Transportation Policy Board Thursday, September 14, :30 AM 11:30 AM PSRC Board Room 1011 Western Avenue, Suite 500, Seattle, WA 98104

Transcription

1 Transportation Policy Board Thursday, September 14, :30 AM 11:30 AM PSRC Board Room 1011 Western Avenue, Suite 500, Seattle, WA The meeting will be streamed live over the internet at 1. Call to Order (9:30) - Councilmember Rob Johnson, Chair 2. Report of the Chair 3. Communications and Public Comment 4. Staff Report 5. Consent Agenda (9:50) a. Approve Minutes of Transportation Policy Board Meeting held July 13, 2017 b. Routine Amendment to the Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) c. Recommend Authorizing a Change in Transportation 2040 Project Status for Two WSDOT Projects d. Recommend Certification of Comprehensive Plans for the City of Seattle and King County e. Recommend Full Certification of the Comprehensive Plan for the City of Lakewood 6. Action Item (9:55) a. Recommend Approval of the 2017 Adjustment of PSRC's Federal Transit Administration Funds and Distribution of Funds to the FTA Regional Contingency List of Projects -- Sarah Gutschow, PSRC 7. Discussion Item (10:05) - Transportation 2040 Update a. Transportation 2040 System Performance -- Preliminary Results -- Ben Bakkenta and Craig Helmann, PSRC 8. Discussion Item (11:05) a. Regional Centers Framework Update -- Liz Underwood-Bultmann, PSRC 9. Next Meeting: October 12, 2017, 9:30-11:30 a.m., PSRC Board Room Major Topics for October: -- Transportation 2040 Update - Climate Change - Transportation 2040 Plan Elements 10. Adjourn (11:30) Board members please submit proposed amendments and materials prior to the meeting for distribution. Organizations/individuals may submit information for distribution. Send to Cheryl Saltys, csaltys@psrc.org; fax ; or mail. Sign language and communication material in alternate formats can be arranged given sufficient notice by calling (206) or TTY Relay 711. 中文 Chinese, 한국 Korean, Русский Russian, Español Spanish, Tagalog, Tiếng việt Vietnamese Call

2 5.a MINUTES OF THE TRANSPORTATION POLICY BOARD July 13, 2017 [To watch a video of the meeting and hear the full discussion, please go to: CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 9:33 a.m. by Councilmember Rob Johnson, Chair. REPORT OF THE CHAIR Chair Johnson welcomed two new alternates to the board: Peter Heffernan, King County, representing the Transportation Operators Committee Patty Rubstello, WSDOT He also welcomed two students introduced by Dr. Ngozi Oleru, who were shadowing her at this meeting to learn how transportation relates to health and how government works. COMMUNICATIONS AND PUBLIC COMMENT There were no public comments. STAFF REPORT Robin Mayhew, Long-Range Planning Program Manager: Provided additional information about two items on the Consent Agenda: item 5b, a Routine Amendment to the Transportation Improvement Program (TIP); and item 5d, a recommendation for full certification of the Pierce County Comprehensive Plan. Informed the board that staff is gearing up to prepare for the 2018 project selection process and will be seeking volunteers to serve on a Project Selection Task Force. The Task Force will prepare a recommendation on the Policy Framework for PSRC s Federal Funds for submittal to the Transportation Policy Board in January. CONSENT AGENDA a. Approval of Minutes of Transportation Policy Board Meeting held June 8, 2017 b. Routine Amendment to the Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) Doc ID 2048 Packet Pg. 2

3 5.a c. Recommend Approval of Hopelink Request to Carry Forward a Portion of Funding from the Biennium Mobility Management King County Project for Use in the Biennium d. Recommend Full Certification of the Comprehensive Plan for Pierce County ACTION: The motion was made by Commissioner Rob Gelder and seconded by Councilmember Dino Davis to adopt the Consent Agenda. The motion passed. TRANSPORTATION 2040 UPDATE FINANCIAL STRATEGY Transportation investments in the central Puget Sound region between 2018 and 2040 are estimated at $198 billion, while projected revenues from current law sources total approximately $157 billion $41 billion short of the identified need. The Transportation 2040 Finance Working Group has met since November 2016 to review financial assumptions and emerging issues in transportation, and how to address the funding gap. Chair Johnson thanked the Transportation Policy Board members of the T2040 Finance Working Group for their work on developing recommendations for an updated financial strategy for funding programs and projects in the Transportation 2040 plan: Councilmember Bek Ashby, Rob Berman, Commissioner Rob Gelder, Jesse Hamashima, Councilmember Kathy Lambert, Mayor Pro Tem Debora Nelson, Commissioner Hester Serebrin, and Mayor Becky Erickson, who served as Chair. Vice Chair Erickson provided background information and explained how the Working Group arrived at its recommendations, which include changes to some current revenue sources as well as adding new sources of revenue. She emphasized that the recommendations are not an implementation guide but rather a menu of opportunities, many of which will require legislation. Ben Bakkenta, Integrated Planning Program Manager, reminded the board of the purpose of the Financial Strategy, reviewed input from the June 8 board engagement session on the T2040 Financial Strategy, and presented updated revenue and expenditure estimates. He then walked the board through the Finance Working Group s recommendations. ACTION: The motion was made by Councilmember Bek Ashby and seconded by Commissioner Don Johnson to direct staff to proceed with identified investments and financial assumptions for modeling and analysis. Staff will return to the board in fall 2017 with a preliminary system performance report for review. Pending the results of the analysis, the recommendations will become the basis for balancing the Financial Strategy for the draft updated 2018 Transportation 2040 Plan, scheduled for release in December 2017 for public review and comment. The motion passed unanimously. TRANSPORTATION 2040 UPDATE STATE FACILITIES ACTION PLAN As part of the work program for the Transportation 2040 update, the Transportation Policy Board directed staff to request that WSDOT develop, in cooperation with PSRC and others, an action plan identifying the following: 1) low-cost operational improvements to address I-5 and other congested corridors in the near term; 2) an updated I-5 rehabilitation plan and cost estimate; 3) a plan for improving flow on HOV lanes; 4) updated cost estimates and an accelerated schedule for seismic retrofits; and 5) a strategy for projects beyond Connecting Washington including local priority state routes. Robin Mayhew, Long-Range Transportation Planning Program Manager, Doc ID 2048 Packet Pg. 3

4 5.a noted that the action plan represents a new level of coordination between WSDOT and PSRC and will provide details that will help PSRC enhance Transportation 2040 beyond what has been done in the past. WSDOT has developed draft briefing papers on each of the five topics, which were included in the agenda packet, and is seeking feedback from the board. Patty Rubstello, WSDOT Assistant Secretary, Urban Mobility & Access, introduced the State Facilities Action Plan. She then turned to Secretary Roger Millar, who described organizational changes being made at WSDOT. WSDOT staff presented the draft elements of the State Facilities Action Plan and explained what will be included in the final papers. Matt Neeley presented I-5 Operational Improvements; Rob Fellows presented I-5 Preservation Needs, Seismic Preparedness, and HOV Speed and Reliability; and Charles Prestrud presented State Routes of Local Interest. [At 11:42 a.m., Chair Johnson had to leave the meeting and the gavel was passed to Mayor Becky Erickson, Vice Chair.] Councilmember Terry Ryan, referring to the earlier presentation on the Transportation 2040 Financial Strategy, asked that PSRC staff follow up to identify which state routes are included in the $32 billion of state highway investments in the financial summary. Referring to the State Facilities Action Plan, he said the plan should have specific targets for each state route to address emerging needs such as increased carrying capacity, safety, and integration with local and high capacity transit. He concluded by saying Snohomish County would be happy to partner with the state and PSRC on the development of the next set of local priority state highways. ADJOURN The meeting adjourned at 11:53 a.m. Doc ID 2048 Packet Pg. 4

5 5.a TRANSPORTATION POLICY BOARD July 13, 2017 TPB MEMBERS & ALTERNATES PRESENT Councilmember Bek Ashby, Other Cities & Towns in Kitsap County Councilmember Claudia Balducci, King County (via remote) Russ Blount, Regional Project Evaluation Committee (Alt.) Mayor Fred Butler, Sound Transit Councilmember John Clauson, Kitsap Transit (Alt.) (via remote) Councilmember Dino Davis, Metropolitan Center Bremerton Doug DeForest, Thurston Regional Planning Council Deputy Mayor Davina Duerr, Other Cities & Towns in King County (Alt.) Mayor Becky Erickson, Kitsap Transit, Vice Chair Anne Eskridge, University of Washington Commissioner Robert Gelder, Kitsap County Ricardo Gotla, Transportation Choices Coalition (Alt.) Representative Mia Gregerson, House Transportation Committee Jesse Hamashima, Regional Staff Committee (Alt.) Peter Heffernan, Transportation Operators Committee (Alt.) Commissioner Don Johnson, Ports Councilmember Rob Johnson, City of Seattle, Chair Mayor Ron Lucas, Other Cities & Towns in Pierce County Councilmember Joe McDermott, Local Transit King County Dan McKisson, ILWU Local 19 Secretary Roger Millar, WSDOT Mayor Pro Tem Debora Nelson, Other Cities & Towns in Snohomish County (via remote) Councilmember Mike O Brien, City of Seattle Dr. Ngozi Oleru, Public Health-Seattle & King County Councilmember Dana Ralph, Other Cities & Towns in King County Councilmember Doug Richardson, Pierce County Patty Rubstello, WSDOT (1 st Alt.) Councilmember Terry Ryan, Community Transit Commissioner Hester Serebrin, Washington State Transportation Commission Councilmember Mike Todd, Community Transit (Alt.) Councilmember Rich Wagner, Other Cities & Towns in King County Councilmember Stephanie Wright, Snohomish County John Wynands, WSDOT (2 nd Alt.) TPB MEMBERS ABSENT (*alternate present) Rob Berman, Seattle Metropolitan Chamber of Commerce Don Cairns, Regional Project Evaluation Committee John Daniels, Jr., Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Ann Dasch, League of Women Voters of Washington Senator Joe Fain, Senate Transportation Committee Senator Steve Hobbs, Senate Transportation Committee Councilmember Kathy Lambert, King County Councilmember Ryan Mello, Local Transit Pierce County Trinity Parker, Transportation Operators Committee Commissioner Helen Price Johnson, Island County Dave Ramsay, WA State Transportation Improvement Board Doc ID 2048 Packet Pg. 5

6 5.a TPB MEMBERS ABSENT (*alternate present) cont d * Shefali Ranganathan, Transportation Choices Coalition Janet Ray, AAA Washington Councilmember Paul Roberts, Metropolitan Center Everett/Puget Sound Clean Air Agency Andrew Strobel, Puyallup Tribe of Indians Councilmember Robert Thoms, Metropolitan Center Tacoma * Chip Vincent, Regional Staff Committee * Mayor Amy Walen, Other Cities & Towns in King County * Councilmember Kevin Wallace, Metropolitan Center Bellevue GUESTS and PSRC STAFF PRESENT (As determined by signatures on the Attendance Sheet and documentation by staff) Patricia Akiyama, MBA Ben Bakkenta, PSRC Benjamin Brackett, PSRC Von Dalton, International Baccalaureate Program, Rainier Beach High School June DeVoll, Community Transit Carolyn Downs, PSRC Rob Fellows, WSDOT Rebecca Frohning, PSRC Mayor Don Gerend, City of Sammamish, Sound Cities Association, PSRC Executive Board Member Sarah Gutschow, PSRC Kathryn Johnson, PSRC Odia Kane, Summer Health Professionals Education Program, University of Connecticut Kate March, City of Bellevue Evette Mason, Port of Tacoma Robin Mayhew, PSRC Ian Munce, City of Tacoma Christine Nhan, Office of Congressman Adam Smith Matt Neeley, WSDOT Pavithra Parthasarathi, PSRC Joel Pfundt, City of Kirkland Dan Pike, Pierce Transit Charles Prestrud, WSDOT Cheryl Saltys, PSRC JoAnn Schueler, WSDOT Amy Shumann, Public Health - Seattle & King County Jude Willcher, Seattle DOT Doc ID 2048 Packet Pg. 6

7 5.b CONSENT AGENDA September 7, 2017 To: From: Subject: Transportation Policy Board Kelly McGourty, Senior Program Manager, Transportation Planning Routine Amendment to the Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) IN BRIEF Five agencies submitted 16 projects this month for routine amendment into the Regional TIP. These projects are summarized in Exhibit A. The projects were awarded local, state and federal funding through various processes, such as the Connecting Washington funds managed by Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT). PSRC staff reviewed the projects for compliance with federal and state requirements, and consistency with VISION 2040 and Transportation RECOMMENDED ACTION The Transportation Policy Board should recommend Executive Board adoption of an amendment to the Regional TIP to include the projects as shown in Exhibit A. DISCUSSION Under the Fixing America s Surface Transportation (FAST) Act, PSRC has project selection authority for all projects programming regional funds from the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) - Surface Transportation Block Grant Program (STP) and Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program (CMAQ) - and Federal Transit Administration (FTA) - Urbanized Area Formula Program (5307), State of Good Repair (5337), Bus and Bus Facilities Formula (5339), and Enhanced Mobility of Seniors and Individuals with Disabilities (5310). While PSRC does not have project selection authority for other types of federal, state, or local funds, the Executive Board does have responsibility for adding these projects to the Regional TIP. Each project must comply with requirements regarding plan consistency, air quality, and financial constraint. The recommended action would approve the TIP amendment request based on a finding of consistency with VISION 2040, Transportation 2040, and the air quality conformity determination Doc ID 2047 Packet Pg. 7

8 5.b of the Regional TIP. Approval is also based on a determination that funding is reasonably expected to be available to carry out the project. Information describing plan consistency, air quality conformity, and the funding basis for approving the request is described further below. Consistency with VISION 2040 and Transportation 2040 The projects recommended for action were reviewed by PSRC staff and have been determined to be consistent with the multicounty policies in VISION 2040 and Transportation Air Quality Conformity The projects in Exhibit A were reviewed and it has been determined that a new air quality analysis and conformity determination is not required because each project falls into one or more of the following categories: It is exempt from air quality conformity requirements. It is an existing project already included in the current air quality modeling. It is a non-exempt project not able to be included in the regional model. Funding Reasonably Expected to be Available For the projects in Exhibit A, PSRC confirmed that the funds are reasonably expected to be available. PSRC Funding and Project Tracking Policies Detailed below are two requests for modification to PSRC s FTA funds for this amendment. The modifications were found to be consistent with PSRC s project tracking policies and were reviewed and recommended by the Transportation Operations Committee (TOC) at its meeting on August 30, Pierce Transit (PT) seeks to redistribute $6,679,414 of Earned Share FTA 5307 funds from Preventive Maintenance to the two projects Clean Fuels Bus Replacement/Expansion and ADA Service. PT has determined that the amount of funding needed to accomplish the work identified in the Preventive Maintenance project scope can be completed using sales tax funds and other operating dollars. The Clean Fuels Bus Replacement/Expansion project will use the increase in funding from the redistribution to purchase nine replacement vehicles, while the ADA Service project will use the funding to provide 12,078 hours of complementary paratransit ADA service. Washington State Ferries (WSF) requests a redistribution of $13,037,127 in Seattle-Tacoma- Everett (STE) UZA FFY 2018, 2019, and 2020 Earned Share FTA 5307 funds from Vessel Preservation and Improvement ( ) to Seattle Multimodal Terminal at Colman Dock. WSF has determined that the amount of funding needed to accomplish the work identified in the Vessel Preservation project scope can be completed using National Highway Performance Program (NHPP) funds and other operating dollars. The Seattle Multimodal Terminal project will use the additional funds to complete the current project scope with higher construction cost estimates. Federal Fund Source Descriptions The following is a list of state and federal funding sources that are referenced in Exhibit A. Doc ID 2047 Packet Pg. 8

9 5.b 5309(NS) NHFP NHPP STP(W) TIGER Federal Transit Administration s Capital Investment Grants for New Starts National Highway Freight Program National Highway Performance Program Surface Transportation Block Grant program funds managed by WSDOT Transportation Investment Generating Economic Recovery program For more information, please contact Chris Peak at (206) or cpeak@psrc.org. Attachments: Exhibit A Doc ID 2047 Packet Pg. 9

10 Month: September Year: 2017 Project(s) Proposed for Routine Amendment to TIP 5.b.a Exhibit A Sponsor Project Title and Work Description 1. Mukilteo Harbour Reach Drive Extension New project to extend Harbour Reach Drive from Harbour Pointe Boulevard to Beverly Park Road, including two travel lanes, bicycle lanes, curb/gutter and sidewalk. 2. Port of Everett South Terminal Modernization Project Phase II New project with construction funds to strengthen 560 feet of the South Terminal, install 700 feet of crane rail to support two 100- ft gauge gantry cranes, and construct a double rail siding to support cargo operations. 3. Pierce Transit Clean Fuels Bus Replacement/Expansion 2017/2020 This project is adding funds to purchase nine additional replacement transit vehicles. 4. Pierce Transit ADA Service This project is adding funding to provide $12,078 hours of complementary paratransit ADA service. Funding $15,100,000 Connecting Washington $4,419,612 Local $19,519,612 Total $26,960,800 Local $1,812,200 Federal NHFP $704,657 State $10,000,000 Federal TIGER $39,477,657 Total $5,230,036 Federal 5307(Urban) $1,307,509 Local $6,537,545 Total $1,449,378 Federal 5307(Urban) $362,344 Local $1,811,722 Total Project Tracking PSRC Action Needed New Project/ UPWP Phase Other Amend Attachment: Exhibit A [Revision 2] (2047 : Routine Amendment to the Transportation Improvement Program (TIP)) Packet Pg. 10

11 Sponsor Project Title and Work Description Funding Project Tracking 5.b.a PSRC Action Needed New Project/ UPWP Phase Other Amend 5. Seattle Northgate Bike and Pedestrian Improvements New construction funds to provide nonmotorized improvements in the vicinity of Sound Transit s North Link Station and the North Seattle Community College. Improvements include a pedestrian/bicycle overpass that will span I- 5 and connect the west and east neighborhoods and businesses that are divided by the freeway. This will include bicycle and pedestrian connections between the bridge and separated bicycle facilities with nearby integrated transit centers. 6. Seattle Center City Connector New construction funds to purchase new streetcar vehicles and add various streetscape improvements to link two existing streetcar lines: the First Hill and South Lake Union Streetcars. 7. Seattle Roosevelt RapidRide 8. WSDOT Northwest Region New project with preliminary engineering to add bus rapid transit(brt)/rapidride along Roosevelt Way, Eastlake Ave, and Fairview Ave. I-90/Raging River Bridge to Bandera Vicinity - Stormwater Retrofit New project with preliminary engineering, right of way, and construction funds to improve water quality in the I-90 corridor. $10,000,000 Connecting Washington $24,388,815 Local $34,388,815 Total $75,000,000 Federal 5309(NS) $59,892,086 Local $134,892,086 Total $10,460,000 Local $10,460,000 Total $104,536 Local $3,967,604 Federal NHPP $4,072,140 Total Attachment: Exhibit A [Revision 2] (2047 : Routine Amendment to the Transportation Improvement Program (TIP)) Packet Pg. 11

12 Sponsor Project Title and Work Description Funding Project Tracking 5.b.a PSRC Action Needed New Project/ UPWP Phase Other Amend 9. WSDOT Northwest Region 10. WSDOT Northwest Region 11. WSDOT Northwest Region 12. WSDOT Northwest Region 13. WSDOT Northwest Region I-90/SR 18 Interchange to Deep Creek - Widening & Interchange Improvements New project with construction and right of way funds to add improvements to the I-90/SR 18 interchange and widens SR 18 from I-90 to Deep Creek. SR 99/Duwamish River Bridge - Painting This new project with preliminary engineering and construction funds will paint the existing bridge structure on northbound SR 99 over the Duwamish River. SR 520/148th Ave NE Interchange - Overlake Access Ramp New project with preliminary engineering, right of way and construction funds to add a gradeseparated through movement for the eastbound off-ramp. US 2/S Fork Skykomish River Bridge, Mt Index River Rd Vicinity - Painting This new project with preliminary engineering and construction funds will clean and paint the bridge crossing over the South Fork Skykomish River on US 2. SR 530/Trafton Creek - Fish Passage This adds construction funds to remove the existing fish passage barrier and replace it with a fish passable structure. $3,500,000 Connecting Washington $124,500,000 State $128,000,000 Total $8,727,640 Federal NHPP $199,768 State $8,927,408 Total $68,000,000 Connecting Washington $68,000,000 Total $3,467,130 Connecting Washington $3,467,130 Total $262,784 State $12,876,416 Federal STP(W) $13,139,200 Total Attachment: Exhibit A [Revision 2] (2047 : Routine Amendment to the Transportation Improvement Program (TIP)) Packet Pg. 12

13 Sponsor Project Title and Work Description Funding Project Tracking 5.b.a PSRC Action Needed New Project/ UPWP Phase Other Amend 14. WSDOT Olympic Region 15. WSDOT Olympic Region 16. WSDOT Marine Division SR 3/Chico Creek - Remove Fish Barrier This adds right of way and construction funds to eliminate the barrier to fish passage at this location. SR 16/Purdy Creek - Remove Fish Barrier This new project with preliminary engineering, right of way and construction funds will replace the existing structure with one that is fish passable. Seattle Multimodal Terminal at Colman Dock This project is adding funds to the construction phase to replace Colman Dock and facilities. $40,929,896 Federal NHPP $835,304 State $41,765,200 Total $21,605,394 Federal NHPP $485,833 State $22,091,227 Total $13,037,127 Federal 5307(Urban) $13,037,127 Total Attachment: Exhibit A [Revision 2] (2047 : Routine Amendment to the Transportation Improvement Program (TIP)) Packet Pg. 13

14 5.c CONSENT AGENDA September 7, 2017 To: From: Subject: Transportation Policy Board Kelly McGourty, Senior Program Manager, Transportation Planning Recommend Authorizing a Change in Transportation 2040 Project Status for Two WSDOT Projects IN BRIEF The Washington State Department of Transportation has submitted a request to change the status of two (2) Transportation 2040 projects: SR 520/148 th Avenue NE Interchange Overlake Access Ramp, and I-5/Steilacoom-DuPont Road to Thorne Lane Corridor Improvements. Per PSRC s adopted procedures, requests to change a project status require Board action. RECOMMENDED ACTION The Transportation Policy Board should recommend that the Executive Board authorize a change in project status for the following Transportation 2040 projects: WSDOT: SR 520/148 th Avenue NE Interchange Overlake Access Ramp from Candidate to Approved WSDOT: I-5/Steilacoom-DuPont Road to Thorne Lane Corridor Improvements from Candidate to Approved DISCUSSION The region s long-range metropolitan transportation plan, Transportation 2040, contains policies requiring PSRC s Executive Board to approve regionally significant transportation capacity projects before those projects begin implementation phases. Projects in Transportation 2040 are designated as Candidate, Approved, or Conditionally Approved. A Candidate designation means a project has gone through a comprehensive planning process, but that one or more of the following has not yet been completed: environmental documentation and approvals, financial plan, and/or other planning requirements. A project s status is changed to Approved once these requirements have been met. Conditional Approval may be granted if a project has fulfilled most of the approval criteria but lacks only certain details. For example, if a project awaits only final signatures on its environmental documentation but has completed all other requirements, the Executive Board may grant Conditional Doc ID 2057 Packet Pg. 14

15 5.c Approval. Once the final details have been completed, staff has the authority to grant a project full Approval status administratively, thereby saving the project sponsor several weeks of delay. The SR 520/148 th Avenue NE Interchange Overlake Access Ramp project will modify the eastbound off-ramp to 148 th Avenue NE by adding a split ramp which will provide direct access to 152 nd Avenue NE and the Overlake neighborhood. The project is expected to be completed in The I-5/Steilacoom-DuPont Road to Thorne Lane Corridor Improvements project will construct an additional lane on I-5 between the Steilacoom-DuPont Road and Thorne Lane interchanges, and reconstruct the interchanges at Thorne Lane and Berkeley Street. The project is expected to be completed in This project is part of the overall I-5/Joint Base Lewis McChord corridor project funded through Connecting Washington and presented to the Board in Table A below provides additional details of the projects seeking approval, including the criteria used to review the projects for the requested status change. Table A: Project Details and Review Criteria Review Criteria WSDOT SR 520/148 th Avenue NE Interchange/Overlake Access Ramp WSDOT I-5/Steilacoom-DuPont Road to Thorne Lane Corridor Improvements Total Project Cost $68,000,000 $328,076,661 Consistency with Transportation 2040 Policies Benefit-Cost Analysis Environmental Documentation Other Planning Requirements Financial Feasibility Air Quality Conformity The project is consistent with regional policy. The requirement applies to projects over $100 million. The SEPA Determination of Non-significance was received in The sponsor has indicated that agreements with the City of Redmond may be anticipated after the award of the Design-Build contract. Project funding provided by Connecting Washington. Approving this project will not change the region s air quality conformity determination. The project is consistent with regional policy. Staff concur that the sponsor has completed their Benefit Cost Analysis requirement. The NEPA and SEPA processes were completed in The sponsor has indicated that no agreements or other planning requirements are necessary. Project funding provided by Connecting Washington. Approving this project will not change the region s air quality conformity determination. For more information, please contact Kelly McGourty at or kmcgourty@psrc.org. Doc ID 2057 Packet Pg. 15

16 5.d CONSENT AGENDA September 7, 2017 To: From: Subject: Transportation Policy Board Kelly McGourty, Senior Program Manager, Transportation Planning Recommend Certification of Comprehensive Plans for the City of Seattle and King County IN BRIEF Consistent with PSRC s adopted plan review process, PSRC staff reviewed and recommends certification of the 2016 comprehensive plan updates for Seattle and King County. While both jurisdictions completed state required updates in recent years, they also both took on substantive updates in 2016 that are considered herein. RECOMMENDED ACTION The Growth Management Policy Board and Transportation Policy Board should recommend that the Executive Board certify the transportation-related provisions of the Seattle and King County comprehensive plans, as updated in 2016, are consistent with the multicounty planning policies and the regional transportation plan and conform to the Growth Management Act requirements for transportation planning. 1) Seattle 2035 Comprehensive Plan, 2016 Update (certification report) 2) King County Comprehensive Plan, 2016 Update (certification report) DISCUSSION The 2016 comprehensive plan updates for Seattle and King County are recommended for certification. The plans have been reviewed in accordance with the adopted plan review process and were found to be consistent with the multicounty planning policies and the regional transportation plan and to conform to transportation planning requirements in the Growth Management Act. PSRC staff coordinated with staff from the two jurisdictions in the review of the plans and the development of the certification reports. The adopted plan review process calls for the Executive Board to take certification action on comprehensive plans on recommendation from the Growth Management and Transportation Policy Boards. Options for Executive Board action are to: Doc ID 2055 Packet Pg. 16

17 5.d Certify that the plan is consistent with multicounty planning policies and the regional transportation plan and conforms to Growth Management Act requirements for transportation planning, or Conditionally certify that the plan addresses most provisions of regional plans and policies and the Growth Management Act, with a requirement that a limited set of outstanding issues be addressed prior to full certification, or Do not certify Based on previous board direction, jurisdictions with plans that are certified or conditionally certified are then eligible to apply for PSRC funding or proceed with any project submitted into the Regional Transportation Improvement Program. Seattle 2035 PSRC last certified the City of Seattle s comprehensive plan in February While the city addressed minimum requirements of the periodic update in 2015, the city completed the full Seattle 2035 planning process later in Among other issues, the new update expands direction and policy on: Equitable development Affordable housing Growth in regional centers Environmental stewardship Multimodal transportation options PSRC staff reviewed the 2016 comprehensive plan amendments and coordinated with city staff in the development of the certification report. King County 2016 Update King County conducts a comprehensive review and update of its plan every four years. The county met the state requirements for updating by 2015 with its last major update adopted in December That plan update was fully certified by the Puget Sound Regional Council. The new update expands direction and policy on: Equity and social justice Climate change and environmental protection Local government responsibilities Housing and human services Local and regional planning Natural resource lands The changes are meaningful policy amendments and many of them support the implementation of VISION s multicounty planning policies. However, the amendments do not change the plans certification status and the plan remains in conformance with the state and regional transportation planning requirements. PSRC staff reviewed the 2016 comprehensive plan amendments and coordinated with county staff in the development of the certification report. For more information on plan review and certification, please contact Michael Hubner at (206) or MHubner@psrc.org or Laura Benjamin at (206) or LBenjamin@psrc.org. Doc ID 2055 Packet Pg. 17

18 5.e CONSENT AGENDA September 7, 2017 To: From: Subject: Transportation Policy Board Kelly McGourty, Senior Program Manager, Transportation Planning Recommend Full Certification of the Comprehensive Plan for the City of Lakewood IN BRIEF Consistent with PSRC s adopted plan review process, PSRC staff reviewed the 2016 comprehensive plan amendments for the City of Lakewood, along with a newly available supplemental report that responds to the conditions for regional certification. Staff recommends certification of the plan. RECOMMENDED ACTION The Growth Management Policy Board and Transportation Policy Board should recommend that the Executive Board certify that the transportation-related provisions of the City of Lakewood s comprehensive plan, as amended in 2016 and supplemented by a report prepared for the city by BERK consulting dated February 22, 2017, are consistent with the multicounty planning policies and the regional transportation plan and conform to the Growth Management Act requirements for transportation planning (certification report). DISCUSSION The City of Lakewood adopted its GMA-required comprehensive plan update on December 7, The plan was conditionally certified by PSRC on April 21, 2016, contingent on additional work to address an employment capacity shortfall. The certification report dated March 31, 2016, outlined the requirements to address the employment capacity shortfall as well as several recommendations for areas for further work to be addressed through future amendments to the comprehensive plan, subarea plans, or functional plans. Addressing Conditional Certification Employment Capacity Analysis The Growth Management Act requires local comprehensive plans to provide sufficient capacity to accommodate growth that is anticipated during the 20-year planning period. The Act also requires that the transportation element include land use assumptions that are consistent with Doc ID 2056 Packet Pg. 18

19 5.e the land use element and based on adopted countywide growth targets. The growth targets adopted by Pierce County show that Lakewood is expected to plan for an additional 9,565 housing units and 12,907 jobs by The targets would be higher if extended to a plan horizon year of The 2014 Pierce County Buildable Lands Report found that the city has capacity to accommodate the housing unit target, but can only accommodate 9,062 additional jobs, leaving an employment capacity shortfall of 3,845. Following adoption of their plan, the city conducted a reassessment of the methodology used in the Pierce County Buildable Lands report. The analysis reviewed the Buildable Lands underlying assumptions and evaluated alternative capacity analysis methodologies to determine whether the report accurately reflected the city s ability to provide sufficient capacity for its employment target. The report concludes that the city s comprehensive plan and zoning regulations can provide sufficient capacity to accommodate the employment target without having to amend future land uses in the city s comprehensive plan. A copy of the report is included as Attachment A to this memo. Staff review of the attached report by BERK finds it addresses the requirements set out by PSRC to enable the plan to be fully certified. The City of Lakewood should incorporate the employment growth target capacity assumptions and analysis in the comprehensive plan, consistent with the report dated February 22, 2017, as soon as feasible. Addressing Recommendations for Future Work Central Business District Subarea Plan In a letter dated July 27, 2017, the city provided an update on its work to develop a subarea plan for the city s central business district (CBD), a designated Regional Growth Center. A central business district assessment report was completed in November 2016 and the city is now moving forward to hire a consultant to prepare a central business district subarea plan, which should be completed in 8-10 months from the date of this memo Plan Amendments On November 21, 2016, the city amended its comprehensive plan to address many of the areas identified in the certification report for future work. These were not conditional requirements, but make the plan more consistent with the regional policies of VISION These amendments include a new sustainability element addressing energy conservation, carbon emissions, and environmental protection; new policy language emphasizing military-compatible land uses, airport safety and compatibility, and collaboration with Joint Base Lewis-McChord; new goals and policies related to complete streets and safe access for all modes, and new policies focused on health and food access for all residents. Lakewood s 2016 comprehensive plan amendments have been reviewed in accordance with the adopted plan review process. They were found to be consistent with the multicounty planning policies and the regional transportation plan and to conform to transportation planning requirements in the Growth Management Act. PSRC staff coordinated with city staff in the review of the amendments and the development of the certification report. For more information on plan review and certification, please contact Michael Hubner at (206) or MHubner@psrc.org, or Laura Benjamin at (206) or LBenjamin@psrc.org. Attachments: A - City of Lakewood Employment Capacity Analysis (February 22, 2017) B - Letter from the City of Lakewood (July 27, 2017) Doc ID 2056 Packet Pg. 19

20 5.e.a MEMORANDUM MEMORANDUM DATE: February 22, 2017 TO: FROM: RE: David Bugher City of Lakewood Kevin Gifford Senior Associate City of Lakewood Employment Capacity Analysis INTRODUCTION The City of Lakewood s Comprehensive Plan was originally adopted in It was subsequently amended from year-to-year, and with major updates occurring in 2004 and 2014/15. The Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC) regularly reviews city and county comprehensive plans. This review is to check on coordination between local, regional, and state planning efforts in relation to VISION 2040, and the Growth Management Act. If a comprehensive plan is found to be in compliance, it is certified as such. Certification allows a city or county to obtain federal regional transportation improvement program funds. Lakewood s plan was certified by PSRC in Lakewood s plan was again reviewed by PSRC 2015 and 2016, at which time PSRC imposed conditional certification. Lakewood was notified of this action in correspondence dated March 31, Later, on April 21, 2016, the PSRC Executive Board conditionally certified the Lakewood Comprehensive Plan. The condition of certification has been excerpted below: The city must address the following provisions of the Growth Management Act and VISION 2040 in order to maintain certified status: The state Growth Management Act requires local comprehensive plans to provide sufficient capacity to accommodate growth that is anticipated during the 20-year planning period. The growth targets adopted by Pierce County show that Lakewood is expected to plan for an additional 9,565 housing units and 12,907 jobs by If extended to a plan horizon year of 2035, the targets would be higher. The 2014 Pierce County Buildable Lands report found that the city currently has capacity to accommodate the housing unit target, but can only accommodate 9,062 additional jobs, leaving an employment capacity shortfall of 3,845. The city is in the process of developing a subarea plan for the regional growth center and revising zoning for the center, which is expected provide additional employment capacity. The city must amend the plan to reflect any future land use plan changes that may result from adoption of the center subarea plan or other changes, such as providing additional capacity elsewhere in the city and document that those changes have resulted in sufficient capacity to accommodate the 20-year land use assumptions and growth targets. This condition could require amendments to the comprehensive plan or development regulations; if that is the case, PSRC requires that all amendment actions be completed by December 31, Attachment: A - City of Lakewood Employment Capacity Analysis (February 22, 2017) (2056 : Recommend Full Certification of the Packet Pg. 20 Helping Communities and Organizations Create Their Best Futures 1

21 5.e.a MEMORANDUM Actions include: 1) a work plan to be approved by the Lakewood City Council; 2) submission of a draft amended comprehensive plan and supporting documents that address the condition to PSRC for review and comment in advance of adoption; and 3) once the condition is adequately addressed, submission of the adopted amended comprehensive plan and supporting documents for review and certification by PSRC. PURPOSE OF THIS REPORT This report has been prepared to address PSRC s conditional certification requirement. The report reviews the assumptions underlying the Pierce County Buildable Lands Report Analysis and evaluates alternative capacity analysis methodologies to determine whether the Buildable Lands Report accurately reflects the amount of employment capacity available in Lakewood. The report concludes that the City s comprehensive plan and zoning regulations can accommodate sufficient growth without having to amend the City s planning documents. EMPLOYMENT TARGETS The Pierce County Council established a 2030 employment growth target of 38,336 jobs for the City of Lakewood. Exhibit 1 shows the City s adopted 2030 employment target, as well as an estimate of existing employment as of 2010, as reported in the 2014 Pierce County Buildable Lands Report (Pierce County BLR) and the additional employment growth necessary to meet the adopted 2030 target of 38,336 jobs Total Employment Estimate Exhibit 1. City of Lakewood Employment Needs Pierce County Adopted 2030 Total Employment Target Total Employment Growth ( ) Adjusted Employment Growth 1 Displaced Employees 2 Additional Employment Needs (2030) 25,259 38,336 13,077 11,495 1,413 12, Per 2014 Pierce County BLR report, total employment allocation is reduced by 12.1% to account for mobile workers and employees working from home. 2. Displaced Employees represent existing employees associated with underutilized parcels that would be displaced due to redevelopment of those properties. Source: Pierce County BLR 2014 As shown above, Lakewood needs capacity for 12,908 additional jobs to meet its 2030 employment target. In addition, the City is required to plan for additional growth through its current 20-year planning period, which extends through If we estimate 2035 employment needs based on a straight-line projection of the growth trend, Lakewood would have a total 2035 employment target of 41,203 jobs, and increase of 2,867 over the adopted 2030 target. While there is no recommended interjurisdictional method among Pierce County jurisdictions to extend targets from 2030 to 2035, Lakewood is classified by PSRC as a Core City; under VISION 2040, Core and Metropolitan cities are anticipated to accommodate a large portion of future growth in the Puget Sound region. Attachment: A - City of Lakewood Employment Capacity Analysis (February 22, 2017) (2056 : Recommend Full Certification of the Packet Pg. 21 Helping Communities and Organizations Create Their Best Futures 2

22 5.e.a MEMORANDUM AVAILABLE LAND CAPACITY Available land capacity in Lakewood is documented in the Pierce County 2014 BLR. This report analyzes the amount of land that is available for development, either vacant or underutilized, and calculates the amount of employment that can be generated by developing or redeveloping that land to its maximum capacity. Exhibit 2 shows the net developable acreage (after exclusion of environmentally sensitive areas unsuitable for development), employment density assumptions, and overall employment capacity for the City of Lakewood, as documented in the 2014 Pierce County BLR. Exhibit 2. City of Lakewood Employment Capacity Pierce County BLR Type Zoning District Net Acres Employees per Acre Commercial Industrial Employment Capacity NC NC ,635 TOC CBD C C ,666 IBP ,948 AC PI 28.39* * I * 15 30* I * * Total Employment Capacity 9,062* * The 2014 Pierce County BLR s employment capacity summary table (Table 11, page 119) contains several errors. The table transposes acreages between several zoning categories and incorrectly calculates available capacity. Values marked with an asterisk are incorrect, but this table reproduces the Pierce County report table for reference. A detailed discussion of these errors is provided later in this memo. Source: Pierce County BLR 2014 As shown above, the Pierce County BLR shows a total 2014 employment capacity for Lakewood of 9,062 jobs. This represents a deficit of 3,846 jobs compared to the City s adopted 2030 employment target. When compared to the projected 2035 employment target described in the previous section, this deficit increases to 6,366 jobs, as shown below in Exhibit Employment Capacity Exhibit 3. Comparison of Employment Targets and Capacity Employment Growth Target 2030 Surplus/Deficit Employment Growth Target 2035 Surplus/Deficit 9,062 12,908-3,846 15,428-6,366 Source: Pierce County BLR 2014 Attachment: A - City of Lakewood Employment Capacity Analysis (February 22, 2017) (2056 : Recommend Full Certification of the Packet Pg. 22 Helping Communities and Organizations Create Their Best Futures 3

23 5.e.a MEMORANDUM BUILDABLE LANDS ANALYSIS This section describes the analysis performed by BERK to determine how the City of Lakewood can address the projected employment deficits described in the previous sections. Our analysis focused on the following: Correcting typographical, mathematical, and zoning assignment errors in the 2014 Pierce County BLR that resulted in under-reporting available employment capacity in Lakewood; Examining whether the assumptions behind the land capacity calculations reported in the Pierce County BLR are appropriate for Lakewood and how adjusted employment densities would affect employment capacity; and Developing a customized land capacity assessment approach for Lakewood, based on adopted development regulations for the city s commercial zones and estimated maximum floor area ratios (FARs). Buildable lands analysis is based on approximately eight steps, which are illustrated in Exhibit 4. These steps include identifying vacant and underutilized lands (Steps 1 and 2), deducting critical areas and land needed for rights of way and public facilities (Step 3, 4, and 5), and applying assumed densities or floor area ratios and employee square footage rates (Steps 6 and 7). The Pierce County BLR followed a similar process, and this analysis assumes that the report s identifications of vacant and underutilized parcels and areas impacted by critical areas are correct. As stated above, this analysis examines the applied market factor reductions (Step 6) and assumed employment densities (Step 8) to determine if additional employment capacity exists. Exhibit 4. Land Capacity Analysis Steps Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Step 4 Step 5 Step 6 Step 7 Step 8 Identify Vacant Parcels Identify Underutilized or Redevelopable Parcels by Zone Source: BERK Consulting 2016 Deduct Areas Impacted by Critical Areas Deduct Future Roads/ R-O-W Needs Pierce County BLR Errors and Omissions Deduct Future Public Facilities Needs Deduct Capacity to Account for Market Factor Based on All Factors to Estimate Net Buildable Acres by Zone Apply assumed densities to residential acres Apply floor area ratios to buildable acres and use employee rates to determine employment capacity As described in the introduction to this memorandum, review of the Pierce County 2014 BLR revealed several errors that resulted in under-reporting of employment capacity in Lakewood. The Pierce County BLR presents a detailed breakdown of vacant and underutilized commercial acreage by zoning district, including reductions for non-commercial uses and land unavailable for development, in Table 9 (BLR pages ). A summary of developable acreage by zoning district is provided in Table 11 (BLR page 119), but this summary table contains several inconsistencies with the detailed reporting in Table 9. It appears that several acreage numbers were transposed when this table was generated, resulting in incorrect capacity calculations for the PI, I-1, and I-2 zones. In addition, the net commercial acreage for each zone in the Pierce County BLR does not accurately reflect current zoning boundaries in Lakewood, and the ARC zone was omitted from the report altogether. Based Attachment: A - City of Lakewood Employment Capacity Analysis (February 22, 2017) (2056 : Recommend Full Certification of the Packet Pg. 23 Helping Communities and Organizations Create Their Best Futures 4

24 5.e.a MEMORANDUM on information in Table 9 of the BLR and the City s latest zoning map, a corrected summary table is presented below in Exhibit 5. Exhibit 5. City of Lakewood Employment Capacity Pierce County BLR Corrected Type Zoning District Net Acres Employees per Acre Commercial Industrial Employment Capacity NC NC ,635 TOC CBD C C ,666 IBP ,687 1 AC PI ARC I I Total Employment Capacity 9, Corrected zoning acreage/employment capacity based on City zoning mapping. 2. Correction of transposition/mathematical errors in Pierce County BLR. 3. Zone omitted from Pierce County BLR. Source: Pierce County BLR 2014; City of Lakewood, Market Factor and Employment Density Assumptions BERK also reviewed the market factor and employment density assumptions used in the BLR to determine if these factors are appropriate for Lakewood and whether vacant and underutilized lands could potentially support greater densities than assumed in the report. Market Factors As shown in Exhibit 4, a land capacity analysis typically applies a discount to account for land that is nominally available for development but which may not actually develop to its full capacity in the foreseeable future. Because this often occurs for reasons related to real estate market conditions, this discount is generally referred to as a market factor and is included to provide a more conservative and realistic estimate of available land capacity. Different market factors are often used for vacant and underutilized land; since underutilized land often contains existing structures that must be demolished or built around, the market factor reduction for underutilized land is often greater than for vacant land. The 2014 Pierce County BLR assumed a 10% market factor for all vacant land and a 20% market factor for underutilized residential land. However, the BLR assumed a much higher market factor of 50% for underutilized commercial land. Attachment: A - City of Lakewood Employment Capacity Analysis (February 22, 2017) (2056 : Recommend Full Certification of the Packet Pg. 24 Helping Communities and Organizations Create Their Best Futures 5