discussion item 2302 - discussion memo

Executive Board Thursday, June 28, 2018 • 10:00 A.M. – 11:30 A.M.

PSRC Board Room • 1011 Western Avenue, Suite 500, Seattle, WA 98104

The meeting will be streamed live over the internet at www.psrc.org.

1. Call to Order and Roll Call (10:00) - Executive Dave Somers, President

2. Communications and Public Comment

3. President's Remarks

4. Executive Director's Report

5. Committee Reports

a. Transportation Policy Board - Councilmember Rob Johnson, Chair

b. Growth Management Policy Board - Councilmember Ryan Mello, Chair

c. Operations Committee - Executive Bruce Dammeier, Vice President

d. Economic Development Board - Councilmember Terry Ryan, EDB President

6. Consent Agenda

a. Approve Minutes of Meeting held April 26, 2018

b. Approve Vouchers Dated April 10 through June 15, 2018 in the Amount of $2,075,059.53

c. Authorize Increase in Contract Authority for 2018 General Assembly

d. Adopt Routine Amendment to the 2017-2020 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP)

e. Authorize a Change in Regional Transportation Plan Project Status for the City of Bellevue

Mountains to Sound Greenway Trail B Project

7. New Business (10:25)

a. Approve Projects to Receive PSRC's FHWA Contingency Funds -- Kelly McCourty, PSRC

8. New Business (10:35)

a. Approve Updated Designation Procedures for New Regional Centers -- Jeff Storrar, PSRC

9. Discussion Item (10:45)

a. VISION 2050 Formal Start and Regional Growth Strategy -- Ben Bakkenta, PSRC

10. Discussion Item (11:15)

a. Aerospace Competitive Economics Study -- Emily Wittman, PSRC

11. Other Business

12. New Meeting: Thursday, July 26, 2018, 10 - 11:30 a.m., PSRC Board Room

13. Adjourn (11:30)

www.psrc.org

Board members please submit proposed amendments and materials prior to the meeting for distribution. Organizations/individuals may submit information for distribution. Send to Sheila Rogers, e-mail [email protected]; fax 206-587-4825; or mail.

Sign language and communication material in alternate formats can be arranged given sufficient notice by calling (206) 464-7090 or

TTY Relay 711. 中文 | Chinese, 한국 | Korean, Русский | Russian, Español | Spanish, Tagalog, Tiếng việt | Vietnamese Call 206-

587-4819.

mailto:[email protected]

May 10, 2018

Board recommends $27.5 million to contingency projects The Transportation Policy Board recommended $27.5 million of PSRC’s Federal Highway Administration funding for 18 transportation projects on a contingency list approved in 2016. As part of the selection process for PSRC’s federal funds, prioritized contingency lists of projects are created in case additional funds become available prior to the next process. Since 2016, approximately $27.5 million of PSRC’s federal fiscal year 2020 FHWA funds have become available for distribution, due to funds returned from projects and federal allocations higher than estimates. For more information, contact Kelly McGourty at 206-971-3601 or [email protected]. Progress on State Facilities Action Plan The board was briefed on the status of the State Facilities Action Plan. The State Facilities Action Plan describes the needs and proposed actions for the most critical issues facing state facilities in the central Puget Sound region, including I-5 and planning for local priority state route projects beyond those funded in Connecting Washington. In partnership with PSRC, WSDOT is leading the I-5 System Partnership and has begun preliminary discussions about local priority state routes throughout the region. View the presentation . For more information, contact Kelly McGourty at 206-971-3601 or [email protected]. VISION 2050 Scoping and Public Opinion Survey The board heard a presentation on VISION 2050 , including themes from the VISION 2050 scoping comments and results from a public opinion survey. During the scoping period, PSRC reached out online and through community listening sessions to gather input to shape the VISION 2050 plan. Frequent topics addressed in the more than 1,300 comments received included:

• Regional growth strategy, including development patterns and jobs/housing balance • Housing affordability • Social equity and displacement • Climate change and resilience

The board was also briefed on the VISION 2050 public opinion survey conducted in March 2018, including comparisons of similar surveys done in 1993 and 2003.

5.a

Packet Pg. 3

Co

mm

un

icat

ion

: T

ran

spo

rtat

ion

Po

licy

Bo

ard

- C

ou

nci

lmem

ber

Ro

b J

oh

nso

n, C

hai

r (

Co

mm

itte

e R

epo

rts)

https://www.psrc.org/whats-happening/blog/275-million-available-fund-projects-contingency-list

https://www.psrc.org/sites/default/files/tpb201805-statefacilitiesactionplan.pdf

https://www.psrc.org/sites/default/files/tpb201805-pres-vision2050.pdf

Most residents (65%) view quality of life as good or excellent in the region. Respondents cited the natural environment, climate/weather and outdoor recreation as top assets. Residents ranked cost of living as the region’s top dislike. Transportation and homelessness were nearly tied for second place. The statistically valid survey of 2,000 residents in King, Pierce, Snohomish and Kitsap counties is helping to inform the VISION 2050 planning process. PSRC is encouraging people in the region to take the survey and offer their thoughts on growth and planning. For more information, contact Paul Inghram at 206-464-7549, [email protected].

5.a

Packet Pg. 4

Co

mm

un

icat

ion

: T

ran

spo

rtat

ion

Po

licy

Bo

ard

- C

ou

nci

lmem

ber

Ro

b J

oh

nso

n, C

hai

r (

Co

mm

itte

e R

epo

rts)

https://www.psrc.org/whats-happening/blog/take-survey-growth-region

June 14, 2018

Transportation Policy Board begins implementation of Regional Transportation Plan The newly adopted Regional Transportation Plan identifies actions and implementation items on a variety of topics. The Regional Transit Access and Parking Strategy and the Active Transportation Plan adopted as part of the Regional Transportation Plan were the first two to be presented to the board. The Regional Transit Access and Parking Strategy establishes guiding principles for delivering better access and identifies key strategies under the following categories: maximizing non-single occupancy vehicle access to transit; managing parking demand at the busiest park and rides; and adding strategic parking capacity. The Active Transportation Plan provides a regional framework for providing increased, connected and safer options for walking and biking, with an emphasis on safety and comfort for all ages and abilities. A key goal of the plan is to improve pedestrian and cyclist access to transit. The presentations covered current work to improve data related to pedestrian accessibility to transit. For more information, please contact Gil Cerise at (206) 971-3053 or [email protected]. In other business, the board:

• Recommended adoption of a Routine Amendment to the 2017-2020 Transportation Improvement Program for the following projects the replacement of the 42nd Avenue South bridge in Tukwila, the intersection improvements at 92nd Avenue East & 224th Street East in Pierce County and a new passenger only docking float at Colman Dock.

• Recommended authorizing a change in Regional Transportation Plan Project Status for the City of Bellevue Mountains to Sound Greenway Trail B Project.

5.a

Packet Pg. 5

Co

mm

un

icat

ion

: T

ran

spo

rtat

ion

Po

licy

Bo

ard

- C

ou

nci

lmem

ber

Ro

b J

oh

nso

n, C

hai

r (

Co

mm

itte

e R

epo

rts)

http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?f=001RRUfINUU1DghpK_FiqoIPrQ7Jf-lqHvnkQ0Bro0lSfgJbSptTqW-zsAxHfSfuT2kOP1IqbISIo4Yo5d2AuU2Fz60INpAjg-vV4OdgfW5rkO1V-l0Ro_LM8SmOygAEUl9jIIQmjpfs_e84S2JA2LVRVVt_kA1LNQU&c=S1CzwTYXn1RWLHjFyV9Ez-zBbUpCc97JJnpGaJqsAOTNvWzPxxYWdg==&ch=X-p2s3qrZzun1zXSV2jsn_V0udv-CreFS5KayJ4f2cXtevs4t6IRKQ==


May 3, 2018

VISION 2050 Public Opinion Survey The board was briefed on the VISION 2050 public opinion survey conducted in March 2018. Some findings: Cost of living has replaced transportation as the region’s top dislike. Transportation and homelessness were nearly tied for second place. But overall, most residents (65%) view quality of life as good or excellent in the region. The statistically valid survey of 2,000 residents in King, Pierce, Snohomish and Kitsap counties is helping to inform the VISION 2050 planning process. The board heard an overview of survey results, including comparisons with regional surveys conducted in 1993 and 2003. In all three surveys, respondents were asked what they liked best and least about living in the region and answered with an open-ended response. In the 2003 and 2018 surveys, the natural environment and outdoor recreation were consistently the top likes that people have about living in the region. View the presentation. For more information, contact Laura Benjamin at 206-464-7134, [email protected]. Updated Designation Procedures for New Regional Centers The board recommended the Executive Board approve an update to PSRC’s Designation Procedures for New Regional Centers. The update to the procedures reflects the expectations for new regionally designated centers adopted in the Regional Centers Framework Update. View the presentation. For more information, contact Jeff Storrar at 206-587-4817 or [email protected]. VISION 2050 Scoping Report Board members discussed the VISION 2050 scoping report, which documents the scoping process and establishes the scope of review of the Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement. It documents issues that may be discussed in the plan and environmental analysis and establishes a broad framework for updating the plan.

5.b

Packet Pg. 6

Co

mm

un

icat

ion

: G

row

th M

anag

emen

t P

olic

y B

oar

d -

Co

un

cilm

emb

er R

yan

Mel

lo, C

hai

r (

Co

mm

itte

e R

epo

rts)

https://www.psrc.org/sites/default/files/gmpb201805-pres-surveyfindings.pdf


https://www.psrc.org/sites/default/files/gmpb201805-pres-centersdesignation.pdf


Action to adopt the scoping report is scheduled for the board’s next meeting on June 7. View the presentation. For more information, contact Liz Underwood-Bultmann at 206-464-6174, [email protected] or Paul Inghram at 206-464-7549, [email protected].

5.b

Packet Pg. 7

Co

mm

un

icat

ion

: G

row

th M

anag

emen

t P

olic

y B

oar

d -

Co

un

cilm

emb

er R

yan

Mel

lo, C

hai

r (

Co

mm

itte

e R

epo

rts)

https://www.psrc.org/sites/default/files/gmpb201805-pres-scopingreport.pdf



June 7, 2018

How Should the Region Grow? The board discussed the strategy for managing region’s growth out to the year 2050. In addition to objectives, such as containing sprawl, protecting the environment, and guiding most growth to cities and urban centers, the board talked about the need to address housing affordability, better align housing and jobs, and the need to understand and track performance. Board members also talked about the need for industrial jobs, an equitable growth pattern, and the importance of arts and culture. A presentation with background information on the Regional Growth Strategy and preliminary concepts for revised regional geographies in the strategy was provided to support the board’s discussion. The board expressed a strong interest in adjusting the growth strategy to better address today’s challenges. Based on feedback from the discussion, PSRC staff will work with staff committees on concepts and scenarios for Regional Growth Strategy alternatives, which the growth board will dive into at its September meeting. For more information, contact Liz Underwood-Bultmann at 206-464-6174 or [email protected] . VISION 2050 Scoping Report Adopted The board adopted the VISION 2050 scoping report, which establishes a broad framework for developing VISION 2050 . The report describes the scoping process, reflects comments heard, and establishes the scope of review of the Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement. The report documents issues that may be discussed in the plan and environmental analysis. The adoption of the scoping report marks the formal launch of the VISION 2050 project. View the presentation . For more information, contact Liz Underwood-Bultmann at 206-464-6174 or [email protected] .

5.b

Packet Pg. 8

Co

mm

un

icat

ion

: G

row

th M

anag

emen

t P

olic

y B

oar

d -

Co

un

cilm

emb

er R

yan

Mel

lo, C

hai

r (

Co

mm

itte

e R

epo

rts)

https://www.psrc.org/sites/default/files/gmpb201806-pres-regionalgrowthstrategy.pdf


https://www.psrc.org/vision




May 2, 2018 Economic Development District Board adopts Regional Aviation Baseline Study Action Item The study will provide a clearer picture of aviation activities and needs and set the stage for future planning efforts to meet growing demand at the region's airports. The Regional Aviation Baseline Study is an implementation action item for Amazing Place , which calls for the development of a long-term strategy to ensure that the region's airports keep pace with the needs of an expanding population and economy. The Federal Aviation Administration has requested that PSRC lead the aviation baseline study, which will build on airport master planning underway at many of the region's airports. The study is expected to begin in June 2018 and be completed by the end of 2019. For more information, please contact Jeff Storrar at 206-587-4817 or [email protected]. In other business, the board:

• Enjoyed a presentation by Forterra on Cross Laminated Timber Efforts in the Puget Sound region.

5.d

Packet Pg. 9

Co

mm

un

icat

ion

: E

con

om

ic D

evel

op

men

t B

oar

d -

Co

un

cilm

emb

er T

erry

Rya

n, E

DB

Pre

sid

ent

(C

om

mit

tee

Rep

ort

s)


Doc ID 2299

MINUTES Puget Sound Regional Council Executive Board Thursday, April 26, 2018 PSRC Board Room CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL The meeting of the Executive Board was called to order at 10:06 a.m. by Executive Bruce Dammeier, Vice President. The signatures on the Attendance Sheet, as well as documentation by staff, determined attendance and that a quorum was present. [To watch a video of the meeting and hear the full discussion, please go to: http://psrcwa.iqm2.com/Citizens/Default.aspx.] Members and Alternates that participated for all or part of the meeting included: (**participated via teleconference) Executive Bruce Dammeier, PSRC Vice President, Pierce County Deputy Mayor Jay Arnold, City of Kirkland **Mayor Nancy Backus, Auburn, King County Other Cities & Towns Councilmember Claudia Balducci, King County Mayor John Chelminiak, City of Bellevue Mayor Becky Erickson, Poulsbo, Kitsap County Other Cities & Towns Commissioner Charlotte Garrido, Kitsap County Councilmember Rob Johnson, City of Seattle Councilmember Kathy Lambert, King County **Mayor Denis Law, City of Renton Mayor Ron Lucas, Steilacoom, Pierce County Other Cities & Towns **Commissioner Dick Marzano, Port of Tacoma **Councilmember Ryan Mello, City of Tacoma Secretary Roger Millar, WSDOT Councilmember Teresa Mosqueda, City of Seattle Mayor Amy Ockerlander, Duvall, King County Other Cities & Towns Mayor Dana Ralph, City of Kent Councilmember Chris Roberts, Shoreline, King County Other Cities & Towns Councilmember Terry Ryan, Snohomish County Commissioner Hester Serebrin, Washington State Transportation Commission Deputy Mayor Catherine Stanford, Lake Forest Park, King County Other Cities & Towns Councilmember Rick Talbert, Pierce County Mayor Barbara Tolbert, Arlington, Snohomish County Other Cities & Towns

6.a

Packet Pg. 10

Doc ID 2299

Councilmember Mike Todd, Mill Creek, Snohomish County Other Cities & Towns Mayor Greg Wheeler, City of Bremerton **Councilmember Stephanie Wright, Snohomish County Members absent included: (*alternate present) Commissioner Glen Bachman, Port of Everett Executive Dow Constantine, King County Mayor Jenny Durkan, City of Seattle Mayor Jim Ferrell, City of Federal Way Mayor Cassie Franklin, City of Everett Commissioner Courtney Gregoire, Port of Seattle Councilmember Mike O’Brien, City of Seattle *Executive Dave Somers, PSRC President, Snohomish County Commissioner Axel Strakeljahn, Port of Bremerton *Mayor Amy Walen, City of Kirkland *Mayor Victoria Woodards, City of Tacoma COMMUNICATIONS AND PUBLIC COMMENT The following people addressed the board: Alex Tsimerman, Paul W. Locke, Will Knedlik.

PRESIDENT’S REMARKS There was none. COMMITTEE REPORTS Operations Committee Report Executive Bruce Dammeier, Chair, Operations Committee, reported that the Operations Committee met this morning and recommended approval of vouchers dated March 6 through March 30, 2018, in the Amount of $887,451.67. The committee authorized the Executive Director to increase contract authority for accounting and financial consulting services. Additionally, the committee received budget, grants and contracts status reports. Executive Dammeier then called on Thu Le, HR Manager, who introduced new employee Ben Hahn, Regional Planning – Assistant Planner. CONSENT AGENDA

ACTION: It was moved and seconded (Johnson/Garrido) to: (a) Approve Minutes of Meeting held March 22, 2018; (b) Approve Vouchers Dated March 6 through March 30, 2018 in the Amount of $887,451.67; (c) Approve Contract Authority for Accounting Support (d) Authorize a Change in Transportation 2040 Project Status for the WSDOT I-5: Seneca to Mercer – Additional Lane Project; and (e) Approve Streamlining the PSRC/WSDOT Coordinated Grant Program for Special Needs Transportation. The motion passed unanimously.

NEW BUSINESS

6.a

Packet Pg. 11

Doc ID 2299

Recommend Adoption of Supplemental Biennial Budget and Work Program FY2018-2019 Diana Lauderbach, PSRC Chief Financial Officer, presented for review and approval the proposed Supplemental Biennial Budget and Work Program for Fiscal Years 2018-2019. The Operations Committee, which has primary responsibility for developing the annual Budget and Work Program, had an in-depth review of the proposed draft Budget and Work Program in January and has prepared this recommended Budget and Work Program for approval by the Executive Board in April and adoption by the General Assembly on May 31. The proposed supplemental biennial budget and work program of $27.5 million is a steady-state budget with no overall changes in revenues and expenditures since the last amendment in October 2017.

ACTION: It was moved and seconded (Ryan/Stanford) to: (1) Recommend approval of the FY 2018-2019 Supplemental Biennial Budget and Work Program by the Executive Board and recommend adoption by the General Assembly on May 31, 2018.; and (2) Recommend that the General Assembly adopt Resolution PSRC-A-2018-01 authorizing the submittal of the adopted Supplemental Fiscal Year 2018-2019 Biennial Budget and Work Program to the appropriate federal and state funding agencies. The motion passed unanimously.

Recommend Adoption of the Regional Transportation Plan Kelly McGourty, PSRC Senior Program Manager, briefed the board on the request to recommend General Assembly adoption of the Regional Transportation Plan. The Regional Transportation Plan describes how the region is planning to improve transportation over the next two decades. It supports the Regional Growth Strategy, provides transportation choices and improves access to jobs, opportunity, and destinations. The plan improves reliability of the system, air quality, and water quality and offers a new financial strategy to deliver investments. The draft Regional Transportation Plan has been revised to reflect public input and board direction based on comments received since the plan was released for review in December. Overall, the public comments received showed support for the draft plan and the investments and policies contained within. At its meeting on April 12, 2018, the Transportation Policy Board recommended adoption of the draft Regional Transportation Plan. The General Assembly is scheduled to act on the recommendation at its meeting on May 31, 2018.

ACTION: It was moved and seconded (Johnson/Erickson) to recommend adoption of the draft Regional Transportation Plan to the General Assembly. The motion passed unanimously.

DISCUSSION ITEM VISION 2050 Status Update Paul Inghram, PSRC Senior Program Manager, briefed the board on the status of the update of VISION 2050, including scoping comments and initial results from a public opinion survey. To develop the scope of the VISION 2050 plan, PSRC has been actively engaging the public, members and stakeholders. PSRC held five listening sessions, sent out numerous written communications, and conducted a statistically valid survey of 2,000 of the region's residents. The survey showed that 65% of the region's residents rate the quality of life positively in the region, citing the natural environment, climate and outdoor recreation as top assets.

6.a

Packet Pg. 12

Doc ID 2299

INFORMATION ITEMS Regional Transportation Plan – SEPA Addendum Included in the agenda packet was information on the Regional Transportation Plan SEPA addendum. Update on the Regional Aviation Baseline Study Included in the agenda packet was on update on the Regional Aviation Baseline Study. NEXT MEETING The Executive Board will next meet on Thursday, June 28, 2018; 10 – 11:30 a.m., in the PSRC Board Room. ADJOURN The meeting adjourned at 11:35 a.m. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Adopted this 28th day of June, 2018 ______________________________________ Executive Dave Somers, President Puget Sound Regional Council

ATTEST: __________________________________

Josh Brown, Executive Director

6.a

Packet Pg. 13

Doc ID 2296

CONSENT AGENDA June 21, 2018 To: Executive Board From: Executive Bruce Dammeier, Chair, Operations Committee Subject: Approve Vouchers Dated April 10 through June 15, 2018 in the Amount of

$2,075,059.53 IN BRIEF Two representatives of the Operations Committee review and sign off on the vouchers. In accordance with RCW 42.24.080, following the Operations Committee’s review, the Executive Board approves the vouchers. RECOMMENDED ACTION Recommend the Executive Board approve the following vouchers:

REQUESTED

WARRANT DATE VOUCHER NUMBER TOTALS

04/10/18 - 06/06/18 AP Vouchers $ 587,860.76

4/13/18 - 06/15/18 Payroll $ 1,487,198.77

$ 2,075,059.53 For additional information, please contact Diana Lauderbach at 206-464-5416; email [email protected].

6.b

Packet Pg. 14


Doc ID 2303

CONSENT AGENDA June 21, 2018 To: Executive Board From: Executive Bruce Dammeier, Chair, Operations Committee Subject: Authorize Increase in Contract Authority for 2018 General Assembly IN BRIEF Authorization by the Executive Board is required for the Executive Director to enter into a contract in excess of $10,000 per year. On March 22, 2018, a request was recommended by the Operations Committee and authorized by the Executive Board to give the Executive Director contract authority for the expenses of the General Assembly not to exceed $20,000. The amount was estimated based on past attendance. The actual costs exceeded estimates by approximately $4,000 due to higher than anticipated attendance and audio/visual and recording expenses. Authorization is now being made to increase the amount previously authorized by $4,000 for a total of $24,000 for space rental, catering, and audio/visual expenses related to the 2018 General Assembly. RECOMMENDED ACTION Recommend that the Executive Board authorize an additional $4,000 of contract authority to the Executive Director to cover the contracted costs of rental, catering and audio/visual expenses for support of the 2018 General Assembly. BUDGET IMPACT The adopted Biennial Budget and Work Program for fiscal years 2018-2019 includes funding for this project. Total budget for the contracts is not to exceed $24,000.

DISCUSSION The Puget Sound Regional Council General Assembly includes all mayors, county executives, commissioners, and councilmembers of PSRC member jurisdictions, tribes and statutory members. Each elected representative is a voting member of the General Assembly. The General Assembly met on May 31, 2018, to establish the FY 2018-2019 supplemental biennial budget and work program, act on the Regional Transportation Plan and elect PSRC’s President and Vice President.

6.c

Packet Pg. 15

Doc ID 2303

For more information, please contact Rick Olson at 206-971-3050 or [email protected]; or Sheila Rogers at 206-464-5815 or [email protected].

6.c

Packet Pg. 16



Doc ID 2295

CONSENT AGENDA June 21, 2018 To: Executive Board From: Councilmember Rob Johnson, Chair, Transportation Policy Board Subject: Adopt Routine Amendment to the 2017-2020 Transportation Improvement

Program (TIP) IN BRIEF Three agencies submitted three projects this month for routine amendment into the Regional TIP. These projects are summarized in Exhibit A. These projects were awarded local, state and federal funding through various processes, such as Highway Safety Improvement Program funds managed by the Washington State Department of Transportation. PSRC staff reviewed the projects for compliance with federal and state requirements, and consistency with VISION 2040 and the Regional Transportation Plan. At its meeting on June 14, the Transportation Policy Board recommended Executive Board approval. RECOMMENDED ACTION The Executive Board should adopt an amendment to the 2017-2020 Regional TIP to include the projects as shown in Exhibit A. DISCUSSION Under the Fixing America’s Surface Transportation (FAST) Act, PSRC has project selection authority for all projects programming regional funds from the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) - Surface Transportation Block Grant Program (STP) and Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program (CMAQ) - and Federal Transit Administration (FTA) - Urbanized Area Formula Program (5307), State of Good Repair (5337), Bus and Bus Facilities Formula (5339), and Enhanced Mobility of Seniors and Individuals with Disabilities (5310). While PSRC does not have project selection authority for other types of federal, state, or local funds, the Executive Board does have responsibility for adding these projects to the Regional TIP. Each project must comply with requirements regarding plan consistency, air quality, and financial constraint. The attached Exhibit A illustrates the action needed to amend the Regional TIP.

6.d

Packet Pg. 17

Doc ID 2295

The recommended action would approve the TIP amendment request based on a finding of consistency with VISION 2040, the Regional Transportation Plan, and the air quality conformity determination of the Regional TIP. Approval is also based on a determination that funding is reasonably expected to be available to carry out the project. Information describing plan consistency, air quality conformity, and the funding basis for approving the request is described further below. Consistency with VISION 2040 and the Regional Transportation Plan The projects recommended for action were reviewed by PSRC staff and have been determined to be consistent with the multicounty policies in VISION 2040 and the Regional Transportation Plan. Air Quality Conformity The projects in Exhibit A were reviewed and it has been determined that a new air quality analysis and conformity determination is not required because each project falls into one or more of the following categories:

• It is exempt from air quality conformity requirements.

• It is an existing project already included in the current air quality modeling.

• It is a non-exempt project not able to be included in the regional model. Funding Reasonably Expected to be Available For the projects in Exhibit A, PSRC confirmed that the funds are reasonably expected to be available. PSRC’s Project Tracking Policies Detailed below is one request for modification to PSRC’s FTA funds for this amendment. The modification was found to be consistent with PSRC’s project tracking policies and was reviewed and recommended by the Transportation Operations Committee (TOC) at its meeting on April 25, 2018. King County Metro (KCM) requests a redistribution of Federal Fiscal Year 2018 and 2019 Seattle-Tacoma-Everett UZA 5337 HIFG funds between three projects 500K Substation Breaker Replacement, Atlantic Base Maintenance Building HVAC Replacement, and Colman Dock Passenger Only Ferry Float Replacement, as summarized in the table below. The redistribution request is needed because bids for the Colman Dock Passenger Only Ferry Float Replacement project came in significantly higher than the engineer’s estimate, so KCM is prioritizing this project for its federal funds. In conjunction with this redistribution, two of the projects are adding FFY 2020 5337 HIFG funds as shown below. This change will fund Colman Dock while allowing 500K Substation Breaker Replacement and Atlantic Base Maintenance Building to retain their original funding amounts and better match their actual project expenditure schedules.

6.d

Packet Pg. 18

Doc ID 2295

Funding Years

Project Title 2018 2019 2020 Net

500K Substation Breaker Replacement -$2,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $0

Atlantic Base Maintenance Building HVAC Replacement -$834,283 -$1,000,000 $1,834,283 $0

Colman Dock Passenger Only Ferry Float Replacement $2,834,283 $0 $0 $2,834,283

Federal Fund Source Descriptions The following is a list of federal funding sources that are referenced in Exhibit A. FBP Federal program for the Construction of Ferry Boats and Ferry Terminal

Facilities. 5337 HIFG Provides capital assistance to high-intensity fixed guideways and bus systems. HSIP WSDOT-managed Highway Safety Improvement Program. For more information, please contact Chris Peak at (206) 464-7536 or [email protected]. Attachments: Exhibit A

6.d

Packet Pg. 19


Project(s) Proposed forRoutine Amendment to 2017-2020 TIP Exhibit A

Month: June

Year: 2018

Sponsor

Project TitleandWork Description Funding

PSRC Action Needed

OtherUPWPAmend

New Project/ Phase

Project Tracking

1. King County Department of Transportation (Marine)

Colman Dock Passenger Only Ferry Float Replacement

Adding new Construction funds that will replace an existing passenger only ferry docking float that is nearing the end of its useful life.

$2,834,283 Federal 5337 HIFG

$247,778 Federal FBP

$900,187 Local

$3,982,248 Total

2. Pierce County 92 Ave E / 224 St E

New project adding Preliminary Engineering, Right of Way, and Construction funds that will provide a traffic signal system and turn lanes at the intersection of 224th Street E and 92nd Avenue E. A two-way left-turn lane will also be provided west of 90th Avenue E to 92nd Avenue E.

$2,988,000 Federal HSIP

$1,866,000 Local

$4,854,000 Total

3. Tukwila 42nd Ave S Bridge Replacement

New project adding Preliminary Engineering funds to replace the existing 42nd Avenue South steel truss bridge. The replacement structure configuration would be two through lanes, possibly a turn pocket, and include sidewalks.

$1,600,000 Local

$1,600,000 Total

6.d.a

Packet Pg. 20

Att

ach

men

t: E

xhib

it A

(22

95 :

TIP

180

6)

Doc ID 2294

CONSENT AGENDA June 21, 2018 To: Executive Board From: Councilmember Rob Johnson, Chair, Transportation Policy Board Subject: Authorize a Change in Regional Transportation Plan Project Status for the

City of Bellevue Mountains to Sound Greenway Trail B Project IN BRIEF The City of Bellevue has submitted a request to change the status of the Mountains to Sound Greenway Trail B project from “Candidate” to “Approved.” Per PSRC’s adopted procedures, requests to change a project status require Board action. At its meeting on June 14, the Transportation Policy Board recommended Executive Board approval. RECOMMENDED ACTION The Executive Board should authorize a change in project status for the city of Bellevue Mountains to Sound Greenway Trail B project from “Candidate” to “Approved.”

DISCUSSION The Regional Transportation Plan contains policies requiring PSRC’s Executive Board to approve regionally significant transportation capacity projects before those projects begin implementation phases. Projects in the Regional Transportation Plan are designated as Candidate, Approved, or Conditionally Approved. A Candidate designation means a project has gone through a comprehensive planning process, but that one or more of the following has not yet been completed: environmental documentation and approvals, financial plan, and/or other planning requirements. A project’s status is changed to Approved once these requirements have been met. Conditional Approval may be granted if a project has fulfilled most of the approval criteria but lacks only certain details. For example, if a project awaits only final signatures on its environmental documentation but has completed all other requirements, the Executive Board may grant Conditional Approval. Once the final details have been completed, staff has the authority to grant a project full Approval status administratively, thereby saving the project sponsor several weeks of delay.

6.e

Packet Pg. 21

Doc ID 2294

The Mountains to Sound Greenway Trail B project will construct a separated multi-use trail along the south side of I-90 between I-405 and 132nd Ave SE. The hard surface trail will be 12 feet wide and include landscaping, lighting, stormwater improvements, and grade separated structures at freeway interchange ramps and Factoria Boulevard. In addition to the trail, this investment will add capacity to the eastbound Interstate 90 off-ramp to Factoria Boulevard by relocating the trail and adding an additional lane to the off-ramp. This project is the westernmost segment of the broader Mountains to Sound Greenway Trail project included in the Regional Transportation Plan, which extends east to Lakemont Boulevard in Southeast Bellevue. Table 1 below provides additional details of the project seeking approval, including the criteria used to review the project for the requested status change. Table 1: Project Details and Review Criteria

Review Criteria Mountains to Sound Greenway Trail B

Total Project Cost $18,866,031

Consistency with Regional Policies

The project is consistent with regional policy.

Benefit-Cost Analysis This project is exempt from benefit-cost analysis requirements because the investment is less than $100 million.

Environmental Documentation

NEPA and SEPA analyses have resulted in a documented categorical exclusion and determination of non-significance, respectively.

Other Planning Requirements

The city of Bellevue is currently working with WSDOT to secure rights to utilize highway ROW for the Mountains to Sound Trail Segment B project. The trail lease agreement will be completed in summer 2018.

Financial Feasibility

The Mountains to Sound Segment B project is being implemented using the following sources of funding:

FHWA $ 446,000

Connecting Washington $ 14,000,000

WSDOT (I-405 Program) $ 2,055,916

Local Funding $ 2,364,116

$ 18,866,031

Air Quality Conformity Approving this project will not change the region’s air quality conformity determination.

For more information, please contact Benjamin Brackett at 206-971-3280 or [email protected].

6.e

Packet Pg. 22


Doc ID 2277

ACTION ITEM June 21, 2018 To: Executive Board From: Councilmember Rob Johnson, Chair, Transportation Policy Board Subject: Approve Projects to Receive PSRC's FHWA Contingency Funds IN BRIEF As part of the 2016 project selection process for PSRC’s federal funds, prioritized contingency lists of projects were approved for each of its recommending forums, should additional funds become available prior to the next process. Due to funds returned from projects as well as federal allocations higher than estimates, approximately $27.5 million of PSRC’s Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) funds is available for distribution to the adopted contingency lists. These funds are federal fiscal year (FFY) 2020 funds from the Surface Transportation Block Grant Program (STP) and the Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program (CMAQ). At its meeting on May 10, the Transportation Policy Board recommended Executive Board approval. RECOMMENDED ACTION The Executive Board should approve the distribution of approximately $27.5 million of PSRC funds to the list of projects as shown in Attachment A. DISCUSSION Since 2004, it has been PSRC’s policy to create prioritized contingency lists of projects as part of each project selection process, should additional funds become available prior to the next process. Additional funds may come to the region from higher allocations of PSRC funds than were originally estimated, and/or funds being returned from delayed, cancelled, or completed projects. As part of the 2016 project selection process, which awarded PSRC’s FFY 2018-2020 funds, the Executive Board approved prioritized contingency lists of projects from each recommending forum for PSRC’s federal funds. Since the 2016 project selection process, approximately $27.5 million of PSRC’s FFY 2020 FHWA funds has become available for distribution. A portion of the funds – approximately $18.2 million – comes from funds returned from projects, due to project cancellations, cost savings or other reasons. Per PSRC’s adopted Project Tracking Policies, all returned funds are

7.a

Packet Pg. 23

Doc ID 2277

to be distributed to projects on the adopted contingency list from the original recommending forum. The remainder – approximately $9.3 million – is from federal allocations coming in higher than the original estimates used for programming. This amount is distributed among the regional and countywide forums based on the original percentage distributions at the time the contingency lists were created. The current process represents a change from previous years’ distributions to the contingency list. As a reminder, in 2017 the region faced a new challenge in that our FHWA awards needed to be rebalanced to accommodate a specific annual amount of federal allocation. This was the result of the region “catching up” on older funds that had yet to be utilized, resulting in a more precise accounting of funds available for use each year. As part of this process, sponsors throughout the region assisted in the rebalancing of all projects awarded 2018-2020 funds, to ensure no more than the estimated allocation by year was programmed. For the current year, 2018, we ensured all programming of awards met the estimated annual delivery target assigned to the region. Awards in 2019 and 2020 were equally balanced to meet the estimated allocation. Due to allocations of 2017 and 2018 funds coming in higher than originally estimated, there resulted in additional availability of funds in the later year of the balancing exercise, which was 2020. Another consequence of the new requirement to balance FHWA awards by year is that when funds are returned from projects the annual delivery target for that year is increased. To ensure the increased target is met and no funds are lost to the region, the updated policy calls for projects programmed in the subsequent year – in this case 2019 – to be advanced and allowed to obligate early. As this advancement of projects is conducted, the result is the amount of returned funds to be distributed to the adopted contingency lists is made available in the last year of programming, which in this case is 2020. The Regional Project Evaluation Committee and each of the four countywide forums have reviewed and recommended the distribution of funding to projects on the adopted contingency lists, as identified in Attachment A. Attachment B is the full list of contingency projects for each forum. Any deviations from the ranked list of projects was due to a project not being able to use the available amount of funding, or a project having been funded from other sources. Each of the recommended contingency projects has confirmed the funds can be used to complete a phase, or a significant element of the scope. For additional information, please contact Kelly McGourty at (206) 971-3601 or [email protected]. Attachments: A: Contingency Projects Recommended to Receive PSRC’s FFY 2020 FHWA Funds B: Adopted Contingency Lists from PSRC's 2016 Project Selection Process

7.a

Packet Pg. 24


REGIONAL PROJECTS

Sponsor Project Title Source Amount Phase

Kirkland 124th Avenue NE Roadway Improvements STP $1,821,492 Right of Way

Tacoma Taylor Way Rehabilitation STP $4,000,000 Construction

Everett Transit Electric Vehicle Replacement CMAQ $8,500,000 Equipment

Total: $14,321,492

KING COUNTY PROJECTS


Renton

Rainier Ave S Corridor Improvements - Phase

4 STP $3,000,000 Right of Way

Covington

SR 516 and Covington Way Intersection

Improvements STP $871,920 Preliminary Engineering

Sammamish

Sammamish, WSDOT and King County ITS

Improvement Project CMAQ $605,750 Construction

Snoqualmie Town Center Phase 3B STP $337,205 Preliminary Engineering

Kirkland 98th Ave NE Preservation STP $631,293Preliminary Engineering,

Construction

Total: $5,446,168

KITSAP COUNTY PROJECTS


Kitsap County SR 104 Realignment STP $740,000 Preliminary Engineering

Kitsap Transit Gateway Center TOD Planning STP $160,000 Planning

Kitsap Transit

Bainbridge Island Transfer Center Lighting

and Security Upgrade STP $50,160 Construction

Bainbridge Island

Sportsman's and New Brooklyn Intersection

Improvement STP $702,945 Construction

Total: $1,653,105

PIERCE COUNTY PROJECTS

Sponsor Project Title Source Amount* Phase

Pierce Transit Clean Fuels Bus Replacement/Expansion CMAQ $13,121 Equipment

University Place

56th St./Cirque Corridor Improvements Phase

3 STP $1,785,000 Construction

Sumner Traffic Avenue / E. Main Bottleneck at SR 410 STP $313,444 Preliminary Engineering

* Pierce County has not yet awarded the full amount of contingency funding available. Total: $2,111,565

SNOHOMISH COUNTY PROJECTS


Monroe Chain Lake Road Pedestrian Facility CMAQ $330,000 Construction

Snohomish County North Creek Trail Phase 1 STP $1,640,000 Construction

Total: $1,970,000

RURAL TOWN CENTER AND CORRIDOR PROJECTS


Orting Whitehawk Boulevard STP $620,000 Right of Way

Total: $620,000

GRAND TOTAL: $26,122,330

CONTINGENCY PROJECTS RECOMMENDED TO RECEIVE PSRC'S FFY 2020 FHWA FUNDS

ATTACHMENT A

7.a.a

Packet Pg. 25

Att

ach

men

t: A

: C

on

tin

gen

cy P

roje

cts

Rec

om

men

ded

to

Rec

eive

PS

RC

’s F

FY

202

0 F

HW

A F

un

ds

(22

77 :

Dis

trib

uti

on

of

PS

RC

Fu

nd

s to

ATTACHMENT B Adopted Contingency Lists from PSRC’s 2016 Project Selection Process

REGIONAL PRIORITIZED CONTINGENCY LIST

Agency

Project Title

Phase(s)

Score Balance of Request on

Contingency List CMAQ Everett Transit Electric Vehicle Replacement Other 53 $9,050,000 PSCAA

Regional Diesel Vehicle Emission Reduction Program

Construction

67

$1,730,000

Sound Transit Sounder Station Access Improvements PE/Design 71 $3,300,000 Seattle Madison Corridor Bus Rapid Transit PE/Design 65 $6,000,000 King County

Northgate Transit Center Facility and Operational Improvements

Construction

51

$5,666,838

Federal Way

City Center Adaptive Traffic Signal Control System

PE/Design & Construction

49

$860,000

Pierce Transit Clean Fuels Bus Replacement/Expansion Other 28 $10,000,000

REGIONAL PRIORITIZED CONTINGENCY LIST

Agency

Project Title

Phase(s)

Score Balance of Request on

Contingency List STP Kirkland 124th Avenue NE Roadway Improvements Right of Way 70 $1,821,492 Tacoma Taylor Way Rehabilitation Construction 68 $9,759,366 King County

King County Metro Transit Speed and Reliability Corridor Improvements


68

$4,757,500

Tacoma Prairie Line Trail Phase II Construction 67 $5,536,000 Tukwila

Strander Blvd./SW 27th St Extension

PE/Design & Right of Way

66

$5,146,750

Pierce County

Canyon Road East Freight Corridor Improvements


65

$18,300,000

Bellevue

NE Spring Boulevard Multi-Modal Corridor Zone 1A

Construction

64

$5,500,000

Renton

Rainier Ave S Corridor Improvements - Phase 4

Right of Way

64

$3,000,000

WSF/Bainbridge Island

Sound to Olympics Trail Extension & Bainbridge Ferry Terminal Ped Bridge Replacement

Construction

58

$2,191,579 Sumner Traffic Ave/E Main Bottleneck at SR410 PE/Design 58 $1,650,000 WSDOT

I-5/Northbound Seneca Street to SR 520 - Mobility Improvements

Construction

56

$14,000,000

Kitsap Transit Silverdale Transit Center Construction 55 $6,000,000 Port Orchard

Tremont Street Widening (SR16 to Port Orchard Blvd)

Construction

50

$8,000,000

Snohomish County

North Creek Regional Trail

Construction

48

$10,000,000

Pacific

Stewart Road (8th Street East)


45

$1,120,000

Bremerton

Warren Avenue Corridor Nonmotorized Improvements


41

$3,018,300

Poulsbo

SR305 Poulsbo Park and Ride


40

$1,640,000

Kitsap County Kingston SR104 Re-alignment PE/Design 31 $740,000

7.a.b

Packet Pg. 26

Att

ach

men

t: B

: A

do

pte

d C

on

tin

gen

cy L

ists

fro

m P

SR

C's

201

6 P

roje

ct S

elec

tio

n P

roce

ss (

2277

: D

istr

ibu

tio

n o

f P

SR

C F

un

ds

to C

on

tin

gen

cy

COUNTYWIDE CONTINGENCY LISTS KING COUNTY PRIORITIZED CONTINGENCY LIST Large Jurisdiction Program Sponsor

Title

Funding Source

Contingency Amount

Score (out of 100)

Phase

Renton

Rainier Ave S Corridor Improvements - Phase 4

STP

$3,000,000

70

Right of Way

Bellevue 124th Avenue NE Final Design STP $2,000,000 64 PE/Design Shoreline

SR-523 (N/NE 145th Street), Aurora Avenue N to I-5

STP

$6,650,000

64

Right of Way

Seattle E Marginal Way Corridor Improvements STP $4,238,000 64 PE/Design Renton

NE Sunset Blvd (SR 900) Corridor Improvements

STP

$2,850,000

64

Right of Way

Bothell

Adaptive Signal Control System - Phase 2A

STP

$540,625

63


Covington

SR 516 and Covington Way Intersection Improvements

STP

$871,920

59

PE/Design

Burien

4th Avenue SW Multimodal Improvements, SW 156th Street to SW 160th Street

STP

$1,211,000

58


Sammamish

Sammamish, WSDOT and King County ITS Improvement Project

CMAQ

$605,750

57

Construction

Auburn

Auburn Regional Growth Center Access Improvements

STP

$864,000

56


Bothell Main Street Enhancement Project - Phase 1 STP $4,180,000 55 Construction Federal Way

S. 356th Street (Pacific Hwy to Enchanted Parkway) Improvement Project

STP

$4,325,000

54

Construction

Bothell Beardslee Blvd Widening (Campus to I-405) STP $675,000 51 PE/Design Des Moines

Barnes Creek Trail – North Segment (S 216th Street to S 220th Street)

STP

$3,247,000

51

Construction

Kenmore SR 522 Crossing Study STP $393,575 49 Planning Bothell

Beardslee Blvd & NE 185th St Intersection Improvements

STP

$692,000

48


North Bend

E North Bend Way/Downing Ave/E Park St Roundabout

STP

$2,870,298

48

Construction

Small Jurisdiction Program Sponsor

Title

Funding Source

Contingency Amount

Score (out of 100)

Phase

Snoqualmie Town Center Phase 3B STP $337,205 52 PE/Design Snoqualmie Kimball Creek Bridge Replacements STP $1,934,754 46 Construction Rural Program Sponsor

Title

Funding Source

Contingency Amount

Score (out of 100)

Phase

King County 218th Avenue SE Reconstruction STP $3,509,229 45 Construction All Others Program Sponsor

Title

Funding Source

Contingency Amount

Score (out of 100)

Phase

Sound Transit

Kent and Auburn Sounder Station Access Improvements

CMAQ

$1,500,000

83

PE/Design

King County

King County Metro Transit Speed and Reliability Corridor Improvements – Totem Lake to Eastgate

STP

$2,287,925

60


King County

King County Metro Transit Speed and Reliability Corridor Improvements – Auburn to Renton

STP

$1,482,264

59

Construction King County

King County Metro / Sound Transit Link Station Integration

STP

$2,260,072

54


Nonmotorized Program Sponsor

Title

Funding Source

Contingency Amount

Score (out of 100)

Phase

Seattle

Melrose Avenue E Protected Bicycle Lanes and Neighborhood Greenway

CMAQ

$1,054,509

73

Construction

King County

Non-motorized Access to Transit (Seattle Segment)

CMAQ

$725,064

72


Redmond 40th Street Shared Use Path CMAQ $1,293,500 70 Construction Bellevue 112th Avenue NE Ped/Bike Improvements STP $739,000 66 Construction Kenmore

Juanita Drive Pedestrian and Bicycle Improvements

STP

$1,962,685

65

PE/Design

7.a.b

Packet Pg. 27

Att

ach

men

t: B

: A

do

pte

d C

on

tin

gen

cy L

ists

fro

m P

SR

C's

201

6 P

roje

ct S

elec

tio

n P

roce

ss (

2277

: D

istr

ibu

tio

n o

f P

SR

C F

un

ds

to C

on

tin

gen

cy

KING COUNTY PRIORITIZED CONTINGENCY LIST Nonmotorized Program Sponsor

Title

Funding Source

Contingency Amount

Score (out of 100)

Phase

Auburn F Street SE Non-Motorized Improvements STP $2,162,000 60 Construction Renton

Lake Washington Sidewalk/Bike Lane

STP

$951,500

58


Kirkland

116th Avenue NE (So. Sect.) Non-Motorized Facilities-Phase II

CMAQ

$3,642,000

58

Construction

Sammamish

228th Avenue NE Non-Motorized Improvements

STP

$1,093,610

55


Maple Valley Witte Road - Phase 4 STP $2,800,870 55 Construction Bothell

NE 188th St Non-motorized Improvements

STP

$888,000

54


Auburn

Auburn Way S Sidewalk

STP

$1,160,000

52


Medina

Evergreen Point Non-Motorized Transportation Enhancement Plan

STP

$166,500

52

PE/Design

Bothell

Bothell Way Pedestrian Improvements: 193rd Block

STP

$173,000

48

PE/Design

Lake Forest Park

37th Avenue NE Nonmotorized Improvements (165th to 178th)

CMAQ

$389,250

46

PE/Design

Preservation Program Sponsor

Title

Funding Source

Contingency Amount

Score (out of 100)

Phase

Kirkland

98th Ave NE Preservation

STP

$1,000,000

84


Redmond

90th Street Preservation

STP

$1,400,000

82


Redmond

24th Street Preservation

STP

$1,490,000

80


King County

2018 King County Overlay-Woodinville Duvall Rd

STP

$1,104,526

79

Construction

King County 2018 King County Overlay- Union Hill Road STP $1,296,666 76 Construction Tukwila

Southcenter Boulevard Pavement Preservation

STP

$1,330,000

76


Bothell

Beardslee Blvd Pavement Preservation Project

STP

$937,000

73


Shoreline

Greenwood Avenue N Preservation

STP

$510,578

73


Bellevue SE Eastgate Way Preservation Project STP $1,182,000 71 Construction Federal Way

South 312th Street Preservation Project (Pacific Highway South to 28th Avenue South)

STP

$720,000

71


Shoreline

N 200th Street Preservation

STP

$559,244

70


Newcastle SE May Creek Park Drive Pavement Overlay STP $379,500 67 Construction Federal Way

23rd Avenue South Preservation Project (S 312th Street to S 319th Street)

STP

$520,000

65


Lake Forest Park 35th Avenue Resurfacing STP $274,624 60 Construction Pacific Milwaukee Boulevard Minor Widening STP $1,138,600 58 Construction Normandy Park

Citywide Chip Seal

STP

$250,000

48


KITSAP COUNTY PRIORITIZED CONTINGENCY LIST Sponsor

Title

Funding Source

Contingency Amount

Sum of Average

Rankings

Phase Bremerton Warren Avenue Bridge - Shared Use Pathway STP $1,524,250 15.83 Construction Kitsap County SR104 Realignment STP $740,000 14.80 PE/Design Kitsap Transit Gateway Center TOD Planning STP $160,000 14.40 Planning Kitsap County

Ridgetop Boulevard Green Streets Phase 3

STP

$1,037,000

14.40


Kitsap Transit

Bainbridge Island Transfer Center Lighting and Security Upgrade

STP

$50,160

12.40

Construction

Bainbridge Island

Sportsman's and New Brooklyn Intersection Improvement

STP

$702,945

12.20

Construction

Poulsbo

Forest Rock Road Preservation

STP

$865,000

12.00


7.a.b

Packet Pg. 28

Att

ach

men

t: B

: A

do

pte

d C

on

tin

gen

cy L

ists

fro

m P

SR

C's

201

6 P

roje

ct S

elec

tio

n P

roce

ss (

2277

: D

istr

ibu

tio

n o

f P

SR

C F

un

ds

to C

on

tin

gen

cy

KITSAP COUNTY PRIORITIZED CONTINGENCY LIST Sponsor

Title

Funding Source

Contingency Amount

Sum of Average

Rankings

Phase Bremerton

Bremerton Signal System Upgrade

STP

$865,152

10.67


PIERCE COUNTY PRIORITIZED CONTINGENCY LIST Roadway Sponsor

Title

Funding Source

Contingency Amount

Score (out of 100)

Phase

Sumner Traffic Ave/E Main Bottleneck at SR410 STP $1,650,000 54 PE/Design Lakewood Gravelly Lake Drive Non-motorized Project CMAQ $510,000 49 PE/Design Pierce County

Canyon Road East Freight Corridor Improvements

STP

$5,000,000

45

Right of Way

University Place

67th Avenue Improvements Phase 2

STP

$765,000

44


Tacoma

N 21st Street

STP

$1,596,300

43


Tacoma

Portland Ave Mobility/Freight Improvements

STP

$6,445,000

43


Lakewood

South Tacoma Way - 88th to North City Limits

STP

$375,000

41

PE/Design

Pacific

Stewart Road (8th Street E)

STP

$1,120,000

41


Puyallup

23rd Ave SE, Meridian to 9th

STP

$920,000

38


Bonney Lake

214th/SR410 Intersection

STP

$577,375

36


Puyallup

Shaw Road - Manorwood to 39th Ave SE

STP

$760,586

36


Lakewood

112th/111th Street Improvement – Bridgeport Way to Kendrick

STP

$1,600,000

35

Construction

Puyallup

Pioneer and East Main ITS Expansion

CMAQ

$1,847,208

35


Pacific West Valley Highway Rehabilitation STP $1,225,000 29 Right of Way DuPont DuPont-Steilacoom Road Improvements STP $382,500 27 Planning Fircrest

Alameda Ave

STP

$1,589,233

24


Nonmotorized Sponsor

Title

Funding Source

Contingency Amount

Score (out of 100)

Phase

Tacoma Thea Foss – Site 10 Esplanade STP $2,491,200 57 CN University Place

56th St/Cirque Corridor Improvements Phase 3

STP

$1,785,000

55

CN

Bonney Lake Fennel Creek Trail Segment 2 STP $2,975,000 48 CN Pierce County

14th Avenue Northwest Trail

CMAQ

$1,078,565

46


Sumner Fryar Ave. Bike Trail CMAQ $1,429,352 45 Right of Way Sumner

Collin Keck Memorial Trail

CMAQ

$841,654

43


Sumner

East Sumner Neighborhood Sidewalks

CMAQ

$1,469,573

37


Other Sponsor

Title

Funding Source

Contingency Amount

Score (out of 100)

Phase

Lakewood

Lakewood Traffic Signal Upgrade - ITS - Phase 6

CMAQ

$640,000

47


Port of Tacoma

NWSA Freight Advanced Traveler Information System (FRATIS) / Pierce County Portion

CMAQ

$519,000

43

Other

Transit Sponsor

Title

Funding Source

Contingency Amount

Score (out of 100)

Phase

Pierce Transit Clean Fuels Bus Replacement/Expansion CMAQ $703,200 39 Other Preservation Sponsor

Title

Funding Source

Contingency Amount

Score (out of 100)

Phase

Tacoma Union Avenue Overlay STP $750,000 47 Construction

7.a.b

Packet Pg. 29

Att

ach

men

t: B

: A

do

pte

d C

on

tin

gen

cy L

ists

fro

m P

SR

C's

201

6 P

roje

ct S

elec

tio

n P

roce

ss (

2277

: D

istr

ibu

tio

n o

f P

SR

C F

un

ds

to C

on

tin

gen

cy

SNOHOMISH COUNTY PRIORITIZED CONTINGENCY LIST CMAQ Funding Sponsor

Title

Funding Source

Contingency Amount

Score (out of 100)

Phase

WSDOT

SR 524/Westbound 24th Ave West to 21st Ave West - Pedestrian Improvements

CMAQ

$224,900

36.3

Preliminary Engineering/Design &

Right of Way WSDOT

SR 99/NB Manor Way Vic to Gibson Rd Vic - Pedestrian Connectivity

CMAQ

$519,825

36.2


Right of Way STP Funding Sponsor

Title

Funding Source

Amount

Score (out of 100)

Phase

Mill Creek 35th Ave SE Reconstruction STP $1,500,000 63.6 Construction Mukilteo

Harbour Pointe Blvd Southwest Widening Project

STP

$719,500

70.9

Construction

Snohomish County

North Creek Regional Trail - Phase 1

STP

$2,000,000

70.8

Construction

Bothell

19th Ave SE pedestrian & bicycle Improvements

STP

$1,015,800

69.5


Marysville

88th Street NE Corridor Improvements

STP

$900,212

68.5


Right of Way Bothell

228th Street SE from 35th Ave SE to 39th Ave SE Widening Project

STP

$770,715

61.4

PE/Design

Bothell

240th St SE/Meridian Ave S Compact Roundabout

STP

$1,023,750

59.8


Bothell

Meridian Ave S Pedestrian/Bicycle Improvements - Phase 1

STP

$618,100

59.1


Snohomish County

180th St SE: SR527 to Brook Boulevard

STP

$564,499

59.1

PE/Design

Everett 100th Street Corridor STP $3,206,555 58.6 Construction Arlington 173rd St - Ph 1 STP $1,439,000 56.9 Construction Marysville First Street Bypass STP $1,374,523 55.1 PE/Design Arlington 173rd St - Ph 3 STP $1,486,900 53.0 Construction Edmonds

76th Ave W @ 220th St SW Intersection Improvements

STP

$1,868,400

55.1


Right of Way Arlington

204th St & 78th Ave Roundabout

STP

$349,500

53.0


Right of Way Marysville

State Ave (100th St NE to 116th St NE) Corridor Improvements

STP

$129,750

52.6

PE/Design

Arlington

74th Ave Trail

STP

$224,400

51.1


Edmonds Edmonds Multimodal Grade Separation STP $865,000 50.9 PE/Design Arlington

Gilman Trail

STP

$338,250

50.4


Monroe North Kelsey Area East-West Connector STP $594,398 50.4 PE/Design Bothell

SR 527/Bothell-Everett Hwy Corridor Study (from SR 524 to SR 522)

STP

$648,750

48.4

PE/Design

Monroe

Oaks Street (Tjerne Place) Woods Creek Road to Old Owens Road

STP

$389,250

43.8

PE/Design

Preservation Funding Sponsor

Title

Funding Source

Amount

Score (out of 100)

Phase

Lynnwood

Alderwood Mall Parkway Pavement Preservation

STP

$600,000

73.3

Construction

7.a.b

Packet Pg. 30

Att

ach

men

t: B

: A

do

pte

d C

on

tin

gen

cy L

ists

fro

m P

SR

C's

201

6 P

roje

ct S

elec

tio

n P

roce

ss (

2277

: D

istr

ibu

tio

n o

f P

SR

C F

un

ds

to C

on

tin

gen

cy

Doc ID 2287

ACTION ITEM June 21, 2018 To: Executive Board From: Councilmember Ryan Mello, Chair, Growth Management Policy Board Subject: Approve Updated Designation Procedures for New Regional Centers IN BRIEF PSRC updated the Designation Procedures for New Regional Centers to reflect the Regional Centers Framework adopted by the Executive Board in March 2018. At its May meeting, the Growth Management Policy Board reviewed the procedures and recommended that the Executive Board approve the updates made for consistency with the Regional Centers Framework. RECOMMENDED ACTION The Executive Board should approve the updated Designation Procedures for New Regional Centers. DISCUSSION PSRC recently completed a multiyear review process to update the region’s Regional Centers Framework to provide common ground and expectations for Regional Growth Centers, Manufacturing Industrial Centers, military installations, and countywide centers. The Executive Board adopted the Regional Centers Framework in March 2018.

For new regionally designated centers, the update expanded the types of centers from two to four and now identifies two types of regional growth centers and two types of manufacturing industrial centers. These include Urban Growth Centers and Metro Growth Centers and Industrial Growth Centers and Industrial Employment Centers. New eligibility requirements and designation criteria were also included in the adopted framework for these new regional centers. The updated framework calls for PSRC to update the designation procedures to reflect the new center types and designation requirements for new regional centers. Staff completed an update to the Designation Procedures for New Regional Centers, which reorganizes the content of the existing procedures to provide a more user-friendly document, but only changes related to the new and/or revised elements for regionally designated centers adopted in the Regional Centers

8.a

Packet Pg. 31

Doc ID 2287

Framework Update are being proposed. Updating the procedures will allow local governments to apply to designate new regional centers under the revised eligibility and criteria. The Regional Staff Committee reviewed the updated procedures at their April meeting and staff incorporated its comments. The Growth Management Policy Board unanimously recommended the procedures at their May 5, 2018, meeting. The updated procedures are included in Attachment A, along with a document that summarizes the changes and new provisions from the existing procedures in Attachment B. For more information, please contact Principal Planner Jeff Storrar at (206) 587- 4817 or [email protected]. Attachments: Attachment A - Designation Procedures for New Regional Centers Attachment B - Summary of Changes

8.a

Packet Pg. 32


PSRC’s Designation Procedures for New Regional Centers

OVERVIEW

VISION 2040 directs PSRC to provide a regional framework for designating and evaluating Regional Growth Centers and Manufacturing Industrial Centers. In 2018, PSRC adopted its Regional Centers Framework Update that contains set of detailed requirements for designating new regional growth and manufacturing/industrial centers. The following procedures reflect the framework update and provide the Growth Management Policy Board and Executive Board with a tool to review and act on the designation of new regional centers.

BACKGROUND ON REGIONAL CENTERS

Focusing growth into centers has been a key strategy in the central Puget Sound region since the 1990 version of VISION 2020. In 2003, the first set of designation procedures for Regional Growth Centers and Manufacturing Industrial Centers were adopted, and then updated in 2008 to reflect VISON 2040. Today, regional centers remain at the heart of VISION 2040's regional growth strategy and multicounty planning policies. With their concentration of people and/or jobs, centers form the backbone of the transportation network, allow cities and other urban service providers to maximize the use of existing infrastructure, make more efficient and less costly investments in new infrastructure, and minimize the environmental impact of urban growth.

PSRC’s Regional Centers Framework Update identifies two types of Regional Growth Centers and two types of Manufacturing Industrial Centers, each with their own designation criteria. The types of regionally designated centers and their intent are described below.

REGIONAL GROWTH CENTERS

URBAN GROWTH CENTERS METRO GROWTH CENTERS

Urban Growth Centers play an important regional role, with dense existing jobs and housing, high-quality transit service, and planning for significant growth. These centers may represent areas where major investments – such as high-capacity transit – offer new opportunities for growth.

Metro Growth Centers have a primary regional role. They have dense existing jobs and housing, high quality transit service, and are planning for significant growth. They serve as major transit hubs for the region and provide regional services, and serve as major civic and cultural centers.

MANUFACTURING INDUSTRAIL CENTERS

INDUSTRIAL GROWTH CENTERS INDUSTRIAL EMPLOYMENT CENTERS

Industrial Growth Centers are clusters of industrial lands that have significant value to the region and potential for future job growth. These large areas of industrial land serve the region with international employers, industrial infrastructure, concentrations of industrial jobs, evidence of long-term potential, and can be accessed by transit. Designation will continue growth of industrial employment and preserve the region’s industrial land base for long-term growth and retention.

Industrial Employment Centers are highly active industrial areas with significant existing jobs, core industrial activity, evidence of long-term demand, and regional role. They have a legacy of industrial employment and represent important long-term industrial areas, such as deep-water ports and major manufacturing, and can be accessed by transit. Designation is to, at a minimum, preserve existing industrial jobs and land use and to continue to grow industrial employment in these centers where possible.

PURPOSE OF THE DESIGNATION PROCEDURES

The designation procedures for regional centers are designed to provide regional consistency regarding the type, location, distribution, and development potential of new regional growth centers and manufacturing industrial centers, and ensure that regionally designated centers meet the goals and expectations established in VISION 2040 and the Regional Centers Framework Update. This includes limiting the number and geographic distribution of regionally designated centers so that they can serve as an organizing framework for the regional multimodal transportation system, attract and accommodate a significant share of the region’s population and employment growth, and serve as focal points for regional investments in urban services and

amenities.

8.a.a

Packet Pg. 33

Att

ach

men

t: A

ttac

hm

ent

A -

Des

ign

atio

n P

roce

du

res

for

New

Reg

ion

al C

ente

rs (

2287

: U

pd

ated

Des

ign

atio

n P

roce

du

res

for

New

Reg

ion

al

A. DESIGNATION PROCESS

1. Jurisdictions seeking regional designation must complete a Regional Center Designation Application Form.

2. Completed applications are submitted to PSRC and reviewed to ensure eligibility and minimum requirements are met. The application and a staff report will then be provided to the Growth Management Policy Board. Staff will also include in its report an analysis of the distribution of centers throughout the region, the overall number in the region, and environmental suitability for board consideration.

3. The Growth Management Policy board will make a recommendation for each proposed regional center to the Executive Board. Designation of new regional centers will be made by the Executive Board based on the recommendation of the Growth Management Policy Board, the jurisdiction's application and presentation, and a report prepared by PSRC staff.

B. SCHEDULE

1. The application and review of new regional centers is limited to major regional growth plan updates (VISION 2040 and its successor plans). PSRC will issue a call for new applications approximately every five years, following the results of PSRC’s centers performance monitoring.

A. ELIGIBILTY FOR URBAN AND METRO REGIONAL GROWTH CENTERS

1. Local and Countywide Commitment:

a. The jurisdiction must demonstrate that the center is a local priority and that a commitment to making local investments to create a walkable, livable center has been in place.

b. The center is identified as a candidate for a regional growth center designation in the local jurisdiction’s comprehensive plan.

c. The center is identified as a candidate for a regional growth center designation in the applicable countywide planning policies.

d. The jurisdiction has adopted an ordinance or resolution that requests PSRC designate the center as a regional growth center and authorizes its staff to submit a completed application.

2. Planning – A jurisdiction must have completed a center plan (subarea plan, plan element or functional equivalent that provides detailed planning or analysis) that meets guidance included in the Growth Center Plan Checklist in PSRC’s Plan Review Manual prior to applying. In addition to the items outlined in the checklist, the plan should include an environmental review that demonstrates the center area is appropriate for dense development and should provide an assessment of housing need, including displacement risk, as well as documentation of tools, programs, or commitment to provide housing choices affordable to a full range of incomes and strategies to further fair housing.

3. Jurisdiction and Location – New regional growth centers should be located within a city, with few exceptions. LINK light rail stations in unincorporated urban areas may be eligible for center designation, provided they are affiliated for annexation or planned for incorporation. Joint planning of unincorporated center areas is also encouraged.

4. Existing Conditions – The jurisdiction must demonstrate the following conditions of the proposed center exist at the time of the application:

PART 2. REGIONAL GROWTH CENTERS

PART 1. DESIGNATION PROCESS AND SCHEDULE FOR ALL CENTERS

8.a.a

Packet Pg. 34

Att

ach

men

t: A

ttac

hm

ent

A -

Des

ign

atio

n P

roce

du

res

for

New

Reg

ion

al C

ente

rs (

2287

: U

pd

ated

Des

ign

atio

n P

roce

du

res

for

New

Reg

ion

al

a. The existing infrastructure and utilities can support additional growth in the center.

b. The center includes a mix of both existing housing and employment.

c. Justification of center boundaries. The boundary of the center should be generally round or square shape and avoid linear or gerrymandered shapes that are not readily walkable or connected by transit.

d. The center has bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure, amenities, and a street pattern that supports walkability.

B. CRITERIA FOR URBAN GROWTH CENTERS

Proposed Urban Growth Centers must meet each the following criteria to be regionally designated:

1. Compatibility with VISION 2040: The jurisdiction's vision for the proposed regional growth center must reinforce the centers concept within the VISION 2040 regional growth strategy and multicounty planning policies.

2. Activity Levels: a. The center’s existing density must be at least 18 activity units per acre.

b. The center’s planned target density must be at least 45 activity units per acre.

c. The center must have sufficient zoned development capacity1 to adequately accommodate targeted levels of growth. Because it is not time-bound, zoned capacity can allow levels of development that are higher than the activity unit target. This allows a jurisdiction to support long-term higher levels of density that achieves the regional vision for a more compact, complete and mature urban form in regional centers.

d. A goal should be in place for the center to have at least a mix of at least 15% planned residential and employment activity in the center.

3. Size: The center must be at least 200 acres and no more than 640 acres, unless the center is served by an internal, high capacity transit system, in which case, it may be larger.

4. Transit: The center must have existing or planned2 fixed route bus, regional bus, Bus Rapid Transit

(BRT), or other frequent and all-day bus service. High-capacity transit may be substituted for fixed route bus. Frequent service is defined as service that operates all-day (operates at least 16 hours per day on weekdays) and has headways less than 15-minutes.

5. Market potential: There must be evidence of future market potential to support planning target.

6. Role: There must be evidence that the center will play a clear regional role by serving as an important destination for the county and the jurisdiction must be planning to accommodate significant residential and employment growth under the regional growth strategy.

C. CRITERIA FOR METRO GROWTH CENTERS

Proposed Metro Growth Centers must meet each the following criteria to be regionally designated:

1. Compatibility with VISION 2040: The jurisdiction's vision for the proposed regional growth center must reinforce the centers concept within the VISION2040 regional growth strategy and multicounty planning policies.

1 Zoned Development Capacity is the amount of development allowed under adopted zoning based on parameters in the zoning regulations such as allowed heights and densities, lot coverages and setbacks, floor area ratios, etc. Zoned Development Capacity is not bound to a specific planning horizon. Jurisdictions must have adequate zoned capacity to accommodate their Growth Target, and this is evaluated under Buildable Lands.

2 “Planned” transit means funded projects or projects identified in the constrained portion of PSRC’s Regional Transportation Plan. The Regional Transportation Plan’s constrained project list incorporates projects in transit agency long-range plans where funding is reasonably expected during the 2040 planning horizon.

8.a.a

Packet Pg. 35

Att

ach

men

t: A

ttac

hm

ent

A -

Des

ign

atio

n P

roce

du

res

for

New

Reg

ion

al C

ente

rs (

2287

: U

pd

ated

Des

ign

atio

n P

roce

du

res

for

New

Reg

ion

al

2. Activity Levels:

a. The center’s existing density must be at least 30 activity units per acre.

b. The center’s planned target density must be at least 85 activity units per acre.

c. The center must have sufficient zoned development capacity3 to adequately accommodate targeted levels of growth. Because it is not time-bound, zoned capacity can allow levels of development that are higher than the activity unit target. This allows a jurisdiction to support long-term higher levels of density that achieves the regional vision for a more compact, complete and mature urban form in regional centers.

d. A goal should be in place for at least a mix of at least 15% planned residential and employment activity in the center.

7. Size: The center must be at least 320 acres and no more than 640 acres, unless the center is served by an internal, high capacity transit system, in which case, it may be larger.

3. Transit: The center must show that it serves as major transit hub and has high quality/high capacity existing or planned service. This includes having existing or planned4 light rail, commuter rail, ferry, or other high capacity transit with similar frequent service as light rail. Frequent service is defined as service that operates all-day (operates at least 18 hours per day on weekdays) and has headways less than 15-minutes.

4. Market potential: There must be evidence of future market potential to support planning target.

5. Role: There must be evidence that the center will play a clear regional role (for example, city center of metropolitan cities, other large and fast-growing centers; important regional destination) and the jurisdiction must be planning to accommodate significant residential and employment growth under the regional growth strategy.

A. ELIGIBILTY FOR INDUSTRIAL EMPLOYMENT CENTERS AND INDUSTRIAL GROWTH CENTERS

1. Local and Countywide Commitment:

a. The jurisdiction must demonstrate that the center is a local priority and that a commitment to making local investments in infrastructure and transportation has been made, as well as a commitment to protecting and preserving industrial uses, strategies and incentives to encourage industrial uses in the center, and established partnerships with relevant parties to ensure success of manufacturing/industrial center.

b. The center is identified as a candidate for a manufacturing industrial center designation in the local jurisdiction’s comprehensive plan.

c. The center is identified as a candidate for a manufacturing industrial center designation in the applicable countywide planning policies.


4 “Planned” transit means funded projects or projects identified in the constrained portion of PSRC’s Regional Transportation Plan.

The Regional Transportation Plan’s constrained project list incorporates projects in transit agency long-range plans where funding is reasonably expected during the 2040 planning horizon.

PART 3. MANUFACTURING INDUSTRIAL CENTERS

8.a.a

Packet Pg. 36

Att

ach

men

t: A

ttac

hm

ent

A -

Des

ign

atio

n P

roce

du

res

for

New

Reg

ion

al C

ente

rs (

2287

: U

pd

ated

Des

ign

atio

n P

roce

du

res

for

New

Reg

ion

al

d. The jurisdiction has adopted an ordinance or resolution that requests PSRC to designate the center as a manufacturing industrial center and authorizes the staff of the jurisdiction to submit a completed application.

2. Planning: A jurisdiction must have completed a center plan (subarea plan, plan element or functional

equivalent that provides detailed planning or analysis) that meets guidance in the Manufacturing Industrial Plan Checklist in PSRC’s Plan Review Manual prior to applying. Where applicable, the plan should be developed in consultation with public ports and other affected governmental entities.

3. Jurisdiction and Location: Manufacturing Industrial Centers should be located within a city, with few exceptions. Applications for a center outside of a city will need to demonstrate a history of, and collaborative agreement regarding, joint planning and service provision, as well as joint plans for annexation or incorporation.

4. Existing Conditions: The jurisdiction must demonstrate the following conditions of the proposed center exist at the time of the application:

a. The existing infrastructure and utilities can support additional growth. b. Access to relevant transportation infrastructure is provided, including freight. c. The center has an economic impact. d. The size and shape of manufacturing/industrial center is justified.

B. CRITERIA FOR INDUSTRIAL GROWTH CENTERS

1. Compatibility with VISION 2040: The jurisdiction’s vision for the proposed regional manufacturing industrial center must reinforce the centers concept within the VISION 2040 regional growth strategy and multicounty planning policies.

2. Size: The center must be at least 2,000 acres. 3.

Activity Levels: a. There must be at least 4,000 existing jobs in the center. b. The jurisdiction must be planning for at least a total of 10,000 jobs in the center. c. The center must have sufficient zoned development capacity5 to adequately accommodate

targeted levels of growth. Because it is not time-bound, zoned capacity can allow higher levels of development and a more compact and mature urban form in regional centers.

4. Mix of Employment: At least 50% of the employment must be industrial employment.

5. Transit: If center is within a transit service district, the center must have existing or planned frequent, local, express, or flexible transit service. If the center is outside a transit service district, documented strategies to reduce commute impacts through transportation demand management (TDM) strategies must be in place and consistent with the Regional Transportation Plan’s Regional TDM Action Plan.

6. Zoning: a. At least 75% of the land area is zoned for core industrial uses. Examples of zoning

designations dominated by traditional industrial land uses are manufacturing, transportation, warehousing and freight terminals. Commercial uses within core industrial zones shall be strictly limited.

b. Strategies to retain industrial uses are in place.

7. Role: There must be evidence that the center will play a regional role.


8.a.a

Packet Pg. 37

Att

ach

men

t: A

ttac

hm

ent

A -

Des

ign

atio

n P

roce

du

res

for

New

Reg

ion

al C

ente

rs (

2287

: U

pd

ated

Des

ign

atio

n P

roce

du

res

for

New

Reg

ion

al

C. CRITERIA FOR INDUSTRIAL EMPLOYMENT CENTERS

1. Compatibility with VISION 2040: The jurisdiction’s vision for the proposed regional manufacturing industrial center must reinforce the centers concept within the VISION 2040 regional growth strategy and multicounty planning policies.

2. Activity Levels: a. There must be at least 10,000 existing jobs. b. The jurisdiction must be planning for at least a total of 20,000 jobs. c. The center must have sufficient zoned development capacity6 to adequately accommodate

targeted levels of growth. Because it is not time-bound, zoned capacity can allow higher levels of development and a more compact and mature urban form in regional centers.

3. Mix of Employment: At least 50% of the employment must be industrial employment.

4. Transit: If center is within a transit service district, the center must have existing or planned frequent, local, express, or flexible transit service. If the center is outside a transit service district, documented strategies to reduce commute impacts through transportation demand management (TDM) strategies must be in place and consistent with the Regional Transportation Plan’s Regional TDM Action Plan.

5. Infrastructure: There must be the presence of irreplaceable industrial infrastructure. Industrial-related infrastructure that would be irreplaceable elsewhere, such as working maritime port facilities, air and rail freight facilities.

6. Zoning: a. At least 75% of the land area is zoned for core industrial uses. Examples of zoning

designations dominated by traditional industrial land uses are manufacturing, transportation, warehousing and freight terminals. Commercial uses within core industrial zones shall be strictly limited.

b. Strategies to retain industrial uses are in place.

7. Role: There must be evidence that the center will play a regional role.


8.a.a

Packet Pg. 38

Att

ach

men

t: A

ttac

hm

ent

A -

Des

ign

atio

n P

roce

du

res

for

New

Reg

ion

al C

ente

rs (

2287

: U

pd

ated

Des

ign

atio

n P

roce

du

res

for

New

Reg

ion

al

Summary of Changes to the Draft Designation Procedures for New Regional Centers

The following table summarizes the updates made to the Designation Procedures for New Regional

Centers to reflect PSRC’s Regional Centers Framework Update adopted March 2018. In addition to

these changes, existing provisions in the designation procedures are reflected in the Attachment A – Draft

Designation Procedures for New Regional Centers, including items like the board review process,

countywide concurrence on the application, staff review for minimum eligibility, the current density and/or

employment standards for some types of centers, and consistency with VISON 2040.

INTRODUCTION

Section Summary of New and/or Change Items

Overview, Background on Regional Centers & VISION 2040, and Purpose

✓ Updated text to reflect the completion of the Updated Regional

Centers Framework.

✓ Reorganized the introduction information (i.e. overview, background and purpose) to help streamline and provide a more user-friendly document.

✓ Identified and described the intent of the two types of regional growth centers and two types of manufacturing industrial centers.

PART 1. DESIGNATION PROCESS AND SCHEDULE FOR ALL CENTERS

Section Summary of New and/or Change Items

Designation Process (PART 1. Section A)

✓ Identified additional items the board will consider during the designation process, including:

o the overall number and distribution of regional centers. o the environmental suitability of the designation.

Schedule (PART 1. Section B)

✓ Identified the schedule for when new regional centers will be considered.

PART 2. REGIONAL GROWTH CENTERS

Topic Area Summary of New and/or Change Items

Eligibility for Urban and Metro Regional Growth Centers (PART 2. Section A)

✓ Added a provision that jurisdictions must demonstrate that the center is a local priority and that a commitment has been sustained over time to local investments to create a walkable, livable center.

✓ Removed the provisions related to providing a “provisional” regional designation until a center plan is completed.

✓ Added provisions requiring that a center plan or functional equivalent be completed prior to applying, and that sponsors conduct an environmental review that demonstrates the center area is appropriate for dense development, as well as an assessment of housing need.

✓ Added a provision that clarifies that unincorporated urban areas may be eligible for regional growth center designation if served by light rail, provided they are affiliated for annexation or planned for incorporation.

✓ Added a section identifying the required existing conditions that must

be demonstrated when applying. The issues addressed include the provision of infrastructure and utilities, a mix of housing and

8.a.b

Packet Pg. 39

Att

ach

men

t: A

ttac

hm

ent

B -

Su

mm

ary

of

Ch

ang

es

(228

7 :

Up

dat

ed D

esig

nat

ion

Pro

ced

ure

s fo

r N

ew R

egio

nal

Cen

ters

)

employment, and bike and pedestrian infrastructure, as well as the center shape and boundaries.

Criteria for Urban Growth Centers Metro Growth Centers (PART 2. Section B and C)

✓ Added new existing and planned activity levels (new for Metro Growth

Centers, maintains previous thresholds for Urban Growth Centers).

✓ Added a provision that calls for jurisdictions to have a goal for at least a 15% mix of residential and employment activity for regional growth centers (new for both Metro Growth Centers and Urban Growth Centers).

✓ Added a provision identifying minimums and maximums for the size of

regional growth centers (new for both Metro Growth Centers and Urban Growth Centers).

✓ Added a provision regarding the type and level of transit service that

should serve regional growth centers (new for both Metro Growth Centers and Urban Growth Centers).

✓ Added a provision clarifying that a jurisdiction must show evidence of

future market potential to support planning target for the regional growth center (new for both Metro Growth Centers and Urban Growth Centers).

✓ Added a provision clarifying the role the proposed center must play in

the county and/or region and in accommodating residential and employment growth (new for both Metro Growth Centers and Urban Growth Centers).

PART 3. MANUFACTURING INDUSTRIAL CENTERS

Topic Area Summary of New and/or Change Items

Eligibility for all Regional Manufacturing Industrial Centers (PART 3. Section A)

✓ Added a provision that jurisdictions must demonstrate that the center

is a local priority and a commitment to investing in infrastructure has been made, along with a commitment to protecting and preserving industrial uses, etc.

✓ Removed the provisions related to providing a “provisional” regional

designation until a center plan is completed.

✓ Added a provision that a center plan or functional equivalent must be completed prior to applying.

✓ Added a provision clarifying that proposed manufacturing industrial centers should be in a city, and that applications located outside of a city will need to demonstrate a history of, and collaborative agreement regarding, joint planning and service provision, as well as plans for annexation or incorporation.

✓ Added a section identifying the required existing conditions that must be demonstrated when applying. The issues addressed include the provision of infrastructure and utilities access to relevant transportation infrastructure, the economic impact of the center, and justification for size and shape.

8.a.b

Packet Pg. 40

Att

ach

men

t: A

ttac

hm

ent

B -

Su

mm

ary

of

Ch

ang

es

(228

7 :

Up

dat

ed D

esig

nat

ion

Pro

ced

ure

s fo

r N

ew R

egio

nal

Cen

ters

)

Criteria for Industrial Employment Centers and Industrial Growth Centers (PART 3. Section B and C)

✓ Added a provision identifying minimums and maximums for the size

of manufacturing industrial centers (new for Industrial Employment Centers and Industrial Growth Centers).

✓ Added new existing and planned activity levels for proposed new Industrial Growth Centers (new for Industrial Growth Centers, maintains previous thresholds for Industrial Employment Centers).

✓ Added a provision that calls for new manufacturing industrial centers to have at least 50% industrial employment (new for Industrial Employment Centers and Industrial Growth Centers).

✓ Added a provision regarding the type and level of transit service that

should be provided to manufacturing industrial centers; or the strategies the that are in place if located outside of a transit service district (new for Industrial Employment Centers and Industrial Growth Centers).

✓ Revised the thresholds from 80% to 75% for land that must be zoned for core industrial uses in manufacturing Industrial centers (applies to both Industrial Employment Centers and Industrial Growth Centers).

✓ Added a provision requiring evidence that the center will play a regional role (new for Industrial Employment Centers and Industrial Growth Centers).

8.a.b

Packet Pg. 41

Att

ach

men

t: A

ttac

hm

ent

B -

Su

mm

ary

of

Ch

ang

es

(228

7 :

Up

dat

ed D

esig

nat

ion

Pro

ced

ure

s fo

r N

ew R

egio

nal

Cen

ters

)

Doc ID 2297

DISCUSSION ITEM June 21, 2018 To: Executive Board From: Josh Brown, Executive Director Subject: VISION 2050 Formal Start and Regional Growth Strategy IN BRIEF Staff will brief the Executive Board on the completion of the VISION 2050 scoping process and initial work to extend the Regional Growth Strategy to 2050. DISCUSSION The Executive Board directed the start of early work on VISION 2050 in July 2017. Work in late 2017 focused on gathering data to support the planning effort and reviewing existing aspects of VISION 2040. The Growth Management Policy Board reviewed background research, including regional growth trends, 2050 employment and population projections, growth strategy performance data, and other trends shaping the region. The Growth Management Policy Board also oversaw the project’s scoping process, adopting the project scoping report at its June meeting. The scoping report marks the formal launch of the VISION 2050 project and the transition from the early background work to investigating policy topics and developing potential amendments to VISION 2040. The scoping process occurred between January and June, with a public comment period that ran from February 2 through March 19, 2018. Five listening sessions were held during the comment period in various parts of the region that attracted more than 160 participants. Combined, the listening sessions and comment letters resulted in over 1,300 individual comments to inform the plan scope and SEPA environmental review, including those from countywide organizations, individual jurisdictions, other organizations and agencies, and individual members of the public. The Growth Management Policy Board held an extended discussion about priorities for VISION 2050 in April and listened to comments on the VISION 2050 scope and the results of a public opinion survey. The comments heard are summarized and categorized in the scoping report, which also establishes the scope of review of the Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement, the general schedule and topic priorities for the project. The scoping report, the full set of written comments submitted, and project information about VISION 2050 are available on the VISION webpage.

9.a

Packet Pg. 42

https://www.psrc.org/vision

Doc ID 2297

Growth Management Policy Board meetings throughout the next two years will focus almost entirely on VISION 2050, including extending the Regional Growth Strategy to 2050, review of the multicounty planning policies, and establishing an updated set of regional actions to implement the plan. VISION 2050 is scheduled to be adopted in the spring of 2020. Priority Topics There are several fundamental issues that will be addressed through the plan update, including: extending the plan horizon to the year 2050, addressing statutory changes, and updating the

plan to reflect recent regional plans and initiatives.

Based on board discussion and review of scoping comments, the highest priority policy issues are:

• The Regional Growth Strategy

• Housing, particularly focused on affordability Other priority policy areas identified by the board include:

• Climate change/resiliency

• Social equity, displacement, and suburbanization of poverty Issues such as the integrated relationships between housing, transportation and jobs, and plan implementation cut across these issue areas and will be addressed throughout the planning process. Other topics identified by board members include the impact of transportation technology, community health, annexation, environment and open space, and recognition of Native American tribes. Rather than conduct a complete rewrite of VISION 2040, the board discussed focusing on a limited set of topic areas that address critical public policy challenges, gaps in the current plan, and areas that would benefit from additional regional planning. PSRC staff will continue to work with the Growth Management Policy Board and Regional Staff Committee on management of the project work plan to manage time and sequencing of issues during the project. Regional Growth Strategy Extended The Growth Management Policy Board held an extended work session on the Regional Growth Strategy in June and provided initial direction for updating the strategy and to guide staff’s work over the summer. The Regional Growth Strategy reflects this region's commitment to plan for the future in a way that preserves and enhances communities, conserves natural and financial resources, and maintains quality of life. The Regional Growth Strategy supports the work of the region’s cities and towns with their respective counties to allocate local population and employment growth targets that underlie their local comprehensive plans. By setting the growth strategy for an extended planning horizon – 2040 – and for types of cities rather than individual cities, it

9.a

Packet Pg. 43

Doc ID 2297

provides counites and cities with flexibility in allocating targets while working within the umbrella of the Regional Growth Strategy. Board review of the growth strategy and development of alternatives to the current distribution pattern continues with scheduled extended work sessions in September and November, building off the June meeting. Initial conversations indicate:

• Interest in reaffirming the key role of Metropolitan and Core city geographies as jurisdictions with designated regional growth centers.

• Replacing/changing the current Small and Larger cities geographies with new city categories that recognize their role and infrastructure rather than population size.

• Differentiating unincorporated urban areas by using a more detailed view based on affiliation status and planned infrastructure investments that would treat them more like cities.

• Recognize Major Military Installations as directed in the regional centers framework. For more information, please contact Paul Inghram, Senior Program Manager, at 206-464-7549, [email protected].

9.a

Packet Pg. 44


Doc ID 2302

DISCUSSION ITEM June 21, 2018 To: Executive Board From: Josh Brown, Executive Director Subject: Aerospace Competitive Economics Study IN BRIEF The Executive Board will be provided with a briefing on the Aerospace Competitive Economics Study released by Governor Inslee’s Choose Washington New Mid-Market Airplane Council and Richard Aboulafia and the Teal Group, one of the world’s leading firms providing aerospace industry analysis. DISCUSSION The Choose Washington New Mid-Market Airplane Council is comprised of representatives from Washington business, labor, local and state government, and others aerospace fields. The NMA Council is tasked with making the business case for Washington state as the preferred site for Boeing’s NMA program. In December 2017, PSRC’s Economic Development Board adopted support of Washington’s NMA effort as its first Action Item implementing the Regional Economic Strategy. In addition, PSRC has provided staff support to the NMA Council, a meaningful contribution to this enormous economic development opportunity. In addition, many of PSRC’s member jurisdictions participate on the NMA Council and/or have generously contributed funds to make sure Washington puts its best foot forward to The Boeing Company. Along with Council Co-Chair Rick Bender and Dr. Noel Schulz, Snohomish County Executive Dave Somers, Pierce County Executive Bruce Dammeier, and King County Executive Dow Constantine all provide leadership on the group’s Executive Council. Council members include Everett Mayor Cassie Franklin and contributing communities include City of Arlington, City of Auburn, City of Everett, City of Marysville, City of Tukwila, Pierce County, and Snohomish County. Competitiveness Report: The NMA Council commissioned Richard Aboulafia, Teal Group and Olympic Analytics to conduct the Competitiveness report, an independent, objective analysis of

10.a

Packet Pg. 45

Doc ID 2302

the competitive advantages and disadvantages for aerospace manufacturing in all 50 states and the District of Columbia. The Results: Washington state is a strong first place finisher as the most competitive place for aerospace manufacturing operations, according to the report. Washington scores high in nearly all of the evaluation categories and many of the 41 individual metrics. Next Steps: The NMA Council is using the lessons learned from the report to address weaknesses and shore up strengths in Washington’s aerospace industry. These strategies will help the state respond to The Boeing Company’s potential NMA opportunity. For more information, please contact Associate Economic Policy Analyst and NMA Council Lead Emily Wittman at 206-971-3051 or [email protected].

10.a

Packet Pg. 46


discussion item 2302 - discussion memo

Documents