ORDINANCE _________________

AN ORDINANCE amending the Seattle Comprehensive Plan to incorporate changes proposed as part of the 2004 Comprehensive Plan update process, and repealing Resolution 28752.

WHEREAS, the City of Seattle adopted its Comprehensive Plan with Ordinance 117221 in 1994, pursuant to the provisions of State Growth Management Act; and

WHEREAS , the State of Washington Growth Management Act, RCW 36.70A.130, requires that the City of Seattle conduct a review of its Comprehensive Plan and take action to revise that plan, as necessary, by December 1, 2004; and

WHEREAS, in cooperation with King County, other cities in King County and the Growth Management Planning Council, the City of Seattle has established new estimates for the amount of growth over the next 20 years that must be addressed in the City of Seattle's Comprehensive Plan; and

WHEREAS, the Department of Planning and Development, along with the Planning Commission, has over the past two years conducted analysis of the effectiveness of the current Comprehensive Plan's policies; and

WHEREAS, the Department of Planning and Development has developed, publicized and carried out an active campaign to engage the citizens of Seattle in discussions about the Comprehensive Plan and in developing possible revisions to that Plan; and

WHEREAS, the City Council in 2004 adopted Resolution 30662 identifying a number of amendments to be considered as part of the Comprehensive Plan review being conducted by the Department of Planning and Development; and

WHEREAS, the City has provided for public participation in the review of these proposed amendments; and

WHEREAS, that portion of Resolution 28752 calling for implementation by City Departments of certain physical improvements identified in the Northgate Area Comprehensive Plan was superseded by Resolution 30327, which approved a work-program matrix for City Departments; and

WHEREAS, that portion of Resolution 28752 which refers to certain policies as constituting the Northgate Area Comprehensive Plan is superseded by policies this Ordinance adds to the Seattle Comprehensive Plan; and

WHEREAS, the Council has reviewed and considered the executive staff's report and recommendation, and public testimony made at the public hearings and other pertinent material regarding the proposed amendments; and

WHEREAS, the Council finds that the amendments to be adopted are consistent with the Growth Management Act, and will protect and promote the health, safety and welfare of the general public; NOW, THEREFORE,

BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY OF SEATTLE AS FOLLOWS:

Section 1. The Seattle Comprehensive Plan, as last amended by Ordinance 121021, is hereby amended as follows:

A. The Land Use Element is deleted and replaced by the Urban Village Element and Land Use Element, as shown in Attachment 1 to this ordinance.

B. The Transportation Element is deleted and replaced by Attachment 2 to this ordinance.

C. The Housing Element is amended as shown in Attachment 3 to this ordinance.

D. The Capital Facilities Element is amended as shown in Attachment 4 to this ordinance.

E. The Utilities Element is amended as shown in Attachment 5 to this ordinance.

F. The Economic Development Element is deleted and replaced by Attachment 6 to this ordinance.

G. The Neighborhood Planning Element is amended as shown in Attachment 7 to this ordinance.

H. The following new goal is added to the Cultural Resources Element and the numbering of subsequent goals in the Cultural Resources Element is adjusted to accommodate this addition:

CRG 8 Protect historic resources in Seattle neighborhoods by encouraging their re-use and rehabilitation, maintaining and updating the City's historic resources survey and working with communities and historic preservation organizations.

I. The Environment Element is deleted and replaced by Attachment 8 to this ordinance.

J. The Land Use Appendices are deleted and replaced by the Urban Village Appendices and the Land Use Appendices, as shown in Attachment 9 to this ordinance.

K. The Transportation Appendices are deleted and replaced by Attachment 10 to this ordinance.

L. The Housing Appendices are deleted and replaced by Attachment 11 to this ordinance.

M. The Capital Facilities Appendices are deleted and replaced by Attachment 12 to this ordinance.

N. The Utilities Appendices are deleted and replaced by Attachment 13 to this ordinance.

O. The Economic Development Appendices are deleted and replaced by Attachment 14 to this ordinance.

P. The Future Land Use Map is amended by deleting from the map and its legend the symbols for "neighborhood anchors" and by re-designating the Hub Urban Village at South Lake Union as an Urban Center.

Section 2. Resolution 28752, which was adopted by the City Council, is hereby repealed.

Section 3. This ordinance shall take effect and be in force thirty (30) days from and after its approval by the Mayor, but if not approved and returned by the Mayor within ten (10) days after presentation, it shall take effect as provided by Municipal Code Section 1.04.020.

Passed by the City Council the ____ day of _________, 2004, and signed by me in open session in authentication of its passage this _____ day of __________, 2004.

_________________________________

President __________of the City Council

Approved by me this ____ day of _________, 2004.

_________________________________

Gregory J. Nickels, Mayor

Filed by me this ____ day of _________, 2004.

____________________________________

City Clerk

(Seal)

Attachments:

Attachment 1: Urban Village Element and Land Use Element

Attachment 2: Transportation Element

Attachment 3: Housing Element

Attachment 4: Capital Facilities Element

Attachment 5: Utilities Element

Attachment 6: Economic Development Element

Attachment 7: Neighborhood Planning Element

Attachment 8: Environment Element

Attachment 9: Urban Village Appendices and Land Use Appendices

Attachment 10: Transportation Appendices

Attachment 11: Housing Appendices

Attachment 12: Capital Facilities Appendices

Attachment 13: Utilities Appendices

Attachment 14: Economic Development Appendices

Tom Hauger/th

CompPlan Ordinance 04

7/19/04

version # 2

THE URBAN VILLAGE ELEMENT

Discussion:

Seattle is prepared to embrace its share of the Puget Sound region's growth. To ensure that it remains a vibrant and healthy place to live, Seattle has planned for the future of the city as a whole and for each neighborhood that is expected to grow and change. The City will use these plans to shape changes in ways that encompass the collective vision of its citizens.

This plan envisions a city where growth: helps to build stronger communities, heightens our stewardship of the environment, leads to enhanced economic opportunity and security for all residents, and is accompanied by greater social equity across Seattle's communities. The City has made a commitment to growing wisely, to growing in ways that ensure a livable future, and to growing sustainably. Growing sustainably also means building on the city's successes.

Seattle's successes include its neighborhoods. Seattle, at the beginning of the 21st Century, has a large number of appealing mixeduse neighborhoods, which serve as the cores of broader communities. Areas as diverse as Lake City, Columbia City, Uptown, and Georgetown provide goods, services, housing, and employment to Seattle's residents and are the key to Seattle's livability.

Seattle's strategy for accommodating future growth and creating a sustainable city builds on the foundation of these neighborhoods and brings together a number of tools to create a better city:

* Diverse housing and employment growth,

* Pedestrian and transit-oriented communities,

* The provision of services and infrastructure targeted to support that growth, and

* Enhancements to the natural environment and the city's cultural resources.

Together, these tools form the urban village strategy.

As Seattle's population and job base grow, urban villages are the areas where conditions can best support increased density needed to house and employ the city's newest residents. By concentrating growth in these urban villages, Seattle can build on successful aspects of the city's existing urban character, continuing the development of concentrated, pedestrian-friendly mixed-use neighborhoods of varied intensities at appropriate locations throughout the city.

A. Urban Village Strategy

Discussion:

Urban villages are community resources that enable the City to: deliver services more equitably, pursue a development pattern that is environmentally and economically sound, and provide a better means of managing growth and change through collaboration with the community in planning for the future of these areas. The urban village strategy is a comprehensive approach to planning for a sustainable future. This approach is intended to maximize the benefit of public investment in infrastructure and services and promote collaboration with private interests and the community, to achieve mutual benefits.

The urban village strategy tries to match growth to the existing and intended character of the city's neighborhoods. Four categories of urban villages recognize the different roles that different areas will play in the city's future:

1. Urban centers are the densest neighborhoods in the city and are both regional centers and neighborhoods that provide a diverse mix of uses, housing, and employment opportunities. Larger urban centers are divided into urban center villages to recognize the distinct character of different neighborhoods within them.

2. Manufacturing/Industrial Centers are home to the city's thriving industrial businesses. As with urban centers, Manufacturing/Industrial Centers are regional designations and are an important regional resource.

3. Hub urban villages are communities that provide a balance of housing and employment, generally at densities lower than those found in urban centers. These areas provide a focus of goods, services, and employment to communities that are farther away from urban centers.

4. Residential urban villages provide a focus of goods and services for residents and surrounding communities but may not provide a concentration of employment.

Each of these areas is intended to see growth and change over time, and together they will accommodate the majority of the city's growth over the life of this plan. The City will continue to work with its residents, businesses, and institutions to promote conditions that will help each of its communities thrive, but will pay special attention to those areas where the majority of growth and change is expected.

Policies in this element and the Neighborhood Planning Element provide direction for that change and growth. In addition to designating urban villages and defining conditions desired within them, the plan addresses conditions outside these areas.

Areas outside urban villages will accommodate some growth in less dense development patterns consisting primarily of single-family neighborhoods, limited multifamily and commercial areas and scattered industrial areas. The strategy of focusing future development in urban villages continues to direct new development away from Seattle's single-family areas.

GOALS

UVG1 Maintain and enhance Seattle's character as the city grows and changes. Seattle's character includes its built environment: large areas of detached single-family houses both inside and outside of urban villages, many thriving multifamily areas, mixed-use commercial areas, industrial areas, major institutions, and a densely developed downtown with surrounding high-density neighborhoods. Seattle's character also includes its setting on Puget Sound, its lakes and mountain views, its hills and watercourses, and its many parks and open spaces.

UVG2 Respect Seattle's human scale, history, aesthetics, natural environment, and sense of community identity as the city changes.

UVG3 Implement regional growth management strategies and the countywide centers concept through this Plan.

UVG4 Promote densities, mixes of uses, and transportation improvements, that support walking and use of public transportation, especially within urban centers and urban villages.

UVG5 Direct the greatest share of future development to centers and urban villages and reduce the potential for dispersed growth along arterials and in other areas not conducive to walking, transit use, and cohesive community development.

UVG6 Accommodate planned levels of household and employment growth. Depending on the characteristics of each area, establish concentrations of employment and housing at varying densities and with varying mixes of uses.

UVG7 Accommodate a range of employment activity to ensure employment opportunities are available for the city's diverse residential population, including maintaining healthy manufacturing and industrial areas.

UVG8 Accommodate the City's existing and future housing needs through maintenance of existing residential neighborhoods and the creation of new residential neighborhoods.

UVG9 Use limited land resources more efficiently and pursue a development pattern that is more economically sound, by encouraging infill development on vacant and underutilized sites, particularly within urban villages.

UVG10 Maximize the benefit of public investment in infrastructure and services, and deliver those services more equitably by focusing new infrastructure and services in areas expecting to see additional growth, and by focusing growth in areas with sufficient infrastructure and services to support that growth.

UVG11 Collaborate with the community in planning for the future.

UVG12 Increase public safety by making villages places that people will be drawn to at all times of the day.

UVG13 Promote physical environments of the highest quality, which emphasize the special identity of each of the city's neighborhoods, particularly within urban centers and villages.

UVG14 Distribute urban villages around the city so that communities throughout the city have easy access to the range of goods and services that villages are intended to provide.

UVG15 Encourage development of ground-related housing, which is attractive to many residents including families with children, including townhouses, duplexes, triplexes, ground-related apartments, small cottages, accessory units, and single-family homes, in locations throughout the city.

UVG16 Provide parks and open space that are accessible to urban villages to enhance the livability of urban villages, to help shape the overall development pattern, and to enrich the character of each village.

POLICIES

UV1 Promote the growth of urban villages as compact mixed-use neighborhoods in order to support walking and transit use, and to provide services and employment close to residences.

UV2 Promote conditions that support healthy neighborhoods throughout the city, including those conducive to helping mixed-use urban village communities thrive, such as frequent transit service, vital business districts, a range of housing choices, a range of park and open space facilities, and investment and reinvestment in neighborhoods.

UV3 Consider the following characteristics appropriate to all urban village categories:

1. Clearly defined geographic boundaries that reflect existing development patterns, functional characteristics of the area, and recognized neighborhood boundaries.

2. Zoning sufficient to accommodate the residential and employment growth targets established for that village.

3. The ability to accommodate a range of employment or commercial activity compatible with the overall function, character, and intensity of development specified for the village.

4. Zoning that provides locations for commercial services convenient to residents and workers and, depending on the village designation, serving a citywide and regional clientele.

5. Zoning sufficient to allow a diversity of housing to accommodate a broad range of households.

6. Zoning regulations that restrict those public facilities that are incompatible with the type of environment intended in centers and villages.

7. Most future households accommodated in multifamily housing.

8. Additional opportunities for housing in existing single-family areas, to the extent provided through neighborhood planning, and within other constraints consistent with this Plan.

9. Public facilities and human services that reflect the role of each village category as the focus of housing and employment and as the service center for surrounding areas.

10. Parks, open spaces, street designs, and recreational facilities that enhance environmental quality, foster public health and attract residential and commercial development.

11. A place, amenity, or activity that serves as a community focus.

12. Neighborhood design guidelines for use in the City's design review process.

UV4 Consider suitable for urban village designation areas where:

1. Natural conditions, the existing development pattern, and current zoning are conducive to supporting denser, mixed-use pedestrian environments where public amenities and services can be efficiently and effectively provided. In some instances, the urban village designation is intended to transform automobile-oriented environments into more cohesive, mixed-use pedestrian environments, or within economically distressed communities to focus economic reinvestment to benefit the existing population.

2. Access to transportation facilities is good or can be improved.

3. Public and private facilities, services and amenities, such as parks, schools, commercial services, and other community services, are available, or can be provided over time.

and

4. Existing public infrastructure has capacity or potential to accommodate growth.

UV5 Establish clearly defined boundaries for centers and urban villages that reflect existing development patterns, functional characteristics of the area, and recognized neighborhood boundaries. Use boundaries to guide development activity, monitor growth and other development conditions, and evaluate performance towards meeting neighborhood and comprehensive plan goals for services and amenities.

UV6 In order to support the existing character of areas outside of urban villages, and to encourage continued investment in all of Seattle's neighborhoods, permit areas outside of urban villages to accommodate some growth in a less dense development pattern consisting primarily of single-family neighborhoods and limited multifamily, commercial, and industrial areas.

UV7 Involve the public in identifying needs for, planning, and designing public facilities, programs, and services. Encourage and provide opportunities for extensive public involvement in City decisions, and encourage other agencies to provide similar opportunities.

UV8 Preserve developments of historic, architectural, or social significance that contribute to the identity of an area.

UV9 Maintain and enhance retail commercial services throughout the city, especially in areas attractive to pedestrians and transit riders, to support concentrations of residential and employment activity, with special emphasis on serving urban villages.

A-1 CATEGORIES OF URBAN VILLAGES

Discussion:

Seattle's urban village categories build on the urban center and manufacturing/industrial center designations called for in the Countywide Planning Policies. The designation of an area as an urban center, urban village, or manufacturing/industrial center guides other City actions to enhance the character and function of that area and to accommodate growth in a manner that supports the Countywide Centers growth concept. Urban village designations supplement the regional growth management concept by shaping it to fit Seattle's established, densely developed, and complex urban neighborhoods.

A village designation recognizes the contributions a particular area makes to the city and provides guidance regarding the intended function, character, intensity, type and degree of growth anticipated for an area.

UVG17 Guide public and private activities to achieve the function, character, amount of growth, intensity of activity, and scale of development of each urban village consistent with its urban village designation and adopted neighborhood plan.

UV10 Based on the functions and densities they can support, designate categories of urban villages in order to guide planning for the mixeduse environments that are smaller or less dense than the urban center designations of the Countywide Planning Policies as follow:

1. Urban center villages within urban centers

2. Hub urban villages

3. Residential urban villages

UV11 The intended functions of the urban village categories are generally:

* Urban centers, and the urban villages within them, are intended to be the densest areas with the widest range of land uses.

* Hub urban villages will also accommodate a broad mix of uses, but at lower densities, especially for employment, than urban centers.

* Residential urban villages are intended for predominantly residential development around a core of commercial services.

* Manufacturing/industrial centers are intended to maintain viable industrial activity and promote industrial development.

UV12 Designations of areas as hub urban villages and residential urban villages, as indicated in Urban Village Figure 1, shall be consistent with criteria developed to address the following factors:

* Existing zoned capacity

* Existing and planned density

* 20-year growth estimates

* Population

* Amount of neighborhood commercial land

* Public transportation investments and access

* Other characteristics of hub or residential urban villages as provided in this Plan, or further refined

UV13 Establish goals for the mix of uses, target densities for employment and housing, the scale and intensity of development, and the types of public improvements desired to make each village category function as intended.

URBAN CENTERS

UVG18 Designate as urban centers unique areas of concentrated employment and housing, with direct access to high-capacity transit, and a wide range of supportive land uses such as retail, recreation, public facilities, parks, and open space.

UVG19 Recognize areas that provide a regionally significant focus for housing and employment growth as urban centers. Enhance the unique character and collection of businesses and housing types of each center.

UVG20 Designate urban center villages within larger urban centers to recognize different neighborhoods within a larger community.

UV14 Designate as urban centers those areas of the city that are consistent with the following criteria and relevant Countywide Planning Policies:

1. Area not exceeding one and one-half square miles (960 acres).

2. Accessibility to the existing regional transportation network including access to other urban centers, with access to the regional high-capacity transit system to be provided in the future.

3. Zoning that can accommodate a broad mix of activities, including commercial and residential activities, as appropriate to the planned balance of uses in the center.

4. The area is already connected to surrounding neighborhoods by bicycle and/or pedestrian facilities or can be connected through planned extensions of existing facilities.

5. The area presently includes, or is adjacent to, open space available for public use, or opportunities exist to provide pubic open space in the future.

6. Zoning that permits the amount of new development needed to meet the following minimum density targets:

a. A minimum of 15,000 jobs located within a half mile of a possible future high capacity transit station;

b. An overall employment density of 50 jobs per acre; and

c. An overall residential density of 15 households per acre.

UV15 Designate the following locations as urban centers as shown in Urban Village Figures 2-7 below:

1. Downtown Seattle

2. First Hill/Capitol Hill

3. Uptown Queen Anne

4. University Community

5. Northgate

6. South Lake Union

UV16 Designate urban center villages within the Downtown, First Hill/Capitol Hill and University Community urban centers as shown in Urban Village Figures 2, 3 and 5. While the Uptown Queen Anne, South Lake Union, and Northgate centers are presently considered to be too small to be subdivided into center villages, this does not preclude the designation of urban center villages within those urban centers in future neighborhood planning processes. Goals and policies for urban center villages apply to all urban centers.

UV17 Promote the balance of uses in each urban center or urban center village indicated by one of the following functional designations, assigned as follows:

Functional Designation

Urban Center Village

1. Primarily residential.

Belltown

Capitol Hill

2. Mixed, with a residential emphasis.

Pike/Pine

3. Mixed residential and employment.

Denny Triangle

Pioneer Square Chinatown/International District First Hill

12th Avenue

University District Northwest Ravenna

Northgate*

Uptown Queen Anne*

South Lake Union*

4. Mixed, with an employment emphasis.

Downtown Commercial Core

* These urban centers are not divided into urban center villages.

MANUFACTURING/INDUSTRIAL CENTERS

UVG21 Ensure that adequate accessible industrial land remains available to promote a diversified employment base and sustain Seattle's contribution to regional high-wage job growth.

UVG22 Promote the use of industrial land for industrial purposes.

UVG23 Encourage economic activity and development in Seattle's industrial areas by supporting the retention and expansion of existing industrial businesses and by providing opportunities for the creation of new businesses consistent with the character of industrial areas.

UV18 Designate as manufacturing/industrial centers areas that are generally consistent with the following criteria and relevant Countywide Planning Policies:

1. Zoning that promotes manufacturing, industrial, and advanced technology uses and discourages uses that are not compatible with industrial areas.

2. Buffers protecting adjacent, less intensive land uses from the impacts associated with the industrial activity in these areas (such buffers shall be provided generally by maintaining existing buffers, including existing industrial buffer zones).

3. Sufficient zoned capacity to accommodate a minimum of 10,000 jobs.

4. Large, assembled parcels suitable for industrial activity.

5. Relatively flat terrain allowing efficient industrial processes.

6. Reasonable access to the regional highway, rail, air and/or waterway system for the movement of goods.

UV19 Designate the following locations as manufacturing/industrial centers as shown in Urban Village Figure 1:

1. The Ballard Interbay Northend Manufacturing/Industrial Center, and

2. The Duwamish Manufacturing/Industrial Center.

UV20 Promote manufacturing and industrial employment growth, including manufacturing uses, advanced technology industries, and a wide range of industrial-related commercial functions, such as warehouse and distribution activities, in manufacturing/industrial centers.

UV21 Strive to retain and expand existing manufacturing and industrial activity.

UV22 Maintain land that is uniquely accessible to water, rail, and regional highways for continued industrial use.

UV23 Limit in manufacturing/industrial areas those commercial or residential uses that are unrelated to the industrial function, that occur at intensities posing shortand long-term conflicts for industrial uses, or that threaten to convert significant amounts of industrial land to non-industrial uses.

HUB URBAN VILLAGES

UVG24 Accommodate concentrations of housing and employment at strategic locations in the transportation system conveniently accessible to the city's residential population, thereby reducing the length of work-trip commutes.

UVG25 Provide convenient locations for commercial services that serve the populations of the village, surrounding neighborhoods, the city, and the region.

UVG26 Accommodate concentrations of employment and housing at densities that support pedestrian and transit use and increase opportunities within the city for people to live close to where they work.

UV24 Designate as hub urban villages areas that are generally consistent with the following criteria:

1. Zoning that allows a mix of uses to accommodate concentrations of employment and housing. It may be appropriate to limit the mix of uses in some areas to provide for concentrations of either employment or housing.

2. Sufficient zoned capacity to accommodate a minimum of 25 jobs/acre.

3. The area presently supports, or can accommodate under current zoning, a concentration of residential development at 15 or more units/acre.

4. Surroundings comprised primarily of residential areas that allow a mix of densities, and non-residential activities that support residential use.

5. A minimum of one-third of the land area currently zoned to accommodate mixed-use and/or employment activity.

6. A broad range of housing types and commercial and retail support services either existing or allowed under current zoning to serve a local, citywide, or regional market.

7. A strategic location in relation to both the local and regional transportation network, including:

a. A high level of transit service, with direct access to at least one urban center, with the possibility of improved connections to future high capacity transit stations

b. Connections to regional transportation facilities

c. Routes accommodating goods movement

d. Connections to adjacent areas by pedestrian and/or bicycle facilities

8. Open space amenities, including:

a. Direct access to either existing or potential public open spaces in the immediate vicinity

b. Accessibility to major open space resources in the general area via either existing or potential urban trails, boulevards, or other open space links, or anticipated major public investment in open space.

9. Opportunities for redevelopment because of a substantial amount of vacant or under-used land.

UV25 Designate as hub urban villages areas ranging from those able to accommodate growth with minor changes and public investment to those requiring more extensive public investment, where the potential exists to achieve desired village conditions through redevelopment over time.

UV26 Designate the following locations as hub urban villages as shown on Urban Village Figure 1:

1. Lake City

2. North Rainier

3. Bitter Lake Village

4. Ballard

5. West Seattle Junction

6. Fremont

UV27 Permit the size of hub urban villages to vary according to local conditions, but limit their size so that most areas within the village are within a walkable distance of employment and service concentrations in the village.

RESIDENTIAL URBAN VILLAGES

UVG27 Promote the development of residential urban villages, which function primarily as compact residential neighborhoods providing opportunities for a wide range of housing types and a mix of activities that support the residential population. Support densities in residential urban villages that support transit use.

UV28 Designate as residential urban villages areas that are generally consistent with the following criteria:

1. The area presently supports, or can accommodate under current zoning, a concentration and mix of residential development, of at least 8 units per gross acre on average, at a small to moderate scale.

2. The area includes one or more centers of activity providing commercial and retail support services to the surrounding area.

3. The area is generally surrounded by single-family and/or lowerdensity multifamily areas.

4. The area is presently on the city's arterial network and is served by a transit route providing direct transit service to at least one urban center or hub village.

5. A broad range of retail services to serve the residential population either already exists or can be accommodated in the area at a central location generally accessible on foot.

6. The area has the opportunity to be connected by bicycle and/or pedestrian facilities to adjacent areas and nearby public amenities.

7. The area presently includes, or is adjacent to, open space available for public use, or opportunities exist to provide pubic open space in the future.

UV29 Balance objectives for accommodating growth, supporting transit use and walking, maintaining compatibility with existing development conditions, maintaining affordable housing, and responding to market preferences for certain types of housing, through the density and scale of development permitted.

UV30 Allow employment activity in residential urban villages to the extent that it does not conflict with the overall residential function and character of the village, provided that a different mix of uses may be established through an adopted neighborhood plan.

UV31 Designate the following residential urban villages as shown on Urban Village Figure 1:

1. Crown Hill

2. 23rd Avenue S @ S Jackson Union

3. Madison-Miller

4. Wallingford

5. Eastlake

6. MLK@Holly Street

7. South Park

8. Upper Queen Anne

9. Roosevelt

10. Aurora-Licton

11. Green Lake

12. Rainier Beach

13. Morgan Junction

14. Admiral

15. North Beacon Hill

16. Greenwood/Phinney Ridge

17. Columbia City

18. Westwood/Highland Park

UV32 Permit the size of residential urban villages to vary according to local conditions, but consider it generally desirable that any location within the village be within easy walking distance of at least one center of activity and services.

UV33 Include among areas considered suitable for designation as residential urban villages those areas that possess the desired characteristics and infrastructure to support a moderately dense residential population and those areas that, while lacking infrastructure or other characteristics of a residential urban village, warrant public investment to address inadequacies in order to promote a transition to a higher density residential neighborhood.

A-2 AREAS OUTSIDE OF CENTERS AND VILLAGES

UVG28 Support and maintain the positive qualities of areas outside of urban centers and villages.

UV34 Provide that the area of the city outside urban centers and villages remain primarily as residential and commercial areas with allowable densities similar to existing conditions, or as industrial areas, or major institutions.

UV35 Protect single-family areas, both inside and outside of urban villages. Allow limited multifamily, commercial, and industrial uses outside of villages to support the surrounding area or to permit the existing character to remain.

UV36 Recognize neighborhood anchors designated in adopted neighborhood plans as important community resources that provide a transit and service focus for those areas outside of urban villages.

UV37 Permit limited amounts of development consistent with the desire to maintain the general intensity of development that presently characterizes the multifamily, commercial, and industrial areas outside of urban centers and villages and direct the greatest share of growth to the urban centers and villages.

UV38 Accommodate growth consistent with adopted master plans for designated major institutions located throughout the city.

B DISTRIBUTION OF GROWTH

Discussion:

The urban village strategy directs Seattle's future growth primarily to areas designated as centers and villages. The greatest share of job growth will be accommodated in urban centers areas that already function as high density, concentrated employment centers with the greatest access to the regional transit network. Growth in industrial sector jobs will continue to be accommodated primarily within the two manufacturing/industrial centers where this activity is already securely established. Job growth will also occur in hub urban villages, which are distributed throughout the city to promote additional employment concentrations in areas easily accessible to the surrounding residential population, thereby locating jobs and services near where people live.

The greatest share of residential growth will also be accommodated in urban centers, increasing opportunities for people to live close to work. The next most significant share of residential growth will be distributed among the various hub and residential urban villages throughout the city in amounts compatible with the existing development characteristics of individual areas.

Modest growth will also be dispersed, generally at low density, in various areas outside centers and villages.

Growth estimates at the citywide level represent the city's share of King County's projected 20-year population and employment growth. The City plans its zoning and infrastructure to accommodate these estimates citywide as well as for the individual urban centers and villages.

Across the city, there are currently just under two jobs for every household. The 20-year growth estimates this Plan anticipates will continue that ratio. Similar ratios apply throughout King County and the four-county region.

Within the city, jobs and households are not evenly distributed. For instance, the four contiguous urban centers (Downtown, Capitol Hill/First Hill, South Lake Union, and Uptown) contain almost onefifth of the city's households and nearly one-half of the city's jobs on less than 5% of the city's land. And among the city's urban centers, there are substantial differences in the distribution of jobs and housing. Downtown, for instance, has about ten times more jobs than housing units. This Plan's growth estimates indicate that the expected growth in households will change the ratio between jobs and households in some urban centers to be somewhat closer to the citywide average over the next 20 years. However, the growth estimates also show that the role these centers currently play as primarily job centers is likely to continue.

Twenty-year estimates of the growth of each urban center and urban village can be found in Urban Village Appendix A.

UVG29 Encourage growth in locations within the city that support more compact and less land-consuming, high quality urban living.

UVG30 Concentrate a greater share of employment growth in locations convenient to the city's residential population to promote walking and transit use and reduce the length of work trips.

UVG31 Plan for urban centers to receive the most substantial share of Seattle's growth consistent with their role in shaping the regional growth pattern.

UVG32 Encourage growth in Seattle between 2004-2024, to be generally distributed across the city as shown in Figure 8.

Urban Village Figure 8

Estimates of the General Distribution of Growth 2004-2024

Location

% of Citywide Residential Growth

% of Citywide Employment Growth

In urban centers

60%

(28,300 households)

80%

(67,200 jobs)

In manufacturing/industrial centers

No housing estimate

10%

( 8,400 jobs)

In hub and residential urban villages

25%

(11,700 households)

No estimate for residential urban villages;

Hub urban villages only: 5% (4,200 jobs)

Remainder of city

15%

(7,000 households)

No specific estimate

Total

47,000 households

84,000 jobs

UVG33 Plan for a distribution of growth to each urban village that accomplishes the goals of the urban village strategy, and recognizes local circumstances, community preferences as expressed in neighborhood plans, and the need for an equitable distribution of growth across the city.

UVG34 Achieve growth in urban centers, manufacturing/Industrial centers, hub urban villages and residential urban villages that is consistent with the 20-year residential and employment growth estimates contained in Urban Village Appendix A.

UVG35 Achieve development within urban villages at a pace appropriate to current conditions in the area.

UVG36 Allow limited amounts of development in areas of the city outside urban centers and villages to maintain the general intensity of development that already characterizes these areas and to promote the estimated level of growth in village and center locations.

UV39 Use 20-year growth estimates for urban villages as a tool for planning for the growth that may occur in each urban village. Use these estimates as a guide for City plans for development and infrastructure provision. Recognize that the growth estimates do not represent the maximum amount of growth that could occur in a village.

UV40 Base 20-year growth estimates for each urban center, manufacturing/ industrial center and urban village contained in Urban Village Appendix A on:

1. Citywide estimates for housing and job growth over 20 years from the Countywide Planning Policies

2. The center's or village's role in regional growth management planning

3. Accessibility to transit

4. Existing zoning, including capacity for commercial and residential development

5. Existing densities

6. Current development conditions, recent development trends and plans for development by public or private sector developers, such as major institution plans

7. Density goals for each type of center or village

8. Plans for infrastructure and public amenities and services necessary to support additional growth

9. The relationship of the center or village to the regional transportation network

UV41 Promote the concentration of development within centers and villages over the 20 year timeframe of this plan, by:

1. Establishing 20-year growth estimates that do not exceed 80 percent of zoned capacity for development, as calculated by the City

2. Maintaining the 80 percent capacity margin in each center or village whenever zoning is modified

3. Making reasonable efforts to provide services, facilities, and incentives to accommodate the estimated growth.

UV42 Adjust growth estimates at least every ten years to reflect state and county 20-year growth estimates and current information, or as neighborhood plans for the city's urban centers and villages are adopted or substantially revised.

UV43 In order to monitor the effects of the urban village strategy: collect data, review, and report on growth and change in urban centers, urban villages, and manufacturing/industrial centers at least every 3 years. Include in these reports factors such as changes in the numbers of jobs and housing units, housing costs, housing types, crime rates, transportation systems and their use, business types, and public facilities, services and open space. Collect and report on similar data for typical areas outside villages for comparison.

UV44 Review situations where the rate of growth is significantly faster or slower than anticipated in the growth estimates contained in Appendix UV-A or where other measures indicate significant changes in the center or village over an extended period of time. Evaluate the significance of the changes with center or village residents, business owners, and other community stakeholders in light of the expectations underlying the neighborhood plan for the area, the actual level of growth, and the relative maturity (level of mixed-use development, the pedestrian environment, infrastructure, and public facilities) of the area as an urban center or village.

Work with community members to identify appropriate responses to significant growth or changes, including: community-led activities; additional planning for, or re-prioritization of, City programs or infrastructure improvements; partially or entirely updating a neighborhood plan; or working with other public agencies to address community goals.

C OPEN SPACE NETWORK

UVG37 Provide safe and welcoming places for the people of Seattle to play, learn, contemplate, and build community. Provide healthy spaces for children and their families to play; for more passive activities such as strolling, sitting, viewing, picnicking, public gatherings, and enjoying the natural environment; and for active uses such as community gardening, competitive sports, and running.

UVG38 Through the creation, preservation, and enhancement of the city's open spaces, support the development patterns called for by this plan, enhance environmental quality, provide light, air, and visual relief; offer community-building opportunities; provide buffers between residential areas and incompatible uses; provide spaces for sports and recreation; and protect environmentally sensitive areas.

UVG39 Enhance the urban village strategy through the provision of:

1. Amenities in more densely populated areas

2. Recreational opportunities for daytime populations in urban centers

3. Mitigation of the impacts of large scale development

4. Increased opportunities to walk regularly to open spaces by providing them close by

5. Connections linking urban centers and villages, through a system of parks, boulevards, community gardens, urban trails, and natural areas

6. A network of connections to the regional open space system

7. Protected environmentally critical areas

8. Enhanced tree canopy and understory throughout the city

UV45 Strive to accomplish goals in Urban Village Appendix B for the amount, types, and distribution of open space.

UV46 Designate and preserve important natural or ecological features in public ownership as greenspaces for low-intensity open space uses.

UV47 Identify City-owned open spaces on the Future Land Use Map.

UV48 Consider open space provisions identified in adopted neighborhood plans, including specific open space sites and features, in guiding the expansion of the open space network.

UV49 Establish, through the combined systems of urban trails, green streets and designated boulevards, a network among the city's varied open space features and urban villages and urban centers as well as connections with recreational and natural areas within the Puget Sound region.

UV50 Provide unstructured open play space for children in or near residential neighborhoods.

UV51 Guide development of shoreline public access and recreation as important elements in the city's open space network.

UV52 Direct efforts to expand the open space network according to the following considerations:

1. Locations for new facilities:

a. Urban centers and villages targeted for largest share of residential growth; especially those existing high density residential areas presently not served according to the population-based or distribution goals for urban village open space;

b. Other urban village locations where an adopted subarea plan or recognized neighborhood plan includes open space recommendations consistent with these policies; and

c. Specific locations enumerated in the Parks functional plan outside urban centers or villages.

2. Types of open space acquisitions and facility development:

a. Village open space sites, urban center indoor recreation facilities, village commons sites, and community gardens;

b. Critical open space linkages, connectors, and corridors that are highly accessible for active use within or directly serving urban villages, high density and/or high pedestrian, bicycle, or transit use areas;

c. Open space linkages, connectors, and corridors that are highly accessible for active use serving other high pedestrian, bicycle, or transit use areas; and

d. Other types of open space within or adjacent to urban villages that is accessible from adjacent urban villages.

UV53 Promote sustainable management of public and private open spaces and landscaping including preserving or planting native and naturalized vegetation as appropriate to the landscape, removing invasive plants, protecting and enhancing wildlife habitat, and using an integrated pest management approach which favors natural over chemical pest management.

Public Projects

UV54 Seek to provide public open space in conjunction with major public projects such as utility and transportation projects, with the amount of open space based on the size of the project, open space needs of the adjacent areas, and the opportunities provided by the particular project.

UV55 Emphasize flexibility in planning, designing, and developing new open space and encourage development of innovative projects.

UV56 Promote inter-agency and intergovernmental cooperation to expand community gardening opportunities, and include P-Patch community gardening among priorities for use of City surplus property.

D ANNEXATION

UV57 Seek, through cooperative efforts with adjacent jurisdictions, an equitable and balanced resolution to jurisdictional boundaries of the remaining unincorporated areas adjacent to the city's limits. Future annexations to Seattle and/or city boundary changes shall be based on the following:

1. The area has access or can easily be connected to areas already served by the City, allowing efficient delivery of services to the area;

2. The City can readily provide services to the area; and

3. The boundary changes or interjurisdictional agreements will result in a fair and equitable distribution of revenues, facilities development and maintenance and operating costs, and transfer of assets.

UV58 Designate as Potential Annexation Areas areas that include parcels currently owned by the City or small areas almost completely surrounded by land currently within Seattle's city limits Areas meeting these conditions are designated as Potential Annexation Areas as shown in Urban Village Figure 9.

UV59 Favorably consider annexation requests by the residents of unincorporated areas to meet regional growth management goals.

UV60 Support annexations of unincorporated areas to surrounding jurisdictions by being involved in public participation efforts to determine local sentiment regarding annexations, participating in the development of interlocal agreements concerning final annexation plans with the goal of eventually eliminating any unincorporated island areas, and participating in the evaluation of any proposals to create new jurisdictions in these areas.

??

??

??

??

ATTACHMENT 1

Ordinance Updating Comprehensive Plan, 2004

2

2004 Comprehensive Plan Update Ordinance Page 1 of 73 Attachment 1: Urban Village Element

LAND USE ELEMENT

Introduction

Discussion:

The Land Use Element carries this Plan's urban village strategy forward to guide the development of Seattle's Land Use Code (Seattle Municipal Code Title 23). The Land Use Code regulates the development and continuing use of existing buildings and land. Seattle's land use regulations provide detailed rules that implement the general goals and policies contained in this element. The Land Use Element is not intended to guide City actions, such as the siting of public facilities or provision of City services, not related to the Seattle's Land Use Code.

This element contains three sections. The first section lays out citywide land use policies for those issues where the City's policy is the same or similar across more than one type of land use category. The second section discusses each general land use category, identifying the policies that differentiate the City's land use categories from each other. The third section discusses locationspecific land use policies, including policies that react to the special characteristics of an area, such as a historic district or a shoreline.

A CITYWIDE LAND USE POLICIES

Discussion:

Citywide land use policies guide the development and interpretation of the City's land use regulations. Policies in this section generally apply across all of the City's zones, unless a difference is identified. Policies specific to a particular land use category, including differences from the citywide policies, are discussed in section B below.

LG1 Provide for a development pattern consistent with the urban village strategy by designating areas within the city where various types of land use activities, building forms and intensities of development are appropriate.

LG2 Foster neighborhoods in which current and future residents and business owners will want to live, shop, work, and locate their businesses. Provide for a range of housing types and commercial and industrial spaces in order to accommodate a broad range of families and individuals, income groups, and businesses.

LG3 Encourage, through the City's land use regulations, development that protects the public's health and maintains environmental quality.

A-1 The Future Land Use Map and the Location of Zones

Discussion:

Seattle is divided into a number of zones that regulate the uses and development in each area. These zones implement the urban village strategy, and the current zoning is generally appropriate.

This plan organizes these zones into broad land use categories (single-family, multifamily, commercial/mixed-use, downtown, industrial, major institution), and describes how those categories of land use are intended to function. The Future Land Use Map shows how those categories are distributed throughout the city.

The Future Land Use Map is a graphic representation of the future of Seattle. It displays where different types of development are planned to occur. The specific locations of zones are identified on the City's Official Land Use Map, which is part of the regulatory structure that implements this Plan. Most changes to the location of specific zones will not require amendments to the Future Land Use Map. Future Land Use Map amendments will generally only be considered for significant changes to the intended function of a large area.

As time goes on, it can be appropriate to reconsider the zoning in a particular area or on a particular site. Decisions about the appropriate zoning for an area are guided by criteria that the City uses to judge whether a zone is appropriate in a particular location. Procedures and criteria for rezones are contained within the City's Land Use Code. Some policies in this Plan refer to adopted neighborhood plans. Those plans are found in the Neighborhood Planning Element of this Plan.

LU1 Use the goals and policies included in this Plan to identify on the Future Land Use Map the general locations where broad categories of land uses are preferred. Use rezone criteria which implement the goals and policies of this Plan to identify on the City's Official Land Use Map where the specific zones are located.

LU2 Establish rezone evaluation criteria and procedures to guide decisions about which zone will provide the best match for the characteristics of an area and will most clearly further City goals.

LU3 Ensure that there will continue to be room for the growth estimated for an area when considering changes that could reduce the capacity for jobs or housing.

LU4 Consider, through neighborhood planning processes, recommendations for the revision of zoning to better reflect community preferences for the development of an area, provided that consistency between the zoning and this Plan is maintained. Consider relevant goals and policies in adopted neighborhood plans when evaluating a rezone proposal.

LU5 In order to focus future growth, consistent with the urban village strategy, limit higher intensity zoning designations to urban centers, urban villages, and manufacturing/industrial centers. Limit zoning with height limits that are significantly higher than those found in single-family areas to urban centers, urban villages, and manufacturing/industrial centers and to those areas outside of urban villages where higher height limits would be consistent with an adopted neighborhood plan, a major institution's adopted master plan, or with the existing built character of the area.

LU6 Establish building height limits consistent with the goals of the urban village strategy and the type and scale of development intended for each zone classification.

A-2 Uses

Discussion:

Seattle regulates the uses permitted in a land use category or zone so that adjacent uses and zones are appropriate neighbors. By defining the different uses that are permitted in an area, and the conditions under which they are permitted, Seattle's zoning creates different types of districts.

LU7 Allow or prohibit uses in each zone based on the intended function of the zone and the impacts the uses can be expected to have on the zone and the surrounding area.

LU8 Treat as conditional uses those activities having potentially severe impacts either because of the character of the surrounding area, or because the cumulative impacts of more than one such activity would be incompatible with the other permitted uses in the area.

LU9 In order to ensure that a wide range of housing opportunities are available to Seattle's current and future residents, generally permit residential uses in all zones, except in industrial zones and some shoreline areas, where residential uses may conflict with the intended industrial or water-dependent use of the area.

LU10 In order to maintain the character of Seattle's neighborhoods and retain existing affordable housing, discourage the demolition of residences and displacement of residents, while supporting redevelopment that enhances its community and furthers the goals of this Plan.

LU11 Limit non-residential uses in residential zones to those that are necessary to the function of residential neighborhoods, are permitted under special circumstances, such as in historic structures, or are highly compatible with residential activity

LU12 Seek the redevelopment of legally established structures and uses that do not conform to current regulations so that they are more conforming to current standards over the long term. Encourage nonconformities to become more conforming to current standards. Allow nonconformities to continue and support the maintenance and enhancement of nonconforming uses and developments so they may exist as an asset to their neighborhoods and so the City's land use regulations do not impose excessive burdens on legally established private property, as long as they do not expand their nonconformity.

A-3 Public Facilities and Small Institutions

LU13 In recognition of the positive contribution many institutions and public facilities have made to the areas in which they are located, respecting community needs and providing necessary services, allow small institutions and public facilities that are determined to be compatible with the function, character and scale of the area in which they are located.

LU14 Development standards for small institutions and public facilities affecting building height, bulk, setbacks, open space, landscaping, and screening shall be similar to those required of other development, but should be allowed to vary somewhat because of the special structural requirements of some institutional and public facility uses. Establish criteria limiting variation, in order to achieve design compatibility with the scale and character of the surrounding area. Except for spires on religious institutions, do not permit small institutions or public facilities to vary from zoned height limits.

LU15 Permit or prohibit public facilities similar to those provided by the private sector in all zones according to the use regulations and development standard for the particular type of use. Public facility uses not similar to those permitted for the private sector shall be permitted or prohibited depending on the intended function of the area. Evaluate parking and transportation impacts and consider the relationship with surrounding uses in the design, siting, landscaping and screening of such facilities. Allow changes by the Council to development standards that cannot be met for reasons of public necessity.

LU16 Establish additional development standards for small institutions and public facilities in residential zones regarding light, glare, noise, odors, and parking and transportation.

Parking for Institutions and Public Facilities

LU17 Consider mitigating the negative impacts of traffic and parking by locating parking facilities to avoid traffic through residential streets, or establishing joint use of existing parking with adjacent uses.

LU18 Allow modifications to standards for required off-street parking, based on the anticipated use of the facility, size of meeting or assembly areas, hours of use, anticipated effects of parking on the surrounding community, information contained in the transportation plan, access to public transportation and carpools, and other considerations of need and impact.

LU19 Allow small institutions and public facilities to not satisfy all parking demands they generate, if they demonstrate how they will reduce traffic impacts. Do not permit the creation of a serious safety problem or blighting influence on the surrounding neighborhood.

Concentration of Institutions and Public Facilities.

LU20 In residential areas, avoid the concentration of institutions and public facilities if that concentration creates or further aggravates parking shortages, traffic congestion, and noise in or near residential areas.

LU21 Allow the continued use of non-conforming institutional facilities by allowing for expansion or structural changes, as long as such expansion does not increase the structure's non-conformity and is within the development standards of the zone.

Joint Use or Re-Use of Public Schools

LU22 In order to encourage future school use of public school buildings that are no longer used as schools allow non-residential uses not otherwise permitted in the area to locate in school buildings as long as specific criteria for each such re-use are met.

LU23 Determine criteria for judging the acceptability of proposed uses of school buildings for each school, which may differ from school to school. Address through the criteria the effects of the uses on students, teachers and residents of the surrounding area, and traffic, parking and other land use impacts. Determine the specific criteria for each school through a process that ensures the participation of the Seattle School District, the City, and the neighborhood involved.

A-4 Telecommunications Facilities

LU24 Recognize the public benefits provided by radio and television broadcast utilities (major communications utilities), and provide opportunities for the location of these uses in Seattle in order to allow for continued and improved service to the public. However, due to their size and appearance, these utilities are incompatible with the character of residential areas, and they create adverse impacts beyond the immediate site. Therefore, allow these utilities only in locations where impacts can be mitigated, and in a manner that does not lead to an overall increase in new or expanded TV and radio towers.

Radiofrequency Radiation

LU25 In order to protect public health and safety, the City should adopt standards to limit exposure to radiofrequency radiation. In the event that standards or guidelines more stringent than those in City codes are established by the federal government, the City should take steps to adopt those standards.

LU26 Encourage the replacement of existing antennas with new antennas that result in lower levels of radiofrequency radiation at ground level.

LU27 Review the following activities for compliance with radiofrequency radiation standards: the establishment of a new radio or television station transmitting from an existing utility, or any modification or replacement of existing radio or television antennas resulting in a significant increase in off-site radiofrequency radiation.

Major Communication Utilities

LU28 In order to protect the character and ensure the public safety of residential areas, do not permit new major communication utilities, such as radio and television transmission towers, in single-family, multifamily, or pedestrian-oriented commercial zones. Encourage the relocation of major communication utilities to nonresidential areas. Encourage co-location of major communication utilities in nonresidential areas and the removal of existing single purpose major communications utilities in residential or pedestrian-oriented commercial areas. In these zones, expansion of existing towers or onsite replacement may be allowed only after review by the City Council.

LU29 Require major communication utilities to be developed in such a manner as to minimize impacts on nearby areas. Setbacks, screening and landscaping shall be required in order to minimize visual impacts on adjacent properties, and to provide an appearance as compatible as possible with the uses permitted in the zone. Establish continuity with key elements of typical uses within the surrounding area; for example, in or adjacent to single-family areas, design elements such as peaked roofs, painted metal surfaces, and wooden fences, should be provided.

Minor Communication Utilities

LU30 Provide for the location of minor communication utilities and accessory communication devices that provide telephone and other communication functions consistent with the following order of preference: 1. industrial, 2. downtown, 3. general commercial, 4. pedestrian-oriented commercial, 5. multifamily (arterial), 6. multifamily (non-arterial), 7. single-family (arterial) and 8. singlefamily (non-arterial).

LU31 Impacts on nearby areas caused by minor communication utilities and accessory communication devices regulated by the City shall be limited. Allow minor communication utilities when they are developed in such a manner as to minimize impacts on nearby areas. Consider the following criteria: visual impacts, proximity to schools, neighborhood compatibility, land use and other impacts. Earth stations, such as satellite dish antennas, due to their size and (usually) light color, are much more visible than other forms of antennas, creating a visual impact.

A-5 General Development Standards

Discussion:

Development standards govern the density, bulk, height, open space, setbacks and lot coverage of development projects, and they shape Seattle's buildings and neighborhoods. Through the application of development standards, the intent of each zone classification is advanced. The City uses development standards to ensure that new development is consistent with the existing and planned character of a neighborhood and that physical and environmental constraints are accounted for.

LU32 In order to enhance current investments in the city, provide flexibility to maintain and improve existing structures.

Lot Coverage

LU33 Limit the maximum amount of lot area covered by a structure to maintain compatibility with the scale and character of an area, to provide an adequate proportion of open area on a site relative to the area occupied by structures, and to provide occupants with sufficient access to light and air, as appropriate to the intended character and use of an area.

Setbacks

LU34 Use setbacks in residential areas to provide for adequate light, air, and open space, to help ensure privacy, and to maintain compatibility with the existing development pattern. Setbacks should also be used to separate residential uses from more intensive residential, commercial and industrial uses.

Open Space and Required Yards

LU35 Use requirements for the provision of on-site open space or required yards to help ensure that new development maintains existing patterns of landscaped front yards, to encourage permeable surfaces and vegetation, and to mitigate the cumulative effects of development. Require that usable open space or recreation areas be provided as part of construction of dense office buildings and all residential buildings.

LU36 Explore setting limits on impervious surfaces or encouraging the use of other tools to increase storm water infiltration in appropriate areas.

Screening and Landscaping

LU37 Establish standards for screening and landscaping appropriate to each zone to minimize the impact of new development on the surrounding neighborhood, on the streetscape, on the natural environment and on areas with less intensive zoning.

Trees

LU38 Preserve and enhance the City's physical and aesthetic character and environment by:

* Preventing untimely and indiscriminate removal or destruction of trees

* Providing incentives to property owners for tree retention

* Providing protection to large trees

* Providing special protection to exceptional trees that, because of their unique historical, ecological, or aesthetic value, constitute an important community resource

LU39 Use the following tools to protect trees, appropriate to the size, importance and location of a tree:

* Providing flexibility in development standards

* Promoting tree retention through the design review process

* Promoting site planning and horticultural practices that are consistent with the reasonable use of property

* Educating the public and development community concerning the value of retaining trees

* Restricting the removal of trees on undeveloped land prior to review of a specific development proposal

LU40 Because of the many benefits that street trees provide to both property owners and the general public, encourage the preservation or planting of street trees as development occurs, except in locations where it is not possible to meet City standards intended to preserve public safety and utility networks.

Signs

LU41 Regulate signs to facilitate adequate identification of businesses, reduce visual clutter, protect the public interest, provide opportunities for communicating information of community interest, and enhance the city's appearance and safety. Adapt provisions to correspond with the character and scale intended for each area.

LU42 Allow flexibility in the height or overall area of signs on existing or new buildings that use a comprehensive design plan to create visual harmony between the sign, the building and the site where it is located.

Noise

LU43 Establish maximum permitted noise levels to reduce health hazards and nuisance factors associated with noise generated by some uses. Set maximum permitted noise levels that take into account both the function of the area from which the noise emanates and the function of areas where the noise may be heard.

LU44 Require uses identified as major noise generators, due to the type of equipment used or the nature of the activity, to take additional measures to reduce noise so that they can meet permitted noise levels.

Airborne Emissions and Odors

LU45 Regulate uses and activities that have operations that generate air emissions such as dust, smoke, solvent fumes or odors, in order to maintain and encourage successful commercial and industrial activities while protecting employees, clients, nearby residents, the general public and the natural environment from the impacts that odors and airborne pollutants may cause.

Light and Glare

LU46 Establish controls on the direction and maximum height of lighting, and the glare from reflective materials used on the exterior of structures. The intent of this policy is to provide for the illumination of structures, parking areas, recreation areas and outdoor storage areas, while limiting light and glare on surrounding uses, enhancing the urban character of the city, and encouraging energy conservation.

A-6 Parking

Discussion

At its most basic, a parking space provides storage for a car. Parking is either provided by the City on-street or off-street in private or public property. Off-street parking, which in Seattle is generally provided by the private sector, is regulated through the City's land use code. The quantity, design and location of parking closely relates to the general use of land and has a strong influence on the scale, shape and cost of development. As part of the public right-of-way, on-street parking competes with transportation modes for use of the street and is addressed in the Transportation element.

LG4 Establish off-street parking requirements for new development to provide parking for the occupants of the structure. Set off-street parking requirements to ease reliance on automobiles, promote economic development, and reduce housing costs.

LG5 Regulate the location of off-street parking and the size and location of curbcuts to reduce parking and vehicle traffic impacts on pedestrians and residential and commercial streetscapes, and to prevent obstacles to commerce and traffic flow.

LG6 Encourage the use of alternatives to single-occupant vehicles and the use of smaller, more energy efficient automobiles through the City's regulation of parking, including the amount of parking required, design of parking, location of parking, and access to parking.

LG7 Recognize the different ways that parking is used by residents, customers, and employees when determining parking regulations. Generally support short-term parking for customers of businesses and longer-term parking for residents, while discouraging longer-term parking for employees who could use modes other than single-occupant vehicles to get to work.

Parking Quantity

LU47 Seek to further this Plan's goal of encouraging the use of public transit, carpools, walking, and bicycles as alternatives to the use of single-occupancy vehicles when setting parking requirements for both single-occupant vehicles and their alternatives. When setting new requirements for off-street parking, balance the goals of accommodating the parking demand generated by new development and avoiding on-street congestion of parked cars with the goals of lowering construction costs and discouraging single-occupant vehicles. Recognize differences in the likely auto use and ownership of the intended occupants of new development, such as low-income elderly or disabled residents, when setting parking requirements.

LU48 In urban centers and urban villages, consider removing minimum parking requirements and setting parking maximums in recognition of the increased pedestrian, bicycle and transit accessibility these areas already provide or have planned.

LU49 Establish requirements for bicycle parking in larger developments to encourage bicycle ownership and use in order to promote energy conservation, public health and reductions in traffic congestion.

Parking Development Standards

LU50 In order to maintain an attractive street level environment, to facilitate pedestrian and vehicular traffic circulation, to minimize adverse impacts of parking on adjacent areas and structures, to sustain on-street parking, and, where appropriate, to maintain or create a continuity of street fronts, generally prohibit street level parking between buildings and the street, restrict the number and size of curbcuts, and require alley access to parking when a surfaced alley is accessible to the rear of a building, and not prevented by topography.

LU51 Permit shared and off-site parking facilities in order to encourage the efficient use of parking and to provide the flexibility to develop parking on a separate site. Ensure that such parking is compatible with the existing or desired character of the area and ensure that such parking is available for the duration of the use requiring the parking.

LU52 Prohibit single-use parking in areas where it would be incompatible with the intended function of the area.

A-7 Design Review

LU53 Employ a design review process to promote development that:

* Enhances the character of the city

* Respects the surrounding neighborhood context, including historic resources

* Enhances and protects the natural environment

* Allows for diversity and creativity in building design and site planning

* Furthers community design and development objectives

* Allows desired intensities of development to be achieved

A-8 Planned Development

LU54 Permit, through Council or administrative conditional use approval, planned developments on large sites that allow variations from established standards to promote quality design compatible with the character of the area, enhance and preserve natural features and functions, encourage the construction of affordable housing, allow for development and design flexibility, and protect and prevent harm in environmentally critical areas. Do not consider such developments as sole evidence of changed circumstances to justify future rezones of the site or adjacent single-family zoned properties.

B LAND USE CATEGORIES

Discussion:

The goals and policies in this section describe the different types of areas that the City seeks to create and enhance, in the context of existing environments and the urban village strategy. Each of the city's land use categories is intended to lead to a different collection of building types and uses. There are five broad categories of land use in Seattle: Single-Family, Multifamily, Commercial, Industrial and Downtown. Each of these land use categories plays a unique role in the city's residential and economic life, and provides for a different type of area.

B-1 Single Family Areas

LG8 Preserve and protect low-density, single-family neighborhoods that provide opportunities for home-ownership, that are attractive to households with children and other residents, that provide residents with privacy and open spaces immediately accessible to residents, and where the amount of impervious surface can be limited.

LG9 Preserve the character of single-family residential areas and discourage the demolition of single-family residences and displacement of residents, in a way that encourages rehabilitation and provides housing opportunities throughout the city. The character of singlefamily areas includes use, development, and density characteristics.

LG10 Provide for different intensities of single-family areas to reflect differences in the existing and desired character of singlefamily areas across the city. Allow development that is generally consistent with the levels of infrastructure development and environmental conditions in each area. Include opportunities for lowcost subsidized housing in single-family areas.

LU55 Designate as single-family residential areas, those areas that are predominantly developed with single-family structures and are large enough to maintain a low-density development pattern.

LU56 Use a range of single-family zones to:

* Maintain the current density and character of existing single-family areas;

* Protect single-family areas that have environmental or infrastructure constraints, such as environmentally critical areas, from intensive development; or

* Respond to neighborhood plan policies calling for opportunities for redevelopment or infill development that maintains the single-family character of an area, but allows for a greater range of residential housing types, such as carriage houses, tandem houses, or cottages.

LU57 Permit upzones of land designated single-family and meeting single-family rezone criteria, only when all of the following conditions are met:

* The land is within an urban center or urban village boundary.

* The rezone is provided for in an adopted neighborhood plan.

* The rezone is to a low-scale single-family, multifamily or mixed-use zone, compatible with single-family areas.

* The rezone procedures are followed.

LU58 Apply small lot single-family zones to single-family property meeting single-family rezone criteria only when all of the following conditions are met:

1. The land is within an urban center or urban village boundary.

2. The rezone is provided for in an adopted neighborhood plan.

3. The rezone procedures are followed.

Single-Family Residential Use

LU59 Affirm and encourage residential use by one household as the principal use in single-family residential areas and the primary use permitted outright.

LU60 Limit the number and types of non-residential uses permitted in single-family residential areas to protect those areas from the negative impacts of incompatible uses.

LU61 In order to maintain single-family areas in residential use, prohibit parking lots or other uses accessory to permitted uses in abutting higher intensity zones from expanding into single-family residential areas.

LU62 In order to create attractive and affordable rental opportunities and provide greater flexibility for homeowners, permit accessory dwelling units in single-family zones, subject to regulations designed to limit impacts and protect neighborhood character.

LU63 Control the location, scale, access and development standards of institutions and facilities in single-family areas in order to reduce negative impacts such as noise, traffic and parking problems and protect Seattle's single-family housing stock through a conditional use or master planning process that considers:

1. Concentration of institutions of facilities

2. Bulk and siting

3. Traffic and parking

4. Demolition of residential structures

5. Height and scale

Minimum Lot Size (Density)

LU64 Use minimum lot size requirements to maintain a low-density residential environment while reflecting differences in development conditions and the densities and scale of housing in various singlefamily residential areas.

LU65 Permit exceptions to minimum lot size requirements to recognize building sites created in the public records under previous codes, to allow the consolidation of very small lots into larger lots, to adjust lot lines to permit more orderly development patterns, and to provide housing opportunity through the creation of additional buildable sites which are compatible with surrounding lots and do not result in the demolition of existing housing.

Bulk and Siting

LU66 Allow the development of detached single-family dwellings that are compatible with the existing pattern of development and the character of each single-family neighborhood.

LU67 Reflect the character of existing low-density development through the regulation of scale, siting, structure orientation, and setbacks.

Height

LU68 Establish height limitations in single-family residential areas that establish predictable maximum heights, maintain a consistent height limit throughout the building envelope, maintain the scale relationship between a structure and its site, address varying topographic conditions, control view blockage and encourage pitched roofs.

B-2 Multifamily Residential Areas

LG11 Encourage the development and retention of a diversity of multifamily housing types to meet the diverse needs of Seattle's present and future populations.

LG12 Promote a residential development pattern consistent with the urban village strategy, with increased availability of housing at densities that promote walking and transit use near employment concentrations, residential services and amenities.

LU69 Designate as multifamily residential areas, existing areas predominantly occupied by multifamily development, as well as areas where greater residential development is desired to increase housing opportunities and promote development intensities consistent with the urban village strategy.

LU70 Maintain a variety of multifamily zoning classifications to permit development at low, moderate and high densities with a variety of scales and configurations appropriate to the specific conditions and development objectives of different areas within the city.

LU71 Balance the objective to increase opportunities for new housing development to ensure adequate housing for Seattle's residents with the equally important objective of ensuring that new development is compatible with neighborhood character.

LU72 Establish rezone evaluation criteria that consider: maintaining compatible scale, preserving views, enhancing the streetscape and pedestrian environment, and achieving an efficient use of the land without major disruption of the natural environment.

LU73 Limit the multifamily zones to areas that do not meet the singlefamily zone criteria, except in circumstances where an adopted neighborhood plan indicates that a different zone is more appropriate.

LU74 Provide flexibility in rezone criteria for rezoning multifamily residential areas to compatible neighborhood commercial zones, if approved in an adopted neighborhood plan.

Multifamily Residential Use

LU75 Establish multifamily residential use as the predominant use in multifamily areas, to preserve the character of multifamily residential areas and preserve development opportunities for multifamily use.

LU76 Limit the number and type of non-residential uses permitted in multifamily residential areas to protect these areas from negative impacts of incompatible uses.

LU77 Provide zoning classifications that permit limited amounts of commercial use in what are otherwise residential zones in order to either provide retail and service uses in close proximity to residents in the densest multifamily environment or to create transitions between commercial and multifamily areas.

Density Limits

LU78 Limit density to provide greater predictability about the allowed intensity of development, by specifying a maximum number of units that may be permitted on sites in each lowrise multifamily zone. Accommodate a range of housing types to achieve development that meets the policy intent for each zone.

Development Standards

LU79 Limit building heights to establish predictable maximum heights, maintain a consistent height limit throughout the building envelope, maintain scale relationships with adjacent buildings, and limit view blockage. Encourage pitched roofs in lowrise and midrise multifamily areas.

LU80 Determine the appropriate height for an area according to the policy intent for each multifamily classification.

LU81 Limit bulk to ensure that buildings conform to the prevailing pattern of development in the surrounding area, to prevent the development of wide buildings that block views, and to encourage infill and single lot development.

LU82 Allow greater lot coverage for townhouses in low-density and moderate-density multifamily zones to encourage development of groundrelated housing.

LU83 Require multifamily developments to provide open space for the use of the residents and to maintain existing street patterns of landscaped front yards, encourage permeable surfaces and vegetation, and mitigate the cumulative effects of development on open space and recreation resources in an area.

LU84 Provide residents of lowrise multifamily buildings with usable ground level open space, while allowing some required open space to be provided as private decks and balconies or roof gardens.

LU85 Use setback requirements to ensure access to light and air, and provide a sense of privacy, for residents of multifamily structures, and to maintain compatibility between new development and the existing pattern of setbacks and view corridors parallel to streets. Vary setback requirements so that the greater the size of a structure, the greater the required setback. Allow averaging of required side setbacks, within limits, to encourage modulation and visual interest of side facades. In addition to the general function of setbacks, use rear setbacks to provide adequate transition between zones of differing intensity.

LU86 Allow limited projections of specific architectural features, such as open balconies, decks and bay windows, over the required setbacks to add visual interest to buildings, provided such projections are at a specified distance from property lines and do not adversely affect neighboring lots.

LU87 Allow exceptions to parking development standards to encourage and facilitate development of ground-related housing, avoid creating additional construction costs, and to buffer areas of low intensity development.

LOW DENSITY MULTIFAMILY AREAS

LG13 Provide opportunities for infill development in areas already characterized by low-density multifamily development.

LG14 Create transitions in development intensity between singlefamily zones and more intensive multifamily or commercial areas.

LU88 Provide opportunities for attached housing at slightly higher densities than single-family areas.

LU89 Maintain compatibility with single-family development through limits on the permitted height and bulk of new development.

LU90 Use a range of low-density multifamily zones to:

* Provide opportunities for limited multifamily and single-family infill housing while preserving the character of a neighborhood;

* Allow for densities and building types that encourage both new construction and the conversion of existing single-family structures to duplexes and triplexes;

* Provide for multifamily development, such as townhouses, of low height and small bulk where units have direct access to private yards, thereby increasing housing opportunities for families with children and others seeking ground-related housing; or

* Encourage a variety of multifamily housing types with less emphasis on ground-related units, at a scale compatible with single-family structures.

LU91 Use low-density multifamily areas to provide for transitional densities between single-family neighborhoods and more intense commercial and residential uses.

LU92 In order to maintain a consistent and appealing character in lowdensity multifamily areas, seek to ensure, through development standards for low-density multifamily zones, that new and converted structures are compatible with existing development and reflective of the character of that development in terms of scale, open space, setbacks, siting and unit orientation.

MODERATE DENSITY MULTIFAMILY AREAS

LG15 Provide for the concentration of housing in areas where public transit and local services are conveniently available and accessible on foot.

LU93 Use moderate-density multifamily zones in multifamily areas to provide additional housing opportunities, by:

* Encouraging infill projects and conversions of existing buildings which are compatible with existing mixes of houses and small-tomoderate scale apartment buildings; or

* Providing for new residential development at moderate densities which can fill in vacant or underdeveloped sites in neighborhoods with existing moderate density residential structures.

LU94 Emphasize residential character in the development standards for moderate density multifamily zones and provide for a scale of development and building types that differs from those of singlefamily and low-density multifamily areas in order to accommodate increased residential densities.

LU95 Promote denser but still human-scaled multifamily neighborhoods by permitting building types that allow for multifamily walk-up apartments, with height limits and development standards that promote a strong relationship between individual dwellings and the ground level.

LU96 Accommodate housing at densities sufficient to promote pedestrian activity and frequent transit service, as well as support local businesses providing neighborhood services.

LU97 Because low-income elderly and low-income disabled persons create lesser impacts than the general population, allow higher maximum density limits in moderate density multifamily zones for housing these populations to reduce costs and provide sufficient density to make the development of such housing feasible.

HIGH DENSITY MULTIFAMILY AREAS

LG16 Accommodate the greatest concentration of housing in desirable, pedestrian-oriented urban neighborhoods having convenient access to regional transit stations, where the mix of activity provides convenient access to a full range of residential services and amenities, and opportunities for people to live within walking distance of employment.

LU98 Use a range of high-density multifamily zones in desirable pedestrian-oriented urban neighborhoods with access to regional transit, a broad range of services and amenities and access to employment to:

* Encourage housing development of a medium to large scale with heights greater than those in lowrise zones;

* Accommodate larger scale structures while maintaining the livability of these communities, including measures which minimize the appearance of bulk; or

* Allow high-density residential development in urban centers and hub urban villages.

LU99 Permit street level commercial uses serving the needs of the residential population in order to promote an active street environment and allow for greater access to services in high-density neighborhoods.

LU100 In order to provide public open spaces easily accessible to the public, preserve or provide housing affordable to low and moderateincome households, preserve historically or architecturally significant buildings, or provide more space between towers to decrease view blockage and shadows on adjacent structures and open spaces, consider allowing additional height in the highest density multifamily areas.

B-3 Mixed-Use Commercial Areas

LG17 Create strong and successful commercial and mixed-use areas that encourage business creation, expansion and vitality by allowing for a mix of business activities, while maintaining compatibility with the neighborhood-serving character of business districts, and the character of surrounding areas.

LG18 Support the development and maintenance of areas with a wide range of characters and functions that provide for the employment, service, retail and housing needs of Seattle's existing and future population.

LG19 Include housing as part of the mix of activities accommodated in commercial areas in order to provide additional opportunities for residents to live in neighborhoods where they can walk to services and employment.

LU101 Prioritize the preservation, improvement and expansion of existing commercial areas over the creation of new business districts.

LU102 Consistent with the urban village strategy, prefer the development of compact concentrated commercial areas, or nodes, in which many businesses can be easily accessed by pedestrians, to the designation of diffuse, sprawling commercial areas along arterials, which often require driving from one business to another.

LU103 Designate as mixed-use commercial areas, existing areas that provide locations for accommodating the employment, service, retail and housing needs of Seattle's existing and future population. Allow for a wide range in the character and function of individual areas consistent with the urban village strategy.

LU104 Provide a range of commercial zone classifications, which provide different mixes and intensities of activity, varying scales of development, varying degrees of residential or commercial orientation, and varying degrees of pedestrian or auto orientation and relationship to surrounding areas depending on their role in the urban village strategy and community goals as voiced in adopted neighborhood plans.

LU105 Distinguish between pedestrian-oriented commercial zones which are compatible with and easily accessible to their surrounding neighborhoods, and general commercial zones which are intended to accommodate commercial uses dependent on automobile or truck access.

Uses

LG20 Encourage diverse uses that contribute to the city's total employment base and provide the goods and services needed by the city's residents and businesses to locate and remain in the city's commercial areas.

LU106 Provide for a wide range of uses in commercial areas. Allow, prohibit or allow under specified conditions uses according to the intended pedestrian, automobile or residential orientation of the area, the area's role in the urban village strategy and the impacts the uses can be expected to have on the commercial area and surrounding areas.

LU107 Consider limits on the size of specific uses in commercial areas when those limits would:

* Help ensure that the scale of uses is compatible with the character and function of the commercial area;

* Encourage uses likely to draw significant traffic to an area to locate where traffic impacts can best be handled;

* Promote compatible land use and transportation patterns; and

* Foster healthy commercial development.

Allow the limited expansion of existing businesses beyond established size limits in order to support the existing character and functions of the city's businesses and business districts.

LU108 Discourage establishment or expansion of uses identified as heavy traffic generators. Review proposals for such uses in order to control traffic impacts associated with such uses and ensure that the use is compatible with the character of the commercial area and its surroundings.

LU109 Regulate drive-in businesses and accessory drive-in facilities through development standards that vary according to the function of the commercial area in order to minimize traffic impacts and pedestrian-vehicle conflicts, avoid disruption of an area's business frontage, and improve the appearance of the commercial area.

Outdoor Activities

LU110 Prohibit or limit the location and size of outdoor uses and activities in specified commercial areas according to the function of the area and proximity to residentially zoned lots, in order to maintain and improve the continuity of the commercial street front, reduce the visual and noise impacts associated with such outdoor activities, and maintain compatibility with adjacent residential areas.

Housing

LU111 Allow residential use in commercial areas to encourage housing in close proximity to shopping, services, and employment opportunities. Encourage residential uses in and near pedestrianoriented commercial areas to provide housing close to employment and services.

LU112 Encourage residential development in mixed-use buildings to ensure healthy business districts that provide essential goods, services, and employment to the residents of Seattle.

LU113 Conserve commercially zoned land for commercial uses by limiting street-level residential uses in areas intended to function as concentrated commercial areas or nodes. Consider allowing streetlevel residential uses outside of those areas in order to reinforce the commercial nodes and accommodate fluctuating market conditions. When street-level residential uses are permitted, seek to provide privacy for ground floor tenants and visual interest along the streetfront.

LU114 Provide open space as part of residential development in commercial areas to ensure open space amenities are available to residents.

Density Limits

LU115 Seek to focus development in transit and pedestrian-friendly urban villages while maintaining compatibility between new development and the surrounding area through standards regulating the size and density of development.

LU116 Generally permit a greater intensity of development in pedestrian and transit supportive environments found in pedestrianoriented commercial areas within urban villages than is permitted in general commercial areas or outside of urban villages.

LU117 Ensure a compatible scale and intensity of development and control such impacts as shadows, bulk, and traffic associated with high-rise development through density limits for development in commercial zones.

Development Standards

LU118 Manage the bulk of structures in commercial areas to maintain compatibility with the scale and character of commercial areas and their surroundings, to limit the impact on views, and to provide light, air, and open space amenities for occupants.

Heights

LU119 Assign height limits to commercial areas independently of the commercial zone designations. Allow different areas within a zone to be assigned different height limits based on the appropriate height needed to:

* Further the urban village strategy's goals of focusing growth in urban villages;

* Accommodate the desired functions and intensity of development;

* Provide a compatible scale relationship with existing development; and

* Address potential view blockage.

Establish predictable maximum heights that respond to varying topographical conditions.

LU120 Allow limited exceptions to the height limit in order to accommodate ground-floor commercial uses or special rooftop features, to facilitate development of mixed-use structures, to enable structures to function appropriately, or to support innovative design which furthers the goals of this element or adopted neighborhood plans.

LU121 In order to allow flexibility to enable full use of a site for permitted development, and to maintain and encourage a contiguous commercial streetfront, generally do not require setbacks in commercial areas, except when development occurs on a lot adjacent to a residential zone.

Parking

LU122 Set parking requirements to discourage underused parking facilities, which means tolerating occasional spillover parking, and allow minimum parking requirements to be eliminated, waived or reduced to promote the maintenance and development of commercial uses that encourage transit and pedestrian activity and provide a variety of services in commercial areas. Allow parking requirements to be reduced where parking demand is less because of the provision of an alternative transportation program. Such programs include the provision of carpool parking, vanpools, transit passes, or extra bicycle parking for employees. Consider setting maximum parking ratios for areas where excess parking could worsen traffic congestion and alternatives to automobile access are available.

LU123 Allow parking management provisions to be reviewed or established in selected commercial areas, which may include locally sensitive measures such as cooperative parking, shared parking, restricted access, or special measures to meet the parking requirements established in these policies such as carpools, vanpools, or transit pass subsidies.

LU124 Allow parking reductions when several businesses share customer parking to enable customers to park once and walk to numerous businesses, achieving greater parking efficiency.

LU125 Regulate the location of off-street parking facilities on a lot according to the function and characteristics of the commercial area, as indicated by its designation as either a pedestrian-oriented commercial area or a general commercial area.

LU126 Seek to limit impacts on pedestrian and traffic circulation and on surrounding areas when locating access to off-street parking. Generally encourage alley access to off-street parking, except if an alley is used for loading.

PEDESTRIAN-ORIENTED COMMERCIAL ZONES

LU127 Use pedestrian-oriented zones to promote commercial areas with a development pattern, mix of uses, and intensity of activity generally oriented to pedestrian and transit use by maintaining areas that already possess these characteristics and encouraging the transition necessary in other areas to achieve these conditions:

1. Strong, healthy business districts that are compatible with their neighborhoods, reinforce a sense of belonging while providing essential goods, services and livelihoods for the residents of the city;

2. Mixes of activity in commercial areas compatible with development in adjacent areas;

3. Appropriate transitions in the scale and intensity of development between areas;

4. Residential development that is both livable for residents and compatible with the desired commercial function of the area; and

5. An active, attractive, accessible pedestrian environment.

LU128 Apply pedestrian-oriented commercial zones both inside and outside of urban villages where residential uses either exist or are in close proximity and where the intensity of development allowed under the particular zone designation conforms in size and scale to the community it serves.

LU129 Generally allow pedestrian-oriented commercial zones in urban villages to accommodate densities of development and mixes of uses that support pedestrian activity and transit use.

LU130 Provide use and development standards for pedestrian-oriented commercial zones, which promote environments conducive to walking and a mix of commercial and residential uses that further the goals for these zones.

LU131 Locate parking facilities in pedestrian-oriented commercial zones where conflicts with pedestrian circulation and interruptions in the continuity of the street frontage will be minimized, such as to the side or rear of the building, below grade, or built into the building and screened from the street.

LU132 Establish special pedestrian districts that may vary to reflect different characteristics and conditions of pedestrian-oriented commercial zones in order to preserve or encourage intensely retail and pedestrian-oriented shopping districts where non-auto modes of transportation to and within the district are strongly favored.

GENERAL COMMERCIAL ZONES

LG21 General commercial zones accommodate activities highly dependent on automobile and truck access and more intensive commercial and light manufacturing uses that are generally incompatible with pedestrianoriented residential and mixed-use development.

LU133 Use general commercial zones to support existing auto-oriented commercial areas serving a citywide or regional clientele located with ready access from principal arterials, or areas adjacent to industrial zones. Areas generally appropriate for general commercial zones should be characterized by a predominance of large lots, and limited pedestrian access, where adequate buffers or transitions can be provided between the area and residential areas or commercial areas of lesser intensity. In order to support more pedestrian-friendly environments within urban villages, encourage the conversion of general commercial areas within urban villages to pedestrian-oriented commercial zones.

Uses

LU134 Accommodate in general commercial zones the broadest range of commercial activities allowed in commercial areas.

LU135 Recognize shopping centers, retail stores of all sizes, warehouses of moderate size, small office buildings of limited floor area, and, where appropriate, moderate scale residential and mixed-use structures as appropriate building types in general commercial zones.

LU136 In general commercial areas, limit or prohibit, as appropriate, housing and/or substantial amounts of office development in areas where:

1. The auto-oriented nature of the area or development is likely to encourage residents or office workers to commute using singleoccupancy vehicles;

2. These uses could potentially conflict with the preferred commercial function of the area or with the activities in adjacent areas; or

3. The available land for certain commercial activities is limited and may be displaced if uses are allowed above certain intensities.

Development Standards

LU137 Allow residential and office densities that are similar to those permitted in comparable pedestrian-oriented commercial zones when projects in general commercial zones are built to the pedestrianoriented commercial zones' standards.

LU138 Generally assign height limits to general commercial zones that are compatible with the height of existing commercial development or are necessary to accommodate the requirements of the commercial activities intended for these zones and not to encourage high-density development of such uses as housing and offices more appropriately located in pedestrian-oriented zones in urban villages.

B-4 Industrial Areas

LG22 Provide opportunities for industrial activity to thrive in Seattle.

LG23 Accommodate the expansion of existing businesses within Seattle, thereby stabilizing the city's existing industrial areas. Promote opportunities for new businesses that are supportive of the goals for industrial areas.

LG24 Preserve industrial land for industrial uses and protect viable marine and rail-related industries from competing with non-industrial uses for scarce industrial land. Give special attention to preserving industrial land adjacent to rail or water-dependent transportation facilities.

LG25 Promote high-value-added economic development by supporting growth in the industrial and manufacturing employment base.

LG26 Give adequate attention to the needs of industrial activity while reducing major land use conflicts between industrial development and abutting residential or pedestrian-oriented commercial areas, and avoid placing unnecessary restrictions on manufacturing uses.

LG27 Restrict or prohibit uses that may negatively affect the availability of land for industrial activity, or that conflict with the character and function of industrial areas.

LG28 Prevent incompatible activities from locating in close proximity to each other.

LG29 Accommodate a mix of diverse, yet compatible, employment activities in Seattle's industrial areas.

LU139 Designate industrial areas where:

1. The primary functions are industrial activity and industrialrelated commercial functions.

2. The basic infrastructure needed to support industrial uses already exists.

3. Areas are large enough to allow the full range of industrial activities to function successfully.

4. There is either sufficient separation or special conditions that reduce the potential for conflicts with development in adjacent, lessintensive areas.

Uses

LU140 Consider manufacturing uses, advanced technology industries and a wide range of industrial-related commercial functions, such as warehouse and distribution activities, appropriate for industrial areas.

LU141 Consider high value-added, living wage industrial activities to be a high priority.

LU142 Permit commercial uses in industrial areas to the extent that they reinforce the industrial character, and limit specified nonindustrial uses, including office and retail development, in order to preserve these areas for industrial development.

LU143 Subject to regulations for nonconforming uses, allow existing businesses to expand, in order to stabilize existing industrial areas, and encourage the siting of new businesses which are supportive of the goals for industrial areas.

LU144 Prohibit new residential uses in industrial zones, except for special types of dwellings that are related to the industrial area and that would not restrict or disrupt industrial activity.

LU145 Restrict to appropriate locations within industrial areas those industrial uses which, by the nature of materials involved or processes employed, have a potential of being dangerous or very noxious.

LU146 Prohibit park and pool lots within 3,000 feet of a downtown zone in order to prevent the use of industrial land for commuter parking for downtown workers.

Development Standards

Density

LU147 Limit the density of development through a floor area ratio (FAR) to ensure a level of activity compatible with industrial activity. The FAR is also intended to ensure that new development can be accommodated without major redevelopment of transportation and utility systems, and without creating other substantial negative impacts.

LU148 Restrict the density or floor area of commercial uses not directly related to industrial activity to preserve industrial shorelines for industrial marine activity and to preserve access to major rail corridors. Vary the restrictions by industrial zone.

Landscaping and Street Standards

LU149 Recognize the special working character of industrial areas by keeping landscaping and street standards to a minimum to allow as much flexibility as possible for industrial development except along selected arterials and where there is a specific need to mitigate impacts of new development.

LU150 On sites that are highly visible to the public because of their location on selected major arterials, require new development to provide street trees and landscape screening in order to promote a positive impression of the city's industrial areas. Streets appropriate for this special treatment are:

1. Streets that provide major routes through the city and/or serve as principal entrances to downtown;

2. Streets that provide the principal circulation route within an industrial area; and

3. Streets where right-of-way conditions will permit required landscaping without conflicting with industrial activity.

Shoreline View Corridor

LU151 Allow certain additional view corridor standards to be applied outside of the shoreline district to preserve views of the water obtained through view corridors required in the shoreline district. Apply these standards to developments located on a waterfront lot (between the water and the nearest public road) adjacent to, but outside, the shoreline district. Do not apply these standards to areas along the Duwamish Waterway because they would not achieve the intended increase in visual access due to the generally flat terrain of the area and the substantially greater distances between arterials and the boundaries of the shoreline district.

Parking and Loading

LU152 Set parking and loading requirements for various uses to provide adequate parking and loading facilities to: support business activity, promote air quality, encourage efficient use of the land in industrial areas, accommodate loading needs, discourage under-used parking facilities, and maintain adequate traffic safety and circulation, while furthering the intent of industrial business attraction and expansion. Allow some on-street loading and occasional spillover parking. Provide for waivers and reductions from the established requirements to encourage the use of small sites and landmarks, and the reuse of existing structures.

LU153 Maintain minimum and maximum standards for curbcuts and street driveways in order to balance the need to provide adequate maneuvering and loading areas with the goal of maintaining some on-street parking and safe pedestrian access.

Noise

LU154 Permit noise levels that would not be allowed in other parts of the city in industrial areas, except for buffer areas, in recognition of the special nature of industrial activities and the restrictions on residential uses that are in place in industrial areas.

GENERAL INDUSTRIAL ZONES

LU155 Use the General Industrial zones to promote the full range of industrial activities and related support uses. Distinguish among general industrial zones based on the density permitted for commercial uses not related to industrial activity. Include among the General Industrial zones:

* Zones that protect marine and rail-related industrial areas from an inappropriate level of unrelated commercial uses and limit those unrelated uses through density or size limits lower than that allowed for industrial uses; and

* Zones that allow a broader range of uses, where the industrial function of the area is less established, and where additional commercial activity could improve employment opportunities and the physical condition of the area.

LU156 Include under the General Industrial designation those areas most suited to industrial activity, where the separation from residential and pedestrian-oriented commercial areas is sufficient to mitigate the impacts associated with industrial uses.

LU157 Seek to protect industrial activity by differentiating among General Industrial zones according to permitted densities for commercial uses not directly related to industrial activity and by limiting the size of certain permitted uses.

Uses

LU158 Require conditional use review for certain uses to ensure compatibility with the primary industrial function of the zone. Require mitigation of any impacts on industrial activity, the immediate surroundings, and the environment in general. Because of the nature of industrial uses, classify certain non-industrial uses as conditional uses in order to protect public safety and welfare on nonindustrial sites.

LU159 Prohibit certain uses to preserve land for industrial activity or to minimize conflicts that may occur between the use and industrial activity because the use attracts large numbers of people to the area for non-industrial purposes, or because the use would be incompatible with typical industrial area impacts (noise, truck movement, etc.).

INDUSTRIAL BUFFERS

LU160 Provide an appropriate transition between industrial areas and adjacent residential or pedestrian-oriented commercial zones.

LU161 Permit within Industrial Buffers the widest possible range of manufacturing uses and related industrial and commercial activities, while ensuring compatibility with the activity and physical character of abutting, less intensive zones. Include development standards or performance standards to protect the livability of adjacent areas. Apply these standards only where existing conditions do not adequately separate industrial activity from less intensive zones.

LU162 Apply special height provisions on the edge of Industrial Buffers to ensure visual compatibility and a transition in scale between industrial areas and less intensive abutting zones. Do not apply the height limit where streets provide an adequate separation based upon street width, traffic, noise and topography. Apply a lower height limit for a greater depth of the zone where the zone is located across from a single-family or lowrise multifamily residential zone.

LU163 Require conditional use review for certain uses to ensure compatibility with uses located in abutting, less intensive zones, to ensure consistency with adopted neighborhood plans, or to evaluate certain uses that could have significant impacts on other nearby uses.

Screening, Landscaping, and Setback Requirements

LU164 Apply standards for screening, landscaped areas, curbs and sidewalks, setbacks, and street trees to improve the appearance of, or obscure, outdoor activity, to maintain continuity along a street front, to enhance the environment and safety of the buffer area and to maintain compatibility with adjacent areas.

LU165 Employ setback requirements for lots across the street from a residentially zoned lot to maintain a compatible scale of development along opposing industrial and residential streets. Do not apply increased setback requirements where an industrial lot is adequately separated from a residentially zoned lot by an unusually wide public right-of-way.

LU166 Require special measures to address the visual impacts of outdoor and auto-related activities to ensure compatibility between these uses and less intensive zones.

INDUSTRIAL COMMERCIAL ZONES

LU167 Use the Industrial Commercial zones to promote a wide mix of employment activities, including industrial and commercial activities, such as light manufacturing and research and development.

LU168 Limit development density in Industrial Commercial zones to reflect transportation and other infrastructure constraints, while taking into account other features of an area. Employ development standards designed to create an environment attractive to business, while recognizing the economic constraints facing new development.

Uses

LU169 Maintain use provisions in the Industrial Commercial zones to ensure that land is available for a wide range of employment activities and that areas will exist to accommodate the needs of developing new businesses.

LU170 Require conditional use review for certain uses to ensure compatibility with uses located in abutting, less intensive zones; and to ensure safety and compatibility with other uses within the zone.

LU171 Incorporate performance standards in the Industrial Commercial zones to create high quality environments that can attract new employers to the area and to protect abutting, less intensive areas from hazards, nuisances and objectionable impacts associated with permitted activities.

Height

LU172 Apply a range of maximum building height limits for all uses in Industrial Commercial zones to protect the special amenities that attract new technology industrial development, such as views of water, shoreline access, and the scale and character of neighboring development, so that these amenities will continue to be enjoyed, both within the zone and from the surrounding area. Assign height limits independently of the zoning designation to provide flexibility in zoning specific areas. Allow different areas within a zone to be assigned different height limits according to the rezone criteria.

Development Standards

LU173 Include development standards in the Industrial Commercial zones designed to create an attractive environment for new industry and ensure compatibility with surrounding development without inhibiting more traditional industrial activity or the expansion of smaller firms already located in the area. Generally require screening, landscaping and setback standards in the Industrial Commercial zone similar to those found in the pedestrian-oriented commercial areas to promote an attractive setting for new industries.

B-5 Downtown Areas

Discussion:

Goals and policies guiding development in the Downtown area can be found as part of the Downtown Urban Center Neighborhood Plan, located in the Neighborhood Planning Element.

LG30 Promote Downtown Seattle as the home to the broadest mix of activities and greatest intensity of development in the region. Promote the continued economic vitality of Downtown Seattle, with particular attention to the retail core and the tourism industry.

LU174 Designate as Downtown, those areas that are intended to accommodate the densest mixed-use, residential, office and retail development.

LU175 Recognize the division of downtown into areas with one of the following primary land use functions:

* Office,

* Retail,

* Mixed-use commercial,

* Mixed-use residential, and

* Harborfront.

LU176 Use a range of downtown land use zones to support the existing character and desired environment of different areas downtown.

C LOCATION-SPECIFIC LAND USE POLICIES

Discussion:

The basic zoning categories described in Section B, are augmented here by policies that respond to specific characteristics of an area. For example, historic districts are governed by a basic zoning category as well as regulations that respond to the unique historic characteristics of an area. This section provides the policy foundation to guide how the City adjusts its regulations to respond to unique environments, particularly those created by: major institutions, historic districts and landmarks, environmentally critical areas and shorelines.

LG31 Provide flexibility in, or supplement, standard zone provisions to achieve special public purposes where circumstances warrant. Such areas include shoreline areas, airport height districts, historic landmark and special review districts, major institutions, subarea plan districts, and other appropriate locations.

LU177 Permit the establishment of zoning overlay districts, which may modify the regulations of the underlying land use zone categories to address special circumstances and issues of significant public interest in a subarea of the city, subject to the limitations on establishing greater density in single-family areas. Overlays may be established through neighborhood planning.

C-1 Major Institutions

Discussion:

Hospitals and higher educational facilities play an important role in Seattle. Institutions containing these facilities provide needed health and educational services to the citizens of Seattle and the region. They also contribute to employment opportunities and to the overall diversification of the city's economy. However, when located in or adjacent to residential and pedestrian-oriented commercial areas, the activities and facilities of major institutions can have negative impacts such as traffic generation, loss of housing, displacement and incompatible physical development. These policies provide a foundation for the City's approach to balancing the growth of these institutions with the need to maintain the livability of the surrounding neighborhoods.

LG32 Maximize the public benefits of major institutions, including health care and educational services, while minimizing the adverse impacts associated with development and geographic expansion.

LG33 Recognize the significant economic benefits of major institutions in the city and the region and their contributions to employment growth.

LG34 Balance each major institution's ability to change and the public benefit derived from change with the need to protect the livability and vitality of adjacent neighborhoods.

LG35 Promote the integration of institutional development with the function and character of surrounding communities in the overall planning for urban centers.

LU178 Designate the campuses of large hospitals, colleges and universities as Major Institutions to recognize that a separate public process is used to define appropriate uses in these areas.

LU179 Provide for the coordinated growth of major institutions through major institution conceptual master plans and the establishment of major institution overlay zones.

LU180 Establish Major Institution Overlays (MIO) to permit appropriate institutional development within boundaries while minimizing the adverse impacts associated with development and geographic expansion. Balance the public benefits of growth and change for major institutions with the need to maintain the livability and vitality of adjacent neighborhoods. Where appropriate, establish MIO boundaries so that they contribute to the compatibility between major institution areas and less intensive zones.

LU181 Allow modifications to the underlying zone provisions in order to allow major institutions to thrive while ensuring that impacts of development on the surrounding neighborhood are satisfactorily mitigated.

LU182 Allow all functionally integrated major institution uses within each overlay district, provided the development standards of the underlying zone are met. Permit development standards specifically tailored for the major institution and its surrounding area within the overlay district through a master plan process.

LU183 Allow modification of use restrictions and parking requirements of the underlying zoning by the overlay to accommodate the changing needs of major institutions, provide flexibility for development and encourage a high-quality environment. Allow modification of the development standards and other requirements of the underlying zoning by an adopted master plan.

LU184 Discourage the expansion of established major institution boundaries.

LU185 Encourage significant community involvement in the development, monitoring, implementation and amendment of major institution master plans, including the establishment of citizen's advisory committees containing community and major institution representatives.

LU186 Encourage Advisory Committee participation throughout the process of revision, amendment and refinement of the master plan proposal.

LU187 Require preparation of either a master plan or a revision to the appropriate existing master plan when a major development is proposed that is part of a major institution, and does not conform with the of the underlying zoning and is not included in an existing master plan.

LU188 Provide procedures for considering the establishment of new major institutions.

LU189 Locate new institutions in areas where such activities are compatible with the surrounding land uses and where the impacts associated with existing and future development can be appropriately mitigated.

Uses

LU190 Define all uses that are functionally integrated with, or substantively related to, the central mission of the major institution or that primarily and directly serve the users of the institution as major institution uses and permit these uses in the Major Institution Overlay district, subject to the provisions of this policy, and in accordance with the development standards of the underlying zoning classifications or adopted master plan.

Development Standards

LU191 Apply the development standards of the underlying zoning classification for height, density, bulk, setbacks, coverage and landscaping for institutions to all major institution development, except for specific standards altered by a master plan.

LU192 The need for appropriate transition shall be a primary consideration in determining setbacks.

Parking Standards

LU193 Establish minimum parking requirements in MIO districts to meet the needs of the major institution and minimize parking demand in the adjacent areas. Include maximum parking limits to avoid unnecessary traffic in the surrounding areas and to limit the use of single occupancy vehicles (SOV).

LU194 Allow short-term or long-term parking space provisions to be modified as part of a Transportation Management Program (TMP).

LU195 Allow an increase to the number of permitted spaces only when an increase is necessary to reduce parking demand on streets in surrounding areas and is compatible with goals to minimize traffic congestion in the area.

LU196 Use the TMP to reduce the number of vehicle trips to the major institution, minimize the adverse impacts of traffic on the streets surrounding the institution, minimize demand for parking on nearby streets, especially residential streets, and minimize the adverse impacts of institution-related parking on nearby streets. To meet these objectives seek to reduce the number of SOVs used by employees and students to reach the campus at peak times.

Residential Structures

LU197 Encourage the preservation of housing within major institution overlay districts and the surrounding areas. Discourage conversion or demolition of housing within a major institution campus, and allow such action only when necessary for expansion of the institution. Prohibit demolition of structures with non-institutional residential uses for the development of any parking lot or parking structure which could provide non-required parking or be used to reduce a deficit of required parking spaces. Prohibit development by a major institution outside of the MIO district boundaries when it would result in the demolition of structures with residential uses or change of these structures to non-residential uses.

Master Plan

LU198 Require a master plan for each Major Institution proposing development which could affect the livability of adjacent neighborhoods or has the potential for significant adverse impacts on the surrounding areas. Use the master plan to facilitate a comprehensive review of benefits and impacts of the Major Institution development.

LU199 Use the master plan to

1. Give clear guidelines and development standards on which the major institutions can rely for long-term planning and development;

2. Provide the neighborhood advance notice of the development plans of the major institution;

3. Allow the City to anticipate and plan for public capital or programmatic actions that will be needed to accommodate development; and

4. Provide the basis for determining appropriate mitigating actions to avoid or reduce adverse impacts from major institution growth.

LU200 The master plan should establish or modify boundaries; provide physical development standards for the overlay district; define the development program for the specified time-period; and describe a transportation management program.

LU201 Require City Council review and adoption of the master plan following a cooperative planning process to develop the master plan by the Major Institution, the surrounding community and the City.

LU202 In considering rezones, the objective shall be to achieve a better relationship between residential, commercial or industrial uses and the Major Institution uses, and to reduce or eliminate major land use conflicts in the area.

C-2 Historic Districts and Landmarks

LU203 Encourage the preservation, restoration and reuse of designated historic districts and landmarks.

LU204 Allow for the designation of areas as landmark districts and structures as landmark structures to protect, enhance, and perpetuate the individual historical or architectural identity of the area or building, recognizing that landmark designations help protect significant buildings and qualities that distinguish these areas and structures, and encourage stability, restoration, and planned development.

LU205 Allow development standards and design review to be adopted specifically for a designated landmark district, including guidelines that may specify design-related features allowed, encouraged, limited, or excluded from the district. Allow adopted guidelines to modify, exempt, or supersede the standards of the underlying zone, although for elements not included in the landmark district guidelines, the standards of the existing designation shall continue to apply.

C-3 Environmentally Critical Areas

LG36 Protect the ecological functions and values of wetlands, and fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas; prevent erosion from development on steep slopes; and protect the public health, safety and welfare in landslide-prone, liquefaction-prone and flood-prone areas.

LG37 Permit landowners to develop land in a manner that is reasonable in light of the environmental constraints present.

LG38 Avoid development that causes injury to persons, property, public resources or the environment.

LU206 Strictly regulate development in critical areas to protect the public health, safety, and welfare on development sites and neighboring properties.

LU207 Limit impacts to environmentally critical areas and buffers by directing activities away from these areas through restrictions on the design and siting of structures and on grading and other land disturbing activity.

LU208 Permit modification of development standards in environmentally critical areas to help protect those areas and to allow reasonable development.

LU209 When reviewing a rezone proposed for an area located in or adjacent to a critical area, consider the effect of the rezone on the critical area, and recognize that lower intensity zones are generally more appropriate in critical areas than higher intensity zones.

Landslide-prone Areas

LU210 Seek to protect landslide-prone hillsides, including steep slopes, against future damage due to instability created or exacerbated by development, including protecting against damage to public facilities. Take into account the relative risk to life or property when reviewing development proposals for landslide-prone areas.

LU211 Identify landslide-prone areas through identification of geologic, hydrologic and topographic factors that contribute to landslides.

LU212 Before permitting development on a landslide-prone hillside, ensure that engineering solutions are designed to prevent slides both during high-stress periods and in the event of poor maintenance of the hillside.

Require, as appropriate, that special engineering considerations be integrated into a structure's design to provide an acceptable level of risk. Design permanent facilities for a 100-year life expectancy. Account for a one-in-100 year event for seismic activity when designing a development.

Steep Slopes

LU213 Regulate development on steep slopes to control erosion, water runoff, siltation of streams, lakes, Puget Sound and the City's stormwater facilities.

LU214 Limit disturbance of the slope and maintain and enhance existing vegetative cover in order to control erosion, water runoff, and siltation of streams, lakes, Puget Sound, and the City's stormwater facilities.

Liquefaction-prone Areas

LU215 Identify areas subject to liquefaction during earthquakes. Require that new development in those areas is designed and built to limit property damage and eliminate injury and loss of life during earthquakes.

Abandoned Solid Waste Landfills

LU216 Regulate development on sites of abandoned solid waste landfills to minimize the risks of ground subsidence, earthquake induced ground shaking, and methane gas build up.

LU217 Regulate development on sites within 1,000 feet of abandoned solid waste landfills to minimize the risk of methane gas build-up.

Wetlands

LU218 Seek a net gain in wetland function by enhancing and restoring wetland function across the city.

LU219 Strictly regulate development to minimize construction and postconstruction impacts in and near wetlands in order to protect the remaining unique and valuable wetland resources left in Seattle.

LU220 Support efforts to restore wetlands to their original state and natural function.

LU221 Seek no net loss of wetland acreage, and require no net loss of wetland values or functions across the city, including, but not limited to flood control, water quantity and quality, fish and wildlife habitat, and quality of life and educational benefits. In limited circumstances, allow a wetland's functions to be replaced either on or off-site.

LU222 Regulate development near wetlands to minimize construction and post-construction impacts.

LU223 Near wetlands, protect vegetation in its existing condition unless augmenting or replanting can be shown to better protect the wetland's functions.

Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas

LU224 Regulate development in and near designated fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas in order to protect the remaining native wildlife species and significant fish populations, especially salmonids.

LU225 Whenever possible, maintain in their natural or native state those areas that contain the natural vegetative cover and physical space necessary to serve as valuable habitat, in order to:

* Protect large contiguous wildlife habitat areas;

* Maintain wildlife corridors that connect functions;

* Conserve soil and ground conditions that support native vegetation;

* Prevent siltation and high water temperatures in downstream habitat;

* Dampen fluctuations in surface water flow which are typically problematic in urbanized areas; and

* Maintain groundwater recharge flow to support stream flows during drier seasons.

LU226 Regulate development within riparian corridors to protect the natural functions and values of streams, creeks and lakes from the potential negative effects of urban development.

LU227 Establish development standards to:

* Prevent the degradation of water quality,

* Prevent erosion and siltation, and

* Protect fish and wildlife habitat.

LU228 Establish buffer areas adjacent to the water body on each development site that is located within a riparian corridor. Strictly limit development within buffer areas, and leave vegetation in its natural condition unless new plantings will enhance the functions of the buffer.

Flood-prone Areas

LU229 Regulate development in flood-prone areas in order to protect the public health and safety, and to prevent damage to private property caused by hazardous flooding conditions.

C-4 Shorelines

Discussion:

In conformance with the goals of the State Shoreline Management Act, the Seattle Shoreline Master Program accommodates a variety of functions and activities unique to shoreline areas, especially waterdependent businesses and shoreline recreation activities, and protects and enhances public access, natural areas, and views of the water. Management of Seattle's shorelines is guided by the Area Objectives for Seattle's shorelines as established in these policies, and the purpose of the shoreline environments, the shoreline environment designations and the use regulations and development standards established in the Land Use Code. All these elements combined constitute the Seattle Shoreline Master Program.

SHORELINE USE

LG39 Establish shoreline uses that result in long-term over shortterm benefit.

LG40 Plan for and encourage the integration and location of compatible uses within segments of the shoreline.

LG41 Locate all non-water dependent uses upland to optimize shoreline use and access.

LG42 Provide a management system that will plan for and permit all reasonable and appropriate use through a system of priorities.

LG43 Protect those areas of shoreline that are geologically dangerous or fragile, or biologically fragile.

LU230 Permit only those uses or conditions that retain use options for future generations unless identified benefits clearly outweigh the physical, social and/or economic loss to future generations since competition between uses for shoreline does not generally occur at one moment, but over a period of time. Water dependent uses generally shall have priority. Preference will be given in the following order:

1st. Protection and enhancement of natural areas or systems: those identified as containing or having unique geological, ecological or biological significance.

2nd. Water-dependent uses: all uses that cannot exist in any other location and are dependent on the water by reason of the intrinsic nature of their operations. However, because of their historic role and legal recognition by the City, floating home moorage are designated as a water dependent use. Such designation does not imply support for increase of floating home moorage. The intent of this policy is to recognize the existing floating home community in Lake Union and Portage Bay, while protecting natural areas, preserving public access to the shoreline, and preventing the displacement of water-dependent commercial and manufacturing uses by floating homes. Areas with substantial concentrations of existing floating homes shall be given a designation that preserves residential uses.

3rd. Non-water dependent uses: those uses that do not need a waterfront location to operate.

LU231 Define in the Land Use Code all appropriate shoreline uses, and provide site development performance standards and other appropriate criteria indicating minimal acceptable standards to be achieved. Uses shall be preferred in the following order:

1. On waterfront lots:

a. Protection and Enhancement. Uses that provide for protection and enhancement of natural areas or systems.

b. Water-dependent uses. Uses that are dependent on the water by the intrinsic nature of their operation.

c. Water-related uses. Uses that are not intrinsically dependent on a waterfront location but whose operation cannot occur economically without use of the water adjacent to the site.

d. Non-water-dependent uses with regulated public access. Uses that are neither water-dependent nor water-related because they do not use the water, although a waterfront location may increase their profitability. Such uses provide a public benefit because they provide an opportunity for substantial numbers of the people to enjoy the shorelines of the City.

e. Non water-dependent uses without regulated public access.

2. On upland lots: Preferred uses are those that complement uses on adjacent waterfront lots.

3. The preference for natural areas shall be accomplished by prohibiting uses that would disrupt natural areas or by providing enhancement of such areas where necessary.

4. Preferred uses will vary according to the purpose of the environment:

a. If the purpose of the environment is to encourage water-dependent and water-related uses, these uses shall be preferred by prohibiting and/or restricting non water-dependent uses on waterfront lots.

b. If the purpose of the environment is to provide public access, providing public access shall be preferred by permitting non waterdependent uses and requiring public access.

5. The determination that a shoreline area is suitable for a particular water-dependent use shall be made by comparing the area's physical characteristics and existing land use patterns to the rezone requirements of water-dependent uses.

LU232 Identify those areas of shorelines that are geologically or biologically dangerous or fragile and regulate development to prevent damage to property or organisms and the general public.

LU233 Encourage the development of support industries and services on upland lots by permitting a wider range of uses and more flexible development standards than waterfront lots, and avoiding potential incompatibility with water-dependent uses on waterfront lots.

SHORELINE ACCESS

LG44 Provide for the optimum amount of public access-both physical and visual-to the shorelines of Seattle.

LG45 Preserve and enhance views of the shoreline and water from upland areas where appropriate.

LU234 Increase opportunities for substantial numbers of people to enjoy the shorelines, by permitting non-water-dependent uses providing public access to locate in waterfront areas less suited for waterdependent uses, and by requiring public access on public property.

LU235 Promote public enjoyment of the shorelines through public access standards by requiring improvements that are safe, well designed, and offer adequate access to the water.

LU236 Except for single-family residences, maintain standards and criteria for public access and private use of publicly owned or controlled shorelines to achieve the following:

1. Provide linkages between shoreline public facilities via trails, paths, etc., to connect with terminal boating and other recreational facilities.

2. Indicate by use of signs and graphics all publicly owned or controlled shoreline.

3. If appropriate, offer bonuses for the provision of public access in private property.

4. Require public agencies such as the City, Port of Seattle, and King County Metro, etc., to provide public access opportunities at new shorelines facilities and encourage these agencies to provide similar opportunities in existing facilities.

5. Provide standards and criteria for view and visual access from upland and shoreline areas.

6. Give priority to the operating requirements of the water-dependent and water-related uses over preservation of views in those environments where water-dependent uses are encouraged.

7. Limit off-premise signs and regulate other signs to enhance and protect views.

LU237 Waterways in Lake Union and Portage Bay are for public navigation access and commerce and, in general, the City shall not request that the designation be removed from waterways. The City may request that waterways be vacated only when the city reclaims the area as street right of way or for public park purposes. The City may request that the dry land portion of a waterway be redesignated for the additional purpose of providing permanent public access improvements.

TRANSPORTATION

LG46 Develop a transportation network that supports and enhances use of and access to the shorelines

LG47 Relocate transportation facilities that are functionally or aesthetically disruptive to the shoreline.

LU238 Encourage the transport of materials and cargo via modes having the least environmental impact.

LU239 Encourage the maintenance and future development of inter-modal commuter ferry services, complementary to other public transportation systems, from both intracity locations and regional activity centers.

LU240 Streets, highways, freeways and railroads should be located away from the shoreline in order to maximize the area of waterfront lots and minimize the area of upland lots. Streets, highways, freeways and railroads not needed for access to shoreline lots shall be discouraged in the Shoreline District.

LU241 The primary purpose of waterways in Lake Union and Portage Bay is to facilitate navigation and commerce by providing navigational access to adjacent properties, access to the land for the loading and unloading of watercraft, and temporary moorage. The importance of waterways in providing public access from dry land to the water is also recognized.

LU242 Public access shall be the preferred use for recaptured rightsof-way. Public rights-of-way may be used or developed for uses other than public access, provided that such uses are determined by the City to be in the public interest, and that public access of substantial quality and at least comparable to the right-of-way is provided.

LU243 Shorelines street ends are a valuable resource for public use and access. Public or private use or development of street ends shall be designed to enhance rather than reduce public access.

LU244 Provide public transportation convenient to the shoreline.

CONSERVATION

LG48 Preserve, protect and restore areas such as those necessary for the support of wild and aquatic life or those identified as having geological or biological significance.

LG49 Insure that all future uses will preserve and protect environmental systems, including wild and aquatic life.

LG50 Insure continuing scientific study of Seattle shoreline ecosystems.

LU245 Protect the natural environment through use and development standards governing shoreline activities including best management practices.

LU246 Areas identified as special wildlife or fisheries habitat should be developed only if no reasonable alternative locations exist and then only if the project is designed to minimize and mitigate habitat damage.

LU247 Require that all commercial, industrial or other high activity uses provide means for treating natural or artificial urban run-off to acceptable standards. Developments with industrial and commercial uses that use or process substances potentially harmful to public health and/or aquatic life shall provide means to prevent, to the extent possible, point and non-point discharge of the harmful substances.

LU248 Dredging and disposal of dredge materials shall be conducted in a manner that minimizes short and long-term environmental damage.

LU249 Permit landfill on submerged land that does not create dry land where necessary for a water-dependent or water-related use, for the installation of a bridge or utility line or for wildlife or fisheries habitat mitigation or enhancement. Permit landfill that creates dry land only where necessary for the operation of a water-dependent or water-related use, to repair pocket erosion, or for wildlife habitat mitigation or enhancement. Large amounts of dry land may be created in Lake Union only if specifically approved by the Council for a public park purpose.

LU250 Identify those areas that have potential for restoration to "natural" conditions, develop standards for the conditions in those areas, and provide incentives for achieving such standards.

LU251 Support programs that inform the public about shoreline conservation practices, and identify methods by which public and private shoreline owners or community groups may encourage wild, aquatic and botanical life, and require such methods when appropriate.

LU252 Support the study of the shoreline systems that will provide a continuously updated baseline against which to judge the impact of any action.

ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

LG51 Encourage economic activity and development of water-dependent uses by supporting the retention and expansion of existing waterdependent businesses and planning for the creation of new developments in areas now dedicated to such use.

LG52 Allow a multi-use concept of development, provided that the major use is water-dependent and that it provides public access to the shoreline yet maintains the economic viability of the use.

LU253 Concentrate industrial and commercial shoreline uses by supporting the retention and expansion of existing water-dependent businesses, and planning for the creation of new developments in areas now dedicated to such use.

LU254 Identify and designate appropriate land adjacent to deep water for uses that require such condition, such as industry or commerce.

LU255 Provide incentives for public amenities on private property.

LU256 Citywide objectives for different types of water-dependent businesses and industries:

1. Cargo Handling Facilities:

a. Reserve space in deep water areas with adequate backup space to permit the Port of Seattle and other marine industries to remain competitive with other ports.

b. Work with the Port of Seattle to develop a long-range harbor plan in order to provide predictability for property owners and private industry in the Duwamish and Elliott Bay.

2. Tug and Barge Facilities: Retain Seattle's role as the Gateway to Alaska and maintain space for Puget Sound and Pacific trade.

3. Shipbuilding, Boat building, and Repairs: Maintain a critical mass of facilities in Seattle in order to meet the needs of the diverse fleets that visit or have a home port in Seattle, including fishing, transport, recreation and military vessels.

4. Moorage: Meet the long-term and transient needs of all of Seattle's ships and boats including fishing, transport, recreation and military. Locate long-term moorage in sheltered areas close to services, and short-term moorage in more open areas. Support the efficient use of Fishermen's Terminal, the Shilshole Marina and other public moorage facilities. Reduce the displacement of commercial moorage by recreational moorage by encouraging the full use of submerged lands for recreational moorage in areas less suited for commercial moorage. Require large recreational marinas to provide some commercial transient moorage as part of their facilities.

5. Recreational Boating: Maintain Seattle's unofficial status as a "boating capital." Allow a variety of boating facilities from launching ramps for small "car top" boats to major marinas. Provide long-term recreational moorage for residents and sufficient short-term moorage close to cultural and recreational centers for visitors.

6. Passenger Terminals: Maintain and expand the opportunity for residents and visitors for convenient travel by ship to local and distant ports. Encourage more passenger-only ferries and cruise ships on the Central Waterfront.

7. Fishing Industry: Maintain a critical mass of support services including boat building and repair, moorage, fish processors, and supply houses to permit Seattle fishermen to continue to service and have a home-port for their vessels in Seattle waters. Recognize the importance of the local fishing industry in supplying local markets and restaurants. Recognize the economic contribution of distant water fisheries to Seattle's maritime and general economy.

RECREATION

LG53 Manage publicly owned shorelines that are suitable for public recreation to optimize their potential.

LG54 Increase the amount of shorelines dedicated to public recreation and open space.

LG55 Identify, protect and reserve for public use and/or enjoyment those areas containing special shoreline qualities that cannot be easily duplicated.

LU257 Allow for increased opportunity for the public to enjoy waterdependent recreation including boating, fishing, swimming, diving and enjoyment of views.

LU258 Designate as suited for water-dependent recreation areas having natural beaches, large amounts of submerged land for moorage or sheltered waters and the absence of heavy ship traffic and incompatible heavy industry.

LU259 Provide for recreational boating facilities including terminals, moorage and service facilities on publicly-owned land and encourage the provision of such facilities on private property, if the environmental impact is acceptable.

LU260 Increase publicly-owned shorelines, giving priority to those areas that lack recreational facilities.

LU261 Explore alternative means (other than acquisition) to provide public recreation at the shoreline and on the water.

LU262 Use submerged lands for underwater parks when feasible.

HISTORY, CULTURE, RESTORATION AND ENHANCEMENT

LG56 Appropriately designate sites and areas of shoreline having historic or cultural significance.

LG57 Support and encourage the restoration of those areas or conditions of the shoreline now unsuitable for private or public use, consistent with economic and environmental goals.

LG58 Upgrade and/or beautify the public shoreline.

LU263 Support and encourage the restoration, preservation and maintenance of areas of the shoreline having significant historical or cultural significance, and a program for shoreline restoration and beautification.

LU264 Consider protection of individual sites or aspects of areas identified as being of historical significance through landmark designation.

PROCESS

LG59 Continue shoreline planning by periodically updating the inventory, goals, policies and regulations to respond to changing attitudes and conditions in Seattle's shorelines.

LU265 Conduct periodic assessments of the performance of and the need for change in the Shoreline Master Program.

AREA OBJECTIVES FOR SEATTLE'S SHORELINES

LG60 Recognize the unique opportunities in different areas of our shorelines to accommodate different types of water-dependent businesses and shoreline recreation, and to protect and enhance natural areas and views of the water.

LG61 Restore Lower Duwamish Watershed habitat while maintaining the urban industrial nature of the area, its neighborhoods and the importance of sustaining a healthy and diverse working waterfront and marine ecology.

LG62 Strengthen the vitality of a functioning ecosystem within the Lower Duwamish Watershed by integrating projects into their surrounding environments, by supporting a diversity of habitats, and by strengthening connections between habitats throughout the Watershed.

LU266 The Lower Duwamish Watershed Habitat Restoration Plan (December, 1996, as may be amended from time to time) should be considered by agencies when conducting planning or permitting activities within the watershed

LU267 It is the intent of the Area Objectives to indicate which of the Shoreline Areas Goals and Policies are to be met on each specific section of shoreline. The Management System for Appropriate Uses as required by the Shoreline Management Act shall consist of the Area Objectives for the diverse areas of Seattle's shorelines, the purposes of the shoreline environments, the shoreline environment designations, and the use regulations and development standards of the Land Use Code.

LU268 The area objectives for Seattle Shorelines illustrated in Land Use Figure 1 are as follows:

1. Area Objectives For Shorelines Of Statewide Significance

a. Puget Sound (Residential/Recreational Areas)

(The Puget Sound area includes all of the shorelines on Puget Sound within the City limits, except the Shilshole area, Elliott Bay, the Harborfront and the Duwamish Waterways.)

* Protect the fragile ecology of the natural beaches and fish migration routes.

* Encourage and enhance shoreline recreational activities, particularly in developed parks.

* Provide for quality public access to the shoreline.

* Preserve and enhance views of the water.

* Protect areas developed for residential use in a manner consistent with the Single-family and Multi-family Residential Area Policies.

b. Elliott Bay

(The Elliott Bay area is all shoreline area from 24th Avenue West to SW Atlantic Street, except the Harborfront, Harbor Island and the Duwamish Waterways.)

* Reserve waterfront lots for major port terminals, large waterdependent and water-related manufacturing and industrial facilities, and major water-dependent recreational developments.

* Choose shoreline environments that are appropriate for recreational and industrial uses based on water depth, amount of dry land, topography, and truck and rail access.

* Protect and enhance migratory fish routes and feeding areas.

c. Harborfront (Central Waterfront)

(The Harborfront area is the shoreline area from Bay Street on the north to S. Jackson Street on the south.)

* Encourage economically viable marine uses to meet the needs of waterborne commerce.

* Facilitate the revitalization of downtown's waterfront.

* Provide opportunities for public access and recreational enjoyment of the shoreline.

* Preserve and enhance elements of historic and cultural significance.

* Preserve views of Elliott Bay and the land forms beyond.

d. The Duwamish

(The Duwamish area includes the Duwamish river from the south city limits north to South Massachusetts on the east side and Southwest Bronson Street on the west side, and including Harbor Island and the East and West Duwamish Waterways.)

* Preserve the statewide interest by encouraging industrial and port uses in this area, where such uses are already concentrated, while also protecting migratory fish routes.

* Protect Kellogg Island as an important natural resource for fish and wildlife habitat and the opportunity for the public to view those resources.

* Work with appropriate government agencies and shoreline users to reduce the input of pollutants, restore contaminated areas and regulate disposal of dredge spoils.

* Increase public access and recreational opportunities through the Duwamish Public Access Plan.

e. The Shilshole Area

(The Shilshole area is the shoreline area from Northwest 80th Street on the north, to the Chittenden Locks.)

* Retain the strong, water-dependent recreational character of the area. Water-dependent recreational uses and their supporting services are the preferred uses for this area.

* Permit non-water-dependent commercial uses when providing access to the water, protecting views and not usurping land usable for future water-dependent recreational uses.

* On waterfront lots, new residential uses may be permitted when adjacent to existing residences. Protect the fish migration routes.

f. Lake Washington and Union Bay

(The Lake Washington area is the shoreline area on Lake Washington from the north to south city limits, including Union Bay, to the Montlake Bridge.)

* Preserve the resources of natural areas and fish migration, feeding areas and spawning areas.

* Provide quality public access to the shoreline by encouraging and enhancing shoreline recreational activities, particularly in developed parks.

* Preserve and enhance views of the water.

* Protect developed residential and commercial areas in a manner consistent with adopted land use policies.

Union Bay

* Protect fragile natural environments.

* Provide opportunities for the public to enjoy the natural environment.

2. Area Objectives For Other Shoreline Areas

a. The Ship Canal

(The Ship Canal area includes the Lake Washington Ship Canal from the Chittenden Locks to the Fremont Bridge.)

* Retain and encourage the important role that the Ship Canal plays in state, regional and local fisheries by reserving the Ship Canal primarily for water-dependent and water-related uses. Non-waterdependent uses shall be restricted, prohibited or allowed only on a limited basis by the selection of shoreline environments that favor water-dependent uses.

* Encourage the development of non-water-dependent commercial, institutional and manufacturing uses on those areas of the Fremont Cut that do not have water access.

b. Lake Union and Portage Bay

(The Lake Union area is all of Lake Union from the Fremont Bridge to the Montlake Bridge, and all of Portage Bay, from the I-5 Bridge to the Montlake Bridge.)

* Maintain and encourage a diversity of uses around Lake Union and Portage Bay by designating different areas of the shoreline with different shoreline environments.

* Retain the working character of Lake Union by reserving those areas of the lake's shorelines that are suitable for water-dependent uses for the use of marine businesses. Prohibit new residential uses on industrial shorelines.

* Allow a greater mix of uses, including non-water-dependent uses providing public access, in those areas that are not being preserved for water-dependent uses.

* Preserve the existing floating home community.

* Provide a maximum amount of public access in locations that do not conflict with water-dependent manufacturing uses.

* Provide for some open water and protect views of the Lake and Bay in all environments in Lake Union and Portage Bay.

* Restore and enhance and Lake's natural environment.

c. Green Lake

(The Green Lake area includes the lake, the park and its 200 foot-wide shoreline.)

* Encourage and enhance the shoreline recreational activities and opportunities in the area as a unique urban park.

* Explore restoration options for improving water quality, reducing algae and other plant growth, and enhancing sports fishing.

HEIGHT IN THE SHORELINE DISTRICT

LU269 The 35-foot height limit of the Shoreline Management Act shall be the standard for maximum height in the Seattle Shoreline District. Exceptions in the development standards of a shoreline environment may be made consistent with the Act and with the underlying zoning where:

a. A greater height will not obstruct views of a substantial number of residences and the public interest will be served; and

b. Greater height is necessary for bridges or the operational needs of water dependent or water-related uses or manufacturing uses; or

c. A reduced height is warranted because of the underlying residential zone; or

d. A reduced height is warranted because public views or the views of a substantial number of residences could be blocked.

2004 Comprehensive Plan Update Ordinance Page 29 of 73 Attachment 1: Land Use Element

HOUSING ELEMENT

A. Accommodating Growth and Maintaining Affordability

Discussion:

Housing affordability is influenced in part by regional and local land use policies, development regulations and permit processes. Policies, regulations and regulatory processes should be designed to maintain overall housing affordability, while at the same time meeting other important goals of the plan, such as maintaining neighborhood character and preserving the environment.

Thise Plan is intended to help accommodates Seattle's portion of expected regional housing demand, in part created by expected employment growth in Seattle. Because Seattle's housing market is influenced by the regional housing market, Seattle and other jurisdictions in the region need to plan cooperatively.

Thise Plan provides for sufficient unused residential development capacity to allow the market to develop housing to meet expected demand, thus reducing upward pressure on average housing prices and rents. The policies are also intended to Plan encourages residential developers to develop in Seattle by holding down regulatory components of housing costs, thus reducing and controlling the cost of developing new housing.

Goals

HG1 Accommodate a range of 50,000 to 60,000 47,000 additional households over the next 20 years covered by this Plan.

HG2 Maintain housing affordability over the life of this Plan.

HG3 Achieve greater predictability in project approval timelines, achievable densities and mitigation costs.

Policies

H1 Coordinate the City's growth management planning with other jurisdictions in the region in order to provide adequate regional development capacity to accommodate expected residential growth and anticipated demand for different types of housing.

H2 Maintain sufficient zoned development capacity to accommodate Seattle's projected share of King County household growth over the next 20 years as provided for and described in the land use Urban Village Element.

H3 Take a proactive and leadership role in regional efforts to increase affordable housing preservation and production in order to ensure a balanced regional commitment to affordable housing, while also maintaining the City's commitment to affordable housing.

H4 Continue to permit residential development in all land use zones, but generally limit residential development in industrial zones and certain shoreline overlay zones; continue to encourage residential uses in mixed-use development in downtown and neighborhood commercial zones.

H5 Provide for lower off-street parking requirements in locations where car ownership rates are low for resident populations, to help reduce housing costs and increase affordability.

H6 In order to control the effects of regulatory processes on housing price, Sstrive to minimize the time taken to process land use and building permits, subject to the need to review projects in accordance with applicable land use regulations. Continue to give priority in the plan review process to permits for very lowincome housing.

H7 Periodically assess the effects of City policies and regulations on housing development costs and overall housing affordability, considering the balance between housing affordability and other objectives such as environmental quality, urban design quality, maintenance of neighborhood character and protection of public health, safety and welfare.

H8 Consider using zoning, land use regulations and policies, and infrastructure requirements for, among other objectives, providing incentives that encourage public agencies, private property owners and developers to build housing that helps fulfill City policy objectives for housing. Examples of development incentives include height and density bonuses, minimum densities and transferable development rights. Consider new methods and expanded use of programs that make maximum use of City resources such as bridge loans, and credit enhancement, and tax exemptions.

H9 Promote housing preservation, development and housing affordability in coordination with transit plans and in proximity to light rail stations and other transit hubs. Coordinate housing, land use, human services, urban design, infrastructure and environmental strategies to support pedestrian-friendly communities at light rail station areas and other transit hubs.

B. Encouraging Housing Diversity and Quality

Discussion:

The demographic make-up of households in both King County and the City of Seattle is changing. The average age of city residents is increasing, and fewer households have children. Household size has continued to shrink, though more slowly in the 1990s than in previous decades. At the same time, single-family houses, the preferred housing type of many households, have become increasingly expensive and, because of a finite land supply, constitute a declining share of the county's housing stock. Policies in this section address emphasize both the development of new housing and the adaptation of existing housing to meet the needs and preferences of the current and expected residents of the city. Despite trends, the City wants to encourage home ownership opportunities in order to promote a sense of community, encourage investment in housing, and to minimize displacement of low-income residents due to gentrification of neighborhoods. The City also has an interest in safeguarding the condition and quality of the housing stock and in maintaining attractive and livable neighborhoods.

Seattle's zoneding and development regulations development capacity for various types of housing, as established pursuant to the land use element, is are intended to allow development of housing that will satisfy varied consumer preferences. Many consumers have a strong preference for singlefamily homes. To some extent, this preference can be met by groundrelated units that may be more affordable than detached houses. Ground-related housing types include townhouses, duplexes, triplexes, ground-related apartments, small cottages, accessory units and singlefamily homes. These housing types provide yards or play areas immediately adjacent to homes, which are important to families with children. See the Land Use Element policy L76 for the City's policy regarding the allowance and location of accessory housing.

Moderateand high-density multifamily apartments are needed to help accommodate expected housing demand over the next 20 years. This kind of residential development is , as they are often more affordable than ground-related housing units due to the frequently smaller size of the units. The Seattle Residential Preferential Study revealed a significant market for apartment units in urban centers and urban villages if appropriate amenities are provided. The land use element therefore, This Plan accommodates the majority of residential growth over the 20-year life of this plan through in moderateand highdensity multifamily developments in urban centers and urban villages. As residential growth occurs, it will continue to be important to include affordable housing units in the mix of largely market-rate development.

Goals

HG4 Achieve a mix of housing types that are attractive and affordable to a diversity of ages, incomes, household types, household sizes, and cultural backgrounds.

HG5 Promote households with children and attract a greater share of the county's families with children.

HG6 Encourage and support accessible design and housing strategies that provide seniors the opportunity to remain in their own neighborhood as their housing needs change.

HG7 Accommodate a variety of housing types that are attractive and affordable to potential home buyers.

HG8 Strive to increase the Achieve a rate of owneroccupancy of housing no less than the county average owneroccupancy rate over time.

HG9 Consider new ground-related housing such as townhouses and cottage housing as part of the City's strategy for creating home ownership opportunities.

HG10 Ensure that housing is safe and habitable.

HG11 Strive for freedom of choice of housing type and neighborhood for all, regardless of race, color, age, gender, marital status, parental status, sexual orientation, political ideology, creed, religion, ancestry, national origin or the presence of any sensory, mental or physical disability.

Policies

H10 Reflect anticipated consumer preferences and housing demand of different submarkets in the mix of housing types and densities permitted under Seattle's zoned development capacity the City's Land Use Code. Encourage a range of housing types including, but not limited to: single-family housing; ground-related housing to provide an affordable alternative to single-family ownership; and moderateand high-density multifamily apartments, which are needed to accommodate most of the growth over the 20-year life of this Plan.

H11 Strive to make the environment, amenities and housing attributes in urban villages attractive to all income groups, ages and households types.

H12 Provide affordable housing tools concepts for neighborhood planning to enable neighborhoods to preserve existing single-family character, while also contributing to the provision of affordable housing.

H13 Accommodate and encourage, where appropriate, the development of ground-related housing in the city that is attractive and affordable to households with children.

H14 Neighborhood planning should sStrive to have each hub urban village and residential urban village include some groundrelated housing capacity, with the exception of residential urban villages and hub urban villages contiguous to downtown.

H15 Allow and encourage a range of housing types for seniors, such as independent living, various degrees of assisted living, and skilled nursing care facilities. Strive to increase opportunities for seniors to live in accessible housing with services nearby.

H16 Encourage greater ethnic and economic integration of neighborhoods in the city in a manner that does not promote gentrification or the displacement of existing low-income residents from their communities. Strive to allocate housing subsidy resources in a manner that increases opportunities for low-income households, including ethnic minorities, to choose residences located among neighborhoods throughout the city.

H17 As appropriate and conditions warrant, the City will encourage the Seattle Housing Authority (SHA) to seek federal, state and private resources to continue preserveing, rehabilitate ing or redeveloping its properties in a manner that best serves the needs of Seattle's low-income population,. Preservation, rehabilitation and redevelopment should addresses social and economic impacts on surrounding neighborhoods, and results in no net loss of housing affordable to households earning below up to 30 percent% of area median income.

H18 Promote methods of more efficiently using or adapting the city's housing stock to enable changing households to remain in the same home or neighborhood for many years. Strategies may include sharing homes, accessory units in single-family zones, housing designs which that are easily augmented to accommodate children ("grow houses"), or other methods considered through neighborhood planning.

H19 Allow the use of modular housing, conforming to the standards of the State of Washington building and energy codes, and manufactured housing, built to standards established by the federal Department of Housing and Urban Development. Modular and manufactured houses shall be permitted on individual lots in any land use zone where residential uses are permitted.

H20 Promote and foster, where appropriate, innovative and nontraditional housing types such as co-housing, live/work housing and accessory dwelling units, as alternative means of accommodating residential growth and providing affordable housing options.

H21 Allow higher residential development densities in moderate density multifamily zones for housing limited to occupancy by lowincome elderly and disabled households, based on because of the lower traffic and parking impacts this type of housing generates.

H22 Work with financial institutions, underwriters of development loans and mortgages, and the Washington State Housing Finance Commission, and others to find and promote solutions to overcome barriers in the real estate finance process that inhibit the development of modest single-family houses and condominium projects.

H23 Encourage employers located within the city to develop employerassisted housing programs. Provide technical assistance to employers wishing to obtain information on model programs.

H24 Encourage safe and healthy housing free of known hazardous conditions. Require that renter-occupied housing be maintained and operated according to minimum standards established in the Seattle Housing and Building Maintenance Code and other applicable codes, as amended from time to time. Actively encourage compliance with the codes and seek to inspect on a regular basis multifamily rental structures most likely to have code violations.

C. Providing Housing Affordable to Low-Income Households

Discussion:

Safe, habitable and affordable housing is a fundamental human need. According to the 1990 2000 U.S. Census, about a quarter 32 percent% of the city's households pay more than 30 percent of their income for housing. or live in overcrowded conditions. In order to meet existing and future housing needs, the City can use a variety of methods, including will encourage and fund a variety of housing production methods and types with an emphasis on providing housing affordable to households with incomes up to 50% of median income. These may include: new construction of low-income housing, rehabilitation of existing lowincome housing, conversion of existing non-residential structures, home-sharing, subsidizing low-income units in market-rate buildings and rent subsidy vouchers that eligible households could use to rent housing in the open market. A range of housing types may be produced, including larger apartment buildings, smaller garden apartment structures, single-room occupancy hotels, townhouses, duplexes and single-family houses. Housing may be provided by the public sector (the Seattle Housing Authority and public development authorities), non-profit housing development organizations and social service agencies, private property owners and developers and through other mechanisms such as land trusts and limited-equity cooperatives. Specific strategies and programs for the production and preservation of low-income housing are developed and implemented through the City of Seattle's Consolidated Plan and other programmatic plans.

Household median iIncome levels referred to in this Housing Element are defined as follows: (1) a "low-income household" is any household earning up to 80 percent% of the area median income, as defined by the federal Department of Housing and Urban Development; (2) a "very low-income household" is any household earning -up to 50 percent % of the area median income; and (3) an "extremely low-income household" is any household earning up to 30 percent % of the area median income." "Assisted housing" generally means owner-occupied or rental housing that is subject to restrictions on rent or sales prices as a result of one or more project-based governmental subsidies.

Goals

HG12 Reduce the number of low-income households in need of housing assistance with housing costs.

HG13 Provide new low-income housing through market-rate housing production and assisted housing programs.

HG14 Preserve existing low-income housing, particularly in urban centers and urban villages where most redevelopment pressure will occur.

HG15 Disperse housing opportunities for low-income households throughout the city and throughout King County.

HG16 Achieve a distribution of household incomes in urban centers and urban villages similar to the distribution of incomes found citywide.

HG17 Encourage safe, habitable and affordable housing for existing residents of distressed areas through such means as rehabilitation and adequate maintenance of privately-owned rental housing, increased home ownership opportunities, and community revitalization and development efforts.

Policies

H25 Support programs that provide financial assistance to lowincome homeowners and owners of low-income rental properties to maintain their properties in adequate condition. For instance, aAllocate resources to weatherization resources to achieve energy cost savings for low-income households in ownerand renter-occupied units. programs for low-income homeowners and owners of low-income rental properties.

H26 Encourage the development of housing in ways that protect the natural environment, including environmentally critical areas, and that promote energy conservation.

H27 Encourage the adaptive reuse of existing buildings for residential use. Recognize the challenges faced in reusing older buildings and consider, when revising technical codes, ways to make adaptive reuse more economically feasible.

H28 Seek opportunities to combine housing preservation and development efforts with historic preservation by either preserving residential structures of historic value or rehabilitating and reusing vacant landmark structures and vacant structures in landmark and/or special review districts for housing. Consider landmark preservation as a factor in evaluating low-income housing project proposals for funding.

H29 Encourage the replacement of occupied housing that is demolished or converted to non-residential use.

1. Encouraging Housing Affordable to Low-Income Households.

Policies

H2930 Address the city's share of low-income housing needs resulting from expected countywide household growth, consistent with the countywide affordable housing policies, by planning for:

a. A number of units at least equal to 20 percent % of expected household growth to be affordable to households between 0% and earning up to 50 percent % of median income, or between 10,000 and 12,000 estimated 9,400 affordable units).

b. A number of units at least equal to 17 percent % of expected household growth to be affordable to households earning between 501% and 80% of median income, or between 8,500 and 10,200 estimated 7,990 affordable units).

Both new housing and existing housing that is acquired, rehabilitated or preserved for long-term low-income occupancy shall count as meeting this policy.

H310 Promote the continued production and preservation of low-income housing through existing incentive zoning mechanisms, which include density and height bonuses and the transfer of development rights. Consider expanding the use of incentive zoning for affordable housing in neighborhoods outside downtown, particularly in urban centers. , particularly in relation to transit-oriented development. Allow for new or different incentive zoning provisions designed to produce or preserve low-income housing in downtown if they are adopted as part of neighborhood or subarea plans or where needed to achieve housing development goals.

H321 Encourage the preservation of existing low-income housing by: using housing programs and funds to preserve existing housing that is susceptible to redevelopment or gentrification; encouraging acquisition of housing by nonprofit organizations, land trusts or tenants, thereby protecting housing from upward pressure on prices and rents; inspecting renter-occupied housing for compliance with the Seattle Housing and Building Maintenance Code; and making available funds for emergency, code-related repair.

Allow sub-area plans resulting from neighborhood planning to permit the transfer of unused development rights from low-income housing to eligible sites elsewhere in the planning area as a preservation strategy.

H332 Give special consideration to actions that can help maintain the affordability of housing occupied by artists in areas that are recognized as established artist communities, such as Pioneer Square.

H343 Encourage affordable housing citywide.

a. Plan for at least one-quarter of the housing stock in the city to be affordable to households with incomes below up to 50 percent % of the area median income, regardless of whether this housing is publicly assisted or available in the private market.

b. Encourage the use of public subsidy funds for the production or preservation of low-income housing in urban centers and urban villages.

c. Encourage the production of housing affordable to households of all incomes, with particular emphasis on households with incomes from 0 up to 50 percent % of the area median income in centers and villages with high land values and/or relatively little existing rental housing affordable to households in that with income ranges from 0 50% of median income

d. Encourage all neighborhoods and urban villages to participate in the City's commitment to affordable housing, whether through neighborhood planning, station area planning, or other local planning and development activities.

2. Publicly Subsidized Low-Income Housing

H354 Strive to make some resources available to all household types (such as families and single-person households) in need of affordable housing options through the mix of housing programs in the city; however, emphasizes shall be placed on assisting households most in need due to very low-incomes or because of to special needs that the housing market is unable to serve. Direct aAffordable housing funds administered by the City shall be used to serve households with incomes at or below up to 80 percent % of the area median income, consistent with local, state and federal law and program requirements.

H365 Promote a broader geographical distribution of assisted subsidized rental housing by generally funding projects in areas with less assisted subsidized rental housing and generally restricting funding for projects in neighborhoods outside of downtown where there are high concentrations of assisted subsidized rental housing.

a. The specific rules implementing this policy and the conditions for allowing exceptions for particular projects are established by the City Council in the HUD Consolidated Plan and other City policies. The HUD Consolidated Plan may also include additional geographicspecific restrictions on, or exceptions for, assisted subsidized rental housing in order to further housing goals as defined in this Comprehensive Plan or such as in special objective areas defined in a neighborhood plans.

b. Encourage developers of projects funded with resources not administered by the City of Seattle and the providers of those resources to follow the City's policies for the geographic distribution of assisted subsidized rental housing.

H376 Require sponsors of City-funded assisted subsidized rental housing projects and encourage sponsors of nonCity-funded assisted subsidized rental housing projects to use the City's good neighbor guidelines. This should encourage cooperative problem solving as early as possible in the process of developing assisted subsidized rental housing, in order to identify and, where appropriate, respond to neighborhood concerns.

H387 Allocate public funds administered by the City to develop and preserve affordable rental housing for low-income, very low-income and extremely low-income households in conformity with applicable income limits in City ordinances, as in effect from time to time, that govern the use of each fund source.

H398 Seek to promote home ownership in the city in a variety of housing types by:

a. Using a portion of local discretionary housing subsidy resources to provide home ownership opportunities to low-income households, in conformity with applicable income limits in City ordinances, as in effect from time to time, that govern the use of each fund source.

b. Considering a set-aside of a portion of any new discretionary funding sources for assisted housing that would provide home ownership opportunities for low-income households. Also, cConsider alternative approaches to increase the development of affordable home ownership housing, including but not limited to greater use of land trusts and limited equity cooperatives.

H4039 Strive over time for a match the assisted permanent subsidized rental housing stock with unit types and sizes that reflect the housing needs of the city's lowincome households to household types and sizes in need of assistance.

H410 Set subsidies per unit forProvide affordable housing for low-income families with children, recognizing that this type of family housing requires greater per-unit productions costs subsidies due to larger household size, the need for play areas for children, and the separation of parking and access roads from play areas.

H421 Allow higher subsidy or production costs per housing unit when evaluating low-income housing project proposals in locations with higher than average land costs in order to eE ncourage and support the development of low-income affordable housing for low-income households in all parts of throughout the city, including areas of high land cost where greater subsidies may be needed.

H432 Allow use of public funds to provide subsidized low-income housing units in otherwise market-rate housing developments in order to better integrate low-income households into the community, consistent with the City's policies for the geographic distribution of assisted housing.

H443 Allocate resources for financial assistance to eligible tenants with incomes below up to 50 percent % of median income who are displaced from existing low-income housing because of redevelopment, substantial rehabilitation, changeof-use or termination of long-term, low-income rent restrictions in order to help offset the cost of relocating to another unit in a manner consistent with applicable state laws.

H454 Pursue a comprehensive approach of prevention, transition and stabilization services to decrease potential homelessness, stop recurring homelessness and promote long-term selfsufficiency.

a. Encourage efforts to expand the supply of extremely low-income, permanent housing to meet the needs of those for whom the cost of housing is a chief cause of homelessness.

b. Strive to develop a continuum of housing opportunities, ranging from emergency shelters to transitional housing to permanent housing, in order to assist homeless households that become homeless to regain and maintain stable, permanent housing.

c. Strategically invest in emergency and transitional housing for specific homeless populations.

H465 In recognition of the fact that for certain people housing support services can mean the difference between housing stability and homelessness, cCoordinate housing planning and funding, where appropriate, with the following types of housing support services:

* Services which that respond to emergency needs of the homeless (such as emergency shelters).

* Services which that assist clients to secure housing (such as rent and security deposit assistance, housing relocation assistance).

* Services that help clients to maintain permanent housing (such as landlord/tenant counseling, chore services, in-home health care, outpatient mental health treatment, employment counseling and placement assistance).

Seattle recognizes that housing support services are an important component of a comprehensive housing plan, and for certain people these services can mean the difference between housing stability and homelessness or institutionalization.

H476 Work in partnership among various levels of government and with other public agencies to address homeless and lowincome housing needs that transcend jurisdictional boundaries.

a. Work with the federal and state governments to increase public support for housing.

b. Work with the Seattle Housing Authority to address the low-income housing needs of Seattle residents.

c. Work with other jurisdictions in King County to pursue production of assisted low-income housing throughout the region and an equitable distribution of the cost of providing housing and human services to very-low-income households, including the regional problem of homelessness. Pursue the development of new funding sources, including a regional housing levy or other sources of funding for low-income housing and related supportive services that may be used throughout the region.

d. Continue providing local resources (such as levies, bond issues and the City's general fund) to meet housing needs, leveraging funds from other sources where appropriate.

e. Continue to lobby the state government to enact tax incentives, such as current use valuation and to increase housing funds to encourage the preservation of existing low-income housing.

H487 Strive to leverage federal, state and private resources with local public funds, where these resources help achieve the goals of Seattle's Comprehensive Plan.

H498 Among its other purposes, the City's Consolidated Plan shall serve as an ongoing, annually updated, coordinated compilation of information for the public regarding housing policies, strategies, programs and resource allocation. Housing portions of the Consolidated Plan constitute a functional planning to implement housing-related goals and policies in this Comprehensive Plan.

2004 Comprehensive Plan Update Ordinance Page 1 of 11 Attachment 3: Housing Element

TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT

A. Building Urban Villages: Land Use and Transportation

Discussion: The development pattern described in the Urban Village Element of this Plan will shape the city's transportation facilities. In particular, transportation facility design will reflect the intended pedestrian nature of the urban centers and villages and the desire to connect these places with transit service. Because Seattle is a fully built city with a mature street system, the City uses a full range of non-single occupant vehicle transportation facilities to support the desired redevelopment pattern within Urban Villages. These facilities can help create the mixed-use, walkable, transit and bike-friendly centers that this Plan envisions. However, the City recognizes that auto and service access to property will remain important for accommodating growth in centers and villages.

Outside of urban centers and villages, the City will also look for appropriate transportation designs that align transportation facilities and services with adjacent land uses.

This Element contains references to the Transportation Strategic Plan, which is the functional plan developed to implement these policies.

TG1 Ensure that transportation decisions, strategies and investments are coordinated with land use goals and support the urban village strategy

T1 Design transportation infrastructure in urban villages to support land use goals for compact, accessible, walkable neighborhoods.

T2 Make the design and scale of transportation facilities compatible with planned land uses and with consideration for the character anticipated by this Plan for the surrounding neighborhood.

T3 Involve the public in planning and designing of transportation facilities, programs, and services.

T4 Provide sufficient transportation facilities and services to promote and accommodate the growth this Plan anticipates in urban centers, urban villages, and manufacturing/industrial centers while reducing reliance on single occupancy vehicles.

T5 Establish multi-modal hubs providing transfer points between transit modes in urban centers and urban villages.

B. Make the Best Use of the Streets We Have to Move People and Goods

Discussion: The City has a limited amount of street space, and is unlikely to expand this space significantly. To make the best use of existing rights-of-way for moving people and goods, the City must allocate street space carefully among competing uses to further the City's growth management and transportation goals.

TG2 Manage the street system safely and efficiently for all modes and users and seek to balance limited street capacity among competing uses.

TG3 Support safe and convenient bicycle and pedestrian access throughout the transportation system.

TG4 Support adequate capacity on the street system for transit and other designated uses.

TG5 Preserve and maintain the boulevard network as both a travel and open space system.

TG6 Support efficient freight and goods movement.

TG7 Protect neighborhood streets from through traffic.

T9 Allocate street space among various uses (e.g., traffic, transit, trucks, carpools, bicycles, parking, and pedestrians) to enhance the key function(s) of a street as described in the Transportation Strategic Plan.

T10 Designate, in the Transportation Strategic Plan, a traffic network that defines Interstate Freeways, Principal, Minor and Collector Arterial streets, Commercial and Residential Access streets and Alleys as follows:

Interstate Freeways: roadways that provide the highest capacity and least impeded traffic flow for longer vehicle trips.

Principal Arterials: streets that are intended to serve as the primary routes for moving traffic through the city connecting urban centers and urban villages to one another, or to the regional transportation network.

Minor Arterials: streets that distribute traffic from principal arterials to collector arterials and access streets.

Collector Arterials: streets that collect and distribute traffic from principal and minor arterials to local access streets or provide direct access to destinations

Commercial Access Streets: streets that directly serve commercial and industrial land uses and provide localized traffic circulation.

Residential Access Streets: streets that provide access to neighborhood land uses and access to higher level traffic streets.

Alleys: travelways that provide access to the rear of residences and businesses that are not intended for the movement of through trips. Where a continuous alley network exists, it is the preferred corridor for utility facilities.

T11 Designate, in the Transportation Strategic Plan, a transit network to maintain and improve transit mobility and access, compatible with the transportation infrastructure and surrounding land uses.

T12 Designate, in the Transportation Strategic Plan, a truck classification network to accommodate trucks and to preserve and improve commercial transportation mobility and access. Designate as follows:

Major Truck Streets: an arterial street that accommodates significant freight movement through the city, and connects to major freight traffic generators.

T13 Designate, in the Transportation Strategic Plan, a bicycle classification network to accommodate bicycle trips through the City and to major destinations. Designate as follows:

Urban Trails: a network of onand off-street trails that facilitate walking and bicycling as viable transportation choices, provide recreational opportunities, and link major parks and open spaces with Seattle neighborhoods.

Bicycle Streets: an on-street bicycle network that connects neighborhoods and urban centers and villages and serves major intermodal connections.

T14 Designate, in the Transportation Strategic Plan, a network of boulevards that provides for circulation and access in a manner that enhances the appreciation or use of adjacent major park lands and vistas.

T15 Designate, in the Transportation Strategic Plan, a Street Type overlay on the arterial network to define street use and design features that support adjacent land uses, generally, as follows:

Main Street-Pedestrian: Main activity center in urban villages for pedestrians and transit. This Street Type encourages and supports pedestrian and bicycle activity as well as transit. Streets in this type may include high capacity transit stops and are distinguished by compact, mixed land uses, and high densities.

Main Street--Neighborhood Commercial: Streets within neighborhood commercial areas of the city. This street Type supports all modes with an emphasis on pedestrian access.

Regional Access Street: Provide connections between regional centers along principal arterials. This Street Type supports all modes but is primarily designed to provide citywide and regional access for transit, cars and truck trips and may support high and intermediate capacity transit service.

Commercial Access Street: Provide connections between commercial areas as well as local access within urban villages along minor arterials streets. This Street Type supports all modes with an emphasis on local access.

Pedestrian Connector: This Street Type supports pedestrian access along Collector Arterials to and from key pedestrian generators and destinations (e.g. schools, community centers, transit stops). May also be non-arterial streets that provide direct connection to high capacity transit stops.

Industrial Access Street: This Street Type supports freight access to manufacturing and industrial land uses.

Green Street: This Street Type on certain downtown streets provides exceptional pedestrian environments and may include wider sidewalks, street trees, landscape, and appropriate street furniture emphasizing pedestrian movement.

Neighborhood Green Street: May be on any non-arterial street adjacent to residential and commercial land uses. This Street Type supports all modes with an emphasis on pedestrian amenities and landscaping.

T16 Use neighborhood traffic control devices and strategies to protect local streets from through traffic, high volumes, high speeds, and pedestrian/vehicle conflicts. Use these devices and strategies on collector arterials where they are compatible with the basic function of collector arterials.

T17 Increase capacity on roadways only if needed to improve safety, improve connectivity of the transportation network, improve isolated connections to regional roadways, or where other measures are impractical to achieve level-of-service standards. The City will manage capacity of principal arterials where and as appropriate and will not attempt to provide street space to meet latent demand for travel by car. The City will not support freeway expansion for the sole purpose of increasing general traffic capacity.

C. Increasing Transportation Choices

Discussion: To reduce car use, the City will employ land use policies and parking strategies that encourage increased use of transit, walking, biking, and carpooling. To be effective, the City must provide for transportation alternatives and educate people on transportation choices. These kinds of tools enable the City to manage, or control, the need to travel by car. Transportation alternatives to the single occupancy-vehicle (SOV) need to address cost, convenience, and travel time. The City recognizes that transportation needs and travel choices will change over time as alternatives to car travel become more viable.

TG8 Meet the current and future mobility needs of residents, businesses, and visitors with a balanced transportation system.

TG9 Provide programs and services to promote transit, bicycling, walking, and carpooling to help reduce car use and SOV trips.

TG10 Accommodate all new trips in downtown with non-SOV modes.

TG11 Strive to achieve the following mode choice goals for use of travel modes through the City's land use strategies and transportation programs:

Mode Choice Goals for Work Trips to Seattle and its Urban Centers

Proportion of work trips made using Non-SOV Modes

Urban Center

2000*

2010 Goal

2020 Goal

Downtown

56%

62%

70%

1st Hill/Capitol Hill

31%

37%

50%

Uptown/Queen Anne

33%

37%

50%

South Lake Union

30%

37%

50%

University District

56%

62%

70%

Northgate

26%

30%

40%

Seattle

39%

42%

45%

* 2000 mode choice numbers are from the U.S. Census for the year 2000 journey to work data by place of employment.

Mode Choice Goals for residents of Seattle and its Urban Centers

Proportion of all trips made using non-sov modes.

Urban Center

2000*

2010 Goal

2020 Goal

Downtown

72%

80%

90%

1st Hill/Capitol Hill

69%

75%

80%

Uptown/Queen Anne

59%

70%

75%

South Lake Union

60%

70%

75%

University District

70%

75%

80%

Northgate

50%

55%

65%

Seattle

44%

50%

60%

* 2000 mode choice numbers are from U.S. Census for the year 2000 for journey to work of urban center residents.

T18 Provide, support, and promote programs and strategies aimed at reducing the number of car trips and miles driven (for work and nonwork purposes) to increase the efficiency of the transportation system.

T19 Promote public awareness of the impact travel choices have on household finances, personal quality of life, society, and the environment, and increase awareness of the range of travel choices available.

T20 Pursue transportation demand management (TDM) strategies at the regional level, and strengthen regional partnerships working on TDM measures. Coordinate with regional and state partners so customers see their travel choices and the various TDM promotions as a coordinated, integrated system that makes a difference in the community.

C-1 Increasing Transportation Choices Making Transit a Real Choice

Discussion: Providing convenient and accessible transit service can help reduce reliance on single-occupant vehicles, slow the increase in environmental degradation associated with their use, and increase mobility without building new streets and highways. Street rights-ofway are limited and as streets get more congested, transit provides an efficient way to move large numbers of people around the city and the region and support growth in urban centers and villages. These policies will guide City decisions to enhance transit, and are also intended to guide decisions of transit serving Seattle

TG12 Create a transit-oriented transportation system that builds strong neighborhoods and supports economic development.

TG13 Provide mobility and access by public transportation for the greatest number of people to the greatest number of services, jobs, educational opportunities, and other destinations.

TG14 Increase transit ridership, and thereby reduce use of singleoccupant vehicles to reduce environmental degradation and the societal costs associated with their use.

T21 Work with transit providers to provide transit service that is fast, frequent, and reliable between urban centers and urban villages and that is accessible to most of the city's residences and businesses. Pursue strategies that make transit safe, secure, comfortable, and affordable.

T22 Designate a transit network in the Transportation Strategic Plan to focus transit investments and to indicate expected bus volumes and transit priority treatments appropriate for the type and condition of the street.

T23 Support development of an integrated, regional high capacity transit system that l links urban centers within the city and the region.

T24 Pursue a citywide intermediate capacity transit system that connects urban centers, urban villages and manufacturing/industrial centers.

T25 Pursue a citywide local transit system that connects homes and businesses with neighborhood transit facilities

T26 Work with transit providers to design and operate transit facilities and services to make connections within the transit system and other modes safe and convenient.

T27 Work with transit providers to ensure that the design of stations and alignments will change how people move through and perceive the city, contribute positively to Seattle's civic identity and reflect the cultural identity of the communities in which they are located.

T28 Discourage the development of major, stand-alone park-and-ride facilities within Seattle. Situations where additions to park-andride capacity could be considered include:

* At the terminus for a major, regional transit system;

* Opportunities exist for "shared parking" (e.g., where transit commuter parking can be leased from another development, such as a shopping center, movie theater, or church); and

* Areas where alternatives to automobile use are particularly inadequate (e.g., lack of direct transit service, or pedestrian and bicycle access) or cannot be provided in a cost-effective manner.

T29 Encourage transit services that address the needs of persons with disabilities, the elderly, other people with special needs, and people who depend on public transit for their mobility.

T30 Support efficient use of ferries to move passengers and goods to and from Seattle. Encourage the Washington State Ferry System to expand its practice of giving loading and/or fare priority to certain vehicles, such as transit, carpools, vanpools, bicycles, and/or commercial vehicles, on particular routes, on certain days of the week, and/or at certain times of day. Encourage the Ferry System to integrate transit loading and unloading areas into ferry terminals, and to provide adequate bicycle capacity on ferries and adequate and secure bicycle parking at terminals.

T31 For water-borne travel across Puget Sound, encourage the expansion of passenger-only ferry service and land-side facilities and terminals that encourage walk-on trips rather than ferry travel with automobiles.

C-2 Increasing Transportation Choices Bicycling and Walking

Discussion: Walking and bicycling can be practical alternatives to driving, especially for short trips. They can also contribute greatly to neighborhood quality and vitality, and help achieve City transportation, environmental, open space, and public health goals. Pedestrian and bicycle improvements to streets, intersections, sidewalks, and other facilities can improve access and safety. Such facilities are particularly important for children, senior citizens, and people with disabilities.

TG15 Increase walking and bicycling to help achieve City transportation, environmental, community and public health goals.

TG16 Create and enhance safe, accessible, attractive and convenient street and trail networks that are desirable for walking and bicycling.

T32 Improve mobility and safe access for walking and bicycling, and create incentives to promote non-motorized travel to employment centers, commercial districts, transit stations, schools and major institutions, and recreational destinations.

T33 Integrate pedestrian and bicycle facilities, services, and programs into City and regional transportation and transit systems. Encourage transit providers, the Washington State Ferry System, and others to provide safe and convenient pedestrian and bicycle access to and onto transit systems, covered and secure bicycle storage at stations, and especially for persons with disabilities and special needs.

T34 Recognize that stairways located within Seattle's public rightsof-way serve as a unique and valuable pedestrian resource in some areas of the City. Discourage the vacation of public rights-of-way occupied by stairways, and protect publicly-owned stairways from private encroachment.

T35 Accelerate the maintenance, development, and improvement of existing pedestrian facilities. Give special consideration to access to recommended school walking routes, access to transit, to public facilities, social services and community centers, and within, and between urban villages for people with disabilities and special needs.

T36 Implement a direct and comprehensive bicycle network connecting urban centers, urban villages and other key locations. Provide continuous bicycle facilities and work to eliminate system gaps.

T37 Develop, apply and report on walking and bicycling transportation performance measures in the Transportation Strategic Plan to evaluate the functioning of the non-motorized transportation system; to ensure consistency with current industry standards; to identify strengths, deficiencies and potential improvements; and to support development of new and innovative facilities and programs.

T38 Promote safe walking, bicycling, and driving behavior so as to provide public health benefits and to reinforce pedestrian, bicycle and motorists' rights and responsibilities.

C-3 Increasing Transportation Choices Managing the Parking Supply

Discussion: Longor short-term parking is part of every car trip, and parking, especially when free, is a key factor in the mode choice for a trip. The availability and price of parking influences people's housing and transportation choices about where to live and how to travel to work, shop, and conduct personal business. The City's challenge is to provide enough parking to meet mobility and economic needs, while limiting supply to encourage people to use non-auto modes. This section establishes goals and policies primarily for onstreet parking. Off-street parking goals and policies can be found in the Land Use Element, parking section.

TG17 Manage the parking supply to achieve vitality of urban centers and villages, and auto trip reduction.

TG18 Recognize that the primary transportation purpose of the arterial street system is to move people and goods, when making onstreet parking decisions.

T39 Consider establishing parking districts that allow for neighborhood based onand off-street parking management regulations to help meet urban center mode split goals.

T40 Use low-cost parking management strategies such as curb space management, shared parking, parking information and marketing and similar tools to encourage more efficient use of existing parking supply before pursuing more expensive off-street parking facility options.

T41 When considering restrictions to on-street parking where safety, operational, or mobility problems are identified balance the following policy objectives: promoting effective street operations for transit, high occupancy vehicles, bicycles and motor vehicles; supporting business district access; managing spillover parking in residential areas; creating a pleasant pedestrian environment; and providing truck access and loading. For urban centers and urban villages, the pedestrian environment and transit operations are particularly important considerations.

T42 In commercial districts prioritize curb space in following order: 1) transit stops and layover, 2) passenger and commercial vehicle loading, and 3) short-term parking (time limit signs and paid parking); and 4) long-term commuter parking. Prioritize curb space in the following order in residential districts: 1) transit stops and layover; 2) passenger and commercial vehicle loading; and, 3) parking for local residents. In both districts, prioritize these curb space designations over unrestricted long-term commuter parking.

T43 In residential districts, prioritize curb space in the following: 1) transit stops and layover; 2) passenger and commercial vehicle loading; 3) parking for local residents; and, 4) long-term commuter parking.

T44 During Construction or implementation of new transportation projects, consider replacing short-term parking only when the project results in a concentrated and substantial amount of on-street parking loss.

T45 Use paid on-street parking to encourage parking turnover, customer access, and efficient allocation of parking among diverse users.

T46 Consider installing longer-term paid on-street parking along edges of commercial districts or in office and institutional zones to regulate curb space where short-term parking demand is low.

T47 Allocate parking enforcement resources to encourage voluntary compliance with on-street parking regulations.

T48 Coordinate Seattle's parking policies with regional parking policies to preserve Seattle's competitive position in the region.

D Promoting the Economy: Moving Goods and Services

Discussion: The transport of goods and services is critical to Seattle's and the region's economic development. As a major port city, Seattle's businesses and industries rely on rail, water, and truck transport. These policies, and those in the Economic Development and the Neighborhood Planning elements, support existing businesses and industries, and promote Seattle as a place for economic expansion. Major truck streets are an important part of the freight mobility network and are described in Section B Make the Best Use of the Streets We Have to Move People and Goods, in this element. The Transportation Strategic Plan has more detailed strategies and street classifications that further support freight mobility in the City of Seattle.

TG19 Preserve and improve mobility and access for the transport of goods and services.

TG20 Maintain Seattle as the hub for regional goods movement and as a gateway to national and international suppliers and markets.

T49 Recognize the importance of the freight network to the city's economic health when making decisions that affect Major Truck streets as well as other parts of the region's roadway system.

T50 Recognize the importance of the freight network to the city's economic health when making decisions that affect Major Truck streets as well as other parts of the region's roadway system.

T51 Support efficient and safe movement of goods by rail where appropriate. Promote continued operation of freight rail lines and intermodal yards that serve industrial properties and the transport of goods. Improve the safety and operational conditions for freight rail transport at the rail track crossings within city streets.

T52 Promote an intermodal freight transportation strategy, including rail, truck, air and water transport and advocate for improved freight and goods movement. Work toward improved multi-modal connections among rail yards, industrial areas, airports, and regional roadways

T53 Consider the needs for local delivery and collection of goods at businesses by truck when making street operational decisions and when developing and implementing projects and programs for highways, streets, and bridges.

E. Improving the Environment

Discussion: The development pattern promoted by the urban village strategy is supported by transportation policies that encourage walking, biking, and transit. Streets that support travel by all modes and that are well designed and maintained and that include landscaping and street trees contribute to a healthy urban environment. Over-reliance on motor vehicles degrades environmental quality in the form of deteriorating air quality, increasing water pollution through street and stormwater runoff, and causing higher levels of noise pollution. Excessive reliance on motor vehicles also negatively affects the quality of life in the city by increasing congestion and travel time.

TG21 Promote healthy neighborhoods with a transportation system that protects and Improves environmental quality.

TG22 Reduce or mitigate air, water, and noise pollution from motor vehicles.

TG23 Promote energy-efficient transportation.

T54 Design and operate streets keeping safety, accessibility and aesthetics in balance to promote healthy urban environments.

T55 Implement an environmental management system to develop, operate and maintain a safe and reliable transportation system in a manner that reduces the environmental impacts of City operations and services

T56 Identify, evaluate, and mitigate environmental impacts of transportation investments and operating decisions (including impacts on air and water quality, noise, environmentally critical areas and endangered species). Pursue transportation projects, programs, and investment strategies consistent with noise reduction, air quality improvement, and water quality improvement objectives.

T57 Coordinate with other city, county, regional, state, and federal agencies to pursue opportunities for air and water quality improvement, street and stormwater runoff prevention, and noise reduction.

T58 Continue to work to reduce fuel use and promote the use of alternative fuels.

F. Connecting to the Region

Discussion: Seattle is a regional destination and is also the focus of a number of major regional transportation facilities. Much of the rest of the Comprehensive Plan Transportation Element considers transportation within the city limits. This section provides guidance for regional projects that affect Seattle and for Seattle's participation in regional planning and funding efforts.

TG24 Actively engage other agencies to assure that regional projects and programs affecting the city are consistent with City plans, policies and priorities.

T59 Support regional pricing and parking strategies that contribute to transportation demand management objectives and to economic development.

T60 Coordinate with regional, state and federal agencies, local governments, and transit providers when planning and operating transportation facilities and services in order to promote regional mobility for people and goods and the urban center approach to growth management.

T61 Support completion of the freeway high-occupancy-vehicle (HOV) lane system throughout the central Puget Sound region. Maintain the HOV system for its intended purpose of promoting non-SOV travel

T62 Expansion of freeway capacity should be limited primarily to accommodate non-SOV users. Spot expansion of capacity to improve safety or remove operational constraints may be appropriate in specific locations.

T63 Support a strong regional ferry system that maximizes the movement of people, freight, and goods.

G. Conserving Transportation Resources: Operating and Maintaining the Transportation System

Discussion: Successful operation and maintenance of the transportation system promotes safety, efficiency, infrastructure preservation, and a high quality environment. Maintenance costs consume 75 to 80% of the Seattle Department of Transportation's annual operating budget. This investment represents a significant and recurring commitment to the conservation of our city's transportation facilities, as dollars spent on maintenance today help ensure that more dollars are not needed for premature replacement later. Effective maintenance of the transportation system means the City will have to plan for future maintenance activity and must also address the significant backlog of unmet maintenance needs that currently exists. The policies below guide transportation system operating and maintenance decisions of the City.

TG25 Promote the safe and efficient operation of Seattle's transportation system

TG26 Preserve and renew Seattle's transportation system.

T64 Priorities in operating the transportation system are safety, mobility, accessibility, infrastructure preservation and citizen satisfaction.

T65 Maintain the transportation system to keep it operating safely and to maximize its useful life.

T66 Repair transportation facilities before replacement is warranted. Replace failed facilities when replacement is more cost-effective than continuing to repair.

H. Measuring Levels of Service

Discussion: The Growth Management Act requires that the Comprehensive Plan include level-of-service (LOS) standards for all locally-owned arterials and transit routes to judge the performance of the system. The LOS standards identify minimally acceptable travel conditions on arterials and the transit network. The City has decided to use a system-wide method as a basis to assess the performance of the transportation system. Because buses are the primary from of transit service in the City and buses operate in the same traffic stream as cars, the City has chosen to use the same technique to measure the operation of both forms of travel.

Given the standards established below, the City's facilities currently comply with these standards.

TG27 Use level-of-service standards, as required by the Growth Management Act, as a gauge to judge the performance of the arterial and transit system.

T67 Define arterial level-of-service (LOS) to be the ratio of measured traffic volumes to calculated roadway capacity at designated screenlines, each of which encompasses one or more arterials, as shown in Transportation Figure 1. Measure peak hour directional traffic volumes on the arterials crossing each screenline to calculate the screenline LOS. To judge the performance of the arterial system, compare the calculated LOS for each screenline with the LOS standard for that screenline shown in Transportation Figure 2.

T68 Define transit level-of-service (LOS) to be the ratio of measured traffic volumes to calculated roadway at designated screen lines, each of which encompasses one or more arterials, on some of which transit operates, as shown in Transportation Figure 1. Measure peak hour directional traffic volumes on the arterials crossing each screenline to calculate the screenline LOS. To judge the performance of the transit system, compare the calculated LOS for each screenline with the LOS standard for that screenline shown in Transportation Figure 2.

T69 When the calculated LOS for a screenline approaches the LOS standard for that screenline, first pursue strategies to reduce vehicular travel demand across the screenline before increasing the operating capacity across the screenline.

Transportation Figure 2

LEVEL-OF-SERVICE (LOS) STANDARDS

Level-of-

Service

Screenline

Number

Screenline Location

Segment

LOS

Standard

Direction

2020

V/C Ratios

Comp. Plan

1.11

North City Limit

1.20

NB

0.96

3rd Ave NW to Aurora Av N

SB

0.61

1.12

North City Limit

1.20

NB

0.83

Meridian Av N to 15th Av NE

SB

0.43

1.13

North City Limit

1.20

NB

0.93

30th Av NE to Lake City Wy NE

SB

0.58

2

Magnolia

1.00

EB

0.51

WB

0.64

3.11

Duwamish River

1.20

EB

0.55

West Seattle Fwy and Spokane St

WB

0.86

3.12

Duwamish River

1.20

NB

0.51

1st Ave S and 16th Ave S

SB

0.75

4.11

South City Limit

1.00

NB

0.46

ML King Jr Wy to Rainier Av S

SB

0.61

4.12

South City Limit

1.00

NB

0.33

Marine Dr SW to Meyers Wy S

SB

0.39

4.13

South City Limit

1.00

NB

0.41

SR 99 to Airport Wy S

SB

0.49

5.11

Ship Canal

1.20

NB

1.20

Ballard Bridge

SB

0.81

5.12

Ship Canal

1.20

NB

1.07

Fremont Bridge

SB

0.73

5.13

Ship Canal

1.20

NB

0.90

Aurora Bridge

SB

0.78

5.16

Ship Canal

1.20

NB

1.10

University and Montlake Bridges

SB

1.07

6.11

South of NW 80th St

1.00

NB

0.47

Seaview Av NW to 15th Av NW

SB

0.32

6.12

South of N(W) 80th St

1.00

NB

0.56

8th Av NW to Greenwood Av N

SB

0.33

6.13

South of N(E) 80th St

1.00

NB

0.46

Linden Av N to 1st Av NE

SB

0.36

6.14

South of NE 80th St

1.00

NB

0.76

5th Av NE to 15th Av NE

SB

0.48

6.15

South of NE 80th St

1.00

NB

0.55

20th Av NE to Sand Point Wy NE

SB

0.38

7.11

West of Aurora Ave

1.00

EB

0.52

Fremont Pl N to N 65th St

WB

0.71

Transportation Figure 2 (continued)

Level-of-

Service

Screenline

Number

Screenline Location

Segment

LOS

Standard

Direction

2020

V/C Ratios

Comp. Plan

9.11

South of Spokane St

1.00

NB

0.45

Beach Dr SW to W Marginal Wy SW

SB

0.59

9.12

South of Spokane St

1.00

NB

0.52

E Marginal Wy S to Airport Wy S

SB

0.63

9.13

South of Spokane St

1.00

NB

0.58

15th Av S to Rainier Av S

SB

0.64

10.11

South of S Jackson St

1.00

NB

0.70

Alaskan Wy S to 4th Av S

SB

0.69

10.12

South of S Jackson St

1.00

NB

0.52

12th Av S to Lakeside Av S

SB

0.66

12.12

East of CBD

1.20

EB

0.61

WB

0.74

13.11

East of I-5

1.00

EB

0.76

NE Northgate Wy to NE 145th St

WB

0.63

13.12

East of I-5

1.00

EB

0.46

NE 65th St to NE 80th St

WB

0.48

13.13

East of I-5

1.00

EB

0.64

NE Pacific St to NE Ravenna Blvd

WB

0.77

I Financing the Transportation System

Discussion: Without funding, the goals identified in this Element would be difficult to achieve. This section identifies goals and policies related to providing and prioritizing funds for transportation projects, programs and services. It also identifies the types of multi-year investment plans to be developed as part of the Transportation Strategic Plan process.

TG28 Recognize and promote the urban village strategy when making transportation investments.

TG29 Work towards transportation funding levels adequate to maintain and improve the transportation system.

T70 Make strategic transportation investment decisions that are consistent with other policies in this Plan, with the Transportation Strategic Plan, and with funding opportunities that promote the city's transportation investment priorities. These investment decisions will also be made with consideration to future operating and maintenance costs associated with improvements

T71 Support regional and local transit resource allocations, as well as efforts to increase overall transit funding that are consistent with the City's urban village strategy and the regions' urban center policies.

T72 Fund projects, programs and services with a combination of local and non-local funds, including:

* Contributions from other entities that benefit from an investment, such as property owners nearby an investment;

* Grants and other investments from local, regional, state, and federal funding sources;

* Contributions from the region for investments that serve regionallydesignated urban centers and regional facilities.;

T73 Consider new funding sources that are flexible, equitable and sustainable, including:

* Growthand development-related revenues, including impact fees, where appropriate and where consistent with economic development policies;

* User-based taxes and fees, including a commercial parking tax; and

* Other locally generated revenues.

T74 Support regional, state and federal initiatives to increase transportation funding. Work to encourage new and existing funding sources that recognize Seattle's needs and priorities.

T75 Consistent with the other policies in this Plan and the Transportation Strategic Plan:

* Prepare a six-year CIP that includes projects that are fully or partially funded;

* As part of the Transportation Strategic Plan, prepare an intermediate-range list of projects for which the City plans to actively pursue funds over the next approximately 8 to 10 years, and

* Maintain a long-range working list of potential projects and known needs.

T76 If the level of transportation funding anticipated in the sixyear financial analysis, below (Figure 3), falls short, the Department of Finance and the Seattle Department of Transportation will:

* Identify and evaluate possible additional funding resources; and/or

* Identify and evaluate alternative land use and transportation scenarios, including assumptions about levels and distribution of population and employment, densities, types and mixes of land use, and transportation facilities and services, and assess their affects on transportation funding needs.

The City may then revise the Comprehensive Plan as warranted to ensure that level-of-service standards will be met.

Six-Year Financial Analysis

Transportation Figures 3 and 4 show preliminary estimated transportation revenues and expenditures for the six-year period from 2004 through 2009, based on the City's past experiences and on the investment policies of this plan.

Transportation Figure 3

Estimated Future Transportation Revenue

Source

Estimated Revenue in millions 2004-2009

Gas tax

$70 to $70

Grants and Loans

$405 to $450

General Fund and Cumulative Reserve Fund

$205 to $230

Total

$680 to $750

Transportation Figure 4

Estimated Future Transportation Expenditures

Category

Estimated Expenditures in millions 2004-2009

Operations and Maintenance

$291 to $321

Major Maintenance and Safety

$192 to $212

Mobility and Enhancements

$197 to $217

Total

$680 to $750

Based on the revenue and expenditure estimates shown in Transportation Figures 3 and 4, the City expects to have sufficient resources to fund the expenditure needs shown.

2004 Comprehensive Plan Update Ordinance Page 1 of 19 Attachment 2: Transportation Element

CAPITAL FACILITIES ELEMENT

A. Capital Facilities Policies

This section does not apply to transportation or utilities capital facilities. Please see the Transportation or Utilities Elements of this Plan for policies related to those facilities. Various agencies, such as the Seattle Department of Parks and Recreation, the Seattle Center and the Seattle Public School District, prepare functional plans to guide development of specific facilities for carrying out their respective missions.

Goals:

CFG1 Provide capital facilities that will serve the most pressing needs of the greatest number of Seattle citizens, and that will enable the City to deliver services efficiently to its constituents.

CFG2 Preserve the physical integrity of the City's valuable capital assets and gradually reduce the major maintenance backlog.

CFG3 Make capital investments consistent with the vision of the Comprehensive Plan, including the urban village strategy.

CFG4 Site and design capital facilities so that they will be considered assets to the communities in which they are located.

CFG5 Provide capital facilities that will keep Seattle attractive to families with children.

CFG6 Encourage grass-root involvement in identifying desired capital projects for individual neighborhoods.

CFG7 Encourage community input to the siting of public facilities.

CFG8 Incorporate sustainability principles and practices including protection of historic resources, into the design, rehabilitation, and construction of City buildings and other types of capital facilities.

CFG9 Encourage the protection of City-owned historic facilities when planning for alteration or maintenance of these facilities.

Policies:

Strategic Capital Investment

CF1 Plan capital investments strategically, in part by striving to give priority to areas experiencing or expecting the highest levels of residential and employment growth when making discretionary investments for new facilities. The City will use fiscal notes and policy analysis to assist in making informed capital investment choices to achieve the City's long-term goals.

CF2 Assess policy and fiscal implications of potential major new and expanded capital facilities, as part of the City's process for making capital investment choices. The assessment should apply standard criteria, including the consideration of issues such as a capital project's consistency with the Comprehensive Plan and neighborhood plans, and its effects on Seattle's quality of life, the environment, social equity, and economic opportunity.

CF3 Emphasize the maintenance of existing facilities as a way to make efficient use of limited financial and physical resources.

CF4 Use maintenance plans for capital facilities and a funding allocation plan for such maintenance, and revise these plans from time to time. In general, the City should not acquire or construct major new capital facilities unless the appropriation for the maintenance of existing facilities is consistent with the Strategic Capital Agenda.

CF5 Provide fiscal impact analyses of major capital projects considered for funding. Such analyses should include, but not be limited to, one-time capital costs, life-cycle operating and maintenance costs, revenues from the project, and costs of not doing the project.

CF6 Make major project specific capital decisions by the Mayor and the Council through the adoption of the City's operating and capital budgets, and the six-year Capital Improvement Program (CIP).

CF7 The City will consider capital improvements identified in neighborhood plans, in light of other facility commitments and the availability of funding and will consider voter-approved funding sources.

CF8 Explore tools that encourage sufficient capital facilities and amenities to meet baseline goals for neighborhoods and to address needs resulting from growth.

2. Facility Siting

CF9 Encourage the location of new community-based capital facilities, such as schools, libraries, neighborhood service centers, parks and playgrounds, community centers, clinics and human services facilities, in urban village areas. The City will consider providing capital facilities or amenities in urban villages as an incentive to attract both public and private investments to an area.

CF10 Seek to locate capital facilities where they are accessible to a majority of their expected users by walking, bicycling, car-pooling, and/or public transit.

CF11 Consider the recommendations from neighborhood plans in siting new or expanded facilities. The needs of facility users will also be considered in making these decisions.

CF12 Encourage quality development by requiring major City-funded capital improvement projects or projects proposed on City property located within the City of Seattle to be subject to a design review process of the Seattle Design Commission.

3. Relations With Other Public Entities Including the Seattle School District, the Port of Seattle, the Regional Transit Authority, Metropolitan King County, and the State of Washington

CF14 Work with other public and non-profit entities toward coordinated capital investment planning, including coordinated debt financing strategies, to achieve the goals of Seattle's Comprehensive Plan.

CF15 Work with other public and non-profit entities to include urban village location as a major criterion for selecting sites for new or expanded community-based facilities or public amenities.

CF16 Work with the School District to encourage siting, renovation, and expansion of school facilities in areas that are best equipped to accommodate growth.

CF17 Work with other public or non-profit agencies to identify and pursue new co-location and joint-use opportunities for the community's use of public facilities for programs, services, and community meetings.

4. Regional Funding Policy

CF18 The City will work with other jurisdictions in King, Snohomish, and Pierce Counties to explore regional funding strategies for capital facilities, particularly for those that serve or benefit citizens throughout the region.

5. Sustainable Design and Construction

CF19 Assess the sustainability of choices in developing capital projects, including finance, planning, design, construction, management, renovation, maintenance and decommissioning.

CF20 Consider environmental health in capital facilities development, including efficient use of energy, water, and materials; waste reduction; protection of environmental quality; and ecologically sensitive site selection and development.

CF21 Strive to ensure beneficial indoor environmental quality to increase the health, welfare and productivity of occupants in renovations and new construction of City-owned facilities and promote designs that enhance beneficial indoor environmental quality in private construction.

CF21CF22 Consider social and health effects in capital facilities development, including protection of worker health, improved indoor environmental quality, protection of historic resources, and access to alternative transportation modes (e.g., public transit, bicycling, walking, etc.) and social services.

CF22CF23 Consider economic health in capital facilities development, including purchase of products and services from locally owned businesses and support for local manufacture of sustainable products.

CF23CF24 Consider life-cycle cost analysis as a method to better understand the relative costs and benefits of City buildings and capital facilities.

CF24CF25 Encourage the public and private-sector use of thirdparty sustainable building rating and certification systems, such as the Master Builder Association's BuiltGreen system and the U.S. Green Building Council's Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) system.

B. Inventory of Existing Public Capital Facilities

The inventory of public capital facilities is contained in Appendix A to this element of the Plan, and for utilities (including water and drainage and wastewater) and transportation, in the appendices to those elements of the Plan. This inventory is provided both at a citywide level and for each of the Urban Centers.

C. Forecast of Future Needs for Capital Facilities

This section does not apply to transportation capital facilities; please see that element of the Plan for pertinent discussion.

Seattle is a highly urbanized area with a fully developed citywide network of the types of capital facilities necessary to accommodate growth. New households that are projected to locate in Seattle could occupy existing dwellings or new buildings. New buildings can be constructed in Seattle, and be served by the existing network of streets, water and sewer lines, drainage facilities and electrical grid. In addition, new residents can be served by existing and funded police, fire and school facilities. Forecasted future needs for police and fire protection and schools both for the six and twentyyear timeframes are listed in Appendix A to this element of the Plan. Forecasted future needs for water, drainage and wastewater, City Light and solid waste facilities are discussed in Appendix A of the Utilities Element. The capital programs to meet these forecasted sixyear needs are included in the City's most recently adopted Capital Improvement Program (CIP).

The City currently provides a good citywide system of libraries, parks and recreation facilities which are available and accessible for use by all the City's residents. An inventory of these facilities is also contained in Appendix B to this element. While additions to these facilities would enhance the City's quality of life, such additions are not necessary to accommodate new households.

The City also provides other facilities, such as general government buildings, Seattle Center and Public Health facilities that are of a citywide or regional benefit. While upgrading or replacement of some of these facilities may be funded over the next six years, such improvements are not necessitated by projected growth.

Source materials for the capital facilities and utilities analysis may be found in documents from the Fire, Police, Seattle City Light, Seattle Public Utilities, Seattle Transportation, Executive Services and Parks and Recreation Departments and the Seattle School District. Facility inventories and capital facility needs for each urban village are shown in the Capital Facilities Appendix.

D. Proposed New or Expanded Capital Facilities

Projects or programs identifying the proposed locations and capacities of the new or expanded capital facilities the City contemplates funding in the next six years are listed in the "New or Expanded Capital Facilities" appendix of the City's most recently adopted CIP. Project descriptions and a six-year financing plan for each project or program are in the departmental sections in the body of the CIP. These projects are incorporated herein. Consistent with the overall plan, emergencies, other unanticipated events or opportunities, and voter approvals of ballot measures, may result in some departure from the adopted CIP. Other potential capital improvements that the City may fund over the next six years are found in Appendix D to this element. Additional information for transportation facilities is found in that element.

E. Six-Year Finance Plan

Projects or programs, with descriptions of the proposed locations and capacities of the new or expanded capital facilities the City contemplates funding in the next six years, are listed in the "New or Expanded Capital Facilities" appendix of the most recently adopted CIP. These projects and programs are incorporated herein, along with the six-year financing plan for each of them found in the departmental sections of the CIP. These allocations may change over time. Emergencies and unanticipated circumstances may result in allocating resources to projects not listed. This six-year finance plan shows full funding for all improvements to existing facilities and for new or expanded facilities the City expects to need to serve the projected population through the six-year period covered by the CIP. Additionally, the CIP contains funding for major maintenance and for other improvements that will both maintain and enhance the City's existing facilities. Additional information for transportation finance is found in the Transportation element of this Plan.

F. Consistency and Coordination

As part of the City's CIP process, the City considers whether probable funding will be sufficient to meet the currently identified needs for new or expanded city capital facilities to accommodate planned growth. Should anticipated funding not materialize, or should new needs be identified for which no funding is determined to be probable, the City will reassess the land use element of this Plan to ensure that it is coordinated, and consistent, with this element, and in particular with the six-year finance plan. A review for coordination and consistency between this Element and the Land Use Element will be part of the City's annual budget review and Comprehensive Plan amendment processes.

G. Siting Process for Essential Public Facilities

The Growth Management Act provides that no comprehensive plan or development regulation may preclude the siting of an essential public facility. Accordingly this Plan and the City's Land Use Code permit the establishment of public uses, consistent with applicable development regulations.

The City will approve a specific list of essential public facilities by type, and facilities on the list will thereafter be subject to the siting process referred to in paragraph three below. (The City's list is currently located in the Land Use Code.) In developing the list the City will consider: state and county lists of essential public facilities; and the extent to which the facility type has historically been difficult to site in the City of Seattle, based upon such factors as the availability of land, access to transportation, compatibility with neighboring uses, and impact upon the physical environment.

The City's siting process for essential public facilities on the City's specific list should contain the following components:

a. Interjurisdictional analysis: A review to determine the extent to which an interjurisdictional approach may be appropriate, including a consideration of possible alternative sites for the facility in other jurisdictions and an analysis of the extent to which the proposed facility is of a county-wide, regional or state-wide nature, and whether uniformity among jurisdictions should be considered.

b. Financial Analysis: A review to determine if the financial impact upon the City of Seattle can be reduced or avoided by intergovernmental agreement.

c. Special Purpose Districts: When the public facility is being proposed by a special purpose district, the City should consider the facility in the context of the district's overall plan and the extent to which the plan and facility are consistent with this Comprehensive Plan.

d. Measures to Facilitate Siting: The factors that make a particular facility difficult to site (e.g., see paragraph 2 above) should be considered when a facility is proposed, and measures should be taken to facilitate siting of the facility in light of those factors.

H. Additional Resources

Seattle Parks and Recreation Plan 2000

2001-2004 Consolidated Plan for Housing and Community Development

Libraries for All Capital Projects

Seattle Public Schools, Facilities Master Plan,

Seattle Center 2000 Plan

Master Plan for Seattle-King Co. Public Health Facilities

2004 Comprehensive Plan Update Ordinance Page 1 of 7 Attachment 4: Capital Facilities Element

UTILITIES ELEMENT

A. Introduction

Discussion:

Seattle City Light provides electricity throughout the city and beyond the city boundaries. Seattle Public Utilities provides domestic water, drainage and solid waste services within the city limits. In addition, it provides water service directly, or through other purveyors, to much of King County. Seattle is served by, among others, the following investor-owned utilities: Puget Sound Energy, US WEST Communications, and; Viacom Cablevision, TCI Cablevision and Summit Cablevision, and Seattle Steam.

City utilities are overseen by the Mayor and the City Council. The Council establishes operational guidelines and requirements for City utilities through various resolutions and ordinances. Investor-owned utilities, on the other hand, are regulated by various public entities. The natural gas and telephone utilities are regulated by the Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission, while the cellular telephone communication companies are licensed by the Federal Communications Commission. Franchise agreements with the City shape the operation of the cable communication companies and Seattle Steam.

In addition to the policies in this element, additional policies relating to technology and telecommunication services may be found in the Economic Development element of this Plan. Seattle City Light and Seattle Public Utilities prepare functional plans for the energy, water supply, drainage and solid waste activities they control.

B. Goals

UG1 Provide reliable service at lowest cost consistent with the City's aims of environmental stewardship, social equity, economic development, and the protection of public health.

UG2 Maintain the service reliability of the City's utility infrastructure.

UG3 Maximize the efficient use of resources by utility customers.

UG4 Minimize the cost and public inconvenience of road and right-ofway trenching activities.

UG5 Operate City utilities consistent with regional growth plans.

UG6 Achieve universal access to state-of-the-art technology and telecommunication services.

C. Utility Policies

1. Utility Service

Discussion: State law generally requires utilities to serve all customers requesting service. The following policies address utility service and recovery of the costs of meeting new growth.

U1 Continue to provide service to existing and new customers in all areas of the city, consistent with the legal obligation of City utilities to provide service.

U2 Consider financial mechanisms to recover from new growth, the costs of new City utility facilities and, where appropriate, new utility resources necessitated by such service.

2. Utility Infrastructure

Discussion: Adequate utility service relies on sound facilities. The following policies address the reliability and maintenance of the City's utility infrastructure.

U3 Maintain the reliability of the City's utility infrastructure as the first priority for utility capital expenditures.

U4 Continue to provide for critical maintenance of and remedying existing deficiencies in City utility capital facilities.

3. Utility Capital Expenditure Planning

Discussion: City utilities plan their own capital expenditures. The following policies address coordination and the inclusion of recurring costs in utility capital expenditure planning.

U5 Coordinate City utility capital expenditure planning with capital investment planning by other City departments.

U6 Consider the operation and maintenance costs of new City utility facilities in developing such facilities.

4. Environmental Stewardship

Discussion: Environmental sensitivity in developing new resources and the efficient use of services by utility customers are key elements of the City's commitment to environmental stewardship. The following policies address the implementation of these elements by City utilities.

U7 Promote environmental stewardship in meeting City utility service needs and encourage the efficient use of water and energy resources by utility customers through education, technical assistance and financial incentives.

U8 Use cost-effective demand-side management to meet City utility resource needs and support such practices by wholesale customers of City utilities.

U9 Consider short-term and long-term external environmental impacts and costs in the acquisition of new resources.

U10 In meeting the demand for electric power, strive for no net increase in City contributions to greenhouse gas emissions by relying first on energy efficiency, second on renewable resources, and, when fossil fuel use is necessary, taking actions that offset the release of greenhouse gases such as planting trees or using alternative fuel vehicles.

U101 Encourage waste reduction and cost-effective reuse and recycling by residents, businesses and City employees through appropriate policies and programs education, incentives and increased availability of recycling options.

U12 Work regionally to improve programs and management strategies designed to prevent and reduce contamination of street runoff and storm water from all sources.

U13 Provide information to businesses and the community about the importance and methods of controlling the release of contaminants into storm drains.

U114 Strive to correct instances of combined sewer overflows by prioritizing remedial action according to the frequency and volume of the overflows and the sensitivity of the locations where the overflows occur.

U135 Work cooperatively with King County to identify and expeditiously address combined sewer overflows for which the County maintains responsibility.

U146 Coordinate with state and federal agencies to reduce illegal discharges into water by both permitted and nonpermitted sources.

5. Utility Facility Siting and Design

Discussion: Public input in facility siting and design is a critical part of the business of City utilities. The following policies address siting and design of utility facilities in the city.

U157 Work with neighborhood and community representatives in siting utility facilities.

U168 Continue to subject all above-grade City utility capital improvement projects to review by the Seattle Design Commission.

U179 Consider opportunities for incorporating accessible open space in the siting and design of City utility facilities.

6. Utility Relationships

Discussion: Coordination of activities among utilities operating in the city can result in additional public benefits. The following policies address road and right-of-way maintenance and the operation of non-City utilities in Seattle.

U1820 Provide timely and effective notification to other interested utilities of planned road and right-of-way trenching, maintenance, and upgrade activities.

U1921 Promote the City's goals of environmental stewardship, social equity, economic development, and the protection of public health in the operation of non-City utilities providing service in Seattle.

D. Inventory of Existing Public Infrastructure

The inventory of public infrastructure that is required by the Growth Management Act (GMA) is contained in Appendix A to this element of the Plan.

E. Forecast of Future Infrastructure Needs

Seattle is a highly urbanized area with a fully developed infrastructure network throughout the City. New buildings can be constructed in Seattle, and be served by the existing network of streets, water and sewer lines, drainage facilities and electrical grid. Forecasted future needs for the City owned utilities: water, drainage and wastewater, City Light and solid waste are discussed in Appendix A to this element of the Plan. The capital programs to meet these forecasted six-year needs are included in the City's most recently adopted Capital Improvement Program (CIP).

F. Proposed New or Expanded Capital Facilities

Projects or programs identifying the proposed locations and capacities of the new or expanded capital facilities the City contemplates funding in the next six years, are listed in the City's most recently adopted CIP. Project descriptions and a six-year financing plan for each project or program are in the departmental sections in the body of the CIP. These projects are incorporated here. Emergencies, other unanticipated events or opportunities, and voter approvals of ballot measures, may result in some departure from the adopted CIP; however, in such circumstances, the City shall favor decisions that are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.

G. Six-Year Finance Plan

Projects or programs identifying the proposed locations and capacities of the new or expanded capital facilities the City contemplates funding in the next six years, are listed in the City's most recently adopted CIP. Project descriptions and a six-year financing plan for each project or program are in the departmental sections in the body of the CIP. These projects are incorporated herein. These allocations may change over time. Emergencies and unanticipated circumstances may result in allocating resources to projects not listed. The six-year finance plan shows full funding for all improvements to existing basic facilities and for new or expanded basic facilities the City expects to need to serve the existing and projected population through 2002. Additionally, the CIP contains substantial funding for major maintenance of the City's existing facilities.

H. Additional Resources

Consult the following resources for further information:

Seattle City Light Capital Improvement Program

Seattle Water Supply Plan

Seattle Public Utilities Capital Improvement Program

Seattle Comprehensive Drainage Plan

Seattle Capital Improvement Program

"On the Path to Sustainability," the City's solid waste plan

Puget Sound Energy

US WEST Communications, Seattle, Washington

Viacom Cablevision, Seattle, Washington

TCI Cablevision of Washington, Seattle, Washington

Summit Cablevision, Seattle, Washington

Seattle Steam Company, Seattle, Washington

2004 Comprehensive Plan Update Ordinance Page 1 of 5 Attachment 5: Utilities Element

Economic Development Element

Goals

EDG1 Add approximately 84,000 jobs in the city over the 20-year period covered by this Plan, in order to ensure long-term economic security and social equity to all Seattle residents.

EDG2 Recognize that Seattle's high quality of life is one of its competitive advantages and promote economic growth that maintains and enhances this quality of life.

EDG3 Support the Urban Village Strategy by encouraging the growth of jobs in Urban Centers and Hub Urban Villages and by promoting the health of neighborhood commercial districts.

EDG4 Accommodate a broad mix of jobs, while actively seeking a greater proportion of living wage jobs that will have greater benefits to a broad cross-section of the people of the City and region.

EDG5 Encourage the growth of key economic sectors that build on Seattle's competitive advantages to provide sustained growth in the future.

EDG6 Develop a highly trained local work force that effectively competes for meaningful and productive employment, earns a living wage and meets the needs of business.

EDG7 Foster a positive business climate in Seattle by ensuring adequate public services, infrastructure, and high-quality customer service.

EDG8 Promote access to working capital and other forms of financial assistance, in order to build a stronger economic future for all Seattle citizens and to nurture entrepreneurship, innovation and business growth.

EDG9 Maintain Seattle's competitive advantage in international trade.

EDG10Recognize Seattle's cultural resources including institutions, art organizations, traditions, historic resources and creative people as important contributors to the city's economic vitality.

EDG11Support the retention and growth of the industrial sector, retain existing businesses and small firms, and actively seek to attract new industrial businesses.

Discussion: A strong Seattle and Puget Sound economy is a critical underpinning of a positive future for Seattle and is a central component of the Urban Village strategy. The Comprehensive Plan promotes a sound economy through planning for future growth in ways that maintain the city's high quality of life by directing facilities and services to areas that support jobs and by identifying and encouraging economic sectors that offer the best opportunities for new job creation and future economic growth. A diverse and stable economy offers long-term economic opportunity and social equity to all Seattle residents.

City government has limited ability to directly influence the economy, and thus must be strategic in its activities and use of resources. Through a Strategic Action Plan the City will implement the policies of the Comprehensive Plan and will undertake economic development initiatives that build on its competitive economic advantages to enhance its economic base. Realizing the increasingly international nature of the local economy and the pace of technological change, the City will monitor the economy and will periodically alter and refine the goals and policies in this element in response to on-going changes in the economy. In addition to the goals and policies of this element, the Comprehensive Plan contains a number of goals and policies in other elements that complement the Economic Development element.

A. Economic Development and the Urban Village Strategy

Discussion: Central to the City's economic development efforts is the urban village strategy. Through the urban village strategy future growth is directed to areas that are supported by strategic investments in facilities and services to support this growth. By focusing growth in urban centers and urban villages this approach leads to greater proximity of jobs to housing and efficient investment in transportation and other infrastructure to support both business and neighborhood needs. Similarly, by directing industrial businesses to manufacturing/industrial centers, the City is able to more efficiently and effectively deliver services and invest in infrastructure that supports these businesses.

Policies

ED1 Strive to maintain the economic health and importance of downtown as the economic center of the city and the region and home to many of Seattle's vital professional service firms, high technology companies, regional retail activity, as well as cultural, historic, entertainment, convention and tourist facilities.

ED2 Pursue opportunities for growth and strategic development, where appropriate, in urban centers and hub urban villages, which are planned for the greatest concentrations of jobs and job growth outside of downtown.

ED3 Strive to provide a wide range of goods and services to residents and businesses in urban centers and villages by encouraging appropriate retail development in these areas.

ED4 Use cultural resources, such as public art and historic resources, as a tool for stimulating economic development in Seattle's neighborhoods, as these resources provide attractions that can draw people to and enhance public perception of an area.

ED5 Use plans adopted for the manufacturing/industrial centers to help guide investments and policy decisions that will continue to support the retention and growth of industrial activities in these areas. Continue collaboration with both geographically-focused and citywide organizations representing industrial interests so that the needs and perspectives of this sector can be recognized and incorporated, as appropriate, into the City's actions and decisions.

ED6 Work with other levels of government and with the private sector to support and encourage the cleanup of contaminated soil and other environmental remediation associated with the re-use or expansion of industrial sites.

ED7 Strive, through efforts with other public jurisdictions, to address the problems of site assembly, infrastructure improvements and traffic congestion which may inhibit industrial expansion in industrial areas.

ED8 Strive to assist industrial firms in addressing capital needs through mechanisms such as the issuance of industrial development bonds or by expanding small business financing programs to assist manufacturers.

ED9 Strive to address the special needs of areas in Seattle that historically have experienced less economic opportunity and that have high concentrations of people living in economic hardship.

a. Seek to provide resources to assist in planning for distressed communities and assist low-income areas in developing and implementing economic development strategies.

b. Attempt to gain state and federal special area designations for lower-income Seattle communities where such designation can confer tangible benefits.

c. Target programmatic resources, including small business capital access and entrepreneurship training programs, as well as new infrastructure investment toward the economic development objectives of distressed areas.

d. Support the role of community-based organizations in planning and implementing economic development activities in distressed communities.

B. Sectoral Strategies

Discussion: The City's ability to affect the local economy is limited because local economic conditions are the result of national and international economic forces outside the control of the City. Nevertheless, the city possesses competitive advantages and economic resources that can be used to promote a growing local economy. By identifying key sectors of the economy in which the city has a competitive advantage, the City can take specific actions to promote the local economy.

ED10 Encourage key sectors of Seattle's economy that provide opportunities for long term growth. Criteria for identifying sectors to support include the following:

* Pay higher-than-average wage levels,

* Bring new capital into the economy, reflecting multiplier effects other than high wage,

* Have reasonably good future growth prospects,

* Involve a cluster of businesses engaging in similar activities,

* Use quality environmental practices, or

* Diversify the regional economic base.

ED11 Recognize the importance of tourism and its support of international trade as well as its contribution to the health of the Seattle retail core. Recognize the important contribution of historic districts such as Pioneer Square and the Pike Place Market to tourism, and support the continued protection and enhancement of these districts.

ED12 Seek ways to create a local business environment that promotes the establishment, retention, and expansion of high-technology industries in the city. Where possible, look for opportunities to link these businesses to existing research institutions, hospitals, educational institutions and other technology businesses.

ED13 Seek ways to assist clusters of related businesses in advanced manufacturing, information technology and biotechnology to collaborate more closely with one another and to market themselves as magnets for capital, research talent and high-skill jobs.

ED14 Seek ways to support technology transfer and other efforts that increase the global competitiveness of Seattle's exporters in advanced manufacturing, information technology, biotechnology and services in cooperation with other jurisdictions and with major education and research institutions.

ED15 Preserve and support continued use of suitable shoreline areas for water-dependent and related businesses involved in ship-building and repair, fisheries, tug and barge, provisioning and the cruise-ship industries.

ED16 Support national policies which stabilize maritime industries and promote their expansion.

C. Labor Force Education, Development and Training

Discussion: A skilled and competitive work force is important to the city's growth and prosperity. While not having direct control over the education of its citizens, the City has a responsibility to advocate actively on their behalf. The following policies encourage employers, employee organizations and education and training institutions and agencies to provide all Seattle residents opportunities for training and retraining. Certain policies related to education and employability development may be found in Section D of the Human Development Element.

Policies

ED17 Work with the Seattle Public Schools to improve the quality of public education and increase the likelihood that all young people will complete high school having achieved the competency needed to continue their education or enter the work force.

ED18 Facilitate the creation of coalitions of business, labor and educational institutions, including community colleges, to develop competency-based education and training programs for Seattle community members that are targeted to the needs of business. This may include vocational training programs, apprenticeship programs, entrepreneurial skills training, customized on-site training and technical and vocational preparatory programs at the high school level.

ED19 Support employability development and entry-level and career employment efforts for low-income youth and adults, people of color, women, individuals with disabilities and the homeless.

ED20 Encourage opportunities for people in training or working to meet their dependent care needs.

ED21 Promote regional approaches to better link individuals in distressed communities with job resources and living-wage job opportunities in growing employment sectors (See policies related to Sectoral Strategies later in this element.).

ED22 Encourage the development of training programs for people currently employed so they may improve the skills they use in their current jobs or expand their skills into new arenas.

ED23 Encourage and facilitate the development of programs for dislocated workers to assist in a successful transition to new jobs.

ED24 Strive to increase access to literacy development and Englishas-a-Second Language programs for those in need of assistance in overcoming literacy and language barriers to employability.

ED25 Encourage educational and training institutions to provide education in foreign languages, geography and international affairs in order to enable people to better function in the international economy.

ED26 Offer apprenticeship and other workplace learning opportunities in Seattle City government, with particular emphasis on providing access to low income youth and young adults from diverse cultures and races.

D. Business Climate

Discussion: A positive relationship between government, residents, and business is important to the well-being of the city. Business needs cover the range from those of major employers and institutions to small businesses.

Policies

ED27 Foster a positive entrepreneurial environment for business start-up and expansion and support the retention of Seattle's existing business and major institution base.

ED28 Support the development of Seattle's major public and non-profit institutions because they contribute to a diversified economy, bring living wage jobs, stimulate new economic activity, supply capital to the local economy, develop and promote advanced technology, and provide substantial public benefits and needed services to Seattle's residents.

ED29 Support Seattle's artists, arts organizations, and institutions because of their significant contributions to the city's healthy business climate; their role in creating a cultural environment that attracts other living wage employers, as well as tourists, to the region; and the substantial benefits they provide to Seattle's residents and communities.

ED30 Recognize the importance of the business climate in efforts to encourage the expansion of international trade in Seattle and the region. Consider support of programs to expand export opportunities for goods and services through the city. Also, consider support of programs to improve and maintain international cooperation. Examples of programs include industry-specific international trade fairs, export trade linkages for home-grown businesses, and Sister Cities programs.

ED31 Support regulatory reform in order to strike a balance between the financial impacts of regulation on businesses and developers, and maintaining an appropriate level of safeguards for the environment and worker safety, consistent with the goals and policies of this plan.

ED32 For regulatory activities that affect land development, consider ways to achieve greater predictability and efficiency in the review of permit applications, consistent with the goals and policies of this Plan.

ED33 Consider use of programmatic environmental impact statements (PEIS) for geographic-specific plans which may help reduce the permit processing time and increase predictability for individual development projects.

ED34 Recognize the importance of maintaining and enhancing the City's tax base, including property taxes, sales taxes and business and occupation taxes, to provide funds for capital facilities and City services for existing and future populations.

ED35 Periodically assess the effects of City policies regarding taxes, fees, or utility rates on economic development goals, considering the balance between economic development goals, financial health of City government, cumulative debt and tax burdens of overlapping jurisdictions, and goals of the Comprehensive Plan.

ED36 Strive to increase communication among government, businesses, major institutions and other entities that may provide economic opportunities, in order to: (a) enhance the common understanding of issues related to employment growth, business competitiveness, public policy goals and program implementation and (b) promote partnerships between government and business to achieve the goals of this plan.

ED37 Strive to anticipate and lessen the impacts of involuntary job changes through efforts to retain businesses in Seattle and by providing those businesses with the opportunity to thrive.

ED38 Strive to work with the business community and the residential community equitably to identify and promote areas of common interest and to facilitate the resolution of conflicts in a manner that recognizes and respects legitimate differences.

ED39 Strive to improve coordination of information and services among government offices which affect the viability of business in Seattle. Seek to better coordinate changes to City policies and programs with other jurisdictions within the region, in order to more effectively participate in the development and implementation of state, regional and county economic development goals.

ED40 Periodically analyze available economic information to understand the City's economic base and the regional economy in order to review and adjust as needed the City's economic development goals and policies.

E. Infrastructure and Capital Facilities

Discussion: An adequate infrastructure is fundamental to Seattle's ability to attract and retain jobs, to enhance business growth and use existing development capacity to achieve job growth targets. The following policies supplement the policies in the capital facilities and transportation elements by addressing ways in which the City's infrastructure plans and capital investment decisions can support its economic development goals. Additional detail may be found in these other Plan elements.

Policies

ED41 Seek to coordinate, where appropriate, City investment in utilities, transportation and other public facilities with business, employment and economic development opportunities.

ED42 Encourage deployment of improvements in technology and the telecommunications system within Seattle with the goals of:

a. Equitable access for all service providers that use the distribution network in reaching their customers.

b. Competition that promotes state of the art services and competitive pricing.

c. Universal access to citizens, businesses and institutions within Seattle.

d. Effectiveness based on: (i) flexibility, (ii) system security, (iii) reliability and (iv) affordability.

ED43 Take into consideration the ability of technology and telecommunications technology to enhance the provision of City services to citizens and businesses when making City investments in communications and computer systems.

ED44 Encourage the development of technology and telecommunications infrastructure city-wide and region-wide.

F. Business Start-Up and Growth

Discussion: The majority of businesses in Seattle have fewer than 10 employees. Sectors with a high proportion of small businesses include construction, wholesale trade, manufacturing, retail and related services. Working capital and other forms of financial assistance are an important component of business start-up and growth.

Policies

ED45 Continue to promote close working relationships between Seattle's financial institutions and its business community. Where appropriate, promote the development of new initiatives and innovative programs to lower the cost of borrowing or to assist small business growth, through increased access to capital.

ED46 Where appropriate, support efforts to assist small business through technical assistance for business start-up and/or expansion.

ED47 Recognize that artists make a significant contribution to the local economy as small businesses, and support efforts to ensure that Seattle's artist communities may thrive within the city.

2004 Comprehensive Plan Update Ordinance Page 1 of 8 Attachment 6: Economic Development Element

NEIGHBORHOOD PLANNING ELEMENT

Amend Policy N17, as follows:

N17 Support and encourage the incorporation of cultural elements, such as public art and historic resources, in the implementation of neighborhood plans. In future planning efforts, include a broad range of creative skills to improve the value of the neighborhood projects.

* * *

Amend North Rainier Policy NR-P3 as follows:

NR-P3 Seek to maintain single-family zoned areas within the urban village, but allow rezones to Residential Small Lot to encourage cluster housing developments and bungalow courts. Any single-family zoned area within the urban village is appropriate for any of the Residential Small Lot (RSL) designations, provided that the area meets other requirements of the land use code rezone evaluation criteria for rezones of single-family land. Allow for the rezone of property north of S. Holgate Street that is adjacent to both multifamily and commercially zoned areas to lowrise multifamily zones which permit residential densities that are no higher than permitted in the RSL zone.

* * *

Add the following as the adopted neighborhood plan for Northgate:

NORTHGATE

GOALS AND POLICIES

NG-G1 A place where people live, work, shop, plan and go to school--all within walking distance.

NG-G2 A thriving, vital, mixed-use center of concentrated development surrounded by healthy single-family neighborhoods transformed from an underutilized, auto-oriented office/retail area.

LAND USE AND HOUSING

NG-G3 The surrounding single-family neighborhoods are buffered from intense development in the core, but have ready access to the goods, services, and employment located in the core via a range of transportation alternatives including walking, bicycling, transit, and automobile (the core area is shown on Map G3).

NG-G4 The most intense and dense development activity is concentrated within the core.

NG-G5 Commercial activity outside the core is smaller in scale and allows for a mix of uses that serve the adjacent residential neighborhoods.

NG-P1 Encourage development of the core as a major regional activity center for retail, commercial, office, multifamily residential, and educational uses with densities sufficient to support transit.

NG-P2 Use land use regulation to cause new development to locate close to transit stops and provide good pedestrian and bicycle connections throughout the area so that intra-area vehicular trips and locally generated traffic are reduced.

NG-P3 Use a Northgate Overlay District to address the special characteristics of development in the area.

NG-P4 Concentrate employment activity where the infrastructure and transportation system can best accommodate it.

NG-P5 Promote a mixture of activities including commercial and residential uses in areas that have Neighborhood Commercial and Residential Commercial zoning designations.

NG-P6 Promote additional multifamily housing opportunities for households of all income levels to the extent that a compatible scale and intensity of development can be maintained with adjacent singlefamily areas.

NG-P7 Reduce conflicts between activities and promote a compatible relationship between different scales of development by maintaining a transition between zones where significantly different intensities of development are allowed.

TRANSPORTATION

NG-G6 An economically viable commercial core with improved alternative means of access, good vehicular and pedestrian circulation, and an enhanced, interesting environment that attracts customers, visitors, and employers.

NG-G7 Medium to high density residential and employment uses are concentrated within a 10-minute walk of the transit center, reducing the number and length of vehicle trips and making travel by foot and bicycle more attractive.

NG-P8 Promote the efficiency of the transportation system by accommodating more person trips rather than vehicle trips.

NG-P9 Enhance transit service and facilities to make it a more attractive travel mode for persons living and working in the Northgate Area.

NG-P10 Promote pedestrian circulation with an improved street level environment by striving to create pedestrian connections that are safe, interesting and pleasant.

NG-P11 Manage parking supply, location and demand to discourage the use of single occupant vehicles, and to improve short-term parking accessibility for retail customers, patients, and visitors, without undermining transit or high occupancy vehicle (HOV) usage, or detracting from the creation of an attractive pedestrian environment.

NG-P12 Seek to reduce the impact of increases in traffic volume by limiting conflicts with local access streets, and improving traffic flow, circulation and safety, without increasing vehicular capacity.

NG-P13 Seek to control impacts of a high capacity transit station on surrounding neighborhoods by emphasizing non-motorized access, transit supportive land uses, and an attractive pedestrian environment at and near the station.

OPEN SPACE

NG-G8 Quality open space exists in sufficient quantity and variety to meet the needs of workers, shoppers, students, and visitors, as well as recreational and natural spaces for the growing residential population.

NG-P14 Promote a system of open spaces and pedestrian connections, to guide acquisition, location, and development of future open space and to establish priorities for related public improvements.

DRAINAGE

NG-P15 Promote reduction of potential runoff into Thornton Creek, and encourage restoration of the Creek to enhance aquatic habitat and absorb more runoff.

HUMAN SERVICES AND COMMUNITY FACILITIES

NG-P16 Encourage quality human services for all segments of the population.

FINANCING

NG-P17 Explore and seek to develop a variety of strategies for financing implementation of these goals and policies.

* * *

Amend the Wallingford Goals and Policies as follows:

W-P4 Encourage neighborhood efforts to formulate a design review process neighborhood-specific design guidelines for commercial and multi-family development.

South Wallingford

W-G7 A pedestrian-oriented, human scale neighborhood south of N/NE 40th Street with strong connections to the Wallingford Urban Village and to public spaces along an active marine industrial shoreline.

W-P30 Maintain the shoreline's marine industrial zoning in order to preserve the water dependent use and the working waterfront character of the Wallingford shoreline.

W-P31 Provide opportunities for small, pedestrian-oriented businesses in South Wallingford.

W-P32 Pursue opportunities to provide public access between the residential community and the shoreline area.

W-P33 Strive to preserve existing views of Lake Union and Downtown Seattle from public locations in South Wallingford.

W-P34 Control impacts of regional traffic on South Wallingford's residential, neighborhood-commercial and recreational areas.

W-P35 Work to enhance bicycle and pedestrian access between the upland portion of the neighborhood and the Burke-Gilman Trail and shoreline.

2004 Comprehensive Plan Update Ordinance Page 5 of 5 Attachment 7: Neighborhood Planning Element

ATTACHMENT 7

Ordinance Updating Comprehensive Plan, 2004

ENVIRONMENT ELEMENT

Discussion:

Environmental stewardship is a core value of this Plan, and it plays an integral role in guiding how the City accommodates growth and provides services. There are many ways the City can protect and improve the environment while acting in its roles as a large employer, builder, land owner and regulator. For example, the City can lead by its own behavior in delivering services, operating its facilities and managing its land in an environmentally sustainable manner.

When environmental goals compete with other City goals, such as those related to economic development, the City is committed to giving just consideration to the environmental goals to protect the functions that natural systems can perform and to prevent harmful effects on human health.

This element of the Plan contains broad environmental goals and policies. Some of the Plan's other elements include goals and policies addressing how environmental values specifically relate to the topics covered in those elements. For instance, the Land Use Element includes policies governing development near environmentally critical areas such as wetlands and stream corridors, and the Transportation Element addresses possible environmental impacts and improvements associated with transportation choices.

EG1 Protect and improve the quality and function of the city's air, land, and water resources because of their relationship to human health, wildlife and the region's natural heritage.

E1 Explore ways for City actions and decisions to have positive effects on the natural environment and human health, and to avoid or offset potential negative effects, including those caused by private projects permitted by the City.

Relationship to Economic Development

EG2 Maintain a healthy natural environment as central to Seattle's economic development and as a competitive advantage in attracting and retaining family-wage jobs and workers.

E2 Incorporate the improvement of the natural environment into the City's planning efforts and capital development projects. For instance, plan for transportation systems that control impacts on air quality and climate-change, as well as on water pollution and the consumption of fossil fuels.

E3 Promote sustainable management of public and private open spaces and landscaping, such as by preserving or planting native and naturalized vegetation, removing invasive plants, engaging the community in long-term maintenance activities, and using integrated pest management.

E4 Strive to protect and retain certain trees and groups of trees that enhance Seattle's historical, cultural, environmental and aesthetic character.

E5 Maintain the health of natural habitats on private property through a combination of education, incentives and development standards that recognize and promote sound practices by private land owners.

E6 Create partnerships with organizations in the private sector and engage the community to protect and enhance Seattle's urban ecosystems and habitat.

E7 Control the impacts of noise, odor and light, in order to protect human health and the livability of the urban environment.

Natural Systems Approach

EG3 Use natural systems to maintain and enhance environmental quality by having them perform such functions as cleaning air and water, and controlling storm water runoff.

E8 In order to reduce the financial investment in built infrastructure while controlling the environmental impacts that infrastructure can cause, explore opportunities to restore or productively use the functions that a healthy ecosystem can provide in conjunction with, or as a substitute for, built infrastructure.

E9 Work to achieve a sustainable urban forest that contains a diverse mix of tree species and ages in order to use the forest's abilities to reduce storm water runoff and pollution, absorb air pollutants, provide wildlife habitat, absorb carbon dioxide, provide shade, stabilize soil, and increase property values.

E10 Strive to increase the amount of permeable surface and vegetative cover in the city in order to mitigate the heat island effect of developed areas, control storm water flows and reduce pollution.

Aquatic Areas

EG4 Recognize the value of Seattle's aquatic areas, including Puget Sound, the lakes, creeks, rivers, and the associated shorelines for their contributions to the quality of life in Seattle.

E11 Identify long-term goals and develop plans or strategies for improving the environmental quality of each of the city's aquatic areas.

E12 Improve water quality in the city's water bodies, such as by reducing the use of chemicals known to have negative impacts on aquatic or human health.

E13 Strive to achieve flows in creeks that will support a variety of aquatic life and that will control flooding and property damage caused by unregulated flows.

E14 Promote both public and private opportunities to improve water quality and help restore aquatic habitat in the city's creeks, lakes, rivers and marine waters and their shorelines, so that these habitats are healthy for native wildlife and people.

Climate Change

EG5 Reduce the emission of greenhouse gases to control the impact of climate change globally and locally.

E15 Work with private and public sector partners to reduce climatechanging greenhouse gas emissions from private and public sources to control the impacts of global warming on the city's water supply, electrical energy supply, ecosystems, public health and economy.

City Operations

EG6 Strive to continuously improve the City's environmental performance in its roles as a large employer, builder and maintainer of capital facilities, land owner and regulator to not only improve the natural environment but also to set an example for others' behavior.

E16 In the operations of City government, strive to reduce the use of resources and toxics, prevent pollution, control waste, and protect natural areas and biodiversity.

E17 To improve the City's environmental performance, set targets, use innovative approaches, encourage employees, and coordinate with other government entities.

E18 In order to assess the City's success in moving toward a sustainable urban environment, the City should identify and establish goals for key indicators of such factors as human health, the economy, population, energy use, sprawl, natural systems and pollution. Collect data and regularly report on these indicators to inform and enable citizens and decision-makers to consider alternative policies or programs, where outcomes differ from what was intended by this Plan. Consider combining this monitoring activity with the one described in the Urban Village Element of this Plan.

Source Control

EG7 Make waste reduction, pollution prevention and recycling integral parts of how City government and others in the city conduct their daily business.

E19 Reduce consumption of resources and promote conservation of energy, water and material resources among all sectors of the community, including City government.

E20 Consider long-term environmental costs, in City planning, purchasing and operating decisions. For instance, look at all of the environmental impacts caused by materials from their production to disposal.

2004 Comprehensive Plan Update Ordinance Page 3 of 3 Attachment 8: Environment Element

URBAN VILLAGE APPENDICES

Urban Village Appendix A:

GROWTH ESTIMATES FOR URBAN CENTERS, CENTER VILLAGES, MANUFACTURING/ INDUSTRIAL CENTERS, HUB URBAN VILLAGES, AND RESIDENTIAL URBAN VILLAGES

Center or Village

Land Area in Acres

Households (HH)

Employment (Jobs)

Existing (2004)

Existing Density (HH/ Acre)

Growth Estimate (HH Growth)

2024 Density (Est.)

Existing (2002)

Existing Density (Jobs/ Acre)

Growth Estimate (Job Growth)

2024 Density (Est.)

Urban Centers & Center Villages

Downtown Urban Center Total

952

15,700

16

10,000

28

156,960

165

28,500

213

Belltown

220

8,640

39

4,700

63

19,760

90

4,000

124

Chinatown/ International District

171

1,910

11

1,000

18

5,080

30

2,000

41

Commercial Core

276

3,070

11

300

13

103,790

376

10,000

444

Denny Triangle

143

1,290

9

3,000

30

18,020

126

9,000

205

Pioneer Square1

142

790

6

1,000

13

10,310

73

3,500

123

First Hill/Capitol Hill Center Total

916

22,520

25

3,500

30

37,940

41

4,600

47

12th Avenue

160

1,450

9

700

14

4,040

25

700

30

Capitol Hill

397

12,250

31

1,000

35

7,300

18

900

21

First Hill

228

6,020

26

1,200

33

22,020

97

2,000

105

Pike/Pine

131

2,800

21

600

27

4,580

35

1,000

52

Northgate Urban Center Total

411

3,490

8

2,500

15

11,030

27

4,000

38

South Lake Union Urban Center Total

340

1,210

4

10,000

33

19,690

58

23,000

135

University Community Urban Center Total2

758

6,850

9

1,300

11

32,360

43

6,000

53

Ravenna

123

5,230

18

1,000

23

1,960

16

2,500

37

University District Northwest

287

1,400

11

300

14

6,170

21

500

21

Uptown Queen Anne Urban Center Total

297

4,580

15

1,000

20

15,570

52

1,100

61

Manufacturing/Industrial Centers

BallardInterbay-Northend (BINMIC)

941

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

15,320

16

1,800

19

Duwamish

4,961

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

64,500

13

6,600

15

Hub Urban Villages

Ballard

425

5,010

12

1,000

15

4,780

11

700

13

Bitter Lake Village

359

2,010

6

800

8

4,010

11

700

13

Fremont

215

2,170

10

500

13

6,430

30

800

34

Lake City

142

1,920

13

900

21

1,510

11

600

17

North Rainier

453

1,590

4

900

6

4,670

10

700

14

W. Seattle Junction

226

2,280

10

700

14

2,670

12

700

16

Residential Urban Villages

23rd Ave @ S Jackson-Union

515

3,730

7

650

9

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

Admiral District

98

1,000

10

200

13

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

Aurora-Licton

327

2,740

8

500

10

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

Columbia City

173

1,110

6

800

8

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

Crown Hill

200

2,760

14

250

8

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

Eastlake

109

1,520

14

250

16

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

Green Lake

94

1,500

16

250

17

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

Greenwood/Phinney Ridge

145

1,930

13

400

21

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

Madison-Miller

375

2,080

6

500

17

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

MLK @ Holly Street

114

1,090

10

500

7

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

Morgan Junction

131

1,170

9

200

12

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

North Beacon Hill

313

1,750

6

400

12

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

Rainier Beach

53

1,370

26

600

8

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

Roosevelt

250

1,260

5

250

9

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

South Park

158

1,130

7

250

5

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

Upper Queen Anne

263

1,030

4

200

31

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

Wallingford

257

2,520

10

400

12

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

Westwood-Highland Park

276

1,860

7

400

9

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

Seattle Total

53,535

268,000

5

47,000

6

480,000

9

84,000

11

1 The Pioneer Square growth estimates assume that the north football stadium parking lot and vacant floor area in existing structures are available to accommodate a substantial share of household and employment growth.

2 The University of Washington campus is part of the University Community Urban Center, but is not a distinct urban village. These numbers includes jobs and housing on the University of Washington campus not reflected in Ravenna and the University District Northwest figures.

Urban Village Appendix B:

CITYWIDE OPEN SPACE AND RECREATION FACILTY GOALS

City Open Space

Goal

Area

Breathing Room Open Space

1 Acre per 100 residents

Citywide

Usable Open Space

1/4 to 1/2 acre within 1/4 to 1/2 mile of every resident

Areas outside Urban Villages

Recreation Facilities

Specific Goals for Recreation Facilities such as Community Centers, swimming pools and athletic fields are contained in the Parks Comprehensive Plan

Citywide, except as modified by Village Open Space and Recreation Goals

URBAN VILLAGE OPEN SPACE AND RECREATION FACILITY GOALS

Goal

Urban Center Villages

Hub Urban Villages

Residential Urban Villages

Urban Village Open Space Population-based Goals

One acre of Village Open Space per 1,000 households. For the Downtown Commercial Core: one acre of Village Open Space per 10,000 jobs.

One acre of Village Open Space per 1,000 households.

Same as for Hub Urban Villages.

Urban Village Open Space Distribution Goals

All locations in the village within approximately 1/8 mile of Village Open Space.

Same as for Urban Center Villages.

For moderate and high density areas: All locations within 1/8 mile of a Village Open Space that is between 1/4and 1-acre in size, or within 1/4 mile of a Village Open Space that is greater than 1 acre. For low density areas: all locations within 1/4 mile of any qualifying Village Open Space.

Qualifying Criteria for Village Open Space

Dedicated open spaces of at least 10,000 square feet in size, publicly accessible, and usable for recreation and social activities.

Same as for Urban Center Villages.

Same as for Urban Center and Hub Villages.

Village Commons, Recreation Facility and Community Garden Goals

At least one usable open space of at least one acre in size (Village Commons) where the existing and target households total 2,500 or more. (Amended 11/96). One indoor, multiple-use recreation facility serving each Urban Center. One dedicated community garden for each 2,500 households in the Village with at least one dedicated garden site.

At least one usable open space of at least one acre in size (Village Commons). One facility for indoor public assembly. Same as for Urban Center Villages.

At least one usable open space, of at least one acre in size (Village Commons), where overall residential density is ten households per gross acre or more. One facility for indoor public assembly in Villages with greater than 2,000 households. Same as for Urban Center and Hub Villages.

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

ATTACHMENT 9

Ordinance Updating Comprehensive Plan, 2004

2

2004 Comprehensive Plan Update Ordinance Page 1 of 14 Attachment 9: Urban Village Appendices

LAND USE APPENDICES

Land Use Appendix A:

SUMMARY OF EXISTING LAND USE, POPULATION, AND EMPLOYMENT CHARACTERISTICS

This section describes the existing arrangement and concentration of uses and activities such as housing, businesses, parks, and industries.

Land Uses

Seattle encompasses approximately 53,500 acres or about 84 square miles. Land Use Figure A-1 illustrates how the city's land area is distributed among different types of uses. About 40 percent of the city is occupied by residential uses, primarily in single-family development. Street rights-of-way take up the next largest amount of land over 26 percent. Commercial and industrial areas, where most of the jobs in the city are located, occupy about 9 percent, while parks and other open spaces account for over 10 percent.

Land Use Figure A-2 depicts how these various activities are distributed within the city.

With the exception of Downtown Seattle, the Ballard-Interbay and Duwamish industrial areas and their surrounding neighborhoods, Seattle is predominantly covered by single-family houses and street right-ofway. Most multifamily residences are concentrated in core areas such as First Hill/Capitol Hill and the University District. Jobs are located primarily in commercial and industrial areas such as Downtown, Duwamish, First Hill, Northgate and the University District.

Residential Uses

Housing Types

Slightly more than half of the city's households are living in singlefamily houses, according to the 2000 United States Census (Land Use Figure A-3). Most of these dwellings are located in areas devoted exclusively to low-density development. The Census figure includes both detached single-family housing units, and the 2 percent of Seattle's housing that is in attached buildings, such as townhouses, and consequently over-counts the number of units Seattle would classify as single-family. Detached single-family homes occupy 35 percent of the city's total land area.

Slightly less than half of the city's households live in some type of multifamily or mixed-use development concentrated on 10 percent of the city's land area. These multifamily dwellings are in buildings of varying sizes, including small buildings of two to four units (duplexes, triplexes and fourplexes), medium-sized buildings (apartment buildings and condominiums with 5 to 19 units), and large buildings (apartment buildings and condominiums with 20 units or more). Citywide, small multifamily buildings of two to four units account for 8 percent of Seattle's housing, medium-sized buildings account for 16 percent of the city's units, and 24 percent of Seattle's dwelling units are in large buildings.

Housing and Population Density

Land Use Figure A-4 shows the distribution of household density in the city expressed as the number of households per gross acre. (Gross acre includes nonresidential uses such as street rights-of-way and parks.) Areas with the highest density of households (hh) are located north of the I-90 freeway. Portions of First Hill/Capitol Hill contain the highest density of households in some areas well over 40 hh/gross acre. Other areas with high-density residential neighborhoods include Uptown and Belltown. The next densest areas include the Chinatown/International District, the University Community, Fremont, Ballard, and Eastlake. Areas of more moderate housing unit density (8-10 hh per gross acre) include Aurora-Licton Springs, Green Lake, the Central District, Beacon Hill, and the West Seattle Junction. A population density map (Land Use Figure A-5) is another way of presenting information about where people live. This figure shows a concentration of residents similar to that of the household density map. In addition, it shows isolated areas where significant concentrations of people occur, such as the Highpoint and Sandpoint communities.

Commercial and Industrial Uses

Employment Activity

Seattle is a regional employment center providing a wide variety of jobs. Based on data from the Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC) and the King County Assessor's office, in 2002 Seattle contained about 502,500 jobs in businesses occupying about 4,900 commercial and industrial acres, or 9 percent of the total city land area. Land Use Figure A-6 shows the distribution of these jobs according to standard classifications by district.

The change over the last 20 years in the number of jobs in each employment sector is shown in Land Use Figure A-7. Between 1980 and 2000, the number of jobs in Seattle increased by almost 40 percent, (153,735 new jobs). Service jobs accounted for the biggest increases, while manufacturing jobs have decreased by more than 20 percent over 20 years.

Employment Densities

Land Use Figure A-8 illustrates the distribution of employment density as number of jobs per gross acre. Areas with the highest job densities (greater than 50 jobs/gross acre) include Downtown, First Hill, the University of Washington, South Lake Union, and Uptown communities. Areas with moderately high employment densities (26 to 50 jobs/gross acre) are the University District, Eastlake, Fremont and Queen Anne areas. Predominantly residential areas of the city have employment densities as low as 1 to 15 jobs per acre.

Major Employment Concentrations

Employment activity is much more concentrated than housing. Most of the jobs in the city are located in the areas described below. These areas are unique because they attract people daily from all over the city and region.

Downtown. Downtown Seattle, with over 165,000 jobs at an average density of about 175 jobs per gross acre, supports the largest concentration of jobs in the Pacific Northwest. In the Commercial Core, job densities average 400 jobs per acre. Just over one-third of all jobs in the city are located downtown.

First Hill/Capitol Hill. A specialized concentration of medical facilities has developed on First Hill east of downtown, lending the area the nickname "Pill Hill." With Swedish Hospital Medical Center, Virginia Mason Medical Center, Harborview Medical Center and related support facilities, this area has one of the greatest employment concentrations in the city, with over 21,000 jobs at an average employment density of about 96 jobs per acre. Capitol

Hill, Pike/Pine, and 12th Avenue to the north and east of First Hill, are home to colleges and universities, as well as thriving retail districts. Combined, these other portions of the First Hill/Capitol Hill Urban Center contain another 16,000 jobs, at an average 24 jobs per acre.

University Community. The University Community, with over 34,000 jobs contains a large amount of employment associated with both the University of Washington, the largest single employer in the city, and service and retail businesses, such as Safeco Insurance and University Village. Employment density in the University District is about 45 jobs per acre.

Northgate. In addition to Northgate Mall, the city's principal regional shopping facility outside of downtown, several major employers are clustered in the Northgate area, including Northwest Hospital, North Seattle Community College, and a relatively large concentration of service jobs. This area has a total employment of about 11,500 jobs, at a density of about 28 jobs per acre.

Uptown. Another substantial concentration of employment located immediately north of downtown is the area around Seattle Center between Denny Way and the base of Queen Anne Hill. Providing backup office and service activity for downtown, as well as other retail and service uses, the area accommodates over 16,000 jobs at a job density of approximately 55 jobs per acre.

South Lake Union. The area that has seen the fastest employment growth over the last ten years is South Lake Union, between Denny Way and Lake Union, just north of Downtown. A growing home to a number of services industries, South Lake Union has historically provided a location for manufacturing and wholesale businesses. South Lake Union contains approximately 21,000 jobs at a density of 62 jobs per acre.

Major Institutions. A number of major institutions located throughout the city also provide significant concentrations of employment for the whole region, such as the University of Washington. Others are smaller concentrations of employment in otherwise low-density areas, such as the Veterans Administration Medical Center and Seattle Pacific University.

Neighborhood Commercial. Seattle's neighborhood business areas provide locations for services needed by the surrounding lowto moderate-residential populations, such as food from restaurants or grocery stores; entertainment; professional, personal or business services. These neighborhood businesses are dispersed and the range of services they provide varies throughout the city. They generally are in locations with fair accessibility to both the transportation network and concentrations of people.

A number of the city's larger, more-established neighborhood commercial areas also provide concentrations of employment. Ballard, Fremont and West Seattle Junction are all areas with between 3,000 and 6,000 jobs and employment densities averaging in the 10 to 20 jobs per acre range. Other commercial areas with notable job concentrations include Lake City, the Aurora strip between N. 115th and N.145th streets, and the area around Rainier Avenue and Interstate 90. The employment populations of these areas range between 3,000 and 4,000, with average job densities of between 8 and 12 jobs per acre.

Industrial Areas. Citywide, industrial uses are concentrated in the Duwamish Valley, and BINMIC (the Ballard-Interbay-Northend Manufacturing/Industrial Center), which includes Interbay, and the shoreline area between Ballard and Fremont. Some manufacturing and industrial activity also occurs around the shores of Lake Union and along Rainier Avenue S., near Interstate 90. Two of these areas, BINMIC and the Duwamish, are major areas of employment. BINMIC has roughly 15,000 jobs, while the Duwamish accounts for over 65,000. Combined, they contain roughly 17 percent of the city's total employment population. Given the land-intensive nature of employment activities in these areas, the job densities are comparatively low, seldom exceeding 15 jobs per acre.

2004 Comprehensive Plan Update Ordinance Page 5 of 14 Attachment 9: Land Use Appendices

TRANSPORTATION APPENDICES

Transportation Appendix A

Inventory of Existing Facilities and Services

Limited Access Facilities, Arterials and Streets

There are approximately 54,000 acres of land in the city, nearly 14,000 of which (about 26 percent) are used for street rights-of-way. Seattle's street network in 2004 consists of 1,534 miles of arterials, including some that are designated state routes, and 2,412 miles of non-arterials (see Transportation Figure A-1). In the arterial system there are 620 miles of principal arterials, 566 miles of minor arterials, and 348 miles of collector arterials. High-occupancy vehicle (HOV) lanes exist on some arterials and limited access facilities as shown in Transportation Figure A-3. There are 975 signalized intersections, 4,596 non-signalized arterial intersections and 7,029 non-arterial intersections. Transportation Figures A-2a-c show the locations of traffic and pedestrian crossing signals in Seattle. The "state signals" are managed by the Washington State Department of Transportation and are located mostly at freeway onand off-ramps.

Traffic Volumes

Transportation Figure A-4 shows the 2002 average weekday traffic volumes on Seattle's arterials and freeways. To analyze trends, traffic counts are taken annually on arterials and freeways along screenlines at or near the city limits, and are added together to estimate the traffic volume entering and exiting the city daily. Transportation Figure A-5 shows the trend in average weekday traffic at the city limit screenlines; the volume has increased from 758,000 in 1980 to 1,190,800 in 2003 -a 64 percent increase over 23 years. During the same period, Seattle's population increased by 9.3 percent. However, between 1995 and 2002 approximately 51,000 new jobs were added within the city, a 12% increase.

Transportation Figure A-6 similarly shows the trend in average weekday traffic crossing an imaginary cordon around downtown Seattle, bounded by Lenora Street, I-5, Royal Brougham Way, and Alaskan Way. The volumes include traffic getting on and off the ferries. From 1980 to 2003, downtown cordon traffic grew 22 percent, from 371,000 to 475,980.

Transit

Public transit in Seattle is provided by three agencies. Metro provides bus, trolley and streetcar services that cover most of King County. Community Transit and Sound Transit operate express bus services to Seattle from King, Snohomish and Pierce Counties. As of 2002, Metro serves a population of nearly 2 million over a 2,128square-mile service area. It operates approximately 1300 vehicles on about 188 routes representing 7,050 route miles with annual ridership of over 75 million. Transportation Figure A-7 shows Metro's 2004 transit routes in Seattle.

Metro currently operates a 1.3-mile-long tunnel under Third Avenue and Pine Street from the International District to 9th Avenue and Pine Street. The tunnel has five stations, and connects to Interstate 90 at the south end and to the Interstate 5 express lanes at the north end. Dual-powered buses operate through the tunnel; diesel power is used on streets and highways, while electric power is used in the tunnel. In addition to dual powered buses, the tunnel will be used as part of Sound Transits Link light rail line through downtown. Renovation of the tunnel for use by both buses and trains is scheduled for completion by 2009.

Metro has about 56 miles of two-way overhead electric trolley wire in Seattle used by approximately 146 trolley buses. Trolleys produce no tailpipe emissions and are considerably quieter than diesel buses.

All buses operating in downtown Seattle are free to riders from 6:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. The ride-free zone boundaries are Battery Street, Sixth Avenue, I-5, Jackson Street, and the waterfront. The ride-free zone significantly reduces the need to use cars for short trips around downtown. The Waterfront Streetcar system includes three streetcars, nine stations, and more than two miles of rail. The tracks and overhead wire run along Alaskan Way and South Main Street from Myrtle Edwards Park to the International District.

Sound Transit is the regional transit authority for the Puget Sound area (which includes portions of King, Snohomish and Pierce Counties.) Sound Transit was created in 1996 by voters within its boundary, and is implementing the first phase of its "Sound Move" regional transit plan. The Sound Move plan includes: operation of a 14-mile light rail system (called "Link") between SeaTac and downtown Seattle, with possible extension to Northgate; peak period commuter rail services (called "Sounder") along existing rail lines between downtown Seattle, Tacoma and Everett; and regional bus services.

As of 2004, Sound Transit provides regional express bus services between suburban areas within its three-county service area, downtown Seattle, West Seattle, and the University District. Sounder commuter rail provides rail service between Tacoma and Seattle and between Everett and Seattle. Besides the King Street Station, where the Tacoma and Everett services reach downtown Seattle, there are two provisional Sounder stations identified in Seattle in the Georgetown and Ballard communities.

By 2009 there will be at least 11 Link light rail stations in Seattle: in the Rainier Valley at Henderson Street (Rainier Beach area), Othello Street (Holly Park area), Edmunds Street (Columbia City area), and McClellan Street (Mount Baker area); Beacon Avenue and Lander Street (Beacon Hill area), and through downtown using the existing downtown tunnel stations. Stations planned but deferred for future operation include Graham Street, and Royal Brougham. Currently, planning for extension of Link north of downtown to Northgate is under study. In 2004, Sound Transit identified a preferred route for North Link. The preferred North Link route will stretch north of the Downtown Seattle Transit Tunnel with stations at Madison Street (First Hill area), Nagle Place (Capitol Hill area), Husky Stadium and Brooklyn at NE 43rd Street (University District), NE 65th Street (Roosevelt Neighborhood) and Northgate. It is anticipated that by 2030 this line will have a daily ridership in excess of 150,000 passengers.

In 2002, Seattle Voters approved a measure to fund construction of a monorail linking Ballard, Downtown, and West Seattle. Construction of the 14-mile line is scheduled to begin in 2005 with partial opening planned for 2007 and full operation in 2009. Planning for the 2nd of potentially 5 lines by the Seattle Monorail Project began in 2003. Currently, the City of Seattle operates a monorail on a mile of elevated guideway between Westlake Mall in downtown Seattle and the Seattle Center. The monorail carried about 2.1 million riders in 2003. The Seattle Monorail will close in the fall of 2005 to make way for construction of the Seattle Monorail Projects' Green Line.

Metro and WSDOT operate 15 park-and-ride lots in Seattle with approximately 2,280 parking spaces, as shown in Transportation Figures A-9 and A-10. There is also a Metro transit center just south of the Northgate Mall. The park-and-ride lots may be used by commuters, free of charge, to meet a carpool, vanpool or bus. Metro provides wheelchair-accessible buses and other special transportation services for persons unable to use regular bus service. For example, low-income King County residents 65 years or older and people with disabilities are eligible for reduced-cost taxi trips. Other Metro programs and services include custom buses, special event service, the U-Pass program with the University of Washington, bikes on buses, vanpools, and a ridematch service.

Bicycles and Pedestrians

Bicycles are classified as "vehicles" in the Seattle Traffic Code and have the right to use all streets in the city except where explicitly prohibited. Transportation Figure A-11 shows the three categories of bike facilities, and the miles of each. Bicycle racks are provided in neighborhood commercial areas and downtown, and some work places provide secure, weather-protected bike parking, showers, and lockers. As of 2000, the City has installed over 1900 bike racks across the city. Seattle's Land Use Code requires that many new developments include bike parking where parking is built for cars.

Metro first installed bike racks on buses in 1979 to carry bicyclists across the SR-520 Bridge. Metro has since installed bike racks on their entire fleet of buses. Metro also has bike racks and lockers at some of its Seattle park-and-ride lots and at the Northgate Transit Center. The Washington State Ferry Colman Dock in downtown Seattle has bicycle racks for 10 to 15 bikes, while the Fauntleroy dock has none. All ferries provide simple tie-downs for bicycle transport, although the passenger-only ferries can carry only five bikes.

Of the City's 479 miles of arterials (in 1995), about 306 miles had sidewalks or asphalt walkways on both sides of the street, and 140 miles had a sidewalk or walkway on one side of the street; about 33 miles of arterials do not have sidewalks or asphalt walkways on either side of the street. "School walk boundaries" define areas where school bus service is not provided and students generally walk to school. In 1995, there were 20 miles of arterials in elementary school walk boundaries without sidewalks on either side of the street; and there were 362 miles of Seattle residential streets (nonarterials) lacking sidewalks within the school walk boundaries.

Parking

On-street parking occurs in the public right-of-way and is therefore regulated by the City through the creation of no-parking and specialuse parking zones, time-of-day restrictions, parking duration limits, pay stations/meters, and residential parking zones. In 2004, the City started converting most single-space parking meters to parking pay station kiosks. All pay stations will be installed at the rate of $1.50 per hour. As electric meters are reprogrammed, the parking meter rate will increase to $1.50 per hour. Because existing mechanical meters cannot be reprogrammed, they will remain at $1.00 or 0.60 cents per hour and will be phased out as pay stations are installed.

Residential parking zones (RPZ's) are designed to protect Seattle's residential neighborhoods from parking impacts and congestion from major employment and/or retail centers. In an RPZ, on-street parking is generally restricted to one or two hours, except for residents and guests who display special RPZ decals. Existing RPZ's are in the following communities: Montlake, Squire Park, West Seattle-Fauntleroy, Capitol Hill, Wallingford, University District, First Hill, Eastlake, Magnolia, North Queen Anne, North Capitol Hill, Uptown (Seattle Center), Central District (Garfield High School), Belmont/Harvard, Mount Baker (Franklin high school), North Beacon Hill, Licton Springs (North Seattle Community College), Cowen Park/Roosevelt, Ravenna Bryant

Off-street parking facilities are usually privately-owned and operated. The City regulates the location and size of garages and lots through the Land Use Code and facilities with paid parking pay a licensing fee. Transportation Figure A-12 shows inventory data for off-street parking in three Seattle areas: the Central Business District, Uptown/South Lake Union, First Hill and the University District.

Carpools receive preferential parking treatment through City programs, allocation of on-street parking spaces, and Land Use Code requirements for carpool parking in new developments.

Rail

Passenger Rail: Amtrak operates trains over 900 miles of Burlington Northern tracks in the state and provides service to 16 cities. The Empire Builder provides daily service from Seattle to Spokane and on to Chicago; the Cascades operates twice a day to/from Portland, and daily to/from Vancouver, B.C. The Coast Starlight runs daily connecting Seattle to Portland, Oakland and on to Los Angeles

Freight: Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) owns and operates a mainline dual-track from Portland to Seattle. Union Pacific owns and operates a single mainline track with two-way train operations between Tacoma and Seattle. BNSF owns and operates tracks that extend north from downtown Seattle to Snohomish County and then east to Spokane. A connecting spur, operated by the Ballard Terminal Rail Company, serves the Ballard and the western ship canal area. BNSF trains range up to 5,500 feet in length; Union Pacific trains are up to 7,700 feet long.

Rail-line capacity depends on train length, operating speeds, the number of switch crossover points, and whether the line has oneor two-way traffic. Current train speed limits in the City are 10, 20, or 40 mph depending on the segment.

There are three truck-to-train intermodal terminals serving the Duwamish Industrial area: Burlington Northern Santa Fe operates the Seattle International Gateway yard north of S. Hanford Street, Union Pacific operates the Seattle Yard north of the Georgetown neighborhood, and the Port of Seattle operates an intermodal facility at Terminal 18. North of downtown Seattle is BNSF's Interbay rail yard.

Air Transportation

There are three commercial aircraft landing facilities in the greater Seattle metropolitan area: Seattle-Tacoma International Airport (SeaTac), operated by the Port of Seattle and located in the City of SeaTac; the Lake Union seaplane base in Seattle; and the Lake Washington seaplane base near Kenmore. Sea-Tac's facilities include two instrument runways, 76 loading gates, one main and two satellite terminals, and 4.5 miles of intra-airport roads. Sea-Tac accommodates over 38 airlines, including 13 international passenger carriers and 18 all-cargo carriers. In 2003 there were 354,770 aircraft operations at Sea-Tac.

The majority of general aviation flights take off and land either at King County International Airport (Boeing Field) or at one of the 11 active privately-operated helistops and heliports around the city. Boeing Field has one 10,000-foot runway with an instrument landing system and one 3,700-foot runway. The number of flight operations at Boeing Field was 363,838 in 2000.

Water Transportation

The Washington State Ferry (WSF) system operates two terminals in Seattle -Colman Dock in downtown Seattle, and the Fauntleroy terminal in West Seattle. Passenger-and-vehicle service is provided on two ferry routes from Colman Dock -to Bainbridge Island and to Bremerton. Passenger-and-vehicle ferries link Fauntleroy with Vashon Island and Southworth.

The Victoria Clipper operates between one to four round trips daily, depending on the season, between Seattle and Victoria on passengeronly catamarans.

Other Intermodal Facilities

The Port of Seattle operates and supports marine, rail, and air intermodal facilities. Port of Seattle facilities include 25 commercial marine terminals, 3 container terminals with 23 container cranes, a warehouse complex and distribution center, and a deep-draft grain terminal. Services are offered by about 100 steamship operators and agents; about 30 tug and barge operators; about 100 truck and warehouse operators; and Burlington Northern Santa Fe and Union Pacific railroads, operating intermodal yards. Transportation Figure A-13 shows the Port of Seattle facilities located in Seattle.

.

Transportation Figure A-5

Transportation Figure A-6

Transportation Figure A-9

Park-and-Ride Lot Utilization

ID

Park-and-Ride Location

Address

Number of Parking Stalls (1999)

1

North Jackson Park

14711 5th Ave NE

68

2

Shoreline United Methodist Church

NE 145th St/25th Ave NE

20

3

Fifth Ave NE/NE 133rd St

Fifth Ave NE/NE 133rd St

46

4

Our Savior Lutheran Church

NE 125th/27th Ave NE

21

5

Northgate

11203 5th Ave NE

401

6

Northgate Transit Center

10200 1st Ave NE

296

7

North Seattle

10001 1st Ave NE

141

8

Northgate TC Extension

3rd Ave NE & NE 103rd St

412

8

Northgate TC Extension Carpool

3rd Ave NE & NE 103rd St

75

9

Calvary Temple Church

6810 8th Ave NE

75

10

I-5 / NE 65th St

6601 8th Ave NE

446

11

Southwest Spokane St

26th Ave SW & SW Spokane St

62

12

Airport Way / Spokane St

Airport Way/Spokane St

25

13

Holy Family Church

SW Roxbury/20th SW

36

14

Olson Way / Myers

9000 Olson Pl SW

100

15

Northgate North Garage

300 NE Northgate Way

63

Source: Metro King County, December 2003. (Second Quarter Statistics)

Transportation Figure A-10

Bicycle Facilities, 2004

Routes

Miles

Bicycle Paths (Multi-use) Total

28

Duwamish River (Duwamish Head to Michigan St)

4.0

Harbor Island/West Seattle Bridge

1.0

Interstate 90 Path

3.5

Waterfront/Elliott Bay/Interbay

4.0

Burke Gilman Trail

14.5

South Lake Union

1.0

Bicycle Lanes Total

22

Alki

2.5

Green Lake

4.0

Ravenna

1.0

Interstate 90 Extension (Dearborn)

1.0

Dexter/7th

2.2

Alaskan Way

2.0

Gilman/Government Way

1.6

Martin Luther King Way

0.8

Bicycle Routes (Signed) Total

90

Alki

15.5

Duwamish (City limit to Michigan Street)

3.4

Sea-Tac Route

13.0

Lake Washington Boulevard

19.7

Magnolia Loop

7.5

Ravenna

2.5

8th Avenue NW (Burke Gilman Trail to 3rd Avenue NW)

5.5

Sand Point Way (Burke Gilman Trail By-pass Route)

10.0

Lake Union Route

2.0

Ballard/Seaview Route

4.5

Source: Seattle Department of Transportation, 2004.

Definitions:

Bicycle Path: A bikeway physically separated from motorized vehicular traffic by an open space or barrier and either within the highway right-of-way or within an independent right-of-way.

Bicycle Lane: A portion of a roadway that has been designated by striping, signing, and pavement markings for the preferential or exclusive use of bicyclists.

Bicycle Route: A segment of a system of bikeways designated by the jurisdiction having authority with appropriate directional and informational markers, with or without specific bicycle route number.

Transportation Figure A-11

2002 Off-Street Parking Inventory

Seattle Area

Total Stalls

(2002)

Annual % Supply Change (1996-2002)

Average Occupancy Rate

Annual % Change in Average Occupancy. Rate 1996-2002

Average Two Hour Rate

Average Daily Rate

Average Monthly Rate

Annual % Change in Average Daily Rate Rate 1996-2002

Central Business District

58,538

+1.6%

63.2%

-3.9%

$ 7.20

$14.52

$200.29

6.7%

Lower Queen Anne/ South Lake Union

17,644

+0.7%

46.8%

-3.5%

$4.51

$6.52

106.03

1.0%

First Hill

10,800

+0.7%

76.2%

0.0%

$3.60

12.37

91.71

11.4%

University District

5,134

N/A

63.8%

N/A

$3.35

$7.15

$74.37

N/A

N/A = Not Available Source: Parking Inventory for the Central Puget Sound Region, PUGET SOUND REGIONAL COUNCIL / JANUARY 2002. For copy of report, go to http://www.psrc.org/datapubs/pubs/parking2002.htm

Note that the PSRC collected University District data for the first time in 2002.

Transportation Figure A-12

Port of Seattle Facilities

Transportation Appendix B

Land Use Assumptions Used in Estimating Travel

To estimate future travel levels, assumptions were made for a variety of factors related to future population, employment, and transportation facilities. These include the number and geographic distribution of both households and employment in Seattle and the region, characteristics of households and jobs (e.g., number of residents per household, household income), and the transportation network (e.g., streets, transit routes). Then, a computer model was used to predict the total number of person-trips between various zones, the number of trips that would use various modes (e.g., car, bus, bike, walk), and the resulting vehicle traffic volumes on various streets throughout the city.

Existing Conditions

In 2000, the census counted 563,374 people living in Seattle; 2004 state estimates place the number at about 572,600. But Seattle's daytime population is much larger than the number of people who live in the city. A conservative 2000 estimate that takes employment into account but does not consider other reasons people come to, or leave, Seattle during the daytime-such as attending college classes, shopping, business travel, entertainment, tourism, and medical care-would number at least 717,465 in 2000. This estimate is based on the following data from the 2000 census:

* 563,374 people lived in Seattle in 2000

* 59,000 Seattle residents worked outside the city

* approximately 220,000 people commuted to Seattle from other places for work

Seattle covers about 54,000 acres of land. Most areas of the city are of predominantly one type of land use (e.g., residential, commercial, or industrial). About 40 percent of the city's land area is occupied by residential uses. In 1990, there were a total of about 249,000 housing units in the city. Estimates in 2003 place the total number of housing units in the city at about 269,069. The area north of the ship canal has more of its land area occupied by housing than midSeattle (south of the ship canal to I-90) or south Seattle (south of I-90).

Street rights-of-way take up the next largest amount of land, almost 26 percent. Commercial and industrial areas, where most of the jobs in the city are located, occupy about 13 percent of the land area. Parks occupy nine percent; cemeteries, reservoirs, and other uses occupy six percent; and six percent of the land is vacant.

Regional Land Use Assumptions

The Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC) conducts regional planning for the four-county (Snohomish, King, Pierce, and Kitsap) central Puget Sound region. The PSRC's Vision 2020 Growth Strategy and Transportation Plan presents a vision and array of strategies designed to achieve goals of growth management, transportation demand management, and improved transportation investment decisions. The PSRC provides population and employment forecasts for the region, focusing future population and employment growth into urban centers.

Seattle Land Use Assumptions

Within Seattle, the upper limits of the growth targets in the adopted Plan for population, households, and employment were used to estimate future travel. These targets call for an additional 47,000 households and 67,200 jobs over the 20-year life of this plan. This growth was allocated within the city as follows:

Household Growth

Employment Growth

Urban centers

28,300 (60%)

67,200 (80%)

Hub urban villages

4,800 (10%)

4,200 (5%)

Residential villages

7,000 (15%)

4,200 (5%)

Areas outside centers and villages

7,000 (15%)

Manufacturing/industrial centers

--

8,400 (10%)

TOTAL

47,000 (100%)

84,000 (100%)

Transportation Appendix C

Traffic Forecasts

Region-wide and city-limit traffic volume forecasts for the Comprehensive Plan are as follows:

Total vehicle-miles-of-travel (VMT) for the region (per day):

1998 estimate: 76 million

2020 forecasts: 106 million ( + 39%)

Traffic volume at north city limit (vehicles per day):

1998 estimate: 361,000

2020 forecasts: 413,000 ( + 14%)

Traffic volume at south city limit (vehicles per day):

1998 estimate: 482,000

2010 forecasts: 546,000 ( + 13%)

Traffic volume at east city limit (SR 520 and I-90) (vehicles per day):

1998 estimate: 259,300

2020 forecasts: 284,000 ( + 10%)

Regional transit trips as a percent of total motorized trips:

1998 estimate: 3 percent

2020 forecast: 6 percent

To analyze the transportation effects of the Comprehensive Plan goals and policies on the City's arterial streets in urban centers and in urban village areas, traffic conditions were analyzed for a system of 42 screenlines, shown in Transportation Figure A-13. These screenlines functionally cover the entire City, including urban centers and areas identified for future designation as urban villages. The Comprehensive Plan's level-of-service (LOS) system uses a similar screenline system, with 30 of the same screenlines. Twelve screenlines were added for this traffic forecast analysis to supplement the data in urban centers.

Traffic volumes were forecasted for arterial streets for the year 2020. These forecasted volumes were totaled for all arterials crossing a particular screenline, and this screenline volume was compared to the sum of the "planning capacities" for the arterials crossing the screenline, yielding a ratio of volume-to-capacity (v/c) for each direction of traffic for each screenline.

The screenline methodology was used both for the Comprehensive Plan's level-of-service system to judge the performance of the arterial system, and for the traffic forecast analysis described in this Appendix. This system was selected because it steps back from the micro-level focus of traditional intersection LOS analysis, and recognizes explicitly the broader geographic impacts of development and travel patterns. The system recognizes that no single intersection or arterial operates in isolation. Motorists have choices, and they select particular routes based on a wide variety of factors. If traffic congestion on one arterial increases, it may not make sense to expand the capacity of that arterial. The City, instead, may want to shift traffic to a nearby under-used arterial, or to expand capacity on a different nearby arterial, or to implement measures to reduce travel demand -or a combination of these strategies. Accordingly, this analytic methodology focuses on a "traffic-shed," an area where arterials among which drivers logically can choose are organized for functional analysis.

Transportation Figure A-14 lists, for each screenline, the forecasted year 2020. (This Figure supplements the more limited information provided in Transportation Figure 3 in Section E. of the Comprehensive Plan Transportation Element.1)

As can be seen in Transportation Figure A-14, the forecasted screenline v/c ratios for the year 2020 under the Comprehensive Plan range from 0.32 to 1.2. With one exception, each screenline that serves as a level-of-service (LOS) screenline, the forecasted year 2020 v/c ratio is below the LOS standard established for that screenline. By analyzing the forecasted year 2020 v/c ratios at screenlines in or near urban centers, one can evaluate the effects of the Comprehensive Plan goals and policies on the transportation systems in the urban centers.

Downtown: Screenlines 10.11, 12.12, A1, A2, and A3 pass through or along the edge of the Downtown Urban Center, some encompassing northsouth avenues, and some encompassing east-west streets. For all five of these screenlines, the year 2020 v/c ratios under the Comprehensive Plan are below 1.0. This means that for screenlines 10.11 and 12.12, the year 2020 v/c ratios are also below the established LOS standards of 1.0 for screenline 10.11 and 1.2 for screenline 12.12.

Seattle Center: For the Seattle Center Urban Center, screenline A4 is an east-west screenline while screenline A5 is drawn north-south through the Urban Center. For both of these screenlines, the year 2020 v/c ratios are well below 1.0.

First Hill/Capitol Hill: Screenlines A6, A7, and A8 are drawn through the First Hill/ Capitol Hill Urban Center. Screenline 12.12, on the east edge of the Downtown Urban Center, is on the west edge of the First Hill/Capitol Hill Urban Center. For all four of these screenlines, the year 2020 v/c ratios under the Comprehensive Plan are well below 1.0.

University District: For the University District Urban Center, screenlines 5.16 and 13.13 cover the south and west boundaries of the Urban Center, while screenline A9 passes east-west through the Center and screenline A10 is drawn north-south through the Center. The year 2020 v/c ratios under the comprehensive Plan for all four of these screenlines are below 1.0. The forecasted year 2020 v/c ratios for screenline 5.16 are nearly 1.0, compared to the LOS standard of 1.2. These high v/c ratios reflect traffic congestion around the University District, much of which is due to through traffic.

Northgate: For the Northgate Urban Center, screenline A11 is drawn east-west through the Center, while screenline A12 passes north-south through the Center. The year 2020 v/c ratios for both of these screenlines are well below 1.0.

South Lake Union: For the South Lake Union Urban Center, Screenline 8 is drawn is drawn in a north-south, south of Lake Union. The year 2020 v/c ratios for this screenline is below 1.2 LOS standard.

The Comprehensive Plan includes policies to improve transit service and related transit capital facilities, as well as to improve nonmotorized transportation facilities, to afford ways for people to avoid the traffic congestion inherent in dense urban centers and urban village areas. In this way, people may avoid the congestion reflected in higher v/c ratios across some screenlines.

As this analysis of transportation impacts demonstrates, the forecasted year 2020 screenline volume-to-capacity ratios under the Comprehensive Plan do not exceed the established LOS standards for any screenlines. With the exception of Screenline 5.16 for the Ballard Bridge, the additional screenlines created for this traffic forecast analysis, the forecasted year 2020 v/c ratios are within acceptable ranges. The 2020 v/c ratio forecast for Screenline 5.16 is 1.2 and the standard for that screen line is also 1.2. As provided in Comprehensive Plan Policy T69, when the calculated v/c ratio for a screenline approaches the LOS standard for that screenline, the City will pursue strategies to reduce vehicular travel demand across the screenline and/or increase the operating capacity across the screenline.

Transportation Figure A-15

Screenline Volume-to-Capacity Ratios

Level-of-Service Screenline No.

Screenline Location

Segment

LOS Standard

Direction

2020 V/C Ratios

1.11

North City Limit

3rd Ave NW to Aurora Av N

1.20

NB

0.96

SB

0.61

1.12

North City Limit

Meridian Av N to 15th Av NE

1.20

NB

0.83

SB

0.43

1.13

North City Limit

30th Av NE to Lake City Wy NE

1.20

NB

0.93

SB

0.58

2

Magnolia

1.00

EB

0.51

WB

0.64

3.11

Duwamish River

West Seattle Fwy and Spokane St

1.20

EB

0.55

WB

0.86

3.12

Duwamish River

1st Ave S and 16th Ave S

1.20

NB

0.51

SB

0.75

4.11

South City Limit

ML King Jr Wy to Rainier Av S

1.00

NB

0.46

SB

0.61

4.12

South City Limit

Marine Dr SW to Meyers Wy S

1.00

NB

0.33

SB

0.39

4.13

South City Limit

SR 99 to Airport Wy S

1.00

NB

0.41

SB

0.49

5.11

Ship Canal

Ballard Bridge

1.20

NB

1.20

SB

0.81

5.12

Ship Canal

Fremont Bridge

1.20

NB

1.07

SB

0.73

5.13

Ship Canal

Aurora Av N

1.20

NB

0.90

SB

0.78

5.16

Ship Canal

University and Montlake Bridges

1.20

NB

1.10

SB

1.07

6.11

South of NW 80th St

Seaview Av NW to 15th Av NW

1.00

NB

0.47

SB

0.32

6.12

South of N(W) 80th St

8th Av NW to Greenwood Av N

1.00

NB

0.56

SB

0.33

6.13

South of N(E) 80th St

Linden Av N to 1st Av NE

1.00

NB

0.46

SB

0.36

6.14

South of NE 80th St

5th Av NE to 15th Av NE

1.00

NB

0.76

SB

0.48

6.15

South of NE 80th St

20th Av NE to Sand Point Wy NE

1.00

NB

0.55

SB

0.38

7.11

West of Aurora Ave

Fremont Pl N to N 65th St

1.00

EB

0.52

WB

0.71

7.12

West of Aurora Ave

N 80th St to N 145th St

1.00

EB

0.46

WB

0.56

8

South of Lake Union

1.20

EB

0.96

WB

1.06

9.11

South of Spokane St

Beach Dr SW to W Marginal Wy SW

1.00

NB

0.45

SB

0.59

9.12

South of Spokane St

E Marginal Wy S to Airport Wy S

1.00

NB

0.52

SB

0.63

9.13

South of Spokane St

15th Av S to Rainier Av S

1.00

NB

0.58

SB

0.64

10.11

South of S Jackson St

Alaskan Wy S to 4th Av S

1.00

NB

0.70

SB

0.69

10.12

South of S Jackson St

12th Av S to Lakeside Av S

1.00

NB

0.52

SB

0.66

12.12

East of CBD

1.20

EB

0.61

WB

0.74

13.11

East of I-5

NE Northgate Wy to NE 145th St

1.00

EB

0.76

WB

0.63

13.12

East of I-5

NE 65th St to NE 80th St

1.00

EB

0.46

WB

0.48

13.13

East of I-5

NE Pacific St to NE Ravenna Blvd

1.00

EB

0.64

WB

0.77

Transportation Figure A-15 (Cont'd)

Screenline Volume-to-Capacity Ratios

Traffic forecast Analysis

Screenline No.

Screenline

Location

Segment

Direction

2020 V/C Ratios

A1

North of Seneca St

1st Av to 6th Av

NB

0.86

SB

1.06

A2

North of Blanchard

Elliott Av to Westlake Av

NB

0.56

SB

0.62

A3

East of 9th

Lenora St to Pike St

EB

0.42

WB

0.42

A4

South of Mercer

Elliott Av W to Aurora Av N

NB

0.47

SB

0.51

A5

East of 5th Av N

Denny Way to Valley St

EB

0.47

WB

0.59

A6

North of Pine St

Melrose Av to 15th Av

NB

0.48

SB

0.56

A7

North of James St-E Cherry St

Boren Av to 14th Av

NB

0.61

SB

0.77

A8

West of Broadway

Yesler Wy to E Roy St

EB

0.60

WB

0.55

A9

South of NE 45th St

7th Av NE to Montlake Blvd NE

NB

0.75

SB

0.51

A10

East of 15th Ave NE

NE 45th St to NE 52nd St

EB

0.64

WB

0.91

A11

South of Northgate Wy-N 110th St

N Northgate Wy to Roosevelt Wy NE

NB

0.61

SB

0.35

A12

East of 1st Av NE

NE 100th St to NE Northgate Wy

EB

0.70

WB

0.43

Transportation Appendix D

Intergovernmental Coordination Efforts

This section describes the City's intergovernmental coordination efforts during the development of the Comprehensive Plan, and potential impacts of the plan on the transportation systems of adjacent jurisdictions.

Puget Sound Regional Council

Seattle is an active member of the Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC), which is charged with certifying that local transportation plans are consistent with regional plans and goals. The City supports PSRC's Vision 2020, a transportation/land use plan that describes linking high-density residential and employment centers throughout the region by high capacity transit and promoting a multi-modal transportation system. Vision 2020's goals are carried forward by this Comprehensive Plan.

The PSRC provides population, employment, and transportation data to Seattle and other jurisdictions -coordination is established via this centralized information resource.

In addition, the PSRC is charged with allocating certain federal funds. Seattle has participated in establishing the criteria and selection process to determine how funds will be distributed among transportation projects.

Impacts on Adjacent Jurisdictions

Four jurisdictions are adjacent to the City of Seattle: the City of Shoreline, King County, and the City of Lake Forest Park along Seattle's north boundary, and the City of Tukwila and King County along Seattle's south boundary. In consultation with adjacent jurisdictions, several major arterials that lie within these jurisdictions near the Seattle border were selected for analysis. For each arterial, the existing p.m. peak hour traffic volume and forecasted year 2020 traffic volume were compared to the "planning capacity" of the arterial, yielding a volume-to-capacity (v/c) ratio. The results of this analysis are shown in Transportation Figure A-15.

For all but two of the arterials shown in Transportation Figure A-16, the p.m. peak hour v/c ratio is below 1.0, indicating that there is remaining traffic capacity currently and forecasted for the future. The exceptions are Bothell Way N.E. just north of N.E. 145th Street, where the existing v/c is estimated to be .90 and the forecasted year 2020 v/c is estimated to be 1.08, and Greenwood Avenue N at 145th Street where existing outbound v/c is .5 and the forecasted year 2020 is 1.03 .

These traffic volume and v/c figures reflect not only growth under Seattle's Comprehensive Plan, but also growth in the adjacent jurisdictions and throughout the central Puget Sound region. Much of the traffic on these arterials is through-traffic, with neither an origin nor a destination near the arterial.

In addition to the City of Seattle's analysis of transportation impacts on adjacent jurisdictions, as described in this section, Seattle continues to work with the adjacent jurisdictions to coordinate traffic operations and to minimize cross-boundary impacts.

Transportation Figure A-15

Adjacent Jurisdiction Arterials:

PM Peak Hour Capacities, Volumes and v/c Ratios

A. Major arterials just north of Seattle / King County-Shoreline-Lake Forest Park Border (145th St)

Arterial

Existing PM Peak Hour

2020 PM Peak Hour

Outbound

Inbound

Outbound

Inbound

Capacity

Volume

v/c Ratio

Capacity

Volume

v/c Ratio

Capacity

Volume

v/c Ratio

Capacity

Volume

v/c Ratio

Greenwood Ave N

760

380

0.50

760

410

0.54

760

780

1.03

760

380

0.50

Westminster Way N

2600

1590

0.61

2600

660

0.25

2600

2190

0.84

2600

700

0.27

Aurora Ave N

3060

1790

0.58

3060

890

0.29

3060

2200

0.72

3060

1080

0.35

Meridian Ave N

1030

750

0.73

1030

210

0.20

2160

1015

0.47

2160

260

0.12

5th Ave NE

760

550

0.72

760

230

0.30

2160

740

0.34

2160

200

0.09

15th Ave NE

2160

1380

0.64

2160

240

0.11

2160

1920

0.89

2160

260

0.12

25th Ave NE

740

450

0.61

740

200

0.27

740

570

0.77

740

220

0.30

Bothell Way NE

2450

2510

0.90

2450

1150

0.47

2450

2640

1.08

2450

1250

0.51

B. Major arterials just south of Seattle / King County Border

Arterial

Existing PM Peak Hour

2020 PM Peak Hour

Outbound

Inbound

Outbound

Inbound

Capacity

Volume

v/c Ratio

Capacity

Volume

v/c Ratio

Capacity

Volume

v/c Ratio

Capacity

Volume

v/c Ratio

SW 106th St

1030

200

0.19

1030

520

0.50

1030

290

0.28

1030

860

0.83

26th Ave SW

760

90

0.12

760

300

0.39

760

200

0.26

760

620

0.82

16th Ave SW

2160

1010

0.47

2160

740

0.34

2160

1280

0.53

2160

930

0.43

4th Ave SW

760

310

0.41

760

350

0.46

760

320

0.42

760

250

0.33

Myers Way S

1320

700

0.53

1320

170

0.13

1320

660

0..50

1320

50

0.04

8th Ave S

760

260

0.34

760

100

0.13

760

360

0.47

760

80

0.11

Military Rd S

2600

600

0.23

2600

380

0.15

1930

770

0.40

1930

320

0.17

14th Ave S

2600

1260

0.48

2600

540

0.21

2600

1340

0.52

2600

590

0.23

Beacon Ave S

760

430

0.57

760

150

0.20

760

490

0.64

760

210

0.28

Renton Ave S

1930

280

0.15

1930

140

0.07

1930

400

0.21

1930

120

0.06

Rainier Ave S

2160

990

0.46

2160

200

0.09

2160

1220

0.56

2160

310

0.14

C. Major arterials just south of Seattle / Tukwila Border

Arterial

Existing PM Peak Hour

2020 PM Peak Hour

Outbound

Inbound

Outbound

Inbound

Capacity

Volume

v/c Ratio

Capacity

Volume

v/c Ratio

Capacity

Volume

v/c Ratio

Capacity

Volume

v/c Ratio

E Marginal Way S

1800

1320

0.73

1800

680

0.38

1800

1760

0.98

1800

640

0.52

Airport Way S

2200

1400

0.64

2200

380

0.17

2200

1520

0.69

2200

410

0.19

M L King Jr Way S

2700

1360

0..50

2700

950

0.35

2700

1790

0.66

2700

1370

0.51

51st Ave S

1980

430

0.22

1980

150

0.08

1980

480

0.24

1980

210

0.11

Notes:

1. Outbound and inbound directions relative to Seattle.

2. Capacities for King County, Shoreline, Lake Forest Park, and Tukwila are from PSRC and Seattle traffic models.

3. All volumes are from Seattle traffic model-Forecast Years 1998 (existing) and 2020.

4. v/c Ratio = volume divided by capacity.

5. 5th Ave NE location north of I-5 on-ramp.

6. Volumes rounded to the nearest ten.

Sources: City of Seattle Traffic Model;

Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC) Traffic model.

Transportation Appendix E:

State Highways in Seattle: Inventory, Projects and Impacts

State Highways

The City of Seattle cooperates with the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) and the Puget Sound Regional Council to plan improvements to state transportation facilities and services and to ensure that the City's plans are consistent with the State Transportation Plan and the Metropolitan Transportation Plan Destination 2030. This section describes the state highways within the city, level-of-service standards on state highways, and impacts of the Comprehensive Plan and Regional growth plans on state highways. Other state transportation facilities are described in preceding sections of this chapter.

Inventory

There are ten state highways within Seattle city limits. They are shown in Transportation Figure A-1, and include: I-5, I-90, SR 99, SR 509, SR 513, SR 519, SR 520, SR 522, SR 523, and SR 900. I-5, I-90, SR 509, and SR 520 are limited access freeways. SR 99, while not classified as a limited access facility, functions as such through most of the segment between South Spokane Street and Winona Avenue North (near Green Lake), as well as south of the intersection of First Avenue South and East Marginal Way South.

Transportation Figure A-16 summarizes general information on state highways in Seattle, as provided by WSDOT. Traffic volumes for the year 2002 and projected volumes for the year 2020 are shown in Transportation Figure A-17. The 2002 volumes were compiled from traffic counts collected by WSDOT (freeways) and Seattle Transportation (non-freeways.) The 2020 projections were developed using the City of Seattle traffic forecasting model with regional population and employment forecasts.

The following are designated as "Highways of Statewide Significance" (HSS): I-5, I-90, SR 99, SR 509, SR 519, SR 520, and SR 522. Highways of statewide significance include, at a minimum, interstate highways and other principal arterials that are needed to connect major communities in the state. The state legislation designating HSS directs the State Transportation Commission to give higher priority for correcting identified deficiencies on highways of statewide significance. Non-HSS facilities in Seattle are SR 513, SR 523, and SR 900. These highways are monitored by the Puget Sound Regional Council for regional planning purposes.

Level-of-Service Standards for Highways of Statewide Significance

WSDOT is responsible for setting level-of-service standards on highways of statewide significance, while local jurisdictions work with the Puget Sound Regional Council to establish level-of-service standards on other state highways.

WSDOT uses an Annual Average Daily Traffic to one hour capacity ratio (AADT/C) to determine the severity of congestion over a 24 hour period. Index values under this system range from 1 (little to no congestion) to 24 (theoretically, congestion over the entire 24 hour day). This congestion indicator enables the comparison of each highway's daily volume of traffic to a one-hour capacity.

The Washington State Transportation Commission adopted this congestion index measure and established thresholds to identify "congested" highways at the index values of 10 for urban highways and 6 for rural highways. When compared to traditional peak hour measures, these thresholds approximate LOS D operation in urban areas and LOS C operation in rural areas. Highways above these thresholds are identified as deficient.

WSDOT recognizes that achieving the preferred level of service for urban areas may require solutions other than increasing capacity in all locations. Mitigation can include providing alternatives, e.g., light rail or commuter rail parallel to I-5.

Level-of-Service Standards for Regionally Significant Highways (NonHSS)

The Puget Sound regional Council is responsible for setting levels of standards for non-HSS highways.

PSRC has adopted a three-tiered LOS standard that is designed to meet the needs of the Puget Sound region. These standards are as follows:

* Tier 1 (LOS E-mitigated) is applied to all of the designated urban centers as well as a three mile buffer around the most heavily traveled freeways (I-5, I-90, I-405, SR 167, and SR 520)

* Tier 2 (LOS D) is applied to the "outer" urban area outside the three mile buffer area and connecting the principal Urban Growth Area to the smaller Urban Growth Areas.

* Tier 3 (LOS C) is applied to rural highway routes that would not fit into the Tier 2 category.

In addition, non-HSS are incorporated into the City's level-of-service standards for arterial streets. The non-HSS are included in screenlines with other arterial streets.

Impacts on State Highways

The impacts of Seattle's Comprehensive Plan on state highways are not independent of impacts from the region's transportation and land use plans. Without growth in housing and employment in Seattle, traffic volumes on state highways would still increase due to growth in other parts of the region. Transportation Figure A-18 shows the allocation of year 2024 daily trips on each of the state highways within Seattle comparing trips with origins and destinations in Seattle compared with the rest of the region. Close to 50 percent of the trips on SR 99, SR 513, SR 519, and SR 522 within the city limits have both their origin and destination within the city limits. Only two state highways I90 and SR 509 have more than 10 percent of their trips with neither an origin nor destination in Seattle.

Transportation Figure A-17 summarizes 2002 and projected 2020 traffic volumes and volume-to-capacity (V/C) ratios on selected segments of state highways*. The use of V/C to indicate impacts is consistent with the methodology for measuring level-of-service standards on the City's arterial street system. In the case of arterial level-ofservice standards, the City estimates V/C ratios across screenlines.

State Highway Improvements

The City of Seattle will continue to coordinate with WSDOT for consistency between our plans and projects. Transportation Figure A19 shows the Financially Constrained 20-Year Mobility Strategies from the 2002 to 2023 State Highway System Plan. In addition, the City of Seattle is participating in the planning and project development process for improvements to the SR 520 corridor across Lake Washington, and for addressing the Alaskan Way Viaduct portion of SR99.

Transportation Figure A-16

State Highway Inventory

Route Designation

Enter City (Arm)

Leave City (Arm)

Length

Federal Functional Class

Hss Or Non-Hss

Access Class

Posted Speed

# Lanes

I-5

158.24

174.64

16.40

Urban Interstate

HSS

Full limited access

60

6 to 8

I-5 Reversible Lanes

0.00

7.14

7.14

Urban Interstate

HSS

Full limited access

60

1 to 4

I-90

0.00

3.14

3.14

Urban Interstate

HSS

Full limited access

60

4 to 8

I-90 Reversible Lanes

0.00

3.09

3.09

Urban Interstate

HSS

Full limited access

60

2

SR 99

21.22

36.75

15.53

Urban Principal Arterial

HSS

Class 4 1st Ave. S. bridge to Spokane St.

Class 1 Spokane St. to Thomas St.

Class 3 Thomas Street to N. 85th

Class 4 N. 85th to N 145th

30 to 50

4 to 7

SR 509

33.50

35.17

1.67

U1

HSS

Full limited access

45 to 55

4 to 5

SR 513

0.00

3.35

3.35

Urban Other Principal Arterial

Non-HSS

Full limited access @ SR 520 I/C

Class 2 SR 520 to NE 44th

Class 3 NE 44th to Magnuson Pk.

30 to 40

4 to 6

SR 519

0.00

1.14

1.14

U1

HSS

Class 5

30 to 40

4 to 6

SR 520

0.00

3.07

3.07

U1

HSS

Full limited access

40 to 50

4

SR 522

0.00

4.22

4.22

U1

HSS

Full limited access @ I-5 I/C

Class 4 for remainder

30 to 35

2 to 5

SR 523

0.00

2.45

2.45

U1

Non-HSS

Full limited access @ I-5 I/C

Class 4 for remainder

35

4

SR 900

0.90

1.05

0.15

U1

Non-HSS

Class 3

50

4

*This data does not include HOV lanes. Data sources are the Washington State Department of Transportation, the Puget Sound Regional Council Traffic Model, and the City of Seattle Department of Transportation.

Transportation Figure A-17

State Highway Traffic Volumes 2002 (continued

State

Location

Direction

AADT

AWDT

PMPeak Hour

AADT/

AWDT/

Highway

Volume

Volume

Volume

V/C

Capacity

Capacity

I-5

Boeing Access Rd Swift Ave. S

NB

105,284

108,540

6,890

0.73

11.20

11.55

SB

111,812

115,270

8,800

0.94

11.89

12.26

I-5

Corson Columbia Way S/West Seattle Bridge

NB

119,950

123,660

8,190

0.87

12.76

13.16

SB

124,626

128,480

9,360

1.00

13.26

13.67

I-5

I-90 James St

NB

139,282

143,590

10,100

0.74

10.24

10.56

SB

138,351

142,630

10,710

0.88

11.34

11.69

I-5

Lakeview Blvd E SR 520

NB

148,672

153,270

13,090

0.88

10.05

10.36

SB

137,692

141,950

7,540

0.84

15.30

15.77

I-5

SR 520 NE 50th Street

NB

138,438

142,720

13,630

0.95

9.61

9.91

SB

134,791

138,960

7,430

1.03

18.72

19.30

I-5

NE 65th Street SR 522

NB

121,357

125,110

12,040

1.00

10.11

10.43

SB

114,363

117,900

6,100

0.85

15.88

16.38

I-5

NE 130th Sreet NE 145th Street

NB

102,393

105,560

9,150

1.02

11.38

11.73

SB

101,947

105,100

6,120

0.68

11.33

11.68

I-90

I-5 Rainier Ave S

EB

56,866

62,490

6,190

0.61

5.58

6.13

WB

54,054

59,400

5,490

0.83

8.19

9.00

I-90

Rainier Ave S Lake Washington

EB

71,562

78,640

7,300

0.81

7.95

8.74

WB

71,035

78,060

5,460

1.01

13.15

14.46

SR 99

14th Ave S S Cloverdale St

NB

18,775

21,580

1,690

0.56

6.26

7.19

SB

15,016

17,260

1,470

0.49

5.01

5.75

Transportation Figure A-17

State Highway Traffic Volumes 2002 (continued)

State

Location

Direction

AADT

AWDT

PMPeak Hour

AADT/

AWDT/

Highway

Volume

Volume

Volume

V/C

Capacity

Capacity

SR 99

14th Ave S S Cloverdale St

NB

18,775

21,580

1,690

0.56

6.26

7.19

SB

15,016

17,260

1,470

0.49

5.01

5.75

SR 99

W Marginal Wy S-S Michigan St (1st Ave S Br)

NB

38,767

44,560

2,880

0.48

6.46

7.43

SB

35,044

40,280

4,450

0.74

5.84

6.71

SR 99

E Marginal Way West Seattle Bridge

NB

23,777

27,330

2,530

0.94

8.81

10.12

SB

21,976

25,260

2,500

0.93

8.14

9.36

SR 99

First Ave S Ramps Seneca/Spring

NB

48,851

56,150

5,100

0.94

9.05

10.40

SB

46,006

52,880

5,200

0.96

8.52

9.79

SR 99

Roy Street Bridge Way N (Aurora Bridge)

NB

35,199

38,680

4,050

0.79

6.90

7.58

SB

37,965

41,720

3,460

0.68

7.44

8.18

SR 99

Winona Ave N N 80th Street

NB

18,355

20,170

2,100

0.78

6.80

7.47

SB

19,265

21,170

1,500

0.56

7.14

7.84

SR 99

Roosevelt Way N N 145th Street

NB

17,536

19,270

1,860

0.94

8.86

9.73

SB

18,236

20,040

1,350

0.68

9.21

10.12

SR 99

S 112th St S Cloverdale St

NB

16,617

19,100

1,460

0.41

4.62

5.31

SB

14,999

17,240

1,690

0.47

4.17

4.79

SR 513

SR 520 Ramps NE Pacific St (Montlake Br)

NB

28,336

30,800

2,440

1.11

12.88

14.00

SB

27,361

29,740

2,220

1.01

12.44

13.52

SR 513

Montlake Blvd NE Union Bay Pl NE

EB

17,949

19,510

1,730

0.72

7.48

8.13

WB

20,102

21,850

1,470

0.61

8.38

9.10

SR 522

Roosevelt Way NE 12th Ave NE

NB

14,025

14,920

1,640

1.03

8.77

9.33

SB

13,987

15,370

720

0.36

6.99

7.69

SR 522

NE 137th Street NE 145th Street

NB

17,108

18,200

1,790

0.81

7.78

8.27

SB

17,973

19,750

1,280

0.58

8.17

8.98

SR 523

5th Ave NE 15th Ave NE

EB

14,973

16,100

1,320

0.73

8.32

8.94

WB

14,006

15,060

950

0.53

7.78

8.37

SR 520

I-5 Montlake Blvd.

EB

45,955

50,500

3,420

0.95

12.77

14.03

WB

50,168

55,130

4,000

1.11

13.94

15.31

SR 520

Montlake Blvd. Lake Washington

EB

52,352

57,530

3,950

1.04

13.78

15.14

WB

50,778

55,800

2,930

0.77

13.36

14.68

SR 519

First Avenue S Fourth Avenue S

EB

9,728

10,690

880

0.40

4.42

4.86

WB

9,537

10,480

940

0.43

4.33

4.76

Transportation Figure A-17

State Highway Traffic Volumes 2020

State Highway

Location

Direction

AADT

AWDT

PM Peak Hour

AADT/

Capacity

AWDT/

Capacity

Volume

Volume

Volume

V/C

I-5

Boeing Access Rd Swift Ave. S

NB

113,781

117,300

6,090

0.65

12.10

12.48

SB

109,251

112,630

9,300

0.99

11.62

11.98

I-5

Corson Columbia Way S/West Seattle Bridge

NB

136,110

140,320

7,920

0.84

14.48

14.93

SB

141,329

145,700

10,010

1.06

15.04

15.50

I-5

I-90 James St

NB

161,554

166,550

11,110

0.82

11.88

12.25

SB

163,280

168,330

13,290

1.09

13.38

13.80

I-5

Lakeview Blvd E SR 520

NB

173,213

178,570

16,490

1.11

11.70

12.07

SB

168,547

173,760

9,520

1.06

18.73

19.31

I-5

SR 520 NE 50th Street

NB

171,380

176,680

15,600

1.08

11.90

12.27

SB

169,090

174,320

8,970

1.25

23.48

24.21

I-5

NE 65th Street SR 522

NB

153,483

158,230

14,120

1.18

12.79

13.19

SB

147,780

152,350

7,350

1.02

20.52

21.16

I-5

NE 130th Sreet NE 145th Street

NB

137,342

141,590

11,070

1.23

15.26

15.73

SB

134,772

138,940

6,850

0.76

14.97

15.44

I-90

I-5 Rainier Ave S

EB

48,185

52,950

8,500

0.83

4.72

5.19

WB

38,648

42,470

6,500

0.98

5.86

6.43

I-90

Rainier Ave S Lake Washington

EB

69,797

76,700

9,240

1.03

7.76

8.52

WB

69,251

76,100

7,070

1.31

12.82

14.09

Transportation Figure A-17

State Highway Traffic Volumes 2020 (continued)

SR 99

14th Ave S S Cloverdale St

NB

22,168

25,480

2,030

0.68

7.39

8.49

SB

21,393

24,590

1,910

0.64

7.13

8.20

SR 99

W Marginal Wy S-S Michigan St (1st Ave S Br)

NB

48,459

55,700

3,320

0.55

8.08

9.28

SB

46,684

53,660

5,910

0.99

7.78

8.94

SR 99

E Marginal Way West Seattle Bridge

NB

32,338

37,170

2,640

0.98

11.98

13.77

SB

30,963

35,590

3,120

1.16

11.47

13.18

SR 99

First Ave S Ramps Seneca/Spring

NB

51,304

58,970

4,400

0.81

9.50

10.92

SB

48,946

56,260

5,240

0.97

9.06

10.42

SR 99

Roy Street Bridge Way N (Aurora Bridge)

NB

37,801

41,540

5,390

1.06

7.41

8.15

SB

38,493

42,300

4,460

0.87

7.55

8.29

SR 99

Winona Ave N N 80th Street

NB

24,980

27,450

2,300

0.85

9.25

10.17

SB

23,724

26,070

1,840

0.68

8.79

9.66

SR 99

Roosevelt Way N N 145th Street

NB

25,234

27,730

2,670

1.35

12.74

14.01

SB

25,571

28,100

1,680

0.85

12.91

14.19

SR 99

S 112th St S CloverdaleSt

NB

32,329

37,160

1,960

0.54

8.98

10.32

SB

29,824

34,280

2,340

0.65

8.28

9.52

SR 513

SR 520 Ramps NE Pacific St (Montlake Br)

NB

24,684

26,830

2,870

1.30

11.22

12.20

SB

24,573

26,710

3,380

1.54

11.17

12.14

SR 513

Montlake Blvd NE Union Bay Pl NE

EB

18,216

19,800

2,040

0.85

7.59

8.25

WB

18,216

19,800

1,450

0.60

7.59

8.25

SR 522

Roosevelt Way NE 12th Ave NE

NB

14,194

15,100

1,680

1.05

8.87

9.44

SB

20,475

22,500

920

0.46

10.24

11.25

SR 522

NE 137th Street NE 145th Street

NB

19,176

20,400

2,250

1.02

8.72

9.27

SB

18,655

20,500

1,250

0.57

8.48

9.32

SR 523

5th Ave NE 15th Ave NE

EB

18,414

19,800

1,400

0.78

10.23

11.00

WB

18,693

20,100

920

0.51

10.39

11.17

SR 520

I-5-Montlake Blvd.

EB

51,051

56,100

5,430

1.01

9.45

10.39

WB

55,829

61,350

5,470

1.01

10.34

11.36

SR 520

Montlake Blvd.-Lake Washington

EB

58,804

64,620

6,780

1.26

10.89

11.97

WB

60,333

66,300

6,090

1.13

11.17

12.28

SR 519

First Avenue S Fourth Avenue S

EB

20,157

22,150

1,830

0.83

9.16

10.07

WB

12,103

13,300

1,500

0.68

5.50

6.05

Transportation Figure A 18

Origins and Destinations of Trips on State Highways Within Seattle Comp Plan Year 2024

Seattle to Seattle

Seattle to Region

Region to Seattle

Region to Region

(internal)

(external)

PM Peak Hour

I-5 @ Ship Canal Bridge

29%

37%

19%

15%

I-90 w/o Rainier Ave S

10%

44%

26%

20%

SR 99 @ Viaduct

42%

52%

2%

4%

SR 509 n/o Cloverdale Int.

7%

57%

24%

12%

SR 513 n/o Montlake Br.

36%

38%

26%

0%

SR 519/Royal Brough.Way

32%

39%

7%

22%

SR 520 w/o Montlake Br.

13%

44%

34%

9%

SR 522 btwn 15th/20th Ave NE

58%

29%

9%

4%

SR 523 btwn 5th/15th Ave NE

13%

43%

35%

9%

Daily

I-5 @ Ship Canal Bridge

32%

22%

21%

25%

I-90 w/o Rainier Ave S

5%

41%

41%

13%

SR 99 @ Viaduct

46%

26%

26%

2%

SR 509 n/o Cloverdale Int.

5%

45%

43%

7%

SR 513 n/o Montlake Br.

36%

32%

32%

0%

SR 519/Royal Brough.Way

53%

15%

26%

6%

SR 520 w/o Montlake Br.

18%

36%

39%

7%

SR 522 btwn 15th/20th Ave NE

64%

16%

17%

3%

SR 523 btwn 5th/15th Ave NE

13%

41%

39%

7%

Source City Of Seattle Traffic Model

Transportation Figure A-19

WSDOT State Highway Project List

Region

CTY

SR

NHS

Section Length

Improvement Program

Location

Description of Improvement

Est. Cost 1997$

Accuracy

Financially Constrained

Low

High

Northwest

King

5

Y

0.45

Mobility

Airport/Industrial Way Interchange Vicinity

HOV direct access to Industrial Way and the E-3 Busway.

$44.77 M

$60.57 M

Planning

yes

Northwest

King

5

Y

1.40

Mobility

E. Denny Way to SR 520

NFS modify Mercer St. I/C and reversible lane for weave from SR 520 to Mercer St.

$133.4.0 M

$180.48 M

Planning

yes

Northwest

King

5

Y

0.00

Mobility

NE 50th St. I/C

HOV Direct Access Ramps at NE 50th St.

$24.96 M

$33.78 M

Planning

yes

Northwest

King

5

Y

0.00

Mobility

SR 523(NE 145th St.) I/C Vicinity

HOV Direct Access Ramps at SR 523/145th

$8.78 M

$11.88 M

Planning

yes

Northwest

King

99

Y

3.05

Mobility

SR 509 I/C to Spokane St.

[New parallel 1st Ave. southbound bridge, rehab existing bridge] NFS HOV lanes, partial access control, signal coordination? Regional rail system.

$1.41 M

$1.91 M

Scoping

yes

Northwest

King

99

Y

3.05

Mobility

1st Avenue S. to Denny Way.

Study w/ city of Seattle for seismic retrofit of existing facility or removal of existing facility and construction of new roadway

$850,000

$1.10 M

Planning

yes

Northwest

King

99

Y

1.94

Mobility

N. 105th St. to N. 145th St.(Seattle NCL)

Study with city of Seattle Widen to 6/7 lanes for HOV w/ transit and pedestrian improvements. Aggressive access management. Signal coordination. Regional Bus service

$16.01 M

$21.67 M

Planning

yes

Northwest

King

509

Y

3.99

Mobility

S. 136th Street to 1st Ave S.

NFS widen to 6 lanes w/ HOV

$44.25 M

$59.87 M

Planning

yes

Northwest

King

520

Y

12.83

Mobility

Seattle to Redmond

Needs further study

5,100.00M

6,900.00 M

Planning

Yes

Northwest

King

522

Y

11.10

Mobility

I-5 to 1-405

SR 522 Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Project

$2.64 M

$3.58 M

Planning

yes

1 As with the region-wide and city-limit traffic volume forecasts described earlier in this Appendix, the v/c ratios in Transportation Figure A-14 are based on the output of the PSRC Regional Transportation model. The traffic volume values produced from the model for this analysis differ slightly from values produced in earlier updates to the Comprehensive because of updates to the model, including a revised zone structure and revised employment estimates.

ATTACHMENT 10

Ordinance Updating Comprehensive Plan, 2004

ATTA

Transportation Appendices Page 4 of 1

2004 Comprehensive Plan Update Ordinance Page 1 of 40 Attachment 10: Transportation Appendices

HOUSING APPENDICES

HOUSING APPENDIX

OVERVIEW

The appendix to the housing element presents information and analysis to aid policy decisions related to housing. The 2005-2008 Consolidated Plan also serves as a resource for housing data, objectives, strategies, and policies.

1. SEATTLE'S EXISTING HOUSING NEEDS

Housing costs that exceed 30% of a household's income are "unaffordable," per definition by HUD. Over half of Seattle's lowincome households (those with incomes up to 80% of median family income (MFI pay more than they can afford for housing costs. The percentage increased from 52% in 1990 to 57% in 2000. The proportion of low-income households with worst case housing needs (those paying over 50% of their household income for housing costs) increased from 23% to 28% between 1990 and 2000. The 28% of low-income households with worst-case housing needs in 2000 is comprised of 19% renters and 9% homeowners, and totals almost 32,000 households according to 2000 Census data. These households are at high risk of becoming homeless or having to move out of Seattle for housing-affordability reasons.

Renter Households with Housing Needs

Housing Figure A-1 shows Seattle renter households with worst-case housing needs, broken down by household type and income. Extremely low-income households are those making up to 30% of the median family income. Very low-income households make between 31% and 50% of the median family income, and low-moderate-income households are those making between 51% and 80% of the median family income. Singles living alone or with other unrelated individuals account for the majority of all low-income households in Seattle. Over 60% of extremely low-income singles living alone or with other unrelated individuals pay more than 50% of their monthly income for rent and utilities. This particular population group ranks first, both in absolute numbers (10,102) and percent (61%) with worst-case housing needs. Among small family households (2-4 related persons, including couples without children), 58% or 2,935 of those with extremely lowincomes pay over 50% of their monthly income for rent and utilities. Another 695 extremely low-income families of 5 or more related persons have worst-case housing needs (57% of total number of households of this type). Seniors with extremelyand very-low-incomes have the next highest proportion paying over 50% of monthly income for rental housing costs: 36% or 2,527 among seniors with extremely low-income seniors and 27% or 960 of very low-income seniors.

Housing Figure A-1

Seattle Renter Households by Type and Income:

Ranked by Percent Paying Over 1/2 of Monthly Household Income for Rent & Utilities

Household Type

Household Income (% MFI)

Total Renter Households

Number Paying Over 1/2 of Income for Housing

Percent Paying Over 1/2 of Income for Housing

Singles/unrelated*

0-30%

16,560

10,102

61.0%

Small related**

0-30%

5,060

2,935

58.0%

Large related***

0-30%

1,224

695

56.8%

Senior****

0-30%

6,999

2,527

36.1%

Senior

31-50%

3,583

960

26.8%

Singles/unrelated

31-50%

11,600

2,656

22.9%

Small related

31-50%

4,620

748

16.2%

Senior

51-80%

2,935

475

16.2%

Large related

31-50%

935

115

12.3%

Senior

Above 80%

3,630

276

7.6%

Small related

51-80%

6,255

231

3.7%

Large related

51-80%

1,060

30

2.8%

Singles/unrelated

51-80%

20,095

563

2.8%

Small related

Above 80%

13,929

56

0.4%

Singles/unrelated

Above 80%

33,238

33

0.1%

Large related

Above 80%

1,499

0.0%

TOTAL

All Income Levels

133,222

22,402

16.8%

* Singles/unrelated = predominantly singles living alone, but also includes singles sharing housing with other persons of no relation

** Small family = 2 to 4 person households, including married couples or other family without children (except seniors)

*** Large family = 5 or more person households

**** Senior = 1 to 2 person households

Source: 2000 Census, HUD Special Tabulation Data

Housing Figures A-2a through A-2d show total numbers of low-income renter households and, of those, how many pay more than 30% and 50% of their household income for rent and utilities in 1990 compared to 2000. Housing cost burden trends for low-income renters improved between 1990 and 2000 for certain household types, particularly small families with or without children with incomes 0-50% MFI and large families with incomes 31-50% MFI.

For low-income 2-4 person families, the number of those paying more than they can afford for rent and utilities decreased by 7% in the past decade. For large families with 5 or more persons, 8% fewer were paying more than 30% of their income for housing costs and 12% more were paying more than 50% of their income for housing costs in 2000 compared to 1990. The total number of low-income family households who rent housing in Seattle declined 1% during that same time.

The decline in the total number of low-income senior renters was steeper, at 14%. The number of those who pay more than 30% of their income for housing costs dropped 18%, but the number with severe housing cost burdens (greater than 50% of income) increased 1% between 1990 and 2000.

Singles living either alone or with others are the only type of lowincome renter household to increase in Seattle in the 1990s. Overall, the number of households of this type increased 19%. As shown on Housing Figure A-2a, the number paying more than they can afford for rental housing costs increased 15%, which is proportionally less than the net gain of total households comprised of a single person or a group of single persons. The level of need among households of this type is still great, however, with over 13,000 low-income households comprised of single individuals who rent apartments or houses in Seattle paying more than half of their income for housing costs in 2000.

Housing Figure A-2a

Low-Income Single & Unrelated Individuals Renter Households:

Total Households and Cost Burden (1990 vs 2000)

Measure

1990

2000

% Change

Total households

40,700

48,255

19%

Cost burden > 30% of household income

24,714

28,448

15%

Cost burden > 50% of household income

11,431

13,321

17%

Housing Figure A-2b

Low-Income Small Family Renter Households:

Total Households and Cost Burden (1990 vs 2000)

Measure

1990

2000

% Change

Total households

16,119

15,935

-1%

Cost burden > 30% of household income

9,625

8,984

-7%

Cost burden > 50% of household income

4243

3,914

--8%

Housing Figure A-2c

Low-Income Large Family Renter Households:

Total Households and Cost Burden (1990 vs 2000)

Measure

1990

2000

% Change

Total households

3,238

3,219

-1%

Cost burden > 30% of household income

1,725

1,584

-8%

Cost burden > 50% of household income

748

840

12%

Housing Figure A-2d

Low-Income Senior Renter Households:

Total Households and Cost Burden (1990 vs 2000)

Measure

1990

2000

% Change

Total households

15,639

13,517

-14%

Cost burden > 30% of household income

9,420

7,730

-18%

Cost burden > 50% of household income

3935

3,962

-1%

Housing Figures A-3 through A-6 provide additional trend data for renter households in Seattle, both by income level and household type.

Housing Figure A-3a

Housing Figure A-3b

Housing Figure A-3c

Note: Households with housing problems include households paying over 30% of their income for housing, households living in overcrowded conditions, and households living in units lacking complete kitchen or plumbing facilities.

Housing Figure A-4a

Housing Figure A-4b

Housing Figure A-4c

Note: Small households include 2 to 4 person households, including married couples or other family without children (except seniors)

Housing Figure A-5a

Housing Figure A-5b

Housing Figure A-5c

Note: Large households include 5 or more persons.

Housing Figure A-6a

Housing Figure A-6b

Housing Figure A-6c

Homeowner Households with Housing Needs

Housing Figure A-7 shows Seattle households who own their homes and have worst-case housing needs, broken down by household type and income. Extremely low-income families and singles who own their homes are most likely to be severely burdened by their housing costs. Among households with incomes up to 30% of MFI, 74% of small families (including couples without children), 70% of singles and unrelated individuals, and 68% of large families pay more than half of their income for mortgage, taxes, insurance and utilities. Among the 3854 extremely low-income senior households who own their homes, 1757 pay over half of their income for housing costs. High home prices and rising tax costs are impacting owner households with incomes above 30% of MFI as well.

Housing Figure A-7

Seattle Homeowner Households by Type and Income:

Ranked by Percent Paying Over 1/2 of Monthly Household Income for Mortgage, Taxes, Insurance & Utilities

Household Type

Household Income (% MFI)

Total Owner Households

Number Paying Over 1/2 of Income for Housing Costs

Percent Paying Over 1/2 of Income for Housing Costs

Small family**

0-30%

1,164

860

73.9%

Singles/unrelated*

0-30%

1,895

1,334

70.4%

Large family***

0-30%

284

194

68.3%

Singles/unrelated

31-50%

1,605

844

52.6%

Large family

31-50%

510

260

51.0%

Small family

31-50%

1,620

755

46.6%

Senior****

0-30%

3,854

1,757

45.6%

Singles/unrelated

51-80%

4,199

1,146

27.3%

Small family

51-80%

4,649

948

20.4%

Senior

31-50%

4,620

901

19.5%

Large family

51-80%

1,300

150

11.5%

Senior

51-80%

6,568

709

10.8%

Singles/unrelated

Above 80%

25,585

819

3.2%

Senior

Above 80%

15,954

431

2.7%

Small family

Above 80%

45,610

821

1.8%

Large family

Above 80%

5,750

58

1.0%

TOTAL

All Income Levels

125,167

11,987

9.6%

* Singles/unrelated = predominantly singles living alone, but also includes singles sharing housing with other persons of no relation

** Small family = 2 to 4 person households, including married couples or other family without children (except seniors)

*** Large family = 5 or more person households

**** Senior = 1 to 2 person households

Source: 2000 Census, HUD Special Tabulation Data

Housing cost burden for low-income (0-80% of MFI) homeowners has worsened dramatically since 1990. The total number of low-income seniors who own their homes decreased 21% between 1990 and 2000, but the number of senior households who are paying more than they can afford for mortgage, taxes, insurance and utilities increased 45%. The number of low-income senior homeowners who pay over half of their income for housing costs increased 78%. See Housing Figure A-8a for more detail.

Housing Figure A-8a

Low-Income Senior Homeowners: Total Households and Cost Burden (1990 vs 2000)

Measure

1990

2000

% Change

Total households

19,153

15,042

-21%

Cost burden > 30% of household income

4135

6,043

45%

Cost burden > 50% of household income

1,897

3,367

78%

Data also shows rapidly escalating housing costs for other low-income homeowners as well. The total number of low-income non-senior households who own their homes increased 14% between 1990 and 2000, but the number of those who are paying more than they can afford for mortgage, taxes, insurance and utilities increased 46%. The number of low-income households (excluding seniors) who pay over half of their income for homeownership-related housing costs increased 89% between 1990 and 2000. See Housing Figure 8b for more detail.

Housing Figure A-8b

All Other Low-Income Homeowners: Total Households and Cost Burden (1990 vs 2000)

Measure

1990

2000

% Change

Total households

15,049

16,775

14%

Cost burden > 30% of household income

7,904

11,538

46%

Cost burden > 50% of household income

3,440

6,491

89%

Housing Figures A-9 and A-10 illustrate the negative trends for lowincome homeowners in terms of rapid escalation of housing costs in the 1990s. (The 1990 data includes cost burden statistics for senior homeowners, but not for other specific types of homeowner households.) This trend has continued to accelerate since 2000, in spite of a recessionary economic environment.

Housing Figure A-9a

Housing Figure A-9b

Housing Figure A-9c

Housing Figure A-10a

Housing Figure A-10b

Housing Figure A-10c

Homeless and Special Needs Populations

An estimated 8,000 homeless men, women and children are on the streets or in shelters or emergency housing in King County on any given night. The majority of these individuals are located within the City of Seattle. A one-night count of homeless individuals conducted in Seattle in October 2003 identified 1,899 people actually living on the streets. In addition, 4,617 individuals in 3,126 households were staying in shelters and transitional housing. Most of these individuals are between the ages of 25 and 59. Approximately 56% are persons of color. Ninety-eight percent of these individuals report either having no source of income or extremely low-income (0-30% MFI) through SSI, unemployment insurance, or state general assistance.

The one-night count data may underestimate the level of need in the region. For example, DESC, which operates the largest shelter in Seattle and prioritizes its shelter capacity for individuals with chronic and severe conditions such as mental illness, provided shelter services to more than 10,000 unduplicated persons in 2003 and general services to more than 11,000. In 2002, the local Seattle-King County Health Care for the Homeless Network (HCHN) provided care to over 22,000 unduplicated homeless people and those at high risk of recurring homelessness, including 2,396 unduplicated single adults in downtown shelters.

A significant proportion of homeless individuals in the Seattle area meet the definition of "chronic homelessness" (homeless for a year or longer or have had four or more episodes of homelessness in the past three years, and are disabled). Of single adults served by HCHN during 2002, 43% had been homeless for at least one year. In addition, 42% of the homeless single adults counted in October 2003 reported having at least one disabling condition (28% reported mental illness, 32% reported alcohol or substance abuse, 14% reported cooccurring disorders, 10% reported physical disabilities, and 3% reported HIV/AIDS). HCHN estimates that, based on 2002 service data, at least 4,973 men and women in the downtown Seattle area meet the definition of chronic homelessness.

Additional data underscores the nature and extent of the disabilities with which these populations struggle:

* Mental illness: Sixteen percent (4,322) of the individuals receiving services from the publicly funded mental health Regional Support Network were homeless at some point during 2002. More than 30% (1,222) of the individuals served at King County's behavioral health crisis triage center during 2002 reported being currently homeless.

* Chemical dependency: An estimated 28,650 low-income adults in King County are chemically dependent and in need of treatment in any given year. Between 12,000 and 18,750 of these individuals are both mentally ill and chemically dependent, yet fewer than 10% receive the services they require to promote stabilization and recovery. Data from HCHN indicates that 22% of their clients need chemical dependency treatment. In 2003, King County documented over 2,000 adults in Seattle seeking services due to mental illness and/or chemical dependency. In addition, there are 350 people with chronic mental illness living in boarding homes in Seattle who need permanent supportive housing.

* HIV/AIDS: More than 2,000 individuals are currently living with HIV/AIDS in King County, with an additional 6,000 to 9,000 persons estimated to be infected with HIV. Housing services are requested by 50% of the total AIDS population and actual housing units are among 33% of those living with AIDS.

* Chronic & acute medical conditions: Chronically homeless people in Seattle suffer from chronic and acute medical conditions at rates far higher than the general population. Hypertension, diabetes, hepatitis, sexually transmitted diseases, skin conditions, trauma and tuberculosis are common conditions.

Research shows that the provision of housing by itself, or the delivery of intensive supportive services in isolation from housing, are both insufficient to promote stability over time for most individuals struggling with homelessness, mental illness, and cooccurring disorders such as substance abuse disorders, developmental disabilities, and HIV/AIDS or other chronic health problems. Provision of supportive housing, combined with appropriate treatment and support, is critical.

2.

WHO ARE WE PLANNING FOR?

The number of people living in Seattle grew over nine percent during the 1990s, averaging 0.009 percent annually, but the pace of growth appears to have slowed since to average 0.005 percent annually. The Comprehensive Plan anticipates population growth to average about 0.008 between 2000 and 2020.

Seattle's population, like the nation's, is becoming older and more diverse in terms of race and Hispanic ethnicity. Birth rates are low in Seattle; on average women in Seattle have 1.23 children compared to 2.0 for the U.S. overall. Conversely, life expectancy continues to rise. As a consequence, natural increase accounted for one-third of Seattle's growth between 1990 and 2000. But birth rates cannot go much lower than they are now. On the contrary, because of Seattle's appeal to international migrant's future birth rates are likely to increase rather than decline further. On average immigrants have higher birth rates than people born in the U.S. and immigrants accounted for 17 percent of Seattle residents in 2000.

Since Seattle households continue to increase in number faster than the population the average number of people per household persists in its downward slide. Down from 2.70 in 1960, Seattle households averaged 2.08 people in 2000--the third lowest of all U.S. cities with populations of at least 100,000 and down from 2.70 in 1960.

Because individuals shape our households, changes in the population have translated into a more diverse mix of household types in Seattle. Low birth and death rates; an increasing share of people born abroad and changes in their origin; changes in the numbers and ages of people migrating into and out of Seattle; and the aging of residents already here have all had a role in the mix of households now in place.

Since 1980, the biggest change in the makeup of Seattle households was the growth of nonfamily households; one-person living alone and unrelated people living together grew by 40,000 (see Figure A-11). At the same time households comprised of a married couple with at least one child decreased by over 5,000. In percentage terms, nonfamily households nearly doubled between 1980 and 2000 and family households with a child who lived without a parent increased 17 percent.

In 2000 the largest share of Seattle households--41 percent-were oneperson living alone, 20 percent were a married couple without children; 15 percent were two or more unrelated persons living together; 13 percent were a married couple with at least one child; 6 percent were one-parent households with at least one child and another five percent of households were another type of family without a child (see Housing Figure A-12). Less than one in five Seattle households included a child.

Between 2000 and 2020 the largest change in the number of households among these types is an increase of about 22,000 one-person households; next largest, an increase in married couples without children of nearly 14,000; and a 5,000 household increase in families with children that do not include a parent of the child.

Housing Figure A-11

Seattle Households by Household Type, 1960 2020

Household Type

1960*

1970*

1980

1990

Family

Married couple without child

59,040

63,310

56,073

53,070

Married couple with child

65,106

49,140

32,430

31,776

Parent with child & without spouse

7,648

10,916

15,063

15,853

Other family without child

10,722

9,934

10,557

12,270

Non-family

One person living alone

83,799

94,179

Two or more persons without child

20,558

28,672

Two or more persons with child

1,078

882

Total

200,577

206,092

219,469

236,702

Persons per Household

1960

1970

1980

1990

Average Household Size

2.70

2.48

2.14

2.09

Change Since Last Decade (%)

-8.15

-13.71

-2.34

Household Type

2000

2010

2020

Percent Change 2000-2010

Percent Change 2010-2020

Family

Married couple without child

50,931

56,783

64,782

11.49

27.20

Married couple with child

33,717

36,846

37,566

9.28

11.42

Parent with child & without spouse

16,366

14,798

14,934

-9.58

-8.75

Other family without child

12,386

15,398

17,538

24.32

41.60

Non-family

One person living alone

105,542

113,239

127,369

7.29

20.68

Two or more persons without child

38,857

38,928

41,124

0.18

5.84

Two or more persons with child

700

218

227

-68.87

-67.56

Total

258,499

276,211

303,540

6.85

17.42

Persons per Household

2000

2010

2020

Average Household Size

2.08

2.08

2.05

Change Since Last Decade (%)

-0.48

-1.30

*Refers to own child of the head of the household rather than any child in the household.

Sources: 1960 2000: U.S. Census Bureau, decennial censuses, 1960 to 2000; 2010 and 2020: forecast by City of Seattle Department of Planning & Development, July 2004, based on data from U.S. Census Bureau, decennial censuses, 1990 and 2000; Washington State Office of Financial Management King County Age Forecasts; and Puget Sound Regional Council 2010 and 2020 population projections for Seattle.

Housing Figure A-12

Percent of Seattle Households by Type, 1960 2020

Household Type

1960*

1970*

1980

1990

2000

2010

2020

Family

Married couple without child

29.4

30.7

25.5

22.4

19.7

20.6

21.3

Married couple with child

32.5

23.8

14.8

13.4

13.0

13.3

12.4

Parent with child & without spouse

3.8

5.3

6.9

6.7

6.3

5.4

4.9

Other family without child

5.3

4.8

4.8

5.2

4.8

5.6

5.8

Non-family

28.9

35.3

One person living alone

38.2

39.8

40.8

41.0

41.9

Two or more persons without child

9.4

12.1

15.0

14.1

13.5

Two or more persons with child

0.5

0.4

0.3

0.1

0.1

Total

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

*Refers to own child of the head of the household rather than any child in the household.

Sources: 1960 2000: U.S. Census Bureau, decennial censuses, 1960 to 2000; 2010 and 2020: forecast by City of Seattle Department of Planning & Development, July 2004, based on data from U.S. Census Bureau, decennial censuses, 1990 and 2000; Washington State Office of Financial Management King County Age Forecasts; and Puget Sound Regional Council 2010 and 2020 population projections for Seattle.

Housing Figure A-13

Housing Figure A-14

Seattle Population by Age, 1960 to 2020

Age

1960*

1970*

1980

1990

2000

2010

2020

0 to 4

51,946

34,994

24,235

29,269

26,215

27,971

30,706

5 to 14

99,850

83,903

50,707

43,899

47,884

45,065

48,917

15 to 24

66,712

95,813

89,268

74,005

80,662

91,117

87,394

25 to 34

66,277

67,315

106,595

112,098

122,282

113,155

131,782

35 to 44

76,922

50,655

49,028

93,285

95,077

84,585

79,968

45 to 64

128,583

128,499

97,839

85,303

123,447

156,925

155,499

65 to 84

63,146

63,554

68,120

69,129

56,736

60,387

92,291

85 & +

3,651

6,098

8,054

9,271

11,071

14,910

15,233

Total

557,087

530,831

493,846

516,259

563,374

594,116

641,790

Age

2000-2010 Change

2000-2020 Change

(number)

(percent)

(number)

(percent)

0 to 4

2,735

-10.4

4,491

17.1

5 to 14

3,852

-8.0

1,033

2.2

15 to 24

-3,723

4.6

6,732

8.3

25 to 34

18,627

-15.2

9,500

7.8

35 to 44

-4,617

4.9

-15,109

-15.9

45 to 64

-1,426

1.2

32,052

26.0

65 to 84

31,904

-56.2

35,555

62.7

85 & +

322

-2.9

4,162

37.6

Total

47,674

-8.5

78,416

13.9

Sources: 1960 2000: U.S. Census Bureau, decennial censuses, 1960 to 2000; 2010 and 2020: forecast by City of Seattle Department of Planning & Development, July 2004, based on data from U.S. Census Bureau, decennial censuses, 1990 and 2000; Washington State Office of Financial Management King County Age Forecasts; and Puget Sound Regional Council 2010 and 2020 population projections for Seattle.

3.

HOUSING GROWTH AND CAPACITY FOR DEVELOPMENT

RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT TRENDS

Residential development trends in Seattle over the last forty years have generally followed cyclical expansions and contractions in employment growth in the region. Significant increases in housing occurred in the early 1990s and between 1999 and 2002. These housing booms were followed by slowdowns in housing construction starting in 1992 and 2003.

Since the adoption of the Comprehensive Plan in 1994, Seattle has averaged a net addition of 2,300 residential units a year, according to City permit records. Development activity was strongest between 1999 and 2002, with a peak of 3,800 net new units completed in 2001. After very strong housing growth between 1999 and 2002, development of new housing has dropped as a result of a weak economy and a related slow-down of immigration into the state and city. In January of 2000, there were active permits for an additional 7,000 units including units under construction. In April of 2004, that number had dropped to 4,500.

Most new housing development in Seattle is in multifamily development in Multifamily, Commercial, and Downtown zones. Thirteen percent of units built in Seattle since 1994 have been built in single-family zones, an average of 300 units a year. Just over one-third of development has occurred in multifamily zones, 28% of development in commercial areas outside of downtown and downtown Seattle accommodating 23% of all housing units built since 1994.

The Comprehensive Plan estimates a net increase of 47,000 households in Seattle between 2004 and 2024.

CAPACITY FOR ADDITIONAL RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT

As of 2004, Seattle has an estimated unused zoned residential development capacity of 116,000 new housing units, or two-and-a-half times the amount of housing estimated to locate in Seattle over the next twenty years (see Housing Figures A-16 and A-17.) At the time the capacity figure was developed, Seattle had 268,000 housing units, so the total housing stock would be 384,000 housing units if all this capacity were used.

Residential development capacity includes vacant land in residential zones, underutilized sites in residential zones, and some of the vacant and underutilized sites in commercial zones. Underutilized sites are sites where the existing developed density is low compared to the allowed developed density, or where the value of the improvements on the site is low compared to the value of the land.

4.

STRATEGIES FOR MEETING HOUSING NEEDS

The City of Seattle's Office of Housing (OH) has four priorities for increasing housing opportunities:

* Investing in production and preservation of affordable housing;

* Providing housing linked with supportive services for people who are homeless or have special needs;

* Increasing homeownership opportunities; and

* Promoting housing production and preservation that supports neighborhood revitalization and other community development efforts.

OH and the City's nonprofit partners make leveraging of the City's 7year, $86 million Housing Levy and other City housing funds a top priority. For every $1 of City funding for affordable rental housing, over $3 is leveraged from other public and private capital sources, increasing the amount of affordable housing that can be provided in Seattle.

Affordable Rental Housing

Over the past two decades, the City of Seattle has provided funding for affordable housing serving low-income families, seniors, low-wage working people and people with disabilities. The City-funded portfolio of below-market-rent apartments has grown to 7,793 housing units in 238 development projects. This housing includes a range of apartment sizes in small and large developments dispersed throughout the city.

Housing Figure A-18

City-Funded Rental Housing Portfolio by Unit Size (12/31/03)

This affordable housing is a significant asset for Seattle. Nearly half of the housing units are reserved for extremely low-income households with incomes up to 30 percent of the region's median household income ($16,350 for an individual or $21,050 for a family of three in 2004). These housing units are often combined with supportive services to assist residents to live independently or transition out of homelessness. Much of the balance of OH's housing portfolio is workforce housing serving individuals and families with incomes up to 50 or 60 percent of the median income (up to $32,700 for an individual or $42,050 for a family of three). For lower-income residents, paying an affordable rent frees up resources for other important needs such as food, medical expenses, clothing, transportation, and education.

Housing Figure A-19

City-Funded Rental Housing Portfolio by Affordability (12/31/03)

The City plays a monitoring and oversight role to ensure that the units remain affordable and continue to serve the intended residents as time goes by, and that the buildings themselves remain in good physical condition and are financially viable. This ongoing asset management of the projects ensures that Seattle-funded developments continue to operate well into the future.

Service-Enriched Housing

Service-enriched housing is a successful housing model for stabilizing and moving many vulnerable people along a path to self-sufficiency. Affordable housing linked to accessible health, mental health, employment, childcare and other services offers the support that these individuals and families need to succeed. Service-enriched housing gives homeless people a way out of expensive emergency public services and into their own homes and communities; it both improves the lives of its residents and can generate significant public savings.

For the City of Seattle, service-enriched housing has long been a priority. Of the 7,793 City funded affordable rental units, 34% (2,984) serve homeless and special needs residents. This housing can be in stand-alone projects or units set aside within larger, general population apartment buildings. Most of the special needs housing, 2,445 units, serve families and individuals who are also homeless; 630 are transitional units and 1,815 provide a permanent residence.

Housing Figure A-20

OH provides operating support to projects that serve homeless and special needs residents. Due to the extremely low incomes of the tenants, rents are insufficient to cover building operations costs. OH provides annual operating subsidies to 530 units using 1986, 1995 and 2002 Levy funding. In addition, project-based Section 8 rental assistance provided through the Seattle Housing Authority supports 970 City-funded units.

Homebuyer Assistance

Homeownership allows families to build equity and accumulate savings. Homeownership opportunities within the city allow people to live closer to where they work, and shorter commutes benefit the families and the entire community. In Seattle, however, incomes have not kept pace with home prices. The median sales price reached $310,000 in 2003, which would require an annual income of $75,000 to purchase (assuming a 30-year term loan at 6% interest and 10% downpayment). The city's homeownership rate, at 48.4%, is low compared to the state and county, and over the past decades, minorities have lost ground in homeownership while whites have gained slightly.

City homebuyer programs have helped make homeownership an option for low-income residents while, at the same time, providing community development benefits to the neighborhood. OH assists with the development of affordable houses and provides downpayment assistance to help low-income families purchase their first home. Homebuyers earning 80% or less of the area median income apply for loans through nonprofit providers, participating lenders and housing developers that have received an allocation of City funds.

Home Repair Assistance for Low-Income Homeowners

Low-income homeowners often lack sufficient resources to properly maintain their homes. Even with substantial equity, these homeowners are unable to qualify for traditional loans. Without adequate maintenance, the homes deteriorate and can threaten the health and safety of the occupants and the neighborhood.

OH's HomeWise Rehab Loan Program assists low-income homeowners to keep their homes in good repair. HomeWise staff inspect the home, establish a scope of work, assist the homeowners with bid solicitation and contractor selection, and inspect completed work. The repairs can include roof replacement, furnace replacement, sewer and plumbing repair, access ramps, porch and deck repair or replacement, siding and/or exterior paint, floor repairs, kitchen and bathroom improvements, needed door and window repair or replacement and foundation repair.

Weatherization Assistance for Low-Income Households

Low-income homeowners and renters can save on housing costs as a result of City-funded water conservation programs and OH's HomeWise Weatherization Program. With funding from Seattle City Light and the State, HomeWise installs energy-saving improvements in single-family and multifamily buildings serving low-income tenants, as well as homes occupied by low-income homeowners.

Weatherization improvements can include insulation, air sealing and duct repair, furnace repair or replacement, window repair or replacement, lighting upgrades, ventilation and indoor air quality improvements, and refrigerator replacement. The result is lower heating and utility bills, a more comfortable home environment, and reduced consumption of natural resources. As utility rates increase, so does the value of the energy-saving measures.

5.

SEATTLE'S ASSISTED RENTAL HOUSING INVENTORY

As of May 2004, the Office of Housing's (OH) Subsidized Rental Housing Database showed that there were 20,277 affordable rental units with capital subsidies in Seattle. As noted, in Section 4 of this Appendix, 7,793 of these units were in 238 City-funded projects, as of 12/31/03. The remaining units have capital subsidies through federal, state, or county programs but are not City-funded. The following table summarizes affordability of Seattle's subsidized rental housing stock:

Housing Figure A-21

Rental Housing Units with Capital Subsidies, by Affordability

Affordability

Number of Units

0-30% of MFI

10,568

31-50% of MFI

6,230

51-80% of MFI

3,479

TOTAL

20,277

As of May 2004, 5,341 vouchers were being used to lease apartments in Seattle. This number excludes vouchers used in Seattle Housing Authority (SHA) Seattle Senior Housing Program buildings and buildings with federal financing through the Moderate Rehabilitation Program (which are part of the 20,277 rental units with capital subsidies shown above). It also excludes vouchers that have been project-based or are being used outside of Seattle. It does include vouchers provided by other housing authorities that are being used to lease units in Seattle. At least 570 of the 5,341 vouchers are being used to lease units in buildings with capital subsidies.

The inventory of assisted rental housing in Seattle, including both units with project-based subsidies and units with tenant-based subsidies is approximately 25,000 units.

Housing Figure A-22

Subsidized Rental Housing as a Percentage of Total Housing Units by Census Tract

??

??

??

??

2004 Comprehensive Plan Update Ordinance Page 1 of 27 Attachment 11: Housing Appendices

CAPITAL FACILITIES APPENDICES

Capital Facilities Appendix A:

Inventory of Fire, Police and School Facilities, Supplemental Capacity Information, and Future Facility Needs

The following sections contain the inventory, planning goals and future needs for Fire, Police and Schools. Information for Seattle Public Utilities (Water, Drainage and Wastewater, and Solid Waste) and Seattle City Light is included in the Utilities Appendix.

The following matrix summarizes the information found in this Appendix, including a summary of the planning goals, existing facilities, and identified six and twenty year needs.

FIRE, POLICE & SCHOOL FACILITIES

Facility

Planning Goal

Existing Facilities

Six Year Needs

Anticipated Twenty Year Needs

Fire

Maintain a response time of 4 minutes or less to 90% of all fire and EMS emergencies

33 existing fire stations currently provide response performance at 78% for EMS and 80% for fire.

Rebuild or remodel 19 fire stations, upgrade 13 others.

Additional stations in Northgate and South Lake Union. New command and control center and new Station 5.

Police

Patrol units allocated around-the-clock based on calls for service. Location and size of facilities not critical to service provision. Facilities planning is based on guidelines for public safety office space.

5 Precincts,

Mounted Patrol,

Kennel,

Harbor Unit,

Seattle Police Headquarters,

Public Safety Building

North Precinct expansion or replacement

Schools

Elementary School 380-535 students, 4 ac. site size

Middle School 600 800 students, 12 ac. site size

High School 1,000 1,600 students, 17 ac. site size

62 Elementary Schools,

10 Middle Schools,

11 High Schools,

16 Alternative Schools, Admin. Buildings, Memorial Stadium,

Closed schools

Current Building Excellence Program Phase II (a Capital Improvement Plan) will renovate, replace, and/or add to 17 schools

The District's Facility Master Plan calls for all schools built before 1973 to be modernized or replaced over the next 20 years.

1. Fire Department

Inventory:

The Seattle Fire Department provides fire protection and emergency medical services throughout the city from 33 fire stations and Harborview Medical Center. Headquarters for the department are located at Fire Station 10 in Pioneer Square. Fire Department facilities and capacities are shown in Capital Facilities Figure A-1 and the location list provided below.

Each station provides a full range of fire protective services including fire suppression, emergency medical, rescue and salvage. While each station is equipped with at least one fire engine (except Fire Station 14), other equipment varies by facility. The Fire Department has 33 engine companies, 11 ladder truck companies, two fire boats, four aid units, seven paramedic units and other specialized units including heavy rescue, hazardous materials, and marine fire fighting that provide a broad range of emergency services to existing development.

Planning Goals:

In 2002, the Seattle Fire Department responded to all EMS related calls in four minutes or less 77.5 percent of the time and to all fire related calls in four minutes or less 79.56 percent of the time. The fire-fighting industry has set four minutes 90 percent of the time as a desirable response time.

Response time is influenced directly by the availability of fire personnel, equipment, traffic conditions, and the number and location of fire stations. Further, firefighter and equipment requirements indirectly affect station requirements. Buildings and associated densities are critical factors in estimating fire fighter requirements. These requirements are estimated on an annual basis through the City's budget process.

Existing Capacity and Anticipated Future Needs:

The current facilities and their distribution are inadequate to maintain the desired response time to existing development and the amount of new development expected over the next six years in the Urban Centers and throughout the city. Additional EMS capabilities will be needed downtown near South Lake Union, SODO, Northgate, and the Central District. A new Fire Alarm Center is needed to replace the current facility, and all 33 stations need major upgrades, renovation or replacement in order to continue to provide service. In order to serve expected growth over the next 20 years, the Fire Department will need a new station in the Northgate area and most likely one in the downtown area. A new command and control center will also be needed.

In 2003, Seattle voters approved the Fire Facilities and Emergency Response Levy Under, which will provide about $167 million to: upgrade, renovate, or replace 32 neighborhood fire stations; construct a new training facility and upgrade the Department's Fire Alarm Center; establish emergency preparedness facilities and disaster response equipment that includes a seismically safe Emergency Operations Center, emergency community supplies, emergency shelter power generators, and emergency water supply capacity for fire fighting in the event the City's fire hydrants are disabled; and a new, large platform fire boat, a rehabilitated and enhanced Chief Seattle fireboat, and a new fast attack small fire rescue boat.

The Department is exploring relocation and renovation/rebuilding options to promote service efficiencies and to address space needs for larger equipment. In addition, the Department is currently evaluating its emergency medical capabilities and staffing or equipment additions that may be desirable to improve emergency medical service. Additionally, the Department is reviewing its capabilities for providing enhanced services related to homeland security and natural disasters.

Locations and Capacities of Fire Department Facilities

Station

Address

Capacity (Equipment)

Medic & Spec. Units

SFD 2

2334 4th Ave

Engine, Ladder

Aid

SFD 5

925 Alaskan Way

Engine

Fireboat

SFD 6

101 23rd Ave S

Engine, Ladder

SFD 8

110 Lee St

Engine, Ladder

SFD 9

3829 Linden Ave N

Engine

Air unit

SFD 10

301 2nd Ave S

Engine, Ladder

Aid, Hazmat

SFD 11

1514 SW Holden St

Engine

SFD 13

3601 Beacon Ave S

Engine

SFD 14

3224 4th Ave S

Ladder

Aide, Rescue unit

SFD 16

6846 Oswego Pl NE

Engine

Medic

SFD 17

1050 NE 50th St

Engine, Ladder

SFD 18

1521 NW Market St

Engine, Ladder

Medic, Hose wagon

SFD 20

3205 13th Ave W

Engine

Marine support unit

SFD 21

7304 Greenwood Ave N

Engine

Mass Casualty unit

SFD 22

901 E Roanoke St

Engine

Communications van

SFD 24

401 N 130th St

Engine

SFD 25

1300 E Pine St

Engine, Ladder

Aid, Power unit, Hose wagon

SFD 26

800 S Cloverdale St

Engine

Air unit

SFD 27

1000 S Myrtle St

Engine

USAR, MMST

SFD 28

5968 Rainier Ave S

Engine, Ladder

Medic

SFD 29

2139 Ferry Ave SW

Engine

SFD 30

2931 S Mount Baker Blvd

Engine

SFD 31

1319 N Northgate Way

Engine, Ladder

Medic, Power unit

SFD 32

3715 SW Alaska St

Engine, Ladder

Medic

SFD 33

9645 Renton Ave S

Engine

SFD 34

633 32nd Ave E

Engine

SFD 35

8729 15th Ave NW

Engine

SFD 36

3600 23rd Ave SW

Engine

Marine Response van

SFD 37

7300 35th Ave SW

Engine

SFD 38

5503 33rd Ave NE

Engine

SFD 39

12705 30th Ave NE

Engine

SFD 40

9401 35th Ave NE

Engine

SFD 41

2416 34th Ave W

Engine

HMC

325 9th Ave

*City of Seattle Landmarks

2. Police Department

Inventory:

The Seattle Police Department currently provides law enforcement patrol services to the city from five precincts. The locations and capacities of these precincts are shown in Figure A-2 and the list below:

1. North Precinct, at 10049 College Way North, serves the area north of the Ship Canal to the City limits and has a capacity of 16,779 square feet (sq ft).

2. West Precinct, located at 810 Virginia Street serves Queen Anne, Magnolia, the downtown core, and the area west of I-5 and north of Spokane Street, and has a capacity of 50,960 square feet (including the 9-1-1 center).

3. East Precinct, located at 1519 12th Avenue, serves the area north of I-90 to the Ship Canal and east of I-5, including the Eastlake Community and has a capacity of 40,000 square feet.

4. South Precinct, at 3001 South Myrtle Street, serves Southeast Seattle, the area south of I-90 to the city limits and has a capacity of 13,688 square feet.

5. The Southwest Precinct, at 2300 S.W. Webster, serves West Seattle and the Duwamish Waterway and has a capacity of 28,150 square feet.

Other Police facilities owned and/or operated by SPD include:

1. The facility for Mounted Patrol Unit at 9200 8th SW has 18,890 square feet for offices and a horse arena, and a capacity of 12 fulltime stalls and space for housing related equipment and supplies.

2. The kennel for the K-9 Unit of Police dogs, located at the SPD pistol range in South Seattle near Boeing Field, has a capacity of 6,464 sq ft, housing 6 dogs and 2 pups and related equipment and supplies.

3. The Harbor Unit facility on the north shore of Lake Union has a capacity of 3,706 square feet for offices, shop, dock, and two boat sheds, plus docks which moor nine Patrol boats. The facility also has extra dock areas for temporary moorage.

4. The Seattle Police Headquarters, located at 610 5th Avenue, houses the administrative units of the police department along with a number of detective units.

5. The Public Safety Building, located at 610 3rd Avenue contains the SPD Traffic Section, a number of detective units, and warehouse functions that are scheduled to move into a new facility in 2004.

The SPD Seattle Center component handles events at the Center, as well as the Police Reserves. In addition to these permanent facilities, the Police Department has two mobile mini-precincts that they locate in various areas as activities dictate. One of the mobile miniprecincts is permanently assigned to West Seattle.

Planning Goals:

Uniform patrol law enforcement services are generally allocated based on workload, time and location. The exact location of facilities is usually not critical to the provision of uniform patrol services, since police officers are on patrol in the various sectors and calls for service are dispatched by radio or officers handle situations "on view". However, the location of facilities can be important because of distance traveled at shift change time and because good locations can enhance Police/community interaction and communication.

Because of the many and changing factors that affect staffing and space objectives of police departments, there are no universally accepted planning goals for police facilities related to performance measures. The forecast of future needs is therefore based on guidelines for office space that incorporate special space requirements related to public safety, using the East Precinct as a model.

Existing Capacity and Anticipated Future Needs:

The North Precinct is currently overcrowded and does not meet the needs of precinct personnel. In order to serve the growth forecast under the Comprehensive Plan over the next 20 years in the Urban Centers and throughout the City, it is anticipated that additional space may be required in the North Precinct. At this time the exact space requirements are not known and will depend on a variety of factors, as discussed under Planning Goals. As the City further considers neighborhood-based policing options, the long-range plans for police facilities may change.

3. Public Schools

Inventory:

District facilities include 11 high schools, 10 middle schools, 62 elementary schools, 16 alternative schools and Memorial Stadium. In addition, the District has a number of closed schools. Many of the school closures occurred during the 1970s and 1980s as a result of low enrollments. The closed schools are used for temporary schools during remodeling construction, leased to other organizations on a short or long-term basis or remain unused. In September 2002 the District opened a newly renovated administrative headquarters in SODO area, John Stanford Center for Educational Excellence. School locations are shown in Capital Facilities Figure A-3.

The capacity for school facilities varies by school type as follows: 380-535 students for elementary schools; 600-800 students for middle schools; and 1,000-1,600 students for high schools. Memorial Stadium has a seating capacity of 12,000.

Planning Goals:

The School District has established the following planning goals for new or modernized school facilities:

School Size

Site Size (Minimum)

Elementary School

380, 445 or 535 students

4 acres

Middle School

600 to 800 students, except for alternative programs, which could be smaller

12 acres

High School

1,000 to 1,600 students, except for alternative programs, which could be smaller

17 acres

The District plans facilities based on where growth is expected in school age populations of children that would be expected to attend public school. Through the current "choice" student assignment plan, about 75 percent of the children that attend public schools choose and attend the school in their neighborhood and 25 percent choose other schools.

Existing Capacity and Anticipated Future Needs:

In 1991, the School District completed a six-year capital improvement program, known as CIP I. In preparation for the next CIP, the School Board adopted the long-range Facilities Master Plan and Capital Improvement Program. The Capital Improvement Program was divided into several phases. Funding for the CIP, known as Building Excellence I Program (BEX I), was approved by the voters in February 1995.

The BEX I program covered six years, 1995-2000, and contained 19 projects. The projects included modernization, historic renovation, replacement and/or expansion of elementary and secondary schools, to meet existing requirements. These improvements added some capacity which reduced portable buildings and eased crowding in South Seattle.

The most recent capital levy program, known as Building Excellence II Program (BEX II), covers new construction, renovation, or additions at 17 school facilities. BEX II, approved by voters in February 2001, continues BEX I with $398 million over the next six years

The School District's Facilities Master Plan (FMP) guides facilities decisions through the year 2010. Over the course of the two capital improvement programs, BEX I and BEX II capacity will be added to eliminate the need for portable buildings.

The schools outlined in the FMP are in locations that can serve Urban Centers, Urban Villages and the remainder of the city. The FMP recognizes that the shift in trends, as Urban Centers and Villages develop, could be gradual or rapid and will vary throughout the city. The District is committed to reviewing and adjusting its FMP every five years, to be responsive to changing conditions.

Capital Facilities Appendix B

Inventory of Park & Recreation, Library, General Government, Seattle Center, Public Health and Publicly Assisted Housing Facilities and Supplemental Capacity Information

1. Parks and Recreation Facilities

The City maintains a system of parks and open areas that includes 6,074 acres, or about 10 percent of the City's total land area. This includes 4,562 developed acres. Over 6,000 acres of parks and open space are deemed adequate capacity to serve a population of at least 600,000. More than 35 sites are being acquired through the 2000 Pro Parks Levy, including 16 Neighborhood Park projects, 12 Opportunity Fund projects, and 13 Green Spaces. Many of these sites are small properties in densely developed urban villages, but their acquisition will make a significant difference to the lives of the people in these underserved urban neighborhoods. Parks and open areas owned by the City and their capacities are summarized below:

Parks and Open Space

Size of Facility

61

Local parks

834 acres

18

Major urban or regional parks

2,560 acres

62

Squares, places, triangles

27 acres

33

Playfields

413 acres

38

Neighborhood playgrounds

135 acres

8

Shorelines (including 11swimming beaches)

24 miles

Biking and pedestrian trails

8 miles

18

Boulevards

22 miles (396 acres)

26

Green spaces

637 acres

18

Natural areas

69 acres

The City also owns a number of recreational facilities within the parks system. These structures total more than a million square feet of building space. Five new community centers will expand the capacity by more than 70,000 sq ft. Following is a list of park system structures:

Park System Structures

24

Community centers

10

Swimming pools (including 2 outdoor), 27 wading pools

1

Waterfront aquarium

1

Zoo: 90 acres, 45 major exhibits and buildings

1

Stadium

1

Indoor tennis center (10 indoor courts and 4 outdoor courts)

151

Outdoor tennis courts (71 with lights)

185

Athletic fields

33

Playfields

5

Golf courses, including pitch/putt (449 acres)

2

Boating and sailing centers

4

Nature interpretive centers (Carkeek Park, Seward Park, Discovery Park, and Camp Long)

6

Performing and visual art facilities

7

Historic buildings

90

Comfort stations

16

Residences and cabins

80

Picnic shelters and houses

12

Concession facilities

24

Administrative offices and headquarters

2

Museums

4

Amphitheaters

52

Miscellaneous facilities (including storage, maintenance, warehouses, chapel, visitor centers, beach/bath facilities, a rifle/pistol range and a police horse patrol barn, viewpoints and nature trails)

Parks facilities are shown in Capital Facilities Figure A-4 and most recreation facilities are included within the areas of the parks.

2. Seattle Public Library

The Seattle Public Library (SPL) operates the downtown library, 23 neighborhood libraries and a fleet of four bookmobiles. The Statefunded Washington Talking Book and Braille Library (WTBBL) is also administered by the SPL. The SPL rents space for three of the facilities it does not own. Locations of library facilities and their capacities are shown in Capital Facilities Figure A-5 and in the location list of library facilities provided below.

Locations and Capacities of Library Facilities

Branch Name

Address

Square footage

Ballard

5711 24th Av NW

7,296

Beacon Hill

2519 15th Av S

3,200

Broadview

12755 Greenwood Av N

8,405

Capitol Hill

425 Harvard Av E

11,615

Central

1000 4th Avenue

363,000

Columbia

4721 Rainier Av S

5,838

Delridge

5423 Delridge Way SW

5,600

Douglass-Truth

2300 E Yesler Wy

8,008

Fremont

731 N 35th

6,060

Green Lake

7364 E Green Lake Dr N

8,090

Greenwood

8016 Greenwood Av N

7,085

High Point (to be open in 2004)

6302 35th Av SW

7,000

Lake City

12501 28th Av NE

9,013

Madrona-Sally Goldmark

1134 33rd Ave.

1,701

Magnolia

2801 34th Av W

5,859

Mobile Services

2025 9th Ave.

5,056

Montlake

2300 24th Ave. E.

1,574

NewHolly

7058 32nd Av S

4,000

Northeast

6801 35th Av NE

15,000

Queen Anne

400 W Garfield St

7,931

Rainier Beach

9125 Rainier Av S

9,006

Southwest

9010 35th Av SW

7,557

University

5009 Roosevelt Wy NE

8,104

Wallingford

1501 N 45th St

2,000

Wash. Talking Book and Braille Library

2021 9th Avenue

10,000

West Seattle

2306 42nd Av SW

7,670

*City of Seattle Landmarks

The Library system is the process of a comprehensive capital renovation program which will increase in the capacity of many current libraries and add new libraries to the system. The table below shows the branches that will be expanded or added, and the location, if different than listed for current facilities above. An (*) indicates a new branch.

Planned Library Expansions or Renovations

Branch/Date expected to open

New Location if different than existing

Estimated new square-footage

Ballard 2005

5711 24th Ave NW

15,000

Beacon Hill 2004

2519 15th Ave S

10,800

Broadview 2006

15,000

Columbia 2004

12,420

Douglass-Truth 2005

15,000

Fremont 2005

6,840

Greenwood 2005

15,000

International District/Chinatown 2004*

713 8th Ave. S

3,800

Lake City 2005

15,000

Magnolia 2006

7,659

Montlake 2005

2300 24th Ave E

5,680

Northgate 2005*

Corner of NE 105th St and 5th Ave NE

10,000

Rainier Beach 2004

15,000

South Park* TBD

2407 24th Ave. E

5,000

Southwest 2005

15,000

West Seattle 2004

9,993

3. General Government

The City of Seattle is in the process of revitalizing its downtown civic campus. Currently five city-owned buildings comprise the civic campus, with a capacity of 1.7 million square feet (sq ft) in the downtown core: New City Hall (186,000 sq ft), Justice Center (272,000 sq ft), Arctic Building (101,000 sq ft), Alaska Building (147,000 sq ft) and the Seattle Municipal Tower (1 million sq. ft., of which approximately 920,000 sq. ft. are currently used for City office space). The City also leases about 24,000 square feet in nearby buildings downtown. The City's Sea-Park Garage provides parking for city vehicles and visitor parking within the civic campus.

The Public Safety Building (291,000 sq ft) is mostly vacant, and scheduled for demolition in 2004. Current plans are to sell the Arctic and Alaska Buildings in 2004-2006. The City sold the DexterHorton Building (350,000 sq ft) in 2001.

Exclusive of fire stations and police precincts, the City owns more than 30 other general government facilities located outside of downtown, and leases an average of 50,000 square feet. These provide a wide variety of services, primarily to other city departments, and include maintenance shops, warehouses, and support facilities for the public safety functions.

In addition, The City also operates 13 storefront Neighborhood Service Centers located throughout the city. These offices range in size from 750 2,100 square feet and serve as City information and community contact points, as well as bill payment depositories. Eight are located in leased space, while five are co-located with other city facilities such as libraries, fire stations and community centers. These are shown in Capital Facilities Figure A-6.

4. Seattle Center

There are 37 buildings on the 87-acre Seattle Center campus totally in excess of over 2.5 million square feet. These facilities serve more than 10 million visitors a year and present over 5,000 performances or events annually. The campus meeting, performance, educational, exhibition, sports, recreational, gathering spaces and open space are dedicated to meeting the cultural, artistic, educational, recreational, and entertainment needs of the region.

The Center is home to twelve theater spaces ranging in capacity from 100 seats in the Center House Theater to 2,800 at Marion Oliver McCaw Hall and totaling nearly 6,000 seats for theatrical performances. Sports facilities include the Key Arena with a capacity of 17,000 and Memorial Stadium with a capacity of 12,000 for field events. There are two schools on the campus a ballet school and a public high school. There are 10 fountains on the grounds and approximately 39 acres of landscaped and green open space and pedestrian ways. There are also active outdoor spaces, including the Fun Forest amusements, a basketball court, and a skate park. Seattle Center's outdoor open spaces, gardens, and fountains are a major urban oasis for active or passive and individual or group enjoyment.

The Center owns and manages four surface parking lots and two parking garages totaling 3,517 spaces. The Seattle Center is also served by the Seattle Center Monorail between downtown and the Center. The Monorail carries more than 2 million riders a year over the mile-long route.

Notable buildings and facilities on the Seattle Center campus include: Center House; Key Arena; the Space Needle; Experience Music Project; Memorial Stadium; Pacific Science Center; McCaw Hall; Phelps Center and Ballet School; Seattle Children's Theatre; Bagley Wright Theatre; Intiman Theatre; Seattle Children's Museum; Fisher Pavilion; the Northwest Rooms; Mercer Arena; and the Seattle Center Pavilion.

5. Public Health

Public Health Seattle & King County (Public Health) is a joint enterprise of the City of Seattle and King County and is responsible for the supervision and control of all public health and sanitation affairs in Seattle and King County. Public Health maintains a system of personal health, environmental health, health promotion and disease prevention services through 19 health centers/clinics and other service sites located in Seattle. These health facilities have a total capacity of 229,464 square feet. The capacity and ownership of individual facilities are listed below.

Health Facility

Size

Tenancy

Boeing Field

3,500 sf

Owned by King County

Central Area Community Health Care Center

3,298 sf

Lease

Columbia Health Center

28,094 sf

Own

Downtown Clinic and Downtown Environmental Health

23,378 sf

Lease

Harborview: STD Clinic

7,995 sf

Owned by King County

Harborview: Northwest Family Center

3,212 sf

Owned by King County

Harborview: Medical Examiner

15,868 sf

Owned by King County

Harborview: Public Health Laboratory

5,003 sf

Owned by King County

Harborview: TB Clinic

4,205 sf

Owned by King County

HIV/AIDS Prevention "Raven" Studies

3,000 sf

Lease

Housing for homeless people with TB

1,200 sf

Lease

Lake City Dental Clinic

2,000 sf

Lease

Needle Exchange

2,500 sf

Lease

North District Health Center

16,067 sf

Owned by King County

Parent and Child Health "Moms Plus"

7,200 sf

Lease

Rainer Beach Teen Clinic

800 sf

Lease

Vital Statistics

3,661 sf

Owned by King County

Wells Fargo Center

77,483 sf

Lease

Yesler Building

21,000 sf

Owned by King County

Public Health facilities are shown in Capital Facilities Figure A-7.

6. Publicly Subsidized Rental Housing

As of May 2004, the City's Office of Housing database showed 20,277 affordable rental units with capital subsidies in Seattle. As of the end of 2003, 7,793 of these units were in 238 City-funded projects. The remaining units have capital subsidies from federal, state, or county programs but are not City-funded. The following table summarizes affordability of Seattle's subsidized rental housing stock:

Rental Housing Units with Capital Subsidies

by Affordability Level

Affordable to Households at:

Number of Units

0-30% of MFI *

10,568

31-50% of MFI

6,230

51-80% of MFI

3,479

TOTAL

20,277

* MFI = median family income

Capital Facilities Appendix C

Inventory of Facilities Serving Urban Centers and Villages

Following is an inventory of facilities that serve Urban Centers and Urban Villages. Facilities do not have to be located within the boundaries or potential boundaries of the Centers or Villages in order to serve those areas. Facilities marked with an asterisk (*) are designated City of Seattle Landmarks or facilities, such as parks, that include one or more City of Seattle Landmarks.

URBAN CENTERS & CENTER VILLAGES

Downtown Urban Center

Some facilities serve the entire Urban Center. These facilities are listed first. Facilities specifically serving the Urban Center Villages are listed under each village below.

Facility Type

Name

Location

Capacity

Fire Station

SFD 10

301 2nd Ave. S

EMS: 78% in 4 mins.

Fire: 78% in 4 mins.

Engine Co., Ladder Co., Shift Commander, Aid Car, Hazmat Van

Fire Station

SFD 5*

925 Alaskan Way

EMS: 78% in 4 mins.

Fire: 80% in 4 mins.

Engine Co., Fireboat

Fire Station

SFD 2

2334 4th Ave.

EMS: 84% in 4 mins.

Fire: 83% in 4 mins.

Engine Co., Ladder Co., Aid Car

Fire Station

SFD 25

1300 E Pine St.

EMS: 87% in 4 mins.

Fire: 87% in 4 mins.Engine Co., Ladder Co., Battalion, Aid Car, Power Unit, Hose Wagon

Police Station

West Precinct

810 Virginia St.

11.52 sq. mi. service area,

facility capacity 50,960 square feet, including

9-1-1 Center

Schools

All 10 Middle Schools:

Denny

Eckstein

Hamilton

Aki Kurose at Sharples

Madison

McClure

Meany

Mercer

Washington

Whitman

All 11 High Schools:

Ballard

Cleveland

Franklin

Garfield

Nathan Hale

Ingraham

Rainier Beach

Roosevelt

Chief Sealth

West Seattle

The Center School

8402 30th Ave. SW

3003 NE 75th St.

1610 N 41st St.

3928 S Graham St.

3429 45th Ave. SW

1915 1st Ave. W

301 21st Ave. E

1600 S Columbia

2101 S Jackson St.

9201 15th Ave. NW

1418 NW 65th St.

5511 15th Ave. S

3013 S Mt. Baker Blvd

400 23rd Ave.

10750 30th Ave. NE

1819 N 135th St.

8815 Seward Park Av. S

1410 NE 66th St.

2600 SW Thistle St.

3000 California Ave. SW

305 Harrison St.

740 students

852 students

767 students

897 students

800 students

673 students

852 students

830 students

852 students

830 students

1600 students

783 students

1457 students

1240 students

1261 students

1261 students

1175 students

1718 students

1066 students

1400 students

300 students

Belltown

Existing Households (HH): 3,972 Existing Jobs: 20,012

Expected 6-yr. HH Growth: 1,777 Expected 6 yr. Jobs Growth: 1,701

Expected 20-yr. HH Growth: 6,500 Expected 20 yr. Job Growth: 4,500

Land Area: 220 Acres

The following facilities are in addition to those listed under the Urban Center, above:

Facility Type

Name

Location

Capacity

Library

Central Library

1000 4th Avenue

363,000 sq. ft.

Parks

Belltown Cottages

2520 Elliott Ave

0.2 acres

Parks

Myrtle Edwards Park

3130 Alaskan Way W

4.8 acres

Parks

Regrade Park

2251 3rd Ave.

0.3 acres

Parks

Tilikum Place

5th Ave. / Denny Way

0.04 acres

Parks

Denny Park

100 Dexter Ave

4.8 acres

Parks

Victor Steinbrueck Park

2001 Western Ave

0.8 acres

P-Patch

Belltown P-Patch

2520 Elliott Ave.

0.1 acres: 36 plots

Chinatown/International District

Existing Households (HH): 1,616 Existing Jobs: 3,999

Expected 6-yr. HH Growth: 355 Expected 6 yr. Jobs Growth: 1,060

Expected 20-yr. HH Growth: 1,300 Expected 20 yr. Job Growth: 2,800

Land Area: 171 Acres

The following facilities are in addition to those listed under the Urban Center, above:

Facility Type

Name

Location

Capacity

Police Station

East Precinct

1519 12th Ave.

8.23 sq. mi. service area,

facility capacity 40,000 square feet

Library

Central Library

1000 4th Avenue.

363,000 sq. ft

Parks

Hing Hay Park

423 Maynard Ave. S

0.3 acres

Parks

International Children's Park

700 S Lane St.

0.2 acres

Parks

Kobe Terrace

221 6th Ave. S

1.0 acres

Parks

City Hall Park

450 3rd Ave

0.9 acres

Parks

Dr. Jose Rizal Park

1008 12th Ave S

9.6 acres

Parks

East Duwamish Greenbelt

2799 12th Ave S

88.8 acres

Parks

Harborview Park

778 Alder St

3.6 acres

Parks

Sturgus Park

904 Sturgus Ave S

2.2 acres

Commercial Core

Existing Households (HH): 2,059 Existing Jobs: 107,490

Expected 6-yr. HH Growth: 355 Expected 6 yr. Jobs Growth: 10,216

Expected 20-yr. HH Growth: 1,300 Expected 20 yr. Job Growth: 27,000

Land Area: 276 Acres

The following facilities are in addition to those listed under the Urban Center, above:

Facility Type

Name

Location

Capacity

Library

Central Library

1000 4th Avenue.

363,000 sq. ft

Parks

Freeway Park

700 Seneca St.

5.2 acres

Parks

Piers 62 and 63

1951 Alaska Way

1.87 acres

Parks

Seattle Aquarium

Pier 59

1.99 acres

Parks

Victor Steinbrueck Park

2001 Western Ave.

0.8 acres

Parks

Waterfront Park

1301 Alaskan Way

4.8 acres

Parks

Westlake Park

401 Pine St.

0.1 acres

Parks

Boren-Pike-Pine Park

Boren Ave. / Pike St

0.5 acres

Parks

City Hall Park

450 3rd Ave

0.9 acres

Parks

Kobe Terrace

221 6th Ave. S

1.0 acres

Parks

Occidental Square

Occidental Ave. S / S Main St.

0.6 acres

Parks

Pioneer Square

100 Yesler Way

0.3 acres

Denny Triangle

Existing Households (HH): 515 Existing Jobs: 19,346

Expected 6-yr. HH Growth: 956 Expected 6 yr. Jobs Growth: 8,930

Expected 20-yr. HH Growth: 3,500 Expected 20 yr. Job Growth: 23,600

Land Area: 143 Acres

The following facilities are in addition to those listed under the Urban Center, above:

Facility Type

Name

Location

Capacity

Library

Central Library

1000 4th Avenue.

363,000 sq. ft

Parks

McGraw Square

Stewart St. / Westlake Ave. N

0.01 acres

Parks

Westlake Square

1900 Westlake Ave. N

0.01 acres

Parks

Boren-Pike-Pine Park

Boren Ave. / Pike St

0.5 acres

Parks

Denny Park

100 Dexter Ave

4.8 acres

Parks

Denny Playfield

Westlake Ave / Denny Way

1.8 acres

Parks

Freeway Park

700 Seneca St.

5.2 acres

Pioneer Square

Existing Households (HH): 407 Existing Jobs: 12,897

Expected 6-yr. HH Growth: 574 Expected 6 yr. Jobs Growth: 1,817

Expected 20-yr. HH Growth: 2,100 Expected 20 yr. Job Growth: 4,800

Land Area: 142 Acres

The following facilities are in addition to those listed under the Urban Center, above:

Facility Type

Name

Location

Capacity

Library

Central Library

1000 4th Avenue.

363,000 sq. ft

Parks

City Hall Park

450 3rd Ave.

0.9 acres

Parks

Occidental Square

Occidental Ave. S / S Main St.

0.6 acres

Parks

Pioneer Square

100 Yesler Way

0.3 acres

Parks

Prefontaine Place

3rd Ave. / Yesler Way

0.1 acres

Parks

Union Station Square

Jackson & 3rd Ave S

0.03 acres

Community Garden

Danny Woo Garden

6th Ave. S & S. Washington St.

Capitol Hill/First Hill Urban Center

Some facilities serve the entire Urban Center. These facilities are listed first. Facilities specifically serving the Urban Center Villages are listed under each village below.

Facility Type

Name

Location

Capacity

Fire Station

SFD 25

1300 E Pine St.

EMS: 87% in 4 mins.

Fire: 87% in 4 mins.Engine Co., Ladder Co., Battalion, Aid Car, Power Unit, Hose Wagon

Fire Station

SFD 10

301 2nd Ave. S

EMS: 78% in 4 mins.

Fire: 78% in 4 mins.

Engine Co., Ladder Co., Shift Commander, Aid Car, Hazmat Van

Fire Station

SFD 22

901 E. Roanoke St.

EMS: 80% in 4 mins.

Fire: 70% in 4 mins.

Engine, Communications van

Fire Station

SFD 6*

101 23rd Ave. S

EMS: 82% in 4 mins.

Fire: 95% in 4 mins.

Engine, Ladder

Police Station

East Precinct

1519 12th Ave.

8.23 sq. mi. service area,

facility capacity 40,000 square feet

Schools

Lowell Elementary

All 10 Middle Schools

All 11 High Schools

1058 E Mercer St.

391 students

12th Avenue

Existing Households (HH): 1,366 Existing Jobs: 3,463

Expected 6-yr. HH Growth: 147 Expected 6 yr. Jobs Growth: 454

Expected 20-yr. HH Growth: 1200 Expected 20 yr. Job Growth: 1,200

Land Area: 160 Acres

The following facilities are in addition to those listed under the Urban Center, above:

Facility Type

Name

Location

Capacity

Police Station

East Precinct

1519 12th Ave.

8.45 sq. mi. service area,

1994 population 82,265

Library

Central Library

1000 4th Avenue.

363,000 sq. ft

Douglass Truth Branch*

2300 E Yesler Way

8007 sq. ft

Community Center

Yesler Playfield & Comm. Ctr.

903 Yesler Way

4,771 sq. ft., 1.7 ac (SHA property)

Parks

Spruce and Squire Park

156 Boren Ave.

0.28 acres

Parks

Spring Street Mini Park

E Spring St / 15th Ave

0.3 acres

P-Patch

Squire Park P-Patch

14th Ave E. 7 E. Fir St.

33 plots

Capitol Hill

Existing Households (HH): 12,692 Existing Jobs: 7,314

Expected 6-yr. HH Growth: 541 Expected 6 yr. Jobs Growth: 1,135

Expected 20-yr. HH Growth: 1,980 Expected 20 yr. Job Growth: 3,000

Land Area: 397 Acres

The following facilities are in addition to those listed under the Urban Center, above:

Facility Type

Name

Location

Capacity

Police Station

East Precinct

1519 12th Ave.

8.45 sq. mi. service area,

1994 population 82,265

Library

Capitol Hill Branch

425 Harvard Ave. E

11,000 sq. ft

Parks

Bellevue Place

Bellevue Pl. E / Bellevue Ave. E

1.4 acres

Parks

Belmont Place

Belmont Pl. E / Belmont Ave. E

0.02 acres

Parks

Cal Anderson Park

1635 11th Ave

7.4 acres

Parks

McGilvra Place

E Madison St. / Pike St.

0.06 acres

Parks

Summit Place

Belmont Ave. E / Bellevue Pl. E

0.02 acres

Parks

Tashkent Park

511 Boylston Ave.

0.5 acres

Parks

Thomas Street Mini Park

306 Bellevue Ave. E

0.25 acres

Parks

Volunteer Parkway

14th Ave E, E Prospect St. to E Roy St.

2.5 acres

Parks

Williams Place

15th Ave. E / E John St.

0.13 acres

Parks

Boren-Pike-Pine Park

Boren Ave. / Pike St

0.5 acres

Parks

Miller Playfield

400 19th Ave E

7.6 acres

Parks

Volunteer Park*

1247 15th Ave E

48.3 acres

P-Patch

Thomas Street Gardens

1010 E. Thomas St.

35 plots

First Hill

Existing Households (HH): 6,073 Existing Jobs: 15,063

Expected 6-yr. HH Growth: 656 Expected 6 yr. Jobs Growth: 2,308

Expected 20-yr. HH Growth: 2,400 Expected 20 yr. Job Growth: 6,100

Land Area: 228 Acres

The following facilities are in addition to those listed under the Urban Center, above:

Facility Type

Name

Location

Capacity

Police Station

East Precinct

1519 12th Ave.

8.45 sq. mi. service area,

1994 population 82,265

Library

Central Library

1000 4th Avenue.

363,000 sq. ft

Douglass Truth Branch*

2300 E. Yesler

8,008 sq. ft

Community Center

Yesler Playfield & Comm. Ctr.

903 Yesler Way

4,771 sq. ft., 1.7 ac (SHA property)

Parks

Boren Place

Broadway / Boren Ave. S

0.03 acres

Parks

Boylston Place

Broadway / Boylston Ave. E

0.005 acres

Parks

First Hill Park

University St / Minor Ave. E

0.2 acres

Parks

Freeway Park

700 Seneca St.

5.2 acres

Parks

Harborview Park

778 Alder St.

3.6 acres

Parks

Boren-Pike-Pine Park

Boren Ave. / Pike St

0.5 acres

Parks

Kobe Terrace

221 6th Ave. S

1.0 acres

Parks

Spruce and Squire Park

156 Boren Ave.

0.28 acres

Community Center

Yesler Playfield & Comm. Ctr.

903 Yesler Way

4,771 sq. ft., 1.7 ac (SHA property)

Cultivating Communities P-Patch

8th Ave S & S Washington St.

Cultivating Communities P-Patch

Yesler Terrace Playground

10th Ave S. & S Main St.

12 plots

Pike/Pine

Existing Households (HH): 2,495 Existing Jobs: 3,471

Expected 6-yr. HH Growth: 169 Expected 6 yr. Jobs Growth: 530

Expected 20-yr. HH Growth: 620 Expected 20 yr. Job Growth: 1,400

Land Area: 131 Acres

The following facilities are in addition to those listed under the Urban Center, above:

Facility Type

Name

Location

Capacity

Police Station

East Precinct

1519 12th Ave.

8.45 sq. mi. service area,

1994 population 82,265

Library

Capitol Hill Branch

425 Harvard Ave. E.

11,000 sq. ft

Library

Central Library

1000 4th Avenue

363,000 sq. ft

Parks

Boren-Pike-Pine Park

Boren Ave. / Pike St

0.5 acres

Parks

Cal Anderson Park

1635 11th Ave.

7.4 acres

Parks

Freeway Park

700 Seneca St.

5.2 acres

University Community Urban Center

Some facilities serve the entire Urban Center. These facilities are listed first. Facilities specifically serving the Urban Center Villages are listed under each village below.

Facility Type

Name

Location

Capacity

Fire Station

SFD 17*

1050 NE 50th St.

EMS: 75% in 4 mins.

Fire: 69% in 4 mins.

Engine Co., Ladder Co., , Battalion

Fire Station

SFD 38*

5503 33rd Ave. NE

EMS: 77% in 4 mins.

Fire: 72% in 4 mins

Engine Co.

Police Station

North Precinct

10049 College Way North

32.12 sq. mi. service area, facility capacity 16,779 square feet

Schools

All 10 Middle Schools

All 11 High Schools

P-Patch

University Heights

NE 50th St. & University Way NE

38 plots

Ravenna

Existing Households (HH): 1,057 Existing Jobs: 1,226

Expected 6-yr. HH Growth: 132 Expected 6 yr. Jobs Growth: 265

Expected 20-yr. HH Growth: 480 Expected 20 yr. Job Growth: 700

Land Area: 123 Acres

The following facilities are in addition to those listed under the Urban Center, above:

Facility Type

Name

Location

Capacity

Library

University Branch*

5009 Roosevelt Way NE

8,140 sq. ft

Library

Northeast Branch*

6801 35th Ave. NE

7,042 sq. ft

Parks

Burke-Gilman Trail

8th Ave. NW to NE 145th St.

72.6 acres

Parks

Ravenna Boulevard

NE Ravenna Blvd,East Green Lake Way N/20th Ave NE

7.5 acres

Parks

Ravenna Park*

5520 Ravenna Ave NE

49.9 acres

P-Patch

Ravenna P-Patch

5200 Ravenna Ave NE

14 plots

University District NW

Existing Households (HH): 4,324 Existing Jobs: 8,625

Expected 6-yr. HH Growth: 451 Expected 6 yr. Jobs Growth: 1,135

Expected 20-yr. HH Growth: 1,630 Expected 20 yr. Job Growth: 3,000

Land Area: 348 Acres

The following facilities are in addition to those listed under the Urban Center, above:

Facility Type

Name

Location

Capacity

Library

University Branch*

5009 Roosevelt Way NE

8,140 sq. ft

Parks

17 Avenue NE Centerstrip

17th Ave NE, NE 45th St. to NE Ravenna Blvd.

2.4 acres

Parks

Burke-Gilman Trail

8th Ave NW to NE 145th St.

72.6 acres

Parks

Christie Park

NE 43rd St. / 9th Ave. NE

0.1 acres

Parks

University Playground

9th Ave. NE / NE 50th St.

2.7 acres

P-Patch

University District P-patch

8th Ave. NE & NE 40th St.

65 plots

University Campus

Existing Households (HH): 6,295 Existing Jobs: 2,2391

Expected 6-yr. HH Growth: 0 Expected 6 yr. Jobs Growth: 1,816

Expected 20-yr. HH Growth: 0 Expected 20 yr. Job Growth: 4,800

Land Area: 348 Acres

The following facilities are in addition to those listed under the Urban Center, above:

Facility Type

Name

Location

Capacity

Library

University Branch*

5009 Roosevelt Way NE

8,140 sq. ft

University of Washington Library system

University of Washington

22,714 or .27 sq. ft/capita + .32 sq. ft/capita in citywide facilities

Parks

Burke-Gilman Trail

8th Ave. NW to NE 145th St

72.6 acres

North Passage Point Park

600 NE Northlake Way

0.8 acres

17 Avenue NE Centerstrip

17th Ave NE, NE 45th St. to NE Ravenna Blvd.

2.4 acres

Northgate Urban Center

Existing Households (HH): 3466 Existing Jobs: 8,913

Expected 6-yr. HH Growth: 820 Expected 6 yr. Jobs Growth: 2,341

Expected 20-yr. HH Growth: 3,000 Expected 20 yr. Job Growth: 9,300

Land Area: 411 Acres

Facility Type

Name

Location

Capacity

Fire Station

SFD 31

1319 N Northgate Way

EMS: 77% in 4 mins.

Fire: 91% in 4 mins.

Engine Co., Ladder Co., Medic Unit, Power Unit

Police Station

North Precinct

10049 College Way N

32.5 sq. mi. service area, 1990 population 207,827

Schools

Northgate Elementary

All 10 Middle Schools

All 11 High Schools

11725 1st Ave. NE

325 students

Library

Lake City Branch*

12501 28th Ave. NE

9013 sq. ft

Parks

Thornton Creek Park #6

5th Ave NE / NE 103rd St., Roosevelt Way NE / NE 107th St.

6.13 acres

Parks

Victory Creek Park

1059 Northgate Way

0.2 acres

Parks

Mineral Springs Park

10556 Meridian Ave. N

4 acres

P-Patch

Pinehurst P-Patch

12th Ave NE & NE 115th

15 plots

Uptown Urban Center

Existing Households (HH): 3,268 Existing Jobs: 16,497

Expected 6-yr. HH Growth: 359 Expected 6 yr. Jobs Growth: 831

Expected 20-yr. HH Growth: 1,312 Expected 20 yr. Job Growth: 3,300

Land Area: 297 Acres

Facility Type

Name

Location

Capacity

Fire Station

SFD 8

110 Lee St.

EMS: 88% in 4 mins.

Fire: 95% in 4 mons.

Engine Co., Ladder Co.

Fire Station

SFD 2

2334 4th Ave.

EMS: 84% in 4 mins.

Fire: 83% in 4 mins.

Engine Co., Ladder Co., Aid Car

Police Station

West Precinct

810 Virginia St.

11.52 sq. mi. service area,

facility capacity 50,960 square feet, including

9-1-1 Center

Schools

All 10 Middle Schools

All 11 High Schools

Library

Queen Anne Branch*

400 W Garfield

7,931 sq. ft.

Library

Central Library

1000 4th Avenue.

363,000 sq. ft

Community Center

Queen Anne Community Center

1901 1st Ave. W

15,337 sq. ft., includes pool

Parks

Kinnear Park*

899 W Olympic Pl.

14.1 acres

Parks

Bhy Kracke

1215 5th Ave N

1.5 acres

Parks

Kerry Park

211 W Highland Dr

0.3 acres

Parks

Myrtle Edwards Park

3130 Alaskan Way W

4.8 acres

Parks

Northeast Queen Anne Greenbelt

1920 Taylor Ave N

9.4 acres

Parks

SW Queen Anne Greenbelt

W Howe St / 12th Ave W

12.5 acres

Parks

Ward Springs Park

Ward St. and 4th Ave. N

0.3 acres

P-Patch

Interbay

15th W & W Wheeler St.

184 plots

HUB URBAN VILLAGES,

Ballard

Existing Households (HH): 4,447 Existing Jobs: 4,292

Expected 6-yr. HH Growth: 410 Expected 6 yr. Jobs Growth: 931

Expected 20-yr. HH Growth: 1,520 Expected 20 yr. Job Growth: 3,700

Land Area: 425 Acres

Facility Type

Name

Location

Capacity

Fire Station

SFD 18

1521 NW Market St.

EMS: 67% in 4 mins.

Fire: 69% in 4 mins.

Engine Co., Ladder Co., Medic Unit, Hose Wagon, Battalion

Police

North Precinct

10049 College Way N.

32.12 sq. mi. service area, facility capacity 16,779 square feet

Schools

Adams Elementary

Whittier Elementary

Loyal Heights Elementary

North Beach Elementary

Salmon Bay K-8 at Monroe

All 10 Middle Schools

All 11 High Schools

6110 28th Ave. NW

1320 NW 75th St.

2511 NW 80 ST

9018 24 AV NW

1810 NW 65 ST

450 students

445 students

310 students

349 students

599 students

Library

Ballard Branch

5711 24th Ave. NW

7296 sq. ft

Community Center

Ballard Community Center

6020 28th Ave. NW

Parks

Ballard Playground

2644 NW 60th St.

3.4 acres

Parks

Bergen Place

5420 22nd Ave. NW

0.2 acres

Parks

Marvins Garden

22nd Ave. NW / Ballard Ave. NW

0.1 acres

Parks

17th Ave NW and NW 63rd St

17th ave NW and NW 63rd St

0.7 acres

Parks

Ballard Swimming Pool

1471 NW 67th St

1.4 acres

Parks

Gilman Playground

923 NW 54th St

3.9 acres

P-Patch

Greg's Garden

14th Ave. NW & NW 54th

20 plots

Parks

Thyme Patch

NW 58th St. & 28th Ave NW

16 plots

Broadview-Bitter Lake-Haller Lake

Existing Households (HH): 2,468 Existing Jobs: 3,289

Expected 6-yr. HH Growth: 340 Expected 6 yr. Jobs Growth: 705

Expected 20-yr. HH Growth: 1,260 Expected 20 yr. Job Growth: 2,800

Land Area: 359 Acres

Facility Type

Name

Location

Capacity

Fire Station

SFD 24

401 N 130th

EMS: 78% in 4 mons.

Fire: 68% in 4 mins.

Engine Co.

Police

North Precinct

10049 College Way N.

32.04 sq. mi. service area,

1990 population 228,659

Schools

Broadview-Thomson Elementary

All 10 Middle Schools

All 11 High Schools

13052 Greenwood Ave. N

575 students

Library

Broadview Branch

12755 Greenwood Ave. N

8161 sq. ft

Community Center

Bitter Lake Community Center

13040 Greenwood Ave. N

Parks

Bitterlake Playfield

13035 Linden Ave. N

7.5 acres

P-Patch

Haller Lake P-Patch

13045 1st Ave. NE

52 plots

Fremont

Existing Households (HH): 3,844 Existing Jobs: 4,776

Expected 6-yr. HH Growth: 222 Expected 6 yr. Jobs Growth: 428

Expected 20-yr. HH Growth: 820 Expected 20 yr. Job Growth: 1,700

Land Area: 215 Acres

Facility Type

Name

Location

Capacity

Fire Station

SFD 9

3829 Linden Ave. N

EMS: 82% in 4 mins.

Fire: 82% in 4 mins.

Engine Co., Air Supply

Police Station

North Precinct

10049 College Wy. N

32.12 sq. mi. service area, facility capacity 16,779 square feet

Schools

B. F. Day Elementary

All 10 Middle Schools

All 11 High Schools

3921 Linden Avenue N

400 students

Library

Fremont Branch*

731 N 35th St.

6060 sq. ft

Park

Burke-Gilman Trail

3rd Ave NW to NE 145th St

72.6 acres

Fremont Canal Park

199 N Canal St.

0.7 acres

B.F Day Playground

4020 Fremont Ave N

2.4 acres

P-Patch

Fremont P-Patch

N. 39th & Woodland Park Ave. N

29 plots

North

Existing Households (HH): 2,815 Existing Jobs: 1556

Expected 6-yr. HH Growth: 379 Expected 6 yr. Jobs Growth: 730

Expected 20-yr. HH Growth: 1,400 Expected 20 yr. Job Growth: 2,900

Land Area: 142 Acres

Facility Type

Name

Location

Capacity

Fire Station

SFD 39

12705 30th Ave. NE

EMS: 78% in 4 mins.

Fire: 77% in 4 mins.

Engine Co.

Police Station

North Precinct

10049 College Way N

32.12 sq. mi. service area, facility capacity 16,779 square feet

Schools1

Olympic Hills Elementary

All 10 Middle Schools

All 11 High Schools

13018 20 AV NE

257 students

Library

Lake City Branch*

12501 28th Ave. NE

9013 sq. ft

Parks

Albert Davis Park

12526 27th Ave. NE

1.19 acres

Parks

Lake City Memorial Triangle

31st Ave NE / Lake City Way

0.005 acres

Parks

Lake City Mini Park

Lake City Way / NE 125th St.

0.2 acres

Parks

Lake City Playground

2750 NE 125th St.

2.8 acres

Parks

Homewood Park

11725 Lake City Wy NE

1.0 acre

Parks

Thornton Creek Natural Area

Multiple sites

2.0 acres

North Rainier

Existing Households (HH): 2131 Existing Jobs: --

Expected 6-yr. HH Growth: 324 Expected 6 yr. Jobs Growth: --

Expected 20-yr. HH Growth: 1,200 Expected 20 yr. Job Growth: --

Land Area: 453 Acres

Facility Type

Name

Location

Capacity

Fire Station

SFD 30

2931 Mt. Baker Blvd. W

EMS: 83% in 4 mins.

Fire: 77% in 4 mins.

Engine Co.

Police Station

South Precinct

3001 S Myrtle St.

15.48 sq. mi. service area, facility capacity 13,688 square feet

Schools

Muir Elementary

All 10 Middle Schools

All 11 High Schools

3301 S Horton St.

450 students

Library

Beacon Hill Branch

2519 15th Ave. S

3327 sq. ft

Library

Douglass-Truth Branch*

2300 E Yesler Way

8007 sq. ft

Library

Columbia Branch

4721 Rainier Ave. S

5838 sq. ft

Parks

Amy Yee Tennis Center

2000 Martin Luther King Jr Way S

8.5 acres

Parks

Atlantic Street Park

S Atlantic St. / Rainier Ave. S

0.1 acres