agenda - tacomacms.cityoftacoma.org/planning/planning commission/agenda... · 2008-07-11 ·...

Members Thomas M. Smith, Chair David A. Boe, Vice Chair Kevin Briske Carolyn L. Davidson Robert T. de Grouchy, III Jeremy C. Doty Kimberly Freeman Sean Gaffney Scott Morris

Community and Economic Development Department Ryan Petty, Director Peter Huffman, Planning Division Manager

Public Works Department Charles Solverson, P.E., Building Official

Tacoma Public Utilities 747 Market Street, Room 1036, Tacoma, WA 98402-3793 Heather Pennington, Water Representative Phone (253) 591-5365; FAX (253) 591-2002 Cathy Leone-Woods, Power Transmission & Distribution Assistant Manager www.cityoftacoma.org/planning

(To view the agenda online: www.cityoftacoma.org/planning > “Planning Commission” > “Agenda Packets”)

The Community and Economic Development Department does not discriminate on the basis of handicap in any of its programs and services. Upon request, accommodations can be provided within five (5) business days. Contact (253) 591-5365 (voice) or (253) 591-5153 (TTY).

Agenda

Tacoma Planning Commission

MEETING: Regular Meeting

TIME: Wednesday, July 16, 2008, 4:00 p.m.

PLACE: Tacoma Municipal Building, City Council Chambers First Floor, 747 Market Street, Tacoma, WA

A. CALL TO ORDER

B. QUORUM CALL

C. APPROVAL OF MINUTES – N/A

D. GENERAL BUSINESS

1. Downtown Plan and Code Update Description: Continue discussion of proposed policy concepts to update the

Downtown Plan and Code, based on the policy framework and themes presented at the last meeting on July 2, 2008

Actions Requested: Review, Discussion, Direction

Support Information: N/A (additional information may be distributed at the meeting)

Staff Contact: Peter Huffman, 591-5373, [email protected]

2. 2008 Annual Amendment Applications #2008-04, #2008-08, #2008-09 & #2008-11 Description: Review four applications for the 2008 Annual Amendment to the

Comprehensive Plan and Land Use Regulatory Code: #2008-04: Puget Sound Avenue Area-wide Rezone #2008-08: Transportation Element #2008-09: South Tacoma Manufacturing/Industrial Center #2008-11: Residential Development Regulations

Actions Requested: Review; Discussion; Direction

Support Information: See “Agenda Item GB-2”

Staff Contact: Donna Stenger, 591-5210, [email protected]

Agenda for Regular Meeting on Wednesday, July 16, 2008

E. COMMUNICATION ITEMS

1. Land Use Administrator’s Reports and Decisions – “Agenda Item C-1”

2. Hearing Examiner’s Reports and Recommendations – “Agenda Item C-2”

3. Letter from Eric Anderson, City Manager, to Donald Arsenault, July 1, 2008, regarding Landscaping Requirement and Downtown Code – “Agenda Item C-3”

4. “Nickels calls for mandatory design review of new townhouses”, Seattle Post-Intelligencer, July 9, 2008 – “Agenda Item C-4”

5. “Mixed-Use Musings”, Urban Land Magazine, August 2007 – “Agenda Item C-5”

F. COMMENTS BY PLANNING DIVISION

G. COMMENTS BY PLANNING COMMISSION

H. ADJOURNMENT

City of Tacoma Community and Economic Development Department

747 Market Street, Room 1036 ▌ Tacoma, Washington 98402-3793 ▌ (253) 591-5365 http://www.cityoftacoma.org/planning

TO: Planning Commission FROM: Peter Huffman, Manager, Planning Division SUBJECT: Annual Amendment Applications #2008-04, #2008-08, #2008-09 and #2008-11 DATE: July 11, 2008 At the next meeting on July 16, the Planning Commission will continue review of draft staff analyses pertaining to the following four applications for the 2008 Annual Amendment to the Comprehensive Plan and Land Use Regulatory Code: • Application #2008-04 – proposed area-wide rezone from R-2 One Family Dwelling to C-2

General Community Commercial for 11 parcels located on S. Puget Sound Avenue between S. 68th and S. 70th Streets. The Commission visited the site of interest during a field trip on June 4, 2008. Attached is a draft staff report. Staff is seeking the Commission’s concurrence with the preliminary recommendations.

• Application #2008-08 – Transportation Element. This application seeks to add two projects

to the Unfunded Project List in the Transportation Element for eligibility for future funding, incorporate new policies pertaining to Commute Trip Reduction in the Transportation Element, and repeal and reenact Tacoma Municipal Code Chapter 13.15 Commute Trip Reduction. Attached is a draft staff report. Staff is seeking the Commission’s concurrence with the preliminary recommendations.

• Application #2008-09 – South Tacoma Manufacturing/Industrial Center. This application

seeks to amend the Comprehensive Plan to provide additional policy guidance consistent with the Countywide Planning Policies and regional criteria for manufacturing/industrial centers and amend zoning regulations to implement the new or amended policies. Attached is a preliminary draft of policy and text revisions to the Comprehensive Plan. Staff will facilitate the Commission’s review and discussion at the meeting.

• Application #2008-11 – Residential Code Revisions. This application moves forward the

results of the Residential Zoning Code Update project and proposes to revise the appropriate sections of the Land Use Regulatory Code. At the next meeting on July 16th, the Commission will review the last significant topic included in the project scope, the Planned Residential Development (PRD) districts, of which a discussion outline is attached. In addition, staff has provided a summary outline of all of the items included in this project and the Commission’s preliminary recommendations.

If you have any questions, please contact Donna Stenger at 591-5210 or [email protected]. PH:ds Attachments

Agenda Item GB-2

Annual Amendment Application #2008-04 Page 1 of 14 Planning Commission Meeting – 7/16/08

SOUTH 68TH STREET

SOUTH 70TH STREET

SO

UTH

TA

CO

MA

WA

Y

SO

UTH

PU

GET

SO

UN

D A

VE

NU

E

2008 Annual Amendment Application No. 2008-04 South Puget Sound Area-Wide Rezone

STAFF REPORT (DRAFT)

Applicant: Hoang Phan et.al.

Application #: 2008-04

Type of Amendment: Area-wide rezone

Current Land Use Intensity: Medium

Current Area Zoning: R-2 One-Family Dwelling District

Size of Area: 11 parcels, 1.51 acres

Location: 6802-6846 South Puget Sound Avenue

Neighborhood Council area: South Tacoma Neighborhood Council District

Proposed Amendment: Rezone the properties from R2-STGPD (One-Family Dwelling District South Tacoma Groundwater Protection District) to C-2 (General Community Commercial District)

Description of the Proposed Amendment: The proposed amendment would rezone eleven (11) parcels located at 6802-6846 South Puget Sound Avenue to C-2 (General Community Commercial District). The amendment area contains 1.52 acres bounded by S 68th Street to the north, South Puget Sound Avenue to the east, S 70th Street to the south, and the South Tacoma Way Alley to the west. It is located in the southern portion of the South Tacoma Neighborhood Council District, just east of the South Tacoma Way Manufacturing/Industrial Center. The parcels line one block fronting the western side of South Puget Sound Avenue (see Figure 1) The parcels are currently zoned R2-STGPD (One-Family Dwelling District, South Tacoma Groundwater Protection District). The current comprehensive plan designation is Medium Intensity (see Figures 2 and 3). Nine of the eleven parcels are developed with single-family homes, half of which are rental properties. The other half are owner-occupied, and several of these contain a home-occupation.

Figure 1: Proposed Amendment Area


SOUTH 64TH STREET

SOU

TH T

ACO

MA

WAY

WAY

BUR

LING

TON

N

ORT

HEN

RAI

LRO

AD

SOU

TH T

ACO

MABU

RLI

NGTO

N NO

RTH

EN R

AILR

OAD

STREET SOU

T

BUR

LING

TON

NORT

H

SOUTH 66TH STREET

SOUTH 68TH STREET

SOUTH 70TH STREET

PUG

ET S

OU

ND

AVE

NU

E

WA R

N ER

STR

E ET

SOUTH 72ND STREET

SOU

TH T

ACO

MA

WAY

PUG

ET S

OU

ND

AVE

NU

E

WAR

NER

STR

EET

Figure 2: Current Zoning in the Area

R2

C2

M2

M1

T

Arl

ingt

on N

eigh

borh

ood

Aut

o-O

rien

ted

Bus

ines

ses

SOUTH 64TH STREET

SOU

TH T

ACO

MA

WAY

WAY

BUR

LING

TON

N

ORT

HEN

RAI

LRO

AD

SOU

TH T

ACO

MABU

RLI

NGTO

N NO

RTH

EN R

AILR

OAD

TREET SOU

T

BUR

LING

TON

NORT

H

SOUTH 66TH STREET

SOUTH 68TH STREET

SOUTH 70TH STREET

PUG

ET S

OU

ND

AVE

NU

E

WAR

NER

STR

E ET

SOUTH 72ND STREET

SOU

TH T

ACO

MA

WAY

PUG

ET S

OU

ND

AVE

NU

E

WAR

NER

STR

EET

Figure 3: Current Land Use Intensities in the Area

Medium

Single-Family

Low

Aut

o-O

rien

ted

Bus

ines

ses

Arl

ingt

on N

eigh

borh

ood

The remaining two parcels do not contain a structure. They are used for auto-storage associated with an adjacent auto-related business. Surrounding parcel characteristics are as follows:

To the east, north, northeast, south and southeast of the amendment area, across South Puget Sound Avenue, is a single-family neighborhood, designated Single-Family Intensity and zoned R2-STGPD.

To the west, northwest and southwest of the amendment area, across the South Tacoma Way Alley,


SOUTH 68TH STREET

SOUTH 70TH STREET

SO

UTH

TA

CO

MA

WA

Y

SO

UTH

PU

GE

T S

OU

ND

AV

EN

UE

Figure 4: Properties within the amendment request area owned by the six co-applicants

Figure 5: 2004 Annual Amendment Map, as recommended by the Planning Commission and adopted by the City Council

is a major commercial corridor developed with mostly auto-related businesses, such as auto-repair, car retail and auto accessories retail. They are designated Medium Intensity and zoned C2-STGPD.

The amendment area lies along the western border of the Arlington single-family neighborhood. Therefore, the homes along the west side of South Puget Sound are the first line of residential development between the high intensity auto-related businesses along South Tacoma Way to the west, and this low-intensity residential neighborhood to the east (see Figures 2 and 3). The amendment area is accessed via South 68th Street and South 70th street, which are classified as residential streets, and South Puget Sound Avenue, which is an arterial street. Additional Information: The applicant, Mr. Hoang Phan, has indicated that his application for a rezone is intended to allow for the expansion of existing auto-related commercial uses located along South Tacoma Way, including his existing home-occupation auto repair business (6746 South Puget Sound). While the primary applicant is Mr. Phan, five additional property owners in the amendment area have signed on as co-applicants. This group of applicants collectively own seven of the eleven parcels contained in the amendment area (see Figure 4). The remaining four property owners have not yet expressed comments to staff regarding this application. This neighborhood was discussed during the 2004 Comprehensive Plan Amendment process for possible intensity change from Medium Intensity to Single-family Intensity, due to concerns about the adverse impacts on residential homes from adjacent commercial activities. Light and noise pollution have encroached on this single-family neighborhood from nearby auto dealerships. The amendment was not approved at that time, due to the needs expressed by the commercial property owners of the area (see Figure 5). The current application would align with the needs of these commercial property owners.

Major Issues Associated with this Application: The following are the major issues discussed in this report. Other minor issues are also described. Consistency. The existing land use intensity is Medium Intensity. Per the City’s Comprehensive-

Plan, each land use intensity designation is related to several zoning classifications. The existing R2 zone is not one of the zones related to the Medium Intensity designation. Consistency between intensity and zoning is not mandated by the Comp-Plan, although it is encouraged.

Compatibility. Although the proposed commercial zoning is compatible with the major commercial corridor adjacent to the west, it may be incompatible with the single-family uses currently developed on the property, and the single-family neighborhood to the east. Noise and light pollution, as well as traffic issues, are existing and potential adverse impacts of the commercial development.

Recent Rezones. Parcels for several blocks along South Puget Sound Avenue to the north and south of the amendment area are experiencing expansion from the commercial areas in the west, east into the residential area. For example, the majority of properties between South 60th Street and South 64th Street were up-zoned from R2-STGPD to C-2 or to T (Transitional) between 1968 and 1992.

Applicable Provisions of the Growth Management Act: The proposed amendment concerns a change from a lower intensity zoning to a higher intensity zoning within an area that would be characterized as “urban” under the Growth Management Act (GMA). No specific requirements under the GMA are directly applicable to this amendment; however, it is generally consistent with two GMA goals to focus growth in urban areas and promote the retention and expansion of existing businesses. A third major goal of the GMA is to encourage the availability of affordable housing and encourage preservation of existing housing stock. Approval of this amendment would convert eleven parcels of single-family zoning to commercial zoning, thereby threatening the existing housing stock and spreading commercial uses further east into this predominantly single-family residential neighborhood. Applicable Provisions of the Comprehensive Plan: The following provisions of the City’s Comprehensive Plan relate to the proposed amendment. 1. The Growth Strategy and Development Concept Element – Section II – Assumptions, Commercial Development (p GD-4): “Pressure can be expected for additional retail and service uses to support the growing population. It is anticipated that this demand can be accommodated through redevelopment and intensification of uses within established commercial areas.” Discussion: This residential area is experiencing pressure from the adjacent commercial area. This policy discourages expanding commercial zoning into the single-family neighborhood, because the existing commercial zone should accommodate the growth. Section IV – Development Intensities, Medium Intensity Development (p GD-7):“Medium intensity development generates moderate activity patterns and traffic generation. Commercial or industrial activity of community-wide significance as well as medium-density residential development are examples of medium intensity development.”

Allowable Density Table (p GD-7): Medium Intensity allowable density = 0-45 du/acre

Discussion: The amendment area’s existing Medium Intensity designation is intended for commercial and industrial activity or medium-density residential development. The existing zoning and uses – single-family homes and home-occupations – are not consistent with this designation. Furthermore, the allowed


Medium Intensity residential density of 45 du/acre is far more intense than currently developed in the amendment area. The proposed C-2 zoning would be consistent with the Medium Intensity designation. Section V – Concentrations, Medium Intensity Concentrations (GD-10): “Within medium intensity areas, office, light industrial and other medium intensity uses may be located adjacent to single-family residential uses so long as adverse impacts to residential uses are appropriately mitigated.” Discussion: The amendment area, though designated Medium Intensity, consists of primarily single-family uses. Though single-family zoning is not related to Medium Intensity (see discussion of the Generalized Land Use Plan Map, below), single-family uses are allowed. Furthermore, the policy calls for the adverse impacts of the adjacent commercial development to be mitigated. Currently, the commercial uses to the west of and within the amendment area are encroaching on the single-family neighborhood, a trend that would be furthered by the approval of the proposal. Section VIII Generalized Land Use Plan Map: “It is recognized that some areas of the city may not be zoned consistent with the intensity levels shown on this map. Areas that may need to be rezoned will undergo separate study to determine the appropriate zone changes. The Planning Commission or City Council will normally initiate these studies with the actual zone changes accomplished by established area-wide rezoning procedures. Private property owners or developers also may initiate rezone requests. Such requests must be consistent with the Generalized Land Use Plan Map and adopted policies of the Comprehensive Plan and will be subject to appropriate development controls as determined in established site specific rezone procedures…The following chart depicts the relationship between intensity designations…and zoning classifications.” (GD-13)

Medium Intensity Designation Zoning Classifications (GD-14): • Low-Density Multiple Family Dwelling (R-4L): Permitted uses include multi-family

dwellings, day-care centers and special-needs housing (TMC 13.06.130) • Multiple Family Dwelling District (R-4): Permitted uses include multi-family dwellings, day-

care centers, juvenile community facilities and special-needs housing (TMC 13.06.125). • General Community Commercial District (C-2): Permitted uses include office, retail, service,

and multifamily residential uses (TMC 13.06.200.B.3). • Planned Development Business District (PDB): Permitted uses include warehousing,

distribution, light assembly, media, education, research and limited commercial (TMC 13.06.200.B.5).

• Heavy Industrial District (M-2): Permitted uses include almost all industrial uses, including uses with extended hours, heavy truck traffic, and higher levels of noise and odors (TMC 13.06.400.B). As previously stated, the project site is within the South Tacoma Groundwater Protection District (STGPD). To protect the City’s drinking water, certain heavy industrial uses are prohibited within the STGPD, restricting allowing uses under the M-2 zoning designation (TMC 13.09) (GD-14).

Discussion: The amendment area’s existing zoning is R-2, which is not listed as related to Medium Intensity. Though single-family zoning is allowed in Medium Intensity areas, property owner-initiated rezone applications for consistent zoning are appropriate and could be likely in this area in the future, particularly if the zoning is not changed to a more consistent classification through this process. Such requests are deemed appropriate if consistent with the Generalized Land Use Plan Map and Comprehensive Plan policies. The proposed C-2 zone is related to the Medium Intensity designation.


2. Generalized Land Use Element – Section I General Growth and Development

Policy Intent “Medium and high intensity uses will be encouraged to develop in concentrations in order to better use the land, limit the spread of higher intensity development, protect low intensity residential neighborhoods and enable the economical provision of public facilities and services. New development should be compatible and “fit in” with the character and nature of existing development. Compatible developments would possess attributes similar and consistent with the main or essential characteristics exhibited by surrounding developments. These characteristics may include building shape and style, orientation and setbacks, architectural details, circulation patterns, location of parking, landscaping, open spaces and streetscape. This does not mean that dissimilar uses cannot be located in the same area, but rather these uses must be designed, scaled and situated in such a way that they are capable of existing in a harmonious manner. An appropriate location for dissimilar uses would be on sites possessing characteristics such as a natural buffer, a location between different intensity levels of development, or a location on a higher volume arterial.” (p. LU-8)

Discussion: Approval of the requested amendment would allow for more intense uses in this Medium Intensity area, consistent with the policy intent of this section. Because the amendment area consists of single-family uses along the western edge of the Arlington single-family neighborhood, approval could encourage the development of incompatible uses, inconsistent with the “fit in” element of the policy intent. However, because the amendment area is designated Medium Intensity and borders Single-Family Intensity, this area should be considered a “location between different intensity levels of development,” which the policy considers an appropriate area for dissimilar uses. According to this policy, new development in the amendment area should receive special attention for compatibility, regarding architectural details, setbacks, landscaping, etc., regardless of its use. This may be difficult to regulate with the proposed C-2 zoning, particularly if done through this area-wide process, which does not allow for site-specific analysis of particular projects and their potential impacts. LU-GGD-2 Growth Rate: Foster orderly growth in appropriate locations at a rate consistent with citizen desires and the provision of adequate services and facilities. (p. LU-8) LU-GGD-3 Concentrated Development: Growth and development throughout the urban areas should be regulated, stimulated and otherwise guided towards the development of compact concentrated areas to discourage sprawl, facilitate economical and efficient provision of utilities, public facilities and services, and expand transportation options to the public. (p. LU-GGD-8) Discussion: Approval of the requested Comprehensive Plan Amendment would allow for more intense development, which would support the City’s future population and/or employment growth and concentrate development in this urban area. However, because the subject properties are oriented to South Puget Sound Avenue, it is likely that a majority of future activity and access to commercial uses in this area would be focused on South Puget Sound Avenue and the adjacent single-family neighborhood. Section III Residential Development, General Residential Development Goal: To provide fair and equitable distribution of a variety of housing types and living areas as well as protect and enhance already established neighborhoods (p. LU-27). LU-RDG-4 Housing Opportunities: Encourage the development of residential areas that offer a variety of housing opportunities for all segments of the population within all areas of the city (p. LU-28).


Discussion: By protecting and enhancing this established residential neighborhood, a variety of housing types can be preserved. The amendment area contains nine units of both owner-occupied and rental housing. More housing density could be developed if the amendment area were to be rezoned to a medium intensity residential zone, such as R-4, instead of the proposed C-2. LU-RDG-1 Protect Established Residential Areas: Protect, preserve and maintain established residential neighborhood areas where a definite density, housing type and character prevail; nuisances and incompatible land uses should not be allowed to penetrate these areas (p. LU-28). LU-RDG-2 Prohibit Incompatible Land Uses: Prohibit incompatible land uses from situating within or adjacent to existing or future residential developments and gradually eliminate existing incompatible uses from existing residential areas (p. LU-28). LU-RDG-7 Encourage Maintenance and Revitalization of Neighborhoods: Encourage the preservation and/or maintenance of sound, viable neighborhoods and the revitalization of those that are declining (p. LU-28). Discussion: The amendment area is located at the edge of an established residential area, though recent commercial encroachment has affected the coherence of the single-family neighborhood. Approval of the requested amendment would allow additional incompatible uses, thereby contradicting these policies. Potential incompatibilities could include noise, lighting, glare, traffic, and activity levels. As stated earlier, the amendment area is already subject to adverse impacts from the adjacent auto-related commercial activities. Light and noise associated with commercial uses have encroached upon the vicinity, and rezoning the amendment area would bring similar commercial development further into the Arlington neighborhood. LU-RDG-9 Rehabilitation and Renewal Efforts: Encourage and assist deteriorating residential areas in rehabilitation and renewal efforts in order to improve their quality and promote a sound, healthful and safe living environment (p. LU-29). Discussion: Approval of this amendment would likely contribute to the deterioration of a currently residential area, contradicting this policy to rehabilitate and renew residential areas. Section III Residential Development, Low Intensity – Single-Family Detached Housing Areas LU-RDLISFD-3 Discourage Multifamily, Commercial and Industrial Uses: Protect identified single-family detached housing areas by restricting within their boundaries and buffer from the edges of these areas higher residential densities and commercial or industrial uses that can adversely affect the established or planned neighborhood environment (LU-35). Discussion: Approval of this amendment would contradict this policy by encouraging, rather than restricting commercial development from the boundaries of established neighborhood environments. Section IV Commercial Development, Location and Accessibility LU-CDLA-4 Locate in Existing Commercial Areas and in Mixed-use Centers: Encourage new commercial development to locate within existing commercial areas and in mixed-use centers in order to maximize the use of the land and maintain the economic viability of established commercial developments (LU-37). Discussion: Approval of this amendment would contradict this policy to encourage commercial development within existing commercial areas. Rezoning the amendment area to C-2, General


Community Commercial, would encourage commercial development to spread into an existing residential area, rather than intensifying within the established commercial corridor. LU-CDLA-8 Arterial Street Access: Encourage new commercial developments to locate near arterial streets for maximum accessibility and maintenance of efficient traffic flows provided they are designed and situated to be consistent with the established character of the surrounding area (LU-38). Discussion: The amendment area is located one block from a principal arterial, South Tacoma Way, and is adjacent to South Puget Sound Avenue, which is also an arterial street. The proposal is consistent with this policy. 3 Neighborhood Element South Tacoma Neighborhood, Area Vision: …commercial and industrial properties will be protected from residential encroachment such that it limits future commercial or industrial development. The reuse and redevelopment of both commercial and industrial properties should be emphasized in order to increase employment opportunities, protect residential properties, and remove blight… The residential vision is to maintain the area’s mix of single-family and multifamily housing while preserving the unique features of South Tacoma neighborhoods…Efforts should be made to buffer quiet neighborhood areas from the onslaught of heavily trafficked commercial areas and transit corridors by applying traffic-calming and other methods as necessary… The commercial vision is to maintain and enhance development within the existing designated commercial and mixed-use districts to enrich the local business area and to protect the residential areas from the effects of the incompatible commercial development (Neigh41-42) Goal ST-1 Residential: Maintain the area’s mix of single-family and multifamily housing while preserving the unique features of South Tacoma neighborhoods. Policy Intent - …Single-family areas within South Tacoma offer a variety of housing styles, ages and values. A majority of this housing is older with some newer infill structures. This variety provides affordable housing for moderate to lower income households especially for workers employed at nearby commercial and industrial facilities. Discussion: The South Tacoma Neighborhood vision promotes the protection of residential uses from commercial encroachment, and vice versa. However, the proposal would likely result in commercial uses encroaching on a single-family neighborhood. Because the South Tacoma Neighborhood is proximate to the South Tacoma Manufacturing/Industrial Center, the vision also supports the affordable housing found in the amendment area. ST-1.3 Edison-Gray/Arlington Housing Preservation: Support single-family land uses and low intensity designations for properties located east of Puget Sound Avenue between South 48th Street and the City limits by not allowing future commercial encroachment. Discussion: This policy was written specifically to restrict commercial development from encroaching into the residential neighborhood east of South Puget Sound Avenue. However, the amendment area is on the west side of Puget Sound Avenue, thus this policy does not apply. It should be noted that the existing single-family uses in the amendment area serve as a buffer between the existing commercial uses along South Tacoma Way and the residential uses on the east side of Puget Sound Avenue. ST-2.3 Land Use Actions on Puget Sound Avenue: Hearing Examiner and/or Land Use Administrator land use actions (e.g., rezones, variances) for proposed non-residential properties located along Puget Sound Avenue from South 50th Street to South 74th Street shall prevent light, noise and traffic impacts to


existing single-family homes through mitigation. Such mitigation may include requiring the installation of down lighting; prohibiting the use of loudspeakers; maintaining a landscape buffer between the proposed use and single-family homes; or employing CPTED (Crime Prevention through Environmental Design) measures to enhance safety of both residential and commercial areas. Discussion: This policy was adopted to mitigate the adverse impacts that adjacent commercial uses have had on this single-family neighborhood. If the proposed amendment were to be approved, these impacts would likely spread further into the Arlington residential neighborhood, increasing the potential for negative impacts. Further, despite the mitigations promoted by this policy, few established development standards and requirements enforce the needed enhancements and they do not allow for site-specific analysis and mitigation. ST-8.1 Buffer Noise Sources: Encourage the use of buffer areas and/or noise absorbing barriers between sources of noise and residential areas or other noise sensitive land uses. ST-8.3 Noise Impacted Areas: Discourage development in noise impacted areas that will significantly increase noise levels by either a direct contribution or by removing an existing natural feature that acts as a noise absorbing barrier. Discussion: These policies were adopted to mitigate the adverse impacts of noise caused by intensive uses and vehicle traffic. The existing R2-STGPD zoning of the amendment area serves as a buffer between the commercial uses and high vehicular traffic on South Tacoma Way and the single-family neighborhood east of South Puget Sound Avenue. The proposed amendment would allow commercial uses to encroach further into the residential neighborhood. Applicable Provisions of the Land Use Regulatory Code General Community Commercial District (C2): The District is intended to allow a broad range of medium-to-high intensity uses of larger scale. Office, retail and service uses that serve a large market area are appropriate. Residential uses are also appropriate. This classification is not appropriate inside comprehensive plan designated mixed-use centers or low-intensity areas. Discussion: The proposed C-2 zone is the more intensive of the City’s two basic commercial zones. Allowed uses include retail, restaurants, vehicle sales and services, offices, gas stations, residential uses, special needs housing, and day care centers. Amendment Criteria: Applications for amendments to the Comprehensive Plan and Land Use Regulatory Code are subject to review based on the adoption and amendment procedures and the review criteria contained in TMC 13.02.045.G. Proposed amendments are required to meet at least one of the eleven review criteria to be considered by the Planning Commission. The following section provides a review of each of these criteria with respect to the proposal. Each of the criteria is provided, followed by staff analysis of the criterion as it relates to this proposal.

1. There exists an obvious technical error in the pertinent Comprehensive Plan or regulatory code provisions.

Staff Analysis: The proposed amendment does not seek corrections to any error in the Comprehensive Plan or the Land Use Regulatory Code. However, the proposal does seek to improve the consistency between the Comprehensive Plan land use intensity designation for this area and its zoning designation.


2. The amendment is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan goals or policies or will achieve consistency.

Staff Analysis: The proposed amendment would be consistent with several Comprehensive Plan policies and intent statements, as discussed above. Policy and intent statements with which the proposed amendment is consistent include: selections from the Growth Strategies and Development Concept Element, Section IV (Development Intensities) and Section VIII (Generalized Land Use Plan Map); policy intent for the Generalized Land Use Element, Section I; and Policies LU-GGD-2, LU-GGD-3, and ST-1.3. The application is consistent with these in several ways:

The proposed amendment would change current zoning such that it is more consistent with Medium Intensity intended densities or zoning classifications.

The proposed amendment would result in opportunities for greater intensity and compact development

However, the proposed amendment would be inconsistent with the following policies and intent statements : Selections from the Growth Strategies and Development Concept Element, Section II and Section V; the Goal for the Generalized Land Use Element, Section III; the Vision for the Neighborhood Element, South Tacoma Neighborhood; and policies LU-RDG-1, LU-RDG-2, LU-RDG-4, LU-RDG-7, LU-RGD-9, LU-RDLISFD-3; LU-CDLA-4; LU-CDLA-8, ST-1.3, ST-2.3, ST-8.1 and ST-8.3. The application is inconsistent with these in several ways:

The proposed amendment would encourage commercial uses to spread into the amendment area, rather than concentrating within the existing commercial center, where adequate infrastructure exists.

The proposed amendment would disrupt the existing single-family residential area by allowing additional incompatible land uses, thereby failing to protect an existing residential area.

3. Circumstances related to the proposed amendment have significantly changed, or a lack of

change in circumstances has occurred since the area or issue was last considered by the Planning Commission. Staff Analysis: As discussed in the first section of this report, the City previously considered a Comprehensive Plan amendment to reduce the intensity designation of a four-block area that included this application’s amendment area. The 2004 application proposed to reduce the designation from Medium Intensity to Single-family Intensity, in reaction to the adverse impacts on residential homes from adjacent auto-oriented commercial activities. Approval of that proposal would have ensured the preservation of the relatively low intensity character of the area, and limited the possibility for commercial uses to encroach on the Arlington neighborhood. The result would have been the opposite of the amendment currently under consideration. However, that proposal was not approved by the City Council, due in part to the needs and concerns expressed by local business owners. The auto-oriented businesses that the community was attempting to limit with the 2004 proposal are likely the types of businesses that will develop in the amendment area if the current proposal is approved. In fact, a single parcel located at the northwest corner of South 68th and South Puget Sound Avenue was rezoned from R-2 to C-2 in 2006 to allow for the expansion of an auto-oriented business. Because conditions on the amendment area and adjacent areas have not changed significantly since the 2004 proposal, approval of this amendment would be consistent with the previous decision. It should be noted, however, that zoning classifications other than C-2, such as R-4L,


would also be consistent with the Medium Intensity designation and may generate fewer land use conflicts.

4. The needs of the City have changed, which support an amendment.

Staff Analysis: The needs of the City have not changed in recent years to any degree that would affect whether the proposed amendment should be supported.

5. The amendment is compatible with existing or planned land uses and the surrounding

development pattern. Staff Analysis: Because the amendment area is located at the border between a single-family neighborhood and a major commercial corridor, it is debatable whether the proposed commercial zoning is compatible with the existing land uses. Potential commercial uses under the proposed C-2 zone would be compatible with similar uses to the west (and could potentially include an expansion of those existing businesses). However, potential commercial uses could be incompatible with the existing residential uses to the east of the amendment area due to noise, light, and activity levels associated with commercial uses. They could also be incompatible with residential uses within the amendment area, some of which may remain single-family homes following any rezone. Recent rezones three blocks north of the amendment area are similar to this proposed amendment, and have resulted in increased land use conflicts between commercial and residential uses.

6. Growth and development, as envisioned in the Plan, is occurring faster, slower, or is failing

to materialize.

Staff Analysis: Not applicable for this proposed amendment.

7. The capacity to provide adequate services is diminished or increased.

Staff Analysis: The proposed amendment will not directly affect capacity.

8. Plan objectives are not being met as specified, and/or the assumptions upon which the plan is based are found to be invalid.


9. Transportation and and/or other capital improvements are not being made as expected.


10. Substantial similarities of conditions and characteristics can be demonstrated on abutting

properties that warrant a change in land use intensity or zoning classification.

Staff Analysis: Approximately 30 parcels located several blocks north and south of the amendment area (which are also located at the border between residential and commercial areas) have been up-zoned from R-2 to C-2. Similarly, one parcel located directly north of the amendment area (on the corner of South 68th Street and South Puget Sound Avenue) has recently been up-zoned from R-2 to C-2. Though not permitted, several auto-oriented businesses have used parcels within the amendment area for commercial uses. This suggests a trend towards


rezoning the west side of South Puget Sound Avenue in the vicinity of the amendment area to higher intensity zoning due to incompatibility from noise, light and activity levels. However, the trend to allow for expansion of auto-oriented uses back to South Puget Sound Avenue may not be appropriate, as discussed throughout this report. In particular, it may not be appropriate to allow for such expansion without the type of site specific review that could address particular impacts and help ensure appropriate transitions. Though up-zoning may be warranted, the C-2 zone may not be the most appropriate zone to be applied to the amendment area through this process.

11. A question of consistency exists between the Comprehensive Plan and its elements and

RCW 36.70A, the County-wide Planning Policies for Pierce County, Multi-County Planning Policies, or development regulations.


Reclassification Criteria: Applications for area-wide zoning reclassifications are subject to review based on the amendment procedures and the review criteria contained in TMC 13.02.053.3. Proposed reclassifications are required to meet at least one of the six review criteria to be considered by the Planning Commission. The following section provides a review of each of these criteria with respect to the proposal. Each of the criteria is provided, followed by staff’s analysis of the criterion as it relates to this proposal.

(a) Substantial evidence is presented demonstrating that growth and development is occurring in a different manner than presented in the Comprehensive Plan.

Staff Analysis: The Comprehensive Plan currently designates this area for Medium Intensity development. The existing development pattern and zoning are not consistent with this long term vision for how this area should development. While the current and recent development of this area does provide some transition and buffering for the homes across South Puget Sound Avenue, as called for in the plan, it does not provide for medium intensity residential or commercial growth. (b) The proposed area-wide reclassification is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and the

Generalized Land Use Plan map.

Staff Analysis: As discussed in criterion 2 of the Amendment Criteria section above, the proposed amendment is consistent with some policies of the Comprehensive Plan, yet inconsistent with many others. The application is consistent with the Plan in that it would support more intensive and compact development, and rezone the parcels such that they are consistent with the Generalized Land Use Plan map. The application is inconsistent with the Plan in that it would encourage the encroachment of commercial development into established residential areas, likely with little buffering or transition, thereby creating potential land use incompatibilities.

(c) The reclassification is needed to further implement the Comprehensive Plan. Staff Analysis: While rezoning the amendment area to C-2 would increase consistency with the land use intensity designation, other zoning classifications, such as a medium intensity residential zone, could also increase consistency while providing a better transition and not resulting in as many land use incompatibilities.


(d) The proposed reclassification is needed to maintain consistency with proposed amendments to the Comprehensive Plan.

Staff Analysis: There are currently no proposed amendments to the Comprehensive Plan associated with this area or affecting this specific proposal.

(e) There is substantial evidence presented showing inconsistency between the designated land

use intensity in the subject area and the existing zoning.

Staff Analysis: The designated land use intensity is Medium Intensity. The existing zoning is R2-STGPD, which is listed in the Plan as related to the Single-Family Detached land use intensity. The proposed amendment would increase consistency between the designated intensity and the zoning. However, there are other zones that are consistent with the designated intensity, such as a Medium Intensity residential zone, that would not result in the encroachment of commercial uses into a residential area and associated incompatibilities. (f) The subject property is suitable for development in general conformance with the zoning

standards under the recommended rezone classification.

Staff Analysis: As discussed throughout this report, the subject property is both suitable and unsuitable for the commercial development that could occur with the proposed rezone to C-2. Because the amendment area is located on the border between two dissimilar land uses (single-family residential and commercial), the proposed amendment is consistent with the land uses to the west and inconsistent with the land uses to the east. There may be other land uses that would be more suitable for the amendment area if it is to redevelop. Multi-family housing would be one example. Multi-family housing would provide a more suitable buffer between commercial and single-family uses without the type and level of incompatibilities associated with commercial uses.

Economic Impact Assessment: Staff Analysis: The proposed amendment would expand commercial zoning to include 11 parcels on approximately 1.52 acres. Future development on the subject parcels, if they were rezoned C-2, could include large office (up to 45 feet in height), retail and service uses as well as some residential. Because of the adjacent land uses, historic development patter and stated property-owner intentions, it is anticipated that auto-oriented businesses would be developed on a significant proportion of the amendment area parcels. Commercial uses would provide a small amount of job growth and associated increases in spending and business tax revenue, as well as increased property tax. If a multi-family housing use were to be constructed on the subject parcels, the tax base would also increase, as the residential density would be higher. In both cases, if redevelopment occurs, there would be some short-term tax revenues from construction. A minor increase in demand for law enforcement would be associated with commercial use of the amendment area. Commercial uses would also increase use of South Puget Sound Avenue, increasing maintenance costs. The overall economic effect of the proposed rezone to C-2 would likely be a small positive impact. A positive impact would also occur if the area were to be rezoned to a multi-family zone.



Staff Recommendation: Summary: Based upon the review of the Comprehensive Plan policies, Land use Regulatory Code and other factors, as described above, the proposed amendment to change the zoning from R2-STGPD to C-2 does not adequately meet the amendment criteria. Three major issues discussed in this report are consistency with the Comprehensive Plan, compatibility between land uses, and recent rezones in this area. Consistency. The existing land use intensity is Medium Intensity. Per the City’s Comprehensive

Plan, each land use intensity designation is related to several zoning classifications. The existing R-2 zone is not one of the zones related to the Medium Intensity designation. Consistency between intensity and zoning is not mandated by the Comprehensive Plan, although it is encouraged.

Compatibility. Because the proposed amendment area is located at a transition point between two different land uses (single-family residential and commercial), the proposed zoning could be considered both compatible and incompatible with surrounding land uses. It would be compatible with existing commercial land uses to the west, but incompatible with the existing residential land uses both within the amendment area and to the east. Existing auto-oriented commercial development to the west has adversely affected residential uses to the east. Specifically, impacts include light, noise, appearance and activity levels. Approval of this amendment would likely increase this incompatibility. Commercial development would increase traffic on South Puget Sound Avenue, which would adversely affect the residential development on the east side of the street. In contrast, several blocks north, where up-zoning and commercial development have already occurred, the commercial uses on South Tacoma Way cover the entire block, such that the back of the development faces South Puget Sound Avenue. In this case, vehicular traffic is contained to South Tacoma Way. This configuration would not be possible in the amendment area, because an alley lies between South Tacoma Way and South Puget Sound Avenue, preventing development on the amendment area from being served by South Tacoma Way.

Recent Rezones. Parcels for several blocks along South Puget Sound Avenue to the north and south of the amendment area are experiencing pressure for expansion of the commercial areas in the west, east into the residential area. For example, the majority of properties between South 60th Street and South 64th Street were up-zoned from R2-STGPD to C-2 or to T (Transitional) between 1968 and 1992.

Recommendation: Staff recommends denial of the proposed amendment for an area-wide rezone to C-2. Staff recommends consideration of other zoning classifications that are consistent with the Medium Intensity designation, yet more compatible with existing residential uses, and that would provide an appropriate buffer between the commercial and single-family residential areas. Therefore, it is recommended that rezoning the amendment area from R2-STGPD to R4L-STGPD be considered. It is also recommended that other, similar parcels directly north and south of the amendment area be rezoned to R4L-STGPD, for a total of four blocks between South 64th Street and South 72nd Street, as similar conditions in these adjacent areas will likely result in similar applications in the future. Proactively rezoning these parcels would prevent future incompatibilities and reduce the pressure for expansion of commercial uses that would negatively impact the residential area. It should be noted that this proactive rezoning would not prevent future site-specific applications for rezones in these areas to commercial zones that could allow for auto-oriented businesses. However, through those site-specific rezones processes, the City would be better able to address the potentially greater impacts from such uses on the residential areas to the east, as called for in the Comprehensive Plan.

Staff Report – Annual Amendment Application #2008-08 Planning Commission Review 7/16/08 Page 1

STAFF REPORT

Application #2008-08: Transportation Element Type of Amendment: Comprehensive Plan Text Change

Land Use Intensity Change Regulatory Code Text Change Area-wide Rezone

Applicant and/or Affiliation: Community and Economic Development Department and Public Works Department

Contact: Commute Trip Reduction – Diane Wiatr, 591-5380 Unfunded Project List – Dana Brown, 591-5718

Location: Citywide Current Land Use Intensity: N/A Current Zoning: N/A Size (parcels and/or acres): N/A Description of Amendment Request: Amend the Transportation Element of the

Comprehensive Plan pertaining to Unfunded Projects and Commute Trip Reduction; and amend the Tacoma Municipal Code Chapter 13.15 pertaining to Commute Trip Reduction.

General Description of the Proposed Amendment:

The proposed amendment includes the following three components:

1. Amending the Transportation Element of the Comprehensive Plan by adding two projects to the “Transportation Improvement Projects List – Unfunded” (or “Unfunded Project List”) and updating the Nonmotorized Network Map to incorporate one of the projects;

2. Amending the Transportation Element by adding policies pertaining to Commute Trip Reduction; and

3. Rescinding and reenacting the Tacoma Municipal Code Chapter 13.15 Commute Trip Reduction.

There was a 4th component that would update the Periodic Concurrency Assessment section of the Transportation Element with new information from an assessment of the performance of the City’s transportation network. Since the technical analysis is consuming more time and resources than originally anticipated, the applicant (Public Works Department) has requested that this component be held over until the 2009 Annual Amendment cycle. 1. Unfunded Projects

The proposed amendment would add the East-West Corridor and the President’s Ridge Trail to the Unfunded Project List in the Transportation Element and update the Nonmotorized Network Map (Transportation Figure 2) to incorporate the President’s Ridge Trail. (See Attachment 2008-08-A)


The East-West Corridor is a proposed new arterial that connects the west terminus of S. 38th Street at S. Tacoma Way and the east terminus of 40th Street W. at Orchard Street. The one-mile corridor would be listed as an “Arterial Street Project – New Construction” with the improvement type being “New Arterial.” The President’s Ridge Trail is a proposed new trail corridor located in the greenbelt above Interstate 5, along the south side. The trail would extend from the vicinity of Reed Elementary School and the I-5/S. 38th Street Interchange area, pass through the north edge of Lincoln Park, meander around the I-5/SR-7 Interchange area, and reach McKinley Park. The segment between Lincoln Park and I-5/SR-7 Interchange area could take an alternative route via S. 34th Street, or both routes could be built to form a loop. The length of the trail corridor is estimated at 2 to 4 miles. The trail would be listed as a “Miscellaneous Project” with the improvement type being “feasibility study for trail and nonmotorized access.” The trail would also be added to the Nonmotorized Network Map (Transportation Figure 2) in the Transportation Element as one of the “Planned Connections.” The listing of the two projects provides an opportunity for them to be eligible for future funding and ultimately be built. The Unfunded Project List includes a variety of projects intended to improve traffic flows, roadway capacities and the overall transportation system performance within the next 20 years. Projects on the list are reviewed on a periodic basis, and depending on funding availability, may be moved to the Six-Year Comprehensive Transportation Program for budgeting and implementation. Keeping the Unfunded Project List current not only maintains the projects’ eligibility for funding, but also reflects the community’s needs and desires and meets the concurrency requirements of the Growth Management Act (GMA).

2. Commute Trip Reduction Policies The proposed amendment would add seven Commute Trip Reduction (CTR) related policies to the Transportation Element, as briefly described below. The complete text of the proposed policies and the associated policy intent is shown in Attachment 2008-08-B.

Proposed Policy Brief Description / Intent T-CTR-1 – Comprehensive Planning and CTR To incorporate CTR in applicable disciplines of

comprehensive planning. T-CTR-2 – Funding for CTR To assign higher funding priority to CTR related projects

and programs. T-CTR-3 – Collaboration on CTR To ensure coordination with jurisdictions and organizations. T-CTR-4 – Climate Change and CTR To integrate CTR into the City’s Climate Change Action

Strategies. T-CTR-5 – Expansion of CTR To pursue innovative measures and endeavor to expand the

scope of CTR. T-CTR-6 – Evaluation of CTR To continually monitor and evaluate the effectiveness of

CTR programs. T-CTR-7 – Leadership in CTR To recommend that the City of Tacoma take a leadership

role in CTR implementation.


The purpose of adding these policies to the Transportation Element is to recognize that CTR is a significant component of the City’s overall land use and transportation strategy and to ensure that the CTR program efforts are carried out in a consistent and integrated manner with the implementation of appropriate Comprehensive Plan policies. These policies are derived from the City’s CTR Plan, which was adopted by the City Council on July 10, 2007, by Resolution No. 37220, pursuant to the CTR Efficiency Act of 2006 (RCW 70.94.521-551) and the associated Washington Administrative Code WAC 468-63. The CTR Plan provides guidelines for the City and major employers affected by the State law to implement effective strategies to achieve the goals of 10% reduction in drive-alone trips and 13% reduction in vehicle miles traveled by 2011. As the proposed CTR policies are being added to the Transportation Element, the existing provisions pertaining to Transportation Demand Management as appears on page T-12 would be deleted.

3. Commute Trip Reduction Ordinance The proposed amendment would repeal and reenact Tacoma Municipal Code Chapter 13.15, pertaining to Commute Trip Reduction (a.k.a. “CTR Ordinance”). The complete text of the proposed CTR Ordinance and a summary of major changes from the existing code to the proposed ordinance are provided in Attachment 2008-08-C. The CTR Ordinance establishes requirements for affected employers, including an appeals process, and procedures for the City for program administration, monitoring, enforcement and intergovernmental coordination. The existing CTR Ordinance was originally adopted pursuant to the State CTR Law of 1991, which was recently amended with the passage of the CTR Efficiency Act of 2006. The City is required to update its CTR Ordinance accordingly. The proposed CTR Ordinance was prepared based on the Model Ordinance provided by the State and, by statute, in close coordination with Pierce County and jurisdictions within the County to ensure its consistency with the County’s draft CTR Ordinance.

Applicable Provisions of the Growth Management Act (and other State laws):

The East-West Corridor and the President’s Ridge Trail reflect the community’s needs and future demands. Adding them to the Unfunded Project List fulfills the GMA requirement that the transportation element must contain a subelement of “facilities and services needs, including …… identification of state and local system needs to meet current and future demands.” [RCW 36.70A.070(6)(a)(iii)(F)] In addition, the President’s Ridge Trail, if built, would help promote physical activity, which is consistent with the following two provisions of GMA:


• “The transportation element shall include the following subelement …… pedestrian and bicycle component to include collaborative efforts to identify and designate planned improvements for pedestrian and bicycle facilities and corridors that address and encourage enhanced community access and promote healthy lifestyles.” (RCW 36.70A.070(6)(a)(vii))

• “Wherever possible, the land use element should consider utilizing urban planning approaches that promote physical activity.” [RCW 36.70A.070(1)]

The proposed CTR policies and CTR Ordinance are required by and consistent with the State CTR Law (RCW 70.94.521-551). They are also consistent with the GMA requirement that the transportation element must include the subelement of “demand management strategies.” [RCW 36.70A.070(6)(a)(vi)]

Applicable Provisions of the Comprehensive Plan:

1. East-West Corridor The East-West corridor would fill a missing link that would help improve east-west traffic movement through the City and reduce congestion on other east-west corridors, such as Center Street and S. 56th Street. It would be a regionally significant facility that also benefits Fircrest and University Place. In addition, the East-West Corridor would provide direct linkage between two designated centers (i.e., the Tacoma Mall Urban Center and the South Tacoma Manufacturing/Industrial Center) and two major transportation corridors (i.e., I-5 and SR-16), benefiting not only the existing economic activity but also future development such as the new proposed warehouse distribution facility being developed by ProLogis on 158 acres of the old Burlington Northern Property on the west side of S. Tacoma Way between S. 38th and S. 54th Streets. With its potential benefits, the proposed East-West Corridor is consistent with the intent of the Comprehensive Plan, as exemplified in the following applicable provisions:

• “T-LUT-3 Centers and Corridors – Give high priority to improvement of transportation facilities and services within designated centers and along identified corridors connecting the centers.” [Policy – Land Use and Transportation, Transportation Element, p. T-4]

• “T-LUT-4 Support Economic Bases – Give high priority to those transportation facilities that provide the greatest opportunity to serve and support the existing economic bases and will aid the City in attracting new investments.” [Policy – Land Use and Transportation, Transportation Element, p. T-4]

• “T-LUT-5 Accessibility – Situate new transportation facilities in a manner that will assure reasonable access for all modes to places of employment and attraction in the City.” [Policy – Land Use and Transportation, Transportation Element, p. T-4]

• “T-LUT-6 Concurrency – Ensure that the City’s transportation network adequately serves the existing and projected land use developments. If adequate service levels are not maintained, pursue improvements to the transportation systems, mitigations of impacts, or modifications to the land use assumptions, where appropriate.” [Policy – Land Use and Transportation, Transportation Element, p. T-4]

• “T-TSM-2 Street System Design – Encourage street system design in a grid pattern, which has frequent interconnections to facilitate transit, bicycle, and pedestrian connections; strongly discourage cul-de-sacs.” [Policy – Transportation System Management, Transportation Element, p. T-4]


However, the proposed East-West Corridor would transect the Tacoma Landfill area and designated wetlands, habitat zones and flood hazard areas located between the Landfill and the South Tacoma Manufacturing/Industrial Center. That general area also includes part of a potential Open Space Habitat Corridor that is proposed as part of the draft Open Space Habitat and Recreation Plan. The following are some of the applicable provisions in the Comprehensive Plan:

• “Map of Wetlands” [Environmental Policy Element, p. E-32]

• “Map of Habitat Zones” [Environmental Policy Element, p. E-29]

• “Map of Flood Hazard Areas” [Environmental Policy Element, p. E-28] In addition, the proposed corridor could be considered a “major transportation facility” and hence an “Essential Public Facility”, in which case the siting of the corridor across critical areas could be considered inconsistent with the following Comprehensive Plan policy:

• “LU-GSEPF-3 Avoid Resource Lands/Critical Areas – Essential public facilities should not be located in designated natural resource lands or critical areas.” [Policy – Siting Essential Public Facilities, Generalized Land Use Element, p. LU-13]

Environmental review of potential impacts and appropriate mitigation measures will be necessary, prior to design and construction, if and when the East-West Corridor receives funding to proceed. The actual corridor alignment could be modified to avoid critical areas or, in the alternative if avoidance is not possible, be designed appropriately with mitigation measures to address the potential inconsistency with the above policy. It is noted that currently the Unfunded Project List includes another east-west corridor, which is the combination of two new arterials, i.e., S. 47th/48th from S. Tacoma Way to Tyler and S. 48th/49th from Tyler to Orchard. The listing of the S. 47th/48th/49th Corridor exemplifies the need for the proposed East-West Corridor.

2. President’s Ridge Trail The President’s Ridge Trail as envisioned is expected to integrate into the nonmotorized network. Potentially, with appropriate extensions, it could connect to the existing Scott Pierson Trail along SR-16, the planned Water Ditch Trail along S. Tacoma Way, the Foothills Trail along the Puyallup River to Orting, and the Tacoma Dome multimodal transit center. It would also provide linkage to four mixed-use centers, i.e., Tacoma Mall, S. 38th and G (Lincoln), S. 34th and Pacific, and E. 34th and McKinley (McKinley). In addition to contributing to the nonmotorized component of the balanced, multimodal transportation system, the proposed trail would utilize the I-5 greenbelt to offer an opportunity to promote physical and recreational activity, while providing a safe access to Reed Elementary School. For these reasons, the proposed President’s Ridge Trail is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, as exemplified in the following applicable provisions:


• “The automobile will continue to be the primary means of transportation for most people. However, other methods of transportation including transit, bicycling, and walking will be more prevalent. The movement of people and goods rather than vehicles will be emphasized in determining transportation improvements.” [Plan Assumption – Transportation, Growth Strategy and Development Concept Element, p. GD-5]

• “Achieve a multimodal transportation system that efficiently moves people and goods with optimum safety and appropriate speed, maximizes the conservation of energy, and minimally disrupts the desirable features of the environment.” [Goal – Transportation, Transportation Element, p. T-1]

• “An integrated, safety-oriented pedestrian and bicycle system increases mobility choices, reduces reliance on single-occupant vehicles, provides convenient access to schools, designated centers, transit and ferry systems, parks, and other recreation areas throughout the City, and encourages regular physical activity to enhance health and wellness.” [Policy Intent – Nonmotorized Transportation, Transportation Element, p. T-6]

• “T-NT-1 Identification of Projects – Assign high priority to pedestrian and bicycle projects that serve the following objectives: address safety issues; provide access to designated centers; encourage safe and active routes to schools; provide linkages to the transit, ferry, and school bus systems; complete planned pedestrian or bicycle facilities or trails; and provide system connectivity.” [Policy – Nonmotorized Transportation, Transportation Element, p. T-6]

• “T-NT-2 Potential Corridors – Recognize, encourage, and support street systems, rail corridors, rights-of-way, off-road trail systems, easements, utility corridors, state highway systems, greenbelts, and other corridors as potential links to the bicycle and pedestrian system.” [Policy – Nonmotorized Transportation, Transportation Element, p. T-6]

• “ROS-PB-2 Trail Corridors – Develop new corridors for bicycle/pedestrian trails and take advantage of available corridors such as existing park trails, greenbelt areas, railroads, pipelines, power lines and street rights-of-way.” [Recreation and Open Space Facilities Element, p. ROS-16]

3. CTR Policies and CTR Ordinance

The Comprehensive Plan is very supportive of CTR. There are numerous provisions in the Plan that are applicable to the proposed CTR policies and CTR Ordinance. Listed below are three guiding principles pertaining to growth and development, land use, and transportation as set forth in the policy framework that supports, encourages and promotes CTR. Also listed are some existing policies that, collectively, portray such policy framework.

• “Tacoma's growth and development concept is …… entitled Concentrations and Corridors - Designated Centers. …… The concept directs future development to specified areas of the city. …… Mixed-use centers are compact, self-sufficient areas, identifiable as the focus of the surrounding area. The mixed-use center is a dense, well-integrated variety of development types, combined in such a way that it is pedestrian-oriented and transit supportive.” [Growth Strategy and Development Concept Element, p. GD-7]

• “To achieve concentrated centers of development with appropriate multimodal transportation facilities, services and linkages that promote a balanced pattern of growth and development, reduce sprawl, foster economies in the provision of public utilities and services, and yield energy savings.” [Mixed-use Centers Goal, Generalized Land Use Element, p. LU-14]

• “Achieve a multimodal transportation system that efficiently moves people and goods with optimum safety and appropriate speed, maximizes the conservation of energy, and minimally disrupts the desirable features of the environment.” [Transportation Goal, Transportation Element, p. T-3]

• Selected Comprehensive Plan policies (titles only) portraying the policy framework that supports, encourages and promotes CTR:

LU-MUCD-11 – Transit-Oriented Development LU-MUCD-13 – Restrict Auto-Oriented Uses


LU-MUCD-14 – Partner to Reduce Automobile Use LU-MUP-1 – Parking LU-MUP-5 – Transportation Demand Management Organizations LU-MUP-6 – Bicycle Parking LU-MUDTC-6 – Parking/Transit Relationship H-HC-2 – Jobs-Housing Balance T-LUT-2 – Land Use Patterns T-LUT-8 – Partner with Transit T-LUT-9 – Transit Oriented Development T-MS-1 – Transportation Demand Management T-MS-4 – Transit Planning T-MS-8 – Partner with Pierce Transit T-MS-9 – Car-Sharing T-NT-5 – Development Access T-NT-6 – Alternative Transportation Facilities T-NT-7 – Walkability T-NT-9 – Active Living T-ES-6 – Public Awareness T-ICCP-1 – Intergovernmental Coordination T-ICCP-3 – Funding Coordination

Applicable Provisions of the Land Use Regulatory Code:

The Unfunded Projects are irrelevant to the Land Use Regulatory Code. The proposed CTR policies would amend the Comprehensive Plan; the amendment procedures are regulated in Section 13.02.045 of the Code. The proposed CTR Ordinance would replace Chapter 13.15 of the Code.

Amendment Criteria (TMC 13.02.045.G) (at least one must be met):

1. There exists an obvious technical error in the pertinent Comprehensive Plan or regulatory code provisions. Not applicable.

2. The amendment is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan’s goals or policies or will achieve consistency. The proposed Unfunded Projects, CTR policies and CTR Ordinance are consistent with relevant goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan, as discussed previously under the “Applicable Provisions of the Comprehensive Plan.”

3. Circumstances related to the proposed amendment have significantly changed, or a lack of change in circumstances has occurred since the area or issue was last considered by the Planning Commission. The East-West Corridor and the President’s Ridge Trail are new concepts that have not been considered by the Planning Commission. The CTR policies and the CTR Ordinance are also being reviewed by the Commission for the first time; however, the Commission was made


aware that these proposed changes would come forward after the City Council’s adoption of the CTR Plan in July 2007. There has not been any significant change to the circumstances related to CTR since the Commission’s review of the draft CTR Plan in early 2007.

4. The needs of the City have changed, which support an amendment. Rising gas prices as well as the effects of climate change, complicated by increasing vehicle greenhouse gas emissions, all contribute to the need to reduce travel by automobile (especially drive-alone trips). This is a global trend, to which Tacoma is no exception. In a recent study published by the Urban Land Institute, the researchers conclude that “urban development is both a key contributor to climate change and an essential factor in combating it. One of the best ways to reduce vehicle travel is compact development: building places in which people can get from one place to another without driving. This includes developments with a mix of uses and pedestrian-friendly designs.” [Growing Cooler: The Evidence on Urban Development and Climate Change, Reid Ewing, et. al., ULI, October 2007] The proposed CTR policies and CTR Ordinance are a timely reflection of the growing need of the City to combat climate change. The remarks in the book “Growing Cooler” make a great footnote of the correlation between the proposed CTR policies and the Comprehensive Plan. Along with addressing climate change, pursuing active living and healthy lifestyles have also been a growing desire of citizens, resulting in the increasing need for more nonmotorized and recreation facilities such as bike lanes and trails. The proposed President’s Ridge Trail is in line with this changing need. With regards to the proposed East-West Corridor, the need for such east-west corridors is evidenced by the fact that a similar corridor, i.e., the S. 47th/48th/49th Corridor, has been listed in the Unfunded Project List since 1993 (or even earlier). It is arguably true that such need has been increasing due to the growth and development that has occurred in the area and is expected to continue.

5. The amendment is compatible with existing or planned land uses and the surrounding development pattern. The President’s Ridge Trail is anticipated to be compatible with the surrounding land uses, similar to the existing Scott Pierson Trail along SR-16. The East-West Corridor is anticipated to serve existing as well as planned uses in the area. Environmental considerations may change the corridor design and alignment.

6. Growth and development, as envisioned in the Plan, is occurring faster, slower, or is failing to materialize. Not applicable.


7. The capacity to provide adequate services is diminished or increased. The proposed East-West Corridor and the President’s Ridge Trail, if built, will increase the capacity of the transportation system and provide better services to motorized and nonmotorized traffic. This criterion does not apply to the proposed CTR policies and CTR Ordinance.

8. Plan objectives are not being met as specified, and/or the assumptions upon which the plan is based are found to be invalid. Not applicable.

9. Transportation and and/or other capital improvements are not being made as expected. It can be argued that the proposed East-West Corridor, as well as the S. 47th/48th/49th Corridor that is currently listed in the Unfunded Project List, are responding to the concern that such east-west connections are lacking in the area between Center Street to the north and S. 56th Street to the south. This is also true, arguably, in the case of the proposed President’s Ridge Trail. While there are nonmotorized connections in existence (or planned), there is no greenbelt type of trail systems available in this neighborhood. This criterion does not apply to the proposed CTR policies and CTR Ordinance.

10. Substantial similarities of conditions and characteristics can be demonstrated on abutting properties that warrant a change in land use intensity or zoning classification. Not applicable.

11. A question of consistency exists between the Comprehensive Plan and its elements and RCW 36.70A, the County-wide Planning Policies for Pierce County, Multi-County Planning Policies, or development regulations. The proposed CTR policies and CTR Ordinance are not intended to address said question of consistency, if any exists. It is noted that, however, the City’s CTR Plan (adopted in July 2007) has been reviewed by the Puget Sound Regional Council and approved by the State CTR Board. Subsequently, the City is required to adopt CTR related policies in the Comprehensive Plan and ensure that those policies are consistent with the regional and statewide CTR policies. Also, the CTR Ordinance must be updated in order to maintain the consistency between the City’s development regulations and State legislation. This criterion does not apply to the proposed unfunded projects of the East-West Corridor and the President’s Ridge Trail.


Economic Impact Assessment:

The proposed East-West Corridor is anticipated to generate positive economic effects to the community by serving and supporting the existing economic bases and stimulating new economic activity. However, the potential costs for environmental mitigation and construction and the associated impacts to the City’s transportation budget are unknown. Listing the project in the Unfunded Project List would allow an opportunity for a feasibility study which could include a detailed economic impact assessment. The proposed President’s Ridge Trail is not anticipated to have any significant direct economic impact to the community. However, its impacts to the City’s transportation budget are unknown. Listing the project in the Unfunded Project List would allow an opportunity for a feasibility study which could include a detailed economic impact assessment. The proposed CTR policies and CTR Ordinance are intended to enhance the effectiveness of the existing CTR programs of affected employers and the City of Tacoma. They are expected to further reduce traffic delay, help the transportation system work more efficiently, and reduce the effects of climate change. On the other hand, they may also increase the administrative and fiscal burdens of affected employers and the City. Both the positive and negative economic effects are hard to predict and quantify, especially at the local jurisdictional level. However, they are anticipated to be incremental, as compared to the collective economic effects of the existing CTR programs statewide. Listed below are some of the facts compiled by the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT):

• In 2006, employers invested about $45 million in their CTR programs.

• For FY 2005–2007, the WSDOT’s CTR Program had a budget of $5.6 million, of which $3.9 million were distributed to local jurisdictions affected by the CTR law, and local jurisdictions invested about $1.8 million of their own funding in CTR.

• In 2007, statewide CTR efforts resulted in the absence of about 26,000 vehicles on the state's road each weekday morning, which reduced gas consumption by about 7.9 million gallons, saving commuters about $23 million.

Staff Recommendation:

Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve, for public review purposes, the proposed amendment, which includes three components: adding Unfunded Projects to the Transportation Element, adding Commute Trip Reduction related polices to the Transportation Element, and repealing and reenacting the Tacoma Municipal Code, Chapter 13.15 Commute Trip Reduction.

Attachments:

2008-08-A: Proposed Unfunded Projects 2008-08-B: Proposed Commute Trip Reduction Policies 2008-08-C: Proposed Commute Trip Reduction Ordinance


Attachment 2008-08-A: Proposed Unfunded Projects

Proposal 1. Add two projects to the Unfunded Project List in the Transportation Element, on pages T-31 and T-

32, under the respective categories and improvement types as depicted in the table below.

2. Update the Nonmotorized Network Map (i.e., Transportation Figure 2) on page T-18 of the Transportation Element to add the President’s Ridge Trail to the network as one of the “Planned Connections.”, as depicted in Exhibit B below.

Unfunded Roadway Related Projects Programs / Projects Improvement Type

Arterial Street Project – New Construction East-West Corridor (from S. 38th at S. Tacoma Way to 40th St. W. at Orchard) New Arterial

Miscellaneous Projects President’s Ridge Trail (along the south side of I-5, from S. 38th St. interchange, through north of Lincoln Park, to McKinley Park)

Feasibility study for trail and nonmotorized access

Exhibit A – Conceptual Alignment of the Proposed East-West Corridor Exhibit B – Conceptual Alignment of the Proposed President’s Ridge Trail


Attachment 2008-08-B: Proposed Commute Trip Reduction Policies

Proposal 1. Delete the following provisions pertaining to Transportation Demand Management from the

Transportation Element, page T-12:

Transportation Demand Management

Transportation Demand Management (TDM) policies outlined in this Plan are intended to influence transportation choices by increasing public awareness and by providing a wide range of non-SOV travel options. These options may include commute trip reduction programs, telecommuting, variable work weeks, and flextime. The City also encourages employers to implement effective TDM programs and accomplishes this with a coordinated program of incentives, alternative travel options, land use measures, regulations, services, and marketing strategies. Implementation of TDM is accomplished through the City’s Commute Trip Reduction Program in accordance with Ordinance No. 26215, which was adopted in March 1998 and codified in Chapter 13.15 of the Tacoma Municipal Code, pursuant to the State CTR Law (RCW 70.94.531). CTR implementation emphasizes the collaboration with the State CTR Task Force, WSDOT, Pierce County, Pierce Transit, affected employers, as well as other associated jurisdictions and agencies.

2. Add the following provisions pertaining to Commute Trip Reduction to the Transportation Element,

page T-7, before the “Environmental Stewardship” section: (beginning on next page)


Commute Trip Reduction

Policy Intent As required by the Commute Trip Reduction Efficiency Act of 2006 (RCW 70.94.521-551) and the associated Washington Administrative Code WAC 468-63, the Tacoma City Council adopted the Commute Trip Reduction Plan on July 10, 2007 (Resolution No. 37220) and updated the Commute Trip Reduction Ordinance (Tacoma Municipal Code Chapter 13.15) on December xx, 2008 (Ordinance No. xxxxx). The CTR Plan provides guidelines for the City and major employers affected by the State law to implement effective strategies to achieve the goals of 10% reduction in drive-alone trips and 13% reduction in vehicle miles traveled by 2011. The CTR Ordinance establishes requirements for affected employers, including an appeals process, and procedures for the City for program administration, monitoring, enforcement and intergovernmental coordination. The CTR Plan and Ordinance are designed to achieve the following objectives: improve air quality, reduce traffic congestion, and reduce the consumption of petroleum fuels. With the focus on employer-based programs that encourage the use of alternatives to driving alone for the commute trip, CTR represents a centerpiece of the overall strategy of Transportation Demand Management (TDM). In addition to the mandated program activity, the City of Tacoma is also participating in a voluntary pilot program funded by the State, whereby Downtown Tacoma is designated as a Growth and Transportation Efficiency Center (GTEC). More aggressive CTR strategies will be implemented within the GTEC, involving selected target audiences in addition to affected employers. Expected outcomes of the pilot program are the reduction of drive alone trips and the alleviation of the burdens on State highway facilities within and between GTECs. Tacoma’s GTEC program is currently funded January 1, 2008 through June 30, 2009. There are a number of Comprehensive Plan policies and strategies that are supportive of CTR and TDM, including policies contained in the Transportation Element, transportation-efficient land use policies contained in the Generalized Land Use Element, and traffic

management strategies contained in the Neighborhood Element. The following policies are intended to provide additional tools to ensure the successful implementation of the CTR Plan and Ordinance, and contribute to accomplishing the City’s strategic goals of a healthy environment, sustainable economy and livable community.

Policies T-CTR-1 Comprehensive Planning and

CTR Incorporate Commute Trip Reduction in the planning for land use, transportation, housing, capital facilities, environmental protection, open space and recreation facilities, neighborhoods and communities, and other applicable disciplines of comprehensive planning. This will be accomplished by promoting CTR related and supportive policy aspects, such as those listed below: • Evaluate land use intensity changes to the

Comprehensive Plan and determine how the proposed changes further CTR goals;

• Strive for job-housing balance; • Manage parking supply both on- and off-

street, through zoning regulations, design, enforcement, marketing and other appropriate strategies, to encourage the reduction of drive alone travel;

• Promote transit-oriented development; • Support integrated, regional and local high

capacity transit systems; • Work toward achieving “Complete Streets”

for new road construction and improvements;

• Enhance walking and bicycling environment;

• Require nonmotorized connections between retail, living and work destinations;

• Require parking for bicycles where applicable; and

• Ensure that connectivity, accessibility and transferability among multiple modes of transportation are adequate, efficient, safe and friendly for pedestrians and bicyclists.


T-CTR-2 Funding for CTR Assign higher funding priority to and actively pursue funding opportunities for improvement projects and programs that are related to, supportive of, or integrated with Commute Trip Reduction. T-CTR-3 Collaboration on CTR Partner with appropriate jurisdictions and organizations to coordinate the Commute Trip Reduction program efforts; to best utilize and multiply each others’ resources and innovative practices; and to ensure that fair and consistent services are provided to employers across jurisdictions and employers with worksites located in more than one jurisdiction. T-CTR-4 Climate Change and CTR Integrate the Commute Trip Reduction program efforts into the implementation of the Climate Change Action Strategies (adopted by the Tacoma City Council by Resolution No. xxxxx, xx, xx, 2008) to effectively reduce carbon emissions and improve air quality.

T-CTR-5 Expansion of CTR Pursue innovative measures and endeavor to expand the scope of Commute Trip Reduction beyond the statutory requirements and maximize the effects of CTR; for example, provide incentives to encourage voluntary reduction of commute trips and reduction of drive alone travel in leisure and errand trips. T-CTR-6 Evaluation of CTR Continually monitor and evaluate the effectiveness of employers’ Commute Trip Reduction programs and the City’s CTR-related policies, and implement changes needed to achieve and exceed the statutory goals.

T-CTR-7 Leadership in CTR The City of Tacoma as an employer should take a leadership role and set a positive example by maintaining a strong Commute Trip Reduction program for its employees.


Attachment 2008-08-C: Proposed Commute Trip Reduction Ordinance

Proposal Repeal Tacoma Municipal Code (TMC) Chapter 13.15 Commute Trip Reduction (CTR), and reenact TMC 13.15 by adopting the proposed CTR Ordinance, as attached. Summary of Major Revisions Major changes to TMC 13.15 are highlighted and summarized in the following table. It is noted that changes are being made throughout the chapter, including reorganization of certain sections. Therefore, for easy administration, it is proposed that TMC 13.15 be repealed in its entirety and replaced with the new chapter.

Category Section Changes Rational Purpose and Intent

Proposed 13.15.010

Add “climate change” to the Purpose and Intent statement.

To emphasize that CTR will contribute to addressing issues associated with climate change.

Purpose and Intent

Proposed 13.15.010

Add an objective with respect to consistency and coordination with Pierce County and jurisdictions within the County.

To better reflect the State requirement.

Purpose and Intent

Proposed 13.15.010

Add an objective with respect to the connection with the City’s Comprehensive Plan.

To clarify that CTR is part of the implementation programs of the City’s Comprehensive Plan.

Definitions Proposed 13.15.020

Delete “Commute Trip Reduction (CTR) Task Force Guidelines”.

The CTR Task Force has been sunset and replaced with the State CTR Board, pursuant to the CTR Efficiency Act of 2006.


Delete “Commute Trip Reduction (CTR) Zone”.

The CTR Zone was intended to recognize the different characteristics of different geographical areas by setting different base year values for the purpose of CTR goal achievement. The concept has created administrative burdens, has not proven to be effective, and has been removed from the State requirement in the interest of efficiency.


Replace “single-occupant vehicle” with “drive alone trips”.

The terms “drive alone” and “reducing drive alone trips” are considered more user friendly than “riding in a single-occupant vehicle” and “reducing single-occupant vehicle rate.”



Change the definition of “carpool” from “2 to 6 people riding in a vehicle” to “2 to 4 people of at least 16 years of age riding in a vehicle”. “Vanpool” still refers to “5 to 15 people riding in a vehicle” but adding “at least 16 years of age”.

To remove the overlapping number of riders in the definitions for carpool and vanpool; to recognize that most passenger cars nowadays take up to 4 people; and to emphasize that all riders sharing the same vehicle must be employees or students.

Commute Trip Reduction Plan

Proposed 13.15.030

Add a new section regarding the City of Tacoma’s CTR Plan.

The City is required by State law to adopt a CTR Plan, consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, to provide the guidelines for implementing the CTR programs for the City and affected employers located within the City.

Applicability Existing 13.15.050

Shorten the compliance schedule for newly affected employers, as follows, in subsequent manner: 1. Self-identification: from 180

to 30 days 2. Employee survey: 90 days 3. Program development: from

180 to 90 days 4. Program implementation:

from 180 to 90 days

The existing compliance schedule has proven to be unnecessarily long and ineffective. The State has imposed a more realistic schedule based on the experience in implementing the CTR law since 1991.

Applicability Existing 13.15.050

Delete “CTR Goal Achievement”.

The reference to goal achievements for 1995, 1997, 1999 and 2005 is dated. New goals are specified in the CTR Plan, as required by the State law.

Requirements for Employers

Existing 13.15.070

Delete the requirements of “Employer Goals and CTR Zone”.

The goals set for 1995, 1997, 1999 and 2005 are dated. New goals are specified in the CTR Plan, as required by the State law. The CTR Zone was intended to recognize the different characteristics of different geographical areas by setting different base year values for the purpose of CTR goal achievement. The concept has created administrative burdens, has not proven to be effective, and has been removed from the State requirement in the interest of efficiency.


Existing 13.15.070

Make “emergency ride home” a mandatory rather than optional element for employers’ CTR programs.

“Guaranteed ride home” is one of the most commonly requested assurance measures employees would expect from their employer.


Existing 13.15.070

Clarify the CTR program reporting responsibilities.

As required by the State CTR Law and based on the program administration experience in Pierce County.


Goal Modifications, Extensions and Exemptions

Existing 13.15.080

Repeal the entire section that addresses primarily the following provisions: • CTR program modifications • CTR goal adjustment • Employee exemption

Provisions for CTR program modifications are updated and reflected in the proposed Section 13.15.080. Provisions for CTR goal adjustment with a reference to the CTR Zone are no longer applicable. Provisions for employee exemption are updated and reflected in the proposed Section 13.15.090.

Recognition of TDM Efforts

Existing 13.15.090

Repeal the entire section that addresses primarily the following provisions: • Leadership Certificate • TDM credits • Program reporting

“Leadership Certificate” is one of the public recognition efforts that have been practiced in the Tacoma-Pierce County region and is not considered an activity that needs to be regulated. The TDM credit provision has been removed from the State requirement because it is considered complicated, ineffective and unfair. Provisions for CTR program reporting are already specified in Section 13.15.070.

Review and Modifications of CTR Programs

Proposed 13.15.080

Consolidate and update the existing Sections 13.15.050, 070, 080, 090, and 100, and lay out the process and criteria for the review and modifications of CTR programs.

To streamline the code language and better reflect the State requirements.

Credit for Schedule Changes

Existing 13.15.110

Repeal the entire section. As for the TDM credit, this credit system has been discontinued.

Exemptions Proposed 13.15.090

Consolidate and revise the provisions for “goal adjustment for employer’s worksite” and “employee exemption” in the existing Section 13.15.080.

To streamline the code language and better reflect the State requirements.

Enforcement and Penalties

Proposed 13.15.100

Add “failure to complete the survey measurement by the applicable deadline” as a violation of the CTR Ordinance.

Pursuant to the State Model Ordinance.

Review of Parking Policies

Existing 13.15.130

Repeal the entire section. Review of parking is a policy action as recommended in the City’s CTR Plan (which is mentioned in the proposed Section 13.15.030). It is also a Comprehensive Plan policy. It is also a part of the economic development strategy that is constantly deliberated by the City administration. It does not need to be regulated in the CTR Ordinance that is geared toward employers.

Proposed CTR Ordinance (beginning on next page)


Chapter 13.15 (new)

COMMUTE TRIP REDUCTION

Sections: 13.15.010 Purpose and intent. 13.15.020 Definitions. 13.15.030 Commute Trip Reduction Plan. 13.15.040 Responsible City of Tacoma agency. 13.15.050 Applicability. 13.15.060 Notification of applicability. 13.15.070 Requirements for employers. 13.15.080 Review and modifications of CTR

programs. 13.15.090 Exemptions. 13.15.100 Enforcement and penalties. 13.15.110 Appeals.

13.15.010 Purpose and intent. The purpose of this chapter is to promote public health, safety, and general welfare by establishing goals and requirements for employers to implement commute trip reduction programs in accordance with RCW 70.94.521-551. The City of Tacoma recognizes the importance of increasing citizens’ awareness of climate change, air quality, energy consumption, and traffic congestion and the contribution employers and individual actions can make toward addressing these issues. The intent of this chapter is to achieve the following objectives:

1. To improve air quality, reduce traffic congestion, and reduce the consumption of petroleum fuels through employer-based programs that encourage the use of alternatives to driving alone for the commute trip.

2. To ensure consistency, cooperation and coordination with Pierce County, Pierce Transit and appropriate jurisdictions within the county in fulfilling the requirements as set forth in RCW 70.94.521-551.

3. To make optimal use of existing and planned transportation facilities to minimize development costs and preserve business opportunities in Tacoma, consistent with the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan as set forth in Chapter 13.02.044.

13.15.020 Definitions. The following definitions shall apply in the interpretation and enforcement of this chapter: A. “Affected employee” means a full-time employee who begins his or her regular work day at a single worksite covered by the Commute Trip Reduction

Plan between 6:00 a.m. and 9:00 a.m. (inclusive) on two or more weekdays for at least 12 continuous months. The following are excluded from the count of affected employees: (1) independent contract employees; (2) seasonal agriculture employees, including seasonal employees of processors of agricultural products; and (3) construction workers who work at a construction site with an expected duration of less than two years.

B. “Affected employer” means an employer that employs 100 or more affected employees.

C. “Alternative commute mode” refers to any means of commuting other than that in which the single-occupant motor vehicle is the dominant mode. Telecommuting and compressed work weeks are considered alternative commute modes if they result in the reduction of commute trips.

D. “Alternative work schedules” are programs such as compressed work weeks that eliminate work trips for affected employees.

E. “Base year” means the 12-month period which commences when an employer is determined an affected employer and from which goals for commute trip reduction shall be based.

F. “Base year survey” or “baseline measurement” means the survey, during the base year, of employees at an affected employer’s worksite to determine the drive alone rate and vehicle miles traveled per employee at the worksite, and is used to develop commute trip reduction goals for the employer.

G. “Carpool” means a motor vehicle occupied by 2 to 4 people of at least 16 years of age traveling together for their commute trip, resulting in the reduction of a minimum of one motor vehicle commute trip.

H. “Commute trip” means a trip that is made from a worker’s home to a worksite.

I. “Commute Trip Reduction (CTR) Law” means the portion of the Clean Air Act adopted to accomplish commute trip reduction (RCW 70.94.521-551).

J. “Commute Trip Reduction (CTR) Plan” refers to the adopted City of Tacoma plan to regulate and administer the CTR programs of affected employers.

K. “Commute Trip Reduction (CTR) Program” means an employer’s strategies to reduce employees’ drive alone trips and average vehicle miles traveled per employee.

L. “Compressed work week” means an alternative work schedule, in accordance with employer policy and/or along with other arrangements, that allows a


full-time employee to eliminate at least one work day every two weeks by working more hours during the remaining work days, resulting in fewer commute trips by the employee.

M. “Dominant mode” means the mode of travel used for the greatest distance of a commute trip.

N. “Drive alone” means a motor vehicle, including a motorcycle, occupied by one employee for commute purposes.

O. “Employee Transportation Coordinator (ETC)” means a designated person who is responsible for the development, implementation and monitoring of an employer’s CTR program.

P. “Employer” means a sole proprietorship, partnership, corporation, unincorporated association, cooperative, joint venture, agency, department, district or other individual or entity, whether public, nonprofit or private, that employs workers.

Q. “Exemption” means a waiver from any or all CTR program requirements granted to an employer by the City of Tacoma based on unique conditions that apply to the employer or the worksite.

R. “Flex-time” is a work schedule, in accordance with employer policy and/or along with other arrangements, that allows individual employees flexibility in choosing the start and end time but not the number of working hours to facilitate the use of alternative commute modes.

S. “Full-time employee” means a person, other than an independent contractor, scheduled to be employed on a continuous basis for 52 weeks per year for an average of at least 35 hours per week.

T. “Good faith effort” means that an employer has met the minimum requirements identified in RCW 70.94.534(2) and this chapter, and is working collaboratively with the City of Tacoma to continue its existing CTR program or is developing and implementing program modifications likely to result in improvements to its CTR program over an agreed upon length of time.

U. “Implementation” or “implement” means active pursuit by an employer to achieve the CTR goals of the CTR Law (RCW 70.94.521-551) and this chapter.

V. “Mode” is the means of transportation used by employees, such as single-occupant motor vehicle, rideshare vehicle (carpool, vanpool), transit, train, ferry, bicycle, walking, and alternative work schedules.

W. “Newly affected employer” refers to an employer that is not an affected employer upon the effective

date of this chapter, but who becomes an affected employer subsequent to the effective date of this chapter.

X. “Proportion of drive alone trips” or “drive alone rate” means the number of commute trips over a set period made by employees in single-occupant vehicles divided by the number of potential trips taken by employees working during that period.

Y. “Ride matching service” means a system which assists in matching commuters for the purpose of commuting together.

Z. “Teleworking/telecommuting” means the use of telephones, computers or other applicable technology to permit an employee to work from home, eliminating a commute trip, or to work from a work place closer to home, reducing the distance traveled in a commute trip by at least one half.

AA. “Transit” means a multiple-occupant vehicle operated on a shared-ride basis, including bus, ferry or rail.

BB. “Transportation Management Organization/Association (TMO/TMA)” means a group of employers or an association representing a group of employers in a defined geographic area. A TMO/TMA may represent employers within the limits of the City of Tacoma, or may have a sphere of influence that extends beyond the city limits.

CC. “Vanpool” means a vehicle occupied by 5 to 15 people of at least 16 years of age traveling together for their commute trip, resulting in the reduction of a minimum of one motor vehicle trip.

DD. “Vehicle miles traveled (VMT) per employee” means the sum of the individual vehicle commute trip lengths, in miles, made by employees over a set period, divided by the number of employees during that period.

EE. “Week” means a seven-day calendar period, starting on Sunday and continuing through Saturday.

FF. “Weekday” means Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, or Friday.

GG. “Worksite” or “affected employer worksite” means a building or group of buildings on physically contiguous parcels of land or on parcels separated solely by private or public roadways or rights-of-way, and at which there are 100 or more affected employees.

HH. “Writing,” “written,” or “in writing” means original signed and dated documents. Facsimile (fax) and electronic transmissions are a temporary notice


of action that must be followed by the original signed and dated via mail or delivery.

13.15.030 Commute Trip Reduction Plan. The City of Tacoma Commute Trip Reduction Plan, as adopted by the City Council on July 10, 2007, per Resolution No. 37220, establishes commute trip reduction goals for the city and affected employers, pursuant to RCW 70.94.521-551 and WAC 468-63, and shall provide the guidelines for implementing this chapter.

13.15.040 Responsible City of Tacoma agency.

The Community and Economic Development Department will be responsible for implementing this chapter.

13.15.050 Applicability. A. Affected Employer. The provisions of this chapter shall apply to any affected employer at any single worksite within the limits of the City of Tacoma, or located in the city limits of jurisdictions where the City of Tacoma has entered into an interlocal agreement to administer CTR.

B. Change in Status as an Affected Employer. Any of the following changes in an employer’s status may change the employer’s CTR Program requirements:

1. Change from Affected to Non-affected Status. If an employer initially designated as an affected employer no longer employs 100 or more affected employees and expects not to employ 100 or more affected employees for the next 12 months, that employer is no longer an affected employer. It is the responsibility of the employer to notify the City of Tacoma in writing that it is no longer an affected employer and provide supporting evidence.

2. Change in Status within a 12-month Period. If an employer drops below the threshold and then returns to the threshold level of 100 or more affected employees within the same 12 months, that employer will be considered an affected employer for the entire 12 months, and will be subject to the program requirements as other affected employers.

3. Change in Status after a 12-month Period. If an employer drops below the threshold and then returns to the threshold level of 100 or more affected employees 12 or more months after its change in status to an “unaffected” employer, that employer shall be treated as a newly affected employer.

C. Newly Affected Employers.

1. Identification. Employers meeting the definition of “affected employer” in this chapter must identify themselves to the City of Tacoma within 30 days of either moving into the boundaries of the City of Tacoma or growing in employment at a worksite to 100 or more affected employees. It is the responsibility of the employer to notify the City of its affected employer status.

2. Survey. Newly affected employers, upon receiving written notification that they are subject to this chapter, shall have 90 days to perform a baseline measurement. The employer shall utilize the State provided survey measurement tool or State approved equivalent format and strive to achieve at least a 70% response rate from employees at the worksite.

3. Program Development. Not more than 60 days after receiving written notification of the results of the baseline measurement, the newly affected employer shall develop and submit a CTR Program to the City of Tacoma, utilizing the format provided by the City. The program will be developed in consultation with the City to be consistent with the goals of the CTR Plan.

4. Program Implementation. The employer’s CTR Program shall be implemented not more than 90 days after approval by the City of Tacoma.

D. City of Tacoma Employees. The City of Tacoma, including General Government and the Public Utilities, is required to implement a Commute Trip Reduction Program in accordance with this chapter for its employees.

13.15.060 Notification of applicability. A. Notice to Known Affected Employers. Known affected employers located in the City of Tacoma, or within the jurisdictions for which the City of Tacoma administers the CTR programs, will receive written notification that they are subject to this chapter and any revisions or amendments to this chapter. Such notice shall be addressed to the company’s chief executive officer, senior official, or CTR manager at the worksite. Such notification shall be delivered within 30 days of the adoption of this chapter or any revisions.

B. Self-identification of Affected Employers. Employers that, for whatever reasons, do not receive notice within 30 days of the adoption or amendment of this chapter shall identify themselves to the City of Tacoma within 60 days of the adoption of this chapter.

C. Notification of Non-applicability. It is the responsibility of the employer to provide the City of


Tacoma with information, in writing, regarding the non-applicability of this chapter to their worksite.

13.15.070 Requirements for employers. An affected Employer is required to make a good faith effort as defined in RCW 70.94.534(2) and this chapter to develop and implement a CTR program for their employees that will encourage their employees to reduce VMT per employee and drive alone commute trips. The employer shall provide effective staffing levels and financial resources to fulfill the following program requirements:

A. Employee Transportation Coordinator (ETC). The employer shall designate an employee transportation coordinator (ETC) to administer the CTR Program. The ETC or designee’s name and telephone number must be displayed prominently at each affected worksite. The ETC shall oversee all elements of the employer’s CTR Program and act as liaison between the employer and the City of Tacoma. Employers with multiple affected worksites shall have effective program administration at each affected worksite. An employer may utilize the employee transportation coordinator services of a transportation management organization/association (TMO/TMA). If a TMO/TMA is utilized, the employer will still be held responsible for meeting all the requirements of RCW 70.94.521-551 and this chapter.

B. Information Distribution. General information about alternatives to drive alone commuting, ride matching service, as well as a summary of the employer’s CTR Program shall be provided to employees at least once a year and to new employees at the time of hire or during the new hire orientation. Specific information about commute options, employer program elements, or countywide/statewide commuter services, programs and events shall be provided to employees at least once a month. A transportation event or promotional campaign shall be conducted at least once a year.

C. Emergency Ride Home. The employer shall offer to its employees an emergency ride home program which guarantees employees a free ride home in emergency situations when they use alternative commute modes.

D. Additional Program Elements to Achieve CTR Goals. In addition to the specific program elements described above, employer CTR programs shall include, but are not limited to, one or more of the following measures:

a. Provide preferential parking for high-occupancy vehicles;

b. Reduce parking charges for high-occupancy vehicles;

c. Institute or increase parking charges for drive alone commuters;

d. Eliminate free parking;

e. Decrease the number of parking stalls within the constraints of the parking code regulations;

f. Provide a parking incentives program such as a rebate for employees who do not use the parking facilities;

g. Provide commuter ride matching services to facilitate employee ride-sharing for commute trips;

h. Provide subsidies for transit, rail, or vanpool fares and/or passes;

i. Provide subsidies for carpools, walking, bicycling, teleworking/telecommuting or alternative work schedules;

j. Provide incentives for employees who do not drive alone to work;

k. Provide vans for vanpools;

l. Permit the use of the employer’s vehicles for carpooling or vanpooling;

m. Permit the use of the employer’s vehicles for emergency ride home or personal errands;

n. Establish a flex-time policy;

o. Establish an alternative work schedule policy;

p. Establish a teleworking/telecommuting policy;

q. Cooperate with transit providers to provide additional regular or express service to the worksite;

r. Construct special loading and unloading facilities for transit, carpool, and vanpool users;

s. Provide bicycle parking facilities, changing areas, showers and clothes lockers for employees who bicycle or walk to work;

t. Implement other measures designed to facilitate the use of high-occupancy vehicles, such as on-site day care or cafeteria facilities.

E. CTR Program Reporting.

1. Quarterly Reporting. Each affected employer shall submit to the City of Tacoma a quarterly progress report in accordance with the format provided by the City.

2. Due Dates for Quarterly Reporting. For the First Quarter (January, February and March), the Second Quarter (April, May and June) and the Third Quarter


(July, August and September), quarterly progress reports shall be due 10 calendar days past the end of the respective quarter. For the Fourth Quarter (October, November and December), quarterly progress reports shall be due the second Wednesday in December.

3. Annual Reporting. Each affected employer shall review its program and implementation progress by submitting an annual report to the City of Tacoma in accordance with the format provided by the City. The annual report outlines the strategies that were undertaken by an employer to achieve CTR goals for the reporting period. It also outlines the strategies to be undertaken for the next reporting year. Employers are encouraged to consider innovative strategies and combine program elements in a manner that will best suit their location, site characteristics, business type, and employees' commuting needs. Employers are further encouraged to cooperate with each other to implement program elements.

4. Due Date for Annual Reporting. All annual reports shall be due by the second Wednesday of December.

5. Annual Reporting Extension. An employer may request an extension of up to 30 days for submitting the annual report. The request shall be made in writing to the City of Tacoma no less than 15 days prior to the due date.

F. Biennial Survey Measure of Employee Commute Behavior. In addition to the baseline measurement, employers shall conduct a program evaluation as a means of determining worksite progress toward meeting CTR goals. As part of the program evaluation, the employer shall utilize the State provided survey measurement tool or State approved equivalent format and strive to achieve at least a 70% response rate from employees at the worksite. The City of Tacoma will establish a measurement schedule, in coordination with the countywide schedule, that will require employers to conduct the measurement survey on a two-year cycle. Depending on when a newly affected employer is identified, a baseline survey and measurement survey may be required during the established measurement schedule. For the purposes of this chapter, an employer shall not be required to survey more than once in a 12-month period.

G. Record Keeping. Affected employers shall maintain a copy of official correspondences with the City of Tacoma, their measurement results and all supporting documentation for the descriptions and assertions made in any CTR report to the City for a minimum of 48 months. The City and the employer

shall agree on the record keeping requirements as part of the accepted CTR Program.

13.15.080 Review and modifications of CTR programs.

A. Newly Affected Employers. The first annual report submitted by a newly affected employer shall be accepted by the City of Tacoma as long as it addresses necessary baseline information and all required elements including elements likely to result in reduction in drive alone trips or reduction in average VMT.

B. Review and Evaluation. The City of Tacoma’s review and evaluation will address the employer’s good faith efforts toward meeting the CTR goals. Consequently, programs may be deemed acceptable or unacceptable based on the employer’s progress in reducing commute trips, as measured by reduction in drive alone trips or reduction in average VMT. The employer shall provide adequate information and documentation of program implementation when requested by the City.

C. Document review. Within 90 days of receipt of an employer’s CTR Program, the City of Tacoma shall provide the employer with written notification of the acceptability of the CTR Program. If the CTR Program is deemed unacceptable, the notification must give cause for the rejection. The City may extend the review period up to 90 days. If the review period is extended, the implementation date for the employer’s CTR Program will be extended an equivalent number of days.

D. Review Criteria. The City of Tacoma shall use the following criteria in determining whether an affected employer shall be required to make modifications to its CTR Program:

1. If an employer makes a good faith effort, as defined in RCW 70.94.534(2) and this chapter, and meets or exceeds either the applicable drive alone trips or VMT reduction goal, the employer has satisfied the objectives of this chapter, and will not be required to modify its CTR Program.

2. If an employer makes a good faith effort, as defined in RCW 70.94.534(2) and this chapter, but fails to meet both the applicable drive alone trips and VMT reduction goals, the City shall work collaboratively with the employer to implement program modifications likely to result in improvements to the program over an agreed upon length of time.

3. If an employer fails to make a good faith effort, as defined in RCW 70.94.534(2) and this chapter, and


fails to meet both the applicable drive alone trips and VMT reduction goals, the City shall work collaboratively with the employer to identify modifications to the CTR Program and shall direct the employer to revise its program accordingly and submit the revised program to the City within 30 days.

E. Request for Conference. Within 10 days of receipt of written notice for an unacceptable CTR Program, the City of Tacoma or employer may request a conference to discuss the City’s decision. This conference shall be scheduled during the City’s official hours.

F. Request for Program Modifications. Any affected employer may make a request, in writing, to the City of Tacoma for modification of its CTR Program elements, other than the mandatory designation of the employee transportation coordinator, information distribution, survey, and quarterly and annual reports. The City shall review such request and notify the employer of its decision in writing within 30 days upon receipt of the request. The employer’s request for program modifications may be granted if one of the following conditions exist:

1. The employer can demonstrate it would be unable to comply with the CTR Program elements for reasons beyond the control of the employer; or

2. The employer can demonstrate that compliance with the CTR Program elements would constitute an undue hardship.

G. Implementation of Program Modifications. If the City of Tacoma proposes modifications to an affected employer’s CTR Program due to the program’s unacceptability or in response to the employer’s request for modifications, the employer shall have 30 days to submit a revised program that includes the proposed or other mutually agreed modifications. The City shall also review annually all modifications and determine whether they will remain in effect during the following program year.

13.15.090 Exemptions. A. Worksite Exemption. An affected employer may make a request, in writing, to the City of Tacoma for granting an exemption from all CTR program requirements or penalties for a particular worksite. The employer must demonstrate that it would experience undue hardship in complying with the requirements of this chapter as a result of the characteristics of its business, its work force, or its location(s). A one-year exemption may be granted if and only if the affected employer demonstrates that it faces extraordinary circumstances, such as

bankruptcy, and is unable to implement any measures that could reduce the proportion of drive alone trips or average VMT per employee. The City shall grant or deny the request within 30 days of receipt of the request. The City shall review annually all employers receiving exemptions, and shall determine whether the exemption will be in effect during the following program year.

B. Employee Exemption. Groups of employees who are required to drive alone to work as a condition of employment may be exempted from a worksite’s CTR Program. Exemptions may also be granted for employees who work variable shifts throughout the year and who do not rotate as a group to identical shifts. Affected employees who are exempted from a worksite’s CTR Program shall be counted when determining the total number of affected employees at the worksite. The City of Tacoma shall grant or deny the request within 30 days of receipt of the request. The City shall review annually all employee exemption requests, and shall determine whether the exemption will be in effect during the following program year.

13.15.100 Enforcement and penalties.

A. Compliance. For purposes of this chapter, compliance shall mean fully implementing all provisions in an approved CTR Program or being determined to have made a good faith effort as defined in RCW 70.94.534(2) and this chapter.

B. Violations. The following constitute violations of this chapter:

1. Failure of an affected employer to identify itself to the City of Tacoma within 60 days of the effective date of this chapter;

2. Failure of a newly affected employer to identify itself to the City of Tacoma within 30 days of becoming an affected employer;

3. Failure to develop and/or submit a complete CTR Program by the applicable deadlines as stated in this chapter;

4. Failure to implement an approved CTR Program by the applicable deadlines as stated in this chapter;

5. Failure to modify an unacceptable CTR Program by the applicable deadlines as stated in this chapter;

6. Failure to submit quarterly and annual reports to the City of Tacoma by the applicable deadlines as stated in this chapter;

7. Failure to complete the survey measurement by the applicable deadlines as stated in this chapter;


8. Failure to maintain agreed-upon CTR Program records;

9. Intentionally submitting fraudulent or false information, data, and/or survey results.

C. Penalties.

1. Civil Infraction. Any affected employer violating any provision of this chapter shall be deemed to have committed a civil infraction, and shall be subject to civil penalties pursuant to RCW 7.80.

2. Violation Notification. Upon making a determination that an affected employer is in violation of this chapter, the City of Tacoma shall issue a written notice and order to the affected employer. The notice and order shall contain:

a. A brief and concise description of the affected employer’s conditions found to be in violation;

b. A statement of the corrective action required to be taken and when such corrective action shall be completed;

d. A statement specifying the amount of any civil penalty assessed on account of the violation; and

e. A statement advising that the order shall become final unless, no later than 30 days after the notice and order are served, any person aggrieved by the order requests in writing an appeal before the City of Tacoma Hearing Examiner.

3. Penalty Amount. The penalty for violation shall be $250 per day.

4. Penalty Accrual. Penalties will begin to accrue following the official date of notice from the City of Tacoma. In the event that an affected employer appeals the imposition of penalties, the penalties will not accrue during the appeals process. Should the Hearing Examiner decide in favor of the appellant, all or a portion of the monetary penalties will be dismissed.

5. Union Negotiations. An employer shall not be liable for civil penalties if failure to implement an element of a CTR Program was the result of an inability to reach agreement with a certified collective bargaining agent under applicable laws where the issue was raised by the employer and pursued in good faith. Unionized employers shall be presumed to act in good faith compliance if they:

a. Propose to a recognized union any provisions of the employer’s CTR Program that is subject to bargaining as defined by the National Labor Relations Act; and

b. Advise the union of the existence of the statute and the mandates of the CTR Program approved by the City of Tacoma and advise the union that the proposal being made is necessary for compliance with the CTR Law (RCW 70.94.521-551) and this chapter.

6. Notification to Jurisdiction. If the affected employer found in violation is located within a jurisdiction for which the City of Tacoma administers the CTR Program, as per Section 13.15.050.A, the City will send written notice to the jurisdiction. It is the responsibility of the jurisdiction to issue written notice to the employer and assess a penalty.

13.15.110 Appeals. A. Appeals. Any affected employer may appeal administrative decisions regarding modification of CTR Program elements and penalties to the City of Tacoma Hearing Examiner. Appeals shall be filed within 30 days of the administrative decision. Appeals shall be heard pursuant to those applicable procedures found in Chapter 1.23. Such appeals to the Hearing Examiner shall be de novo. The Hearing Examiner will evaluate employers’ appeals of administrative decisions by determining if the decisions were consistent with the CTR Law (RCW 70.94.521-551), WAC 468-63 and this chapter.

B. Judicial Appeal. The decision of the Hearing Examiner shall be considered a final decision, appealable only to the Superior Court of Washington for Pierce County. Appeals to the Superior Court shall be made within 30 days of the final action of the Hearing Examiner.

Proposed Amendments to Comprehensive Plan

South Tacoma M/IC AHBL, Inc 2008 Comprehensive Plan Amendments – Application #2008-09 7/10/08 Page 1 of 11

GENERALIZED LAND USE ELEMENT Section V – Industrial Development (p. LU-5) Industrial Development Goal:

To maintain, rehabilitate, develop, and expand industrial areas within the City of Tacoma that reflect balanced diversification, maximum employment opportunities, high quality standards, minimum degradation of the environment, efficient land utilization and proper location.

General LU-IDG-1 Industrial Land Needs LU-IDG-2 Utilize Existing Industrial Areas LU-IDG-3 Supportive Land Uses LU-IDG-4 Existing Industrial Areas

Expansion LU-IDG-5 Industrial Performance

Standards LU-IDG-6 Convenient Transportation

Access LU-IDG-7 Industrial Development and

Adequate Services LU-IDG-8 Industrial Site Development LU-IDG-9 Design, Aesthetics and

Beautification LU-IDG-10 Industrial Blight Control LU-IDG-11 Accommodate Recycling LU-IDG-12 Sound Environmental Practices LU-IDG-13 Screened Areas LU-IDG-14 Compatible Design LU-IDG-15 Mixed-use Centers Manufacturing/Industrial Centers LU-IDMIC-1 Preservation of Manufacturing/

Industrial Centers LU-IDMIC- 2 Transportation Funding LU-IDMIC-3 Direct Transit Connections LU-IDMIC-4 Encourage Transit Ridership LU-IDMIC-5 Pedestrian and Bicycle

Connections LU-IDMIC-6 Pedestrian and Bicycle

Amenities LU-IDMIC-7 Parcel Aggregation

LU-IDMIC-8 Recruiting of Manufacturing/Industrial Uses

LU-IDMIC-9 Brownfield Clean-up LU-IDMIC-10 Parking Standards



Section V– Industrial Development (p. LU-44) Industrial Development Goal

To maintain, rehabilitate, and develop industrial areas within the City of Tacoma that reflect balanced diversification, maximum employment opportunities, high quality standards, minimum degradation of the environment, efficient land utilization and proper location.

General Intent Industrial facilities vary in size and function. Heavy industrial uses usually consist of larger scale buildings with adjacent large storage areas. These uses generally are associated with high nuisance levels. Light industrial development consists of smaller scale, non-manufacturing and manufacturing uses. Generally, light industries are located on smaller sites and have lower nuisance levels. The function and the location of industrial establishments are highly related to convenient access to major transportation facilities and other manufacturers, suppliers and distributors in the urban area. The largest and most intensively developed industrial area in the city is the Port Industrial Area. The Port Industrial area is a designated manufacturing/industrial center for the Central Puget Sound region and as such is expected to accommodate a greater share of regional employment. The South Tacoma corridor which includes the industrial area along Center Street is a locally designated manufacturing/industrial center and a candidate for regional designation. Potential adverse influences associated with industrial developments include noise, glare, vibration, air and water pollution, traffic congestion and safety hazards. Generally, heavy industrial developments are considered

incompatible with other land uses because of their high nuisance level. However, some newer, technical types of industry produce few adverse effects. "Clean" industrial uses may be located in centers and near residential areas, provided that compatibility is maintained and proper controls are applied to limit any adverse influences on surrounding areas. Policies LU-IDG-1 Industrial Land Needs Allow for concentrations of land of sufficient size and quantity to meet the needs of industry, provide employment opportunities, support economic development, and promote efficient use of land, utilities and transportation facilities. LU-IDG-2 Utilize Existing Industrial

Areas Strongly encourage new industrial development to locate in existing industrial areas to limit land use and transportation conflicts. LU-IDG-3 Supportive Land Uses Allow a limited number of uses that provide supportive and convenience goods and services to industrial establishments and their employees to locate in industrial areas. LU-IDG-4 Existing Industrial Areas

Expansion Permit the limited expansion of existing industrial development, where appropriate, provided the adjacent properties and surrounding area are not adversely affected. LU-IDG-5 Industrial Performance

Standards Protect adjacent less intensive land uses from the impacts of industrial uses through the use of performance standards. LU-IDG-6 Convenient Transportation

Access Locate industrial areas where access is functionally convenient to major transportation routes such as truck routes, freeways, railroads, and navigable bodies of water. LU-IDG-7 Industrial Development and

Adequate Services



Locate new or expanded industrial developments where there are adequate public facilities and services; these facilities must exist prior to or be developed concurrently with the development. LU-IDG-8 Industrial Site Development All industrial developments should have sufficient rights-of-way, street improvements, access control, circulation routes, off-street parking and loading facilities. LU-IDG-9 Design, Aesthetics and

Beautification Encourage existing and new industrial developments to enhance the aesthetic quality of the community through consideration of good architectural and site design, beautification measures, proper maintenance and the provision of park-like open space areas for employees. LU-IDG-10 Industrial Blight Control Encourage all industrial development to participate in programs for the control, prevention and elimination of blight. LU-IDG-11 Accommodate Recycling Encourage building and site design for all industrial developments that accommodates and facilitates recycling by employees. LU-IDG-12 Sound Environmental

Practices Encourage new industrial development that employs sound environmental practices and does not adversely impact air or water quality. LU-IDG-13 Screened Areas Parking, loading, storage, and utility service areas should be screened from view and landscaped. LU-IDG-14 Compatible Design Industrial development should be designed to be compatible with adjacent uses and minimize off-site impacts. LU-IDG-15 Mixed-use Centers Industrial development should generally be located outside of mixed use centers.

Manufacturing Industrial Centers Intent The largest and most intensively developed industrial area in the city is the Port Industrial Area. The Port Industrial area is a designated manufacturing/industrial center (M/IC) for the Central Puget Sound region and as such is expected to accommodate a greater share of regional employment. The South Tacoma corridor, which includes the industrial area along Center Street, is a locally designated manufacturing/industrial center and a candidate for regional designation. Designated manufacturing/industrial centers are to be protected and preserved for manufacturing and industrial uses. The City will ensure the viability of these areas by restricting incompatible land uses, working with funding partners to provide critical infrastructure and taking other actions to encourage the concentration of urban manufacturing and industrial land uses at these locations. Policies LU-IDMIC – 1 Preservation of

Manufacturing/ Industrial Centers

Support the preservation and growth of M/ICs by encouraging the concentration of high intensity manufacturing and industrial uses and through zoning restrictions on incompatible land uses. LU-IDMIC – 2 Transportation Funding Support priority funding for strategic transportation investments that improve freight mobility within manufacturing/industrial centers. LU-IDMIC-3 Direct Transit Connections Support transit improvements that provide direct connections between manufacturing/industrial centers and high-density residential areas. LU-IDMIC-4 Encourage Transit Ridership Encourage transit ridership to and from M/ICs by implementing pedestrian improvements near transit stops, outreach to industrial employers



and working with Pierce Transit to improve the frequency and location of transit service. LU-IDMIC-5 Pedestrian and Bicycle

Connections Provide safe, convenient, continuous and attractive pedestrian and bicycle improvements within manufacturing/industrial centers and connections to surrounding neighborhoods. LU-IDMIC-6 Pedestrian and Bicycle

Amenities Pedestrian/bicycle improvements should include pathways, landscaping, bicycle racks, pedestrian scale street lighting, and other amenities in M/ICs to encourage walking, biking and transit use. LU-IDMIC-7 Parcel Aggregation The City in conjunction with redevelopment authorities and other public and private actors should encourage and/or pursue land assembly to promote redevelopment within M/ICs. LU-IDMIC-8 Recruiting of Manufacturing/

Industrial Uses Identify and pursue opportunities for recruiting manufacturing/industrial uses and coordinate efforts with redevelopment authorities and other public and private actors. LU-IDMIC-9 Brownfield Clean-up Work in conjunction with redevelopment authorities and other public and private actors to pursue additional brownfield cleanup efforts. LU-IDMIC-10 Parking Standards Implement parking standards in manufacturing/industrial centers that encourage the efficient use of land.



CAPITAL FACILITIES ELEMENT Economic Development and Neighborhood Revitalization (p. CF-1) CF-EDNR-1 Economic Improvements CF-EDNR-2 Improved City Image CF-EDNR-3 Neighborhood Revitalization CF-EDNR-4 Conservation and Preservation CF-EDNR-5 Physical Improvements CF-EDNR-6 Public-Private Partnerships CF-EDNR-7 Facilities in Mixed-Use Centers CF-EDNR-8 Partner with Transit CF-EDNR-9 Local Improvement Districts CF-EDNR-10 Business District Improvements CF-EDNR-11 Manufacturing/Industrial Centers Economic Development and Neighborhood Revitalization (p. CF-7) Intent The City intends to develop and sustain a safe, healthy and livable community, as well as a balanced and vibrant economy. Capital improvements are one of the most direct ways to help achieve this strategic priority. It is the City's intent to strategically use public funds to assist and encourage private investment and development that will foster economic diversity and vitality and preserve quality neighborhoods. The City intends to allocate resources to strengthen the economic base, diversify industrial and commercial enterprises, increase employment opportunities, increase the income level of residents, and enhance and revitalize its neighborhoods and mixed-use centers. Therefore, Tacoma intends to use its limited resources to its best advantage by strengthening the link between economic development planning and capital facilities planning, and emphasizing the support role that infrastructure and capital improvements provide to development and neighborhoods. Since a deteriorating infrastructure may well be an economic deterrent, it is desirable for the City to maintain its facilities to both attract and retain private enterprise and residents. Policies

CF-EDNR-1 Economic Improvements Encourage projects which stimulate the economy by expanding employment opportunities, strengthening the tax base or providing for private investment opportunities. CF-EDNR-2 Improved City Image Encourage the development of capital improvement projects that promote tourism and convention trade. CF-EDNR-3 Neighborhood Revitalization Encourage capital improvements in areas in need of neighborhood revitalization and provide services to neighborhoods at a level commensurate with the respective needs of each. CF-EDNR-4 Conservation and

Preservation Emphasize capital improvement projects which promote the conservation, preservation or revitalization of commercial, industrial, residential, and natural habitat areas of the city. CF-EDNR-5 Physical Improvements Initiate and encourage programs that improve and maintain the physical environment of the business community. CF-EDNR-6 Public-Private Partnerships Encourage public-private partnerships to finance infrastructure and capital facilities which foster economic development and fulfill mutual interests of the public and private sectors. CF-EDNR-7 Facilities in Mixed-Use

Centers Prioritize capital facility improvements within mixed-use centers to enhance and revitalize these areas, support compact development and encourage transit use. CF-EDNR-8 Partner with Transit Partner with Pierce Transit and Sound Transit to improve alternative transportation infrastructure within the City. CF-EDNR-9 Local Improvement Districts Facilitate the formation of local improvement districts to construct needed infrastructure improvements within mixed-use centers and consider establishing the remonstrance



threshold at the maximum level allowed by State law (per RCW 35.43.180). CF-EDNR-10 Business District

Improvements Give priority to improvements located within a business district that is recognized by the City and that is located within the core area of a designated mixed-use center on a designated pedestrian street. CF-EDNR-11 Manufacturing/Industrial

Centers Identify and implement infrastructure improvements which enhance the viability and attractiveness of M/ICs and stimulate growth of new and existing manufacturing and industrial businesses.



NEIGHBORHOOD ELEMENT South Tacoma Neighborhood (p. Neigh-3) Goal ST-5 Transportation Policy ST-5.1 Traffic Calming Policy ST-5.2 Bicycle Route Improvements Policy ST-5.3 Water Ditch Trail Development Policy ST-5.4 South 48th Street Arterial

Extension Policy ST-5.5 Oakland/Madrona Trail Access

Development Policy ST-5.6 Hazardous Sidewalks Goal ST-6 Beautification and Safety ST-6.1 Pedestrian Scale Lighting ST-6.2 Business District Streetscape Improvements ST-6.3 School Zone Safety ST-6.4 Public Rights-Of-Way (ROW) Improvements ST-6.5 Tree Preservation ST-6.6 Historic Preservation ST-6.7 Streetscape Design ST-6.8 Northeast Segment Goal ST-5 Transportation (p. Neigh-49) Maintain and/or improve street and street related circulation systems (e.g. sidewalks, trails, bicycle routes) throughout South Tacoma. Policy Intent – South Tacoma is served by major streets and highways for vehicular access from both a regional and local standpoint. State Route 16 and Interstate 5 provide a boundary on the north and east sides of the district providing connections at South 74th, South 56th, South 38th

Streets and adjacent to Snake Lake next to Cheney Stadium. Other major arterial streets include South Tacoma Way, Center Street, Orchard Street, South 48th Street, South 66th

Street, Tyler Street and Oakes/Pine Street. These existing arterial streets provide both east-west and north-south travel to facilitate access to Fircrest, Lakewood, University Place and

other parts of Tacoma as well as to a specific destination point within the district such as the Tacoma Mall, industrial employers and other commercial developments such as hardware outlets and car dealerships. South Tacoma is particularly challenging given the high number of large arterial streets and the nodes of commercial and industrial activities that they connect. Traffic calming measures should be considered to help mitigate the impacts of “cut thru” traffic in residential neighborhoods and to redirect traffic flow to arterial streets. Traffic calming measures may include traffic circles, speed bumps, speed limit reduction, lane width restrictions, and street closure when approved by emergency services. Within residential neighborhoods, non-motorized transportation improvements (e.g. traffic circles, bicycle lanes) should be supported to facilitate access to nearby schools, parks and nature trail systems. Citywide, Tacoma has a bicycle route system that consists of streets, sidewalks, utility rights-of-way and separate bike paths designed to encourage use of non-motorized transportation. One example is the Scott Pierson Trail being constructed along the north side of State Route 16 from near south State Street to Union Avenue located at the north edge of South Tacoma. Pierce Transit and Sound Transit has and/or will play increasingly important roles in serving the transportation needs of the neighborhood residents. As the area continues to develop and redevelop, bus routes should be added or revised to facilitate access to jobs, shopping and other community needs. It is also anticipated that a new commuter rail station will eventually be developed adjacent to the South Tacoma Business District. Policies ST-5.1 Traffic Calming Consider traffic calming measures to reduce “cut-thru” traffic in residential neighborhoods, to redirect traffic flow to nearby arterials, and to mitigate traffic impacts from new development and redevelopment, especially along South 74th

Street from Tacoma Mall Blvd. to Orchard Street; South 56th from Tacoma Mall Blvd. to Orchard Street; and Center Street from Union Avenue to Tyler Street. ST-5.2 Bicycle Route Improvements



Support bicycle improvements such as lane striping and signage along designated routes, especially the development of the Scott Pierson Bikeway route on State Route 16, the Historic Water Ditch Trail, and other future non-motorized routes that link to this bikeway and major employment areas, such as the South Tacoma M/IC. ST-5.3 Water Ditch Trail

Development Provide regulatory and financial support to develop and improve the historic Water Ditch Trail and to support future extensions of the trail into Lakewood and to the Scott Pierson Bikeway and Snake Lake. Encourage the installation of recreational amenities such as bicycle racks, interpretive signs, and picnic facilities. ST-5.4 South 48th Street Arterial

Extension Extend South 48th Street from South Tacoma Way across the industrial area to connect with Tyler Street in order to improve access to the Tacoma Mall, serve the South Tacoma Manufacturing/Industrial Center, and enhance traffic circulation in the area. ST-5.5 Oakland/Madrona Trail

Access Development Combine Oakland/Madrona Park to existing or planned trails along State Route 16 and to trails at the south end of the Tacoma Nature Center. Support may include financing for trail construction as well as street vacation and/or other needed actions. ST-5.6 Hazardous Sidewalks Make sidewalk improvements to infill and repair stretches of the walkway network, giving priority to hazardous sidewalks and missing curb ramps, and whenever possible protecting street trees by avoiding root damage. Goal ST-6 Beautification and Safety Improve the beauty, safety and security of South Tacoma by supporting clean-up activities, safety and other improvements that enhance both residential and commercial business districts. Policy Intent – South Tacoma reflects an older industrial, commercial and residential community

with a variety of needs related to public health, safety and beautification. With South Tacoma’s long history of rail, historic buildings and sites should be identified and preserved. Policies ST-6.1 Pedestrian Scale Lighting Provide more pedestrian scale lighting along neighborhood streets to improve safety through the installation of brighter low wattage upgrades on existing fixtures. Focus especially on lighting needs for residents walking to or from the Oakland/Madrona Business District, South Tacoma Business District, and/or the Tacoma Mall. ST-6.2 Business District Streetscape

Improvements Support financial and regulatory measures for development of streetscape improvements including trees, walkways, bikeways, parks, pedestrian crosswalks, lighting and other amenities to enhance access to and within commercial nodes such as the Oakland- Madrona business district, South Tacoma business district, and the Tacoma Mall Mixed- Use Center. ST-6.3 School Zone Safety Coordinate with Tacoma Public Schools to ensure children have a safe walking environment and implement safety provisions such as school zone speed limits, school zone signage, and flashing lights within a reasonable distance to public schools. ST-6.4 Public Rights-Of-Way (ROW)

Improvements Encourage the use and planting of native plants and trees in the landscaping of public ROWs, particularly parking strips, and open space areas especially along visual arterial streets. Consider converting other unimproved ROWs to mini-parks or open space uses. ST-6.5 Tree Preservation Retain large, mature trees especially in neighborhoods, except when they pose a safety hazard. ST-6.6 Historic Preservation Encourage the identification, preservation and



adaptive reuse of historic structures in South Tacoma. ST-6.7 Streetscape Design Encourage streetscape design that incorporates sidewalks, street trees and other elements that enhance both the safety and comfort for pedestrians within the South Tacoma M/IC. ST-6.8 Northeast Segment Prioritize development of a streetscape plan to enhance the pedestrian environment and encourage private investment in the northeast segment of the South Tacoma M/IC to improve the attractiveness of this area for compatible, artisan-type urban industrial uses and associated customers. Goal ST-7 Utilities and Services Provide the community a full complement of public and private utility services including electrical power, water service, natural gas, storm and sanitary sewers, refuse collection, street cleaning and telecommunications. Policy Intent – The provision of quality utilities and related services is needed for the health, safety and well-being of the residents and businesses located in South Tacoma. Tacoma’s water generally comes from the Green River. The South Tacoma Groundwater Protection District, which regulates underground storage tanks, is located in the South Tacoma Manufacturing/Industrial Center. Tacoma Water and Tacoma Power are located in offices next to the Oakland/Madrona neighborhood. Refuse collection is primarily disposed and/or transferred at the Tacoma Landfill operation located within the Orchard subarea. Telecommunications have been enhanced citywide by the installation of Tacoma Power’s new Click Network and expansion of similar systems by private companies such as Comcast and Quest. Given the limited resources available for all types of utility improvements, efficient coordination between public and private sector is essential. Policies

ST-7.1 Flood Plain Improvements Support infrastructure improvements that facilitate development in the community, especially in the South Tacoma industrial area and in underdeveloped areas of the Manitou district designated by policy for development. ST-7.2 Tacoma Landfill Transfer

Station Relocation Support the relocation of the existing refuse transfer station to rail-based property, possibly in the Port Industrial area, to reduce traffic congestion and enhance the livability of the community. ST-7.3 Tacoma Landfill

Redevelopment Support future reuse of the landfill site pursuant to the EPA approved master plan.



NARRATIVE LANGUAGE Growth Strategy & Development Concept Element Assumptions Industrial Development (p.GD-5) The Port Manufacturing/Industrial Center will remain as one of the city's and region’s major employment centers. Continued growth in marine import-export activities will cause the Port of Tacoma to increase its prominence in the local, regional, state and national economy. Other industrial areas will continue to be viable and will undergo some expansion and redevelopment. The South Tacoma Manufacturing/Industrial area will be designated as a Regional Manufacturing/Industrial Center, and as such be a priority location for future manufacturing and industrial development. The rate of employment growth for manufacturing will be less than for other sectors of the economy, such as retail, service industries, government, transportation, trade and education.

Section VII– Manufacturing/Industrial Centers (p. GD-12) Employment concentrations within designated manufacturing/industrial centers are intended to be well-served by major transportation facilities including rail, interstate and transit systems. These employment concentrations are important to the local and regional economy and are priority locations for future manufacturing and industrial development and public investments in infrastructure. Many of the industrial uses are land intensive in nature. To preserve land at these centers, large retail, residential or non-related office uses are discouraged.

General Land Use Element Section V-Industrial Development (p.LU-44)

General Intent Industrial facilities vary in size and function. Heavy industrial uses usually consist of larger scale buildings with adjacent large storage areas. These uses generally are associated with high nuisance levels. Light industrial development consists of smaller scale, non-manufacturing and manufacturing uses. Generally, light industries are located on smaller sites and have lower nuisance levels. The function and the location of industrial establishments are highly related to convenient access to major transportation facilities and other manufacturers, suppliers and distributors in the urban area. The largest and most intensively developed industrial area in the city is the Port Industrial Area. The Port Industrial area is a designated manufacturing/industrial center for the Central Puget Sound region and as such is expected to accommodate a greater share of regional employment. The South Tacoma corridor which includes the industrial area along Center Street is a locally designated manufacturing/industrial. The location, size, proximity to major transportation routes and major population centers, and number of jobs within the South Tacoma corridor, make this center and a likely candidate for regional designation as a Manufacturing/Industrial Center by the Puget Sound Regional Council. Neighborhood Element South Tacoma Manufacturing/Industrial Center (p. Neigh-44) This industrial district, formally called the “Nalley Valley,” is located in the south-central part of South Tacoma adjacent to South Tacoma Way. The district is bounded by 56th Street on the south, South Tacoma Way and Interstate 5 on the east and south, Tyler Street on the west and State Route 16 on the north. The majority of the area is vacant industrial land with the majority of



land owned by Burlington Northern Santa Fe. It is well served by a regional transportation system that includes rail, soon to be developed commuter rail, and Interstate 5. This district covers a large portion of South Tacoma and its boundaries will soon behave recently been revised to create a more logical boundary that follows topography, existing zoning boundaries and existing land use patterns, as well as to improve its eligibility as a regionally designated Manufacturing/Industrial Center.

2008 Annual Amendment Application No. 2008-11 Residential Code Amendments

PROJECT STATUS OVERVIEW

P r i m a r y T o p i c s

• S m a l l - l o t S i n g l e - f a m i l y D e v e l o p m e n t S t a n d a r d s

• T y p i c a l S i n g l e - f a m i l y D e v e l o p m e n t S t a n d a r d s ( s t a n d a r d s i z e d l o t s )

• G e n e r a l R e s i d e n t i a l D e v e l o p m e n t S t a n d a r d s ( a l l r e s i d e n t i a l z o n e s )

• A c c e s s o r y B u i l d i n g s

• D e t a c h e d A c c e s s o r y D w e l l i n g U n i t s

• M u l t i - f a m i l y D e v e l o p m e n t S t a n d a r d s ( t o w n h o u s e s )

• P l a n n e d R e s i d e n t i a l D e v e l o p m e n t D i s t r i c t s

• C o d e R e f o r m a t t i n g


Note: Items that are highlighted are those that remain to be discussed, need additional discussion and/or for which a preliminary recommendation has not been formulated.

SMALL-LOT SINGLE-FAMILY DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS

Lot size – Prescriptive process for minor reductions Preliminary Recommendations: • To address requests for new small lots, provide for a prescriptive reduction allowance and more

stringent criteria for variance requests. The prescriptive reduction would allow a 10% reduction in the minimum lot size and/or width standards subject to meeting additional design standards (see below). Variances could be requested for reductions beyond 10% but would be subject to stricter “hardship” criteria and would be subject to increased design standards.

Setbacks – Side yard Preliminary Recommendations: • Remove the side yard setback averaging provision. • Maintain the existing 5-foot setback for single-family homes on small lots in residential zoning

districts. Variances Preliminary Recommendations: • Modify the existing variance criteria (revision of TMC 13.06.645) to change to a stricter, “hardship-

based” test. Height Limit Preliminary Recommendations: • Change the height limit to 35 feet, consistent with standard lot development (eliminate existing

requirement that relates to average height) Design Standards Preliminary Recommendations: • The design standards for small-lot single-family development should be revised to provide more

flexibility and direction. The current model would incorporate two levels of design standards, one applicable to lots within 10% of the minimum size requirements (to coincide with the prescriptive variance, described above) and one applicable to lots that are more than 10% below the size standards. The draft design standards, outlined below, incorporate a checklist style and provide some allowances for an applicant to be able to choose from a number of different options that best suit their design and the individual neighborhood style.


Level 1 Required Design Elements:

Applies to new single-family homes on small lots that are within 10% of the existing, applicable minimum lot size and/or lot width requirements and new single-family homes on pre-existing small lots are more than 10% smaller than the existing, applicable minimum lot size and/or lot width requirements.

• Clear building entries. Homes must provide a clearly defined building entrance that faces the street and provide weather protection that is at least 4 feet deep along the width of the building entry (note: a porch is one way of complying with this provision).

• De-emphasize the garage. Provide one of the following:

o Require garage location in rear and rear access if suitable access is available (via alley, side street, etc.)

o Where vehicular access is not available from an alley or side street, garages shall be setback from the front façade of the house and garage doors may not occupy more than 50% of the width of the front façade.

• Transparency. Transparent windows and/or doors facing streets are required. To meet this requirement, at least 15% of any façade facing a street must be transparent.

• Roofline orientation. Primary roofline(s) shall be oriented towards the front of the lot, with the tallest ridgelines running perpendicular to the street or front property line to minimize shade and shadow impacts to adjacent properties.

• De-emphasize the driveway. Specifically:

o The maximum width of driveway approaches shall be 20 feet.

o Driveway approach widths for lots less than 45 feet wide shall be no greater than 14 feet.

o In no case shall a driveway approach occupy more than 50% of a lot’s frontage.

• Useable yard space. All lots shall provide a contiguous yard space equivalent to at least 10 percent of the lot size. This usable yard space shall meet the following criteria:

o Feature minimum dimensions of 15’ on all sides

o Not include alleys or driveways space

o Such space may not be located within the front yard

o Livable floor area may not extend more than 18” over the space

• Housing Style Variety. Duplicative front façade elevations adjacent to each other are prohibited. In order to qualify as a different façade elevation, homes shall have different roofline configurations and different entry/porch designs. Simple reverse configurations of the same façade elevation on adjacent lots are not sufficient to meet this requirement. IN addition, a minimum of two of the following alternatives shall be utilized:

o Different windows openings (location and design)

o One and two-story houses

o Different exterior finish materials and finishes

o Different garage location, configuration and design


• Prohibited materials. Plywood and other similar sheet siding materials, such as T-111 siding, shall not be used for front facades and facades facing streets (board and batten is an exception).

Level 2 Required Design Elements:

Applies to new single-family homes on lots that are more than 10% smaller than the existing, applicable minimum lot size and/or lot width requirements (except for pre-existing lots, as noted above).

• Provide all of the elements required under Level 1

• Architectural details. Provide for architectural details that add visual interest to the neighborhood and are well proportioned to achieve good human scale. Specifically, incorporate at least three of the following detail elements into the front façade of the house:

o Decorative porch or entry design, including decorative columns or railings

o Bay windows or balconies

o Decorative molding / framing details around all front facade windows and doors

o Decorative door design including transom and/or side lights or other distinctive feature

o Decorative roofline elements, such as brackets, multiple dormers, and chimneys

o Decorative building materials, including decorative masonry, shingle, brick, tile, stone, or other materials with decorative or textural qualities

o Landscaped trellises or other decorative elements that incorporate landscaping near the building entry

o Other decorative façade elements or details that meet the intent of the criteria

• Provide at least one of the following options: - All homes must meet Built Green or other equivalent environmental certification for new

construction - Include a porch with a minimum area of 60 square feet and no dimension less than 6 feet.


TYPICAL SINGLE-FAMILY DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS

Setbacks – Side yard Preliminary Recommendations: • Remove the side yard setback averaging provision. • Reduce the setback requirement from 7½ feet to 5 feet for single-family homes on standard lots in all

residential zoning districts except for R-1 (where we have larger lots, larger setbacks and less variances).

Variances Preliminary Recommendations: • Modify the existing variance criteria (revision of TMC 13.06.645) to change to a stricter, “hardship-

based” test.

GENERAL RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS

Setbacks – In-line additions Preliminary Recommendations: • The exiting provision for allowing in-line additions into the front and rear yard setbacks should be

expanded to allow similar additions into the side yard setback. • Provide a limitation on the maximum size of such in-line additions, so that the provision would

generally allow for minor first floor additions, dormer additions and roof pitch changes while not allowing for complete additional floors to be added under this exception.

Setbacks – Front yard averaging Preliminary Recommendations: • Allow front yard averaging with an abutting side yard. • Allow properties abutting alleys to utilize the averaging provision by counting alley as the minimum

zoning setback for averaging purposes (similar to how we currently address roads). • Front-loaded garages must meet normal front yard setback requirement (generally 20 feet) Setbacks – Side yard averaging Preliminary Recommendations: • Allow side yard averaging with a rear neighbor’s existing front yard setback for the street-side of

corner lots.


Setbacks – Private roads Preliminary Recommendations: • Modify the provisions for calculating lot area and setbacks so that primary access easements are not

included in those areas. Setbacks – Additional exceptions Preliminary Recommendation: • Allow bay windows, garden windows, fireboxes and uncovered, ground level decks (30-inch

maximum height from surrounding grade) to be located to within 3 feet of the adjacent side property line

• Limit such architectural features to not exceed 25% of the side wall area. Setbacks – Mechanical equipment Preliminary Recommendation: • Do not allow mechanical equipment to be used in the side yard averaging calculation • Do not allow mechanical equipment to be located within the required side yard • Allow mechanical equipment to encroach 8 feet into the required rear yard • Allow mechanical equipment to encroach 8 feet into the functional rear yard on double-frontage lots

(similar to accessory buildings) Setbacks – Counting alleys in the rear setback Preliminary Recommendation: • Continue to allow alleys to count as part of the rear setback • Replace the requirement that accessory buildings shall not occupy more than 50 percent of the

required rear yard with a more straightforward usable yard space requirement, as follows:

All lots shall provide a contiguous yard space equivalent to at least 10 percent of the lot size. This usable yard space shall meet the following criteria:

o Feature minimum dimensions of 15’ on all sides (12’ for lots that are less than 3,500 square feet)

o Not include alleys or driveways space

o Such space may not be located within the front yard

o Livable floor area may not extend more than 18” over the space Uses – Residential Uses in M-1 Districts Preliminary Recommendation: • Restrict new residential development in M-1 areas to multi-family residential within a mixed-use

building, where a minimum of 1/3 of the building is devoted to industrial, commercial and/or office uses

• Amend M-1 landscaping requirements to require street trees • Conduct area-wide rezones in some areas to address some of the existing residential uses in M-1

districts


• Provide a provision to allow the remaining residential uses in M-1 districts to be considered “conforming,” allowing them to be maintained, rebuilt and expanded (within their current boundaries)

Uses – Historic Re-use Conditional Use Permits Preliminary Recommendation: Modify the conditional use permit section of the code to allow for a limited but expanded list of uses that could be permitted within historic structures. This provision would be limited to designated historic structures and all projects would require the approval of the Landmarks Preservation Commission. In addition, the proposal would utilize the conditional use permit process to ensure that such proposals receive appropriate public review and can be conditioned as necessary to address any site- or neighborhood-specific impacts and concerns. LIST OF USES THAT WOULD BE ALLOWED: • Art/craft production • Assembly facilities (community and union halls, social clubs, youth centers, etc.) • Continuing care retirement community • Cultural institutions (libraries, museums and art galleries) • Extended care facility (nursing home) • Group housing (convents, monasteries, etc.) • Intermediate care facility (assisted living) • Lodging house (bed and breakfasts) • Multi-family dwellings • Professional offices, such as those for legal or design services, and offices for charitable,

philanthropic or community service organizations where it can be shown that there is limited contact with the general public

• Personal services (barber and beauty shops, dry cleaners, self-service laundry, arts and crafts instruction, etc.)

• Retirement home • Retail, only as an incidental use to one or more of the above uses SPECIFIC HISTORIC REUSE CUP DECISION CRITERIA: A conditional use permit for the reuse of a historic, non-residential structure and site for one of the above-listed uses (where not otherwise allowed by the underlying zoning) shall be authorized only if it can be found to be consistent with all of the following criteria. In granting such a conditional use permit the Land Use Administrator or Hearing Examiner may attach thereto such conditions regarding the location, character, orientation, layout, access and other features of the proposed development as may be deemed necessary to ensure consistency with the intent of the TMC and Comprehensive Plan and ensure that use of the site will be compatible with the existing, historic development on the site and surrounding uses.

1. The use shall be consistent with the goals and policies of the comprehensive plan, any adopted neighborhood or community plans, and applicable ordinances of the City of Tacoma.

2. The use shall be located, planned, and developed in such a manner that it is not inconsistent with the health, safety, convenience, or general welfare of persons residing or working in the community. The following shall be considered in making a decision on a conditional property use:

a. The generation of noise, noxious or offensive emissions, traffic, lighting, or other nuisances which may be injurious or to the detriment of a significant portion of the community.


b. Availability of public services which may be necessary or desirable for the support of the use. These may include, but shall not be limited to, availability of utilities, transportation systems (including vehicular, pedestrian, and public transportation systems), education, police and fire facilities, and social and health services.

c. The adequacy of landscaping, screening, yard setbacks, open spaces, or other development characteristics necessary to mitigate the impact of the use upon neighboring properties.

3. The proposed reuse shall promote the preservation and/or restoration of the designated historic structure on the site.

4. The proposed reuse and design of any modifications to the historic structure and site shall be approved by the Landmarks Preservation Commission

ACCESSORY BUILDINGS

Height Preliminary Recommendations: • Raise height limit to 18’ outright for sloped roofs and 15’ for flat roofs • This would not apply in the View Sensitive Overlay Districts • Keep current maximum height limitation at 25 feet, with a variance • Add a variance criterion to allow additional height for “architectural compatibility,” for features such

as roof pitch and style Location – Front yard location restrictions Preliminary Recommendations (standard lots): • There is a clear pattern in the code of discouraging detached garages in front yards • Continue to not allow them outright (no change proposed)

Preliminary Recommendations (double-frontage lots): • Requirement should be to follow the established pattern for detached buildings if there is one • If there is a pattern for the “functional” front/rear yards (based on home orientation, detached building

location, etc.), they should follow the “functional” front/rear pattern and they should be allowed in the “functional” rear

• In either case, they are subject to meeting the main building front yard setback requirement • Allow them to average the front yard setback (similar to SFR front yard averaging) in “functional”

rear yard if there are detached buildings on abutting lots that do not meet setback Setbacks – Separate parcel restrictions Preliminary Recommendations: • Remove this provision (do not allow accessory buildings on a separate parcel from the main building)


Setbacks – Substantial connection Preliminary Recommendations: • Add the term “substantial connection” to the definition and clarify that a substantial connection is

considered: A common covered structure whose roof extends between the two structures; with A minimum width of 50% of the width of one of the structures; and which Utilizes a roof style, structure and finishing materials that tie into the existing roof of at least

one of the two structures Maximum Size Preliminary Recommendations: • Remove existing limitation on number of cars that can be stored • Replace this with a more specific size limitation, limiting the total square footage of detached

accessory buildings on a parcel to 75% of the sq. ft. of the main building, but no more than 1,000 sq. ft.

• This will be measured by square footage instead of footprint. • Additional allowance up to 1,500 sq. ft. for properties that include a detached ADU (also see below

under ADU discussion) Maximum Number Preliminary Recommendations: • Remove this requirement • This is better addressed through a size limitation (see previous issue) Allowed Uses (habitable space, plumbing, etc.) Preliminary Recommendations: • Directly connected to detached ADU discussion. Traditionally have not allowed plumbing in

detached buildings to prevent the creation of accessory units, which have not been allowed. If detached ADUs are allowed, this limitation can be modified to either allow plumbing and similar appurtenances only as part of a permitted detached ADU or simply to allow those facilities outright.

DETACHED ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS

Allowance (should we allow detached accessory dwelling units?) Preliminary Recommendations: • Modify the current ADU code provisions to allow detached ADUs as an accessory use to single-

family homes in all areas of the City


• Adopt the following requirements to uphold reasonable standards of development in single-family neighborhoods and ensure that detached ADUs do not have significant detrimental impacts surrounding neighborhoods while allowing for reasonable flexibility in design and layout

Location (relative to main house) Preliminary Recommendations: • Preferred location is in rear yard and/or adjacent to alleys • Not allowed in front of the main building • Not allowed in the required side yard setback area • This would not be subject to variance Maximum Size Preliminary Recommendations: • Limit ADUs (attached or detached) to no more than 40% of the combined square footage of the ADU

and main unit and no more than 1,000 sq. ft. (currently 33% and 800 sq. ft.) • This would not be subject to variance • Overall limitation for single-family detached accessory structures (including sheds, garages, ADUs,

etc.) would be increased from 1,000 sq. ft. to 1,500 sq. ft. in cases where a detached ADU is provided Maximum Height Preliminary Recommendations: • Height limit of 18 feet for single-story structures, which is consistent with the current proposal for the

height limit for other detached accessory buildings • Height limit of 25 feet for two-story structures (i.e. ADU above garage) • Limitation would be 15 feet in View Sensitive Overlay Districts, which is consistent with the current

proposal for the height limit for other detached accessory buildings Setbacks Preliminary Recommendations: • Additional setbacks beyond those required for standard accessory buildings is appropriate in

recognition of the difference in impacts between standard accessory buildings and residential units due to the increased level of activity

• Minimum 5-foot side yard setback and 5-foot rear yard setback • If the site abuts an alley, the rear or side yard setback along the alley shall be 0 • This would not be subject to variance Design Preliminary Recommendations: • Detached ADUs shall utilize complimentary colors and finish materials, window styles and roof

design


• The entrance door to a detached ADU can not face the same property line as the entry door to the main unit unless the door to the ADU is located behind the rear wall of the main building

• This would not be subject to variance Permit Process Preliminary Recommendations: • Detached ADUs should be processed utilizing the current process for attached ADUs, which involves

application, review, permit issuance, notice to neighborhood, and recording a concomitant agreement, and has not presented any significant problems to staff or neighbors (no change proposed)

Lot Size Standards Preliminary Recommendations: • Property must meet the minimum lot size of the zoning classification for a single-family home in

order to be approved for an ADU (attached or detached) • It is not appropriate to allow additional living units on lots that are already nonconforming to the

minimum lot size requirements (which represents the maximum density requirement) • This would not be subject to variance Maximum Occupancy Preliminary Recommendations: • Modify requirement to maximum occupancy of 4 persons (attached or detached) • The Minimum Housing Code already contains specific requirement to prevent overcrowding, so the

specific breakdown that currently exists in the Code is unnecessary • This would not be subject to variance Other Standards (currently apply to ADUs and are not proposed to be changed) Ownership – The property owner must live in either the ADU or the primary unit

Number – Maximum of one ADU (detached or attached) per single-family residential lot

Composition – Unit must include facilities for cooking, living, sanitation, and sleeping

Parking – One off-street parking stall shall be required for a detached ADU

Home Occupations – Home occupations are allowed in either the ADU or the main unit but not in both units

Periodic Reports – Require annual reports from BLUS to the City Council indicating how many ADUs have been produced and where they are located


MULTI-FAMILY DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS

Uses – Townhouses in Multi-family Zoning Districts Preliminary Recommendations: • Add townhouses as an allowed use in multi-family zoning districts, subject to the following

development standards:

• Lot Area. Average townhouse lot size based generally on the underlying density allowance created by the current minimum lot size requirement for other types of multi-family housing.

• Lot Width. Minimum average lot width of 16 feet.

• Front Setbacks. Maintain existing front setback requirements (generally either 15 or 20 feet). This would apply along the street frontage of the development and not to yards that are internal to the development.

• Rear Setbacks. Maintain the existing rear yard setback requirements (generally either 20 or 25 feet). Again, this would apply along the rear property line of the development and not to yards that are internal to the development.

• Side Setbacks. Have no setback requirement between townhouse units. Maintain existing side yard setback requirement along exterior sides of development

• Number of Units per Building. Maximum 6 units in a single-connected structure, with minimum 10-foot spacing between clusters.

• Parking

o Minimum one space per unit

o Place language in the code that alley must be used for parking access if available.

o Garages shall not face any street.

o Limit driveway approaches (number and width) in circumstances where street-front access is necessary

• Design

o Require articulation of individual units, through features such as roofline or wall modulation

o Require a minimum of 15 percent of facades facing streets contain transparent windows and/or doors

• Pedestrian Orientation

o Units fronting on a street must have individual ground-related entries

o A continuous pedestrian walkway must be provided between the front entrance of each unit and the nearest public sidewalk.

• Utilities. Utility apparatus and service areas shall be located along the alley, where available, and shall be located and/or designed to minimize their visibility from the street.


PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENTS (PRD)

Uses Multi-family development (existing, non-conforming and new), neighborhood service uses,

alternative housing designs Development Standards

Appropriate flexibility, setbacks, open space, site coverage, vehicle access, pedestrian amenities, density, low impact development, community amenities Size Potentially lower the thresholds, different levels of flexibility at different sizes Intent Need additional guidance, consolidate policies in Comprehensive Plan into one section, need policies about the intent to allow for model/innovative projects

CODE REFORMATTING

Format Preliminary Recommendations: • The residential sections should be reformatted in a similar manner to the other revised sections

(convert to the new chart format)

2008 Annual Amendment Application No. 2008-11 Residential Code Amendments

PROJECT STATUS OVERVIEW

Planned Residential Developments (PRDs) P r i m a r y P o l i c y I s s u e s

• S i t e A r e a T h r e s h o l d s

• U s e R e g u l a t i o n s / F l e x i b i l i t y ( h o u s i n g t y p e s a n d n o n -r e s i d e n t i a l u s e s )

• D e n s i t y A l l o w a n c e s

• S e t b a c k s

• S i t e C o v e r a g e

• O p e n S p a c e R e q u i r e m e n t s ( p r i v a t e a n d c o m m o n )

• O p e n S p a c e D e v e l o p m e n t S t a n d a r d s

• V e h i c l e A c c e s s S t a n d a r d s

• P e d e s t r i a n A m e n i t i e s

• A f f o r d a b l e H o u s i n g

• S u s t a i n a b i l i t y / L o w I m p a c t D e v e l o p m e n t


INTRODUCTION WHY LOOK AT PRD REGULATIONS NOW? There are several reasons to look at revising the City of Tacoma’s current Planned Residential Development (PRD) regulations. First, the existing regulations are no longer applicable to most areas inside the City limits. They apply to a suburban model of development that is inappropriate for the urban character of Tacoma today. For instance, existing regulations have minimum site area requirements ranging from two to ten acres depending on the underlying zone. Few undeveloped parcels of this size exist within the City limits today, making the regulations inapplicable to most parts of the City.

Second, the City of Tacoma is looking to find ways to stimulate urban infill and achieve higher housing densities without impacting surrounding neighborhoods. Revising the PRD regulations to allow for innovative development will provide the City opportunities to test different types of development with a higher level of review. In this way, PRD regulations can allow for demonstration projects that model different site designs and development standards. In the future, if certain types of development are desired and standards agreed upon, they could be allowed outright or through the conditional use permit process, rather than the PRD process.

Third, the range of public benefits sought by the City has expanded beyond the simple provision of open space. Amenities targeting walkability, sustainable/low-impact development, and affordable housing are desired in residential developments in addition to useable open space within PRDs.

BACKGROUND The purpose of PRD regulations is to provide greater flexibility for development in exchange for increased public review and community benefits. In the past, community benefits have largely been defined as common open space with recreational amenities. For example, Tacoma’s existing regulations require one-third of the gross site area to be common open space, one-third of which is to be devoted to recreational uses (this is part of the “interim” amendments to the PRD regulations adopted in 2007 in response to the PRD moratorium).

Another common goal of PRDs is the protection of mature trees and critical areas. By allowing flexible site layouts, these natural features can remain whole and largely undisturbed, thereby protecting their function and ecological value. While the protection of trees and critical areas is of upmost importance, using PRDs to achieve these goals is less critical due to the adoption of other code sections related to critical areas. Creating a PRD ordinance which expands flexibility to innovative infill development occurring on smaller sites, and which calls for a wider range of amenities appropriate to an urban setting, would provide a valuable tool for achieving the City’s current housing goals.

EXAMPLE REGULATIONS Examples of planned residential/unit development regulations from the cities of Everett, Kirkland and Portland were used to inform recommended revisions to Tacoma’s PRD regulations. Because the intent of this review is to find ways of incorporating flexibility for small scale residential development into PRD regulations, additional examples of small lot housing regulations were also drawn from Seattle, Pierce County and Federal Way.


Seattle’s chapter on Residential Small Lot development includes regulations for single family dwelling units on one lot, tandem housing, and cottage housing developments permitted within specified small lot zones. "Tandem houses" are two unattached ground-related dwelling units occupying the same lot. "Cottage housing development" means a development consisting of at least four cottages that are small single-family dwelling units arranged on at least two sides of a common open space.

Pierce County’s chapter on Small Lot Design includes regulations for small lot housing developments permitted generally in zones that allow for single-family detached housing at densities of six or more dwelling units per acre.

Federal Way’s chapter on Cottage and Compact Single-Family Housing includes regulations for cottage and compact single family housing developments permitted within their RS 5.0 and 7.2 zones and all RM zones.


SPECIFIC ISSUES

PURPOSE OF PRDS

Issue

Should the City expand the purpose of PRDs to include providing for greater flexibility in small scale residential developments in addition to large scale residential developments?

Existing Provisions A. Intent. The PRD Planned Residential Development District is intended to: provide for greater flexibility in large scale residential developments; promote a more desirable living environment than would be possible through the strict regulations of conventional zoning districts; encourage developers to use a more creative approach in land development; provide a means for reducing the improvements required in development through better design and land planning; conserve natural features; and facilitate more desirable, aesthetic, and efficient use of open space.

The PRD District is intended to be located in areas possessing the amenities and services generally associated with residential dwelling districts, and in locations which will not produce an adverse influence upon adjacent properties.

Land classified as a PRD District shall also be classified as one or more of the regular residential zoning districts and shall be designated by a combination of symbols (e.g., R-3-PRD planned residential development district).

Purpose (Reason for Review)

Currently the intent statement for PRDs is limited to providing for greater flexibility in large scale residential developments only. As stated in the introduction, the number of large scale residential developments possible within the City of Tacoma is limited.

Discussion (Analysis and Examples)

Expanding the purpose of PRD developments to include provision of greater flexibility for smaller scale residential development would help to achieve City’s housing goals of stimulating innovative housing design and increasing the diversity of housing types, while allowing for adequate review to ensure housing fits in with or improves the character of neighborhoods.

Kirkland Planned Unit Development Kirkland’s chapter on planned unit developments is intended to “establish a mechanism for a person to propose a development that is innovative or otherwise beneficial, but which does not strictly comply with the requirements of the code.”

Preliminary Staff Recommendation

Revise the intent statement of PRDs to include providing for greater flexibility in smaller scale residential developments as well as large scale developments. Add language to the intent statement similar to language found in Kirkland’s code that states the intent of PRD regulations are to provide a mechanism to pursue innovative and/or “model”


projects that could be beneficial but which do not strictly comply with the standard requirements of the code.

SITE AREA THRESHOLDS

Issue

Should the City simplify and reduce the size threshold for PRDs?

Existing Provisions 13.06.140. F.2. Site area. The minimum gross site area for a PRD District shall be as follows:

R 1 PRD District ten acres

R 2 PRD District five acres

R 3 PRD District two acres

R 4 L PRD District three and one half acres

R 4 PRD District five acres

R 5 PRD District ten acres

The code allows for some variation when two or more zoning districts are included.


Existing policies and regulations are generally supportive of infill development. Revisions are needed to open opportunities for creative residential developments on a smaller scale.


Reducing the minimum lot size for PRDs would increase the number of sites that could be developed under PRD regulations within Tacoma. Seattle and Federal Way have smaller minimum size requirements for their cottage housing types of development, as shown below. Reducing the size of PRDs themselves could also reduce their impact on surrounding neighborhoods. Seattle and Federal Way also limit the number of cottage housing units on a site to a maximum of 12 units in some areas. Federal Way also requires cottage housing developments to be located a minimum of 660 feet from each other.

The creation of two different types of PRDs with different size thresholds has also been discussed. However, any reasons for having two types and thresholds such as different use standards or connectivity requirements can likely be addressed through other means.


Kirkland Planned Unit Developments Kirkland does not specify a minimum site area requirement for PUDs.

Seattle Small Lot, Tandem and Cottage Housing Developments Seattle requires cottage housing developments to have a minimum lot area of 6,400 square feet (0.15 acre) (4 to 12 cottages).

Federal Way Cottage and Compact Single-Family Federal Way requires Cottage Housing Developments to have a minimum lot area of 0.75 acres (32,670 square feet).

Preliminary Staff Recommendations

Reduce minimum site area requirement for PRDs to 0.5 acre (21,780 square feet). A smaller site area would provide greater encouragement for infill and would make this development tool more practical in today’s Tacoma.

USE REGULATIONS – HOUSING TYPES

Issue

Should multi-family housing be an allowed use in all PRD districts (expanding the list to allow them in R-1, R-2 and R-2SRD PRDs)? If not, should all existing, approved multi-family uses be considered conforming (based on 2007 Annual Amendment application)?

Existing Provisions 1. The uses of property permitted in the regular zoning district with which the PRD District is combined. 2. Townhouses in all PRD Districts. 3. Multi-family dwellings in R-3-PRD Districts. 4. Indoor and outdoor recreational facilities and structures for the exclusive use of the residents of the PRD District. 5. Day care centers with an enrollment of 50 or fewer children or adults. 6. Special needs housing, in accordance with the provisions of Section 13.06.535.


R-1, R-2 and R-2SRD PRD districts already allow for non-single-family housing types, such as townhouses, retirement facilities and other special needs housing facilities. Allowing multi-family housing in these PRD districts would provide additional incentives for utilizing this development tool and could allow for more efficient clustering on sites with significant critical areas or where significant open space is desired.


Allow multi-family housing in all PRD districts, subject to the following standards:

• Only allowed in R-1, R-2 and R-2SRD PRD districts that are at least 5 acres in size


• In R-1, R-2 and R-2SRD PRD districts, multi-family uses shall be limited to no more than 1/3 of the residential units in the PRD

• In R-1, R-2 and R-2SRD PRD districts, multi-family uses shall not be allowed within 200 feet of any neighboring single-family residentially-zoned properties (outside of the PRD)

• This would also address the issue brought forward as a 2007 annual amendment application concerning how the code addressing existing, approved multi-family uses in such PRD district (such as the On The Green Apartments).

USE REGULATIONS – COMMON STRUCTURES

Issue

Should additional common structures which are designed to be shared by residents be permitted as an accessory use within PRDs? Such structures may include meeting space, a food preparation area, sinks, and toilets.

Existing Provisions 4. Indoor and outdoor recreational facilities and structures for the exclusive use of the residents of the PRD District.


Current regulations provide for indoor and outdoor recreational facilities and structures, but they do not identify shared structures which may include meeting spaces and food preparation areas, etc, as a permitted use.


Adding common structures to the list of permitted uses would expand and clarify the different types of common structures allowed within a PRD, and allow for more innovative and affordable housing types, in which residents have somewhat less personal/private space in their homes, but have access to common facilities within the development. Regulations may also be desired to identify limitations on size, design, and uses allowed within common structures. See Seattle and Federal Way examples below.

Seattle Cottage Housing Seattle allows common structures in cottage housing developments as an accessory use. It defines them as shared structures used by the occupants of more than one (1) dwelling unit, which may include meeting space, a food preparation area, sinks, and toilets, but do not include either sleeping quarters or bathing facilities.

Federal Way Cottage and Compact Single-Family Federal Way allows community buildings in cottage housing developments (CHDs) provided they do not exceed 2,000 square feet, and provided roof pitch, architecture, materials and colors are similar to that of the dwelling units within the CHD.



Expand the list of permitted uses to include common structures which are used by occupants of more than one (1) dwelling unit, as an accessory use. Such structures may include meeting space, a food preparation area, sinks, and toilets, but shall not include either sleeping quarters or bathing facilities.

USE REGULATIONS – NEIGHBORHOOD SERVING RETAIL AND SERVICES

Issue

Should PRDs allow for a greater variety of uses including small scale neighborhood serving retail and services, provided such uses are limited in size?

Existing Provisions

Neighborhood serving retail and services are currently not allowed.


Existing regulations do not allow neighborhood serving retail and services within PRDs, which could be desirable to serve residents of the development and vicinity provided certain criteria are met.


Everett and Portland are examples of jurisdictions that allow modification to permitted uses within planned developments. Commercial uses within PRDs could increase convenient access to goods and services thereby encouraging the use of non-motorized forms of transportation. However, traffic impacts and dispersal of commercial uses should be avoided; therefore locational criteria for these uses are also needed.

Portland Planned Development The City of Portland allows commercial uses allowed within their CN1 zone (Neighborhood Commercial district) to be requested as part of a planned development.

Everett Planned Development Overlay Zone The City of Everett allows non-residential uses which are not otherwise permitted within the underlying zone provided the following conditions:

• The use shall be part of a planned development in which not more than twenty-five percent of the gross floor area of the development is devoted to a use which is not otherwise permitted in the underlying use zone.

• The use shall be supportive of and/or complementary to the other uses within a planned development.

• The use shall be compatible with the uses permitted on other properties in the surrounding area.


• There is public benefit to be realized by allowing the proposed use.


Allow limited neighborhood serving retail and service uses within large PRDs provided the following criteria are met:

• Such uses would only be allowed within R-1, R-2 and R-2SRD PRD districts that are at least 10 acres in size and within other PRD districts that at least 5 acres in size;

• The allowed uses shall be limited to neighborhood serving commercial uses, such as small retail and restaurants and personal services;

• Commercial uses shall not be allowed if the PRD district is adjacent to existing commercially-zoned property;

• The commercial use shall not be located within 300 feet of any neighboring single-family residentially-zoned properties (outside of the PRD);

• Individual commercial spaces shall be limited to 4,000 square feet; and

• Total commercial square footage within the PRD district shall be no more than 20,000 square feet.


DEVELOPER INCENTIVES / FLEXIBILITY GRANTED THROUGH PRD PROCESS Greater flexibility is granted through the PRD process in exchange for community benefits. This section considers standards where flexibility may be warranted such as maximum densities, yard regulations, and site coverage. The section following this one considers the type and quantity of community benefits required in order to be eligible for receiving greater flexibility.

INCENTIVES/FLEXIBILITY – DENSITY AND MINIMUM LOT SIZE

Issue

Should higher densities than those allowed in the underlying zone be allowed within PRDs?

Existing Provisions 3. Density. The maximum density of dwelling units within a PRD District shall be as follows (the gross area of the PRD District may be considered for computing density, and retirement home guest rooms and/or guest suites shall be construed as dwelling units for purposes of computing density): R-1-PRD District – 7,500 square feet of gross site area per dwelling unit. R-2-PRD District – 5,000 square feet of gross site area per dwelling unit. R-3-PRD District – 3,000 square feet of gross site area per dwelling unit. R-3-PRD District Retirement Homes – The Hearing Examiner shall determine the minimum lot area per dwelling unit, guest room, or guest suite; provided, the lot area so determined shall not be less than 1,500 square feet nor more than 3,000 square feet. R-4-L-PRD District – 1,500 square feet of gross site area per dwelling unit. R-4-PRD District – 1,500 square feet of gross site area per dwelling unit. R-5-PRD District – 1,500 square feet of gross site area per dwelling unit. R-4-L-PRD, R-4-PRD and R-5-PRD District retirement homes – the Hearing Examiner or Land Use Administrator shall determine the minimum lot area per dwelling unit, guest room, or guest suite; provided, the lot area so determined shall not be less than 750 square feet nor more than 1,500 square feet.


Existing PRD regulations do not provide enough of an incentive for developing a site through a PRD process, and do not support the types of innovative infill development envisioned in City housing goals. The existing density limitations are generally the same as the density limitations provided in the underlying residential zone (although in the underlying zone it is regulated by minimum lot size). In some cases, such as in an R4-PRD or R5-PRD, the allowed density is actually more restrictive than the underlying, base zoning district. Additional units gained through the PRD process are realized for large PRDs only and even then, they are not significant.



In large part, the only density benefit currently provided is the ability to calculate density based on the “gross site area,” which allows the developer to get credit for areas for roads and other commonly owned facilities. In most cases, and particularly on smaller sites, this limited density benefit is almost insignificant.

Everett Planned Residential Developments The City of Everett awards a density bonus of up to fifteen percent over the density that would be allowed without a PRD under the following conditions:

a. The design quality of the development offsets the impact of the increase in density; and

b. The increase in density is compatible with existing uses in the immediate vicinity of the subject property.

Kirkland Planned Unit Developments The City of Kirkland allows 110 percent of the density permitted in the zone in which the PUD is located, and allows up to 150 percent of the density permitted if special needs housing or affordable housing units are provided. The amount of bonus for affordable housing is based upon the percentage of dwelling units which are low or moderate income units, using the following multipliers:

% of Low or Moderate Income Units Density

Multiplier

5 – 9% = 1.1

10 – 14% = 1.2

15 – 19% = 1.3

20 – 24% = 1.4

25% + = 1.5

Seattle Cottage Housing Seattle’s cottage housing regulations have a permitted density equal to 1 du per 1,600 square feet of lot area. This is equivalent to 27 units per acre.

Federal Way Cottage Housing and Compact Single-Family Federal Way’s cottage housing and compact single family regulations allow twice as many units as would be allowed under RS (single-family) zones and allow densities equal to 1 du per 2,500 square feet, equivalent to 17 units per acre within RM (multi-family) zones.


Tacoma Residential Density Credits for Critical Areas Density credits allowed per section 13.11.210 of the Tacoma Code are not allowed to exceed 125 percent of the allowed number of dwelling units on the developable acreage of the site.


Allow 125 percent of the density permitted in the underlying zone with up to an additional 25 percent bonus for provision of additional community amenities (see the LID and Other Community Amenities section below, on page 19).

SITE DESIGN – YARD REGULATIONS

Issue

Should minimum yard requirements within PRDs be reduced?

Existing Provisions 1. Yard regulations. A minimum 20-foot building setback shall be maintained from the district property line on the perimeter of the PRD District. Setbacks from dedicated arterial streets within the PRD District shall be maintained in accordance with the requirements of the residential district with which it is combined. The distance separating buildings, exclusive of accessory buildings, shall be not less than 15 feet, except that a building on a platted lot may be attached to any building or buildings on any adjoining platted lot or lots, or, if unattached, a building setback of not less than seven and one-half feet all be maintained from such adjoining lot line or lines. Accessory buildings shall not be permitted within required setback areas. Building setbacks from the PRD District boundary, from dedicated streets adjacent to and within the PRD District, and from other buildings shall be increased by one-half foot for each one foot the height of such a building or structure exceeds 35 feet.


Existing side yard requirements within PRDs are identical to side yard requirements within underlying zones, allowing for no increased flexibility. There are no front and rear setbacks within PRDs, except as they apply to the perimeter setback requirement.


Yard requirements are generally smaller for small lot developments in other jurisdictions (see table below). Some jurisdictions have more specific setback provisions for building and porch setbacks and depending on whether the building is adjacent to a common area. The table below represents the largest setbacks required for buildings under each jurisdiction’s small housing type regulations.


Building Setbacks (in feet)

Setbacks

Pierce County

Small Lot Seattle

Small Lot Seattle

Tandem Seattle Cottage

Federal Way Cottage/

Compact SF

Front 8 10-15 10 10 avg 15

Side 4 5-10 5-10 5

Rear 10 10-15 10 10 5


Modify the setback requirements to be consistent with the proposed setbacks for standard development and to allow for reasonable buffering on smaller PRD sites.

• Reduce the perimeter setback requirement for PRD districts that are smaller than 2 acres to 10 feet (maintain the 20-foot perimeter setback for larger PRDs)

• Reduce the internal building separation requirement to 10 feet (consistent with the current proposal to reduce the standard side yard setback requirement to 5 feet)

• Require garages that face public or private roads to be set back a minimum of 20 feet.

• Allow detached accessory buildings, such as garages, to be located within perimeter setback areas adjacent to public alleys.

• Maintain the additional incremental setbacks for buildings over 35 feet.

SITE COVERAGE

Issue

Should the maximum site coverage requirement be increased to accommodate greater infill? Should the requirement be converted to a maximum impervious surface requirement to provide incentives for maintaining vegetated areas, limiting paved areas, and utilizing LID techniques?

Existing Provisions 5. Site coverage. Buildings and structures shall not occupy more than one-third of the gross area of the PRD District.


The existing maximum site coverage requirement is very low and therefore incompatible with Tacoma’s urban character and the desired type of infill development. The only residential zoning district that currently includes a maximum lot coverage requirement is the R4L district, where the maximum is 35%. However, based on current setback requirements,


the current maximum lot coverage allowed in standard single-family residential zones in the City ranges from approximately 50% to 60%.


Jurisdictions use either total impervious surface standards or lot coverage standards defined as areas covered by principal and accessory buildings.

Pierce County Small Lot Pierce County small lot development regulations state that maximum percentage of total impervious surface shall not exceed 70 percent.

Seattle Cottage Housing Seattle cottage housing development regulations state that maximum lot coverage permitted for principal and accessory structures in cottage housing developments shall not exceed 40 percent. Additionally, Seattle sets maximum lot coverage for individual principal structures in a cottage housing development to 650 square feet.

Federal Way Cottage and Compact Single-Family Federal Way’s Cottage and Compact Single-Family regulations state that lot coverage in CHDs shall not exceed 60 percent of gross site area. Lot coverage shall be calculated for the overall CHD, not for individual lots. Paved components of common open space areas and walkways shall not be counted in lot coverage calculations.


Convert the existing standard to a maximum impervious surface limitation of 70 percent of the entire PRD.


COMMUNITY BENEFITS REQUIRED THROUGH THE PRD PROCESS Planned residential developments can be used to encourage a variety of community benefits including open space, pedestrian amenities, affordable housing, and sustainability.

COMMON OPEN SPACE REQUIREMENTS

Issue

Should Tacoma’s existing minimum common open space requirement for PRDs be replaced with a minimum square footage per unit?

Existing Provisions 6. Common Open Space. A minimum of one-third of the gross site area of the PRD District shall be provided as common open space. For the purpose of this section, common open space shall be defined as land which is provided or maintained for the general enjoyment of the residents of the PRD District or the general public and not used for buildings, dedicated public rights-of-way, private access/road easements, driveways, traffic circulation and roads, private yards, required sidewalks, utility areas, storm water facilities (unless also developed as a recreational area), parking areas, or any kind of storage. Common open space includes, but is not limited to woodlands, open fields, streams, wetlands, other water bodies, habitat areas, steep slope areas, landscaped areas, parks, beaches, gardens, courtyards, or recreation areas.


Existing quantity requirements for common open space reflect a suburban development pattern, which is inappropriate for Tacoma’s urban character today.


Below are examples of common open space requirements in other jurisdictions.

Pierce County Small Lot Pierce County small lot development standards common open space requirements require 350 square feet of common open space for each unit. Developments of 3 or fewer dwelling units have no common open space requirement.

Seattle Cottage Housing Seattle requires a minimum of 150 square feet per dwelling unit to be provided as common open space.

Federal Way Cottage Housing and Compact Single-Family Federal Way requires a minimum of 500 square feet of common open space to be provided per dwelling unit.


Convert the current open space requirement from an overall percentage of the PRD to a per unit requirement, based on the following ratios:


District Minimum Sq. Ft. of Open Space per Unit

R-1 PRD 500

R-2 PRD 400

R-2SRD PRD 300

HMR-SRD PRD 300

R-3 PRD 300

R-4L PRD 300

R-4 PRD 200

R-5 PRD 100

OPEN SPACE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS

Issue

Should PRD regulations incorporate additional standards for common open space areas?

Existing Provisions a. A minimum of one-third of this required common open space shall be devoted to recreation area for use by the residents of the PRD District or the general public. For the purpose of this section, recreation area includes, but is not limited to trails, athletic fields and courts, playgrounds, swimming pools, picnic areas or similar facilities. Such recreation area(s) shall be located in a central area of the district or spread throughout the district to provide convenient access to all residents. The recreation area(s) shall be of a size, topography and configuration so as to accommodate a variety of recreational functions for residents, with the overall intent of consolidating amenity areas to avoid fragmented areas of marginal utility. Said recreation areas shall not entirely consist of concrete or other hardscape. b. Common open space areas shall be located and configured to protect mature trees and critical areas, provide for recreational opportunities, and create open space corridors, green belts and connections between existing or planned parks, trails or open space.


Within infill scale PRDs recreational facilities such as playgrounds, pools, courts, and other athletic facilities would be impossible or would preclude multi-purpose open space. Standards for design of open space may better meet the needs of urban areas.


Pierce County Small Lot Pierce County regulations for small lot development contain the following development standards for common open space:


• Common open space shall be a minimum of 20 feet wide, be contiguous, and serve a minimum of 4 homes.

• Common open space areas should be designed to accommodate both active and passive recreational activities.

• Common open space shall be located in a highly visible area and be easily accessible to the neighborhood.

• Common open space should be located to preserve existing trees as much as possible.

Seattle Cottage Housing Seattle’s development standards for common open space include the following:

• Private usable open space shall be provided at ground level in one (1) contiguous parcel with a minimum area of two hundred (200) square feet. No horizontal dimension of the open space shall be less than ten (10) feet.

• Required common open space shall be provided at ground level in one (1) contiguous parcel with a minimum area of one hundred fifty (150) square feet per unit. Each cottage shall abut the common open space, and the common open space shall have cottages abutting at least two (2) sides.

• The minimum horizontal dimension for open space shall be ten (10) feet.

Federal Way Cottage Housing and Compact Single-Family Federal Way’s development standards for common open space include the following:

• Common open space within a CHD shall be a minimum of 3,000 square feet in size, regardless of number of dwelling units.

• No dimension of a common open space area used to satisfy the minimum square footage requirement shall be less than 10 feet, unless part of a pathway or trail.

• In subdivisions and short subdivisions, common open space shall be located in a separate tract or tracts.

• Required common open space shall be divided into no more than two separate areas per cluster of dwelling units.

• Common open space shall be improved for passive or active recreational use. Examples may include but are not limited to courtyards, orchards, landscaped picnic areas or gardens. Common open space shall include amenities such as seating, landscaping, trails, gazebos, barbecue facilities, covered shelters or water features. Surface water management facilities shall not be located in a common open space area.

• A minimum of 75 percent of dwelling units shall abut the common open space.

• Common open spaces shall have dwelling units abutting at least two sides.


• CHDs shall be required to implement a mechanism, acceptable to the director of community development, to ensure the continued care and maintenance of CHD common areas. A typical example would be creation of a home owner’s association or condominium association with authority and funding necessary to maintain the common areas.


Incorporate additional development standards for common open space that include the following:

• Common open spaces shall have dwelling units abutting at least two sides.

• No dimension of a common open space area used to satisfy the minimum requirement shall be less than 10 feet.

• Required perimeter setback areas shall not be counted toward the required common open space area

PEDESTRIAN AMENITIES

Issue

Should PRD regulations include requirements for pedestrian amenities such as pedestrian connections and traffic calming measures?

Existing Provisions

No requirements for pedestrian amenities exist within PRD regulations currently.


Requiring pedestrian amenities would fit in with and enhance Tacoma’s urban character.


Pierce County Small Lot Pierce County’s small lot regulations include the following requirements for pedestrian connectivity:

• Create a network of sidewalks and other paths throughout the neighborhood to reduce the reliance on the automobile and provide opportunities for interaction and activity.

• A sidewalk or pathway system shall be provided through each neighborhood.

• In areas where pathways cross streets, parking will be eliminated and curb extensions or bulb-outs shall be provided to reduce crossing distance and ensure safe crossing.


• A pathway with a minimum width of 4 feet shall connect common parks, green areas and pocket parks to neighborhood streets, access lanes or other pedestrian connections.

• A pedestrian entry easement shall be provided to all homes that do not front on a neighborhood street, access lane, park or common green. Pedestrian entry easements shall be a minimum of 15 feet wide with a minimum 5-foot sidewalk.

• A pedestrian circulation system that provides internal connections to neighborhood streets, common open spaces, and recreation areas should be incorporated into the neighborhood design.


Incorporate the following language into PRD regulations:

• Create a network of sidewalks and other paths throughout the development to reduce the reliance on the automobile and provide opportunities for interaction and activity. The pedestrian network must be composed of a minimum 5-foot wide continuous walkway that is separate and distinct from vehicular areas.

• The internal pedestrian network must connect to all units and must connect common recreational spaces to neighborhood streets or other pedestrian connections.

• In areas where the pedestrian network crosses streets, parking must be eliminated and curb extensions or bulb-outs must be provided to reduce crossing distance and ensure safe crossing.

• Pedestrian connections shall be provided to the surrounding street network. The internal network shall be connected to each developed public street right-of-way that abuts the PRD district. For districts that abut significant lengths of streets, additional connections shall be provided at a frequency to ensure that there is no more than 700 feet between connections on any single street frontage.

LOW-IMPACT DEVELOPMENT & OTHER COMMUNITY AMENITIES

Issue

Should low-impact development and sustainability techniques and other community amenities be required or encouraged within PRDs?

Existing Provisions None


Existing regulations do not contain any incentives for using low-impact development techniques.



Pierce County Small Lot Pierce County regulations for small lot developments state the following in their small lot regulations to encourage low-impact development:

• Preserve as much native vegetation on-site as possible to protect the aesthetic qualities of the region, to protect aquifers and provide wildlife habitat, and to prevent detrimental runoff to adjoin properties, streams, and other critical areas.

• Neighborhoods should be designed to minimize excessive pavement.

• The use of pervious surfaces is encouraged. Porous concrete, porous paving stones, reinforced turf, crushed gravel with soil stabilizers, and paving blocks with planted joints are examples of acceptable materials that can be used for driveways, pathways, sidewalks, and patios.

• Site Design objectives and standards are intended to minimize modifications to topography, preserve existing vegetation whenever possible, minimize the creation of impervious surfaces, and make appropriate provisions for vehicular and pedestrian circulation within small lot developments.

• Minimize soil disturbance and contain and manage water runoff on-site.

• Homes and roadways shall be designed to blend into the existing topographic contours to minimize cuts and fills.

• Minimal grading becomes essential in developing a neighborhood that is integrated into the natural environment. If possible, roads should follow existing contours and grading should be minimized by the design of the homes. On steeper sites, tuck-under garages and daylight basements are encouraged to integrate homes into existing topography and minimize mass grading.

• Bioswales are encouraged throughout the development to treat runoff, improve water quality, and minimize or eliminate the size of detention ponds.

Tacoma Mixed Use Center Proposed Height Bonuses Within the table of features eligible for height bonuses in Mixed Use Centers is the use of low-impact development for stormwater management. To be eligible for a height bonus using LID the follow is required:

• Manage stormwater through an integrated system and management plan that utilizes various low impact development techniques, such as permeable surfaces, roof rainwater collection systems, bioretention/rain gardens, etc. System shall be designed to result in no net increase in the rate and quantity of stormwater runoff from existing to developed conditions or, if the amount of existing imperviousness on the project site is greater than 50%, the system shall be designed to result in a 25% decrease in the rate and quantity of stormwater runoff. The system shall be designed and installed under the direction of a professional with demonstrated expertise in the design and construction of such facilities.




Incorporate language into PRD regulations similar to that found in Pierce County’s code (to be included as guiding principles regarding PRD site design) and Tacoma’s proposed MUC height bonus to provide PRD density bonuses to encourage the use of low-impact development and techniques and the provision of other desirable community amenities. The potential bonuses would each be worth an additional 15% in overall PRD density (up to a maximum of 150% of the underlying zone density) and could include:

• LID Stormwater Management (similar to MUC provision)

• Preservation and protection of areas within designated Habitat Corridors and provision of a habitat corridor management plan

• Provision of a public park that is at least ¼ of the required open space and no smaller than 10,000 square feet (would be subject to approval and acceptance by Metro Parks)

Also, as recommended in the site coverage section above, switch from measuring site coverage of buildings to measuring total impervious surface. This could encourage the use of porous materials for non-building surfaces.

Agenda Item C-4

Seattle Post-Intelligencer http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/370097_townhouse09.html Nickels calls for mandatory design review of new townhouses

New design standards include more windows, wider driveways

Wednesday, July 9, 2008 Last updated 7:47 a.m. PT

By JENNIFER LANGSTON P-I REPORTER

Bowing to complaints about ugly buildings invading neighborhoods, Seattle Mayor Greg Nickels proposed Tuesday that city planners review all designs for new townhouses.

He also proposed the first major zoning overhaul in two decades of Seattle's multifamily neighborhoods. While they cover only 10 percent of the city, they've had greater growing pains as homes were bulldozed for new construction in the last development boom.

The changes would help future development fit in better with neighborhoods, provide ecological benefits and encourage more affordable housing, Nickels said.

"Condominiums and townhomes allow people an entrée into owning their own homes, so that gives them a strong stake in the community and is a good thing for our city," he said. "However, we have had some challenges, particularly with townhomes."

The proposed townhouse design standards would force builders to provide more windows, wider driveways, entrances that face the street and lower fences along sidewalks.

The changes also would offer builders more flexibility in building configuration, parking and open space. In some areas, structures could be closer to the street.

But some neighborhood groups believe the proposed changes could yield disastrous results: bigger, bulkier buildings, smaller yards and less open space on the ground level.

"Taking away some of these things ... will bring back Frankenbuildings, and why would we want to do that?" said Beth Means, an Eastlake resident who fought monolithic apartment buildings in the 1980s.

Other residents favor even bolder solutions, questioning why so many design decisions still are being made to accommodate cars. Some wouldn't mind eliminating setbacks that force developers to include small, unappealing patches of open space.

"We sort of look at townhomes and apartments and condos as the basic building blocks for the livable, walkable neighborhoods," said Gary Manca, president of Friends of Seattle, a citizens group formed two years ago to lobby for sustainable urban neighborhoods.

"The changes seem like a step in the right direction, but we're sort of thinking that we need leaps and bounds in the right direction."

Currently, design review, a process that typically allows citizens to influence the look of new development, is not required for smaller townhouse projects.

That would change under the mayor's proposal, although it would be an administrative process in which city planners negotiate with builders. But the goal, officials say, is more innovative designs while still providing oversight.

Some developers argue more design review will cause expensive delays and drive up housing costs. Other builders believe it results in better projects with higher profit margins.

John Merfeld, who lives across from the Capitol Hill townhouses where Nickels made his announcement, questioned what the city was doing about people in his situation. He can no longer afford rising rents in his home of 23 years.

"I moved into this neighborhood as a gay citizen when it was going down the tubes," he said. "We bring property values up and get outpriced."

In the denser multifamily zones, the mayor's proposal would allow developers to build higher or include more units in exchange for housing affordable to those making up to 80 percent to 100 percent of median income.

But some groups argue that creating incentives for developers to bulldoze older buildings results in a loss of affordable homes, trees and green space.

Nickels' proposed open space changes, for instance, would generally require builders to provide much less of that expensive commodity. None of it would have to be at the ground level. Instead, it could be provided in balconies or roofs. On the other hand, it would also allow builders to pool open space -- which is illegal under current rules -- providing larger green courtyards.

"This totally gets to where people's gut-love of their neighborhood comes from, how it feels when they walk around," said City Councilwoman Sally Clark, whose planning committee will consider and refine the mayor's proposal.

During that process -- expected to take months -- the council will consider controversial questions such as parking, development standards, open space requirements and whether

to ask developers to provide public benefits such as wider sidewalks in exchange for more flexibility.

Some unfortunate development trends seem to have resulted from applying "single family design glasses" to multifamily zones, Clark said.

"Now we see it doesn't really work when we use the assumption about the car and the driveway being the primary design-driver and the idea of privately accessible open space becoming in a best case sanctuary -- and in a worst case prison-type of yard," she said.

Architect Anna Nissen, a neighborhood activist with the group Livable Seattle, called the mayor's proposed townhouse changes largely window dressing. She'd like to see rules to discourage "double stacking" -- double rows of townhouses that eat up much of a lot.

The group also questioned why the mayor is proposing changes that would increase the number of units produced in multifamily zones by roughly 10 percent.

City numbers show that in the last four years, Seattle is already halfway to its growth targets for 2024. Some neighborhoods, such as Ballard, Eastlake, Green Lake and part of the Central District, already have exceeded their 20-year growth targets.

Diane Sugimura, director of the Seattle Department of Planning and Development, said the proposed changes aren't primarily about adding more units.

"This is not remapping the city, it's not changing single-family to multifamily," she said. "This is adjusting the zoning to address those issues that are important to the city -- affordability, the green factor and better design."

Dan DeLong / P-I

Standing Tuesday outside townhouses on Capitol Hill,

Mayor Greg Nickels announces the first major changes to

Seattle's multifamily zoning in 20 years. Nickels also

proposed new rules and a design review for all new

townhouses being built throughout the city.

MULTIFAMILY CHANGES

Seattle's multifamily zones include everything from low-rise developments scattered throughout the city to high-rise residential towers on First Hill.

For more detail on the mayor's proposal, visit goto.seattlepi.com/r1455.

Proposed townhouse design changes:

• Require more windows and doors to preclude blank walls • Require ground-level units to have entrances facing the street

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/printer2/?PhotoID=200638�

http://goto.seattlepi.com/r1455

• Limit the size of garage doors along pedestrian streetscapes • Limit surface parking areas to six spaces, except when accessed from an alley or when separated by landscaping or screening • Reduce fence heights along sidewalks to 4 feet • Require wider driveways and larger parking spaces so cars can use them • Limit building overhangs over driveways to 3 feet

Proposed changes throughout multifamily zones:

• Allow developers to build taller in the densest multifamily zones if they include housing affordable to those making up to 80 percent to 100 percent of area median income • Allow some buildings to be built closer to the sidewalk or back property lines (only when next to other multifamily or commercial lots) • Have fewer development standards (eliminate lot coverage, width and depth limits) on smaller infill lots • Eliminate parking requirements in urban centers and near light rail stations; reduce to one space per unit in other cases • Allow more curb cuts along streets to allow design options besides concrete auto courtyards • Reduce open space requirements to 5 percent of residential floor area • Give developers more flexibility in providing open space through rooftop decks, balconies and shared courtyards • Replace ground-level landscaping requirements with a new formula encouraging green roofs, trellised walls or planting strips

P-I reporter Jennifer Langston can be reached at 206-448-8130 or [email protected].

© 1998-2008 Seattle Post-Intelligencer

agenda - tacomacms.cityoftacoma.org/planning/planning commission/agenda... · 2008-07-11 ·...

Documents