LUTC PKT 05-15-2000May 15, 2000
5:30 pm
City of Federal Way
City Council '
Land Use/Transportation committee
City Hall
Council Chambers
2.
3.
4.
MEETING AGENDA
CALL TO ORDER.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES of the May 1, 2000, meeting
PUBLIC COMMENT (3 minutes)
BUSINESS ITEMS
B.
C.
D.
E.
Community Design Guidelines
Set Public Hearing for Adoption of the TIP
2000 Benchmark Report
Sound Transit Update Briefing
Roundabouts
FUTURE MEETING AGENDA ITEMS.
SWM/CIP West Hylebos Channel Stabilization
6. ADJOURN
Action Clifton/15 min
Action Perez/5 min
Information Clark/20 min
Information Clifton/i 5 min
Information Perez/10 rain
Committee Members:
Phil Watkins, Chair
deanne Burbidge
Dean McColgan
City Staff:
Stephen Clifton, Director, Community Development Services
Sandy Lyle, Administrative Assistant
253.661.4116
I:~LU-TRANS~Iay 15, 2000 LUTC AGN.do¢
May 1, 2000
5:30 pm
City of Federal Way
City Council
Land Use/Transportation Committee
City Council
Council Chambers
MEETING SUMMARY
In attendance: Committee members Phil Watkins, Chair, Jeanne Burbidge and Dean McColgan; Director of
Community Development Services Stephen Clifton; Public Works Director Cary Roe; Assistant City Attorney Bob
Sterbank; Deputy Director of Public Works Ken Miller; Street Systems Manager Marwan Salloum; Senior Planner
Margaret Clark; Traffic Engineer Rick Perez; Traffic Analyst Sarady Long; Engineer Fei Tang; Surface Water
Engineer Will Appleton; Administrative Assistant Sandy Lyle.
1. CALL TO ORDER
Chair Watkins called the meeting to order at 5:35 pm.
2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
The minutes of the April 17, 2000, meeting were approved as presented.
PUBLIC COMMENT
Doug Smith, SeaTac Mall, commented that the Mall management was as frustrated as the City that the
SeaTac Mall owners have no current plans for redevelopment of the property.
4. BUSINESS ITEMS
SeaTac Mall Drainage Phase II Improvement Project - SeaTac Mall Detention Phase II
improvements will consist of replacing and up-sizing approximately 3,400 linear feet of pipe with
reinforced concrete pipe ranging in size from 12-inch to 84-inch diameter; the installation of
manholes and catch basins; removal of existing pipes and drainage structures; curb, gutter and
sidewalk removal and replacement; landscaping, and other work incidental to the storm drain; as
well as the conversion of the large substandard storm water retention/detention facility (southeast
corner of the SeaTac Mall property), to a water quality facility and removal of contaminated
sediment from within the pipe alignment and detention facility. On March 2, 1998, the Land Use
Transportation Committee was presented with an 85% Design Status Report, estimated at the time
to be over budget. Now better defined, the project design is 100% complete. Easement
agreements are currently being negotiated and will be completed and executed prior to contract
award. Four issues that have impacted project costs are: 1) pipe realignment through the Mall
property; 2) disposal of contaminated soils in the detention facility; 3) contaminated soil and
groundwater within the proposed storm drain alignment; and 4) design alteration of the lateral
storm drain extending west along South 320th from the entrance to SeaTac Plaza and Center Plaza
to the west side of 20th Avenue South. Total estimated project costs are $4,272,180. Appropriated
budget is $3,071,630. To cover the budget shortfall of $1,200,550, a 20-year, low interest loan for
$2,750,000 from the Washington State Public Works Trust Fund will be obtained. Bidding is
anticipated in May and awarding in June. The schedule allows project completion by the end of
the year. The Committee m/s/c recommendation to the City Council at its May 16, 2000, meeting,
to approve the SeaTac Mall Drainage Phase II Improvement Project, adjust the budget to cover
design and construction cost increases amounting to $1,200,550, and authorize bidding of the
project when all necessary easements and agreements are executed.
Star Lake Road Drainage Improvement/Water Main Replacement 100% Design Submittal - The
Committee m/s/c recommendation to the City Council at its May 16, 2000, meeting to approve the
Star Lake Road Drainage Improvement and Water Main Replacement 100% Design Submittal.
Also recommended for approval was the Interlocal agreement with the City of Kent addressing
storm water discharge into the wetlands located on the north side of272na Street. The storm
drainage improvement portion of the project will consist of constructing approximately 2,000
linear feet of storm drain pipeline of varying diameter (12 to 60-inch pipe), associated manholes
and inlets, and approximately 1,200 linear feet of concrete curb, gutter and sidewalk replacement.
The water main replacement portion of the project involves the replacement of approximately
2,300 linear feet of 12-inch water main, associated appurtenances, and service relocations replaced
as part of the storm drain project.
Co
2000 Transportation Modeling Contract - The Committee m/s/c recommendation to the City
Council at its May 16, 2000, meeting to execute the 2000 Transportation Modeling Update
contract with Mirai Associates in the amount of $49,991.00. Transportation models are used for
forecasting travel demand for long term planning activities such as the City Comprehensive Plan,
corridor analyses, and alternatives analyses. The model output could be used to analyze the level
of service at intersections and evaluate trip distribution for development projects. In addition, the
model would also assist in growth management issues like concurrency and traffic impact fees.
Single Family Residential Density Increase - Based upon information presented to the
Committee regarding development of single family homes on small lots zoned RS5.0, staff asked
permission to facilitate contact between developers and owners of property in the area off 21 st
Street SW between the Fred Meyer store and Northwest Church. If an agreement can be reached,
draft standards would be developed then presented to the City Council. The Council could
approve, modify or deny the proposed standards. The Committee m/s/c to direct staffto explore
the possibilities.
FUTURE MEETINGS
The next meeting will be held in Council Chambers at 5:30 pm on May 15, 2000.
ADJOURN
The meeting adjourned at 6:50pm.
I :~LU-TRAN S~,layO 100LUTC sum.doc
CITY OFfs,
~'~ii~~ 33530 1STWAY SOUTH
(253) 661-4000
FEDERAL WAY, WA 98003-6210
Date: May 10, 2000
To: Federal Way Land Use and Transportation Committee
Chair: Phil Watkins, City Councilmember
Via: David Mosele~~nager
From: Stephen Cliff:on, Community Development Services Director
RE:
Community Design Guidelines
Building Facades Facing Public Rights of Way
In 1996, the City of Federal Way adopted community design guidelines for
commercial zones. These guidelines were adopted as a community response to
the appearance of the Good Guys, constructed in 1995, and located at the
northeast corner of South 320th Street and Pacific Highway South. Since the
adoption of the design guidelines, several new and remodeled projects have
been constructed which add to the positive image of Federal Way, e.g., Holiday
Inn, IVlarie Callendars, SeaTac Village, Rite Aid, Extended Stay, Walmart,
etc. Additionally, as part of the redevelopment process, a few projects within
the City Center now include pedestrian pathways connecting commercial store
fronts to sidewalks along the public right-of-way.
The City has recently received several negative comments regarding the Pep
Boys building, now under construction in the 8Czone along Pacific Highway
South, due south of South 324th Street. When reviewing the operations of the
Pep Boys, City staff required that the developer orient the auto service bays
towards the west, away from the public right-of-way (Pacific Highway South).
The next goal was to orient the entrance, as much as possible, towards the
street, which the developer agreed to do. Although the entrance is near Pacific
Highway South, it faces a southeast direction, thus it is not as visible from the
east and not at all from the north. In a 8Czone, a building's facade is not
required to incorporate windows. Instead, a list of methods to articulate blank
walls is available to a project's owner, e.g., recessed windows, modulation,
vertical trellis, landscaping, artwork, architectural features and varying
materials. The Pep Boys meets the current minimum design requirements by
incorporating modulation, landscaping and vertical trellis.
Department staff requested the developer incorporate windows into the facade
facing Pacific Highway South, however, as convincing as we thought we were,
Pep Boys chose to meet the minimum existing design guidelines. In 1996, the
City chose to adopt regulations that encouraged rather than mandated that
some guidelines be met, however, this doesn't always work. The inclusion of
windows or faux windows in the Pep Boys project would have resulted in a more
attractive facade along the east side of the structure. However, existing design
guidelines reference a should instead of shall related to the installation or
placement of windows within facades that face public rights of way; thus we
could not require windows.
Staff Recommendation: Based on the above information, City staff requests
authorization to initiate a review of existing Federal Way design guidelines and
those from other Jurisdictions and eventually propose amendments to the
Federal Way City Code Article XIX, Community Design Guidelines. Specifically,
staff will be looking at methods to improve upon the visual appearance of
facades that face public rights of way in all commercial, office and business park
zones. If possible, a proposed amendment could be forwarded to the Planning
Commission and City Council as part of this year's miscellaneous code
amendments.
DA TE: May 12, 2000
TO:
FROM:
VIA:
SUBJECT:
Phil Watkins, Chair
Land Use/Transportation Committee
Perez, Traffic Engineer /~
Rick
David H. Mos~Manager
Setting the Public Hearing Date for the Proposed 2001-2006Transportation
Improvement Plan (TIP) and Arterial Street Improvement Plan (ASIP)
BACKGROUND
In accordance with the requirements of Chapters 35.77 and 47.26 of the Revised Code of
Washington, the City of Federal Way adopted its original TIP and ASIP on July 23, 1991. The City
is also required to adopt a revised TIP and ASIP on an annual basis that reflects the City's current
and future street and arterial needs.
The City is required to hold a minimum of one public hearing on the revised plans which is proposed
for the June 20, 2000 City Council meeting. Once the revised plans have been adopted by
Resolution, a copy of the respective plans must be filed with the Washington State Secretary of
Transportation and the Washington State Transportation Improvement Board. The attached
resolution sets the public hearing date for the June 20, 2000 City Council meeting. The TIP will be
presented to the Land Use / Transporation Committee at the first meeting in June, 2000.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff is requesting the Committee forward to the City Council a recommendation to authorize
scheduling a public hearing for the June 20, 2000 City Council meeting for the review and adoption
of the 2001-2006 TIP and ASIP.
Attachments
K:\LUTC\2000\01-06IIP.Wpd
RESOLUTION NO. ~
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
FEDERAL WAY, WASHINGTON, SETTING A PUBLIC HEARING
DATE OF TUESDAY, JUNE 20, 2000 FOR ADOPTION OF A
REVISED SIX-YEAR TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
AND ARTERIAL STREET IMPROVEMENT PLAN.
WHEREAS, pursuant to the requirements of Chapters .35.77 and
47.26 RCW, the City Council of the City of Federal Way must adopt a
revised and extended Six-year Transportation Improvement Program and
Arterial Street Improvement Plan annually; and
WHEREAS, a public hearing must be held for adoption of the
revised and extended Six-year Transportation Improvement Program and the
Arterial Street Improvement Plan;
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FEDEP~AL WAY,
WASHINGTON DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Public Hearinq. A public hearing shall be held on
the 2001-2006 Federal Way Transportation Improvement Plan and Arterial
Street Improvement Plan at 7:00 p.m. on Tuesday, June 20, 2000, at the
Federal Way City Hall Council Chambers.
Section 2. Severability. If any section, sentence, clause or
phrase of this resolution should be held to be invalid or
unconstitutional by a court of competent jurisdiction, such invalidity or
unconstitutionality shall not affect the validity or constitutionality of
any other section, sentence, clause or phrase of this resolution.
Section 3. Ratification. Any act consistent with the
authority and prior to the effective date of the resolution is hereby
ratified and affirmed.
Section 4.
Effective Date.
This resolution shall be
effective immediately upon passage by the Federal Way City Council.
RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FEDERAL WAY,
WASHINGTON, this day of , 2000.
CITY OF FEDERAL WAY
MAYOR, MICHAEL PARK
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK, N. CHRISTINE GREEN, CMC
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
CITY ATTORNEY, LONDI K. LINDELL
FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK:
PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL:
RESOLUTION NO.
K:~LUTC~2000~01-06 TIP.doc
CITY OF FEDERAL WAY
MEMORANDUM
May 10, 2000
TO:
FROM:
VIA:
SUBJECT:
Land Use/Transportation Committee (LUTC)
Phil Watkins, Chair
Stephen Clifton, AICP, Director of Community Development
Margaret H. Clark, AICP, Senior Planner ~
David Mosel~~Y~Manager
2000 King County Benchmark Report
This memorandum includes a summary of the King County Benchmark Program, a list of Year 1999
Benchmark Indicators sent to King County for the 2000 Report, and examples of selected indicators from
the 1999 King County Benchmark Report (covers Years 1995 through 1998).
I. THE KING COUNTY BENCHMARK PROGRAM
In 1990, the Washington State Legislature passed the Growth Management Act (GM~I).
All urban counties and their cities were required to develop and adopt comprehensive
plans and regulations to implement this Act. In order to achieve an interjurisdictional
coordinated countywide plan, GMA also required that King County and its 35 cities adopt
framework policies, the King County Countywide Planning Policies (CPPs), to guide the
development of the jurisdictions' plans. Adopted policies must include the following:
1. Policies to implement Urban Growth Areas.
Policies for promotion of contiguous and orderly development and provision of urban
services to such development.
o
Policies that consider the need for affordable housing, such as housing for all economic
segments of the population and parameters for its distribution.
Beginning in the fall of 1991, the Growth Management Planning Council (GMPC), a group of 15
elected officials representing King County, the City of Seattle, and the Suburban Cities of King
County met jointly to develop and recommend countywide planning policies for King County.
In July of 1992, the King County Council adopted the countywide planning policies
recommended by the GMPC. These were called Phase I policies and included targets for each
city and unincorporated King County.
In May 1994, the GMPC took final action on the Phase II policies. These policies included
designation of Urban Centers for purposes of pursuing a regional plan, and affordable housing.
The CPPs mandate that King County and its jurisdictions track how they are meeting the
countywide planning policies. In 1995, the GMPC and citizens throughout the County helped
develop 45 indicators, which are part of the Benchmark Program.
The purpose of the Benchmark Program is to provide the GMPC, other policy makers and the
public with a method for evaluating a jurisdiction's progress in implementing the countywide
planning policies. The 1999 Benchmark Report is the fourth annual report to monitor the CPPs.
II.
1999 BENCHMARK INDICATORS AND SELECTED EXAMPLES FROM THE 1999
KING COUNTY BENCHMARK REPORT
Each April, King County collects Benchmark Indicators for the previous year
from all cities and unincorporated King County and consolidates them into one
report, which is published in the fall as the Annual Benchmark Report. On April
30, 2000, Federal Way provided King County with the attached worksheets for
Indicators 28, 30, 32, 37, and 45, which included information on the 1999
Benchmark Indicators.
The following are examples of Benchmark Indicators from the 1999 King County
Benchmark Report:
(a)
Indicator 29 - Chart showing Existing housing Units Affordable to Low
Income Households (Households with income at 80 percent of median)
and Table showing Affordable Housing Indicators.
(b) Indicator 30 - Table showing New Housing Units Permitted in Urban
Centers. Federal Way has no units in its Urban Center (City Center Core).
A correction was forwarded to King County as part of the 2000
Benchmark Report.
(c) Indicator 30 - Table showing Land Use Indicators. This table shows
number of residential units permitted by jurisdiction from 1995 through
1998.
Please call Margaret Clark at (253) 661-4111 should you have any questions or need additional
information.
I:\BENCHMRK\51500 Benchmark Report to the LTC.doc/5/10/00 9:53 AM
Metropolitan King County Countywide Planning Policies Benchmark Program
2000 King County Benchmark Report
Indicator Worksheets
Indicator//28
Public dollars spent on low income housing
This Indicator measures more than the expenditure of public dollars on low income housing. It also measures a
range of local actions which foster affordable housing; and the number of units in your city affordable to all income
groups regardless of public money was used or not. This last measurement is important since most housing in your
jurisdiction is produced by the private sector without public money. In addition, some jurisdictions do not have the
local resources to spend on housing. Therefore, we want to acknowledge all local activities which facilitate
affordable housing. Examples of such activities include: regulatory actions such as accessory housing or density
bonuses and in-kind contributions such as fee waivers or local land donations.
In calendar year 1999 record in the following table:
· what type and amount of public dollars, including in-kind contributions, were spent on units
affordable to households at or below 80% of median income;
· how many units were constructed, preserved, rehabilitated with those dollars.
Notes about the table
· For income guidelines, see chart on next page
· Public dollars are defined as bonds, levies, general fund and any in-kind contribution that can be quantified
such as a waiver of fees or donation of land Only report local bond funds the year the bond funds are issued
Do not report th.e annual bond payments.
· ,4 preserved unit differs from rehabilitated or constructed unit. It is an existing unit of housing which is
required to remain or to become affordable for a specific amount of time. For example, with the help of public
funds, a non-profit agency purchases a market rate housing development which is then rented or sold with a
requirement of long term affordability. ,4 rehabilitated unit refers to repair or restoration of existing
affordable housing. It is important to note that for most rehabilitated units, there is no guarantee of long term
affordability; therefore such units do not increase the affordable housing stock
· Only report the number of units your city's funding directly benefits, not necessarily all the units in the project.
· For multi-city shared housing projects, indicate total dollars for project andyour city's contribution. Indicate
number of units based on the proportion you pay. For example: Total Project = 30 houses rehabilitated; Cost
= $300,000; Your citypaid = $75,000 = 25% = 7.5 housing units rehabilitated byyour city.
For Units Affordable to Households at or Below 80% of Median Income
Dollar Amount Used in 1999 Fund No. of Units Preserved, Rehabilitated
Source: 1999 CDBG or constructed with these public funds*
Total Project Cost Your City's Share Rehabilitated PreservedConstructed
$83,400 $83,400 80.00
$140,000 $140,000 15.00
$103,662 $20,000 3.86
$715,000 $40,000 0.56
$181,592 $22,500 0.12
$390,000 $30,000~ 0.08
$40,000 $40,0001 1.00
$1,750,000 $5,000 0.02
cost: (e.g. 12 unit project, your city pays 33.3%, your city claims 4 units)
Worksheets due: April 30, 2000. Return worksheets to Cynthia Moffitt or Rose Curran, King County Office of Regional Policy
and Planning, 516 Third Ave., Rm 420, Seattle WA 98104; faxr 206.205.0719. If you have questions, contact Cynthia at
206.205.0709 or Rose at 206.205.0715.
. Metropolitan King County Countywide Planning Policies Benchmark Program
2000 King County Benchmark Report
Indicator WOrksheets
Indicator #28 (continued)
Public dollars spent on low income housing
Were any local dollars used as an operating subsidy for housing affordable to households at
80% or below of median income? If so, note much was allocated as operating subsidy in
1998. $37,000.
Note: do not include federal funds, such as Community Development Block Grants (CDBG), which your
city uses as operating subsidies. An operating subsidy pays for items such as utilities, rent or case
management services located at the housing site. This includes operating subsidies for emergency and
transitional shelters as well as permanent housing.
The above information was provided by Camron Parker (253) 661-4153
· How many units affordable to households at or below 80% of median income were produced
in 1999 because of regulatory measures enacted by your city. This includes accessory
dwelling units or density bonuses.
Number of units 1 ADU
· Regulatory measures enacted to produce the units:
Accessory Dwelling Unit Ordinance.
Two (2) manufactured homes on single family lots (The City allows manufactured homes
outside of parks if certain dimensional and design standards are utilized)
Please add a footnote if there are any regulatory measures your city has adopted in 1999, but that
have not yet resulted in an increase of housing units. You may wish to note regulatory measures
that reduce housing costs, but cannot be tied directly to affordable units (e.g. flexible subdivision
standards) or facilitate affordable housing or transfer of development rights.
(Note: An affordable rental payment is considered to be 30% of household income, while an affordable monthly
mortgage payment is considered to be 25% of household income, because in the case of home ownership other
housing costs such as utilities and taxes must also be paid out of the household's housing budget. This means that
an affordable monthly mortgage payment is about 83.3% of an affordable rental payment. Example: In 1999, a
household earning 80% of the median income in King County made about $50,080. At this income, the family could
afford $1252 in rent, or a house payment of about $1043 per month. They could afford to purchase a home costing
no more than $178, 000.)
Worksheets due: April 30, 2000. Return worksheets to Cynthia Moffitt or Rose Curran, King County Office of Regional Policy
and Planning, 516 Third Ave., Rm 420, Seattle WA 98104; faxr 206.205.0719. If you have questions, contact Cynthia at
206.205.0709 or Rose at 206.205.0715.
Metropolitan King County Countywide Planning Policies Benchmark Program
2000 King County Benchmark Report
Indicator Worksheets
Indicator #28 (continued)
Public dollars spent on low income housing
1999 Annual Income Levels
Affordable Monthly Housing Payments (30%) for Rentals by Household Size
Household Size & Corresponding Unit Type
Unit Type: Studios 1 Bed 2 Bed 3 Bed 4 Bed 5 Bed
Upper Income (120% of Median)
Affordable Monthly Pmt
Median Income (100% of Median)
Affordable Monthly Pmt
Low Income (80% of Median)
Affordable Monthly Prat
Very Low Income (50% of Median)
Affordable Monthly Pmt
Extremely Low Income (30% of Median)
Affordable Monthly Pmt
$52,560 $60,120 $67,560 $75,120 $81,120 $87,120
$1,314 $1,503 $1,689 $1,878 $2,028 $2,178
$43,800 $50,100 $56,300 $62,600 $67,600 $72,600
$1,095 $1,253 $1,408 $1,565 $1,690 $1,815
$35,040 $40,080 $45,040 $50,080 $54,080 $58,080
$876 $1,002 $1,126 $1,252 $1,352 $1,452
$21,900 $25,050 $28,150 $31,300 $33,800 $36,300
$548 $626 $704 $783 $845 $908
$13,140 $15,030 $16,890 $18,780 $20,280 $21,780
$329 $376 $422 $470 $507 $545
Notes:
(1)An Affordable Monthly Housing Payment is defined as a housing cost/payment that is no more than 30% of a household's monthly
income (for rentals). This amount does not include a deduction for utilities; it assumes the entire payment goes towards the rent.
(2) For affordability calculations: a studio should be affordable to a one person household, a one-bedroom unit should be affordable
to a 2 person household, a three bedroom unit should be affordable to a 4 person household, and so on.
Worksheets due: April 30, 2000. Return worksheets to Cynthia Moffitt or Rose Curran, King County Office of Regional Policy
and Planning, 516 Third Ave., Rm 420, Seattle WA 98104; faxr 206.205.0719. If you have questions, contact Cynthia at
206.205.0709 or Rose at 206.205.0715.
Metropolitan King County Countywide Planning Policies Benchmark Program
2000 King County Benchmark Report
Indicator Worksheets
Indicator #30
Percent of New Housing Units in Urban Areas and Rural/Resource Areas
Part I: New Housing Units Permitted in 1999
King County's records, the monthly C-404 reports submitted by your city to King County,
indicate that you issued permits in calendar year 1999 for ·
a. 119 single family permits
117 units were reported to King County in 2/28/00 correspondence to Nanette
Morales; one of these was an ADU, which will be reported for Benchmark purposes
as redevelopment. Two Manufactured homes on single-family lots were included in
this category since they are outside of parks on permanent foundations on single-
family lots and they are not accounted for anywhere in the Benchmark Worksheets.
b. 225 multifamily permits
¢. 344 Total residential permits
225 units were reported to King County in 2/28/00 correspondence to Nanette
Morales; two of these were converted from storage units in an existing multi-family
complex. These two units will be reported for Benchmark purposes as
redevelopment.
For your information, Indicator #30 is intended to be a count of building permits issued, not a count of units
completed or certificates of occupancy issued.
This information was verified for us after the end of the year by Margaret Clark (253) 661-4111.
Number of housing units demolished during 1999:
d. 3_ single family units demolished
e. 0 multifamily units demolished
f. 3 Total residential units demolished
Net New Housing Units during 1999:
g. 116 Net New Single Family (a - d )
h. 225 Net New MultiFamily units (b - e)
i. 341 New Housing Units (c- f)
This is the number of net new housing units that we plan to count for your City in the 1999
Benchmark Report. If you wish to make a change to this number, please describe the change.
The numbers you submit here should be the same as the summary of permits, demolitions and
net new units recorded on Tables 4 and 7 of the 1999 Buildable Lands Residential Worksheets.
Worksheets due: April 30, 2000. Return worksheets to Cynthia Moffitt or Rose Curran, King County Office of Regional Policy
and Planning, 516 Third Ave., Rm 420, Seattle WA 98104; faxr 206.205.0719. If you have questions, contact Cynthia at
206.205.0709 or Rose at 206.205.0715.
Metropolitan King County Countywide Planning Policies Benchmark Program
2000 King County Benchmark Report
Indicator Worksheets
Indicator #30
Percent of New Housing Units in Urban Areas and Rural/Resource Areas
Part II. New Housing Units Permitted in Urban Centers 1999
How many of the new units permitted in 1999 were located within your Urban Center(s)?
a. 0
How many of the permitted units were completed in 1999 (an estimate is OK)
b. 0
The 2000 Benchmark Report shows that in 1998 your Urban Center had the following number of
units:
c. 200 Please note that Federal Way has 0 units in the Urban Center, which is the City Center
Core and 892 units in the City Center Frame which surrounds the Urban Center (City Center
Core)
How many Urban Center units were demolished in 1999 or otherwise removed from
the housing stock
d. 0
The current stock of housing units in your Urban Center is:
e. 0 Note: (b+c-d = e),
Do you wish to add any footnotes to the Benchmark Report to further describe the number of
units in your Center(s)?
Footnotes:
Worksheets due: April 30, 2000. Retum worksheets to Cynthia Moffitt or Rose Curran, King County Office of Regional Policy
and Planning, 516 Third Ave., Rm 420, Seattle WA 98104; faxr 206.205.0719. If you have questions, contact Cynthia at
206.205.0709 or Rose at 206.205.0715.
Metropolitan King County Countywide Planning Policies Benchmark Program
2000 King County Benchmark Report
Indicator Worksheets
Indicator//32
Percent of new residential units that could be counted as redevelopment
Estimated number of units that could be counted as redevelopment
Redevelopment is generally defined as the development of a more intense use on land that
already had a less intense use, as opposed to development on vacant land. Please see the 1999
Buildable Lands residential worksheets, notes, and guidelines for a suggested methodology for
collecting data on residential redevelopment.
How many new units were built on land with a pre-existing use (i.e. previous structures or
improvements)?
3
Please note that the units in redevelopment should be a subset of the units for which building
permits were issued as defined in Indicator #30 Percent of New Housing Units in Urban Areas
and Rural/Resource Areas, and as reported on Tables 2 through 7 of the 1999 Buildable Lands
worksheets.
Worksheets due: April 30, 2000. Return worksheets to Cynthia Moffitt or Rose Curran, King County Office of Regional Policy
and Planning, 516 Third Ave., Rm 420, Seattle WA 98104; faxr 206.205.07 i 9. If you have questions, contact Cynthia at
206.205.0709 or Rose at 206.205.0715.
Metropolitan King County Countywide Planning Policies Benchmark Program
2000 King County Benchmark Report
Indicator Worksheets
Indicator #37
Acres of Urban Parks and Open Space
In the 1999 Benchmark Report the acres of parks and open space in added in 1998 is
a. 818.54
Acres of city-owned urban parks and open space added (including annexations) in 199
b. 4.46
Acres of city-owned parks and open space removed from your city in 1999
c. 0
Total existing acres in parks and open space at end of 1999.
d. 823
Note (a+b-c=d)
Notes about this Indicator
· 'Urban' means within the an Urban Growth Area
· City-owned means parks and open space property owned by your city, or for which you city
has acquired development rights. Park land that owned but not yet developed may be
counted.
· Do not count parks or openspace owned by the state or county. Do not count parks or open
space privately owned, unless primarily maintained by the city and open to the public. Do
not count watersheds unless open for public recreation use.
This information was provided by Jon Jainga Telephone (253) 661-4043
Worksheets due: April 30, 2000. Return worksheets to Cynthia Moffitt or Rose Currath King County Office of Regional Policy
and Planning, 516 Third Ave., Rm 420, Seattle WA 98104; faxr 206.205.0719. If you have questions, contact Cynthia at
206.205.0709 or Rose at 206.205.0715.
Metropolitan King County Countywide Planning Policies Benchmark Program
2000 King County Benchmark Report
Indicator Worksheets
Indicator #45
Number of lane miles of city, county and state roads and bridges in need of repair
and preservation.
· The policy rational for this indicator stems from Countywide Planning Policies FW~20, FW-23
and T-8. This Indicator attempts to measure our ability to protect and preserve our existing
infrastructure, and to eliminate, lessen or defer the need to invest in new facilities. A key
outcome of the CPP Transportation policies is to protect and improve the transportation
infrastructure.
Total centerline miles in your city in 1999.
a. 234.9
Total lane miles in your city in 1999.*
b. 475.29
Estimated number of lane miles in need of repair or preservation in1999.
c. 50.49
Roads budget for your city in 1999.
d. Roads maintenance and preservation (including repaving, etc.)
d. $4,152,206
e. New construction (roads, bridges, etc.)
f. All other roads budget items
g. Total Roads Budget (d + f+ g)
e. $16,687,842
f. $0
g. $20,840,048
*Total lane miles should be equivalent to the number of lanes per segment times the number of
centerline miles in that segment. E.g.: 3 centerline miles of 2 lanes in each direction equals 3 x
4 or 12 lane miles. Also, if your figures are for more than one year, please note an estimate for
one year.
This information was provided by Marwan Salloum Telephone (253) 6614095
If you wish to add footnotes to the Benchmark Report about your data for this indicator, please
note below.
ISBENCHMRK~2000 Benchmark Worksheets.doc/4~28/00 1:54 PM
Worksheets due: April 30, 2000. Return worksheets to Cynthia Moffitt or Rose Curran, King County Office of Regional Policy
and Planning, 516 Third Ave., Rm 420, Seattle WA 98104; faxr 206.205.0719. If you have questions, contact Cynthia at
206.205.0709 or Rose at 206.205.0715.
Metropolitan King County Coun~.,wide Planning Policies Benchmark Program
AFFORDABLE HOUSING INDICATORS
HOUSING
INDICATOR 29: Existing housing units affordable to low income households.
Affordable Rental or Ownership Opportunities as Percent
of Total Homing Stock
Beaux Arts
DesMoinesRent°n i I
Algona
Tukwila
Auburn
' I " ' " " I
Clyde Hill
Hunts'
Point
Duvall 1
O g~ l 0 qo 2 0 ~ 3 0 go 40 go 5 0 ~* 6 0 ~ 7 0 g*
1999 King County Benchmark Report 95 Affordable Housing
Metropolitan King County Countywide Planning Policies Benchmark Program
AFFORDABLE HOUSING INDICATORS
HOUSING
Percent of Single Percent of Total
Total Rental Rental Family & S.F. & Affordable
Units Units Condos Condos
Affordable Affordable Affordable
at 50% of Rental or
Median at 50% of under 80% Under 80%
Median of Median of Median Ownership
7,054 88.1% 2,683 35.1% 9,737
3,741 75.5% 2,309 41.0% 6,050
Tukwila 2,723 61.3% 1,316 44.3% 4,040
^lgona 29 13.1% 407 63.4% 436
Pacific 644 67.9% 344 33.2% 988
Federal Way 8,494 60.3% 5,492 31.3% 13,986
Burien 3,900 66.2% 1,807 25.8% 5,707
Enumclaw 990 63.8% 656 25.1% 1,646
DesMoines 2,741 56.0% 1,509 23.4%I I 14'250 11,331 38%
Renton 4,506 43.3% 2,559 25.1% 7,065 20,605 34%
Skykomish 0 0.0% 47 40.0% 47 178 26%
Black Diamond 23 9.8% 394 27.2% 417 1,678 25%
Covington 0 0.0% 916 25.3% 916 4,313 21%
Snoqualmie 0 0.0% 145 34.2% 145 713 20%
Seattle 38,047 28.4% 12~615 10.6% 50,663 252,699 20%
i Normandy Park 434 47.7% 78 4.5% I 512 , 2,659 , 19%
Carnation 60 32.1% 31 6.9%I I 190 629 14%
Shoreline 1,871 29.1% 909 6.8% 2,780 19,750 14%
Unincorp. King Cty 6,834 24.2% 11,678 10.2% 18,511 142,787 13%
Bothell 301 12.3% 526 13.2% 827 6,424 13%
Kirkland 711 8.0% 1,501 12.7% 2,212 20,710 11%
Bellevue 2,122 12.5% 2,458 8.9% 4,580 44~650 10%
Kenmore 551 29.4% 18 0.4°/o ] 569 ] 6,314 ] 9%
Maple Valley 220 30.0% 147 3.8%I I [368 4,604 8%
Lake Forest Park 275 25.0% 89 2.3% 363 5,031 7%
Issaquah 5 0.2% 267 11.1% 273 4,538 6%
Newcastle 0 0.0% 189 8.0% 189 3,214 6%
Redmond 114 1.3% , 931 9.2% 1,046 19,302 5%
Duvall 71 33.4% · 0 0.0% . 71 1,493 5%
W oodinville 35 2.9% 80 3.4% 116 3,535 3%
North Bend 0 0.0% 39 3.7% 39 1,517 3%
Mercer Island 50 2.4% 11.5 1.7% 165 8,925 2%
Yarrow Point 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 399 0%
Milton 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 332 0%
Medina 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 1,209 0%
Hunts' Point 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 197 0%
Clyde Hill 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 1,099 0%
Beaux Arts 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 118 0%
All of King County 96,807 33.2% 26,895 6.5% 123,701 705,964 18%
*This total excludes owner-occupied duplex, triplex, or fourplex units, since there is no reliable data on the cost of those units
1999 King County Benchmark Report 98 Affordable Housing
Metropolitan King County Countywide Planning Policies Benchmark Program
LAND USE INDICATORS
Outcome: Encourage a Greater Share of Growth in Urban Areas and Urban Centers;
Limit Growth in Rural/Resource Areas
INDICATOR 30: Percent of new housing units in Urban Areas and Rural/Resource
Areas, and in Urban Centers.
Urbanll/~lll'~ IIII187.4199511~I/II~1% 92 1996% I'~i'~l"~/~19981911997% 94%
Rural/Resource 12.6 % 8 % 9 % 6 %
1995 1996 1997 1998
New Housin~ Units in Urban Centers 406 819 1,761 916
Percent of Total King County New Housing Units in Urban Centers 6 % 7 % 14 % 6 %
The total number of new units in Seattle's Urban Centers is incomplete and therefore lower than the number of units actually permitted
in 1998. Currant data sources in Seattle's Permit Tracking System are such that it is not possible to make a precise estimate of units
permitted in four of the five Urban Centers.
1996 Units 1997 Units 1998 Units 95-98 Units Total Existing
& New Units
819 !,761 916 3,902 62,249
3750 6230 3260 1,3240.,~2'170-'<~>
113 0 0 213 715
119 0 124 243 1,073
0 11 112 130 1,218
47 0 12 59 3,953
165 1,127 342 1,933 52,909
18 465 342 840
80 136 na 453
32 168 na 190
17 212 na 261
18 146 na 189
0 0 0 0 11
'l
!
[
I
See note above regarding Seattle's units.
Even though no new units were permitted in Kent's Urban Center, the majority of new multifamily units permitted in 1998
in Kent were sited at a master planned community (127 units) located approximately one mile from the Urban Center.
1999 King County Benchmark Report 108 Land Use
Metropolitan King County Countywide Planning Policies Benchmark Program
LAND USE INDICATORS
Indicator 30: Background Information
1995-1998 20 Year Household Annual Avg Units to
1995 Units 1996 Units 1997 Units 1998 Units Units Target Meet 20 Year Target
Auburn 200 ~_~1310~ I 375 731~ 1,616i 7,030 352
Beaux Arts 0 ~-- 13 I 1 0 4 0 0
__ Bellevue 157 i, 506 1,406 1,077~ 3,146 i 8,600 430
~Black Diamond 46 ~ 39 68 43 196 I 2,045 102
Bothell ~ 14~4~44~ 30 121 745 [___ 1,700 __ 85
Burien 24 ! 32 ~ 67 83 206 1,596 80
__Carnation 13 ~__2~0~__ 27 16 76 404 20
C~_de mn 3 i 2 -4 6 2 13 13 1
~ na ~_ nai na 26 26 na na
DesMoines 34 [ 17 47 28 126__ 2,335 117
Duvall 54 [ 51__ 126 116 347 ! 2,044 102
Enumclaw 53 i 114 28 19 214 [ 2,7_ 00 135
Federal Way 214~[ 232 507 199~ 1~_152 I 13,425 to 16,556 671 - 828
Hunts Point 0 / 1 2 2 5__~ 4 0
Issaquah 187 151 140 5221,000 ~1,000 2,940 147
Kent 365 906 502~ 446 2,2194 7,520 376___
Kirldand 323 534 615 434 ~~ 5,328 to 6,346 266 to 317
Lake Forest Park 17 15 0 27 59 153 8
Maple Valley na ~na na 238 nd__ na na
Medina na 9 11 12 32 17 1
Mercer Island 44 69 68 50 231 1,610 81
Milton 24 i 51 _ _ 3 2 80 18
Newcastle 47 t 68 45 50 210 na na
Normandy Park 114 ~__7 7 11 139 181 9
North Bend 69__I 105 114 251 539 1,527 76
Pacific 38 ! 0 i 4 6 48--7 606 to 1,818 30 to 91
Redmond 433 ~ 457 454 1,92~5i 9,878 494
Rent__on 1._51 _' '] 319 ~ 912 9~36 2,318~i 7,925 396
SeaTac 25 ] 73 I 35~ 40 173 '~q _ 5,789 [ 289
__Seattle 1,094 ~1,091 ~ 2,394 3,933 8,512 ~ 50,000 to 60,000 } 2,500 to 3,000
Shoreline 113 ! 42I 154 141 450/ ~~ na na
__~komi sh 2~~00 2 6t 17 1
Snoqualmie 16 [ 10 ' 71 142~ 239 2450 to 3100 123 to 155
Tukwila 12 i 49 48 32 141 j 4,791 to 6,014 240 to 301
Woodinville 35__~ 192 140 267 634 1,800 90
Yarrow Point 2 I 4 1 1 8 ! 18 1
u*anUnin o KC 1,680 2,663_4 2,354 2,915 9,612
Rum' KC ,8~ [ ~99 I 1,081 867 3,6471
Total 6r544 ! 9~634 i 11~859 14~251 42?288 i 184~914- 212~148 ~ 9~270- 107607
LAND USE
1999 King County Benchmark Report 1 10 Land Use
CITY OFfs,
(253) 661-4000
FEDERAL WAY, WA 98003-6210
Date: May 9, 2000
To: Federal Way Land Use and Transportation Committee
Chair: Phil Watkins, City Councilmember //~::7 j
From: Stephen Clifton, Community Development Services Director
Via: David Mo~nager
RE: Sound Transit Update
Sound Transit proposes a series of improvements that address the long-term
transit needs of Federal Way, Kent and Southwest King County. Three specific
projects proposed for the Federal Way area include: 1) Federal Way Transit
Center and Parking Structure (City Center) with HOV direct access ramps from 1~-
5, 2) Star Lake Park & Ride Lot with direct access to an in-line station within the
median of I-5 or HOV Direct Access Ramp, and 3) SR-99 Pacific Highway South
Park & Ride Lot, due south of South 272nd Street (plans not available at this
time).
BACKGROUND
On August 5, 1999, Sound Transit presented preliminary concepts of the Federal
Way Transit Center and Parking Structure to the City of Federal Way Land Use
and Transportation Committee (LUTC), Councilmembers and interested
commission members. At that time, preliminary concepts had not been prepared
for the Star Lake and Pacific Highway South projects. The Federal Way Transit
Center and Parking Structure concepts, which emerged from a community
design charette held in March of 1999, and subsequent Sound Transit Project
Management Team (PMT) meetings, included facade elevations, site and
landscaping plans. LUTC members and those in attendance unanimously
supported the concepts (see attached plans and elevations). The concepts, if
realized, would accomplish the creation of a focal point or landmark (clock
tower), strengthen pedestrian connectivity, incorporate mixed use development,
enhance the area's development potential, reinforce the street grid, create open
space and leave a portion of the site for future transit oriented development.
Since the August 1999 LUTC meeting, the PMT, which consists of Sound Transit,
Washington State Department of Transportation, King County METRO,
SVERDRUP (Sound Transit Environmental Consultants) and City of Federal Way
Staff, have met several times to discuss the environmental assessments for each
project, site layouts, HOV access, alternatives related to the Star Lake Project,
access management, mitigation, etc. Additionally, Sound Transit has met with
the Executive Advisory Committee (EAC) in September of 1999, and .lanuary and
May of 2000 to discuss progress to date for all three projects.
During the May 3, 2000 F_AC meeting, Sound Transit representatives stated that
the Star Lake (see attached alternatives) and Pacific Highway South projects
may be under budget, while the Federal Way Transit Center is most likely over
budget. The specific amounts are not available at this time and Sound Transit
only talked in general numbers. Regarding the Federal Way Transit Center and
Parking Structure, Sound Transit did state that, if funding can't be found by
either transferring savings from other projects, securing additional grants, or
reducing the cost of the City Center project, they are considering options to
reduce the project cost. Options that have been mentioned by Sound Transit,
include eliminating the clock tower and top floor of the parking structure, and
revising the design of the facade. City staff have stated to Sound Transit that
these are not acceptable alternatives, thus, Sound Transit needs to find ways to
make the project financially work.
FUTURE SCHEDULE
The following timeline, initially published in the November 1999 Sound Transit
Express Connections Bulletin, has been modified per discussions with Sound
Transit representatives.
2000
· Environmental Assessments Completed - Summer
· Public Hearing on the Environmental Assessments - Summer
· Final Design begins on all project components
2001
· Final Design of project components completed
· Construction begins on Federal Way Transit Center and Parking Structure
- Late Spring/Summer
· Construction Begins on Star Lake's additional parking and Pacific Highway
South Park & Ride Lot - Late Spring/Summer
2002
· Construction completed on Federal Way Transit Center and Parking
Structure, and Pacific Highway South Park & Ride Lot.
· Construct begins on Federal Way's HOV direct access ramp for the
Federal Way Transit Center.
· Construction begins on Star Lake's In-Line Freeway Station or HOV Direct
Access Ramp.
2003
·
Construction of Federal Way HOV Direct-Access Ramp to Federal Way
Transit Center project completed.
Construction of Star Lake In-Line Freeway Station or HOV Direct Access
Ramp Project completed.
If you have any questions related to this project, please contact me at (253)
661-4109 or e-mail at Stephen.Clifton@ci.federal-way.wa.us.
Date: May 9, 2000
To: Federal Way Land Use and Transportation Committee
Chair: Phil Watkins, City Councilmember
From: Stephen Clilton, Community Development Services Director
Via: David No~nager
RE: Sound Transit Update
Sound Transit proposes a series of improvements that address the long-term
transit needs of Federal Way, Kent and Southwest King County. Three specific
projects proposed for the Federal Way area include: 1) Federal Way Transit
Center and Parking Structure (City Center) with HOV direct access ramps from
5, 2) Star Lake Park & Ride Lot with direct access to an in-line station within the
median of T-5 or HOV Direct Access Ramp, and 3) SR-99 Pacific Highway South
Park & Ride Lot, due south of South 272nd Street (plans not available at this
time).
BACKGROUND
On August 5, 1999, Sound Transit presented preliminary concepts of the Federal
Way Transit Center and Parking Structure to the City of Federal Way Land Use
and Transportation Committee (LUTC), Councilmembers and interested
commission members. At that time, preliminary concepts had not been prepared
for the Star Lake and Pacific Highway South projects. The Federal Way Transit
Center and Parking Structure concepts, which emerged from a community
design charette held in March of 1999, and subsequent Sound Transit Project
Management Team (PMT) meetings, included facade elevations, site and
landscaping plans. LUTC members and those in attendance unanimously
supported the concepts (see attached plans and elevations). The concepts, if
realized, would accomplish the creation of a focal point or landmark (clock
tower), strengthen pedestrian connectivity, incorporate mixed use development,
enhance the area's development potential, reinforce the street grid, create open
space and leave a portion of the site for future transit oriented development.
Since the August 1999 LUTC meeting, the PMT, which consists of Sound Transit,
Washington State Department of Transportation, King County METRO,
SVERDRUP (Sound Transit Environmental Consultants) and City of Federal Way
Staff, have met several times to discuss the environmental assessments for each
project, site layouts, HOV access, alternatives related to the Star Lake Project,
access management, mitigation, etc. Additionally, Sound Transit has met with
the Executive Advisory Committee (FAC) in September of 1999, and .lanuary and
May of 2000 to discuss progress to date for all three projects.
During the May 3, 2000 FAC meeting, Sound Transit representatives stated that
the Star Lake (see attached alternatives) and Pacific Highway South projects
may be under budget, while the Federal Way Transit Center is most likely over
budget. The specific amounts are not available at this time and Sound Transit
only talked in general numbers. Regarding the Federal Way Transit Center and
Parking Structure, Sound Transit did state that, if funding can't be found by
either transferring savings from other projects, securing additional grants, or
reducing the cost of the City Center project, they are considering options to
reduce the project cost. Options that have been mentioned by Sound Transit,
include eliminating the clock tower and top floor of the parking structure, and
revising the design of the facade. City staff have stated to Sound Transit that
these are not acceptable alternatives, thus, Sound Transit needs to find ways to
make the project financially work.
FUTURE SCHEDULE
The following timeline, initially published in the November 1999 Sound Transit
Express Connections Bulletin, has been modified per discussions with Sound
Transit representatives.
2000
· Environmental Assessments Completed - Summer
· Public Hearing on the Environmental Assessments - Summer
· Final Design begins on all project components
2001
· Final Design of project components completed
· Construction begins on Federal Way Transit Center and Parking Structure
- Late Spring/Summer
· Construction Begins on Star Lake's additional parking and Pacific Highway
South Park & Ride Lot - Late Spring/Summer
2002
· Construction completed on Federal Way Transit Center and Parking
Structure, and Pacific Highway South Park & Ride Lot.
· Construct begins on Federal Way's HOV direct access ramp for the
Federal Way Transit Center.
· Construction begins on Star Lake's ]:n-Line Freeway Station or HOV Direct
Access Ramp.
2003
Construction of Federal Way HOV Direct-Access Ramp to Federal Way
Transit Center project completed.
Construction of Star Lake in-Line Freeway Station or HOV Direct Access
Ramp Project completed.
you have any questions related to this project, please contact me at (253)
661-4109 or e-mail at Stephen.Clifton@ci.federal-way.wa.us.
0
Z
LU
0
I I I
I I
"' ":':'
, I
Rick Perez will do a Power Point presentation in
lieu of agenda packet attachments re:
ROUNDABOUTS.