Regional Staff Committee · 9/21/2017 · 1011 Western Avenue, Suite 500 • Seattle, WA 98104 • 206-464-7090 • fax 206-587-4825 • psrc.org

Sign language and communication material in alternate formats can be arranged given sufficient notice by calling (206) 464-7090 or TTY Relay 711. 中文 | Chinese, 한국 | Korean, Русский | Russian, Español | Spanish, Tagalog, Tiếng việt | Vietnamese call 206-587-4819.

Regional Staff Committee September 21, 2017 • 9:30 – 11:30 am PSRC Board Room • 1011 Western Avenue, Suite 500 • Seattle, WA 98104

9:30 1. Welcome and Introductions – Chip Vincent, City of Renton, Co-Chair

9:35 2. Public Comment

9:45 3. Reports: a. Meeting Summary for July 20, 2017* b. PSRC Board Reports* c. Updates from Growth Management & Transportation Planning

9:50 4. Discussion: Transportation 2040 System Performance – Preliminary Results* Ben Bakkenta & Craig Helmann, PSRC

10:35 5. Discussion: Preparing for the VISION Update* – Paul Inghram, PSRC

10:45 6. Discussion: Regional Centers Framework Update – Technical Assistance* Liz Underwood-Bultmann, PSRC

7. Information Items: a. RSC Membership List* b. RSC Fiscal Year 2018 Calendar (July 1, 2017 to June 30, 2018)* c. September 21st Peer Networking Series – Final 50 Feet: Urban Delivery System* d. Save the Date: October 11 Regional TOD Event – Building Transit, Building Opportunity* e. Save the Date: November 8 PSRC Event – Where We’re Growing: Planning Together for a

Sustainable Region*

8. Next Meeting: October 19, 2017, 9:30 am, PSRC Board Room (meeting length TBD)

11:30 9. Adjourn

*Supporting materials attached

Meeting Call-in Option Available Upon Request – Contact Casey Moreau, [email protected]

PLEASE NOTE! Seattle Public Utilities is restoring parts of Western Avenue that were impacted by the emergency water main replacement project last year. Due to construction activities, there may be occasional minor traffic delays around PSRC. Access to the parking garage will remain open, but the garage fills up quickly. Please allow for extra time to travel to PSRC and to find parking.

mailto:[email protected]

at Work

Puget Sound Regional Council

Regional Staff Committee…………………………………………… July 20, 2017

1011 Western Avenue, Suite 500 • Seattle, WA 98104 • 206-464-7090 • fax 206-587-4825 • psrc.org

Members and Alternates Represented at the Table Rob Allen, Pierce County; Charlene Anderson, Kent; Chris Arkills, King County Council; Kim Becklund, King County Metro; *Russ Blount, Fife; Nicholas Bond, Port Orchard via phone; Dan Cardwell, Pierce County; Tom Hauger, Seattle; Shane Hope, Edmonds; Christine Jensen, King County Council; Mike Kattermann, Bellevue; Tracy Krawczyk, Seattle; Ikuno Masterson, Snohomish County; Doug McCormick, Snohomish County Public Works; Keri Moore, Snohomish Health District via phone; Alex O'Reilly, Bellevue; *Shawn Phelps, Pierce County via phone; Charles Prestrud, WSDOT; Andrea Spencer, Bremerton; David Swindale, University Place; *Andrea Tull, Sound Transit; Chip Vincent, Renton; *Jude Willcher, Seattle DOT; Karen Wolf, King County Executive Office; Lindsay Wolpa, Port of Seattle; *PSRC committee representative

Other Guests and Alternates (for all or part of the meeting): Patricia Akiyama, MBA; Hayley Bonsteel, Kent; Danielle Butsick, Kent; Sophie Glass, Kitsap Regional Coordinating Council; Hester Serebrin, Transportation Choices Coalition; Amy Shumann, PHSKC; Tiffany Speir-via remote, Alex Tsimerman PSRC Staff: Laura Benjamin, Charlie Howard, Michael Hubner, Paul Inghram, Mary Pat Lawlor, Rebeccah Maskin, Robin Mayhew, Kristen Mitchell, Casey Moreau, Pavithra Parthasarathi, Jeff Storrar, Liz Underwood-Bultmann ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Welcome and Introductions, Public Comment Chip Vincent, Co-Chair called the meeting to order at 9:33 am. There were around the room introductions. Mr. Alex Tsimerman addressed the committee. ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Reports Co-Chair Vincent reviewed topics covered at the Regional Staff Committee (RSC) June meeting. He informed the committee that there was a summary of PSRC policy board activities in the agenda packet. There were no updates from Growth Management and Transportation Planning since the committee would be briefed during presentations. ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Transportation 2040 Update

Robin Mayhew and Pavithra Parthasarathi, PSRC, briefed the committee on the Transportation 2040 Update. Ms. Mayhew discussed what happened at the July Transportation Policy Board (TPB) meeting. The TPB provided direction to PSRC staff to proceed with modeling. Ms. Mayhew reviewed the schedule for the fall. In September staff will come back with the system analysis report that will talk about how the plan is performing based on the assumptions. In October staff will discuss the scope of work. In November staff will discuss the plan structure, assumptions, public engagement and showcasing plan investments. The executive summary will be reviewed to discuss how PSRC is messaging this plan update. In December, the TPB is scheduled to take action to release the draft plan for public comment.

At the July TPB meeting the board received technical presentations on the state facilities action plan and next steps. PSRC anticipates more information on the next steps in the fall.

Pavithra Parthasarathi informed the committee that the TPB was briefed on the financial strategy at its last meeting and the board approved an action for staff to proceed with modeling. Ms. Parthasarathi provided a high-level overview of the TPB presentation on the financial strategy. Ms. Parthasarathi reviewed estimated expenditures and revenue gaps. Ms. Parthasarathi reviewed the proposed policy direction, to reaffirm the existing strategy of maintaining and increasing currently available revenue sources and transition to user-based fees in the long run. The focus was on better addressing local (cities, counties & local transit) needs since they make up the majority of the estimated revenue gap. Road user charges is the proposed approach to move to user fees. The

Regional Staff Committee-September 21, 2017 Packet Pg. 2Item 3a

TPB was comfortable with this approach. The Finance Working Group also wanted to make sure that revenue sources help address regional outcomes. Equity for underrepresented groups was also an important consideration.

Ms. Parthasarathi discussed key changes in current revenue sources and new revenue sources. She then reviewed the preliminary plan estimates. Preliminary numbers reveal revenues are more than expenditures but these estimates will be revised once the modeling & analysis is completed. Staff will proceed with modeling and detailed analysis and return to RSC in the fall with further information on the T2040 plan update.

For more information, contact Robin Mayhew, PSRC (206) 464-7537, [email protected]; Pavithra Parthasarathi, PSRC (206) 971-3277, [email protected]._______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Regional Centers Framework Update – Technical Assistance Liz Underwood-Bultmann, PSRC, briefed the committee on the July Growth Management Policy Board (GMPB) meeting. Staff have completed additional outreach over the summer, and PSRC has continued to receive feedback on the project from throughout the region.

GMPB will be reviewing and editing a draft document in September and October, with the intent to release it for comment in October and November. The board is scheduled to recommend the proposal to the Executive Board in late November.

A committee member asked if there would be opportunity for the committee to review the proposal prior to the GMPB meeting. Staff responded that it was not part of the schedule, as there is no meeting in August, but the committee can discuss the document at their September meeting. Mr. Paul Inghram responded that the draft document is a compellation of feedback from the board on the different elements, and it would be a continuation of the board’s work and discussion. Committee members commented that the board might not be ready to complete a draft proposal in October. Mr. Inghram stated that there is a need to make progress on the centers work this fall and transition to other broader discussions about the Regional Growth Strategy and the VISION update.

Ms. Underwood-Bultmann reviewed the July GMPB discussion. The board generally agreed on the value of recognizing military in regional planning, and the discussion continues to focus on the best approach and the funding implications. Board members were interested in considering performance measures, planning and accountability measures for funding priority. Staff will be trying to identify what some of those could be to advance the conversation. The board also discussed regional centers and expectations for number of jobs, growth, and retention of industrial jobs. More direction is needed from the board, but additional assistance from Regional Staff Committee may be requested.

Ms. Underwood-Bultmann discussed revised terminology for the Centers project. She reviewed the proposed language options for types of regional growth centers and manufacturing/industrial centers. Ms. Underwood-Bultmann also reviewed the contents of the draft social equity proposal in the RSC agenda packet. Committee members stated that the draft did a good job summarizing the discussion at past meetings. The equity proposal will be discussed at the September GMPB meeting.

For more information, contact Liz Underwood-Bultmann, PSRC (206) 464-6174, [email protected]; Paul Inghram, PSRC (206) 464-7549, [email protected]. ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Growth Trends Craig Helmann informed the committee that the presentation would focus on population growth. The information is based on the Office of Financial Management (OFM) release of the latest population estimates, with some information on wage and salaries.

Mr. Helmann provided a snapshot of growth figures in the Central Puget Sound region. He discussed annual population change in the region going back to 2010. The last two years have seen 80,000 people added to the region. A large share of that growth happened in King County. Mr. Helmann shared the long-term trends in population, looking back from 2000-2017. In the past, after a large spike in population over 80,000, the population goes down a bit and then starts to decline after that. The 80,000 spike may be a two-year trend, or it may continue to grow. The last time we saw this level of growth was in the 1990s.

Mr. Helmann discussed natural population change versus net migration, or people moving to the region. Since 2010 over half of that growth is from people moving to the region. The region continues to grow as we continue to add jobs.






We are one of the fastest growing regions in terms of employment in the country. Mr. Helmann shared data on jobs added to the region since 2010. Many of the jobs are coming from King County.

Mr. Helmann shared a slide on the nation’s fastest growing regions. Since 2010, Seattle has added over ten percent to our population growth. He then compared the region’s fastest growing cities, looking at total population change and percent change. The city of Seattle is by far growing faster than anywhere else in the region. Many of the other fastest growing cities are also regional growth centers.

Mr. Helmann discussed where the growth is going, looking at permits. Regionally, 96% of permitted housing units since 2015 occurred in the urban area. Growth is going to urban areas.

A committee member asked if there would be data, or visual information on how the region is growing compared to what was planned in VISION. Committee members asked where the growth was coming from. Mr. Helmann responded that most of the growth is coming from within Washington State and then California. Another question was about the age demographics of the growth. Mr. Helmann responded that different parts of the region show different changes in age. Kitsap County is aging, where King County is getting younger.

For more information, contact Paul Inghram, PSRC (206) 464-7549, [email protected], Craig Helmann, PSRC (206) 389-2889, [email protected]. ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Information Co-Chair Vincent announced the Peer Networking event on Video Analytics Towards Vision Zero at 12:00 pm in the Board Room. ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Next meeting: Thursday, September 21, 2017, 9:30 – 11:30 am




INFORMATION ITEM September 21, 2017 TO: Regional Staff Committee FROM: PSRC Staff SUBJECT: PSRC Board Reports The Executive Board met July 21, 2017, 10:00 – 11:30 am. The “At Work Summary” of the meeting is available on the EB meeting materials page. For information on the Executive Board, contact Josh Brown, Executive Director, [email protected], 206-464-7515. The Economic Development Board September 6, 2017, 1:00 – 3:00 pm. The “At Work Summary” of the meeting will be available on the EDB meeting materials page. For information on the EDB, contact Jason Thibedeau, Principal Economic Development Manager, [email protected], 206-389-1879. The Growth Management Policy Board met September 7, 2017, 10:00 am – 12:00 pm. The “At Work Summary” of the meeting is available on the GMPB meeting materials page. For information on the GMPB, contact Paul Inghram, Program Manager, [email protected], 206-464-7549. The Transportation Policy Board met September 14, 9:30 am – 11:30 am. The “At Work Summary” of the meeting will be available on the TPB meeting materials page. For information on the TPB, contact Kelly McGourty, Senior Program Manager, [email protected], 206-971-3601.

Regional Staff Committee-September 21, 2017 Packet Pg. 5Item 3b

https://www.psrc.org/eb-meetings


https://www.psrc.org/edb-meetings


https://www.psrc.org/gmpb-meetings


https://www.psrc.org/tpb-meetings


MEMORANDUM September 21, 2017 TO: Regional Staff Committee FROM: Ben Bakkenta, Senior Program Manager and Craig Helmann, Senior Program Manager SUBJECT: Transportation 2040 System Performance -- Preliminary Results In Brief: At the July Transportation Policy Board (TPB) meeting, the board reviewed draft recommendations on the Transportation 2040 financial strategy and directed staff to proceed with identified investments and financial assumptions for modeling and analysis. At the September 14 TPB meeting, PSRC staff presented initial modeling and analysis results highlighting the performance of the draft Transportation 2040 plan. Request of the Committee: PSRC staff will provide the Regional Staff Committee (RSC) with an overview of the information recently presented and discussed at the TPB. Background Information: Transportation 2040 was adopted in May 2010, and last updated in June 2014. Federal and state mandates require the plan be updated every four years. The 2018 Transportation 2040 update is underway to meet state and federal mandates and to reflect changes that have occurred in the region since 2014. The update is being done within the framework of the current adopted plan and existing Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS). Transportation 2040 continues to support the adopted VISION 2040 regional growth strategy and economic objectives through an integrated mobility, environmental, and financial strategy. The draft plan provides investments through 2040 to meet the above goals through more robust assumptions on maintenance, preservation and operational needs; through strategic multimodal capacity on state highways and local roadways; through expanded nonmotorized networks; and through a regional integrated transit network. To fund these investments, the Finance Working Group prepared a draft financial strategy that was presented to the Board in July 2017. This strategy includes a transition to user fees in the form of road usage charges, rather than a regional system of limited access highway system tolls which was assumed in the adopted Transportation 2040 plan. After review of the draft financial strategy, the Board authorized PSRC staff to proceed with the identified investments and financial assumptions for modeling and plan analysis. Based on direction from the TPB, staff conducted the technical analyses to assess how the future transportation system is likely to perform, given the investments and financial assumptions. The draft plan will be described in terms of the regional outcomes, and preliminary results of system performance will be presented at the September RSC meeting. The plan

Regional Staff Committee-September 21, 2017 Packet Pg. 6Item 4

continues to make progress towards our regional priorities of supporting centers, the environment, and mobility and accessibility for all users. As a reminder, the 11 Regional Outcomes as affirmed by the TPB include:

• Maintain air quality and reduce climate change emissions • Support centers • Improve freight mobility • Improve health by providing physical activity options • Improve access to jobs • Maintain and preserve the system • Provide multimodal choices • Preserve Puget Sound land and water • Provide a safe and secure transportation system • Improve social equity and access to opportunity • Deliver efficient and reliable travel for people and goods

Committee Next Steps: PSRC staff will provide briefings on additional T2040 topics as needed. Lead Staff: Ben Bakkenta, Senior Program Manager, 206-971-3286, [email protected] and Craig Helmann, Senior Program Manager, 206-389-2889, [email protected].




MEMORANDUM September 21, 2017 TO: Regional Staff Committee FROM: Paul Inghram, Senior Program Manager SUBJECT: Preparing for the VISION Update In Brief: The Puget Sound Regional Council is starting early work preparing for the update of VISION 2040. The update will extend the regional growth strategy to 2050, incorporate changes since the adoption of VISION 2040 in 2008, and set the groundwork for the next cycle of local plan updates. The project will formally launch in spring 2018 with a public scoping period. The project is expected to be completed with adoption by the region’s General Assembly in the spring of 2020. Request of the Committee: The Regional Staff Committee (RSC) will be briefed on early work for the update of VISION 2040. This fall, the RSC will be asked to help evaluate VISION 2040 and provide input on the draft scope of work and work program for the update. Background Information: Since it was adopted in 2008, VISION 2040 has helped the region coordinate planning and prepare communities for growth. When cities and counties next update their plans, they will begin to look beyond 2040. Extending VISION another decade will provide an umbrella for the next round of local growth targets and comprehensive plan updates. Early work to prepare for the update includes:

2050 Growth Projections – PSRC has contracted with ECONorthwest to prepare a regional macroeconomic forecast of population, households and employment through the year 2050. These projections provide the basis for determining how much additional growth the region could expect, and support extending the VISION planning horizon and regional growth strategy from 2040 to 2050. VISION 2040 Review – The Growth Management Policy Board will be asked to review the state of VISION 2040, incorporating feedback from local jurisdictions provided in the Taking Stock 2016 report. Early Outreach – Staff will continue to be part of conversations with cities and counties throughout the region about growth and the implementation of VISION. Some countywide groups are beginning discussions about the growth strategy and how to prepare for the update.


Public Survey – Building on results of past surveys, staff will develop a public opinion survey to assess regional preferences related to growth and regional planning that may help identify priority areas for the update. Draft Scope – To support development of a formal scope and the requirements of the State Environmental Policy Act, the Growth Management Policy Board will be asked to begin drafting an initial project scope later this fall.

Committee’s Next Steps: No action is required from the committee at this meeting. Subsequent Next Steps: The RSC will be asked to provide input on the draft scope at meetings this fall. Following a formal scoping period in early 2018, the Growth Management Policy Board will be asked to recommend a scope of work to the Executive Board for approval. The update will be a major work item for the Growth Management Policy Board and the Regional Staff Committee in 2018 and 2019. Lead Staff: Paul Inghram, Senior Program Manager, 206-464-7549, [email protected] and Michael Hubner, Principal Planner, 206-971-3289, [email protected].




MEMORANDUM September 21, 2017

TO: Regional Staff Committee

FROM: Liz Underwood-Bultmann, Senior Planner

SUBJECT: Regional Centers Framework Update – Technical Assistance In Brief At the September meeting, the Regional Staff Committee will hear an overview of the preliminary framework outline for the Regional Centers Framework Update. Request of the Committee: PSRC staff will provide a project update, and the committee will discuss the preliminary framework outline and consistency with VISION 2040. Background Information: In July, the Growth Management Policy Board directed PSRC staff to prepare a preliminary proposal that could be used for further board discussion. Attachment A provides a preliminary framework outline that represents a hybrid that builds off the existing adopted centers framework, recommendations from the Stakeholder Working Group report, and direction and comments provided by the board to date. The preliminary framework outline includes:

• A regional growth center alternative that builds from the existing standard (density of 18/45 au/acre) and a new center type based on Alternative A that has higher growth expectations for larger centers, including specific criteria for each type

• A manufacturing/industrial center alternative that includes both the existing employment standard (10,000 existing jobs) and a designation option based on alternative B2 for designating industrial land with potential for growth, including specific designation criteria

• Basic guidelines for designating countywide centers for use by the countywide forums • Designation of the four major military installations in VISION 2040 (Option D – Pierce

County proposal) and more options on criteria and accountability related to funding eligibility

It is expected that the board will continue to refine the proposal in October before releasing a version for comment and making a recommendation to the Executive Board. Attachment B provides an overview of some of the key questions that were raised in July by the Growth Management Policy Board. This overview attachment begins to look at the implications of the different components of the preliminary framework outline and may be helpful in addressing how the framework could provide a system of centers throughout the region. The overview may also be useful for seeing how center places would continue to be recognized in the framework.


The Growth Management Policy Board discussed the outline at their September meeting and directed staff to develop full draft proposal for review at October 2017 meeting. Committee’s Next Steps: The committee will discuss the Centers Framework Update at upcoming meetings, with the goal of providing feedback on specific components to the Growth Management Policy Board. Subsequent Next Steps: The Growth Management Policy Board will review the regional centers framework update over the course of the next several months, with the goal of providing a recommendation to the Executive Board by the end of 2017. Lead Staff: Liz Underwood-Bultmann, Senior Planner, 206-464-6174, [email protected]




Preliminary Framework Outline Attachment A Version 1.0 - August 31, 2017

This outline represents a hybrid that builds off the existing adopted centers framework,

recommendations from the Stakeholder Working Group report, and direction and comments provided

by the Growth Management Policy Board to date. The outline is intended to be a tool to help develop an

updated framework and is not a formal proposal. All content of the outline is subject to change based on

direction from the Growth Management Policy Board.

Designation Procedures As specified in Stakeholder Working Group Report, the framework would provide updated designation

procedures that:

o Factor in distribution, location and overall number of centers during the designation process

(consistent with several board comments)

o Establish a review window for new center applications every five years, rather than an always

open window

o Review and update, as necessary, employment and activity thresholds over time to synch with

overall regional growth

Regional Growth Centers

Hybrid Alternative: Existing + Alternative A

RGC - Urban Growth Center

Based on existing RGC density standard

RGC - Metro Growth Center

Higher planning expectation for larger centers

• Meet eligibility requirements listed below

• Existing activity: 18 au/acre minimum*

• Planned activity: 45 au/acre minimum +

must be planning for a significant share of

growth

• Existing or planned transit service (see

SWG report for Alternative A)

• Market potential

• Regional role


• Existing activity: 30 au/acre minimum*

• Planned activity: 85 au/acre minimum +

must be planning for a significant share of

growth

• Existing or planned transit service (see

SWG report for Alternative A)

• Market potential

• Regional role

Under this alternative, regional growth centers could be classified as one of two types. Centers

consistent with current activity minimums would be renamed Urban Growth Centers. Higher activity and

planning expectations for larger centers would define a new type to be named Metro Growth Center.

Creating a type to recognize the larger centers would facilitate the VISION update process and defining

different expectations for these places under the Regional Growth Strategy. Performance and transit

expectations could also be tailored to each type. Both types would remain eligible under the current

regional funding policy. This draft does not propose creating funding priority distinction between the two

types of regional growth centers.

Regional Staff Committee-September 21, 2017 Item 6-Attachment A Packet Pg. 12

Preliminary Draft

Version 1.0 – August 31, 2017

This draft would put additional emphasis on the regional role of centers, rather than rely solely on a

density threshold, and would also establish transit measures and criteria for market potential for both

types of regional centers.

*Existing centers that do not meet the existing activity unit density minimum of 18 au/acre could be

redesignated through two possible paths:

▪ Allow a ‘grace period’ for existing centers to have time to fully meet the criteria. The grace period

might align with a first review period, potentially five years after adoption of VISION (~2025).

▪ Incorporate elements from Alternative B to allow existing centers to be exempt from existing

density requirements if the center meets other optional criteria, such as planning actions or

performance measures (might include market studies, demonstrated recent growth, planned

development, local infrastructure investments, or adoption of a Planned Action EIS).

▪ Following the review period (5 years or time set by the board), centers that do not meet the

defined performance measures or the activity density standard may be redesignated as

countywide centers.

The draft would amend the regional growth center eligibility criteria for both types as specified in

Stakeholder Working Group report:

o Local commitment. Evidence center is a local priority and sponsor city/county has sustained

commitment over time to local investments in creating a walkable, livable center.

o Planning. Completion of a center plan (subarea plan, plan element or functional equivalent that

provides detailed planning or analysis) that meets regional guidance in advance of designation.

Environmental review that demonstrates center area is appropriate for dense development.

o Incorporate additional equity-related planning topics from Equity Proposal, such as

affordable housing targets, access to opportunity, and transit-dependent populations.

o Jurisdiction and Location. Regional growth centers should be located within a city, with few

exceptions. LINK light rail stations in unincorporated urban areas may be eligible for regional

center designation, provided they are affiliated for annexation or planned for incorporation.

o Existing Conditions. Existing infrastructure and utilities sufficient to support new center growth, a

mix of both existing housing and employment, justification of size and shape (recommend

centers to be nodal with a generally round or square shape), and pedestrian infrastructure,

amenities, and a street pattern that supports walkability.

Manufacturing/Industrial Centers

B2 Amended

Manufacturing/Industrial Centers

Designated based on existing MIC employment

standards

OR - Designated based on Alternative B2 with

focus on preserving regionally important

industrial lands for future job growth


• Existing jobs: 10,000 minimum

• Planned jobs: 20,000 minimum

• Minimum 50% industrial employment


• Minimum size of 2,000 acres

• Existing jobs: 4,000 minimum*


https://www.psrc.org/sites/default/files/centers-swg-final-report.pdf

Preliminary Draft


• Planned jobs: 10,000 minimum

• Access to transit or defined TDM strategies in place

• At least 75% of land area zoned for core industrial uses

• Industrial retention strategies in place

• Regional role

Under Alternative B2, centers could continue to be designated based on the current 10,000

existing/20,000 planned jobs criteria. An additional designation path for MICs would be created that

would emphasize large areas of regionally important industrial lands that are planning for future job

growth. This option has been modified to include minimum existing and planned jobs criteria based on

some of the comments at the July meeting.

*Existing MICs that do not meet the minimum jobs criterion above could be redesignated through two

possible paths:

▪ Allow ‘grace period’ for existing centers to have time to fully meet criteria. The grace period

might align with a first review period, potentially five years after adoption of VISION (~2025).

▪ Allow existing centers to be exempt from the existing jobs minimum if the center meets other

optional criteria, such as planning actions or performance measures (might include market

studies, demonstrated recent growth, planned development, local infrastructure investments, or

adoption of a Planned Action EIS).

▪ Following the review period (5 years or time set by the board), centers that do not meet the

defined performance measures or the activity density standard may be redesignated as

countywide centers.

The draft would amend eligibility criteria for MICs as specified in Stakeholder Working Group report:

o Local commitment. Evidence center is a local priority had city/county has sustained commitment

over time to local investments in infrastructure, transportation. Demonstrated commitment to

protecting and preserving industrial uses, incentives to encourage industrial uses in the center,

and established partnerships with relevant parties to ensure success of manufacturing/industrial

center.

o Planning. Completion of a center plan (subarea plan, plan element or functional equivalent) that

meets regional guidance in advance of designation. Environmental review that the area is

appropriate for development.

o Location. Manufacturing/industrial centers should be located within a city with few exceptions

o Existing Conditions. Adequate infrastructure and utilities to support growth, access to relevant

transportation infrastructure, documentation of economic impact, and justification of size and

shape of manufacturing/industrial center

Countywide Centers

Countywide Growth Center

As specified in SWG report

Countywide Industrial Center

As specified in SWG report*

• Identified in local comprehensive plan • Identified in local comprehensive plan


Preliminary Draft


• Evidence that center is priority for local

investment

• Compact, walkable, and mixed-use

• Existing activity: 10 au/acre minimum

• Zoning that support a mix of uses,

including residential

• Capacity for additional growth

• Support for multimodal transportation,

including transit

• Serves important role for jobs, housing,

shopping, and recreation

• Evidence that center is priority for local

investment

• Minimum existing jobs and/or acres of

industrial land*

• Defined TDM strategies in place

• At least 75% of land area zoned for core

industrial uses

• Industrial retention strategies in place

• Capacity for additional growth

• Important county role and concentration

of industrial land or jobs with evidence of

long-term demand

The regional centers framework would provide guidance to countywide planning forums to provide

greater consistency among counties when planning for countywide centers. Counties would adopt

specific countywide center policies and criteria as part of the countywide planning policies and other

regional planning strategies that may include these criteria as well as other county-specific elements.

*The SWG report recommend a threshold for countywide MICs of at least 7,000 existing jobs or 2,000

acres of land. Considering the proposal for regional MICs and the circumstances of many local industrial

areas, the board may want to consider alternative guidance for countywide MICs, such as at least 1,000

jobs and/or greater than 500 acres.

Local Centers Other centers range from neighborhood centers to active crossroads in communities of all sizes. These

places also play an important role in the region. They help define our community character, provide local

gathering places, are community hubs, and are often appropriate places for additional growth and focal

points for services.

The regional centers framework recognizes the importance of these places, but does not envision a

regional or county designation for all types of smaller centers. Cities and counties may wish to identify

and support these local centers in individual ways.

Military Installations

Option D (Pierce County proposal) + Performance Criteria

o Identify Major Military Installations in the update to VISION 2040. Major installations would be

defined as installations with more than 5,000 enlisted and service personnel. As of 2017, four

installations met the minimum size criteria: Joint Base Lewis-McChord in Pierce County, Naval

Base Kitsap–Bangor and Naval Base Kitsap–Bremerton in Kitsap County, and Naval Station

Everett in Snohomish County.

o Smaller military installations will continue to be eligible to be recognized as a type of countywide

center and be included in the countywide funding competitions. The minimum size criteria for

countywide center designation will be as specified by RCW 36.70a.530 and identify “federal


Preliminary Draft


military installation[s], other than a reserve center, that employs one hundred or more full-time

personnel.”

o Recommend that the future PSRC regional funding policy update include eligibility for

jurisdictions that include or are adjacent to Major Military Installations - the same eligibility level

as regional centers. The update to the policy would allow for support of projects located outside

military bases when sponsored by a local jurisdiction. Per federal statutes, military installations

will be able to partner with eligible applicants, but not be the sole applicant.

▪ To qualify for the regional funding competition, jurisdictions would need to meet the

eligibility and performance criteria listed below.

Performance Criteria

• Military installation maintains a minimum of 5,000 jobs

• Installation and supporting projects are identified in the local comprehensive plan.

o Projects are focused on mitigating base activity impacts on surrounding communities

through transit, multimodal options, or TDM.

• There is documented coordination between the military installation, countywide planning forum,

and the sponsoring jurisdiction regarding planned growth, regional impacts, and implementation

of multimodal transportation options

• There is documented support for multimodal commute planning and established mode split

goals for the installation

• A Joint Land Use Study or similar coordinated planning effort has been completed

Smaller military facilities that meet minimum employment activity currently participate in countywide

funding process on equal standing with countywide centers and qualify projects that connect to or

support them in the countywide transportation funding competitions, consistent with the 2016 Policy

Framework for Federal Funds. No change is recommended.

Performance Measures & Monitoring • As specified in Stakeholder Working Group Report:

o Through VISION, establish performance goals for centers as a whole

o Conduct ongoing monitoring of performance measures for individual centers

▪ Provide monitoring report every five years after adoption of the VISION update

▪ Review performance and consider possible changes over time and if

jurisdictions are not taking steps to plan or support center goals

• Incorporate content from Equity Proposal:

o Additional equity-related performance measures, such as affordable housing or access

to opportunity

Implementation Steps Identity implementation steps as specified in Stakeholder Working Group report:

o Identify areas for VISION update, including designation of centers

o Update procedures and planning expectations

o Request updates to countywide planning policies in next planning cycle

o Complete additional analysis, research, and guidance

• Incorporate content from Equity Proposal:


https://www.psrc.org/sites/default/files/2016policyframeworkfull.pdf

https://www.psrc.org/sites/default/files/2016policyframeworkfull.pdf

Preliminary Draft


o Additional PSRC research and assessment around equity impact review tools,

community engagement, and displacement.


Preliminary Framework Outline Overview Attachment B

The preliminary framework outline consolidates recommendations from the Stakeholder Working Group report and direction and comments provided by the Growth Management Policy Board to date. This overview helps identify why features are included in the preliminary framework outline and what some of the initial implications would be of the options discussed.

Planning Expectations for Centers There was widespread interest among the Stakeholder Working Group and Regional Staff Committee of setting clearer planning expectations for those places that receive or maintain a regional center designation and are eligible for regional funding competitions. Over time, board members have expressed concern that some centers are not seeing the anticipated development and some centers lacked local investment and planning to support growth.

For manufacturing/industrial centers, there has been increased attention on the need to retain industrial land and prevent incompatible land uses. The Background Paper noted that incompatible uses in manufacturing/industrial centers are a long-standing challenge to viability of those centers.

The expectations for planning and local commitment listed as part of the center eligibility criteria in the preliminary framework outline recognize these long-standing challenges for regional centers.

Implications: To become or retain center designation, cities and counties will need to complete a subarea plan, or equivalent, and demonstrate a local commitment to the center’s success. Subarea plans have been adopted or are in development for all regional centers, although some subarea plans will need to be updated to meet the new requirements.

Regional Growth Centers The Stakeholder Working Group’s alternatives sought to illustrate options for having clear, numeric criteria or having a more flexible, menu-based approached. At the July meeting, board members noted that not all centers are the same and that context for each center is different. Growth expectations may vary depending on the size, location and other factors. However, the board seemed to express a general support for clear criteria that builds off of the current framework. During the centers process, we have also heard that the criteria should be about more than size, but should be about role, functions, attributes and investments.

The Stakeholder Working Group and the board also discussed how some large centers have already outgrown the planning goals required by regional center designation and indicated that it would make sense to have planning expectations that are appropriate for their larger size.

Recognizing these multiple factors, including interest from the board in clear, predictable standards, recognition of different types of regionally important centers, considering factors beyond minimum density, and interest in setting planning expectations at an appropriate higher level for very large centers, the preliminary framework outline includes:

• Core aspects of the currently adopted regional growth center criteria, with thestandard of 18/45 au/acre – named Urban Growth Centers

• Additional density and growth expectation for larger center, with the standard of30/85 au/acre – named Metro Growth Centers

• Added clarity regarding role, function

Regional Staff Committee-September 21, 2017 Packet Pg. 18Item 6-Attachment B

• Added evidence of future market potential to support planning target• Updated transit definition and size criteria

o Transit definition considers both transit mode and quality of service, scaled forurban growth centers and metro growth centers

• Options for redesignating existing centers that don’t yet meet the criteria (see below)

Implications: • Maintains a predictable path for designation/redesignation of regional growth centers• Ensures that the larger regional growth centers set appropriate planning goals to

accommodate a significant share of growth• Would allow some criteria and expectations to be tailored to the different size centers• Facilitates planning for different growth expectations in the update of the Regional

Growth Strategy• Will reinforce alignment of transit planning and investment with local center plans• Both urban and metro growth center sizes would be recognized as regional growth

centers for eligibility under the current funding policy

Manufacturing/Industrial Centers Over the last several years there has been increased attention to the limited regional supply of industrial land and the need for industrial land preservation. The Stakeholder Working Group developed two similar alternatives (B1 and B2) that create a new manufacturing/industrial center type based on identification of regionally important industrial lands. Alternative B2 received support from several board members. While B2, as drafted, uses a threshold of 2,000 acres of industrial land as primary threshold, some expressed interest in ensuring that communities with these centers are planning for and supporting them with a similar level of effort as other regional growth centers. Others expressed that, while these areas may have fewer jobs today, there should be some minimum jobs threshold (although lower than the current standard) and that they should be planning for job growth.

The preliminary framework outline includes the recommendations from B2 and adds employment expectations.

• Maintains the option of designation by meeting the currently adopted jobs threshold(10,000 existing/20,000 planned)o Incorporates minimum percent industrial employment

• Incorporates the B2 option of designation by meeting the criteria of at least 2,000acreso Adds employment minimum (4,000 jobs) and target (10,000 jobs)

• Emphasizes industrial land preservation for both options• Options for redesignating existing centers that don’t yet meet the criteria (see below)

Implications: • Most current MICs would continue to be designated under one of the designation options• Regardless of designation path, areas would be designated as a single center type:

manufacturing/industrial centers and be recognized the same in the funding competitions• The industrial area designation option would make regional designation more likely for

some new MICs, including locations like Arlington-Marysville and South Tacoma• Puget Sound Industrial Center – Bremerton would not meet the employment minimum (if

established at 4,000 jobs), but could retain MIC designation through the redesignationoptions discussed below


Redesignation of Existing Centers The Stakeholder Working Group had significant discussions about whether and how existing centers should meet the criteria for regional centers (whether criteria are updated or not). An impetus for the centers framework update was recognition that new centers were required to meet criteria stricter that the standards yet achieved by some current centers. Some asked why shouldn’t existing centers also have to meet the criteria? However, board members noted that communities with existing centers have been planning and working towards achieving growth expectations and that it may be appropriate to ‘grandfather’ existing centers provided that the jurisdictions are continuing to make investments and that the center ultimately catches up with the criteria.

The preliminary framework outline includes two potential paths for redesignating centers that are currently below the criteria:

• Allow a ‘grace period’ for existing centers to have time to fully meet the criteria. Thegrace period might align with a first review period, potentially five years after adoption ofVISION (~2025).

• Allow existing centers to be exempt from minimum density and/or employmentrequirements if the center meets other planning criteria, such as planning actions orperformance measures (might include market studies, demonstrated recent growth,planned development, local infrastructure investments, or adoption of a Planned ActionEIS).

• Following the review period (5 years or time set by the board), centers that do not meetthe defined performance measures or the activity density standard may be redesignatedas countywide centers, where they would retain priority status for countywide funds.

Implications: • Providing paths for redesignation would allow existing centers to maintain regional

center designation without lowering the centers criteria to a level that would open thedoor to numerous additional designations

• Provides clarity on when to review centers performance

Military Installations In recent meetings, the board expressed interest in an option that would recognize the regional importance of military facilities and encourage planning and coordination around their impacts. JBLM and the Navy are the largest employers in two of the counties and have a significant role in the region’s economy. The board noted that installations are starting to act more like cities and are starting to be more involved in regional planning. JBLM and the Navy often participate in local and countywide planning discussions and are developing partnerships with local communities.

Some board members expressed concern with what it would mean to designate military installations and asked about the type of projects that might be supported. There was recognition that PSRC funding could not be used on-base, but would need to support projects sponsored by a local jurisdiction.

Several board members expressed support for Option D, put forward by Pierce County, to create a regional geography in VISION 2040 for major military installations. Others stated interest in some form of performance standards that would ensure accountability that funding would go to projects that have a regional benefit and would address impacts to the surrounding communities. Some indicated that support for projects that offset transportation impacts, such as transit and TDM would be most appropriate.


To respond to the board’s comments, the preliminary framework outline includes the regional designation of Major Military Installations in VISION 2040 as proposed in Option D, as well as a draft set of performance criteria related to how projects that connect to or access Major Military Facilities could be supported.

• Regional project eligibility would depend on city or county sponsorship and meetingplanning criteria and accountability measures

• Smaller military installations would continue to be recognized at the countywide level

Implications: • Recognition of major military installations in VISION 2040 would provide a more

complete picture of the regional distribution of housing and jobs, and help VISION betteraddress related impacts

• Inclusion of major military installations would add three center-like locations that wouldqualify projects for funding eligibility – JBLM, Naval Base Kitsap – Bangor, Naval StationEverett. (The City of Bremerton is proposing a boundary change to its regional growthcenter to incorporate Naval Base Kitsap – Bremerton Shipyard).

• Requiring local planning and coordination would help support planning coordinationbetween military facilities and local plans

Social Equity The Puget Sound Regional Council has put an emphasis on supporting social equity and access to opportunity. VISION’s centers strategy is, in part, a strategy that can work to make housing, services and transportation choices more accessible to more people. However, without proper planning and strategies in place, centers development can also result in increased competition for scarce land and economic and cultural displacement.

The Stakeholder Working Group transmitted a supplement on equity and access to opportunity along with its final report. The equity supplement addresses affordable housing and displacement, transit-dependent populations, access to employment opportunities, and equitable community engagement, and presents possible ways to address these issues through local planning or regional guidance or analysis. As requested by the Growth Management Policy Board, the Regional Staff Committee discussed social equity and ways to refine strategies on social equity. The preliminary framework outline would include the social equity proposal at the direction of the board.

- See Social Equity Proposal attachment

Implications: • The social equity proposal would provide guidance to ensure that the planning work for

centers considers outcomes that advance social equity


KING COUNTYPeter Heffernan, King County DOT 206-477-3814 [email protected]. Chris Arkills, King County 206-263-9648 [email protected] Jensen, King County 206-477-5702 [email protected]. Erin Auzins, King County 206-477-0687 [email protected] Wolf, King County 206-263-9649 [email protected]. Ivan Miller, King County 206-263-8297 [email protected]

SeattleTom Hauger, Seattle 206-684-8380 [email protected]. Kristian Kofoed, Seattle 206-233-7191 [email protected] Krawczyk, Seattle 206-733-9329 [email protected]. Jude Willcher, Seattle 206-684-4059 [email protected]

Metropolitan Center – BellevueMike Kattermann, Bellevue 425-452-2042 [email protected]. Kate March, Bellevue 425-452-2055 [email protected]

Other Cities & Towns in King CountyCharlene Anderson, Kent 253-856-5431 [email protected] Shields, Kirkland 425-587-3226 [email protected] Vincent, Renton, RSC Co-Chair 425-430-6588 [email protected]

KITSAP COUNTYEric Baker, Kitsap County 360-337-4495 [email protected]. Louisa Garbo, Kitsap County 360-337-5683 [email protected]

Metropolitan Center – Bremerton Andrea Spencer, Bremerton, RSC Co-Chair 360-473-5283 [email protected]. Allison Satter, Bremerton 360-473-5845 [email protected]

Other Cities & Towns in Kitsap County Nick Bond, Port Orchard 360-876-7049 [email protected]. Karla Boughton, Poulsbo 360-394-9748 [email protected]

PIERCE COUNTYDan Cardwell, Pierce County 253-798-7039 [email protected]. VacantJesse Hamashima, Pierce County, RSC Co-Chair 253-798-2760 [email protected]. VacantVacant, Pierce CountyAlt. Vacant

Metropolitan Center – TacomaPeter Huffman, Tacoma 253-591-5373 [email protected]. Ian Munce, Tacoma 253-573-2478 [email protected]

Other Cities & Towns in Pierce County David Swindale, University Place 253-460-2519 [email protected] Lindsey Sehmel, Gig Harbor 253-853-7615 [email protected] Jason Sullivan, Bonney Lake 253-447-4355 [email protected]

SNOHOMISH COUNTYSteve Thomsen, Snohomish County 425-388-6652 [email protected]. Doug McCormick, Snohomish County 425-388-6655 [email protected] Mock, Snohomish County, RSC Co-Chair 425-388-3661 [email protected]. VacantVacantAlt. Vacant

Metropolitan Center – Everett Allan Giffen, Everett 425-257-8725 [email protected]. David Stalheim, Everett 425-257-8736 [email protected]

Other Cities & Towns in Snohomish CountyShane Hope, Edmonds 425-771-0220 [email protected]. Dave Koenig, Marysville 360-363-8211 [email protected]


PSRC Regional Staff CommitteeMembership List - 2017










REGIONAL AND STATE AGENCIESEconomic Development Representatives

Vacant, King CountyVacant, Kitsap CountyDenise Dyer, Pierce County, Economic Development 253-798-6906 [email protected]. Rob Allen, Pierce County, Economic Development 253-798-6915 [email protected] Yamaguchi, Snohomish County 425-388-3952 [email protected]. Vacant – Snohomish County

Health DepartmentsKeri Moore, Snohomish Health District 425-339-8631 [email protected]. 1 Amy Pow, Tacoma/Pierce County Health Dept. 253-798-6456 [email protected]. 2 Marianne Seifert, Tacoma/Pierce County Health Dept. 253-798-3823 [email protected]

PortsLindsay Wolpa, Port of Seattle 206-787-3657 [email protected]. Evette Mason, Port of Tacoma 253-383-9435 [email protected]

Puget Sound Clean Air AgencyCraig Kenworthy, Puget Sound Clean Air Agency 206-689-4004 [email protected]. Andrew Green, Puget Sound Clean Air Agency 206-689-4053 [email protected]

Tribal RepresentativeVacantAlt. Vacant

WA Department of CommerceVacantAlt. Ike Nwankwo, WA Department of Commerce 360-725-3056 [email protected]

WSDOTCharles Prestrud, WSDOT 206-464-1271 [email protected]. Dennis Engel, WSDOT 360-357-2651 [email protected]

FEDERAL & OTHER AGENCIESPuget Sound Partnership

VacantAlt. Vacant

Federal Highway Administration VacantAlt. Vacant

Federal Transit AdministrationVacantAlt. Ned Conroy, FTA 206-220-4318 [email protected]

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban DevelopmentJack Peters, HUD 206-220-5268 [email protected]. Vacant

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Elaine Somers, EPA 206-553-2966 [email protected]. Vacant

PSRC COMMITTEESPuget Sound Regional Council

Mark Gulbranson, Deputy Executive Director, RSC Co-Chair 206-464-7524 [email protected] Pedestrian Advisory Committee (BPAC)

Shawn Phelps, Pierce County, Vice Chair 253-798-3552 [email protected]. Peter Dane, Redmond, Chair 425-556-2816 [email protected]

FAST Freight Advisory Committee Geri Poor, Port of Seattle 206-787-3778 [email protected] Wolf, Northwest Seaport Alliance 253-888-4414 [email protected]

Regional Project Evaluation Committee (RPEC)Don Cairns, Redmond, RPEC Chair 425-556-2834 [email protected]. Russell Blount, Fife, RPEC Vice Chair 253-896-8677 [email protected]. Peter Heffernan, King County 206-477-3814 [email protected]













PSRC COMMITTEES (continued)Regional Technical Forum (RTF)

Jude Willcher, Seattle, RTF Chair 206-684-4059 [email protected]. Gary Hendricks, Pierce County, RTF Vice Chair 253-639-9992 [email protected]

Regional Traffic Operations Committee (RTOC)Jim Bloodgood, Snohomish County, RTOC Co-Chair 425-388-3488 [email protected]. Mike Boonsripisal, Seattle 206-684-3107 [email protected]

Special Needs Transportation Committee (SNTC)Alex O’Reilly, Bellevue 425-452-2824 [email protected]. Jon Morrison Winters, SNTC Vice ChairSeattle-King County Aging & Disability Services 425-943-6769 [email protected]

Transportation Demand Management Steering Committee (TDM)Jennifer Hass, Community Transit, TDM Chair 425-348-7193 [email protected]. Carol Cooper, King County, TDM Vice Chair 206-477-5871 [email protected]

Transportation Operators Committee (TOC)Vacant, King County Metro 206-477-5801 [email protected]. Kim Becklund, King County Metro 206-263-1160 [email protected] DeVoll, Community Transit 425-348-2337 [email protected]. Carol Thompson, Community Transit 425-348-2334 [email protected] Tull, Sound Transit 206-398-5191 [email protected]. 1 Brian Brooke, Sound Transit 206-398-5040 [email protected]. 2 Karen Kitsis, Sound Transit 206-398-5229 [email protected]








Major Initiatives (expected completion date) Growth Regional Centers Framework Update (Winter 2018) Regional Open Space Conservation Plan (Summer 2018) VISION 2040 (Spring 2020)

Transportation Transportation 2040 Update (Spring 2018)

Data Regional Macroeconomic Forecast (Spring 2018) Household Travel Survey (2018)

SCHEDULED MEETINGS & TOPICS POTENTIAL TOPICS

July 20, 2017 August - No Meeting September 21, 2017 Q1 Summer / Fall 2017

Growth Regional Centers Framework Update

Growth & Data Recent Growth Trends

Transportation T2040 Update

No Meeting

Growth Regional Centers Framework Update Updating VISION 2040

Transportation & Data T2040 System Performance – Preliminary Results

October 19, 2017 November 16, 2017 December 21, 2017 Q2 Fall / Winter 2017

Growth Regional Centers Framework Update

Transportation T2040 Update: Safety Targets & Climate Change

Around the Room Highlights

Growth TBD

Transportation T2040 Update: Release of Draft Plan and Public Review Calendar

Data Final Draft Regional Macroeconomic Forecast for 2050

Growth VISION 2040 Update



Data Status Report-Household Travel Survey Quarterly Update

Economic Development Semiannual update

Events: Regional TOD Event – October 11

PSRC Planning Event – November 8


PSRC Regional Staff CommitteeTopics Calendar - Fiscal Year 2017-2018

https://www.eventbrite.com/e/building-transit-building-opportunity-tickets-37099788466

SCHEDULED MEETINGS & TOPICS POTENTIAL TOPICS

January 18, 2018 February 15, 2018 March 15, 2018 Q3 Winter / Spring 2018

Growth Regional Growth Strategy Regional Open Space Conservation Update (2nd Briefing)

Transportation T2040 Update: Preliminary Themes from Public Comment

Growth TBD

Transportation T2040 Update: Public Comment & Approval Schedule

Growth TBD

Transportation TBD

Data Analysis of 2017 Household Travel Survey



Transportation TBD

Data Quarterly Update

Finance PSRC Work Program and Budget

April 19, 2018 May 17, 2018 June 21, 2018 Q4 Spring / Summer 2018

Growth TBD

Transportation TBD

Growth TBD

Transportation TBD

Growth TBD

Transportation TBD

Data Performance Trends Annual Highlight


Growth VISION 2040 Update Regional Open Space Conservation Update (3rd Briefing)

Data Technical Tools & Key Data for Vision Update Quarterly Report

Economic Development Semiannual update

PSRC’s Regional Staff Committee meets the third Thursday of each month, starting at 9:30 am in the PSRC Boardroom, 1011 Western Avenue, Suite 500. Agendas and supporting material are available the Thursday prior to the meeting, at psrc.org. Meetings are subject to cancellation based on agenda items. The August meeting is not regularly scheduled.


PSRC Regional Staff CommitteeTopics Calendar - Fiscal Year 2017-2018

https://www.psrc.org/committee/regional-staff-committee

Third Thursdays

12:00-1:30PM

PSRC

1011 Western

Avenue Suite 500

Seattle 98104

Sponsored by the

Puget Sound

Regional Council,

APA Washington,

and Washington

State Department of

Commerce

TOOLBOX 2017Peer Networking Series

on Local Planning and Implementation

Monthly Panel Discussion & Webinar

Date: Thursday, September 21, 2017, 12:00-1:30pm

Topic: Final 50 Feet: Urban Delivery System

Description: The final 50 feet of the urban delivery system begins

at the city-owned curb, commercial vehicle load zone, or sidewalk.

The last 50 feet provide challenges to goods delivery because there

is a high—and growing—demand for scarce road, curb, and

sidewalk space in urban areas with multiple competing uses.

Please join us for a discussion of data driven tools to optimize the

final 50 feet of deliveries of business and consumer goods and how

this data is informing decisions to revise codes and regulations and

to make near- and long-term planning decisions regarding the

management of scarce and expensive space in final 50 feet

locations.

Speakers: Barbara Ivanov, Haena Kim, Jose Machado, Gaby

Giron, UW Urban Freight Lab; Jude Wilcher, City of Seattle; Chris

Eaves, City of Seattle

Attend in person: September 21 from 12:00-1:30 at PSRC, 1011

Western Avenue, Suite 500, Seattle, 98104

Or attend via webinar: At www.bluejeans.com, click “Join

Meeting” and enter meeting ID 794800828. If your computer has a

microphone, you may participate in the webinar through your

computer. If no microphone, you may call in at +1 888 240 2560,

and enter Meeting ID. AICP CM unavailable by webinar.

AICP CM credit

pending

Please visit

the PSRC website

for information on

monthly topics and

webinar links

Regional Staff Committee-September 21, 2017 Item 7c Packet Pg. 27

https://www.psrc.org/whats-happening/events/toolbox-peer-networking-series

https://www.bluejeans.com/

Wednesday, October 11, 2017 @ 9am – 3pm

Centilia Cultural Center @ 2601 17th Avenue South, Seattle, WA 98144

Building on the region’s renewed commitment to regional transit and affordable housing, join community and industry leaders at a day-long event to explore innovative techniques and best practices in building thriving and equitable transit communities.

BuildingBuilding

Transit, Opportunity

register now @https://building-transit-building-opportunity.eventbrite.com

• $25 registration fee, lunch included

• limited scholarships available

Regional Staff Committee-September 21, 2017 Item 7d Packet Pg. 28

https://building-transit-building-opportunity.eventbrite.com

Wednesday, November 8, 2017 @ 8:30am – 4pm

PSRC Boardroom @ 1011 Western Avenue, Suite 500, Seattle, WA 98104

Our region’s growth brings opportunities and challenges for the residents and businesses who call the central Puget Sound home. Join planners, public works, and transportation professionals for a day-long event to explore innovative techniques and best practices for planning for a vibrant, equitable, and sustainable region.

Where We’re Growing: Planning Together for a Sustainable Region

• $10 registration fee, lunch included• online registration open soon

Save the date!

Puget Sound Regional CouncilRegional Staff Committee-September 21, 2017 Item 7e Packet Pg. 29

Documents

Regional Staff Committee · 9/21/2017 · 1011 Western Avenue, Suite 500 • Seattle, WA 98104 • 206-464-7090 • fax 206-587-4825 • psrc.org