No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAboutLUA-06-163_Report 1CITY OF RENTON DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT MEMORANDUM Date: December 8, 2009 To: City Clerk's Office From: City Of Renton Subject: Land Use File Closeout Please complete the following information to facilitate project closeout and indexing by the City Clerk's Office Project Name: Capital Facilities and Transportation Element Updates LUA {file) Number: LUA-06-163, ECF Cross-References: LUA06-160, 06-161, 06-162, 06-164, 06-165, 06-166, 06-167 AKA's: 2007 Comprehensive Plan Amendments, Comp Plan Text Changes Project Manager: • Erika Conkling Acceptance Date: f 1,1 ,s ,V V June 21, 2007 Applicant: City of Renton Owner: N/A Contact: Rebecca Lind PID Number: N/A ERC Decision Date: July 9, 2007 ERC Appeal Date: July 25, 2007 Administrative Denial: Appeal Period Ends: Public Hearing Date: Date Appealed to HEX: By Whom: HEX Decision: Date: Date Appealed to Council: By Whom: Council Decision: Date: Mylar Recording Number: Project Description: Bi-annual update of Capital Facilities Element and amendment of the Transporation Element to incorporate and update the level of service information and capital facility project lists, amend text and tables summarizing growth, and to update and correct descriptive narrative. Location: N/A Comments: " .u STATE OF WASHINGTON, COUNTY OF KING } AFFIDA VJT OF PUBLICATION PUBLIC NOTICE Linda M Mills, being first duly svrorn on oath that she is the Legal Advertising Representative of the Renton Reporter a bi-weekly newspaper, which newspaper is a legal newspaper of general circulation and is now and has been for more than six months prior to the date of publication hereinafter referred to, published in the English language continuously as a bi-weekly newspaper in King County, Washington. The Renton Reporter has be.en approved as a Legal Newspaper by order of the Superior Court of the State of Washington for King County. The notice in the exact fonn annexed was published in regular issues of the Renton Reporter (and not in supplement fonn) which was regularly distributed to its subscribers during the below stated period. The annexed notice, a: · Public Notice was published on July 11, 2007. The full amount of the fee charged for said foregoing publication is the sum of$474.60 mil6 !! Legal Advertising Representative, Renton Reporter Subscribed and sworn to me this 13tll day of July, 2007. \\\Ht1P111t, ,,'\~NTE'l~·'l,.~ ,'r-. .J •••••••• t-.1,1 . &r7ff._/ .;:. V ···S10N E>t;;•. ;/ . ,. e T\ ~ ~"' ... ~., ,..,:-. ~ '-LJ = :"cf w~\ ;. BDCantelon = :0 NO\,t-.RY :-~= Notary Public for the State of Washington, Residing in},l, .. walM!iM,i c::i ..-) ~ J P. 0. Number: -:.. 7 •• 0 a"•' ·~ .... ...... /"i·· . .3/01i2.,·~--~~ :, ", .. o;;-;;~s ~·. · ,,,,,,11,11\'<\\'" NOTICE OF ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION ENVIRONMENTAL REVlEW COMMITI'EE RENTON, WASHINGTON The Environmental Review Committee has isEued a Determination of Non..Si.gnlficance for the following project under the authority of the Renton Municipal Cod,. UND USE NUMBER and APPLICATION NAME: 2007 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENTS (CPA.ii) LUA-06-160 Park Ave11ui! CPA and Rewne {CPA 2007-M,01) with concurrent zoning text w:nendme.nts LUA-06-161 Rainier Avenue {O'Farrell) CPA and Rezone (CPA 2007-M-02) and concurrent zoning text amendments LUA 06-166 Maple Valley Highway (',OT11dor CPA and Prezone (CPA 2007- M-03) LUA 06-167 Sunset .Boulevard (QIP/ Virtu.l CPA and Rezone (CPA 2007-M- Ofi) LUA 06-161 Beru;on Hill CPA and Pmzone (CPA 2007-M-05) LUA-06-029 Duvall Avenue CPA and Prezone (CPA 2007-M-06) LUA 06·163 Capital Facilities Element and Traruiportation Element Text Amendment.a (CPA 2007-T-Ol) PROJECT DESCRIPTIONS AND LOCATIONS: Pal'k Avenue-Land Use Element mnp nnwndment to change the: land use des1g-nalion of _89 acres from Ht•sidM"ltial Medium D;,msit)' (.H.\!D) with H·lO zoning to Commi:rda] Netghborhood ,:CN") wi1h concurrent Comnwrci.il Neig.hhorJ1ood (CN") zuning Th~ original apµlicahon wu,; for a 5,001) sq. ft. property at 326 Park Avenue, and was expanded to include properties at 335 Park Ave. N., 330 Park Ave.I\., 329 ParkAveN., and 32.S Park Ave. N. and two vacant paroo.ls- one on the ea.st side of Perk Ave. N, the other on the west side of Park Ave N. Zoning t!Jxt amendments have also been propoimd that would linut ~~fJo~~!~h~~0!! ~e~f:/f:J[~ joint Ulile and off-site parking optioru for required parking citywidl:. Rainier Avellue-Land Use Element map amendment to change the designation of 1.17 .acres of property from Residential Medium Density (RMD) with R-10 zoning to Corridor Commercial (CC) with concurrent Commercial Arterial (CA) zaning. The original application included 188 Hardie Ave SW and was expanded to include 150 Hardie Ave. SW, 111 SW Victoria, 176 Hardie Ave SW, and 180 Hardie Ave SW. The npplication has also been expanded to include the property at 196 Hardie which is zoned Commercial Arterial (CAl but designatEd for RMD land use. Thia proposed amendment would correct thlll mist.nke and properly pla.ce thie parcel in CC land use designation. The app!LCation also includes a zoning text. amendment to expand the Rainier Business Dist.rid Overlay. The original application re<{Uested extension of the Overlay to the properties at 188 Hardie Ave., 196 Hardie A,·e., 151 Rainier Ave S, and 175 Rainier Ave S. In the ~ndcd pro_po1m.l, the Overlay would wclude these properties nnd others, expanding the Overlay by 18.06 actes. This acreage eXp11nds the Overlay nnrth to Airport Way, ia bounded by Lake Avenue S. on theeaat, acd on the west by Hardie Avenue until it reaches SW Victoria Stroot. Only commercially zo.n.ed propertiCll on Victoria Street ano included in thi> Overlay. Zoning text amendments also includes modifi~iltion of Ll1e al\\Jw~d ~sidcntial dr.r.~ity llild standards in the Ralllcr B1,~iness Di.,trict Overlay Dist.rid ill allow up tx, 60 dwelling units per So.TI m mixl'd use ~omrnercial/rcsidcntial bwldlllg8. Maple Valley Highway Corridor, Land Use Element map amendment to change the designation of284 acres within Renton's Potential Annexation Area knm,m as the Maple Valley Highway Corridor. This al'l!.l'I includes parcelil fronting on Maple VaUey Highway (SR I69), and open space and seill![tivc areas contiguous to established residential developmentt; and extends from the eJ1isting dty limits to the Urban Growth Boundary. The change in land use is from Residential Low Density (RLD) t.o: RLD land use with Resource Conservation (RC) and R-4 prezo.ning; Residential Single Family {RS) with R-8 prezoning; [II}d Residential Medium Density (RMD) land use with R-14 nnd Residential Manufactured Home Park (RMH) prezoning. Prezoning designations would become effective upi;m annexation. Sunset Boulevard (QIPN'n-tu)- Land Use Element map al11llndment to consider dll9ignation of 8. 71 acres of _property from Employmellt Area- Industrial (EA.I) with lndu.strial- Heavy (l-H) zoning imd.91 ucres of property from Residential Multi- Family (RMF) land uae with Residential Multi-Family (RMF) zoning to Re.si.dential Medium Density {RMD) with R-10 zolll.Ilg. Parcels are located ~outh of the Swiset View Apartments on Sunset Blvd, near the western edge of the City and north of the S. 140th unimproved right-of-way and the BNSF rail road. There will also be cons.id.oration of the designation of these, parcela for lower intccsity residential development, such aa Residential Single Family (RS) land use degjgnation with R-8 zoning, or Residential Low Density (RLO) with R-4 zoning. Benson Hill-Review of land within the proposed Benson Hill Communities annexation boundary for Land Use Element an1cndmcnt;; and co!l~urrcnt prczoning cons1,tcnL with llimtou's adupt,od land u~e clf!Bsificatio:ru, and [X>licies Propenie:, arc located Wlthm the Soo~ CJ"0{)k portion Qf the Renton Potontial Annexat.rnn Area. Current !and use: designations in this area arc Residentia.l Single Family (RS), Residential Medium Density {Rho-ID), Residential Low Density (RI.DJ, Residential Multi-Family (RMI!'}, and Commen:ial Corridor (CC). The proposal would amend the CCIIIlprehensive Plan Land Use Map and c:oni:urrently pre-zone prn_pP.rties within this area to include: RS land Wle with R.a prezoning, RMD !and Ulle with R-10, !t-14, and Residential Manufactured Horne Park (RMH) prezoning, RLD land use with R-4 and R-1 prawning, RMI<' land U80 with Residential Multi-family (RMF) prezoning, Commercial Neighborhood (CN) land use with Commercial Neighborhood (CN) prezoning, and CC land ll8e with Comme:rcial Arterial /CA) and Commercial Offioe (00) prezon.ing. Duvall Avenue-Land Uae Element map amendmMt from Singls Family Residential (RS) to Corridor Commercial (CC) Land Use with ooncurrent Commercial Arterial (CA) prezocing for four paroeh fronting Duvall Avenue NE totaling 1.01 acres: 10625 138th Ave. SE, 1-0703 lSSth Ave. SE, 13645 SE 107th Pl, and 10733 138th Ave. SE. Parcels are CT1rrently in unincorporated King County and prezoning would become effective u.J)Oll future rum~on. Envirunmen,tal review of this proJIOW has already been done a11 part of the annexation effort and a DNS was i&suad on May 21, 2007, under file LUA00-029. Capital Facilities Element and Transportation Element. Bi-annual update of Capital Facilities Element and nmondme11t of the Transportation Element to inoorporate and update the level of service information and capital facility project lfflu, amend text and tables summarizing growth, and to update and correct deaaiptive narrative Appeal~ cf the onvimnmental detcrminatio11S must Ix! filed in writing or1 ur bcfow .5:00 µ.rn. on .Tuly 25, 2007. ApPCals must be fi!P.d in wriling together with the required $75.00 npplicatiun foe v.ith: Hearing E:,mnuner, City of Renton, 1055 S0uU1 Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057. Appeal.. kl the Examiner are governed by City of Renton Municipal Code Section 4-8-110.B. Additional information regarding the appeal proceas may be obtained from tbe Re.nron City Clerk's Office, (425) 430- 6510. Published in the Renton Reporter July 11, 2007. #863728 STATE OF WASHINGTON, COUNTY OF KING } AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION PUBLIC NOTICE Linda M Mills, being first duly sworn on oath !hat she is the Legal Advertising Representative of the Renton Reporter a bi-weekly newspaper, which newspaper is a legal newspaper of general circulation and is now and has been for more than six months prior to the date of publication hereinafter referred to, published in !he English language continuously as a bi-weekly newspaper in King County, Washington. The Renton Reporter has been approved as a Legal Newspaper by order of the Superior Court of the State of Washington for King County. The notice in the exact form annexed was published in regular issues of the Renton Reporter (and not in supplement form) which was regularly distributed to its subscribers during !he below stated period. The annexed notice, a: Public Notice was published on .July 11. 2007. The full amount of !he fee charged for said foregoing publication is the sum of$491.40. /JH:t,,; ~?#~ Linda M. Mills Legal Advertising Representative, Renton Reporter , \\I 111111 I 1,, 1 Subscribed and sworn to me this 13~ day of July, 2(!tl-'r\,~~.~.~.'?/v '',,,. ~ (; .•"ON EXP1i/·· ~ ~ Q ~·~0' (:cs-··. ~ ~ .:.f \ -z.. ~ C!rntz. -Q] .,, ~"" • 0 --• ·~ ,V·" • ~ 8 u ~ Im ~ ~s ~~""'00 10 ~ Cantelon ""* •• ,2.• < --~ Notary Public for the State of Washington, Resid?.w.~R-el!toW~m;;;;.;;;;;f' b ,,. -1 r ........ ·":'~-~' P. 0. Num er: ,, [:: OF \,Nr·.,, ,, \' '1•1111111''' CITY OF RENTON PLANNING COMMISSION NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING 2007 UPDATES TO THE RENTON COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND CONCURRENT REZONING Notice is hereby gi\'en that the Renton Planning Commission will hold a Public Hearing on Wednesday, ,July 25, 2007, and on Wednesday, August 1, 2007, at 6:00 p.m. at the Renton City Hall, City Council Chambers, Floor Seven, 1055 S. Grady Way, Renton, WA98055. The purpose of the Public Hearing is to consider the potential amendments to the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map, concurrent rezoning or potential zoning of the properties described below, and potential amendments to the tex:t of the Comprehensive Plan. Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Concurrent Rezoning to be discussed on Wedn<-"..sday, July 25, 2007 at 7:00 p.m. #2007·M·06, LUA 06,164: City of lt?nton Review of land within the propo;,0d Benson Hit! Cominunities annexation boundary for Land Use Element ame.ndments and concuncnt prezoning eon.sistcnt with Rcnton's adopted l.md use classification,:; and policie~. Properties are located within the Soos Creek portion of the Renton Potential Annexation Area. Current land use designatioru; in this area are Residential Single Family (RSJ, ~idential Medium Density (RMD), Residential Low Density (RLD), Residential Multi-Family (RMFl, and Commercial Corridor I CC). The proposal would amend the Comprehensive Pla.n Land Use Map and concurrently pre-zone properties within this area to include: RS land use with R-8 prezoning, RMD land use with R-.10, R-14, and Residential Manufactured Home PRrk m.MH) prezoning, RLD land use with R-4 and R-1 prczoning, RMF land use with Residential Multi-family (RMF) premning, C'...omme.rcial Neighborhood ( CN) land m:1e with Commercial Neighborhood (CNl prezoning, and CC land use with Commercial Arterial (CA) and Commercial Office (CO) prezoning. Comprehensive Plan Amendment and ConcUITent ReZOning to be discussed on Wednesday, August 1, 2007 at 6:00 p.m. #2006-M-1, LUA 06-160:Alan Kunovsky 826 Park Avenue Land Use Element map amendment to change the land use designation of .89 acres from Residential Medium. Density tRMD)with R-10 wningto Commerrial Neighborhood (CN) with concurrent Commercial Neighborhood ( CN) zoning. The original application wa8 for a 5,000 sq. ft. property at 326 Park Avenue, and was expanded to include properties at 335 Park Ave. N., 330 Park Ave. N., 329 Park Ave K, and 323 Park Ave. N. and two \'acant parcels-one on the east side of Park Ave. N, the other on the west side of Park Ave K. Zoning terl amendments have also been proposed that would limit bu.sines<"> parking to the side or rear of the lot in the GN zone and al8o to a How joint use and off-site parking options for required parking citywide. #2007-M-02 LUA 06.001: O'Furrcll Prnperties, LLC 188 and 196 Hardie Avenue SW Land l.1.se Element map anumdment to change-the designation of 1.17 acres of property from RE\'lidential Meditun Density {R!vlm with R-10 zoning t.o Corridor Commereial (CC) with concurrent Commercial Arterial (CA) zoning. The original application included 188 Hardie Ave SW and was expanded to include 150 Hardie Ave. SW, 111 SW Victoria, 176 Hardie Ave SW, and 180 Hardie Ave SW The application has also been expanded to include the property at 196 Hardie which is zoned Commercial Arterial (CA) but designated for RM:D land use. This proposed amendment would correct this mistake and properly place this parcel in CC land use designation. The application also includes a zoning text amendment to expand the Rainier Business District Overlay, The original application requested extension of the Overlay to the properties at 188 Hardie Ave., 196 Hardie Ave., 151 Rainier Ave S, and 175 Rainier Ave S. In the expanded .-<'!} proposal, ihe Overlay would "include these properties and others, expanding the 0v€1"\ay by 18.06 acres. This acreage expands the Overlay north to Airport Way, bounded by Lake Avenue S. on the east, and on the west by Hardie Avenue until it reaches SW Victoria Street. Only commercially zoned properties on Victoria Street are included in the Overlay. Zoning text amendment also includes modification of the allowed rei,idential density and standards in the Rainer Business District Overlay District to allow up to 60 dwelling unit.s per acre in mixed use cmnmercial/residential building!>. #2007·M--03 LUA 06-166: City of Rent.on Land Use Element map amendment to change the designation of 284 acres within Renton's Potential Annexation Area kno,.vn as the Maple Valley Highway Corridor. This area includes parcels fronting on Maple Valley Highway (SR 169), and open space and sensitive arens contiguous to established residential developments and extends from the existing city limits to the Urban Growth Boundary. ThC' change in land use is from H.esidential Low Deni-;ty (RLD; to the following land nse desig'nat.ions: RLD land ui-ti w-ith Rc~ource Conservation (l{C) and .H.~4 prezoning; Residential Single Family tRS) with R-8 prezoning; and He::,idential Medium Density (RMD) land use with R-14 and Residential Manufactured Home Park (RMH) prezoning. Prezoning designations would become effective upon anne.ution. #200l·M-05, LUA 06·167: QIP and Vutu Properties Sun.set Blvd. Land Use Element map amendment to consider designation of8.71 acres of property from Employment ATP,.a- Industrial (EA-D with Industrial- Heavy (I-H) zoning and.91 acres of property from &sidential Multi- Family (R.MF) land use wi.th Residential Multi-Pamily (RMI'') zoning to ReBidentiaJ Medium Density (RMD) 'With R-10 zoning. Parcels arc located south of the Sunset View Apartments on Sunset Blvd, near the western edge of the City and north of the S. 140th unimproved right-of~way and the BNSF rail road. There will also be consideration of the designation of these parcels for lower intensity residential development, such as Residential Single Family (RSl land use designation with R-8 zoning, or Residential Low Density (RLD) with R-4 zoning. #2007-M-07, LUA 06-16& 10625 138thAve. SE, 10703138thAvc. SE. 13645 SE 107th Pl, and 10733 rnsth Ave. SE. City of Renton Land Use Element map amendment from Single Family Residential (RS} to Corridor Commercial (CC) Land Use with concu1Tent Commercial Arterial ( CA) preztming for four parcel!'! fronting Duvall Avenue NE totaling 1.01 acres: 10625138thAve. SE. 10703 138t.h AYe. SE, 13645 SE "107th Pl, and 10733 13Sth Ave. SE. Parcels are currently in unincorporated King County and prezoning would become- effective upon future annexation. #2007-T-Ol, LUA 06-163, City of Renton Bi-annual update of Capita1 Facilities Element and amendment of the Transportation Element to incorporate and update the lC'n~l of service informalion and l"apital facility pro.iec~ liHt;, nmend te-,.:t. and tH.bhi,:: summarizing growth, and to upd;ne tmcl cun-cct dcsctipti\·c nan-ativt0. #2006-T-05, LUA 06-12,5: City of Renton Text Amendment to update the Land Use Element to aUow Residential Manufactured Home zoning to be an implementing zone with the Residential Low Density Compreht'ni,\ive Plan designation. All interested partie.s are invited to the Planning Commission Public Hearings on Wednesday, ,July 25, 2007, and/orWednt>l'ldny; August 1, 2007, at 6:00 p.m. to express their opininn. Written comments may also be submitted prior to the Public Hearing to City of Renton, Economic Development, Neighborhoods, and Strategic Planning, 1055 S, Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057. Ray Giometti, Chair Rent-on Planning Commission Bonnie L Walton City Clerk Published in the Renton Reporter July 11, 2007. #863729 CIT'Y JF RENTON r~•\'Y 0., u ~ .... ) + .!,.E) + Economic Development, Neighborhoods and ~ Strategic Planning '(" -. < Kathy Keolker, Mayor Alex Pietsch, Administrator l.-o'1'\T'to,;;---------------------------------- 1u1y 10, 2007 City of Renton, EDNSP 1055 S. Grady Way, Floor Six Renton, WA 98057 SUBJECT: 2007 Comprehensive Plan Amendments-Capital Facilities and Transportation Element Updates 2007-T-01 LUA06-163 This letter is written on behalf of the Environmental Review Committee (ERC) and is to inform you that they have completed their review of the environmental impacts of the above-referenced project. The Committee, on July 9, 2007, decided that your project will be issued a Determination of Non-Significance. The City of Renton ERC has determined that it does not have a probable significant adverse impact on the environment. An Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is not required under RCW 43.21C.030(2)(c). This decision was made by the ERC under the authority of Section 4-6- 6, Renton Municipal Code, after review of a completed environmental checklist and other information, on file with the lead agency. This information is available to the public on request. Appeals of the environmental determination must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 p.m. on July 25, 2007. Appeals must be filed in writing together with the required $75.00 application fee with: Hearing Examiner, City of Renton, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057. Appeals to the Examiner are governed by City of Renton Municipal Code Section 4-8-11 O.B. Additional information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the Renton City Clerk's Office, 425.430.6510. If the Environmental Determination is appealed, a public hearing date will be set and all parties notified. · If you have any questions or desire clarification of the above, please call me at 425.430.6588. For the Environmental Review Committee, fJ{ffei / 4-ri!t i , -· Erika Conkling /1 Senior Planner \_ __ _/ -------l-05_5_S_o_u_th_G_ra_d_y_W_a_y ___ R_e-nt-o-n,-W-a-s-hi-n-gto_n_9_80_5_7 ______ ~ @ This papercor",, · ,,. :,: , '~·1Ci':<I ,11atenal. 30% post consumer AHEAD or THE CCRVE 2Wt~ --r:01 CITY ~F RENTON o~~Y o~, • ,!,m • Economic Development, Neighborhoods and ~ Strategic Planning j:l -K Kathy Keolker, Mayor Alex Pietsch, Administrator ~N~O·:.---------------------------~ July I 0, 2007 Washington State Department of Ecology Environmental Review Section POBox47703 Olympia, WA 98504-7703 Subject: Environmental Determinations Transmitted herewith are copies of the Environmental Determinations for the following projects reviewed by the Environmental Review Committee (ERC) on July 9, 2007: DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE PROJECT NAME: PROJECT LOCATION: DESCRIPTION: PROJECT NAME: PROJECT LOCATION: DESCRIPTION: 2007 Comprehensive Plan Amendments -Park Avenue CPA and Concurrent Rezone (CPA 2007-M-Ol) LUA06-160, CPA, R, ECF 300 block of Park Avenue North Land Use Element map amendment to change the land use designation of .89 acres from Residential Medium Density (RMD) with R-10 zoning to Commercial Neighborhood (CN) with concurrent Commercial Neighborhood (CN) zoning. The original application was for a 5,000 sq. ft. property at 326 Park Avenue, and was expanded to include properties at 335 Park Ave. N., 330 Park Ave. N., 329 Park Ave N., and 323 Park Ave. N. and two vacant parcels -one on the east side of Park Ave. N, the other on the west side of Park Ave N. Zoning text amendments have also been proposed that would limit business parking to the side or rear of the lot in the CN zone to also allow joint use and off-site parking options for required parking citywide. 2007 Comprehensive Plan Amendments -Rainier CPA and Concurrent Rezone (CPA 2007-M-02) LUA06-161, CPA, R, ECF 100 Block of Hardie Avenue SW, and Rainier Avenue South, from SW Land Use Element map amendment to change the designation of 1.17 acres of property from Residential Medium Density (RMD) with R-10 zoning to Corridor Commercial (CC) with concurrent Commercial Arterial (CA) zoning. The original application included .188 Hardie Ave SW and was expanded to include 150 Hardie Ave. SW, 111 SW Victoria, 176 Hardie Ave SW, and 180 Hardie Ave SW. The application has also been expanded to include the property at 196 Hardie which is zoned Commercial Arterial (CA) but designated for RMD land use. This proposed amendment would correct this mistake and properly place this.parcel in CC land use designation. The application also includes a zoning text amendment to expand the Rainier Business District Overlay. The original application requested -------l-05_5_S_o_u_th_G_ra_d_y_W_a_y ___ R_en_t_on-,-W-a-s-hi-ng_to_n_9_80_5_7 ______ ~ @ TI1ispapercon\a1r1~50% recycled m;,iterlal, 30% post consumer AHEAD OF TIIE CURVE PROJECT NAME: PROJECT LOCATION: DESCRIPTION: PROJECT NAME: PROJECT LOCATION: DESCRIPTION: PROJECT NAME: PROJECT LOCATION: DESCRIPTION: extension of the Overlay to the properties at 188 Hardie Ave., 196 Hardie Ave., 151 Rainier Ave S, and 175 Rainier Ave S. In the expanded proposal, the Overlay would include these properties and others, expanding the Overlay by 18.06 acres. This acreage expands the Overlay north to Airport Way, is bounded by Lake Avenue S. on the east, and on the west by Hardie Avenue until it reaches SW Victoria Street. Only commercially zoned properties on Victoria Street are included in the Overlay. Zoning text amendments also includes modification of the allowed residential density and standards in the Rainer Business District Overlay District to allow up to 60 dwelling units per acre in mixed use commercial/residential buildings. 2007 Comprehensive Plan Amendments-Maple Valley Highway Corridor CPA and Prezone (CPA 2007-M-03) LUA06-166 The site is adjacent to the Maple Valley Highway from City Limits to the Land Use Element map amendment to change the designation of 284 acres within Renton's Potential Annexation Area known as the Maple Valley Highway Corridor. This area includes parcels fronting on Maple Valley Highway (SR 169), and open space and sensitive areas contiguous to established residential developments and extends from the existing city limits to the Urban Growth Boundary. The change in land use· is from Residential Low Density (RLD) to: RLD land use with Resource Conservation (RC) and R-4 prezoning; Residential Single Family (RS) with R-8 prezoning; and Residential Medium Density (RMD) land use with R-14 and Residential Manufactured Home Park (RMH) prezoning. Prezoning designations would become effective upon annexation. 2007 Comprehensive Pl.in Amendments-Sunset Boulevard (QIPNirtu) CPA and Rezone CPA 2007-M,05 LUA06-167 The site is north of the Black River Riparian Forest and South of Sunset Land Use Element map amendment to consider designation of 8.71 acres of property from Employment Area-Industrial (EA-I) with Industrial-Heavy (I-H) zoning and.91 acres of property from Residential Multi-Family (RMF) land use with Residential Multi-Family (RMF) zoning to Residential Medium Density (RMD) with R-10 zoning. Parcels are located south of the Sunset View Apartments on Sunset Blvd, near the western edge of the City and north of the S. 140th unimproved right-of-way and the BNSF rail road. There will also be consideration of the designation of these parcels for lower intensity residential development, such as Residential Single Family (RS) land use designation with R-8 zoning, or Residential Low Density (RLD) with R-4 zoning. 2007 Comprehensive Plan Amendments-Benson Hill Communities CPA and Prezone CPA 2007-M-06 LUA 06-164 The site is in the Soos Creek PAA, south and east of the City limits, north Review of land within the proposed Benson Hill Communities annexation boundary for Land Use Element amendments and concurrent prezoning consistent with Renton's adopted land use classifications and policies. Properties are located within the Soos Creek portion of the Renton Potential Annexation Area. Current land use designations in this area are Residential PROJECT NAME: PROJECT LOCATION: DESCRIPTION: Single Family (RS), Residential Medium Density (RMD), Residential Low Density (RLD), Residential Multi-Family (RMF), and Commercial Corridor (CC). The proposal would amend the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map and concurrently pre-zone properties within this area to include: RS land use with R-8 prezoning, RMD land use with R-10, R-14, and Residential Manufactured Home Park (RMB) prezoning, RLD land use with R-4 and R-1 prezoning, RMF land use with Residential Multi-family (RMF) prezoning, Commercial Neighborhood (CN) land use with Commercial Neighborhood (CN) prezoning, and CC land use with Commercial Arterial {CA) and Commercial Office (CO) prezoning. 2007 Comprehensive Plan Amendments-Capital Facilities and Transportation Element Updates 2007-T-O 1 LUA 06-163 NIA Bi-annual update of Capital Facilities Element and amendment of the Transportation Element to incorporate and update the level of service information and capital facility project lists, amend text and tables summarizing growth, and to update and correct descriptive narrative. Appeals of the environmental determination must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 p.m. on July 25, 2007. Appeals must be filed in writing together with the required $75.00 application fee with: Hearing Examiner, City of Renton, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057. Appeals to the Examiner are governed by City of Renton Municipal Code Section 4-8-110.B. Additional information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the Renton City Clerk's Office, 425.430.6510. If you have questions, please call me at 425.430.6588. For the Environmental Review Committee, Rebecca Lind Long Range Planning Manager cc: King County Wastewater Treatment Division WDFW, Stewart Reinbold David F. Dietzman, Department of Natural Resources WSDOT, Northwest Region Duwamish Tribal Office Karen Walter, Fisheries, Muckleshoot Indian Tribe (Ordinance) Melissa Calvert, Muckleshoot Cultural Resources Program US Army Corp. of Engineers Stephanie Kramer, Office of Archaeology & Historic Preservation Enclosure CITY OF RENTON DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE APPLICATION NUMBER: APPLICANT: PROJECT NAME: DESCRIPTION AND LOCATION OF PROPOSAL: LEAD AGENCY: LUA06-160 Alan Kunovsky 2007 Comprehensive Plan Amendments-Park Avenue CPA and Rezone (CPA 2007-M-01) with concurrent zoning text amendments Land Use Element map amendment to change the land use designation of .89 acres from Residential Medium Density (RMD) with R-10 zoning to Commercial Neighborhood (CN) with concurrent Commercial Neighborhood (CN) zoning. The original application was for a 5,000 sq. ft. property at 326 Park Avenue, and was expanded to include properties at 335 Park Ave. N., 330 Park Ave. N.,. 329 Park Ave N., and 323 Park Ave. N. and two vacant parcels-one on the east side of Park Ave. N, the other on the west side of Park Ave N. Zoning text amendments have also been proposed that would limit business parking to the side or rear of the lot in the CN zone to also allow joint use and off-site parking options for required parking citywide. City of Renton Dept. of Economic Development, Neighborhoods, and Strategic Planning This Determination of Non-Significance is issued under WAC 197-11-340. Because other agencies of jurisdiction may be involved, the lead agency will not act on this proposal for fourteen (14) days. Appeals of the environmental determination must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 p.m. on July 25, 2007. Appeals must be filed in writing together with the required $75.00 application fee with: Hearing Examiner, City of Renton, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057. Appeals to the Examiner are governed by City of Renton Municipal Code Section 4-8-110.B. Additional information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the Renton City Clerk's Office, (425) 430-6510. PUBLICATION DATE: DATE OF DECISION: SIGNATURES: Gregg Zimmerman, Administrator Planning/Building/Public Works Terry Higashiyama, Administrator Community Services July 11, 2007 July 9, 2007 Date I. David Daniels, Fire Chief Date Fire Depart t CITY OF RENTON DET i;;;n.MINATION OF NON-SIGNIF,u.4.NCE APPLICATION NUMBER: LUA06-161 APPLICANT: O'Farrell Properties, LLC PROJECT NAME: 2007 Comprehensive Plan Amendments-Rainier Avenue (O'Farrell) CPA and Rezone (CPA 2007-M-02) and concurrent zoning text amendments DESCRIPTION AND LOCATION OF PROPOSAL: Land Use Element map amendment to change the designation of 1.17 acres of property from Residential Medium Density (RMD) with R-10 zoning to Corridor Commercial (CC) with concurrent Commercial Arterial (CA) zoning. The original application included 188 Hardie Ave SW and was expanded to include 150 Hardie Ave. SW, 111 SW Victoria, 176 Hardie Ave SW, and 180 Hardie Ave SW. The application has also been expanded to include the property at 196 Hardie which is zoned Commercial Arterial (CA) but designated for RMD land use. This proposed amendment would correct this mistake and properly place this parcel in CC land use designation. LEAD AGENCY: The application also includes a zoning text amendment to expand the Rainier Business District Overlay. The original application requested extension of the Overlay to the properties at 188 Hardie Ave., 196 Hardie Ave., 151 Rainier Ave S, and 175 Rainier Ave S. In the expanded proposal, the Overlay would include these properties and others, expanding the Overlay by 18.06 acres. This acreage expands the Overlay north to Airport Way, is bounded by Lake Avenue S. on the east, and on the west by Hardie Avenue until it reaches SW Victoria Street. Only commercially zoned properties on Victoria Street are included in the Overlay. Zoning text amendments also includes modification of the allowed residential density and standards in the Rainer Business District Overlay District to allow up to 60 dwelling units per acre in mixed use commercial/residential buildings. City of Renton Dept. of Economic Development, Neighborhoods, and Strategic Planning This Determination of Non-Significance is issued under WAC 197-11-340. Because other agencies of jurisdiction may be involved, the lead agency will not act on this proposal for fourteen (14) days. Appeals of the environmental determination must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 p.m. on July 25,2007. Appeals must be filed in writing together with the required $75.00 application fee with: Hearing Examiner, City of Renton, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057. Appeals to the Examiner are governed by City of Renton Municipal Code Section 4-8-110.B. Additional information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the Renton City Clerk's Office, (425) 430-6510. PUBLICATION DATE: DATE OF DECISION: SIGNATURES: Gre g Zimmerman, Administrator Planning/Building/Public Works ~~ashiyama, Administrator Community Services July 11, 2007 July 9, 2007 7/fh Date I. David Daniels, Fire Chief Fire Department le Pietsch, Administrator EDNSP Date ~~lv:r Dat CITY OF RENTON DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE APPLICATION NUMBER: APPLICANT: PROJECT NAME: DESCRIPTION AND LOCATION OF PROPOSAL: LEAD AGENCY: LUA06-166 City of Renton 2007 Comprehensive Plan Amendments-Maple Valley Highway Corridor CPA and Prezone (CPA 2007-M-03) Land Use Element map amendment to change the designation of 284 acres within Renton's Potential Annexation Area known as the Maple Valley Highway Corridor. This area includes parcels fronting on Maple Valley Highway (SR 169), and open space and sensitive areas contiguous to established residential developments and extends from the existing city limits to the Urban Growth Boundary. The change in land use is from Residential Low Density (RLD) to: RLD land use with Resource Conservation (RC) and R-4 prezoning; Residential Single Family (RS) with R-8 prezoning; and Residential Medium Density (RMD) land use with R-14 and Residential Manufactured Home Park (RMH) prezoning. Prezoning designations would become effective upon annexation. City of Renton Dept. of Economic Development, Neighborhoods, and Strategic Planning This Determination of Non-Significance is issued under WAC 197-11-340. Because other agencies of jurisdiction may be involved, the lead agency will not act on this proposal for fourteen (14) days. Appeals of the environmental determination must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 p.m. on July 25,2007. Appeals must be filed in writing together with the required $75.00 application fee with: Hearing Examiner, City of Renton, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057. Appeals to the Examiner are governed by City of Renion Municipal Code Section 4-8-110.B. Additional information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the Renton City Clerk's Office, (425) 430-6510. · PUBLICATION DATE: DATE OF DECISION: SIGNATURES: Gre g Zimmerman, Administrator Planning/Building/Public Works Terry Higashiyama, Administrator Community Services '--\ -\ --e-, \\:: ' I ~ July 11, 2007 July 9, 2007 Date Date I. David Daniels, Fire Chief Fire Departme t Date CITY OF RENTON DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE APPLICATION NUMBER: APPLICANT: PROJECT NAME: DESCRIPTION AND LOCATION OF PROPOSAL: LEAD AGENCY: LUA 06-167 Quarry Industrial Properties & VEE Industries 2007 Comprehensive Plan Amendments-Sunset Boulevard (OIPNirtu) CPA and Rezone (CPA 2007-M-05) Land Use Element map amendment to consider designation of 8.71 acres of property from Employment Area-Industrial (EA-I) with Industrial- Heavy (1-H) zoning and.91 acres of property from Residential Multi- Family (RMF) land use with Residential Multi-Family (RMF) zoning to Residential Medium Density (RMD) with R-10 zoning. Parcels are located south of the Sunset View Apartments on Sunset Blvd, near the western edge of the City and north of the S. 14oth unimproved right-of- way and the BNSF rail road. There will also be consideration of the designation of these parcels for lower intensity residential development, such as Residential Single Family (RS) land use designation with R-8 zoning, or Residential Low Density (RLD) with R-4 zoning. City of Renton Dept. of Economic Development, Neighborhoods, and Strategic Planning This Determination of Non-Significance is issued under WAC 197-11-340. Because other agencies of jurisdiction may be involved, the lead agency will not act on this proposal for fourteen (14) days. Appeals of the environmental determination must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 p.m. on July 25, 2007. Appeals must be filed in writing together with the required $75.00 application fee with: Hearing Examiner, City of Renton, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057. Appeals to the Examiner are governed by City of Renton Municipal Code Section 4-8-110.B. Additional information regarding the appeal process may be obtained frorn the Renton City Clerk's Office, (425) 430-6510. PUBLICATION DATE: DATE OF DECISION: SIGNATURES: Gregg Zimmerman, Administrator Planning/Building/Public Works Terry Higashiyama, Administrator Community Services July 11, 2007 July 9, 2007 Date I. David Daniels, Fire Chief Fire Department Date CITY OF RENTON DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE APPLICATION NUMBER: APPLICANT: PROJECT NAME: DESCRIPTION AND LOCATION OF PROPOSAL: LEAD AGENCY: LUA 06-164 City of Renton Benson Hill CPA and Prezone (CPA 2007-M-05) Review of land within the proposed Benson Hill Communities annexation boundary for Land Use Element amendments and concurrent prezoning consistent with Renton's adopted land use classifications and policies. Properties are located within the Soos Creek portion of the Renton Potential Annexation Area. Current land use designations in this area are Residential Single Family (RS), Residential Medium Density (RMD), Residential Low Density (RLD), Residential Multi-Family (RMF), and Commercial Corridor (CC). The proposal would amend the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map and concurrently pre-zone properties within this area to include: RS land use with R-8 prezoning, RMD land use with R-10, R-14, and Residential Manufactured Home Park (RMH) prezoning, RLD land use with R-4 and R-1 prezoning, RMF land use with Residential Multi-family (RMF) prezoning, Commercial Neighborhood (CN) land use with Commercial Neighborhood (CN) prezoning, and CC land use with Commercial Arterial (CA) and Commercial Office (CO) prezoning. City of Renton Dept. of Economic Development, Neighborhoods, and Strategic Planning This Determination of Non-Significance is issued under WAC 197-11-340. Because other agencies of jurisdiction may be involved, the lead agency will not act on this proposal for fourteen (14) days. Appeals of the environmental determination must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 p.m. on July 25, 2007. Appeals must be filed in writing together with the required $75.00 application fee with: Hearing Examiner, City of Renton, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057. Appeals to the Examiner are governed by City of Renton Municipal Code Section 4-8-110.B. Additional information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the Renton City Clerk's Office, (425) 430-6510. PUBLICATION DATE: DATE OF DECISION: SIGNATURES: Gregg Zimmerman, Administrator Planning/Building/Public Works '--,...___ ____ _ Terry Higashiyarna, Administrator Community Services July 11, 2007 July 9, 2007 Date t) q /U7 Date I. David Daniels, Fire Chief Fire Department Date ~ Date CITY OF RENTON DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE APPLICATION NUMBER: LUA 06-163 APPLICANT: City of Renton PROJECT NAME: Capital Facilities and Transportation Element Updates 2007-T-01 DESCRIPTION AND LOCATION OF PROPOSAL: Bi-annual update of Capital Facilities Element and amendment of the Transportation Element to incorporate and update the level of service information and capital facility project lists, amend text and tables summarizing growth, and to update and correct descriptive narrative LEAD AGENCY: City of Renton Dept. of Economic Development, Neighborhoods, and Strategic Planning This Determination of Non-Significance is issued under WAC 197-11-340. Because other agencies of jurisdiction may be involved, the lead agency will not act on this proposal for fourteen (14) days. Appeals of the environmental determination must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 p.m. on July 25, 2007. Appeals must be filed in writing together with the required $75.00 application fee with: Hearing Examiner, City of Renton, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057. Appeals to the Examiner are governed by City of Renton Municipal Code Section 4-8-110.B. Additional information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the Renton City Clerk's Office, (425) 430-6510. PUBLICATION DATE: DATE OF DECISION: SIGNATURES: ' A/-ed trJ:tt; fc) Gregg Zimmerman, Administrator Planning/Building/Public Works '----\ . \ - !r---, \'--l-"-- TuiryHJgash iyam a, Administrator Community Services July 11, 2007 July 9, 2007 Date , /q /ur Date I. David Daniels, Fire Chief Fire Department Date CITY OF RENTON DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE APPLICATION NUMBER: APPLICANT: PROJECT NAME: DESCRIPTION AND LOCATION OF PROPOSAL: LEAD AGENCY: LUA 06-163 City of Renton Capital Facilities and Transportation Element Updates 2007-T-01 Bi-annual update of Capital Facilities Element and amendment of the Transportation Element to incorporate and update the level of service information and capital facility project lists, amend text and tables summarizing growth, and to update and correct descriptive narrative City of Renton Dept. of Economic Development, Neighborhoods, and Strategic Planning This Determination of Non-Significance is issued under WAC 197-11-340. Because other agencies of jurisdiction may be involved, the lead agency will not act on this proposal for fourteen (14) days. Appeals of the environmental determination must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 p.m. on July 25, 2007. Appeals must be filed in writing together with the required $75.00 application fee with: Hearing Examiner, City of Renton, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057. Appeals to the Examiner are governed by City of Renton Municipal Code Section 4-8-110.B. Additional information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the Renton City Clerk's Office, (425) 430-6510. PUBLICATION DATE: DATE OF DECISION: SIGNATURES: Gregg Zimmerman, Administrator Planning/Building/Public Works '._A • fe~;;H~shiy~ Administrator Community Services July 11, 2007 July 9, 2007 1,,717 I / ; ; I r, / Date Date I. David Daniels, Fire Chief Fire Department Date NOTICE CF ENVIRCNMHJTAL DETERMINATION EtNIRO~MENTAL "'.:CVIEW COMMITIEE RENTON, 'l;'AS-!INGTON The Env,roomental Review Com:n,ttee ~2s 1ss1,.ed a Dc:er·n11ia,t1<;r1 of Non-S1gn~1cance for the followmg project under t~e authonly of the Renron Municipal Code LANO USE NUMBE~ al'd APPLICATION NAME 2007 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENTS (CPAs) LUA-06-160 Park Avenue CPA and Rozcne (CP". 2C07 -1.1-V _1 wit~ coneurrent ioning text amendments LUA--06-161 Rairier Avenue (O'Farre!I) CPi'. Bnd Reec;n~ (CP•\ 2007·M-02} and concurrBnt zoning lcxt amendments LUA 05-165 Maple Valley Highway Corridor CPA ~r,1 P,ernne ICPA 2007-M-03) LUA 05-157 Sunset Boulevard (QIPN,rtu) CPA ~:ici Rezore 1C~A 2007-M-05) LUA 05-164 Benson Hill CPA and Prezone (CPA 2007-M 05; LUA-06-029 Duvall Avenue CPA and PreL0·1e (GPA 20-J7-M-J5; LUA 06-163 Capital Facilities Elemenl enc ·1 ra1sporta11on F'em~·,: Text Amendmenls (CPA 2007-T-01] P~OJECT DESCRIPTIONS ANO LOCATIONS Park Avenue-Land Use Element map an·emime·1'. l<J ~nac~e the land use designation of .69 acres from Residential Medium Density (RMD) with R-10 zoning to Commwr.,al \Je,gh~orhooc" ,:CN) with concurrent Commercial Neighborhood (CN) zoning The orig,nal appli~at1on was for a 5,00C sq ft µroperty at 32G Park Avenue, and was expanded t,:, include properties at 3J5 Park A•e. N .• 330 Park Ave. N., 329 Perk A-,e N .. 3M 323 P~r, A,e N end lwo va~ant parcels-one on the east side of Park Ave. N. the other on the west side of P"r< Ave 1-J Zo11ng le,! amendments have also been proposed that would limit bc•s,ness parking :o the side or rear of 11u lot 11 t~c CN zono to fl so ell ow joint use and off.site park,ng op lions for requrred par~i1g c1tyw1~e. Rainier Avonue-Land Use Elemenl m~p JmendnA1·1 ·n diar,ge the des1Qnat1on of 1.17 acras of property from Residential Medium Density (RMD) wit~ R-10 zoning 10 Co,: ,drn r.~·m·,~rc13I (CC) with COf'lcurrent Commercial Arterial (CA) zoning. Tha cngiral .applic:a!ion included 188 Hardie Ave SW ~rid wcs exp~nded to rnclude 150 Hardie Ave. SW, 111 SW Vicloria, 176 Herd,e Ave SW, and 180 Hardie Ave SW Tt,e ~ppl1cot1,;:,,; hos a·so been atpanded to include the property at 196 Han:fa:, which 1s zoned Commercial Arterial (CA) IJL,\ desrgr~\ed 'or "·\'.C land use. This proposed ~mcndment would wrract lhis mistake and properly place this parcel i~ CC lanj JSC j~a<gr.ct,;:,,1 Tre appl:cat,on alsc ncludes a zon·ng text ~me·,dc-er,\ '.o expond (ho Rainier Business D,str,c1 Overlay The original applical,on requested extension cf lhe Cverl,,y to :r,e r,rop€rs1es c! 188 Hardie Ave 196 Hard<e Ave., 151 Rainier A•a S, and 175 Rainier Ave S. In the expanded propo.,~. the O·,e·loy wou c nclude these praµert,es and others, expanding the Overlay by 16 OS acres. This acreage e•p~nrls '.~e Ocerla/ nc,,,:-, :o A1rpo1 Way. i~ bounded b)" Lake A~enue S on tha aast. and on the west b)" Hardie Avenue until it reac'les SW v1ctcn~ Slrecl. Only commercially wned properties on V,clori.l S\Taat are included 1r the Overlay. Zoning text ameadrcerls Jlso 11dujc,5 modificatiorl of the allowed residential density and slandards ·n t~e Rainer Business District Overlay D,stnc, tJ ~llow up tc 6C, d':;ell,ng units per acre in mixed use comrnerc,aVrasident1al bu1ld1ngs Maple Valley Highway Corridor-Land Use F1,en,w,'. ma~ ane<dme~t to cnange lhe designalron of 264 acres Wlthin Renlon's Potent1~I Annexa~on Area known"' l'te r,laple VJl~y Highway Corcidor. This araa includes parcels fronting on M<1ple Valley Highway (SR 169). and open sr.ace and scno1t1vc oreas contiguous to established res1dent1al developments and e~tcnds from the e•isMg city 1im,ts to t,,e Urben Gro':::I· But.ndery. Tne cha~ge 1n land use is from Resident,al Low Dens,(y (RLD) to: RLD larnJ use w,th Resour~e C~1scrvo: en 1RC: ,anC R-4 prazoning: Residential Single Famity (RSJ with R· O prezoning: a~d Residen:ial Med,urn Density IR',101 Ian:! u~c w,:h R-14 and Res,denlial M<1nufactt1red Heme Park (RMH) prezon1ng. "rezos·ng desjgn~t,oc,s would tecorc<o cHecli,c uoo,-, 2nne•ation Sunset Boul&vard (OIPNirtu)-Land Use Ele1rrnl ,,-.,sp ~,r:,•ri,;·n~nt to oons,der des1gnat1on of 8 71 aetes of property from E01plo)rnenl Area-Industrial (EA-I) w,th Indus·, ~l·H~"'Y ( -11; co, ~g and.91 ac,-cs of property from Res,dent1el Multi-Family (RMFI land use w1lh Res1den;ial \1ulli,Fa:n I, 1 "'i,F: :o Rrsicential Medium Density (RMD) with R-10 zoning. Parcc,ls are lo,:;ated south of the Sunset View Apar1,-~r·ls 0r b.vd rear tile western edga of tl,e City end no1h of lho S. 140th u~rnproved right ol-wey erd lhe BNSF rai ro~,· 111e-e w.11 :;lco oo consideralioP or Illa des1gn<1t1on of these parcejs for lower 1nle~s1ty res dcnl1al dc-.elopn,ent. suet ~~ ll~sidert,a1 ~11"\Jle Family (RSi land use cJ~S1gnat1on with R·B zoning, or Res1den'1al Lew Density 1RLD) with R-4 70nir,~ Bonson Hill-Re,iew of lai'd w1th1n tte p·c~ose~ Bense~ h I Cwnmun1t,es arrnexalion boundary far Land Use Elemen: ar1erdmP.nts arnJ concurrent p""zor,ing co1sislenl w,th R~1·,1,,ci·, "dopted land use classif1ca:1ons and o,olicias. Properties fire loc,;.led w,ir11n lhe Soos Creek port o~ of l'1c, Rt 111u·, Pute1:13· Annexation Area. Current la~d use des,gnatioos in this area are Res1dent1el Single Family (RS), Resd,enr,.1 ·:~d,..1,, l"•er,s,ly (RMD), Res:denlial Low Dens,ty (RLDJ. Resident1ol Mult1-Fam1ly (RMF). <1nd Co11mercial Ccrricl.,: (CC1 Tl~ p·op~,3, would amend the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map ard concurrently p·e-zon0 properties w1ll11n %s a·ea 10 nclu:je· RS laM use wilh R-8 prazon,ng, RMD land use Wl:h R-10, R-14. a~d Ras1dent,al \1a11ufac\urad Horre Park (Rf.1'1) p·czonin~ RLD la:id use w,th R-4 and R·1 prezonmg, RMF land use w1lh Resident.al Mulli-fam,ly (RMF} prezon ng. Cornmcrc1a ~'eig·1borhood (CN} IBnd use with Commercial Neighborhood (CN) prazoning, and CC land use with Comrnerc1JI Arlc"kll 1CA) an:1 Commercial Office (CO) pre zoning Duvall Avenu&· Land Use Element map amcnd-ner,t frn,r S11·\i1e F~m,ly Residential (RS) to Corridor Commercial (CC) Land Use w,u, concurrent Comn,erc1al Arterial (CAI arewning 'or ru.rr µa.eels frant1ng Duvall Avenue NE totaling 1.01 acres: ·0625 138'° Ava SE. 10703 138'" Aw,. Sc', 13645 Si: rn7'' Pl. and 10733 130'" Ave. SE. Parcels are eurrently 1n u11incorpora1e:I King Cuunly and prezoning wou c be.cn"1e e"~,.1,,,,, ~pan future anrexat1on. Environmental review of lhis proposal has already b~en done as part of n1c ~oncxalicn e"crt am: a DNS was issued on Ma,· 21, 2007, under me LUA 06- 0,0 Capital Facilities Element and Transportatior1 El~ment-B1-;,rir.cel update of Capital Facilities Elemenl and amar1Cmen1 of lhe Transportation Elemenl to incorporate a,·,1 L,pdale lhe le·,e· ot ser,ice information and capital rac,1,ly prOJec1 hsts. amend lex\ and tables summanzino grow1h, and to updole and ~~rrect dcoc1ptlve narrative Appe3ls of the em·ironmental oeterrrrnnnons n-L~: ~e fi.,,1 111 ,·:, Ing on or bafore 5:0U p.m. on July 25, 2007 Appeals must be filed 1n wnt1ng together w.!h lho cequirec S7~ ~0 4·1:I c,,:,ur, f8e w1lh: Hearing Examiner, City cf Renlon, 1055 South Grady Way, Re~ton. WA 98()57. Appeals to the Exa·nin~, r.<H ""'"""~~ by City ot Renlon Municipal Code Section 4-fl-110.B Adc,t,onal ,nro·n,at,ori ,agarding the ap~eal ~ro:<oss m~y to o3:a ned from tt,a Renton C~y Clerk's OH1ce. [425) '130-6510 CERTIFICATION I f2°VLlu1 [,c-n Dlv'l hereby certify that copies of the above document , __.:::.__:___:_:_:__..:::_::.__9---J' . ""'""""ulJ were posted by me in conspicuous places or nearby the descnbed property~!),.""\~ ~'ft, :/ ~ ~:fj,t;J~~~,l fu&~ /~ ~!\\ ATTEST: Subscribed and sworn before me, a Notary Public, in and for the State of Washington residing ii: ~ .4 J f 1, ~ U{i\.f, :~: ·'" {) :h '~<-10-~\I) -.:.ff , on the 71) day of , Jj, ,:,-""° UC SIGN Wfl,,. "°' "'""'"'" SIGNED: ; , CITY OF RENTON CURRENT PLANNING DIVISION AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE BY MAILING On the 1()th day of July, 2007, I deposited in the mails of the United States, a sealed envelope containing ERC Determination documents. This information was sent to: Agencies -ERG Determination Only See Attached (Signature of Sender).:...:-=~--=-~:..::...:;·"-=-"'' ..:..:..:. ::...:..... ---------------- STATE OF WASHINGTON ) ) ss COUNTY OF KING ) Dated: ,-1v-07 Capital Facilities and Transportation Element Updates (CPA 2007-T-01) LUA06-163 template -affidavit of service by mailing • tlept. of Ecology Environmental Review Section PO Box 47703 Olympia, WA 98504-7703 WSDOT Northwest Region Attn: Ramin Pazooki King Area Dev. Serv., MS-240 PO Box 330310 Seattle, WA 98133-9710 US Army Corp. of Engineers Seattle District Office Attn: SEPA Reviewer PO Box C-3755 Seattle, WA 98124 Jamey Taylor Depart. of Natural Resources PO Box 47015 Olympia, WA 98504-7015 City of Kent Attn: Mr. Fred Satterstrom, AICP 220 Fourth Avenue South Kent, WA 98032-5895 City of Tukwila Steve Lancaster, Responsible Official 6300 Southcenter Blvd. Tukwila, WA 98188 • ~l{CJ_ WDFW -Stewart Reinbold c/o Department of Ecology 3190 160th Ave SE Bellevue, WA 98008 Duwamish Tribal Office 4717 W Marginal Way SW Seattle, WA 98106-1514 KC Wastewater Treatment Division Environmental Planning Supervisor Ms. Shirley Marroquin 201 S. Jackson ST, MS KSC-NR-050 Seattle, WA 981 04-3855 KC Dev. & Environmental Serv. Attn: SEPA Section 900 Oakesdale Ave. SW Renton, WA 98055-1219 Metro Transit Gary Kriedt, Sr Environmental Planner 201 South Jackson Street KSC-TR-0431 Seattle, WA 98104-3856 Seattle Public Utilities Real Estate Services, Title Examiner 700 Fifth Avenue, Suite 4900 PO Box 34018 Seattle, WA 98124-4018 Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Fisheries Dept. Attn: Karen Walter or SEPA Reviewer 39015 -172"' Avenue SE Auburn, WA 98092 Muckleshoot Cultural Resources Program Attn: Ms Melissa Calvert 39015 172"' Avenue SE Auburn, WA 98092-9763 Office of Archaeology & Historic Preservation Attn: Stephanie Kramer PO Box 48343 Olympia, WA 98504-8343 City of Newcastle Attn: Mr. Micheal E. Nicholson Director of Community Development 13020 SE 72"' Place Newcastle, WA 98059 Puget Sound Energy Municipal Liason Manager Joe Jainga · PO Box 90868, MS: XRD-01W Bellevue, WA 98009-0868 State Department of Ecology NW Regional Office 3190 1601h Avenue SE Bellevue, WA 98008-5452 STAFF REPORT A. BACKGROUND City of Renton Department of Economic Development, Neighborhoods and Strategic Planning ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE ERC MEETING DATE July 9, 2007 Project Name Applicant File Number Project Manager Project Description Project Location Exist. Bldg. Area gsf Site Area SITE MAP Not Applicable. B. RECOMMENDATION 2007 Comprehensive Plan Amendments-Capital Facilities and Transportation Element Updates 2007-T-01 City of Renton LUA 06-163 Erika Conkling Bi-annual update of Capital Facilities Element and amendment of the Transportation Element to incorporate and update the level of service information and capital facility project lists, amend text and tables summarizing growth, and to update and correct descriptive narrative. NIA NIA Proposed New Bldg. Area gsf NIA NIA Total Building Area gsf NIA Based on analysis of probable impacts from the proposal, staff recommends that the Responsible Officials make the following Environmental Determination: X DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE Issue DNS with 14 day Appeal Period. Project Location Map DETERMINATION OF NON· SIGNIFICANCE· MITIGATED. Issue DNS-M with 15 day Comment Period with Concurrent 14 da A eal Period. ERC Report.doc City of Renton EDNSP Department Envir 1tal Review Committee Staff Report 2007 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENw-Capital Facihties and Transportatian Element Upa--cs LUA-06-163 REPORT AND DECISION OF JULY9, 2007 Pagel of 3 Issue DNS with 15 day Comment Period with Concurrent 14 day Appeal Period. C. MIT/GA TION MEASURES None required for this non-project action. D. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Issue DNS-M with 15 day Comment Period followed by a 14 day Appeal Period. In compliance with RCW 43.21 C. 240, the following non-project environmental review addresses only those impacts that are not adequately addressed under existing development standards and environmental regulations. E. COMMENTS OF REVIEWING DEPARTMENTS The proposal has been circulated to City Departmental I Divisional Reviewers for their review. Where applicable, these comments have been incorporated into the text of this report as Mitigation Measures and/or Notes to Applicant. ..J5..__ Copies of all Review Comments are contained in the Official File. __ Copies of all Review Comments are attached to this report. Environmental Determination Appeal Process Appeals of the environmental determination must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 PM, July 25, 2007. Appeals must be filed in writing together with the required $75.00 application fee with: Hearing Examiner, City of Renton, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98055. Appeals to the Examiner are governed by City of Renton Municipal Code Section 4-8-110. Additional information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the Renton City Clerk's Office, (425)-430-6510. ERC Report.doc City of Renton Department of Economic Development, Neighborhoods, and Strategic Planning ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: COMMENTS DUE: JULY 5, 2007 APPLICATION NO: LUA06-163 DATE CIRCULATED: JUNE 21, 2007 APPLICANT: Cit of Renton PROJECT MANAGER: Erika Conklin CITY OF RENT N PROJECT TITLE: CPA# 2007-T-01 LOCATION: CITYWIDE PLEASE RETURN REVIEW s~~RfV,fMS JUDITH SUBIA IN EDNSP, FLOOR SIX SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: Bi-annual update of Capital Facilities Element and amendment of the Transportation Element to incorporate and update the level of service information and capital facility project lists, amend text and tables summarizing growth, and to update and correct descriptive narrative. A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT (e.g. Non-Code) COMMENTS Element of the Probable Probable More Element of the Probable Probable More Environment Minor Major Information Impacts Impacts Necessary Environment Minor Major Information Impacts Impacts Necessary Earth Housinn Air Aesthetics Water Lir>ht/G/are Plants Recreation Land/Shoreline Use Utilities Animals Transportation Environmental Health Public Services Energy/ Hisloric/Cultural Natural Resources Preservation Airporl Environment 10,000 Feet 14,000 Feet B. POLICY-RELATED COMMENTS de0e,<\ or l-l.c "':-'"'"',~. c,,e-\r,,l-. {Vl·,r ,[,, .. .,, c, -Sr"" 0""' c1"'\_'C'_ . M,.'',,\ k 0'.J't.,-el.--CJ l .,_.,J +l,-e-(. v,.,r~ <' ,\, C. CODE-RELATED COMMENTS We have reviewed this application with particular attention to those Dreas in which we have expertise and have identified areas of probable impact or areas whe·r· e a .. d· .difonal inf or~. is Md to properly assess this proposal. ----~?:) ~J _y ~b-=-\d-'='2.,0~0·7:,.___~_ Signature of Director or Authorized Representative Date 1 City of Renton Department of Economic Development, Neighborhoo . and Strategic Planning ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: COMMENTS DUE: JULY 5, 2007 APPLICATION NO: LUA06-163 DATE CIRCULATED: JUNE 21, 2007 APPLICANT: City of Renton PROJECT MANAGER: Erika Conklina PROJECT TITLE: CPA# 2007-T-01 LOCATION: CITYWIDE PLEASE RETURN REVIEW SHEEff~ISION JUDITH SUBIA IN EDNSP, FLOOR SIX SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: Bi-annual update of Capital Facilities Element and amendment of the Transportation Element to incorporate and update the level of service information and capital facility project lists, amend text and tables summarizing growth, and to update and correct descriptive narrative. A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT (e.g. Non-Code) COMMENTS Element of the Probable Probable More Element of the Probable Probable More Environment Minor Major Information Environment Minor Major Information Impacts Impacts Necessary Impacts Impacts Necessary Earth Housing A,, Aesthe(ics Water Li_qhi/Gfare Plants Recreafion Land!Shorefrne Use Utilities Animals Transportation V' Environmental Health Public Se,vices ' Energy/ Historic/Cultural Natural Resources Preservation Airport Environment 10,000 Feet 14,000 Feet B. POLICY-RELATED COMMENTS C. CODE-RELATED COMMENTS We have reviewed this application with particular attention to those areas in which we have expertise and have identified areas of probable impact or areas where additional information is nee~rly assess this proposal. / L /('._/ 0/2£/0-12- tative Date I I City of Renton Department of Economic Development, Neighborhoods, and Strategic Planning ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: APPLICATION NO: LUA06-163 APPLICANT: Cit of Renton PROJECT TITLE CPA# 2007-T-01 LOCATION: CITYWIDE COMMENTS DUE: JULY 5, 2007 DATE CIRCULATED: JUNE 21, 2007 PROJECT MANAGER: Erika Conklin PLEASE RETURN REVIEW SHEET TO JUDITH SUBIA IN EDNSP, FLOOR SIX SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: Bi-annual update of Capital Facilities Element and amendment of the Transportation Element to incorporate and update the level of service information and capital facility project lists, amend text and tables summarizing growth, and to update and correct descriptive narrative. A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT (e.g. Non-Code) COMMENTS Element of the Probable Probable More Element of the Probable Probable More Environment Minor Major Information Impacts Impacts Necessary Environment Minor Major Information Impacts Impacts Necessary Earth Housina Air Aesthefics Water Liaht/Gfare Plants Recreation Land/Shoreline Use Utilities Animals Transportation Environmental Health Public Services Energy/ Historic/Cultural Natural Resources Preservation Airport Environment 10.000 Feet 14,000 Feel B. POLJCY-RELA TED COMMENTS C. CODE-RELATED COMMENTS We have reviewed this application with particular attention to those areas in which we have expertise and have identified areas of probable impact or areas where additional information is needed to properly assess this proposal. L7".L1.-0? Date City of Renton Department of Economic Development, Neighborhoods, and Strategic Planning ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: l6n'i1YvtdiDY1 APPLICATION NO: LUA06-163 APPLICANT: Citv of Renton PROJECT TITLE: CPA# 2007-T-01 LOCATION: CITYWIDE COMMENTS DUE: JULY 5, 2007 DATE CIRCULATED: JUNE 21, 2007 PROJECT MANAGER: Erika Conklinn l:lUILDING DIVISION PLEASE RETURN REVIEW SHEET TO JUDITH SUBIA IN EDNSP, FLOOR SIX SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: Bi-annual update of Capital Facilities Element and amendment of the Transportation Element to incorporate and update the level of service information and capital facility project lists, amend text and tables summarizing growth, and to update and correct descriptive narrative. A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT (e.g. Non-Code) COMMENTS Element of the Probable Probable More Environment Minor Major Information Impacts Impacts Necessary Element of the Probable Probable More Environment Minor Major Information Impacts Impacts Necessary Earth Housina Air Aesthetics Water Liaht!Glare Plants Recreation Land/Shoreline Use Utilities Animals Transnort8f1on Environmental Hea/fh Public Services Energy/ Historic/Cultural Natural Resources Preservation Airport Environment 10,000 Feet 14.000 Feet B. POLICY-RELATED COMMENTS ;VoNc C. CODE-RELATED COMMENTS /\fa.Ve City of Renton Department of Economic Development, Neighborhoous, and Strategic Planning ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW SHEET . REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: ~ Reaz".eu COMMENTS DUE: JULY 5, 2007 RECEIVED APPLICATION NO: LUA06-163 DATE CIRCULATED: JUNE 21, 2007 11 •~• 2 z ?007 APPLICANT: Citv of Renton PROJECT MANAGER: Erika Conklina . PROJECT TITLE: CPA# 2007-T-01 8UlLU11~'..;:l '-' ~ PLEASE RETURN REVIEW SHEET TO LOCATION: CITYWIDE JUDITH SUBIA IN EDNSP, FLOOR SIX SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: Bi-annual update of Capital Facilities Element and amendment of the Transportation Element to incorporate and update the level of service information and capital facility project lists, amend text and tables summarizing growth, and to update and correct descriptive narrative. A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT (e.g. Non-Code) COMMENTS Element of the Probable Probable More Element of the Probable Probable More Environment Minor Major Information Impacts Impacts Necessary Environment Minor Major Information Impacts Impacts Necessary Earlh Housinrr Air Aesthetics Water Unht/G!are Plants Recreation Land/Shoreline Use Utilities Animals Trans,-,r,rtation Environmental Health Public Services Energy/ Hisloric/Cu!tural Natural Resources Preservation Airport Environment 10,000 Feet 14,000 Feet B. POLICY-RELATED COMMENTS C. CODE-RELATED COMMENTS City of Renton Department of Economic Development, Neighborhoous, and StratJ&;c R_la~~ntL; !:O " ~·~ ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW SHEET !; r--=-.::._-'--''·"' '11 1 I REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: 11·re.-COMMENTS DUE: b I! JULY 5, 2 01J: JUN 2 1 2am APPLICATION NO: LUA06-163 DATE CIRCULATED: JUNE 21,' b07 L . ' 1-·r·v 1.'.• :,.: ·--·-....J .. APPLICANT: Citv of Renton PROJECT MANAGER: Erika Cor klinq ' . . . .. PROJECT TITLE: CPA# 2007-T-01 PLEASE RETURN REVIEW SHEET TO ---- LOCATION: CITYWIDE JUDITH SUBIA IN EDNSP, FLOOR SIX SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: Bi-annual update of Capital Facilities Element and amendment of the Transportation Element to incorporate and update the level of service information and capital facility project lists, amend text and tables summarizing growth, and to update and correct descriptive narrative. A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT (e.g. Non-Code) COMMENTS Element of the Probable Probable More Element of the Probable Probable More Environment Minor Major Information Environment Minor Major Information Impacts Impacts Necessary Impacts Impacts Necessary Earth Housinq Air Aesthetics Water L1oht/Glare Plants Recreation Land/Shoreline Use Utilities Animals Transportation Environmental Health Public Services Energy/ Hi8tor1c!Culturaf Natural Resources Pre8ervation Al(por1 Environment 10,000 Feel 14,000 Feel B. POLICY-RELATED COMMENTS C. CODE-RELATED COMMENTS I ___ , We have reviewecf.this application w· particular attention to those areas in which we have expertise and have identit· d areas of probable impact or areas where additlJnal information i eded to properly assess this proposal. Signature of Dire Date City of Renton Department of Economic Development, Neighborhoods, and Strategic Planning ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW SHEET ING DEPARTMENT: COMMENTS DUE: JULY 5, 2007 DATE CIRCULATED: JUNE 21, 2007 of Renton PROJECT MANAGER: Erika Conklin CPA# 2007-T-01 LOCATION: CITYWIDE PLEASE RETURN REVIEW SHEET TO JUDITH SUBIA IN EDNSP, FLOOR SIX SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: Bi-annual update of Capital Facilities Element and amendment of the Transportation Element / to incorporate and update the level of service information and capital facility project lists, amend text and tables summarizing growth, and to update and correct descriptive narrative. A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT (e.g. Non-Code) COMMENTS Element of the Probable Probable More Environment Minor Major Information Impacts Impacts Necessary Element of the Probable Probable More Environment Minar Major Information Impacts Impacts Necessary Earth Housina Air Aesthetics Water Linht!Glare Plants Recreation Land/Shoreline Use Utilities Animals Transportation Environmental Health Public Services Energy/ Historic/Cultural Natural Resources Preservation Airporl Environment 10,000 Feet 14,000 Feet B. POLICY-RELATED COMMENTS .----1)' / -1 ' J ·/ , , cvL( --;--" · 1z.c-1' __ e--1 <' (_. _ .. c, -/I --) C. CODE-RELATED COMMENTS We have reviewed this application with particular attention to those nreas in which we have experlise and have identified areas of probable impact or areas where additional inform~·on is needed to properly assess this proposal. L ;;(~ u(Z /Xi--!tt.d ... Sig'natureotirector or Authorized Representative Date From: To: Date: Subject: Leslie Betlach Erika Conkling; Rebecca Lind 6/22/2007 12:35:04 PM Green File LUA06-163 Hi Rebecca and Erica, I am review the above. Please utilized the attached documents that more accurately reflect the Capital Facilities Plan for Parks, Recreation and Open Space. In particular, as previously submitted, the Linear Parks and Trails were 12.5 miles and 1 acre. The one acre is Burnett Linear park. The version included in File LUA06-163 and being circulated, deleted the 1 acre Burnett Linear Park -this park is not being captured anywhere. I also changed one number -typo -the Planning Area Total for Linear Parks and Trails is 12.5, not 12.05. Thank you for making this change. Leslie CC: Terry Higashiyama Amended 04/23/07 PARKS, RECREATION AND OPEN SPACE CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN 2007-2012 Inventory of Existing Facilities The City of Renton is the primary provider of park and recreation services within the city limits. These services include parks, indoor facilities, open space areas and recreation programs. Other suppliers that provide facilities and services include the Renton School District and several private enterprises. Table 11-1 below is a summary of the amount of park and open space area provided by the City of Renton; provided by others within the City's Proposed Annexation Area (PAA) and the total for the overall Planning Area. Tvne ofFacilitv Neighborhood Parks Community Parks Regional Parks Open Space Areas Linear Parks & Trails Special Use Parks & Facilities TOTAL Table 11-1 Park and Open Space Areas Summary Renton PAA 97.37 20.20 130.36 93.36 55.33 50.00 683 .11 178.81 12.04 0.00 Miles/I acre 190.66 0.00 1.157.83 342.37 Plannino: Area Total 117.57 223.72 105.33 861.92 12.04/1 190.66 1,500.2 Tables 11-2 and 11-3 on the following pages list the individual park and open space areas that comprise the categories summarized above. Table 11-2 details Renton's Parks and Open Spaces by category and Table 11-3 lists public land in Renton' s PAA. The table lists the name of each park or open space, its size in acres, and its status as of January 2001. The locations of the individual park facilities listed in Table 11-2 are shown in Figure 11-1, which immediately follows the Table. lll-1 !3ttta -rlc 117dfc chav)C~ iY) lr I /171,U J { •, Amended 04/23107 • Table 11-2 Public Park and Open Space Areas in Renton Detailed Listing Park Neighborhood Parks (20) Earlington Park Glencoe Park Heritage Park Jones Park Kennydale Beach Kennydale Lions Park Kiwanis Park Maplewood Park Maplewood Roadside Park North Highlands Park Philip Arnold Park Riverview Park Sit In Park Springbrook Watershed Park Sunset Court Talbot Hill Reservoir Thomas Teasdale Park Tonkins Park Tiffany Park Windsor Hill Park TOTAL Community Parks (7) Cedar River Park Cedar River Trail Park Highlands Park Liberty Park Narco Property Piazza & Gateway Ron Regis Park TOTAL Regional Parks ( l) Gene Coulon Memorial Beach Park TOTAL Open Space Areas(] 0) Black River Riparian Forest Cedar River Natural Area Cleveland Property Honey Creek Lake Street May Creek/McAskill May Creek Greenway Panther Creek Wetlands Acres J.54 .42 9.18 1.18 l.76 5.66 9.00 2.20 1.00 2.64 10.00 11.50 0.50 16.00 0.50 2.50 10.00 0.29 7.00 4.50 97.37Acres 23.07 24.20 10.40 11.89 15.00 0.80 45.00 130.36 Acres 55.33 55.33 Acres lll-2 92.00 237.00 23.66 35.73 1.00 10.00 29.82 73.00 Status Developed Developed Developed Developed Developed Developed Developed Developed Developed Developed Developed Developed Developed Undeveloped Developed Developed Developed Developed Developed Developed Developed Developed Developed Developed Undeveloped Developed Developed Developed Undeveloped Undeveloped Undeveloped Undeveloped Undeveloped Undeveloped Undeveloped Undeveloped •. Amended 04/23/07 Renton Wetlands 125.00 Springbrook Watershed 38.00 Edlund/Korum Property 17.90 TOTAL 683.ll Acres Linear Parks & Trails (9) Burnett Linear Park 1.0 acre Cedar River Trail 4.5 miles Honey Creek Trail 1.0 miles Springbrook Trail 2.0 miles S.W. 16"' Trail .5 miles Garden/l 61h/Houser 1.0 miles Lake Washington Blvd 1.5 miles Ripley Lane .04 miles Gene Coulon Park 1.5 miles TOTAL 12.04 Miles/1 Acre Special Use Parks & Facilities (19) Boathouse 4,242 s.f. Carco Theatre (310 seats) 11,095 s.f. Community Garden/Greenhouse 960 s.f./46 acres Henry Moses Aquatic Center (including bldgs.) 58,088 s.f. Highlands Neighborhood Center 11,906 s.f. Ivar's Restaurant 1,540 s.f. Kidd Valley Restaurant 2,150 s.f. Kiwanis Park Neighborhood Center 1,370 s.f Liberty Park Skate Park 14,250 s.f. Maplewood Golf Course 190 acres Maplewood Golf Course (Pro shop, rest./lounge/banq.) 15,508 s.f. Maplewood Golf Course Driving Range 11,559 s.f. North Highlands Neighborhood Center 4,432 s.f. Renton Senior Activity Center 18,264 s.f. Philip Arnold Neighborhood Center 1,370 s.f. Renton Community Center 36,000 s.f. Teasdale Park Neighborhood Center 1,370 s.f. Tiffany Park Neighborhood Center 1,800 s.f. Veterans Memorial Park 0.2 acres TOTAL CITY-WIDE TOTAL 195,904 Sq. Ft., 190.66 Acres 1,157.83 Acres 12.04 Miles 195,904 Square Feet* * Does not include maintenance shop facilities. restrooms, picnic shelters IIJ-3 Undeveloped Undeveloped Undeveloped Developed Developed Developed Developed Developed Developed Developed Developed Developed Developed Developed Developed Developed Developed Developed Developed Developed Developed Developed Developed Developed Developed Developed Developed Developed Developed Developed Developed NOTICE OF APPLICATION AND PROPOSED DETERMINATION OF NON- SIGNIFICANCE (DNS) DATE: June 21. 2007 LAND USE NUMBER ,i,nd APPLICATION NAME: 2007 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENTS (CPA.6) LUA-06-160 Park Avenue CPA and Rezone (CPA 2007·M-01) with concurrent zoning trod amendmoo\5 LUA-06-161 Rainier Avenue (O'Farrell) CPA and Rezone (CPA 2007-M-02) and concurrcnl zoning text amen~'""'" LUA 06-166 Maple Valley Highw.iy Corridor CPA and Prezo'le (CPA 2007-M-031 LUA 06-167 Sunset Bouleva,d {QIPMrtu) CPA and Rezone (CPA 2007-M-05) LUA 06-164 Benson HIii CPA and Prezone (CPA 2007·M·05) LUA-OS-029 Duvall Aver,ue CPA and Prezone (CPA 2007 -M-06) LUA 06-163 Capital Facilities Elem en I arid Transportalron Element Te~I Amendments (CPA 2007-T-Ot) PROJECT OESCRlPTlONS AND LOCATIONS: Park Avenu&-Lane Use Element map amendment lo change the land use designation of .89 acres rrorr Resident.al Medium Density {RMD) with R-10 wning to Commercial Neighborhood (CN) .,,;th concurrent Commercial NeigCborrcod (CN) zoning. The original ap~licalion was for a 5,000 sq. ft. property at 326 Park Avenue, and was expanded :o 1rc'udc properties at 335 Park Av,; N . 330 Park Ave. N .• 329 Park Avff N .• and 323 Park Ave. N. and W/0 vacant parcels-ore on the east side of Park Ave. N. ll],; other on the west srde of Park Ave N. Zoning text amendments have also been p•np:,sed that would limil business parking to the side or rear of the lot ir, 1h,; CN zone to elso allow joint use ;md off-,ilP. pwk.ng opt10:-.s lor required parking dtywid,; Rainier Aveune-Land Use Element map amendment to change the deslgna11on of 1 17 acres of ~ro,<orti (rofl'l ResidBntj~I Medium Dens~y (RMDJ with R-10 zoning to Cameo, Commercial (CC) wr.h concurr,;nt Commwcal Artcnn (CA) zoning. The onginal application included 188 Hardie Ave SW and was expanded to include 150 Hardie A•,e SW. 111 SW Victoria. 176 Hardie Ave SW, and 180 Hardie Ave SW. The ap:=,llcaliol", has also been expanded lo include t1e property at 196 Hardie which is wned Commen::•al Art,;rial {CA) but des,gnated for RMD land use. Thts proposed amendment would corraci. this mistake and properly place this pen::el in CC land use designation Th,; appl1c:ation also includes a zoning text amendment to expand the Rainier Business District Ova.lay ··1e ory1n~.I applic:ation requested extension of the Overlay to the properties at 188 Hardie Ave, 196 Hardie Ave., 151 Ra,nier A,e S. and 175 Rainier Ave S. In lhe &xpanded proposal, lhe Ovarlay would include these propertias end others, oxpan:J ng !he Overlay by 10.06 alO"es This acreage expands the Dve~ay north to Airport Way, ,s boundad by Lake Avenue S. on the easl, and on the west by Hardie Avenue un1il ~ raaches SW Victona Street. Only commercially zoned proportii:,s en Vlctona Street are ,ncludad in the Overlay. Zoning text amendfl'lertts also includes modific:at1on of the allowed residential density and standards ,n lhe Rainflr Business District Oeerlay Dislrict to allow up to 60 dwelling units per acre "' mixed use commen::1aVrasider1tial buildmgs Maple Valley Highway Corridor-Land U3e Element map amendment to change the des,gnation of 284 acres 'N lh1n Renlon's Potential Annexation Area known as lha Maple Valley Highway Corridor. This araa includes parcels frort1ng on Maple Valley Highway (SR <69), and open space end sensitive areas contiguous to ,;sleblished residential dc,clopfl'lenls and extends from the ex,st1ng city limits lo thti Urben Growth Boundary. The change m land use is from Res dent al Low Density {RLD) lo: RLD land use with Resource Consar,a!ion (RC) and R-'1 prezonrr1g: Residenlial Single Fan'ly IRS:, wits R-8 prezon111g; a'ld Resklential Modium Density (RMD) land use with R-14 and Residential Manufact,ired rlorre Po·~. (RMHI prezoning. Prezoning designations would become; effective upon annexellon Sunset B01devard (QIPNlrtu)• Land Use Element map amendment to consider d,;signation of 8.71 acres of property from Employment Area-Industrial (EA-I) .,,;th Industrial-He.ivy (1-H) :zoning and.91 acres of property from Rflsidenlrol MJ'ti Family (RMF) tend use with Residential Multi-Family (RMFJ zoning lo Residootial Medium Density (RMD) wrlh R-· 0 zanir~ Parcels are; located south of lhfl Sunse; View Apartments on Sunset Blvd, near the weslern edge of thfl City anrl nn1h of the S. 140th unimproved righl-of-way and the BNSF ran road. There will also be cons1derat1on of 1h,; d,;signa11on nt llrnse parcels for low,;r intensity resident:al development. sue~ as Res1denliel Single Family (RSI land use des,gn~l1<,c1 w1tn R.8 zoning, or Res,derttial Low Density (RLD) .,,;th R-4 ionmg Banson Hlll-Review of land w1th1n lh,; proposed Benson H,11 Commu'l<ties annexa\lOn boundary for Land Use Ele'lle,1: amendments and concurrent pre.coning oons1s1ent wilh Renton"s adopted land use cl2ss1!1cal1ons a.id policies Propcrt es sre loc:ated within lhe Soos Creek portion of the Renton Potential Annexation Area Curre~t land use dflsignatior,5 in t11s area are Rcs1den:1al Single Family (RS), Residential Medium Density (RMD). RasidMtial Low Densily (RLD). Rcs1dcnt1~1 Multi-Family (RMF), and Comm,;rcial Corridor (CC) The proposal would afl'lend th,; Comprehensive Plan Land Use Ma~ and concurrently pre-zone properti,;s within this area to include: RS land use with R-8 prawning, RMD land use with R-1 O. ~.14, and Residantial Manufaclured Hofl'le Park {RMH) prawning. RLD land use w~h R-4 and R-1 prewnir.~. RMF Jnd use with Residenllal Multi·fam1ly (RMF) prezoning. Commercial Ncighborf'ood (CNl land use with Co1rrrerc1al Ne,ghb<l<hood 1CN) prezoning, a~d CC land us,; w1lh Commercial Anerial (CAI and Com!T'ercial Off,ce (CO) p1 ezon ng Duvall Avenue· Land Use El,;menl map amendment from s,ngle FamUy Res1dent1al (RS} lo Corridor Commercial iCC) ~::1s:U1s0e6;~l~ Is~~~~~eiE~~;;:;;r~i;~t::~a~k~~l~~~z~~n1gO~~,; ;~,u~:t1~:;1r~~~~gAe:v;~~;ea~~:,~;r~ 0 ~~ 1 r~e 9 n1\y ~; unincorporated Ki~g County and orewmng would become effective upon future annexation. Environmental r,w1ew of :l·.is proposal has already been done as p.,,rt of lhe anne,etion effort and a DNS was issued on May 21. 2007, un<'.er 1,le Lu.:,, 06-029 Capital Facilities Element and Transporta11on Elefl'lant-B1·annual update of Capital Faeililies Element and amendment of the Transporlalion Element to 1ncorporale and update the lev,;I al ser111ce information and capital facility pro1ect l1sls. amend text flM tables summarizing growth. and to update and corr,;cl cJascripliae nArrahve OPTIONAL DETERMINATION DF NON-SIGNIFICANCE (DNS): As lhc Lead Agency. lhe City of Renton has dete,m1nad thal s1gnificanl environmental ,mpacls are unl1ke:y to result from the proposed Comprehensive Plan am,;ndmenls and zM1ng changes. Therefore. as perm1lt,;d under Iha RCIN 43 21 C.110, the City of Renton is using the Optional DNS process lo give nol1ce that a DNS 1s likely to be; issued Com-nent periods for the prnjE,Ct and the proposed DNS are nlagrated into a single comm;,nt period. There will be ro comfl'lenl per>Oc following the issuance of the Threshold De•.erm1nat1on of Non-Sign1Jicance (DNS). A 14-day app,;al p,;nod will follow the issuance of tho DNS PERMIT APPLICATION DATE, December 1 5. 2006 "erMilsiRev,ew Requested· Environmental (SEPAi Ra,iew Comprehensive Plan Amend!T'ent, Rewne or Pcewne,Zun1ng TextAmendmen\s Local1on where appl1cat1on may IJ,; reviewed Econorr,ic Development Neighborhoods and Strategic Plann,ng Dc;>artment. Straleg•c Planni"lg D1,·1s1on. 1055 South Grady Way, Renton. >VA !cla055 PUBLIC HEARING: A public hearing on these issues will be he1d before tho Planning Commrnsion on July 25, 2007 And .0..Jgcst 1. 2007 Environmanlal Documents that evaluate the Proposed Project: Park Avflnue-Ensironmemal chec~l1st dated December 1. 2006, with revisions June 19, 2007 Ra1n·er Av,;nue {O'FarrellJ· En\ii,onmM:al checklist dated December 14. 2006. with revisions Jur.e 19, 2007 Maple Valley Highway Corndor-DNS issued August 21, 2006 (LUA 06·096). Envi·onmental Cheekiest dated December 25, 2006. w,1ti revision3 June 19, 2007 Sunset Boulevard (QIPNirtu)-AmendP..d Environmertal Chec~l1s1 dated Jaruary 22. 2007 and Greal Blue Heron Assessment dated January 15. 2007 Benson ~1111-Env,ronmenlal checklist da1ed December 15, 2006. w1t'l revisions Jur,e 19. 2007 Duvall Ave"lue-DNS issued May 21. 2007 (LUA 07-029) Capital Fac1l1t,es Elernent and Transpartallon Eleme'lt-Env,ronmenlal o~ecklisl dated December 15. 2006 Development Regulations Used For Project Mitigation, These non-pro1eci actions w,11 be subJeCt ln Iha City's SEPA Ord,nance anc Development Regu,ations and other applK:ablfl codes and regulations as appropriate Proposed Mitigation Measures, The analysis of the proposal does not reveal any adverse environmental impacts ·~quiring m,t1gation above and beyond exis!Lng code pro,isions. However. m1\1gat,on rnay be necessary ard may be 11nposeC at the time of a site specific develoor,ien! proposal on the subJecl site Comments on ~,e above application must be submitted in wnl1ng lo Rebecca Lind, Planner Manager, Econo"T11c LJevelopm,;nl Neighborhoods and Strategic Plann,ng D1v1s1on. 1055 Soul~. Grady Way, Renlon, WA 98055. by 5 00 PM on July S, 2007. If you have ,;uest1ons about this proposal, or wish \o be made a party of record and receive additional no1ification by mail, contact the ProJec1 Manager. Anyone who submits written comments will au!omatically became a 1rnrty of record and w,11 be nam1ed of any d,;c1s1on on this project CONTACT NUMBER: (425) 430. 6590 CERTIFICATION I,'J):.i. sh'll D, U.,t(lk/1, hereby certify that _l copies of the above document were posted by me in _$_ conspicuous places or nearb DATE: b-2/ -()7 SIGNE . 3:~ i~ ATIEST: Subscribed and sworn before me, a Notary Public, in and for the State of Washington residing ii ij;;j' , C ~ 1 :, -"'=wea,=~tlig==~· on the Us)y:<>\ day of ~.:I=u~· '~'--=L=· ~------ CITY OF RENTON CURRENT PLANNING DIVISION AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE BY MAILING On the 21st day of June, 2007, I deposited in the mails of the United States, a sealed envelope containing NOA, Environmental Checklist, and Map documents. This information was sent to: Agencies (Signature of Sender): ~;[£ttlft&Uwl STATE OF WASHINGTON ) ) ss COUNTY OF KING ) I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that See Attached signed this instrument and acknowledged it to be his/her/their free and voluntary act for the uses and purposes mentioned in the instrument. ,'-'-'""111 111 .::,.''"\_'(t,IH J'lf:j!,, ;::-/ff-"~' k,/1, , -~, d)t:.-;-.-~'I Dated :_=Lo~·--=;)~:;;J~-~c--,_-:, __ •• CPA#2007-T-01 c . · LUA06-163 . . . -. template -affidavit of service by mailing AGENCY (DOE) LETTER MAILING (ERG DETERMINATIONS) Dept. of Ecology • WDFW -Stewart Reinbold• Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Fisheries Dept. • Environmental Review Section c/o Department of Ecology Attn: Karen Walter or SEPA Reviewer PO Box47703 3190 160th Ave SE 39015 -172'' Avenue SE Olvmoia, WA 98504-7703 Bellevue, WA 98008 Auburn, WA 98092 WSDOT Northwest Region • Duwamish Tribal Office• Muckleshoot Cultural Resources Program • Attn: Ramin Pazooki 4717 W Marginal Way SW Attn: Ms Melissa Calvert King Area Dev. Serv., MS-240 Seattle, WA 98106-1514 39015 172°' Avenue SE PO Box 330310 Auburn, WA 98092-9763 Seattle, WA 98133-9710 US Army Corp. of Engineers • KC Wastewater Treatment Division • Office of Archaeology & Historic Seattle District Office Environmental Planning Supervisor Preservation* Attn: SEPA Reviewer Ms. Shirley Marroquin Attn: Stephanie Kramer PO Box C-3755 201 S. Jackson ST, MS KSC-NR-050 PO Box48343 Seattle, WA 98124 Seattle, WA 98104-3855 Olvmoia, WA 98504-8343 Jamey Taylor• Depart. of Natural Resources PO Box47015 Olvmoia, WA 98504-7015 KC Dev. & Environmental Serv. City of Newcastle City of Kent Attn: SEPA Section Attn: Mr. Micheal E. Nicholson Attn: Mr. Fred Satterstrom, AICP 900 Oakesdale Ave. SW Director of Community Development Acting Community Dev. Director Renton, WA 98055-1219 13020 SE 72°' Place 220 Fourth Avenue South Newcastle, WA 98059 Kent, WA 98032-5895 Metro Transit Puget Sound Energy City a/Tukwila Senior Environmental Planner Municipal Liason Manager Steve Lancaster, Responsible Offcial Gary Kriedt Joe Jainga 6300 Southcenter Blvd. 201 South Jackson Street KSC-TR-0431 PO Box 90868, MS: XRD-01W Tukwila, WA 98188 Seattle, WA 98104-3856 Bellevue, WA 98009-0868 Seattle Public Utilities State Department of Ecology Real Estate Services NW Regional Office Title Examiner 3190 160th Avenue SE 700 Fifth Avenue, Suite 4900 Bellevue, WA 98008-5452 PO Box34018 Seattle, WA 98124-4018 Note: If the Notice of Application states that it is an "Optional DNS", the marked agencies and cities will need to be sent a copy of the checklist, PMT's, and the notice of application. • Also note, do not mail Jamey Taylor any of the notices she gets hers from the web. Only send her the ERC Determination paperwork. template -affidavit of service by mailing I Amended 11 /27/06 TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT GOALS 1. Contribute to a balanced multi-modal transportation system through reasonable, planned, economically feasible arterial improvements that enhance HOV and transit operations, support adopted land use plans, protect or improve business access, and protect Renton's neighborhoods. 2. Maximize the use of transit in Renton by providing step-by-step transit improvements to produce regionally linked and locally oriented transit services and facilities needed to serve travel demand generated by Rentnn residents and businesses. 3. Increase the person-carrying capacity or the Renton arterial system by the construction of improvements and the implementation of actions that facilitate the flow of HO Vs into, out of, and through Renton. 4. Maintain. enhance, and increase pcdcstrwn and bicycle travel by providing both safe and convenient routes and storage for the commuting and recreating public. 5. Encourage and facilitate the reductwn of c,mmmte and other trips made via single occupant vehicles. 6. Create efficiently functioning air transpotiation facilities that are responsibly integrated with the City's transportation system and land use pattern. 7. Maintain and improve truck and freight rail access to Renton industrial areas, and integrate freight transportation needs into Rentun's multi-modal transportation system. 8. Develop a funding and in1plen1cnt.:1tion progrnm for needed transpmiation improvements suppm1ing adopted land use policies, that distributes transportation costs equitably between public agencies and private development. 9. Develop a transportation system that contributes to the attaimnent and maintenance of regional air and water quality standc1rds within the City of Renton, and complies with regional, state. and Federal air water qu"lity standards, and preserves/protects natural resources. 10. Develop and maintain relationships bet ween Kenton and other agencies and local jurisdictions for cooperative planning of common transportation improvements, and discussion of transportation-related interests. XI-I I Amended 11 /2 7 /06 TABLE OF CONTENTS Summary ......................................................................................................................................................... XI-8fc, General Policics ........................................................................................................................................... XI-2+ Growth Management Act Requirements ..................................................................................................... Xl-9+ Street Network ................................................................................................................................................. XI- 10); Objectives ....................................................... . . ........ XI- 1 (Ji, Policies ....................................................................................................................................................... .XI- LQ" Inventory of Existing Streets ...................................................................................................................... .XI- 12-l-O Street System Characteristics ...................................................................................................................... XI- 15!2 Existing Street Functional Classifications ................................................................................................... XI- .I.~ !2 Traffic Volumes and Forecasts ................................................................................................................... .XI- 15!2 Level of Service Policy ....... . ..................................................................... XI- 26-l-\l Level Of Service Standard ........................................................................................................................... XI- 272·0 Arterial Plan .............................................................................................................................................. .XI- 2{)~ Transit. ........................................................................................................................................................... .XI- 01029 Objectives..... . .............................................................................................................................. .Xl- 4029 Policies ...................... . 4ll29 Existing Transit Service .. 41:W . .................................................................. XI- . ................................................................... XI- Local J\cccss ................................................................................................................................................ XI- ±l_JU Eastside Connections ................................................................................................................................... XI- 423-l South King County Connections ... 42J+ . ............................................ XI- East-West Connections ............................................................................................................................... XI- ,12.+1 Downtown Transit Center ........................................................................................................................... XI-34 Custom Bus Service .......................................................................................................................... XI-34 Park-and-Ride Facilities ................................................................................................................. XI-34 Future Regional Accessibility. . ................................................................................ XI- 4/,~4 Transit Plan .................................................................................................................................................. XI- 46+4 Xl-2 I Amended l l/27/06 Level of Service ... 19,l(, High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) ............. . 52-}S Objectives ......................... . 5238 Policies ............................. . Existing HOV Facilities ................ . s:rtg HOV Plan .............................................. . 5 >:11) Level of Service ....................................... . )742 Non-Motorized Transportation .................... . 584:) Objectives ................................................ . 58-4::1 Policies .................................................. . 5S43 Existing Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities .)9.44 Neighborhood and Regional Access . 6~4(} Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities Plan .... h:24() . ....................................................... XI- . ................................................................... XI- ......................................................... XI- . ................................... .X~ . ....................... XI- . ...................................................................................... XI- . .......................... XI- . ................................................... XI- . ................................................................................... XI- . .................. XI- ..................... XI- . ............ XI- . ................................ .Xl- Transportation Demand Management/ Commute Trip Reduction (TOM/CTR) ...... .XI- 6549 Objectives .... Policies (,54\) Existing Parking Supply and Demand .. {l(1?1.} Parking Policy Review ... (),)j,2- Employers' Mode Split... () __ ::,;~-?, TOM/CTR Programs ...................... . 6_::::;:~ Parking Management Regulations .... Airport ........... . encµ Objectives ... Policies ......................... . Airport Facilities ............ . 7 i "4 ································· ...... .XI- ......................................... .XI- . ............ .Xl- . ....... XI- . ................................................................ .XI- . .............. XI- . ............................................................................................... .XI- ..XI- . ............... XI- . ............... Xl- . .................................... XI- Xl-3 I Amended 11/27/06 Airport Activities ............................................................... . . ..................................... XI- 7!~4 Airport Master Plan Relevant Documents ................................................................................................... XI- 72:;;4 Airport Master Plan Implementation ............. . . ...................................... XI- 7_25-5 Freight ............................................................................................................................................................. XI- Objectives .................................................................................................................................................... XI- 72')-~ Policies ........................................................................................................................................................ XI- 73'l-4 Truck Routes ............................................................................................................................................... XI- 7}St} Inventory of Local Rail System Facilities and Users....................................................... . ............ Xl- 76'jl; Regional Accessibility ................................................................................................................................. XI- 77§!¥ Financing and Implementation .................................................................................................... . . ........... XI- 7864 Objectives ......................................................................................................................... . . ..... XI- 7860 Policies ....... . . ............................................................................................................................... XI- 7941- Transportation Program Costs................................................................................... . ... XJ- 7%1 Inventory of Funding Sources . . ................................. XI- 7961 Funding Program ........................................................................................................................................ XI- .S2M Funding Assessment .................................................................................................................................... XI- 8949 Mitigation Process ..................................................................................................................................... XI- 9070 Concurrency Management System .................................. . . ................... XI- 917] Environmental and Natural Resources ...................... . . ............................................ XI- 93.'.7-J. Objectives .................................................................................................................................................. XI- 937·:1 Policies .......................................................................................................................................... . . ...... XI- _?_J7-3 Air Quality --Implementation Plan ............................................................................................................. XI- 9.lP. Improving Water Quality .......................................................................................................................... XI- 9474 lntergovermnental Coordination ........ . . ........................ XI- f/474 Objectives .................................................................................................................................................... XI- Xl-4 I Amended 11 /27 /06 Policies ................... . . ............................................. XI- Current Coordination Activities ............................................................................................................... .XI- l)5B Impacts on Adjacent .Jurisdictions ........ . Impacts on Regional Transportation Plan !)7"7.7 Strategies to Address Inconsistencies ..... . 97::P. Ongoing Transportation Plan Work ......... . . ..... XI- ........ XI- . .. XI- . ... XI-77 Xl-5 I Amended 11 /27/06 TABLE OF FIGURES Figure 1-1 Existing Street/Highway System Figure 1-2 Arterial System Characteristics Figure 1-3 Arterial System Functional Classifications Figure 1-4 2000 Daily Traffic Volumes Figure 1-5 2022 Daily Traffic Volumes Figure 1-6 Renton Arterial Plan Figure 1-7 Arterial Plan Improvements Figure 2-1 Existing Transit Service Figure 2-2 Regional Transit System Figure 2-3 Renton Transit Plan Figure 3-1 Renton HOV Plan Figure 4-1 Existing Non-Motorized Facilities Figure 5-1 Downtown Core Existing Parking Summary 200 I Figure 7-1 Truck Routes Xl-6 I Amended 11 /27/06 Table 1.1 Table 4.1 Table 5.1 Table 8.1 Table 8.2 Table 8.3 Renton Arterial Plan Proposed Bicycle Routes TABLE OF TABLES Central Subarea Parking Summary 20-Year (Transportation Program Cost Source of Transportation Funds City of Renton Six-Year Trnnsporlation Improvement Program (TIP) 2()05-201{>;{)_1)7,2\)I 2 Xl-7 I Amended l I /27/0(J SUMMARY The Transportation Element of Renton' s Comprehensive Plan serves several purposes. In addition to meeting the State Growth Management Act (GMA) requirements for a transportation element, it assists the City in coordinating transportation planning with land use planning and adequately serving existing and future residential and employment growth. The Transportation Element, sometimes called a Transportation Plan, also provides direction on coordinating the development of a multi-modal system, which is a system that acconunodates various modes of transportation. Finally, the transportation element coordinates transportation projects with other relevant projects in adjacent jurisdictions and the region. This coordination is an important element in creating an effective system and in competing for transportation funding. The goal of the Renton Transportation Element is to provide "a balanced multi-modal transportation system that will support land use patterns, and adequately serve existing and future residential and employment growth within the City." (A multi-modal system is defined as one which provides various choices of transportation for the public such as automobiles, buses, rail, transit, bicycles, walking.) The main objective guiding the development of the Transportation Element is to be consistent with the City of Renton Comprehensive Plan Policies, the State's Growth Management Act, County-wide Planning Policies, and Commute Trip Reduction (CTR) legislation. Another key objective of the Transportation Element is to "coordinate land use and transportation planning." This is a requirement of the State's Growth Management Act. The Transportation Element must also be coordinated with the Puget Sound Regional Council's (PSRC) VISION 2020 and Destination 2030 (the adopted long-range growth and transportation strategy for the Central Puget Sound area -King, Kitsap, Pierce, and Snohomish counties). A companion regional document is the Metropolitan Transportation Plan (MTP), also produced by the PSRC, which specifically addresses regional transportation and how jurisdictional transportation plans fit within the regional context. This City of Renton Transportation Element is consistent with GMA, VISION 2020, Destination 2030, and the MTP. The Comprehensive Plan (and Transportation Element) was adopted on 1-'tlarwr:, 1D.l995I':,,,,c:r11l19r l,}l)()J. Subsequent transportation planning work and enactment of development regulations that are consistent with, and help implement, the adopted Comprehensive Plan and Transportation Element have resulted inrl1~mos1 r,,:cc,11 amendments (ll<c\'tHnbc•r·;s,.t.997-,-·.Juty.'.J7, l9%,-i\ugusl-l4, 2(J\i0. an,l ·Au~ust lJ,.}1)(1-lJ)11c~111licr .l 2, 2<10S ;;rd N,,vuur,cr_"7~c_(I06) to the Comprehensive Plan (and Transportation Element). Funhcr·+rHn,ponmi,,n pl-anni11g-w(-1f'k-b~'--l=ht--(~--i+y--~1.B+.fe-Sl+bttd in the )()()'I nmcndrner!LJ, which mv i1:ecrpn-ral±'lt-ttHhi._-·1·ran~·r{+f4-a-t«-+n I--A·(c:'-1-1-h:1-ri:t-:· As noted above, the overall intent of the Comprehensive Plan is to create a desirable land use pattern and serve land uses with a multi-modal transportation system. This Transportation Element of the Comprehensive Plan comprises a set of framework transportation policies to support Renton's land use Vision and a more detailed and technical plan for implementation of the framework policies. The Transportation Element encompasses several chapters, including Street Network, Transit, High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV), Non-Motorized Transportation, Transportation Demand Management/Commute Trip Reduction (TDM/CTR), Airport, Freight, Financing and Implementation, Environmental and Natural Resources, and Intergovernmental Coordination. Some of the transpo,tation policies apply to specific chapters; the policies compiled below apply to all of the chapters. XI-8 I Amended 11 .:27/06 General Policies Policy T-1. Land use plans and regulations should be used to guide development of the Transporu,tion Element for the City. Policy T-2. Transportation improvements should support land use plans. Policy T-3. Transportation plans should be phased concurrently with growth. Policy T-4. Adequate transportation facilities and services should be in place at the time of occup,111cy or an adopted strategy must be in place to provide those facilities within six years of the approval of new development. Policy T-5. Land use and transportation plans should be consistent so that land use and adjacent transportation facilities are compatible with each other. Land use capacity/forecast assumptions used in capacity/forecast modeling should be used in estimating travel demand. Policy T-6. Land use patterns should support transit and non-motorized modes of travel. Policy T-7. The disruptive impacts of traffic related to centers and employment areas should be reduced. (In this context, disruptive impacts are primarily trat"lic. They could be mitigated by implementing programs, such as transportation management program~ implemented through cooperative agree1nents at the work place, flexible \Vork hours, and/or sub-area planning policies supporting increased density.) Increased land use densities and a balance of land use mixes in an urban setting will result in fewer and shorter vehicle trips. As people begin to live closer to employment and shopping, they will no longer need to Jrivc to these facilities and they will be able to link trips. resulting in fewer vehicle trips. In addition to the Transp011ation-Land Use i11tcractio11, another issue that pervades many of the chapters of the Transportation Element is that of parking. The 1,,cation and supply of parking is an integral part of the local transportation system. Inadequate parking can increase congestion on streets as people circle and hunt for available spaces. Too much parking is an inefficient use of land and can deter transit use. A proper balance needs to be achieved between parking supply and demand. Satellite parking and shuttle services and collective structured parking are potential methods for increasint' the parking supply. Note: Any references in this document to do,vntown parking restrictions zinci.'or removal apply only to commuter/employee parking and not to busirn:ss patron/customlT parking. Growth Management Act Requirements The (jrowth Management Act specifies the l,1llowing minimum requirements for information that is to be included in the Transportation Element of the Comprehensive Plan: 1. Land use assumptions used in estimating tr~wcl: 2. Facilities and service needs, including: a. An inventory of air, water, and land transportation facilities and services, including transit routing, to define existing capital facilities and trm cl levels as a basis for fllture planning; b. Level of scrvicl: standards for the transportation system to serve as a gauge to judge performance of the system. These standards should be regionally coordinated, and adopted Level of Service (LOS) policy and/or standards 1,,r state facilities shall be stated in local transportation plans. c. Specific actions and requirements for bringing into compliance any facilities or services that arc below an established LOS standard: Xl-9 I Amended 11/27/06 d. Forecasts of traffic for at least ten years based on the adopted land use plan to provide information on the location, timing, and capacity needs of future growth; e. identification of system expansion needs and transportation system management needs to meet current and future demands; 3. Demand Management Strategies 4. Finance, including: a. An analysis of funding capability to judge needs against probable funding resources; b. A multi-year financing plan based on the needs identified in the comprehensive plan, the appropriate parts of which shall serve as the basis for the six-year street, road, or transit program required by RCW 35.77.010 for cities; c. If probable funding falls short of meeting identified needs, a discussion of how additional funding will be raised, or how land use assumptions will be reassessed to ensure that LOS standards will be met; 5. Intergovernmental coordination efforts, including an assessment of the impacts of the transportation plan and land use assumptions on the transpmiation systems of adjacent jurisdictions. STREET NETWORK Traffic generated by employment centers, regional pass-through traffic using local streets, and truck traffic all contribute to congestion and reduced accessibility within the City of Renton. In resolving traffic flow problems, a number of choices will need to be made. In some cases, increasing traffic flows only increase congestion on local streets or impact pedestrians, yet if traffic flows are reduced accessibility can be compromised. Alternately, if the local street system is efficient and not congested it will attract increased regional traffic. The objectives and policies in the Street Network chapter are intended to reduce the amount of traffic that has neither an origin nor destination in the City of Renton while at the same time providing reasonable levels of traffic flow and accessibility on the local street system. These objectives and policies also address issues related to the street network as a system, the physical design of individual roadways, traffic flow, and traflic operations control. The Street Network Chapter contains a detailed review of the City ofRenton's street system-including existing functional classifications as well as a description of Renton's Arterial Plan. The Street Network Chapter also contains discussion of the Level of Service criteria used to judge perfonnance of the system. (The service levels were developed in conjunction with King County adopted Level-oj~Service Framework Policies and other local jurisdictions.) Objectives The Street Network Chapter is based on the following objective: T-A: Create a comprehensive street system that provides reasonable vehicular circulation throughout the City while enhancing the safety and function of the local transportation system. Policies Xl-10 I Amended l l /27/06 Policy T-8. Each street in the City should be assigned a functional classification based on foctors including traffic volumes, type of service provided. land use, and preservation of neighborhoods. Policy T-9. Streets and pedestrian paths in residential neighborhoods should be arranged ,is a11 interconnecting network that serves local traffic and facilitates pedestrian circulation. Policy T-9.1. Street vacations should be supported when: • The right-of-way to be vacated is not needed for future public use; • The right-of-way to be vacated is not needed for the interconnection of the roadway system: • The abutting property owners have demonstrated a need for the street vacation: and, • The resultant road configuration, after tht: s1 n:ct vacation, confonns to adopted City plans. Policy T-9.2. Street vacations should only he supported in Downtown and neighborhoods that have developed around a traditional grid system when the resultant road configuration after the street vacation does not significantly interrupt the function of the overall grid system. Policy T-10. Street standards should continue to be based on functional classification, land use objectives. and HOV/transit/non-motorized facility needs. (The street standards should be coorclinc1k'd with the objectives and policies of the Comm11ni1 0 Design Element.) Policy T-11. A level of service should be maintained that: maximizes mobility by emphasizing transit and HOV improvement:-;: is coordinated with level of service standards ni' adjacent jurisdictions; and meets State n:quircmcnt~ under GMJ\ and concurrency. Policy T-12. Traffic flow on and accessibility lo arterial streets should be 111anaged to maximiz1..: person-carrying capacity. Policy T-13. Provide a balance bet\veen protecting neighborhoods from increased through traffic "'!tile maintaining access to neighborhoods. :>; 1-1 t Policy T-14. Proactivcly work with the state and neighboring jurisdictions to provide capacity on regional transportation systems and to reduce regional traffic on local streets. Policy T-15. Develop strategies to reduce adverse trafiic impacts on local areas. (areas of the City that require this type of intervention should be identified and addressed through the sub-area plarming process, neighborhood plans, or traffic mitigation programs that are implemented through development review.) Policy T -16. Access managen1ent, such as restricting left turns and excessive use of driveways, should be coordinated with design standards and land use in order to enhance public safety and preserve traffic carrying capacity. (Also sec related policies in the HO/~ Transit, Non- molorized and Freight sec/ions of this Element and of"the Community Design Element.) I Amended 11 /27 /06 Inventory of Existing Streets The existing fl(){)] }-street/highway system serving Renton is shown in Figure 1-1. The system includes two freeways: lnterstate-405 and State Route-167 (the "Valley Freeway"). Interstate 405 provides connections to the Eastside and Snohomish County to the north, and to 1-5 and the Sea-Tac Airport area to the south. The Valley Freeway extends south from 1-405 to Kent, Auburn, and Puyallup. In addition to the freeways, Renton is served by several other state highways, including SR-900 (Sunset Boulevard), SR-169 (Maple Valley Highway), SR-515 (Benson Highway), and SR-167 (Rainier Avenue). Each of these state highways are integral elements of Renton's internal anerial system. In addition, SR-900 provides external connections to Issaquah on the east and to the Boeing Field area and 1-5 on the west. SR- 169 connects Renton to SR-18 and southeast King Connty, SR-515 provides the main arterial connection to the unincorporated Soos Creek area, and the Rainier Avenue section of SR-167 connects Renton with south Seattle. Xl-12 Amended l 1/27/06 FIGURE 1-1 RENTON STREET/HIGHWAY SYSTEM Existing Street/Highway System Legend City U1nir Rcnron _,.) '.,,.. ,..I Transportat10.o Plan Planning Arca 1---,-------..,.~---,,----.~/l -, Tukw'ila I I © I I s~~th~1 -~ --, I I I r ,,, J ' ,, )"' \, u / I --:,' i ·-•'-· --t-;r-~ i·_ t ' ·- ,::.:.11_ ' _, Kent \J.13 j .\ I I Amended 11127106 Existing Street/Highway System (2001) 1 eg<'rn.i City Limit Rcntori Pbnniug Arca - Transportation Plan 1 .. XI-14 I Amended 1 J/27/06 Six routes, 1-405, SR-167, SR-900, SR-169, SR-515. and SR-167, converge in central Renton within a half mile radius of each other. This close proximity results in a complex traffic flow, as regional and local trips interact within a relatively short distance. cd Other key arterials that tic together the Renton street system include Grady Way and S.W. 43 Street in the Valley, Talbot Road and Puget Drive in southeast Renton, Park Avenue and Park Drive, Logan Avenue, and Airport Way in Central Renton, and 3'd Street/ 4'' Street, Duvall, Union. and Edmonds Avenues in East Renton. These arterials, with numerous other arterial streets, link commercial, industrial, and residential neighborhoods to the freeways and state highways. Within neighborhoods, local access streets provide internal circulation and cmmections to the arterials. Street System Characteristics Physical and traffic control characteristics of the Renton street system, including the location of traffic signals and one-way streets, and the number of lanes on arterial street segments, are shown in Figure 1-2. Existing Street Functional Classifications The purpose of functional classifications is threefold: i) to identify appropriate uses for Renton streets, ii) to establish eligibility for road improvement fi.mdi 11g from various sources, and iii) to define appropriate street design standards. The arterial street functional classifications specitied by the City of Renton include "Principal Arterial," "Minor Arterial," and "Collector Arterial" classilications. The adopted classifications in Renton, and the sun"Ounding annexation areas of unincorporated King County, and on several roadways in adjacent City of Newcastle are shown in Figure l-3. "Principal Arterials" are streets and highways that connect major intra-city activity centers, have primarily high traffic volumes that travel at relatively fost , chicle speeds, and therefore, have less emphasis on land use access. Grady Way in south central Renton and :\.L. 3'"/4'" Street in East Renton are examples of principal arterials. "Minor Arterials" are streets that provide links bct,,ccn principal arterials and collector arterials, and carry moderately high traffic volumes at less vehicle speed than on principal arterials. These arterials also cormect intra-city activity centers with some emphasis on land use access. Southwest 7 111 Street in west central Renton and Union Avenue in northeast Renton are e."1mples ut·minor arterials. ·'Collector Arterials"' are streets that distribute trnttic between principal and minor arterials and local access streets. Collector arterials include streets tl1"t pro,idc major traffic circulation with more emphasis on land use access within commercial and industrial areas. and residential neighborhoods. East Valley Road in southwest Renton and N.E. 12'h Street in northeast Renton are examples of collector arterials. Local access streets include all public streets nut classified as principal, minor, or collector arterials. Local access streets primarily provide direct acces~ to abutting land uses and are to be designed to discourage use by through traffic. These streets are identified by clclault ,rn Figure 1-3 and are not listed in the legend. Traffic Volumes and Forecasts Existing (2000) and forecasted 2022* traffic volumes have been analyzed to reflect: i) latest regional and Renton land use modifications ii) latest regional transportation plans, and Renton Arterial, HOV and transit plans; iii) latest Renton mode split assumptions; and. iv) refinements to the City of Renton transportation model. :\1-15 I Amended 11/27/06 *NOTE: Renton's transportation model utilizes regional land use data and trip tables provided by the Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC) for the horizon years 2000 to 2020, For the 2022 traffic volume forecast, a linear growth rate was calculated (from 2000 to 2020) and then applied to the 2020 traffic volumes to obtain 2022 volume forecasts. Arterial Traffic Volumes In order to show the overall level and pattern of utilization of the Renton street/highway system, 2000 and 2022 daily two-way tramc volumes were compiled (see Figures l-4 and l -5). The 2022 volumes reflect a freeway/arterial network comprised of facilities existing in 2000 and the following arterial and HOV improvements which are assumed to be implemented by 2022. Xl-16 I Amended 11/27/06 FIGLRE 1-2 ARTERIAL SYSTFM CHARACTERISTICS Arterial System Characterisrics (2006) Legend Signalized lnrers-ection N,1mber of Laneo City Limit Renlou PbnnmgArea • 1 ' Transportation Plan :-; 1-17 I Amended l l/27/06 Arterial System Characteristic;s (2003) Legend Signalized Intersection Number of Lanes • .L 2 City Limle I '; ,, Renton _ Planning Area Transportation Plan 22 XI-I 8 e I Amended 11/27/06 FIGLRE 1-3 ARTERIAL SYSTEM FU"<CTIONAL CLASSIFICATIONS ·-------· ' • ' ' • l ' ' i I . 'J 1 i ~: f,, act • !IJ jH ! ~iji ti j~ "rZt i }~;Jj ·W,i! • I~.!.!i~it r .l• 'l s~:fiH sijtill~i J!,pjll]l J,;1,,1 tU1t.1~~jt i!iiipii~ hi_.j ]l§ijlil!! l i ,.s.;;;~!1§ i I' in~i;~ ' 1' 1. ,I l,,.,,j ff -~ll,::ic l ~§ii/~;!SS"'!''lf ------- \1-19 I .Amended 11/27/06 II. ~ ' . f ~ C l 2 §. £ HI li.; 1 i. •t, ! e .g $ • " lJ i I i • i' 1iil .i i U··i ! ! I I i ~! lff·'·l ! I e 2-11 I : I 11?·!! }••lr;~·~;l;l~ii!1f " r~ Jl' f ~ iff;fifbi u: 8~ ~·~if 1!!~ 111.!!i!,1., •• 11 I NC J] i! T n·1nri"'1".!··P· '" • illiW Ill• a:•-i~ ~] ... !dlum~ !1; ]i! dtUJ1!1i~Jlf M~jl 1. • · j~ i I I• J ! .. JI••... • •• • }E~j-.e ~ ii1JJ.i1H ~!JIJ 11u1lil•jljfj!jUJjl Js ::i: .,,..e f l 'iJffrl!f 1 'Ma;llt W f:ii ·* * l'll!lf I ,111• < •u•v.u;,;1i!1111j1 ii ,. ! :it "• m.d J S!!!.m.,.M,!!,.! ~ 1~ .. u •• 1 ~ ;e l!i!!fl!!!!i!l!!I! !!:::!'!!:!:'~~ ;3 ~i!g;;;gs.c;4gti!tlli;~a~81!~J ®-! Xl-20 I Amended 11 /27/06 / I j FIGURE 1-4 2000 DAILY TRAFFIC VOLUMES Lake Washini:tori \l-21 ~"--LI r7' legend Average @,_~) l><1ilyTraffic -_,.) City Limir f I ,r, Transportation Plan ---------------------- I A mended l 1 /27 /06 .. \ j / Xl-22 Legend Renton Planning Area Transportation Plan I Amended I J/27:06 ------- 20 FIGURE 1-5 22 DAILY TRAFFIC VO LUMES / - La":" Washington .'d-23 C1ry Limit / -_,., ') ' /' .... J Transportation Plan I Amended 11 /27/06 X!-24 Transportation Plan I Amended I \/27/06 Arterial i111provemcnts: • Puget Drive Southeast -Benson Road to 116'" Avenue Southeast • Southwest 27'" /Strander Boulevard Connection -Oakesdale Avenue Southwest to SR-181 • Duvall Avenue Northeast -Sunset Boulevard to City Limits • Widen Bronson Way-South 2"'1 Street to Sunset Boulevard • Lake Washington Boulevard-Pmk Drive to Coulon Park • Oakesdale Avenue -Monster Road to SR-900 • South Grady Way/ Rainier Avenue Sou1h -Intcrscction Improvements • No11heast 44'" Street -Ripley T .ane to Lake Washington Boulevard N.E. • SR-167/EastValleyRoadOff-Ramp • NE Yd Street -Sunset Boulevard to Edmonds Avenue N.E. HOV improvements: • Full HOV interchange al I-405 : Northu1st 44'" Street • Adel HOV lanes on 1-5 -Seattle CBll to Tacoma • 1-405 HOV Direct Access at Pmk Drive or North 8"' Street • I lalf or foll I IOV interchange at l-41l5illenson Road or Talbot Road (SR-515) and HOV lanes on SR-515 or Benson Road South li"OJn the new HOV interchange to Puget Drive • Half HOV interchange al SR-16 7:S.W. ~7'" Street and HOV lanes on S.W. 27"' Street from SR- 167 to Oakesdale Avenue Southwest • I IOV lanes or intersection queue jump on SR-169 -Sunset Boulevard to east city limits • IIOV lanes or intersection queue jump on N.E. 3'' / N.E. 4"' Street -1-405 to Monroe Avenue N011heast • Transit Lane -South Grady Way to South Third Street High-volume arterial corridors include Rainier Avenue and Airport Way, each with over 30,000 vehicles per day (vpd), and Renton Avenue, North Park Drive-Sunset Boulevard Northeast, Northeast 3"1 Strect/4'" Street, Talbot Road South, Southwest 43'" Street and South Grady Way-Main Avenue South, each canying over 20,000 vpd (volume numbers in 2000). The forecasted 2022 volumes show significant incr~<bCS over 2000 volumes. On major arterial corridors, volumes are forecasted to increase on the order or 40'X, -I 00% over the 22-ycar period. The highest-volume arterial corridor in 2022 is Rainier Avenue, with lc,rccastcd daily volumes of 20,000-66,000 through Renton. Maple Valley Highway (SR 169) also has forccasted volumes in excess of 40,000 vpd. Other high- volume arterials with forccastcd volumes in excess of 30,000 vpd are listed below: South Grady Way Airport Way/Logan Avenue rd th NE 3 --Street/N,E, 4-Street North Park Drive/NE Sunset Boulcvmd SunseJ Boulevard North (west of I-405) r ·]1 Si 4r Street/ South Carr Road/S.L 176 Street/ Petrovitsky Road Traffic volumes on the freeway system are also forecasted to increase significantly by 2022, with daily volumes of over 200,000 on most segments or 1-405 and over 120,000 on SR-167 (Valley Freeway) through Xl-25 I Amended 11 /27/06 Renton. The forecasted 1-405 volumes are equivalent to current volumes on 1-5 at the Ship Canal Bridge, where 1-5 has eight mainline lanes plus four reversible roadway lanes (as compared to the two lanes plus an HOV lane in each direction on 1-405). The 1-405 Corridor is vital for regional connections between Renton and other Puget Sound cities and for the economic vitality of the city. At the same time, the traffic that overflows out of the corridor will severely impact the City's streets and neighborhood livability. Level of Service Policy Numerous jurisdictions define Level of Service (LOS) using the traditional Highway Capacity Manual (Transportation Research Board, National Research Council, 1997). This LOS concept quantifies a motorist's degree of comfort as they travel through an intersection or along a roadway segment. The degree of comfort includes such factors as travel time, amount of stopped delay at intersections, impedance caused by other vehicles and safety. Six Levels of Service are defined using letter designations --A, B, C, D, E and F, with a LOS A representing the best operation conditions and LOS F the worst. LOS B represents stable flow with somewhat less comfort and convenience than does LOS A. At LOS C, comfort and convenience declines noticeably. At LOS D, speed and freedom to maneuver are restricted. At LOSE, speeds are low. Flow is relatively unifonn flow, but there is little freedom to maneuver. Prior to 1995, the City of Renton policy was primarily focused toward improving roadway capacity for single occupancy vehicle (SOY) travel. However, because of traffic congestion in the 1-405 and SR 167 corridors, traffic is overflowing off of these facilities onto congested arterials and diverting through Renton neighborhood streets. Trying to solve the problem solely through building facilities to improve roadway capacity only attracts more traffic onto Renton's streets. In recognition of the regional nature of the traffic problems faced by Renton and the basic impossibility of building enough roadway capacity to alleviate traffic congestion, the City of Renton revised its LOS policy in 1995 to emphasize the movement of people, not just vehicles. The new LOS policy is based on three pre1n1ses: • Level of Service (LOS) in Renton is primarily controlled by regional travel demands that must be solved by regional policies and plans; • It is neither economically nor enviromnentally sound to try to accommodate all desired single occupancy vehicle (SOY) travel; and • The decision-makers for the region must provide alternatives to SOY travel. Renton's LOS policy is based on travel time contours which in tum are based on auto, transit, HOV, non- motorized, and transp01iation demand management/commute trip reduction measures. The LOS policy is designed to achieve several objectives: • Allow reasonable development to occur; • Encourage a regionally-linked, locally-oriented, dynamic transportation system; • Establish a LOS standard that meets requirements of the Growth Management Act and King County's adopted Level-of-Service Framework Policies; • Require developers to pay a fair share of transportation costs; and • Provide Renton flexibility to adjust its LOS policy if the region decides to lower regional LOS by not providing regional facilities. Xl-26 I Amended 11 i27i06 The City of Renton LOS standard is used lo evaluate Renton citywide transportation plans. The auto. HOV and transit elements of the I.OS standard arc based on travel times and distance and arc the primary indicators for concurrency. The non-motorized and TDM measures serve as credit toward meeting multi-modal goals of Renton and the region. Rcnton's LOS standard sets a travel time standard for the total average trip rather than single intersections, and it provides a multi-modal LOS standard that conforms with current regional and local policies requiring encouragement of multi-nwdal I ravd The Renton LOS standard has been refined to provide a system for use in evaluating transportation plans. This process includes the following: • Determination of existing travel times within the City of Renton; • Calibration ofthc City of Renton traffic model to reflect existing SOV and HOV travel times: • Detennination of future SOV and IIOV trmTl times for the adopted Land Use (described in the Land Use Element) using the calibrated trnnic model; • Development of transit travel times using indicators of transit access, intra-Renton travel titne to regional system, and regiorrnl travel time: • Development of a city-wide LOS trm cl lime standard (index) using the most recent existing travel time data; • Development of transit and HOV mode splits; • Development of a twenty-year LOS standard using the most recent travel time index as the standard; • Testing transportation plans using I.OS policy and standard to gauge the performance of the local transportation system, including Statc-o\,·ncd facilities; and • Selecting a plan that maintains the c·stahlishcd LOS standard. Other elements of the LOS implementation 1m•ccss include: • Monitoring the area to rc-vcilidatc transportatil)n plans; • Adjusting transportation plans as nct.xkd to mt.:ct standards and/or address other environmental/coordination issues; ~md • Providing flexibility to modify the I.OS stancbrds over time (if needed). Level Of Service Standard A Citywide 2022 Level of Service standard has been developed for the City of Renton. The following demonstrates how Rcnton·s LOS policy was used lo ,irrive at the 2022 LOS standard. A 2002 LOS travel time index has been determined lr,r the City by establishing the sum of the average 30- minute travel distance for SOV. IIOV. and Trnnsit ,is lollows: 2002 Average PM peak travel distance in 3ll-rni11t1lcs lrorn the City in all directions sov HOV 2 times Transit LOS ( includes access time) Index 16.6 miles 18.7 miles 6.8 miles 42* * Rounded \1-27 I Amended 11/27/06 As indicated in the above table: a single occupant vehicle (SOV) could expect in 2002 to travel approximately 17 miles in 30 minutes; a high occupant vehicle (HOV -carpool, vanpool) could expect to travel approximately 19 miles in 30 minutes; and a transit vehicle could expect to travel approximately 7 miles in 30 minutes. It should be noted that the transit index value takes into account the time lo walk from the work site or residence to the bus stop and the time spent waiting for the bus to arrive. The initial value (3.4 miles in 2002) is then weighted by doubling it (to 6.8 miles) to recognize the advantage that the transit mode has over SOV and HOV modes in its passenger-carrying capacity. The 1990 LOS index of 49, and the basis for the 2010 LOS standard, presented in Renton's Comprehensive Plan adopted in 1995, was based on raw data collected prior to 1994. Subsequently in mid-1995, this raw data was updated using an enhanced Renton (1990-201 OJ transportation model, which resulted in a 1990 LOS index of 46. After calibration of a 2002 transportation model that reflects 2002 (and 2022) land use data and examining the raw data, the 2002 LOS index was found to be 42. This reduction in LOS index could be attributed to: i) reduced King County Metro transit service in Renton, especially in the Renton Valley area, as a result of regional funding constraints ( e.g. passage of Initiative 695); ii) limited implementation of Sound Transit's planned express bus service and HOV direct access projects; and, iii) higher growth rate of vehicular traffic than anticipated for the period of 1990 -2002. The 2002 LOS index is the basis for the 2022 standard. The average SOV 30-minute travel distance is forecast to decrease by 2022. SOV improvements alone will not maintain the 2002 LOS standard in 2022. A combination of HOV and/or transit improvements will need to be implemented to raise the HOV and/or transit equivalents to maintain the 2022 LOS standard. With the 2002 LOS index as a base, the City-wide 2022 LOS standard has been determined as follows: 2022 Average PM peak travel distance in 30-minutes from the City in all directions sov HOV 2 times Transit LOS (includes access time) Standard 15*miles 17* miles IO* miles 42 * Rounded This standard will require that the travel time of SOV (15) + HOV (17) + 2 T (I OJ or the sum of these three modes ( 42) must be maintained in the year 2022 and intervening years. The improvements in the Transportation Plan Arterial, HOV, and Transit Sub-Elements that arc designated for Renton have been tested against the above LOS standard to ensure that the Transportation Plan meets 2022 demands for traffic growth/land use development. To test against the LOS standard, the 2022 planned Arterial, HOV, and Transit improvements identified later in this Transportation Element are programmed into the 2022 Traffic Model. The Traffic Model then calculates the average travel speed for the SOV, I IOV, and Transit* modes along specified travel routes (which have been broken into segments of known distance) including those routes that have been identified for improvements by the year 2022. The Traffic Model then converts the travel speed along known distances into travel distances in 30 minutes for each mode of travel. The 2022 standard is met if the sum of the SOV, HOV, and Transit travel distance indices equal 42. *Other factors are considered for calculating the transit LOS index including frequency of service and access time. Additional infom1ation describing the methodology for determining Rcnton's LOS standard is provided in the City of Renton Level of Service Documentation, September 1995. Xl-28 I Amended 11 /27 /06 LOS standards for Highways of Statewide Significance (HSS) (i.e. l-5.1-405. SR 167) have been adopted in 1998 by the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT). For urban areas the adopted LOS standard is equivalent to the traditional LOS D. LOS standards for regionally significant state highways (non-HSS) in the Central Puget Sound region (i.e. Sl-t-900, SR-l 69, SR-515) were adopted by the Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC) on October 30. 200.1. for urban areas the adnpted LOS standard ranges from LOSE/mitigated (pm peak hour LOS 1s below the traditional LOS E) to the traditional LOS D. (Further infonnation on LOS standards for HSS and nun-1 ISS facilities can be found on WSDOT and PSRC web sites, respectively.) Both Highways of Statewide Significance and regionally significant state highways are included in the inventory of all state-owned facilities within Renton· s city limits. These state-owned facilities have been factored into Renton· s modeling estimates ol" Renton· s projected growth, and this local modeling estimate identifies how Renton"s Comprehensive Plan land use and growth projections may impact state-owned facilities. These state-owned facilities are also included in Renton's city-wide travel-time based LOS standard, which is influenced by stopped delay at intersections and on roadway segments by impedance due to queuing vehicles. These same factors, as well as travel time, are elements of the traditional LOS concept (A through F). To maintain Rcnton's LOS standard Rcnton's Transportation Element has identified SOY, HOV, and transit-oriented improvements to state-owned facilities within Renton. as well as the local roadway system. Arterial Plan This Street Network Chapter includes an Arterial !'Ian developed to make reasonable SOY improvements in the City of Renton from 2002 to 2022. These a11crial improvements are intended to enhance multi-modal corridor capacity on the Renton arterial system. and/or to provide new mierial and freeway com1ections as necessary to support the multi-modal concept. i\lsu. the improvements comprised by the i\rtcrial Plan have been identified through the land use and transpnrl'1tion planning process as improvements that protect or improve neighborhoods, improve safety, impron~ business access, and are economically feasible. The Renton i\rterial Plan is shown in Figure l-6. Tire i,uprovcments included in the Arterial Plan arc listed in Table I. l and their location shown in Figure I -7. The Arterial Plan (Figure 1-6) includes segmcnl.s c,J' sc, era I King County and City of Newcastle arterials. The list of a1ierial improvements includes sc\'cral pm posed King County improvements \Vithin the sphere of influence ofRenton's Land Use Element. Al«•. sc·hcral Tukwila, Kent, and Newcastle proposed improvements are included in the list in Table l. l due to their influence on the Renton arterial system. (These improvements have been compiled from the Tukwila, Kent. and Newcastle Transportation Improvement Programs and the King Cou11ty Trn11sp,,rtation Plan: ilnnual Transportation Needs Report.) The improvements listed on Table 1.1 are the artcn'11 li-eeway mitigation measures for the Land Use Element of the City of Renton Comprehensive Plan. These improvements, along with the Transit Plan and HOV improvements identified later in this document. prn,idc a transpmtation plan that will meet the 2022 Level of Service standard and will be concurrent wi1lr land use development envisioned by 2022. \l-2lJ I Amended l l/27/06 FIGURE 1-6 RENTON ARTERIAL PLAN Xl-30 Amended [ i/27/06 Renton Arterial Plan (2002 to 2022) Legend City Limit / --' ) Renton ' ,,. , I P];uming Are;i Priudp~l Arteri~l li:lllililllli1 Minor Arttrill Collector Arteri~l Transportation Plan Laki WHbiogtQo \ =!f :\ 1-11 I Amended 11127/06 Renton Arterial Plan (2002 to 2022) Legend I Renton City Limit ',,,. ,, Planning Area Principal Arterial Minor Arterial Collector Arterial --- Transportation Plan Xl-32 ® l I Amended 11/27/06 TABLE I.I RENTO~ ARTERIAL PLAN 2002 -2022 IMPROVDIENTS 1. Bronson Way -South 2'"1 Street to Park Avenue N011h 2. South Lake Washington Roadway Improvements • Logan Ave N -North 6'" to Garden ;\ venue N • Park Avenue N -North 6'" to Log,m Avenue N • North 101 " Street -Logan Avenue N to Garden Avenue N • North 8'" Street -Logan Avenue N to Park Avenue N 3. CBD Streetseape 4. Rainier Avenue -South 4'" Place to South 7'" Street 5. Grady Way-Main Avenue to West City Limits 6. Lind /\venue Southwest -Southwest 16'" to Southwest 43"1 Street 7. NE 2"d and NE 6'" Street -Duvall Avenue NE to 156 11 ' Avenue SE I 8. Duvall Avenue Northeast -Sunset Boulevard Ill;· City Limits 9. Oakesdale Avenue Southwest -Monster Road to SR-900 I 0. S.W. 27'" Street/ Strander Boulevard SR-I~ I tn Oakesdale Avenue Southwest 1. Sttn-i--t't-lki;..1kvar,JDuvall Avenue NI~ 2. Rainier Avenue -Cin.!dy -\V--1.ty-Ht-Nt.,n · "Sdui h -~,-; 0 !{ 1 1, ." Street 13. Puget Drive Southeast -Jones Place Southeast to Edmonds Avenue Southeast 14. Benson Road-South 26'" Street to South _11 '' Slreet 15. Talbot Road -Southwest 43'd to South City Limits 16. N.E. 3"1 / N.E. 4 11 ' Corridor lmprovemenls -Sunset Boulevard to East City Limits 17. Mill Avenue South/Carr Road 18. Lake Washington Boulevard. -Park;\, c11ue Nnrth to Coulon Park Entrance 19. Park Ave. N. / Sunset Boulevard -Garden ,\\-cnue N. to Duvall Avenue N.E. r· 21. South Renton Neighborhood Improvements 22. N.E. 8'" and NE 10'" Street-Union ;\venue N.I . to Duvall ;\venue N.E. 23. NE 4 11 ' Street/Hoquiam Avenue NE 24. Maple Valley Highway (SR 169) -1-405 tu Last City Limits OTHER .IUIHSDICTIO', l'L\',~LD IMPROVJ-:MENTS TUKWILA: s~(,. West Valley llighway (SR 181 )/South 15(,"' Street Xl-33 arterial improvements/bridge rehabilitation new arterial arterial widening new street new street street imrrovements arterial widening/RR over crossing replacement arterial improve1nents arterial widening street improvements arterial widening arterial widening new at1erial arterial improvcrn<.;nls arterial widening safety improvements/ arterial widening arterial widening arterial improvements intersection improvcrncnls arterial improvements safety/mobility improvements l';.'.ll\ street improvements street improvements intersection improvements safety/mobility improvements ;_:r'.c'! <ii \\·idc1: intersection improvements I __ Amended 11/27/06 24 7. West Valley Highway (SR 181)-1-405 to Strander Blvd. 27 8_. Nelsen Place -South l 56'h to South t 58'h c,-Jf_--_4_-.-_-. c>-4 5. ~ (,_ 36f}. 3'.!~S. }.~ r_-_9 ____ . 39111!. -1-l-I:'. 42-4:1 4:1, 4. KENT: South 196'h/l 92"d Street Corridor (Phase III) -East Valley Highway to SR515 80"' Avenue South -South l 96'h to South 188'" NEWCASTLE: Coal Creek Parkway (Phase 2 and 3) SE 841h Way to SE 95th Street Newcastle Way-l 12'h Avenue SE to 129'h Avenue SE Newcastle Way/ 116'" Avenue SE l 12'h Avenue SE-SE 64'" Street to Newcastle Way l 16'h Avenue SE-Newcastle Way to SE 88"' Street 112'h Place SE -West City Limit to l 16'h Avenue SE KING COUNTY: Duvall Avenue NE/Coal Creek Parkway-Renton City Limits to Newcastle City Limits (SE 95'" Way) South l 92"d Street -SR-515 to l 40'h Avenue Southeast l 16'h Avenue Southeast -R0n1<mCityL-imihl_7(,tl1A,·c SJ·: to South 192"" Street 140'h Way Avenue Southeast -SR-169 to Southeast 192"d Street Vcfft C()rridnr Sr.+t+:W-Sn 109 to T\ortlH::'f+st-Fetlft+h~H:.ettl 54th Place SJ· .. Sl · Place· Jones Road;" 15(/ Avenue SE ------ C~rr Road/ SE 176'" I SE Petrovitsky-Lind Ave. S.W. to 116'" Avenue S.E. Carr Road I Benson Road (SR-515) -1-4k5. 140'" Avenue SE/ SE Petrovitsky 45#(>. Trans-Valley Corridor -Southcenter Parkway to SR 515 44/17-Benson Road / South 31 '' Street WSDOT (Limited Access): 47#3. 1-405 -I-5 to SR 167 48fl9. I-405 -SR 167 to North City Limits 49pt1. SR 167 -I-405 to SW 43'' Street "4p 1. 1-405/SR 167 Interchange • Southbound I-405 to Southbound SR 167 • Northbound SR 167 to Northbound 1-405 • Northbound I-405 to Southbound SR 167 Xl-34 arterial improvements street improvements new arterial arterial widening arterial widening arterial widening intersection improve1nents arterial widening arterial improvements arterial improvements arterial widening arterial widening arterial w-i-t4-cnl-11gi._ffU.!f~ '. \_ l;_J_1_1_~:_11 l arterial widening ft:-=}t:-f:,J:U 1:tp [; i c"t;J n c:11 \.!.~.\~:J.}{;~:..t\.\~ n irnrrQ_\\'D_1L·n1 arterial :eali gn r-ri..;t:1_.\videning arterial improvements intersection improvements intersection improvements transportation improvements intersection improvements add one lane in each direction add two lanes in each direction add one lane in each direction construct direct connection ramp construct direct connection ramp construct direct connection ramp [ .... Amended l l/27i06 , I b. 1-405 between Lind Avenue SW and Talbot Road ·1h :,., .. ::..:f_,~. S .. •,<4 ./. r . 1-405/SR 169 Interchange • SR 169/North 3'd Street • Southbound 1-405 to Eastbound SR 169 1-405/Park Avenue N Interchange 1-405/N 30'" Street Interchange J-405;NE 44'" Street Interchange WSDOT (City RO\V) SW 43'' Street -Lind Avenue SW to Talbot Road East Valley Road -SW 16"' to SW 34'" Street Lind Avenue SW-Grady Way to SW 16'' Street Talbot Road -South Renton Village Place t,1 South 15"' Place Mill Avenue South-Houser Way to Gronsnn Way Renton and Cedar Avenue Overpasses or 1-405 Sunset Boulevard -west ofl-405 :,+-1. llouser Way-north of North 4'" Strec\ 1 Street !, .. ,+,. Lake Washington Boulevard-north ,,r NJ: 44"' Street r,c:!,6. Benson Road/1-405 Overpass POST 2022 l!\IPROVEMENTS RE:-.TOI\: South Lake Washington Improvements • Logan Avenue North-· North 4·" Stred to Garden Avenue North • Nmih 10 111 Street -Logan Avenue '.\orth to Houser Way • North 8'" Street-Logan Avenue North to Garden Avenue North XI-35 construct one-way frontage road in each direction with ramp connections to I-405 at Lind and Talbot construct split- diamond interchange construct direct connection ran1p reconstruct to accommodate 1-405 widening reconstruct to accommodate 1-405 widening reconstruct to accommodate 1-405 widening and future improvements arterial widening arterial realignment arterial widening to accommodate frontage road and 1-405 ramps arterial widening to acconunodate frontage road and 1-405 ramps convert to one-\vay no1ihbound real ignmc:nt/rcvisions to accommodate 1-405 widening rcaligrunc11t/revisions to accommodate 1-405 widening realigmnent/revisions to accommodate 1-405 \vidcning rcaligmncnt to accommodate l-405 widening replacement to accommodate 1-405 \videning arterial v.1 idening street widening arterial \videning Amended 11/27;06 • Park Avenue North-Logan Avenue North to 1,200 feet north of Logan Avenue North North 4'' Street -Logan Avenue North to Sunset Boulevard WSDOT (Limited Access): I-405 -1-5 to SR 167 1-405/SR 167 Interchange • Northbound SR 167 to Southbound I-405 East Valley Road at SW 34'" Street 1-405 at North JO'" Street 1-405 at SR 169 • Northbound I-405 to Houser Way • Southbound Houser Way to Southbound I-405 • Northbound SR 169 to Northbound I-405 WSDOT (City ROW): Rainier Avenue -Grady Way to East Valley Road East Valley Road -SW 16'" to SW 34'" Street Xl-36 new street revise street network add one lane in each direction construct direct connection ramp construct new ramps connecting to SR 167 construct direct connection ramps to and from the north construct direct connection ramp construct direct connection ramp construct direct connection ramp realign roadway to connect to East Valley Road at SW 16'" Street arterial widening I Amended 1 I /27/06 FIGLRE 1-7 RENTON ARITRIAL PLAN IMPROVEMENTS Xl-37 I Amended 11/27/06 Arterial Plan Improvements Legend -_,.' City Limit l, .,. , I Renton Planning Area By 2022 -Transportation Plan Xl-38 I Amended 11 /27/06 Arterial Plan Improvements Legend _,,' City Limit / -,,,,. / ' .... Renron Planning Area By 2022 -~ -Transportation Plan \:1-19 ® I Amended 11/27/06 Included in Table 1.1 are arterial and freeway improvements that have been identified beyond 2022. These improvements will also be needed to support future land use and neighborhood and business goals and improve safety. Ongoing transportation planning work will include periodic testing of the 2002-2022 arterial and freeway improvements in Table I. I against the LOS standard. TRANSIT In the future, fewer new roads will be built to handle increased traffic. The challenge will be to better manage the existing transportation system and reduce traffic demand by encouraging the use of alternatives to single occupant vehicles. One of the most important of these alternatives is public transportation, or "transit." The Renton transit system, defined in this Transit Chapter of the Transportation Element, must provide attractive, convenient service for the local and regional travel needs ofRcnton businesses and residents. Objectives The Transit Chapter is based on the following objectives: T-B: Encourage the development and use of alternatives to single-occupancy vehicles. T-C: Ensure that a regional high-capacity transit system serves Renton. T-D: Develop a transit system that conveniently connects the regional high-capacity transit system and local Renton residential areas, activity centers, and employment centers to the transit center. T-E: Develop a local transit system that provides attractive, convenient service for intra-Renton travel. Policies Policy T-17. The City should work with other jurisdictions in the greater metropolitan area to plan and provide frequent, coordinated and comprehensive bus service and transit facilities in all residential and employment areas. Policy T-18. Local and regional transit service and facilities should be planned and improved in cooperation with the regional transit authority. Policy T-19. The City should take an active role in working with the regional transit agencies in planning and locating public transit facilities. Policy T-20. The multi-modal Transit Center in downtown Renton should be promoted as part of a regional high capacity transit system. Policy T-21. Parking serving the downtown Transit Center should be encouraged in parking structures. Policy T-22. Non-structured park-and-ride facilities should be located out of the Urban Center and feed into the downtown Transit Center. Policy T-23. Development of a regional network using new technology to move people and goods should be supported. Xl-40 Policy T-24. The City should support development of transit service connecting Renton to a regional rail network. Policy T-25. Criteria should be developed to locate park-and-ride lots serving residential areas. Policy T-26. Park-and-rides within the City of Renton's Urban Center and its Center Village designations should meet the following criteria: • Use structured parking garages. • Be available for non-connnuter use during evenings and weekends. • Be located within the immediate vicinity of the City's Transit Center, or any future major transit transfer facility (e.g., in Renton I lighlands or South Lake Washington Neighborhood). Policy T-27. Surface park-and-rides located outside of the City's Urban Center should meet the following criteria: • Be located in the vicinity ofl-405, SR-167, SR-900 east ofl-405, and/or SR-169. (These park-and-ride locations shall be chosen to provide convenient access for transit to those Amended 11127106 corridors while minimizing commuter p.iss- through traffic on Renton's street system.) • Be located in Commercial or Industrial designations within easy walking distance of employment, and/or multi-family uses. • Not be located within the Rainier Avenue corridor north of the 1-405/SR-167 interchange. • Avoid consuming large areas of urban land for primary use parking lots. Policy T-28. Shared-use park-and-rides located anywhere within the City should meet the following criteria: • Be leased from existing, under-utilized parking spaces required per development standards for a primary use. • Not be expanded to accommodate leased park and rides. • Not be leased within the commercial area west of the Urban Center-Downtown bounded by SW 7'" Street, Shattuck Avenue, Airport Way, and Hardie Avenue SW since cash flow resulting from a lease may be a disincentive for redevelopment of surface parking lots in this area. Policy T-29. Regional commercial uses should be linked by frequent and reliable mass transit to major employment and population centers. Also see related policies in: TOM/CTR Section: I.and Use Element/Urban Center Section; and Community Design Element. The residential and centers policies of the land use plan also support transit through establishment of residential densities and a mix of residential and con1mercia[ uses in centers that can support public transportation. Specific treatment of the routes and stops for a transit system in downtown Renton are addressed in the Downtown policies of the land use plan. HoweYCL it is expected that such stops would serve commercial activity centers, which would complernent the con1mcrcial and residential activities envisioned in the centers and residential policies of the land use plan. Existing Trans it Service Bus service in Renton is currently provided by the King County Transit Division (Metro), the agency n;sponsiblc for transit service in King County. a11d Sound Transitj the agency responsible for regional transit service. figure 2-1 identifies the l:xi.s1ing bus routes opcratin~ in Renton-·i++-:J.:HP..1. A variety of Metro service is provided in the city ranging from internal Renton routes such as Route 110, the Renton "Rush" circulator route, to regional service to do\vntown Seattle and dov,·11town Bdkvuc. Sound Transit's service includes express routes operating to SeaTac and Bellevue (Route 560). to .. \uburn and Bellevue (Route 564) and to Federal Way and Bellevue (Route 565). While not serving the city directly, Sound Transit's Sounder commuter rail service stops at the nearby Tukwila station. During weekday peak periods, Sounder trains currently serve several locations in Pierce County and South King County as well ,is dmrnlown Seattle (King Street Station). The following provides an overview of the> transit network serving Renton. Local Access The route structure and service headways for Rentnn routes provide basic overall service coverage. One of the local, connnunity-oriented routes, Route I 48, pnwrdcs late evening and Sunday service. Route 105 provides evening service in the Highlands. Service connection~ in the Highlands area arc reduced in the early evening periods; however, Route 240 provides evenintr and weekend service in the Highlands. In addition, Route 110, which was intended to operate as a local cireul,11or_ rs ,11 ailable only during the peak periods and includes service connection to the Tukwila commuter rail stat inn . . ,1-41 Amended l I /27/06 Eastside Connections Several Metro and Sound Transit routes provide connections to downtown Bellevue and other Eastside communities. These connections include Bellevue (non-downtown) and Factoria. Direct service is currently provided between Highlands and Factoria via Metro Route 240. Route 140 240 provides 30-minute service during the day Monday through Saturday plus hourly service in the evenings. South King County Connections The baseline travel demand patterns indicate a substantial level of demand between Kent and various locations in Renton, particularly the Green River Valley. While several Metro and Sound Transit routes connect Kent with Renton, the service is focused on the downtown Renton. The Green River Valley area is accessed at the western edge of this district. East-West Connections Metro Route 140 currently connects Burien and Renton. Sound Transit Route 560 provides a connection between SeaTac and Renton. East-west connections to the Green River Valley area are particularly important given the current level of travel demand to this area from locations such as Tukwila and Burien. The following routes serve a variety of markets: • Routes 101 and 1 06. Downtown • Route 240, Bellevue • Route 140, Burien • Route 169, Kent • Route 148, Local Renton Tl_ll' Kiq_g_c<~untv_(:ounc_i_l __ ;1_d_optcd (SCPJ(:rnhcr 5. 200fu and volcrs approved (NoY(·mbcr 7l ___ 2006J1\·1_c_lrp's J · n1 n s i _t_ !\ ~ 1 \V 1 ()~ Y t:_;:_1 _1· I) I: 1 t 1. __ \'v_! 1 i _ch i ri; l Li(it:_~ ____ i !Tl.1? !\JY .. ': __ 1y __ 1~_UI ~-.. .t~_/.J.h~~ .... E.!.U.Q~~:..j .. 1J_g .. ..r.:qJ_1\9~_j_1__1_J~.~.l.).l.\E_L~.1..:J rt_i_n_g __ i 11 _ FL' t)r_hta_r.): 2007: • l{_d_U_l_c_ l ( l l_ \ _!_\u_itun ! u_ l )_owr_ll \\'on Si;:11_tt)i..:)-acl(j i_pg_ t\'>/o _ l1(:\\'_ m_o_rt1iqg__pc_a_~__l)(_)_ur_ _t_r_!_p5 _<_1n~J .. ~.>n~'. c\fi.s~rq~15_ }f!_ pl:;-1 k hour lri r~ for a_LQ!iiL~x[J_J_7.z_ __ a__n.r.g1;i_l_Jw_L_1_rs_ ~{ __ (1_dd_i_t_i_qna_l_ ~c,rvi_cc. • Rq_qti..: ] .·/_\) _(l{cnton-· __ Sc~1--Tac Airpnn-Bu.rien )--addim! a total ol· -+.623 annual hours of I_ :;_1.::t_v1_c1.,', _wl:ic_l_1 __ \_vi _l ! a I _I (}1N tf 1c } ,.f{) t_(_' .. r.u11 __ cy(1_y _l_ ~-111i_1_n11:c_:-; _all ~(i,:ty _ C>t1 _\_\_ttckcl,:,1ys. • I? (J Ll t ,: I _ l _ ! __ ( J _.: 1 ;( t;_ )5 .i!.U ! .h;~_l_l_"y_i/! .. X'.:.0.:-~t..R. ~ .. t}J.9.D .... J..~: ... J.!5;: .. \Y.nln_\y__11.. 5.~:_g i 1.1 t__~ }' _ _i_r_1_t; __ i_:9_<}S.t; ___ (~<-1 ; · l i _;_;_r_ __ :~ p ( l _ ! __ i:J.tq ;\!\.Tiwon ~;tTvi,:c \vith a total nf-·1()() annm!l hour;'.\ of service. _a r_e _ c_ t 1_ i T\'.; ~ U.Y.. >Y .. \?.!.'h _i _1 __ 1_g .J.i ! . .1 .. Y.LP.<.Jrtn~T~.h..i.p ... \Y..i.1J.1..J5..i._u.,g ... ~.5} .~.1.1.g }:'. M. t:.t.\\) 1 o cu-flu 1 d t h c l'u_nds tP cxp,r_id F{(J_ulc 1 _~1..'r\'ice to provide midday _scr\_'ic·1.:_ w_i_l_h (1}Q __ (_)r_h_f_)_~L1}it1ui_c:_fr_9~1.t_1_('._t_\~.Y-~. P.S:'._),Jt_l:-,_ _d __ ~J_ri_pg __ \\:_~_1.J_(_l_~1ys __ ,)_u.l_y _:_11 _1,J___l_i_1_1_k_:-the_ f{ ~nt 011 t.ran:-!ty t.· ent_cr a11cl 1·:-1 i i S 1 :1 t : , , 11. ns I _ rt;; __ ,_)_t_!_1_er .... 1 .. rH/j __ ~.'.J.'.J_!_'\}}.~-~--i .t.J..LL_t_b.5.., ) ~} ... \~'. .. \~-~r-~·.1JJi.!Tg~'. .. S'..n.1_p_l_.sl_y_q}_':-:'..U.L.:?_i {_r.:.0. __<_1_1 __ 1_d \...·ornrncn:iui :uT~b in hPlh citi1.'S. Downtown Renton Transit Center The Downtown Renton Transit Center is the hub of transit service in Renton. The Transit Center is served by regional and local service provided by Sound Transit and the King County Transit Division (Metro), and acts as both a destination and a major transfer center. The Downtown Renton Transit Center is located between South Second and South Third Streets on Burnett Avenue South and on a new comiection between Logan Avenue South and Burnett Avenue South. The facility has been carefully integrated with other planned developments in the downtown area. Custom Bus Service King County Transit, as of 2003, operated one custom bus route (952) serving Renton. This route operates one trip in the peak hour in the peak direction serving areas with significant employment density. Renton custom bus service originates at the Auburn Boeing plant, and serves Kent, Renton and tern1inates at the Everett Boeing plant. Xl-42 Amended ! I /27/06 Park-and-Ride Facilities Renton has one dedicated transit park-and-ride lot facility within the city limits: the South Renton Park-and- Ride lot located at South Grady Way and Shattuck Avenue South. This park-and-ride lot has 370 spaces and is used at capacity. There are four park-and-ride lots in the Renton plJnning area which are leased by King County Transit for commuter parking. One of the lots is in downtown Renton, at the First Baptist Church at Southwest Sunset Boulevard and Hardie Avenue Southwest. It has 21 spaces and is used at 19% capacity. A.nother lot located in the Renton Highlands at Saint Matthew's Lutheran Church on Northeast 16th Street and Edmonds Avenue Northeast has 146 spaces and is at 29% capacity. ;\ third Jot is located at the East Renton Shopping Center at Southeast !28th Street and I 64th Avenue Southeast, cast of the Renton City limits in unincorporated King County. This lot has 21 spaces and is at 29% capacity. The fourth leased lot, also located in unincorporated King County, is at the Nativity Lutheran Church "t 140th Avenue Southeast and Southeast 177th Street. This lot has 25 spaces and is at 60% capacity. The Boeing Company has aH--tai1ph+-ytt'-<m park-,rnd-ride lot located in the vicinity of North ,,;"'-6 ,-Street and Garden Avenue North. This lot has a capacity of approximately I 00 stalls. The City has leased 200 parking spaces in the downtown parking garage to King County Metro Transit as a park and ride facility. __ l:_t.ili1i_Lti(_!ll_b_y -~)Jnr, :-;h:nl !y __ [j_{) _12r_tn1lJ\.: __ vcl1_1~_tc> __ cJ11ri1_u;.__;_1 \\~:-~kd;n. Xl-43 Amended l 1127/06 FIGURE 2-l EXISTING RI!NTON TRAKillslJfVICE AND FACILITIES LEGEND -8115 Routes with afl-<lay servic:o --Bus Routes with JM!Gk on\y service Bin Rout. Numbers · c..-.6-m' ,_ ~ AJI-Oay ~ Peak-Only Trans~ "' Ill TranSR c«,\<Ot ® ~='!\ot City of Renton .. + RENTON - Transit Routes ® King (llllntY Xl-44 I Amended 11/27/06 EX!SflN-(i RENTON Existing Transit Service '< ()()0j) CitvUmit Renton Plonning Neu PEx.JK ~rkJd Service -- AJI [KJ'y s,;,MCe Plan ' ~-101,105,106,107 U0, 143. 1 .... 1<9 153, 169.2<0~ 5ro,565,900,»o9 -Rli 2-l \IJ'.SFRV-l('E-AN-1)--FA-ClLl-!--IES Crt/ Lhnib Xl-45 I Amended 1 l /27/06 Future Regional Accessibility The long range transit and rideshare service concept for the King County Transit Division (Metro) service area is described in the Long Range Policy Framework.for Public Transportation (adopted October, 1993). The Framework establishes policies that will guide future planning and development efforts, and it identifies possible policy implementation strategies. More specific near term transit improvements are outlined in the King County Transit Division's Six-Year Transit Development Plan for 2002-2007. On May 31, 1996 the Central Puget Sound Regional Transit Authority (Sound Transit) approved a I 0-year plan, Sound Move, which is illustrated in Figure 2-2: The Ten-Year Regional Transit System Plan. Voters approved a funding package to implement the plan on November 5, 1996. The approved Sound Transit Plan includes the following regional improvements: light rail transit, commuter rail transit, HOV expressway development, regional express bus service, and community connection improvements. Sound Transit improvements which will directly serve Renton include HOV access improvements, express bus service, and local connection improvements. In addition, commuter rail running between Seattle and Tacoma will stop at a station serving Renton and Tukwila, sited adjacent to the Boeing Longacres property. Efficient transit com1ections will be provided between the Downtown Renton Transit Center and the Commuter Rail Station. Sound Transit provides regional express bus service, with three routes serving Renton. As noted previously, express routes serve SeaTac, Bellevue, Auburn and Federal Way. To ensure quick access to the Downtown Renton Transit Center, the Sound Move plan identified direct access HOV ramps on 1-405 in the vicinity of North 8"' Street and needed arterial HOV improvements in Renton to improve transit speed, reliability and ridership of transit services. Before constructing any arterial HOV improvements, Sound Transit will evaluate alternative improvements to benefit transit speed, reliability, and access. The City of Renton is coordinating with Sound Transit to ensure that commensurate transit service and improvements to improve transit speed, reliability and ridership in Renton will be provided should 1-405/HOV direct access ramps not be implemented. Transit Plan Transit improvements are needed to provide the facilities and services necessary to support and encourage increased transit use and provide an alternative to single occupancy vehicle travel. The transit facilities and services outlined in the Transit Chapter of the Transportation Element are needed to provide adequate access between the regional transit system and Renton residential and employment areas, and to provide an attractive transit alternative for travel within Renton. As described in the previous section, an element of the regional system is the Seattle-Tacoma commuter rail line. Access to Renton is provided by a station located on the Renton-Tukwila border between Longacres Way and Strander Boulevard. This station is currently served by local bus transit and will additionally be served by local, and possibly regional, bus transit, including fast connections to the Downtown Renton Transit Center. Xl-46 Amended 11/27.:06 RFCit,i· ,, Yu,dy Gig '""" RE '· 7 2,'\Sll S'{,STEM I ' s.um,..., \ lff" 50UNDTRANS1T RIDE 1'11£ WAVE .\1-47 0 N -STE:<pro,.bu> -Sounder commulerrail -Linlcli9/itr~il "', """' Futur~1;9ntrail 0 ;%~;;:.,:~~:' 0 Parlc&n.t, @ Tr~n,~Conter ® fl,er,tap Q Station Amended 11/27/06 FIGURE·-±-± RECilON.\L TRANSIT ~+FJvt Sound Move The Regional Transit System Plan XIA8 0 N -fl Elfltll llM -s..m .... · -u..• ... -f...-.lWll'MM ·--OIIIOY-AIIIIP ·-.._.=---'@hlll•""" lake @ ,,_. (-.a 6 .,., ... 0-.............. R.eglonol Th.nsit Syitan ® Amended 11127/06 Regional transit services arc provided by the previously described Sound Transit express bus service, as well as by select King County Transit Division (Metro) express bus routes. The local transit system links neighborhoods and commercial centers with one another as well as to the regional transit system through connections to the Downtown Renton Transit Center. Local service is provided through a combination of services, including buses, shuttles, and Dial-a-Ride (DART) service. In addition, interceptor park-and-ride lots outside of downtown Renton should be developed close to trip origin locations, with transit service feeding the Transit Center and regional services. Renton has been and will continue to work with these transit agencies to assure that transit adequately serves Renton· s developing residential areas. An illustration ofRenton's 20-year transit plan is pro\'lded in Figure 2-3. This figure depicts planned regional and local improvements, and identifies at a conceptual level potential service types and transit routes. Specific transit service improvements and facilities identified for the next 6 years, and over the next 20 years to support Rcnton's conceptual transit plan, are described in the City of Renton Transit Needs Assessment as well as in the King County Transit Division's Six-Year Trnnsit Development Plan for 2002-2007 and by the regional Sound Move program. The Transit Plan comprises a trnnsit system that will serve Renton from 2002 to 2022, as a regional destination and as a city with commercial and neighborhood centers. It should also he noted that the exclusive freeway/arterial HOV facilities included in the HOV Chapter are needed to supp01i and encourage increased transit LLSC by improving transit travel times (by enabling buses to bypass or avoid the traffic congestion that is forecastecl for the Renton and regional road systems). Level of Service The City of Renton Level of Service (LOS) policy emphasizes the movement of people, not just vehicles. This LOS policy is based on a set of multi-modal clements including auto, transit, HOV, non-motorized, and transportation demand management/commute trip reduction n1easures. The LOS standard will be used to evaluate Renton citywide transportation plans. The auto, HOV, and transit measures will be based on travel time contours and will be the primary indicators for concurrency. The 2022 LOS standard has been established t<1 greatly increase the competitiveness of transit compared to SOY travel. Achieving this goal has guided the planning and programming of the elements of the Transit Plan. Information on development of the transit index of the Level of Service Standard is provided in the City of Renton Level of Service Documentation. Ongmng transportation planning work will include continued refinement and updating of the transit index. XJ-49 I Amended 11127/06 FIGLRE 2-3 RENTON TRANSIT PLAN High Cpm:.u:yTrar~it& Od,er --R.egkmal Transit Ro11m • • • • • • ~,,,_,_ I':lrk&Ride 11-1 Xl-50 ransportatio Plan I Amended 11 /27 /06 : I I I ~,~ ,_ ;1,, ,. Kent ii\ ;.~L---2-3 ! ii \-"<\FliPLi\"' ·· FAIRIVOOD f1enton 2002-2022 Transit Plan -Conceptual r :,nlf ·. -,·,c, ,!, Planning An:a Leg\·nd I-~ ,. I '1 Cc,rrnnuter R,1il -11111 I ! i h -r>;,ri,y · 1 ·r:u1s1t & Odkr "J ·rr~.mir Rom(; • • • • • • <.·! l ~,m.;it Routes Q Transit l Iub Xl-51 Park&Ridl' ~ ransportatio Plan I Amended 11/27/06 HIGH OCCUPANCY VEHICLE (HOV) In the future, fewer new roads will be built to handle increased traffic. A major challenge of the Renton Transportation Element will be to better manage the existing transportation system and reduce traffic demand by encouraging the use of alternatives to single-occupant vehicles. The HOV Chapter addresses this challenge by focusing on increasing the person-carrying capacity of the system rather than the vehicular capacity. Objectives The HOV Chapter is based on the following objectives: T-F: Encourage the development and use of alternatives to single-occupancy vehicles. T-G: Develop HOV facilities on freeways and arterials to support and encourage ridcsharing by enabling HOVs to bypass or avoid severe traffic congestion on Renton and regional street and highway networks. T-H: Provide facilities to support attainment of Commute Trip Reduction and other Growth Management goals within the City. Policies Policy T-30. The City should support completion of a comprehensive system of HOV improvements and programs on state highways and regional arterials that give high-occupancy vehicles a travel time advantage over single-occupancy vehicles. Policy T-31. The City should continue to promote measures to increase the use of high occupancy vehicles among employers located within the City. Policy T-32. A continuous network of arterial HOV facilities (lanes, bypass, etc.) should be provided on the congested travel corridors in Renton. Policy T-33. Arterial HOV facilities should be provided on the local arterial routes in Renton that provide access to/from the regional highway system. Existing HOV Facilities Policy T-34. The City should establish or should encourage the establishment of arterial HOV system warrants. standards and criteria for usage (volume, capacity, LOS); physical and geometric characteristics; appropriate locations; time-of-day of operation; HOV facility type. Policy T-35. The City should support a regional vehicle occupancy monitoring and HOV system evaluation program that includes elen1ents such as a "demonstration managed lanes" project, electronic tolling or "HOT LANES" concept. (Also see related policies in the TDMICTR Section and see King Countv Countywide Planning Policies.) Freeway HOV facilities are provided on Interstate 405 and SR-167. These include inside (median) HOV lanes, both northbound and southbound, on I-405 from the I-5 interchange and continuing to the Renton north city limit and beyond. Two or more persons in a vehicle are allowed to travel in these lanes. These lanes are in effect 24 hours per day, except when non-HOV use is allowed between 7 pm and 5 am. Inside HOV lanes, both northbound and southbound, exist on SR-167 between the south Renton city limits and SR-405. This HOV facility is also designated for 2· occupant vehicles. An HOV queue jump lane is provided at the following interchange ramps in Renton: the northbound SR-167 to northbound l-405 ramp; the I-405/SR-169 (Maple Valley) northbound and southbound on-ramps; the I- 405/N.E. Park Drive northbound and southbound on-ramps; the I-405/N.E. 30 1 1, northbound on-ramp; and, the I-405/N.E. 44 1 1, southbound on-ramp. Each of the queue jump lanes has a 2+ designation. Xl-52 Amended 1 J/27/06 HOV Plan HOV facilities on SR-167 and 1-405 provide the li-eeway HOV system through Renton .. Additional regional HOV facilities (i.e., on 1-5) must be implemented by the State Department of Transportation in order to provide regional HOV service to the 1-405 and SR 167 corridors. To-date HOV lanes have been completed on 1-5 between the Seattle CBD and Puyallup and on SR 167 between 15 1 " Street NW in Auburn and 1-405 in Renton. The City has identified arterial HOV corridors based on the policies listed previously. These corridors include many of the principal arterials through central Renton and state routes throughout the city. The Renton HOV Plan includes the provision (over the next 20 years (2002 to 2022) of the HOV facilities shown in Figure 3-1. The Plan includes HOV facilities, in the form of I IOV lanes or intersection queue jumps, in the Renton corridors listed below: • Rainier Avenue/ Airport Way • SR-169 (Maple Valley Highway) • Park Drive North/ N.E. Sunset Boulevard • SR-515 or Benson Road • S.W. 27th Street XI-53 ~ '~ '" ', ' Map Index ol HOV I ~ mprovements ~ Improvement Limits l Figure 3,1 Add HOV Lanes I. SR 167 .SB HOV L1ne Extension Add HOV Ramps North :o J.40S · I 2. l-'I05/SR·l67 half inlcrchange N0<TuSc,k NB SR-167 to KB !-405 SB 1-405 co SEl SR·167 3. 5s\J.6J1st SB on-ramp HOV bv·paii lane$ SW 43rd NB on-ramp New HOV Interchange 4 l-405;Norrh8rh 5. SR 167/SW Z7rl:Sr 6. 1.-405/NE 44rh Si foil Cnterd,ang,;, half inrerchnn~e lull ,r1terchangr Arterial HOV Lanes or Intersection Queue Jump 7. SR 169 Sllruec Blvd to 140th Wav SE 8. Park Dr/Sun.sct Olvd G~rden Ave to Es,st cicy limir 1b·. ~niYl&"AirporrWay §:W'c~~e~d~:C~sw J [ SR 515 l-'105 re Sou ch nty limit Transit Corridor Grady Way to ?.irk Ave Renton HOV Plan (2002·2022) Legend ' -' '' I 0 Freeway HOV Lanes An~ria! HOVTre~t,nen~ --Transportation Plan ~~ 0 >-< z§ ::r: :;,:, 0 tTl <w '"d r ~ - )> 3 g 1r C. "' g °' / •J, v, Map Index of HOV I ~ mprovements V Improvement Limits I Figure 3-1 Not th. to HOS ' ' Add HOV Lanes I. SR167,SBHOVLaneI:xtemion Add HOV Ramps 2 l-405/SR·l67 NB SR-167 to NB 1-405 SB HOS to SBSR-167 3· 5[J,6Jtn SB en-ramp SW '43rd NB on-nirnp New HOV Interchange 1-405/Nurd, Bcl, SR 167/SV.' 27th S, '1 J-4(\5/lsE 44ch Sr h~!f mcerch.mge HOV by-pass lanes 1ull _u11en:.'.lan~e ltJ!t btercbngr tull ,.,techange Arterial HOV Lanes or Intersection Queue Jump -ToScale 7. SR 169 Suruet Blvd ro 140:h w~, Sr'. ~ Park Dr/S«ruet Blvd Ga«kn A,-, 10 l:::i,t ,m· 1:,,.,r 9. R,uri.<,:c Avc/Airpon 'W'~y ~R ':100 D Lo~an.-\ve N. 10. SW 27th St SR 167 to Oa esdale A~e S'l1 11. SR515 H05toSuu 1c1t,,ltmu Transit Corridor 12. R:.inier, or otlu:r =ets Grady Way to Park Ave und,r evahm!on/S 3rrl/Burnett/ Log:in/N 6th Renton HOV Plan (2002-2022) Cicy Ltrnlr Renton Planning Area HOV-Only lntcrcha~ Legend e _, ''I - • Frn"W'ily HOV Lane5 Ar~tial llOVTrtatmcm, --Transportation Plan > 3 g 0. 8. ,0 .., c5 °' I Amended J J ,27/06 In addition to arterial HOV improvements, construction of direct access HOV interchange ramps to provide connections to the 1-405 HOV lane system is planned at N.E. 44th Street, N. 8'" Street, and on the SR-167 system at S.W. 27th Street. These ramps will provide vital HOV access and enable efficient transit movements in the City to support regional and local transit service consistent with the objectives and policies described in the Transit Chapter of this Transportation Element. The HOV Plan also includes a transit corridor in Central Renton: S. 3"1/Burnett/ Logan/N. 6'h comprise the northern portion of the corridor and in the southern portion South Grady Way, Rainier Avenue, Lind Avenue, and Hardie Avenue-aRt1-ivk+inAvc1me-S,'>tll+l are under consideration to complete the corridor. (Other potential north-south streets south of S. 4'" Street, i.e. Shattuck Avenue S., Burnett Avenue, Williams Avenue and Wells Avenue are not under consideration as a result of the City's decision, in response to significant public input, to locate the southern portion of the transit corridor outside of the South Renton residential area.) A north-south transit corridor is an important element of a transit plan that supports Renton's policies to: 1) encourage local and regional transit agencies to provide a high level of transit service to the Downtown Renton Transit Center by improving transit travel time, accessibility and reliability; and, 2) provide an attractive and effective alternative mode of transportation to the single occupant vehicle that contributes to a reduction in traffic congestion and air pollution in Renton's Urban Center. Also, the Strander Boulevard improvement identified in the Arterial Plan, Table J. l, will serve transit vehicles as well as SOV and HOV traffic and is planned for implementation coordinated with the Renton/Tukwila commuter rail station. Several of the above HOV/transit improvements have been identified for funding under the regional Sound Transit plan approved by voters. Under this regional high capacity transit plan, Renton is designated to be served by the regional express bus system. Sound Transit has evaluated if there are capital facilities that could be constructed in Renton which would improve reliability and travel time for transit and HOV movement sufficient to warrant Sound Transit's investment. Sound Transit has identified the Central Renton north-south transit corridor improvements and HOV direct access interchange improvements at North 8'" Street as beneficial capital investments. The improvements in the Renton HOV Plan, along with improvements in the Arterial Plan and Transit Plan, provide a multi-modal transportation plan that meets the 2022 level of service standard for the projected travel demand from land use development envisioned by 2022. HOV improvements in the 1-405 corridor that have been identified beyond 2022 are listed below. These improvements would help to support future land use development. If these improvements were implemented by 2022 they could help maintain Renton's 2022 level of service standard. 1-5/1-405 Interchange • Northbound 1-5 to Northbound 1-405 • Southbound 1-405 to Southbound 1-5 • Southbound 1-5 to Northbound 1-405 1-405/SR 167 Interchange • Northbound SR 167 to Southbound 1-405 • N011hbound 1-405 to Southbound SR 167 1-405 at Tukwila Commuter Rail Station 1-405 at Rainier Avenue construct direct connection ramp construct direct connection ramp construct direct connection ramp construct direct connection ramp construct direct connection ramp construct half interchange construct half interchange Ongoing transportation plam1ing work will include further analysis of the freeway interchange and arterial corridor HOV improvements identified in the HOV plan to verify physical, operational and financial needs and scheduling of implementation. This further study may find that the planned HOV improvements may not be feasible on one or more of the selected corridors. Therefore, ongoing work will also include the examination of additional arterial corridors for HOV treatment on an as-needed basis (without over-developing or over- Xl-56 Amended 11 /27/06 using this type of transportation facility). Chn-,bclopmcnt of HOV facilities can lead to under-utilization and HOV traffic dispersion, rather than consolidation. Level of Service As discussed in the Arterial Chapter, the City or Renton LOS policy emphasizes the movement of people, not just vehicles. This LOS policy is based on a set of multi-modal elements including auto, transit. HOV, non- motorized, and trnnsportation demand manag.ernent/commute trip reduction measures. The LOS standard will be used to evaluate Renton citywide transportation plans. The auto. HOV, and transit measures of this LOS standard will be based on travel times and distance and will be the primary indicators for concurrency. HOV improvements along with transit improvements should show great effectiveness in improving 2022 travel times and distance. Achieving this goal will guide the planning and programming of the elements of the HOV Plan. Further information on how the HOV index or the Level of Service Standard was established is provided in the City of Renton Level of Service Support Document. Xl-57 I Amended I 1 /27/06 NON-MOTORIZED TRANSPORTATION The non-motorized component of the City's Transportation Plan is designed to enhance the quality of urban life in Renton, to improve walking and bicycling safety, and to support the pedestrian and bicycle transportation modes as alternatives to the use of automobiles. The plan recognizes that non-motorized facilities along roadways and trails may serve multiple functions, including commuting and recreation. The on-street elements are specified in the City ofRenton Comprehensive Citywide Walkway Program and as described later in this section. Off-street elements of the non-motorized transportation system arc specified by the City of Renton Long Range Parks, Recreation Open Space and Trails Master Plan described in the Parks Element. 1. Renton's existing transportation system is oriented towards accommodating cars, trucks, and buses rather than pedestrians or bicycles. The intent of the objectives and policies that follow is to provide guidelines for reevaluating the existing system and providing a better environment for walking and bicycling. Overall, pedestrian facilities throughout the City are intended to be upgraded. 2. More facilities are also needed for bicycle storage and parking in shopping areas, employment centers and in public places. 3. A better pedestrian network can be encouraged by creating an interconnected street system, developed to street standards, which include adequate walkways and street crossings. Traffic sanctuary islands and midblock crossings across busy arterials are also useful methods of improving the pedestrian environment. Objectives The Non-Motorized Chapter is based on the following objectives: T-1: Improve the non-motorized transportation system for both internal circulation and linkages to regional travel. T-J: Develop and maintain comprehensive trails system which provides non-motorized access throughout the City, maximizes public access to open space areas, and provides increased recreational opportunities for the public. T-K: Integrate Renton's non-motorized transportation needs into a comprehensive transportation system serving both local and regional users. T-L: Enhance and improve the non-motorized circulation system to, from, and within the City. T-M: Develop and designate appropriate pedestrian and bicycle commuter routes along existing minor arterial and collector arterial corridors. Policies Policy T-36. Pedestrian and bicycle tratfic should be accommodated within all areas of the City. Policy T-37. Pedestrian and bicycle movement across arterial intersections should be enhanced. Policy T-38. Obstructions and conflicts that restrict pedestrian movement should be XI-58 minimized on sidewalks, paths and other pedestrian areas. Policy T-39. Convenient and safe pedestrian and bicycle access should be provided to and at the downtown Transit Center and all transit stops. Policy T-40. Bicycle storage facilities and parking should be encouraged within I Amended 11 /27/06 development projects, in commercial areas and in parks. Policy T-41. Streets and pedestrian paths in residential neighborhoods should be arranged as an interconnecting network and should connect to other streets. Policy T-42. New pedestrian facilities should be compliant with the Americans with Disabilities Act, and existing facilities should be upgrnded to improve accessibility. Policy T-42.1. Non-motorized transportation should be developed in tandem with motorized transportation systems, recognizing issues such as safety, user diversity, and experiential diversity. Policy T-42.2. Recognize the diversity of transportation modes and trip purposes of the following four groups: pedestrians. bicyclists. joggers and runners. Existing Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities Policy T-42.3. Foot/bicycle separation should be provided wherever possible; however, where conflict occurs, foot trafiic should be given preference. Policy T-42.4. Adequate separation between non-motorized and motorized traffic should be provided to ensure safety. Policy T-42.5. The adopted Long Range Parks, Recreation. Open Space, and Trails Plan should be coordinated with and be an integral component of the City's on-going transportation planning activities. Policy T-42.6. Appropriate mitigation measures should be taken to address impacts on the City's transportation infrastmcture. Contributions to the City's non-motorized circulation system will help alleviate such impacts. The City's existing non-motorized transport at ion s:ystc:m is comprised primarily of roadside sidewalks. Pedestrians have the exclusive use of sidewalks within business districts and have shared use with cyclists in other areas of the city. Although the City Code requires that side1Yalks be provided on all streets, many of the public streets were constructed before the existing code was enacted. and as a result, numerous roadways are currently without sidewalks. Streets needing sidewalks include hoth local and a1terial roadways. The City q(Renton Cumprehensive Citvwide Walkway Studv addresses the sidewalks and walkways within the City. This report identifies a priority roster to construct "1nissi111/ sidewc1lk/walkway sections throughout the City. The priority evaluation system is based on ti-,m sidewalk users: 1) school children, 2) elderly persons, 3) transit riders. and 4) all other users. Except within business districts, cyclists may use existing sidewalks. provided that they yield the right-of- way to pedestrians. As of c'ltfl:'uu11, Renton has a combined bicycle/pedestrian facility along Garden Avenue North (North 6 1h Street to North X''' Street) and North 811 ' Street (Garden Avenue Norih to Houser Way). and striped bicycle lanes on Southwest l 6'h Street (Oakesdale Avenue Southwest to Longacres Drive), on Oakesdale Avenue Southwest (SW I 611 Street to SW 27 11 ' Street) on Duvall Avenue NE (NE 4'" Street to NE 811' Street), and on NE 4'h Street (cast of Duvall Avenue NE). Renton is located at the crossroads of a n:gion,il system of existing and proposed trails. Existing trails within the City include the Cedar River Trail System and a portion of the Lake Washington Loop Trail. Regional Systems with proposed access to the City include the Green River Trail and the Interurban Trail. Figure 4-1 shows the existing (200<,:\) non-nwtmrzed facilities within Renton and the nearby regional routes. .\.1-59 I Amended 11/27/06 .FIGURE+! EXISTING l\ON:MOTORIZED _FACILITIES Existing Non-Motorized Facilities Legend Ciry Limit I Renton. Planning Area _,, ) ' .,,. ,.I Transportation Plan Lake Wasblngtou XI-60 -Bicycle Facllltes ® l TaylorAve/Hardie Ave lake Ave/Tobin Sr lake Washingron Loop Southwest 16th Street Oakesdale Ave SW Duva!lA,-eNE 7. NE 4th Street -Mixed use Facititles JO. Cedar Ri\"erNrban Industrial Zone IL RainierAw: lZ. Gm:n River Trail l3. Interurban Trail L4. Garden A1l'/N 8th St 15. Springbrook Trnil Pedestrian Factliiies 20. Cedar RiHr Trail Amended I l /27/06 bX,ISTl'IC Existing Non-Motorized Facilities (Z(Xl3) Ci{y LlllHf Rcnrnn l'lannlng Ar..:-,1 Transportation Plan / 'i ®\ ,--- --i ,, ' a ; <'3; SVH~ J i -----· --- ' I 1. ____ T ·; L -,'r ,-.. -~L "}. ,, { -' I I " I ',i *lc-4-+ 'IORIZLD J,\Cll!Tll'.S Kent :\l-61 L .7--•< // --__ ""'.". -Bicycle Focllites JJ.vlorAc./lt:ml,c· :\\,· I ;.kt' A,·t/l<J1:n St L:ke W,d1i111,;1<.11l l.vnp Sm.1th>.1Y:=t !(nh S1r,,,·1 5. Chkt::s(blv :\w S?:1 0 Duvall AwNf 7. NE 4th S1tt-:r -M:xed use facitiiles 10 (:,._,,Jar Rin:dUrkn Indu~tr~,l Zu11e II lbiniNA.w 12. G~.:n Riwr Tr.ii! l 'l. lmrrurh.1r, Trail [t C:rnl,'.n Aw/N ilrh S( I). Sptin;::l•wnk "fo,i! Pedeslrion Focmnes 20. Ced.n Rwn Tr,iil Amended 11/27/06 Design criteria for walkways, trails, and bikeways are contained in a variety of documents, including the City of Renton Municipal Code and Trails Master Plan, King County Road Standards, American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities, and Federal Highway Administration Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (the MUTCD). Neighborhood and Regional Access The principal non-motorized facility type linking neighborhoods within Renton and providing regional access are sidewalks or walkways. These facilities provide safe non-motorized mobility for both pedestrians and cyclists outside of business districts. Within business districts, sidewalks provide safe mobility for pedestrians. Currently, the sidewalks that exist along most of the arterials within the City provide the primary regional link as well. This "regional" access includes non-contiguous areas within Renton as well as areas outside of the City plalllling area. Some notable walkway deficiencies exist along sections of Maple Valley Highway (SR-169), Puget Drive, and Talbot Road South. These roadways do not currently provide safe non- motorized mobility through Renton. Installation of walkways/sidewalks has been either programmed into future transportation improvement projects, or identified in the City of Renton Comprehensive Citywide Walkway Study. Non-motorized neighborhood collllections arc made via sidewalks along arterial and collector roadways. Sidewalk connections between most neighborhoods within the City limits currently exist. In some locations, however, sidewalks are not continuous along a roadway. In potential annexation areas that are or were defined as "rural" by King County, sidewalks have generally not been constructed along either arterial or local roadways, because sidewalks are not required by rural area design standards. Most existing county roadways have either paved or gravel shoulders for use by cyclists and pedestrians. Consequently, many of the potential annexation areas do not provide protected non-motorized inter-neighborhood connection. ii ti-~ -i:,;. 11-0-1.--1-I-H:.s-.Jas0--1-n--Fa-tFWtHJB:--ho-W£-W~-:.;vhcrc ~;id1..'.\Valk.,· ha v-c-l 'H.:cn--i-Hs-ta l k-d "t'} rn-+u-gh t•Ut· .. ··H·h> -d·C'\··e1-r,p-J-H-i.:.'HL Another important consideration is the bicycle route connection to regional cycling corridors. The regional corridors, to which the Renton bicycle routes should collllect, include the Interurban, Christensen/Green River, Lake Washington Loop, Sammamish, and Soos Creek Trails. Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities Plan The City, per the Comprehensive Citywide Wallcway Study, will construct sidewalks/walkways at "missing locations." In some areas, sidewalks will be constructed along each side of the street. Because of physical constraints such as side slopes and roadway grades, or minimal expected pedestrian usage, some locations will have pedestrian/cyclist facilities constructed on only one side of the street. Sidewalk facilities will be constructed as part of a prioritized installation program. Additional non-motorized facilities will be constructed in conjunction with roadway improvement projects and as part of the Transit Improvement Program. Current allllexation area roadways without sidewalks will be added to the Comprehensive Citywide Wa/hray Stu,(y after annexation into the City. Sidewalk improvements on roadways could be improved through local improvement district (LID) and capital improvement projects (CIP). Table 4.2 lists routes that have been identified as important bicycle transportation elements. Along roadways designated as bicycle routes, roadway or shoulder widening may accommodate cyclists' needs. Xl-62 Amended 11 /27/06 These improvements could be added when roadway improvement projects are constructed or implemented as individual improvement projects. Further review by the City of Renton, in cooperation with citizen groups, will be necessary to determine which of the projects listed in Table 4.1 are selcctccl for development. King County is pursuing development of bicycle facilities outside of the Renton city limits. Four routes leading into Renton have been identified in ihc King County Non-motorized Plan: '" • 116 Avew1e Southeast (Edmonds Avenue Southeast) (Southeast Petrovitsky Road to South 1 ST Street) '"' • 140 Place/Avenue Sontheast (Southe'1st 191 Street to Southeast Renton-Maple Vallev Road) tri· rnY • State Route 900 (138-Avenue Southeast (DU\all Avenue Northeast) to Southeast 82-Street) • Coal Creek Parkway Southeast (Newcastle City Limits to Renton City Limits) The routes identified by the City of Renton and listed in Table 4.1 will be planned to connect with these proposed King County facilities. The City o/Renton I.ong Range Parks, Recrrntion. 01,en Space, and Trails Plan identified in the Parks Element provides an in-depth description or proposed walking, bicycle, and mixed-use trails. By nature, these types of trails are primarily used for rccrcati,rnal purposes, and are not necessarily supportive of transportation goals. The creation of these trails would certainly supplement the City's non-motorized transportation system, and their development by tlic Parks Department should be encouraged. Routes that are found to be important transporiation elements Clluld be constnrcted through the transportation program. ,\J-(,3 I Amended 11/27/06 Facility Name Sunset Bypass Route Monroe Avenue Northeast Duvall Avenue Northeast Lake Washington Boulevard (Lk Washington Loop Route) Garden (Lk Washington Loon Roule) Central Renton Connection (Lk Washington Loop Route) Burnell Airport (Lk Washington Loop Route) Hardie/Rainier Bypass Southwest fh Southwest 16th Southeast Area Strander Boulevard/Southwest 27 1h Street Sunset Boulevard (West) Talbot Road Northeast 3rd/Northeast 4th Street TABLE 4.1 PROPOSED BICYCLE ROUTES Route Northeast 17'" Street (Duvall Avenue Northeast to Union Avenue Northeast) Union Avenue Northeast (Northeast 17'" Street to Northeast 12'" Street) Northeast 12th Street or NE 10 1h Street (Union A venue Northeast to Edmonds Avenue Northeast) Edmonds Avenue Northeast (Northeast 12'" 010'" Street to Northeast Park Drive) Northeast Park Drive (Edmonds Avenue Northeast to Lake Washington Boulevard North) Monroe Avenue Northeast (Northeast 4'" Street to Northeast 12'" Street) Duvall Avenue Northeast (Northeast IO'" Street to Northeast 24'" Street) Lake Washington Boulevard (Northeast 44'" Street to Coulon Park) (Partially completed) Houser Way North (Lake Washington Boulevard to North 8'" Street) Garden Avenue North (North 6'" Street to Bronson Way) Garden Avenue/North 61h Street to Airport Perimeter Road (Various routes under consideration). Burnett Avenue South (Cedar River Trail to Southwest 7111 Street) Airport Perimeter Road corridor (Logan A venue North to Rainier A venue) Rainier Avenue North (Airport Perimeter Road to Northwest 3"' Street) Northwest 3ro (Rainier Avenue North to Hardie Avenue Northwest) Hardie Avenue (Northwest 3rd Street to Southwest 71h Street) Southwest 7'' Street (Burnell to Oakesdale) Lind Avenue Southwest (Southwest 7th Street to Southwest 16 1h Street) Southwest 16 111 Street (Lind A venue Southwest to Raymond A venue Southwest) Main Avenue (Bronson \Vay to Benson Road South) Benson Road South (Main Avenue South to Southeast 168 111 Street) Puget Drive Southeast (Benson Road South to Edmonds Avenue Southeast) Edmonds A venue Southeast (Puget Drive Southeast to South 1571h Street) Springbrook Wetlands Trail to lntemrban Trail Hardie A venue Southwest to 'J,;1 est City Limits South 7'" Street lo South City Limits Sunset Boulevard North to East City Limits XI-64 I Amended 11 /27/06 TRANSPORTATION DEMAND MANAGEMENT/ COMMUTE TRIP REDUCTION (TDM/CTR) As stated in the Arterial, Transit, and HOV Chapters, a major challenge of the Renton Transportation Plan will be to better manage the existing transportation system and reduce traffic demand by encouraging the use of alternatives to singk occupant vehicles, The lransp011ation Demand Management/Commute Trip Reduction (TDM/CTR) Chapter addresses this challenge by focusing on encouraging and facilitating reductions in trip- making, dispersion of peak period travel demand throughout the day, increased transit usage, and increased ride sharing, In enacting the Washington State Commute Trip Reduction (CTR) law of 1991, and the 1997 amendments, the State Legislature found that decreasing the demand for vehicle trips is significantly less costly and at least as effective in reducing traffic congestion and its impacts as constructing new transportation facilities, such as roads and bridges, to accommodate increased trartic volumes, The legislature further found that reducing the number of commute trips to work made via single occupant cars and light trucks is an effective way of reducing automobile-related air pollution, traffic congeslion and energy use. The goals, objectives, and policies of the Transportation Demand Management/Commute Trip Reduction Chapter also are based on these findings. Objectives The Transportation Demand Management'Cornrnul c Trip Reduction Chapter is based on the following objectives: T-N: Encourage the development and use of altcrnmives to single occupancy vehicles. T-0: Promote a reasonable balance between parking supply and parking demand. Policies This Chapter of the Transpol'tation Elemenr o/rhe Compl'ehensive Plan contains City policies concerning Transportation Demand Management and Cnrnrnutc Trip Reduction (including support for ride sharing and management of parking supply). Policy T-43. The disruptive impacts oftraflic related to centers and employment areas should he reduced. (In this context, disruptive impacts arc primarily traffic. They could he mitigated through techniques such as transportation management programs implemented through cooperative agreements at the work place, flexible work hours, and suharea planning.) Policy T-44. Appropriate parking ratios should be developed that take into account existing parking supply, land use intensity, and transit and ride- sharing goals. Policy T-45. Alternatives to on-street or 011-sile parking should be explored, Policy T-46. Site selection criteria should be developed for location of park-and-ride lots serving residential areas. .\1-65 Policy T-47. The construction of parking structures in downtown Renton should be encouraged. Policy T-48. Parking ratios should be reduced as transit services arc increased and an adequate kvcl of public transit can be demonstrated. Policy T-49. Transpmiation demand management measures should be implemented at residential and retail developments, as well as at the workplace. Policy T-50. Employers affected by Commulc Trip Reduction laws should be encouraged to implement measures that support reductions in SOY travel and vehicle miles traveled. I Amended l l/27/06 Policy T-51. Site design and layout for all types of development should incorporate transportation demand management measures such as convenient priority parking places for HOVs, and convenient, direct pedestrian access from residential, commercial, and other facilities to transit stops/stations. Also see related policies in the HOV section. Existing Parking Supply and Demand Strategy T-51.1 Downtown (Central Business District) parking restrictions and/or removal resulting from TDM/CTR policies shall apply to commuter/employee parking, not to business patron/customer parking. An inventory of the existing parking supply in the Downtown Core was conducted in 2001. The inventory gathered data for both on-street and off-street spaces. Figure 5.1 summarizes the results of the inventory. The Downtown Core has 2,055 off-street spaces. There are also 387 public off-street parking spaces within the Downtown Core. The remaining off-street parking spaces are private or signed for use by patrons of a specific business. Additional information on this parking inventory is provided in the Parking in Renton 's Downtown Core report. Ongoing transportation planning work will include expanding the parking study area, possibly citywide, if needed for the refinement of parking policies and guidelines. Xl-66 I Amended 11/27/06 FIGURE 5-1 DOWNTO,VN CORE EXISTING PARKING SUMMARY 2001 obin Ave s I 19 +6 I 21 I I I I \ ' I 140 +11 ·1s1 132 1+1 !'! f 47,, 65 I ., +14 I 79 __ 1 "'"'"'°-I -- 100 +6 108 1 + 3 165 29 i 2 4 51 +21 72 ~~;N~2nd ~ .. 8 " . :.::: ·66l :.: +12 78 ·, S 2nd St 1 6 1 9 1 6 S 3rd St 36 +20 56 Xl-67 I Amended I J/27/06 Parking Policy Review As stated in the Washington State Commute Trip Reduction (CTR) law of 1991, there exists a close relationship between commuter behavior and the supply and cost of parking. As required by the CTR law, the City has completed a review of local parking policies and ordinances as they relate to employers and major worksites and revisions necessary to comply with commute trip reduction goals and guidelines. Maximum parking ratios have been established, and the existing minimums modified in the City's Development Regulations, to create a range of appropriate allowable parking ratios. Additional revisions have been made to support HOV, transit, and non-motorized usage and access. Employers' Mode Split The Washington State Commute Trip Reduction (CTR) Law requires employers deemed to be affected by the CTR Law to have transportation programs for their employees designed to meet goals for reduction of single occupancy vehicle commuter trips and/or reduction of vehicle miles traveled. CTR-affected employers shall have two (2) years to meet the first CTR goal of fifteen percent ( 15% ); four ( 4) years to meet the second goal of twenty percent (20%); six (6) years to meet the third goal of twenty-five percent (25%); and twelve (12) years to meet the fourth goal of thirty-five percent (35%) from the time they are deemed a CTR-affected worksitc and begin their program. Employers' mode split will be addressed with data being gathered and used for the implementation of the CTR law. In order to implement the state Commute Trip Reduction law, King County was divided into approximately a dozen CTR zones with similar employment density, population density, level of transit service, parking availability, and access to High Occupancy Vehicle facilities. The Puget Sound Regional Council produced base year values for I 992 for each zone using its regional transportation model. These values reflect the average rate of single occupant vehicle (SOY) trips for all employers in the zones. Most of the City of Renton is located in the South King County zone. A small piece of the City, the northernmost tip, north of May Creek, is located in the East King County zone. The base year value for single occupant vehicle trips for both the South and the East King County zone is 85%. While this figure is not an exact mode split figure, it is representative of the degree to which employees of all employers in Renton are accessing their worksites by single occupant vehicle or using other modes. The assumption is made that the SOY rate is 85%, and the rate of trips made by other modes is 15%. TOM/CTR Programs The City has adopted a CTR Ordinance and a CTR Plan (February 1993). The ordinance outlines the manner in which and the schedule with which employers located within the City of Renton are required to design and implement commute trip reduction programs at their worksites. ,_\,, c,I_J:cl1r_,,r:1::: 2()07 ._1'1,·"· ,m, 2_ =: __ a_cl j _\_'l' _\-.-]'[{ __ sitt'S __ i_n __ r{ C'_r.1_t_Ol'_l __ (}:'_i _gl,f_fC_ -~-~ '.2.). The CTR Plan is a sunnnary document that describes the City's implementation approach. As stated in the Plan, the City has contracted with Metro to perform certain activities, including employer notification, employer assistance, and program review. The Plan summarizes the CTR goals and establishes the CTR zones mentioned above. It explains the circumstances and procedures for employer appeals of CTR program administrative decisions. The Plan also states the City's commitment to implementing a CTR program for its own employees, to complete the parking policy review mentioned above, and to report on an annual basis to the state regarding progress towards meeting CTR goals. In the past, the City, with the support of Metro, has developed Transportation Management Programs (TMPs) for new residential, commercial, and office developments. These TMPs have usually been put in place through SEPA agreements. At some point in the future, the City may consider adopting a developer- Xl-68 Amended 11 /27106 !U::-/1 .. LEGEND -Bus Routes with all-<!ay seivloe --Bus Route:s with pe-ak or,ly safViee A:~~~!~r~"m~~;~ ~~s~8t~> a a a a • &-10% •10% Stops within a auarwr Mile of RenlOI\ A,::ti.,e CTR Sites Quarter Mie Buller Aroun" Ail Renton Bus Stop,; Transi!Cen!er @ ~::::'&RkJ~\ot Sounder Commute, Rail City of Renton fZ2I Renton Urban Growth Genier !;~~ll! s_~:~ r: ~: ;,LotCi;ini~ :. I ~~latlon j- 1 110,126, 1-40,154, Saunder i Commuter Rail m RENTON Active CTR Sites I{ F 5-2 \I !\ E CTR SITES I"'"'. ---on Htgt,lands~ 1a,__!!-_~Rkl:!!____j j 105,111,909 ~---------- CTR ID COMPANY NAME E67460 Honeywell EB0384 ER Solutions EBD663 U.S. Government EB0697 Valley Medk::al Center EB0721 Paccar Parts EB0747 PaccarlTD 7. EB0762 King County Government 8. EB1794 City of Renton 9 EB30!l7 Kenworth Truck Company 10. ES4749 The Boeing C-Ompany 11. E84764 The Boeing Company 12. ES4n2 The Boeing Company 13. EB5399 The Boeing Company 14 E85498 Wizards or the Coast 15. EB8561 King County Government "· EB7007 Hunter Dauglas 17 EB7304 The Boelng Company 18. EB8229 Cummins Northwest " EBB500 Cutler & Buck Inc 20. E69433 Classmates.com 21 EB9730 Renton Technical College 22. E9'442 Microscan Systems, Inc --=-------........ C-...0, ........ ,-..... ~-----b ___ ..,,co..oi,-_,,, ,.,...._,. ........ ,,....,,,__.... .. _ .. ,,_._ ---.. -~ ... _ .. __ """"'--..... -. ..,...,_ .. ___ ... ___ ...... ·-~ ..... -...... ___ .... ___ .. .,. --~-...... -., ... _. ... -.. ... _. __ .,. __ .. _,,...,._ ® King county Xl-69 I Amended I J.127/06 based Transportation Demand Management ordinance (with site design and other requirements) to complement the employer-based CTR ordinance and its employer worksitc requirements. Parking Management Regulations Parking regulations are specified in Section 4-4-080 of the Renton Municipal Code. The regulations include requirements for new constrnction of parking including landscaping, screening, layout, paving, markings, and wheel stops. They also include requirements for size and amount of parking according to the land use activity involved. Ongoing transportation planning work will include refinement of criteria for locating park and ride lots serving residential areas to address factors such as the intensity of development in adjacent areas, the level of traffic congestion in the areas, proximity to arterial streets, and opportunities to buffer lots from living areas. A!su, slamkm4sStanc_lards for constrnction of parking garages will be reviewed to address minimization of land area and the amount of impervious surface. _i',J,,,, . .thecity_1yi_ll_hc working with \VS D(Yf, Puget So lll1(i___r~g_1 c1_11~1.l. c~.?.~_in~i.J: J<)11g _G\'_l_1_1_1_ty_._ ~,1 ctro · 1 ·rnns_i L_;1_1_1_~L1)_t bt:.·_r~J.Q .. Sl.9.Y~.h.m. _ fti_h:s __ <_111~_krqHe nc,v plans tn irn.Qh~DJt211J.J.b.~ C l_'R Fffa.·ic1~·v A~'L~L(i!ll?tcd bv thc\Va_s1nin1_(}_1_1_ sl::tt_~~--L~~g_i~l~turc in °006. The C l · R I-·: ffi _c i q1_q_y_ /\f L in r;.! µ_~t~.} .... ;;h~1.ug~:s ___ to __ 1 _1 _i_c _ (:. >I 'R 1 a\,· to_ nyi_ k: ~J h~ __ px_~~g(i.!.1.P .... D:!.~~1_:~ .... ~. ! 't_~_~J i y~.L i;:Jfj c i e 111 1 a 11 ci t_u_r_gt;_tyd 1·h_i-:: nwdi ficJ _ <,:·1 ·R_ J>.l\}JJ,.t)in.1 .. \\_UJ ... 1.lJ.:J.~i;:1! l y_ __ ,,Jart _on J ,muary 1. 200K. AIRPORT Renton's Airport is more than a transportation facility. It is also a vital element to Renton's commercial and industrial economy, providing aircraft services, manufacturing support, flight training, and other airport activities. The Airport Chapter of the Renton Transportation Element is implemented by the 2002 Airport Business Plan and the Airport Master Plan for the Renton Municipal Airport. The intent of the objectives and policies is to support increased aviation activities and appropriate mitigation of adverse impacts when possible. (See also the Airport Compatih/e Land Use section of the Land U,e F:lemenl.} Objectives The Airport Chapter is based on the following objectives: T-P: Promote and develop local air transportation facilities in a responsible and efficient manner and recognize the Renton Municipal Airport as a unique, valuable, and long-standing public transportation facility within the region. T-Q: Maximize available space on the airport site for uses that require direct access to taxiways and runways such as storage and parking of aircraft and aircraft maintenance and service facilities. T-R: Continue operation of the Airport as a Landing Rights Airport, ultimately providing permanent inspection facilities to the U.S. Customs Service. Policies Policy T-52. Support the land base and seaplane base activities. Acknowledge that there are certain costs to the community associated with the existence of the Renton Municipal Airport, such as noise generation, but recognize that these costs have historically been accepted by the community in exchange for the economic and Xl-70 transportation-related benefits and the civic prestige that are also associated with the airport. Policy T-53, Promote and develop airport facilities and services for all wheeled and float- equipped aircraft, owners, pilots, and passengers in a manner that maximizes safety, efficiency, and opportunity for use. I Amended 11 /27/06 Policy T-54. Lease airpmt prope1ty for a, iation- related uses that create jobs and expand the City· s tax base. Policy T-55. The Renton Municipal Airport provides the only publicly-owned seaplane facility in the area and, therefore, the northern shoreline of the airport should be restricted In seaplane access. Airport Facilities Policy T-56. Develop appropriate land use plans and regulations for structures and vegetation within the airport's nmway approach zone. (See Airport section of the Land Use Element, Objectives LU-E, LU-F, LU-G and Policies LU- 19 -LU-30.) The Renton Municipal Airport is a major general avi,nion airport in the Puget Sound area. The Renton Municipal Airport is fom1ally dcsiguated as a Relie,·er Airport in the Federal Aviation Administration's National Plan of Integrated Airport Systems and lite Puget Sound Regional Council's Regional Airport System Plan. The airport is owned by the City of Renton ,md is located in the northwest comer of the city, bounded generally on the east by the Cedar River, on the \\ est by Rainier Avenue North, on the south by Airport Way, and on the north by Lake Washington (sec Figure 1.1). The Airport consists of approximately 165.46 acres. It is oblong in shape, and has one n11m'1y with two parallel taxiways with concrete and blacktop surfaces and surface water drainage. The runway, nmning southeast to no1thwest. is :i __ , 7lJ leet long and 200 feet wide, with a 340-foot displaced threshold at the south end. It is equipped,, ith medium intensity runway lighting, nmway end identification lighting (REIL), and precision approach path indicators (PAPI). Taxiways are lighted, and there is a rotating beacon, a windsock, and a non-dircctio1wl r,1dio beacon. The: Federal Aviation Administration operates a contracted Air Traffic Control Tower during the hours of7 a.m. to 9 p.m. May J through September 30 and from 7 a.m. to 8 p.m. Ocillbcr I through April 30. Approximately 115,000 landings and take-offs per y,,,ir take place at the Airpot1, making it the seventh busiest airport in the State of Washington. Contigll(>l1' to the Renton Airpmi is the Will Rogers-Wiley Post Memorial Seaplane Base. Landings and take-offs J'wm the vvater are not recorded, but during the sununcr months the seaplane base is one of the busiest in the '.\otihwest. Airport Activities The Renton Airport serves general aviation dt.·rnand generated by Renton, as \Vell as by other communities generally within a 30-minute driving time (e.g. llcllcrne to the north, Issaquah to the cast, Kent to the south, and Seattle to the northwest). The concept or "general aviation" includes all aviation uses except scheduled commercial passenger airline servicesand military operations. Consequently, nearly all of the aviation operations at Renton Airport are those of general a, i<11ion, including the flights of the transport-class aircraft produced by the adjacent Boeing pl:rnt. ( icncral aviation uses are both personal and rcvcnue- producing, the latter category including busmcss. charter, and flight instruction. The seaplane base provides facilities only I cir small ,-!Cneral aviation types of aircrafi (both personal and revenue-producing). Aircraft services available at the Airport includt.: :iircrnrt mainlcnancc and service, fueli flight instn1ction, aircrali charter and rental, and aircrali storage. both h'1ngared and open. fixed base operators (FBO's), which are aviation-oriented businesses offering <1 variety of services and products to aircraft owners and operators, provide these services to the avi;ition public . . "\ 1-71 I Amended I I /27 /06 Airport Master Plan and Renton Municipal Airport Business Plan 1997 Airport Master Plan Update A 1997 update to the original 1978 Master Plan was approved by the City Council in August 1 997. A primary purpose of the 1997 update was to detennine the existing and future role of the airport and to provide the City with infom1ation and direction in the future planning and continued development of the airport. The objective of the study was to develop a plan for providing the necessary facilities to best accommodate the aviation needs of the airport and contiguous seaplane base over the next twenty years. The study work scope consisted of inventories, forecasts of aviation demand, demand/capacity analyses, facility requirements, airport layout plans and land use plans, development staging and costs, financial plans, and an environmental impact assessment report. The Airport Master Plan is updated as necessary to reflect progress and changes from the original Master Plan. The 1997 Airport Master Plan should be updated in 2005 or 2006 as many of the recommendations from the 1997 Airport Master Plan have been implemented. The remaining recmnmendations should be re-evaluated in the next update of the Airport Master Plan as conditions have changed. 2002 Renton Municipal Airport Business Plan The 2002 Renton Municipal Airport Business Plan was prepared at the direction of the Renton City Council. The purpose of the plan was to review business potential for the Airport and develop a plan for the management and operation of the Airport, given the needs of aviation and the neighborhoods surrounding the airport. The Airport Business Plan reaffirmed Renton' s commitment to strong management and operation of the Renton Municipal Airport. The recommendations reaffirmed the mix of uses presently at the Airport while supporting increased efforts to curb aircraft noise. Implementation of the Airport Master Plan The airport development and financial plan portions of the Master Plan identify the capital improvements that should be accomplished, specify when these improvements should be accomplished, and determine the economic feasibility of accomplishing the programmed improvements and developments. The schedule of developments and improvements is established in five-year increments, to coincide with the five-, 10-and 20-year projections of the Master Plan. Based upon the five-year schedule of improvements and developments, Federal Aviation Administration Airpmi Improvement Program Funds are requested for assistance with the accomplishment of those eligible projects programmed in the Master Plan. FREIGHT The Freight Chapter of the Transportation Element addresses the needs and impacts of goods movement and distribution in Renton. The Freight Chapter focuses on the two primary providers of freight transportation: trucking and freight rail. Objectives The Freight Chapter is based on the following objectives: Xl-72 Amended 11/27/06 T-S: Maintain existing freight rail service to Renton connnercial and industrial sites. T-T: Maintain truck access between Renton industrial areas and the regional highway system. T-U: Minimize the impact of truck tranic on general traffic circulation and on Renton neighborhoods. Policies Policy T-57. Heavy through truck traffic should be limited to designated truck routes in order to reduce its disruptive impacts. (In this context, 11 disn1ptive impacts 1 ' refers to nuisances, particularly noise and parking, associated with heavy trucks. In addition, the intent of the policies is to minimize the physical impact of heavy trucks on city streets.) Policy T-58. Transportation facilities should be designed to complement railroads. Policy T-59. Spur tracks should be located to provide a minimum number of street cros~ings and serve a maxi1num number of sites. Truck Routes Policy T-60. Strategies to minimize adverse impacts of railroad operations on adjacent residential prope,ty should be supported. Policy T-61. Support railroad crossing improvements that minimize maintenance and protect the street surface. Policy T-62. Where warranted, provide protective devices, such as barriers and wan1ing signals, on at-grade crossings. Policy T-63. The City should continue to work with local, regional, stale and federal agencies to address regional freight needs and to mitigate local impacts. The City has a system of truck routes (sec Figure 7-1 ). le ',H-i-k-l<"H>l'ltf-PJ'-l+-4-·,,"•ttttt-i d, !+ttx,, it 1 J.t·H'fHH:L· .. t:·t·<H!pfi \·i-t·t·~·~ .. ·t·1·H\,y, ·Hd'\-·i·:-it; r-y··· '.'<"itn ·--, · · : e+ · .\\; .. ; f·h ··1-! le { ( ntEl.'·i· f. t '1 ·-ti it 1·, :·t.' k R(•Uk' OrdinaHLt.\ lht: truck n·JtH.t' sy...;fen:: ~1.1Ltt1r:,·-~:,'·,-h·'Jd. Trm.:ks weighing over 26,000 pounds gross vehidc weight arc rcstrictc:d to npcrating on one of the designated truck routes. Trucks needing to make deliveries off of the designated truck routes are required to take the most direct arterial route to/from one of the designated truck routes. When more than one delivery off the designated truck routes can be combined to limit multiple intrusions into residential neighborhoods, a truck driver has an obligation to combine those trips. The truck route urdinance does not apply to the operation of Renton School District buses on designated routes. puhlic transit on designated routes, garbngc trucks, city maintenance vehicles, or emergency vehicles. XI-73 Amended 11 /27/06 .. l IGLRl·. 7-1 I Rl'CK . ·. ' . . RU\'TES Truck Routes Legend Truck Rome - City Limit --.,., Renton '/ ..._ 1 Planning Area Transportation Plan Xl-74 I Amended ] 1 /27/0(1 Truck Routes Legend Truck Route - City Limit -_A ',, I ' Transportation Plan u: L 1/('(''.!'.L'".'' "" " " :, ",'" ·:t·,·~"t '\I-75 0 l I A mended I I /27 /06 Inventory of Local Rail System Facilities and Users The Freight Chapter of the Transportation Element recognizes the importance of maintaining rail transportation, which supports industrial and commercial land uses, and provides one component of a multi-modal transportation system. The Freight Chapter also provides guidelines to ensure that existing rail lines do not impact adjacent land uses, create maintenance problems for City streets or pose safety concerns. freight rail service is currently available to several industrial and commercial areas of the City. Existing rail lines bordering the City of Renton include the Union Pacific (UPRR) and Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad (BNSF) main line tracks between Seattle and Tacoma. Within the City of Renton, the BNSF 18th Subdivision Branch Line connects Renton and the east side of Lake Washington to the BNSF main line. The BNSF main line runs in a north-south direction and is located along the City ofRenton's western city limits, separating Renton from the City of Tukwila. The BNSF main line is double-track, and carries a considerable volume of freight service, as well as passenger service provided by Amtrak under a trackage rights agreement. Only freight service is provided to the City of Renton from the BNSF main line. A single spur track with several branch lines serves the Renton Valley industrial area (southwest Renton). Another single spur track from the BNSF main line serves the Container Corporation of America plant, located north ofI-405 in the Earlington industrial area. Use of these spur lines is intermittent, usually on an as-needed basis with no particular set time or frequency. Commuter rail trains use the BNSF main line, with a stop at the new Renton/Tnkwila (Longacres) station located just south of 1-405. The commuter rail service is an element of the Regional Transit Plan (Sound Move), approved by voters in 1996. The commuter rail service began in 2001. Three trains currently provide one-way service between Tacoma and Seattle during the weekday AM peak period and between Seattle and Tacoma in the weekday PM peak period, with stops at the Renton/Tukwila station. The BNSF 1 S'h Subdivision Branch Line splits from the BNSF main line at the Black River Junction, and continues easterly through downtown Renton and then northerly through the North Renton industrial area. The line continues north along the east side of Lake Washington, and connects back with the BNSf main line in Snohomish County. freight service on this branch line is provided by two trains per day (one in each direction). Passenger excursions are made on this branch line by the Spirit of Washington Dinner Train, which makes one round trip on weekdays and two round trips on weekends between downtown Renton and Woodinville at the north end of Lake Washington. Three spur tracks off of the branch line provide freight service to the Earlington industrial area in west central Renton. Two spur tracks serve the North Renton industrial area north of downtown Renton. Freight service can occur al any time during the day. The Spirit of Washington Dinner Train leaves downtown Renton at 6:00 p.m. and retums by 10:00 p.m. with an additional afternoon run on weekends. The infrequent use of the BNSF main line spur tracks and the BNSF branch line results in minimal disruption to vehicular traffic movement in Renton. The UPRR mainline track, located 200 to 300 feet west of the BNSf mainline and Renton's City limits, also runs in a north-south direction. The UPRR mainline is a single track, carrying a somewhat lower level of freight-only service. Xl-76 I Amended 11 /27/06 Regional Accessibility Trucks and Industrial Traffic Truck access from City of Renton industrial areas to the regional highway/freeway system has the option of several alternative designated truck routes ( see Figure 7-1 ). The Yctalley industrial area (southwest Renton) is directly connected to the regional system via the S.W. 4r Street/SR-167 (Valley freeway) interchange and the SR-181 (West Valley Higlmay)il-405 interchange. The Earlington industrial area in west central Renton is served by designated truck routes on Rainier Avenue aud Grady Way, which provide direct access to SR-167 and to 1-405 (via the SR-181/1-405 and SR-167/1-405 interchanges). Truck access to the North Renton industrial area (north of downtown Renton and west ofl-405) from l- 405 is provided via the designated truck route on Park Avenue North. Another truck route to 1-405 and SR-167 from the North Renton industrial area is na North 6th Street, Airport Way, and Rainier Avenue. Truck and industrial traffic access from 1-405 to the King County waste transfer station and maintenance shops east ofl-405 is provided via the Sunset and Maple Valley (SR-169) interchanges and N.E. 3'd Street-N.E. 4th Street. The Sloncway Sand and Gravel complex, west ofl-405, generates industrial traffic that uses the North Park Avenue on-ramp to access 1-405. Arterial improvement projects in the Transportation Plan will enhance truck access between the industrial areas and the regional highway/freeway system. Freight and Passenger Rail Use Future land use development is not anticipated to result in a significant increase in rail freight service in Renton. Future plans call for additional commuter rail trains using the BNSF main line, stopping at the Renton/Tukwila (l .ongacres) station. Freight Action Strategy {FAST) Corridor The Freight Action Strategy (FAST) corridor. ,md the projects which comprise FAST, evolved over several years. Beginning in 1994, the Freight Mobility Roundabout -a jointly-sponsored effort of the Puget Sound Regional Council and the puhlicpri,atc Economic Development Council of Seattle and King County ----made a sustained commitment tn freight mobility within and through the northw·est gateway region, which tics the regional (and national) economy to the Pacific Rim. Roundabout participants include shippers and carriers r\:prcscnting all freight mobility modes: marine, rail, tiuck, air, and intcrmodal. Other participants are public agencies at all levels: local govcrm11ents (including the City of Renton), the three ports of Scallk. Tacoma and Everett, WSDOT and the State Transportation Commission, and federal agencies (FHWA. FTA). I.ate in 1994 the United States Department of Transportation together with the Roundabout. the WSDOT, and the Pugel Sound Regional Council established f AST Corridor. FAST Corridor is a collection of complementary grnde separation and port access projects \Vithin the Everett-Seattle-Tacoma area of Washington State. Collectively, these projects will enhance the movement of freight within and through the region. Key points of the FAST Corridor projects include: • Between Everett in the north and Taconrn in the south, focus on the region's nmih-south rail routes and port access routes. • Helping lo improve the state and reginn · s transportation capacity to better meet the needs for freight and goods movements. • Implementation of a series of grade scparatlun and port access irnprovements, along with some corollary improvements. These irnproverncnls will complement other freight and passenger rail improvements in the region, regional ITS clforts, and other planned highway improvements. :\1-77 I Amended 11/27/06 • Continuation of the FAST Corridor Partnership, which has been functioning since 1995 and is working on determining appropriate project level solutions to regional freight mobility issues. Local freight improvement projects identified at this time include additional rail lines for both the BNSF and UPRR lines. BNSF has plans to add a third and a fourth track to its mainline along the western edge of the City. UPRR also has plans to add a third additional track to its mainline that runs parallel to and is in close proximity to the BNSF mainline. A grade separation of the BNSF and UPRR mainlines at South 180n, Street in Tukwila (S.W. 43•d Street in Renton) was completed in 2003. These improvements arc a constructive first step toward improving rail freight travel along the western boundary of the City of Renton and associated freight rail travel passing through Renton. The Freight Mobility Strategic Investment Board (FMSIB): • develops and maintains a comprehensive and coordinated state program to facilitate freight movement between and among local, national and international markets; • works to find solutions that lessen the impact of the movement of freight on local communities; • proposes policies, projects, corridors, and fm1ding to the state legislature to promote strategic investments in a statewide freight mobility transportation system; and • proposes projects that lessen the impact of freight movement on local communities. In 2003, the FMSIB selected the SW 27'" /Strander Boulevard project to receive $4,000,000. It is anticipated these funds will be programmed by 2006. FINANCING AND IMPLEMENTATION The Financing and Implementation Chapter outlines the strategies and actions to finance and implement the transportation improvements and programs planned as part of the City of Renton's transportation plan. Renton will meet transportation needs through arterial, transit, high occupancy vehicle, non-motorized improvements, travel demand management programs, and airport, truck and rail plans as outlined in previous discussion of the transportation plan. The Financing and Implementation Chapter includes: • Goals, objectives and policies relating to financing and implementation of the transportation plan. • Information on current revenue sources and future revenues. • Assessment of Renton's 20-year transportation needs and funding capability. • Assessment of Renton's Six-Year Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) with regard to transportation improvements and programs identified in this document. • Strategies and actions for financing and implementing the transportation plan over the next 20 years. • Identifying future ongoing work needed to finance and implement the transportation plan. Objectives The Financing and Implementation Chapter is based on the following objectives: T-V: Pursue adequate funding for transportation improvements from all potential sources in an efficient and equitable manner. Xl-78 I Amended 11 /27/0(, T-W: Develop a staging and implementation plan that expedites transportation system improvement projects that i) improve HOV flow. ii) improve transit service, iii) improve pedestrian and bicycle facilities and iv) provide neighborhood protection against the impacts of through traffic. Policies Policy T-64. To support economic development, growth related traffic improvements should be funded by a combination of impact fees charged to new development and business license fees. Policy T-65. Coordinate equitable public/private partnerships to help pay for transportation improvements. Policy T-66. Pursue federal. state and local sources of funding ( e.g. loans, matching funds) for transpmiation improvements. Transportation Program Costs Policy T-67. Establish a mechanism to provide multi-jurisdictional cooperation to fund transportation improvements. This could include establishing joint and/or coordinated transportation mitigation systems with other jurisdictions. Policy T-68. Create a funding mechanism that can be applied across boundaries to address the impact of growth outside the city limits on the City's transportation system. To determine transportation financing needs. a twenty-year (2002 to 2022) program (including arterial, HOV, transit and non-motorized components identified previously in this document) was established, and a planning level cost estimate prepared. Also included as an element of the 20-year funding needs are annual transportation programs that include: transportation system rehabilitation and maintenance; traffic operations and safety projects and programs; Transportation Demand Managemcnt/Conunute Trip Reduction programs; neighborhood livability prn1cets and programs; and, ongoing project development. These annual programs supp011 and supplement the Street Network, HOV, Transit and Non-motorized Elements and are a necessary part of maintaining tnmsportation level of service standards. The total cost of the 20-year transportation p!,111 is estimated at $134 million. The costs of the various components of this plan are summarized 1t1 Table 8.1. The costs for the arterial, HOV and non-motorized components represent Renton's costs (including Rcnton's share of responsibility under joint projects with WSDOT and other local jurisdictions). This cost docs not include costs of transportation projects that arc the responsibility of the state, King County. and other cities (Newcastle, Tukwila, and Kent). The transit costs include only local match for Renton's local lccdl..':r system improvements, park-and-ride lots, signal priority, and transit amenities. Ongoing transportation planning work will lllclude continued refinement of the 20-year transportation plan and costs. Inventory of Funding Sources I laving established a 20-year transportatilln funding level of $134 million, an annual funding level of $6. 7 million can be detem1incd. Sources of revenue tu provide this annual funding need are identified on Table 8.2. The Business License Fee is an annual per capita Ice assessed to all businesses within the City of Renton. Currently, 85% of the annual revenue generated li-mn this fee is dedicated to fond transp011ation improvements. The Business l .icensc Fee is assumed to contribute 28% of the future annual funding level. XI-79 I Amended 11/27/06 TABLE 8.1 RENTON 20-YEAR TRANSPORTATION PROGRAM PLANNING LEVEL COST ESTIMATES Arterial Plan: $ 60,000,000 HOV Plan: $ 26,000,000 Transit Plan: $ 15,000,000 Non-motorized Plan: $ 4,500,000 Annual Programs: $ 28,500,000 Total 20-Year Cost $ 134,000,000 Xl-80 I Amended 11 /27/06 TABLE 8.2 CITY OF RENTON SOURCE OJ<' TRANSPORTATION FUNDS Annual Business License Fee S 1.88 million Ha1t:ccnt Gas Tax S 0.35 million Grants $ 3.90 million Developer Mitigation $ 0.57 million * ~---=~- TOTAL FUNDS: $ 6. 70 million * In addition, there will be site-spcci lie mitigation. 20-Year $ 37.6 million $ 7.0 million $ 78.0 million $ 11.4 million * $ 134.0 million The Half-Cent Gas Tax is a pmtion of the State• gas tax revenue that is distributed to local jurisdictions based on population. The Half-Cent Gas Tax 1s assumed to remain at its current level and contribute 5.2% of the future annual funding level. The City of Renton has aggressively pursued klkral and state grants in the past, which is assumed to continue, thus providing 58% of the future annuzil runding level. Examples of federal grants include the Surface Transportation Program (ST!'), Congcst1n11 'vlanagcrncnt Air Quality (CMAQ). and Transportation Enhancements Program, which arc awarcbl rcegio11,Iily by the Puget Sound Regional Council and bridge replacement, road safety, and railroad cro,sing impr,,,·ement programs administered by WSDOT. State grants include those provided by the Transp()rtatH,n Partnership Program (TPP), the Arterial Improvement Program (All'), and Pedestrian Safety and M,,bilitv l'rogram (PSMP). which are administered by the Transportation Improvement Board. Developer mitigation revenue is obtained by the City of Renton through an assessment on development city-wide, based on the number of daily vehicle trips generated by a specific development multiplied by a fee per vehicle trip. Developer mitigation is '1ssum,,d to contribute 9% of the future annual funding level. It should be noted that developer mitigation is 11()1 a reliable (or stable) source of transportation funds (as required by GMA). The irregularity of private ck\ cluprncnt projects and thus uneven flow of mitigation revenue contribute to the unreliability of de, ch 'Iler mitigation. It should also be noted that, in addition to a mitigation fee, private development apprm ,Ii will be conditioned on site-specific improvements to ensure that on-site and adjacent off-site transportatil)t1 t"acility impacts nre mitigated. Local Improvement Districts (UDs) are formed by property owners to provide funds for the portion of the cost of improvement projects that benefit the pr()pcTtics. Petitions from two-thirds of the property owners of property equal to two-thirds of the assessed , alu,nion of the LID area are required in order to fom1 an LID. Because it cannot be determined when there will be enough petitioners to form an LID and, therefore, :\ 1-81 I Amended l l/27/06 it is not known when an LID can be formed to make improvements, LIDs have not been included as a source of transportation funds. The above revenue sources are projected to remain approximately the same over the next 20 years, though the percent contribution from individual sources may change. However, trends in transportation financing are becoming apparent, which could affect the City of Renton's transportation revenue. The trends include: declining revenue available from several existing sources, such as the half-cent gas tax; transportation needs growing faster than available revenues; local, state, and federal requirements on transportation improvements lengthening the design process and increasing cost; the undetermined potential for new funding sources; and, the continued inability ofregional agencies to address regional transportation needs. Ongoing transportation planning work will include a review and update of current revenue sources to reflect federal, state, and regional decisions regarding these revenue sources. Funding Program The Growth Management Act (GMA) requires "an analysis of funding capability to judge needs against probable funding resources." This includes development of a "multi-year financing plan" based on the needs identified in the transportation plan with "appropriate parts" serving as the basis for the Six-year Transportation Program required by the RCW for cities. The following presents the City ofRenton's transportation finance plan (as required by GMA) and the underlying assumptions, which are: + to provide both a 20-year and a six-year transportation improvement program + establish consistency between the six-year and 20-year programs. A 20-year transportation program (comprised of improvements discussed previously in the Street Network, HOV, Transit, and Non-motorized Chapters and annual transportation programs) and a planning level cost estimate of $134 million (summarized on Table 8.2) have been established first. Based on the 20-year funding level of $134 million, an annual funding level of $6. 7 million was determined. Having established an annual funding rate it can reasonably be assumed that if this funding level is maintained, if the facilities being funded are consistent with the 20-year plan, and if transit and HOV facilities arc conscientiously emphasized, it should be reasonable to assume that the level of service can be maintained for the intervening years with the established funding rate. The City of Renlon's Six-Year Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) is part of an on-going process intrinsically linked with the development of the City's Capital Improvement Program. The Six-Year TIP is also linked with various state and federal funding programs, regional/inter/jurisdictional planning and coordination processes, and the City's Comprehensive Plan. Projects are developed and prioritized based on both specific goals to he achieved by the program and on general programming considerations. Those general programming considerations are: Planning. How a project fits with or addresses identified future transportation goals, demands, and planning processes must be evaluated on hath a local and regional level. This is strongly influenced by ongoing land use decisions and by regional highway and transit system plans. Financing. Many projects are dependent on receiving outside grants, fonnation ofL!Ds, or the receipt of mitigation funds. Prioritization has to take into account the peculiarities of each of the various fund sources and the probabilities of when, and how much, money will be available. Xl-82 I Amended 11 /27 /06 Scheduling. If a project is interconnected with. or interdependent on, other projects taking place, it is reflected in their relative priorities. Past Commitments. The level of previous commitment made by the City in terms of resources, legislative actions or interlocal agreements also must be taken into consideration in prioritizing TIP projects. In addition to the general considerations discussed above, there are five specific project categories through which the TIP is evaluated and analyzed. They are: • Preservation of Existing Infrastructure • Multi-Modal and Transportation Dcmrn1d Management • Community Livability and Enhancement • Economic Development • Operations and Safety These categories provide a useful analysis tool and represent goals developed through an evaluation of the City's transportation program in response t,1 input l"rom citizens and local officials and to State and federal legislation. Taken as a whole, the five categories provide a li"amcwork for evaluating projects both individually and as part of a strategy that seeks to meet and bahll(cc the transportation needs of Renton during a time of increasing transportation demand, decreasin~ 1-cvctme,-;, and grm.ving environmental conccrr1s. Although each project can be identified wit Ii 1Ht important concern thal allows it to be classified into one of the five categories, most projects are intended 1,1 address, and are developed to be compatible with, multiple goals. Preservation of the existing infrast_n,i_cturc i:-. a basic need that must be met by the progrnn1. The Mayor, City Council and Citizens Transportation ,\ch isory Committee have all addressed the imp011ance of sustaining strong programs in this project category. The State Growth Management Act also requires jurisdictions to assess and address the funding required to maintain their existing transportation system. Multi-Modal and TranspQfh'lti9nD~_maml_lyl,i11agernent (TOM) projects and programs arc oriented toward "moving peoplen through a balanced trnnspo11ati011 system that involves multiple modes of transportation and provides alternatives ln the cxi:-ting hGavy reliance on the single occupant vehicle (SOY). Included are projects that facilit11te the 11rnvement of transit and carpools, and programs that promote the use of high occupancy vchtclcs ( l!OV's) and reduce the numbers of SO V's. The Federal Transportation Efficiency Act, the State and Federal Clean Air legislation and the State Commute Trip Reduction Act have added momentum to rcginnal efforts and placed requirements on local jurisdictions such as Renton to promote these tn.msportation clements. Comn1unitv livability and enhancement con:-;ists cif projects that have been developed \vith major emphasis on addressing community quality ,,r lilc issues by improving and/or protecting residential livability while providing necessary transport;1tion system improvements. Bicycle and pedestrian projects are included in this category. I Amended 11/27/06 Economic development projects and programs involve transportation improvements necessitated by new development that is taking place. Thus, a significant source of local funding for these projects is projected to come from mitigation payments and from specific access needs financed by new development in the City of Renton. Operations and safety projects and programs are developed through ongoing analyses of the transportation system and arc directed mainly toward traffic engineering concerns such as safety and congestion. Projects are identified not only by analysis of traffic counts, accident records and geometric data, but also through review and investigation of citizen complaints and requests. The City of Renton's adopted 2006-2()! l 2007-20 12 Six-Year Transportation Improvement Program includes many of the transportation improvements and programs identified in the Street Network, Transit, HOV, Non-motorized and Transportation Demand Management Chapters of this Transportation Element. The projects or programs are listed in Table 8.3. Also shown in Table 8.3 are annual programs (transportation system rehabilitation and maintenance, traffic operations and safety; projects and programs, ongoing project development). The following lists various 2()()(,-W.\..t.2007-2012 TIP projects under each of the chapters of the Transportation Element. Xl-84 I Arn ended 1 l /27/06 TABLE 8.3 CITY OF RENTON SIX-YEAR TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM . " ;,-24++-) Xl-85 Amended l 1/27/06 CITY OF RENTON PLANNING I BUILDING I PUBUCWORXS TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS DIVISION 2007-2012 SIX-YEAR Tlr' Total r'roject Costs Pro<ecc TIUi Previous Cos1s StreetO...erla Pm ram 1_3593:.iB l®irseciion S~fe & Mobili O SW 27(h StlSt,anderBv Conn•ct. 5 50UXl1 NE 3r<!/NE 4th Cortidor 5'!2.B62 Ret>lon Urban Shuttle RUSH 6.361 Transn-PfO ram 34.714 Si•-Year Tola! 2000 2010 2D11 2012 PBfiod Total Cost 6 ;;2; ·s.~iEr--•c:c:~0:--=",,r----,.·~0:·:E'',,___,-,'~f":':;:"'--.,~"8 ~":f°":::o--'4 !":~"ii":foo"oo" 0 r-·.-'.": :I":"~:~0 ':"''. 102,000 230.000 320,000 4.050.000 1,l!U,000 3,280,000 9 752,000 10,284.662 5.000 5.ooo s.ooo s.roo s.ooo s.ooo 30 ooo 36.~1 30000 1S.OOO" 18.000 1S.OOO 18.000 t8.000 120.000 154,714 Raini~r Av Corridor Studu/ lm~rov 302.913 10,000 10.000 6Ba.OOO 6.290.000 5.000 5.000 5.000 0 35.000 337.913 RalnierAv-S41hPIIOS:lnd 597.000 1,220.000 lfardi" Av SW Tr.msit/Mul!i-modal 1.166.521 4.22S.HS 3.795.000 1.650.000 0 5,713.000 ---~ () 14.166,479 15,337.000 " S Lake Wash. Roadwav Im rov. \2.637.714 12.3~,700 12 353 700 25,191.414 ,. GardenAvNWidenina O 1,000.000 01 t.000.000 1.000,000 •• South Renton Pro ect 647.580 75 000 Q o Oi O 75.000 722.580 i< l-4051morovt,mentsln Renton 96.385 30.000 W.000 31.l,OOOI 10.000 10,000 10.000 120.000 218.365 :: ~~.,:~ :'::"':.;~n=~slgn,~+-c/s;.,,._','•,;"+"----_-"nes":,.,:1,:~~~.::"';;;·ooo;;,i[~~~:'"';;;·ooo;;,,i---_-_c';;"';;·"ooo",'l----_-_-;"'o·e"',rt~·~~"',"'.~.'·.c""oo_,,o •. t-~'·cc"s;e:~·00'-~',:,:,:~s"s 1!1 Ar'laria!Ci,culatianPronram oGtJ "" 290.ooo_ 200.000 200.000 200.0CIO_ 250.IJOO "" !,300.000 1,560.600 20 'Brid eln action&Re ir 254581 105.l)o;) 75,\XJO 55.000 50,000 55.000 50,000 300000 SS45"ii1 21 Ma Creek Brid e Re laoemenr 120.000 550,000 160.000 5.000 o, O 715.000 335.000 ;,2 loo Re Tacemen1 Pro ram 40. 105 \5.000 15.000 15.llOO 20.000 20.0001 20 000 105.000 145. 105 "' S!"n Re laC$mentPro ram 11.255 5000 5000 5.000 7.500 7.SOO 7,500 37.500 48,755 2' PolePronram 37.954 20,000 20000 20.000 25,000 25.000 25.000 135.000 172.954 i-----3!-~_Tran_i;ltHOVDlroctAcccss 71.910 O O 4.000 4.000 4,000 O 12.000 S3.910 2' Traffio Safot Pmnram 146.734 25.000 20.00<J 20,000 40.000 40.000 40.000 185,000 331.734 :n Traffic Efficien= Pronram 3~4.924 55.000 ~.000 50.000 30.000 JO.~ __ 30,000 _ -~'"""OOO'eaf.-~'s'•'·""'l' 21 Cao Bika & Ped. ConneolloN 131.5H 50.~ _ .. 59-~ • _ so.~_ -~,QQQ 50.Cl?()"'f·-~'"""ooo""'_~,,oo0.oo0o'l--S'"""·'e«~ ,;, !!'!n.":Y•ll•y & Soos Cretk Corr. 12.530 $.000 5,000 5.000! O 15.000 27.~39 .., WSDOT CoOfdlnallon Pronram 23.600 \5.000 15.000 15.0001 10.000 10.000 10.000 75,000 ,,9!J,.600 .. w.1011MAr1a 75.669 @ooo 30.000 30.000 50.000 Jo.ooo ~o.~~-2-~·!!,00ci ~J0,~ : :;;:~ ~~vs~';~'1"s7 s; nal :,)_2'"'~ ~-~.ooo ---''·°"'=e---~l-----~'f-------"1----00+-··--1-0~~ ----!..~~~ 1--".,'-","·'•'·'""'",,' .. ',"o',•"•'°'==--+--c,-,-~s0c+--0':s:·:="'+-·--,.,-oooc"0 f----·-200~ ·--""i"T5o.~1-----------, ,-,·,-.oo'°",e----s;-~,,:;s:·:~',:+--,"~>.':e::e"l l-'7",-+;s~sjs{e;a~,,we_s\'s!s:,~·ocs~s·':o,~--1--,c.,s,:e:~e,,a---c,;e::::'ea--,-55·tmf------·-'0-c';,;0:e::::C'!--~~,,,="cl-----:,+-s;s:~";~,.:OOs00s+-;s:s;e~.00s,,sa; oo SunS(1t/Ot1va1! lnlers.,~11,:,n i.668.000 30.000. 0 O O 30.000 1,698.000 " La anAvCaAcrotoPanelRo air 460.000 O ot--' 4~0000 460.000 Sl Carr/Mills; nal J,000 5.000 10.000 20.000 340.000 400.000 10.COO 785,000 78~.000 " HouS11r S • Main 10 Burnon 810,000 O 810,000 810.000 I<-< OwallAV'JNE•Kln Count l,962,646 1.915.000 636.300 0 0 0 2.611,300 4.593,946 Tolal Sources 41.2&7.941 35.9S&17& Zl 191 300 10 38SOOO 1S 164 700 30 523 100 12543200 127747079 16901S020 Xl-86 A.mended ! I /27/06 Total Pro ect Costs P'r•vious Slx·Yur TOUI ! TIP ProfedTlt!ti """' 2006 nor 2008 20011 21110 2011 Pfflod Total Co>< ' .Strt<M OV.rta.v Prot:iram 1 093500 555,000' '""" 405000 ~, """" ""000 26a0 000 3,773500:, ' SR 167/SW 27th St/Str.an~r Bv 358 500 10 OOJ, )C\C((I "000 10000 6000 55000 <113.596 · • S1ran:l•r ElvfSW 27th St Connect. 2<191727 . "IE''° 000 3<1174 5 743000 43"'1, 000 SOS32 77.7 • Rimton Ufbcn Shuttf• 1RU:SH1 6142 5 S COO 5000 5000 5,000 5000 30000 36 142 • TransltP •m 32 359 20 ~ 20.400 20400 :I 20,00 20"" 122400 15-4 7S9 • Rtlnltr Av Corridor Studvl lmprov . 2137 652 20 ~ 000 20000 20.000 20000 1>0 .,,.., ~ ..... , "''"'"" "000 1 2160000 • 000 6.310 V SW Tr1n3ft1Mult!-modal 100 000 6070000 • 000 151-47 000 1S 3'J7000 Corridor Z121'7 '.31<1000 :J.94,50) 413,000 J 300000 ' 000 12 736500 12.950647' ,i RllnlerA'rl•SW~to<lthPI 5115 832 '""'"" '""'"' ,soooo 250000 250 000 1500 2 011$.aJ.2 ,UJ,454 6Ih1?98 ,2seiooo 1 000000 3 000 20.000 ' 000 l},859,-454• " S Lak• W.ul\, Ro;idw"av lmr>rov. 2 m 17 $0/,000 t1}2.LOOO 16 ,soooo 37 889000 39 .773< " South R&nton Ptnieet 305,000 :,JS OCC 75 000 ''° 000 775,000 " MOS lmDrowtMnts In R•ntoo 72 z71 "'·""' 2Q,_QQO 10 000 10 10000 "000 90000 162,271 " Pro ffl O.V.IQ -$ntfPrede11I n 274 708 ~7:(ClOJ ___ . .J]f, 000 200 c«I; 200000 200000 200 000 1.150000 1424 708 " NE .(th stn-tooulllm Av NE -172 200 227 8:.0 -' 227'00 400,000 " Arttrlal Clr.:ulnlon Prom am 324711 200_/)(() 200 (XX) 200000 200000 250000 '5<100() 1,00000 1,624.711 " a, IM on & Re~alr 125538 120.0oX 4<l,OOO '"'"" "'000 '""' "'000 420000 545,S:J.81 " Ml"Cfffk Br1i:fa& Re..,laeement 12c oo5 710.000 ,ooo 835 000 035 " LcoaR..-,J1te1tment Pfrx,ra:n ''""' 1·{000 "000 15000 ~, 20000 20000 ,.,ooo 13U07 " Slrm Rt!lltCe~ntPr •m .... !'j OOJ• ~000 5000 7 7 "500 ..... " Pd, ,m "200 2U.COJ1 zo coo 20000 " '"" 25000 135000 179 200 " So.ind Transit HOV Plre,;t Access .. .., _s~t 5000 """ " Tr::rme Slfetv Pr ...... ram 145351 20.C.OO 20 coo ,0000 40000 <0000 <0000 100000 325351 " Tr•ffie Emeiencv pronr;im 361,539 1J1,500 55000 50000 """' 30.000 30000 , .. soo S5a,Da9 ·-.x c.s~ . .g1~.11,.pff; .Q(»itroct!:i-ru··· -··1-4-;9" ............... SO,CiflO· ,,.;,o,J ....... ·~:oo:r .......... s.aw· ·w;ooo -J74.lil5Ei " Art.r!1d Rehab. Proo. j&ll,916 2sO:OX, 205 000 "'10 000 230000 180000 130 000 1:375000 ).763.916 . " Duvall Aini NE 1 :ui1 419 2 41>1,ioo Hi' OC<l ' "" 4 303 719 " RR, CrtJff!Oft Sill Proa. S,ta2 5.WJ 5000 10000 10000 30,000 35182 ~ TOMl>roa~m 11S.805 &42DQ 6'200 '""' " ".200 .. 00 "' 504005 " Tr•11-1-Cooct1rrencv 40047 T\t~ 40000 10000 10 000 30000 10000 110 000 150,047 " Mlnino;iU!'IUP "m .... , ,owe 30,.o:xi JO 000 "'000 ,0000 30000 '"' 000 """" " GIS NHdsA11nument ,..., }5[~X 20000 20000 20 000 20000 20 13S COO 171682 ~ Q"" CO!Tldot"S :20t>19 '.l.5 C-OC ,oosoo 5'500 230000 1 ~1Q 000 1 02.QOOO ),2'4$ 000 j268,61S " Bl !<II RolA• O.v. Proaram '"'" 2000C! "!&.~ 18,000 1"10000 30000 00000 ,,. 000 360,342 " Uh Wnh, Bv.PmtoCoulon Pk 3-17 •1118 84.6QJ' 141 600 :zia 100 5435UI " School Zone Sten U,.,,.,ru!e11 WJ.("(Y) ,oo OOJ 100,000 ,00 000 300000 " fmi!ronment:ll Mof!llolin.., 1&1,!$38 75,0C,)· -~O?.J. 30000 30000 " 30000 245000 -429,838 " Tr•ncS-Y;1Uev & SOOs Creek Corr. '·"" 5.C>00 5,000 10000 1' 658 " ws Coordln,rtlon Pr "m 1;;,Mr 10 ' 1 65.000 69,137 " 1%t0ftti•Arts 33.ZUI ti0,0001 30 5c,o 30000 00000 30000 30000 230000 263 278 ~. Arterbl HOV Pr,.,,,r,m 127 354 '1:i.C'({ll 10,000 137 354 " Pari,:-Sunttt Corridor 26 277 t...J.l'Ci) 390 Q('(). 44-0.000 486,277 ...±<... Und Av ·SW 16tlr-SW~rd 5000 s_,oo,:, 1 914,000 626000 25'5000 2 550.000 .. SR 169 tiOV •140tll lo SR.900 2,0153S1 1 755,4C-0 ~.O&O_,QQ?, 2: 500000 ' "" e 3501111 " Sensoo Rd-$ 2eth lo Main 222 '63 ·i ~.,o '500 225 *'3 " Soou1/DtMill lnter:s.&ct!Orl "'9 561 c'3300 33.300 942 881 --""--o lt......,,11 Av Con,;;reta P.11m,r Re"'-"lr "" "" 000 460 000 o ,C:arrlMlliSTIJ:ri•l 2,000 ;:\,OC_:? -s.OW 10J'.XXJ 340000 ,woooo 10 000 768,000 710000 fl) IHom:M s ~ Milin to Bm~t ,... 610 000' 810.0'JO 610000 " 'Lakl Wuh. BvSlip f!;i:ne 637 600 t~~c:=,---~------, I lAOO ~Q~ " MonS'i,r Ro.id Brldg~ r 67193-1 <T,Y>'.l1 I I ' 27.000 69393-4 " 10\.lv~I! Av• NE ·Kine Cou e.10 114 J,1t.9_,~ 514,Y..AI I 3693.190 4,503 Tota Souru" ' '"" a591Fqo1 -n.2~2 200 • 1 2 966100• 337'2.( 1()0 ,.:u2100 161 6N.G10 179 278 • - :\[.N7 I Amended 11/27/06 Street Network • South Lake Washington Roadway Improvements (TIP #1213) • Rainier Avenue-SW 4th Place to SW 7th Street (TIP #11) • Grady Way-Main Avenue to West City Limits (TIP #J4;JD • Lind Avenue S.W. -S.W. 16 11 ' Street to S.W. 43'' Street (TIP #44,18) • Duvall Ave N.E. -Sunset Boulevard to Renton City Limits (TIP #B,32) • Mill Avenue South/ Carr Road (TIP #4\)52) • Strander Boulevard-SR-181 to Oakesdale Avenue S.W. (TIP #3) • Sunset Boulevard/Duvall Avenue NE (TIP #4-150) • N.E. 3''/N.E. 4th Corridor Improvements (TIP# 9.:1) • Rainier Avenue Corridor Study/Improvements (TIP #47) • Lake Washington Blvd. -Park Avenue North to Coulon Park (TIP #Jt,40) • Park Avenue North/Sunset Boulevard-North 6'" to Duvall Avenue N.E. (TIP #4JJ7) • South Renton Neighborhood Improvements (#I::t]:i) • N.E. 4"'/Hoquiam Avenue N.E. (TIP #1-+,18) Included in the Six-Year TIP is the Arterial Circulation Program (TIP#-!-'.!]')), which will provide funding for further development of multi-modal improvements on Renton's arterials to support the Transportation Plan and comply with clean air legislation. Also included are expenditures for project development studies (TIP #1517) for development of future TIP projects and grant applications for currently proposed and future TIP projects. Transit • Transit Program: facilities to support regional transit senrice, local transit service improvements; development of park and ride lots, transit amenities (TIP #$6) • Renton Urban Shuttle (RUSH) Program: operation of the shuttle bus service within Renton. (TIP #4:i) Also, the HOV Chapter improvements identified below will be designed to enhance transit service. th • SR-167 / S.W. 2T Street IIOV (TIP #23) • Sound Transit HOV Direct Access (TIP #2325) • SR-169 HOV -Sunset Blvd. to cast City Limits (TIP #4549) It should be noted that the expenditure shown for Sound Transit HOV Direct Access (TIP WJ125) is for coordination with the State and Sound Transit direct access interchange improvements. Included in the Six-Year TIP is the Arterial IIOV Program (TIP #42:f5), which will provide funding for further development of Renton HOV improvements identified previously in the HOV Plan (Figure 3-1 ), to examine additional routes and corridors for HOV facilities in Renton, and for coordination with direct access HOV rrojects. Non-Motorized XI-88 Amended I \/27/06 •1-lerr~·H-t+·Rt.-ad··ln+p·Ft}v-einenf:, s~n1; ;1 .:-.1 • ; -H·H··/\·\'\:'HHe-t -1·-11) . ..:...:.46} • CBD Bike and Pedestrian Conncct1ons ( 111' #26) Also included in the proposed Six-Year TIP is the Walkway Program (TIP #I 0), which will provide funding for sidewalk and handicap curb ramp needs idcnti lied in the City of Renton Comprehensive Citywide Walkway Program. The Bicycle Route Development Program (TIP #15,19) will upgrade existing bicycle routes, construct missing links in the bicycle route system, and develop, evaluate, prioritize future hicycle facilities. These projects are in addition to bicycle and pedestrian improvements, anticipated as part of arterial, HOV and transit projects. Implementation of the non-motorized element foils into two categories -walkways/sidewalk and bike facilities. Each of these components are described below. Walkways/Sidewalks Implementation. The implementation procedures for the City's comprehensive walkway/sidewalk program is detailed in the City of Renton Comprehensive Citywide Walkway Study. This report identifies the sidewalk and curb ramp needs within the City. Specific improvements will be prioritized and will respond to the needs oC scl1[)(1l children, the aged and persons with disabilities, and will support increased use of transit. Bike facilities lmpkmcntation. Bicycle focilitics include lanes along roadways and signed bicycle routes. Current funding is provided for the construction nr segments of the Lake Washington Loop Trail. nicyclc route designation and signing along City rnadways is provided on an as-needed basis by the Transportation Systems Division of the Planninl'. llnilding/Public Works Department. Project prioritization is determined by the Transportation Systems I l1 ,·is1nn in coordination with the Community Services Department. funding for bicycle signing is provided tlirnugh the capital improvement programs and the General Fund operating budgets of the Transportation Systems 1Ji1 ision. Signing specifically identified as part of transportation projects will be funded through the Six-Year Transportation Improvement Program (TIP). Trails Implementation. Many of the planned pcdcst rian/bicycle facilities in the Long Range Parks, Recreation, Open Space and Trails Plan, administered by the Community Services Department, would be valuable components of the transportation system. and, therefore. are coordinated with the Transportation Plan. The Long Range, Parks, Recreation. Opi.:11 Sp.:1cc and Trails Plan contains the rcconunended six-year trails development program. Only projccls that ,ire specifically identified as transportation facilities will be included in the Six-Y car Transportation ImpnJ,·c111cnl Program (TIP). TOM/CTR • Transpo11ation Demand Managcrnu1t Pn 1~_ram: implement Commute Trip Reduction Act requirements, other TDM progrnllls (111' :, , 0,i) Funding Assessment A 20-year transportation program has bec11 est,Ii1!1shcd having an estimated cost of $134 million. This program \Vas the basis for determining an ;rnnu;il funding level of $6.7 million. Assmning this annual funding level can be maintained over the 2U-ycar period (2002-2022), it is reasonably ce11ain that the 20- year transportation program can be irnplen1c11tcd. Annual reassessment of transportation needs, continuing to aggressively pursue grant funding, and-'\)r cnnt inu,·ition of the strong rate of growth in Renton, which will generate higher developer mitigation revenue. will be needed over the intervening years in order to assume the 2022 transportation program can be achic\·cd. .\I-X9 I Amended 11127106 The City of Renton's proposed 2()()6-20112Q(l7:;<ll) Six-Year TIP includes i>-} 54 individual projects and programs, with a total estimated cost of $l JQ,2g1Ji'.) million. Of this total cost, approximately $.JMA,I" million is to be expended over the "01)(, 201121107-2012 six-year period. (It should be noted that for several projects and programs, expenditures over the six-year period are shown, not the total project or program cost.) The difference of about $.Jil-4L'.\million represents expenditures prior to year 2il0i,~()1)7. The projected revenues over the six-year period, based on the established $6.7 million annual funding, will total $40.2 million. The TIP identified expenditures of $-l-frl-cl-• I DJ million is $.J2.l--S7 .5 million more than the projected revenues. Of this $-l-2+-87,5 million, approximately $&1--4--lmillion represents the amount of participation anticipated by the State, Sound Transit, King County, neighboring jurisdictions, and private sector contributions on joint projects. As previously discussed, transportation improvement expenditures of other jurisdictions have not been included when establishing the $6. 7 million annual funding level. Therefore, the Six-Year TIP expenditures exceed projected revenues by $60 .l3.5 million. In order for projects to be eligible for projected funding, they must be, by law, included in the Six-Year Transportation Improvement Program (TIP). Because it is not possible to know which projects will qualify for funding, the Six-Year TIP includes a cross-section of projects to provide a list of projects that will be eligible for funding from the various revenue sources, when and if, such funds become available. The result is a Six-Year TIP which has expenditures exceeding projected revenues. The challenge for the future will be to secure enough funding for the City of Renton, Cities of Tukwila and Kent, King County, Sound Transit, and the state to implement the improvements to their respective facilities included in the Transportation Plan. However, several strategies for acquiring needed funding are evident at this time. They include: + Establish interjurisdictional funding mechanisms, such as payment of mitigation fees to address impacts of growth within adjacent jurisdictions that affect the City of Renton. + Update transportation priorities mmually and incorporate in the Six-Year Transportation Improvement Program. + Continue to work more aggressively with adjacent cities, King County, Washington State Department of Transportation and other agencies to fund their respective improvements in the Transportation Plan, i.e., through joint projects. + Continue to work with regional agencies to encourage them to find and fund regional solutions for regional transpmiation problems. Mitigation Process There are new laws and regulations that have tremendous impacts on land use, the need for new or different kinds of transportation projects and programs, and costs and funding of transportation projects. Examples are the Wetlands Management Ordinance, Surface Water Management Ordinance, the Clean Air Act, Commute Trip Reduction Act, Endangered Species Act, and the Growth Management Act. As a result, a transportation mitigation policy and process has been developed as part of the transportation plan. This mitigation policy serves as a framework for the citywide mitigation payment system that was adopted by the City in l 996. This mitigation policy includes the City of Renton: + Developing a citywide 20-year transportation system improvement plan (defined in the Transportation Element of the Comprehensive Plan). Xl-90 I Amended 11/27/06 + Determining the cost of the citywide 20-ycar transportation improvements to support new development. + Establishing a fee for developme11ts' pro-rated share of the cost of the citywide 20-year transportation improvements (in additinn to site-specific mitigation required by the City). This mitigation fee would be established during the SEPA review process and paid during the project development process. + Continuing the current established business license fee and percentage of the business license fee allocated for transportation purposes as has been the custom in the past. + Having the flexibility to modify the citywide transportation plan as needed to address environmental/regional coordination issues. + Approving future development conditioned upon site specific improvements to ensure that on-site and adjacent transportation facility impacts are mitigated, and the payment of the mitigation fee as the development's fair share contnbution towards: I) ensuring that the cumulative impacts of development can be mitigated; and 2) maintaining the City of Renton adopted level of service standard. Site specific improvements could include construction of additional trafiic lanes and/or traffic signals. Mitigation Payment System The development mitigation fairshare cost h'1s been established at $75 per daily vehicle trip. The developer mitigation fee is based on the t,,t'11 daily increase in vehicle trips generated by the specific development project multiplied by the vehicle trip rate fee. In addition to this fee, there may be site-specific improvements required by the City, such as construction or contribution towards cunslruction of additional traffic lanes and/or traffic signals, to mitig,1tc un-sitc ,md adjacent facility impacts. (Nev., business development will also pay the annual per capita business license as currently required of all businesses in the City of Renton). Additional information on the determinatilrn or the mitigation trip rate fee is contained in the Renton Transportation Mitigation Fee Support Document. A development may qualify for reduction ufthe S75 per vehicle trip mitigation fee through certain credits for development incentives, construction lli' needed lrnn:::;portation improvements (arterial, HOV, transit), through public/private pa11nerships, and transportation demand management programs. Specific credits and the amount of reduction in the mitigation trip rnte kc that could result from such credits will be determined on a case by case basis during the Jcvclop111c11t pcrn1itting process. The Mitigation Payment System provides flexibility to modify the basic trip r<1tc kc ,is needed to respond to the effect that credits may have on developer mitigation as a funding source. Concurrency Management System The Growth Management J\ct (GMJ\) describes concurrency as the situation where adequate public facilities are available when the impacts ol' de, cidpment occur, or within a specified time thereafter. This description includes the concept of available public focilities. The GMA defines "available public facilities 11 as facilities or services in place. or a l'in,1ncial commitment in place, to provide the facilities within a specified time. For transportation, the ,pee, lied time is six years from time of development. :\1-91 I Amended 11/27/06 City of Renton policies that support the GMA's definition of concurrency have been identified in the Land Use Element and in this Element. To address concurrency under the GMA and City of Renton policies, a concurrency management system has been developed for the City of Renton that is based on the following process: • The City of Renton will adopt a multi-modal Transportation Plan that will be consistent with regional plans and those of neighboring cities. Improvements and programs of the Transportation Plan will be defined in the Transportation Element of the Comprehensive Plan. • The City of Renton Transportation Level of Service (LOS) Policy, although it differs from the traditional LOS for arterials, is consistent with King County Growth Management Countywide Planning Policies and will be used to evaluate the City of Renton Transportation Plan. • If the region decides to lower regional LOS by not providing regional facilities, then Renton will adjust its LOS policy accordingly. • The Transportation Plan will include a financial component with cost estimates and funding strategy. One of the fund sources will be mitigation fees collected from developers as a condition of land usc development within the City of Renton. The approval of the development will be conditioned upon the payment of this Transportation Mitigation Fee and site-specific mitigation of on-site and adjacent facility impacts. • The City of Renton may allocate the developer funds to any of the improvement elements of the citywide Transportation Plan in such a manner to assure that concurrency between transportation LOS and land use development is met. • The City of Renton will establish concurrency by iHHHH1ily testing the citywide Transportation Plan as funded in the Six-Year Transportation Improvement Program to ensure conformance with the Level of Service standard. The City of Renton will adjust the transp01iation improvement plan as necessary to meet the LOS standard. • Based upon the annual test of the citywide Transportation Plan, consideration of growth levels included in the LOS-tested Transportation Plan, payment of a Transportation Mitigation Fee, and an application of site specific mitigation, development will have met City of Renton concurrency requirements. Transportation Concurrency Regulations (Ordinance No. 4708, adopted 3-2-1998) and Guidelines and Procedures for Monitoring Transportation Concurrency (adopted 4-6-1998) comprise the procedures. standards and criteria that allow the City of Renton to determine whether adequate public facilities are available to serve new land use development. As specified in the Regulations and Guidelines and Procedures, a concurrency test is conducted by the City of Renton for each non-exempt development activity. The concurrency test detennines consistency with the adopted citywide Level of Service standard and the Concurrency Management System, using rules and procedures established by the City of Renton. The concurrency test includes technical review of a development activity by the City of Renton lo determine if the transpmiation system has adequate or unused or uncommitted capacity, or will have adequate capacity, to accommodate vehicle trips generated by the proposed development, without causing the level of service standard to decline below adopted standards, at the time of development or within six years. A written finding of concurrency is provided by the City prior to the approval of the development permit. If the development activity fails the concurrency test, the City XI-92 I Amended l 1/27/06 allows the development applicant to submit alternative data, provide a traffic mitigation plan, or reduce the size of the development project in order to achieve concurrency. Monitoring, and evaluation of the City of Rcnton's Cuncurrency Management System and Transportation Concurrency Regulations will be reviewed as pa11 ,11· ongoing transportation work ENVIRONMENTAL ANU NATURAL RESOURCES The Enviromnental and Natural Resources Chapter describes objectives, policies, and strategies to help protect Renton's natural resources and Renton residents from unacceptable air and water quality impacts of the transportation system. Clean air and water are necessary for healthful living in an urban society. Objectives T-X: Protect and promote clean air to ensure a healthful enviromnent. T-Y: Reduce vehicular emissions by encour<1ging increases in carpooling, vanpooling, transit, and non- motorized transportation usage. T-Z: Ensure the long-tern, protection of the qucility of water resources of the City of Renton. T-AA: Reduce the impact on water quality from vehicular pollutants associated with run-off from impervious transportation facility surfr1cc:-,. T-BB: Preserve and protect natural resource., (particularly critical areas and wildlife habitat). Policies Policy T-69. Promote programs which maintain mobile source pollutant levels at or below those prescribed by the EPA, State Department o 1· Ecology, and the Puget Sound Clean Air Agency. Policy T-70. Comply with the stipulations described in the State Implementation Plan (Sil') for air quality compliance. Policy T-71. Promote water quality by encouraging increases in carpooling, vanp0nling, transit, and non-motorized transportation usage. Also see related Policies in the Enviromnental Element, the Land Use Element, and the King Air Quality --lmplemeutation Plan Policy T-72. Incorporate in transportation facilities vehicular pollutant and surface water run-off managen1ent and treatment techniques that maximize water quality. Policy T-73. Comply with the stipulations described in federal, state. and local water quality standards and regulations. Policy T-74. Develop transportation plans and projects lo comply with City, state, and federal regulations that address critical areas and \vildlife habitat. County Countywide Planning Policies, which by this reference, are incorporated in this Chapter. The City will subscribe to the plans, policies. and prugrams catalogued in the State Implementation Plan for air quality non-attainment areas. Transportation demand management (TOM) strategics will be encouraged, including the Commute Trip Reduction Law. Existing vehicle programs such as the winter .\.I-93 Amended 11/27/06 oxygenated fuels and vehicle inspections will be continued, supported, and updated as requirements demand. Ongoing transportation planning work will include the review of the latest information from state and local agencies regarding air quality non-attainment areas, severity of violations and implementation plans. Improving Water Quality The City of Renton will comply with federal, state, and local plans, policies and programs for water quality. The City's Transportation Element of the Comprehensive Plan focuses on increasing the availability and use of HOV, transit, and non-motorized transportation modes and transportation demand management strategies. The intent of this program is to reduce vehicular traffic which will make it possible to limit the expansion of the existing roadway system and, in certain locations, limit additional impervious surfaces. This, in tum, will reduce vehicular pollutants and their effect on water quality. INTERGOVERNMENTAL COORDINATION A multitude of agencies are involved in transportation planning and improvement. To become better integrated into the regional transportation system, Renton needs to strengthen its role in the region, especially in South King County, East King County, and the Puget Sound area, and participate in regional forums as transportation decisions are made. This is particularly important since a disproportionate number of the vehicles on Renton's arterials are pass-through traftic. Also, Renton continues to be a major regional employment center and decisions made about future transportation systems for the Puget Sound area will directly impact the future of Rcnton's commercial and industrial base. With requirements of the Growth Management Act mandating concurrency between land use and transportation planning, the kind of intetjurisdictional cooperation envisioned in the policies has become more of a reality. However, in this enviromnent it will become increasingly important for Renton to support negotiation tools such as intcrlocal agreements, and participate in interjurisdictional decision making. Therefore, the City of Renton participates in regional forums and supports transportation plans that preserve the livability of our neighborhoods, maintain the economic vitality of our City, and provide for an improved environment for future generations. This will be accomplished by: • providing a multi-modal regional plan with HOV, transit and other modes serving Renton; and • providing regional financial strategies which encourage other than SOV travel. The City of Renton has prepared and adopted a multi-modal Transportation Plan, which is consistent with regional plans and plans of neighboring cities. XI-94 Amended l l/27/06 Objectives Objectives and Policies which address the need for coc>rdination between regional and local agencies with respect to transportation planning and operation needs are presented below: T-CC: Coordinate transportation operations. planning and improvements with other transportation authorities and municipalities. Policies Policy T-75. A sub-regional transportation system should be designed and implemented in cooperation with neighboring jurisdictions. Policy T-76. WSDOT should provide funding for and construct grade-separated inside HOV Lmcs with direct access (or barrier-separated IIOV facility) in the SR-167 corridor from Auburn to Renton and 1-405 corridor, extending from Sea- Tac Airport north to Bothell. Policy T-77. The Regional Transit Plan (RTPJ should include regional express bus servicc to downtmvn Renton. Policy T-78. Provide park-and-ride lots in unincorporated King County to intercept pass through trat1ic affecting the Renton street system. Transit service to these park-and-ride lots shlluld be frequent in order lo encourage transit us,1gt:. Policy T-79. King County Transit (Metro) should provide intra-Renton bus service to serve local activity centers and employment centers, and to provide frequent convenient access to future Current Coordination Activities commuter rail stations and light rail transit stations. Policy T-80. The City of Renton, in collaboration with King County Transit (Metro), should place high priority in providing transit service to areas experiencing high residential and commercial growth. Policy T-81. The Regional Transit Authority (Sound Transit) should provide transit service and transit-oriented capital improvements in Renton consistent in size, scope. and cost with those proposed in the voter-approved Sound Move. Policy T-82. Give priority to working with King County to ensure that King County policies regarding transportation consistency/concurrency in Renton· s Potential Annexation Areas are compatible with Renton's transportation plans and goals. Also see related Policies in the Transit Section and King County Countywide Planning Policies. The City of Renton has been actively invoh·cd in an ongoing dialogue with state, regional, and county agencies --as well as adjacent jurisdictions and business and community groups in Renton --concerning Rcnton's transportation planning goals and nbicctives. Coordination efforts underway include participation in the following primary forums. (Note: not ,ill committees arc listed.) State Coordination IWasbington State l)epartmcnt of Transportation (WSDOT)] 1-405 Corridor Study. The City is participating in this WSDOT study along with representatives of affected jurisdictions adjacent to 1-405. Renton elected onicials serve on the study"s Executive Committee and Renton staff serve on the Steering Conm1i11cc and Technical Committee. The purpose of the study is to work with local jurisdictions to define transportatio11 needs in the 1-405 C01Tidor from Tukwila to Swamp Creek. and to develop transportation improvement projects for the corridor that complement local plans, goals, and objectives. Xl-95 Amended l l /27 /06 Regional Coordination South County Area Transportation Board (SCATBd). The purpose of the group is to serve as a central forum for information-sharing, consensus-building, coordination to resolve transportation issues, and to implement transportation programs and projects that benefit the region in general and South King County area jurisdictions in particular. Voting members include King County and the cities of Algona, Auburn, Black Diamond, Burien, Covington, Des Moines, Enumclaw, Federal Way, Kent, Maple Valley, Milton, Nonnandy Park, Pacific, Renton, SeaTac, and Tukwila. Non-Voting members include Sound Transit, Pierce Transit, the Port of Seattle, the Puget Sound Regional Council, WSDOT, and the State Transportation Improvement Board (TIB). East side Transportation Partnership (ETP). ETP is a coalition of Eastsidc cities (similar to SCATBd), with representatives from Bellevue, Kirkland, Redmond, Issaquah, Bothell, Mercer Island, Sammamish, Woodinville, Newcastle, and Renton. Representatives from WSDOT, Sound Transit, King County, PSRC, TIB, and Snohomish County also are participants. Renton's primary affiliation and purpose for participating in the group is to coordinate Eastside and South County issues. Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC). The PSRC is a regional council of governments and the local MPO and RTPO, with representatives from every agency, jurisdiction, and governing body in King County, Pierce County, Kitsap County and Snohomish County. Staff level technical conunittees meet regularly to discuss a wide range of transportation topics related to the region's long range growth and transportation strategy as envisioned under VISION 2020 and Destination 2030, including finance, transportation improvement programs, commute trip reduction issues, regional transportation forecast data, air quality, and other issues requiring regional coordination. Central Puget Sound Regional Transit Authority/Sound Transit. The City coordinates regularly with Sound Transit staff, as Sound Transit is the regional transit service provider. For long range planning, Renton and other jurisdictions are working with Sound Transit to implement Phase I of the Regional Transit Plan (Sound Move). which includes Regional Express bus service and associated capital facilities, and HOV/transit exclusive interchanges and/or arterial HOV improvernents in Renton. County Coordination King County Metro. The City is also coordinating with King County Transit (Metro) in the development of local bus service plans that will complement the Sound Transit regional transit service concept. King County Public Works Directors. The City works as a member of this group on numerous and varied transportation action issues of concern to local jurisdictions including making recommendations for projects to be funded with the regional distribution of federal transportation funds. Commute Trip Reduction. Another group within King County is responsible for coordinating regional and South County Commute Trip Reduction (CTR) issues in cooperation with local jurisdictions and King County. Working groups have been established for the purpose of coordinating state-required CTR ordinance and plan development/adoption by local jurisdictions and King County. With most local jurisdictions having successfully adopted local CTR ordinances, the group is now focusing on the successful implementation of the ordinance requirements (working with affected employers) and on starting a parking review regional coordinating effort. Xl-96 Amended I I /27/06 Impacts on Adjacent Jnrisdictions The City of Renton is coordinating and will continue to coordinate with adjacent jurisdictions through interlocal agreements and through appropriate rcgioml, county, local, and state forums to assure consistency between plans, and to work out acceptable and appropriate agreements regarding local plans. Impacts on Regional Transportation Plan The City of Renton has adopted a position that speci tics the elements that must be included in a regional transit plan in order for the City to meet the requirements of the Growth Management Act. The City Council supports the following elements in the votcr-apprU1 cd regional system plan (Sound Move): I. A bus element, with early emphasis on express bus service and TSM improvements proposed for the South County area; 2. A plan that increases local circulation t r;rn~i1 services and feeder service connections and provides a variety of modal options; 3. High Capacity Transit ([!CT) to urban and employment centers, including Renton; and 4. A plan that provides convenient co1111cctint1~ within the regional bus service, local bus service, and between the light rail line and the commuter rail system. Renton is coordinating with Sound Transit to cn~urc commensurate transit services and/or roadway/freeway improvements should any elements of the app,," c·d re~ional plan that benefit Renton not be implemented. Strategies to Address Inconsistencies Inconsistencies between Renton, the State, K111g (\lUttly, Sound Transit, and other local jurisdictions will be addressed hy interlocal agreement as specified in Kint! ('aunty Growth Management policies. O',GOING TRANSPORTATION PLAN WORK This Trnnsportation Element includes a nuu1bcr {11' n. .. 'cl11nmcndations for ongoing transportation \Vork. This additional work will include continued refinrn1cnt ot· certain elements of the transportation plan and development of more detailed strategies and Jll"ll,!1"'11llS tu implement the transportation plan. The specific transportation planning tasks arc summarized i11 thi;-; scction. Street Network Level of Service (LOS) Continue to refine and update Renton's I.OS policy 10 reflect new information on regional and local transp011ation plans. Arterial Plan Conduct further analysis of the improvements incluckd in the A11erial Plan to verify physical, operational, and financial feasibility. The analyses will include dc,clopment ofeoneeptual plans and cost estimates, assessment of neighborhood and envirorunental impacts, and the development of more detailed scopes of improvement, as appropriate. Adjust the At1cric1l Pl,m. as needed, to reflect the results on this analysis. Re-evaluate residential, commercial, and industrial access street function definitions and classifications . . \].<J7 Amended I I /27106 Transit Transit Plan Update and revise Renton's Transit Plan to reflect new information regarding the Regional Transportation Plan (Sound Move). Conduct further analysis of the local feeder system transit improvements identified in the City of Renton Transit Needs Assessment in order to verify operational and financial feasibility. (Includes the development and incorporation of more detailed bus routing and dial-a-ride needs.) Level of Service Continue to refine the transit index ofRenton's LOS standard to address transit service frequency. HOV HOV Plan Continue the assessment of criteria for HOV facility planning, design, and operation. Conduct further analysis of the HOV improvements identified in the HOV Plan in order to verify physical, operational, and financial feasibility. Also, investigate other potential locations for HOV improvements, and define scope and cost of the proposed improvements in more detail, as appropriate. Level of Service Continue to update the HOV index ofRenton's LOS standards, if needed. Non-motorized Neighborhood and Regional Access Based on the City of Renton Comprehensive Citywide Walkway Study, detennine additional bicycle and pedestrian facilities that support Renton's access needs and complement the Regional Transit Plan and local transit system. Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities Plan Update the routes identified in the Bicycle and Pedestrian l'acilities Plan to reflect the reassessment of neighborhood and regional access needs. Identify, in cooperation with other City of Renton departments and citizen groups, the facilities that could be included in the City of Renton's transportation funding program. TDM/CTR Existing Parking Snpply and Demand Inventory existing citywide on-site and off-site parking facilities to determine number of spaces and utilization, if needed during foture review of parking policies, guidelines, and regulations. Parking Policy Review and Revisions Continue to review, update and/or revise Renton parking policies to complement other elements of the Renton Transportation Plan and to be consistent with regional parking policies. Working in regional forums propose parking regulation revisions to be worked out on a sub-regional basis. Employer Mode Split Xl-98 Amended 11/27!06 With assistance from King County, evaluate updated Renton employers CTR data and revise citywide employer mode split if needed. TOM/CTR Programs Renton's CTR ordinance was amended in February. 1998. Public and private employers have developed programs for complying with the ordinance. Annual review of these programs will be conducted to monitor progress toward meeting CTR goals. :\l..>~.!: _ 1 l.:L:. C i_1_y _ ~\Jl-1. J:1_-:_ \\J~J:,k i_qgJ\-:.i.th ... .\Y\P.( . t 1 _r_l1~_r:-, _1__0 dt:_v_...::_llI!) _r_L_~]~;;-; __ tim_l _ _crGa1 e nc\\' -12..EJ: Vy:'ashingtun_Stak: L:.>gisbturc in 200(). lT Parking Management Ordinance -. ,u_n.~i __ !{ l'g_ic1n:il_counc_l_l_, K i_ng (:l'•un1 y _ \·L.\rn T rnnsi 1 ,·1 ~d ,_,;,_,.,.,""·"· I RJ ·. Irie i-.:i h '\' _;Jct ___ .:1dz•pt __ cd bv : iic icnc_v .,\ct inL:!udo..> cf:<1 c·1 R ·'"·'' ll .. 1 . ...c .. •F.'i''i -c n1tJdi_ll\'d CTR progrn_m \\ ill ot'!!ci:1U:v slart nn Continue to review the City of Renton parking regulations for revisions to complement the Renton Land Use Element and Transportation Element and to be consistent with regional and other local jurisdictional parking policies. Airport Continue to update the goals, objectives, policies. t\.mctional requirements, and implementation strategies of the Airport Chapter of the Transportation Element '" needed. Freight Inventory of Local Rail System Facilities and Users Update assessment of rail use compatibility with current land uses and rAST implementation strategics, as needed. Regional Accessibility Continue to review, and update if needed, the asscss,ncnt or Renton rail use with respect to implications of the Regional Transit Plan (Sound Move) and to rclkct Central Puget Sound Regional Transit Authority (Sound Transit) decisions. Freight and Passenger Rail Use Review and update the assessment of freight and p'1sscnger rail needs, as appropriate. Financing and Implementation Program and Project Costs Update the scope and cost of improvements determined from the continued feasibility analysis of the arterial and HOV elements. Also, update the scope and cost of transit, non-motorized and other programs included in the City ofRenton's transportation funding program. Update the cost of the 20-year trnnsporlation plan, as needed. Mitigation Process Adjust the citywide developer mitigation rec structurv·, if needed, to reflect revisions to the financing plan resulting from further analysis of the Transportatiun Pbn improvements and costs, and funding sources. Funding Program Adjust the priority of projects or programs idcnt i r,cd under the Arterial, Transit, HOV, Non-Motorized, and TOM chapters as needed. Review the multi-vcar (20) cars) financing plan and assess funding needs for the Amended 11 /27 /06 identified projects or programs. Include appropriate projects and programs in the City's Six-Year Transportation Improvement Program (TIP). Identify potential sources of additional funds, if funding from current sources is not adequate, and to reflect federal, State, regional or local decisions regarding availability of current sources. Concurrency Continue to review, and revise if needed, the implementation, monitoring, and evaluation aspects of the Concurrency Management System (CMS) and update, as necessary, the rules, regulations and ordinances that implement the concurrency requirements. Coordinate with adjacent jurisdictions regarding CMS requirements and regulations. Environmental and Natural Resources Continue to review and revise, as needed, the objectives, policies and strategies to minimize or mitigate impacts of transportation plans on Renton's environment and natural resources. Review the latest air and water quality implementation plans from local and state agencies, and update if needed. Intergovernmental Coordination Continue to coordinate Renton's Transportation Element with adjacent jurisdictions' transportation and land use goals, countywide policies, regional land use and transportation plans, and statewide goals outlined in the GMA. Regulations, facilities to be provided, and development actions by regional and other local jurisdictions may change, which could affect the City of Renton. Pursue strategies to address inconsistencies, i.e. through interlocal agreements, and adjust Renton's Transportation Element, as needed. XI-!00 Amended 11/27 /06 CAPITAL FACILITIES ELEMENT ~~-02007-2012 GOAL Develop and implement the capital facilities plan for the City of Renton. lll-1 ··"1 .-• .... "'-l.-"-I .._L--L Amended I I /27 /06 TABLE OF CONTENTS CAPITAL USE FACILITIES Growth Management Act. ................................................................................................................................... . .. .... III-4 Growth Projections .............................................................................................................................................................. III-5 Capital Facilities Plan Policies ............................................................................................................................................. III-7 Transportation Capital Facilities Plan .................................................................................................................................. III-8 Water Capital Facilities Plan ............................................................................................................................................. III-16 Wastewater Capital Facilities Plan .................................................................................................................................... IIl-21 Surface Water Utility Capital Facilities Plan ..................................................................................................................... III-25 Park, Recreation and Open Space ..................................................................................................................................... III-29 Public Safety Capital Facilities Plan ................................................................................................................................. III-41 Fire Capital Facilities Plan ................................................................................................................................................. III-42 Economic DevelopmenV Administration ............................................................................................................................ III-46 III-2 Amended 11/27/06 Purpose The purpose of the Capital Facilities Plan is: • to identify the new or expanded public facilities that will be needed to accommodate --at an established level of service--the growth projected to occur within the City of Renton in the first six years of the Comprehensive Plan; and • to identify the sources of public financing for these public facilities. Methods and Process The Capital Facilities Plan relies heavily on the analyses and policies presented in the other seven elements of the Comprehensive Plan as well as in the Fire Department Master Plan, Comprehensive Park, Recreation and Open Space Plan, Long Range Wastewater Management Plan, Issaquah-,_Kent and Renton School District's Capital Improvement Plans, and City of Renton Annual Capital Improvements Plan . For detailed information and explanations concerning growth projections, land use determinations, existing faci!tties, level of service, etc., the reader must consult these documents. The Capital Facilities Plan incorporates by reference the information and analyses presented in these other documents and the annual updates to these plans concerning existing facilities and level of service standards. Based on these other documents, the Capital Facilities Plan establishes policies for determining which public facilities should be built and how they should be paid for, and presents a six-year plan for the use of public funds toward building and funding the needed capital facilities. 1be process for arriving at the six-year plan involved identifying existing facilities and level of service standards and then applying the projected growth in residential population and employment to identify the needed capital facilities. The timing of the facilities was established through a combination of the requirements of the city's concurrency policy and the length ohime it takes to implement the needed facility. Type and Providers of Capital Facilities For the purposes of complying with the requirements of the GMA, the Capital Facilities Plan proposes a six-year plan for the following capital facilities and providers: transportation domestic water sanitary sewer surface water parks facilities fire police economic development City of Renton City of Renton City of Renton City of Renton City of Renton City of Renton City of Renton City of Renton 111-3 Amended 11/27/06 Purpose The purpose of the Capital Facilities Plan is: • to identify the new or expanded public facilities that will be needed to accommodate --at an established level of service--the growth projected to occur within the City of Renton in the first six years of the Comprehensive Plan; and • to identify the sources of public financing for these public facilities. Methods and Process The Capital Facilities Plan relies heavily on the analyses and policies presented in the other seven elements of the Comprehensive Plan as well as in the Fire Department Master Plan, Comprehensive Park, Recreation and Open Space Plan, Long Range Wastewater Management Plan, Issaquah-,_Kent and Renton School District's Capital Improvement Plans, and City of Renton Annual Capital Improvements Plan . For detailed information and explanations concerning growth projections, land use determinations, existing facilities, level of service, etc., the reader must consult these documents. The Capital Facilities Plan incorporates by reference the information and analyses presented in these other documents and the annual updates to these plans concerning existing facilities and level of service standards. Based on these other documents, the Capital Facilities Plan establishes policies for determining which public facilities should be built and how they should be paid for, and presents a six-year plan for the use of public funds toward building and funding the needed capital facilities. The process for arriving at the six-year plan involved identifying existing facilities and level of service standards and then applying the projected growth in residential population and employment to identify the needed capital facilities. The timing of the facilities was established through a combination of the requirements of the city's concurrency policy and the length of time it takes to implement the needed facility. Type and Providers of Capital Facilities For the purposes of complying with the requirements of the GMA, the Capital Facilities Plan proposes a six-year plan for the following capital facilities and providers: transportation domestic water sanitary sewer surface water parks facilities fire police economic development City of Renton City of Renton City of Renton City of Renton City of Renton City of Renton City of Renton City of Renton IIJ-3 Amended I I /27 /06 GROWTH J\,IANAGEMENT ACT REQUIREMENTS Passed by the legislature in 1990, the Growth Management Act establishes planning goals as well as specific content requirements to guide local jurisdictions in the development and adoption of comprehensive plans. One of the thirteen planning goals stated in the Act is to: Ensure that those public facilities and services necessary to support development shall be adequate to serve the development at the time the development is available for occupancy and use without decreasing current service levels below locally established minimum standards. (RCW 36. 70A.020(12)) To this end, the Act requires that each comprehensive plan contains: A capital facilities plan element consisting of: (a) An inventory of existing capital facilities owned by public entities, showing the locations and capacities of the capital facilities; (b) a forecast of the future needs for such capital facilities; (c) the proposed locations and capacities of expanded or new capital facilities; (d) at least a six-year plan that will finance such capital facilities within projected funding capacities and clearly identifies sources of public money for such purposes; and ( c) a requirement to reassess the land use element if probable funding falls short of meeting existing needs and to ensure that the land use element, capital facilities plan element, and financing plan within the capital facilities plan element are coordinated and consistent. (RCW 36.70A.070(3)) With respect to transportation facilities, the Act is more specific, requiring that: ... transportation improvements or strategies to accommodate the impacts of development are made concurrent with the development and defining "concurrent with development" to mean "that improvements or strategies are in place at the time of development, or that a financial commitment is in place to complete the improvements or strategies within six years." (RCW 36.70A.070(6)) The Act also requires that: ... cities shall perform their activities and make capital budget decisions in conformity with their comprehensive plans. (RCW 36. 70A.120) Administrative Regulations (WAC 365-195) In support of the GMA legislation, state administrative regulations require that the Capital Facilities Plan consist of at least the following features (WAC 365-195-315( 1 )): I. An inventory of existing capital facilities owned by public entities, showing the locations and capacities of the capital facilities. 2. A forecast of the future needs for such capital facilities. 3. The proposed locations and capacities of expanded or new capital facilities. 4. At least a six-year plan that will finance such capital facilities within projected funding capacities and clearly identifies sources of public money for such purposes. 5. A reassessment of the land use element if probable funding falls short of meeting existing needs. In the administrative regulations, the state recommends that in addition to transportation, concurrency should be sought for domestic water and sanitary sewer systems. (WAC 365-195-060(3)) Additionally, the regulations state that the planning for all elements, including the Capital Facilities Plan, should be undertaken with the goal of economic development in mind even though the Act does not mandate an economic development element for the plan._ (WAC 365-195-060(2)) 111-4 Amended 11 /27 /06 GROWTH PROJECTIONS The Puget Sound Regional Council population and employment forecast growth for the City over the twenty-one-year interval from 200 I to 2022 is an increase of 9,723 households, and 33,600 jobs, Growth targets adopted by the Growth Management Planning Council anticipate 6,198 households and 27,597 jobs. Both forecast growth and targets are well within the City's estimated land capacity of 11,261 units and 32,240 jobs established through the Buildable Lands requirements of the Growth Management Act (GMA). Renton is planning for its regional share of forecast growth over the next 20 years at the high end of the range, and the adopted target at the low end of the range. In the first 9 years of growth management actual growth in Renton exceeded targets, but was within the range predicted by the forecast growth assumptions. With external factors, including the regional economy, state/federal transportation funding and the GMA regulatory environment remaining constant or improving, Renton's growth is anticipated to continue over the next 6 year planning cycle. The following chart summarizes Renton's forecast growth, targets and land use capacity. leeer13erated AElj,rnleEI Ann1c1alizea 2007-2012 Capital City of TIH'get/CapaeityAdjustment Estiffitt!e Facilities Plan Renton Reflecting Estimated Growth l'lamiiAg 2001 2022 Growth/,Annexation/, and Per Year ffl60fjl0Fatea (2 JyFS) Land Use Changes iA 2/JQ I ( for the 16 years ReAteAEstimates For aAd 20Q2up to 2006 City of Renton remaining in the target) 2QQ§ 2Ql0 Forecast 9,723 units None 463 units 2,778 units Growth 33,600 jobs 1,600 jobs 9,600 jobs 2001-2022 22,266 (21 yrs) population* Growth 6,198 units ~2,257 units i;,&-14 I units ~846units Targets 27,597 jobs U;-'.1-¥,24 797 jobs -l,4-W-1,505 jobs &-;4429300jobs 2022 14,194 E19 :,'fs aElj lisle a population* fer rernaiAiAg targett Capacity 11,261 units 9-;i,M12,!92 units NA NA established 32,240 jobs* ~28,589 jobs by Buildable 25,788 Lands population* 2006-2022 i Adaitienal ,1ened eapaeity estaalished fer the Yfban Genier ~lerth thret1gh the Baeing GempreheAsi,,e l'I Bil AmeAdmeA!s iA 2QQ~ ef l0,69Q,Q9Q sqt1are ieet efempleyment t1ses, JaQ hate! reams, alle J,22§ ,mi!s is e et yet rbae fleeted iA 2.29. ieeefjlerated iete the Btlileallle baeas aata base. l·Iewe¥ee, trnnsjlerlatien ifllj,aslrnetlire jllaHRieg fef !be Y ('.eAter ~larlh is ieelt1sed ill !be ae*1 a ~·ear jllBBAiAg eyele fur the Gapilal I<aeilities Illemefl! allEI will Ile ee · the Traesperlatioo seetiell ef this Illemeet. Pejl!ila!iee illerease estimates ace llased ee a het1seh.eld size ef III-5 Amended I I /27 /06 For the purpose of developing a six-year capital facilities plan for the period from ~2007 through :w+(),2012, an estimate was made as to the amount of the remaining 21-year growth to be realized during the six-year Capital Facilities Element planning cycle. After reviewing the projections and the underlying assumptions, it was determined that for planning purposes, the most prudent course was to assume a uniform allocation of the forecast growth and targets over the 21-year period, rather than trying to predict year by year economic cycles. Renton's growth over the first years of growth management is occurring more rapidly than originally forecast. The estimate for 2001 was 48,456 persons however the actual population by April 1, 2001 was 51,140, exceeding forecast growth by 2,684 persons housed in 1,177 housing units over a 6 year period (196 units per year). By April 1, 2004, the City population was 55,360, representing an increase of another 4,220 residents and an estimated 1, 850 units. The number of units realized between 2002 and 2004 exceeds the forecast projection of 1,389 units by 461 units (153 units per year). Some of this development can be explained by new housing developed in areas annexing to the City. However, the increase exceeds the proportional share of housing target and forecast growth assigned to this annexation area and assumed by the City upon annexation. For the purposes of the next phase of the planning cycle, the 2-00$-2007 to :w+-0-2012 six-year Capital Facilities Plan, Renton will continue plan for the next six-year increment of forecast growth assuming an increase of 2,778 units and 9,600 jobs. Forecast growth represents the upper end of expected growth, while the target of .J-i-B{,846 units and MP-9,300 jobs represented the minimum amount of grov.ih expected for this period. The City's population in the year W-1-0-2012 is forecast as 61,694 persons. To be sure, growth will not occur precisely as projected over the next six-year or the 21-year period. Recognizing this fact, the Capital Facilities Plan should be updated at least biennially. In this way local governments have the opportunity to re-evaluate their forecasts in light of the actual growth experienced, revise their forecasts for the next six years if necessary, and adjust the number and timing of capital facilities that would be needed during the ensuing six-year period. The City performed such a review of the Capital Facilities Plan in 2004 and determined that there was not a need to adjust the growth forecast or the number and timing of capital facilities. This conclusion was based on a finding that although actual growth was higher than forecast, the level of service standards were being maintained. Subsequent reviews may result in revisions to the growth projections and the number and timing of capital facilities if actual growth continues to exceed the forecast grov.ih As stated in Policy CFP-1, this Capital Facilities Plan is anticipated to be updated regularly as part of the city's budget process, thereby ensuring that the Plan reflects the most current actual statistics related to growth in Renton, and that capital facilities are slated for implementation in accordance with both the level of service standards and the city's concurrency policy. It is anticipated that the City will fully implement this policy (CFP-1) in the annual budget process. III-6 Amended l 1 /27 /06 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN POLICIES Policy CFP-1. The Capital Facilities Plan should be updated on a regular basis as part of the city's budget process, and such update may include adjustments to growth projections for the ensuing six years, to level of service standards, to the list of needed facilities, or to anticipated funding sources. For the purpose of capital facilities planning, plan for forecast growth at the high end of the projected range and targeted growth as a minimum. Policy CFP-2. Level of service standards should be maintained at the current or at a greater level of service for existing facilities within the City of Renton, which the City has control over. Policy CFP-3. Adequate public capital facilities should be in place concurrent with development. Concurrent with development shall mean the existence of adequate facilities, strategies, or services when development occurs or the existence of a financial commitment to provide adequate facilities, strategies, or services within six years of when development occurs. Policy CFP-4. No deterioration of existing levels of service that the City of Renton has control over should occur due to growth, consistent with Policy CFP-3. Policy CFP-5. Funding for new, improved, or expanded public facilities or services should come from a mix of sources in order to distribute the cost of such facilities or services according to use, need, and adopted goals and policies. Policy CFP-6. Evaluate levying impact fees on development for municipal services and/or school district services upon the request of each school district within the City limits, if a compelling need is established through means such as presentation of an adopted Capital Facilities Plan and demonstration that such facilities are needed to accommodate projected growth and equitably distributed throughout the district. Policy CFP-7 Adopt by reference the Kent School District# 415 Capital Facilities Plan 2006-2007 -2011-2012 and adopt an implementing ordinance establishing a school impact fee consistent with the District's adopted Capital Facilities Plan Policy CFP'l'-8 Adopt by reference the Issaquah School District #411 Capital Facilities Plan 2006-2012 and adopt an implementing ordinance establishing a school impact fee consistent with the District's adopted Capital Facilities Plan (See the Public Facilities and Annexation Sections of the Land Use Element, the Parks, Recreation Trails and Open Space Element, the Utilities Element. and the Transportation Elements for policies related to this Capital Facilities Plan.) lll-7 Amended 11/27/06 TRANSPORTATION CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN 200S 20102007-2012 Inventory of Existing Facilities Figures 7-1, 7-2, and 7-3 on the following pages indicate the degree to which Renton's transportation system is integrally linked to the regional transportation system. _The first exhibit is of the existing street and highway system; the second depicts traffic flows on that system in 2002; and, the third depicts daily traffic volumes forecasted for 2022. In Renton perhaps more than in any other jurisdiction in the Puget Sound area, actions relating to the transportation system have local and regional implications. Level of Service Background In recognition of the regional nature of the traffic problems faced by Renton and the basic impossibility of building enough roadway capacity to alleviate traffic congestion, the City of Renton revised its LOS policy in 1995 to emphasize the movement of people, not just vehicles. The LOS policy is based on three premises: • Level of Service (LOS) in Renton is primarily controlled by regional travel demands that must be solved by regional policies and plans; • It is neither economically nor environmentally sound to try to accommodate all desired single occupancy vehicle (SOY) travel; and • The decision-makers for the region must provide alternatives to SOV travel. lll-8 Amended 11127106 Fig. 7-1 Existing Street/Highway System Existing Street/Highway System legend City Limit Renton Planning Area - Transportation Plan III-9 Amended 11/27/06 Existing Street/Highway system (2003) Legend -_/' City Limit I ' '; ... J Renton Planning Area - Transportation Plan 111-10 ® l Amended 11/27/06 Figure 7-2 Traffic Flow Map 111-l l Cl TY OF REN TON 2002 TRAFFIC FLOW MAP NO'IC: ,il0$TAlE ~ NO STATE IICUTE .. 1 esou ... or 1-4()5) « $MOWN "'' H.OtT """ I CIT'r' Of" F:ENTOI'{ --.. .-or""""""_,.,. Amended 11/27/06 Fig. 7-3 2022 Daily Traffic Volumes ,-'f J I L 111-12 L 2022 Daily Traffic Volumes Legend Average (0) Daily T raffle ,-_,,, City Limit ·,,,,. ... J Renton _ Planning Area Transportation Plan Amended 11/27/06 I 2022 Daily Traffic Volumes Legend Average <10::i Daily Traffic -__.,' h--'-1,1 City Limit I, /' , I "r,~4'1 Renton -..--... Planning Area III-13 Transportation Plan Amended 11/27/06 The LOS policy is based on travel time contours which in tum are based on auto, transit, HOV, non-motorized, and transportation demand management/commute trip reduction measures. The LOS policy is designed to achieve several objectives: • Allow reasonable development to occur; • Encourage a regionally linked, locally oriented, dynamic transportation system; • Meet requirements of the Growth Management Act; • Meet the requirements of the Countywide Planning Policies Level of Service Framework Policies; • Require developers to pay a fair share of transportation costs; and • Provide flexibility for Renton to adjust its LOS policy if the region decides to lower regional LOS standards by not providing regional facilities. The City of Renton LOS standard is used to evaluate Renton citywide transportation plans. The auto, HOV, and transit measures are based on travel times and distance and are the primary indicators for concurrency. The non-motorized and TOM measures assist in meeting multi-modal goals of Renton and the region. The Level of Service Standard Methodology The following table demonstrates how the LOS policy is applied. A-2002 LOS travel time index has been calculated for the City by establishing the sum of the average 30-minute travel distance for SOY, HOV and Transit as follows: Average PM peak travel distance in 30 minutes from the citv in all directions SOY HOV 2 Transit LOS (includes access time) Standard XX miles XX miles 2 times X miles = XX xx City-wide Level of Service Standard (Years 2002 and 2022) The 2002 LOS index is the basis for the 2022 standard. The average SOY 30-minute travel distance is forecast to decrease by 2022. Therefore, SOY improvements will need to be implemented to raise the SOY equivalent or a combination of HOV and/or transit improvements will need to be implemented to raise the HOV and/or transit equivalents to maintain the LOS standard. Renton's Transportation Improvement Plan Arterial, HOV, and Transit Sub-Elements have been tested against the above LOS standard to assure that the Plan meets the year 2022 standard. City-wide Level of Service Index (Year2002): Average PM oeak travel distance in 30 minutes from the citv in all directions SOY HOV 2 Transit LOS (includes access time) Index 16.6 miles 18.7 miles 6.8 miles 42* *Rounded NOTE: The 1990 LOS Index of 49 (which was the basis for the 2010 LOS standard) presented in Renton's Comprehensive Plan adopted February 20, 1995 was based on raw travel distance data collected prior to 1994. Subsequently in mid-1995, this raw data was updated using an enhanced Renton (1990-2010) transportation model, which resulted in a 1990 LOS index of 46. A LOS index of 42 has been determined for the year 2002 by the new calibrated (2002-2022) transportation model that reflects 2002 and 2022 land use data. The 2002 LOS index of 42 is shown above, and is the basis for the 2022 LOS standard. lll-14 Amended l l /27 /06 City-wide Level of Service Standard (Year 2022): Average PM peak travel distance in 30 minutes from the citv in all directions sov HOV 2 Transit LOS (includes access time) Standard 15 miles 17 miles 10 miles 42 The City of Renton LOS standard is used to evaluate citywide transportation plans. The auto, HOV, and transit measures are based on travel times and distance and are the primary indicators for concurrency. The non-motorized and TDM measures serve as credit toward meeting multi-modal goals of Renton and the region. To check the progress toward the 2022 goal, each year the city will assess the level of service as a part of its annual Transportation Improvement Plan (TIP). This assessment will further ensure that level of service is maintained for the current period as well as for 2022. Needed Capital Facilities and Funding Plan, 200S 20102007-2012 The transportation 6-year facilities plan is based on achieving the desired level of service by the year 2022 through an annual program of consistent and necessary improvements and strategies. Additionally, the plan includes projects such as bridge inspections, street overlay programs, traffic signal maintenance, and safety improvements that are needed as part of the City's annual work program. Projects that promote economic development also are included, as encouraged by the GMA. See Tallie 7 !Figure 7-4 on the following page for the latest adopted 6-year plan. The first step in developing the 6-year funding plan was to establish a 20-year plan that included arterial, HOV and transit components. This effort resulted in a planning level cost estimate of $134 million. The cost for arterials and HOV are total costs (or Renton's share of the cost of joint projects with WSDOT and local jurisdictions). The transit costs include only the local match for local feeder system improvements, park and ride lots, signal priority and transit amenities. Having established a 20-year funding level of$I34 million, an annual funding level of$6.7 million was established. With this funding level, it is reasonably certain that the desired level of service will be maintained over the intervening years as long as the facilities funded each year are consistent with the 20-year plan and transit and HOV facilities are conscientiously emphasized. The funding source projections in Table 7 2Figurc 7.5 are based upon the assumption that: gas tax revenue would continue at no less than $0.35 million per year; that grant funding would be maintained at $3.90 million per year; " business license fees would continue at $1.88 million per year based on the current 85% of the annual revenue generated from this fee that is dedicated to fund transportation improvements; and that $0.57 million per year from mitigation fees would be maintained. Based on forecasts of total new vehicle trips from development, a mitigation fee of $75 per trip has been established. Developers are required to implement site-specific improvements to ensure that on-site and adjacent facility impacts are mitigated, as well as paying their required fees. III-15 Amended 11/27/06 TIP Pu;,/ectTltle ' St1Ht Overlav Pron ram ' SR 167/SW 27th SVStnrnderev ' Strand ff BvtSW 27th St Connecl. • SR 169 HOV· 140th to SR900 ' Renton Urban Shuttl• IRUSHI • Tn.niJitP "m ' Ra[nhtr All Corridor Sfud' l lm"rov. • NI: 3rd/NE 41h Corridor • Walkwau Prn.nram " S Lake Wash, Roadwa" hlnrov. " SR 16~ Corridor Stu<fv ,, South Renton Pro!e,et " 1-405 lmorov•ments rn Ren1on " Pro'ect Develooment.lPredeskln " Ne 4th St1Ho~u1am Av Ne " R.iinler Av• SW 7th to 4tt, Pl " Beneon Rd • S 26th to Main " Arkorlal Clreulatlon Pr,)<iram " Brkloe lnsoection & Reoa!r " Loo~ Rrlacem.nt P ram " SI n Renlacement Pro"rJffl " Pole Pronr,am " Sound Transit HOV OirecC /4.ccan " Traffic Sat.Iv Prc,ara,111 " Traffic Effielene" Pro"ram " CBO Bike & P~. Conn«:tiont " Arterial Rehab. Pron. " "" " " Suns.t/Ouvall lnteruet!on " RR Crosslna $11,atv Proa. " TOM Pro-ram " Trans Concurren<:u " Mis.sin" Link$ Pro,,ra111 u GlS Needs Assessment " Grad Corridor S1u(1v " Bic"cle Route Oev. Proaram " L..ke Wash. Bv..Park to Coulon Pk " lnti:tril"&nc" Slnnal Coord, " Environmental Monitorlnn " Trans-Valle Soos Cr••k Corr, " WSOOT Coordination Pro11r1111 " 1% for th<! Arts " Arterial HOV Pro~ ram ~ Park.Suns.I Corrldar " Lind Av-SW 16th• SW 43rd " Benson RdS/S31stSt " Lo,.an Av CORCl"$te Panel Ren.iir " Carr/Mill SJ1111al .. Transit Prlari'"· Sional Svstitm .. Ttan11t Cen~r Vld110 " HOU$0T Wu S • Main to Burnett " Trane Vall'"' ITS " Lak:eWash. BvStioPllllne ~ Mon11ter Road Brklae " SW 7th SCJLlnd Ave SW .. DL!\/all Ave NE~ Kinn CotJntv 1~t "'olff'Ce +able 7 1 Fig. 7-4 ,;,20iROP.lS--.>20l02007-2012 Six-Year TIP Total Project Costs Total Pro;ect Costs P~k)u5 ' Costs 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 1,050,002 405,000 405,000 405,000 405,000 405,000 355.174 10,0001 10,000 10 000 ,0 000 10,000 1 705.460 600,000 9 394,540 2a.ooo,ooo 2,000,392 10.000 55,100 3 680000 2,350,000 20.169 5,000i 5,0UO 5000 5000 5,000 32,!584 20,4001 20,400 20400 20,400 20,400 267,710 20.000 20,C(IO 20,000 261,000 2 964,000 323.892 315,300 ~07/00 5.017.000 2.100,000 317.533 236 600 250.COO, 250,000 250,000 250 000 1,500.000 1,850,000 14,300,000 50.000 ' 156,800 1e.200 240.000 42 186 30,000 20.000 10,000 271 353 175,000. 17~.ooc 200.000 200000 200,000 55,100 ~.900 80.000 585,000 2.,s~.000 855,000 20,000 459.400 2,50J 195 308 200.000 200.COO, 200 000 200,000 250.000 120411 40,000 140,COO 4.0.000 615 000 40,000 57.441 20.00C 20.0001 20,000 20000 20.000 13.427 ,.ooo 7,500 '500 7.500 '.500 47974 25,000 4$.400 25,000 25,000 25,000 46.523 10,000 5,000 233,791 80 000 48,000 40,000 40 000 40,000 250,505 251 900, 114,400 75,000 -30 000 30,000 25.212 50,000 50.000, 10 000 590,000 410,000 537.800 19SOOC 2~0 000 667,781 1,258 700 1,69?._,qoo 115,000 381,000 5 198 5,000 5,000 10.000 100,670 64.200 64.20C 64,200 64.200 64,200 1,784 40.000 10,000i 40,000 10.000 10 000 36,350 30,000 30.000J 30,000 30,000 3,0,000 44,874 35000 3~.coo W.000 20.000 20,000 5,000 35000 12•).0001 80,000 230.000 1.810,000 24 798 20.000 1S,'.}00 18,000 110,000 80,000 329,900 7!il.50(l ' ,,s.100 --26,572 12,000 223,711 85,000 75.000 50,000 25,000 25.000 7,300 5,000 18 857 10,000 1C.OOO 10.000 10,000 10.000 2{),000 50.0001 30,000 30,000 50,000 30000 125,354. 10.000 10.0001 7,669 25.0CO 50.000 390,000 1,691,000 1,059 000 5,000 5,000 5,COO 1,914,000 626000 138,500 61500 I I 460,000 5,000 ·0,000: 20,000 340.000 400.000 1 280,315 30000 26,391 10,000 810,000 50.000 5 000 5.COO 629 400 10,500 500,000 12 000 273.577 26,423 .. 547 858 1,3i1342 ---2.810.800 4936 836 7'986 " 9 710 700 3 364 3 28 !:164 640 55 8 1"0 111-16 Si:o:•YNr Total 2010 Period Total Cost 405000 2.430,000 3,460.002 MOO 55,000 410J74 26,500.000 64,694,540 66,400.000 6.095,100 8,095A92 5 000 30000 50,169 20,400 122 400 154,984 3,165.000 6.450,000 6,717.710 2,100.000 10.339.800 10,663,692 250.000 1.486 600 1.804 133 23 800,000 39,950,000 41.450,000 50,000 50,000 258.200 415000 60000 102.186 200,000 1,150,000 1,421.363 344 900 400,000 3 590 000 3 610,000 451,900 481.900 250000 1300,000 1,495 308 30,000 905 000 1,025411 20,000 120 000 177.441 7.500 45 000 58.427 25,000 173 400 221,374 15,000 61,523 40 000 280.000 513,791 30.000 531.300 781.805 5,000 1115,000 1,140,212 2,950,700 3 618.481 381,000 496.000 10 000 30.000 35 198 64 200 385.2<l0 485,870 30,000 140,000 141,784 30,000 HlO 000 216,350 20.000 HiO 000 19-4,874 1.020,000 3,295,000 3.300.000 8(1000 326 000 350,798 228.600 558 500 12,000 38.572 25000 285 000 508.711 5 000 12.300 10,000 60 000 78.857 30.000 220 000 240,000 20.000 145 354 3 215.000 3,222,889 2.550,000 2,555,000 61.500 200,000 460.000 460,000 10,000 7135 000 71;15,000 30000 1,310,315 10,000 36.391 810 000 810 000 10,000 60 000 10,600 640,000 12 000 512,000 26,423 300,000 4 122.142 4,670,000 367 100 Hl4214 305 1791S:J•41 Amended l l /27 /06 200S Tllhle 7 2Fig. 7-5 20102007-2012 Six-Year TIP Summary of Funding Sources CITY OF RENTON PLANNING/ eUILDJNG I PUBLIC WORKS TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS DIVISION 2.007-2012 SIX-YEAR TIP TW Pr"'"cl Title I Stiff( Ovelfau P m ! lnt$1'UCtiOll Sahl"" & Moblll+u i &N 21th Stl'Sl11'nde.-8v Conntt.t. t NE Jrd/1\IE 4th Con1dor J Renton u~ Shuttle IRUSH I Tr.msitPronr:am 1 lblnltr Av COffldor Stu""' I rav. • fblnler Av· S 4th Pl to S 2nd t Hardlt Av SW Tra"'1IIMIIIU-rno$1 10 Prannim 11 RlolnltfAv•SWTilltD«IIPI 12 RI Lan• fJ 1SL.aUWHh..Ro I rov. - °"" NW, ""'" ""° 1t ~rial Circulation Pron~ lit 19 11\eR&etlon&Re-lr 11 1~ .. CIHk 81idRe Rrla«irMIII 22 Lo Ra;,;1zca11111nt P 111 ' .. . ":".:. .... :.. .. Pru·;.r.i.m COnneetions """'"' H Amiri.II Rehab. ~~~radu .U DIM.It AY6 NE n Rfl"Crosslnn Saf""' Pron, .JI TDMPl""f'ilffl • Tr.an• Contum1n~ ..... ""'" = .. • on. 41 WSOOT Coordlnl!tlon P nm 44 1% 1«1118 Art9 u Artelbl HOV Pronram a a.nsonRdSl$311CSl ni,I .ff Pllr*..SunHI Confdor .u; Lind Av• SW 18th-SW-'3fd 411 SR 109 HOV· 140thtv SRWO !ill SuniWt/OuvaH IDWrNctlon 51 L""an AN Conc>"lt. P11MI Ran.Ir 12 camMm SI 1 u HoUHr S • Main !o Burnett M DUYIII A ... NE • Kinn Coll Total SDUl'CH --- Prt\rlo11$ co .. I 359 326 0 5 501.001 """' "" 34.71, 302 913 m.ooo 1168 21 740032 11&H!S5 0 12837714 0 '""' '"" ~~..-592. 3 .. 260680 2RA 581 '20""' ,o 105 " ""' 71 t10 1"6734 '""' "' "·""' ,00000 "'""' , ... 52,0 10047~ .,,000 ,,, ... 41 700 63.~21 30701 ''"" "'"' 12 539 2l,600 ""' '""' 0 ...... """ 6110 7 """"' 0 3000 0 """' 41 U7.41 '''" 485,000 ,SOOOO •=ooo '"' 000 """ 30.000 ,0000 'o .... 4 8479 3'0000 "629000 ,00000 i .. 353 700 ,000000 75.000 "'000 "'000 .. oo ""'""' """"" ..... 000 '5000 5000 ,0000 0 "·"'" 55000 "000 "'000 ,00000 ,.,ooo f.700 000 5000 55000 ,0000 "'""" .... 50000 '20 000 • """" 5000 "000 .. ooo 5000 ,00 000 '5000 ,ooo ,0000 .... 0 5 0 1 975 000 3513tffl Total Pro ect Costs "'"' ..... ""000 5816000 230.000 5000 "000 ,,ooo .,.000 • 000 """'" '""' 000 • 0 0 0 "'000 "'"'" 0 ""'·"'" 75.000 160,000 ""'" 5000 ,0000 • 20000 50000 50000 0 ,00000 ""·""' 500000 ,0000 55000 <0000 "'"'" 20000 """' "000 • 50000 '000 "000 J0.000 """ • 50,000 5J""1 2,55{) 000 0 0 ,0000 0 636.300 2.S 191 SOO '"' ... ooo 0 ~I ,ooo "000 5000 ""000 1650000 '50000 ' 000 • 0 0 0 30000 "'000 • ,00000 55000 5000 15,000 5000 20.000 """ ,0000 50000 ,0000 • 0 700000 0 0 55000 ,0000 3000, 20000 ,0000 '8000 0 aoooo 5000 '5000 ,0000 • 0 ,00.000 "' • 0 0 0 0 0 10 31S WO IIl-17 201D '"""' 250000 1.096600 "'""" 5000 16,000 sooo 0 0 ,S0,000 ,,,5000 • 0 0 0 """' ""'000 0 200.000 50 000 0 ,0000 "" """' "'"' <0000 "'000 50000 0 0 "'""" 0 • "000 '"" ,0000 ,0000 230000 110000 """ ,0000 0 10,000 50000 0 0 1750,100 t 914000 ""·""' • ""' ... ooo 8t0000 0 1S1&4 7()0 ''" 485.000 """" 22 576000 1770000 5000 18,000 '"" 0 • ""000 • • • 0 0 ,0000 ""'000 0 ,SOOOO 55000 0 20000 7"" '"" '000 '°·"'" "'000 50000 • 0 ,00.000 0 0 55 000 30000 30000 20.000 1810,000 80000 14UIOO 30.000 0 10.000 """ 0 0 1 010000 "'000 • 0 0 ""'·""' 0 0 SOU31()Q '"" 2012 Period Tot.al Cost 485 000 2 910 000 250 000 1 25C 000 6 091700 41 788 3 '.160 000 9 752 000 5.000 30 000 IB 120.000 0 3'000 0 5 71 0 14 188479 250 000 1 GOO 000 0 9129000 0 500.000 0 12 700 0 1 000000 ' 7'000 10000 1""000 200 000 p75 000 0 ""' 250000 1300000 50 000 390,000 0 '"'"' 7 "000 0 <0000 "·"" 50000 0 0 200000 0 ""' "000 ,0000 "'"" '""" '"'000 ..... 0 ,0000 ' ,0000 ,0000 0 0 0 0 • 0 10.000 0 0 ""' 715 000 , .. ooo """ 135,000 ""' '""' """ ,00000 255000 ,00.000 ,,,0000 2 000 25,000 ,aoooo 120,000 160,000 13"000 3210000 .,,ooo ''""' 245 000 "000 '""" """' ,0000 ''""" 3.~100 '""" ,,,o ... ,0.000 ,-... '""'" 810,000 2.611.300 127 7'7 070 4 269 326 ',soooo 47 ~!Iii 301 10,284,862 """ 1ll471' 337 913 6,310000 15,337.000 2 3'9 032 U88.e55 ,00000 2S 191 41' '000 "' 21a385 1 ~"7511:2 ' ... 6154:5111 835,000 145105 467M ' "' '"·910 331 734 "'"' "' ,00000 ,00000 2 395,000 '·"' " " ''"" ,00000 210SIICI 176700 J 273.~21 •5e701 .... ... .,, " . ""' ..... 142354 050,00 ""' 2.$$5000 9 030 587 '"'000 ....000 7'8000 610000 ' "' 169 0150H I I ,. )· I I I. I I I ··--·····-·--····-·---···-·-·-···-·----·--·--·---· ·---- SUMMARY OF FUNDING SOURCES Period ITEM Period Total 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 SIX-YEAR PROJECT COSTS: Proiect Develooment 3 381 200 626.300 620 300 544,300 510,700 554 300 525 300 Precon Eno/Admin 8,716 138 3.007,338 507 500 383 500 2.027,600 2 255 900 534 300 R-0-W (includes Admin) 4,173,641 1,858,641 790 000 200,000 350 000 608 000 367 000 Construction Contract Fee 96 696 200 24 379,800 19,156,000 7 817,700 10,984,200 24.494,400 9.914,100 Construction Enn/Admin 9 582 900 2,255.200 1 842 800 784 BOO 1 144 500 2 478 300 1 077 300 Other 5 197 000 3,862,500 274 700 654 700 147 700 132,200 125 200 Sub· TOTAL SIX-YEAR COST 127,747,079 35,939,779 23,191,300 10,385,000 15,164,700 30,523,100 12,543,200 00 SOURCE OF FUNDS: Vehicle Fuel Tax 1 3.590 000 565 000 585,000 805,000 610 000 475 000 550 000 Business License Fee 1 9 600 000 1 600 000 1 600 000 3 376 500 1 309 500 897 000 817 000 Pro sed Fund Balance 7 373 254 4 537 972 2,164.782 670 500 0 0 0 Grants In-Hand 16 474 421 8808 914 5 251 000 1100 000 1 004 482 310 025 0 Mitination In-Hand 1 6,567 207 3 035 607 2 261.700 817 800 452,100 0 0 Bonds/ L.I.D.'s Formed 9 461 286 9 461,286 0 0 0 0 0 Other In-Hand 25 104,700 7 447 000 9 951 500 3 610 200 619.000 3 435 000 42.000 Sub -TOTAL SIX-YEAR FUNDED 76,170,86a 35,455,779 21,813,982 10,380,000 3,995,082 5,117,025 1,409,000 Grants Pron.-.sed 1 479 000 484 000 160 000 5 000 630 000 200 000 0 Mitination Pronosed 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 L.1.0.'s Prooosed 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Other Pronnsed 480.000 0 0 0 480 000 0 0 Undetermined 47617211 0 1.217 318 0 10,059 618 25 206 075 11134 200 Sub· TOTAL SIX-YEAR UNFUNDED 49,576,211 484,000 1,377,318 5,000 11,169,618 25,406,075 11,134;200 TOTAL SOURCES· FUNDED & UNFUNDED 127,747,079 35,939,779 23,191,300 10,385,000 15,164,700 30,523,100 12,543,200 Summ_of_Source 39191.39057 39191.39057 , Somel""4••"'eolhla,l.odean..,.11,one,...Clo!<I )> a [ 8. ;:, ~ CITY OF RENTON PLANNING/BUILDIN l/PUBLIC WORKS TRANSPORTATION l YSTEMS DIVISION 2005 • 2010 SI (-YEAR TIP SUMMARY OF FU~ DING SOURCES I ITEM Period Total 200 2006 SIX-YEAR PROJECT COSTS: Proiect Oevelooment 3,550,900 6 .400 674,100 Precon Ena/Admin 8,667 940 1 7 ,900 297,400 R-0-W /includes Adminl 10,595,242 1.4 1,242 Construction Contract Fee 127,099,323 3.4 723 7,663,000 !: "' Construction Ena/Admin 13,235 800 3 100 867,200 Other 1,065100 3 ,100 209,000 Sub· TOTAL SIX-YEAR COST 164,214,305 7,98 i465 9,710,700 SOURCE OF FUNDS: 1 /2 Cent Gas Tax 2,100,000 3, ,000 350,000 Business License Fee 9,600,000 1,60 ,000 1,600 000 .. Eliminated bv 1-776. V:ehisle biGaAse i;'.ee • Grants ln~Hand 6,529.110 1,91 ,329 2,896.133 Mitiaation In-Hand 6.135,043 1,9 ,291 2,004,567 L.I.D.'s Formed Other In-Hand 8,136645 2.1 2 ,845 2,860,000 Sub ·TOTAL SIX-YEAR FUNDED 32,500,798 7,9 So,465 9,710,700 Grants Prooosed 8 726,000 Mitiaation Pronosed 60000 l.1.D.'s Prooosed Other Prooosed 8 054,000 Undetermined 114 873,507 ·~ ~ · FuNu~u & u .. Fu .. uEU 1~,214,305 7,9 8 ,465 9,710,700 Period 2007 2008 589,600 514,600 616,100 5,360,540 3 100,000 1,799 000 17 877 600 190,100 1,989,400 169,500 122,500 3,364,300 28,964,640 350,000 350,000 1,600,000 1,600,000 561,115 392,947 803,985 915.400 49,200 2,999 200 3,364,300 6,257,547 3,026,000 60,000 1,765,000 17,856,093 3,364,300 20,964,640 2009 539,600 485,000 2,044 000 47,733,500 4 896,500 122,500 55,821,100 350,000 1,600 000 767 586 342,900 49 200 3,109,686 1,700 000 3,144,000 47 867,414 55,821,100 2010 549,600 155,000 4,000,000 48,621,500 4 928,500 112,500 58,367,100 350,000 1,600,000 72 900 49200 2,072,100 4 000,000 - 3,145,000 49,150,000 58,367,100 i & ;;, "" ~ Amended 11/27/06 WATER CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN 2007 2012 200S 2010 Inventory of Existing Facilities Renton's water system provides service to an area of approximately 16 square miles and more than 14,700 customers located in 12 hydraulically-distinct pressure zones. An inventory of the existing capital facilities in the water system is listed in Figure 8-1 and consists of 8 wells and one spring for water supply, eleven booster pump stations, eight reservoirs, water treatment facilities at each source ( chlorine and fluoride and corrosion control) and approximately 283 miles of water main in service. In addition, the City maintains one standby well and seven metered connections with the City of Seattle (Cedar River and Bow Lake supply pipelines) for emergency back-up supply. Renton supplies water on a wholesale basis to Lakeridge Bryn-Mawr Water District. Level of Service Level of service for Renton's Water Utility is defined by the ability to provide an adequate amount of high quality water to all parts of the distribution system at adequate pressure during peak demand or fire. This ability is determined by the physical condition of the system and the capacity of supply, storage, treatment, pumping and distribution systems. Level of service standards for the water system vary according to the component of the overall system and are determined by the requirements established by local, state, and federal regulations. Water supply is regulated by the Washington State Department of Ecology (water rights), and the Washington State Department of Health (quantity guidelines), water quality is regulated by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (Safe Drinking Water Act) and the Washington State Department of Health (primacy over Safe Drinking Water Act), system design and construction requirements are regulated by the Washington State Department of Health. The Water Utility maintains a hydraulic model of the waler system. The model incorporates the pipe size and location, booster pumps, and storage to determine the flow and pressure available in each segment of the distribution system. The Utility can evaluate the impact of a specific development on the system using the model. The Water Utility reviews each development in terms of flow, pressure, and waler supply required. The Water Utility's goal is to provide an adequate supply of potable water under the "worst case" scenario. This scenario considers the following conditions: failure of the largest source of supply, failure of the largest mechanical component, power failure to a single power grid, and/or a reservoir out of service. Under this scenario, the Water Utility strives to meet the following primary requirements: Pressure: Maintain a minimum of 30 pounds per square inch (psi) at the meter during normal demand conditions and a minimum of 20 psi during an emergency. Maximum allowable pressure at the meter during normal demand is 130 psi and a maximum of 150 psi during an emergency Velocity: Under normal demand conditions, the velocity in a transmission main is less than 4 feet per second (fps) and less than 8 fps during an emergency. Supply: The water supply must meet the maximum day demand and replenish storage within 72 hours with the largest source of supply out of service. Storage: Storage volume must be maintained to provide for peak demand and adequate volume for an emergency (fire). Transmission and Distribution: The Water Utility uses design criteria approved by the Washington State Department of Health. Treatment and Monitoring: The Water Utility treats all sources with chlorine and fluoride and corrosion control. Water quality monitoring is conducted as required by the State Department of Health under the Safe Drinking Water Act. The City implements a cross connection control program to prevent cross connections with non potable sources and a wellhead protection program. Fire Flow: Fire flow required by a development is as established in the fire code and can vary from 1000 gallons per minute to 5500 gallons per minute. Needed Capital Facilities and Funding Plan, 2007-2012200$ 2010 !11-20 Amended 11127 /06 Based on the projected growth in population and employment by the year ;;ow2012, the existing supply of water will meet the level of service standard. As +able-Fig. 8-1 indicates, with the addition of Wells 11, 12 and 17, the net capacity of the system is 27.07 million gallons per day, which is adequate to meet the City's anticipated growth and maximum day demand for water to at least 2020. Meeting the current fire flow level of service standards will require improvements to the existing water system if the projected commercial and industrial growth occurs. In general, fire flow is adequate to all single family and multi-family areas with the possible exception of portions of downtown, depending on the extent of new multi-family development and the type of construction. Certain areas slated for commercial and industrial growth will need upgrading of the system. Other improvements to the water system will be needed during the first six years of the Comprehensive Plan because ofregulatory requirements relating to water quality and efforts to maintain the existing system at the desired level of service. The list of growth-related facilities needed to meet all of the level of service standards and regulatory requirements are in table-Fig. 8-2. The funds for the needed facilities are projected to come from a number of sources, including: water utility rates, connection fees, developer extension agreements, low interest loans from state or federal programs, and grants from state and federal agencies. The projected total revenue from all sources for each of the six years in also shown in +aale-Fig. 8-2. III-21 Amended 11/27/06 '.J'.a1*-Fig. 8-1 On-Line Supply Sources -Existing Water Supply Capacity Name Springbrook Well RW-1 WcllRW-2 Well RW-3 WellRW-SA Well PW-8 Well PW-9 Well PW-11 Well PW-12 Well PW-17 TOTAL GPM: gallon per minute MGD: million gallon per day Pumoin!! Rate lo-nm) 600 2,200 2,200 2,200 1,400 3,500 1,200 2,500 1,500 1,500 18,800 GPM Total annual water rights are 14,809 acre-feet per year Ill-22 Pumoin!! Rate (m!!d) 0.86 3.17 3.17 3.17 2.02 5.04 1.73 3.60 2.16 2.16 27.07MGD ~N I r Items for Development-Water___ 2ooi _j. 2008 ···· _2009 2010_ ·:'--2011 ···t· 2012 ~.-,- New Resevoirs and Pump Stations $3,380,00QJ __ $500,000 ,..__!500,000 $2,000,000 . $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $8,380,000, Supply Development and Water Quality Improvements $810,000 $3,450,009 $40,000 ~_J,_1__00,000 $100,o_o_o_ $100,000 .. -.-¥~600,0QQ Total $4,190,000 $3,950,000 $540,0QQ $2,1QQ,CJIJ_(l $1,100,000 $1,100,Q=l==_._9_80,000 t:-:---· ----~--------------F ----;.._==J ~nding Sources-Water ,....,..,. _,,,..,.., Operating I cl''l .u:::o f'lf'lm -t l:'H n.nn. I "' SDC/SAD ,nn"7-I ?nnA I 2009 I 2010 2011 2012 Total ·- ..,,,"1"...v,uvu ,fl 1,0"+l,UUV • 644,000 $1,260,000 $ 980.000 $ 1,022,000_ L$ 8,005,00Q $3,688,000 $ 2,461,000 $ 966,000 $1,890,000 $1,470,000 $ 1,533,000 $ 12,008,000 $2,634,000 $ 1,758,000 $ 690,000 $1,350,000 $1,050,000 $ 1,095,000 $ 8,577,000 Totall $8,780,000 $ 5,860,000 $ 2,300,QQO $4,500,000 $:i":500,000 $ 3,650,000 $ 28,590,000 Bonds/Loans -= t:l -------------------------·---·------·····--·--·-··-·· "' = ] 0 ..., ::;:; ~ "' ~ ::;:; Q ~" ~ .... tt • 5: .. r N ::0 {'j ,_.. s ~~ ,. ; "' ~ g =-l'!!j = ~ '1° -" "' .... c:: a ~-.,, ;-.. "' I a -= .. 0 ~. "' a "' i i w ~ Amended 11/27/06 1r-1m -Year x 111111n Prolect ID Descrlotlon 2005 2006 2007 Suoll['I Ind Storane lmnrovemenls 2005·2G1G 2008 2009 2010 TOTAL S-1 Em Water lnterties with ~t Water Districts 200 200 S-2 lands 565 Zone 2 MG Reseooi" ,WO 2,000 500 2000 5-3 196 Zone Rese!YOlr and 11,mn Station 200 500 2,000 1 000 3,700 S-4 196Zone Power ,WO ,WO 800 S-5 PN OverslzM Aeinbl.rsements 40 40 40 40 40 100 300 Subtotal· Supply and Watet Oual1ty lmprovementa WI 2,Wl 1,340 5-IO 2,tl4() 1,100 7,900 WaterQual Im ovemenb WQ-1 Ma le wood Water auar Im 000 2000 W0-2 weg5A Waler Qua· I ,WO 500 500 1,,WO Subtotal· Water Quality lmprovemenb 2,000 400 soo soo 0 0 3,400 Water Matn Rehab!lltatlon WM-1 Water Mall Re la.cement 1,000 1.000 1000 1000 1,000 1500 6500 WM-2 Duvall Avenue NE Water Mall Re 100 100 WM-3 Strander BoUevafd SW Water Main Extension 500 500 Subt.otal • Water Main Rehat)llitaUon 1,100 f,000 1,000 f,000 1,500 1,500 7,100 ilalor Maintenance M-1 ReselVOirs Recoaluia Cathodic Proteclbn and Exterior PainMn-100 100 M-2 50 50 50 50 ,WO M-3 Water$ $<>CU 40 40 40 40 40 40 240 M-4 Rehabirttation of Wells 1 2. and 3 200 200 M-5 Automatic: Meter Aeadirvi Conversion 200 500 200 200 800 Subtolal. Major Maintenance Projeetl 190 190 390 890 390 390 2,140 Pr rams 120 80 80 90 90 196 665 120 80 90 90 90 195 665 TOTAL WATER SYSTEM IMPROVEIIEHTS 3,aso 4,110 3,320 3,020 4,020 3, 1as '1,205 SoW"Ces of Funds 2005 2006 2007 2008 2010 n.n... .. atin~ Revenues/Bonds 1,131,000 1,112,000 855,000 865,000 855,000 847,000 Svstem Develooment Chan?:es 470,000 470,000 470,000 470,000 470,000 470,uu New Revenues Bonds 4,000,000 4,000,000 4,500,000 Public Works Trust Fund Loan 2,575,000, S ......... fal Assessment Districts" 15,000 15,000 15,000 15.000 15,000 15,000 Total 4.191~000 5 S97-000 1 ..... 000 5.150.000 1 =•000 5,832.000 Ill-24 Amended 11 /27 /06 :'MER€!}ll., . . . CITY OP l<ENTON Wata-Syatem Plaa EXISTING WATER SYSTEM • l'-00 :SOOD 1,1a.- Figure 8-3o2--i Existing Water System !I:!::J 196PI-.Z- -300 "'-"Z- -]20 ~Z-' -]50.._.Z- liil!!il 370~Z- -395PN-.Z- -43s:,.-r- -490r-.z- m-25 . .. -,.., .,. ~ ;!· --~.,;. ,,.....,.;..__" S'-' .~;@:f.'1 -49'~7.- -.5'5 ,._..., 7.- -,,ori-..z- • MeMred bdertiil PRV ..... ---- Amended 11/27/06 WASTEWATER CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN 200S 20Hl 2007-2012 Inventory of Existing Facilities Renton's sanitary sewer system consists of about +14-205 miles of gravity sewers, ±l---26 lift stations with associated force mains, and approximately ,l,4003.800 manholes. Wastewater is discharged to regional facilities at over '71J.-75 locations within the service area. The locations of Renton's sewer interceptors and lift stations, as well as Metro's sewer lines, are shown in Figure 9-+J. The City's Wastewater Utility serves approximately ~15 700 customers, which includes approximately ninety- five percent of the city's population and eighty-five percent of the city's land area. The remaining five percent of the population currently utilizes private, on-site wastewater disposal systems, typically septic system, while the balance of the land area either utilizes private systems or remains undeveloped. The capacity of the existing facilities is adequate to handle the current demand. The Lake Washington East Basin while currently having sufficient capacity, needs some improvements to its-pmiions of the Sunset Interceptor to assure sufficient capacity to accommodate anticipated growth. The West Renton Sub-basin also needs to be further evaluated to determine potential capacity restraints. As-jc,aft of the W a:tewater Utility's HjlEla!e te its L,rng RaRge Wastewater Management Plat1 sehedaled for 2005, a A full hydraulic model i,1 laeiRghas been -developed to evaluate, system wide, the long term need and timing for upsizing of existing interceptors and the timing for additional interceptors for new portions of our service area. The conclusions ofth1~mmlvs1s are included in a Final Report dated July 2006. Results from this report will be incorporated into the 2008-2013 CTP and the 2007/08 update to the Wastewater Long Range Management Plan. Level of Service Level of service for Renton's Wastewater Utility is defined by the ability to move sewage from the point of origin, the customer, to the treating agency, King County, in a safe and efficient manner. This ability is determined by the physical condition ofRenton's system and the capacity available in the system. It is the Renton Wastewater Utility's responsibility to maintain the system in a safe condition and monitor the standards for new construction. The Wastewater Utility is also responsible for ensuring that capacity exists in the system prior to new connections or that the capacity is created as part of the new development. The level of service for Renton's Wastewater Utility is developed through coordination with and subject to the policies, design criteria, and standards used for planning and operating a sanitary sewer system as established by the laws and policies of several agencies. Those agencies, in order by authority, are the Department of Ecology (Criteria for Sewage Works Design), King County (King County Wastewater Treatment Division), and the City of Renton. The Wastewater Utilic)' has main:ained a simple Is) draulic mnElel eftlae sewer S)'f,tem. This medel Hses tlae si;,e, l)'f'e, and slejle efthe jlipeG le determiRe the eapaeity efthe ec:eh cernjleBeBt (segme,a!J of the sys'.em. BeeaHse tlae slepe ef fJifJes ean elaaRge segn-1eRt le segmeRt aRd flews may bc~erging al 'laraRehes' tlae eapaeity eftl,e system may ehooge bleek liy l,Jeek. It is, therefore. net feasil,le, with-OHHUlTeHl model. to jlf0Yide a staAdarEI statemeRt en the eaJ3aeity available in Renton's sewer system. As stated above, the Utility-i;; has devele~1Ag developed a new hydraulic model that-will-allow~ the Utility to perform dynamic analysis on any portion of its interceptor system given any scenario, to determine capacity within the system. The model is also based upon two years worth of wet-weather flow data that was developed as part of a regional effort by King County. This new tool will-give~ us much greater ability to predict future capacity within our interceptors. The Wastewater Utility's goal is to have sufficient capacity to handle what the Utility considers the 'worst case scenario'. That is, the amount of waste if everybody was discharging their highest amount at the same time and the system was experiencing the highest amount of inflow and infiltration anticipated. 111-26 I I Amended 11 /27 /06 For existing and projected development Renton uses the following criteria for flow projection: Averal!e Single Familv Domestic Flow 270 gallons per dav oer unit Average Multi-Family Domestic Flow 190 gallons per day per unit Light Industrial 2800 gallons oer acre oer dav Heavv Industrial site specific Commercial 2800 gallons oer acre oer dav Office 2800 gallons per acre per day Recreation 300 gallons oer acre per dav Public 600 gallons per acre oer dav Manufacturing Park 2800 gallons per acre per day Peak Infiltration/Inflow (New Svstem) 60ll-l 5 00 l!allons oer acre oer dav T"'> ., T r, ,v ~--· ' -" .,, . ,- Peak Inflow/Infiltration (Existing Svstem) From Sewer Hydraulic Model Peaking factor for svstem averal!e 2.0X Depth to Diameter Ratio 0.80 (eight tenths) The criteria listed above are based upon Table IV-3 of the 1998 Long Range Wastewater Management Plan, with an amendment for actual Inflow and Infiltration values based upon OOl'-Updated llydraulie rnaaelcriteria from King County. This eriteriefl criteria is subject to change based upon the latest adopted Long Range Wastewater Management Plan or amendments thereto. These flows are averages used as standards. Actual design flows may vary considerably, depending upon land use. The Wastewater Utility will consider verifiable alternate design flows that may be submitted. If Renton's sewer system has the capacity to handle the flows projected, based upon the above criteria, or a developer improves the system to provide the capacity, the project achieves concurrence with the Wastewater Utility's level of servtce. Needed Capital Facilities and Fnnding Plan 2007-2012200S 2010 Based on the forecasted growth in population and employment over the next 20 years, daily wastewater flows are predicted to increase by about~ 15.3 million gallons per day (mgd.) This increase is expected to impact the entire system, with the greatest impact expected to occur in the East Cedar River Basin and Lake Washington East Basin. In order to maintain the desired level of service and accommodate the projected growth, facility improvements wi-ll-be fleeE!eElare scheduled in both the East Cedar River Basin and the Lake Washington East Basin over the next three-two years. Another factor affecting level of service is the age of the existing system. A significant portion of the city's wastewater collection and conveyance system is over fifty years old. Some of these mains cannot be relied upon to provide the desired level of service without major repair and/or replacement. Consequently, the primary component of the six-year facility plan is the repair and replacement of the existing system in order to maintain the current level of service. Some of the geographic areas in which these mains are located will experience more growth than will others, but facility improvements will be needed regardless. It is currently the policy of the Wastewater Utilities that all parcels connecting to the sewer system pay for their fair share of the system. This is accomplished in a combination of three methods: 1. Local Improvement Districts may be formed with the city installing the sewers using LID bonds encumbering the participating parcels; 2. The Wastewater Utility may front the cost of new sewers and hold Special Assessment Districts against benefiting parcels; and 3. Developers or potential users will front the cost of extending the main with the ability to hold a latecomer agreement against the other parcels that potentially benefit. Projects that replace and rehabilitate the existing system, as well as operation and maintenance costs, will be funded through rates paid by existing customers. Existing sewer customers will not be required to participate in Special III-27 Amended 11/27/06 Assessment District fees, latecomer fees, or local improvement districts unless they redevelop or increase the density on their property. Table 9-1 below-lists the projects needed to meet growth, along with the sources offunds for them for the period 2005- 2010, based upon the six-year growth projections and the desired level of wastewater service. 111-28 -~ I; , J!_ble 9-1 _ . ____ ~ __ _ ~ Items for Develoe!!'ent•Wastewate~~-~~--2008 ~.!!_a__ry_§~!_Main Extensions $900,000 -~--,----~ i Lift Station Replacement/Rehabilitation __ $2,200,000 I __ '. I 1-----------------+------------r-----r- ·=r·· ---' . '~ ~" ~~C ,., I ~" 4~'.t:\ ... ~ ~~----r-~~ ,~i~,,,-,m 2009 --j--_2010---J---2011 _______ 2012 ___ !-Tot~---FUnding Sources-Wa~tiWater_ 2007 -2008 Operating I $ 735,000 $ 735,000 $ -Bonds/Loans I $1,103,000 $1,103,000$ SOC/SAD $ 788,000 $ 788,000-$ i ~ Total $2,625,000 $ 2,625,000 $ ~ I ,.L ti -'- I -'- I - ,.L I ' .· ~ 735,000 $ 735,000 $ 735,000 $ 735,000 I$ 4,410,000 1,103,000 $1,103,000 $1,103,000 $ 1,103,00011_$ 6,615,00~: 788,000 $ 788,000 $ 788,000 $ 788,000 1 $ 4,725,000 · 2,625,000 $2,625,000 $2,625,000 $ 2,625,000-1 $15,750,000 ~ gf' _, .. ' .... "'"' o"" l;:::ii , = I~ -SC ~ . .. ._. e ::. !ll ~ l w __, b °' Amended 11127 /06 Total 1se»rees of~ Other Talles Nm fom!etl Ill-30 SEATTLE ,, :;;; KENT -l--- MERCER TSLAND ~,. ~ :, • ---~ '-'' •. NEWCAS~.i.w.......,. '1 ',i ~ I t ,; 1 c i \ 1-1 " F''Y' c: '\,' '-:: :, .. '),\., i\\ -,,,r1V \ -r;iJ ,_ k'. I ',I --~: I\ r , -_,_. • Lift Stations Metro Trunk Lines City of Renton Interceptors ' Metro's East Division I Reclamation Plant I City Limits Urban Growth Boundary lll!'ill!I City of Renton Sanitary Sewer I Service Area 0 6000 12000 ic;,; .,,,x,, k·f::>.-"'<· -u,p.:--1·-g, zw,, .,.e?vv. 1:72,000 Note: For graphic presentation only Facilities are not to scale. e LONG RANGE PLANNING R. MacOnie, D. Visneski, D. Ellis 26 April 2{)07 00 ., = -· ... ., .., '< 00 "".I ; ao· '" . .., ~ ""'31~ ~ *" = I><' I:"" -· = '" "' i C. n C. ;:, ~ w ,.., SRA~ :.-----" "' \ "' "' ~-----, ......... __ ; ! ~----.! , __ \ KENT MERCER ISLAND -·- --------....__ _ _J -----1'-'"-..,..; __________ :--i~~] \ ------,1 -. ~-' NEWCAs.1 [ I r------~ ,, \ : ..__J '·--.....,,,..(~-..\ ·--- i , __ '--1~--, ,---.I '• I,. --------:. ' ' ---:::_(1 __ --1, . -l·i ,~-----•••--~ '\ I '. "r. ii It i \)~ ~___J_ --· ' ' -, I : ' /''"l\ ·1··ft--, .r--r·· ----liqT-~: j ' ' ' - • Figure 9-1 SANITARY SEWER TRUNK LINES Lift Stations Metro Trunk Lines City of Renton Interceptors ~ Metro's East Division Reclamation Plant l!ll 0 City Limits Uiban Growth Boundary I City of Renton Sanitary Sewer Service Area 6000 12000 1:72,000 Note: For graphic presentation only Facilities are not to scale. e LONG RANGE PLANNrNG o. Dennison R. MacOm~ D. Visnm:i, D. EUU 8 Febnwy 2001 i a: i Amended 11/27/06 SURFACE WATER UTILITY CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN 2007-2012 200S 2010 Inventory of Existing Facilities The City of Renton is composed of various drainage basins and sub-basins. The major basins within the existing City limits include the East Lake Washington, West Lake Washington, May Creek, Lower Cedar River and Black River basins. The City of Renton is located at the outlet end ofa majority of these basins that discharge into either the Green/Duwamish River or into Lake Washington. The Surface Water Utility's service area within the existing City corporate boundaries is approximately 1 7 .2 square miles. The existing surface water system includes rivers, streams, ditches, swales, lakes, wetlands, detention facilities (pond and piped systems), water quality swales, wetponds, wetvaults, oil/water separators, coalescing plate oil/water separators, pipes, catch basins, manholes, outfalls and pump stations. The natural surface water systems (rivers, streams, lakes and wetlands) are shown on Renton's Critical Area Maps. A majority of the water quantity and quality facilities are privately owned and maintained on-site as required in accordance with the Renton Storm and Surface Water Drainage Ordinance (RMC Chapter 22, Section 4-22). The Surface Water Utility owns, maintains, and operates all storm and surface water management facilities located within public right-of-ways and easements dedicated for storm and surface water management purposes. The Utility currently owns, operates, and maintains approximately 204 miles of storm pipe systems including SjljlfBJlimately an estimated 8000 catch basin and manhole structures, +9-26 detention facilities and 37.67 miles of ditch systems. A combination of the public and some of the private storm system is shown in the Surface Water Utility Storm System Inventory Maps and Attributes data base which is too large to present here. Level of Service Background The Surface Water Utility's policies, design criteria, and standards used for planning, engineering, operating, and maintaining the storm and surface water systems are based upon requirements that originate from many sources. Together, these regulations define the acceptable level of service for surface water. The intended level of service is to accomplish the following: • Provide adequate of surface water management for the appropriate rainfall duration and intensity to protect public safety, property and convenience of areas within City; • Provide a level of storm water treatment that adequately protects surface and groundwater quality and other beneficial uses of water bodies; • Provide flow control from new construction that restricts the rate of storm water runoff to pre-developed level: and • Provide protection of fish and wildlife habitat. The primary Federal, State and local agencies and regulations which affect the City ofRenton's level of service standard for surface and storm water systems are listed below: I. Federal Agencies/Regulations/Policies: a. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA): 1. Federal Clean Water Act 11. National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit) b. Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE) 1. Nationwide/404 Individual Permit Requirements 11. Federal Emergency Management Act standards III-33 Amended 11/27/06 2. State Agencies/Regulations: a. Washington State Department of Ecology (WSDOE): 1. 8tormwater Disellarge Perr:1:tc; (NPDESr--Phase 2 Municipal Storm Water Permit 11. NPDES Construction Stom1 Water Permit Temflorary Water Qoolity MeElifieation Permits m. 40 I Water Quality Certification Permits 1v. Coastal Zone Management Consistency Permit v. Shoreline Management Program (SMP) VI. The Puget Sound Water Quality Management Plan vii. 200,?.+ Ecology Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington b. Washington State Department of Fisheries and Wildlife (WDFW) 1. Hydraulic Project Approval Permits 3. Local Agencies/Regulations/Polic1es: a. Cedar River Basin Plan b. May Creek Basin Plan c. Green River Basin Plan d. Green River Flood Control Zone District/Green River Basin Program e. King County Flood Hazard Re4±BtiB+1-_i'ylci11ag~ment Plan e. King County Surface Water Design Manual as adapted by Renton Level of Service Standard in Renton The Surface Water Utility level of service is the adopted surface water design standards which are consistent with the above referenced federal, state, and local regulations as specified in the City of Renton Storm and Surface Water Drainage ordinance (RMC 4-22). New surface water management systems are designed to acconunodate the future land use condition runoff based upon the city's Land Use Element and the future land use plans of neighboring jurisdictions. The standards specified in the city-adopted portions of the 1990 King County Surface Water Design Manual require that: I. Post-development peak rate of runoff be controlled to the pre-developed peak rate of runoff up to the IO- year design storm; 2. Water quality facility "Best Management Practices" (BMP's) such as biofiltration, wetponds, wetvaults. coalescing plate oil/water separators, and erosion control measures are used; 3. Pipe systems be designed to convey the 25-year post-developed design storm without overflowing the system and pipe conveyance systems have adequate capacity to convey the 100-year design storm provided that the runoff is contained within defined conveyance system elements without inundating or over topping the crown of a roadway; and/or no portions of a building will be flooded; and/or if overland sheet flow occurs, it will flow through a drainage easement. 4. New drainage ditches or channels be designed to convey at least the peak runoff from the I 00-year design storm without over-topping. As a condition of SEPA, the City requires projects in areas of the City that drain to streams that flow down steep ravines to comply with the .J-998-2005 King County Surface Water Design Manual requirement and to meet the Level 2 Flow Control and Duration standard. Projects have also been required to comply with the surface water design standards in the ;wo-l--2005 Ecology Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington when deemed appropriate by the City as a condition of SEPA, or because it was required as a condition of another agencies permit. It is antieiflaleEl that theThe City is required to adopt_v:ill be adOflling new storm and surface water design standards that are equivalent to the standards in the 2005 Eco!Qgy S!ormwater Management Manual for Western Washington by lll-34 Amended 11/27/06 no later than August 2009. •.vifuiB the new tws ts lhe years to be equivaleAt to the 2001 Eeelegy Stsm,water MaBagemeAt Mamml fer Western WashiBl-,'iSB. The adoption of the new storm water design standards is a requirement of the national Pollutant discharge Elmination System (NPDES) Phase 2 Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System stonn water permit. Ufldate is e,'l'eeted to be re!juired as a eoBditioA sf the peBding Muniei13al Seflara!e Sto,m Sewer System J>latieBal Pellutisn elimiBa'.isn System Phase 2 stern, water J3emd that,, ill lle issued le the City fer the The NPDES Phase 2 Municipal storm water permit was issued by Ecology in January 2007 to regulate the discharge of runoff into waters of the United States in accordance with the Federal Clean Water Act. Projects that comply with the above-cited standards will achieve an acceptable level of service for surface water management purposes within the City of Renton. Needed Capital Facilities and Fnnding Plan, 2007-2012200S 20JO The capital facilities estimated to be needed to solve cunent surface water management problems and to prevent future surface water management problems associated with the growth projected for the first six years of the Comprehensive Plan and the proposed sources of funding are listed in +ahle-Figure 10-1. The sources of revenues to be utilized by the Surface Water Utility to implement the needed capital improvements include the following: I. Surface Water Utility rates; 2. Permit fees and system development charges; 3. Revenue bonds; 4. Private latecomers agreements; 5. Surface Water Utility Special Assessment Districts; 6. Low interest loans (state revolving funds, Public Works Trust Fund); 7. Cost-sharing interlocal agreements with adjacent jurisdictions and special districts; 8. Army Corps of Engineers -Section 205 Small Flood Control Projects Program and other financial assistance programs available to municipalities authorized by Congress; 9. USDA Soil Conservation Service (SCS) Watershed Flood Prevention and Protection Act (Public Law 566) and other SCS programs; JO. Grants from state and federal agencies such as: a. Washington State Department of Ecology Centennial Clean Water Fund; b. Washington State Department of Community Development Flood Control Assistance Account Program; c. Washington State Salmon Recovery Funding Board and other grants that may be available from the County, State or Federal Govennnent to improve fish habitat; d. Washington State legislative appropriations approved for Special Surface Water Utility projects (Cedar River Delta project); and 11. Other unidentified federal, state, and local grant programs. As is evident in +able-Figure 10-1 on the following page, the Surface Water Utility proposed to use all or any combination of the financial sources to fund the needed capital facilities. III-35 /,, °' :::: :::~evelopm~-:-:Urrac~ Water_j_~ ___ _2Q07 _ -· .-2008-I 2009 -[ ___ ~~;~1--~ 201_! __ j __ 2o_1_2 __ .~ ___ "T_c>~~ Springbrook Creek Wetland and Habitat I ! , Mmgation Bank , _________ J_$15CJ,OOO _$_1oo_.od__ $100,000]__ $100,oo_o __!1_00,0001 _ $100,000 _____ $650,000 Stenn System Improvement and ! i Replacem.ent. _______________ I $125,000 __ $1,200,oool. $1.400,000 ·-$1,150,000 --.$ .. 950,oool $8. 5. o,oo .. 0 .. !·.· $5,675,000 Springbrook Creek Improvements __ t$1,300,000[. _______ .. _ . _ _ _____ $100,000: $200,000 . $1,600,000 i;:;~_:\~:~:~~~ystem Resto~~--____ $10,000! $10,000 . $1o_0o_oo_ __ $~~~:~~~ -~;~g;g~~t $10,0_()0J_ ___ $t~~:~~~ ,=--=--=-:____ Total--$1,585,000 __!1_.J~_:)_1.li_10.,()0Q __ $_1_,4Ji),OOO _ ${86~$1, 160,000; -· $8,83_5:ooo' ----------------i ' ----------... --:----!---· ... --. ·-·· -·-··-·· '' -!___t __ _ t;:~~~;~s::_5 : ~u-rf~c~~~~~ __ -1 s .· ii~~ooo'_!_~~~~O()_ j $ t0 5~\oo-L $ . !~~o_o_~ s_:!0 1 000 . · s ~~~2 ooo_J -$ -· 4~;'1~oo_o Bonds/Loans_ _____ --·-____________ , $1,173,000 j $ __ !l_6_~,QOO ; !_1 ,0_7_1,000 $ 1,020,000 • $_1 ,4?~0_()_0 _ _£1_,479,000 I $ 7,1j0,00_()_ SDC)sAD -----------''' _ -· '' • $ 391,00o_g_323,000_I $ 357,000 $ 340,00_0~_$ _~71i,OOO_j>_ 493,000 ! $2,38Q.00_()_ Undetermined $ 23,000, $ 19,000 ! $ 21,000, $ 20,000 I$ 28,000, $ 29,000 I$ 140,000 ---·-----· Toia1j :.2.300.000 I$ 1,900,000 lf2.100,ooo 1 $2.000:<foo 1-:12;a60,000Tf2,foo.ooo I$ f.\.ooo~ooo ---------·----·------.. ----------- "' = ;, .., "' N::;: 0 ,.,- 0 -;t, __, "' ' ., ~~f ;:: S: f. i·~ :-· ("'J -' .. 0 "C ' -· --!:. "l .. ~-= e; "' "' > ~ i ;;:, ~ Amended l 1 /27 /06 .. , . ioos ~ ~ cW08 ;2009 201-0 -.. Wetland Mitigation Bank w +$0 +JOO - " 900 .J.+.,-0 800 ~ ~ ~ c,_ ,· . .1.r +$0 SW () +oo ~ -. . Geda, Ri,·er Basin Plan --.J-3() '.7-00 - " ... r n .J-0 .J-0 .J-0 w .J-0 .J-0 .. ". ·n . • ~ . ---- Lawe, Geda, Ri,·er Sediment ~ ~ ~ ~ 600 .J-30() Management Pregrnm -" " ., •.' ., +w +$0 +$0 +$0 ~ ~ MiseellaneeHs & lime,geney w w w w w w o .. . .. ·-+.J-0 +.J-0 +.J-0 +.J-0 +.J-0 ill .. ~-. , 11\"'"'' ,.\ woo ±+00 ~ ;!400 2600 ~ eurees e HR ff n n . .J.490 ;Qi)() 2',00 +900 2+00 woo bieenses and ;.·ees WO WO WO WO WO WO nthe, Ta1ees Grants .J-0 boons ~!el I•Hnded +6Hl! woo ±+00 ~ ;!400 2600 ~ 111-37 Amended 11/27/06 PARKS, RECREATION AND OPEN SPACE Inventory of Existing Facilities CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN 2007-20 I 2 20QS 2010 The City of Renton is the primary provider of park and recreation services within the city limits. These services include parks, indoor facilities, open space areas and recreation programs. Other suppliers that provide facilities and services include the Renton School District and several pri vale enterprises. +able-Figure 11-1 below is a summary of the amount of park and open space area provided by the City of Renton; provided by others within the City's Proposed Annexation Area (PAA) and the total for the overall Planning Area. T,~e ofFacilitv Neighborhood Parks Community Parks Regional Parks Open Space Areas Linear Parks & Trails Special Use Parks & Facilities TOTAL +llhle-!:Jg,_ 11-1 Park and Open Space Areas Summary Renton PAA 9;4997.37 ~20.20 130.36 AA0093.36 55.33 (}.0050.00 683. l l ~178.8 I in.;z~ 12.s 0.00 ~190.6 0.00 6 1.212.§2115 J4&-7()34 2 .3 7.83 7 Plannin,:, Area Total ~117_.57 ~223.72 ~105.33 9+'8-+8 6 L 92 9-141,12.05 ~190.66 1.§9l.221500.2 Tables Figures 11-2 and 11-3 on the following pages list the individual park and open space areas that comprise the categories summarized above. +able-Figure! 1-2 details Renton's Parks and Open Spaces by category and '.fahle Figure 11-3 lists public land in Renton 's PAA. The table lists the name of each park or open space, its size in acres, and its status as ofJanuary 200 I. Tlae leealieHs of the indi,,idual park faeililies listed i:o Table ~ I 2 are shov,TJ in Figure 11 I. which immediately follows the Table. !11-38 Amended 11/27 /06 +llble-Fig. 11-2 Public Park and Open Space Areas in Renton Detailed Listing Park Neighborhood Parks (20) Earlington Park Glencoe Park Heather DewnsHeritage Park Jones Park Kennydale Beach Kennydale Lions Park Kiwanis Park Maplewood Park Maplewood Roadside Park North Highlands Park Philip Arnold Park Riverview Park Sit In Park Springbrook Watershed Park Sunset Court Talbot Hill Reservoir Thomas Teasdale Park Tonkins Park Tiffany Park Windsor Hill Park TOTAL Community Parks (7) Cedar River Park Cedar River Trail Park Highlands Park Liberty Park Narco Property Piazza & Gateway Ron Regis Park TOTAL Regional Parks(!) Gene Coulon Memorial Beach Park TOTAL Open Space Areas (IO) Black River Riparian Forest Cedar River Natural Area Cleveland Property Honey Creek Lake Street May Creek/McAskill May Creek Greenway Panther Creek Wetlands Acres 1.54 .42 ~9.18 1.18 1.76 5.66 9.00 2.20 1.00 2.64 10.00 11.50 0.50 16.00 0.50 2.50 10.00 0.29 7.00 4.50 9;!.A,997.37 Acres 23.07 24.20 10.40 11.89 15.00 0.80 45.00 130.36 Acres 55.33 55.33 Acres III-39 92.00 237.00 23.66 35.73 1.00 10.00 29.82 73.00 Status Developed Developed Undeveloped Developed Developed Developed Developed Developed Developed Developed Developed Developed Developed Undeveloped Developed Developed Developed Developed Developed Developed Developed Developed Developed Developed Undeveloped Developed Developed Developed Undeveloped Undeveloped Undeveloped Undeveloped Undeveloped Undeveloped Undeveloped Undeveloped Amended 11/27/06 Renton Wetlands 125.00 Springbrook Watershed 38.00 Edlund/Korum Property 17.90 TOTAL 683 .11 Acres Linear Parks & Trails (+9) Burnett Linear Park 1.0 acre Cedar River Trail 4.5 miles Honey Creek Trail 1.0 miles Springbrook Trail 2.0 miles S.W. 16th Trail .5 miles Garden/16th/lfouser 1.0 miles Lake Washington Blvd 1.5 miles Gene Coulon Park 1.5 miles Ripley Lane .04 miles TOTAL 12.5 Miles. 1 Acre Special Use Parks & Facilities (10) Boathouse 4,242 s. f. Carco Theatre (310 seats) 11,095 s.f. Community Garden/Greenhouse 960 s.lt.46 acres Ilenry Moses Aquatic Center (including blclgciL 58 088 s.f. ___ Highlands Neighborhood Center 11,906 s.f.Developed Undeveloped Undeveloped Undeveloped Developed Developed Developed Developed Developed Developed Developed Developed Developed Developed Developed Developed Developed Ivar's Restaurant I 540 s.f. Devj,loped Kidd Vallev Restaurant 2. 150 s.f. Developed Kiwanis Park Neighborhood Center 1,370 s.f. Develope.<) Liberty Park Skate Park 14.250 s.f. Developed ___ Maplewood Golf Course 190 acres Developed Maplewood Golf Course/Restaurant/Pro Shop 15,508 s.f. Developed Maplewood Golf Course Driving Range 11,559 s.f. Developed North Highlands Neighborhood Center 4,432 s.f. Developed Philip Arnold Neighborhood Center 1.370 s.f. Developed __ Renton Community Center 36,000 s.f. Developed Renton Senior Activity Center 18,264 s.f. Developed Teasdale Park Neighborhood Center 1 370 s.f. Developed Tiffany Park Neighborhood Center I 800 s.f. Developed Veterans Memorial Park 0.2 acres Developed TOTAL +8-1;82s> 195 904 Sq. Ft., 190.66 Acres CITY-WIDE TOTAL l,1S2.9Sl,l57.83 Acres ~12.04 Miles -I-S-l--,&!-5195,904 Square Feet 111-40 Amended 11/27/06 Table Fig. 11-3 Public park and open space areas in Renton's Proposed Annexation Areas (PAAs) Detailed Listing P~e"'tr""o,,_Vl,_,-"'ts"'kv'-'--'I'-'>a"'r"'k ___________ ~5"'0'-'-. O~A~cccre"'s'---------"'""Developed Sub-Total (Community Parks) Maplewood Community Park Site PetrsYitsky Parle Skyway Park Boulevard Lane Park Sub-Total (Community Parks) Sierra Heights Park Maplewood Park Cascade Park Lake Yeoogs Park Sub-Total (Neighborhood Parks) May Creek Greenway Renton Park Metre Waterwerks Maplewood Heights Bryn Mawr Seen Creek GreeHway Sub-Total (Open Space) Total, Public Park and Open Space Within Renton's Proposed 50.0 Acres 40.0 Acres 59.9 Asres 23.08 Acres 30.28 Acres 90-.-093 .36 Acres 4.7 Acres 4.8 Acres 10.7 Acres 2.5 Aeres Y-.-120.2 Acres 150.0 Acres 19.0 Acres 19.9 Aeres 5.0 Acres 4.81 Acres 52.9 Aeres ~178.81 Acres Annexation Areas .............................................. M8ri342.37 Acres Lindberg/Renton Pool Total {Special Use Facilities) ...................... 1 Undeveloped Develeflea Developed Developed Developed Developed Developed Developed In addition to the park and open space areas, the city operates a number of specialized facilities as an ongoing component of the total recreational services it provides. ~Figure 11-4 which follows lists the specialized facilities owned by the city as well as those specialized public facilities within the city limits that are owned by others. III-41 Amended ll/27/06 +llltle-Fig. 11-4 Specialized Facilities within the Renton City Limits Number Ballfields City-owned: Facility 1 Cedar River Park 1 Highlands Park 1 Kennydale Lions Park 1 Kiwanis Park 2 Liberty Park 1 Maplewood Park 1 Ron Regis 1 Philip Arnold Park 1 Thomas Teasdale Park Tiffany Park TOTAL Within the city limits but owned by others: 2 Hazen High School 2 Highlands Elementary School 1 Hillcrest School 4 Honeydew Elementary School 3 McKnight Middle School 4 Nelson Middle School 4 Renton High School I Talbot Hill Elementary 1 Tiffany Park Elementary TOTAL Number Facility Football/Soccer Fields City -owned: 1 Cedar River Park 1 Highlands Park I Kiwanis Park 1 Philip Arnold Park I Ron Regis Park I Thomas Teasdale Park I Tiffany Park TOTAL Within the city limits but owned by others: I Hillcrest School 2 1 I 1 1 Honeydew Elementary School Kennydale Elementary McKnight Middle School Renton High School Renton Stadium TOTAL Tennis Courts City-owned: 2 Gene Coulon Memorial Beach Park 2 Highlands Park 2 Kiwanis Park lll-42 Comments 2 lighted Small Field Lighted Lighted 11 FIELDS Small Fields Small Field Small Fields Small Fields 22 FIELDS Comments I lighted I lighted ?FIELDS 1 lighted 7 FIELDS 2 lighted Amended 11/27/06 3 1 2 3 2 Liberty Park North Highlands Park Philip Arnold Park Talbot Hill Reservoir Tiffany Park TOTAL Within the city limits but owned by others: 4 Hazen High School 4 McKnight Middle School 2 Nelson Middle School 5 Renton High School TOTAL Swimming Pools Within the city limits but owned by others: 1 Hazen High School TOTAL Level of Service 3 lighted 2 lighted 17 COURTS 15 COURTS Indoor !POOL Standards for park and recreation levels of service were first established nationally based on "Standard Demand" and have been modified at state and local levels to meet local needs. The national level of service (LOS) standards were established by committees of recreation professionals based on practical experience in the field, and are felt to be most useful in quantifiable terms, i.e. acres of park land per population served. The most recognized standards are those developed by the National Recreation Park Association (NRPA). 1n 1983 that organization published a report titled "Recreation, Park and Open Space Standards" that is well recognized in the recreation field. The Park CFP establishes a 2-tiered approach: 1) an overall LOS standard based on total population and total acreage; and 2) LOS standards for individual neighborhoods and for specific types of parks and facilities within parks. The overall LOS is a gauge of whether the City is meeting overall concurrence for GMA. The second tier identifies areas where deficiencies exist so the City can target its funds to eliminate those deficiencies while still maintaining overall LOS. The proposed LOS standard for park and open space land established for Renton in its Comprehensive Park, Recreation and Open Space plan is 18.58 acres/1,000 population. The :1,004..2007 LOS in Renton is~ 19.84 acres/1,000 population. The LOS within Renton's Potential Annexation Areas (PAAs) is only 6'95.35 acres/1,000, which reduces the '6004-2007 overall Planning Area LOS to .J.4.-l-+12.26 acres/1,000. Continued acquisition of park and open space lands will be needed as the City's residential growth continues within its existing boundaries, and as it expands into its underserved PAA 's. The recommended service levels for Renton were developed after discussions with City staff and the Park RHB ReereatieA Aelvisery Cemmit:eeBoard of Park Commissioners. They are based on participation ratios by which a community can estimate in quantifiable terms the number of acres or facilities required to meet the population demand. Attaching a standard to a population variable makes it easy to forecast future needs as the population grows. The table below identifies the current overall LOS in Renton and within Renton's planning area. III-43 Amended 1 I /27 /06 Tall I e 1 Fig 11-5 EXISTING LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS) -OVERALL Park& Open Existing LOS Space Land Population (Acres/1,000) City of Renton +,+-£ 1.15 7 83 ~58,360 ~19.84 Renton's PAA's J4£-m 3 4 2 .J 7 ~64.000 MS.35 Total Planning Area 1,§01.'71.500.2 HJS,960112,360 -1-4.-1--+ 12 .26 Starting below, existing service levels and recommended standards by park types within Renton are given. Each park type compares the NRP A Standard to the existing service levels and the recommended standards. This information is provided to indicate how Renton' s current level of service compares to national and local standards. 111-44 Amended 11/27/06 Table 2Figure ll-6 EXISTING LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS) -BY PARK TYPE Figures shown are in acres/1,000 population Park and Open Space Areas l. Neighborhood Parks Definition: Neighborhood parks are small park areas (usually 2-10 acres in size) utilized for passive use and unstructured play. They often contain an open space for field sports, a children's playground, a multi-purpose paved area, a picnic area and a trail system. For heavily wooded sites, the amount of active use area is substantially reduced. NRP A Standard Existing LOS (Renton): Existing LOS (Planning Area) Recommended LOS Standard: Comments: 1-2 Acres/1,000 Population h&Ll Acres/1,000 Population .J..,+.32 Acres/1,000 Population 1.2 Acres/1,000 Population The recommended standard reflects the shifting emphasis on larger parks and open space recreational opportunities that cost less to maintain and operate than do neighborhood parks. 2. Community Parks Definition: Community parks are traditionally larger sites that can accommodate organized play and contain a wider range of facilities. They usually have sport fields or other major use facilities as the central focus of the park. In many cases, they will also serve the neighborhood park function. Community parks generally average I 0-25 acres in size with a substantial portion of them devoted to active use. Sometimes, smaller sites with a singular purpose that maintain a community-wide focus can be considered community parks. NRP A Standard: Existing LOS (Renton): Existing LOS (Planning Area): Recommended LOS Standard: Comments: 5-8 acres/1,000 population ;h52.25 acres/1,000 population H 1.46 acres/1,000 population 2.5 acres/1,000 population The low existing ratio reflects a past emphasis within Renton on neighborhood parks. While the recommended standard is well below the NRP A standard, it represents a shifting emphasis to community parks. 3. Regional Parks Definition: Regional parks are large park areas that serve geographical areas that stretch beyond the community. They may serve a single purpose or offer a wide range of facilities and activities. In many cases they also contain large areas of undeveloped open space. Many regional parks are acquired because of unique features found or developed on the site. III-45 Amended 11/27/06 NRP A Standard: Existing LOS (Renton: Existing LOS (Planning Area): Recommended Standard: Comments: 5-10 acres/1,000 population +.-1-.95 acres/1,000 population M.78 acrcs/1,000 population 1.08 acres/1,000 population Renton has the potential for developing another regional park located in the Cedar River corridor. The recommended standard of 1.08 acres per 1,000 population recognizes the potential for creating a Cedar River Regional Park consisting of the following Special Use Parks: Cedar River Park, Maplewood Roadside Park, Maplewood Golf Course, and the Cedar River Property. 4. Open Space Areas Definition: This type of park area is defined as general open space, trail systems, and other undeveloped natural areas that includes stream corridors, ravines, easements, steep hillsides or wetlands. Often they are acquired to protect an environmentally sensitive area or wildlife habitats. In other cases they may be drainage corridors or heavily wooded areas. Sometimes trail systems are found in these areas. Existing LOS (Renton) Existing LOS (Planning Area): Recommended LOS Standard: Comments: .l-J-11. 7 lacres/1,000 Population &92.8 acres/1,000 Population 12.7 acres/1,000 Population Tlae reeemmeHElea LOS S1a11dard of 12.7 aere,; 'J*'r 1.000 popu~atien represrnts an inerease ever tlae we,;eHt ,;ilualion, a.; se\'eral addilieHal open spaee sysJe,m have laeen identifiea fer13rne,errn'.ion. A majority of this type of land is wetlands, steep slopes, or otherwise not suitable for recreational development. 5. Linear Parks Definition: Linear parks are open space areas, landscaped areas, trail systems and other land that generally follow stream corridors, ravines or other elongated features, such as a street, railroad or power line easement. This type of park area usually consists of open space with development being very limited. Trail systems are often a part of this type of area. Existing LOS (Renton): Existing LOS (Planning Area): Recommended Standard: Comments: -h9.02 acres/1,000 Population MQ acres/1,000 Population 0.3 acres/I ,000 Population The majority of linear park land is found along the banks of the Cedar River and Honey Creek. There are other opportunities for linear parks utilizing utility corridors. 6. Special Use Parks and Facilities Definition: Specialized parks and facilities include areas that generally restrict public access to certain times of the day or to specific recreational activities. The golf course and major structures are included in this category. Existing LOS (Renton): Existing LOS (Planning Area): Recommended Standards: 3.7 acres/1,000 Population +.-&Q acres/1,000 Population 0.8 acres/1,000 Population lll-46 Amended I 1/27106 7. Total Park Land Presently, Renton has 1157.831, 197.85 acres of total park land within the city boundaries. Together with another 342.37 J4&.7-acres of public park and open space land within Renton's P AAs (Potential Annexation Areas), the total amount of park and open space land within Renton's planning area is 1,500.21,546.55 acres. NRPA Standard: 15-20 acres/1,000 Population Existing LOS (Renton): :wM 19 .84 acres/1,000 Population Existing LOS (Planning Area): .J4..605.35 acres/1,000 Population Recommended LOS Standard: 18.58 acres/1,000 Population Comments: While the recommended standard of 18.58 acres per 1,000 population seems high, most of the acreage is in the open space category. Most ofthis land is undevelopable as steep hillsides, wetlands, or environmentally sensitive areas. Specialized Facilities Below are the recommended levels of service for specialized recreation facilities. In addition to the NRP A standard and the existing facility ratio, an estimate of the participation level in Renton compared to the average for the Pacific Northwest is also provided. The existing inventory includes city-owned facilities as well as those facilities within the city limits owned by other public entities. 1. Ballfields (Includes baseball and softball fields) NRP A Standard: 1 field per 2,500 population Existing Participation: Average Existing Inventory: 20 fields * Existing Facility Ratio: .9 field per 2,500 population Recommended Standard: 1 field per 2,500 population * Small fields were excluded for purposes of evaluation. 2. Football/Soccer Fields NRP A Standard: Existing Participation: Existing Inventory: Existing Facility Ratio: Recommended Standard: Comments 1 field per 10,000 population 75 % below average 26 fields ,.91.3 field§ per 3,000 population I field per 3,000 population Because of the extremely high existing facility ratio and the below average participation rate, the recommended standard--while substantially above the NRPA standard-is roughly the same as the existing facility ratio. 3. Tennis Courts NRP A Standard: Existing Participation: Existing Inventory: Existing Facility Ratio: Recommended Standard: Comments 1 court per 2,000 population 15 % below average 32 courts ,.9J_A court§ per 2,500 population 1 court per 2,500 population Based on the substantially above average existing facility ratio, the recommended standard is almost equivalent to the existing facility ratio. 4. Swimming Pools (indoor) NRP A Standard: 1 pool per 20,000 population III-47 Amended 11/27/06 Existing Participation: Existing Inventory: Existing Facility Ratio: Recommended Standard: Comments 5. Walking Trails Existing Participation: Existing Inventory: Existing Facility Ratio: Recommended Standard: Comments Average 1 indoor pool .4-.68 per 40,000 population 1 pool per 40,000 population 16% above average +.-59.0 miles (off-street) .15 miles per 1,000 population .20 miles per 1,000 population The recommended standard reflects a strong local mterest in walking trails and the fact that the city directed its efforts to other areas until recent years. Needed Capital Facilities and Funding Plan-, 2007-2012200S 2010 +ahle-rigure 11-4-lon the following page shows the projects which may need to be begun over the next six years to achieve the recommended level of service standards if the forecast growth--and therefore, demand-- occurs. The TableFigure 11-8 also includes potential funding sources for each project, where known. lll-48 ~ -'.i: i "' l I a;; l ~ t (able11-4. __ , ------+--.---i , Items for Development 2007 ___ --19_9.~·-2009 2010 2011 2012 Total Black R.iver Rloarian Forest $85,000 $100,000 $200,000 $2,000,000 $2,385,000 Sam Chastain Waterfront Trail $500,000 ~:000,000 · -----I $4,500,000 Famil" Anuatic Center ______ -~ $120,000 -lfao,ooo $120,000 $120,000 _ $126:000 -_ $1~~+ $720,000 Grant Matching Program $200,000 $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 $100".ooot-$100,0001 $700,000 Maoiewood Communm, Park Development $100,000 $300,000 $3,000,0001 $3,000,0001 $6,400,000 New Maintenance Facility -$335,000 __ $4,000,000 $2,000,000 ____ I +-------T-$6,192,000 North Highlands Community Center $250,000 1 $1,750,000 i $2,000,000 ,Parks Long Range Plan $60,000 ------~-I 1====-___ $60,000 I Regis Park Athletic Field Expansion -~ 1--__ $200,000 1 $2,300,000 $2,500,000 Springbrook Trail Missing Link $1,600,000 ... ' --------~ ----·------··-$1,600,000 Tiffany Park Recreation Building $15,000 "t-$15,000 l Total $2,830,000 $8,770,000I-$6,655,000 $3)21l-OOO -$420,000 $5,220,000 $27,072,000 ------·------------·-···-· ., -= 0,01:l f ,' ~ .., n t ~i, "l ::: I ,: I -· 1-.J =~ =: "' "' [ ;::;; ~ Amended 11/27/06 " . " '. = CeElar Ri•·er TFail B1.teF1sie0 h()(Ml 1.,1)00 , n, .• A-• L' r ,·-Slln -WlJ Hea!h€F" r w = r n. ... 1, Y' :\00 ~ J,000 Ne"·~ faiHteRaFJee fasilit'.' 5,SOO .l,()00 ll n. . " ~left},, Hie:fllas9s Cemm1:.mit-v Center 150 2-.-000 P;w' " . ' ~ = = = :WO C . n .. " l,-000 -+;000 WO CeElar Ri 1 ·er Tfail RxteAsieA Ge#'.--C--{H:1-f-&e \/ eteFaA's ~ 1eH.1erial Park re, -~ n . ' 2,!00 N ' 'D +;000 400 +G+Ab +,l+JO &'!W +;00 ~ ~ ;!,+00 This Seetton4&-Be De\ el1.:113eEI GeAeral F-1:l-00 SJ+<lll ~1,.{44 l,hW 4& &B JOO l~ieeAses aA9 Fees!t 1::i1.,er Fee~-2(,(l = 2.SO 669 Gther Ta~ces +-JU-l.l) hlOO .J,J()ll .J,J()O bWll J.,.00 -750 '7-SO j.,1)00 ,00 +,llllll +,l+Jil boan-s ,_.µJ{l ·:._-44(:). ]'}'et f1,HuieEl +G+Ab $.7,+4/J '~ 4,J()(l ~ J,+1c> 2.;l{l(J * l1ucludes Parl:.s Miti~ati8R rees iu 200 I -uud-Gott:+=-011rJe f:eEs to fund Celf Caurse Caf)ital lmpr-&Vements, II1·50 Tilible11-5 + Funding Sources 2007 -2008 --r-2009----2010-·--2011 -2012 --Total Operating -_ $2,755,000 $ -220,000 $ 220,000 $ 220,000_~20,000--$ _220,0_QO ~~000 Bond Proceeds ____ . $ 3,100,000 J ___ 500,00_~1--·--------1---------------~---1600,00_Q_ 1 !Mitigation $2,265,000 $ 2,265,000 Undetermined ~:J~]I00$1,s20.oo0$1,150,ooo _t.1,s1i&Qo T94T:C>9_o $ 2t~35iooo Total $5,201,000 $11,140,000 $ 7,870,000 $ 4,732,000 $1,161,000 $ 35,955,000 z: ..,, "' '"' :,,' ~,,,.-~ o;.; '""'' ... I-• • NS' i,-,o. o-- -"'l ' "' "' "' S: -~· i 8, ~ Amended 11/27106 _PUBLIC SAFETY CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN 2005 20)() Inventory of Existing Faeilitie,; The City ofRentofl previ<le.; reliee, mt1Aiei11al co,irL anc!jail serviees an<l faeilities as pa1", of its pulilie safety reJflOl1Gibilitie3. CHrrenlly, all ef the,;e c;ervice.; aH{i facilities are loeate<l en :'1ie eity hall Sfflllfl8S. bevel 0f Ser.-iee The peliee <lej'lartment has a total of 128 employ~"''· fla.;ed en Renton',; 2004 pept1!atien of54,900, the current level ofDerviee ofpoliee department employee:; to population is nearly 2.33 emp!oyees per 1,000 resiElents. The curre:1t level of serv'.ee fer efficers is nearly I .<,of!iceh'Per 1,000 resiaents. With the population of Rentm, prejeeteEl to grow to over 61,69<1 resi<lents by the year 2010, tlae numeer of police department employees vdl have to increase k> 140 !tt+naintaifl tlae e-eflt level of sePliee. It is also projected by '.he pelice aepartment tha: with EIFl increase in the µeneml population woul<l eome an increase in the numller of class I, II, and III crimes afla a rela'.ea inerea:,e in the+,umber of eotlft eases aREl jail day,, and in the size ef the average Elail) jail J3epu!atieA. Te maintain the current-.Je,el of:;eniee fer beth the muRieipal ce,ui anEl :he jail would reEjuire an inerea.;e in the c;taffat those laeilille; Needed Capital Facilities and Funding Plan, 199§ 29 I 0 In 1999 the mayors of the J:ve meml,er cities of Valley CBJmmmieation Board (Auburn, Feaeral Way, Kmt, Renton, EIFld Tull'Nila) agreea :o build a new ~11 Center at a east ofS!S,105,519. The Boa,·d has been eolleeting a sursharge en calls for the past five years for cot:c,n·'1ction of a new facilit). The net costs, with ato assumption that a new ai.;J3atch S) ,;:em is Ret neede<l, wil I he Sl 2.571,3 n. Eaeh member city will he resj'lensihle for appreKima:ely $2,5 million of the constmetinH co. t... A. of Sefltenaher 1999, the estimates annual eests of the EleM will be apprm,imately ~300,000 over 20 year. Jn the Capital Faci\itieD Plan this co,;: is c!iYiEleEl eYeAly ~olice and Fire Departmems. *Cost showtt ir1 20()1 2005 Capital Facilities 14arr is :plit between the Public Safety and Fire l'\metiens. Souree ef Fun Els ;wo,; ;wlli, = --~ l~ses aed ,·ees .+ail '>HJ) ~ µw ~ :;.l->G µw µw IJl-52 Amended 11 /27 /06 FIRE CAPIT/·.L Fl·.CILITIES PLANGENERAL GOVERNMENT CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN 2007-2012 FIRE DEPARTMENT CAPITAL FACILITIES 200§ 2010 Inventory of Existing Facilities The Renton Fire Department provides fire protection services from fwe-six locations;s---Fire Department Headgua1iers is located on the sixth floor of Citv Hall at 1055 Grady Way; Station 11 which is tile maiA fice statieA aernss fi-om Histerie City Hall in the downtown area and serves the central part of the city; Station 12 which is located in Renton Highlands and serves the north and east portions of the city;-<HHI Station 13 which is located in the Talbot Hill area and serves the southeast portion of the city; and 7Station 14 is located at Lind & S. 19th Street and serves the South portion of Renton. Additionally, King County Fire District 25 operationally is part of the Renton fire protection system; it serves the east portion of the city as well as portions of King County. Figure 13-1 on the following page shows the locations of the fire stations. Currently Station 11 is staffed by 9 personnel and is equipped with one engine company, one ladder company, one aid car and one command eamnit. Station 12 is staffed by 5 personnel and is equipped with one engine company and one aid car. 8tatioA 13 is staffea liy tilree JlerseAHel arnl eHe eHgiHe eomJlf!H)' aHEI oHe aiel 1rnit. Station~ Ll,__ 14. and 16 are ffi-Staffed by three personnel and equipped with an engine and +-an aid unit. The City's water system is also a critical component of fire protection service. Currently all areas of the city are served by the city water system. Level of Service Historically, level of service for fire suppression has been measured in a variety of qualitative and quantitative terms. However, in the city's Fire Department Master Plan (1987) the primary level of service criteria were response time and fire flow. In the next capital facilities plan, there will be a shift in the placement of fire stations with a goal of providing a city wide fire and emergency service coverage net that maintains a 90°' percentile response goal. Meeting this goal v,ill ensure that all citizens can expect the same response time 90% of the time. Response time is an important criterion for level of service because there is a direct relationship between both how long a fire bums and how long a person can survive with their heart beating. TI1e ultimate goal of the fire and emergency service system is the preservation of human life.aAel tile tefHJleff!IHres ereated b; tile fire. EveHtua'.1.;' temperatures lleem,ae se iligh tilat "flashever" oeeHrs, a prneess iH whieh all eernlmstible material in a roam er l,ui!eling ignites simultaneously. Reaeiliiag a fire l,efece flashover 0ee11rs is an iff!flOr!l!Ht eetasieeratieH iA fire suppcessien. Studies ha,;e she\\H that ooeer Hemml EliSJ3ateiling fJf9Sedures fice erews i,a,,e allellt feW' to sill miRllles ta reaeh a firn llefece flashever eeOllfS. Obviously. the need to extinguish fires is also a criterion for measuring the level of service for the fire and emergency services system. as fire is one of the more likely causes of significant property damage in the city. ~·ice fle,,,, is tile seeeREI eriterieR fee measHriRg the level ef ser,iee fer fice SllflfJF6SsieH. Fire flow refers to the amount of water that is available to spray on a fire and extinguish it. Understandably, water is an essential element for fire suppression, and the hotter a fire, the more water that must be available to extinguish it. Determining what is adequate fire flow depends upon a building's type of construction, floor area, and use. For example, adequate fire flow in the city's water system for a single-family wood frame house is 1,000 gallons per minute (gpm) whereas adequate fire flow for a shopping center or an industrial park is approximately 4,500 gpm. The third aspect of establishing level of service is personnel. Having trained firefighters in sufficient numbers is crucial to putting out a fire safely and efficiently. The city strives to comply with national standards relative to the staffing of fire apparatus as it is the placement of personnel at the location of the incident that for the basis for the success of the fire and emergency service delivery system.The Hllffieec aRe traiaing ef firefighters alse III-53 Amended 11/27/06 nmst fit witli tlie department's strntegie or tactical appr-0aeh to figlit:ng fires. Tlie Renton fire department Hees aA ag!c,'fessive attaek strategy as erresed to a dek>t1Si~e-,ipproaeh strategy. lll-54 Amended l 1 /27 /06 According to national standards: I. Acceptable response time is defined as having the first responding unit arrives on the incident scene in within five minutes of receipt of the response 90% of the time. 2. Acceptable response time is for the basic firefighting force 05 personnel) is nine minutes from the receipt of the response 90% of the time. 3. Acceptable fire flow is defined as having water available to all parts of the city in sufficient quantity and pressure to extinguish the worst-case fire in an existing or projected land use. 4. Acceptable staffing is defined as having four firefighters on each piece of firefighting apparatus. Though the goal of the city is to comply with nationally recognized standards, the ability to meet these standards is subject to resource availability at the time of an incident, rather than an absolute. In its Fire DeJlat1meflt Master PlaR, the City established the feUewiflg slattdards for level ef serviee: I. Aeeej'ltallle resf!ORse baae is aefifled as having the first resJlefldiflg ,mils arr:ve eA the fire see Re iH five mim,tes or less. 2. AeeeJ3talile reSJlOflse time is defifled as haviflg the seeend resf!Ol'ldiRg HR its arrive Ofl the fire seefle ifl tefl m'.t:Htes or less. 3. Aeeej'ltallle fi,e flow is defiRed as haviflg v,ater available le all f!OFls of the eity iB SHffieieAt qHafllity afld Jlress!lfe to e"tiB.gHish the worst ease fire iR aR ell'.t.1tiflg er f!rejeeted lattd Hse. 4. Aeeef!lable f!ersoooel is eefifled as haviAg fi're firefigi,ters efl site iR first respor:se aREI tffi firefighters Ofl site iR seeend resf!ORse. 5. Aeee13tallle J3ers0Rflel is also aefiRed as haYiflg sHffieiefll ]Jersenfle! availallle throHgh ffilitHal aia aRd aHteraatie reSJlense agreements with fleigllboriflgj11Fiselietiefls to effieienlly attcl sHeeessfo!ly elltiflgHish the larger aflcl mere eomf!leJC fires ifl resiclential, eommereial, iflstitHtieRal afld iRdHstrial bHilcli11gs. Needed Capital Facilities and Funding Plan, 2007-2012200S 2010 With the exception of a few isolated small areas of the city, the five minute response time level of scnice standard is being met 63.8% of the time, which is 70.8% of the national standard. "five firefighters ifl five mimltes" level of serviee stattdard is lleiRg met. With regard te the "ten firefighters iA teA mim1tes" level ef seFYiee slafldanl, this standers is lleiag met ifl virtHally the eAtire eity. Similarly, the adequate fire flow level of service standard is being met city-wide. Generally, fire flows are adequate throughout the city, a long-range water system plan is being implemented to upgrade the few low fire flow areas, and development standards and review procedures are in place, which require that necessary fire suppression measures are made available for all new construction. Givefl the f!Bf!Hlatiefl aad effiJlloymest grew-th j'lrojeetea fer the year 2() IQ, it is all.!ieif!aled that same aetiofls may lie fleeded ever the fleltl six years to maifltaifl the resf!B!'lse time level of serviee stattdards. 1n the east Renton area the agreement with Fire District 25 whereby the city has assumed operational control of that facility coupled with Station 12 and the water system plan for the area should assure that both response time and fire flow standards will be maintained. 1n the Kennydale area a new station 15 will be constructed over the next six years. The station will be staffed with three-four firefighters, seven days a week. This means an additional fifteen firefighters along with the purchase of equipment. The total project includes the purchase of land, design, construction, hiring personnel, and purchase of equipment. Presently the northerly portion of the area is within the ten-minute response time standard but outside of the five-minute response time standard for Station 12. As ]JOiflted eat ifl the Fire Def!ar',lHeflt Master PlaA, a flew statiefl I§ eleser to I 4 (J§ afla 11th we Hid f!FOVide fiye miffilte resf!e!'lse time eeverage le the efltire area. III-55 Amended 11/27/06 Over the next six years, some single family and multi-family growth is projected for the Kennydale/Highlands area, as is some employment growth. This growth would increase somewhat the importance of providing improved service to the area in the near term. Given the residential and employment growth projected for the area after the year 2006, the importance of taking actions to improve the five-minute response time coverage increase substantially during that period. The sel~'.ien reeemmenaee in the Vire Master Plem waste releeate 8tatien l 2 farther te the ea,;'.. This was aee01oopEshed in 2004. In the next six year plafmin6 reriee, the Ci'.) will lmilel Station 15 te better serve the grewing Highlanas area. This project inelueles purchasing la:od. design, emd eonstruetion. Land has been acquired to constrnct Fire Station #15 in the Kennydale area and there could be a need for an additional station in the eastem_Jiortion of the city on or near Duvall Avenue in north of NI;: 4"'. The Fire Department is in the process of acqt1iring sothvare that will help with this analysis. The City also anticipated improvements to Valley Communications Facilities over the next six years. Station 14 was built in the Valley industrial area to help handle the projected employment and multi-family growth for the area. fu addition, there is still a need for a new facility for Station 13 due to its physical limitations in terms of its ability to accommodate the necessary equipment and personnel to maintain the current level of service standards as growth occurs. Station 13 was built as a temporary facility, until a current level of service standards as growth occurs. King County Fire District #40 has constructed a new st'1le of the art facility in the Benson Hill potential annexation arc:,. This will be inside Renton City limits should an annexation of this area occur. The Fire_I:_lrnartnwnLi~j11 discussions with King County Fire district #4(tregarding a potential contract that would provide service to the district in the same way that services are provided to King County Fire District #25. Statien 13 was !milt as a leffiJ3ornry faeility. untf+~H.leeisien v.as made whether te lrnild a new ,;tatiea er eolloeate witk Fire District 40. With the deei,-ion not to eellosate a slatien, the need for a new facility ico apparent. The projeet ineludes design a+od sonslraction only-c FiFe :Prej erts Station-+.. S!atiel"t---8 :Valley Gemmm=tieatiens Genter '.J'.8ml Tff.is ceeriei:i te Se Ge..elfi ed Smuces eff'unEis: Geaeml l'W!s bieenses anB: ~ees B<,ruls l':,e Mitigatiaa Pees Tum! Tnhl,· 13 1 Fi re Capital J;'aeilities 200S 20]() JW(J ~ J'>-0 ~ Bll BG +-,49lJ 8,BlJ .I-},4-f} 800 15() BG +-.49() &l4l) lll--56 Nl-0 --- --- BG 1-'>4 BG BG .J4j) BG BG -h>ll Amended 11/27/06 f ' Fig,,u,e 13-1 Existing and Proposed Fire Stations Lake Washington • , ! III-57 City of Renton Fire Department Station Locations ' r---.-r-J ·-· • , I Amended 11/27/06 F1gure 13--1 EXISTING AND PROPOSED FIRE STATIONS ..t.. E.Xlt,llng City fire Stations • E:d~tln; County fh,e Sll'lllon1 • Propototd Flrei Station Tielocallon, • Propo1 • d Hew tire .StoDllon1 KCFD 20-~ • City of RENTON, WASHINGTON Soutc•: Renton Fini D"p•rtm.,nt, 196!0 ic::t}Sept. Hl'815 St a lion l\uto.;Mm l'i.9U""' HIU• 111-58 " KCfO :25-2 coa~I t<CFD 25-1 KCFD iCO-.C2 •• Amended 11 /27 /06 ECONO~~IC DEVELOP~~ENT/AD~~INISTRP.TION CAPITAL F}.CILITIES PLAN 2007-2012 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN 200S 2010 The Neighborhood Grant Program currently provides $50,000 to be distributed in small matching grants to organized associations that from recognized geographic neighborhoods in Renton. The grant projects must be a benefit to the pubic, create physical improvements, build and enhance a neighborhood feature and be within Renton City limits. Over the next six years, the funding for this program is expected to increase to $110.000 by 2012. $1.5 million dollars of !Funding for infrastructure implementation is previaed forin the Highlands 8HBaFea PlaaStudy Area has been set aside in City reserves. and the Selltla Lal,e Washmgtoo ReElevel011meAt Area. _New development in these twothis areas will require additional tra11s11ortatioA aAe Htility investments Aeeaed to stimulate redevelopment. 11 Taele l ·~ 1 Eeonemie Develo11meAt1Aeministmtien Faeilities 2005 2010 Eeet:omie Develejlmeot Prej eels Neighl>efheeJ Gra,,i,; ~ ~ ~ $c'i1l Highlamls 8asaFea Pia,, +i, 8 eatll Lal,e Waslaiogten w ~ Total ~ $W $W $W 8elffees ef l'umls: Genefal-Fimd W5 $W $W I $W ~ $W $W $W lll-59 $W $W $W $W I $W I $W I $W $W ~~~~~~:O~~~•lopment · __ _ ____ f--~t·· $990 ~°o°o1-$390 ~bb9 _ 201j 1 _ • __ ~~0_11 --_-·2012p:~~~-o.~~O Fire Station 15 ---·------------·-· -------$350,000' $4,500,000 ·----·-· ---------------·. 1-$4,850,000 -.=~ =: _ 4•. 1 .. j;;o~ggo Jt1-;;. s~~.o. ~. -., . $ 1 · 0:)s~~. _E;:o~.go. 0 o1· .. · $ 1 · 0;;0~:o .-$. 11 o .. ,oooJ .. · $s:::/iio ~ 110 " ~=---=-==-=-=--lt1~ 3s~~o°o°o0 1-$2.555.oooL $9,531,0oo+ $769.000 ·· $1,075,000. ~ $50,oo.J $15,836,0( -----------·---------------. . .l. ---------- i a: ;:, "' 0 °' --------·------------I -___ ,._ Funciingsources _-·_ --200~ _ · ·2Q@j= 2009 ___ 201~: 2011;_ · ____ -2012Total ~~ined ·-----~---· :::::::~ !i:HH~~H~~. -::::::::-f ::::::::::r--::::::: :::::::::: '"' ., "' = "' .. e. '"' ., C "' " '" .. °' I 0 :, ~ 0 0 3 __, " I~ :, -... (") N ., "' ;:;, e. .,, .. e: ~--;;;· "' -~-.----------------------------------·---- 2007-T-01 Capital Facilities Element and Transportation Element Comprehensive Plan Text Amendments Project Description and Justification Bi-annual update of Capital Facilities Element and amendment of the Transportation Element to incorporate and update the level of service information and capital facility project lists, amend text and tables summarizing growth, and to update and correct descriptive narrative. This housekeeping amendment is to ensure consistency between various City plans and policies. City of Renton LAND USE PERMIT n1--, ,-: ( MASTER APPLICATION PROPERTY OWNER($) NAME: ADDRESS: CITY: ZIP: TELEPHONE NUMBER: APPLICANT (if other than owner) NAME: COMPANY (if applicable): ADDRESS: CITY: ZIP: TELEPHONE NUMBER CONTACT PERSON NAME: GOMPANY (if applicable): ADDRESS: CITY: l/3:i TELEPHONE NUMBER AND E-MAIL ADDRESS: PROJECT INFORMATION KING COUNTY ASSESSOR'S ACCOUNT NUMBER(S): EXISTING LAND USE(S): AJ.tti PROPOSED LAND USE(S): A,ll) EXISTING COMPREHEN IVE PLAN MAP DESIGNATION: PROPOSED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP DESIGNATION (if applicable): EXISTING ZONING: PROPOSED ZONING (if applicable): SITE AREA (in square feet): SQUARE FOOTAGE OF PUBLIC R DEDICATED: PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL DENSITY I UNITS PER NET ACRE (if applicable): NUMBER OF PROPOSED LOTS (if a Q: web/pw/de vserv/forms/p lanning/ mas terapp .doc 07128/05 .----------'P----'R-'-( :CT INFORMATION (contin _f_,_0 _______ --. NUMBER OF EXISTING DWELLING UNITS (if applicable): PROJECT VALUE: SQUARE FOOTAGE OF PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS (if applicable): AJJt SQUARE FOOTAGE OF EXISTING RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS TO REMAIN (if applicable): IS THE SITE LOCATED IN ANY TYPE OF ENVIRONMENTALLY CRITICAL AREA, PLEASE INCLUDE SQUARE FOOTAGE (if applicable): SQUARE FOOTAGE OF PROPOSED NON-RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS (if applicable): SQUARE FOOTAGE OF EXISTING NON-RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS TO REMAIN (if applicable): NET FLOOR AREA OF NON-RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS (if applicable): NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES TO BE EMPLOYED BY THE NEW PROJECT (if applicable): 0 AQUIFER PROTECTION AREA ONE 0 AQUIFER PROTECTION AREA TWO D FLOOD HAZARD AREA o GEOLOGIC HAZARD 0 HABITAT CONSERVATION 0 SHORELINE STREAMS AND LAKES 0 WETLANDS LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY (Attach legal description on separate sheet with the followina information included) sq. ft. sq. ft. sq. ft. sq. ft. sq. ft. SITUATE IN THE QUARTER OF SECTION _,TOWNSHIP_, RANGE_, IN THE CITY OF RENTON, KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON. TYPE OF APPLICATION & FEES List all land use applications being applied for: 1. 3. 2. 4. Staff will calculate applicable fees and postage: $ AFFIDAVIT OF OWNERSHIP I ~ ~.I I, (Print Name/s) L,f Flfl'I , declare that I am (please check one) _ the current owner of the property involved in this application or the authorized representative to act for a corporation (please attach proof of authorization) and that the foregoing statements and answers herein contained and the information herewith are in all respects true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. (Signature of Owner/Representative) (Signature of Owner/Representative) Q:web/pw/devserv/forms/planning/masterapp.doc I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that~~~-----~~ signed this instrument and acknowledged It to be his/her/their free and voluntary act for the uses and purposes mentioned in the instrument Notary Public in and for the State of Washington Notary (Print) ____________ _ My appointment expires: _________ _ 2 07128/05 Project Narrative City Initiated Comprehensive Plan Amendment Text Amendments to Update the Capital Facilities Land Use and Transportation Elements The Proposed Text Amendments will update the Capital Facilities and Transportation Elements with current capital improvement plan information and project lists as well as present housekeeping amendments needed to clarify and explain the text of the elements. The amendment will also review policy for the Rainier Conidor Business District. DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIVISION ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST City of Renton Development Services Division 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98055 Phone: 425-430-7200 Fax: 425-430-7231 PURPOSE OF CHECKLIST: The State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), Chapter 43.21 C RCW, requires all governmental agencies to consider the environmental impacts of a proposal before making decisions. An Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) must be prepared for all proposals with probable significant adverse impacts on the quality of the environment. The purpose of this checklist is to provide information to help you and the agency identifies impacts from your proposal (and to reduce or avoid impacts from the proposal, if it can be done) and to help the agency decide whether an EIS is required. INSTRUCTIONS FOR APPLICANTS: This environmental checklist asks you to describe some basic information about your proposal. Governmental agencies use this checklist to determine whether the environmental impacts of your proposal are significant, requiring preparation of an EIS. Answer the questions briefly, with the most precise information known, or give the best description you can. You must answer each question accurately and carefully, to the best of your knowledge. In most cases, you should be able to answer the questions from your own observations or project plans without the need to hire experts. If you really do not know the answer, or if a question does not apply to your proposal, write "do not know" or "does not apply". Complete answers to the questions now may avoid unnecessary delays later. Some questions ask about governmental regulations, such as zoning, shoreline, and landmark designations. Answer these questions if you can. If you have problems, the governmental agencies can assist you. The checklist questions apply to all parts of your proposal, even if you plan to do them over a period of time or on different parcels of land. Attach any additional information that will help describe your proposal or its environmental effects. The agency to which you submit this checklist may ask you to explain your answers or provide additional information reasonably related to determining if there may be significant adverse impact. USE OF CHECKLIST FOR NONPROJECT PROPOSALS: Complete this checklist for non-project proposals, even though questions may be answered "does not apply." IN ADDITION, complete the SUPPLEMENTAL SHEET FOR NONPROJECT ACTIONS (part D). For non-project actions (actions involving decisions on policies, plans and programs), the references in the checklist to the words "project," "applicant," and "property or site" should be read as "proposal," "proposer," and "affected geographic area," respectively. H:\EDNSP\Comp Plan\Amendments\200712007 Text Amendments\Env. Checklist Form -Cap Fac&Trans.doc 12/15/06 A. BACKGROUND 1. Name of proposed project, if applicable: City Initiated Comprehensive Plan Amendment 2. Name of applicant: City of Renton, EDNSP Department 3. Address and phone number of applicant and contact person: Rebecca Lind, Planning Manager, 425-430-6588 1055 S. Grady Way, Renton WA 98055 4. Date checklist prepared: December 15, 2006 5. Agency requesting checklist: City of Renton 6. Proposed liming or schedule (including phasing, if applicable): N/A 7. Do you have any plans for future additions, expansion, or further activity related to or connected with this proposal? If yes, explain. N/A 8. List any environmental information you know about that has been prepared, or will be prepared, directly related to this proposal. None 9. Do you know whether applications are pending for governmental approvals of other proposals directly affecting the property covered by your proposal? If yes, explain. None 10. List any governmental approvals or permits that will be needed for your proposal, if known. Planning Commission Recommendation, City Council Action 11. Give brief, complete description of your proposal, including the proposed uses and the size of the project and site. The proposed text amendments will update the Capital Facilities and Transportation elements with current capital improvement plan information and project lists as wet! as present housekeeping amendments needed to clarify and explain the text of the clements. The amendment will also review policy for the Rainier Corridor Business District H:IEDNSP\Comp Plan\Amendments\200712007 Text Amendments\Env. Checklist Form -Cap Fac&Trans.doc 2 B. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS 1. EARTH a. General description of the site (circle one); flat, rolling, hilly, steep slopes, mountainous, other _____ _ Not Applicable Non-Project Action b. What is the steepest slope on the site (approximate percent slope?)? Not Applicable Non-Project Action c. What general types of soils are found on the site (for example, clay, sand, gravel, peat, muck)? If you know the classification of agricultural soils, specify them and note any prime farmland. Not Applicable Non-Project Action d. Are there surface indications or history of unstable soils in the immediate vicinity? If so, describe. Not Applicable Non-Project Action e. Describe the purpose, type, and approximate quantities of any filling or grading proposed. Indicate source of fill. Not Applicable Non-Project Action f. Could erosion occur as a result of clearing, construction, or use? If so, generally describe. Not Applicable Non-Project Action g. About what percent of the site will be covered with impervious surfaces after project construction (for example, asphalt or buildings)? Not Applicable Non-Project Action h. Proposed measures to reduce or control erosion, or other impacts to the earth, if any: Not Applicable Non-Project Action 2. AIR a. What types of emissions to the air would result from the proposal (i.e., dust, automobile, odors, industrial wood smoke) during construction and when the project is completed? If any, generally describe and give approximate quantities if known. Not Applicable Non-Project Action b. Are there any off-site sources of emission or odor that may affect your proposal? If so, generally describe. H:IEDNSP\Comp Plan\Amendments\2007\2007 Text Amendments\Env. Checklist Form -Cap Fac&Trans.doc 3 Not Applicable Non-Project Action c. Proposed measures to reduce or control emissions or other impacts to air, if any: none Not Applicable Non-Project Action 3. WATER a. Surface Water: 1) Is there any surface water body on or in the immediate vicinity of the site (including year- round and seasonal streams, saltwater, lakes, ponds, and wetlands)? If yes, describe type and provide names. If appropriate, state what stream or river it flows into. Not Applicable Non-Project Action 2) Will the project require any work over, in, or adjacent to (within 200 feet) the described waters? If yes, please describe and attach available plans. Not Applicable Non-Project Action 3) Estimate the amount of fill and dredge material that would be placed in or removed from surface water or wetlands and indicate the area of the site that would be affected. Indicate the source offill material. Not Applicable Non-Project Action 4) Will the proposal require surface water withdrawals or diversions? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known. Not Applicable Non-Project Action 5) Does the proposal lie within a 100-year flood plain? If so, note location on the site plan. Not Applicable Non-Project Action 6) Does the proposal involve any discharges of waste materials to surface waters? If so, describe the type of waste and anticipated volume of discharge. Not Applicable Non-Project Action b. Ground Water: 1) Will ground water be withdrawn, or will water be discharged to ground water? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known. Not Applicable Non-Project Action 2) Describe waste material that will be discharged into the ground from septic tanks or other sources, if any (for example: Domestic sewage; industrial, containing the following chemicals ... ; agricultural; etc.). Describe the general size of the system, the number of such systems, the number of houses to be served (if applicable), or the number of animals or humans the system(s) are expected to serve. H:\EDNSP\Comp Plan\Amendments\2007\2007 Text Amendments\Env. Checklist Form -Cap Fac&Trans.doc 4 Not Applicable Non-Project Action c. Water Runoff (including storm water): 1) Describe the source of runoff (including storm water) and method of collection and disposal, if any (include quantities. if known). Where will this water flow? Will this water flow into other waters, If so, describe. Not Applicable Non-Project Action 2) Could waste material enter ground or surface waters? If so, generally describe. Not Applicable Non-Project Action d. Proposed measures to reduce or control surface, ground, and runoff water impacts, if any: Not Applicable Non-Project Action 4. PLANTS a. Check or circle types of vegetation found on the site: _!)@ deciduous tree: alder, maple, aspen, other _!)@ evergreen tree: fir, cedar, pine, other _!)@ shrubs _!)@ grass _!)@ pas tu re _!)@ crop or grain _!)@ wet soil plants: cattail, buttercup, bullrush, skunk cabbage, other _!)@ water plants: water lily, eel grass, milfoil, other _!)@ other types of vegetation Not Applicable Non-Project Action b. What kind and amount of vegetation will be removed or altered? None c. List threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. Not Applicable Non-Project Action d. Proposed landscaping, use of native plants, or other measures to preserve or enhance vegetation on the site, if any: Not Applicable Non-Project Action 5. ANIMALS a. Circle any birds and animals, which have been observed on or near the site or are known to be on or near the site: Citywide but map and text amendments are non-project actions Birds: hawk, heron, eagle, songbirds, other --~n~/a~------ Mammals: deer, bear, elk, beaver, other --~"~'a~------ Fish: bass, salmon, trout, herring, shellfish, other __ ~n=/=a ___ _ H:IEDNSP\Comp Plan\Amendments\200712007 Text Amendments\Env. Checklist Form -Cap Fac&Trans.doc 5 b. List any threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. Not Applicable Non-Project Action c. Is the site part of a migration route? If so, explain Not Applicable Non-Project Action d. Proposed measures to preserve or enhance wildlife, if any: Not Applicable Non-Project Action 6. ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES a. What kinds of energy (electric, natural gas, oil, wood stove, solar) will be used to meet the completed project's energy needs? Describe whether it will be used for heating, manufacturing, etc. Not Applicable Non-Project Action b. Would your project affect the potential use of solar energy by adjacent properties? If so, generally describe. Not Applicable Non-Project Action c. What kinds of energy conservation features are included in the plans of this proposal? List other proposed measures to reduce or control energy impacts, if any: Not Applicable Non-Project Action 7. ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH a. Are there any environmental health hazards, including exposure to toxic chemicals, risk of fire and explosion, spill, or hazardous waste, that could occur as a result of this proposal? If so, describe. Not Applicable Non-Project Action 1) Describe special emergency services that might be required. Not Applicable Non-Project Action 2) Proposed measures to reduce or control environmental health hazards, if any: Not Applicable Non-Project Action b. Noise 1) What types of noise exist in the area which may affect your project (for example: traffic, equipment, operation, other)? Not Applicable Non-Project Action 2) What types and levels of noise would be created by or associated with the project on a short-term or a long-term basis (for example: traffic, construction, operation, other)? Indicate what hours noise would come from the site. H:\EDNSP\Comp Plan\Amendments\200712007 Text Arnendments\Env. Checklist Form -Cap Fac&Trans.doc 6 Not Applicable Non-Project Action 3) Proposed measures to reduce or control noise impacts, if any: 8. LAND AND SHORELINE USE a. What is the current use of the site and adjacent properties? Not Applicable Non-Project Action b. Has the site been used for agriculture? If so, describe. Not Applicable Non-Project Action c. Describe any structures on the site. Not Applicable Non-Project Action d. Will any structures be demolished? If so, what? Not Applicable Non-Project Action e. What is the current zoning classification of the site? Not Applicable Non-Project Action f. What is the current comprehensive plan designation of the site? Not Applicable Non-Project Action g. If applicable, what is the current shoreline master program designation of the site? Not Applicable Non-Project Action h. Has any part of the site been classified as an "environmentally sensitive" area? If so, specify. Not Applicable Non-Project Action i. Approximately how many people would reside or work in the completed project? Not Applicable Non-Project Action j. Approximately how many people would the completed project displace? Not Applicable Non-Project Action k. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce displacement impacts, if any: Not Applicable Non-Project Action I. Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is compatible with existing and projected land uses and plans, if any: H:IEDNSP\Comp Plan\Amendments\200712007 Text Amcndments\Env. Checklist Form -Cap Fac&Trans.doc 7 Not Applicable Non-Project Action 9. HOUSING a. Approximately how many units would be provided, if any? Indicate whether high, middle, or low-income housing. Not Applicable Non-Project Action b. Approximately how many units, if any, would be eliminated? Indicate whether high, middle, or low-income housing. Not Applicable Non-Project Action c. Proposed measures to reduce or control housing impacts, if any: Not Applicable Non-Project Action 10. AESTHETICS a. What is the tallest height of any proposed structure(s), not including antennas; what is the principal exterior building material(s) proposed. Not Applicable Non-Project Action b. What views in the immediate vicinity would be altered or obstructed? Not Applicable Non-Project Action c. Proposed measures to reduce or control aesthetic impacts, if any: Not Applicable Non-Project Action 11. LIGHT AND GLARE a. What type of light or glare will the proposal produce? What time of day would it mainly occur? Not Applicable Non-Project Action b. Could light or glare from the finished project be a safety hazard or interfere with views? Not Applicable Non-Project Action c. What existing off-site sources of light or glare may affect your proposal? Not Applicable Non-Project Action 12. RECREATION a. What designated and informal recreational opportunities are in the immediate vicinity? Not Applicable Non-Project Action b. Would the proposed project displace any existing recreational uses? If so, describe. H:\EDNSP\Comp Plan\Amendments\2007\2007 Text Amendments\Env. Checklist Form -Cap Fac&Trans.doc 8 Not Applicable Non-Project Action c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts on recreation, including recreation opportunities to be provided by the project or applicant, if any: Not Applicable Non-Project Action 13. HISTORIC AND CULTURAL PRESERVATION a. Are there any places or objects listed on, or proposed for, national state, or local preservation registers known to be on or next to the site? If so, generally describe. Not Applicable Non-Project Action b. Generally describe any landmarks or evidence of historic, archaeological, scientific, or cultural importance known to be on or next to the site. Not Applicable Non-Project Action c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts, if any: Not Applicable Non-Project Action 14. TRANSPORTATION a. Identify public streets and highways serving the site, and describe proposed access to the existing street system. Show on site plans, if any. Not Applicable Non-Project Action b. Is site currently served by public transit? If not, what is the approximate distance to the nearest transit stop? Not Applicable Non-Project Action c. How many parking spaces would the completed project have? How many would the project eliminate? Not Applicable Non-Project Action d. Will the proposal require any new roads or streets, or improvements to existing roads or streets, not including driveways? If so, generally describe (indicate whether public or private? Not Applicable Non-Project Action e. Will the project use (or occur in the immediate vicinity of) water, rail, or air transportation? If so, generally describe. Not Applicable Non-Project Action f. How many vehicular trips per day would be generated by the completed project? Not Applicable Non-Project Action g. Proposed measures to reduce or control transportation impacts, if any: H:\EDNSP\Comp Plan\Amendments\2007\2007 Text Amendments\Env. Checklist Form -Cap Fac&Trans.doc 9 Not Applicable Non-Project Action 15. PUBLIC SERVICES a. Would the project result in an increased need for public services (for example: fire protection, police protection, health care, schools, other)? If so, generally describe. Not Applicable Non-Project Action b. Proposed measures to reduce or control direct impacts on public services, if any. Not Applicable Non-Project Action 16. UTILITIES a. Circle utilities currently available at the site: electricity, natural gas, water, refuse service, telephone, sanitary sewer, septic system, other. Not Applicable Non-Project Action b. Describe the utilities that are proposed for the project, the utility providing the service, and the general construction activities on the site or in the immediate vicinity which might be needed. Not Applicable Non-Project Action C. SIGNATURE I, the undersigned, state that to the best of my knowledge the above information is true and complete. It is understood that the lead agency may withdraw any declaration of non-significance that it might issue in reliance upon this checklist should there be any willful misrepresentation or willful lack of full disclosure on my part. Proponent: Name Printed: Date: H:\EDNSP\Comp Plan\Amendments\200712007 Text Amendments\Env. Checklist Form -Cap Fac&Trans.doc 10 D. SUPPLEMENTAL SHEETS FOR NONPROJECT ACTIONS (These sheets should only be used for actions involving decisions on policies, plans and ro rams. You do not need to fill out these sheets for ro'ect actions. Because these questions are very general, it may be helpful to read them in conjunction with the list of the elements of the environment. When answering these questions, be aware of the extent the proposal, or the types of activities likely to result from the proposal, would affect the item at a greater intensity or at a faster rate than if the proposal were not implemented. Respond briefly and in general terms. 1. How would the proposal be likely to increase discharge to water; emissions to air; production, storage, or release of toxic or hazardous substances; or production of noise? Not applicable. At a project specific level future projects approved under any of these changes would be subject to environmental review. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce such increases are: 2. How would the proposal be likely to affect plants, animals, fish, or marine life? Not applicable. At a project specific level future projects approved under any of these changes would be subject to environmental review. 3. How would the proposal be likely to deplete energy or natural resources? Not applicable. At a project specific level future projects approved under any of these changes would be subject to environmental review. Proposed measures to protect or conserve energy and natural resources are: 4. How would the proposal be likely to use or affect environmentally sensitive areas or areas designated (or eligible or under study) for governmental protection; such as parks, wilderness, wild and scenic rivers, threatened or endangered species habitat, historic or cultural sites, wetlands, flood plains, or prime farmlands? Not applicable. At a project specific level future projects approved under any of these changes would be subject to environmental review. Proposed measures to protect such resources or to avoid or reduce impacts are: 5. How would the proposal be likely to affect land and shoreline use, including whether it would allow or encourage land or shoreline uses incompatible with existing plans? Not applicable. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce shoreline and land use impacts are: H:IEDNSP\Comp Plan\Amendments\200712007 Text Amendments\Env. Checklist Form -Cap Fac&Trans.doc 11 5. How would the proposal be likely to increase demands on transportation or public services and utilities? Not applicable, however as specific projects are proposed all would be subject to environmental review. Proposed measures to reduce or respond to such demand{s) are: 7. Identify, if possible, whether the proposal may conflict with local, state, or federal laws or requirements for the protection of the environment. None. SIGNATURE Undersigned, the state, and I that to the best of my knowledge the above information is true and complete. It is understood that the lead agency may withdraw any declaration of non-significance that it might issue in reliance upon this checklist should there be any willful misrepresentation or willful lack of full disclosure on m~yar; I 0 Proponent: ~u YI~ Name Printed: U.,.fA U Ll 11,( Date: :l)q,, ti 1'.2,00(, ENVCHLST.DOC REVISED 6198 H:IEDNSP\Comp Plan\Amendments\200712007 Text J\mendments\Env. Checklist Form -Cap Fac&Trans.doc 12