WHEREAS, the City of Seattle adopted a Comprehensive Plan (Ordinance 117221) in 1994; and

WHEREAS, the City Council adopted procedures in Resolution 29751 for amending the Comprehensive Plan, consistent with the requirements for amendment prescribed by the Growth Management Act, RCW 36.70A; and

WHEREAS, the City Council adopted Resolution 28969 identifying continuing efforts to augment the Comprehensive Plan through work on additional plan elements and amendments; and

WHEREAS, proposed amendments were submitted by individuals or citizen organizations and by the City for consideration during 2001; and

WHEREAS, the Mayor and the Planning Commission reviewed and made recommendations in a report to the City Council dated April 24, 2001 as to which proposals to further consider and review during 2001; and

WHEREAS, the Council's Neighborhoods, Growth Planning and Civic Engagement Committee held a public hearing on April 30, 2001, to take public testimony on the amendments proposed for consideration;

BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SEATTLE AS FOLLOWS:

1. The following proposed amendments should be further developed for review and consideration by the Executive and Council as possible 2001 amendments to the Comprehensive Plan. The proposed amendments are referenced by number. The reference number corresponds to the assigned number on the list in Attachment A, entitled 2001 Proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendments Threshold Analysis.

a) 45 Issue or reissue telecommunications franchises and utility permits only with the condition that franchisees agree beforehand to place or move their lines underground at such time as the City determines that undergrounding is necessary or desirable for any particular location.

b) 1 Establish system of development fees which enable planning mitigation by developers seeking permits within the subarea boundary. Investigate new ways such as impact fees to help recover the cost of infrastructure improvements to serve new development.

c) 3 Review Comprehensive Plan Downtown Urban Center policy T16C.

d) 4 Insure that all new buildings and their entrances shall reinforce a pedestrian-friendly/transit oriented streetscape.

e) 5 Insure that no new parking lots or garages are created, which could serve as park & ride facilities.

f) 15 Review the provisions of Policy 7 of the Major Institutions Policies to be sure that the understandings about University of Washington Major Institutions regulations are not inadvertently affected

g) 16 Require master plan for development of any area where a single entity owns or controls more than 5 acres within a 1/2 mile radius.

h) 17 UCUC commercial master plan process.

i) 19 Amend the Comprehensive Plan in order that the HOPE VI redevelopment of the High Point Garden Community can contribute to the overall Comprehensive Plan growth management strategy and other Plan goals in West Seattle.

j) 20 Review the list of neighborhood anchors and propose modifications as appropriate.

k) 24 Restore original policy language regarding prohibition of certain commercial signs.

l) 25 Insure no urban core area will have a park and ride or comparable dedicated full day storage facility for vehicles

m) 30 Potential amendments resulting from the deletion of the Land Use Policies from the Land Use Code.

n) 35 Reduce from six (6) years to two (2) years after permit approval the transportation concurrency requirements.

o) 44 Consider incorporating language in the Utilities Element recognizing the primacy of public health protection in the utilities' goals and policies

p) 61 Define "Living Wage," "Family Wage" and "livable wage" as used in the Comprehensive Plan

q) 34 Consider incorporating language outlining whether and how the City might be involved financially in public parking facilities.

r) 63 Amend the Capital Facilities Element, Appendix B to designate the future site of the Olympic Sculpture Park as open space.

2. The following proposed amendment should be referred for consideration as Comprehensive Plan amendments for 2002:

a) 10 Insure that no one building can completely block the views of its neighbors.

b) 11 Inventory and describe visual resources, public views and vistas.

c) 12 Explore policy measures to better protect public and private views.

d) 13 Establish and map protected view corridors, as a Comprehensive Plan implementing tool, rather than Comprehensive Plan policy.

e) 14 Limit the duration of moorage of cruise ships taller than 8 stories at the Bell St. Pier.

f) 23 Do not approve street or alley vacations incompatible with surroundings.

g) 36 Modify LOS methodology, to take transit service capacity into account.

h) 37 Modify definitions of screenlines.

i) 49 Reference Watershed Plans in the Environment Element

j) 50 Develop policy tools to require capital facilities concurrency.

k) 27 Eliminate term "transit-oriented development" in urban village policies.

l) 26 Clarify the role and function of Urban Centers and Urban Villages.

m) 25 Develop language embodying the City's sustainable building policy

n) 48 Review City's sustainability policies.

o) 60 Simplify the definition of Puget Sound

p) Proposal of Irene Wall (originally approved for consideration in 2001 by resolution 30156) to consider amendments to shoreline height limits for view and shoreline protection. (This proposal should be considered in both the City's view policy review and the shoreline program review.)

3. SPO shall formally inform appropriate department heads about the proposals in the table in Attachment B to this Resolution. The Departments should review the proposals and respond as to whether or not they recommend pursuing code amendments or other means to implement the proposals in the following table. Each Department's response should also indicate when each item will, or could be undertaken as a departmental work program item (regardless of the department's recommendation on the merits of the proposal).

Further, appropriate departments shall report to the NS&CD committee by July 1 on the results of this review. Council Staff will coordinate departmental responses.

4. The remaining amendments on the list in Attachment A should not be considered further as Comprehensive Plan amendments for 2001.

ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Seattle this ______ day of ______________, 2001, and signed by me in open session in authentication of its adoption this _____ day of _______________, 2001. ________________________________ President of the City Council

Filed by me this __________ day of _________________, 2001. ________________________________ City Clerk

THE MAYOR CONCURRING: _______________________ Paul Schell, Mayor

ATTACHMENTS

ATTACHMENT A 2001 Proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendments Threshold Analysis

ATTACHMENT B Issues For Departmental Review and Response

April 18, 2001 30320v2 (Ver. #2)

THRESHOLD ANALYSIS

Note: The CNC submitted the same set of proposed Comprehensive Plan amen dments identical as they did last year. Several of the proposals are be ing considered as part of ongoing city work. Others are inappropriate f or this year's process since they were already reviewed and acted on last year.

Proposal (as submitted)

Submitted by:

Background

Recommendation

LAND USE ELEMENT

1.

Establish system of development fees which enable planning mitigation by developers seeking permits within the subarea boundary.

Investigate new ways such as impact fees to help recover the cost of inf rastructure improvements to serve new development; for example, the cost of arterial intersection improvements that serve new commercial and off ice development.

Irene Wall

CNC

Impact fees are an issue the City has discussed for a number of years.

Proceed for further analysis with date for actual amendment to be determ ined through consensus with Council.

Will be considered as part of the Impact Fee/Infrastructure theme.

2.

Directly allot (on a periodic and continuing basis) to communities surro unding park-and-ride lots monies (source unknown at present) representin g a share of daily parking revenues that would reasonably represent the imputed value attached to a community's surrendering parcels of land and local streets and arterials to the use of transit riders. Enable communities to program these "community impa ct fees" in any manner it chooses to alleviate or mitigate the spillover effects such facilities have on a host community.

Thomas Heller

Does not meet threshold for Comprehensive Plan amendment.

Budget policy issue.

3.

Review Comprehensive Plan Downtown Urban Center policy T16C concerning s urface parking lots to determine whether a less strict policy is warrant ed or whether appropriate implementing legislation should be developed

Resolution 30273

Policy T16C: Permanent Surface Parking Lots. Prohibit permanent surface parking lots in most areas to avoid disruption of the pedestrian environ ment at street-level, maintain the level of activity and intensity of de velopment desired downtown, and discour age single occupant vehicle travel . Identify areas where the impacts as sociated with permanent surface parking lots may be mitigated and consid er permitting them in such areas, subject to mitigating conditions.

Proceed for further analysis with date for actual amendment to be determ ined through consensus with Council.

Will be considered as part of the Parking theme.

4.

Recognize that the pattern of development significantly influences the u se of transit. Therefore, the city will take steps to insure that all ne w buildings and their entrances shall reinforce a pedestrian-friendly/tr ansit oriented streetscape.

Accompanying proposed code amendment:

No parking shall be allowed between the building and the street. All mai n entrances shall be oriented toward the street.

Greg Hill

Mr. Hill wants both the commercial and industrial zones changed to be fr onted on a street with offices and entry at that point. He believes it h elps to separate the visitor traffic from deliveries. Parking for employ ees can take up a significant amount of "yard" space. Industrial owners often do not see this as a loss of inco me generating space. They should be supporting transit use. There are in fact many stretches of 1st Ave South that are built exactly this way.

Proceed for further analysis with date for actual amendment to be determ ined through consensus with Council.

Will be considered as part of the Parking theme.

5.

The city shall take steps to insure that no new parking lots or garages are created, which could serve as park & ride facilities.

Greg Hill

Mr. Hill writes that park & ride lots:

1. attract crime to neighborhoods by presenting large groups of vehicles which are unoccupied for long predictable periods of time;

2. Reduce the availability of security serving bus patrons by shifting t hem to watch empty private vehicles;

3. Reduce the transit demand and service on local routes, leading to red uced local service by distorting transit routes away from the most dense ly populated areas to serve isolated park & ride locations;

4. foster the inefficient use of land by setting aside large areas with the lowest possible intensity of use with no actual buildings or tax-pro ducing uses;

5. require a huge public investment, focusing the greatest portion of th e limited capital funds to reward people who chose to live in low densit y areas, while providing no incentive to living in high density areas;

6. Focus service on expensive one-way peak hour service to locations whi ch have no daytime demand;

7. create a system of urban apartheid by providing a one-way door for pe ople in low-density suburban areas to access the wealth of the city whil e preventing access to low-density areas by urban dwellers who can not a fford to own their own vehicles.

The Executive has ongoing work relating to this issue will expand on t hose ongoing activities in response.

Policy T33 was adopted into the Comp Plan last year. It discourages the development of major, stand-alone park-and-ride facilities within Seattl e. Situations where additions to park-and-ride capacity could be conside red include:

* At the terminus for a major transit system (e.g., at the planned ends of the light rail line.);

* Opportunities exist for "shared parking" (e.g., where transit commuter parking can be leased from another development, such as a shopping cent er, movie theater, or church), or to support continuing development in n eighborhood business districts; 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.

Proceed for further analysis with date for actual amendment to be determ ined through consensus with Council.

Will be considered as part of the Parking theme.

6.

Establish parking requirements for regional parks, zoos and aquariums: It shall be the policy of the City of Seattle to provide adequate parkin g facilities for regional parks, zoos and aquariums to meet the needs of local and regional visitors while cont rolling the spillover parking in adjacent residential areas.

The code does not provide sufficient guidance as to the amount of parkin g required for these types of facilities which are auto-dependant and of ten impact nearby residential and commercial areas.

Irene Wall

Does not meet threshold for Comprehensive Plan amendment.

Code issue.

7.

Recognize that the use of transit is inversely related to the parking su pply at any given area. Therefore, the city shall take steps to insure t hat the parking supply creates a need to use transit so provide a signif icant portion of the travel demand, and that intense uses such as commercial office space and shopping and larg e assembly spaces such as multi-screen cinema complexes are discouraged from being located where they are not well-served by existing transit se rvice. The city shall set maximum for p arking which can be provided and levy taxes to discourage the constructi on of parking structures as single-purpose or accessory to existing uses .

Accompanying proposed code amendment:

Parking supply for commercial office space shall be limited in the downt own core no more than .8/1000, with no minimum. Parking supply in the do wntown, U-District, Capitol Hill, First Hill and Northgate commercial co res shall be limited by forbidding the construction of new single-purpose garages or garages accessory to exist ing buildings. Restrict all-day commuter parking thorough out-right rest rictions and taxing.

Parking supply out side the commercial cores shall be limited to a maxim um amount of less than the typical 80% mode split. For example, if the t ypical demand of office occupancy is 3.5 people/1000 s.f., the average d emand would be 2.8 spaces per 1000 s.f. Therefore the maximum allowed parking would be 2-2.25 per 1000 s.f.

Greg Hill

Clarification from Mr. Hill only the centers or cores should receive t he major developments. The amount of parking should be restricted to enc ourage transit use. At the same time it is necessary to restrict large o ffice buildings, shopping centers and m ega-theatres to being only within those centers.

All commercial property should reflect these points. The goal is to disc ourage large commercial facilities outside of planned Centers (downtown, Capitol Hill, First Hill, U-District and Northgate) in areas where ther e is only modest transit service, and t o encourage transit use within the centers (meaning to and from). It mak es no sense to build offices in South Lake Union to beat the downtown ru les limiting parking supply, in order to allow them cater to people who want to drive to work.

Does not meet threshold for Comprehensive Plan amendment.

Code issue

8.

Modify City-proposed scope element to read Consider designating some but not all locations of key transit connections as areas to accommodate ho using growth and other land uses in accordance with station-area plannin g.

CNC

Does not meet threshold for Comprehensive Plan amendment.

This proposed amendment was already considered last year.

9.

Abolish all station area planning when light rail dies.

Alan Harvey Deright

Does not meet threshold for Comprehensive Plan amendment.

10.

Recognize that Seattle has many stunning views and vistas, and that the commonwealth is benefited by the sharing of those views, and that as the city grows more dense, that the access to views becomes more precious. Therefore, the city will take steps to insure that no one building can completely block the views of its neighb ors.

Greg Hill

Ongoing work program through Policy Docket item P2. Possible amendments in 2002.

Refer to 2002 for further analysis and consideration.

Will be considered as part of the Views theme.

11.

Conduct a baseline inventory and description of visual resources, public views and vistas from the City of Seattle and establish appropriate lan d use regulations to protect these resources from encroachment or degrad ation. This baseline inventory shall b e established by a panel of citizens in conjunction with representatives from appropriate City departments. This inventory shall be periodicall y reviewed and updated by a similarly constituted panel.

Irene Wall

Ongoing work, possible amendment in 2002.

DCLU and SPO are on an IDT regarding public view protection.

Refer to 2002 for further analysis and consideration.

Will be considered as part of the Views theme.

12.

Add following item to scope element:

Explore policy measures to better protect public and private views. (Not e: intent is to encourage broad review of view-protection measures acros s the city, while recognizing that it may be appropriate to provide diff erent standards for neighborhoods inten ded for high-density development.)

CNC

Ongoing work, possible amendment in 2002.

Refer to 2002 for further analysis and consideration.

Will be considered as part of the Views theme.

13.

WANT NEW PARKS ELEMENT BUT CAN GO IN LAND USE:

Establish and map protected view corridors from all locations indicated in SEPA (SMC 25.05) Attachment 1; from scenic routes as currently identi fied in Exhibit I in SMC 25.05, and from limited segments of Interstate 5 with views across Lake Union to the S pace Needle, toward Elliott Bay and Mount Rainier.

CNC

Does not meet threshold for Comprehensive Plan amendment.

This proposed amendment was already considered last year.

14.

Views of Elliott Bay, Puget Sound, Magnolia, and the Olympic Mountains f rom Victor Steinbrueck Park, the Lenora Pedestrian Overpass, the Alaskan Way Viaduct, Pier 62/63 and the Seattle Aquarium outdoor public access areas shall be available for the majori ty of spring and summer days by establishing a maximum number of days an d hours of the day in which cruiseships taller than 8 stories can block the views when tied up at the Bell St. Pier.

Irene Wall

Does not meet threshold for Comprehensive Plan amendment.

SEPA or Code issue related to ongoing work.

15.

Review the provisions of Policy 7 of the Major Institutions Policies to be sure that the understandings about University of Washington Major Ins titutions regulations are not inadvertently affected

Resolution 30273

Technical change, proposed policy is already verbatim in code, Bob Morga n/Law Department/UW negotiating wording change.

Proceed for further analysis with date for actual amendment to be determ ined through consensus with Council.

16.

Require master plan for development of any area where a single entity ow ns or controls more than 5 acres within a 1/2 mile radius. The parcels need not be contiguous and development may be phased. The Master Plan m ust be approved before any building per mits are granted.

Irene Wall

Proceed for further analysis with date for actual amendment to be determ ined through consensus with Council.

Will be considered as part of the Master Planning theme.

17.

Review the status of the Commercial Master Plan process initiated in the UCUC Neighborhood Plan, and potentially consider a related Comprehensiv e Plan amendment.

Resolution 30273

Does not meet threshold for Comprehensive Plan amendment.

Code issue

18.

Provide Subarea planning to specifically identify infrastructure needs t o meet growth targets.

Require the City to prepare a subarea plan before approval of any non-si ngle family residential construction projects or commercial projects gre ater than 3,000 SF and excluding of duplexes and triplexes in any sectio n of the City which has a housing and j ob growth target under the Seattle Comprehensive Plan.

Irene Wall

Infrastructure needs assessment done during neighborhood planning proces s, updated during last Comp Plan amendment process.

Does not meet threshold for Comprehensive Plan amendment.

19.

Amend the Comprehensive Plan in order that the HOPE VI redevelopment of the High Point Garden Community can contribute to the overall Comprehens ive Plan growth management strategy and other Plan goals in West Seattle , through well-integrated, pedestrianand transit-oriented in-fill development, high quality affordable housin g for people of mixed incomes. Housing designed for all household types families with children, small households, independent and frail elder ly as well as people with disabilities.

SHA Vlad Oustimovitch

Placeholder while SHA gets their design team together for High Point. M ight potentially need a rezone to L3 and you can't do that outside an ur ban village hence the Comp Plan problem. Other alternative is to reop en Delridge Neighborhood Plan.

Will discuss possibilities of considering NC zones rather than L3, but t hey haven't hired a design team as of yet.

Proceed for further analysis with date for actual amendment to be determ ined through consensus with Council.

Will be considered as part of the Development theme.

20.

Review the list of neighborhood anchors and propose modifications as app ropriate where current anchors do not meet the standards, or where new a nchors should be identified

Resolution 30273

All existing anchors currently meet standards. Analysis would determine if other possible locations would meet standards.

Proceed for further analysis with date for actual amendment to be determ ined through consensus with Council.

Will be considered as part of the Development theme.

21.

Consider methods by which the goals and objectives of neighborhood plans can be more fully incorporated into or integrated within the City's env ironmental and design review of development projects. Formalize the rol e and authority of neighborhood plan st ewardship bodies.

Thomas Heller

Does not meet threshold for Comprehensive Plan amendment.

Implementation issue.

22.

Better integrate neighborhood plan goals, objectives and actions into th e City's environmental review and design review process.

Thomas Heller

Does not meet threshold for Comprehensive Plan amendment.

Implementation issue.

23.

The city should not grant street or alley vacations when the result will be full block developments or developments of incompatible bulk and sca le with the surrounding properties and adjacent blocks.

Irene Wall

Ongoing work, possible amendment in 2002.

SeaTran, DCLU, SPO and other departments are on an IDT regarding street vacations.

Refer to 2002 for further analysis and consideration.

Will be considered as part of the Development theme.

24.

Restore original policy language regarding prohibition of certain commer cial signs.

There is a significant change of language in the current version compare d to the original 1995 Downtown Plan. The current language calls for li miting certain signs; the original language was the prohibit them in cer tain areas. I suggest reverting to the original language: "Signs on roofs and the upper floors of building in tended primarily to be seen by motorists and others from a distance shal l be prohibited".

Alternative is to discourage them in general and only prohibit them wher e such signs would be visible and conspicuous from a public park or alon g scenic routes identified in SEPA.

Irene Wall

Proceed for further analysis with date for actual amendment to be determ ined through consensus with Council.

Will be considered as part of the Development theme.

25.

Developing language more clearly embodying the City's sustainable buildi ng policy

Resolution 30273

Refer to 2002 for further analysis and consideration. Should be an OSE w ork program item.

Will be considered as part of the Development theme.

26. .

Clarify the role and function of Urban Centers, Hub Urban Villages and U rban Villages and clarify their intended inter-relationship(s), from t he stand point of a) economic function (residential, commercial, employm ent) and b) physical interconnectedness by transportation facilities.

Thomas Heller

Mr. Heller wants to force the issue with Northgate (NG). The CPPs desig nate urban centers doesn't see where things are moving to achieve urba n center in Northgate. He wants a real employment center in Northgate. Rail station doesn't advance goal of ma king NG an urban center because station is not in NG core. Rail station could catalyze development if it was in a different location. He also doesn't feel we are going to achieve targets in Northgate and wants to k now what happens when we don't.

Refer to 2002 for further analysis and consideration. May be considered as part of the Northgate workplan.

27. .

In conjunction with above, substitute the terms "urban center-oriented d evelopment" and "urban village-oriented development" for the too narrow term "transit-oriented development" in any city policy pertaining to Urb an Center and urban villages.

Thomas Heller

Term appears once in Comp Plan, in housing element policy H30.

Mr. Heller has a problem with the term in general. He has the impressio n that "the driving force of change is coming from Metro and Sound Trans it", thus the term transit-oriented development is biased.

Refer to 2002 for further analysis and consideration. May be considered as part of the Northgate workplan.

28.

In conjunction with above, modify the City's zoning and land use code to ensure that permitted uses within Urban Centers, Hub Urban Villages and Urban Villages are fully consistent with the (clarified) role and funct ions of such designations.

Thomas Heller

Does not meet threshold for Comprehensive Plan amendment.

Code issue may be considered as part of Northgate worKplan.

29.

WANT NEW PARKS ELEMENT BUT CAN GO IN LAND USE:

Affirm the goals and policies in the 1987 Open Space Plan, which was not formally adopted. This element should address priorities for public spe nding (including recommendations from adopted neighborhood plans and the Pro Parks Committee).

CNC

The City Council in 1987 adopted portions of the recommended open space policies, and they are part of the land use policies that the executive is incorporated into the Comprehensive Plan. However, some of those ado pted policies described specific action s that are be more appropriate in the Parks functional plan.

Does not meet threshold for Comprehensive Plan amendment.

As review of the Land Use Code and Land Use Policies proceeds this year, there may be need to amend Comprehensive Plan elements or other plans w ith additional goals and policies. At this point in the review, it's to o early to determine if there will be n ecessary amendments.

30.

Additional amendment of the Land Use Element as needed

While considering the proposed ordinance to remove the land use policies from the Land Use Code determine whether additional Comprehensive Plan amendments or code provisions are needed to maintain existing policy for such things as SEPA, Major Institution s and Open Space.

Resolution 30273

Does not meet threshold for Comprehensive Plan amendment.

As review of the Land Use Code and Land Use Policies proceeds this year, there may be need to amend the Land Use Element with additional goals a nd policies. At this point in the review, it's too early to determine i f there will be necessary amendments.

31.

Review conditional use provisions concerning hotels in industrial zones. This issue was largely addressed by restrictions put in place with the Duwamish Industrial Center Plan. The regulations for other areas of the City should be reviewed.

Resolution 30273

Does not meet threshold for Comprehensive Plan amendment.

Code issue

32.

Consider amendments to end or reduce conversion of manufacturing uses in industrial districts to mid-rise office buildings, along with the assoc iated loss of family-wage jobs and increase in single-occupancy automobi le traffic. The current zoning code may allow or encourage such conversion by allowing office uses to fit under the definition of manufacturing uses by means such as the provision of a high-ceilinged ground floor; these uses may then be allowed a greater height limit or higher Floor Area Ratio (FAR) than might otherwise be the case, resulting in displacement of tr aditional manufacturing uses.

Bill Blair

Does not meet threshold for Comprehensive Plan amendment.

Code issue. High Tech study showed we should have ample capacity outsid e industrial zone.

TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT

33.

No urban core area will have a park and ride or comparable dedicated ful l day storage facility for vehicles.

Joel Tufel

Pairs with on-going park and ride work. (See #5)

Proceed for further analysis with date for actual amendment to be determ ined through consensus with Council.

Will be considered as part of the Parking theme.

34.

Placeholder for language TBD: The text would outline whether and how th e City might be involved financially in public parking facilities. The Council Transportation Committee is currently considering draft policy l anguage.

SPO Mary Catherine Snyder

Waiting for resolution in Council Committee.

Proceed for further consideration with date for actual amendment to be d etermined through consensus with Council.

Will be considered as part of the Parking theme.

35.

Reduce from six (6) years to two (2) years after permit approval the tra nsportation concurrency requirements as per Chapter 23.52.002, B.2 of th e Growth Management Act.

Joel Tufel

GMA Issue. Would like voluntary reduction of concurrency requirement to 2 years even though state law says 6 years.

Proceed for further analysis with date for actual amendment to be determ ined through consensus with Council.

Will be considered as part of the Concurrency theme.

36.

Modify Transit Level-Of-Service ("LOS") methodology, to take transit ser vice capacity into account.

CNC

The City Council chose last year not to modify the current transportatio n level-of-service system.

Refer to 2002 for further analysis and consideration.

Areawide EIS work is underway and will provide information necessary to assist in a re-evaluation of LOS methodology.

Will be considered as part of the Concurrency theme.

37.

Modify definitions of screenlines to insure that multiple arterials comp rising a single screenline continue to serve as viable alternate routes to one another for a majority of the peak-hour traffic crossing the scre enline (e.g., define all arterial bridg es crossing the Lake Washington Ship Canal and Duwamish Waterway as indi vidual screenlines for the purpose of determining Transportation Concurr ency).

CNC

The City Council chose last year not to modify the current transportatio n level-of-service system.

Refer to 2002 for further analysis and consideration.

The executive recommends continuing work on corridor studies and specifi c local traffic improvements recommended in neighborhood plans, rather t han amending the state-mandated citywide system for measuring transporta tion service levels.

Will be considered as part of the Concurrency theme.

38.

Require transit providers to acquire non-polluting, electric transit veh icles for use on routes inside Seattle and to retain and renew existing electric vehicles serving Seattle. (Note: concern is that transit agenci es may wish to switch to composite vehi cles that contain diesel engines that charge batteries and also drive el ectric motors; these vehicles may be less polluting than direct diesel d rive, but more polluting than pure electric vehicles.)

CNC

The Comprehensive Plan already encourages transit providers to use envir onmentally sound technologies (Policy T2). When this was proposed last y ear, the Executive recommended against adopting a City policy that would favor a specific vehicle type because the City does not operate transit systems.

Does not meet threshold for Comprehensive Plan amendment.

This proposed amendment was already considered last year.

39.

In the City of Seattle all high capacity passenger rail and similar alte rnative technology transit systems shall operate only in exclusive right s of way completely separated from motor vehicle and pedestrian traffic. These rights of way may be undergroun d tunnels, open cuts, elevated or surface level when it is in an exclusi ve and separate right of way. Exception is made for rail passenger serv ice using existing railroad rights of way. This configuration is consist ent with the definition of "rapid trans it".

George Curtis

Does not meet threshold for Comprehensive Plan amendment.

Not a Comprehensive Plan issue. Council has to make final decision can not bind their hands before the vote.

40.

Key Pedestrian Streets, essential components of walkable urban neighborh oods will qualify for this concurrency requirement only if they are mini mally:

1. twelve (12) feet wide with curbside parking

2. eighteen (18) feet wide when no curbside parking

3. public promenade easements totally apart from roads.

Joel Tufel

Does not meet threshold for Comprehensive Plan amendment.

Implementation level detail.

41.

Redesign the scope and fee structure for traffic studies

Joel Tufel

Does not meet threshold for Comprehensive Plan amendment.

Implementation level detail.

42.

Beginning with the year 2002, traffic signal warrants and traffic signal priority criteria shall be reviewed and updated every five years to ens ure that they correspond with the Comprehensive Plan, Transportation Str ategic Plan, and other City policies. T he update will be by City Council resolution, based on a review conducte d jointly by SEATRAN, the Pedestrian Advisory Board and the Strategic Pl anning Office.

Chris Leman

Does not meet threshold for Comprehensive Plan amendment.

Implementation level detail.

43.

In its relations with other localities, the state, and the federal gover nment, the City will oppose changes in SR-520 and I-90 that would bring any net increase in motor vehicles (other than freight trucks and transi t) across Lake Washington into the Seat tle City limits. The City will champion measures that increase transit r idership on SR-520 and I-90, but will insist that these measures be desi gned in such a way that they do not cause a net increase in motor vehicl es (other than freight trucks and trans it) entering Seattle on these freeways and do not reduce the safety and convenience of pedestrians and bicyclists.

Chris Leman

City's policy is already "no net increase in capacity for SOV".

Does not meet threshold for Comprehensive Plan amendment.

The proposed amendment is a regional issue and best addressed in a diffe rent policy and planning venue.

UTILITIES ELEMENT

44.

Consider incorporating language in the Utilities Element recognizing the primacy of public health protection in the utilities' goals and policie s

Resolution 30273

Wording change.

Proceed for further analysis with date for actual amendment to be determ ined through consensus with Council.

45.

The City will issue or reissue telecommunications franchises and utility permits only with the condition that franchisees agree beforehand to pl ace or move their lines underground at such time as the City determines that undergrounding is necessary or des irable for any particular location. All franchisees and utility permitee s shall share in the cost of undergrounding when a set of utility poles is eliminated or existing underground tunnels and vaults are expanded.

Chris Leman

Proceed for further analysis on the first section of this amendment. Th e section sentence does not meet the threshold for a Comprehensive Plan amendment due to its questionable legality. Date for actual amendment t o be determined through consensus with Council

Will be considered as part of the Development theme.

HOUSING ELEMENT

46.

Until the Comprehensive Plan housing production goals are met, any surpl us City property shall be leased, traded or sold for the purpose of prod ucing a mix of low and moderate income housing or a mixed use developmen t which prioritizes the production of h ousing.

Irene Wall

Does not meet threshold for Comprehensive Plan amendment.

The proposed amendment is best addressed in a different policy and plann ing venue.

47.

Modify City-proposed scope element to include "Improve geographic equity in the distribution of subsidized housing funds".

CNC

The Comprehensive Plan was amended last year to address the distribution of subsidized housing funds (Policy H37). The update of the City's Con solidated Plan also addressed specific strategies to implement this poli cy.

Does not meet threshold for Comprehensive Plan amendment.

Already addressed in last year's amendment process and in the City's Con solidated Plan.

ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENT

48.

Review by the Office of Sustainability and Environment of the City's sus tainability policies, with the goal of recommending any appropriate Comp rehensive Plan Amendments in 2002

Resolution 30273

Not currently in OSE work program.

Refer to 2002 for further analysis and consideration. Should be an OSE w ork program item.

49.

Referencing Watershed Plans in the Environment Element

Resolution 30273

Watershed plans have not been adopted nor completed, won't be ready to c onsider for reference until 2002.

Refer to 2002 for further analysis and consideration.

CAPITAL FACILITIES ELEMENT

50.

Explore policy tools to encourage or require that capital facilities imp rovements keep up with the growth in population and employment.

CNC

Refer to 2002 for further analysis and consideration.

Though this proposed amendment was already considered last year, census numbers released later this year may necessitate additional review of th is issue next year.

Will be considered as part of the Impact Fees/Infrastructure theme.

51.

Seek from the State of Washington a dedicated share of all development-g enerated sales tax and real estate excise tax revenues (i.e. tax revenue s specifically arising from on-going private real estate investment), so as to more fully "allow growth to pay for itself", enabling the application of such growth-related revenues to help finance both the infrastructure and amenity needs that arise from the City's on-going as well as those neighborhood needs (amenities in pa rticular) that currently are considered to be deficient (e.g. open space in urbanized areas slated for signific ant new development)

Thomas Heller

Does not meet threshold for Comprehensive Plan amendment.

May be considered for the City's Legislative agenda.

52.

As a complement to the amendment above, the City should identify, set as ide and program the City's new sales tax (and REET) revenues attributabl e to growth and development, so to help finance the infrastructure needs , amenity desires and general livabil ity-of its communities, both those arising directly as a result of curre nt or anticipated growth, but also those related to past, unmitigated im pacts of growth or aging.

Thomas Heller

Does not meet threshold for Comprehensive Plan amendment.

Budget issue.

53.

Drainage and wastewater utility fees will be charged (or similarly scale d payments in lieu of mandatory fees will be obtained) for runoff from r oads, highways, bridges, viaducts, parking lots, and ferry docks owned b y WSDOT or the City itself that flow to or are piped to Seattle sewers, lakes, streams or Puget Sound. The resu lting revenue shall be used to retrofit these facilities to reduce this runoff and its impacts.

Chris Leman

The City creates and updates facilities.

Does not meet threshold for Comprehensive Plan amendment.

The proposed amendment is best addressed as a utility policy and budgeta ry decision.

54.

You should re-think a great deal of your Comprehensive Plan since condit ions have changed so drastically. Utility bills will take more of your budget, the 6+% increase in property taxes may have to be rolled back to 20 million here, 60 million there are quite frivolous.

Barbara R. Sheldon

Does not meet threshold for Comprehensive Plan amendment.

55.

In order to reduce damage to City streets, alleys, sidewalks and bridges , City contracts for solid waste disposal and recycling services shall i nclude incentives for the contractors' trucks to weigh less than the max imum allowed by state law. In particula r, City utilities contracts shall discourage contractors from invoking s tate exemptions that allow solid waste collection trucks to be heavier t han most other vehicles. City utility contracts may prohibit a contracto r outright from invoking the state exem ption that allows solid waste collection trucks to be heavier than other trucks, or may institute an incentive system that provides the maximum City payment only when a minimum of vehicle trips have invoked this stat e exemption.

City contracting for solid waste disposal and recycling services will re quire contractors to have enough small and light trucks to provide full service in existing alleys and on existing bridges and neighborhood stre ets without requiring alternate routes (e.g. front yard pickup when an alley is available), strengthening of th e roadway, or geometric changes in the roadway (e.g. larger curb radius) . The City will also consider applying similar standards regarding vacto r trucks, fire trucks and other trucks under City contract or ownership.

Chris Leman

The City is 7 years away from next contract.

Does not meet threshold for Comprehensive Plan amendment.

Contract issue.

56.

Incorporate capital facilities identified in adopted neighborhood plans into Citys Capital Facilities Plan and Biennial Capital Budget.

CNC

Some of the capital projects proposed through neighborhood plans project s have already been completed. The executive and Council are working to gether to determine the costs of remaining projects and to identify poss ible funding for these projects. The C ity intends to address these projects through the budget process this ye ar and for several years to come.

Does not meet threshold for Comprehensive Plan amendment.

Capital planning and budget issue.

NEIGHBORHOOD PLANNING ELEMENT

57.

Retain policies for the neighborhood planning process to guide future pl anning in areas that have not yet been included in such efforts, as well as to guide periodic review of already-adopted neighborhood plans.

CNC

Resolution 30238 established a process and criteria for amending neighbo rhood plans developed through the City's Neighborhood Planning Office an d for developing new neighborhood plans.

Discussions are scheduled with the Neighborhoods, Sustainability and Com munity Development committee to discuss how the City will deal with new plan proposals, amendments to existing adopted plans and updates to reco gnized neighborhood plans. Once City p olicy is established regarding these issues, additional amendments to th e Comprehensive Plan may be proposed in 2001

It is unlikely that a broad neighborhood planning process like that just concluded will be convened again to address new neighborhood plans in t he next 5-10 years. Because of this, several policies in this element w ere re-written to address possible new planning efforts rather than retaining the neighborhood planning process policies.

Does not meet threshold for Comprehensive Plan amendment.

Already addressed in last year's amendment process.

58.

Encourage preparation of neighborhood plans for areas not already covere d by existing plans.

CNC

Policies in this element were amended to address the possibility of new planning requests from neighborhood groups

Does not meet threshold for Comprehensive Plan amendment.

Already addressed in last year's amendment process.

59.

Create, staff and fund an administrative authority that evaluates and en forces compliance with neighborhood planning, such as a planning board o r commission.

Joel Tufel

Does not meet threshold for Comprehensive Plan amendment.

Regulatory reform

SHORELINES ELEMENT

60.

L585a. Area Objectives for Shorelines of Statewide Significance Para 1. Simplify the definition of Puget Sound to read: "The Puget Sound area i ncludes all the of the shorelines on Puget Sound within the City limits. "

Puget Sound does in fact include Shilshole, Elliott Bay, the Harborfront , and the Duwamish waterways so there is not a good reason to exclude th em from the definition, and it is not consistent with the Shoreline Mana gement Act's definition of statewide si gnificance to exclude them.

Also same section Para 2. Definition of Elliott Bay. Amend to read "Ell iott Bay area is all shoreline areas from 24th Ave West to SW Atlantic S treet." Similarly, the Harborfront IS part of Elliott Bay and should no t be excluded form this definition. In addition, add the sentence, "The shorelines and waters of Elliott Bay a re natural in accordance with the Shoreline Management Act."

Irene Wall

Referred to scope of work for Shoreline Master Program update.

MISC

61.

Defining "Living Wage," "Family Wage" and "livable wage" as used in the Comprehensive Plan

Resolution 30273

Use of three terms exists in Land Use and Economic Development elements .

Proceed for further analysis with date for actual amendment to be determ ined through consensus with Council.

62.

Listen to Cassandra: Policy and Procedure to hear and consider analytic discussion and proposals that area novel or contrary to conventional be lief.

Joel Tufel

Does not meet threshold for Comprehensive Plan amendment.

PROPOSED AMENDMENT REFERRED TO LIST BY COUNCIL:

63.

Amend the Capital Facilities Element, Appendix B to designate the future site of the Olympic Sculpture Park as open space. Reflect this additio n of approximately six acres of open space in the description of Parks a nd Recreation Facilities on page CF-A9 and by revising Figure A-1 on page CF-A13 to show the area, bounded by B road Street, Western Avenue, Bay Street and Alaskan Way, as public open space.

Councilmember Conlin referred the technical amendment to the list during the

April 10, 2001 Neighborhoods, Sustainability and Community Development c ommittee meeting.

Proceed for further analysis with date for actual amendment to be determ ined through consensus with Council.

Attachment B to Resolution 30320 Issues For Departmental Review and Response Proposed 2001 Comprehensive Plan Amendments

Rejected because they are code issues or other implementation issues

Issue # / Proponent

/ Proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendments

Issue numbers correspond to the numbers in the SPO Threshold Analysis (larger table.)

#2, Thomas Heller: Directly allot (on a periodic and continuing basis) to communities surrounding park-and-ride lots monies (source unknown at present) representing a share of daily parking revenues that would reasonably represent the imputed value attached to a community's surrendering parcels of land and local streets and arterials to the use of transit riders. Enable communities to program these "community impact fees" in any manner it chooses to alleviate or mitigate the spillover effects such facilities have on a host community.

#6, Irene Wall: Establish parking requirements for regional parks, zoos and aquariums: It shall be the policy of the City of Seattle to provide adequate parking facilities for regional parks, zoos and aquariums to meet the needs of local and regional visitors while controlling the spillover parking in adjacent residential areas.

The code does not provide sufficient guidance as to the amount of parking required for these types of facilities which are auto-dependant and often impact nearby residential and commercial areas.

#7 Greg Hill: Recognize that the use of transit is inversely related to the parking supply at any given area. Therefore, the city shall take steps to insure that the parking supply creates a need to use transit to provide a significant portion of the travel demand, and that intense uses such as commercial office space and shopping and large assembly spaces such as multi-screen cinema complexes are discouraged from being located where they are not well-served by existing transit service. The city shall set maximum (limits) for parking which can be provided and levy taxes to discourage the construction of parking structures as single-purpose or accessory to existing uses.

Accompanying proposed code amendment:

Parking supply for commercial office space shall be limited in the downtown core no more than .8/1000, with no minimum. Parking supply in the downtown, U-District, Capitol Hill, First Hill and Northgate commercial cores shall be limited by forbidding the construction of new single-purpose garages or garages accessory to existing buildings. Restrict all-day commuter parking thorough out-right restrictions and taxing.

Parking supply out side the commercial cores shall be limited to a maximum amount of less than the typical 80% mode split. For example, if the typical demand of office occupancy is 3.5 people/1000 s.f., the average demand would be 2.8 spaces per 1000 s.f. Therefore the maximum allowed parking would be 22.25 per 1000 s.f.

#11 (in part) Irene Wall: A baseline inventory and description of visual resources, public views and vistas shall be established by a panel of citizens in conjunction with representatives from appropriate City departments. This inventory shall be periodicahlly reviewed and updated by a similarly constituted panel.

Alternative to #18, Irene Wall: Consider and respond to the concept of subarea planning for areas larger than the current City neighborhood planning areas.

#21 Thomas Heller: Consider methods by which the goals and objectives of neighborhood plans can be more fully incorporated into or integrated within the City's environmental and design review of development projects. Formalize the role and authority of neighborhood plan stewardship bodies.

#22 Thomas Heller: Better integrate neighborhood plan goals, objectives and actions into the City's environmental review and design review process.

#28 Thomas Heller: In conjunction with above, modify the City's zoning and land use code to ensure that permitted uses within Urban Centers, Hub Urban Villages and Urban Villages are fully consistent with the (clarified) role and functions of such designations.

#31 Resolution 30273: Review conditional use provisions concerning hotels in industrial zones. This issue was largely addressed by restrictions put in place with the Duwamish Industrial Center Plan. The regulations for other areas of the City should be reviewed.

#32 Bill Blair: Consider amendments to end or reduce conversion of manufacturing uses in industrial districts to mid-rise office buildings, along with the associated loss of family-wage jobs and increase in single-occupancy automobile traffic. The current zoning code may allow or encourage such conversion by allowing office uses to fit under the definition of manufacturing uses by means such as the provision of a high-ceilinged ground floor; these uses may then be allowed a greater height limit or higher Floor Area Ratio (FAR) than might otherwise be the case, resulting in displacement of traditional manufacturing uses.

#40, Joel Tufel: Key Pedestrian Streets, essential components of walkable urban neighborhoods will qualify for this concurrency requirement only if they are minimally:

1. twelve (12) feet wide with curbside parking

2. eighteen (18) feet wide when no curbside parking

public promenade easements totally apart from roads.

#41, Chris Lehman: Redesign the scope and fee structure for traffic studies.

#42, Chris Lehman: Beginning with the year 2002, traffic signal warrants and traffic signal priority criteria shall be reviewed and updated every five years to ensure that they correspond with the Comprehensive Plan, Transportation Strategic Plan, and other City policies. The update will be by City Council resolution, based on a review conducted jointly by SEATRAN, the Pedestrian Advisory Board and the Strategic Planning Office.

#43, Chris Lehman: In its relations with other localities, the state, and the federal government, the City will oppose changes in SR-520 and I-90 that would bring any net increase in motor vehicles (other than freight trucks and transit) across Lake Washington into the Seattle City limits. The City will champion measures that increase transit ridership on SR520 and I-90, but will insist that these measures be designed in such a way that they do not cause a net increase in motor vehicles (other than freight trucks and transit) entering Seattle on these freeways and do not reduce the safety and convenience of pedestrians and bicyclists.

#46, Irene Wall: Until the Comprehensive Plan housing production goals are met, any surplus City property shall be leased, traded or sold for the purpose of producing a mix of low and moderate income housing or a mixed use development which prioritizes the production of housing.

#51, Thomas Heller: Seek from the State of Washington a dedicated share of all development-generated sales tax and real estate excise tax revenues (i.e. tax revenues specifically arising from on-going private real estate investment), so as to more fully "allow growth to pay for itself", enabling the application of such growth-related revenues to help finance both the infrastructure and amenity needs that arise from the City's on-going as well as those neighborhood needs (amenities in particular) that currently are considered to be deficient (e.g. open space in urbanized areas slated for significant new development)

#52, Tomas Heller: As a complement to the amendment above, the City should identify, set aside and program the City's new sales tax (and REET) revenues attributable to growth and development, so to help finance the infrastructure needs, amenity desires and general livability-of its communities, both those arising directly as a result of current or anticipated growth, but also those related to past, unmitigated impacts of growth or aging.

#53, Chris Lehman: Drainage and wastewater utility fees will be charged (or similarly scaled payments in lieu of mandatory fees will be obtained) for runoff from roads, highways, bridges, viaducts, parking lots, and ferry docks owned by WSDOT or the City itself that flow to or are piped to Seattle sewers, lakes, streams or Puget Sound. The resulting revenue shall be used to retrofit these facilities to reduce this runoff and its impacts.

#55, Chris Lehman: In order to reduce damage to City streets, alleys, sidewalks and bridges, City contracts for solid waste disposal and recycling services shall include incentives for the contractors' trucks to weigh less than the maximum allowed by state law. In particular, City utilities contracts shall discourage contractors from invoking state exemptions that allow solid waste collection trucks to be heavier than most other vehicles. City utility contracts may prohibit a contractor outright from invoking the state exemption that allows solid waste collection trucks to be heavier than other trucks, or may institute an incentive system that provides the maximum City payment only when a minimum of vehicle trips have invoked this state exemption.

City contracting for solid waste disposal and recycling services will require contractors to have enough small and light trucks to provide full service in existing alleys and on existing bridges and neighborhood streets without requiring alternate routes (e.g. front yard pickup when an alley is available), strengthening of the roadway, or geometric changes in the roadway (e.g. larger curb radius). The City will also consider applying similar standards regarding vactor trucks, fire trucks and other trucks under City contract or ownership.

#56, CNC: Incorporate capital facilities identified in adopted neighborhood plans into Cityusings Capital Facilities Plan and Biennial Capital Budget.

#59, Joel Tufel: Create, staff and fund an administrative authority that evaluates and enforces compliance with neighborhood planning, such as a planning board or commission.

#60, Irene Wall: L585a. Area Objectives for Shorelines of Statewide Significance Para 1. Simplify the definition of Puget Sound to read: "The Puget Sound area includes all the of the shorelines on Puget Sound within the City limits."

Puget Sound does in fact include Shilshole, Elliott Bay, the Harborfront, and the Duwamish waterways so there is not a good reason to exclude them from the definition, and it is not consistent with the Shoreline Management Act's definition of statewide significance to exclude them.

Also same section Para 2. Definition of Elliott Bay. Amend to read "Elliott Bay area is all shoreline areas from 24th Ave West to SW Atlantic Street." Similarly, the Harborfront IS part of Elliott Bay and should not be excluded form this definition. In addition, add the sentence, "The shorelines and waters of Elliott Bay are natural in accordance with the Shoreline Management Act." NS&CD Committee 30320b