Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda AGENDA Planning & Development Committee Regular Meeting 4:00 PM - Thursday, March 9, 2017 Council Conference Room, 7th Floor, City Hall – 1055 S. Grady Way 1. ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS Briefing 2. DOCKET #12 a) #D-135: Undergrounding b) #D-135 Presentation c) #D-139: Hearing Examiner d) #D-139 Presentation 3. BENSON HILL COMMUNITY PLAN RECOMMENDED PRIORITIES a) AB - 1860 Community & Economic Development Department recommends approval of the recommended priorities for the Benson Hill Community Plan. 4. CITY CENTER COMMUNITY PLAN WORK PROGRAM & AMENDMENT a) AB - 1859 Community & Economic Development Department recommends approval to develop a work program for 2017 and a revision to Strategy 8.3.1 of the City Center Community Plan. 5. EMERGING ISSUES in CED h:\ced\planning\title iv\docket\d-135 undergrounding\d-135 staff report.docx March 1, 2017 #D-135 UNDERGROUNDING General Description RMC 4-6-090 requires that all new electrical or communication facilities such as utility lines be installed underground. The code does offer relief from the undergrounding requirements in some circumstances, provided the proposal is determined to be exempt. The exemption criteria is broad and results in the approval of exemptions in the majority of requests. This staff report addresses the need for a review of the existing exemption criteria. Assessment of Existing Code City Code requires that all new electrical or communication facilities are required to be installed underground, unless an exemption or variance is granted. The exemptions allowed per RMC 4- 6-090:D.1 include: a. Electric utility substations b. Electric transmission systems of a voltage fifty five (55) kV or more c. Ornamental street lighting standards. d. Telephone pedestals and other equivalent communication facilities. e. Police and fire sirens, or any similar, including traffic-control equipment. f. Replacement of overhead facilities for a distance of three (3) or more spans (four (4) poles) or five hundred feet (500'). g. Extensions, duplications, relocations or rebuilds to existing overhead electrical & communication facilities under the following conditions: i. When there are continuing requirements for poles, such as services to residences of King County when those residences are not required to be undergrounded. However, if there is a reasonable likelihood that undergrounding would occur in the foreseeable future, conduit for underground crossings should be installed whenever feasible as part of any ongoing street construction, reconstruction or overlayment project. ii. When there are existing overhead electrical or communication facilities that will not be removed (such as high tension wires), and the electrical and communication facilities to be removed by undergrounding are parallel to facilities that will not be removed. h. Installations where the Administrator determines: i. There is a technological difficulty associated with the particular facility, or the particular real property involved; or ii. The cost of undergrounding such a facility outweighs the general welfare AGENDA ITEM #2. a) #D-135 Page 2 of 4 March 1, 2017 consideration implicit in underground installation; or iii. The growth pattern of the area has not been sufficiently established to determine the ultimate service requirements or major service routes. (Ord. 5798, 4-25-2016) Requests for relief from the Undergrounding regulations range from individuals to expansive projects. We receive requests from individual single family homes that are upgrading electrical service and require a replacement line from an existing power pole to the home. We also receive requests from telecommunications companies that are replacing fiber or extending service in areas with existing PSE poles. For the individual property owner requests, the overhead line may be from an existing pole in front of the home, or from a pole located across a street, in an alley, or elsewhere. If the pole continues to provide lines to other homes, then the exemption is granted as a general rule. The cost to underground, especially across a street is far greater than the cost to replace the overhead line. Over the past year, staff received and approved approximately 40 requests for installation of overhead communication fiber on existing Puget Sound Energy (PSE) poles. The requests range from installing fiber over a distance of a few hundred lineal feet to several thousand feet. These exemption requests were filed on behalf of telecommunications purveyors (such as Comcast, CenturyLink, Zayo, WAVE and Frontier). The purveyors and/or their representatives generally provide justification in their request that underground installation is 15-25 times more costly than overhead installation; that potential damage to underground facilities would increase with underground installation; and, that inconvenience to local business and residents would increase due to a lengthier construction schedule. The applicants also include a statement that they agree to underground in the future when all other utilities are underground. In analyzing the exemption requests, staff considers whether there is existing underground conduit that could accommodate the new fiber, and whether the installation could meet minimum vertical clearance of 15’-6”. If there is existing conduit along the route (or portions of the route) and if there are height clearance issues, the exemptions are denied or partially approved. In all cases, when granted, the approval letter includes conditions tied to that approval, such as meeting minimum vertical clearance of 15’-6”, and undergrounding portions of the route, and removing obsolete fiber. Based on the existing exemption criteria, the requests have largely been granted. Staff recommends that the exemption criteria under RMC 4-6-090:D.1.f, g, and h be reviewed and refined to reduce the prevalence of existing overhead wire patterns. RMC 4-6-090.D.1.f states that replacement for a distance of 3 or more spans (4 poles) or 500 feet should be exempt. Staff supports clarifying that this exemption should be for 3 or fewer spans (4 poles) or 500 feet, provided street frontage improvements are not required. This would clarify that a shorter span of 500 feet or less would be exempt. Additionally, the best way to determine individual cases would be to review the underground exemption request as part of a street modification request. The reasoning for this is that if the area was being redeveloped, and AGENDA ITEM #2. a) #D-135 Page 3 of 4 March 1, 2017 street frontage improvements were being required, then the exemption could be reviewed at that time. What we are trying to avoid is a new development that is required to underground utilities within the plat, and not along the frontage. This can occur when there are few poles/spans along the frontage. As part of the modification that reviews the extent to which frontage requirements might occur, a condition could include undergrounding the utilities, regardless of the length of span, or number of poles. Another example is with regard to a recent instance when a new commercial building was proposed, and the electrical service was provided from an existing PSE pole. The developer wanted to retain the pole, even though it was one of two only remaining poles along the street frontage. Exemption criteria alone was not sufficient to require removal of the pole. Because staff required that the applicant obtain modification of street improvements, we could have required undergrounding as part of the modified street frontage. Staff recommends revising the exemption criteria to include a specific exemption for existing single family homes, when there is continuing service required from the pole to other properties. However, the approval of exemptions should be conditioned to require participation in undergrounding, when it is timely for the majority of the properties. In addition, the exemptions should be revised to require undergrounding of overhead utilities along the frontage of new developments, when street frontage improvements are required, or as a condition of approving modifications to street frontage improvements. Proposed Amendments to Code Staff proposes to revise the exemption criteria to provide for a specific exemption for existing single family homes in certain instances such as when electrical and telecommunication service and distribution lines for all adjoining properties on the same street frontage are overhead. In addition, staff recommends requiring undergrounding of overhead facilities when the proposal is subject to Street Standards per RMC 4-6-060, unless a modification of the street standards, including overhead utilities, is requested and approved. Additionally, a change is proposed as an amendment to RMC to clarify existing exemption which would change the exemption to be for fewer than 3 spans/4 poles or a distance of less than 500 feet. Currently the code would exempt a greater distance, which staff believes is an error. Therefore, the exemption would read: “Allow an exemption for the replacement of overhead facilities for a distance of three (3) or fewer spans (four (4) poles) or five hundred feet (500'), except where the proposal is subject to street improvements. “ Impact Analysis Effect on rate of growth, development, and conversion of land as envisioned in the Plan There will likely be no effect on the rate of growth, development, and conversion of land as envisioned in the Plan. AGENDA ITEM #2. a) #D-135 Page 4 of 4 March 1, 2017 Effect on the City’s capacity to provide adequate public facilities There will likely be no effect on the City’s capacity to provide adequate public facilities. Effect on the rate of population and employment growth There will likely be no effect on the rate of population and employment growth. Whether Plan objectives are being met as specified or remain valid and desirable Objectives of the Plan remain valid and desirable. Effect on general land values or housing costs The requirement to underground would result in an increase in the cost of developing land and/or housing costs. Whether capital improvements or expenditures are being made or completed as expected N/A Consistency with GMA, the Plan, and Countywide Planning Policies The proposed revisions are consistent with the GMA, the Plan, and the Countywide Planning Policies. Effect on other considerations N/A Staff Recommendation Amend Renton Municipal Code as described to clarify exemptions for overhead utilities and subject to the standards proposed. Implementation Requirements Adopt an ordinance amending RMC 4-6-090, Utility Lines – Underground Installation as described. AGENDA ITEM #2. a) DOCKET#135:UNDERGROUNDINGPlanning & Development Committee March 9, 2017AGENDA ITEM #2. b) SUMMARY• Review of existing undergrounding criteria and exemptions to prevent prevalence of overhead wires.Electric distributionVoice/TelephoneCableAGENDA ITEM #2. b) EXISTINGCODE–UNDERGROUNDING• Undergrounding of utilities is required. Exemptions are allowed for:• Electric utility substations• Electric transmission of 55kV or moreAGENDA ITEM #2. b) EXISTINGCODE–UNDERGROUNDING• Undergrounding of utilities is required. Exemptions are allowed for:• Ornamental street lighting• Telephone pedestals• Police & Fire sirens• Traffic control equipment AGENDA ITEM #2. b) EXISTINGCODE–UNDERGROUNDING• Exemptions are also allowed for: • Replacement of overhead facilities for more than 3 spans/4 poles or 500 linear feet.• Extensions, duplications, relocations, rebuilds when poles remain. • When determined that there is technological difficulty; or, the costs of undergrounding outweigh general welfare; or, the growth pattern is not sufficiently established to determine ultimate service requirements. AGENDA ITEM #2. b) PROPOSEDCODE–UNDERGROUNDINGRevise the Code to clarify and strengthen exemption criteria by refining the exemption criteria.• Exempt single family homes when replacing or upgrading service panels, if the overhead wire(s) are from a pole that also serves other single family homes. • Clarify that replacement of overhead wires for 3 or fewer spans or 4 poles, or a distance of less than 500 feet are exempt when not accompanied by new development.• Require undergrounding for street frontages for new development, even in cases where the street improvements are being modified. Requested exemptions should be reviewed in conjunction with a street modification request. AGENDA ITEM #2. b) Public Hearing: April 19, 2017NEXTSTEPSAGENDA ITEM #2. b) h:\ced\planning\title iv\docket\d-139 hearing examiner\d-139 staff report.docx March 1, 2017 #D-139 HEARING EXAMINER General Description Renton’s Hearing Examiner requested several amendments to portions of RMC related to Reconsiderations and Appeals. Specifically, requests were made to clarify terms, time parameters, eligibility requirements, and what may be admitted as evidence. Additionally, staff requested the opportunity to amend rezone criteria. Background The graphic below shows the general process of a land use application, how parties of record are established, and the opportunities to request Reconsideration or Appeal a decision. A Reconsideration is a formal process that a Party of Record may request when they believe the decision was based on erroneous procedure, error of law or fact, or error in judgment; the original decision maker may reverse or affirm his/her decision. If a Party of Record requests a Reconsideration and the decision is not in their favor, that person (including the City) may appeal the decision, which establishes a new decision making process (elevates to or requires a new public hearing) and decision making authority (see below). “STANDING” TO SEEK RECOURSE Permit Applicant City of Renton Decision Maker Issues Decision (either administratively or after a public hearing by the Hearing Examiner) Parties of Record: • City • Applicant/owner • People who testified Applicant (and/or owner of the property) City of Renton Parties of Record Reconsideration (request made to Decision Maker) Appeal (made to entity with decision making authority just above original Decision Maker) Administrator < Hearing Examiner Hearing Examiner < City Council City Council < Superior Court Public Notified AGENDA ITEM #2. c) #D-139 Page 2 of 3 March 1, 2017 Assessment of Existing Code The following issues were found: • It’s unclear if the appeal period timeline is paused while a Reconsideration is being processed; • For Reconsiderations, RMC allows new evidence not available prior to the decision; • RMC does not limit the number of Reconsiderations a Party of Record may request; • RMC allows “interested parties” to testify during an Appeal; • Criteria used to evaluate proposed rezones are absent of typical considerations; • When an applicant submits permit applications with varying decision authorities (e.g., administrative, quasi-judicial hearing examiner, or City Council), all permits are then decided upon by the highest level authority. Street (right-of-way) vacations are currently exempt as these permits require City Council approval; enabling all land use approvals (e.g., subdivision approval) to be decided by Council is inappropriate and burdensome. Title IV and Comprehensive Plan Amendments require City Council approval, but are not exempt from the consolidated review procedure. • Street vacations are also exempt from the state mandated 120-day review period, but other permits that generally have an extraordinary review and approval timeline are not (Title IV and Comprehensive Plan Amendments). • Rezones are currently exempt from a provision that automatically voids permits not implemented within two years of the decision date; however, street vacations and amendments to Title IV or the Comprehensive Plan are not exempt. Proposed Amendments to Code Staff proposes to amend RMC so that: • While Reconsiderations are being processed, the appeal period is paused; • Pursuant to the Regulatory Reform Act, arguments on Reconsideration shall be limited to the evidence in the record; • Each Party of Record may request just one Reconsideration; • Prior to filing an appeal, a Party of Record must first exhaust their “administrative remedies” (e.g., seek a reconsideration or other administrative remedies that may be available; • Only the City, the applicant/land owner, or person who filed an Appeal may testify during an Appeal; • Rezone criteria is as follows:  The rezone has merit and value for the community, and will not adversely affect public health, safety, and welfare;  The rezone will not be materially detrimental to the uses or properties located in the immediate vicinity thereof;  Since the original zoning or most recent rezone of the subject property, conditions affecting the subject property have substantially changed as a result of, but not limited to, public improvements or permitted private development;  The property subject to rezone was not specifically considered for a rezone at the time of the last area land use analysis and area zoning;  The subject site has characteristics most similar to the purpose and intent of the proposed zone as well as the zone-specific policy of the proposed zone, as provided by the Comprehensive Plan; and  The rezone is consistent with the governing Community Plan, if one was adopted for the Community Planning Area in which the property subject to the rezone is located. AGENDA ITEM #2. c) #D-139 Page 3 of 3 March 1, 2017 • Title IV and Comprehensive Plan Amendments are exempt from the consolidated review procedure; • Title IV and Comprehensive Plan Amendments are also exempt from the state mandated 120- day review period; and • Street vacations and amendments to Title IV or the Comprehensive Plan are exempt from a provision that automatically voids permits not implemented within two years of the decision date Impact Analysis Effect on rate of growth, development, and conversion of land as envisioned in the Plan There will likely be no effect on the rate of growth, development, and conversion of land as envisioned in the Plan. Effect on the City’s capacity to provide adequate public facilities There will likely be no effect on the City’s capacity to provide adequate public facilities. Effect on the rate of population and employment growth There will likely be no effect on the rate of population and employment growth. Whether Plan objectives are being met as specified or remain valid and desirable Objectives of the Plan remain valid and desirable. Effect on general land values or housing costs There will likely be no effect on general land values or housing costs. Whether capital improvements or expenditures are being made or completed as expected N/A Consistency with GMA, the Plan, and Countywide Planning Policies The proposed revisions are consistent with the GMA, the Plan, and the Countywide Planning Policies. Effect on other considerations N/A Staff Recommendation Amend Renton Municipal Code as described. Implementation Requirements Adopt an ordinance amending RMC 4-7-070, 4-7-230, 4-8-080, 4-8-090, 4-8-100, 4-8-110, 4-9-020, 4-9- 180, and 4-11-160. AGENDA ITEM #2. c) DOCKET#139:HEARINGEXAMINERPlanning & Development CommitteeMarch 9, 2017AGENDA ITEM #2. d) LANDUSEPERMITPROCESS“STANDING” TOSEEKRECOURSEPermit ApplicantCity of RentonDecision Maker Issues Decision(either administratively or after a public hearing by the Hearing Examiner)Parties of Record:•City•Applicant/owner•People who testifiedApplicant(and/or owner of the property)City of RentonParties of RecordReconsideration(request made to Decision Maker)Appeal(made to entity with decision making authority just above original Decision Maker)Administrator < Hearing ExaminerHearing Examiner < City CouncilCity Council < Superior CourtPublic Notified14-day appeal periodpausedAGENDA ITEM #2. d) 1. While Reconsiderations are being processed, the appeal period is paused;2. Arguments on Reconsideration shall be limited to the evidence in the record;3. Each Party of Record may request just one Reconsideration;4. Prior to filing an appeal, a Party of Record must first exhaust their “administrative remedies” (e.g., seek a reconsideration or other administrative remedies that may be available);5. Only the City, the applicant/land owner, person who filed the Appeal, or expert witnesses may testify during an Appeal; 6. Title IV and Comprehensive Plan Amendments are exempt from the consolidated review procedure;7. Title IV and Comprehensive Plan Amendments are also exempt from the state mandated 120-day review period; and8. Street vacations and amendments to Title IV or the Comprehensive Plan are exempt from a provision that automatically voids permits not implemented within two years of the decision date.PROPOSEDRMC AMENDMENTSAGENDA ITEM #2. d) 1. The rezone has merit and value for the community, and will not adversely affect public health, safety, and welfare; 2. The rezone will not be materially detrimental to the uses or properties located in the immediate vicinity thereof;3. Since the original zoning or most recent rezone of the subject property, conditions affecting the subject property have substantially changed as a result of, but not limited to, public improvements or permitted private development; 4. The property subject to rezone was not specifically considered for a rezone at the time of the last area land use analysis and area zoning;5. The subject site has characteristics most similar to the purpose and intent of the proposed zone as well as the zone-specific policy of the proposed zone, as provided by the Comprehensive Plan; and6. The rezone is consistent with the governing Community Plan, if one was adopted for the Community Planning Area in which the property subject to the rezone is located.PROPOSEDRMC AMENDMENTS–REZONECRITERIAAGENDA ITEM #2. d) Public Hearing: April 19, 2017NEXTSTEPSAGENDA ITEM #2. d) AB - 1860 City Council Regular Meeting - 27 Feb 2017 SUBJECT/TITLE: Benson Hill Community Plan Advisory Board Recommended Priorities RECOMMENDED ACTION: Refer to Planning & Development Committee DEPARTMENT: Community & Economic Development STAFF CONTACT: Paul Hintz, Senior Planner EXT.: 7436 FISCAL IMPACT SUMMARY: N/A SUMMARY OF ACTION: In order to ensure the Benson Hill Community Plan is implemented and successful, the City created the Benson Hill Community Plan Advisory Board. The Board is tasked with making recommendations regarding which strategies of the Plan should be prioritized for inclusion in departmental work programs. The Planning and Development Committee has reviewed the recommendations of the Board and directs staff to initiate work for the following strategies:  Improve 116th Avenue SE to provide a walkable, bikable, and environmentally-friendly way to connect to destinations.  Provide skills training and support for immigrants at schools or a community center to welcome new residents and foster a sense of community across diverse neighbors.  Complete missing links in sidewalks and add pedestrian-scaled street lighting and calm traffic on routes to schools, parks, and commercial areas.  Continue improving the pedestrian environment around the Benson Shopping Center. EXHIBITS: A. Advisory Board Prioritized Strategies STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve the recommended priorities for the Benson Hill Community Plan. AGENDA ITEM #3. a) The Benson Hill Community Plan Advisory Board’s Prioritized Strategies 2.1.1. Improve 116th Avenue SE to provide a walkable, bikable, and environmentally-friendly way to connect to destinations. Details:  Within existing right-of-way, explore the feasibility of establishing bike lanes and sidewalks to support walking and biking on this central spine. A central median may be used as a pedestrian refuge where a turn lane is not needed. Work with Council Transportation Committee to prioritize any proposed street improvements with other projects throughout the city. (Project is already in the adopted 6 year TIP).  Include ample space and amenities (e.g., seating, bike racks, and public art) for pedestrians and cyclists so that 116th becomes appropriate and comfortable for all users.  Install pedestrian-scaled street lighting to create a safe and welcoming environment.  Incorporate natural drainage where possible to treat rainwater in an ecologically sound way.  Choose appropriate native species to reduce the maintenance burden, reinforce local ecology, and encourage healthy plant establishment.  Continue seeking Complete Streets, Safe Routes to School, and other grants that may become available (CPPW, Livable Communities, Healthy/Active Living, Transportation Alternatives, etc). Departments Involved: Transportation Systems, Utility Systems, Parks Planning and Natural Resources Public Involvement: Land owners along 116th Avenue SE, (possible LID funded) Estimated Cost: $80,000+ Timeframe: Mid-term to Long– term dependent on grant funding or LID funding 5.2.1. Provide skills training and support for immigrants at schools or a community center to welcome new residents and foster a sense of community across diverse neighbors. Details:  If Cascade Village redevelops with a community center (Strategy 1.1.3), ensure that the community center is designed to support skills training. Departments Involved: Human Services, Renton Schools, Economic Development, Planning, Renton Technical College Public Involvement: Local immigrant services organizations (e.g., Somali Youth and Family Club) Timeframe: Ongoing Estimated Cost: $20,000-$80,000 2.3.1. Complete missing links in sidewalks and add pedestrian-scaled street lighting and calm traffic on routes to schools, parks, and commercial areas. Details:  See Walking and Bicycling Improvements map (Figure 4-15) for location-specific improvements requested by community members. Incorporate and prioritize any proposed projects in the next update of the Trails and Bicycle Master Plan. Public Involvement: Affected property owners, bicycle groups (e.g., Cascade Bicycle Alliance) Departments Involved: Transportation Systems Timeframe: Mid-term Estimated Cost: $20,000-$80,000 2.3.3. Continue improving the pedestrian environment around the Benson Shopping Center. Details:  Work with property owners to provide or improve walkways through parking areas and ensure pedestrian connections between lots. For example, providing walking paths in strategic locations (e.g., along 109th Ave SE near the Jiffy Lube and at SE 179th Place near Arby’s) would increase pedestrian access to commercial areas. When possible, buffer the sidewalks on 108th Avenue SE and SE Carr Road/SE 176th Street from traffic with street trees and landscaping.  Require buffered sidewalks with redevelopment. (Also see Strategies 5.3.1 and 1.2.4 regarding design guidelines to accomplish an urban form more conducive to walking.) Departments Involved: Planning Public Involvement: Property and business owners Timeframe: Ongoing-terms Estimated Cost: $80,000+ AGENDA ITEM #3. a) AB - 1859 City Council Regular Meeting - 27 Feb 2017 SUBJECT/TITLE: City Center Community Plan Advisory Board Recommended Amendments RECOMMENDED ACTION: Refer to Planning & Development Committee DEPARTMENT: Community & Economic Development STAFF CONTACT: Angie Mathias, Long Range Planning Manager EXT.: 6576 FISCAL IMPACT SUMMARY: N/A SUMMARY OF ACTION: The City Center Community Plan contains eight goals and numerous strategies to accomplish those goals. The City Center Community Plan Advisory Board is tasked with making recommendations to the City regarding which implementation strategies should be prioritized for inclusion in departmental work programs. The City Center Community Plan Advisory Board has made recommendations in 2013 and 2016. Many of the work programs related to these recommendations have been completed or initiated. One of the implementation strategies in the plan is to “Create a greenway/promenade between the Cedar River and N 1st Street” (Goal 8.3). Residents of that area have expressed concern and frustration with the nebulous nature of this strategy. In response to this concern, the Board has asked to make two amendments to this goal/priority. 1) Council direct staff--beginning in 2017--to develop a work program that engages the public so the community can participate in providing more specificity to the policy. The work plan will take into account the likely redevelopment of 200 Mill and the potentially significant changes within the Civic Node, and its potential impact on the surrounding neighborhood. 2) Council adopt a revision to the strategy 8.3.1: “Complete a detailed implementation strategy for the greenway/promenade based on the conceptual design” by adding the statement: “The City shall not utilize Eminent Domain in furtherance of this strategy”. EXHIBITS: A. Advisory Board Implementation Priorities STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve the recommended work program and revision to strategy 8.3.1. related to the City Center Community Plan. AGENDA ITEM #4. a) Priority RankStrategy Who $Are resources currently available?Key StakeholdersTime-frameOther related plansLead: Planning Support: Economic Development, Community Services Lead: Planning Support: Transportation, Community Services, Utilities, Economic Development, Fire & Emergency Services Lead: Planning Support: Community Services Lead: Planning, Community Services Support: Economic Development Lead: Transporation Support: Planning, Community Services Short-term Museum MP Lead: Planning, Economic Development #3 (tied) 4.2.1 Consider rezoning the intact, single-family area of the South Renton neighborhood. #3 (tied)3.1.1 Complete a conceptual plan for the civic node $$No General public RMC #3 (tied) 2.2.3 Initiate a sidewalk café case study and develop tailored regulations to encourage sidewalk cafes in Downtown. $Yes General Public Short-term Short-term $Yes Residents, Businesses, Property owners Short-term Short-term TIP City Center Community Plan Advisory Board - 2013 Priorities #1 1.1.1 Update existing design standards for the City Center to ensure new development will fulfill the vision.$Yes Residents, Businesses, Property owners Short-term RMC RMC#2 1.1.2 Create cohesive urban design standards for the public realm that include standards for gateways, wayfinding, street trees, street lighting, pedestrian-scaled lighting, landscaping, street furniture, utilities, and public art. $$Yes Residents, Businesses, Property owners 6.11.1 Establish priority bicycle improvements consistent with the Trails and Bicycle Master Plan within City Center subarea. #6 $Yes General Public AGENDA ITEM #4. a)