Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
LUA98-049
CITY OF RENTON CURRENT PLANNING DIVISION AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE BY MAILING On the 21 day of 1998, I deposited in the mails of the United States, a sealed envelope co tainin e1L Doffing' vitt documents. This information was sent to: Name Representing Department c f Ecology Don Hurter WSDOT KC Wastewater Treatment Division Larry Fisher Washington Department of Fisheries David F. Diet man Department of Natural Resources Shirley Lukhang Seattle Public Utilities Duwamish In Tian Tribe Rod Malcom Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Joe Jainga Puget Sound Energy Signature ,)f Sender) $14416419 'VV V1Mh1A1 STATE OF 1VASHINGTON SS COUNTY OF KING I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that r-5/--na/ cilvn- signed this instrument and acknowledged it to be his/her/their free and 'hluntary act for the uses and purposes mentioned in the instrument. Dated: Y, i //g/ ' Notary Public in and or the State of shington Notary (Print) My appointment e COMMISSION EXPIRES 6/29/99 Project Name: I' VY6 COVYlp Vah 1 ' An ftn4 • Project Numbe t4A•A8.Otk& Elof ,CPA NOTARY.DOC c$• CIT' OF RENTON ALv Planning/Building/Public Works Department Jesse Tanner,Mayor Gregg Zimmerman P.E.,Administrator May 20, 1998 Washington Stat Department of El:ology Environmental Review Section PO Box 47703 Olympia,WA 98504-7703 Subject:Environmental Determinations Transmitted herewith is a copy of the Environmental Determination and Environmental Checklist for the following project reviewed by the Environmental Review Committee (ERC) on May 19, 1998: DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT 98-T-1 THROUGH 98-T-9 LUA-98-349,CPA,ECF Nine (9) Comprehensive Plan Text Amendments (CPA). Land Use Element: Residential Infill, Neighborhood Conserv;ttion, Residential uses in EA-C, EA-V, CS, CN, Residential Options/RPN, Regional uses in CN, Multi- Family Infill mapping criteria. Housing Element: Residential Infill, Mobile Home policies. Transportation Element Airport,Arterial, Transit, HOV,Transportation Demand Management/Commute Trip Reduction. Utility Element: Covenants to annex. Comments rega ding the environmental determination must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 PM,June 05, 1998. Any aggrieved person feeling that the environmental determination of the Environmental Review Committee is based on erroneous procedure, errors of law or fact, error in judgment, or the discovery of new evidence which could not be reasonably available at the time of the de termination may submit written comments.After review of the comments, if Environmental Review Committee finds there is not:ufficient evidence to amend its original determination,then there will be no further extension of the appeal period. Any perscn wishing to take further action would need to file a formal appeal within the original 15-day timeframe. Written comments must 1 e filed with: Jana Huerter, Land Use Review Supervisor, City of Renton Development Services Division, 200 Mill Avenue South, Renton,WA 98055. If an appeal of the environmental determination is also filed with the Hearing Examiner during the same 15-day comment period,then the Environmental Review Committee will first take action on the request for reconsideration at d the appellant will be notified that the appeal is on hold pending the Committee's decision on the reconsideration request. The City will notify the appellant/person requesting reconsideration and parties of record and the Hearing Examiner of the Environmental Review Committee's final determination. The appeal process will then be continued unless the appellant notifies I he Hearing Examiner in writing that he wishes to withdraw the appeal. Appeals of the environmental determination mast be filed in writing on or before 5:00 PM,June 05, 1998. Appeals must be filed in writing together with the required$75.(0 application fee with: Hearing Examiner, City of Renton,200 Mill Avenue South, Renton,WA 98055. Appeals to the Examiner a e governed by City of Renton Municipal Code Section 4-8-11 B. Additional information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the Renton City Clerk's Office, (425)-235-2501. If you have questii:ns, please call me at(425)277-6188. For the Environmental Review Committee, fihixe,(12,1()Ct Rebecca Lind Project Manager cc: King County Wastewater Treatment Division Larry Fish er, Department of Fisheries David F. I7ietzman, Department of Natural Resources Don Hurter, Department of Transportation Shirley LL khang, Seattle Public Utilities Duwamisli Tribal Office Rod Malcom, Fisheries, Muckleshoot Indian Tribe (Ordinance) Joe Jainga, Puget Sound Energy AGNCW TR nnr\ 200 Mill Avenue South - Renton, Washington 98055 This paper contains 50%recycled material,20%post consumer CITY OF RENTON DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE APPLICATION NU IIBER: LUA-98-049,CPA,ECF APPLICANT: City of Renton: Economic Development, Neighborhoods, and Strategic Planning PROJECT NAME: Comprehensive Plan Text Amendments 98-T-1 through 98-T-9 DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: Nine (9) Comprehensive Plan Text Amendments (CPA). Land Use Element: Residential Infill, Neighborhood Conservation, Residential uses in EA-C, EA-V, CS, CN, Residential Options/RPN, Regional uses in CN, Multi-Family I lfill mapping criteria. Housing Element: Residential Infill, Mobile Home policies. Transportation Element: Airport, Arterial, Tr insit, HOV, Transportation Demand Management/Commute Trip Reduction. Utility Element Covenants to annex. LOCATION OF PROPOSAL: N/A LEAD AGENCY:City of Renton Department of Planning/Building/Public Works Development Planning Section This Determination of Non-Significance is issued under WAC 197-11-340. Because other agencies of jurisdiction may be involved, the lead agency wi I not act on this proposal for fifteen (15) days. Comments regarc ing the environmental determination must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 PM, June 05, 1998. Any aggrieved person feeling that the environmental determination of the Environmental Review Committee is based on erroneous procedure, errors c f law or fact, error in judgment, or the discovery of new evidence which could not be reasonably available at the time of the determi cation may submit written comments. After review of the comments, if Environmental Review Committee finds there is not sufficie it evidence to amend its original determination, then there will be no further extension of the appeal period. Any person wishing to take further action would need to file a formal appeal within the original 15-day timeframe. Written comments must be filed with: Jana Huerter, Land Use Review Supervisor, City of Renton Development Services Division, 200 Mill Avenue South, Renton, WA 9805E. If an appeal of the environmental determination is also filed with the Hearing Examiner during the same 15-day comment period, tl en the Environmental Review Committee will first take action on the request for reconsideration and the appellant will be notified that the appeal is on hold pending the Committee's decision on the reconsideration request. The City will notify the appellant/person rE questing reconsideration and parties of record and the Hearing Examiner of the Environmental Review Committee's final t etermination. The appeal process will then be continued unless the appellant notifies the Hearing Examiner in writing that he wist es to withdraw the appeal. Appeals of the environmental determination must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 PM, June 05, 1998. Appeals must be filed in writing together with the required $75.00 application fee with: Hearing Examiner, City of Renton, 20( Mill Avenue South, Renton, WA 98055. Appeals to the Examiner are governed by City of Renton Municipal Code Section 4-8-11B. i,dditional information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the Renton City Clerk's Office, (425)- 235-2501. PUBLICATION DATE: May 22, 1998 DATE OF DECISION: May 19, 1998 SIGNATURES: Gregg Z ermar Administrator DATE Department of Pta:lning/Building/Public Works of(-4-2-.•- r/2c- Sam Chastain, Ad n histrator DA Community Services Department row 51(‘761 Lee eeler, Fire Chief DATE Renton Fire Department DNSSIG.DOC STAFF City of Renton REPORT Department of Economic Development/Neighborhoods/ Strategic Planning ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE A. BACKGROUND ERC MEETING DATE May 19, 1998 Project Name Comprehensive Plan Text Amendments 98-T-1 through 98-T-9 Applicant City of Renton: Economic Development, Neighborhoods, and Strategic Planning File Number LUA-098-049, CPA,ECF Project Manager Rebecca Lind Project Description See amended proposal summary, May 13, 1998 for descriptions. Project Location Not applicable Exist. Bldg. Area gsf Not applicable. Proposed New Bldg. Area gsf Not applicable. Site Area Not applicable. Total Building Area gsf Not applicable. RECOMMENDATION Staff Recommend that the Environmental Review Committee issue a Determination of Non-Significance. B. RECOMMENDATION Based on analysis of probable impacts from the proposal, staff recommend that the Responsible Officials make the following Environmental Determination: DETERMINATION OF DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE NON-SIGNIFICANCE-MITIGATED. Issue DNS with 14 day Appeal Period. Issue DNS-M with 15 day Comment Period with Concurrent 14 da A•seal Period. X Issue DNS with 15 day Comment Period Issue DNS-M with 15 day Comment Period with Concurrent 14 day Appeal Period. followed by a 14 day Appeal Period. C. MITIGATION MEASURES 1.None proposed. Project Location Map ERC98MT.DOC City of Renton Renton ED WISP Department I ?mental Review Committee Staff Report Comprehensive Plan Text Amendments LUA-098-049, CPA,ECF REPORT AND DECISION OF May 19, 1998 Page 2 of 3 Advisory Notes to Applicant: The following notes are supplemental information provided in conjunction with the environmental determination. Because these notes are provided as information only, they are not subject to the appeal process for environmental determinations. 1. Garbage and recyclable deposit areas and collection points shall be easily and safely accessible to hauling trucks. D. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS In compliance with RCW 43.21 C. 240, the following project environmental review addresses only those project impacts that are not adequately addressed under existing development standards and environmental regulations. Has the applicant adequately identified and addressed environmental impacts anticipated to occur in conjunction with the proposed development? 1.Earth, Air, and Water Impacts: These non-project CPAs would not directly result in impacts to any of these areas because no new development is proposed. Future site specific developments allowed as a result of these policy amendments could result in impacts. The impacts of individual projects would have to be determined on a site specific basis. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are proposed for these non-project actions. At the time new development does occur, it will have to comply with applicable regulations. Nexus: Not applicable. 2.Transportation, Public Services, and Utilities Impacts: These non-project CPAs would not directly result in impacts to any of these areas because no new development is proposed. The City's adopted Capital Facilities Element anticipates 6 year growth for Renton and describes capital facilities and funding needed to develop these facilities. The 1998 Comprehensive Plan text amendments do not substantially change the capacity of the City's Land Use Plan, the need for facilities planned for in the Capital Facilities Element, the Housing targets and programs in the Housing Element or the implementation of the Transportation Element. The amendments may accelerate the rate of growth to a limited degree by reducing policy conflicts and clarifying policy intent thereby reducing processing time and potential appeals.. The RO policy amendments do provide for a potential increase of 23 dwelling units citywide in the R-10 zone(Residential Options Land Use Designation) and increase the opportunity for the City to implement its single family and affordable housing goals (See attached capacity and forecast growth analysis). Since the Capital Facilities Element is to be monitored bi-annually, with the next review occurring in 1999, any change in the rate of growth can be evaluated at that time. The impacts of individual projects would have to be determined on a site specific basis. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are proposed for these non-project actions. At the time new development does occur, it will have to comply with applicable regulations. Nexus: Not applicable. E.COMMENTS OF REVIEWING DEPARTMENTS ERC98MT.DOC City of Renton ED/N/SP Department onmental Review Committee Staff Report Comprehensive Plan Text Amendments LUA-098-049, CPA,ECF REPORT AND DECISION OF May 19, 1998 Page 3 of 3 The proposal has been circulated to City Departmental/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. X Copies of all Review Comments are contained in the Official File. Copies of all Review Comments are attached to this report. Environmental Determination Comment Process Comments regarding the environmental determination must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 PM, June 5, 1998 (15 days from the date of publication). Any aggrieved person feeling that the environmental determination of the Environmental Review Committee is based on erroneous procedure, errors of law or fact, error in judgment, or the discovery of new evidence which could not be reasonably available at the time of the determination may submit written comments. After review of the comments, if Environmental Review Committee finds there is not sufficient evidence to amend its original determination, then there will be no further extension of the appeal period. Any person wishing to take further action would need to file a formal appeal within the original 15-day timeframe. Written comments must be filed with: Jana Huerter, Land Use Review Supervisor, City of Renton Development Services Division, 200 Mill Avenue South, Renton, WA 98055. If an appeal of the environmental determination is also filed with the Hearing Examiner during the same 15-day comment period, then the Environmental Review Committee will first take action on the request for reconsideration and the appellant will be notified that the appeal is on hold pending the Committee's decision on the reconsideration request. The City will notify the appellant/person requesting reconsideration and parties of record and the Hearing Examiner of the Environmental Review Committee's final determination. The appeal process will then be continued unless the appellant notifies the Hearing Examiner in writing that he wishes to withdraw the appeal. Environmental Determination Appeal Process Appeals of the environmental determination must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 PM, June 5 , 1998. Appeals must be filed in writing together with the required $75.00 application fee with: Hearing Examiner, City of Renton, 200 Mill Avenue South, Renton, WA 98055. Appeals to the Examiner are governed by City of Renton Municipal Code Section 4-8-11 B. Additional information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the Renton City Clerk's Office, (425)-235-2501. ERC98MT.DOC 1998 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TEXT AMENDMENTS PROPOSAL SUMMARY Amended May 13, 1998 AMENDMENT 98-T-1 - Modifications To Land Use Element Residential Infill, Neighborhood Conservation Policies And Housing Element Policies This application responds to the City Council's referral of the density workshop issues to the Planning Commission. Four specific issues were referred to the Commission for review and recommendation: 1) The proportion of single family and multi-family uses, 2) Definition of Infill Development., 3) Definition of Neighborhood, and 4) Evaluation of a way to evaluate neighborhood issues. The proposed text amendment provides a "fine tuning" of the existing residential policies to address these issues. The changes eliminate the need for a separate definition of infill development and re-work those policies which refer to creation of a separate infill development standard. The changes also clarify how the word "neighborhood" is used update the policies to refer to the City's neighborhood program, and stipulate that the concept of "Neighborhood Conservation" applies to specific areas of the City which have mixed commercial and residential uses and also have large numbers of nonconforming uses. AMENDMENT 98-T-2—Utility Element Policies Proposed amendments to Utility Element policies to remove requirements for annexation or covenants to annex (no-protest agreements) as a condition of connection to the City's utility systems for properties outside the city limits. Additional policies, addressing Comprehensive Plan consistency as a condition of connection to City utilities for development proposals outside of the city limits, are included for clarification of Council direction. AMENDMENT 98-T-3 - Residential Uses in Employment Area Commercial, Employment Area Valley, Suburban Center and Neighborhood Center Designations This application evaluates the existing residential policies allowing multi-family residential uses in the Employment Area Valley, Employment Area-Commercial, Center Suburban, and Center Neighborhood designations which are all primarily commercial designations. Current policies allow residential uses in up to fifty percent of these areas which have CA, CS, CN, RMF-C or RMF-N zoning. This amendment analyzes the intent of these policies, possible implications for the City's single family/multi-family split, and the potential impact on commercial capacity in the City. Proposed amendments address ways to reduce multi-family capacity. AMENDMENT 98-T-4 - Residential Options And Residential Planned Neighborhood Policy Amendments The application evaluates proposed amendments to policies applicable to the Residential Options (RO) and Residential Planned Neighborhood (RPN) land use designations. Policy changes proposed for the RO zone include allowing for a density bonus up to 13 dwelling units per acre provided all units are detached ownership units. Other amendments shift policies between the General policy section applicable to both the RPN and RO designations to the specific RO and RPN policy sections. In the RO and RPN policies and Comprehensive Plan Glossary, clarifications of terminology between single family unit types and multi-family unit types are proposed. AMENDMENT 98-T-5 - Text Amendments to the Arterial, Transit, HOV, Transportation Demand Management/Commuter Trip Reduction Chapters of the Transportation Element TXTPRP2.DOC\ This proposal is to amend and update the Arterial Chapter, the Transit Chapter, the High Occupancy Vehicle Chapter, and the Transportation Demand Management/Commute Trip Reduction (TDM/CTR) Chapters of the Transportation Element of the Comprehensive Plan by making editorial corrections, updating text relating to the Regional Transit Authority (RTA), identifying RTA improvements which will directly serve Renton, and identifying the Downtown Renton Transit Center as the hub for transit service in Renton, identifying specific HOV improvements such as access ramps to I-405 at NE 44th Street, Park Avenue NE, and in the vicinity of Benson or Talbot Roads, and, adding NE 10th Street as an alternative to NE 12th Street as a possible Sunset Bypass Route. The changes noted above only apply to narrative and tables, with no changes proposed to existing objectives or policies. These changes are considered to be housekeeping amendments only. AMENDMENT 98-T-6- Text Amendments To Airport Chapter, Transportation Element This proposal is to amend and update the Airport Chapter of the Transportation Element of the Comprehensive Plan by deleting out of date text referencing the 1978 Airport Master Plan and the 1983 Airport Master Plan Update, substituting references to the 1997 Airport Master Plan update and focusing more on current activities and issues affecting the airport and surrounding area. The original list of objectives is expanded and existing policies have been rewritten to recognize that the Airport is a Landing Rights airport and should ultimately provide facilities for the U.S. Customs Service; that available space should be maximized for the storage and parking of aircraft and aircraft maintenance and service facilities; and, that the Airport be recognized as a unique, valuable, long- standing public transportation facility with certain costs to the community associated with it, including noise and some land use restrictions. New policies have been provided that support the idea that Boeing should vacate the west side of the airport when their lease expires in 2010 and that industrial and office uses not requiring access to taxiways and runways should relocate to "off-airport"sites. AMENDMENT 98-T-7- Regional Uses in Center Neighborhood Designation The proposed text amendment would revise policy references to the market area of commercial uses in Center Neighborhood land use designation to allow sub-regional or city-wide uses. Proposed implementation would increase the scale of development in the CN Zone. AMENDMENT 98-T-8-Mobile Home Policies in the Housing Element The proposal would remove the policy requirement that existing mobile home and manufactured housing parks be assigned a Comprehensive Plan land use designation and zoning consistent with the current use upon annexation. AMENDMENT 98-T-9-Multi Family Infill Designation Criteria, Land Use Element This amendment would change Policy LU-69 which currently states that Multi-family Infill designations should not be expanded and that rather, land within "the districts" should be used more efficiently to meet multi-family housing needs. The intent is to allow existing MF-I districts to be expanded subject to criteria that would limit such expansions. TXTPRP2.DOC\ 9 8-T-1-Attachment A Planning t.ommission Recommendation 5/13/98 APPLICATION 98-T-1 - ATTACHMENT A Amended May 13, 1998 Infill and Neighborhood Conservation Policies Housekeeping Amendments to Clarify Policy Intent in the Housing and Land Use Element. Planning Commission Recommendations HOUSING ELEMENT REVISIONS NEIGHBORHOODS Existing Housing Stock Renton's existing housing stock is the dominant feature of the residential neighborhoods in the City. It creates much of the existing character of the community and will provide a significant proportion of the middle and moderate income housing in the City in the future. In some cases development will occur in existing neighborhoods. Eexisting housing maywill be demolished and replaced with new commercial development or higher density residential development. In somethese cases the economic development objectives of the City or the vision of more intensive urban residential development, particularly in single family neighborhoods the mixed use core will appear to contradict the goal of preserving and protecting existing housing stock. To resolve these apparant conflicts policy objectives will need to be weighed and balanced to further the Mission Statement of the City( see Vision Chapter). The existing housing stock includes a number of units which by virtue of their condition, age or location may be subject to demolition or change of use over the next 20 years. The City should consider measures to retain as much of this housing as possible. Currently the City enforces building maintenance codes through a I complaint based system_ The City also is active in funding two programs through the Community Development Block Grants designed to prevent deterioration of housing in Renton. No Changes in Sections on Housing Conditions, Age of Residential Structures, Overcrowding, Demolitions Quality Of Life Renton is characterized by a variety of stable single family and multi-family neighborhoods. These neighborhoods are largely defined by residential subdivisions, public schools, and other community facilities and amenities which serve them. Over the next twenty years, as the City becomes more densely developed, neighborhoods are expected to become more oriented to the Neighborhood and Community Centers which serve them with commercial services, transit, and community services. Neighborhoods are always impacted in some way by new development. The focus of these policies is to develop strategies to encourage bring higher quality development and re-development into neighborhoods to accommodate Renton's regional fair share of growth and improve the quality of life for Renton residents.-and DENWKLU.DOC 1- 98-T-1-Attachment A Planning Commission Recommendation 5/13/98 Development which occurs on pre-existing lots or on lots created by a short plat process is expected to continue to occur in the City. are nsidered i~fl development. city where, Wwith the exception of the annexation areas, the majority of new development will occur as-in€tll on small sites within existing neighborhoods. The quality of life, measured by issues such as noise, traffic, compatible land uses, and neighborhood character and amenities, should be maintained or even improved as developmentinfill occurs. In€Ill--Ddevelopment of small unused parcels or redevelopment of properties is a particular concern within existing neighborhoods. fn€rll Pprojects need to be particularly sensitive to the character of surrounding development. They should be in scale, and preserve the privacy of adjoining properties. Since development will be occurring at slightly higher densities in many neighborhoods, however, existing lot sizes will not set a standard for the new development. A mix of lot sizes and unit types will instead set a new standard. New housing built on large parcels of land and/or on the periphery of the urban area should also be of high quality and include amenities which enhance the community. Development which occurs on land as part of a subdivision is considered new development. The City has also provided a mechanism to address community concerns about issues affecting neighborhoods a though the Neighborhood Program. Residential Neighborhoods Within Mixed Use Designations The Land Use Element envisions development of mixed use Centers which will evolve out of Renton's existing commercial areas. These Centers will become the sites of major concentrations of commercial, office and multi-family development in the City. These three uses are to be integrated to create high quality urban environments which function as focal points for surrounding single family residential areas. The housing within the mixed use Centers needs to serve a variety of household types and income groups for these residential areas to become successful neighborhoods. While the density of the mixed use Centers will be higher than is allowed in other parts of the City the quality of life will be enhanced by the proximity to shopping,transit, and adjacent parks, libraries and other public facilities. Downtown Renton is expected to become a mixed use regional Urban Center. The Housing within the downtown will have an urban residential character and provide a variety of housing opportunities ranging from studio to two and three bedroom units. Housing in the Community and Neighborhood Centers is expected to be more suburban in character offering opportunities for garden style apartments and condominiums. The Office Residential Centers are future location of high density condominium developments. In 1990, downtown census tracts showed a concentration of lower income households compared with the City average. For example, Citywide, 15% of households make less than $14,999. In the downtown area, 48% of households make less the $14,999. As the downtown is redeveloped some affordable housing should be replaced. However, the City's goal will be to correct the over concentration of lower income households in this area over the life of the plan. No Changes to Section on Homeownership and Preservation of Existing Housing Stock Objective H-M: Develop and maintain livable neighborhoods with a desirable quality of life. DENWKLU.DOC 2- 98-T-1-Attachment A Plannin Immission Recommendation 5/13/98 Policy H-80. Promote community identity and pride in neighborhoods. Strategy H-80.1. Develop a neighborhood tetruseFvfttion program which could includes a parking and traffic management component neighborhood entry signs, landscaping, or property management for any public lands within the neighborhood. Policy H-8l. Protect the character of existing single family neighborhoods by promoting high quality-Meta development. Strategy H-81.1. Adopt in€tll design-standards for inlll smaller lot housing-in single family and mixed single family/multi-family areas which encourage housing types designed to look like single family development with ground related unit entries- These design standards should specify how development of smaller lots can be accomplished without changing the character of neighborhoods. Strategy H-81.2. Require duplex and triplex developments to be designed at the scale of single family developments. IPolicy H-82. Relate the size of structures to the size of lots in order to create Meta-development-development which fits into a neighborhood. Policy H-83. Develop a neighborhood programme preeess—to encouragedevelep neighborhood involvement plans-which-and to_address local conditions on a more detailed scale. Policy H-84. Promote quality development in new neighborhoods. Strategy H-84.1. Encourage smaller lot single family subdivisions with quality pedestrian and transit connections „eotraditional project designs within newly developing areas. Objective H-N: Increase the percentage of homeownership in Renton's neighborhoods. DENWKLU.DOC 3- 98-T-1-Attachment A Planning Commission Recommendation 5/13/98 LAND USE ELEMENT REVISIONS RESIDENTIAL Summary: The purpose of the Residential policies is to provide a vision for future development in Renton's neighborhoods and throughout the City. The Residential policies address the location of housing development, housing densities, non-residential uses allowed in residential areas, site design, and housing types in neighborhoods. (See Public Facilities Section for policies on schools, churches, and other facilities in residential areas. See Housing Element for policies relating to densities, housing types and neighborhoods)). Regional Growth Policies Policy LU-4. Future residential growth should achieve a maximum 50% multi-family housing in parts of the City located outside of the Urban Center Policy LU-9. Sufficient quantities of land should be designated to accommodate the 50/50 residentail mix and supporting commercial and industrial luses, including or excluding the Urban Center. General Residential Policies Location of Population Growth Objective LU-G: Manage and plan for high quality residential growth in Renton which preserves open space and discourages urban sprawl. Policy LU-11. Future residential growth should be accommodated through: a. development of new neighborhoods in environmentally suitable vacant land on the hills and plateaus surrounding downtown; b. development of vacant parcelslots in Renton's established neighborhoods; c. development of single family/multi-family mix neighborhoods in appropriate locations; d. new larger scale multi-family development located in Renton's downtown, as infill in existing multi-family areas, in designated Centers, and e. mixed use commercial/residential projects in employment areas. Policy I.U-12. Residential development should be limited in community separator areas, and environmentally sensitive areas such as 100 year floodways, high risk coal mine areas and hazardous landslides and erosion areas. Policy LU-13. Phasing mechanisms and/or incentives should be developed to promote the timely and logical progression of residential development. Priority should be given to development of vacant land with infrastructure capacity which is located closer to the city's Urban Center. Policy LU-14. Priority should also be given to redevelopment of land located in or closer to the city's Urban Center. Residential-Types Policy LU-15. Encourage a city-wide mix of housing types including large lot and small lot single family development, small-scale and large-scale multi-family housing, and residential mixed-use development. DENWKLU.DOC\ 4- 98-T-l-Attachment A Planning Commission Recommendation 5/13/98 Policy LU-16. In established lew-densitysingle family-neighborhoods and new low density areas, en- courage a small scale single family housing types_ ' Policy LU-16.1 In areas bordering Center designations and in areas with an existing mix of residential use types encourage a mix of single family and small scale multi-family housing types designed to look like single family development with ground related entries, i.e. duplex. triplex, fourplex. Policy LU-17. Large multi-family development projects or large concentrations of multi-family development should be prohibited outside the downtown area except in Centers and the Multi-family Residential Infill designations. Policy LU-18. The City should encourage large lot single family development in Rural Residential designations providing a more rural life style in environmentally sensitive,habitat-valuable, or agriculturally resource laden areas. The City should discourage more intensive platting patterns in these areas. Policy LU-19. The City should discourage creation of economic enclaves especially where lower income units would be segregated within a development. Policy LU-20. Encourage enhancement and stability in those Renter's neighborhoods which have significant numbers of legal non-conforming uses through the designation of Neighborhood Conservation areas. Policy LU-21.—Within Neighborhood Conservation areas encourage developments which increase the percentage of-conforming uses to allow eventuat transition of these areas. Transition of uses should be implemented in a manner which recognizes the overall character of the areas while at the same time encouraging the eventual transition of the uses. "dares relevant to the e .atien e •hich Policy LU-22. Encourage the city and neighborhoods to jointly work toward identifying Neighborhood Conservation areas as needed. Discussion: This category intended to be applied within one of the-following existing land use designations with-a sz ffx to help stabilize neighborhoods in transition and to revitalize and enhance their appearance. The intent is to establish special-policies and development standards for older, established neighborhoods that have a large number of non-conforming uses and structures. This designation is an opportunity for residents and property owners to initiate added protection of their neighborhood. Residential Density Objective LU-H: Support the transit and transportation goals of the City by building toward a more concentrated and dense urban development pattern. Policy LU-23. New development within all residential designations except Rural Residential should achieve a minimum density. The minimum density may be adjusted to reflect constraints on a site. Policy LU-24. New development within all residential designations except Rural ResidentialLew should be platted in a way which does not preclude eventual development at the required minimum density in each residential designation. DENWKLU.DOC\ 5- 98-T-1-Attachment A Planning Commission Recommendation 5/13/98 Policy LU-25. Small-scale home occupations that provide opportunities for people to work in their homes should be allowed in residential areas. Standards should govern the design, size, intensity, and operation of such uses to ensure their compatibility with residential uses. Residential Single Family Objective LU-J: Encourage investment in Protect and enhance the character of Residential Single Family areas resulting in quality neighborhoods with amenities for residents, improve opportunitis for better public transportation, and make more efficient use of urban services and infrastructure. Policy LU-34. Maximum Net development densities of 8 dwelling units per acre should be allowed in Residential Single Family neighborhoods. Policy LU-35. A minimum lot size of 4,500 square feet should be allowed in single family residential neighborhoods except when flexible development standards are used for project review. Policy LU-36. Allow development at 9.7 dwelling units per acre on infill parcels of one acre or less as an incentive to encourage single family small lot development on 4,500 sq. ft. lots. Policy LU-37. Maximum height of structures should generally not exceed 2 stories in single family residential neighborhoods. Policy LU-38. Development Standards for single family neighborhoods. These standards should provide sufficient lot sizes and width, address)-building height, width, and length; 2)-front, side, and back yard setbacks; 3) maximum lot coverage; to encourage investment in neighborhoods. These standards may differ from those used for existing residences,_4) leeation—ef Policy LU-39. New-Development Regulations for single family neighborhoods should—addressbe 1)transportation and pedestrian connections between neighborhoods; 2) compatible boundaries between neighborhoods,; Policy LU-40 New plats developed at higher densities within existing neighborhoods should be designed to incorporate street locations, lot configurations, and building envelopes which address privacy and quality of life for existing residents. Policy LU-4140. New development should provide street landscaping and setbacks which are similar to those of existing residences where possible. Where different development standards are required to meet the density objectives of this Plan, attempts should be made to reduce conflicts, however strict adherence to older standards is not expected. Policy LU-42 Site features such as distinctive stands of trees and natural slopes should be retained to enhance neighborhood character and preserve property values where possible. Retension of unique site features should be balanced with the objective of investing in neighborhoods within the overall context of the Vision Statement of this Comprehensive Plan. DENWKL[1.DOC\ 6- 98-T-1-Attachment A Planning Commission Recommendation 5/13/98 DENWKLU.DOC\ 7- 98-T-4 Administration Recommendation 5/14//98 AMENDMENT#98-T-4,ATTACHMENT A Amended May 14, 1998 RESIDENTIAL OPTIONS AND RESIDENTIAL PLANNED NEIGHBORHOOD General Policies Objective LU-K: Create new planned residential neighborhoods in areas mapped as Residential Options RO) and Residential Planned Neighborhood (RPN) which include a variety of unit types designed to incorporate features from both single family and multi-family developments, and to support cost efficient housing, infill development, transit service, and the efficient use of urban services and infrastructure. Policy LU-41. Provision of small lot single family detached unit types, townhouses and small scale multi-family structures compatible with a single family character should be encouraged provided that density standards can be met. Policy LU-42. A range and variety of lot sizes should be encouraged. Policy LU-43. Central place public amenities should function as a focal point within the development and should include features such as a public square, open space, park, civic or commercial uses. The central place should include passive amenities such as benches and fountains, and be unified by a design motif or common theme. Policy LU-44. The dwelling types, including detached and attached units, should be clustered and connected within the overall development through the organization of roads, blocks, yards, central places and amenity features to create a neighborhood with diverse housing types. Policy LU-45. Development should occur on a flexible grid street and pathway system to the extent feasible given environmental constraints, traffic flow, and the pattern of existing development. Note: Moved to RPN policies below. Lusters based en the f llowing criteria with ii tb k.. Gom the street. gte f m;1y• c. structures should be located on lots to ensure adequate light and air, and views if any, arc d. buildings should be massed in a manner that promotes a pedestrian scale with a small then than courtyards and p.,.-king lots f. fences may be constructed if they contribute to an open spacious feeling between units and structures; and Policy LU-46. Condominium ownership may occur in any unit type. 1 5/14/98 98-T-4 Administration Recommendation 5/14//98 Policy LU-47. Townhouse development should provide either condominium or fee simple homeownership opportunities. Policy LU-48. Buildings should front the street rather than be organized around interior courtyards or parking areas. Policy LU-4947. Non-residential structures may have dimensions larger than residential structures but should be compatible in design and dimensions with surrounding residential development. Residential Options Policy L U-5048. Residential neighborhoods may be considered for the Residential Options Designation if they meet three of the following criteria: a. The area already has a mix of small scale multi-family units or had long standing duplex or low density multi-family zoning; b. Development patterns are established. c. Vacant lots exist or parcels have redevelopment potential. d. Few new roads or major utility upgrades will be needed with future development. e. The site is located adjacent to a Center designation. Policy LU-5149. The net development densities should be 10 dwelling units per acre. If 100% of the dwelling units are detached ownership housing, a density bonus may be allowed to a maximum of 13 dwelling units per acre. Policy LU-5250. Minimum net development densities should be 7 dwelling units per acre. Policy LU-5351. Detached single family housing, attached townhouses, duplexes, triplexes, and fourplexes and small scale multi-family units should be allowed in Residential Options. Policy LU-5452. A maximum of 50% of units allowed within an individual RO development may consist of attached units which includes townhouses, and small scale multi-family units. Policy LU-5553. Development in Residential Options should be compatible with existing development patterns and be sensitive to unique features and differences among established neighborhoods. Development standards should reflect single family neighborhood characteristics such as ground related orientation, coordinated structural design, and private yards. Policy LU-5654. Non-residential structures, should be clustered and connected within the overall I development through the organization of roads, blocks, yards, other central features and amenity features to create a neighborhood. Residential Planned Neighborhood Policy LU-5755. Areas may be mapped Residential Planned Neighborhood on the Land Use Map I where the site meets the following criteria: a. adjacent to major arterial(s); b. adjacent to employment area and/or Centers; c. part of a designation totaling over 20 acres (acreage may be in separate ownership); d. site is buffered from single family areas or other existing incompatible uses; and 2 5/14/98 98-T-4 Administration Recommendation 5/14//98 e. development within the density and unit type range is achievable given environmental constraints. I Policy LU-5856. Density in the Residential Planned Neighborhood designation should be in the range of 8 to 18 dwelling units per net acre. Policy LU-595-7. -Single f mily , levelepment should , ist f. n minimum of 50% of a project in the RPN designation. should consist of the following primary residential types: traditional detached, zero lot line detached, or townhouses with mate-yards which are designed to reflect a single family character. Policy LU-6058. -Single f mihy ^tt ehed Townhouse building clusters which qualify as a primary residential type should be limited in size so that the mass and scale within the cluster retains a single family character. Limits on the number of units which may be attached in one cluster should be established in the development regulations. Policy LU-61 1. Longer townhouse building clusters, and other Mmulti-family building clusters,. considered secondary residential types, should be limited in size so that the mass and scale of the cluster retains a small scale multi-family character rather than a garden apartment development style. Limits on the number of units which may be attached in one cluster should be established in the development regulations. Policy I.U-6260. The mass and scale of multi family components of projects secondary residential types pursuant to policy LU-61 should not preclude their location locatingulti f r ily units types adjacent to ngle f mily components primary residential types. Policy LU-6364-. Projects in a Residential Planned Neighborhood designation should have no more than 50% of the units multi family development designed as secondary residential types, i.e. longe townhouse building clusters, and other multi-family buildings. Note: Moved to General Policies above. PalieL-U-62,-Cendeminitan-ewnership-rnay-eeeur-in-eitheFaingle-family-OFinutti-farrab,-unit-types, Policy-L homeownershiportunitio Pol L parking areas. Policy LU-64633 Development sStandards should be developed to address tlevel.pments the Residential=l-Planned-zNeighbo gnation,—Standards-should reflect single family neighborhood characteristics such as coordinated structural design, private yards and amenities, public amenities, ground related orientation, screened service areas, and access to public amenities and services. Policy LU-64.1 Development standards should reflect the following criteria. a. heights, width and length of structures should be designed to resemble single family housing, with similar setbacks from the street as single family, b._parking should be encouraged in the rear or side yards or under the structure; c. structures should be located on lots or arranged in a manner to appear like a platted development to ensure adequate light and air, and views if any, are preserved between lots or structures; 3 5/14/98 98-T-4 Administration Recommendation 5/14//98 d. buildings should be massed in a manner that promotes a pedestrian scale with a small neighborhood feeling; e. each dwelling unit should have an identifiable entrance and front on streets rather than courtyards and parking lots. f. fences may be constructed if they contribute to an open spacious feeling between units and structures., and g. streetscapes should include green, open space for each unit. Policy LU-64.26-1-3 Mixed use development in the form of civic, convenience commercial development, or other non-residential structures, may be allowed in the central places of development subject to compliance with criteria established through development regulations. 4 5/14/98 98-T-4 Administration Recommendation 5/14//98 GLOSSARY detached single family house: a residential building containing not more than one dwelling unit entirely surrounded by open space on the same lot. duplex: a residential building containing two dwelling units located on a single lot. dwellin;_ unit: one or more rooms located within a structure, designed, arranged, occupied or intended to be occupied by not more than one family and permitted roomers and boarders, as living accommodations, independent from any other family. The existence of a food preparation area within the room or rooms shall be evidence of the existence of a dwelling unit. I large scale multi-family: a residential building, or group of buildings which contain more thant four dwelling units in each building. multi-family use: a structure or portion of a structure containing two or more dwelling units. residential use: any land use that provides for living space. Examples include artist studio/dwelling, boarding house, caretaker's quarters, single family, multi-family, special residence, floating homes, and mobile home park. foundation.. 14 small scale multi-family: a residential building, or group of buildings which contain two to four dwelling units in each building. townhouse: a form of ground-related housing where individual dwelling units are attached along at least one common wall to at least one other dwelling unit. Each dwelling unit occupies space from the I ground to the roof zero lot line development: a siting technique which allows single family houses to be built along one lot line. This helps to preserve private and usable yard space, especially in small-lot areas. Variations include angled "Z-lots," alternate-width lots, "zipper-lots_;"— amahrred—tvt lines, hichrgiyc-cthc ROPOLI2.DOC 5 5/14/98 CAPACITY AND FORECAST GROWTH RESIDENTIAL OPTIONS (RO) DESIGNATION (98-T-4) TARGETS/FORECASTS AND CAPACITY ESTIMATES Two levels of data have been addressed in the Renton Comprehensive Plan and in the Draft and Final EIS for the Comprehensive Plan Update (1993 and 1995): targets/forecasts and capacity. The target/forecast represents the amount of growth anticipated to happen during the planning period (20 years). The capacity estimates represent the maximum amount of growth that could happen, with assumptions regarding land availability within the 20 year planning horizon. The capacity needs to be higher than the target/forecast to assure that the City's allocated growth can be accommodated, and that there is enough of a cushion to allow market forces to function, particularly related to housing, to avoid escalating land prices. The targets/forecasts were generally used for Capital Facility and Transportation Planning purposes while both targets/forecasts and capacity estimates were used to discuss land use, housing, and population issues. Targets/forecasts were based upon adjusted Puget Sound Regional Council forecasts, and a regional methodology which allocated growth among jurisdictions. Capacity estimates are based upon the amount of unconstrained vacant, partially developed, and redevelopable land and maximum density/floor area ratio allowed in each land use designation area in the City. The table below shows the amount of growth anticipated for the Residential Options (RO) land use designation which is implemented by the R-10 zone. RO/R-10 CAPACITY CALCULATIONS 1993 NET 1993 TOTAL 1998 NET 1998 UNITS 1998 UNITS AVAILABLE UNITS (@ 12 AVAILABLE @12 du/ac @ 13 du/ac ACRES du/acre) ACRES' 28.26 339 22.37 268 291 Difference 23 (+8.5%) 1 The area of three approved/constructed R-10 projects(Hyde Park Condominiums,Village on Union,and Kirkland Court Preliminary Plat) have been subtracted from the 1993 net available acres,resulting in the 1998 net available acres. In terms of capacity estimates, the Comprehensive Plan and EIS assumed a maximum density of 12 units per acre in the RO/R-10 designation since that was the maximum allowable density when the plan was being reviewed and ultimately adopted. After that time, the density was reduced to 10 units per acre. The current 1998 text amendment to the RO policies would allow a density bonus of 3 du/acre for a maximum density of 13 du/acre if all units are detached ownership units. As can be seen in the chart, using the higher density in the remaining available land would not significantly change the number of units projected by the capacity model. CAPITAL FACILITIES AND TRANSPORTATION In terms of Capital Facility Planning, most RO/R-10 property lies in the Capital Facility Plan Geographic Dispersal Areas, the areas anticipated to receive the most growth in the first 6 years of the CAPACITY.DOC\ 1 5/14/98 Comprehensive Plan. Capital Facility improvements were to be focused in these areas since these areas were anticipated to receive the most growth. See the attached map from the City of Renton Comprehensive Plan Capital Facilities Element Monitoring Report prepared by Stalzer and Associates in 1997. The RO/R-10 areas not found in the Geographic Dispersal Areas include RO/R-10 property in North Renton, and small amounts of RO/R-10 near the south side of NE 12th Street and RO/R-10 property on the north side of 103rd Ave. SE. In terms of transportation planning, the City's Level of Service Index is a City-wide figure, and the number of future trips is "banked" for the entire City. The Level of Service Index is monitored annually to assure that the planned improvements are accommodating the number of trips allocated to new development. Additional RO/R-10 density may slightly accelerate the use of available trips. ADDITIONAL POLICY REVIEW It should be noted that the use of the additional density bonus on RO/R-10 property is not likely to be universal. The measure would require all units to be detached ownership units while the R-10 zone generally allows up to 50%of attached units. Not all applicants may use the bonus provision. On the previous chart, based upon the original capacity methodology, the number of additional units on vacant and partially developed land is not significant. Also, allowing for additional single family units is supported in the Comprehensive Plan policies to increase the percentage of homeownership (Objective H-N), encourage small lot development (H-10) and achieve no more than 50% of multi-family units outside of the Urban Center (LU-4). Additional single family capacity will provide an additional cushion for the housing market since the Comprehensive Plan estimated only a 10%cushion between single family targets/forecasts and capacity Housing Element III-7). CAPACITY.DOC1 2 5/14/98 lilt bilk ;16b* Ii• Aa.11; 41*--01101 et: h. t.tvN \ AT: N a NV 4-.)killA E' i a Ijrf4 1141L3414.(ktillithl 40, ,,,.., i,,,,,,,„, A r 5, 44 I •-• 44„,,,,S,A,,,,',: f./,/,,,11$11Ilial. • 7.* •• e'' . 1 11 llp 21 -F.',r ..,,..„:14,,,,,,, .:,,,s",44,. , 711 4 76,404111101ylift&n d} l akL hASJ 7..„., iI i rL, Ee1:j1giai_ l EIS r . a. Nr`0 Iifm. u., i,:7Iil, a„ i.„-1ll-1tatmiz.÷ u l..... 1.. Lamm-ram M" Er E Y u ki r"1F111/ E ° Ylt l97 . V jl j tlIM n r ire+ lAA 1Fuji:Igo ALAI ,wR'I`i j.neap :,_ '``44i,I6-."lm!Mm.-...—.I... t. i.gi.— Im10.1motnitt:,, ii?1 ira4;,./41100.- mir,-- ..101. irri Nolr b . IPlf illlllln,+ 0141 144 ,d_____ 0„6.* A..ti KE KAIlkilk1..7-71w4" 11.1 14 Villi1V-.",f7it„41,, 16 la ,,,,..00x L ,I9 - 7,41,4.ft-,11. 4,1....----41,6NMI ;,-. 0 solvipu..[E, ,,.,,,. m. , 111.,,. .„ r 41 82F siii .4 4$11,,i _6* Mi pa,-., i prol a 1 :31Nitgial i?, eaL.- i.zll A,l ' i--,- INM' i1,,!1l ff/117K• Ii' If1WA 4-;( Ie, 0,.,- s L, i1ilI. 9.. IRt1i1 d r1i.i, 3. g, 1i, il NlalEcntitiat.• p E._. A l/: rM.• i wfL\, e. - i, 1',7-,r7,,.,,:,,,,,,, N,.., p, V,,LsP 4,' N`, I,,, 4 1 DESIRE r rinam r.-. i,-.- 1W„,,inM,. g tvA.tl. N Hc m.-.:..'. IEN".) ii i).l' Ibk 1•! frE' i i t,.'i/_'. 6v 4WtIii- rA'i•"; fl"Np,-iPrki4,i2l.Wid 1l r.®i A le. s'. 6 SPRfI p j h r i t f Y WKE t 1 .fr 1 ill tlifinA -P.' '1" doff-710A \ ; , •1 PM c p 1.61: I I r - •, 0... 14.0641.1 ,r i ail 1IIIy' i ' --)) a Ilg d t=1 1 1 III I r I • 11 n l I T O pk. Long Range Planning CFP GEOGRAPHIC DISPERSAL AREAS O• mDdzi 1,R. acOnilic wut, FOR 1997 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT #1 3 June 1,R.MacOnie 3 loos 1997 aft CITE 3F RENTON Planning/Building/Public Works Department Jesse Tanner,Mayor Gregg Zimmerman P.E.,Administrator May 19, 1998 TO:Parties of Record SUBJECT: Comprehensive Plan Amendments 98-T-1 Through 98-T-9 Project No. LUA-98-049,CPA,ECF Dear Resident: 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 May 19, 1998, decided that you project will be issued a Determination of Non-Significance. The City of Rentuun ERC has determined that it does not have a probable significant adverse impact on the environment. An Environments l 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. Comments regarding the environmental determination must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 PM, June 05, 1998. Any aggrieved person feeling that the environmental determination of the Environmental Review Committee is based on erroneous procedure, errors of law or fact, error in judgment, or the discovery of new evidence which could not be reasonably available at the time of the determination may submit written comments. After review of the comments, if Environmental Review Committee finds there is not sufficient evidence to amend its original determination, then there will be no further extension of the appeal period. Any person wishing to take further action would need to file a formal appeal within the original 15-day timeframe. Written comments must be filed with: Jana Huerter, Land Use Review Supervisor, City of Renton Development Services Division, 200 Mill Avenue South, Renton, WA 98055. If an appeal of the environment I determination is also filed with the Hearing Examiner during the same 15-day comment period, then the Environmental Review Committee will first take action on the request for reconsideration and the appellant will be notified that the appeal is on hold pending the Committee's decision on the reconsideration request. The City will notify the appellant/person requesting reconsideration and parties of record and the Hearing Examiner of the Environmental Review Committee's final determination. The appeal process will then be continued unless the appellant notifies the Hearing Examiner in writing that he wishes to withdraw the appeal. Appeals of the environmental determination must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 PM, June 05, 1998. Appeals must be filed in writing together with the required 75.00 application fee with: Hearing Examiner, City of Renton, 200 Mill Avenue South, Renton, WA 98055. Appeals to the Examiner are governed by City of Renton Municipal Code Section 4-8-11B. Additional information regarding the appeal process rr ay be obtained from the Renton City Clerk's Office, (425)-235-2501. If you have any q Jestions or desire clarification of the above, please call me at (206) 277-6188. For the Environm 3ntal Review Committee, Irt6heeert(A Rebecca Lind Project Manager DNSLTR.DOC 200 Mill Avenue South - Renton, Washington 98055 Gam)This oaoar contains 50%recvclad material 90°/nnct cnnsi Imar r AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION Kristina J. Thompson, being first duly sworn on oath states that he/she is the Legal Clerk of the NU I Il,t Ur tNv IRONMEN TAL DETERMINATION SOUTH COUNTY JOURNAL ENVIRONMENTAL R NTON,WASHI GTONREVIEW MITTEE The Environmental Committee 600 S. Washington Avenue, Kent, Washington 98032 ERC)has issued a Determination of on- Significance for the following project under a dailynewspaper seven (7) times a week. Said newspaper is a le al the authority of the Renton Municipal published9 Code. newspaper of general publication and is now and has been for more than six months COMP PLAN TEXT AMENDMENTS 98-T-1 prior to the date of publication, referred to, printed and published in the English language THROUGH 98-T-9 LUA-98-049,CPA,ECF continually as a daily newspaper in Kent, King County, Washington. The South County Nine (9) Comprehensive Plan Text Journal has been approved as a legal newspaper by order of the Superior Court of the Amendments (CPA). Land Use Element: State of Washington for King County. Residential Infill, Neighborhood Conser- vation, Residential uses in EA-C, EA-V, The notice in the exact form attached, was published in the South County CS, CN, Residential Options/RPN, Journal (and not in supplemental form) which was regularly distributed to the subscribers Regional uses in CN, Multi-Family Infill mapping criteria. Housing Element: during the below stated period. The annexed notice, a Residential Infill, Mobile Home policies. Transportation Element: Airport, Arterial, Comp. Plan Text Amendments Transit, HOV, Transportation Demand Management/-Commute Trip Reduction. Utility Element: Covenants to annex. as published on: 5/22/98 The 15 day comment and appeal period for this project will run concurrently and end at 5:00 PM on June 05, 1998. The full amount of the fee charged for said fore oing publication is the sum of$54.85 Following this, the City will finalize its Legal Number 4666 Determination unless comments received require a reconsideration. Written com- ments and requests for reconsideration shall be forwarded to the Development L n 041 Services Division Land Use Review Supervisor. Information on the project file is Legal Cle , South County Journal available at the Development Services Division, Third Floor, Municipal Building, Renton, Washington 98055. Phone: 235- 2550. Appeal procedures are available in Subscribed and sworn before me on this Lti,day Of' g,A, 19 the City Clerk's office,First Floor,Municipal Building. Publication Date: May 22, 1998 n j1'Published in the South County Journal 011111 M/ C(..-CLIZ-Ly". \ V k.. 1.{ '' May 22, 1998.4666 C;,,Ge ... Notary Public of the State of Washington if !y%residing in Renton y N:King County, Washington J``CO% O*Z i/ ii;. 11ll IAS.```` NOTICE OF ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE RENTON, WASHINGTON The Environmental Review Committee (ERC) has issued a Determination of Non-Significance for the following project under the authority of the Renton Municipal Code. COMP PLAN TEXT AMENDMENTS 98-T-1 THROUGH 98-T-9 L JA-98-049,CPA,ECF Nile (9) Comprehensive Plan Text Amendments (CPA). Land Use Element: Residential Infill, Wighborhood Conservation, Residential uses in EA-C, EA-V, CS, CN, Residential Options/RPN, R(,gional uses in CN, Multi-Family Infill mapping criteria. Housing Element: Residential Infill, M tbile Home policies. Transportation Element: Airport, Arterial, Transit, HOV, Transportation Di-mand Management/Commute Trip Reduction. Utility Element: Covenants to annex. The 15 day comment and appeal period for this project will run concurrently and end at 5:00 PM on June 05, 1998. Following this, the City will finalize its Determination unless comments received require a reconsideration. Written comments and requests for reconsideration shall be forwarded to the Development Services Division Land Use Review Supervisor. Information on the project file is available at the De elopment Services Division, Third Floor, Municipal Building, Renton, Washington 98055. Phone: 2 35-2550. Appeal procedures are available in the City Clerk's office, First Floor, Municipal Building. Publication Date: May 22, 1998 Account No. 51067 dnspub NOT-11. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION POSTED TO NOTIFY INTERESTED PERSONS OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL ACTION PROJECT NAME: COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT 98-T-1 THRU 98-T-9 PROJECT NUMBER: LUA-98-049,CPA,ECF Nine(9)Comprehensive Plan Text Amendments(CPA).Land Use Element:Residential Will,Neighborhood Conservation,Residential uses in EA-C,EA-V,CS,CN,Residential Options/RPN,Regional uses In CN,Multi Family Infill mapping criteria.1lousina Element: Residential Infill,Mobile Home policies.Transportation Element:Airport,Arterial,Transit,HOV,Transportation Demand ManagemeoUCommute Trip Reduction. Utility Element:Covenants to annex. Comments regarding the environmental determination must be filed In writing on or before 5:00 PM,June 05,1998. Any aggrieved person feeling that the environmental determination of the Environmental Review Committee is based on erroneous procedure,errors of law or fact,error in judgment,or the discovery of new evidence which could not be reasonably available at the time of the determination may submit written comments.After review of the comments,it Environmental Review Committee finds there is not sufficient evidence to amend its original determination,then there will be no further extension of the appeal period. Any person wishing to take further action would need to file a formal appeal within the original 15-day timeframe. Written comments must be filed with: Jana Huerter,Land Use Review Supervisor,City of Renton Development Services Division,200 Mill Avenue South,Renton,WA 98055. If an appeal of the environmental determination is also filed with the Hearing Examiner during the same 15-day comment period,then the Environmental Review Committee will first take action on the request for reconsideration and the appellant will be notified that the appeal Is on hold pending the Committee's decision on the reconsideration request. The City will notify the appellant/person requesting reconsideration and parties of record and the Hearing Examiner of the Environmental Review Committee's final determination. The appeal process will then be continued unless the appellant notifies the Hearing Examiner In writing that he wishes to withdraw the appeal.Appeals of the environmental determination must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 PM,June 05.1998. Appeals must be filed in writing together with the required 575.00 application fee with:Hearing Examiner,City of Renton,200 Mill Avenue South,Renton,WA 98055. Appeals to the Examiner are governed by City of Renton Municipal Code Section 4-8.11B. Additional information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the Renton City Clerk's Oltiice,(425)-235.2501. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION,PLEASE CONTACT THE CITY OF RENTON,DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIVISION AT(425)235-2550. DO NOT REMOVE THIS NOTIC{EEWITHOUT PROPER AUTHORIZATION a „Olava inrlrim H, cLQi ri i L]•uiiO \IP rfito t.dantiflratinn hereby certify that ' copies of the above document were posted by me in `3 conspicuous places on or nearby the described property on /V1A Y 22 A/W Signed: X.47/j0 ATTEST: Subcribed and sworn before me, a Nortary Public,in and for the State of Washington residing it f on the day of ) 4 s 8 yhG MARILYN KAMCHEFF COMMISSION EXPIRES 6/29/99 Nt)TICE. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION POSTED TO NOTIFY INTERESTED PERSONS OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL ACTION PROJECT NAME: COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT 98-T-1 THRU 98-T-9 PROJECT NUMBER: LUA-98-049,CPA,ECF Nine(9)Comprehensive Plan Text Amendments(CPA). Land Use Element: Residential Infill, Neighborhood Conservation, Residential uses in EA-C, EA-V,CS,CN,Residential Options/RPN,Regional uses in CN, Multi- Family Infill mapping criteria. Housing Element: Residential Infill,Mobile Home policies. Transportation Element: Airport,Arterial,Transit, HOV,Transportation Demand Management/Commute Trip Reduction. Utility Element: Covenants to annex. Comm ants regarding the environmental determination must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 PM,June 05, 1998. Any aggrie ed person feeling that the environmental determination of the Environmental Review Committee is based on erroneius procedure, errors of law or fact, error in judgment, or the discovery of new evidence which could not be reasor ably available at the time of the determination may submit written comments. After review of the comments, if Enviro imental Review Committee finds there is not sufficient evidence to amend its original determination, then there will be no further extension of the appeal period. Any person wishing to take further action would need to file a formal appea within the original 15-day timeframe. Written comments must be filed with: Jana Huerter, Land Use Review Super isor, City of Renton Development Services Division,200 Mill Avenue South, Renton, WA 98055. If an appeal of the environmental determination is also filed with the Hearing Examiner during the same 15-day comment period, then the Environmental Review Committee will first take action on the request for reconsideration and the appellant will be notified that the appeal is on hold pending the Committee's decision on the reconsideration request. The City will notify the appellant/person requesting reconsideration and parties of record and the Hearing Examiner of the Environmental Review Committee's final determination. The appeal process will then be continued unless the appellant notifies the Hearir g Examiner in writing that he wishes to withdraw the appeal. Appeals of the environmental determination must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 PM, June 05, 1998. Appeals must be filed in writing together with the required $75.00 application fee with: Hearing Examiner, City of Renton, 200 Mill Avenue South, Renton, WA 98055. Appeals to the Exam ner are governed by City of Renton Municipal Code Section 4-8-11 B. Additional information regarding the appeal proce:s may be obtained from the Renton City Clerk's Office, (425)-235-2501. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION, PLEASE CONTACT THE CITY OF RENTON, DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIVISION AT(425) 235-2550. DO NOT REMOVE THIS NOTICE WITHOUT PROPER AUTHORIZATION CPlease include the project NUMBER when calling for proper file identification. City or flenton Department of Planning/Building/F,...,,.. Works ENVIROVMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEP,kRTMENT: peaks COMMENTS DUE: APRIL 20, 1998 APPLICATION NC: LUA-98-049,ECF,CPA DATE CIRCULATED: APRIL 8, 1998 APPLICANT: City of Renton PROJECT MANAGER: Rebecca Lind PROJECT TITLE: 1998 Comp. Plan Text Amendments WORK ORDER NO: 78367 LOCATION: N/A SITE AREA: N/A BUILDING AREA(gross): N/A SUMMARY OF PF OPOSAL: Nine(9) Comprehensive Plan Text Amendments (CPA). Land Use Element: Residential Infill, Neighborhood Cor nervation, Residential uses in EA-C, EA-V, CS, CN, Residential Options/RPN, Regional uses in CN, Multi-Family Infill mapping critela. Housing Element: Residential Infill, Mobile Home policies. Transportation Element: Airport, Arterial, Transit, HOV, Tral sportation Demand Management/Commute Trip Reduction. Utility Element: Covenants to annex. A. ENVIRONME NTAL 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 Air Aesthetics Water Light/Glare 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 Feet 1?1/764._,%.„Ae/2,&-a412-12/a/t/7-10: 6" B. POLICY-RELATED COMMENTS C. CODE-RELATED COMMENTS a/t-- / a its /gez , We have reviewed t its application with particular attention to those areas in which we have expertise and have identified areas of probable impact or areas where additional info'rnation is needed to eft),assess this proposal. 9/ reseSignatureofDirectororAutonzedRe ntative Dat9P DEVAPP.DOC Rev 10/93 City of Renton Department of Planning/Building/Fuvii Works ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPA 2TMENT: pbk ICC COMMENTS DUE: APRIL 20, 1998 APPLICATION NO: LUA-98-049,ECF,CPA DATE CIRCULATED: APRIL 8, 1998 APPLICANT: City of Renton PROJECT MANAGER: Rebecca Lind PROJECT TITLE: '1998 Comp. Plan Text Amendments WORK ORDER NO: 78367 LOCATION: N/A SITE AREA: N/A I BUILDING AREA(gross): N/A SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: Nine(9) Comprehensive Plan Text Amendments (CPA). Land Use Element: Residential Infill, Neighborhood Cons ervation, Residential uses in EA-C, EA-V, CS, CN, Residential Options/RPN, Regional uses in CN, Multi-Family Infill mapping criter a. Housing Element: Residential Infill, Mobile Home policies. Transportation Element: Airport, Arterial, Transit, HOV, Tran iportation Demand Management/Commute Trip Reduction. Utility Element: Covenants to annex. A. ENVIRONMEVTAL 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 Air Aesthetics Water light/Glare 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 Feet fitcair u,n(pactJt On_ pot( -0 YAut.a,a. B. POLICY-RELATED COMMENTS C. CODE-RELATED COMMENTS We have reviewed tits application with particular attention to those areas in which we have expertise and have identified areas of probable impact or areas where additional infcrmation is needed to properly assess this proposal. ill VUpro c 11-0 qr Sign atdre of Director or • horiz-• Representative Date DEVAPP.DOC Rev.10/93 giENTON FIRE DEP ' FIRE PRFI/FnmonI RuRFAI ICityofRentonDepartmentofPlanning/Building/Fuwic Works ENVIRON 'v1ENTAL 8 DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REV-irifrV9 EEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: ewe, euek4Iov COMMENTS DUE: APRIL 20, 1998 APPLICATION NO: LUA-98-049,ECF,CPA DATE CIRCULATED: APRIL 8, 1998 APPLICANT: City of Renton PROJECT MANAGER: Rebecca Lind PROJECT TITLE: '998 Comp. Plan Text Amendments WORK ORDER NO: 78367 LOCATION: N/A SITE AREA: N/A I BUILDING AREA(gross): N/A SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: Nine(9) Comprehensive Plan Text Amendments (CPA). Land Use Element: Residential Infill, Neighborhood Conservation, Residential uses in EA-C, EA-V, CS, CN, Residential Options/RPN, Regional uses in CN, Multi-Family Infill mapping criteria. Housing Element: Residential Infill, Mobile Home policies. Transportation Element: Airport, Arterial, Transit, HOV, Tram portation Demand Management/Commute Trip Reduction. Utility Element: Covenants to annex. A. ENVIRONMEIITAL 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 Air Aesthetics Water Light/Glare 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 Feet 14 B. POLICY-RELATED COMMENTS i()A , C. CODE-REL. TED COMMENTS4.Iill We have revirwed fl is application with particular attention to those areas in which we have expertise and have identified areas of probable impact or areas where additi nal information is nee to properly assess this proposal. E_ iii, F' Signatur of Director or Authoriz Repr entative Date DEVA P Rev.1CJ93 City or Renton Department of Planning/Building/I ,.,, Works ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: Om\ ReutCU)- lJ COMMENTS DUE: APRIL 20, 1998 APPLICATION NO: LUA-98-049,ECF,CPA DATE CIRCULATED: APRIL 8, 1998 APPLICANT: City c f Renton PROJECT MANAGER: Rebecca Lind CITY OF RENTON PROJECT TITLE: '998 Comp. Plan Text Amendments WORK ORDER NO: 78367 LOCATION: N/A 0 9 1998 SITE AREA: N/A BUILDING AREA(gross): N/A t3UILUIIv1t v 4 SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: Nine(9) Comprehensive Plan Text Amendments (CPA). Land Use Element: Residential Infill, Neighborhood Con:ervation, Residential uses in EA-C, EA-V, CS, CN, Residential Options/RPN, Regional uses in CN, Multi-Family Infill mapping critera. Housing Element: Residential Infill, Mobile Home policies. Transportation Element: Airport, Arterial, Transit, HOV, Tran::portation Demand Management/Commute Trip Reduction. Utility Element: Covenants to annex. 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 Air Aesthetics Water Light/Glare 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 Feet B. POLICY-RELATED COMMENTS C. CODE-RELI TED COMMENTS Jo cow(ttifer t 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. Signature of Director or Authorized Representative Date DEVAPP.DOC Rev.10/93 City — ,.eation Department of Planning/Building/huinc Works ENVIRONMENTAL 8 DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: l.OtiAlG t4 Se_tutu% COMMENTS DUE: APRIL 20, 1998 APPLICATION NO: LUA-98-049,ECF,CPA DATE CIRCULATED: APRIL 8, 1998 OF HENTON APPLICANT: City o! Renton PROJECT MANAGER: Rebecca Lind PROJECT TITLE: 1998 Comp. Plan Text Amendments WORK ORDER NO: 78367 1393 LOCATION: N/A SITE AREA: N/A I BUILDING AREA(gross): N/A SUMMARY OF PRC'POSAL: Nine(9) Comprehensive Plan Text Amendments (CPA). Land Use Element: Residential Infill, Neighborhood Conservation, Residential uses in EA-C, EA-V, CS, CN, Residential Options/RPN, Regional uses in CN, Multi-Family Infill mapping criteria. Housing Element: Residential Infill, Mobile Home policies. Transportation Element: Airport, Arterial, Transit, HOV, Transportation Demand Management/Commute Trip Reduction. Utility Element: Covenants to annex. 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 Air Aesthetics Water Light/Glare 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 Feet B. POLICY-REL4TED COMMENTS C. CODE-RELATED COMMENTS J We have reviewed th s application with particular attention to those areas in which we have expertise and have identified areas of probable impact or areas where additional in for nation is needed to properly assess this proposal. 7 / SI ature o ifDrectoruthorizedResentativeDate 1 DEVAPP.DOC Rev 10/93 City of Kenton Department of Planning/Building/f-uonc Works ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPAF TMENT: S, a(,G 11.00SicWa' .COMMENTS DUE: APRIL 20, 1998 APPLICATION NO: LUA-98-049,ECF,CPA DATE CIRCULATED: APRIL 8, 1998 h APPLICANT: City o Renton PROJECT MANAGER: Rebecca Lind 0A4 PROJECT TITLE: 1398 Comp. Plan Text Amendments WORK ORDER NO: 78367 4/. rf :,, qN LOCATION: N/A r pee SITE AREA: N/A BUILDING AREA(gross): N/A d. SUMMARY OF PRC POSAL: Nine(9) Comprehensive Plan Text Amendments(CPA). Land Use Element: Resident Neighborhood Conservation, Residential uses in EA-C, EA-V, CS, CN, Residential Options/RPN, Regional uses in CN, Multi-Family Infill mapping criteria. Housing Element: Residential Infill, Mobile Home policies. Transportation Element: Airport, Arterial, Transit, HOV, Transportation Demand Management/Commute Trip Reduction. Utility Element: Covenants to annex. 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 Air Aesthetics Water Light/Glare Plants Recreation Land/Shoreline Use Utilities Animals Transportation Environmental Health Public Services Energy/HistorlciCultural Natural Resources Preservation Airport Environment 10,000 Feet 14,000 Feet B. POLICY-REL ATED COMMENTS C. CODE-RELATED COMMENTS VO G0141 itifi a . We have reviewed t its 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. Ved .(2a_4/f/lq Signature of Director or Authorized Representative Date DEVAPP.DOC Rev.10/93 City or Kenton Department of Planning/Building/Puoilc Works ENVIRONMENTAL 8, DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPAItTMENTr"•1ti•t, A-a y\ COMMENTS DUE: APRIL 20, 1998 APPLICATION NO: LUA-98-049,ECF,CPA DATE CIRCULATED: APRIL 8, 1998 APPLICANT: City c`Renton PROJECT MANAGER: Rebecca Lind PROJECT TITLE: 1998 Comp. Plan Text Amendments WORK ORDER NO: 78367A•.Q LOCATION: N/A 7.1 oije SITE AREA: N/A I BUILDING AREA(gross): N/A bl,On SUMMARY OF PR(IPOSAL: Nine (9) Comprehensive Plan Text Amendments(CPA). Land Use Element: Residentfal Infill, Neighborhood Conservation, Residential uses in EA-C, EA-V, CS, CN, Residential Options/RPN, Regional uses in CN, Multi-Family Infill mapping criteria. Housing Element: Residential Infill, Mobile Home policies. Transportation Element: Airport, Arterial, Transit, HOV, Tram portation Demand Management/Commute Trip Reduction. Utility Element: Covenants to annex. A. ENVIRONMEIITAL 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 Air Aesthetics Water Light/Glare Plants Recreation LancVShoreline Use Utilities Animals Transportation Environmental Health Public Services Energy/Historic/Cultural Natural Resources Preservation Airport Environment 10,000 Feet 14,000 Feet B. POLICY-RELATED COMMENTS cC-C)Wi WittiiGt apeYDV4I C. CODE-RELATED COMMENTS No u7144 Wietiot We have reviewed Phis 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. 4eti / Signature of Director or Authorized Representative Date DEVAPP.DOC Rev.10/93 Jl' O NOTICE OF APPLICATION PLANNING/BUILDING/PUBLIC WORKS DATE: APRIL 13,1998 A Master Application has been filed and accepted with the Development Services Division of the City of Renton. The following briefly describes the application and the necessary Public Approvals. PROJECT NUMBER/NAME: LUA-99-049,ECF,CPA/1998 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TEXT AMENDMENTS DESCRIPTION: Nine(9)Comprehensive Plan Text Amendments(CPA). Lend Use Element Residential Infill,Neighborhood Conservation,Residential uses in EA-C.FA-V,CS,CN,Residential Oplions/RPN, Regional uses in CN,Mulli-Family Infill mapping criteria. Housing Element Residential Infill,Mobile Home policies. Transportation Element: Airport. Arterial, Transit. HOV, Transportation Demand Management/Commute Trip Reduction.Utility Element:Covenants to annex. GENERAL LOCATION: N/A STUDIES REQUIRED/OR AVAILABLE:N/A PUBLIC APPROVALS: Environmental Review(ECF) Comprehensive Plan Amendment(CPA) Comments on the above application must be submitted In venting to Ms.Rebecca Lind,Project Manager,Development Services Division,200 Mill Avenue South,Renton,WA 98055,by 5:00 PM on May 15.1990. If you have questions about this proposal,or wish to be made a party o1 record and receive additional notification by mall,contact Ms.Lind at 425)277-8188. Anyone who submits written comments will automatically become a party o1 record and will be notified o1 any decision on Nis project. PLEASE INCLUDE THE PROJECT NUMBER WHEN CALLING FOR PROPER FILE IDENTIFICATION DATE OF APPUCATION: MARCH 31,1998 NOTICE OF COMPLETE APPLICATION: APRIL 13,1988 DATE OF NOTICE OF APPUCATION: APRIL 13,1998 GENMALOT.DOC CERTIFICATION m n In /1 kL 11 Inacolas1 J I (ib I, 1' SGA/4 P hereby certify that ffl7 copies of the abche document were byosttd me in conspicuous places on or nearbyP the described property on 1 /g J q Signed: -,/) f ATTEST: Subcribed and orn before me, a Nortary Public, in for the Stat Washington residing in a2.-4/14-,,_ , on the /5'41" day of MARILYN KAMCHEFF COMMISSION EXPIRES 6/29199 i a( CY IR +YP Nrr0 NOTICE OF APPLICATION PLANNING/BUILDING/PUBLIC WORKS DATE: APRIL 13, 1998 A Master Application has been filed and accepted with the Development Services Division of the City of Renton. The following briefly describes the application and the necessary Public Approvals. PROJECT NUMBER/NAME: LUA-98-049,ECF,CPA/1998 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TEXT AMENDMENTS DESCRIPTION:Nine (9) Comprehensive Plan Text Amendments (CPA). Land Use Element: Residential Infill, Neighborhood Conservation, Residential uses in EA-C, EA-V, CS, CN, Residential Options/RPN, Regional uses in CN, Multi-Family Infill mapping criteria. Housing Element: Residential Infill, Mobile Home policies. Transportation Element: Airport, Arterial, Transit, HOV, Transportation Demand Management/Commute Trip Reduction. Utility Element: Covenants to annex. GENERAL LOCATION:N/A STUDIES REQUIRED/OR AVAILABLE: N/A PUBLIC APPROVALS:Environmental Review(ECF) Comprehensive Plan Amendment(CPA) Comments on the above application must be submitted in writing to Ms. Rebecca Lind, Project Manager, Development Services Division, 200 Mill Avenue South, Renton, WA 98055, by 5:00 PM on May 15. 1998. If you have questions about this proposal, or wish to be made a party of record and receive additional notification by mail,contact Ms. Lind at 425)277-6188. Anyone who submits written comments will automatically become a party of record and will be notified of any decision on this project. PLEASE INCLUDE THE PROJECT NUMBER WHEN CALLING FOR PROPER FILE IDENTIFICATION DATE OF APPLICATION: MARCH 31,1998 NOTICE OF COMPLETE APPLICATION: APRIL 13,1998 DATE OF NOTICE OF APPLICATION:APRIL 13,1998 GENMALOT.DOC I E I OPMENT SER ES DIVISION MA T R APPLICATION OWNERS) PROPERTY/PROJECT/ADDRESS(S)/LOCATION: Note #140.e umore 'en `"ner l 8n am tional notarized N/A-City Wide Legislative Text AmendmentsMasler.applicationto each owner. NAME: KING COUNTY ASSESSOR'S ACCOUNT NUMBER: ADDRESS: N/A City:ZIP: TELEPHONE NUMBER: PROJ ;CTNQMATION(cunt) CONTACT PERSON/APP`LIC,ANT EXISTING LAND USE(S): NAME: Rebecca Lind N/A ADDRESS:200 Mill Ave. S. PROPOSED LAND USE(S): N/A City: Renton ZIP: 98055 EXISTING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP DESIGNATION: TELEPHONE NUMBER: (425) 277-6188 N/A-No Map Changes PROJECT INFORMATION PROPOSED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP DESIGNATION: PROJECT OR DEVELOPMENT NAME: N/A-No Map Changes Plan Text Amendments: EXISTING ZONING: DEVELOPMENT PLANNINC 1998 Comprehensive CITY OF nATON N/A-No Map Changes 98-T-1 -Land Use Element Residential Infill,Neighbor- MAR 3 1 PROPOSED ZONING: hood Conservation Policies and Housing Element Policies 98-T-2 -Utility Element Policies N/A-No Map Changes RECEIVED sat,AREA(SQ.FT.OR ACREAGE): 98-T-3 -Residential Uses in EA-C, EA-V, CS and CN Designations N/A 98-T-4 -Residential Options/Residential Planned PROJECT VALUE: Neighborhood Policy Amendments N/A 98-T-5 -Arterial,Transit,HOV, Transportation Demand IS THE SITE LOCATED IN THE AQUIFER PROTECTION AREA? Management/Commute Trip Reduction Chapters of N/A Transportation Element 98-T-6 -Airport Chapter, Transportation Element IS THE SITE LOCATED IN ANY OTHER TYPE OF 98-T-7 -Regional Uses in CN Designation ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE AREA? 98-T-8 -Mobile Home Policies in Housing Element N/A 98-T-9 -Multi-Family Infill Mapping Criteria, Land Use Element I R tach seLEGAL.ES,r• 4N F P UPE 'CY (At Non-Applicable-Text Amendments E OF A.PP .ICATI©N'& FEES Check aIt application types that apply--City staff WIII deternvne'fees. ANNEXATION SUBDIVISION X COMP.PLAN AMENDMENT $N/A X REZONE N/A LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT SPECIAL PERMIT SHORT PLAT TEMPORARY PERMIT TENTATIVE PLAT CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT PRELIMINARY PLAT SITE PLAN APPROVAL FINAL PLAT GRADE&FILL PERMIT No. Cu.Yds:_ VARIANCE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT $ from Section: PRELIMINARY WAIVER FINAL ROUTINE VEGETATION MANAGEMENT PERMIT BINDING SITE PLAN MOBILE HOME PARKS SHORELINE REVIEWS: SUBSTANTIAL DEVELOPMENT $ CONDITIONAL USE VARIANCE X ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW $ N/A EXEMPTION NO CHARGE REVISION AFFIDAVIT OF OWNERSHIP I,(Print Name) /L declare that I am(please check one) _the owner of the property involved in this application,the authorized representative to act for the property owner(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. 672f02.4p/ 7 `1/ 7tti I1/ 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. a ///1s J /// , // Name of Owner/Representative) Notary Public in and for the State of Washington Notary(Print) Signature of Owner/Representative) My appointment expires: SECTION TO BE COMPLETED BY CITY STAFF) City file Number' }J r ""` SA R SHPL CU I T.A PP FP TP RVMP V AAA W FPi1A • SM SME MHP DSP: A TOTAL FEES: TOTAL POSTAGE PROVIDED PLANNING AND TECHNICAL SERVICES DIVISION WAIVER OF SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS FOR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT APPLICATIONS LANE USE PERMIT SUBMITTAL WAIVED MODIFIED COMMENTS REQUIREMENTS: BY: BY: Application Fees X r City sponsored application. Environmental Checklist Existing C)venants'(Recorded Copy) X ;/ ` N/A-Text Amendments Existing Easements (Recorded Copy) X fz,G'(i N/A-Text Amendments Justification for CPA and/or CPA/Rezone X See issue papers for each. `' King Cour ty Assessor's Map Indicating Site X / 'o N/A-City Wide Legislative Text Amendments Legal Description X / /, ;:.. N/A-Text Amendments List of Su rounding Property Owners X F, ,, N/A-Text Amendments Mailing L<;.bels of Property Owners X NIA='Text Amendments Map of Existing Site Conditions X gtyc, N/A-Text Amendments Master Application Form Neighborhood Detail Map X /1,fV(, N/A-Text Amendments Plan Red.ictions (PMT's) X / N/A-Text Amendments Postage X/Z &, N/A-Text Amendments Project Narrative X 41' ;See issue papers for each Title Repart or Plat Certificate X/J/)'C, N/A-Text Amendments Topogra f by Map (5'contours) N/A-Text Amendments APPLICATION: It) Neff i 7 DATE: 1a,dv cj% TXTWAIVI;.DOC\ DEVELorih . , G CITY OF REN!UPI 1998 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TEXT AMENDMENTS MAR 3 1 1998 PROPOSAL SUMMARY RECEIVED AMENDMENT 98-T-1 - Modifications To Land Use Element Residential Infill, Neighborhood Conservation Policies And Housing Element Policies This application responds to the City Council's referral of the density workshop issues to the Planning Commission. Four specific issues were referred to the Commission for review and recommendation: 1) The proportion single family and multi-family uses,2) Definition of Infill Development; 3) Definition of Neighborhood, and 4) Evaluation of a way to evaluate neighborhood issues. The proposed text amendment provides a "fine tuning" of the existing residential policies to address these issues. The changes eliminate the need for a separate definition of infill development and re-work those policies which refer to creation of a separate infill development standard. The changes also clarify how the word "neighborhood" is used update the policies to refer to the City's neighborhood program, and stipulate that the concept of "Neighborhood Conservation" applies to specific areas of the City which have mixed commercial and residential uses and also have large numbers of nonconforming uses. AMENDMENT 98-T-2—Utility Element Policies Proposed amendments to Utility Element policies to remove requirements for annexation or covenants to annex (no-protest agreements) as a condition of connection to the City's utility systems for properties outside the city limits. Additional policies, addressing Comprehensive Plan consistency as a condition of connection to City utilities for development proposals outside of the city limits, are included for clarification of Council direction. AMENDMENT 98-T-3 - Residential Uses in Employment Area Commercial, Employment Area Valley, Suburban Center and Neighborhood Center Designations This application evaluates the existing residential policies allowing multi-family residential uses in the Employment Area Valley, Employment Area-Commercial, Center Suburban, and Center Neighborhood designations which are all primarily commercial designations. Current policies allow residential uses in up to fifty percent of these areas which have CA, CS, CN, RMF-C or RMF-N zoning. This amendment analyzes the intent of these policies, possible implications for the City's single family/multi-family split, and the potential impact on commercial capacity in the City. Proposed amendments address ways to reduce multi-family capacity. AMENDMENT 98-T-4 - Residential Options And Residential Planned Neighborhood Policy Amendments The application evaluates proposed amendments to policies applicable to the Residential Options (RO) and Residential Planned Neighborhood (RPN) land use designations. Policy changes proposed for the RO zone include allowing for a density bonus up to 13 dwelling units per acre provided all units are detached ownership units. Some criteria are proposed to consider redesignations to the RPN designation which are less than 20 acres in size based upon physical and jurisdictional features and boundaries. Other amendments shift policies between the General policy section applicable to both the RPN and RO designations to the specific RO and RPN policy sections. In the RO and RPN policies and Comprehensive Plan Glossary, clarifications of terminology between single family unit types and multi-family unit types are proposed. TXTPRPSM.DOC\ DEVELOPMENT PLANNING CITY OF RENTON MAR 3 1 1998 CITY OF RENTON RECEIVED ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST Purpose of Checklist: The State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), Chapter 43.21C 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 identify 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 impacts. Use of Checklist for Nonproject Proposals: (Please Type or Print Legibly) Complete this checklist for nonproject proposals, even though questions may be answered "does not apply". IN ADDITION, complete the SUPPLEMENTAL SHEET FOR NONPROJECT ACTIONS part D). For nonproject 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. City of Renton Environmental Checklist 3/31/98 Page 2 A. BACKGROUND 1. Name of proposed project, if applicable: 1998 Renton Comprehensive Plan Amendments Nine Comprehensive Plan Amendments (CPA's) are proposed which address the Land Use Element, Transportation Element,Housing Element, and Utility Element. 2. Name of applicant: City of Renton 3. Address and phone number of applicant and contact person: Michael D. Kattermann, Director;Neighborhoods & Strategic Planning; (425) 277-6190; Staff Contact: Troy Schlepp, (425) 277-6167 Address: 200 Mill Avenue S.; Renton, WA 98055 4. Date checklist prepared: March 30, 1998 5. Agency requesting checklist: City of Renton, Economic Development/Neighborhoods/Strategic Planning 6. Proposed timing or schedule (including phasing, if applicable): A Planning Commission hearing is to be held on April 15, 1998, and recommendations made on May 21, 1998. 7. Do you have any plans for future additions, expansions, or further activity related to or connected with this proposal? If yes, explain. To implement Comprehensive Plan Amendment 98-T-4, code amendments will be needed. 8. List any environmental information you know about that has been prepared, or will be prepared, directly related to this proposal. Draft EIS for the City of Renton Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan, January, 1992. Final EIS for the City of Renton Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan, February, 1993. Supplemental EIS for the Comprehensive Plan, December, 1994. 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. Not specifically aware of any other pending governmental approvals for any of these Comprehensive Plan Amendments. It should be noted that these CPA's are non-project legislative actions (see Section D, below). 10. List any governmental approvals or permits that will be needed for your proposal, if known. Proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendments will require action by the City Council. 11. Give brief, complete description of your proposal, including the proposed uses and the size of the project and site. There are several questions later in this checklist that ask you to describe certain aspects of your proposal. You do not need to repeat those answers on this page. CPASEPA.DOC City of Renton Environmental Checklist 3/31/98 Page 3 Six Comprehensive Plan Amendments (CPA's)are proposed which address the Land Use Element, Transportation Element,Housing Element, and Utility Element. All proposed CPA's are considered to be non-project actions since they all are legislative acts. Refer to the attached proposal summary. 12. Location of the proposal. Give sufficient information for a person to understand the precise location of your proposed project, including a street address, if any, and section, township, and range if known. If a proposal would occur over a range of area, provide the range or boundaries of the site(s). Provide a legal description, site plan, vicinity map, and topography map, if reasonably available. While you should submit any plans required by the agency, you are not required to duplicate maps or detailed plans submitted with any permit applications related to this checklist. Many CPA's have city-wide implications as they will be amendments to the City's Comprehensive Plan narrative, including policies and procedures. Some of the proposed CPA's apply to specific areas of the City. All of the Comprehensive Plan Text Amendments are listed below: File No. Description/Location File No. Description/Location 98-T-1 This application responds to the City 98-T-2 Proposed amendments to Utility Element Council's referral of the density workshop policies to remove requirements for annexation issues to the Planning Commission. Four or covenants to annex(no-protest agreements) specific issues were referred to the as a condition of connection to the City's Commission for review and recommendation: utility systems for properties outside the city 1)The proportion single family and multi-limits. Additional policies, addressing family uses, 2)Definition of Infill Comprehensive Plan consistency as a Development; 3)Definition of Neighborhood, condition of connection to City utilities for and 4)Evaluation of a way to evaluate development proposals outside of the city neighborhood issues. The proposed text limits,are included for clarification of Council amendment provides a"fine tuning" of the direction. existing residential policies to address these issues. The changes eliminate the need for a separate definition of infill development and re-work those policies which refer to creation of a separate infill development standard. The changes also clarify how the word neighborhood" is used update the policies to refer to the City's neighborhood program,and stipulate that the concept of "Neighborhood Conservation" applies to specific areas of the City which have mixed commercial and residential uses and also have large numbers of nonconforming uses. CPASEPA.DOC City of Renton Environmental Checklist 3/31/98 Page 4 98-T-3 This application evaluates the existing 98-T-4 The application evaluates proposed residential policies allowing multi-family amendments to policies applicable to the residential uses in the Employment Area Residential Options(RO)and Residential Valley,Employment Area-Commercial,Center Planned Neighborhood(RPN)land use Suburban,and Center Neighborhood designations. Policy changes proposed for the designations which are all primarily RO zone include allowing for a density bonus commercial designations. Current policies up to 13 dwelling units per acre provided all allow residential uses in up to fifty percent of units are detached ownership units. Some these areas which have CA,CS,CN,RMF-C criteria are proposed to consider redesignations or RMF-N zoning. This amendment analyzes to the RPN designation which are less than 20 the intent of these policies,possible acres in size based upon physical and implications for the City's single family/multi- jurisdictional features and boundaries. Other family split,and the potential impact on amendments shift policies between the General commercial capacity in the City. Proposed policy section applicable to both the RPN and amendments address ways to reduce multi- RO designations to the specific RO and RPN family capacity. policy sections. In the RO and RPN policies and Comprehensive Plan Glossary, clarifications of terminology between single family unit types and multi-family unit types are proposed. 98-T-5 This proposal is to amend and update the 98-T-6 This proposal is to amend and update the Arterial Chapter,the Transit Chapter,the Airport Chapter of the Transportation Element High Occupancy Vehicle Chapter,and the of the Comprehensive Plan by deleting out of Transportation Demand date text referencing the 1978 Airport Master Management/Commute Trip Reduction Plan and the 1983 Airport Master Plan TDM/CTR)Chapters of the Transportation Update,substituting references to the 1997 Element of the Comprehensive Plan by making Airport Master Plan update and focusing more editorial corrections,updating text relating to on current activities and issues affecting the the Regional Transit Authority(RTA), airport and surrounding area. identifying RTA improvements which will directly server Renton,and identifying the The original list of objectives is expanded and Downtown Renton Transit Center as the hub existing policies have been rewritten to for transit service in Renton,identifying recognize that the Airport is a Landing Rights specific HOV improvements such as access airport and should ultimately provide facilities ramps to I-405 at NE 44th Street,Park Ave for the U.S. Customs Service;that available NE,and in the vicinity of Benson or Talbot space should be maximized for the storage and Roads,and,adding NE 10th Street as an parking of aircraft and aircraft maintenance alternative to NE 12th Street as a possible and service facilities;and,that the Airport be Sunset Bypass Route.recognized as a unique,valuable, long- standing public transportation facility with The changes noted above only apply to certain costs to the community associated with narrative and tables,with no changes proposed it,including noise and some land use to existing objectives or policies. These restrictions. New policies have been provided changes are considered to be housekeeping that support the idea that Boeing should vacate amendments only. the west side of the airport when their lease expires in 2010 and that industrial and office uses not requiring access to taxiways and runways should relocate to"off-airport"sites. CPASEPA.DOC City of Renton Environmental Checklist 3/31/98 Page 5 98-T-7 The proposed text amendment would revise 98-T-8 The proposal would remove the policy policy references to the market area of requirement that existing mobile home and commercial uses in Center Neighborhood land manufactured housing parks be assigned a use designation to allow sub-regional or city- Comprehensive Plan land use designation and wide uses. Proposed implementation would zoning consistent with the current use upon increase the scale of development in the CN annexation. Zone. 98-T-9 With a current moratorium in place to prohibit the further development of new residential in the City's Commercial Areas or Suburban Centers it is possible that residential uses will be deleted in the City's commercial zones. This amendment would change Policy LU-69 which currently states that Multi-family Infill designations should not be expanded and that rather, land within"the districts" should be used more efficiently to meet multi-family housing needs. The intent is to allow existing MF-I districts to be expanded subject to criteria that would limit such expansions. B. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS 1. EARTH a. General description of the site (circle one); flat, rolling, hilly, steep, slopes, mountainous, other Not applicable for these legislative non-project actions. b. What is the steepest slope on the site (approximate percent slope?) Not applicable for these legislative non-project actions. c. What general types of soils are found on the site(for example, scaly, sand, gravel, peat, muck)? If you know the classification of agricultural soils, specify them and note any prime farmland. There are four generalized soil associations found in the Renton area: Alderwood, Oridia- Seattle-Woodinville, Beausite-Alderwood, and Everett. The Comprehensive Plan Amendments are legislative, non-project actions. Please see Section D below. d. Are there surface indications or history of unstable soils in the immediate vicinity? If so, describe. In general, geological hazards in Renton include areas susceptible to damage from landslides, earthquakes, and coal mine collapses. There are also some areas with high erosion potential. CPASEPA.DOC City of Renton Environmental Checklist 3/31/98 Page 6 The Comprehensive Plan Amendments are legislative, non-project actions. Please see Section D below. e. Describe the purpose,type, and approximate quantities of any filling or grading proposed. Indicate source of fill. Not applicable. This is a non-project action. No new development is proposed as a consequence of these CPA's. Please see Section D below for further explanation. f. Could erosion occur as a result of clearing, construction, or use? If so, generally describe. Not applicable. This is a non-project action. No new development is proposed as a consequence of these CPA's. Please see Section D below for further explanation. g. About what percent of the site will be covered with impervious surfaces after project construction (for example, asphalt or buildings)? Not applicable. This is a non-project action. No new development is proposed as a consequence of these CPA's. Please see Section D below for further explanation. h. Proposed measures to reduce or control erosion, or other impacts to the earth, if any: Not applicable. This is a non-project action. No new development is proposed as a consequence of these CPA's. Please see Section D below for further explanation. 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. This is a non-project action. No new development is proposed as a consequence of these CPA's. Please see Section D below for further explanation. b. Are there any off-site sources of emission? Not applicable. This is a non-project action. No new development is proposed as a consequence of these CPA's. Please see Section D below for further explanation. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control emissions or other impacts to air, if any: Not applicable. This is a non-project action. No new development is proposed as a consequence of these CPA's. Please see Section D below for further explanation. 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,wetlands)? If yes, describe type and provide names. If appropriate, state what stream or river it flows into. The major water bodies in the City include Lake Washington, Cedar River, Black River, Springbrook Creek, and May Creek. The Comprehensive Plan Amendments are legislative, non-project actions. Please see Section D below. CPASEPA.DOC City of Renton Environmental Checklist 3/31/98 Page 7 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. This is a non-project action. No new development is proposed as a consequence of these CPA's. Please see Section D below for further explanation. 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 of fill material. Not applicable. This is a non-project action. No new development is proposed as a consequence of these CPA's. Please see Section D below for further explanation. 4) Will the proposal require surface water withdrawals or diversions? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known. Not applicable. This is a non-project action. No new development is proposed as a consequence of these CPA's. Please see Section D below for further explanation. 5) Does the proposal lie within a 100-year floodplain? If so, note location on the site plan. In general,the Cedar River, Green River,Black River and May Creek corridors are primary flood hazard areas. This is a non-project action. No new development is proposed as a consequence of these CPA's. Please see Section D below for further explanation. 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. This is a non-project action. No new development is proposed as a consequence of these CPA's. Please see Section D below for further explanation. 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. This is a non-project action. No new development is proposed as a consequence of these CPA's. Please see Section D below for further explanation. 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. Not applicable. This is a non-project action. No new development is proposed as a consequence of these CPA's. Please see Section D below for further explanation. 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. CPASEPA.DOC City of Renton Environmental Checklist 3/31/98 Page 8 Not applicable. This is a non-project action. No new development is proposed as a consequence of these CPA's. Please see Section D below for further explanation. 2) Could waste material enter ground or surface waters? If so, generally describe. Not applicable. This is a non-project action. No new development is proposed as a consequence of these CPA's. Please see Section D below for further explanation. d. Proposed measures to reduce or control surface, ground, and runoff water impacts, if any: Not applicable. This is a non-project action. No new development is proposed as a consequence of these CPA's. Please see Section D below for further explanation. 4. PLANTS a. Check or circle types of vegetation found on the site: N/A -not project specific. deciduous tree: alder, maple, aspen, other evergreen tree: fir, cedar, pine, other shrubs grass crop or grain wet soil plants: cattail, buttercup, bullrush, skunk cabbage, other water plants: water lily, eel grass, milfoil, other other types of vegetation b. What kind and amount of vegetation will be removed or altered? Not applicable. This is a non-project action. No new development is proposed as a consequence of these CPA's. Please see Section D below for further explanation. c. List threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. Not applicable. This is a non-project action. No new development is proposed as a consequence of these CPA's. Please see Section D below for further explanation. d. Proposed landscaping, use of native plants, or other measure to preserve or enhance vegetation on the site, if any: Not applicable. This is a non-project action. No new development is proposed as a consequence of these CPA's. Please see Section D below for further explanation. 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: N/A-not project specific. Birds: hawk, heron, eagle, songbirds, other Mammals: deer, bear, elk, beaver, other Fish: bass, salmon,trout, herring, shellfish, other b. List any threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. Not applicable. The subject proposal is a non-project action. No new development is proposed as a consequence of these CPA's. Please see Section D below for further explanation. CPASEPA.DOC City of Renton Environmental Checklist 3/31/98 Page 9 c. Is the site part of a migration route? If so, explain Not applicable. The subject proposal is a non-project action. No new development is proposed as a consequence of these CPA's. Please see Section D below for further explanation. d. Proposed measures to preserve or enhance wildlife, if any: Not applicable. The subject proposal is a non-project action. No new development is proposed as a consequence of these CPA's. Please see Section D below for further explanation. 6. ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES a. What kinds of energy(electric, natural gas,wood,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. The subject proposal is a non-project action. No new development is proposed as a consequence of these CPA's. Please see Section D below for further explanation. b. Would your project affect the potential use of solar energy by adjacent properties? If so, generally describe. Not applicable. The subject proposal is a non-project action. No new development is proposed as a consequence of these CPA's. Please see Section D below for further explanation. 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. The subject proposal is a non-project action. No new development is proposed as a consequence of these CPA's. Please see Section D below for further explanation. 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. The subject proposal is a non-project action. No new development is proposed as a consequence of these CPA's. Please see Section D below for further explanation. 1) Describe special emergency services that might be required. Not applicable. The subject proposal is a non-project action. No new development is proposed as a consequence of these CPA's. Please see Section D below for further explanation. 2) Proposed measures to reduce or control environmental health hazards, if any: Not applicable. The subject proposal is a non-project action. No new development is proposed as a consequence of these CPA's. Please see Section D below for further explanation. b. Noise 1) What types of noise exist in the areas which may affect your project(for example: traffic, equipment, operation, other)? Not applicable. The subject proposal is a non-project action. No new development is proposed as a consequence of these CPA's. Please see Section D below for further explanation. CPASEPA.DOC City of Renton Environmental Checklist 3/31/98 Page 10 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. Not applicable. The subject proposal is a non-project action. No new development is proposed as a consequence of these CPA's. Please see Section D below for further explanation. 3) Proposed measures to reduce or control noise impacts, if any: Not applicable. The subject proposal is a non-project action. No new development is proposed as a consequence of these CPA's. Please see Section D below for further explanation. 8. LAND AND SHORELINE USE a. What is the current use of the site and adjacent properties? Not applicable. The subject proposal is a non-project action. No new development is proposed as a consequence of these CPA's. Please see Section D below for further explanation. b. Has the site been used for agriculture? If so, describe. Not applicable. The subject proposal is a non-project action. No new development is proposed as a consequence of these CPA's. Please see Section D below for further explanation. c. Describe any structures on the site. Not applicable. The subject proposal is a non-project action. No new development is proposed as a consequence of these CPA's. Please see Section D below for further explanation. d. Will any structures be demolished? If so,what? Not applicable. The subject proposal is a non-project action. No new development is proposed as a consequence of these CPA's. Please see Section D below for further explanation. e. What is the current zoning classification of the site? Not applicable. The subject proposal is a non-project action. No new development is proposed as a consequence of these CPA's. Please see Section D below for further explanation. f. What is the current comprehensive plan designation of the site? Not applicable. The subject proposal is a non-project action. No new development is proposed as a consequence of these CPA's. Please see Section D below for further explanation. g. If applicable,what is the current shoreline master program designation of the site? Not applicable. The subject proposal is a non-project action. No new development is proposed as a consequence of these CPA's. Please see Section D below for further explanation. h. Has any part of the site been classified as an "environmentally sensitive" area? If so, specify. Not applicable. The subject proposal is a non-project action. No new development is proposed as a consequence of these CPA's. Please see Section D below for further explanation. i. Approximately how many people would reside or work in the completed project? CPASEPA.DOC City of Renton Environmf I Checklist 3/31/98 Page 11 Not applicable. The subject proposal is a non-project action. No new development is proposed as a consequence of these CPA's. Please see Section D below for further explanation. j. Approximately how many people would the completed project displace? Not applicable. The subject proposal is a non-project action. No new development is proposed as a consequence of these CPA's. Please see Section D below for further explanation. k. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce displacement impacts, if any: Not applicable. The subject proposal is a non-project action. No new development is proposed as a consequence of these CPA's. Please see Section D below for further explanation. I. Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is compatible with existing and projected land uses and plans, if any: The compatibility between land uses and other plans has been analyzed with each CPA. Please see Section D below for further explanation. 9. HOUSING a. Approximately how many units would be provided, if any? Indicate whether high, middle, or low-income housing. Not applicable. The subject proposal is a non-project action. No new development is proposed as a consequence of these CPA's. Please see Section D below for further explanation. b. Approximately how many units, if any,would be eliminated? Indicate whether high, middle, or low-income housing. Not applicable. The subject proposal is a non-project action. No new development is proposed as a consequence of these CPA's. Please see Section D below for further explanation. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control housing impacts, if any: Not applicable. The subject proposal is a non-project action. No new development is proposed as a consequence of these CPA's. Please see Section D below for further explanation. 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. The subject proposal is a non-project action. No new development is proposed as a consequence of these CPA's. Please see Section D below for further explanation. b. What views in the immediate vicinity would be altered or obstructed? Not applicable. The subject proposal is a non-project action. No new development is proposed as a consequence of these CPA's. Please see Section D below for further explanation. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control aesthetic impacts, if any: Not applicable. The subject proposal is a non-project action. 11. LIGHT AND GLARE CPASEPA.DOC City of Renton Environmental Checklist 3/31/98 Page 12 a. What type of light or glare will the proposal produce? What time of day would it mainly occur? Not applicable. The subject proposal is a non-project action. No new development is proposed as a consequence of these CPA's. Please see Section D below for further explanation. b. Could light or glare from the finished project be a safety hazard or interfere with views? Not applicable. The subject proposal is a non-project action. No new development is proposed as a consequence of these CPA's. Please see Section D below for further explanation. c. What existing off-site sources of light or glare may affect your proposal? Not applicable. The subject proposal is a non-project action. No new development is proposed as a consequence of these CPA's. Please see Section D below for further explanation. d. Proposed measures to reduce or control light and glare impacts, if any: Not applicable. 12. RECREATION a. What designated and informal recreational opportunities are in the immediate vicinity? Not applicable. The subject proposal is a non-project action. No new development is proposed as a consequence of these CPA's. Please see Section D below for further explanation. b. Would the proposed project displace any existing recreational uses? If so, describe. The proposed non-project action will not displace any existing recreational uses. 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. The subject proposal is a non-project action. No new development is proposed as a consequence of these CPA's. Please see Section D below for further explanation. 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. The subject proposal is a non-project action. No new development is proposed as a consequence of these CPA's. Please see Section D below for further explanation. 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. The subject proposal is a non-project action. No new development is proposed as a consequence of these CPA's. Please see Section D below for further explanation. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts, if any: None are necessary. The subject proposal is a legislative non-project action that is not anticipated to change any uses or development on any of six sites. Subsequent development, if any, will have to comply with SEPA, unless categorically exempt. 14. TRANSPORTATION CPASEPA.DOC City of Renton Environmental Checklist 3/31/98 Page 13 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. The subject proposal is a non-project action. No new development is proposed as a consequence of these CPA's. Please see Section D below for further explanation. b. Is site currently served by public transit? If not,what is the approximate distance to the nearest transit stop? Not applicable. The subject proposal is a non-project action. No new development is proposed as a consequence of these CPA's. Please see Section D below for further explanation. c. How many parking spaces would the completed project have? How many would the project eliminate? Not applicable. The subject proposal is a non-project action. No new development is proposed as a consequence of these CPA's. Please see Section D below for further explanation. 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. The subject proposal is a non-project action. No new development is proposed as a consequence of these CPA's. Please see Section D below for further explanation. e. Will the project use(or occur in the immediate vicinity of)water, rail, or air transportation? If so, generally describe. Not applicable. The subject proposal is a non-project action. No new development is proposed as a consequence of these CPA's. Please see Section D below for further explanation. f. How many vehicular trips per day would be generated by the completed project? If known, indicate when peak volumes would occur. Not applicable. The subject proposal is a non-project action. No new development is proposed as a consequence of these CPA's. Please see Section D below for further explanation. g. Proposed measures to reduce or control transportation impacts, if any: Not applicable. The subject proposal is a non-project action. No new development is proposed as a consequence of these CPA's. Please see Section D below for further explanation. 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. The subject proposal is a non-project action. No new development is proposed as a consequence of these CPA's. Please see Section D below for further explanation. b. Proposed measures to reduce or control direct impacts on public services, if any. No anticipated increase in impacts on public services are anticipated as a result of these CPA's. 16. UTILITIES CPASEPA.DOC City of Renton Environmental Checklist 3/31/98 Page 14 a. Circle utilities currently available at the site: electricity, natural gas, water, refuse service, telephone, sanitary sewer, septic system, other. Not applicable. The subject proposal is a non-project action. No new development is proposed as a consequence of these CPA's. Please see Section D below for further explanation 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. The subject proposal is a non-project action. No new development is proposed as a consequence of these CPA's. Please see Section D below for further explanation 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. i Proponent: 044.1 Name Printed: J'6.21 Date Submitted: /-4 4L c$'/% ty CPASEPA.DOC L++r OF RENTON v MAR 311998 RECEIVED D. SUPPLEMENTAL SHEET FOR NONPROJECT ACTIONS: 98-T-1 Modifications to Land Use Element Residential Infill, Neighborhood Conservation Policies and Housing Element Policies This sheet should only be used for actions involving decisions on policies, plans and programs. Do not use this sheet for project actions.) 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. (a) 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? Policy amendments essentially clarify the intent of the Land Use and Housing Element policies towards infill development and neighborhood conservation. One policy which may affect allowable densities in the Residential Single Family designation may result in greater numbers of units on parcels with 3 acres or more. Additional units may result in water,air,and noise impacts during construction and upon use of the housing. b) Proposed measures to avoid or reduce such increases are: As applicable, site specific proposals will be subject to environmental review, and subject to RMC regulations regarding noise levels, aquifer protection, land clearing and tree cutting, storm and surface water drainage, Uniform Building and Fire Code regulations, and other requirements. 2.a) How would the proposal be likely to affect plants, animals, fish, or marine life? The proposed amendments would not directly result in impacts to plants, animals, fish, or marine life, as this proposed legislation would be a non-project action. Policy amendments essentially clarify the intent of the Land Use and Housing Element policies towards infill development and neighborhood conservation. One policy which may affect allowable densities in the Residential Single Family designation may result in greater numbers of units on parcels with 3 acres or more. Site specific developments with additional residential uses may result in impacts to these resources depending on location. b) Proposed measures to protect or conserve plants, animals, fish, or marine life are: As applicable, site-specific proposals will be subject to environmental review, and the application of RMC requirements regarding storm drainage, aquifer recharge protection,wetlands,land clearing and tree cutting, landscaping, shoreline etc. 3.a) How would the proposal be likely to deplete energy or natural resources? The proposed amendments would not directly result in impacts to energy or natural resources, as this proposed legislation would be a non-project action. At a site-specific level,new development may result in impacts to energy or natural resources. b) Proposed measures to protect or conserve energy and natural resources are: As applicable, site specific proposals will be subject to environmental review and Uniform Building Code energy requirements. 98T1SUPP.DOC\1 4.a) 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, floodplains, or prime farmlands? In some cases the policies clarify the balance between resource protection and meeting density goals, but the amendments would not change regulations protecting sensitive areas. One policy which may affect allowable densities in the Residential Single Family designation may result in greater numbers of units on parcels with 3 acres or more. Future site-specific development may affect habitats, historic/cultural sites, wetlands, or floodplains depending on the location of new residential development. There is little farmland in Renton. b) Proposed measures to protect such resources or to avoid or reduce impacts are: As applicable, future site-specific development will be subject to environmental review, land clearing and tree cutting regulations, aquifer protection regulations, wetland regulations,flood hazard regulations, and others. 5.a) 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? In general, the proposed policy amendments essentially clarify the intent of the Land Use and Housing Element policies towards infill development and neighborhood conservation based upon the existing interpretation and application of the Comprehensive Plan and implementing Zoning regulations. One policy change could potentially affect densities in the Residential Single Family designation. The standard density of the Residential Single Family designation is 8 dwelling units per acre. Policy LU-36 currently allows a higher density of 9.7 unit per acre for parcels one acre or less in size. This has been implemented in the corresponding R-8 zone to apply to parcels 1/2 acre or less in size. The policy amendment proposal would amend Policy LU-36 to apply the 9.7 du/acre standard to parcels with 3 acres or more. A vacant land inventory prepared for the Comprehensive Plan Update in 1992, showed approximately 34 properties or groups of properties having 3 or more acres in the Residential Single Family designation. The capacity model for the Comprehensive Plan assumed 8 du/acre on land available for development. Since there can be a variation between the minimum density(5 du/acre) and the maximum (9.7 du/acre), the capacity model assumption could still be valid. b) Proposed measures to avoid or reduce shoreline and land use impacts are: Future site-specific development would be subject to subdivision regulations, zoning requirements for setbacks, height,etc., shoreline regulations, and environmental review, as applicable. 6.a) How would the proposal be likely to increase demands on transportation or public services and utilities? The proposal would not directly result in impacts to transportation or public services, as this proposed legislation would be a non-project action. Future residential development in the Residential Single Family designation may increase demand for transportation or public services and utilities. 98T1SUPP.DOC\2 b) Proposed measures to reduce or respond to such demand(s) are: As applicable, future site-specific development will be subject to environmental review, as well as any requirements for transportation mitigation fees, fire mitigation fees, utility requirements, Commute Trip Reduction regulations and Transportation Concurrency regulations. 7.a) Identify,if possible,whether the proposal may conflict with local, state, or federal laws or requirements for the protection of the environment. The proposed action would not conflict with local, state or federal laws or requirements for the protection of the environment. 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: tt/je-mot/ Date Submitted: 3 2 J 5 98T1SUPP.DOC\3 D. SUPPLEMENTAL SHEET FOR NONPROJECT ACTIONS: 98-T-2 Utility Policies This sheet should only be used for actions involving decisions on policies, plans and programs. Do not use this sheet for project actions.) 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. NOTE: The following responses on this Supplemental Sheet are tailored to City of Renton sponsored Comprehensive Plan Text Amendments. This amendment eliminates a policy requirement to require covenants to annex prior to extending utility services. 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? This non-project CPA is not anticipated to change any of these areas since no new development is proposed. The proposed amendment brings the Comprehensive Plan into compliance with existing City Code. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce such increases are: Specific impacts would need to be reviewed on a project specific basis. 2. How would the proposal be likely to affect plants, animals, fish, or marine life? This non-project CPA is not anticipated to change any of these areas since no new development is proposed. Proposed measures to protect or conserve plants, animals, fish, or marine life are: Not applicable. 3. How would the proposal be likely to deplete energy or natural resources? This non-project CPA is not anticipated to change either of these areas since no new development is proposed. Proposed measures to protect or conserve energy and natural resources are: Not applicable. 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, floodplains, or prime farmlands? This non-project CPA is not anticipated to change any of these areas since no new development is proposed.. Proposed measures to protect such resources or to avoid or reduce impacts are: Not applicable. 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? This non-project CPA is not anticipated to change any of these areas since no new development is proposed. The impacts of individual projects are determined on a site specific basis. City of Renton Environmental Checklist 8/21/97 Page 2 Proposed measures to avoid or reduce shoreline and land use impacts are: On a site specific basis, new development would be reviewed for potential land use impacts and mitigation measures applied. 6. How would the proposal be likely to increase demands on transportation or public services and utilities? No impacts to transportation or public services and utilities are anticipated since no new development is proposed. Proposed measures to reduce or respond to such demand(s) are: Concurrency policies will help ensure that increased demands on public services and utilities are met in a timely manner for new development. 7. Identify, if possible, whether the proposal may conflict with local, state, or federal laws or requirements for the protection of the environment. The subject non-project CPA is not in conflict with local, state, or federal laws or requirements for the protection of the environment. In fact, the proposed CPA is intended to be in compliance with the State's Growth Management Act, the Shoreline Management Act, and the State Environmental Protection Act. 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: Cattietitathl Name Printed: jiselit- ( CI IA Date Submitted: t4141t)%, 3) l Ill/ SEPAT-2-3-1 D. SUPPLEMENTAL SHEET FOR NONPROJECT ACTIONS: 98-T-3 Residential Uses in Employment Area-Commercial, and Center Designations This sheet should only be used for actions involving decisions on policies,plans and programs. Do not use this sheet for project actions.) 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. NOTE: The following responses on this Supplemental Sheet are tailored to City of Renton sponsored Comprehensive Plan Text Amendments. This amendment evaluates three options for allowing residential uses in the following land use designations: Employment Area Commercial, Employment Area Valley, Center Suburban, Center Neighborhood. The three options include: 1) Continue to allow stand alone multifamily residential at existing densities( no action alternative) 2) Eliminate multi-family residential from these designations, 3) Allow multi--family residential as mixed use development only 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? This non-project CPA is not anticipated to change any of these areas since no new development is proposed. The intensity of development that could result from these amendments would be less than existing conditions for Options 2 and 3. With Option 2 and 3 more commercial development could result on sites mapped in these land use designations. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce such increases are: Specific impacts would need to be reviewed on a project specific basis. 2. How would the proposal be likely to affect plants, animals, fish, or marine life? This non-project CPA is not anticipated to change any of these areas since no new development is proposed. Proposed measures to protect or conserve plants, animals, fish, or marine life are: Not applicable. 3. How would the proposal be likely to deplete energy or natural resources? This non-project CPA is not anticipated to change either of these areas since no new development is proposed. Proposed measures to protect or conserve energy and natural resources are: Not applicable. 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,floodplains, or prime farmlands? This non-project CPA is not anticipated to change any of these areas since no new development is proposed.. Proposed measures to protect such resources or to avoid or reduce impacts are: 4. City of Renton Environmental Checklist 8/21/97 Page 2 Not applicable. 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? This non-project CPA is not anticipated to change any of these areas since no new development is proposed. The impacts of individual projects are determined on a site specific basis. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce shoreline and land use impacts are: On a site specific basis, new development would be reviewed for potential land use impacts and mitigation measures applied. Less intensive development is likely to occur as a result of Options 2 or 3. 6. How would the proposal be likely to increase demands on transportation or public services and utilities? No impacts to transportation or public services and utilities are anticipated since no new development is proposed. The impacts of individual projects are determined on a site specific basis. In general the proposed amendments encourage commercial rather than residential uses of site mapped in these designations. Proposed measures to reduce or respond to such demand(s) are: Concurrency policies will help ensure that increased demands on transportation or public services and utilities are met in a timely manner for new development. 7. Identify, if possible, whether the proposal may conflict with local, state, or federal laws or requirements for the protection of the environment. The subject non-project CPA is not in conflict with local, state, or federal laws or requirements for the protection of the environment. In fact, the proposed CPA is intended to be in compliance with the State's Growth Management Act, the Shoreline Management Act, and the State Environmental Protection Act. 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: 6heeA Name Printed: met e. 1'( L-,/Id Date Submitted: Gt1c1v 31) m1 SEPAT-3-1 98-T-4 RO/R__. POLICY AMENDMENTS D. SUPPLEMENTAL SHEETS FOR NONPROJECT ACTIONS These sheets should only be used for actions involving decisions on policies, plans and programs. You do not need to fill out these sheets for project 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 m general terms. 1.a) 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? A majority of the amendments are refinements of current policies and do not change the general intent to promote efficiently developed detached and attached housing reflecting a single family character. The proposed policy amendments would not directly result in an increased discharge to water; emissions to air; production, storage, or release of toxic or hazardous substances; or production of noise, as this proposed legislation would be a non-project action. Indirect impacts of the amendments would include incentives for additional detached housing with the proposed 13 du/acre density bonus. Additional dwellings may result in water, air, or noise impacts. b) Proposed measures to avoid or reduce such increases are: Site specific proposals will be subject to environmental review if review thresholds are triggered, and subject to RMC requirements for noise levels, aquifer recharge area protection, land clearing and tree cutting, storm and surface water drainage, Uniform Building and Fire Code regulations, and other requirements. 2,a) How would the proposal be likely to affect plants, animals, fish, or marine life? The proposed amendments would not directly result in impacts to plants, animals, fish, or marine life, as this proposed legislation would be a non-project action. Site specific developments allowed as a result of the policy amendments may result in impacts to these resources depending upon their location. b) Proposed measures to protect or conserve plants, animals, fish, or marine life are: Site-specific proposals will be subject to environmental review if review thresholds are triggered, and the application of RMC requirements regarding shoreline development, storm drainage, aquifer recharge protection, wetland management regulations, land clearing and tree cutting regulations, storm and surface water regulations, etc. 3.a) How would the proposal be likely to deplete energy or natural resources? The proposed amendments would not directly result in impacts to energy or natural resources, as this proposed legislation would be a non-project action. At a site-specific level,new development may result in impacts to energy or natural resources. b) Proposed measures to protect or conserve energy and natural resources are: Site specific proposals will be subject to environmental review if review thresholds are triggered. Uniform Building Code energy requirements will apply. 4.a) 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,floodplams, or prime farmlands? SEPASUP.DOC\ 1 3/24/98 98-T-4 RO/R.., 2 OLICY AMENDMENTS The amendments would not change zoning boundaries, or affect regulations protecting sensitive areas. Future site-specific development may affect habitats, wetlands, or floodplains. b) Proposed measures to protect such resources or to avoid or reduce impacts are: Future site-specific development will be subject to environmental review if review thresholds are triggered, as well as shoreline regulations, land clearing and tree cutting regulations, flood hazard regulations,wetland management regulations, etc. 5.a) 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? The non-project proposal is compatible with existing plans to allow a variety housing types reflective of a single family character in the RO and RPN designations. b) Proposed measures to avoid or reduce shoreline and land use impacts are: Future site-specific development would be subject to landscaping regulations, site plan and environmental review if review thresholds are triggered, as well as shoreline regulations. 6.a) How would the proposal be likely to increase demands on transportation or public services and utilities? The proposal would not directly result in impacts to transportation or public services, as this proposed legislation would be a non-project action. Future development may increase demand for transportation or public services and utilities. b) Proposed measures to reduce or respond to such demand(s)are: Future site-specific development will be subject to environmental review if review thresholds are triggered, as well as any requirements for transportation concurrency, transportation mitigation fees, fire mitigation fees, and utility requirements. 7.a) Identify, if possible,whether the proposal may conflict with local, state, or federal laws or requirements for the protection of the environment. The proposed action would not conflict with local, state or federal laws or requirements for the protection of the environment. 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 11 disclosure on my part. ProponentY - Name Printed: LJSC& Liader Date: SEPASUP.DOC\ 2 3/24/98 City of Renton Environmenta' ..,iecklist 98-T-5, __mnsportation Element 3/26/98 1 D. SUPPLEMENTAL SHEET FOR NONPROJECT ACTIONS: 98-T-5 This sheet should only be used for actions involving decisions on policies,plans and programs. Do not use this sheet for project actions.) 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. NOTE: The following responses on this Supplemental Sheet are tailored to City of Renton sponsored text amendments. Comprehensive Plan Amendment 98-T-5 relates to editorial changes and minor updates to the Transportation Element. 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? This non-project CPA is not anticipated to change any of these areas since no new development is proposed. In fact these changes are relatively minor editorial corrections and minor updates that do not significantly alter existing policies in the Transportation Element. These changes also reflect state and/or federal mandates such as the Commuter Trip Reduction Law which is updated to reflect new standards for compliance. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce such increases are: Not applicable. 2. How would the proposal be likely to affect plants, animals,fish, or marine life? These minor non-project CPAs are not anticipated to change any of these since no new development is proposed as a consequence of these editorial changes. Proposed measures to protect or conserve plants, animals,fish, or marine life are: Not applicable. 3. How would the proposal be likely to deplete energy or natural resources? These non-project CPAs are not anticipated to change either of these since no new development is proposed. These existing policies in fact endeavor to reduce the depletion of energy and natural resources by utilizing more efficient modes of transportation and reducing the number of vehicular trips made. Proposed measures to protect or conserve energy and natural resources are: Not applicable. 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, floodplains, or prime farmlands? These minor non-project CPAs are not anticipated to change any of these since no new development is proposed as a consequence of these primarily editorial amendments. Existing transportation policies have previously been evaluated. Proposed measures to protect such resources or to avoid or reduce impacts are: Not applicable. City of Renton Environmental k-hecklist Transportat.,,..Element,; 98-T-5 8/21/97 Page 2 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? These non-project CPAs are primarily editorial corrections which do not alter existing adopted policies. Existing transportation policies do affect land use but these have already been addressed in SEPA documents for the City's Comprehensive Plan. The subject minor amendments would not affect land and/or shoreline use or encourage land and shoreline uses incompatible with existing plans Proposed measures to avoid or reduce shoreline and land use impacts are: Not applicable. 6. How would the proposal be likely to increase demands on transportation or public services and utilities? No impacts to transportation or public services and utilities are anticipated since no development is anticipated as a result of these minor editorial changes. Proposed measures to reduce or respond to such demand(s) are: Not applicable. 7. Identify, if possible, whether the proposal may conflict with local, state, or federal laws or requirements for the protection of the environment. These relatively minor non-project CPAs are not in conflict with local, state, or federal laws or requirements for the protection of the environment. In fact,these proposed Comprehensive Plan amendments update current policies that implement such requirements as the State's Growth Management Act,the Shoreline Management Act, and the Environmental Protection Act. 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 re ance . s - this checklist should there be any willful misrepresent ' n o 1 lack of is osu my part. Proponent: Name Printed: ` 1032-D j. GeU 1 Date Submitted: 1l 1) 1.g U CPASEPADOC 4 City of Renton Environment ..hecklist Airport Masterplan 3/26/98 D. SUPPLEMENTAL SHEET FOR NONPROJECT ACTIONS: 98-T-6 This sheet should only be used for actions involving decisions on policies,plans and programs. Do not use this sheet for project actions.) 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. NOTE: The following responses on this Supplemental Sheet are tailored to City of Renton sponsored Comprehensive Plan Text amendments. Comprehensive Plan amendment 98-T-6 relates to changes in the Transportation Element, including the Airport Master Plan. 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? This non-project CPA is not anticipated to change any of these areas since no new development is proposed. At the time new development does occur,whether in response to this amendment or existing land use policies, it will have to,unless exempt, comply with SEPA and its impacts disclosed. These amendments update the Transportation Element and reference recent updates to the Airport Master Plan. No major development is anticipated as a consequence of these primarily editorial changes. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce such increases are: Not applicable. 2. How would the proposal be likely to affect plants, animals,fish, or marine life? This non-project CPA is not anticipated to result in changes to any of these areas since no new development is proposed. The impacts of individual projects are determined on a site specific basis. The amendment recognizes the existing commercial use of the property. Proposed measures to protect or conserve plants, animals, fish, or marine life are: Not applicable. 3. How would the proposal be likely to deplete energy or natural resources? This non-project CPA is not anticipated to change either of these areas since no new development is proposed. Impacts of individual projects at the airport will be determined on a site specific basis. The amendment recognizes the existing airport related uses at the Renton Municipal Airport and changes reflected in the most recent update to the Airport Master Plan. Proposed measures to protect or conserve energy and natural resources are: Not applicable. 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, floodplains, or prime farmlands? This non-project CPA is not anticipated to change any of these areas since no new development is proposed at this time. The impacts of individual projects will be determined on a site specific basis. The amendments recognize the existing airport related uses of the airport and adjacent areas.. r City of Renton Environmental Checklist Kenton Airport Masterplan 8/21/97 Page 2 Proposed measures to protect such resources or to avoid or reduce impacts are: Not applicable. 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? This non-project CPA is not anticipated to change any of these uses which are regulated by their respective programs and ordinances. The Airport Master Plan update does anticipate continued seaplane use at the north end of the airport as well as a possible new U.S. Customs office replacing an existing commercial building. The new use would actually be more water dependent than the use it displaces. Likewise, seaplane operations areas are also water dependent activities. Whereas it is assumed that these uses will continue to be compatible with other uses in the area, actual impacts cannot be fully determined until site specific proposals are brought forward. As mentioned in response#1,these amendments allow for greater consistency between Renton's recently updated Airport Master Plan and the 1978 Plan currently referenced in the Comprehensive Plan. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce shoreline and land use impacts are: On a site specific basis,new development will be reviewed for potential land use and shoreline impacts and appropriate mitigation measures will likely be applied. 6. How would the proposal be likely to increase demands on transportation or public services and utilities? No increased impacts to transportation or public services and utilities are anticipated since no new development is proposed. In fact the Airport Master Plan anticipates some increases in general aviation but these are likely to reduce other modes of travel they replace. Expansion of seaplane and other commuter services could result in a slight increase in motor vehicle traffic but without specific proposals. Proposed measures to reduce or respond to such demand(s) are: Concurrency policies will help ensure that any increased demands on transportation or public services and utilities are met in a timely manner for new development. 7. Identify, if possible, whether the proposal may conflict with local, state, or federal laws or requirements for the protection of the environment. The subject non-project CPA is not in conflict with local, state, or federal laws or requirements for the protection of the environment. In fact,these proposed Comprehensive Plan amendment is intended to be in compliance with the State's Growth Management Act,the Shoreline Management Act,and the State Environmental Protection Act. SIGNATURE I, the undersigned, state that to the best of my knowledge the above information is true and complete. It •erstood that t - lead agency ay withdraw any declaration of non- significance that •' issue in / . c upon h checklist should there be any willful misrepresenta on or wil 1 ck of discl sure y part. Proponent: y Name Printed: c 74..);4 LD e. ."eiC.e'3.,Uo Date Submitted: NNkliD 50 171I CPASEPA.DOC D. SUPPLEMENTAL SHEET FOR NONPROJECT ACTIONS: 98-T-7 Regional Uses in CN Designation This sheet should only be used for actions involving decisions on policies, plans and programs. Do not use this sheet for project actions.) 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. NOTE: The following responses on this Supplemental Sheet are tailored to City of Renton sponsored Comprehensive Plan Text Amendments. This amendment evaluates adding regional uses to the Center Neighborhood Designation. 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? This non-project CPA is not anticipated to change any of these areas since no new development is proposed. The potential amenment could result in more intensive development in this designation than is currently allowed. Specific zoning text amendments would also be required prior to realizing any increased development in their designation. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce such increases are: Specific impacts would need to be reviewed for both a zoning text amendment and a a project specific basis. 2. How would the proposal be likely to affect plants, animals, fish, or marine life? This non-project CPA is not anticipated to change any of these areas since no new development is proposed. Proposed measures to protect or conserve plants, animals, fish, or marine life are: Not applicable. 3. How would the proposal be likely to deplete energy or natural resources? This non-project CPA is not anticipated to change either of these areas since no new development is proposed. Proposed measures to protect or conserve energy and natural resources are: Not applicable. 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, floodplains, or prime farmlands? This non-project CPA is not anticipated to change any of these areas since no new development is proposed.. Proposed measures to protect such resources or to avoid or reduce impacts are: Not applicable. City of Renton Environmental Checklist 8/21/97 Page 2 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? This non-project CPA is not anticipated to change any of these areas since no new development is proposed. The impacts of individual projects are determined on a site specific basis. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce shoreline and land use impacts are: On a site specific basis, new development would be reviewed for potential land use impacts and mitigation measures applied. 6. How would the proposal be likely to increase demands on transportation or public services and utilities? No impacts to transportation or public services and utilities are anticipated since no new development is proposed. Proposed measures to reduce or respond to such demand(s) are: Concurrency policies will help ensure that increased demands on public services and utilities are met in a timely manner for new development. 7. Identify, if possible, whether the proposal may conflict with local, state, or federal laws or requirements for the protection of the environment. The subject non-project CPA is not in conflict with local, state, or federal laws or requirements for the protection of the environment. In fact, the proposed CPA is intended to be in compliance with the State's Growth Management Act, the Shoreline Management Act, and the State Environmental Protection Act. 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: Gt Name Printed: e n ,I Date Submitted: la '3/l SEPAT-2-3-1 D. SUPPLEMENTAL SHEET FOR NONPROJECT ACTIONS: 98-T-8 Mobile Home Policies in the Housing Element This sheet should only be used for actions involving decisions on policies,plans and programs. Do not use this sheet for project actions.) 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. NOTE: The following responses on this Supplemental Sheet are tailored to City of Renton sponsored Comprehensive Plan Text Amendments. This amendment deletes a requirement to retain mobile home developments with consistent zoning upon annexation. 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? This non-project CPA is not anticipated to change any of these areas since no new development is proposed.. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce such increases are: Not applicable 2. How would the proposal be likely to affect plants, animals, fish, or marine life? This non-project CPA is not anticipated to change any of these areas since no new development is proposed. Proposed measures to protect or conserve plants, animals, fish, or marine life are: Not applicable. 3. How would the proposal be likely to deplete energy or natural resources? This non-project CPA is not anticipated to change either of these areas since no new development is proposed. Proposed measures to protect or conserve energy and natural resources are: Not applicable. 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, floodplains, or prime farmlands? This non-project CPA is not anticipated to change any of these areas since no new development is proposed.. Proposed measures to protect such resources or to avoid or reduce impacts are: Not applicable. 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? This policy amendment could affect the supply of existing affordable housing City of Renton Environmental Checklist 8/21/97 Page 2 Proposed measures to avoid or reduce shoreline and land use impacts are: The City also support working with the County and other jurisdictions to support re-location effort for transitioning mobile home sites (Policy H-72) 6. How would the proposal be likely to increase demands on transportation or public services and utilities? No impacts to transportation or public services and utilities are anticipated since no new development is proposed. Proposed measures to reduce or respond to such demand(s) are: Not applicable. 7. Identify, if possible, whether the proposal may conflict with local, state, or federal laws or requirements for the protection of the environment. The subject non-project CPA is not in conflict with local, state, or federal laws or requirements for the protection of the environment. In fact, the proposed CPA is intended to be in compliance with the State's Growth Management Act, the Shoreline Management Act, and the State Environmental Protection Act. 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:gobio,,,,Rhrd Name Printed: 'l 1('/1, r 4. u kJ Date Submitted: ! t','b v 311 /1 l SEPAT-2-3-1 D. SUPPLEMENTAL SHEET FOR NONPROJECT ACTIONS: 98-T-9 Multi-family Infill Policies Land Use Element This sheet should only be used for actions involving decisions on policies,plans and programs. Do not use this sheet for project actions.) 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. NOTE: The following responses on this Supplemental Sheet are tailored to City of Renton sponsored Comprehensive Plan Text Amendments. The amendment evaluates adding mapping criteria to Policy LU-69. 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? This non-project CPA is not anticipated to change any of these areas since no new development is proposed.. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce such increases are: Not applicable 2. How would the proposal be likely to affect plants, animals, fish, or marine life? This non-project CPA is not anticipated to change any of these areas since no new development is proposed. Proposed measures to protect or conserve plants, animals, fish, or marine life are: Not applicable. 3. How would the proposal be likely to deplete energy or natural resources? This non-project CPA is not anticipated to change either of these areas since no new development is proposed. Proposed measures to protect or conserve energy and natural resources are: Not applicable. 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, floodplains, or prime farmlands? This non-project CPA is not anticipated to change any of these areas since no new development is proposed.. Proposed measures to protect such resources or to avoid or reduce impacts are: Not applicable. 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? This policy amendment could increase the capacity for multi-family housing in the City. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce shoreline and land use impacts are: City of Renton Environmental Checklist 8/21/97 Page 2 Mapping criteria would address the limited circumstances under which the Multi-family designations may be expanded. 6. How would the proposal be likely to increase demands on transportation or public services and utilities? No impacts to transportation or public services and utilities are anticipated since no new development is proposed. Proposed measures to reduce or respond to such demand(s) are: Not applicable. 7. Identify, if possible, whether the proposal may conflict with local, state, or federal laws or requirements for the protection of the environment. The subject non-project CPA is not in conflict with local, state, or federal laws or requirements for the protection of the environment. In fact, the proposed CPA is intended to be in compliance with the State's Growth Management Act, the Shoreline Management Act, and the State Environmental Protection Act. 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: 1Aae - w.i , Name Printed:1&e f c 1 no( Date Submitted: t1G164\-/ 3)) /1)0 SEPAT-2-3-1 DEV'EWPMFnIT PLANNINGCITYOFKENON MAR 3 1 1998 1998 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TEXT AMENDMENTS QCC ED PROPOSAL SUMMARY AEG AMENDMENT 98-T-1 - Modifications To Land Use Element Residential Infill, Neighborhood Conservation Policies And Housing Element Policies This application responds to the City Council's referral of the density workshop issues to the Planning Commission. Four specific issues were referred to the Commission for review and recommendation: 1) The proportion single family and multi-family uses,2)Definition of Infill Development; 3) Definition of Neighborhood, and 4) Evaluation of a way to evaluate neighborhood issues. The proposed text amendment provides a "fine tuning" of the existing residential policies to address these issues. The changes eliminate the need for a separate definition of infill development and re-work those policies which refer to creation of a separate infill development standard. The changes also clarify how the word "neighborhood" is used update the policies to refer to the City's neighborhood program, and stipulate that the concept of "Neighborhood Conservation" applies to specific areas of the City which have mixed commercial and residential uses and also have large numbers of nonconforming uses. AMENDMENT 98-T-2—Utility Element Policies Proposed amendments to Utility Element policies to remove requirements for annexation or covenants to annex (no-protest agreements) as a condition of connection to the City's utility systems for properties outside the city limits. Additional policies, addressing Comprehensive Plan consistency as a condition of connection to City utilities for development proposals outside of the city limits, are included for clarification of Council direction. AMENDMENT 98-T-3 - Residential Uses in Employment Area Commercial, Employment Area Valley, Suburban Center and Neighborhood Center Designations This application evaluates the existing residential policies allowing multi-family residential uses in the Employment Area Valley, Employment Area-Commercial, Center Suburban, and Center Neighborhood designations which are all primarily commercial designations. Current policies allow residential uses in up to fifty percent of these areas which have CA, CS, CN, RMF-C or RMF-N zoning. This amendment analyzes the intent of these policies, possible implications for the City's single family/multi-family split, and the potential impact on commercial capacity in the City. Proposed amendments address ways to reduce multi-family capacity. AMENDMENT 98-T-4 - Residential Options And Residential Planned Neighborhood Policy Amendments The application evaluates proposed amendments to policies applicable to the Residential Options (RO) and Residential Planned Neighborhood (RPN) land use designations. Policy changes proposed for the RO zone include allowing for a density bonus up to 13 dwelling units per acre provided all units are detached ownership units. Some criteria are proposed to consider redesignations to the RPN designation which are less than 20 acres in size based upon physical and jurisdictional features and boundaries. Other amendments shift policies between the General policy section applicable to both the RPN and RO designations to the specific RO and RPN policy sections. In the RO and RPN policies and Comprehensive Plan Glossary, clarifications of terminology between single family unit types and multi-family unit types are proposed. TXTPRPSM.DOC\ AMENDMENT 98-T-5 - Text Amendments to the Arterial, Transit, HOV, Transportation Demand Management/Commuter Trip Reduction Chapters of the Transportation Element This proposal is to amend and update the Arterial Chapter, the Transit Chapter, the High Occupancy Vehicle Chapter, and the Transportation Demand Management/Commute Trip Reduction (TDM/CTR) Chapters of the Transportation Element of the Comprehensive Plan by making editorial corrections, • updating text relating to the Regional Transit Authority (RTA), identifying RTA improvements which will directly serve Renton, and identifying the Downtown Renton Transit Center as the hub for transit service in Renton, identifying specific HOV improvements such as access ramps to I-405 at NE 44th Street, Park Avenue NE, and in the vicinity of Benson or Talbot Roads, and, adding NE 10th Street as an alternative to NE 12th Street as a possible Sunset Bypass Route. The changes noted above only apply to narrative and tables, with no changes proposed to existing objectives or policies. These changes are considered to be housekeeping amendments only. AMENDMENT 98-T-6 - Text Amendments To Airport Chapter,Transportation Element This proposal is to amend and update the Airport Chapter of the Transportation Element of the Comprehensive Plan by deleting out of date text referencing the 1978 Airport Master Plan and the 1983 Airport Master Plan Update, substituting references to the 1997 Airport Master Plan update and focusing more on current activities and issues affecting the airport and surrounding area. The original list of objectives is expanded and existing policies have been rewritten to recognize that the Airport is a Landing Rights airport and should ultimately provide facilities for the U.S. Customs Service; that available space should be maximized for the storage and parking of aircraft and aircraft maintenance and service facilities; and, that the Airport be recognized as a unique, valuable, long- standing public transportation facility with certain costs to the community associated with it, including noise and some land use restrictions. New policies have been provided that support the idea that Boeing should vacate the west side of the airport when their lease expires in 2010 and that industrial and office uses not requiring access to taxiways and runways should relocate to"off-airport"sites. AMENDMENT 98-T-7-Regional Uses in Center Neighborhood Designation The proposed text amendment would revise policy references to the market area of commercial uses in Center Neighborhood land use designation to allow sub-regional or city-wide uses. Proposed implementation would increase the scale of development in the CN Zone. AMENDMENT 98-T-8-Mobile Home Policies in the Housing Element The proposal would remove the policy requirement that existing mobile home and manufactured housing parks be assigned a Comprehensive Plan land use designation and zoning consistent with the current use upon annexation. AMENDMENT 98-T-9-Multi Family Infill Designation Criteria,Land Use Element This amendment would change Policy LU-69 which currently states that Multi-family Infill designations should not be expanded and that rather, land within "the districts" should be used more efficiently to meet multi-family housing needs. The intent is to allow existing MF-I districts to be expanded subject to criteria that would limit such expansions. TX'TPRPSM.DOC\ AMENDMENT 98-T-5 - Text Amendments to the Arterial, Transit, HOV, Transportation Demand Management/Commuter Trip Reduction Chapters of the Transportation Element This proposal is to amend and update the Arterial Chapter, the Transit Chapter, the High Occupancy Vehicle Chapter, and the Transportation Demand Management/Commute Trip Reduction (TDM/CTR) Chapters of the Transportation Element of the Comprehensive Plan by making editorial corrections, updating text relating to the Regional Transit Authority (RTA), identifying RTA improvements which will directly serve Renton, and identifying the Downtown Renton Transit Center as the hub for transit service in Renton, identifying specific HOV improvements such as access ramps to I-405 at NE 44th Street, Park Avenue NE, and in the vicinity of Benson or Talbot Roads, and, adding NE 10th Street as an alternative to NE 12th Street as a possible Sunset Bypass Route. The changes noted above only apply to narrative and tables, with no changes proposed to existing objectives or policies. These changes are considered to be housekeeping amendments only. AMENDMENT 98-T-6- Text Amendments To Airport Chapter, Transportation Element This proposal is to amend and update the Airport Chapter of the Transportation Element of the Comprehensive Plan by deleting out of date text referencing the 1978 Airport Master Plan and the 1983 Airport Master Plan Update, substituting references to the 1997 Airport Master Plan update and focusing more on current activities and issues affecting the airport and surrounding area. The original list of objectives is expanded and existing policies have been rewritten to recognize that the Airport is a Landing Rights airport and should ultimately provide facilities for the U.S. Customs Service; that available space should be maximized for the storage and parking of aircraft and aircraft maintenance and service facilities; and, that the Airport be recognized as a unique, valuable, long- standing public transportation facility with certain costs to the community associated with it, including noise and some land use restrictions. New policies have been provided that support the idea that Boeing should vacate the west side of the airport when their lease expires in 2010 and that industrial and office uses not requiring access to taxiways and runways should relocate to"off-airport"sites. AMENDMENT 98-T-7-Regional Uses in Center Neighborhood Designation The proposed text amendment would revise policy references to the market area of commercial uses in Center Neighborhood land use designation to allow sub-regional or city-wide uses. Proposed implementation would increase the scale of development in the CN Zone. AMENDMENT 98-T-8-Mobile Home Policies in the Housing Element The proposal would remove the policy requirement that existing mobile home and manufactured housing parks be assigned a Comprehensive Plan land use designation and zoning consistent with the current use upon annexation. AMENDMENT 98-T-9-Multi Family Infill Designation Criteria,Land Use Element This amendment would change Policy LU-69 which currently states that Multi-family Infill designations should not be expanded and that rather, land within "the districts" should be used more efficiently to meet multi-family housing needs. The intent is to allow existing MF-I districts to be expanded subject to criteria that would limit such expansions. TXTPRPSM.DOC\ i APPLICATION 98-T-1 MODIFICATIONS TO LAND USE ELEMENT RESIDENTIAL INFILL, AND NEIGHBORHOOD CONSERVATION POLICIES AND HOUSING ELEMENT POLICIES DESCRIPTION This application responds to the City Council's referral of the density workshop issues to the Planning Commission. Four specific issues were referred to the Commission for review and recommendation: 1) The proportion single family and multi-family uses (SF/MF Mix and Urban Center Designation), 2) Definition of Infill Development, 3)Definition of Neighborhood, and 4) Evaluation of a way to evaluate neighborhood issues. The proposed text amendment provides a"fine tuning" of the existing residential policies to address these issues. The changes eliminate the need for a separate definition of infill development and re-work those policies which refer to creation of a separate infill development standard. The changes also clarify how the word"neighborhood"is used, update the policies to refer to the City's neighborhood program, and stipulate that the concept of "Neighborhood Conservation" applies to specific areas of the City which have mixed commercial and residential uses and also have large numbers of nonconforming uses. ISSUE SUMMARY 1.. Should policies support increasing the percentage of single family units relative to multi-family units? 2.Should policies addressing specific infill development standards should be re-written in the Land Use and Housing Elements? 3.Should policies addressing a"neighborhood conservation area"should be revised? 4.Should policies supporting a neighborhood specific planning process be developed? 5.Are current definitions and use of the word"neighborhood"adequate in the context of the desired policy framework? RECOMMENDATION SUMMARY The attached proposed policy amendments are the Planning Commission's response to this Council request. This is a Planning Commission proposal, rather than a staff recommendation. The staff recommendation will be prepared after further review and analysis is completed. The Commission's recommendation includes the following decisions. 1. The single family/multi-family mix objectives in the Comprehensive Plan Land Use and Housing Elements should be retained. Current policies provide for a maximum of 50% multi-family development outside of the downtown. 2. In order to maximize single family capacity the density objectives in the single family designation should be maintained. 3. Specific references to "Infill Development Standards" and "Infill Development" should be eliminated and the policies re-worked. The Commission supports this position because they found that infill development was difficult to define and that the majority of vacant parcels within the City of Renton could be considered infill. The Commission concluded that the citywide approach to single family development and the current development standards were still desirable. 98-T-1 Page 2 4. After review of the issue of neighborhood planning, or a neighborhood based approach to development regulations, the Commission concluded that a more specific definition of neighborhood than currently in use would be difficult to develop and implement. They decided that a neighborhood based set of development regulations would also be difficult to implement. The Commission recommended modifying existing policies to incorporate references to the City's Neighborhood Program as a means of increasing citizen involvement and participation in decision making. ANALYSIS The Planning Commission's approach would not change the overall regulatory framework of the existing single family residential policies. The recommendation to retain the existing density goals would continue the adopted policy of maximizing single family residential capacity. The mix of single family to multi-family development could only be significantly changed if the capacity of multi-family areas outside the downtown were reduced. At the time the Commission reviewed these recommendations, multi-family down zoning was not contemplated. Presently in the context of review of the Center and Employment Area multi- family capacity (Application 98-T-3), and the moratorium on multi-family development in these designations further analysis of these issues should occur. The recommendation to eliminate references to infill development and neighborhood based planning provide the greatest content changes in the Commission's proposal. Adopted policies (H-81, LU-38) call for infill standards. These proposed policy changes will eliminate existing conflicts between the policies and zoning code. Further infill development guidelines and/or neighborhood planning guidelines will not be developed. The recommended policy changes also make it clear that the City expects additional growth to occur in existing residential areas. Some existing policies (LU-39) have been interpreted at times by the public and/or Hearing Examiner to require new development to match the development standards of existing development. The proposed amendments attempt to clarify and eliminate these potential conflicts. Existing Policy LU-36 allows a density exception of up to 9.7 dwelling units per acre for parcels less than 1/2 acre in size. The Planning Commission recommendation is to eliminate this exception for small parcels and to allow greater density only for larger parcels over 3 acres. This change would shift the most dense single family development out of existing neighborhoods and into larger more undeveloped areas. Existing Policies H-80, H-83, refers to "neighborhood preservation" and developing "neighborhood plans". This reference is amended in the proposal to refer to the Neighborhood Program. References to the Neighborhood Program are also added to the Plan discussion text. The Planning Commission felt that the new Neighborhood Program was an adequate avenue to encourage public involvement in planning issues. Existing Policies LU-20 and LU-21 introduce the concept of a neighborhood conservation area into the land use policies. These policies are currently not clear about the kinds of neighborhoods which might be evaluated or nominated for inclusion in a future conservation program. The policies describe "older and distinctive neighborhoods". The neighborhood conservation policies have been used on appeal by single family property owners opposed to additional density in their neighborhoods. The original concept of"neighborhood conservation"was limited to neighborhoods with larger numbers of legal non- conforming uses, such as North Renton and portions of Kennydale. The ideas was to provide some additional guidance as non-conforming properties gradually are redeveloped so that the scale and character of the neighborhood is considered in the review process. The Planning Commission favored retaining the concept of neighborhood conservation, but clarified the policies. Proposed policies would Planning/Amends/9 8/T-1 Iss 98-T-1 Page 3 only apply in those few neighborhoods with non-conforming uses. Many fewer areas of the City would be potentially eligible,and most single family residential areas would not be considered. Additional Housekeeping Amendments are proposed in several places to clarify wording, and focus the policies on the overall objective of providing a range of unit types and adding quality single family development in the City. References to "neotraditional" are eliminated (H-84). The residential types policies are modified to clarify that low density and established single family areas will have single family development in the future, areas around Centers or Employment areas will have a wider range of housing types and higher densities, and that large lot single family is should occur in Rural Residential. LU-16,LU-16.1,LU-18) Planning/.\mends/98/T-1 Iss Application 98-T-1 Infill and Neighborhood Conservation Policies Housekeeping Amendments to Clarify Policy Intent in the Housing and Land Use Element. Planning Commission Recommendations HOUSING ELEMENT REVISIONS NEIGHBORHOODS Existing Housing Stock Renton's existing housing stock is the dominant feature of the residential neighborhoods in the City. It creates much of the existing character of the community and will provide a significant proportion of the middle and moderate income housing in the City in the future. In some cases development will occur in existing neighborhoods. Eexisting housing maywill be demolished and replaced with new commercial development or higher density residential development. In sometkese cases the economic development objectives of the City or the vision of more intensive urban residential development, particularly in single family neighborhoods-the use-core will appear to contradict the goal of preserving and protecting existing housing stock. To resolve these apparant conflicts policy objectives will need to be weighed and balanced to further the Mission Statement of the City(see Vision Chapter). The existing housing stock includes a number of units which by virtue of their condition, age or location may be subject to demolition or change of use over the next 20 years. The City should consider measures to retain as much of this housing as possible. Currently the City enforces building maintenance codes through a complaint based system_ The City also is active in funding two programs through the Community Development Block Grants designed to prevent deterioration of housing in Renton. No Changes in Sections on Housing Conditions, Age of Residential Structures, Overcrowding, Demolitions Quality Of Life Renton is characterized by a variety of stable single family and multi-family neighborhoods. These neighborhoods are largely defined by residential subdivisions, public schools, and other community facilities and amenities which serve them. Over the next twenty years, as the City becomes more densely developed, neighborhoods are expected to become more oriented to the Neighborhood and Community Centers which serve them with commercial services,transit,and community services. Neighborhoods are always impacted in some way by new development. The focus of these policies is to develop strategies to encourage b1ing higher-quality development and re-development into neighborhoods to accommodate Renton's regional fair share of growth and improve the quality of life for Renton residents.-and Development which occurs on pre-existing lots or on lots created by a short plat process is expected to continue to occur in the City. development. city-where,Wwith the exception of the annexation areas, the majority of new development will occur on small sites within existing neighborhoods. The quality of life, measured by issues such as noise, traffic, Page 1 compatible land uses, and neighborhood character and amenities, should be maintained or even improved as developmentiEnfill occurs. lnfill—Ddevelopment of small unused parcels or redevelopment of properties is a particular concern within existing neighborhoods. ln€ll iprojects need to be particularly sensitive to the character of surrounding development. They should be in scale, and preserve the privacy of adjoining properties. Since development will be occurring at slightly higher densities in many neighborhoods, however, existing lot sizes will not set a standard for the new development. A mix of lot sizes and unit types will instead set a new standard. New housing built on large parcels of land and/or on the periphery of the urban area should also be of high quality and include amenities which enhance the community. Development which occurs on land as part of a subdivision is considered new development. The City has also provided a mechanism to address community concerns about issues affecting neighborhoods a though the Neighborhood Program. Residential Neighborhoods Within Mixed Use Designations The Land Use Element envisions development of mixed use Centers which will evolve out of Renton's existing commercial areas. These Centers will become the sites of major concentrations of commercial, office and multi-family development in the City. These three uses are to be integrated to create high quality urban environments which function as focal points for surrounding single family residential areas. The housing within the mixed use Centers needs to serve a variety of household types and income groups for these residential areas to become successful neighborhoods. While the density of the mixed use Centers will be higher than is allowed in other parts of the City the quality of life will be enhanced by the proximity to shopping,transit,and adjacent parks, libraries and other public facilities. Downtown Renton is expected to become a mixed use regional Urban Center. The Housing within the downtown will have an urban residential character and provide a variety of housing opportunities ranging from studio to two and three bedroom units. Housing in the Community and Neighborhood Centers is expected to be more suburban in character offering opportunities for garden style apartments and condominiums. The Office Residential Centers are future location of high density condominium developments. In 1990, downtown census tracts showed a concentration of lower income households compared with the City average. For example, Citywide, 15%of households make less than $14,999. In the downtown area, 48%of households make less the $14,999. As the downtown is redeveloped some affordable housing should be replaced. However,the City's goal will be to correct the over concentration of lower income households in this area over the life of the plan. No Changes to Section on Homeownership and Preservation of Existing Housing Stock Objective H-M: Develop and maintain livable neighborhoods with a desirable quality of life. Policy H-80. Promote community identity and neighborhood entry signs, landscaping, grand pride in neighborhoods. eeerdinates property management for any public lands within the neighborhood. Strategy H-80.1. Develop a neighborhood wen program which could includes a parking and traffic management component Page 2 Policy H-81. Protect the character of existing Policy H-82. Relate the size of structures to the single family neighborhoods by promoting high size of lots in order to create infill-development quality-ill development. which fits into a neighborhood. Strategy H-81.1. Adopt infill-design-standards Policy H-83.Develop a neighborhood for infill smaller lot housing-in single family programplanning process to encouragedevelep and mixed single family/multi-family areas neighborhood involvement plus—which—and to which encourage housing types designed to address local conditions on a more detailed scale. look like single family development with ground related unit entries— These design Policy H-84. Promote quality development in new standards should specify how development of neighborhoods. smaller lots can be accomplished without changing the character of neighborhoods. Strategy H-84.1. Encourage smaller lot single family subdivisions with quality pedestrian and Strategy H-81.2. Require duplex and triplex transit connections developments to be designed at the scale of designs-within newly developing areas. single family developments. Objective H-N: Increase the percentage of homeownership in Renton's neighborhoods. LAND USE ELEMENT REVISIONS RESIDENTIAL Summary: The purpose of the Residential policies is to provide a vision for future development in Renton's neighborhoods and throughout the City. The Residential policies address the location of housing development, housing densities, non-residential uses allowed in residential areas, site design, and housing types in neighborhoods. (See Public Facilities Section for policies on schools, churches, and other facilities in residential areas. See Housing Element for policies relating to densities, housing types and neighborhoods) Regional Growth Policies Policy LU-4. Future residential growth should achieve a maximum 50%multi-family housing in parts of the City located outside of the Urban Center Policy LU-9. Sufficient quantities of land should be designated to accommodate the 50/50 residentail mix and supporting commercial and industrial luses, including or excluding the Urban Center. General Residential Policies Location of Population Growth Objective LU-G: Manage and plan for high quality residential growth in Renton which preserves open space and discourages urban sprawl. Policy LU-11.Future residential growth should be accommodated through: Page 3 a. development of new nelgnuorhoods in environmentally suitable vacant land on the hills and plateaus surrounding downtown; b. development of vacant parcelslets in Renton's established neighborhoods; c. development of single family/multi-family mix neighborhoods in appropriate locations; d. new larger scale multi-family development located in Renton's downtown, as infill in existing multi-family areas, in designated Centers,and e. mixed use commercial/residential projects in employment areas. Policy LU-12. Residential development should be limited in community separator areas, and environmentally sensitive areas such as 100 year floodways,high risk coal mine areas and hazardous landslides and erosion areas. Policy LU-13. Phasing mechanisms and/or incentives should be developed to promote the timely and logical progression of residential development. Priority should be given to development of vacant land with infrastructure capacity which is located closer to the city's Urban Center. Policy LU-14. Priority should also be given to redevelopment of land located in or closer to the city's Urban Center. Residential-Types Policy LU-15. Encourage a city-wide mix of housing types including large lot and small lot single family development, small-scale and large-scale multi-family housing,and residential mixed-use development. Policy LU-16. In established lewdensitysingle family-neighborhoods and new low density areas, encourage a mix-of-small scale single family housing types_ ' i. ., Policy LU-16.1 In areas bordering Center designations and in areas with an existing mix of residential use types encourage a mix of single family and small scale multi-family housing types designed to look like single family development with ground related entries, i.e. duplex.triplex,fourplex. Policy LU-17. Large multi-family development projects or large concentrations of multi-family development should be prohibited outside the downtown area except in Centers and the Multi-family Residential Infill designations. Policy LU-18. The City should encourage large lot single family development in Rural Residential designations providing a more rural life style in environmentally sensitive,habitat-valuable, or agriculturally resource laden areas. The City should discourage more intensive platting patterns in these areas. Page 4 Policy LU-19. The City should discourage creation of economic enclaves especially where lower income units would be segregated within a development. Policy LU-20. Encourage enhancement and stability in those Renten neighborhoods which have significant numbers of legal non-conforming uses through the designation of Neighborhood Conservation areas. Policy LU-21.—Within Neighborhood Conservation areas encourage developments which increase the percentage of-conforming uses to allow eventuat transition of these areas. Transition of uses should be implemented in a manner which recognizes the overall character of the areas while at the same time encouraging the eventual transition of the uses. Policy LU-22. Encourage the city and neighborhoods to jointly work toward identifying Neighborhood Conservation areas as needed. Discussion: This category intended to be applied within one of the following existing land use designations with a suffix to help stabilize neighborhoods in transition and to revitalize and enhance their appearance. The intent is to establish special policies and development standards for older, established neighborhoods that have a large number of non-conforming uses and structures. This designation is an opportunity for residents and property owners to initiate added protection of their neighborhood. Residential Density Objective LU-H: Support the transit and transportation goals of the City by building toward a more concentrated and dense urban development pattern. Policy LU-23. New development within all size, intensity, and operation of such uses to ensure residential designations except Rural Residential their compatibility with residential uses. should achieve a minimum density. The minimum density may be adjusted to reflect constraints on a site. Policy LU-24.New development within all residential designations except Rural ResidentialLow Density Single—wily should be platted in a way which does not preclude eventual development at the required minimum density in each residential designation. Policy LU-25. Small-scale home occupations that provide opportunities for people to work in their homes should be allowed in residential areas. Standards should govern the design, Page 5 Residential Single Family Objective LU-J: Encourage investment in Residential Single Family areas resulting in quality neighborhoods with amenities for residents, improve opportunitis for better public transportation,and make more efficient use of urban services and infrastructure. Policy LU-34. Maximum Net development densities of 8 dwelling units per acre should be allowed in Residential Single Family neighborhoods. Policy LU-35. A minimum lot size of 4,500 square feet should be allowed in single family residential neighborhoods except when flexible development standards are used for project review. Policy LU-36. Allow development at 9.7 dwelling units per net acre on iifftll-parcels of ene-acre-er-less 3 acres or more as an incentive to encourage single family small lot development on 4,500 sq. ft. lots. Policy LU-37. Maximum height of structures should generally not exceed 2 stories in single family residential neighborhoods. Policy LU-38. Development Standards for single family neighborhoods._These standards should provide sufficient lot sizes and width, address )building height idth,-and-length 2)-front, side, and back yard setbacks; 3)-mindrauni—lot coverage; to encourage investment in neighborhoods. These standards may differ from those used for existing residences,_4) leeation-of Policy LU-39. New-Development Regulations for single family neighborhoods should-addressbe 1)transportation and pedestrian connections between neighborhoods; 2) compatible boundaries between neighborhoods_;-and 3 a ible street dscap and-s s- Policy LU-40 New plats developed at higher densities within existing neighborhoods should be designed to incorporate street locations, lot configurations, and building envelopes which address privacy and quality of life for existing residents. Policy LU-4140. New development should provide street landscaping and setbacks which are similar to those of existing residences where possible. Where different development standards are required to meet the density objectives of this Plan, attempts should be made to reduce conflicts, however strict adherence to older standards is not expected. Policy LU-42 Site features such as distinctive stands of trees and natural slopes should be retained to enhance neighborhood character and preserve property values where possible. Retension of unique site features should be balanced with the objective of investing in neighborhoods within the overall context of the Vision Statement of this Comprehensive Plan. DENWKLU.DOC1 Page 6 AMENDMENT 98-T-2 —Utility Element Policies DESCRIPTION: Proposed amendments to Utility Element policies would remove requirements for annexation or covenants to annex(no-protest agreements) as a condition of connection to the City's utility systems for properties outside the city limits. Proposed text changes are shown on Attachment A. ISSUE SUMMARY: 1. City Code and Utility Element policies are inconsistent with recent amendments to City Code and current City procedures regarding requirements for annexation or covenants to annex as a condition of receiving utility services. RECOMMENDATION SUMMARY: Amend applicable Utility Element policies to remove requirements for annexation or covenants to annex as a condition of connection to the City's water and sanitary sewer systems. ANALYSIS: In August of 1997, the Council amended the City Code to remove the requirement for covenants to annex as a condition of connection to the City's sanitary sewer system. This represents a significant change in policy direction. Covenants have not been required as a condition of connection to the City's water system according to Code but have generally been required as a matter of procedure. Pursuant to the Council's direction on requirements for annexation or annexation covenants for sanitary sewer service,the Administration has ceased requiring covenants for water service as well. Utility Element policies currently direct that utility connections should be contingent on covenants or, where appropriate, annexation. Thus, there is an inconsistency between the Comprehensive Plan policies and City Code. City Code reflects the most recent Council direction. The proposed amendments will have no affect on the City's processes and procedures, since the policy change has already been implemented in City Code and current procedure. However, the uncoupling of utility extensions from annexation will provide two benefits to the City. First, it will change the substance of annexation debate in the City's Potential Annexation Areas PAAs). While a significant number of annexations have been initiated to receive utility services from Renton, the association of annexation and new development allowed by sewer availability has galvanized owners of existing development to resist annexations. Uncoupling the issues allows residents and property owners in Renton's Potential Annexation Areas to assess the implications of annexation according to service expectations, land use plans, taxation and community identity rather than whether development can be forestalled. Second, according to the Countywide Planning Policies, cities are the preferred providers of services to their PAAs. In areas where sewer services are unavailable and are not included in the future service area of adjacent utility districts by agreement with the City, such areas should be included in the City's planning for future service needs. However, while future demand can be estimated, the timing and potential for implementation of such plans cannot be calculated if it is dependant upon annexation. The revised policy direction allows the City to pursue sanitary sewer service to meet its natural boundaries 98-T-2.DOC\ as defined by basins, the City's PAA and the City's Sewer Service Areas. This will result in the most cost-effective means for the provision of sewer service to the area. In terms of facilitating annexations, covenants to annex have limited effectiveness as a tool to obtain petition signatures. Covenants cannot be substituted for petition signatures, and are difficult to enforce if the current property owner is resistant to signing a petition. The City must be willing to proceed with legal action if property owners are refuse to sign a petition as required by a previously signed agreement. Enforcement against unwilling participants would, in many instances, exact costs higher than the potential benefit to the City. CAPACITY ANALYSIS: The proposed policy text changes will not affect the City's capacity. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN COMPLIANCE: The proposed policy amendments would not conflict with other Comprehensive Plan policies. ZONING CONCURRENCY: Not applicable CONCLUSION: The proposed Utility Element policy changes would only document current Council policy and City procedure. Overall,the prior change in City policy is anticipated to provide a net benefit to annexation efforts. 98-T-2.DOC\ AMENDMENT 98-T-2 - ATTACHMENT A The following policies are proposed for amendment or deletion. Policy U-24. The owners of all properties, located in unincorporated portions of the Renton Planning Area and outside of municipal service areas, should agree to develop n accordance with the City's development standards, if granted City utilities, except in the cases of threat to public health and safety. Policy U-45. Allow extensions of water service, without annexation, to areas outside of the city limits; 1) when such areas are within the City's water service area, or 2) when no other reasonable service is available AND it is determined by the City and/or State Department of Health that a public health emergency exists or is imminent. ^ll perk. of de„elopment rated King Cou ty who--are r nted Cit,water o should be ro red t, t to a Policy ' Peliey-1 request i and-state criteria for annexation. The City shall actively pursue annexation of areas where annexation is logical- Policy U-69. Allow the extension of sanitary sewer services within the City's Potential Annexation Area according to such criteria as the City may require. Sanitary sewer services shall not be established within another sewer service district which provides sanitary sewer service except by agreement with that sewer service district. llow the extension of sa itary so 0 0 es beyond the City's boundary Conned-(pufsuant-te--Wastewater-Gemprehensive-Plan-Peliey-14,5),Sueb-speeial-serviee-areas-may nenot be-e ag t. .ith hat e district 98-T-2.DOC\ APPLICATION 98-T-3 - RESIDENTIAL USES IN EMPLOYMENT AREA COMMERCIAL, EMPLOYMENT AREA VALLEY, SUBURBAN CENTER AND NEIGHBORHOOD CENTER DESIGNATIONS DESCRIPTION This application evaluates the existing residential policies which allow multi-family residential uses in the Employment Area Valley, Employment Area-Commercial, Center Suburban, and Center Neighborhood designations which are all primarily commercial designations. Current policies allow residential uses in up to fifty percent of these areas. This amendment will analyze the intent of these policies,possible implications for the City's single family/multi-family split, and the potential impact on commercial capacity in the City. Proposed amendments will address ways to reduce multi-family capacity. ISSUE SUMMARY The City recently adopted a moratorium on future new multi-family uses in the zoning districts implementing these land use designations. The moratorium was enacted to provide an opportunity to evaluate the City's overall policies governing multi-family development in these zoning districts. While the majority of the work program for resolution of these issues will involve the City's zoning code, the broad question of whether multi-family uses should be allowed in the commercial designations, and if so, in what form, also needs to be addressed in the City's Comprehensive Plan Land Use and Housing Elements. This report evaluates three policy options. 1) Retain existing policies allowing stand alone multi-family development at up to 20 dwelling units per acre. 2) Delete residential uses from these land use categories. 3) Allow residential uses in a limited form e.g. by requiring mixed use development. RECOMMENDATION SUMMARY 1. Amend the Land Use policies to eliminate residential as an allowed use in the Employment Area Commercial and Employment Area Valley designations. 2. Amend the Land Use and Housing policies to restrict residential uses in the Center Suburban and Neighborhood designations. 3. Consider possible re-zoning of some lands within the existing Centers to lower density residential designations which encourage a different form of urban development and a more limited range of multi- family units types. ANALYSIS The intent of the existing policies was to provide active mixed use environments in the Employment Areas and Centers within the City. The Land Use Element Vision states "Future Diversified Commercial Areas" Existing commercial areas elsewhere in the City would be transformed into more compact mixed use centers with well defined boundaries for their growth. Parking lots would be smaller and development more pedestrian T-31ss Page 1 oriented. Businesses in these centers would provide community goods and services most regional services relocated downtown. New residential development would be a compatible scale and density. The Housing Element text states: "Residential Neighborhoods Within Mixed Use Designations"The Land Use Element envisions development of mixed use Centers which will evolve out of Renton's existing commercial areas. These Centers will become the sites of major concentrations of commercial, office and multi family development in the City. These three uses are to be integrated to create high quality urban environments which function as focal points for surrounding single family residential areas." The policies adopted to enact this vision provided a broad opportunity for residential uses to occur. However, in all designations, the residential uses were expected to be no more than 50% of total development in the district(See attachment 1 Policies LU- 115, 121, 178). Mixed use development and stand alone multi-family projects are both allowed. On a site specific basis all of a parcel can currently be developed with residential uses. It is difficult to control the percentage of a total land use designation which is available for multi-family uses through the Comprehensive Plan. The zoning map and the development regulations are more appropriate places to achieve this type of regulation if it is so desired. The City Administration expressed several concerns with allowing multi-family development in these areas. First, in a very active current real estate market many prime sites could be developed with multi- family to the exclusion of commercial uses. Second,the type of development encouraged in these areas is largely garden style apartments. This development type does not encourage homeownership opportunities, or small scale multi-family developments and a wide range of housing types. These desirable qualities for new multi-family unit types are widely supported in the Comprehensive Plan, particularly in the Residential Planned Neighborhood Policies which have become a new model for smaller scale multi-family unit types in the City. Third,the residential capacity in the Employment Area Commercial was not planned for in the original capacity projections. This oversight was an error made in 1995 when staff supported changing the Employment Area Commercial designation. At that time we removed requirements for mixed use commercial/residential developments and allowed instead stand alone multi-family. We inadvertently created additional multi-family capacity within the City's commercial areas. After reviewing the CA zoned properties we concluded that significant unrealized capacity for multi-family development exists in Commercial Arterial areas. There are 420 vacant acres. Some of this acreage is now used for parking lots. Much of this acreage is located in areas where development of multi-family units would directly conflict with the policy direction of the residential policies in the Land Use Element. If only a quarter of the total available acreage was developed in multi-family projects, 720 new units could be built. Finally, if the amount of multi-family development exceeds planned levels, the amount of multi-family development outside of downtown will exceed the 50/50 Single Family/Multi-family split goal. This goal is also set forth in the Land Use Policies (LU-4,LU-9). The primary justification for retaining some future or continued residential capacity in the City's commercial areas is for the synergistic relationship that often emerges when commercial and residential are placed in close proximity to one another. Another argument in favor of retaining opportunities for residential uses is that such development provides an opportunity to more efficiently utilize limited urban areas by reducing vehicular trips, sharing parking areas during different periods of the day, sharing open space and other elements associated with the built environment. T-3lss Page 2 The proposed amendments shown for Options 2 and 3 in Attachment 1 all would result in reduction of multi-family development. Option 2 would eliminate all new multi-family development, while Option 3 would allow more limited forms of multi-family development to occur. A further possibility could include a combination of portions of these options. The ability to include multi-family development in these designations could be preserved in the Comprehensive Plan, but references to mixed use, or stand alone development types could be eliminated. These decisions about style and type of development could be defined in the zoning implementation. CAPACITY ANALYSIS City staff determined that sufficient capacity exists in other areas of the City (Downtown, Residential Planned Neighborhood, and Center Office Residential designations)to accommodate the residential growth originally forecast for the commercial areas outside of the downtown. City capacity for multi- family development is estimated at 11,156 units. Forecast multi-family growth by 2010 is estimated at 6,657 units. The capacity analysis did not include a category for Employment Area-Commercial or Employment Area-Valley, so the elimination of residential under these designations does not affect projected capacity. Center Suburban designation had 483 units, while Center Neighborhood designations had only 21 units forecast. If a large number of vacant parcels in the commercial were to develop with more than the predicted amount of residential uses, then the multi-family capacity would increase and the commercial capacity of the City would decrease. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN COMPLIANCE Current policy direction for multi-family development is conflicting. The Residential policies in the Land Use Element are written to limit the expansion of multi-family uses in the City to within existing multi-family districts and to within designated Centers. The Employment Area Commercial designation allows new multi-family projects in areas outside these Centers where Commercial Arterial zoning occurs. Policy LU-17 Large multi family development projects or large concentrations of multi family development should be prohibited outside the downtown area except in Centers and the Multi family Residential Infill designations. Policy LU 171 Residential uses in the Employment Area-Commercial designation may be a single use development and should be limited to a maximum density of 20 du/acre. Policy LU-146 limits residential uses and indicates that they should be subsidiary to commercial uses. Policy LU-146(e) "Locate residential uses only in Commercial Arterial Zoned Areas, and limit residential development to multi family uses which support Commercial Employment Areas and are clearly secondary to commercial uses". Policy LU-171 allows single use development and encourages multi-family uses. The objective of Employment Area-Commercial states "Objective LU-AA Provide for commercial and residential uses requiring large amounts of land and or high visibility and access to large volumes of automobile traffic in areas outside of Centers and the Center Downtown designations." This objective would need to be amended if Option 2, No residential, is selected. All of these policies could be successfully modified to meet the Plan Vision if Option 3 limited residential uses is pursued. As the Vision refers generally to "Diversified Commercial Areas", elimination of residential from the T-3Iss Page 3 Employment-Areas could also be accomplished as long as some commercial areas elsewhere in the City continue to allow residential uses in some form. Elimination of all multi-family uses from the mixed use Centers would not comply with the adopted Vision and the Objective statements of a number of Plan policies. Policies LU-11, LU-95, LU-101, Objective LU-S,Policy LU-117,LU-121, LU-123 (see Attachment 1) clearly support residential uses in these areas. However, modification of these policies could occur as shown in Option 3 by allowing more limited residential uses. This could be accomplished without altering the adopted Comprehensive Plan Vision for the Centers and neighborhoods. CONCLUSION A need for housing capacity does not dictate that future residential development should continue to be allowed in the Employment Area Valley,Employment Area Commercial and Centers designations. However, the overall Vision and implementing policies support residential use in at least some of the City's commercial areas outside of the Downtown. If this Vision and intent is still valid, some form of multi-family use in the Center Designations should be retained. The multi-family uses could be eliminated from the Employment Areas without altering this Vision. A wider range of options for multi- family uses types are available than those currently allowed in the implementing zoning. Zoning code amendments and/ map amendments that re-zone properties to lower density or a townhouse oriented zone is one alternative. Mixed use development requirements are another possibility. T-3lss Page 4 12424/2/983/31E/98 ATTACHMENT 1 RESIDENTIAL EXISTD IG C;U11 tEERCIAL ONLY QED MME IRISURL I Objective LU-G: Manage and Objective LU-G: Manage and Objective LU-G: Manage and plan for high quality residential plan for high quality residential plan for high quality residential growth in Renton which preserves growth in Renton which preserves growth in Renton which preserves open space and discourages urban open space and discourages urban open space and discourages urban sprawl. sprawl. sprawl. Policy LU-11. Future residential Policy LU-11. Future residential Policy LU-11. Future residential - growth should be accommodated growth should be accommodated growth should be accommodated through: through: through: d. new larger scale multi-family d. new larger scale multi-family d. new larger scale multi-family development located in Renton's development located in Renton's development located in Renton's downtown,as infill in existing downtown,and as infill in existing downtown,as infill in existing multi-family areas,in designated multi-family areas,ia-designated multi-family areas,in designated Centers,and Centers and Centers,and e. mixed-use eked-use e.mixed-use commercial/residential projects in commercial/residential projects in employment areas. employment-areas, employment areas. Policy LU-17. Large multi-family Policy LU-17. Large multi-family Policy LU-17. Large multi-family development projects or large development projects or large development projects or large concentrations of multi-family concentrations of multi-family concentrations of multi-family development should be prohibited development should be prohibited development should be prohibited outside the downtown area except outside the downtown area except outside the downtown area except in Centers and the Multi-family in Centers-and-the Multi-family in Centers and the Multi-family I Residential Infill designations.Residential Infill designations.Residential Mil designations. CNTRS-RS. 104/2/98 RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOODS WITHIN MIXED USE DESIGNATIONS EXISTING COMMERCIAL ONLY MIXED COMMERCIAL/REST- The Land Use Element envisions The Land Use Element envisions The Land Use Element envisions development of mixed use Centers development of mixed use Centers development of mixed use Centers which will evolve out of Renton's which will evolve out of Renton's which will evolve out of Renton's existing commercial areas. These existing commercial areas. These existing commercial areas. These Centers will become the sites for Centers will become the sites for Centers will become the sites for major concentrations of major concentrations of major concentrations of commercial,office and multi- commercial and office-and-multi- commercial,office and multi- family development in the City. family development in the City. family development in the City. These three uses are to be These-three two uses are to be These three uses are to be integrated to create high quality integrated to create high quality integrated to create high quality urban environments which urban environments which urban environments which function as focal points for function as focal points for function as focal points for surrounding single family surrounding single family surrounding single family residential areas. The housing residential areas.—The-heusing residential areas. The housing within the mixed use Centers needs within the mixed use Centers needs to serve a variety of household to serve a variety of household types and income groups for those types and income groups for those residential areas to become residential areas to become successful neighborhoods. While successful neighborhoods. While the density of the mixed use the density of the mixed use Centers will be higher than is Centers will be higher than is allowed in other parts of the City allowed in other parts of the City the quality of life will be enhanced the quality of life will be enhanced by the proximity to shopping, by-the-proximity-to-shopping; by the proximity to shopping, transit, and adjacent parks, transit,and adjacent parks, libraries and other public facilities. libraries and other public facilities. Objective H-O:Develop quality Objective H-O:Develop quality Objective H-O:Develop quality residential living environments in residential living environments in residential living environments in Mixed Use Centers. Mixed Use Centers. Mixed Use Centers. Policy H-90. Identify sites within Policy H-90. Identify sites within Policy H-90. Identify sites within mixed use areas which are mixed use areas which are mixed use areas which are appropriate for residential single appropriate for residential single appropriate for residential single use developments. use developments. use developments. Policy H-92. Provide density Policy H-92. Provide density Policy H-92. Provide density bonuses for affordable housing in bonuses for affordable housing in bonuses for affordable housing in all Centers. all Centers. all Centers. CNTRS-RS.DOC/ 114/2/98 RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOODS WITHIN MIXED USE DESIGNATIONS EXISTING CUNIVIERCtAL QNLY XE CQMMERGIAL/R SI . . DENTIAL Policy H-94. Improve the quality Policy H-94.Reserve.-Improve-the Policy H-94. Improve the quality of life in multi-family complexes of life in multi-family complexes by encouraging practical design, by encouraging practical design, and amenities which would and amenities-whiff contribute to good management practices. practices. Strategy H-94.1. Multi-family Strategy H-94.1. Multi-family Strategy H-94.1. Multi-family development which occurs in the development which occurs in-the development which occurs in the following land use designations following Existing Multi-family following land use designations should have smaller numbers of District land use designations should units per building(6-8 units per should have smaller numbers of .nits per building(6-8 units per structure): Neighborhood Centers, units per building(6-8 units per structure) be integrated with other Community Centers,Existing structure`: Neighborhood-Centers permitted non-residential uses Multi-family District.either in the same structure or in mixed-use developments where these uses are integrated and share services,amenities.etc.: Neighborhood Centers, Community Centers,Existing ct. Strategy H-94.4. Evaluate the Strategy H-94.4. Evaluate the Strategy H-94.4. Evaluate the amount of open space required in amount of open space required in amount of open space required in the Multi-family, CA, CM, CB and the Multi y, CA, CM, CB and the Multi-family, CA, CM, CB and CN zones. Revise these standards CN zones. Revise these standards CN zones for both residential uses as necessary. Coordinate standards as necessary. Coordinate standards and non-residential uses. Revise with the Parks Department. with the Parks Department. these standards as necessary. _ Coordinate standards with the Parks Department. CNTRS-RS.DOC/ 6424/2/983/31/98 RESIDENTIAL IN CENTER NEIGHBORHOOD EXISTINGQMMERGIAL OhILY NIIXED RESCOMMERCIAL I NTi AL Objective LU-S: Create Objective LU-S: Create Objective LU-S: Create neighborhood centers which neighborhood centers which neighborhood centers which include commercial, light include commercial, and light include commercial,light industrial, and residential uses industrial,and residential uses industrial, and residential uses in and serve the basic, ongoing and serve the basic, ongoing mixed-use developments and needs of the population in needs of the population in serve the basic,ongoing needs of adjacent and surrounding adjacent and surrounding the population in adjacent and neighborhoods. neighborhoods. surrounding neighborhoods. Policy LU-115. Residential Policy LU-115.Reserve Policy LU-115:Reserve uses should not exceed 50% Residential-uses-should-net Residential-uses-should-net commercial/light industrial uses in order to implement the growth polices in the Comprehensive Plan. Policy LU-117.Multi-family Policy LU-117.Reserve.-Multi- Policy LU-117.Multi-family uses are intended to be uses are intended to be integrated into the Center.functionally integrated into the Residential density should be 10- Center. Residential density 15 dwelling units per acre.should be 10 15 7-10 dwelling units per acre. CNTRS-RS.DOCGN-TRS-R-S4X)G/ 17 4/2/984/2/98 RESIDENTIAL IN CENTER SUBURBAN EXISTING COMMERCIAL ONLY MIXED CUMMERCIAL/RESI ENTIAL Policy LU-121.Residential uses Policy LU-121.Residential-uses Policy LU-121.Residential uses should not exceed 50%of the should be allowed nrn texceed overall mix with the remainder within or the development in These functionally integrated mixed- commercial/light industrial uses areas are reserved for use developments the-remainder which implement the regional commercial/light industrial uses or-the development in comprised growth policies.which implement the regional of commercial)residential, office growth policies.or service lightdactrial uses which implement the regional growth policies. Policy LU-123.In order to Policy LU-123.In order to Policy LU-123. In order to achieve a balanced mix,multi- achieve a balanced mix,multi- achieve a balanced mix,multi- family uses are intended to be family uses are intended to be family uses are intended to be integrated into the Centers. integrated into the Centers. integrated into the Centers. Residential density should be 10- Residential density should be 10- Residential density should be T9- 20 dwelling units per acre. New 20 dwelling units per acre. New 20--8-18 dwelling units per acre. residential only structures may residential only structures may New residential only structures be limited in order to encourage be limited in order to encourage may-be-are prohibited limited-in a 50%commercial/office mix a 50%commercial/office mix order to encourage-achieve a within the Center. within the Center. 50%balanced residential/commercial/office mix within the Center. CNTRS-RS.DOC6N-T-RS-R&DOG/ I1.124/2/983/31/98 RESIDENTIAL IN EMPLOYMENT AREA COMMERCIAL ONLY 1VI1Q0FD C`O1VINtEKiAL/RESI- DENTI`AL Objective LU-W: Promote Objective LU-W: Promote Objective LU-W: Promote diversity and stability in the diversity and stability in the diversity and stability in the employment base employment base employment base LU-146.Adequate amounts of land LU-146.Adequate amounts of land LU-146.Adequate amounts of land suitable for all types of industrial, suitable for all types of industrial, suitable for all types of industrial, light industrial,office and light industrial,office and light industrial,office and commercial uses should be commercial uses should be commercial uses should be available for present and future available for present and future available for present and future development Using the growth development. Using the growth development Using the growth assumptions,criteria for assumptions,criteria for assumptions,criteria for determining"adequate amounts of determining"adequate amounts of determining"adequate amounts of land"for the employment area land"for the employment area land"for the employment area should be based on the following: should be based on the following: should be based on the following: e. Residential: Locate residential e. Residential: Locate residential uses only in Commercial Arterial uses only in Commercial Arterial Zoned Areas,and limit residential Zoned Areas,and limit residential development to multi family uses development to multi-family uses which support Commercial in mixed-use developments which Employment Areas and are clearly are functionally integral and secondary to commercial uses. support Commercial Employment Areas and are clearly secondary to commercial uses. CNTRS-RS.DOCCN-TRS-418:DOCI RESIDENTIAL IN EMPLOYMENT AREA - COMMERCIAL EXISTING COMERG7AL ONLY MAD COIVIN[ERCIAL/RESI . DENTIAL Objective LU-AA: Provide for Objective LU-AA: Provide for Objective LU-AA: Provide for commercial and residential uses commercial and residential uses commercial and residential uses requiring large amounts of land requiring large amounts of land requiring large amounts of land and/or high visibility and access to and/or high visibility and access to and/or high visibility and access to large volumes of automobile traffic large volumes of automobile traffic large volumes of automobile traffic in a areas outside of Centers and in a areas outside of Centers and in a areas outside of Centers and the Center downtown designations. the Center downtown designations. the Center downtown designations. LU-171. Residential uses in the LU-171. Reserved.Resideses LU-171. Residential uses in the Employment Area - Commercial in the Employment Area Employment Area - Commercial designation may be a single use designation should be part of a development and should be limited mixed-use development and may to a maximum density of 20 be ngle e development-and du/acre. 20-du/acre should be limited to a maximum density of 20 du/acre. Policy LU-172. Create a 24 hour Policy LU-172. Reserved.Create a Policy LU-172. Create a 24 hour population and a source of population and a source of affordable housing by promoting affordable housing by promoting residential and commercial residential aid rcia mixed-use residential and development in the Employment commercial development in the Area-Commercial designation. Employment Area - Commercial designation. Policy LU-173. Single family Policy LU-173. Reserved.Single Policy LU-173. Single family development should not be allowed detached development should not in this designation. be allowed in this designation. Policy LU-178. The primary uses Policy LU-178. The primary uses Policy LU-178. The primary uses retail, residential or service) (retailer or service) (retail, residential or service) should account for a minimum of should account for a minimum of should account for a minimum of fifty percent (50%) of the total fifty percent (50%) of the total fifty percent (50%) of the total building area within Employment building area within Employment building area of mixed-use Area-Commercial designations. Area-Commercial designations. developments within Employment Area-Commercial designations. 24/2/98 RESIDENTIAL IN EMPLOYMENT AREA-VALLEY EXIST'NG COMMERCIAL ONLY VIT ED COlZM . ..;i4 /RESI DENTIAL Policy LU-179. A unified style of Policy LU-179.A unified style of Policy LU-179.A unified style of commercial or residential commercial er-residential commercial er-and residential development should be encouraged development should be encouraged development should be encouraged through site standards,including: through site standards,including: through site standards,including: a. minimum lot depth of 200 feet, a. minimum lot depth of 200 feet, a. minimum lot depth of 200 feet, b.maximum height of 4-6 stories, b.maximum height of 4-6 stories, b.maximum height of 4-6 stories, c.parking to the side or rear of the c.parking to the side or rear of the c.parking to the side or rear of the building, building, building,or beneath the building, d.maximum setbacks which will d. maximum setbacks which will d. maximum setbacks which will allow incorporating a landscape allow incorporating a landscape allow incorporating a landscape buffer,and buffer,and buffer between the development e. common signage and lighting e. common signage and lighting and abutting or adjacent lower requirements. requirements. density developments, and e. common signage and lighting requirements. CNTRS-RS.DOC/ AMENDMENT T-4 - RESIDENTIAL OPTIONS & RESIDENTIAL PLANNED NEIGHBORHOOD POLICY AMENDMENTS DESCRIPTION: The application evaluates proposed amendments to policies applicable to the Residential Options (RO) and Residential Planned Neighborhood (RPN) land use designations. Policy changes proposed for the RO zone include allowing for a density bonus up to 13 dwelling units per acre provided all units are detached ownership units. Some criteria are proposed to consider redesignations to the RPN designation which are less than 20 acres in size based upon physical and jurisdictional features and boundaries. Other amendments shift policies between the General policy section applicable to both the RPN and RO designations to the specific RO and RPN policy sections. In the RO and RPN policies and Comprehensive Plan Glossary, clarifications of terminology between single family unit types and multi- family unit types are proposed. ISSUE SUMMARY: 1. Affordable housing density bonuses were removed from the Comprehensive Plan in the last two years. Should a new density bonus for detached ownership housing(affordability level not required) be approved for the Residential Options (RO)land use designation? 2. The Comprehensive Plan intended that the Residential Planned Neighborhood designation be applied, in part, when an area was at least 20 acres in size. Should criteria be added to allow for designations of less than 20 acres when warranted by physical or jurisdictional features such as roads, city boundaries,water bodies, etc.? RECOMMENDATION SUMMARY: Staff recommends the following: Approve proposed amendments to add a density bonus of 13 units per acre in the RO designation as an incentive to build detached ownership housing. Allow for redesignations to RPN that are less than 20 acres to recognize physical or jurisdictional boundaries, but ensure that the size is sufficient to result in an identifiable neighborhood. Clarify residential terminology and shift the location of some policies applicable to the RO and RPN designations. Attachment A shows with strikeout and underline the policy amendments. ANALYSIS: Residential Options Policy Amendments The Village on Union developers are considering expanding their development near 4th Street SE and Union Avenue with additional single family units on small lots. Their property is designated Residential 98-T-4.DOC 1 3/25/98 Options (RO) in the Comprehensive Plan and zoned R-10; however, it was developed according to a demonstration ordinance which allowed variations of zoning and development standards. At the time of the Village On Union review and approval, staff had not agreed upon an interpretation of net density deductions. While roads were deducted, the area under powerlines was not, which meant that the net density calculation concluded the development achieved 10 units per acre. Using current net density calculation formulas which would exclude the power line easement that appears on the Greenbelt map as well as roads,the original Village On Union development area achieves 13.32 units per net acre. The development has a few attached units, but is primarily a small lot single family neighborhood. A demonstration ordinance extension for property adjacent to Village On Union is being contemplated to allow for additional small lot single family units. The RO/R-10 designations originally allowed a density bonus up to 12 unit per acre if affordable housing was provided (up to 10% of proposed units). Affordable housing units were contemplated for the Village On Union project, but not ultimately included. The RO/R-10 bonus was removed from the plan and code as were other affordable housing bonuses in other residential designations, except for the RM-U and R-14 zones which continue to provide bonuses based on design or unit type. Staff is proposing a Comprehensive Plan Text Amendment which would affect all RO/R-10 zoned property to avoid another demonstration ordinance in the future, and to allow for a bonus which would provide an incentive for detached ownership units in the RO/R-10 designation, a use strongly encouraged in the Comprehensive Plan. The bonus would not be related to the provision of affordable housing, but to providing detached ownership units (i.e. fee simple or condominium ownership, but always detached and arranged to appear like a single family platted neighborhood). Proposed R-10 policy changes include: Allowing for a density bonus up to 13 du/acre provided all units are detached ownership units. Minor clarifications to terminology related to unit types allowed. No change is proposed for policies requiring a 50/50 mix between attached and detached/semi-attached units. Where an applicant wishes to have 100% attached units, a Comprehensive Plan amendment/rezone to the Residential Planned Neighborhood/R-14 zone should be considered since it is a multi-family zone allowing up to 100%attached units. The R-10 zone applies to a variety of properties which often are in established neighborhoods (e.g. Renton Highlands). The intent of the designation is to allow for a mix of small scale attached units which have features of and are compatible with a single family neighborhood. Residential Planned Neighborhood Amendments In general, the policies support the Residential Planned Neighborhood designation if among other criteria the area is at least 20 acres in size. Staff is considering a redesignation of an area in the Kennydale area east of I-405 (application 98-M-7) which would meet this requirement based upon ownership patterns, but which would be more logical to identify by roads and other features. Some criteria are proposed to consider redesignations of less than 20 acres based upon physical and jurisdictional features and boundaries. 98-T-4.DOC 2 3/25/98 Other RPN policy changes include clarifications of terminology between single family unit types and multi-family unit types. The amendments utilize language about primary and secondary residential unit types which is the classification scheme from the R-14 code. Moved Policies Other amendments move a general policy LU-46 to the RPN section at LU-64 with minor word clarifications (e.g. reference the preparation of development regulations not design regulations, clarify distinct entrances, etc.), since it was a policy created more for the RPN designation originally. Policies 62, 63, and 63.1 regarding forms of ownership and street orientation are proposed to be moved into the General Policies at LU-46 through LU-48 since they are general ideas promoted in both RO and RPN designations. The clarifications allowing fee simple or condominium ownership would result in future code amendments in the R-10 zone which currently allows for platting only. Glossary Amendments Staff proposes a few minor changes to Glossary definitions: The definition of single family unit is proposed to be deleted because there is already a definition of detached single family house which is more descriptive. A minor amendment to the definition of townhome is proposed to remove the language about access to private open space. This is addressed in policies and the development standards of the R-14 zone. The definition of zero lot line development is proposed to be modified by striking language about shared lot lines and appearance of duplexes because zero lot line development primarily refers to dwellings which are not attached, but which are located along one lot line. A duplex style development is not a typical variation of a zero lot line development. CAPACITY ANALYSIS: The Comprehensive Plan capacity model assumes that available RO/R-10 property will be developed to 12 units per acre, higher than the minimum 7 units per acre, and less than the proposed 13 unit per acre bonus. The 12 unit per acre assumption would continue to be valid because not all RO/R-10 developments will utilize the bonus. If developed, the additional single family units will allow for a greater market factor cushion. The original Comprehensive Plan estimates assumed a 10% cushion between single family targets and plan capacity in the City limits. Any future redesignations to RPN/R-14 as a result of policy changes would be reviewed individually for capacity issues. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN COMPLIANCE: No incompatibilities are anticipated with other Comprehensive Plan Elements. The Housing Element promotes a 50/50 split between single family and multi-family units in the City. The RO bonus will provide an additional incentive towards achieving single family targets. 98-T-4.DOC 3 3/25/98 ZONING CONCURRENCY: Some amendments to the Zoning Code would be needed to implement the density bonus once the policy amendment is authorized allowing 13 units per acre in the R-10 zone. Some refinements of Zoning definitions should be made to ensure that consistent terminology is used, particularly between the R-10 and R-14 zones. Other changes may be needed to clarify that condominium ownership is allowed in the R-10 zone as long as all development standards are met which promote grid streets, unit orientation to the street, etc. CONCLUSION: The RO/RPN amendments refine current policies, but the policies will continue to promote efficient housing development reflective of single family neighborhood characteristics. The amendments would provide greater emphasis upon detached ownership housing,particularly in the RO designation. 98-T-4.DOC 4 3/25/98 ATTACHMENT A RESIDENTIAL OPTIONS AND RESIDENTIAL PLANNED NEIGHBORHOOD General-Policies Objective LU-K: Create new planned residential neighborhoods in areas mapped as Residential Options RO) and Residential Planned Neighborhood (RPN) which include a variety of unit types designed to incorporate features from both single family and multi-family developments, and to support cost efficient housing, nfill development,transit service, and the efficient use of urban services and infrastructure. Policy L U-41. Provision of small lot single family detached unit types, townhouses and small scale multi-family structures compatible with a single family character should be encouraged provided that density si andards can be met. Policy L U-42. A range and variety of lot sizes should be encouraged. Policy LU-43. Central place public amenities should function as a focal point within the development and should include features such as a public square, open space, park, civic or commercial uses. The central p ace should include passive amenities such as benches and fountains, and be unified by a design motif or ommon theme. Policy L U-44. The dwelling types, including detached and attached units, should be clustered and connecte.i within the overall development through the organization of roads, blocks, yards, central places and amenity features to create a neighborhood with diverse housing types. Policy L U-45. Development should occur on a flexible grid street and pathway system to the extent feasible given environmental constraints,traffic flow, and the pattern of existing development. Note: Moved to RPN policies below. Polio clusters base,] o flie f llewing criteria e—SEfiretures-sheulel-be-leeatea-en--lets_t_e_ensufe_adequate_light_an&aif;_an&views_if_anyare dam ' Feiglibor hood-feeling; tructures .mod 87-c Policy LU-46. Condominium ownership may occur in any unit type. Policy LU-47. Townhouse development should provide either condominium or fee simple homeov nership opportunities. Policy I.U-48. Buildings should front the street rather than be organized around interior courtyards or parking areas. 1 3/25/98 ATTACHMENT A Policy LU-4947. Non-residential structures may have dimensions larger than residential structures but should be compatible in design and dimensions with surrounding residential development. Residential Options Policy LU-5048. Residential neighborhoods may be considered for the Residential Options Designation I if they meet three of the following criteria: a. The area already has a mix of small scale multi-family units or had long standing duplex or low density multi-family zoning; b. Development patterns are established. c. Vacant lots exist or parcels have redevelopment potential. d. Few new roads or major utility upgrades will be needed with future development. e. The site is located adjacent to a Center designation. Policy LU-5149. The net development densities should be 10 dwelling units per acre. If 100% of the dwelling units are detached ownership housing, a density bonus may be allowed to a maximum of 13 dwelling units per acre. Policy LU-5250. Minimum net development densities should be 7 dwelling units per acre. Policy I.U-5351. Detached single family housing, attached—townhouses, duplexesttiplexesand, feurplexes-and small scale multi-family units should be allowed in Residential Options. Policy LU-5452. A maximum of 50% of units allowed within an individual RO development may consist of attached units which includes townhouses, and small scale multi-family units. Policy LU-5553. Development in Residential Options should be compatible with existing development patterns and be sensitive to unique features and differences among established neighborhoods. Development standards should reflect single family neighborhood characteristics such as ground related orientation, coordinated structural design, and private yards. Policy LU-5654. Non-residential structures, should be clustered and connected within the overall I development through the organization of roads, blocks, yards, other central features and amenity features to create a neighborhood. Residential Planned Neighborhood Policy LU-5755. Areas may be mapped Residential Planned Neighborhood on the Land Use Map I where the site meets the following criteria: a. adjacent to major arterial(s); b. adjacent to employment area and/or Centers; c. part of a designation totaling over 20 acres (acreage may be in separate ownership); proposals of less than 20 acres may be considered where the following factors are present: 1) Physical or jurisdictional features, including but not limited to bodies of water, highways, land contours, and/or jurisdictional limits would provide logical boundaries; 2) The size of the proposal is close to the acreage requirement or would be sufficient to result in a unified development pattern which creates an identifiable neighborhood; d. site is buffered from single family areas or other existing incompatible uses; and 2 3/25/98 ATTACHMENT A e. development within the density and unit type range is achievable given environmental constraints. I Policy LU-5856. Density in the Residential Planned Neighborhood designation should be in the range of 8 to 1 F dwelling units per net acre. Policy LU-5967. minimum of 50% of a project in the RPN des:gnation.,Single-family-develepment-in-this-designatiett-may-be should consist of the following primary -esidential types: traditional detached, zero lot line detached, or townhoum es with private yards which are designed to reflect a single family character. Policy L U-6058. Townhouse building clusters which qualify as a primary residentiz;l type should be limited in size so that the mass and scale within the cluster retains a single family character. Limits on the number of units which may be attached in one cluster should be established in the development regulations. Policy I U-61519. Longer townhouse building clusters, and other Mmulti-family building clusters, considered secondary residential types,should be limited in size so that the mass and scale of the cluster retains a small scale multi-family character rather than a garden apartment development style. Limits on the number of units which may be attached in one cluster should be established in the development regulations. Policy LU-6260. The mass and scale of secondary residential types pursuant to policy LU-61 should not preclude their location locating multi fa. il„ units types adjacent t primary residential types. Policy L U-6361. Projects in a Residential Planned Neighborhood designation should have no more than 50% of the units designed as secondary residential types, i.e. longerte townhouse building clusters, and other multi-family buildings. Note: Moved to General Policies above Policy>E homeow Poliey-1,-U-6371—Buildings-sheuld-frent-the-stmet-rather-than-he-erganized-amund-interior-courtyards-er parknigareas. Policy '.U-6463 2 Development sStandardsshould be developed to ad ress de„elopme„t. the Residers should reflect single family neighborhood charactc ristics grew and access to public amenities and services. Policy l.U-64.1 Development standards should reflect the following criteria. a. heights, width and length of structures should be designed to resemble single family housing, vith similar setbacks from the street as single family; b. parking should be encouraged in the rear or side yards or under the structure; c_:tructures should be located on lots or arranged in a manner to appear like a platted development 1 o ensure adequate light and air, and views if any, are preserved between lots or structures; 3 3/25/98 ATTACHMENT A d. buildings should be massed in a manner that promotes a pedestrian scale with a small neighborhood feeling; e. each dwelling unit should have an identifiable entrance and front on streets rather than courtyards and parking lots. f. fences may be constructed if they contribute to an open spacious feeling between units and structures;and g. streetscapes should include green,open space for each unit. Policy LU-64.26 Mixed use development in the form of civic, convenience commercial development, or other non-residential structures, may be allowed in the central places of development subject to compliance with criteria established through development regulations. 4 3/25/98 ATTACHMENT A GLOSSARY detached single family house: a residential building containing not more than one dwelling unit entirely surrounded by open space on the same lot. duplex: a residential building containing two dwelling units located on a single lot. dwelling unit: one or more rooms located within a structure, designed, arranged, occupied or intended to be occupied by not more than one family and permitted roomers and boarders, as living accommodations, independent from any other family. The existence of a food preparation area within the room or rooms shall be evidence of the existence of a dwelling unit. large scale multi-family: a residential building, or group of buildings which contain more thant four dwelling units in each building. multi-family use: a structure or portion of a structure containing two or more dwelling units. residential use: any land use that provides for living space. Examples include artist studio/dwelling, boarding house, caretaker's quarters, single family,multi-family, special residence, floating homes, and mobile home park. small scale multi-family: a residential building, or group of buildings which contain two to four dwelling units in each building. townhouse: a form of ground-related housing where individual dwelling units are attached along at least one common wall to at least one other dwelling unit. Each dwelling unit occupies space from the ground to the roof zero lot line development: a siting technique which allows single family houses to be built along one lot line. This helps to preserve private and usable yard space, especially in small-lot areas. Variations include angled "Z-lots," alternate-width lots, "zipper-lots„" ROPOLI2.DOC 5 3/25/98 AMENDMENT #98-T-5 DESCRIPTION: This proposal is to amend and update the Arterial Chapter, the Transit Chapter, the High Occupancy Vehicle Chapter, and the Transportation Demand Management/Commute Trip Reduction (TDM/CTR) Chapters of the Transportation Element of the Comprehensive Plan by making editorial corrections, updating text relating to the Regional Transit Authority (RTA), identifying RTA improvements which will directly serve Renton, and identifying the Downtown Renton Transit Center as the hub for transit service in Renton, identifying specific HOV improvements such as access ramps to I-405 at NE 44th Street, Park Avenue NE, and in the vicinity of Benson or Talbot Roads, and, adding NE 10th Street as an alternative to NE 12th Street as a possible Sunset Bypass Route. The changes noted above only apply to narrative and tables, with no changes proposed to existing objectives or policies. These changes are considered to be housekeeping amendments only. ISSUE SUMMARY: These proposed minor amendments do not typically raise any policy issues. There is a proposed amendment to narrative referencing the State Commute Trip Reduction law which states that the proposed 35%reduction by 2005 applies not only to single occupant vehicle trips but"and/or" average vehicle miles traveled by affected employees. RECOMMENDATION SUMMARY: That the proposed amendments to the Arterial Chapter, the Transit Chapter, the High Occupancy Vehicle Chapter, and the Transportation Demand Management/Commute Trip Reduction Chapters of the Transportation Element be made to correct and update existing text narrative and tables that are either out of date or otherwise need editing. Document3/ CITY OF RENTON TRANSPORT/ N ELEMENT ARTERIALS 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. In resolving traffic flow problems, a number of choices will need to be made. In some cases, increasing traffic flows only increases congestion on local streets or impacts 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 Arterial policies are intended to reduce the amount of traffic that has neither an origin nor destination in the City while at the same time providing reasonable levels of traffic flow and accessibility on the local street system. The Arterial Chapter contains a detailed review of the City's arterial system -- including functional classifications as well as a description of the City's Arterial Plan. The Arterial Chapter also contains definitions of the Level of Service criteria used to judge performance of the system. (The service levels were developed in conjunction with King County adopted Level-of-Service Framework Policies and other local jurisdictions.) Objectives The Arterial Chapter is based on the following objectives: T-A: Create a comprehensive street system that provides reasonable vehicular circulation throughout the City. T-B: Eliminate disruptions which reduce the safety and reasonable functioning of the local transportation system. Policies The following policies address issues related to the arterial network as a system, the physical design of individual roadways, traffic flow, and traffic operations control. Policy T-8. Each street in the City should be coordinated with the Community Design policies assigned a functional classification based on and Open Space and Parks policies. factors including traffic volumes, type of service provided, land use, and preservation of existing Policy T-11. Create incentives encouraging neighborhoods.developers to use alternatives to on-street or on- site parking. Policy T-9. Streets and pedestrian paths in residential neighborhoods should be arranged as Policy T-12. A minimum service level should be an interconnecting network and should connect to developed for the street system which (a) achieves other streets to encourage their use. consistency with service standards of adjacent jurisdictions, (b) minimizes conflict with other city Policy T-10. Street standards should be policies, (c) maximizes neighborhood developed for each functional classification in the preservation, (d) accounts for topographical Transportation Element of the Comprehensive features which limit intersection improvements, Plan. These street standards should be and (e) promotes pedestrian safety and mobility. I_\ v-s;()A.s f'hs( o . (n v, S s_ rofz. Py. vinL CITY OF RENTON TRANSPORTL N ELEMENT 27 Policy T-13. Maximize traffic flow [people and goods] and accessibility on arterial roads while protecting local/neighborhood roads from increased traffic volumes. Policy T-14. Provide a balance between protecting neighborhoods from increased traffic and reducing accessibility for the city-wide road network. Policy T-15. The effects of regional traffic congestion and overflow onto the local transportation system should be minimized. Policy T-16. Strategies to reduce traffic flows should be developed for local areas experiencing extreme congestion. (Areas of the City which require this type of intervention should be identified and addressed through the sub-area planning process, neighborhood plans or traffic mitigation programs which are implemented through development review. The North Renton Livable Streets Program is an example of such a neighborhood program.) Also see policies in the Freight Section.) Inventory of Existing Streets The existing street/highway system serving Renton is shown in Figure 1-1. The system includes two freeways: I-405 and SR-167 (the "Valley Freeway"). I-405 provides connections to the Eastside and Snohomish County to the north, and to I-5 and the Sea-Tac Airport area to the south. The Valley Freeway extends south from I-405 to Kent, Auburn and Puyallup. In addition to the freeways, Renton is served by several other state highways, including SR-900 (Sunset Boulevard on the east side of Renton and Martin Luther King Junior Way on the west side), 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 arterial system. In addition, SR-900 provides external connections to Issaquah on the east and to the Boeing Field area and I-5 on the west. SR-169 connects Renton to SR-18 and southeast King County, 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. CITY OF RENTON TRANSPORTS N ELEMENT FIGURE 1-1 RENTON STREET/HIGHWAY SYSTEM street/freeway map of Renton area) CITY OF RENTON TRANSPORT/ N ELEMENT Other key arterials that tie together the Renton street system include Grady Way and S.W. 43E4 Street in the Renton Valley area, Talbot Road and Puget Drive in southeast Renton, Park Drive, Logan Avenue, and Airport Way in Central Renton, and 3rd Street-4th Street, Duvall Avenue, Union Avenue, Edmonds Avenue, and Lake Washington Boulevard in north and east Renton. 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 Classifications The arterial street functional classifications specified by the City of Renton include "Principal Arterial," Minor Arterial," and "Collector" classifications. The adopted classifications in Renton and the surrounding annexation areas of unincorporated King County are shown in Figure 1-3. The purpose of functional classifications is threefold: i) to identify appropriate uses for Renton streets, ii) to establish eligibility for road improvement funding from various sources, and iii) to define appropriate street design standards. The City Code defines "Major Arterials" (equivalent to Principal Arterials) as arterial streets and highways that are to be used primarily for fast or heavy traffic. "Community Arterials" equivalent to Minor Arterials), per the Code, are arterial streets and highways that provide intermediate connections between major arterials and local access or neighborhood collector streets, and are used for moderately heavy and fast traffic. The City Code also defines "Neighborhood Collector Streets" (equivalent to Collectors) as streets that carry traffic from minor streets to the major system of arterial streets and highways. Neighborhood Collector Streets also include the principal entrance streets of residential developments and streets for major circulation within such developments. All public streets not classified as Major Arterial, Community Arterial, or Neighborhood Collector are classified as Residential Access Streets, which, according to the Code, are to be used primarily for access to the abutting residential properties and are to be designed to discourage use by through traffic. The Residential Access classification, as well as proposed classifications for commercial and industrial access streets, will be re-evaluated during ongoing transportation planning work following adoption of the Transportation Element. Traffic Volumes and Forecasts Existing and forecasted 2010 traffic volumes were analyzed in the Transportation Section of the Renton Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element Environmental Impact Statement. After adoption of the Interim Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan, an updated traffic analysis was conducted to reflect: 1) land use modifications resulting during adoption of the Interim Land Use Element; 2) the latest Arterial, HOV and transit plans; 3) new Renton mode split assumptions; and, 4) refinements to the City of Renton transportation model. The following is a summary of that updated analysis. Because Renton has major concentrations of employment as well as major retail centers and residential areas, total daily traffic and peak period commuter traffic (enroute to/from Renton area jobs) were both assessed as part of the traffic volume analysis. Commuter traffic and other traffic (e.g., retail-related) have very different orientation and time-of-day characteristics, and as a result, very different impacts on the road system. CITY OF RENTON TRANSPORT/ N ELEMENT FIGURE 1-2 ARTERIAL SYSTEM CHARACTERISTICS use Renton Comp Plan LU Element Draft EIS Figure 15) CITY OF RENTON TRANSPORTA N ELEMENT FIGURE 1-3 ARTERIAL SYSTEM FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATIONS use Renton Comp Plan LU Element Draft EIS Figure 14 updated version that includes King County) CITY OF REN7'ON TRANSPORT )N ELEMENT Travel Demand and Traffic Patterns Travel demand into and out of Renton for existing and future conditions was analyzed by compiling the estimated number of daily trips made within Renton and between Renton and 13 other general areas in the region. Traffic patterns were illustrated by selecting key road segments and estimating the proportion of traffic on each that is traveling to/from the areas defined for the travel demand analysis. Daily Travel Demand The origins and destinations of the trips that enter and leave Renton on a typical day in 1990 and 2010 were compiled in order to illustrate overall travel volumes and geographical travel patterns (see Table 1.1). In 2010, there will be 871,000 daily trips generated in Renton, a 52% increase from 1990. Of these trips, 28% are internal (i.e., both origin and destination in Renton). Another 25% of Renton daily trips travel to/from southwest King County (Tukwila, Kent, Auburn, SeaTac, and Federal Way), and 11% travel to Soos Creek, 17% to Seattle, and 12% to the Eastside. Traffic Patterns 1990 and 2010 traffic patterns were assessed by estimating the origins and destinations of daily traffic on the major arterials and freeways entering Renton shown in Figure 1-4. The origins and destinations are compiled in Tables 1.2 and 1.3. 1990 (see Table 1.2). On the freeways (I-405 and the Valley Freeway) 20-25% of the traffic at the Renton City Limits is traveling to/from Renton. Arterials carrying a high proportion of Renton traffic include Sunset Boulevard (70%) and Benson Highway (67%). Arterials carrying a moderate proportion of Renton traffic include Maple Valley Highway (50%), Grady Way (38%), and Northeast 4t Street (44%) and Rainier Avenue (35%). Several arterials carry only a small proportion of Renton traffic, including ML King Way 18%) and Southwest 43rd Street(12%). 2010 (see Table 1.3). On the freeways (I-405 and the Valley Freeway), at the Renton City Limits under 30% of the forecasted traffic is traveling to/from Renton. The only arterial carrying a high proportion of Renton traffic was Benson Hwy (98%). All of the other arterials analyzed were forecasted to carry Renton traffic proportions of 30% -45%. Traffic Volumes Arterial Traffic Volumes In order to show the overall level and pattern of utilization of the Renton street/highway system, 1990 and 2010 daily two-way traffic volumes were compiled (see Figures 1-5 and 1-6). (Note: 2010 volumes reflect a freeway/arterial network comprised of existing facilities and the improvements planned for implementation by 2010 in the Arterial and HOV Plans as described in Sections 1.7 and 3.3 respectively.) CITY OF RENTON TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT TABLE 1.1 2010 TOTAL DAILY PERSON TRIPS RENTON TOTAL CENTRAL SUBAREA RENTON VALLEY BLACK RIVER* SKYWAY* S.E.RENTON* KENNYDALE CITY LIMITS ONLY) HIGHLANDS* 1990 TOTAL TRIPS 574,460 136,500 60,920 48,070 74,930 152,030 188,120 2010 TOTAL TRIPS**871,120 202,630 149,760 59,800 81,070 207,420 292,250 INTERNAL TRIPS 240,940 (28%) 18,620 (9%) 7,490 (5%) 1,350 (2%) 7,260 9%) 20,270 ( 10%) 64,180 (22%) TRIPS To/FROM: Central Subarea 8,460 (6%) 6,010 (10%) 8,690 11%) 17,360 (8%) 23,950 (8%) Renton Valley 8,460 (4%) -- 3,390 (6%) 3,160 4%) 13,110 (6%) 8,110 (3%) Black River 6,010 (3%) 3,390 (2%) -- 2,650 3%) 4,370 (2%) 4,020 ( 1%) Skyway 8,690 (4%) 3,160 (2%) 2,650 (4%) -- 2,760 ( 1%) 4,160 ( 1%) S.E. Renton 17,360 (9%)13,110 (9%) 4,370 (7%) 2,760 3%) -- 11,580 (4%) Kennydale/Highlands 23,950 ( 12%) 8,110 (5%) 4,020 (7%) 4,160 5%) 11,580 (6%) -- Tukwila Valley 49,390 6%) 10,110 (5%)10,660 (7%) 4,040 (7%) 3,330 4%) 10,540 (5%) 10,710 (4%) SeaTac-Burien 67,710 8%) 15,270 (8%)14,930 ( 10%) 5,570 (9%) 3,870 5%) 13,250 (6%) 14,820 (5%) Kent 72,430 8%) 12,480 (6%)18,410 ( 12%) 4,250 (7%) 2,770 3%) 24,360 ( 12%) 10,160 (3%) N. Soos Creek Plateau 88,890 10%) 14,900 (7%)13,850 (9%) 3,600 (6%) 2,030 3%) 37,150 ( 18%) 17,360 (6%) Auburn/Federal Way 24,450 3%) 6,620 (3%) 7,160 (5%) 2,300 (4%) 1,020 1%) 3,860 (2%) 4,490 (2%) S. Soos Creek Plateau/ 10,600 1%) 2,550 ( 1%) 2,370 (2%) 700 1%) 390 0%) 2,230 ( 1%) 2,360 ( 1%) S.E. King County Pierce County 43,370 5%) 10,220 (5%)11,310 (8%) 3,480 (6%) 1,960 2%) 6,790 (3%) 9,610 (3%) Kitsap County 4,890 1%) 1,010 (0%) 900 1%) 340 1%) 300 0%) 580 0%) 1,760 ( 1%) S. Seattle/W. Seattle 72,300 8%) 14,520 (7%)11,180 (7%) 5,750 (10%) 14,890 (18%) 10,640 (5%) 15,320 (5%) Seattle/Shoreline 74,560 9%) 10,780 (5%) 6,080 (4%) 4,090 (7%) 16,580 (20%) 13,660 (7%) 23,370 (8%) Bellevue/Mercer Island 59,390 7%) 8,660 (4%) 2,690 (2%) 1,350 (2%) 2,300 3%) 6,700 (3%) 37,620 ( 13%) Northshore/E. King County 46,630 5%) 9,150 (5%) 4,490 (3%) 1,660 (3%) 1,630 2%) 6,380 (3%) 23,320 ( 8%) Snohomish County 14,570 2%) 3,250 (2%)1,980 ( 1%) 870 1%) 1,350 2%) 1,760 ( 1%) 5,360 ( 2%) Includes potential annexation areas Numbers are rounded to the nearest 10 Based on April, 1994 trip generation estimate using applicable activity density factors CITY OF RENTON TRANSPO TION ELEMENT FIGURE 1-4 ROAD SEGMENTS USED IN TRAVEL PATTERN ANALYSIS use Renton Comp Plan LU Element Draft EIS Figure 19) CITY OF RENTON TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT TABLE 1.2 1990 DAILY TRAVEL PATTERNS OF TRAFFIC ON SELECTED ROAD SEGMENTS 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. I-405 I-405 Rainier SR-167 SR-169 SR-900 SR-900 SR-515 Grady 43rd Oakesdale 4th n/44th e/SR181 n/Airport s/43rd w/140th w/138th w/68th n/176th e/SR181 w/W Valley S/43rd e/138th Daily Traffic 115,500 119,700 19,400 75,300 29,000 10,000 17,700 23,000 22,500 32,100 i 9,400 24,300 Traffic to or from: Renton 21%25% 35% 23% 50% 70% 18%67%38% 12% 26% 44% _ Renton Valley 5% 1% 1% 8% 7% 2% 21% 4% 18% 2% S.E.Renton 1% 7% 4% 2% 2% 1% 4% 22%7% 9% 1% Central Renton 5% 10% 12% 9% 17% 16%4% 31% 10% 4% 19% N.E.Renton 9% 7% 17% 4% 31% 52%3% 12%2% 24% Renton Lake Washington 1% 1% 1% 2% Through Traffic(a) 79%75% 65% 77% 50% 30%82%33%62% 88% 74% 56% a) "Through Traffic" is defined as traffic that has neither origin nor destination in Renton. CITY OF RENTON TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT TABLE 1.3 2010 DAILY TRAVEL PATTERNS OF TRAFFIC ON SELECTED ROAD SEGMENTS 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 1 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. I-405 I-405 Rainier SR-167 SR-169 SR-900 SR-900 SR-515 Grady 43rd Oakesdale 4th n/44th e/SR181 n/Airport s/43rd w/140th w/138th w/68th n/176th e/SR181 w/W Valley S/43rd e/138th Daily Traffic 212,600 214,400 38,300 177,900 56,900 21,600 24,500 30,800 28,300 36,600 18,900 32,000 Traffic to or from: Renton 28% _ 30%40% 29% 39% 41%36%98%45% 37% 38% 34% Renton Valley 9% 1% 2% 12% 1% 14%6% 33% 19% 32% 4% S.E.Renton 7% 15%7% 4% 4% 4% 9% 77%8% 15% 1% 3% Central Renton 5% 9% 21% 10% 19% 11%8% 11% 3% 2% 4% 14% N.E.Renton 6% 4% 11% 2% 15% 23%5% 4% 1% 1% 1% 13% Renton Lake Washington 1% 1% 1% 1% Through Traffic lal 72%70%60% 71% 61% 59%64%2% 55% 63% 62% 66% a) "Through Traffic" is defined as traffic that has neither origin nor destination in Renton. CITY OF RENTON TRANSPOR' ON ELEMENT FIGURE 1.5 1990 DAILY TRFFIC VOLUMES use Renton Comp Plan LU Element Draft EIS Figure 20) CITY OF RENTON TRANSPORT DN ELEMENT FIGURE 1-6 2010 DAILY TRAFFIC VOLUMES use Renton Comp Plan LU Element Draft EIS Figure 26) CITY OF REN TON TRANSPOR'] ON ELEMENT High-volume arterial corridors in 1990 included Rainier Avenue and Airport Way, each with over 30,000 vehicles per day (vpd), and Renton Avenue Extension, North Park Drive-Sunset Boulevard Northeast, Northeast 3E4 Street-401 Street, Talbot Road South, Southwest 43E4 Street and South Grady Way-Main Avenue South, each carrying over 20,000 vpd. The forecasted 2010 volumes showed significant increases over 1990 volumes. On major arterial corridors, volumes were forecasted to increase on the order of 40% - 100% over the 20-year period. The highest-volume arterial corridor in 2010 is Rainier Avenue, with forecasted daily volumes of 38,000 - 58,000 through Renton. Maple Valley Highway (SR169) also has forecasted volumes in excess of 50,000 vpd. Other high-volume arterials with forecasted volumes in excess of 30,000 vpd are listed below: Talbot Road South (north of South Puget Drive) South Grady Way Airport Way - Logan Avenue NE 3rd Street- N.E. 4th Street North 4111 Street North Park Drive - NE Sunset Boulevard Sunset Boulevard North (west of I-405) South TA Street- Bronson Way East Valley Road(south of SW 43rd Street) West Valley Highway (SR-181) S/SW 43rd Street - South Carr Road - S.E. 176t Street - Petrovitsky Road Traffic volumes on the freeway system were also forecasted to increase dramatically, with daily volumes of over 200,000 on most segments of I-405 and over 180,000 on SR-167 (Valley Freeway) through Renton. The forecasted I-405 volumes are equivalent to current volumes on I-5 at the Ship Canal Bridge, where I-5 has eight mainline lanes plus four reversible roadway lanes (as compared to the two lanes plus an HOV lane in each direction on I-405). The I-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. Intersection Volumes The overall functioning of an arterial system is controlled by the operation of its intersections. The relative and comparative use of Renton intersections during the most critical period of the day (i.e., the p.m. peak hour) was illustrated by compiling total entering volumes. In 1990, the highest peak hour entering volumes (see Figure 1-7) occurred at the South Grady Way/Rainier Avenue South intersection(6,210). Two intersections carried volumes over 5,000: North 3rd/Sunset 5,720) and Airport/Rainier (5,490). Six other intersections had entering volumes of 4,000-5,000 (three of these were on Rainier Avenue South), and nine others had volumes over 3,000. Increases over 1990 entering volumes were on the same order of magnitude as the increases in daily traffic volumes. Intersections all over the city were forecasted to experience significant increases in entering volume. In 1990, four of the 130 Renton intersections analyzed had peak hour entering volumes over 5,000, and a total of 27 intersections had entering volumes over 3,000. For 2010, 60 intersections had forecasted peak hour entering volumes in excess of 3,000, including 16 intersections with entering volumes over 5,000. In the Renton sphere of influence outside the current city limits, there were an additional 15 intersections with forecasted peak hour entering volumes over 3,000, of which three exceeded 5,000. CITY OF RENTON TRANSPORT )N ELEMENT FIGURE 1-7 1990 PM PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION TOTAL ENTERING VOLUMES use Renton Comp Plan LU Element Draft EIS Figure 21) CITY OF RENTON TRANSPORT )N ELEMENT The highest forecasted 2010 peak hour intersection volume was just under 8,000 entering vehicles at both the North 31d / Sunset Boulevard North and the South Grady Way / Rainier Avenue South intersections. The high-volume intersections (peak entering volume over 5,000) in 2010 are listed below: North 3rd Street / Sunset Boulevard North (7,960) South 43rd Street / Northbound SR-167 (5,900) South Grady Way / Rainier Avenue South (7,960) Rainier Avenue South / South 7th Street (5,780) Sunset Boulevard/ Bronson Way/ SR-169 (7,050) S.W. 43rd Street / East Valley Road (5,620) Talbot Road South / South 431. 1 Street (6,430) S.W. 43rd Street / West Valley Hwy. (5,460) Interurban(West Valley Hwy.)/ Rainier Avenue South / Airport Way/ S.W. Grady Way (6,220) Renton Avenue Extension (6,250) Benson Road South / South Carr Road (6,230) North 4th Street / Park Avenue N. (5,380) Talbot Road South / South Grady Way (5,960) 140t1 Avenue S.E./Petrovitsky Road SE (5,130) Benson Road South (SR-515) / S.E. 208 .1 (6,050) N.E. 4th Street / Monroe Avenue N.E. (5,070) SR-169 / Northbound I-405 (5,420) 140th Place S.E. / SR-169 (5,920) Benson Road South (SR-515) / S.E. 192rd (5,000) Traffic Operations Arterial Service Levels In order to evaluate traffic operations and congestion on the Renton arterial system, the daily traffic volume per travel lane was computed for each arterial segment. This information, which compares traffic volume to roadway capacity, was used to identify the arterial segments on which traffic is congested. 1990 and 2010 daily traffic volume per travel lane were compiled for arterial segments carrying more than 5,000 vehicles per day per travel lane (vpdpl). Evaluation of the daily-traffic-per-lane data was guided by two basic characteristics of urban arterials: 1) a typical urban arterial can carry 700-800 vehicles per hour per lane (vphpl) and maintain uncongested traffic operating conditions, and 2) a typical peak hour traffic volume on an urban arterial will be about 9% of the daily volume. Combining these two traffic characteristics yields an indicator of the level of congestion in terms of daily traffic per lane with an upper range of 7,000-8,500 vpdpl. In 1990, a number of arterial segments in Renton carried traffic volumes in the 7,000-8,500 vpdpl range see Figure 1-8): Maple Valley Highway Northeast 3rd Street (immediately east of 1-405) Houser Way Sunset Boulevard North (immediately north of Bronson) Talbot Road South (south of South Grady Way) Benson Road South (south of South Grady Way) South Carr Road - South 43E! Street South Grady Way (immediately east of Rainier Avenue South) Rainier Avenue South (several segments between South nil Street and South Grady Way) Only two short segments had 1990 volumes greater than 8,500 vpdpl: Sunset Boulevard North, north of Bronson (12,500) and Rainier Avenue South between 1-405 and South Grady Way (14,175). CITY OF RENTON TRANSPORT )N ELEMENT FIGURE 1-8 1990 AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC VOLUME PER LANE use Renton Comp Plan LU Element Draft EIS Figure 22) CITY OF RENTON TRANSPORT ON ELEMENT Forecasted 2010 daily traffic volume per travel lane also was computed for Renton arterials. In 2010, most arterial corridors in Renton were forecasted to be carrying more than 5,000 vehicles per day per travel lane vpdpl). In addition, the forecasted volumes on the following arterial corridors exceeded 8,500 vpdpl (by contrast, in 1990 only two short arterial segments had volumes greater than 8,500 vpdpl): Rainier Avenue Grady Way (east of Lind) Maple Valley Highway Northeast 3rd Street-Northeast 41 Street Airport Way South 2E4 Street - Bronson Way Duvall Avenue (north of Sunset Boulevard) • 108t Avenue (south of Petrovitsky) Northeast Sunset Boulevard South 1801 Street-South 43E4 Street- South Renton Avenue Extension Carr Road -South 176t Street Intersection Service Levels In order to evaluate traffic operations and capacity deficiencies at intersections, the p.m. peak hour entering volume per approach lane (vphpl) was computed for each intersection on the Renton arterial system. Although these computations are not based on the detailed lane configuration, traffic signal timing, and turn/through volumes used to determine intersection level of service, the more general entering- volume-per-approach-lane information can be used to determine where intersection congestion is likely to occur and to compare conditions on various parts of the arterial system. Congestion problems typically can begin to occur when entering volume reaches 500 vphpl. Intersections with entering volumes of 600-700 vphpl are likely to experience congestion, and where entering volumes exceed 700 vphpl, capacity is likely to be exceeded and congestion can be severe. In 1990, there were 14 Renton intersections with entering volumes over 500 vphpl (see Figure 1-9). Of these, six were 600-700 vphpl, and three were over 700 vphpl. Five of the intersections with high peak hour entering volumes were on Rainier Avenue, including South 3rd Street/Southwest Sunset Boulevard 705 vphpl), Grady Way (620 vphpl), and South 7111 Street, South 4th Place, and Airport Way. Two of the intersections were on Main Street (Grady/Benson and South 3rd Street/Houser), and two were at the SR- 167/Southwest 43rd Street interchange, including the intersection with the highest entering volume per lane in Renton(Southwest 43rd/northbound SR-167 ramps: 750 vphpl). Other intersections with high 1990 p.m. peak hour per-lane entering volumes include North 3rd/Sunset (715), Airport/Logan(675), Sunset/Bronson/ SR-169 (615), and Renton Village/Talbot and South 7111/Shattuck Avenue South(610 each). 2010 forecasted peak hour entering volumes per approach lane exceeded 500 vphpl at 58 of the 130 Renton intersections analyzed. Of these, 19 intersections exceeded 700 vphpl and eight exceeded 900 vphpl. In the sphere of influence, forecasted entering volumes exceeded 500 vphpl at another 20 intersections, including 12 over 700 vphpl and two over 900. Traditional Level of Service (LOS) Currently the national approach for defming LOS uses the traditional Highway Capacity Manual Transportation Research Board, National Research Council, 1985). 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 CITY OF RENTON TRANSPORT )N ELEMENT and convenience declines noticeably. At LOS D, speed and freedom to maneuver are restricted. At LOS E, speeds are low. Flow is relatively uniform flow, but there is little freedom to maneuver. In the past the City of Renton policy was geared toward improving roadway capacity, with a focus on single occupancy vehicle (SOV) travel. However, because of traffic congestion in the I-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 through building facilities to improve roadway capacity only attracts more traffic onto Renton's streets. There is growing recognition (i.e. recent City of Renton and King County policies) that the traditional LOS approach is not consistent with federal (ISTEA) and State (GMA and CTRA) legislation which encourage multi-modal transportation solutions. The GMA encourages innovative approaches to level of service. NEW LOS POLICY 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 has revised its LOS policy to emphasize the movement of people, not just vehicles. The new revised 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 (SOV) travel; and The decision-makers for the region must provide alternatives to SOV travel. The new revised LOS policy is based on travel time contours which in turn are based on auto, transit, HOV, non-motorized, and transportation demand management/commute trip reduction measures. The new 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 and King County adopted Level-of-Service Framework Policies; Require developers to pay a fair share of transportation costs; and If the region decides to lower regional LOS by not providing regional facilities, then Renton will adjust its LOS policy accordingly. The City of Renton LOS standards will be used to evaluate Renton city-wide transportation plans. The auto, HOV and transit measures will be based on travel times and distance and will be the primary indicators for concurrency. The non-motorized and TDM measures will serve as credit toward meeting multi-modal goals of Renton and the region. CITY OF RENTON TRANSPORT ON ELEMENT FIGURE 1-9 1990 PM PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION ENTERING VOLUME PER APPROACH LANE use Renton Comp Plan LU Element Draft EIS Figure 23) CITY OF RENTON TRANSPORT )N ELEMENT The new Renton LOS standards have been refined to provide a system for use in evaluating transportation plans. This process included the following: Determination of existing travel times within the City of Renton; Calibration of the City of Renton traffic model to reflect existing SOV, HOV travel times; Determination of future SOV and HOV travel time contours for the adopted Land Use (described in the Land Use Element) using the calibrated traffic model; Development of transit travel times using indicators of transit access, intra-Renton travel time to regional system, and regional travel time; Development of a city-wide LOS travel time standard (index) using existing travel time data; Development of transit and HOV mode splits; Development of twenty-year LOS standards using the existing travel time index as the standard; Testing transportation plans using LOS policy and future standards; Selecting a plan that meets established standards. Other elements of the LOS policy implementation process include: Defining procedures for planning and regulatory applications; Monitoring the area to re-validate transportation plans; Adjusting transportation plans as needed to meet standards and/or address other environmental/coordination issues; Providing flexibility to modify the LOS standards over time (if needed). The latter elements of LOS implementation will be further refined as part of ongoing transportation planning work following adoption of the Transportation Element. LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS) STANDARD City-wide 2010 level of service standards have been developed for the City of Renton. Establishing LOS standards for 2010 is necessitated because the only forecast data available from the Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC) is for this particular year. The following demonstrates how the new LOS policy was used to arrive at a 2010 LOS standard. A 1990 LOS travel time index was determined for the City by establishing the sum of the average 30- minute travel distance for SOV, HOV and Transit as follows: 1990 Average PM peak travel distance in 30-minutes from the City in all directions SOV HOV 2 times Transit LOS includes access time) Index 18 miles 21 miles 10 miles 49 CITY OF RENTON TRANSPORT )N ELEMENT The 1990 LOS index is the basis for the 2010 standard. The average SOV 30-minute travel distance is forecast to decrease by 2010. SOV improvements alone will not maintain the 1990 LOS standard in 2010. A combination of HOV and/or transit improvements will need to be implemented to raise the HOV and/or transit equivalents to maintain the 2010 LOS standard. With the 1990 LOS index as a base, the City-wide 2010 LOS standard was determined as follows: 2010 Average PM peak travel distance in 30-minutes from the City in all directions SOV HOV 2 times Transit LOS includes access time) Standard 14 miles 21 miles 14 miles 49 The improvements in the Transportation Plan Arterial, HOV and Transit Sub-Elements that are designated for Renton have been tested against the above LOS standard to ensure that the Transportation Plan meets 2010 demands for traffic growth/land use development. Development can be allowed under GMA concurrency requirements as HOV and transit improvements are effective in maintaining the LOS standard whereas SOV improvements will do little to improve SOV travel distance. Additional information describing establishment of the 1990 LOS index and 2010 LOS standard is provided in the City of Renton Level of Service Documentation. Arterial Plan The Arterial Chapter includes an Arterial Plan developed to make reasonable SOV improvements in the City of Renton over the next 20 years (1995 to 2015). (As discussed later in the Financing and Implementation Chapter, a 20-year, 1995 to 2015, financing plan has been assumed to fund transportation needs.) These arterial/freeway improvements are intended to enhance multi-modal corridor capacity on the Renton arterial system, and/or to provide new arterial and freeway connections as necessary to support the multi-modal concept. Also, the improvements comprised by the Arterial Plan have been identified through the land use and transportation planning process as improvements that protect or improve neighborhoods, improve safety, improve business access, and are economically feasible. The Renton Arterial Plan is shown in Figure 1-10. The improvements included in the Arterial Plan are listed in Table 1.4 and shown in Figure 1-11. The Arterial Plan includes King County arterials. The list of arterial improvements includes several proposed King County improvements within the sphere of influence of Renton's Land Use Element. Also, several Tukwila and Kent proposed improvements are included in the list in Table 1.4 due to their influence on the Renton Valley arterial system. (These improvements have been compiled from the Tukwila and Kent Transportation Improvement Programs and the King County Transportation Plan: Annual Transportation Needs Report.) The 2010 improvements listed on Table 1.4 are the arterial/freeway 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, provide a transportation plan that will meet the 2010 level of service standard and will be concurrent with land use development envisioned by 2010. CITY OF RENTON TRANSPORT ON ELEMENT FIGURE 1-10 RENTON ARTERIAL PLAN use Renton Comp Plan LU Element Final EIS Figure 16) 12e,j14- sv-y\A,-c - CITY OF RENTON TRANSPO TION ELEMENT TABLE 1.4 RENTON ARTERIAL PLAN 2010 IMPROVEMENTS 1. Park Avenue North- Bronson Way North to North 10i' Street arterial widening 2. Houser Way Relocated- Sunset Boulevard to North 81-h Street new arterial 3. Sunset Boulevard/Houser Way Connection grade separation 4. CBD Transportation and Streetscape improvements: Bronson Way - South 2°d Street to Sunset Boulevard arterial widening Main Avenue South - Grady Way to South 2nd Street arterial widening South 2°d Street - Rainier Avenue to Main Avenue South revise street network CBD Streetscape street improvements 5. Lake Washington Boulevard / May Creek Bridge bridge replacement 6. Monster Road Bridge bridge replacement 7. Oakesdale Avenue Southwest - Southwest 160'to Southwest 27tf' new arterial 8. Northeast 3ra Street - Sunset Boulevard to Monterey Drive Northeast arterial widening 9. South Grady Way - Rainier Avenue to Talbot Road South (SR 515) t _0-- arterial improvements 10. Lind Avenue Southwest - Southwest 16th to Southwest 43rd Street arterial widening 11. Southwest 16th Street - Oakesdale Avenue Southwest to Lind Avenue Southwest arterial widening 12. Oakesdale Avenue Southwest - Southwest 27th Street to Southwest 31sC Street v\' arterial 13 Southwest 16th Street- Commuter Rail Station Access New local access street 14 Duvall Avenue Northeast - Sunset Boulevard to Renton City Limits 2010 to 2015 IMPROVEMENTS Puget Drive Southeast -Jones Place Southeast to Edmonds Avenue Southeast arterial with! ing 15 44r SR-167 / East Valley Road new off-lamp 16 r Du all e, o N r,t,o ct e t u i a . ve.to: ity Limns POST 20-YEAR IMPROVEMENTS 176 Oakesdale Avenue Southwest - Monster Road to SR-900 arterial widening 182 North 4t Street - Logan Avenue to Sunset Boulevard revise street network 198 Grady Way /Rainier Avenue grade separation 204. Talbot Road - Southwest 431111 to Renton City Limits arterial widening P. OTHER JURISDICTION IMPROVEMENTS TUKWILA: 210 Grady Way / Southcenter Boulevard/ I-405 Ramps arterial and ramp realignment 224- Interurban Avenue - Grady Way to Southcenter Boulevard arterial widening 232 SR-181 / South 180 Street - (Southwest 4311'J Street in Renton) arterial widening 242 Strander Boulevard - SR-181 to Oakesdale Avenue Southwest (Post 2015)new arterial KENT: 254 Lind Avenue Southwest- Southwest 43rd Street to East Valley Road new arterial 264 South 192nd/South 196 ' Street- East Valley Road to Orillia Road South new arterial KING COUNTY: 276 South 192°d Street- SR-515 to 140'Avenue Southeast new arterial 28; South 192°a Street/South 200t Street- East Valley Road/SR 167 to SR 515 new arterial CITY OF RENTON TRANSPO HON ELEMENT 294 116ii Avenue Southeast - Renton City Limits to South 192nd Street arterial widening 302 14041 Avenue Southeast - SR-169 to Southeast 192°d Street arterial wid ing 9. 310 Coal Creek Parkway - Southeast 72! Street to Renton City Limits arterial widening and realig ent CITY OF RENTON TRANSPORT, IN ELEMENT Fig. 1-11 ge.A.1\ Vx— LA CITY OF RENTON TRANSPORT, IN ELEMENT Included in Table 1.4 are arterial improvements that have been identified for the intervening years between 2010 and 2015 and beyond 2015. These improvements will also be needed to support future land use and neighborhood and business goals and improve safety. The 2010 to 2015 arterial improvements and the 2010 improvements comprise the 20-Year Renton Arterial Plan. 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 of Renton businesses and residents. Objectives The Transit Chapter is based on the following objectives: T-C: Encourage the development and use of alternatives to single-occupancy vehicles. T-D: Ensure that the regional high-capacity transit system is extended to Renton. T-E: Develop a transit circulation/distribution system that provides attractive, convenient connections between the regional high-capacity transit system and local Renton residential areas, activity centers, and employment centers. T-F: Develop a local transit system that provides attractive, convenient service for intra-Renton travel. Policies Policy T-17. The City should work with other Policy T-21. Parking for the transit system should jurisdictions in the greater metropolitan area primarily serve the collector portion of the system toward providing frequent, coordinated and located outside of the downtown. Parking areas comprehensive bus service and transit facilities in serving the downtown transit center should be all residential and employment areas. accommodated in parking structures. Policy T-18. Local and regional transit service Policy T-22. Park-and-ride facilities should be and facilities should be planned and improved in located out of the downtown and feed into the cooperation with the regional transit authority.downtown transit center. Policy T-19. The City should take an active role Policy T-23. Development of a regional network in working with the regional transit agency in using new technology to move people and goods planning and locating public transit facilities. should be supported. Policy T-20. The establishment of a multi-modal Policy T-24. Encourage development of transit center in downtown Renton should be passenger rail service connecting Renton to a promoted as part of a regional high capacity regional rail network. transit system. Policy T-25. Criteria should be developed to locate park-and-ride lots serving residential areas. CITY OF RENT ON TRANSPORT, IN ELEMENT Also see policies in: TDM/CTR Section; Land Use Element/Community Design Section; and, Downtown Element. The Residential and Centers policies of the land use plan also support transit by encouraging residential densities at a minimum of eight dwelling units per acre and a mix of residential and commercial uses in Centers which can support public transportation. Specific treatment of the routes and stops for a transit system in downtown Renton would be addressed in the Downtown Plan. However, it is expected that such stops would serve commercial activity centers which would compliment the commercial and residential activities envisioned in the Centers and Residential policies of the land use plan. Parking for the future transit system is encouraged outside of the downtown to discourage increased traffic congestion. Criteria should be developed to guide establishment of park-and-ride lots serving residential areas and to intercept through traffic. Parking to serve the downtown stops of a transit system is to be held to a minimum, to conserve land resources and minimize congestion. Existing Transit Service Bus service in Renton is currently provided by the King County Department of Metropolitan Services formerly the Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle, Metro), the agency responsible for transit service in King County. 28 Fixed-Route Service The City of Renton is currently served by 21 different Metro Transit bus routes (see Figure 2-1). Seven of the routes provide service from Renton neighborhoods into downtown Seattle. Two of the routes (106, 107) provide local service during weekdays, evenings, and weekends to Kennydale, the Highlands and downtown Renton. Three of the seven routes (111,114, 147), which provide express service between Renton and downtown Seattle, operate only during the weekdays. These routes serve unincorporated King County, east of the Renton city limits, the Renton Highlands and downtown Renton. The remaining two routes (145, 148) originate in the Fairwood area of unincorporated King County southeast of the Renton city limits. Both of these routes provide weekday express peak hour peak direction service only. CITY OF RENTON TRANSPORTA K ELEMENT FIGURE 2-1 EXISTING RENTON TRANSIT SERVICE AND FACILITIES CITY OF RENTON TRANSPORTA IN ELEMENT One route (109) provides weekday peak hour peak direction transit service from downtown Seattle to the Renton Boeing plant. Another bus route (108) provides service from Renton to the Duwamish/Boeing Industrial area of south Seattle. One route (163) originates in Kent and serves Renton's Talbot Hill neighborhood and downtown Renton. Seven routes operate between Renton and other points in South King County, the Eastside, North Seattle, and North King County. One of the routes (155) operates local shuttle service between downtown Renton, Fairwood, and Southcenter Mall in neighboring Tukwila. Metro Transit provides weekday service on a route 167) originating in Auburn and Kent, serving Renton and terminating at the University of Washington in North Seattle. This route operates peak hours in the peak direction of travel. Another bus route (169) serving Renton and South King County operates seven days a week as a shuttle between the South Renton Park-and-Ride lot and the Kent Park-and-Ride lot. This route is through-routed with another South King County line serving Highline Community College in Des Moines, thereby linking Renton and Des Moines directly. Two of the seven routes (143, 912) provide peak hour service between Renton and South and Southeast King County (Maple Valley, Enumclaw). Bus service is provided seven days a week on a route (240) that originates at Clyde Hill, serves Bellevue, Renton and Southcenter. An additional route (340) allows access from Renton to many locations throughout the county on a seven-day a week basis. This route originates in Burien, serves Tukwila, Renton, the I-405 corridor from Renton through Newport Hills, Bellevue, Kirkland, and Bothell, as well as Kenmore, Lake Forest Park, Ballinger Terrace, and Aurora Village. There are two remaining Metro bus routes serving Renton. The first is a peak hour route (247) which originates in Redmond, serves the Overlake and Eastgate areas in Bellevue, uses the I-405 corridor to downtown Renton, and continues on to the Green River Valley of Renton and Kent. The final route (280) provides regional late evening service (past 1:00 am) on weekdays, connecting Renton, downtown Seattle and Bellevue. Custom Bus Service Metro Transit operates two custom bus routes serving Renton. These routes operate one trip in the peak hour in the peak direction serving areas with significant employment density. Renton custom bus service includes routes i) originating at the Renton Boeing plant and serving the Boeing plant in Everett, ii) originating at the Kent Park-and-Ride lot, serving the Renton Boeing plant and terminating at the Everett Boeing plant. 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, as of June 1992, is used at 100% capacity. There are four interim park-and-ride lots in the Renton planning area which are leased by Metro 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. Another 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. A third lot is located at the East Renton Shopping Center at Southeast 128th Street and 164th Avenue Southeast, east 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 at 140th Avenue Southeast and Southeast 177th Street. This lot has 25 spaces and is at 60% capacity. In addition, a park-and-ride lot was recently completed (March 1993) by the Boeing Company at Park Avenue North and Garden Avenue North, north of downtown Renton. This lot has a capacity of 300 spaces. As this lot is relatively new, a utilization rate is not available. CITY OF RENTON TRANSPORTA N ELEMENT FUTURE REGIONAL ACCESSIBILITY The long range transit and rideshare service concept for the King County Transit Division (Metrol service area is described in the Long Range Policy Framework for Public Transportation (adopted October, 1993). This "Framework Plan" updates Metro's 1981 Comprehensive Plan. 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 1996-2001 (December 1995). asema Seattle through the Green River Valley, the commuter rail spur to Renton, a rail rapid and regional bus service in the I 5, SR 167, and I-105 corridors. The system also identifies a potential future extension of the r pid transit and/or comm„ter rail s orth to Bellevue On May 31, 1996, the Regional Transit Authority (RTA) approved a 10-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 RTA Plan includes the following regional improvements: Light rail transit, commuter rail transit, HOY expressway development, regional express bus service, and community connection improvements. RTA 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 either near the Longacres site or SW 43rd Street. Efficient transit connections will be provided between the Downtown Renton Transit Center and the Commuter Rail Station. Regional express bus service will be added by the RTA, with three routes serving Renton. These routes will connect Renton with Bellevue, Tukwila, Sea-Tac, Kent, Auburn, Puyallup, and Tacoma. To ensure quick access to the Downtown Renton Transit Center, the RTA will also construct direct access HOV ramps on I- 405 at Park Avenue North and in the vicinity of Grady Way, Benson Road South, and Talbot Road South. line to Federal Way, and the regional bus service will be in operation by 2010. The Renton Trans t t to ton an n the fi,t„re The future transit service concept for the Renton area is shown i - •g re 2 3. he service ^^n^ept s^mow Valley, with stops at Pierce County locations and Auburn, Kent, Tukwila, and Renton. The commuter rail Tn;Bally • oul 1 hen vide 1 1„rin. neat hors only be sign;i^antly improved CITY OF RENTON TRANSPORTA K ELEMENT 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 comprised by the Transit Chapter of the Transportation Element include the transit-related transportation mitigation measures identified by the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element Final EIS. These mitigation measures 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 (Section 2.3), an element of the regional system is the Seattle-Tacoma commuter rail line. Access to Renton will be provided by a station located on the Renton-Tukwila border at either SW 16`1' Street (Longacres) or SW 43`d Street. This station will additionally be served by local and regional bus transit, including fast connections to the Downtown Renton Transit Center. The Downtown Renton Transit Center will be the hub of transit service in Renton. The Transit Center will be served by regional and local service provided by the RTA and the King County Transit Division (Metro), and will act as both a destination and a major transfer center. The Downtown Renton Transit Center will be a "T" shaped facility located between South Second and South Third Streets on Burnett Avenue South and on a new connection between Logan Avenue South and Burnett Avenue South. The facility will be carefully integrated with other planned developments in the downtown area. A spur of this line is expected to be extended to North Renton by 1997. Eventually, the commuter rail service will be replaced by an extension of the regional high capacity rapid transit system, extending up the I 105 Corridor to I 90, Bellevue, and beyond, with connections to all of the Eastside cities. The I /105 Corridor is vital for regional connections between Renton and other Puget Sound cities and for the economic vitality of the City. Regional transit service will be provided by the previously described RTA express bus service, as well as by select King County Transit Division (Metro) express bus routes. The local transit system will link 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 will be provided through a combination of services, including buses, shuttles, and Dial-a-Ride (DART) service. In addition, interceptor park-and- ride lots should be developed close to trip origin locations, with transit service feeding the Transit Center and regional services. CITY OF RENTON TRANSPORTil N ELEMENT Figure 2-2 REGIONAL TRANSIT SYSTEM New Graphic) CITY OF RENTON TRANSPORT? N ELEMENT Figure 2 3 RENTON SERVICE CONCEPT CITY OF RENTON TRANSPORTA Ni ELEMENT The Renton Transit Plan, reflecting Renton's combined regional and local transit service concept, is shown in the next 20 years (1995 to 2015) as a regional destination and as a city with commercial and neighborhood centers. 1 An illustration of Renton's 20-year transit plan is provided 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, by 2010 (to provide a level of service standard that is concurrent with future land use projections), and over beyond the next 20 years to support Renton's conceptual transit plan.,are described in the Renton Transit Plan Support Document*as well as in the King County Transit Division's Six-Year Transit Development Plan for 1996-2001 (December 1995) and by the RTA's Sound Move program. This Transit Plan comprises a transit system that will serve Renton over the next 20 years (1995 to 2015) as a regional destination and as a city with commercial and neighborhood centers. It should also be oted that the exclusive freeway/arterial HOV facilities included in the HOV Chapter are needed to suppo and encourage increased transit use by improving transit travel times (by enabling buses to bypass or avoid e traffic congestion that is forecasted for the Renton and regional road systems). Transit Usage d Mode Split The regional and ocal transit systems serving the Renton area in 2010 -- as modeled by Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC) -- would provide only partial, incomplete service to Renton residential areas, employment cent rs, and commercial centers, and would provide only minimal service for internal trips and trips between Re on and south King County, which would comprise the vast majority of trips to/from Renton. The City has updated Renton's transit mode splits based on Renton's planned 2010 land use and assuming that Renton is se ed by commuter rail in 1997 and rapid rail by 2015. This updated transit mode split information was i corporated in the Renton Transportation Model and used in developing transit service and facility recommendations. Forecasts of 2010 transit ridership on the local bus, regional bus, and commuter rail services incorporated in the Renton Transit Plan are compiled in Table 2.1, which summarizes the total number of Renton trips that use transit and the transit "mode split" (i.e., the percentage of Renton trips made on transit). Although both the total number and the proportion of transit trips traveling to/from Renton in 2010 under the planned land use would be significantly higher than in 1990, transit ridership will still comprise only a minor portion of overall travel. (See Table 2.1 and Table 2.11) Major local and regional transit service improvements -- improvements that directly serve Renton-- will be needed to significantly increase the rate of transit use. With these improvements in combination with HOV improvements, 30% to 35% of the total trips forecasted by '010 could use transit or HOV facilities on a daily basis. CITY OF RENTON TRANSPORT, IN ELEMENT Ongoing transportation planning work will include continued refinement and updating of the transit mode split as new information on regional and local transit plans develops. CITY OF RENTON TRANSPORT) N ELEMENT Level of Service The City of Renton has revised its LOS policy to emphasize the movement of people, not just vehicles. This new LOS policy is based on a set of multi-modal elements including auto, transit, HOV, non-motorized, and transportation demand management/commute trip reduction measures. The new LOS standards will be used to evaluate Renton city-wide transportation plans. The auto, HOV and transit measures will be based on travel time contours and will be the primary indicators for concurrency. The 2010 LOS standard has been established to greatly increase the competitiveness of transit compared to SOV travel. Achieving this goal has guided the planning and programming of the 2010 elements of the Transit Plan, which are described in the Renton Transit Plan Support Document. Information on development of the transit index of the Level of Service Standard is provided in the City of Renton Level of Service Documentation. CITY OF RENTON TRANSPORT, IN ELEMENT FIGURE 2-42-3 RENTON TRANSIT PLAN use Renton Comp Plan LU Element Final EIS Figure 17)(Use revised graphic) CITY OF RENTON TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT TABLE 2.1 DAILY TRANSIT TRIPS TRANSIT MODE SPLIT: % PERSON-TRIPS ON TRANSIT) RENTON T• KENNYDALE CITY LIMITS ONLY) CENTRAL SUBAREA RENTON VALLEY BLACK RIVER* SKYWAY* S.E.RENTON* HIGHLANDS 1990 TOTAL TRIPS 5,610 ( 1%) 1,210 (<1%) 20 (<1%) 270 (<1%)1,420 (2%)1,250 (<1%) 1,750 (<1%) 2010 TOTAL TRIPS 37,630 (4%)13,630 ( 7%) 4,800 ( 3%) 2,020 ( 3%)5,110 (6%)6,830 ( 3%) 10,160 ( 3%) INTERNAL TRIPS 7,100 (3%) 1,170 ( 6%) 190 ( 3%) 20 ( 1%) 170 (2%) 470 ( 2%) 160 (<1%) TRIPS To/FROM: Central Subarea 490 ( 6%) 330 ( 5%) 470 (5%) 930 ( 5%)1,220 ( 5%) Renton Valley 490 ( 6%) 90 ( 3%) 100 (3%) 400 ( 3%) 220 ( 3%) Black River 330 ( 5%) 90 ( 3%) 60 (2%) 100 ( 2%) 80 ( 2%) Skyway 470 ( 5%) 100 ( 3%) 60 ( 2%) 60 ( 2%) 100 ( 2%) S.E. Renton 930 ( 5%) 400 ( 3%) 100 ( 2%) 60 (2%) 270 ( 2%) Kennydale/Highlands 1,220 ( 5%) 220 ( 3%) 80 ( 2%) 100 (2%) 270 ( 2%) Includes potential annexation areas. Data Source: 1990 PSRC Regionally Adopted Forecasts 2010 PSRC Regionally Adopted Forecasts, adjusted based on Renton's proposed Comprehensive Plan. CITY OF RENTON TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT TABLE 2.11 2010 DAILY TRANSIT PERSON-TRIPS BETWEEN RENTON AND LOCATIONS EXTERNAL TO RENTON and (TRANSIT MODE SPLIT: % PERSON-TRIPS ON TRANSIT) Renton Total Person- Renton Total Transit Percent Transit Trips Trips Trips 1990 Total Trips 574,460 5,610 1 % 2010 Total Trips 871,120 37,630 4 % Internal Trips 240,940 7,100 3 % Tukwila Valley 49,390 1,680 3 % SeaTac-Burien 67,710 2,230 3 % Kent 72,430 2,010 3 % North Soos Creek Plateau 88,890 2,400 3 % Auburn/Federal Way 24,450 1,330 5 % South Soos Creek Plateau 10,600 310 3 % Pierce County 43,370 1,580 4 % Kitsap County 4,890 210 4 % South Seattle/West Seattle 72,300 1,950 3 % Seattle/Shoreline 74,560 12,830 17 % Bellevue/Mercer Island 59,390 2,170 4 % Northshore/East King County 46,630 1,280 3 % Snohomish County 14,570 520 4 % Data Source: 2010 PSRC Regionally Adopted Forecasts, adjusted based on Renton's proposed Comprehensive Plan. CITY OF RENTON TRANSPORT, N ELEMENT 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-G: Encourage the development and use of alternatives to single-occupancy vehicles. T-H: Develop HOV facilities on freeways and arterials to support and encourage ridesharing by enabling HOVs to bypass or avoid the severe traffic congestion that will pervade the Renton and regional systems. T-I: Provide facilities to support attainment of Commute Trip Reduction and other Growth Management goals within the City. Policies Policy T-26. The completion of a comprehensive system of HOV improvements and programs on state highways and regional arterials which give high-occupancy vehicles a travel time advantage over single-occupancy vehicles should be 29 supported. Policy T-27. Measures to increase the use of high occupancy vehicles should be promoted among employers located within the City. Policy T-28. A continuous network of arterial HOV facilities (lanes, bypass, etc.) should be provided on the Renton HOV system. Policy T-29. Arterial HOV facilities should be provided on the local arterial routes that provide access to/from the regional highway system. Policy T-30. Arterial HOV system warrants, standards and criteria should be established for usage (volume, capacity, LOS), physical and geometric characteristics, appropriate locations, Also see policies in the TDM/CTR Section and time-of-day of operation, HOV facility type, etc. see King County Countywide Planning Policies, Policy T-6 which by this reference is incorporated Policy T-31. A vehicle occupancy monitoring in the HOV section.) and HOV system evaluation program should be established. CITY OF RENTON NSPORT, N ELEMENT Existing HOV Fa ' 'ties The City currently has freeway HOV facilities along Interstate 405 and northbound SR-167. Freeway ramp queue jumps are a o provided at 2 interchanges, one along each of Renton's freeways. Interstate 405 has ide (median) HOV lanes, both northbound and southbound between the 1-5 interchange and Talbot Road i Renton. North of the SR-900 interchange, 1-405 has outside (shoulder) HOV lanes. The northbound la a begins at the SR-900 undercrossing and the southbound lane terminates as a lane drop at the SR-900 (Sunset Boulevard) off-ramp. The outside lanes are continuous to the north Renton city limit. These lanes are de med as HOV, requiring 2 or more persons in the vehicle to travel in that lane. These lanes are in effect '4 hours per day. On I-405, construction of HOV lanes through Renton(connecting the existing HOV lanes) is currently in progress. This pr oject will extend the inside lanes to the north, and the outside lanes to the south, creating a 2000-foot-long ov rlap area. This overlap area will have HOV lanes on both the inside and outside of the freeway. SR-167 has a no bound HOV lane between S.W. 43rd Street and Interstate 405. This lane begins as a lane addition at th• end of the northbound 43rd Street on-ramp and terminates on the northbound off-ramp to 1-405. The HOV i acility is designated for 2+-occupant vehicles. Construction of' side HOV lanes on SR-167 is currently underway between South Grady Way and 8411 Avenue South in ; ent. After completion, there will be HOV lanes on both the inside and outside of the northbound road ay north of S.W. 4314 Street. Queue jump lanes are provided on three freeway on-ramps in Renton. The SR-167/I-405 interchange has queue jump lanes on the southbound SR-167 to southbound 1-405 ramp and on the northbound SR-167 to northbound I-405 ramp. A queue jump lane is also under construction at the northbound SR-167/S.W. 43rd Street interchang-. Each of the queue jump lanes has a 2+ designation. HOV Plan The freeway HO lanes on SR-167 and I-405 are currently either constructed or programmed by the Washington State DOT. The current project on 1-405 will complete the interim HOV system through Renton along that route by the end of 1994. New HOV lanes have been programmed and funded for SR- 167 between Ren on and Auburn(SR-167 HOV lanes are currently under construction between 1-405 and Kent). Additiona regional HOV facilities (i.e., on 1-5)must be provided by the State Department of Transportation in order to provide adequate regional HOV service to the 1-405 corridor. The City has ide m tified arterial HOV corridors based on the policies listed in Section 3.1. These corridors include many of the principal arterials through central Renton and state routes throughout the city. The Renton HOV Pla includes the provision(over the next 20 years, 1995 to 2015) of the HOV facilities shown in Figure 3-1. e Plan includes HOV facilities, in the form of HOV lanes or intersection queue jumps), in the Renton corridors listed below: ainier Avenue /Airport Way / Logan Avenue • I'-169 (Maple Valley Highway) ark Drive North/ N.E. Sunset Boulevard I.E. 3E4 Street/ N.E. 4t1 Street nset Boulevard- Bronson Way to 1-405 R-515 or Benson Road I arr Road/ S.E. 176th Street/ Petrovitsky Road W. 27til Street The Renton HO ' Plan also proposes HOV facilities on the following corridors in King County: R-900 (east of Renton) 40t Avenue S.E. E. 192nd Street CITY OF RENTON TRANSPORT IN ELEMENT FIGURE 3-1 RENTON HOV PLAN use Renton Comp Plan LU Element Final EIS Figure 18) Zt.) 1 CITY OF RENTON TRANSPORT, iN ELEMENT The Renton Arterial HOV Plan has been coordinated with the King County arterial HOV program. The county program identifies SR-169 (Maple Valley Highway), SR-515 (Talbot Road S./Benson Road), SR-900 Sunset Boulevard east and west of Renton city limits, Park Avenue N/NE, Carr Road/S.E. 176 Street/Petrovitsky I'oad and N.E. 3rd/N.E. 4t Street as probable HOV corridors. Other HOV corridors that will influence travel within and around Renton include Duvall Avenue N.E. and SR-181 (West Valley Highway/Interurb•n Avenue). Regarding Duvall Avenue N.E., 140th Avenue S.E. and S.E. 192nd Street, Renton will coord nate with King County on the feasibility of HOV facilities on these arterial corridors. The HOV Plan al,S includes two transit corridors (Talbot Road/Burnett Avenue in Central Renton and the S.W. 16111 Street :xtension in the Renton Valley). These facilities are intended to support and encourage use of planned region.!transit facilities (i.e., Downtown Renton Transit Center and the Renton/Tukwila commuter rail - •- -:.•, _ . _ ' station). The Talbot/Burnett corridor would be transit-only (except for local access by ne ghborhood traffic) and is planned to be implemented by 2010. The Valley corridor may serve carpool veh cies as well as transit vehicles and is planned for implementation after15coordinated with commuter ra 1 implementation. In addition to arterial HOV improvements, construction of direct access HOV interchange ramps to provide connections to the I-405 HOV lane system is planned at NE 40' Street, Park Avenue NE, and in the vicinity of Benson Road or Talbot (SR 515). These ramps will provide vital HOV access, and enable efficient transit movements in the City to support regional and local transit service described in the Transit section section 2). It should be noted that several of the HOV treatments in the HOV Plan are planned for implementation beyond 2015. Preliminary analysis of 2010 HOV travel demand indicates that HOV facilities/treatment may not be needed by 2010 n portions of the following arterial corridors: Sunset Boulevard - Park Drive to east City limit(improvement#9) N.E. 4t .treet- Monroe Avenue N.E. to east City limit (improvement#10); and, SR-515 o Benson Road- Puget Drive to south City limit (improvement#13). However, these ' provements will be needed at various time frames beyond 2015 to support Renton's level of service standa id. The improvemen in the Renton HOV Plan proposed by 2010, along with improvements in the Arterial Plan and Transit 'lan, provide a multi-modal transportation plan that meets the 2010 level of service standard for the I rojected travel demand from land use development envisioned by 2010. HOV treatments on the King Cou i ty corridors, if implemented by 2010, will support Renton's level of service standard. If implemented afte 2010, these HOV improvements could help to maintain this level of service standard. Ongoing transportation planning work following adoption of the Transportation Element will include further analysis of the fr eway interchange and arterial corridor HOV improvements identified in the HOV plan to verify physical, perational and financial needs and scheduling of implementation. This further study may find that the 1 ed HOV improvements may not be feasible on the selected corridors. Therefore, ongoing work will also in lude th examination of additional arterial corridors for HOV treatment on an as-needed basis (without o r-developing or over-using this type of transportation facility). Over-development of HOV facilities can lea to under-utilization and HOV traffic dispersion, rather than consolidation. CITY OF RENTON ' SPORT, IN ELEMENT Ridesharing and I ode split Forecasts of 2010 OV trips and mode split were based on an HOV vehicle occupancy of 2 or more persons, which is urrently permitted in the region. As shown in Tabl: 3.1 and Table 3.11, the number of persons traveling to/from Renton in HOVs in 2010 will be significant higher than in 1990. Demand management and commute trip reduction measures, as well as arterial ani freeway HOV improvements, will be needed to facilitate and encourage this forecasted increase in ridesh.ring. The 2010 Renton ravel demand forecasts include 315,000 daily person-trips made in HOVs (see Table 3.1), which represents a 54% increase over the 1990 total of 205,000 daily trips in HOVs. Despite the major increase in the number of trips made in HOVs, however, the percentage increase is only slightly higher than the increase in ov rall travel demand, and as a result, the HOV "mode split" - i.e., the percentage of person- trips made in HO s -does not increase. Citywide, the percentage of trips made by people driving alone in an auto (i.e., % S V) will decline from 63% in 1990 to 60% in 2010, due largely to the forecasted increase in transit mode sp it. In 1990 and 2010, the HOV mode split is higher in the residential areas than in the employment area . In the employment centers of the Central Subarea, Renton Valley, and Black River analysis districts, 0%-32% of the forecasted trips are in HOVs, while in the largely residential S.E. Renton, Skyway, d Kennydale/Highlands analysis districts, SOVs are 30%-40%. (HOV mode split typically is lower in employment areas, where there are proportionally more commute trips in the traffic stream. This is b cause commute trips tend to have lower average vehicle occupancies - i.e., more SOVs and fewer HOVs than other types of trips). Level of Service As discussed in the Arterial Chapter, the City of Renton has revised its LOS policy to emphasize the movement of people, not just vehicles. This new LOS policy is based on a set of multi-modal elements including auto, transit, HOV, non-motorized, and transportation demand management/commute trip reduction measures. These new LOS standards will be used to evaluate Renton city-wide transportation plans. The auto, HOV, and transit measures will be based on travel times and distance and will be the primary indicators for concurrency. HOV improveme is along with transit improvements should show great effectiveness in improving 2010 travel times and I istance. Achieving this goal will guide the planning and programming of the 2010 elements of the OV Plan. Further informat on on how the HOV index of the Level of Service Standard was established is provided in the City of Renter Level of Service Support Document. CITY OF RENTON TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT TABLE 3.1 2010 DAILY HOV PERSON-TRIPS and HOV MODE SPLIT: % PERSON-TRIPS IN 2+ HOVs) RENTON TOTAL CITY LIMITS CENTRAL SUBAREA RENTON VALLEY BLACK RIVER* SKYWAY* S.E. RENTON* KENNYDALE/ ONLY) HIGHLANDS* 1990 TOTAL TRIPS 204,970 (37%) 40,560 (30%) 18,760 (31%) 14,920 (31%) 25,630 (34%) 56,930 (37%) 72,500 (39%) 2010 TOTAL TRIPS 314,960 (38%) 60,590 (30%) 44,810 (30%) 18,920 (32%) 27,630 (34%) 81,020 (39%)115,690 (40%) INTERNAL TRIPS 80,540 (35%) 7,030 (38%) 1,830 (24%) 390 (29%) 3,170 (44%)9,240 (46%) 25,180 (39%) TRIPS To/FROM: Central Subarea 1,750 (21%)1,630 (27%) 2,180 (25%)4,650 (27%) 6,060 (25%) Renton Valley 1,750 (21%) 730 (22%) 790 (25%)3,600 (27%) 2,190 (27%) Black River 1,630 (27%)730 (22%) 770 (29%)1,300 (30%) 1,110 (28%) Skyway 2,180 (25%)790 (25%) 770 (29%) 990 (36%) 1,420 (34%) S.E. Renton 4,650 (27%) 3,600 (27%)1,300 (30%) 990 (36%) 4,540 (39%) Kennydale/Highlands 6,060 (25%) 2,190 (27%)1,110 (28%) 1,420 (34%)4,540 (39%) Includes potential annexation areas Data Source: 1990 PSRC Regionally Adopted Forecasts 2010 PSRC Regionally Adopted Forecasts, adjusted based on Renton's proposed Comprehensive Plan. CITY OF RENTO 11 TRANSPOR ION ELEMENT The City of Rent n Trails Master Plan provides an in-depth description of proposed walking, bicycle, and mixed use trails. These proposed non-motorized facilities are shown in Figure 4-2 and listed in Table 4.1. The creation of large number of new pedestrian only trails and p ths is recommended in the Trails Master Plan. M st of these trails are several miles long and could onsist of gravel or other soft paving surfaces. By na re, these types of trails are primarily used f r recreational purposes, and are not necessarily supportive of transportation goals. The 31 creation of thes: trails would certainly supplement the City's trans•ortation system, and their development by the Parks Department should be encouraged. Many of the pl. ed bicycle facilities in the Trails Master Plan wo ld be valuable transportation system components. R•utes that are found to be important transportation e ements could be constructed through the transportati•n program. Along roadways designated as bi ycle routes, roadway or shoulder widening may . commodate cyclists' needs. These improvements Y•uld be added when roadway improvement p tojects are constructed, or implemented as individual improvement projects. Table 4.2 lists •utes that have been initially identified as important bicycle transportation elements. Bicycle facility provements for the following routes have been included in the proposed 6-Year (1995- 2000) Transpo .tion Improvement Program: Lake Washington Boulevard Garden Corridor I Further review by the City of Renton, in cooperation with citizen groups, will be necessary to determine which of the o er projects listed in Table 4.2 are selected for development. King County is pursuing development of bicycle facilities outside of the Renton city limits. Four routes leading into Re ton have been identified in the King County Non-motorized Plan: 116th Avenue Southeast (Edmonds Avenue Southeast) (Southeast Petrovitsky Road to South 57t Street) 140 P1.ce/Avenue Southeast(Southeast 192nd Street to Southeast Renton-Maple Valley Road) State ' •ute 900 (138th Avenue Southeast (Duvall Avenue Northeast) to Southeast 82nd Street) Coal C eek Parkway Southeast (Southeast 72nd Place to Renton City Limits) The routes ide""tified by the City of Renton and listed in Table 4.2 will be planned to connect with these proposed King County facilities. CITY OF RENTON TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT TABLE 3.11 2010 DAILY 2+ HOV PERSON-TRIPS For Trips Between Renton and Locations External to Renton and (HOV Mode Split: % Person-Trips in 2+ HOVs) Total Person-Trips Renton Total HOV Renton Total Trips HOV % 1990 Total Trips 574,460 204,970 36% 2010 Total Trips 871,120 314,960 36% Internal Trips 240,940 80,540 33% Tukwila Valley 49,390 19,180 39% SeaTac-Burien 67,710 23,460 35% Kent 72,430 22,610 31% North Soos Creek 88,890 30,950 35% Auburn/Federal Way 24,450 10,120 41% South Soos Creek 10,600 4,350 41% Pierce County 43,370 26,140 60% Kitsap County 4,890 3,970 81% South Seattle/West Seattle 72,300 22,340 31% Seattle/Shoreline 74,560 24,140 32% Bellevue/Mercer Island 59,390 24,970 42% Northshore/East King County 46,630 19,380 42% Snohomish County 14,570 8,240 57% Data Source: 1990 PSRC Regionally Adopted Forecasts 2010 PSRC Regionally Adopted Forecasts, adjusted based on Renton's proposed Comprehensive Plan. CITY OF RENTON TRANSPORT) N ELEMENT NON-MOTORIZED TRANSPORTATION Non-motorized facilities consist of trails (paved or unpaved), open spaces, and designated routes which are used by pedestrians and cyclists. The non-motorized component of this 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 off-street elements of the non-motorized transportation system are specified by the City of Renton Trails Master Plan. The on-street elements are specified in the City of Renton Comprehensive Walk Program Preliminary Engineering Report and as described later in this section. 1.Renton's existing transportation system is oriented towards accommodating cars, trucks, and buses rather than pedestrians or bicycles. The intent of these policies is to provide guidelines for reevaluating the existing system and providing a better environment for walking and bicycling. Overall, pedestrian 30facilitiesthroughouttheCityareintendedto be upgraded. 2.More facilities are also needed for bicycle storage and parking in shopping areas, employment centers and in public places. 3.For example, 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-J: Improve the non-motorized transportation system for both internal circulation and linkages to regional travel. T-K: Develop and maintain comprehensive trails systems which provide non-motorized access throughout the City, maximizes public access to open space areas, and provides increased recreational opportunities for the public. T-L: Integrate Renton's recreational and functional non-motorized transportation needs into a comprehensive trail system serving both local and regional users. (Source: City of Renton Trails Master Plan) CITY OF RENTON TRANSPORTI lV ELEMENT T-M: Enhance and improve the circulation system to, from, and within the City. (Source: City of Renton Trails Master Plan) T-N: Develop and designate appropriate pedestrian and bicycle commuter routes along existing minor arterial and collector arterial corridors. Policies The City of Renton Trails Master Plan and this chapter contain the City policies concerning non- motorized transportation elements, briefly described below, including all of the transportation-related Trails Master Plan and Comprehensive Plan policies. Policy T-32. Pedestrian and bicycle traffic Policy T-35. Convenient and safe pedestrian should be accommodated within all residential and bicycle access should be provided to and at and employment areas of the City. all transit stops. Policy T-33. Pedestrian and bicycle movement Policy T-36. Bicycle storage facilities and across principal arterial intersections should be parking should be encouraged within enhanced. development projects, in commercial areas and in parks. Policy T-34. Obstructions and conflicts with pedestrian movement should be minimized on Policy T-37. Streets and pedestrian paths in sidewalks, paths and other pedestrian areas. residential neighborhoods should be arranged as an interconnecting network and should connect to other streets. Also see policies in the Open Space Section of the Land Use Element.) The following transportation-related policies were derived from the City of Renton Trails Master Plan: 1.Develop non-motorized transportation in tandem with motorized transportation systems, recognizing issues such as safety, user diversity, and experiential diversity. 2.Provide for the trail needs of Renton residents; working population; and commuters, recognizing the diversity of needs of such groups as: adults, children, senior citizens, workers, recreational users, and the physically impaired. 3.Recognize the diversity of transportation modes and trip purposes of the following four groups: pedestrians, bicyclists,joggers/runners, and equestrians. 4.Provide foot/bicycle separation wherever possible; however, where conflict occurs, foot traffic should be given preference. 5.Provide adequate separation between non-motorized and motorized traffic to ensure safety. 6.Put major emphasis on establishing a "macro" system of trails while identifying critical missing links in the existing functional system. 7.Address "micro" level trails and fill gaps in existing trail patterns where appropriate. 8.The adopted Trails Plan shall be coordinated with and be an integral component of the City's on- going transportation planning activities. CITY OF RENTON TRANSPOR ION ELEMENT 9.Appropr ate mitigation measures will be taken to address impacts on the city's recreation and transpo ation infrastructure. Contributions to the City's non-motorized circulation system will help alle iate such impacts. Existing Bicycl• and Pedestrian Facilities The City's exist! g non-motorized transportation system is comprised primarily of roadside sidewalk. Pedestrians hav= the exclusive use of sidewalks within business districts and have shared use with cyclists in other areas o i the city. Although the Ci Code requires that sidewalks be provided on all streets, many of the public streets were constructe q before the existing code was enacted, and as a result, numerous roadways are currently without sidewal . Streets needing sidewalks include both local and arterial roadways. The January, 1992, City of Renton Comprehensive Walk Program Preliminary Engineering Report addresses the sidewalks and alkways within the City. This report identifies a priority roster to construct "missing" sidewalk/walkw:y sections throughout the City. The priority evaluation system is based on four sidewalk users: 1) schoo children, 2) elderly persons, 3) transit riders, and 4) all other users. Renton is locat:' at the crossroads of a regional system of existing and proposed trails. Existing routes within the City nclude the Cedar River Trail System and a portion of the Lake Washington Loop Trail. Regional Syste s with proposed access to the City include the Green River Trail and the Interurban Trail. Figure 4 1 shows the existing non-motorized facilities within Renton and the nearby regional routes. Cyclists curren'y are required to ride along the existing streets and shoulders within business districts City Code 10- 2-12:D.1.). In other areas of the city, cyclists may use existing sidewalks, provided that they yield the r ght-of-way to pedestrians. Renton currently has a combined bicycle/pedestrian facility along Garden Avenue North (North 6t.11 Street to North 8t1 Stree) and North 8 Street(Garden Avenue North Houser Way), and striped bicycle lanes on South est 16.th Street (Oakesdale Avenue Southwest to Longacres Drive). 35 CITY OF RENTON TRANSPOR ION ELEMENT Design criteria for walkways, trails, and bikeways are contained in a variety of documents, including the City of Renton City 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. 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 planning 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 Walk Program Preliminary Engineering Report. Non-motorized neighborhood connections are 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. This is not the case in Fairwood, however, where sidewalks have been installed throughout the development. Another important consideration is the bicycle route connection to regional cycling corridors. The regional corridors to which the Renton trails should connect include the Interurban, Christensen/Green River, Lake Washington Loop, Sammamish and Soos Creek Trails. Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities Plan The City, per the Comprehensive Walk Program, 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 sideslopes and roadway grades, or minimal expected pedestrian usage, some locations will have pedestrian/cyclist facilities constructed on only one side of the street. Installation of the facilities detailed in the City of Renton Comprehensive Walk Program Preliminary Engineering Report will be constructed as part of the prioritized sidewalk installation program. Additional non-motorized facilities will be constructed in conjunction with roadway improvement projects and as part of the Transit Improvement Program. Current annexation area roadways without sidewalks will be added to the Comprehensive Walk Program after annexation into the City. Sidewalk improvements on roadways could be improved through local improvement district (LID) and capital improvement projects (CIP). CITY OF RENTON TRANSPOR ION ELEMENT FIGURE 4-1 EXISTING NON-MOTORIZED FACILITIES CITY OF RENTON TRANSPOR ION ELEMENT TABLE 4.1 MASTER TRAIL PLAN PROPOSED NON-MOTORIZED FACILITIES CITY OF RENTON TRANSPOR ION ELEMENT FIGURE 4-2 MASTER TRAIL PLAN PROPOSED NON-MOTORIZED FACILITIES CITY OF RENTON TRANSPOR ION ELEMENT TABLE 4.2 PROPOSED BICYCLE ROUTES No. Facility Name Route 3 Sunset Bypass Route Northeast 171t Street (Duvall Avenue Northeast to Union Avenue Northeast) Union Avenue Northeast (Northeast 17th Street to Northeast 121. Street) Northeast 12 Street or NE 10th Street (Union Avenue Northeast to Edmonds Avenue Northeast) Edmonds Avenue Northeast (Northeast 12t1/10`h Street to Northeast I Park Drive) Northeast Park Drive (Edmonds Avenue Northeast to Lake Washington Boulevard North) 21 Monroe Avenue Northeast Monroe Avenue Northeast (Northeast 4t1 Street to Northeast 12111 Street) 1 Duvall Avenue Northeast Duvall Avenue Northeast (Northeast 1041 Street to Northeast 241' Street) 30 Lake Washington Boulevard * Lake Washington Boulevard (Northeast 44t1 Street to Northeast Lk Washington Loop Route) Park Drive) 42 Garden * Houser Way North (Lake Washington Boulevard to North 8th Street) Lk Washington Loop Route) Garden Avenue North (North 6th Street to Bronson Way) 43 Central Renton Connection Garden Avenue/North 6th Street to Airport Perimeter Road (Various Lk Washington Loop Route) routes under consideration). 34 Burnett Burnett Avenue South(Cedar River Trail to Southwest 711 Street) 5 Airport Airport Way Perimeter Road corridor (Logan Avenue North to Lk Washington Loop Route) Hardie Avenue Northwe tRainier Avenue) Rainier Avenue North (Airport Way-Perimeter Road to Northwest 3rd Street) 22 Hardie/Rainier Bypass Northwest 3rd(Rainier Avenue North to Hardie Avenue Northwest) Hardie Avenue (Northwest 3rd Street to Southwest 7th Street) 7 Southwest 7th Southwest 7112 Street (Burnett to Oakesdale) 11 Southwest 16t1 Lind Avenue Southwest (Southwest 7t11 Street to Southwest 16th Street) Southwest 1641 Street (Lind Avenue Southwest to Oakesdale Road) 14 Southeast Area Main Avenue (Bronson Way to Benson Road South) Benson Road South(Main Avenue South to Southeast 168th Street) 8 Puget Drive Southeast (Benson Road South to Edmonds Avenue Southeast) 35 Lake Youngs Waterline (Edmonds Avenue Southeast to Tiffany Park) Edmonds Avenue Southeast (Puget Drive Southeast to South 1571 Street) Identified in the proposed 6-Year (1995-2000) Transportation Improvement Programs. CITY OF RENTON TRANSPORT2 N ELEMENT 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 single occupant vehicles. The Transportation 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, 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 traffic 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 congestion 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/Commute Trip Reduction Chapter is based on the following objectives: T-O: Encourage the development and use of alternatives to single occupancy vehicles. T-P: Promote a reasonable balance between parking supply and parking demand. Policies This Chapter of the Transportation Element of the Comprehensive Plan contains City policies concerning Transportation Demand Management and Commute Trip Reduction (including support for ride sharing and management of parking supply). Policy T-38. The disruptive impacts of traffic Policy T-42. The construction of parking related to centers and employment areas should structures should be encouraged. be reduced. (In this context, disruptive impacts are primarily traffic. They could be minimized Policy T-43. Parking ratios should be reduced as through techniques, such as transportation transit services are increased and an adequate management programs implemented through level of public transit can be demonstrated. cooperative agreements at the work place, flexible work hours and subarea planning.) Policy T-44. Transportation demand management measures should be implemented at Policy T-39. Appropriate parking ratios should residential and retail developments, as well as at be developed which take into account existing the workplace. parking supply, land use intensity and transit and ride-sharing goals. Policy T-40. Alternatives to on-street or on-site parking should be explored. Policy T-41. Criteria should be developed to locate park-and-ride lots serving residential areas. CITY OF RENTON TRANSPORT )N ELEMENT Policy T-45. Site design and layout for all types Strategy T-45.1 Downtown (Central Business of development should incorporate transportation District) parking restrictions and/or removal demand management measures such as resulting from Policies T-39 thru T-45 shall convenient priority parking places for HOVs, and apply to commuter/employee parking, not to convenient, direct pedestrian access from business patron/customer parking. residential, commercial, and other facilities to transit stops/stations. (See policies in HOV Section.) Existing Parking Supply and Demand An inventory of the existing parking supply in the Central Subarea (for location see Figure 1-4 in the Arterial Chapter) was conducted in August, 1993. The inventory gathered data for both on-street and off- street spaces. Table 5.1 below summarizes the results of the inventory. The north industrial area has approximately 13,700 off-street spaces and the Grady Way commercial area has 4,300 off-street spaces, concentrating 68% of the off-street parking at the north and south ends of the Central Subarea. The CBD core in comparison has 1,045 off-street spaces, or 4% of the total. There are also 226 public off-street parking spaces within the CBD. 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 Central Subarea Transportation Plan, Existing Conditions draft report. Table 5.1 Central Subarea Parking Summary Spaces Off-Street Total Number of Spaces 26,522 100% Number of Handicap Spaces * 305 1% On-Street One Hour Restrictions 202 8% Two Hour Restrictions 1,019 40% Special Restrictions 53 2% No Restrictions 1,274 50% Total Number of Spaces 2,548 100% Central Subarea Parking Spaces 29,070 This includes 80 spaces at the Boeing plant which are assigned to employees with disabilities. Source: Central Subarea Transportation Plan, Existing Conditions, draft, January 1994 Ongoing transportation work, following the adoption of the Transportation Plan, will include a city-wide parking study, if needed for the development of parking policies and guidelines. CITY OF RENTON TRANSPORT. IN ELEMENT Parking Policy eview As stated in the ashington State Commute Trip Reduction(CTR) law of 1991, there exists a close relationship betw en commuter behavior and the supply and cost of parking. As required by the CTR law, the City has prep red a CTR Plan, and will "complete a review of local parking policies and ordinances as they relate to em loyers and major worksites and any revisions necessary to comply with commute trip reduction goals and guidelines." The City will coordinate with fourteen other King County jurisdictions and with Metro to complete the above-mentioned parking review. In 1992, Metro submitted an application on behalf of each of these jurisdictions for 20,000 in federal grant funds to the Puget Sound Regional Council. The City of Renton, has received app oval from the Council for a contract to complete the parking policy review and has begun the study. The discussion s ction accompanying the parking policies in the Comprehensive Plan states that "too much parking is an Me icient use of land and can deter transit use. A proper balance needs to be achieved between parking supply and demand." Further discussion proposes that "ideas such as lowering parking ratios and establi hing a maximum ratio of parking to building size could be explored." Criteria for locat ng park and ride lots serving residential areas should address factors such as the intensity of development i adjacent areas, the level of traffic congestion in the areas, proximity to arterial streets, and opportunitie to buffer lots from living areas. Ideas such as lowering parking ratios and establishing a maximum ratio f parking to building size could be explored. Other standards for construction of parking structures shoul include minimization of land area and the amount of impervious surfaces. However, parking ratios sh uld only be reduced as transit services are increased and an adequate level of public transit can be demonstrated. It is the intent of the above policies to use incentives as much as possible to create choices fo developers as they evaluate how to provide parking on site. During 1994 an• 1995, the City will work to review and ultimately revise its parking code, particularly those sections in the code which address parking requirements at office and industrial sites. Employers' Mo'e Split The State Co ute Trip Reduction law is intended to achieve a reduction of 15% by 1995, 2520% by 1997, aoc1-3525", by 1999, and 35% by 2005 in single occupant vehicles trips and/or average vehicle miles traveled for affe ted employers. Employers' moo - split will be addressed with data being gathered and used for the implementation of the CTR law. In or'er to implement the State Commute Trip Reduction law, King County was divided up 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 produc base year values for 1992 for each zone using its regional transportation model. These values reflect th average rate of single occupant vehicle (SOV) trips for all employers in the zones. Most of the Ci of Renton is located in the South King County zone. A small piece of the City, the northernmost ti , north of May Creek, is located in the East King County zone. The base year value for single occupant ehicle trips for both the South and the East King County zone is 85%. While this figure is not an exact mo e split figure, it is representative of the degree to which employees of all employers in Renton are acce sing their worksites by single occupant vehicle or using other modes. The assumption is made that the S V rate is 85%, and the rate of trips made by other modes is 15%. CITY OF RENTON TRANSPOR [ON ELEMENT TDM/CTR Programs The City adopte• a CTR Ordinance and a CTR Plan (February 1993). The ordinance outlines the manner in whic., and the schedule with which employers located within the City of Renton are required to design and • plement commute trip reduction programs at their worksites. The CTR Plan i. a summary document that describes the City's implementation approach. As stated in the Plan, the Ci has contracted with Metro to perform certain activities, including employer notification, em•loyer assistance, and program review. The Plan summarizes the CTR goals and establishes the I TR 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 TR program for its own employees, to complete the parking policy review mentioned above, and to r.port on an annual basis to the State regarding progress towards meeting CTR goals. In the past, the ity, with the support of Metro, has developed Transportation Management Programs TMP's) for ne residential, commercial, and office developments. These TMP's have usually been put in place throug SEPA agreements. At some point in the future, the City may consider adopting a developer-base• Transportation Demand Management ordinance (with site design and other requirements) t• compliment the employer-based CTR ordinance and its employer worksite requirements. Parking Mara,ement Ordinance Chapter 14 of e City's Building Parking Code is the City Parking and Loading Ordinance. The Code includes requir:i ents for new construction of parking including landscaping, screening, layout, paving, markings, and heel stops. It also includes requirements for size and amount of parking according to the land use activi of the building involved. The City's Cod. will undergo study as part of the parking policy review (see Section 5.3), and may be revised to make it more compatible with the potential parking demand reduction expected with successful implementation •f the Commute Trip Reduction law. d AMENDMENT #98-T-6, TEXT AMENDMENTS TO AIRPORT CHAPTER, TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT DESCRIPTION: This proposal is to amend and update the Airport Chapter of the Transportation Element of the Comprehensive Plan by deleting out of date text referencing the 1978 Airport Master Plan and the 1983 Airport Master Plan Update, substituting references to the 1997 Airport Master Plan update and focusing more on current activities and issues affecting the airport and surrounding area. The original list of objectives is expanded and existing policies have been rewritten to recognize that the Airport is a Landing Rights airport and should ultimately provide facilities for the U.S. Customs Service; that available space should be maximized for the storage and parking of aircraft and aircraft maintenance and service facilities; and, that the Airport be recognized as a unique, valuable, long-standing public transportation facility with certain costs to the community associated with it, including noise and some land use restrictions. New policies have been provided that support the idea that Boeing should vacate the west side of the airport when their lease expires in 2010 and that industrial and office uses not requiring access to taxiways and runways should relocate to "off-airport" sites. ISSUE SUMMARY: There do not appear to be any major issues related to these amendments since they tend to reflect current policy replacing out of date existing policies that have not kept up with recent changes affecting the planning and development of the airport and surrounding area. The only possible new issue would be whether the northern shoreline of the airport should be restricted to seaplane use. Since Renton Municipal Airport currently provides the only publicly-owned seaplane facility in the area it would appear to a economically viable niche to go after especially with increasing seaplane traffic to the San Juan and Gulf Islands. The provision of U.S. Customs Service offices at the airport would further enhance these operations. RECOMMENDATION SUMMARY: That the Airport Chapter of Transportation Element of the Comprehensive Plan be amended to: 1) update its Objectives and Policies to reflect changes made by the Council last August when it adopted the 1997 Update of Renton's Airport Master Plan; and, 2)reduce out of date narrative by deleting references to the 1978 Airport Master Plan and its 1988 update. ANALYSIS: The proposed amendments are basically housekeeping changes with few, if any, other issues. There is only one Countywide Planning Policy that addresses the regional and/or countywide transportation facilities and it is probably more directed at facilities such as King County International Airport (a.k.a. Boeing Field) or regional roadway improvements. Policy T-23 states that the County, cities, the PSRC, the state, Metro and other transportation providers should identify significant regional and/or countywide land acquisition needs for transportation AIRPRTPR.DOC/ 4 and establish a process for prioritizing and siting the location of such facilities. Although not requiring `significant regional or countywide land acquisition'; the 1997 Airport Master Plan does help identify long range needs and a framework for prioritizing and siting the location of airport facilities at the Renton Municipal Airport over the next number of years. CONCLUSION: Amending the Airport Chapter of the Transportation Element of the Comprehensive Plan to reflect the 1997 Update of the Airport Master Plan is consistent with GMA and relevant Countywide Planning Policies as well as reflects good planning practice. The new policies provide more specificity than their predecessors which allowed for the removal of a lot of descriptive narrative about airport operations, much of which was out of date. AIRPRTPR.DOC/ AIRPORT The Airport Chapter of the Renton Transportation Plan is derived from, and based on, the update Airport Master Plan for the Renton Municipal Airport. It should be noted that Renton's airport is more than a transportation facility. It is also a vital element to Renton's commercial and industrial develop nent and economy, through the aircraft services, manufacturing support, flight training and other airport activities it provided and the employment that these activities generate. The intent of the objectives and policies is to support increased aviation activities and appropriate mitigation of adverse impacts when possible. Objectives The Airport Chapter is based on the following objectives: T-Q: 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-R: Maximize available space on the airport site for uses that require direct access to taxiways and runway:. such as storage and parking of aircraft and aircraft maintenance and service facilities. T-S: Continue operation of the Airport as a Landing Rights Airport, ultimately providing permanent inspecti>n facilities to the U.S. Customs Service. Policies The Renton Airport Master Plan and this Transportation Element of the City of Renton Comprehensive Plan co,Ltain the City policies concerning the Airport Chapter. The following policies were developed for this Transportation Element: Policy T-46: 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 transportation-related benefits and the civic prestige that are also associated with the airport. Policy T-47: adverse impacts. 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. Policy T-48: Use ^ isting ^ ert land rily f r direct ^ ation related-Current airport land use strategy, which requires the Boeing Company to vacate the west side of the airport upon the expiration of their lease in 2010, should be continued. Policy T-49: Promote the reallocation of industrial and office uses that do not require direct access to taxiways and the runway,to off-airport sites. 98AIRPR].DOC/ Policy T-50: Min o na;cts bet., o de elo ent e ,l.,ti, >,a traf latiens 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 to seaplane access. The following-pelieies-were-derived-frotn-the-Renton-Aifpert-Master-Plani- A br not 1 0 The it. o.-t, ership should not extend east . s the Cedar Div z._ The condensed. Air} rest): only alone the lake shorn The shoo to general . .,tion. s t„the, est side of the ., ort\ Faeilities It-1s-owfl enthe-ea See-Figs e 1= )T=e-A== consists-of-appre tately- aereszHs--oblo„ sha e „d h., ;e runwayy-i . Airport. cl., ;fed B c T. ort/D mil-IofCVV-f-allpVlertL. The rung displaced identi€tea ' there is , through-A1ril-30. busiest ai Post Men suninier-months-the-seaplane-base-is-ene-efthe-busiest-in4he-Northwest, 98AIRPRT.DOC/ Airport Activities The Re;ton Airport serves general aviation demand generated by Renton, as well as by other commun ities Kent tot uses exc r ing the latt tegory including business, rter,and-#light struction. The seap ref utilizing- Aircraft services available at the Airport include aircraft maintenance and service, fuel, flight instruction, aircraft charter and rental, and aircraft storage, both hangared and open. Fixed base Relevant Documents: Airport Master Plan - 1997 The Airport Master Plan for the Renton Municipal Airport was initiated in 19781ast updated in 1997 and approved by the City Council in August 1997, The update study was funded jointly by the Federal Aviation Administration, the Washington Aeronautics Commission, and the City of RentonRenten to determine the existing and future role of the airport and to provide the City with information 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 inventori•:s, forecasts of aviation demand, demand/capacity analysis, facility requirements, airport layout plans and land use plans, development staging and costs, financial plans, and an environment impact aisessment report. Every few years the Airport Master Plan is updated as necessary to react progress and changes from the original Master Plan. It should be recognized that the airport Master Plan addresses aviation facilities only. The City has other off-site related responsibilities that are not addressed in detail by the Master Plan, including maintenance of waterways, land use compatibility, zoning, aviation-related restrictions on building height, etc. The-erigi l., find;„ bs d o vvv iaeia t l t d b r1978-ATroTi'cr 1. Rents. 1. Seap Status. unchanged) 1. There ' State is: unchanged) 98AIRPRT.I))OC/ 1. The wbili j of uh De:ton Municipal Airporttt^ ^ti fy this de .,d 1i„,ited b. the ph. al con4raints of the-sit . busi l lie nessy r tho ext+ enty St t„ ch. ed) eapacityjmprove-efe tlyT or-enhanee-safty-(Stat s: te-be-re-evaluated) 1. The installation of a microwave landing system (Mr S) he future possibl ; however, the land^ m e limited b.. high terrain w est of the field. (Status: MLS system has been canceled) 1. The the c: 1. The spac 1. The environmental--impacts o€-new-development-are-minimal f r the ort (Status:to- re- evaluated) 1. The Boeing Area-A. 1. The uPdated) 01 7 A't..T 8z i i 1. It is Post Memorial -Seaplane B be adopted--as--presentee the Master Dom -Report—(Stat s: unehnged) 1. It is by 1982. (Status: some improvements have been made) 1. It is associated-wit -the engine-testing-€aeilities. (Status:ongoing) 1. It is advai standards-assoeiated-with-airport-development (Statusi,ongoing) The prim have not dhange-signifieant-ly,--The-Gity-eurrently-is-in-the-proeess-of-preparing-another-Master-Plan Try 98AIRPRT.DOC/ scope of zoning. Airport Master Plan Implementation 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 5-, 10-and 20-year projections of the Master Plan. Based upon the 5-year schedule of improvements and developments, Federal Aviation Administration Airport Improvement Program Funds are requested for assistance with the accomplishment of those eligible projects programmed in the Master Plan. 98AIRPRT.I)OC/ Objectives The Airport Chapter is based on the following objectives: T-Q: Recognize, promote and develop the Renton Municipal Airport as a unique, valuable and long-standing public transportation facility within the region. T-R: Maximize available space on the airport site for purposes that require direct access to taxiways and runways such as storage and parking of aircraft and aircraft maintenance and service facilities. T-S: Continue operation of the Airport as a Landing Rights Airport, ultimately providing permanent inspection facilities to the US Customs Service. Policies Policy T-46: 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 transportation-related benefits and the civic prestige that are also associated with the airport. Policy T-47: 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. Policy T-48: Current airport land use strategy, which requires the Boeing Company to vacate the west side of the airport upon the expiration of their lease in 2010, should be continued. Policy T-49: Promote the relocation of industrial and office uses that do not require direct access to taxiways and the runway, to off-airport sites. Policy T-50: Recommend appropriate land use plans and regulations for structures and vegetation to minimize conflicts between development regulations and FAA air traffic and FAA airport regulations. Policy T-51: 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 to seaplane access. Airport Master Plan - 1997 The Airport Master Plan for the Renton Municipal Airport was last updated in 1997 and approved by the City Council in August 1997. The update study was funded jointly by the Federal Aviation Administration and the City of Renton, to determine the existing and future role of the airport and to provide the City with information 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. Every few years the Airport Master Plan is updated as necessary to track progress and changes from the original Master Plan. It should be recognized that the Airport Master Plan addresses aviation facilities only. The City has other off-site related responsibilities that are not addressed in detail by the Master Plan, including maintenance of waterways, land us compatibility, zoning, aviation- related restrictions on building height, etc. Airport Master Plan Implementation 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 5-, 10- and 20-year projections of the Master Plan. Based upon the 5-year schedule of improvements and developments, Federal Aviation Administration Airport Improvement Program Funds are requested for assistance with the accomplishment of those eligible projects programmed in the Master Plan. saved as: Files/Projects/Zoning/Compinl F AMENDMENT 98-T-7—Regional Uses in Center Neighborhood Land Use Designation DESCRIPTION: The proposed text amendment would revise policy references to the market area of commercial uses in Center Neighborhood land use designation to allow sub-regional or city-wide uses. Proposed implementation would increase the scale of development in the CN Zone. ISSUE SUMMARY: 1. Should distinctions between Center designations be maintained in terms of the scale and market area for Center commercial uses? RECOMMENDATION SUMMARY: Defer consideration of the proposed amendment to the 1999 Comprehensive Plan amendment cycle. ANALYSIS: The centers concept is a primary organizing principle of Renton's Comprehensive Plan Centers are intended to be hierarchical, with the scale of uses varying with the market area served by a Center. The Comprehensive Plan policies identify the general market area for the Center Neighborhood designation as serving the "basic, ongoing needs of the population in adjacent and surrounding neighborhoods". Objective LU-S) In the 1996 Comprehensive Plan amendment cycle, the Planning Commission and Council considered two related issues: whether to allow sub-regional or city-wide uses in the Center Suburban designation and whether to combine the Suburban(CS) and Neighborhood (CN) Centers into one designation. The recommendations by the Commission and decisions by the Council were in agreement, that the former amendment should be effected and the latter should be deferred for several years until the Centers have had an opportunity to develop under the existing policy framework. The direction was clear. Additional latitude in the range of uses may be acceptable, although distinctions in the intensity of Center commercial uses, as represented by density, height and square footage, should be maintained. The amendments resulted in the creation of Policy LU-118.1 which states, "Uses in Suburban Centers may also serve a sub-regional or city-wide market provided that they mainly provide goods and services to the surrounding neighborhoods". Uses in the CS were intended to include a storefront and provide goods and services to the immediate area. However, specialty businesses which draw customers from a larger area as well as the immediate area would be allowed. It would not be inconsistent with the prior direction to expand the range of uses in the CN to allow niche uses that depend on a larger market area, providing scale differences are maintained. However, staff will be conducting a thorough analysis of the Highlands' CS and CN designations in 1998. This should result in a more complete understanding of the both the strengths and weaknesses of the current policy framework. Changes to the existing policies should be reassessed after this work is complete. CAPACITY ANALYSIS: Expanding the range of uses identified for the Center Neighborhood designation would not change the capacity. However, if the scale of development is changed through implementation, assumptions such 98-T-7.DOC\ as the anticipated floor area ratio must be re-evaluated. The CS and CN designations assume FARs of 45 and .30 respectively. A more significant factor in the Centers' capacities will be the outcome of proposed changes to the Centers' residential components. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN COMPLIANCE: If policy amendments remove distinctions between the different Center designations,this will effectively change one of the framework principles of the Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan. It would directly conflict with General Centers Policy LU-84 which states, "Different types of Centers should have different ranges,mix and characters of development. ZONING CONCURRENCY: The proposed policy amendments are intended to be implemented in changes to the Zoning Code that would allow the same range and size of uses in the CN Zone as are permitted in the CS Zone. By conditional use permit, the CS and CN Zones currently allow maximum floor areas for individual commercial uses of 91,000 square feet and 49,000 square feet respectively. CONCLUSION: The Commission and Council have relatively recently considered the option of combining the CS and CN designations. The decision was made to maintain existing distinctions. It would be possible to expand the range of use in the Center Neighborhood designation to allow uses that draw from a city- wide market area without altering the intensity of uses relative to other Center designations. However, since staff has a large work program that will analyze the Highlands CS and CN designations in the coming year, it appears more prudent to defer amendments to either designation or implementing Code until this has been accomplished. 98-T-7.DOC\ AMENDMENT 98-T-7-ATTACHMENT A Center Neighborhood Objective LU-S: Create neighborhood centers which include commercial, light industrial, and residential uses and serve the basic, ongoing needs of the population in adjacent and surrounding neighborhoods. Policy LU-114. Promote the clustering of Neighborhood Commercial uses and discourage the development of strip commercial areas. Policy LU-115. Adequate retail goods and services should be provided at neighborhood centers to encourage residents to shop locally for daily goods rather than drive to regional centers. Policy LU-116. Residential uses should not exceed 50% of the overall mix within a center, with the remaining 50% commercial/light industrial uses in order to implement the growth policies in the Comprehensive Plan. Policy LU-117. Multi family uses are intended to be integrated into the Center. Residential density should be 10-15 dwelling units per acre. Policy LU-118. Office uses should be limited to service office development and should be 1-2 stories in height. Center Suburban Objective LU-T: Develop suburban centers which provide a wide range of consumer goods and services to an area which includes several neighborhoods, but is smaller than the entire city. Policy LU-118.1 Uses in Suburban Centers may also serve a sub-regional or city-wide market provided that they mainly provide goods and services to the surrounding neighborhoods. Policy LU-119. Suburban center sites and structures should be more intensive in design and intensity e.g. signage; building height, bulk and set-back; landscaping;parking) than with land uses outside the Center. Policy LU-120. Promote the clustering of community commercial uses and discourage the development of strip commercial areas. Policy LU-121. Residential uses should not exceed 50% of the overall mix with the remainder of the development in commercial/light industrial uses which implement the regional growth policies. Policy LU-122. Office uses should be neighborhood or community scale services. Policy LU-123. In order to achieve a balanced mix, multi family uses are intended to be integrated into the Centers. Residential density should be 10-20 dwelling units per acre. New residential only structures may be limited in order to encourage a 50%commercial/office mix within the Center. 98-T-7.DOC\ 4 AMENDMENT 98-T-8 — Housing Element Policies DESCRIPTION: The proposal would remove the policy requirement that existing mobile home and manufactured housing parks be assigned a Comprehensive Plan land use designation and zoning consistent with the current use upon annexation. ISSUE SUMMARY: 1. Will the proposed policy amendment result in the loss of affordable housing? RECOMMENDATION SUMMARY: Delete Policy H-70 ANALYSIS: The amendment is not intended to encourage the transition of mobile or manufactured home parks to other land uses after annexation. This type of residential facility represents an affordable housing resource for the City and the region. As noted in the Comprehensive Plan, mobile home parks and manufactured home developments meet the needs of residents in very effective ways. They are affordable to households that have very low incomes. They provide privacy in a manner that multiple family housing does not while providing a community setting at the same time. Seniors especially like the sense of community in mobile /manufactured parks. Families like the low level of automobile traffic within parks and the safety of a small compact community." (Page III-22) However, Policy H-70 places an unnecessary onus on the City and property owners, and does nothing to assure the long-teen maintenance of such facilities for the future. Existing parks may be the result of historic development patterns or plans that may not reflect more recent land use planning. While City policy encourages the use, it may not be entirely appropriate at a specific location. The policy provides no latitude for weighing the logic of whether to preserve a particular use. Following annexation,there is no policy impediment to converting mobile/manufactured home parks to other uses. Therefore, there is at best only short-term benefit in terms of maintaining affordable housing stock. Additionally,the policy provides no assurance to property owners of any potential for redevelopment of their land, should they consider annexing to the City. Future land use potential is a primary concern in assessing the benefits of annexation. The policy precludes the City from explicitly addressing long-term plans and opportunities for such sites. The City is constrained from considering surrounding development, County land use plans, site characteristics or redevelopment potential in adopting a land use designation and zoning for a mobile/manufacture home park in the Potential Annexation Area. Historically,the Council has endeavored to make the Land Use and Zoning Maps land uses conforming with annexing land uses. The Council would not lose this discretion. However,the Council would also not be bound by existing land uses if a compelling reason exists to apply alternative land use and zoning designations. CAPACITY ANALYSIS: 98_T_8.DOC\ The proposal would only apply to existing development and hence would not affect capacity. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN COMPLIANCE: The proposed amendment would not conflict with other policies or other Comprehensive Plan Elements. Zoning for annexations is guided by Land Use Element Policy LU-401 which states, "Appropriate zoning districts should be designated for property in an annexation proposal. Zoning in the annexation territory should be guided by the comprehensive plan land use designations." The proposal increases the City's latitude in determining what zoning is appropriate for a specific site without being entirely bound by a single existing use. ZONING CONCURRENCY: The proposal would require no changes to the Zoning Code. CONCLUSION: Removal of the Policy H-70 would not alter the City's commitment to maintaining affordable housing opportunities in the City. Sufficient policy support exists in other policies. However, the proposed amendment would allow the City greater latitude in determining appropriate zoning designations for properties annexing to the City. 98_T_8.DOC\ Manufa tured Housing Objective H-I: Encourage manufactured homes as a viable housing choice within the City. Policy H-67. Encourage manufactured housing developments which reduce housing costs and provide housing alternatives ranging from the middle to the affordable end of the housing market in appropriately located developing areas. Policy H-68. Create an incentive in manufactured housing designations to encourage affordable housing. Policy H1-69. Encourage manufactured home subdivisions and manufactured home parks with more flexible development standards than allowed in conventional single family developments. D.i . g Objective H-J: The City shall assist in converting existing mobile home parks to resident ownership through grant funding, technical assistance, coordination with nonprofit groups, and general support. Policy 11-71. The owners and residents of mobile home parks annexed into the City, shall be approached about the possibility of conversion to resident or nonprofit park ownership. If no agreement can be reached and the current owners desire to apply for a conversion to another land use, the City shall make all possible efforts to assist the relocation of affected households with incomes below 50% of Countywide median income. Park owners will be strongly encouraged to voluntarily contribute financial resources towards the relocation of low income residents. Policy 11-72. The City shall work with King County, the King County Housing Authority, and nonprofit housing authorities to develop or expand manufactured housing parks which are designed to accommodate relocated mobile homes and trailers. 98 T 8.DOC\ AMENDMENT 98-T-9 - RESIDENTIAL MULTI-FAMILY POLICIES DESCRIPTION: This amendment would change Policy LU-69 which currently states that Multi-family Infill designations should not be expanded and that land within "the districts" should be used more efficiently to meet multi-family housing needs. The intent is to allow existing MF-I districts to be expanded subject to criteria that would limit such expansions to minor areas. ISSUE SUMMARY: Should Policy LU-69 be amended to allow existing MF-I districts to be expanded on a limited basis? This issue is related to another amendment proposal, 98-T-3, which discusses whether to allow residential uses in the Employment Area-Commercial designation. The recommendation for 98-T-3 is to remove residential uses from Employment Area-Commercial. RECOMMENDATION SUMMARY: If residential uses are eliminated in Commercial designations, staff supports Option 2, allowing a modest increase in multi-family infill designations subject to the following criteria. a. The area to be expanded includes existing multi-family development, topographical features, development patterns and/or existing platting not conducive to development under the current designation; b. The area to be expanded is feasible for development at a density which can provide a transition between a more intense and less intense land use; and, c. The area to be expanded does not add significant multi-family capacity to the City's residential land inventory. ANALYSIS: Residential is now allowed anywhere in the Employment Area designations, often competing with commercial uses for prime commercial sites. If residential continues to be allowed in the EA-C, there will need to be more stringent conditions limiting it as to amount and location. If the City deletes residential from its Employment Area - Commercial land use district, some areas zoned Commercial Arterial may no longer be able to support stand alone commercial use because of their location vis-à-vis major arterials, topographical constraints, and existing development patterns in the area. A determination needs to be made as to what uses are appropriate in these areas along with the appropriate land use designations and zoning. Some of these areas may be good candidates for residential development because of their relative proximity to nearby residential uses. Some properties could be redesignated into other land use categories such as Residential Options with R-10 zoning. Alternately, the City may want to consider Residential-Multi-family Infill for other properties. If the City desires this flexibility, an amendment will be needed to Policy LU-69. Two Options are presented for review. These options present two different approaches to handling parcels for which there is no easy fit. Such parcels often are on the edge of land use designations and are developed with, or are surrounded by, non conforming uses. In some cases multi-family development may be a legitimate alternative. In Option 1, Employment Area-Commercial, Objective LU-AA and Policy LU-171 would be amended to clarify that residential within the EA-C designation 98-T-09.DOC/ r should be limited to smaller infill sites abutting multi-family or including existing multi-family development. Criteria would be developed based on size, topography, or existing platting and/or development patterns to limit this use. Under Option 2, the Residential Multi-family Infill Policy LU-69 would be amended to allow limited expansion of multi-family Infill designations. Mapping criteria for expansion of these areas would address the following conditions: 1) areas are not conducive to development under their current designations, 2) expansion sites are feasible for development at densities which provide a transition between more and less intense land uses, and 3) expansions would not significantly alter the City's multi-family residential capacity. Limiting multi-family uses within the commercial designation offers the opportunity to allow a wider range of uses on these properties and lets market conditions determine the outcome to a greater degree. Conditions or mapping criteria could limit the type of development and available sites. In this case, the limitation process occurs on a project level. With the multi-family expansion alternative, some sites would continue to be zonal for development under the current multi-family standards. The intent of this policy amendment is to provide flexibility by allowing modest increases in the multi-family zoning. However, this alternative does have potential city-wide implications. Staff has not evaluated how many properties might meet the criteria for expansion of multi-family areas. The impact to the City of such a change would need to be done on a site specific basis at the time of rezoning. CAPACITY ANALYSIS: None completed. Capacity would need to be calculated upon processing of mapping amendments. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN COMPLIANCE: The Land Use Element consistently supports limitations on multi-family development outside the Downtown or the Center designations. Policy LU-17 states, "Large multi family development projects or large concentrations of multi family development should be prohibited outside the downtown area except in Center and the Multi family Residential lnfill designations." The Land Use Vision, Future Neighborhoods section states, "The newly developing areas would have a noticeable absence of large multi family complexes. Small lot single family and small multiplex homes would be most common." CONCLUSION: If the City decides to no longer allow residential use in its Employment Area-Commercial designation, the land use of some properties may need to be re-examined. Many of these potential sites are not located on major arterials,but are along the edges of existing commercial areas where they often contain residential development. Changing some of these areas from the Employment Area - Commercial designation to the Residential Multi-family-Infill designation would allow some properties to develop with additional residential uses. The proposed text amendments to Policy LU-69 (attached)would allow future rezones to occur. As an alternative to amending Residential Multi-family - Infill Policy LU-69, the City could amend Employment Area-Commercial Policies LU-171 and LU-172 (attached). 98-T-09.DOC/ I EMPLOYMENT AREA - COMMERCIAL EXISTING OPTION 1 Policy LU-171. Residential uses in the Policy LU-171. Residential uses in the Employment Area - Commercial designation may Employment Area - Commercial designation be a single use development and should be limited should be part of a mixed use development may-be to a maximum density of 20 du/acre. and should be limited to a maximum density of 20/du/acre. Single use development may be allowed on a limited basis when it can be shown that properties are not conducive,to development with commercial use because sites are not located on a major arterial or parcel size is not sufficient to support commercial use. 98-T-09.DOC/ RESIDENTIAL MULTI-FAMILY - INFILL EXISTLNG OPTION 2 Policy LU-69: Residential Multi-family Infill Policy LU-69: Residential Multi-family Infill designations should not be expanded. Land within designations should not be expanded. Land within the districts should be used efficiently to meet the districts should be used efficiently to meet multi-family housing needs. multi-family housing needs. Limited expansions of existing RM-I may be considered when all of the following criteria have been met: a) The existing Residential Multi-family - Infill designation is adjacent or abutting the site or the site includes existing multi- family development; b) Topographical features, and lot size or configuration are not conducive to development under the current designation; c) The proposed expansion site is feasible for development at a density which can provide a transition between a more intense and less intense land use;and d) The proposed expansion site does not add significant multi-family capacity to the City's land use inventory. 98-T-09.DOC9S T 09.DEC/