Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutLUA-06-123 - Report 1PARTIES OF RECORD TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT TEXT LUA06-123, CPA, ECF Brad Nicholson 2811 Dayton Avenue NE Renton, WA 98056 tel: (425) 445-0658 eml: brad827@hotmail.com (party of record) Updated: 10/16/06 (Page 1 of 1) STATE OF WASHINGTON, COUNTY OF KING AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION PUBLIC NOTICE Jody L. Barton, being first duly sworn on oath that she is the Legal Advertising Representative of the King County Journal a daily newspaper, which newspaper is a legal newspaper of general circulation and is now and has been for mare than six months prior to the date of publication hereinafter referred to, published in the English language continuously as a daily newspaper in King County, Washington. The King County Journal has been approved as a Legal Newspaper by order of the Superior Court of the State of Washington for King County. The notice in the exact form annexed was published in regular issues of the King County Journal (and not in supplement form) which was regularly distributed to its subscribers during the below stated period. The annexed notice, a Public Notice was published on October 30, 2006. The full amount of the fee charged for said foregoing publication is the sum of $103,18, Jo . B n Lega Advertising Representative, King County Journal Subscribed and sworn to me this 306 day of October, 2006. B D Cantelon Notary Public for the State of Washington, Residingin Kent, Washington PO Number: NOTICE OF ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION ENVIRONMENTAL RF,VIFVV COMMITTEE RENTON, WA,SHINGTON The Environmental Review Com- mittee has issued a Determination of Non -Significance for the following project under the authority of the Renton Municipal Code. Transportation CIP CPA IATA06.123, EO Location: Citywide. Update of the Transportation Element of the Comprehensive flan to reflect the recently a(1optrr I six year Transportation Iinprove- ment Promsana 12006-2011). Change_ reflect changes in project priorities pis a re.�iult of rer.ent annexabnns and changes to ensure continuation of County funding. Appeals of the environmental determination must be fled in writing on or before 5:00 PIVI on November 13, 2006. Appeals must be filed in writing together with the required $75.00 application fee with: Bearing Examiner, City of Renton, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98055. Appeals to the hkaminer are governed by City of Renton Municipal Code Section 4-8-110.$. Additional infor- mation regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the Renton City Clerk's Office, (425) 430-6510_ Published in the Bing County Journal October 30, 2006. #861993 CITY OF RENTON PLANNING / BUILDING / PUBLIC WORDS MEMORANDUM Date: November 22, 2006 To: City Clerk's Office From: Holly.,Graber Subject: land Use File Closeout Please complete thel following information to facilitate project closeout and indexing by the City Clerk's Office. ame: 2006 Transportation Text Amendments Number.: LUA-06-123, ECF erences.' FA's: anager: Erika Conkling ce Date: September 29, 2006 Applicant: City of Renton - Rebecca Lind Owner: City of Renton Contact: City of Renton - Angie Mathias PID Number: ERC Decision Date: October 23, 2006 ERC Appeal Date: November 13, 2006 Administrative Denial: Appeal Period Ends: Public Hearing Date: Date Appealed to HEX: By Whom: HEX Decision: Date: Date Appealed to Council: By Whom: Council Decision: '-e '0V4J Date: N61.1A11 Z? -)004, Mylar Recording Number: Project Description: Update of the Transportation Element of the Comprehensive Plan to reflect the recently adopted six year Transportation Improvement Program (2006-2011). Changes reflect changes in project priorities as a result of recent annexations and changes to ensure continuation of County funding. Location: City Wide Comments: M ` Kathy Keoiker, Mayor December 4, 2006 City of Renton 1055 S Grady Way Renton, WA 98055 SUBJECT: 2006 Transportation Text Amendment LUA-06-123, R, ECF CITNIOF RENTON Planning/Building/PublicWorks Department Gregg Zimmerman P.E., Administrator This letter is to inform you that the appeal period ended on November 13, 2006 for the Environmental Review Committee's (ERC) determination of Non -Significance for the above - referenced project. No appeals were filed on the ERC determination. The decision of the ERC is final. This proposal was reviewed by the City Council at a public hearing on November 13, 2006. The Council took action on this proposal on November 27, 2006 and approved the recommended changes. If you have any questions, please contact Rebecca Lind at (425) 430-6588. Sincerely, Erika Conkling Senior Planner cc: Brad Nicholson ! Party of Record 1055 South Grady Way - Renton, Washington 98055 SThis paper contains 50% recycled material, 30%postoonsurner RENTON AHEAD OF THE CURVE • ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION ISSUANCE OF A DETERMINATION OF NON -SIGNIFICANCE (DNS) POSTED TO NOTIFY WTERESTED PERSONS OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL ACTION PROJECT NAME: Transportation CIP CPA PROJECT NUMBER: LUA06-123. ECF LOCATION: Chywide DESCRIPTION: Update of the Transportation Element of the Camprshenstve Plan to feRact the recently adopted six year Transportation Impravament Program (2000-2011)- Changes reflect Changes In project prlMtles as a resuh of recent annexations and changes to ensure continuation of County fundkrg. THE CITY OF RENTON ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE (ERG) HAS DETERMINED THAT THE PROPOSED ACTION DOES NOT HAVE A SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE IMPACT ON THE ENVIRONMENT. Appeals or the environmental determination must be filed In writing on or before S:DD PM on November 13, 20M Appeals must be filed In writing together with the required S75.00 application fee with: Hearing Examiner, City of Renton, 1056 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 92055. Appeals to the Examiner are governed by City of Renton Munklpal Code Section 4-S-110.8. Additional infomration regarding the appeal process maybe obtained from the Rwfto City Cleric's ORice, [4261430-6510. IF THE ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION IS APPEALED, A PUBLIC HEARING WILL BESET AND ALL PARTIES NOTIFIED. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION, PLEASE CONTACT THE CITY OF RENTON, DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIVISION AT (425) 430-72DD- DO NOT REMOVE THIS NOTICE WITHOUT PROPER AUTHORIZATION f CERTIFICATION hereby certify that -3 copies of the above document were posted by me in 3 conspicuous places or nearby the described property on DATE: I Q JQ -Ok SIGNED:Ll ATTEST: Subscribed and sworn before me, a Notary Public, in and for the State of Washington residing in w 4 �� f+�r�'�f,�`'r S s on the�7� day of L,i� AtLL=1 - NOTARY PUB IC SIG fitit� �l ��IIIIIti ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION ISSUANCE OF A DETERMINATION OF NON -SIGNIFICANCE (DNS) POSTED TO NOTIFY INTERESTED PERSONS OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL ACTION PROJECT NAME: Transportation CIP CPA PROJECT NUMBER: LUA06-123, ECF LOCATION: Citywide DESCRIPTION: Update of the Transportation Element of the Comprehensive Plan to reflect the recently adopted six year Transportation Improvement Program (2006-2011). Changes reflect changes in project priorities as a result of recent annexations and changes to ensure continuation of County funding. THE CITY OF RENTON ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE (ERC) HAS DETERMINED THAT THE PROPOSED ACTION DOES NOT HAVE A SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE IMPACT ON THE ENVIRONMENT. Appeals of the environmental determination must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 PM on November 13, 2006. Appeals must be filed in writing together with the required $75.00 application fee with: Hearing Examiner, City of Renton, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98055. Appeals to the Examiner are governed by City of Renton Municipal Code Section 4-8-110.B. Additional information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the Renton City Clerk's Office, (425) 430-6510. IF THE ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION IS APPEALED, A PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE SET AND ALL PARTIES NOTIFIED. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION, PLEASE CONTACT THE CITY OF RENTON, DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIVISION AT (425) 430-7200. DO NOT REMOVE THIS NOTICE WITHOUT PROPER AUTHORIZATION . U " Y, „R),4 Kathy Keatker, Mayor October 26, 2006 City of Renton 1056 S Grady Way Renton, WA 98055 SUBJECT: Transportation CIP CPA LUA-06-123, ECF CIT116OF RENTON PlanningBuilding/PublicWorks Department Gregg Zimmerman P.E., Administrator 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 October 23, 2006, decided that your project will be issued a Determination of Non - Significance. The City of Renton ERC has determined that it does not have a probable significant adverse impact on the environment. An Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is not required under RCW 43.21C.030(2)(c). This decision was made by the ERC under the authority of Section 4-6-6, Renton Municipal Code, after review of a completed environmental checklist and other information, on file with the lead agency. This information is available to the public on request. Appeals of the environmental determination must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 PM on November 13, 2006. Appeals must be filed in writing together with the required $75.00 application fee with: Hearing Examiner, City of Renton, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98055. Appeals to the Examiner are governed by City of Renton Municipal Code Section 4-8-110.B. Additional information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the Renton City Clerk's Office, (425) 430-6510. If the Environmental Determination is appealed, a public hearing date will be set and all parties notified. If you have any questions or desire clarification of the above, please call me at (425) 430-6578. For the Environmental Review Committee, Erika Conkling Associate Planner cc: Brad Nicholson / Party of Record 1055 South Grady Way - Renton, Washington 98055 0This pWwcontaims50 recycled material,30%poecortisumer RENTON AHEAD 6F THE CURVE `R Kathy Keolker, Mayor October 26, 2006 t. Washington State , Department of Ecology Environmental Review Section PO Box 47703 Olympia, WA 98504-7703 Subject: Environmental Determinations CITI ]F RENTON Planning/Building/PublicWorks Department Gregg Zimmerman P.E., Administrator Transmitted herewith are copies of the Environmental Determinations for the following projects reviewed by the Environmental Review Committee (ERC) on October 23, 2006: DETERMINATION OF NON -SIGNIFICANCE PROJECT NAME: Chee CPA and Rezone (CPA 2006-M-01) PROJECTNUMBER: LUA05-151, R, ECF PROJECT NAME: Sprinbrook Office (CPA 2006-M-04) PROJECT NUMBER: LUA05-158, R, ECF PROJECT NAME: Kennydale Blueberry Farm (CPA 2006-M-02) PROJECT NUMBER: LUA0.5-159, R, ECF PROJECT NAME: Rivera and City Initiated Zoning Map Amendment (CPA 2006-M-03) PROJECT NUMBER: LUA05.163, R, ECF PROJECT NAME: Puget Colony Rezone (CPA 2006-M-05) PROJECT NUMBER: LUA06-120, R, ECF PROJECT NAME: PROJECT NUMBER: PROJECT NAME: PROJECT NUMBER: PROJECT NAME: PROJECTNUMBER: PROJECT NAME: PROJECT NUMBER: PROJECT 1IAME: PROJECT NUMBER: Highlands R-10 Zoning Text Amendments LUA06-121, ECF Upper Kennydale Rezone (CPA 2006-M-08) LUA06-122, R, ECF Transportation CIP CPA (CPA 2006-T-4) LUA06-123, ECF Land Use and Community Design Element CPA (CPA 2006-T-3) LUA06-124, ECF Mobile Home Park Text Amendments (CPA 2006-T-5) LUA06-125, ECF Appeals of the environmental determination must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 PM on November 13, 2006. Appeals must be filed in writing together with the required $75.00 application fee with: Hearing Examiner, City of Renton, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98055. Appeals to the Examiner are governed by City of Renton Municipal Code Section 4-8-110.B. Additional information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the Renton City Clerk's Office, (425) 430-6510. f 1055 South Grady Way -Renton, Washington 48055 RENTON j AHEAD Of THE CURVE I"� This paper containa50%r"cledmaterial,30%postoomumer Environmental Determination Page 2 If you. have any questions, please call me at (425) 430-6578. For the Environmental Review Committee, Erika Conkling CJ Associate Planner cc: King County Wastewater Treatment Division WDFW, Stewart Reinbold Davits F. Dietzman, Department of Natural Resources WSDOT, Northwest Region Duwamish Tribal Office Karen Walter, Fisheries, Muckleshoot IndianTdbe(.prdir ante) Melissa Calvert, Muckleshoot Cultural-Resource&Prograrti` US Army Corp. of Engineers Stephanie Kramer, Office of A,cchaeoiogy,& Historic Preservation Enclosure CITY OF RENTON DETERMINATION OF NON -SIGNIFICANCE APPLICATION NUMBER: LUA06-123, ECF APPLICANT: City of Renton PROJECT NAME: Transportation CIP CPA (CPA 2006-T-4) DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: Update of the Transportation Element of the Comprehensive Plan to reflect the recently adopted six year Transpotation Improvement Prorgram (2006-2011). Changes reflect changes in project priorities as a result of recent annexations and changes to ensure continuation of County funding. LOCATION OF PROPOSAL: Citywide 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 will not act on this proposal for fourteen (14) days. Appeals of the environmental determination must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 PM on November 13, 2006. Appeals must be filed in writing together with the required $75.00 application fee with: Hearing Examiner, City of Renton, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98055. Appeals to the Examiner are governed by City of Renton Municipal Code Section 4-8-110.B. Additional information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the Renton City Clerk's Office, (425) 430-6510. PUBLICATION DATE: DATE OF DECISION: SIGNATURES: rill Gregg i rrrpp ministrat Planning/ il2061Public Works October 30, 2006 October 23, 2006 bafe '. David Dan' , Fire Chief Fire Department Date il)w�4I Iz 2-3 0k 10Z3 oce Terry Higashiyama, Administrator Date Alex Pietsch, Administrator Date Community Services EDNSP STAFF REPORT City of Renton Department of Economic Development, Neighborhoods and Strategic Planning ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE A. BACKGROUND ERC MEETING DATE October 23, 2006 Project Name Transportation CIP CPA (CPA 2006-T-4) Applicant City of Renton File Number LUA06-123, ECF Project Manager Rebecca Lind Project Description Update of the Transportation Element of the Comprehensive Plan to reflect the recently adopted six year Transportation Improvement Program (2006-2011). Changes reflect changes in project priorities as a result of recent annexations and changes to ensure continuation of County funding. Project Location Exist. Bldg. Area gsf Site Area SITE MAP Applicable Citywide B. RECOMMENDATION Applicable Citywide NIA NIA Proposed New Bldg. Area gsf NIA Total Building Area gsf NIA Based on analysis of probable impacts from the proposal, staff recommends that the Responsible Officials make the following Environmental Determination: DETERMINATION OF DETERMINATION OF NON -SIGNIFICANCE NON - SIGNIFICANCE - MITIGATED. X I Issue DNS with 14 day Appeal Period. Issue DNS with 15 day Comment Period with Concurrent 14 day Appeal Period. IIssue DNS-M with 15 day Comment Period with Concurrent 14 day Appeal Period. Issue DNS-M with 15 day Comment Period followed by a 14 day Appeal Period. Project Location Map ERCReportdoc City of Renton EDNSP Department ironmental Review Committee Staff Report Transpartation CIP CPR LUA-06-113, ECF REPORT AND DECISION OF OCTOBER 23, 2006 Page 2 of 3 C. MITIGATION MEASURES None required for this non -project action. D. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS In compliance with RCW 43.21 C. 240, the following non -project environmental review addresses only those impacts that are not adequately addressed under existing development standards and environmental regulations. E. COMMENTS OF REVIEWING DEPARTMENTS The proposal has been circulated to City Departmental / 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 Appeal Process Appeals of the environmental determination must be filed In writing on or before 5.00 PM, November 13, 2006. Appeals must be filed in writing together with the required $75.00 application fee with: Hearing Examiner, City of Renton, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98055. Appeals to the Examiner are governed by City of Renton Municipal Code Section 4-8-110. Additional information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the Renton City Clerk's Office, (425)430-6510. ERG Report.doc s 4 AMENDMENT 2006-T-4 — TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT REVISIONS DESCRIPTION: Although the City updated the Transportation Element of the Comprehensive Plan for the 2004 update, the City's Six -Year Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) is updated annually. As a result, the Transportation Element needs to be updated to reflect changes that have occurred since its last update. The current proposal is intended to bring the Transportation Element and the TIP more consistent with each other. In addition, because of recent annexations that affect a number of County funded projects, project priorities have had to change in order to ensure the continuation of County funding. Changes to Table 8.3 reflect the latest adopted City of Renton Six -year TIP. In addition, revisions to associated text have also been made. ISSUE SUMMARY: 1. Which transportation projects need to be amended or deleted and which transportation projects need to be added to Table 8.3 of the Transportation Element to update it for 2006? 2. Should the recently adopted Six -year Transportation Improvement Program, rather than the previous year's TIP, be included in the update? RECOMMENDATION SUMMARY: Update Table 8.3 to reflect the City of Renton's latest adopted Six -Year Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) and adopt associated text amendments explaining these changes, as delineated below and in Attachment `A', ANALYSIS: The Growth Management Act (GMA)places special emphasis on transportation making it unlawful to approve development for which the approving jurisdiction cannot demonstrate the availability of facilities, strategies, and services, which are needed to accommodate the growth in traffic at an adopted level -of -service within six years. By April of each year, the legislative body of each city is required to prepare a six - year transit development and financial program for the calendar year and ensuing five years. The TIP must be consistent with the comprehensive plans adopted by counties, cities, and towns. This year's updates to the Transportation Element are intended to ensure that the TIP and Comprehensive Plan are consistent. Renton's Comprehensive Plan text already contains the necessary information to fulfill the GMA mandate to provide information on land use assumptions used in estimating travel, facilities and service needs (including an inventory of air, water, and land transportation facilities and services), level of service (LOS) standards for the transportation system to serve as a gauge to judge performance of the transportation system, ten-year traffic forecasts based upon the adopted land use plan, and identification of system expansion and transportation system management needs to meet current and future demand. It also includes financing information with a multi -year financing plan based on the needs identified elsewhere in the Comprehensive Plan, discussion of funding sources, and how land use assumptions will be reassessed, if necessary, to ensure that the LOS standards are met. Revisions to Table 8.3 reflecting the latest adopted six -year TIP and revisions to associated text pages will complete the update to Renton's Transportation Plan. AMENDMENT 2006-T- Transportation Element Revisions REVIEW CRITERIA FOR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT: The proposed amendment must meet the review criteria in RMC 4-9-020G (at least one): 1. The request supports the vision embodied in the Comprehensive Plan, or 2. The request supports the adopted Business Plan goals established by the City Council, or 3. The request eliminates conflicts with existing elements or policies, or 4. The request amends the Comprehensive Plan to accommodate new policy directives of the City Council. These proposed amendments are within the vision embodied by the Comprehensive Plan and eliminate outdated information. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN COMPLIANCE: The recommended changes comply with the goals, objectives, and policies of the Comprehensive Plan, and in particular, General Policies T-1 and T-2, below: Policy T-1. Land use plans and regulations should be used to guide development of the Transportation Element for the City, and Policy T-Z. Transportation improvements should support land use plans. CONCLUSION: Updating the Transportation Element by revising Table 8.3 to reflect the latest adopted City of Renton Six -Year Transportation Improvement Plan and associated text pages (XI-66 through XI-70) is consistent with GMA, Countywide Planning Policies, and criteria for Comprehensive Plan amendments. In the future, efforts should be made to adopt the City's Six -Year Transportation Improvement Plan by the end of the first half of the year so that it can be incorporated in that year's Comprehensive Plan update for the Transportation Element. H:IEDNSP\Comp P1anlAmendments1200612006 Map Amendments\Transportation Element\Issues.doc Cit Renton Department of Planning / Building / c Works ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: COMMENTS DUE: OCTOBER 16, 2006 APPLICATION NO: LUA06-123, ECF DATE CIRCULATED: OCTOBER APPLICANT: City of Renton - EDNSP PROJECT MANAGE Conklin PROJECT TITLE: Transportation CIP CPA PLAN REVIEW: Ka ren i c SITE AREA: NIA BUILDING AREA (gross): N/A LOCATION: Citywide I WORK ORDER NO: 77657 SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: Update of the Transportation Element of the Comprehensive Plan to reflect the recently adopted six year Transportation Improvement Program (2006-2011). Changes reflect changes in project priorities as a result of recent annexations and changes to ensure continuation of County funding. A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT (e.g. Non -Code) COMMENTS Element of the Environment Probable Minor Impacts Probable Major Impacts More Information Necessary Earth Air Water Plants Land/Shoreline Use Animals Envkonmental Health Energy/ Natural resources B. POLICY -RELATED COMMENTS C. CODE -RELATED COMMENTS Element of the Environment Probable Minor Impacts Probable Major Impacts More Information Necessary Housing Aesthetics Light/Glare Recreation Utilities Transportation Public Services Histodc;Cultural Preservation Airport Environment 10,000 Feet 14,000 Feet 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 4 41 6(p Date BRADIVICHOLS`ON October 14, 2006 2811 Dayton Avenue N.E. Renton, Washington 98056 brad827na,hot m ail xom (425) 445-0658 City of Renton Highlands Task Force Chairman Kirk Moore City of Renton Mayor Renton City Council Renton Planning Commission City of Renton ERC 1055 South Grady Way Renton, Washington 98055 RE: 2006 Amendments to the Comprehensive Plan RE: Highlands redevelopment and "Task Force" RE: Public Hearing comments RE: LUA-06-121, LUA-06-126, LUA-05-159, LUA-06-123 To the above identified persons, QTY OF RQiF#'01y OCT 16 2006 RECEIVED %ATY CLERICS OFFICE f40 ilcf t)&l r c1e're&4 h y —Ie erg �sari Not having really known all of the details of the City Administration's or Staffs land use strategy, confronted with a constantly changing zoning proposal, and not having been presented with necessary informative data and stable or lawful zoning proposals, most of the residents and citizens that are potential participants under the GMA in Renton are unaware of the proceedings and were therefore unable to participate. They were unaware of unlawful procedures being used, they didn't hear what were the true issues needing to be deliberated were, and were unaware of what was unlawfully happening around the City of Renton's planning. For purpose of the acts (GMA & SEPA) they were unable to participate in a meaningful way at a meaningful time. I recommend that there be a change of course in the management philosophy that the City uses to take and gather public input, and a change in how that our leaders act upon recommendations based upon that input. It is in the best interest of the City and our Citizens. I urge the City to make this change of course, because without that change, further deterioration of areas and processes probably will result. For the most part, doing otherwise would be just like failure to give notice. It continues actions for longer than necessary. There has been failure to give notice of proceedings. It is failure to comply with Laws, only the first of many grounds that may vitiate legislation emerging from these processes. Many appeals and legal actions caused by such lack of respect for laws damage the City. brad nkholson Page 1 1011512006 It Neither was I officially notified of the present proceedings whilst I should have been. I am a party of record. Evidently One Council member, Terri Briere decided not to answer my email around a week ago requesting information as to how I could participate in or join the "Task Force". The Citizens that searched the City's website or word of mouth e-mail, having found the hearing dates and times for scheduled meetings, but the issues were not clear and changed significantly, and participation is limited to only nine people, are all very disappointed. All of them will now be "observers" only supposedly because the "Task Force" will review and rule only on the record that has been previously created. That record has deficiencies like I previously articulated. Most if none of the potential participants wanted to pay the rather large and unlawful City fee to suggest a comprehensive plan or development regulation amendment for the processes, neither were they given a real opportunity to comment. Even though I am a party of record for the above actions I never received notice of the proceedings and least officially, I still haven't. A few private citizens informed me of the "Task Force" meeting. I met the so called chairman at the task force meeting, but he informed me that I couldn't comment in public. Those amendments to our comprehensive plan must have been recommended for approval by someone unqualified to make that decision. I really don't know how to figure that out because nobody informed me of what was decided or recommended by the Planning Commission or the City Council. Some Citizens attended meetings that were public, testified, and wanted to improve the City and be heard, and others were accorded nothing more than exclusion from the processes via certain unlawful administrative decisions and acts, declarations, and tactics. Not the least of which is the newly formed "Task Force" that will supposedly be providing the sole community input from now on. Nine people cannot be considered the "public" according to my interpretation of the code. Notwithstanding the fact that there was no public response, findings or recommendation made by the Planning Commission that I am aware of, instead the City "switched" reviewing bodies after public comment was taken on the issues. It is now evidently believed that quasi-judicial review of the proceedings rests with the "Task Force" I received a notice communication..».... an email communication stating that the "Task Force" would be meeting at the Highlands Starbucks. There was a person there to meet, one Kirk Moore, who claimed to be the chairman of the "Task Force" and would allow me to give my comments to him for presentation during what is to be the "review" Here they are. He assured me such "review" would result in findings of fact and conclusions of law prior to a council hearing on these issues. . I request that commitment be honored in the future. I request that he and the "Task Force" be asked to review these comments, find facts, and conclusions of Law, and inform me of their legal decisions with regard to them. brad nicholson Page 2 1011512006 Disappointment is evident in "Huffy City Council meetings" probably for one reason because the Planning Commission recommendation that was supposedly made as a result of the prior hearings can not be found in public. That has happened on numerous occasions in the past. Perhaps I am wrong and the "Task Force" will be different. If the "Task Force" can respond to my issues, then there will be a great improvement. I have been informed that the newly formed "Task Force" will exact the "Role of Review" from the Planning Commission. one Terri Briere as chairman of the City's Planning and Development Committee as well as the task force chairman have told me so. I can provide proof in the form of evidentiary exhibits for that if it is requested. otherwise, it is incontrovertible. If I had known that the role of review would rest with the newly formed "Task Force" I would have been able to save the efforts I made for the City's benefit by saving my comments for the task force. The new forum however will not be taking any comments or allowing public participation but will be reviewing the record because the community continues to have concerns with the administrative proposals. I am presuming the record of proceedings will be forwarded to the "Task Force" (exhibit) Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law are required of quasi-judicial reviewing bodies. I am looking forward to reviewing the decision by Mr. Moore's group as a result of the task force as it becomes a part of the public record, however I will be doing so under protest because of the numerous deliberative and substantive participatory deficiencies I have placed into the record that are subject to review. It seemed quite clear to me Mr. Moore has no experience in law or land use action whatsoever. To be honest, I have no confidence in his ability to work on land use whatsoever. I hope I am wrong, but I think he is now in somewhat of a "pickle". I think he is still working on eminent domain in the highlands even though I understand that the issue is tabled through an ordinance. I would like to say that I am offended not only by the moratoriums and wasted time and money, but by the lack of apparent competency and transparency. Many people genuinely concerned with the City's future are now thoroughly disgusted. Some citizens are frustrated because it is known that pending appeals will require a programmatic EIS document to place new rezoning in the so-called Highlands area Center Village designation, but the proposal has been withdrawn at the last minute and now an EIS should be required because of different arguments. It is still needed to be capable to implement the "vision" of the highlands. It is still being avoided with what appears to be just like an end run, and is unavailable because it was removed from consideration by the City's ERC. They have a new DNS. They should not have done that, because there are accumulations of adverse effects from acting the wrong way, which includes doing nothing, like I have previously contended. brad nwholson Page 3 1011 S/1006 Even though I was a party of record, they did not notify me of that until after the hearing and after I raised the issues. I just found out that the previous DNS was withdrawn. There has been no discussion as to what adverse effects the "Highlands vision" will have upon transportation issues. Or how not implementing the vision through zoning measures would affect people. It seems clear that if the Staff is intent with little or no development regulation, then maybe the vision should be withdrawn as well. That has not happened, but instead the footprint of the vision is proposed to be expanded. It seems clear that the zoning that is currently proposed will not implement the present vision. I would call the consistency of the City's actions into question under the GMA. It is not known how the Landing issues will interact with the Hilands, both of which are major actions significantly affecting the quality of the environment. I am wondering why there has not been an inclusion of discussion regarding the need for possible changes to the zoning and plans if the "Landing" is required to implement the comprehensive plan through required changes. How the highlands vision will be implemented depending on how the Landing materializes. No information has been disclosed to me other than the fact that there is proposed to be a Target store. Because of the appeals that are before the council, there are many unknowns, thus the Citizens have never been able to comment anyway. If I was a gambler, I would wager that each and member of the "Task Force" is lacking that information as well. According to the Mayor's State of the City Address, the transportation system around Sunset (between cedar river and I-90) will need around 1 to 1.3 billion dollars in improvements for all of the projects. That is significant. In order to implement the vision, an EIS should and must be performed and with analysis as to impact accumulations, something that has never been done. The new 11"' hour zoning proposal is now before the "Task Force" after Public Hearings have already been held, accompanied by a new EDNSM; I don't get it. The new proposal does not appear to implement the Comprehensive Plan "Highlands vision", or discuss probable significant adverse impacts. I would find that action inconsistent with the GMA as well as the CPP and City Comprehensive Plan on numerous fronts, and I think reviewing jurisdictions would as well. I wish I could understand the proposals, its probable significant impacts, and be able to comment but I have not been able to obtain full information. All of the above should and must be done bearing in mind the deliberative and substantive and participatory processes of GMA and SEPA. There seems to be no other explanation for the change in the zoning proposal for the Highlands vision than to subvert disclosure of impacts for the Landing, a project which does not implement the comprehensive plan. brad nicholson Page 4 1011512006 JP Similarly, the financial information and description of the tenants regarding the "Landing" (Renton Mayor called it, "One of the Largest Big Box destination retail shopping centers in the Puget sound region', "seemingly overnight") was either non-existent or is being unlawfully withheld by the City because it is being called "proprietary" information. There is no way to comment about the Highlands vision possibly containing some revitalized shopping, because it has not been disclosed as to information regarding the "Landing" My comments of one would change depending on implementation of the other creating various consistency issues along with my comments. That is not my idea of a Hearing, -and I don't think it is what the GMA intends either. We shall see. A big concern of mine is the money, under just about any standards, was taken from the "cookie jar" because any experienced person would have known the landing improvements should have been imposed upon the developer through nexus and proportionality requirements so basic to any kind of action with regard to the use of land by the United States Constitution. There has never been a legal explanation as to the legal justification for the Police powers being waived in the first place. Perhaps "Public Participation" will be possible when those facts are known to the participants. That money belongs to the people, and not to Harvest Partners; I did not give it to them and neither did a legitimate governmental process. Thus in order to comply with laws, the procedure I identified should be used. The Planning Commission held their hearing while appearing to do nothing more than flout specific directives of the Renton Municipal Code. A number of very powerful appeals that are consistent with the Renton code, GMA, SEPA, CPP, and other "General Laws" cast a pall and aura of uncertainty over most of the City's proceedings and is good reason to rethink and evaluate alternative and options available. Certain Administrators must have been directed to ignore them and "fast track" the planning process but the "fast track" process excluded notice and participation of citizens as well the fact that it violated quite a few general laws applicable to the City in the exercise of the Police Power under article 11, section 11, of the State Constitution. Unfortunately, that will not be so fast a process now because it is a ground for invalidation of amendments according to "Washington Laws" that have been already been identified in Planning Commission and Council proceedings. In my opinion, the way to cure the "pickle", is address this letter, the appeals, become transparent, and give real consideration, thought, and legal determinations to them. It means disclosure of probable significant adverse impacts and mitigation measures necessary for the Highlands and the Landing, and then having a strategy to deal with it. The issues are not going to go away. Appeals are presently pending for actions. I am one of those Citizens trying to participate in these actions. In one instance of the above processes, the Chairman of the Planning Commission (conducting the public hearing on the issues) got up and walked out of the public hearing at the moment I began to comment. brad nicholson Page 5 1011512006 • My concerns were never addressed. I have no public answer or public findings as to what happened in my possession. I was already having difficulty to comment because I was without the material and factual information required by the laws. In these other new instances, the public and I were excluded from participating in what was left of the GMA processes altogether. In proceedings before the City's Hearing Examiner I was called a "straw man" and denied standing to appeal and participate because I have been associated with others that share my views. I have been referred to as a "jackboot" "red herring" "cloaked in sheep's wool" and "spurious" by the Mayor and various media. City Attorney says I am "disgruntled". I accept that because I have in my possession a "confidential letter" stating that he would see to it that actions would be performed that never were. I am "disgruntled" because the City Attorney is being much less than truthful leaving out some rather important details. (exhibit) So you see that I am quite comfortable with being "disgruntled" as I believe I well should be. Recent appeals I have made have never even been considered even though I base my issues on the Laws and codes as I see them. I feel quite angry and offended by the disrespect and ignorance, lying, and refusal to observe requirements of the Laws. I have been nothing but sincere, open, and genuine in my comments from my heart and from the start. The other public participants that also made an attempt to participate were also very frustrated by the lack of honest disclosure, lack of proper procedures, and unlawful decision making in the processes. The City "Task Farce" was proposed at the last minute, and was quickly and illegally put together by the City Planning/Development Committee to exact away the role of review from the Planning Commission and excluded all citizens except for nine people chosen by that City Council Committee. They were not a part of the Planning Commission. (The City's development committee stating that it was because of identified time constraints and other reasons including agreement with the purpose of "containment" of opposition ideas identified by the administrator of Economic Development and Strategic Planning as those of adverse to the proposal) It seems clear to me that none of the members of the "Task Force" have any experience whatsoever in quasi- judicial administrative proceedings. That is in all likelihood a "Task Farce" brad nicholson Page 6 1011312006 Taken together, these substantial errors and illegal actions deprived me and other Citizens to their GMA participatory rights, in addition to violating certain other substantive and procedural mandates of the GMA, SEPA, General and Constitutional laws, and is good reason for invalidation and remand as I have outlined in this letter. The act of "Suspending the Laws", that is assuming and dispensing with the power to enforce the laws without permission from the State, or an attempt to divest the City of the right to make reasonable Laws, are all actions that shall need to be corrected because they shall also be capable of being reversed in superior jurisdictions. I recommend that being a reason to carefully consider the next move and "findings of fact and conclusions of Law" in your dirty game, because some more incorrect moves will put the City into a "Checkmate". It appears to me like it should be axiomatic that it is time for the City to make some changes, for benefit of present and future generations of Renton. I look forward to a reply indicating your concurrence. Most Sincerely, Brad Nicholson, a citizen of Renton brad nieholson Page 7 1011512006 1) Has the City engaged in activities that are prohibited by specific sections of the GMA and Washington Laws? 2) Did the City fail to give proper notice of proceedings as required by 36.70A RCW? 3) What are the specific causes of problematic areas of the City that are experiencing insufficient growth that would implement the comprehensive plan? 4) Which impacts have not been disclosed that should be? 5) Is the City violating Washington Laws that require a broad program of early and continuous public participation? 6) Did the City violate provisions of the GMA that require that the comprehensive plan and development regulations be subject to consistency, continuing review, and evaluation? 7) Is it appropriate to issue a proposed DNS when there are so many probable adverse consequences of doing so according to the Mayor s "State of the City" and it is inconsistent with the vision for the Highlands? B) Is it not true that there exist numerous unanalyzed environment concerns and that the City is hiding information that is needed to determine whether and which areas there are significant impacts that should be mitigated? 9) How can so many planning issues be proposed when nobody really knows what will result from the outcomes of other major actions because they are pending? What was the cause of that? Is that appropriate? 10) How will the city £ullfill the objectives of the GMA when there has been no findings indicating the proposals indicating are intended to effectuate those goals? 11) Is it not true that the City should lawfully complete the planning for proposed projects and construction before attempting to plan for new ones without public participation without posing a threat to the quality of the environment? 12) Have the above proceedings taken place for the benefit of Citizens? From:'Terri Briere"<tbr4m@ci.renton.wa.us> To: <brad827C1a hotmail com> CC: "Alexander Pietsch" <Apletsch@ci.renton. wa.us> Subject: Re: Council Date: Fri, Ob Oct 2OO6 10.28.'14 -0700 >Mr. Nicholson, > >Thank you for correspondence regarding the role of the Planning Commission and the Highlands Task Force. You are correct that the Planning Commission is the body that takes public input and makes recommendations to the council on planning and zoning issues. The Planning Commission has previously heard public testimony and made a reccommendation to the Council on the Highlands Zoning and Comp Plan Changes. It be came apparent to council that the community continued to have concerns with the Planning Commission and Administration recommendation. A result of citizen concerns is the Highlands Task Force. Because of the compressed time schedule to make changes to the Comp Plan Council agreed to allow the Task Force to take the role of review rather than the Planning Commission. The Task Force will not take any new testimony, they will be working with the existing record. >Again, thank you for contacting me. >Terri Briere > > >>> "'Brad Nicholson"' <brad827@hotmail.com> 10/06/06 8:42 AM >>> >I was wondering the reason why the Planning Commission is not the primary or exclusive way of taking public input and making recommendations to the Council for the "Hilands Vision" but rather it appears that a "task force" will be used for that above purpose? Could you answer that? Or am I wrong is it the Planning Commission that will be given substantial weight? Could you answer that too? the question is .........which citizen body will be accorded substantial weight? I am going to want to participate. Your response is appreciated. >This email request originated from the following link: http://rentonvva.gov/government/default.aspx?jd= 1080 7 1 2, 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 I4 15 16 1.7 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 f BEFORE THE RENTON CITY COUNCIL In the Matter of the Appeal of } Alliance for South End (ASE) re: } LUA-05-136, SA -A, SM The Director's Administrative Decision } NOTICE OF APPEAL OF Designating The Landing Master Plan ) HEARING EXAMINER Application a Planned Action; And The ) DECISION Director's Master Site Plan Approval ) I. INTRODUCTION The Alliance for South End (ASE) hereby files this Notice of Appeal of the Hearing Examiner's decision dated September 5, 2006, which dismissed ASE's above -captioned appeals for lack of standing ("Examiner's Decision," Exhibit A). The grounds for appeal are that the Hearing Examiner's decision is contrary to Washington law, without support in state or federal law, and in violation of the constitutional rights of ASE's members. II. TIMELINESS This appeal is filed pursuant to RMC 4-8-110.E(8) and RMC 4-8-110.F(1), which specify a 14-day appeal period for Hearing Examiner decisions. NOTICE OF APPEAL OF BuCk�s Gordon LLP HEARING EXAMINER DECISION - 1 2029 _,:: r sr.A•: gm -.Is, f�U. r.e 5CG C:IDOCUMENTSAND SETTINGSkBEN653ALOCALSETTINGMTEMPORARY INTERNET F11,DWONTEN"r.1C5WDQRSLQFINOTICEOFAPPEALTOCOUNCI L0906061 11. DOC 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 I11. FACTS The facts are set forth in the record below. ASE's pleadings are incorporated herein by I reference. IV. STANDARD OF REVIEW The Council reviews Hearing Examiner decisions to determine whether "substantial r error of fact or law exists in the record." RMC 4-8-110(F)(7). 1f the Council finds such an error, "it may remand the proceeding to Examiner for reconsideration, or modify, or reverse the decision of the Examiner accordingly." Id. V. GROUNDS FOR APPEAL The Hearing Examiner's decision reflects several errors of fact or law. His decision to I dismiss ASE's appeals for lack of standing was entirely dependent upon the proposition Ithat, in order for an organization to have standing, it must not only have a member or I members with standing, but it also must have members with certain "indicia membership," such as particular voting rights. This proposition is directly contrary to the well established law in Washington, and does not appear to have support in any state or federal law. The Hearing Examiner's decision also violated the rights of ASE's members to freedom of association. The Hearing Examiner's decision should therefore be reversed. A. In Washington, An Association Has Standing When One Member Has Standing. Washington courts have consistently held that a citizens' group or other organization has standing to challenge land use decisions "as long as one member has standing to do so." East Gig Harbor Imp. Assn v, Pierce County, 106 Wn.2d 707, 701, 724 P.2d 1009 i NOTICE OF APPEAL OF Buck�3 Gordon LLP HEARING EXAMINER DECISION - 2u:}: Fixst �''F.nu� , sillr.� ;e C:IDOCUMENTS AND SETrINGS1BEN65341LOC'AL SETTINGSITEMPORARY ,a , 3k,;...,_;:�;; INTERNET FILES\CONTENT.IE51ODQRSLQFINOTICEOFAPPEALTOCOUNCIL090606[ I ].DOC 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8' 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 (1986) (emphasis added), citing Save a Valuable Environ mew (A VET v. Bothell. 89 Wn.2d 862, 867, 576 P.2d 401 (1978); see also Suquamish Indian Tribe, 92 Wn.App. at 830 (citing East Gig Harbor Imp. Assn and SAVE for proposition that "an organization has standing only when at least one of its members has standing as an individual"). None of these cases hold or even suggest that a member must have particular rights in the organization, or that any other inquiry should be made once it has been established that at least one member of the organization has standing. Nor do any of these cases hold or suggest that the organization's funding sources are relevant to standing. B. There is No Precedent for the Hearing Examiner's Denial of Standing in this Case. To our knowledge, no state or federal court has ever held that members of an Iorganization must possess "indicia of membership" in order for the organization to have standing. The cases cited by the Applicant in briefing before the Hearing Examiner do not support this proposition. The question presented and answered in the three cases cited by I the Applicant was not whether members of an organization must have voting rights in order to assert associational standing, but whether "an organization that has no members in the traditional sense may nonetheless assert associational standing." See Fund' Democracy, LLC v. SE.C., 278 F.3d 21, 25 (D.C. Cir. 2002). Those cases hold that, if an association does not have any members, but asserts that its has standing to sue on behalf I of non-member "supporters," then a court may inquire into whether its supporters possess I "indicia of membership." Id. at 26. The Applicant's argument that "a non -voting member . NOTICE OF APPEAL OF Buck ¢;." Gordon LLP HEARING EXAMINER DECISION - 3 2025 First: avenue-, suite 50e CADOCUMENTSAND SETTINGSIBEN65341LOCALSETTINGSITEMPORARY seaftlw, wk 98i1 38�-95.7J INTERNET FI LEWONTENT.IESIODQRSLQr\NOTICEOFAPPEALTOC OU NCI L040606[ 1 ].DOC 2 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 . . cannot establish standing for the association" (Applicant's Reply to ASE Lack of Standing, p. 7) is simply false. In fact, one of the cases cited by the Applicant directly contradicts the Applicant', position. In Friends of Tilden Park, Inc. v. District of Columbia, 806 A.2d 1201, (D.C. 2002), the court explicitly stated that the nonprofit would have standing if it had any members: Friends initially asserted in Superior Court that it had standing to sue on behalf of its members, whom it described as persons residing in the vicinity of 3883 Connecticut Avenue who recreate in and enjoy the benefits of nearby Rock Creek Park. We do not doubt that if Friends had such members, it would have standing_as their _representative to maintain an action challenging the District's failure to require Clark to prepare an EIS ... The persons whom friends claims to re resent are not its members however. B ° the terms of its articles of incorporation, Friends has no members. Confronted with this inconvenient fact, Friends argues in this court that it nonetheless has standing to sue as the representative of its "supporters" among the neighborhood residents whose environmental interests are at stake. These supporters, Friends suggests, are its de facto if not its de jure members. The record, though, does not bear out this claim. Friends, 806 A.2d at 1208 (emphasis added). See also Hunt v. Washinglon State Apple Advertising Com'n, 432 U.S. 333, 97 S.Ct. 2434 (1977) (holding that the Commission had associational standing even though "the apple growers and dealers are not 'members' of the Commission in the traditional trade association sense"); Fund Democracy, 278 F.3d at 25 (stating that, "[i]n determining whether an organization that has no members in the traditional sense may nonetheless assert associational standing, the question is whether the NOTICE OF APPEAL OF Buck Gordon x.,, HEARING EXAMINER DECISION - 4 r=rat vrnw., Suite 5Do C:IDOCUMENTS AND SETTINGSIBEN65341LOCAL SETTINGSITEMPORARY F -Lt- vrF . 87i1. INTERNET FILr SICONTENT.IE510DQRSWFINOT]CEOFAPPEALTOCOUNCIL090606111.DOC I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 organization is the functional equivalent of a traditional membership organization") (emphasis added). Unlike the "supporters" of the organizations in Friends of Tilden Park, Hunt, and Fund Democracy, Brad Nicholson is a member of ASE "in the traditional sense." Moreover, even if these cases could be interpreted to require "indicia of membership" in cases where an organization actually has members, those cases are not relevant in this proceeding because Washington courts have not adopted or even discussed such a requirement. I C. The Hearing Examiner's Decision Violated the Constitutional Rights of ASE's Members. The Hearing Examiner's dismissal ofASE's appeals violated the First Amendment rights of Renton citizens to freely associate as members of ASE in order to protect their rights. Ironically, the Hearing Examiner previously found that Brad Nicholson, a member of ASE, had standing to sue on his own behalf in a similar matter, but then deprived Mr. Nicholson standing in this matter simply because he chose to associate with other Renton citizens who share his concerns about The Landing.2 I The Applicant did not cite any Washington cases to support its arguments about associational standing. The Applicant's reliance on SA VE for the proposition that "Washington courts have adopted the federal approach to standing requirements in environmental and land use cases" is misplaced. ,See Applicant's Reply to ASE Lack of Standing, p. 8, n. 16, citing S.4VE, 89 Wn.2d 862. The SA [.'E court's approval of "the federal approach" refers to the holdings, discussed earlier in the SAVE opinion, which state that "a non- profit corporation or association which shows that one or more of its members are specifically injured by a government action may represent those members in proceedings for judicial review." Id at 867. When read in context, the SAVE court's discussion of association standing actually flies in the face of the Applicant's suggestions that ASE lacks standing as an association. Unfortunately, the Renton Municipal Code allows the Hearing Examiner to rule on the constitutional rights of developers who apply for permits, but the Examiner may not consider the constitutional rights of Renton citizens appealing a City decision. See RMC 4-8-1 10.E(7)(b). NOTICE OF APPEAL OF Buck Gordon LLP HEARING EXAMINER DECISION - 5 2024 First Avenue, Suite. SOU CADOCUMENT5AND SETUNWBEN653ALOCALSEiTINGSUEMPORARY �ax.cla, are ).axzi INTERNET 4 oe> 3k2 ?�ao FI L ESICON 1'E N'1'.I E5%ODQRSLQRNOTICEOFAPPEALTOCOUNC I L0906061 I J. DOC a M 1 2 7 a 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 The U.S. Supreme Court has recognized "a right to associate for the purpose of engaging in those activities protected by the First Amendment — speech, assembly, petition for the redress of grievances, and the exercise of religion.." Roberts v. US Jaycees, 468 U.S. 609, 618, 104 S.Ct. 3244 (1984). By dismissing ASE's appeals based on the form of the association, the Hearing Examiner violated the rights of ASE members to associate for the purpose of petitioning the government. "The Constitution guarantees freedom of association of this kind as an indispensable means of preserving other individual liberties." Id. IV. CONCLUSION For the reasons stated above, ASE respectfully requests that the Council reverse the Hearing Examiner's decision to dismiss ASE's appeals for lack of standing. Dated this day of September, 2006. BUCK & GORDON LLP By: Peter L. Buck, WSBA #05060 Attorneys for Alliance for the South End NOTICE OF APPEAL OF Buck- Gordon LLP HEARING EXAMINER DECISION - 6 2.-D21: P=rst: Avenue., s°' Lo 5f4 a�at.t:l.e. F?A. 96127 ODOCUMENTS AND 8E'MNGS%BEN65341L0CA1- SETTINGSUEMPORARY :tilr;; 31 INTERNET FILES\CONTENT.IE510DQRSLQFINOTICEOFAPPEAI_TOCOUNC11.090606[I ].DOC City — ..enton Department of Planning / Building / Puuac Works ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: COMMENTS DUE: OCTOBER 16, 2006 APPLICATION NO: LUA06-123, ECF DATE CIRCULATED: OCTOBER 2, 2006 APPLICANT: City of Renton - EDNSP loll Y VYI rIY llv PROJECT MANAGER: Erika Conklin PROJECT TITLE: Transportation CIP CPA PLAN REVIEW: Ka ren Kittrick SITE AREA: N/A BUILDING AREA (gross): N/A LOCATION: Citywide, WORK ORDER NO: 77657 GUILDING L)IVISION SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: Update of the Transportation Element of the Comprehensive Plan to reflect the recently adopted six year Transportation Improvement Program (2006-2011). Changes reflect changes in project priorities as a result of recent annexations and changes to ensure continuation of County funding. A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT (e.g. Non -Code) COMMENTS Element of the Environment Probable Minor Impacts Probable Major Impacts More Information Necessary Earth Air Water plants Land/Shoreline Use Animals Environmental Health Energy/ Natural Resources B. POLICY -RELATED COMMENTS C. CODE -RELATED COMMENTS Q0V,k, Element of die Environment Probable Minor Impacts Probable Major Impacts More Information Necessary Housing Aesthetics Li htlGlare Recreation Utilities Transportation Public Services HistcdclCtifturaf Preservation Airport Environment 10,000 Feet 14,000 Feet 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. Si re of Director or A thorized Representative Date City--enton Department of Planning/Building/Pu.,lc Works ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: Iire COMMENTS DUE: OCTOBER 16, 2006 APPLICATION NO: LUA06-123, ECF DATE CIRCULATED: OCT t3ER 2._2006 APPLICANT: Ci of Renton - EQNSP PROJECT MANAGER: Erik Conklin PROJECT TITLE: Transportation CIP CPA PLAN REVIEW: Ka ren Kittrick �— SITE AREA: NIA i BUILDING AREA (gross): N/ApGffi LOCATION: Citywide WORK ORDER NO: 77657E SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: Update of the Transportation Element of the Comprehensive Plan to refle6t;tte:'i nfly;;pdopTed six,' year Transportation Improvement Program (2006-2011). Changes reflect changes in pr(ject oritis�s a 4reult, of recent! annexations and changes to ensure continuation of County funding- - - — — A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT (e.g. Non -Code) COMMENTS Element of the Environment Probable Minor Impacts Probable Major impacts More Information Necessary Earth Air water Plants LandlShoreline Use Animals Environmental Health Energyl Natural Resources ki 4 B. POLICY -RELATED COMMENTS C. CODE -RELATED COMMENTS Element of the Envtronment Probable Minor Impacts Probable Major Impacts More Information Necessary Housing Aesthetics Li htlGlare Recreation Utilities Transpodation Public Services Histoncicuttural Preservation Airport Environment 10,000 Feet 14,000 Feet We have reviewed thisApplication with pa 'cular attention to those areas in which we have expertise and haveldentified areas of probable impact or areas where additional formation is to property assess this proposal. Signature of Director r Authorized Representa ' e Date City .,'enton Department of Planning / Building / Puofic Works ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: 0 1 L ur:,COMMENTS DUE: OCTOBER 16, 2006 APPLICATION NO: LUA06-123 ECF DATE CIRCULATED: OCTOBER 2, 2006 APPLICANT: City of Renton - EDNSP PROJECT MANAGER: Erika Conklin PROJECT TITLE: Trans ortation CIP CPA PLAN REVIEW: Ka ren Kittrick SITE AREA: NIA BUILDING AREA (gross): NIA LOCATION: Citywide WORK ORDER NO: 77657 SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: Update of the Transportation Element of the Comprehensive Plan to reflect the recently adopted six year Transportation Improvement Program (2006-2011). Changes reflect changes in project priorities as a result of recent annexations and changes to ensure continuation of County funding. A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT (e.g. Non -Code) COMMENTS Element of the Environment Probable Minor impacts Probable Major Impacts More Information Necessary Earth Air Water Plants Land/Shoreline Use Animals Environmental Health Ene,Wl Natural Resources B. POLICY -RELATED COMMENTS Element of the Environment Probable Minor Impacts Probable Major Impacts More Information Necessary Housing Aesthetics L' htlGlare Recreation Utilities Transportation Public Services Histoda Cultural Preservation Airport Environment 10,000 Feet 14,000 Feet J�0,� k 1q44J C. CODE -RELATED COMMENTS We have reviewed this application with particular attention to those areas in which we have expertise and have identified areas of probable impact or areas whgm additional information i"eeded to properly assess this proposal. of Director or Authofiiz epre a native Date �� City — ,.enton Department of Planning / Building / Pu_ - Works ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: COMMENTS DUE: OCTOBER 16, 2006 APPLICATION NO: LUA06-123, ECF DATE CIRCULATED: OCTOBER 2, 2006 APPLICANT: City of Renton - EDNSP PROJECT MANAGER: Erika Conklin PROJECT TITLE: Transportation CIP CPA PLAN REVIEW: Ka ren Kittrick R E C E I V E D SITE AREA: NIA BUILDING AREA (gross): NIA LOCATION: Citywide WORK ORDER NO: 77657 tiV1LDi�lG O�V1SldQ SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: Update of the Transportation Element of the Comprehensive Plan to reflect the recen y a op ed six year Transportation Improvement Program (2006-2011). Changes reflect changes in project priorities as a result of recent annexations and changes to ensure continuation of County funding. A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT (e.g. Non -Code) COMMENTS Element of the Environment Probable Minor impacts Probable Major Impacts More Information Necessary Earth Air water Plants Land/Shoreltne Use Animals Environmental Health EneW/ Natural Resources B. POLICY -RELATED COMMENTS C. CODE -RELATED COMMENTS l Q 0N(,: Element of the Environment Probable Minor Impacts Probable Major Impacts More Information Necessary Housing Aesthetics L' htlGlare Recreation Utilities Trans lion Public Services Histork. Cult Ural Preservation Airport Environment 10, 000 Feet 14.000 Feet 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 w additional information is needs to properly assess this proposal. 7z Z! Si_ azure bl`Djre&tokCr Authoriz& Reoresentative Date City 4...enton Department of Planning l Building / Pu-.., Works ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMEN : �- COMMENTS DUE: OCTOBER 16, 2006 APPLICATION NO: LUA06-123, ECF DATE CIRCULATED: OCTOBER 2, 2006 APPLICANT: City of Renton - EDNSP PROJECT MANAGER: Erika Conklin Y JI" lit Ivi PV PROJECT TITLE: Transportation CIP CPA PLAN REVIEW: Ka ren Kittrick SITE AREA: NIA BUILDING AREA (gross): NIA CT 0 2 2006 LOCATION: Citywide WORK ORDER NO: 77657 13I Ili nfrvr nnnc+r,r.i_ SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: Update of the Transportation Element of the Comprehensive Plan to reflect the recently adopted six year Transportation Improvement Program (2006-2011). Changes reflect changes in project priorities as a result of recent annexations and changes to ensure continuation of County funding. A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT (e.g. Non -Code) COMMENTS Element of the Environment Probable Minor impacts Probable Major Impacts More Information Necessary Earth Air Water Plants LandlShoreiine Use Animals Environmental Health Energyl Natural Resources QQ"--t_ B. POLICY -RELATED COMMENTS C. CODE-RELA TED COMMENTS uevl.f— Element of the Environment Probable Minor impacts Probable Major Impacts More Information Necessary Housing Aesthetics Li bGlare Recreation utilities Transportation Public services Histon"clCultural Preservation Airport Environment 10,000 Feat 14,000 Feet 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. hkm� i t re of Director or Authorized Representative Date t`t� o G i� � r�;� � NOTICE OF APPLICATION AND PROPOSED DETERMINATION OF NON -SIGNIFICANCE (DNS) DATE: October 2, 201 LAND USE NUMBER: LUA06-12J, I APPLICATION NAME; TRANSPORTATION CIP CPA] CPA 2001 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Upcale o! the Transportation Element of the Comprehensive Plan to reflect the recently adopted six year Transportation Improvement Program (2006-2011)- Changes reflect changes in project priorities as a result of recent annexations and changes to ensure coelinuahon of County funding_ PROJECT LOCATION: Applicable Citywide OPTIONAL DETERMINATION OF NON -SIGNIFICANCE IDI As the Lead Agency, the City of Renton has determined VW significant envirOnmenled impacts are vuhkely to result from the proposed zoning. Therefore, as permitted under the RCW 4321C,170, the City of Renton Is usi,g the Optional DNS process to give notice that a DNS is likely 10 he issued. Comment periods for the project and the proposed DNS are integrated into a single comment peti0d. There will be no comment period following the issuance of the Threshold Determination of Non$lgn(ficarri (DNS) A 14-day appeal period will follow the issuance of the DNS. PERMIT APPLICATION DATE: September 26. 2006 PermilstRil law Requested: Environmental ISEPA) Review, Comprehensive Plan Amendment Other Permits which may be required: NIA PAquested Studll NIA Location where appllcatlan may be reviewed: PlanningfBuildinglPubllc Worka Division, Development Servien Department. 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 94056 PUBLIC HEARING: A runic heaving on this issue was held before the Planning Commission on September 20. 2006. CONSISTENCY OVERVIEW; Lard Use: The subject site is consistent Comprehensive Plan, as well as relevant lard use polices adcpted in November 2004. Environmental Docum.nts that Evaluate the Proposed Project: Environmental Checklist prepared September 26, 2006 Development Regulation. Ula.d For Project Mitigation; This non -project action will be subject to the City's SEPA Ordinance and Development Regulaliona and other applicable codes and regulations as appropnale Proposed Mitdgallon Measures: The analysis of the proposal does not reveal any adverse environmental impacts requiring mitigation above and beyond existing code prcvisiOns. However, mitigation may be necessary and may be imposed at the time of a I specific development proposal on the subject elite. Comments on the above application roust be submitted in writing to Rebecca Lind, Planning Manager, Economic Development Neighborhoods and Strategic Planning Division. 1055 South Grady Way. Renton, WA 86055, by 5-00 PM on Ocloher 16, 2006. If you have questions about this proposal. or wish lobe made a party Of record and receive additional notification by mail, contact the Project Manager Anyone who submits written comments will automatically become a party Of record and will be notified of any decision on !his project. CONTACT PERSON; REBECCA LIND (420430-OUB PLEASE INCLUDE THE PROJECT NUMBER WHEN CALLING FOR PROPER FILE IDENTIFICATION If you would pica to recehre further information or, the envimnmental review of this proposed project, complete this form and return to, City of Renton. Development Pjanoi 1 D55 South Grady Way. Renton, WA 96055. You must return file iii to recsfva future information regarding the environmental detarminatron for this profeet. File NorNanni I ECF TRANSPORTATION CIP CPA 2006-T-04 NAME: ADDRESS, TELEPHONE NO., NOgga 1SB CERTIFICATIQN hereby certify that copies of the above document were posted by me in conspicuous places or nearby the described propertyon `��r4�N1111 v.si ,'•,}Vt\\i it DATE: �d SIGNED: ylA iii ATTEST: Subscribed and sworn before me, a Notary Public, in and for the State of Washington resil a�,C on the r C\ — day of . � �c 5 -� - NOTARY PUBLIC SIG �R ra\A 11 CITY OF RENTON CURRENT PLANNING DIVISION AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE BY MAILING On the 2nd day of October, 2006, 1 deposited in the mails of the United States, a sealed envelope containing Acceptance document, NOA, Environmental Checklist, & PMT's documents. This information was sent to: Name RopresenAng Agencies See Attached Surrounding Property Owners See Attached (Signature of Sender)_ STATE OF WASHINGTON } T } SS COUNTY OF KING } certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that Stacy Tucker signed this instrument and acknowledged it to be his/her/their free and voluntary act for `ke�,s purposes mentioned in the instrument. ; w Iq"N Dated: I e t -,�-- b U , �' nl Alp Notary Public in and f?yhe Sate o5W iftgtgn_ Notary (Print): �+;'�,._ '*USN':: My appointment expires: lc t AW Project Name: 2006 Transportation Text Amendments Project Number: LUA06-123, ECF template - affidavit of service by mailing AGENCY (DOE) LETTER MAILING (ERC DETERMINATIONS) Dept. of Ecology * WDFW - Stewart Reinbold * Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Fisheries Dept. Environmental Review Section c/o Department of Ecology Attn: Karen Walter or SEPA Reviewer PO Box 47703 3190 1601h Ave SE 39015 — 172rd Avenue SE Olympia, WA 98504-7703 Bellevue, WA 98008 Auburn, WA 98092 WSDOT Northwest Region Duwamish Tribal Office ` Muckleshoot Cultural Resources Program " Attn: Ramin Pazooki 4717 W Marginal Way SW Attn: Ms Melissa Calvert King Area Dev. Serv., MS-240 Seattle, WA 98106-1514 39015 172nd Avenue SE PO Box 330310 Auburn, WA 98092-9763 Seattle, WA 98133-9710 US Army Corp. of Engineers * KC Wastewater Treatment Division * Office of Archaeology & historic Seattle District Office Environmental Planning Supervisor Preservation* Attn: SEPA Reviewer Ms. Shirley Marroquin Attn: Stephanie Kramer PO Box C-3755 201 S. Jackson ST, MS KSC-NR-050 PO Box 48343 Seattle, WA 98124 Seattle, WA 98104-3855 Olympia, WA 98504-8343 Jamey Taylor' Depart. of Natural Resources PO Box 47015 Olympia, WA 98504-7015 KC Dev. & Environmental Serv. City of Newcastle City of Kent Attn: SEPA Section Attn: Mr. Micheal E. Nicholson Attn: Mr. Fred Satterstrom, AICP 900 Oakesdale Ave. SW Director of Community Development Acting Community Dev. Director Renton, WA 98055-1219 13020 SE 72"d Place 220 Fourth Avenue South Newcastle, WA 98059 Kent, WA 98032-5895 Metro Transit Puget Sound Energy City of Tukwila Senior Environmental Planner Municipal Liason Manager Steve Lancaster, Responsible Official Gary Kriedt Joe Jainga 6300 Southcenter Blvd. 201 South Jackson Street KSC-TR-0431 PO Box 90868, MS: XRD-01 W Tukwila, WA 98188 Seattle, WA 98104-3856 Bellevue, WA 98009-0868 Seattle Public Utilities Real Estate Services Title Examiner 700 Fifth Avenue, Suite 4900 PO Box 34018 Seattle, WA 98124-4018 Note: If the Notice of Application states that it is an "Optional DNS", the marked agencies and cities will need to be sent a copy of the checklist, PMT's, and the notice of application_ ' Also note, do not mail Jamey Taylor any of the notices she gets hers from the web. Only send her the ERC Determination paperwork. template - affidavit of service by mailing Inez Petersen Brad Nicholson Robert Eichler 3306 Lake Washington Blvd #3 2811 Dayton Ave NE 3455 Hunts Pt Rd Renton, WA 98056 Renton, WA 98056 Bellevue, WA 98004 Pamela Wood Raymond Breeden LaVonne Kahnell REMAX 15279 Maple Dr 15275 Maple Dr 3660 116th Ave NE Renton, WA 98058 Renton, WA 98058 Bellevue, WA 98004 Iola Puckett Alice Zehnder Carol Pyka 15270 Pine Drive 15245 Pine Drive 15291 Oak Drive Renton, WA 98058 Renton, WA 98058 Renton, WA 98058 Judy Anderson Leslie Clark & Scott Missal Annie & Learon Farnsworth 15258 Maple Drive Short Cressman & Burgess 15263 Maple Dr Renton, WA 98058 999 3rd Ave, Ste 3000 Renton, WA 98058 Seattle, WA 98104 Betty Remore Robert Cave Richard Redfern 15277 Birch 1813 NE 24th St 2000 NE 20th St Renton, WA 98058 Renton, WA 98056 Renton, WA 98056 Armando Zorbin Bill Pohl Judith White 2400 NE 10th PI 2310 Monterey Ave NE 201 Union Ave SE #59 Renton, WA 98056 Renton, WA 98056 Renton, WA 98059 Joye Stranrent Timothy Charnley Jane Nation 15268 Maple Dr 14140 SE 171st Way #E204 25113 265th Ave SE Renton, WA 98058 Renton, WA 98058 Ravensdale, WA 98051 Virginia Serwold Karol Gabrielson Don Charnley 15275 Oak Dr 2001 NE 20th St 15291 Maple Dr Renton, WA 98058 Renton, WA 98056 Renton, WA 98056 SY cs NOTICE OF APPLICATION AND PROPOSED DETERMINATION OF NON -SIGNIFICANCE (DNS) DATE: October 2, 2006 LAND USE NUMBER: LUA06-123, ECF APPLICATION NAME: TRANSPORTATION CIP CPAI CPA 2006-TA PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Update of the Transportation Element of the Comprehensive Plan to reflect the recently adopted six year Transportation Improvement Program (2006-2011). Changes reflect changes in project priorities as a result of recent annexations and changes to ensure continuation of County funding. PROJECT LOCATION: Applicable Citywide OPTIONAL DETERMINATION OF NON -SIGNIFICANCE (DNS): As the Lead Agency, the City of Renton has determined that significant environmental impacts are unlikely to result from the proposed zoning. Therefore, as permitted under the li 43.21C.110, the City of Renton is using the Optional DNS process to give notice that a DNS is likely to be issued. Comment periods for the project and the proposed DNS are integrated into a single comment period. There will be no comment period following the issuance of the Threshold Determination of Non -Significance (DNS). A 14-day appeal period will follow the issuance of the DNS. PERMIT APPLICATION DATE: PermitslReview Requested: Other Permits which may be required: Requested Studies: Location where application may be reviewed: PUBLIC HEARING: CONSISTENCY OVERVIEW: Land Use: Environmental Documents that Evaluate the Proposed Project: Development Regulations Used For Project Mitigation: September 26, 2006 Environmental (SEPA) Review, Comprehensive Plan Amendment N/A N/A PlanninglBuildinglPublic Works Division, Development Services Department, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98066 A public hearing on this issue was held before the Planning Commission on September 20, 2006. The subject site is consistent Comprehensive Plan, as well as relevant sand use policies adopted in November 2004. Environmental Checklist prepared September 26, 2006 This non -project action will be subject to the City's SEPA Ordinance and Development Regulations and other applicable codes and regulations as appropriate. Proposed Mitigation Measures: The analysis of the proposal does not reveal any adverse environmental impacts requiring mitigation above and beyond existing code provisions. However, mitigation may be necessary and may be imposed at the time of a site specific development proposal on the subject site. Comments on the above application must be submitted in writing to Rebecca Lind, Planning Manager, Economic Development Neighborhoods and Strategic Planning Division, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98055, by 5:00 PM on October 16, 2006. If you have questions about this propoea9, or wish to be made a party of record and receive additional notification by mail, contact the Project Manager. Anyone who submits written comments will automatically become a party of record and will be notified of any decision on this project. CONTACT PERSON: REBECCA LIND (425) 430-6688 j PLEASE INCLUDE THE PROJECT NUMBER WHEN CALLING FOR PROPER FILE IDENTIFICATION If you would like to receive further information on the environmental review of this proposed project, complete this form and return to: City of Renton, Development Planning, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98055. You must return this form to receive future information regarding the environmental determination for this project. File NoJName: LUA 06-123, ECF TRANSPORTATION CIP CPA 2006-T-04 NAME: ADDRESS: TELEPHONE NO.: NOA 06-128 CITY OF RENTON MEMORANDUM Date: October 2, 2006 To: File From: Development Services Subject: 2006 Transportation Text Amendments LUA06-123, ECF The Development Planning Section of the City of Renton has determined that the subject application is complete according to submittal requirements and, therefore, is accepted for review. It is tentatively scheduled for consideration by the Environmental Review Committee on October 23, 2006. Prior to that review, you will be notified if any additional information is required to continue processing your application. Acceptance Memo 0&123 Wkob -123 City of Renton �`cN°^�€pE,AJIV LAND USE PERMIT SEP 26,, MASTER APPLICATIOWECEVED PROPERTY OWNER(S) NAME: ADDRESS: CITY: ZIP: TELEPHONE NUMBER: APPLICANT (if other than owner) NAME: Rebecca Lind COMPANY (if applicable): EDNSP Department ADDRESS: 1 055 S. Grady Way CITY: Renton ZIP: 98055 TELEPHONE NUMBER 425-430-6588 CONTACT PERSON NAME: Angle Mathias COMPANY (if applicable): City Of Renton ADDRESS: 1055 S Grady Way CITY: Renton ZIP: 98055 TELEPHONE NUMBER AND E-MAIL ADDRESS: 425.430.6576 PROJECT INFORMATION PROJECT OR DEVELOPMENT NAME: 2006 City Initiated Transportation Element Text Amendment (T-04). PROJECT/ADDRESS(S)/LOCATION AND ZIP CODE: Citywide KING COUNTY ASSESSOR'S ACCOUNT NUMBER(S): Citywide EXISTING LAND USE(S): n!a PROPOSED LAND USE(S): n/a EXISTING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP DESIGNATION:): n/a PROPOSED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP DESIGNATION (if applicable): n/a EXISTING ZONING: n/a PROPOSED ZONING (if applicable): n/a SITE AREA (in square feet): n/a SQUARE FOOTAGE OF ROADWAYS TO BE DEDICATED FOR SUBDIVISIONS OR PRIVATE STREETS SERVING THREE LOTS OR MORE if applicable): nIa PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL DENSITY IN UNITS PER NET ACRE (if applicable): n/a. NUMBER OF PROPOSED LOTS (if applicable): n/a NUMBER OF NEW DWELLING UNITS (if applicable): n/a Q:web/pw/devserv/forms/planning/mastempp.doc 09/25/06 PI JECT INFOR NUMBER OF EXISTING DWELLING UNITS (if applicable): n/a SQUARE FOOTAGE OF PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS (if applicable): n/a SQUARE FOOTAGE OF EXISTING RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS TO REMAIN (if applicable): nla SQUARE FOOTAGE OF PROPOSED NON-RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS (if applicable): nfa SQUARE FOOTAGE OF EXISTING NON-RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS TO REMAIN (if applicable): n/a NET FLOOR AREA OF NON-RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS (if applicable): n/a NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES TO BE EMPLOYED BY THE NEW PROJECT (if applicable): n/a MATION (cont ed PROJECT VALUE: n/a IS THE SITE LOCATED IN ANY TYPE OF ENVIRONMENTALLY CRITICAL AREA, PLEASE INCLUDE SQUARE FOOTAGE (if applicable): n/a ❑ AQUIFER PROTECTION AREA ONE ❑ AQUIFER PROTECTION AREA TWO ❑ FLOOD HAZARD AREA sq. ft. ❑ GEOLOGIC HAZARD sq. ft. ❑ HABITAT CONSERVATION sq. ft. ❑ SHORELINE STREAMS AND LAKES sq. ft. ❑ WETLANDS sq. ft, LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY Attach legal descri tion on separate sheet with the following information included SITUATE IN THE OF SECTION _,TOWNSHIP , RANGE , IN KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON. TYPE OF APPLICATION & FEES List all land use applications being applied for: 1. Comprehensive Plan Ammendment r �L Staff will calculate applicable fees and postage: $ AFFIDAVIT OF OWNERSHIP I, (Print Namels) Rebecca Lind , declare that I am (please check one) _ the current owner of the property involved in this application or X the authorized representative to act for a corporation (please attach proof of authorization) and that the foregoing statements and answers herein contained and the information herewith are in all respects true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. 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. Rebecca Lind (Signature of Owner/Representative) My appointment expires: (Signature of Owner/Representative) Q:web/pwldevservlforms/planninglmasterapp.doc 04/25A)6 DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIVISION WAIVE. OF SUBMITTAL REQUH.MENTS FOR LAND USE APPLICATIONS Construction Mitigation Description 2AND4 ....... ....... .. .... .............. .. .. .. .... .... .... . ..... ... .. ..... ........... Density Worksh8et 4 . ... .. ..... .. .leina.. ............ ............... ... . ..... .. .. .. . ........ .. ..... .. Drainage Report 2 to .......... .. ......... '....Xe . . . . . . . . . . . . . . n Environmental Checklist 4 ......... ..... . . ..................... -X , Wk. ... .. .. .. . Existing Easements (Recorded COPY) 4 . .. ....... . ... ....... .. .. .. Floor Plans 3 AND 4 ............ ­4�4 . . ....... 7777771,7-77-7- ...X Grading Plan, Conceptual 2 . . . ................ .. ....... ... -.Wail ..... . ......... .... .. .. ......... .. ..... . .. �7 ...... .... . ......... .. Habitat Data Report 4 .. ....... ... X Irrigation Plan 4 -.9 ....... .......... .. Landscape Plan, Conceptual 4 ........ .. .. lap idle.. n P..fa ..... .. ..... Legal Description 4 .......... , ;'. N Mailing Labels for Property Owners 4 ... ......... it t .. . . ..... ­'.1._'.-Z1.-:1.-n1.1.­.1 ....... Master Application Form 4 .. ......... .............. . . --------------- .............. Neighborhood Detail Map 4 This requirement may be waived by: 1/0 1. Property Services Section PROJECT NAME: q � �e_ k VYJ, 2. Public Works Plan Review Section jjj'EVELOP 3. Building Section DATE: i0 Cau A.IWEN-r r t"NIN, 4. Development Planning Section N SEP 2 6 2006 REf%&J, %OCIVED Q:kWEB\PVV\DEVSER\/\FormslPlarkningkwaiverofsubmittaireqs_9-06,xis 09/06 EVELOPMENT SERVICES DIVISION WAIVER .F SUBMITTAL REQUIRL,,,ENTS FOR LAND USE APPLICATIONS K .......... .. ........... Parking, Lot Coverage & Landscaping Analysis 4 �Tg M ago, - ............ ................ ......... X N.X xt' H r. Plat Name Reservation 4 N-4 pgg .. ........ .. Preapplication Meeting Summary 4 Rehabilitation Plan 4 XX . . . . ....... Site Plan 2 AND 4 ........... ..... ..... Stream or Lake Study, Supplemental 4 .......... ............ ORIN' ........ .. . ................. ..................... ........ Street Profiles 2 tr ----------------------------- a tx g . ....Z ...... Topography Map 3 Tree Cutting/Land Clearing Plan 4 Utilities Plan, Generalized 2 Sy 10 . . ..... ON - Wetlands Mitigation Plan, Preliminary 4 Wireless: Applicant Agreement Statement 2 AND 3 Inventory of Existing Sites 2 AND 3 Lease Agreement, Draft 2 AND 3 Map of Existing Site Conditions 2 AND 3 Map of View Area 2 AND 3 Photosimu lations 2 AND 3 This requirement may be waived by: 1. Property Services Section PROJECT NAME:)a*T &V- kkvw. nt Arde 2. Public Works Plan Review Section 13 3. Building Section DATE: Zs '<RVL '0 4. Development Planning Section I Q:\WEB\PW\DEVSERV�FormskPlanninglwalverofsubmittalreqs�_9-06.xls 09/06 Project Narrative: The Transportation Element of the City's Comprehensive Plan is to be amended to reflect the recently adopted Six -year Transportation Improvement Program, the associated text in the Transportation Element will reflect the plan years 2006 — 2011. The additional text amendments are to Table 8.3 and reflect changes in project priorities that have occurred because of recent annexations. The changes in the project priorities are in order to ensure the continuation of County funding. D&V,�4OP C/Ay MgA,1. oFp�fi�Q�NfAJG Sip 2 G � R��F gas DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIVISION ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST City of Renton Development Services Division DEVEtotq 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA Pho e: 425-430-7 00 Fax: 425 30 7231� C17y0�IS' CNNI� PURPOSE OF CHECKLIST: SAP 2 62ft R� The State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), Chapter 43.21C RCW, requires all governmen2tat"us to consider the environmental impacts of a proposal before making decisions. An Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) must be prepared for all proposals with probable significant adverse impacts on the quality of the environment. The purpose of this checklist is to provide information to help you and the agency identifies impacts from your proposal (and to reduce or avoid impacts from the proposal, if it can be done) and to help the agency decide whether an EIS is required. INSTRUCTIONS FOR APPLICANTS: This environmental checklist asks you to describe some basic information about your proposal. Governmental agencies use this checklist to determine whether the environmental impacts of your proposal are significant, requiring preparation of an EIS. Answer the questions briefly, with the most precise information known, or give the best description you can. You must answer each question accurately and carefully, to the best of your knowledge. In most cases, you should be able to answer the questions from your own observations or project plans without the need to hire experts. If you really do not know the answer, or if a question does not apply to your proposal, write "do not know" or "does not apply". Complete answers to the questions now may avoid unnecessary delays later. Some questions ask about governmental regulations, such as zoning, shoreline, and landmark designations. Answer these questions if you can. If you have problems, the governmental agencies can assist you. The checklist questions apply to all parts of your proposal, even if you plan to do them over a period of time or on different parcels of land. Attach any additional information that will help describe your proposal or its environmental effects. The agency to which you submit this checklist may ask you to explain your answers or provide additional information reasonably related to determining if there may be significant adverse impact. USE OF CHECKLIST FOR NONPROJECT PROPOSALS: Complete this checklist for non -project proposals, even though questions may be answered "does not apply." IN ADDITION, complete the SUPPLEMENTAL SHEET FOR NONPROJECT ACTIONS (part D). For non -project actions (actions involving decisions on policies, plans and programs), the references in the checklist to the words "project," "applicant," and "property or site" should be read as "proposal," "proposer," and "affected geographic area," respectively. H.\EDNSP1Comp P1anlAmendments1200612006 Text Amendments12006-T-04 TransportationlCity Initiated SEPA Checklist Form Transportation.doc09/22/06 A. BACKGROUND 1. Name of proposed project, if applicable: TransQortat' 0 2. Name of applicant: City of Renton, EDNSP Department Address and phone number of applicant and contact person: Rebecca Lind, Planning Manager, 425-430-6588 1055 S. Grady Way, Renton WA 98055 4. Date checklist prepared: September 22, 2006 5. Agency requesting checklist: City of Renton 6. Proposed timing or schedule (including phasing, if applicable): NIA 7. Do you have any plans for future additions, expansion, or further activity related to or connected with this proposal? if yes, explain. NIA 8. List any environmental information you know about that has been prepared, or will be prepared, directly related to this proposal. The Comprehensive Plan text already contains the necessary information to fulfill environmental requirements. 9. Do you know whether applications are pending for governmental approvals of other proposals directly affecting the property covered by your proposal? If yes, explain. None 10. List any governmental approvals or permits that will be needed for your proposal, if known. Planning Commission Recommendation, City Council Action 11. Give brief, complete description of your proposal, including the proposed uses and the size of the project and site. Transportation Element Text Amendments of Table 8.3 of the Comprehensive Plan to reflect the City's latest adopted Six -Year Transportation Improvement Program and the associated text amendments of pages XI-66 through XI-70. These changes would be effective citywide. H:IEDNSP1Comp P1an\Amendments1200612006 Text Amendments12006-T-04 Transportation\City Initiated 2 SEPA Checklist Form Transportation.doc B. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS 1. EARTH a. General description of the site (circle one); flat, rolling, hilly, steep slopes, mountainous, other Not Applicable Non -Project Action b. What is the steepest slope on the site (approximate percent slope?)? Not Applicable Non -Project Action C. What general types of soils are found on the site (for example, clay, sand, gravel, peat, muck)? If you know the classification of agricultural soils, specify them and note any prime farmland. Not Applicable Non -Project Action d. Are there surface indications or history of unstable soils in the immediate vicinity? If so, describe. Not Applicable Non -Project Action e. Describe the purpose, type, and approximate quantities of any filling or grading proposed. Indicate source of fill. f. Not Applicable Non -Project Action f. Could erosion occur as a result of clearing, construction, or use? If so, generally describe. Not Applicable Non -Project Action g. About what percent of the site will be covered with impervious surfaces after project construction (for example, asphalt or buildings)? Not Applicable Non -Project Action h. Proposed measures to reduce or control erosion, or other impacts to the earth, if any: Not Applicable Non -Project Action H:IEDNSP\Comp P1an\Amendments1200612006 Text Amendments12006-T-04 Transportation\City Initiated 3 SEPA Checklist Form Transportation.doc 2. AIR a. What types of emissions to the air would result from the proposal (i.e., dust, automobile, odors, industrial wood smoke) during construction and when the project is completed? If any, generally describe and give approximate quantities if known. Not Applicable Non -Project Action Are there any off -site sources of emission or odor that may affect your proposal? If so, generally describe. Not Applicable Non -Project Action C. Proposed measures to reduce or control emissions or other impacts to air, if any: Not Applicable Non -Project Action 3. WATER a. Surface Water: 1) Is there any surface water body on or in the immediate vicinity of the site (including year- round and seasonal streams, saltwater, lakes, ponds, and wetlands)? If yes, describe type and provide names. If appropriate, state what stream or river it flows into. Not Applicable Non -Project Action 2) Will the project require any work over, in, or adjacent to (within 200 feet) the described waters? If yes, please describe and attach available plans. Not Applicable Non -Project Action 3) Estimate the amount of fill and dredge material that would be placed in or removed from surface water or wetlands and indicate the area of the site that would be affected. Indicate the source of fill material. Not Applicable Non -Project Action 4) Will the proposal require surface water withdrawals or diversions? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known. Not Applicable Non -Project Action 5) Does the proposal lie within a 100-year flood plain? If so, note location on the site plan. Portions of the area included in amendment #8, the Maplewood Addition, are in the flood plain. Portions of the areas in Amendment #1 Refinement of Residential Low Density are located in the flood plain 6) Does the proposal involve any discharges of waste materials to surface waters? If so, describe the type of waste and anticipated volume of discharge. Not Applicable Non -Project Action H:IEDNSPIComp P1an\Amendments1200612006 Text Amendments12006-T-04 Transportation\City Initiated 4 SEPA Checklist Farm Transportation. doe b. Ground Water: 1) Will ground water be withdrawn, or will water be discharged to ground water? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known. Not Applicable Non -Project Action 2) Describe waste material that will be discharged into the ground from septic tanks or other sources, if any (for example: Domestic sewage; industrial, containing the following chemicals...; agricultural; etc.). Describe the general size of the system, the number of such systems, the number of houses to be served (if applicable), or the number of animals or humans the system(s) are expected to serve. Not Applicable Non -Project Action C. Water Runoff (including storm water): 1) Describe the source of runoff (including storm water) and method of collection and disposal, if any (include quantities, if known). Where will this water flow? Will this water flow into other waters, If so, describe. Not Applicable Non -Project Action 2) Could waste material enter ground or surface waters? If so, generally describe. Not Applicable Non -Project Action d. Proposed measures to reduce or control surface, ground, and runoff water impacts, if any: Not Applicable Non -Project Action 4. PLANTS a. Check or circle types of vegetation found on the site: _x_ deciduous tree: alder, maple, aspen, other _x_ evergreen tree: fir, cedar, pine, other shrubs x grass _x pasture crop or grain _x_ wet soil plants: cattail, buttercup, bullrush, skunk cabbage, other _x_ water plants: water lily, eel grass, milfoil, other _x_ other types of vegetation Plants are present on lands included in the proposed map amendment however this is not a site specific proposal and no development is being evaluated Not Applicable Non -Project Action b. What kind and amount of vegetation will be removed or altered? None C. List threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. Not Applicable Non -Project Action d. Proposed landscaping, use of native plants, or other measures to preserve or enhance vegetation on the site, if any: Not Applicable Non -Project Action H:IEDNSPIComp PlanlAmendments1200612006 Text Amendments12006-T-04 TransportationlCity initiated 5 SEPA Checklist Form Transportation, doc 5. ANIMALS a. Circle any birds and animals, which have been observed on or near the site or are known to be on or near the site: Citywide but map and text amendments are non -project actions Birds: hawk, heron, eagle, songbirds, other X Mammals: deer, bear, elk, beaver, other X Fish: bass, salmon, trout, herring, shellfish, other _X List any threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. Not Applicable Non -Project Action C. Is the site part of a migration route? If so, explain Not Applicable Non -Project Action Proposed measures to preserve or enhance wildlife, if any: Not Applicable Non -Project Action 6. ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES a. What kinds of energy (electric, natural gas, oil, wood stove, solar) will be used to meet the completed project's energy needs? Describe whether it will be used for heating, manufacturing, etc. Not Applicable Non -Project Action b. Would your project affect the potential use of solar energy by adjacent properties? If so, generally describe. Not Applicable Non -Project Action C. What kinds of energy conservation features are included in the plans of this proposal? List other proposed measures to reduce or control energy impacts, if any: Not Applicable Non -Project Action 7. ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH a. Are there any environmental health hazards, including exposure to toxic chemicals, risk of fire and explosion, spill, or hazardous waste, that could occur as a result of this proposal? If so, describe. Not Applicable Non -Project Action 1) Describe special emergency services that might be required. Not Applicable Non -Project Action 2) Proposed measures to reduce or control environmental health hazards, if any: Not Applicable Non -Project Action H:IEDNSP1Comp P1an\Amendments1200612006 Text Amendments12006-T-04 Transportation\City Initiated 6 SEPA Checklist Form Transportation.doc b. Noise 1) What types of noise exist in the area which may affect your project (for example: traffic, equipment, operation, other)? Not Applicable Non -Project Action 2) What types and levels of noise would be created by or associated with the project on a short-term or a long-term basis (for example: traffic, construction, operation, other)? Indicate what hours noise would come from the site. Not Applicable Non -Project Action 3) Proposed measures to reduce or control noise impacts, if any: 8. LAND AND SHORELINE USE a. What is the current use of the site and adjacent properties? Not Applicable Non -Project Action b. Has the site been used for agriculture? If so, describe. Not Applicable Non -Project Action C. Describe any structures on the site. Not Applicable Non -Project Action d. Will any structures be demolished? If so, what? Not Applicable Non -Project Action e. What is the current zoning classification of the site? Not Applicable Non -Project Action f. What is the current comprehensive plan designation of the site? Not Applicable Non -Project Action g. If applicable, what is the current shoreline master program designation of the site? Not Applicable Non -Project Action h. Has any part of the site been classified as an "environmentally sensitive" area? if so, specify. Not Applicable Non -Project Action i. Approximately how many people would reside or work in the completed project? Not Applicable Non -Project Action j. Approximately how many people would the completed project displace? H:IEDNSPIComp Plan\Amendments1200612006 Text Amendments12006-T-04 Transportation\City Initiated 7 SEPA Checklist Form Transportation.doe Not Applicable Non -Project Action k. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce displacement impacts, if any: Not Applicable Non -Project Action I. Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is compatible with existing and projected land uses and plans, if any: Not Applicable Non -Project Action 9. HOUSING a. Approximately how many units would be provided, if any? Indicate whether high, middle, or low-income housing. Not Applicable Non -Project Action b. Approximately how many units, if any, would be eliminated? Indicate whether high, middle, or low-income housing. Not Applicable Non -Project Action C. Proposed measures to reduce or control housing impacts, if any: Not Applicable Non -Project Action 10. AESTHETICS a. What is the tallest height of any proposed structure(s), not including antennas; what is the principal exterior building material(s) proposed. Not Applicable Non -Project Action b. What views in the immediate vicinity would be altered or obstructed? Not Applicable Non -Project Action C. Proposed measures to reduce or control aesthetic impacts, if any: Not Applicable Non -Project Action 11. LIGHT AND GLARE a. What type of light or glare will the proposal produce? What time of day would it mainly occur? Not Applicable Non -Project Action b. Could light or glare from the finished project be a safety hazard or interfere with views? Not Applicable Non -Project Action C. What existing off -site sources of light or glare may affect your proposal? Not Applicable Non -Project Action d. Not Applicable Non -Project Action H:IEDNSPIComp PlanlAmendments1200612006 Text Amendments12006-T-04 Transportation\City Initiated 8 SEPA Checklist Form Transportation.doc 12. RECREATION a. What designated and informal recreational opportunities are in the immediate vicinity? Not Applicable Non -Project Action b. Would the proposed project displace any existing recreational uses? If so, describe. Not Applicable Non -Project Action C. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts on recreation, including recreation opportunities to be provided by the project or applicant, if any: Not Applicable Non -Project Action 13. HISTORIC AND CULTURAL PRESERVATION a. Are there any places or objects listed on, or proposed for, national state, or local preservation registers known to be on or next to the site? If so, generally describe. Not Applicable Non -Project Action b. Generally describe any landmarks or evidence of historic, archaeological, scientific, or cultural importance known to be on or next to the site. Not Applicable Non -Project Action C. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts, if any: Not Applicable Non -Project Action 14. TRANSPORTATION a. Identify public streets and highways serving the site, and describe proposed access to the existing street system. Show on site plans, if any. Not Applicable Non -Project Action b. Is site currently served by public transit? If not, what is the approximate distance to the nearest transit stop? Not Applicable Non -Project Action C. How many parking spaces would the completed project have? How many would the project eliminate? Not Applicable Non -Project Action d. Will the proposal require any new roads or streets, or improvements to existing roads or streets, not including driveways? If so, generally describe (indicate whether public or private? Not Applicable Non -Project Action e. Will the project use (or occur in the immediate vicinity of) water, rail, or air transportation? If so, generally describe. Not Applicable Non -Project Action H:IEDNSPIComp PIanlAmendments1200612006 Text Amendments12006-T-04 Transportation\City Initiated 9 SEPA Checklist Form Transportation.doc g. How many vehicular trips per day would be generated by the completed project? Not Applicable Non -Project Action g. Proposed measures to reduce or control transportation impacts, if any: Not Applicable Non -Project Action 15. PUBLIC SERVICES a. Would the project result in an increased need for public services (for example: fire protection, police protection, health care, schools, other)? If so, generally describe. Not Applicable Non -Project Action Proposed measures to reduce or control direct impacts on public services, if any. Not Applicable Non -Project Action 16. UTILITIES a. Circle utilities currently available at the site: electricity, natural gas, water, refuse service, telephone, sanitary sewer, septic system, other. Not Applicable Non -Project Action b. Describe the utilities that are proposed for the project, the utility providing the service, and the general construction activities on the site or in the immediate vicinity which might be needed. Not Applicable Non -Project Action C. SIGNATURE I, the undersigned, state that to the best of my knowledge the above information is true and complete. It is understood that the lead agency may withdraw any declaration of non -significance that it might issue in reliance upon this checklist should there be any willful misrepresentation or willful lack of full disclosure on my part. Proponent: Pe%ea,?6Grl Name Printed: N J1 Date:l' H:IEDNSP1Comp P1an\Amendments1200612006 Text Amendments12006-T-04 Transportation\City Initiated 10 SEPA Checklist Form Transportation.doc 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 in general terms. 1. How would the proposal be likely to increase discharge to water; emissions to air; production, storage, or release of toxic or hazardous substances; or production of noise? The proposed amendments are not expected to increase emissions or result in land uses that release toxic substances or result in noise. The proposed amendments do not significantly change land capacity or land uses allowed in any land use designations. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce such increases are: 2. How would the proposal be likely to affect plants, animals, fish, or marine life? Not Applicable as the proposals will not significantly change land capacity of land uses allowed in any land use designation. The proposed changes would be unlikely to affect plants, animals, fish, or marine life. However, at a project specific level- future projects approved under any of these changes would be subject to environmental review. 3. How would the proposal be likely to deplete energy or natural resources? Not Applicable as the proposals will not significantly change land capacity of land uses allowed in any land use designation. Proposed measures to protect or conserve energy and natural resources are: 4. How would the proposal be likely to use or affect environmentally sensitive areas or areas designated (or eligible or under study) for governmental protection; such as parks, wilderness, wild and scenic rivers, threatened or endangered species habitat, historic or cultural sites, wetlands, flood plains, or prime farmlands? Not applicable, the proposed changes would be unlikely to affect environmentally sensitive areas or those designated for governmental protection. However, at a project specific level future projects approved under any of these changes would be subject to environmental review. Proposed measures to protect such resources or to avoid or reduce impacts are: H:IEDNSP1Comp P1an\Amendments1200612006 Text Amendments12006-T-04 Transportation\City Initiated 11 SEPA Checklist Form Transportation.doc How would the proposal be likely to affect land and shoreline use, including whether it would allow or encourage land or shoreline uses incompatible with existing plans? Not applicable. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce shoreline and land use impacts are: 6. How would the proposal be likely to increase demands on transportation or public services and utilities? Not applicable, however as specific projects are proposed all would be subject to environmental review. Proposed measures to reduce or respond to such demand(s) are: 7. Identify, if possible, whether the proposal may conflict with local, state, or federal laws or requirements for the protection of the environment. None Amendments are anticipated to improve consistency and coordination with other policies and laws protecting the environment. SIGNATURE Undersigned, the state, and I that to the best of my knowledge the above information is true and complete. It is understood that the lead agency may withdraw any declaration of non -significance that it might issue in reliance upon this checklist should there be any willful misrepresentation or willful lack of full disclosure on my part. Proponent: 4 Name Printed: Uft�4 1J ► -4 Date: CNy. F►fY /P ENVCHLST.DOC REVISED 6198 H:IEDNSPIComp PlanlAmendments1200612006 Text Amendments12006-T-04 TransportationlCity Initiated 12 SEPA Checklist Form Transportation.doc r Adopted + + rn+ 1nwTRANSPORT. ON ELEMENT 104 ---- — ATTACHMENT 'A' Economic development projects and programs involve transportation improvements necessitated by new development that is taking place. Thus, a significant source of local funding for these projects is projected to come from mitigation payments and from-speciric access needs financed by new development in the City of Renton. Operations and safety projects and programs are developed through ongoing analyses of the transportation system and are directed mainly toward traffic engineering concerns such as safety and congestion. Projects are identified not only by analysis of traffic counts, accident records and geometric data, but also through review and investigation of citizen complaints and requests. The City of Renton's adopted 005- 2W2006-2011 Six -Year Transportation Improvement Program includes many of the transportation improvements and programs identified in the Street Network, Transit, HOV, Non -motorized and Transportation Demand Management Chapters of this Transportation Element. The projects or programs are listed in Table 8.3. Also shown in Table 8.3 are annual programs (transportation system rehabilitation and maintenance, traffic operations and safety; projects and programs, ongoing project development). The following lists various 2405-204-02006-2011 TIP projects under each of the chapters of the Transportation Element. Devietop C! WArr OF %q 'A tovG SEp 2 262006 19ECEfu,&D H:IEDNSPIComp Plan\Amendments1200612006 Text Amendments12006-T-04 Transportation\Attachment A (Transportation Element).doc Adopted 1 1DIMTRANSFORTATILEMENT ATTACHMENT `A' TABLE 8.3 CITY OF RENTON SIX -YEAR TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM ('"�'�02006-20113 48pted 11 te1 7A"TRANSP-01 )N ELEMENT ATTACHMENT 3A' Total P®lect Costs TIP Piolect Title Previous Costs 2005 2006 2007 2608 2009 1 2010 Peliod Toth Tow Cast i Sheet Overlay P rom 1,050 002 405,000 405 000 405,000 405,0D0 405,000 1 405,000 2,430 000 3,460,002 2 SR 1671SW 27th SU$tmnder By 355,174 10,000 10.000 10,000 10,001) 10,090 5 000 65,0100 MOM 3 Strander UWSW 27M $I Con-L 1,705.460 800,000 9,394,540 28 000000 26 64 94M 66 400 4 SR 169 HQV -1401h to SRWO 2 000 92 10,000 56,100 3 GW 000 2 W0,000 6,095.1100 8 095A 5 RentonUrban Shuttle RUSH 2O,169 5,000 5,000 5000 5000 5.000 5.000 30,000 50.160 e Transk Program 32,594 20.400 204D0 20.400 204DO 20A00 20ROD 122,400 154,984 7 Ra&rlerAvCorridor Slu fkn rov_ 267710 20,000 20.000 20000 2610DO 2964,000 5165000 6,480,000 6,717710 s NE 3rd/NE 41h Carrldor = 92 315,300 907.500 5 017,000 2,100 000 2 100 000 10.339 800 1Up63,692 s Wa Program 317 3S 236,Wo 250000 280000 250 250000 250AW 1,486 1404133 14 3Lake WaSK Roadwav im v. 1 600 11,850w 14399. 23AW,000 39 000 41A50000 fi SR169CorridorStudy 50,000 50000 50,000 i2 Sough RMI0r1 P iS6 600 18.200 240 000 25$ 415 000 13 P05 Jailsvownwints in Renton i 42 166 30,000 20,000 10,000 BQ000 1021B6 14 Proact DevelopmentfPmaleslen 271 175000 175000 200.000 200 OW Z09000 200,000 1150.000 1421.36 is kE 41h StM uiam Av NE 56.100 344,900 344,900 400,000 Is R:lnirr Av•8W 74h to 4th Pi 80000 585,000 2.150.000 865009 3,590009 367D,000 17 Benson Rd-S 26th to again 20,000 459,400 2.500 481,900 481,900 is Poodal Chsutstlon PFourarn 195,308 200,000 200,000 200,000 200 000 250,000 250 000 1,300.000 1 495,3 1s bdd sins n J1. R*Palr 120,411 40,000 140,D00 40,000 615000 40.000 39040 905mo 1025411 7o Loop Reptvoement EMaMm 57,441 20,000 20000 20,000 20 OOQ 20,000 20 000 120,000 177,441 21 Sign Re ime moat Pmgram 13,427 7,500 7,500 7 5W 7 500 ?A20 7 450,00 58,427 22 Pole Program 47.974 25.000 48,400 25,000 25 26,000 25pm 173.400 221,374 23 Sound Transit llQV 01r 1Access 45,523 10,0W 5.000 150DO 61.523 a4 TrALM Salloy Ppogram 233791 80,000 40,000 40000 40,000 40WO 40000 2800DO 513791 35 7tatllc Efficiency Pmgram 250 251,900 114,406 75,000 30.000 30,000 30 000 531 781.805 26 COD Bike S Pod. Conm lions 25.212 50.000 SO= 10.000 590.000 410,000 5 000 1,115AW 1,140,21 27 ArterlalRehah.Pro . 537.800 195.000 240, 000 205000 340000 230,000 160000 1,390000 19 7 2,960,700 1.618,481 2e SurrseliDuvall lnterae4Non 1i5000 381.WO 381.000 496,000 3a RR CrosslnR Safoty Prog. 5108 5.Wo 5,000 10000 10 30000 35198 31 TDMPMOMM 100,15 64,200 64,200 SCMI 64 200 64,200 64 209 385'm 485,870 22 Trans Coneurrona 1784 40,000 10,000 40,000 10000 1(1.0001 30000 140000 141734 33 Miesm Links Progmsm 361350 300000 30,000 30,000 30,000 30 000 30,000 150,000 216.350 $4 015NeedsAssrssment 44.874 35,000 35000 20.000 20000 20000 20000 160.000 194,874 3s Grady, Corridor Stu 5000 35,000 120000 80009 V30w 181D,090 102ow 3295000 3,300,000 3e Bk Routs 6ev. Pmoram 24 798 20aWo 18,000 18 000 110 000 80,000 80 000 328 000 350,79 37 Lake Wash. By -Park to Coufcn Pk 329 900 79 500 149100 2280 558,500 34 hurapmey Slamar Coord. 26 572 12.OW 12,000 36,57 39 EnvironnwntatYbhltodn 223711 85,W0 75000 50.000 25000 25.000 25000 285A00 508711 ' rana-Val & 5o06 Cmk Cvrt. 7 5,000 1 5 000 12 41 WSDOTCoordtnatlonp mm 16,857 lopoo 10000 10 low 10,000 10 60D00 78857 42 1% far the Arts 20 000 50.0W 3o,0D0 30 000 60 000 30.000 30.ODD 220 DDO 240 000 43 Arterial HQV PrftMM 125 364 1 Q We 10,0001 20,000 145am 44 ParkSunaet Corridor 7,869 25.000 $0.000i 390.000 1.691 p00 1 058000 S 15000 3,222 9 4s Lind AvSW16th-SIN 43M 5 000 5D00 swo 1 1914 000 626000 2 550000 2,555000 se Benson Rd 31 S 31s1 St 138.15001 61.5001 1 el 200 ODD 47 L2gon Am Concrete Pansf Ropair 1 400 000 460 000 400000 u Carrmil $WmI 5,000 10,0001 70.000 340000 400.000 10A00 785.000 785 se Trsnsk Priority Sign*' S slam 1 W 315 80.000 30,00 1,310.315. 6o TrarrsBCenlerVWso 26391 10,000 10000 36,391 51 Houser Wy S - Main to 8umom 810000 810000 810 pD0 62 Trans Va trs 50,000 5,000 5,000 10,000 60.000 53 ps ByWipPlans 629400 10600 10600 60,000 64 Monster Road Bridge 500 00D 12,000 12,0DO 512 000 53 SW 71h ZiULind Ave SW 273 577 26,423 26 423 300,009 s4 Dgwili Aw Nr: - vjng Cou 54J1311,342 7,810,800 4722.142 4 70000 Sources14.51381161 T 1166 465 9 710 749 3.364.3N 1 28.9"AfgSS 21 00 i 4 1 i53 4 Adopted' VO4TRANSPORT )N ELEMENT ATTACHMENT 'A' Street Network • South Lake Washington Roadway Improvements (TIP #4•9jJ2 • Rainier Avenue — SW 4"' Place to SW V4 Street (TIP #4-611 • Grady Way — Main Avenue to West City Limits (TIP #33IJ4 • Lind Avenue S.W. — S.W. 16" Street to S.W. 43" Street (TIP #45 • Duvall Ave N.E. — Sunset Boulevard to Renton City Limits (TIP #28) • Mill Avenue South / Carr Road (TIP #4849) • Strander Boulevard — SR-181 to Oakesdale Avenue S.W. (TIP #3) • Sunset Boulevard/Duvall Avenue NE (TIP #2-947j • � � cfi.ae+ �rrn �►��Z • N.E. Yd/N.E. 4" Corridor Improvements (TIP # S2) • Rainier Avenue Corridor Study/Improvements (TIP #7� • Lake Washington Blvd. — Park Avenue North to Coulon Park (TIP #3-7 6 • Park Avenue North/Sunset Boulevard — North 6t' to Duvall Avenue N.E. (TIP #4443) • S 7* ) • South Renton Neighborhood Improvements (#4413 • N.E. 4`h/Hoquiam Avenue N.E. (TIP #4516 Included in the Six -Year TIP is the Arterial Circulation Program (TIP # 4I7 , which will provide funding for further development of multi -modal improvements on Renton's arterials to support the Transportation Plan and comply with clean air legislation. Also included are expenditures for project development studies (TIP #4415) for development of future TIP projects and grant applications for currently proposed and future TIP projects. Transit Transit Program: facilities to support regional transit service, local transit service improvements; development of park and ride lots, transit amenities (TIP #95) Renton Urban Shuttle (RUSH) Program: operation of the shuttle bus service within Renton. (TIP #54) Also, the HOV Chapter improvements identified below will be designed to enhance transit service. HOV • SR-167 / S.W. 27' Street HOV (TIP #2) • Sound Transit HOV Direct Access (TIP #23) • SR-169 HOV— Sunset Blvd. to east City Limits (TIP #445) It should be noted that the expenditure shown for Sound Transit HOV Direct Access (TIP #23) is for coordination with the State and Sound Transit direct access interchange improvements. Included in the Six -Year TIP is the Arterial HOV Program (TIP #4342), which will provide funding for further development of Renton HOV improvements identified previously in the HOV Plan (Figure 3-1), to examine additional routes and corridors for HOV facilities in Renton, and for coordination with direct access HOV projects. Adept1 M4TRANSPORTATI LEMENT ATTACHMENT `A' Non -Motorized • Benson Road Improvements — South 266 to Main Avenue (TIP #4746) • CBD Bike and Pedestrian Connections (TIP #26) Also included in the proposed Six -Year TIP is the Walkway Program (TIP #9LO), which will provide funding for sidewalk and handicap curb ramp needs identified in the City of Renton Comprehensive Citywide Walkway Program. The Bicycle Route Development Program (TIP #36L5) will upgrade existing bicycle routes, construct missing links in the bicycle route system, and develop, evaluate, prioritize future bicycle facilities. These projects are in addition to bicycle and pedestrian improvements, anticipated as part of arterial, HOV and transit projects. Implementation of the non -motorized element falls into two categories - walkways/sidewalk and bike facilities. Each of these components are described below. Walkways/Sidewalks Implementation. The implementation procedures for the City's comprehensive walkway/sidewalk program is detailed in the City of Renton Comprehensive Citywide Walkway Study. This report identifies the sidewalk and curb ramp needs within the City. Specific improvements will be prioritized and will respond to the needs of school children, the aged and persons with disabilities, and will support increased use of transit. Bike Facilities Implementation. Bicycle facilities include lanes along roadways and signed bicycle routes. Current funding is provided for the construction of segments of the Lake Washington Loop Trail. Bicycle route designation and signing along City roadways is provided on an as -needed basis by the Transportation Systems Division of the Planning/Building/Public Works Department. Project prioritization is determined by the Transportation Systems Division in coordination with the Community Services Department. Funding for bicycle signing is provided through the capital improvement programs and the General Fund operating budgets of the Transportation Systems Division. Signing specifically identified as part of transportation projects will be funded through the Six -Year Transportation Improvement Program (TIP). Trails Implementation. Many of the planned pedestriantbicycle facilities in the Long Range Parks, Recreation, Open Space and Trails Plan, administered by the Community Services Department, would be valuable components of the transportation system, and, therefore, are coordinated with the Transportation Plan. The Long Range, Parks, Recreation, Open Space and Trails Plan contains the recommended six -year trails development program. Only projects that are specifically identified as transportation facilities will be included in the Six -Year Transportation Improvement Program (TIP). TDM/CTR • Transportation Demand Management Program: implement Commute Trip Reduction Act requirements, other TDM programs (TIP #3430) Funding Assessment A 20-year transportation program has been established having an estimated cost of $134 million. This program was the basis for determining an annual funding level of $6.7 million. Assuming this annual funding level can be maintained over the 20-year period (2002-2022), it is reasonably certain that the 20- year transportation program can be implemented. Annual reassessment of transportation needs, continuing Adopted ' :TRANSPORT )N ELEMENT ATTACHMENT 'A' to aggressively pursue grant funding, and/or continuation of the strong rate of growth in Renton, which will generate higher developer mitigation revenue, will be needed over the intervening years in order to assume the 2022 transportation program can be achieved. The City of Renton's proposed 2993-2 WQ06-2011 Six -Year TIP includes -56-53 individual projects and programs, with a total estimated cost of$179.1sr28 million. Of this total cost, approximately $164.2161.6 million is to be expended over the 'r'0-02006-2011 six -year period. (It should be noted that for several projects and programs, expenditures over the six -year period are shown, not the total project or program cost.) The difference of about $13-18 million represents expenditures prior to year 24952006. The projected revenues over the six -year period, based on the established $6.7 million annual funding, will total $40.2 million. The TIP identified expenditures of $164.2161.6 million is about $124121 million more than the projected revenues. Of this $424121 million, approximately $64-61 million represents the amount of participation anticipated by the State, Sound Transit, King County, neighboring jurisdictions, and private sector contributions on joint projects. As previously discussed, transportation improvement expenditures of other jurisdictions have not been included when establishing the $6.7 million annual funding level. Therefore, the Six -Year TIP expenditures exceed projected revenues by $60 million. In order for projects to be eligible for projected funding, they must be, by law, included in the Six -Year Transportation Improvement Program (TIP). Because it is not possible to know which projects will qualify for funding, the Six -Year TIP includes a cross-section of projects to provide a list of projects that will be eligible for funding from the various revenue sources, when and if, such funds become available. The result is a Six -Year TIP which has expenditures exceeding projected revenues. The challenge for the future will be to secure enough funding for the City of Renton, Cities of Tukwila and Kent, King County, Sound Transit, and the state to implement the improvements to their respective facilities included in the Transportation Plan. However, several strategies for acquiring needed funding are evident at this time. They include: ♦ Establish intedurisdictional funding mechanisms, such as payment of mitigation fees to address impacts of growth within adjacent jurisdictions that affect the City of Renton. i Update transportation priorities annually and incorporate in the Six -Year Transportation Improvement Program. ♦ Continue to work more aggressively with adjacent cities, King County, Washington State Department of Transportation and other agencies to fund their respective improvements in the Transportation Plan, i.e., through joint projects. 4 Continue to work with regional agencies to encourage them to fmd and fund regional solutions for regional transportation problems. Mitigation Process There are new laws and regulations that have tremendous impacts on land use, the need for new or different kinds of transportation projects and programs, and costs and funding of transportation projects. Examples are the Wetlands Management Ordinance, Surface Water Management Ordinance, the Clean Air Act, Commute Trip Reduction Act, Endangered Species Act, and the Growth Management Act. As a result, a transportation mitigation policy and process has been developed as part of the transportation plan. This Adopted H/O TRANSPORTATI ;LEMENT ATTACHMENT `A'