Well addressed (++)

312

Regional Center Planning in the Central Puget Sound


Regional Manufacturing Industrial Center Plan Checklist: Policy Analysis

Checklist Section: Public Services Checklist Item: #1—Describe local capital plans for infrastructure, as well as their financing (such as sewer, water, gas, electric, telecommunications). Explain strategies to ensure facilities are provided consistent with targeted growth.

Policy Scan Method: This checklist item has two objectives. The first involves a survey of existing facilities and a description of planned facilities and their financing. The second portion of the item addresses the need for concurrency strategies to ensure facilities will keep up with growth. This item would typically be addressed in a public services/capital facilities/utilities section of a subarea plan, if at all. Note: While all Comprehensive Plans have sections on Capital Facilities; this item was searched for specifically in sub-area plans. This item was considered well addressed (++) if the sub-area plan contained a description of existing and planned facilities, their financing, and strategies for ensuring new facilities are provided consistent with growth. It was considered ‘addressed’ if facility issues were discussed, but not in relation to targets. It was considered poorly or not addressed (-) if the sub-area plan did not contain description of existing and planned facilities, their financing, and strategies for ensuring new facilities are provided consistent with growth. Key Search Term(s): Capital, facilities, utilities, sewer, gas, telecommunications, electric, concurrency

Findings 1. This item was addressed by all jurisdictions. Discussion commonly focused around existing conditions and needs, with limited discussion regarding future demand or financing. 2. This checklist item was generally addressed by discussing current needs. Several plans notes that existing infrastructure were capable of supporting the demands of the MIC. 3. All eight centers addressed this checklist item. 4. In general, most of the discussion for this item was center specific. 5. This item is useful for evaluating planning for manufacturing/industrial centers. To plan future growth, a knowledge of the existing conditions of facilities is necessary, especially discussion of how demand will be met in the future.

Regional Center Planning in the Central Puget Sound

313


6. This item should be retained. Manufacturing/Industrial Centers will not be able to function without the provision of appropriate public services. Jurisdictions engages with center’s planning should be encouraged to consider growth targets and meeting future demand, not just accommodating the current needs. Public Services 1.) Describe local capital plans for infrastructure, as well as their financing (such as sewer, water, gas, electric, telecommunications). Explain strategies to ensure facilities are provided consistent with targeted growth Manufacturing/Industrial Center

Rating

Details

Ballard/Interbay

++

States that exisitng infrastructure is sufficient and discusses the use of LID for future financing.

Duwamish

+

Discussion of needs, but no discussion of targets.

Kent

+

Discussion of needs, but no discussion of targets.

North Tukwila

+

States that existing facilities can accommodate the need, but no discussion of targets.

Frederickson

+

Discusses current conditions and disruptions related to construction.

Port of Tacoma

+

Discussion of needs and concurrency.

Paine Field

+

States that the existing infrastructure is sufficient.

South Kitsap

++

Best of the MIC plans. Explicit discussion of current and future needs.

Rating Scale: Poorly/not addressed (-) Addressed (+) Well addressed (++)

314

Regional Center Planning in the Central Puget Sound


Regional Manufacturing Industrial Center Plan Checklist: Policy Analysis

Checklist Section: Transportation Checklist Item: #1— Describe the transportation networks to and within the manufacturing industrial center, and plans to identify and address deficiencies.

Policy Scan Method: This checklist item has two objectives. The first involves detailing the existing transportation system for freight users, while the second considers any deficiencies or limits within the system. Given the damage heavy vehicles can cause on roadways (as compared to passenger vehicles), it is necessary to consider the maintenance and preservation needs of the transportation system for Manufacturing and Industrial Centers more so than for other areas. This item was considered well addressed (++) if the sub-area plan contained a description of existing transportation and freight network, as well as its deficiencies. It was considered ‘addressed’ if a plan only addressed the transportation and freight network. It was considered poorly or not addressed (-) if the sub-area plan did not address the transportation network or deficiencies. Key Search Term(s): None

Findings 1. This item was addressed by all jurisdictions. Discussion commonly focused around existing conditions and needs, particularly in terms of maintenance and preservation. 2. This checklist item was generally addressed by discussing the existing transportation system and current needs. 3. All eight centers addressed this checklist item. 4. In general, most of the discussion for this item was center specific. 5. This item is useful for evaluating planning for manufacturing/industrial centers. This perhaps is the most crucial of the checklist items aside from land use and protection of the industrial and manufacturing areas, because, without the ability to move goods, the manufacturing and industrial businesses would not be able to function. 6. This item should be retained. Manufacturing/Industrial Centers would not be able to thrive or continue their function without effective transportation

Regional Center Planning in the Central Puget Sound

315


networks. Additional discussion on deficiencies would help target the most significant investments necessary to allow the centers to thrive.

Transportation 1.) Describe the transportation networks to and within the manufacturing industrial center, and plans to identify and address deficiencies Manufacturing/Industrial Center

Rating

Details

Ballard/Interbay

+

Particular discussion of congestion and laoding areas.

Duwamish

++

Discussion of pavement needs and conflicts with other modes.

Kent

++

Discussion of existing conditions and facility needs.

North Tukwila

++

States that existing facilties can fully serve the center.

Frederickson

++

Port of Tacoma

++

Discussion of existing conditions and facility needs.

Paine Field

++

Discussion of existing conditions and facility needs.

South Kitsap

++

Discusses funding, partnerships and the TIP.

Discussion of TIP for improvements.

Rating Scale: Poorly/not addressed (-) Addressed (+) Well addressed (++)

316

Regional Center Planning in the Central Puget Sound


Regional Manufacturing Industrial Center Plan Checklist: Policy Analysis

Checklist Section: Transportation Checklist Item: #2— Describe strategies that address freight movement, including local and regional distribution.

Policy Scan Method: This checklist item has two objectives. The first involves detailing the existing movement of goods (the origins in the Manufacturing/Industrial Centers as well as destinations outside the centers), while the second considers a specific type of movement focusing on the distribution of goods. This item was considered well addressed (++) if the sub-area plan contained a description of movements and distribution. It was considered ‘addressed’ if a plan only addressed one of the two topics. It was considered poorly or not addressed (-) if the sub-area plan did not address either topic. Key Search Term(s): None

Findings 1. This item was addressed by six of the eight center plans. Discussion commonly focused around specific movements, and specific actions to improve movements on a set of corridors for freight. Direct discussion of distribution was less common. 2. This checklist item was generally addressed by discussing corridors important for movement of goods in and through the centers. 3. Six of the eight centers addressed this checklist item. Paine Field and the South Kitsap Industrial Area did not discuss this topic. 4. In general, most of the discussion for this item was center specific. 5. This item is useful for evaluating planning for manufacturing/industrial centers. Understanding of how the demand for good movement is translated into specific truck or rail trips, and where those trips are located on the system can help identify needs and provide clarity about the importance of specific investments. 6. This item should be retained. Manufacturing/Industrial Centers would not be able to thrive or continue their function without effective transportation networks. Understanding which part of the transportation system are most crucial for a particular center aids in targeting investments. Regional Center Planning in the Central Puget Sound

317


Transportation 2.) Describe strategies that address freight movement, including local and regional distribution Manufacturing/Industrial Center

Rating

Details

Ballard/Interbay

++

Discussion of maintaining routes, allocating space and considerations for loading.

Duwamish

++

Inclusion of goals and policies that directly address both checklist items.

Kent

++

Direct discussion of implementation of action to facilitate movements and distribution.

North Tukwila

++

Inclusion of goals and policies that directly address both checklist items.

Frederickson

+

Discussion of improvements to the rail system.

Port of Tacoma

++

Inclusion of goals and policies that directly address both checklist items.

Paine Field

-

No discussion of either component of this checklist item.

South Kitsap

-

No discussion of either component of this checklist item.

Rating Scale: Poorly/not addressed (-) Addressed (+) Well addressed (++)

318

Regional Center Planning in the Central Puget Sound


Regional Manufacturing Industrial Center Plan Checklist: Policy Analysis

Checklist Section: Transportation Checklist Item: #3— Describe strategies that address freight movement and employee commuting (such as by encouraging modes such as fixed-route and high-capacity transit, rail, trucking facilities, or waterway, as appropriate).

Policy Scan Method: This checklist item has two objectives. The first involves easing the movement of goods, while the second considers how employees of businesses in the center arrive to work. Given the reliance of trucks to move goods, strategies that can relieve passenger traffic facilitate improvements for goods movement. This item was considered well addressed (++) if the sub-area plan contained a description of goods movement improvement strategies and strategies for employee trip reductions. It was considered ‘addressed’ if a plan only addressed one of the two topics, or if a plan discussed the need or current conditions without discussing any specific initiatives. It was considered poorly or not addressed (-) if the sub-area plan did not address either topic. Key Search Term(s): None

Findings 1. This item was addressed by seven of the eight center plans. Discussion commonly focused around ensuring good access to transit for employees of center businesses. 2. This checklist item was generally addressed by discussing the need to provide alternatives to single occupancy vehicles, and often discussing specific approaches such as commute trip reduction programs. 3. Seven of the eight centers addressed this checklist item. The Frederisckson plan did not discuss this topic. 4. In general, most of the discussion for this item was center specific. 5. This item is useful for evaluating planning for manufacturing/industrial centers. Any capacity that could be added to the freight network,by removing passenger vehicles will improve freight movements. 6. This item should be retained. Manufacturing/Industrial Centers would witness improved roadway conditions if there were less modal conflicts with passenger vehicles. There would be secondary benefits to center business employees from Regional Center Planning in the Central Puget Sound

319


commuting by transit and non-motorized modes, as well as the associated environmental benefits. Transportation 3.) Describe strategies that address freight movement and employee commuting (such as by encouraging modes such as fixed-route and high-capacity transit, rail, trucking facilities, or waterway, as appropriate) Manufacturing/Industrial Center

Rating

Details

Ballard/Interbay

+

Discusses better linkages for pedestrians and transit.

Duwamish

++

Discussion of CTR, Metro and light rail.

Kent

++

Connection to Sound Transit and bicycle facilities.

North Tukwila

+

Discussion of reducing the reliance on single occupancy vehicles.

Frederickson

-

No discussion on this topic.

Port of Tacoma

++

Discussion of connection to major transit facilities.

Paine Field

++

Discussion of connection to major transit facilities, including by employees with special needs.

South Kitsap

++

Discussion of TDM and CTR

Rating Scale: Poorly/not addressed (-) Addressed (+) Well addressed (++)

320

Regional Center Planning in the Central Puget Sound


Regional Manufacturing Industrial Center Plan Checklist: Policy Analysis

Checklist Section: Transportation Checklist Item: #4— Address relationships to regional high-capacity transit (including bus rapid transit, commuter rail, light rail, and express bus) and local transit by working with transit agencies.

Policy Scan Method: This checklist item requires that centers address coordination with transit agencies to develop, improve or expand local and regional transit service. It was, therefore, understood that policies must mention working with agencies in order to meet the criteria of addressing this checklist item. This includes policy that addresses relationships with any local and regional transit agencies or government transit agencies and authorities. The key search terms included the major transit providers and programs, as well as various specific transit types. Any chapters specific to transportation were also scanned for policies missed by the search.

Centers were considered to ‘well address’ this checklist item if they specifically state agencies and authorities with which coordination is necessary to develop local or regional transit systems or many strong policies without mention of specific transit agencies. Those centers determined to ‘address’ the item either mention transit agencies broadly or mention specific agencies but do not provide much detail.

Key Search Term(s): transit agencies; Metro; METRO; Sound Transit; LINK; RapidRide; HCT; express bus; high-capacity; regional; rail; light rail; county transit; local transit

Findings 1. This item was addressed by six of the eight center plans. Discussion commonly focused around where and when additional transit service would be useful. 2. This checklist item was generally addressed by discussing the need for additional transit service. 3. Six of the eight centers addressed this checklist item. The Ballard/Interbay and South Kitsap plans did not discuss this topic.

Regional Center Planning in the Central Puget Sound

321


4. In general, most of the discussion for this item was center specific. 5. This item is useful for evaluating planning for manufacturing/industrial centers. This checklist item operationalizes an earlier item that describes a need. This item shows the efficacy of implementation. 6. This item should be retained. Direct coordination with transit agencies provides direct steps for implementing actions that would benefit center business employees. Transportation 4.) Address relationships to regional high-capacity transit (including bus rapid transit, commuter rail, light rail, and express bus) and local transit by working with transit agencies Manufacturing/Industrial Center

Rating

Details

Ballard/Interbay

-

This topic is not discussed.

Duwamish

+

Specific discussion regarding Metro's Ryerson base.

Kent

++

States that the center's employees already use all of the existing transit capacity, that transit service is at the wrong time of day, and steps to increase transit to the center.

North Tukwila

+

Discussion of what should happen, but no discussion of coordination with other agencies.

Frederickson

++

Coordination with Sound Transit.

Port of Tacoma

+

Considerable, non-MIC specific discussion.

Paine Field

+

Some discussion, with an assumption that HCT would not be feasible within the plans time horizon.

South Kitsap

-

No discussion.

Rating Scale: Poorly/not addressed (-) Addressed (+) Well addressed (++)

322

Regional Center Planning in the Central Puget Sound


Regional Manufacturing Industrial Center Plan Checklist: Policy Analysis

Checklist Section: Transportation Checklist Item: #5— Develop mode split goals.

Policy Scan Method: This item asks that goals are developed addressing mode split goals for and/or around the center. To expand the scope of the analysis, policies not directly developing mode split goals were able to meet the criteria if they were directly or indirectly beneficial to this end. It was understood that developing mode-split goals could be addressed by: directly stating mode split goals; Commute Trip Reduction programs that encouraged transit use; expanding transit programs; and other policy supporting alternative commute modes. The key search terms were designed to both capture the various ways to write ‘mode split’ and policy encouraging alternative modes of transportation. These words were searched for throughout each document and individual elements of plans containing policy were often scanned through. Centers found to have stated mode split goals were considered to ‘well address’ the item. Any centers that either mention developing those goals or have policies supportive of alternative forms of transportation were considered to ‘address’ the item.

Key Search Term(s): mode split; mode-split; modal split; modal-split; mode goals; commute; commute trip reduction; CTR; alternative commute modes; transit; non-SOV

Findings 1. No centers addressed this item. While some centers mentioned the need for CTR or TDM programs, none discussed specific targets or establishing them. 2. This checklist item was not addressed by any jurisdiction. 3. None of the eight centers addressed this checklist item. 4. This item is useful for evaluating planning for manufacturing/industrial centers. It would provide clear direction on how to improve the center’s planning goals and potentially improve conditions for the movement of goods.

Regional Center Planning in the Central Puget Sound

323


5. This item should be retained. This checklist item helps operationalize a centers goal of improving access for employees and improving conditions for the movement of goods.

Transportation 5.) Develop mode split goals Manufacturing/Industrial Center

Rating

Details

Ballard/Interbay

-

No discussion

Duwamish

-

No discussion

Kent

-

No discussion

North Tukwila

-

No discussion

Frederickson

-

No discussion

Port of Tacoma

-

No discussion

Paine Field

-

No discussion

South Kitsap

-

No discussion

Rating Scale: Poorly/not addressed (-) Addressed (+) Well addressed (++)

324

Regional Center Planning in the Central Puget Sound


Appendix C: Planning documents consulted

Table C-1. Planning documents consulted

Stand-alone sub-area plan

Element in comprehensive plan

Comprehensive Plan

Other plan

Regional Growth Centers Transportation Comprehensive Plan (2009) Auburn

Auburn Downtown Plan (2001)

Bellevue Downtown

Final Report on Downtown Plan Update (2003)

Bothell – Canyon Park

Bremerton

Downtown Regional Center Sub Area Plan (2007)

Downtown Burien Master Plan Phase II (2002) Burien Town Square (2000) Regional Center Planning in the Central Puget Sound

Auburn Comprehensive Plan (2009)

Municipal Code 18.29.060, Development standards; 18.29.070 Design standards

Downtown Subarea Plan (2010)

Bellevue Comprehensive Plan (2010)

Municipal Code 20.25A, Downtown

Canyon Park Subarea Plan (2004)

Bothell Comprehensive Plan (2006)

Municipal Code 12.48, Canyon Park Subarea Regulations

Bremerton Comprehensive Plan (2004)

Municipal Code, Shaping Bremerton 6. Development Standards

Burien Comprehensive Plan (2011)

Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities Plan (2004) Municipal Code 19.47, Design Standards Downtown Burien Handbook (2001) 325


Everett

Everett Downtown Plan (2006)

2025 Comprehensive Plan (2011) Federal Way Comprehensive Plan (2010)

Design Guidelines (2003)

Kent Comprehensive Plan (2004)

Design and Construction Standards (2009)

Kirkland Comprehensive Plan (2010)

Municipal Code, Chapter 92 Design Regulations

Lakewood Comprehensive Plan (2000)

Municipal Code 18A.50, Development Standards

2020 Comprehensive Plan (2011)

Design Guidelines (2005)

Puyallup – Downtown

Downtown Revitalization Neighborhood Plan (2009)

Puyallup Comprehensive Plan (2009)

Design Guidelines (2006)

Puyallup – South Hill

South Hill Neighborhood Plan Policies (2009)

Puyallup Comprehensive Plan (2009)

Redmond – Downtown

Urban Centers Element (2009) 3

Redmond Comprehensive Plan (2010)

Municipal Code 21.58, Design Standards

Redmond – Overlake

Urban Centers Element 1 (2009)

Redmond Comprehensive Plan (2010)

Overlake Village Street Design Guidelines (2011)

Renton Comprehensive

Municipal Code 4-3-100, Urban Design

City Center (2010)

Federal Way

Kent

Kent Downtown Strategic Action Plan (2005) Totem Lake Neighborhood Element (2010)

Kirkland – Totem Lake

Lakewood

Lynnwood

Renton

3

City Center Sub-Area Plan (2007)

City Center Community

The Redmond Urban Centers Element contains two sections, one for the Downtown districts and one for the Overlake sub-area.

326

Regional Center Planning in the Central Puget Sound


Plan (2011)

SeaTac

City Center Plan (2010)

Urban Village Element (2005) 4

Plan (2009)

Regulations

SeaTac Comprehensive Plan (2011)

Municipal Code 15.36, Design Standards for high capacity transit facilities; 15.35 Special standards for the city center

Seattle Comprehensive Plan (2009)

Municipal Code 23.49, Downtown Zoning

Seattle Comprehensive Plan (2009)

Capitol Hill Neighborhood Design Guidelines (2005)

Neighborhood Element – Belltown (2005) 5 Neighborhood Element – Denny Triangle (2005) Seattle – Downtown

Neighborhood Element – ChinatownInternational District (2005) Neighborhood Element – Commercial Core (2005) Neighborhood Element – Pioneer Square (2005)

Seattle – First Hill/Capitol Hill

Urban Village Element 2 (2005)

The Seattle Urban Villages Element applies to all four of Seattle’s urban village categories, which include the six urban centers (the equivalent of Regional Growth Centers) and two Manufacturing/Industrial Centers. The policies apply to the Regional Growth Centers though they are not specific to the context or geography of any particular center.

4

The Seattle Neighborhood Element contains policies specific to neighborhoods. Designated Regional Growth Centers are often broken down into separate urban centers, such as the five neighborhoods that comprise the Downtown Regional Growth Center. This review did not consider them to be “sub-area plans.”

5

Regional Center Planning in the Central Puget Sound

327


Neighborhood Element – Capitol Hill (2005) Neighborhood Element – First Hill (2005) Urban Village Element 2 (2005)

Seattle Comprehensive Plan (2009)

Municipal Code 23.71, Northgate Overlay District

Seattle - Northgate Neighborhood Element – Northgate (2005) Urban Village Element 2 (2005) Seattle – South Lake Union

Neighborhood Element – South Lake Union (2005) Urban Village Element 2 (2005)

Seattle – University

Seattle Comprehensive Plan (2009)

Seattle Comprehensive Plan (2009)

University Community Design Guidelines (2000)

Seattle Comprehensive Plan (2009)

Uptown Neighborhood Design Guidelines (2009)

Neighborhood Element – University Community Urban Center (2005) Urban Village Element 2 (2005)

Seattle – Uptown Queen Anne Neighborhood Element – Queen Anne (2005)

328

Silverdale

Silverdale Sub-Area Plan (2006)

Kitsap County Comprehensive Plan (2006)

Tacoma – Downtown

Downtown Element (2008)

Tacoma Comprehensive Plan (2011)

Regional Center Planning in the Central Puget Sound


Tacoma – Tacoma Mall

Tukwila

Tukwila Urban Center Plan (Draft, 2009)

Neighborhood Element – South Tacoma Neighborhood (2008) 6

Tacoma Comprehensive Plan (2011)

Tukwila Urban Center Element (2008)

Tukwila Comprehensive Plan (2008)

Manufacturing/Industrial Centers

Ballard/Interbay

Ballard Interbay Northend Manufacturing and Industrial Center Neighborhood Plan (1998)

Urban Village Element 2 (2005)

Duwamish

Greater Duwamish Manufacturing and Industrial Center Plan (1999)

Urban Village Element 2 (2005)

Frederickson

Frederickson Community Plan (2003)

Kent Comprehensive Plan (2004)

Kent

North Tukwila

Pierce County Comprehensive Plan

Background Report for new MIC plan (2011)

City of Tukwila Comprehensive Plan (2008)

Paine Field/ Boeing Everett

2025 Comprehensive Plan (2011)

Port of Tacoma

Tacoma Comprehensive Plan

The South Tacoma Neighborhood portion of Tacoma’s Neighborhood Element contains policies that apply to the Tacoma Mall area as well as other South Tacoma regions, but it is not a sub-area plan containing policies specific to the Tacoma Mall area.

6

Regional Center Planning in the Central Puget Sound

329


(2011) South Kitsap Industrial Area

330

SKIA Sub Area Plan (2003)

Regional Center Planning in the Central Puget Sound


Appendix D: Notes from academic literature review

Author, Year: Casello, 2007 Article: Transit competitiveness in polycentric metropolitan regions Region Analyzed: Philadelphia, PA Number of Centers Identified in Region: 21 Centers Defined as: “areas with transit-supportive land uses, defined as ‘activity centers,’ areas of highdensity employment and trip attraction” (19). “locations of concentrated employment outside of urban cores” (20). Methods: This article does not develop a new method, but refers to a method previously developed by Casello and Smith (2006) that “identified 21 suburban activity centers in the Philadelphia metropolitan area” (20). Author, Year: Chen & Mcknight, 2007 Article: Does the built Environment make a difference? Additional evidence from the daily activity and travel behaviour of homemakers living in New York City and suburbs Region Analyzed: New York Number of Centers Identified in Region: n/a (3 density classifications) Centers Defined As: n/a Methods: n/a Notes: This article does not actually define centers. Authors classify areas according to density, without recognizing centers within various study areas. Author, Year: Margulis, 2007 Article: Commercial Sub-markets in Suburban Cuyahoga County, Ohio Region Analyzed: Cuyahoga County (Cleveland), OH Centers Idenfied in Region: 70 Census Tracts were identified as “high-intensity,” aggregated into 3 employment clusters and various “scattered” high-intensity areas (excludes downtown Cleveland). Centers Defined As: “Suburban sub-centres” Not defined beyond “high-intensity commercial.” Methods: Looked at the value of commercial space as a proxy for the clustering of commercial/employment activity.

Author, Year: Redfearn, 2007

Regional Center Planning in the Central Puget Sound

331


Article: The topography of metropolitan employment: Identifying centers of employment in a polycentric urban area Region Analyzed: Los Angeles Centers Identified: 41 in CMSA Centers Defined As: areas of concentrated employment within a polycentric metropolitan area. Methods: Complex statistical analysis using nonparametric regressions. Notes: Redfearn’s model allows a determination of a precise shape for a center. However, for planning purposes, boundaries will most likely be defined according to local jurisdictional boundaries. Author, Year: Buliung & Kanaroglou, 2006 Article: Urban Form and Household Activity-Travel Behavior Region Analyzed: Portland, OR Centers Identified: 38 Centers Defined As: a hierarchy of activity centers Methods: Used centers as designated by Metro. Author, Year: Casello & Smith, 2006 Article: Transportation Activity Centers for Urban Transportation Analysis Region Analyzed: Philadelphia Centers Identified: 21 Centers Defined As: multiple concentrations of activities occurring outside of traditional urban cores Methods: A modification of Guiliano and Small’s methods (as adopted by Bogart and Ferry). Modified in the following ways: 1. Three “levels” of centers at various thresholds defined; 2. Slight modification to “clustering” of zones; 3. Addition of trip-attracting strength of the disaggregate employment types in the centers. Instead of considering number and density of jobs, they consider equivalent “mean tripattracting” jobs. Notes: Authors admit that “robustness of this approach depends first on the availability of data to compute MTA [mean trip-attracting] indices. Author, Year: Cervero & Duncan, 2006 Article: Which Reduces Vehicle Travel More: Jobs-Housing Balance or Retail-Housing Mixing? Region Analyzed: San Francisco Centers Identified: n/a (level of analysis was households) Centers Defined As: “areas rich in white collar jobs” (480) Methods: Considered number of jobs within 4 miles of household residence.

332

Regional Center Planning in the Central Puget Sound


Author, Year: Greenwald, 2006 Article: The relationship between land use and intrazonal trip making behaviors: Evidence and implications Region Analyzed: Portland Centers Identified: n/a (spatial unit of analysis was TAZ’s: Transportation Analysis Zones) Centers Defined As: n/a Methods: Did not identify centers Author, Year: Leslie & HUallacháin, 2006 Article: Polycentric Phoenix Region Analyzed: Phoenix Centers Identified: 6 (including CBD) Centers Defined As: suburban agglomerations of assorted offices, retailers, and entertainment and accommodation establishments. Methods: Nearest-neighbor analysis used to “quantify patterns in distances between establishments,” (161) then looked at “intersectoral spatial associations of establishments” (161). However, these methods were not used to identify centers, but rather to study clustering of industries within centers. Their actual method to identify centers was merely to modify the centers identified by Rex (2000) “on the basis of fieldwork and our establishments’ quadrat counts” (180), as well as for other unstated reasons. Author, Year: Musterd, Bontje, & Ostendorf, 2006 Article: The changing role of old and new urban centers: the case of the Amsterdam region Region Analyzed: Amsterdam Centers Identified: “at least five subcenters can be distinguished in the region.” (367) Centers Defined As: n/a no technical definition provided Methods: descriptive analysis Notes: Article more concerned with answering the question of whether multinucleation has helped or hindered the CBD. No robust methods developed for identifying subcenters. Author, Year: McMillen, 2004 Article: Employment Densities, Spatial Autocorrelation, and Subcenters in large metropolitan areas Region Analyzed: 62 large metropolitan areas Centers Identified: Not stated. Presumably many. Centers Defined As: a concentration of firms large enough to have significant effects on the overall spatial distribution of population, employment, and land prices.

Regional Center Planning in the Central Puget Sound

333


Methods: n/a. Did not develop new method. Used subcenters already identified in McMillan and Smith (2003) to examine “spatial distribution of employment density within…metropolitan areas” (226) -distance between subcenters and CBD. Author, Year: Krizek, 2003 Article: Residential Relocation and Changes in Urban Travel: Does Neighborhood-Scale Urban Form Matter? Region Analyzed: Seattle (Central Puget Sound) Centers Identified: n/a (Did not identify centers. Classified grid sections of entire region as high or low “neighborhood access”) Centers Defined As: Areas of high neighborhood access Methods: No new methods for identifying centers. Methods involved measuring travel behavior in areas of high versus low neighborhood access. Author, Year: McMillen & S. C. Smith, 2003 Article: The number of subcenters in large urban areas Region Analyzed: 62 Metropolitan regions Centers Identified: From none to 46 per region (8 to 14 in Seattle region, depending on significance level) Centers Defined As: areas of high employment concentration Methods: Some slight modifications of McMillen’s (2001) methods for identifying centers. Also develops a regression model to account for the variation in subcenters by region, concluding that nearly 80% of the variation in the number of subcenters is accounted for by population and commuting costs. Author, Year: D. McMillen, 2003 Article: Identifying Sub-centres Using Contiguity Matrices Region Analyzed: Atlanta, Washington DC, Boston, New York, Philadelphia Centers Identified: various depending on window size and significance level Centers Defined As: areas with significantly higher employment density than neighbouring sites. Methods: Hybrid methods including minimum thresholds and “contiguity matrices.” Notes: Notes that small tract sizes lead to more sub centers. Large tracts will smooth employment densities and mask local differentiation. Author, Year: Mcmillen, 2003 Article: Employment Subcenters and Home Price Appreciation Rates in Metropolitan Chicago Region Analyzed: Chicago Centers Identified: 13 in 1980, 15 in 1990 and 32 in 2000. Projected 24 in 2020 “as several subcenters merge and the average subcenter size increases” (5).

334

Regional Center Planning in the Central Puget Sound


Centers Defined As: a set of contiguous tracts with significantly higher employment densities than surrounding areas. Methods: Did not develop new methods for identifying centers. Used subcenters identified by McMillen and Lester (2003) and analyzed housing prices in relation to distance from centers. McMillen and Lester used the Guiliano and Small method. Author, Year: Modarres, 2003 Article: Polycentricity and transit service Region Analyzed: Los Angeles County Centers Identified: 124 first order clusters and 18 second-order clusters Centers Defined As: concentrated nodal agglomerations Methods: Used the “Kriging” function in GIS, as well as a nearest neighbor hierarchical (NNH) analysis Notes: On using a simple method: “What appears to be the common theme of most published research on employment subcenters is the selection of a methodology that is intuitive and the result of which is commonly understood. In the end, the identified subcenters need to appear acceptable to planners and policymakers within each urban setting. The results, therefore, need to match the empirical reality of employment centers to be accepted. From that standpoint, less complicated measures yield the best results.” Author, Year: Craig & Ng, 2001 Article: Using Quantile Smoothing Splines to Identify Employment Subcenters in a Multicentric Urban Area Region Analyzed: Harris County, Tx (Houston) Centers Identified: 7 Centers Defined As: Authors are seeking to provide a statistical definition. Centers are areas meeting a set of statistical criteria, including gross employment density and distance from CBD. Methods: Used “employment density quantile splines” Author, Year: D McMillen, 2001 Article: Nonparametric Employment Subcenter Identification Region Analyzed: Chicago, Dallas, Houston, Los Angeles, San Francisco, and New Orleans Centers Identified: 33 in Chicago, 28 in Dallas, 25 in Houston, 19 in Los Angeles, 2 in New Orleans, 22 in San Francisco Centers Defined As: a site (1) with significantly larger employment density than nearby locations that has (2) a significant effect on the overall employment density function. an area with an employment density that is significantly higher than would be expected based only on its distance from the CBD. Methods: A Two-stage process: The first stage identifies candidate subcenters as significant positive residuals in a smoothed employment density function. Subcenters are those sites that provide significant

Regional Center Planning in the Central Puget Sound

335


explanatory power in the second-stage, semiparametric employment density function estimation. In other words, comparing areas of unusually high employment with what you would expect employment to be in an area, according to distance from the CBD. Author, Year: Wang, 2000 Article: Modeling Commuting Patterns in Chicago in a GIS Environment: A Job Accessibility Perspective Region Analyzed: Chicago Centers Identified: 15 Centers Defined As: job subcenters Methods: GIS trend surface modeling. Identified job centers by utilizing both the employment choropleth and contour maps with reference to existing literature on Chicago’s employment centers (123). Author, Year: Bassok, 2009 Article: The Effectiveness of Regional Growth Center Policy at Increasing Transit Use Region Analyzed: Minneapolis Centers Identified: 10 Centers Defined As: employment sub-centers meeting employment density and total employment thresholds. Methods: Followed Giuliano and Small in using threshold cut-offs. However, as the study was comparing designated centers in Puget Sound with centers in Minneapolis, the aggregate center characteristics for the Puget Sound centers were used (105). Definitions of D and E (density and total employment) were “based on the targets set by policy through Vision 2020 and the existing conditions for the centers in terms of total employment and employment density in 1990” (105). Author used minimum values for D and E of existing Puget Sound centers, adjusting D upward “until no block groups that were not designated as centers through policy emerge by the defined D and E cutoffs” (125). Author, Year: Moudon & Hess, 2000 Article: Suburban clusters: The nucleation of multifamily housing in suburban areas of the central Puget Sound Region Analyzed: Central Puget Sound Centers Identified: 85 clusters, 12 dense clusters Centers Defined As: Clusters of multi-family developments Methods: Supplemented data at the census block-group level with aerial photography to determine urban form

336

Regional Center Planning in the Central Puget Sound

Regional Center Planning in the Central Puget Sound  

This is the final product of the second-year Master of Urban Planning studio. Along with five other graduate students, I analyzed the planni...